Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Neoconservatism Bulletin, 2018

Home 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

Top Visited
 Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience: us.

To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.

Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely through the tempest. Why?

Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.

Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next. When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back. Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion palatable, not to justify it.

The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.

Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world. Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses: Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.

At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.

"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers. "All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves, but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.

Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.

The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."

Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of shock and awe were all after play.

Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and Knowlton's D.C. office.

Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich Galen.

The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs' felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into intelligence failures and 9/11.

According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which, of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other, and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.

Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .

At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.

As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.

Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.

But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."

The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.

So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception manager."

What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan (developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many missions was to plant false stories in the press.

Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."

At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the war.

Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on America with weapons of mass destruction.

Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.

Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles, despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into Kuwait.

This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception."

During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted.

What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions, Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors." The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and everything they can ask of us."

When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course, nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.

The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.

"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue, director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from Baghdad.

Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.

Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war."

The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States." This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"

The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."

In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq. She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed pages.

Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of their own government.

It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.

Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives."

The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot and hoisted the battle flag.

It's war that sells.

There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no returns.

This essay is adapted from Grand Theft Pentagon.

[Dec 21, 2019] If America Wasn't America, the United States Would Be Bombing It by Darius Shahtahmasebi

Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from The Anti-Media . ..."
Feb 13, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

February 13, 2018

On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."

Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of humanity.

However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.

In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and 300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country killed even more civilians in the infamous firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.

Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation explained:

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William "Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever since. The most recent ongoing protest has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.

This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories, 5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:

By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win 'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease – including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people, according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed during the entire conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.

This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia , Panama , and Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal sanctions. At the time, the U.N. estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including 500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation, which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.

This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) released a study concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading force.

Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Philippines .

Libya famously had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare, education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.

In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and destruction to a new a level by removing the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country dropped over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.

Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation. The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all across the border with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).

This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent militarism but who openly calls other countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once asked three times in a meeting , "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear weaponry.

When it isn't directly bombing a country, it is also arming radical insurgent groups , creating instability, and directly overthrowing governments through its covert operatives on the ground.

If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and security of the rest of us. This country openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of these weapons to other countries.

Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to come.

There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea is being accused of doing.

Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.

Reprinted with permission from The Anti-Media .

[Dec 21, 2019] If America Wasn't America, the United States Would Be Bombing It by Darius Shahtahmasebi

Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from The Anti-Media . ..."
Feb 13, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

February 13, 2018

On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."

Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of humanity.

However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.

In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and 300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country killed even more civilians in the infamous firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.

Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation explained:

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William "Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever since. The most recent ongoing protest has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.

This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories, 5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:

By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win 'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease – including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people, according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed during the entire conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.

This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia , Panama , and Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal sanctions. At the time, the U.N. estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including 500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation, which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.

This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) released a study concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading force.

Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Philippines .

Libya famously had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare, education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.

In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and destruction to a new a level by removing the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country dropped over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.

Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation. The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all across the border with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).

This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent militarism but who openly calls other countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once asked three times in a meeting , "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear weaponry.

When it isn't directly bombing a country, it is also arming radical insurgent groups , creating instability, and directly overthrowing governments through its covert operatives on the ground.

If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and security of the rest of us. This country openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of these weapons to other countries.

Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to come.

There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea is being accused of doing.

Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.

Reprinted with permission from The Anti-Media .

[Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham

Highly recommended!
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.rt.com

President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded back in 2003.

Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.

In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.

Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia and Iran.

'We're no longer suckers of the world!' Trump says US is respected as nation AGAIN (VIDEO)

Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to" the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.

However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.

Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:

"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous." He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."

Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.

As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.

"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.

'We give them $4.5bn a year': Israel will still be 'good' after US withdrawal from Syria – Trump

This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight" in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has berated the Saudis and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.

Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly $4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter jets and missile systems.

The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.

Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's mythical role as guarantor of global security.

Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.

But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.

Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only superficially.

This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.

'With almost $22 trillion of debt, the US is in no position to attack Iran'

This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he said : "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria and Afghanistan.

Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas night was reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.

What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.

Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.

During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."

Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."

But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."

Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.

It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something virtuous.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

dnm1136

Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world, the US is feared but generally not respected.

My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.

William Smith

Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for "pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites for "civilising" them.

Phoebe S,

"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."

That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.

ProRussiaPole

None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything, and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.

Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole

i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.

Truthbetold69

It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've always been getting.'

[Dec 04, 2019] American Pravda the Nature of Anti-Semitism by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually grow suspicious. ..."
"... It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism" these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of "anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented" denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

I recently published a couple of long essays, and although they primarily focused on other matters, the subject of anti-Semitism was a strong secondary theme. In that regard, I mentioned my shock at discovering a dozen or more years ago that several of the most self-evidently absurd elements of anti-Semitic lunacy, which I had always dismissed without consideration, were probably correct. It does seem likely that a significant number of traditionally-religious Jews did indeed occasionally commit the ritual murder of Christian children in order to use their blood in certain religious ceremonies, and also that powerful Jewish international bankers did play a large role in financing the establishment of Bolshevik Russia .

When one discovers that matters of such enormous moment not only apparently occurred but that they had been successfully excluded from nearly all of our histories and media coverage for most of the last one hundred years, the implications take some time to properly digest. If the most extreme "anti-Semitic canards" were probably true, then surely the whole notion of anti-Semitism warrants a careful reexamination.

All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels. Some things we discover from our own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses, but most information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media, and a crisis may develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict. The official media of the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized agricultural system, but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops, "Pravda" became a watchword for "Lies" rather than "Truth."

Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually grow suspicious.

Indeed, over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image and reality. As recently as the late 1990s, leading mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times were still denouncing a top Ivy League school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy, but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my lengthy Meritocracy analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion. According to the best available evidence, white Gentiles were over 90% less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance, a truly remarkable finding. If the situation had been reversed and Jews were 90% less likely to be found at Harvard than seemed warranted by their test scores, surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America.

It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism" these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of "anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented" denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians.

One plausible explanation of the strange contrast between media coverage and reality might be that anti-Semitism once did loom very large in real life, but dissipated many decades ago, while the organizations and activists focused on detecting and combating that pernicious problem have remained in place, generating public attention based on smaller and smaller issues, with the zealous Jewish activists of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) representing a perfect example of this situation. As an even more striking illustration, the Second World War ended over seventy years ago, but what historian Norman Finkelstein has so aptly labeled "the Holocaust Industry" has grown ever larger and more entrenched in our academic and media worlds so that scarcely a day passes without one or more articles relating to that topic appearing in my major morning newspapers. Given this situation, a serious exploration of the true nature of anti-Semitism should probably avoid the mere media phantoms of today and focus on the past, when the condition might still have been widespread in daily life.

Many observers have pointed to the aftermath of the Second World War as marking a huge watershed in the public acceptability of anti-Semitism both in America and Europe, so perhaps a proper appraisal of that cultural phenomenon should focus on the years before that global conflict. However, the overwhelming role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and other bloody Communist seizures of power quite naturally made them objects of considerable fear and hatred throughout the inter-war years, so the safest course might be to push that boundary back a little further and confine our attention to the period prior to the outbreak of the First World War. The pogroms in Czarist Russia, the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the lynching of Leo Frank in the American South come to mind as some of the most famous examples from that period.

Lindemann's discussion of the often difficult relations between Russia's restive Jewish minority and its huge Slavic majority is also quite interesting, and he provides numerous instances in which major incidents, supposedly demonstrating the enormously strong appeal of vicious anti-Semitism, were quite different than has been suggested by the legend. The famous Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 was obviously the result of severe ethnic tension in that city, but contrary to the regular accusations of later writers, there seems absolutely no evidence of high-level government involvement, and the widespread claims of 700 dead that so horrified the entire world were grossly exaggerated, with only 45 killed in the urban rioting. Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, later promoted the story that he himself and some other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims. This account was totally fictional since Weizmann happened to have been be hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred.

Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of Russian Jewry, the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that such concocted propaganda stories might receive enormous worldwide distribution, while the truth followed far behind, if at all.

For related reasons, international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of most of Russia's Jews to the "Pale of Settlement," suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment; but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass almost as large as France and Spain combined. The growing impoverishment of Eastern European Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government policy, but the obvious explanation was extraordinary Jewish fecundity, which far outstripped that of their Slavic fellow countrymen, and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their traditional "middleman" occupations, a situation worsened by their total disinclination to engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities. Jewish communities expressed horror at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft, but this was simply the flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted, and no different from what was faced by their non-Jewish neighbors.

Certainly the Jews of Russia suffered greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the generation prior to World War I, and these did sometimes have substantial government encouragement, especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905 Revolution. But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing of Czar Alexander II, and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers and numerous other government officials. If the last decade or two had seen American Muslims assassinate a sitting U.S. President, various leading Cabinet members, and a host of our other elected and appointed officials, surely the position of Muslims in this country would have become a very uncomfortable one.

As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia's very rapidly growing Jewish population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms .

Lindemann also allocates a short chapter to discussing the 1911 Beilis Affair, in which a Ukrainian Jew was accused of the ritual murder of a young Gentile boy, an incident that generated a great deal of international attention and controversy. Based on the evidence presented, the defendant seems likely to have been innocent, although the obvious lies he repeatedly told police interrogators hardly helped foster that impression, and "the system worked" in that he was ultimately found innocent by the jurors at his trial. However, a few pages are also given to a much less well-known ritual murder case in late 19th century Hungary, in which the evidence of Jewish guilt seemed far stronger, though the author hardly accepted the possible reality of such an outlandish crime. Such reticence was quite understandable since the publication of Ariel Toaff's remarkable volume on the subject was still a dozen years in the future.

Lindemann subsequently expanded his examination of historical anti-Semitism into a much broader treatment, Esau's Tears , which appeared in 1997. In this volume, he added comparative studies of the social landscape in Germany, Britain, Italy, and several other European countries, and demonstrated that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews varied greatly across different locations and time periods. But although I found his analysis quite useful and interesting, the extraordinarily harsh attacks his text provoked from some outraged Jewish academics seemed even more intriguing.

For example, Judith Laikin Elkin opened her discussion in The American Historical Review by describing the book as a "545-page polemic" a strange characterization of a book so remarkably even-handed and factually-based in its scholarship. Writing in Commentary , Robert Wistrich was even harsher, stating that merely reading the book had been a painful experience for him, and his review seemed filled with spittle-flecked rage. Unless these individuals had somehow gotten copies of a different book, I found their attitudes simply astonishing.

I was not alone in such a reaction. Richard S. Levy of the University of Illinois, a noted scholar of anti-Semitism, expressed amazement at Wistrich's seemingly irrational outburst, while Paul Gottfried, writing in Chronicles , mildly suggested that Lindemann had "touched raw nerves." Indeed, Gottfried's own evaluation quite reasonably criticized Lindemann for perhaps being a little too even-handed, sometimes presenting numerous conflicting analyzes without choosing between them. For those interested, a good discussion of the book by Alan Steinweis, a younger scholar specializing in the same topic, is conveniently available online .

The remarkable ferocity with which some Jewish writers attacked Lindemann's meticulous attempt to provide an accurate history of anti-Semitism may carry more significance than merely an exchange of angry words in low-circulation academic publications. If our mainstream media shapes our reality, scholarly books and articles based upon them tend to set the contours of that media coverage. And the ability of a relatively small number of agitated and energetic Jews to police the acceptable boundaries of historical narratives may have enormous consequences for our larger society, deterring scholars from objectively reporting historical facts and preventing students from discovering them.

The undeniable truth is that for many centuries Jews usually constituted a wealthy and privileged segment of the population in nearly all the European countries in which they resided, and quite frequently they based their livelihood upon the heavy exploitation of a downtrodden peasantry. Even without any differences in ethnicity, language, or religion, such conditions almost invariably provoke hostility. The victory of Mao's Communist forces in China was quickly followed by the brutal massacre of a million or more Han Chinese landlords by the Han Chinese poor peasants who regarded them as cruel oppressors, with William Hinton's classic Fanshen describing the unfortunate history that unfolded in one particular village. When similar circumstances led to violent clashes in Eastern Europe between Slavs and Jews, does it really make logical sense to employ a specialized term such as "anti-Semitism" to describe that situation?

Furthermore, some of the material presented in Lindemann's rather innocuous text might also lead to potentially threatening ideas. Consider, for example, the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion , almost certainly fictional, but hugely popular and influential during the years following World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. The fall of so many longstanding Gentile dynasties and their replacement by new regimes such as Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, which were heavily dominated by their tiny Jewish minorities, quite naturally fed suspicions of a worldwide Jewish plot, as did the widely discussed role of Jewish international bankers in producing those political outcomes.

Over the decades, there has been much speculation about the possible inspiration for the Protocols , but although Lindemann makes absolutely no reference to that document, he does provide a very intriguing possible candidate. Jewish-born British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli certainly ranked as one of the most influential figures of the late 19th century, and in his novel Coningsby , he has the character representing Lord Lionel Rothschild boast about the existence of a vast and secret network of powerful international Jews , who stand near the head of almost every major nation, quietly controlling their governments from behind the scenes. If one of the world's most politically well-connected Jews eagerly promoted such notions, was Henry Ford really so unreasonable in doing the same?

Lindemann also notes Disraeli's focus on the extreme importance of race and racial origins, a central aspect of traditional Jewish religious doctrine. He reasonably suggests that this must surely have had a huge influence upon the rise of those political ideas, given that Disraeli's public profile and stature were so much greater than the mere writers or activists whom our history books usually place at center stage. In fact, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a leading racial theorist, actually cited Disraeli as a key source for his ideas. Jewish intellectuals such as Max Nordau and Cesare Lombroso are already widely recognized as leading figures in the rise of the racial science of that era, but Disraeli's under-appreciated role may have actually been far greater. The deep Jewish roots of European racialist movements are hardly something that many present-day Jews would want widely known.

One of the harsh Jewish critics of Esau's Tears denounced Cambridge University Press for even allowing the book to appear in print, and although that major work is easily available in English, there are numerous other cases where an important but discordant version of historical reality has been successfully blocked from publication. For decades most Americans would have ranked Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn as among the world's greatest literary figures, and his Gulag Archipelago alone sold over 10 million copies. But his last work was a massive two-volume account of the tragic 200 years of shared history between Russians and Jews, and despite its 2002 release in Russian and numerous other world languages, there has yet to be an authorized English translation, though various partial editions have circulated on the Internet in samizdat form.

ORDER IT NOW

At one point, a full English version was briefly available for sale at Amazon.com and I purchased it. Glancing through a few sections, the work seemed quite even-handed and innocuous to me, but it seemed to provide a far more detailed and uncensored account than anything else previously available, which obviously was the problem. The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the deaths of many tens of millions of people worldwide, and the overwhelming Jewish role in its leadership would become more difficult to erase from historical memory if Solzhenitsyn's work were easily available. Also, his candid discussion of the economic and political behavior of Russian Jewry in pre-revolutionary times directly conflicted with the hagiography widely promoted by Hollywood and the popular media. Historian Yuri Slezkine's award-winning 2004 book The Jewish Century provided many similar facts, but his treatment was far more cursory and his public stature not remotely the same.

Near the end of his life, Solzhenitsyn gave his political blessing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Russia's leaders honored him upon his death, while his Gulag volumes are now enshrined as mandatory reading in the standard high school curriculum of today's overwhelmingly Christian Russia. But even as his star rose again in his own homeland, it seems to have sharply fallen in our own country, and his trajectory may eventually relegate him to nearly un-person status.

A couple of years after the release of Solzhenitsyn's controversial final book, an American writer named Anne Applebaum published a thick history bearing the same title Gulag , and her work received enormously favorable media coverage and won her a Pulitzer Prize; I have even heard claims that her book has been steadily replacing that earlier Gulag on many college reading lists. But although Jews constituted a huge fraction of the top leadership of the Soviet Gulag system during its early decades, as well as that of the dreaded NKVD which supplied the inmates, nearly her entire focus on her own ethnic group during Soviet times is that of victims rather than victimizers. And by a remarkable irony of fate, she shares a last name with one of the top Bolshevik leaders, Hirsch Apfelbaum, who concealed his own ethnic identity by calling himself Grigory Zinoviev.

ORDER IT NOW

The striking decline in Solzhenitsyn's literary status in the West came just a decade or two after an even more precipitous collapse in the reputation of David Irving , and for much the same reason. Irving probably ranked as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one hundred years and a renowned scholar of World War II, but his extensive reliance on primary source documentary evidence posed an obvious threat to the official narrative promoted by Hollywood and wartime propaganda. When he published his magisterial Hitler's War , this conflict between myth and reality came into the open, and an enormous wave of attacks and vilification was unleashed, gradually leading to his purge from respectability and eventually even his imprisonment.

These important examples may help to explain the puzzling contrast between the behavior of Jews in the aggregate and Jews as individuals. Observers have noticed that even fairly small Jewish minorities may often have a major impact upon the far larger societies that host them. But on the other hand, in my experience at least, a large majority of individual Jews do not seem all that different in their personalities or behavior than their non-Jewish counterparts. So how does a community whose individual mean is not so unusual generate what seems to be such a striking difference in collective behavior? I think the answer may involve the existence of information choke-points, and the ability of relatively small numbers of particularly zealous and agitated Jews in influencing and controlling these.

We live our lives constantly immersed in media narratives, and these allow us to decide the rights and wrongs of a situation. The vast majority of people, Jew and Gentile alike, are far more likely to take strong action if they are convinced that their cause is a just one. This is obviously the basis for war-time propaganda.

Now suppose that a relatively small number of zealous Jewish partisans are known to always attack and denounce journalists or authors who accurately describe Jewish misbehavior. Over time, this ongoing campaign of intimidation may cause many important facts to be left on the cutting-room floor, or even gradually expel from mainstream respectability those writers who refuse to conform to such pressures. Meanwhile, similar small numbers of Jewish partisans frequently exaggerate the misdeeds committed against Jews, sometimes piling their exaggerations upon past exaggerations already produced by a previous round of such zealots.

Eventually, these two combined trends may take a complex and possibly very mixed historical record and transform it into a simple morality-play, with innocent Jews tremendously injured by vicious Jew-haters. And as this morality-play becomes established it deepens the subsequent intensity of other Jewish-activists, who redouble their demands that the media "stop vilifying Jews" and covering up the supposed evils inflicted upon them. An unfortunate circle of distortion following exaggeration following distortion can eventually produce a widely accepted historical account that bears little resemblance to the reality of what actually happened.

So as a result, the vast majority of quite ordinary Jews, who would normally behave in quite ordinary ways, are misled by this largely fictional history, and rather understandably become greatly outraged at all the horrible things that had been done to their suffering people, some of which are true and some of which are not, while remaining completely ignorant of the other side of the ledger.

Furthermore, this situation is exacerbated by the common tendency of Jews to "cluster" together, perhaps respresenting just one or two percent of the total population, but often constituting 20% or 40% or 60% of their immediate peer-group, especially in certain professions. Under such conditions, the ideas or emotional agitation of some Jews probably permeates others around them, often provoking additional waves of indignation.

As a rough analogy, a small quantity of uranium is relatively inert and harmless, and entirely so if distributed within low-density ore. But if a significant quantity of weapons-grade uranium is sufficiently compressed, then the neutrons released by fissioning atoms will quickly cause additional atoms to undergo fission, with the ultimate result of that critical chain-reaction being a nuclear explosion. In similar fashion, even a highly agitated Jew may have no negative impact, but if the collection of such agitated Jews becomes too numerous and clusters together too closely, they may work each other into a terrible frenzy, perhaps with disastrous consequences both for themselves and for their larger society. This is especially true if those agitated Jews begin to dominate certain key nodes of top-level control, such as the central political or media organs of a society.

Whereas most living organizations exist solely in physical reality, human beings also occupy an ideational space, with the interaction of human consciousness and perceived reality playing a major role in shaping behavior. Just as the pheromones released by mammals or insects can drastically affect the reactions of their family members or nest-mates, the ideas secreted by individuals or the media-emitters of a society can have an enormous impact upon their fellows.

A cohesive, organized group generally possesses huge advantages over a teeming mass of atomized individuals, just as a Macedonian Phalanx could easily defeat a vastly larger body of disorganized infantry. Many years ago, on some website somewhere I came across a very insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between "anti-Semitism" and "racism," which our mainstream media organs identify as two of the world's greatest evils. Under this analysis, "anti-Semitism" represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion, while "racism" represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of their own. To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts, the former will obviously gain enormous advantages in resource-competition against the latter.

Religion obviously constitutes an important unifying factor in human social groups and we cannot ignore the role of Judaism in this regard. Traditional Jewish religious doctrine seems to consider Jews as being in a state of permanent hostility with all non-Jews , and the use of dishonest propaganda is an almost inevitable aspect of such conflict. Furthermore, since Jews have invariably been a small political minority, maintaining such controversial tenets required the employment of a massive framework of subterfuge and dissimulation in order to conceal their nature from the larger society surrounding them. It has often been said that truth is the first casualty in war, and surely the cultural influences of over a thousand years of such intense religious hostility may continue to quietly influence the thinking of many modern Jews, even those who have largely abandoned their religious beliefs.

The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had horrifying human consequences. I very recently discovered a fascinating passage in Peter Moreira's 2014 book The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War , focused on the important political role of that powerful Secretary of the Treasury.

A turning point in Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s relationship with the Jewish community came in November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to the corner office to tell the secretary what was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made from victims' skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau, turning paler, implored him, "Please, Stephen, don't give me the gory details." Wise went on with his list of horrors and Morgenthau repeated his plea over and over again. Henrietta Klotz was afraid her boss would keel over. Morgenthau later said the meeting changed his life.

It is easy to imagine that Morgenthau's gullible acceptance of such obviously ridiculous war-time atrocity stories played a major role when he later lent his name and support to remarkably brutal American occupation policies that probably led to the postwar deaths of many millions of innocent German civilians .

[May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
A foreign intelligence asset was used to justify surveillance of Trump[ and some of his associates
Notable quotes:
"... What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent? ..."
"... The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA) and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant"). ..."
"... The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their hand on the scale. ..."
"... Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power. ..."
"... I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors. ..."
"... if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know? ..."
"... Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost. ..."
"... Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance. ..."
"... From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. ..."
"... He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI. ..."
"... its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered. ..."
"... Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this? ..."
"... A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies. ..."
"... It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries ..."
"... If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary. ..."
"... An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him ..."
"... A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination ..."
"... 'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.' ..."
"... I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief. ..."
"... Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it. ..."
"... Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense. So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs. ..."
"... Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly: ..."
"... Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. ..."
"... One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get 'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt on Trump...how is this not the same...? ..."
"... What role did Stefan Halper and Mifsud play as Confidential Human Sources in all this? ..."
"... Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation that may have already begun? ..."
"... British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete), his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy. ..."
"... British Intelligence is verifiably the foreign source with the most extensive and effective meddling in the 2016 election. Perfidious Albion. ..."
"... Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws they have that prohibits spying on their people. ..."
"... still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources ..."
"... I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia. ..."
"... Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these people think they are. ..."
"... It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The revelations from US Government records about the FBI/Intel Community plot to take out Donald Trump continue to flow thanks to the dogged efforts of Judicial Watch. The latest nugget came last Friday with the release of FBI records detailing their recruitment and management of Britain's ostensibly retired Intelligence Officer, Christopher Steele. He was an officially recruited FBI source and received at least 11 payments during the 9 month period that he was signed up as a Confidential Human Source.

You may find it strange that we can glean so much information from a document dump that is almost entirely redacted . The key is to look at the report forms; there are three types--FD-1023 (Source Reports), FD-209a (Contact Reports) and FD-794b (Payment Requests). There are 15 different 1023s, 13 209a reports and 11 794b payment requests covering the period from 2 February 2016 thru 1 November 2016. That is a total of nine months.

These reports totally destroy the existing meme that Steele only came into contact with the FBI sometime in July 2016. It is important for you to understand that a 1023 Source Report is filled out each time that the FBI source handler has contact with the source. This can be an in person meeting or a phone call. Each report lists the name of the Case Agent; the date, time and location of the meeting; any other people attending the meeting; and a summary of what was discussed.

What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent?

richardstevenhack , a day ago

Indeed we do need more information.

The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA) and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant").

We can be pretty sure this predates any alleged Russian "hacking" (unless it occurred as a result of alleged Russian hacking of the DNC in 2015).

This needs to be pinned down if anyone is to be successfully prosecuted for creating this treasonous hoax.

chris chuba , 5 hours ago
A very closely related topic, Victor Davis Hanson is onto something but it is darker than he suggests, https://www.nationalreview.... Paraphrasing, he gives the typical, rally around the flag we must stop the Russians intro but then documents how govt flaks abused their power to influence our elections and then makes the point, 'this is why the public is skeptical of their claims'.

The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their hand on the scale.

Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power.

I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors.

Leonardo Facchin , 20 hours ago
Thanks for the explanation.

What I can't figure out is: if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know?

Publius Tacitus -> Leonardo Facchin , 17 hours ago
Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost.
blue peacock -> Leonardo Facchin , 13 hours ago
Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance.

From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. And of course the media narrative that Rep. Nunes, Goodlatte and others were endangering "national security" by casting aspersions on the "patriotic" law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Paul M -> Leonardo Facchin , 16 hours ago
He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI.

Of course, he had most likely already done so and its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered.

David Habakkuk , 4 hours ago
PT,

Fascinating.

Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this?

The point is not merely a quibble. A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies.

It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries.

Another related matter has to do with the termination of Steele as a 'Confidential Human Source.'

It has long seemed to me that it was more than possible that this was not to be taken at face value. If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary.

An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him.

A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination.

(See http://thehill.com/person/d... .)

When on 31 January 2017 – well after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed – Ohr provided reassurance that he could continue to help feed information to the FBI, Steele texted back:

"If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can't allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."

At that point, Solomon tells us that 'Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was referring to.' This seems to me a rather important question. It would seem likely, although not certain, that he is talking about another Brit. If he is, would it have been someone else employed by Orbis? Or someone currently working for British intelligence? What is the precise significance of 'forced to go back home', and why would this have been 'disastrous'?

Another crucial paragraph:

'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.'

The earlier contacts may be of little interest, but there again they may not be.

As it happens, it was following Berezovsky's arrival in London in October 2001 that the 'information operations' network he created began to move into high gear. It is moreover clear that this was always a transatlantic operation, and also fragments of evidence suggest that the FBI may have had some involvement from early on.

I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief.

The original attempt came in a radio programme broadcast by the BBC – which was to become known to some of us as the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – on 16 December 2006, presented by Tom Mangold, a familiar 'trusty' for the intelligence services.

(A transcript sent out from the Cabinet Office at the time is available on the archived 'Evidence' page for the Inquiry, at http://webarchive.nationala... , as HMG000513. There is an interesting and rather important question as to whether those who sent it out, and those who received it, knew that it was more or less BS from start to finish.)

The programme was wholly devoted to claims made by the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets, who was presented as an independent 'due diligence' expert, without any mention of the rather major role he had played in the original 'Orange Revolution.'

Back-up was provided by his supposed collaborator in 'due diligence', the former FBI operative Robert 'Bobby' Levinson. No mention was made of the fact that he had been, in the 'Nineties, a, if not the lead FBI investigator into the notorious Ukrainian Jewish mobster Semyon Mogilevich.

The following March Levinson would disappear on the Iranian island of Kish, on what we now know was a covert mission on behalf of elements in the CIA.

Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it.

Jack -> David Habakkuk , 2 hours ago
David

Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense. So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs.

Keith Harbaugh , 19 hours ago
Thanks for this informative article.

Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly:

Seems rather surprising to me. Anyone have any comment on this?

TTG , an hour ago
Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. His initial contact with old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crime Task Force is awfully similar to his contacting these same friends in 2016 after deciding his initial Trump research was potentially bigger than mere opposition research.
FB , 3 hours ago
One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get 'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt on Trump...how is this not the same...?

Even worse is that the FBI was using this same foreign agent that a presidential candidate had hired to get dirt on an opponent... Even knowing nothing about legalities this just doesn't look very good...

Wally Courie , 4 hours ago
Stupid question? As the Col. has explained, the President can declassify any document he pleases. So, why doesn't Donaldo unredact the redacted portions of these bullcrap docs? What is he afraid of? That the Intel community will get mad and be out to get him? Isn't time for him to show some cojones?
blue peacock , 16 hours ago
What role did Stefan Halper and Mifsud play as Confidential Human Sources in all this?
akaPatience , 19 hours ago
Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation that may have already begun?
Navstéva يزور 🐐 -> akaPatience , 17 hours ago
British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete), his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy.
unmitigatedaudacity -> Navstéva يزور 🐐 , 16 hours ago
British Intelligence is verifiably the foreign source with the most extensive and effective meddling in the 2016 election. Perfidious Albion.
Bryn Nykrson -> Navstéva يزور 🐐 , 14 hours ago
Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? And therefore without having to mess about with any formal FISA warrant thingy's ... But, then use what might be found (or plausibly alleged) to try to get a proper FISA warrant later on (July 2016)? 'Parallel Discovery' of sorts; with Fusion GPS also a leaky cut-out: channelling media reports to be used as confirmation of Steele's "raw intelligence" in the formal FISA application(s)?
Biggee Mikeee -> akaPatience , 17 hours ago
Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates,

" Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, "

That's a good question, could it legally enable an end run around the FISC until enough evidence was gathered for a FISC surveillance authorization?.

richardstevenhack -> Biggee Mikeee , 13 hours ago
I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws they have that prohibits spying on their people.

Only a matter of time until someone figured out the same method could be used to "meddle" in national affairs.

akaPatience -> Biggee Mikeee , 15 hours ago
I understand, but still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources such as Steele about a very high profile American citizen and businessman -- aren't our intelligence services competent enough to have known and discovered as much if not more about Trump than other countries' intelligence services? I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia.
DianaLC -> akaPatience , 4 hours ago
Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these people think they are.

It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things.

[May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years. ..."
"... Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to carry this out? ..."
"... Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet services. ..."
"... This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line. The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans. ..."
"... If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff. ..."
"... How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction. ..."
"... According to Esquire.com , Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work. ..."
"... Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016. ..."
"... According to Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. ..."
"... What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security? ..."
"... Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers. ..."
"... When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. ..."
"... Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other? ..."
"... Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network ..."
"... In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency." ..."
"... Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list. ..."
"... This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention. ..."
"... Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike? ..."
"... What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts. ..."
"... The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated. ..."
"... According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I have." ..."
"... While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine. ..."
Dec 29, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com

In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is" statement showing this.

The difference between Dmitri Alperovitch's claims which are reflected in JAR-1620296 and this article is that enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors that need to be investigated for real crimes.

For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine . How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?

Later in this article you'll meet and know a little more about the real "Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear." The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution.

The article is lengthy because the facts need to be in one place. The bar Dimitri Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of Russian involvement?

The December 29th JAR adds a flowchart that shows how a basic phishing hack is performed. It doesn't add anything significant beyond that. Noticeably, they use both their designation APT 28 and APT 29 as well as the Crowdstrike labels of Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear separately.

This is important because information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's that every private actor in the information game was radically political.

The Hill.com article about Russia hacking the electric grid is a perfect example of why this intelligence is political and not taken seriously. If any proof of Russian involvement existed, the US would be at war. Under current laws of war, there would be no difference between an attack on the power grid or a missile strike.

According to the Hill "Private security firms provided more detailed forensic analysis, which the FBI and DHS said Thursday correlated with the IC's findings.

"The Joint Analysis Report recognizes the excellent work undertaken by
security companies and private sector network owners and operators, and provides new indicators of compromise and malicious infrastructure
identified during the course of investigations and incident response," read a statement. The report identities two Russian intelligence groups already named by CrowdStrike and other private security firms."

In an interview with Washingtonsblog , William Binney, the creator of the NSA global surveillance system said "I expected to see the IP's or other signatures of APT's 28/29 [the entities which the U.S. claims hacked the Democratic emails] and where they were located and how/when the data got transferred to them from DNC/HRC [i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton]/etc. They seem to have been following APT 28/29 since at least 2015, so, where are they?"

According to the latest Washington Post story, Crowdstrike's CEO tied a group his company dubbed "Fancy Bear" to targeting Ukrainian artillery positions in Debaltsevo as well as across the Ukrainian civil war front for the past 2 years.

Alperovitch states in many articles the Ukrainians were using an Android app to target the self-proclaimed Republics positions and that hacking this app was what gave targeting data to the armies in Donbass instead.

Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."

How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. " Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks."

The public evidence never goes beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses. NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant for NBC.

According to NBC the story reads like this." The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry, a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.

"But the Russians used the app to turn the tables on their foes, Crowdstrike says. Once a Ukrainian soldier downloaded it on his Android phone, the Russians were able to eavesdrop on his communications and determine his position through geo-location.

In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other, known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called the GRU."

The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks."

Because Ukrainian soldiers are using a smartphone app they activate their geolocation to use it. Targeting is from location to location. The app would need the current user location to make it work.

In 2015 I wrote an article that showed many of the available open source tools that geolocate, and track people. They even show street view. This means that using simple means, someone with freeware or an online website, and not a military budget can look at what you are seeing at any given moment.

Where Crowdstrike fails is insisting people believe that the code they see is (a) an advanced way to geolocate and (b) it was how a state with large resources would do it. Would you leave a calling card where you would get caught and fined through sanctions or worse? If you use an anonymous online resource at least Crowdstrike won't believe you are Russian and possibly up to something.

" Using open source tools this has been going on for years in the private sector. For geolocation purposes, your smartphone is one of the greatest tools to use. Finding and following you has never been easier . Let's face it if you are going to stalk someone, "street view" on a map is the next best thing to being there. In the following video, the software hacks your modem. It's only one step from your phone or computer."

If you read that article and watch the video you'll see that using "geo-stalker" is a better choice if you are on a low budget or no budget. Should someone tell the Russians they overpaid?

According to Alperovitch, the smartphone app plotted targets in about 15 seconds . This means that there is only a small window to get information this way.

Using the open source tools I wrote about previously, you could track your targets all-day. In 2014, most Ukrainian forces were using social media regularly. It would be easy to maintain a map of their locations and track them individually.

From my research into those tools, someone using Python scripts would find it easy to take photos, listen to conversations, turn on GPS, or even turn the phone on when they chose to. Going a step further than Alperovitch, without the help of the Russian government, GRU, or FSB, anyone could take control of the drones Ukraine is fond of flying and land them. Or they could download the footage the drones are taking. It's copy and paste at that point. Would you bother the FSB, GRU, or Vladimir Putin with the details or just do it?

In the WaPo article Alperovitch states "The Fancy Bear crew evidently hacked the app, allowing the GRU to use the phone's GPS coordinates to track the Ukrainian troops' position.

In that way, the Russian military could then target the Ukrainian army with artillery and other weaponry. Ukrainian brigades operating in eastern Ukraine were on the front lines of the conflict with Russian-backed separatist forces during the early stages of the conflict in late 2014, CrowdStrike noted. By late 2014, Russian forces in the region numbered about 10,000. The Android app was useful in helping the Russian troops locate Ukrainian artillery positions."

In late 2014, I personally did the only invasive passport and weapons checks that I know of during the Ukrainian civil war. I spent days looking for the Russian army every major publication said were attacking Ukraine. The keyword Cyber Security industry leader Alperovitch used is "evidently." Crowdstrike noted that in late 2014, there were 10,000 Russian forces in the region.

When I did the passport and weapons check, it was under the condition there would be no telephone calls. We went where I wanted to go. We stopped when I said to stop. I checked the documents and the weapons with no obstacles. The weapons check was important because Ukraine was stating that Russia was giving Donbass modern weapons at the time. Each weapon is stamped with a manufacture date. The results are in the articles above.

The government in Kiev agreed with my findings throughout 2014 and 2015. There were and are no Russian troops fighting in Donbass regardless of what Mr. Alperovitch asserts. There are some Russian volunteers which I have covered in detail.

Based on my findings which the CIA would call hard evidence, almost all the fighters had Ukrainian passports. There are volunteers from other countries. In Debaltsevo today, I would question Alperovitch's assertion of Russian troops based on the fact the passports will be Ukrainian and reflect my earlier findings. There is no possibly, could be, might be, about it.

The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment . Although subtitles aren't on it, the former Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have been in deep trouble.

How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention? Could the investment made by Google and some very large players have anything to do with the media Crowdstrike is causing?

In an interview with PBS newshour on December 22nd 2016, Dmitri Alperovitch finally produced the hard evidence he has for Russian involvement clearly. To be fair, he did state it several times before. It just didn't resonate or the media and US intelligence agencies weren't listening.

According to Alperovitch, the CEO of a $150 million dollar cyber security company "And when you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party, Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, Russian military that would have operational over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen."

That statement is most of the proof of Russian involvement he has. That's it, that's all the CIA, FBI have to go on. It's why they can't certify the intelligence. It's why they can't get beyond the threshold of maybe.

Woodruff then asked two important questions. She asked if Crowdstrike was still working for the DNC. Alperovitch responded "We're protecting them going forward. The investigation is closed in terms of what happened there. But certainly, we've seen the campaigns, political organizations are continued to be targeted, and they continue to hire us and use our technology to protect themselves."

Based on the evidence he presented Woodruff, there is no need to investigate further? Obviously, there is no need, the money is rolling in.

Second and most important Judy Woodruff asked if there were any questions about conflicts of interest, how he would answer? This is where Dmitri Alperovitch's story starts to unwind.

His response was "Well, this report was not about the DNC. This report was about information we uncovered about what these Russian actors were doing in eastern Ukraine in terms of locating these artillery units of the Ukrainian army and then targeting them. So, what we just did is said that it looks exactly as the same to the evidence we've already uncovered from the DNC, linking the two together."

Why is this reasonable statement going to take his story off the rails? First, let's look at the facts surrounding his evidence and then look at the real conflicts of interest involved. While carefully evading the question, he neglects to state his conflicts of interest are worthy of a DOJ investigation. Can you mislead the federal government about national security issues and not get investigated yourself?

If Alperovitch's evidence is all there is, then the US government owes some large apologies to Russia.

After showing who is targeting Ukrainian artillerymen, we'll look at what might be a criminal conspiracy.

Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?

Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years. Using facts accepted by leaders on both sides of the conflict, the main proof Crowdstrike shows for evidence doesn't just unravel, it falls apart. Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to carry this out?

Real Fancy Bear?

Real Fancy Bear?

Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet services.

These are normal people fighting back against private volunteer armies that target their homes, schools, and hospitals. The private volunteer armies like Pravy Sektor, Donbas Battalion, Azov, and Aidar have been cited for atrocities like child rape, torture, murder, and kidnapping. That just gets the ball rolling. These are a large swath of the Ukrainian servicemen Crowdstrike hopes to protect.

This story which just aired on Ukrainian news channel TCN shows the SBU questioning and arresting some of what they call an army of people in the Ukrainian-controlled areas. This news video shows people in Toretsk that provided targeting information to Donbass and people probably caught up in the net accidentally.

This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line. The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans.

The first person they show on the video is a woman named Olga Lubochka. On the video her voice is heard from a recorded call saying " In the field, on the left about 130 degrees. Aim and you'll get it." and then " Oh, you hit it so hard you leveled it to the ground.""Am I going to get a medal for this?"

Other people caught up in the raid claim and probably were only calling friends they know. It's common for people to call and tell their family about what is going on around them. This has been a staple in the war especially in outlying villages for people aligned with both sides of the conflict. A neighbor calls his friend and says "you won't believe what I just saw."

Another "fancy bear," Alexander Schevchenko was caught calling friends and telling them that armored personnel carriers had just driven by.

Anatoli Prima, father of a DNR(Donetsk People's Republic) soldier was asked to find out what unit was there and how many artillery pieces.

One woman providing information about fuel and incoming equipment has a husband fighting on the opposite side in Gorlovka. Gorlovka is a major city that's been under artillery attack since 2014. For the past 2 1/2 years, she has remained in their home in Toretsk. According to the video, he's vowed to take no prisoners when they rescue the area.

When asked why they hate Ukraine so much, one responded that they just wanted things to go back to what they were like before the coup in February 2014.

Another said they were born in the Soviet Union and didn't like what was going on in Kiev. At the heart of this statement is the anti- OUN, antinationalist sentiment that most people living in Ukraine feel. The OUNb Bandera killed millions of people in Ukraine, including starving 3 million Soviet soldiers to death. The new Ukraine was founded in 1991 by OUN nationalists outside the fledgling country.

Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason are exposed.

In the last article exploring the DNC hacks the focus was on the Chalupas . The article focused on Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa. Their participation in the DNC hack story is what brought it to international attention in the first place.

According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page " After Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her to stop her research."" July 25, 2016

If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff.

How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction.

According to Esquire.com , Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work.

Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.

In my previous article I showed in detail how the Chalupas fit into this. A brief bullet point review looks like this.

In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found out.

At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an appointment with Yurash.

Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.

According to Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign.

What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security?

When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it opens up criminal conspiracy.

If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a crime.

Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.

When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government.

Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other?

Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other?

Crowdstrike is also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.

ff-twitter-com-2016-12-30-02-24-54

Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service Crowdstrike offers? Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This image shows Crowdstrike in their network.

Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network

In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."

In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The network communication goes through a secondary source. This is something you do when you don't want to be too obvious. Here is another example of that.

Ukrainian Intelligence and the real Fancy Bear?

Ukrainian Intelligence and the real Fancy Bear?

Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list.

Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his "Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the past.

Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter.

Trying to keep it hush hush?

Trying to keep it hush hush?

This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.

These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and with to promote the story of Russian hacking.

Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike?

Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike?

When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article, one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.

Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say" Let's understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics."

What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts.

The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.

According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I have."

While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine.

The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in international politics.

By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of rumor.

From the Observer.com , " Andrea Chalupa -- the sister of DNC research staffer Alexandra Chalupa -- claimed on social media, without any evidence, that despite Clinton conceding the election to Trump, the voting results need to be audited to because Clinton couldn't have lost -- it must have been Russia. Chalupa hysterically tweeted to every politician on Twitter to audit the vote because of Russia and claimed the TV show The Americans , about two KGB spies living in America, is real."

Quite possibly now the former UK Ambassador Craig Murry's admission of being the involved party to "leaks" should be looked at. " Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia . Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling."

[Apr 23, 2019] Justin Elliott on Sheldon Adelson by Scott

Notable quotes:
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and LibertyStickers.com . ..."
"... To me, it is not so much the lies that major media organizations may broadcast, but the enormous amount of news of major importance that the networks censor that is doing the greatest harm. ..."
Oct 24, 2018 | scotthorton.org
Journalist Justin Elliott comes on the show to talk about casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who has become one of President Trump's biggest donors. Although Trump derided him early in his campaign, the two have formed a close partnership with Adelson providing tens of millions in funding so long as Trump continues the correct policies with respect to Israel, Palestine, and Iran. Elliott and others have also speculated that Trump is trying to get Adelson approval to open a casino in Japan, helping him to expand his gambling empire in Asia.

Discussed on the show:

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica . He has produced stories for The New York Times and National Public Radio, and his reporting with NPR on the Red Cross' troubled post-earthquake reconstruction efforts in Haiti won a 2015 Investigative Reporters and Editors award. Follow him on Twitter @JustinElliott .

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and LibertyStickers.com .

Check out Scott's Patreon page.

William on October 26, 2018 at 5:46 pm

Whether Adelson or some other plutocrat, American politics is awash in money, and it this money is crippling our democracy. I don't think that I have heard this topic discussed on any news program, and I don't expect to. To me, it is not so much the lies that major media organizations may broadcast, but the enormous amount of news of major importance that the networks censor that is doing the greatest harm.

Americans never get to see what they need to know. Keeping the peasants ignorant is the current mass media program, and they are doing a great job of it.

[Apr 21, 2019] Man Cited As Trump's Russian Link Actually Works For The FBI Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents. Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going back more than 10 years." ..."
Mar 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Felix Sater, the man at the center of a controversial email "tying" President Trump to Russia while trying to work a business deal, has come forward in a comprehensive BuzzFeed News Exposé, which if Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Cormier and co-author Jason Leopold hadn't verified - nobody would believe.

Sater went from a "Wall Street wunderkind" working at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to getting barred from the securities industry over a barroom brawl which led to a year in prison, to facilitating a $40 million pump-and-dump stock scheme for the New York mafia, to working telecom deals in Russia - where the FBI and CIA tapped him as an undercover intelligence asset who was told by his handler " I want you to understand: If you're caught, the USA is going to disavow you and, at best, you get a bullet in the head ."

... ... ...

Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents. Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going back more than 10 years."

To this day, Sater continues to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department, he said in his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. He wouldn't disclose additional details, except to say that he works on "international matters." Two US officials confirmed Sater continues to be a reliable asset.

As for his regular life, when he relocated back to the US in 2010, he recalled, "Donald said, 'Where have you been?'" Sater said Trump asked him to join the Trump Organization. "That's when I became senior advisor to him," he said. The Trump Organization and the White House declined to comment. - BuzzFeed

In effect, Sater - at least according to BuzzFeed , is more or less a rockstar opportunist spy with a shady past, who redeemed himself as an asset for the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the FBI. During the course of his work for the agencies, all unpaid, BuzzFeed confirmed the following exploits:

[Apr 17, 2019] Gina Haspel As If Nuremberg Never Happened

Notable quotes:
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Mar 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.

Haspel oversaw the torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's new head.

Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer John Kiriakou say : "We did call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."

It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.

Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship certainly could.

I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.

Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking gesture.

The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.

It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation with faint signs of metal grooves.

Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.

As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue. New information and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.

Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.

Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.

Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.

To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace," claims one of her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well," said Michael Hayden, who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.

Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review Haspel's nomination, said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical agencies."

"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person," offered Senator Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson defended Haspel's actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.

His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance, saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of torture during the Vietnam War, mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.

Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will likely also vote no.

Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.

Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf: unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets @WeMeantWell.

Douglas K. March 19, 2018 at 3:19 am

Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts as war crimes.
I Don't Matter , says: March 19, 2018 at 4:49 am
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
Mark Thomason , says: March 19, 2018 at 4:49 am
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"

To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?

Peter Hopkins , says: March 19, 2018 at 6:52 am
Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it.
Ian , says: March 19, 2018 at 7:10 am
As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them.
Bagby , says: March 19, 2018 at 8:00 am
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand. Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power.
Centralist , says: March 19, 2018 at 8:19 am
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers. Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use to be part of an American have come to define us.
Banger , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:09 am
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."

At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs. When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human. Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in the neighborhood of following international law.

Peter Van Buren , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:31 am
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Kurt Gayle , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:34 am
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?

In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie (Martine McCutcheon):

"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."

It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.

Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.

Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against Trump:

"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you."

Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:

"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."

When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.

After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.

Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?

Peter Van Buren , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:35 am
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.

The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more granularly.

Wilfred , says: March 19, 2018 at 10:25 am
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment of terrorists.

But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?

The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?

furbo , says: March 19, 2018 at 10:45 am
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques (sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall for a false equivalency.

Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to

Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.

And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades later.

Just stop.

Sid Finster , says: March 19, 2018 at 10:59 am

If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"

We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.

Sally Stewart , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:11 am
Douglas K. What are you talking about? Covered up? You mean Bush http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/
Stephen J. , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:12 am
A lot of info below on the War criminals at large.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
May 26, 2015 Do We Need Present Day Nuremberg Trials? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2015/05/do-we-need-present-day-nuremberg-trials.html

And

March 9, 2018 Are We Seeing Government By Gangsters? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2018/03/are-we-seeing-government-by-gangsters.html

connecticut farmer , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:49 am
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged, then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
Winston , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:54 am
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held in cages? WE saw off their heads?

Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs.

Lex Talionis , says: March 19, 2018 at 12:00 pm
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.

There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime, no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.

bob sykes , says: March 19, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction of this story and an apology.
Youknowho , says: March 19, 2018 at 12:30 pm
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.

Personally, I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"

Tyrone Slothrop , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:07 pm
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction ( https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture ) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.

Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when used by our adversaries?

furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?

Near Rockaway , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:31 pm
"Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence?"

Evil stuff. And we're still paying for it. Keeping Haspel out of the Director's chair is a basic step toward avoiding more such needless, stupid evil.

Chris Mallory , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:47 pm
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
b. , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."

Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words.

Wilfred , says: March 19, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.

But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.

[Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

Highly recommended!
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
Feb 23, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover, the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.

Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?

J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists and other public figures, according to biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions so as to serve his interests.

And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.

Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against homosexuals in public life.

It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and freedom of expression continues to this day.

One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.

Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public statements.

Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).

As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50 Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your career". Enough said.

JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House.

However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day.

As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968. Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize. LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his vice president Hubert Humphrey.

Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on, and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.

But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.

These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the media's own compromised complicity.

Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.

Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.

Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government – does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of American dissenters.

The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of the American Deep State.

Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.

So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies, as the US intelligence chiefs once again chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!

The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American" agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.

US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate how they are being manipulated.

We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt by the people.

[Apr 14, 2019] Commentary of Trump decision to move embassy to Jerusalem as implicit recognition of as the capital of Israel

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , July 4, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.

Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,' since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I understand what you are saying, Jilles, but let's be accurate, shall we?

The Jews have ZERO right to "return" to Palestine one cannot go back to a place one never left in the first place.

The story that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine 2000 years ago is FALSE.
See Israeli historian Shlomo Sand( the invention of the Jewish people).

At any rate, even had the story been true – and it is NOT – the notion of modern Jews laying claim to the land 2000 years later is truly bizarre.

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:28 pm GMT
@renfro

In short, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between the River and the Sea for about 9,000 years."

Exactly.
In the preface of his book "Ten myths about Israel", Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, writes:

Were the Jews indeed the original inhabitants of Palestine who deserved to be supported in every way possible in their "return" to their "homeland"? The myth insists that the Jews who arrived in 1882 were the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans around 70 CE. The counterargument questions this genealogical connection. Quite a hefty scholarly effort has shown that the Jews of Roman Palestine remained on the land and were first converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Who these Jews were is still an open question -- maybe the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the ninth century; or maybe the mixture of races across a millennium precludes any answer to such a question.

[Apr 14, 2019] Commentary of Trump decision to move embassy to Jerusalem as implicit recognition of as the capital of Israel

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , July 4, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.

Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,' since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I understand what you are saying, Jilles, but let's be accurate, shall we?

The Jews have ZERO right to "return" to Palestine one cannot go back to a place one never left in the first place.

The story that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine 2000 years ago is FALSE.
See Israeli historian Shlomo Sand( the invention of the Jewish people).

At any rate, even had the story been true – and it is NOT – the notion of modern Jews laying claim to the land 2000 years later is truly bizarre.

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 9:28 pm GMT
@renfro

In short, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between the River and the Sea for about 9,000 years."

Exactly.
In the preface of his book "Ten myths about Israel", Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, writes:

Were the Jews indeed the original inhabitants of Palestine who deserved to be supported in every way possible in their "return" to their "homeland"? The myth insists that the Jews who arrived in 1882 were the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans around 70 CE. The counterargument questions this genealogical connection. Quite a hefty scholarly effort has shown that the Jews of Roman Palestine remained on the land and were first converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Who these Jews were is still an open question -- maybe the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the ninth century; or maybe the mixture of races across a millennium precludes any answer to such a question.

[Apr 04, 2019] Fascism A Warning by Madeleine Albright

Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people) This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military. It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of "enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish) out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Apr 04, 2019 | www.amazon.com

Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.

This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the

Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites, anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.

If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power, what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem- ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing to take back what has been stolen.

Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music, incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-

lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men" and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed, "a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy that others do not."

After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case, but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March," said a student, "and post a photo

on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we protect ourselves against that?"

Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception: repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is neither.

Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.

Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,

the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.

When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny, autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary -- including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.

Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down, Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and the firepower to strike first.

petarsimic , October 21, 2018

Madeleine Albright on million Iraqis dead: "We think the price is worth It"

Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy.

In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it.

<img src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-avatars-global/default._CR0,0,1024,1024_SX48_.png"> P. Bierre , June 11, 2018
Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it?

While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"

Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?

I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?

People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise, a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street", then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?

The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a drug cartel boss to Duterte?

My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?

I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects. Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors. Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress. When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward progress.

"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills, not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed; question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation

These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.

I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.

Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism, but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to her being biased by her life story.

That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us about.

Anat Hadad , January 19, 2019
"Fascism is not an exception to humanity, but part of it."

Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax (and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the current state of affairs in the US and abroad.

Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal: the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.

I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything, the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.

She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.

Matthew T , May 29, 2018
An easy read, but incredibly ignorant and one eyed in far too many instances

The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are, deeply ingrained political biases from the author.

Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia) does not receive a mention in the book.

Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars Trite and opaque

Avid reader , December 20, 2018
Biast much? Still a good start into the problem

We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a 2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US interest.

Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?

Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods. Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.

Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million.

We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk Madeline.

What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939, in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are countries where you can go and openly be fascist.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-avatars-global/0e64e0cb-01e4-4e58-bcae-bba690344095._CR0,0.0,333,333_SX48_.jpg"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; NJ , February 3, 2019
Interesting...yes. Useful...hmmm

To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.

As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies. What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use "our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.

Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules, methods and achievements.

The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also debatable.

Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being. Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.

Gderf , February 15, 2019
Wrong warning

Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions, like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more. Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.

Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are "the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos (Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.

The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.

Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.

The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership continuing our slow slide to the bottom.

[Feb 16, 2019] "Semi-intelligence agences" is a very sad joke: When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept thinking "Is this guy serious ?"

Jul 27, 2018 | thesaker.is

Alex on October 09, 2017 , · at 3:08 pm EST/EDT

Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.

When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation then it all seems logical.

[Dec 31, 2018] Trump s Trade Czar, The Latest Architect of Imperial Disaster by Alfred McCoy

Notable quotes:
"... San Diego Confidential, ..."
"... now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods: tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping). ..."
"... Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not working. ..."
"... Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex. ..."
"... my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking for empires. ..."
"... War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin addiction in the US. ..."
"... Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S. European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating. ..."
"... This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum. ..."
"... Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting back with horrible consequences for world peace. ..."
"... Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further: ..."
Dec 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Geopolitics of Trump's Trade War

Most recently, a dissident economist and failed California politician named Peter Navarro has parlayed his hostility toward China into the role of key architect of Donald Trump's "trade war" against Beijing. Like his Russian counterpart Alexander Dugin, Navarro is another in a long line of intellectuals whose embrace of geopolitics changed the trajectory of his career.

Raised by a single mom who worked secretarial jobs to rent one-bedroomapartments where he slept on the couch, Navarro went to college at Tufts on a scholarship and earned a doctorate in economics from Harvard. Despite that Ivy League degree, he remained an angry outsider, denouncing the special interests "stealing America" in his first book and later, as a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, branding San Diego developers "punks in pinstripes." A passionate environmentalist, in 1992 Navarro plunged into politics as a Democratic candidate for the mayor of San Diego, denouncing his opponent's husband as a convicted drug-money launderer and losing when he smirked as she wept during their televised debate.

For the next 10 years, Navarro fought losing campaigns for everything from city council to Congress. He detailed his crushing defeat for a seat in the House of Representatives in a tell-all book , San Diego Confidential, that dished out disdain for that duplicitous "sell out" Bill Clinton, dumb "blue-collar detritus" voters, and just about everybody else as well.

Following his last losing campaign for city council, Navarro spent a decade churning out books attacking a new enemy: China. His first "shock and awe" jeremiad in 2006 told horror stories about that country's foreign trade; five years later, Death By China was filled with torrid tales of "bone-crushing, cancer-causing, flammable, poisonous, and otherwise lethal products" from that land. In 2015, a third book turned to geopolitics, complete with carefully drawn maps and respectful references to Captain Mahan, to offer an analysis of how China's military was pursuing a relentless strategy of "anti-access, area denial" to challenge the U.S. Navy's control over the Western Pacific.

To check China, the Pentagon then had two competing strategies -- "Air-Sea Battle," in which China's satellites were to be blinded, knocking out its missiles, and "Offshore Control," in which China's entire coastline was to be blockaded by mining six maritime choke points from Japan to Singapore. Both, Navarro claimed, were fatally flawed. Given that, Navarro's third book and a companion film ( endorsed by one Donald Trump) asked: What should the United States do to check Beijing's aggression and its rise as a global power? Since all U.S. imports from China, Navarro suggested, were "helping to finance a Chinese military buildup," the only realistic solution was "the imposition of countervailing tariffs to offset China's unfair trade practices."

Just a year after reaching that controversial conclusion, Navarro joined the Trump election campaign as a policy adviser and then, after the November victory, became a junior member of the White House economic team. As a protectionist in an administration initially dominated by globalists, he would be excluded from high-level meetings and, according to Time Magazine , "required to copy chief economic adviser Gary Cohn on all his emails." By February 2018, however, Cohn was on his way out and Navarro had become assistant to the president, with his new trade office now the co-equal of the National Economic Council.

As the chief defender of Trump's belief that "trade wars are good and easy to win," Navarro has finally realized his own geopolitical dream of attempting to check China with tariffs. In March, the president slapped heavy ones on Chinese steel imports and, just a few weeks later, promised to impose more of them on $50 billion of imports. When those started in July, China's leaders retaliated against what they called "typical trade bullying," imposing similar duties on American goods. Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy," with Navarro at his elbow, Trump escalated in September, adding tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods and threatening another $267 billion worth if China dared retaliate. Nonetheless, Beijing hit back, this time on just $60 billion in goods since 95% of all U.S. imports had already been covered.

Then something truly surprising happened. In September, the U.S. trade deficit with China ballooned to $305 billion for the year, driven by an 8% surge in Chinese imports -- a clear sign that Navarro's bold geopolitical vision of beating Beijing into submission with tariffs had collided big time with the complexities of world trade. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the world economy, none of us can yet know, particularly that would-be geopolitical grandmaster Peter Navarro.

The Desire to be Grandmaster of the Universe

Though such experts usually dazzle the public and the powerful alike with erudition and boldness of vision, their geopolitical moves often have troubling long-term consequences. Mahan's plans for Pacific dominion through offshore bases created a strategic conundrum that plagued American defense policy for a half-century. Brzezinski's geopolitical lunge at the Soviet Union's soft Central Asian underbelly helped unleash radical Islam. Today, Alexander Dugin's use of geopolitics to revive Russia's dominion over Eurasia has placed Moscow on a volatile collision course with Europe and the United States. Simultaneously, Peter Navarro's bold gambit to contain China's military and economic push into the Pacific with a trade war could, if it persists, produce untold complications for our globalized economy.

No matter how deeply flawed such geopolitical visions may ultimately prove to be, their brief moments as official policy have regularly shaped the destiny of nations and of empires in unpredictable, unplanned, and often dangerous ways. And no matter how this current round of geopolitical gambits plays out, we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power ( Dispatch Books).

joun , says: December 3, 2018 at 1:56 am GMT

Dugin, regardless of what minor success he had ten years ago, is not influential in the Kremlin. He did not orchestrate Russia's absorption of Crimea. Simple strategic needs demanded that Crimea be absorbed, and a flawless Russian execution of an ambitious plan won the day.

Peter Navarro is correct w/r/t China. Our trading relationship with China has been a disaster for our economy (to which I mean our ability to have an economy absent financial shenanigans) and USG has effectively funded China's rise. There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. I don't really care if Navarro has failed at other tasks in his life. He is correct on this one.

Si1ver1ock , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:03 am GMT

we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.

Damn! Sounds just like me. Anyway, the US has made a lot of mistakes. It transferred much of its manufacturing base to China and much of its technology. The Chinese see a chance to break away from the US economically and in technology.

The US invested in China's future. China invested in its future. Which is why China has a future.

China 2025:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/03/what-is-made-in-china-2025-and-why-is-it-a-threat-to-trumps-trade-goals/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79ef31c78b0d

Sean , says: December 9, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT

https://www.waterstones.com/book/prisoners-of-geography/tim-marshall/9781783962433

Seeing geography as a decisive factor in the course of human history can be construed as a bleak view of the world, which is why it is disliked in some intellectual circles. It suggests that nature is more powerful than man, and that we can only go so far in determining our own fate.

Splitting the globe into ten distinct regions, former Sky News Diplomatic Editor Tim Marshall redresses our techno-centric view of the world and suggests that our key political driver continues to be our physical geography. Beginning with Russia (and its bewildering eleven time-zones), we are treated to an illuminating, border-by-border disassembly of what makes the world what it is; why, for instance, China and India will never fall into conflict (the Himalayas), or why the Ukraine is such a tactical jewel in the crown. With its panoptic view over our circumstance, Prisoners of Geography makes a compelling case around how the physical framework of the world itself has defined our history. It's one of those books that prompts real reflection and one that on publication absolutely grasped the imagination of our customers, ensuring it as a guaranteed entrant to our 2016 Paperbacks of the Year.

'One of the best books about geopolitics you could imagine: reading it is like having a light shone on your understanding.' – Nicholas Lezard,

animalogic , says: December 16, 2018 at 11:12 am GMT
@joun

"There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. "

Quite right. However – that horse has long bolted. And now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods: tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping).

Unfortunately, circumstances demand a radical & imaginative response & even harder, a realisation that the horse has bolted.

Anon [275] Disclaimer , says: December 31, 2018 at 5:24 am GMT

Dear Mr. McCoy:

Now that you're here, you should read the Saker more. I'll pose this question though, If Russia and China are hell bent on imperial expansion, why don't they show any interest in Mongolia? Fertile land, rich mineral resources, a tiny population incapable of resistance it would be a no brainier. The reason they don't is because they are not imperial powers. Also, is empire a good thing? In every historical example it has followed the same pattern and failed. Civilisations however endure through the ages.

Puzzled , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:33 am GMT

" Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar " was where I noted this essayist is a fool and stopped reading. Russians! Russians! Russians everywhere!

*vomit*

Anon [275] Disclaimer , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
@Puzzled ire is failing and wrote this insightful essay on why. http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176007/tomgram%3A_alfred_mccoy%2C_washington%27s_great_game_and_why_it%27s_failing_

But since then has gone on to muse how it might be extended. My argument is that the Empire does not serve the American people and is leading to the destruction of the republic and the American people. The sooner it ends the better, and if Trump can speed up its demise, then he is our guy.

jilles dykstra , says: December 31, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT

A very interesting article, for me, but, I suppose, for quite other reasons than most here expect. The essence of interest is in the last two paragraphs.
In the first of these two those men are mentioned who by geopolitical ideas caused world wide disasters. If they did, I do not know. The question 'did Napoleon make history or did history make Napoleon' still is a difficult one among historians, and will remain difficult, is my idea. The man not mentioned in this paragraph is Hitler.

Then we get the ominous last paragraph, someone grabbing world wide power for geopolitical reasons, a great menace.

The essence of good propaganda is not telling lies, but telling just half truths. Not mentioned is that the area that now is Germany for maybe hundreds of years could not feed the population, had to import food. In order to be able to import one must export, a country with not enough agricultural production naturally must export industrial products, to fabricate these one needs raw materials.

Not for nothing both WWI and WWII had geopolitical causes, German economic expansion to the SW and E, economic expansion that threatened, in the British view, the autarcic British empire.

The implication of the last paragraph for me is clear, beware of the next Hitler. If the author has someone in mind who will unleash the last world war is not clear to me.

Counterinsurgency , says: December 31, 2018 at 10:25 am GMT
@Puzzled y_, section on "managing enemies".

Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not working.

It's like the Federal German republic trying 90 year old people who were drafted as teenagers to be concentration camp guards in late WW II, when the Reich was scraping through the bottom of the manpower barrel, or like the British digging up Cromwell's bones (see Wikipedia, "Oliver Cromwell", section: "Death and posthumous execution"). Not convincing.

Counterinsurgency

Biff , says: December 31, 2018 at 11:08 am GMT

Alfred McCoy isn't the exact polar opposite of Bill Kristol who is wrong about everything , but McCoy does have a pretty good track record of being mostly correct about the issues he covers, nevertheless, he still reads like an opinion column. He also seems bonded by how he sees the American empire being some sort of force of benevolence when it acts and reacts in the same manner as any other empire that's come and gone – and of course he loathes the idea of the next empire simply by default(they'll brag about freedom too Alfred). And of course, in the realm of geopolitics, he never really mentions the bastard child; which leaves a gaping hole in his analysis.

My guess is McCoy's basically on the right track. Not exactly, but he'll get you out of the woods.

Herald , says: December 31, 2018 at 11:33 am GMT

Spot on. The reference to Russia waging cyberwar was an early warning that reading this long article would be a waste of time.

Alfred , says: December 31, 2018 at 12:41 pm GMT

For the past decade, he has been a forceful advocate for Russian expansionism

It gets a bit boring reading about how aggressive Putin is and how he wants to reconquer all the territories that were voluntarily given up by his predecessors. How exactly would Russia benefit by reaquiring the Baltic States or Poland? These countries are on life-support. Poland get $20bn annually in direct and indirect subsidies from the EU. As for Ukraine, what possible benefit to Russia would it be to have an extra 35 million people who are broke. Ukrainians today spend half their income on food and that other half on heat – and that in a country with a very cold winter.

Let's not forget that there would not have been a "Berlin Crisis" if Stalin had not given parts of Berlin to the USA, the UK and France. Can you imagine the USA doing something similar? This whole article is a real let down. I am disappointed. I guess every barrel has to have a rotten apple or two.

Jayzerbee , says: December 31, 2018 at 12:41 pm GMT

I would add that in my life, Henry Kissinger was the other supreme geopolitical theorist who attempted to establish a multipolar geopolitics over a bipolar one. Keep in mind that it was he who essentially argued that China must be recognized in order to blunt the USSR. Nixon thus became the one who opened China to the US, so that in theory the world was to be divided into the Russia pole; the China pole; the American/NATO pole, and the "Third World" pole. With a dash of Mahan added to the mix, all would be balanced and stable, or so Kissinger argued. Hmmmm, maybe not!

onebornfree , says: Website December 31, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT

"Chain chain chain, chain of fools"

Also, perhaps read "Hormegeddon" by the great Bill Bonner:

https://bonnerandpartners.com/prepare-for-hormegeddon/

Regards, onebornfree

http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

Anonymous [349] Disclaimer , says: December 31, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
@Miggle ext">

Are you for real? Have you looked at where these two respective areas are geographically? Hell, their borders aren't even adjacent.

As for China's interest in Tibet: what was once's part of the Empire will always be part of the Empire. Tibets been part of the empire twice now, first under Genghis' Yuan Dynasty and again during under the Qing. That simple fact means from now until the sun goes supernova, for China to be considered unified, Tibet must be a part of it. No ifs or buts.

That's not to mention the strategic considerations of occupying the high ground vis a vis the sub-continentals as well as the area being the source of several great rivers. You'd have to be a madman to give that kind of advantage up.

jilles dykstra , says: December 31, 2018 at 1:25 pm GMT
@Anon Ghandi was of the opinion that the people of India, forgot the number, 100 million or more ?, served 400.000 rich Britons.
The Roman empire, I'd say 1% rich, 99% poor.
The tsarist empire, not much better.
The German empire again the exception, nowhere else at the end of the 19th century were common people in comparable living conditions.
The EU empire, EP members tax free incomes of some € 200.000 a year, plus an extravagant pension system.
Verhofstadt, additional income, not tax free, of at least € 450.000 a year.
Declarations, Schulz has been accused of spending € 700.000 in a year, among other things he liked a glass of wine.
ThreeCranes , says: December 31, 2018 at 1:41 pm GMT

When it suits their purpose, writers on economics–I won't call them Economists–praise the tiger-like speed and agility with which Capitalism responds to the vagaries of pressures and demands that arise in world markets. But when they're engaging in public relations we get this:

"Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that " trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy ," .. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the world economy

which throw a protective cloak over a poor, picked-upon capitalism which is, apparently, incapable of getting out of its own way.

Patrick Armstrong , says: Website December 31, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT

Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin. No, there is no Russian cyberwar. Putin's aims are Russia's recovery from the disasters of communism (a road to a blind alley as he has called it) and defending Russia against NATO's expansion, colour revolutions and numerous false accusations.

Beijing is the place to look today for big strategic thinking.

SteveM , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
@Puzzled reasons would be the last. Because the Europeans would find of other sources and shut out Russia as being an unreliable business partner. Moreover, Russia is now the largest exporter of wheat and is developing export levels of production in soybeans and pork. You can't sell to countries that you have wrecked militarily.

It's the U.S., not Russia that is playing the 800 pound Global Cop Gorilla with its war-mongering, economic warfare and global subversion.

Like Puzzled, when I read that stupid, irrational line by Alfred McCoy, I simply stopped reading. Because nobody that dense about obvious geo-political reality deserves to be read.

Digital Samizdat , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT

Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin.

No kidding. This is what happens when you get your Russian news from the Times and the Beeb. I mean, if Dugin were such a Kremlin favorite, how could he have lost his job at Moscow State University? You'd think he could just pick up the phone, call 'Uncle Vova', and get his job back!

Of course Putin is a Eurasianist, but that's not because Dugin told him to be one. It's because every Russian ruler has been a Eurasianist for centuries now. Why? Just look at a map: Russia is located in Eurasia. Would we therefore expect the Russians to be Pan-Africanists or something else? Naturally they're going to be Eurasianists. They learned long ago that if they don't dominate Eurasia, somebody else will -- and that will cause security problems for Russia. I can't say I hold that against them. It's not as though the US would take kindly to some foreign empire coming on over to the Western Hemisphere and setting up shop, say, in Latin America. In fact, just consider how Washington reacted when the Soviets concluded an alliance with Cuba. There was no talk about the 'sovereignty of small nations' coming from the wallscreen then!

therevolutionwas , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
@joun

What financial shenanigans? And how has the US effectively funded China's rise? And how do tariffs destroy China ? (tariffs are like shooting yourself in the foot)

Reuben Kaspate , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Tibet is the Achilles Heel of China it's there where the over confident Middle Kingdom will die the death of a thousand paper cuts!

Reuben Kaspate , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:52 pm GMT
@Anon

Fertile land? Are you out of your freaking wits, Anon [275]? You can't grow shit in Mongolia!

Reuben Kaspate , says: December 31, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT

My prediction for 2019: America will remain the hyperpower for the next 81 years; thereafter, I couldn't give a schitt!

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 31, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
@therevolutionwas

Analysis of US investment in China would explain a lot. It is zero? I do not think so!!!!!!!!!

Unrepentant Conservative , says: December 31, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT

Beware of self-styled strategic thinkers attempting to revive flagging careers and gain influence.

Agent76 , says: December 31, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT

The cause for poverty is located at the Pentagon because they own the national debt! When if ever will the Joint Chiefs be put on trial for these treasonous Wars and lost trillions?

December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the *Pentagon* one of the *largest* landowners worldwide.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

Dec 21, 2013 Black Budget: US govt clueless about missing Pentagon $trillions

The Pentagon has secured a 630 billion dollar budget for next year, even though it's failed to even account for the money it's received since 1996. A whopping 8.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer cash have gone to defence programmes – none of which has been audited.

Sean , says: December 31, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova between other countries and with its own colonies. As the Dutch comparative advantage was frozen out, their military aggression declined with it. America sitting on its hands while China becomes a giant Hong Kong and countries all over Eurasia fall under its sway would by likely to lead to a very nasty war that America would loose and loose badly. It is better to try now to stop China growing that big and dangerous by declining to trade with them under conditions that will inevitably make them grow too large to fight. Will trade barriers to China work well enough? Probably not because they are past the lift off stage now (Carter did too good a job), but it is worth a try.
wayfarer , says: December 31, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT

There is opportunity for an American renaissance and really the only practical solution for its people – that is to swiftly and decidedly push its pathetic government aside – and begin rapidly re-educating, re-training, re-tooling, and re-building a next-generation manufacturing base.

The Next Manufacturing Revolution is Here

never-anonymous , says: December 31, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT

Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no threat. Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex.

jilles dykstra , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Sean ised an efficient military staff, efficient in planning. The Prussian army was the first to make extensive use of railways, first time after the French 1870 attack. Very capable people, Germans. Red Army use of railways even in 1941 was a mess.
The GB preparations for the occupation of neutral Norway in April 1940, also a mess.
Pity quoted book is in German and with gothic letters, Ludendorff shows with extensive map material how the Germans in WWI fought a two front, sometimes even three front war. Just possible through detailed transport planning.
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
Lin , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT
@joun

As I said before, rhetorics such as 'USG has effectively funded China's rise' are just over-exaggeration if not BS. Facts:
–Foreign investments only constitute a small % of Chinese domestic investment,
–The majority of foreign Investment in china are NOT from US.
–Total investment in China in recent years amount to $trillions per year

If one cares to examine the major industrial sectors in China , like hi-speed rail, steel, photovoltaic panels, electricity, energy,.. automobiles Only in the auto sector the americans have a sizable role because the yanks want market access.

5371 , says: December 31, 2018 at 6:52 pm GMT

Numerous historical howlers in this piece.

Ben Sampson , says: December 31, 2018 at 8:05 pm GMT

we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.

my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking for empires.

empires, traditional ones, are now altogether too costly, especially approaching their end. the world wont tolerate that anymore. the credit empire is working so far but the people have cottoned on to that. to end global banking power simply take over the banks, and recuse all debt for they were fraudulently accrued.

all banking will then by need be worker co-ops able to deal with all the financial services required by society..no conglomerates required

the capitalists will probably try a desperate military gambit to try maintain their empire but that wont work. they are already outgunned unless they decide to take the world down with them.

but I don't think we will have to worry about such trade 'grandmasters' farting around with the world for too much longer. the end of imperialism will make such work redundant

and if the democracy does not replace capitalism and the elite wins, it's a Brave New World we looking at. Brilliant geneticist bent on engineering humans. brilliant mind controllers, psychiatrists and such would be useful job qualifications to have, not trade specialist.

Brave New World also makes the trade 'genius' redundant

Agent76 , says: December 31, 2018 at 8:51 pm GMT

December 31, 2018 War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin addiction in the US.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-is-good-for-business-and-organized-crime-afghanistans-multibillion-dollar-opium-trade-rising-heroin-addiction-in-the-us/5664319

June 10, 2014 Drug War?

American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium. U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production

http://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-war-american-troops-are-protecting-afghan-opium-u-s-occupation-leads-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053

niceland , says: December 31, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT

It's always fun to read articles and history. This article was fun and perhaps thought provoking. But at least some parts of it make no sense to me.

Take for example the "heartland" theory. Yes it probably made sense over a century ago when strategist -always looking in the rear view mirror- judged the situation based on the Roman empire or Napoleons conquest. And their thoughts grounded in traditional territorial wars.

Today with nuclear weapons, fast long range missiles and in very different economic reality, I don't think the "Heartland" is the key to control the world, Eurasia, Europe or indeed anything else than possibly the "Heartland" it self. Control from the Heartland over nuclear France or the U.K?

Annexing small part of land on your own borders whose inhabitants overwhelmingly welcome you with open arms, like Russians did in Crimea, is totally different from conquering unwilling, hostile neighbors. The latter is extremely costly and difficult exercise with just about zero upside but gaping black hole on the downside. Remember Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam? So the former isn't indication of the latter!

I dont't see anything that supports the theory the Russians are playing by the book of the Heartland theory. In current political situation it's outlandish idea. Perhaps the idea is to paint Russia's leaders as lunatics?

Yes the Russians are probably engaged in cyber-war. They seem to have the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg – as reported by European media it's amateur operation costing perhaps few million dollars per year with 80 people from the unemployment list's hammering on laptops working shifts creating and nurturing social media accounts. No experts in politics or advanced computing in sight, no supercomputers, artificial intelligence. Like I said, amateur operation hardly indicating state-sponsored efforts.

Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S. European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating.

The press? R.T and few other outlets versus the western MSM who has in recent years acted like a pack of rabid dogs against Russia. Investigative journalism into international affairs is replaced by publishing official statements and "analysis" from "experts". This is war propaganda – nothing less. And the Russians are playing desperate defense most days.

This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum.

Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting back with horrible consequences for world peace.

Happy new year everyone!

JLK , says: December 31, 2018 at 9:54 pm GMT

It was a nice history essay, but there isn't much of a logical relationship between Mahan, Haushofer, et al. and the present trade confrontation.

Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further:

Navarro tells Wall Street 'globalist billionaires' to end 'shuttle diplomacy' in U.S.-China trade war

It seems the New York banks would gladly trade the SV engineering jobs for a bigger share of the China banking business, a la the Cleveland and Detroit auto industry jobs of the past.

A possible break with Britain is something even bigger to watch, as their involvement in China is even more finance-related.

JLK , says: December 31, 2018 at 11:11 pm GMT
@Anon ng, which far exceeded direct investments into China by any other country.

If we take a look at the Santander report on Hong Kong FDI, most of it seems to come from the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands (both offshore banking locations, with the funds coming from who knows where) and the UK.

https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/hong-kong/foreign-investment

[Dec 31, 2018] If some in the Dutch government were part of the possible MH17 conspiracy, for me it is possible, would explain unexplained facts, but if they were, w'll never know.

Dec 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra says: Next New Comment December 29, 2018 at 8:17 am GMT 200 Words

... ... ...

When governments perpetrate crimes, very seldom these crimes are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If some in the Dutch government were part of the possible MH17 conspiracy, for me it is possible, would explain unexplained facts, but if they were, w'll never know.

[Dec 31, 2018] Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel.

Notable quotes:
"... Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex. ..."
Dec 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

never-anonymous , says: December 31, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT

Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no threat.

Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex.

[Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

Highly recommended!
Dec 30, 2018 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.

And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was without substance, if not a joke.

Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.

One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.

In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video. And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.

But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.

This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.

We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to money and power.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2HBA3Zm3dGM

And here is a bit more from Nate Silver --

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SETw5GLF8mU

[Dec 30, 2018] Federal Grand Jury to Hear Evidence of World Trade Center Demolition

Dec 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

JethroBodien , 9 minutes ago

Spread the word folks. The most important issue of our generation

Federal Grand Jury to Hear Evidence of World Trade Center Demolition
https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury/

benb , 4 minutes ago

Exposing 9/11 is the key. This whole stinking National Security Police State is fueled by the 9/11 fraud.

[Dec 29, 2018] After Syria, Trump Should Clean Out His National Security Bureaucracy by DOUG BANDOW

In any case this was a positive step by Trump. Which was done after several disastrous, typical neocon style actions.
Notable quotes:
"... Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of ..."
"... "Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that he's a full-blown neocon ..."
"... If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes. Personnel is policy, as they say. ..."
"... Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to absorb the overseas demobilized. ..."
"... Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration. ..."
"... "Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump. It's an iron law." ..."
"... You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? ..."
"... Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never mind. ..."
"... I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the last two days his approval rating has not been improved." ..."
"... Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he depends on his campaign donations. ..."
"... To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that). ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

After Syria, Trump Should Clean Out His National Security Bureaucracy They're undermining his positions and pursuing their own agendas. John Bolton should be the first to go.

President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Right on cue, official Washington had a collective mental breakdown. Neocons committed to war, progressives targeting Trump, and centrists determined to dominate the world unleashed an orgy of shrieking and caterwauling. The horrifying collective scream, a la artist Edvard Munch, continued for days.

Trump's decision should have surprised no one. As a candidate, he shocked the Republican Party establishment by criticizing George W. Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq and urging a quick exit from Afghanistan. As president, he inflamed the bipartisan War Party's fears by denouncing America's costly alliances with wealthy industrialized states. And to almost everyone's consternation, he said he wanted U.S. personnel out of Syria. Once the Islamic State was defeated, he explained, Americans should come home.

How shocking. How naïve. How outrageous.

The president's own appointees, the "adult" foreign policy advisors he surrounded himself with, disagreed with him on almost all of this -- not just micromanaging the Middle East, but subsidizing Europeans in NATO, underwriting South Korea, and negotiating with North Korea. His aides played him at every turn, adding allies, sending more men and materiel to defend foreign states, and expanding commitments in the Middle East.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-31/html/container.html

Last spring, the president talked of leaving Syria "very soon." But the American military stayed. Indeed, three months ago, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced an entirely new mission: "We're not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies and militias."

That was chutzpah on a breathtaking scale. It meant effectively that the U.S. was entitled to invade and dismember nations, back aggressive wars begun by others, and scatter bases and deployments around the world. Since Damascus and Tehran have no reason to stop cooperating -- indeed, America's presence makes outside support even more important for the Assad regime -- Bolton was effectively planning a permanent presence, one that could bring American forces into contact with Russian, Syrian, and Turkish forces, as well as Iranians. As the Assad government consolidates its victory in the civil war, it inevitably will push into Kurdish territories in the north. That would have forced the small American garrison there to either yield ground or become a formal combatant in another Middle Eastern civil war.

The latter could have turned into a major confrontation. Damascus is backed by Russia and might be supported by Ankara, which would prefer to see the border controlled by Syrian than Kurdish forces. Moreover, the Kurds, under threat from Turkey, are not likely to divert forces to contain Iranians moving with the permission of the Damascus government. Better to cut a deal with Assad that minimizes the Turks than be Washington's catspaw.

The Pentagon initially appeared reluctant to accept this new objective. At the time, Brigadier General Scott Benedict told the House Armed Services Committee: "In Syria, our role is to defeat ISIS. That's it." However, the State Department envoy on Syria, Jim Jeffrey, began adding Iran to his sales pitch. So did Brian Hook, State's representative handling the undeclared diplomatic war on Iran, who said the goal was "to remove all forces under Iranian control from Syria."

Washington Melts Down Over Trump's Syria Withdrawal Mattis Marks the End of the Global War on Terror

Apparently this direct insubordination came to a head in a phone call between President Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "Why are you still there?" the latter asked Trump, who turned to Bolton. The national security advisor was on the call, but could offer no satisfactory explanation.

Perhaps at that moment, the president realized that only a direct order could enforce his policy. Otherwise his staffers would continue to pursue their militaristic ends. That determination apparently triggered the long-expected resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who deserves respect but was a charter member of the hawkish cabal around the president. He dissented from them only on ending the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Still in place is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who so far has proven to be a bit more malleable though still hostile to the president's agenda. He is an inveterate hawk, including toward Tehran, which he insists must surrender to both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as part of any negotiation. He's adopted the anti-Iran agenda in Syria as his own. His department offered no new approach to Russia over Ukraine, instead steadily increasing sanctions, without effect, on Moscow. At least Pompeo attempted to pursue discussions with North Korea, though he was certainly reluctant about it.

Most dangerous is Bolton. He publicly advocated war with both Iran and North Korea before his appointment, and his strategy in Syria risked conflict with several nations. He's demonstrated that he has no compunctions about defying the president, crafting policies that contradict the latter's directives. Indeed, Bolton is well-positioned to undermine even obvious successes, such as the peaceful opening with North Korea.

Supporting appointments to State and the National Security Council have been equally problematic. Candidate Trump criticized the bipartisan War Party, thereby appealing to heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been dying in endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars. Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors. With virtually no aides around him who believe in his policies or were even willing to implement them, he looked like a George Bush/Barack Obama retread. The only certainty, beyond his stream of dramatic tweets, appeared to be that Americans would continue dying in wars throughout his presidency.

However, Trump took charge when he insisted on holding the summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Now U.S. forces are set to come home from Syria, and it appears that he may reduce or even eliminate the garrison in Afghanistan, where Americans have been fighting for more than 17 years. Perhaps he also will reconsider U.S. support for the Saudis and Emiratis in Yemen.

Trump should use Secretary Mattis's departure as an opportunity to refashion his national security team. Who is to succeed Mattis at the Pentagon? Deputy Secretary Patrick Shanahan appears to have the inside track. But former Navy secretary and senator Jim Webb deserves consideration. Or perhaps it's time for a second round for former senator Chuck Hagel, who opposed the Gulf war and backed dialog with Iran. Defense needs someone willing to challenge the Pentagon's thinking and practices. Best would be a civilian who won't be captured by the bureaucracy, one who understands that he or she faces a tough fight against advocates of perpetual war.

Next to go should be Bolton. There are many potential replacements who believe in a more restrained role for America. One who has been mentioned as a potential national security advisor in the past is retired Army colonel and respected security analyst Douglas Macgregor.

Equally important, though somewhat less urgent, is finding a new secretary of state. Although Pompeo has not so ostentatiously undermined his boss, he appears to oppose every effort by the president to end a war, drop a security commitment, or ease a conflict. Pompeo's enthusiasm for negotiation with Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin is clearly lagging. While the secretary might not engage in open sabotage, his determination to take a confrontational approach everywhere except when explicitly ordered to do otherwise badly undermines Trump's policies.

Who to appoint? Perhaps Tennessee's John Duncan, the last Republican congressman who opposed the Iraq war and who retired this year after decades of patriotic service. There are a handful of active legislators who could serve with distinction as well, though their departures would be a significant loss on Capitol Hill: Senator Rand Paul and Representatives Justin Amash and Walter Jones, for instance.

Once the top officials have been replaced, the process should continue downwards. Those appointed don't need to be thoroughgoing Trumpists, of whom there are few. Rather, the president needs people generally supportive of his vision of a less embattled and entangled America: subordinates, not insubordinates. Then he will be less likely to find himself in embarrassing positions where his appointees create their own aggressive policies contrary to his expressed desires.

Trump has finally insisted on being Trump, but Syria must only be the start. He needs to fill his administration with allies, not adversaries. Only then will his "America First" policy actually put America first.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

Clyde Schechter , December 26, 2018 at 11:47 pm

After two years in office, I am utterly flabbergasted that there are still people out there who take seriously the notion that Trump wants to extricate us from our wars around the globe and refrain from starting new ones. Virtually every foreign policy decision he has made has been contrary to that.

Finally, for once, he decides to pull out of Syria (a mere few weeks after he announced we would stay there indefinitely) and somehow this one, as yet unimplemented decision represents "Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that he's a full-blown neocon . Maybe I'll rescind the "full-blown" part of that judgment if he actually does withdraw from Syria. But it would still be a pretty tiny exception to his thoroughly neocon actions up to this point.

If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes. Personnel is policy, as they say. And you'd have have spent the last two decades in a coma living on another planet not to know that Bolton is the biggest warmonger around. He makes most of the neocons look like pacifists by comparison. Even the people who think Trump a complete idiot can't really imagine that Trump didn't know what he was getting when he hired Bolton.

Let's get real here. It'll be great if he withdraws from Syria. It'd be even better if he replaces his national security team along the lines suggested in this article. But don't hold your breath. It would go against nearly everything he has done since taking office.

It's time to come to grips with the non-existence of the tooth fairy.

Fran Macadam , , December 27, 2018 at 6:26 am

"heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been dying in endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars."

Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to absorb the overseas demobilized.

The downside of this, therefore, is it may only be redirection and consolidation, to be able to concentrate forces on Iran instead. The budget's not getting any smaller, so there's got to be compensatory warmaking somewhere.

Trump got one right , , December 27, 2018 at 8:21 am

Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration.

Mark Thomason , , December 27, 2018 at 9:35 am

"Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors."

In fairness to Trump, there just was nobody else. He had nobody lined up to be an administration that believed what he did. Republicans were all hawks. Democrats wouldn't think of helping, and were also all hawks anyway.

Trump's first effort to break out of that with second or third-line people went bust with the likes of Gen. Flynn, and he was left with going back to the very people he'd defeated.

Fred Bowman , , December 27, 2018 at 9:43 am

At this point in time I don't think Trump will be able to win a second term, such is the chaos he's brought about to his Presidency. So that leaves to question which of the men you have suggested to help lead Trump to a less warlike America would choose to serve? Perhaps first, we need an "Adult" as POTUS and maybe then, we can get "men of wisdom" who can help America get out of it's "Military Misadventures" in the Middle East.

pax , , December 27, 2018 at 9:57 am

There is no problem replacing someone who should never have been tapped in the first place. John Bolton. Never too soon to right a wrong. Get rid of neocon Bolton and his types now. Not later. He marches to another drummer not to USA interests. I doubt Trump can even beat Kamila Harris (darling of the illiberal left) in 2020 if he keeps Bolton and Co. around.

Steve Naidamast , , December 27, 2018 at 10:52 am

I wouldn't get overly excited about this. Trump has habitually initiated all levels of chaos throughout his incompetent administration. This is nothing new but more of the same. If anyone believes Trump actually found his brain, they are smoking something

CLW , , December 27, 2018 at 12:19 pm

What a joke. Trump has no "foreign policy vision," just a series of boisterous, bellicose talking points that to his isolationist base and his own desire to be the strongman.

Kurt Gayle , , December 27, 2018 at 12:48 pm

sglover says (Dec 27, 12:12 am):

"Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump. It's an iron law."

However, just 6 days ago sglover said on another thread ("Washington Melts Down Over Trump's Syria Withdrawal" -- Dec 21, 3:26 pm):

"I despise Trump, but if he's managed to stumble on doing something sensible, and actually does it (never a certainty with the casino swindler) -- great! There's no sane reason for us to muck about in Syria. However it comes about, we should welcome a withdrawal there. If the move gives Trump some of the approval that he plainly craves, maybe he'll repeat the performance and end our purposeless wallow in Afghanistan. It doesn't say anything good about the nominal opposition party, the Dems, that half or more of them -- and apparently *all* of their dinosaur 'leadership' -- can't stifle the kneejerking and let him do it. Of course many of them are "troubled" because their Israeli & Saudi owners, er, 'donors' expect it. But some of them seem to have developed a sudden deep attachment to 'our mission in Syria' for no better reason than, Trump is for it, therefore I must shout against it. And then, of course, there's the Russia hysteria. Oh yeah, what a huge win for Moscow if it scores the 'prize' of occupying Syria! If that's Putin's idea of a big score, how exactly does it harm any American to let him have it? I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever be capable of doing anything other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?"

FL Transplant , , December 27, 2018 at 1:24 pm

The problem with they article begins with it's first sentence "President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs " I can't find any core foreign policy beliefs. What I have seen is a mosh-mosh of sound bites that resound well with his audiences at rallies, and various people attempt to link those together and fill in the white space between with what they WANT his foreign policy beliefs to be. But to go so far as to say he has any consistent beliefs that combine to form a foreign policy is going way too far.

DeusIrae , , December 27, 2018 at 1:47 pm

Replace Bolton with Mike Flynn after all charges are dropped against him. Then have Robert Mueller et al. arrested to be tried and put to death for High Treason. Then liberate Britain, Bomb the Vatican, and put a naval blockade on China.

Bruceb , , December 27, 2018 at 2:21 pm

You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? I'd look for it at the top of Trump Tower. Certainly not in the pockets of ordinary citizens.

Shawn F , , December 27, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Hmm This article makes it seem like there's these renegades who have somehow held onto power and are charting America's course on their own. But doesn't the President hand pick the members of his cabinet? Wasn't every single one of them given their authority *by Donald Trump*?

Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never mind.

Jeeves , , December 27, 2018 at 3:13 pm

We have a "peaceful opening" with North Korea? How many months ago did Mr. Bandow last read about the NoKos counter-proposal to unconditional nuclear disarmament? And what about all the Trump saber-rattling that preceded this so-called opening? If Trump was "played" by his own advisers on Afghanistan, he was equally duped by the mirage offered by Kim.

WRW , , December 27, 2018 at 3:22 pm

Trump had no lofty notions underpinning this decision. He did it in an impetuous, chaotic manner in which he obtained nothing in return from Russia or Turkey or Iran to address our broader strategic interest in the region, such as ending the war in Yemen. Like everything he does, it reeks of corruption and no doubt will be added to Muellers investigation.

Contrary to Bandows libertarian take, it is an expression of Trumps imperial presidency. The Syrian involvement has strong bipartisan support even if lacking a resolution in support (and the Libertarian Sen. Paul never got anywhere with a resolution against.) Leaving Syria was the correct long term strategic decision.

I'm sure 99% of democrats in Congress supported the action. Only trump, with his narcissistic incompetence could take an action that his opponents would overwhelmingly support if done in a credible manner and turn it into controversy. Trump looks like the servant of Russians and Turks in his conduct. Jan 2021 can't come soon enough.

The Other Sands , , December 27, 2018 at 4:32 pm

I find it interesting that so many people (the author apparently included) are still so slow to understand that Trump can't afford to get rid of people, because he literally can't find new cabinet members.

He started with mostly C-listers, and most of them are gone. He is on to hiring TV hosts, bloggers, professional political grifters, his family, or just being stuck with straight-up vacant posts.

Only the worst sorts would voluntarily work for such an angry, undisciplined, chaotic boss in the smoking shambles of an organization like this administration.

You just go ahead and ask Chuck Hagel if he would join this train wreck.

Hideo Watanabe , , December 27, 2018 at 9:19 pm

I blogged on December 22 when I read a similar article like this;

"Every time I read such article as this about Mr. Trump's decisions of any sort, I always wonder if the authors believe that he has solid political philosophy or consolidated policy agenda.

I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the last two days his approval rating has not been improved."

Mr. Trump seems to have delivered a speech in Iraq saying that the withdrawal from Syria would not give any adverse effect on Israel security because the US government gives more than $45 billion every year according to a local newspaper of Middle East.

This is another tactic to appeal to AIPAC to make sure his own security for 2020 candidacy, isn't it?

usmc0846 , , December 27, 2018 at 9:52 pm

First 2000 troops is not much more than a reinforced battalion the USMC shuffles that many warriors and more around the Mediterranean every six months. I think the issue with Trump is, as it's always been, his gut seat of his pants way of handling virtually everything he does. There's no control or consideration apparent in any action other than to pitch chum at his largely illiterate followers.

In this case he's handed a huge victory to Putin (my my what a surprise that is) and essentially screwed the Kurds. If nothing else those 2000 troops were at least keeping a cap on things to some small degree. That's out the door now and I can't help but think that ISIS (aka the enemy here) will have a vote on what happens next.

Trump Voter , , December 27, 2018 at 10:43 pm

"President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. "

Too hopeful, at this point, I think. But I hope so, too.

Cloak And Dagger , , December 27, 2018 at 11:27 pm

Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he depends on his campaign donations. What makes anyone think that the situation has changed in such a way as to permit Trump more autonomy in his choice of his cabinet?

NEexpert , , December 28, 2018 at 1:54 am

"Or perhaps it's time for a second round for former senator Chuck Hagel, who opposed the Gulf war and backed dialog with Iran."

I think it is an excellent idea to bring back Senator Hagel. He is a man of integrity. But most importantly, he hasn't sold out his soul to Israel.

SteveK9 , , December 28, 2018 at 12:00 pm

To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that).

What is mysterious is the following from the article:

'Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors. With virtually no aides around him who believe in his policies or were even willing to implement them, he looked like a George Bush/Barack Obama retread.'

Why he does this, I don't know.

Pulling out of Syria will be a good thing for everyone. The reason is largely nonsense, as it was Russia/Syria that destroyed Isis (we did manage to destroy another city, Raqqa), but I don't care, and neither will the American Public, who understand nothing of Syria.

The Kurds will make an arrangement for limited autonomy with Damascus (already happening as they just asked for protection from Turkey in Manbij). Turkey will not invade Syria as long as they feel Damascus can control the border. Syria, Russia, and maybe even the Kurds will wipe out the last of Isis and those militants in Idlib that would rather die than give up the fight (the fanatics), will be killed.

Then, the reconstruction of Syria can begin in earnest, and it is to be hoped that the Chinese will get off their butt and provide some assistance.

Israel is probably unhappy, which pleases me no end, and I hope this is an indication that there is some limit to the number of people we are willing to murder on their behalf.

Guy St Hilaire , , December 28, 2018 at 2:55 pm

@ NEexpert.Integrity is a quality severely lacking in many politicians in the US.Not being American , but watching closely, if Senator hagel is such a man , it would do American politics much good ,not only for the US but the US standing in the world .Gods speed in chnaging the likes of Bolton and Pompeo to begin with.

sglover , , December 28, 2018 at 5:03 pm

@ Kurt Gayle -- I don't think you'll find any contradiction between my two remarks.

All I'm saying is that in all the ways that really matter the sudden "withdrawal" from Syria is already shaping up to be a typical Trump bait-and-switch. Sure, troops won't be bivouacing in Syria. Instead, they'll be stationed next door in Iraq, so they can continue to muck around in Syria. And Trump emphasized that as far as he's concerned we'll be staying in Iraq.

(Of course, that "strategic doctrine" is only valid until his next Fox media wallow in front of the idiot box. I.e., maybe until tomorrow afternoon)

[Dec 29, 2018] The problem is in 2008 unlike 1933 large sections of the electorate just wanted more Republican economics to "deal" with the aftermath

Politically Obama was a "despicable coward", or worse, a marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... A 50 state strategy, or no 50 state strategy, it really doesn't matter. Democrats were going to take losses. The key is, making sure the party is unified enough to run public policy courses. ..."
"... Your points make little sense in the face of what people wanted in 2016 that Obama could have delivered without interference from the Republicans. Things like anti-trust enforcement, SEC enforcement aka jailing the banksters, not going into Syria, not supporting the war in Yemen (remember he did both of those on his own without Congress), not making the Bush tax cuts permanent, not staying silent on union issues and actually wearing those oft mentioned comfortable shoes while walking a picket line, the list of what could have been done and that people supported goes on and on. None of which required approval from Congress. ..."
"... And speaking of the ACA, we know that Obama and others did whatever they could to kill single payer and replace it with Romneycare 1.5. The language in the bill and the controversy surrounding it show that no one thought this would give them a short term political advantage. If anything, the run up to the vote finally made enough citizens realize that they didn't hate government insurance, they just hated insurance. And here were the Democrats and Obama, forcing people to buy expensive insurance. ..."
"... He had a mandate for change. He had a majorities in both houses. He had the perfect bully pulpit. He chose not to use any of it. He and others killed the support for local parties. The Democrats needed the JFA with Hillary because Obama had pretty much bankrupted the party in 2012. A commitment to all 50 states would have been huge and would have helped Hillary get on the ground where she needed to shore up support by a few thousand votes. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats took losses from 2008 on because they promised to do what their constituents voted them in to do and then decided not to do it. ..."
"... People don't have Republican fatigue. They don't have Democrat fatigue. They simply don't see the point in voting for people who won't do what they're voted in to do. ..."
"... The citizens of this country want change. They want higher wages and lower prices. They want less war. They want less government interference. They want their kids to grow up with more opportunities than they did. ..."
Dec 29, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Health Care

"Democratic left playing a long game to get 'Medicare for All'" [Bloomberg Law]. "'We don't have the support that we need,' said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who will co-chair the Progressive Caucus. She said that she'd favor modest expansions of Medicare or Medicaid eligibility as a step toward Medicare for All. 'I am a big bold thinker; I'm also a good practical strategist,' Jayapal said.

'It's why the Medicare for All Caucus was started, because we want to get information to our members so people feel comfortable talking about the attacks we know are going to come.'" • So many Democrat McClellans; so few Democrat Grants.

"Progressives set to push their agenda in Congress and on the campaign trail. The GOP can't wait." [NBC]. "While the party has moved left on health care, many Democrats seem more comfortable offering an option to buy into Medicare or a similar public plan rather than creating one single-payer plan that replaces private insurance and covers everyone. Progressives, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and her Medicare For All PAC, plan to whip up support for the maximalist version and advance legislation in 2019." • The "maximalist version" is exactly what Jayapal herself, quoted by Bloomberg, says she will not seek. Not sure whether this is Democrat cynicism, sloppy Democrat messaging, or poor reporting. Or all three!

Nick Stokes , December 27, 2018 at 3:45 pm

The problem is unlike 1933 large sections of the electorate just wanted more Republican economics to "deal" with the aftermath. That is the difference between a moderate recession(historically) and a collapse like the early 1930's had when the British Empire and the de Rothschild dynasty finally collapsed.

40% didn't want anything the Obama Administration came up with succeed. 40% wanted more than they could possible politically come up with and that left 20% to actually get something done. You see why the Democrats had to take losses.

Even if Health Care, which was controversial in the party was nixed for more "stimulus", Democrats look weak. Politically, Stimulus wasn't that popular and "fiscal deficit" whiners were going to whine and there are a lot of them.

Naked Capitalism ignores this reality instead, looking for esoteric fantasy. I would argue Democrats in 2009-10 looked for short term political gain by going with Health Care reform instead of slowly explaining the advantage of building public assets via stimulus, because the party was to split on Health Care to create a package that would satisfy enough people.

Similar the Republican party, since Reagan had done the opposite, took short term political gain in 2016, which was a mistake, due to their Clinton hatred.

Which is now backfiring and the business cycle is not in a kind spot going forward, which we knew was likely in 2016.

So not only does "Republican fatigue" hurt in 2018, your on the political defensive for the next cycle. Short-termism in politics is death.

A 50 state strategy, or no 50 state strategy, it really doesn't matter. Democrats were going to take losses. The key is, making sure the party is unified enough to run public policy courses.

Chris , December 27, 2018 at 7:13 pm

Mr. Stokes (or David Brock I presume?),

I truly don't understand your point of view. I also don't understand your claim that NC deals in fantasy.

Your points make little sense in the face of what people wanted in 2016 that Obama could have delivered without interference from the Republicans. Things like anti-trust enforcement, SEC enforcement aka jailing the banksters, not going into Syria, not supporting the war in Yemen (remember he did both of those on his own without Congress), not making the Bush tax cuts permanent, not staying silent on union issues and actually wearing those oft mentioned comfortable shoes while walking a picket line, the list of what could have been done and that people supported goes on and on. None of which required approval from Congress.

There's even the bland procedural tactic of delaying the release of the Obamacare exchange premium price increases until after the election in 2016. He could have delayed that notice several months and saved Hillary a world of hurt at the polls. But he chose not to use the administrative tools at his disposal in that case. He also could have seen the writing on the wall with the multiple shut down threats and gotten ahead of it by asking Congress that if you are deemed an essential employee you will continue to be paid regardless of whether your department is funded during a shutdown. With 80% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck that would have been a huge deal.

And speaking of the ACA, we know that Obama and others did whatever they could to kill single payer and replace it with Romneycare 1.5. The language in the bill and the controversy surrounding it show that no one thought this would give them a short term political advantage. If anything, the run up to the vote finally made enough citizens realize that they didn't hate government insurance, they just hated insurance. And here were the Democrats and Obama, forcing people to buy expensive insurance.

Obama took a huge organization that could have helped him barnstorm the country (OFA) just like what Bernie is doing now and killed it early in his first term. He had a mandate for change. He had a majorities in both houses. He had the perfect bully pulpit. He chose not to use any of it. He and others killed the support for local parties. The Democrats needed the JFA with Hillary because Obama had pretty much bankrupted the party in 2012. A commitment to all 50 states would have been huge and would have helped Hillary get on the ground where she needed to shore up support by a few thousand votes.

Obama and the Democrats took losses from 2008 on because they promised to do what their constituents voted them in to do and then decided not to do it. By the time 2016 rolled around, there were estimates which placed 90% of the counties in the US as not having recovered from the disaster in 2007. Hillary ran on radical incrementalism aka the status quo. Who in their right mind could have supported the status quo in 2016?

The Democrats lost seats at all levels of government because of their own incompetence, because of their cowardice, because of their lazy assumptions that people had nowhere else to go. So when record numbers of people didn't vote they lost by slim margins in states long considered True Blue. There is nothing cyclical about any of that.

People don't have Republican fatigue. They don't have Democrat fatigue. They simply don't see the point in voting for people who won't do what they're voted in to do.

The citizens of this country want change. They want higher wages and lower prices. They want less war. They want less government interference. They want their kids to grow up with more opportunities than they did.

Obama and Hillary and all the rest of the Democrats stalking MSM cameras could have delivered on some of that but chose not to. And here we are. With President Trump. And even his broken clock gets something right twice a day, whereas Team Blue has a 50/50 chance of making the right decision and chooses wrong everytime.

Please provide better examples of your points if you truly want to defend your argument.

Carey , December 27, 2018 at 8:45 pm

What an outstandingly comprehensive recent history of
Our dismal-by-design Democrats.

My hat is off to you, Sir.

Expat2uruguay , December 28, 2018 at 7:44 am

And, that often mentioned reason for voting for Democrats, the Supreme Court. Neither Obama nor the Democrats fought for their opportunity to put their person on the Supreme Court. Because of norms I guess. Which actually makes some sense because it broke norms. Because they simply don't care

WJ , December 28, 2018 at 11:37 am

+100000

Chris , December 27, 2018 at 7:21 pm

I truly don't understand why you think any of that. Most mystifying is your claim that anyone thought ACA would provide short term political benefit?

You know how Obamacare could have given Hillary a short term political gain? If Obama had directed HHS to delay releasing any premium increase notices until after the election.

Otherwise, you'd have to support your argument a lot better. NC has the least fantastical commentary base of any website I've seen.

Yves Smith , December 27, 2018 at 8:09 pm

This is complete and utter nonsense. Your calling depicting NC as "fantasy" is a textbook example of projection on your part.

The country was terrified and demoralized when Obama took office. Go read the press in December 2008 and January 2009, since your memory is poor. He not only had window of opportunity to do an updated 100 days, the country would have welcomed. But he ignored it and the moment passed.

Obama pushed heath care because that was what he had campaigned on and had a personal interest in it. He had no interest in banking and finance and was happy to let Geither run that show.

As for stimulus, bullshit. Trump increased deficit spending with his tax cuts and no one cares much if at all. The concern re deficit spending was due to the fact that the Obama economic team was the Clinton (as in Bob Rubin) economics team, which fetishized balanced budgets or even worse, surpluses. We have explained long form that that stance was directly responsible for the rapid increase in unproductive household debt, most of all mortgage debt, which produced the crisis.

We discussed it long form in 2010:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/03/the-empire-continues-to-strike-back-team-obama-propaganda-campaign-reaches-fever-pitch.html

Better trolls, please.

[Dec 29, 2018] NATO Partisans Started a New Cold War With Russia -

Highly recommended!
Dec 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

When historians examine the first few decades of the so-called post-Cold War era, they are likely to marvel at the clumsy and provocative policies that the United States and its NATO allies pursued toward Russia. Perceptive historians will conclude that a multitude of insensitive actions by those governments poisoned relations with Moscow, and by the latter years of the Obama administration, led to the onset of a new cold war. During the Trump administration, matters grew even worse, and that cold war threatened to turn hot.

Since the history of our era is still being written, we have an opportunity to avoid such a cataclysmic outcome. However, the behavior of America's political, policy, and media elites in response to the latest parochial quarrel between Russia and Ukraine regarding the Kerch Strait suggests that they learned nothing from their previous blunders. Worse, they seem determined to intensify an already counterproductive, hardline policy toward Moscow.

U.S. leaders managed to get relations with Russia wrong just a few years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. One of the few officials to capture the nature of the West's bungling and how it fomented tensions was Robert Gates, who served as secretary of defense during the final years of George W. Bush's administration and the first years of Barack Obama's. In his surprisingly candid memoirs , Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , Gates recalls his report to Bush following the 2007 Munich Security Council, at which Russian President Vladimir Putin vented about Western security transgressions, including the planned deployment of a missile defense system in Central Europe.

"When I reported to the president my take on the Munich conference, I shared my belief that from 1993 onward, the West, and particularly the United States, had badly underestimated the magnitude of the Russian humiliation in losing the Cold War . . . ." Yet even that blunt assessment given to Bush did not fully capture Gates's views on the issue. "What I didn't tell the president was that I believed the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George H. W.] Bush left office in 1993. Getting Gorbachev to acquiesce to a unified Germany as a member of NATO had been a huge accomplishment. But moving so quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union to incorporate so many of its formerly subjugated states into NATO was a mistake."

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-31/html/container.html

Specific U.S. actions were ill-considered as well, in Gates's view. "U.S. agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation."

His list of foolish or arrogant Western actions went on. Citing NATO's military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo during Bill Clinton's administration, Gates noted that "the Russians had long historical ties with Serbia, which we largely ignored." And in an implicit rebuke to his current boss, Gates asserted that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching." That move was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests." Indeed, events regarding Ukraine after Gates completed his memoirs illustrated that U.S. arrogance and meddling knew few bounds. U.S. officials openly sided with demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian government, and then reacted with shock and anger when Russia retaliated by seizing and annexing Crimea.

Gates's overall assessment of Western, especially U.S., policy toward Russia during the post-Cold War era was unsparingly harsh -- and devastatingly accurate: "When Russia was weak in the 1990s and beyond, we did not take Russian interests seriously. We did a poor job of seeing the world from their point of view and managing the relationship for the long term." Unfortunately, Gates was one of the rare anomalies in the American foreign policy community regarding policy toward Russia.

His criticism, trenchant as it is, still understates the folly of the policies that the United States and its NATO allies have pursued toward Moscow. The treatment that three successive U.S. administrations meted out to a newly capitalist, democratic Russia was appalling myopic. Even before Vladimir Putin came to power -- and long before Russia descended into being an illiberal democracy and then an outright authoritarian state -- the Western powers treated the country as a de facto enemy. The NATO nations engaged in a series of provocations even though Moscow had engaged in no aggressive conduct that even arguably justified such actions.

When Washington Assured Russia NATO Would Not Expand Making Sure the Next Cold War Never Happens

The determination to confront Russia has only grown over the years, as the current tensions involving the Kerch Strait illustrate. When Russian security forces fired on three Ukrainian naval vessels that attempted to force a transit of the Kerch Strait (a narrow waterway between Russia's Taman Peninsula and Russian-annexed Crimea that connects the Black Sea and Sea of Azov), the United States and its NATO allies reacted furiously. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley branded Russia's conduct " outlaw actions ."

An array of U.S. lawmakers and pundits advocate highly provocative steps in response. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged an increase in U.S. arms sales to Ukraine, asserting, "If Putin starts seeing Russian soldier fatalities, that changes his equation."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) threatened new sanctions on Russia and called for a coordinated response between the United States and its European allies. "If Putin continues his Black Sea bullying," Inhofe stated, "the United States and Europe must consider imposing additional sanctions on Russia, inserting a greater U.S. and NATO presence in the Black Sea region and increasing military assistance for Ukraine."

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) echoed those views. Menendez called for tougher sanctions, additional NATO exercises on the Black Sea and more U.S. security aid to Ukraine, "including lethal maritime equipment and weapons." Some hawks even seem receptive to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko's call on NATO to station warships in the Sea of Azov, even though such a step would likely lead to a shooting war between the West and Russia.

Far too many Western (especially American) analyses explicitly or implicitly act as though the United States and its NATO allies worked assiduously to establish cordial relations with Russia but were compelled to adopt hardline policies solely because of Russia's perversely aggressive conduct. That is a distorted, self-serving portrayal on the part of NATO partisans. It falsely portrays the West as purely a reactive player -- that NATO initiatives were never insensitive, provocative, or aggressive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the opposite is closer to the mark; Russia's actions, both in terms of timing and virulence, tended to be responses to aggressive Western initiatives. Unfortunately, avid NATO supporters seem determined to double down, insisting that the Trump administration adopt even more uncompromising policies.

Contending that Moscow is to blame for the deterioration of East-West relations because of its military actions in Georgia and Ukraine, as U.S. opinion leaders tend to do, is especially inaccurate. The problems began much earlier than the events in 2008 and 2014. The West humiliated a defeated adversary that showed every sign of wanting to become part of a broader Western community. Expanding NATO and trampling on Russian interests in the Balkans were momentous early measures that torpedoed friendly relations.

Such policy myopia was reminiscent of how the victorious Allies inflicted harsh treatment on a defeated, newly democratic Weimar Germany after World War I. The NATO powers are treating Russia as an enemy, and there is now a serious danger that the country is turning into one. That development would be an especially tragic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at , is the author of 12 books and more than 750 articles on international affairs. His latest book is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements (forthcoming, February 2019).

Clyde Schechter December 26, 2018 at 10:57 pm

The reason "we did a poor job of seeing the world from their point of view and managing the relationship for the long term" is because we are arrogant and prone to meddling. It's called American Exceptionalism, also known as American Imperialism. The future looks grim, and, in my view, the current Cold War with Russia feels a lot more dangerous than the original one because our leaders have upped the belligerence by orders of magnitude. At least in the original Cold War the objective was merely containment of Communism. Our current leaders want nothing short of global domination.

Fran Macadam , , December 27, 2018 at 6:13 am

We are taking over, and anyone who resists is an aggressor.

It works until it doesn't.

peter mcloughlin , , December 27, 2018 at 9:58 am

Another very insightful piece by Ted Galen Carpenter, and one that illustrates the importance of seeing the other's point of view. Victors always see a settlement as final -- problem solved: the vanquished view it as temporary, to be reversed at the soonest opportunity. What is being witnessed now is perhaps 'the tragic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy', but perhaps also the pattern of history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

Bluestem , , December 27, 2018 at 11:27 am

I have a family full of people who believe in American Exceptionalism. In their view, nothing the US or allies do can be wrong because the US is exceptional.

More than 20 years ago I started telling them the US and NATO are provoking Russia by extending NATO into former Soviet states. This was revealed almost exactly one year ago:

"Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev Told NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border" https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629

Imagine the outrage in the US if, shortly after the Soviet Union dissolved, the Russians started re-annexing the former Soviet states.

Anon2017 , , December 27, 2018 at 12:11 pm

During the past two decades, US politicians running for federal office were more concerned about family Values, cutting taxes or expanding the social safety net. No one appeared to run on a platform of expanding NATO or being concerned about Ukraine or a new cold war. I suspect that the average voter has no clue as to who Victoria Nuland is and the role she played in overthrowing the pro-Russian band of corrupt politicians in Ukraine in favor of a more pro-NATO band of corrupt Neo-Nazi politicians.

How many American mothers want their sons in the military to be sent off to war to fight over Sevastopol?

Ken Zaretzke , , December 27, 2018 at 1:37 pm

A great article. Basically, Ted Galen Carpenter points to the *irrationality* of the American foreign policy establishment towards the world's only other strategically (as opposed to defensively) nuclear-armed nation. Is irrational animus against such a country dangerous? Very.

Jack H , , December 27, 2018 at 2:26 pm

"Global domination" isn't twaddle, Brian. The 2018 National Defense Strategy lists as one of our objectives "Maintaining
favorable regional balances of power in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere."

Africa isn't on this particular list, but we have troops stationed in Niger, Somalia, Djibouti, and Cameroon. We are seeking to establish a base in Ghana.

I think "global domination" is a fair description of our actual goal.

b. , , December 27, 2018 at 3:28 pm

Average life expectancy in Russia declined as neoliberal and capitalist exploitation abetted by Yeltsin gave rise to organized oligarchy.

Today, average life expectancy in the US is declining.

The US really needs a Gorbachev. Doesn't look like it will get one before all the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria carries us to the end of the Moment of Unipolar Disorder.

Eric Bergerud , , December 27, 2018 at 7:57 pm

I am in full agreement with this article. I am not alone. In 1998 George Kennan made his final public pronouncement on US foreign policy in the NYT. He cautioned that American and Western eagerness to expand NATO would trigger a new Cold War and was folly. Mikhail Gorbachev has no love for Putin who put an end to Gorbie's desires to lead a social democratic party in Russia. However, he has echoed Kennan in condemning an aggressive NATO and finding the West up to their eyeballs in the Ukraine debacle. Let's not forget that Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was in Kiev throughout the Maidan Square uprising -- baking cookies for militants and condemning Euros for considering new elections in the Ukraine instead of a coup. To finish seasoning the brother, CIA Chief James Brennan visited Kiev in April 2014 -- an amazing action really. CIA chiefs do not usually show up in the middle of an international trouble spot -- but obviously Obama didn't mind the message. We don't have to like Putin to realize that the Russian public feels genuinely aggrieved by Western policies since the Cold War ended, especially after the close US involvement with the Yeltsin debacle.

Observer , , December 28, 2018 at 5:03 am

In Cold War it was not modern Russia that was defeated, but rather Soviet Union and the whole idea of Communism. Russian Federation is not the USSR, it is a capitalist state (OK one can say "wild" or "croney" capitalist- it does not really matter, "capitalist" is the key word here). The only thing all last Soviet/Russian leaders desired, including Gorbachev, Eltsin and early Putin- was to become junior partners of the West in general and US in particular. It was very clear from all they did and said at that time. Basically what was needed from the West is to do smth like second Potsdam and co-opt Russia in the new world order. That was a golden opportunity moment because at that moment Russian leadership and population in general would sign under such policy.
How US managed to get in the situation where we are now is an interesting question for future historians (providing that in the future there will be historians and not radioactive dust).
Buf may be a clue here is the position of military-industrial complex? How else they can get their unaccounted trillions? Russia is the ideal enemy. US can not live without a real enemy for God knows what reason. There is some existential problem may be.
But one thing should be taken into account. Russia has a long tradition of defeating would-be global hegemons. It would be a major folly if US joins that list.

TR , , December 28, 2018 at 10:18 am

Agree completely with the head and subhead of this piece.

For what it's worth, my neighbor's son-in-law is a young US Army officer and currently doing a tour in Ukraine. Our tentacles are everywhere.

Sid Finster , , December 28, 2018 at 10:56 am

@Mikhail Butina: You throw out a lot of blanket statements but provide no specifics. Well let me give you a few recent specifics:

Did Russia attack Iraq on the basis of shameless lies?

It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state!

Was it Russia that expanded NATO after promising not to do so?

Russia must be the ones gleefully assisting the Saudi barbarians to commit genocide in Yemen!

Is it perhaps Russia that demands "full spectrum dominance" and spends more on "defense than the next ten largest militaries combined?

Did Russia undertake a coup in Ukraine and install actual live Nazis in power?

Nonsense. The United States did all of these things and more. Do not live by lies, Mikhail.

John , , December 28, 2018 at 11:01 am

The idea of territorial conquest and control as a means of growing prosperity for a civilization is obsolete. Exploration and colonization of space, the pursuit of fusion power, addressing our living arrangements, and so on, should be where we are striving to excel, not poking a nuclear armed bear with a stick.

However, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The unimaginative in our nation's government, who can't see their own brokenness, should go into retirement and let people with a vision that promotes peace and stability and real progress have a turn at the wheel for a change.

Putin will be dead in two decades, maybe less, and Russia will start backsliding and probably break apart even further. China, in its zeal to maintain control, will remain what it always had been, an intelligent people hamstrung by a rigid mandarin overclass. Neither of these so-called powers are worth spending any more time on.

Let America and the West build a permanent presence on the Moon and Mars. What then of Crimea?

Sid Finster , , December 28, 2018 at 11:03 am

@TR: tell your neighbor's son-in-law to resign.

@Michael Kenney: if you are so convinced that military force is needed to stop Putin, stop preaching idiocies and go to Ukraine and sign up with the many neo-Nazi paramilitaries there and get to fighting. They take foreign volunteers.

CC , , December 28, 2018 at 12:41 pm

> The NATO powers are treating Russia as an enemy, and there is now a serious danger that the country is turning into one.

So what? Russia is dying, economy is in deep decline, population is shrinking. 15-20 years from now there will be no Russia.

Why should NATO care about it today?

Caliman , , December 28, 2018 at 1:52 pm

The more one pays attention, the more one realizes that "1984" was not fiction we have always been (we NEED to be) at war with Eurasia.

After all, the aim of modern war is not to win we have not had a Victory that matters since 1945. The aim of modern war is $$ and career advancement for the connected few. War posture against a credible enemy is essential.

Ken Zaretzke , , December 28, 2018 at 2:17 pm

Thank you for that comment, Observer. You are a Russian, no? That's what your English suggests to me. I hope you keep commenting here -- we Americans need a little perspective.

reality check , , December 28, 2018 at 2:18 pm

Quote 1) U.S. officials openly sided with demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian government,

Worse still, they sided with, if not directly empowered the very worst, openly fascist elements of Ukrainian society who directly spearheaded the overthrow. mere months before new elections. In essence, a repeat of the m.o. of the 1953 Iranian coup. Atlantic Council ideologues can fabricate a progressive liberal agenda for Maidan ad nauseum and to ever-diminishing effect. It was Nuland's 'dark colors' that did the heavy lifting, and very likely by direct collusion and design. Woe be to our machinations.

Quote 2)and then reacted with shock and anger when Russia retaliated by seizing and annexing Crimea.

Russia did not 'seize' Crimea. Crimeans in the vast majority willingly seceded from Ukraine and joined Russia, as they had already attempted at various times for decades and as a de facto 'autonomous republic' had every right to do. Certainly at least as much right as Slovenia did in its unilateral secession, sans referendum and sans a state coup instigating it.

Other than the de rigueur western soundbites, much in this article is directly on point.

[Dec 29, 2018] Why western neoliberal hape neolinel Putin: they want the return to the looting that took place under the Empire's anointed, Boris Yeltsin.

Dec 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Montreal , Dec 27, 2018 2:01:23 PM | link

bevin , Dec 27, 2018 10:21:32 AM | link

" ....The oligarchs have been destroyed in the early 00s: Gusinsky (the media oligarch), Berezovsky (the political broker oligarch), Khodorkovsky (the oil oligarch). These people were real oligarchs, i.e. they were using their wealth to control political processes through black media propaganda, having their own MPs/Ministers/Governors, etc..." @85

I'm inclined to agree. And this is why there is so much anger against Putin, in particular, in the 'west': the Russian oligarchs wield enormous power through the media which is at the service of anyone with money. Bill Browder being a prime example.
The oligarchs were the tools that the City of London and Wall St employed to plunder Russia's socialised wealth and resources.
The hate campaign against Putin, who is in many ways a very conservative economist pursuing the sort of neo-liberal policies that capitalist financiers approve of, is inexplicable unless we understand that the end game is a return to the looting that took place under the Empire's anointed, Boris Yeltsin.

I don't understand the people here who write that VVPutin is in thrall to the Zionists, the Oligarchs, or that he's lining his own pocket etc etc. IMHO his strategy has always been clear and direct, since the beginning. He values first of all stability - time for Russia to rebuild herself. Secondly, he performs a clever balancing act between the competing centres of power in Russia.

His mistake, however, when he became president, was to believe quite sincerely that the West - and particularly Washington (the important one) - shared a desire for peaceful partnership with Russia. Doubts emerged in 2011 - he realised that he was being played - and the doubts became certainties in 2014, since when some fairly radical reorganisations has been taking place. Russia is - again, IMHO - now ready to take its real place in the international order.

I take great pleasure in reading and listening to his - and Sergei Lavrov's - words, at the same time regretting the low standard of our own representatives.

Many thanks to b and all of you who continue always to inform me and sometimes enchant me.

[Dec 29, 2018] Throughout its existence the Soviet Union was hobbled by the sanctions imposed on it by the capitalist world

Dec 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

bevin , Dec 27, 2018 5:01:47 PM | link

Throughout its existence the Soviet Union was hobbled by the sanctions imposed on it by the capitalist world. Despite being uniquely qualified, by virtue of its geography and culture, to survive without being part of the international economy, it had to pay much more, by being forced to rely on its own resources, than other countries for every advance that it made economically.
And then it was constantly under threat of coordinated military attack by the richest and most technically advanced powers, led by the anglo-US empire. Twice it was invaded by massive international coalitions, in 1918 and 1041. Twice its industrial base and its infrastructure were reduced to smoking ruins.Twice it had to rebuild, from the ground up without the assistance of foreign capital.
By contrast the imperial powers, bent on crushing it by economic or military means, throughout its existence came through the period virtually unscathed-its great rival the US actually thrived from threw two world wars.
It was this fate which China, under imperial pressure after the 1949 Revolution, was determined to escape. And so far, since it changed course and played the US and the Soviet Union off against each other, it has made great strides forward-advances complementing the enormous gains made after 1949, during which period all the basic indicators of well being, life expectancy included, rose and a firm base was established for future improvement. And this at a time when the US used every means in its power, including biological warfare, to weaken China and reduce its people to starvation.
For example China-well known for its polluted air-is well in advance of North America in its development of renewable energy sources and seems genuinely committed to replacing fossil fuels.
Nor is it using its growing strength to engage in military adventures and impose its rule on others.
It is important when considering China not to repeat the mistakes of some of the neo-Trotskyist factions whose theory that the Soviet Union was just another capitalist society (something that most Russians disagree with) was an important part of the Empire's ideological struggle against the Soviet Union in the world and socialism everywhere. China is not a communist country but it serves its people much better than, for example, India. And it certainly plays a vital role, together with Russia in resisting the Imperial ruling class's campaigns to reduce the globe to accepting the diktats of Washington, Wall St and Hollywood.

[Dec 29, 2018] Two More Spiegel Employees Out After Fake News Scandal Expands -

Is not "Greed is good" a neoliberal slogan
Dec 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Relotius, meanwhile, has "gone underground," according to the Guardian, returning several awards for his work while being stripped of others, such as CNN's two Journalist of the Year awards. A German publication also stripped the journalist of a similar accolade.

At least 14 articles by Relotius for Der Spiegel were falsified , according to Steffen Klusmann, its editor-in-chief. They include an award-winning piece about a Syrian boy called Mouwiya who believed his anti-government graffiti had triggered the civil war. Relotius alleged he had interviewed the boy via WhatsApp .

The magazine – a prestigious weekly – is investigating if the interview took place and whether the boy exists. Relotius won his fourth German reporter prize this month with a story headlined "Child's Play".

Klusmann admitted the publication still had no idea how many articles were affected. On Thursday it was revealed that parts of an interview with a 95-year-old Nazi resistance fighter in the US were fabricated. - The Guardian

According to Relotius' Der Spiegel colleague Juan Moreno - who busted Relotius after conducting his own research after his bosses failed to listen to his doubts , released a video in which he attempted to describe how Relotius got away with his fabrications.

"He was the superstar of German journalism if one's honest, and if his stories had been true, that would have been fully justified to say so, but they were not," said Moreno. "At the start it was the small mistakes, things that seemed too hard to believe that made me suspicious."

In addition to having several awards stripped from him, the 33-year-old Relotius now faces embezzlement charges for allegedly soliciting donations for Syrian orphans from readers "with any proceeds going to his personal account," according to the BBC . On Thursday, Relotius denied the accusations.

[Dec 29, 2018] So Russian twits were a false flag operation

LinkedIn co-founder 'sorry' for funding fake Russian tweets for Democrats (RT video). Admiited producing 200 fake Russian twits.
Notable quotes:
"... Reid Hoffman is a Billionaire, who is a member of the Bilderburg Group, & is on the Council of Foreign Relations. Obviously 'above the law'. His sorry apology will be good enough. ..."
"... Oh he is only sorry after he got caught. ..."
Dec 29, 2018 | www.youtube.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54IcPmfqHlo

sneekie pete , 1 day ago

Imagine that ?...we knew... They owe Putin and the Russian people a apology....hmmm...would rather send all demoncrats to Putin for their punishments...

NowisEvollovetion , 1 day ago

Everything is FAKE about the democrats. They are as dishonest as the day is long.

Annie , 1 day ago

SCUMBAG!!! 🤮🤢😬🐷👿

TheKeithvidz , 1 day ago

Huh. Blame everyone but America's leaders for the country's sorry state.

Main Character , 1 day ago

Are you kidding me?! Man and here I was starting to think democrats weren't as bad. As an American I feel bad for how bad many of my countrymen have tried to make Russia look bad...

tyronebiggums3 , 1 day ago

Democrats = Pure Evil

James Bruno , 1 day ago

why doesn't anyone boycott CNN?

2MauiAngels , 1 day ago

Reid Hoffman is a Billionaire, who is a member of the Bilderburg Group, & is on the Council of Foreign Relations. Obviously 'above the law'. His sorry apology will be good enough.

Nothing will happen to him, & RT is probably the only media outlet that will even tell Americans about this. THX RT. How about reposting 'Who owns the Media in less than 30 seconds'?

Are you updating the info because Rupert Murdoch sold his media corps to Bob Iger?? THAT was your BEST video Ever!! PLEASE REPOST IT!!

Jim NORRIS , 1 day ago

Oh he is only sorry after he got caught.

Star Dust , 1 day ago

how can saying sorry undo all the damages they have done ?

Olive Locutions , 1 day ago (edited)

Oy vey! They know it's not Russian bots now. I hope we are able to deflect this one onto the goy!

Robbi rob , 1 day ago

Honestly, who even believes in democracy anymore? It's just bullshit, and pandering.

Susan Gamble , 1 day ago

Everyone involved need to go to jail!!!!

TectonicTsunami , 1 day ago

LinkedIn needs to be linked-OUT.

James Rockford , 1 day ago

Let me guess, not one single MSM outlet, will discuss this?

Brian , 1 day ago

Seditious Conspiracy is the charge!

Barbara King , 1 day ago

Cheating is the only way Democrats won this election! Results should be vacated. New Election!

Burt Reynolds Corpse , 1 day ago

Correction, a joo is pretending to be sorry, only because he was caught misleading the nation ..

Reji Bae , 1 day ago

You can't trust anything coming out of the mouth of US politicians or organizations. The biggest troublemakers on this planet. Bunch of psychopaths.

An American , 1 day ago

Treason has death for a consequence. Fu... your apology.

Леди Неизвестность , 1 day ago

They create fakes themselves, investigate them themselves, and after finding the sources themselves they apologize. And we are "guilty" of everything ... You look and wonder!

J. Baker , 1 day ago

What do you expect from Motherless son's Fooling good human beings Burn is hell Bastards

Radhika Technical , 1 day ago

Russia is great nation...

Simi822 , 1 day ago

if that is fluent Russian then I am fluent in Chinese...

Alvaro Dussan , 1 day ago

This is collusion between Democrats and social media

Joanne Mercader , 1 day ago

Brought to you by the Democratic Party founder of the KKK and slavery.

High Tech Hillbilly , 1 day ago

Real News ... Thank you RT

Diji D , 1 day ago

Hillary Clinton recently tweeted "Actions have consequences.." I am excited to see the consequences for this failure. i know, there wont be any.

Jack Booted Hug , 1 day ago

I haven't been getting my russian bot payments. ruble up pute

clash man , 1 day ago

Marxist playbook 101, exactly what the democrats have been using on the American people. Accuse those of the very thing that they themselves are guilty of!👍

Willy Wonka , 1 day ago (edited)

That (((commie))) should be incarcerated...and he keeps peoples resumes safe and secure...how is he not charged with fraud....? (((Untrustworthy)))

Jens Bröcher , 1 day ago

He has to go to jail!

pasta noodle , 1 day ago

will cnn, MSNBC, and the whole trump hating media apologize and admit the real Russian collusion was with the democrats

dev0n james , 1 day ago

democrats always lie and always double down. never let them gaslight you.

Pete fromtheIsland , 1 day ago

Didn't Putin do it? Oh no!

Albert Einstein , 1 day ago

Haha this is the old way to accuse Russia BRITISH STYLE PROPAGANDA!!!! LOL

I love The USA , 1 day ago

Another FAKE democommunist trying to get attention

b b , 1 day ago

TREASON hang them all

saul romero , 1 day ago

the irony, when democrats blame republicans for working with russia

RIP Arthur Morgan , 1 day ago

Does Russia welcome American immigrants? Asking for a friend

Divergent Evolution , 1 day ago

So by attacking other nations for interfering in other nations elections, the USA is promising to stop doing it themselves?

eagle-6 , 1 day ago

the fake media has no shame at all

Ed Robbins , 1 day ago

There's no low too low for the Democratic Socialist Extortion Party. P O S libtards.

Francois Egregyi , 1 day ago

More (((Demo-commie))) anti-Russian propaganda!

Michel de Nostredame , 1 day ago

Should arrest the CEO and send to Russia litigation...

Derek Hajos , 1 day ago

Many criminals are sorry AFTER they get exposed.

Chris Edward , 1 day ago

When will CNN and MSNBC apologize?

Silver4Life 1230 , 1 day ago

Demorats are garbage

SOPHIA FILMS , 1 day ago

Is he one of ((them))?

Clint Chapman , 1 day ago (edited)

This comes as no surprise of course. But, when you apologise for meddling/interfering in a state and or a federal election, this is all one has to do, to not be charged for a possible crime, just apologise? Oh, and be a Democrat of course. Im an American. But why has no other country came out and stated, that the US meddled in their elections? At least have come out in the last 3 years and stated that? Most know, every country spies on and meddles in one anothers elections. It's not ok but, we know and it happens.

Flyingcrocodile46 , 1 day ago

Make this news viral

starlord , 1 day ago

Where is Mueller?

Bertin Bahaya , 1 day ago

WOW ! The Demon-rats are simply genius ! And The Republicans are simply stupid. Reps keep being Rhinos for Dems !

AJ Khan , 1 day ago

Hahaha, "SORRY"........

John Grytbakk , 1 day ago

The "liberal" Left can do whatever they want. ....no worries. All others do not get away with anything. If ever there was a double standard, there you have it.

avenging angel , 1 day ago

Dirty Democrats hardcore leftist are to blame for the division in America

avenging angel , 1 day ago

I'm not surprised by this story Democrats are the founders of slavery KKK and we're also against civil rights in the sixties

beo wulf , 13 hours ago

TREASON/SEDITION, TRIAL, CONVICTION, THE DITCH, '.22CAL CURE' ... 'NEXT!'

Edin , 1 day ago

Murad Gazdiev speaks with such conviction every time lol...power

Gary Thompson , 1 day ago

Dems are a very sorry excuse for people. I believe they are so brain damaged and brainwashed, they will never recover.

Paul Rexs , 1 day ago

Will he be arrested for tampering with elections?

Roger Jennings , 1 day ago

"Fake Russian Tweets" is gonna be the name of my next band.

Sea Bass , 1 day ago

"Funding for tweets" Wow I didn't know it costs money to write something on Twitter

squidly1117 , 1 day ago

This is election fraud and the FEC needs to take action!

tracycolorado , 1 day ago

Only sorry that He got caught

paula conley , 1 day ago

You left out that New Knowledge gave a report product to the dem's senate committee to prove there was Russia interference during election.

Shane Brbich , 1 day ago

LinkedIn The hardest social media program to get out of

Darko Fius , 1 day ago

Linkedin is also biassed, there is no middle ground...one can establish highly sophisticated network linking each individual and finding the most influentials...data is worth billions upon billions...and people, mainly highly educated and skilled do have Linkedin account...so there is no "honest business", the co-founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, is among ones that are not "honest"...big money, bigger lies...once one tells a lie, he, or she is alway liar...

2532robh1 , 1 day ago

Another tech CEO A-hole.

Haasenpad , 18 hours ago

well Reid Hoffman is a BILDERBERGER!!!

Nancy G , 1 day ago

Dump Linkin !!! Never use it.

Dowlphwin , 1 day ago

Well, false flagging IS a specialty of the Clinton Intel Agency. (Among others, but lately it's a trend and people need to wake up to that.)

Chickennugget , 1 day ago

Wow haven't even heard this on our MSM

Daniel Bell , 1 day ago

Bet this won't be on CNN.

Just happened to walk by , 1 day ago

As usual, just another something -man/Klein/Smith affiliated to AIPAC.

Jeremy Chase , 1 day ago

Lots of complete morons in the comments who believe in the fake two party paradigm. Both parties believe you should suffer at the dictates of multinational corporations and the banking industry.

carl westernut , 1 day ago

Arrest and gulag the bastards

SIGNALacquired , 19 hours ago

False-flag attack

Wilcox Wilcox , 1 day ago

Omg.... He sold his soul to the devil.

Pat Hacker , 1 day ago

Are we supposed to believe that?

Peter Panino , 1 day ago

I am getting a lot of SPAM from somebody who disguises himself as "RUSSIAN BOT" including Cyrillic characters in the message and also in the metadata (!). Does anybody know who this could be?

eloundainfo , 1 day ago (edited)

What a disgrace, the left has totally lost the plot! A world leader (Putin) should receive a groveling apology!

S B , 1 day ago

Good job.

MrMnmn911 , 1 day ago

"Sorry"? That's it?? MUELLER MUST INVESTIGATE!

Infidel Atheist , 1 day ago

Give him the Ceausescu quick trial and fill him full of lead.

VERBODE KENNIS , 1 day ago

YEP.....DONT FORGET THE GOLDEN SHOWERS.........EH??

Jacob Diaz , 1 day ago

Lmaoo you idiots in the comments didnt even listen to the video.

EveryCrazyDay , 1 day ago

Defending Roy Moore....lol also anyone see a conflict of interest when the Russian government funds this news program. And basically is putting a story saying that Russian bots are fake and paid by dems.

TotoNut , 19 hours ago

Cyber security companies create fake news, can be trusted with making accusations against Russia, China? Lol.

1990cwa81625 , 1 day ago

Seriously considering shutting down my Linked In account.

Charles McCarron , 1 day ago (edited)

When are arrests going to me made? We ALL know that the DNC is a criminal organisation and that the USA is on borrowed time. The farce of American Democracy is getting more obvious by the day. There just aren't anywhere near enough people, among the overall pool of American voters, that even know how their government is theoretically supposed to work to have a functional self-governing nation state. Morons don't pick good government!

Millenial Sunshine , 1 day ago

Roy Moore should have won...they use the same tactics every time. Sex bots and Russian bots...

Jessica Lubien , 1 day ago

I would watch this if it wasn't for the coked up guy!!! PLEASE FIRE HIM!!

Floyd Zepplin , 1 day ago

Where is Mueller?

Roland James , 1 day ago

If you want to know what your enemies are like, just listen to what they are accusing you of.

Tron Carter , 20 hours ago

Jimmy Dore goes in depth on this very story. Well worth a look.

Juniper lane , 1 day ago

This is nothing new. Democrats are using Russian propaganda and Republicans like to use China propaganda. Both parties are rothschild puppets and love to use propaganda for political agendas.

MaryMag & Martha , 1 day ago

I can not remember the guy's name, but the guest that was speaking on the MSNBC panel at the 2:11 mark was pro -Trump earlier this year. I remember him saying that he was former Secret Service or something to that effect on Youtube. Now, we see him on a panel alledging Russian speculation moving it's way to the White House. I guess he couldn't become famous as pro-Trump, so he's went to the dark side

Conrad Angel , 1 day ago

...or sorry he got caught! Just saying!

Terry Bonnell , 1 day ago

Alexandra Orcasio Cortez 2020 this woman has a higher IQ than most of the Democratic Party's combined

Angry Shamrock , 1 day ago

They're not sorry. They will do it again.

Shawn Hennessey , 19 hours ago

sorry for creating false evidence in a federal investigation is a huge crime and makes him a conspirator in coup to the takedown of the presidency of the US.

Terrell Riley , 1 day ago

He isn't a Democrat. But I know that Americans were using fake bots before, during, and after 2016. All Dems aren't Dems. All GOP aren't GOP. There are a lot of coming out the closet for politicians going on in this day and age. Why now are we hearing this? 2020. You are not dealing with dummy's just deviants.

Donald Ganley , 19 hours ago (edited)

What Hoffman did is totally understandable. I myself frequently donate $100,000 amounts to causes about which I know nothing. Especially when I know that a minuscule amount like that won't really have any real impact on a Congressional election. Kidding aside, may we look forward to indictments of Hoffman, New Knowledge, Morgan, and Fox in this matter -- a case of real tampering and collusion? Glad I dumped Facebook AND LinkedIn on the same day last year.

Yellow Bhee , 1 day ago

Another American doing , full of amusement, Hollywood ! Not to worry they also robbing their owned citizens.

nucdn , 1 day ago

A new low for Demorats? No such thing Murad - they live in the low.

Antony bro , 1 day ago

Criminal America ... nothing but Scoundrels ...

Dimash_Lilliana Corredor , 1 hour ago

Thanks RT. We can count on you and trust your news! 👍👏❤

Scott Ewing , 1 day ago

Won't be able to look at linkedin in the same light again.

Yammel Heylel , 1 day ago

Like anyone really thought it was true, well actually as if anyone who doesn't get the bulk of their news from CNN, MSNBC, and the like, really thought it was true. Funny part is those idiots (CNN ect. veiwers) were screaming about how Russia was tearing apart American society, and as though out the history of mankind, you only have yourselves to blame.

Line upon Line Precept upon Precept , 1 day ago

"Sorry I got caught" hahaha. What a looser.

x13x Monkeys , 21 hours ago

This is not new- how many other projects like this are going on.

LJ B , 13 hours ago

Another day, another false flag in the USSA

kii Kale , 21 hours ago

The only truly verifiable fake news is from centrist. But I am not shedding tear for judge MooKKKre.

Andrew S , 7 hours ago (edited)

Our situation is TRULY DIRE... when it is indeed necessary to switch to RT for an honest appraisal of what is happening in American politics!

Barry Soetorro , 1 day ago

Dem should hand the office to the republicans

Asma , 1 day ago

😱😱😱and still they blame RUS for meddling the US elections

Cannibal Shark , 22 hours ago

Well one thing is for sure they know how to drag out a story, even the UK give up with the skripal crap after a year.

Douglas Baer , 1 day ago

Roy must sue the dem party.

Daniel Bonner , 1 day ago

Proof Russia is on the side of right 👊🏿👊🏿👊🏿

True Tech , 1 day ago

No Moore being within 1000 ft of people under the age of 18 years old.

Backpack PePelon , 23 hours ago

Their effort backfired in more the one way. Now real people took pride in becoming a russian bot aka supporting russian.

Sampson X , 10 hours ago

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war." - ZioCons

Brennen Nelson , 1 day ago

Time to boycott Linkdin.......

Herr Wahnsinn , 1 day ago

When the Van Allen radiation belt starts to end, let the current carry me

Jim C , 1 day ago

Nothing new here.

avenging angel , 1 day ago

Lockup CNN fake news

Stable Genius , 1 day ago

TRUMP was right....lol🤣

Caesar , 1 day ago

Good job on coming forward

Uber Steve , 1 day ago

Corruption- Q is coming for you

Jeffness Stuff , 1 day ago

Linkedin BAN

Daniel Bonner , 1 day ago

Can't be wrong and strong 🔥🔥🔥

John Hadleigh , 1 day ago

We all fail, that makes Us human.

Randy Hartono , 1 day ago

New Knowledge again???

Gina Kay , 1 day ago

Total vindication.

Bike Stream , 1 day ago

Bye LinkedIn!

Leonard Carr , 1 day ago

Linkedin ✡️🙀👍

7seven7 , 1 day ago

Dang it where's Bob Mueller? Wonder why the special council couldn't find this out.

Visteo Bman , 1 day ago

FAKE NEWS!!!

Daniel Paul , 1 day ago

This is fake news

Hendrik Van der Merwe , 9 hours ago

No surprise, this is how Liberals "roll"!

Los Time , 1 day ago

Good reporting.

Viator Nadeak , 1 day ago

Idiot idiot

Willemijn Heukels , 1 day ago

RT is funded by the Russian government btw so of course they're saying this I hope you all stop letting hate anger anger control your life when it should be dragging your nuts across broken glass only to fart in a walkie talkie to have a spiritual enlightenment experience and see all that is true thank you

Asaresa M , 1 day ago

This report is not the whole truth of what happened. You should look up the facts of this case before you get all partisan happy. Or you can just be a traitor and take Russia's (RT) word on election tampering.

Hiram Rosa Jr , 1 day ago

This comming from a russian news channel lololol

shinobi 30 , 1 day ago

Putin is a little midget pub not a bear,

Tutty Masala , 1 day ago

RT is a Russia state sponsored channel. This is pure propaganda.

Everett Mccurdy , 1 day ago

This is fake of course you fools!

Joe Black , 1 day ago

It's just like that Ukrainian journalist who faked his assassination so the world would blame Russia.

2wheelvloggers , 1 day ago

Americans are a sick bunch, so sad...

Jefe Hoptosh , 1 day ago

Even Gazdiev is fake. RT PLEASE STOP THE INFOTAINMENT. Gazdiev wants to be in theatre. Don't hold him back. Get a journalist who can deliver the news without all the fake pauses and arm waving.

Lee Haiko , 15 hours ago

Ok I would ask for a Muller investigation here, but it would be a waste of money, just like another investigation...

JJ Says , 1 day ago

He's sorry??? Sorry doesn't get it. He financed the ruin of a man's career! Fry him for election fraud, lying leftist POS.

EBobby Sing , 1 day ago

Even Mueller Probe is based on FAKE NEWS PROPAGANDA.

Four Toes , 1 day ago

Disgusting! I will never use LinkedIn

Mr Timmy , 1 day ago

If you want to destroy the worlds SuperPower and know you can't do it military, then infiltration into the minds of its people is a perfect way to destroy them when clearly America has a dumbed down population.

Dra O , 1 day ago (edited)

"I'm sorry I attempted to rig the US elections (but I sure wish hilary would've won!)." What an idiot, along with Suckerberg. Shameful.

gord oland , 1 day ago

Disgusting but no surprising.

dmob d , 10 hours ago

No one believes your BS RT not outside Rusky land anyway you are the typical example of propaganda news.

Frederick Rhodes , 1 day ago

Kushner is responsible for setting up fake proTrump republican twitter accounts to help Trump get elected. Why would democrats want to help Trump? That's another republican lie to fool the sheeple.

[Dec 29, 2018] Reporting on the Integrity Initiative is spotty yet but I did come across the link below of an article by Max Blumenthal

Dec 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

psychohistorian , Dec 26, 2018 9:32:36 PM | link

Reporting on the Integrity Initiative is spotty yet but I did come across the link below of an article by Max Blumenthal....and promises of more.

Inside the Temple of Covert Propaganda: The Integrity Initiative and the UK's Scandalous Information War

[Dec 29, 2018] Why Mattis' Exit Is A Defining Moment In US Foreign Policy

Dec 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

William Bowles , Dec 27, 2018 4:52:43 AM | link

Why Mattis' Exit Is A Defining Moment In US Foreign Policy

by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

An important analysis!

https://orientalreview.org/2018/12/27/why-mattis-exit-is-a-defining-moment-in-us-foreign-policy/

[Dec 28, 2018] Angela Merkel- Nation States Must -Give Up Sovereignty- To New World Order -

Dec 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Tapainfo.com

" Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty ", according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.

No this wasn't something Adolf Hitler said many decades ago, this is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told attendants at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. Merkel has announced she won't seek re-election in 2021 and it is clear she is attempting to push the globalist agenda to its disturbing conclusion before she stands down.

" In an orderly fashion of course, " Merkel joked, attempting to lighten the mood. But Merkel has always had a tin ear for comedy and she soon launched into a dark speech condemning those in her own party who think Germany should have listened to the will of its citizens and refused to sign the controversial UN migration pact:

" There were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People ".

" [But] the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people ," she stressed.

Merkel has previously accused critics of the UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration of not being patriotic, saying " That is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations ".

Her words echo recent comments by the deeply unpopular French President Emmanuel Macron who stated in a Remembrance Day speech that " patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism [because] nationalism is treason ."

The French president's words were deeply unpopular with the French population and his approval rating nosedived even further after the comments.

Macron, whose lack of leadership is proving unable to deal with growing protests in France, told the Bundestag that France and Germany should be at the center of the emerging New World Order.

" The Franco-German couple [has]the obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace" .

" Europe must be stronger and win more sovereignty ," he went on to demand, just like Merkel, that EU member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over " foreign affairs, migration, and development " as well as giving " an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources".

[Dec 28, 2018] Twelve Dimensional Chess by Robert Waldmann

Dec 28, 2018 | angrybearblog.com

  1. Karl Kolchak , December 28, 2018 7:23 pm

    How much idiot chess did it take to drone tens of thousands of civilians to death, turn Libya into a failed state where the slave trade thrives once again, kick off a failed war in Syria which along with Libya has swamped Europe with millions of refugees, looked the other way as Saudi Arabia kicked off genocide in Yemen

    Ordered a failed surge in Afghanistan that left the Taliban stronger than ever and preside over a presidency that failed average Americans so badly that American life expectancy began dropping for the first time since World War 1?

    Because I think I'm better at chess than that and I've never played anything more than the conventional kind.

Likbez , December 28, 2018 7:49 pm

Karl,

How you dare not to admire the winner of the Nobel Peace Price?

The president who introduced into the English language the phrase "change we can believe in" which now got its own independent life and is now applicable to most Trump election promises.

The innovator who introduced intelligence agencies as a powerful, if not decisive, player in the US political life. And thus invented a new type of democracy.

To say nothing about bringing on the advanscene of history a gallery of female chickenhawks such as Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Victoria Nuland.

P.S. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for everybody !!!


[Dec 28, 2018] Western propaganda turn: from sucking to alcoholic Yeltsin to the rabit hate of sober Putin in just 20 years

Looks like Western attempts to weaken Russia will never stop.
Dec 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

localsavage, 18 minutes ago

Notice that there is no time given. The story would then fall apart in minutes.

Pussy Biscuit , 20 minutes ago

This Russia **** is a never ending nightmare.

I remember when the libtards were constantly sucking Russia's **** in the early 1990s.

[Dec 28, 2018] Send Mad Dog James Mattis to the Corporate Kennel

Notable quotes:
"... Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer before working as a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. Ray admits to a modicum of bias against Marine officers, but not those with whom he worked back in the day. He is co-creator of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes Marines who remember what Semper Fi means. ..."
"... A case in point is when you hear members of congress criticize Trump decision to withdraw the US army personals from Syria and Afganistan. These members forget that the US army in Syria is in violation of international laws and US laws as well. ..."
Dec 28, 2018 | www.mintpressnews.com

utgoing Defense Secretary Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis was famous for quipping , "It's fun to shoot some people." It remains a supreme irony that Mattis was widely considered the only "adult in the room" in the Trump administration. Compared to whom? John Bolton, the rabid neocon serving as national security adviser? That would be the epitome of "condemning with faint praise."

With his ramrod-straight image, not to mention his warrior/scholar reputation extolled in the media, Mattis was able to disguise the reality that he was, as Col. Andrew Bacevich put it on Democracy Now! this morning, "totally unimaginative." Meaning that Mattis was simply incapable of acknowledging the self-destructive, mindless nature of U.S. "endless war" in the Middle East, which candidate-Trump had correctly called "stupid." In his resignation letter, Mattis also peddled the usual cant about the indispensable nation's aggression being good for the world.

Mattis was an obstacle to Trump's desire to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan (and remains in position to spike Trump's orders). Granted, the abrupt way Trump announced his apparently one-man decision was equally stupid. But the withdrawal of ground troops is supremely sane, and Mattis was and is a large problem. And, for good or ill, Trump -- not Mattis -- was elected president.

Marine Wisdom

Historically, Marines are the last place to turn for sound advice. Marine Gen. Smedley Butler (1881-1940), twice winner of the Medal of Honor, was brutally candid about this after he paused long enough to realize, and write, "War is a Racket":

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher- ups. "

Shortly after another Marine general, former CENTCOM commander Anthony Zinni, retired, he stood by silently as he personally watched then-Vice President Dick Cheney give his most important speech ever (on August 26, 2002). Cheney blatantly lied about Iraq's (non-existent) WMD, in order to grease the skids for the war of aggression against Iraq. Zinni had kept his clearances and was "back on contract." He was well read-in on Iraq, and knew immediately that Cheney was lying.

A few years later, Zinni admitted that he decided that his lips would be sealed. Far be it for a Marine to play skunk at the picnic. And, after all, he was being honored that day at the same Veterans of Foreign Wars convention where Cheney spoke. As seems clear now, Zinni was also lusting after the lucrative spoils of war given to erstwhile generals who offer themselves for membership on the corporate Boards of the arms makers/merchants that profiteer on war.

(For an earlier critique of senior Marines, see: "Attacking Syria: Thumbing Noses at Constitution and Law." )

Marine officer, now Sen. Pat Roberts, R, Kansas, merits "dishonorable mention" in this connection. He never rose to general but did become Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee at an auspicious time for Cheney and Bush. Roberts kowtowed, like a "good Marine," to their crass deceit, when a dollop of honesty on his part could have prevented the 2003 attack on Iraq and the killing, maiming, destruction, and chaos that continues to this day. Roberts knew all about the fraudulent intelligence and covered it up -- together with other lies -- for as long as he remained Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman

Scott Ritter on Pat Roberts

Roberts's unconscionable dereliction of duty enraged one honest Marine, Maj. Scott Ritter, who believes "Semper Fi" includes an obligation to tell the truth on matters of war and peace. Ritter, former UN chief weapons inspector for Iraq, who in April 2005 wrote, "Semper Fraud, Senator Roberts," based partly on his own experience with that complicit Marine.

Needless to say, higher ranking, more malleable Marines aped Zinni in impersonating Uncle Remus's Tar Baby -- not saying nuttin'.

It is conceivable that yet another sharply-saluting Marine, departing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, may be tapped by Trump to take Mattis's job. If that happens, it will add to President Trump's bizarre penchant for picking advisers hell-bent on frustrating the objectives he espoused when he was running for office, some of which -- it is becoming quite clear -- he genuinely wants to achieve.

Trump ought to unleash Mattis now, and make sure Mattis keeps his distance from the Pentagon and the Military-Industrial Complex before he is asked to lead an insurrection against a highly vulnerable president -- as Gen. Smedley Butler was asked to do back in the day. Butler said no.

Top Photo | U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, sits on stage during a change of command ceremony at the U.S. Southern Command headquarters on Nov. 26, 2018, in Doral, Fla. Brynn Anderson | AP

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer before working as a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. Ray admits to a modicum of bias against Marine officers, but not those with whom he worked back in the day. He is co-creator of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes Marines who remember what Semper Fi means.

Mahmoud HAm • 4 days ago ,

I am not so much surprised that military generals keep their mouths shot rather than tell the truth when the truth is needed to avoid wars. But worse is that the US congress which are supposed to overlook over the government misbehavior to make the government abide by the laws and protect the interests of the people against government wrongs.

A case in point is when you hear members of congress criticize Trump decision to withdraw the US army personals from Syria and Afganistan. These members forget that the US army in Syria is in violation of international laws and US laws as well.

The congress are supposed the authority to declare war but the US is engaged in multiple wars without US Congress authorization. Worse off these idiots want to force the Trump administration to keep its illegal wars going on? What is the role of the congress??? To correct and force the Administration to abide by the rule of laws of the force them to keep violating international laws and US laws as well????

Felix Hoenikker • 5 days ago ,

Trump's bizarre penchant for picking advisers hell-bent on frustrating the objectives he espoused when he was running for office

It's bizarre that he's hired so many Bill Kristol approved neocons when they abandoned him for Hillary in 2016. Or not so bizarre when one remembers what Russ Tice said about Cheney using the NSA to get blackmail dirt. Now they've lost control, so it will be interesting to see how they try to regain it.

[Dec 27, 2018] There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust?

Notable quotes:
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 10:37 pm GMT

@Harold Smith

Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.

As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.

First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second, enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.

Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally, the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.

Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.

[Dec 27, 2018] In which prosperous US Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed? He is now a distinguished professor at Berkley Law

Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

geokat62 , says: December 26, 2018 at 10:44 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski

Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?

He is a distinguished professor at Berkley Law, UC. Here's his bio:

Professor Yoo is the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and director of the Korea Law Center, the California Constitution Center, and the Law School's Program in Public Law and Policy. His most recent books are Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons Change the Rules for War (Encounter 2017) (with Jeremy Rabkin) and Point of Attack: Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford University Press, 2014). Professor Yoo is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution

From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/john-yoo/

Notice how they gloss over his diabolical activities as deputy AG for the Bush II Adminstration "where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers."

And, oh, yeah, he cobbled together legal statements that gave the Bush Admin carte blanche to engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques," more commonly known as "torture." He was about to be in big dodo for his crimes. but just like the 5 dancing Israelis were rescued by Chertoff, a guy named David Margolis managed to get Yoo off the hook:

The Office of Professional Responsibilty (OPR) report concluded that Yoo had "committed 'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects," although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department lawyer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

Anyone familiar with David Margolis? Is he a MOT?

[Dec 27, 2018] The Rehabilitation of Robert Mueller by Kit Knightly

off-guardian.org

The "Resistance" -- the loose affiliation of liberals, progressives and neo-conservatives dedicated to opposing Donald Trump -- is NOT a grass-roots movement. They don't speak for the everyman or the poor or the oppressed. They are a distraction, nothing more. A parlor game. The face to Trump's heel .

The Resistance is the voice of the Deep State -- Pro-war, pro-globalisation, pro-Imperialism. It just hides its true face behind a mask of "progressive values". They prove this with their own actions -- opposing Trump's moves toward peace with North Korea and finding common ground with Russia.

In fact, though the resistance lives to criticize the Trump administration, they have been notably quiet -- even in favour of -- three key issues: The bombing of Syria, the tearing up of the INF treaty and the prosecution of Julian Assange.

They tell us, in clear voices, who they are and what they want and millions of people refuse to listen. So totally brain-washed by the "Orange Man Bad" hysteria, that they will side with anyone hitting the same talking points, spouting the right buzzwords, using the same hashtags.

This process has contrived to turn hard-line, inveterate warmongers into a pantheon of "liberal" heroes . John "bomb bomb Iran" McCain was mourned across the media as if he were a champion of civil rights, while Bill Kristol and his ilk are suddenly regular guests on notionally "liberal" channels .

and Robert Mueller receives a glowing write-up in the Guardian, being praised as "America's straightest arrow" .

The painful prose paints a blurry picture of Mueller. Slapping ounces of vaseline onto the lens of reality. It praises his hair and his clothes and his 35 dollar watch. It declares him a soldier "forged in combat", regaling us with tales of the bravery of Mueller's marine regiment -- "The Magnificent Bastards".

Vietnam is reduced to a movie set -- nothing but a backdrop for Mueller's courage under fire. He won a bronze star, you know. Apparently while "The Magnificent Bastards" strode around the Vietnamese jungle, burning villages down and watching the napalm fall from the sky, a couple of angry farmers shot back and Mueller was wounded.

Taking a bullet in the leg from a terrified peasant who just wants you to sod off out of his country will always win you medals, but it shouldn't.

Voluntarily signing on to enforce Imperial foreign policy in a war of conquest will always have the media paint you as a hero, but it shouldn't.

What flaws the author does ascribe to Mueller are those we all happily admit to having ourselves. He's a "micromanager" and he's "too tough".

Yes, and I'm sure he works himself too hard and doesn't suffer fools gladly and always speaks his mind aswell.

Read the column if you want, but I'd suggest not eating for a few hours first. A more nauseating panegyric I have not witnessed, at least since Barack Obama left office .

Far more telling than what it does say is what it does not say. It mentions Mueller's role as head of the FBI during the launch of the "war on terror", but doesn't go into any of the abuse of human rights that accompanied (and still accompanies) the increasingly authoritarian powers granted to US intelligence agencies by the Patriot Act.

Let's be clear: Mueller's FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.

Given that, it's rather unsurprising that the article doesn't mention the word "Iraq" once. A breath-taking omission, considering Mueller's testimony in front of congress played a key role in spreading the lie of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction":

https://www.youtube.com/embed/x0CfAh2PJ6k?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

It doesn't matter how many Vietnamese peasants took pot-shots at him, it doesn't matter how tidy his hair is, or how cheap his watch. It doesn't matter if he looks like Cooper or speaks like Eastwood or walks like Wayne. He is a proven liar -- a man culpable in the greatest crime of the 21st century. He is, and always will be, a servant of the Deep State.

A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.

Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?

Only in "the Resistance".

Obviously, Trump's administration is dangerous -- it still stokes warlike approaches to Iran and Russia. It has directly threatened Venezuela and Cuba. But you can't fight the right-hand of the Deep State by clasping the left. They all join in the middle. They're the same monster.

Anti-Trumpers, all over the world, need to take a good look at WHO they're fighting alongside, and ask themselves WHAT they are fighting for.

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

systemicfraud Nov, 26, 2018

Mueller's FBI named their 9/11 investigation PENTTBOM=Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing
There were also numerous media accounts of explosives being used on 9/11–even ABC's John Miller
stated initial FBI feedback was that there were additional explosives used at WTC on 9/11.

Did FBI test for explosives?
What were the results?
If no tests were done–why the F not?
Why didn't media or Congress ever follow up and ask FBI about the explosions which were reported?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

Yarkob Nov, 25, 2018

i was reading that puff-piece yesterday, thinking "i wonder how long off-g's response to this journalistic offal will be in coming" you haven't disappointed! Kit..sorry, i sound like a gushing fanboi. most people outside of america don't realise how deep statey Mueller really is. he's the Harvey Keitel character from pulp fiction. the mob cleanup guy

the Graun is particularly odious at the moment. today's leader is a blatant opinion piece where the "writer" is practically rubbing their hand on their thighs with glee, telling us how trump is facing a subpoena cannon from the dems. good too see they're using their newly re-minted political capital on the important business of running the country resistance my arse

Antonym Nov, 25, 2018

The same Mueller went after Iranians instead of Saudis for the Khobar bombing despite contrary evidence, and ignored Russia's warnings about future Boston bomber Tsarneav. He was also the biggest obstacle for Sept. 11 families who wanted to sue Saudi Arabia. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/robert-mueller-was-the-biggest-obstacle-for-sept-11-families-who-wanted-to-sue-saudi-arabia
A "good ol boy" in rogue CIA speak.

homeslicez Nov, 25, 2018

And with the anthrax investigation (which of course the Guardian doesn't mention), he's also a proven incompetent.

Have to say though–I'm looking forward to the day when this investigation is wrapped, the report comes out, and it's not at all what the Maddows wanted to hear. At that point Mueller will suddenly be a Russian agent himself; incompetent; compromised, and any/all other smears to explain why his investigation didn't find their irrational hysteria to be true.

Then maybe a few months later Trump will fire him and he'll be a hero again and get a Gofund to help this poor unemployed honorable soul.

Einstein Nov, 24, 2018

Wonder how the Grauniad will explain away the Skripal case when it's revealed that Mueller's Steele dossier was written by Skripal.
No wonder the British Deep State are panicking to prevent the publication of the documents ordered by the Orange One.

https://widgets.wp.com/likes/#blog_id=89387340&comment_id=138778&origin=off-guardian.org&obj_id=89387340-138778-5c256efa22ddd

Paul Nov, 24, 2018

What documents has he ordered?

https://widgets.wp.com/likes/#blog_id=89387340&comment_id=138780&origin=off-guardian.org&obj_id=89387340-138780-5c256efa2400a

Roberto Nov, 24, 2018

The ones specified in late September 2018.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-23/mi6-scrambling-stop-trump-releasing-classified-docs-russia-probe

USAma Bin Laden Nov, 24, 2018

The so-called anti-Trump Resistance(TM) plays the role of Good Cop to the Trump Regime's Bad Cop. Nothing more.

This is the nature of the political shell game that passes for American democracy, which in reality is an imperial plutocracy.

In all these Anglo imperialist nations in general like America, Britain, or Australia, there is only one true party: the party of Anglo American imperialism.

The anti-Trump "Resistance" is merely one faction of the Anglo-American Empire, which is in conflict with another faction of the Anglo-American Empire.

The supposed differences between them are similar to the differences between Coke and Pepsi, or McDonald's and Burger King.

Distinctions without a difference.

A pox on all their houses.

Gary Weglarz Nov, 24, 2018

("A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.

Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?

Only in "the Resistance").

-- - ah, there you go again bringing in reason, a rational argument, the historical record, common sense, and in short objective – "reality" – into the equation. Of course if you are using these sort of criteria Mueller isn't going to look so good. You have to understand that the "Resistance" is, well, more of a "feeling" than anything rational or intellectually defensible.and valorizing Muller certainly isn't based on his "real-world" behavior. Simply put, Muller stands in opposition to Trump and that "feels" right to the "resistance." You know, just like it "feels right" to this same segment of the U.S. population not to let themselves think about the fact that Obama was illegally and immorally bombing 8 Muslim countries as he left office.

Of course in the end Mueller as "hero" of the "resistance" is simply the deep state's slight of hand PR campaign to oppose Trump as the impossibly and unacceptably "bad face" for U.S. empire that he is.
I mean how are Merkel or Macron or May supposed to rally their even half-awake citizenry into dutifully following our tweet crazed endlessly offensive "Orange One" into the next all important battle against the newest deep state defined "Hitler" in Iran, or Syria, or . . . while maintaining any credibility with their own populations?

Paul Nov, 24, 2018

It's astonishing how many self professed 'Progressives' swallow the Resistance line. There certainly is a war within the Administration, Dark State v the President. The latest episode seems to have centred around cutting off the legs of Trump's big partner in the ME and his son in law's close friend, Crown Prince bin Salman. What promoted Turkey to release the information they had on the murder in Istanbul? We can be satisfied it wasn't borne out of humanitarianism! Were they acting in lock step with the American Agencies like the CIA that now tells Turkey it has intercepts 'proving' the Crown Prince ordered the killing? The 'bloodless' Regime Change that is underway aims to remove an arrogant and reckless not to say bloodthirsty man from Absolute Power, a position he might have held for 50 years or more. No wonder Erdoghan would like to see him sidelined. 50 years of Absolute Power in one of the richest countries on earth is an awful lot of time! For the Americans it is a case of seizing control of Foreign Policy in the ME from Trump who keeps talking about 'getting out' of Syria: the Military and the Agencies regard that as not in American interests; they intend to stay and control the vast oil wells in the NE. But it requires agreement with Turkey so who knows what the Agencies promise Turkey in return? It sounds like a deal dividing northern Syria between the Turks and the Americans; no room for the Kurds (again). It's the most serious blow to Trump's authority akin to the time the American military disobeyed Obama over the cease fire with Russia in Syria when instead they 'accidently' bombed Syrian soldiers, killing 80 of them. President's it seems are not allowed their own Foreign Policy and in reality that has been the case since the CIA was founded. Only Kennedy seriously tried to break away

[Dec 27, 2018] My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and containing Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again

Notable quotes:
"... . Wouldnt it be nice if that Satanic 'fellow' was harrased at home like, unfortunatley, Tucker Carlson was. (Instead of Carlson) ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com
MAGAnotMISA , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™

Apart from the questions raised by some from the alternative media:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627

The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well, Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:

1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being: apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists, homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)

2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.

3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.

Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.

And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US Ambassador.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Lebanon_from_Foreigners

I'd like to hear Mr Giraldi's take on the matter, though I don't think he will ever write about it.

Merry Christmas to all.

Anonymous [386] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Durruti Kucinich is far from being a real American. Where are the the people that do not want to take?
Art , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT
Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.

Oh my – the Jew "meathead" is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.

Some things never change.

anon [202] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:10 am GMT
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."

He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a liar.

Moi , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
Further proof that we are nuts.
jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
@MAGAnotMISA What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration.
Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ?
But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.

Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government. One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.

Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success. Judaism lost the battle with christianity, bolsjewism failed in Russia, getting equal rights in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbours, and all over the world, and jewish puppet Hillary was not elected. The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.

Montefrío , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:08 pm GMT
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:19 pm GMT
@anon In the idea that the USA is the new zion Trump indeed commits treason.
Before Israel was established many USA rabbis were against zionism, because in their view the USA already was zion.
As to

childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist

, the use of such words for me means utter confusion, rational analysis no longer possible.
Arthur Koestler was of the opinion that yiddish precluded sensible discussion.
The mentioned words show that he was wrong about the cause.

RVBlake , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:21 pm GMT
If there were any group that deserved rebuffing and blindsiding, it is most assuredly Trump's advisers and military commanders.
APilgrim , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:43 pm GMT
President Trump has ERASED the terrorists supported by Obama & McCain.

His 'deconfliction' with Russia was instrumental in the Daesh Extermination.

If Congress passes an AUMF, we shall stay. Otherwise, Adios!

APilgrim , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:51 pm GMT
Today's Jerusalem Post had a link to this Kamala Harris political fund-raising ad.

https://action.kamalaharris.org/sign/181206-evergreen-ob/?source=ads_outbrain_181212_dint_all_desktop_000395c6d552e1c60c57e8e03fadb17b09

The cvnt.

Sarah Toga , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:59 pm GMT
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.

In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,

"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."

That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically deadly and destructive.

Heros , says: December 25, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
What great Christmas presents from Trump.

1. US withdrawal from Syria, and apparently all non-nato committed US troops from Afghanistan.
2. Willingness to shutdown Government in order to force funding for the wall
3. Rumors of subpoena's being handed out at G.H.W Bush's funeral
4. Senate investigations into Clinton Foundation with auditors claiming jaw dropping corruption
5. Grand Jury empaneled to investigate into 9/11

I don't know if Q is a psyop, but a lot of the things he has been saying appear to be coming closer to reality. We can be certain that none of this would have happened had Clinton been elected.

Meanwhile the deep state is not taking this lying down.

1. Netanyahu is threatening to increase operations in Syria. Perhaps he warned Trump to get out because he is going to go nuclear or bio.
2. The global warming panic propaganda is being turned up to "broil" as weather warfare has been unleashed across the planet.
3. Ukraine attempting to drag Nato into a war for the Kerch straight.
4. Stockmarkets tanking as the Fed keeps tightening while Mnuchin performs the "plunge protection team rag"
5. Iran war threats and Persian gulf sabre rattling
6. Heeb financial war against Russia, Iran and China.
7. Heeb technology war against China (Huawei arrest)

Even if the US leaves Syria as Trump claims, they certainly will not just hand everything over to Assad. The Damascus/Baghdad hiway re-opening through Al Tanf and the hand over of all Euphrates river crossings to Syria would be indication of a true change of policy.

FelicityRules , says: December 25, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.

I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.

Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good riddance.

Cortes , says: December 25, 2018 at 1:33 pm GMT
@FB Well said.

I'd just add that few things would please me more than to have DJT draft the human chickenhawks due to their indispensable expertise and place their backsides in-country to dole out their words of wisdom there.

ChuckOrloski , says: December 25, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT
The honorable & courageous American Man endowed with precision scientific/political wisdom wrote, with special appeal to me: "Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel , that could actually result in more attacks upon Syria."

Christos Razdajetsja, Philip!

Johnny Walker Read , says: December 25, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
Call me crazy, but I'm still a bit leery, cautiously hopping this is not just another charade. Is this just another way to allow the dissection of Syria to take another path?

Always remember if Trump is in opposition to his globalist master's he will be removed, one way or the other.

Hunsdon , says: December 25, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@FB FB:

Thank you for that! I now realize that the appellation chickenhawk used in reference to the "let's you and him" fight gang is a slur on a fine little raptor. You have educated me.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:03 pm GMT
@anon What's the battle cry of the Israeli army?
Onward Christian Soldiers

Merry Christmas every one

Tim K , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT
US out of Syria? Why were "we" ever in there?
anon [122] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT
boot, nuland, shapiro, stephens, reiner, etc etc – one (((chickenhawk))) after another
Sparkon , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ), Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither binoculars nor field guide.

But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.

President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday stockings.

Peace on Earth to all men of Good Will.

Johnny Walker Read , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:34 pm GMT
@wayfarer Not sure if the opening word's in the first video are spoken by Sheikh Imran N Hosein. It sounds like him. I just wanted to say I have listened to a lot of his messages and find him very enlightening. For those who believe in end time prophecy, I think you will find well versed and extremely intelligent, as compared to many of the so called "Christian" huckster's out there selling religion for dollars.

https://www.youtube.com/user/khalid5288/featured

The Alarmist , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
@Tim K

"US out of Syria? Why were "we" ever in there?"

Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilising a local rival of both? Who knows?

What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can buy.

DESERT FOX , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the profits from the wars!

Zionists have instigated every war that the U.S. has been in since WWI and right on down through the Mideast slaughter house that Israel and her Zionists patrons have sent Americans to fight and die in and by crippled for life in and the millions of civilians, men, women and children that have been murdered in the wars fought for Zionist Israel!

The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!

Finally Trump has done the right thing by getting out of Syria and now should get the hell out of the Mideast and Afghanistan and close the slaughter houses!

God bless Putin and Russia and Assad and Syria for saving the people of Syria and defeating ISIS aka Al CIADA ie a creation of the U.S. and Israel and Britain!

Zionists and Israel will be the death of America unless we wake up and smell the coffee!

Johnny Walker Read , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@wayfarer Should have watched the video a little longer before I commented. It is indeed Sheikh Imran N Hosein in the video. LOL and Merry Christmas !
follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT
@renfro One hopes that Russia will have stationed its advanced air defense systems throughout Syria. And they should not be afraid to shoot down the Israeli aggressors.

Jilles sounds like he is Max Boot in disguise.

follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:12 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Jilles,
Haven't you completely contradicted your prior response to @renfro about Trump? You called him a "complete idiot, leading a country to destruction," now you are claiming he is a "reasonable man, who understands that warfare is just a destruction of wealth." He can't be both, can he?
Parsnipitous , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:31 pm GMT
@follyofwar I think he meant Nutandyahoo
ChuckOrloski , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX Of extreme importance, Desert Fox of"The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it ,"

Christmas Day greetings, Desert Fox!

Re; above sentence, a cordial question.

Is there anything you know & which you have not said (to date) that might signal that the American-Israeli Empire's mighty military is prepped to allow the Assad and Rouhani anti-Zionist governments to stand?

Uh perhaps, either delay or junk establishment of Greater Israel?

Am convinced Trump would only slow down international Jewry's plan. Or else no unguarded JFK convertible limo trips for him on reelection-campaign road.

Thanks, Desert, you always stand on solid ground.

follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT
@chris Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17 years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to be liberators). Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants to pull out. All three countries were much smaller and weaker than Iran, and the US is much weaker, morally and militarily, than it was after the 9/11 hoax. And, after Russia has expended much blood and treasure in ensuring victory for Assad and the Syrian people, will it now sit on its hands as the US Air Force dismantles Teheran? Plus there is a resurgent China, dependent on Iranian oil, to consider.

I'm not saying that Trump will not start a war against Iran (for Israel's benefit). But, he'd better be prepared for the consequences, which will all be devastating to the American Empire. Be careful what you wish for.

wayfarer , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read Sheikh Imran N. Hosein sure presented some compelling facts.

By the way, there're lots of colorful Christmas lights sparkling here in Yuma, Arizona.

On my beater trailer, I keep mine up and burning brightly all year round. It's a trashy Americana thing, LOL!

Have a dark hunch 2019 is going to be a rough one, but hey, no pain no gain.

Best of luck Johnny Walker Read, in this approaching new year.

Z-man , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT

But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.

Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran.
Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter.
I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day. Wouldnt it be nice if that Satanic 'fellow' was harrased at home like, unfortunatley, Tucker Carlson was. (Instead of Carlson)

follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"

Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.

Z-man , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
@Z-man Arrggh, that would be that serpent Bill Kristol of course!

Merry Christmas to all.

follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Parsnipitous Reading my comment again, I can see where I might have misinterpreted Jilles intent. If so, I apologize. However, if he had identified, by name, who he was referring to, perhaps I wouldn't have been confused.
never-anonymous , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. Trump was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq, online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap anymore.
Durruti , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West Good thinking:

opening the door to NATO's Turkey to go after the Kurd units there

Must look to the North:

On Turkey's Northwest front, tensions are high between the Greek Military & some foreign controllers of Greece, and the Turkish Military, and their leaders.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/27/tensions-flare-greece-turkey-answer-provocation-erdogan

There are many other informational links.

Turkey (Erdogan), might face a 2 Front War if it seizes further portions of Syria (regardless of excuse).

The Zionist imperialists (and puppet USA, NATO, EU), face difficult choices of who to trigger, and who to restrain.

Russia and the Arab Nations may come out of this Hellish conundrum – in good shape. And that bodes well for all of us, from America, to Novorossiya.

JoaoAlfaiate , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
Reuben Kaspate , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
For once, let all nuclear arsenal be directed at the Middle East and when the smoke clears after a thousand years, there will be no God, Jews or Arabs to deal with any of remaining humans will be welcomed!
DESERT FOX , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.

Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.

It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but have a Merry Christmas!

jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:45 pm GMT
@follyofwar Here we agree.
But in a comment below I read that I sowed confusion.
Possible, I see no need to find out what went wrong.
Boris M Garsky , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
A brilliant move and timed perfectly.
Renoman , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:58 pm GMT
Yes to Trump and withdrawal from Mid East Wars, down with MSM, The Neocons, the 1% , the deep state and Israel, the whole World hates these assholes. Go Donny Daddy!
wayfarer , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT

There is nothing good or evil save in the will.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus

Rand Paul backs Trump on Withdrawing from Syria: Good!

Bragadocious , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits.

This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our policies.

Charlie , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
God bless you Ron Unz for providing this forum. Chickenhawks. Who would have thought.
jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Z-man Israel fears Iran, is my idea.
Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli jews do not see how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'.

Not all jews are idiots.
Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a zionist reached Palestine, and saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'.
He stated 'this is a crime'.

The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.

In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial compensation, between Turkey and Greece.
To this day tensions exist between the two countries.

Iran is one of the oldest civilisations.
Twice, one might say even three time, the west overthrew Iranian democracy.
Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to power so that he could subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah.
Iran also of course knows quite well jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to destroy Iraq.
Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?

So that Netanyahu and USA jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be otherwise ?
Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a problem, use power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more power'.

There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbours, or with the Palestinians.
About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'how we fooled the Palestinians'?
Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin, one of them, if my recollection is correct.
There always was the idea of overwhelming more military power, and of USA support.

Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW.
What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ?
Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?

jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:49 pm GMT
@Durruti EU

https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/vacances-d-hiver-a-huis-clos-pour-emmanuel-macron-1597858.html

Macron is not skiing between Christmas and New Year.
French is my worst language, but 'huis clos' is curtains closed, the expression is used often for court proceedings without an audience, closed doors.
If my idea is correct that he stays indoors because his security cannot be guaranteed, maybe someone whose first language is French can enlighten me.

Whatever the case, the man who wants an EU army now has trouble keeping peace in his own country.
NATO, Stoltenberg's face during the dinner with Trump, disbelief.
Trigger and restrain, at the moment the Yellow Vests have caused the impossibility for Brussels to do anything, survival is what concerns them.

ChuckOrloski , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX Desert Fox with a Montana-attitude, soft side, said: "It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but have a Merry Christmas!'

Greetings from snowless Scranton, Desert Fox!

Over decades, have reflected upon Charles Schulz's great (1965) "Charlie Brown Christmas." Prior to it's release, I have scant memory that Mr. Schulz had to battle those who wanted the traditional Nativity of Christ and spiritual meaning out of the way. Fyi, Charles's opponents lost!

As Christ-trashing Hollywood "Christmas" films dominate & mis-educate our popular culture, please, please, please look (below) at the beautiful narration of "Charlie Brown Christmas."

jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
@Bragadocious

This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war they've approved of, or started.

Who is they, and do what ?
Even the Dutch army could withstand the weapons shown here.

AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100% fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
Johnny Walker Read , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMT
@wayfarer No snow here in Albuquerque, NM, but the skies are loaded with chemtrails. I guess the sky spider's never get a day off. Here's hoping you and your's have a merry Christmas.
Virgile , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
Trump wants Turkey to stop harassing Saudi Arabia about Kashoogi's murder and be more complacent with Israel. He also wants Israel to become more anxious abiut its security so it agrees on the Palestinian peace plan elaborated by Jared Kuchner and MBS.
Turkey has now promised to fight ISIS which it never did. Saudi Arabia as well as Syria wants Turkey humiliated, defeated and out of Syria. It may well happen when the Turkish army will be confronted with a renewedc ISIS manipulated by Saudi Arabia and Syria.
It seems that the withdrawal of the US forces from Syria may trigger the end of Erdogan's hegemonic dreams in the region and the victorious return of Syria among the Arabs.
chris , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@follyofwar Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No, they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
Bragadocious , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Yeah, not sure about the Dutch, with their history at Srebrenica.

But I was referring to the Brits trying to push Trump back into the Middle East war grinder.

Harold Smith , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:44 pm GMT
"President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies "

Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at face value.

Orange clown's alleged disengagement from Syria may be (and probably is) nothing more that a tactical retreat/change in plans for which the Mattis resignation is merely a fig leaf; that is, it's just more of the same disingenuous dialectics that we've been bombarded with since the beginning of the "Trump" administration.

Apparently we're urged to conclude that Trump has finally had enough of the people he knowingly and willingly surrounded himself with, and their agenda, and now all of a sudden (because of some kind of a spiritual epiphany, pro-American New Year's resolution, etc.) he wants to do right by (some of) his supporters by doing what he should've done a long time ago. (And the hint of a military drawdown in Afghanistan adds a nice touch).

Sorry but I can't buy what they're selling.

If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the "government" of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate range nuclear armed missiles in Europe – with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty rather than withdraw from it – I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's changed.

As it is now it'll take a lot more than the obligatory "avalanche of condemnation" i.e., cheap words, to convince me that the perfidious orange clown and his jewish-supremacist handlers are doing anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with one hand while steering it into the iceberg with the other hand.

anon [231] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at face value.

agree

just watch their behaviour – the wall never gets built even though they are now talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year – the increase alone is the cost of two walls

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
@Puzzled "I have never been able to discern a strategy, other than to keep the region in turmoil"
– Agree.

Here is a tepid and academically deeply dishonest oeuvre by Richard Haass, who simply cannot help himself but to keep his day job of presstituting: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-12-11/how-world-order-ends

Sampling:

Although Russia has avoided any direct military challenge to NATO, it has nonetheless shown a growing willingness to disrupt the status quo: through its use of force in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscriminate military intervention in Syria, and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare to attempt to affect political outcomes in the United States and Europe.

Haass is a Cheney's choice of opportunist and Goebbelsian kind of criminal:

Haass was born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn From 1989 to 1993, he was Special Assistant to United States President George H. W. Bush and National Security Council Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs. In 1991, Haass received the Presidential Citizens Medal for helping to develop and explain U.S. policy during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Haass argued that the leaders of the United States should adopt "an imperial foreign policy" to construct and manage an informal American empire (Haass 2000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_N._Haass

A123 , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines. And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.

-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain sanctions and other pressure on Iran.

-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.

-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.

Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow thru on the crazy.

__________

(1) https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2018/12/16/erdogan-unhinged-compares-israel-to-nazi-germany-claims-cultural-genocide-against-palestinians/

Tony H. , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat.

"which was rightly seen as a serious threat."
So it was, was it? That's really the beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were a few naysayers back then, since largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives, who claimed that Stalin's postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to protect the USSR from the talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was well aware of all the loose talk on the American side and his country had just endured the same attempt on the part of Nazi Germany.

EugeneGur , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:08 pm GMT

"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat.

Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US, particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering; the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids – ditto. In contrast, the United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in Europe.

The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets, having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number until the very end.

It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:10 pm GMT
@MAGAnotMISA "ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "

– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate" terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/

Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan

The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in Syria.

The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.

Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli police and UN forces.

Michael Kenny , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:18 pm GMT
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
Alfred , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT
@renfro Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that there are elections due on 9 April.

You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.

2stateshmustate , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX You took the words right out of my mouth.
annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:32 pm GMT
@MAGAnotMISA More on the Jewish State's beloved protege White Helmets and the profoundly zionized presstituting MSM: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/447385-white-helmets-un-panel/

"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media yawns," by Eva Bartlett.

"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists -- including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other non-rescuer behaviour.

a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets) bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical attack."

In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.

Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has covered the event and its critical contents.

This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official narrative.

wayfarer , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:36 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read Merry Christmas, to you and the world, as well.

Any ideas as to why Albuquerque New Mexico is being targeted?

I've been following some theories surrounding the Paradise California fires.

It seems as if the "elite's" end-game is now at our door-step.

I don't know about you, but I can sure feel my soldier DNA starting to activate.

Not really looking forward to what's coming down humanity's dark road.

wayfarer , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:46 pm GMT

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, to one who is striking at the root.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau

New World Order Reveals Their Plans for U.S. in 2019

Alfred , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"

The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings. The 3rd building was only explosives.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/11/nearly-10k-people-have-gotten-cancer-from-toxic-9-11-dust/

Here is a useful link:

""9-11/Israel did it""

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"

– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of mythological choseness.
Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military confrontation with Iran/Russia.

As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.

anon [231] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:57 pm GMT
@EugeneGur

The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as early as in 1945.

obtuse

follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Bragadocious What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Tony H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:

With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.

He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the new world circumstances.

He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw as exploitation of Russian weakness.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/george-kennan

Realist , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT

And he might want to think of a Christmas present for 2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And in addition Syria, Iraq, Guam, Germany, Britain, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Norway and on and on. Give the present 11 months early.

anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT
@annamaria THis is that GELLER who has been riling up ant Muslim hysteria in US She has been co hosting the islamophobes and has been renting spaces for add against Jihad

OMG
WTF

wake up America

Or is there 2 Gellers?

Simply Simon , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:31 pm GMT
@FB Wow, great picture! Incredible detail. More than an iPhone I suspect.
anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:32 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny Like you are irreversibly bogged down in between your legs looking for Bush's WMD, Obama's gas, Netanyhu's water source , Rothschild's oil,Bolton's nooses around himself,Weekly Standard's lost child FDD and confused Sheldon's diaper.
!
DESERT FOX , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT
@Alfred Agree that many have died and are dying from cancer caused by the asbestos and other materials in the dust, in my opinion the WTC towers were destroyed by direct energy weapons plus micro nukes and WTC buildings 3,4,5,and 6 were destroyed by direct energy weapons and WTC 7 was destroyed by conventional explosives, and there were 7 WTC buildings destroyed in total.

Check the site Drjudywood.com and read her book Where Did The Towers Go and watch her videos on youtube, she is a scientist and very credible and it is from her that I got the directed energy weapons theory. There were no planes used and the planes that were seen were holograms and for an explanation of this see John Lears videos on youtube, John Lear is the son of William Lear the designer of the Lear Jet and John was a commercial pilot and his videos on 911 explain why no planes were used.

Zionist Israel and the zionist controlled deep state did 911.

Realist , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

Is Putin ready for Erdogan to back-stab Russia again? (recalling Erdogan's military had shot down a Russian jet.)

The biggest problem Putin has with Erogan is the control of the Russian navy's exit from the Black sea through the Bosporus.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:45 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
Svigor , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:53 pm GMT
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's the end of the world," etc.

LOL.

m___ , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).

Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK, let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.

No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to think over the long term.

Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?

chris , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:18 pm GMT
@Sarah Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:20 pm GMT
@Realist That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
RobinG , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT
.local sources told Al Jazeera and Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency --

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday that Ankara and Washington agreed to complete withdrawal of the YPG forces from Manbij before the US pulls out of Syria.

He added the US agreed to take back weapons given to the YPG.

Syrian government forces 'enter' Kurdish-controlled Manbij region
Trucks carrying regime forces and equipment, and armoured vehicles have arrived in the region, sources say.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/syrian-government-forces-enter-kurdish-controlled-manbij-region-181225153526422.html

chris , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:27 pm GMT
@Svigor Very funny, Svigor, still, you couldn't pay me enough to listen to NPR.

The smug, self-confidence of diletantnts combined with crass dishonesty is hard to beat when it comes to annoying!

Bragadocious , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
@follyofwar Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship" should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere. Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax but I don't think any Iranians are.

Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:36 pm GMT
Merry Christmas, dear Friends:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=217&v=qJ_MGWio-vc

AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:42 pm GMT
@Svigor It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors.
peterAUS , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:59 pm GMT
@m___ Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually, positive and optimistic.

If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same page and malevolent re us , the common folks.

I am afraid that's not the case.

I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.

And, gets worse, actually.
In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor whim ,if you will.
On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground.
And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors bunch?
And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.

Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been happening with North Korea?
What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the .Cult Leader?
Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for long range nuclear strike.
So .any "rolling" happened? Anything?
I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.

The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by that fellow can agitate us so much.
Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.

They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart.
Just great.

nickels , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:12 pm GMT
All wars are jews wars:

"Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.premium-syria-trump-just-gave-the-finger-to-his-pro-israel-jewish-voters-1.6770414

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:19 pm GMT
A wonderfully conciliatory and hopeful article by Thierry Meyssan: http://www.voltairenet.org/article204453.html

"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"

As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces. Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for the jihadists.

The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan, which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an end on Syrian territory.

It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.

The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war [in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a unipolar world .

Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.

After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.

AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
@peterAUS

My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.

And those "they" aren't even that smart.

My goodness! I agree with you on this.

Ronald Thomas West , says: Website December 25, 2018 at 10:24 pm GMT
@Realist When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division might reward it.)
Anon [149] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT

LOCKERBIE

http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2018/12/lockerbie.html

anon [376] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:43 pm GMT
@Bragadocious

Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives.

yeah, those dirty "Brits"

next thing you know they'll try to send the US Navy up the Yangtze River to force opium on the Chinese, lol

RobinG , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:50 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN "The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take note:

Aaron Maté‏Verified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24

Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a Turkish assault:

"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do nothing to deter Turkey.

In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just indicated."

Digital Samizdat , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:54 pm GMT
Everybody say a prayer for Lindsay Graham this Christmas. I hear he's in distress
Anon [149] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT

LOCKERBIE

http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2018/12/lockerbie.html

anon [376] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:43 pm GMT
@Bragadocious

Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives.

yeah, those dirty "Brits"

next thing you know they'll try to send the US Navy up the Yangtze River to force opium on the Chinese, lol

RobinG , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:50 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN "The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take note:

Aaron Maté‏Verified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24

Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a Turkish assault:

"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do nothing to deter Turkey.

In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just indicated."

Digital Samizdat , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:54 pm GMT
Everybody say a prayer for Lindsay Graham this Christmas. I hear he's in distress
Svigor , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:57 pm GMT
I find it interesting that Drudge has had almost nothing about the Syria withdrawal, or the fallout Giraldi describes. I heard far more about it by tuning in to NPR.
Haxo Angmark , says: Website December 25, 2018 at 11:07 pm GMT
just in case no one above has mentioned it:

(((Reuters))) is a

(((Rothschild)))-owned fake news racket. And, incidentally,

(((Reuters))) is where the BBC got its 15-minutes premature bulletin

on the collapse of WT-7.

FB , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:08 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny If Putin is 'bogged' down in Syria, one shudders to think of what kind of bog your tiny brain is stuck in
Realist , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much wider.

It's not that simple. Any attempt to take control of the of the Bosporus would make it at least temporarily impassable.

NoseytheDuke , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:25 pm GMT
@follyofwar The real change will come should ever US military personnel realise that true patriotism would compel them not to serve, to sabotage equipment and even resort to fragging. Perhaps Incitatus could give instructions on how some could pull off a "Corporal Klinger" in order to evade service.
geokat62 , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:27 pm GMT
Well, that didn't take long:
Svigor , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:37 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer Good clip. High points for LULZ were "if we're fighting Assad doesn't that help ISIS? And if we're fighting ISIS doesn't that help Assad?" and "now you know why people get their news from Youtube."
NoseytheDuke , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:39 pm GMT
@Bragadocious It is business as usual. I remember when GWB was having some difficulty selling the war on Iraq prior to the invasion. War criminal Tony Blair very eloquently addressed both houses in the US and closed the sale. I watched it live with a tough old former Marine friend who was actually moved to tears when he realised that the war would be going ahead. What hope is there for nations that have yet to hold to account such vermin as Blair, GWB, Howard etc?
Digital Samizdat , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:43 pm GMT
@follyofwar The Brits were the original Rothschild ass-muppets. Before there was the Fed, there was the Bank of England. Before there was the Senate, there was Parliament. And before there was Wall Street, there was the City of London. Hell, without Britain, Israel wouldn't even exist!

I'm not putting down ordinary British people, who tend to be very nice. I'm talking about their horrible ruling class, which is just rotten to the core.

Wally , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:51 pm GMT
@Anon What's the battle cry of the US army?
Wally , says: Website December 25, 2018 at 11:56 pm GMT
@anon LOL

Also how Kenny is "irreversibly bogged down in" trying to find proof of his fantasized '6,000,000 Jews & gas chambers'.

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 12:01 am GMT
@Realist Taking into account long-range missiles, impassability of those straits is not such a great military problem. But the disappearance of a large chunk if Istanbul (the US would call it "collateral damage") would be a serious problem for Turkey.

I don't think it would ever come to that: Erdogan is a cautious bastard. His whole stint with buying Russian C-400 was undertaken to make sure he is not "democratically" bombed by those who bring democracy on the heads of aborigines in half-a-ton TNT installments and then bitterly complain that those aborigines are ungrateful.

Wally , says: December 26, 2018 at 12:01 am GMT
@Svigor Indeed, the once 'pro-peace left' is quite the opposite.

I always laugh when I see peace sign bumper stickers next to Obama and / or Hillary stickers.

NoseytheDuke , says: December 26, 2018 at 12:09 am GMT
@Bragadocious To be fair, the "Brits", as in the British people, bear the same responsibility as do the "Americans", as in the American people. Granted, a great many voters in both nations are quite utterly stupid but it might be more accurate to refer to The City and to Wall St as being the guilty ones.
RobinG , says: December 26, 2018 at 12:17 am GMT
@geokat62 Could be Maram was a little quick off the mark with the "raining down." But definitely, Israel may try anything in desperation.

SYRIANA ANALYSIS -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYj2WWh7Pgw&feature=youtu.be

Syrian air defences responding to hostile targets in Damascus

obwandiyag , says: December 26, 2018 at 12:38 am GMT
The US is ISIS. It's like stopping hitting yourself in the face.
anon [246] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 12:42 am GMT
Ill believe it when they are gone.

Trump now has a new acting Secretary of Defense [Shannahan]. Turkey is already dithering about needing more time.

Military will never stop slow walking this.

Although new alliances are being formed.

ChuckOrloski , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:02 am GMT
@wayfarer Christmas greetings, Wayfarer!

Thanks so much for the video examination of The Economist magazine cover. Oh, man! What s gift you gave U.R. commenters.

The stork carrying the baby delivery bag with bar code markings especially astonished me!

Thanks, again!

wayfarer , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:10 am GMT
@FB Just a thought.

Grunts, the ones actually doing the fighting and dying, will typically refer to one who speaks out in support of war, yet has avoided active military service, as a chickenshit and not a chickenhawk.

So it's probably safe to say, wikiquote needs to be updated.

source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)

ChuckOrloski , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:13 am GMT
@geokat62 Hey geokat!

(Zigh)

As drudgereport features today, Pope proclaims love is needed, Israel gave neighboring Syria some backward-love, uh, "evol," today, Christmas day!

Anon [512] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:20 am GMT
Chickenhawk ought to become the term for warmongers too cowardly actually join the military themselves.
Anon [512] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:30 am GMT
@never-anonymous Your average American general isn't interested in America's welfare. He's interested in the defensive industry because he plans to retire early from the US army and get rich lobbying for defensive companies. People like this tend to be good at climbing the rank ladder because they are completely self-serving, and they are a genuine problem for the the US when they get to the top and claim the ear of a US president. All they do is promote more war to make their future employers rich, who then provide a quid pro quo by hiring these disgusting generals afterwards.
Pft , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
"though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. "

Lol, yup, thats the plan

wayfarer , says: December 26, 2018 at 2:04 am GMT
@ChuckOrloski

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

That is you, Chuck Orloski.

You're an American patriot, one who's proven to be a "reliable soldier" in the good fight.

Hope you've had a Merry Christmas.

Now standby for heavy rolls, in 2019.

RobinG , says: December 26, 2018 at 2:35 am GMT
@RobinG Or not.

@Partisangirl
#Israel murdered this Syrian soldier on #christmas. First lieutenant Gabriel Ali Raya won't be going home to his family. Yet fools keep believing Israeli lie that they are targeting Iran while it's bombing #Syria.

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl

redmudhooch , says: December 26, 2018 at 2:49 am GMT
This is most certainly good news if true, but lets not forget they're still poking at Russia, poking at China, still all over Africa, still stirring trouble in Latin America.
Who knows if they may be about to send in private mercenaries from Blackwater into Syria. Not to mention all the money and weapons we give the Israelis-Saudis so they'll still be stirring shit in Syria and elsewhere, all that American money could buy Israel lots of mercenaries to do the same thing in Syria.

The entire MIC has gotten out of control, money buys congress, they have lots of money. Assuming Trump has any real power or actually cares, he should be trying to get the "defense" industries into doing something other than building weapons of war, maybe put them to work in technology or health or something that benefits humanity, gets America back to competing with Asia, instead of just killing folks.
As long as these "people" are making tons of money building weapons to kill, that is what they will do, wherever it may be. War shouldn't a business.
I guess we just have to wait and see, I'll believe it when I see it.

Agent76 , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:30 am GMT
April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

The Western media refutes their own lies.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

Apr 9, 2017 No More

DECEMBER 21, 2018 It's About Time for the U.S. to Exit Syria and Afghanistan

The final resolution of the U.S.-led war in Syria must be determined by Syrians themselves. All foreign forces must recognize and respect the sovereignty of the Syrian people and their legal representatives.

https://blackallianceforpeace.com/bapstatements/usoutofsyria

A123 , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:31 am GMT
@RobinG 100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free.

After Action Review [AAR]:
-- Assad' s forces definitely expended a significant number of very expensive interceptors.
-- They may, or may not, have shot down one or more less expensive standoff weapons launched by Israel.
-- Iranian forces in Syria were hit and damaged (TBD on repairable vs. destroyed).

All objective analysts will score today's engagement as at least a minor win for the IDF.
Stand by for the non-objective, histrionic, Pallywood, Taqiyya artists' inevitable attempts to misrepresent the events.
_____

The most critical question is, "What AA systems were active?"

The S-300 system, slated for eventual turnover to Syrian forces, has significant training requirements. There are still months of training to be done. So, odds are the S-300 and S-400 systems in theatre, under exclusive Russian control, stayed off.

Much more limited systems such as S-200, Pantsir, and earlier generations are beatable if they are accurately located during planning and shown the respect they deserve. These systems have one shootdown of an F-16 variant that was too low and may have had a serious mechanical failure in countermeasures.

The true decision points are still months away.
-- Will Russia ever turn an S-300 system over to Syrian control?
-- If so, will Assad pay the cash burn rate of ~$0.5 to $1.0 million per S-300 class interceptor?

It is hard to believe that Assad will further bankrupt his nation and starve his children to defend the Iranian, al-Hezbollah rocket forces being targeted by Israel.

Agent76 , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:31 am GMT
May 5, 2017 Syrian War And The Battle For Golan Heights – Genie Oil & Gas Exposed!

The battle for Golan Heights in Syria will soon be under way and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth exposes the Genie Oil and Gas Company and everyone on their advisory board.

JLK , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:51 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

Stay tuned.

I'm as happy with the withdrawal from Syria as anyone here, but "stay tuned" is probably good advice so we don't get our hopes up too much. They may have moved them out of harm's way in preparation for initiating more mischief somewhere else.

RobinG , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:59 am GMT
@A123 Troll #A123 confirms,
ISRAEL KILLS ON CHRISTMAS

Following ancient pattern of Jews attacking on Holy Days.

Pantsir-S2 SAM system of #Syria Arab Air Defense Force launched eight 57E6-E surface to air missiles at Delilah cruise missiles launched by F-16Is of 107sq "Knights of the Orange Tail Squadron" flying from #Hatzerim AB.

niceland , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:10 am GMT
@JLK Or perhaps a bargaining chip. Trump: "pay for my wall and I consider keeping the army in Syria"
Anonymous [209] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:55 am GMT
@AnonFromTN "If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100% fraud."

So far, I presume that Trump is 75% fraud ? or is he only 27,5% fraud ?

If by now you don't know that Trump is 100% fraud, I doubt you know what fraud is.

Since JFK, you can't be President w/o being 100% fraud.

Miro23 , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:16 am GMT

Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from all directions to reverse his decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will either fold completely or bend at least a bit.

Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11, so keeping this in mind, the Syria withdrawal decision could conceivably be taken out of his hands using (another) False Flag,this time targeting Iran (and sacrificing a few thousand American servicemen in the Middle East) or alternatively, using covert action in the US, aimed directly at substituting Trump for Pence.

In an ethics free zone, combined with the enormous hubris of the maniacs running the Empire, possibilities have to extend this far.

annamaria , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:32 am GMT
@A123 "100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free."

– does this mean that you are ready to abandon the annoying quetching about "Jewish eternal victimhood" and "Jewish incomparable suffering?"

And how is the Jewish State cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazi going on?

The first ever Jewish prime-minister of Ukraine Mr. Groysman has been quite effective in keeping with the ongoing restoration of Nazism and banderism in the Kaganat of Nuland (former Ukraine). Guess the main local financier of the neo-Nazi, an Israeli/Ukrainian citizen Kolomojsky, is preparing for a special award from Knesset and AIPAC for his selfless service to the ideas of zionism/nazism.

A123 , says: December 26, 2018 at 6:23 am GMT
@RobinG Please observe . as predicted, . the Taqiyya Trolls are now attempting to deploy histrionics to distract from The Truth.

Serious questions:

-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays? No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?
-- What militarily sound reason is there to give a free pass to violent Iranian forces that do not respect any religious traditions or holidays? None?

The bottom line is pretty simple.

If Iran was not violent, there would be no military action against them on Christmas or any other day. As long as Iran is violent, their Taqiyya supporters cannot credibly whinge about countries defending themselves against Iranian violence.

byrresheim , says: December 26, 2018 at 6:33 am GMT
@jilles dykstra You would do well to read up on the late Shah's stance towards western exploitation of the rest of the world. It's an eye opener.

Even then I wondered how the horrible events of '79 came to pass against the wishes of the Free West™.

Wizard of Oz , says: December 26, 2018 at 6:47 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat What "ruling class". As ruling classes go, especially in a powerful country, the British ruling class wasn't too bad till about 1900. Now the pseudomeritocracy scrambling to make sense in a much less powerful and important country hardly deserves the description "ruling class" at all. Indeed universal suffrage and the devastation of WW1 and the Great Depression may have predictably doomed it years ago.
Wizard of Oz , says: December 26, 2018 at 6:54 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke What do you make of the excuse for Howard (though Malcolm Fraser wouldn't have conceded it!!) that he wasn't critical to the war happening and that only one Australian soldier was killed (by his own hand, presumably accidentally)? 2003 was, after all, a bit early to be looking to China for Australia's comfortable place in the world.
anon [365] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
@renfro Israel is attacking Lebanon and Syria . it is threatening other countries as well in between for lending voices to issues like nuclear treaties with Iran. It has earlier stolen passports, it has forged passports, it has assassinated leaders who were at that time in third country. Now criticizing these activities will be nothing but expression of anti semitism.

WTF wrong with these snake charmers of enormous linguistic variability ? That what it is. They have tongues and they know how to coin new words .

Realist , says: December 26, 2018 at 8:58 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

But the disappearance of a large chunk if Istanbul (the US would call it "collateral damage") would be a serious problem for Turkey.

The US would call it war .Turkey is a NATO member.

Erebus , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:12 am GMT
@JLK

"stay tuned" is probably good advice

Indeed it is, but the cacophony Trump's announcement raised seems genuine enough.

There's something about this whole affair that instills (at least in me) a vague sense that Trump, having given up on a 2nd term, is going to get whatever he can via surprise Presidential Policy Announcements as long as he lasts in office. It's how he ran his campaign and almost certainly the only way he can get anything he said he wanted to do done.

Keep his detractors off-balance with a sufficiently constant stream of announcements that their heads haven't quite stopped spinning before the next one comes out.

To that end, keeping the barking mad ideologues around him on the payroll makes sense. They add to the noise that serves to make the announcement appear reasonable, whereas nuanced argument would undermine his policies even when they're fundamentally right.

So, I'm staying tuned. We may see lots more coming from the same place.

jilles dykstra , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:45 am GMT
@Bragadocious No more than military and political stupidity.
It had been pointed out that defending Srebreniza needed 80.000 troops and heavy weapons.
jilles dykstra , says: December 26, 2018 at 10:02 am GMT
Macron not on skis this year.
My idea is not fear of snipers, but fear of Macron being surrounded by Yellow Vest skiers.
Honnecker's vacations were staying on a government estate, of course completely closed to the public.
Even there, when he went for a walk, a guard a hundred metres before him and another behind him.
Advertising his impopularity by completely closing a piste temporarily for just Macron and some guards probably was seen as not a smart move.
jilles dykstra , says: December 26, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke Well, after, if I remember well, a seven year investigation a devastating report was published about B-liars' war in GB.
In the Netherlands a somewhat similar report was published about Dutch complicity, the David's report, blaming prime minister Balkenende at the time, and his minister of foreign affairs then, De Hoop Scheffer, later Secretary of NATO.
None of the three is behind bars, true.
Nevertheless, they were exposed as war criminals.
I wonder if it is realistic to expect more, the crimes were political.
If Blair and the two Dutch could have refused, I wonder.
jilles dykstra , says: December 26, 2018 at 11:00 am GMT
@byrresheim If it was horrible is a matter of opinion, I see it as liberation.
Horrible regime, the shah's
It was possible because the USA had been driven out of Vietnam, could not afford another war.
annamaria , says: December 26, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
@anon "Israel is attacking Lebanon and Syria."

The Jewish State and rabid Israel-firsters are attacking western civilization: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-25/inside-temple-covert-propaganda-integrity-initiative-uks-scandalous-information-war

The Smith Richardson Foundation was founded by billionaire heir to the Vicks fortune, H. Smith Richardson In 1973, the founder's son, Randolph Richardson – a free market fundamentalist and long-time patron of neoconservative ideologue Irving Kristol – inherited the organization.

Recipients of funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation include a who's who of neoconservative and militaristic right-wing institutions.

The Fusion GPS' bunch and Chris Steele are not the only people subverting the democratic process in the US:

Recent hacked documents have revealed an international network of politicians, journalists, academics, researchers and military officers, all engaged in highly deceptive covert propaganda campaigns funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), NATO, Facebook and hardline national security institutions.

This "network of networks", as one document refers to them, centers around an ironically named outfit called the Integrity Initiative. And it is all overseen by the Institute for Statecraft, which has operated under a veil of secrecy.

Where is the US Intelligence Community when the foreign nationals infiltrate election complain in the US?

Bracey-Lane is a 20-something British citizen He appeared out of nowhere to work in Iowa as a field organizer for the Bernie Sanders campaign for president.

"I spent a year working, saving all my money, just thought I was gonna go on a two month road trip from Seattle to New York and I thought, you know what? I'm gonna stay and work for the Bernie Sanders campaign," Bracey-Lane told a reporter for AFP on January 27, 2016.

However An Institute for Statecraft document on "roles and relevant experience" of the outfit's "expert team" notes that Bracey-Lane conducted a "special study of Russian interference in the US electoral process." The document does not make clear when that study was conducted, however, it is listed directly next to its author's history of work with the Bernie campaign.

The Integrity Initiative (oh, irony!) has been also busy with subverting the democratic process in Spain and the UK:

The Integrity Initiative waged a successful covert campaign to destroy the appointment of Pedro Baños to Director of Spain's National Security Department by carry[ing] out the hit job through a hand-picked "cluster" of Spanish politicians and operatives to flood social media and sympathetic outlets with messages demonizing Baños.

The Integrity Initiative appears to have employed the same tactics to smear left-wing journalists and political figures across the West, including the leader of the UK's Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

According to David Miller, professor of political sociology in the school of policy studies at the University of Bristol and the director of the Organization for Propaganda Studies, the Integrity Initiative "appears to be a military directed push."

Johnny Walker Read , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@wayfarer Not sure, but we are home to Kirtland Air Force Base and Sandia National Labs so I guess anything is possible. I just know it has been brutal all fall and winter. Starts out with massive chemtrailing and ends up with sky completely darkened.

My spidy sense is also tingling, but I am in awe that no one seem's to notice, no one seem's to care. Like you, I feel the curtain is about to be pulled on the final act. God help us all.

follyofwar , says: December 26, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT
@Realist I've read that Mr. Trump abrupted decided to pull out of Syria after a phone call with Erdogan. He wasn't about to confer with Mattis, Pompeo, or Bolton as they would have all objected. Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align with Russia. It's all about geo-politics.

Too bad that crybaby Netanyahu doesn't like it. Israel has nowhere else to go and needs US support to even exist. The Kurds will be sacrificed, but Turkey is much more important. Trump must pull out the US troops ASAP as they nothing but sitting ducks – like those 400 or so Marines who were blown up during the Lebanese civil war during the Reagan Admin. My biggest concern is that they will be attacked with many casualties while in country, forcing Trump to stay.

Fran Macadam , says: December 26, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a 'childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist' who is 'committing Treason' against the United States."

He didn't just play a meathead on TV, he became one in real life.

geokat62 , says: December 26, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Fran Macadam

He didn't just play a meathead on TV, he became one in real life.

Welcome to the dark side, Fran.

jilles dykstra , says: December 26, 2018 at 2:48 pm GMT
@follyofwar " Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align with Russia. It's all about geo-politics. "

What makes you think Turkey is still in NATO ?
And what is NATO ?
Both Merkel and Macron say they want an EU army.
An army for what, many here in Europe wonder.
Attacking the country that keeps the Germans warm in winter and German industry going ?

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
@Realist Did you read Article V of NATO treaty?
Here it is:

Article V
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

To translate it into plain English, if one member is attacked and another member decides to send the victim pampers, that other member would be perfectly within its rights. The US made 100% sure it has no obligations whatsoever under that treaty. Not to mention that when the US does have obligations, it simply breaks the treaty (the deal with Iran being the latest glaring example).

APilgrim , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:41 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read I call Bull SH1T

New Mexico has little Snowpack, so far. https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/reports/UpdateReport.html?report=New+Mexico&format=SNOTEL+Snowpack+Update+Report – https://www.onthesnow.com/new-mexico/ski-apache/skireport.html

NoseytheDuke , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:46 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz A great legal mind such as your own would surely know that under US law any person involved in any way in a crime resulting in the deaths of victims is held to be equally responsible. Just being a wheelman or a lookout is enough to be found to be as equally guilty as the triggerman. All forces involved in the war crimes of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, other than the US, were token forces whose role was as much to legitimise the US invasions as to have much material impact. Howard's (and Blair's) excuse that it was due to faulty intel is an insult to those who serve honourably and legitimately in ASIO.

String them up, I say, and you Sir would demean yourself should you attempt to defend them.

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:49 pm GMT
@Anonymous You are seeing the world in black and white, whereas in reality it has various shades of gray. The Deep State is not monolithic. Every snake in that pit wants to control not only us "deplorables", but the other snakes, as well. While all those greedy rothschilds, soroses, and adelsons beat even Devil himself in their lack of morals, some placed their bets on the corrupt mad witch, while others on the orange clown. Some snakes are smart enough to understand that to keep their loot they need the protection of a strong US state. Otherwise other thieves would gladly steal their ill-gotten riches.

The presidents are frauds in a sense that they are puppets, but not in a sense that they all have the same puppet master. Say, Nixon put the country ahead of the Empire and extricated us from the Vietnam quagmire. There is a chance that Trump (i.e., the faction of the Deep State that betted on him) also wants to save America as a country by acknowledging the losses of the Empire and acting accordingly. We'll see soon enough.

foolisholdman , says: December 26, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
@anon Care to give us some examples of 'Soviet Aggression'?
anon [994] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
@annamaria WHAT IS ANTISEMITISM !

Israel behind civilian planes ( this time in Lebanon)attacked Syria.

criticizing this piece of Israeli behavior is known as anti semitism according to Jew and the jew slave Congress Senate , Diet , Parliament , ( USA Germany UK )
. If Saddam were Jewish , his pals were Likud and the citizen worshipped in synagogue , criticism against 1990 invasion of Kuwait would have been called anti semitism punishable by jail .

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@foolisholdman There were cases of real Soviet aggression, although, contrary to the assertion of Western propaganda, much fewer than there were cases of the US aggression. To give you an example, invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was Soviet aggression at its stupidest. The US invasion of the same Afghanistan in 2001 was equally stupid. One can argue that it was even more stupid, given that Soviet example preceded it. Only a hopeless moron steps into a trap knowing that it is a trap.

However disgusting the US foreign policy was and still is, the USSR was no knight in shining armor, either.

Svigor , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:34 pm GMT
@foolisholdman Sure Finland Czechoslovakia Hungary Romania Ukraine Poland Germany Belarus Armenia Azerbaijan Estonia Latvia Bulgaria Georgia Yugoslavia Lithuania Moldova Chechnia etc.
Agent76 , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX September 11, 2016 Al Qaeda: The Data Base

Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738

RobinG , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:42 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN Try again. Maybe 1979 was foolish, since "invasion" was manufactured.

As Zbig Brzezinski admitted, the Soviet action was produced by the CIA support to anti-Russian Jihadi terrorism, not the other way round. Basically CIA funded terrorism to "give USSR its own Vietnam." His interview is online.

MacNucc11 , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:57 pm GMT
@wayfarer An argument could be made that even chickenshit is being improperly associated since it most likely has some use as opposed to none at all.
ChuckOrloski , says: December 26, 2018 at 4:59 pm GMT
@geokat62 geo warmly offered Fran: 'Welcome to the dark side, Fran."

Hey G.D.L.-robed Brother geokat!

As you likely are aware, the Syrian ballistic missile system gave 14 of 16 Israeli F-16 (dark) missiles aimed at Damascus outskirt a bright & shiny welcome.

But nonetheless, please refer to Haaretz article below, and Russian knowledge of Israel's endangering two civilian airplane flight trajectories.

https://www.haaretz.com/whdcMobileSite/israel-news/russia-israel-s-syria-strike-directly-endangered-two-civilian-flights-1.6784562

A123 , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:01 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN The Iran/JOCPA deal was not a Treaty.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur .

No such Treaty as approval was ever given by the Senate. Soros sock-puppet Obama lied when he claimed to have extra-constitutional powers to bind future administrations. Remember Obama's promise, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"? There were plenty of warning signs that Obama was a liar, so no one should be surprised that he lied about JOCPA.

Trump did not violate or break anything , because the non-ratified, non-treaty did not meet Constitutional minimums.
__________

Putin supporters should understand this as Russia has an identical issue in play. The 1950′s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine did not meet Russian constitutional standards.

Thus, identical to Trump's treatment of JOCPA, Putin is free to ignore the unconstitutional acts of the prior Krushchev / Vorashilov administration.

DESERT FOX , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT
@Agent76 Agree, and would add that AL CIADA ie ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATO and Robin Cook was killed shortly after he made those statements, who benefits?
Harold Smith , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@Miro23 "Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11 "

Well this line of thought raises some serious question: (1) Why did Trump run for president in the first place? (2) Why did he run on a platform of open defiance to the "deep state" only to occupy a position of intimidating powerlessness? (3) Why does he not fight back by investigating 9/11 or merely threatening to do so? (4) Why does he not use the power of the "presidential bully pulpit" against the "deep state"? (5) If he was sincere during the campaign, why did the "lethal crowd" not deploy a "lone nut" against him before the election? (With so much at stake, why would they risk letting a sincere person anywhere near the levers of power in the first place?) (6) How could a reasonable person be coerced into a course of action (in the realm of "foreign policy") that seems to be leading to nuclear war/planetary extinction? (7) If he was sincere about putting America first, then failing everything else, why doesn't he simply resign?

foolisholdman , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra From what I heard, Tony Blair was more enthusiastic about the Iraq war before it started, than was Bush.
Dessert Bunny , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
@MacNucc11 Chicken shit makes excellent fertilizer. So it promotes life.
AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:47 pm GMT
@RobinG Well, it did give the USSR its own Vietnam. Now Afghanistan is Vietnam 2.0 for the US (Iraq being Vietnam 3.0; Syria being Vietnam 4.0).
AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT
@A123 Legally speaking, you are right. Not to mention that Obama was proven to be a liar in many other things. But withdrawing from the Iran deal damaged the US credibility even among its European vassals.
anonymoys , says: December 26, 2018 at 6:26 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in this case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.

And as far as I know , "American" presidents all have the same master, which by the way,is the same master that Putin and his bunch of corrupt oligarchs serve.. Of course there are exceptions Nixon did try to fight against his master but I presume you know what happened to the poor man. Poor but lucky. He died in his bed.

You got something right: "We'll see soon enough.".

But let me tell you the future: there will be no withdraw from Syria UNLESS the king of Israel agrees.
And if the King agrees, it is because, he has other objectives which his puppets, Trump, Putin, Macron will certainly try to implement.

But don't worry, the deep state and the "experts" will always give you "arguments" so you can keep seeing the world in "various shades of gray".

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 7:21 pm GMT
@anonymoys Agree with two things. First, Nixon was luckier than Kennedy, he was only forced to resign, whereas Kennedy was murdered. Second, the same forces were responsible for both events.

But these dark forces are not all-powerful. The world is more complicated than you paint it. There are different factions at work in the US and Russian politics, and these factions are doing their best to cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely wish success to both teams.

Say, many Russian oligarchs (BTW, oligarchs everywhere are criminals, in Russia, in the US, in Europe, etc.) are likely Zionists, but there are other forces supporting Putin's throne. That's why Russia screwed up the Israeli plan to break up Syria into a bunch of warring impotent Bantustans, using Islamic bandits, some paid scum, some just incredibly stupid "true believers". In this Russia teamed up with the Israeli arch-enemy Iran. Judging by the Imperial tantrums in the US, which reached a hysterical pitch lately, Zionists are unhappy with Russian and Chinese stances. So, there is hope for humanity yet.

geokat62 , says: December 26, 2018 at 7:54 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Israel's endangering two civilian airplane flight trajectories.

Cynthia McKinney's reaction:

ChuckOrloski , says: December 26, 2018 at 8:22 pm GMT
@geokat62 Peace, joy, and The Protection be upon Cynthia, geokat! Thanks!!

Below, fyi, Israel is withdrawing/ (confiscating?), hee-hee, funds allocated to German Holocaust museums.

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/12/26/583970/Holocaust-Missing-Funds

Anyone here at U.R. surprised? Including Wally?

ChuckOrloski , says: December 26, 2018 at 8:29 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski Hey geo!

My apology, a misfire, should be Holocaust "survivor" allocated money and not for German Holocaust "museums.'

Cloak And Dagger , says: December 26, 2018 at 8:37 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Israel's endangering two civilian airplane flight trajectories

The same rules of morality and International law regarding the use of human shields do not apply to Israel. Perhaps you remember this from the past:

During war there are no civilians

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201098123618465366.html

"During war there are no civilians," that's what "Yossi," an Israeli military (IDF) training unit leader simply stated during a round of questioning on day two of the Rachel Corrie trials, held in Haifa's District Court earlier this week. "When you write a [protocol] manual, that manual is for war," he added.

Wizard of Oz , says: December 26, 2018 at 8:51 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke I bow to your superior knowledge of American law(s) but do recall the distasteful way in which one reads of not completely innocent defendants being swept up for plea bargains by such devices as conspiracy charges. But yes, I'm afraid Howard was at least an accessory before the fact and I have no doubt it was Howard that JMF had in mind when he looked at me at an anti Howard government affair in October 2004 and spoke of war criminals who ought to be tried though I recall thinking at the time that it went a bit far to include Howard, the hanger on. As one who came to give Howard amoral admiration just for the sustained determination needed to become a truly successful politician (Cf. F.S. Oliver "The Endless Adventure" and "In Defence of Politics" by Bernard Crick) I am more critical of him for what he did and didn't do with his surprise control of the Senate (not so surprising to him actually by August 2004 polling) including election giveaways that did much to prevent Keating's superannuation schemes ever leading to relief of the burden of old age pensions or, worse, the rise of industry funds to, effectively, be a funding arm for (often private school educated) Labor careerists who will give us 25 years of reduced productivity and unnecessary retail penalty rates and (at least for a while) reduced shopping hours and availability of path and radiology .. just e.g. Then maybe the drag from China no longer making our coal and iron ore super valuable will force changes that recognise we 99 per cent of us are lucky drones (pending a Merkel influx of a million incompatible refugees anyway, but that I would not expect from Shorten).
A123 , says: December 26, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN I will suggest that a blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct. To be accurate, one must define the perspective via the question:
-- Credibility in the eyes of whom?

I observed a significant increase in U.S. credibility among the citizens and governments of practicing Christian nations of the EU. For example: Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Italy.

Nations such as China that laughed at and casually rolled "Barak Hussein Obama the Submissive" also upped their respect for the U.S. when Trump took over. Though, I do concede that getting over a bar set at 0% (less than Rodney Dangerfield) is pretty easy.

Yes, U.S. National Socialist Democrats [DNC] lost credibility among Establishment Elites of the NWO/UN Circle of Arrogance. After all, they failed to deliver Hillary Clinton to the White House. However, DNC credibility among unelected elites at the debauched UN has nothing to do with U.S. credibility among the civilized people of the world.

A123 , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:11 pm GMT
@Cloak And Dagger More Taqiyya deliberate deception.

Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane. It is a lie to say that they did. Given the air space congestion in the area it is functionally impossible to fly a combat mission without overlapping a flight route.

The only force that endangered civilian airliners were those firing anti-aircraft missiles that could hit those planes.

This is why it is highly likely that Russia will never turn over S-300 systems to Syrian control. Russia wants to sell these systems. Interest will drop to zero if Syrian forces use the S-300 to shoot down a civilian airliner over another nation such as Lebanon or Turkey.

Harold Smith , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:37 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN "There are different factions at work in the US and these factions are doing their best to cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely wish success to both teams."

Seriously? With the exception of perhaps "the wall" and a few other relatively minor distractive issues (which won't matter very much when the U.S. is a pile of nuclear ash), I don't see any kind of "faction" offering any serious political opposition whatsoever to anything of significance that orange clown does. All I see is cheap talk/posturing.

Cloak And Dagger , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT
@A123

Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane.

Strawman.

Nobody said your people fired missiles at a civilian airline. You used civilian airplanes to hide behind. It is called using human shields – a war crime.

As for Russia handing over control of S-300′s to Syria, I would advise you to continue to believe that. I look forward to your hubris and arrogance causing you to vanish in a puff of smoke one day.

In any case, leave the US out of your squabbles.

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT
@A123

blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct

Agree. But you appear to think that a blanket statement on "civilized people of the world" works as a logical construct. Sorry to disappoint, it does not work, either.

After Trump announced that the US withdraws, every one of the other signatories of JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), namely China, France, Germany, EU, Russia, UK, and Iran said that they will abide by the deal, with Iranian stipulation that if the US attempts any hostile action, it would consider itself no longer bound by it. To wit, France, Germany, UK, and EU are subservient pawns of the Empire in most cases.

Iranians explicitly said that the US unilateral withdrawal from this deal shows that it is useless to negotiate with the US and come to any agreements with it, as the US will likely break its word any time it finds it convenient. This did a huge damage to the credibility of the country, no matter how you slice or dice it.

I agree regarding DNC credibility. After they falsified the results of their primaries (as Wasserman-Schultz resignation right before the convention affirmed), DNC cannot claim any credibility. Not that they even needed this trick: Sanders proved to be just as much of a fraud and a piece of shit as the mad witch. However, DNC has nothing to do with it. Obama administration was supposed to represent the country, not DNC. If the ability of Trump to act as President depended on the credibility of RNC (which is as low as that of DNC, although they did not falsify primaries, to the dismay of Deep State), our country is done for.

The President is supposed to be the leader of the country, not just his party. The actions of both Obama and Trump in the international affairs that are meant for internal consumption undermine the US more than any act of its avowed enemies.

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:46 pm GMT
@A123

The only force that endangered civilian airliners were those firing anti-aircraft missiles that could hit those planes.

Are you saying that when Israeli rockets see a civilian aircraft, they turn away from it? LOL.

ChuckOrloski , says: December 26, 2018 at 9:52 pm GMT
@Cloak And Dagger Yes, C&D. Agree.

Fyi, I particularly despise the Zionist GWOT designations, "collateral damage," and the demonic branding of wartime Prisoners of War as "non-combatants," and exempt from internationally recognized Geneva Convention treatment while in ZUSA military captivity.

As a veteran who took an August 1970 solemn oath to honor humane treatment of war prisoners, & post-9/11, am wondering if taking such noble vow was being done throughout Basic Training posts, stationed across our (argh!) "Homeland."

Really made me sick to see how Sergeant Charles Garner and P.F.C. Lyndi England were held accountable for their barbaric Abu Ghraib acts, and shortly afterward, the freak-intellectual, John Yoo, became the distorted administration's Prisoner-Torture High Priest. (Zigh)

Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
Hm. Perhaps U.R. Comment-Research Specialist can help me here?

Thanks a lot, C&D!

anon [265] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 11:05 pm GMT
@A123

-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays? No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?

everyone is violent except israel – yes? no?

anon [265] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 11:08 pm GMT
@anonymoys

I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in this case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.

we can't be 100% sure yet but it's looking that way

unless that wall starts getting built pronto i don't see any reason to suport him 2020

anon [265] Disclaimer , says: December 26, 2018 at 11:11 pm GMT
@RobinG

As Zbig Brzezinski admitted .

this creep should be written out of history

same with kissinger

Winston1984 , says: December 26, 2018 at 11:46 pm GMT
All right and clear
Pity, that the lot is stained by the dropping-like sterotype about Goebels' "big lie"
Never mind it's of Hitler's labour, not Goebels', but, more important, in Mein Kampf it is clearly expressed as a warning (beware..) against the chosen-tribe techniques.. The autor should be learned enough to know better: superficiality or malice?
anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 27, 2018 at 12:16 am GMT
@A123 You are so desperate that you are looking under the mattress to find your last penny. Why don't you ask your grandmother to ( Ben Guiron or Gold mare or some WaPo Rubin or KKK- Krathamer Kristol Kagan ) to find it for you ?
jacques sheete , says: December 27, 2018 at 12:44 am GMT
@anon

Your article names the supporters

He does that consistently and it's exactly what needs to be done. It's also what makes him one of the few people I bother to read any more.

We 'Merkins would be a lot better off with a few more PGs around and I hope he had a fine Christmas was a very Happy Nw Year!

[Dec 27, 2018] Trump Pulls Troops Out of Syria in Desperate Attempt to Save His Presidency, Causing Geopolitical Earthquake

Notable quotes:
"... On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". ..."
"... The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry. ..."
"... Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience. ..."
"... The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. ..."
"... The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election. ..."
"... Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue. ..."
"... The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. ..."
"... For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Bibi. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign".

The reasons for Donald Trump's move are many, but they are mainly driven by US domestic concerns. The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry.

The combination of these factors has forced Trump to change gears, considering that the military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex has always been ready to get rid of Trump, even in favor of a President Pence. The only option available for Trump in order to have a chance of reelection in 2020 is to undertake a self-promotion tour, a practice in which he has few peers, and which will involve him repeating his mantra of "Promises Made, Promises Kept". He will list how he has fought against the fake-news media, suffered internal sabotage, as well as other efforts (from the Fed, the FBI, and Mueller himself) to hamper his efforts to "Make America Great Again".

Trump has perhaps understood that in order to be re-elected, he must pursue a simple media strategy that will have a direct impact on his base. Withdrawing US troops from Syria, and partly from Afghanistan, serves this purpose. It is an easy way to win with his constituents, while it is a heavy blow to his fiercest critics in Washington who are against this decision. Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience.

The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is not difficult to understand that the average citizen is fed up with the useless wars in the Middle East, and Trump's words on immigration resonate with his voters. The more the media, the Democrats and the deep state criticize Trump on the wall, on the Syria pull out and on shutting down the government, the more they are campaigning for him.

This is why in order to understand the withdrawal of the United States from Syria it is necessary to see things from Trump's perspective, even as frustrating, confusing and incomprehensible that may seem at times.

The difference this time around was that the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was Trump's alone, not something imposed on him by the generals that surround him. The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election.

It is possible that Trump, as is his wont, also wanted to send a message to his alleged French and British allies present in the northeast of Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and US soldiers. Trump may be now taunting: "Let's see what you can do without the US!"

It is as if Trump is admonishing these countries in a more concrete way for not lifting their weight in terms of military spending. Trump is vindictive and is not averse, after taking advantage of his opponent, to kicking him once he is down. Trump could be correct in this regard, and maybe French and British forces will be forced to withdraw their small group of 400 to 500 illegal occupiers of Syrian territory. Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue.

There is also a more refined reason to justify the US withdrawal, even if Trump is probably unaware of it. The problem in these cases is always trying to peer through the fog of war and propaganda in order to discern the clear, unadulterated truth.

We should begin by listing the winners and losers of the Syrian conflict. Damascus, Moscow, Tehran and Hezbollah have won the war against aggression. Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, Tel Aviv and Washington, with their al Qaeda, Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist proxies, failed to destroy Syria, and following seven years of effort, are forced to scurry away in defeat.

Those who are walking a tightrope between war and defeat are Ankara and the so-called SDF. The withdrawal of the United States has confirmed the balance on the ledger of winners and losers, with the clock counting down for Erdogan and the SDF to make their next determinative move.

The enemies of Syria survive thanks to repeated bluffs. The Americans of the military-industrial-intelligence apparatus maintain the pretence that they still have an influence in Syria, what with troops on the ground, attacking Trump for withdrawing. In fact, since the Russians have imposed a no-fly-zone across the country, with the S-300 systems and other sophisticated equipment that integrate the Syrian air-defenses into the Russian air defenses, US coalition planes are for all intents and purposes grounded, and the same goes for the Israelis.

Of course the French and British in Syria are infected with the same delusional disease, choosing to believe that they can count for something without the US presence. We will see in the near future whether they also withdraw their illegal presence from Syria.

The biggest bluff of all probably comes from Erdogan, who for months threatened to invade Syria to fight ISIS, the Kurds, or any other plausible excuse to invade a sovereign country for the purposes of advancing his dreams of expanding Turkish territory as far as Idlib (which Erdogan considers a province of Turkey). Such an invasion, however, is unlikely to happen, as it would unite the SDF, Damascus and her allies to reject the Turkish advance on Syrian territory.

The Kurds in turn seem to have only one option left, namely, a forced negotiation with Damascus to give back to the Syrian people, in exchange for protection, the control of their territory that is rich in oil and gas.

Erdogan wants to eliminate the SDF, and until now, the only thing that stood in his way was the US military presence. He even threatened to attack several times, even in spite of the presence of US troops. Ankara has long been on a collision course with NATO countries on account of this. By removing US troops, Trump imagines, relations between Turkey and the US may also improve. This of course is of little interest to the US deep state, since Erdogan, like Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is considered unsuitable, and is accordingly branded a "dictator".

Trump probably believes that with this move, as with his defense of MBS concerning Khashoggi, that he can try and establish a strong personal friendship with Erdogan. There are even talks about the sale of Patriot systems to the Turks and the extradition of Gulen.

When Will They Leave, and Cui Prodest?

It remains to be confirmed when and to what extent US troops will leave Syria. If the US had no voice in the future in Syria, with 2,000 men on the ground, now it has even less. Leaving behind 200 to 300 special forces and CIA operatives, together with another 400 to 500 French and British personnel, will, once they are captured with their Daesh and al Qaeda friends, be an excellent bargaining chip for Damascus, as they were in Aleppo.

The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. The presence of US troops in Syria allowed the foreign-policy establishment to continue to formulate plans (and spend money to pay a lot of people in Washington) based on the delusion that they are doing something in Syria to change the course of events. For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Bibi.

Erdogan has two options before him. On the one hand, he can act against the Kurds. On the other hand, he can sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus and the SDF, in an Astana format, guided by Iran and Russia. Putin and Rouhani are certainly pushing for this solution. Trump, on the other hand, would like to see Turkey enter Syria in the place of US forces, to demonstrate he concluded a win-win deal for everyone, beating the deep-state at their own game.

Erdogan does not really have the military force necessary to enter Syria, which is the big secret. He would be against both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the SDF, though the two not necessarily in an alliance.

There is a triple bluff going on, and this is what is complicating the situation so much. On the one hand, the SDF is bluffing in not wanting help from Damascus in case Erdogan sends in his forces; on the other hand, Erdogan is bluffing in suggesting he is able to conquer the territory held by the SDF; and finally, the French and British are bluffing by telling the SDF they will be able to help them against both Erdogan and/or Assad.

Iran, Russia, Syria are the only ones who do not need to bluff, because they occupy the best position – the commanding heights. They view Trump's decisions and his allies with distrust. They know very well that these are mostly moves for internal consumption by the enemies of Syria.

If the US withdraws, there is so much to be gained. The priority then becomes the west of Syria, sealing the borders with Jordan, removing the pockets of terrorists from the east, and securing the al-Tanf crossing. If the SDF will request protection from Damascus and will be willing to participate in the liberation of the country and its reconstruction, Erdogan will be done for, and this could lead to the total liberation of Idlib. It would be the best possible outcome, an important national reconciliation between two important parts of the population. It would give Damascus new economic impetus and prepare the Syrian people to expel the remaining invaders (ISIS and the FSA/ Turkish Armed Forces) from the country, both in Idlib and in the northeast in Afrin.

Russia is aware of the risk that Erdogan is running with the choices he will take in the coming days. Perhaps the reason why Putin chose diplomacy over war with Turkey after the downing of a Russian Su-24 in 2015 was in order to arrive at this precise moment, with as many elements as possible present to convince Erdogan to stick with Russia and Iran instead of embracing Trump's strategy and putting himself on an open collision course with Damascus, Moscow and Tehran.

Putin has always been five moves ahead. He is aware that the US could not stay long in Syria. He knows that France and the UK cannot support the SDF, and that the SDF cannot hold territory it holds in Syria without an agreement with Damascus. He is also conscious that Turkey does not have the strength to enter Syria and hold the territory if it did. It would only be able justify an advance on Idlib with the support of the Russian Air Force.

Putin has certainly made it clear to Erdogan that if he made such a move to attack the SDF and enter Syria, Russia in turn would militarily support the SAA with its air force to free Idlib; and in case of incidents with Turkey, the Russian armed forces would respond with all the interest earned from the unrequited downing of the Su-24 in 2015.

Erdogan has no choice. He must find an agreement with Damascus, and this is why he found himself commenting on Trump's words the following day, criticizing US sanctions on Iran in the presence of Iranian president Rouhani. The SDF know that they are between a rock and a hard place, and have already sent a delegation to start negotiations with Damascus.

Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies, infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat.

[Dec 27, 2018] Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US, particularly in 1947?

Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

james charles , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:27 am GMT

"So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat."

Seen as a serious threat by some?

"Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic weakness in the Soviet system. The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs. An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens."

http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/Antony%20Sutton%20-%20The%20Best%20Enemy%20Money%20Can%20Buy.pdf

Tony H. , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat.

"which was rightly seen as a serious threat." So it was, was it? That's really the beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were a few naysayers back then, since largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives, who claimed that Stalin's postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to protect the USSR from the talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was well aware of all the loose talk on the American side and his country had just endured the same attempt on the part of Nazi Germany.

EugeneGur , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:08 pm GMT

"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat.

Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US, particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering; the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids -- ditto. In contrast, the United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in Europe.

The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets, having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number until the very end.

It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Tony H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:

With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.

He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the new world circumstances.

He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw as exploitation of Russian weakness.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/george-kennan

[Dec 27, 2018] There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust?

Notable quotes:
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 10:37 pm GMT

@Harold Smith

Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.

As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.

First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second, enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.

Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally, the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.

Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.

[Dec 27, 2018] Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
"... My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™ ..."
"... Today's Jerusalem Post had a link to this Kamala Harris political fund-raising ad. ..."
"... Boot, Nuland, Shapiro, Stephens, Reiner, etc etc – one (((chickenhawk))) after another ..."
"... This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt mad witch to a man, are unhappy. ..."
"... Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win ..."
"... NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies, though it was inevitably light on details, suggesting that the Marine Corps General was having some difficulty in discerning that American interests might be somewhat different than those of feckless and faux allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia that are adept at manipulating the levers of power in Washington and in the media. Mattis clearly appreciates that having allies is a force multiplier in wartime but fails to understand that it is a liability otherwise as the allies create an obligation to go to war on their behalf rather than in response to any actual national interest.

The media was quick to line up behind Mattis. On Friday, The New York Times featured a lead editorial entitled "Jim Mattis was right" while neocon twitter accounts blazed with indignation. Prominent chickenhawk mouthpieces David Frum and Bill Kristol, among many others, tweeted that the end is nigh.

During the day preceding Mattis's dramatic announcement, the press went to war against the Administration over Syria and also regarding other reports that there would be troop reductions in Afghanistan. The following headline actually appeared on a Reuters online article the day after the announcement by the president: "In Syria retreat, Trump rebuffs top advisers and blindsides U.S. commanders." It would be difficult to imagine stuffing more bullshit into one relatively short sentence. "Retreat," "rebuffs" and "blindsides" are not words that are intended to convey any sort of even-handed assessment of what is occurring in U.S. policy towards the Middle East. They are instead meant to imply that "Hey, that moron in the White House has screwed up again!"

Consider for a moment the agenda that Reuters is apparently pushing. It is supporting an illegal and unconstitutional invasion of Syria by the United States that has a stated primary objective of removing a terrorist organization which is already mostly gone and a less frequently acknowledged goal of regime change for the legitimate government in Damascus and the expulsion of that government's principal allies. Reuters is asserting that staying in Syria would be a good thing for the United States and also for its "allies" in the region even though there is no way to "win" and no exit strategy.

Reuters is presumably basing its assessment on the collective judgments of a group of "top advisers" who are warmongers that the rest of the world as well as many Americans consider to be psychopaths or possibly even insane. And then there are the preferences of the "blindsided" generals, like Mattis, who have a personal interest in career terms for maintaining a constant state of warfare. If you want to really know how what the military thinks about an ongoing war ask a sergeant or a private, never a general. They will tell you that they are sick of endless deployments that accomplish nothing.

The New York Times lead story headline on Thursday also let you know that its Editors were not please by Trump's move. It read "U.S. ExitSeen as a Betrayal of the Kurds, and a Boon for ISIS." They also editorialized "Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His Advisers."

The Washington Post was not far behind. It immediately ran an op-ed by the redoubtable neocon chickenhawk Max Boot, whom Caitlin Johnstone has dubbed The Man Who Has Been Wrong About Everything. The piece was entitled Trump's surprise Syria pullout is a giant Christmas gift to our enemies making a twofer with an incredible "Fuck the EU" Victoria Nuland's piece entitled "In a single tweet Trump destroys U.S. policy in the Middle East," which appeared simultaneously. That anyone would regard Boot and Nuland as objective authorities on the Middle East given their ultimate and prevailing loyalty to Israel has to be wondered at, but then again Fred Hiatt is the editorial/opinion page editor and he is of the same persuasion, both ethnically and philosophically. They are all, of course, devoted Zionists and the big lie about what is going on in the region is apparently always worth repeating. As Joseph Goebbels put it in 1941 " when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

Comments relating to the articles, op-eds and editorials in the Post and Times bordered on the hysterical, sometimes suggesting that readers actually believe that Trump was following orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin. And what was stirring at Reuters, The Times , and the Post was only the tip of the iceberg. The mainstream television news providers united in condemning the audacity of a president who might actually try to end a war while the only favorable commentary on Trump's having taken a step that is long overdue came from the alternative media.

One might profitably recall how Trump has only been praised as "presidential" by the Establishment twice – when he staged cruise missile attacks on Syria based on faulty intelligence. The Deep State wants blood, make no mistake about it and it is not interested in "retreat." And Trump will also get almost no support from Congress, with only longtime critics of Syrian policy Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard praising the move initially.

The arguments being made to criticize the Trump initiative were essentially cookie cutter neocon soundbites. The Reuters piece in its first few lines of text asserts that the reversal of policy "stunned lawmakers and allies with his order for U.S. troops to leave Syria, a decision that upends American policy in the Middle East. The result, said current and former officials and people briefed on the decision, will empower Russia and Iran and leave unfinished the goal of erasing the risk that Islamic State, or ISIS, which has lost all but a sliver territory, could rebuild." The article goes on to quote an anonymous Pentagon source who opined that " Trump's decision was widely seen in the Pentagon as benefiting Russia as well as Iran, both of which have used their support for the Syrian government to bolster their regional influence. Iran also has improved its ability to ship arms to Lebanese Hezbollah for use against Israel. Asked who gained from the withdrawal, the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, replied: 'Geopolitically Russia, regionally Iran.'"

Another so-called expert Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute was also cited in the article, saying "It completely takes apart America's broader strategy in Syria, but perhaps more importantly, the centerpiece of the Trump administration policy, which is containing Iran."

Israel is also turning up the heat on Trump, claiming that the move will make it more insecure. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to increase air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria as an added security measure to make up for the American betrayal. Normally liberal American Jews have joined the hue and cry against Trump on behalf of Israel. Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.

The real story, lost in the wailing and gnashing to teeth, is that even after conceding that Donald Trump's hyperbolic claim that the United States had defeated ISIS as the motive for the withdrawal is nonsense, there is still no good reason for Washington to continue to keep troops in Syria. The U.S. in reality did far less in the war against the terrorist groups infesting the region than did the Russians, Iranians or the Syrians themselves and, as a result, it will have less say in what kind of Syria emerges from the carnage. That is almost certainly a good thing for the Syrian people.

But let's assume for sake of argument that the U.S. invasion really was about ISIS. Well, ISIS continues to hold on to a small bit of territory near the Euphrates River and is reported to have between one and two thousand remaining fighters. There are other estimates suggesting that between 10,000 and 20,000 followers have dispersed and gone underground awaiting a possible resurgence by the group. The argument that ISIS will reorganize and re-emerge as a result of the American withdrawal assumes that it is the 2,000 strong U.S. armed forces that are keeping it down, which is ridiculous. The best remedy against an ISIS recovery is to support a restored and re-unified Syria, which will have more than enough resources available to eliminate the last bits of the terrorist groups remaining in its territory.

So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat. Iran is a second world country with a small military and economy with no nuclear arsenal and it neither threatens the United States nor any of its neighbors. But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.

And then there is the argument that the U.S. departure empowers Iran and Russia. Staying in Syria is, on the contrary, a drain on both those countries' limited resources. The more money and manpower they have to commit to Syria the less they have to become engaged elsewhere and it is hard to imagine how either country would exploit the "victory" in Syria to leverage their involvement in other parts of the world. Both would be delighted if a final settlement of the Syrian problem could be arrived at so they can get out.

And as for the United States, the military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. There is nothing like that at stake in Syria. So, is American national security better or worse if the U.S. leaves? As Russian and American soldiers only confront each other directly in Syria, U.S. national security would in fact be greatly improved because the danger of igniting an accidental war with Russia would be dramatically reduced. There have reportedly already been a dozen incidents between U.S. and Russian troops, including some involving shooting. That has been a dozen too many. Even the possibility of starting an unintended war with Iran would potentially be disastrous for the United States as well as for everyone else in the region, so it is far better to put some distance between the two sides.

And finally, it is necessary to go to the argument for disengagement from Syria that is too little heard in the western media or from the usual bonehead politicians named Graham and Rubio who pronounce on foreign policy. How has American intervention in the Middle East and south and central Asia benefited the people in the countries that have been invaded or bombed? Not at all. By some estimates four million Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since 2001 and millions more displaced. More than eight thousand U.S. military have died in the process in wars that had no purpose and no exit strategy. And the wars have been expensive – $6 trillion and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means killing without end and it has to stop Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from all directions to reverse his decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will either fold completely or bend at least a bit. It is to be hoped that he will not do so as a Christmas present to the American people. And he might want to think of a Christmas present for 2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website December 25, 2018 at 8:19 am GMT
The very fact that Hollywood twits who couldn't find Syria on the outline map of the world to save their lives have been roped in to get all outraged about Trump withdrawing troops from Syria proves that the military industrial complex is worried that it will lose sales if the Amerikastani Empire steps back from actively looking for war.

The military industrial complex, after all, runs Hollywood ...

anon [243] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
4,000,000 Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since 2001, millions more displaced. More than 8,000 U.S. military have died

....

jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:25 am GMT
Again I have the idea that my, not just mine, theory about Trump is confirmed, he understands that the USA will destroy itself economically and politically by continuing to try to control the world. Of course, USA Deep State is furious, through its mouth pieces CNN, Washpost and NYT.

Of course Netanyahu is more than furious, Sharon's 'we control America' seems to be over. If Putin and Trump agree explicitly or implicitly, I do not know, and, if they indeed agree, it does not matter. The essential thing for me is that both in Washington and in Moscow we now have reasonable men, who understand that warfare is just destruction of wealth. Interesting is what the consequences for EU and NATO will be. They must be in utter confusion.

chris , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:08 am GMT
What a great present, unexpectedly getting a Phil Giraldi column on Christmas day! Merry Christmas, Phil and everyone !

I'm little more pessimistic about Trump's withdrawal from Syria; it seems to me all the more proof that he's getting ready to attack Iran !

If you wanted to do that, you'd first clear it with the Israelis and they'd be quiet (check) – actually, this would be their plan; then you would get US troops out of Syria to protect them from Iranian troops in Syria (invited by Assad), (check). then you would move one or two aircraft carriers into the Persian gulf (check)!

Then you would hit Iran on New Year's Day (open), and then you would take Trump down for starting an illegal war (open).

All birds down with Stalin-esque (criminal) elegance!

Realist , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:15 am GMT
@Puzzled

Let us hope he keeps with his campaign promise on this one.

Good luck.

MAGAnotMISA , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™

Apart from the questions raised by some from the alternative media: https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627

The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well, Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:

1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being: apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists, homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)

2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.

3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.

Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.

And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US Ambassador.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Lebanon_from_Foreigners

I'd like to hear Mr Giraldi's take on the matter, though I don't think he will ever write about it.

Merry Christmas to all.

anon [202] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:10 am GMT
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."

He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a liar.

Moi , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
Further proof that we are nuts.
jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
@MAGAnotMISA What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration. Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ? But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.

Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government. One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.

Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success. Judaism lost the battle with Christianity, Bolshevism failed in Russia, getting equal rights in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbors, and all over the world, and Jewish puppet Hillary was not elected.

The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.

Montefrío , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:08 pm GMT
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
APilgrim , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:51 pm GMT
Today's Jerusalem Post had a link to this Kamala Harris political fund-raising ad.

https://action.kamalaharris.org/sign/181206-evergreen-ob/?source=ads_outbrain_181212_dint_all_desktop_000395c6d552e1c60c57e8e03fadb17b09

The cvnt.

Sarah Toga , says: December 25, 2018 at 12:59 pm GMT
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.

In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,

"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."

That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically deadly and destructive.

FelicityRules , says: December 25, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.

I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.

Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good riddance.

Tim K , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT
US out of Syria? Why were "we" ever in there?
anon [122] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT
Boot, Nuland, Shapiro, Stephens, Reiner, etc etc – one (((chickenhawk))) after another
Sparkon , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ), Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither binoculars nor field guide.

But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.

President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday stockings.

Peace on Earth to all men of Good Will.

The Alarmist , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
@Tim K

"US out of Syria? Why were "we" ever in there?"

Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilizing a local rival of both? Who knows?

What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can buy.

DESERT FOX , says: December 25, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the profits from the wars! ...
follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT
@chris Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17 years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to be liberators).

Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants to pull out. All three countries were much smaller and weaker than Iran...

Z-man , says: December 25, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT

But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.

Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran. Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter. I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day....

follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"

Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.

never-anonymous , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.

Trump was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq, online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap anymore.

JoaoAlfaiate , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
DESERT FOX , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.

Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.

It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but have a Merry Christmas!

Renoman , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:58 pm GMT
Yes to Trump and withdrawal from Mid East Wars, down with MSM, The Neocons, the 1% , the deep state and Israel...
Bragadocious , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits. This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our policies.
AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100% fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
chris , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@follyofwar Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No, they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
Bragadocious , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Yeah, not sure about the Dutch, with their history at Srebrenica.

But I was referring to the Brits trying to push Trump back into the Middle East war grinder.

A123 , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines. And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.

-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain sanctions and other pressure on Iran.

-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.

-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.

Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow thru on the crazy.

__________

(1) https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2018/12/16/erdogan-unhinged-compares-israel-to-nazi-germany-claims-cultural-genocide-against-palestinians/

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:10 pm GMT
@MAGAnotMISA "ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "

– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate" terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/

Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan

The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in Syria.

The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.

Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli police and UN forces.

Michael Kenny , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:18 pm GMT
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
Alfred , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT
@renfro Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that there are elections due on 9 April.

You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.

2stateshmustate , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX You took the words right out of my mouth.
annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:32 pm GMT
@MAGAnotMISA More on the Jewish State's beloved protege White Helmets and the profoundly zionized presstituting MSM: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/447385-white-helmets-un-panel/

"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media yawns," by Eva Bartlett.

"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists -- including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other non-rescuer behaviour.

a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets) bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical attack."

In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.

Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has covered the event and its critical contents.

This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official narrative.

Alfred , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"

The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings. The 3rd building was only explosives.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/11/nearly-10k-people-have-gotten-cancer-from-toxic-9-11-dust/

Here is a useful link: ""9-11/Israel did it"" https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"

– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of mythological choseness. Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military confrontation with Iran/Russia. As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.

follyofwar , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Bragadocious What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
Realist , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT

And he might want to think of a Christmas present for 2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And in addition Syria, Iraq, Guam, Germany, Britain, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Norway and on and on. Give the present 11 months early.

Realist , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

Is Putin ready for Erdogan to back-stab Russia again? (recalling Erdogan's military had shot down a Russian jet.)

The biggest problem Putin has with Erogan is the control of the Russian navy's exit from the Black sea through the Bosporus.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:45 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
Svigor , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:53 pm GMT
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's the end of the world," etc.

LOL.

m___ , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).

Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK, let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.

No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to think over the long term.

Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?

chris , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:18 pm GMT
@Sarah Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:20 pm GMT
@Realist That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
Bragadocious , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
@follyofwar Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship" should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere. Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax, but I don't think any Iranians are.

Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.

AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:42 pm GMT
@Svigor It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors.
peterAUS , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:59 pm GMT
@m___ Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually, positive and optimistic.

If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same page and malevolent re us , the common folks.

I am afraid that's not the case.

I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass. My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.

And, gets worse, actually. In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor whim,if you will. On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground. And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors bunch? And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.

Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been happening with North Korea? What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the Cult Leader? Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for long range nuclear strike. So .any "rolling" happened? Anything? I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.

The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by that fellow can agitate us so much. Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.

They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart. Just great.

nickels , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:12 pm GMT
All wars are jews wars: "Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/.premium-syria-trump-just-gave-the-finger-to-his-pro-israel-jewish-voters-1.6770414

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:19 pm GMT
A wonderfully conciliatory and hopeful article by Thierry Meyssan: http://www.voltairenet.org/article204453.html

"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"

As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces. Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for the jihadists.

The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan, which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an end on Syrian territory.

It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.

The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war [in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a unipolar world .

Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.

After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.

AnonFromTN , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
@peterAUS

My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.

And those "they" aren't even that smart.

My goodness! I agree with you on this.

Ronald Thomas West , says: Website December 25, 2018 at 10:24 pm GMT
@Realist When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division might reward it.)
Anon [149] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT

LOCKERBIE http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2018/12/lockerbie.html

anon [376] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:43 pm GMT
@Bragadocious

Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives.

yeah, those dirty "Brits" next thing you know they'll try to send the US Navy up the Yangtze River to force opium on the Chinese, lol

RobinG , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:50 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN "The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."

Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take note:

Aaron Maté‏Verified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24

Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a Turkish assault:

"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do nothing to deter Turkey.

In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just indicated."

[Dec 27, 2018] The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.

Notable quotes:
"... Israel fears Iran, is my idea. Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli Jews do not see how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'. Not all Jews are idiots. Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a Zionist reached Palestine, and saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'. He stated 'this is a crime'. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT

@Z-man

Israel fears Iran, is my idea. Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli Jews do not see how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'. Not all Jews are idiots. Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a Zionist reached Palestine, and saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'. He stated 'this is a crime'.

The destruction and destabilization of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.

In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial compensation, between Turkey and Greece. To this day tensions exist between the two countries.

Iran is one of the oldest civilizations. Twice, one might say even three time, the west overthrew Iranian democracy. Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to power so that he could subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah. Iran also of course knows quite well Jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to destroy Iraq. Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?

So that Netanyahu and USA Jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be otherwise ? Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a problem, use power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more power'.

There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbors, or with the Palestinians. About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'How we fooled the Palestinians'? Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin, one of them, if my recollection is correct. There always was the idea of overwhelming more military power, and of USA support.

Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW. What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ? Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?

[Dec 27, 2018] Private Eye has reported that the #IntegrityInitiative anti-propoaganda unit is taking tips from the security masterminds who tried to sell the wisdom of going to war in Iraq!

Dec 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Blooming Barricade , Dec 26, 2018 12:18:48 PM | link

@2

My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that... the fact that they're reverting to the old name is the final step in the rehabilitation of the Iraq War criminals without liberals and pseudo left none of which would be possible

New podcast by Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton on Integrity Initiative https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=doip79-pYn0

And tying this together.....

Chris Williamson: Private Eye has reported that the #IntegrityInitiative anti-propoaganda unit is taking tips from the security masterminds who tried to sell the wisdom of going to war in Iraq!
And this outfit was set up by the Institute for Statecraft that's received £millions from HM Govt!!! https://mobile.twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1076983080131416066

psychohistorian , Dec 26, 2018 9:32:36 PM | link

Reporting on the Integrity Initiative is spotty yet but I did come across the link below of an article by Max Blumenthal....and promises of more.

Inside the Temple of Covert Propaganda: The Integrity Initiative and the UK's Scandalous Information War

[Dec 27, 2018] Who Was Secretly Behind America's Invading and Occupying Syria

Notable quotes:
"... "the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels. From the moment the C.I.A. operation was started, Saudi money supported it." ..."
"... "The Saudi efforts were led by the flamboyant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, at the time the intelligence chief, who directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47s and millions of rounds of ammunition in Eastern Europe for the Syrian rebels. The C.I.A. helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012." ..."
"... "In late 2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the C.I.A. director, delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another or with C.I.A. officers in Jordan and Turkey. Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the C.I.A. to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the C.I.A. took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles," ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

One of the best articles that the New York Times ever published was by Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, on 23 January 2016, "US Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels" . They reported that, "the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels. From the moment the C.I.A. operation was started, Saudi money supported it." Furthermore, "The White House has embraced the covert financing from Saudi Arabia -- and from Qatar, Jordan and Turkey." But "American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation." The invasion and occupation of Syria by jihadists from around the world was primarily a Saud operation, though it was managed mainly by the US Government.

... ... ...

Prior to the failed US-backed coup-attempt on 15 July 2015 to replace Tayyip Erdogan as Turkey's President, Turkey was part of the U.S-Saudi alliance to overthrow and replace Syria's Government. But afterwards, Turkey increasingly switched against the US and Sauds, and toward instead supporting the target of the Sauds and of America's aristocrats: Syria. And, so, Turkey has increasingly joined Syria's alliance, which includes Iran and Russia. That's one of the major geopolitical changes in recent decades.

The NYT continued: "The Saudi efforts were led by the flamboyant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, at the time the intelligence chief, who directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47s and millions of rounds of ammunition in Eastern Europe for the Syrian rebels. The C.I.A. helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012."

The US preferred to be supplying the jihadists weapons that weren't from US manufacturers, in order to impede any tracing back to the United States the arming of the movement to oust and replace Syria's secular, committedly non-sectarian, Government. The Sauds -- who are just as committedly sectarian, and are even supporters of the extreme fundamentalist Wahhabist sect of Sunni Islam -- likewise tried to cover their tracks in this operation, but their tracks were financial. The Sauds have been especially skillful at covering their tracks. Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud was a buddy of George W. Bush, and had secretly donated over a million dollars in cash to Al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks, according to Osama bin Laden's financial bagman , who had picked up personally each one of the million-dollar-cash donations to that organization until 9/11 and who named amongst those donors not only Prince Bandar but also Prince Salman al-Saud, who subsequently became King Salman, who is now the father of Crown Prince Salman, who recently murdered the "In late 2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the C.I.A. director, delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another or with C.I.A. officers in Jordan and Turkey. Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the C.I.A. to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the C.I.A. took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles," columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Crown Prince Salman is also a close friend of America's current 'prince', Jared Kushner, the US President's son-in-law. So, the Saud family are very close with America's Republican aristocrats, perhaps even closer than they are with America's Democratic aristocrats. But especially because of the business links, the Sauds are deeply influential throughout America's aristocracy. Not only is Saudi Arabia the world's most oil-rich country, but it is also the world's largest purchaser of weapons from Lockheed Martin and the other American 'defense' contractors, which sell exclusively to the US Government and to the governments that are allied with it (such as to Saudi Arabia). So, those corporations depend upon the Sauds more than upon any other family, even than any single American family.

The Saud family are also crucial allies with Israel's aristocracy , who include such American billionaires as the Republican Sheldon Adelson and the Democrat Lesley Wexner.

Prince Bandar was also reported by the FBI to have financed directly from his personal checking account the US stays, and the pilot-training, of at least two of the 15 Saudis who were among the 19 jihadists who carried out the piloting and plane-seizings on 9/11. So, if Bandar didn't (perhaps in consultation with George W. Bush) actually plan those attacks himself, he at least was one of their chief financial backers.

[Dec 27, 2018] Why Mattis' Exit Is A Defining Moment In US Foreign Policy by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

Dec 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

William Bowles , Dec 27, 2018 4:52:43 AM | link

Why Mattis' Exit Is A Defining Moment In US Foreign Policy

by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

An important analysis!

https://orientalreview.org/2018/12/27/why-mattis-exit-is-a-defining-moment-in-us-foreign-policy/

[Dec 27, 2018] Russia, according to TASS (note the snowflakes in their logo), is not clear on US intentions in Syria and is relying on media reports

Dec 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

the pessimist , Dec 26, 2018 2:02:30 PM | link

Russia, according to TASS (note the snowflakes in their logo), is not clear on US intentions in Syria and is relying on media reports. Is Trump clear? Is there a strategy? Or just an idea? There seems to have been no coordination between the US, France, Britain, and Israel, and no contacts between the US and Syria or Russia (or Iran). Trump and Erdogan had a phone call and Trump has been invited to visit Turkey. Turkey and Syria are repositioning forces. A fog has descended.

[Dec 27, 2018] Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs of Obama adminsitration infuriating neocons

Notable quotes:
"... "Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies, infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat." ..."
"... If Trump survives his domestic battles, I suspect that neocon policy has been dealt a glancing blow that it will never quite recover from. Not that it's down by any means, but diminished a little, put in its place a little. Or so we can hope. Much remains to happen yet, and we shall see. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Dec 26, 2018 6:43:02 PM | link

Well, I see my complaint comment got posted but the previous 4 remain in limboland! What a crying shame! Anyway, here I go again trying to post a link to what I believe a very perceptive article by Federico Pieraccini :

"Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies, infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat."

Now we'll see if this gets shared with the internet community or is swallowed by the information cloud.

Grieved , Dec 27, 2018 12:14:31 AM | link

@76 karlof1

Agreed, the Pieraccini article is one of his best. He's a deep thinker, with a longer horizon and memory than many other commentators, and I think he's pulled many, many of the threads together in this analysis.

We've seen some commentary and sentiment to the effect that Trump is moving finally along his stated plan to get out of the ME, but Pieraccini calls it as being only for the election. I agree with this. Trump wants to win and he needs to start now to do it, because it takes two years to win, and this is also crucial to build a defense from the Democrats along the way.

However, just because Trump is perhaps "only" looking at election doesn't mean that nothing is revealed about policy in the Middle East. What he has shown is that even a weak President can still affect foreign policy, and also that the neocon dream means nothing compared with domestic political realities - if the two come into sharp relief, as they now do, then the illegitimate and parasitic neocon force must yield.

If Trump survives his domestic battles, I suspect that neocon policy has been dealt a glancing blow that it will never quite recover from. Not that it's down by any means, but diminished a little, put in its place a little. Or so we can hope. Much remains to happen yet, and we shall see.

~~

The US is what Jeff Brown calls the colonial spawn of the western tip (Europe) of Eurasia, all of which together have been consumed in racist and genocidal, imperial plunder of the whole world for 500 years. This kind of mindset is not going to vaporize overnight. The actions of one president are an insect bite in comparison. A dozen presidents maybe, one after another, with all the other influences of the world included over that time. And there's still the old money families at the root of it.

I begin to believe we must be looking at decades, perhaps almost a century, for this global anomaly to die away completely. But this is the Asian Century. Heaven itself, perhaps, sends its force against the old empires.

Circe , Dec 27, 2018 4:04:27 AM | link
The U.S. has used hard and soft power with an iron fist to acquire its Empire status. For now, Trump is using soft power i.e. financial tyranny more aggressively than any preceding President, Iran being his number one target, followed by China.

Iran can't do much to fight this tyranny alone without China and Russia's help, but what Trump is doing to China based on hyper-insecurity and imperial hubris will have serious blowback.

The author of this article that appeared in Vanity Fair in 2014, but is more relevant than ever China's Rise already viewed China as the world's No. 1 economic power at that time and Trump should be heeding his warning, but instead he's going the Neocon route: the Empire cannnot share power, have any challenge to its authority or even a counter balance either militarily or economically. This is not only an imperial mindset it's a Neocon standard.

If Trump uses economic tyranny with more force than his predecessors, you think he's going to hold back on the Yinon objective to neutralize Iran? This is why I laugh at those who think that Trump is not establishment. He's the Chosen of the 1%.

[Dec 27, 2018] Israeli attack has of a lot in common with the IL-20 atrocity - namely that the Israelis may have been deliberately hiding behind two civilian passenger jets to launch their attack

Was it the last "hello" to Putin form Netanyahu?
Notable quotes:
"... The Israelis lost big time from their IL-20 misadventure, but those losses will seem like childs play compared to their geostrategic losses from a repeat performance - that is if my interpretation is correct. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
BM , Dec 26, 2018 11:26:03 AM | link
It appears to be too early to say much about the latest Israeli attack, until more details are released, but my inkling is of a lot in common with the IL-20 atrocity - namely that the Israelis may have been deliberately hiding behind two civilian passenger jets to launch their attack. If that is the case the Israelis can expect to be a gigantic loser.

From what I can gather it appears that 14 of the 16 the guided bombs were shot down using Pantsir S1 and/or S200. If that is the case then it is not true to say that the S300 was not used, because the S300 is an integrated system which automatically chooses the most appropriate means of response including S200/S125 etc and also including (as I understand) the Pantsir. In the case of the S200 at least, the missiles will be guided to their targets by the S300 radars and S300 control system.

The big question is the role of the two passenger jets and why their presence impeded action against the Israeli F16's. That is where the parallels with the IL-20 come in. The Russians are going to analyse this carefully and precisely before publishing conclöusions - after that we can expect harsh action - certainly geostrategic and maybe also kinetic.

The Israelis lost big time from their IL-20 misadventure, but those losses will seem like childs play compared to their geostrategic losses from a repeat performance - that is if my interpretation is correct.

By the way, I wouldn't take either Korybko or Cartalucci too seriously, both seem to me to be pro-empire misinformation artists - or at the very least highly untrustworthy sources.

BM , Dec 26, 2018 11:39:27 AM | link

Attacking Israeli aircraft over Lebanon? A no-go at the current state of affairs, as it would most likely trigger an escalation neither Russia, Syria, Hezbollah and Iran want, at least for the time being.
Posted by: Hmpf | Dec 26, 2018 11:08:26 AM | 26

This is precisely where the consequences of the Israeli timing my come in. If they deliberately timed their offence with the landing of passenger jets in Beirut and Damascus, thereby putting those jets at risk, Russia may be able to persuade Lebanon to allow them to impose a total no-fly zone over Lebanon for all Israeli military aircraft and projectiles. Check mate.

BM , Dec 26, 2018 11:50:29 AM | link
I've just seen this which also suggests the Israelis were hiding behind the passenger jets

Russian MoD: Israeli Air Force Used Landing Of Two Civilian Planes As Cover For Airstrikes

Syria had to delay actions against the F16s to safeguard the passenger jets.

Expect heavy Russian/Syrian retribution against Israel (especially geostrategic).

Bart Hansen , Dec 26, 2018 12:11:14 PM | link
As for relations between Russia and Israel, don't for get that Russian Jews represent over 10% of the Israeli population. Roughly one million out of nine million. Putin obviously is aware of this and may represent leverage for Israel. To use a favorite word of the pundits, this "emboldens" the blue haired PM
karlof1 , Dec 26, 2018 12:18:47 PM | link
All--Korybko, again, wrote hastily about something he fails to completely understand, thereby making a fool of himself. Syrian air defenses are quite adequate without needing to employ their S-300s. It's not clear if the changes to Syria's rules of engagement include targeting AND shooting down Zionist jets over Lebanon outside of Syrian airspace, which would employ S-300s. The following is Canthama's report from SyrPers posted @ 5 hours ago:

"Some latest news from Syria:

"1) Last night attack from the apartheid regime was very intense, used several vectors such as cruise missiles, ground to ground missiles etc in total it was reported 64 IDF missiles, this nbr can change as per SANA. only 7 went through the SyAAD defenses, which is an incredible rate of hits.

"There were several targets, all on the IDF hit list targets released few weeks ago, but only 1 target was hit SW of Damascus, causing material damages on a weapon depot, believed to be one of the hundreds carrying ammo recollected from the very terrorists the apartheid regime sent weapons to. SANA reported 3 SAA soldiers were injured during the explosion.

"It is believed the SAA fired retaliatory ground to ground missiles into occupied Golan which caused the interruption of IDF attack. SANA is yet to comment on that, but there are videos with Patriot attempts to intercept SAA missiles on the occupied Golan.

"2) There was not so ever any other casualty on this event, the web and news last night was full of fake news and intentionally planted news.

"3) Yesterday was a tough day in the apartheid regime, Natanyahu dismantle the cabinet for a new election and it seems the Likud party managed to hold him in power. Keep in mind the corruption case against Natanyahu is strong and moving to the last phase, he is desperate. On top of that the apartheid regime is completely against the US withdrawn from Syria, placing Natanyahu at odds with Trump, thus the attack in Syria as a sign of defiance and provocation to cause strong Syria/Russia's reaction, which it did not happen.

"4) SAA troops are in the very outskirt of Manbij, the deal is done between the MMC and the Syrian Government, there are a mix of some key SAA armies involved, bringing to all the Manbij pocket heavy tanks, missiles and thousands of soldiers. SyAAD has brought to Kuweyres and Aleppo airbases AA to protect the skies in all northern Syria thus controlling the events for the next months.

"Important to watch what is done in Qamishli and Hasaka airbases regarding AA defenses, if it is beefed up in the next few days, it will mean some inroads were agreed.

"5) Early today, the SAA has moved NW of Aleppo and liberated the town of Malikiyah, just northwest of Menagh airbase, this position was occupied by turkish backed terrorists. There are reports local SDF forces worked with the SAA on this ops. Not clear why this is happening, but it could be to divert the turkish backed terrorists that moved in force to the area near Manbij. There is no huge strategic gain with it but to control a small road that bypass the M5, but it could indicate advances toward Afrin and Azaz, but this is too early and more info is needed."

What the Zionists did was to commit an obvious Terrorist Attack on a peaceful capital city trying its best to celebrate Christmas that will further sully what remains of its reputation, as if it could get any lower than it is now. Nutty's clearly terrorizing for domestic reasons as there are Yellow Vest demonstrations and other political unrest occurring in Zionistan daily. Hopefully, he will be the last in a long line of Zionists Devils deserving a trial prior to dismemberment at The Hague.

It appears the lengthy, complicated back-room discussions between Damascus and Kurds has reaped results that are now becoming visible. The holiday's over, so now it's time to destroy the vermin. Iraq's PM is supposed to visit Assad for talks to coordinate several key actions: approach to Kurds and Turks; action East of Euphrates; and Iraqi government plans to deal with its Outlaw US Empire occupiers that are infiltrating from Syria. I've peered into corners to see if Iran or Syria have made any comment about Trump's withdrawal, but still nothing, which I entirely understand.

ADKC , Dec 26, 2018 12:28:22 PM | link
In any conventional conflict between Russia and the west, no matter how good the new Russian weapons are, Russia will quickly run out of munitions. The West can overwhelm with greater numbers of (poorer quality) weapons. This leads Russia into the position of surrendering or having to escalate (to nuclear). So it is a dead-end to directly get into a conflict with Israel as this too easily leads to the west mustering in support of Israel and a direct confrontation between Russia and the West. Tactically, the way to deal with Israel is to neutralise it's capabilities without resorting to direct confrontation and ultimatums (unsatisfying as that may be).
karlof1 , Dec 26, 2018 12:36:49 PM | link
This is supposed to complement the Syrian report I just posted but has yet to appear. This provides the reason why the Zionist attack on Damascus is an act of International Terrorism:

"The Israeli military put two civilian airliners in immediate danger, Igor Konashenkov, the Defense Ministry spokesman, told reporters. 'Provocative acts by the Israeli Air Force endangered two passenger jets when six of their F-16s carried out airstrikes on Syria from Lebanese airspace.'"

Such behavior cannot be condoned for any reasons whatsoever, and ought to produce an article 7 UNSC Resolution. Unfortunately, one Outlaw Nation protects the other Outlaw Nation, so such a proper international response will not be forthcoming. The Moroccan Terrorists are nothing compared to the Zionist and Outlaw US Empire's terrorists, and they all ought to share a similar fate.

abierno , Dec 26, 2018 12:58:09 PM | link
Was there another purpose behind the Israeli fighter jets hiding behind civilian aircraft? What would be the international reaction or more specifically the US reaction, to Syrian missiles downing a civilian commercial aircraft packed with civilian holiday passengers on Christmas Day? Would the Israeli role be masked in well-honed outrage at "Assad the butcher" again - without conscience - murdering defenseless civilians, necessitating immediate retaliation on the part of virtue signaling Western forces? Would it validate the cacophony from the Beltway regarding US withdrawal from Syria, vindicating Mattis' resignation concerns?
William Bowles , Dec 26, 2018 1:44:23 PM | link
james | Dec 26, 2018 1:27:36 PM | 43

See: https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/12/26/revealed-israels-idf-used-passenger-airliners-as-cover-during-christmas-day-attack-on-damascus/

karlof1 , Dec 26, 2018 1:47:15 PM | link
First report of Syrian retaliation I've seen today. No, it wasn't part of my detailed--6 paragraphs of Canthama's reporting--detained for who knows what as there were no links within it as Korybko's essay was previously linked. Many things ongoing today as the holiday's over, particularly movement around Manbij.

Elsewhere, Poroshenko ends martial law making him look weaker than ever. Arab League going against advice of Outlaw US Empire to reinstate Syria. Ground broken in Korea by North and South for construction of rail line linking them despite Outlaw Empire efforts to forestall. Japan says to world: Fuck-off, we're going to kill whales regardless.

james , Dec 26, 2018 3:18:00 PM | link
pat lang talking about what BM has already addressed here on the open thread... not clever.. extremely stupid and unfortunate as the same game can be playing on airplanes arriving in tel aviv at some point...
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/12/how-clever.html
ADKC , Dec 26, 2018 7:58:27 PM | link
The purpose of a provocation is to lead the provoked into a rash act. There are many posters on various sites who are guaranteed to condemn Putin for not taking (rash) action in response to the latest provocation. I profoundly distrust such posters because they appear to almost be acting in concert with the provocateur.

Today, Poroshenko announced the end of martial law. Poroshenko's plans to provoke conflict with Russia and suspend elections appear to be effectively over. We can look forward to new elections, a new President and an improved relationship with Ukraine. Where would we be now if Putin had responded to Poroshenko's provocations as some would wish?

Jackrabbit , Dec 26, 2018 9:01:28 PM | link
What would've been Trump's reaction if Syria had mistakenly downed a civilian airliner on Christmas Day as the Israel's might've been hoping for?

Another round of missile attacks on Syria? Direct attack on Assad? Re-commit to the occupation of Eastern Syria?

Whatever it might've been, we can be be sure that Americans and Europeans would've been overwhelmingly supportive: those that were critical of Trump's pulling out of Syria and those that were cheering his pulling out of Syria. United. Against. Assad.

And ready to face any counteraction by Assad or Putin. Together.

Still think Mattis' resignation was not a PR stunt?

[Dec 27, 2018] Employees at Jewish Claims Center had people pretend to be victims of Nazi persecution so they could collect money German funds over 6000 phony claims

Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: December 26, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski They are constantly, constantly stealing.

17 charged in massive Holocaust fraud case -- US news -- Crime
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40093058/ns/us /charged-million-holocaust-fraud-case/

Nov 9, 2010 -- 17 charged in $42 million Holocaust fraud case. FBI: Employees at Jewish Claims Center had people pretend to be victims of Nazi persecution so they could collect money German funds over 6000 phony claims

Germany Seeks Compensation for $57M Holocaust Fraud -- The Forward
https://forward.com › News › World

Apr 17, 2015 -- Germany is for the first time seeking compensation for the $57 million lost to fraud at the Claims Conference. But the Holocaust agency says it

[Dec 27, 2018] Unwarranted Hysteria Over Syria and Afghanistan by Publius Tacitus

Dec 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

TTG , 2 days ago

I'm in full agreement with the author's sentiment. We should pull out of Syria and begin the drawdown in Afghanistan. Our reason for being in Syria is in support of Israeli and Saudi policies, not ours or the Syrian's. The hysteria over this dramatic and IMO welcome change in policy is a pure neocon hysteria. They are not primarily concerned about the remaining IS forces. They are hysterical about the withdrawal of US support for Israeli and Saudi objectives in the region.

I do want to clear up a few details. Our material support to the jihadis we called moderate rebels was a clear anti-Assad move. It was and is illegal and uninvited. Our initial support to the Rojava Kurds was also illegal and uninvited by the Syrian government. However, it was a pure anti-IS move. The SF teams, the air support and material support provided to the Kurds was in our interests. Where this went wrong was when that support morphed into maintaining a US-sponsored statelet in eastern Syria to thwart both Damascus and Tehran.

The air support we employ in Syria is primarily manned fighter-bombers and rotary wing aircraft, not drones. We also have artillery on the ground in Syria along with infantry (500 or so Marines) to protect that artillery and forward air bases for helicopters and supply aircraft along with the support personnel at those bases. There are also a 100 or so Rangers around Manbij. The SF teams advising and assisting the SDF/YPG direct that air and artillery support. All those duties will be taken over by SAA, Russian and Hezbollah and Iranian forces. The SAA and SDF/YPG are already coordinating for the employment of SAA units along the Turkish border.

John Waddell -> TTG , 2 days ago
The Marines and their artillery were pulled out many months ago after they had finished reducing much of Raqqa to rubble, something the local Arabs who are the majority in the Euphrates valley will never forgive the US for. Those guns were, as far as I have been able to find, the only over 100mm barrel guns taken by the US into Syria as Turkey would have had a fit otherwise.

US and UK drones are still in use against ISIS elements in Deir.

Harlan Easley , 2 days ago
Our allies were the Jihadist and we armed them to overthrow the Syrian Government and destroy its secular government. Just go to Youtube and watch all the videos of Salafist firing our TOW missiles and taking out the tanks of the SAA. ISIS was a bridge too far and world condemnation forced our hand. It appears to me our foreign policy objective was to encourage sectarianism in order to overthrow a government that is hostile to Israel. Our foreign policy establishment didn't give a damn about the Christians being slaughtered. As long as Jerusalem was happy was all that mattered. In bed with the devil.
william mcdonald , a day ago
Trump is finally starting to get it. Most of Washington hates his guts and won't do a thing to help out, no matter the mission. Might as well go it alone and push his constitutional authority to the limits and then some, trusting the deplorables to have his back.
ancient archer -> william mcdonald , a day ago
The grunts in the armed forces largely come from 'the deplorables'. I am sure they would prefer to stay home than fight thousands of miles from home in a strange country for absolutely no strategic gain to the US. How many of the liberals, the so called resistance, actually serve in the armed forces? And they are the ones shouting the loudest to continue the ending war. War frequently seems exciting to those who don't do the fighting!

[Dec 27, 2018] I'm sure the Trumpster is telling us peasants what we want to hear, just as he did while campaigning, and who knows if the US military will really get out of Syria on his order

Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

jacques sheete , says: December 27, 2018 at 1:00 am GMT

@anonymoys

But let me tell you the future: there will be no withdraw from Syria UNLESS the king of Israel agrees.

No doubt about it. I'm sure the Trumpster is telling us peasants what we want to hear, just as he did while campaigning, and who knows if the US military will really get out of Syria on his order. I myself think he's bullshitting, but I hope I'm wrong.

AnonFromTN , says: December 27, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
@ChuckOrloski Pretty much. Sounds like "the only democracy in the Middle East".

But if we cry for every victim of Israeli scheming, we can't drink enough to replenish the store of tears. Maybe we should do something about it, rather than crying or laughing? Or commenting here lulled by false anonymity? NSA is listening, anyway.

[Dec 27, 2018] Trump disengagement from Syria may be (and probably is) nothing more that a tactical retreat/change in plans for which the Mattis resignation is merely a fig leaf; that is, it's just more of the same disingenuous dialectics that we've been bombarded with since the beginning of the "Trump" administration

Notable quotes:
"... If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the "government" of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate range nuclear armed missiles in Europe -- with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty rather than withdraw from it -- I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's changed. ..."
"... Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at face value. ..."
"... just watch their behaviour -- the wall never gets built even though they are now talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year -- the increase alone is the cost of two walls ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:44 pm GMT

"President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies "

Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at face value.

Orange clown's alleged disengagement from Syria may be (and probably is) nothing more that a tactical retreat/change in plans for which the Mattis resignation is merely a fig leaf; that is, it's just more of the same disingenuous dialectics that we've been bombarded with since the beginning of the "Trump" administration.

Apparently we're urged to conclude that Trump has finally had enough of the people he knowingly and willingly surrounded himself with, and their agenda, and now all of a sudden (because of some kind of a spiritual epiphany, pro-American New Year's resolution, etc.) he wants to do right by (some of) his supporters by doing what he should've done a long time ago. (And the hint of a military drawdown in Afghanistan adds a nice touch).

Sorry but I can't buy what they're selling.

If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the "government" of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate range nuclear armed missiles in Europe -- with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty rather than withdraw from it -- I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's changed.

As it is now it'll take a lot more than the obligatory "avalanche of condemnation" i.e., cheap words, to convince me that the perfidious orange clown and his jewish-supremacist handlers are doing anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with one hand while steering it into the iceberg with the other hand.

anon [231] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at face value.

agree

just watch their behaviour -- the wall never gets built even though they are now talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year -- the increase alone is the cost of two walls

annamaria , says: December 25, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
@Puzzled "I have never been able to discern a strategy, other than to keep the region in turmoil"
-- Agree.

Here is a tepid and academically deeply dishonest oeuvre by Richard Haass, who simply cannot help himself but to keep his day job of presstituting: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-12-11/how-world-order-ends

Sampling:

Although Russia has avoided any direct military challenge to NATO, it has nonetheless shown a growing willingness to disrupt the status quo: through its use of force in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscriminate military intervention in Syria, and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare to attempt to affect political outcomes in the United States and Europe.

Haass is a Cheney's choice of opportunist and Goebbelsian kind of criminal:

Haass was born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn From 1989 to 1993, he was Special Assistant to United States President George H. W. Bush and National Security Council Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs. In 1991, Haass received the Presidential Citizens Medal for helping to develop and explain U.S. policy during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Haass argued that the leaders of the United States should adopt "an imperial foreign policy" to construct and manage an informal American empire (Haass 2000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_N._Haass

[Dec 27, 2018] Syrian government forces 'enter' Kurdish-controlled Manbij region

Syria is really complex and may be untratable problem which Obama intervention only laid bare. So many tribes, so little land.
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , says: December 25, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT

.local sources told Al Jazeera and Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency --

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday that Ankara and Washington agreed to complete withdrawal of the YPG forces from Manbij before the US pulls out of Syria.

He added the US agreed to take back weapons given to the YPG.

Syrian government forces 'enter' Kurdish-controlled Manbij region. Trucks carrying regime forces and equipment, and armoured vehicles have arrived in the region, sources say.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/syrian-government-forces-enter-kurdish-controlled-manbij-region-181225153526422.html

[Dec 27, 2018] Netanyahu: Israel will escalate its fight against Iranian-aligned forces in Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country

Violation of international law is "business as usual" for Netanyahu
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: December 25, 2018 at 6:06 am GMT

Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds.

Netanyahu says he will escalate attacks against Iran in Syria. Lets see if Russia takes exception to that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel/israel-to-escalate-fight-against-iran-in-syria-after-u-s-exit-netanyahu-idUSKCN1OJ1BS

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel will escalate its fight against Iranian-aligned forces in Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday.

Some Israeli officials have said U.S. President Donald Trump's move, announced on Wednesday, could help Iran by removing a U.S. garrison that stems the movement of Iranian forces and weaponry into Syria from Iraq.

Israel also worries that its main ally's exit could reduce its diplomatic leverage with Russia, the Syrian government's big-power backer.

"We will continue to act very aggressively against Iran's efforts to entrench in Syria," Netanyahu said in televised remarks, referring to an Israeli air campaign in Syria against Iranian deployments and arms transfers to Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, carried out with Moscow often turning a blind eye.

"We do not intend to reduce our efforts. We will intensify them, and I know that we do so with the full support and backing of the United States."

anon [243] Disclaimer , says: December 25, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
4,000,000 Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since 2001, millions more displaced. More than 8,000 U.S. military have died in wars whose purpose was to take the oil from the Arab s, a purpose which started in 1897 with at the Zionist Congress in Switzerland. -- $6 trillion you say and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means killing without end and it has to stop.

Your article names the supporters of the war bandits and invading countries who rob the govern of there of their money, so the money can be used to destroy the lives and to reduce the quality of life in the target place to tribal at best (Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan). You mentioned war gang supporters Reuters, NYT, WoPo, mainstream television news providers , Pentagon, the Middle East Institute, and Israel.. but you left out so many others.

The important people to be considered in this are the Syrians humans governed by the Assad Syrian Government. & years of catching USA, British, French, Turkish, and Israeli bombs and donating, to Saudia Arabia raised Wahhabi's, Syrian heads and Syrian body parts, and being forced into homeless status as refugees of one more invader war, the Syrian people have evolved into strong nation organized to defend against the most powerful militarises in the world, they have voted 87% to keep Dr. Assad in three different elections as their leader. But something else happened: Syria became stronger, Syria became an international player, because both Russia and Iran joined to help Syria defend its sovereignty and to defend the lives of the Syrian people. I cannot think of one single American who wants anything the Syrian people have?

Why the war? So a few oil companies can steal the oil in Syria and run oil pipelines through Syria in order to defeat Russia's oil sales to Europe. Its not about Israel security (no threatens to invade Israel), its about Zionist greed and the urge to be entertained by murdering people in their homes.

Ronald Thomas West , says: Website December 25, 2018 at 8:48 am GMT
So, Trump bends over his second least favorite babysitter/general, Mattis, and orders a complete withdrawal from Syria opening the door to NATO's Turkey to go after the Kurd units there, which is an interesting development.

Putin wanted the USA out but he also has warned Erdogan against funneling Idlib's Salafi militants to Syria's Kurdish region, something Erdogan has been keen to do. Actually I expect the erratic Erdogan will go for it anyway, and small wonder at that, considering Erdogan's intelligence chief, Hakan Fidan, whose personal history is one of a bona fide member of al Qaida. Is Putin ready for Erdogan to back-stab Russia again? (recalling Erdogan's military had shot down a Russian jet.) This has to be the biggest geopolitical soap opera of the moment:

"The third disagreement is related to the fate of extremists as Turkish officials want to transfer them to Kurdish-controlled areas while Russian officials insist on "terminating them""

https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1410516/russian-turkish-dispute-over-idlib-agreement-explanation-sources https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/10/03/natos-takfiri-laundromat/

So, then Trump's detractors (includes Mattis) will point the finger at Trump (not Turkey) when Syria's east is reinfected with Salafi militants but secretly pleased Erdogan has reopened the terrorism pipeline into Syria if only because it will cause Assad and Russia problems, as well, there is the perpetual profits motive (noted by Phil.) And, so it goes

Durruti , says: December 25, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West Good thinking:

opening the door to NATO's Turkey to go after the Kurd units there

Must look to the North:

On Turkey's Northwest front, tensions are high between the Greek Military & some foreign controllers of Greece, and the Turkish Military, and their leaders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/27/tensions-flare-greece-turkey-answer-provocation-erdogan

... ... ...

[Dec 27, 2018] There is a difference between chickenhawks and neocon chickenhawks

Chickenhawk (bird) - Wikipedia "In the United States, chickenhawk or chicken hawk is an unofficial designation for three species of North American hawks in the family Accipitridae : Cooper's hawk , also called a quail hawk, the sharp-shinned hawk , and the red-tailed hawk . The term "chicken hawk", however, is inaccurate. Although Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks may attack other birds, chickens do not make up a significant part of their diets; red-tailed hawks have varied diets, but may opportunistically hunt free-range poultry . "
Notable quotes:
"... In defense of the chickenhawk -- the actual bird ..."
"... So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in association with such human detritus ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

FB , says: December 25, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT

In defense of the chickenhawk -- the actual bird

The first time I saw one in action, it was quite a revelation I looked out the kitchen window to see what looked like a blue jay perching on some kind of largish rock that he was pecking at of course that made no sense at all and upon closer examination it turned out to be a tiny raptor, not even a foot long from beak to tail, standing on a much larger dead chicken and ripping flesh off of it I ran out back toward the chicken yard and the mighty little slayer flew off the poor hen had a good part of her back flesh removed

Pretty amazing that such a tiny bird could take a chicken easily ten times its weight -- the sharp shinned hawk weighs just 200-400 grams

So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in association with such human detritus

[Dec 27, 2018] Trump decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Lindsay Graham

Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Digital Samizdat , says: December 25, 2018 at 10:54 pm GMT

Everybody say a prayer for Lindsay Graham this Christmas. I hear he's in distress

[Dec 27, 2018] The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.

Notable quotes:
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: December 25, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT

@Z-man Israel fears Iran, is my idea. Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli jews do not see how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'. Not all jews are idiots. Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a Zionist reached Palestine, and saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'. He stated 'this is a crime'.

The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.

In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial compensation, between Turkey and Greece. To this day tensions exist between the two countries.

Iran is one of the oldest civilisations. Twice, one might say even three time, the west overthrew Iranian democracy. Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to power so that he could subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah. Iran also of course knows quite well Jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to destroy Iraq. Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?

So that Netanyahu and USA jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be otherwise ? Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a problem, use power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more power'.

There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbors, or with the Palestinians. About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'How we fooled the Palestinians'? Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin, one of them, if my recollection is correct. There always was the idea of overwhelming more military power, and of USA support.

Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW. What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ? Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?

AnonFromTN , says: December 26, 2018 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.

As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration. First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second, enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban. Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally, the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.

Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.

[Dec 25, 2018] The USA has become especially corrupt internally since about the time the Soviet Union fell, with every aspect of US culture the courts and law, health care, etc becoming a criminal racket

Dec 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Probably the single most important political fact about the modern world has been the steady rise of the United States of America. From a geopolitical point of view, the United States really is in a class of its own. While the Soviet Union might have rivaled the U.S. militarily, and while China and the European Union may be comparable economic giants, no other nation comes even close to having America's combination of economic, diplomatic, military, cultural, and, increasingly important, surveillance power.

At least since the Second World War, there has been a veritable cottage industry of books predicting America's supposedly inevitable decline, due either to the myth of American "exceptionalism" or to imperial hubris. In actual fact, one is struck at how steadily America has maintained its global share of power. Despite their economic recovery in the postwar years, the decline of Western Europe and Japan has in fact proved a more fundamental tendency. Russia has only partially recovered from the collapse from the Soviet Union. After decolonization – the collapse of the overseas European empires – in fact virtually none of Third World has been able to organize themselves as influential actors ("Brazil is the country of the future and always will be," De Gaulle is supposed to have said.) Only capitalist China, it seems, will have the organization, intelligence, and sheer size to decisively overtake the United States economically.

... ... ...

The United States was however not merely founded by Europeans, but in particular by the English, who have the distinction of having been one the most dynamic and economically successful of European nations. England, blessed with mostly harmlessly small Celtic neighbors and a crucial little expanse of water between itself and the Continent (a mere 33 kilometers between Dover and Calais!), could develop in relative security develop in a most unique direction. Whereas virtually all European principalities developed

Whereas political survival on the mainland depended on the state's coercive ability to raise the men and taxes necessary to a large army, in England this depended instead on the maintenance of a large navy, which itself required an advanced trading economy. The American Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the role of war in the development of Continental despotism and self -consciously made their republic into a counter-model.

peterAUS , says: December 20, 2018 at 9:05 pm GMT

Good article.

Takeaway, I guess, based on:

For the foreseeable future however, I expect that America's combination of size, dollar hegemony, energy, natural individualist dynamism, cultural power, and cognitive elitism will continue to make the leading superpower outside of the Sinosphere.

and

I would not be surprised if secession were a viable prospect by mid-century

is:

I expect that America's combination of size, dollar hegemony, energy, natural individualist dynamism, cultural power, and cognitive elitism will continue to make the leading superpower outside of the Sinosphere at least until mid-century

Now, there are some things conspicuously missing from the article. Demographics change, destruction of middle class and that 1 %/deplorables thing.
I guess that could've been mentioned, even addressed, but, well ..

Anyway, given those parameters, the challenge is how to live in that paradigm.
Not easy I guess for, I'd say, 95 % of authors, commentators and readers here.

All good.

Brabantian , says: December 20, 2018 at 10:33 pm GMT

A very shallow article here by someone who does not know the USA, a country hosting the world's biggest gulag with 2.2 million prisoners in carcerated about 1 out of every 45 working-age males in prison at this moment whereas jailing in Western Europe is about 1 out of every 1000 citizens, in the USA it is 1 out of 140

Durocher buys into USA schoolboy 'Constitution' cult propaganda, and the supposedly glorious 'First Amendment' As shown in the recent US Dept of Justice filing on crimes involving Robert Mueller , that 'Constitution' can be totally and instantly nullified by judges who don't respect it, US judges even endorsing fake documents claiming people agreed to ban their own freedom of speech for life, and ordering that court appeals be banned from court records and the internet whilst lawyers who oppose such schemes instantly lose their USA law licences

Durocher thinks USA 'law' is like in Hollywood movies, which points to the real 'strength' of the USA – its domination over global media and propaganda, via Hollywood, the CIA's Wikipedia, etc

The USA has become especially corrupt internally since about the time the Soviet Union fell, with every aspect of US culture – the courts and law, health care, etc – becoming a criminal racket

The USA and China, both had the benefit of being huge countries in resource-rich regions with a moderate climate There was no doubt that in earlier USA development, economic growth was fuelled by an overall positive entrepreneur-friendly legal environment but those days are over

US small business creation has been hit hard for some time now, too many pressures and rules and legal problems the USA is run by out-of-control monopolists, and the place is being poisoned, rather badly, both culturally and literally (the food)

Many USA people are okay, fun, etc but the USA is ultimately a disturbing place, and quite dangerous if one collides with or is targeted by its police-state system, or the gov-encouraged mafia lawyers stealing people's money, as savvy European business people know there is no 'rule of law' there, it is wide-open court gangsterism now, as President Trump himself suffers when the Hillary-&-Bush-tied judges (most of them) block Trump's actions

The USA has a lot of past wealth to draw upon, and a final filip from the last years of the US dollar as 'reserve currencey' denominating global debt but the USA is not a very nice place, with a future either broken into pieces, or becoming a new kind of multi-cultural, bigger sort of Mexico

Howard Skillington , says: December 21, 2018 at 1:49 am GMT

This is a silly article, given its assumption that things will continue upon the trajectory of the past quarter millennium, just as the United States teeters on the edge of an abyss of its own making. The tragedy is less its own demise than the fact that it is bringing the rest of the world down with it

The scalpel , says: Website December 21, 2018 at 2:14 am GMT

"in fact virtually none of Third World has been able to organize themselves as influential actors"

That is because it is US policy (PNAC) to bomb potential rivals coming out of the "third world" back into the stone age (see Libya)

Thank God for the S-300, 400

[Dec 25, 2018] The Mystery of American Imperial Power by Guillaume Durocher

The article is weak, and some comments demonstrate higher level of understand then the article itself. Although the level of understanding the the destiny of the USA is not tied to the destiny of neoliberalism (much like the USSR and Bolshevism) is still foreign for many.
Dec 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website December 21, 2018 at 4:41 am GMT

I wonder how history may have played out IF the French didn't lose Canada. Suppose the British Empire made peace with France ruling over Canada. Then, would the colonies have been willing to rebel against the British?
Perhaps, out of fear of French Canada, the colonies would have stuck closer to the British Empire as protection.

But the British Empire expended huge sums to defeat the French in Canada(especially because of the insistence of the colonialists). With the French out of the picture, the American colonies no longer feared the French and became more defiant against the Mother Country.

Another result of the French-and-Indians War was that the British decided to tax the colonies. Having spent so much to defend the colonies and defeat French Canada, the British Motherland thought that increased taxation was only fair. But the colonies disagreed, and there followed the rebellion. But here's the thing. The Revolutionaries had NO CHANCE of winning against the British without outside help. After all, only 1/3 of colonialists rebelled while another 1/3 fought for the Crown(and another 1/3 remained neutral). So, why did the American Revolutionaries win? Only because the French entered on their part. And why did the French side with the rebels? For the French, it was sweet revenge. The British Empire, prodded by the colonialists, took on French Canada and robbed France of all that wonderful territory.

So, what better way for the French to get their revenge by aiding the rebel-colonists against the British Empire? As all the major battles involved French troops, it was the French that really made American Independence possible. But this soon proved to a Pyrrhic victory for the French Monarchy. It became financially even more exhausted than the British Empire after the French-and-Indian Wars. Strapped for cash, the French Monarchy had a difficult time managing social unrest, and there followed the Revolution that toppled the king.

Even though the French Monarchy made American Independence possible, the Americans soon sided with the French Revolutionaries. Next, if Napoleon hadn't been so ambitious on the Continent, maybe he could have done more build up the Louisiana Territory with French settlers. While Anglo-Americans were itching to grab that territory for themselves, they just couldn't do it because France had done so much for the Americans. Also, having severed ties with the British Empire(that still held Canada), they were gonna get no help from the Crown to just grab the Louisiana territories. But then, a miracle for the Americans. Because Napoleon was strapped for cash, he sold the entire territory for peanuts. (Later the dumb Russians sold Alaska to Americans.)

Now, let's roll back history a little. Why didn't French Canada develop as quickly as the 13 Anglo colonies. Partly it was the weather as it was colder up there. But the other reason was the different sets of property rights in UK and France. The French Monarchy considered all the Canadian territory as its own private property. So, there was less incentive(and freedom) for common Frenchmen to move to the New World and begin anew. In contrast, Anglos who moved to America were given the opportunity for private ownership and enterprise, and that was powerful incentive for many more Anglos to try out their luck in the New World.

Now, suppose the French had held onto French Canada and changed the incentives for Frenchmen to move there. Keep in mind that France held both Canada and the vast Louisiana territories. Imagine if many French moved to Canada and then moved down and settled the Louisiana territories. They could have been the masters of America. And there might have been no French Revolution. And there might have been no American War of Independence either.

If British Empire and French Empire had made peace in the New World, then there would have been no French-and-Indian Wars, which led to taxation of the colonies that led to the rebellion by colonialists. If there had been no French-and-Indian War, the colonialists might have clung closer to the Empire out of fear of the French. Also, if there had been peace between French Empire and British Empire, the French most certainly would NOT have aided Independence struggle of the rebellious colonialists. Any attempt to break away from the British Empire would have been easily crushed by British troops. In such scenario, the French Monarchy would not have expended huge sums to aid the colonial rebellion against the British. And flush with cash, the French Monarchy would have been far sturdier against social and political problems.

It would have been a world without American Independence and French Revolution. It would have been a world in which the French still controlled Canada and had claims over vast Louisiana territories. In such a world, if the French had incentivized French migration to the Americas like the British did, Canada and and 2/3 of the America could have ended up in French hands, and the 20th century might have been a Franco-Canadian-Louisianan Century. Would such have been better?

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website December 21, 2018 at 5:33 am GMT

There is no mystery to American Power. It's the 3 L's: Land, Lineage, and Legacy.

Obviously, if America were 1/20th of its real size, it could not have been a superpower despite cultural and political factors. After all, Anglos did pretty well in New Zealand, but it's no superpower. As for Australia, it is huge, but most of the place is uninhabitable.
America was the best land in the world. All that vast territory in temperate zone. Not too hot, not too cold, and with lots of arable land with best soil in the world. Western Europe is also in temperate zone but small in size and lacking in resources. Russia is huge, but much of it is cold and desolate. China is huge, but for its size, rather lacking in good arable land and resources. In contrast, US has good weather, great farmlands, tremendous amounts of natural resources in oil and minerals.

Then, there was the Lineage. Anglos were intelligent and homogeneous(racially). That meant lots of ability and unity. Pretty solid DNA material.

There was also the Legacy. Anglos developed certain manners and attitudes that were conducive for both Order and Freedom. Too much order stifles progress. Too much freedom leads to chaos. Anglos developed a way to found freedom upon order. So, Anglo freedom wasn't about acting like stupid drunkards but by using discipline to foster self-control that could allow for higher freedoms in thought, enterprise, adventure, discovery, and experimentation. It was different from the freedom of savages and barbarians whose life revolves around the passion of the dong and butt. It was about repressing wild energies and building character so that individuals, as men of honor and culture, could be free as ideal gentlemen and ladies. Such a mindset and attitude made for a culture of greater trust, rule of law, and sense of honor. People interacted on the basis of contracts than on petty kinship or autocratic subservience.

And precisely because the Anglo Way and especially the Anglo-American Way revolved around ideas about laws, contracts, honor, trust, and obligations, it was less culture-specific. And this meant that new immigrants who were non-Anglo could also adopt the Anglo-American way. It was easier for non-Anglos to assimilate into Americanism that had a set of rules than a set of rites and rituals. It's like it's easier to convert to Christianity than to Judaism. It's easier to become a Buddhist than a Hindu. Christianity and Buddhism are credo-faiths whereas Judaism and Hinduism are ethno-faiths. While Americanism had a particular racial and ethnic imprint(that of Anglos), the basic modes of Americanism could easily be adopted and practiced by non-Anglos, at least if they were white(as a Anglo-ized German or Pole pretty much looked like any Anglo-American).
So, Anglo-Europeans(non-Anglo whites who became Anglo-Americanized) joined with Anglo-Americans in the American Enterprise? And why not join when there was so much promise in living in America than in cramped old Europe(where democracy and individual rights didn't come to fruition for most nations until the late 19th century, but even then, so much of European history in the 20th century was about aristocratic war of WWI, communism, Fascism, National Socialism, ethno-imperial war of WWII, and Iron Curtain. (Granted, one could say US had its own tragedies with war with Indians, destruction of nature, and the Civil War, but history moved too fact in the US for anyone to grieve for too long.)

That is the essential backbone of why America became a great power. The 3L and the easily Anglo-Americanization of newcomers. It was far easier to forget your original identity and become an Anglo/American than, say, a Swede, Pole, or Swede, all specific identities rooted in historical particularism. Granted, French did try to universalize Frenchness, but it's surely easier to comprehend and adopt Anglo-Americanism with its powerful but simple sets of rules than Frenchness with so much emphasis on haute culture and intellectual sophistication. While the Anglos could be snobby, they were also buttoned-down and more pragmatic. Being a decent law-abiding shopkeeper was enough to be Anglo, whereas you needed some degree of Culture to be French. It's like American fast food is more universally appealing that various French cuisines that are good but require some degree of refinement to appreciate. Though Angl0-Americanism wasn't exactly a Fast Culture(like fast food), it was more digestible. (It was with the fading of Anglo-emphasis in American Culture that it really turned into a Fast Culture. Today, you can be a total barbarian slob whose only interests are tattoos and going crazy at Walmart on Black Friday. THAT is Americanism.) Also, America unleashed certain repressed energies in the Old World that was overly bound by tradition. Americanism unleashed just enough vigor of barbarism to add charge to Western Civilization. We can see this in the American Western. It's about creating order and civilization but also about adventurousness and individuality.

Now, two other factors made America bigger in the world. Jews and blacks. Jews have been tireless in science, business, entertainment, intellect, and etc. When Anglo-American creativity, pride, and fire began to fade in the second half of the 2oth century, Jews took up the slack with lots of great writers, artists, and activists. Jews made Hollywood, the dream factor of the world. Now, would America have had a great film industry without Jews? Maybe. After all, Walt Disney wasn't Jewish. But Jews have knack for such things. They also came to dominate gambling. And many Jews were prominent song-writers of the 20th century.

Of course, Jews drew a lot of their musical influences from blacks. And blacks, with their jive rhythm and louder voices, played a huge role in the development of American music that came to influence the world. Even white performers like Elvis heavily drew on black influence. The black-Jew chemistry in music was highly interesting and productive.

America also gained prominence in sports because blacks are better at it. So, black Americans outran Europeans and everyone else. Black American boxers beat up Europeans and Russians. Without Jews, American business, technology, and culture would have grown less. And without blacks, there would have been no Jazz, Rock, and Rap. And US wouldn't have been dominant in sports. If not for Joe Louis and Jesse Owens, the top boxers and runners of the 40s could well have been Europeans.

But for the Core Anglo/America(that of Anglo-American and Anglo-Europeans), Jews and blacks were a mixed blessing. Jews did contribute tremendously to the US, but they also used much of their capital and influence to subvert, shame, and degrade Anglo/America. Today, Jewish globo-homo Power is waging race war on Whites.

And even though blacks brought back many medals and trophies for America, what does this really mean? It means cucky-wuck white boys worshiping black muscle that kicks their white ass and even kicks the butts of Europeans, the racial brethren of Anglo/Americans. Also, black sports victory in the US led Europeans to also worship blacks, and so, Europeans also imported a whole bunch of blacks to play for their nations. What does this all mean? It mean black guys in Europe kicking white butt and turning white guys into cucky-wuck wussies who surrender their jungle-feverish white whores to Negroids.

And together, Jews and blacks promote interracism where white guys are supposed to act like guilt-ridden wussy-cucks while white women are infected with jungle fever for Negro dongs and act like Ariana Grande who tanned her skin to near-blackness and imitates black ho's with more butts than brains.

Today, despite cultural and moral decay of the US, there is still the land that produces tons of food, natural resources, and etc. And where money is king, the US attracts smart people from all over the world to try their luck in Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and etc. In some ways, the total hollowness of American culture is liberating for many who don't want any restraints to their dreams.

Also, US controls the world currency, and it can keep printing money. US also benefits from the fact that, no matter how corrupt and rotten it is, there are many nations that are even more corrupt and rotten.

Anon [420] Disclaimer , says: Website December 21, 2018 at 7:08 am GMT

People tend to compare US with other empires like Roman, British, and French, but it overlooks one important factor. US would be a great power WITHOUT an empire. Indeed, US itself like an imperial nation in its own right. It has both head and body. In contrast, Rome as a great power relied on ruling over vast non-Roman territory. Rome itself was a head without a body. Same with the Brits and the French. Lose their foreign empires, and they were no longer awesome powers. They could still be local great powers but not world powers.

So, when Rome lost its colonies, it was finished as a superpower. Worse, it got conquered.
When the British lost its colonies, its days as great power was over too.

But even if US brings home all its military from abroad, it would still be a superpower. And even if US cut off all trades with other nations, it could survive as a great power. The only other nations with this capacity today are China, Russia, and Brazil. China still seems to be rising. Russia is holding steady but has problems of corruption and laziness. Brazil has too many blacks, and it will never rise.

Also, empires like Rome were vulnerable because its weaponry wasn't all that more advanced that those of its enemies. It all came down to spear, sword, and arrows, something the barbarians and others had as well. For Rome to remain on top, it had to be ultra-disciplined, but it's difficult to maintain that level of militancy over time. People burn out eventually. In contrast, the US has advanced weapons and can blow up any number of invaders or attackers. Look what happened to Japan in WWII. So, most Americans can be slobs who never served in the military but still feel safe.

And yet, there is the problem of non-white invasion facing both US and EU. Both US and EU have the technological and military means to stop the invasion. But they don't. If anything, the elites welcome the invasion, and even many ordinary folks support it? Why? Because the command-center of the West has been infiltrated and re-programmed to reject race-ism. That's all it took. It's like TERMINATOR 2. The robot that was originally programmed to fight humans was reprogrammed to defend humans. Same machine but different code, thereby radically different behavior.

At one time, US had been coded to be gloriously race-ist. But upon the re-coding by Jews and Wasp 'progressives', the new Americanism was virulently anti-race-ist. Indeed, the worst sin according to PC is for whites to side with other whites. Whites can now be 'good' only by welcoming endless immigration in the name of Diversity. Whites can gain moral credit only by supporting OTHER peoples.

This is, why, for the time being, whites must support Indian-Zionism(or Inzionism), the idea that Indians are the original owners of the land(just like Jews were original owners of Zion) and that the biggest historical 'sin' of America was 'genocide' of the Indians. Inzionists must conflate immigration with imperialism with 'genocide'. To bring justice to the Indians, all future immigration must be ended RIGHT NOW. And all good Americans must work to restore Indian pride and numbers.

Now, if whites could be gloriously race-ist, they wouldn't have to resort to Inzionism. But since PC says whites must serve others, whites should primarily get behind Indians and make the case that, because Immigration-Imperialism led to 'genocide' of Indians, there must be no more Immigration-invasion because America is really Indian land, which means that the main moral obligation of whites is to restore Indian pride and numbers.

Anyway, on the matter of immigration, the general rule should be ALLOW IN PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPARABLE TO YOUR PEOPLE IN NATURAL ABILITY. If you bring over lots of real dummies, they will drag society down with ineptitude and stupidity. There will be a huge permanent underclass.

But if you let in people who are considerably smarter than your people, they will take over command centers and may work against your people. Sure, smart people will contribute to society, but they may use their wealth and clout not for the host majority but against them. Also, don't let in a race that is stronger than yours. Such race will beat up your kids in school, streets, in sports, and take your womenfolk. Just look what blacks are doing to whites. It's reducing white men to a bunch of pathetic cucks.

Simon in London , says: December 21, 2018 at 9:23 am GMT

There is a lot of ruin in a nation.

It is a good analysis which emphasises the momentum the USA has built up – which will almost certainly mean continued global dominance into the second half of the 21st century even while the Chinese economy becomes much larger. Short of a large scale nuclear war (US-China or US-Russia) I don't see that changing. China cannot challenge the USA for cultural, financial-system, or political-structure global dominance, does not wish to challenge the USA for military dominance. At some point overwhelming Chinese economic power will cause a flip, but without an existential war like WW2 that will likely take longer than the 50 years it took the USA to replace Britain – and Britain never had the same full-spectrum global dominance as the post-Cold War USA.

In terms of weakness and decline, the flip from an Anglo-Germanic-Celtic dominated nation to a Jewish and "multicultural" dominated nation also occurred around the end of the Cold War and the failure of GHW Bush to achieve re-election. This puts the US leadership class misaligned with the 'grunts' the US needs for many aspects of its global dominance, military especially, and a growing internal tension. The US judiciary's increasing hostility to the founding-stock people is notable, along with of course the media and entertainment industries, and now even the Silicon Valley corporations. But I think the weakening/fracturing process is still at an early stage and I would be surprised to see secession in mid century. It will take a major failure of the US empire's global hegemonic strategy to see the nation 'flip' again, into outright rebellion against the ruling elites. As I said, a disastrous war with Russia or China seems the likeliest trigger – I think currently the elites are sufficiently aware of this danger to avoid it, but their own quality is declining as they become more entrenched. A more speculative risk would be the USA taking the 'wrong' side in a European civil war – bombing nationalists on behalf of the EU, say, or of 'persecuted' Muslims – thus bringing internal US fractures to a head. I think this is relatively unlikely since it would require (a) such a conflict to occur and (b) the US leadership class to critically misunderstand their founding-stock subjects and their ability to control the opinions of those subjects. Whereas an accidental war with Russia or China is well within the current realm of reasonable contemplation.

In the absence of such a break-point, I can see the USA remaining both intact and globally dominant through the end of the 21st century, even while China's economy becomes several times larger in real terms.

And, who knows, Mormons in the asteroid belt, bringing the two thousand year Germanic expansion wave out into the solar system and beyond.

peter mcloughlin , says: Website December 21, 2018 at 3:24 pm GMT

The author may be right that 'American hegemony or exceptionalism' will be around for a long while yet, but that status will not 'prove eternal'. Whatever else, that is true. Nations rise and gain power. Then they must retain that power. And when they lose it they seek to regain it.

https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

Anon [533] Disclaimer , says: December 21, 2018 at 3:46 pm GMT

As I suggested in a comment to your previous column: the USA is managed by a group of tight-knit aces of power management.
If there is one thing the country will be exceptionally adept at, it will be what relates with power (and propaganda).

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website December 21, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT

Admittedly, one can wonder how much of the U.S. figure represents "real" wealth as opposed to accounting gimicks, e.g. health insurance and whatnot. On the whole, I am inclined to say it is real.

On the whole I can state that it is gimmick but that will require operating with apparatus which is beyond the field of "expertise" of American "economists", granted with some notable exceptions. I will omit here the issue of continental warfare and of American real military history, but it was primarily lack of those which drove initial accumulation and creation of the infrastructure. WW II was a great facilitator of growth of American prosperity.

Parisian Guy , says: December 22, 2018 at 11:31 pm GMT
@Bukephalos

Then again checking the growth of Russian power seemed imperative for the Brits

Oceania against Eurasia. The ocean master against the landmass master. This conflict is old and deeply rooted.

Today, US island replaces UK island. Putin replaces French king LouisXIV, or emperor Napoleon, or fuehrer Hitler. But the root of the conflict did not change.

Yee , says: December 23, 2018 at 4:30 am GMT

No mystery at all Just scale of economy and a more advance form of colonization.

All wealth starts from natural resources plus labour. Everything in our daily life comes from nature, food, clothes, furnitures, plastic boxes, TV, smartphones, cars come from soil, forest, oil, mineral ore etc.

Old Europe went to foreign lands to exploit natural resources and labour. America imported slaves and immigrants to be exploited. China exploit our own existing population.

The rise of America before WW2 is no mystery, just the scale of economy. Check the world powers of the past few centuries, Spain-> Britain-> Germany-> USA/Soviet Union-> China, each has a bigger population than the last. The trend is clear.

After WW2, the US established an improved and more effective form of colonization than the old European one.

The major change is the means to control the colonies, it changed from brute force of military to soft power of media/intelligence, to control both the masses and the elite. And the exploit changed from real materials to financial.

This "capital + media" has worked so spectacularly well that countries around the world fought to become US colony, willingly and proudly

Truly impressive aaccomplishment Perhaps America really is run by the Jews, the game is much superior than the Anglo or other old Europe.

Biff , says: December 23, 2018 at 6:09 am GMT

The uniqueness of Anglo-American culture is also evident in the very prestige of Founding Fathers and of the Constitution. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the U.S. is one of the only countries in the world with a genuine constitution in the ancient sense, as most memorably expressed by Aristotle: not merely a dead text, a cold set of procedures, but a Lawgiver's prescriptions for a way of life informed by a certain culture and ethos. As Aristotle said: "a constitution is the way in which a city lives" (Politics 4.11, 1295a34).

The ruling class has wiped it's ass with the(not worth the hemp it was written on) constitution a long, long time ago – the ink was barely dry.
Who would expect rulers to constrain themselves, by a document written by people that they themselves would consider terrorists? Not a chance.
As for rights? What you have in that document are temporary privileges , that can be taken away anytime, as they already have in the past – usually in the name of national security; infact, the whole damn document can be nullified in the name of national Security, and the stupid, dumb, fat, lazy people would go right along with it, because it's already happened!

[Dec 25, 2018] Mattis Marks End of the Global War on Terror

Notable quotes:
"... America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason. ..."
"... So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has been dead wrong for 17 years? ..."
"... The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... . He is permanently banned from federal employment and Twitter. ..."
"... The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency. The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put an end to this prolonged military outrage. ..."
"... It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis ..."
"... "The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas to move on." ..."
"... The GWOT was a repudiation of the Powell Doctrine. Almost 20 years on, Powell looks like genius and the neocons like a bunch of morons. ..."
"... The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the "revisionist powers". ..."
"... The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of Asia. ..."
"... "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift." ..."
"... "Don't make me have to kill you" ..."
"... It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance. May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast. ..."
"... The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party is as much The War Party as the Republican Party. ..."
Dec 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The New York Times , its journalists in mourning over the loss of a war, ask , "Who will protect America now?" Mattis the warrior-monk is juxtaposed with the flippant commander-in-Cheeto. The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that] sowed new uncertainty about America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to be a global leader."

"A major blunder," tweeted Senator Marco Rubio. "If it isn't reversed it will haunt America for years to come." Senator Lindsey Graham called for congressional hearings. And what is history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign policy decisions in Syria seemingly without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham wants to hold hearings on quitting a war Congress never held hearings on authorizing.

That's all wrong. Jim Mattis's resignation as defense secretary ( and on Sunday , Brett McGurk, as special envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS) and Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan are indeed significant. But that's because they mark the beginning of the end of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the singular, tragic, bloody driver of American foreign policy for almost two decades.

Why does the U.S. have troops in Syria?

To defeat the Islamic State? ISIS's ability to hold ground and project power outside its immediate backyard was destroyed somewhere back in 2016 by an unholy coalition of American, Iranian, Russian, Syrian, Turkish, and Israeli forces in Iraq and Syria. Sure, there are terrorists who continue to set off bombs in ISIS's name, but they are not controlled or directed out of Syria. They are most likely legal residents of the Western countries they attack, radicalized online or in local mosques. They are motivated by a philosophy, which cannot be destroyed on the ground in Syria. This is the fundamental failure of the GWOT: that you can't blow up an idea.

Regime change? It was never a practical idea. As in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, there was never a plan for what to do next, for how to keep Syria from descending into complete chaos the day Assad was removed. And though progressives embraced the idea of getting rid of another "evil dictator" when it came through the mouthpiece of Obama's own freedom fighter Samantha Power, the same idea today has little drive behind it.

Russia? Overwrought fear of Moscow was once a sign of unhealthy paranoia satirized on The Twilight Zone . Today, Russia hate is seen as a prerequisite to patriotism, though it still makes no more sense. The Russians have long had a practical relationship with Syria, having maintained a naval base at Tartus since 1971, which they will continue to do. There was never a plan for the U.S. to push the Russians out -- Obama in fact saw the Russian presence are part of the solution in Syria. American withdrawal is far more of a return to status quo than anything like a win for Putin. (Elsewhere at TAC , Matt Purple pokes more holes in Putin paranoia.)

Washington Melts Down Over Trump's Syria Withdrawal Former Yazidi Sex Slave Is America's Shame

The Kurds? The U.S.-Kurd story is one of expediency over morality. We've used them only because, at every sad turn, there's been no force otherwise available in bulk. The Kurds have been abandoned many times by America: in 1991 when it refused to assist them in breaking away from Saddam Hussein following Gulf War I, when it insisted they remain part of a "united Iraq" following Gulf War II, and most definitively in 2017 following Gulf War III when the U.S. did not support their independence referendum, relegating them to Baghdad's forever half-loved stepchild.

After all that, America's intentions toward the Kurds in Syria are barely a sideshow-scale event. The Kurds want to cleave off territory from Turkey and Syria, something neither nation will permit and something the U.S. quietly understands would destabilize the region. Mattis, by the way, supported NATO ally Turkey in its fight against the Kurds, calling them an "active insurgency inside its borders."

Iran? Does the U.S. really have troops in Syria to brush back Iranian influence? As with "all of the above," that genie got out of the bottle years ago. Iranian power in the greater Middle East has grown dramatically since 2003, and has been driven at every step by the blunders of the United States. If the most powerful army in the world couldn't stop the Iranians from essentially winning Gulf Wars II and III, how can 2,000 troops in Syria hope to accomplish much?

The United States, of course, wasn't even shooting at the Iranians in Syria; in most cases it was working either with them or tacitly alongside them towards the goal of killing off ISIS. Tehran's role as Assad's protector was set as America rumbled about regime change. Iran has since pieced together a land corridor to the Mediterranean through Iraq and Syria, which it will not be giving up, certainly not because of the presence of a few thousand Americans.

What remains is that once-neocon, now progressive catch-all: we need to stay in Syria to preserve American credibility. While pundits can still get away with this line, the rest of the globe already knows the empire has no clothes. Since 2001, the United States has spent some $6 trillion on its wars, and killed multiple 9/11s worth of American troops and foreign civilians. The U.S. has tortured , still maintains its gulag at Guantanamo, and, worst of all credibility-wise, has lost on every front. Afghanistan after 17 years of war festers. Nothing was accomplished with Iraq. Libya is a failed state. Syria is the source of a refugee crisis whose long-term effects on Europe are still being played out. We are the "indispensable nation" only in our own minds. A lot of people around the world probably wish America would just stop messing with their countries.

So why does the U.S. have troops in Syria? Anyone? Bueller? Mattis?

America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason.

So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has been dead wrong for 17 years? Instead, Trump plans a dramatic drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. presence in Iraq has dwindled from combat to advise and assist. Congress seems poised to end U.S. involvement in Yemen against Mattis's advice.

There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift. But to see this all as another Trump versus the world blunder is very wrong. The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether.

The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started. Though the results are far from certain, for the first time in nearly 20 years, negotiations are open again with North Korea. Mattis's ending was clumsy, but it was a long time coming. It is time for some old ideas to move on.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . He is permanently banned from federal employment and Twitter.

Geo December 24, 2018 at 8:22 am

I'm about as left wing as they come and have had a distain for Trump for decades. But, if he can put an end to the GWOT and truly pull America out of those disasters I protested against back in 2001-2002 (not to mention Libya and Yemen) then he will be my favorite modern president. Granted, that's a low bar. I've not had one in my lifetime that was worth admiring, but would be a welcome change.

I have my doubts he'll be able to pull it off but even if he manages to just not start any new wars that would be a novel new direction for us.

Kent , , December 24, 2018 at 9:23 am
If Trump pulls this off, I'll actually consider voting for him in 2020.
TomG , , December 24, 2018 at 9:24 am
It's good for Van Buren to remind people that our relationship with the Kurds has long been one of support when it is convenient and abandonment when it is not. For left and right to feign concern now is quite hypocritical.

Reading this offers some hope though the bulk of coverage on the Syria withdrawal from left and right has been most depressing. May Mattis (and his ilk) go far and may it be soon!

Stephen in Florida , , December 24, 2018 at 9:25 am
Amen to everything in this article. I voted for Trump because of the way he strongly denounced the Iraq war and our policies of interventionism and nation building in general. It has taken two full years, but finally he is delivering what I hoped for. The media is trying to turn this into another Trump smear issue, but I expect them to fail at this. At this point in time how many people take the news channel narrative seriously? Especially if Trump removes our troops from Afghanistan, I expect his popularity to soar.

The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency. The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put an end to this prolonged military outrage.

JK , , December 24, 2018 at 9:51 am
It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis
Kurt Gayle , , December 24, 2018 at 10:06 am
This is brilliant, Mr. Van Buren. Thank you:

"The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas to move on."

furbo , , December 24, 2018 at 10:08 am
The President made the right decision. I WISH it had been reached in a more traditional manner -- going thru the NSC and such, but we had no achievable strategic goals and were really only a bit player. The very real danger was that we were dancing around the Russians like two porcupines making love with the current "Russia!Russia!Russia!" political freakout preventing what could have been a genuine opportunity for cooperation in at least one area. Syria will not be any more chaotic for our departure, infact given less scrutiny and no danger of accidental WW III, the Russians/Iranians/Syrian gov't may be able to wrap this up more faster.

Russia also has interest in Kurdish welfare and as 15% of Israelis ARE Russians, their wellfare as well. In an administration that needed to project credibility, SEC Mattis was a good choice and has done some great things cutting alot of uneeded red tape & worthless 'training' and giving clear priorities for the services. But, he's opposed almost everything the President including the Trans ban so it was 'when not if'.

Oleg Gark , , December 24, 2018 at 10:13 am
The GWOT was a repudiation of the Powell Doctrine. Almost 20 years on, Powell looks like genius and the neocons like a bunch of morons.
Seaman Bodine , , December 24, 2018 at 10:30 am
It all makes sense once you understand that by "restraint" they mean "leave American soldiers as hostages to fortune in Syria!" and "unlimited mulligans for failed generals in Afghanistan!" and "let's provoke Erdogan into releasing two or three million refugees into Europe!"
Alex (the one that likes Ike) , , December 24, 2018 at 10:33 am

The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that] sowed new uncertainty about America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to be a global leader."

Geez. I can also come up with something like this artwork by the Times journalists. Here: "The lack of correlation between convergences caused an unwanted bifurcation of idiosyncratic dichotomies". Twaddle? But how badass is sounds! Just read it aloud -- and you'll see the credibility glittering like Swarovski crystals all over the place.

Merry Christmas to the MSM. I wish them to start writing something meaningful next year.

Dan Green , , December 24, 2018 at 10:52 am
Too bad the military establishment had their Christmas ruined. They shouldn't get down there will new new wars.
SteveM , , December 24, 2018 at 11:19 am
The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the "revisionist powers".

Mattis fronted the updated National Defense Strategy. It again fear-mongers out the wazoo about Russia and China with the only solution being "more, more, more" for the War Machine.

The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of Asia.

Re: "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift."

Au Contraire , there is much pleasure watching that sanctified War-Monger and Pentagon Hack with his contrived "Don't make me have to kill you" schtick ride off into the sunset.

Unfortunately for those of us not deluded into the Cult of Military Exceptionalism, Mattis will no doubt segue to Fox News as yet another "Wizened Sage" of Pentagon wisdom and insight, where he'll live very large for simply gas-bagging his "Warrior Hero" script. And perhaps Mad Dog will even meander back to General Dynamics to pimp yet again for the Merchants of Death.

Make no mistake, Mattis and his General pals are enemies of the taxpayers and rank apostates of the Founders' principles. Mattis may soon be gone, but unfortunately, he won't be forgotten.

P.S. Merry Christmas

Citoyen , , December 24, 2018 at 11:55 am
It's good to see Trump finally realizing that he is the president, and not his generals and "advisors" that no one elected. Goodbye and good riddance to Mattis, Haley et al. Next to go should be John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner.

It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance. May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast.

Kurt Gayle , , December 24, 2018 at 12:35 pm
"'A major blunder,' tweeted Senator Marco Rubio. 'If it isn't reversed it will haunt America for years to come.' Senator Lindsey Graham called for congressional hearings. And what is history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign policy decisions in Syria seemingly without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham wants to hold hearings on quitting a war Congress never held hearings on authorizing."

The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party is as much The War Party as the Republican Party.

Stephen J. , , December 24, 2018 at 12:44 pm
Article of interest at link below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Send the Mad Dog to the Corporate Kennel
by Ray McGovern Posted on December 22, 2018

https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2018/12/21/send-the-mad-dog-to-the-corporate-kennel/

Ron B. Saunders , , December 24, 2018 at 2:50 pm
No wonder Mr. Van Buren is banned from federal employment and Twitter. His clarity and surgical observations of American interventionism are indeed enlightening. Deep State forces must cringe when reading his missives.

I don't agree with everything Trump does, but I have high hopes for his intent to extract American military forces from the Middle East. Having cost trillions of dollars and countless lives, these profit-motivated, failed expeditions could never be morally justified even if they were successful.

Being the world's policeman does not make America a benevolent, inspiring global leader. The opposite is true, as much of the world now perceives America to be a disruptive force, conspiring against global peace for the benefit of the military industrial complex and multinational corporations.

Let's pray for a changing tide that steers us further from the brink.

Mark Thomason , , December 24, 2018 at 3:19 pm
"Now Trump, the guy everyone expected to start new wars"

Hillary supporters said that. The rest of us knew that she was the danger of more and bigger wars. That was a prime reason to defeat her. Too bad the only way to defeat her was to elect Trump, but that is on the DNC, since they offered her, and every other Republican was even worse (Cruz!).

[Dec 25, 2018] If the Turks attack the Kurds it will be their own fault. If they don't learn the lesson of Afrin and accept the Syrian Government offer, they will be eliminated by the Turkish Army and proxy troops.

Dec 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

John Waddell -> jdledell , 2 days ago

If the Turks attack the Kurds it will be their own fault. If they don't learn the lesson of Afrin and accept the Syrian Government offer, they will be eliminated by the Turkish Army and proxy troops. They appear to have been offered the option of becoming part of the Syrian Arab Army, an offer the Russians and Turks have supported.

Bear in mind that many of the Kurds are now in parts of Syria that were not theirs before the US backed them and, under the eyes of US SF and DoS observers, they have been ethnically cleaning some of those areas of Arabs. This will be reversed.

Poul -> jdledell , 2 days ago
A cynical view on the Kurds would be that throwing them to the wolves will make the wolves fight amongst themselves over the prey.

The one issue which united Russia, Syria, Iran & Turkey was that they all wanted the US out of Syria. Now that has happened friction between the nations can occur.

Russia may have gained something from the new relationship with Turkey that they may not want to sacrifice for Syrian-Iranian policy regarding who shall control Northern Syria.

Can Syria-Iran go it along against Turkey . I doubt it.

[Dec 25, 2018] A Short History of How the US Went to War in Syria by Peter Van Buren

Dec 25, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Posted on December 24, 2018 December 23, 2018 Here's what got Secretary of Defense James Mattis all worked up!

Even as what should have been a quick 2001 strike into Afghanistan bogged down into the quagmire of nation building, George W. Bush in 2003 invaded Iraq. The pretenses were all false. Terrorism was the excuse, American control over the region the goal. "Winning" in Iraq was built on an illusion the U.S. could somehow establish a puppet government there incorporating Sunni, Shia, and Kurd power blocs. There was no plan for this and it predictably failed, metastasizing into civil war, eventually drawing in powerful outside forces, most predominantly the Iranians on the Shia side, and al Qaeda on the Sunni side, with the US assuming a defacto role protecting the semiautonomous Kurds.

As the second Bush term gasped to conclusion and America grew weary of the Iraq War, the US quietly abandoned its plans for a tripartite Iraqi state. It allowed Iranian-supported Shias to "win" the 2010 elections at the expense of the Sunni population, and walled off the Kurds, formal status to be sorted out sometime whenever. Under a deal negotiated by Bush, American troops came home under Obama. That action didn't "lose" Iraq; Iraq was "lost" at a thousand incremental steps between 2003-2010 when the US failed to create a viable government and left everyone to fight it out. The continued presence of American troops post-2010 would not have prevented the violence which followed, anymore than the continued presence of US troops pre-2010 did not prevent the violence and in fact inflamed it.

The Shia government in Iraq, advised, financed, and controlled by newly-empowered Iran (America's wars had removed Iran's two biggest enemies, the Taliban on its eastern border and Saddam on the west, freeing up the bulk of Iran's military and foreign policy resources) wildly overplayed its hand, setting off on a clumsy genocide of the Sunnis. Out of desperation, the remnants of al Qaeda coupled with ultra-violent Sunni nationalists/protectors/patriots/terrorists (pick one word, but they all describe ISIS) morphed into Islamic State. From a Syrian border American interventionism had turned into a failed state, Islamic State organized itself and began holding ground, quickly rolling over the Kurds in northern Iraq and through sympathetic Sunni lands. When the American-trained (cost: $25 billion) Iraqi national army dropped its weapons and ran in 2014, remaining Shia forces collapsed back toward Baghdad, and it looked like Iraq was about to snap apart.

The US, under Obama, reinserted itself into Iraq, in a devil's bargain with the most powerful player on the ground other than ISIS, the Iranians. The US paired with Iranian special forces, the US paired with Iranian-led Iraqi troops, and the US paired with Iranian-backed Shia militias/nationalists/protectors/patriots/terrorists. This time there was no grand plan to do any nation building. The plan was to literally kill every Islamic State fighter, and if that meant destroying Sunni cities to save them, so be it. Death was rained in literal Biblical doses. The American strategy against Islamic State worked. It should have; this was a war the American military knew how to fight, with none of that tricky counterinsurgency stuff. Retaking Ramadi, Fallujah, and Mosul were set-piece battles. City after Sunni city were ground into little Dresdens before being turned over to the militias for ethnic cleansing of renegade Sunnis.

Without much discussion, "fighting ISIS" into Syrian territory slipped into another, albeit less enthusiastic, round of regime change , this time aimed at Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Assad's family controlled the country since the 1960s, and was a sort-of American partner here and there, certainly helpful during the early years of the GWOT in torturing folks on America's behalf. Bashar himself was a goofy looking guy with a sophisticated wife, an optometrist by education, and when he took office after his classic dictator Dr. Evil father's death, was briefly seen as a "new voice" in the Middle East, a less fashionable version of last year's Saudi Mohammed bin Salman. Assad was fighting Islamic State, too: they were seeking to seize territory from him, and so the US and Assad were sort of on the same side.

Nonetheless, Obama's warhawks – the gals, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton in the lead! – drove policy toward regime change. Assad became an evil dictator who killed his own people. Justification for the US going to war again in the Middle East was thus because a tiny percentage of the deaths were maybe caused by gas instead of artillery, aerial bombs, machine guns, tanks, rockets, grenades, car bombs, mines, bad food, or sticks and stones, a "red line." The world of 2015 however was very different than the one of 2003. The US had been bled out by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and fights picked in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and across Africa. Iran was empowered. Russia, always a friend of Assad's, was invited in to help rid Syria of chemical weapons by Secretary of State John Kerry and took the opportunity to dramatically grow its military role there.

Saudi money fed the fight, often flowing into ISIS' coffers because ISIS was fighting Iranian-backed troops whom the Saudi's opposed. Turkey saw an opportunity in chaos to push back against the Kurds nipping at its southern and eastern borders and basically a small-scale version of WWI unraveled as the United States bombed a bit, stepped back, sent in some special forces, then claimed it had no boots on the ground, and so forth. America's goals – destroy ISIS, fight Iranian influence, oust Assad – were often at odds with one another and lead to US weapons and money flooding the battlefield. More than one firefight featured American-supplied guns on both sides. More than one American special forces unit found itself playing traffic cop stopping an American "ally" from attacking another American "ally."

That more or less brings things up to late 2018

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

Read more by Peter Van Buren

[Dec 25, 2018] Saudi Arabia Agrees to Finance Rebuilding of Syria - Trump

Dec 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

DarkPurpleHaze , 1 hour ago link

How unlikely did it seem (pre-Khashoggi) that the Syrian situation would take the turns we're now starting to witness?

Totally under the radar during the holiday newscycle.....major news story!

▪Saudi Arabia Agrees to Finance Rebuilding of Syria - Trump▪

US President Donald Trump said in a statement on Monday that Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay for the reconstruction of Syria rather than the United States financing the reconstruction of that country.

>>> "Saudi Arabia has now agreed to spend the necessary money needed to help rebuild Syria, instead of the United States. See? Isn't it nice when immensely wealthy countries help rebuild their neighbors rather than a Great Country, the U.S., that is 5000 miles away. Thanks to Saudi A! " Trump said via Twitter.<<<

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1077253411358326785

Trump has welcomed Riyadh's decision, adding that it is "nice when immensely wealthy countries help rebuild their neighbors rather than a Great Country, the US, that is 5000 miles away."

The US president's comment comes after, on Wednesday, he announced that the United States would withdraw its roughly 2,000 troops from Syria since the Daesh* terror group had been defeated. However, the White House later clarified the decision does not mean the US-led international coalition's fight against the Daesh has ended.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the US Congress who have supported US military engagement and intervention throughout the world have criticized Trump's decision, saying that a US troop withdrawal from Syria will lead to the reemergence of the Daesh and aid Russia, Turkey and Iran fulfilling their interests in the region.

emersonreturn , 19 minutes ago link

the saudis will only put money into isis & therein taking over the oil fields to supplement theirs...yemen isn't quite working out as they'd planned.

[Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
May 06, 2014 | mondoweiss.net

At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses "A Foreign-Policy Problem No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives. Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and David Brooks lamenting the decline of American power.

In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..

I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.

At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of Amos Elon's The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.

This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers. (Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that, driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .

Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles] Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.

Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one speaks about.

Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm

"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position by changing their neighbours".

The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth. For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.

Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never, I guess.

Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm

P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11, which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.

Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s, using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.

Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.

Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes, they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.

But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.

Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of '48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.

And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.

But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.

Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm

There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.

Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm

"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"

Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.

Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am

@ Bumblebye

Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves, despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat troops.

It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts, and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.

Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm

PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.

The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.

Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire.

So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.

ToivoS, May 7, 2014, 8:10 pm
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.

Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.

In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with the Bandera brigades.

RudyM, May 7, 2014, 9:36 pm
Interesting, meaty analysis here of the various players in Ukraine. This is unequivocally from a Russian perspective, incidentally:

link to wikispooks.com

(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)

I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these links:

I have only glanced at these:

American, May 6, 2014, 9:23 pm
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives. Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>

Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst, the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.

That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.

And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.

Citizen May 7, 2014, 9:46 am
@ yonah fredman

"The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal."

As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO. Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.

There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism "in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.

Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment? Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.

And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering sanctions on Russia.

Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.

Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores in the US Congress.

ToivoS, May 7, 2014, 8:49 pm

Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.

Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.

In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with the Bandera brigades.

ToivoSMay 7, 2014, 9:39 pm
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.

What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government. You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of the Bandera organization.

Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan? It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.

Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.

piotrMay 7, 2014, 10:18 pm
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic for that government.

yonah fredman, May 7, 2014, 10:38 pm

Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate. Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.

If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.

My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.

But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.

ToivoSMay 8, 2014, 12:51 am

Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?

yonah fredmanMay 8, 2014, 1:30 am

ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.

But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic, but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)

Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the Ukrainian desire for freedom.

CitizenMay 8, 2014, 9:18 am

@ yonah f

What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?

(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification what the US is doing.

irishmosesMay 8, 2014, 12:32 pm

Yonah said:

"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"

The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.

Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.

The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater Israel line.

Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.

Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.

The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future. It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to continue running with the Neocons.

seanmcbride, May 8, 2014, 1:01 pm

irishmoses,

Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.

What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran.

What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .

But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.

"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."

link to politico.com

Are there really any meaningful distinctions between neoconservatives in the Republican Party and liberal Zionists in the Democratic Party?

talknic, May 7, 2014, 3:24 am

@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"

Strange

"state into the Armageddon .. "

"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "

Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.

" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that."

You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".

BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere

JeffB, May 7, 2014, 9:06 am

I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.

Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on the left of most foreign policy positions.

Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.

But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?

lysias, May 7, 2014, 10:55 am

The neocons lost one last night: Antiwar Rep. Walter Jones Beats Neocon-Backed GOP Rival:

Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.

American, May 7, 2014, 11:24 am

Yep.

Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.

Citizen, May 8, 2014, 9:24 am

@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to cut off any aid to Israel.

Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.

traintosiberia, May 8, 2014, 9:12 am

Stockman's Corner

Bravo, Rep. Walter Jones -- Primary Win Sends Neocons Packing

by David Stockman • May 7, 2014 link to davidstockmanscontracorner.com

The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.

But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"

But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny.

[Dec 24, 2018] What Is the Point of Pompeo's Cairo Speech by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... "Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much" ..."
"... Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses. ..."
"... Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time." ..."
Dec 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Then-Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KS, speaking at a rally in 2013. He faces a senate grilling for his secretary of state nomination today. Mark Taylor/Creative Commons Nahal Toosi reports on an upcoming Pompeo speech planned for his visit to Egypt next month:

Pompeo's speech will likely focus heavily on Iran, as have many of his past public remarks. The chief U.S. diplomat is likely to try to rally Arab capitals to stand with the United States and thwart Iran's use of proxy forces, support for terrorism and other activities in the region.

The Trump administration has made a regular habit of denouncing Iran in speeches by top officials, and the administration's Iran policy has no more international support today than it did a year ago. It's not clear what purpose another high-profile Iran-bashing session serves. The administration's talking points are tediously familiar by now, and Pompeo's brusque and overbearing manner is the opposite of persuasive.

Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much, and every attempt to get these clients to do more has so far produced no results. The administration's ill-conceived, so-called Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA) has stalled, thanks to the broader anti-Saudi backlash in Washington and the lack of interest on the part of many of its would-be members. The administration's Iran policy of regime change in all but name isn't working as planned and isn't going to work, and there is not much else for Pompeo to talk about that reflects well on the administration. He and the president have gone out of their way to thwart Congressional opposition to the war on Yemen, and they have bent over backwards to make excuses for Saudi crimes.

Pompeo won't admit it in his speech, but the current U.S. role in the region is a destabilizing one that involves aiding and abetting war crimes and helping to cause mass starvation.

about:blank

they've seen it before December 19, 2018 at 10:30 pm

"Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much"

Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses.

Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time."

Zebesian , says: December 20, 2018 at 6:04 pm
Pompeo wants another expensive, bloody war that will wreck another nation and result in more refugees...

[Dec 24, 2018] Chuck Schumer, feckless hack

Notable quotes:
"... Senate Democrats have once again selected Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their minority leader without so much as a whisper of a debate or contest. This is galling. The man is incompetent, has abysmal politics, and as we were reminded in a huge New York Times investigation into Facebook, is extremely corrupt. ..."
"... Schumer definitely succeeded in the latter objective. In keeping with his long career as a Wall Street stooge (and in sharp contrast with his predecessor Harry Reid ), he quietly shepherded financial deregulation through. And because he has an almost neoconservative foreign policy, he largely stood aside as Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal for no reason. He also attacked Trump from the right for not being belligerent enough towards North Korea. ..."
"... Where does Schumer come in? Well, in 2017, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) opened an investigation into Facebook over Russiagate and misinformation generally. (Far from being some fire-breathing populist, Warner is among the most milquetoast, business-friendly Democrats who has ever held high office.) But Schumer has raised more money from Facebook than any other member of Congress, his daughter works there , and he helped get his former staffer appointed to the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees Facebook). In concert with Facebook brass, he told Warner to lay off the company, reported the Times : "Mr. Warner should be looking for ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it." ..."
"... So when it comes to sellout Democrats voting to make another financial crisis more likely, Schumer wrings his hands and hectors progressives not to criticize them too much (after which most of the sellouts lose anyway). But when those same sellouts start criticizing one of his favored sources of campaign cash, suddenly he discovers a knack for backroom arm-twisting and hardball tactics. ..."
Dec 24, 2018 | theweek.com
Senate Democrats have once again selected Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their minority leader without so much as a whisper of a debate or contest. This is galling. The man is incompetent, has abysmal politics, and as we were reminded in a huge New York Times investigation into Facebook, is extremely corrupt.

In his first two years as Senate minority leader, Schumer had two main priorities. First, preserve his vulnerable moderates running in deeply Trumpy states, like Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Second, use the Trump presidency to sneak through some odious stuff that most liberals hate.

Schumer definitely succeeded in the latter objective. In keeping with his long career as a Wall Street stooge (and in sharp contrast with his predecessor Harry Reid ), he quietly shepherded financial deregulation through. And because he has an almost neoconservative foreign policy, he largely stood aside as Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal for no reason. He also attacked Trump from the right for not being belligerent enough towards North Korea.

And how about that first goal? Schumer failed spectacularly in preserving most of these seats. Nearly all of his moderates -- to whom he had granted significant leeway to vote for President Trump's judicial nominees and bills -- lost. Only Joe Manchin in West Virginia managed to hang on. The Democratic Senate margin is being somewhat bolstered only by other candidates knocking off Republican senators in Arizona and Nevada, which Schumer had little to do with. (Indeed, Harry Reid, who is still helping run a well-oiled labor turnout machine in Nevada, was the key figure behind the Nevada win.)

This brings me to Facebook. Sheera Frenkel, Nicholas Confessore, Cecilia Kang, Matthew Rosenberg, and Jack Nicas wrote a jaw-dropping piece of reporting for the Times about Facebook's lobbying operation. They focused on how the company has defended itself from evidence that Russian intelligence used the platform to help Trump win in 2016, and that political extremists have been using the platform to organize atrocities , including genocide .

Basically, the strategy conducted by Facebook's top executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, was the filthiest sludge out of the bottom of the lobbying barrel. (Facebook has defended itself and calls the report "grossly unfair.") The story is very long, but probably the most explosive revelation was that Facebook hired a soulless Republican propaganda shop to attack its critics -- notably the Open Markets Institute , which Anne-Marie Slaughter shoved out of the New America Foundation on instructions from her Google paymasters -- with anti-Semitic smears, casting it as the tool of wealthy Jewish philanthropist George Soros. Remarkably, at the very same time they convinced the Anti-Defamation League to cast criticism of Facebook as anti-Semitic, as both Zuckerberg and Sandberg are Jewish.

It's worth stopping for a moment to take this in. Just a couple weeks ago a right-wing terrorist hopped up on anti-Soros propaganda massacred 11 Jews at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Another sent a mail bomb to Soros' home. A third person in D.C. was recently arrested on suspicion of plotting another synagogue shooting.

Where does Schumer come in? Well, in 2017, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) opened an investigation into Facebook over Russiagate and misinformation generally. (Far from being some fire-breathing populist, Warner is among the most milquetoast, business-friendly Democrats who has ever held high office.) But Schumer has raised more money from Facebook than any other member of Congress, his daughter works there , and he helped get his former staffer appointed to the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees Facebook). In concert with Facebook brass, he told Warner to lay off the company, reported the Times : "Mr. Warner should be looking for ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it."

So when it comes to sellout Democrats voting to make another financial crisis more likely, Schumer wrings his hands and hectors progressives not to criticize them too much (after which most of the sellouts lose anyway). But when those same sellouts start criticizing one of his favored sources of campaign cash, suddenly he discovers a knack for backroom arm-twisting and hardball tactics.

[Dec 24, 2018] Did Someone Slip Donald Trump Some Kind Of Political Viagra

Dec 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

After two years of getting rolled by the Washington establishment, it seems that President Donald Trump woke up and suddenly realized , "Hey – I'm the president! I have the legal authority to do stuff!"

All of this should be taken with a big grain of salt. While this week's assertiveness perhaps provides further proof that Trump's impulses are right, it doesn't mean he can implement them.

The Syria withdrawal will be difficult. The entire establishment, including the otherwise pro-Trump talking heads on Fox News , are dead set against him – except for Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham .

Senator Lindsey Graham is demanding hearings on how to block the Syria pullout . Congress hardly ever quibbles with a president's putting troops into a country, where the Legislative Branch has legitimate Constitutional power. But if a president under his absolute command authority wants to pull them out – even someplace where they're deployed illegally, as in Syria – well hold on just a minute!

We are being told our getting out of Syria and Afghanistan will be a huge "gift" to Russia and Iran . Worse, it is being compared to Barack Obama's " premature" withdrawal from Iraq ( falsely pointed to as the cause of the rise of ISIS ) and will set the stage for "chaos." By that standard, we can never leave anywhere.

This will be a critical time for the Trump presidency. (And if God is really on his side, he soon might get another Supreme Court pick .) If he can get the machinery of the Executive Branch to implement his decision to withdraw from Syria, and if he can pick a replacement to General Mattis who actually agrees with Trump's views, we might start getting the America First policy Trump ran on in 2016.

Mattis himself said in his resignation letter, "Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these [i.e., support for so-called "allies"] and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position."

Right on, Mad Dog! In fact Trump should have had someone "better aligned" with him in that capacity from the get-go. It is now imperative that he picks someone who agrees with his core positions, starting with withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, and reducing confrontation with Russia.

Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel complains that "our government is not a one-man show." Well, the "government" isn't, but the Executive Branch is. Article II, Section 1 : "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Him. The President. Nobody else. Period.

Already the drumbeat to saddle Trump with another Swamp critter at the Pentagon is starting: "Several possible replacements for Mattis this week trashed the president's decision to pull out of Syria. Retired Gen. Jack Keane called the move a "strategic mistake" on Twitter. Republican Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) signed a letter demanding Trump reconsider the decision and warning that the withdrawal bolsters Iran and Russia." If Trump even considers any of the above as Mattis's replacement, he'll be in worse shape than he has been for the past two years.

On the other hand, if Trump does pick someone who agrees with him about Syria and Afghanistan, never mind getting along with Russia , can he get that person confirmed by the Senate? One possibility would be to nominate someone like Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney specifically to run the Pentagon bureaucracy and get control of costs, while explicitly deferring operational decisions to the Commander in Chief in consultation with the Service Chiefs.

Right now on Syria Trump is facing pushback from virtually the whole Deep State establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as the media from Fox News , to NPR , to MSNBC . Terror has again gripped the establishment that the Trump who was elected president in 2016 might actually start implementing what he promised. It is imperative that he pick someone for the Pentagon (and frankly, clear out the rest of his national security team) and appoint people he can trust and whose views comport with his own. Just lopping off a few heads won't suffice – he needs a full housecleaning.

In the meantime in Syria, watch for another "Assad poison gas attack against his own people." The last time Trump said we'd be leaving Syria "very soon " was on March 29 of this year. Barely a week later, on April 7, came a supposed chemical incident in Douma, immediately hyped as a government attack on civilians but soon apparent as likely staged . Trump, though, dutifully took the bait, tweeting that Assad was an "animal." Putin, Russia, and Iran were "responsible" for "many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack" – "Big price to pay." He then for the second time launched cruise missiles against Syrian targets. A confrontation loomed in the eastern Med that could to have led to war with Russia. Now, in light of Trump's restated determination to get out, is MI6 already ginning up their White Helmet assets for a repeat ?

Trump's claim that the US has completed its only mission, to defeat ISIS, is being compared to George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner following defeat of Iraq's army and the beginning of the occupation (and, as it turned out, the beginning of the real war). But if it helps get us out, who cares if Trump wants to take credit? Whatever his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team told him, the US presence in Syria was never about ISIS. We are there as Uncle Sam's Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and Saudis to block Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria and Iran (the so-called "Shiite land bridge" to the Mediterranean ).

For US forces the war against ISIS was always a sideshow, mainly carried on by the Syrians and Russians and proportioned about like the war against the Wehrmacht: about 20% "us," about 80% "them." The remaining pocket ISIS has on the Syria-Iraq border has been deliberate ly left alone, to keep handy as a lever to force Assad out in a settlement (which is not going to happen). Thus the claim an American pullout will lead to an ISIS "resurgence " is absurd. With US forces ceasing to play dog in the manger, the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis will kill them. All of them.

If Trump is able to follow through with the pullout, will the Syrian war wind down? It needs to be kept in mind that the whole conflict has been because we (the US, plus Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, the United Kingdom, etc) are the aggressors. We sought to use al-Qaeda and other jihadis to effect regime change via the tried and true method. It failed.

Regarding Trump's critics' claim that he is turning over Syria to the Russians and Iranians, Assad is nobody's puppet. He can be allied with a Shiite theocracy but not controlled by it; Iran, likewise, can also have mutually beneficial ties with an ideologically dissimilar country, like it does with Christian Armenia. The Russians will stay and expand their presence but unlike our presence in many countries – which seemingly never ends, for example in Germany, Japan, and Korea, not to mention Kosovo – they'll be there only as long and to the extent the Syrians want them. (Compare our eternal occupations with the Soviets' politely leaving Egypt when Anwar Sadat asked them, or leaving Somalia when Siad Barre wanted them out. Instead of leaving, why didn't Moscow just do a " Diem " on them?) It seems that American policymakers have gotten so far down the wormhole of their paranoid fantasies about the rest of the world – and it can't be overemphasized, concerning areas where the US has no actual national interests – that we no longer recognize classic statecraft when practiced by other powers defending genuine national interests (which of course are legitimate only to the extent we say so).

What happens over the next few days on funding for the Border Wall – which is fully within the power of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deliver – and over the next few weeks over Syria and Afghanistan may be decisive for the balance of the Trump presidency. If he can prevail, and if he finally starts assembling an America First national security team beginning with a good Pentagon chief, he still has a chance to deliver on his 2016 promises.

Anyway, if this week's developments are the result of someone putting something into Donald's morning Egg McMuffin , America and the world owe him (or her) a vote of thanks. Let's see more of the wrecking ball we Deplorables voted for !

Karmageddon , 23 seconds ago link

Trump thought that by bringing the swamp into his fold he might be able to defang it. He bent the knee, played nice and kissed the ring but still they kept at him. I think Trump has had enough of giving a mile for getting an inch. I like Trump when he presents himself as a human wrecking ball to all the evil plans of the Washington establishment and if he continues like this I honestly believe he will be reelected in 2020, and one day will be acknowleged as a true chapion for every day Americans but if he shrinks back into his shadow and gives the likes of Bolton and Pompeo free reign to **** all over the globe with their insane scheming he will be a one term failure.

francis scott falseflag , 6 minutes ago link

Don't get too excited about the possibility that there may be more kinds of viagra to try out, Jattras. If Trump recently seems to be more like the candidate we voted for, the real reason for his reversion back is because the midterm elections are over and Trump kept the Senate.

Check with me before you start making a lot of crack-pot statements

Clear blue sky , 25 minutes ago link

Anybody that wants foreign wars and open borders does not have Americas best interest at heart and is a traitor.

[Dec 24, 2018] People like you must count as a great success for the obedience training that keeps capitalist society running smoothly, with the few dissidents casually dismissed as "a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes".

Dec 24, 2018 | off-guardian.org

Peter Bolton says Dec, 6, 2018

You know already what I will respond to this. And I know already what you will say in return. So, instead of getting into a back and forth about it, I will simply leave you with something to consider.

The fact that each successive report that comes out that refutes the claims of the truther movement is automatically dismissed by people like you shows how conspiracy theory thinking works. The final 9/11 report comes out in 2004 and, of course, the truthers dismiss it because it was written by a branch of the federal government who you believe perpetrated 9/11 in the first place. Then Popular Mechanics publishes a 5,500 word report in 2005 extensively answering and debunking the movement claims.

Here, you people can't claim that it was a government cover-up -- at least not directly -- because Popular Mechanics is a privately owned publication. Therefore, new sub-conspiracy theories are invented to "prove" how Popular Mechanics is part of the cover-up. To give just one example Christopher Bollyn "claimed to have discovered why the 100-year-old engineering magazine would take part in a government cover-up of the crime of the century: A young researcher on the magazine's staff named Benjamin Chertoff was a cousin of then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the magazine was seeking to whitewash the criminal conspiracy with its coverage." (Slate 2011) Here we are seeing the kind of incredible mental contortion that truthers are willing to engage in to continue believing their theories.

Then in 2008 the National Institute of Standards and Technology released the final installment of its study into the causes behind the collapse of the buildings -- $16 million was invested into the investigation. And, as I well know, you and other truthers will have a smart Alec come-back as to why the NIST report is wrong, its authors are part of the vast conspiracy and so on. On and on it goes no matter how many reports are published by however many experts.

Again, I am not interested in getting dragged into a back-and-forth about the merits and demerits of these reports. Rather, I wish to point out the flawed reasoning inherent to 9/11 trutherism: that it has its own internal mechanisms for discounting any evidence that contradicts its central tenets. It therefore constitutes a closed system of thought because there is nothing that would ever count as a refutation. In other words, for all contradictory evidence another explanation is made to retroactively fit the latest gap in the theory that is exposed.

Now, I know full well that this is probably not going to change your mind either. And I'm sure that there will be plenty of responses to this comment and thumbs down from Off-Guardian readers. But I hope that you at least consider whether you are wrong about this subject. For my part, I worry that 9/11 trutherism obscures what are indeed important subjects -- US imperialism, US govt. corruption, the nefarious influence of the CIA, the legitimate grievance that people in the Middle East have against the US, Israel, the Saudi dictatorship and so on. Above all, I worry that 9/11 trutherism makes it open season for the real enemies -- the US foreign policy establishment, et cetera -- to portray the resistance to them and their agenda as a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes. I feel strongly that the left needs to jettison this in-group, conspiracy theory-type stuff really become a major force and overturn the status quo.

milosevic says Dec, 9, 2018
People like you must count as a great success for the obedience training that keeps capitalist society running smoothly, with the few dissidents casually dismissed as "a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes".

Even NIST eventually admitted that WTC-7 free-fell for 2.5 seconds. That can only happen if all the support columns fail at exactly the same time; otherwise it would topple over sideways. Only controlled explosives can make that happen.

Your touching faith in the word of ruling-class "experts", over the evidence of your own eyes, and basic physics, is a credit to the Middle Ages. It would warm the hearts of the Catholic theologians who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they knew, as a matter of revealed truth, that what he said couldn't possibly be true.

What do the claims of a bunch of tinfoil-hat-wearing fruitcakes count for, against not just ruling class dogma, but the entire weight of respectable middle-class opinion? The social status and careers of millions of right-thinking professionals, like you, depend on believing, or at least pretending to believe, not just the 9/11 Official Story, but all the other Official Stories as well. How could all those comfy middle-class people, with their comfy middle-class careers and high-status friends, be wrong? That would throw the entire plan for next weekend's dinner party into question.

Do you believe the Offical Skripal Story? The Official ISIS story? The Official Syrian Chemical Weapons Story? The Official JFK Assassination Story? The Official USS Liberty Story? The Official Tonkin Gulf Story? How do you decide which Official Stories to believe, except on the basis of careerism and status-seeking?

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SBmyPW6gGGI?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Peter Bolton says Dec, 16, 2018
Again, I am not interested in getting drawn into a back-and-forth about the various claims of 9/11 truthers like yourself. I would just like to make one comment and then leave two things for yourself and other truthers on here to consider.

First, I would like to comment upon the fact that I have been subjected to some rather nasty personalized abuse on this thread simply for challenging the claims of trutherism. I'm not pointing this out to feel aggrieved or to search for sympathy or to make myself out as some kind of victim. Rather I do so to illustrate how it is indicative of the negative and mind-closing effects of the group-think and the conspiracy theorist mind-set. It goes something like this: "everyone who questions the tenets of the great truther theory is the enemy, not just a skeptic but rather a collaborator in the evil system that suppresses the "truth"."

Second, I want to provide a link to an excellent article that addresses the claims of truthers head-on: https://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/911-conspiracy-theories-debunked/

The people it discusses were truthers and many of them reexamined their beliefs after being confronted by actual specialists on the subjects basing their truther beliefs on. If you are open-minded as you claim to be, then have the decency to at least read the article and consider its points, rather than just reflexively rejecting the source as part of the great cover-up.

Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Noam Chomsky. Now, I am well aware that you think Chomsky is a sell-out for not getting on board with trutherism and that you have all kinds of fancy come-backs as to why he is wrong. But he raises a very important issue of priorities for people on the anti-imperialist left to consider. Is this obsession with this issue really helping us to fight against imperialism and all of the other iniquities of the world? I think not:

"One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work." Noam Chomsky

Makropulos says Dec, 3, 2018
Ah "truther", that neologism which serves the same purpose as the recasting of the term "conspiracy" to designate foolishness, gullibilty etc.

And as for Chomsky, well here's what he had to say about the 9/11 "inside job" theory:

"And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John Kennedy. Who knows? Who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy?"

Let's just consider that for a moment. Chomsky is considering the possibilty -- however remote in his view -- that 9/11 may indeed have been an inside job. And he's saying it doesn't have any significance that the US goverment carried out an attack on its own population! It doesn't have any significance that the "war on terror" was launched on the basis of a lie!

This is the moment when Chomsky truly stood revealed. He was like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar who instantly concocts any number of excuses all of which contradict each other. And yet even when caught out like this, he has his supporters who say he "dispels 9/11 theories with sheer logic"!

milosevic says Dec, 3, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TwZ-vIaW6Bc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Makropulos says Dec, 3, 2018
That's the one. I mean – who knows and who cares? It's not as if a terrorist attack on mainland America that altered the face of New York and launched a war across the world is actually important.
Peter Bolton says Dec, 4, 2018
Well, I think the fact that Noam Chomsky has said this demonstrates how few people accept these 9/11 truther ideas -- even amongst people who generally agree with your (and my) kind of politics. George Galloway, who like Chomsky is about as far politically from the neocons as you can get, has also spoken very eloquently against trutherism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5ToK6g0m8

Ironically, the only remotely public figure who does that I've heard mentioned on this thread is some Reaganite crank that I had never heard of until now. That really does not bode well for you, does it?

Makropulos says Dec, 4, 2018
Au contraire Peter, it does not bode well for the entire realm of mainstream discourse. Logically what Chomsky said is simply monstrous. As is this:

"I think the fact that Noam Chomsky has said this demonstrates how few people accept these 9/11 truther ideas"

What is the hold that this man has that he only has to say something to "demonstrate" what most think?

Makropulos says Dec, 4, 2018
And having now listened to Mr Galloway and once again having to put up with his portentous stretching out ..of the ..sentence to -- quite frankly pad the time out, I see that his "points" come down to the following:

Two planes flew into the twin towers. Yes -- there's no disputing that one.

GW Bush could not possibly have planned the thing himself. Yes again -- no dispute. At this point I must express my gratitude to Reagan for finally proving that the guy in front is just a puppet.

If the US did it themselves and it "got out" it would be the end of America's credibility. Yes indeed. Which is why, all across the mainstream press, it will only ever be presented as a "nutty conspiracy theory"

milosevic says Dec, 4, 2018
Galloway: "I saw, myself, the airplanes hitting the twin towers."

-- which is supposed to constitute proof of the official Evil-Terrorists-In-A-Cave-In-Afghanistan story.

attention, "flaxgirl": your grand unified theory of 9/11 now needs to incorporate George Galloway as a fake witness for the US government, which seems strange, given his decades of opposition, both before and after, to the imperial warfare for which 9/11 served as a pretext.

The political function of the No-Planes-At-WTC claims could not be more clear; it's so that people who dispute other aspects of the Official Story can all be dismissed as deranged idiots.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
But Peter you need to look at the evidence for yourself and not take others' word for it. And be guided by those who know how buildings collapse -- Chomsky certainly doesn't.
This is a wonderful tutorial by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The story of 9/11 is utterly preposterous. The only reason people believe it is to do with psychology of how we relate to power nothing to do with the actuality of the story -- because it's utterly ludicrous.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
Forgot link to tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ged-FIf46dc

This is my article on Chomsky's sophistry on 9/11:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/11/analysis-of-the-sophistry-of-noam-chomsky-on-911/

Jay-Q says Dec, 4, 2018
Wut? " less violent ones like England, the US or France " From here on it just gets worse until Chomsky has no credible position left to argue from.

Heightened sense of cognitive dissonance by old Noam.

' even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, then who cares? It doesn't have any significance."

Wow, for someone with such intellect this is some low-level thinking. I almost feel sorry for Chomsky for holding such an immoral position. Would he feel the same way if his wife was murdered? "Ah, there's other things to worry about, anything else is a diversion of energy." Very sad.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
Where basic physics is concerned we should not speak of theory. The only possible explanation for the collapse of the buildings is controlled demolition. There is no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy. There is also no doubt that death and injury were staged – at least, there is zero evidence of its reality in the visual record and one would think that for the 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured claimed there would be at least one piece of evidence for their reality, rather than every piece (anomalously small in number) in the visual record perfectly fitting "staged". Not to mention other anomalies unrelated to the visual record and that actual killing and injuring of people by the perpetrators would take a highly-problematic form in the shape of a great number of loved ones (as opposed to the tiny number presented) and the injured themselves when controlled demolition was so obvious.
kevin morris says Dec, 4, 2018
When you say that there is no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy, I feel you are being overconfident unless what you are saying is that there is some evidence that some figures at the World Trade Centres seemed to have foreknowledge.

Frankly, although we all have our theories as to who was responsible, I remain in full agreement with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth who state simply that the official account conflicts with physics. All else is suspicion and supposition. It may well be well grounded supposition, but until we discover who planned and executed the event and who definitely had foreknowledge, what we are dealing with is speculation.

The problem with that is that the great many people who refuse to believe anything other than the official account of 9/11 dismiss our views as those of cranks

milosevic says Dec, 4, 2018
there is some evidence that some figures at the World Trade Centres seemed to have foreknowledge

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wq-0JIR38V0?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

flaxgirl says Dec, 7, 2018
Kevin,

The buildings came down by controlled demolition. The evidence for that is incontrovertible and the rationale presented by NIST for fire being the cause is demonstrably not based on a skerrick of evidence and is obviously fraudulent and false. There is not a single reason to suspect that the cause of collapse of all the buildings wasn't controlled demolition. If you believe there is a single reason to suspect another cause can you please provide it.

Since waking up to 9/11, I find that people either decide something is something with too little evidence or refrain from deciding on what something is when the evidence is so overwhelming you're practically drowning in it. Being conservative in judgement in the face of overwhelming evidence is no virtue in my opinion.

I have engaged in conversation with Mick West who runs the metabunk.org website that allegedly debunks all the conspiracy theories. We have gone back and forth a number of times over the cause of WTC-7's collapse and I have invited him to respond to an Occam's Razor challenge to provide 10 points that favour "fire" over "controlled demolition". He did not respond to the challenge, nor could he provide a single point that favours fire over controlled demolition. Not a single point -- didn't change his mind though.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

Nor has anyone responded to my other Occam's Razor challenges. I judge when I see that there is a reasonable amount of evidence and that evidence points all one way and there is no evidence pointing any other way. If you disagree with this method fair enough.

flaxgirl says Dec, 7, 2018
And just to add, that, of course, it must be an inside job in the case of controlled demolition. As Graeme MacQueen says, there is no room in the official story for controlled demolition.

The big secret is though that death and injury were staged. That's the real secret.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
It was a totally excellent piece. No reservations.

"Theory"? Are you serious? If you believe that 9/11 was the work of 19 barely-trained terrorists (one of whom cried when asked to do steep turns and stalls according to his alleged flying instructor but was tasked with the most impossibly-expert manoeuvre of doing a 330 degree turn into the Pentagon), armed with boxcutters who managed to hijack 4 planes, navigate them into 3 iconic buildings without being molested by a single fighter interceptor through the most defended airspace on earth, which subsequently caused the 10-second collapses (displaying all the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of fire-caused collapses) of three high-rise steel frame buildings, here's a $5,000 challenge for you. All you have to do is provide 10 points that support the "fire" hypothesis over the "controlled demolition" hypothesis for the collapse of WTC-7 and you can choose your own structural engineer to validate your points. There's so very much material on the collapse it shouldn't be very difficult. In fact, all you have to do is come up with one point to support WTC-7's collapse by fire and I'll give you $5,000. One point -- validated by a structural engineer of your choice. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

9/11 is probably the biggest hoax in history and includes the very clever subhoax of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured. Not only was it a hoax but they did not aim for realism in any shape or form and gave us extra clues in addition to their preposterous against-physical-and-administrative-reality story.

This is what Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, who has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business, has to say about 9/11.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/about-paul-craig-roberts/

According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, the vaunted National Security State of the World's Only Superpower was defeated by a few young Saudi Arabians armed only with box cutters. The American National Security State proved to be totally helpless and was dealt the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on any country claiming to be a power.

That day no aspect of the National Security State worked. Everything failed.

The US Air Force for the first time in its history could not get intercepter jet fighters into the air.

The National Security Council failed.

All sixteen US intelligence agencies failed as did those of America's NATO and Israeli allies.

Air Traffic Control failed.

Airport Security failed four times at the same moment on the same day. The probability of such a failure is zero.

If such a thing had actually happened, there would have been demands from the White House, from Congress, and from the media for an investigation. Officials would have been held accountable for their failures. Heads would have rolled.

Instead, the White House resisted for one year the 9/11 families' demands for an investigation. Finally, a collection of politicians was assembled to listen to the government's account and to write it down. The chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission have said that information was withheld from the commission, lies were told to the commission, and that the commission "was set up to fail." The worst security failure in history resulted in not a single firing. No one was held responsible.

Washington concluded that 9/11 was possible because America lacked a police state.
The PATRIOT Act, which was awaiting the event was quickly passed by the congressional idiots. The Act established executive branch independence of law and the Constitution. The Act and follow-up measures have institutionalized a police state in "the land of the free."

Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset dying of renal failure, was blamed despite his explicit denial. For the next ten years Osama bin Laden was the bogyman that provided the excuse for Washington to kill countless numbers of Muslims. Then suddenly on May 2, 2011, Obama claimed that US Navy SEALs had killed bin Laden in Pakistan. Eyewitnesses on the scene contradicted the White House's story. Osama bin Laden became the only human in history to survive renal failure for ten years. There was no dialysis machine in what was said to be bin Laden's hideaway. The numerous obituaries of bin Laden's death in December 2001 went down the memory hole. And the SEAL team died a few weeks later in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier from which bin Laden was said to have been dumped into the Indian Ocean wrote home that no such burial took place.

The fairy tale story of bin Laden's murder by Seal Team Six served to end the challenge by disappointed Democrats to Obama's nomination for a second term. It also freed the "war on terror" from the bin Laden constraint. Washington wanted to attack Libya, Syria, and Iran, countries in which bin Laden was known not to have organizations, and the succession of faked bin Laden videos, in which bin Laden grew progressively younger as the fake bin Laden claimed credit for each successive attack, had lost credibility among experts.

Watching the twin towers and WTC 7 come down, it was obvious to me that the buildings were not falling down as a result of structural damage. When it became clear that the White House had blocked an independent investigation of the only three steel skyscrapers in world history to collapse as a result of low temperature office fires, it was apparent that there was a coverup.

After 13 years people at home and abroad find the government's story less believable.
The case made by independent experts is now so compelling that mainstream media has opened to it. Here is Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec#t=23

Anticitizen one says Dec, 4, 2018
The only thing that surprises me about 9/11 these days is that new evidence linking Russia to the event hasn't been fabricated, sorry, discovered yet.

[Dec 24, 2018] How to fix America's dysfunctional trade system by Ryan Cooper

Dec 20, 2018 | theweek.com
America's trade policy is in incoherent shambles. Decades of neoliberal "free trade" pacts -- which as often as not simply gave corporations an end run around the state, or their very own rigged, pseudo-legal system -- have created terrible social carnage around the world and a furious political backlash. And President Trump's incoherent, haphazard response has done little to change the system, let alone reform it in a sensible fashion.

Overhauling such a gargantuan, world-spanning system is a dizzying task. But Timothy Meyer and Ganesh Sitaraman at the Great Democracy Initiative have a new paper that presents a solid starting point for developing a fundamental reform of American trade structure.

Meyer and Sitaraman identify three large problems with the status quo, and propose policy solutions for each:

Let's take these in turn.

The extant trade bureaucracy -- as usual for the American state -- is highly fragmented and bizarrely structured. There is the Department of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, plus the International Development Finance Corporation coming soon. Then there are a slew of other agencies that have some bearing on trade-related security or economic development.

Meyer and Sitaraman logically suggest combining most of these functions into a single Department of Economic Growth and Security. The point is not just to streamline the trade oversight structure, but also to make it consider a broader range of objectives. Neoliberals insist that trade is simply about making the self-regulating market more "efficient," but trade very obviously bears on employment, domestic industry, and especially security.

For instance, for all its other disastrous side effects, Trump's haphazard tax on aluminum has dramatically revived the American aluminum industry . Ensuring a reasonable domestic supply of key metals like that is so obviously a security concern -- for military and consumer uses alike -- that it wouldn't have even occurred to New Deal policymakers to think otherwise. It takes a lot of ideological indoctrination to think there's no problem when a small price disadvantage causes a country to lose its entire supply chain of key industrial commodities.

Then there is the problem of pro-rich bias. Put simply, the last few decades of trade deals have been outrageously biased towards corporations and the rich. They have powerfully enabled the growth of parasitic tax havens , which allow companies to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions, starving countries of rightful revenue (and often leading to companies piling up gargantuan dragon hoards of cash they don't know what to do with).

Corporations, meanwhile, have gotten their own fake legal system in the form of Investor-State Dispute Settlement trade deal stipulations. As I have written before , the point of these arbitration systems is to create a legal system ludicrously slanted in favor of the corporation -- allowing them not just to win almost every time, but to sue over nonsensical harms like "taking away imaginary future profits."

Meyer and Sitaraman suggest renegotiating the tax portions of trade deals to enforce a "formulary" tax system -- in which profits are taxed where they are made, not where they are booked. This would go a considerable distance towards cracking down on tax havens -- who knows, perhaps Luxembourg might even develop some productive business.

Finally, there is the problem of distributive justice. Again contrary to neoliberal dogma, trade very often creates winners and losers -- witness the wreckage of Detroit and the fat salaries of the U.S. executive class. Meyer and Sitaraman suggest new mechanisms to consider the side effects of trade deals (and ways to compensate the losers), to take action against abusive foreign nations (for example, by dumping their products below cost, or violating environmental or labor standards), and finally directly taxing the beneficiaries.

Something the authors don't discuss is the problem of trade imbalances . When one country develops a surplus (that is, it exports more than it imports), another country must of necessity be in a deficit. The deficit country in turn must finance its imports, usually by borrowing. That can easily create a severe economic crisis if the deficit country suddenly loses access to loans -- which then harms the exporting country, though not as much. This has been a disastrous problem in the eurozone.

The U.S. does have extremely wide latitude to run a trade deficit, because it controls the global reserve currency, meaning a strong demand for dollar-denominated assets so other countries can settle their international accounts. But this creates its own problems, as discussed above.

More Perspectives James Mattis. Matthew Walther The failure and delusions of the adults in the room Beto ORourke. Matthew Walther The 2020 Democratic frontrunner is a Republican

To be fair, this is not exactly an omission for a paper focused on domestic policy. Creating a specifically international trade architecture would require an entire paper of its own, if not a book or three. But it would be something future trade policymakers will have to consider.

At any rate, it's quite likely that trade policy will be a major topic of discussion in 2020 -- if for no reason other than Trump's ridiculous shenanigans in the area. However, even that demonstrates an important fact: The U.S. president has a great deal of unilateral authority over trade. Democrats should be thinking hard about how they would change things. This paper is a great place to start.

[Dec 24, 2018] How Russia Would Strike Back if America Launches "Dollar" Sanctions by Josh Cohen

The author is a typical rabid neocon, but some paragraphs deserver you attention. Hi accidentally predicted provocation at Kerch bridge...
Notable quotes:
"... Josh Cohen contributes to a number of media outlets including National Interest, Foreign Policy, Reuters, Washington Post and others. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

In response to proposed Senate legislation that would target Russia's state-controlled banks by freezing their access to dollars -- a step which could genuinely damage the Russian economy -- Moscow issued a new threat. "If we end up we end up with something like a ban on banking activities or the use of certain currencies, we can clearly call this a declaration of economic war," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated , emphasizing that Moscow would "respond to this war. By economic means, by political means and if necessary by other means."

... ... ...

Putin doesn't even need to rely on his military to harm American interests either. He could choose to openly increase economic and political support for North Korea, thereby weakening Washington's ability to pressure North Korea to curtail its nuclear program. Given that North Korea remains on the cusp of being able to reach the continental United States with a ballistic missile this would constitute a significant setback for American interests.

... ... ...

To be clear, Medvedev's threats may be mere bluster, and Moscow could respond to dollar sanctions by hunkering down even further and try to ride out the economic and political storm. However, if harsh sanctions were on the verge of causing the Russian economy to collapse -- especially if this resulted in unrest which threatened the stability of the Putin regime -- Moscow might well end up lashing out in unpredictable ways. American policymakers should be forewarned and prepared.

Josh Cohen contributes to a number of media outlets including National Interest, Foreign Policy, Reuters, Washington Post and others.

Craig • 3 months ago ,

There are so many painful places in the US foreign politics: North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Latin America, North Africa, Yemen. All this weaknesses could be used by the US foes and Russia knows it. I won't be surprised if Russia pushes this weakspots. Yes, the US politicians have to be ready to aggresive and success reaction of Russia. And they have to make an informed decisions. Very cautiously.

Strod • 4 months ago ,

Have you seen this Josh? See how Russia retaliates

https://www.americanbanker....

Сергей Александров • 4 months ago ,

Can someone cite just one instance of American government imposing "sanctions" on a foreign government where it actually worked to USA interests? Don't cite Iran, Trump scrapped that deal - so much for negotiation with USA - think Boeing happy about all those lost airplane orders?

Vladdy • 4 months ago ,

"Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov" - really? Why the author did not mention that Ukraine made 2(!) acts of piracy against Russian vessels before Russia answered? Vessels "Nord" and "Mehanik Pogodin" are still seized by Ukraine against of law, while Russia inspects vessels in INTERNAL waters of Azov according to law.

Zashel Vladdy • 4 months ago ,

Because it is not popular opinion in US massmedia. Ukraine is always right, Russia is always evil. Nobody want to pay you if you defend Russians. But if you will blame them in all sins - you have a chance to recive few dollars from Dems or from military corporations.
If you have another opinion - you are russian troll.

Александр Субботин • 4 months ago ,

Inspection of ships in the Azov Sea is carried out in accordance with the agreement on economic activities in the Sea of Azov, Russia and Ukraine signed in 2012, Russia did not inspect Ukrainian ships until 2018, but after threats to blow up the Crimean Bridge, Russia began using the right to inspect all vessels in the Azov Sea seas

Andrey Vladimirovich • 4 months ago ,

silly nonsense. The author has a primitive view of Russia

Alex Kuznetsoff • 4 months ago ,

In the Ukraine there is a civil war, Russia's involvement in the poisoning of the "former Russian spy" has not been proven by anyone, and the holy belief in "election meddling" looks like a sign of idiocy.

Vorpal Blade • 4 months ago ,

Lying and primitive propaganda and not an article ..

Zashel Vorpal Blade • 4 months ago ,

I agree with you, too much lie. These american authors live in their own cloud castle which has no relations with reality. Only money from military corporations who need enemy.

R. Arandas • 4 months ago ,

You hit me, I hit you...when will this back-and-forth slapping game end? We are all supposed to be grown adults here.

Drinas • 4 months ago ,

Many inconsistencies and blatant lies on this article, but I wish to focus on this particular one.
The author claims "Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov that could serve as a pretext for a significant Russian military escalation in the region -- a step right out of Moscow's 2008 playbook for its war in Georgia."
The 2008 South Ossetia war has been internationally recognized to be instigated by Georgia itself (even the official EU report on the subject admitted this clearly). In what way did Russia provoke the Georgian attack according to the author?
What evidence can he present to support this thesis? Or is he merely lying out of his teeth?

covertbabo Drinas • 4 months ago ,

Russia has attacked many countries, including Afghanistan in 1979 and Ukraine in 2014.
Luckily your terrorist colleague Zakharchenko has been dealt with.

Drinas covertbabo • 4 months ago ,

Wut?

Vladdy covertbabo • 4 months ago ,

Russia never attacked Ukraine. This propaganda bullshit lives only in someones damaged brains and on papers of some mass media.
Zakharcheko never made any terror act. He defended his people from Ukraine nazis, who shelled civil homes, kindergardens and schools from all possible guns. He never harmed any civil human being. Vice versa - Kiev's bandits shell civil citizens of Donbass every day. There is "Alley of angels" in Donetsk - the cemetry of kids killed by Kiev's terrorists.
In 1979 USSR entered Afghanistan by REQUEST OF LEGAL GOVERNEMENT of Afganistan. Because US sponsored and supplied with weapons antigovernment bandits in Afgahnistan. CIA never hided this. And waht do US do today in Syria? Who asked them to kill people and government forces in Syria? And why did US sponsored putch in Kiev in 2014?

Andrey Vladimirovich Drinas • 4 months ago ,

The author is a fool by vocation or for money ))

[Dec 24, 2018] It is a good thing that the US is not ruled by an egotistical authoritarian

Dec 24, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Dingo Attack!!! • 8 days ago ,

Look at the Russian bots here? Do they actually think they can change anyone's opinions about their backwater country run by an egotistical authoritarian?

James Thomas Dingo Attack!!! • 8 days ago ,

It is a good thing that the US is not ruled by an egotistical authoritarian.

[Dec 24, 2018] China and Russia A Strategic Alliance in the Making by Graham Allison

Notable quotes:
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... Graham T. Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the former director of Harvard's Belfer Center and the author of ..."
Dec 14, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

HE YEAR before he died in 2017, one of America's leading twentieth-century strategic thinkers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, sounded an alarm. In analyzing threats to American security, "the most dangerous scenario," he warned, would be "a grand coalition of China and Russia united not by ideology but by complementary grievances." This coalition "would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower."

Few observers heard his admonition then. Even fewer today recognize how rapidly this grand alignment of the aggrieved has been moving from the realm of the hypothetical toward what could soon become a geostrategic fact. Defying the long-held convictions of Western analysts, and against huge structural differences, Beijing and Moscow are drawing closer together to meet what each sees as the "American threat."

For two proud nations with long memories, their convergence also serves as a kind of cosmic revenge on the diplomatic maneuver Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger orchestrated a half century ago.

When Nixon became president (in 1969), he and his National Security Advisor Kissinger sought to establish a relationship with Communist China to widen the divide between it and the Soviet Union, which they rightly regarded as the preeminent -- indeed, existential -- threat.

Even as they watched communists pursue "wars of national liberation" around the globe, Nixon and Kissinger embraced George F. Kennan's strategic insight about containment: that nationalism would prove a sturdier pillar than communism. They also recognized that the crack in the Eastern Bloc between the Soviet Union and its junior Chinese partner could be widened by deft U.S. diplomacy at the expense of the Soviets.

We know how the story turned out -- so it is difficult to appreciate how radical this thought was in 1969, though Nixon had noted a year earlier in an essay in Foreign Affairs , "There is no place on this small planet for a billion of its potentially most able people to live in angry isolation." Had Nixon asked his government's interagency process to consider the possibility of the United States establishing a relationship with Mao's Communist China, this option would doubtless have been rejected as not just unrealistic, but unsound. So instead, in a cloak of invisibility worthy of Harry Potter, Nixon sent Kissinger to Beijing for a series of meetings so secret that even his secretaries of state and defense were unaware of them. Ultimately, this led to Nixon's historic visit in 1972 to China, recognition of Beijing (rather than Taipei) as its capital, and the creation of an uneasy but selectively cooperative relationship that contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Evil Empire.

The Nixon-Kissinger gambit is now known as "playing the China card." Today we should be asking: is Xi Jinping's China "playing the Russia card?"

THAT THOUGHT seems to strike many Washington strategists as outlandish. Secretary of Defense James Mattis repeatedly emphasizes Moscow and Beijing's "natural non-convergence of interest." And the differences in national interests, values and culture are stark. As Russian strategists think about the longer run, they must view China's rise with consternation. Today's map draws a line between Russia and China that leaves a large swath of what was in earlier centuries Chinese on the Russian side of the divide. That border has repeatedly seen violent clashes, the last in 1969.

Given these structural realities, the prospects for a Chinese-Russian alliance in the longer run are undoubtedly grim. But political leaders live in the here and now. Denied opportunities in the West, what alternative do Russians have but to turn East? Moreover, while history deals the hands, human beings play the cards, even sometimes practicing a quaint art known in earlier eras as diplomacy. The confluence of China's strategic foresight and exquisite diplomacy, on the one hand, and U.S. and Western European clumsiness, on the other, has produced an increasingly thick and consequential alignment between two geopolitical rivals, Russia and China.

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4572

In international relations, an elementary proposition states: "the enemy of my enemy is a friend." The balance of power -- military, economic, intelligence, diplomatic -- between rivals is critical. To the extent that China persuades Russia to sit on its side of the see-saw, this adds to China's heft, a nuclear superpower alongside an economic superpower.

American presidents since Bill Clinton have not only neglected the formation of this grievance coalition; unintentionally but undeniably, they have nurtured it. Russia emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 with a leader eager to "bury Communism," as Boris Yeltsin put it, and join the West. The story of how we reached the depth of enmity today is a long one, strewn with mistakes by all parties. The Clinton administration's decision in 1996 to expand NATO toward Russia's borders, Kennan observed, was the "most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era." He predicted that the consequence would be a Russia that "would likely look elsewhere for guarantees of a secure and hopeful future for themselves."

Vladimir Putin and Xi have watched the U.S.-led war in the Balkans (including the "accidental" bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade in 1999), Western-supported "color revolutions" topple governments in Georgia and then Ukraine, and even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encourage street protests in 2011 against Russia's parliamentary elections. Putin would not have to suffer from paranoia to imagine that the United States was seeking to overthrow him.

As U.S. pressure on Russia grew with sanctions after Russia's annexation of Crimea and a diplomatic effort to "isolate" Russia, China opened its arms. At every point the United States and Western Europeans imposed pain, China has offered comfort. Particularly when the United States has attempted to "diss" Putin personally, Xi has found ways to demonstrate profound respect. Consider what has actually happened in Sino-Russian relations along seven dimensions: threat perceptions, relationship between leaders, official designation of the other, military and intelligence cooperation, economic entanglement, diplomatic coordination and elites' orientation.

WHEN RUSSIAN or Chinese national security leaders think about current threats, the specter they see is the United States of America. They believe the United States is not only challenging their interests in Eastern Europe or the South China Sea, but is actively seeking to undermine their authoritarian regimes. Indeed, Putin and Xi reportedly compare notes about the ways Washington is working to weaken each leader's control within his own society and even topple him.

In contrast with Barack Obama's disdain towards Putin and Donald Trump's charge that China is "raping America," Xi has persuaded Putin that they are "best buddies." To which capital did Xi take his first trip after becoming president? Moscow. Which foreign leader gets to speak immediately after Xi at every international meeting China hosts? Putin. As Putin noted earlier this year, the only leader in the world with whom he had ever celebrated his birthday is Xi. In awarding Putin China's "Medal of Friendship," Xi called the Russian president his "best, most intimate friend."

Official U.S. national security documents designate Russia and China America's "strategic competitors," "strategic adversaries" and even "enemies." Increasingly, they are discussed in the same sentence, as if they were twins. According to the Trump National Security Strategy: "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity." Both are accused of conducting major "influence operations" against the United States and interfering in U.S. elections.

By contrast, Chinese and Russian national security documents call their relationship a "comprehensive strategic partnership." According to Xi, this is "the world's most important bilateral relationship, and is the best relationship between large countries." China's ambassador to Russia, Li Hui, says "China and Russia are together now like lips and teeth." The words used by Russia's Foreign Ministry are "comprehensive, equal, and trust-based partnership and strategic cooperation." Even alpha male Putin has found an artful way to recognize publicly Russia's junior role in this partnership, saying "the main struggle, which is now underway, is that for global leadership and we are not going to contest China on this."

Most American experts discount Sino-Russian military cooperation. Commenting on this year's unprecedented military exercise in which 3,000 Chinese soldiers joined 300,000 Russians in practicing scenarios for conflict with NATOin Eastern Europe, Secretary of Defense Mattis said: "I see little in the long term that aligns Russia and China."

HE SHOULD look more carefully. What has emerged is what a former senior Russian national security official described to me as a "functional military alliance." Russian and Chinese generals' staffs now have candid, detailed discussions about the threat U.S. nuclear modernization and missile defenses pose to each of their strategic deterrents. For decades, in selling arms to China, Russia was careful to withhold its most advanced technologies. No longer. In recent years it has not only sold China its most advanced air defense systems, the S-400s, but has actively engaged with China in joint r&d on rockets engines -- and UAVs. Joint military exercises by their navies in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015, the South China Sea in 2016 and the Baltic Sea in 2017 compare favorably with U.S.-Indian military exercises. As a Chinese colleague observed candidly, if the United States found itself in a conflict with China in the South China Sea, what should it expect Putin might do in the Baltics?

me marginwidth=

In their diplomacy, Russia and China mirror the relationship between the two leaders. On major international issues, they coordinate their positions. For example, when voting in the United Nations Security Council, they agree 98 percent of the time. Russia has backed every Chinese veto since 2007. The two have worked together to create and strengthen new organizations to rival traditional American-led international organizations, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICs. For a Russian who wants to visit China, getting a visa takes one day; to visit the United States it takes them three hundred days to obtain a visa application interview.

Economically, Russia is slowly but surely pivoting east. China has displaced the United States and Germany as Moscow's number one trading partner. Today, China is the top buyer of Russian crude oil. A decade ago, all gas pipelines in Russia flowed west. With the completion of the Power of Siberia pipeline in 2019, China will become the second largest market for Russian gas, just behind Germany.

When U.S.-led Western sanctions excluded Russia from American-dominated dollar-denominated markets, its relationship with China has allowed it to continue to buy and sell. In the current U.S. push to prevent Iran selling oil to the world, Russia is trading goods for Iranian oil and then selling it on to international markets, including China.

Meanwhile, Russian elites continue to look west. They are predominantly European in their culture, history, religion and dreams. Wealthy Russians buy second (and third) homes in London, New York and on the French Riviera. They speak English and travel to Paris, New York or London to shop. Many have children who live in the West.

Cultural change is hard, and slow. But oligarchs who now find themselves the targets of sanctions that prevent them doing business in the United States are exploring alternatives. And some of Russia's leading thinkers are changing their tune. The Honorary Chairman of Russia's Council on Foreign and Defense Policy Sergey Karaganov maintains that "the 'westernizer' today is a thing of the past. Those looking forward to the future most show interest in the East." Surveys this year show that 69 percent of Russians hold a negative view of the United States, while the same percentage of Russians hold a positive view of China. When asked "who their enemies are," two-thirds of Russians point to the United States, ranking it as Russia's greatest foe. Only two percent of Russians view China as their enemy.

Grievance is a powerful motivator; respect can have a powerful magnetic pull. In Putin's mind, the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century was the break-up of the Soviet Union. Who was responsible for that break-up? In Xi's mind, China's "century of humiliation" only ended once the Communist Party defeated the Nationalist Party in a bloody civil war. Which country supported those nationalists, and continues to arm their island fortress of Taiwan? Against the backdrop of this history, as we reflect on what the United States is now doing, we should ask whether Brzezinski's warning about the "most dangerous scenario" could soon become a fact.

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4572

Graham T. Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the former director of Harvard's Belfer Center and the author of Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?

[Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
May 06, 2014 | mondoweiss.net

At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses "A Foreign-Policy Problem No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives. Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and David Brooks lamenting the decline of American power.

In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..

I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.

At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of Amos Elon's The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.

This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers. (Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that, driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .

Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles] Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.

Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one speaks about.

Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm

"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position by changing their neighbours".

The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth. For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.

Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never, I guess.

Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm

P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11, which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.

Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s, using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.

Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.

Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes, they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.

But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.

Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of '48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.

And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.

But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.

Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm

There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.

Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm

"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"

Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.

Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am

@ Bumblebye

Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves, despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat troops.

It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts, and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.

Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm

PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.

The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.

Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire.

So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.

ToivoS, May 7, 2014, 8:10 pm
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.

Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.

In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with the Bandera brigades.

RudyM, May 7, 2014, 9:36 pm
Interesting, meaty analysis here of the various players in Ukraine. This is unequivocally from a Russian perspective, incidentally:

link to wikispooks.com

(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)

I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these links:

I have only glanced at these:

American, May 6, 2014, 9:23 pm
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives. Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>

Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst, the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.

That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.

And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.

Citizen May 7, 2014, 9:46 am
@ yonah fredman

"The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal."

As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO. Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.

There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism "in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.

Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment? Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.

And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering sanctions on Russia.

Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.

Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores in the US Congress.

ToivoS, May 7, 2014, 8:49 pm

Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.

Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.

In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with the Bandera brigades.

ToivoSMay 7, 2014, 9:39 pm
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.

What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government. You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of the Bandera organization.

Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan? It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.

Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.

piotrMay 7, 2014, 10:18 pm
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic for that government.

yonah fredman, May 7, 2014, 10:38 pm

Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate. Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.

If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.

My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.

But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.

ToivoSMay 8, 2014, 12:51 am

Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?

yonah fredmanMay 8, 2014, 1:30 am

ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.

But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic, but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)

Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the Ukrainian desire for freedom.

CitizenMay 8, 2014, 9:18 am

@ yonah f

What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?

(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification what the US is doing.

irishmosesMay 8, 2014, 12:32 pm

Yonah said:

"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"

The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.

Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.

The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater Israel line.

Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.

Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.

The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future. It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to continue running with the Neocons.

seanmcbride, May 8, 2014, 1:01 pm

irishmoses,

Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.

What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran.

What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .

But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.

"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."

link to politico.com

Are there really any meaningful distinctions between neoconservatives in the Republican Party and liberal Zionists in the Democratic Party?

talknic, May 7, 2014, 3:24 am

@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"

Strange

"state into the Armageddon .. "

"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "

Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.

" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that."

You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".

BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere

JeffB, May 7, 2014, 9:06 am

I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.

Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on the left of most foreign policy positions.

Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.

But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?

lysias, May 7, 2014, 10:55 am

The neocons lost one last night: Antiwar Rep. Walter Jones Beats Neocon-Backed GOP Rival:

Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.

American, May 7, 2014, 11:24 am

Yep.

Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.

Citizen, May 8, 2014, 9:24 am

@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to cut off any aid to Israel.

Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.

traintosiberia, May 8, 2014, 9:12 am

Stockman's Corner

Bravo, Rep. Walter Jones -- Primary Win Sends Neocons Packing

by David Stockman • May 7, 2014 link to davidstockmanscontracorner.com

The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.

But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"

But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny.

[Dec 24, 2018] What Is the Point of Pompeo's Cairo Speech by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... "Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much" ..."
"... Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses. ..."
"... Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time." ..."
Dec 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Then-Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KS, speaking at a rally in 2013. He faces a senate grilling for his secretary of state nomination today. Mark Taylor/Creative Commons Nahal Toosi reports on an upcoming Pompeo speech planned for his visit to Egypt next month:

Pompeo's speech will likely focus heavily on Iran, as have many of his past public remarks. The chief U.S. diplomat is likely to try to rally Arab capitals to stand with the United States and thwart Iran's use of proxy forces, support for terrorism and other activities in the region.

The Trump administration has made a regular habit of denouncing Iran in speeches by top officials, and the administration's Iran policy has no more international support today than it did a year ago. It's not clear what purpose another high-profile Iran-bashing session serves. The administration's talking points are tediously familiar by now, and Pompeo's brusque and overbearing manner is the opposite of persuasive.

Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much, and every attempt to get these clients to do more has so far produced no results. The administration's ill-conceived, so-called Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA) has stalled, thanks to the broader anti-Saudi backlash in Washington and the lack of interest on the part of many of its would-be members. The administration's Iran policy of regime change in all but name isn't working as planned and isn't going to work, and there is not much else for Pompeo to talk about that reflects well on the administration. He and the president have gone out of their way to thwart Congressional opposition to the war on Yemen, and they have bent over backwards to make excuses for Saudi crimes.

Pompeo won't admit it in his speech, but the current U.S. role in the region is a destabilizing one that involves aiding and abetting war crimes and helping to cause mass starvation.

about:blank

they've seen it before December 19, 2018 at 10:30 pm

"Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much"

Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses.

Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time."

Zebesian , says: December 20, 2018 at 6:04 pm
Pompeo wants another expensive, bloody war that will wreck another nation and result in more refugees...

[Dec 24, 2018] Time to Get Out of Syria by Eric Margolis

Dec 24, 2018 | www.unz.com
Archive Time to Get Out of Syria Eric Margolis December 22, 2018 700 Words 3 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

President Trump has done the right thing with regard to America's troop deployment in Syria. Trump ordered the 2,000 US troops based in Syria to get out and come home.

Neocons and the US war party are having apoplexy even though there are some 50,000 US troops spread across the rest of the Mideast.

The US troops parked in the Syrian Desert were doing next to nothing. Their avowed role was to fight the remnants of the ISIS movement and block any advances by Iranian forces. As a unified fighting force, ISIS barely exists, if it ever did. Cobbled together, armed and financed by the US, the Saudis and Gulf Emirates to overthrow Syria's regime, ISIS ran out of control and became a menace to everyone.

In fact, what the US was really doing was putting down a marker for a possible US future occupation of war-torn Syria that risked constant clashes with Russian forces there.

We will breathe a big sigh of relief if the US deployment actually goes ahead: it will remove a major risk of war with nuclear-armed Russia, whose forces are in Syria at the invitation of the recognized government in Damascus. The US has no strategic interest in Syria and no business at all being militarily involved there. Except perhaps that the war party wants never-ending wars abroad for arms production and promotions.

Trump's abrupt pullout from Syria has shocked and mortified Washington's war party and neocon fifth column. They were hoping reinforced US forces would go on to attack Damascus and move against Iranian forces. It was amusing to watch the anguish of such noted warlike chickenhawks as Sen. Lindsay Graham and the fanatical national security advisor John Bolton as their hopes for a US war against Syria diminished. Israel was equally dismayed: its strategic plan has long been to fragment Syria and gobble up the pieces.

The venerable imperial general and defense secretary, Jim Mattis, couldn't take this de-escalation. He resigned. Marine General Mattis was one of the few honorable and respected members of the Trump administration and a restraint on the president's impulses. To his credit, he opposed the reintroduction of torture by US forces, a crime promoted by Trump, Bolton and Chicago enforcer Mike Pompeo.

What really mattered was not a chunk of the Syrian Desert. Matis's resignation may have been much more about Afghanistan, America's longest war. The US has been defeated in Afghanistan, rightly known as the 'Graveyard of Empires.' Yet no one in Washington can admit this defeat or order a retreat after wasting 17 years, a trillion dollars and thousands of Americans killed or wounded. Least of all, Gen. Mattis, Bolton or Pompeo who bitterly opposed any peace deal with the Taliban nationalist movement.

According to unconfirmed media reports, the US has already thinned out its Afghan garrison of 14,000 plus soldiers. These soldiers' main function is to guard the corrupt, drug-dealing Afghan puppet government in Kabul and fix Taliban forces so they can be attacked by US airpower.

Taliban insists it won't begin serious negotiations until all US and 8,000 foreign troops are withdrawn. In fact, Taliban, which has been quietly talking to the US in Abu Dhabi, may agreed to a 50% western troops cut in order to begin peace talks.

ORDER IT NOW

The Afghan War has cost the US $1 trillion. Occupying parts of Iraq and Syria has cost a similar amount. Resistance against US rule continues in both nations. Mattis and his fellow generals really like these wars, but civilian Trump does not. As a candidate he vowed to end these 'stupid' wars. Let's hope he succeeds over the bitter objections of the Republican war party, neocons, and military industrial complex.

Syria is an ugly little sideshow. By contrast, Afghanistan is a dark blot on America's national honor. We watch with revulsion and dismay as the US deploys B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers to flatten Afghan villages. We watch with disgust as the US coddles the opium-dealing Afghan warlords and their Communist allies – all in the spurious name of 'democracy.'

If Trump wants to make America great, he can start by ending the squalid Syrian misadventure and the butchery in Afghanistan.

Alistair , says: December 22, 2018 at 2:13 pm GMT

We should give credit to president Trump for getting the US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump has always been consistent about the withdrawal of the US Forces from Afghanistan; back in 2011, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Trump reiterated his total dismay and opposition to the waste of lives and money in Afghanistan; he clearly mentioned that he would withdrawal the US Forces from Afghanistan immediately, See the link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/donald-trump-said-afghanistan-president-saying-now/

The same applies to Syria, America has no genuine strategy to remaining in Syria; staying in Syria would be further destabilizing the region – fueling the Syrian civil war for the sole benefits of Israel and Saudi Arabia whom had created the ISIS against the Iranian influence in the region.

President Trump deserves to get credit for being courageous and consistent about the US involvement in the middle east; withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan is the right strategy, too many lives have perished and trillion of dollars have been wasted for nothing; let's put an end to this – thank you Mr. Trump for doing the right thing !

Jimmy , says: December 22, 2018 at 9:45 pm GMT
Trump finally does something sensible? hard to believe
Anonymous [401] Disclaimer , says: December 22, 2018 at 10:55 pm GMT
Fun fact: $2 trillion is more than Italy's GDP.

[Dec 24, 2018] Endless War Has Been Normalized And Everyone Is Crazy... by Caitlin Johnstone

Dec 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone,

Since I last wrote about the bipartisan shrieking, hysterical reaction to Trump's planned military withdrawal from Syria the other day, it hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse. I'm having a hard time even picking out individual bits of the collective freakout from the political/media class to point at, because doing so would diminish the frenetic white noise of the paranoid, conspiratorial, fearmongering establishment reaction to the possibility of a few thousands troops being pulled back from a territory they were illegally occupying .

Endless war and military expansionism has become so normalized in establishment thought that even a slight scale-down is treated as something abnormal and shocking. The talking heads of the corporate state media had been almost entirely ignoring the buildup of US troops in Syria and the operations they've been carrying out there, but as soon as the possibility of those troops leaving emerged, all the alarm bells started ringing. Endless war was considered so normal that nobody ever talked about it, then Trump tweeted he's bringing the troops home, and now every armchair liberal in America who had no idea what a Kurd was until five minutes ago is suddenly an expert on Erdoğan and the YPG. Lindsey Graham, who has never met an unaccountable US military occupation he didn't like, is now suddenly cheerleading for congressional oversight: not for sending troops into wars, but for pulling them out.

"I would urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House, call people from the administration and explain this policy," Graham recently told reporters on Capitol Hill. "This is the role of the Congress, to make administrations explain their policy, not in a tweet, but before Congress answering questions."

"It is imperative Congress hold hearings on withdrawal decision in Syria  --  and potentially Afghanistan  --  to understand implications to our national security," Graham tweeted today .

In an even marginally sane world, the fact that a nation's armed forces are engaged in daily military violence would be cause for shock and alarm, and pulling those forces out of that situation would be viewed as a return to normalcy. Instead we are seeing the exact opposite. In an even marginally sane world, congressional oversight would be required to send the US military to invade countries and commit acts of war, because that act, not withdrawing them, is what's abnormal. Instead we are seeing the exact opposite.

A hypothetical space alien observing our civilization for the first time would conclude that we are insane, and that hypothetical space alien would be absolutely correct. Have some Reese's Pieces, hypothetical space alien.

It is absolutely bat shit crazy that we feel normal about the most powerful military force in the history of civilization running around the world invading and occupying and bombing and killing, yet are made to feel weird about the possibility of any part of that ending . It is absolutely bat shit crazy that endless war is normalized while the possibility of peace and respecting national sovereignty to any extent is aggressively abnormalized. In a sane world the exact opposite would be true, but in our world this self-evident fact has been obscured. In a sane world anyone who tried to convince you that war is normal would be rejected and shunned, but in our world those people make six million dollars a year reading from a teleprompter on MSNBC.

How did this happen to us? How did we get so crazy and confused?

I sometimes hear the analogy of sleepwalking used; people are sleepwalking through life, so they believe the things the TV tells them to believe, and this turns them into a bunch of mindless zombies marching to the beat of CIA/CNN narratives and consenting to unlimited military bloodbaths around the world. I don't think this is necessarily a useful way of thinking about our situation and our fellow citizens. I think a much more useful way of looking at our plight is to retrace our steps and think about how everyone got to where they're at as individuals.

We come into this world screaming and clueless, and it doesn't generally get much better from there. We look around and we see a bunch of grownups moving confidently around us, and they sure look like they know what's going on. So we listen real attentively to what they're telling us about our world and how it works, not realizing that they're just repeating the same things grownups told them when they were little, and not realizing that if any of those grownups were really honest with themselves they're just moving learned concepts around inside a headspace that's just as clueless about life's big questions as the day it was born.

And that's just early childhood. Once you move out of that and start learning about politics, philosophy, religion etc as you get bigger, you run into a whole bunch of clever faces who've figured out how to use your cluelessness about life to their advantage. You stumble toward adulthood without knowing what's going on, and then confident-sounding people show up and say "Oh hey I know what's going on. Follow me." And before you know it you're donating ten percent of your income to some church, addicted to drugs, in an abusive relationship, building your life around ideas from old books which were promoted by dead kings to the advantage of the powerful, or getting your information about the world from Fox News.

For most people life is like stumbling around in a dark room you have no idea how you got into, without even knowing what you're looking for. Then as you're reaching around in the darkness your hand is grasped by someone else's hand, and it says in a confident-sounding voice, "I know where to go. Come with me." The owner of the other hand doesn't know any more about the room than you do really, they just know how to feign confidence. And it just so happens that most of those hands in the darkness are actually leading you in the service of the powerful.

me title=

That's all mainstream narratives are: hands reaching out in the darkness of a confusing world, speaking in confident-sounding voices and guiding you in a direction which benefits the powerful. The largest voices belong to the rich and the powerful, which means those are the hands you're most likely to encounter when stumbling around in the darkness. You go to school which is designed to indoctrinate you into mainstream narratives, you consume media which is designed to do the same, and most people find themselves led from hand to hand in this way all the way to the grave.

That's really all everyone's doing here, reaching out in the darkness of a confusing world and trying to find our way to the truth. It's messy as hell and there are so many confident-sounding voices calling out to us giving us false directions about where to go, and lots of people get lost to the grabbing hands of power-serving narratives. But the more of us who learn to see through the dominant narratives and discover the underlying truths, the more hands there are to guide others away from the interests of the powerful and toward a sane society. A society in which people abhor war and embrace peace, in which people collaborate with each other and their environment, in which people overcome the challenges facing our species and create a beautiful world together.

People aren't sleepwalking, they are being duped . Duped into insanity in a confusing, abrasive world where it's hard enough just to get your legs underneath you and figure out which way's up, let alone come to a conscious truth-based understanding of what's really going on in the world. But the people doing the duping are having a hard time holding onto everyone's hand, and their grip is slipping . We'll find our way out of this dark room yet.

* * *

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet new merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

dlweld , 1 minute ago link

Has anyone noticed that Rachel Maddow with her sooo patronizing, sooo objectionally smug manner, implying that anyone who likes Trump is laughably pathetic, well – she keeps on doing this and oddly (and effectively) generates a lot of support for Trump and what he's doing. Her absolutely foul manner is perfectly crafted to turn folks against her and what she espouses. You go girl!

raalon , 1 minute ago link

Lindsey "Bibi" Graham is not going to do or say anything that might loose him a few dollars of Zionist money

Cassander , 18 minutes ago link

It seems to me that, objectively, there are about three basic reasons for Endless War in the Middle East.

One, to insure the security of the Israeli state. Two, to insure the free flow of cheap ME petroleum to our 'trading partners' around the world who burn it to make cheap **** and ship it across sealanes kept open by the U.S. Navy to Walmart and Amazon for resale (on credit!) to the sheeple. Three, to finance the multi-billion dollar arms-building American MIC. Purposes One, Two and Three mutually reinforce each other. You don't have to agree with all Purposes as long as you agree with one of them. Proponents of Purpose One find allies among the proponents of Purposes Two and Three. And vice versa. And, in a 'virtuous' (or is it vicious?) circle, all at the top get very rich. The ultra-wealthy supporters of Israel, the globalists, the corporatists, the militarists and their financiers and media mouthpieces. Essentially all the new money in the Billionaire Class.

And who is opposed to this little arrangement? A few libertarians, and realists, and some historians? A few folks on 'conservative' (but not neocon) websites? A few deplorables who are actually thinking about their own best interests? A few people morally offended by the notion of living in an 'exceptional' country which sponsors deadly perpetual war? A few people who think its crazy to go half way around the world to kill people engaged in a conflict which is critical to their daily lives but theoretical to us? A few men and women who have seen combat and know the bloody truth? A few people who would prefer to re-invest in the United States and repair the damage done to this country over the last forty years?

When you think about it the deck is definitely stacked in favor of Endless War. And what Trump did on Thursday is again rather extraordinary.

[Dec 24, 2018] Mattis Resigns

Notable quotes:
"... The Defense Department under Mattis became more opaque and less accountable to the public and Congress. He presided over two years of shameful support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and he went out of his way to offer absurd justifications for continued U.S. support for the war to the end of his tenure. ..."
"... No less than Secretary Pompeo, Mattis discredited himself in the desperate, unsuccessful effort to derail S.J.Res. 54. An administration that fights as hard as this has to keep the war on Yemen going is definitely not one interested in peace and restraint no matter what else happens. ..."
Dec 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Secretary Mattis has resigned :

Officials said Mr. Mattis went to the White House on Thursday afternoon with his resignation letter already written, but nonetheless made a last attempt at persuading Mr. Trump to reverse his decision about Syria, which the president announced on Wednesday over the objections of his senior advisers.

Mr. Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general, was rebuffed. Returning to the Pentagon, he asked aides to print out 50 copies of his resignation letter and distribute them around the building.

Mattis' departure from the administration after the midterms had been floated as a possibility for months, but I don't think anyone seriously expected him to resign suddenly over a policy disagreement with the president. It is telling and not to Mattis' credit that ending an illegal war in Syria was the one policy disagreement with Trump that Mattis couldn't stomach. The Defense Secretary had repeatedly disagreed with Trump on a range of issues, and he usually lost the internal debate. The only times that he prevailed with Trump were when he advised him to escalate ongoing U.S. wars, and his influence had waned enough that he couldn't get his way on that, either. I was extremely skeptical that a Syria withdrawal would actually happen. Now that Mattis has tried and failed to reverse that decision, I have to acknowledge that I overestimated the ability of Trump's advisers to change his mind.

The Defense Department under Mattis became more opaque and less accountable to the public and Congress. He presided over two years of shameful support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and he went out of his way to offer absurd justifications for continued U.S. support for the war to the end of his tenure. The disagreement over Syria will dominate coverage of Mattis' resignation, but it is important to remember that when it came to the most indefensible U.S.-backed war he and Trump were always on the same page. No less than Secretary Pompeo, Mattis discredited himself in the desperate, unsuccessful effort to derail S.J.Res. 54. An administration that fights as hard as this has to keep the war on Yemen going is definitely not one interested in peace and restraint no matter what else happens.

As wrong as Mattis was on a number of foreign policy issues, there is a real danger that his successor could be far worse. Even if Trump doesn't nominate a Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham, the next Defense Secretary is very likely to be a yes-man in the mold of Mike Pompeo. Almost every time that Trump has replaced his top national security officials, he has chosen someone who will flatter and praise him instead of telling him the truth and giving him the best advice.

The next Defense Secretary is less likely to resist Trump's belligerent tendencies, and he is more likely to indulge the president's worst impulses. Just as Pompeo has proven to be a worse Secretary of State than Tillerson, Mattis' successor will very likely prove to be an inferior Secretary of Defense.

about:blank

Robert December 20, 2018 at 11:53 pm

How about Rand Paul as SecDef?
Farewells , says: December 21, 2018 at 12:46 am
You're right to fear what may replace him, especially after the disgusting Pompeo replaced the decent but ineffectual Tillerson, but I'm glad Mattis is gone, especially if he quit over the Syria decision, a no-brainer which should have been made two years ago.

It's hard to imagine anyone being worse than he was. Sadly, we may not have to imagine it.

another take , says: December 21, 2018 at 1:54 am
There's also the danger that the elites and establishment will now escalate their efforts to remove him from office.

I've disagreed with Trump about many things, and I don't like the man, but I still trust him more than the corrupt incompetents and foreign agents who dragged us into these Middle East hellholes.

That is the terrible and ongoing damage that must be stopped.

But now that Trump has made a move in the direction of winding it down, you will almost certainly see the fury and resentment of the elites and establishment redoubled. From their point of view, the only thing worse than a Trump who doesn't keep his campaign promises is one who does.

prodigalson , says: December 21, 2018 at 8:55 am
I'm still happy to see him go. Someone with the handle of "Mad Dog" is perhaps not the best fit for national defense issues.

Agree his replacement will likely be worse but such seems to be the case for hardening our pharoah's hearts.

Christian Chuba , says: December 21, 2018 at 9:09 am
His next appointee will be no better and more than likely worse, a crafty Neocon who will bite their tongue when they disagree with Trump in order to remain so that he can encourage his worst tendencies. Bolton is a stellar example of this.

If he appoints someone like Cotton or Gen Jack Keane then Trump will be the last adult in the room.

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: December 21, 2018 at 1:49 pm

what this withdrawal means to the Kurds? Leaving them once again in the lurch?

Perhaps ceasing to deceive them with impossible promises given by both the previous Democratic and the current Republican administrations?

Sid Finster , says: December 21, 2018 at 1:51 pm
My SWAG, and this is merely SWAG, is that, since his election, Trump has given the neocons everything they wanted or asked for, but he still is allowed any freedom of action.

In spite of governing much like a garden variety Republican, his enemies are still looking for any excuse to remove him.

This is Trump reminding his enemies that he can do lots of things to upset the apple cart, so cut him some slack, already.

[Dec 24, 2018] Zapadniki in Russia

Dec 24, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

which is loosely translated as 'western oriented' always have been a minority.

After Ukraine and sanctions of 2014 they are like albinos

Колян Реалов • 10 days ago ,

Who from Russian elite look west? Can you tell names? Who in Russian elite speak English except for Minister of foreign affair? Putin doesn't speak English. Some rich Russians have houses in foreign countries though it is 6th or 7th houses after few houses in Russia. If you speak about modern European culture than it has nothing similar with Russian culture. I have seen that Americans don't know Russia at all again.

R. Arandas Колян Реалов • 8 days ago ,

Russia is meant to be part of the greater European nation though...it is its destiny.

dorotea R. Arandas • 8 days ago ,

Not really. Google up the eternal 'zapadniki' vs 'slavophiles' split among Russian cultural elites. This argument is about 2 centuries old, if you start counting from Pushkin times - i.e. early 1800's. It never gets resolved, but the 'zapadniki' which is loosely translated as 'western oriented' always have been a minority. And with China's geopolitical star rising as quickly as it is, I see no reason for our 'zapadniki' not to become 'vostochniki'.

franciscoalmeida_br Колян Реалов • 9 days ago ,

google "russian atlanticists".

Колян Реалов franciscoalmeida_br • 9 days ago ,

Russian atlanticists are something like African albinos.

Vic Колян Реалов • 9 days ago ,

Yes, if african albinois owned media, had access to billions upon billions of dollars and the full support of the entire NATO propaganda apparatus and used to rule Russia with an iron fist driving it into the mud.

Колян Реалов Vic • 9 days ago ,

Pro-western parties have no 5% supporting for being in Russian parliament. Moreover they have no 3%. Russian media regularly show western russophobs. Then more disgusting their lie about Russia in western media than less Russians like west. They can spend any money while westerners lie about Russia, Russian atlantists are like albinos.

I had an account in a Russian bank (MosOblBank). The owner of the bank ran to UK with money of depositors. He has announced that he was under political pressure and UK don't give him to Russia though he is a just thief. I returned my money because it was insured by the government. What could I and few dozen of thousands depositors think about UK after it? A guy like this one is not Russian elite. It is Russian garbage. Majority of Russians consider that Russians living in London are thieves or LGBT.

[Dec 24, 2018] Diplomats joke: it's better to be US' foe than ally

Dec 24, 2018 | nationalinterest.org
franciscoalmeida_br Savimbi says • 9 days ago ,

the West seeks no friends , but rather vassals are welcome.

Scores of worldwide diplomats have their backstage sayings : " it's better to be US' foe than ally because if you are their foe, they'll try to buy you ; but if you are their ally , they will sell you.".

[Dec 23, 2018] Post 2001 the USA foreign policy was driven by MIC, neoliberals trying to open foreign markets and attemopts to grab natiral resources (especially oil), and Isreal acting as MIC lobbyist

Dec 23, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Ray Joseph Cormier December 21, 2018 at 3:07 pm

With an ever faster News cycle, People forget what happened in the Past bringing this World to the Present.

Historical Facts Americans don't take into consideration.
1. Within weeks of 9/11, the US came out with WAR PLANS to change the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria and at THE END, Iran.
2. Republican Bush illegally invaded Iraq in 2003.
3. ISIS did not exist until the illegal US invasion of Iraq
4. Democrat Obama did Libya and started the Syrian regime phase of the 2001 US WAR PLAN for the Middle East in 2011.
5. In line with the 2001 US WAR PLAN to change the Assad government, ISIS moved from Iraq to Syria as proxy regime change fighters.
6. US MSM report the US illegally started bombing ISIS in Syria, and with all the US smart bombs, they missed, and ISIS was getting stronger, on the verge of bringing down the Assad regime after 4 years of Death and Destruction following the 2001 US WAR PLAN for Syria.
7. Russia and Iran are legally asked to come to the aid of their Middle East Ally, like NATO's Article 5, and enter the Syrian WORLD WAR in 2015.
8. Russia starts bombing ISIS and doesn't miss. ISIS is finally degraded in Syria, putting a stop to the 2001 US WAR PLAN for regime change.
9. The US has made regime change as American as Apple pie and refuses to look as the terrorist failed States it begat implementing it's 2001 WAR PLAN. It does increase sales for the Military-Industrial Complex.
10. This MATERIAL WORLD did not notice the Spiritual Sign of the Times, when ISIS destroyed the Islamic Mosque in Nineveh, Iraq containing the tomb of Jonah in the Whale fame recorded in the Jewish-Christian Bible some 2900 years ago. He was sent to that "World City Nineveh" to warn them of impending destruction if they continue on the path they're on. He tried to get away from being a buzzkill.
10. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:39-41

sglover , says: December 21, 2018 at 3:26 pm
I despise Trump, but if he's managed to stumble on doing something sensible, and actually does it (never a certainty with the casino swindler) -- great! There's no sane reason for us to muck about in Syria. However it comes about, we should welcome a withdrawal there. If the move gives Trump some of the approval that he plainly craves, maybe he'll repeat the performance and end our purposeless wallow in Afghanistan.

It doesn't say anything good about the nominal opposition party, the Dems, that half or more of them -- and apparently *all* of their dinosaur "leadership" -- can't stifle the kneejerking and let him do it. Of course many of them are "troubled" because their Israeli & Saudi owners, er, "donors" expect it. But some of them seem to have developed a sudden deep attachment to "our mission in Syria" for no better reason than, Trump is for it, therefore I must shout against it .

And then, of course, there's the Russia hysteria. Oh yeah, what a huge win for Moscow if it scores the "prize" of occupying Syria! If that's Putin's idea of a big score, how exactly does it harm any American to let him have it?

I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever be capable of doing anything other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

[Dec 23, 2018] Trump proposes cutting food stamps for over 700,000 people just before Christmas by Matthew Rozsa

Dec 20, 2018 | www.salon.com

President Donald Trump is planning on using his executive powers to cut food stamps for more than 700,000 Americans.

The United States Department of Agriculture is proposing that states should only be allowed to waive a current food stamps requirement -- namely, that adults without dependents must work or participate in a job-training program for at least 20 hours each week if they wish to collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period -- on the condition that those adults live in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent, according to The Washington Post . Currently the USDA regulations permit states to waive that requirement if an adult lives in an area where the unemployment rate is at least 20 percent greater than the national rate. In effect, this means that roughly 755,000 Americans would potentially lose their waivers that permit them to receive food stamps.

The current unemployment rate is 3.7 percent.

The Trump administration's decision to impose the stricter food stamp requirements through executive action constitutes an end-run around the legislative process. Although Trump is expected to sign an $870 billion farm bill later this week -- and because food stamps goes through the Agriculture Department, it contains food stamp provisions -- the measure does not include House stipulations restricting the waiver program and imposing new requirements on parents with children between the ages of six and 12. The Senate version ultimately removed those provisions, meaning that the version being signed into law does not impose a conservative policy on food stamps, which right-wing members of Congress were hoping for.

"Congress writes laws, and the administration is required to write rules based on the law," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told The New York Times (Stabenow is the top Democrat on the Senate's agriculture committee). "Administrative changes should not be driven by ideology. I do not support unilateral and unjustified changes that would take food away from families."

Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.

[Dec 23, 2018] Ignore the howls of protest – Trump's Syria withdrawal is a simple reflection of foreign policy realities The Independent

Notable quotes:
"... Independent Minds ..."
"... The Independent ..."
"... The Independent ..."
Dec 23, 2018 | independent.co.uk

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=153141

about:blank

Ignore the howls of protest – Trump's Syria withdrawal is a simple reflection of foreign policy realities | The Independent President Trump's decision to withdraw US troops from Syria is being denounced by an impressive range of critics claiming that it is a surrender to Turkey, Russia, Syria and Iran – as well as a betrayal of the Kurds and a victory for Isis.

The pullout may be one or all of these things, but above all it is a recognition of what is really happening on the ground in Syria and the Middle East in general.

This point has not come across clearly enough because of the undiluted loathing for Trump among most of the American and British media. They act as a conduit for the views of diverse figures who condemn the withdrawal and include members of the imperially-minded foreign policy establishment in Washington and terrified Kurds living in north-east Syria who fear ethnic cleansing by an invading Turkish army.

Join Independent Minds

For exclusive articles, events and an advertising-free read for just £5.99 €6.99 $9.99 a month

Get the best of The Independent

With an Independent Minds subscription for just £5.99 €6.99 $9.99 a month

Get the best of The Independent

Without the ads – for just £5.99 €6.99 $9.99 a month

Opposition to Trump's decision was supercharged by the resignation of Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis which came after he failed to persuade the president to rescind his order. Mattis does not mention Syria or Afghanistan in his letter of resignation, but he makes clear his disagreement with the general direction of Trump's foreign policy in not confronting Russia and China and ignoring traditional allies and alliances.

The resignation of Mattis has elicited predictable lamentations from commentators who treat his departure as if it was the equivalent of the Kaiser getting rid of Bismarck. The over-used description of Mattis as "the last of the adults in the room" is once again trotted out, though few examples of his adult behaviour are given aside from his wish – along with other supposed "adults" – to stay in Syria until various unobtainable objectives were achieved: the extinction of Iranian influence; the displacement of Bashar al-Assad; and the categorical defeat of Isis (are they really likely to sign surrender terms?).

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=153141

about:blank

Ignore the howls of protest – Trump's Syria withdrawal is a simple reflection of foreign policy realities | The Independent In other words, there was to be an open-ended US commitment with no attainable goals in an isolated and dangerous part of the world where it was already playing a losing game.

It is worth spelling out the state of play in Syria because this is being masked by anti-Trump rhetoric, recommending policies that may sound benign but are far detached from political reality. This reality may be very nasty: it is right to be appalled by the prospects for the Syrian Kurds who are terrified of a Turkish army that is already massing to the north of the Turkish-Syrian frontier.

There is a horrible inevitability about all this because neither Turkey nor Syria were ever going to allow a Kurdish mini-state to take permanent root in north-east Syria. It existed because of the Syrian civil war in which Assad withdrew his forces from the Kurdish-populated regions in 2012 in order to concentrate them in defence of strategically vital cities and roads. Isis attacked the Kurdish enclave in 2014 which led to a de facto alliance between the Kurds and the US air force whose devastating firepower enabled the Kurds to capture a great swathe of Isis-held territory east of the Euphrates.

Turkey was never going to accept this outcome . Erdogan denounced the Kurdish political and military forces controlling this corner of Syria as "terrorists" belonging to the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) that has been fighting the Turkish state since 1984.

This is a good moment to make a point about this article: it is an explanation not a justification for the dreadful things that may soon happen. I have visited the Kurdish controlled part of Syria several times and felt that it was the only part of Syria where the uprising of 2011 had produced a society that was better than what had gone before, bearing in mind the constraints of fighting a war.

I met the men and women of the People's Protection Units (YPG and YPJ) who fought heroically against Isis, suffering thousands of dead and wounded. But I always had a doomed feeling when talking to them as I could not see how their statelet, which had been brought into existence by temporary circumstances, was going to last beyond the end of the Syrian civil war and the defeat of Isis. One day the Americans would have to choose between 2 million embattled Kurds in Syria and 80 million Turks in Turkey and it dd not take much political acumen to foresee what they would decide.

Turkey had escalated its pressure on the US to end its protection of the Kurds and this finally paid off. A telephone conversation with Erdogan a week ago reportedly convinced Trump that he had to get US soldiers and airpower out of Syria. Keep in mind that Trump needs – though he may not get as much as he wants – Turkey as an ally in the Middle East more than ever before. His bet on Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Saudi Arabia as the leader of a pro-American and anti-Iranian Sunni coalition in the Middle has visibly and embarrassingly failed. The bizarre killing of Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi team in Istanbul was only the latest in a series of Saudi pratfalls showing comical ineptitude as well as excessive and mindless violence.

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=153141

about:blank

Ignore the howls of protest – Trump's Syria withdrawal is a simple reflection of foreign policy realities | The Independent Critics of Trump raise several other important questions in opposing his withdrawal decision: is he not letting Isis off the hook by prematurely announcing their defeat and thereby enabling them to make a comeback? There is something in this , but not a lot. The Islamic State, that once held territory stretching from the Tigris River in Iraq to Syria's Mediterranean coast, is no more and cannot be resurrected because the circumstances that led to its spectacular growth between 2013 and 2015 are no longer there.

Isis made too many enemies because of its indiscriminate violence when it was at the peak of its power. Trump is right to assume in a tweet that "Russia, Iran, Syria & many others will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us". Isis may seek to take advantage of chaos in eastern Syria in the coming months, but there will be no power vacuum for them to exploit. The vacuum will be filled by Turkey or Syria or a combination of the two.

https://players.brightcove.net/624246174001/SydS6Pxaf_default/index.html?videoId=5837728067001&customTargeting=%2F71347885%2F_main_independent%2Fin_voices%2Fin_voices_article&customParams=videoID%253D5837728067001%2526articleId%253D8694881%2526gs_channels%253Dsafe_from_harvey_weinstein%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_nestle_blacklist%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_essence_blacklist%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_workdayh2%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_castrol%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_asda%2Csafe_from_emirates_blacklist%2Cbelvedere_negative%2Cpos_animal_cruelty%2Cpos_castrol_blacklist%2Cpos_microsoft_blacklist_microsoft%2Cpos_microsoft_blacklist_wildfire%2Cpos_society_lgbt%2Cpos_ubs_tax_evasion%2Csafe_from_collective_landrover%2Csafe_from_emirates_crew_incident%2Csafe_from_facebook_blacklist%2Csafe_from_fas_blacklist%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_emirates_pg%2Csafe_aegis%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_aegis_blacklist%2Cnestle_bespoke%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_halifax_misc_blacklist%2Cgs_politics%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_instagram-mobkoi%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_mobkoi-celine%2Cgs_politics_misc%2Cgv_terrorism%2Cshadow9hu7_pos_terrorism_blacklist%2Cshadow9hu7_safe_from_mobkoi_facebook_keyword%2Cgs_politics_american%2526playertype%253Dclicktoplay%2526topictags%253Dsyria%2Cdonaldtrump%2Cbasharal_assad_0%2Crussia%2Cturkey%2Cvladimirputin&playsinline=true

Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds

A further criticism of the US withdrawal is that it unnecessarily hands a victory to Vladimir Putin and Assad. But here again, Trump's manoeuvre is more of a recognition of the fact that both men are already winners in the Syrian war.

Nor is it entirely clear that Russia and Iran will have greater influence in Syria and the region after the US withdrawal. True they have come out on the winning side, but as the Syrian state becomes more powerful it will have less need for foreign allies. The close cooperation between Russia and Turkey was glued together by US cooperation with the Kurds and once that ends, then Turkey may shift – though not all the way – back towards the US.

By denouncing Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, his opponents are once again making the mistake of underestimating his instinctive political skills.

[Dec 23, 2018] Good riddance to James Mattis, Trump's last general

Notable quotes:
"... You want to know what those casualty numbers tell us? American forces in Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq aren't going outside the wire – off American bases – very often. That's how you stay alive in places like Syria and Afghanistan. You stay away from places where things like IEDs can kill you. And even then, in the comparative safety of American bases, you're not safe, because there are enemy soldiers posing as "friendly" Afghan soldiers who will kill you. ..."
"... This is the nature of the conflicts we're engaged in. You take thousands of American soldiers and send them thousands of miles away from home into combat zones in foreign lands, and you have them do as little as possible so not too many of them get killed. ..."
"... It pains me to say this, but Trump pulling 2,000 soldiers out of Syria and 7,000 soldiers out of Afghanistan is the right thing to do. It might be getting done by a certifiable loon with an orange muskrat on his head, but it's the right thing to do and it should have been done a long time ago. ..."
Dec 23, 2018 | www.salon.com

... ... ...

The arm-waving and hand-flapping and pearl-clutching in the foreign affairs and national security "communities," not to mention in the Congress and among prominent Democrats, is something to behold. Significant portions of all those communities have long thought we didn't have any business being in Syria in the first place. Not to mention fighting our 17th year of the so-called "war" in Afghanistan, from which Trump intends to remove some 7,000 American troops...

More than 2,400 American soldiers dead in Afghanistan so far. More than 30,000 Afghan civilians killed. Sixty percent of Afghan districts under control of the Taliban. Opium production at an "all-time high." Dozens, sometimes hundreds of Afghan soldiers killed every single week. You thought Vietnam was a misbegotten military misadventure? How about 17 years in Afghanistan with no end in sight? Hell, opium production was said to be at an "all-time high" when I was in the Kunar River Valley in Afghanistan in 2004. That's 14 years ago, 14 years of record-setting opium crops!

And what are the pundits saying about our military foray into the morass called Syria? Listen to what I heard from one "expert" on MSNBC yesterday.

"Syria is a very winnable proposition," this numbskull said, looking gravely at the other "experts" at the table. "The U.S. presence is actually very small numbers." Two thousand is the "very small number" this blazer-and-tie wearing "expert" was talking about as he reached for his "I'm a Pundit on the Katy Tur Show" cup and went on to blather about how "winnable" Syria is.

Let me tell you what 2,000 soldiers is. It's about the size of a brigade, commanded by a full colonel. A brigade is typically three to five battalions of 500 to 1,000 soldiers, commanded by lieutenant colonels. Battalions are made up of three to five companies with around 200 soldiers, commanded by captains. Companies comprise three to four platoons of 40 to 100 soldiers, commanded by second lieutenants. So 2,000 soldiers is about 30 to 40 platoons of soldiers. I used to command a platoon. I was 22 years old. There were about 40 soldiers in my platoon. Let me tell you, taking care of 40 soldiers was a big fucking job, and we weren't even in combat.

Taking care of 2,000 soldiers in a place like Syria with bullets flying and IEDs going off is a huge fucking job. Taking care of 14,000 soldiers, like we currently have in Afghanistan, or 7,000 which we'll have when Trump gets finished with his draw-down, is a massive fucking job.

... ... ...

And now Trump's Last General's feelings are all hurt, because he wasn't consulted about pulling 2,000 troops out of Syria or 7,000 troops out of Afghanistan. What were those troops doing in Syria? We don't know, and I don't think Mattis had much of an idea what they were doing, either.

We can get some idea what they're doing by the number of casualties American forces have suffered in both places. An American soldier was killed in Manbij, Syria, by a roadside bomb in March of this year. He was the fourth American killed in Syria since our forces entered the country in 2014. There have been 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan this year. Eleven were killed there last year. About half of those killed in Afghanistan have been so-called "green-on-green" killings, incidents where "friendly" Afghans killed American soldiers, usually on American bases.

You want to know what those casualty numbers tell us? American forces in Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq aren't going outside the wire – off American bases – very often. That's how you stay alive in places like Syria and Afghanistan. You stay away from places where things like IEDs can kill you. And even then, in the comparative safety of American bases, you're not safe, because there are enemy soldiers posing as "friendly" Afghan soldiers who will kill you.

This is the nature of the conflicts we're engaged in. You take thousands of American soldiers and send them thousands of miles away from home into combat zones in foreign lands, and you have them do as little as possible so not too many of them get killed.

It pains me to say this, but Trump pulling 2,000 soldiers out of Syria and 7,000 soldiers out of Afghanistan is the right thing to do. It might be getting done by a certifiable loon with an orange muskrat on his head, but it's the right thing to do and it should have been done a long time ago.

Advertisement:

All the talk you're hearing about how we've got to have American forces in this desert or that mountainous no-man's land as a "counterbalance" to countries like Russia and Iran is lip-flapping twaddle from the kind of "experts" who got us involved in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan in the first place. They are the same "experts" you didn't hear a peep from when Mattis stood loyally by Trump as he virtually capitulated to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, trashed NATO every chance he got, and sat down for Nuclear Kimchi with Kim Jong Un. Now Mattis is all "maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies" in his resignation letter. Talk about a day late and a dollar short, he should call Angela Merkel and ask her how much "respect" she's felt from the United States lately.

You want to know who can stop the resident of the adult day care center in the White House? It wasn't Adult in the Room General McMaster. It wasn't Adult in the Room General Kelly. It wasn't Adult in the Room General Mattis. And it's sure as hell not going to be somebody like Secretary of Defense Kushner, or whoever the hell Trump decides he's going to sentence to a padded cell on the E-Ring in the Pentagon next.

Trump can be stopped by Congress. The Congress can cut the funding for our misbegotten misadventures in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. It can refuse to fund the laughable wall along our 1,900 mile border with Mexico that Trump apparently thinks 6,000 soldiers can guard in the meantime. And Congress can impeach and convict Trump's insane clown ass for conspiring with a foreign nation to defraud the United States of America. Congress can do all of this if Republicans will stop bowing down before the Orange Hair Helmet and start looking out for the United States of America.

I told you before that Trump's generals wouldn't save us , and they sure as hell haven't, not even Mad Dog Mattis, who's now being lauded as the only thing standing between us and the total collapse of the Western World.

Just between you and me, we'll wake up tomorrow morning, and even with The Last Adult in the Room on his way out the door, the Western World will still be here, and so will Trump. Trust me.


Lucian K. Truscott IV

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist and screenwriter. He has covered stories such as Watergate, the Stonewall riots and wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels and several unsuccessful motion pictures. He has three children, lives on the East End of Long Island and spends his time Worrying About the State of Our Nation and madly scribbling in a so-far fruitless attempt to Make Things Better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Rabbit Hole and on Twitter @LucianKTruscott.

[Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

Highly recommended!
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier." Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat. With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
Dec 13, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

in Uncategorized by craig

The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise the defences. In researching Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.

Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged field organiser."

It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.

Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.

The mainstream media have tracked down the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic Daniel Edney).

By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building. It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.

Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.

Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically check it out. Kit did so and was aggressively ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.

I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.

But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day.

As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.

You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".

As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with increasing frequency and audacity

[Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
Dec 22, 2018 |

Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.

In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to attack the US.

The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team B caused.

Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a convincing case that Washington is asking for war.

I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition."

Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.

The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.

The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.

Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies, and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.

I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.

As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.

Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.

If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying to lift, read his book.

If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.

If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.

If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.

Enough said.

[Dec 22, 2018] Robert Mueller and George HW Bush

Notable quotes:
"... Robert Mueller is mentioned where he covered up an investigation tying important government people to the BCCI bank while Poppy Bush was president. ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.amazon.com

George HW Bush was a competent spymaster. He "got it" according to the French counterpart. April 6, 2018 Format: Paperback Verified Purchase This book covers a lot of ground. It's detail is exhaustive. It covers everything in detail from Watergate to Harken Energy. I didn't understand all the financial shenanigans but there's lots of weird transactions going on. Seems the Bushes are associated with a lot of bank failures.

Robert Mueller is mentioned where he covered up an investigation tying important government people to the BCCI bank while Poppy Bush was president.

Also thoroughly covered is W's National Guard service and his early suspicious departure.

[Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

Highly recommended!
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier." Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat. With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
Dec 13, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

in Uncategorized by craig

The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise the defences. In researching Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.

Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged field organiser."

It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.

Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.

The mainstream media have tracked down the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic Daniel Edney).

By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building. It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.

Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.

Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically check it out. Kit did so and was aggressively ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.

I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.

But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day.

As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.

You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".

As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with increasing frequency and audacity

[Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
Dec 22, 2018 |

Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.

In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to attack the US.

The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team B caused.

Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a convincing case that Washington is asking for war.

I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition."

Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.

The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.

The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.

Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies, and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.

I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.

As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.

Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.

If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying to lift, read his book.

If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.

If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.

If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.

Enough said.

[Dec 22, 2018] Will Trump Hold Firm on His Syria Pullout

So at the moment when everybody assumed that Trump lost control of the foreign policy, he does this. It's a real surprise. Kind of Christmas gift to his voters. And that's with neocon Pompeo as his State Secretary and neocon Bolton as his national security advisor.
The War Party project of regime change in Tehran suffered a severe setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ..."
"... And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that was to end with his assassination. ..."
"... The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria. ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

"We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there," wrote President Donald Trump as he ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Syria, stunning the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Trump overruled his secretaries of state and defense, and jolted this city and capitals across NATO Europe and the Middle East.

Yet Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. And what his decision seems to say is this:

We are extricating America from the forever war of the Middle East so foolishly begun by previous presidents. We are coming home. The rulers and peoples of this region are going to have to find their own way and fight their own wars. We are not so powerful that we can fight their wars while also confronting Iran and North Korea and facing new cold wars with Russia and China.

As for the terrorists of ISIS, says Trump, they are defeated.

Yet despite the heavy casualties and lost battles ISIS has suffered, along with the collapse of the caliphate and expulsion from its Syrian capital Raqqa and Iraqi capital Mosul and from almost all territories it controlled in both countries, the group is not dead. It lives on in thousands of true believers hidden in those countries. And like al-Qaeda, it has followers across the Middle East and inspires haters of the West living in the West.

The U.S. pullout from Syria is being called a victory for Vladimir Putin. "Russia, Iran, Assad are ecstatic!" wailed Senator Lindsey Graham.

Graham was echoed by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse who called the withdrawal a "retreat" and charged that Trump's generals "believe the high-fiving winners today are Iran, ISIS and Hezbollah."

But ISIS is a Sunni terrorist organization. And as such, it detests the Alawite regime of Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah and Iran, both of which are viewed by ISIS as Shiite heretics. "Russia, Iran, Syria are not happy about the US leaving," Trump tweeted, "despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us."

If Putin, victorious in the Syrian civil war, wishes to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS, the last major enemies of Assad in Syria, why not let him?

The real losers?

Certainly the Kurds, who lose their American ally. Any dream they had of greater autonomy inside Syria, or an independent state, is not going to be realized. But then, that was never really in the cards.

Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that was to end with his assassination.

National security advisor John Bolton, who said U.S. troops would remain in Syria until all Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias have been expelled, appears not to have been speaking for his president. And if the Israelis were relying on U.S. forces in Syria to intercept any Iranian weapons shipments headed to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Damascus, then they are going to have to make other arrangements.

The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria.

However, given the strength of the opposition to a U.S. withdrawal -- Israel, Saudi Arabia, the GOP foreign policy establishment in Congress and the think tanks, liberal interventionists in the Beltway press, Trump's own national security team of advisors -- the battle to overturn Trump's decision has probably only just begun.

From FDR's abandonment of 100 million East Europeans to Stalin at Yalta in 1945 to the abandonment of our Nationalist Chinese allies to Mao in 1949 and of our South Vietnamese allies in 1975, America has often been forced into retreats leading to the deaths of allies. Senator Sasse says Trump is risking the same outcome: "A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if this retreat is implemented."

But is that true?

Trump's decision to pull out of Syria at least has assured us of a national debate on what it will mean to America to extricate our country from these Mideast wars. It is the kind of debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into invading Iraq.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com .

about:blank

Stephen J. December 21, 2018 at 1:41 pm

I believe "Syria" is a war crime planned and plotted by some western governments and their allies. They are even reportedly financing and assisting terrorists. Which is criminal and treasonous
-- -- --
"With their command and control centre based in Istanbul, Turkey, military supplies from Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular were transported by Turkish intelligence to the border for rebel acquisition. CIA operatives along with Israeli and Jordanian commandos were also training FSA rebels on the Jordanian-Syrian border with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. In addition, other reports show that British and French military were also involved in these secret training programmes. It appears that the same FSA rebels receiving this elite training went straight into ISIS – last month one ISIS commander, Abu Yusaf, said, 'Many of the FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us.'" Nafeez Ahmed
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/
-- -- -- -- --

"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- --
There is further abundant evidence available at links below:
http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-christmas-report-on-crimes-of-war.html

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-diabolical-work-of-nato-and-its.html

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-war-gangs-and-war-criminals-of-nato.html

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2016/08/are-there-war-criminals-living-in.html

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2015/09/should-regime-change-criminals-be-on.html

JeffK , says: December 21, 2018 at 1:58 pm
"At the very least, America will have its first serious debate on its Mideast wars since 2003 . It is the kind of debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into invading Iraq."

Finally Mr Buchanan and I agree on something of substance. And I cannot believe I am in agreement with Trump on this too (even though it was quite clumsy). Will wonders never cease?

I hate that Trump will probably throw the Kurds under the bus since they acted as our allies and suffered for it. And if I was Mr Fethullah Gulen I would be packing my bags for Canada.

However, well done, sir. Now let the debate begin.

Fred Bowman , says: December 21, 2018 at 2:00 pm
I think what is to be accomplished by the US staying in the Middle East? Hasn't over 17 years and $600 billion spent and over a million dead been price enough? Hopefully, Syria is the 1st step in ending American military involvement in the Middle East. America has enough to do in taking care of serious issues here at home. As for the Middle East, let Israel, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Iran and other countries and ethnic groups who reside there solve their own damn problems.
Mark B. , says: December 21, 2018 at 2:01 pm
As a European it feels strange to feel this pro-Trump all of a sudden. Before you know it, I'll order a MAGA cap (I'm always safe with that because carnaval is coming).
Kurt Gayle , says: December 21, 2018 at 4:38 pm
This is President Trump's Finest Hour!

Hang tough, Mr. President!

Bring our troops home from Syria and Afghanistan!

Louis Messana , says: December 21, 2018 at 5:10 pm
Russia just landed a nuclear bomber in Venezuela. Russia and China are making SIGNIFICANT inroads in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and Africa.

If Israel comes under serious threat, the US will be there to assist in its defense but the time has come when the US has to admit that the parasite freeloader nations like Europe and Israel are coming at to high a cost a cost that is both distracting and obstructing the US from being where it is really needed to deal with China and Russia.

One Guy , says: December 21, 2018 at 5:11 pm
In addition to the Syria pullout, Trump promised a 10% tax cut just 2 months ago. Anyone seen a tax cut? Anyone? Bueller?
Connecticut Farmer , says: December 21, 2018 at 6:45 pm
People sit on their collective fat asses inside The Beltway within the confines of some book lined conference room and make decisions involving the lives of thousands of young men and women–other people's sons and daughters (never their own)– who may be dispatched to take a bullet in anger. And over what? Making the MidEast "free for democracy"?

I dislike Trump even though I reluctantly voted for him only to keep the Congenital Liar out of the White House. One of the few positives he exhibited was a desire to extricate the United States from that MidEast hell-hole. For once at least he has delivered. Whether he will succeed, however, remains to be seen. After all, the Beltway is swarming with chicken hawks.

john , says: December 21, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Very zero sum gain way of thinking. How can the US not spending hundreds of billions on a lost cause be a win for Russia? Sounds more like a win for the US. I think the Syrian government with Russia and Iran should be enough to demolish the physical caliphate. Destroying ISIS ? Good luck with that suppress it OK but destroy easier said then done. How have we done against, the Mafia? the IRA? drug cartels and so on and so forth. For those who want to stay is there ever a set of conditions which would be satisfied allowing you to leave? We are still in Germany, I think the Nazis are gone you can relax, if it was the Soviets you worry about also gone by about 3 decades. If we can't accept that Germany is sufficiently stable to no longer be blessed with our presence when oh when would Syria be viewed as stable?
Republicans - are not conservatives , says: December 21, 2018 at 9:48 pm
I have regretted voting for trump for many reasons. I concede that IF USA military leaves Syria, this is a very positive development. He should now do the same for Afghanistan and many other places around the world.
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian military have done a fine job of keeping IS on the run. Let's hope they can finish the job.
Radnor Hunt , says: December 22, 2018 at 4:21 am
In this issue at least I support Trump a hundred percent, and I think a lot of Americans agree.

He's finally doing what he promised to do during the campaign.

I have been very unhappy with him, but if he follows through on this I'll give him credit. Given the lock that the elites and establishment have on the media, it took guts. It's good to see he has some.

Rick Steven D. , says: December 22, 2018 at 6:25 am
While I didn't vote for this excrescence in The White House, I will give credit where credit is due. Hillary's neocon impulses would have been infinitely worse here.

Still, looking at this past week, I can't help thinking about that whole Flight 93 thing. But two years into The Trump presidency, it's starting to look more like that disaster movie camp-fest Airport 1975, where we have crossed-eyed stewardess Karen Black trying to land the stricken 747. In her immortal words to flight control: "Something hit us! There's no one left to fly the plane! HELP US! OH MY GOD HELP US!!!"

[Dec 22, 2018] A closer look at American "democracy" by Barry Grey

December 20, 2018
Notable quotes:
"... According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our institutions." ..."
"... The State and Revolution ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.wsws.org

A central theme of the hysteria over alleged "Russian meddling" in US politics is the sinister effort supposedly being mounted by Vladimir Putin "to undermine and manipulate our democracy" (in the words of Democratic Senator Mark Warner).

According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our institutions."

Their chosen field of battle is the internet, with Russian trolls and bots infecting the body politic by taking advantage of lax policing of social media by the giant tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.

To defend democracy, the argument goes, these companies, working with the state, must silence oppositional viewpoints -- above all left-wing, anti-war and socialist viewpoints -- which are labeled "fake news," and banish them from the internet. Nothing is said of the fact that this supposed defense of democracy is a violation of the basic canons of genuine democracy, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution: freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

But what is this much vaunted "American democracy?" Let's take a closer look.

The two-party monopoly

In a vast and complex country with a population of 328 million people, consisting of many different nationalities, native tongues, religions and other demographics, spanning six time zones and thousands of miles, two political parties totally dominate the political system.

The ruling corporate-financial oligarchy controls both parties and maintains its rule by alternating control of the political institutions -- the White House, Congress, state houses, etc. -- between them. The general population, consisting overwhelmingly of working people, is given the opportunity every two or four years to go to the polls and vote for one or the other of these capitalist parties. This is what is called "democracy."

The monopoly of the two big business parties is further entrenched by the absence of proportional representation, which it makes it impossible for third parties or independent candidates to obtain significant representation in Congress.

The role of corporate money

The entire political process -- the selection of candidates, elections, the formulation of domestic and foreign policies -- is dominated by corporate money. No one can seriously bid for high office unless he or she has the backing of sponsors from the ranks of the richest 1 percent -- or 0.01 percent -- of the population. The buying of elections and politicians is brazen and shameless.

Last month's midterm elections set a record for campaign spending in a non-presidential year -- $5.2 billion -- a 35 percent increase over 2014 and triple the amount spent 20 years ago, in 1998. The bulk of this flood of cash came from corporations and multi-millionaire donors.

In the vast majority of contests, the winner was determined by the size of his or her campaign war chest. Eighty-nine percent of House races and 84 percent of Senate races were won by the biggest spender.

Democratic candidates had a huge spending advantage over their Republican opponents, exposing the fraud of their attempt to posture as a party of the people. The securities and investment industry -- Wall Street -- favored Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 52 percent to 46 percent.

Elections are anything but a forum to openly and honestly discuss and debate the great issues facing the voters. The real issues -- the preparation for new wars, deeper austerity and further attacks on democratic rights -- are concealed behind a miasma of attack ads and mudslinging. The research firm PQ Media estimates that total political ad spending will reach $6.75 billion this year. In last month's elections, the number of congressional and gubernatorial ads rose 59 percent over the previous, 2014, midterm.

The setting of policy and passage of legislation is helped along by corporate bribes, euphemistically termed lobbying. In 2017 alone, corporations spent $3 billion to lobby the government.

Ballot access restrictions

A welter of arcane, arbitrary and anti-democratic requirements for gaining ballot status, which vary from state to state, block third parties from challenging the domination of the Democrats and Republicans. These include filing fees and nominating petition signature requirements in the tens of thousands in many states. Democratic officials routinely challenge the petitions of socialist and left-wing candidates who are likely to find support among young people and workers.

Media blackout of third party candidates

The corporate media systematically blacks out the campaigns of third party and independent candidates, especially left-wing and socialist candidates. The exception is candidates who are either themselves rich or who have the backing of wealthy patrons.

Third party candidates are generally excluded from nationally televised candidates' debates.

In last month's election, the Socialist Equality Party candidate for Congress in Michigan's 12th Congressional District, Niles Niemuth, won broad support among workers, young people and students for his socialist program, but received virtually no press coverage.

Voting restrictions

Since the stolen election of 2000, when the Supreme Court shut down the counting of votes in Florida in order to hand the White House to the loser of the popular vote, George W. Bush, with virtually no opposition from the Democrats or the media, attacks on the right of workers and poor people to vote have mounted.

Thirty-three states have implemented voter identification laws, which, studies show, bar up to 6 percent of the population from voting. States have cut back early voting and absentee voting and shut down voting precincts in working class neighborhoods. A number of states impose a lifetime ban on voting by felons, even after they have done their time. In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the enforcement mechanism of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, with no real opposition from the Democrats. The United States is one of the few countries that hold elections on a work day, making it more difficult for workers to cast a ballot.

Government of, by and for the rich

The two corporate parties have overseen a social counterrevolution, resulting in a staggering growth of social inequality. In tandem with this process, the oligarchic structure of society has increasingly found open expression in the political forms of rule. Alongside the erection of the infrastructure of a police state -- mass surveillance, indefinite detention, the militarization of the police, Gestapo raids on workplaces and attacks on immigrants, the ascendancy of the military in political affairs, internet censorship -- the personnel of government have increasingly been recruited from the rich and the super-rich.

More than half of the members of Congress are millionaires, as compared to just 1 percent of the American population. All the presidents for the past three decades -- George H. W, Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama -- have either been multi-millionaires going in or have cashed in on their presidencies to become multi-millionaires afterward. In the person of the multi-billionaire real estate speculator and con man Donald Trump, the financial oligarchy has directly taken occupancy of the White House.

In The State and Revolution , Vladimir Lenin wrote: "Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor."

... ... ...

Barry Grey

[Dec 22, 2018] ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied to the FBI! Horrors

Notable quotes:
"... Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills. ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon , Dec 20, 2018 10:13:19 PM | link

ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied to the FBI! Horrors.

Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills. Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team USA.

[Dec 22, 2018] Possible end of Syria war racket upset neocons and currupt Clinton interventionists alike -- which suggest that there are two War Parties in Washington now

Trump decision was even bigger surprise if we understand that the dominant part of the US population have been successfully brainwashed into thinking it's normal for a country to exist in a state of permanent war, fighting in seven countries at once, spending half of all discretionary funding on "defense" (which in reality is offence).
Notable quotes:
"... The bullshit about Bolton and others being aghast as they looked on and listened to the Trump/Erdogan phone call is just that, total b.s. Come like gangsters Erdogan has been told he can pay for US support if he so desires (Patriots is a euphemism) whilst on another front the war in Afganistan will be fully privatised. ..."
"... Let's not get too far afield here. Yes: wicked good news about Syria and the US announced withdrawal. Be sure, though, the ISIS/Saudi/Israeli elements will do all they can to prove Trump wrong. However, the focus will likely shift to the Ukraine. The Syrian situation has played itself out with no good neocon-approved outcome. ..."
"... Ukraine is fresh. Focused NATO-involved and with US/UK/EU encouragement, there is well-founded speculation for another military provocation seeking to entrap Russia. That will be the biggest challenge to Trump and Putin: not to pull the trigger over Ukraine. ..."
"... Watch the war criminals and banksters "find religion" with waves Clinton foundation avatars. (II and Silicon valley troughs just the first few drops) ..."
"... News is breaking that MbS is deploying troops into Syria to take over for U.S. ..."
"... What it does not signify is the slightest respect for the autonomy of the Syrian secular national government, nor for its sovereign rights to make alliance with Russia and Iran in an existential conflict. ..."
"... "How many senior American government officials resigned from their posts when Iraq's invasion and bombing of Libya campaigns were announced? "That's right, nobody, God forbid Trump ends a conflict, all hell breaks loose." ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

MadMax2 , Dec 22, 2018 5:13:18 AM | link

Enjoying the fake left aka resistance exposing theselves further by demanding more war. Bolton, Mattis and co have served as pretty good stooges in a final act.

Erdogan must have read Art of the Deal. Fair play.

None-ya , Dec 22, 2018 7:09:18 AM | link
The Demiurge-in-waiting was reportedly caught off guard by Trump's quick surrender to demands the US pull troops from Syria. Trump ended his recent phone conversation with Erdogan by emphasizing his promise to withdraw from Syria, not explaining how, repeating the pledge a second time to make sure the message was received -- perhaps pouncing on an opportunity and/or executing a script.

The bullshit about Bolton and others being aghast as they looked on and listened to the Trump/Erdogan phone call is just that, total b.s. Come like gangsters Erdogan has been told he can pay for US support if he so desires (Patriots is a euphemism) whilst on another front the war in Afganistan will be fully privatised.

Next up, Donald Trump appoints Eric Prince new Secretary of Defense.

Mina , Dec 22, 2018 7:46:21 AM | link
Regarding II, what's interesting about the French cluster is that half of them are officials, not even half indepependent spooks hiding behind charities and offshore companies.
I wonder if anything has been reported in the Baltic newspapers.
vk , Dec 22, 2018 8:04:44 AM | link
I know it isn't true, but seeing this headline written in a MSM American newspaper is simply delicious:

It's official. We lost the Cold War. -- By Dana Milbank < https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-official-we-lost-the-cold-war/2018/12/21/1c3b52b0-0565-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html>

vk , Dec 22, 2018 8:11:38 AM | link
It seems WaPo now has a paywall. Here's a functional link to comment number 7:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-official-we-lost-the-cold-war/2018/12/21/1c3b52b0-0565-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.69f274172c98>

BThePrisoner , Dec 22, 2018 8:44:10 AM | link
Let's not get too far afield here. Yes: wicked good news about Syria and the US announced withdrawal. Be sure, though, the ISIS/Saudi/Israeli elements will do all they can to prove Trump wrong. However, the focus will likely shift to the Ukraine. The Syrian situation has played itself out with no good neocon-approved outcome.

Ukraine is fresh. Focused NATO-involved and with US/UK/EU encouragement, there is well-founded speculation for another military provocation seeking to entrap Russia. That will be the biggest challenge to Trump and Putin: not to pull the trigger over Ukraine.

Not having a Ukrainian conflict would be the best gift we all could have.

BM , Dec 22, 2018 9:35:39 AM | link
I know it isn't true, but seeing this headline written in a MSM American newspaper is simply delicious:
It's official. We lost the Cold War. -- By Dana Milbank
Posted by: vk | Dec 22, 2018 8:04:44 AM | 7

Absolutely hilarious - and I'm talking about the garbled babies' bable in the content, not the title! As to the title, it rings true in important respects - but the loss is due to Trump's predesessors, demented neocon savages in his administration, and demented Dem opponents/the media, rather than (substantively) Trump himself. That irony is of course lost on the half-wit hack of this article.

BM , Dec 22, 2018 9:43:31 AM | link
it seems that the British government was prepared well in advance for the sudden attack on Skripal.
Posted by: bevin | Dec 22, 2018 9:33:42 AM | 12

That is a development. Can you give us a link, Bevin?

slit , Dec 22, 2018 11:24:52 AM | link
@Sasha

"money laundering schemes for unconfessable activities" ZeroHedge reports carnage . . . how to launder $21Trillion back into circulation? Watch the war criminals and banksters "find religion" with waves Clinton foundation avatars. (II and Silicon valley troughs just the first few drops)

Lozion , Dec 22, 2018 11:26:40 AM | link
Brett Mcgurk resigns, effective Dec 31st.. :) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-mcgurk-top-u-s-envoy-in-isis-fight-to-quit/
Circe , Dec 22, 2018 12:07:01 PM | link
Lemme resurrect this article from the past to impress on all Trump suckers just how Machiavellian he really is. Trump's Syria scam Sooo, while MbS is securing or rather wreaking havoc on one front, Trump can free up for the biggest target of all. IRAN. Now you know why Trump was protecting MbSs ass! And don't think Netanyahoo wasn't in on Trump's game! Boy I hate to say told ya so again! Throw away the Trump juice already! Sheesh, I hope you're finally awake.
Circe , Dec 22, 2018 12:10:34 PM | link
That post was meant for Syria thread. News is breaking that MbS is deploying troops into Syria to take over for U.S.
spudski , Dec 22, 2018 12:23:34 PM | link
Great interview with Michael Hudson at https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/12/michael-hudson-the-vocabulary-of-economic-deception.html
lysias , Dec 22, 2018 12:51:08 PM | link
Saudi Arabia's military is worthless, as they have shown in Yemen.
steven t johnson , Dec 22, 2018 1:41:28 PM | link
Distracted by the timing of the call from Erdogan, I forgot how the US used ISIS (as it was then) against al-Maliki. They're not too keen on Abdul-Mahdi today, nor do I think they are so pleased the IRG has had its wings clipped. Turkey's army doesn't equal Erdogan's megalomania, but it can certainly keep YPG occupied. US withdrawal doesn't just give Erdogan a greenlight, but what's left of ISIS as well.

What it does not signify is the slightest respect for the autonomy of the Syrian secular national government, nor for its sovereign rights to make alliance with Russia and Iran in an existential conflict.

Ort , Dec 22, 2018 2:28:28 PM | link
Merry Christmas to B. and the MOA barflies, if it ain't out o' keepin' with the situation.

♪ O, Bernhard, O Bernhard
Wie treu sind deine Blogeinträge! ♪

so , Dec 22, 2018 3:15:33 PM | link
Screw the news. We want recipes!
slit , Dec 22, 2018 3:51:28 PM | link

les7 , Dec 22, 2018 4:09:16 PM | link
B: thanks for the excellent posts recently.

Back when the SAA took Deir Ezzour many expected immediate confrontation with the US/SDF forces east of the Euphrates.

I suggested at the time there would be a delay while the SAA consolidated the desert, the Golan and the southern border first. I stated that the key indicator the SAA would be ready to reclaim the area east of the Euphrates would be the stationing of the S300 in Deir

uncle tungsten , Dec 22, 2018 4:10:15 PM | link
Thank you b for a great year of informed writing and thanks to all you comrade barflies for your harmonious buzzing and supportive research and surmises. I have been spreading some xmas cheer to the USA audiences celebrating the resignation of the man who stood on top of the $21trillion waste heap. Its just my idea of bringing the message home.

Barflies rule!!

les7 , Dec 22, 2018 4:15:23 PM | link
B: My read of the current situation is that Russia must avoid an obvious triumph- the Ukraine will be used against it if there is too much publicity given to Russian or Syrian success. Instead a low key ground confrontation beteeen the SAA and SDF will proceed while a lot to PR focuses on autonomy talks and the drafting of the Syrian constitution.
les7 , Dec 22, 2018 4:18:20 PM | link
B: Should Kurdish arms need twisting the Turkish army will conduct incursions. I expect a long drawn out process - again the issue is to downplay Russian success

With the US forces out of the area I would not be surprised to see Putin invite Trump to be part of the Astana process.

karlof1 , Dec 22, 2018 8:14:50 PM | link
A rather ironic and extremely telling observation :

"How many senior American government officials resigned from their posts when Iraq's invasion and bombing of Libya campaigns were announced? "That's right, nobody, God forbid Trump ends a conflict, all hell breaks loose."

I recall a few minor officials resigning in 2003, but nobody "senior."

[Dec 22, 2018] Briefing note on the Integrity Initiative

Dec 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Dec 22, 2018 10:38:52 AM | link

I do not know if this was included in "b"´s reports on Integrity Initiative, but worth the hour of reading ( without linking the hyeprlinks )

Briefing note on the Integrity Initiative

From what I have understood ( and as well you will, by extensive reading ) this, and other till now seeminlgy unknown initiatives, is the source

[Dec 22, 2018] How the Gulf War Gave Us the Antiwar Right The American Conservative

Dec 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

The recent veneration of George H.W. Bush has been wonderfully uplifting, especially as it recalled his cautious use of persuasion and honest argument.

Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter, beautifully described Bush's funeral in the Wall Street Journal as reminding us of our dignity and "re-summoning our mystique." The event, Noonan said, harkened back to when America was respected and admired, generous and "expected to do good." President Bush, she noted, had presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union diplomatically and without humiliating Russia's leaders or its people. He also declined to occupy a Muslim country after defeating Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Bush was indeed a very decent man. In fact, he was a great statesman, as TAC 's editor Jim Antle has noted on these pages.

Yet almost none of the news reported on what was the darkest chapter of his legacy: the First Gulf War. I was a co-founder at the time of a small and vastly outgunned opposition group of conservatives and (mainly) libertarians, the Committee to Avert a Mid-East Holocaust . Today, with at least a million Arabs, Afghans, and Americans dead from the unending chaos the United States unleashed in the Muslim world, the name seems very appropriate.

Our group included truly great conservatives: Henry Regnery, almost the only publisher of conservative books, who helped keep liberty alive during the dark days of the 1940s and '50s, along with the always brave Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. Regnery and Buchanan were the main contributors to our group. But we were a virtual who's who of the incipient libertarian movement: Ron Paul, the once and future Texas congressman who would eventually gain a wider following as a presidential candidate; Lew Rockwell, his former congressional staffer; the economist Murray Rothbard; Bill Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute; Sheldon Richman, longtime editor at FEE ; Justin Raimondo, who would go on to be a co-founder at Antiwar.com ; and Burt Blumert, who helped fund much of Rothbard and Raimondo's work.

Our chair and guide was Phil Nicolaides , former deputy director at Voice of America during the Reagan era. The executive committee included myself, Richman, Sobran, and chess champion Phil Collier. Fran Griffin, a strong Catholic and founding member of Young Americans for Freedom, did tremendous work for almost no pay handling our mail-outs and administration with her company Griffin Communications.

In those days, communication consisted of direct mail, while most of the media just accepted pro-war government handouts. If only we'd the internet! We did get some news coverage but of course we were no match for Kuwaiti money and evangelical supporters of Israel. Still, the Senate vote in favor of the war was only 52-47, despite the overwhelming propaganda in favor of it as described below.

The war led to a major break between libertarians and conservatives , especially as the giant Heritage Foundation became a champion of war from that moment on. Even today, Heritage has backed continued U.S. support for the Saudi bombing of Yemen.

Much about the Gulf War and especially its lies and subsequent brutality were not reported. Bush himself may not have known all that took place in the military campaign. After all, Dick Cheney, whom we know now to be a liar, was his secretary of defense. But the deeds need to be remembered and indeed researched.

Not Taking Out Saddam Was George H.W. Bush's Finest Hour The Year the Iraq War Truly Ended

Particularly odious was the calculated destruction of Iraq's sanitation, irrigation, and electrical grid, with the intent of causing mass civilian disease and starvation, as specified in a Defense Intelligence Agency report. It would have been interesting to find out who ordered this policy. Reconstruction supplies were then blockaded over the following nine years, including during the Clinton presidency. The consequent half million deaths of children were deemed acceptable by Clinton's former secretary of state Madeleine Albright in this famous 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl. Osama bin Laden later listed civilian suffering in Iraq as one of the three reasons for his subsequent terrorist attack on America.

Public support for the war was in part ginned up by the infamous "incubator babies" lie and claims that aerial photographs showed 200,000 Iraqi soldiers waiting along the border to invade Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the reason given to Americans for sending troops was to protect the Saudis.

The Christian Science Monitor and LA Times reported later how it was untrue and that such photographs never existed. Photos of the border showed no troops congregated there. The Defense Department claimed the photos were secret and never released them even after the war.

Such misinformation is critical if you're trying to get America into a war. Remember the British propaganda that got us into the First World War? A repeated story was that German soldiers were eating Belgian babies. In the second Iraq war, it was lies that Saddam had aided bin Laden and was developing nuclear "weapons of mass destruction."

Kuwait's ruling family spent billions of dollars and paid for top public relations in Washington. I remember particularly the yearly CPAC meeting when the Kuwaitis paid for a dozen tables to be filled with students to cheer for war. Saddam was sending cash bequests to the families of Palestinian terrorists whom Israel had killed, so pro-Israel forces in Washington also supported the war, though they were less important to the lobbying effort than Kuwait.

Nevertheless, the United States initially hesitated to go to war. There was the meeting of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, with Saddam Hussein during which she told him that inter-Arab quarrels were not the concern of the United States government . A top State Department official told Congress the same thing. The ambassador strangely disappeared from the news after the war started.

Then there was President Bush's rather casual attitude about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only after he met with British Prime Minister Thatcher and faced the vast pro-war publicity campaign did he change his mind. Thatcher was very alarmed because Kuwait's vast deposits in British banks were important for their solvency. She feared Iraq might continue threatening other Gulf states and their bank deposits. She insisted and begged America to save Kuwait. Bush than organized a United Nations Security Council vote to condemn Iraq and a coalition that included many Arab nations. He did it with full international legality (unlike his son's subsequent war) and above all he got our allies to pay for the war. There was massive support in America for the operation.

Bush's national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, later opposed the younger Bush's attack on and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003. He understood well the limits of power and the importance of having allies -- something the next President Bush cared little about.

Jon Basil Utley is publisher of .

about:blank

David Nash December 20, 2018 at 10:29 pm

Actually, George H. W. Bush only looks good next to the Current Occupant (of the Oval Office).

I, too, can remember his Presidency, and even his candidacy, when he authorized the use of those Willie Horton ads. (Which contributed both to the rise of the alt-right and the BLM movements.)

I recall his first candidacy,k when he was opposed to "voodoo economics" before he was all for it.

One need not lay out any secret cabal when he was in office as indicative of his character. It was on full display long before. And it had nothing to do with a "kinder, gentler America", only with the pursuit of power at any cost to integrity or honor.

EliteCommInc. , says: December 21, 2018 at 3:43 am
Look there are valid reasons to challenger the first gulf war. It was strictly a debate between Iraq and Kuwait. Historical issues and the matter of supplemental dollars for what Iraq believed was a defense against the Iranian revolution.

But unlike the last invasion the First Gulf effort was largely supported even by Gulf States. Stop dreaming up libertarian fantasies about Sen rand Paul. Libertarian anti-war effort. As for PM thatcher's fears – the Iraqi invasion did not budge the price of oil. This was a dispute between two neighbors and nothing more.

But it was the international effort that made the case. And it was not just Israel. It was limited to one goal,pushing Iraqi troops back into Iraq proper.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The valid critiques on Pres. Bush, Sr. are those in the above comments about economics and "Willie Horton."

The case against iraq in the second effort was very clear.

Iraq had invaded no one

Had nothing to do with 9/11

No evidence the wmd in any viable state

No evidence that the weapons inspectors were not accomplishing their mission.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

I didn't hear a peep from the likes of your clique about challenging the war in Afghanistan. That was an effort that would have demonstrated some serious unnecessary anti-war thinking. Some intellectual work in examining the issues and the consequence. The internet was alive and well during the Afghanistan advance --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

There is a difference between being anti-war and being opposed to unnecessary military efforts. Libertarians trying to hide in the minutia of being anti-war as they savage their fellow citizens with their immigration no borders nonsense, selling marijuana -- a tax boon no where in sight in Colorado, Ca., or anywhere else, now want to unleash their carelessness on heroin, cocaine, and hashish.

Tony , says: December 21, 2018 at 6:37 am
This article is superb as it gives the reader a good insight into the lies that promoted that war as well as its horrific consequences.

"The Defense Department claimed the photos were secret and never released them even after the war."

"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn." as Lawrence Korb said at the time.

That is probably because they did not exist.

The burying alive of Iraq conscripts was also a matter of deep concern.

Ed , says: December 21, 2018 at 10:31 am
Bush talked about Dukakis's prison furloughs, and his campaign did produce and ad about them, but the famous Willie Horton ad was produced by an independent PAC. It was done on Bush's behalf, and Lee Atwater was all in favor of making Horton an issue, but so far as is known, Bush didn't authorize or approve the well-known ad himself.

_________

I wonder if it would have been possible for antiwar conservatives (and conservatives critical of trade and immigration policy) to mainstream their concerns. As it was, many tended to become trapped in paleocon land, arguing forever that they were further to the right than the others, and embracing some embarrassing ideas and historical icons.

You may recall John O'Sullivan's law – any organization that isn't explicitly expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. But the corollary seems to be that critical or unorthodox movements on the right tend to get boxed into being "more conservative than thou" and losing access to the centrist mainstream.

Whatever the current orthodoxy is appropriates the conservative label, and dissenters either move to left or the far right.

Conservatives and liberals both have a great diversity of opinion, but it seems like politics today are so polarized and binary that it's impossible for those of divergent opinions to be on the same side or at more or less the same place on the political spectrum.

One side is always going to be accused of being sell-outs to the enemy or of being on the lunatic fringe.

Ryan W , says: December 21, 2018 at 12:10 pm
I'm inclined to make a distinction between the "jus ad bellum" and the "jus in bello" aspects of the Gulf War. I think I can say that I lean heavily anti-war in general, but I do think the Gulf War was justified. Even if it's true that America and others wouldn't have intervened in a case where the countries involved were small and unimportant, I don't think the answer would be to also refuse to intervene in the case at hand. There's a great value in upholding the principle that countries can't forcibly annex land from each other. Also, it's hard to believe that Saddam Hussein would have settled down and minded his own business. It's more likely that the lack of pushback from his Kuwait invasion would have encouraged further adventurism.

None of that is to defend the way the war was actually conducted. It's just to suggest that the preferable alternative would have been to wage the war more ethically rather than not to wage it at all.

Jim Bovard , says: December 21, 2018 at 5:11 pm
Excellent piece! Thanks for all you have done for peace for decades, Jon!
dbrize , says: December 21, 2018 at 6:24 pm
ElitCommInc appears to have a requisite necessity to interject "Sen rand Paul" into articles that don't even mention him. C'est la vie.

As regards Afghanistan, I confess to having not a clue what is meant by " some serious unnecessary anti-war thinking" but as I remember those days, while there was general support for getting Bin Laden there were voices in the libertarian/paleoconservative movement that argued for a special forces operation, a quit hit and not a full out occupation force.

Marijuana legalization has nothing to do with the article though I suppose those awful libertarians also "savage" their fellow citizens with the sale of adult beverages as well. C'est la vie.

Connecticut Farmer , says: December 21, 2018 at 6:56 pm
I reluctantly got on board with the first Gulf War and about all that can be said that's positive is that Bush Sr. at least endorsed a limited objective i.e. get Iraq out of Kuwait. Not so that brain-dead son of his who was taking his orders from his VP.

[Dec 22, 2018] The Great War Christmas Truce 'They Were Positively Human' The American Conservative

Dec 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

The Great War Christmas Truce: 'They Were Positively Human' For a brief moment in 1914, the guns went silent and the men risked court martial to play soccer, smoke and sing---with the other side. By Hunter DeRensis • December 21, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2Fj-GHT1gpo6-.js%3Fversion%3D43%23cb%3Df29b30aafa7579%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff2220b4b3c27038%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.d30011b0f5ce05b98f24b01d3331b3c1.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=The%20Great%20War%20Christmas%20Truce%3A%20%E2%80%98They%20Were%20Positively%20Human%E2%80%99%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1545534223100&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.6MbTDK3mIS4.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCNhXj9LAc953Cp50L-6qothbnFeVQ%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1545534222792&_gfid=I0_1545534222792&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=90666306

Wikimedia Commons/public domain A 19th-century peace activist once asked, "Is it possible that any Christian, of whatever sect, who believes the New Testament to be anything better than a fable, can doubt for a moment that the time will come when all the kingdoms of the earth shall be at peace?"

Jesus Christ, as both a religious and historical figure, has been chronicled as the "Prince of Peace." He was the man (or son of God) who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek. This philosophy of love, forgiveness, and the rejection of violence is difficult to mesh with a modern age that has fought two world wars. Reaching even farther back, it's hard to reconcile Christ's message with the violence inflicted by Christians against both non-Christians and other members of the faith.

But one moment, found in the bloody, secularized 20th century, stands out: the Christmas Truce of 1914.

World War I had begun in August, engulfing most of Europe. On the western front, a German invasion of France by way of Belgium had stalled just 50 miles outside of Paris. Fighting quickly devolved into trench warfare, with German and British-French lines divided by a no-man's land of barbed wire, shell holes, and death. Soldiers lived and died in trenches of mud and dirt, infested with fleas and other vermin and often flooded with water that was knee deep. Winter added frost and bitter cold. The war that people on both sides said would be done by Christmas showed no sign of ending. By December, after barely five months of combat, casualties on all sides numbered over two million.

Yet that Christmas Eve, an unexpected sound could be heard above the din of gunfire: soldiers on the German side singing Stille Nacht , the original German-language Silent Night . Small fir trees, makeshift replacements for the grand Christmas trees back home, had been placed. The constant fighting might have had the effect of increasing religious reflection. During the opening months of the war in 1914, churches in Germany were fuller than they had ever been, even in working-class areas infamous for secular and anti-clerical politics.

After much hesitation, soldiers on the British side began to poke their heads out of the trenches. The Germans did not fire. The Brits responded by applauding and singing their own English version of the carol. The two sides then met together in no man's land. Frederick James Davies, a private in the 2nd Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, described his experiences in a letter home to his mother: "They [the Germans] were only fifty yards away from us in the trenches. They came out and we went to meet them. We shook hands with them . They also gave us cigars but they didn't have much food. I think they are hard up for it. They were fed up with the war." They exchanged "cigs, jam and corn beef" and Davies added that he had "a good chat with the Germans on Xmas day."

Writer Henry Williamson, then a private in the London Rifle Brigade, wrote cheerfully home to his mother that he was smoking German tobacco he had exchanged with a live soldier. He recounted, "Yesterday the British & Germans met & shook hands in the Ground between the trenches, & exchanged souvenirs, & shook hands." He describes his military counterparts: "Many are gentle looking men in goatee beards & spectacles, and some are very big and arrogant looking." In other words, they looked positively human. Williamson even showed empathy for their similar motivations: "The Germans put 'For Fatherland & Freedom' on the cross. They obviously think their cause is a just one."

In his own account, Captain A.D. Chater of the 2nd Battalion Gordon Highlanders wrote : "This extraordinary truce has been quite impromptu. There was no previous arrangement and of course it had been decided that there was not to be any cessation of hostilities."

God, Marriage, and Gratitude in 'A Christmas Carol' The Dark Side of War Propaganda

This outbreak of peace was entirely spontaneous, started by privates on the front lines as their officers threatened them with court-martial. Soldiers laughed, talked, sang, exchanged gifts, and helped to bury their dead. A few games of soccer were even played.

They had been killing each other for months, indoctrinated for most of their lives to view the "other" as evil, inhuman. But here they were, ordinary men who missed their homes and families, who had only the vaguest idea of why they were there, why they were dying and killing. Karl Muhlegg of the 17th Bavarian Regiment wrote home, "Never was I as keenly aware of the insanity of war."

The truce continued until the end of Christmas. In some spots it continued for days. But slowly men returned to their sides and fighting resumed. Europe would not see another Christmas in peacetime until 1918, after 10,000,000 men had been killed. When the war ended, the French military academy Saint-Cyr listed all its graduates who had fallen. For one year, it contains just one brief but chilling entry: "The Class of 1914." In comparison, only 81 British soldiers died on Christmas Day 1914 in all of Europe.

What is striking is the difference between the propaganda put forward by the governments on the home front and the spontaneous actions that Christmas. Besides Pope Benedict XV, who urged a temporary ceasefire so war cannons would not be booming across Europe on the night the angels were meant to announce Christ's birth, what the soldiers did was opposed by governments on both sides.

There's a case to be made that the truce had nothing to do with Christianity. Periodic and unplanned truces occur in war regularly. Fighting ceases while the two sides take time to bury their dead. And trade and fraternization do occur. One might ask, does the common soldier need a higher reason to stop killing or be killed? But this rejoinder is far too simplistic. It's estimated that roughly 100,000 soldiers participated in the Christmas Truce of 1914 to some degree. This is far too large a number to be written off as a casual occurrence. This event was unplanned, uncoordinated, and not sanctioned by the officer core. Yet it happened. And it just happened to take place on the most celebrated day in the Christian calendar, the observance of the birth of Christ, the "Prince of Peace." If both sides were not united under Christendom, joined together in mutual belief, it is a definite that the truce would not have occurred.

In November 1914, three months into the war, Pope Benedict XV grieved, "Who would imagine, as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human society? Who would recognize brothers, whose Father is in Heaven?" Perhaps on Christmas, with morals engraved on their innermost hearts, the soldiers realized the truth of this statement.

As an event in the history of war, the Christmas Truce of 1914 is barely a footnote; it had no major effects on the fighting or outcome of World War I. But in the history of peace, the truce is a powerful story. This moment, this flash of love, bookended on both sides by destruction and hate, was a triumph of humanity. It's the closest thing we'll see to a miracle in this fallen world.

Frederick Niven, a minor Scottish poet, ended his poem "A Carol from Flanders" with a sentiment that should be prayed for year-round:

O ye who read this truthful rime

From Flanders, kneel and say:

God Speed the time when every day

Shall be as Christmas Day

Hunter DeRensis is a regular contributor to . Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .

about:blank

Connecticut Farmer December 21, 2018 at 9:02 am

"Leaders" don't care about the ordinary soldier–and it doesn't matter which countries are fighting. "God Save The King (or Queen)" "Deutschland Ueber Alles" "Allons enfant de la Patrie" "Make The World Safe For Democracy". Blah, blah, blah.

Damn all "leaders"!!!!!!!!

Anon1970 , says: December 21, 2018 at 9:18 am
The story of the 1914 Christmas Truce was made into a movie "Joyeux Noel" in 2005.
General Manager , says: December 21, 2018 at 11:04 am
Could you imagine the singing of "Happy Holidays" igniting such an overwhelming burst of love? Do the owners of our mainstream media outlets pay announcers a bonus for everytime they squeeze "holiday" into their scripts? I am not taking a holiday and I find it offensive to discount the happiest day of my religious belief system discounted such. BTW – The officers had to force the troops back into the killing fields at gunpoint. Had the Christmas Peace of 1914 held – just imagine? The secularization of Christmas is not a joining phenomenon it is a divisive act. Those who launched this war on Christmas have had great victories here. It is being stalled overseas in both supposedly Christian and non-Christian countries. If we get into a really nasty war – just see how quickly these warmongers will give us back Christam (temporarily).
mike , says: December 21, 2018 at 12:54 pm
"War made the State and the State makes War."
These poor men had barely more influence on policy than livestock do in managing a cattle ranch.
It's ridiculous to say Christians fought Christians etc.
These wars were made by States which had amassed the power – through ideology and technology – to control multitudes of helpless, defenceless people.
History can be summed up as: Man v State; Law v Power; Civilisation v Barbarism.
In the twentieth century, we saw the triumph of State Power over Law, Civilisation and Humanity.
(The State surpassed disease as mankind's greatest affliction.)
kingdomofgodflag.info , says: December 21, 2018 at 4:08 pm
Thank you for this thoughtful challenge to Christian militarism.
Arrigu , says: December 21, 2018 at 7:28 pm
The German invasion didn't stall by itself before Paris. The French fought like lions at the First battle of the Marne (the British troops' contribution was numerically quite reduced at that time) and prevailed over the Germans. Sadly with not enough of a decision on the war that then went on Why is it always so difficult for American magazines (and newspapers) to mention the French ? It always gives the silent impression French were hapless bystanders to a war on their own soil.
Rick Steven D. , says: December 22, 2018 at 7:36 am
Beautiful, Hunter, thanks.

I didn't know about Joyeux Noel, but the Christmas Truce is (briefly) depicted in the great 1969 WWI film Oh! What a Lovely War:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fHObCL2luMw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

[Dec 22, 2018] Did Trump have thrown Erdogan in a trap

Dec 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

virgile , Dec 22, 2018 9:43:50 AM | link

< Trump has thrown Erdogan in a trap. The Turkish army have been highly Islamized since the coup. They would fight without hesitation on the more liberal YPG than then would dare to confront ISIS.>

Until now Erdogan has been avoided confronting ISIS and other Islamist groups. He left the task to the US, the Kurds, the Shia militias, the Russians and the Russian army. He failed to expel the Islamist miliatias in the Edlib buffer zone because they are too close to him ideologically.

He now made a promise to Trump to take care of ISIS and got a green light to crush the Syrian Kurds and invade their land.

The Russians and the Syrians are eager to finish them off in Edlib, but could not proceed for fear of a human disaster. The left the task to Erdogan.

Now they have the choice, either wait and see if Erdogan is able to deal with them without the support of the USA, or get the Kurds to join the Syrian army and invade Edlib, Afrin etc... thus kicking out the Turks, the FSA and ISIS.

Erdogan is counting on the fact that ISIS may not get financial support anymore from Saudi Arabia and thus will be ready to compromise without fighting.

Erdogan is in a bind, if he shows sign of failure in dealing with Islamist militias in Edlib then Iran, Russia and Syria will move on in Edlib and confront the Turks and their allies. That is what Bashar al Assad wants: kick out the Turks and the FSA. Is Trump trying to weaken Erdogan before the overdue pPalestinian plan is announced?

[Dec 22, 2018] Biden-Nuland clique are going to be the spanner in that works for DJT. Uniparty alums like Graham will be prostituting themselves to open the channels

Notable quotes:
"... Trump will have to work hard not to remember how the whole of GOP lined up to back Hilary in 2016! ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

slit , Dec 22, 2018 11:13:24 AM | link

Happy holidays and extra Xmas puddings to b!

Notice also reports (Saudi prince owned) Twitter snuffed Wikileaks channel
+ report southern NY judge is allowing a civil case on 9/11 explosives go to grand jury.

WL (and others) could have leaked copies of wtc vault materials, that might explain mad DC rush to ditch KSA under Kashoggi - Yemen cover .... impacting on Turkey - Syria dynamics, and massive info warfare investment of Silicon Valley & II in UK. After all, Condi went straight to DropBox from DC, and isnt Patraeus there too (not counting the record flood of spooks who reportedly ran for dem ticket offices in 2018.

Re Ukraine, Biden-Nuland clique are going to be the spanner in that works for DJT. Uniparty alums like Graham will be prostituting themselves to open the channels.

Trump will have to work hard not to remember how the whole of GOP lined up to back Hilary in 2016! He will have too much ego to roll over for Biden.

If ingratiation with rank and file troops is a truly personal calculated strategy, we should see more public overtures to listen to them.

[Dec 22, 2018] The Vocabulary of Economic Deception by Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner

Notable quotes:
"... The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The tax burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and bankers. The result was to be a circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent and other unearned income. The government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools and other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen as a program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines. ..."
"... Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ..."
"... Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
"... J is for Junk Economics ..."
"... Guns and Butter ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics ..."
"... The Fictitious Economy ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
"... Killing the Host ..."
"... J is for Junk – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception ..."
"... Trade, Development and Foreign Debt ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.unz.com
Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner October 8, 2018 8,300 Words Leave a Comment Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The tax burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and bankers. The result was to be a circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent and other unearned income. The government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools and other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen as a program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines.

I'm Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter, Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show: The Vocabulary of Economic Deception. Dr. Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, a Wall Street financial analyst and distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His 1972 book Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire is a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank. His latest books are, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy and J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception . Today we discuss J is for Junk Economics , an A to Z guide that describes how the world economy really works, and who the winners and losers really are. We cover contemporary terms that are misleading or poorly understood, as well as many important concepts that have been abandoned – many on purpose – from the long history of political economy.

BONNIE FAULKNER: Dr. Michael Hudson, welcome to Guns and Butter again.

MICHAEL HUDSON: It's good to be back, Bonnie.

BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that your recent book, J Is for Junk Economics , a dictionary and accompanying essays,was drafted more than a decade ago for a book to have been entitled The Fictitious Economy . You tried several times without success to find a publisher. Why wouldn't publishers at the time take on your book?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Most publishers like to commission books that are like the last one that sold well. Ten years ago, people wanted to read about how the economy was doing just fine. I was called Dr. Doom, which did very well for me in the 1970s when I was talking about the economy running into debt. But they wanted upbeat books. If I were to talk about how the economy is polarizing and getting poorer, they wanted me to explain how readers could make a million dollars off people getting more strapped as the economy polarizes. I didn't want to write a book about how to get rich by riding the neoliberal wave dismantling of the economy. I wanted to create an alternative.

If I wanted to ride the wave of getting rich by taking on more debt, I would have stayed on Wall Street. I wanted to explain how the way in which the economy seemed to be getting richer was actually impoverishing it. We are in a new Gilded Age masked by a vocabulary used by the media via television and papers like The New York Times that are euphemizing what was happening.

A euphemism is a rhetorical trick to make a bad phenomenon look good. If a landlord gets rich by gentrifying a neighborhood by exploiting tenants and forcing them out, that's called wealth creation if property values and rents rise. If you can distract people to celebrate wealth and splendor at the top of the economic pyramid, people will be less focused on how the economy is functioning for the bottom 99%.

BONNIE FAULKNER: Can you describe the format of J Is for Junk Economics – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception as an A-to-Z dictionary with additional essays? It seems to me that this format makes a good reference book that can be picked up and read at any point.

MICHAEL HUDSON: That's what I intended. I wrote it as a companion volume to my outline of economic theory, Killing the Host , which was about how the financial sector has taken over the economy in a parasitic way. I saw the vocabulary problem and also how to solve it: If people have a clear set of economic concepts, basically those of classical economics – value, price and rent – the words almost automatically organize themselves into a worldview. A realistic vocabulary and understanding of what words mean will enable its users to put them together to form an inter-connected system.

I wanted to show how junk economics uses euphemisms and what Orwell called Doublethink to confuse people about how the economy works. I also wanted to show that what's called think tanks are really lobbying institutions to do the same thing that advertisers for toothpaste companies and consumer product companies do: They try to portray their product – in this case, neoliberal economics, dismantling protection of the environment, dismantling consumer protection and stopping of prosecution of financial fraud – as "wealth creation" instead of impoverishment and austerity for the economy at large. So basically, my book reviews the economic vocabulary and language people use to perceive reality.

When I was in college sixty years ago, they were still teaching the linguistic ideas of Benjamin Lee Whorf. His idea was that language affects how people perceive reality. Different cultures and linguistic groups have different modes of expression. I found that if I was going to a concert and speaking German, I would be saying something substantially different than if I were speaking English.

Viewing the economic vocabulary as propaganda, I saw that we can understand how the words you hear as largely propaganda words. They've changed the meaning to the opposite of what the classical economists meant. But if you untangle the reversal of meaning and juxtapose a more functional vocabulary you can better understand what's actually happening.

ORDER IT NOW

BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that "the terms rentier and usury that played so central a role in past centuries now sound anachronistic and have been replaced with more positive Orwellian doublethink," which is what you've begun to explain. In fact, your book J is for Junk – A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception is all about the depredation of vocabulary to hide reality, particularly the state of the economy. Just as history is written by the victors, you point out that economic vocabulary is defined by today's victors, the rentier financial class. How is this deception accomplished?

MICHAEL HUDSON: It's been accomplished in a number of ways. The first and most brutal way was simply to stop teaching the history of economic thought. When I went to school 60 years ago, every graduate economics student had to study the history of economic thought. You'd get Adam Smith, Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, Marx and Veblen. Their analysis had a common denominator: a focus on unearned income, which they called rent. Classical economics distinguished between productive and unproductive activity, and hence between wealth and overhead. The traditional landlord class inherited its wealth from ancestors who conquered the land by military force. These hereditary landlords extract rent, but don't do anything to create a product. They don't produce output. The same is true of other recipients of rent. Accordingly, the word used through the 19 th century was rentier . It's a French word. In French, a rente was income from a government bond. A rentier was a coupon clipper, and the rent was interest. Today in German, a Rentner is a retiree receiving pension income. The common denominator is a regular payment stipulated in advance, as distinct from industrial profit.

The classical economists had in common a description of rent and interest as something that a truly free market would get rid of. From Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill down to Marx and the socialists, a free market was one that was free of a parasitic overclass that got income without doing work. They got money by purely exploitative means, by charging rent that doesn't really have to be paid; by charging interest; by charging monopoly rent for basic infrastructure services and public utilities that a well-organized government should provide freely to people instead of letting monopolists put up toll booths on roads and for technology and patent rights simply to extract wealth. The focus of economics until World War I was the contrast between production and extraction.

An economic fight ensued and the parasites won. The first thing rentiers – the financial class and monopolists, a.k.a. the 1% – did was to say, "We've got to stop teaching the history of economic thought so that people don't even have a memory that there is any such a thing as economic rent as unearned income or the various policies proposed to minimize it. We have to take the slogan of the socialist reformers – a free market – and redefine it as a free market is one free from government – that is, from "socialism" – not free from landlords, bankers and monopolists." They turned the vocabulary upside down to mean the opposite. But in order to promote this deceptive vocabulary they had to erase all memory of the fact that these words originally meant the opposite.

BONNIE FAULKNER: How has economic history been rewritten by redefining the meaning of words? What is an example of this? For instance, what does the word "reform" mean now as opposed to what reform used to mean?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Reform used to mean something social democratic. It meant getting rid of special privileges, getting rid of monopolies and protecting labor and consumers. It meant controlling the prices that monopolies could charge, and regulating the economy to prevent fraud or exploitation – and most of all, to prevent unearned income or tax it away.

In today's neoliberal vocabulary, "reform" means getting rid of socialism. Reform means stripping away protection or labor and even of industry. It means deregulating the economy, getting rid of any kind of price controls, consumer protection or environmental protection. It means creating a lawless economy where the 1% are in control, without public checks and balances. So reform today means getting rid of all of the reforms that were promoted in the 19 th and early-20 th century. The Nobel Economics Prize reflects this neoliberal (that is, faux-liberal) travesty of "free markets."

BONNIE FAULKNER: What were the real reforms of the progressive era?

MICHAEL HUDSON: To begin with, you had unions to protect labor. You had limitations on the workweek and the workday, how much work people had to do to earn a living wage. There were safety protections. There was protection of the quality of food, and of consumer safety to prevent dangerous products. There was anti-trust regulation to prevent price gouging by monopolies. The New Deal took basic monopolies of public service such as roads and communications systems out of the hands of monopolists and make them public. Instead of using a road or the phone system to exploit users by charging whatever the market would bear, basic needs were provided at the lowest possible costs, or even freely in the case of schools, so that the economy would have a low cost of living and hence a low business overhead.

The guiding idea of reform was to get rid of socially unnecessary income. If landlords were going to charge rent for properties that they did nothing to improve, but merely raise the rents whenever cities built more transportation or more parks or better schools, this rent would be taxed away.

The income tax was a basic reform back in 1913. Only 1% of America's population had to pay the tax. Most were tax-free, because the aim was to tax the rentiers who lived off their bond or stock holdings, real estate or monopolies. The solution was simply to tax the wealthiest 1% or 2% instead of labor or industry, that is, the companies that actually produced something. This tax philosophy helped make America the most productive, lowest-cost and competitive yet also the most equal economy in the world at that time.

ORDER IT NOW

This focus on real industry has gradually been undermined. Today, if you're a real estate speculator, monopolist, bankster or financial fraudster, your idea of reform is to get rid of laws that protect consumers, tenants, homebuyers and the public at large. You campaign for "consumer choice," as if protection is "interference" with the choice to be poisoned, cheated or otherwise exploited. You deregulate laws designed to protect the atmosphere, free air and water. If you're a coal or oil company, your idea of reform is to get rid of the Clean Air Act, as the Trump administration has been doing.

The counterpart to junk science is junk economics. It is a lobbying effort to defend the idea of a world without any laws or regulations against the wealthy, only against the debtors and the poor, only against consumers for the "theft" of downloading music or stealing somebody's patented songs or drug monopoly privilege. This turns inside out the classical philosophy of fairness.

BONNIE FAULKNER: According to 19 th -century classical economists, what is fictitious capital, and why is this distinction no longer being made by economists?

MICHAEL HUDSON: That's a wonderful question. Today the term "fictitious capital" is usually associated with Marx, but it was used by many people in the 19 th century, even by right-wing libertarians such as Henry George.

Fictitious capital referred to purely extractive claims for income, as distinct from profits and wages earned from tangible means of production. Real capital referred to factories, machinery and tools, things that were used to produce output, as well as education, research and public infrastructure. But an ownership privilege like a title to land and other real estate, a patent or the monopoly privilege to charge whatever the market will bear for a restricted patent, without reference to actual production costs, does not add anything to production. It is purely extractive, yielding economic rent, not profits on real capital investment.

BONNIE FAULKNER: You say that by the late-19 th century, "reform movements were gaining the upper hand, that nearly everyone saw industrial capitalism evolving into what was widely called socialism." How would you describe the socialism that classical economists like Mill or Marx envisioned?

MICHAEL HUDSON: They all called themselves socialists. There were many kinds of socialism in the late 19 th century. Christians promoted Christian socialism, and anarchists promoted an individualistic socialism. Mill was called a Ricardian socialist. The common denominator among socialists was their recognition that the industrial capitalism of their day was a transitory stage burdened by the remnants of feudalism, headed by the landlord class whose hereditary rule was a legacy of the medieval military invasions of England, France, Germany and the rest of Europe. This was the class that controlled the upper house of government, e.g ., Britain's Lordships. For socialists, the guiding idea was to run factories and operate land and provide public services for the economy at large to grow instead of imposing austerity and letting the rentier classes exploit the rest of the economy and concentrate income, political control and tax policy in their own hands.

Until World War I, socialism was popular because most people saw industrial capitalism as evolving. Politics was in motion. The term "capitalism," by the way, was coined by Werner Sombart, not Marx. But classical political economy culminated in Marx. He looked at society's broad laws of motion to see where they were leading.

The socialist idea was not only that of Marx but also of American business school professors like Simon Patten of the WhartonSchool. He said that the kind of economy that would dominate the world's future was one that was the most efficient in preventing monopoly and preventing or taxing away absentee land rent so that almost all income would be paid as wages and profits, not rent or interest or monopoly rents.

The business classes in the United States, Germany and even in England were in favor of reform – that is, anti-rentier reform. They recognized that only a strong government would have the political power to tax away or regulate parasitic economic rent by the wealthiest classes at that time, in the late 19 th and early 20 th century. This economic and political cleanup of the rentiers stemmed very largely from the ideological battle that occurred in England after the Napoleonic Wars were over in 1815. Ricardo, representing the banking class, argued against Reverend Malthus, the population theorist who also was a spokesman for the landlord class. Malthus urged agricultural protectionism for landlords, so that they would get more and more rent from their land as grain prices were kept high. Ricardo argued that high food prices to support rents for the agricultural landlords would mean high labor costs for industrial employers. And if you have high labor costs then England cannot be the industrial workshop of the world. In order for England to become the industrial supreme power, it needed to overcome the power of its landlord class. Instead of protecting it, England decided to protect its industrial capital by repealing its protectionist Corn Laws in 1846. (I describe its strategy in my history of theories of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt .)

At that time England's banking class was still a carryover from Europe's Medieval period. Christianity had banned the charging of interest, so banks were able to make their money by combining their loans with a foreign exchange charge, called agio. Banks even Ricardo's day in the early 19 th century made most of their money by financing foreign trade and charging foreign exchange fees. If your listeners they have ever tried to change money at the airport, they will know what a big rake-off the change booths take.

Later in the 19 th century, bankers began to shift their lending away from international trade financing to real estate as home ownership became democratized. Home owners became their own landlords – but on mortgage credit.

ORDER IT NOW

Today we're no longer in the situation that existed in England 200 years ago. Almost two-thirds of the American families own their homes. In Scandinavia and much of Europe, 80% are homeowners. They don't pay rent to landlords. Instead, they pay their income as interest to the mortgage lenders. That's because hardly anyone has enough money to buy a few-hundred-thousand-dollar home with the cash in their pocket. They have to borrow the money. The income that used to be paid as rent to a landlord is now paid as interest to the mortgage banker. So you have a similar kind of exploitation today that you had two centuries ago, with the major difference that the banking and financial class has replaced the landlord class.

Already by the late-19 th century, socialists were advocating that money and credit don't have to take the form of gold and silver. Governments can create their own money. That's what the United States did in the Civil War with its greenbacks. It simply printed the money – and gave it value by making it acceptable for payment of taxes. In addition to the doctrine that land and basic infrastructure should be owned by the public sector – that is, by governments – banking was seen as a public utility. Credit was to be created for productive purposes, not for rent-extracting activities or financial speculation. Land would be fully taxed so that instead of labor or even most industry paying an income tax, rentiers would pay tax on wealth that took the form of rent-extracting privileges.

The aim of classical economics was to tax unearned income, not wages and profits. The tax burden was to fall on the landlord class first and foremost, then on monopolists and bankers. The result was to bea circular flow in which taxes would be paid mainly out of rent and other unearned income, and the government would spend this revenue on infrastructure, schools and other productive investment to help make the economy more competitive. Socialism was seen as a program to create a more efficient capitalist economy along these lines, until the word was hijacked by the Russian Revolution after World War I. The Soviet Union became a travesty of Marxism and the word socialism.

BONNIE FAULKNER: You write that: "Today's anti-classical vocabulary redefines free markets as ones that are free for rent extractors and that rent and interest reflect their recipients' contribution to wealth, not their privileges to extract economic rent from the economy." How do you differentiate between productive and extractive sectors, and how is it that the extractive sectors, essentially Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE), actually burden the economy?

MICHAEL HUDSON: If you're a real estate owner, you want lower property taxes so that as the economy grows and people are able to pay more rent, or when a land site in a neighborhood becomes more valuable because the government builds a new subway – like New York City's Second Avenue line – real estate prices rise to reflect the property's higher income that is not taxed.

New York landlords all along the subway line raised rents. That meant that their real estate had a "capital" gain reflecting the higher rent roll. Individual owners fortunate enough to own a condo or a townhouse near the stations became more wealthy – while new renters or buyers had to pay much more than before. None of this price rise created more living space or other output (although today's post-classical GDP figures pretend that it did!). It simply meant that instead of recapturing the $10 billion the government spent on this subway extension by taxing the increased land valuations all along the subway route, New York's income and real estate taxes have been raised for everybody, to pay interest on the bonds issued to finance the subway's construction. So the city's cost of living and doing business rises – while the Upper East Side landlords have received a free lunch.

Creating that kind of real estate "fictitious wealth" is a capitalization of unearned income – unearned because the Upper East Side landlords didn't do anything themselves to increase the value of their property. The City raised rental values by making the sites more desirable when it built the subway extension.

The same logic applies to insurance. When President Obama passed the basically Republican Obamacare law advocated by the pharmaceutical and health management sectors, the cost of medical care went way up in the United States. It was organized so as to be a giveaway to the healthcare and pharmaceutical monopolies.

None of this increased payment for medical care increases its quality. In fact, the more that's paid for medical care, the more the service declines, because it is paid to health insurance companies that try to legally fight against consumers. The effect is predatory, not productive.

Finally, you have the financial part of the FIRE sector. Finance has accounted for almost all of the growth in U.S. GDP in the ten years since the Lehman Brothers crisis and the Obama bailout in 2008. The biggest banks at that time were insolvent as a result of bad loans and outright financial fraud. But the government created $4.3 trillion of reserves to bail out Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, with Goldman Sachs thrown in, despite the fact that their fraudulent junk mortgage loans were predatory, not productive credit that actually increased wealth in the form of productive power. There's a growing understanding that the financial sector has become so dysfunctional that it is a deadweight on the economy, burdening it with increasing debt charges –student loans are an example – instead of actually helping the economy grow.

BONNIE FAULKNER: So just to reiterate, what is the classical distinction between earned and unearned income?

MICHAEL HUDSON: This distinction is based on classical value and price theory. Price is what people have to pay. The margin of price over and above real cost value is called economic rent. A product's value is its actual, necessary costs of production: the cost of labor, raw materials and machinery, and other elements of what it costs to tangibly produce it. Rent and financial charges are the product of special privileges that have been privatized and now financialized.

ORDER IT NOW

Classical value theory isolated this economic rent as unearned income. It was the aim of society either to prevent it from occurring in the first place, by anti-monopoly regulation or by public land ownership, or to tax it away in cases where you can't help it going up. For instance, it's natural for neighborhoods to become more valuable and high-priced over time as the economy gets richer. But it doesn't cost more to construct buildings there, and rents keep going up and up and up on buildings that were put up 100 years ago. This increased rent does not reflect any new cost of production. It's a free lunch.

Neoliberals, most notoriously the University of Chicago's Milton Friedman at, kept insisting that "There's no such thing as a free lunch." But that's exactly what most of the wealth and income of the richest 1% is. It's the result of running the economy primarily to siphon off a rentier free lunch. Of course, its recipients try to distract public attention from this face and tell national income and Gross Domestic Product statisticians to pretend that they actually earn their income wealth, not merely transfer income from the rest of the economy into their hands as creditors, monopolists and landlords. The leading Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs said so notoriously a few years ago that "Our partners are the most productive in the country because look at how much we're paid." But they don't really earn their wealth in the classical sense of earning by performing a productive economic service. The economy would get along much better without Goldman Sachs and indeed the banking and financial system or the health insurance system being run the way they are, and without real estate the being untaxed in the way that it is.

BONNIE FAULKNER: I noticed that you used the term "rent" for unearned income. Is rent the same as profit, or not?

MICHAEL HUDSON: It's not at all the same. Profit is earned by investing in a means of production to make useful goods and services. Classical economists viewed profit as an element of cost if you're going to have a privately owned economy – and most socialists have accepted private ownership, although in a system regulated so as to benefit society as a whole. If you make a profit by a productive act acting within this system, you've earned it by being productive.

Economic rent is different. It is not earned by actively building means of production, conducting research or development. It's passive income. When pharmaceutical companies earn rent, it's simply for charging much more for the drugs they sell than it actually costs to produce them. This is especially the case when the government has borne the research and development cost of the drugs and simply assigns the rent-yielding patent privilege to the pharmaceutical companies. So rent is something over and above the profit necessary to induce the activity that these companies actually perform. Profits are why investors produce more. Rent is not necessary. If you got rid of it, you wouldn't discourage production, because it's purely an overhead charge, whereas profits are a production charge in a capitalist economy.

BONNIE FAULKNER: Well, thank you for that distinction between rent and profit. That's a very important thing to understand.

MICHAEL HUDSON: I describe it more clearly in my book, which includes the appropriate classical quotations.

BONNIE FAULKNER: You point out that interest and rent are reported as "earnings," as if bankers and landlords produce gross domestic product (GDP) in the form of credit and ownership services. How do you think interest and rent should be reported?

MICHAEL HUDSON: They should be classified interest and rent. But the rentier classes have taken over the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) to depict their takings as actual production of a service, not as overhead or a transfer payment, that is, not as parasitic extraction of other peoples' earnings.

For instance, suppose you have a credit card and you miss a payment, or miss a payment on a student loan, electric bill or your rent. The credit card company will use this as an excuse to raise your interest charge from 11% to 29%. The national income account treat this rise to 29% as providing a "financial service." The so-called service is simply charging a penalty rate. The pretense is that everything that a bank charges – higher interest or penalties – is by definition providing a service, not simply extracting money from cardholders, transferring income from them to itself.

Classical economists would have subtracted this financial rake-off from output, counting it as overhead. After all, it simply adds to the cost of living and doing business. Instead, the most recent statisticians have added this financial income to the Gross National Product instead of subtracting it, as the classical economists would have done – or simply not counted it, as was the case a generation ago.

Most reporters and the financial press don't get into the nitty-gritty of these national accounts, so they don't realize how lobbyists have intervened in recent years to turn them into propaganda flattering bankers and property owners. Today's "reformed" GDP format pretends that the economy has been going up since 2008. A more realistic description would show that it is shrinking for 95 percent of the population, being eaten away by the wealthiest 5% extracting more rentier income and imposing austerity.

If you look at the national balance sheet of assets and liabilities, the economy is becoming more debt-ridden. As student debt and mortgage debt go up, and penalty fees, arrears and defaults are rising. The long rise in home ownership rates is being reversed, and rents are rising, while people also have to pay more for medical care and other basic needs. Academic economists depict this as "consumer choice" or "demand," as if it is all a voluntary choice of "the market." The GDP accounting format has been modified to make it appear that the economy is getting richer. This statistical sleight-of-hand is achieved by counting the takings of the rentier 1% as a product, not a cost borne by the economy at large. What really should be shown is a loss – land and monopoly rent, interest and penalties is in fact so large a "product" that the economy seems to be growing. But most of that growth is unreal.

BONNIE FAULKNER: How does government fiscal policy, taxation and expenditure influence the economy?

ORDER IT NOW

MICHAEL HUDSON: That's what Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is all about. When governments run a budget deficit, they pump money into the economy. For Keynesians the money goes into the real economy in ways that employ labor. For neoliberals, quantitative easing is spent directly into the financial sector, and is used to finance the purchase of real estate, stocks and bonds, supporting the valuation of wealth owned mainly by the One Percent. The effect is to make housing more expensive, and also the price of buying a retirement income. Having to take on larger mortgage debt to buy a house and spend less each month in order to save for one's pension is not really "wealth creation," unless your perspective is that of the One Percent increasing its power over the 99%.

At least the United States is able to run deficits and avoid the kind of unemployment and austerity that Europe is imposing on itself and especially on Greece and Italy. I think in one of our talks on this show explained the problem that Europe is suffering. Under the constitution of the Eurozone, its member countries are not allowed to run a budget deficit of more than 3%. Most actually aim at extracting a surplus from the economy (as distinct from producing a surplus for the economy). That means that the government doesn't spend money into the economy. People and businesses are obliged to get their money from the banks. That requires them to pay more interest. All Europe is on the road to looking like Greece– debt-strapped economies that are kept artificially alive by the government creating reserves to give to the banks and bail out bond markets, not spending into economies to help them recover.

The ability to create debt by writing a bank loan that creates a deposit is a legal privilege. There's no reason why governments cannot do this themselves. Instead of borrowing from private creditors to finance their budget deficits, governments can create their own money – without burdening budgets with interest charges. Credit creation has little cost of production, and therefore does not require interest charges to cover this cost. The interest is a form of monopoly rent to privatized privilege.

Classical economists saw the proper role of government as being to create social infrastructure and upgrade living standards and productivity for their labor force. Governments should build roads to minimize the cost of transportation, not private companies creating toll roads to maximize the cost by building in financial charges, real estate and management charges to what users have to pay. Government should be in charge of providing public health insurance, not private companies that charge extortionate prices and whatever the market will bear for their drugs. It's the government that should run prisons, not private companies that use prisoners as cheap labor to make a profit and advocate that more people get arrested so to make more of a profit from their incarceration.

The great question is, what is the government going to spend money on, and how can it spend money into the economy in a way that helps growth? Imagine if this trillion dollars a year that's spent on arms and military – in California and the districts of the key congressmen on the budget committee – were spent on building roads, schools, transportation and subsidizing medical care. The country could become a utopia. Instead, the rentier classes have hijacked the government, taking over its money creation and taxing power to spend on themselves, not to help the economy at large produce more or raise living standards. Special interests have captured the regulatory agencies to make them serve rent extractors, not protect the economy from them.

BONNIE FAULKNER: Interest is tax-deductible, whereas profit is taxable. Does the tax deductibility of interest have a major impact on the economy?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, because tax deductibility encourages companies to raise money by going into debt. This tax deductibility of interest catalyzed the corporate raiding movement of the 1980s. It was based on debt leveraging.

Suppose a company makes $100 million a year in profit and pays this out to its stockholders as dividends. In the 1980s this profit was taxed at about 50%, so you could only pay $50 million to the stockholders. Then as today, they were the wealthiest layer of the population. Drexel Burnham and other Wall Street firms sought out corporate raiders as clients and offered to lend them enough money to buy companies out, by buying out their stockholders. Stocks were replaced by bonds. That enabled companies to pay out twice as much income as interest than they had been paying as dividends. When they bought out target companies with debt, a company could pay all $100 million of its income as interest instead of only $50 million as dividends on stock.

So the wealthiest classes in the United States and other countries decided that they could get more from own bonds than stocks anymore. Government revenue declined by the added amount paid to financial investors as a result of this tax subsidy for debt.

The advantage of issuing stocks is that when business conditions turn down and profits fall, companies can cut back their dividend. But if they have committed to pay this $100 million to bondholders, when their earnings go down they may face insolvency.

The result was a wave of bankruptcy since the 1980s as companies became more debt-pyramided. Also companies heads went to the labor unions and threatened to declare bankruptcy and wipe out their pension funds, if their leaders did not agree to change these funds and replace the guaranteed retirement pension that were promised for a defined contribution plan. All they know is what they have to pay in every month. Retirees will only get whatever is left when they reach pension age. The equity economy shift into a debt economy has enriched the wealthy financial class at the top, while hurting employees.

Most statistical trends turned around in 1980 for almost every country as this shift occurred. Indebting companies has made them more fragile and also higher-cost, because now they have to factor in the price of interest payments to the bondholders and corporate raiders who've taken them over.

BONNIE FAULKNER: Do you think that changes should be made to the tax deductibility of interest?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Sure. If interest were to be taxed, that would leave less incentive for companies to keep on adding debt. It would deter corporate raiding. It is a precondition for companies being run to minimize their cost of production and to serve their labor force and their customers more. For homebuyers, removing the tax-deductibility of interest would leave less "free" rent to be pledged to banks for mortgages, and hence would reduce the size of bank loans that bid up housing prices.

ORDER IT NOW

I think that interest and rents should be taxed, not wages and legitimate profits. The FICA wage withholding now absorbs almost 16% of most wage-earning income for Social Security and Medicare. But wealthy people don't have to pay any contribution on what they make over than about $ $116,000 a year. They don't have to pay any FICA contribution on their capital gains, which is how most fortunes are made. The rentiers' idea of a free market is to make labor pay for all of the Social Security and Medicare – and then to give so much to Wall Street that they can say, "Oh, there's no more money. The system's short, so we have to wipe out Social Security," just as so many companies have wiped out the pension commitments. As George W. Bush said, tere's not really any money in the Social Security accounts. Its tax on the lower income brackets was all used to cut taxes on the higher income and wealth brackets. The economy has been turned into a grab bag for the rich.

BONNIE FAULKNER: What about monetary policy, interest rates and the money supply? Who controls monetary policy, and how does it affect the economy?

MICHAEL HUDSON: The biggest banks put their lobbyists in charge of the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913 to take monetary policy out of the hands of the Treasury in Washington and put it in the hands of Wall Street. That made the Fed a lobbyist for its members, the commercial banking system. It's run to control the money supply – in practice, the debt supply – in a way that steers money into the banks. That's why not a single banker was jailed for committing the junk mortgage scams and other frauds that caused the crash. The Fed has turned the banking system into a predatory monopoly instead of the public service that it was once supposed to be.

Monetary policy is really debt policy, because money is debt on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. The question is, what kind of debt is the economy going to have, and what happens when it exceeds the ability to be paid? How is the government going to provide the economy with money, and what will it do to keep debts line with the ability to be paid? Will money and credit be provided to build more factories and product more output, to rebuild American manufacturing and infrastructure? Or, are you going to leave credit and debt creation to the banks, to make larger loans for people to buy homes at rising prices reflecting the increasingly highly leveraged and outright reckless credit creation?

Monetary policy is debt policy, and on balance most debts are owed by the bottom 90% to the wealthiest 10%. So monetary policy becomes an exercise in how the 10% can extract more and more interest, rent and capital gains from the economy – all the while making money by impoverishing the economy, not helping most people prosper.

BONNIE FAULKNER: The economy is always being planned by someone or some force, be it Wall Street, the government or whatever. It's not the result of natural law, as you point out in your book. It seems like a lot of people think that the economy should somehow run itself without interference. Could you explain how this is an absurd idea?

MICHAEL HUDSON: It's an example of rhetoric overcoming people's common sense. Every economy since the Stone Age has been planned. Even in the stone age people had to plan when to plant the crops, when to harvest them, how much seed you had to keep over for the next year. You had to operate on credit during the crop year to get beer and rent draft animals. Somebody's in charge of every economy.

So when people talk about an unplanned economy, they mean no government planning. They mean that planning should be taken out of the hands of government and put in the hands of the 1%. That is what they mean by a "free market." They pretend that if the 1% control the economy it's not really a planned economy anymore, because it's not planned by government, officials serving the public interest. It's planned by Wall Street. So the question is, really, who's going to plan the American economy? Is it going to be the government of elected officials, or is it going to be Wall Street? Wall Street will euphemize its central planning by saying this is a free market – meaning it's free of government regulation, especially over the financial sector and the mining companies and other monopolies that are its major clients.

BONNIE FAULKNER: You emphasize the difference between the study of 19 th -century classical political economy and modern-day economics. How and when and why did political economy become "economics"?

MICHAEL HUDSON: If you look at the books that almost everybody wrote in the 19 th century, they called it political economy because economics is political. And conversely, economics is what politics has always been about. Who's getting what? Or as Lenin said, who-whom? It's about how society makes decisions about who's going to get rich and how they are going to do it. Are they going to get wealthy by acting productively, or parasitically? Eeverything economic turns out to be political.

The economy's new central planners on Wall Street pretend that what they're doing is not political. Cutting taxes on themselves is depicted as a law of nature. But they deny that this is politics, as if there's nothing anyone can do about it. Margaret Thatcher's refrain was "There is no alternative" (TINA). That is the numbing political sedative injected into today's economic discussion.

The aim is to make people think that there is no alternative because if they're getting poorer, if they're losing their home by defaulting on a junk mortgage of if they have to pay so much on the student loan so that they can't afford to buy a home, or if they find that the only kind of job they can get driving an Uber car, it's all their fault. It's as if that's just nature, not the way the economy has been malstructured.

The role of neoliberalism is to make people think that they are powerless in the face of "the market," as if markets are not socially and politically structured. The 1% have hired lobbyists and subsidized business schools so as to shape markets in their own interest. Their aim is to control the economy and call it "nature." Their patter talk is that poverty is natural for short-sighted "deplorables," not the result of the predatory neoliberal takeover since 1980 and their capture of the Justice Department so that none of the bank fraudsters go to jail.

ORDER IT NOW

BONNIE FAULKNER: In your chapter on the letter M – of course, we have chapters from A to Z – in your chapter on M, you have an entry for Hyman Minsky, an economist who pioneered Modern Monetary Theory and explained the three stages of the financial cycle in terms of rising debt leveraging. What is debt leveraging, and how does it lead to a crisis?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Debt leveraging means buying an asset on credit. Lending for home ownership in the United States is the leading example. From the 1940s to the 1960s, if you took out a mortgage, the banker would look at your income and calculate that the mortgage on the house you buy shouldn't absorb more than 25% of your income. The idea was that this would leave enough income to pay the interest charge and amortize – that is, pay off – the mortgage 30 years later, near the end of your working life. Minsky called this first credit stage the hedge stage, meaning that banks had hedged their bets within limits that enabled the economy to carry and pay off its debts.

In the second credit stage, banks lent more and loosened their lending standards so that mortgages would absorb much more than 25% of the borrower's income. At a certain point, people could not afford to amortize, that is to pay off the mortgage. All they could do was to pay the interest charge. By the 1980s, the federal government was lending up to almost 40% of the borrower's income, writing mortgages without any amortization taking place. The mortgage payment simply carried the existing homeowner's debt. Banks in fact didn't want to ever be repaid. They wanted to go on collecting interest on as much debt as possible.

Finally, Minsky said, the Ponzi stage occurred when the homeowner didn't even have enough money to pay the interest charge, but had to borrow the interest. So this was how Third World countries had gotten through the 1970s and the early 1980s. The government of, let's say Mexico or Brazil or Argentina, would say, well, we don't have the dollars to pay the debt, and the banks would say, we'll just add the interest onto the debt. Same thing with a credit card or a mortgage. The mortgage homeowner would say, I don't have enough money to pay the mortgage, and the bank would say, well, just take out a larger mortgage; we'll just lend you the money to pay the interest.

That's the Ponzi stage and it was named after Carlo Ponzi and his Ponzi scheme – paying early buyers out of income paid into the scheme by new entrants. That's the stage that the economy entered around 2007-08. It became a search for the proverbial "greater fool" willing to borrow to buy overpriced real estate. That caused the crash, and we're still in the post-crash austerity interim (before yet a deeper debt writeoff or new bailout). The debts have been left in place, not written down. If you have a credit card and have to pay a monthly balance but lack enough to pay down your debt, your balance will keep going up every month, adding the interest charge onto the debt balance.

Any volume of debt tends to grow at compound interest. The result is an exponential growth that doubles the debt in little time. Any rate of interest is a doubling time. If debt keeps doubling and redoubling, it's carrying charges are going to crowd out the other expenses in your budget. You'll have to pay more money to the banks for student loans, credit card debts, auto loans and mortgage debt, leaving less to spend on goods and services. That's why the economy is shrinking right now. That's why people today aren't able to do what their parents were able to do 50 years ago – buy a home they can live in by paying a quarter of their income.

BONNIE FAULKNER: Dr. Michael Hudson, thank you so very much.

[Dec 22, 2018] Fallout Of Trump's Syria Withdrawal - Why Erdogan Does Not Want To Invade

Notable quotes:
"... Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis resigned from his position effective February 28. He disagreed with the president's decision. It was the second time in five years that an elected commander in chief had a serious conflict with Mattis' hawkishness. President Obama fired him as Central Command chief for urging a more aggressive Iran policy. Mattis is also extremely hawkish towards Russia and China. ..."
"... Mattis is an ingrained imperialist. He always asked for more money for the military and for more meddling abroad. One of Mattis' little notice acts as Defense Secretary was a unannounced change in the mission of the Pentagon : ..."
"... The Pentagon no longer "deters war" but provides "lethal force" to "sustain American influence abroad." There was no public nor congressional debate about the change. I doubt that President Trump agreed to it. Trump will now try to recruit a defense secretary that is more aligned with his own position. ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... Trump did not "capitulate". He always wanted to pull the U.S. troops out of Syria. He said so many times. When he was finally given a chance to do so, he grabbed the opportunity. Erdogan though, was not ready for that: ..."
"... Erdogan had planned to only occupy a 10 miles deep strip along the Syrian-Turkish border. Some 15,000 Turkish controlled 'Syrian rebels' stand ready for that. He would need some 50-100,000 troops to occupy all of east Syria northward of the Euphrates. It would be a hostile occupation among well armed Kurds who would oppose it and an Arab population that is not exactly friendly towards a neo-Ottoman Turkey. ..."
"... Any larger occupation of northeast Syria would create a serious mess for Turkey. Its army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties and financial resources. Turkey will hold local government election in March and Erdogan does not want any negative headlines. He will invade, but only if Syria and Russia fail to get the Kurds under control. ..."
"... 'The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad."' ..."
"... '"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river," he said in a speech in Istanbul'. So much for the UN Charter, then. Anyone who wants to can invade any other country and take over as much of its territory as he wants to - as long as Washington agrees. But, as Saddam Hussein could testify if he were still alive, it would be sensible to get such consent in writing. ..."
"... Macron's forces are illegally present too. Assad would have to request their presence, but I really doubt he will given the harm France has done to Syria over the past 7 years. Word is SAA's Tiger Forces will get sent East of Euphrates; when is now the question. ..."
"... One's got to worry about who will replace Mad Dog Mattis after February 28 next year. It would seem that whoever succeeds Mattis will be another former general, likely to share his views on maintaining and increasing US forces in Syria, Iraq and other parts of western Asia ..."
"... Compared to Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton, and now Nauert at the UN, are raving jingos. Thank Gord they have no ties to the US military. ..."
"... "there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops"... You can hear me laughing after reading this. The French empire was over a long long time ago and they still think that Syria is their colony. France has been sending French Jihadists for regime change in Syria since 2011 and their mission has failed since Russia intervened in 2015. France cannot even send troops to Mali - destabilized by Jihadists created by France in Libya to topple Kadhafi, without the help of the US!!! France is a de-facto vassal state of the US since they decided to joined the NATO central command under Sarkozy who was bribed by the zionist neocons. ..."
"... I personally distinguish between Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and his move to withdraw partially from Afghanistan. The latter is a step towards ending a brutal, illegal NATO occupation war of over 17 years. The former is also illegal but the Syrian Kurds (left wing and largely communist) are likely to be supplanted as counters to "Iran" by fascists Turkey and Israel (this has been confirmed in reports), so we're moving from tactical NATO proxies to actual NATO governments seizing Syrian land. ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Fallout Of Trump's Syria Withdrawal - Why Erdogan Does Not Want To Invade uuu , Dec 21, 2018 1:37:31 PM | link

President Trump's strategic decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria creates some significant fallout. The U.S. and international borg is enraged that Trump ends an occupation that is illegal under international as well as U.S. domestic law. "That's un-American!"

Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis resigned from his position effective February 28. He disagreed with the president's decision. It was the second time in five years that an elected commander in chief had a serious conflict with Mattis' hawkishness. President Obama fired him as Central Command chief for urging a more aggressive Iran policy. Mattis is also extremely hawkish towards Russia and China.

President Trump campaigned on lessening U.S. involvement in wars abroad. He wants to get reelected. He does not need a Secretary of Defense that involves him in more wars that have little to none defined purpose.

Mattis is an ingrained imperialist. He always asked for more money for the military and for more meddling abroad. One of Mattis' little notice acts as Defense Secretary was a unannounced change in the mission of the Pentagon :

For at least two decades, the Department of Defense has explicitly defined its mission on its website as providing "the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country." But earlier this year, it quietly changed that statement, perhaps suggesting a more ominous approach to national security.
...
The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad."

The Pentagon no longer "deters war" but provides "lethal force" to "sustain American influence abroad." There was no public nor congressional debate about the change. I doubt that President Trump agreed to it. Trump will now try to recruit a defense secretary that is more aligned with his own position.

The White House also announced that 7,000 of the 14,000 soldier the U.S. has in Afghanistan will withdraw over the next few months. The war in Afghanistan is lost with the Taliban ruling over more than half of the country and the U.S. supported government forces losing more personal than they can recruit. It was Mattis who had urged Trump to increase the troop numbers in Afghanistan from 10,000 to 14,000 at the beginning of his term. There are also 8,000 NATO and allied troops in Afghanistan which will likely see a proportional withdrawal.

The Associated Press has a new tic toc of Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria:

Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the advice of his top aides and agreeing to a withdrawal in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, two officials briefed on the matter said.
...
"The talking points were very firm," said one of the officials, explaining that Trump was advised to clearly oppose a Turkish incursion into northern Syria and suggest the U.S. and Turkey work together to address security concerns. "Everybody said push back and try to offer (Turkey) something that's a small win, possibly holding territory on the border, something like that."

Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. "Why are you still there?" the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants.
...
Erdogan's point, Bolton was forced to admit, had been backed up by Mattis, Pompeo, U.S. special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey and special envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition Brett McGurk, who have said that IS retains only 1 percent of its territory, the officials said.
...
Bolton stressed, however, that the entire national security team agreed that victory over IS had to be enduring, which means more than taking away its territory.

Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan.

Trump did not "capitulate". He always wanted to pull the U.S. troops out of Syria. He said so many times. When he was finally given a chance to do so, he grabbed the opportunity. Erdogan though, was not ready for that:

Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal , according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned , the official said.

The call ended with Trump repeating to Erdogan that the U.S. would pull out , but offering no specifics on how it would be done, the officials said.


bigger

Erdogan had planned to only occupy a 10 miles deep strip along the Syrian-Turkish border. Some 15,000 Turkish controlled 'Syrian rebels' stand ready for that. He would need some 50-100,000 troops to occupy all of east Syria northward of the Euphrates. It would be a hostile occupation among well armed Kurds who would oppose it and an Arab population that is not exactly friendly towards a neo-Ottoman Turkey.

Erdogan knows this well. Today he announced to delay the planned invasion :

"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river," he said in a speech in Istanbul. "Our phone call with President Trump, along with contacts between our diplomats and security officials and statements by the United States, have led us to wait a little longer.

"We have postponed our military operation against the east of the Euphrates river until we see on the ground the result of America's decision to withdraw from Syria."

The Turkish president said, however, that this was not an "open-ended waiting period".

Any larger occupation of northeast Syria would create a serious mess for Turkey. Its army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties and financial resources. Turkey will hold local government election in March and Erdogan does not want any negative headlines. He will invade, but only if Syria and Russia fail to get the Kurds under control.

Unfortunately the leaders of the anarcho-marxist PKK/YPK in Syria have still not learned their lesson. They make the same demands to Damascus that were already rejected when similar demands were made for Afrin canton before Turkey invaded and destroyed it.

agitpapa @agitpapa 11:14 utc - 21 Dec 2018
YPG delegation was flown in to Mezzeh yday. Negos were inconclusive because they just repeated their usual line of "SAA protects the border, we control the rest." No army allows someone else allied with an enemy to control its rear and its supply lines. +
+ The YPG leadership is still stuck in its pro-Western rut. It needs to be purged before any deal can be made with Damascus. Their present track will just lead to another Afrin, then another, then another. Thousands of brave YPG/YPJ fighters will have died for nothing.
Elijah J. Magnier @ejmalrai - 16:31 utc - 21 Dec 2018
#Breakingnews: Private sources : President Bashar al Assad has rejected the Kurdish proposal while Turkey is gathering forces (Euphrates Shield et al) to attack the Kurdish controlled area north of #Syria. #Russia seems holding back president Erdogan for a while. A lot of pressure

It is not (only) Russia that is holding Erdogan back. As seen above he has serious concerns about such an operation. Moreover, he does not have enough troops yet and the U.S. troops have not yet changed their pattern. As of today they still patrolled on the Turkish border and yesterday new U.S. war material was still coming in from Iraq. Erdogan does not dare to attack U.S. troops.

He will most likely want to avoid any additional military involvement in Syria. If Damascus and Moscow can get the PKK under control, Ankara will be satisfied.

Besides the presence of 4,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops and contractors in northeast Syria there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops and an unknown number of British forces. France for now says it wants to stay to finish the fight against the Islamic State enclave along the Euphrates.

But France does not have the capability to sustain those forces without U.S. support. Syria and Russia could ask Macron to put them under their command to finish the fight against ISIS, but it is doubtful that President Macron would agree to that. It is more likely that he will agree to a handover of their position to Russian, Syrian or even Iraqi or Iranian forces. Those forces can then finish the fight.

Posted by b on December 21, 2018 at 01:09 PM | Permalink

Comments next page " Some of the conclusions toward the end of this article don't entirely make sense to me. Trump is withdrawing 2000-4000 US troops. Why does it follow that their absence would create a space requiring 50000 Turkish troops to fill? I don't see how occupation of the entire eastern would be under consideration at all.

As far as IS is concerned, their defeat will be "enduring" when their sponsors stop paying them, first of all.

Guy Thornton , Dec 21, 2018 1:38:25 PM | link

Mattis comes across to me as a psycho case of a suppressed faggot who has spent his life trying to disprove and conceal the blatantly obvious. There we go...fairly succinct analysis.
Tobin Paz , Dec 21, 2018 1:44:44 PM | link
The neo-liberal meltdown is astonishing, it's like the Iraq war never happened: James Mattis Is a War Criminal: I Experienced His Attack on Fallujah Firsthand
More importantly, Mattis, known to some by the nickname of "Mad Dog," has shown a callous disregard for human life, particularly civilians, as evidenced by his behavior leading marines in Iraq, comments he made about enjoying fighting in Afghanistan because "it's fun to shoot some people. You know, it's a hell of a hoot," and myriad other problems.
...
While reporting from inside Fallujah during that siege, I personally witnessed women, children, elderly people and ambulances being targeted by US snipers under Mattis' command. Needless to say, all of these are war crimes.
Russ , Dec 21, 2018 1:46:37 PM | link
For at least two decades, the Department of Defense has explicitly defined its mission on its website as providing "the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country." But earlier this year, it quietly changed that statement, perhaps suggesting a more ominous approach to national security.
...
The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad."

At least Mattis is more honest than most of his fellow psychopath war criminals.

If the AP account is factually accurate (i.e. leaving aside the tendentious pro-imperial, pro-war editorializing), then it's funny how fast Erdogan goes from "What are you doing here? Why don't you leave?" to "I didn't mean now!" He was probably angling for something else and didn't really want US withdrawal.

As for the French, what a contemptible squeak from a government on the ropes trying to look tough.

Never Mind the Bollocks , Dec 21, 2018 1:48:37 PM | link
It's the US imperialism that has been defeated in Syria, but it's now gathering forces to go after Iran
Sally Snyder , Dec 21, 2018 1:49:03 PM | link
Here is a look at how the United States is putting a mechanism in place that will increase its ability to sell arms around the world:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/11/american-international-arms-sales-and.html

The hawks in Washington need not worry, there will be plenty of war to go around.

Tom Welsh , Dec 21, 2018 1:52:40 PM | link
'The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad."'

I wonder whether, perchance, the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief should have been consulted about that. Traditionally, US Presidents have had some considerable say in defining the country's foreign policy.

Although one could interpret the change as being wholly in tune with Mr Trump's overriding policy of transparent honesty. After all, as long ago as 1900 - on the evidence of Marin Major-General Smedley Butler - we know that the US armed forces were used almost exclusively to promote American interests abroad. Maybe it's just refreshingly open to admit it at last.

Tom Welsh , Dec 21, 2018 1:54:45 PM | link
"Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the advice of his top aides..." Please remind me: who was elected in 2016 - Mr Trump, or "his top aides"?
lysias , Dec 21, 2018 1:54:56 PM | link
When David Ignatius reported that Mattis's bedtime reading was Marcus Aurelius in the original Latin, who was responsible for the mistake? (Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek.) Ignatius, an aide of Mattis's, or Mattis himself?
Tom Welsh , Dec 21, 2018 1:57:50 PM | link
"While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said".

Splendid! Let them hand it back to the lawfully elected democratic government of Syria, then.

Tom Welsh , Dec 21, 2018 2:00:51 PM | link
'"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river," he said in a speech in Istanbul'. So much for the UN Charter, then. Anyone who wants to can invade any other country and take over as much of its territory as he wants to - as long as Washington agrees. But, as Saddam Hussein could testify if he were still alive, it would be sensible to get such consent in writing.
james , Dec 21, 2018 2:14:27 PM | link
thanks b... who replaces the war criminal mattis? and when does any american get charged in the hague for the countless wars they start? how long do we have to wait for this to happen? the fact he changed the wording is at least more honest, so i give him credit for that... he could have said 'we are the worlds policeman, and we will continue to be the worlds policeman too' which would have been equally appropriate...

one thing i do like about trump is his ability to surprise... he could have done this earlier in his term - pull out of syria - but i guess he was waiting to see how things went... as it stands i think the knifes are out for trump big time now, and i suspect he is not going to last as president.. someone else mentioned this on the previous thread, and i agree with that assessment..

at some point in the next month, it is going to look different if USA follows thru with the commanders new position... meanwhile Russia has to continue to keep turkey on a leash and Syria, Russia and Iran have to continue to work at regaining the area east of the Euphrates as this unfolds... the leadership in France at this point are loony... the smart thing for them would be to leave or hand it over to syria/ russia...

karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 2:21:14 PM | link
Macron's forces are illegally present too. Assad would have to request their presence, but I really doubt he will given the harm France has done to Syria over the past 7 years. Word is SAA's Tiger Forces will get sent East of Euphrates; when is now the question.

Rolling-back the Outlaw US Empire's overseas troop deployments and shuttering their bases is something I've argued for since I was honorably discharged in 1985, with the monies turned to desperate domestic needs -- the financial statement may declare the USA the world's richest nation, but reality tells a very different story. That reality got Trump elected. The haphazard, laissez-faire, unplanned structural nature of the USA's economy is in no way prepared for the rising technological revolution, which is in stark contrast to China and Russia's plans. The most important message Putin delivered in his annual meeting yesterday was about the whys and hows of changing the structure of Russia's economy:

"I have said it on numerous occasions, and I will repeat it today. We need a breakthrough. We need to transition to a new technological paradigm. Without it, the country has no future . This is a matter of principle, and we have to be clear on this....

" Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them there is no way a breakthrough can be achieved . The second vector deals with manufacturing and the economy. Of course, everything is related to the economy, including the first part. But the second part is directly linked to the economy, since it deals with the digital economy, robotics, etc. I have already mentioned infrastructure....

"But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to change the structure and build an innovation-based economy . The Government is counting on this, because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates will increase and there will be other opportunities for development." [My Emphasis]

200 million residents of the USA--2/3s of the populous--also need a breakthrough, which is why the Green New Deal has such widespread support : "The survey results show overwhelming support for the Green New Deal, with 81% of registered voters saying they either 'strongly support' (40%) or 'somewhat support' (41%) this plan." IMO, domestic political pressure generally supports Trump's MAGA, but the monies need to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the Outlaw US Empire part of the USA.

lysias , Dec 21, 2018 2:25:14 PM | link
It was only a couple of years after de Gaulle returned to power in 1958 that it became clear that he was going to pull out of Algeria.
Jen , Dec 21, 2018 2:36:37 PM | link
One's got to worry about who will replace Mad Dog Mattis after February 28 next year. It would seem that whoever succeeds Mattis will be another former general, likely to share his views on maintaining and increasing US forces in Syria, Iraq and other parts of western Asia where they're despised by the local people, and perhaps not averse to sounding out good ol' Erik Prince to fill the vacancies left when US troops start leaving.

Krishnadev Calamur, "Four People Who Could Be the Next Defense Secretary" https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/578809/ Good God, not David Petraeus!

CD Waller , Dec 21, 2018 2:51:41 PM | link
Tom Welsh. It's my understanding that the Constitution states that foreign policy IS the job of the President. This Congress doesn't seem to have gotten the memo and though strictly a legislative body, have engaged in some pretty spectacular over reach.

The Constitution also puts an elected civilian (the President) in charge of the armed forces but put the power to declare war firmly in the hands of Congress.

The 1973 War Powers act has obscured this division of power. The President can order troops anywhere for a short time but must get an Authorization for Military Force from Congress. However, this is supposed to only in the case of attack or imminent danger, hardly the case in the ME.
Time limits on AFMF are often ignored and Congressional! purse strings almost never limit (exception: at the end of Viet Nam Congress was about to cut funding) any and all military adventurism.

Don Bacon , Dec 21, 2018 2:52:31 PM | link
@ karlof1 14
Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them there is no way a breakthrough can be achieved.

It would seem to me that if US politicians really cared about their job performance they would be working more on your "human capital" and less on warfare and Russian collusion. But there's no money in that, so they don't. So much for "democracy." Here's a recent article on a US achieved "breakthrough," in a negative sense that is.

WaPo, Nov 29

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2017, the government said Thursday in a bleak series of reports that showed a nation still in the grip of escalating drug and suicide crises.

The data continued the longest sustained decline in expected life span at birth in a century, an appalling performance not seen in the United States since 1915 through 1918. That four-year period included World War I and a flu pandemic that killed 675,000 people in the United States and perhaps 50 million worldwide.

Public health and demographic experts reacted with alarm to the release of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual statistics, which are considered a reliable barometer of a society's health. In most developed nations, life expectancy has marched steadily upward for decades. . . here

Kevin J Quinn , Dec 21, 2018 2:53:40 PM | link
Compared to Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton, and now Nauert at the UN, are raving jingos. Thank Gord they have no ties to the US military.
uncle tungsten , Dec 21, 2018 3:02:58 PM | link
Mattis could not, would not accept responsibility for the misappropriated 21 trillion dollars at HIS defence department. Kick him out. He was always a moron and demonstrated his arrogant dismissal of the elected president almost every day. $21 trillion buys a lot of MAGA.
ConfusedPundit , Dec 21, 2018 3:05:43 PM | link
Kurdish population in Syria is only 5% whereas the land they now control is 30% of the country thanks to the democratic EUSA nations?

They can no longer feed the ISIS inmates (they'll end up in France or Germany or elsewhere undertaking new projects?) since Khashoggi case (or Mr. Erdogan who caught the Saudis by their balls) made Saudis quit financing the YPG. Almost all ISIS inmates left in Syria are from abroad (they had been released from Libyan, Afghan, Iraqi prisons en mass at the beginning of the war and are ready for relocation?

Will the globalists controlled China arrive to rebuild what the US demolitionmen destroyed in Syria?

Who founded (USrael?) ISIS and made them lose water and oil rich territories in Syria to the PKK/YPG/SDF and what are they planning to do now?

Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 21, 2018 3:09:39 PM | link
It'd be funny if Trump appointed Tulsi Gabbard to the post of DefSec. I don't know much about her except that she's definitely very cute and probably isn't a pushover. If the glowing praise of her MoA fans is any guide then she'd do a better job than any recent appointment to the role and would then become a shoe-in for POTUS. If that came to pass then 'Hillary Who?' would become part of America's Permanent Lexicon.
karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 3:26:44 PM | link
Don Bacon @18--

Thanks for your reply! Yes, the financialization and industrial hollowing-out of the USA's economy renders following the path being broken by Russia/China very difficult, but the projected outcome will be dire if the economy isn't radically restructured and the fake economists and their financial predators aren't driven from the Temple by modern Tribunes.

Meanwhile, shrouded by the Trump/Mattis circus, Turkey & Iran held an "historic summit" that likely had an impact on Trump's decision as everywhere he looks his previous foreign policy choices driven by his neocon advisors are mostly backfiring.

Robert Snefjella , Dec 21, 2018 3:35:04 PM | link
Re US president and foreign policy:

The language of the US Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties and choose Ambassadors, in consultation with and with the consent (2/3 majority) of the Senate. Also, President is Commander-in-Chief of the military. This includes state militias if formed. He also receives political figures from abroad.

Like so much else in the US Constitution, there has been creepy or 'necessary' or when it's handy mission creep in regard to these delineated functions.

But more to the point, the US is and has long been a serial de facto repudiator of the US Constitution and of International law. 'Let us discuss the fine points of law pertaining to the repeated launching of wars of aggression on the basis of lies.'

karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 3:37:58 PM | link
CD Waller @17 and others never having taken a US Civics course--

This essay details how the separation of powers construct works in the formulation of US foreign policy.

Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 21, 2018 3:39:00 PM | link
Forgive the levity but here's Hillary's theme song.

Oh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Pretending that I'm doing well (ooh ooh)
My need is such I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell.

Oh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Adrift in a world of my own (ooh ooh)
I play the game but to my real shame
You've left me to dream all alone.

Too real is this feeling of make believe
Too real when I feel what my heart can't conceal

Ooh ooh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Just laughing and gay like a clown (ooh ooh)
I seem to be what I'm not (you see)
I'm wearing my heart like a crown
Pretending that I'm still around.
(stiill a rounnd)

michael smith , Dec 21, 2018 3:49:49 PM | link
If the U.S. withdraws its forces from NE Syria who will control the air space. That will likely determine who controls the territory in the future. I don't think the Kurds have an airforce.

mls

financial matters , Dec 21, 2018 4:13:46 PM | link
karlof1 @ 14

"""But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to change the structure and build an innovation-based economy. The Government is counting on this, because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates will increase and there will be other opportunities for development."""

Similar sentiments are expressed by Rhiana Gunn-Wright.

After Sanders lost the Democratic primary in 2016 a group called 'Brand New Congress' formed to carry on his ideas. This morphed into 'Justice Democrats' which helped Ocasio-Cortez get elected. She is serving as a lightning rod giving the Green New Deal popularity.

Rhiana Gunn-Wright is a young energetic and talented policy wonk working for 'New Consensus' which is a spin off of the 'Justice Democrats'.

She is being tasked with forming policy for the Green New Deal.

'Again, the GND is not just climate policy. It's about transforming the economy, lifting up the poor and middle class, and creating a more muscular, active public sector.

The GND "opens an opportunity to renegotiate power relationships between the public sector, the private sector, and the people," says Gunn-Wright. "We are interested in solutions that create more democratic structures in our economy.'

green new deal explained

slit , Dec 21, 2018 4:16:39 PM | link
Thanks to b for stellar continued coverage!

$21 Trillion + "interests abroad" DoD mission creep
>>
Silicon Valley hot air equity ($150,000 starting salaries for fresh graduates) on cash flow only digital assetts
+ offshore oligarch accounts (kkr et al)

I found it helpful to take stock of reported conditions surrounding the troops out move:

* ksa reportedly going bankrupt
* ksa reneges on golden glow globe sword dance MIC mou-s
* failed israeli missile attempt to start wwiii & ensuing s300 reinforcements
* kashoggi and related muslim brotherhood entanglements
* clinton foundation in DC "hearings" censored by msm
* continued censorship of Awan bros Blackberry scandal (espionage?)
* Cricket hero Khan batting for Pakistan
* Huawei affair
* Bibi & family corruption scandal

Trump has a keen eye for ratings, and surely knows giving the deplorables (private contractors, self employeds etc) trying to rub two pennies together gasoline under $3/gallon in the holiday season will mean much more to the public than Cnn Russiagate drivel working people have no time for anyway. Keeping armed forces rank and file happy and re purposing for disaster relief would be a good move.

Karlof1 is correct to make the most of the narrative. Glad b is on it. Hope troops arent cleared for nuclear Armeggedon!

Josh , Dec 21, 2018 4:23:57 PM | link
@mls The US currently does not control Syrian airspace. The Russians do, ever since they switched from using the existing old Syrian S200 to the current advanced model S300, after the downing of their plane by the Israeli interference.
This was probably another factor that made operating in Syria increasingly problematic and handicapped: options of 'punishing Assad' or bombing mobile Iranian units were limited if they didn't want to coordinate with the Russians.
The Syrians now have to amass a large contingent to 'control' the Kurdish area; likely the Russians will be go-between to lower Kurdish demands as well as placate the SAA and achieve some kind of tense co-existence which can keep Turkey satisfied.
Interesting to see how Syria will handle both wanting to mop up Idlib as well as re-establish control over the North-East and its oil wells.
Noirette , Dec 21, 2018 4:29:57 PM | link
I read that Trump did not inform Netanyahu of the USA's Syria 'withdrawal' until about an hour before it was made public via tweet. Five mins! according to another article. Also, that Trump did discuss it with B.N. several days before (Haaretz), that sounded like a smoothing over. Another article claimed that it was Pompeo who clued in Israel a short while before. So who knows?

Right from the first time they met, Bibi was terrified of Trump, though I could not find one telling vid. I saw.

Feb. 15 2017.

Trump today said that he is keeping his options open about how best to reach a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation but urged Israel to hold back on settlement building in occupied territories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmfseeZt5fA

President Trump veered from years of U.S. policy in the Middle East by backing off the "two-state solution," as the only path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

https://youtu.be/Wf-3916zpGA

One article stated that Macron and Merkel learnt of the 'withdrawal' from the media! I have noted that Macron is always very 'late' and 'behind the times' as far as the US is concerned, obviously the F 'info' services have no clue, or he isn't kept informed, etc.

Not that there will be consequent 'fall-out' from either, for the moment. (Israel can only go along, and the EU has more serious stuff on its plate.)

Pnyx , Dec 21, 2018 4:39:59 PM | link
"If Damascus and Moscow can get the PKK under control, Ankara will be satisfied."
Well - let's hope Allah (or whoever) will enlighten Erdo...
steve , Dec 21, 2018 4:42:14 PM | link
First President since JFK to say no to the CIA. Lets see that SITRAP
Kadath , Dec 21, 2018 4:42:18 PM | link
Re: #3 Tobin Pa,


Yes, it's dispiriting, but not surprising that the anti-war "Left" movement has almost totally dissolved following their failure to prevent the Iraq war. As a deeply cynical person I'm certain that Hillary and the Clintonites worked behind the scenes in the DNC to undermine the Anti-war movement in expectation of her eventual 2008 & 2016 runs, since she and Bill supported the Iraq war and were no shrinking violets when it came to the use of military force in furtherance of their foreign policy goals. The consequence of destroying the Anti-war movement with the Democratic Party is that they have become a defacto Pro-war party even in situations where the use of the military is blatantly illegal, futile and against the National interest (since there is no organized Anti-war movement articulating why they should not go to war/use military force to stand against the Military Industrial Complex that is constantly advocating for more war). Hilariously, by becoming a Pro-war Party when the American people are increasingly tired of constant warfare the Democratic Party lost the 2016 election to a mildly anti-war Trump, who will most likely be re-elected (unless he is impeached or assassinated). In the long-term, unless the DNC faces up to the 30 years of disastrous Clinton mismanagement and corruption and cleans house, I could certainty see the Democratic Party collapsing over the next 15 years just like how the Labour Party in the UK is still struggling with the legacy of Tony Blair.

What's really galling to me though is watching all these so called "liberals" (Cher, Beth Midler, Rachael "Mad Cow" Maddow & Mia Farrow) whine about how the US should never leave Syria and stay there indefinitely; Are they or their children going to be fighting this war? Who gave the US such authority take seize parts of Syria? What exactly is the benefit to the US & her people in doing all of this? How many hundreds of thousands people (mostly Syrians) need to die for this ill-defined goal of spiting Syria & Russia? Just like the destruction of the Anti-war left in the Democratic Party had long term consequences, people will remember how Hollywood liberals behaved like jabbering, ignorant, warmongering ideologues during this period of US decline and it will cause profound damage to them and their professed causes.

stonebird , Dec 21, 2018 4:48:40 PM | link
KarlofI@14 and Fin Matters @33

Nice thoughts, but I don't think you have the time.
"Worst December since the great depression"
Just look at the pictures (charts), and scroll down.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-21/fear-reaches-most-extreme-ever-traders-see-panic-air
....
Trump has a tactic of "giving people what they ask for" (eg Jerusalem). Just to break a deadlock. This Syria gambit seems to be something of the same as Erdogan now gets what he has been asking for - and finds he doesn't want it yet.

I still think that there will be a continued US presence in Syria, concentrated around the Oil sources. The Agricultural lands further north were owned by "Arabic", Christian, Yadizi and other various tribes and ethnies. The Kurds only made up a small portion.
One reason that Trump may have decided to throw the Kurds to the wolves, is that they were overstretched, and not motivated enough to continue to be cannon fodder for Uncle Sam. The SDF (Which incorporates some turncoat ISIS members, which partly explains why there has only been slow "progress" against the last ISIS enclave in Eastern Syria, brother against ex-brother), also contains foreign mercenaries from various sources. What they will "demand" is open to question. The tribal forces in the SAA who are directly opposite contain members of the Shaitah, who saw 700 of their women and children massacred by ISIS. They may want their own land back too, as well as "payback".

The other reason for Trump to act now is that Flynn has been given three months in which to change his guilty "plea". After which, Mueller will HAVE TO provide proof, and not just accusations and people that have been blackmailed into "plea deals". Trump doesn't have too much time left for subtle tweet-tweets before the Dems arrive. etc (big topic by itself)

.... By the way, OT; Butina was really "brain-washed". 67 days in solitary confinement with all the recognised means of brainwashing used on her. Assault (including sexual) sleep deprivation, continued stress (including randomly timed "strip searches") probably lighting either permanently on or randomly used to destroy time awareness. There are other methods to be included, and at a "key" break point, a "counsellor/handler will whisper sweet nothings in hear ear to control her way of thinking ( I am NOT a specialist in Brainwashing, but the outline of what she suffered, means that she will always repeat what she has been told to say.) Real Brainwashing from the cold war era .

Red Ryder , Dec 21, 2018 5:09:03 PM | link
b's statement regarding Turkey: "Its army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties and financial resources."

During the entire war, Turkey's army has done not so much and not so well. Manbij, Afrin, and where else? Well before the US presence with bases, the Turks could not hold their border region from the Kurds.

They cannot impact deep anywhere. Their AF is not even as effective as Syria's, yet it is a much better, more advanced arm of the military. It's special forces?

They are used to doing what NATO and US troops do. They murder civilians and massacre opposition. They did little against ISIS which was a very fierce, mobile and effective military.

They do have logistical advantage and can move heavy weapons for a siege. But they are a set piece land force.

The Kurds also are quite overrated.

Erdogan knows that the notion of him holding the East is a pipedream. His FSA allies are the weakest lot in Syria.
His real fighters are those in Idlib, al Nusra and the Uyghurs.

If he intends to hold land the US has marked out in the North-east and East, he will have to move the headchoppers.
The Russians will annihilate them if they cross the zones in Idlib.

With the US vacuum the Syrians, Hezbollah, Quds, Iranian militias and the Russians will complete the war.

The French and Brits say they are staying. They should write their Last Will letters. They will be shot out of the sky and incinerated on the ground. Folly.

The pullouts from Syria and Afghanistan are severe blows to NATO as hegemonic shock troops.
This time next year we will hear and see how Russia won and NATO is gone from Eurasia.

This is also an object lesson to those nations on Russia's periphery who are flirting with the US, EU and NATO. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan will have to recalculate.


Grieved , Dec 21, 2018 5:14:15 PM | link
@b

I think we will see many more updates such as this one, showing us who's pushing back, who's wavering, and who's simply blowing hot air. I could wish for better sources of the back story than AP and Reuters, but we must wait for better analysis I think. I'm sure I'll see it here first - thanks for your continued vigilance.

Meanwhile my guesses are that Trump holds the longest knife and will prevail in this course. And that Erdogan is not faltering as the Reuters report implies, but is simply letting players and forces adjust to the new situation. And that, regardless of the details on the ground, the US flag has been struck in Syria, irreversibly. This is a geopolitical milestone, and everything now changes from this.

mls , Dec 21, 2018 5:17:11 PM | link
@35 It has been my understanding that while the Russian forces have stepped up their air defense systems the Americans still fly freely to the north-east of the Euphrates and have not hesitated to attack SAA forces who came close to their proxies on the ground, as well as attacking the SAA when they moved toward the U.S. base at al-Tanf. If the U.S. really does evacuate their troops it will be interesting to see if they discontinue their air movements over the eastern bank of the Euphrates. mls
Sasha , Dec 21, 2018 5:19:12 PM | link
Almost all ISIS inmates left in Syria are from abroad (they had been released from Libyan, Afghan, Iraqi prisons en mass at the beginning of the war and are ready for relocation?

Who founded (USrael?) ISIS and made them lose water and oil rich territories in Syria to the PKK/YPG/SDF and what are they planning to do now?

Posted by: ConfusedPundit | Dec 21, 2018 3:05:43 PM | 23

Terrorice Europe?

Two Scandinavian backpackers hacked to death in Morocco, mother spammed with gruesome images

Sasha , Dec 21, 2018 5:35:59 PM | link
But how this "withdrawal" holds when new equipment is arriving to US bases in Syria?

US reinforces new base in Syria despite announcement of withdrawal

Schmoe , Dec 21, 2018 5:40:34 PM | link
@ Kadath 39
As respects Rachel Mad Cow,MSNBC has been reading from the neo-con playbook for several years now. Pre-Iraq War,Chris Matthews was vehemently against it, but in my limited recent viewership they are silent on Syria in general. They did however have a one hour special by Richard Engle which was essentially an hour of showing the carnage and saying "look what Assad did". It was even more absurd than Fox's islamaphobic specials they ran a few times. Truly pathetic and it feels like MSNBC is hewing to the HRC model "of no one can criticize me fro the right on "national security".
james , Dec 21, 2018 5:41:33 PM | link
emptywheel is suggesting tom cotton as a replacement for mattis.. this is the first time i can recall ew
james , Dec 21, 2018 5:43:43 PM | link
my comment was chopped off... first time i can recall ew writing on foreign policy! at any rate, skip the ew comment section, as the folks at ew can completely in denial about the role the democrats have played in bringing the usa to this point in time... read @35 kadath post for greater clarity on that...
BRF , Dec 21, 2018 5:50:37 PM | link
Too many "old men who think in terms of nation states and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There is only the Federal Reserve, the BIS, IMF, WB, WTO and an entourage of multinational corporations all inextricably inter associated." as redux of Ned Beatty's soliloquy from the film Network.

These pesky wars, as one front of many fronts, are getting in the way of NWO timing. The world's major central banks are now involved in quantitative tightening and much of the liquidity that was handed out as loans will now disappear and the debt trap will now be sprung on many 'nation states' as it was in Greece. Turkey's major industries owe about 300 Billion. This while the Lira drops ever lower in relation to the Fed Reserve Note, euphemistically the USD, and will be hard pressed to pay back the less abundant, higher valued amounts at the higher interest rates of the FRN's borrowed. War, with very real deaths, continues but on another front and Trump as the front figure is the main conductor of this coming war.

Piotr Berman , Dec 21, 2018 5:51:32 PM | link
When David Ignatius reported that Mattis's bedtime reading was Marcus Aurelius in the original Latin, who was responsible for the mistake? (Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek.) Ignatius, an aide of Mattis's, or Mattis himself?

Posted by: lysias | Dec 21, 2018 1:54:56 PM | 9

Explanation from an aide of Mattis: the General purchased the volume while visiting Latin America, so he always assumed that it is in Latin.

Sasha , Dec 21, 2018 5:55:53 PM | link
What theis "withdrawal" is about....To continue causing turmoil in Syria so as to impede its rebuilt and return to peaceful normal life...This is why Israel has not said a word....

US pullout from Syria result of secret deal with Turkey, says expert

Lochearn , Dec 21, 2018 6:03:22 PM | link
I have been away in the Scottish wilderness for a while, cut off from everything, so it with somewhat jaded joy that I come back to stunning news from this unfailingly brilliant place to hear the latest (US getting out of Syria, Mattis out, Macron on fire, Britain in an existential crisis the like of which I have neither seen nor read about).

Like a schoolkid who has absented themselves I venture back into the classroom to take my little seat, all the while carrying with me audio of howling winds and the low whistle of a friend who came to visit, an Irish instrument that so resembles native American flutes. In this Highland cabin I filled the stove with ash and oak and beech, listened to the haunting sound of the low whistle and drank whisky as I watched the snow drift down.

Sasha , Dec 21, 2018 6:12:53 PM | link
The SDF (Which incorporates some turncoat ISIS members, which partly explains why there has only been slow "progress" against the last ISIS enclave in Eastern Syria, brother against ex-brother), also contains foreign mercenaries from various sources.

Posted by: stonebird | Dec 21, 2018 4:48:40 PM | 40

This is why they wear masks/balaclavas....the same way they used to do on Iraq....

US-supported militias in eastern Syria take Hayin

Peter Grafström , Dec 21, 2018 6:14:19 PM | link
Josh on #35 hints at an explanation for Trumps action which is confirmed by a romanian military expert in the article http://www.voltairenet.org/article204433.html
Assuming that analysis is correct, Trumps military associates like Mattis must have known but was apparently more willing to risk american casualties.
Pft , Dec 21, 2018 6:49:31 PM | link
So the past 2 years of bombing and support for bombing and special forces operations in Syria, Yemen, Africa, Afghanistan and of course the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians in Israel is blamed on Trumps aids, all of whom he hired.

Whenever something positive comes out (and Trump has said he was done in Syria before only to be followed later by a barrage of missiles due to outrage over the poor babies killed in the CW attack blamed on Assad) its presented as Trump heroically goes against his aids advice and does right.

This is a common theme in MSM and almost all of the alt media now. Trumps swamp included Bolton, Barr, Devos, Pompeo, Mnuchkin, Acosta, Haspel, Ross, Mulvaney, Kushner, Pruit, Mattis. Blame them instead of the guy who hired them and has authority over them. Right.

Piotr Berman , Dec 21, 2018 6:55:08 PM | link
I have been away in the Scottish wilderness for a while, cut off from everything,
Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 21, 2018 6:03:22 PM | 51

I once spent a week in Glen Lyon which is not cut off from anything, there is a paved road (one-lane for two way traffic, only in Scotland!) and Royal Mail operated, but these days young people complain when there is no cell phone reception, there was a land line but our niece was could not send any pics and texts to her boyfriend. Thus she very eagerly joined me for a hike and after ascending 1000 m and getting the view of Loch Tay she immediately texted etc. But something is brewing outside quiet glens: [video of parliamentary session] The defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, says the UK will have 3,500 service personnel on standby 'to support any government department on any contingencies they may need'

Watch the situation, Lochearn, and if needed, run back to the hills.

karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 7:03:00 PM | link
financial matters @33--

Thanks for your reply with its post-2016 info! I returned to following domestic happenings a few months prior to the 2018 election and was surprised by the gumption of the new Freshman class. There was lots of negative speculation about how AOC would become a sellout, but I'm impressed and added her twitter to my ever lengthening list. The first 2020 polls have appeared with the narrative being Biden over washed up Sanders, but the reality is the opposite. Wife and I had a dinner table discussion about that and related matters last night from the frame of Media Truth from Putin's meeting I posted. There's an ideological divide within the USA; but as AOC notes in this very informative* twitter thread :

"People are starting to realize our issues aren't left and right, but top and bottom.

"And the just solutions will come from the bottom-up."

*--Informative due to the immoral hatred revealed, which unfortunately validates my references to Monopoly philosophy and Zerosumism. Scrooge was tame in comparison.

hopehely , Dec 21, 2018 7:11:55 PM | link
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 21, 2018 5:51:32 PM | 49

Explanation from an aide of Mattis: the General purchased the volume while visiting Latin America, so he always assumed that it is in Latin.
Or in Latin American...
And it wasn't bedtime reading but bathroom reading.

karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 7:37:52 PM | link
stonebird @40--

Fortunately, the stock markets are not the economy. Trump campaigned on MAGA; the Green New Deal makes MAGA possible and as the polling I linked to shows is popular across political lines--the people know something must be done. Currently, it's the D Party Old Guard standing in the way doing R Party work. When it comes to the traditional definitions of national security and national interest, Trump was correct to say MAGA is a matter of national security. Too many Trillions have already been wasted, and we within the USA cannot afford any more of those mistakes from the past as the margin for success gets thinner daily. When I compare the directions of China, Russia and USA, the former two are rising by attaining their planned national goals, while the USA drops downward thanks to directionless policy that only supports the greed of the greedy. I know its much better for an individual to be a poor worker in China than a poor worker in the state of Georgia and too many other places--very few opportunities and almost no social support very similar to the Great Depression; but nowadays, you can't even hop a freight to go somewhere else as was possible in the '30s.

Red Ryder , Dec 21, 2018 7:38:55 PM | link
Apparently, Mattis bought the book for the illustrations.

Latin America speaks Spanish and Portuguese not Latin American, which is not a language.
Plus, there are secondary languages of indigenous people, and tertiary languages like German and Italian, Japanese and Chinese as well as English.

From the "story" about Mattis, I think it is laughable. He pretended his whole life to be a Patton.
Read their career stories and it is a joke that Mattis had four-stars, as did Patton.

bjd , Dec 21, 2018 7:42:17 PM | link
The only reading generals do is Macchhiavelli, Von Clausewitz and Superman
O yeah -- and the bible, these days.
karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 8:25:24 PM | link
Comic Relief courtesy of the UK government :

"UK government refuses to release the documents on its 'counter-disinformation' programme linked to the Integrity Initiative. Because (don't laugh now), it could 'undermine the programme's effectiveness'."

Craig Murray has an update on the affair--all the documents provided by Anonymous have proven genuine.

Jen , Dec 21, 2018 8:45:15 PM | link
Lysias, Piotr B, Hopehely, Red Ryder & others:

Maybe Mattis bought the book for interior decoration. It makes his coffee table look good. What language it's in is irrelevant.

snedly arkus , Dec 21, 2018 8:49:46 PM | link
Where is the evidence of widespread support for a green new deal as pushed by a couple of people here. A poll of 966 people sorted by whether or not they are voters does not mean there is widespread support. As in most polls claiming whatever we do not know the questions that were asked or how they were framed. Thus they could have said "would you be for a new green deal if it energized the economy bringing riches to all and extremely cheap rates on power would you be for it." Until we know the full extent of this poll it's a nothing burger pushing an agenda.
psychohistorian , Dec 21, 2018 9:00:16 PM | link
@ financial matters # 33 with the link to the Green New Deal....thanks

The problem with the GND is that it does not seem to address the underlying fact that private finance makes all investment decisions. If they evolve to understand that, they can do all they want if it is within the public government plans for investment.

If the government controlled finance instead of the private folk I would expect there to be public input to/(control over) investment decisions.....just like the GND folks are pushing for but in a more comprehensive context and manner.

Piotr Berman , Dec 21, 2018 9:02:39 PM | link
The only reading generals do is Macchhiavelli, Von Clausewitz and Superman
O yeah -- and the bible, these days.
Posted by: bjd | Dec 21, 2018 7:42:17 PM | 60

A general slurps macchiato while reading The Prince of Niccolò Machiavelli.

In the history of my country there is a nice episode when one of the main generals was rousing the units before the critical battle that actually went well "In loco, spes in virtute, salus in victoria" - Here, the (only) hope (lies) in bravery, salvation in victory, which quotes Ceasar's De Bello Gallico. . Sadly, while the battle was brilliant, the war was not. Nevertheless, I would recommend Ceasar.

Ceasar was victorious, so he should be balanced with History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucidites. A terrible was in which one side lost terribly, while the other succumbed to hubris, imposed painful domination on all and sundry to be irreversibly defeated one generation after. Woe to the defeated, but the victors should be careful too.

The story of "Woe to the defeated", Vae victis , is interested too. Romans were treated mercilessly by victorious (unmitigated?) Gauls, but then see De Bello Gallico above.

Don Bacon , Dec 21, 2018 9:04:06 PM | link
Five unforgettable quotes by the killer, James Mattis (He will be missed?):
>1. 'It's quite fun to shoot them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people.'
>2. 'There are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.'
>3. 'I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all.'
>4. 'Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.'
>5. 'There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I don't think you do.'. . . here

Don't let the door hit ya, Jimbo.
karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 9:07:15 PM | link
63--

You sound just like an D Party hack doing the work of the R Party. Must pay good.

psychohistorian , Dec 21, 2018 9:10:22 PM | link
I am sure getting tired of entering my personal info each time I post a comment because the remember doesn't work...

@ karlof1 with
"
"UK government refuses to release the documents on its 'counter-disinformation' programme linked to the Integrity Initiative. Because (don't laugh now), it could 'undermine the programme's effectiveness'."
"

They are lying through there teeth. The real problem for them is that some could end up in jail, and rightfully so. We can only hope that they take the City of London down with them.

What is their long term plan for containing the IntegrityNOTInitiative scandal? The house of cards seems to be falling and now is when we hope that the losers love their children enough to not takes us to extinction with their pride.

karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 9:12:46 PM | link
psychohistorian @64--

It appears more people are aware of such a threat as this article notes . Pelosi's unfortunately a whore of the sort needing pasteurization, along with Feinstein.

karlof1 , Dec 21, 2018 9:17:58 PM | link
Don Bacon @66--

Mattis makes the fictional Hannibal Lecter a Prince of Peace by comparison. The end of February can't come soon enough.

hopehely , Dec 21, 2018 9:31:18 PM | link
Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 21, 2018 9:04:06 PM | 66
Five unforgettable quotes by the killer, James Mattis ...
Yep, the influence of Marcus Aurelius is all over him. Through and through.
True philosopher general indeed.
Pft , Dec 21, 2018 9:35:07 PM | link
The problem with the GND being discussed here is in the Green. Any New Deal that starts with a false premise and bad science is a bad idea IMO.

That said, a New Deal that incorporates Ellen Browns and Edison/Fords ideas on public financing I am all for. Goals should be universal health care, guaranteed income and housing, vast infrastructure projects and alternative energy development. The latter two should be green in the sense of nonpolluting (Co2 is not a pollutant). Jobs are fine but with automation, AI, and robotics lets face it, a world where most people dont work except as a hobby or to live better than others is coming, as my old science teacher predicted with envy over 50 years ago. The neomalthusians and transhumanists have other ideas.

I would also devote massive resources for researching the safety of GMO , vaccines and medicines as well as upgrading climate monitoring and climate research since climate does change and we have so little understanding of it. Climate measurements are indadequate (number of weather stations in US have dropped by a factor of 3 since climate became a thing and quality is a key concern. This research needs to be free of influence from parties having an agenda (political and financial). Good luck with that.

Kooshy , Dec 21, 2018 9:54:32 PM | link
Mattis is a coward, he knows the American efforts in Syria has failed, and will go nowhere. So for him this was a great excuse and a good uportunity to resign and not share the blame for failure of his past advise and insistence to continue a lost effort. Now all the blames for loosing in Syria will go to Trump. The blame game has already started coming out of MSM and the DC swamp (you read sewer).
ben , Dec 21, 2018 9:56:02 PM | link
Seems as though we've heard this "withdrawal" meme before. We'll see.

IMO, the key to ME peace is STILL based on liberty and justice for the Palestinian people.

Heard some noise about "The green new deal". This from The Nation magazine;

https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-green-new-deal/

psychohistorian , Dec 21, 2018 10:00:12 PM | link
@ pft will the great follow on the the GND proposal

I want to add a data point to the universal health care initiative.

Because we are a society wedded to the profit motive we put it between the client and the health care provider and worse only promote "therapies" that make a profit. Let me provide my personal proof of that statement.

This week, after a 12 year journey, I can state that I have healed myself (with help) from a traumatic brain injury using neurofeedback. Neurofeedback in a non-drug, non-invasive EEG based therapy based on the mental health brain paradigm of dis-regulated neural networks. The world of Big Pharma does not want to see neurofeedback advance because it will eliminate most of them.

Some on MoA have read me writing about this before and I will do so more in some future Open Thread.....when the dust settles a bit.

Yeah, Right , Dec 21, 2018 10:01:41 PM | link
@1 Isn't it obvious? US forces are there to support the Kurdish forces. Training, supplying, and a little moral "stiffening".

But Turkisk forces would go in with the aim of defeating those Kurds, and then suppressing the local pop in. That requires an order of magnitude more troops.

Don Bacon , Dec 21, 2018 10:17:15 PM | link
One think-tanker expects problems with troop morale, which by the way was the killer that ended the stupid Vietnam War.
Trump's sudden decisions to drawdown troops in Syria and Afghanistan that sparked Mattis' resignation marked for perhaps the first time in American history the departure of a defense secretary in protest and adds to the overall unease that remains, experts said.
"I think it adds to a feeling that in some sense the wheels are beginning to come off of American foreign policy and national security policy," said John Hannah, a senior counselor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute on foreign policy and national security in Washington.
Hannah said he thinks the Mattis resignation will inevitably affect troop morale . . . . here

That's a good thing.
Circe , Dec 21, 2018 11:01:47 PM | link
@47

Tom Cotton is a rabid hawk especially on Iran. If Trump choses him then this will signal what Trump meant by the next phase of the campaign after he announced a withdrawal from Syria.

I read General Jack Keane was in the running but he doesn't want the job.

That leaves Lindsey Graham and David Petraeus. Both of these might be willing to take the job, but I see Trump picking Petraeus over Graham, although Graham just visited the troops in Afghanistan; maybe he's sending a subtle hint to Trump.

If it's Cotton, we should brace ourselves for escalation with Iran.

Pft , Dec 21, 2018 11:19:21 PM | link
Yeah Right@76

Well there are 50K Al Nusra fighters in Idlib that Russia and Syria want out of there and Turkey is protecting. Maybe they will be on the move soon to deal with the Kurds in the NE once the US pulls out. US can pretend ignorance and then step back in again under the cover of stabilizing the region with replacement for the kurds to use against Assad and protect assets in the NE. Everyone except the Kurds is happy, almost.

Kadath , Dec 21, 2018 11:24:12 PM | link
@46, Schmoe

Further to your point about MSNBC, I just watched Michael Moore on MSNBC being interviewed by Ali Velshi and Moore was actually advocating that the troops stay in Syria and blamed Putin for ordering Trump to do this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0SP7puk8f8) - words fail..... Michael Moore, the Anti-Iraq war activist, the Occupy Wall Street advocate, the Anti-Imperialist, has reached the terminal phase of his Trump Derangement Syndrome. His irrational hatred of Trump has just driven him to torch all of his prior Anti-War work; to betray every speech, every millimeter of film he's ever made all because he hates Trump that much and everything he has previously done can be jettisoned if it furthers this new goal.

Ugh... Is he doing this all for the money he can glean from the mainstream Media by being even more extreme than them, was he always this shallow and empty? This is what I just cant get over, do these jackanapes not understand that their words and behaviours are being recorded and people will remember it, it will haunt their futures and taint their legacies. Hating Trump is one thing (there is certainly no shortage of reasons to hate him), but I'm rethinking my entire interpretation of Moore and his career because of these constant, irrationally hateful and extreme statements. Michael Moore, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Rachal Maddow and Stephen Colbert can play to the crowd for now, but once Trump's term ends people will never be able to take them seriously as public figures again because of all of their delusional tirades while Trump was in office.

Pft , Dec 21, 2018 11:30:32 PM | link
Don Bacon@77

Troop moral today is far different than Vietnam. Reason in no order of importance

1. Well paid volunteer army, well trained with skills transferrable to private sector
2. Limited tour length, long paid breaks between tours
3. Skype/internet access on tours to stay in touch with family firiends
4. Contractors to do much of the dirty work
5. Military glorification at home treats them as heros and plenty of discounts
6. Far fewer casualties
7. Great benefits once the leave miliitary (loans, paid university transferrable)
8. Tax benfits for companies hiring vets helps them in job market

The main negative with fewer troops in Syria or Afghanistan means there are fewer tours which means less money.

I expect they will be deployed elsewhere. Where is the big question. Like you say, moral not an issue


flayer , Dec 21, 2018 11:34:45 PM | link
RE: Posted by: Pft | Dec 21, 2018 11:30:32 PM | 81

This is why you should never "thank them for their service." They're selfish and/or deluded pricks. Not heroes. It's a scam from start to finish.

Peter AU 1 , Dec 21, 2018 11:48:20 PM | link
Kadath 80 "do these jackanapes not understand that their words and behaviours are being recorded and people will remember it"
The average person that watches MSM have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to politics.

"His irrational hatred of Trump has just driven him to torch all of his prior Anti-War work"
Most that make it in politics or entertainment go with the flow - whatever will further their career. Empty people. I don't know this Michael Moor, but sounds lie he is one of this type.

telescope , Dec 21, 2018 11:48:22 PM | link
People like Lindsey Graham simply cannot comprehend that USA is in fact a demolished country, with its last leg - the stock market - getting cut off in real time, as we speak. The implications of American equity markets collapse are momentous. The relentless year-end selling means that government revenues will be drastically reduced, by at least couple hundred billion dollars, driving US budget deficit to well in excess of $1.2T in current fiscal year. And that's in a benign case. If America slips in a recession, and has to resort to fiscal stimulus, we are talking about $1.5-2T budget shortfall. Add quickly deteriorating demographics, and "japanisation" of the USA is all but inevitable (and yes, US financial system is a dead man walking)
Trump, although not the brightest bulb, is infinitely smarter than Grahams, Rubios and Cottons of the world. He knows that it's much better to withdraw on what looks like own accord now, than being kicked out in the most disgraceful fashion upon the passage of time. Or even worse, having your troops marooned in the troubled region without any prospect of being extricated, unless on the most humiliating terms.
Whether Trump succeeds or fails in returning the troops home is irrelevant at this point. They are coming home anyway. The only question remaining is not if but when, and how.
Pft , Dec 21, 2018 11:57:14 PM | link
Bolton announces Trumps Africa strategy

https://thehill.com/policy/international/421179-bolton-warns-russia-china-threaten-us-in-africa

The Cebrowski plan for Latin America

http://www.voltairenet.org/article204400.html

Maybe Trump is diversyfing, scaling down in the The Middle East (a lots been accomplished already) and ramp up efforts in Africa and Latin America to counter BRICS

Pft , Dec 22, 2018 12:00:04 AM | link
Meant "diversifying". Spell check hasnt been working well here since i upgraded to ios12
once and future , Dec 22, 2018 12:20:01 AM | link
Thanks, b.

stonebird @40
OT (apologies) Can you help with the evidence that Maria Butina was subjected to these abuses while in solitary?

ben , Dec 22, 2018 12:45:15 AM | link
@ 80: Yes, agreed, my impressions on MM will change. Too bad really, that people sacrifice their credibility, based on blind hatred.

I'm speaking only of MM, the rest lost their credibility, IMO, long ago..

james , Dec 22, 2018 12:50:40 AM | link
@87 once and future... first off i want to thank stonebird for there comments on this topic.. solitary confinement is inhumane.. that the usa is keen to use it in all sorts of circumstances, is a reflection of their abu ghraib, guantanemo mentality... solitary confinement is more of the same.. in a civilized world it would never be allowed to be done... but this is more exceptional nation stuff from the exceptional nation and what the world has come to expect from a country that preaches one thing while practicing something completely different..

80 kadath... michael moore has really fallen... i was unaware of this and am not tapped into the usa msm to be able to follow.. in fact, it is so depressing i have no interest in following much of anything coming out of the usa at this point...

@78 circe.. another name mentioned was this tulsi gabbard from hawaii.. i doubt it very much... the usa continues to fly way off the rails...

what is especially telling is the response from the usa on trumps decision here... caitin johnstone has a good overview on this..
Endless War Has Been Normalized And Everyone Is Crazy

karlof1 , Dec 22, 2018 1:10:40 AM | link
james @89 and others--

Michael Moore destroyed his credibility when he failed to denounce Obama for not jailing the Banksters and it's been downhill from there as it's been with so many of his ilk. Another case of money ruining youthful idealism. Caitlin's on a roll and deserves a much larger audience. The propagandizers have deluded themselves via their own machinations and are now going mad.

Albert Pike , Dec 22, 2018 1:11:24 AM | link
"there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops"... You can hear me laughing after reading this. The French empire was over a long long time ago and they still think that Syria is their colony. France has been sending French Jihadists for regime change in Syria since 2011 and their mission has failed since Russia intervened in 2015. France cannot even send troops to Mali - destabilized by Jihadists created by France in Libya to topple Kadhafi, without the help of the US!!! France is a de-facto vassal state of the US since they decided to joined the NATO central command under Sarkozy who was bribed by the zionist neocons.
Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 22, 2018 1:44:00 AM | link
...
US can pretend ignorance and then step back in again under the cover of stabilizing the region with replacement for the kurds to use against Assad and protect assets in the NE. Everyone except the Kurds is happy, almost.
Posted by: Pft | Dec 21, 2018 11:19:21 PM | 79

I think you're right. And I hope so, too...
The Yanks should be counting their blessings. I thought it was extraordinarily generous of Putin to agree with Donald that "the US beat ISIS in Syria" considering how half-assed/limp-wristed their anti-ISIS actions were in comparison with Russia's 100+ sorties per day 24/7 for many months.
Imo, if the Yanks dream up another excuse to go back into Syria, Putin will caution against it and then make sure that none of them get out alive.

Blooming Barricade , Dec 22, 2018 2:07:30 AM | link
I personally distinguish between Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and his move to withdraw partially from Afghanistan. The latter is a step towards ending a brutal, illegal NATO occupation war of over 17 years. The former is also illegal but the Syrian Kurds (left wing and largely communist) are likely to be supplanted as counters to "Iran" by fascists Turkey and Israel (this has been confirmed in reports), so we're moving from tactical NATO proxies to actual NATO governments seizing Syrian land.

All of that being said, both are policy decisions that should be able to be debated freely. I can totally see why many on the anti-imperialist left welcome the decision to withdraw from Syria, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to them. It the US and international media response has been horrific.

The New York Times and Guardian are basically now neconservative papers indistinguishable from the Wall Steet Journal and Daily Telegraph. Not a word of dissent is even remotely allowed or involved. The Blob has totally taken over the entirety of the liberal global establishment which sees Trump's move as "treasonous." Not looking forward to 2020 when Democrats will run on identical foreign policy platforms to Mitt Romney.

Circe , Dec 22, 2018 2:15:25 AM | link
@80

Not sure if you watched when Michael Moore received the Oscar for Farenheit 9/11. Let's remember he was addressing the top elite Liberal crowd and got booed. What is it they say about prophets in their own land? Oh yeah, Jesus said: A prophet is without honor in his own country.

I actually have some sympathy for Michael Moore. Aside from being a major critic of the Bush Administration, Michael Moore was also very critical of Obama, and Hillary and was lambasted by liberal centrists and neolibs. He was considered part of the radical left and despite the success of his documentaries, he continued to be marginalized and never received the respect he deserved. In 2015, Moore was supporting Bernie Sanders, but when Bernie was railroaded, Moore who couldn't see himself voting for a Republican ever, especially a depraved billionaire whom he rightly viewed as Chaos personified felt that Hillary was the lesser evil, and from there found the respect that had been denied to him by his own side and especially after he predicted Hillary was about to lose despite the polls and Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would deny her the Presidency. From the day his prediction materialized Democrats were in awe of his perception. Since then he exchanged integrity for their respect. The Michael Moore of 2003 would never criticize military de-escalation.

However, Moore recently released a new documentary Farenheit 11/9 wherein apparently he's critical of Democrats whom he blames for the rise of Trump.

So don't be too hard on Moore who was an outcast in liberal country for too long. Once you've earned the respect of your own and the mainstream it's not so easy to speak your truth anymore. Thanks to Trump and the Dems, Moore has been temporarily altered. But you're right, he'll look back with regret on this Syria opinion.

I can't stand Trump either, but I agree that getting out of Syria and de-escalating is a good thing...IF in fact that's what he's really up to.

Circe , Dec 22, 2018 2:20:02 AM | link
JR might be interested to know that Michael Moore believes that Hillary handed Trump the Presidency.
b , Dec 22, 2018 2:23:14 AM | link
Bolton's Hawkish Syria Plan Backfired, Pushing Trump to Get Out

The national security adviser expanded U.S. goals in Syria to challenge Iran. But Trump wasn't on board, senior officials say, and Turkey took an opportunity to push the U.S. out.

Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 22, 2018 2:26:43 AM | link
...
Most that make it in politics or entertainment go with the flow - whatever will further their career. Empty people. I don't know this Michael Moor, but sounds lie he is one of this type.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Dec 21, 2018 11:48:20 PM | 83

Michael Moore has produced some brilliant anti-establishment docos focusing on gun-control (Bowling for Columbine), the US healthcare rort, the sub-prime scam, and the absence of socio-economic well-being in AmeriKKKa (Where To Invade Next?).
I'm hoping that Kadath @ #80 is kidding, but he's right about Moore being rabidly anti-Trump from the get-go.

Peter AU 1 , Dec 22, 2018 2:37:58 AM | link
Geo-political chess. Russia, Turkey, Iran have called check and Trump is moving his pieces accordingly. I think he will pull the US out of Syria. Seems he is not as blinded by his hatred of Iran as his appointees.
psychohistorian , Dec 22, 2018 2:47:28 AM | link
@ b with the link about Bolton

So, does this mean that Bolton should or will resign?

I thought the update of the linked article with the statement about the Kurds from the White House official was interesting: ""They've done the majority of the fighting against ISIS in Syria," one U.S. official said. "How do you treat a partner like this?""

[Dec 22, 2018] Why Trump Decided To Remove U.S. Troops From Syria

Notable quotes:
"... I really want to be naive and think Trump left Syria for good but no, US never leaves Israel alone specially now that Iran is present in Syria with only one intention, to threaten Israel. I believe US pulling out of Syria is bad news for Iranians, maybe he finally wants to bomb the hell out of Iran? I'm John Bolton would love it. ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zico , Dec 20, 2018 9:14:59 AM | link

Last Friday President Trump had another long phone call with the Turkish President Erdogan. Thereafter he overruled all his advisors and decided to remove the U.S. boots from Syria and to also end the air war .

This was the first time Trump took a decisive stand against the borg , the permanent neoconservative and interventionist establishment in his administration, the military and congress, that usually dictates U.S. foreign policy.

It was this decision, and that he stuck to it, which finally made him presidential.

Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton, his Secretary of Defense 'mad dog' Mattis and his Secretary of State Pompeo were all against this decision. The specialist working on Syria, the lunatic (vid) special representative for Syria engagement James Jefferey and Brett McGurk, the special presidential envoy for the global coalition to defeat ISIS, were taken by surprise. They had worked diligently to install a permanent U.S. presence in a Kurdish ruled proxy state in northeast Syria.

While these people first tried to change Trump's decision, their resistance has now ceased :

Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton met Monday, when Trump was said to formally decide on a US withdrawal from Syria. Multiple US officials argued against an abrupt US withdrawal, but were said to have given up trying to get Trump to change his mind by Tuesday night . US officials began to notify allies of the decision Tuesday.

"The push back from DOD, State and NSC stopped [Tuesday] night," said one regional expert who consults with the US administration, referring to the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Security Council.


Back in January we already explained why the neoconservative project of a Kurdish proxy state in northeast Syria was doomed from its start:

Ilhan tanir @WashingtonPoint - 7:50 PM - 24 Jan 2018
This map being discussed all day on Turkish TVs as Turkey's planned security zone/safe zone on Syria border.
Reportedly OK'ed by Sec.Tillerson though nobody on the American side confirms it
Trump is a businessman. He sees only profit/loss. Why should America bare the burden of occupying a hostile place and protected "Kurdish" interest?

I suspect the Northern Syria project was meant to be paid for by the Saudis/Persian Gulf Arabs Sheikhs. But after the Kashoggi fiasco, the Saudis felt betrayed by the US and stopped the cash flow. So Trump said, "fuck it, I'm out".

Any US action in the region is to a large extend, directly/indirectly for the benefit of Israel - at least from the neocon's pov.

donkeytale , Dec 20, 2018 9:25:24 AM | link

Erdogan holds all the cards in the Syria machinations as I stated back when he clearly put his foot down against the Idleb attack.

Putin isn't going to sacrifice Russia's relations with Turkey simply to let his little lapdog Assad pretend to be in control of all of Syria.

Trump needs victories in the new congressional term and his only hope is to start playing ball with the Demotards and try to affect stuff that is truly populist.

Cutting out of Syria is one small opening step if he actually follows through. Giving up his wall fantasy and building roads and bridges instead would be another.

b4real , Dec 20, 2018 9:48:15 AM | link
Trump is not that smart.

He is pulling troops out because it is an Obama war and he is intent on removing any trace of an Obama legacy.

He is also trapped. The only thing keeping him from the inside of a courtroom is the presidency. He can pardon federal crimes, but the NY Attorney general is deep into his finances and his entire family is being threatened. It is a battle between oligarchs who in another age were called carpet baggers as they try to strip everything of value from U.S.A. before the collapse of the economy or they manage to provoke Russia or China to respond militarily.

It was an Obama mistake to try and overthrow Syria, and remember, Hillary was wanting to Libya it with another no-fly zone, (so little imagination) which would likely have led to usa/russia conflict.

This is a well written and researched article, but to suggest that Trump is intentionally doing the smart thing is a little hard for me to believe.

b4real

Circe , Dec 20, 2018 10:11:41 AM | link
That's a pretty nice dream scenario you laid out, and of course it makes perfect sense it should happen that way. However, I still don't get why the Russians have no clue as to what Trump means by the next phase of the campaign . I hope you're right on all this but with all the other bad decisions Trump's been making like covering MbS's butt and still supporting KSA on Yemen and catering to Zionist policy on Jerusalem and Iran, and keeping his son-in-law in charge of swindling the Palestinians, I just have to remain skeptical that there's not an even worse Plan B behind door no. 2. Let's be reminded that when Trump was still President-elect he went out of his way, even risking breaching the Logan Act, to scuttle a U.S.-supported Resolution put forth at the UNSC at the end of Obama's administration condemning Israeli settlement expansion.

Now, is that the act of a man sensible enough to embrace the wonderful, sensible plan you just laid out? I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

Somebody , Dec 20, 2018 10:29:27 AM | link
I really want to be naive and think Trump left Syria for good but no, US never leaves Israel alone specially now that Iran is present in Syria with only one intention, to threaten Israel. I believe US pulling out of Syria is bad news for Iranians, maybe he finally wants to bomb the hell out of Iran? I'm John Bolton would love it.
MarkU , Dec 20, 2018 10:41:15 AM | link
I will believe it when I see it, talk is cheap. The US was going to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq but it is still there. There is also plenty of time to arrange the next 'chemical attack' to create a pretext for staying.
WJ , Dec 20, 2018 10:53:38 AM | link
I agree with Circe @9 that the following sentence goes a bit too far:

"One hopes that he can expand on it by further decreasing the influence of Saudi Arabia and Israel on his policies."

Trump's biggest donor is an "Israel-first" billionaire and his most influential personal and presidential contacts are from the shadowy world of the Israel-Saudi alliance.

As to the comment quoted by Annette @4, I have never understood why criticisms launched more appropriately at Zionists are regularly directed by certain elements of the alt-right against "Jews." Not only is this practice factually imprecise and also bigoted, it serves to weaken the often legitimate points made against Israel and its influence by allowing others to dismiss them as motivated by anti-Semitism. It is the equivalent of criticizing the Saudi state ideology and using the word "Muslims" to do so, while including lots of cherry-picked quotes from the Koran and Wahhabist propagandists to paint as scary a picture of "Islam" or "Arabs" as possible. It's stupid and rhetorically counterproductive. It also is *exactly* what the Zionists want you to keep doing, as it only enables their self-interested conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. If you want to blame "the Jews" for all the problems in the world, just remember that your doing so in this language actually strengthens the position of the Zionists. And you may want to consider that at least *some* of these Jew-bashing critiques of Israel on sites like Unz and others are most certainly written by paid propagandists of the state of Israel.

Paul Damascene , Dec 20, 2018 10:58:38 AM | link
One can only hope the decision holds, but it's hard to exclude the possibility of a borg-staged false-flag provocation.
Jonathan H , Dec 20, 2018 11:03:49 AM | link
B,

I agree with B4real. I find it hard to believe Trump is capable of the thinking you attribute to him in the second of the following two paragraphs - the first paragraph, yes; the second includes nuanced and informed thinking that IMO is beyond his capability.

Paragraphs #1: Trump never wanted that project to proceed. He had always wanted to declare victory against ISIS and leave. It was the borg that tried to prevent this and which push the project along.

Paragraph #2: But there are bigger geopolitical fish to fry than such meddling in the Middle East. Trump knows that the United States' 'unilateral moment' after the demise of the Soviet Union, which left the U.S. was the sole superpower, is over. Russia is back and China is rising. [up through this sentence I can believe that "Trump know it" but not what follows, i.e.:]
Trump's policy to adopt to the decreasing U.S. power is to end the 'globalization' that allowed for China's rapid rise. He wants to geopolitical split this world into two influence spheres. These will be separate from each other in the political, economic, technological and military realms.

Jonathan H

Passer by , Dec 20, 2018 11:03:53 AM | link
"It is quite refreshing to see that Trump was finally able to liberate himself from the dictate of the borg."

From the jewish borg, yes, but not from the military/NATO/EU/geopolitical borg, those who want to rule the world as an Atlantic Empire. And this is even more dangerous.

"Trump decided that to prevent Turkey from leaving NATO, and from joining a deeper alliance with Russia, China and Iran, was more important than to further fool around at the margins of the Middle East. It is the right decision."

What kind of strategists are you? Actually it would have been better for the world if the US and Turkey had a major conflict. That would have destroyed NATO as we know it and would weaken the Atlantic Empire considerably.

Do you know what the way for weakening the US is? Israel and the Zionists.
You should tacitly support them as they will bog down the US in the Middle East, cause muslim anti-americanism, and weaken the Atlantic Empire on the Russian and the Chinese fronts. The Iranian issue again always causes splits between the EU and the US as well.

Russia should actually covertly support AIPAC in the US. No better way of weakening the US. Have you ever thought about it?

james , Dec 20, 2018 11:06:00 AM | link
thanks b... i think the issue of turkey is very big to all this, but i think you might be discounting the ability of those intent on screwing trump, succeeding in doing so... for trump to finally achieve one of his election promises looks positive on the surface... why is it, it took him this long? i am not convinced, but happy it is moving in this direction...

turkey staying onside with the usa doesn't look like a done deal to me either... again, i think we have to wait and see how this unfolds.. i would be concerned about trump hanging onto power at this point.. there are a lot of interests that run contrary to him here..

bevin , Dec 20, 2018 11:11:04 AM | link
The great strength of this analysis and the blog in general is that 'b' never falls into the error of accepting that the US, and its faction riven government, is all powerful and hegemonic.
The US government not only makes stupid mistakes- look at Afghanistan- which not all the money and purchased PR in the world can compensate for, but regularly suffers defeats obvious to anyone who isn't watching the Victory parades on TV.

Many commenters labour under the misapprehension that the neo-cons are clever strategists. In Washington politics they may be but in the wider world they are as incompetent as the slaves of an idiotic ideology always are: they greatly over estimate their own abilities and those of the US forces. They spend their lives reading their own publicity.
All that they can do is bring misery to other countries and increase it in their own. The record is very clear.
Iraq is a mess and it certainly isn't, either economically or strategically, a feather in Washington's cap. The same is true of Afghanistan after 17 years in which dozens of countries, directed by the supposedly unbeatable US forces, are in the position of sharing control of about a quarter of the land with friendly dope dealers.
Sudan, Somalia and Libya are similar, in each case the US would have been much better off if it had left these places alone and relied upon its diplomatic and economic weight to influence their governments. The same is true of Iran and, indeed, Russia where neo-con aggression has forced governments into permanent and implacable opposition.
Ukraine is another strategic disaster for the US, with the added twist that it seems fair set to break NATO up by forcing European nations to choose-as b notes above-the US economic sphere. Or LNG, from rapidly declining fracking wells, over piped natural gas from the biggest, cheapest and deepest gas reserves on the planet.
And it really doesn't matter to the Eurasian sellers whether Europe buys the gas or not: if it wants to hobble its industries and lower living standards by paying twice the price in solidarity with the neo-cons, it simply hastens its decline.

What the New Year holds in store is a United States returning to its ancient role of bullying Latin America: no doubt Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba will come under intense attack as the US preens itself on the strength of its new allies, in Brazil, Argentina, Honduras etc. But all of these regimes are unstable, fascistic, military dictatorships which are doomed to bring unbearable hardships on the people.
And the same is equally true of the US and its allies, everyone of which has a government skewed towards subservient militarism, with domestic politics increasingly dominated by xenophobic hysteria as a substitute for prosperity and social stability: millions of homeless and economically insecure people, without permanent jobs, their savings and pensions dissolving, being fed fear of Russia or China by governments which are transparent fronts for oligarchs and imperialists.
The fact that this sad scenario of social suicide is being played out against a background of rapidly approaching environmental disaster- the reality of climate change- is perhaps an indication of the price that we pay for living under an hierarchy of the most corrupt, venal and thoughtless people in the world. The ones we choose to govern us and tell us what to do.

[Dec 22, 2018] Trump's Decision to Leave Syria Was No 'Surprise' by Mark Perry

Notable quotes:
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... ISIS isn't really defeated, Iran is on the march, the U.S. needs to show solidarity with its Kurdish allies. ..."
Dec 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
To say it was impulsive, or that the entire military opposes it, would be grossly misreading the situation.

In 1966, in the midst of the Vietnam War, Vermont Senator George Aiken recommended that President Lyndon Johnson simply "declare victory and get out." While what Aiken actually said was more complex (because the U.S. couldn't win militarily, he implied, it should stop deploying troops and start deploying diplomats), his statement is commonly cited as an example of foreign policy wisdom -- then, as now, a much depleted currency in Washington.

While it's doubtful that President Donald Trump has studied Aiken's views (or even heard of him), his decision on Wednesday to order the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria is one of the few "Aiken moments" in American history. Not surprisingly, given Trump's inclinations, the news came in a tweet posted by the president on Wednesday morning: "We have defeated ISIS on Syria," Trump announced , "my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency." U.S. officials later said that all U.S. troops would be removed from Syria over the next 60 to 100 days.

While the announcement took much of official Washington by surprise, The American Conservative has learned that a select group of administration officials, as well as a handful of senior military officers, knew of Trump's decision as early as Saturday morning. According to these officials, all of whom required anonymity in exchange for the information, Trump's decision came as a result of a lengthy telephone exchange he had had with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday. Everything that Trump announced today, we have been told, was decided in that call.

That telephone discussion, as one of these officials told us, was the latest in "a series of conversations the two have had over the last weeks on a host of issues," including the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Erdogan's insistence that the U.S. extradite cleric Fethullah Gulen to Turkey, U.S. worries about Iranian meddling in the region -- and continuing U.S. support for Kurdish forces operating in Syria (led by the People Protection Units -- the YPG), which Turkey views as a terrorist organization. It was this last issue that was the focus of Friday's telephone call, spurred by Erdogan's public pledge 48 hours earlier that he was prepared to order his military into Syria to take on the YPG despite U.S. backing.

"We will begin our operation to free the east of the Euphrates [river] from the separatist organization within a few days," Erdogan had said on Wednesday . "Our target is not American soldiers, it is the terror organizations that are active in the region."

During Friday's telephone call, Erdogan once again took a hard line against the Kurds, and the administration's support for them. A part of his argument was that the U.S. had said it was allying with the Kurds to destroy ISIS which, as Erdogan argued, had been accomplished. Nor was Erdogan influenced by Trump's contention that the U.S. needed to remain in Syria in order to check Iranian influence in the region. Erdogan, we have been told, was ready for the argument: the best hedge against Iran, he told Trump, was not the Kurds, or even the Saudis, but Turkey.

Erdogan, as it turns out, wasn't the only one making that argument. As reported in these pages last April , senior U.S. military officers, including Gen. Curtis Michael "Mike" Scaparrotti (the highly respected head of the U.S. European Command), warned that the U.S. "marriage of convenience" with the YPG in its fight against ISIS in Syria was poisoning its relationship with Turkey -- a NATO ally. Turkey, as Scaparrotti told James Mattis in March, was particularly angry that the U.S. was supporting the YPG's deployment to Manbij, threatening Turkish forces some 70 miles away. So what is more important, Scaparrotti asked Mattis, our relationship with the Kurds, or our relationship with Turkey? Gen. Jospeh Votel, the head of Centcom, pushed back against Scaparrotti, saying that America's "marriage of convenience" was "temporary, tactical and transactional" and essential to defeating ISIS.

And so it was that the Scaparrotti-Votel debate was both postponed (with the administration supporting Votel's position until ISIS could be decisively defeated) and papered over -- with the Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issuing regular reassurances to Turkey that the U.S.-YPG relationship was only temporary. Now, with Trump's decision, the debate has been resolved. "Somewhere, you can bet, Joe Votel is absolutely spinning his head into the ceiling," a senior military officer told me. "I don't know what to call this -- but it sounds like Scaparrotti's revenge." Perhaps, but for Syria experts and for those in the military who supported Votel's position, while Trump's decision on a full U.S. withdrawal came as a surprise, it might have been predicted.

America's Fling With the Kurds Could Cause Turkey and NATO to Split How the Brass Talked Another President Into a Losing Strategy

"Yes, I was surprised," Joshua Landis, the head of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, says, "but I suppose I should not have been. After all, we could see this coming. Our relationship with Turkey is much, much more important than our relationship with the Kurds. Then too, if the Trump administration wants to pin Iran's ears back in the region, it's not Kurds, or the Saudis or the Emiratis who are going to do it. It's the Turks."

John Allen Gay, an Iran expert and executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society, agrees. He argues that Trump's decision confirms what everyone has quietly admitted for at least the past year: that keeping U.S. forces in Syria to counter ISIS was starting to look like a way for administration interventionists to argue that we should take on Iran.

"Keeping the troops there post-ISIS was in part natural mission creep, but it was also a stalking horse for hawks in the administration who want to take on Iran," he told TAC .

"Yet dangling a few thousand guys in between Turkish forces on one side and Iranians, Russians, and Syrians on the other was never going to be decisive on Iran's regional role, and it came with real risks and no endgame," Gay added. "I just don't think there's any appetite in the American public for a big fight with Iran anywhere, let alone over Eastern Syria."

Gay may well be right, at least according to a number of U.S. military officers with whom we've talked.

"We need a respite," a senior military officer told us in the wake of the Trump decision, "and that's especially true for the Air Force. Those guys have been in the air over the Middle East since Operation Enduring Freedom, back in 2001. These guys are running on fumes."

Nor, as we've been told, are senior military officers concerned that the announced U.S. withdrawal from Syria gives Putin a victory. "Complete and absolute nonsense," a very senior officer who served multiple tours in the region told us. "I hate to put it this way, but I think it's true. We can't repair Syria -- and it's not our job to do it. If Putin wants to inherit it, that's fine."

Which is not to say that Trump's decision has been greeted unanimously. In the wake of his Friday decision, the administration's foreign policy triumvirate of James Mattis, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo pushed back, arguing that keeping U.S. troops in Syria was essential, if for no other reason than to keep a high U.S. profile in the region. Their arguments were predictable, if outspoken: ISIS isn't really defeated, Iran is on the march, the U.S. needs to show solidarity with its Kurdish allies.

Trump, channeling Erdogan, pushed back on each of them -- ISIS is finished, Iran could be countered in other ways and, as Erdogan had told him, the Kurds were already talking with the Assad government about an accommodation that would keep them in northeastern Syria. In truth, as we were told by a senior Turkish diplomat who was privy to the Trump-Erdogan exchange, the decision had been made on Friday, when Trump told Erdogan that he agreed that the U.S. could withdraw its troops from Syria. When can you do that? Erdogan had asked. Trump wasn't sure, so he turned to his national security adviser, who was listening in on the conversation.

Can we do it today? Now? Trump asked. Bolton nodded: "Yes," he said.

Mark Perry is a contributing editor at and the author of The Pentagon's Wars. He tweets @markperrydc .

about:blank

What To Do December 19, 2018 at 10:51 pm

Turkey always seemed to be the key to the Syria situation, and so it has proved to be.

It's remains the key, or one of them at least, to other regional matters. We should have pulled out many years ago and left it up to Turkey, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt to make their own arrangements. All we've managed to do is mess things up.

I hope Trump and his people are finally recognizing the wisdom of doing that.

giacomo , , December 19, 2018 at 11:13 pm
Tough week for Bill Kristol et Al, but a good week for the rest of us.
Stephen J. , , December 19, 2018 at 11:15 pm
I believe "Syria" and other countries in the Middle East are victims of powerful war criminals, and their illegal wars. All the propaganda in the world cannot hide the truth of their monstrous crimes against humanity. More info below:
--

"A Christmas Report on the Crimes of the War Criminals"

There is no "Peace on Earth" because of what you do
Millions are dead and their homes destroyed, all "thanks" to you
Some cities have been reduced to burning, smoking rubble
And some countries are now in chaos; you started all this trouble

Millions are in refugee camps, and millions wander the earth
Many refugees are drowning in the sea, or lying dead in the surf
Bombing, killing, blood and gore is your legacy to humanity
All of you posture on the world stage and promote more bloody insanity

So as you toast each other and drink glasses of blood red wine
Perhaps in your hypocrisy you don't realise that you are, the "Gadarene Swine"
Fiends dressed in expensive suits, with "honourable" titles to your names
When you all should be in prison gear, and hanging your heads in shame

As you all relax for the holiday season, no doubt you will be sending each other Christmas Greetings or Happy Holidays. It has been a busy war supporting year, 2018, for many of you. Supplying the weapons that destroyed and decimated many countries, and attending meetings with other war criminals, oops, I mean with other world leaders .
[read more at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-christmas-report-on-crimes-of-war.html

furbo , , December 19, 2018 at 11:29 pm
I would have thought it would be wise to stay until an agreement was reached and in place that guaranteed limited autonomy for the Kurds -who did a great deal of the fighting against ISIS -- and ensured Iran was not too dominating and threatening Israel. But -- the Russians are probably good guarantures of Israeli interests (15% of Israels population are Russians) and as a major Sunni power Turkey can counter Iran. So .ok.
Rey Ikari , , December 19, 2018 at 11:31 pm
Pulling out of Syria because "ISIS is defeated" is a joke of an excuse. ISIS is nowhere near defeated, and if the US pulls out now new terror groups will just fill the power vacuum.
Joe Beavers , , December 19, 2018 at 11:41 pm
Nice background to have.
john , , December 20, 2018 at 12:50 am
Of course it was a surprise. A more thoughtful president might have said something like. " I have directed the Secretary of Defense to draft plans to remove all our ground forces in Syria in the next 3 months or sooner"
11bravo , , December 20, 2018 at 1:27 am
Do we have NUKES in Turkey? Why else would we give 2 $hits about Erdogan's Islamist A$$. I don't mind getting our guys out though. Let the savages and barbarians work it out amongst themselves by killing one another. Who really cares about Syria, Israel can take care of the Russians and the Iranians if need be. Leaving Afghanistan should be next!!
No Respecter Of Persons , , December 20, 2018 at 1:59 am
If it sends the blundering and incompetent Victoria "Eff the EU" Nuland into hysterics like this, it can't be all bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-a-single-tweet-trump-destroys-us-policy-in-the-middle-east/2018/12/19/eb423434-03da-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

Streetlights

Antoinetta III , , December 20, 2018 at 4:26 am
Strange that Bolton would agree that we could pull out right away. If he wants us to stay, why wouldn't he prevaricate and come up with some superficial reason why it would take months before we could actually start moving out.

Antoinetta III

Johann , , December 20, 2018 at 6:45 am
This article describes the complexity of the Syrian quagmire. If we stay in the region with military assets, the probability for conflict, accidental or intentional, with other participants is close to 1, and may result in escalation of conflict with other participants.

Bottom line, Syria is not a national security interest of the US. And when we leave, there will not be a vacuum for ISIS to re-fill as there was in Iraq, as some neocons and neoliberals so disingenuously allege. Assad, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, who are working together as allies, will be there to stomp out the remaining embers. Turkey is just another trouble-maker in Syria.

The real motivation to stay there is that so many believe we should be the leading influence in every conflict and pathetic country in the world. That, and the ideology that all governments in the world should be a democracy. In the middle east, democracy is but a transition to a theocracy. In the middle east, democracy is the god that failed.

Richard Vajs , , December 20, 2018 at 7:05 am
Who shouldn't welcome a withdrawal from armed conflict, especially at Christmas? Well, those making a buck off the killing of people in Syria and those who really worry about Iran keeping Israel from stealing half of the Middle East, that's who.
I'll Take It , , December 20, 2018 at 7:35 am
Well, I don't know, but I hope. I surely hope.

Maybe the Spirit of the Lord descended on him, and he (finally) understands that he's got to start getting us out of there.

But whatever the reason is, I'll take it. We beat ISIS? Fine. This is what I voted for, and I'm glad he did it. Our people over there were just sitting ducks, hostages to fortune. Not any more.

Let the other countries take care of whatever's left of ISIS now. We did the heavy lifting. It's their turn. And if they're too lazy or cowardly to do it themselves, **** 'em.

Surety , , December 20, 2018 at 7:43 am
Is this an early fruit of the demise of The Weekly Standard? The scales fall from Trump's eyes and he pulls out of Syria?

Whatever. Hooray!

Bryan , , December 20, 2018 at 8:41 am
Both Fox % Friends and Morning Joe have their hair on fire this morning and they're laying Trump's decision all at the feet of Rand Paul. Jack Hunter has been saying all along that Paul had Trump's ear on foreign policy. If Paul really is the one who persuaded Trump to do this, God Bless Ron and Rand Paul. Now, Paul and his left-wing allies need to go on cable TV and defend this move because right now Trump is being eviscerated.
Rocketeer , , December 20, 2018 at 8:47 am
What I don't understand is all the horrified whining about "commitments" and "honor".

Haven't these idiots been paying attention? Ever since he pulled out of the Iran deal, it was plain as day that prior commitments mean nothing to him. But some of those now shrieking and rending their garments seem to have though that the Kurds and Saudis and Israelis were immune. Surely he would always do what they told him to do?

But pulling out of the Iran deal didn't mean "I can do whatever I want for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Kurds". It meant "I can do whatever I want". And "whatever I want" can mean "pull out of Syria". Which is what he just did.

It almost amounts to a strategy. And anyone who missed that after everything he's done over the past two years either hasn't been paying attention or just plain dumb.

This is Trump.

On the bright side, it may be the smartest thing he's done in foreign policy since taking office. And he owns it -- it's clearly NOT the work of his sinister and incompetent advisors. Good! More! MORE!

Connecticut Farmer , , December 20, 2018 at 9:03 am
Finally, after two years, Trump has at least taken the first step in fulfilling one of his campaign promises: reducing our overseas military presence.
PAX , , December 20, 2018 at 9:29 am
Forcing the neocons to go deep in their bench. Hope Trump does not waiver. This very exit is what many Trump voters hoped he would do.
Andrew P , , December 20, 2018 at 9:31 am
There are no good options in Syria, so the best thing is to pull out. The next question is what to do about Afghanistan.
Carroll Price , , December 20, 2018 at 9:38 am
"He who laughs last, laughs longest."
eric siverson , , December 20, 2018 at 9:44 am
I hope the Kurds still have good relations with Syria and Assad because USA is going to stop protecting the Kurds .
Michael Ard , , December 20, 2018 at 9:48 am
Very insightful piece. Thank you!
Michael Kenny , , December 20, 2018 at 10:03 am
I tend to see this as Trump trying to find money fro his wall.
marku52 , , December 20, 2018 at 11:02 am
I haven't seen this background info anywhere else.

Thank you.

Donald , , December 20, 2018 at 11:14 am
The NYT editors and most of the commenters are in hysterics.
One thing I have learned from the Trump era -- mainstream liberals are as McCarthyite in their attitudes sometime as the conservatives they love to attack.

On the decision itself, I wish something would be said about protecting the Kurds, but we had no right to meddle in Syria in the first place. All of our interventions in the Mideast turn to um, manure. ( Family blog). We are constantly justifying new interventions because of the problems our earlier intervention caused, or we are told we can't pull out because we are in too deep. It's almost as if this were some giant scam designed to make money for the military industrial think tank complex.

I can't quite bring myself to defend Trump on this, but I have no problem attacking some of his critics.

Win , , December 20, 2018 at 11:35 am
Just some facts that most of you USA suckers are ignorant of;
The Syrian army with the support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah defeated ISIS.
The US seemed to be more intent on bombing haystacks oh and civillian infrastructure until Russia stepped in.
Styria has claimed back 95% of her land.
Syria with the support of her allies is starting to rebuild the country
Alleppo is rebuilding thanks to Russias help
Many commentators acknowledge the war is basically over -- no thanks to the US.
But yes proclaim you defeated ISIS just get out of there. You are not wanted and your support of ISIS to try and get rid of Assad has not worked.
peter mcloughlin , , December 20, 2018 at 11:44 am
Allies are allies until their interests diverge. Turkey and the US are prime examples. In the chaotic world of the Middle East Ankara sees a Greater Kurdistan of threat to its territorial integrity: Washington supports the YPG, a Marxist-Leninist organisation, because of its importance in the fight against ISIS. It looks as though President Trump has decided Turkey a more vital ally than the Kurds.
Every state pursues what is seen to be in its own best national interest. But it is important that the pursuit does not undermine those very interests. It is a difficult calculation for any leader, upon whom the responsibility of history weighs heavily. The past gives a grim prediction for the future:
• Power, (manifested as interest) was present in very conflict in history -- no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics -- everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is the one thing we will destroy ourselves for, as well as everyone else.
• History shows that every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. This applies as much today as any other time in history.
• Leaders and decision-makers delude themselves, thinking they can avoid their fate -- they can't. If survival is threatened, there is no alternative to war, however destructive.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Ergeneqon , , December 20, 2018 at 11:50 am
This will be good for Turkey in the long run.

By 2023, don't be surprised if the Turks have annexed both northern Iraq and northern Syria.

Badger , , December 20, 2018 at 12:05 pm
I'm no fan of the president and have basically disagreed with everything he has done since taking office. But I fully agree with him on this policy change and hope we continue to withdraw from other pointless military quagmires around the world. I can't believe I'm writing this but well done Mr President.
John Balch , , December 20, 2018 at 12:28 pm
No because he is replacing them with uncontrollable paid mercenaries just like he is doing in Afghanistan that way the United States is no longer responsible if they commit war crimes. George W. Bush did it in Iraq using "Blackwater Security aka Academi Company now" until Iraq kicked them out for killing incent civilians.
SteveK9 , , December 20, 2018 at 1:16 pm
The first bit of actual good news in 2 years. Trump is finally acting on what he ran on. Next, Afghanistan. Peace will reign in Syria in a short time now. The Kurds will receive some limited autonomy from Damascus. Damascus will keep them under control, so Turkey will not need to invade Syria to destroy them. The SAA and Russia will wipe out what is left of ISIS in short order, then turn to the hard-core terrorists in Idleb, while Turkey tells its proxies to join the political process. Syria will have survived one of the most vicious multi-national efforts to dismember the country.

Losers # 1: Israel

One Guy , , December 20, 2018 at 2:17 pm
"my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency."

Because everything is about Trump. The troops weren't there, HE was there. "Me, me, me, ME!!"

Sid , , December 20, 2018 at 3:24 pm
Never thought I'd see the day when American troops would be withdrawn from anywhere! Surely unconstitutional or something This president really does have some crazy ideas!
Fred Bowman , , December 20, 2018 at 3:27 pm
Well about time for the US to pull out of Syria. Shouldn't been there in the 1st place. Maybe one by one the US will start pulling out of some of the other misadventures in the Middle East, and let the nations in the Middle East solve there own problems. Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath, but nevertheless a 1st step had to be taken.

[Dec 22, 2018] Trump made the right decision to quit Syrian conflict by M.K. Bhadrakumar

Notable quotes:
"... Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed on Thursday the widespread skepticism whether Trump's decision will be enforced by Pentagon commanders. Yet the odds are that they just might. This needs explaining. Admittedly, Trump is still a quintessential "outsider" in the Washington Beltway, but then, he also enjoys the backing of a good majority of the American people who are tired of the United States' endless wars abroad. ..."
"... Indeed, a coalition of disgruntled elements and assorted interest groups is forming to debunk Trump. Simply put, they are unhappy that the US military is pulling out of Syria. For many, a gravy train is running while for some others, the issue is Trump – not even Syria. ..."
"... Evidently, there is a sophistry in their campaign against Trump's decision. Principally, three phony arguments are being advanced – that Trump's decision "baffles" the United States' allies; that he has thrown the Kurds under the bus; and that a US pullout from Syria harms the anti-ISIS fight. ..."
"... At any rate, the brunt of the fight against the ISIS was borne by the Syrian government forces and their allies – remember Aleppo? Their grit to finish the job has never been in doubt and there is no reason to fear any let-up. In fact, their interest lies in stabilizing the security situation in the quickest possible way so the political process leading to a post-conflict Syrian order can be speeded up. ..."
"... Ironically, the departure of the US forces could help matters, since in many ways the US military presence only impeded the anti-ISIS fight in Syria. It is well known that terrorist groups took shelter in the US-led security zones in eastern Syria ..."
"... The Al-Tanf base and its 50-square-kilometer security perimeter was only the most glaring example. Again, the "no-fly zones" prevented Syrian and Russian jets from hunting down the ISIS cadres and de facto amounted to US air cover for terrorists. ..."
"... Succinctly put, the Americans are laboring under an illusion that they alone "won" the war against the ISIS in Syria, or Iraq. This illusion must be purged. No, without the 2,000 American troops, Syria isn't about to collapse like a sack of potatoes or become the revolving door for international terrorists. Trust the Russians and Iranians to eliminate the scourge of terrorism from Syrian soil, because it directly affects their own national security. ..."
"... The alliance with the Kurdish militia in Syria has severely damaged US-Turkish relations. Turkey will never allow the creation of a Kurdish homeland on its borders, and it has a congruence of interests with Iraq and Iran – and even Syria – in this regard. ..."
Dec 22, 2018 | www.atimes.com

700 days out of US President Donald Trump's 1,461 days of presidency seem a wasteland of unfulfilled promises and expectations in foreign policy – except, perhaps, on the Korean Peninsula – things dramatically changed on December 19 when he announced the troop withdrawal from Syria.

Taken together with Washington's hurry to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban, it appears that Trump is, finally, on the move as a man of peace, fulfilling the pledge of Candidate Trump to prioritize nation-building over extravagant military adventures in faraway lands.

However, the big question remains: Is the Washington establishment ready for Trump's action plan? The signs so far are very discouraging. The resignation of US Defense Secretary James Mattis raises the stakes incalculably.

Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed on Thursday the widespread skepticism whether Trump's decision will be enforced by Pentagon commanders. Yet the odds are that they just might. This needs explaining. Admittedly, Trump is still a quintessential "outsider" in the Washington Beltway, but then, he also enjoys the backing of a good majority of the American people who are tired of the United States' endless wars abroad. And that becomes a decisive factor in Trump's political calculus. This is one thing.

A proxy war

Indeed, a coalition of disgruntled elements and assorted interest groups is forming to debunk Trump. Simply put, they are unhappy that the US military is pulling out of Syria. For many, a gravy train is running while for some others, the issue is Trump – not even Syria.

For the Cold Warriors in the strategic community, Syria is a proxy war against Russia.

Evidently, there is a sophistry in their campaign against Trump's decision. Principally, three phony arguments are being advanced – that Trump's decision "baffles" the United States' allies; that he has thrown the Kurds under the bus; and that a US pullout from Syria harms the anti-ISIS fight.

To take the last argument first – what will be the impact on the Syrian situation? To be sure, ISIS is down, but not quite out. But then, ISIS is today only residual terrorism, after the huge defeat in Iraq.

At any rate, the brunt of the fight against the ISIS was borne by the Syrian government forces and their allies – remember Aleppo? Their grit to finish the job has never been in doubt and there is no reason to fear any let-up. In fact, their interest lies in stabilizing the security situation in the quickest possible way so the political process leading to a post-conflict Syrian order can be speeded up.

Ironically, the departure of the US forces could help matters, since in many ways the US military presence only impeded the anti-ISIS fight in Syria. It is well known that terrorist groups took shelter in the US-led security zones in eastern Syria .

The Al-Tanf base and its 50-square-kilometer security perimeter was only the most glaring example. Again, the "no-fly zones" prevented Syrian and Russian jets from hunting down the ISIS cadres and de facto amounted to US air cover for terrorists.

National security

Succinctly put, the Americans are laboring under an illusion that they alone "won" the war against the ISIS in Syria, or Iraq. This illusion must be purged. No, without the 2,000 American troops, Syria isn't about to collapse like a sack of potatoes or become the revolving door for international terrorists. Trust the Russians and Iranians to eliminate the scourge of terrorism from Syrian soil, because it directly affects their own national security.

Therefore, isn't it the smart thing to do to let "others" do the job, as Trump put it? However unpalatable the thought might be, a tragedy like the attack on the US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983 is waiting to happen in Syria once the Turkish military crushes and scatters the Kurdish militia, leaving the 2,000 US troops stranded like sitting ducks in 12 bases in the middle of nowhere spread over a vast territory about one-third the size of all Syria.

Wouldn't Trump know he's skating on thin ice? For if body bags were to come home, the political cost would be his – not Mattis'.

Equally, Trump can no longer take for granted the Saudi willingness generously to bankroll the United States' war in Syria, especially if the self-styled humanists on the Hill proceed with their foreign-policy agenda to wreak vengeance on Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. You can't have the cake and eat it too, can you?

The ground reality is that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan have exited the Syrian conflict. Egypt has no stomach to get involved and Turkey, of course, has turned hostile. So who are these "allies" that the agitated folks in the US are talking about? The frank answer is: a clutch of British and French operatives and a horde of Western mercenaries. Isn't this a macabre joke?

The Americans have been acting as "spoilers" in Syria, locked in a geopolitical struggle that has very little to do with fighting terrorism and has only impeded the stabilization of the Syrian situation. Thus it is no coincidence that Trump unveiled his considered decision just as the announcement was made in Geneva that the pan-Syrian committee for the drafting of a new constitution has been set up, which will work under United Nations supervision to galvanize a political process leading to elections and the formation of a new government enjoying the mandate of the people.

Turkey and the Kurds

Finally, the Kurdish factor. The alliance with the Kurdish militia in Syria has severely damaged US-Turkish relations. Turkey will never allow the creation of a Kurdish homeland on its borders, and it has a congruence of interests with Iraq and Iran – and even Syria – in this regard.

On the other hand, without a strong partnership with Turkey, a "swing" state overlooking several regions, American strategies not only in the Greater Middle East but also in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Black Sea and the Caucasus will be at a serious disadvantage. Now, is that something the US can afford?

The US has done a great injustice to the Kurds by giving them false hopes. Leave them alone. They will reconcile with Damascus, availing of the good offices of Russians who have dealt with them from time immemorial.

Plainly put, the Pentagon's trainers and Special Forces "embedded" with Kurdish men and women fighters helped develop romantic notions of creating an independent country for their partners. This should never have happened.

[Dec 22, 2018] Media's Russia Obsession Obscures How Trump's Syria Withdrawal Benefits Turkey Most

Dec 22, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

PATRICK COCKBURN: The Turks benefit from this. It also shows, you know, that Turkey is really powerful in the region. You know, they've moved a lot of troops up to the border. They'd been threatening to come in anyway. I think, you know, portraying this as Russia being the big winner, this is pretty naive, or even childish, in many ways. It's in Russia's interests that the U.S. should stay in Syria in alliance with the Kurds, which means that the U.S. is probably confronting Turkey, whose main policy objective is to eliminate this Kurdish enclave. So if anything, you know, this is something which makes it easier for the administration to revive the old U.S. alliance with Turkey. And so it doesn't necessarily work in Russia's favor.

This is a very simpleminded view, that this benefits Russia. Turkey benefits because suddenly this whole area in northeast Syria becomes vulnerable to them. They've threatened to move in. They've talked about burying the Kurdish militants in ditches. And we know what happened earlier in the year in Afrin, another Kurdish enclave. You know, there was extreme ethnic cleansing. Almost half the Kurdish population was driven out, and hasn't come back. They've been taken over by extreme Arab jihadis. So yeah, it's very much in Turkey's interests what's happened. But it is not necessarily in Russia's interests at all. BEN NORTON: Yeah, Donald Trump himself, in fact, repeatedly tweeted this on December 20 in response to the news. You know, many media reports portrayed this as a gift to Russia and Iran. Trump pointed out that now Russia and Iran will be fighting ISIS on their own in Syria, and there are still elements of ISIS that are in the country. Thousands of fighters, although ISIS doesn't control a territorial capital, as it had in the past. And what's also interesting about this is that on the same day Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops on December 19, the U.S. State Department also cleared a $3.5 billion sale of air defense systems to Turkey. And in addition to that, a few journalists, mostly Kurdish and Turkish journalists, pointed out that Trump's decision to withdraw came just two days, or a few days, after he had a phone call with the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And just two days before that decision, Erdogan had, in fact, claimed that in the phone call Trump had agreed, had greenlighted, to a Turkish assault on northeast Syria. Turkey has been trying to get the U.S. to get approval to send Turkish troops and embedded jihadist rebels east of the Euphrates River. So do you think that this is essentially a kind of green light from Trump, saying to Erdogan go ahead and invade?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, it kind of–it opens the door to that. Green light creates a picture of somebody saying, you know, go for it. Which is doubtful. But you withdraw the troops, Turkey has been threatening to intervene. Yeah, I think, you know, it may well amount to that.

I think that, you know, it's easy to pillory what Trump said and did. You know, saying that the Islamic State will come back, ISIS will come back. But you know, this was a movement that once controlled territory really from Baghdad to almost to the Mediterranean. And you know, it just lost its last small town on the east of the Euphrates in eastern Syria. So you know, will it come back? Well, yeah, there will be more guerrilla warfare. But again, you know, what strikes me about a lot of the coverage is it's kind of hysterical. It kind of–it is based on a sort of conspiratorial view of what Trump is up to, what his relations with the Russians are. You know, this stuff is so far from the reality of what's actually happening on the ground in Syria, or in Iraq, for that matter. It's very difficult to to discuss it or contradict it. But it's just sort of off the wall.

BEN NORTON: And the question now up in the air is what will happen to the Kurdish forces in northeast Syria, specifically the YPG, the People's Protection Units, which control this area in the northeast. For months now the YPG has, in fact, had kind of on and off relations with Damascus, the central government of Syria. They had brief negotiations and peace talks, and they made some–a few agreements. But it seems that the agreements didn't go very far. It seems to me that this decision will encourage the YPG to seek further rapprochement and a kind of alliance with Damascus. So what do you think-

PATRICK COCKBURN: They'll be desperate to do that right now, because they may not like Damascus very much, but they'd much prefer the Syrian government to the Turks. They're really terrified of the Turks coming in. They're threatened. They are terrified of ethnic cleansing. So they'll go to Damascus.

Now, previously, because of the U.S. presence that inhibited them, stopped them doing that. And also the Russians didn't want them to do that. So they'll do that. But it's it's–you know, the Turkish army is pretty big, pretty strong. Even supposing the Syrian army came into this enclave it wouldn't necessarily be able to stop the Turks. I mean, what's happened is that, you know, if you go to that area, one, it's not a great place for the Turks to fight against heavy armor and aircraft. It's very flat, most of the east of the Euphrates. Not many mountains, or no mountains, and few hills. And also mostly about 2 million Kurds there. But a lot of them are in towns or cities along the Syrian-Turkish border. Often cities, when the frontier was drawn up between Syria and Turkey, it ran along the old railway line between Aleppo and Mosul. And so cities were cut in half. Kurdish cities were cut in half. So a lot of these the Kurds live within artillery range of the Turkish army/.

It's important to talk about this, because if the Turks do come across, we could have a great wave of 2 million Kurds taking to the roads, desperate to get out, going to northern Iraq, going elsewhere. And there seems very little concern about this, and it's kind of depressing to hear these sort of conspiracy theories about Russia when what is happening is that, you know, is in many ways pretty–you know, pretty simple, but pretty bad.

BEN NORTON: And then finally, Patrick, let's just take a big look at what's going on here. What do you think this will mean for the future of the war in Syria? The war has been going on since early 2011, and it looks like the conflict is really finally in its final stages. It might come to an end pretty soon. We've also seen, interestingly, negotiations between Iran, Russia, and Syria, and Turkey. And specifically, Iran, Turkey, and Russia have had these kinds of peace negotiations. They've had some developments, some breakthroughs, and then some obstacles. But the three of them, it seems like they have had many agreements, although there are some agreements that seem pretty intractable. And I think the question of Idlib, and now the question of the Northeast, seem to be two major obstacles that Russia, Iran, and Turkey have really different views on. So with this potentially the U.S. withdrawal, would this potentially accelerate a peace negotiation for the end of the war? Or could it potentially usher in a new phase of the war?

PATRICK COCKBURN: It could go either way. It's very difficult to tell which way the ball will roll after this. Will the Turks come in directly, or will the Russians try to stop them? Will the Syrian government sort of take over the, do a deal with the Kurds and take over? You know, if the Turks do come in, what will happen to the Kurds in this area? You know, it's about 50-50 Kurds and Arabs. And they–you know, the relations are very hostile. You know, there could be a lot of revenge killings in this area.

So you know, it's difficult to say that. But I think a lot of this has to do with Trump wanting to get on better terms with Turkey. And if he does want to do anything against Iran, having better relations with Turkey is essential. But the actual having a U.S.–a Kurdish enclave supported by the U.S. in Turkey never really, you know, didn't do any damage to the Russians, and didn't do any damage to Iran. So I think the idea that this is, you know, Happy Christmas for Putin and slogans like that is really completely unrealistic.

BEN NORTON: We'll have to end our conversation there. We were speaking with the award-winning journalist Patrick Cockburn, who has for decades been a foreign correspondent for the British newspaper the Independent, and he's also the author of several books. Thanks so much for joining us, Patrick.

PATRICK COCKBURN: Thank you.

BEN NORTON: For The Real News Network, I'm Ben Norton.

Pym of Nantucket , December 21, 2018 at 10:17 am

This all started with Khashoggi. Another aligned news story that wasn't mentioned above was Trump musing aloud about rounding up Gulen.

Pavel , December 21, 2018 at 10:47 am

The Grauniad just quoted a tweet from a predictably OUTRAGED @HillaryClinton:

Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or not, the people who want to harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia & Iran's hands is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk.

This from the woman who almost singlehandedly (i.e. along with David Cameron and Sarkovy) destroyed Libya and allowed -- if not encouraged -- the flow of US weapons to go into the hands of ISIS allies in the US-Saudi-Israeli obsession with toppling Assad regardless of the consequences. As Justin Raimondo wrote in Antiwar.com in 2015:

The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided.

This crazy policy was an extension of our regime change operation in Libya, a.k.a. "Hillary's War," where the US – "leading from behind" – and a coalition of our Western allies and the Gulf protectorates overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. There, too, we empowered radical Islamists with links to al-Qaeda affiliates – and then used them to ship weapons to their Syrian brothers, as another document uncovered by Judicial Watch shows.

After HRC's multiple foreign policy fiascos she is the last person who should be commenting on this matter.

a different chris , December 21, 2018 at 11:50 am

>the people who want to harm us are there & at war

Sounds like then they are too busy to harm us? She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League.

flora , December 21, 2018 at 10:54 am

We used to jokingly call the Washington Post 'Pravda on the Potomac' because of what appeared to be occasional heavy spin – the official story – in news coverage on foreign policy. Now, the new coverage seems to be 'all spin all the time'. It's getting harder and harder find reporting on foreign policy issues.

Thanks for this post.

Ptb , December 21, 2018 at 11:12 am

Middle east 101 – it's the pipeline options.

What is the most valuable thing Turkey has? The ability to block pipelines to Europe. They need to have Syria in semi chaos to complete that block, but it is already the case. And there is no shortage of cheap options to maintain it, nor any huge objection by regional players to maintain it.

Turkey, otoh, controls its territory well enough to make its own moves, leveraging its strategically central location to the max. (The whole flood-the-EU-with-refugees extortion move was just vicious. Kissinger would be proud )

Also the pipeline expansion is a big part of the Russia phobia too. Keeping hydrocarbons flowing by sea under the protection of the navy is a cornerstone of maintaining global security. Thus, as long as Turkey blocks Russian pipelines too, it will get away with it for the time being.

With a likely Emerging markets bust, however, TR will be at the mercy of creditors, so Erdogan is going to need a whole new stack of cards to play for that round, which wol be next year very possibly.

Nick Stokes , December 21, 2018 at 11:18 am

No, the Russia obsession shows how the US military is being used. Increase activity in Yemen and Africa since 2017 parallels Russia's goals.

Susan the other , December 21, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Thanks for this post. I makes the best sense of our actions. We want to keep Turkey loyal to NATO, keep them buying our missiles, etc. The raging hatred of Turkey for the Kurds and their pursuit of a corner of land to call their own somewhere in the east of Turkey (close to huge oil reserves) and the threat of relentless terrorism has been Erdogan's big nightmare. At odds with Erdogan has been the policy of the US Military which has always used the Kurds as trusted allies in the ME. But all the sturm und drang of Syria has now subsided and seems to have been almost pointless thanks to the Saudis falling apart. At least it looks that way. And this also explains Mattis' abrupt resignation, explicitly stating he does not agree with Trump turning his back on the Kurds. Basically. Mattis has worked with the Kurds for decades probably. The only question now is what concessions did we get from Erdogan that Turkey will not have a total pogrom on the Kurds? It is going to be interesting to see what becomes of the Saudis as well.

Synoia , December 21, 2018 at 1:10 pm

Non more Kurds in the Way?

A sharp lesson for US allies – nothing endures .

[Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences." ..."
"... "FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back." ..."
"... This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: July 25, 2017 at 2:09 pm GMT

@zzzzzzz

" but the Deep State knows how to box"

Let's see: "What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."

Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani Muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/

"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back."

This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange?

[Dec 21, 2018] The American Empire: yet another definition

Dec 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Prehuman insight

The American Empire:

an imperial ball of debt: a nation of never-educated, mobility scooter herds; a zillion-dollar military with decades of ineptitude fully demonstrated;

led by President Trash-n-Mock - without a mission, strategy or goal or chance for success.

[Dec 21, 2018] Vadim Rogovin and the sociology of Stalinism by Andrea Peters

Notable quotes:
"... The State and the Opposition ..."
"... Social Development and Societal Morals ..."
"... Social Development and Societal Morals ..."
"... Was There an Alternative? ..."
"... Political Education ..."
"... Economic Sciences ..."
"... Sociological Research ..."
"... The Revolution Betrayed ..."
"... Was There an Alternative? ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | www.wsws.org

... In the introduction to the second volume in his series, The State and the Opposition , Rogovin noted:

A peculiarity of the counter-revolution realized by Stalin and his accomplices was that it took place under the ideological cover of Marxist phraseology and never-ending attestations of loyalty to the October Revolution Naturally, such a counter-revolution demanded historically unprecedented conglomerations of lies and falsifications, the fabrication of ever-newer myths

Similar to the Stalinists, modern anti-communists use two kinds of myths: namely, ideological and historical. Under ideological myths we have in mind false ideas, oriented to the future -- that is, illusory prognoses and promises. These sorts of products of false consciousness reveal their mythological character by way of their practical realization.

Myths that appeal not to the future but to the past are another matter.

In principle, it is easier to expose these myths than anti-scientific prognoses and reactionary projects.

Like ideological ones, historical myths are a product of immediate class interests products of historical ignorance or deliberate falsification -- that is, the concealment of some historical facts, the tendentious exaggeration, and the distorted interpretation of others.

Refuting these myths is only possible by rehabilitating historical truth -- the honest portrayal of actual facts and tendencies of the past.

In this work, Rogovin argued that the fundamental problem facing the USSR was "a deepening of socially unjustified differentiation of incomes and the comforts of life." "Workers regularly encounter instances of unearned enrichment through the deceit and the ripping-off of the state and the people. [ ] Certain groups of the population have the means to meet their needs at a scale beyond any reasonable norms and outside of their relationship to social production. [ ] There does not exist any systematic control of sources of income and the acquisition of valuable goods," he wrote.

In a remarkable statement, inequality, he insisted, not wage-leveling, expressed "in essence, the social structure of [Soviet] society."

Rogovin called for the implementation of income declarations, whereby people would be required to report the size of their total income, not just their official wages, so that the government and researchers might actually know the real distribution of earnings. He advocated for the establishment of a "socially-guaranteed maximum income" to combat "unjustified inequality."

Vadim Rogovin and Nina Naumova's 1984 Social Development and Societal Morals

Elsewhere, Rogovin further argued that inequality lay at the center of the USSR's falling labor productivity. In a work co-authored with Nina Naumova, Social Development and Societal Morals , he maintained that the socio-economic crisis facing the USSR stemmed from the fact that inequality was growing in Soviet society; people worked poorly in the Soviet Union not because their work was inadequately remunerated relative to others, but because their commitment to social production had been eroded by intensifying social stratification that was unrecorded in official statistics.

In 1983, the very same year that Rogovin authored his critical report on the state of inequality in the USSR that ended up in the hands of the Moscow authorities, another sociologist, Tatyana Zaslavskaya, would issue a report, kept secret at first but later leaked to the Western press, advocating a transition to "economic methods of management," -- in other words, market-based reforms. A central aspect of this was policy centered around increasing inequality in workers' compensation in order to stimulate production. Zaslavskaya noted at the time that such reforms would be opposed by what she described as "the more apathetic, the more elderly, and the less qualified groups of workers."

In a few years, Zaslavskaya would become a leading advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev and one of the main architects of the pro-market, perestroika reforms. In 1986, she was appointed the head of the Soviet Sociological Association. Her positions were widely embraced by the discipline.

Tatiana Zaslavskaya and Mikhail Gorbachev 1989 at Congress of People's Deputies. [Copyright RIA Novosti]

In contrast, Rogovin's views were frequently, and ever more so, the object of sharp criticism. In 1985, a discussion occurred at the Institute of Sociology regarding a report produced by Rogovin and his research team about Soviet lifestyles. In it, Rogovin made openly critical comments about the anti-egalitarian impact of the shadow economy and the transfer of wealth through inheritance. It was sharply criticized by some of the Institute's top scholars, who both disagreed with its content and were nervous about the response it might get from the authorities. At the discussion, one such individual remarked:

The report by the author presented here has two basic failings: 1) it is inadequately self-critical; 2) the authors, and in particular, Rogovin himself, aren't appropriately thinking of the addressee to whom this report is directed. The report is going to the highest levels [of the Communist Party] and superfluous emotion is not necessary. The next criticism [I have] is about "unjustified inequality." In principle, there can be no such thing.

[ ] in the note to the TsK KPSS [Central Committee of the Communist Party] [ ] the recommendations [that you make] demand the utmost care in how you approach them, particularly those that relate to the "third economy" and taxes on inheritance. [There should be] a minimum of categoricalness and a maximum of conciliatoriness.

As the decade wore on, Rogovin began to adopt an ever more critical stance on perestroika , whose devastating economic consequences were increasingly showing themselves. Rather than bringing prosperity to the masses, Gorbachev's reforms created a total crisis in the state sector of the economy, exacerbating widespread shortages in food, clothing and other basic necessities. Economic growth declined from 1986 onwards. In 1989, inflation reached 19 percent, eroding the gains the population had made in income over the preceding years. As the scholar John Elliot noted, "When account is taken of additional costs, real per capita income and real wages probably decreased, particularly for the bottom half of the population. These costs included: deteriorating quality and unavailability of goods; proliferation of special distribution channels; longer and more time-consuming lines; extended rationing; higher prices and higher inflation-rates in non-state stores (e.g., collective farm market prices were nearly three times those in state stores in 1989); virtual stagnation in the provision of health and education; and the growth of barter, regional autarky, and local protectionism."

Newly established private enterprises had great leeway to set prices because they faced little to no competition from the state sector. They charged whatever the market would bear, which led to substantial increases in income inequality and poverty, with the most vulnerable layers of the population hardest hit. The changes were so severe that Elliot insists that "income inequalities had actually become greater in the USSR than in the USA." In the late 1980s, fully two-thirds of the Soviet population had an income that fell below the officially-recommended "decent level" of 100 to 150 rubles a month. At the same time, the shadow economy alone is estimated to have produced 100,000–150,000 millionaires in the late 1980s. By the early 1990s, one-quarter of the population or 70 million people were destitute according to official Soviet estimates. Miners' strikes and other signs of social discontent erupted across the country.

Sociologists were intimately aware of the growing popular discontent. The Communist Party bureaucracy called upon them to help manage the situation. In 1989, the director of the Institute of Sociology received a request from the highest layers of the Communist Party. He was asked to respond to a letter from a rank-and-file party member that expressed extreme hostility towards the country's "elites." The letter writer described the party as dominated by an "opportunist nucleus" and called for the waging of a "class war" by the working masses against their policies. The ideology division of the Central Committee of the Communist Party wanted the Institute's director to respond to the letter because the sentiments expressed in it were "widespread (representative) [sic] among the working class."

Soviet economist and sociologist Genady Lisichkin

In the midst of these circumstances, Rogovin came under fire in one of the country's media outlets for articles he was writing against the promotion of social inequality. Since the mid-1980s, he had been championing the implementation of income declarations that would require people to report their full earnings, progressive taxes, and a socially-declared maximum income. Based on the amount of positive correspondence he was receiving from readers, it was clear that his views resonated with the population, a fact noted by Western scholars at the time. In a public press debate with the economist Gennady Lisichkin, the latter accused Rogovin of wanting to strengthen the hand of the bureaucracy and implied that he was a Stalinist. He was allegedly guilty of "Luddism," religious-like preaching, misquoting Marx to find support for his arguments, wanting the state to have the power to move people around "like cattle," defending a deficit-system of distribution based on "ration cards," suffering from "left-wing" infantilism, and being a "demagogue" and a "war communist." He attempted to link Rogovin to the very force to which he was most hostile -- Stalinism. The head of the Soviet Sociological Association, Tatiana Zaslavskaya, openly endorsed Lisichkin's positions.

The disagreements between Rogovin and other scholars over perestroika evolved into a fierce dispute about Soviet history and the nature of Stalinism. Rogovin identified a relationship between cheerleading for pro-market reforms and historical falsification. There was an increasingly widespread effort to link egalitarianism with Stalinism, the struggle for equality with political repression. In Was There an Alternative? , Rogovin frequently talked about the fact that the move towards a market economy was accompanied by the propagation of myths about Soviet history. This was one of those myths.

In 1991, Zaslavskaya co-authored a book that claimed that the Soviet Union's problems lay in the fact that in the late 1920s it abandoned the New Economic Policy (NEP), during which the government had loosened state control of the economy and restored market relations to an extent, in an effort to revitalize the economy under conditions of isolation, backwardness, and near economic collapse due to years of war. A one-sided and historically dishonest account of the NEP, this work did not contain any discussion of the political struggle that occurred during the NEP between Stalin and the Left Opposition over the malignant growth of inequality, the bureaucratization of the state and economy, and the crushing of inner-party democracy. The book skipped over this history because it would have cut across one of the central arguments made at the time in favor of perestroika -- that market relations were inherently at odds with the interests of the Communist Party bureaucracy. The book's account of labor policy under Stalin was also false. It insisted that during the 1930s revolutionary enthusiasm was the primary method used to stimulate people to work, ignoring the fact that income inequality rose substantially at this time. As the scholar Murray Yanowitch has pointed out, under Stalin "equality mongering" was labeled the brainchild of "Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites and other enemies of the people."

In the 1980s, sociologists and other scholars promoting perestroika sought to imbue these policies with a humanitarian mission, insisting that market reforms would allow "the human factor," which had been crushed under the weight of bureaucratic stagnation, to rise again. The "human factor" was defined as man's desire for personal recognition through differentiated, material reward. It was supposedly the primary driver of human activity. To the degree that official wage policy in the USSR led to a relatively egalitarian distribution of social resources with wages leveled-out between skilled and unskilled labor, it flew in the face of man's desire for recognition of his own individual contribution. Rising inequality in income -- necessitated by the demands of socio-economic development -- was part of the process of "humanizing socialism." The argument was made that increasing social stratification would ultimately provide real "socialist justice."

As Tatiana Zaslavskaya claimed in 1990, "Despite all its limitations, the 'classical' market is, in fact, a democratic (and therefore anti-bureaucratic) economic institution. Within the framework of its exchange relationships, all participants are at least formally equal; no-one is subordinated to anyone else. Buyers and sellers act in their own interests and nobody can make them conclude deals they do not want to conclude. The buyers are free to select sellers who will let them have goods on the most advantageous terms, but the sellers too can chose buyers offering the best price."

In making this argument, scholars relied upon the official Soviet definition of socialism -- "from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor" -- that was enshrined in the country's 1936 constitution. This was also known as the Stalin constitution.

In 1988, Rogovin used the concept of the "human factor" to make a very different argument. In a piece entitled, "The Human Factor and the Lessons of the Past," he insisted that the defense of social inequality by the Soviet elite was one of the key reasons why the "human factor" had degenerated in the USSR. The very best elements of "the human factor" had been crushed by Stalin during the Terror. Corruption, disillusionment, parasitism, careerism and individual self-promotion -- the most distinctive features of the Brezhnev era -- were the "human factor" created by Stalinism. In promoting inequality and the market, Rogovin insisted, perestroika did not mark a break with Stalinism or the legacy of the Brezhnev era, as was so often claimed, but rather their further realization.

One year later he wrote, "The adherents of the new elitist conceptions want to see Soviet society with such a level of social differentiation that existed under Stalin but having gotten rid of Stalinist repression. It is forgotten that the debauched character of these repressions [ ] flowed from the effort to not simply restrain, but rather physically annihilate above all those forces in the party and in the country that, though silenced, rejected the social foundations of Stalinism."

After years of studying these questions in near-total isolation, Rogovin was finally able to write openly about this subject. He tested the waters by first publishing "L.D. Trotsky on Art" in August 1989 in the journal Theater . It was followed shortly thereafter by an article entitled "The Internal Party Struggles of the 1920s: Reasons and Lessons," also published in a journal outside of his discipline, Political Education . Moving closer to a forum likely to be followed by his colleagues in sociology, in early 1990 Rogovin published "L.D. Trotsky on NEP" in Economic Sciences . And finally, a few months later, "L.D. Trotsky on Social Relations in the USSR" came out in the flagship journal of his discipline, Sociological Research .

Rogovin's first article on the subject within his discipline reviewed Trotsky's role in Soviet history during the 1920s and summarized his seminal work, The Revolution Betrayed . It made clear to whom Rogovin fundamentally owed the views he had been advancing over the course of the previous decade.

Trotsky, however, continued to be vilified by Soviet officialdom. In 1987, on the 70th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, Gorbachev described Trotsky as "the arch-heretic of Soviet history, an 'excessively self-assured politician who always vacillated and cheated."

As a result of Rogovin's profound sympathies for Trotskyism and efforts to place his work in the tradition of the Left Opposition's critique of Stalinism, he was increasingly isolated from his colleagues, several of whom entered the Yeltsin administration and helped facilitate the eventual implementation of shock therapy, a key component of capitalist restoration in Russia. His discipline never forgave him for his intransigence and principles. One will find almost no mention of Rogovin or his contributions in the numerous monographs and other publications that have come out over the last 20 years about sociology in the USSR.

But Rogovin's isolation from Soviet sociology did not undermine his capacity to work. Rather, it coincided with the start of the publication of Was There an Alternative? In 1992, Rogovin met the International Committee of the Fourth International, and established a close political and intellectual relationship with the world Trotskyist movement that would intensify over the course of the next several years. This relationship was the basis upon which Rogovin made his immense contribution to the fight to defend Trotsky and historical truth. Two recently republished tributes to Rogovin by David North review this history.

Despite his death twenty years ago, through his work Rogovin continues his struggle to arm the working class with historical consciousness.

[Dec 21, 2018] Looks like an o ld, sick neocon Hillarty still tries to influence events, continuing her warmongring

The trouble with CIA democrats is not that they are stupid, but that that are evil.
Hillary proved to be really destructive witch during her Obama stunt as the Secretary of State. Destroyed Libya and Ukraine, which is no small feat.
Notable quotes:
"... The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided. ..."
"... She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League. ..."
Dec 21, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Pavel , December 21, 2018 at 10:47 am

The Grauniad just quoted a tweet from a predictably OUTRAGED @HillaryClinton:

Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or not, the people who want to harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia & Iran's hands is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk.

This from the woman who almost singlehandedly (i.e. along with David Cameron and Sarkovy) destroyed Libya and allowed -- if not encouraged -- the flow of US weapons to go into the hands of ISIS allies in the US-Saudi-Israeli obsession with toppling Assad regardless of the consequences. As Justin Raimondo wrote in Antiwar.com in 2015:

The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided.

This crazy policy was an extension of our regime change operation in Libya, a.k.a. "Hillary's War," where the US – "leading from behind" – and a coalition of our Western allies and the Gulf protectorates overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. There, too, we empowered radical Islamists with links to al-Qaeda affiliates – and then used them to ship weapons to their Syrian brothers, as another document uncovered by Judicial Watch shows.

After HRC's multiple foreign policy fiascos she is the last person who should be commenting on this matter.

a different chris, December 21, 2018 at 11:50 am

> the people who want to harm us are there & at war

Sounds like then they are too busy to harm us? She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League.

[Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences." ..."
"... "FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back." ..."
"... This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: July 25, 2017 at 2:09 pm GMT

@zzzzzzz

" but the Deep State knows how to box"

Let's see: "What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."

Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani Muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/

"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back."

This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange?

[Dec 21, 2018] The American Empire: yet another definition

Dec 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Prehuman insight

The American Empire:

an imperial ball of debt: a nation of never-educated, mobility scooter herds; a zillion-dollar military with decades of ineptitude fully demonstrated;

led by President Trash-n-Mock - without a mission, strategy or goal or chance for success.

[Dec 21, 2018] The White House announces some sort of US troop withdrawal from Syria

Notable quotes:
"... The only losers are the Israelis and the Saudis ..."
"... Now is the time for noninterventionists of all colors to support these decisions. ..."
"... I have seen some indication that we (the USA) will be removing support for Saudi activities in Yemen ..."
"... How much more flak could the neocons give him at this point. Short of assassinating him they've just about thrown everything they have at him. ..."
"... This is good news. It is insane to occupy a third of Syria risking a world war. But I heard the other day Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon accusing Russia of using Facebook to destroy American democratic values. That is crazy. ..."
"... If Trump pulls the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan just before the next presidential election - I think he can win it. There is strong bipartisan support for bringing the troops home. I am Canadian and a lefty - but if I were an American I would vote for Trump in the next election if he pulled the troops out (as long as his democratic opponent was not making a credible pledge to do the same). ..."
Dec 21, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

TTG , a day ago

The papers are saying withdrawal in 30 days. I don't know when the clock starts. That's fast, but enough time to coordinate the withdrawal with Damascus and her allies. The only losers are the Israelis and the Saudis . Between this bold and far reaching decision by Trump and the reestablishment of USSPACECOM, he is being presidential on a grand scale and keeping promises. He's going to get a lot of flak from neocons on the left and right. Now is the time for noninterventionists of all colors to support these decisions.
Pat Lang Mod -> TTG , a day ago
I would think that 30 days is an impossibly short period. It is not just a matter of climbing on board aircraft to leave. It should be noted that the US has a long record of walking away from allied peoples and groups in a treacherous way. People who trust us even in extremis are fools. When you no longer serve our purpose we are done with you. Having been involved in several of such abandonments I speak from experience.
dilbertdogbert -> Pat Lang , a day ago
A friend of mine was in 1st Log in Saigon and was told the order was to get out stuff out in some silly assed time frame. He replied that we had been putting stuff in Vietnam for 10 years and you want it all out pronto???!!!
Pat Lang Mod -> dilbertdogbert , a day ago
A good story but we actually back-hauled a great deal of materiel and still left the ARVNs enough that the communists sold it all over the world for years. My outfit at the end was STDAT-158. We were the rump of MACVSOG left behind to keep up the good work in that vale of tears. We had vast warehouses full of weapons, ammunition, clothing, commo gear, medical supplies, etc. We sent much of it to Okinawa and turned the rest of it over to our remaining native troops. They were non-Vietnamese who were not ARVN. They went into the jungle north of Pleiku where we had bought them at their request since the USG would not evacuate them and their families from the country - BOHICA! I argued as best a major could to set them up somewhere like Palau until I was told to shut up. Alas.
Eric Newhill -> TTG , a day ago
TTG,
I have seen some indication that we (the USA) will be removing support for Saudi activities in Yemen . The Kashogi killing seems to be the excuse. So maybe there is a grander general withdrawal from MENA involvement afoot. How much more flak could the neocons give him at this point. Short of assassinating him they've just about thrown everything they have at him.
Strawman -> TTG , 8 hours ago
TTG, I am wondering if you have an opinion on the writings of active duty Army Maj. Danny Sjursen, who posts a lot at tomdispatch.com and is reprinted at truthdig.com . Though often critical of the president, his latest (linked below) is approving of Trump's Syria move:

https://www.truthdig.com/ar...

TTG -> TTG , a day ago
Other sources are saying 60 to 100 days for a complete withdrawal. That's fine. Now is the time for those Special Forces teams working with the Kurds and Arabs of the YPG/YPJ and SDF to finally complete a full cycle of a US sponsored resistance, the demobilization and/or integration of those forces into the host government's forces.
Pave Way IV -> TTG , a day ago
Too bad we didn't go full cycle with the Houthis. Or is it still a secret that GBs were working with them against al Qaeda in Yemen way back when.
TTG -> Pave Way IV , a day ago
You would be surprised (or maybe not) at the range of people our Special Forces have worked with. I wrote this a while back about our work with the Iranian Green Berets. Some of the meet-ups I imagined may take place.

https://turcopolier.typepad...

Pat Lang Mod -> Pave Way IV , a day ago
Yes. It is, more or less and fine little fellows they are, or at least their grandfathers were.
SurfaceBook -> TTG , a day ago
TTG. , theres some Russia reports on fighters from Syria moving to Africa , will this mean an increase of US African activities after syria ? or do you foresee another theatre of increased activity ?
TTG -> SurfaceBook , a day ago
I'm sure jihadis from Syria are making their way to various fronts in Africa. I doubt Trump will be sending troops to the continent in response beyond a few more SF teams. I imagine the Russians will be sending a few teams of their own.
SurfaceBook -> TTG , a day ago
What do you think when you see AFRICOM increased activity in africa ? is this one of the neocon's way to counter china's influence in africa in the future ? The French also got heavily involved in Mali and yet there still no end of it..
VietnamVet , a day ago
This is good news. It is insane to occupy a third of Syria risking a world war. But I heard the other day Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon accusing Russia of using Facebook to destroy American democratic values. That is crazy.

The Yellow Vests provincial French uprising is destroying corporate toll booths and speed cameras. This plus Brexit documents how fragile the Western Alliance is. The anger across the West is due to horrendous inequality, privatization, political incompetence, and degradation of life. Instead of picking fights with everyone across the world, Mid America needs rebuilding and healing to prevent a revolt at home.

Pat Lang Mod -> VietnamVet , a day ago
The Democrats and especially the real lefties like Wyden have no ability to block Trump in this so long as he is president
TTG , a day ago
As a corollary to today's announcement, we should see our troops out of Tanf most rikki-tik. I bet we could get out of there in 24 hours if we had to. That would open the Baghdad-Damascus Highway.
JJackson -> TTG , 17 hours ago
I was wondering, with the benefit of hind sight, who knew in advance given a flurry of SAA activity recently around At Tanf. I doubted the point was a show down with the US now it looks like an encirclement to intercept the force fleeing the area, once the US pulls out, and in preparation for clearing the pocket.
Pat Lang Mod , a day ago
For general information TTG is the designated hitter on Syria but the the contributions of all, especially Robert Willman are very welcomed
Eric Newhill , 2 days ago
A good start! Now, if Trump can also get our troops out of Afghanistan, he will have fulfilled another campaign promise and free up some money for yet another; The Wall.
James Thomas -> Eric Newhill , a day ago
If Trump pulls the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan just before the next presidential election - I think he can win it. There is strong bipartisan support for bringing the troops home. I am Canadian and a lefty - but if I were an American I would vote for Trump in the next election if he pulled the troops out (as long as his democratic opponent was not making a credible pledge to do the same).
Pat Lang Mod -> James Thomas , a day ago
What would "credible" be?
ancient archer -> Pat Lang , 14 hours ago
Good point, Colonel. Given the past and recent record of democrats nothing they say on this topic can ever be credible to anyone.
Greco , 2 days ago
That's a positive indication, but I thought the calculus was to force the Iranians out? Is Trump now willing to engage a more diplomatic approach with Iran? Has neocon influence lost momentum?

It looks like this is the rationale behind this move:

https://www.thetelegram.com...

Ayham Kamel, an analyst with Eurasia Group, said Moscow, as part of any deal, may ask for acceptance of Assad and an eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, as Trump has suggested he would like to see happen by the end of the year.

"A public deal that accepts Assad in return for limiting Iranian influence implicitly if not explicitly gives him some legitimacy, and gives a much more coherent meaning for the victory beyond military terms," he said.

The president has also been trying to work out some sort of deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Apparently the president wants to remove all US troops in Afghanistan by the time of the 2020 election season. I'd certainly like to see that happen too.

https://taskandpurpose.com/...

smoothieX12 -> Greco , 16 hours ago
That's a positive indication, but I thought the calculus was to force the Iranians out?

Iran activities in Syria will be limited (or regulated, if one wishes) by Russia-Israeli arrangement, it is a given. Syrian air-defense officers Mustafa Ivanov and Akhmed Petrov manning all those air-defense toys in Syria (S-300 PMU et al) saw to that. Russia is NOT Israel's enemy but she expects some set of rules which work for everyone in Syria. IDF top brass nowadays visits Moscow as if going to work everyday.

Patrick Armstrong , 10 hours ago
I think the tiny minds that infest this site would do well to expose themselves to the larger strategic thinking of Mia Farrow:

"As Trump pulls troops out of Syria, we must acknowledge the enormity of
the world's failure to halt a humanitarian catastrophe . U.S exit
benefits Russia, ISIS - still active, Iran & Assad. Was this agreed
to during Putin/Trump's 2 hour Helsinki meeting- without witnesses?"

Bill Browder says it's a gift to Putin.

Here's some good reading https://www.rt.com/op-ed/44...

No doubt more to come. I look forward to the pink pussy hats carrying signs "No to grabbing! Yes to bombing!"

BrotherJoe , 16 hours ago
Being cynical for a second, could this be a response to the House's refusal to fund the border wall ? I can imagine the Israeli lobby putting pressure on Congress to make any deal necessary to retain American forces in Iraq. Is this overly convoluted thinking ?

On a second note, the Colonel has posted elsewhere about Erdogan's ambition to (re)establish a pan-Turkic alliance across the ME. Will the fact that he won't have the US as a buffer against Russsia be a help or a hindrance ?

Eugene Owens , a day ago
US withdrawal from Syria was a kickback to Erdogan for buying $3.5 Billion in Patriot missiles instead of the Russian S400.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2...

Pat Lang Mod -> Eugene Owens , a day ago
Plausible, but it was something he wanted to do anyway.
Jaime , a day ago
I hope this time is for real. I wonder what kind of deal Erdogan and Trump reached.
Pat Lang Mod -> Jaime , a day ago
Continued support
FB Ali -> Pat Lang , a day ago
And Patriots (on deferred payment, I presume).

As always seems to happen, the Kurds get thrown under the bus! They seem to have a remarkable ability to screw up their alliances.

ISL -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Dear Colonel,

There also are reports of sales of Patriots, so maybe Turkey has decided against the S-300 (for the time being).

FB Ali -> ISL , a day ago
Anyone hoping this means the Turks have cut their ties to the Russians is sadly mistaken. They've taken the free Patriots, and will use the funds earmarked for the S-300 to pay for the gas coming from Russia.
Eugene Owens -> FB Ali , 16 hours ago
And sadly, the inner technical workings of the Patriots and their radar systems will now be open to inspection by GRU technical intelligence experts. Same for the F35 if that deal frees up in Congress.
ISL -> FB Ali , a day ago
Dear FB Ali,

I suspect that is what the Trump administration or more likely Trump himself (no matter what the intelligence agencies say) personally believes (but then he doesnt listen to briefings).

It was apparent that Erdogan believes the US was behind the coup against him and thus will ensure he has ace's up his sleeve (i.e., air defenses that could not (potentially) be turned off by NATO). Call it a strategic and temporary turn from Russia (for a few months?).

Adrestia , a day ago
According to Southfront some troops will stay, but they give no source for this.

https://southfront.org/u-s-...

A notable part of US Special Operations Forces will remain on the ground
and additional forces of US-linked private military companies will be
deployed to "defend American interests"

Pat Lang Mod -> Adrestia , a day ago
"Some troops" is probably the neocons and generals' club attempt to blunt Trump's decision
TTG -> Adrestia , a day ago
The first US troops in were a couple of dozen Green Berets. They will probably be the last ones out. If all goes well, they will hand over liaison duties to SAA, Russian or even IRGC counterparts (loosely speaking). At least that's the way I think it should go.
Pat Lang Mod , a day ago
As TTG says here the Rojava Kurds have a chance here but the window will close quickly if they do not embrace fully the Syrian government. I suspect that the Russians have made a deal with Turkey that involves a cessation of support of jihadis in Idlib and possibly Afrin in return for a free hand against the Rojava Kurds and that Trump personally and against advice made that decision.
Walrus , 2 days ago
...Leaving a vacuum to be filled by?
TTG -> Walrus , a day ago
The supposed vacuum is Syrian territory. Damascus and the SAA will fill it just fine. The Kurds would be suicidal fools to resist.
Jaime -> TTG , a day ago
I think one should NEVER betray one's own. Unless Russia gets some deal for the Kurds, they will be thrown under the bus. The only place where they can get some mercy is, again, in Damascus. If you ask me, I would crush them.
TTG -> Jaime , a day ago
Assad's policy is to eventually exert control over ALL Syrian territory. He wants the Kurds to be an integral part of that Syria, probably more integral than a lot of Kurds would want. If we facilitate that transfer, we will for once do right by an indigenous ally. It is time for the demobilization phase. Special Forces commanders should be doing everything in their power to ensure this is part of the withdrawal plan. That's how we avoid betraying the Rojava Kurds.
Pat Lang Mod -> Jaime , a day ago
'If you ask me, I would crush them." Ah, a cruel, fierce man you are...
Jaime -> Pat Lang , 13 hours ago
No, Sir. In fact, it is true that human nature has its contradictions. War is a total waste of resources -both human and material. Negotiations and diplomacy are much better courses of action. I guess I got carried away, and I reacted irrationally. Syria has suffered enough, and I hope that the parties can find ways to put away their weapons and start the recontruction of their country despite the mistakes from all sides.
ISL -> Jaime , a day ago
Assad also knows the Kurds are a problem for Turkey, which is in Syria's interests.
Pat Lang Mod -> Jaime , a day ago
if you were Damascus?
John Waddell -> TTG , a day ago
Might be a bit of a tussle with Turkey but its probable that Damascus and the SDF have been in talks for a while so hopefully this time, as opposed to Afrin, the Kurds will see sense. The Turks biggest fear must be PKK spreading along their southern border and if Syria/Russia can give them some assurances re that then perhaps they will sit back and watch.

This will leave the SAA and RuAF, with Iraqi help, to get stuck in on a proper demolition of the remaining ISIS units followed by a Idlib campaign.

There is an implication in this move by the US that they have evacuated anyone that matters from their proxy units. How the remaining disposable foot soldiers react to that is an unknown so a factor in a rapid withdrawal to reduce shot in the back risk.

If Trump also wants to get out of Afghanistan perhaps this is a small scale dry run.

Julius HK -> TTG , a day ago
To say the least, Netanyahou is not going to have a good night sleep from now on...
Pat Lang Mod -> Julius HK , a day ago
I don't think so. The re-opening of the Quneitra crossing speaks to a change in Israeli policy.

[Dec 21, 2018] Trump End the Syria War Now by Eric Margolis

Highly recommended!
This article written more then a year ago still reads as today analysis of the situation. Bravo !
Notable quotes:
"... That's fine, but the problem is that Trump's track record so far makes it impossible to give him unalloyed credit for this. ..."
"... Who exactly is the US at war against in Syria and why is it going on? http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-military-bases-in-syria-their-precise-location-is-known/5600527 ..."
"... Trump has decided. Perhaps. But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides? Thank you for this concise summation of Imperial Washington's war against Syria. ..."
"... The goal of supporting the Kurds is still a priority, to advance Israel's fall back position of partition. It would prefer the chaos of a regime run by jihadi scum (not going to happen thanks to V. Putin) but either way we'll do Israel's bidding. ..."
"... As so often, the weakness of the argument is obvious in the first sentence: "Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the US had become entangled". I can't say I recall any such vow. Trump is a master of doubletalk. He says everything and the contrary of everything. ..."
"... Where is the "Special Prosecutor" on this? Assange: 'CIA Not Only Armed Syria's Insurgents -- It Paid Their Salaries' http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57076 ..."
"... "Pompeo and David B. Rivkin Jr., a senior fellow at the neoconservative think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that "Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." Pompeo has also suggested that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden should be executed." ..."
"... ZeroHedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-23/five-weird-conspiracy-theories-cia-director-mike-pompeo "Mike Pompeo sounds increasingly unhinged when talking about Russia, Wikileaks and the media" ..."
"... U.S. Special Operations Commander Tony Thomas confirmed Friday that the U.S. had ended its covert program aiding rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the decision was made after assessing the years-long operation's capabilities and by no means an effort to curry favor with Assad's chief backer, Moscow ..."
"... Lavrov has some pretty direct and well-deserved words for Obama. Thus, Lavrov compares Obama to a small kid unable to comprehend the responsibilities of his position of a President of the US. ..."
"... Oded Yinon in his famous article "proceeds to analyze the weaknesses of Arab countries concluding that Israel should aim to bring about the fragmentation of the Arab world into a mosaic of ethnic and confessional groupings. "Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation," he argued, would prove to be advantageous to Israel in the short term. Ilan Peleg described it as "an authentic mirror of the thinking mode of the Israeli Right at the height of Begin's rule." Chomsky warned against complacency about these fringe ideas since, he argued: "(t)he entire history of Zionism and later that of Israel, particularly since 1967, is one of a gradual shift towards the positions of those formerly regarded as right-wing extremists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan ..."
"... van Creveld also stated: "We have the capability of taking the world down with us. And I assure you that will happen before Israel goes down." Food for thought! ..."
"... Tucker and Tulsi on Syria vs CIAria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IGAXJNzPfU ..."
Jul 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the US had become entangled. So far, they have been disappointed. But this week a light flashed at the end of the tunnel.

President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fuelled the bloody six-year conflict. Washington, and its allies Britain and France, have persistently denied arming Syria's jihadist rebels fighting to bring down the Russian and Iranian-backed government of President Bashar Assad.

Former President George W. Bush actively considered invading Syria around 2008 in collusion with Israel. But the Israelis then pointed out that there were no Western-friendly groups to replace Assad, only extreme militant Sunni Muslim groups. Even the usually reckless Bush called off the invasion of Syria.

By contrast, Barack Obama gave a green light to the CIA to arm, train and logistically support anti-Assad jihadist rebels in Syria. Arms poured in from Lebanon and, later, Turkey, paid for by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Small numbers of US, British and French advisors went to Syria to teach the jihadists how to use mortars, explosives, and anti-tank weapons. The media's claim that the fighting in Syria was due to a spontaneous popular uprising was false. The repressive Assad government was widely unpopular but the uprising was another CIA 'color-style' operation.

The object of this operation was to overthrow President Assad and his Shiite-leaning regime, which was supported by Iran, a bogeyman to all the US-backed feudal Arab oil monarchies. Syria was also to be punished because it refused Washington's demands to sever ties with Iran and accept US tutelage.

Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed the covert war against Syria, arranging massive shipments of arms and munitions to the rebels from Kadaffi-era arms stores in Libya, and from Egypt, Croatia, likely Serbia, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan. Once again, the Gulf Arabs paid the bill.

The offensive against Syria was accompanied by a powerful barrage of anti-Assad propaganda from the US and British media. From the background, Israel and its partisans beat the war drum against the Assad government.

The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. That is, some 11 million Syrians, or 61% of the population, driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

Two of Syria's greatest and oldest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have been pounded into ruins. Jihadist massacres and Russian and American air strikes have ravaged once beautiful, relatively prosperous Syria. Its ancient Christian peoples are fleeing for their lives before US and Saudi takfiri religious fanatics.

Just when it appeared the jihadists were closing in on Damascus, limited but effective Russian military intervention abruptly changed the course of the war. The Syrian Army was able to regain the military initiative and push back the jihadists. Intermixed with so-called 'takfiri' rebels are some 3,000 ISIS jihadists who were originally armed and equipped by US advisors but have now run amok. They are under fierce western air attack in Syria and Iraq and are splintering.

Russia and the US have been inching toward a major war over Syria. In fact, US intervention has been far more extensive than generally believed, as this writer has been reporting for the past five years. Turkish media linked to the government in Ankara has just revealed that the US has at least ten small military bases in northern Syria being used to support rebel jihadist forces.

Meanwhile, the US is now relying almost entirely on Kurdish militias, know in Syria as YPG, to attack ISIS and act in US interests. This has outraged Turkey, which regards YPG as part of the hated Kurdish independence movement, PKK, against which Turkey has fought for two decades. During the 1980's, I covered the Turkish-PKK conflict in eastern Anatolia.

If YPG/PKK emerges victorious from the Syrian conflict, Kurdish demands for an independent state in south eastern Turkey will intensify, threatening the breakup of the Turkish state. Kurds make up some 20% of Turkey's population of 80 million.

For this very important reason, Turkey has been pulling away from US-run NATO, and warming relations with Moscow. Turkey has NATO's second largest armed forces and key airbases that cover the Mideast.

Trump's announced retreat from Syria -- if it turns out to be real -- will mark a major turning point in US-Russian relations. It could well avoid a clash between Russia and the US, both nuclear powers. The US has no real business in Syria and no strategic interests

America's powerful neocons, who have been pressing for war against Russia, will be furious. Expect the media war against Trump to intensify. So too claims that Trump colluded with Moscow to get elected.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2017

Randal , says: July 22, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT

But this week a light flashed at the end of the tunnel. President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fuelled the bloody six-year conflict.

That's fine, but the problem is that Trump's track record so far makes it impossible to give him unalloyed credit for this. At the moment it has to be counted as just another "up" moment in the rollercoaster ride that has been the Trump presidency so far. Will it foreshadow further moves towards sanity in foreign policy? Or will it just be followed by another literally stupid lurch back to the neocon-driven norm?

Looked at optimistically, you can read it as a sign that the underlying sensibleness of the patriotic "America first" noninterventionist approach (as opposed to the usual Israel/Saudi first, or US-uber-alles militarism, or "humanitarian interventionism" approach) is finally prevailing, or at least as a sign of a reduction in the US regime drive towards direct confrontation of Russia.

But looked at pessimistically, it's just an admission of the already obvious failure of one particular interventionist approach and its termination in favour of alternative approaches to the same ends, which will be followed by some idiocy such as another childish murder of Syrian conscripts when Trump is shown some more emotionally manipulative photographs.

Time will tell.

exiled off mainstreet , says: July 23, 2017 at 2:18 am GMT
Kudos to Mr. Margolis for penning an excellent article describing the real facts of the matter against the prevailing propaganda narrative and placing the blame, including by implication war crimes responsibility, where it belongs.
Gg Mo , says: July 23, 2017 at 3:14 am GMT
Why is NO ONE at UNZ covering the UN pay-to-play Corruption/Bribery trial of Ng Lap Seng ? More coming down the pike involving Ban Ki Moon's brother ! Thank Goodness for Mattew Lee at Inner City Press ! https://youtu.be/62YnvqveGYU
UNZ should DEFINITELY carry his reportage as he seems to be the ONLY one at the Pressers w/ Dujarric asking questions about ANYTHING at the UN.

http://www.innercitypress.com/unbribery63uncooperativeun072217.html

Russ , says: July 23, 2017 at 4:08 am GMT
A sidelined John McCain should be a greatly reduced impediment to an exit from Syria.
NoseytheDuke , says: July 23, 2017 at 4:12 am GMT
Who exactly is the US at war against in Syria and why is it going on? http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-military-bases-in-syria-their-precise-location-is-known/5600527
SND , says: July 23, 2017 at 4:28 am GMT

Former President George W. Bush actively considered invading Syria around 2008 in collusion with Israel. But the Israelis then pointed out that there were no Western-friendly groups to replace Assad, only extreme militant Sunni Muslim groups. Even the usually reckless Bush called off the invasion of Syria.

You mean the Israeli government's desire that the US fragment Middle Eastern Arab states for Israel's hegemonic purposes is actually a concern for "Western-friendly groups?" And the repeated Israeli statements that "ISIS would be better than Assad" means they totally changed their mind since Bush days? Something doesn't smell quite right here.

WorkingClass , says: July 23, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT

President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fueled the bloody six-year conflict.

Trump has decided. Perhaps. But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides? Thank you for this concise summation of Imperial Washington's war against Syria.

jilles dykstra , says: July 23, 2017 at 6:25 am GMT
The great thing resulting from the election of Trump is that it made quite clear how undemocratic the USA is, and how Israel influences, tries to determine, USA foreign policy. Trump and Putin agree on a partial cease fire in Syria, who objects ?: Netanyahu. What media continue accusing Trump on collusion with the enemy, Russia ? CNN, Washpost and NYT. I hope Trump survives the Cold Civil War. Kennedy did not.
Ace , says: July 23, 2017 at 8:47 am GMT
@Randal The goal of supporting the Kurds is still a priority, to advance Israel's fall back position of partition. It would prefer the chaos of a regime run by jihadi scum (not going to happen thanks to V. Putin) but either way we'll do Israel's bidding.

Mr. Margolis is must read for me but I wonder at his embrace of the "repressive," "unpopular" Assad regime view. I don't get that impression and it is certainly not the view of Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley. The chemical weapons stuff is complete garbage as Margolis knows.

Renoman , says: July 23, 2017 at 8:50 am GMT
Trump will be very popular if he pulls this off, war in Syria is not in the US interest and being friends with Russia is a smart move. Go Trump!
Good article Eric!
Miro23 , says: July 23, 2017 at 9:01 am GMT

The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. That is, some 11 million Syrians, or 61% of the population, driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

You can lay all this at the door of Israel, US Neo-cons and their Congressional and MSM collaborators + treasonous leaders like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Same for the Iraq war (duck shoot) with its WMD lies and the MSM 9/11 trigger "Event". The US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of Iraq, Libya and Syria and it's also the worst news for the 98% of Gentiles in the US who have now lost their country to these Zionist freaks.

Greg Bacon , says: Website July 23, 2017 at 9:08 am GMT
To claim that Israel got Bush the Mad to back off from invading Syria because they were concerned about moderate head choppers being the only ones who would fill the power vacuum is laughable. Israel has supported these thugs many times with medical care, money, shelter in the stolen Golan and most importantly, their MSM buddies printing all those stories about how Assad must go.

Israel had been directing its colony, the formerly free USA, to bust up Syria and murder Assad and that we have been faithfully trying to do, but that damned Putin got in the way, so sic the MSM on him and his buddy Trump.

The illegal war against Syria is far from over, Israel is PO that Syria hasn't been destroyed and they will not take lightly some chump like Trump interfering with their plans.

lavoisier , says: Website July 23, 2017 at 9:40 am GMT
@Russ I think that is a good observation. I also believe his traitorous sidekick Graham will also be a little less vocal about his support for world destruction now that his comrade in stupidity has fallen. These two obviously are bought and paid for by the Zionists. There is no other explanation for their predictable level of malice and stupidity.
jacques sheete , says: July 23, 2017 at 11:17 am GMT
@Russ

A sidelined John McCain should be a greatly reduced impediment to an exit from Syria.

Let's hope so. Unfortunately there is no shortage of crackpots to replace that reeking glob of slime.

Lemurmaniac , says: July 23, 2017 at 11:18 am GMT
All good points but its disgusting how left anti imperialists care more about a foreign people than the colonization and dispossession of the their own group by hordes of 'the other' from the global south under the aegis of neoliberal ideology.
Che Guava , says: July 23, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
Well, we non-USA can only be hoping. That order was one of the better, anybody who is reading English is to knowing that the building attack had nothing to do with a consulate, but the consul happened to be there at the time. Sure, probably CIA. The weapons-running operation certainly was.

Hillary was terrible to making 'The Kindness of Muslims' maker the scapegoat, sending him to prison in defiance of his rights, I only saw the short, but it was both apt and funny, if there is a feature-length version, I would love to seeing it. It did exist, it seems, was shown once or twice.

Aah, memory holes.

Michael Kenny , says: July 23, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT
As so often, the weakness of the argument is obvious in the first sentence: "Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the US had become entangled". I can't say I recall any such vow. Trump is a master of doubletalk. He says everything and the contrary of everything.

Mr Margolis, and others, heard what they wanted to hear and believed what they wanted to believe. Quite simply, they fell into the trap Trump set for them. Even if Trump wasn't the most pro-Israel president in US history, the Israel Lobby is there to see that US foreign policy suits Israel's interests. Israel sees Iran as its principal enemy. Putin has snuggled up to Iran and is propping up Iran's "ally", Assad. Israel thus needs to get both Assad and Putin out of Syria. By failing to stand up to Putin in Ukraine, Obama allowed him to discredit the US as Europe's, and by extension, Israel's protector and to discredit NATO as the instrument of that protection. For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe.

Thus, Trump has to restore US and NATO credibility and the only way to do that is to get Putin out of Ukraine and, ideally, out of power. The simplest way to do that is to fight him in Syria, where he's bogged down and cornered and cannot escape unless the US capitulates. Thus, arming or not arming this or that Syrian group is totally irrelevant. It just shows that the US can turn the heat up and down on Putin at will. I can't imagine, therefore, why US neocons would be "furious".

The longer Putin is bogged down in Syria, the better. The last thing Trump needs is to have anything he does, whether in Syria or Ukraine, billed as a "retreat" in regard to Putin. That will simply inflame Russiagate.

DESERT FOX , says: July 23, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
Trumps word means nothing, and he never said a thing about the pentagram ending their support of Isis aka al ciada, so this is much ado about nothing, the Zionists want war and war they shall have until Zionist Israel destroys America.

Zionist Israel and the U.S. and Britain created isis aka al ciada and anyone who thinks they have given up on regime change and the greater Israel plan in the Mideast is sadly mistaken. America is under Zionist control.

DaveE , says: July 23, 2017 at 3:14 pm GMT
Could it be that Trump is waking up? In spite of all his bluster during the campaign, it's become obvious that Mr. Trump doesn't have the foggiest idea how government and politics actually works. It's just a LITTLE different than running a real-estate operation.

My opinion is that that Trump, being the very insecure egotist that he is, is beginning, just barely, to realize what people actually expect, not what the neocon con-artists and rigged "opinion polls" tell him the story is.

Is Trump, maybe, just kinda sorta maybe, waking up to slimeballs like his dirty little son-in-law he so fervently followed in the past?

Anyway, Trump has been scoring big lately with his chat with Putin and this kick to the neocons' sensitive area.

Let's all write the guy and tell him he's on the right track. I'm sure the "opinion polls" will tell him just the opposite, since they're nothing more than some Jew in an office in Brooklyn telling us what we believe.

Che Guava , says: July 23, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

You are so clearly a harmful propagandist on so many levels that I need not to pointing it out.

I am knowing that you are to making one or two of good points at times, but only to draw to all of your lies and stupid assumptions. Essentially, to making EU= NATO=zionism is the great thing to you, hate Russia is your cause.

Your 'Michael Kenny' is as much a pseudonym as mine. It is obvious. At least, when I am posting, it is from the heart of the person behind the pseudonym and of goodwill or to informing. Reading yours, it is very difficult to see any good intentions.

Many others here are to having critical faculties. They also will be seeing you for what you are, just a nasty and cheap propagandist, with posts that are always being too long.

Are you on some kind of 'net agent of influence programme? Sure is looking like it.

Joe Hide , says: July 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT
The evidence seems to support the view that an informational war, with some actual murders, is taking place within and between, the CIA, FBI, NSA, other U.S. agencies and institutions. Also this happened in Russia but as Putin survived and consolidated power, it's much less so now. It is probably happening in many countries. I have come to the conclusion that these "hidden wars" within seemingly unified groups is part and parcel of human nature. The bad guy deceivers normally have a huge advantage in that they become much more skilled at deceiving. Their great disadvantage is that they eventually go so obviously nuts that nobody believes them anymore!
Randal , says: July 23, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

Their great disadvantage is that they eventually go so obviously nuts that nobody believes them anymore!

And yet John McCain and Lindsey Graham keep on getting re-elected, usually by huge margins.

Bruce Marshall , says: July 23, 2017 at 4:37 pm GMT
Where is the "Special Prosecutor" on this? Assange: 'CIA Not Only Armed Syria's Insurgents -- It Paid Their Salaries' http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57076
Father Coughlin , says: July 23, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT
Since the Resistance has relentlessly played the bogus Russia narrative to a point where it is hampering him from getting anything done (thus jeopardizing his reelection, if not some crazy impeachment attempt), Trump's only choice, according to Jiu-Jitsu, is to flip the script and make the Left the pro-War party. Go!
Sean , says: July 23, 2017 at 5:45 pm GMT

http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/disaster-area/
Some years ago I had the pleasure of coming across a book by the aged doyen of "oriental studies," Bernard Lewis. Titled What Went Wrong and first published in 2002, it tried to explain how and why the brilliant civilization of the Middle Ages had declined until, finally, it reached the point where the epithet "Arab" is positive only when applied to a horse.

Though I read it twice, I still do not know.

nsa , says: July 23, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT
Must be tough typing out a couple thousand word screed re the destruction of the ME without mentioning the vile jooies and their total domination of American foreign policy in the area. The US Knesset on the Potomac is now actually trying to pass a law outlawing any criticism of the bloodthirsty Izzies ..with very stiff fines for offenders. Need any more evidence?
Alden , says: July 23, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT
@Sean The brilliant Muslim civilization is a myth It never existed.

The Arabs conquered the Middle East and blundered into the legacy of Egypt, Persia Mesopotamia, Greece Rome, and the Byzantine empire. Claiming the Muslim primitive Arabs created the legacy of those civilizations is like saying Walter Raleigh developed tobacco or the Spanish conquerors developed potatoes and corn. Iranians still resent the conquest of their ancient civilization by the barbarian primitive Arabs

It took about 500 years but the Muslim Arabs destroyed those civilization. Morrish Spain? Every one of those great buildings, from architects and engineers to porters were built by European slaves.

It was the numerous Christians and less numerous Jews who kept things going. The Turks wouldn't even hire Muslim Arabs for any kind of government positions in the Arab countries. They used local Christians, Jews and imported slave Europeans.

I've read Bernard Lewis. He's outdated. For a long time in the 19th and early 20th century Jews wrote many of those books extolling the superiority of Muslim Jewish countries over us blue eyed barbarians. Lewis is one of those writers

Greg Bacon , says: Website July 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe.

Why should the USA defend Israel from its horrible choices, especially being an Apartheid nightmare? Why should we defend a nation that has attacked our ships, bases and personnel numerous times? Why should we defend a nation that has control of our economy thru their choke-hold on the FED and Treasury? Why should we defend a nation that acts like a spoiled child anytime it doesn't get it's way and goes on murderous rampages against the world's biggest concentration camp, Gaza? Why should we defend a nation that attacked us on 9/11, then had their MSM whores blame the Muslim world?

http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html

Art , says: July 23, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT
The illness of McCain will give the prospects for cooperation between the US and Russian a big boost. Here is an interesting article on the subject.

Dismantling McCain's Disastrous Legacy Should Now Be Trump's Top Priority

By Tom Luongo

The Arizona senator's absence creates a unique opportunity for President Trump to alter the course of our foreign and domestic policy. From Iraq to Libya, Syria to Afghanistan and right up to Russia's borders in Ukraine, McCain's bloody paw prints are all over more than a decade of American foreign policy blunders.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20873

exiled off mainstreet , says: July 23, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon The attempted sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967 and the actions of the US government since reveal 50 years of the Israeli tail wagging the yankee dog. It is unprecedented in history for an auxilliary satellite state to so dominate the foreign policy actions of what should be the dominant power. Whether or not 9-11 was a conspiracy is interesting but not dispositive, since whatever its cause, whether or not intentionally planned or simply allowed to happen, as I suspect, the event was used as a Reichstag fire event by the yankee regime and its Israeli patrons to brush aside any remaining opposition to the neocon project. By the way, I am totally convinced that the anthrax attacks occurring in the wake of 9-11 were to secure this result.
annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke " ten U.S. bases in the Syrian provinces of Al-Hasakah, Manbij and Raqqa, as well as in the areas of Harab-Isk and Rmeilan The source also reported on the number of the U.S. servicemen deployed at these bases."
Splendid. Illegally, on a territory of the sovereign state of Syria, without any permission from the Syrian government. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-military-bases-in-syria-their-precise-location-is-known/5600527
But for the demonizers of Iran and apologists of Kievan junta, the US involvement in Syria is a clear case of bringing the "democracy on the march."
annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT
@WorkingClass "But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides?"
-- You mean, the CIA and/or Pentagon will jump as high as the Lobby tell them to jump?
annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT
@Miro23 "The US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of Iraq, Libya, and Syria "
Agree. A minor addition: The US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of the US as well.
utu , says: July 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT
@Alden "in the 19th and early 20th century Jews wrote many of those books extolling the superiority of Muslim Jewish countries over us blue eyed barbarians"

Correct. But in the 2nd half of 20 c. the winds of history shifted with the creation of state of Israel and Jewish historians decided to write the history anew in which Muslims were not so good anymore. Father of Netanyahu was one of them.

Which Jewish historians do you want to believe?

annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon "Israel had been directing its colony, the formerly free USA, to bust up Syria and murder Assad and that we have been faithfully trying to do, but that damned Putin got in the way "
This is why the Russain Federation has been suffering the relentless barrage of demonization and economic sanctions, and this why Americans have been suffering the stupidity of the ziocon-promoted Russiangate.
annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX " the Zionists want war and war they shall have until Zionist Israel destroys America."

True. The Jewish communities of the EU/US, UK must decide -- now -- whether they are with western civilization or with the mythological and barbarous dream of Eretz Israel. The US, UK, and EU have been a safe harbor for the majority of Jewish people for the last 50 years. However, the Jewish Lobby is not satisfied with such trifles as the peaceful life and security and it wants Eretz Israel; PNAC (ziocons' manifest) has been used as an ideological guise.
There were certain sane Germans who tried to stop Hitler and thus to save Germany. Some of them paid for the attempts with their lives. Where are the Jewish communities of the US, UK, and EU to stop the lunatics, all these Friends of Israel and AIPAC, these pushers towards a worldwide catastrophe? See the ziocon plan in Ukraine, which made the lives of many Jews there intolerable (welcome, neo-Nazi). What is next -- the rise of antisemitism in the tolerant (for now) Europe and US?
If MSM were the honest sources of information, the westerners would have seen already the thousands and thousands of little corpses, the victims of "humanitarian interventions" of NATO/US in Libya and Syria and would already demand to hang the main war profiteers /war criminals to prevent more carnage and more war-profiteering schems.
The ongoing wars in the Middle EAst are an integral part of Eretz Israel project. Give Israel its due.

annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 10:15 pm GMT
@Che Guava Agree
annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 10:40 pm GMT
@Bruce Marshall This is great: "CIA not only armed Syria's insurgents -- it paid their salaries."
And who are these "insurgents" -- the "moderate" jihadis affiliated with ISIS and Al Qaeda?
The supposedly "manly" CIA director Mike Pompeo comes out as a banal opportunist inclined to hysterics.
Pompeo, "No one has the right to engage in the theft of secrets from America!"
Assange, "What sort of America can be "taken down" by the truth?"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-14/wikileaks-issues-response-cia-director-mike-pompeo

"Pompeo and David B. Rivkin Jr., a senior fellow at the neoconservative think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that "Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." Pompeo has also suggested that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden should be executed."

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/trumps-pro-torture-pro-israel-cia-chief

annamaria , says: July 23, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny "For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe."
For obvious reasons, the sooner the US disengages from Israel, the better for the whole world.
Pachyderm Pachyderma , says: July 23, 2017 at 11:44 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon Why should you? Because Jesus was a Jew just kidding! But didn't you utter something about a chockhold on the Fed and the Treasury? Well, it may just be me but if I controlled my bitch's purse then she would be dancing to my tune too!
annamaria , says: July 24, 2017 at 1:13 am GMT
Paul Craig Roberts and Stephen Lendman have a word for Pompeo:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/23/trumps-appointees-worse-obamas/

ZeroHedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-23/five-weird-conspiracy-theories-cia-director-mike-pompeo "Mike Pompeo sounds increasingly unhinged when talking about Russia, Wikileaks and the media"

anon Disclaimer , says: July 24, 2017 at 1:56 am GMT
Can he ????

Here is one of the many views of this unstable man -- How the Trump regime was manufactured by a war inside the Deep Stat . A systemic crisis in the global Deep System has driven the violent radicalization of a Deep State faction By Nafeez Ahmed

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by-a-war-inside-the-deep-state-f9e757071c70

anon Disclaimer , says: July 24, 2017 at 2:02 am GMT
@annamaria http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/21/tony-thomas-syria-secret-program-cia-240818

Top general confirms end to secret U.S. program in Syria

Special Operations commander walked back remarks that appeared to surprise the CIA. ASPEN -- U.S. Special Operations Commander Tony Thomas confirmed Friday that the U.S. had ended its covert program aiding rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the decision was made after assessing the years-long operation's capabilities and by no means an effort to curry favor with Assad's chief backer, Moscow . The comments appeared to take the CIA -- which declined to comment -- by surprise.

Thomas almost immediately tried to walk back his comments after leaving the stage, telling reporters he hadn't confirmed anything and was referring only to "public reporting."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/21/tony-thomas-syria-secret-program-cia-240818

anonymous Disclaimer , says: July 24, 2017 at 2:11 am GMT
@jilles dykstra It won't come to that right away. But it will come to that if Trump does not ultimately keep the pressure on the Assad regime, and if he ignores all the drumbeats (and survives the "impeachment").
edNels , says: July 24, 2017 at 2:14 am GMT
@Pachyderm Pachyderma how do you know that Jesus was any such thing? A Jew? Never!
annamaria , says: July 24, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT
@anon Thank you for the interesting post.

Here is a transcript of an interview with S. Lavrov (Russian foreign minister), which should provide a lot of educational moments for the US Congress people and WH press corps (known as the presstitute corps): http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/video/-/asset_publisher/i6t41cq3VWP6/content/id/2821758

Try to compare Lavrov with a typical US legislator, for example, with Maxine Waters, John McCain, and Chuck Schumer, who represent three main subgroups in the US Congress. The decades of "unnatural selection" in the US government have produced a collection of intellectual and moral pygmies, unfortunately.

Lavrov has some pretty direct and well-deserved words for Obama. Thus, Lavrov compares Obama to a small kid unable to comprehend the responsibilities of his position of a President of the US.

anon Disclaimer , says: July 24, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT
WHATEVER happens, Syria will remain a backward, retarded, Muslim shithole with no freedom, democracy, respect for women, free speech or press and an all around dysfuntional Arab country.
dorkimundo , says: July 24, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT
It it time for the Syrian "Madman' to order another sarin gas attack against the innocent children?
annamaria , says: July 24, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT
@dorkimundo It is so easy to spot a ziocon thirsty for the US resources, who is eager to see the US to waste the US limb&blood for the barbarious dream of Eretz Israel
annamaria , says: July 24, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT
@dorkimundo There are hundreds of thousands of innocent children that perished because of the ziocon project in the Middle East
annamaria , says: July 24, 2017 at 1:37 pm GMT
@anon " dysfunctional Arab country."
It is fun to observe how Israelis of Soviet extraction feel superior to other Israelis and to everybody else. Check the level of "democracy, respect for women, free speech or press" in Afghanistan in the 80-s and compare the facts with the disaster brought upon Afghani women by US warriors.
Your bloodthirsty ideologues of Eretz Israel dream nothing more than creating the dysfunctional Arab countries next to Israel (see Oded Yinon plan); hence the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of all ages in the Middle East. After this holocaust of Arabs, which was designed and promoted by Israelis and Israel-firsters in the US, your apartheid state of Israel will never recover morally. You are doomed.
Gg Mo , says: July 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT
@RobinG He is the LAST Real Journalist at the UN pressers . Him today explain his oust of his office space at the UN and replacement by a FAKE "Egyptian" Newspaper.
Che Guava , says: July 24, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT
@annamaria Annamaria,

Thanks for it. Interrupted by a friend and tired, am forgetting what else I was wanting to say, but your post 42 in this thread is very good.

IMHO, as USA people say, that man is a three-dollar bill. I don't even know if it was common speech or made up by Phillip Kindred Dick, but 'phoney as a three-dollar bill', it is a great expression!

Sean , says: July 24, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
@Alden My point is the Arabs have never been easy to govern and they revolt a lot. Martin van Creveld says

The aftermath of the war [WW1] saw the establishment of the colonies -- which later developed into independent states -- of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Gulf, and Trans-Jordan (as it then was). Saudi Arabia, which was never occupied by either Britain or France, became independent by default. [...]

Since then the peace to end all peace, as it has been called, has remained the source of endless trouble. First the British had to cope with Arab uprisings in Palestine and, on a much larger scale, in Iraq. No sooner were those revolts suppressed than trouble broke out on the border between Trans Jordan and Saudi Arabia, an entirely artificial line on the map that the local tribes refused to respect. In 1927-29 it was the turn of the French to cope with what is still remembered as the Great Syrian Revolt. [...]

How to account for all this trouble? Perhaps the most important answer is the extraordinary complexity of the region. A complexity which the new states, lacking firm roots in the population as they did, never succeeded in controlling. There are, of course, Egyptians and Syrians and Iraqis and Saudis and so forth. But there are also Israelis and Palestinians. And Arabs and Kurds. And Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Copts. There are Sunnis and there are Shi'ites and there are Allawi's, whom some do not recognize as Muslims at all ).

The Kurds' interminable revolts have had help from the US. but really you cannot say the US created the uprising of the Kurds against every state they reside in The last time the US helped Kurds and then abandoned them. Just like the Syrian rebels. Kurds never expected anything different as they have been dumped by the US before. Leaving their erstwhile allies to their fate is something America has a reputation for. So I would not get excited about the US doing it in Syria.

annamaria , says: July 24, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT
@Sean " the Arabs have never been easy to govern and they revolt a lot."

When "Arabs" is replaced with "Jews", the statement could be from a book on the history of the Jewish Greek wars, "the Jews have never been easy to govern and they revolt a lot:" http://www.onjewishmatters.com/the-jewish-greek-wars/

As for Martin van Creveld, this supremacist barbarian has obtained his fame by promoting the Samson Option. " Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying: " We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Very clear. Also explains the miserable role that the US is currently playing on the orders from the Lobby.

KA , says: July 25, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT
Trump is thinking of doing what Cheney did on the CIA. He is sidelining Tillerson and urging some handpicked guys to give him what he needs not to certify Iran when it is up for agin in 90 days .

"A third source with intimate knowledge of that meeting said Steve Bannon, the White House chief strategist, and Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to the president, were particularly vocal, repeatedly asking Tillerson to explain the U.S. national security benefits of certification. "They repeatedly questioned Rex about why recertifying would be good for U.S. national security, and Rex was unable to answer," the source said. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/21/trump-assigns-white-house-team-to-target-iran-nuclear-deal-sidelining-state-department/

It is not US interests . It is the fact that should guide Bannon , Gorka and Trump. Iran is still in the crosshairs

zzzzzzz , says: July 25, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT
@Randal Trump knows how to brawl, but the Deep State knows how to box
Sean , says: July 25, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT
@annamaria Israel has no external threat, Syria was always a military minnow. Israel has an internal threat inasmuch the West Bank Arabs cannot be kept as they are.

The US backs a two state solution and thus in the REALLY IMPORTANT THING America is NOT A TOOL OF ISRAEL.

RobinG , says: July 25, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT
@annamaria " free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers ." Sounds like you're talking about Debbie and the DNC.
annamaria , says: July 25, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT
"Israel has no external threat" Israel simply wants a destruction of the functioning neighboring states to proceed with the creation of Eretz Israel. http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/future Not all Jewish people share this view of Eretz Israel but a certain aggressive and loud part of them does. The Likudniks are currently in power.

Oded Yinon in his famous article "proceeds to analyze the weaknesses of Arab countries concluding that Israel should aim to bring about the fragmentation of the Arab world into a mosaic of ethnic and confessional groupings. "Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation," he argued, would prove to be advantageous to Israel in the short term. Ilan Peleg described it as "an authentic mirror of the thinking mode of the Israeli Right at the height of Begin's rule." Chomsky warned against complacency about these fringe ideas since, he argued: "(t)he entire history of Zionism and later that of Israel, particularly since 1967, is one of a gradual shift towards the positions of those formerly regarded as right-wing extremists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan

One could sympathize with the non-solvable situation for Israel, if not the horrors of the ongoing Middle Eastern wars that have been promoted by neo-& ziocons.

https://www.washingtonreport.me/2015-june-july/neocons-and-the-israel-lobby-are-promoting-war-with-iran-as-they-once-did-with-iraq.html https://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-of-war-where-are-they-now-52ff022f9bfe
Che Guava , says: July 25, 2017 at 4:38 pm GMT
@dorkimundo Alright. thanks for the reply, I would guessing not 'Hungarian' like Soros.

Good humored reply, that is always to being appreciated! I was so irritated by Refuvsky's bs, in a bad temper for that at the time.

Ben Frank , says: July 25, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT
Is there any evidence that Assad is not the legitimate ruler of Syria? Or that Syria is better off now than before the civil war started? Those poor people deserve peace.
Dan Hayes , says: July 26, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT
@annamaria annamaria,

van Creveld also stated: "We have the capability of taking the world down with us. And I assure you that will happen before Israel goes down." Food for thought!

Priss Factor , says: Website July 26, 2017 at 2:07 am GMT
Tucker and Tulsi on Syria vs CIAria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IGAXJNzPfU
annamaria , says: July 26, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT
@Priss Factor It was Israel's active participation in the attempt at regime change in Syria, which has finished the undressing of the "most moral" state of Israel. Currently, the "chosen" are outraged that the CIA could scale down the US support for terrorists. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/

"Despite assurances to the contrary, Israel has always been involved in the Syria conflict. Israel's repeated claims that "it maintains a policy of non-intervention in Syria's civil war," only fools US mainstream media. Not only was Israel involved in the war, it also played no role in the aid efforts, nor did it ever extend a helping hand to Syrian refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have perished in the merciless war; many cities and villages were totally destroyed and millions of Syrians become refugees. While tiny and poor Lebanon has hosted over a million Syrian refugees, every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees, as well. Except Israel.

Even a symbolic government proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped ." ( -- Wait when the Lobby starts squeaking that mentioning this shameful fact is antisemitic.)

Israel has major responsibility for the Syrian tragedy. Astonishingly, Israelis are planning to triple down on the support for ISIS & Co in Syria.
"Since the start of the conflict, Israel wanted to appear as if in control of the situation, at least regarding the conflict in southwestern Syria. It bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit , and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts with certain opposition groups. In recent comments before European officials, Netanyahu admitted to striking Iranian convoys in Syria [whcih is a sovereign state] "dozens of times." But without a joint Israeli-US plan, Israel is now emerging as a weak party. Making that realization quite belatedly, Israel is becoming increasingly frustrated. Failing to obtain support from newly-elected President Donald Trump, Israel is now attempting to develop its own independent strategy.

On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid ." -- See the US taxpayers' money in actions ($3 billion this year only). The "war on terror" came down to the "cash and humanitarian aid" to terrorists, delivered by Israel directly from the US taxpayers pockets to Israel's favorite head-choppers.

[Dec 21, 2018] Defense Secretary Mattis resigns amid Washington backlash over Syria troop withdrawal

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times published an editorial Thursday invoking the authority of Trump's national security adviser, the maniacal warmonger and international bully, John Bolton, citing his vow to expand the role of US troops in Syria to confront Iran ..."
"... Under conditions in which his White House is under mounting political and legal siege connected to the Mueller investigation and the conviction and sentencing of past aides and associates, the timing of the Syria announcement may well have been driven by Trump's calculation that a troop withdrawal would be viewed favorably by the majority of the US population. ..."
"... However cynical Trump's motives, there is no question that there is immense popular hostility to the never-ending US wars in the Middle East ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... This slaughter has been justified in the name of a war against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), which was itself the product of the US war of aggression against Iraq, which claimed roughly a million lives and demolished an entire society. ISIS was further nurtured through the subsequent wars for regime-change in Libya and Syria, where Washington armed and supported the very same Islamist militias that it subsequently claimed to be fighting. ..."
"... The bitter debate in Washington is driven by rival factions within the ruling class that are equally rapacious and bloodthirsty, determined to prepare for global war to advance the interests of a crisis-ridden American capitalist order against its major rivals, China and Russia, while divided over tactics in terms of how to pursue these aims in the Middle East and elsewhere ..."
"... This conflict unfolds in the absence of a mass antiwar movement in the United States and internationally ..."
Dec 21, 2018 | www.wsws.org

The New York Times published an editorial Thursday invoking the authority of Trump's national security adviser, the maniacal warmonger and international bully, John Bolton, citing his vow to expand the role of US troops in Syria to confront Iran .

... ... ...

Under conditions in which his White House is under mounting political and legal siege connected to the Mueller investigation and the conviction and sentencing of past aides and associates, the timing of the Syria announcement may well have been driven by Trump's calculation that a troop withdrawal would be viewed favorably by the majority of the US population.

In response to Graham's heated denunciations of the decision, Trump tweeted, "So hard to believe that Lindsey Graham would be against saving soldier lives & billions of $$$. Why are we fighting for our enemy, Syria, by staying & killing ISIS for them, Russia, Iran & other locals? Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong!"

However cynical Trump's motives, there is no question that there is immense popular hostility to the never-ending US wars in the Middle East .

Those denouncing the withdrawal announcement do not even attempt to make a case to the population for the continuation of the US intervention, which is illegal both under US and international law. Their entire appeal is pitched to the American ruling establishment and, above all, to the vast US military and intelligence apparatus.

There was a similar appeal to the military in an op-ed by Washington Post foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius, a dependable mouthpiece for the CIA and the Pentagon, who warned that Trump's troop withdrawal would create a "vacuum that will be filled by one of a series of bad actors -- Iran, Russia, Turkey, Islamic extremists, the Syrian regime -- take your pick, they're all dangerous for American interests in the Middle East."

He argues that the US military presence had "stabilized northeast Syria; it blocked Iranian expansion; it checked Russian hegemony; it gave the US some bargaining leverage for an eventual political settlement in Syria."

This "bargaining leverage" was based upon the US military's use of special forces troops and Kurdish militia proxy forces to lay hold of one third of Syria's national territory, including oil and natural gas fields that are vital to providing the resources for reconstructing a country devastated by more than seven years of a US-orchestrated war for regime-change.

Invoking his visit to US bases in Syria earlier this year, Ignatius writes, "It's hard to describe the competence of American troops in Syria without sounding corny. Suffice it to say that they found a way to project American power with maximum damage to the enemy and minimum cost for America."

This "maximum damage" can be seen in the rubble of Raqqa, which was largely razed to the ground by US bombs and shells. According to the monitoring group Airwars, nearly 30,000 Syrians have been reported killed as a result of US bombardments, with tens of thousands more maimed.

This slaughter has been justified in the name of a war against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), which was itself the product of the US war of aggression against Iraq, which claimed roughly a million lives and demolished an entire society. ISIS was further nurtured through the subsequent wars for regime-change in Libya and Syria, where Washington armed and supported the very same Islamist militias that it subsequently claimed to be fighting.

The bitter debate in Washington is driven by rival factions within the ruling class that are equally rapacious and bloodthirsty, determined to prepare for global war to advance the interests of a crisis-ridden American capitalist order against its major rivals, China and Russia, while divided over tactics in terms of how to pursue these aims in the Middle East and elsewhere .

This conflict unfolds in the absence of a mass antiwar movement in the United States and internationally , which is due in large measure to the role played by various pseudo-left organizations, from the New Anti-capitalist Party in France to the International Socialist Organization in the US and the Left Party in Germany. Reflecting privileged layers of the middle class whose social interests are bound up with those of imperialism, all of them have sought to justify the imperialist intervention by the US and its allies in Syria based upon phony claims that CIA-backed Islamist militias are the champions of a democratic "revolution" and by waving the discredited flag of "human rights" imperialism.

... ... ...

Bill Van Auken

[Dec 21, 2018] Unreasonable self-contrdulation about Syria withdrawal and claimed that neocons were defeated is really childish

Clearly something else might be in play here, and this might be a step in preparation of the attack on Iran.
Trump clearly was not in control of his cabinet foright policy until this surprise decision.
Notable quotes:
"... The negative reaction in the European capitals is also significant. ..."
"... gotta love the timing at least. with everyone in DC going on their extended holidays soon there won't be many folks around to piss and whine about this. though maybe they'll spend their time by the campfire in their plush hamptons cabins spinning future tales about "Iranian Collusion". ..."
"... Like firing a smoke grenade into a hornets' nest. What a priceless sight. The atlanticist scum over here in Germany are really at a loss, flat on their backs. Well done, Donald! ..."
"... I guess no pay no game for Trump. Plus, he might wish to keep his son-in-law away from the spotlights as Mr. Erdogan is coming up with increasingly more details about the Khashoggi murder. ..."
"... the fact of the UN hindering the formation of the Constitutional Committee shows continued CIA meddling. ..."
"... US involvement in Syria goes way beyond boots on the ground . 4000 troops/contractors being removed with as many if not more on the border wont change much. Plenty of strings still to pull. ..."
"... Syria never seemed to be worth all the effort unless they could have brought down Assad. Perhaps its as simple as being satisfied with keeping the north in a NATO ally hands and keeping the south Iran free. Perhaps he intends to divert the savings from Syria and using those funds to build the wall. Perhaps he has another target in mind. Perhaps nothing will change and another FF is in the works to keep us in. ..."
"... This is a must watch Jimmy Dore show, Professor Jeffrey Sachs stuns the TV panel with some home truths about the war in Syria and how the CIA and Saudi Arabia set up regime change. Dore is brilliant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk ..."
"... Woodwards book on Trump recounts a scene where the president orders Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to kill Assad . "Let's F 'ingkill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the F'ing lot of them," According to Woodward, Mattis ignored the order, or he didn't perceive it as a direct order, and instead presented the president with a menu of more limited options. Bolton is a happy man with Mattis leaving ..."
"... Bolton supposedly is pushing a plan to get Turkey into a confrontation with Russia. Trump offered Erdogan delivery of F35 fighters starting in 3 weeks and supposedly bought off Erdogan with the US withdrawal. ..."
"... The US just spent years trying to create a Kurdish state on turkey's border and it backed (maybe organized) a coup attempt against Erdogan. ..."
"... i believe the CFR was pushing for a Kurd state composed of large pieces of turkey including a slice of it leading to the sea. ..."
"... The Kurdish statelet idea is of Zionist manufacture, aimed at reducing Syria to a rump state while diminishing Turkish abilities. The action now seems to be moving to the waters around Cyprus and the NatGas located there. IMO, Zionistan has reached its acme and will begin its decline due to its many internal issues and corruption -- all in addition to its self-generated problems with Palestine and Lebanon. ..."
"... "So US withdrawal is a Russian trap as any engagement between Russia and Turkey could bring the US and the rest of Nato in to defend Turkey" ..."
"... The military campaign against Islamic State continues," French army spokesman Patrik Steiger told a news conference. "At this stage, the announcement by the American president has no impact on France's ongoing participation (in the coalition) ..."
"... So the French need a talking to about their illegal presence in Syria unless they are going to take the mantle of empire over from the US and lead this illegal coalition. ..."
"... Good Article. The damage has been done to Syria for a generation, maybe much longer. It possibly forces a Russia Turkey confrontation at some point in the future. It is a small reversal in the overstretched empire we have become. ..."
"... ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied to the FBI! Horrors. Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills. Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team USA. ..."
Dec 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 20, 2018 11:41:07 AM | link
h , Dec 20, 2018 11:16:47 AM | link

b, you, by far, are one of the most pragmatic geopolitical strategy experts on the web. You study the board, make sense of the plays at hand and communicate what you are seeing thoroughly to all who have found you and wish to learn what's really going on, especially in the Middle East.

Your outstanding work on all things Syria during the Obama years helped steady nerves and fears. Thank you! You are a rare gem with whom I am most grateful to have found and link to, often.

For those who continue to struggle with Trump and what is driving him, I might suggest you go back to the campaign days. He told everyone his policy plans. Because you may have dismissed them or didn't bother to learn his game plan doesn't mean he doesn't have one. He does.

His campaign speech in Gettysburg sums up what his voters demanded and are continuing to demand of him - and yes, getting out of all of the wars/quagmires such as Syria and Afghanistan is one of those demands https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/21/stunning-donald-trump-speech-the-crossroads-in-our-history-video-and-transcript/

Withdrawal from Syria, next Afghanistan, is and always has been his policy. The Bush/Cheney neoconservatives are a withering lot of useless pond scum. You may believe Bolton and team have influence, but you'd be sorely wrong. Conservatives elected a person who is owned by no one. And now that we're holding peace talks with the Taliban one may cautiously anticipate future withdrawal announcements. Time will tell.

Merry Christmas, b! I'll be dropping a tip in your tip jar over the holiday. Hoping others will too. Imagine, peace may finally be at hand. Geez, I surely hope so.

WJ | Dec 20, 2018 10:53:38 AM | 14
(Annette @ 4 & anti-semitism)

This thread is about US Foreign Policy. Walt & Mearsheimer produced an impeccably well-researched book called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which focused on the pervasive influence of The Lobby on US Politics.

"Israel" touts itself as The Jewish State. It is therefore laughable to attempt to concoct an excuse to separate Jews from Zionism and Zionism from Jews.
Why aren't there enough 'Good Jews' in the world to stop the Zionist Jews from Holocausting Palestinians - for "Israel"?

mauisurfer , Dec 20, 2018 11:49:39 AM | link

The surprise (for me) is that Bolton agreed with Trump and Erdogan.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trumps-decision-to-leave-syria-was-no-surprise/
chu-teh , Dec 20, 2018 11:59:33 AM | link
Consider: The purpose of all "false-flag" events is to influence public emotions and viewpoints; to manage/control public perceptions; all to enable some action that otherwise would fail/succumb to overriding dissent.

Instead of "false-flag" events, a President could accomplish just as much by doing simply what the public would overwhelmingly support. The effects would be genuine and long lasting, without ongoing risks of being exposed as lies, fraud, etc.

In other words, acting in fairness, the very definition of justice.

Is that too much to desire?

chu-teh , Dec 20, 2018 12:06:02 PM | link
re at 26

Consider the public effect of "fairness" on their "yearning to breathe free".

dahoit , Dec 20, 2018 12:09:50 PM | link
The biggest step to MAGA, make israel defend itself.
Linda Amick , Dec 20, 2018 12:27:12 PM | link
Cynic that I am, it could be the troops will be needed for the LA/SA planned invasions. Thierry Meyssan has an article about that this week.
Nemesiscalling , Dec 20, 2018 12:31:15 PM | link
Ending the Yemen campaign is next. It will probably happen quickly. The house dems are raising the issue to the front, which is finally a step in the right direction for them. Time is not on trump's side if he indeed wants to end another fruitless mena affair and maga before the dems are able to take credit for ending the us involvement there.

Wonderful work here, b. Much thanks.

sarz , Dec 20, 2018 12:43:51 PM | link
So Trump flipped. That was some time ago. Has he flopped yet?
Peter AU 1 , Dec 20, 2018 12:44:43 PM | link
I earlier thought Trump was easily talked into keeping US in Syria due to his hatred of Iran. I commented in a thread a week or two back that the door to Trump was through Iran. Whatever Trump's forming plan for Iran was, I suspect the fallout from the Khashoggi killing put an end to it.
BraveNewWorld , Dec 20, 2018 12:49:32 PM | link
@18

Israel & AIPAC desperately wanted to kick of THE great Middle East war. That would have had devastating consequences for every one on the planet not just the US.

karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 12:50:23 PM | link
Thanks for this outstanding analysis, b! Apparently, Trump's more capable than he's made out to be. Murray's excellent essay you linked to I read before yours and heartily agree; I hope all take the time to visit his site. As many note, the focus will now turn to Afghanistan, the initial region of contention during Great Game I. And just in time, Pepe Escobar provides us with this excellent overview , which is supposed to be complemented by a second part. Much of what's published in Western BigLie media about BRI is just that, lies, whereas the actual history and ongoing current developments are far more fascinating.

One can speculate if Russia had introduced advanced S-300s earlier Trump might have been emboldened to act earlier, which would have saved many lives. But, that will remain one of history's many What ifs? Plus, BigLie Media propaganda was no longer fooling anyone. I hope Trump's newly found spine will allow the Koreas to get on with their Peace Treaty and economic unification.

Bob In Portland , Dec 20, 2018 12:58:42 PM | link
We'll see what Trump does, and what is done to him. If the Deep State (if you don't like DS then choose another term) really actually sees Syria as a losing proposition, then this will give pump up Trump with his supporters. If the Deep State is dead set against it, then expect Mueller to win, or expect Trump to have something unfortunate happen to him.
karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 1:11:16 PM | link
@34 Cont'd--

I'd have added this important item regarding Korea but just now discovered it and quickly becomes obvious why Garrie cited it fully. Here's a teaser:

"South Koreans from all walks of life said that there is no justification for outside forces to interfere in the internal affairs of the nation, strongly urging them to work for durable peace in the Korean peninsula, rather than hampering the development of inter-Korean relations and national reunification.

"They underscored the need to cooperate with the north on the principle of national independence and unity even though foreign intervention and meddling get more intensive. A south Korean news agency recently called for holding north-south dialogue and cooperation independently, saying inter-Korean relations should not fall prey to the 'alliance' with foreign forces"

Clearly, much has occurred in Korea over the Summer and Fall that went unreported by Western BigLie Media, which is odd since Korean Peace and unification of Koreans ought to be a highly celebrated, welcomed, and long overdue event.

Peter AU 1 , Dec 20, 2018 1:15:38 PM | link
karlof1 34

I also think the S-300's played a part in Trump's decision. I had read a few days back Russian military saying US flights were greatly reduced after the introduction of S-300 to Syria but am unsure if that was the original S-300 at Tartus or the more recent installation of a number of S-300's, one thought to be at Deir Ezzor.

Posted by: paul , Dec 20, 2018 1:20:18 PM | link

It is beginning to look like a masterful deal has been struck between Putin and Trump, one that makes both look good, shuts up their critics - including me - at least a little and makes the world a better and safer place. Putin backs down in Kerch Strait and Trump backs down in Syria. Everyone wins, except the neocons.

Posted by: paul | Dec 20, 2018 1:20:18 PM | link

alfred butler , Dec 20, 2018 1:38:52 PM | link
"This was the first time Trump took a decisive stand against the borg, the permanent neoconservative and interventionist establishment in his administration, the military and congress, that usually dictates U.S. foreign policy."

Ahh, the continued saga of the "Myth of the Good King". The mindless masses continue to believe that Trump is fighting the Military-Industrial "establishment", despite the overwhelming evidence that he continues to support that same M-I-C, via ever-increasing defense budgets, and policies which serve to further enrich the same elite he purports to fight. Trump, like his predecessors, and the M-I-C, is still deeply in bed with the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia. The true "Deep State" is much deeper, and much more complex than a couple careless FBI agents, and "Dem" operatives.

Don't forget that the administration of Mafia Don is staffed with perhaps more former Executives of Goldman Sachs, than most all previous administrations. Further, Trump is still supporting the VASTLY growing programs of domestic spying by the same intelligence/military.security agencies that are instrumental components of the M-I-C. This is your "Hero"? Your "Great White Knight".

This is what you call propaganda. Propaganda is only truly effective when it isn't recognized as such.

"While these people first tried to change Trump's decision, their resistance has now ceased"

Hardly! By the official count, there are 503 U.S. troops stationed in the Islamic State's former capital. Unofficially, according to The Washington Post and other press reports, the figure is closer to 4,000. The U.S. is not closing down its military presence in Syria. It is digging in for an indefinite period, making Raqqa the equivalent of the Green Zone in Baghdad. This is called SPIN. SPIN is the very foundation of the administration of Mafia Don. His whole life has been a lesson in massive SPIN and PR propaganda. You can pretty much take EVERYTHING Mafia Don says, then turn it 180 degrees to get the truth.

"It is quite refreshing to see that Trump was finally able to liberate himself from the dictate of the borg. By moving the U.S. out of Syria he fulfilled one of his election promises"

Confirmation Bias is a logical fallacy in which one uses only those facts which support their case, beliefs, biases & prejudices. The Backfire Effect is the psychological process of rejecting all other pertinent facts which counter ones case, beliefs, biases & prejudices. This idiotic article offers excellent examples of both. This "article" is case-in-point of "journalistic" maniuplation....the enemy of truth and knowledge.

Pnyx , Dec 20, 2018 1:40:23 PM | link
B is overoptimistic. On the one hand, he overestimates Tronald's strategic abilities. It is to be assumed that his surprising decision has quite banal reasons. Even more important is that he considers the Neocons already outmaneuvered. The probability is quite high that these people have any plans to torpedo the retreat. One false flag attack is enough and everything is different again. The negative reaction in the European capitals is also significant. That plays into their cards. And should it not be possible, contrary to expectations, to stage something 'useful' in Syria or elsewhere nearby, there is still the possibility of bringing down the president at home. Their is the 'legal' approach. The man has probably committed more crimes than there are paragraphs in the usa. And if that's not feasible in the short term, you can still organize an attempted assassination.
I would be happy if things went as smoothly as b imagines, but I doubt it.
the pair , Dec 20, 2018 1:44:15 PM | link
this has the distinct smell of bullshit to me...that said, i have noticed that trump - due to his stupidity and/or that of his advisors - will do something for the wrong reason but have it turn out as a good thing completely by accident. Taking this all at face value, the recent saudi PR disaster (as opposed to their daily disasters which receive zero media coverage) may have helped. Between MbS and Adelson he was hardly "allowed" to have a rational plan for Syria or the region in general. It seemed Israel was - as usual - constantly instigating with illegal airstrikes (against phantom Iranians) with the hope that Syria and/or Iran and/or Hezbollah would retaliate and then - as usual - the Americans would jump in and do the whole conflagration thing to protect their asshole friend.

Israel has always been the 5'1'' guy at the bar talking smack to everyone knowing his 6'7'' MMA brother was a few feet away to save him from his own prick behavior. Speaking of which, the arrival of s300s put somewhat of a kibosh on their hijinks for now and getting a Russian plane shot down with that nonsense put them in the corner for a tiny bit of a time-out. Turkey is also big as you mention. They played the Khashoggi story like a well-tuned violin and they have zero problem with using their own proxies against the US/KSA/GCC ones...that's what this "civil war" always was, after all. Erdogan has also - on the surface - kept Israel in the "frienemies" column and doesn't seem as beholden to their insane interests as the atlanticist crowd.

i just wonder if this is less "get them out" than "move the chess pieces somewhere else". though in the hands of bolton and his ilk it's more like checkers. after all, the US has covert troops in roughly 2/3 of the countries in the world and the DoD would have zero issues with outright lying about a few JSOC monkeys running around syria under the radar.

gotta love the timing at least. with everyone in DC going on their extended holidays soon there won't be many folks around to piss and whine about this. though maybe they'll spend their time by the campfire in their plush hamptons cabins spinning future tales about "Iranian Collusion".

james , Dec 20, 2018 2:02:26 PM | link
@41 alfred butler... perhaps you'd prefer a mccarthey era style version 2 presentation from emptywheel, lol?
Entropy Wins , Dec 20, 2018 2:08:07 PM | link
Why now? Following the loss of life in the Israeli-instigated shoot down of the Russian Sig Int aircraft, the Russian military have demanded and received a greater say in how the Syrian operation is run. The means primarily the political phase of tolerating loss to maintain a political advantage is over and there will be no more Russian troop losses without payback. Russian military advisors have been dispatched to every SAA and Iranian troop concentration. The release of S-300s to Syria control, and the explicit statement of an airport for an airport regarding Israel make it clear that attacking aircraft will be shot down. SAA units have been placed right on the boundary of the US self-declared zone around al Tanf. The US troops there and elsewhere in Syria are now effectively without air cover when the SAA inevitably moves towards them. So the US political position is declare victory and leave before US forces really do get sent home in body bags. How far the Zionist components high up in the US military will go along with this remains to be seen. I suspect the CIA will be given open hand to send in whoever is foolish enough to go just to keep the shit stirred.
WJ , Dec 20, 2018 2:08:57 PM | link
Hoarsewhisperer @24

You write:

"Israel" touts itself as The Jewish State. It is therefore laughable to attempt to concoct an excuse to separate Jews from Zionism and Zionism from Jews.

This is *exactly* what Zionists want you to believe. It is the very premise behind their concerted attempt to legislate against the BDS movement and public criticism of Israel's crimes. After all, since it is "laughable" to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism, any expression of the former is perforce an expression of the latter. But they, and you, are wrong.


Sharon , Dec 20, 2018 2:18:58 PM | link
I'm surprised that Trump is getting credit from bernard for lying about pulling out troops in Syria. He's clearly lying and Russia knows this.
dh-mtl , Dec 20, 2018 2:22:01 PM | link
With the withdrawal of the U.S. from Syria, and only quagmires left in Iraq and Afganistan, Turkey will now assume the role of lead NATO nation in the Middle-East. The U.S. is essentially finished as a ME power. Russia will assume the role of regional mediator, and the era of ME destabilization may well be over for the foreseeable future.

After the next March's elections in the Ukraine turn into anarchy, and possibly civil war, Europe will wash their hands of this mess. The U.S. will find itself an unsustainable situation and be forced to pull out. Russia will be left to pick up the pieces there as well.

The Globalist 'wet dream', of using the ME and Black Sea as the platform to destroy Russia and then constrain China, is finished.

I agree with Blue@14 and Thierry Meyssan ( http://www.voltairenet.org/article204385.html) that the U.S. will now turn to Latin America to consolidate whats left of its disintegrating empire.

chuck , Dec 20, 2018 2:25:01 PM | link

great news we cannot keep fighting israels wars those guys really have to man up and start fighting for themselves.same goes for saudi arabia these schmucks have been sucking of the tit of unkle sam for years.

all of this mess is perfect map making divide and conquer strategy of tension done by the psy op masters the brits many generations ago. This is not so much a draw down more a relocation exercise in country or maybe out. Columbia, venezuala, ukraine and even morocco are due some cia death squad escalations soon

anti_republocrat , Dec 20, 2018 2:34:35 PM | link
Bernard, thank you for all the detailed information. I was quite skeptical that all this was real. The increasing number of corporate media reports softened some of the skepticism, but this report has me convinced and very hopeful. You must have a lot of good sources in the US government and military to know about the heavy pushback over the weekend and its ultimate collapse. The information on the disagreement between European command and CENTCOM is also key.

I also wonder if this is partly a result of Trump's strengthened hand after holding the Senate and what Alexander Mercouris insists was very favorable to Trump in the Cohen sentencing statement. He says the statement gives no indication Trump even knew about a lot of the stuff Cohen was doing. It was all Cohen self promotion, like attempting to get the Kremlin involved in a hotel deal and getting brushed off. The payoffs were also Cohen's idea and no indication he gave Trump any idea there were legal considerations.

Jackrabbit , Dec 20, 2018 2:43:53 PM | link
I agree with the skeptics. It's not yet clear what this "pull-out" is all about but it is unlikely to be what it seems. That this it that person disagrees with Trump doesn't indicate much. The Obama psy-op scolded us and the Trump psy-op distracts with kayfabe.
bjd , Dec 20, 2018 3:28:46 PM | link
If Bolton OK'd this, prepare for some Christmas surprise (in Bethlehem, Damascus, wherever).
Clueless Joe , Dec 20, 2018 3:40:20 PM | link
"But if the hope is that Turkey will end its relations with Russia and Iran the outcome will be disappointing. Turkey depends on Russian and Iranian gas and as export markets. After the attempted coup against him Erdogan does not trust the U.S. side. Moreover, the position that gives him the most flexibility and leverage is between the two 'blocks', both of which will continue to court him. He will continue to vacillate between them to get the most from both sides."

This is the key difference between Erdogan and Ukrainian leaders of the last 15 years. One is quite a political animal, the others are a bunch of greedy idiots that couldn't choose the superior international position even if their lives depended on it. Had they gone for such a middle ground without siding entirely with West or Russia, there wouldn't be rebels occupying whole areas in the East, and Ukraine might actually have kept Crimea.

Fawaz , Dec 20, 2018 3:52:30 PM | link
If we connect some dots in this episode trump vs the neocons, one has to ponder if maybe the Canadian surprise arrest of the Huwai heiress (orchestrated by Bolton?) abruptly after Trump's "good" G20 meeting with Xi was enough to piss him off enough to not only shoot back but kick their legs out from under and go after their prized possession of the Syria opp. Maybe a tipping point? Mattis out.. can we only whisper Bolton next?
Covergilr , Dec 20, 2018 4:15:44 PM | link
@1 "with no room for the native population, especially the native American working class"

Are you saying that you and the rest of the burgoise WASP fanatics are relinquishing your genocidal claim to the country now called the USA? Are you arguing for less immiseration, a right of self determination for the first nations?

I rather suspect you mean you think someone owes you something. It's easy to see why you're afraid of people who are nicer, cleaner, smarter, braver and harder working than you and your beer guzzling pals. Please go back to your ancestral home - that wouldn't be the Ukraine by any chance?

somebody , Dec 20, 2018 4:28:41 PM | link

Posted by: SteveK9 | Dec 20, 2018 9:20:22 AM | 5

Sure, but there the US are confronting China. China has already more or less acquired Pakistan.

TJ , Dec 20, 2018 4:45:35 PM | link
OT - MoA gets a shout out on RTs CrossTalk regarding the articles on the Integrity Initiative
fast freddy , Dec 20, 2018 4:48:11 PM | link
You can't trust any of them to do what they say or to adhere to any consistent behavior. There is one consistency to be trusted - that is the decline of the commons in the USA and everywhere else in the world. We must remember that Trump greatly admired John Bolton, mentioning him by name as representing great FP expertise. Then he hired the rotten SOB. Along with every other destructive SOB he could employ.

Bolton says he agrees with Trump on Syria withdrawal? Makes no sense. Bolton hates everybody except Yahoo and Lieberman. (Though Bolton did enjoy Plato's Retreat - back in the day.) Syria is a lynch pin in the dissolution of the ME as we know it FOR the expansion of Greater Israel.

Yahoo will be very displeased if this is true.

WJ , Dec 20, 2018 4:49:37 PM | link
Hoarsewhisperer @57

I did not answer your question because I reject as false the premise on which it is based.

karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 5:09:29 PM | link
Excellent thread tweeted by a Syrian in Syria , although it's now @5 hours old. As he notes, the situation's very fluid as Trump's call took everyone in region by surprise. Fawaz @56's hypothetical makes a lot of sense as something had to flip Trump's switch. The great fear now being published by neocon mouthpieces is Afghanistan withdrawal. Both the Murray and Escobar items contain some interesting bits related to Afghanistan.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 20, 2018 5:13:16 PM | link
Here in the UK this should be a big story as we have meddled there as well, but no, the BIG story is some persons unknown flying drones over Gatwick airport and shutting it down. Nobody seems to have heard of a shotgun and this nonsense has gone on all day. The unkind may say that this is a diversion to stop us thinking about what looks to be an American withdrawal from Syria, especially after all the vitriol HMG has spat at Assad in recent years. Jus' sayin'
Scotch Bingeington , Dec 20, 2018 5:15:34 PM | link
Like firing a smoke grenade into a hornets' nest. What a priceless sight. The atlanticist scum over here in Germany are really at a loss, flat on their backs. Well done, Donald!

And well done, B! TJ 62 mentions RT's CrossTalk, and I've seen you getting referenced on ZeroHedge, Craig Murray's, Germany's Telepolis lately... Nice!

smake , Dec 20, 2018 5:24:36 PM | link
Best Article ever.. every dimension considered.

Circe | 9 Agree a bigger worser heinous plan, is a Trump trademark. Bardi | 11 Trump surprise to Putin fits Trojan expectation.. Jonathan H | 11:03:49 AM ending globalization c\n\b done ALA there exists the monopoly powers of copyright and patent and Privatization because these are profits earned by eliminating competition.. denial by law, or removal by Military, regime change, assassination, etc..
It is these three separate objects of power (copyright, patent, and privatization) that have enabled the Zionist to rule the globe since 1945
Eliminate the power created from thin air by rule of law, and Zionist Fat Cat Empire deflates to 1950 best man wins competitive capitalism. In the case of natural resources, monopoly power is established by OPEC type organizations, EPA permitting power, military force, and regime change techniques.

ConfusedPundit , Dec 20, 2018 5:26:47 PM | link
All of a sudden the Saudis stopped paying YPG monthly paychecks. How come? Because President Erdogan caught Mr. Salman (and Kushner?) red-handed? The Khashoggi case is on national media every other day here in Turkey. I guess no pay no game for Trump. Plus, he might wish to keep his son-in-law away from the spotlights as Mr. Erdogan is coming up with increasingly more details about the Khashoggi murder.
Fernando Martinez , Dec 20, 2018 5:35:08 PM | link
Trump is besieged on all sides. He is a fighter and he will surprise us all with his desire to do what he thinks is right for USA. I really think people don't understand what he is all about. This was a golden chance to do things differently and start fresh in America.

The first mistake was Trump's though. He should have fired everyone on day ONE. Yates, Comey, McCabe, Orr...Everybody. Put in Interim appointments and not dealt with anyone from the Bush, Obama and Clinton admins. He fucked up.

He shouldn't have put in Jeff Sessions or Crazy Haley. All new people from conservative institutions. Kavanaugh I knew was a mistake from day one.
But the Dems actually got him nominated with their insanity. The Dems are the cancer, they do do some good things but they make me sick with their vitriol and shady shit At least I can still say Hilary ain't Pres.

alaric , Dec 20, 2018 5:37:57 PM | link
Erdogan threatened Trump and Trump backed down. To me that is the most logical reason for this but that also means it will be much harder for Trump to back out of this decision and much harder for the Borg to make their case because they are risking losing Turkey for a strategically weak and militarily vulnerable position in Eastern Syria. This could certainly have something to do with Khashoggi too and perhaps more accurately protecting MBS.

The question: whatever did Erdogan use to threaten Trump?

Grieved , Dec 20, 2018 5:43:13 PM | link
@34 karlof1 - "One can speculate if...But"

I agree with the "But..." that you posit ;)

I am supremely impressed with the way that events have unfolded over the last few months. It speaks not so much of deliberate planning as supremely skillful dancing while a random music plays. A bloody mess in Idleb was postponed, which led the west to lose its footing and skip the beat of events. Concurrently, Erdogan was given a set of challenges to accomplish or fail at, and in the end he needed more time, as one could have guessed, and was given it, as one could also guess. Somewhere his windows were closing all the while, even as he was being fed new opportunities from Eurasia.

And now - although it may be years before we have enough details to understand the forces behind the scenes here - a major pivot has been enacted by the US, which I suspect could not have happened one day sooner than it has. And quietly the world will see it as the major pivot that it is. And Russia's hand is nowhere to be seen in any of this, although its presence in all of it seems compelling. Major gains of warfare have been achieved in the last few months, with no shots fired by those who orchestrated these gains.

What a stunning way to fight a war! How good that the Asian Century is coming on so strong, so we can learn the arts of subtlety again, and put aside the childish things of western delusion.

In a theater where one almost has to use peripheral vision simply to make out the outline of forces at work, Erdogan increasingly strikes me as a solid and stable force. Yes he will vacillate between east and west - although "oscillate" might be a better word, since vacillate suggests uncertainty, and I suspect all doubt is gone from Erdogan's mind - and this is only to leverage the greatest gain from each side, as they both play for his commitment.

The difference is that the west still thinks it can secure Turkey's alliance, while Russia knows that Turkey has already secretly forsworn that allegiance. I'm sure that Erdogan sees that Turkey will now be what she always has been and should be, an independent bridge between east and west, trading with both sides - a key node in the ancient Silk Road now reborn, and a modern energy hub dealing Russian gas to Europe.

Erdogan's oscillation is like the pendulum swing that grows smaller and smaller until everyone can see that he is actually motionless.

Activist Potato , Dec 20, 2018 5:56:16 PM | link
So, now it is being reported that Secretary of Defence, Jim Mattis, is retiring in February! The pins are falling....
karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 6:28:03 PM | link
Here is the Q&A exchange regarding Trump's announcement during Putin's "traditional end-of-year meeting we call a press conference:"

"Rachel Marsden: President Putin, Rachel Marsden with the Tribune Publishing out of Chicago, United States.

"Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the American troops from Syria. He also announced that, in his opinion, the United States defeated ISIS in Syria, he made that very clear.

"What is your position with respect to his statements, both on the withdrawal of the American troops from Syria and also with his statement regarding the defeat of ISIS by the United States?

"And, secondly, do you have concern that the American troops will remain in some form? There has been much discussion, for example, around the presence, potentially, of contractors in other jurisdictions where the United States is either out of militarily or might want to be out of militarily but in a more discreet way.

"Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin:

"As concerns the defeat of ISIS, overall I agree with the President of the United States. I already said that we achieved significant progress in the fight against terrorism in that territory and delivered major strikes on ISIS in Syria.

"There is a risk of these and similar groups migrating to neighboring regions and Afghanistan, to other countries, to their home countries, and they are partly returning.

"It is a great danger for all of us, including Russia, the United States, Europe, Asian countries, including Central Asia. We know that, we understand the risk fully. Donald is right about that, and I agree with him.

"As concerns the withdrawal of American troops, I do not know what that is. The United States have been present in, say, Afghanistan, for how long? Seventeen years, and every year they talk about withdrawing the troops. But they are still there. This is my second point.

"Third. So far, we have not seen any evidence of their withdrawal but I suppose it is possible, the more so because we are progressing towards a political settlement. The current issue on the agenda is building a constitutional committee.

"By the way, when we met in Istanbul – I mean Russia, Turkey, France and Germany – we agreed to make every possible effort to create this constitutional committee and Russia, for its part, has done everything in its power for this to happen.

"As strange as it may seem, we fully agreed on the list of members with President al-Assad, who designated 50 people and was involved in selecting 50 more from civil society. Despite the fact that he is not happy with everything, he agreed with this.

"Turkey, which represents the interests of the opposition, also agreed. Iran agreed. We submitted the list to the UN and, as Minister Lavrov reported to me just yesterday, unexpectedly, prompted by our partners – Germany, France and the United States – UN representatives (Mr de Mistura) decided to wait and see.

"I do not understand what is going on there but at any rate, I want to believe that this work is in its final stage. Maybe not by the end of this year but in the beginning of the next the list will be agreed and this will open the next stage of the settlement, which will be political settlement.

"Is the presence of American troops required there? I do not think it is. However, let us not forget that their presence, the presence of your troops, is illegitimate as it was not approved by a UN Security Council resolution. The military contingent can only be there under a resolution of the UN Security Council or at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian Government. Russian troops were invited by the Syrian Government. The United States did not get either of these so if they decide to withdraw their troops, it is the right decision.

"There is another very important component in this process. Despite all the disagreements, our specialists, our military personnel, security services and foreign ministries have established a rather constructive dialogue to address acute issues in combating terrorism in Syria. Overall, we are satisfied with our cooperation."

A very crafty reply, IMO. It would, however, be very interesting to know just what the Kremlin's Braintrust's actual reaction was to Trump's tweet and the underlying political circumstances that led to it. Also, the fact of the UN hindering the formation of the Constitutional Committee shows continued CIA meddling. I'll see if Lavrov was asked for his reaction and post his reply if one's available.

karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 6:53:15 PM | link
Grieved #73--

Thanks for your reply! I liked your description of a sort of Musical Chairs. I also now think Russia knew what Khashoggi's fate would be before anyone other than MbS, thus the appearance of orchestration. The history of this entire episode would be a pleasure to write if one could gain access to all the actors--provided they're willing to talk after a discrete passage of time.

As Putin said, the next step is the political settlement, which will be arrived at, while the remaining terrorists are routed. I see Mattis is on the way out, so I wonder how long it will take for Pompeo and Bolton to follow him along with the Camp Followers. I also found it interesting that Putin addressed Trump as Donald in his long answer to the reporter from Chicago; I should watch the video to see if there's a bit of devilish gleam in Putin's eyes as he says that knowing how the Russophobes will react. But as Putin also noted regarding Afghanistan, the game isn't up just yet.

flayer , Dec 20, 2018 7:00:28 PM | link
Mattis' resignation gives me some hope that Trump is serious about withdrawing from Syria. Trump is so conflicting though - why abandon the treaty with Iran if you're not going to, as Bolton and Mattis say, "stop them in Syria" (which is as ridiculous as "stopping Russia" in that country).

Plus, he's been so hawkish on Iran in other areas as well, such as the treaty and the subsequent sanctions - even threatening to punish Europe. Maybe he just likes to put sanctions on people, or maybe he has less control over that? Don't the sanctions come from Congress as well? Ah, regardless, he seems to brandish sanctions like a weapon, clearly he's in favor of them. Even sanctioning North Korea ever more harshly. Maybe it's just all because he's like to bully people.

Posted by: bjd | Dec 20, 2018 3:28:46 PM | 54:

If Bolton OK'd this, prepare for some Christmas surprise (in Bethlehem, Damascus, wherever).

Yeah, that is of huge concern to me as well. I wonder how Israel fits into this picture. I've seen reports that Israel has been more hesitant to bomb Syria as of late. I can't imagine they'd be happy about the withdrawal of the US troops, unless this means people are preparing for larger scale air operations and the US wants its exposed ground force out of the way.

It's pure speculation, and probably holding up the propagandized personality of Mattis, but maybe his departure is based on the reason that he does not support a undefined poorly thought-out aggressive Israeli air war against Iranian positions in Syria. That would, I think, in part explain the extreme pushback Trump has been getting for these actions from Hollywood and the media. I find it hard to believe that so many people desperately want the US to stick around in Syria out of their own accord - the war against "terrorism" there has pretty much died off over the past few months, if not the whole year. Aside from those ISIS groups who were moved to Idlib with the aid of the US, of course - the ones who recently perpetrated a gas attack.

Pft , Dec 20, 2018 7:09:06 PM | link
US involvement in Syria goes way beyond boots on the ground . 4000 troops/contractors being removed with as many if not more on the border wont change much. Plenty of strings still to pull.

The true motives for the "change" are not clear. If you want to believe its your boy Trunp manning up and taking on those bad neocons he himself hired, feel free to do so. In this Discordian world of Trump we can only wonder what chaos is being planned that is behind an announcement for an orderly pull out.

Syria never seemed to be worth all the effort unless they could have brought down Assad. Perhaps its as simple as being satisfied with keeping the north in a NATO ally hands and keeping the south Iran free. Perhaps he intends to divert the savings from Syria and using those funds to build the wall. Perhaps he has another target in mind. Perhaps nothing will change and another FF is in the works to keep us in.

Putin reminds us the US announced withdrawal from Afghanistan a number of times and still remains. So we can only see what happens.

Of course, if its real we all know what happens to Presidents who wind down wars especially before creating or escalating a war of their own. Bullet, impeachment or early retirement (1 term). Kennedy, Nixon, Bush I, Carter and Clinton all say hi.

Harry Law , Dec 20, 2018 7:16:20 PM | link
This is a must watch Jimmy Dore show, Professor Jeffrey Sachs stuns the TV panel with some home truths about the war in Syria and how the CIA and Saudi Arabia set up regime change. Dore is brilliant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk
Virgile , Dec 20, 2018 7:22:43 PM | link
It is a huge Xmas present that Trump is offerring to Erdogan. Now Erdogan can claim that the USA bowed to his threats and he will get a few points in his popularity at a time when Turkey's economy is faltering and shaking, despite the financial support of Qatar. Now the Kurds have no choice than to beg Bashar al Assad to take them back. Because Bashar al Assad wants Turkey to stop supporting the FSA, he will press the Kurds to abandon the SDF, thus leaving the FSA isolated and vulnerable to ISIS attacks. Because the Turkish army has always been reluctant to face ISIS, it will probably let the FSA be decimated. Now, who will push ISIS to attack the weakened SDF?
ToivoS , Dec 20, 2018 7:22:45 PM | link
Sounds like Mattis resigned because of a disagreement with Trump which, given the timing, was likely the announced withdrawal from Syria. Now if only Bolton was as honorable!
karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 7:29:15 PM | link
Somewhat OT but germane just the same: Another Q&A from Putin's annual meeting regarding the possibility of Nuclear War:

"Anton Vernitsky: Mr President, as Soviet-era children, all of us feared a nuclear war very much. As you remember, various songs dealt with this issue. One of them had the following lyrics: 'Sunny world: Yes, yes, yes; nuclear explosion: No, no, no.'

"Vladimir Putin: Are you not afraid today?

"Anton Vernitsky: Forty years have passed, and major media outlets on both sides of the ocean are beginning to publish a scenario for a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. The word 'war' is sounding more and more often at household level, in kitchens.

"Mr President, how can you calm down my little son who, just like me, also fears a nuclear war today? What words and actions can calm us all down?

"Vladimir Putin: You know, I think you are right.

"I just thought that all this, including the danger of such developments in the world, is now being hushed up and played down to some extent. It seems impossible or something that is not so important. At the same time, if, God forbid, something like this happens, it might destroy the whole of civilisation or perhaps the entire planet.

"These issues are therefore serious, and it is a great pity that there is such a tendency to underestimate the problem, and that this tendency is probably becoming more pronounced. What are the current distinguishing features and dangers?

"First, all of us are now witnessing the disintegration of the international system for arms control and for deterring the arms race. This process is taking place after the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that, as I have already noted a thousand times, was the cornerstone in the sphere of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and deterring the arms race.

"After that, we were forced to respond by developing new weapons systems that could breach these ABM systems. Now, we hear that Russia has gained an advantage. Yes, this is true. So far, the world has no such weapons systems. Leading powers will develop them, but, as yet they do not exist.

"In this sense, there are certain advantages. But, speaking of the entire strategic balance, this is just an element of deterrence and for equalizing parities. This is just the preservation of parity, and nothing more.

"They are now about to take another step and withdraw from the INF Treaty. What will happen? It is very difficult to imagine how the situation will unfold. What if these missiles show up in Europe? What are we supposed to do then?

"Of course, we will need to take some steps to ensure our safety. And they should not whine later that we are allegedly trying to gain certain advantages. We are not. We are simply trying to maintain the balance and ensure our security.

"The same goes for the START III Treaty, which expires in 2021. There are no talks on this issue. Is it because no one is interested, or believes it is necessary? Fine, we can live with that.

"We will ensure our security. We know how to do it. But in general, for humanity, this is very bad, because this takes us to a very dangerous line.

"Finally, there is another circumstance I cannot ignore. There is a trend to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. There are plans to create low-impact nuclear charges, which translates to tactical rather than global use. Such ideas are coming from Western analysts who say it is okay to use such weapons. However, lowering the threshold can lead to a global nuclear disaster. This is one danger we are facing today.

"The second is the use of non-nuclear ballistic missiles. True, our US partners seem to have dropped this idea, but it still exists. What does it mean?

"Suppose, a ballistic missile is launched, nuclear or non-nuclear. The missile attack warning system identifies the launch and the launch site, and, seconds later, determines the flight path and the possible warhead landing area. This is all on the verge of a possible error. It is terrible, and we cannot take it that far. Nevertheless, such an idea of using non-nuclear ballistic missiles exists.

"Suppose, a submarine fired a ballistic missile from the World Ocean, but who the hell knows if it is nuclear or not, go figure. This is very dangerous. All of that is being widely discussed, which is dangerous.

"However, I believe humanity has enough common sense and enough of a sense of self-preservation not to take these things to the extreme."

IMO, Putin's reply isn't the sort leading to a "calm" reaction. Rather, additional fears are raised despite the reassurances. Was the question planted (note the reference to "40 years")? If not, it ought to have been as it relays a distinct message to the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals about the dangerous caldron they're stirring--and Putin's correct to point his finger at them. The required discussion on this topic is one that's being hampered/delayed by the CIA/MI-6-orchestrated Russophobia--a massive provocation that ought to cease tomorrow but won't.

Mark2 , Dec 20, 2018 7:33:38 PM | link
Haveing conditioned the western public to hate Russia using 'integrity initiative' 'Atlantic Council ' extra, preparing in advance for conflict with Russia. The withdraw of US troops from Syria is a false dawn. The Middle East has been put back a thousand years !

The fascist US will now turn it's attention to Russia. When you unleash the nazi monster it soon becomes uncontrollable as now. And demands fresh innocent blood. Have read the comments above I conclude we know it but can't face it. Never forgive a bully it will be taken as weakness, never believe a bully it will be taken as gullibility!!!

Pft , Dec 20, 2018 7:41:58 PM | link
Woodwards book on Trump recounts a scene where the president orders Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to kill Assad . "Let's F 'ingkill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the F'ing lot of them," According to Woodward, Mattis ignored the order, or he didn't perceive it as a direct order, and instead presented the president with a menu of more limited options. Bolton is a happy man with Mattis leaving

Bolton supposedly is pushing a plan to get Turkey into a confrontation with Russia. Trump offered Erdogan delivery of F35 fighters starting in 3 weeks and supposedly bought off Erdogan with the US withdrawal. So US withdrawal is a Russian trap as any engagement between Russia and Turkey could bring the US and the rest of Nato in to defend Turkey

Special forces and some private military companies will likely remain and protect US interests and observe. US Special Representative for Syria earlier this month said they were considering the creation of an Iraqi-style "no-fly zone" following a possible withdrawal of its grounds from there

https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/12/04/the-us-might-withdraw-from-syria-if-a-no-fly-zone-is-imposed-in-the-northeast/

karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 8:24:32 PM | link
Again, the subject is a Peace Treaty, this one between Russia and Japan. I've followed this issue at a bit of a distance not knowing what the problems are in its accomplishment.

Putin provided the answer in his meeting today to a Japanese journalist. I won't copy/paste the entire exchange as I have earlier; interested folks can click the link I provided and read the entire exchange. What follows is the meat:

"You spoke about the deployment of the US military infrastructure in Japan, but it is already there, the largest US base is in Okinawa, it has been there for decades, as we know. "Now, about Japan's ability to take part in this decision-making. To us, this is an unclear, closed issue. We do not understand the level of Japan's sovereignty in making such decisions ." [My Emphasis]

Putin is saying the hindrance is due to Japan being an occupied nation that doesn't have 100% control of its sovereignty, particularly concerning defense. That for a treaty of peace to be signed, Japan must free itself from that hindrance. Will Japan join Eurasia or will it remain an outlier like Australia is the actual question.

Alaric , Dec 20, 2018 8:35:50 PM | link
@86 Pft:

The US just spent years trying to create a Kurdish state on turkey's border and it backed (maybe organized) a coup attempt against Erdogan.

Do you think the Turks trust the US? The Turks are not about to attack Russia to ingratiate the neocons for any reason and especially after they supported the Kurds.. i believe the CFR was pushing for a Kurd state composed of large pieces of turkey including a slice of it leading to the sea. Other think tanks offer a similar vision. I'm pretty sure the Turkish gov is aware of it. The threat of mischief could come from a gulllenist in the Turk military but Erdogan purged most of them, certainly the powerful ones.

karlof1 , Dec 20, 2018 8:44:44 PM | link
Alaric @89--

The Kurdish statelet idea is of Zionist manufacture, aimed at reducing Syria to a rump state while diminishing Turkish abilities. The action now seems to be moving to the waters around Cyprus and the NatGas located there. IMO, Zionistan has reached its acme and will begin its decline due to its many internal issues and corruption -- all in addition to its self-generated problems with Palestine and Lebanon.

Schmoe , Dec 20, 2018 8:57:45 PM | link
Mattis' departure lends some credibility to the withdrawal story, but if his replacement is another Bolton clone that might not be worth it.

@pft 86 - Erdogan of course hates the Kurds and is probably fine fighting them, but would he take on Russia? Would he trust Nato to back him up militarily if shooting starts with Russia (I wouldn't). Without Iranian or Russian gas it could be a long, cold winter in Turkey.

Yeah, Right , Dec 20, 2018 9:02:13 PM | link
@86

"So US withdrawal is a Russian trap as any engagement between Russia and Turkey could bring the US and the rest of Nato in to defend Turkey"

A clash of arms between Russia and Turkey INSIDE Syria does not trigger any treaty obligation viz. NATO or the USA. The NATO treaty is quite explicit on that point: the mutual-defence articles are only applicable to armed conflict on the territory of a NATO country, or in the North Atlantic, or in the Mediterranean Sea. Syria is not any of those. Nothing stops anyone from "coming to the aid" of Turkey in such a clash - scoundrels can always flock together - but nobody will be under any treaty obligation to do so.

Think of it this way: nothing stopped the USA from "coming to the aid" of the South Vietnamese government in 1968, but that bit of overseas adventurism did not oblige any NATO country to through their hat into the ring alongside Uncle Sam. The same thing here: nothing stops Turkey from sending an expeditionary force into Syria, but no NATO country is obliged to join them if anyone fights back.

Yeah, Right , Dec 20, 2018 9:05:11 PM | link
A quick question that springs to mind: how many of the "coalition of the willing" is still in Iraq/Syria alongside the Americans? Are the Dutchies still there, or did they skedaddle a long time ago? The Aussies? Are they still flying FA-18's over the combat zone? If they are then they must be rushing for the exits right about..... now.
psychohistorian , Dec 20, 2018 9:05:56 PM | link
It is not just Americans that asking WTF? France says Islamic State not defeated, troops to remain in Syria. The take away quote:

""The military campaign against Islamic State continues," French army spokesman Patrik Steiger told a news conference. "At this stage, the announcement by the American president has no impact on France's ongoing participation (in the coalition).""

So the French need a talking to about their illegal presence in Syria unless they are going to take the mantle of empire over from the US and lead this illegal coalition.

dltravers , Dec 20, 2018 9:16:03 PM | link
Good Article. The damage has been done to Syria for a generation, maybe much longer. It possibly forces a Russia Turkey confrontation at some point in the future. It is a small reversal in the overstretched empire we have become.

Trump has announced this before only to be immediately overridden by his "advisors". At this point he has nothing to lose anyway. Might as well dig in for the long two years of shelling from all sides. Bold grand policy strokes work when the media is stroking you in the rump.

Don Bacon , Dec 20, 2018 10:13:19 PM | link
ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied to the FBI! Horrors. Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills. Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team USA.

[Dec 21, 2018] The natural progression of Russiagate: (1) OMG, they hacked voting machines! (2) OMG, they hacked DNC servers! (3) OMG, someone talked to a Russian!

Jul 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Che Guava , says: July 23, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

Russiagate, what a nonsensical concept. Constantly shifting narrative. (1) OMG, they hacked voting machines! (2) OMG, they hacked DNC servers! (3) OMG, someone talked to a Russian!

It is so stupid.

[Dec 21, 2018] Similarities between neo-McCarthyism and anti-Semitism

Dec 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Theo , Dec 20, 2018 11:16:04 AM | link

As I wrote a comment on the German magazine"Die Zeit"praising Trump's decision to retreat from Syria my comment was deleted.I denounced the European whining and letting do the Americans their dirty work.Now the Europeans show their true colors.In Germany's MSM it doesn't seem to be allowed to take Trump's side.By the way -it's very good and well researched article.Thank you.

bevin , Dec 20, 2018 11:16:15 AM | 22 ">link

". If you want to blame "the Jews" for all the problems in the world, just remember that your doing so in this language actually strengthens the position of the Zionists. And you may want to consider that at least *some* of these Jew-bashing critiques of Israel on sites like Unz and others are most certainly written by paid propagandists of the state of Israel." WJ@ 14

Absolutely right. The routine way in which, all over the internet, the tired and discredited themes of the anti-Semites and, their soul sisters, the anti-Communists infect every serious discussion or sensible discourse is maddening.

There is not the tiniest doubt who benefits from this idiocy and it isn't the people of Palestine or the working people.

[Dec 20, 2018] One of the two CrowdStrike executives that had helped push the story to the press was a former department director at the FBI serving under Robert Mueller

Notable quotes:
"... (discovered in 2017 and 2018 but largely ignored by the press), ..."
Dec 20, 2018 | disobedientmedia.com

The CrowdStrike Connection

CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five weeks prior to this and approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the five weeks had passed when the DNC published a press release stating that CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate the NGP-VAN issues (that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).

Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network when the DNC emails were acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being acquired and didn't publish logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either, the latter of which is odd considering what their product's features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a monitoring capacity .

There are additional questions to be asked about why Guccifer 2.0 went to the effort he did to fabricate Russian-themed evidence (discovered in 2017 and 2018 but largely ignored by the press), bizarrely supporting some of the most significant claims made by CrowdStrike just one day earlier.

If Mueller's attribution of Guccifer 2.0 to the GRU is correct, why would the GRU want to fabricate evidence to support CrowdStrike's allegations against Russia when another one of CrowdStrike's directors conceded they had no hard evidence at the time? This issue has not yet been adequately explained.

All of these oddities are relevant because one of the two CrowdStrike executives that had helped push the story to the press was a former department director at the FBI serving under Robert Mueller , and, judging on the fact they were dining together at an executive retreat after that individual had retired , it would seem that they are friends too.

[Dec 20, 2018] Mueller's RussiaGate Probe Conflicts, Presuppositions and Special Interests by Adam Carter

Images remove. to view then please to to the original artilce.
Notable quotes:
"... In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia. ..."
"... Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew . ..."
"... Going further, Rowley covers Mueller's bungled Amerithrax investigation that targeted an innocent man , violations of privacy , infiltration of non-violent anti-war groups and also references Mueller's history before being director of the FBI ..."
"... (discovered in 2017 and 2018 but largely ignored by the press), ..."
Nov 27, 2018 | disobedientmedia.com

Robert Mueller was the director of the FBI between 2001 and 2013, spanning both Bush and Obama administrations. He was appointed as special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States general election on May 17, 2017 . Since his appointment, Mueller has been promoted as a champion of justice and a pursuer of truth by the mainstream press. He has been hailed as incorruptible by some and " America's straightest arrow " by others.

However, history shows us that Mueller investigating anything may, inherently, come with disadvantages when it comes to the pursuit of truth.

Mueller's Not-So-Stellar Past

According to whistleblowers, under Mueller's leadership, crimes and scandals involving both government officials and the private-sector were ignored or covered-up by the FBI, and there are questions about further cover-ups before he became the agency director.

In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia.

Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew .

Going further, Rowley covers Mueller's bungled Amerithrax investigation that targeted an innocent man , violations of privacy , infiltration of non-violent anti-war groups and also references Mueller's history before being director of the FBI:

Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated) Bulger gang.

The revelations continue, from Mueller being OK with CIA conducting torture programs that his agents warned against and systematically covering up torture through to working on the prosecution of NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed illegalities and abuse.

Rowley's article is detailed and well worth reading to get a good idea of the sort of track record Mueller has from a reputable and knowledgeable source.

Another article published a few months after Rowley's piece, by author Jeffrey Marty, titled " Robert Mueller: Dirty Cop " highlights the list of failures to investigate and bring justice to those responsible of several high-profile crimes and corruption cases.

The list includes: falsification of Iraq war intelligence , $12bn in currency sent to Iraq that then vanished , the NSA's warrantless surveillance , the Bush administration use of private mail servers for state business and mass-deletion of emails , Clinton's use of private mail servers for similar purposes (and recklessness with security), DOJ illegally seizing material from AP reporters , Clinton Foundation pay-to-play , the ATF fast and furious program and much more.

The article goes further, highlighting how the FBI and DOJ handled money laundering at HSBC involving hundreds of billions of dollars (for which they were fined and allowed to enter a deferred prosecution agreement ) and how Comey joined their board of directors a few months later, followed by Mueller becoming a partner in the law firm that represented HSBC after he left the FBI.

Another article, published more recently (August 2018) and written by Patrick Howley reports that " An Army of FBI Whistleblowers Are Ready To Testify Against Mueller " stating:

These whistleblowers are prepared to testify under oath that Mueller committed perjury and other crimes in his effort to conceal massive off-the-books citizen surveillance programs rolled out in succession by the Bush and Obama administrations.

The article covers various statements made by Chuck Marler who had previously worked for the Special Surveillance Group (SSG) at the FBI.

Earlier this year, Republican congressman Louie Gohmert also highlighted various issues in a report titled " Robert Mueller Unmasked " that opened with a bold assertion:

"Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone."

The report covers Mueller and his team's history of indicting innocent parties as well as FBI abuses under Mueller's leadership and his efforts to punish whistleblowers while retaining agents that provide false information.

Gohmert's report explains that Mueller and members of his team have various conflicts of interest and argues that they should have recused themselves. It concludes with covering the abuse of FISC, the Steele dossier and other aspects of RussiaGate that Mueller's probe seems to lack interest in.

Finally, on the topic of Mueller's past, there is the incident where the FBI, under Mueller's leadership, allegedly sent a 'planeload' of agents to Iceland for the purpose of framing Assange. This was reported by the Daily Mail in December 2017 in an article written by Anneta Konstantinides, titled: " Former Icelandic minister claims US sent 'planeload of FBI agents to frame Julian Assange' during mission to the country in 2011 ".

The CrowdStrike Connection

CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five weeks prior to this and approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the five weeks had passed when the DNC published a press release stating that CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate the NGP-VAN issues (that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).

Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network when the DNC emails were acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being acquired and didn't publish logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either, the latter of which is odd considering what their product's features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a monitoring capacity .

There are additional questions to be asked about why Guccifer 2.0 went to the effort he did to fabricate Russian-themed evidence (discovered in 2017 and 2018 but largely ignored by the press), bizarrely supporting some of the most significant claims made by CrowdStrike just one day earlier.

If Mueller's attribution of Guccifer 2.0 to the GRU is correct, why would the GRU want to fabricate evidence to support CrowdStrike's allegations against Russia when another one of CrowdStrike's directors conceded they had no hard evidence at the time? This issue has not yet been adequately explained.

All of these oddities are relevant because one of the two CrowdStrike executives that had helped push the story to the press was a former department director at the FBI serving under Robert Mueller , and, judging on the fact they were dining together at an executive retreat after that individual had retired , it would seem that they are friends too.

Conclusion

Mueller's probe was never set up to find the truth about the DNC leak or the Guccifer 2.0 persona. The objective was to find evidence to support the RussiaGate conspiracy theory rather than to thoroughly investigate all evidence no matter where it leads.

Even if finding the truth was Mueller's objective, there's little reason to believe that he could have investigated this impartially due to his associations, little reason to expect him to get conclusive results due to his history and little reason to think he would have the inclination to investigate fully due to his inaction and lack of interest in what was reported to him over a year ago .

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that there are a number of significant problems with Mueller's indictment of GRU officers , and no evidence has been provided to explain how individual attributions were made.

For all we know, Mueller and company could have simply taken names obtained from intelligence on the OPCW hacking bust that actually occurred three months prior to the indictment and attributed names of GRU officers on a 'best-fit' basis to roles identified in their investigation

The bottom line is that Mueller's investigation has not fully investigated RussiaGate and it appears that his investigation has avoided certain paths including those that would result in CrowdStrike being investigated or that relate to evidence that contradicts the specific conspiracy theory he has been tasked to investigate.

There is no point expecting the whole truth to arise from a restrictive probe that only seeks evidence supporting a single specific conspiracy theory from someone who presided over a decade of reported cover-ups at the FBI (and alleged framing of Assange), whose personal associations introduce conflicts of interest and who seems to have selectively disregarded evidence where it conflicts with the theory being pursued.

If you want the whole truth about what happened in 2016, it seems that an independent commission may be the only way you'll get close to it.

[Dec 20, 2018] Peak Deep Fake - Nvidia's Scary AI Generates Humans That Look 100% Real

Dec 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jesus Diaz via TomsGuide.com,

Believe it or not, all these faces are fake. They have been synthesized by Nvidia's new AI algorithm, a generative adversarial network capable of automagically creating humans, cats, and even cars.

Credit: Nvidia

The technology works so well that we can expect synthetic image search engines soon - just like Google's, but generating new fake images on the fly that look real. Yes, you know where that is going - and sure, it can be a lot of fun, but also scary . Check out the video. It truly defies belief:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kSLJriaOumA

Nvidia Generative Adversarial Networks

According to Nvidia, its GAN is built around a concept called "style transfer." Rather than trying to copy and paste elements of different faces into a frankenperson, the system analyzes three basic styles - coarse, middle, and fine styles - and merges them transparently into something completely new.

Coarse styles include parameters such as pose, the face's shape, or the hair style. Middle styles include facial features, like the shape of the nose, cheeks, or mouth. Finally, fine styles affect the color of the face's features like skin and hair.

According to the scientists, the generator is "capable of separating inconsequential variation from high-level attributes" too, in order to eliminate noise that is irrelevant for the new synthetic face.

For example, it can distinguish a hairdo from the actual hair, eliminating the former while applying the latter to the final photo. It can also specify the strength of how styles are applied to obtain more or less subtle effects.

Not only the generative adversarial network is capable of autonomously creating human faces, but it can do the same with animals like cats. It can even create new cars and even bedrooms.

Credit: Nvidia

Nvidia's system is not only capable of generating completely new synthetic faces, but it can also seamlessly modify specific features of real people, like age, the hair or skin colors of any person.

The applications for such a system are amazing. From paradigm-changing synthetic free-to-use image search pages that may be the end of stock photo services to people accurately previewing hair styling changes. And of course, porn.

Ms No , 5 minutes ago link

They sure wish they had that when they created the instantly identified fake hack picture of dead Osama.

It was so bad, plus the pictures they combined to use it were already in the public domain. All the major networks ran the picture.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fake+dead+osama+picture&atb=v111-6__&t=cros&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fsott.net%2Fimage%2Fs21%2F428708%2Ffull%2FFake_bin_laden.jpg

Terminaldude , 21 minutes ago link

And of course false flags with Non-humans carrying out the terrorist attacks and never captured.

tragus , 21 minutes ago link

Plausible deniability... ?

[Dec 20, 2018] Everything that falls short of fawning praise of Jews is anti-Semitic.

Dec 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website December 19, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT

With accusations of anti-Semitism flying thick and fast, goyim should bear in mind Gilad Atzmon's definition:

Everything that falls short of fawning praise of Jews is anti-Semitic.

[Dec 20, 2018] The Year of Putin-Nazi Paranoia by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about "treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and shot on the White House lawn. ..."
Dec 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

As my regular readers will probably recall, according to my personal, pseudo-Chinese zodiac, 2017 was " The Year of the Headless Liberal Chicken ." This year, having given it considerable thought, and having consulted the I Ching, and assorted other oracles, I'm designating 2018 "The Year of Putin-Nazi Paranoia."

... ... ...

Back in America, millions of liberals and other Russia-and-Trump-obsessives were awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse , which despite the predictions of Resistance pundits had still, by the Summer, failed to materialize. The corporate media were speculating that Putin's latest "secret scheme" was for Trump to destroy the Atlantic alliance by arriving late for the G7 meeting. Or maybe Putin's secret scheme was to order Trump to sadistically lock up a bunch of migrants in metal cages, exactly as Obama had done before him but these were special Nazi cages! And Trump was separating mothers and children, which, as General Michael Hayden reminded us , was more or less exactly the same as Auschwitz! Paul Krugman had apparently lost it , and was running around the offices of The New York Times shrieking that "America as we know it is finished!" Soros had been smuggled back into Europe to single-handedly thwart the Putin-Nazi plot to "dominate the West," which he planned to do by canceling the Brexit (which Putin had obviously orchestrated) and overthrowing the elected government of Italy (which, according to Soros, was a Putin-Nazi front).

As if that wasn't paranoia-inducing enough, suddenly, Trump flew off to Helisnki to personally meet with the Devil Himself. The neoliberal establishment went totally apeshit. A columnist for The New York Times predicted that Trump, Putin, Le Pen, the AfD, and other such Nazis were secretly forming something called "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary States," and intended to disband the European Union, and NATO, and impose international martial law and start ethnically cleansing the West of migrants. That, or Trump and Putin were simply using the summit as cover to attend some Nazi-equestrian homosexual orgy, which The Times took pains to illustrate by creating a little animated film depicting Trump and Putin as lovers. In any event, Jonathan Chait was certain that Trump had been a "Russian intelligence asset" since at least as early as 1987, and was going to Helsinki to "meet his handler."

In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about "treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and shot on the White House lawn. A frenzy of neo-McCarthyism followed. Liberals started accusing people of being "traitorous agents of Trump and Moscow," and openly calling for a CIA coup, because we were "facing a national security emergency!" A devastating Russian cyber-attack was due to begin at any moment. National Intelligence Director Dan Coats personally assured the Associated Press that the little "Imminent Russia Attack" lights he had on his desk were "blinking red."

... ... ...

So here's wishing my Russia-and-Trump-obsessed readers a merry, teeth-clenching, anus-puckering Christmas and a somewhat mentally-healthier New Year! Me, I'm looking forward to discovering how batshit crazy things can get I have a feeling we ain't seen nothing yet.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

[Dec 20, 2018] Opinion The Guardian's Desperate Attempt To Connect Assange To Russiagate Backfires

Dec 20, 2018 | disobedientmedia.com

The Guardian's latest attack on Julian Assange was not only a fallacious smear, it represented a desperate attempt on behalf of the British intelligence community to conflate the pending US charges against the journalist with Russiagate. The Guardian's article seeks to deflect from the reality that the prosecution of Assange will focus on Chelsea Manning-Era releases and Vault 7, not the DNC or Podesta emails.

We assert this claim based on the timing of the publication, the Guardian's history of subservience to British intelligence agencies, animosity between The Guardian and WikiLeaks, and the longstanding personal feud between Guardian journalist Luke Harding and Assange. This conclusion is also supported by Harding's financial and career interest in propping up the Russiagate narrative

[Dec 20, 2018] The Guardian's Reputation In Tatters After Forger Revealed To Have Co-Authored Assange Smear

Notable quotes:
"... " The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa." ..."
"... 2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns." ..."
"... "There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)." ..."
"... " This video from the news wire Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." ..."
"... One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente " ..."
"... The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador. ..."
"... The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories. ..."
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." ..."
"... That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez , raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some. ..."
Dec 20, 2018 | disobedientmedia.com

Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador .

Most readers are also aware of the Guardian's recent publication of claims that Julian Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now been definitively debunked by Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador's London embassy between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories based on fabricated documents.

In May, Disobedient Media reported on the Guardian's hatchet-job relating to 'Operation Hotel,' or rather, the normal security operations of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That hit-piece , co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy's security system. The allegation was promptly refuted by Correa as "absurd" in an interview with The Intercept , and also by WikiLeaks as an "anonymous libel" with which the Guardian had "gone too far this time. We're suing."

A shared element of The Guardian's 'Operation Hotel' fabrications and the latest libel attempting to link Julian Assange to Paul Manafort is none other than Fernando Villavicencio of FocusEcuador. In 2014 Villavicencio was caught passing a forged document to the Guardian , which published it without verifying it. When the forgery was revealed, the Guardian hurriedly took the document down but then tried to cover up that it had been tampered with by Villavicencio when it re-posted it a few days later.

How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian's latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns out.

Who is Fernando Villavicencio?

Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a comprehensive report detailing Villavicencio's relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums up her findings, which are worth reading in full :

" The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa."

As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa's socialist government that during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of "crimes against humanity" by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by the court.

Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding's Guardian stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted : 2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns."

Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement which reads in part:

"There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)."

The statement also notes that Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010 coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.

It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian's latest libelous article were photographed with Villavicencio in Ecuador shortly before publication of the Guardian's claim that Assange had conducted meetings with Manafort.

Jonasson's Twitter thread also states: " This video from the news wire Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio's name would appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.

Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the gall to publish another image of himself with Harding and Collyns, gloating : "

One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente " [Translated from Spanish]

The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.

Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio's uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted by WikiLeaks via Twitter does show that Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian's Manafort-Assange allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be viewed, however, thanks to archive services.

The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories.

All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding and Collyns – Harding said he'd seen a document, though he didn't publish one (or even quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves – or perhaps these three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?

Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has "gone too far this time" and its already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.

Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism

Craig Murray calls Harding an " MI6 tool ", but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He's a wannabe-spook, hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.

To provide important context on Harding's previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables across the internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.

In addition to continuing the Guardian's and Villavicencio's vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding's financial interests to conflate the pending prosecution of Assange with Russiagate. As this writer previously noted , Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: " Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Tying Assange to Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty narrative his book supports.

Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange's arrest, not just on behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book sales.

That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez , raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some.

It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee for.

In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.

The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of the establishment when it comes to Assange.

[Dec 19, 2018] Can America Fight Two Cold Wars at Once

Notable quotes:
"... As always, Mr Buchanan's problem is that what he wants is to maintain US global hegemony indefinitely into the future. That isn't going to happen, not because of any fault on the part of the US but quite simply because that's march of human history. ..."
"... So to initiate and inflate the New Cold War, the Nitwits in DC have militarized every economic development initiative fronted by Russia and China. Under that pathological rubric, all economic activity by Russia and China is a "threat to U.S. national security". Once those economic threats have been miraculously transformed into military threats, they can only be addressed by U.S. military "Power Projection". Taxpayers, hold onto your wallets. ..."
"... "So, for the sake of this country and our children, stop listening to anti-China propaganda like this article." ..."
Dec 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

Michael Kenny December 18, 2018 at 11:48 am

As always, Mr Buchanan's problem is that what he wants is to maintain US global hegemony indefinitely into the future. That isn't going to happen, not because of any fault on the part of the US but quite simply because that's march of human history.

An interesting detail is how those Russian bombers got to Venezuela. Military aircraft cannot overfly countries without their permission and flying only through international airspace would impose a rather roundabout journey.

SteveM , says: December 18, 2018 at 12:26 pm
The question should be: "Can the Global Cop Gorilla, (the U.S.) instigate two Cold Wars? And the answer is yes.

The Washington Wrecking Crew has started a new Cold War with Russia and is dragging the Europeans along. Even though Russia's obvious strategic objectives involve economic growth, not a return to Soviet hegemony over Central/Eastern Europe.

China is insisting on regional hegemony but has not demonstrated any inclination to invade its neighbors. Because it would be bad for business. And like Russia, China is focused on business, not military conquest.

So to initiate and inflate the New Cold War, the Nitwits in DC have militarized every economic development initiative fronted by Russia and China. Under that pathological rubric, all economic activity by Russia and China is a "threat to U.S. national security". Once those economic threats have been miraculously transformed into military threats, they can only be addressed by U.S. military "Power Projection". Taxpayers, hold onto your wallets.

Pat Buchanan, if you read these comments to your TAC entries, you should note that the American Exceptionalism Monster is still roaring and the continuation of the great taxpayer fleecing to pay for the incoherent cacophony will continue unabated.

As as usual the Washington Elites will always walk away rich from their wreckage.

BTW, I see that General Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. What a Warrior-Hero Dope. Anybody who talks to a cop is nuts.

david , says: December 18, 2018 at 12:46 pm
A typical anti-Chinese laundry list of hypocritical or unsubstantiated charges. I will just counter several random points:

1. China conducted cyber attack: so do US, and many nations.

2. China sends students allegedly engaged in espionage: Majority of those students are legitimate students. Further US also sends spy to China for espionage.

3. China keeps her currency below market value to maintain her trade advantage: False, China is more interested in keeping her currency STABLE than below market value. And talking about currency manipulation, please take a look at Federal Reserve. What did QE1, QE2, and below-inflation short-term rate do to the exchange rate?

4. China established internment camps for the Uighur minority: unsubstantiated charge. No Muslim countries seem to agree with this western-sourced charge.

and so on.

The foundation of China's rise is a peaceful world, and Chinese are smart to understand that. Their country is also not kidnapped by the military-industrial complex, like us. For example, even though they regard Taiwan as part of China, they are willing to withhold military solution for over 80 years, and even 100 years if necessary. Same for the South China Sea – despite all the charges against China, not a SINGLE bullet was fired in South China Sea for decades, unlike US, where thousands of bombs are dropped on several countries every year.

So, for the sake of this country and our children, stop listening to anti-China propaganda like this article.

SteveM , says: December 18, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Re: david, "So, for the sake of this country and our children, stop listening to anti-China propaganda like this article."

David, I have a more nuanced take on the Manichean model of China. I see Xi serving 2 masters. One is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The other is the technocratic state.

Since communism has been effectively abandoned in China, Xi has turned over economic governance to the technocrats, many educated in the West with Western sensibilities. However, Xi recognizes that the CCP Nomenklatura wants two things – social stability and their cut of the action.

So the current socio-economic mixed model. I.e., regularized indoctrination and repression applied selectively to minimize dissent running in parallel with the massive economic engine managed using a mostly Western business and technical development regime. Xi will allow cronyism, graft and corruption within that market-based regime sufficient to keep the Nomenklatura happy.

The subtext then is that the Chinese are probably not going to invade anybody but they are not exactly nice guys either when it comes to managing the civilian population.

Should the U.S. actively engage in trying to coercively change domestic political conditions in China? President George Washington would no doubt have said no.

The current DC leadership composed of arrogant numbskulls and half-wits would probably beg to differ with the Founding Fathers.

Mark Thomason , says: December 18, 2018 at 3:54 pm
Look at Google maps. Those Chinese ports are in each case small container ship docks. They have a narrow channel, and berths for just a couple of container ships alongside cranes and parking areas for containers.

There is no "port" nor room for a port in the military sense. There is no space for military ships to dock or anchor, no support for military ships to re-supply or repair.

The Chinese are no doing what this fears. They are not creating what the Americans created, naval bases ringing the world.

What they are doing is what they say they are doing, the belt and road linking their trade to the world. More exactly, opening the Western less developed regions of China to markets so that can develop too. Right now, those regions must ship East to that coast, before ships take thing all the way around back again the long way. This opens a short cut to development.

This is not good news for those fearing China's rise. China is already very big, and this would enable it to become very much bigger as an economy.

However, American fears as phrased in this article are looking in the wrong direction to see the danger.

[Dec 19, 2018] Here's What Newly-Diagnosed Amnesiac James Comey Did Not Recall On Day 2 Of Testimony

Notable quotes:
"... He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard. Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the slammer. ..."
Dec 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Former FBI Director James Comey appeared December 17th, 2018, for a second round of questions by a joint House committee oversight probe into the DOJ and FBI conduct during the 2016 presidential election and incoming Trump administration.

The Joint House Committee just released the transcript online (full pdf below).

Director Blue blog's Doug Ross read through most of the septic backflow so you don't need to. You're welcome:

1. Double Standard: Obama vs. Trump

Trey Gowdy grilled Comey on his vastly different handling of comments by Trump and Obama. When Trump asked Comey whether he could see his way clear to easing up on Flynn, Comey memorialized the conversation in a memo and distributed it to his leadership team, including Andrew McCabe and James Baker.

However, when President Obama on 60 Minutes publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information -- setting the stage for true obstruction of justice -- Comey did nothing. He never talked to the president about potential obstruction, he never memorialized his observations, and he didn't leak anything to the press. These were all things he did with Trump.

He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard. Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the slammer.

2. According to Comey, Flynn had no right to counsel

This is interesting:

Mr. Gowdy. Did Mr. Flynn have the right to have counsel present during that interview?

Mr. Comey. No.

Oooooooookay.

3. Comey confirmed McCabe called Flynn to initiate "entrapment"; contradicts himself on counsel

And:

Mr. Gowdy. Why not advise General Flynn of the consequences of making false statements to the FBI?

Mr. Comey. ...the Deputy Director [McCabe] called him, told him what the subject matter was, told him he was welcome to have a representative from White House Counsel there...

So Comey is saying that Flynn didn't have the right to counsel (item 2), and then states that he does have the right to a White House counsel attending the meeting.

The lies are getting harder and harder to keep straight with this egregious individual.

4. Comey lied about McCabe's conversation with Flynn

When asked whether McCabe was trying to set Flynn up by asserting no counsel was needed in the interview, Comey claimed he was unaware of that critical fact. But McCabe, in a written memo, asserted that he told Flynn, "[i]f you have a lawyer present, we'll need to involve the Department of Justice".

In other words, McCabe was trying to ensure Flynn had no counsel present during the interview.

5. Comey still falls back on the Logan Act scam to justify his actions

Yes, the Logan Act. When former secretary of state John Kerry meets with various Mullahs while President Trump is unwinding the disastrous Iran deal, there's no crime there !

But let Flynn, a member of the Trump transition team, have a perfectly legitimate conversation with a Russian diplomat, we get:

Mr. Comey. And I hesitate only with "wrong." I think a Department of Justice prosecutor might say, on its face, it was problematic under the Logan Act because of private citizens negotiating and all that business.

What a lying sack of gumbo. At the time, Flynn was not a private citizen. He was a member of the incoming administration, and had anyone bothered to prosecute prior transitions for similar "crimes", the entire Obama and Clinton posses would be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.

6. Comey Throws James Clapper Under the Bus

When asked by Jim Jordan about his private meeting with the President to brief him on a very tiny portion of the "salacious and unverified" (Comey's words under oath) dossier, Comey claimed ODNI James Clapper had orchestrated the entire fiasco.

Mr. Comey. ...ultimately, it was Clapper's call. I agreed -- we agreed that it made sense for me to do it and to do it privately, separately. So I don't want to make it sound like I was ordered to do it.

He wasn't ordered to do it, but it was Clapper's call.

Oooooooookay.

7. Jordan Torches Comey Over His Dossier Comments

I'll just leave this here. Comey may need to put some ice on that.

Mr. Jordan. So that's what I'm not understanding, is you felt this was so important that it required a private session with you and the President-elect, you only spoke of the salacious part of the dossier, but yet you also say there's no way any good reporter would print this. But you felt it was still critical that you had to talk to the President-elect about it. And I would argue you created the very news hook that you said you were concerned about...

...it's so inflammatory that reporters would 'get killed' for reporting it, why was it so important to tell the President? Particularly when you weren't going to tell him the rest of the dossier -- about the rest of the dossier?

8. Comey Concealed Critical National Security Concerns About Flynn From the President

This is quite unbelievable: in a private dinner with the president, Comey neglected to mention that just three days earlier he had directed the interview of Trump's ostensible National Security Advisor.

Mr. Comey. ...at no time during the dinner was there a reference, allusion, mention by either of
us about the FBI having contact with General Flynn or being interested in General Flynn investigatively.

Mr. Jordan. That was what I wanted to know. So this is not just referring to the President didn't bring it up. You didn't bring it up either.

Mr. Comey. Correct, neither of us brought it up or alluded to it.

Mr. Jordan. Why not? He's talking about General Flynn. You had just interviewed him 3 days earlier and discovered that he was lying to the Vice President, knew he was lying to the Vice President, and, based on what we've heard of late, that he lied tyour agents. Why not tell his boss, why not tell the head of the executive branch, why not tell the President of the United States, "Hey, your National Security Advisor just lied to us 3 days ago"?

Mr. Comey. Because we had an open investigation, and there would be no reason or a need to tell the President about it.

Mr. Jordan. Really?

Mr. Comey. Really.

Mr. Jordan. You wouldn't tell the President of the United States that his National Security Advisor wasn't being square with the FBI? ... I mean, but this is not just any investigation, it seems to me, Director. This is a top advisor to the Commander in Chief. And you guys, based on what we've heard, felt that he wasn't being honest with the Vice President and wasn't honest with two of your agents. And just 3 days later, you're meeting with the President, and, oh, by the way, the conversation is about General Flynn. And you don't tell the President anything?

Mr. Comey. I did not.

Mr. Meadows. So, Director Comey, let me make sure I understand this. You were so concerned that Michael Flynn may have lied or did lie to the Vice President of the United States, but that once you got that confirmed, that he had told a falsehood, you didn't believe that it was appropriate to tell the President of the United States that there was no national security risk where you would actually convey that to the President of the United States? Is that your testimony?

Mr. Comey. That is correct. We had an --

The more we learn, the dirtier a cop Comey ends up appearing.

9. Gowdy Destroys the Double Standard of Clinton vs. Flynn

Check this out:

Mr. Gowdy. ...we are going to contrast the decision to not allow Michael Flynn to have an attorney, or discourage him from having one, with allowing some other folks the Bureau interviewed to have multiple attorneys in the room, including fact witnesses. Can you see the dichotomy there, or is that an unreasonable comparison?

Mr. Comey. I'm not going to comment on that. I remember you asking me questions about that last week. I'm happy to answer them again.

Mr. Gowdy. You will not say whether or not it is an unreasonable comparison to compare allowing multiple attorneys, who are also fact witnesses, to be present during an interview but discouraging another person from having counsel present?

Mr. Comey. I'm not going to answer that in a vacuum...

10. Comey May Have Been Involved With the Infamous Tarmac Meeting

Another interesting vignette, this time from John Ratcliffe :

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it would appear from this that there had been some type of briefing the day before, with reference to yesterday, June 27, 2016, where you had requested a copy of emails between President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Comey. I see that it says that.

Mr. Ratcliffe. ...The significance of that is, as we talked about last time, June 27th of 2016 was also the date that Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met on a tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Do you recall whether or not this briefing was held at the FBI because of that tarmac meeting, or was it just happened to be a coincidence that it was held on that day? Mr. Comey. It would have to have been a coincidence. I don't remember a meeting in response to the tarmac meeting.

Muh don't know!

11. Comey confirms Obama knew Hillary Clinton was using a compromised, insecure email server

Well, spank me on the fanny and call me Nancy!

Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama were communicating via email through an unsecure, unclassified server?

Mr. Comey. Yes, they were between her Clinton email.com account and his -- I don't know where his account, his unclassified account, was maintained. So I'm sorry. So, yes, here were communications unclassified between two accounts, hers and then his cover account.

Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Did your review of these emails or the content of these emails impact your decision to edit out a reference to President Obama in your July 5th, 2016, press conference remarks?

If Trump had done 1/1,000,000th of this crap, he'd be -- yes -- breaking rocks in Leavenworth right now.

But there's no double-standard, rabble! Just keep buying iPhones and playing Call of Duty !

...Aaaaaaaaand I'm spent.

Okay, done for now.

But let's recap the activities of Dr. "Higher Loyalty" Comey:

But, no, there's no double-standard for the aggressiveness of law enforcement when it comes to Democrats like Clinton and Obama.

Hat tip: BadBlue Uncensored News .

[Dec 19, 2018] The Trump Coup Is a Threat to Our Republic by Larry Johnson

Notable quotes:
"... These intercepted communications provided the means to identify George Papadopoulos as a potential target. ..."
"... British intel was worried about Trump's stated positions in 2015 on Syria and NATO, which were inimical to British interests. ..."
"... Meanwhile, back in my country, Jim Clapper at DNI and John Brennan at CIA started to conspire against Trump. ..."
"... if I may add this also proves an imperial mindset. Anyone dangerous to the influence of the Imperium must destroyed. Right now primarily through Justizmord, but as things turn south (and they will) physically too. ..."
"... My apologies if I missed this in the article, but WHY do these US gov't agencies want to take Donald down? I didn't vote for him, but it seems like he is doing things the GOP wants. ..."
"... IMO they have sensed from the beginning that because of his egomania he would never be truly controllable. As TTG and I have stated before we would never have tried to recruit this man as an intelligence asset. To be worthwhile such an asset must be controllable. Trump is demonstrating now in the Syria matter that he is NOT controllable. He is likely to withdraw from Afghanistan in spite of the "counsel" of the generals' club and the waning influence over him of the neocons. With regard to Syria I think that Natanyahu has already abandoned regime change in Syria. The Russians are probably responsible for this. ..."
"... Excellent summary, Mr Johnson! It is extremely concerning that this information is known but no one has the balls to start nailing some people. I read that it is all about timing, release will be in response to demo atks, etc. I read that x number of sealed indictments are out there but no progress seems to be forthcoming. You are correct, no one is defending the Constitution, it is all personalized against trump, who seems to disengaged from the active fight. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer: "You take on the intelligence community, they have 6 ways from Sunday of getting back at you." Play Hide ..."
Dec 19, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

On the threshhold of the second anniversary of Donald Trump's inauguration, the details of the coup to force him from the Presidency are emerging and should alarm all Americans regardless of political party affiliation. Although many facts remain to be discovered, what has emerged paints a shocking picture of criminal activity by FBI and CIA officials. That explains in part why both agencies are going to great lengths to hide documents that provide indisputable proof of their malfeasance.

When American law enforcement and officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority to collect intelligence or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and intimidation to silence those who worked for Donald Trump's Presidency, our Republic is endangered.

My interest is not in protecting or defending Donald Trump. I am talking about defending the rule of law and ensuring that the Constitutional limitations on the powers of the Federal Government are protected.

What evidence do I offer of the attempted coup? Here is what we know for certain:

Foreign intelligence entities started collecting intelligence on Donald Trump and his associates in 2015. The names of more than 200 people connected to the Trump campaign listed in those reports were unmasked by the Obama Administration. The FBI used two paid informants -- Christopher Steele and Stefan Halper -- to target Trump and members of his team and coordinated this effort with British MI-6 and the CIA. The FBI had additional informant with direct access to Trump who specialized in targeting Russian spies and Russian mobsters. His name? Felix Sater. Yet, Sater appears never to have been tasked to provide any incriminating information on Donald Trump. Bill Priestrap, the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence since December 2015, relied on Felix Sater in a major operation against Russian spies and then had oversight of the investigation into Donald Trump. So far, no indictment has surfaced from Special Prosecutor Mueller's efforts implicating Trump with the Russian government.

The operation against Donald Trump is pure and simple covert action. But it is covert action on a massive scale and has involved coordinated actions between U.S. law enforcement, U.S. intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence agencies, including both the British Government and the Australian Government.

There are eight major components to this covert action. This is not a confirmed complete list. More elements may surface in the coming days. But these are what we know for certain:

  1. British and other foreign intelligence services were collecting on persons working with and for Donald Trump. GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. Thisintelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added. Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians, sources said. This "intelligence" was then used by the Obama Administration to "unmask" Americans named in the intelligence who were working with Donald Trump. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the "Five Eyes" spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said. (Luke Harding, Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Nick Hopkins Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015 Thu 13 Apr 2017 09.39 EDT, THE GUARDIAN)
  2. February/March 2016--George Popadopoulus was specifically targeted by a combined MI-6/CIA operation. GCHQ started collecting on the Trump team in the summer of 2015. These intercepted communications provided the means to identify George Papadopoulos as a potential target. But this was more than a mere GCHQ routine collection. MI6 also was involved. British intel was worried about Trump's stated positions in 2015 on Syria and NATO, which were inimical to British interests.

    Meanwhile, back in my country, Jim Clapper at DNI and John Brennan at CIA started to conspire against Trump. They did not believe that Trump would be elected but still decided to take steps to discredit him using the Russia meme. I have this solidly sourced. In other words, US intel and British intel started working against Trump independently at the outset. This effort subsequently was coordinated through the JIC. What is alarming is that despite the targeting of Trump NO intel of any value on the Trump/Russian angle was ever produced. I thank you for the excellent piece you did on Mifsud. Mifsud's "arrival" at the London Center for International Law Practice (LCILP) was not, in my view, a mere coincidence. Papadopoulos was then recruited, unwittingly, to join LCILP as part of a broader intel op intended to compromise him as a Russian enthusiast.

  3. May 6, 2016--DNC Computer supposedly was hacked by Russian government agents and an outside firm, Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm that was brought in at the recommendation of Mark Elias (the same attorney who had hired Fusion GPS) is on the record claiming it started working in early May to counter the Russian threat. It was Crowdstrike, not the FBI, that claimed in mid-June that the email theft from the DNC was carried out by Russian hackers. However, the available forensic evidence clearly shows that the information was downloaded by someone with access to the DNC computers. At no time was the FBI given forensic access to the DNC computer to conduct an independent investigation.
  4. A "retired" MI-6 officer, Christopher Steele, was hired by Fusion GPS (which had been retained by a lawyer acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign) to assemble a "dossier" on Trump and his relationship with Russia. However, turns out that Steele also was a fully signed up FBI informant since 2013. He was fired in October 2016 by the FBI for leaking to the media. Despite being funded by a political opponent of Trump, the dossier was a major justification for seeking a FISA warrant against Carter Page, who was affiliated with the Trump campaign. ( https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/14/russia-dossier-fbi-trump-obama-1066643 )
  5. Summer 2016--Carter Page targeted by the FBI and collected on by NSA and CIA. Page had no relationship with Trump other than being named as an advisor to a group of foreign policy experts. He never met Trump and never spoke with Trump. But the Steele Dossier fingers Page as playing a lead role in bringing Russian influence into the Trump campaign. This unproven allegation the major impetus for obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
  6. August/September 2016--FBI Informant Stefan Halper was used to try to entrap at least three people associated with Donald Trump. Halper, the son-in-law of a retired famous CIA officers, also was known to work with the CIA and MI-6 on other matters. In September Halper sought a meeting with George Papadopoulus to pitch him on writing a policy paper for $3000 and then traveling to London at Halper's expense. Towards the end of the meeting Halper asked Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?'" Papadopoulus denied any knowledge of such activity.
  7. DNI Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan both engaged in continuous leaks to feed the meme that Trump was colluding with the Russians even though they knew they had no relevant intelligence to support their claims. They engaged in a deliberate covert information operation to poison the media against Trump. A retired FBI agent writing in the Wall Street Journal noted that, "Robert Hannigan, then head of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters, to pass information to Mr. Brennan. With only these suspicions, Mr. Brennan pressured the FBI into launching its counterintelligence probe."
  8. The FBI had an informant with expertise about the Russians planted inside the Trump organization since 2003, but apparently did not use him. FBI Informant Felix Sater, who started working with the Trump organization since 2003 and a boyhood friend of Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, had worked with the FBI in making several cases against Russian intelligence officers and Russian mobsters. Yet, during the 12 years he worked with the Trump organization, not a single indictment was ever brought against Trump or his employees prior to the start of his campaign for President. Even though Sater played a key role in the failed Moscow project, his role with the FBI only involved providing evidence that Michael Cohen lied to the Senate about the project.

The effort to destroy Donald Trump remains active. Trump, unfortunately, is proving to be quite feckless in defying this threat and protecting himself. But this should not be about protecting Trump and his reputation. This goes to something more profound and fundamental -- are those charged with collecting foreign intelligence and investigating crime permitted to act with impunity against someone they define as a political foe. Such actions and attitudes reflect an authoritarian government, not a Republic.

Likbez

An excellent narrative of this special operation. I would call it a color resolution against Trump, as methods are the same. Thank you.

In other words, US and British intelligence started working closely against Trump very early. May be from the very beginning.

The role of the British Intelligence here deserves more attention. I think you are right that pursuing UK geopolitical interests (which are similar to US neocons) required derailing of Trump and that's why they jumped into action. It might be that the idea to hire Steele by Fusion GPS was injected from overseas.

They also might well push the Brennan faction of CIA into action by feeding his faction the required disinfo. And Brennan required very little pushing, if any at all.

In this sense DNC "post-hack" investigation looks more and more like a false flag operation were Crowstrike people were patsies in a bigger game assigned a predetermined task.

Probably the same is true about Guccifer 2

https://consortiumnews.com/...

https://www.zerohedge.com/n...

The Eastern timezone setting found in Guccifer 2's documents published on July 6, 2016 is significant, because as we showed in Guccifer 2.0 NGP/Van Metadata Analysis, Guccifer 2 was likely on the East Coast the previous day, when he collected the DNC-related files found in the ngpvan.7z Zip file. Also, recall that Guccifer 2 was likely on the East Coast a couple of months later on September 1, 2016 when he built the final ngpvan.7z file.

There are four additional episodes that can be added to the provided outline:

  1. Frantic "unmasking" by two female members of the Obama team: Susan Rise (http://strata-sphere.com/bl... ) and Samantha Power (https://nypost.com/2017/09/... also: https://consortiumnews.com/... )
  2. Michael Rogers intervention to save Trump transition team from surveillance in the Trump tower and subsequent attempt by Brennan and Co. to fire him.
  3. A very interesting and unexplainable episode is Avan brothers and their connection to Debbie Wassermann. Theoretically that provided Debbie capability of conduct her own false flag operation. It is clear that nobody wants to prosecute them. But why ?
  4. The "insurance" folder on Wiener laptop (and probably some other interesting dat on it) and Comey treatment of this information:
    https://www.theamericancons...

Bálint Somkuti , 14 hours ago

Sir,

if I may add this also proves an imperial mindset. Anyone dangerous to the influence of the Imperium must destroyed. Right now primarily through Justizmord, but as things turn south (and they will) physically too.

Julius HK , 19 hours ago
You say: I am talking about defending the rule of law and ensuring that the Constitutional limitations on the powers of the Federal Government are protected... And I can tell you with absolute certainty that the US government has engaged in extrajudicial political assassinations with total impunity, and this is repulsive way beyond what you outlined here...
wehaveseenthisb4 , an hour ago
Trump is a criminal and has been all his adult life. He's been a liar since he was old enough to tell a lie. Maybe no more or more less than others; the difference being dumb enough to expose himself by running for the presidency and getting caught. It's on him.
JayneCoe , 2 hours ago
My apologies if I missed this in the article, but WHY do these US gov't agencies want to take Donald down? I didn't vote for him, but it seems like he is doing things the GOP wants. And I was aware even before he ran for office that his past business dealings were shady. Are these agencies going to try to bring him down using his past business dealings poss. involving the Russians? Also, what does Mueller get out of this situation? Not a troll, just someone with an OPEN mind.
Pat Lang Mod -> JayneCoe , 42 minutes ago
IMO they have sensed from the beginning that because of his egomania he would never be truly controllable. As TTG and I have stated before we would never have tried to recruit this man as an intelligence asset. To be worthwhile such an asset must be controllable. Trump is demonstrating now in the Syria matter that he is NOT controllable. He is likely to withdraw from Afghanistan in spite of the "counsel" of the generals' club and the waning influence over him of the neocons. With regard to Syria I think that Natanyahu has already abandoned regime change in Syria. The Russians are probably responsible for this.
MP98 , 3 hours ago
Bad news and good news.

As for Trump, two things: The Clinton crime family is not in the WH. Two Supreme Court Justices NOT appointed by a Democrat.

Bill Herschel , 5 hours ago
The straw in the wind is Trump's proposal to withdraw from Syria. He will resign.
Taras77 , 15 hours ago
Excellent summary, Mr Johnson! It is extremely concerning that this information is known but no one has the balls to start nailing some people. I read that it is all about timing, release will be in response to demo atks, etc. I read that x number of sealed indictments are out there but no progress seems to be forthcoming. You are correct, no one is defending the Constitution, it is all personalized against trump, who seems to disengaged from the active fight.

Then there is the business of Q, whatever the hell that means-we read, trust the plan, trust Sessions, trust Rod, trust Mueller. This may be counter productive to the 4th level of chess but it seems like it is about time to haul some of these bastards off in a perp walk.

Just saying!

Greco , 18 hours ago
Chuck Schumer: "You take on the intelligence community, they have 6 ways from Sunday of getting back at you." Play Hide

[Dec 19, 2018] The highest priority should be SEIZING the ASSETS of EVERY individual who LIED us into WAR.

Dec 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

alexander , says: December 18, 2018 at 10:17 am GMT

Dear Mr. Giraldi,

Why boycott something when you can OWN it !?!

"No taxation without representation" is the cornerstone to the founding of the nation. Is it not ?

Every Neocon Oligarch who Conspired to Defraud us into "war of aggression" should have ALL their assets seized to pay for the costs of the wars they lied us into.

No more, no less.

Choosing to "Boycott Israel "may help the suffering Palestinians to some small degree, but if anyone is serious about helping The UNITED STATES ..The highest priority should be SEIZING the ASSETS of EVERY individual who LIED us into WAR.

The law is crystal clear on this ..and its on YOUR SIDE.

The people just need a referendum like "THE WAR FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY ACT of 2020″ (retroactive to 2002.)

They just need to sign it and push it through .By "majority" mandate.

Why waste time boycotting Israel .When 300 million Americans are one step away from rightfully taking back ALL their MONEY from every Neocon Oligarch who "conspired to defraud" us into war ?

Think about how hard Americans have worked to build our country in 200 years we created the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth.

Yet all that wealth has been Squandered, in a mere 17 years, because we were defrauded into illegal wars of aggression.

Its not right.

Make THEM pay for the wars they lied us into.

Every penny.

Take back you solvency . Americans.

This is the smart play .its legal its just and its right there for you.

"CARPE DIEM"

"PECUNIA CORRIPIUNT"

It belongs to YOU !

[Dec 19, 2018] Judge excoriates Trump ex-adviser Flynn, delays Russia probe sentencing by Jan Wolfe and Ginger Gibson

Flynn "treason" is not related to Russia probe and just confirm that Nueller in engaged in witch hunt. I believe half of Senate and House of Representative might go to jail if they were dug with the ferocity Mueller digs Flynn's past. So while Flynn behavior as Turkey lobbyist (BTW Turkey is a NATO country and not that different int his sense from the US -- and you can name a lot of UK lobbyists in high echelons of the US government, starting with McCabe and Strzok) is reprehensible, this is still a witch hunt
When American law enforcement and intelligence officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority to collect intelligence or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and intimidation to silence or intimidates those who worked for Donald Trump's Presidency, we see shadow of Comrage Stalin Great Terror Trials over the USA.
Dec 19, 2018 | www.yahoo.com
Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn passes by members of the media as he departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

By Jan Wolfe and Ginger Gibson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge fiercely criticized President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Tuesday for lying to FBI agents in a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and delayed sentencing him until Flynn has finished helping prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, that he had arguably betrayed his country. Sullivan also noted that Flynn had operated as an undeclared lobbyist for Turkey even as he worked on Trump's campaign team and prepared to be his White House national security adviser.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016 conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia's ambassador in Washington, about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, after Trump's election victory but before he took office.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump's campaign team and Russia ahead of the election, had asked the judge not to sentence Flynn to prison because he had already provided "substantial" cooperation over the course of many interviews.

But Sullivan sternly told Flynn his actions were abhorrent, noting that Flynn had also lied to senior White House officials, who in turn misled the public. The judge said he had read additional facts about Flynn's behavior that have not been made public.

At one point, Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could have been charged with treason, although the judge later said he had not been suggesting such a charge was warranted.

"Arguably, you sold your country out," Sullivan told Flynn. "I'm not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense."

Flynn, dressed in a suit and tie, showed little emotion throughout the hearing, and spoke calmly when he confirmed his guilty plea and answered questions from the judge.

Sullivan appeared ready to sentence Flynn to prison but then gave him the option of a delay in his sentencing so he could fully cooperate with any pending investigations and bolster his case for leniency. The judge told Flynn he could not promise that he would not eventually sentence him to serve prison time.

Flynn accepted that offer. Sullivan did not set a new date for sentencing but asked Mueller's team and Flynn's attorney to give him a status report by March 13.

Prosecutors said Flynn already had provided most of the cooperation he could, but it was possible he might be able to help investigators further. Flynn's attorney said his client is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a case against Bijan Rafiekian, his former business partner who has been charged with unregistered lobbying for Turkey.

Rafiekian pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to those charges in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. His trial is scheduled for Feb. 11. Flynn is expected to testify.

Prosecutors have said Rafiekian and Flynn lobbied to have Washington extradite a Muslim cleric who lives in the United States and is accused by Turkey's government of backing a 2016 coup attempt. Flynn has not been charged in that case.

'LOCK HER UP!'

Flynn was a high-profile adviser to Trump's campaign team. At the Republican Party's national convention in 2016, Flynn led Trump's supporters in cries of "Lock her up!" directed against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

A group of protesters, including some who chanted "Lock him up," gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday, along with a large inflatable rat fashioned to look like Trump. Several Flynn supporters also were there, cheering as he entered and exited. One held a sign that read, "Michael Flynn is a hero."

Flynn became national security adviser when Trump took office in January 2017, but lasted only 24 days before being fired.

He told FBI investigators on Jan. 24, 2017, that he had not discussed the U.S. sanctions with Kislyak when in fact he had, according to his plea agreement. Trump has said he fired Flynn because he also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the contacts with Kislyak.

Trump has said Flynn did not break the law and has voiced support for him, raising speculation the Republican president might pardon him.

"Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him, about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful political campaign. There was no Collusion!" Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday morning.

After the hearing, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters the FBI had "ambushed" Flynn in the way agents questioned him, but said his "activities" at the center of the case "don't have anything to do with the president" and disputed that Flynn had committed treason.

"We wish General Flynn well," Sanders said.

In contrast, Trump has called his former long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to separate charges, a "rat."

Mueller's investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe has cast a shadow over his presidency. Several former Trump aides have pleaded guilty in Mueller's probe, but Flynn was the first former Trump White House official to do so. Mueller also has charged a series of Russian individuals and entities.

Trump has called Mueller's investigation a "witch hunt" and has denied collusion with Moscow.

Russia has denied meddling in the election, contrary to the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that have said Moscow used hacking and propaganda to try to sow discord in the United States and boost Trump's chances against Clinton.

Lying to the FBI carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison. Flynn's plea agreement stated that he was eligible for a sentence of between zero and six months.

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Ginger Gibson; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Kieran Murray and Will Dunham)

[Dec 19, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Has Already Failed by Daniel Larison •

Dec 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

December 17, 208, 2:42 PM

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2Fj-GHT1gpo6-.js%3Fversion%3D43%23cb%3Df64680387c7c77%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff537f7994198f1%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.d30011b0f5ce05b98f24b01d3331b3c1.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Trump%E2%80%99s%20Iran%20Policy%20Has%20Already%20Failed%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1545208054724&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.MO5vxMCzvvQ.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPq335D5ksg3qOXO4x5vCykSDofgA%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1545208054245&_gfid=I0_1545208054245&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=62766058

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com , European External Action Service/Flickr Reimposed sanctions on Iran are cruel and unnecessary, and they are also ineffective :

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Saturday said US sanctions will have no impact on the policies of the Islamic republic at home or abroad.

"It is obvious that we are facing pressure by the US sanctions. But will that lead to a change in policy? I can assure you it won't," Zarif told the Doha Forum policy conference in Qatar.

"If there is an art we have perfected in Iran and can teach to others for a price, it is the art of evading sanctions," he added.

Sanctions typically fail to change regime behavior, and they are even more likely to fail if there is no practical way for the targeted regime to get out from under sanctions short of surrender. The more importance that a regime places on the policies that the outside government wants to change, the greater the likelihood of failure will be. When the outside government's goals threaten the regime's security or even its very survival, there is no question of making a deal.

Because the Trump administration is pursuing regime change in all but name, there is no chance that Iran will yield to U.S. pressure. The administration's demands are so ambitious and excessive that no self-respecting state could agree to them without giving up its sovereignty and independence. It should be clear by now that pressure and coercion inspire defiance and intransigence. If the U.S. wants to see changes in Iranian international behavior, it would need to provide assurances and incentives that make taking that risk worth their while. Since this administration has made a point of reneging on commitments already made to Iran, there are no assurances that it could make that the Iranian government could trust, and the administration is allergic to offering any incentives to its negotiating partners for fear of appearing "weak."

[Dec 19, 2018] Trump is neocons hostage and does not control the USA foreign policy. In this circumstances China needs to get tough on casino modul Adelson to get her message heard by Bolton and other neocons

Dec 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

In his recent article "Averting World Conflict with China" Ron Unz has come up with an intriguing suggestion for the Chinese government to turn the tables on the December 1 st arrest of Meng Wanzhou in Canada. Canada detained Mrs. Meng, CFO of the world's largest telecoms equipment manufacturer Huawei, at the request of the United States so she could be extradited to New York to face charges that she and her company had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran. The sanctions in question had been imposed unilaterally by Washington and it is widely believed that the Trump Administration is sending a signal that when the ban on purchasing oil from Iran comes into full effect in May there will be no excuses accepted from any country that is unwilling to comply with the U.S. government's demands. Washington will exercise universal jurisdiction over those who violate its sanctions, meaning that foreign officials and heads of corporations that continue to deal with Iran can be arrested when traveling internationally and will be extradited to be tried in American courts.

There is, of course, a considerable downside to arresting a top executive of a leading foreign corporation from a country that is a major U.S. trading partner and which also, inter alia, holds a considerable portion of the U.S. national debt. Ron Unz has correctly noted the " extraordinary gravity of this international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history." One might add that Washington's demands that other nations adhere to its sanctions on third countries opens up a Pandora's box whereby no traveling executives will be considered safe from legal consequences when they do not adhere to policies being promoted by the United States. Unz cites Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs as describing it as "almost a U.S. declaration of war on China's business community." If seizing and extraditing businessmen becomes the new normal those countries most affected will inevitably retaliate in kind. China has already detained two traveling Canadians to pressure Ottawa to release Mrs. Meng. Beijing is also contemplating some immediate retaliatory steps against Washington to include American companies operating in China if she is extradited to the U.S.

Ron Unz has suggested that Beijing might just want to execute a quid pro quo by pulling the licenses of Sheldon Adelson's casinos operating in Macau, China and shutting them down, thereby eliminating a major source of his revenue. Why go after an Israeli-American casino operator rather than taking steps directly against the U.S. government? The answer is simple. Pressuring Washington is complicated as there are many players involved and unlikely to produce any positive results while Adelson is the prime mover on much of the Trump foreign policy, though one hesitates to refer to it as a policy at all.

Adelson is the world's leading diaspora Israel-firster and he has the ear of the president of the United States, who reportedly speaks and meets with him regularly. And Adelson uses his considerable financial resources to back up his words of wisdom. He is the fifteenth wealthiest man in America with a reported fortune of $33 billion. He is the number one contributor to the GOP having given $81 million in the last cycle. Admittedly that is chump change to him, but it is more than enough to buy the money hungry and easily corruptible Republicans.

In a certain sense, Adelson has obtained control of the foreign policy of the political party that now controls both the White House and the Senate, and his mission in life is to advance Israeli interests. Among those interests is the continuous punishment of Iran, which does not threaten the United States in any way, through employment of increasingly savage sanctions and threats of violence, which brings us around to the arrest of Meng and the complicity of Adelson in that process. Adelson's wholly owned talking head National Security Adviser John Bolton reportedly had prior knowledge of the Canadian plans and may have actually been complicit in their formulation. Adelson has also been the major force behind moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, has also convinced the Administration to stop its criticism of the illegal Israeli settlements on Arab land and has been instrumental in cutting off all humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. He prefers tough love when dealing with the Iranians, advocating dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran as a warning to the Mullahs of what more might be coming if they don't comply with all the American and Israeli demands.

[Dec 18, 2018] FBI's Flynn Notes Show He Was Aware of Nature of First Interview

Notable quotes:
"... christophere steele admitted before a british court today that he was hired by the clintons/obama/DNC to make up the dossier as a weapon to use against trump as a backup plan in case he won the election.. this proves the DNC lied, paid for a fake dossier, and comey admitted he knew the fake dossier was false before using it to get a FISC warrant and to spy on trump, which was used as an excuse for the mueller investigation.. yahoo news and leftwing media arent covering the story.. educate yourselves ..."
Dec 18, 2018 | news.yahoo.com

[Dec 18, 2018] Looks like AP joined Integrity Intiative

Dec 18, 2018 | news.yahoo.com

Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

Matt o'Brien and Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writers , Associated Press December 17, 2018

<img alt="Key takeaways from new reports on Russian disinformation" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/9VGA29inJ83dPeqC.cvqTg--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/images/US_AHTTP_AP_HEADLINES_BUSINESS/e66de17c8e1a4cecaf1da81f2bf87093_original.jpg" itemprop="url"/>
Some suspected Russian-backed fake social media accounts on Facebook.

Russians seeking to influence U.S. elections through social media had their eyes on Instagram and the black community.

These were among the findings in two reports released Monday by the Senate intelligence committee. Separate studies from University of Oxford researchers and the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge reveal insights into how Russian agents sought to influence Americans by saturating their favorite online services and apps with hidden propaganda.

Here are the highlights:

INSTAGRAM'S "MEME WARFARE"

Both reports show that misinformation on Facebook's Instagram may have had broader reach than the interference on Facebook itself.

The New Knowledge study says that since 2015, the Instagram posts generated 187 million engagements, such as comments or likes, compared with 77 million on Facebook.

And the barrage of image-centric Instagram "memes" has only grown since the 2016 election. Russian agents shifted their focus to Instagram after the public last year became aware of the widespread manipulation on Facebook and Twitter.

NOT JUST ADS

Revelations last year that Russian agents used rubles to pay for some of their propaganda ads drew attention to how gullible tech companies were in allowing their services to be manipulated.

But neither ads nor automated "bots" were as effective as unpaid posts hand-crafted by human agents pretending to be Americans. Such posts were more likely to be shared and commented on, and they rose in volume during key dates in U.S. politics such as during the presidential debates in 2016 or after the Obama administration's post-election announcement that it would investigate Russian hacking.

"These personalized messages exposed U.S. users to a wide range of disinformation and junk news linked to on external websites, including content designed to elicit outrage and cynicism," says the report by Oxford researchers, who worked with social media analysis firm Graphika.

DEMOGRAPHIC TARGETING

Both reports found that Russian agents tried to polarize Americans in part by targeting African-American communities extensively. They did so by campaigning for black voters to boycott elections or follow the wrong voting procedures in 2016, according to the Oxford report.

The New Knowledge report added that agents were "developing Black audiences and recruiting Black Americans as assets" beyond how they were targeting either left- or right-leaning voters.

The reports also support previous findings that the influence operations sought to polarize Americans by sowing political divisions on issues such as immigration and cultural and religious identities. The goal, according to the New Knowledge report, was to "create and reinforce tribalism within each targeted community."

Such efforts extended to Google-owned YouTube, despite Google's earlier assertion to Congress that Russian-made videos didn't target specific segments of the population.

PINTEREST TO POKEMON

The New Knowledge report says the Russian troll operation worked in many ways like a conventional corporate branding campaign, using a variety of different technology services to deliver the same messages to different groups of people.

Among the sites infiltrated with propaganda were popular image-heavy services like Pinterest and Tumblr, chatty forums like Reddit, and a wonky geopolitics blog promoted from Russian-run accounts on Facebook and YouTube.

Even the silly smartphone game "Pokemon Go" wasn't immune. A Tumblr post encouraged players to name their Pokemon character after a victim of police brutality.

WHAT NOW?

Both reports warn that some of these influence campaigns are ongoing.

The Oxford researchers note that 2016 and 2017 saw "significant efforts" to disrupt elections around the world not just by Russia, but by domestic political parties spreading disinformation.

They warn that online propaganda represents a threat to democracies and public life. They urge social media companies to share data with the public far more broadly than they have so far.

"Protecting our democracies now means setting the rules of fair play before voting day, not after," the Oxford report says.

[Dec 18, 2018] Wall Street, Banks, and Angry Citizens by Nomi Prins

Notable quotes:
"... Nomi Prins is a ..."
"... . Her latest book is ..."
"... (Nation Books). Of her six other books, the most recent is ..."
"... . She is a former Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his superb work on this piece. ..."
Dec 18, 2018 | www.unz.com
Wall Street, Banks, and Angry Citizens The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme Nomi Prins December 13, 2018 2,400 Words 16 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

As we head into 2019, leaving the chaos of this year behind, a major question remains unanswered when it comes to the state of Main Street, not just here but across the planet. If the global economy really is booming, as many politicians claim, why are leaders and their parties around the world continuing to get booted out of office in such a sweeping fashion?

One obvious answer: the post-Great Recession economic "recovery" was largely reserved for the few who could participate in the rising financial markets of those years, not the majority who continued to work longer hours, sometimes at multiple jobs, to stay afloat. In other words, the good times have left out so many people, like those struggling to keep even a few hundred dollars in their bank accounts to cover an emergency or the 80% of American workers who live paycheck to paycheck.

In today's global economy, financial security is increasingly the property of the 1%. No surprise, then, that, as a sense of economic instability continued to grow over the past decade, angst turned to anger, a transition that -- from the U.S. to the Philippines, Hungary to Brazil, Poland to Mexico -- has provoked a plethora of voter upheavals. In the process, a 1930s-style brew of rising nationalism and blaming the "other" -- whether that other was an immigrant, a religious group, a country, or the rest of the world -- emerged.

This phenomenon offered a series of Trumpian figures, including of course The Donald himself, an opening to ride a wave of "populism" to the heights of the political system. That the backgrounds and records of none of them -- whether you're talking about Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte, or Jair Bolsonaro (among others) -- reflected the daily concerns of the "common people," as the classic definition of populism might have it, hardly mattered. Even a billionaire could, it turned out, exploit economic insecurity effectively and use it to rise to ultimate power.

Ironically, as that American master at evoking the fears of apprentices everywhere showed, to assume the highest office in the land was only to begin a process of creating yet more fear and insecurity. Trump's trade wars, for instance, have typically infused the world with increased anxiety and distrust toward the U.S., even as they thwarted the ability of domestic business leaders and ordinary people to plan for the future. Meanwhile, just under the surface of the reputed good times, the damage to that future only intensified. In other words, the groundwork has already been laid for what could be a frightening transformation, both domestically and globally.

That Old Financial Crisis

To understand how we got here, let's take a step back. Only a decade ago, the world experienced a genuine global financial crisis, a meltdown of the first order. Economic growth ended; shrinking economies threatened to collapse; countless jobs were cut; homes were foreclosed upon and lives wrecked. For regular people, access to credit suddenly disappeared. No wonder fears rose. No wonder for so many a brighter tomorrow ceased to exist.

The details of just why the Great Recession happened have since been glossed over by time and partisan spin. This September, when the 10th anniversary of the collapse of the global financial services firm Lehman Brothers came around, major business news channels considered whether the world might be at risk of another such crisis. However, coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of paying yet more attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies. Why? Because such a crisis was so 2008 in a year in which, it was claimed, we were enjoying a first class economic high and edging toward the longest bull-market in Wall Street history. When it came to "boom versus gloom," boom won hands down.

None of that changed one thing, though: most people still feel left behind both in the U.S. and globally . Thanks to the massive accumulation of wealth by a 1% skilled at gaming the system, the roots of a crisis that didn't end with the end of the Great Recession have spread across the planet , while the dividing line between the "have-nots" and the "have-a-lots" only sharpened and widened.

Though the media hasn't been paying much attention to the resulting inequality, the statistics (when you see them) on that ever-widening wealth gap are mind-boggling. According to Inequality.org, for instance, those with at least $30 million in wealth globally had the fastest growth rate of any group between 2016 and 2017. The size of that club rose by 25.5% during those years, to 174,800 members. Or if you really want to grasp what's been happening, consider that, between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires whose combined wealth was greater than that of the world's poorest 50% fell from 380 to just eight . And by the way, despite claims by the president that every other country is screwing America, the U.S. leads the pack when it comes to the growth of inequality. As Inequality.org notes , it has "much greater shares of national wealth and income going to the richest 1% than any other country."

That, in part, is due to an institution many in the U.S. normally pay little attention to: the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve. It helped spark that increase in wealth disparity domestically and globally by adopting a post-crisis monetary policy in which electronically fabricated money (via a program called quantitative easing, or QE) was offered to banks and corporations at significantly cheaper rates than to ordinary Americans.

Pumped into financial markets, that money sent stock prices soaring, which naturally ballooned the wealth of the small percentage of the population that actually owned stocks. According to economist Stephen Roach, considering the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, "It is hardly a stretch to conclude that QE exacerbated America's already severe income disparities."

Wall Street, Central Banks, and Everyday People

What has since taken place around the world seems right out of the 1930s. At that time, as the world was emerging from the Great Depression, a sense of broad economic security was slow to return. Instead, fascism and other forms of nationalism only gained steam as people turned on the usual cast of politicians, on other countries, and on each other. (If that sounds faintly Trumpian to you, it should.)

In our post-2008 era, people have witnessed trillions of dollars flowing into bank bailouts and other financial subsidies, not just from governments but from the world's major central banks. Theoretically, private banks, as a result, would have more money and pay less interest to get it. They would then lend that money to Main Street. Businesses, big and small, would tap into those funds and, in turn, produce real economic growth through expansion, hiring sprees, and wage increases. People would then have more dollars in their pockets and, feeling more financially secure, would spend that money driving the economy to new heights -- and all, of course, would then be well.

That fairy tale was pitched around the globe. In fact, cheap money also pushed debt to epic levels, while the share prices of banks rose, as did those of all sorts of other firms, to record-shattering heights.

Even in the U.S., however, where a magnificent recovery was supposed to have been in place for years, actual economic growth simply didn't materialize at the levels promised. At 2% per year , the average growth of the American gross domestic product over the past decade, for instance, has been half the average of 4% before the 2008 crisis. Similar numbers were repeated throughout the developed world and most emerging markets. In the meantime, total global debt hit $247 trillion in the first quarter of 2018. As the Institute of International Finance found, countries were, on average, borrowing about three dollars for every dollar of goods or services created.

Global Consequences

What the Fed (along with central banks from Europe to Japan) ignited, in fact, was a disproportionate rise in the stock and bond markets with the money they created. That capital sought higher and faster returns than could be achieved in crucial infrastructure or social strengthening projects like building roads, high-speed railways, hospitals, or schools.

What followed was anything but fair. As former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen noted four years ago, "It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the majority." And, of course, continuing to pour money into the highest levels of the private banking system was anything but a formula for walking that back.

Instead, as more citizens fell behind, a sense of disenfranchisement and bitterness with existing governments only grew. In the U.S., that meant Donald Trump. In the United Kingdom, similar discontent was reflected in the June 2016 Brexit vote to leave the European Union (EU), which those who felt economically squeezed to death clearly meant as a slap at both the establishment domestically and EU leaders abroad.

Since then, multiple governments in the European Union, too, have shifted toward the populist right. In Germany, recent elections swung both right and left just six years after, in July 2012, European Central Bank (ECB) head Mario Draghi exuded optimism over the ability of such banks to protect the financial system, the Euro, and generally hold things together.

Like the Fed in the U.S., the ECB went on to manufacture money, adding another $3 trillion to its books that would be deployed to buy bonds from favored countries and companies. That artificial stimulus, too, only increased inequality within and between countries in Europe. Meanwhile, Brexit negotiations remain ruinously divisive, threatening to rip Great Britain apart.

Nor was such a story the captive of the North Atlantic. In Brazil, where left-wing president Dilma Rouseff was ousted from power in 2016, her successor Michel Temer oversaw plummeting economic growth and escalating unemployment. That, in turn, led to the election of that country's own Donald Trump, nationalistic far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro who won a striking 55.2% of the vote against a backdrop of popular discontent. In true Trumpian style, he is disposed against both the very idea of climate change and multilateral trade agreements.

In Mexico, dissatisfied voters similarly rejected the political known, but by swinging left for the first time in 70 years. New president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known by his initials AMLO, promised to put the needs of ordinary Mexicans first. However, he has the U.S. -- and the whims of Donald Trump and his "great wall" -- to contend with, which could hamper those efforts.

As AMLO took office on December 1st , the G20 summit of world leaders was unfolding in Argentina. There, amid a glittering backdrop of power and influence, the trade war between the U.S. and the world's rising superpower, China, came even more clearly into focus. While its president, Xi Jinping, having fully consolidated power amid a wave of Chinese nationalism, could become his country's longest serving leader, he faces an international landscape that would have amazed and befuddled Mao Zedong.

Though Trump declared his meeting with Xi a success because the two sides agreed on a 90-day tariff truce , his prompt appointment of an anti-Chinese hardliner, Robert Lighthizer, to head negotiations, a tweet in which he referred to himself in superhero fashion as a " Tariff Man ," and news that the U.S. had requested that Canada arrest and extradite an executive of a key Chinese tech company, caused the Dow to take its fourth largest plunge in history and then fluctuate wildly as economic fears of a future "Great Something" rose. More uncertainty and distrust were the true product of that meeting.

In fact, we are now in a world whose key leaders, especially the president of the United States, remain willfully oblivious to its long-term problems, putting policies like deregulation, fake nationalist solutions, and profits for the already grotesquely wealthy ahead of the future lives of the mass of citizens. Consider the yellow-vest protests that have broken out in France, where protestors identifying with left and right political parties are calling for the resignation of neoliberal French President Emmanuel Macron. Many of them, from financially starved provincial towns, are angry that their purchasing power has dropped so low they can barely make ends meet .

Ultimately, what transcends geography and geopolitics is an underlying level of economic discontent sparked by twenty-first-century economics and a resulting Grand Canyon-sized global inequality gap that is still widening . Whether the protests go left or right, what continues to lie at the heart of the matter is the way failed policies and stop-gap measures put in place around the world are no longer working, not when it comes to the non-1% anyway. People from Washington to Paris , London to Beijing , increasingly grasp that their economic circumstances are not getting better and are not likely to in any presently imaginable future, given those now in power.

A Dangerous Recipe

The financial crisis of 2008 initially fostered a policy of bailing out banks with cheap money that went not into Main Street economies but into markets enriching the few. As a result, large numbers of people increasingly felt that they were being left behind and so turned against their leaders and sometimes each other as well.

This situation was then exploited by a set of self-appointed politicians of the people, including a billionaire TV personality who capitalized on an increasingly widespread fear of a future at risk. Their promises of economic prosperity were wrapped in populist platitudes, normally (but not always) of a right-wing sort. Lost in this shift away from previously dominant political parties and the systems that went with them was a true form of populism, which would genuinely put the needs of the majority of people over the elite few, build real things including infrastructure, foster organic wealth distribution, and stabilize economies above financial markets.

In the meantime, what we have is, of course, a recipe for an increasingly unstable and vicious world.

Nomi Prins is a TomDispatch regular . Her latest book is Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World (Nation Books). Of her six other books, the most recent is All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power . She is a former Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his superb work on this piece.

WorkingClass , says: December 13, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT

However, coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of paying yet more attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies.

Tossed aside by whom? The corporate media of course. Fake news. Their ONLY agenda is the ongoing demonetization of Donald Trump.

Minus the obligatory Trump bashing this is a good piece. The beating heart of Neo Feudalism (against which we populists/nationalists/deplorables rebel) is debt money aka the FED. So what would you have us actually do about the banking cartel? Vote BETO? Check our privilege?

Godfree Roberts , says: December 14, 2018 at 12:35 am GMT
I suggest stepping back further than the GFC, to the halcyon days of Thatcher and Reagan and TINA.

That's when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today than then.

Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill is coming due.

Needless to say, the Chinese did the opposite and the current "China!" noise is designed to distract us from the dreadful destiny our faux democracy created for us.

But a country deserves the government it gets and we've always liked Elmer Gantry's style of self-confident bullshit.

Haxo Angmark , says: Website December 14, 2018 at 1:26 am GMT
(((Nomi Prins))) describes the problem accurately,

but (((she))) has the dynamics entirely wrong:

in order to buy consent for free-trade and open borders,

both aimed at liquidating the Whites and their nations,

the Judeo-globalist (((banksters))) and (((billionaires)))

have piled up hundreds of trillion$ in debt and fiat funnymoney. Naturally,

the lucre flows into the pockets of the already rich, while

the rest of us get the debt. In all honesty,

I fear for the Jews, both universalist Tikkun Olas like Nomi and the Zio-nationalists,

when the (((Great Ponzi))) collapses.

frosty zoom , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark dude..
Digital Samizdat , says: December 15, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT
I miss Mike Whitney. Where did he go? He hasn't posted anything here at Unz since June. He was just as good as Nomi on the finance/economic topics, but we didn't have to endure the constant anti-Trump virtue-signalling. It's a bit like being served castor oil along with your beef bourguignon: it spoils the whole effect.

Another thing I don't like about Nomi is how she fails to make the connection between hyper-financialization and falling median incomes in the West on the one hand, and open borders and 'free' trade on the other. Neoliberalism could succinctly be defined as the free movement of goods, capital and people across borders. Hence, there is nothing left-wing about hating borders–not if you by 'left-wing' you mean pro-workingclass .

Fidelios Automata , says: December 15, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
Remember, the Tea Party was a grassroots anti-banker movement. The media successfully convinced the rest of America that they were all racist fascist deplorables.
Endgame Napoleon , says: December 16, 2018 at 12:25 am GMT
Post-housing collapse, maybe, the Fed should have provided loans to Main Street merchants, unleashing more small-business energy, especially since so few Americans are starting businesses these days. But those loans, too, always need to be allocated to people with a reasonable chance to pay them back. The Fed gave the dough to the banks and the zombies, but in different ways, the small-business climate in the USA is almost as bad as the zombie-business climate.

Back in 2008, any small-business stimulus would have been complicated by the need for small fish to compete with the Goliath of big-box chains and on-every-corner franchise mills spawned by big corporations, which, in neither case, generate many quality, rent-covering jobs beyond a few management positions. In many cases, the owners of franchise businesses do not make much -- they can't pay much. And the recent attempt to stimulate small businesses via the LLC tax cut might be diluted by the undermining of small retail by volume sellers, like Amazon & Walmart -- behemoths that sell everything under the sun at cut rates, now speedily delivering to customers' doors.

Infrastructure spending would create long-term value and some quality, if temporary, jobs mostly for underemployed males, one of the groups unable to just work part-time or temp jobs at low wage levels, making up the difference between living expenses and inadequate pay with spousal income, child support checks or multiple monthly welfare streams from .gov and a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431. Rather than working multiple jobs, that is what many single-breadwinner parents do. They stay below the income limits for the .gov handouts, strategically, thereby keeping wages and job quality low for many women who lack access to unearned income streams unrelated to their employment.

College-educated Americans (and others) also face the problem of the many dual-earner parents, keeping two of the few decent-paying jobs with benefits under one roof. These are often not two rocket-scientist jobs, but jobs that many educated people could perform. They maintain those jobs despite tons of time off to accommodate their personal lives, letting $10-per-hour daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters and never-retiring grandparents do the work of raising their kids. The middle-class job pool would expand dramatically if they were just more interested in raising the kids they produce, but they put house size and multiple vacations first, with the liberals among them insincerely bemoaning the fact that 30 million Americans lack health insurance, while they are double-covered in their above-firing, family-friendly jobs.

Still, if infrastructure spending is used to build The Wall, everyone will at least be safer, welfare expenditures will go down and fewer welfare-assisted noncitizens will chase jobs, driving wages down for underemployed US citizens. Bridges require repair -- something that affects the safety of everyone in the country. The electrical grid and nuclear plants need to be fortified. Something needs to be done about cybersecurity, a type of invisible infrastructure that is more and more important.

We need US citizens to get these jobs, including the record number of working-aged US citizens out of the laborforce. Infrastructure spending should not be used to employ the citizens of other countries, like the 1.5 to 1.7 new legal immigrants admitted into the country each year, many of whom qualify for welfare and tax credits for US-born kids and boatloads of illegal immigrants.

tac , says: December 17, 2018 at 5:11 am GMT
The Western propaganda continues unabated. In the latest episode of #FakeNews France3 TV got caught broadcasting a fake Yellow Vests image–photoshoped by its disinformation division–to their viewers, and then blatantly lied about afterwards:

https://www.rt.com/news/446613-france3-macron-yellow-vests/

What are some of the biggest grievances of the protesters aka Yellow Vests?:

Anonymous [346] Disclaimer , says: December 17, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT
@Haxo Angmark

I fear for the Jews, both universalist Tikkun Olas like Nomi and the Zio-nationalists,

when the (((Great Ponzi))) collapses.

Haxo has to be hasbara of some sort trying to discredit Prins' article. That aside, I hope for major correction before we see a complete collapse of the U.S. and global economy which will result in complete social collapse. For no other reason than I live in a major East Coast city and am not prepared to forage for food.

Biff , says: December 17, 2018 at 6:21 am GMT
@Godfree Roberts

That's when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today than then.

Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill is coming due.

Is this the result of Ivy League schools pumping out more degrees in finance rather than science and engineering, or the cause?

Brian , says: December 17, 2018 at 7:28 am GMT
Including Hungary and Viktor Orban in your piece demonstrates a lack of research and a definite lack of perspective. I discount the rest of what you babble on about as a result. Try doing some on-the-spot research. You might learn what really is going on. Start with the hundreds of YouTube tourist blogs. Then visit. Stop blindly regurgitating the narrow, usually distorted crap you find in the press. You may have a point but it appears to be a house of cards. To me at least. An expat enjoying my freedoms in Hungary.l
Ronald Thomas West , says: Website December 17, 2018 at 7:48 am GMT
Yeah, and what 'tomdispatch regular' Prins does is increase the sense of rage and helplessness by pointing out the degenerative process without offering any avenue to lance the boil and treat the infection. This only contributes to the resultant social problems she describes. Not necessarily smart.

Better had she pointed to some means of holding those responsible accountable, example given:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/10/12/a-breaking-point-in-geopolitical-torsion/

^ my modest contribution

jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
I'm old, mid seventies, studied economics in the sixties.
Among the many stupid things I did or thought in my life is that economics is what is expressed by 'economics is common sense made difficult'.
Maybe I had also the completely wrong idea about common sense, looking back, and looking around me now, it hardly seems to exist.
The figures about CO2 ppm can be explained in one sentence, yet mankind seems to be embarking on the most expensive experiment ever, the outcome of which will, my conviction, be that the only effect is back to barbarism, civilisation depends on cheap energy.

About financial crises, around 1880 there was a crash in Germany, Wild West around emission of shares was ended.
In 1929 USA financial regulations were way behind German, the great crash.
The USA, with GB, is the only country in the world where the central bank is not state owned.
Therefore derivatives were not regulated, the fairy tales about absolute minimum value were believed, as were before 1880 in Germany emission fairy tales.
We have one more problem central bank, ECB, in theory owned by the euro countries, in practice Draghi can do what he wants, as long as he stays within his statutes.

Anyone with some insight in the world economy sees that w're heading towards a gigantic crash, who is unable to see this can read Varoufakis.

Now how did we get into this mess ?
In my opinion quite simple: globalisation, that made the political power of the nation states disappear, EU of course also is globalisation.
Central bankers of the world monthly meet at BIS Basle, financially, economically, in my opinion, there the world is ruled.
What these central bankers think, I've no idea.
But that Dutch central bank director Klaas Knot does not care for Dutch interests, is more than clear.

There is one important and interesting thing about economies, economy defined as the finances of a country, the euro zone, the USA, politicians, and bankers, even central bankers, do not control economies.
A few aspects can be controlled, but not all of them at the same time.
So inconsistent decisions lead to unwanted, and/or unforeseen consequences.

The euro is a political experiment, the object was to force euro countries to become more or less economically the same.
It failed, southern euro countries differ economically as much now from northern as when the euro was introduced.

The only way out for France economically now I can see is the old devaluation recipe.
Alas, 'thanks' to the euro this is no longer possible.
So that, what is erronuously called elite, has maneuvred itself into a lose lose situation, do nothing, and France will have a second 1791, or remove the euro flag from the sinking EU ship.
In both cases, as far as I can see, end of EU.

Reason, common sense, never ruled the world.

jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT
@tac Quite simple, more and more French are running into financial difficulties.
Most of them of course do not understand why, but they're not interested in why, as the immigrants 'we want a better life'.
Since over ten years now, I'm retired, we live many months yearly in France.
Great country, compared to the Netherlands, more and more resembling LA.
We do not pay French income taxes, just property tax.
But the steady increase over the years of the cost of living in France we noticed quite well.
For the last two or three years it is clear to us that even our French neighbours are less affluent, our neighbouring houses all are second homes, owned by upper middle class, of course.
Complaints about the cost of the gardener, no parties with traiteurs any more.
A traiteur is someone who prepares expensive dishes for parties etc.
French complain, even in casual conversations, a restaurant owner 'Macron is right, nobody wants to work in France any more', someone else 'France is ill, we pay to much for social security'.
The real Buddy Ray , says: December 17, 2018 at 9:53 am GMT
Nomi doesn't even mention the impact a million and a half legal immigrants coming in each year has had on our supposed recovery. How can we trust what she says when she leaves out such pertinent information? In fact we could argue the only way we were able to recover after the Great Depression is because immigration had been cut.
Franz , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:10 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat

I miss Mike Whitney. Where did he go?

I second that, very much a whole lot.

Mike was possibly the only journalist who gave Trump a modicum of good advice when he mentioned bumping retirees pay instead of pretending corporate tax cuts will ever "trickle down" to the workers still on the job. Bullseye! I could use a raise.

Mike said $150 more per month would go directly for stuff retirees need, especially the ones right on the edge. Young plumbers, roofers, electricians and so on would have tons of work to do.

Cut corporate tax, on the other hand. and the buggers only send more work to China, sluice money to anti-worker NGOs, or sit on it all like Bill Gates.

I'd go one step further: Put a cork in the billions for Israel program and pay off all American student loans. Further still: Tax corporations that outsource work to pay every young worker $2500 monthly till America learns how to pay "middle class wages" again. Bezos at Amazon can get a special bill for the millions of worker-years he's stiffed and pay them US Marshall rates, backdated to their start date with interest.

I know, I know. Fascist economics is so boring. But we're near the centennial of the days when Benito Mussolini was the most respected and successful politician in Europe if not the world.

There was a reason for that.

[Dec 18, 2018] What Lies Behind the Malaise of the West by Pat Buchanan

Dec 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez , says: December 18, 2018 at 4:21 am GMT

The key problem of the USA is that neoliberalism ideology is now discredited (since 2008) and neoliberalism as the social system clearly entered the stage of decline. Trump and Brexit were the first Robin (as in "One robin doesn't make a spring" )

The key problem that probably will prolong the period of neoliberalism past its Shelf LIfe Expiration Date is that the alternative to it is still unclear. and probably will not emerge until the end of the age of "cheap oil" which might mean another 40-50 years. But the rise of far-right nationalism is a clear indication of people in various countries started reject neoliberal globalization (including the USA, GB and most of Europe.) Trump's "national neoliberalism" and Brexit are just another side of the same coin.

Economic rape of Russia and post Soviet republic in 1991-2000 as well as the communication revolution postponed the crisis of neoliberalism for a decade or so. Otherwise, it might well start around 2000 instead of 2008. Now G7 countries that adopted neoliberalism entered the phase of "secular stagnation" (as Summers called it) and probably will not be able to escape for it without some war-style mobilization or military coup d'état and introduction of command economics.

IMHO military remains one of the few realistic hopes to play the role of countervailing force for the financial oligarchy -- which owns that state under neoliberalism, So when we talk about the Depp State that created anti-Trump witch hunt it is not just intelligence agencies (although they assume active political role now and strive to be the kingmakers). This Wall street, military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies.

It will be interesting if establishment neoliberals will try to take revenge in 2020, as they clearly do not have any viable candidate right now (Biden is a sad joke). But they definitely can put Trump on the ropes in 2019 and sign of their intention to do so already emerged.

BTW the key problem of Trump survival is that Trump abandoned (or was forced to abandon) most of his key election promises to the electorate (with the only exception of tariffs for China, I think).

In this sense Trump behaved much like Obama did with his "Change and hope" bait and switch trick, and Nobel Peace Price. Nobel Peace Prize for the butcher of Libya and Syria, the godfather of ISIS, is rich.

Returning to Trump election-time promises, we can mention following (cited from Guardian, Aug 21, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics ):

During election campaign, his message was straightforwardly anti-globalization. He believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favor of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.

He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.

To globalization, Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His appeal, above all, is to the white working class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the 1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.

Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by Bernie Sanders , who ran Hillary Clinton extremely close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long supported a neoliberal, pro-globalization strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarized between the pro- and anti-globalizers, an entirely new development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.

Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is unfair, with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's European members as prime examples. He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.

As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure. Trump's position represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalization ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems". And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalizers is inequality.

[Dec 17, 2018] Visualizing The West's Domination Of The Global Arms Market

Dec 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Overall, arms sales increased in 2017, with total global sales nearing 400 billion dollars, marking a 2.5 percent increase from last year and the third year of continued growth for the industry.

But, as Statista's Sarah Feldman points out, U.S. arms companies still produce the most weapons worldwide.

You will find more infographics at Statista

About 57 percent of weapons produced last year came from the United States , according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute SIPRI .

Russia comes in second, with year-over-year growth in arms production. In 2017, Russia provided the world with 10 percent of arms sales, closely followed by The UK.

Only major arms companies were included in this study. China was excluded due to insufficient data.

Beans , 43 minutes ago link

Problem with this is that the buyers of all that American weaponry are definitely not got any 'bang for the proverbial buck' (pun intended). Horrendously overpriced weaponry which in most instances render less value and effectiveness than similarly available Russian analogues.

Justin Case , 17 minutes ago link

They know, the arms are inferior garbage, it's just like mafioso protection money or better known as extortion. The charge a fortune for substandard weapons and MIC folks keep the change. Same as murican tax payers. If there were no boogie men created then what would be the justification for all the spending on military hardware?

There is no return on investment here. It's money laundering.

Atlana99 , 1 hour ago link

Why spend your money to help the poor people in your own country when you can use that money to build weapons to kill poor people in other countries?

https://cointrader21.wordpress.com/2018/12/03/americas-ongoing-holocaust-of-the-poor/

khnum , 4 hours ago link

Purchasers Saudi Arabia 110 billion with 240 billion more to come,Israel 38 billion=35 percent

CosineCosineCosine , 4 hours ago link

Letter of intent only. They have literally purchased none of those orders, despite repeated US harassment for the 15 Billion for the THAADS to get the ball rolling. All bluster and boasting and smoke and mirrors.

My suspicion is that SA under MBS is considering switching sides slowly and will purchase Russian and Chinese instead. If the US had foreknowledge of this, hence the switch in tone re butchering journalists and Yemenis ... hence why MBS isn't Time Magazine poster boy at the moment.

khnum , 4 hours ago link

Your correct I went back and checked it was order book not delivery,MBS situation is very interesting with the recent high five with Putin there was some backstory that it was celebration of a certain US admirals demise that was causing them problems whether true or not I dont know but it would not surprise me if S400's end up in Saudi Arabia

Ace006 , 5 hours ago link

Remember that old stuff about Krupp being the "Merchant of Death"? Aren't we, like, edging into that territory? Is this what the Founders and Ratifiers had in mind? Could this enormous arms trade and our military expenditures and adventures be a clue that we're on the wrong track?

Front Store

US vs Russian arms sales since 1950:

http://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-visualizing-us-and-russian-arms-sales-since-1950/

[Dec 17, 2018] The Mueller group disclosed only 2 redacted documents that were already known by Robert Willmann

Notable quotes:
"... There is an article in the Daily Caller: "Powell: New Facts Indicate Mueller Destroyed Evidence..." dailycaller.com/2018/12/16/... ..."
Sic Semper Tyrannis

On Friday, 14 December 2018, the office of "special counsel" Robert Mueller filed a reply to Gen. Michael Flynn's sentencing memorandum by the court's deadline, as noted on the court clerk's docket sheet--

"12/14/2018 56 REPLY by USA as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN to Defendant's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B)(Van Grack, Brandon) (Entered: 12/14/2018)".

Judge Emmet Sullivan in an order on 12 December stated: "In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of sentencing, the defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n. 21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n. 23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and FD-302. The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018."

In response to Judge Sullivan's order, the Mueller group attached to its reply memo two noticeably blacked out (redacted) documents, which turned out to be the same ones that were referred to in Flynn's memo raising the issue of FBI conduct surrounding his interview, and were nothing additional or new!

The government's reply and two documents that were filed are here--

The two redacted documents are the "January 24, 2017" memo and the "FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017", which were cited in the court's order and which Flynn's lawyers apparently already had, or knew what they were about. Judge Sullivan ordered the Mueller group to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum", not just the two that were already known [emphasis added]. The "Attachment B" is not the form 302 by an agent who interviewed Flynn on 24 January 2017, but rather is a 302 report by an unknown person of an interview of now former FBI agent Peter Strzok on 20 July 2017, in which Strzok allegedly talks about some things that happened on 24 January.

Unless the "special counsel" filed a complete set of unredacted documents with a motion (request) for leave to file them under seal, the reply is on its face a violation of the court's disclosure order.

As 'blue peacock' said in a comment to the posting on this issue of 14 December, it will be interesting to see what Judge Sullivan does about the response by the Mueller group.

Both documents are heavily blacked out. The form 302 does include the language that the agents at the Flynn interview "had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying". Since this had already been revealed in news and mass media reports, they basically had to disclose that little part, otherwise it probably would have been redacted as well.

On the bottom right corner of each page is a number, which is usually referred to as a "Bates stamp", after the name of the numbering machines that are often used to number and identify documents that are produced in a lawsuit [1]. The pages on the form 302 are numbered DOJSCO-700021201 to 05. The one-page typed paper (Attachment A) has number DOJSCO-700021215. There are nine pages between those pages, but what those might be is not disclosed.

The Justice Department, FBI, and other federal departments are capable of trying to play semantic word games with requests for information, such that if the exact name or abbreviation of the document or class of documents is not requested, they will leave them out of their response. In this instance, the judge asked for "any 302s or memoranda" relevant to the circumstances. The FBI has guidelines about the different types of records it keeps and they can have different names, such as LHM (letterhead memorandum), EC (electronic communication), original note material, the FD-302, and so forth. There are also different types of files and records systems. Thus, there may be some ducking and dodging of the court's order on the theory that the exact types of records were not in the order.

Documents and records may also be generated when any investigative activity is started or requires approval, such as an assessment, preliminary investigation, or a full investigation. Furthermore, an interesting issue is the type of authorized activity the Flynn interview was part of: an assessment, preliminary investigation, or full investigation. Although it is significantly redacted (in this instance whited out instead of blacked out), the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide contains some useful information for trying to figure out what is going on with this issue [2].

If this problem with disclosure is not bad enough, on 11 December the Justice Department Inspector General (OIG) issued a report with the bland title, "Report of Investigation: Recovery of Text Messages from Certain FBI Mobile Devices"-- https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i-2018-003523.pdf

The OIG investigation began when it was discovered that there was a "gap in text message data collection during the period December 15, 2016, through May 17, 2017, from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mobile devices assigned to FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page relevant to a matter being investigated by the OIG's Oversight and Review Division". Those names are familiar. Thousands of the text messages were recovered.

In addition, the report states: "In view of the content of many of the text messages between Strzok and Page, the OIG also asked the Special Counsel's Office (SCO) to provide to the OIG the DOJ issued iPhones that had been assigned to Strzok and Page during their respective assignments to the SCO".

The result? After Strzok was forced to leave the special counsel's office, his iPhone was given to another FBI agent and reset, wiping out the data. The Mueller group's "records officer" told the inspector general's office that "as part of the office's records retention procedure, the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive text messages". In other words, after the Strzok and Page scandal erupted because of text messages while Strzok was at the special counsel's office, the Mueller group decided itself that his other cellular phone issued to him by the Department of Justice for the special counsel's office had no "substantive" messages on it.

Strzok's paramour, Lisa Page, also had an iPhone issued to her by the Justice Department while she was at the special counsel's office. The Mueller group said it could not find her phone, but it eventually was located at the DOJ's Justice Management Division. It had been reset, wiping out the data, on 31 July 2017.

[1] http://www.batesstampmachine.com

[2] https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29

Fred , 5 hours ago

"...the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive text messages"..."

So what is the officer's name, what criterea was used in the review and just what relationship to the extended cast of characters does this individual have?

Tidewater , 3 hours ago
It seems to me that this is very big news. Can it be that the Straight Arrow is bent, after all? This is amazing. There is an article in the Daily Caller: "Powell: New Facts Indicate Mueller Destroyed Evidence..." dailycaller.com/2018/12/16/...
Greco , 3 hours ago
I hope Judge Sullivan gets the chance to read this letter: https://saraacarter.com/for...
As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's case, as if I was combing through evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled while in the FBI.

The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by any FBI Agent (we now know at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator report, and any other party still aggressively seeking that this case remain and be sentenced as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael Flynn a convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have been violated by those pursuing this case.

We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced to resign or forced to retire because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases, leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.

Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness.

akaPatience , 9 hours ago
Projection and hypocrisy on steroids: leftists accuse Republicans of "fascism" and label the POTUS as "authoritarian".

[Dec 17, 2018] Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of Russian made T34, patriotic soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart generals

Dec 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Parisian Guy, December 15, 2018 at 9:11 pm GMT

@apollonian

Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of Russian made T34, patriotic soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart generals.

The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth. That's a meme which has been propagated as soon as the USSR went down around 1990 (thus, there was no more powerful voice to contradict the lies).

Americans can't stand the truth: they did almost nothing, waiting comfortably for Europe to be completely devasted, then coming near the end to reap the bounty of the winner. This disgusting behavior had to be hidden by myths such as the truck/jeep meme.

The truth was known by everybody in Europe after the war. Of course the British gave more responsibility to UK for defeating Hitler, as Russians were doing for their side. But almost nobody thought that America was the one who defeated Hitler.

Then gradually, the American (hollywood) propaganda rewrote the history, and the American made myth became the believed truth. Alain Soral: "Marx ****s Hitler"

JLK , December 16, 2018 at 12:47 am GMT

@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

There is no doubt that Germans, particularly from certain regions of Germany, looked down upon Slavs.

I'm sure some Germans looked down on Poles, Ukrainians and Russians, like Americans who used to tell Polish jokes, but that's different from considering them racially inferior.

There were reasons to feel culturally superior. Germany was far wealthier and the people better educated than in Poland or Ukraine. Their houses were nicer, with indoor toilets, and their farms neater and better managed. The Red Army soldiers were astounded by how well Germans lived when they finally reached German soil.

There has to be some explanation for why Russian deserters who volunteered for German forces were hardly used.

They probably didn't trust Vlasov and his crew until they were forced to out of desperation. He ended up turning on them anyway, proving it was a bad idea.

As for German regional bias against Slavs, Austria, for one example, in the 1800s treated the Serbs almost as poorly as the Ottomans did.

It was the same throughout Eastern Europe until modern times. Poland occupied parts of the Ukraine after the brief war with the Red Army and immediately started Polonizing the areas. Ethnic Germans were expelled from East Prussia, Silesia and the Sudetenland in 1945.

Christo , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:52 am GMT
@Parisian Guy No, I use rounded figures from what I recall. The USSR built about 50,000 T-34′s in WWII. They could do this because the USA sent them over 500,000 trucks. The USSR was able to build 50,000 T-34′s becuase they did not have to build alot of the trucks they used . A tank aint worth anything without support ammo fuel, which all is delivered by truck. Now for your theory to hold any water , we could say simply the USSR could have built half the number of tanks 25,000 T-34 's to build 250,000 of those trucks themselves instead . Stiil alot of tanks . The only problem is the USSR lost 45000 of those 50000 T-34′s , so they never would have made it with half the T-34′s along with half the truck's of which most truck were used to support other forces beside tanks.

Then you aslos have to add the USSR recieved 20000 tanks (afv's) and 20000 aircraft from the USA UK as well. Do you thinjk the Soviet army could have fought barefoot? Becuase the USA send them over 5 million pairs of boots IIRC. Lend lease overall amounted at least half of all Soviet equipment and supplies

No the USSR would simply have lost WWII without lend -lease equipment supplies, handy figures

https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 6:03 am GMT
@Fidelios Automata I know that controversy about who wanted war. There is the same about the start of WW2. I have no opinion. For instance, i've also read that US/UK were very actively trying to convince Stalin that Hitler was secretly wanting to attack USSR as soon as he could. So Stalin planned for a preemptive attack. My guess is we will never be able to know the truth with certainty.
Franz , says: December 16, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT
@Parisian Guy

The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth. That's a meme which has been propagated as soon as the USSR went down around 1990 (thus, there was no more powerful voice to contradict the lies).

Part true, but you're overshooting just a bit.

In 1962, East minus West = zero by Werner Keller was published by Putnam in the USA. There were previous non-US editions.

As I heard it, the big complaint in 1962 (one of) was Foreign Aid. Keller's book gave JFK's opponents another brick to lob at him, because Keller detailed the extent of that particular aid that American industrial workers and military had been quiet about due to secrecy laws.

Since Keller's book had a non-USA roots, it was okay. Might seem idiotic to blame JFK for FDR's sins, but politics in this asylum works that way.

Because Keller never claimed Lend Lease "won" the war, his volume is rarely cited which is too bad because he got the details fresh, less than 20 years after the war from sources close to the factory gate and battleground.

I have not heard of any major errors in the book. Copies are still floating around, but it's over 350 pages and not light reading.

If anyone cares to critique Keller, I have no quarrel. But so far as I know his book was the first "reveal" that considered Lend Lease to be any more than a case of a few shiploads of ammunition and tinned food. Much earlier than the 90s.

apollonian , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Parisian Guy Jews Leading Subjectivists, Satanists, Controlling Establishment Christianity

Parisian Jew; regarding lend-lease, the facts speak–it doesn't matter what "polls" say, which argument of urs is mere version of fallacy of argument-fm-authority. I'm "proof," u say?–I stick to the obvious facts, and draw the clear, indicated conclusion soviets were beaten till resuscitated, rejuvenated, and actually primed by American aid and supply, especially of simple, basic food, and then the transportation.

Stalin and Russkies themselves URGENTLY asked for tanks and planes when Harry Hopkins first talked to them, so deficient they'd become, such losses they'd suffered. By end 1941 Russkies had already gotten 200,000 tons of American-produced supplies through the Brits (before Jew S A even officially got into the war)–Jewwy Wikipedia says they got 360,000 tons.

Jew "power"?–all u have to do is look at Israel, the "tail" wagging American (and everyone else) "dog." Jews obviously control finances and the world fiat-money and central-banking systems. But then HOW do Jew exercise that control? Note psychologically Jews control an extremely powerful segment of "Christian" population in Jew S A, called "Judeo-Christians" (JCs–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo), or "Christian-Zionists," about half of all evangelicals, perhaps numbering up to 40 million here who strongly support Israeli terror-state. Jews heavily influence and intimidate ALL establishment Christian churches throughout the world beginning w. "vatican" satanists and child-molesters.

But most of all, Jews are Talmudists (see Talmudical.blogspot.com), by definition, hence satanists, Jews being extreme subjectivists ("midrash"), which subjectivism holds reality is mere creation of mentality/consciousness, making themselves God, the creator–satanists. Further Jews are most COLLECTIVIST subjectivists, leading group-think practitioners, Jews most dedicated, most organized, most committed, most cohesive such subjectivists and group-think artists. Thus Jews control, lead, and manipulate practically all the other subjectivistic and satanists among the goyim who vastly out-number Jews–this satanism is crux of their psychologic power. And note satanism is also secular philosophy–extreme subjectivism–parallel to "religious" Talmudism–it doesn't matter if a Jew says he's "atheist." Thus Jews are most organized CRIMINALS and psychopaths, as we see in Israeli terror-state. Q.E.D.

Digital Samizdat , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Parisian Guy It's probably true that the lend-lease act played only a minor role in the Soviet Union's victory. Many people don't realize this, but the principal beneficiary of the lend-lease act was not the USSR, but rather the UK. In fact, Britain, whose population then was then about one-quarter of what the Soviet Union's was, received more than three times as much aid as the Soviets did. Per capita, that means they got twelve times more aid than the USSR.

But some people are destined to go on believing that surplus US jeeps turned the tide on the Eastern Front. So be it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Scale

Digital Samizdat , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:54 pm GMT
@llloyd Hitler admitted that he was Jewish? Really? I'm sorry, but I seem to be having trouble finding your source citation here!
apollonian , says: December 16, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT
@llloyd Llloyd, u disappoint me once again, my boy: unc' Adolf was NOT descended fm any Jew, get a clue. We see u're very poor historian, gullible and un-informed, merely retailing Jew lies: get the real story; see https://carolynyeager.net/fake-legends-adolf-hitler%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cjewish-grandfather%E2%80%9D .

The lies about unc' Adolf's parentage are mere concoction of Jews, beginning w. a couple of them, named Langer, a common Jew name, and his brother, a psychologist, the first one having been appointed head of the Research and Analysis Section of the OSS, no less. The lies center upon the un-founded assertion that Hitler's grandmother was a domestic servant who worked for Jews. On contrary, it's known Maria Schickelgruber didn't need such employment as she was not poor, her parents having retired rather well-off, she inheriting significant funds:

"2. Maria Anna Schicklgruber was not a poor housemaid who worked for wealthy Jewish families. The daughter of Johann Schicklgruber, a prosperous farmer in possession of a well-appointed farm in the village of Strones, and Theresia Pfseisinger, she was born in 1795 and is described by Maser as a thrifty, reserved and exceptionally shrewd peasant woman. She gives every appearance of having been strong-minded, a trait that was passed down to her son Alois and her grandson, Adolf.

"3. Maria Anna Schicklgruber's brother, Jakob, purchased the family farm from his father for 3000 gulden when the father was only 53 years old. Maria's mother, Theresia, had just inherited 210 gulden from her father's total estate of 1054 gulden, so the parents felt prosperous enough to retire. To put the value of 3000 gulden in perspective: a cow at that time could be purchased for 10 to 12 gulden; a brood sow cost 4 gulden; a bed w/bedding was 2 gulden; an inn with stabling could be had for 450 to 500 gulden. As you can see, 3000 gulden was a substantial amount.

"4. Maria Anna, at the age of 26, inherited 74.25 gulden at the death of her mother in 1821. She kept this sum in the Orphans' Fund until 1838, earning 5% interest. By then, it had increased to 165 gulden, over double the original amount. Her son was not born until June 1837 when she was 42 yrs. old."

And there were no Jews in the vicinity:

"A) From the end of the 15th Century until a decade after Maria Anna died, no Jews lived in Graz. They had been expelled by Emperor Maximilian I in 1496 from the province of Styria, which included Graz. In 1781, under Joseph II, they were allowed to re-enter, but only for a few weeks at a time, during Lent and at the Feast of St. Giles to the annual Fairs, after paying a fixed sum. Two years later, these rights were again curtailed, and it remained enforced until 1860 that no Jews whatsoever could even enter the province."

"12. The Rothschild in Vienna story: This is debunked for the same reasons. Maria Anna Schicklgruber did not visit or live in Vienna, and there is no record of who these Rothschilds were, their address or other necessary information."

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
@Christo Not sure what the reliability of your source is. For instance, it pretend that USSR used lot of US made planes, and went upto copy without permission the design of the Boeing B-29. But the B29 was not operational before the summer of 1944
One cannot say this american source is unbiased.

My point is: all this story did not went public before the demise of USSR. If it was true, it would have not wait for so long. It looks like that story was not to sustainable before the USSR voice went mute.
There are other cases where USSR story has been rewritten after its death.

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Franz Thanks for these cautiously weighted informations.
Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@apollonian Stalin and Russkies themselves URGENTLY asked for tanks and planes

What they actually asked for was what had been promised: intervene in Europe far before 1944.

JLK , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:16 pm GMT
@llloyd

He apparently admitted to his staff he was Jewish descent himself.

Journalists determined Hitler's Y-DNA (paternal line) to be haplogroup E-M35 ("E1b1b1″) by testing some of his male relatives back around 2010. It led to a few typically deprecatory articles around that time that he might be of Jewish or African origin. E-M35 was also Albert Einstein's haplogroup. However, there are subgroups under E-M35 that can be detected by a slightly more comprehensive deep clade test.

I find it hard to believe that the journalists didn't spring for the extra hundred dollars or so needed for a deep clade test. The results have probably been kept out of the news for some reason. There may be good humanitarian reasons, such as to shield innocent secret descendants. But complete results could settle the longstanding question of his illegitimate father's paternity. The most common rumor is that Alois Hitler's mother worked in the Jewish Frankenberger household of Graz and was impregnated by the 19 year old son Leopold Frankenberger. However, there is a declassified US Government report on the CIA website that states that Schuschnigg's pre-Anschluss Austrian government researched Hitler's genealogy and determined that she actually worked for the Vienna Rothschilds. It notes that Hitler's sister worked for the Jewish Mensa society in Vienna and that Hitler's ability level was more consistent with a Rothschild than with his putative Austrian peasant background.

Of course Schuschnigg's government was looking for dirt on Hitler, and connecting him with the Rothschilds would be even juicier than assigning him incidental Jewish ancestry. The Rothschild paternal line is reported on the Internet to be an entirely different haplogroup. However, there may be good security reasons to mislead the public on that point. Interesting, nonetheless.

As I read somewhere, so were about a quarter of the German populaton including many of his generals, his favourite little girl and his chaffeur.

25% is probably little high, but the rate of intermarriage is Germany was higher than it had ever been anywhere else in diaspora history, and there were a lot of children. The liberal reform Judaism movement originated in Germany. The evidence suggests that Jews were more comfortable among the Germans in many ways than they had ever been in Eastern Europe, at least until the Balfour Declaration and the associated recrimination in the aftermath of WWI.

The Daily Mirror ran a unusually flattering article on Hitler and his "favorite little girl" (who was only 1/4th Jewish) a few months ago. She used to call him "Uncle Hitler."

His chauffeur's name was Emil Maurice, who asked permission to date Hitler's niece, Geli Raubal. Hitler refused and she shot herself. Hitler thought Maurice was a loyal Nazi and stood by him, even when his partial Jewish ancestry was revealed.

Parisian Guy , says: December 16, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat the principal beneficiary of the lend-lease act was not the USSR, but rather the UK

Thanks for getting the point with comparative datas.
That's so true that lend-lease for UK was regular teaching at schools in France, but Lend-lease for USSR was never mentionned.
France was allways neutral or pro-US, depending the time or the matter. Thus France had no motive to teach an History which would hide the USSR lend-lease, if it had been material.

phil , says: December 16, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
Guilliaume,

You are a great guy to read, but your economic model is a little defective. You make it sound like Venezuela would have been OK, but that pesky Amerindian admixture dragged its average IQ down to 85; so socialism is claimed to be viable if we have the "right" people.

China has a much higher average IQ, perhaps higher than the US, but as of 1978, its average living standards were comparable to Kenya, Nigeria, and Mozambique. East Germany was well below the level of West Germany. North Korea is way below South Korea.

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is pure capitalism (private ownership) and 0 is complete government control, a country is in trouble economically, regardless of IQ, if it falls below 5. A Nazi government was able to bring about an impressive cyclical recovery during the 1930s, but its longer-term prospects would have depended on whether it allowed market forces to operate to a reasonable degree.

dfordoom , says: Website December 17, 2018 at 3:51 am GMT
@Parisian Guy

Hitler was defeated by soviet armies. They had thousands of russian made T34, patriotic soldiers (more than 10 millions died, against around 0.1 million from US), and smart generals.

The lend-lease, the trucks and jeeps, and blahblah . Their effect is a myth.

The Soviets were capable of stopping the Germans with their own resources.

They may have been capable of reconquering some lost territory but it would have been a hard slog with no guarantees of success.

The Lend-Lease equipment, especially the trucks, made it possible for the reconquest to be complete and for eastern Europe to be overrun, giving the Soviet Union a buffer zone against any future aggression from the west.

The Soviet achievement was certainly impressive. They went from being lousy at mobile warfare to being very very good at it. But you can't wage mobile warfare without lots and lots of trucks and there was no way they could have produced those trucks themselves. The American trucks allowed the Soviets to concentrate on producing tanks and aircraft.

The Americans were certainly happy to let the Soviets do the hard fighting. Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration – these were the battles that won the war.

Alain Soral: "Marx ****s Hitler", by Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT
@dfordoom Richard Overy, 'Why the allies won', New York, London, 1995
USA technical military support of Russia already began in 1933:
Franz Kurowski, 'Balkenkreuz und Roter Stern, Der Luftkrieg über Russland 1941 – 1944′, 1984, Friedberg
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:06 am GMT
@apollonian An unknown book describing how GB steered towards war in the thirties is
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
GB guarantees began at the north side of the Med
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
@Parisian Guy Without USA economic support GB could not have fought WWI, nor WWII.
But even with USA economic support the USA had to intervene militarily.
It is hardly ever mentioned anywhere, but by November 1917 Germany would have won the war in Europe:
Donald McCormick, 'The mask of Merlin, A Critical Study of David Lloyd George', London, 1963
jilles dykstra , says: December 17, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Andy " ´Als die Deutschen weg waren, Was nach der Vertreibung geschah: Ostpreussen, Schlesien, Sudetenland', 2005, 2007, Reinbek, Adrian von Arburg, Wlodzimierz Borodziej, Jurij Kostjaschow, Ulla Lachauer, Hand-Dieter Rutsch, Beate Schlanstein, Christian Schulz "

Trans: After the Geermans had left, what happened after the expulsion.
A quite interesting book about German superiority.
The expulsion of the Germans led to collapse of industries.

[Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation program !!! ..."
"... the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global elites? ..."
"... Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they are fighting the commies. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... From his curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth. ..."
"... He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's Stabilisation Unit which is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI). ..."
"... This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine. ..."
"... That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia" ..."
"... In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested Military measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea: ..."
"... Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia? ..."
"... Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda ..."
"... Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures ..."
"... Russian information warfare - airbrushing reality ..."
"... Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria ..."
"... Russian penetration in Germany ..."
"... Russian conspiracy theory and foreign policy ..."
"... Mapping Russia's whole influence machine ..."
"... Military Review ..."
"... BBC Newsnight ..."
"... The most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the Initiative commissioned such research (pdf) and paid for it. ..."
"... Here is an interesting look at how little the Russia-linked entities spent on advertising on Google during the 2016 election: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/12/google-russia-and-4700-in-advertising.html Slowly but surely, the Russian meddling narrative is falling apart. ..."
"... McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow vest protesters. ..."
"... Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would have responded with force. ..."
"... It looks like one of the decision was to get closer to France (after getting very close friends in Homs and Aleppo?) See the list of people in the French II cluster dumped yesterday by Anonymous: half the names work at the fr Min of F Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Treaties and http://www.gmfus.org/publications/frances-defense-partnerships-and-dilemmas-brexit ..."
"... This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state. ..."
"... it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy. ..."
"... It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes fascism. ..."
"... Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art. ..."
"... Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller? ..."
"... Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. " Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11, with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians. ..."
"... Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM ..."
"... The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism (Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque (less defensible) reasons and missions. ..."
"... right after 2016 US elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation. Seems that veil has been dispensed with ..."
"... Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking, setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry. That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise of free markets and democracy. ..."
"... 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation Designed To Create A New Enemy ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
uncle tungsten , Dec 15, 2018 6:28:07 PM | 41

Labour is not "silent". Apart from Thornberry's questioning already mentioned in another post here, the party's newspaper published a news about it:

Government admits that Institute of Statecraft was funded through CSSF , by Lamiat Sabin, 14th December 2018.

Mark2 , Dec 15, 2018 7:12:28 PM | link
Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation program !!! How many billions is that guna save us all ! not to mention lives saved.
NemesisCalling , Dec 15, 2018 7:42:22 PM | link
@45 jr

Wrong JR. It seems quite the obvious that the big boy in the west, the US, would seem to be the one spearheading the whole globalist agenda.

But this is a retarded proposition.

The US is nothing more than a Golem. It has been reduced to somnambulism and hijacked, utilized for the ends of these Non-National elites. Sure, like many posters here, it feels good to blame the US for everything. But the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global elites?

Or are we just arguing semantics?

NemesisCalling , Dec 15, 2018 7:44:57 PM | link
Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they are fighting the commies.
Uncle $cam , Dec 15, 2018 8:06:15 PM | link
Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the decider aka Bush Jr. having had a shoe thrown at him.

'For the sake of Iraq': Bush shoe-thrower running for parliament refuses to exploit 'hero image'

Muntadhar al-Zaidi was arrested and tortured for it...

"They broke my teeth, my nose, my leg, they electrocuted me, lashed me, they would beat me, they even broke a table or a chair over my back. I don't know, they had my eyes covered," al-Zaidi recalled. "This was one thing I never experienced before. Torture by the authorities, by the rule of law."

I wish it had been a hand grenade.

The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading anti-Russian propaganda and with influencing the public, military and governments of a number of countries. What follows is an incomplete analysis of the third batch of the Initiative's papers which was dumped yesterday.

Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its offshoot Integrity Initiative . The Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".

The Integrity Initiative does this by planting disinformation about alleged Russian influence through journalists 'clusters' throughout Europe and the United States.

Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state donors.

Among the documents lifted by some anonymous person from the servers of the Institute we find several papers about Donnelly as well as some memos written by him. They show a russophobe mind with a lack of realistic strategic thought.

There is also a file (pdf) with a copy of his passport:


bigger

From his curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth.

He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's Stabilisation Unit which is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI).

During his time as military intelligence analyst in the 1980s Donnelly wrote several books and papers about the Soviet Union and its military.

Donnelly seems to be obsessed with the 'Russian threat' and is determined to fight it by all means. His paranoia is obvious in a "private - confidential" report by the Statecraft Institute on The Challenge of Brexit to the UK: Case study – The Foreign and Commonwealth Offices (pdf):

Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history.

... ... ...

Unfortunately, this state of affairs is now being challenged. A new paradigm of conflict is replacing the 19th & 20th Century paradigm.

... ... ...

In this new paradigm, the clear distinction which most people have been able to draw between war and peace, their expectation of stability and a degree of predictability in life, are being replaced by a volatile unpredictability, a permanent state of instability in which war and peace become ever more difficult to disentangle . The "classic" understanding of conflict being between two distinct players or groups of players is giving way to a world of Darwinian competition where all the players – nation states, sub-state actors, big corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and so on – are constantly striving with each other in a "war of all against all". The Western rules-based system, which most westerners take for granted and have come to believe is "normal", is under attack from countries and organisations which wish to replace our system with theirs. This is not a crisis which faces us; it is a strategic challenge, and from several directions simultaneously.

In reality the "Western rules-based system", fully implemented after the demise of the Soviet Union, is a concept under which 'the west' arbitrarily makes up rules and threatens to kill anyone who does not follow them. Witness the wars against Serbia, the war on Iraq, the destruction of Libya, the western led coup in Ukraine and the war by Jihadi proxies against the people of Syria and Iraq. None of these actions were legal under international law. Demanding a return to strict adherence to the rule of international law, as Russia, China and others now do, it is not an attempt to replace "our system with theirs". It is a return to the normal state of global diplomacy. It is certainly not a "Darwinian competition".

In October 2016 Donnelly had a Private Discussion with Gen Sir Richard Barrons (pdf), marked as personal and confidential. Barrons is a former commander of the British Joint Forces Command. The nonsensical top line is: "The UK defence model is failing. UK is at real risk."

Some interesting nuggets again reveal a paranoid mindset. The talk also includes some realistic truthiness about the British military posture Barrons and others created:

There has been a progressive, systemic demobilisation of NATO militarily capability and a run down of all its members' defences
...
We are seeing new / reinvented ways of warfare – hybrid , plus the reassertion of hard power in warfare
...
Aircraft Carriers can be useful for lots of things, but not for war v China or Russia, so we should equip them accordingly. ...
The West no longer has a military edge on Russia. ...
Our Nuclear programme drains resources from conventional forces and hollows them out. ...
The UK Brigade in Germany is no good as a deterrent against Russia. ...
Our battalion in Estonia are hostages, not a deterrent. ...

The general laments the lack of influence the military has on the British government and its people. He argues for more government financed think tank research that can be fed back into the government:

So, if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a response, then we need to find a way to get the core of government to realise the problem and take it out of the political space. We will need to impose changes over the heads of vested interests. NB We did this in the 1930s

My conclusion is that it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. We must generate an independent debate outside government .

...

We need to ask when and how do we start to put all this right? Do we have the national capabilities / capacities to fix it? If so, how do we improve our harnessing of resources to do it? We need this debate NOW. There is not a moment to be lost.

This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine.

That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia" .


bigger

Asking for government finance to influence the government to take a "tougher stand towards Russia" seems a bit circular. But this is consistent with the operation of other Anglo-American think tanks and policy initiatives in which one part of the government, usually the hawkish one, secretly uses NGO's and think-tanks to lobby other parts of the government to support their specific hobbyhorse and budget.

Here is how it is done. The 'experts' of the 'charity' Institute for Statecraft and Integrity Initiative testified in the British parliament. While they were effectively paid by the government they lobbied parliament under the cover of their NGO. This circularity also allows to use international intermediates. Members of the Spanish cluster (pdf) of the Initiative testified in the British Parliament about the Catalan referendum and related allegations against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. (It is likely that this testimony led to the change in the position of the Ecuadorian government towards Assange.)


Unfortunately, or luckily, such lobbying operations are mostly run by people who are incompetent in the specific field they are lobbying for. Chris Donnelly, despite a life long experience in military intelligence, has obviously zero competence as a military strategist or planner.

In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested Military measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea:

If I were in charge I would get the following implemented asp
  1. Set up a cordon sanitaire across the Crimean Isthmus and on the coast N. of Crimea with troops and mines
  2. Mine Sevastopol harbour/bay. Can be done easily using a car ferry if they have no minelayers. Doesn't need a lot of mines to be effective. They could easily buy some mines.
  3. Get their air force into the air and activate all their air defences. If they can't fly the Migs on the airfield in Crimea those should be destroyed as a gesture that they are serious. Going "live" electronically will worry the Russians as the Ukrainians have the same electronic kit. If the Russians jam it they jam their own kit as well.
  4. Ukraine used to have some seriously important weapons, such as a big microwave anti-satellite weapon. If they still have this, they should use it.
  5. The government needs a Strategic communication campaign-so far everything is coming from Moscow. They need to articulate a long-term vision that will inspire the people, however hard that is to do. Without it, what have people to fight for?
  6. They should ask the west now to start supplying Oil and gas. There is plenty available due to the mild winter.

I am trying to get this message across

Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia?

Such half-assed thinking is typical for the Institute and its creation of propaganda. One of its employees/contractors is Hugh Benedict Nimmo who the Initiative paid to produce anti-Russian propaganda that was then disseminated through various western publications.

According to the (still very incomplete) Initiative files Ben Nimmo received a monthly consultancy fee of £2.500 between December 2015 and March 2016. In August 2016 he sent an invoice (pdf) of £5,000 for his "August work on Integrity Initiative". A Production Timetable (pdf) for March to June 2016 lists the following Nimmo outputs and activities:

One wonders how often Ben Nimmo double billed his various sponsors for these copy-paste fantasy pamphlets.

In late 2017 Ben Nimmo and Guardian 'journalist' Carole Cadwalladr disseminated allegations that Russia used Facebook ads to influence the Brexit decision. Cadwalladr even received a price for her work. Unfortunately the price was not revoked when Facebook revealed that "Russia linked" accounts had spend a total of 97 cents on Brexit ads. It is unexplained how that was enough to achieve their alleged aim.

Cadwalladr is listed as a speaker (pdf) at a "skill sharing" conference the Institute organized for November 1-2 under the headline: "Tackling Tools of Malign Influence - Supporting 21st Century Journalism".

This year Ben Nimmo became notorious for claiming that several real persons with individual opinions were "Russian trolls". As we noted :

Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is a Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian troll' accounts:

Ben Nimmo @benimmo - 10:50 UTC - 24 Mar 2018

One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.

Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have know that @ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous American- Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans in Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide performances on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a 'Russian troll' and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll' opinions.

The Institute for Statecraft Expert Team (pdf) list several people with military intelligence backgrounds as well as many 'journalists'. One of them is:

Mark Galeotti
Specialist in Russian strategic thinking; the application of Russian disinformation and hybrid warfare; the use of organised crime as a weapon of hybrid warfare. Educational and mentoring skills, including in a US and E European environment, and the corporate world.
Russian linguist

Galeotti is the infamous inventor of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' and of the propaganda about Russia's alleged 'hybrid' warfare. In February 2013 the Russian General Valery Gerasimov, then Russia's chief of the General Staff, published a paper that analysed the way the 'west' is waging a new type of war by mixing propaganda, proxy armies and military force into one unified operation.

Galeotti claimed that Gerasimov's analysis of 'western' operations was a new Russian doctrine of 'hybrid war'. He invented the term 'Gerasimov doctrine' which then took off in the propaganda realm. In February 2016 the U.S. Army Military Review published a longer analysis of Gerasimov's paper that debunked the nonsense (pdf). It concluded:

Gerasimov's article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has been stated in the West.

But anti-Russian propagandist repeated Galeotti's nonsense over and over. Only in March 2018, five years after Galeotti invented the 'Germasimov doctrine' and two years after he was thoroughly debunked, he finally recanted :

Everywhere, you'll find scholars, pundits, and policymakers talking about the threat the "Gerasimov doctrine" -- named after Russia's chief of the general staff -- poses to the West. It's a new way of war, "an expanded theory of modern warfare," or even "a vision of total warfare."

There's one small problem. It doesn't exist. And the longer we pretend it does, the longer we misunderstand the -- real, but different -- challenge Russia poses.

I feel I can say that because, to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and loathing in its wake.

The Institute for Statecraft's "Specialist in Russian strategic thinking", an expert of disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and used it to press for anti-Russian measures. Like Ben Nimmo he is an aptly example of the quality of the Institute's experts and work.


One of the newly released documents headlined CND Gen list 2 (pdf) (CND= Chris Nigel Donnelly) includes the names and email addresses of a number of military, government and think tank people. The anonymous releaser of the documents claims that the list is "of employees who attended a closed-door meeting with the white helmets". (No document has been published yet that confirms this.) One name on the list is of special interest:


bigger

Pablo Miller was the handler and friend of Sergej Skripal, the British double agent who was "novichoked" in Salisbury. When Miller's name was mentioned in the press the British government issued a D-Notice to suppress its further publishing,


bigger

As we wrote in April:

Pablo Miller, a British MI6 agent, had recruited Sergej Skripal. The former MI6 agent in Moscow, Christopher Steele, was also involved in the case. Skripal was caught by the Russian security services and went to jail. Pablo Miller, the MI6 recruiter, was also the handler of Sergej Skripal after he was released by Russia in a spy swap. He reportedly also lives in Salisbury. Both Christopher Steele and Pablo Miller work for Orbis Business Intelligence which created the "Dirty Dossier" about Donald Trump.

In 1979, before becoming a spy, Pablo Miller served at the 4th Royal Tank Regiment . ( BBC Newsnight 'journalist' Mark Urban, who later published a book based on interviews with Skripal , served together with Miller in the same regiment.) The 4th regiment's motto was "Fear Naught". Pablo Miller's email address given in the Chris Donnelly list is [email protected].

At the very beginning of the Skripal affair, before there was any talk of 'Novichok', we asked if Skripal was involved in creating the now debunked "Dirty Dossier" and if that was a reason for certain British insiders to move him out of the way:

Here are some question: If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me, then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.

The most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the Initiative commissioned such research (pdf) and paid for it.

After two years the Muller investigation found zero evidence for the 'collusion' between Russia and the Trump campaign that the fake Steele dossier suggested. The whole collusion claim is a creation by 'former' British intelligence operatives who likely acted on request of U.S. intelligence leaders Clapper and Brennan. How deep was the Russia specialist Chris Donnelly and his Institute for Statecraft involved in this endeavor?


Checking through all the released Initiative papers and lists one gets the impression of a secret military intelligence operation, disguised as a public NGO. Financed by millions of government money the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative work under a charity label to create and disseminate disinformation to the global public and back into the government and military itself.

The paranoia about Russia, which does way less harm than the 'western' "rules based system" constantly creates, is illogical and not based on factual analysis. It creates Russia as an "enemy" when it is none. It hypes a "threat" out of hot air. The only people who profit from this are the propagandists and the companies and people who back them.

The Initiatives motto "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation" is a truly Orwellian construct. By disseminating propaganda and using it to influence the public, parliament, the military and governments, the Institute actively undermines the democratic process that depends on the free availability of truthful information.

It should be shut down immediately.

---
Note: There have already been attempts to delete the released files from the Internet. A complete archive of all Integrity Initiative files published so far is here . Should the public links cease to work, you can contact the author of this blog for access to private backups.

flayer , Dec 15, 2018 11:49:39 AM | link

Aside from the fact that the government itself funds this organization, the creepiest thing about it is that the "non-governmental individuals" that help fund it are the same people that run the think tanks: a bunch of Rhodesians.

Russ , Dec 15, 2018 11:59:03 AM | link

"Such half-assed thinking...Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "gestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally stationed in Crimea."

It sure seems like this half-assed thinking isn't just the domain of a fringe element, but is increasingly mainstream among the elites. Doesn't bode well.

Roy G , Dec 15, 2018 12:10:11 PM | link
Thank you B. It is truly amazing to watch the UK elites unravel as they have become truly unhinged by their own connivances. It is a bad joke at the commoner's expense that they propagandize and demonize in the name of the 'Western rules based system' even as they are busy shooting themselves in both feet by committing Brexit. Although there are legitimate grievances with the EU, it is clear that Brexit is a Tory power play that is all politics and zero governance. Alas, Perfidious Albion has succumbed to Mad Cow disease.
Sally Snyder , Dec 15, 2018 12:10:23 PM | link
Here is an interesting look at how little the Russia-linked entities spent on advertising on Google during the 2016 election: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/12/google-russia-and-4700-in-advertising.html Slowly but surely, the Russian meddling narrative is falling apart.
bjd , Dec 15, 2018 12:46:08 PM | link
Thanks, b.

What remains mysterious (not really) is why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save and strengthen democracy-- they aren't proudly proclaimed and advertised, in the open, transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to stand for might want to debate and form an opinion on.

The fact that it isn't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian streak that runs in between every two lines that they put on paper.

Jackrabbit , Dec 15, 2018 12:58:35 PM | link
McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow vest protesters.

Every time one scratches the surface of such smears, it seems there is a connection to US/British MIC, Ukraine, or Israel - essentially, those who benefit (financially or otherwise) from greater tensions with Russia.

At what point does neocon doubling-down on failed foreign policy become more than just picking our pockets and warping our minds? At what point do they start killing our kids in another unnecessary war?

Clueless Joe , Dec 15, 2018 1:01:40 PM | link
Cold War has been over for nearly 30 years. It's time enough for Western countries to send into real retirement every single cold-warrior, their time is over, their mindset is quaint and useless, if not downright dangerous and counter-productive.
Mark2 , Dec 15, 2018 1:11:36 PM | link
Thank you 'b'
I'll just say -- - there is safety in numbers ! Already valuable information, important to the public good and democracy has been spread wide enough to be certain, this gene won't go back in the bottle ! D notice or no ! And by doing that, has made the fearless journalists and investigators lives all the safer ! Safety in numbers, spread this wide everyone?

Are these people above the law ? ...

psychohistorian , Dec 15, 2018 1:12:59 PM | link
Thanks for the continued exposition of this story b.....may it go viral

I want to comment on some of the wording you quote Donnelly as writing

" .....is giving way to a world of Darwinian competition where all the players – nation states, sub-state actors, big corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and so on – are constantly striving with each other in a "war of all against all". "

This is Donnelly's characterization of a world in which finance is a public utility instead of the private jackboot that it currently is. This is the delusion these people have been led to believe.

So instead of his "war of all against all" that some might call human cooperation on the basis of merit we have a mythical God of Mammon religion that continues to instantiate the private finance led world of the West with it parasitic elite and fawning acolytes.

Kadath , Dec 15, 2018 1:34:30 PM | link
Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would have responded with force.

Thankfully it wasn't done but the fact this was even discussed by senior figures confirms that there was at least a sizable minority pushing for it. 30 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Western elite have truly abandoned all sense of reality and embraced a consequence free view of the use of force. After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya they haven't learned a thing! I'm becoming more and more certain that a peaceful transition to the multipolar world is impossible and that it will only happen after the US or one of its' vassal states blunder into a proxy war and get utterly and comprehensively defeated, forcing a radical world realignment, but with nuts like John Bolton and the neocons in the Whitehouse it could easily lead to a nuclear war

Mina , Dec 15, 2018 1:45:39 PM | link
It looks like one of the decision was to get closer to France (after getting very close friends in Homs and Aleppo?) See the list of people in the French II cluster dumped yesterday by Anonymous: half the names work at the fr Min of F Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Treaties and http://www.gmfus.org/publications/frances-defense-partnerships-and-dilemmas-brexit

The grumpy general at Turcopolier has skept the II topic entirely.

TJ , Dec 15, 2018 1:53:44 PM | link
@13 psychohistorian

" we have a mythical God of Mammon religion" I hope you're not here in dear old Blighty, as you'll probably get arrested for antisemitism

Peter AU 1 , Dec 15, 2018 2:13:14 PM | link
This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state.
exiled off mainstreet , Dec 15, 2018 2:22:39 PM | link
As an aside this happens to be "Bill of Rights Day", the anniversary of the passage of the Bill of Rights as amendments to the yankee constitution. This reveals again how far from the rule of law the yankee imperium, now the key element of the British Empire they supposedly seceded from, has strayed, since it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy.

It has also ensured that the victorious candidate has been neutered and faithfully follows the world control line put forward by the five eyes spy-masters making up the empire in its present iteration. This also shows what a farce the regime, based on the rule of law, now presents.

It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes fascism.

GeorgeV , Dec 15, 2018 2:27:49 PM | link
The "Western-based rules system" described in this article reminds me of a game called "Calvin Ball" which appeared in the former comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes." In the strip Calvin a wildly imaginative adolescent boy who plays a free-form of football with his imaginary pet toy tiger (Hobbes). Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art.
bjd , Dec 15, 2018 2:38:50 PM | link
b, I downloaded the zip file, and had also downloaded all the PDF's from pdf-archive yesterday. There are more files in the zip, but the following were on pdf-archive and are NOT in the zip:
sejomoje , Dec 15, 2018 3:06:48 PM | link
Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller?
jayc , Dec 15, 2018 4:05:08 PM | link
Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. " Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11, with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 4:21:51 PM | link
The transcript of his conversation with the general shows very starkly that we would last about two minutes in a nuclear exchange, but about half a day in a conventional one. No reserves, no equipment stockpiles, a navy consisting of two fat targets, neither of which has any aircraft and some destroyers which have propulsion problems, a smallish air force and very small numbers of troops. The tripwire force in Estonia is wholly sacrificial. In fact he lays bare the whole fallacy of biting the bear. With the armed forces in the state he describes, and with the recruitment and retention problems, wouldn't it be better, as one defense minister said, 'to go away and shut up'...
uncle tungsten , Dec 15, 2018 4:27:59 PM | link
Thanks b and especially the link to Valentina Lisitsa who I had tinkling in the background as I read your grand expose. These people are seditious morons, parasites infesting the state apparatus. Shut these fools down. Nice touch publishing the passport image. I can just imagine the frenzied aftermath of Kit's visit to the basement. Big thanks to anonymous and Craig Murray too. Their IT personel are probably visiting Devil's Island or Diego Garcia as we read.
Sasha , Dec 15, 2018 5:00:51 PM | link
Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM

The British and US connections to loot and evade Russian riches and funds are exposed, as well as the origin of sanctions, supposed "alt-media" "truth-seakers" like Meduza...or supposed "pro-Russian" US intelligence operatives married to Russian women....

Sasha , Dec 15, 2018 5:32:32 PM | link
@Posted by: Mina | Dec 15, 2018 1:45:39 PM | 18

Amongst the many issues he usually passes over trying to make himself the fool, while at the same time trying to convince us of the oustanding intellectual capacities, honesty and classy stance of him and his "comittee"...

https://www.stalkerzone.org/an-american-military-attache-held-a-closed-meeting-with-uaf-commanders-in-mariupol/

For that travel, to end bluntly and in such public view siding with the nazis of the "Azov Regiment" and other criminals of war, there was no need of so many saddlebags, so as pretending that the people who supported Trump as if there was no tomorrow, were enlightened people who only wanted to rescue "America" for the "Americans", as if there would not be a sign of blatant exceptionalism in appropriating of the term "Americans" for themselves in such a huge continent....

NemesisCalling , Dec 15, 2018 5:44:31 PM | link
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of chicken with Russia.

The FP pre-Soviet collapse consisted of one MO: GET THE COMMIES!

Since then, Neocons and Neolibs which are frontmen for this Non-National Globalized Elite, have hijacked our country's military and have steered it to a Global agenda where dominance in the ME means either superiority for these EURO elites or Vassal-hood.

The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism (Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque (less defensible) reasons and missions.

The average American could care less about the ME and the US would be 1000x better-off reverting to an isolationist stance.

But this will not happen so long as Nationalism in the US and UK is repeatedly put-down. It seems as though there is going to be another Brexit vote. Does anyone doubt that miraculously the people by then will have second-guessed their will to Brexit and so will vote against it given another crack at a vote?

Sickening.

slit , Dec 15, 2018 6:04:29 PM | link
"Unfortunately, or luckily, such lobbying operations are mostly run by people who are incompetent in the specific field they are lobbying for. "

Incompetence in general and IT and data analysis, physics 101, etc.:

Cry boo hoo hoo to wake up with indigenous capacity decades behind world players like Russia, China, India, etc who operate on fractional budgets...

But this drama also exposes ashura/emigods intra necine warfare: right after 2016 US elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation. Seems that veil has been dispensed with , but it invites other questions, insofar as UK is Her Majesty's Service, so are we to read this with Prince Harry or Philip's culture, or a "consent by silence") in mind? Defending crown or EU "Saturnus Sattelitus"?

MadMax2 , Dec 15, 2018 6:28:58 PM | link
@Nemisis

Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking, setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry. That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise of free markets and democracy.

Good to see Trump finally give it a face... 'you need freedom and security now pay up bitches'

Jackrabbit , Dec 15, 2018 6:38:00 PM | link
NemesisCalling | Dec 15, 2018 5:44:31 PM | 37
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of chicken with Russia.... Globalist Agenda
I think the opposite is true.

The US-led Empire and their globalist sycophants seek to weaken Europe so that it can not act independently in its own best interests. They will do what ever they can to ensure that the vassals never join with Russia/China and the SCO.

Russian scare-mongering and immigration have been effective in furthering this agenda. Also note: what USA has termed "new Europe" - eastern European states like Poland and Ukraine - are solidly pro-American.

John2o2o , Dec 15, 2018 6:56:17 PM | link
'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation Designed To Create A New Enemy

Perfect description.

Why has this ageing nutjob been allowed to secretly dictate British foreign policy? He's clearly insane.

vk , Dec 15, 2018 6:58:49 PM | link
@

[Dec 16, 2018] One of the CIA's main allies in carrying out this policy, recruiting tens of thousands of Islamist fighters worldwide to go and fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was a young Saudi billionaire, Osama bin Laden, the future leader of Al Qaeda. Hensman endorses the US policy in Afghanistan, while remaining silent on the CIA-Al Qaeda alliance, and presents it as part of a liberation struggle against Soviet imperialism.

Notable quotes:
"... From the Shadows ..."
Dec 16, 2018 | www.wsws.org

After the Soviet-backed People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took power in 1978, the Pentagon began arming the Islamist opposition to the PDPA. US officials, reeling from their defeat in Vietnam, devised a policy of "sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire" in Afghanistan, as CIA official Robert Gates wrote in his 1996 memoir From the Shadows . When the Kremlin invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, in a reactionary attempt to strengthen the PDPA regime in Kabul and stabilize the PDPA's relations with the Afghan rural elites, Washington used Afghanistan as a battleground to bleed the Soviet army.

One of the CIA's main allies in carrying out this policy, recruiting tens of thousands of Islamist fighters worldwide to go and fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was a young Saudi billionaire, Osama bin Laden, the future leader of Al Qaeda. Hensman endorses the US policy in Afghanistan, while remaining silent on the CIA-Al Qaeda alliance, and presents it as part of a liberation struggle against Soviet imperialism.

She writes, "A PDPA coup in 1978 faced tribal revolts that developed into a full-scale uprising by December 1979, when the Russians invaded and occupied Afghanistan. The military campaign that followed resembled the US campaign in Vietnam in its brutality to civilians The war had reached a stalemate in the mid-1980s when Reagan, who was already supporting the mujahideen, agreed to supply them with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. These weapons turned the tide against the Russians..."

Hensman's defense of the US role in the Soviet-Afghan war, and her silence on CIA-backed Islamist terror networks, are reactionary. She hides the bloody character of the CIA-backed Islamist proxy wars, both in 1979–1992 in Afghanistan and in 1979–1982 in Syria. It is the descendants of these same forces, who are fighting today's Syrian war, that Hensman hails as a "democratic revolution."

nurmin • a day ago

And then there's Brzezinski, with his murderous legacy that contains a curious thread linking the Mujahideen "freedom fighters" to 9/11. As was written in the recently republished article on the Bush family fortune and the Holocaust, "the only constant is the defense of the power and privilege of the ruling oligarchy by whatever means are required."
---
Brzezinski acknowledged in an interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in January 1998 that he initiated a policy in which the CIA covertly began arming the mujahedeen in July 1978 -- six months before Soviet troops intervened in Afghanistan -- with the explicit aim of dragging the Soviet Union into a debilitating war.

Asked, given the catastrophe unleashed upon Afghanistan and the subsequent growth of Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, whether he regretted the policy he championed in Afghanistan, Brzezinski replied:

"Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

Asked specifically whether he regretted the CIA's collaboration with and arming of Islamist extremists, including Al Qaeda, in fomenting the war in Afghanistan, Brzezinski responded contemptuously: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Kind of a funny aside: to find the Z-bigz quote I wanted, I put "Brzezinski on Afghanistan" into duckduckgo, and the wsws obituary was third from the top.

[Dec 16, 2018] Top Democrat Schiff Adds Call for Probe of Trump, Deutsche Bank Links

CIA democrats are still determined to sink Tramp, and continues to beat the dead cat of "Russian collision". What is interesting is that Jacob Schiff financed Bolsheviks revolution in Russia.
Yahoo comments reflect the deep split in the opinions in the society, which is positioned mainly by party lines. Few commenters understadn that the problem is with neoliberalism, not Trump, or Hillary who represent just different factions of the same neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... Schiff said Deutsche Bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the state of New York for laundering Russian money, and that it was the one bank willing to do business with the Trump Organization. ..."
"... In an interview with the New Yorker that was posted on line on Dec. 14, Schiff said the Intelligence Committee is "going to be looking at the issue of possible money laundering by the Trump Organization, and Deutsche Bank is one obvious place to start." ..."
"... A Senate investigation, which Warren and Van Hollen want to see followed by a report and a hearing, could put further pressure on the lender. The written request from the senators, sent Dec. 13, cites Deutsche Bank's "numerous enforcement actions" and a recent raid by police officers and tax investigators in Germany. ..."
"... Schiff, a target of Trump's on Twitter, also referred to reported comments by the president's sons some years ago that they didn't need "to deal with U.S. banks because they got all of the cash they needed from Russia or disproportionate share of their assets coming from Russia." He said Sunday he expects to learn more about that claim through financial records. ..."
Dec 16, 2018 | finance.yahoo.com

(Bloomberg)

The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee joined Democratic colleagues in questioning ties between Deutsche Bank AG and President Donald Trump's real estate business.

Representative Adam Schiff of California said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that any type of compromise needs to be investigated. That could add his panel's scrutiny to that of Representative Maxine Waters, who's in line to be chair of the House Financial Services Committee and has also focused on the bank's connections to Trump.

Schiff's comments came three days after Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and fellow Senate Democrat Chris Van Hollen called for a Banking Committee investigation of Deutsche Bank's compliance with U.S. money-laundering regulations.

Schiff said Deutsche Bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the state of New York for laundering Russian money, and that it was the one bank willing to do business with the Trump Organization.

"Now, is that a coincidence?" Schiff said. "If this is a form of compromise, it needs to be exposed."

In an interview with the New Yorker that was posted on line on Dec. 14, Schiff said the Intelligence Committee is "going to be looking at the issue of possible money laundering by the Trump Organization, and Deutsche Bank is one obvious place to start."

More Pressure

A Senate investigation, which Warren and Van Hollen want to see followed by a report and a hearing, could put further pressure on the lender. The written request from the senators, sent Dec. 13, cites Deutsche Bank's "numerous enforcement actions" and a recent raid by police officers and tax investigators in Germany.

It also notes the lender's U.S. operations being implicated in cross-border money-laundering accusations such as in a recent case involving Danish lender Danske Bank A/S and the movement of $230 billion in illicit funds.

"The compliance history of this institution raises serious questions about the national security and criminal risks posed by its U.S. operations," the senators said in their letter. "Its correspondent banking operations in the U.S. serve as a gateway to the U.S. financial system for Deutsche Bank entities around the world."

Troy Gravitt, a Deutsche Bank spokesman, responded that the company "takes its legal obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations."

Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, had questioned the Federal Reserve earlier this year about how it would keep the White House from interfering with oversight of the lender, which had been a major lender to Trump's real estate business.

Schiff, a target of Trump's on Twitter, also referred to reported comments by the president's sons some years ago that they didn't need "to deal with U.S. banks because they got all of the cash they needed from Russia or disproportionate share of their assets coming from Russia." He said Sunday he expects to learn more about that claim through financial records.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jesse Hamilton in Washington at [email protected]

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jesse Westbrook at [email protected], Mark Niquette, Ros Krasny

[Dec 16, 2018] FBI Docs Reveal Flynn Was Not Lying Or Did Not Think He Was Lying

The decision to indict Flynn ruins " esprit de corps " in the USA intelligence community. So Partaigenosser Mulkler trying to depose Trump oversteped the "norms" of intelligence community. And if CIA allied with FBI against DIA that's a bad sign. It looks like the US elite was split into two warring camps that will fight for power absolutely ruthlessly.
As for "In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn 'clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.' " the question arise how he got the to position of the head of DIA with such astounding level of naivety. If anyone from FBI does not want your lawyer to be present you should probably have a lawyer present.
Notable quotes:
"... "The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. ..."
"... According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." ..."
"... McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents. ..."
"... On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them." ..."
"... Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying. ..."
"... In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues. ..."
"... It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court. ..."
"... Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire? ..."
Dec 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Sara Carter via SaraCarter.com,

The Special Counsel's Office released key documents related to former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller's office had until 3 p.m. to get the documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn's attorney's that led to serious concerns regarding the FBI's initial questioning of the retired three-star general.

The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.

The documents also include the FBI's "302" report regarding Flynn's interview with anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview but an August, 2017 report of Strzok's recollections of the interview.

Flynn's attorney's had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which would've have warned him of penalties for making false statements.

"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says.

According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport."

McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents.

The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.

Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the documents are guarded against tampering.

On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them."

He stressed, "the bureau policy – the absolute FBI policy – is that the notes must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview." Danik said that the handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI's main record keeping system. "Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster," he added.

In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they "both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Information that Flynn was not lying was first published and reported by SaraACarter.com.

Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying.

In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues.

"Flynn was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Strzok wondered if the national security adviser did not have more important things to do than have a such a relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them," it said.

The documents turned over by Mueller also reveal that other FBI personnel "later argued about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn." Tags Law Crime

haruspicio , 3 hours ago link

Basically McCabe and others in his unit are totally discredited. He should have this quashed and the case thrown out of court. No Miranda rights, therefore no lying to FBI.

Ajax-1 , 4 hours ago link

Why didn't Flynn demand his day in court? He would have won. I am not buying the ******** argument about him being run into bankruptcy. Hell, he could have represented himself and still won the case at trial. In addition, I am not buying this ******** argument that he agreed to plead guilty because he was afraid the Mueller would go after his son. Does anyone know what Flynn's son does for a living? Why would he be afraid?

alter_ , 4 hours ago link

I've got news for you, if you don't think you are lying, its not a lie. That is a simple fact for anyone who understands English

Koba the Dread , 4 hours ago link

Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI.

No! Flynn was not f ound guilty by Mueller on one count of lying. The FBI is an investigative body (at best) not a judicial body. Only a jury or a judge acting in lieu of a jury can find someone guilty of anything.

Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying because to have plead innocent would have bankrupted him in legal fees. However, it's interesting that this ZH article stated that Mueller found Flynn guilty. In federal courts these days, once you're charged with a crime you will be found guilty. FBI, DEA, BATF, IRS...whoever, you do not get a fair trial. Federal judges are hard-wired to find guilt. Vicious and ambitious federal prosecutors have only one interest, to rack up successful prosecutions. Federal juries are intimidated by the brute force of the federal system and, I suspect, fear that if they don't bring in a verdict satisfactory to the prosecutor, they may be investigated themselves. "Investigation" in the federal sense means that they will be relentlessly harassed forever by the federal government

artichoke , 1 hour ago link

My small experience as a juror is that state prosecutors and judges are no different than what you describe for the federal system. We found a guy non-guilty (not a close call either) that the judge wanted convicted, and he came back and questioned us about our logic. Casually of course. I just said the guy was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge wasn't pleased.

Imxploring , 7 hours ago link

Flynn is an idiot.... why agree to talk to the FBI at all.... as Martha Stewart found out.... if they can't make the case for what they're investigating... they'll just find some statement in your "interview" that they claim was not true.... no matter if it was your intention to lie or just a recollection that was wrong... and charge you with that!

Simple answer is that if law enforcement wants to "talk" to you they're looking to get information to charge you.... simple reply.... FU... I want a lawyer!

Amy G. Dala , 8 hours ago link

Remember Petreaus and Paula Broadwell?

The compromise of classified docs was really sort of candy-assed, everybody knew it . . .

Rewind the tape, and you will find the contrite Petreaus in front of any and all microphones confessing to his affair with Broadwell, which he repeatedly stated began on some certain date . . .conveniently AFTER his confirmation as CIA director . . .

. . .certainly Petreaus was asked in his FBI background interview if he was involved in any affairs. And he certainly said no.

So, Paula, since I'm on all the networks at the moment, I know you can hear me, our affair started on X date, in case the FBI gets a notion to ask you (which they did not.)

See, the FBI takes lying seriously. But somebody must have said something along the lines of: hey, Petreaus is a good guy, I hope you can find a way to let him off easy.

Noktirnal , 9 hours ago link

How can an honest investigation be done now?

The FBI destroyed evidence and devices at the behest of subjects in the HRC investigation on the first go-round.

Aubiekong , 9 hours ago link

But when faced with financial destruction, your kids being threatened, and false evidence against you, you sometimes admit to the charges to make a deal...

PGR88 , 10 hours ago link

Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies."

Sorry dumbass, they are America's new Gestapo. Big mistake.

divingengineer , 7 hours ago link

The military is realizing they are not on the same team with FBI, CIA, DOJ.

Why do you think they have tried so hard to keep NSA under military leadership? Wink, wink...

Leguran

It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court.

The Chief Justice has refused to accept that judges can employ personal poliltical beliefs in court. All courts are subordinate to the US Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure justice not just to decide whether cases are 'sufficiently mature' to come before the Supreme Court. In other words, the Judiciary needs to be disturbed from their lifetime appointments and made conditional appointments. The Supreme Court needs to deal with incapacity within its own ranks. All told, this shocking miscarriage of justice came about because the Judicial Branch of government allowed it to happen. The Judicial Branch has run amok.

lizzie dw

IMO, Judge Emmet Sullivan needs to demand and receive the original UNREDACTED 302 about the Strzok/Pientka interview with General Flynn. But, really, just by reading the pre-interview discussions of the FBI members involved, the whole thing sounds fishy.

Caloot

Hedge headline:

Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire?

Like Trump or not, there are serious cracks appearing in the Clintons foundation.

[Dec 16, 2018] Judge Emmet Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case orders the Mueller group to disclose interview material by Robert Willmann

Dec 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Two days ago, federal judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington D.C. ordered the "special counsel" Robert Mueller group to do the following by 3:00 p.m. eastern time today, as shown on the court clerk's docket sheet--

"12/12/2018 MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of sentencing, the defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n. 21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n. 23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and FD-302. The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018. Should the parties seek to file such material under seal, the parties may file motions for leave to do so. The government is also ORDERED to file its reply to the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/12/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/12/2018)"

Judge Sullivan is a Black lawyer who came up the hard way, going to Washington D.C. public schools and Howard University and its law school. Howard University has been a reputable university with a full curriculum as it provided education to Black Americans from the time of segregation. He was appointed by three different U.S. presidents to judicial positions, by Reagan, Bush sr, and Bill Clinton [1].

The actions and investigation regarding Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.) beginning when he was removed as National Security Advisor to president Trump have seemed odd and not to square with past behavior and the normal course of things. With little information available publicly it is very difficult to look at the issue and pick through information, since it has been mainly hidden behind the skirts of the Mueller "investigation", which was supposed to look at "interference" by the Russian government in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Flynn's sentencing is set for next Tuesday, 18 December. However, that is subject to change, depending on what is filed today. I will try to provide some relevant items from the court clerk's file that you can read to bring yourself up to date about the court case from what is available; some items are still filed under seal, and the probation office presentence investigation report (PSI) is kept private as a matter of federal judicial policy.

Continue reading "Judge Emmet Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case orders the Mueller group to disclose interview material" "

Posted at 02:20 PM in Babelfish , Current Affairs , Intelligence , Justice , Politics , Transcripts | Permalink | 13 Comments

Walrus , a day ago

The FBI failed to warn Flynn and entrapped him. Throw out the case
TTG -> Walrus , 9 hours ago
That defense would be more effective if Flynn was a bewildered youth or someone with diminished mental capacities being badgered in a police interrogation room.
MP98 -> TTG , 5 hours ago
Flynn certainly acted like a bewildered, naive person.
Did he think that the FBI was showing up to ask about his health?
Was he really the Director of DIA......or did he just stay in a Holiday Inn?
Pat Lang Mod -> MP98 , 5 hours ago
He was in way over his head at DIA. This guy had commanded MI housekeeping units and had dome CT targeting/
Greco , 10 hours ago
Thank you Robert. It's good to have someone like judge Sullivan presiding over this case. We'll have to wait and see, but a lot of what I have gathered so far suggests Gen. Flynn is a man of honorable character who has been raked over for mostly political reasons.
MP98 , a day ago
In the meantime, has anyone investigated the leak that supposedly caught Flynn talking to the Russian Amb?
That apparently did harm sources and methods.
But,noooooooooo, no investigation.
The swamp cares not a whit for national security, but yet constantly lectures us "deplorables" about their great talent and dedication - they'd all be Fortune 500 CEO's if they weren't so dedicated.
There are probably a few dedicated talented people trying to do the right thing, but the bureaucracy - including the Intel. agencies/FBI (VERY important people "risking" their lives, BTW) - has shown over and over to be populated mostly by self-enriching slugs.
TTG -> MP98 , 9 hours ago
The leak was that USI and LE were listening in on the Russian Ambassador's conversations by turning his smartphone into a hot mic by exploiting well-known SS7 vulnerabilities. This hardly reveals anything new about sources and methods. Any one who wants to keep secrets shouldn't be carrying a smartphone and any ambassador who thinks the host government doesn't keep him under surveillance is hopelessly naive.
MP98 -> TTG , 6 hours ago
So the leaker gets a pass?
TTG -> MP98 , 5 hours ago
Was it a leak or was it just an assumption of the obvious surveillance of Kislyak? Pence is the one who confirmed Flynn talked to Kislyak about lifting sanctions and lied to him about it.

[Dec 16, 2018] Former FBI SSA Exposes McCabe Mueller's Unethtical, Target Destroy Coercion Tactics, Defends Flynn

Usual can of worms. Typical for any large organization. Petty vengeance, etc.
Dec 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Former FBI SSA Exposes McCabe & Mueller's "Unethtical, Target & Destroy Coercion" Tactics, Defends Flynn

by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/15/2018 - 21:15 59 SHARES Via SaraCarter.com,

Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz has asked SaraACarter.com to post her letter to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in support of her friend and colleague retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who will be sentenced on Dec. 18. The Special Counsel's Office has requested that Flynn not serve any jail time due to his cooperation with Robert Mueller's office. Based on new information contained in a memorandum submitted to the court this week by Flynn's attorney, Sullivan has ordered Mueller's office to turn over all exculpatory evidence and government documents on Flynn's case by mid-day Friday. Sullivan is also requesting any documentation regarding the first interviews conducted by former anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka -known by the FBI as 302s- which were found to be dated more than seven months after the interviews were conducted on Jan. 24, 2017, a violation of FBI policy, say current and former FBI officials familiar with the process. According to information contained in Flynn's memorandum, the interviews were dated Aug. 22, 2017.

Read Gritz's letter below... (emphasis added)

The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan. December 5, 2018 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20001

Re: Sentencing of Lt. General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.)

Dear Judge Sullivan:

I am submitting my letter directly since Mike Flynn's attorney has refused to submit it as well as letters submitted by other individuals. I feel you need to hear from someone who was an FBI Special Agent who not only worked with Mike, but also has personally witnessed and reported unethical & sometimes illegal tactics used to coerce targets of investigations externally and internally.

About Myself and FBI Career

For 16 years, I proudly served the American people as a Special Agent working diligently on significant terrorism cases which earned noteworthy results and fostered substantial interagency cooperation. Prior to serving in the FBI I was a Juvenile Probation Officer in Camden, NJ. Currently, I am a Senior Information Security Metrics and Reporting Analyst with Discover Financial Services in the Chicago Metro area. I have recently been named as a Senior Fellow to the London Center for Policy Research.

While in the FBI, I served as a Special Agent, Supervisory Special Agent, Assistant Inspector, Unit Chief, and a Senior Liaison Officer to the CIA. I served on the NSC's Hostage and Personnel Working Group and brought numerous Americans out of captivity and was part of the interagency team to codify policies outlining the whole of government approach to hostage cases.

In November 2007, I was selected over 26 other candidates to become the Supervisory Special Agent, CT Extraterritorial Squad; Washington Field Office (WFO) in Washington, DC. At WFO, I led a squad of experts in extraterritorial evidence collection, overseas investigations, operational security during terrorist attacks/events, and overseas criminal investigations. I coordinated and managed numerous high profile investigations (Blackwater, Chuckie Taylor, Robert Levinson, and other pivotal cases) comprised of teams from US and foreign intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. I was commended for displaying comprehensive leadership performance under pressure, extensive teamwork skills, while conducting critical investigative analysis within and outside the FBI.

In December 2009, I was promoted to GS-15 Unit Chief (UC) of the Executive Strategy Unit, Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate (WMDD). While the UC, I codified the WMDD five-year strategic plan, formulated goals and objectives throughout the division, while translating the material into a directorate scorecard with cascading measurements reflecting functional and operational unit areas. This was the only time in Washington, DC when I did not work with of for McCabe.

From September to December 2010, I was selected as the FBI's top candidate to represent the FBI, and the USG in a rigorous, intellectually stimulating; 12 week course for civilian government officials, military officers, and government academics at the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch, Germany, Executive Program in Advanced Security Studies. The class was comprised of 141 participants from 43 countries.

I have received numerous recommendations and commendations for my professionalism, liaison and interpersonal ability and experience . Additionally, I have been rated Excellent or Outstanding for my entire career, to include by Andrew McCabe when I was stationed at the Washington Field Office. Further, other awards of note are: West Chester University 2005 Legacy of Leadership recipient, Honored with House of Representatives Citation for Exemplary record of Service, Leadership, and Achievements: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Awarded with a framed Horn of Africa blood chit from the Department of Defense and Office of the DASD (POW/MPA/MIA) for my work in bringing Americans Out of captivity, "Patriot, Law Enforcement Warrior, and Friend."

Length of Association with Flynn, McCabe, and Mueller

I met Michael Flynn in 2005, while working in the Counterterrorism Division (CTD) at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ).

I met then Supervisory Special Agent Andrew McCabe, when he reported to CTD at FBIHQ, around the same time. McCabe subsequently was the Assistant Section Chief over my unit, my Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the Washington Field Office, and the Assistant Director (AD) over CTD when I encountered the discrimination and McCabe spearheaded the retaliation personally (according to documentation) against me.

I have known both men for 12-13 years and worked directly with both throughout my career. They are on the opposite spectrum of each other with regard to truthfulness, temperament, and ethics, both professionally and personally.

I regularly briefed former FBI Director and Special Prosecutor Mueller on controversial and complex cases and attended Deputies meetings at the White house with then Deputy Director Pistole. I got along with both and trusted both. Watching what has been done to Mike and knowing someone on the 7th floor had to have notified Mueller of my situation (Pistole had retired), has been significantly distressing to me.

Lt.G. Michael T. Flynn:

Mike and I were counterparts on a DOJ-termed ground-breaking initiative which served as a model for future investigations, policies, legislation and FBI programs in the Terrorist Use of the Internet. For this multi-faceted and leading-edge joint operation, I was commended by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. Keith Alexander (NSA Director), and LtG. Michael Flynn as well as others for leading the FBI's pivotal participation in this dynamic and innovative interagency operation. I received two The National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation (NIMUC) I for my role in this operation. The NIMUC is an award of the National Intelligence Awards Program, for contributions to the United States Intelligence Community.

Mick Flynn has consistently and candidly been honest and straightforward with me since the day I met him in 2005. He has been a mentor and someone I trust to give me frank advice when I ask for his opinion. His caring nature has shown through especially when he saw me being torn apart by the FBI and he felt compelled to write a letter in support of me. He further took the extra step to comment on my character in an NPR article and interview exposing the wrongdoings in my case and others who have stood up for truth and against discrimination/retaliation. Senator Grassley also commented on my behalf. NPR characterized this action against me as a "warning shot" to individuals who stood up to individuals such as McCabe.

The day after I resigned from the FBI, while I was crying, Mike reached out and congratulated me on my early retirement. I really needed to hear that from someone I respected so much. His support for the last 13 years has been unparalleled and extremely valuable in helping me get through the trauma of betrayal, unethical behavior, illegal activity executed against me and to rebuild my life. Additionally, his support has helped my family in dealing with their painful emotions regarding my situation. My parents wanted me to pass on to you that they are blessed that I have had a compassionate and supportive individual on my side throughout this trying time.

Mike has been a respected leader by his peers and by FBI Agents and Analysts who have interacted with him. I personally feel he is the finest leader I have ever worked with or for in my career. Our continued friendship and subsequent friendship with his family has helped all of us cope with the stress a situation like this puts on individuals and families.

It is so very painful to watch an American hero, and my friend, torn apart like this. His family has had to endure what no family should have to. I know this because of the damaging effect my case had on my parent's health, finances, and emotional well-being. Mike and I both had to sell our houses due to legal fees, endured smear campaigns (mostly by the same individual, McCabe). I ended up being deemed homeless by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was on public assistance and endured extensive health and emotional damage due to the retaliation. Mike kept in touch and kept me motivated. He has always reached out to help me with whatever he could.

The Process is the Punishment

Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch commented to me that the "Process is the punishment." This is the most accurate description I have heard regarding the time Mike has gone through with this process and the year and a half I was ostracized and idled before I resigned. This process is one which many FBI employees, current, retired and former, feel was brought to the FBI by Mueller and he subsequently brought this to the Special Prosecutor investigation.

It also fostered the behavior among FBI "leadership" which we find ourselves shocked at when revealed on a daily basis. Is this the proper way to seek justice? I say no. I swore to uphold the Constitution while protecting the civil rights of the American people. I believe many individuals involved in Mike's case have lost their way and could care less about protection of due process, civil and legal rights of who they are targeting. Mike has had extensive punishment throughout this process. This process has punished him harder than anyone else could.

Andrew McCabe

I believe I have a unique inside view of the mannerisms surrounding Andrew McCabe, other FBI Executive Management and Former Director Mueller, as well as the unethical and coercive tactics they use, not to seek the truth, but to coerce pleas or admissions to end the pain, as I call it. They destroy lives for their own agendas instead of seeking the truth for the American people. Candor is something that should be encouraged and used by leadership to have necessary and continued improvement. Under Mueller, it was seen as a threat and viciously opposed by those he pulled up in the chain of command.

I am explaining this because numerous Agents have expressed the need for you to know McCabe's and Mueller's pattern of "target and destroy" has been utilized on many others, without regard for policies and laws. I, myself, am a casualty of this reprehensible behavior and I have spoken to well over 150 other FBI individuals who are casualties as well.

I am the individual who filed the Hatch Act complaint against McCabe and provided significant evidentiary documents obtained via FOIA, open source, and information from current, former, and retired Special Agents. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) asked why my filing of the complaint was delayed from the actual acts. I said I personally thought I was providing additional information to what should have been an automatic referral to OSC by FBI OPR. I was notified I was the only complainant. This illustrates not only a fatal flaw in OPR AD Candice Will not making the appropriate and crucial referral, but also shows the fear of those within the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation.

While serving at the CIA, detailed by the FBI in January 2012, I was responsible for overseas investigations, as opposed to Continental United States-based (CONUS) cases. Unfortunately, during my assignment at the CIA, I encountered extensive discrimination by two FBI Special Agents and subsequently, in 2012, I filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint. Instead of addressing the issues, then CTD Assistant Director Andrew McCabe chose to authorize a retaliatory Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation against me, five days after my EEO contact. The OPR referral he signed was authored by the two individuals I had filed the EEO complaint against. In his signed sworn statement, McCabe admitted he knew I had filed or was going to file the EEO.

Numerous members of my department at the CIA requested to be spoken with by CTD executive management, regarding my work ethic and accomplishments. However, CTD, Inspection Division, and OPR disregarded the list of names and contact numbers I submitted. This is an example of knowing you are being targeted and the truth is not being sought.

Although my time at this position was short, I was commended by my CIA direct supervisor for: "having already contributed more than your predecessor in the short time you have been here." My predecessor had been assigned to the post for 18 months; I had been there four months.

In contrast and showing lack of candor, McCabe wrote on official documents the following statement, contradicting the actual direct supervisor I worked with daily:

"SA Gritz had to be removed from a prior position in an interagency environment, due to inappropriate communications and general performance issues"

This is one of many comments McCabe used to discredit my reputation and to ostracize me. McCabe knew me as someone who told the truth, worked hard, got results, and was always willing to be flexible when needed. He was also acutely aware of the excellent relationships I had formed in the USG interagency due to comments made by individuals from numerous agencies. Yet, he continued to make false statements on official documents. He has done this to numerous other very valuable FBI employees, destroying their careers and lives. He used similar tactics of lies against Flynn. It should be noted, McCabe was very aware of my professional association with Mike Flynn.

In July 5, 2012, I was involuntarily pulled back to CTD from the CIA. I was told McCabe made the decision. A year and a month later, I resigned from the job I absolutely loved and was good at. All because of the lack of candor of numerous individuals within the FBI.

Unethical and dishonest investigative tactics

Throughout the last year, I have kept abreast of the revelations surrounding anything related to Mike's case. I believe, from my years at the FBI and in exposing corruption and discrimination, the circumstances surrounding the targeting, investigation, leaking, and coercion of him to plea are all consistent with the unethical process I and many others have witnessed at the FBI. The charge which Mike Flynn plead to was the result of deception, intimidation, and bias/agenda. Simply, Mike is being branded a convicted felon due to an unethical and dishonest investigation by people who were malicious, vindictive, and corrupt. They wished to silence Mike, like they had once silenced me.

The American people have read the Strzok/Page text messages, the conflicting testimony and lack of candor statements of former Director Comey, the perceived overstepping of the reasonable scope of the Special Prosecutor's investigation, the extensive unethical, untruthful, and outright illegal behavior of Andrew McCabe, to include slanderous statements against Flynn, and the facts found within FOIA released documents and Congressional testimony. As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's case, as if I was combing through evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled while in the FBI.

The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by any FBI Agent (we now know at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator report, and any other party still aggressively seeking that this case remain and be sentenced as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael Flynn a convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have been violated by those pursuing this case.

We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced to resign or forced to retire because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases, leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.

Summation

Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness. One of the main individuals involved in his case is Andrew McCabe, who used similar tactics against me in my case, of which Mike Flynn defended me by penning a letter of character reference and is a witness. Seeing McCabe was named as a Responding Management Official in my case, he should have recused himself with anything having to do with a character witness on my behalf against him and DOJ.

I'm told by numerous people, but have been unable to confirm, that McCabe was asked why he was so viciously going after Flynn; my name was mentioned. I do know, from experience with McCabe, he is a vindictive individual and I have no doubt Mike's support of me fueled McCabe's disdain and personally vindictive aggressive unethical activities in this case . It matches his behavior in my case.

Reliable fact-finding is essential to procedural due process and to the accuracy and uniformity of sentencing. I'm unsure if the fact-finding in this case is reliable, nor do I think we currently have all the facts.

The punishment which LtG. Flynn has already endured this past year, due to the nature of the case, legal fees and reputation damage, is punishment enough. He is a true patriot, a loving husband and father, a devoted grandfather, a trusted friend, and has a close knit family made up of compassionate and honest individuals. To be branded a felon, is a major hit to a hero who protected the American people for 33 years. I do not think society would benefit from Mike Flynn going to jail nor being branded as a convicted felon. Not knowing the sentencing guidelines for this charge but if there is any chance that the case can be downgraded to a misdemeanor, this would be an act of justice that numerous Americans need to see to stay hopeful for further justice.

Respectfully yours,

Robyn L. Gritz

Never One Roach , 3 minutes ago link

This lady is seriously brave. She confirms one more reason i strongly support our Second Amendment; it's to protect us from tyrants and corrupt people like McCabe, Ohr, Comey and Mueller. Oh yes. I almost forget Rosenstein who should be hung for treason also.

Totally_Disillusioned , 35 minutes ago link

WOW...all this time I had been asking where are the whistle blowers and kept saying, certainly not all the FBI are this corrupt -and further asked are they being threatened to not come forward?"

Well, the later sure seems true when you consider Ms. Gristz statements, particularly " the fear of those within the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation. "

This is the level of corruption that ought to bring this entire cabal to their knees and place them behind bars. Hopefully Judge Sullivan's intuitions will be bolstered by Ms. Gristz' letter.

runswithscissors , 19 minutes ago link

The FBI is corrupt to the core...from top to bottom. If she joined the FBI to "uphold the Constitution" or "serve the American People" or some other horseshit then that was her first mistake. The FBI is a completely corrupt & unconstitutional organization that protects only the (((globalists))) and other enemies of freedom. The Hoover Buliding should be padlocked and all of the agents of evil put on trial for treason.

Macho Latte , 6 minutes ago link


Like I said earlier today,

Flynn was an example to the rest of the Trump supporters. His guilt or innocense was/is meaningless and irrlevant to the Prog Attack Dogs. The message was/is clear:
"We are the Power. Resistance is futile. Bend your knee or we will destroy you."

It is prudent for reasonable people to believe that the Progs have spent the past couple years destroying evidence that can be used against their gods (Obama, Clinton, Soros, etc.) and their cohorts.

There is no penalty or negative consequence for the Mueller team who engaged in "unethical" activity. None of them will have to answer to anyone or disgorge the millions of dollars in "fees" they have been paid by the Sheeple.

All Progs must hang.
Christopher Wray must hang next.

[Dec 16, 2018] A World of Multiple Detonators of Global Wars by James Petras

So much for peace that neoliberal globalization should supposedly bring...
Notable quotes:
"... We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations. ..."
"... In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America ..."
"... China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. ..."
"... In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. ..."
"... The first line of attack are Chinese exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US exports ..."
"... The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei. ..."
"... Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown. ..."
Dec 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations.

We will proceed to identify 'great power' confrontations and then proceed to discuss the stages of 'proxy' wars with world war consequences.

In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America.

China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. China has built an alternative socio-economic model which links state banks and planning to private sector priorities. On all these counts the US has fallen behind and its future prospects are declining.

In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. President Trump has declared a tariff war on China; and multiple separatist and propaganda war; and aerial and maritime encirclement of China's mainland

The first line of attack are Chinese exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US exports.

The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei.

The White House has moved up the ladder of aggression from sanctions to extortion to kidnapping. Provocation, is one step up from military intimidation. The nuclear fuse has been lit.

Russia faces similar threats to its domestic economy, its overseas allies, especially China and Iran as well as the US renunciation of intermediate nuclear missile agreement

Iran faces oil sanctions, military encirclement and attacks on proxy allies including in Yemen, Syria and the Gulf region Washington relies on Saudi Arabia, Israel and paramilitary terrorist groups to apply military and economic pressure to undermine Iran's economy and to impose a 'regime change'.

Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown.

Wars by Proxy

The US has targeted a second tier of enemies, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

In Latin America the US has waged economic warfare against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. More recently it has applied political and economic pressure on Bolivia. To expand its dominance Washington has relied on its vassal allies, including Brazil, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay as well as right-wing elites throughout the region

As in numerous other cases of regime change Washington relies on corrupt judges to rule against President Morales, as well as US foundation funded NGO's; dissident indigenous leaders and retired military officials. The US relies on local political proxies to further US imperial goals is to give the appearance of a 'civil war' rather than gross US intervention.

In fact, once the so-called 'dissidents' or 'rebels' establish a foot hole, they 'invite' US military advisers, secure military aid and serve as propaganda weapons against Russia, China or Iran – 'first tier' adversaries.

In recent years US proxy conflicts have been a weapon of choice in the Kosovo separatist war against Serbia; the Ukraine coup of 2014 and war against Eastern Ukraine; the Kurd take over of Northern Iraq and Syria; the US backed separatist Uighurs attack in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.

The US has established 32 military bases in Africa, to coordinate activities with local warlords and plutocrats. Their proxy wars are discarded as local conflict between 'legitimate' regimes and Islamic terrorists, tribality and tyrants.

The objective of proxy wars are threefold. They serve as 'feeders' into larger territorial wars encircling China, Russia and Iran.

Secondly, proxy wars are 'testing grounds' to measure the vulnerability and responsive capacity of the targeted strategic adversary, i.e. Russia, China and Iran.

Thirdly, the proxy wars are 'low cost' and 'low risk' attacks on strategic enemies. The lead up to a major confrontation by stealth.

Equally important 'proxy wars' serve as propaganda tools, associating strategic adversaries as 'expansionist authoritarian' enemies of 'western values'.

Conclusion

US empire builders engage in multiple types of aggression directed at imposing a unipolar world. At the center are trade wars against China; regional military conflicts with Russia and economic sanctions against Iran.

These large scale, long-term strategic weapons are complemented by proxy wars, involving regional vassal states which are designed to erode the economic bases of counting allies of anti-imperialist powers.

Hence, the US attacks China directly via tariff wars and tries to sabotage its global "Belt and Road' infrastructure projects linking China with 82 counties.

Likewise, the US attacks Russian allies in Syria via proxy wars, as it did with Iraq, Libya and the Ukraine.

Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' – regime change by cop or nuclear war.

However, the US quest for world domination has so far taken steps which have failed to isolate or weaken its strategic adversaries.

China moves forward with its global infrastructure programs: the trade war has had little impact in isolating it from its principal markets. Moreover, the US policy has increased China's role as a leading advocate of 'open trade' against President Trump's protectionism.

ORDER IT NOW

Likewise, the tactics of encircling and sanctioning Russia has deepened ties between Moscow and Beijing. The US has increased its nominal 'proxies' in Latin America and Africa but they all depend on trade and investments from China. This is especially true of agro-mineral exports to China.

Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes, Washington has taken moves to compensate for its failures by escalating the threats of a global war. It kidnaps Chinese economic leaders; it moves war ships off China's coast; it allies with neo-fascist elites in the Ukraine. It threatens to bomb Iran. In other words the US political leaders have embarked on adventurous policies always on the verge of igniting one, too, many nuclear fuses.

It is easy to imagine how a failed trade war can lead to a nuclear war; a regional conflict can entail a greater war.

Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!

Per/Norway , says: December 12, 2018 at 10:29 pm GMT

I disagree. The parasitic terror regime that runs washington believe they can win a nuclear war, i have no hope left for peace. They need a culling of the "useless eaters", we are stealing the food out of their poor frightened children`s mouths by existing.
Eric Zuesse wrote a decent article yesterday at the Saker blog about the US nuclear forces and its owners wet dream.
"The U.S. Government's Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion"
The actions of nato/EU/UK/ISR/KSA etc certainly supports his article, at least in my opinion.
Anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 12, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
Useful and clear article.

The US, and the West, by instigating wars elsewhere, and selling weapons to those, destroy countries and prosperity abroad. Those living in target countries find themselves miserable, with loss of everything. It is only natural that they may try to escape a living hell by emigrating to the West.

People in the US and the West in general will not want mass immigration, and with good reason; but if you were in a war torn country or an impoverished country (as a result of western "help") you would also attempt to move away from the bombs, etc.

If the West left the rest of the world alone (in terms of their regimes and in terms of their weapons), they might prosper and no longer need to run away from their home countries.

Can we build a better world, please?!

Godfree Roberts , says: December 12, 2018 at 11:32 pm GMT
The sanctions and embargoes have failed in the past, when China was much weaker, so we can be quite confident that they will fail again, and quickly, as this timeline suggests:

September 3, 2018 : Huawei unveils Kirin 980 CPU, the world's first commercial 7nm system-on-chip (SoC) and the first to use Cortex-A76 cores, dual neural processing units, Mali G76 GPU, a 1.4 Gbps LTE modem and supports faster RAM. With 20 percent faster performance and 40 percent less power consumption compared to 10nm systems, it has twice the performance of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 and Apple's A11 while delivering noticeable battery life improvement. Its Huawei-patented modem has the world's fastest Wi-Fi and its GPS receiver taps L5 frequency to deliver 10cm. positioning.

September 5, 2018 . China's front-end fab capacity will account for 16 percent of the world's semiconductor capacity this year, increasing to 20 percent by 2020.

September 15, 2018. China controls one third of 5G patents and has twice as many installations operating as the rest of the world combined.

September 21, 2018 . China has reached global technological parity and now has twelve of the world's top fifty IC design houses (China's SMIC is fourth, Huawei's HiSilicon is seventh), and twenty-one percent of global IC design revenues. Roger Luo, TSMC.

October 2, 2018 . Chinese research makes up 18.6 percent of global STEM peer-reviewed papers, ahead of the US at 18 percent. "The fact that China's article output is now the largest is very significant. It's been predicted for a while, but there was a view this was not likely to happen until 2025," said Michael Mabe, head of STM.

October 14, 2018 . Huawei announces 7 nm Ascend 910 chipset for data centers, twice as powerful as Nvidia's v100 and the first AI IP chip series to natively provide optimal TeraOPS per watt in all scenarios. Available 2Q19.

October 7, 2018 : China becomes largest recipient of FDI in H1, attracting an estimated 70 billion U.S. dollars, according to UNCTAD.

October 8, 2018: Taiwan's Foxconn moves its major semiconductor maker and five integrated circuit design companies to Jinan, China.

October 22, 2018 . China becomes world leader in venture capital, ahead of the US and almost twice the rest of the world's $53.4 billion YTD. The Crunchbase report says the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the world is undergoing a major transformation: it is now driven by China instead of the US.

peterAUS , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:02 am GMT
Apart from that "nuclear war" from:

Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' – regime change by cop or nuclear war

good article.
Only idiot can believe that nuclear war can be won, IMHO. Elites aren't suicidal, oh no. On the contrary.

Can they make a mistake and cause that war, definitely.

Which brings us to the important part:

Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support.

Agree, but, that's exactly the reason I disagree with:

There are reasons to hope!

No need to be pedantic, of course there is always a reason for hope.
But, I see it as so fertile ground for making The MISTAKE .

Giuseppe , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT

Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!

It's when the elite war mongers' backs are up against the wall that they come up with a cleverly designed false flag attack to rally public support for war. They are more dangerous now than ever.

Splitpin , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:43 am GMT
Agree about Russia and China, however Iran needs to be viewed not as a play for oil or the Islamic crowd but driven wholly and solely by Israel. Iran is not a threat to US in any context, only Israel.
Wally , says: December 15, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT
question:
If the relatively small tariffs on Chinese goods amount to 'direct attacks on China', then what are the massive tariffs by China on US goods?
Biff , says: December 15, 2018 at 8:57 am GMT
The "Chess men" behind "The Wall Street Economy" have stated a few times that the only way to remain the dominant economy is to first: convince rivals that resistance is futile, and second: to atomize any potential rival (Ghaddaffi is a clear example).

Breaking up Russia has been on the to-do list for decades, and I believe that the Chess Men have no idea what to do about containing China, and are clearly flat-footed, and desperate kidnapping a Chinese business executive.

The Wall Street Economy depended on cheap Chinese labor it's own profits, and that was Ok until .?
Until the writing on the Wall became ledgible .
The smell of genuine fear is in the air.

jilles dykstra , says: December 15, 2018 at 9:18 am GMT
" The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope! "

Is popular support needed to get a people in a war mood ?
Both Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 demonstrate, in my opinion, that it is not very difficult to create a war mood.
Yet, if another Sept 11 would do the trick, I wonder.
Sept 11 has been debated without without interruption since Sept 11.
After the 1946 USA Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour the USA government succeeded in preventing a similar discussion.
Until now the west, Deep State, NATO, EU did not succeed in provoking Russia or China.
Each time they tried something, in my opinion they did this several times, Russia showed its military superiority, at the same time taking care not to hurt public opinion in the west.

annamaria , says: December 15, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT
Is not it amazing that the morally miserable US, a "power in search of world domination through force and violence," is officially governed by self-avowed pious X-tians. What kind of corruption among the high-level clergy protects the satanists Pompeo, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Blair and such from excommunication?

Russians explaining the perdition of the US deciders: https://www.rt.com/news/446533-sergey-shoigu-syria-inf/

"Washington does little to nothing to restore peace and help the devastated region to recover from the long war, while its [US] airstrikes continue to rack up civilian deaths At the same time, the US military presence at the Al-Tanf airbase and the "armed gangs" around it prevent refugees from returning home."

– Nothing new. The multi-denominational Syria has been pounded by the US-supported "moderate" terrorists (armed with US-provided arms and with UK-provided chemical weaponry) to satisfy the desires of Israel-firsters, arm-dealers and the multitude of war-profiteers that have been fattening their pockets at the US/UK taxpayers' expense.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article204373.html

"Timber Sycamore" [initiated by Obama] is the most important arms trafficking operation in History. It involves at least 17 governments. The transfer of weapons, meant for jihadist organizations, is carried out by Silk Way Airlines, a Azerbaïdjan public company of cargo planes."

-- Biochemical warfare by the UK & US

https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-23/us-history-chemical-weapons-use-complicity-war-crimes

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-five-most-deadly-chemical-weapons-war-10897

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/10/04/576081/Russia-Kirillov-US-Georgia-Richard-Lugar-chemical-weapons-lab

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/09/21/bombshell-secret-american-laboratory-performs-deadly-human-experiments-in-caucasus-georgia/

WHAT , says: December 15, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@Godfree Roberts Huawei can announce whatever, there are much more experienced adversaries(IBM, intel and ARM) who can`t beat nV in computation, and especially in integration of silicon. Guess who`s running inference and computer vision in all these car autopilots.
Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: December 15, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
I do not think there will be an atomic war .

I think we could have an economic collapse like the Soviet Union had , or like Argentina had in 2001 with the " corralito " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corralito .

Being the complex and global society that we are , it would be a disaster , it would produce hunger , misery and all types of local wars .

VirtualAnon34 , says: December 15, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
"Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes "

Have to agree with that statement. Seriously, wherein is this vaunted "superpower" that our American politicians always yap about? All I've seen in my lifetime is our military getting its butt kicked in Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. What, besides insanity and hubris, makes them think they could win anything much less a war against Iran, China or Russia?

Moi , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
@Splitpin It's the other way around–Israel is a threat to Iran.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:22 pm GMT
@WHAT What worth what? It did not help too much to GM. GM is shutting five of its plants.
SteveK9 , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:37 pm GMT
Mostly accurate, but 'closed protectionist society' ! Hardly. It's still very difficult to buy any manufactured goods made in this country. Of course this is part of the World economic circle countries use the US Dollar for all trade. They need dollars. We can print them and receive real goods in return. This has been going around and around for decades. It may come to an end in the not-too-distant future, but it has a lot of inertia.
Bill Jones , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

A mere piker compared to the American, Bernays

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

DESERT FOX , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
The only threat to patriotic Americans is Zionism which has ruled the U.S. since it took control over the money supply and the taxes via the privately owned Zionist FED and IRS and has given America nothing to wars and economic destruction since the FED and IRS were put in place by the Zionist banking kabal in 1913 and both are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within the U.S. government which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign to the American people as if it were from MARS!

Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used as pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!

Read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman and The Protocols of Zion, to see the Zionist satanic NWO plan.

wraith67 , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT
Lost me at Kurd takeover of northern Iraq/Syria. The Kurds have defacto owned those areas since 1991, and earlier. Saddam gassing the Kurds didn't accomplish anything except for making himself a target, no Arab lived in those areas, the Kurds would kill them.
Agent76 , says: December 15, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal

The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt and Road deals in its global push for economic and geopolitical dominance.

Miro23 , says: December 15, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
I agree with Bob Sykes' commentary over on Instapundit:

Well, our "anti-ISIS" model in eastern Syria consists of defending ISIS against attacks by the Syrian government, allowing them to pump and export Syrian oil for their profit, arming them and allowing them to recruit new fighters. I suppose that means we should be arming the Taliban.

ISIS was created by the CIA to fight against Assad. But they slipped the leash and became the fighting force for the dissident Sunni Arabs all along the Euphrates Valley. We only began to oppose them when their rebellion reached the outskirts of Baghdad, and even then the bulk of the fighting was done by Iraq's Shias and Iran. Now we are transferring them, or many of them, into secure (for ISIS) areas of Iraq.

The three U.S. presidents, six secretaries of defense and five chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are, in fact, war criminals, in exactly the same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et al. were war criminals. Those presidents, secretaries and generals launched wars of aggression against Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen not one of which threatened us in any way. They engineered coups d'état against two friendly governments, Egypt and Turkey. Now the fake American, anti-American neocons want to attack Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and even Russia and China.

Green needs to get his head out of his arse. We, the US, are the great rogue terrorist state. We are the evil empire. We are the chief source of death and destruction in the world. How many hundreds of thousands of civilians have we murdered in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia? How many cities have we bombed flat like Raqqa and Mosel. Putin is a saint compared to any US President.

Winston2 , says: December 15, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT
Iran has always been at the center of the Great Game, the key square on the board to block
Eurasia.You must either control Afghanistan AND Pakistan or Iran.
With Pakistan now in the SCO, Iran is a US imperative.
Israels antipathy is secondary and a useful foil, not the primary motive.
Read MacKinder, the imperial power has changed, not the strategy.
Durruti , says: December 15, 2018 at 4:29 pm GMT
Open Letter to James Petras.

Your article has a glaring emptiness.

How is it possible for anyone to write an article titled:

A World of Multiple Detonators of Global Wars

without mentioning the Principal Detonator of Global Wars?? The Elephant!

The United States of America is no longer a Sovereign Nation.

The Local Political Power Elite (C. Wright Mills term), serve, are Minions, of the Zionist Jewish Financial Terrorist Initiators and Controllers of the Global New World Order.

I would express this point in stronger terms, but I have not yet finished my coffee. The "Mulitiple Detonators" Petras discusses are useless unless Triggered by the Global Controllers.

A Slight Digression: maybe:

Petras may have written his exposé this way, understanding that he might safely avoid mention of the anti-Semitic (they hate Palestinians and other Arabs – actual Semites), Zionist Land Thieves, because a clueless Anarchist would appear and complete his article for him. If that is the case, I want half of the $ Unz is paying Petras for this article.

In Conclusion: and by the number###:

1. The American Power Elite and servile Politicians in America's Knesset in Washington DC, do not go to the Bathroom, without permission from their Zionist Oligarch masters.

2. The American Gauleters, Quislings, (better known as Traitors), serve the Rothschild and other Foreign Oligarchs. Recently, only 1, of 100 'Senators' demanded that there be a discussion of the Bill to send another $35 Billion gift to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. Poor Senator Rand Paul . How many ribs of his remain to be broken?

We the American people, have one Senator. And he has a great father.

3. Textbooks, Entertainment from Hollywood (key to all mind control), even Dictionaries, have been ruthlessly censored.

4. Our elected Zionist slaves in Congress, and all State and local governing bodies, live in fear of saying (accidentally), some truth, and ending up working at Walmart or 7-11, (if they are lucky).

5. Our young are effectively brainwashed in their schools; they have already been removed from their parents.

6. Our politicians are bribed with our own tax money (re-routed by the Zionists AIPAC, etc.).

7. The Zionist Entity has huge Financial Resources . They should be giving us 'Financial $$ Aid, not the other way around. Since NAFTA, we have entire cities & tons of infrastructure to rebuild.

Excuse me : Girlfriend thinks I should go to work.

Petras, I just fleshed out your, otherwise, promising article. You must understand – that the ethnic cleansing – genocide, against the Palestinian Nation, by the Terrorist Zionist Oligarchs, is the greatest single crime being committed on our Planet. All other crimes stem from this one.

We Americans must Restore Our Republic!

John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, M L King, Malcolm X. John Lennon; we are late, but we are coming.

God Bless!

Durruti

Durruti , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX Agree with all.

Worth repeating:

The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within the U.S. government which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign to the American people as if it were from MARS!

One comment:

Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used as pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!

In order to accomplish the above , we American Citizen Patriots – must Restore Our Republic – that, with our Last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, was destroyed by the Zionist Oligarchs and their American underling traitors, in a hail of bullets, on November 22, 1963.

jilles dykstra , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Miro23 " same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et al. were war criminals. "
Why were they war criminals ?
Because of the Neurenberg farce ?; farce according to the chairman of the USA Supreme Court in 1945:
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983
Churchill and Lindemann in fact murdered some two million German civilians, women, children, old men. Not a crime ?
Churchill refused the May 1941 Rudolf Hess peace proposal, not a crime ?
FDR deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, some 2700 casualties, his pretcxt for war, not a crime ?
900.000 German hunger deaths between the 1918 cease fire and Versailles, the British food blockade, not a crime ?
Will these wild accusations ever stop ?
Reuben Kaspate , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:17 pm GMT
I am all for the mother of all wars; however, it isn't going to come anytime soon, nay, not in our lifetime but when it does appear on the next century's horizon, it would be cathartic to all concerned. Rejoice!
Charles Carroll , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:42 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX If you want to know who rules over you, ask yourself who you are not permitted to criticize.
Bill Jones , says: December 15, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra ""Will these wild accusations ever stop ?"

Nah, Don't you know that being a Holohoax victim is now genetically transmitted.

"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

And after the forth generation, there'll be something else.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 8:17 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra They were war criminals because they lost the war. But hanging of Bock was a little bit overboard.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
Europe is realigning. England leaving Euro. French population is in upheaval. Eventually France will leave the Euro also.Most of German tourists now are going to Croatia. Italy is loosing tourists.
Italy living standard is declining. Germany is being pushed inevitably toward cooperation with Russia. Only supporter of Ukraine will remain USA. Ukraine will be only burden.
Brussels power will evaporate. NATO will remain only on paper and will cease to be reality.
.
This will be great step toward peace in the world.
Anon [118] Disclaimer , says: Website December 15, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
Unexpected turn of events.

http://theduran.com/the-real-reason-western-media-cia-turned-against-saudi-mbs/

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 15, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Anon Outstanding analysis,

US is treating its allies as used toilet paper.
Obviously Kashogi was sentenced to death for high treason in absence. The sentence was carried out on Saudi Arabia's territory. So in reality it is nobody's business.
All hula-buu did happen because he was a reporter working for warmongering Zionist New york times.

Socratic Truth , says: December 16, 2018 at 12:58 am GMT
@Durruti I agree with you partly, especially when it comes to the US regarding Zionism and the power of the Israel lobby to influence US foreign policy and even domestic policy.
But when it comes to Global governance, you have a somewhat narrow minded approach.
Most of the ills today that happen in the world, is driven by the NEW WORLD ORDER OF NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIZATION.
Unrelated phenomena, such as the destruction in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria), the destruction of Yugoslavia, the coup in Ukraine and the Greek economic catastrophe are a consequence of this NWO expansion. NWO expansion is the phasing out of national sovereignty (through economic and/or military violence) and its replacement by a kind of transnational sovereignty administered by a Transnational Elite. This is the network of the elites mainly based in the G7 countries, which control the world economic and political/ military institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU, European Central Bank, NATO, UN and so on), as well as the global media that set the agenda of the 'world community'.
The US is an important part of this since it provides the Military Means to integrate countries that do not "comply" with the NWO dictates.
The Zionists carry a lot of blame and are part of that drive for this NWO, but there are others, most of them in the US and Europe.

Here's a good link to an article if you have time, with good info about NWO & Trasnational corporations that are mainly to blame about all the worlds and misery in our world today.

THE MYTHS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/15-12-2014/129299-new_world_order_myths-0/

anon_4 , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:18 am GMT
@WHAT back door Intel , embedded ARM Open source Red Hat-IBM Hummm?.

I am not so sure, Mr. What. Experience may not mean much to abused IAI consumers. even if IAI catches up to the exponential fundamentals achieved by Huawei consumers might prefer back-door-free equipment and Operating Systems.

Russian times reported a few weeks ago that Russia has a quite different new processor and an OS that does not use any IAI stuff and is developing a backup Internet for Russians which it expects to expand regionally,

annamaria , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
Here is lengthy repost from ZeroHedge (the comment section): https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/leaked-memo-touts-uk-funded-firms-ability-create-untraceable-news-sites-infowar

"What we have then, are criminal syndicates masquerading as philanthropic enterprises

Norman Dodd, director of research for the (U.S.) REECE COMMITTEE in its attempt to investigate tax exempt foundations, stated:

"The Foundation world is a coordinated, well-directed system, the purpose of which is to ensure that the wealth of our country shall be used to divorce it from the ideas which brought it into being."

The Rothschilds rule the U.S. through the foundations, the Council on foreign Relations, and the Federal Reserve System, with no serious challenges to their power. Expensive 'political campaigns' are routinely conducted, with carefully screened candidates who are pledged to the program of the WORLD ORDER. Should they deviate from the program, they would have an 'accident', be framed on a sex charge, or indicted on some financial irregularity.

Senator Moynihan stated in his book, "Loyalties", "A British friend, wise in the ways of the world, put it thus: "They are now on page 16 of the Plan." Moynihan prudently did not ask what page 17 would bring.

"Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioural science along Freudian lines of 'controlling' humans established it as the world center of FOUNDATION ideology.

[MORE]
Its network extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Standford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Centre of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations.

(at the time of writing, 1992) Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 billion a year network of foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the WORLD ORDER over the American people.

The personnel of the FOUNDATIONS are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions.

A network of secret groups – the MONT PELERIN SOCIETY, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, DITCHLEY FOUNDATION, and CLUB OF ROME is the conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.

Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on AMERICAN prisoners of war in KOREA.

Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behaviour through topical psychology.

A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a 'refugee', the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve the U.S. in WWII.

In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S. sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies. To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before setting up the OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.

Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids [against the German people] carried out by [the ALL LIES] Roosevelt and Churchill as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions".

All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal – to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the WORLD ORDER.

Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behaviour, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of crowd control.

The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to 'establish new rituals of personal interactions', that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives – destroying their ability to establish or maintain a family.

Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioural science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries. Tavistock maintains 2 schools at Frankfort, birthplace of the Rothschilds, the FRANKFURT SCHOOL, and the Sigmund Freud Institute.

The 'experiment' in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert of the OSS (forerunner of CIA) and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations.

The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the National Education Association.

The Institute of Social Research at the Natl Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of business and government.

Another prominent Tavistock operation is the WHARTON SCHOOL OF FINANCE.

A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy – the use of drugs such as the infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, directed by Dr Sidney Gottlieb, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD and their reactions studied like guinea pigs, resulting in several deaths – no one was ever indicted.

(Source of info: author Eustace Mullins "The World Order: Our Secret Rulers" 2nd ed. 1992. He dedicated his book "to American patriots and their passion for liberty". note: No copyright restrictions)

Socratic Truth , says: December 16, 2018 at 1:31 am GMT
@Agent76 Excellent video. More people need to see this to understand how corrupt the China Totalitarian state works behind the scenes along with the US as part of the Globalization NWO movement to enrich the few and impoverish the rest of the world population.

[Dec 15, 2018] Mueller was also involved in the attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens

Notable quotes:
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

pogohere , Dec 15, 2018 5:57:43 PM | link

jackrabbit @ 28

activist potato @ 78

Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).

Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example.

But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."

So which of Trump's nominees gets kneecapped first? Michael Flynn Former Military Chief: Iraq War Was A 'Failure' That Helped Create ISIS

12-19-16

Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.

"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.

"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision."

When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."

Read the entire interview here: https://tinyurl.com/zmxd3uf

Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.


BTW:

Hold the Phone on Flynn Sentencing – Judge Emmet Sullivan Has Questions

12-12-18

Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.

Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:

from the comments:

Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm

This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.

Mueller was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.

[Dec 15, 2018] Mueller Destroyed Messages From Peter Strzok's iPhone; OIG Recovers 19,000 New FBI Lovebird Texts

Looks like Partigenosse Mueller went a little bit too far.
Notable quotes:
"... Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him. ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Mueller Destroyed Messages From Peter Strzok's iPhone; OIG Recovers 19,000 New "FBI Lovebird" Texts

by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/15/2018 - 14:25 8.3K SHARES

The Justice Department's internal watchdog revealed on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller's office scrubbed all of the data from FBI agent Peter Strzok's iPhone, while his FBI mistress Lisa Page's phone had been scrubbed by a different department, according to a comprehensive report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released on Thursday.

After Strzok was kicked off the special counsel investigation following the discovery of anti-Trump text messages between he and Page, his Mueller's Records Officer scrubbed Strzok's iPhone after determining "it contained no substantive text messages," reports the Conservative Review 's Jordan Schachtel.

Mueller's team was unable to locate Page's iPhone, however the DOJ's Justice Management Division (JMD) similarly scrubbed her phone - resetting it to factory settings.

Meanwhile, the OIG recovered approximately newly found 19,000 Strzok-Page texts from their Galaxy S5 phones . The messages span a "gap" in text messages between December 15, 2016 and May 17, 2017.

OIG digital forensic examiners used forensic tools to recover thousands of text messages from these devices, including many outside the period of collection tool failure (December 15, 20 I 6 to May 17, 2017) and many that Strzok and Page had with persons other than each other. Approximately 9,311 text messages that were sent or received during the period of collection tool failure were recovered from Strzok's S5 phone, of which approximately 8,358 were sent to or received from Page .

Approximately 10,760 text messages that were sent or received during the period of collection tool failure were recovered from Page's S5 phone, of which approximately 9,717 were sent to or received from Strzok .

Thus, many of the text messages recovered from Strzok's S5 were also recovered from Page's S5. However, some of the Strzok-Page text messages were only recovered from Strzok's phone while others were only recovered from Page's phone . -OIG Report

Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him.

In August 2016, Strzok and Page discussed an "insurance policy" in the event that Trump won the election which many believe to be in reference to operation Crossfire Hurricane - the DOJ's counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign.

" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he [Trump] gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." wrote Strzok, adding " It's like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."

In the home stretch of the 2016 US election, Strzok is fuming at Trump - texting Page: " I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer." He then texts "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!," to which Page replies "I don't know. But we'll get it back."

More than two years later, the anti-Trump FBI agents may not have gotten their country back - but the special counsel's office continues to cast a shadow of doubt Trump's legitimacy.

Ajax-1 , 2 minutes ago link

Under what authority does Mueller have to destroy evidence. Why isn't he being prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice.

MrAToZ , 13 minutes ago link

The worm has turned.

Democrats could care less about the facts. They are very happy to be ignorant of them. They don't care about the law or due process. They don't stand for anything except that vague meaningless concept called "social justice."

They are throwbacks to an era where party is everything and the individual is expendable in service of that party. History is of no consequence, traditions are junk and highest goal is to feel good, ramifications are of no concern.

Every little fact that Mueller thinks he has is now tainted. He has engaged in evidence tampering and ALL OF IT is fruit of the poisoned tree.

This human piece of excrement in a suit, this worthless deep stater and his henchmen should be hung - but they won't be. Thirty years in a real prison should do the trick. Confiscate every nickel he charged the citizens of this county and charge him at the same rate for a year of wasted time.

Like I have said over and over on this blog "Democrats are unfit to govern."

[Dec 15, 2018] No sorrow for The Weekly Standard demice. We can't forgive their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars >

Notable quotes:
"... Anything that gets Kristol out of public life is good. Sometimes collateral damage is part of the package. ..."
"... I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder. ..."
"... as Tucker Carlson noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing. ..."
"... Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they need to rent a U-Haul and leave town. ..."
"... If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing ..."
"... These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico -- that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their $200k editing job. ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Bookbread December 14, 2018 at 2:15 pm

McCarthy's analysis is sound but there are some variables he either misses or omits concerning TWS's demise: See my "8 Thoughts" on the matter, including, for example: " TWS was a strong voice of neoconservatism–which emerged in the 1970s as a theory, but only matured into an applied political praxis during a post-Clinton presidency–and even then–only after September 10, 2001 . but when Clinton lost to Trump, TWS lost a lot of its original enemies, hence its original purpose ." http://www.bookbread.com/2018/12/06/8-thoughts-on-the-new-york-times-article-about-the-demise-of-the-weekly-standard/
Ron Snyder , says: December 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Anything that gets Kristol out of public life is good. Sometimes collateral damage is part of the package.
C. L. H. Daniels , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:26 pm
His wrongness rises almost to the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"), the Napoleon of unnecessary wars.

I laughed out loud at this. Well done.

MikeS , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:35 pm
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible foreign policy.
Augustine , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Good riddance! The vile warmongers at Weekly Standard and the National Review give conservatives a bad name and justifiably so.
Polichinello , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:53 pm
Nah, bro. I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder.

Bear in mind this, all you liberals looking for "good conservatives", as Tucker Carlson noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing.

Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they need to rent a U-Haul and leave town.

Sands , says: December 14, 2018 at 4:14 pm
If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing. I remember when WS first started publishing during the '96 presidential campaign and it going all out for Steve Forbes. Flat-taxes, shining city on a hill, come one come all immigration policy, beacon of light to the rest of the world, blah, blah, blah. While they were obsessing about taxes and attempting to democratize the rest of the world, our culture was quickly advancing to the bottom.
John , says: December 14, 2018 at 5:26 pm
These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico -- that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their $200k editing job.

I'm sure there are some good people there, and I feel bad for families, but Kristol, Podhoretz and Hayes can go to hell.

[NFR: "$200K editing job." If only! -- RD]

[Dec 15, 2018] Weekly Standard, RIP

From comments: "Bill Kristol is possibly the single most delusional figure in our public life. His wrongness rises almost to the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"), the Napoleon of unnecessary wars. Why anyone takes him seriously, except as an example of what *not* to do, is a mystery." Unfortunately, this does nothing to diminish the influence of neoconservative foreign policy – those writers will keep propagandizing from the Washington Free Beacon, Washington Examiner, Commentary, National Review, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... openly despising your potential customers is never a successful business strategy. ..."
"... Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world, Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy. ..."
"... Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in American history ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Weekly Standard is no more. Its parent company is shutting the magazine down after 23 years. It is hard to imagine that the magazine that was the home to such greats such as Andrew Ferguson, Matt Labash, and Christopher Caldwell no longer exists. Those are the times in which we live.

That's quite a "Merry Christmas" from owner Philip Anschutz, a conservative Evangelical worth over $10 billion.

Kronsteen1963 December 14, 2018 at 5:30 pm

Good riddance. The Weekly Standard peddles a brand of conservatism that has been largely repudiated by the Republican Party's rank and fle. Rather than accept reality, self-assess, take stock, and possibly change the WS doubled down on neoconservatism in a particularly arrogant and insulting way. Gary (above) is absolutely correct – openly despising your potential customers is never a successful business strategy.

Oh, yeah – Kristol wants to run for President in 2020. And this guy thinks Trump is delusional!

Polichinello , says: December 14, 2018 at 6:21 pm
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible foreign policy.

Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world, Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy.

Why should I mourn this jingoist publication's demise? It's not very often you see justice apportioned in this world, but here it is, even if too little and too late.

No, this should be celebrated. The only thing that would make this better is seeing them walked out of the building with boxes full of personal effects in hand, as security makes sure they don't steal any office supplies.

George , says: December 14, 2018 at 9:26 pm
Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in American history . They also used their rag to trash any conservatives who disagreed with their call for endless wars as weak Neville Chamberlins reincarnated or un-American agents of Putin. I feel nothing but contempt for them all. Their names will live on in infamy as a scourge to our sadly dying republic.
TR , says: December 14, 2018 at 9:51 pm
Polichinello knows how to pile it on: "Let them learn to code." Priceless.

However, RD is right. The loss of any publication is painful. My pain actually began when the mechanical workers–printers, engravers, stereotypers, etc. were done in by progress. And now I get to see friends at the former St. Pete Times get the axe.

Seraphim , says: December 14, 2018 at 9:59 pm
I disagreed with their neocon imperialism, of course, but this article is well worth preserving somehow:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/robert-messenger/theirs-but-to-do-and-die

jonas , says: December 14, 2018 at 10:09 pm
Besides supporting that nation destroying (US and Iraq war) and being an Israel Firster, Mr. Dreher, here's a 2010 ad Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney producing, implying that Obama DOJ lawyers who represented GITMO detainees were terrorists. They called them the "Al Qaeda 7"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=ZIxg7LmlEQg

Heckuva guy that Bill Kristol dry sense of humor and wit! Bill Buckley but for MSNBC!

Noah172 , says: December 14, 2018 at 11:03 pm
Nick wrote:

It's funny that Bill Kristol is now persona non grata in the conservative movement, considering he really is just a standard issue Republican. There's no difference between him and Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers

I read (can't say 100%) that the Kochs opposed the Iraq War. They're not much for overseas crusading, although they agree with neocons on immigration, trade, and caving to PC.

Walker talked a little about immigration restriction during his brief presidential campaign, one of the reasons his donor money dried up.

Trump has reoriented the party on its immigration, trade, and foreign policy stances, and Kristol isn't a God-guns-gays culture warrior, so, yeah, makes sense he would drift away (aside from his personality).

Bankotsu , says: December 15, 2018 at 1:37 am
Fancy this neo con rag finally dies off. lol.

Good riddance to total and complete garbage.

Kronsteen1963 , says: December 15, 2018 at 2:20 pm
Noah172
December 14, 2018 at 11:13 pm
This is not the demise I would have wanted for the WS. I would have preferred its writers be fired and replaced with immigrants of color. That would have been delicious.

******************************************************
Yes! Use H1B visas to replace the WS staff with foreign workers at a far lower salary, and force the staff to train them before they're let go.

It is extremely hypocritical for guys like Podhoretz to Moanin and complain about the way the magazine was cancelled. He admits that it never made money but thinks some multi-billionaire should continue to keep it afloat anyway. Talk about corporate welfare! These guys advocated an extreme form of globalism that resulted in American jobs being shipped overseas and economic hardship for millions of Americans, all in the name of profitability. Why should the WS being any different?

To Kristol, Podhoretz, Hayes, etc: Tough luck – that's the way it goes. The marketplace decided and you couldn't cut it. Why aren't you cheering cheering that decision? Don't the rules apply to you too? I guess it's different when the shoe is on the other foot.

about:blank

Greg , says: December 15, 2018 at 4:34 pm
George you nailed it. There's a special place in hell for people like the editors of the weekly standard – I believe that wholeheartedly and not metaphorically.
Jonah R. , says: December 15, 2018 at 5:10 pm
What's weird to me is to see everyone decrying Kristol and his Weekly Standard colleagues as "the Establishment." If that were still the case, the Standard would still be flying and Kristol would be cruising. But no, Kristol and the neocons are now old news; has-beens; last month's cold cuts.

Thus must I say to Trump and his fans: Congrats! You are now the GOP Establishment. Have fun being able to please nobody. Have fun disappointing everybody. Have fun being held accountable for bad policy decisions and the fate of a major political party. This is the power, leadership, and influence you wanted, so you got it. We'll soon find out if history remembers you less fondly than Bill Kristol.

Each passing year just raises the probability that Trump, being a U.S. president, will launch a foolish war. When he does, and when you have to contort yourselves like circus freaks to justify it, some of us are going to be quite amused.

[Dec 15, 2018] Robert Kagan s Jungle Book of Forever War

One problem with this fat warmonger (and his wife Victoria Nuland) is that nether he not his children were ever forced to take M16 and fight for the policies he promotes. In other words he is a typical chickenhawk, a lobbyist of MIC on good salary. In some way this fat pig bellicosity is aside effect of abolishing universal draft. He also probably was not a fighter and never was severely beaten by super fighters in school or university. A typical nice Jewish kid.
Attempt to build global neoliberal empire reserving for the USA dominant position ("Full spectrum dominance") cost dear to the common Americans and now it is clear that this initiative of neocons and their paymasters (financial oligarchy and military industrial complex -- the neoliberal elite in other words) failed.
Kagan might be a talented propagandist of "full spectrum dominance" neoconservative policies, but it is important to understand that intellectually he is a lightweight: he believes his own propaganda.
From comments: "When one sees Pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is Kagan talking with his neo con war mongering."
Notable quotes:
"... Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC. ..."
"... The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two. ..."
"... The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people. ..."
"... "the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient, excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict. ..."
"... Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor of the people of this country, period. ..."
"... One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility of true liberalism spreading. ..."
"... When one sees pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is kagan talking with his neo con war mongering. ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Today, Kagan is an influential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a columnist at The Washington Post , and a member of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties.

As a writer and public intellectual, Kagan has skillfully crafted historical narratives and strategic assessments supporting his overarching neoconservative vision for U.S. foreign policy. His 1996 Foreign Affairs article with Bill Kristol, " Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy ," still resonates today as a concise hallmark statement of that approach to America's role in the world. With a long list of prominent books and articles following in that vein, it is little wonder that Andrew Bacevich called him "the chief foreign policy theorist of the neoconservative movement."

Kagan's newest book, The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World , fits nicely into his corpus. It is a spirited defense of the "American-led liberal world order" by one of its most cogent and articulate advocates. It is part curated history, part philippic for his preferred strategic vision for the United States. In this small volume, Kagan argues that the enlightened order America created after World War II has allowed for much progress in the world. But this order is not natural, and its great benefits have been "made possible by the protection afforded liberalism within the geographical and geopolitical space created by American power." To Kagan, this liberal order is "fragile and impermanent," requiring constant care by its architect and beneficiary, the United States. He sees the liberal order as being "like a garden, artificial and forever threatened by the forces of nature." Thus "preserving it requires a persistent, unending struggle against the vines and weeds that are constantly working to undermine it from within and overwhelm it from without." Otherwise, the jungle will "grow back and engulf us all."

The problem with the book is its reliance on some questionable historical and contemporary assessments, not to mention that it fails to really make the case for the necessity and desirability of the liberal order in today's world.

Kagan begins The Jungle Grows Back by noting that the last 70 years of peace, prosperity, and the expansion of democracy and respect for individual rights have been an exception to the historical norm. Far from being the natural course or inevitable, this progress required something special and unique: that a liberal democratic country like the United States, with so many geopolitical and economic advantages, rose to international prominence after World War II. Not only that, but, as Kagan argues, American leaders were willing to use their great power at this special moment in history to act differently and to create a new and unique world order.

Rather than merely defend its narrow national interests, the United States created a liberal international order that it would take responsibility for upholding and protecting. Kagan argues that this approach wasn't, as some might argue, directed at the Soviet Union or anyone else in particular (though he admits the rise of the Soviet threat made it easier for Americans to accept it even as the strategy became more difficult to implement). Instead, "its chief purpose was to prevent a return to the economic, political, and strategic circumstances that had given rise to the last war." Thus, Kagan believes this internationalist approach was rooted in a realism about the nature of geopolitics in the 20th century and a realization that the world was a jungle that required "meeting power with greater power." American leaders had learned from World War II that they had to adopt a new approach to the world, one that created, in Dean Acheson's words, "an environment for freedom." To do otherwise would be to let disorder reign or for others to order the international system to the detriment of American interests and values.

JR December 14, 2018 at 12:35 am

Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-is-john-boltons-bully-pulpit-attack-on-the-international-criminal-court-really-about

Fran Macadam , says: December 14, 2018 at 1:59 am
"Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties."

The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two.

The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people.

Given that the liberal cultural order in the Homeland is so quickly degrading, the imposition of it internationally is likely to become increasingly infected by poor judgment as well as resistance to it increasing.

It used to be in popular entertainment that the villains were interested in ruling the world, madmen with megalomania. That enemy is now within.

Daniel Good , says: December 14, 2018 at 5:55 am
"the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient, excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict.
Lawrence Coleman , says: December 14, 2018 at 6:23 am
Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision.
Sid Finster , says: December 14, 2018 at 11:23 am
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

david , says: December 14, 2018 at 12:28 pm
"Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties."

It is probably due to the fact that most people at that time thought Clinton was going to win. So his support for Clinton proved 2 things: warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor of the people of this country, period.

balconesfault , says: December 14, 2018 at 12:59 pm
One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility of true liberalism spreading.
balconesfault , says: December 14, 2018 at 1:01 pm
@Wayne

"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not spilling over from Iraq into US ally nations: "

Had there never been an Iraq War – Muslim revolution could never have spilled over from Iraq to any other nations – because Saddam wasn't going to allow any Muslim revolution from happening within his borders.

WorkingClass , says: December 14, 2018 at 1:08 pm
..to his emergence in the post-Cold War era as arguably the leading intellectual advocate for a foreign policy of "benevolent global hegemony" -- what scholars call "primacy."

An "intellectual" war monger? A "benevolent" Imperialist? ...

S , says: December 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Wayne Lusvardi,

"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not spilling over from Iraq into US ally nations: Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan. Afghanistan is just another buffer country to fight the Iranian stealth war."

I presume that history started in 2003 and that you have never heard of Saddam Hussein (the guy who fought a long war with Iran aided by the US) or the Sunni Taliban who ruled Afghanistan and were opposed to Shia Iran. Except for the fraud and deceit done by the neocon controlled US regime of the time, these illegal wars would not have been possible. Pick up some real history books for a change. Don't learn about the Soviet Union from the Pravda.

Taras 77 , says: December 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm
When one sees pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is kagan talking with his neo con war mongering.

[Dec 15, 2018] Newly Released Integrity Intitiative Papers Include Proposal For Large Disinformation Campaigns

Notable quotes:
"... It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers. ..."
"... In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after the Russia Gate was played up following the election. ..."
"... Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump. Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme. ..."
"... As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics. ..."
"... The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. ..."
"... Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture. ..."
"... Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the "blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot. ..."
"... karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for this.. ..."
"... This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good". ..."
"... And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018. ..."
"... Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014. Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015). ..."
"... The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all. ..."
"... One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then. ..."
"... Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy. Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects - and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part. ..."
"... Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for). ..."
"... The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet. When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India as well). ..."
"... If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column. ..."
"... i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much... i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'.. ..."
"... as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site. ..."
"... the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest ..."
"... "MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In short, 'MAGA'." ..."
"... Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. ..."
"... Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example. ..."
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

The person(s) who first published documents of the shady UK organization Integrity Initiative decided that the discussion is about the Initiative is not yet sufficient and published more documents.

The first dump on the Cyberguerilla site happened on November 5. We discussed it here . A smaller dump on November 29 revealed more about the UK government paid Integrity Initiatives influence work in Germany, Spain and Greece. A third dump followed today.

The leaker, who uses the widely abused Anonymous label, promises to publish more:

Well-coordinated efforts of the Anonymous from all over the world have forced the UK politicians to react to the unacceptable and in fact illegal activity of the British government that uses public money to carry out misinformation campaigns not only in the EU, US and Canada but in the UK as well, in particular campaigns against the Labour party.
The Integrity Initiative is now under first official investigation. We promise to give close scrutiny to the investigation that we believe should be conducted honestly, openly and absolutely transparently for the society, rather than become an internal and confidential case of the Foreign Office.

To show our expertise in the investigation as well as to warn the UK government that they must not even try to put it all down to the activity of some charity foundations and public organizations we reveal a part of documents unveiling the true face of The Institute for Statecraft and some information about its leadership.
...
As the scandal in the UK is gaining momentum, it is ever so striking that European leaders and official representatives remain so calm about the Integrity Initiative's activity in their countries. We remind you that covert clusters made up for political and financial manipulation and controlled by the UK secret services are carrying out London's secret missions and interfering in domestic affairs of sovereign states right in front of you.
...
This is another part of documents that we have on the Integrity Initiative. We do not change the goals of this operation. When we return with the next portion of revelations, names and facts depends on how seriously the UK and EU leaders take our intentions this time.

The dump includes invoices, internal analyses of international media responses to the Skripal affair, the Initiative's operations in Scotland, France and Italy, some strategy papers and various other stuff. There are some interesting bits about the cooperation of the Initiative with British Ministry of Defense. It will take me a while to read through all of it.

The most interesting paper I found so far is:

COMBATTING RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION
LAUNCHING AN ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN TO INFORM, DEBUNK, AND COMBAT STATE-SPONSORED PROPAGANDA
Comprehensive action proposal (pdf)

A "strictly confidential" proposal by the French company Lexfo to spread the Integrity Initiative's state-sponsored propaganda through an offensive online influence campaigns for a monthly pay per language of €20-40.000. The proposal also includes an offer for "counter activism" through "negative PR, legal actions, ethical hack back, etc." for €50,000 per month.


bigger

The offer claims that the company can launch hundreds of "news" pieces per day on as many websites. It notably also offers to "edit" Wikipedia articles.

In short: This proposal describes large disinformation operations under the disguise of fighting alleged Russian disinformation.

It is at the core what the Integrity Initiative, which obviously requested the proposal, is about.

But as we saw in the information revealed yesterday there is more to it. The Initiative, which has lots of 'former' military and intelligence people among its staff, is targeting the political left in Britain as well as in other countries. It is there where it becomes a danger to the democratic societies of Europe.

Zanon , Dec 14, 2018 3:12:30 PM | link

Integrity Initiative: Spanish Cluster Misled UK Parliament Over Assange, Russia
https://sputniknews.com/world/201812141070699912-assange-integrity-institute-parliament/

What a bunch of mentalist type of people!

Mark2 , Dec 14, 2018 3:41:18 PM | link
I'd bet a weeks wages on it that this is where Craig Summers came from and what he was ! This blog is the antidote to the official spin! It was good to here from Craig Murray very thought provoking regards tactics.we all need our own method ! But not be gagged. I respect others ways we are on the same side .being united is the defence against devide and rule.

I wonder what the Tory's think of this scandal they must be angry at this attack on democracy, nah only joking! It'l be the dog that did'nt bark ! just like the media oh and the police ! One rule for them 'no rule' opression for us 99%

james , Dec 14, 2018 3:42:42 PM | link
thanks b.... aside from wondering if this is Russia accessing and sharing this, i think the sticking point is in this "Unintegrity initiative" going after the uk political left... that is where i think this is going to get traction as more folks are going to wake up if they see how deep and ugly this goes in targeting their own..

i could be wrong, but if this news catches on, or the uk MP women keeps hammering away on this, i think we will see some results..

i opened the pdf... here is a quick list of their objectives..

maybe the uk folks can tell us how this is going

ashley albanese , Dec 14, 2018 3:42:44 PM | link
In Australia the scale of tendentious anti-Chinese propaganda is absurd . Australia is flailing around trying to cope with changing circumstances . Already at a disadvantage in 'reading ' the world because of her geographical isolation the clear bias of information she now faces from the Anglo/ U S media and government systems puts her at a disadvantage in forming intelligent policies .
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Dec 14, 2018 4:38:49 PM | link
Can anyone make a zip with all dumps and files? For sharing and archiving this would be much easier.. As i believe it will not last long till the scribd uploads etc are DMCAed.. My LUKS+Veracrypt secured storage system would be a safe bet for archiving, so i would volunteer..
Much appreciated!
bjd , Dec 14, 2018 4:44:33 PM | link
Buyer beware!

Note that this document --and I've seen more-- presumes there is a large scale Russian disinformation campaign going on. Other documents presume Skripal was poisoned by Russia.

Once you run with these documents, beware that you are making those presumptions yours . That may be the objective here.

In short: all these documents need to be vetted.

Zanon , Dec 14, 2018 4:48:48 PM | link
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda

"Can anyone make "

No. Do it yourself.

No offense but in this age and on this blog, dont ask other people to do what you can do yourself. Make an effort and influence.

Jackrabbit , Dec 14, 2018 5:08:37 PM | link
Integrity Initiative got a lot of scrutiny because they used their Twitter account to attack Corbyn. In it's latest info dump, Anonymous describes additional UK political manipulation, writing that the Director of The Institute for Statecraft Christopher Donnelly:
... lobbied the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for an inquiry into Russia's interference in the Catalan referendum. He invited members of the Integrity Initiative Spain cluster Francisco de Borja Lasheras and Mira Milosevich-Juaristi. At that moment they were receiving funds from the Foreign Office, i.e. the UK intelligence paid its own agents for fake proof of Russia's interference in the Catalan referendum and later told them to lie to the Parliament to convince it to take anti-Russian steps .
Kit Klarenberg , Dec 14, 2018 5:36:22 PM | link
This dump has plenty on our pal Simon.

His official profile is very telling indeed I think - https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/12/13/the-institute-for-statecraft-expert-team-v-3/the-institute-for-statecraft-expert-team-v-3.pdf:

"Simon Bracey-Lane: Currently runs the IfS "Integrity Initiative" network communications and network development process; deep experience in democratic election campaign processes in UK and especially in USA, viz: Regional Campaign Organiser: John Wisniewski for Governor of New Jersey, USA. January - May 2017; Statewide Campaign Organiser: Bernie Sanders for President 2016, USA. Sept 2015 – May 2016; special study of Russian interference in the US electoral process."

Whatever the truth of the matter, he can definitely multitask. Running the II network communications and development process (cultivating, recruiting, handling?) while also being a research fellow at the II's 'parent organization' Institute for Statecraft? I wonder how many hours he has left in a day to sleep!

Then again he seems to have form in this regard. 'Special study of Russian interference in the election process' simultaneously as being a key organizer in Sanders' campaign. Maybe he did his 'special study' in his free time?

karlof1 , Dec 14, 2018 5:42:04 PM | link
Pure brazen depravity. And how will the average UK citizen become informed of what seems treasonous activity? Seems venders with broadsheets in the style of yesteryear standing on street corners yelling EXTRA! need to return so the public can be informed of its government's activities--Social Media is not sufficient.

Bevin and other UK citizens: What do you call your Swamp?

jayc , Dec 14, 2018 5:46:12 PM | link
Any thoughts as to why exactly Russia became the chief demon? It seems the hysterical propaganda was focused exclusively on ISIS until Putin spoke at the UN announcing Russia's intervention in Syria. Then the propaganda shifted, first directed at Putin, then generally at Russia and Putin together. Is it anger over the prevention of imperialist design in the Middle East?
Koen , Dec 14, 2018 5:49:54 PM | link
Here's a list of about 60 organizations & projects devoted to spreading anti-Russia content in Western media. The Integrity Initiative is just the tip of the iceberg. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-wtpA2NomEj35bbVe1-iHX7rt4YzahPINm5w9A-SkcQ/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=109242632477374337132

And here are 2 great books about the origins and nature of Russophobia

Lastly, I collect examples of anti-Russia content that I come across in the media at www.blameputin.com

ADKC , Dec 14, 2018 6:26:19 PM | link
jayc @15

It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers. This belated realisation, that the prize that the west had gained and plundered in the '90s (from the collapse of the Soviet Union) had managed to wriggle free, seems to be something that the west can't accept.

Pft , Dec 14, 2018 6:54:10 PM | link
In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after the Russia Gate was played up following the election.

Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump. Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme.

Oh well, looks like its almost over for Truth, although some truth probably gets allowed if enough of the lies are also presented. So my take is the anti Russia hysteria was just a clever way of getting support for a war on Truth (fake news).

Russia now has a similar initiative said to combat fakes news from US which will likely be used against Putin critics (US agents). The law allows them "to block online content, including social media websites, whose activities are deemed "undesirable" or "extremist." Maybe Putin is part of the Fake Wrestling game. Heel or Face, your choice.

I see the EU has set up a rapid alert system to help EU member states recognize disinformation campaigns, and increase the budget set aside for the detection of disinformation from . It will also press technology companies to play their part in cracking down on fake news. Major social media platforms have already signed up to a code of conduct. One minister said the EU would not stand for "an internet that is the wild west, where anything goes".

Macron introduced a bill recently seeking to get " judges and the media sector's regulator involved in the fight against fake news. A fact-checking state-run website would be created and social media would have to pitch in by warning users when a post is sponsored -- or when someone pays to give it better visibility in a feed."

I suppose the War on Truth has gone global. I wont bother to mention China as they are the role model the West follows.

karlof1 , Dec 14, 2018 7:36:27 PM | link
jayc @15--

As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics.

bevin , Dec 14, 2018 8:08:33 PM | link
@14 What do you call your Swamp? "The Establishment", coined, I believe, by the historian AJP Taylor. The founder of modern journalism William Cobbett used to call it "The Thing"
Don Bacon , Dec 14, 2018 8:35:18 PM | link
The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. Robert Parry wrote about it, and its contrast with truth, a couple years ago.
The idea of questioning the claims by the West's officialdom now brings calumny down upon the heads of those who dare do it. "Truth" is being redefined as whatever the U.S. government, NATO and other Western interests say is true. Disagreement with the West's "group thinks," no matter how fact-based the dissent is, becomes "fake news."

So, we have the case of Washington Post columnist David Ignatius having a starry-eyed interview with Richard Stengel, the State Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, the principal arm of U.S. government propaganda.

Entitled "The truth is losing," the column laments that the official narratives as deigned by the State Department and The Washington Post are losing traction with Americans and the world's public.

Stengel, a former managing editor at Time magazine, seems to take aim at Russia's RT network's slogan, "question more," as some sinister message seeking to inject cynicism toward the West's official narratives.

"They're not trying to say that their version of events is the true one. They're saying: 'Everybody's lying! Nobody's telling you the truth!'," Stengel said. "They don't have a candidate, per se. But they want to undermine faith in democracy, faith in the West." . . here

Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 14, 2018 8:47:12 PM | link
@15

Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the "blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot.

james , Dec 14, 2018 9:19:09 PM | link
@ 15 jayc, @18 ADKC and @21 karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for this..
Piotr Berman , Dec 14, 2018 9:49:29 PM | link
... now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for this..

Posted by: james | Dec 14, 2018 9:19:09 PM | 26

This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good". And the "common good" is decided by paymasters. Somewhere in between are mass media populated by folks particularly averse to thinking -- again, they were selected by the employers not to think but to write and talk "correctly". But the press/TV lords will not chisel all details of what is true and important, and what is false, unimportant or both, so journalists can absorb it from think tanks and briefing from government informed sources. There are also astro-turfs and so on.

And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018.

Jackrabbit , Dec 14, 2018 10:41:58 PM | link
james @26:
... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics and russias commitment to going into syria..
I think we can surmise that the Russian objection to US bombing Syria in September 2013 was countered with a two-prong strategy:
> doubling down in Syria via ISIS;

> pushing hard for overthrow of Ukrainian government to: a) punish Russia, and b) keep Russia busy so that the Russians refrain from any further support for Syria

It was a superb and well-thought out strategy . . . that failed miserably. The coup in Ukraine succeeded and ISIS came within weeks of defeating Assad BUT Russia managed to secure the best parts of Ukraine -and- intervened in Syria anyway (along with Iran).

The failure to contain Russia was realised by Kissinger when he penned an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that made a cryptic call for MAGA to counter the Russians/Chinese . After outlining the challenge to the World Order, Kissinger concludes:

Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course . But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.
So the strategy changed once again. MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan. Obama's devious faux peacefulness that used covert action and proxy forces could not succeed against determined opposition from Russia/China. To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In short, "MAGA".

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

This is what I wrote at nakedcapitalism.com shortly after Kissinger's Op-Ed was published in August 2014 :

My reading is that Kissinger is asserting that the US can and should do whatever it takes to keep the US preeminent – even if that means ignoring allies and/or the post-war international structure (UN, UNSC). That exceptional! message comes through loud and clear despite his 'triage' formalism. And it is a message that is comforting to the elite who read the WSJ (before a holiday weekend), though it should give Joe Sixpack nightmares if fully understood.

There is a lot more there which would take much longer to unpack. But I'll point to one more thing: Note how he forms an equivalence between all the troubles that the 'West' now face, and ignores US/Western actions that have contributed to these conflicts by conflating them. NC readers understand this via Merschemer's (in today's links) work on Ukraine and many links regarding ISIS (like this one).

This comforting message [from Kissinger] is needed because the Ukraine gambit has failed miserably – as many independent obeservers [sic] predicted– and a deeper conflict with Russia (possibly extending to others) is now in the cards. Like the true neocon that he is, Kissinger has doubled down on Nuland's obnoxious and misguided "f*ck the EU" with an exceptional! "f*ck the World".

God help us.

Jackrabbit , Dec 14, 2018 10:51:26 PM | link
Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014. Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015).

Trump was the ONLY populist, out of 19 contenders, in the Republican race. Hillary told Democratic-friendly media to focus on Trump and did things during the Presidential race that call into question her desire to actually win. Trump is a MUCH better choice for a MAGA nationalist than Hillary.

WJ , Dec 14, 2018 11:03:55 PM | link
@Jackrabbit 28,

You were right then, and you are right now. My one beef with your 2016 election analysis is that it seems to me you shortchange slightly the evidence of a real conflict and possibly fissure within the oligarchic elite, only certain segments of which seem convinced that now is the time for MAGA. Others among the actual power brokers would I think have preferred HRC and 4-8 more years of neoliberal internationalist interventionist grift a la Obama before having to finally turn to the MAGA nationalist strategy (which given the resource struggles that will emerge over the next decades was always inevitable once the Project for the New American (Israeli) Century collapsed, as it was bound to once Russia called its bluff in Syria.) But this is a minor point. What is much more important is that behind MAGA is an envisioned world war on the scale of WWI and WWII in which "The West" takes on China-Russia leading to the death of probably everybody.

bevin , Dec 14, 2018 11:33:45 PM | link
"..my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics and russias commitment to going into syria..."

I think that the proper context begins with the failure of Medvedev's Russia to veto the UNSC motion establishing a No Fly zone over Libya. Inter alia this led to a real reverse for and an humiliation of China which had large financial investments as well as large numbers of personnel involved in Ghadaffi's imaginative schemes.

My guess, and it is not a particularly well informed one, is that after the Libyan disaster-the worst sort of imperialist over reach and brutality not only did China realise that Imperialism was reverting to its nightmarish type, but Russians leaders saw that a permanent alliance-until the defeat of the empire- was the only alternative that it and China had to 'hanging separately'. And that the same went for Iran and Syria-nobody could trust the west any longer and it would be foolish, and dangerous, to continue to do so.

The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all.

Of course, 2011 was the last in a long series of increasingly stupid US aggressions, all of which Russia knew very well were aimed at it as much as the selected sacrificial victim. Those who say that Saddam was about oil could not be more wrong: he was a human sacrifice, slaughtered ritually on the corpses of a million of his fellows, to demonstrate that the USA can do what it chooses when it wishes. Karl Rove was wrong: not even Empires can create their own realities. The extravagant and bloody theatre of decades swaggering around the middle east finds the US not only poorer but weaker than it was in 1980.

V , Dec 14, 2018 11:37:12 PM | link
"It notably also offers to "edit" Wikipedia articles." b

Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago. Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.

Piotr Berman , Dec 15, 2018 12:02:03 AM | link
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago. Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.

Posted by: V | Dec 14, 2018 11:37:12 PM | 32

It is more complicated. Wikipedia is sprawling and manipulations happen on entry basis, and it often leaves "controversies". I also discovered that it is worth to brush up on language skills, if there are any. For example, on recent events in Crimea there is an entry "Crimea Crisis" with Russian and Polish versions, and Polish "pro-Westerners" somehow left few traces of activity. I wonder how is it in German and French Wikipedias. In English, think tanks and deep states indeed lack sufficient counter-activity.

b , Dec 15, 2018 12:16:08 AM | link
@DontBelieveEitherPropaganda

Why didn't you make an archive yourself? Meanwhile the leakers account at Scribd has been slashed and all the files with it. Anyway - here is a Mediafire zip created yesterday of (allegedly) all files published so far. IntegrityInitiative.zip . Save it as long as it is available.

Augustin L , Dec 15, 2018 12:47:50 AM | link
@ jackrabbit, I've heard other observers make the link with Kissinger's op-ed, but your demonstration is very convincing. William Engdahl made the same call, Hillary's not a suitable player to pull off MAGA with masses of deplorables. Unfortunately for Anglo-American strategists, Trump with his linear cretinism lacks the necessary wherewithal to implement and execute a comprehensive geopolitical strategy. Kissinger comes from another era, and probably cannot grasp how far devolution has taken American elites in the cesspit of post modern hedonism.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 15, 2018 12:54:41 AM | link
@V

It's illuminating to see this NATO-backed operation looking at a PR firm to edit Wikipedia because this brings to mind the notorious "Philip Cross," which, for those not in the know, was uncovered by Craig Murray and others ( https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/) as having edited the pages of prominent left wing people and Labour Party people. In Germany, Left Party Bundestag member Diether Dehm has highlighted a similar figure in German language Wikipedia, "Feliks," targeting socialists in that country. The similarities of both to the proposals made by the PR firm above are eerie.

Hmpf , Dec 15, 2018 1:25:47 AM | link
@ Piotr Berman | Dec 15, 2018 12:02:03 AM | 33

Can't speak for the French version of Wikipedia but with the German edition it is as bad as anywhere else when it comes to social and political issues, particularly so if geopolitics (the West, ME, Russia ..) is concerned.

Two people, a biologist and a journalist, independently investigated networks on a senior editor and admin level active within WikipediaG. What they found is rather shocking. One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then.

These guys can also be found on Youtube: Gruppe42 (group42) Unfortunately their main documentaries are only available in German language but there's some other content 'Geschichten aus Wikihausen' - 'The Tales of Wikihausen' with English subtitles.

Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy. Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects - and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part.

Mina , Dec 15, 2018 4:16:39 AM | link
The BBC won't taalk about it but when it is in the House of Commons they have to Sole result of a search "Integrity Initiative" on the BBC news website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bv9zxj (12/12 when then question was raised in the house of commons)
Zanon , Dec 15, 2018 4:43:24 AM | link
"Anonymous Hackers Expose UK Plans to Mine Sevastopol Days Before Crimea Vote" https://sptnkne.ws/kpWP
Russ , Dec 15, 2018 5:01:57 AM | link
Posted by: Soft Asylum | Dec 15, 2018 4:36:27 AM | 39

Such people might be some of the worst examples of humans, but that doesn't mean they're trolls. In fact, plucking some kind of motivations out of their psychopathic minds might be a good thing for the rest of us. If people such as them are posters here, this would allow an opportunity to study them.

You feel you lack opportunities to study them? Pick up a newspaper, or turn on the cable news.

TJ , Dec 15, 2018 5:03:04 AM | link
The thread over on Craig Murrays site- British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft
William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 6:01:23 AM | link
Integrity Initiative Part 3 https://williambowles.info/2018/12/15/integrity-initiative-part-3/

Combatting Russian Disinformation http://williambowlesnet.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/combatting-russian-disinformation.pdf

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 6:08:03 AM | link
B: this info is astounding! Or perhaps not? Maybe the fact that the spooks are notoriously inept is what's astounding? I mean you would think that what with all dweebs working for the state (eg GCHQ), they would be able to protect their own excreta? The earlier disinfo (it's a Russian plot etc) makes sense but it didn't work!
Old Microbiologist , Dec 15, 2018 7:09:31 AM | link
Jay @15
Sorry, I didn't read any of this until this morning. Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for).

Asymmetrical wars against tiny nations without air support are hard to justify spending Trillions of dollars forever. That dog just won't hunt after 18 years of a no-win war in Afghanistan (or anywhere else). So, Russia and now just to make it even more critical, China are enemies that demand massive military buildups of equipment that won't ever actually (hopefully) be put to use. This is to fight a two theater war against two nuclear superpowers. Basically, it is insanity but it will make a few people very rich.

The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet. When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India as well).

If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column.

That is the over simplified view but it sums it up enough to explain what we are seeing. It is as always all about money. So, Putin has resisted aggressively all US encroachments into the Russian sphere of influence. The sanctions actually help Russia. A devalued ruble is great for oil exports which are only 12% of Russia's GDP. More self sufficiency is also a huge benefit. A partnership with China ensures the US cannot ever achieve their goals of global domination. The US military has proven for the past 70+ years they are incapable of any meaningful fighting and that the military is woefully incompetent. The ABM test results even when cheating heavily are only roughly a 50% hit rate. That is against "normal" ballistic missiles. Russia's new systems already circumvent this system by mid-flight course corrections.

The biggest problem is the neocon elites really believe all their own propaganda. That is very scary.

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 7:54:52 AM | link
Posted by: jayc | Dec 14, 2018 5:46:12 PM | 15

Jayc: you ask why Russia and specifically Putin? Cast your mind back to 1991 and the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin's coup and the theft of billions of Russia's capital resources by Goldman Sachs et al. The Empire figured what was left of the former USSR was a pushover and its vast natural resources, highly educated population, ripe for plucking and along comes the Tatar Putin, a descendent of Genghis Khan! Whoops!

And only just in time. Then think about the invasion of Iraq in 1991 and later in 2003 and then Libya. The Russians stood by. But Syria was a step too far and too near!

Jayc, it's Western, racist hubris. The Russkies are just a bunch of jumped up peasants (Hitler made the same mistake), so when they asserted their right to resist, and it really started in 2015 with the Western financed 'revolution' against Assad, it came as a real shock to the system to see that Russia actually did have real guns that fired and real jets and satellites to watch it all. After all, it was those peasant Russians who went into space first (Duck agogo Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the genuine father of space exploration).

It must have rocked the bastards back on their heels. So they hate Putin! He restored Russia's faith in itself and that is simply not permissible! And do it with a military budget a small fraction of the Empire's and one that Putin CUT by 10% this year! Wakey-wakey!

Okay, this is a vastly simplified explanation and I'm not going to deal with the internal contradictions of Russia, that's for the Russians to do. But it seems that once more, the Russkies are saving our tired, sorry Western arses.

Bill

Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 9:29:46 AM | link
William Bowles @ 57

I commented at the Saker at the time of the first Ukrainian war that it looks like Mother Russia is being set up to defeat fascism for the second time in 100 years. History may not exactly repeat itself but it does rhyme.

If I were the West I would tread very carefully, after the catastrophes of the 1990's the Russians are in no mood to roll over for anyone. The West was surprised at the weapons and operational arts displayed in Syria, and that was just the conventional stuff....

AnneR , Dec 15, 2018 9:30:57 AM | link
karlofi - Britain doesn't have swamps (environmental sort), but it does have lots of Bogs. And Bog is also another term for lavatory/toilet - so one might describe Westminster, the City of London and the rest of the bourgeois British world as one Big Bog (if only someone would flush it).
BM , Dec 15, 2018 10:18:31 AM | link
Well, I was excited about the supposed "lots on Skripal" and thought maybe there would be a smoking gun. Disappointed (mediafire zip linked by b)! All I opened was the files with the word skripal in the name - nothing but ultra-boring newspeak from what seem like spotty adolescents trying their best to feed their paymasters with the propaganda they want. The only one of any interest at all was the one reporting on skripal news coverage in Greece: the author was relatively normal, and coverage in Greece was pretty neutral and sceptical of the UK propaganda.

There were only 100 documents in the zip which was supposed to be everything released so far (i.e. all three dumps).

Is there any evidence to confirm that all three dumps were done by the same person/people? I can't help wondering whether the third dump might have been damage control from the Integrity Initiative themselves, to try to show that there is not much there.

As I said though, I didn't open anything except the files with skripal in the filename, so maybe there is something interesting somewhere else. It may be that by specifically looking for skripal I failed to find any files with policy or analysis. All the files I looked at seemed to be reports from the clusters in various countries (often addressed to Simon), or pure propaganda (spotty teenagers) with no analysis.

psychohistorian , Dec 15, 2018 10:32:15 AM | link
ZH has a posting up about the Integrity Initiative and gives MoA a hat tip for being early onto the issue. This should insure that it won't be buried but I suspect it is time for another big shiny thing to appear to distract the masses
William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 10:52:51 AM | link
Okay! It is/was called Spybase, and created by Daniel Brandt. Foreign Affairs magazine badmouthed it here:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1989-03-01/spybase

And they misidentified it as well!

See also Namebase, the original collection of intelligence agents.

NameBase - Wikipedia
Founder Daniel Brandt began collecting clippings and citations pertaining to influential people and intelligence agents in the 1960s and especially in the 1970s after becoming a member of Students for a Democratic Society, an organization that opposed US foreign policy.
[Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 11:16:15 AM | link
Scary but worth a read: What are the Odds of a Shooting War Between NATO and Russia? "70% Chance of Combat" An Interview with George Szamuely https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-are-the-odds-of-a-shooting-war-between-nato-and-russia-70-chance-of-combat/5663011
Russ , Dec 15, 2018 11:44:03 AM | link
Posted by: William Bowles | Dec 15, 2018 11:16:15 AM | 67

That piece sums it up well, especially NATO's increasingly aggressive posture. And how self-righteously stupid the US is being. I think 70% might be optimistic. This situation is even more like 1914 than 1914 was, in that the reallywantingwar-to-bluster ratio looks even worse. Meanwhile Trump, with his self-indulgent saber-rattling, is like a twitter-empowered Kaiser. Imagine that back then.

Another commenter up above says this'll be Russia's second go-round with fascism. Yup, and they can send US/NATO where they sent Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII.

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 12:15:58 PM | link
Posted by: Russ | Dec 15, 2018 11:44:03 AM | 69

Russ, I wish I could be that optimistic. Yes, madmen they may be but they're madmen with tactical nukes! And judging by another End of Days scenario, they actually seem to be contemplating their use, gambling that the Russians wont call their bluff! More like the Cuban Missile Crisis than Sarevevo. So which side will blink first?

See: Be Afraid Be Very Afraid! By John Rachel

https://williambowles.info/2018/11/23/be-afraid-be-very-afraid-by-john-rachel/

And then of course, we have Global Heating, which the Empire figures will 'take care' of that surplus to requirement population, whilst the 1% wait it out in their bunkers.


I'm glad I'm at the other end of my life, rather than the beginning.

" we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it". -- Frederick Engels, from the introduction to 'The Dialectics of Nature', 1883.
james , Dec 15, 2018 12:41:47 PM | link
thanks everyone for giving a response to either my comment, or @jayc's initial comment on what started this russiaphobia... i think many of the answers are relevant and there is no one answer...

i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much... i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'..

as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site... the fact that it is mentioned in this integrity initiative data dump shows just how mainstream and 'go to' in the world of propaganda it is viewed by the intel services and anyone else trying to get in on some of the gov't money handouts for this type propaganda.. it would be very cool if the wikipedia site made a statement saying we no longer need donations, as the intel services of the west have been paying us to continue... at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue to try to hide this when it is so apparent??

Russ , Dec 15, 2018 12:47:43 PM | link
Posted by: james | Dec 15, 2018 12:41:47 PM | 71

"at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue to try to hide this when it is so apparent??"

That's one of neoliberalism's refinements over classical fascism: Just as they figured out you don't need to kill dissenters since no one listens to us anyway, so you also don't need formal Gleichshaltung under a de jure Geobbels ministry since the MSM will happily "coordinate" itself and really doesn't need to be told what to do. They already know since theirs is the same ideology.

Russ , Dec 15, 2018 12:51:58 PM | link
@ William Bowles 70

Well, I'm only optimistic about that last part if they really can keep it to just shooting and not let the missiles fly.

On the other hand I'm not at all optimistic about that. Though even then I suspect it'll hit the West worst, precisely because any such leveling is hardest on the most complex, most high maintenance, most just-in-time, least robust, least resilient, most top-heavy Tower of Babel. That would be the US, Europe, and their dependencies.

Noirette , Dec 15, 2018 12:52:52 PM | link
from the link in b's post: As we see it, the main weakness in the Russians' disinformation campaign is their embrace of a quantity - over quality and credibility - strategy as shown by their lack of credible spokespeople, their publication of a high volume of "easily" identifiable propaganda and "fake news", and their heavy reliance on a few biased partisan sites, dubious social media pages and uninspired trolls. Their stories are hard to believe,...

That sounds so much like a self-description of the US-UK MSM it is uncanny. (Bellingcat anyone? for ex.) Which, imho, shows a complete lack of creativity, suppleness, or even a low-level semi-efficient approach to the general problem of information / narrative control. Because that is what it is all about: much of the discourse around it is waffle, which masquerades as 'new' as it invokes 'new info' double-speak: social circuits, fake news, distribution, deep learning, connectivity, targetting, etc. (and other terms that are less readily comprehensible..)

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 1:30:28 PM | link

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 15, 2018 12:52:52 PM | 74

Hah! I think it was Goebbels who said that the biggest mistake a propagandist can make is to believe his own propaganda and I think your quote exemplifies it! But note it always has to contain an element of truth eg, 'as shown by their lack of credible spokespeople'. Yes, the Russians, just like the North Koreans ain't very good at spin and thank goodness. It was a lesson that Nixon never learned, the Emperor really is naked!

james , Dec 15, 2018 1:39:04 PM | link
@72 russ.. okay.. i get that... thanks!

on the newest thread bjd make what i thought was an exceptional comment, which is easy enough to gloss over, but i think worth repeating on this thread... here it is

"...why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save and strengthen democracy-- (aren't they) proudly proclaimed and advertised, in the open, transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to stand for..."
The fact that they aren't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian streak that runs in between every two lines that they put on paper."

Posted by: bjd | Dec 15, 2018 12:46:08 PM | 8"

i modified bjds words in a minor way..

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 2:13:24 PM | link
I'm sure Bernard is going to ban me soon but before he does, you have to read this from Ron Unz on the Huawei debacle:
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly [Sheldon] Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.

Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China. In effect, the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.(my emph.

Averting World Conflict With China

The PRC Should Retaliate by Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos

By Ron Unz

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50767.htm

Activist Potato , Dec 15, 2018 2:17:05 PM | link
"MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In short, 'MAGA'."
@28 Jackrabbit

I highlight these lines of your interesting post because, in the context of the Kissinger Op-Ed you refer to, they capture an angle I had not considered and have to a degree nudged my thinking off what had been a steady course of assumptions and beliefs relating to MAGA that go in the opposite direction from your hypothesis.

Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. It drew from, and fed on, the angst and diminishing prosperity of the segment of the population that had been hit hardest by Globalization of the economy, to which Imperial adventures can be, and after are, associated. The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).

Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example.

But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy.

Doing it smarter and better than Obama did seems to the ticket to legitimacy for whatever Trump does in the foreign policy realm. Replacing ISIS with actual American troops (while protecting a core capacity to revive ISIS if needed) is an example of doing it differently from Obama, but the net result – with parts of Syria denied to the legitimate government – still supports stark Imperialist, interventionists goals in a different way. The Russians and Syrians have free reign to attack ISIS, but do not have the same liberty against American troops. The flip-side is that the American troops do not have the freedom of action of ISIS to attack Syria. This creates a static line that serves the purpose of a partitionist goal. (ISIS is being allowed to survive to enable an element of proxy action, for harassment purposes).

I find I can no longer dismiss Trump's appointments, in particular Pompeo and Bolton to key positions directing and shaping US foreign policy, as some kind of 5-D chess move. They are signs that he is either a hostage President, or he is in on the act. There is so much that remains unknown, but the clear outward indicators are that nothing really has changed when it comes to US foreign policy objectives, only the methods and approaches are different.

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 2:47:47 PM | link
@78

Remember Obama's 'Change' meme? We don't understand that behind all these guys, and they are mostly men, stands industry and its skills; advertising, marketing, statistics, psychology, pr, on and on it goes. And billions, billions, to spend! We are the amateurs! Remember Saatchi & Saatchi's campaign to have Thatcher elected?

Noirette , Dec 15, 2018 3:20:14 PM | link
A new extremely lucrative 'industry' has sprung up.

a) to exploit hugely massive data sets (Facebook's trove and money earner..) and influence ppl => attitudes, behavior, votes, etc. For ex. Cambridge Analytica. Much of this stuff is for now on the level of a scam. E.g. Trump was not elected due to any type of manipulation or meddling by anyone, excepting those who financed him (other story, hard bucks and bribes - not! internet detritus or subliminal messages) and imho the US MSM - TV specially - who care more about ratings and the money it brings than anything else.

These efforts have got a lot of press, imho it is all smoke. If anyone has a good ex. of success ? (The model is built on about 200 years of advertising lore.)

b) Further upstream is to control the information that goes out / the audiences who are allowed to see whatever info, react to it, communicate it - other. With the corollary of repressing dissident, unwelcome, contradictory, info, etc. Been going on since say the Upper Paleolithic.

Today, what has to be managed is the extreme free-flow (internet): the only way this can be done is:

- to limit the channel, block info or some proportion of it, make the channel too expensive / unusable / forbid, repress

- to limit or corral the users (via propaganda / coercion / permission / certification / numbers / privilege / cost, etc.)

- to triage the information, the 'news', the narratives, the opinions, the appeals, etc. which represents the ultimate control and is the choice made by the US-UK to mention only those.

Ex.

https://twitter.com/ERC_Research/status/999632938936479746

or totally 'bogus' 'science' like this:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146

William Bowles , Dec 15, 2018 3:34:42 PM | link
Posted by: Noirette | Dec 15, 2018 3:20:14 PM | 80

Noirette, yuo want proof? Check out 'Programming of the President' by Roland Perry, Aurum Books, 1984. It's About Richard Wirthlin and the Mormons. Can a computer be used to elect a president? Wel it elected Ronald Reagan. It's only a coupleof quid on Abe Books. Essential reading IMHOP.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22859608878&searchurl=tn%3DProgramming%2Bof%2Bthe%2BPresident%26sortby%3D17%26an%3DRoland%2BPerry&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-image1

pogohere , Dec 15, 2018 5:57:43 PM | link
jackrabbit @ 28

activist potato @ 78

Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).

Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example.

But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."

So which of Trump's nominees gets kneecapped first? Michael Flynn Former Military Chief: Iraq War Was A 'Failure' That Helped Create ISIS

12-19-16

Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.

"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.

"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision."

When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."

Read the entire interview here: https://tinyurl.com/zmxd3uf

Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.


BTW:

Hold the Phone on Flynn Sentencing – Judge Emmet Sullivan Has Questions

12-12-18

Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.

Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:

from the comments:

Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.

Mueller was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.


See: Cautionary Tale: The Ted Stevens Prosecution

On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.

. . .

For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former Alaska senator be dismissed.

On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.

In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.

Judge sentencing . . . Michael Flynn orders special counsel to hand over all 302s"


12-13-18 Following the allegations, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan yesterday ordered that both the Mueller investigation and the Flynn team turn over all documents [the "302s"] relating to the fateful interview, including all contemporaneous notes, before 3pm Friday.

DiGenova slams Mueller's handling of Flynn FBI meeting

4:04

Rumor has it the next chapter of this story unfolds Monday, 17 Dec '18.

Jackrabbit , Dec 15, 2018 6:58:24 PM | link
Flynn was likely set-up and railroaded because he was a whistle-blower. I wrote about Flynn here.

In recent days we have discovered that Flynn was advised not to have counsel present during his FBI interview and that the FBI is withholding the actual interview notes. The same FBI cabal that has dogged Trump - but AFAIK, Trump has said nothing about the Flynn case.

Yet another reason to believe that Trump is not a "populist" savior but yet another agent of the establishment/Deep State.

Augustin L , Dec 15, 2018 7:48:43 PM | link
New Mueller memo smacks down Flynn's latest legal gambit: Nobody forced him to lie to the FBI. Dead in the water.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/new-mueller-memo-smacks-flynns-latest-legal-gambit-nobody-forced-lie-fbi/

Michael Flynn's a well known islamophobe who'd gladly defend zionist interests to the last american soldier. He'd fit right in with Bolton on the NSC council. Flynn in his own words: "Islam is not a real religion, but a political ideology masked behind a religion," While campaigning for Trump in 2016: ''Islamism a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people that has to be excised "

I wonder how he planned on excising the cancer ? Deploying more stormtroopers to the levant to fight Iran ?
As Trump assumed control of the executive in early 2017, it didn't take long for Flynn to push for direct military involvement in Yemen and confrontation with Iran: "Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice."

Michael Flynn was also a fellow at the foundation for defence of democracies a well known den of zionists and universal fascists such as Michael Ledeen. In fact they both wrote a book together The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War against Radical Islam and Its Allies, where we find such nuggets as:

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Putin has declared the United States (and NATO generally) to be a national security threat to Russia, and "Death to America" is the official chant of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the Putinists and the radical Iranian Muslims agree on the identity of their main enemy. Hence, one part of the answer is surely that their alliance is simply the logical outgrowth of their hostility toward America.''

"The Russians and Iranians have more in common than a shared enemy. There is also a shared contempt for democracy and an agreement -- by all members of the enemy alliance -- that dictatorship is a superior way to run a country, an empire, or a caliphate."

Flynn's angle was to exploit any potential fissure to pry Russia away from Iran and China. Presumbably after having dealt with Iran and the middle Kingdom, the hegemon could then strike a final blow to defeat and contain an isolated Russia.
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250131626

Deplorables envisioning multi-dimensional chess moves, fancy Flynn as some sort of superpatriot but like most men surrounding Chump he's nothing but a grifter:
Lobbying for Turkey: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/17/turkish-client-paid-trump-adviser-michael-flynns-company-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-for-lobbying/

[Dec 14, 2018] Whataboutism proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth

Like the term "conspiracy theory "whataboutism" is a nasty and dirty propaganda trick. Truth can be understood only in historical context.
Notable quotes:
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: ..."
"... "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
May 04, 2018 | moonofalabama.org
XXX | 12

The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."

This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do.

What b points out is something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes b's analysis uniquely indispensable.

Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows:

"Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"

Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.

[Dec 14, 2018] Less Than Grand Strategy: Zbigniew Brzezinski s Cold War The Nation

The subtitle of this effusively admiring biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Grand Strategist, does not reflect its true purpose. A more accurate one might be this: "Just as Smart as the Other Guy." The other guy, of course, is Henry Kissinger. The implicit purpose of Justin Vaïsse's book is to argue that in his mastery of strategic thought and practice, Brzezinski ranks as Kissinger's equal.
Notable quotes:
"... That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case. Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. ..."
"... After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university." Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington. For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished. Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard, was one of those places. ..."
"... From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy. ..."
"... Convinced that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence. ..."
"... This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer, rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets. According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the ..."
"... Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse." ..."
"... Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake." ..."
"... Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the presidency in 1976. ..."
"... When Carter won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of global celebrity. ..."
"... Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success. ..."
"... From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy," while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation. ..."
"... The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect. ..."
"... The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's emergence as a peer competitor. ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Zbigniew Brzezinski: America's Grand Strategist By Justin Vaïsse; Catherine Porter, trans.

Buy this book

Underlying that purpose are at least two implicit assumptions. The first is that, when it comes to statecraft, grand strategy actually exists, not simply as an aspiration but as a discrete and identifiable element. The second is that, in his writings and contributions to US policy, Kissinger himself qualifies as a strategic virtuoso. For all sorts of reasons, we should treat both of these assumptions with considerable skepticism.

That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case. Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. His father was a diplomat whose family accompanied him on postings to France, Germany, and eventually to Canada. The Nazi invasion of 1939, which extinguished Polish independence, also effectively ended his father's diplomatic career. With war engulfing nearly all of Europe, Brzezinski would not set foot on Polish soil again for nearly two decades.

Although the young Brzezinski quickly adapted to life in Canada, the well-being of Poles and Poland remained an abiding preoccupation. After the war, he studied economics and political science at McGill University, focusing in particular on the Soviet Union, which by then had replaced Germany as the power that dominated the country of his birth. Brzezinski was a brilliant student with a particular interest in international affairs, a field increasingly centered on questions related to America's role in presiding over the postwar global order.

After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university." Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington. For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished. Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard, was one of those places.

From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy.

A s a scholar and author of works intended for a general audience, Zbig, as he was widely known, was nothing if not prolific. Churning out a steady stream of well-regarded books and essays, he demonstrated a particular knack for "summarizing things in a concise and striking way."

Clarity took precedence over nuance.

And with his gift for stylish packaging -- crafting neologisms ("technetronic") and high-sounding phrases ("Histrionics as History in Transition") -- his analyses had the appearance of novelty, even if they often lacked real substance.

Whether writing for his fellow scholars or addressing a wider audience, Brzezinski had one big idea when it came to Cold War strategy: He promoted the concept of "peaceful engagement" as a basis for US policy.

Convinced that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence.

Yet little of the Brzezinski oeuvre has stood the test of time. The American canon of essential readings in international relations and strategy, beginning with George Washington's farewell address and continuing on through works by John Quincy Adams, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Hans Morgenthau, and a handful of others (the list is not especially long), does not include anything penned by Brzezinski. Although Vaïsse, a senior official with the French foreign ministry, appears to have read and pondered just about every word his subject wrote or uttered, he identifies nothing of Brzezinski's that qualifies as must-reading for today's aspiring strategist.

This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer, rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets. According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the Press . He knew how to self-promote.

Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse."

F rom the time Brzezinski left Harvard in 1960 to accept a tenured position at Columbia, he made it his mission to nurture and facilitate that sophistication. For Zbig, New York offered a specific advantage over Cambridge: It provided a portal into elite political circles. As it had for Kissinger, the then-still-influential Council on Foreign Relations provided a venue that enabled Brzezinski to curry favor with the rich and powerful, and to establish his bona fides as a statesman to watch. Henry's patron was Nelson Rockefeller; Zbig's was Nelson's brother David.

Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake."

Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the presidency in 1976.

Zbig and Jimmy hit it off. Soon enough, Brzezinski signed on as the candidate's principal foreign-policy adviser. When Carter won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of global celebrity.

Zbig held this post throughout Carter's one-term presidency, from 1977 to 1981. It would be his first and last time in government. After 1981, Brzezinski went back to writing, continued to opine, and was occasionally consulted by Carter's successors, both Democratic and Republican. Yet despite having ascended to the rank of elder statesman, never again did Brzezinski occupy a position where he could directly affect US policy.

Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success.

From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy," while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation.

In a characteristic display of self-assurance and bureaucratic shrewdness, as the new president took office, Brzezinski gave him a 43-page briefing book prescribing basic administration policy. Under the overarching theme of "constructive global engagement," Brzezinski identified 10 specific goals. The first proposed to "create more active and solid cooperation with Europe and Japan," the 10th to "maintain a defense posture designed to dissuade the Soviet Union from committing hostile acts." In between were less-than-modest aspirations to promote human rights, reduce the size of nuclear arsenals, curb international arms sales, end apartheid in South Africa, normalize Sino-American relations, terminate US control of the Panama Canal, and achieve an "overall solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem."

While Brzezinski's agenda was as bold as it was comprehensive, it nonetheless hewed to the Soviet-centric assumptions that had formed the basis of US policy since the end of World War II. Zbig recognized that the world had changed considerably in the ensuing years, but he also believed that any future changes would still occur in the context of a continuing Soviet-American rivalry. His strategic perspective, therefore, did not include the possibility that the international order might center on something other than the binaries imposed by the Cold War. The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect.

Using Brzezinski's 10 policy objectives as a basis for evaluating his performance, Vaïsse gives the national-security adviser high marks. "Few administrations have known so many tangible successes in only four years," he writes, citing the Panama Canal Treaty, the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement, and improved relations with China. Yet while Panama remains an underappreciated achievement, the other two qualify as ambiguous at best. The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's emergence as a peer competitor.

More troubling still was Brzezinski's failure to anticipate or to grasp the implications of the two developments that all but doomed the Carter presidency: the 1978 Iranian Revolution and the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Vaïsse does his best to cast a positive light on Brzezinski's role in these twin embarrassments. But there's no way around it: Brzezinski misread both -- with consequences that still haunt us today.

The Iranian Revolution, which Brzezinski sought to forestall by instigating a military coup in Tehran, offered a warning against imagining that Washington could shape events in the Islamic world. Brzezinski missed that warning entirely, although he would by no means be the last US official to do so. As for the Kremlin's plunge into Afghanistan, widely interpreted as evidence of the Soviet Union's naked aggression, it actually testified to the weakness and fragility of the Soviet empire, already in an advanced state of decay. Again, Brzezinski -- along with many other observers -- misread the issue. When clarity of vision was most needed, he failed to provide it.

Together, these two developments ought to have induced a wily strategist to reassess the premises of US policy. Instead, they resulted in decisions to deepen -- and to overtly militarize -- US involvement in and around the Persian Gulf. While this commitment is commonly referred to as the Carter Doctrine, Vaïsse insists that it "was really a Brzezinski doctrine."

Regardless of who gets the credit, the militarization of US policy across what Brzezinski termed an "arc of crisis" encompassing much of the Islamic world laid the basis for a series of wars and upheavals that continue to this day. If, as national-security adviser, Brzezinski wielded as much influence as Vaïsse contends, then this too forms part of his legacy. When it mattered most, the master strategist failed to understand the implications of the crisis that occurred on his watch.

The most glaring problem anyone faces in trying to assert Brzezinski's mastery of world affairs, however, rests not in Iran or Afghanistan, but in how the Cold War came to an end. Indeed, Brzezinski viewed it as essentially endless. As late as 1987, just two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was still insisting that "the American-Soviet conflict is an historical rivalry that will endure for as long as we live."

B rzezinski was certainly smart, flexible, and pragmatic, but he was also a prisoner of the Cold War paradigm. So too were virtually all other members of the foreign-policy establishment of his day. Indeed, subscribing to that paradigm was a prerequisite of membership. Yet this adherence amounted to donning a pair of strategic blinders: It meant seeing only those things that it was convenient to see.

Which brings us back to Zbig's last tweet, with its paean to American leadership as the sine qua non of global stability. The tweet neatly captures the mind-set that the foreign-policy establishment has embraced with something like unanimity since the Cold War surprised that establishment by coming to an end. This mind-set gets expressed in myriad ways in a thousand speeches and op-eds: The United States must lead. There is no alternative; history itself summons the country to do so. Should it fail in that responsibility, darkness will cover the earth.

This is why Trump so infuriates the foreign-policy elite: He appears oblivious to the providential call that others in Washington take to be self-evident. Yet adhering to this post–Cold War paradigm is also the equivalent of donning blinders. Whatever the issue -- especially when the issue is ourselves -- it means seeing only those things that we find it convenient to see.

The post–Cold War paradigm of American moral and political hegemony prevents us from appreciating the way that the world is actually changing -- rapidly, radically, and right before our very eyes. Today, with the planet continuing to heat up, the nexus of global geopolitics shifting eastward, and Americans pondering security threats for which our pricey and far-flung military establishment is all but useless, the art of strategy as practiced by members of Brzezinski's generation has become irrelevant. So too has Zbig himself.

[Dec 14, 2018] Hackers reveal British government s interference in Spanish politics by Alejandro López

Dec 06, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Documents leaked by internet hackers of Anonymous reveal how a supposedly independent think-tank based in the UK is a government funded and controlled operation of misinformation and fake news.

At the same time that the Western powers were accusing Russia of interference in democracy, the UK government and its intelligence services MI5 and MI6 were busily preventing the nomination of a Spanish official to Director of National Security, one of Spain's top advisory roles.

Details of the operation carried out by the Integrity Initiative (II), a project launched in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft, have been published by the web site CyberGuerilla.org. It is a trove of documents allegedly hacked from II, showing carefully worked out campaigns, costs and internal guidelines, as well as names of individuals cooperating with the network.

Anonymous shows that the network:

1. Is mainly funded by the UK government through the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

2. Cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year.

3. Has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the US State Department.

4. Is controlled by figures in the UK who manipulate "clusters" of politicians, high-ranking military officials, academics and journalists.

5. Clusters are said to operate in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, and Montenegro.

6. Its activities are carried under absolute secrecy via named intelligence services operatives in British embassies.

The Integrity Initiative poses as "Defending Democracy against Misinformation," but does exactly the opposite, spreading fake news against Russia in order to defend the national interests of the UK and its imperialist allies, influence Russian speakers in Europe and North America and "change attitudes in Russia itself".

An example of II's activities was the operation launched last June against the nomination of Army reserve colonel Pedro Baños as Spain's Director of National Security. Attached to La Moncloa, the official residence and workplace of the prime minister of Spain, the director's role is to advise the PM on existing and potential threats to the country and possible responses.

II's operation started after it was warned that the new Socialist Party (PSOE) government under Pedro Sánchez, which had just been elected in parliament through a no confidence vote, was considering Baños and was about to confirm his appointment on June 7, 2018.

Immediately, newspapers like El Mundo and El País published articles accusing Baños of "sympathy for Russia." Proof of this for El País was his "regular presence" on Russia Today and Sputnik , media outlets funded by the Putin government. Further "evidence" was his tweet in response to a survey showing a domestic popularity rating of 74 percent for Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Wouldn't we love to have a political leader half as popular right here in the European Union!!!"

Baños was also quoted as saying, "Which country has everything that we lack? Russia does. We will not gain anything by provoking Russia. So Russia wants to have its own sphere of influence? Of course it does, just like the United States or China do. It also wants to have its markets and like-minded countries nearby."

Numerous articles also put in doubt Baños' sanity for his participation in the popular offbeat TV show Cuarto Milenio that often investigates topics such as conspiracy theories, ufology and parapsychology.

Baños reflects a minority realpolitik opinion within the Spanish ruling class which opposes provocative military actions and sanctions against Russia. He sees the need to defend Spain's imperialist interests through a European army and closer relations with Russia -- positions also held by sections of the German and French ruling elite.

The UK-sponsored II, however, saw Baños as a threat to British national interests and an obstacle to its anti-Russia campaign. According to the hacked documents, at midday on June 7, 2018, the Spanish Cluster, obviously through informants at the highest levels of the PSOE, "hear that a well-known pro-Kremlin voice, Pedro Baños, is to be appointed at the weekend (09.06.2018) as the Director of the National Security Department (DSN), which works closely with the Spanish PM's office (La Moncloa) and is very influential in shaping policy."

An action plan is drawn up laying out how Institute of Statecraft Fellow and Spain Cluster leader Nicólas de Pedro will alert "the rest of the cluster members and prepare[s] a dossier to inform the main Spanish media. The cluster starts a Twitter campaign... trying to prevent an appointment."

Spanish Cluster members also include Borja Lasheras and Quique Badia-Masoni, writers and journalists well known for their hysterical anti-Russian positions. They are supported by II Team UK members Chris Hernon, Simon Bracey-Lane and Ben Robinson, and StopFake Spanish Desk members Alina Mosendz and Serbian Cluster member Jelena Milic.

At 15:45, "The head of the Spanish cluster urgently contacts the British cluster, which activates the II network in order to create international support for the Twitter campaign. The British Cluster creates a group in the WhatsApp messenger... to coordinate the reaction on Twitter, gets contacts on Twitter to spread concerns and encourage people to 'retweet' the material. He publishes material written by the head of the Spanish cluster Niko de Pedro on the Spanish version of the StopFake website, which is also 'retweeted' by key influential figures."

The Spanish cluster then sends material to El País and El Mundo to publish. On the same day, El País publishes, "Spanish PM taps Russia supporter for National Security Director."

The documents reveal that by 19:45, barely eight hours after the start of the operation, the "campaign [had] raised significant noise on Twitter Contacts in the Socialist Party confirmed that this information reached the Prime Minister. Some Spanish diplomats also expressed their concern. In the end, both the People's Party and the Civil Party (Ciudadanos) asked the Prime Minister to stop the appointment."

The following day, the government drops Baños and nominates general Miguel Ángel Ballesteros instead.

The operation against Baños is a graphic illustration of the inner workings of the intelligence services in collaboration with alleged "independent" journalists and academics. The same forces that accuse Russia of meddling in European nations' internal affairs are themselves meddling to stop elected governments from nominating officials when it conflicts with their interests. They use social media in the same way they accuse the Kremlin of using it.

By showing the real sources of information on which they rely, newspapers like El País or El Mundo are exposed as conduits of the intelligence services to support the suppression of maverick political viewpoints, in this case, Baños' call for closer relations with Russia.

Last year, El País carried out a frenzied and paranoid campaign claiming that the Catalan crisis was not sparked by the Popular Party government's violent repression of the secessionists, but was the result of Moscow and its "fake news." It quoted experts and specialists working for Spanish think tanks like Instituto Elcano and Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), and the European Council on Foreign Relations.

The leaked documents show that many members of these think tanks are members of the "Spanish Cluster" of the Integrity Initiative. The most notorious is Senior Analyst for Instituto Elcano, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi who testified last year in parliament to claim that Russia was promoting fake news.

The Baños case is just one of the highlighted campaigns of Integrity Initiative, but according to Anonymous, similar operations have been carried out in numerous other EU states.

[Dec 14, 2018] New York Times fraudulent election plot dossier escalates anti-Russia hysteria

Notable quotes:
"... It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." ..."
"... The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.wsws.org

The New York Times published a fraudulent and provocative "special report" Thursday titled "The plot to subvert an election."

Replete with sinister looking graphics portraying Russian President Vladimir Putin as a villainous cyberage cyclops, the report purports to untangle "the threads of the most effective foreign campaign in history to disrupt and influence an American election."

The report could serve as a textbook example of CIA-directed misinformation posing as "in-depth" journalism. There is no news, few substantiated facts and no significant analysis presented in the 10,000-word report, which sprawls over 11 ad-free pages of a separate section produced by the Times.

The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."

It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."

It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."

Why does it "appear" to be the Kremlin? What is the evidence to support this claim? Among the 8.5 million inhabitants of New York City and another 700,000 in Washington, D.C., aren't there enough people who might despise Obama as much as, if not a good deal more than, Vladimir Putin?

This absurd passage with its "appeared" and "may well have" combined with the speculation about the Kremlin extending its evil grip onto "United States soil" sets the tone for the entire piece, which consists of the regurgitation of unsubstantiated allegations made by the US intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican capitalist politicians and the Times itself.

The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times , polls have indicated that the charges of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 presidential election have evoked little popular response among the

[Dec 13, 2018] Averting World Conflict with China by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire. ..."
"... This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship. ..."
"... If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world may stand a chance. ..."
"... Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost gone. ..."
"... Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"! ..."
"... Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL ! ..."
"... Canada may be the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society? ..."
"... and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face. ..."
Dec 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy research articles rather than chasing the headlines of current events. But there are exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with China is one of them.

Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing planes in the Vancouver International Airport airport when she was suddenly detained by the Canadian government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still faces extradition to a New York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate America's unilateral economic trade sanctions against Iran.

Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story, including front page articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal , I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of this international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one scholar noted, no event since America's deliberate 1999 bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so outraged both the Chinese government and its population. Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs correctly described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business community."

Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as the world's largest and most advanced telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is not only a longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, whose enormous entrepreneurial success has established him as a Chinese national hero.

Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping. One journalist asked how Americans would react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially if Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.

Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage. Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi subjects, extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing them. Then he may have finally over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a bone-saw at the Saudi embassy in Turkey.

We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would clearly have the most insane government anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely tied for first.

Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years ago and is now substantially larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless.

Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites:

Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the rabies virus. The virus may have no brain and its body-weight is probably less than one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central nervous system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.

Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to bite all the other animals it can reach. Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens, and poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.

Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously engaged in a heated "kitchen debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?

Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported that top American executives have decided to forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells more cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra, and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite imprisonment.

Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported that a former Canadian diplomat had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much doubt such measures will have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the Jungle, it becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet in this matter. Would threatening the puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?

Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile to the Trump Administration, and even if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing is true about the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals who call the shots in the current White House.

Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very dangerous affair? World peace and American national security interests are being sacrificed in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign against Iran, and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of America's most extreme pro-Israel zealots, had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports that Trump himself remained entirely unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.

But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.

Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.

Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.

Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved in all sorts of political bribery scandals , and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at least on a temporary basis, with such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the Chinese population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese government shutting down some of their own local gambling casinos with a long public record of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino magnates would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos, hardly a desperate threat to President Xi's anti-corruption government.

I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if the resulting drop in the stock price of Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce Adelson's personal net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent shutdown, perhaps extending to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's personal fortune, and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires, who dominate the remainder of gambling in Chinese Macau.

The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a complex and murky one. But the Chinese government already possesses the absolute power of financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top of that chain. If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will immediately be put on a plane back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese technology companies would not be repeated.

China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only question is whether they will recognize the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake of America and the entire world.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website December 13, 2018 at 5:36 am GMT

This is no surprise. Anyone who follows political events knows that John Bolton is insane, so no surprise that he devised this insane idea. The problem will be corrected within a week, and hopefully Bolton sent to an asylum.

However, this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire. Canada provides soldiers for this empire in Afghanistan even today, and in Latvia. Most Canadians can't find that nation on a map, but it's a tiny unimportant nation in the Baltic that NATO adsorbed as part of its plan for a new Cold War.

This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship.

Cloak And Dagger , says: December 13, 2018 at 5:40 am GMT
I hope someone in China is reading this article. I would love to see Adelson and his cohorts go down in flames. This would fit right in with China's current anti-corruption foray. Xi has a reputation for hanging corrupt officials. Shutting down Adelson's casinos would be consistent with what Xi has been doing and increase his popularity, not least of all, right here in the US.
Tusk , says: December 13, 2018 at 5:43 am GMT
If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world may stand a chance. The future will suffer once China's debt traps collapse and like America it begins placing military globally. America would be the one country who could work towards a Western future but this will never be the case. Better start learning Mandarin lest we end up like the Uyghurs.
Frankie P , says: December 13, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT
@Anonymous Use your brain. The Chinese elite want to use the political clout that Adelson and the other big casino Jews have with the US government. To gain lobby power from a proven expert, Shelly Adelson, they are willing to allow him to make the big bucks in Macao. They expect quid pro quo.
sarz , says: December 13, 2018 at 6:02 am GMT
Great suggestion, based on sound analysis, especially your pointing out the centrality of Zionism in Trump's foreign policy.

I wish you would blog more.

Anonymous [346] Disclaimer , says: December 13, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
The Chinese are pussies and will always back down. The U.S. laughed in their face after they bombed and killed them in Belgrade and got crickets from the Chinamen. China can't project much power beyond its borders. They can't punch back. The Chinese (and East Asians) are only part of the global business racket because they are efficient worker bees facilitating the global financial system. They have no real control over the global market. And if they start to think they do they'll get a quick lesson. Like they're getting with Meng, who is being treated like coolie prostitute. LMAO.
Baxter , says: December 13, 2018 at 6:44 am GMT
I always enjoy fresh writing from Mr. Unz. Clarity of thought is a fine thing to witness in language. It should be stated, America is not in any danger.the empire is and is in terminal decline. As Asia's economic might grows in leaps ad bound, so does the empire scramble to thwart losing its global grip.

As Fred Reed once pointed out, declining empires rarely go quietly. Will America's leadership gamble on a new war to prevent asia's ascendancy?
I think it's possible.

But what do I know. As my father once said, "I'm just a pawn in a game."

To his credit he had the wherewithal to see that. Alas, most Americans are asleep.

renfro , says: December 13, 2018 at 8:08 am GMT
The call for Ms. Meng's arrest had to come from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. They enforce every thing related to sanctions, which they claim is what Meng was arrested for– sale of phones and software to Iran. But they also say they had been on her company's case since 2013 so their timing is rather suspect.

What else I don't understand is her company has research and offices in Germany, Sweden, the U.S., France, Italy, Russia, India, China and Canada ..So if what they sold or attempted to sell to Iran wasn't outright 'stolen' intellectual property from the US or even if it was why not transfer it to and or have it made in China or some country not signed onto the Iran sanctions and then sell it to Iran. I haven't boned up on exactly what kinds of phone software they were selling but I think it has something to do with being able to bypass NSA and others intercepts.

The Alarmist , says: December 13, 2018 at 8:49 am GMT
You are assuming Meng is not a sacrificial pawn in some larger game.

It would be priceless for Xi to shut down Adelson's operations in Macau for a few days or weeks, but I'm afraid Xi is very much akin to Capitain Louis Renault in Casablanca , and after walking into a Macau casino and uttering the phrase, "I am shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!" might admit in the next breath, "I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Jerusalem."

jilles dykstra , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:06 am GMT
Half a century or so propaganda like 'the USA policing the world' of course had effect. Not realised is that in normal circumstances police is not an autonomous force, but has to act within a legal framework. The illusion of this framework of course exists, human rights, democracy, whatever
anon [426] Disclaimer , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:09 am GMT
She's out on bail. Agree that Bolton blindsided Trump. Trump is going to try to turn this into some sort of PR gesture when he pardons her. No way he will let this mess up his trade deal. Which is beached until she exonerated.
jilles dykstra , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:28 am GMT
@Anonymous

What is true of these stories of course cannot be known with certainty, but it is asserted that USA military technology is way behind China and Russia. Several examples exist, but of course, if these examples tell the truth, not sure. PISA comparisons of levels of education world wide show how the west is intellectually behind the east.

Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost gone.

Tom Welsh , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:41 am GMT
"I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage".

I very much doubt whether that is the case. As far as I know, most Chinese people are distinguished by their intelligence, thoroughness and diligence. What do the thousands of people employed by China's foreign ministry and its intelligence services do all day, if they are unaware of such important facts?

However I also doubt if China's leaders are inclined to see matters in nearly such a black and white way as many Westerners. Jewish people seem to get along very well in China and with the Chinese, which could be because both have high levels of intelligence, culture, and subtlety. As well as being interested in money and enterprise.

It's certainly an interesting situation, and I too am waiting expectantly for the other shoe to drop.

Tom Welsh , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:45 am GMT
@TheMediumIsTheMassage

Yes, whatever your bias is, China is a "normal" country. In the sense of being closer to the ideal than most countries – not of being average.

You may bewail some of the "human rights" issues in China, although I believe they may be somewhat magnified for PR purposes. But when did China last attack another country without provocation and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, level its cities, or destroy the rule of law? (Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya )

The Chinese seem to be law-abiding, sensible, and strongly disposed to peace. Which is something the world needs a lot more of right now.

alexander , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:47 am GMT
@Dan Hayes "why hasn't anyone before thought of it.. "

" WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEFORE THOUGHT OF IT !!"

You must be kidding me.

For over three years I have been issuing comment after comment after comment .Like a crazed wolf howling in a barren forest .That the "number one" priority of the American people should be demanding the seizure of ALL the assets of Neocon oligarchic class.

Why ?

Not because they are "oligarchs." ..or some might own "casinos" but because they "deliberately" Conspired to Defraud the American People into illegal Wars of Aggression and have nearly bankrupted the nation in the process.

That's why.

And it is the worlds BEST REASON to seize the assets a thousand times better than "bribery charges." I have issued statement after statement to that affect ,on Unz Review, in the hope that at some point it might, at least subliminally, catch on.

What I have witnessed over the past six years, is a lot of intelligent, thoughtful people "correctly diagnosing" the issues which plague the nation But no one had any idea of what to do about it. I have been pointing out, that if people really want to do something about it then do whats RIGHT: Seize the assets of the defrauders.!

Of course we can. Of course we can Its the LAW! Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"!

(If you don't think so, go ask your local Police Officer. He will tell you FLAT OUT ..it is the Worst crime "Conspiracy to Defraud into Mass Murder! .Not good ! You can even ask him if there is a statute of limitations. He will probably say something like " Yeah .When the Sun collapses!")

And they are GUILTY as charged There is no doubt , .. not anymore. We all know it and can "prove" it ! Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL !

The keys to the kingdom are right there, right in front of your noses. If you want to change things ."take action" the law is on YOUR side. We don't need China to do a damn thing ..We just need the American People to rise up,"apply the law" and take back their country and its solvency.

Tom Welsh , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:47 am GMT
@Nonny

Canada may be the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society?

Brabantian , says: December 13, 2018 at 9:59 am GMT
An article with the identical take as Ron Unz, including the idea that China has its key lever via Sheldon Adelson's casinos, was published on the Canadian website of Henry Makow also noting that USA political king-maker Adelson, is a major force behind the anti-Iran obsessions that partly grounded the arrest of Ms Meng, and so well-deserves consequences here...

In the Jeffrey Sachs article linked above, Sachs lists no less than 25 other companies which have been 'violating US sanctions' and admitted guilt via paying of fines, but never suffered any executive arrests, including banks including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, PayPal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Wells Fargo.

In terms of international law, the Meng case violates numerous basic legal and United Nations norms :

This is also a significant humiliation of President Trump personally, his own advisors apparently colluding to render him powerless and uninformed

The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).

Born in Chicago, Illinois, USA, Fischer impressed the world with his genius, but, like Ms Meng became criminally indicted by the USA regime, for the 'crime' of playing chess in Yugoslavia when the Serb government was under USA 'sanctions'. Harassed across the globe, Fischer was jailed in Japan in 2004-05 by embarrassed Japanese leaders, for this fake 'crime' which few people in the world thought was wrong. Fischer had been using his celebrity voice to strongly criticise the USA & Israeli governments, making him also a political target, much as Ms Meng is a political target due to her being a prominent citizen and quasi-princess of China.

The Japanese, loath to be the instrument of Fischer's USA imprisonment, finally allowed Bobby to transit to Iceland where he was given asylum and residency. Living not far from Iceland's NATO military base, Fischer became quickly and mysteriously struck with disease, and Fischer died in Reykjavik, perhaps a victim of a CIA-Mossad-Nato assassination squad.

The Chinese government, I am told, directly understands the power and role of Sheldon Adelson here, and Chinese inspectors are perhaps inside Adelson's Macau properties as you read this. Perhaps Chinese officials may show up soon in Adelson's casinos, and repeat the line of actor Claude Rains' character in the 1942 film 'Casablanca' -
"I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!"

OMG , says: December 13, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
@renfro Seconded
LondonBob , says: December 13, 2018 at 10:32 am GMT
@renfro http://www.atimes.com/article/did-trumps-enemies-try-to-derail-a-trade-deal-with-china/

Article suggests the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence which Mr Giraldi has commented on.

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-fifth-column-2/

Heros , says: December 13, 2018 at 10:47 am GMT
@sarz Great links.

What we have to realize is that just as there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans because they are both owned by the same people, so must we realize that in reality there is little difference between the leaders of the worlds countries because they are all owned by the same central banks. This is why Nate Rothschild famously stated "give me control of a countries money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" . All the world's central banks are tied together by BIS, WB and IMF and the US marines. This is the reason Syria, Libya, NK and Venezuela have been taken down: Rothchild central bank control.

So this Huaiwei arrest almost certainly has nothing to do with the "trade war", and is with certainly a hit by one side of the Kabal against the other. Zionist Nationalists versus Chabad Lubbovitz perhaps?

Jared Kushner has been lying pretty low lately and recently was stripped of his security clearance. He was linked to Kissilev the Russian ambassador, plus he was pushing Trump to help protect MBS in SA. I would bet that he is at the center of this storm.

AndrewR , says: December 13, 2018 at 10:54 am GMT
I'm honestly shocked no one has stated the obvious: very, very few Americans would be likely to care if Sheryl Sandberg were arrested on dubious charges in China. I cant say I would be one of those few people.

I also should note that the crown prince of KSA is Mohammad bin Salman. Salman is his father, the king. The crown prince is Mohammad, son of (aka "bin") Salman.

AndrewR , says: December 13, 2018 at 11:00 am GMT
@Nonny Lmao! Canada is a vassal state of the US. The US govt ordered Canada to arrest Meng, and Canada's govt dutifully complied.
AndrewR , says: December 13, 2018 at 11:11 am GMT
@TheMediumIsTheMassage In many ways China does deviate from international norms, but of course so does the United States. As Tom Welsh pointed out, Chinese foreign policy is downright angelic compared to the US, even if you consider Tibet and Xinjiang to be illegitimately occupied territories (an argument I'm sympathetic to). Perhaps China would act as belligerently as the US does if China were the sole global superpower, but it's not, so it's fair to judge China favorably compared to the US.
Sean , says: December 13, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT Godfree Roberts , says: December 13, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@TheMediumIsTheMassage It's certainly abnormal in having a functioning democracy and the trust of 90% of its citizens.

Is there anything else that disqualifies it from normalcy?

AndrewR , says: December 13, 2018 at 11:21 am GMT
@Craig Nelsen Trump deserves it for hiring Bolton at all. Perhaps one might argue Trump was blackmailed into doing so but he doesn't seem to be acting like a blackmailed man.
SimplePseudonymicHandle , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:16 pm GMT
Mr. Unz, at no time since Ms. Wanzhou's arrest have I felt myself in a position to judge that this was a strategically unwise or incautious act. It might be, but apparently I'm to be contrasted from so many of your readers, and you, simply for understanding myself to have an inadequate handle on the facts to make the call. That would be true, that my handle on the facts would be inadequate, even if I didn't have personal knowledge of Huawei's suspicious practices or their scale.

I worry that you don't seem to evidence the presence of someone trusted who will go toe to toe with you as Devil's Advocate. Too often, on affairs of too great a consequence, you come across too strongly, when the data doesn't justify the confidence. A confident error is still an error and Maimonides' advice on indecision notwithstanding, a confident error is a candidate for hubris, the worst kind of error. All of this, of course, assumes you make these arguments in good faith because if not the calculus changes mightily.
Too many of your readers evidence that they interpret this event and form an opinion of it based on nothing but this higher order syllogism:

Because I distrust the US government
[or because I distrust those I believe to control the US government]
It follows that this was an unjustified act or else a dangerous strategic error

After this higher order syllogism is accepted without due critique, evidence is sought to justify it and no further consideration of the possibilities is tallied.

At minimum you need to have run a permutation where you seriously consider that : it is well know to US operatives, if not to US citizens, you, and your readers, that Huawei is actively, constantly and maliciously waging covert war on the USA. You should at least consider this possibility. If true, this act may merely be a shot across the bow that notifies China of a readiness to expose things China may not wished exposed, and might stop endangering US citizens, if it were made aware such things stand to be exposed.

If that's true, not only are you a fishing trawler captain causing distraction with a loudspeaker yelling at the captain of the destroyer that just fired the warning shot across the bow of a Chinese vessel that is likely covert PLA/N, but now you may be positioning your trawler to block the destroyer.
Do you really have enough information to know this is wise? Do you really know as much as the destroyer captain?
I will be away today, in the off chance you reply and I don't immediately answer it is because I can't.

ariadna , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT
Superb, as always, Ron Unz!
For someone who says he has no background in economics you you put your finger dead center on the money nexus of this "puppet run by another puppet controlled by another puppet dangling from the strings of a still bigger puppet" chain from hell.
I wish someone would read out the entire article, may be with photos of the culprits, on Youtube with subtitles in Chinese.
Wizard of Oz , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:26 pm GMT
@Craig Nelsen Nobody is suggesting that "the order" came from Bolton or that he could indeed give any such order. True his not telling Trump about what was about to happen bears a sinister interpretation.
lavoisier , says: Website December 13, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
@TheMediumIsTheMassage I think what he means by normal are countries whose leaders are interested in the well being of their nation and the people they rule. No divided or corrupted loyalties to another nation.

By this standard the United States is clearly not a normal country.

Che Guava , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
Well said, Mr. Unz.

I was finding the arrest hard to believe, too.

One angle you did not mention, Cisco (U.S. company) of course until not too many years ago had a near-monopoly on the kind of network systems Huawei is selling as number one now (actually, I did not know of Huawei's success there, thought of it as a handset maker), that may be a factor here.

There are a few Chinese or U.S. people of that descent on this site, mainly PRC-sympathetic, it would be very amusing if they were able to ignite a big discussion of your hypothetical reprisals

Ahoy , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:35 pm GMT
@ Anonymous [346] #10

For whatever is worth, if any.

During the bombing of Belgrade a missile fell on the Chinese Embassy. A local tv reporter approached a Chinese Embassy official and asked him. What are you going to do now? The answer was.

"Ask me this question forty years from now"

Strictly personal, Wow!

Durruti , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT
@Brabantian Nice comment.

Yes, poor Bobby Fischer.

The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).

Fischer was another victim of Zionist controlled American imperialism. Yugoslavia, the child of Woodrow Wilson, became the victim of the Imperialist war Against Russia. Russia's brother, and ally, Yugoslavia, was destroyed by the kind democrat gang administration of Wm (that was not sex), Clinton.

Nonny , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh You complicate things by bringing up the Mafia boss. Who committed the actual crime? Who kidnapped the woman?
Anon55 , says: December 13, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
Excellent article, and an ingenious suggestion regarding the Adelson casinos. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a casino shutdown. Having worked in the marketing end of the casino industry myself, I can tell you the most coveted demographic lists were always the Chinese players, words like fanatical and obsessive don't even come close to describing their penchant for gambling. I could literally see casino shutdowns in China causing a national Gilet Jaune moment followed by the overthrow of the Communist Party LOL.

I would definitely welcome seeing more Ron Unz articles on current topics.

Jim Christian , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer Any chance this is Democrat, Deep State types at State and Justice manufacturing this cluster-f in order to make Trump look unaware? This is a President that respects casinos. And business. If Bolton and Company pulled this from behind the scenes without Executive knowledge or authorization, is that even legal? More treason? But given the circumstances, how does all this even GET to Iran, hurt Iran at all? What was supposedly illegal was done in 2010. Are we certain bags of cash from the Chinese and Russians and Iran weren't traveling about Democrat-ruled DC back then? Grabbing this chick helps the case against Iran? I'm at a loss as to how.

And so the thought of a more local political benefit/purpose, stirring a diplomatic shit-storm on Trump's watch, something he'd have to take responsibility for. To start a near war, sort of like the Bay of Pigs. Operatives, pulling tricks, writing checks the President then has to cover, looking like an unelectable mook throughout.

I'm happy to give the AIPAC kiddies full credit, I just don't see the damage to Iran in all this. For crying out loud, we carted $500 billion cash over to Iran under Obama's watch, what, 2013 or 2014ish? I don't know how we skip over THAT, to get to trade shenanigans in 2010, also taking place under Obama's watch. What was Holder doing when he was AG after all, why no action then? If it's Israeli-driven today, why wasn't Israel pushing Holder to take action against Huawei back in 2010?

Makes no sense.

TRASH(NOT) , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:06 pm GMT
@TheMediumIsTheMassage How is the USA a "normal" country in any sense of the word? It once was truly great among the nations of the world but that ship sailed looooong back.

We invade for fake "freedom", inject the poison of homo mania into nations that do not do the bidding of the homos and/or bend to the will of the chosen ones, pretend it's all for some good cause then invite the survivors to displace the founding stock of this country. You call that "normal"??

We are nothing more than a vehicle for every kind of degenerate (((loser))) with cash to use our men and women as their private mercenaries. We spread filth around the place, destroy nations and proclaim ourselves as the peace-makers with the shrill voice of a worn out street prostitute on kensingtion ave (philly).

We are like that hoe, living out the last days of her aids infested body, with a grudge on the world for something that was completely of our (((own))) making. Philly might have been the birthplace of this country but camden is where we are all headed. And looking at China, we are dysfunctional beyond repair. Of course we still have quite a few things the Chinese might want to emulate (no the SJW versions but the read deal) but looking at our other maladies, they probably won't who'll blame them?

Icy Blast , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:08 pm GMT
Gosh I hope Agent Orange gets a copy of this article. But I am afraid he is surrounded by Bolton-type traitors.
Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:09 pm GMT
@Anon Yes it was s Portuguese colony. Interesting that Persian traders including Jews were in Macau going back st least to 500 AD probably more.

Ron, have you sent this article to the Chinese ambassador in DC yet?

Strange that the Chinese let Adelson in. The Macau casinos have thrived for a long time. The Portuguese left valuable casinos and the Chinese let the Jews in soon after the Portuguese left.

It makes sense that foreign casino operators would want to move into Macau, but why would China let foreigners in?

Could it be that one of the largest investors in China since the mid 1970s Richard Blum husband of Dianne Feinstein has something to do with it??
She's as much the Senator representing China as a Senator representing California.

Ronnie , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
Another interesting aspect of all this is the "suicide" of Physics Professor Zhang Shoucheng at Stanford just a few hours after Meng was arrested on Dec 1. According to reliable Chinese sources and widespread reporting on social media Zhang was the conduit to China from Silicone Valley. He was richly rewarded by Chinese investment in his US companies. IMHO the Chinese understand the role of Israel and Adelson in US politics but are cautious in going this far. The Chinese are taking the light touch approach with Trump and his Adelson selected neocons. A Chinese businessman Guo WenGui with the highest connections to the Chinese elites and security services has sought political asylum in the USA. On the internet he daily speaks to the Chinese diaspora (in Mandarin) on the complex developments in Chinese official corruption. The NY Times has now started to take him seriously (good idea ) and reports that he and Steve Bannon have formed an alliance to expose Chinese government activities. You can read all this in the NY Times. Unz should translate Guo Wengui into English and publish his commentaries. In my analysis he is usually right about China and has shown remarkable predictive powers. He knows how and what the Chinese think, where the bones are buried and what comes next. He and Bannon plan to reveal the facts about the recent suicide in France of another prominent Chinese businessman Wang Jian who was Chairman of Hainan Airlines parent company.
Buzz Mohawk , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
This article by Mr. Unz is a good example of why people should read and support the Unz Review. No one is better equipped to shed light on otherwise unmentioned interests behind mainstream news events like this one.

Kudos for making a smart suggestion that no doubt will be heard by people who could carry it out.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT
Good article, but it is only scratching the surface.
Many things would be explained if somebody would find out what is the volume of US investment in China, and what percentage of it is Jewish.
That would shed light why the rabid Jewish press in US so bestially attacking Trump, after Trump started to impose tariffs on Chinese goods.
I do not know, but I could guess that Trump reached deep into Jewish profits.
We have no choice than wait what will happen to tariffs after Trump will be replaced.
RVBlake , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:40 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer Canada declared an end to participating in combat operations in Afghanistan in July 2011 and withdrew its combat forces, leaving a dwindling number of advisors to Afghan forces. The last Canadian soldier departed Afghanistan in March 2014. You are spot on regarding Bolton's certifiability.
Virgile , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:50 pm GMT
Trump has been totally phagocyted by the Neo-Cons in the foreign policy. The two pillars of the neocons foreign policy are now Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump is benefitting from the neo-cons intelligence and their powerful financial network that he is convinced would help in his reelection.
Once he is re-elected then he may decrease his reliance on them but for the next few years the jewish lobby will prevail in Trump's foreign policy. Unless they are not able to protect Trump from falling under the democrats assaults or been eliminated from power, they are on for more wars, more troubles and more deaths. History will place Trump near Bush junior as neo-cons puppets responsible for the largest destruction of countries since WWII.
eah , says: December 13, 2018 at 1:50 pm GMT
Doesn't really address the core problem.
Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
@Brabantian Interesting that she was arrested in the Chinese colony of Vancouver BC. Maybe the Canadian government is asserting sovereignty over Vancouver at long last.

That must have been frightening. There she was sitting in the VIP lounge surrounded by deferential airline clerks as usual and suddenly she's under arrest.

Johnny Smoggins , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
The most disappointing thing about this whole incident, so far, is China's timidity in dealing with America.

Holding some C level former Canadian diplomat? Come on China, prove you're a serious nation, you can do much, much better.

Johnny Smoggins , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer Canada has been a vassal state of the U.S. since it stopped being a vassal state of the U.K. in the 1960′s.
Sean , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT

Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon.

More delusional than when in 1957 the US government gave Iran a nuclear reactor and weapons grade uranium? In his latter years Khashoggi 's relative, the weapons dealer Adnan Khashoggi, much later mused on what the US was trying to achieve by giving Iran vast amounts of armaments, when all it did was set off an arms race in the region. America then switched to Iraq as its cop on the beat and gave them anything they asked for, and were placatory of Saddam when he started talking crazy. This was under the US government least attentive to Israel. Yes things should be more balanced as Steven Walt suggests

Averting World Conflict with China, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review If it wants to create the conditions for a final settlement of the Palestinian problem, then America should be more even handed but it must also be very cautious about Iran. We don't know who will be in power there in the future and history shows that once those ME counties are given an inch they take a mile.

Saudi Arabia seems quite sensible, its liking for US gov bonds that even Americans think offer too low a rate of interest is easily explained as payment for US protection. Killing Khashoggi that way was a dreadful moral and foreign policy mistake from someone who is too young for the amount of authority he has been given, but the victim did not beg for death like more than a few Uygurs are doing right now. The CIA agent China rounded up with the help of it's network of double agents in the US were doubtless glad to have their interrogation terminated.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-20/vancouver-is-drowning-in-chinese-money

Some sweeteners from Adelson are likely in the Tsunami of dirty Chinese money, which are amusingly being laundered in Canadian casinos. As Walt points out the Chinese elite want bolt holes and bank accounts in north America. By the way most of the ill gotten gains are from sale of opiates such as fentanyl.

Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos

Yes that will work, especially when added to what China is already doing in targeting farmers who supported Trump, so he is definitely not going to be reelected now you have explained all this to them, and you are also opening up Harvard to their children, which can only redound to the detriment of white gentiles. Deliberate pouring of the vials of wrath or just accidentally spilling them? I am begining to wonder.

Silva , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Nonny Someone commits a crime while wearing a hat, and you blame the hat? What's wrong with you?
Almost Missouri , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
Thank you, Ron, for a clear-headed and insightful article.

There are however, two tiny infelicities, which I would not want for them to distract from the article's merit.

First, I think the Saudi Arabian Prince you are referring to is Prince Mohammed bin Salman, not "Prince Salman". "Prince Mohammed" would be the abbreviated form of his name. "Bin" is of course the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew "ben" indicating paternity, rather than a middle name, so "Salman" is not his surname. "Prince Salman" would refer to the current Saudi King before he was King, rather than to the current Prince.

Second, maybe the hypothetical of China seizing Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook is not the best analogy since I, and I suspect others who are aware of her key role in empowering and enriching a deceptive and parasitical industry, would not be terribly troubled if China seized her. Indeed, we might consider it a public service. Admittedly, it is hard to find a good analogy for a prominent female executive of a US national champion company since so many of our prominent companies are predatory rather than productive and scorn their native country rather than serve it.

Anon [732] Disclaimer , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:53 pm GMT

and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.

The unmistakable style is there.

Bill H , says: Website December 13, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
@Baxter "America is not in any danger." America is in very great danger, but only from within.

Almost half of all millenials believe that Capitalism is evil and that the Socialism should be the guiding economic principle of this nation. When you point out that it has failed for every nation in history that has tried it, notably the Soviet Union and more recently Venezuela, they retort that it is because those countries "did it wrong" and that "we will do it right." When you ask for specifics as what they "did wrong" that we will "do right" they stare at you wordlessly as if you are the one who is an idiot.

It should also be pointed out that a vast majority of Democrats think that Ocasio-Cortez is brilliant and that we need more legislators like her.

anonomy , says: December 13, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
What if Ms. Meng, was giving Iranian dissidents phones and other equipment to undermine the Government of Iran, starting another color revolution, that sucks in America and Israel? What if the Trump administration asked that this not be done in order to end the endless "revolutions" that have been happening and bankrupting our country and threatening Israel? What if the sanctions are benefiting Iran's government too? China was allowed to become so large at our expense when we opened up trade and moved businesses over there, but this was to keep them from being too cozy with Soviet Russia, just ask Nixon.
DESERT FOX , says: December 13, 2018 at 3:00 pm GMT
Part of the Zionist plan for a Zionist NWO was laid by David Rockefeller when he sent Kissinger to China to open up Chinas slave labor to the NWO types like Rockefeller and the Zionist controlled companies in the U.S. and part of the plan was the deindustrialization of America thus bringing down the American standard of living while raising the standard of living in China.

I will never believe the fake disagreement between the Zionist controlled U.S. and the Chinese government as long as G.M and Google and the other companies that have shut down their operations in the U.S. and opened operations in China, it is all a NWO plan to bring down we Americans to third world status and then meld all of us into a Zionist satanic NWO.

The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is in the government and its name is Zionism and the Zionist NWO!

[Dec 12, 2018] US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gives speech in Brussels

This is a typical neocon speech. Could be delivered by Hillary Clinton (if we removed some Tea Party frosting). Attacked both Russia and China. Such a freashly minted US diplomat ;-)
The fact that he is mentioned Skripal poisoning suggests that his IQ is overrated... Or many be that's his CIA past...
Trump want to pursue "might makes right" policy but times changed and it remains to be seen how successful he will be.
Dec 12, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Jessica Wylde , 6 days ago

Could you imagine if someone stood up and called out all the US crimes... 3 million prisoners, war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan ect. Poverty disproportionate to the wealth of the nation. On and on

landlogger , 1 day ago

It doesn't get any clearer than this. A group of people, with no conscience and therefore no shame, no empathy, no emotion, no love, hold the reins of power on planet earth. They do not distinguish between Afghani, Iraqi, European, African or American. We are all fodder for their demented psychopathic agenda. It's time to wake up, because it's coming to your doorstep.

ThePositiveKRP , 13 hours ago (edited)

Suddenly Mike Pompeo seems like a calm and reasonable man, when not long ago he was threatening North Korea with military action.

[Dec 12, 2018] Save the INF Treaty

Notable quotes:
"... The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S. ..."
Dec 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

calls on the Trump administration not to kill the INF Treaty:

Losing patience with Russia's refusal to address legitimate concerns over its violation of the treaty is understandable, but the way Pompeo framed the problem says a great deal about how poorly the Trump administration is managing this sensitive issue. Pompeo told NATO, "the burden falls on Russia to make the necessary changes. Only they can save this treaty." Having built a rare instance of NATO unity, which for the first time has unanimously stated that it believes Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, U.S. President Donald Trump's team seems more intent on using it as an opportunity to berate Russia than to save a valuable treaty that benefits European and global security. While Russia is to blame for its own violations, the United States will suffer just as much as Russia does if the treaty fails, and even more so if the collapse produces more discord than unity within the NATO alliance. By going the extra mile to save the treaty, instead of issuing ultimatums, the Trump administration might even pull out a win for once. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

The INF Treaty is very much worth saving, and quitting it over a Russian violation is as short-sighted and self-defeating as can be. If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no chance of negotiating a replacement. Not only will the U.S. be held as the one most responsible for killing the treaty, but by ending it the Trump administration will be opening the door to an arms race that no one should want.

The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S.

Quitting the INF Treaty unfortunately fits the administration's pattern of reneging on and abandoning agreements without giving any thought to the consequences of withdrawal. It makes no sense to give up on a treaty that has proven its worth to the U.S. and our European allies for more than thirty years.

The Trump administration has made the absolute minimum effort to resolve the dispute with Russia before quitting the treaty, and that makes it clear that they are just looking for an excuse to abandon it. If the U.S. gave up so easily on every agreement whenever there was a violation, it would not keep any of its agreements for very long. The bigger problem is that the administration's determination to leave the treaty is driven more by Bolton's ideological hostility to all arms control agreements than it is by any concern about any violations. The administration is seizing on Russian violations to withdraw from this treaty, but it also has no desire to keep New START alive, either. Letting New START die would be even more dangerous, but the administration isn't interested in extending a treaty that Russia has complied with for almost eight years.

[Dec 12, 2018] US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gives speech in Brussels

This is a typical neocon speech. Could be delivered by Hillary Clinton (if we removed some Tea Party frosting). Attacked both Russia and China. Such a freashly minted US diplomat ;-)
The fact that he is mentioned Skripal poisoning suggests that his IQ is overrated... Or many be that's his CIA past...
Trump want to pursue "might makes right" policy but times changed and it remains to be seen how successful he will be.
Dec 12, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Jessica Wylde , 6 days ago

Could you imagine if someone stood up and called out all the US crimes... 3 million prisoners, war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan ect. Poverty disproportionate to the wealth of the nation. On and on

landlogger , 1 day ago

It doesn't get any clearer than this. A group of people, with no conscience and therefore no shame, no empathy, no emotion, no love, hold the reins of power on planet earth. They do not distinguish between Afghani, Iraqi, European, African or American. We are all fodder for their demented psychopathic agenda. It's time to wake up, because it's coming to your doorstep.

ThePositiveKRP , 13 hours ago (edited)

Suddenly Mike Pompeo seems like a calm and reasonable man, when not long ago he was threatening North Korea with military action.

[Dec 12, 2018] Save the INF Treaty

Notable quotes:
"... The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S. ..."
Dec 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

calls on the Trump administration not to kill the INF Treaty:

Losing patience with Russia's refusal to address legitimate concerns over its violation of the treaty is understandable, but the way Pompeo framed the problem says a great deal about how poorly the Trump administration is managing this sensitive issue. Pompeo told NATO, "the burden falls on Russia to make the necessary changes. Only they can save this treaty." Having built a rare instance of NATO unity, which for the first time has unanimously stated that it believes Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, U.S. President Donald Trump's team seems more intent on using it as an opportunity to berate Russia than to save a valuable treaty that benefits European and global security. While Russia is to blame for its own violations, the United States will suffer just as much as Russia does if the treaty fails, and even more so if the collapse produces more discord than unity within the NATO alliance. By going the extra mile to save the treaty, instead of issuing ultimatums, the Trump administration might even pull out a win for once. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

The INF Treaty is very much worth saving, and quitting it over a Russian violation is as short-sighted and self-defeating as can be. If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no chance of negotiating a replacement. Not only will the U.S. be held as the one most responsible for killing the treaty, but by ending it the Trump administration will be opening the door to an arms race that no one should want.

The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S.

Quitting the INF Treaty unfortunately fits the administration's pattern of reneging on and abandoning agreements without giving any thought to the consequences of withdrawal. It makes no sense to give up on a treaty that has proven its worth to the U.S. and our European allies for more than thirty years.

The Trump administration has made the absolute minimum effort to resolve the dispute with Russia before quitting the treaty, and that makes it clear that they are just looking for an excuse to abandon it. If the U.S. gave up so easily on every agreement whenever there was a violation, it would not keep any of its agreements for very long. The bigger problem is that the administration's determination to leave the treaty is driven more by Bolton's ideological hostility to all arms control agreements than it is by any concern about any violations. The administration is seizing on Russian violations to withdraw from this treaty, but it also has no desire to keep New START alive, either. Letting New START die would be even more dangerous, but the administration isn't interested in extending a treaty that Russia has complied with for almost eight years.

[Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
Dec 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

blue peacock , 12 hours ago

Col. Lang

I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.

One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?

[Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
Dec 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

blue peacock , 12 hours ago

Col. Lang

I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.

One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?

[Dec 10, 2018] The American Melting Pot Can Turn Into A Volatile Mixture At The Top by Wayne Madsen

Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the Great Seal of the United States.

However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.

On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's departure the next day, November 14.

Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them.

The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia. Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.

Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser.

Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp Bondsteel.

Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko. She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department. Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and, thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN, where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda Khalilzad was serving.

After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania.

One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.

From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.

Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In 2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's birth.

Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the "Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces. Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel. Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.

Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago, Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt. So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a metric ton of salt.

Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.

[Dec 10, 2018] The American Melting Pot Can Turn Into A Volatile Mixture At The Top by Wayne Madsen

Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the Great Seal of the United States.

However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.

On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's departure the next day, November 14.

Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them.

The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia. Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.

Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser.

Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp Bondsteel.

Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko. She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department. Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and, thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN, where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda Khalilzad was serving.

After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania.

One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.

From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.

Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In 2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's birth.

Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the "Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces. Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel. Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.

Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago, Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt. So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a metric ton of salt.

Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.

[Dec 10, 2018] It's time to recognize the term "anti-Semitism" as a misnomer Countercurrents

Notable quotes:
"... Rima Najjar is a former professor (now retired) at Al-Quds University, Palestine ..."
Dec 10, 2018 | countercurrents.org

This morning I woke up to two news reports in my mailbox that indicated two things to me:

  1. Bigotry against Jews can no more nor less be distinguished from bigotry against any other group of people or religion. Sectarianism by any other name is sectarianism.
  2. The insistence on making bigotry against Jews (in its sense of sectarianism) a separate or unique class of discrimination or hatred altogether, one that is given a special term and that involves controversial and false definitions, is designed to play into the hands of Zionists and neo-Nazis.

Zionist desperation to criminalize anti-Zionist criticism of Israel by legalizing false definitions of anti-Semitism is a measure of how far the term "anti-Semitism" has traveled as a misnomer.

The first news item is from The New York Times – an opinion piece( Opinion | Anti-Zionism Isn't the Same as Anti-Semitism ) by Michelle Goldberg, in which she says,

The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that depends on treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people everywhere. Certainly, some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it's entirely possible to oppose Jewish ethno-nationalism without being a bigot. Indeed, it's increasingly absurd to treat the Israeli state as a stand-in for Jews writ large, given the way the current Israeli government has aligned itself with far-right European movements that have anti-Semitic roots.

The second news item comes from the Lobby Watch of the Electronic Intifada, in which Asa Winstanley, an investigative reporter, writes :

A new European Union declaration could make it harder to criticize Israel as a racist state without being dubbed an anti-Semite.

Politicians in Brussels on Thursday rubber-stamped the document .

The declaration asks all EU governments to "endorse the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism employed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance."

The move, passed by EU member states' home affairs ministers, has already been condemned by a number of Israeli and French academics .

The declaration was spearheaded by Austria, whose coalition government includes ministers who are members of a neo-Nazi party .

The term "anti-Semitism" to refer to animus against all Jews is a misnomer. By all accounts, it was coined or popularized by Friedrich Wilhelm Adolph Marr in 1879, a radical writer and politician, described in the title of his first biography as "The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism" and founder of the first "Anti-Semitic League", which he formed in order to agitate against Jewish emancipation in Germany. "Anti-Semitism", as Marr coined it, referred specifically to the anti-Jewish campaigns in central Europe at that time, and not to bigotry or hatred against all Jews, as the term today connotes.

As I write in Anti-Semitism Is Not the Issue; Palestine Is ,

As is well known by now, the building of Palestine in the form of Israel did, in fact, depend, and continues to depend in large part, on the good will of the Jews "outside," many as Norman H. Finkelstein writes in American Jewish History, deriving renewed pride in their religion and their connections to Israel with each Israeli military victory.

The irony/tragedy is that Israeli governments throughout history, including now with the Trump /Bannon merger, work with anti-Semites to promote Jewish immigration to Israel. Zionist collaboration with Nazis is also documented. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism should not be taking center stage either in arguments against Palestinians or in pro-Palestine arguments.

Israel is using a misnomer (the term "anti-Semitism" as animus against all Jews) in order to further its cause among Jews worldwide and among Western governments guilty of past bigotry against Jews in their midst.

Does animus toward Jews because they are Jews exist? Yes. Is this animus special or unique in what FiratHacıahmetoğlu calls "the darker side of western modernity (colonisation, domination, poverty, misery, inequities, injustices, commodification, and dispensability of human life)" or in Western Dark Ages?

Of course, not.

Zionism is a political movement, not "a belief", as expressed in the following definition :

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish nation, the exiles of the Kingdom of Judea that was conquered by Rome in the year 70 CE, have a right to reclaim their homeland.

Jewish suffering, like the suffering of those subjected to bigotry anywhere, is the result of conditions of society and ought to be addressed by fixing society through an increase in political power for disenfranchised groups of people, wherever bigotry exists, thus aiding all the oppressed  --  as, in fact, many Jews in the U.S. have done.

In the early days of Zionism, the Jews who believed that Jewish suffering in Europe is impossible to remedy within their societies (through socialism, for example) because of their lack of political rights and the economic structure imposed on Jews at the time and those who opted for a struggle to separate as a tribe through the acquisition of territory, any territory, outside their countries, represent what Zionism really is as a political movement, which is now oppressing a fourth generation of indigenous Palestinians in their own homeland.

The way I see it, it is time to recognize "anti-Semitism" as the misnomer it is, in order for us to be able to envision Palestinian emancipation and, indeed, all human emancipation, as universal and just.

Note: The above content was first published (7 Dec 2018) as my answer on Quora to the question "Is anti-Semitism a special kind of bigotry? What is the history of the term?".

Rima Najjar is a former professor (now retired) at Al-Quds University, Palestine

[Dec 10, 2018] How Big Brother Grips Americans' Minds to Support Invasions by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . ..."
"... That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. ..."
"... the global international republic ..."
"... (as Gallup's polls prove) ..."
"... only corporations whose only customers are the U.S. Government and its chosen allied governments ..."
"... natural-resources extractions ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... A task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials has come up with suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from taking over what's left of liberated Syria and fulfill his own promise to contain Iranian influence in the region. ..."
"... "Most urgently . . . the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria," ..."
"... by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America states. "Time is of the essence." ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... America's future generals ..."
"... all nations except the U.S. ..."
"... They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 ..."
"... CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity ..."
Dec 10, 2018 | countercurrents.org
On November 29th, Gallup headlined "Democrats Lead Surge in Belief U.S. Should Be World Leader" and reported that "Three-fourths (75%) of Americans today think the United States has 'a special responsibility to be the leading nation in world affairs,' up from 66% in 2010. The surge is driven by Democrats, whose belief in this idea has increased from 61% eight years ago to 81% now." This finding comes even after the lie-based and catastrophic U.S. invasions of Iraq in 2003, and of Libya in 2011 (and of so many others, such as Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Sauds created the Taliban in 1979 ). Americans -- now even increasingly -- want 'their' (which is actually America's billionaires' ) Government to be virtually the world's government, policing the world. They want this nation's Government to be determining what international laws will be enforced around the world, and to be enforcing them. Most Americans don't want the United Nations to have power over the U.S. (its billionaires' ) Government, but instead want the U.S. Government (its billionaires) to have power over the United Nations (which didn't authorize any of those evil, lie-based, U.S. invasions).

Not only would doing this bankrupt all constructive domestic functions (health, education, infrastructure, etc.) of the U.S. federal Government, but it would also increase the global carnage, as if the U.S. Government hasn't already been doing enough of that, for decades now.

The leadership for this supremacist craving comes straight from America's top, not from the masses that are being sampled by the Gallup organization, who only reflect it -- they are duped by their leaders. Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2009, for nothing at all but his 'kindly' but insincere verbiage when he had been a candidate) stated this widespread delusional American belief in American global moral supremacy, when addressing the graduating class at West Point Military Academy, on 28 May 2014:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. America must always lead on the world stage.

This had certainly not been the objective of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he set up the U.N. just before his death in 1945; he instead wanted the U.N. to evolve into a democratic government of the world, with elected representatives of each and every one of the world's governments -- to evolve into becoming the global international republic -- regardless of whether or not the U.S. Government approves or disapproves of another nation's government. The idea on which the U.N. was founded was not to involve the U.S. Government in the internal affairs of other nations, not to be the judge jury and executioner of other governments that it doesn't like, nor to dictate what other nations should or should not do within the given nation's boundaries. FDR intended that there instead be democratically represented, at the U.N., each and every nation, and each and every people within that global government, where each of these national governments is (hopefully but not necessarily) a democracy. FDR was just as opposed to dictatorship internationally, as he was opposed to dictatorship nationally , and he recognized that inevitably some governments will disapprove of other governments, but he was deeply committed to the view that a need exists for laws and law-enforcement between nations, on an international level, and not only within the individual nations, and that each nation is sacrosanct on its own internal laws. He respected national sovereignty, and opposed international empire. (This was his basic disagreement with Winston Churchill, then, and with American leaders such as Obama and Trump now.) Unlike President Obama (and evidently unlike the vast majority of today's Americans) FDR didn't want this international government to be an American function, but instead an entirely separate international governmental function, in which there is no international dictatorship whatsoever -- not American, and not by any other country. He knew that this is the only stable basis for international peace, and for avoiding a world-annihilating World War III .

Barack Obama rejected FDR's vision, and advocated for the United States as being (and even as if it already had been for a century) virtually the government over the entire world, which "must always lead on the world stage." Adolf Hitler had had that very same international vision for his own country, Germany, "the Thousand-Year Reich," but he lost World War II; and, then, when FDR died, Hitler's vision increasingly took over in America, so that ideologically, FDR actually lost WW II, when Harry S. Truman took over the White House and increasingly thereafter, until today, when the U.S. commits more invasions of foreign countries than do all other nations in the world combined . Americans (apparently, as shown in this and other polls) like this, and want more of it. Nobody else does. For example, nobody (except the U.S. and Saudi and Israeli aristocracies and their supporters worldwide, which are very few people) supports the U.S. regime's reinstitution of sanctions against Iran, which the U.S. regime is imposing as the global dictator. America's economic sanctions are like spitting into the face of FDR, who had opposed such imperialistic fascism in the more overtly military form when Hitler's regime was imposing it. It's also spitting at the U.N.

This latest Gallup finding displays an increase, but nothing that's at all anomalous as compared to the decades-long reality of imperialistic U.S. culture. For decades now, Gallup's polling has shown that the most respected of all institutions by the American people is the nation's military -- more than the church, more than the Presidency, more than the U.S. Supreme Court, more than the press, more than the schools, more than anything. America is invasion-nation. This is true even after the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of blatant lies , which destroyed Iraq -- a nation that had never invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States. The American people are, resolutely, bloodthirsty for conquest, even after having been fooled into that evil invasion, and subsequent decades-long military occupation in Iraq, and after subsequent conquests or attempted conquests, in Libya, Syria , Yemen, and elsewhere -- all destroying nations that had never invaded nor even threatened America. Why? How did this mass-insanity, of evil, come to be?

How is this aggressive nationalism even possible, in America's 'democracy'? It's actually no democracy at all , and the public are being constantly fooled to think that it is a democracy, and this deception is essential in order for the public to tolerate this Government, and to tolerate the media that lie for it. This widespread deceit requires constant cooperation of the 'news'-media -- and these are the same 'news'-media that hid from the public, in 2002, that the U.S. Government was outright lying about "WMD in Iraq."

The public simply do not learn. That's a tragic fact. Largely, this fact results from reality being hidden by the 'news'-media; but, even now, long after the fake 'news' in 2002, about the U.S. regime's having possessed secret and conclusive evidence of "Saddam's WMD," the published 'history' about that invasion still does not acknowledge the public's having been lied-to at that time, by its Government, and by the 'news'-media. So, the public live, and culturally swim, in an ongoing river of lies , both as its being 'news', and subsequently as its having been 'history'. This is why the public do not learn: they are being constantly deceived. And they (as Gallup's polls prove) tolerate being constantly deceived. The public do not rebel against it. They don't reject either the politicians, or the 'news'-media. They don't demand that the American public control the American Government and that America's billionaires lose that control -- especially over the 'news'-media.

Honesty is no longer an operative American value, if it ever was. That's how, and why, Big Brother (the operation by the international-corporate billionaires) grips Americans' minds to support foreign Invasions. Americans support liars, and it all comes from the top; it's directed from the top. It is bipartisan, from both Democratic Party billionaires and Republican Party billionaires. National politicians will lose their seats if they disobey.

A good example, of this Big-Brother operation, is America's Politifact, the online site which is at America's crossover where 'news' and 'history' meet one-another. It's controlled by billionaires such as the one who founded Craigslist . Millions of Americans go to Politifact in order to determine what is true and what is false that is being widely published about current events. The present writer sometimes links to their articles, where I have independently verified that there are no misrepresentations in an article. But, like the 'news'-media that it judges, Politifact is also a propaganda-agency for the (U.S.-Saud-Israeli) Deep State , and so it deceives on the most critically important international matters. An example of this occurred right after the U.S. regime had overthrown in February 2014 in a bloody coup the democratically elected Government of Ukraine, and replaced it by a rabidly anti-Russian racist fascist or nazi Government on Russia's doorstep, a regime that was selected by the rabidly anti-Russian (but lying that it wasn't) Obama regime . This Politifact article was dated 31 March 2014, right after over 90% of Crimeans had just voted in a referendum, to rejoin Russia, and to depart from Ukraine, which the Soviet dictator had transferred them to, separating them from Russia, in 1954. (None of that history of the matter was even mentioned by Politifact.) The Politifact article was titled "Viral meme says United States has 'invaded' 22 countries in the past 20 years" , and it was designed to deceive readers into believing that "Russia's recent annexation of Crimea" reflected the real instance of "invasion" that Americans should be outraged against -- to deflect away from America's recent history as being the world's actual invasion-nation. This propaganda-article said nothing at all about either Crimea or Ukraine except in its opening line: "A Facebook meme argues that Americans are pretty two-faced when it comes to Russia's recent annexation of Crimea." It then proceeded to document that the exact number of American invasions during the prior 20 years wasn't 22, and so Politifact declared the allegation "false" (as if the exact number were really the entire issue or even the main one, and as if America's scandalous recent history of invasions were not).

So, it's on account of such drowning-in-propaganda, that the U.S. public not only respect what U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower derogatorily called the "military-industrial complex," but respect it above even the U.S. Presidency itself, and above all other U.S. institutions (as Gallup's constant polling demonstrates to be the case).

Here's the reality: The same group of no more than a thousand super-wealthy Americans control both the United States Government and the weapons-manufacturing firms (such as Lockheed Martin), which are the only corporations whose only customers are the U.S. Government and its chosen allied governments . So, these few people actually control the U.S. Government's foreign relations, and foreign policies. They create and control their own markets. This is the most politically active group of America's super-rich, because they own America's international corporations and because their business as owners of the military ones is military policy and also diplomatic policy, including the conjoining of both of those at the CIA and NSA, including the many coups that they (via their Government) engineer. They also control all of the nation's major news-media, which report international affairs in such a manner as to determine which foreign governments will be perceived by the mass of Americans to constitute the nation's 'enemies' and therefore to be suitable targets for the U.S. military and CIA to invade and conquer or otherwise "regime-change" -- such as have been the lands of North Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Venezuela, etc., at various times. The weapons-manufacturers won't have any markets, at all, if there are no 'enemy' nations that are deemed by the public to be suitable targets for their weapons. 'Enemy' nations, and not only 'allies' (or 'allied' nations), are necessary, in order for the military business to produce the most profits. Overwhelmingly, if not totally, the chosen 'enemies' are nations that have never invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States ; and, so, in order to keep this Government-funded business (the war-profiteering and associated international natural-resources extractions businesses) growing and thriving, what's essential is continuing control over the nation's 'news'-media. As Walter Lippmann wrote in 1921, "the manufacture of consent" is an essential part of this entire operation. It happens via the media. Even Germany's Nazis needed to do that. Any modern capitalist dictatorship (otherwise called "fascism") does. The U.S. regime, being a capitalist dictatorship, certainly does. Physically, Hitler lost, but his ideology won, he won even as nazism (racist fascism) instead of merely as fascism, and this racism is shown because the U.S. regime is rabidly racist anti-Russian ( not merely anti-communist ), and has been so for at least a century. (Maybe it's what Obama actually had secretly in mind when he said "That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come." And Trump is no less a liar than Obama, and he continues this aim of ultimately conquering Russia.) They say they're only against Russia's leader Vladimir Putin, but Putin shows in all polls of Russians, even in non-Russian polls, to be far more favorably viewed by Russians than either Barack Obama or Donald Trump are viewed by Americans. This is why regime-change-in-Russia is increasingly becoming dominated by U.S. economic sanctions and military, and less dominated by CIA and other coup-organizers. The actual dictatorship is in America, and it requires participation by its 'news'-media. Demonizing 'the enemy' is therefore crucial. It is crucial preparation for any invasion.

The United States Government spends at least as much money on its military as do all of the other governments in the world combined . Its 'news'-media (that is to say, the media that are owned by, and that are advertised in by, the corporations that are controlled by, the same small group of billionaires -- America's billionaires -- who fund the political campaigns of both the Democratic Party's and the Republican Party's nominees for the U.S. Congress and the Presidency) may be partisan for one or the other of the nation's two political Parties, but they all are unitedly partisan for the international corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, that America's billionaires control, and that sell only to the U.S. Government and to the foreign governments that are allied with the U.S. Government. They also are partisan for the U.S.-based oil and gas and mining international corporations, which need to extract at the lowest costs possible, no matter how much the given extractee-nation's public might suffer from the deal. "Three-fourths (75%) of Americans today think the United States has 'a special responsibility to be the leading nation in world affairs,'" and the actual beneficiaries of this mass-insanity are the owners of those U.S.-based international corporations, the military and extraction giants.

Anthony Cordesman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, headlined on 15 August 2016, "U.S. Wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen: What Are The Endstates?" and he said, "Once again, the United States does not seem to be learning from its past. The real test of victory is never tactical success or even ending a war on favorable military terms, it is what comes next." But he ignored the main reason why these invasions had occurred. America's weapons-manufacturers won't have any markets, at all, if there are no 'enemy' nations that are deemed by the American public to be suitable targets for their weapons. Cordesman is there calculating success and failure on the basis of the myths (such as that the U.S. Government cares about those "Endstates"), not of the realities (that it craves targets). The realities focus upon the desires of the owners and executives of the weapons-manufacturers and the extraction-firms, for ongoing and increased profits and executive bonuses, and not on the needs of America's soldiers nor on the national security of the American people. Least of all, do they focus upon the needs -- such as the welfare, freedom, or democracy -- of the Iraqi people, or of the Syrian people, or of the Libyan people, or of the Yemenite people. It's all just lies, PR. Those invasions served their actual main functions when they were occurring. "The Endstates" there are almost irrelevant to those real purposes, the purposes for which the invasions were, and are, actually being done.

Here's an ideal example of this mass mind-control: On 19 November 2017, Josh Rogin at the Washington Post headlined "The U.S. must prepare for Iran's next move in Syria" and reported that:

A task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials has come up with suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from taking over what's left of liberated Syria and fulfill his own promise to contain Iranian influence in the region.

"Most urgently . . . the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria," the report by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America states. "Time is of the essence."

The underlying presumption there was that the U.S. regime has legitimate authorization to be occupying the parts of Syria it has invaded and now occupies, and that Iran does not. But the reality is that the U.S. regime is occupying Syria instead of assisting Syria's Government to defeat the U.S.-Saud-Israeli invasion to overthrow and replace Syria's Government, by stooges who will be selected by the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia , and the reality is that Iran's forces there are invitees who are instead assisting Syria's Government against the Saudi-Israeli-American invasion. In other words: this WP article is basically all lies. Furthermore, the Jewish Institute for National Security of America is a front-organization for the fascist regime that rules Israel , and the WP hid that fact, too, so its cited 'expert' was a mere PR agency for Israel's aristocracy. So, this is Deep-State propaganda, parading as 'news'.

Americans actually pay their private good money to subscribe to (subsidize) such bad public 'news'papers as that. The billionaire who happens to own that particular 'news'paper (the WP) , Jeff Bezos, had founded and leads Amazon, which receives almost all of its profits from Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud-computing division, which supplies the U.S. 'Defense' Department, CIA, and NSA. For example, "without AWS and Prime, Amazon lost $2 billion in the 1st quarter of FY18. These losses come from Amazon's retail business. About 60% of Amazon's revenue comes from retail and that's where Amazon is losing money." Amazon is profitable because of what it sells mainly to the Government, but also to other large U.S. international corporations, and they all want to conquer Syria. None opposes that evil goal. Although Bezos doesn't like the Sauds, he has actually been (at least until the Khashoggi matter) one of their main U.S. media champions for the Sauds to take over Syria. It's all just a fool-the-public game. It works, it succeeds, and that's what Gallup's polls are demonstrating. The public never learns. It's a fact, which has been proven in many different ways.

This reality extends also to other nations, allies of the U.S. aristocracy, and not only to the U.S. regime itself. For example, on 27 November 2018, a whistleblowing former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, who is a personal friend of Julian Assange, headlined "Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies" , and he proved that Britain's Guardian had lied with total, and totally undocumented (and probably even totally non-credible), fabrications, alleging that Julian Assange of WikiLeaks had secretly met (in 2013, 2015, and 2016) with Paul Manafort of the Trump campaign. The UK, of course, is a vassal-nation of the U.S. aristocracy, and the Guardian is run by Democratic Party propagandists (paid indirectly by Democratic Party and conservative Tony-Blair-wing Labour Party billionaires ) and therefore fabricates in order to assist those Parties' efforts to impeach Trump and to dislodge Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party's leadership. However, each of America's two political parties (like the UK's aristocracy itself) represents America's aristocracy, which, like Britain's aristocracy, is united in its determination to eliminate Assange -- they are as determined to do that to him, just as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud was determined to eliminate Jamal Khashoggi. 'Democracy'? This? It is Big Brother.

Only if the population boycott lying individuals and organizations, is democracy even possible to exist in a nation. Democracy can't possibly exist more than truth does. In political matters, deceit is always treachery; and its practitioners, whenever the evidence for it is overwhelming and irrefutable, should experience whatever the standard penalty is for treachery. Only in a land such as that, can democracy possibly exist. Elsewhere, it simply can't. The only basis for democracy, is truth. Deceit is for dictators, not for democrats. And deceit reigns, in the U.S. and in its allied countries. Is this really tolerable? Americans, at least, tolerate it.

When Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the far-right Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal editorialized against Obama on 10 October 2009, by saying that "What this suggests to us -- and to the Norwegians -- is the end of what has been called 'American exceptionalism'." Little did anyone then know that after winning re -election upon the basis of such war-mongering lies from Obama, as that "America remains the one indispensable nation" , Obama in February 2014 would go so far as to perpetrate a bloody coup overthrowing the democratically elected Government of one "dispensable" nation, Ukraine; and, then, on 28 May of 2014, Obama would be telling America's future generals , that "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" and that Obama would, in that speech, explicitly malign Ukraine's neighbor Russia. He did it, in this speech, which implicitly called all nations except the U.S. "dispensable." He had carefully planned and orchestrated Americans' hostility toward Russia. His successor, Trump, lied saying that he wanted to reverse Obama's policies on this, and Trump promptly, once becoming elected, increased and expanded those policies. Whatever a deceitfully war-mongering country like this might be, it's certainly no democracy. Because democracy cannot be built upon a ceaseless string of lies.

-- -- -- -- --

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Originally posted at strategic-culture.org

[Dec 10, 2018] A WORLD FEDERATION Chapter 4 Individual Responsibility The Nurenberg Principles by John Scales Avery

Dec 09, 2018 | Countercurrents
1 The training of soldiers

Within individual countries, murder is rightly considered to be the worst of crimes. But the institution of war tries to convince us that if a soldier murders someone from another country, whom the politicians have designated as an "enemy", it is no longer a crime, no longer a violation of the common bonds of humanity. It is "heroic". In their hearts, soldiers know that this is nonsense. Murder is always murder.

The men, women and children who are supposed to be the "enemy", are just ordinary people, with whom the soldier really has no quarrel. Therefore when the training of soldiers wears off a little, so that they realize what they have done, they have to see themselves as murderers, and many commit suicide. A recent article in the journal "Epidemiology" pointed out a startling statistic: for every American soldier killed in combat in 2012, 25 committed suicide. The article also quotes the Department of Veterans Affairs, which says that 18 veterans commit suicide every day.

Obviously, the training of soldiers must overwrite fundamental ethical principles. This training must make a soldier abandon his or her individual conscience and sense of responsibility. It must turn the soldier from a compassionate human being into an automaton, a killing machine. How is this accomplished? Through erosion of of the soldier's self-respect. Through the endless repetition of senseless rituals where obedience is paramount and from which rational thought and conscience are banished.

In his book on fanaticism, The True Believer (1951), the American author Eric Hoffer gives the following description of the factors promoting self-sacrifice: "To ripen a person for self-sacrifice, he must be stripped of his individual identity. He must cease to be George, Hans, Ivan or Tado – a human atom with an existence bounded by birth and death. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by the complete assimilation of the individual into a collective body. The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings. When asked who he is, his automatic response is that he is a German, a Russian, a Japanese, a Christian, a Muslim, a member of a certain tribe or family. He has no purpose, worth or destiny apart from his collective body, and as long as that body lives, he cannot really die. "The effacement of individual separateness must be thorough.

In every act, however trivial, the individual must, by some ritual, associate himself with the congregation, the tribe, the party, etcetera. His joys and sorrows, his pride and confidence must spring from the fortunes and capacities of the group, rather than from his individual prospects or abilities. Above all, he must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group must be equivalent to being cut off from life. "This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes.

Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individualist bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as being a throwback to the primitive." The conditioning of a soldier in a modern army follows the pattern described in Eric Hoffer's book. The soldier's training aims at abolishing his sense of individual separateness, individual responsibility, and moral judgment. It is filled with rituals, such as saluting, by which the soldier identifies with his tribe-like army group. His uniform also helps to strip him of his individual identity and to assimilate him into the group. The result of this psychological conditioning is that the soldier's mind reverts to a primitive state. He surrenders his moral responsibility, and when the politicians tell him to kill, he kills.

2 The Nuremberg principles adopted by the UN

In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal". The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI, which is particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI

  1. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace and humanity:

i. Planning, preparation, initiation or a plan of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Figure 2: Nazi war criminals awaiting judgement at the Nuremberg trials.

Figure 3: You cannot just say "I was acting under orders".

Figure 4: Judgement at Nuremberg

3 The International Criminal Court

The need for an International Criminal Court which would hold individuals responsible for such crimes as genocide had long been recognized, and at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly in Rome in June, 1998, the ICC was established by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. In 2002, after the 60 needed ratifications had been obtained, the International Criminal Court went into force. Today the ICC is located at the Hague, Netherlands.

It has the power to judge cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, provided that no national court is willing to judge them. Although the ICC functions imperfectly, and is opposed by several powerful nations, it is impossible to underestimate its importance. For the first time individuals are being held responsible for crimes against international law.

As we mentioned above in connection with collective punishment, attempts to coerce nation-states by means of sanctions are neither just nor effective. Political Federations, where laws act on individuals, have historically proved to be effective, just and stable. Thus the establishment of the ICC can be seen as a vital step towards a United Nations Charter reform which would transform the UN from a confederation to a federation.

The ICC deserves the wholehearted support of everyone who believes that institutionalized injustice and the brutal rule of military force should be replaced by a world of peace, justice and law. We must remember the words of the Icelandic saga of Njal: "With law shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste."

4 The illegality of NATO

Violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles

In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles. Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: "In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO's legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO's territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world."

Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which says that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called "democratization", or for the domination of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such illegal purposes.

In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal". The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI and VII, which are particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO: Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said that "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

At present, NATO's nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects: Today there are an estimated 200 US nuclear weapons still in Europe The air forces of the nations in which they are based are regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This "nuclear sharing", as it is called, violates Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclearweapon states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis arose, but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances.

Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them within a reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is guided by a Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.' The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important safeguard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances.

Must Europe really be dragged into a potentially catastrophic war with Russia?

At present the United States government is trying to force the European members of NATO to participate in aggressive military operations near to Russia. Europe must refuse. The hubris, and reckless irresponsibility of the US government in risking a catastrophic war with Russia is almost beyond belief, but the intervention in Ukraine is only one in a long series of US interventions: During the period from 1945 to the present, the US interfered, militarily or covertly, in the internal affairs of a large number of nations: China, 1945-49; Italy, 1947-48; Greece, 1947-49; Philippines, 1946-53; South Korea, 1945-53; Albania, 1949-53; Germany, 1950s; Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1953-1990s; Middle East, 1956-58; Indonesia, 1957-58; British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64; Vietnam, 1950-73; Cambodia, 1955-73; The Congo/Zaire, 196065; Brazil, 1961-64; Dominican Republic, 1963-66; Cuba, 1959-present; Indonesia, 1965; Chile, 1964-73; Greece, 1964-74; East Timor, 1975-present; Nicaragua, 1978-89; Grenada, 1979-84; Libya, 1981-89; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-present; Afghanistan 1979-92; El Salvador, 1980-92; Haiti, 1987-94; Yugoslavia, 1999; and Afghanistan, 2001-present, Syria, 2013-present. Egypt, 2013-present.

Most of these interventions were explained to the American people as being necessary to combat communism (or more recently, terrorism), but an underlying motive was undoubtedly the desire of the ruling oligarchy to put in place governments and laws that would be favorable to the economic interests of the US and its allies. Also, the militaryindustrial complex needs justification for the incredibly bloated military budgets that drain desperately needed resources from social and environmental projects. Do the people of Europe really want to participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not! What about European leaders? Why don't they follow the will of the people and free Europe from bondage to the United States? Have our leaders been bribed? Or have they been blackmailed through personal secrets, discovered by the long arm of NSA spying?

Suggestions for further reading

  1. Matt Wood, Crunching the Numbers on the Rate of Suicide Among Veterans, Epidemiology, April 27, (2012).
  2. Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, Harper and Row, (1951).
  3. Daniele Archibugi and Alice Pease, Crime and Global Justice. The Dynamics of International Punishment, Polity Press, (2018).
  4. David Bosco, Rough Justice: The International Criminal Court's Battle to Fix the World, One Prosecution at a Time, Oxford University Press, (2014).
  5. Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2003).
  6. Anne-Marie de Brouwer, Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence: The ICC and the Practice of the ICTY and the ICTR. Antwerp – Oxford: Intersentia (2005).
  7. Karin Calvo-Goller, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court ICTY and ICTR Precedents, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, (2006),

A freely downloadable book

A new 418-page book entitled "A World Federation" may be downloaded and circulated gratis from the following link:

http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-World-Federation-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf

J ohn Scales Avery is a theoretical chemist at the University of Copenhagen. He is noted for his books and research publications in quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, evolution, and history of science. His 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution set forth the view that the phenomenon of life, including its origin, evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its background situated in the fields of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. Since 1990 he has been the Chairman of the Danish National Group of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. During his tenure The Pugwash Movement won a nobel peace prize. Between 2004 and 2015 he also served as Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy. He founded the Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes, and was for many years its Managing Editor. He also served as Technical Advisor to the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988-1997).

[Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... He hasn't? ..."
"... I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that. ..."
"... I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration before Trump arrived in Washington. ..."
"... Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer. ..."
"... I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to be wise. ..."
"... it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis. ..."
"... If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west, you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing. They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster. ..."
"... That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy... ..."
"... If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans. In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich. ..."
"... He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing. ..."
"... In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class. ..."
"... I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not. ..."
"... I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them. ..."
"... The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons which they rejected, and I do too. ..."
"... We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels. ..."
"... Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change. ..."
"... In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again. ..."
"... Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime? ..."
"... How close to a revolution is your country? ..."
"... The country is getting redder and bluer. ..."
"... Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration? ..."
Dec 09, 2018 | www.weltwoche.ch

The Swiss are very suspicious of anybody who is boastful. That's why I have a question about Trump

I hate that about him. I hate that it's not my culture. I didn't grow up like that.

In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.

That's true.

Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?

No. He hasn't?

No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.

I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer.

Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?

Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.

Why should he be not capable?

Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power. They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.

The title of your book is "Ship of Fools". You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest fool?

I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to be wise. I'm not arguing for populism, actually. I'm arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.

When did you first notice that this elite is getting out of touch with the people?

Well, just to be clear, I'm not writing this from the perspective of an outsider. I mean I've lived in this world my whole life.

Which world exactly?

The world of affluence and the high level of education and among-- I grew up in a town called La Jolla, California in the south. It was a very affluent town and then I moved as a kid to Georgetown here in Washington. I've been here my whole life. I've always lived around people who are wielding authority, around the ruling class, and it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis.

If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west, you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing. They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster. Rural America, America outside three or four cities is really falling apart. I thought if you're running the country, you should have a sense of that. I remember thinking to myself, nobody I know has any idea that this is happening an hour away. That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy... You become Venezuela.

You write about vanishing middle class. When you were born over 60 % of Americans ranked middle class. Why and when did it disappear?

If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans. In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy.

The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.

Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people, middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich.

Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing.

In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class. The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.

They have to, or they will lose.

They have to, or they will die. Yes.

You're writing in an almost nostalgic tone about the old liberals? People like Miss Raymond, your first-class teacher. You describe her wonderfully in the book. You say that they have vanished. What happened?

I find myself in deep sympathy with a lot of the aims of 1970s liberals. I believe in free speech, and I instinctively side with the individual against the group. I think that the individual matters, I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them.

The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons which they rejected, and I do too. They were also suspicious of market capitalism. They thought that somebody needed to push back against the forces of the market, not necessarily because capitalism was bad, capitalism is not bad, it's also not a religion. We don't have to follow it blindly. We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels.

Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change.

Is that really so? Look at the grassroot movement on the left: Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her socialist group. It is probably a 100 years ago when Americans last saw a socialist movement of substance emerging?

Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the future.

In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again.

Well, you're absolutely right. You're incisive correct to say that the last time we saw this was 100 years ago, which was another pivot point in our economic and social history. Where, after 10,000 years of living in an Agrarian society, people moved to the cities to work in factories and that upended the social order completely. With that came huge political change and a massive reaction.

In the United States and in Western Europe labor unions moderated the forces of change and allowed us to preserve capitalism in the form that we see it now... You're seeing the exact same dynamic play out today, we have another, as I said, economic revolution, the digital age, which is changing how people work, how they make money, how families are structured. There is a huge reaction to that, of course, because there always is, because normal people can't handle change at this pace. People are once again crying out for some help. They feel threatened by the change. What bothers me is that there is no large group of sensible people asking, how can we buffer this change? How can we restrain it just enough, not to stop it, but to keep people from overreacting and becoming radical?

Talking about radical. Recently, a radical left-wing group have threatened to storm your Washington home. How is your wife? How is your family?

They are fine, they're pretty tough. They're rattled.

The Antifa-mob came right to the door of your home?

Yes, they did and threatened my wife.

Which must have been absolutely scary?

Yes, it was. My wife was born in the city, my four children were born here, we're not moving.

Your attackers have a goal, they're trying to silence you.

Of course. I would never, of course, that's a cornerstone of Western civilization is expression and freedom of conscience. You can tell me how to behave, you can force me not to sleep or take my clothes off in public, that's fine. Every society has the right to control behavior. But no one has the right to control what you believe. You can't control my conscience, that's mine alone. Only totalitarian movements do that, and that's what they're attempting. Of course, I would die first I'm never going to submit to that.

Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime?

No, I've never seen anything like this. What's so striking is that [chuckles] this is really... The radicalism is not on behalf of people who are actually suffering, fellow Americans who are suffering, on behalf of the 70,000 people who died of drug ODs last year, or on behalf of the people displaced by automation in GM, or whatever, on behalf of those dying American low class, it's really on behalf of theoretical goals.

They're saying that I [Tucker Carlson] am saying naughty things that shouldn't be allowed to be expressed in public. Basically, it's a totalitarian movement. Totally unhelpful. I would say childish. What they're really doing is defending the current order. They're the shock troops of the elites actually. Actually, what you're seeing is something amazing, you're seeing for the first time in history a revolution being waged against the working class. When does that happen?

Your way of debating is very tough. You're sitting there, hammering your guests. Sometimes we have a bit of a problem to understand that. For us it's a bit disturbing.

Of course, it is. It's disturbing for me too!

How tough do you need to be nowadays to have an audience?

Less, I think than sometimes we put into it or I put into it. I'm actually, in my normal life, I think a pretty gentle person. I've never had a yelling fight with my wife in 34 years. I mean, I've never yelled at my children. No, I don't ever.

Never?

Not one time. No, it's not how I communicate. I never want to be impolite. I have been impolite. I've lost my temper a couple times, but I don't want to. I don't like that. I believe in civility.

... ... ...

How close to a revolution is your country?

By revolution, let me be clear, I don't think that we're anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides for a bunch of different reasons... Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably too ... What you don't have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable with violence and we don't have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn't. I don't want violence for violence. I appall violence, but I just don't see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.

If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, "Would you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?" Most Americans, if they're being honest, would say, "no, I'm not okay with that. I'm not for that." Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.

"I'd rather my daughter married someone who's Hispanic than liberal", someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures, but that's one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It's a continental country. It's a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you're Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.

Orange County is now purely Democrat.

That's exactly right. You're going to move and if you're very liberal, are you really going to want to live in Idaho? Probably not.

The country is getting redder and bluer.

Exactly.

This revolution you are warning about - What needs to be done to stop it from happening?

Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can't metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they're not designed to, they're not. If you asked your average old person what's the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them to say, "Well, my friends are dead". But that's not what they say. Or "I have to go to the bathroom six times a night". That's not what they say.

You know what they say? "Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don't recognize this." All people hate that. It doesn't mean you're a bigot, it means you're human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can't have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.

How important is migration in terms of change?

It's central because nothing changes the society more quickly or more permanently than bringing in a whole new population and that's not an attack on anybody. There are lots of populations- there are lots of immigrants who are much more impressive than I am. I have no doubt about that. I'm not attacking immigrants. I'm merely saying that the effect on the people who already live here is real and they're not bigots for feeling that way.
You come from an ancient country with a series of ancient cultures within it and if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking Amharic and you didn't recognize any of your surroundings, that would be deeply upsetting to you.

What you saying, it's necessary to slow it down, control it?

You have to slow it down. Look at the Chinese. I abhor, I despise the Chinese government. However, I'm willing to acknowledge wise behavior when I see it. The Chinese would never accept this pace of demographic change not simply because they're racist, though of course, they are, but that's not the point. The point is because they don't want their society to fall apart because they're in charge of it.

The childlike faith that we have in America, and America is the worst at this, that all change is good and that progress is inevitable and if something is new and fresh and more expensive, it's got to be better.

It is kind of refreshing for Europeans that even Hillary Clinton tells Europeans, "You have got to stop this. You've got to get control of migration or you disintegrate."

John Kerry said the same thing, amazingly. They're telling the truth.

Do you think Europe is going to be able to get in control of that? We have 28 countries in the EU. And Switzerland is not a member?

So smart, so smart... You know why? Because they're mountain people. Love them. You know why? Because they're suspicious, that's what I like about them.
[laughter]

Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?

The EU has been doomed since the first day because it's inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because people wanted them, it's organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it's organized along lines that make sense. They evolved over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you've got a better idea, is insane!

[And with that, our interview concludes. It has already run far past the allotted 40 minutes. I offer to take Carlson, who seems to be very passionate about Switzerland, on a ski run in our Alps soon. Perhaps a smoke in one of the outdoor saunas I tell him smell like rotten eggs. Ambassador Grenell is on the phone line patiently waiting.]

[Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... He hasn't? ..."
"... I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that. ..."
"... I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration before Trump arrived in Washington. ..."
"... Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer. ..."
"... I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to be wise. ..."
"... it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis. ..."
"... If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west, you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing. They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster. ..."
"... That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy... ..."
"... If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans. In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich. ..."
"... He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing. ..."
"... In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class. ..."
"... I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not. ..."
"... I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them. ..."
"... The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons which they rejected, and I do too. ..."
"... We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels. ..."
"... Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change. ..."
"... In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again. ..."
"... Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime? ..."
"... How close to a revolution is your country? ..."
"... The country is getting redder and bluer. ..."
"... Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration? ..."
Dec 09, 2018 | www.weltwoche.ch

The Swiss are very suspicious of anybody who is boastful. That's why I have a question about Trump

I hate that about him. I hate that it's not my culture. I didn't grow up like that.

In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.

That's true.

Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?

No. He hasn't?

No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.

I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer.

Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?

Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.

Why should he be not capable?

Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power. They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.

The title of your book is "Ship of Fools". You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest fool?

I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to be wise. I'm not arguing for populism, actually. I'm arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.

When did you first notice that this elite is getting out of touch with the people?

Well, just to be clear, I'm not writing this from the perspective of an outsider. I mean I've lived in this world my whole life.

Which world exactly?

The world of affluence and the high level of education and among-- I grew up in a town called La Jolla, California in the south. It was a very affluent town and then I moved as a kid to Georgetown here in Washington. I've been here my whole life. I've always lived around people who are wielding authority, around the ruling class, and it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis.

If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west, you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing. They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster. Rural America, America outside three or four cities is really falling apart. I thought if you're running the country, you should have a sense of that. I remember thinking to myself, nobody I know has any idea that this is happening an hour away. That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy... You become Venezuela.

You write about vanishing middle class. When you were born over 60 % of Americans ranked middle class. Why and when did it disappear?

If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans. In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy.

The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.

Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people, middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich.

Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing.

In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class. The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.

They have to, or they will lose.

They have to, or they will die. Yes.

You're writing in an almost nostalgic tone about the old liberals? People like Miss Raymond, your first-class teacher. You describe her wonderfully in the book. You say that they have vanished. What happened?

I find myself in deep sympathy with a lot of the aims of 1970s liberals. I believe in free speech, and I instinctively side with the individual against the group. I think that the individual matters, I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them.

The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons which they rejected, and I do too. They were also suspicious of market capitalism. They thought that somebody needed to push back against the forces of the market, not necessarily because capitalism was bad, capitalism is not bad, it's also not a religion. We don't have to follow it blindly. We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels.

Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change.

Is that really so? Look at the grassroot movement on the left: Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her socialist group. It is probably a 100 years ago when Americans last saw a socialist movement of substance emerging?

Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the future.

In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again.

Well, you're absolutely right. You're incisive correct to say that the last time we saw this was 100 years ago, which was another pivot point in our economic and social history. Where, after 10,000 years of living in an Agrarian society, people moved to the cities to work in factories and that upended the social order completely. With that came huge political change and a massive reaction.

In the United States and in Western Europe labor unions moderated the forces of change and allowed us to preserve capitalism in the form that we see it now... You're seeing the exact same dynamic play out today, we have another, as I said, economic revolution, the digital age, which is changing how people work, how they make money, how families are structured. There is a huge reaction to that, of course, because there always is, because normal people can't handle change at this pace. People are once again crying out for some help. They feel threatened by the change. What bothers me is that there is no large group of sensible people asking, how can we buffer this change? How can we restrain it just enough, not to stop it, but to keep people from overreacting and becoming radical?

Talking about radical. Recently, a radical left-wing group have threatened to storm your Washington home. How is your wife? How is your family?

They are fine, they're pretty tough. They're rattled.

The Antifa-mob came right to the door of your home?

Yes, they did and threatened my wife.

Which must have been absolutely scary?

Yes, it was. My wife was born in the city, my four children were born here, we're not moving.

Your attackers have a goal, they're trying to silence you.

Of course. I would never, of course, that's a cornerstone of Western civilization is expression and freedom of conscience. You can tell me how to behave, you can force me not to sleep or take my clothes off in public, that's fine. Every society has the right to control behavior. But no one has the right to control what you believe. You can't control my conscience, that's mine alone. Only totalitarian movements do that, and that's what they're attempting. Of course, I would die first I'm never going to submit to that.

Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime?

No, I've never seen anything like this. What's so striking is that [chuckles] this is really... The radicalism is not on behalf of people who are actually suffering, fellow Americans who are suffering, on behalf of the 70,000 people who died of drug ODs last year, or on behalf of the people displaced by automation in GM, or whatever, on behalf of those dying American low class, it's really on behalf of theoretical goals.

They're saying that I [Tucker Carlson] am saying naughty things that shouldn't be allowed to be expressed in public. Basically, it's a totalitarian movement. Totally unhelpful. I would say childish. What they're really doing is defending the current order. They're the shock troops of the elites actually. Actually, what you're seeing is something amazing, you're seeing for the first time in history a revolution being waged against the working class. When does that happen?

Your way of debating is very tough. You're sitting there, hammering your guests. Sometimes we have a bit of a problem to understand that. For us it's a bit disturbing.

Of course, it is. It's disturbing for me too!

How tough do you need to be nowadays to have an audience?

Less, I think than sometimes we put into it or I put into it. I'm actually, in my normal life, I think a pretty gentle person. I've never had a yelling fight with my wife in 34 years. I mean, I've never yelled at my children. No, I don't ever.

Never?

Not one time. No, it's not how I communicate. I never want to be impolite. I have been impolite. I've lost my temper a couple times, but I don't want to. I don't like that. I believe in civility.

... ... ...

How close to a revolution is your country?

By revolution, let me be clear, I don't think that we're anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides for a bunch of different reasons... Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably too ... What you don't have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable with violence and we don't have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn't. I don't want violence for violence. I appall violence, but I just don't see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.

If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, "Would you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?" Most Americans, if they're being honest, would say, "no, I'm not okay with that. I'm not for that." Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.

"I'd rather my daughter married someone who's Hispanic than liberal", someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures, but that's one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It's a continental country. It's a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you're Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.

Orange County is now purely Democrat.

That's exactly right. You're going to move and if you're very liberal, are you really going to want to live in Idaho? Probably not.

The country is getting redder and bluer.

Exactly.

This revolution you are warning about - What needs to be done to stop it from happening?

Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can't metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they're not designed to, they're not. If you asked your average old person what's the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them to say, "Well, my friends are dead". But that's not what they say. Or "I have to go to the bathroom six times a night". That's not what they say.

You know what they say? "Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don't recognize this." All people hate that. It doesn't mean you're a bigot, it means you're human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can't have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.

How important is migration in terms of change?

It's central because nothing changes the society more quickly or more permanently than bringing in a whole new population and that's not an attack on anybody. There are lots of populations- there are lots of immigrants who are much more impressive than I am. I have no doubt about that. I'm not attacking immigrants. I'm merely saying that the effect on the people who already live here is real and they're not bigots for feeling that way.
You come from an ancient country with a series of ancient cultures within it and if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking Amharic and you didn't recognize any of your surroundings, that would be deeply upsetting to you.

What you saying, it's necessary to slow it down, control it?

You have to slow it down. Look at the Chinese. I abhor, I despise the Chinese government. However, I'm willing to acknowledge wise behavior when I see it. The Chinese would never accept this pace of demographic change not simply because they're racist, though of course, they are, but that's not the point. The point is because they don't want their society to fall apart because they're in charge of it.

The childlike faith that we have in America, and America is the worst at this, that all change is good and that progress is inevitable and if something is new and fresh and more expensive, it's got to be better.

It is kind of refreshing for Europeans that even Hillary Clinton tells Europeans, "You have got to stop this. You've got to get control of migration or you disintegrate."

John Kerry said the same thing, amazingly. They're telling the truth.

Do you think Europe is going to be able to get in control of that? We have 28 countries in the EU. And Switzerland is not a member?

So smart, so smart... You know why? Because they're mountain people. Love them. You know why? Because they're suspicious, that's what I like about them.
[laughter]

Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?

The EU has been doomed since the first day because it's inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because people wanted them, it's organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it's organized along lines that make sense. They evolved over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you've got a better idea, is insane!

[And with that, our interview concludes. It has already run far past the allotted 40 minutes. I offer to take Carlson, who seems to be very passionate about Switzerland, on a ski run in our Alps soon. Perhaps a smoke in one of the outdoor saunas I tell him smell like rotten eggs. Ambassador Grenell is on the phone line patiently waiting.]

[Dec 09, 2018] Pax Americana: Pompeo tells UN, WTO, ICC to bow and comply with US-led world order

Notable quotes:
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
"... "new liberal order" ..."
Dec 09, 2018 | www.rt.com

The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared. Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous (for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.

The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way.

China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions, which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.

The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.

Also on rt.com 'Surrealism': Iran blasts US claim its missile test violated UN resolution on nuclear deal

The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran complacent, so it had to go.

But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.

Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out more.

[Dec 09, 2018] Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda

Trump lost control of foreign policy, when he appointed Pompeo. US voters might elect Hillary with the same effect on foreign policy as Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel. ..."
"... Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package. Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

jim slim | Nov 29, 2018 4:04:44 AM | 24

Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | link

Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.

Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global energy dominance.

Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package. Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Pft , Nov 29, 2018 1:15:05 AM | link

As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North.

Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF.

[Dec 09, 2018] Wannabe Zionists (Bolton) has been trying hard to show his loyalty to the Jewish State

Notable quotes:
"... Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to. ..."
"... Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any evidence ..."
Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria, November 13, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT

@Z-man The "wannabe Zionists (Bolton)" has been trying hard to show his loyalty to the Jewish State.

The latest tragicomic attempt by the mustached "person of easy morals": "John Bolton Says "No Evidence" Implicating Crown Prince On Khashoggi Kill Tape" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-13/john-bolton-says-no-evidence-implicating-crown-prince-khashoggi-kill-tape

Comment section (David Wooten): "According to the crown prince himself, Trump's [Jewish] son-in-law gave him a secret list of his enemies -- the ones like Al Aweed who were tortured and shaken down for cash. Khashoggi might even have been on that list.

One or more of the tortured ones likely tipped off Erdogan, which is why Turkey only needed to enter the consulate, retrieve the recorded audio device they planted, and walk out with the evidence. Turkey also has evidence that puts MbS' personal doctor and other staff arriving in Turkey at convenient times to do the job -- and probably more. Khashoggi was anything but a nice person but Trump cannot say that or he'll likely be accused of involvement in his murder.

Dissociation is made far more difficult by the fact that Jared is a long time friend of Netanyahu who, like Jared, has befriended MbS .

Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.

Were it not for the Khashoggi affair, fewer Republican seats would have been lost in the election."

-- Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any evidence .

These people -- Bolton, May, Gavin Williamson and likes -- are a cross of the ever-eager whores and petty brainless thieves. To expose themselves as the willing participants in the ZUSA-conducted farce requires a complete lack of integrity.

Of course, there is no way to indict the journalist's murderers since the principal murderer is a personal friend of Netanyahu and Jared.

Jump, Justice, jump, as high as ordered by the "chosen."

By the way, why do we hear nothing about Seth Rich who was murdered in the most surveilled city of the US?

Z-man , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:21 pm GMT
@annamaria A 1st grader can see that MbS was behind the murder of Kashoggi.

Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.

I've been hoping for this since they moved to Washington with 'big daddy'.

annamaria , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
@Anon " crappy bedtime reading the woolyheadedness "

Hey, Anon[436], is this how your parents have been treating you? My condolences.

If you feel that you succeeded with your "see, a squirrel" tactics of taking attention from the zionists' dirty and amoral attempts at coverup of the murder of the journalists Khashoggi, which was accomplished on the orders of the clown prince (the dear friend of Bibi & Jared), you are for a disappointment.

One more time for you, Anon[436]: the firm evidence of MbS involvement in the murder of Khashoggi contrasts with no evidence of the alleged poisoning of Skripals by Russian government.

The zionists have been showing an amazing tolerance towards the clown prince the murderer because zionists need the clown prince for the implementation of Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz Israel.

The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the absence of any evidence , as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence . Thanks to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the treasonous Bolton.

Z-man , says: November 14, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@annamaria

The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the absence of any evidence, as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence. Thanks to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the treasonous Bolton.

Bears repeating.

[Dec 09, 2018] Pax Americana: Pompeo tells UN, WTO, ICC to bow and comply with US-led world order

Notable quotes:
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
"... "new liberal order" ..."
Dec 09, 2018 | www.rt.com

The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared. Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous (for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.

The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way.

China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions, which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.

The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.

Also on rt.com 'Surrealism': Iran blasts US claim its missile test violated UN resolution on nuclear deal

The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran complacent, so it had to go.

But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.

Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out more.

[Dec 09, 2018] CyberGuerrilla soApboX " Operation 'Integrity Initiative'. British informational war against all

Dec 09, 2018 | www.cyberguerrilla.org
Greetings. We are Anonymous.

We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the activities of the 'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and funded by the British government. The declared goal of the project is to counteract Russian propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent intentions, Britain has in fact created a large-scale information secret service in Europe, the United States and Canada, which consists of representatives of political, military, academic and journalistic communities with the think tank in London at the head of it.

As part of the project Britain has time and again intervened into domestic affairs of independent European states. A most demonstrative example is operation 'Moncloa' in Spain. Britain set to prevent Pedro Baños from appointment to the post of Director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took the Spanish cluster of the Integrity Initiative only a few hours to accomplish the task.

https://www.scribd.com/document/392195691/Moncloa-Campaign-6-AttTwitter-08-06-18
For now, Britain is capable of conducting such operations in the following states:

Spain https://www.scribd.com/document/392195775/Spain-Cluster

France https://www.scribd.com/document/392195457/France-Cluster

Germany https://www.scribd.com/document/392195486/Germany-Cluster

Italy https://www.scribd.com/document/392195660/Italy-Cluster

Greece https://www.scribd.com/document/392195527/Greece-Cluster

The Netherlands https://www.scribd.com/document/392195718/Netherlands-Cluster

Lithuania https://www.scribd.com/document/392195170/Baltics-Cluster

Norway https://www.scribd.com/document/392195748/Nordic-Clusters

Serbia and Montenegro https://www.scribd.com/document/392195208/Central-Eastern-Cluster

London's near-term plans to create similar clusters include Latvia, Estonia, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Armenia, Ukraine, Moldova, Malta, Czechia, countries of the Middle East and North Africa, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary, Cyprus, Austria, Switzerland, Turkey, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and the USA.

https://www.scribd.com/document/392195321/Cluster-Roundup-Jul18

All the work is done under absolute secrecy via concealed contacts in British embassies, which gives rise to more suspicion that Britain uses plausible excuse to create a global system of information influence and political interference into affairs of other countries.
Covert structures for political and financial manipulative activities under control of British secret services are created not only in the EU countries but also on other continents. In point of fact, quiet colonization of both former British neighbors in the EU and NATO allies is taking place.

The government of Great Britain has to come out of the dark and declare straight its intentions and unveil the results of the Integrity Initiative activities! Otherwise, we will do it!

Today, we make public a part of the documents we have available. In case London gives no response to our demands during the following week, we will reveal the rest of the documents that contain many more secrets of the United Kingdom.

Integrity Initiative Handbook. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195560/II-Handbook-v2

Integrity Initiative Guide to Countering Russian Disinformation May 2018. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195802/The-Integrity-Initiative-Guide-to-Countering-Russian-Disinformation-May-2018-v1

Austria Cluster. https://www.scribd.com/document/392194912/Austria-Cluster

Cluster leaders. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195250/Cluster-Leaders

Cluster participants. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195286/Cluster-Participants

UK Cluster. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195849/UK-Cluster

USA and Canada Cluster. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195882/USA-Canada-Cluster

xCountry. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195906/x-Country

xOutreach. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195933/x-Outreach

FCO application form 2017-18. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195350/FCO-Application-Form-2017-18

FCO application form 2018v2. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195390/FCO-Application-Form-2018-v2

FCO proposal Integrity budget 2017-18. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195430/FCO-Proposal-Integrity-Budget-2017-18

Integrity 2018 Activity Budget v3. https://www.scribd.com/document/392195593/Integrity-2018-Activity-Budget-v3

Top 3 deliverables (for FCO). https://www.scribd.com/document/392195825/Top-3-Deliverables-for-FCO

We are Anonymous.

We are Legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

Expect us.

Backup copies of the documents:

Moncloa campaign https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/moncloa-campaign-6-atttwitter080618/moncloa-campaign-6-atttwitter080618.pdf

Spain https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/spain-cluster/spain-cluster.pdf

France https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/france-cluster/france-cluster.pdf

Germany https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/germany-cluster/germany-cluster.pdf

Italy https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/italy-cluster/italy-cluster.pdf

Greece https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/greece-cluster/greece-cluster.pdf

The Netherlands https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/netherlands-cluster/netherlands-cluster.pdf

Lithuania https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/baltics-cluster/baltics-cluster.pdf

Norway https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/nordic-clusters/nordic-clusters.pdf

Serbia and Montenegro https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/central-eastern-cluster/central-eastern-cluster.pdf

Cluster roundup https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/clusterroundupjul18/clusterroundupjul18.pdf

Integrity Initiative Handbook. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/iihandbookv2/iihandbookv2.pdf

Integrity Initiative Guide to Countering Russian Disinformation May 2018. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/untitled-pdf-document-1/untitled-pdf-document.pdf

Austria Cluster. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/austria-cluster/austria-cluster.pdf

Cluster leaders. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/cluster-leaders/cluster-leaders.pdf

Cluster participants. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/cluster-participants/cluster-participants.pdf

UK Cluster. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/uk-cluster/uk-cluster.pdf

USA and Canada Cluster. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/usacanada-cluster/usacanada-cluster.pdf

xCountry. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/xcountry/xcountry.pdf

xOutreach. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/xoutreach/xoutreach.pdf

FCO application form 2017-18. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/fco-application-form-2017-18/fco-application-form-2017-18.pdf

FCO application form 2018v2. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/fco-application-form-2018-v2/fco-application-form-2018-v2.pdf

FCO proposal Integrity budget 2017-18. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/fco-proposal-integrity-budget-2017-18/fco-proposal-integrity-budget-2017-18.pdf

Integrity 2018 Activity Budget v3. https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/integrity2018activitybudgetv3/integrity2018activitybudgetv3.pdf

Top 3 deliverables (for FCO). https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/top-3-deliverables-for-fco/top-3-deliverables-for-fco.pdf

[Dec 09, 2018] Psyops oops UK-funded 'anti-Russian' programme outed in leak

Nov 28, 2018 | www.blogger.com
Isn't this interesting? A UK program to propagandize US and European audiences is set up to demonize Russia around the same time GCHQ and MI6 are busy spying on US presidential candidates and then ultimately doing their best to throw an election over here... while trying to frame Russia... for trying to throw an election over here. Cute right?

https://youtu.be/f0PY2M1r6Rc

Integrity Initiative , Russian hacking psyop

[Dec 09, 2018] 'Perpetual confrontation' MI6 chief lures young Brits into espionage with Russia-bashing

Dec 09, 2018 | eptoday.com

The head of MI6, the UK's intelligence service, hopes to recruit a new generation of tech-savvy spies, with a passionate speech urging graduates to protect the homeland against the arch nemesis who subverts the UK way of life.
"The era of the fourth industrial revolution calls for a fourth generation of espionage," Alex Younger will say at St. Andrews University on 3rd December.

To lure young Brits into the spy agency who otherwise might not have seen themselves in MI6, Younger paints an image of a clever arch nemesis –Russia– which can only be stopped with the help of brilliant young minds from all sorts of backgrounds, not just by the snobbish Oxbridge graduates typically associated with the service.

Fresh blood is needed to defend UK web domains against cyber-attacks, the spread of fake news and interference in domestic politics, Alex Younger will say, at the same time praising the old guard for "exposing" Russia in the highly-controversial Salisbury attack.

Russia, or any other UK adversary, better "not underestimate our determination and our capabilities, or those of our allies," Younger's speech warns.

Hardly historic friends and bitter Cold War rivals, the UK and Russia have seen their relations slip to new lows in March, following the poisoning of ex-Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. London immediately pinned the blame for the Salisbury incident directly on the Kremlin, and rejected any idea of an open joint investigation with Russia, insisting its own probe would suffice to make the case and then punishing Moscow with sanctions.

Moscow is also perpetually facing accusations of cyberwarfare against other states and attempts to undermine democracy and to influence the political process within those countries. And despite multiple reassurances that Moscow could not care less about the internal political struggles in foreign states, London and British mass media continue to vilify Russia with bizarre reports, like half of London's Russian community are spies for the Kremlin.

Claims of 'Russian meddling' look particularly hypocritical in the wake of a leak that exposed the Integrity Initiative – a group that claims to be fighting back against 'Russian misinformation' – being a clandestine network of influencers that manipulate European politics with the British government's backing.

The anti-Russia paranoia in the UK arguably reached its peak over the weekend, when military bases across the nation issued security alerts after a Russian TV crew was accused of spying outside the army's secret cyber warfare headquarters.

Credit : https://www.rt.com/uk/445410-mi6-spies-russia-confrontation/

[Dec 09, 2018] Hackers Leak More Details on UK's Info War in Europe

Dec 09, 2018 | sputniknews.com

International hacker group Anonymous went ahead with its efforts to counter what it calls Britain's interference with the domestic affairs of sovereign states. In a second dump of secret documents within two weeks, the hacktivists disclose more details on the ongoing UK-funded, anti-Russia information campaign spreading across Europe. The second batch of documents leaked by Anonymous unravels more information on the activities of the Integrity Initiative (II), a UK-based NGO ostensibly founded to counter disinformation and defend democratic processes from malign influence. According to the first documents leaked by the hacktivist organization last month, the project was in fact a "large-scale information secret service" sponsored and created by London to tackle 'Russian propaganda.'

However, the latest leak suggests that "the British government goes far beyond and exploits the Integrity Initiative to solve its domestic problems inside the United Kingdom by defaming the opposition."

Discrediting UK Opposition

Anonymous refers to a "scorching" article that surfaced in The Times on November 25 and was dedicated to Seumas Milne, director of strategy and communications under Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Times' official Twitter account promoted the piece three times within 24 hours on social media -- the only case for all of its articles, Anonymous says. The hacktivists add that the Integrity Initiative retweeted the "defamatory" article right after its publication (the post is now unavailable, but Anonymous provided a screengrab of the retweet).

Screenshot © Photo : Screenshot Screenshot

The group announced in November that the II constituted a network of clusters across Europe, which sought to tamper with domestic affairs of several European countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, Spain, and Montenegro.

Countering Russia on German Soil

Another part of the leak is an interim report on the establishment of a German cluster, which was purportedly written by Hannes Adomeit, a German political expert specialising in Russian foreign policy. According to the uncovered documents, the German cluster is coordinated by suspected MI6 agent Harold Elletson.

The report focuses mainly on research of Germans' attitudes toward Russia. Adomeit says that the so-called "Russian narrative" on the origins of the crisis in Moscow's relations with the West is "widely accepted by German public opinion." He adds that further research would be carried out to examine "the reasons for the great receptivity of the Russia narrative" in Germany.

READ MORE: Switzerland Follows Russophobic Narrative by Pressuring Diplomats -- Scholars

He also addresses the case of Andrei Kovalchuk, a Russian arrested in Germany on suspicion of smuggling cocaine to Moscow from Argentina. Kovalchuk was extradited to Russia in late July -- much to the dissatisfaction of Adomeit, who suggests that German prosecutors could have "made an effort" to question him and dig up some dirt on Russia.

Watching Russia's Reaction to Catalan Events

The activities of the Integrity Initiative's Spanish cluster were partly revealed by Anonymous in the first leak on the project. However, a newly unveiled document titled "Cluster Breakdown" identifies people associated with the Spanish chapter.

The list includes territorial minister Jose Ignacio Sanchez Amor, MEP Fernando Maura, head of Spain's peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic Dionisio Urteaga Todo, European Commission Speaker Dimitri Barua, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, head of Spanish delegation to NATO PA Ricardo Blanco Torno, former defence minister Eduardo Serra Rexach. Other affiliates include foreign affairs reporters and pundits from Spanish think tanks: the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, the European Council on Foreign Relations, and the Elcano Royal Institute.

Screenshot © Photo : Screenshot Screenshot

The Spanish cluster was apparently closely watching Russia's reaction to the movement in support of Catalan independence in 2016. According to another leaked interim report , the project's members were disappointed with Russia's moderate position on the situation in Spain. However, they claimed, while Vladimir Putin insisted that the issue of Catalan sovereignty was Spain's internal affair, he was happy to watch Europe "take its own medicine" (a reference to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence).

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov © Sputnik / Vitaly Belousov UK Integrity Initiative Project Aims to Damage Russia's Public Image - Lavrov

This is why, they said, the Russian media took advantage of the 2016 developments in Catalonia to portray the European Union as "declining, undemocratic and troubled". They went on to link the media coverage of the Catalan events in Russia to Russia's alleged disinformation campaign against the West.

The authors contend that given that Catalonia has become part of Russia's "big narrative about the West," Russian meddling has also become part of the debates in Spain. "This represents a clear window of opportunity" for promoting anti-Russia sentiment, they conclude.

Skripal Case Coverage in Greece

The Integrity Initiative's Greek cluster was keeping a close eye on the media coverage of the Salisbury poisoning in local newspapers. They went to considerable lengths, studying 193 articles across six major media outlets. It seems, however, that the result of all the hard work was rather unsatisfactory: the authors confess that the majority of Greek newspapers adopted a neutral stance towards the Skripal case.

They claim that the Greek media were influenced into not taking sides and remaining unbiased. "The strong pro-Russian sentiment in the Greek public opinion seems to have influenced the Greek newspapers not to emphasize Russia's involvement."

The Integrity Initiative has yet to comment on this information dump. Anonymous claimed that it released the second batch of documents after the EU leaders and international organisations had ignored its first disclosure. The group accused the II and its sponsors of failing to "give assurances that the network of clusters will only be used to counter Russia's disinformation policy."

[Dec 09, 2018] Britain on the Leash with the United States but at Which End by James George Jatras

Oct 13, 2018 | off-guardian.org

The "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom is often assumed to be one where the once-great, sophisticated Brits are subordinate to the upstart, uncouth Yanks.

Iconic of this assumption is the mocking of former prime minister Tony Blair as George W. Bush's "poodle" for his riding shotgun on the ill-advised American stagecoach blundering into Iraq in 2003. Blair was in good practice, having served as Bill Clinton's dogsbody in the no less criminal NATO aggression against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999.

On the surface, the UK may seem just one more vassal state on par with Germany, Japan, South Korea, and so many other useless so-called allies . We control their intelligence services, their military commands, their think tanks, and much of their media. We can sink their financial systems and economies at will. Emblematic is German Chancellor Angela Merkel's impotent ire at discovering the Obama administration had listened in on her cell phone, about which she – did precisely nothing. Global hegemony means never having to say you're sorry.

These countries know on which end of the leash they are: the one attached to the collar around their necks. The hand unmistakably is in Washington. These semi-sovereign countries answer to the US with the same servility as member states of the Warsaw Pact once heeded the USSR's Politburo. (Sometimes more. Communist Romania, though then a member of the Warsaw Pact refused to participate in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or even allow Soviet or other Pact forces to cross its territory.

By contrast, during NATO's 1999 assault on Serbia, Bucharest allowed NATO military aircraft access to its airspace, even though not yet a member of that alliance and despite most Romanians' opposition to the campaign.)

But the widespread perception of Britain as just another satellite may be misleading.

To start with, there are some relationships where it seems the US is the vassal dancing to the tune of the foreign capital, not the other way around. Israel is the unchallenged champion in this weight class, with Saudi Arabia a runner up. The alliance between Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) – the ultimate Washington "power couple" – to get the Trump administration to destroy Iran for them has American politicos listening for instructions with all the rapt attention of the terrier Nipper on the RCA Victor logo . (Or did, until the recent disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Whether this portends a real shift in American attitudes toward Riyadh remains questionable . Saudi cash still speaks loudly and will continue to do so whether or not MbS stays in charge.)

Specifics of the peculiar US-UK relationship stem from the period of flux at the end of World War II. The United States emerged from the war in a commanding position economically and financially, eclipsing Britannia's declining empire that simply no longer had the resources to play the leading role. That didn't mean, however, that London trusted the Americans' ability to manage things without their astute guidance. As Tony Judt describes in Postwar , the British attitude of " superiority towards the country that had displaced them at the imperial apex " was "nicely captured" in a scribble during negotiations regarding the UK's postwar loan:

In Washington Lord Halifax
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
"It's true they have the moneybags
But we have all the brains."

Even in its diminished condition London found it could punch well above its weight by exerting its influence on its stronger but (it was confident) dumber cousins across the Pond. It helped that as the Cold War unfolded following former Prime Minister Winston Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech there were very close ties between sister agencies like MI6 (founded 1909) and the newer wartime OSS (1942), then the CIA (1947); likewise the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, 1919) and the National Security Administration (NSA, 1952). Comparable sister agencies – perhaps more properly termed daughters of their UK mothers – were set up in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This became the so-called "Five Eyes" of the tight Anglosphere spook community, infamous for spying on each others' citizens to avoid pesky legal prohibitions on domestic surveillance .

Despite not having two farthings to rub together, impoverished Britain – where wartime rationing wasn't fully ended until 1954 – had a prime seat at the table fashioning the world's postwar financial structure. The 1944 Bretton Woods conference was largely an Anglo-American affair , of which the aforementioned Lord John Maynard Keynes was a prominent architect along with Harry Dexter White, Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury and Soviet agent.

American and British agendas also dovetailed in the Middle East. While the US didn't have much of a presence in the region before the 1945 meeting between US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Saudi King ibn Saud, founder of the third and current ( and hopefully last ) Saudi state – and didn't assume a dominant role until the humiliation inflicted on Britain, France, and Israel by President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis – London has long considered much of the region within its sphere of influence. After World War I under the Sykes-Picot agreement with France , the UK had expanded her holdings on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, including taking a decisive role in consolidating Saudi Arabia under ibn Saud. While in the 1950s the US largely stepped into Britain's role managing the "East of Suez," the former suzerain was by no means dealt out. The UK was a founding member with the US of the now-defunct Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in 1955.

CENTO – like NATO and their one-time eastern counterpart, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) – was designed as a counter to the USSR. But in the case of Britain, the history of hostility to Russia under tsar or commissar alike has much deeper and longer roots, going back at least to the Crimean War in the 1850s . The reasons for the longstanding British vendetta against Russia are not entirely clear and seem to have disparate roots: the desire to ensure that no one power is dominant on the European mainland (directed first against France, then Russia, then Germany, then the USSR and again Russia); maintaining supremacy on the seas by denying Russia warm-waters ports, above all the Dardanelles; and making sure territories of a dissolving Ottoman empire would be taken under the wing of London, not Saint Petersburg. As described by Andrew Lambert , professor of naval history at King's College London, the Crimean War still echoes today :

"In the 1840s, 1850s, Britain and America are not the chief rivals; it's Britain and Russia. Britain and Russia are rivals for world power, and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which is much larger than modern Turkey -- it includes modern Romania, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia, and also Egypt and Arabia -- is a declining empire. But it's the bulwark between Russia, which is advancing south and west, and Britain, which is advancing east and is looking to open its connections up through the Mediterranean into its empire in India and the Pacific. And it's really about who is running Turkey. Is it going to be a Russian satellite, a bit like the Eastern Bloc was in the Cold War, or is it going to be a British satellite, really run by British capital, a market for British goods? And the Crimean War is going to be the fulcrum for this cold war to actually go hot for a couple of years, and Sevastopol is going to be the fulcrum for that fighting."

Control of the Middle East – and opposing the Russians – became a British obsession, first to sustain the lifeline to India, the Jewel in the Crown of the empire, then for control of petroleum, the life's blood of modern economies. In the context of the 19th and early 20th century Great Game of empire, that was understandable. Much later, similar considerations might even support Jimmy Carter's taking up much the same position, declaring in 1980 that "outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." The USSR was then a superpower and we were dependent on energy from the Gulf region.

But what's our reason for maintaining that posture almost four decades later when the Soviet Union is gone and the US doesn't need Middle Eastern oil? There are no reasonable national interests, only corporate interests and those of the Arab monarchies we laughably claim as allies. Add to that the bureaucracies and habits of mind that link the US and UK establishments, including their intelligence and financial components.

In view of all the foregoing, what then would policymakers in the United Kingdom think about an aspirant to the American presidency who not only disparages the value of existing alliances – without which Britain is a bit player – but openly pledges to improve relations with Moscow ? To what lengths would they go to stop him?

Say 'hello' to Russiagate!

One can argue whether or not the phony claim of the Trump campaign's "collusion" with Moscow was hatched in London or whether the British just lent some " hands across the water " to an effort concocted by the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and their collaborators at Fusion GPS and inside the Obama administration. Either way, it's clear that while evidence of Russian connection is nonexistent that of British agencies is unmistakable, as is the UK's hand in a sustained campaign of demonization and isolation to sink any possible rapprochement between the US and Russia .

As for Russiagate itself, just try to find anyone involved who's actually Russian. The only basis for the widespread assumption that any material in the Dirty Dossier that underlies the whole operation originated with Russia is the claim of Christopher Steele , the British "ex" spy who wrote it, evidently in collaboration with people at the US State Department and Fusion GPS. (The notion that Steele, who hadn't been in Russia for years, would have Kremlin personal contacts is absurd. How chummy are the heads of the American section of Chinese or Russian intelligence with White House staff?)

While there are no obvious Russians in Russiagate, there's no shortage of Brits. These include (details at the link) :

Andrew Wood , a former British ambassador to Russia Stefan Halper , a dual US-UK citizen. Ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove . Robert Hannigan , former director of GCHQ; there is reason to think surveillance of Trump was conducted by GCHQ as well as by US agencies under FISA warrants. Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ soon after the British government denied the agency had engaged in such spying. Alexander Downer , Australian diplomat (well, not British but remember the Five Eyes!). Joseph Mifsud , Maltese academic and suspected British agent.

At present, the full role played by those listed above is not known. Release of unredacted FISA warrant requests by the Justice Department, which President Trump ordered weeks ago, would shed light on a number of details. Implementation of that order was derailed after a request by – no surprise – British Prime Minister Theresa May . Was she seeking to conceal Russian perfidy, or her own underlings'?

It would be bad enough if Russiagate were the sum of British meddling in American affairs with the aim of torpedoing relations with Moscow. (And to be fair, it wasn't just the UK and Australia. Also implicated are Estonia, Israel, and Ukraine .) But there is also reason to suspect the same motive in false accusations against Russia with respect to the supposed Novichok poisonings in England has a connection to Russiagate via a business associate of Steele's, one Pablo Miller , Sergei Skripal's MI6 recruiter . (So if it turns out there is any Russian connection to the dossier, it could be from Skripal or another dubious expat source, not from the Russian government.) Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared in British custody. Moscow flatly accuses MI6 of poisoning them as a false flag to blame it on Russia.

A similar pattern can be seen with claims of chemical weapons use in Syria : "We have irrefutable evidence that the special services of a state which is in the forefront of the Russophobic campaign had a hand in the staging" of a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. Ambassador Aleksandr Yakovenko pointed to the so-called White Helmets, which is closely associated with al-Qaeda elements and considered by some their PR arm: "I am naming them because they have done things like this before. They are famous for staging attacks in Syria and they receive UK money." Moscow warned for weeks before the now-postponed Syrian government offensive in Idlib that the same ruse was being prepared again with direct British intelligence involvement, even having prepared in advance a video showing victims of an attack that had not yet occurred.

The campaign to demonize Russia shifted into high gear recently with the UK, together with the US and the Netherlands, accusing Russian military intelligence of a smorgasbord of cyberattacks against the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other sports organizations, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine, and a Swiss lab involved with the Skripal case, plus assorted election interference. In case anyone didn't get the point, British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared : "This is not the actions of a great power. This is the actions of a pariah state, and we will continue working with allies to isolate them."

To the extent that the goal of Williamson and his ilk is to ensure isolation and further threats against Russia, it's been a smashing success. More sanctions are on the way . The UK is sending additional troops to the Arctic to counter Russian "aggression." The US threatens to use naval power to block Russian energy exports and to strike Russian weapons disputed under a treaty governing intermediate range nuclear forces. What could possibly go wrong?

In sum, we are seeing a massive, coordinated hybrid campaign of psy-ops and political warfare conducted not by Russia but against Russia, concocted by the UK and its Deep State collaborators in the United States. But it's not only aimed at Russia, it's an attack on the United States by the government of a foreign country that's supposed to be one of our closest allies, a country with which we share many venerable traditions of language, law, and culture.

But for far too long, largely for reasons of historical inertia and elite corruption, we've allowed that government to exercise undue influence on our global policies in a manner not conducive to our own national interests. Now that government, employing every foul deception that earned it the moniker Perfidious Albion , seeks to embroil us in a quarrel with the only country on the planet that can destroy us if things get out of control.

This must stop. A thorough reappraisal of our "special relationship" with the United Kingdom and exposure of its activities to the detriment of the US is imperative.

James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership.

[Dec 09, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

Dec 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

We have already seen many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be part of a different project.

The ' Integrity Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.

On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media smear campaign (pdf) against him.


bigger

The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
---
Update - The Integrity Initiative confirms the release of its documents. - End Update
---

The Initiative is nominally run under the (government financed) non-government-organisation The Institute For Statecraft . Its internal handbook (pdf) describes its purpose:

The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North America.

It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and promises that:

Cont. reading: British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

[Dec 09, 2018] Integrity Initiative: Country list of MI6 agents of influence according to the leak

Dec 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:12:45 PM | link

Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:

Germany

Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian Schmidt, Norris v Schirach

Sweden, Norway, Finland

Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz

Netherlands

Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan, Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:13:28 PM | link
Spain

Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi, Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor

US, Canada

Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler, Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado, Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland, Todd Leventhal

UK

Chris Donnelly, Amalyah Hart, William Browder, John Ardis, Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham, Deborah Haynes, Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon, Mungo Melvin, Rob Dover Julian Moore, Agnes Josa, David Aaronovitch, Stephen Dalziel, Raheem Shapi, Ben Nimmo, Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede
Alan Riley [email protected] Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll

Jen , Nov 24, 2018 2:25:43 PM | link
I see that the cluster of UK journalists to receive propaganda from the Integrity Initiative includes Guardian writer and former Le Monde chief editor (run out by her senior editors for her "Putinesque" leadership style) Natalie Nougayrede. As if The Guardian needs any more persuasion or encouragement to recede deeper into its labyrinthine network of rabbit-holes. Jonathan Freedland must be jumping up and down in an infantile tantrum that Nugget-head got such privileged access.
Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:30:45 PM | link
Agents of influence in Italy according to the leak:

Italy
Fabrizio Luciolli Vittorfranco Pisano Jason Wiseman Beppe Severigni Jacopo Iacoboni Alvise Armellini

erichwwk , Nov 24, 2018 2:32:15 PM | link
@ #2 pretzelattack Thanks for the Robert Mueller Guardian article link.

Am I the only one not to know that "As acting deputy attorney general, he [Robert Mueller] was in charge of the investigation and indictment of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland just before Christmas 1988.

Seems every new article I read on Robert Mueller, he was carrying out another CIA covert plan.


The Framing of al-Megrahi by Gareth Peirce London Review of Books 24 Sept 2019

Laguerre , Nov 24, 2018 2:32:37 PM | link
Britain has been a US dog for years, most overtly in Blair's time over Iraq and Afghanistan, but things haven't really changed. Britain's military has become more and more dependent on the US. There is no longer an independent nuclear deterrent - the weapons are rented from the US, and I'm certain that they couldn't be used without US approval (sure to be a backdoor somewhere in the electronics which would enable the US to turn them off, if the US disagreed). The F35s they've insisted on buying are probably in the same situation.

They're not slaves, or rather 'vassals' - the current word of sensitivity about the EU. More active collaborators, which implies initiatives also stemming from Britain.

One should also recall Britain's function as US agent in the European Union. They were opposed to many EU proposals, obviously to fit in with US desires. The most recent example is the Galileo GPS system - they were opposed to it for years, but as Ivan Rogers told us (former Brit ambassador to the EU), the opposition he was instructed to make failed.

It's all gone off a bit recently though. Trump is not interested in Britain in the way Obama was. Brexit is a nativist movement, not what America wants. If Brexit goes through finally, the interest of the US will be even less, as we can no longer intervene on the US's behalf in Europe.

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:35:35 PM | link
French agents of inluence according to leak:
France
Francoise Thom Jusin Vaisse Thomas Bertin Caroline Gondaud Guillaume Schlumberger Raphael de Lagarde Roland Galharague
Martin Briens Jean-Christophe Noel Laurent Rucker Alexandre Escorcia Nikola Guljevatej David Behar Claire le Flecher Remy Bouallegue Paul Zajac Nicolas Roche Manuel Lafont Rapnouil Laurent Rucker Patrick Hardouin Etienne de Durand
Janaina Herrera
Bart Hansen , Nov 24, 2018 2:41:35 PM | link
I just knew if I scrolled down far enough the name Anne Applebaum would appear - Queen of the Dual-Loyalists; but Wm. Browder!?

From her Wikipedia page: "She is a visiting Professor of Practice at the London School of Economics, where she runs Arena, a project on propaganda and disinformation." I reckon she "Practices" at the Post.

steve , Nov 24, 2018 2:43:03 PM | link
Of course none of this will be reported in the "real" news outlets.
dh , Nov 24, 2018 2:43:03 PM | link
@7 "...things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as they'd intended..."

Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base.

james , Nov 24, 2018 2:50:46 PM | link
@18 russ... yes - that pretty well sums it up... as for putin falling into the neoliberal order - at this point it does look that way.. i am curious how russia could move forward at this moment in some alternative way? what would the alternative way look like?

@zanon... thanks, but the list given for usa/canada has only one person on it that appears to be a canuck - glen howard.. and unless it is a different glen howard, the guy is some curling wiz, but no mention of his anti-russian credentials... his e mail address is given as jamestown.org which is connected to the jamestown foundation.. turns out, he is not a canuck either - "Glen Howard President

Mr. Howard is fluent in Russian and proficient in Azerbaijani and Arabic, and is a regional expert on the Caucasus and Central Asia. He was formerly an Analyst at the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Strategic Assessment Center. His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, and Jane's Defense Weekly. Mr. Howard has served as a consultant to private sector and governmental agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Intelligence Council and major oil companies operating in Central Asia and the Middle East."


one of the people on the usa-can list - john nevado appears to be an equadorian...

bottom line - as a sensitive canuck, i think someone needs to change the list to say usa and remove canada, as no canucks are on the list from the small research i did...

that is the sad thing about canada - it gets lumped in with the usa for good and bad on a regular basis... maybe they could put crystia freelands name on this list... i think she would qualify as a rabid anti-russia canuck...

james , Nov 24, 2018 2:51:44 PM | link
@31 dh.. i think you are right about that.. annie applepants is still aching over that... her and crystia freeland..
frances , Nov 24, 2018 2:55:24 PM | link
reply to Plantman 13
re:
"Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow."
I don't think it was the Republican party that was the source of the deadlock.
I think it may have been Tillerson. He had close ties to Russia and in March 2018, he was forced out of State and Pompeo came in.
"President Donald Trump nominated Pompeo as Secretary of State in March 2018, with Pompeo succeeding Rex Tillerson after his dismissal."
jayc , Nov 24, 2018 3:00:23 PM | link
"The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who receives (pdf) £8,100 per month ..."

That's a decent salary. He probably can work from home too - like Bellingcat. A fake NGO operating with fake "integrity" to identify "fake news". Everything is rather upside-down these days. Good to have all those names attached. Where's C Summers on the list? - maybe he never realized till now the monthly salaries available.

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 3:21:34 PM | link
Agents from:

Central Europe
Anne Bader Eduard Abrahayman Mitar Kuyundzic Plamen Pantev Solomon Passy Jaroslav Hajecek Jakub Janda Frantisek Vrabel Peter Kreko Jan Strzelecki Mario Nicolini
Austria
Harold Elletson Susan Stewart

Yul , Nov 24, 2018 3:23:47 PM | link
@ Zanon #28
All the French clique works for the government, especially Foreign affairs @ Quai d'Orsay.
Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 3:25:10 PM | link
Baltic section according to the leak:
Tomas Tauginas Asta Skaisgiryte Saulius Guzevicius Eitvydas BAJARŪNAS Renatas Norkus
Vytautas Bakas Laurynas Kasciunas Dr Povilas Malakauskas Ainis Razma Mantas Martisius Linas Kojala
Major Jane Witt Claire Lawrence James Rogers Andriy Tyushka Viktorija Urbonaviciute
frances , Nov 24, 2018 3:27:18 PM | link
reply to dh 31
"Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base."
True that!
I was blown away by their arrogance when I saw the US had bids out to remodel the existing Russian buildings in the Crimean port to for a school, housing.
It clearly never occurred to them that they could/would lose, nor did they even bother to think that Russia may keep an eye out for such mind blowing acts of stupidity such as these bids?
Jackrabbit , Nov 24, 2018 3:31:44 PM | link
Where's C Summers on the list?

There's only one "Craig" for all countries.

Perhaps Craig Oliphant is our resident troll? He was just talking trash about Russia on the Thanksgiving Open Thread .

ICRA Think tank bio


Craig Oliphant is Senior Advisor, Peaceful Change Initiative (PCI), based in London, and Senior Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre. Until the end of 2010, he worked in the diplomatic service and was Head of the Eastern Research Group in the Foreign Office, dealing with Russia and Eastern Europe.

In the first half of the 1990s, Craig held posts in Brussels at NATO as an advisor on Russia/Eastern Europe and was then at the OSCE in The Hague, as a regional advisor to the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. Before that he was at the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), as a senior lecturer at the Conflict Studies Research Centre at RMA Sandhurst; he also worked for several years in the 1980s at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Munich, Germany. Craig has published widely on Russia/FSU affairs. He is a member of IISS; RUSI; a Fellow of Royal Society of Arts; and is a Vice Chairman of the British Georgian Society.


Independent Conflict Research & Analysis (ICRA) was founded in May 2010 as a not-for-profit organisation providing objective conflict analysis and training. It is led by Christopher Langton OBE, who spent 32 years in the British Army. During this time he served in Northern Ireland, Russia, the South Caucasus where he was Deputy Chief of UNOMIG and held defence attaché appointments in Russia, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. Subsequently he worked at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) for 9 years where he was the focus on Afghanistan. At IISS he held appointments as the Head of Defence Analysis, Editor of "The Military Balance" and Research Fellow for Russia before being appointed Senior Fellow for Conflict & Defence Diplomacy.

He has worked as an independent expert on the international investigation into the Russia-Georgia conflict of August 2008 and on the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission investigating the violence that occurred in Southern Kyrgyzstan in 2010. Christopher was Advisor to the UK-China Conflict Prevention Working Group 2014-2015 under the aegis of Saferworld and supported by DFID.

He is also on the Board of a nonprofit that is active in Russia and other countries .
His photo is there.

Jackrabbit , Nov 24, 2018 3:33:25 PM | link
@craigsummers

Are you Craig Oliphant?

frances , Nov 24, 2018 3:36:33 PM | link
reply to:
This cureemt state of affairs cannot last longer. Right?
Posted by: PacoRepublicano | Nov 24, 2018 3:02:15 PM | 37
That may be why the globalists seem to be a bit off the rails.
I read in an article on the present French fuel tax protests/riots that a recent poll of world millennials found that 50 percent would go along with a change of govt, it was 75 percent in France. Concurrent with these riots the French govt is trying to bring back mandatory military service for those in the 3rd year of high school.
Indoctrination camps ala China is my guess.
craigsummers , Nov 24, 2018 4:01:51 PM | link
No Jackrabbit. That isn't me. I am far less important than you want to make me. Nor do I work for ORB International.
Bob , Nov 24, 2018 4:05:47 PM | link
Can we call 'Craig' Summers 'Anne' Summers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Summers

james , Nov 24, 2018 4:10:18 PM | link
i do think it is better to ignore the local shill... they say the same stupid shit on a regular basis.. out of the kindness of b, it is unlikely to stop... quoting jamestown.org is more of the same stupidity that i have come to expect from our resident shill..
Anta , Nov 24, 2018 4:27:51 PM | link
Craigsummers, | 36 |: "According to Bellingcat..."

Craig, you should see a neuropsychologists to check your sensory systems as well as basic cognitive abilities.

bevin , Nov 24, 2018 4:34:08 PM | link
Two more links
https://twitter.com/ShoebridgeC/status/1066080476404822017

https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation-integrity-initiative-british-informational-war-against-all/
New I hope, from Murray's blog.
Note that Ben Bradshaw a Labour MP, famous forbeing the first MP who married a man, a fellow BBC reporter, and a Blairite is one of the scum on the UK list. So is 'Prof' Alan Riley, a lawyer with extensive interests in oil.
These people are constantly being wheeled out in the media as independent experts.
Talking of Murray's blog the latest piece laments the death of the Al Nusra spokesman who was killed yesterday, by fellow salafists, as a democrat, secular etc etc.

Jackrabbit , Nov 24, 2018 4:58:18 PM | link
Well Craig, the blatent disinfo that you write @36 is so godawful that I actually believe that you are nobody. Just another pathetic paid jerk-off.

But the embarrassment of Cold Warriors destroying democracy in order to save it is so consistent with your own goofball antics that I had to ask.

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 4:59:26 PM | link
Check the propaganda organization's twitter account: https://twitter.com/initintegrity
They have been in a retweeting spam mode since they got exposed. Quite hilarious.
Entropy Wins , Nov 24, 2018 5:08:57 PM | link
"The Initiatives Guide to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation"."

This following document explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a Dirty Trick operation against Russia. It also mentions the use of aspects of Russian culture to be used as a weapon against it (eg the church)

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/02/iihandbookv2/iihandbookv2.pdf

It lists tream members, funding for specificic tasks and this statement:

"Code of Conduct (Greg to commence with internet etiquette)
Anonymity of the team remains paramount. As our activity increases we will, no doubt, attract unwanted attention."

That directly contradicts the official UK government statement to the Russians that the Integrity Initiative is a public domain program.

spike , Nov 24, 2018 5:17:57 PM | link
the secret to all good propaganda: accuse the other side of doing what you're guilty of

so people believe that anonymous collective managed to gain access, via 'hacking'to the FCO computer system? really? seriously? you think that the second, or third most critical/secure UK govt. system can be either 'spearfished' or accessed by some other means?

have a word with yourself

uncle tungsten , Nov 24, 2018 5:29:17 PM | link
Feeding trolls is pointless they are forever ravenous. That is until the willow finds its mark.

Thank you b and zanon and sam @8. You make a magnificent day for our world.

Harry , Nov 24, 2018 5:35:36 PM | link
Do we know this is "genuine"?

I will say this. I had always assumed Ed Lucas was ex -UK intel. He worked at the Moscow embassy for the FCO and has stuck to the "save the baltics from the evil empire" line ever since. There is a surprisingly tight network of folk (Yes Ann Applebaum) who have been together hating the commies and now the non-commie Russians since the 90s. Some of them are very prominent now (Yes Chrystia) despite having backgrounds which might suggest an irrational agenda driven outlook (Nazis?). They meet up at conferences discussing the Soviet/Russian menace and never mention that on raw spend, Nato outspends their hated Russia by 10x or 20x.

Still, for some reason these people are considered angels of light and the rest of us need to follow their barely literate lead (actually Ed Lucas is very literate, as is Peter Pomerantsev). Anders Aslund a lot less so.

Ghost Ship , Nov 24, 2018 5:36:57 PM | link
>>>>: Forthestate | Nov 24, 2018 12:26:09 PM | 10
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?

Luke "The Plagiarist" Harding and the other Guardian hacks must be really pissed off that they weren't considered to be worthy of even a sub-cluster.

Ghost Ship , Nov 24, 2018 5:41:16 PM | link
>>>>: Anya | Nov 24, 2018 11:57:00 AM | 4
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.

No, not really. MI6 have demonstrated even greater levels of stupidity in the past. For example, supporting the salafist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and then being surprised at the blowback that was the Manchester Arena suicide bombing by one of its followers

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 6:23:51 PM | link
Ghost Ship

Now you are being too kind:
Manchester Arena suicide bomber rescued from Libya by Royal Navy
https://www.rt.com/uk/434701-manchester-bomber-royal-navy

-

Greek group according to leak: Despina afentouli ELIAMEP Thanos Dokos Ioannis Armakolas George Tzogopoulos Dimitris Xenakis Katerina Oikonomakou Ioannis Goranitis Tasos Telloglou Katerina Chryssanthopoulou Sissy Alonistiotou

uncle tungsten , Nov 24, 2018 6:30:36 PM | link
I would include Russia Insider on the list of fake news fronts that they support.
simjam , Nov 24, 2018 6:40:48 PM | link
This is the most explosive piece you have ever published. Another indication that the West is in a "panic" stage of its demise.
Willie Wobblestick , Nov 24, 2018 7:06:22 PM | link
Hastily Written Job Application

Dear Department of Integrity
I'd like to apply for a job.
I'm short of work at the moment
And could do with an extra few bob.

I don't have a problem lying
And am prepared to work scruple-free.
I will smear anyone you want
In return for an appropriate fee.

I've established a reputation
As a bit of an internet bard,
So talking some utter bollocks
Wouldn't be particularly hard.

I've studied your regular output
Viz the work of Bellingcat
And know I can do a lot better
Than that useless speccy twat.

Vladimir Putin eats babies
And Lavrov tortures rabbits.
Bashar Assad wears make-up
And Rouhani has disgusting habits

The above is a free sample
Of my slimy slanderous verse,
And as long as the money's right
I know I could a lot worse.

I'm not a very nice person
With terrible self-esteem,
So I'm sure I'll fit in swimmingly
With your personality-disordered team.

I know I'll just be perfect
So why not take the chance?
For a mere eight grand a month
I'll happily dance the Devil's dance.


wendy davis , Nov 24, 2018 7:06:24 PM | link
i remain agnostic for now on the authenticity of the 'integrity initiative, but is has a definite Gladio/NATO feel to it, so it's entirely plausible.

but as i was pasting together a new diary on the ever-increasing increased jeopardy to julian assange by way the Wikileaks account on twitter, they had these tweets up:


https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1066266619863855105

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1066357360153821189

but the breaking story, two days after this:

'Ecuador's president has signed a decree terminating the ambassador to the United Kingdom, Carlos Abad. All diplomats known to Assange have now been terminated to transferred away from the embassy.'

was this:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1066370157826777091

psychohistorian , Nov 24, 2018 7:29:48 PM | link
@ Willie Wobblestick with the righteous poem....very nice, may it go viral with b's piece

@ wendy davis with the status of julian assange...thanks
I think these actions reek of desperation and lack of understanding of what exposure may ensue from julian going down in some way. Julian may be holding old news but I expect that there are depths of it that will be new to many.

The circus tent is starting to burn and the animals are freaking out, ready to stampede.

Can we evolve away from the private finance motivated world soon, please and thank you?

wendy davis , Nov 24, 2018 8:00:42 PM | link
@psychohistorian # 65

the first wikitweet was to the anon 'operation integrity initiative'; the second one says: "We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being fabrications."

assange attorney hannah jonnason (@AssangeLegal) had been looking carefully at them, parsing them in belief, but finally had re-tweeted wikileaks take. the 'portion' as i took it by way of the subtweets was 'fabricated emails'. she's gret, plus brilliant, but on one thread i'd posted she'd called marcy wheeler 'fbi informant MW', lol.

karlof1 , Nov 24, 2018 8:17:14 PM | link
Golly gee-whiz! Why am I not surprised? Gotta have complementary sources of disinformation operating in tandem with BigLie Media! Indeed, the synchronicity of so much fairly well proves BigLie Media is part of this system. The Tower of Immorality being built primarily by the Outlaw US Empire and its UK sidekick is like a Ponzi Scheme in that for it not to fall it must have ever more lies continually added where eventually everything said by them will be 100% false.
psychohistorian , Nov 24, 2018 8:18:16 PM | link
It is getting tedious to have to type my personal information in every time I want to comment. B has written that he is working on issues but I may forgo the web site link if this continues....lazy as I am

@ wendy davis with the marcy wheeler as fbi informant claim....marcy seems well intentioned but seems to have some way weird bias blinders in her thinking. I have stopped following her because her signal to noise ratio got too bad. There are lots of folks like her I am sorry to write. Well intentioned but drinking some koolaid that has them mixed up in strategic ways.....almost like it was planned.....maybe more lists will come out now of other organizations that are paying folk to build and/or maintain certain narratives like GWOT, etc.


And yes, we can take the truth. It will set many free.

karlof1 , Nov 24, 2018 8:33:59 PM | link
To further my @67--

The chemical attack on Aleppo earlier today wasn't accompanied by immediate synchronized media and NATO political leader accusations against the terrorists like we've seen associated with the FFs. I've yet to see any, nor have any been reported on Twitter.

james , Nov 24, 2018 8:40:28 PM | link
@ 68 pscychohistorian.. ditto your comments on marcy wheeler... all the folks at emptywheel have gone off the rails, led by lead bozo - bmaz... i used to enjoy reading her, but the hate russia memo they all swallowed is tedious slogging and i am not up for it..
psychohistorian , Nov 24, 2018 8:56:04 PM | link
@ karlof1 with the reference to chemical attack on Aleppo today

I just posted a link from Xinhuanet on the thanksgiving open thread about it.

Roy G , Nov 24, 2018 9:11:53 PM | link
James @70 i'm right there with ya. Watching how the Russian Derangement Syndrome has afflicted otherwise sane and smart people has been disillusioning to say the least.
juliania , Nov 24, 2018 9:15:46 PM | link
Blessings, b and comment support on this - it takes me back to the days when Five Eyes was unravelling, and I can't but think that dastardly plot to surveil and snoop by means of developing technology was going to be a worldwide instrument of torture and oneupmanship that many thought would make that consortium top dog for all time.

So, they smashed the Guardian's computers, and they co-opted or blackmailed where they could, but the genie was out. And out for good. It would make a good spy novel if it weren't for the very real deaths and destruction that have happened in the wake of the revelations. And that will happen before this sorry historical episode is over. I simply believe, however, that thanks to nearly everyone contributing to this forum, such possibilities are diminishing. Thank you,b and everyone.

wendy davis , Nov 24, 2018 9:33:57 PM | link
@ psychohistorian #68

well, never mind.

Uncle $cam , Nov 24, 2018 9:35:33 PM | link

Wikileaks: "British Army creates a 1,500 strong team of Facebook psychological operations warriors...3 years ago."


on a different note... Hope -if he isn't dead,-Assange, makes it through the weekend...

Uncle $cam , Nov 24, 2018 9:41:12 PM | link
Wikileaks: "British Army creates a 1,500 strong team of Facebook psychological operations warriors...3 years ago." grrr. sorry...
V , Nov 24, 2018 10:42:02 PM | link
b's article is a sad, sad, commentary on today's reality.
But in fact, there is nothing shocking or even unexpected; just sad...
Geo , Nov 24, 2018 10:45:06 PM | link
Curious if and how this recent push against Zuckerberg by the UK government plays into this.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers?CMP=share_btn_tw

I'm not well versed enough myself but I am baffled by this whole mess. All sides of this are entities I don't trust at all: Intelligence agencies, Facebook, Trump and his crooked playmates... seems there are no sides to trust or root for in this whole game of espionage.

Jen , Nov 24, 2018 10:54:06 PM | link
Ghost Ship @ 58: There is a Guardian writer in that UK journalist sub-cluster list and that is Natalie Nougayrede. No surprise there ... over at Off-Guardian.org, commenters have their own unprintable names for her. And you thought the bar at Integrity Initiative wasn't low enough for Fraudian hacks.
SayLess , Nov 25, 2018 12:16:03 AM | link
It is important to note that Wikileaks questioned the authenticity of these documents. We should be cautious before drawing any conclusions and wait for more information.

"We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being fabrications."

https://web.archive.org/web/20181125051405/https:/twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1066357360153821189

iv> Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick of NATO and the UKUS governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her in the first place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If they are all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this

Posted by: Б , Nov 25, 2018 12:41:26 AM | link

Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick of NATO and the UKUS governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her in the first place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If they are all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this

Posted by: Б | Nov 25, 2018 12:41:26 AM | link

Brian , Nov 25, 2018 1:06:56 AM | link
So Facebook is s co sponsor ? Social media not just about bringing people together but manipulator and subversion .
If they were targeting Jews this would be called antisemitism , as iybisvtheytecyargetumg russians ,
What role did they play In the novichok hoax ?
Brian , Nov 25, 2018 1:09:15 AM | link
'Making people see we arecinder attack by russia ' !
Could war paranoia . Do the British people want their funds to be used to manipulate them ?
Brian , Nov 25, 2018 1:26:23 AM | link
'Clusters established in each country' reads an awful lot like subversion and treachery
Should this be a matter for country police and national security ?
Quentin , Nov 25, 2018 1:54:01 AM | link
Brian @ 84

Right. Like sleeper cells ready at a moment's notice to spread terrifying disinformation and propaganda.

alain , Nov 25, 2018 2:06:13 AM | link
@Zanon 28
Même pour les Français, l'information est aujourd'hui en anglais... Ceci dit, l'hystérie et l'"activité" anti-russe n'est pas très effective en France... Trop d'Histoire et d'histoires partagées pour adhérer à cette soupe servie pour les peuples anglo-saxons... Mais enfin, pas besoin d'avoir lu Hegel pour comprendre que toute cette agitation-propagande sert in fine l'ennemi désigné, la Russie; et précipite encore un peu plus, si c'est possible, la fin de l'empire.
alain , Nov 25, 2018 2:10:11 AM | link
Oops... And by the way, thanks again b. for being :-)
b , Nov 25, 2018 2:25:31 AM | link
Hmmm -
WikiLeaks @wikileaks - 10:45am · 24 Nov 2018

Purported internal documents, from a UK government "counter-Russia" influence network targeting mostly Europe and US, appear on site often alleged to be used by Russian state hackers. cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation

We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being fabrications.

I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the stash. There are some small but explainable inconsistencies (i.e. between budget plan and approved budget?) and the whole stash is likely bigger than the published one. But all the details I could check seem to fit.

b , Nov 25, 2018 3:17:29 AM | link
This seems to confirm that the papers are real:
Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda - 8:58pm · 23 Nov 2018

So the Russians hacked Institute for Statecraft (@InitIntegrity).

I am one of many people mentioned in here, as part of wide movement of folks trying to push hard aganist Kremlin influence operations.

It is a badge of honor to be among people who are together standing up!


Russ , Nov 25, 2018 3:37:33 AM | link
Posted by: b | Nov 25, 2018 2:25:31 AM | 88

"I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the stash."

Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now? (I assume Assange can't do so from his hideout.) My memory's hazy, but I recall there being some kind of internal struggle there, and that a pro-Wall Street faction opposed the release of the Bank of America files and destroyed them.

Are they now trying to turn and appease their system enemies? Wouldn't be the first such sell-out. Maybe they're jealous of the prestige, lucre, and system respectability of the Snowden/Greenwald/Intercept industrial complex.

Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 25, 2018 4:01:51 AM | link
This has everything...right down to FCO email addresses. For FCO read MI6. Either this is colossal disinfo from Anonymous or a significant operation is truly blown. To resort to something like this, on this scale, showa that they are worried about something. Perhaps RT is getting wore viewing and hits in the UK and Europe than their outlets are. Once the internet was invented this was bound to happen. In some societies this would be regarded as espionage and subversion and these shills would be rounded up for a little chat. Great journalism b, stay safe......at least we now know who the provocateurs for the next false flag are....
donkeytale , Nov 25, 2018 4:12:41 AM | link
Zero Hedge also striking similar skeptical notes. They retweet Assange from 2016 stating anonymous to be an FBI cutout organisation. These anti-Russian organisations are real and their aim is to fight Russian propaganda, they will say by publishing truth while Russia says with lies. Of course they are funded. So is Russian propaganda. What the Russians are doing is classic "Spy vs Spy" and Barflies of course lap up the kool-aid just as easily as every kool-aid drinker we deride. The constant state of confirmation bias and psychological projection on the internets isn't even newsworthy but it's interesting sociology. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Same as it ever was. Whatever gets us through the night. It's alright. But is Assange only speaking truth when he confirms our biases? I have more respect for him.


Thanks b for posting Wikileak's skeptical take even as you wish to believe otherwise. That's integrity. And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if you were in his shoes.

Felipe , Nov 25, 2018 4:25:10 AM | link
This is so big of a news but the western media do not say a word about it!
This screams subversion, Gladio from the very top/deep state of western society.
Russ , Nov 25, 2018 4:30:24 AM | link
Posted by: donkeytale | Nov 25, 2018 4:12:41 AM | 92

"And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if you were in his shoes."

Who said that, donkeydumbass? Learn to read. I asked if the post-Assange Wikileaks might be trying to do that. Of course I don't know what Assange himself might or might not do, any more than you do.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 25, 2018 4:32:15 AM | link
b 88

Perhaps a little bit of appeasement.. unless something changes, the brits will be sending Assange off to yankee land soon.

Horse's mouth , Nov 25, 2018 5:57:04 AM | link
https://apnews.com/fc570e4b400f4c7db3b0d739e9dc5d4d

The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack.

In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone."

He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for other attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.

Poupard is director general of the government cyber-defense agency known in France by its acronym, ANSSI. Its experts were immediately dispatched when documents stolen from the Macron campaign leaked online on May 5 in the closing hours of the presidential race.

Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country."

___

b , Nov 25, 2018 5:58:16 AM | link
@all

Some commentators claim that 'Anonymous' is an FBI operations and that lets them doubt this issue.

Actually 'Anonymous' has been used as a cover by various shady agencies and individuals. Everybody can publish whatever they want under the 'Anonymous' moniker. The moniker has no credibility or meaning.

As always one has to distinguish between the source of information and the actual content of the information.
Here the source is obviously shady. But the content, as far as I can tell, seems to be real.
---

Also - don't feed the house troll. Craigsummers is allowed to comment here solely for our amusement. There is no need to discuss whatever he posts.

john stack , Nov 25, 2018 6:12:18 AM | link
I cannot get into the list of agents. Who is listed for Ireland ?
blues , Nov 25, 2018 6:28:41 AM | link
My comments have been getting short of late.

It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY lucrative racket going?

BM , Nov 25, 2018 6:51:59 AM | link
In countries that may be hostile to this programme (Serbia, Spain, Italy for example), the exposed cluster members should be immediately arrested as foreign spies and tried for treason, and the exposed British Embassy contacts should be immediately expelled.
Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow.

Interesting isn't it, that from March 2018 the Trump Administration is no longer blocking this programme! When was Trump's first meeting with President Putin, wasn't that in March? Immediately afterwards of course he was lambasted. Was he turned at that point?

S , Nov 25, 2018 7:22:21 AM | link
@BM: The meeting was in summer. Early March was when the Skripal saga started.
William Bowles , Nov 25, 2018 7:57:23 AM | link
@15 Re Analytica:

It's owned by a US firm, or at least it was, until they wound it up.

Anya , Nov 25, 2018 8:48:43 AM | link
"Edward Snowden accused an Israeli cybersecurity firm of developing and selling surveillance software to Saudi Arabia, enabling the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=_LeOt4HCI-M

So humanitarian of Israeli!

Ghost Ship , Nov 25, 2018 8:52:17 AM | link
>>>> blues | Nov 25, 2018 6:28:41 AM | 98
It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY lucrative racket going?

Nah. like Skripal this is a home grown effort. After backing that loser Clinton with the Steele file, the British Conservative government which likes to have its head even further up Washington's arse than Tony Blair's is scared shitless that Trump will shit on them from a great height for backing his rival. I suspect he will wait for Brexit to go through and then take a dump on them when they turn up with their begging bowl in Washington looking for a "free trade deal". They're hoping that with these attacks on Russia they will ingratiate themselves with the Washington foreign policy establishment (Pat Lang's Borg) enough to reduce the incredible volumes of shit Trump would dump on them. It looks like it's working at the moment, but then Trump is known to be capricious so its anybody's guess what happens later. Bear in mind that if the Conservative government make enough mistakes, it's that socialist Corbyn who replaces it which is its Worst. Nightmare. Evah.

steve , Nov 25, 2018 9:01:14 AM | link
The bottom line as Al Gore said is there is no overriding authority. Sites like Above Top Secrect are obviously run by people who want things kept top secrect. Snopes revealed itself with its take on the White Helmets in Syria. Remember when the Greenpeace guy turned out to be a shill for Nuclear Energy.
alaff , Nov 25, 2018 9:08:00 AM | link
Thank you. Very good covering of the 'event', written in clear accessible language.
I am afraid that what was discovered is only a small part of the ocean of lies in which they are trying to force us to swim.
I am amazed how these people can sleep well. Rotten and lying through and through...

In fact, nothing "surprising" or "unbelievable" was found. Specialists, experts, as well as ordinary people, who have been interested in the topic, have long understood that it is about a targeted propaganda, which operates according to its laws. This propaganda calls truth a lie, and a lie truth, it calls white black and black it calls white. The work of this propaganda is also clearly visible, for example, when, on the eve of some important event, the "world community" suddenly (mean, "suddenly") finds out something "sensational", while MSM all start writing the same thing with a certain bias (often anti-Russian). The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly pointed out the obvious coordination of the work of the Western media when it comes to 'anti-Russian news'. All these info are in briefings and statements of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which are publicly available on the Ministry's website.

Especially clearly a targeted coordinated work of propaganda was visible during the events in Syria, in particular, during the liberation of Aleppo. Remember all these "the last hospitals". Even high-ranking representatives of the UN, many of whom are essentially Western protégés, were also participating in this propaganda. For those who are interested in how this worked during the liberation of Aleppo, I recommend reading this in full. A lot of interesting details.

One thing is good - that such info become publicly known. Maybe more people will wake up and think about what is going on.

Ghost Ship , Nov 25, 2018 9:13:38 AM | link
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being fabrications.

This particular story might originate within MI6. If MI6 knew that the Russians had gathered compromising information on this operation, MI6 would put out a story favourable to them to capture the narrative before the Russians could. Like all black propaganda, they would have to include some of the real truth to make the fake "truth" appear reliable. It also allows the supposedly devious twats at MI6 to demonstrate their steadfastness in "fighting" the Russians.

BTW, it's entirely possible that the Skripal incident was by the Russians but only designed to incapacitate Skripal pere as a warning to him or MI6 to behave themselves and not do stupid things in future but the Conservative government rather stupidly decided to put out a bullshit narrative about what happened. Furthermore, don't forget that Churchill, the hero of the Conservative Party used chemical weapons against the Russians/Soviets. Most Brit's probably never knew or have forgotten but I doubt the Russians have or ever will.

donkeytale , Nov 25, 2018 9:14:41 AM | link
Here is the link to the Zero Hedge commentary , which was posted on Friday, including the Assange tweet from 2016.
WikiLeaks ‏ Verified account @wikileaks

Replying to @MashiRafael
"Anonymous" has been controlled by FBI agent "Sabu" and other agencies, including the CIA. Likely an attempt to manipulate.

6:28 PM - 24 Oct 2016

BM , Nov 25, 2018 9:32:22 AM | link
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being fabrications.

I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the stash.
Posted by: b | Nov 25, 2018 2:25:31 AM | 87

The best way the elite can undermine wikileaks is to infiltrate it and undermine it from within, as they did to Amnesty International, and later Human Rights Watch, both of which are completely controlled by US and UK intelligence services. I think it is a given that they will have successfully infiltrated wikileaks - because I think it is impossible that wikileaks could have avoided it completely, but lets hope that wikileaks keep up sufficient defences to isolate the infiltration and limit its damage. With the current threats to Assange that will be a big challenge!

If, as I suspect, this claim that the documents were fake was being pushed by an infiltrator, then that infiltrator is raising flags to himself, so it is a high risk action and emphasises the desperation the elite are in, that they are willing to burn a key asset.

William Bowles , Nov 25, 2018 9:57:25 AM | link
The docs are fakes? I don't think so, there's just too much detail and the names it exposes, Aaronovich, Marcus (BBC), the financing. It's an awful lot of exposing in order to mislead us don't you think? And if it was, it was one, gigantic failure!

The best way is to see how the MSM deal with it, if at all, so today for example, there's been no mention on the BBC's RSS feed and there was none yesterday. I'd say that judging by the nature and structure of the 'Institute of Statecraft', it's straight out of Whitehall.

wendy davis , Nov 25, 2018 10:05:18 AM | link
@ psychohistorian #68

my apologies for my truncated response. what i'd meant to say is that we're talking past one another. my fault entirely, as i never should have brought wheeler into the discussion, and derailed my larger point. but i got in a hurry, and that was that.

but to those wondering why 'assange' would have noted that 'some portions have been fabricated', asange notably has been incommunicado for the past seven months, and any 'visitors' (really just his legal team) are forced to surrender all their communication device before entering the embassy. so who on the Wikileaks team had decided that is unknowable, of course. but on one of the subtweets where b had noted jakub janda's pride in being part of the organization (nice catch, by the way, b) one idiot linked to his home website noting that assange is a Mossad operative.

when i'd been contemplating writing some of up, i will say that my favorite part was the handbook, most especially this great psyop:

"What funding do they have/have access to/need? Caution! This is always a very sensitive issue. NB 1 If asked about money for funding activities of a cluster, always be firmly vague and helpfully uninformative and at all costs avoid making any funding commitments until we have discussed it! NB 2 When talking about the Institute, be sure you can explain clearly what we are and what we do. NB 3 if asked about our funding, be very clear: the Integrity Initiative is funded by the Institute for Statecraft. The IfS gets its funding from multiple sources to ensure its independence. These include: private individuals; charitable foundations; international organisations (EU, NATO); UK Govt (FCO, MOD"

one commenter on the cyber guerilla doc dump page had noted: 'Propagandist Stephen Dalziel is a given a regular platform by Monocle 24 in the UK and rebroadcast around the world. Dalziel shills for the fraud "Bellingcat".'


Anya , Nov 25, 2018 10:13:53 AM | link
And what is the difference between the MbS treatment of "unpleasant" Khashoggi and the US/UK treatment of "unpleasant" Assange?

The absolute majority of the "progressives" and "liberals" in both the US and the UK are sheepishly quiet when the most important journalist of our times, Julian Assange, has been smeared and his life endangered by the kangaroo courts of the western corrupt judiciary.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/11/24/the-fate-of-julian-assange-chris-hedges-interviews-consortium-news-editor-in-chief-joe-lauria/

mike k: "The US Mafia Government kangaroo court gathers it's phony "legal" forces, salivating in anticipation of Assange as a choice morsel for it's evil appetite. Their "logic" goes like this, "if we say you are guilty, then you are guilty".

And where is the zionized MSM? -- With the kangaroo courts, of course, working in a accord with the mega war profiteers and other big-time criminals.

Noirette , Nov 25, 2018 10:27:10 AM | link
In France, last Pres. election, the favored candidate from the right (Républicains) was Alain Juppé. As the F establishment likes to mimic the US in all ways, they instored 'primaires' - primaries, to 'elect' 'the most popular candidate' from the two main parties. As the French don't glom the depth of corruption of the US system and how to do that, and just love - for all kinds of reasons - such gadgets, the vote at the Républicain table (even the name is a tribute) turned out surprise to be for Francois Fillon - who was (is) Catholic, pro-Russia, while your standard right-wing F-flavored stooge.

He was brought down speedily in a corruption scandal, for hiring his wife and children amongst others to do no work or symbolic stuff. One third of F Parliament members do this (off the cuff nos., but attested to ..), it is completely accepted. An allowed 'perk' - a way to spend the budgets > 'favored' 'loyal' ppl.

The effiency and speed of this attack surprised me. Fillon - no fool - 'withdrew' so to speak and made no waves beyond the acceptable i.e. stalwart opposition / defense at first, then went to work for a Financial Co. All the hype about suing the wife, about getting money back, whatever, died pronto.

I have no idea how this was organised. (The left was conveniently split.. between the entrenched "Socialists" and "Mélenchon," France Insoumise ) and so the end-run was between the vilified National Front (renamed now) Marine Le Pen, party which survives only as they play their puppet role to guarantee they collect low-class opposition to then always lose facing either the Socialists or the Républicains.

Piotr Berman , Nov 25, 2018 10:44:22 AM | link
NYT today:

Syria Urges U.N. to Condemn Rebels After Apparent Chemical Attack
Syria accused rebel forces of launching an attack in Aleppo that sent scores of choking victims to hospitals. Medical officials suspected chlorine had been used.

Characteristically, the attack is "apparent", but almost strangely, NYT reported Reuters news providing an inconvenient story rather fast.

lysias , Nov 25, 2018 10:44:25 AM | link
If some at least of the documents are fabrications, the plan of the Western intelligence agencies may be to expose some false details in the documents to discredit the whole story.
donkeytale , Nov 25, 2018 10:49:04 AM | link
So, what several posters here are now stating or at least implying is the @wikileaks account is basically the same as "Anonymous"? That is, it is merely a cover used by shadowy individuals and therefore no longer possesses any credibility unless it posts something with which we can all agree?

And the thoughts it expressed do not necessarily bear any relationship to Julian Assange?

Unless, of course, we agree with those thoughts?

Blooming Barricade , Nov 25, 2018 10:50:38 AM | link
The Integrity Initiative is now trying to smear and attack Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn's communications director and a key voice on the anti-war, anti-capitalist left, tweeting a Times article that appears to have been contributed to by them. They also retweeted Michael Weiss on Milne, who they appear to want to remove from a future Corbyn government in the vein of that Spanish minister This should be a HUGE scandal given that this is funded by the UK government and thus the Tory administration and is thus GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA against the leader of the opposition, paid for by the taxpayer and in line with big business/military Euro-Atlanticist lobby. Thanks to the digital urban guerrilla site for exposing this assault on socialism and the public. https://twitter.com/InitIntegrity/status/1066691553350086656
AntiSpin , Nov 25, 2018 11:21:03 AM | link
Best MoA blockbuster yet!!! Somewhere down there Joseph Goebbels is gazing upward at all this exposed chicanery, eyes shining with delight, and also green with envy.
Ghost Ship , Nov 25, 2018 11:58:48 AM | link
>>>>: AntiSpin | Nov 25, 2018 11:21:03 AM | 117
down there Joseph Goebbels is gazing upward

Goebbels was a rank amateur and grossly overrated - he could do white propaganda when things were going well for the Nazis which wasn't difficult, otherwise he was useless. When things started to go bad for the Nazis, the British, particularly Sefton Delmer, started running rings around him. The Americans really never understood black propaganda but why should they, and the British are still trying to fight World War 11 with their black propaganda and are still losing.

Jackrabbit , Nov 25, 2018 12:20:47 PM | link
donkeytale

Donkeys don't read too good.

Reread b's comment @96.

And 'echo chamber' allegations are laughable coming from a Kool-Aid drinker/pusher.

Trailer Trash , Nov 25, 2018 12:49:07 PM | link
These kind of propaganda campaigns end up as own goals for the establishment. Peons and serfs don't need to know what is going on, but the Dear Leaders' functionaries do need accurate info in order to make correct decisions that further establishment goals. With all the smoke and chaos of conflicting stories, can bureaucrats keep their lies straight? I think not.

As I understand it, glowing but inaccurate fabricated reports submitted to the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) Dear Leaders left them unable to comprehend just how unhappy the GDR citizens actually were, so the collapse came as a surprise. [1] We can see this happening in Afghanistan today. The Pentagon insists they are "winning" while the Taliban-controlled territory continues to increase. When Uncle Sam is finally driven out, it will come as a complete surprise to the DC Dunces who believe their own phony reports.

[1] Fulbrook, Mary; Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Inside the GDR 1949-1989; Oxford University Books; 1995

Zanon , Nov 25, 2018 1:00:36 PM | link
Just imagine the response and publicity if this was a Russian government funded organization, having a network of agents of influence groups of people in western europe...
frances , Nov 25, 2018 2:25:27 PM | link
reply to Russ 89
"Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now?"

Good question. Do you recall when Assange's attorney was killed when pushed in front of a train at the time the Wikileaks founder Gavin Macfadyen died?

The staff roster at Wikileaks then went through an almost total turnover and there were reports that someone was escorted from the building with a bag over their head and there were reports that Assange's deadman switch was activated but stopped. All this occurred back in 2016.
The reason no one who knows Assange is being allowed physical contact may be because someone else is in his place.I have a sad feeling that he is in a Langley basement.

wendy davis , Nov 25, 2018 5:44:38 PM | link
on sept. 26, 2018 julian assange had named Kristinn Hrafnsson of iceland as the new editor-in-chief of wikileaks. at that time julian had been cut off from communicating for six months.

an hour ago wikileaks had tweeted:

@wikileaks: WikiLeaks Retweeted Integrity Initiative 'UK government backed anti-Russian influence network account for "Integrity Initiative" confirms release of documents.'

@InitIntegrity 'Here is our statement on the recent publication by Russian media of hacked Integrity Initiative documents.'

they offered some caveats, among them:

"We have not yet had the chance to analyse all of the documents, so cannot say with confidence whether they are all genuine or whether they include doctored or false material. Although it is clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems, much of it is dated and was never used. In particular, many of the names published were on an internal list of experts in this field who had been considered as potential invitees to future cooperation. In the event, many were never contacted by the Integrity Initiative and did not contribute to it. Nor were these documents therefore included in any funding proposals. Not only did these individuals have nothing to do with the programme – they may not even have heard of us. We are of course trying to contact all named individuals for whom we have contact details to ensure that they are aware of what has happened."

now my guess, fwiw, is that the WL knows chapter and verse how the CIA vault 7 revelations can be used to create false email addresses, etc., so perhaps they'd spotted some.

but assange's attorney jennifer robinson did get to see him on nov. 16.

https://on.msnbc.com/2zm3Eg8

wendy davis , Nov 25, 2018 5:47:36 PM | link
oh, fie; i'd forgotten the Tweet's url:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1066804727973855233

arby , Nov 25, 2018 6:25:40 PM | link
Russia seizes Ukraine naval ships


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46338671

Mr Reynard , Nov 25, 2018 10:00:42 PM | link
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns ??
Secret ??? Is that an OXYMORON ??
Col. B. Bunny , Nov 26, 2018 3:00:33 AM | link
Thus is an extraordinary article. It describes distilled hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. and U.K. who have conniptions over Russian "meddling," that has proved to be thin gruel indeed, but who organize a vast, expensive enterprise of their own to implement disinformation and smear campaigns to influence the internal affairs of other countries and friendly ones at that. Russia purchases a modest message on Twitter (?) and that is an attack on "our democracy."The attack on the now oddly-sequestered Skripals is an epic East Asian fire drill with Theresa May written all over it and it sure as hell has nothing "made in Moscow" about it.

Anne Appelebaum and the other "journalists" have some 'splainin' to do about what independent, unbiased journalists are doing as players in government propaganda organizations.

Brian , Nov 26, 2018 11:42:00 AM | link
Is the Sea of Azov incident a ploy to put off presidential elections in Ukraine ?
https://mobile.twitter.com/I_Katchanovski/status/1067050340623630337
Zanon , Nov 26, 2018 1:07:20 PM | link
'Anti-Russian psy-ops' program confirms UK govt funding, Anonymous denies leak
https://www.rt.com/news/444899-uk-psyop-leak-reaction/
kula , Nov 26, 2018 2:32:19 PM | link
Look y'all, @craigsummers is a paid troll. So all your responses are earning him or her income. Trolling is an art form. b, you could regularly remined new readers to ignore mwn.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:14:22 AM | link
I am Russian, live in Russia.
This is the most interesting journalistic investigation I've read in the last six months.
Thanks.
Most of all I am surprised, the whole world is in economic crisis, people in developed countries are becoming poorer. Britain has an external debt of 7.5 trillion-314% of GDP. But all useless garbage the money is. And most importantly, Why?
We all (USA, Russia, Britain, EU) are just village losers who fight in a roadside ditch, proving that "I am good, they are bad".
And at this time past us at full speed is a huge Chinese train.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:42:03 AM | link
And the destruction of the MH-17 Boeing by the Russians is also disinformation.
Do you know what the official version of the investigation is?
"Once upon a time. One air defense "Buk" secretly arrived from Russia, shot once, one rocket, in one civil plane, and left back to Russia" (facepalm). Seriously, I'm not kidding, this nonsense is the official version.
The involvement of several dozen Ukrainian air defense " Buk " located in the area of the disaster, not even considered.
No one knows what they were doing.
All photos of "wandering, mad Russian "Buk" were false.

But sanctions imposed by the EU after the disaster, no one is going to cancel. And to assume aloud "that" new authorities" of Ukraine at which hands on an elbow in blood " can be guilty of accident, it is impossible, taboo.

Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 27, 2018 5:45:32 AM | link
Neatly observed Anton, neatly observed....;-)
Zanon , Nov 27, 2018 5:51:24 AM | link
Just been some days and this big news is already dead. Really scary how big of a impact the western MSM really have in silencing topics.
Russ , Nov 27, 2018 6:52:49 AM | link
@ 134

I bet if I surveyed my acquaintances (American middle class, NYT-reader types) few if any would even have heard of this potential Sarajevo flashpoint.

b , Dec 2, 2018 10:19:08 AM | link
Derelict Scottish mill is shadowy hub in UK's fight against Putin's propaganda machine

Gateside Mills in rural Fife is the official headquarters of the controversial Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a "think tank" set up to combat Russian disinformation.

For the tiny number of people aware of its existence, Gateside Mills is a derelict building in rural Fife without any obvious signs of life.

Anyone curious enough to carry out further investigation might find a seemingly small Scottish charity is registered there.

But the Sunday Mail can reveal the crumbling Victorian mill is actually the official headquarters of the controversial Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a shadowy "think tank" whose Integrity Initiative programme has been set up to combat Russian propaganda.

Leaked documents prove the organisation received hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding from the British Government via the Foreign Office.
...
The manager of the Integrity Initiative appears to be Christopher Donnelly.

A website biography states he is a graduate of Manchester University and reserve officer in the British Army Intelligence Corps who previously headed the British Army's Soviet Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst.

Between 1989 and 2003, he was a special adviser to Nato Secretaries General and was involved in dealing with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and reform of newly emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.

He left NATO in 2003 to set up and run the UK Defence Academy's Advanced Research and Assessment Group. In 2010, he became a director of IFS.

[Dec 09, 2018] NATO's Clandestine Bureau UK 'Integrity Initiative' Spreading Anti-Russian Propaganda - 21st Century Wire

www.unz.com
Disqus is a discussion network

Read full terms and conditions

John C Carleton • 2 days ago ,

"UK 'Integrity "

Thanks!

Needed a good laugh!

Rollo10 • 3 days ago ,

Russia are the problem along with China, because they both oppose their NWO agenda! This agenda has been getting pushed from UK for decades now. It first started back in 1800's, but now is world wide. The Corporate & Bankers want complete control of all economies & jobs.
This way they control everything, where and who manufactures what and how much, all controlled by Corporations. Governments become non existent, as do the Electorate. This would have been obvious IF all TPP-TTIP-CETA Treaties had been signed. We'd have had one huge Single Market that excluded BRICS, who'd have been forced in by war!
To their end, 'deep state; then attacked Rouseff in Brazil, had her 'impeached' and placed their puppet Temer in charge, as an 'anchor' to BRICS, as well as creating problems in ME, where China's One Belt One Road [New Silk Road] crosses continents.
The more people become aware of their intentions, the harder it becomes for them to win, as they are now losing ground all round the world. The last two, Israel & UK are about to fall. Netinyahoo has been charged with Corruption and May in UK, is on the verge of being brought down, after being the first PM to be charged and found guilty of Contempt for Parliament! Next to fall, the corrupt EU.

verner • 3 days ago ,

CIA they are everywhere!

Rollo10 verner • 3 days ago ,

I think you'll find it's Secular Zionists!
https://www.ukcolumn.org/ar...

John2o2o2o Rollo10 • 3 days ago ,

No, no, no! CIA in the US, MI6 in the UK, Secular Zionists in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

imbroglio verner • 2 days ago ,

Pro-Israel lobby Influence on US congress. --- http://www.informationclear...

[Dec 09, 2018] Showdown Moment -- British Enemy Apparatus Very Exposed, Very Ready for Termination LaRouchePAC

Notable quotes:
"... This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion. ..."
"... Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25, Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the "Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding world war! ..."
"... These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush. ..."
Nov 28, 2018 | larouchepac.com
We are in a showdown moment. At this week's Group of 20 Summit -- only three days away, in Buenos Aires, there is the potential for Great Power diplomacy in the direction of a New Paradigm of foreign relations, as an outcome of the sideline meetings of heads of state and government of the United States, China, Russia, India and others.

The growing momentum for New Paradigm economic development is seen in high-level events this month in six Western European nations: in Germany, the "Hamburg Summit: China Meets Europe" (Nov. 26-27); in France, the Lyon "Franco-Chinese Forum" (Nov. 26-28); in Spain, President Xi Jinping's state visit (Nov. 27-29); in Portugal, Xi's visit (Dec. 4-5); in Italy, a new Xinhua-associated Italian financial media service will be set up (Nov. 6 agreement); in Norway, the first Polar Route icebreaker delivery of Yamal LNG, for transshipment from the northern port of Honnigsvag.

This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion.

Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25, Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the "Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding world war!

These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush.

The Nov. 25 Ukrainian naval breach of Russian territorial waters was long pre-planned. As the Italian military journal Difesa Online wrote on Nov. 25, "it was evident to all those who follow local events that for some days already, the Poroshenko government in Ukraine was trying to provoke an armed confrontation with Moscow in the Crimean waters." Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, said the same yesterday, adding a warning. "We are talking about a pre-planned, deliberate, and now realized large-scale provocation.... I think everybody should be careful next time. I think there will be a next time, considering what is happening now."

President Donald Trump's first response to the Ukraine incident, Nov. 26, was to express concern, and hopes for settlement. "We do not like what's happening, either way; ... hopefully, it will get straightened out." President Vladimir Putin will issue his statement on this incident in a few days.

From London, however, comes a raving "script" of what Trump and the West must do against Russia. It is the featured item on the website of the Integrity Initiative, which is a British intelligence black war propaganda operation. Its funding is from the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its Nov. 26 posting is titled, "West Is Once Again Failing Test Set by Russian Aggression," by Edward Lucas, formerly of The Economist , and a longtime Russia-hater, who wrote such books as Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the West (2012) and The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West (2nd ed., 2014). Lucas calls for "kinetic, symbolic, and financial measures" against Russia. This is to include, the West sending military aid to Ukraine, running a NATO flotilla to the Ukrainian port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, putting sanctions on Russian officials and businessmen present in the West, and cutting Russia off from Western finance. Lucas says that the West didn't act against Nazi Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland, but they must act now against Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

Lucas is part of the British "cluster" of Integrity Initiative's operatives, which also includes former British Ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood of Orbis Business Intelligence, the firm of "former" MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who fabricated the infamous anti-Trump dossier. These figures are at the heart of the coup operations against Trump, and before that, the Obama Administration election subversion.

Zepp-LaRouche nailed the Integrity Initiative in a Sputnik interview published yesterday, now being run in media internationally. She said that the group's activity displays the " modus operandi of British intelligence operations, and it very well may turn out, that it is this network, which is deeply involved in 'Russiagate' and the entire coup against President Trump."

It is now urgent for all the documents bearing on these criminal, treasonous operations to be de-classified, and the full story revealed. Every hour counts.

[Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor. ..."
"... The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it ..."
"... It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding. ..."
"... The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president ..."
"... The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly. ..."
"... Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you ..."
"... Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China. ..."
"... The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression. ..."
"... Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas. ..."
"... Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon. ..."
"... With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1 ..."
"... Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses. ..."
"... Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium. ..."
"... I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here ..."
"... Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this ..."
"... CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security? ..."
"... The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe... ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China Willy2 , Dec 7, 2018 2:30:00 PM | link

CNN reports that White House chief of staff John Kelly is expected to resign soon . There have been similar rumors before, but this time the news may actually be true. That is bad for Trump and U.S. policies. Kerry is one a the few counterweights to national security advisor John Bolton. His replacement will likely be whoever Bolton chooses. That will move control over Trump policies further into the hands of the neo-conservatives.

It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China.

The U.S. Justice Department arranged for Canada to arrest the chief financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, over alleged U.S. sanctions violations with regards to Iran. The case is not over the sanction Trump recently imposed, but over an alleged collision with the sanction regime before the nuclear deal with Iran. The details are still unknown.

Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor.

The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it :

While the Justice Department did brief the White House about the impending arrest, Mr. Trump was not told about it. And the subject did not come up at the dinner with Mr. Xi. Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said on NPR that he knew about the arrest in advance, ..

Bolton surely should have informed Trump before his dinner with Xi, in which Bolton took part, but he didn't.

It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China.

Cont. reading: Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China

Posted by b at 02:00 PM | Comments (76) - I almost starting to feel sorry for D.A.A.D. Trump.
- We have seen in the last years that the US has been (deliberately) ratcheting up tensions in the Far East. And the summit between Trump & Kim Jung Un was a severe threat for that (deliberate) increase of tensions. But the US & european media have told their readers/listener/watchers that China was to blame for the increase of tensions.

Jen , Dec 7, 2018 2:34:44 PM | link

The death of Shoucheng Zhang, by falling from a building, supposedly due to depression, reminded me of an incident I had read about years ago, of another scientist's death in 1953 in vaguely similar circumstances. I had forgotten the fellow's name but I remembered the incident had something to do with the CIA and the administration of LSD so I used those two terms along with "fall" and "window" and was able to dig up the details.

In 1953, CIA researcher Frank Olson was administered LSD without his consent by researchers working in the Project MK Ultra program. Olson became severely depressed and resigned from the CIA. He was later found dead, apparently after falling out of a motel building through a window, and his death was ruled a suicide. In the 1970s, his family ordered an autopsy and the autopsy showed that Olson had died from head injury trauma before falling through the window. A CIA agent was found to have been staying at the same motel in a separate room at the time Olson died. The family sued the US government and received $750,000 in compensation and an apology from the CIA.
https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/08/mkultra-conspiracy/

One wonders if Zhang's death had been, ahem, "arranged" according to that template. The description of Zhang from the Stanford University News website's obituary that B linked to in his post does not sound like a profile of someone who suffered depression on and off.

PavewayIV , Dec 7, 2018 2:35:17 PM | link
This has to be embarrassing as hell to Trump - he should be absolutely furious with Bolton and Pompeo. And all this for violating sanctions on Iran? I feel like on crazy pills. We live in interesting times.
Richard , Dec 7, 2018 2:38:20 PM | link
So, if Bolton sabotaged Trump's efforts to do some sort of deal with China, in whose interest is Bolton working. You'd think that a trade deal with China would be good for the US. Is Bolton working against US interest.

If we accept the Globalist/Nationalist framework, then does this not mean that Bolton is helping the nationalists against US interests. And what are the implications of that.

jayc , Dec 7, 2018 2:38:29 PM | link
Trump's rapid departure from Argentina may well have been motivated by receiving the information about the arrest after the well hyped dinner. If that is the case, Bolton should have been fired on the spot. The lack of any statement about this affair from Trump is curious. There may be an element of blackmail at play here too, related to Mueller's machinations ahead of the G20. A malignancy is loose, no doubt.
abierno , Dec 7, 2018 2:52:06 PM | link
Thank you for this excellent column. Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding.

The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president, as this report makes clear.

The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly.

psychohistorian , Dec 7, 2018 2:56:18 PM | link
I can't believe that Trump did not know about the detention of Meng Wanzhou before hand. Trump is a TV actor and he is apprenticing for a higher spot for himself and family is the elite pecking order.

While we might want to give Trump credit for being who he is, the elite that fronted him know exactly what his style and penchants are. Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you nor I

freetrade , Dec 7, 2018 3:11:30 PM | link
From the perspective of China, their most appropriate response in this complicated situation IMO, should be to accelerate their gradual reduction of USTs.

All those articles about how China will hurt itself if it gradually sells down USTs are nonsense articles placed into the media to throw off attention to what is already happening. Russia and Turkey have alrdy done it on a smaller scale, it's a no-brainer that China can do it also. Why should China finance the US govt to wage war on itself?

If China and other countries gradually stop buying USTs, actual demand will collapse and many other holders will sell or reduce likewise. Mnuchin is fantasizing when he says there will still be strong demand. Any demand will be from the US Treasury buying its own USTs, like a dog licking its own rear quarters.

Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China.

The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression.

How to do that without crashing the markets n decreasing China's own assets? Sell and reduce USTs gradually. And pretend u r not doing it. Eventually the lack of buying will force the Fed to raise rates or force the US Treasury to buy its own USTs, further debasing the US dollar.

In history, all empires fall this way, they keep on printing or taking out the silver content until their currency gets debased into nothing, and nobody wants it.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 3:14:42 PM | link
Looks like Bolton wants war with China. I recall he was hired during the North Korea talks to add a bit of muscle and now Trump is stuck with him whether he likes it or not.

Re. Meng....apparently she faces fraud charges related to the Skycom affair. Of course that is just what we're told. Who knows what kind of pressure she will come under once they get her in the US.

"Meng Wanzhou -- the chief financial officer for the Chinese tech giant Huawei -- is wanted in the U.S. on allegations of fraud, a bail hearing has been told." https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bail-hearing-huawei-cfo-1.4936150

chu teh , Dec 7, 2018 3:24:15 PM | link
1959, CIA disobeyed Pres Eisenhower's ban on further overflights of USSR until after his summit meeting with Khrushchev. Then the U-2 was brought down over USSR and the live pilot captured. The US officially denied it happened.

The USSR cancelled the summit meeting.

At first, Eisenhower claimed to have no knowledge of the operation and was outraged when the truth revealed. UN Ambassador Stevenson made a vehement speech at the UN denying it happened, followed immediately with USSR producing both the plane's wreckage and its pilot.

Then USSR showed the pilot and wreckage was publicly displayed. Pilot F G Powers had safely bailed-out and was put on-trial in Moscow, convicted and then allowed to return to the US.

Mission Accomplished! by the unelected leaders of the US [who were certain their man Nixon would be the next President, followed by quick re-capture of Cuba and then war in Vietnam. Both those operations already directly involved Nixon, who was fully "in" on The Bay of Pigs and, earlier, plans for US "support" of Saigon leaders in "South" Vietnam with whom he established communications during his 1953 visit as Ike's new Vice-President.]

james , Dec 7, 2018 3:30:06 PM | link

...that data on this is more shocking then i realized.. the death of prof zhang - apparent suicide, is bizarre here..

i agree that the usa has been taken over by small minded neo cons that would try to use meng wanzhou as leverage.. the fact Bolton knew and Trump didn't.. i am not buying that, or Bolton is more manipulative then i realized.. they are all that stupid though.. i hope Canada doesn't allow this, but under the wuss Justin Trudeau, i am not holding my breath..

@ 12 dh... wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? is canada now doing book keeping, and everything else for the usa? the usa can go fuck themselves.. if Canada wasn't a 2 bit vassal state, that is what we would tell the usa..

Uncle $cam , Dec 7, 2018 3:31:59 PM | link
Flashback Friday

Oh, and what happened to the head of interpol, Meng Hongwei recently???

A. Person , Dec 7, 2018 3:46:11 PM | link
OT, but just to a degree.

Today is Dec.7, a day in 1941 that Pres. Roosevelt aptly called "A Day of Infamy," as the Japanese military attacked Pearl Harbor.

We now know that the very top echelons of US government first correctly anticipated and then knew precisely when and how the attack would occur. The 3,000 (+/-) GI's who were sacrificed were considered "acceptable losses." (The 3,000 civilians who were sacrificed on 9/11 were also considered "acceptable losses.") "Infamy" is an accurate word for US .gov conduct.

(Pls, do not comment to this OT. Wait for the next open thread, if you must.)

John Gilberts , Dec 7, 2018 4:28:57 PM | link
Trudeau says he knew about the arrest in advance.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-prepared-for-possible-chinese-cyber-retaliation-over-arrest-of/

Looks like Trump was out of the loop. Trudeau is mainly photo-op material only. This would have been Chrystia Freeland, the Nazi grand-daughter's file.

ashley albanese , Dec 7, 2018 5:29:38 PM | link
In Australia - endless media trumpeting the closed door to Chinese telcos from Australia and New Zealand but one has to go out of one's way to discover our neighbor Papua New GUINEA has continued using HuaHwei products albeit under U S pressure not to do so
bevin , Dec 7, 2018 5:32:00 PM | link
1/ "... the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism."

Has Islam, in fact, been in opposition to imperialism? For the most part, as in India/Pakistan, it has been a very useful imperialist foil against nationalism and socialism. There have been sincere and effective muslim campaigns against imperialism but equally there have been imperialist financed 'islamic' campaigns against enemies of the Empire.

2/ Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas.

I used to be a member of this, once mildly socialist party. I am proud to say that I was expelled.

Rolf , Dec 7, 2018 5:38:42 PM | link
Five Eyes Against Huawei

7 DECEMBER 2018, http://www.voltairenet.org/article204264.html

Washington has asked Ottawa to arrest Meng Wanzhou and to extradite her. The motive for the war undertaken by Washington against Huawei is deep-rooted and spurious are the justifications.

The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications. A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.

The covers/excuses for this war are theft of intellectual property or in the alternative, trade with Iran and North Korea, and violating rules of competition by benefitting from national subsidies.

The Five Eyes is a system of electronic espionage by Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. They have begun to exclude Huawei from their auctions.

Jackrabbit , Dec 7, 2018 5:46:11 PM | link

Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon.

Fine distinctions between senior US govt officials make me want to tear my hair out. In US govt only whistle-blowers are white knights. Everyone else is engaging in good guy/bad guy bullshit and controlled opposition.

With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1.

Willy2 , Dec 7, 2018 5:46:51 PM | link
- Bolton was appointed under pressure from one Sheldon Adelson, who was a (large) donor to the Trump campaign. In that regard, it was (nearly) impossible for Trump to fire Bolton.
Castellio , Dec 7, 2018 5:50:25 PM | link
Jen @2

In terms of Frank Olsen, there is a very good six part documentary series on Netflix called "Wormwood". Most important are the interviews with Olsen's son. His search for the truth took many years (too many years) and he finally uncovered the final levels of deceit. Worth the time.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 5:53:10 PM | link
@14 ".. wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? "

Absolutely nothing james. I suspect they are using that charge, rather than getting into 5G backdoor whatever, to make the extradition process go faster. They don't want it to drag on for years.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 5:56:39 PM | link
@32 Right. Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses.
CDWaller , Dec 7, 2018 6:18:32 PM | link
Surely it's Bolton who must go. That was an enormous betrayal. The one thing that Trump had going for him was the performance of the stock market. His neocon enemies in the form of Bolton, managed to strike two blows simultaneously; increase conflict with China and tank the market.
Daniel , Dec 7, 2018 6:32:55 PM | link
Too many posters letting Trump off the hook here. He's a brilliant 4D chess master but at the same time he's also a vulnerable naif who lets neocons, ziofascists and other hostile entities keep hijacking his administration for their own ends? Bit of a problem there. You can't have it both ways.

Occam's Razor says the Trump administration's foreign policy, possibly with Russia as an exception, is run with the full approval of Donald John Trump. He's no friend of China, remember, and Steve Bannon's plan to befriend Russia was designed to keep it from partnering with China against the United States.

It's almost 2019 and like the Obots of 2010 it's time to accept that your man is a busted flush, a fraud, an American exceptionalist through and through.

jayc , Dec 7, 2018 6:37:39 PM | link
The "fraud" charge goes back to 2009/10, and concerns an alleged misrepresentation over the relationship between a company called SkyComm and Huawei. The alleged sanction violation by SkyComm had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear or military programs, and may not have even proceeded beyond a negotiation phase. The alleged "fraud", or misrepresentation, rests on a technical interpretation of complicated interlocking corporate structures. The prosecutors and the defence will likely both be correct in their presentations, as it is a muddle, but the well has already been poisoned by the now well-publicized accusations that Huawei is a Communist trojan horse. It's very thin gruel to proceed with such a high profile arrest.
Sasha , Dec 7, 2018 8:22:10 PM | link
@Posted by: Rolf | Dec 7, 2018 5:38:42 PM | 30
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications. A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.

And not only the governments and secret services, Huawei is widely popular all along EU amongst the common working class user ( which means millions and millions of users....) especially because of its advantageous price and great capabilities.... I myself own a Huawei device, my friends own Huaweis....Glad to hear that "Five Eyes" can not spy on us....I am very fidel to marks/services who do not deceive me, but after knowing this new "capability", I am thinking in keeping Huawei as my header mark....Just waiting for them to launch the laptop "Five Eyes" waterproof and I will be throwing this old one to the trash bin....

dh , Dec 7, 2018 8:58:58 PM | link
Well it seems we have to wait until Monday to see if Meng gets bail or not. That's a long time for Trump to keep his mouth shut on anything.
Glenn Brown , Dec 7, 2018 9:03:38 PM | link
@32,36
I wonder how Adelson would react to a Chinese boycott of his casinos in Macau and Singapore? A lot of his wealth has come from Chinese gamblers. Given Adelson's connections to Bolton and Trump, it would seem like an obvious pressure point.
james , Dec 7, 2018 9:29:36 PM | link
@38 lili... denk was discussing this on the open thread yesterday.. see his links @68 / 76 and etc on this page.. no one is discussing this..

@48 peter au.. it certainly appears that way.. funny thing how trump sold himself on a number of topics, but not that one.. meanwhile, i guess the loot from adelson is quite good... stick with me and you don't need any stickin russian oligarch.. what is quite amazing is how blind the average amerikkkan is to all this.. they are still stuck on the mueller investigation which has been running on empty for some time... they would never do an investigation on isreal, or zionists influence on us elections, as it is too friggin' obvious for anyone looking... better to skip that and continue to serve israel.. thus the constant fixation with iran..

james , Dec 7, 2018 9:30:59 PM | link
or russia and china, as the case may be... the top 3 evil countries, according to obama, or was that north korea.. i guess trump will have to revise it.. the usa is pathetic.. canada is not far behind..
Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 9:38:22 PM | link
Trump didn't know b/c the NYTimes said so?
I've got this bridge....
China's response may not be immediate, but it will come.
I'm reminded of the sudden death of Vice Adm. Scott Stearney, commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet, Persian Gulf, discovered inside his home in Bahrain last weekend, a "suspected suicide."
Iran always gets even.
psychohistorian , Dec 7, 2018 9:41:09 PM | link
To those of us that understand that all/most of the politicians are working for the same team, it should be easy to see the good cop/bad cop dynamic being used here.

If b thinks Trump is a good cop, as he presents him here (yes, b has written that he disagrees with all/most of what Trump does) as do other commenters that post here, I would posit that "they" are being successful in working that meme at this time.

China will not back down and now will play hardball back, but in a globalist sense I expect them to continue to take the high road as the West mires itself further in the muck of its religion of private finance.

Another commenter mentioned the strategy of China dumping its massive amount of US Treasuries. I think we are getting to that moment and the response of the US is to default on whomever is holding its debt...............

and then the war we have been in for some time turns serious.

The problem the elite have is making the public have the fervor to slaughter themselves for the purpose of continuing a society run by and only servicing the elite. I don't understand how they have managed all these centuries but here we are, a bit still in the dark ages of a thousand years ago.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 9:57:33 PM | link
@55. Very interesting idea. Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium.
Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 10:14:47 PM | link
I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here
Anunnaki , Dec 7, 2018 10:21:01 PM | link
Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this
Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 7, 2018 10:21:55 PM | link
This is a 100% neocon clusterfuck. It is vital to the success of Trump's Drain The Swamp strategy that The Swampers be given every opportunity to put their anti-US influence on public display. At least now we know which weirdos are responsible for the US policy of "Let's do SOMETHING, even it it's stupid."

I've been scouring the 'News' and the www for evidence that China agreed to uphold US sanctions on Iran to an extent that would invite the US to punish China for disregarding US whims. No luck, so far.

What makes this story entertaining is that the US has not only surrendered its lead in Military Tech, from the Good Old Days, but Computer and Communications Tech too. You have to be pretty desperate to admit a blunder of that magnitude, albeit obliquely, as in this case.

slit , Dec 7, 2018 10:24:07 PM | link
Unlikely that few in Trump's cabinet or Senate Foreign Relations committee could even pass the physics section of a college entrance exam, and have little idea what quantum encryption even is (Chinese published on it first a couple of years ago).

That presumption alone suggests Pompeo Bolton etc are just finger puppets ... which oligarch has all those cia contracts again?

They are in well over their heads. They can't even keep up with the Russians. They will likely get stung by Chinese scorpions without even knowing what hit them!

dh , Dec 7, 2018 10:28:27 PM | link
@63 Indirectly yes. According to Jim Cramer....whose objectivity I am increasingly coming to respect....Apple will lose out because of the arrest.

"Top tech players like Apple, Micron, Intel and Qualcomm are all "worth less today than yesterday," says the "Mad Money" host."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/cramer-huawei-cfo-arrest-just-made-companies-like-apple-less-valuable.html

Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 7, 2018 10:52:40 PM | link
Another 'unintended consequence' of the neocon gambit to embarrass Trump by by-passing him, will be renewed interest in something Vlad said in one of Oliver Stone's Putin's Interviews.

In the context of Vlad's feelings about POTUS Trump, Vlad said words to the effect that it's too soon to say. Everyone knows that AmeriKKKa has been run by the Permanent Bureaucracy (not the POTUS). A lot of people would have been 'too busy' to watch the Putin Interviews but World Leaders, everywhere, would not have been among them. So as of December 1, 2018, that cat is well and truly out of the bag and all eyes, as usual, are on Trump. Again.

Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 10:54:09 PM | link
CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security?

Actually, I fear, it's a conspiracy of intel agencies, security advisors and courts to conduct domestic and foreign policy. It's a non-elected "government" which elected politicians can't touch. For those that doubt it, check out this important interview with intel whistleblowers Shipp, Binney and Kiriakou which describes Washington corruption is here . (h/t Carlton Meyer)
Politicians can't touch this secret government lest their security clearances be removed.

Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 11:03:36 PM | link
@70
In the two-hour interview John Kiriakou points out that the intel agencies have their favorite courts. His delayed case, resurrected by Obama, was heard by a court in eastern Virginia, which had a 98% conviction rate. They got him for a couple years in prison. General Petraeus, however, who did much worse, had his case heard in a court in western Virginia, and he got probation. It appears that the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is good for anti-China warrants.
the pessimist , Dec 7, 2018 11:48:53 PM | link
D B@70 I read that she was aware of the warrant and avoided traveling to the USA because of it as she had been doing to ?" visit her son who was in school here"? but likely thought Canada safe. Wrong.

So China seems fearful to me - detaining the head of INTERPOL for instance and re-educating the Uyghurs en mass, plus the heavy internet censorship. But they cannot disengage from the west economically without risking social upheaval. Nor can the US afford to disengage from China for roughly the same reason (unlike Russia from whom the US gets rocket engines but little else they cannot obtain from other sources).

In a few years time (2, or perhaps 3) both Russia and China will have deployed weapons that can deter anything but a full on nuclear attack, and their military capability will continue to advance. US strategy seems to be to disrupt, slow, and sabotage both to the extent it is able using economic and political weapons and military posturing. I don't believe it can catch up and this creates extra danger - the longer it waits the greater the gap will be - economic and military. Many of the responses seem borderline hysterical to me - not a good thing.

The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe...

[Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population

Highly recommended!
Dec 08, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Livius Drusus , December 8, 2018 at 7:20 am

I think the Internet and the infotech revolution in general have been largely negative in their impact on the world. Ian Welsh has a blog post that largely sums up my views on the issue.

https://www.ianwelsh.net/what-the-infotechtelecom-revolution-has-actually-done/

Contrary to what many people say I think large organizations like governments and corporations have significantly more power now than before and ordinary people have less power. The Internet has made it easier to get information but you have to sift through tons of junk to get to anything decent. For every website like Naked Capitalism there are thousands pushing nonsense or trying to sell you stuff.

And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it? At best it makes you more well-rounded, interesting and harder to fool but in political terms knowing a lot of stuff doesn't make you more effective. In the past people didn't have access to nearly as much information but they were more willing and able to organize and fight against the powerful because it was easier to avoid detection/punishment (that is where stuff like widespread surveillance tech comes in) and because they still had a vibrant civic life and culture.

I actually think people are more atomized now than in the past and the Internet and other technologies have probably fueled this process. Despite rising populism, the Arab Spring, Occupy, the Yellow Jackets in France, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the DSA this is all a drop in the bucket compared to just the massive social movements of the 1960s much less earlier periods. Robert Putnam argued that television, the Internet and other technologies likely helped to produce the collapse of civic life in the United States by "individualizing" people's leisure time and personally I think Putnam is right. Civic life today is very weak and I think the Internet is partially to blame.

Mark , December 8, 2018 at 12:10 pm

And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it?

Agreed. If anything these more knowledgeable people had a greater audience prior to the internet. Whether you were a journalist, a great economist, a great author, or a great orator you need to persist and show intellect and talent to have your message heard wide and broad.
(This is probably a little idealistic, but I think there is truth there.)

Now you need very little of this. If your most famous asset is your attractive body you can attract a greater audience than great scholars and politicians.

Rosario , December 8, 2018 at 2:56 pm

I can't speak much on authoritarianism since whatever form it takes on today is wildly different from what it was in the past. Unfortunately, it is hard to convince many people living in western societies that they are living in an authoritarian system because their metal images are goose-stepping soldiers and Fraktur print posters.

I suppose the way I can assure myself that we are living in an authoritarian society is by analyzing the endless propaganda spewed from countless, high-viewership media and entertainment outlets. It is quite simple, if the media and entertainment narratives are within a very narrow intellectual window (with lots of 600 lb. gorillas sitting in corners) than the culture and politics are being defined by powerful people with a narrow range of interests. This is not to say that forming public opinion or preferring particular political views is a new thing in Western media and entertainment, just that its application, IMO, is far more effective and subtle (and becoming more-so by the day) than it ever was in, say, NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union.

I'd put my money down that most educated Germans during NAZI rule were well aware that propaganda was being utilized to "manufacture consent" but they participated and accepted this despite the content for pragmatic/selfish reasons. Much of the NAZI propaganda played on existing German/European cultural narratives and prejudices. Leaveraging existing ideology allowed the party to necessitate their existence by framing the German as juxtaposed against the impure and unworthy. Again, ideologies that existed independent of the party not within it. Goebbels and company were just good at utilizing the technology of the time to amplify these monstrosities.

I question that being the case today. It is far more complicated. Technology is again the primary tool for manipulation, but it is possible that current technology is allowing for even greater leaps in reason and analysis. The windows for reflection and critical thought close as soon as they are opened. Seems more like the ideology is manufactured on the fly. For example, the anti-Russia narrative has some resonance with baby boomers, but how the hell is it effective with my generation (millennial) and younger? The offhand references to Putin and Russian operatives from my peers are completely from left field when considering our life experience. People in my age group had little to say about Russia three years ago. It says volumes on the subtle effectiveness of Western media machines if you can re-create the cold war within two years for an entire generation.

In addition and related to above, the West's understanding of "Freedom of Speech" is dated by about 100 years. Governments are no longer the sole source of speech suppression (more like filtering and manipulation), and the supremacy of the free-market coupled with the erroneously perceived black-and-white division between public and private have convinced the public (with nearly religious conviction) that gigantic media and entertainment organizations do not have to protect the free speech of citizens because they are not government. Public/Private is now an enormous blob. With overlapping interests mixed in with any antagonisms. It is ultimately dictated by capital and its power within both government and business. Cracking this nut will be a nightmare.

Yes, this is an authoritarian world, if measured by the distance between the populace and its governing powers, but it is an authoritarianism operating in ways that we have never seen before and using tools that are terribly effective.

[Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

Highly recommended!
You can read online at epdf.tips
Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Richard , Dec 7, 2018 2:50:07 PM | link

Came across this book which gives some excellent background to where we're at today:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Postmodern-Imperialism-Geopolitics-Great-Games/dp/098335393X

There may be a pdf available if you search.

"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:

This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great Games"."

Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcmrBD4Ez2c

[Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor. ..."
"... The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it ..."
"... It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding. ..."
"... The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president ..."
"... The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly. ..."
"... Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you ..."
"... Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China. ..."
"... The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression. ..."
"... Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas. ..."
"... Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon. ..."
"... With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1 ..."
"... Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses. ..."
"... Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium. ..."
"... I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here ..."
"... Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this ..."
"... CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security? ..."
"... The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe... ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China Willy2 , Dec 7, 2018 2:30:00 PM | link

CNN reports that White House chief of staff John Kelly is expected to resign soon . There have been similar rumors before, but this time the news may actually be true. That is bad for Trump and U.S. policies. Kerry is one a the few counterweights to national security advisor John Bolton. His replacement will likely be whoever Bolton chooses. That will move control over Trump policies further into the hands of the neo-conservatives.

It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China.

The U.S. Justice Department arranged for Canada to arrest the chief financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, over alleged U.S. sanctions violations with regards to Iran. The case is not over the sanction Trump recently imposed, but over an alleged collision with the sanction regime before the nuclear deal with Iran. The details are still unknown.

Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor.

The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it :

While the Justice Department did brief the White House about the impending arrest, Mr. Trump was not told about it. And the subject did not come up at the dinner with Mr. Xi. Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said on NPR that he knew about the arrest in advance, ..

Bolton surely should have informed Trump before his dinner with Xi, in which Bolton took part, but he didn't.

It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China.

Cont. reading: Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China

Posted by b at 02:00 PM | Comments (76) - I almost starting to feel sorry for D.A.A.D. Trump.
- We have seen in the last years that the US has been (deliberately) ratcheting up tensions in the Far East. And the summit between Trump & Kim Jung Un was a severe threat for that (deliberate) increase of tensions. But the US & european media have told their readers/listener/watchers that China was to blame for the increase of tensions.

Jen , Dec 7, 2018 2:34:44 PM | link

The death of Shoucheng Zhang, by falling from a building, supposedly due to depression, reminded me of an incident I had read about years ago, of another scientist's death in 1953 in vaguely similar circumstances. I had forgotten the fellow's name but I remembered the incident had something to do with the CIA and the administration of LSD so I used those two terms along with "fall" and "window" and was able to dig up the details.

In 1953, CIA researcher Frank Olson was administered LSD without his consent by researchers working in the Project MK Ultra program. Olson became severely depressed and resigned from the CIA. He was later found dead, apparently after falling out of a motel building through a window, and his death was ruled a suicide. In the 1970s, his family ordered an autopsy and the autopsy showed that Olson had died from head injury trauma before falling through the window. A CIA agent was found to have been staying at the same motel in a separate room at the time Olson died. The family sued the US government and received $750,000 in compensation and an apology from the CIA.
https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/08/mkultra-conspiracy/

One wonders if Zhang's death had been, ahem, "arranged" according to that template. The description of Zhang from the Stanford University News website's obituary that B linked to in his post does not sound like a profile of someone who suffered depression on and off.

PavewayIV , Dec 7, 2018 2:35:17 PM | link
This has to be embarrassing as hell to Trump - he should be absolutely furious with Bolton and Pompeo. And all this for violating sanctions on Iran? I feel like on crazy pills. We live in interesting times.
Richard , Dec 7, 2018 2:38:20 PM | link
So, if Bolton sabotaged Trump's efforts to do some sort of deal with China, in whose interest is Bolton working. You'd think that a trade deal with China would be good for the US. Is Bolton working against US interest.

If we accept the Globalist/Nationalist framework, then does this not mean that Bolton is helping the nationalists against US interests. And what are the implications of that.

jayc , Dec 7, 2018 2:38:29 PM | link
Trump's rapid departure from Argentina may well have been motivated by receiving the information about the arrest after the well hyped dinner. If that is the case, Bolton should have been fired on the spot. The lack of any statement about this affair from Trump is curious. There may be an element of blackmail at play here too, related to Mueller's machinations ahead of the G20. A malignancy is loose, no doubt.
abierno , Dec 7, 2018 2:52:06 PM | link
Thank you for this excellent column. Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding.

The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president, as this report makes clear.

The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly.

psychohistorian , Dec 7, 2018 2:56:18 PM | link
I can't believe that Trump did not know about the detention of Meng Wanzhou before hand. Trump is a TV actor and he is apprenticing for a higher spot for himself and family is the elite pecking order.

While we might want to give Trump credit for being who he is, the elite that fronted him know exactly what his style and penchants are. Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you nor I

freetrade , Dec 7, 2018 3:11:30 PM | link
From the perspective of China, their most appropriate response in this complicated situation IMO, should be to accelerate their gradual reduction of USTs.

All those articles about how China will hurt itself if it gradually sells down USTs are nonsense articles placed into the media to throw off attention to what is already happening. Russia and Turkey have alrdy done it on a smaller scale, it's a no-brainer that China can do it also. Why should China finance the US govt to wage war on itself?

If China and other countries gradually stop buying USTs, actual demand will collapse and many other holders will sell or reduce likewise. Mnuchin is fantasizing when he says there will still be strong demand. Any demand will be from the US Treasury buying its own USTs, like a dog licking its own rear quarters.

Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China.

The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression.

How to do that without crashing the markets n decreasing China's own assets? Sell and reduce USTs gradually. And pretend u r not doing it. Eventually the lack of buying will force the Fed to raise rates or force the US Treasury to buy its own USTs, further debasing the US dollar.

In history, all empires fall this way, they keep on printing or taking out the silver content until their currency gets debased into nothing, and nobody wants it.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 3:14:42 PM | link
Looks like Bolton wants war with China. I recall he was hired during the North Korea talks to add a bit of muscle and now Trump is stuck with him whether he likes it or not.

Re. Meng....apparently she faces fraud charges related to the Skycom affair. Of course that is just what we're told. Who knows what kind of pressure she will come under once they get her in the US.

"Meng Wanzhou -- the chief financial officer for the Chinese tech giant Huawei -- is wanted in the U.S. on allegations of fraud, a bail hearing has been told." https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bail-hearing-huawei-cfo-1.4936150

chu teh , Dec 7, 2018 3:24:15 PM | link
1959, CIA disobeyed Pres Eisenhower's ban on further overflights of USSR until after his summit meeting with Khrushchev. Then the U-2 was brought down over USSR and the live pilot captured. The US officially denied it happened.

The USSR cancelled the summit meeting.

At first, Eisenhower claimed to have no knowledge of the operation and was outraged when the truth revealed. UN Ambassador Stevenson made a vehement speech at the UN denying it happened, followed immediately with USSR producing both the plane's wreckage and its pilot.

Then USSR showed the pilot and wreckage was publicly displayed. Pilot F G Powers had safely bailed-out and was put on-trial in Moscow, convicted and then allowed to return to the US.

Mission Accomplished! by the unelected leaders of the US [who were certain their man Nixon would be the next President, followed by quick re-capture of Cuba and then war in Vietnam. Both those operations already directly involved Nixon, who was fully "in" on The Bay of Pigs and, earlier, plans for US "support" of Saigon leaders in "South" Vietnam with whom he established communications during his 1953 visit as Ike's new Vice-President.]

james , Dec 7, 2018 3:30:06 PM | link

...that data on this is more shocking then i realized.. the death of prof zhang - apparent suicide, is bizarre here..

i agree that the usa has been taken over by small minded neo cons that would try to use meng wanzhou as leverage.. the fact Bolton knew and Trump didn't.. i am not buying that, or Bolton is more manipulative then i realized.. they are all that stupid though.. i hope Canada doesn't allow this, but under the wuss Justin Trudeau, i am not holding my breath..

@ 12 dh... wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? is canada now doing book keeping, and everything else for the usa? the usa can go fuck themselves.. if Canada wasn't a 2 bit vassal state, that is what we would tell the usa..

Uncle $cam , Dec 7, 2018 3:31:59 PM | link
Flashback Friday

Oh, and what happened to the head of interpol, Meng Hongwei recently???

A. Person , Dec 7, 2018 3:46:11 PM | link
OT, but just to a degree.

Today is Dec.7, a day in 1941 that Pres. Roosevelt aptly called "A Day of Infamy," as the Japanese military attacked Pearl Harbor.

We now know that the very top echelons of US government first correctly anticipated and then knew precisely when and how the attack would occur. The 3,000 (+/-) GI's who were sacrificed were considered "acceptable losses." (The 3,000 civilians who were sacrificed on 9/11 were also considered "acceptable losses.") "Infamy" is an accurate word for US .gov conduct.

(Pls, do not comment to this OT. Wait for the next open thread, if you must.)

John Gilberts , Dec 7, 2018 4:28:57 PM | link
Trudeau says he knew about the arrest in advance.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-prepared-for-possible-chinese-cyber-retaliation-over-arrest-of/

Looks like Trump was out of the loop. Trudeau is mainly photo-op material only. This would have been Chrystia Freeland, the Nazi grand-daughter's file.

ashley albanese , Dec 7, 2018 5:29:38 PM | link
In Australia - endless media trumpeting the closed door to Chinese telcos from Australia and New Zealand but one has to go out of one's way to discover our neighbor Papua New GUINEA has continued using HuaHwei products albeit under U S pressure not to do so
bevin , Dec 7, 2018 5:32:00 PM | link
1/ "... the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism."

Has Islam, in fact, been in opposition to imperialism? For the most part, as in India/Pakistan, it has been a very useful imperialist foil against nationalism and socialism. There have been sincere and effective muslim campaigns against imperialism but equally there have been imperialist financed 'islamic' campaigns against enemies of the Empire.

2/ Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas.

I used to be a member of this, once mildly socialist party. I am proud to say that I was expelled.

Rolf , Dec 7, 2018 5:38:42 PM | link
Five Eyes Against Huawei

7 DECEMBER 2018, http://www.voltairenet.org/article204264.html

Washington has asked Ottawa to arrest Meng Wanzhou and to extradite her. The motive for the war undertaken by Washington against Huawei is deep-rooted and spurious are the justifications.

The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications. A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.

The covers/excuses for this war are theft of intellectual property or in the alternative, trade with Iran and North Korea, and violating rules of competition by benefitting from national subsidies.

The Five Eyes is a system of electronic espionage by Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. They have begun to exclude Huawei from their auctions.

Jackrabbit , Dec 7, 2018 5:46:11 PM | link

Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon.

Fine distinctions between senior US govt officials make me want to tear my hair out. In US govt only whistle-blowers are white knights. Everyone else is engaging in good guy/bad guy bullshit and controlled opposition.

With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1.

Willy2 , Dec 7, 2018 5:46:51 PM | link
- Bolton was appointed under pressure from one Sheldon Adelson, who was a (large) donor to the Trump campaign. In that regard, it was (nearly) impossible for Trump to fire Bolton.
Castellio , Dec 7, 2018 5:50:25 PM | link
Jen @2

In terms of Frank Olsen, there is a very good six part documentary series on Netflix called "Wormwood". Most important are the interviews with Olsen's son. His search for the truth took many years (too many years) and he finally uncovered the final levels of deceit. Worth the time.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 5:53:10 PM | link
@14 ".. wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? "

Absolutely nothing james. I suspect they are using that charge, rather than getting into 5G backdoor whatever, to make the extradition process go faster. They don't want it to drag on for years.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 5:56:39 PM | link
@32 Right. Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses.
CDWaller , Dec 7, 2018 6:18:32 PM | link
Surely it's Bolton who must go. That was an enormous betrayal. The one thing that Trump had going for him was the performance of the stock market. His neocon enemies in the form of Bolton, managed to strike two blows simultaneously; increase conflict with China and tank the market.
Daniel , Dec 7, 2018 6:32:55 PM | link
Too many posters letting Trump off the hook here. He's a brilliant 4D chess master but at the same time he's also a vulnerable naif who lets neocons, ziofascists and other hostile entities keep hijacking his administration for their own ends? Bit of a problem there. You can't have it both ways.

Occam's Razor says the Trump administration's foreign policy, possibly with Russia as an exception, is run with the full approval of Donald John Trump. He's no friend of China, remember, and Steve Bannon's plan to befriend Russia was designed to keep it from partnering with China against the United States.

It's almost 2019 and like the Obots of 2010 it's time to accept that your man is a busted flush, a fraud, an American exceptionalist through and through.

jayc , Dec 7, 2018 6:37:39 PM | link
The "fraud" charge goes back to 2009/10, and concerns an alleged misrepresentation over the relationship between a company called SkyComm and Huawei. The alleged sanction violation by SkyComm had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear or military programs, and may not have even proceeded beyond a negotiation phase. The alleged "fraud", or misrepresentation, rests on a technical interpretation of complicated interlocking corporate structures. The prosecutors and the defence will likely both be correct in their presentations, as it is a muddle, but the well has already been poisoned by the now well-publicized accusations that Huawei is a Communist trojan horse. It's very thin gruel to proceed with such a high profile arrest.
Sasha , Dec 7, 2018 8:22:10 PM | link
@Posted by: Rolf | Dec 7, 2018 5:38:42 PM | 30
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications. A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.

And not only the governments and secret services, Huawei is widely popular all along EU amongst the common working class user ( which means millions and millions of users....) especially because of its advantageous price and great capabilities.... I myself own a Huawei device, my friends own Huaweis....Glad to hear that "Five Eyes" can not spy on us....I am very fidel to marks/services who do not deceive me, but after knowing this new "capability", I am thinking in keeping Huawei as my header mark....Just waiting for them to launch the laptop "Five Eyes" waterproof and I will be throwing this old one to the trash bin....

dh , Dec 7, 2018 8:58:58 PM | link
Well it seems we have to wait until Monday to see if Meng gets bail or not. That's a long time for Trump to keep his mouth shut on anything.
Glenn Brown , Dec 7, 2018 9:03:38 PM | link
@32,36
I wonder how Adelson would react to a Chinese boycott of his casinos in Macau and Singapore? A lot of his wealth has come from Chinese gamblers. Given Adelson's connections to Bolton and Trump, it would seem like an obvious pressure point.
james , Dec 7, 2018 9:29:36 PM | link
@38 lili... denk was discussing this on the open thread yesterday.. see his links @68 / 76 and etc on this page.. no one is discussing this..

@48 peter au.. it certainly appears that way.. funny thing how trump sold himself on a number of topics, but not that one.. meanwhile, i guess the loot from adelson is quite good... stick with me and you don't need any stickin russian oligarch.. what is quite amazing is how blind the average amerikkkan is to all this.. they are still stuck on the mueller investigation which has been running on empty for some time... they would never do an investigation on isreal, or zionists influence on us elections, as it is too friggin' obvious for anyone looking... better to skip that and continue to serve israel.. thus the constant fixation with iran..

james , Dec 7, 2018 9:30:59 PM | link
or russia and china, as the case may be... the top 3 evil countries, according to obama, or was that north korea.. i guess trump will have to revise it.. the usa is pathetic.. canada is not far behind..
Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 9:38:22 PM | link
Trump didn't know b/c the NYTimes said so?
I've got this bridge....
China's response may not be immediate, but it will come.
I'm reminded of the sudden death of Vice Adm. Scott Stearney, commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet, Persian Gulf, discovered inside his home in Bahrain last weekend, a "suspected suicide."
Iran always gets even.
psychohistorian , Dec 7, 2018 9:41:09 PM | link
To those of us that understand that all/most of the politicians are working for the same team, it should be easy to see the good cop/bad cop dynamic being used here.

If b thinks Trump is a good cop, as he presents him here (yes, b has written that he disagrees with all/most of what Trump does) as do other commenters that post here, I would posit that "they" are being successful in working that meme at this time.

China will not back down and now will play hardball back, but in a globalist sense I expect them to continue to take the high road as the West mires itself further in the muck of its religion of private finance.

Another commenter mentioned the strategy of China dumping its massive amount of US Treasuries. I think we are getting to that moment and the response of the US is to default on whomever is holding its debt...............

and then the war we have been in for some time turns serious.

The problem the elite have is making the public have the fervor to slaughter themselves for the purpose of continuing a society run by and only servicing the elite. I don't understand how they have managed all these centuries but here we are, a bit still in the dark ages of a thousand years ago.

dh , Dec 7, 2018 9:57:33 PM | link
@55. Very interesting idea. Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium.
Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 10:14:47 PM | link
I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here
Anunnaki , Dec 7, 2018 10:21:01 PM | link
Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this
Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 7, 2018 10:21:55 PM | link
This is a 100% neocon clusterfuck. It is vital to the success of Trump's Drain The Swamp strategy that The Swampers be given every opportunity to put their anti-US influence on public display. At least now we know which weirdos are responsible for the US policy of "Let's do SOMETHING, even it it's stupid."

I've been scouring the 'News' and the www for evidence that China agreed to uphold US sanctions on Iran to an extent that would invite the US to punish China for disregarding US whims. No luck, so far.

What makes this story entertaining is that the US has not only surrendered its lead in Military Tech, from the Good Old Days, but Computer and Communications Tech too. You have to be pretty desperate to admit a blunder of that magnitude, albeit obliquely, as in this case.

slit , Dec 7, 2018 10:24:07 PM | link
Unlikely that few in Trump's cabinet or Senate Foreign Relations committee could even pass the physics section of a college entrance exam, and have little idea what quantum encryption even is (Chinese published on it first a couple of years ago).

That presumption alone suggests Pompeo Bolton etc are just finger puppets ... which oligarch has all those cia contracts again?

They are in well over their heads. They can't even keep up with the Russians. They will likely get stung by Chinese scorpions without even knowing what hit them!

dh , Dec 7, 2018 10:28:27 PM | link
@63 Indirectly yes. According to Jim Cramer....whose objectivity I am increasingly coming to respect....Apple will lose out because of the arrest.

"Top tech players like Apple, Micron, Intel and Qualcomm are all "worth less today than yesterday," says the "Mad Money" host."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/cramer-huawei-cfo-arrest-just-made-companies-like-apple-less-valuable.html

Hoarsewhisperer , Dec 7, 2018 10:52:40 PM | link
Another 'unintended consequence' of the neocon gambit to embarrass Trump by by-passing him, will be renewed interest in something Vlad said in one of Oliver Stone's Putin's Interviews.

In the context of Vlad's feelings about POTUS Trump, Vlad said words to the effect that it's too soon to say. Everyone knows that AmeriKKKa has been run by the Permanent Bureaucracy (not the POTUS). A lot of people would have been 'too busy' to watch the Putin Interviews but World Leaders, everywhere, would not have been among them. So as of December 1, 2018, that cat is well and truly out of the bag and all eyes, as usual, are on Trump. Again.

Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 10:54:09 PM | link
CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security?

Actually, I fear, it's a conspiracy of intel agencies, security advisors and courts to conduct domestic and foreign policy. It's a non-elected "government" which elected politicians can't touch. For those that doubt it, check out this important interview with intel whistleblowers Shipp, Binney and Kiriakou which describes Washington corruption is here . (h/t Carlton Meyer)
Politicians can't touch this secret government lest their security clearances be removed.

Don Bacon , Dec 7, 2018 11:03:36 PM | link
@70
In the two-hour interview John Kiriakou points out that the intel agencies have their favorite courts. His delayed case, resurrected by Obama, was heard by a court in eastern Virginia, which had a 98% conviction rate. They got him for a couple years in prison. General Petraeus, however, who did much worse, had his case heard in a court in western Virginia, and he got probation. It appears that the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is good for anti-China warrants.
the pessimist , Dec 7, 2018 11:48:53 PM | link
D B@70 I read that she was aware of the warrant and avoided traveling to the USA because of it as she had been doing to ?" visit her son who was in school here"? but likely thought Canada safe. Wrong.

So China seems fearful to me - detaining the head of INTERPOL for instance and re-educating the Uyghurs en mass, plus the heavy internet censorship. But they cannot disengage from the west economically without risking social upheaval. Nor can the US afford to disengage from China for roughly the same reason (unlike Russia from whom the US gets rocket engines but little else they cannot obtain from other sources).

In a few years time (2, or perhaps 3) both Russia and China will have deployed weapons that can deter anything but a full on nuclear attack, and their military capability will continue to advance. US strategy seems to be to disrupt, slow, and sabotage both to the extent it is able using economic and political weapons and military posturing. I don't believe it can catch up and this creates extra danger - the longer it waits the greater the gap will be - economic and military. Many of the responses seem borderline hysterical to me - not a good thing.

The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe...

[Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population

Highly recommended!
Dec 08, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Livius Drusus , December 8, 2018 at 7:20 am

I think the Internet and the infotech revolution in general have been largely negative in their impact on the world. Ian Welsh has a blog post that largely sums up my views on the issue.

https://www.ianwelsh.net/what-the-infotechtelecom-revolution-has-actually-done/

Contrary to what many people say I think large organizations like governments and corporations have significantly more power now than before and ordinary people have less power. The Internet has made it easier to get information but you have to sift through tons of junk to get to anything decent. For every website like Naked Capitalism there are thousands pushing nonsense or trying to sell you stuff.

And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it? At best it makes you more well-rounded, interesting and harder to fool but in political terms knowing a lot of stuff doesn't make you more effective. In the past people didn't have access to nearly as much information but they were more willing and able to organize and fight against the powerful because it was easier to avoid detection/punishment (that is where stuff like widespread surveillance tech comes in) and because they still had a vibrant civic life and culture.

I actually think people are more atomized now than in the past and the Internet and other technologies have probably fueled this process. Despite rising populism, the Arab Spring, Occupy, the Yellow Jackets in France, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the DSA this is all a drop in the bucket compared to just the massive social movements of the 1960s much less earlier periods. Robert Putnam argued that television, the Internet and other technologies likely helped to produce the collapse of civic life in the United States by "individualizing" people's leisure time and personally I think Putnam is right. Civic life today is very weak and I think the Internet is partially to blame.

Mark , December 8, 2018 at 12:10 pm

And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it?

Agreed. If anything these more knowledgeable people had a greater audience prior to the internet. Whether you were a journalist, a great economist, a great author, or a great orator you need to persist and show intellect and talent to have your message heard wide and broad.
(This is probably a little idealistic, but I think there is truth there.)

Now you need very little of this. If your most famous asset is your attractive body you can attract a greater audience than great scholars and politicians.

Rosario , December 8, 2018 at 2:56 pm

I can't speak much on authoritarianism since whatever form it takes on today is wildly different from what it was in the past. Unfortunately, it is hard to convince many people living in western societies that they are living in an authoritarian system because their metal images are goose-stepping soldiers and Fraktur print posters.

I suppose the way I can assure myself that we are living in an authoritarian society is by analyzing the endless propaganda spewed from countless, high-viewership media and entertainment outlets. It is quite simple, if the media and entertainment narratives are within a very narrow intellectual window (with lots of 600 lb. gorillas sitting in corners) than the culture and politics are being defined by powerful people with a narrow range of interests. This is not to say that forming public opinion or preferring particular political views is a new thing in Western media and entertainment, just that its application, IMO, is far more effective and subtle (and becoming more-so by the day) than it ever was in, say, NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union.

I'd put my money down that most educated Germans during NAZI rule were well aware that propaganda was being utilized to "manufacture consent" but they participated and accepted this despite the content for pragmatic/selfish reasons. Much of the NAZI propaganda played on existing German/European cultural narratives and prejudices. Leaveraging existing ideology allowed the party to necessitate their existence by framing the German as juxtaposed against the impure and unworthy. Again, ideologies that existed independent of the party not within it. Goebbels and company were just good at utilizing the technology of the time to amplify these monstrosities.

I question that being the case today. It is far more complicated. Technology is again the primary tool for manipulation, but it is possible that current technology is allowing for even greater leaps in reason and analysis. The windows for reflection and critical thought close as soon as they are opened. Seems more like the ideology is manufactured on the fly. For example, the anti-Russia narrative has some resonance with baby boomers, but how the hell is it effective with my generation (millennial) and younger? The offhand references to Putin and Russian operatives from my peers are completely from left field when considering our life experience. People in my age group had little to say about Russia three years ago. It says volumes on the subtle effectiveness of Western media machines if you can re-create the cold war within two years for an entire generation.

In addition and related to above, the West's understanding of "Freedom of Speech" is dated by about 100 years. Governments are no longer the sole source of speech suppression (more like filtering and manipulation), and the supremacy of the free-market coupled with the erroneously perceived black-and-white division between public and private have convinced the public (with nearly religious conviction) that gigantic media and entertainment organizations do not have to protect the free speech of citizens because they are not government. Public/Private is now an enormous blob. With overlapping interests mixed in with any antagonisms. It is ultimately dictated by capital and its power within both government and business. Cracking this nut will be a nightmare.

Yes, this is an authoritarian world, if measured by the distance between the populace and its governing powers, but it is an authoritarianism operating in ways that we have never seen before and using tools that are terribly effective.

[Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

Highly recommended!
You can read online at epdf.tips
Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Richard , Dec 7, 2018 2:50:07 PM | link

Came across this book which gives some excellent background to where we're at today:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Postmodern-Imperialism-Geopolitics-Great-Games/dp/098335393X

There may be a pdf available if you search.

"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:

This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great Games"."

Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcmrBD4Ez2c

[Dec 08, 2018] In office, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely undermined them."

Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

ben , Dec 5, 2018 4:54:14 PM | link

"The last two Democratic presidencies largely involved talking progressive while serving Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. The obvious differences in personalities and behavior of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama diverted attention from their underlying political similarities. In office, both men rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely undermined them."

Article from Truthdig: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/what-it-means-that-hillary-clinton-might-run-for-president-in-2020/

[Dec 08, 2018] How False Testimony and a Massive U.S. Propaganda Machine Bolstered George H.W. Bush's War on Iraq - YouTube

Dec 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

https://democracynow.org - As the media memorializes George H.W. Bush, we look at the lasting impact of his 1991 invasion of Iraq and the propaganda campaign that encouraged it. Although the Gulf War technically ended in February of 1991, the U.S. war on Iraq would continue for decades, first in the form of devastating sanctions and then in the 2003 invasion launched by George W. Bush. Thousands of U.S. troops and contractors remain in Iraq. A largely forgotten aspect of Bush Sr.'s war on Iraq is the vast domestic propaganda effort before the invasion began. We look at the way U.S. media facilitated the war on Iraq with journalist John "Rick" MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper's Magazine and the author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War."

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: https://democracynow.org

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: https://democracynow.org/donate

[Dec 08, 2018] Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

David Baker , says: December 4, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT

Though I'm no friend of Michael Moore, he at least was candid about American "Judeo-Christian" adventures within foreign countries. America needs to pull in its horns, and stop fooling around with other governments.

Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs, in addition to furthering the campaign by Globalists to divvy up the world's resources and labor markets .

Our country is blessed with all the necessary raw materials, manufacturing capabilities, educated and motivated work forces and security to completely support our population, without the need to obtain staple supplies from foreign countries. Developing alternative energy sources should be a top priority, to free our people from the yoke of foreign oil cartels -- or the domestic variety, for that matter. Globalism has done little more than implement the enslavement of populations to mega-corporations, establishing a cabal of non-elected, inviolable potentates who wield tremendous power over our leaders to do their bidding.

[Dec 08, 2018] Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mike from Jersey , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT

Good article. You wrote:

There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

I came to the exact same conclusion.

Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia. Then it makes sense.

If this is true (as it appears to be) one can reasonably predict that any time Trump and Putin are about to meet, that a Skripal/Ukraine or other Russia-is-evil event will be staged to derail the meeting.

Let's watch in 2019 and see if this prediction comes true.

If it does, we will know that someone, behind the scenes, is staging these events.

APilgrim , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT
The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.

The globalists continue to waste their time & our money, with this shit.

JLK , says: December 5, 2018 at 5:09 am GMT
@APilgrim

The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.

I'll keep an open mind until Mueller's report is released, but Cohen's connections are allegedly with the mainly Jewish Russian mob. It is unclear what their agenda may have been, but Trump has been a lot nicer to Israel than to Russia.

[Dec 08, 2018] Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition of rich and poor. In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy,

Notable quotes:
"... Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for safety, he abhorred capitalism. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: December 4, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT

@Bill Jones Interesting to read how these idealists agree with Christian Gerondeau, 'Le CO2 est bon pour la planete, Climat, la grande manipulation', Paris 2017

Gerondeau explains how many deaths reducing CO2 emissions will cause in poor countries, simply as an example how electricity for cooking will remain too expensive for them, so cooking is done on smoky fires in confined spaces.

" to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." " To intentionally impoverish the world. To what end, I wonder ?

Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition of rich and poor.
In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy, as Tibet was.

These idealistic idiots do not understand how they created the problem they now intend to solve with creating an even bigger problem, their example is the EU, the EU is following this policy for more than twelve years now, since 2005, when the EU grabbed power through the rejected EU 'consitution'.

Capitalism is no more than deciding between consumption and investment, Robinson Crusoë invested in a fishing net by temporarily reducing consumption, he did not go fishing, but made a fishing net, expecting that his investment would make it possible to eat more fish.

Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for safety, he abhorred capitalism.

Dutch 17th century capitalistic commerce to the far Indies, east and west, was not benign. Typically a ship left Amsterdam, near the Schreierstoren, trans 'the tower for the crying', wives, mothers and girl friends, with 300 men aboard, and returned with 100. Most of those who died were common sailors, captain and officers had a far lower mortality, mainly better food.

Our East Indies commerce also was not much fun for the people in the East, in the Banda Sea Islands massacre some 30.000 people were killed, for a monopoly on pepper, if I remember correctly.

But, as the earth developed economically, there came room for also poor people getting lives beginning to look as worth living. Engels in 1844, hope the year is right, described the conditions of working people in GB, this resulted in Das Kapital.

This room for a better life for also the poor was not given by the capitalistic system

In their struggle for a better world for anyone the idealists wanted globalisation, level playing field, anyone should be welcome anywhere, slogans like this.
Globaliation, however, is the end of the nation state, the very institution in which it was possible to provide a better life. Anyone following me until here now can see the dilemma, the end of the nation state was also the end of protection by that state against unbridled capitalism.

As the idealists cannot give up their globalisation religion they must, as those who cannot give up the biblical creation story, find an ideological way out of their dilemma. My conclusion now is 'in order to save our globalisation religion we try to destroy economic growth, by making energy very expensive, in the hope of destroying capitalism'.

Alas, better, luckily, capitalism cannot be destroyed, those who invented the first furnaces for more or less mass producing iron, they were capitalists. They saw clearly how cheap iron would bring economic growth, the plow.

In the country where the CO2 madness has struck most, my country, the Netherlands, the realisation of the poverty that drastically reducing CO2 emissions will cause, has begun. If there really is madness, I wonder.

I indeed see madness, green leftists unable to make a simple multipiclation calculations about costs, but maybe mainly political opportunism. Our dictator, Rutte, is now so hated that he needs a job outside the Netherlands, in order to qualify, either at Brussels or in New York, with the UN, has to howl with the wolves.

At the same time, we have a gas production problem,, earthquakes in the NE, houses damaged, never any decision made to solve the problem, either stop gas production, or strenghten the houses, both expensive solutions.

So, in my suspicious ideas, Rutte now tries to improve himself, at the same time solving a problem: within, say ten years, the Netherlands functions without gas, and remains prosperous; the idea he tries to sell to us. In a few years time it will emerge that we cannot have both, prosperous, and zero emission, but the time horizon for a politician is said to be five years.

[Dec 08, 2018] Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:18 pm GMT

Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005. Israel successfully demanded enormous increases in joint U.S.-Israeli cyber warfare expenditures and benefited from related U.S. contingency planning. Due to onerous secrecy, Americans remain unable to engage in informed public debate about whether what amounts to US subjugation to the Israeli prerogatives driving these massive expenditures should continue.

The US increased spending on the National Intelligence Program by 9 percent in fiscal year 2018 to $59.4 billion. The Military Intelligence Program surged 20 percent to $22.1 billion. NIP plus MIP beat the year 2005 expenditure record totaling $81.5 billion for fiscal year 2018.

The development of secret offensive cyber warfare programs targeting Iran are included in MIP and NIP budgets. According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending.

Former NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag the United States into war.

by Grant Smith Posted on November 07, 2018 He is director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.

Jon Baptist , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT
There is very little spoken of the foreign threat of the Chabad network. It must be serious opposition if even the CFR "globalists" write about it. ( https://www.theglobalist.com/donald-trump-benjamin-netanyahu-democracy-corruption/ ) When I say threat, I mean global nuclear war, mass starvation, and disease. Chabad is the link binding Trump and Putin advisors. Do you think anyone belonging in this protected "religion" holds any sort of good will for the regular common folk inhabiting the world?
Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 12:59 am GMT
@Art

What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?

Doesn't look good does it!

West Point says NO to Peace!

The warmongering bastard and West Point grad (first in class) -- Pompeo -- says NO peace for Yemeni! Trump says wars are for Israel.

West Point is Jew occupied territory. All US Army generals are pro Israel.

US to keep aiding Saudis in Yemen despite furor: Pompeo

Buenos Aires (AFP) -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed Saturday that the United States would continue suppor ting Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen, despite rising outrage over the kingdom.

Speaking from a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Pompeo acknowledged that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen -- where millions are at risk of starvation -- had reached "epic proportions" but said Washington and Riyadh were offering aid.

"The program that we're involved in today we intend to continue," Pompeo told CNN when asked about military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-keep-aiding-saudis-yemen-despite-furor-pompeo-173323301.html

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

p.s. Pompeo defends MBS -- what human trash!

Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 5:15 am GMT
@JLK

All US Army generals are pro Israel

I suspect not, but they answer to politicians. Ditto the CIA.

I suspect not also -- but only privately and in secret, would they be anti-Israel. If they keep their mouth shut, they will have a six figure job waiting for them in the J-MIC. Hmm -- so much for the flag. Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

ChuckOrloski , says: December 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
Fyi, The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/4/rand-paul-rips-deep-state-for-freezing-him-out-of-/

anon [415] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
"The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder."

Could it not be more clear that Mossad runs our government? Didn't the military swear oaths to protect the US from enemies foreign AND domestic? Oh, and I've given up on Trump. He's an Israel-worshiping ineffective

Anon [340] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
What foreign threats indeed. Out biggest threats come from our own government:

"The new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a boycott, but the ACLU has argued that it still leaves the door open for criminal financial penalties."

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/04/israel-anti-boycott-act-lame-duck/

But yet these clowns will do next to nothing to stop illegal seizures of white farms in South Africa. Our treasonous government busy working to strip away our freedoms. Don't think they won't use this precedent to outlaw other types of "hate speech." And brought to you by the republican party.

anon [309] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
@anon As AIPAC and WINEP demanded in 2003, the office as initially led by Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who worked in unusually close coordination with the Israeli government. Levey's Harvard thesis (PDF) was about how Israel lobbying organizations could become more effective by staying beneath the radar of public scrutiny and distancing themselves from the notoriety generated by the illicit activities of such ideological fellow travelers as the Jewish Defense League. https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/08/29/treasury-sanctions-foreigners-for-israel
anon [309] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
A few years ago, I had the temerity to write to David McCullough, the biographer of Harry Truman, to tell him I thought he was wrong about an aspect of Truman's character.

McCullough was nice enough to write back. He said he thought Truman had not been malicious but had simply lacked understanding, and in a revealing remark, he acknowledged that Truman "just didn't know enough about [the Palestinians] and their situation" -- which he said, quite accurately, is still true of most Americans. "The great shame," he wrote, "is that a reasonable discussion of the subject remains so difficult to achieve in any public way."

Which brings me to my point: Reasonable discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and particularly of the Palestinian perspective, has always been "so difficult to achieve in any public way," and since the days of Woodrow Wilson .

https://www.counterpunch.org/2002/07/15/the-history-of-anti-palestinian-bias-from-wilson-to-bush/ by BILL CHRISTISON -- KATHLEEN CHRISTIAN

Prevent any discussion , don't expose,don't talk,don't report and when alluded to the issue by someone call it HATE SPEECH or CONSPIRACY THEORY .

Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 9:22 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Fyi, The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/4/rand-paul-rips-deep-state-for-freezing-him-out-of-/

From the article: Tuesday's briefing on Khashoggi's killing was limited to a small group of lawmakers, including those of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Foreign Relations Committee.

Chuck,

These oversite committees are a joke!

Those committees are cheer leaders for those agencies. Those senators are hand picked to support the Jew Security State.

We can be sure that they work to hide what those agencies are doing from We the People.

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

[Dec 08, 2018] The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now).

Notable quotes:
"... The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). ..."
"... Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | thesaker.is

GeorgeG on November 28, 2018 , · at 11:27 am EST/EDT

Short overview as it looks from my current perch: Piggy Poro will go down in history , way down, that's for sure.

1. The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). If the Trump-Putin meeting a G20 falls through, it would not necessarily be a definitive signal; if it does not fall through, that would be a definitive signal. Yes, MI-6 and the US cohorts are anxious about the "declassification" of FISA and other documents, both because of Russiagate as well as the definitive disenfranchisment it entails. That makes the timing of Piggy's Kerch fiasco important.

2. At the moment, the European or NATO response is not what the British or CIA expected or wanted.

a. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen, German Defense Minster, spoke at a security conference covered by Sputnik (German): "Russia has Europe in check" was the headline, "check" as in chess, which in a chess game sometimes means not just a single check, but chasing the opponent with "checks" over the board until finally declaring "checkmate."

b. https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/jack-laurenson-in-this-dark-hour-where-are-ukraines-allies.html?cn-reloaded=1 In this dark hour, where are Ukraine's allies?, "The Kremlin wants to know how much it can get away with. If the response so far, in the last day or so, is a measure of that, then Moscow will likely feel emboldened to push even further. There is still time for NATO and the West to respond, but the question on everyone's lips is how and whether the political will and strength to do so exists." The end: "At Ukrainian Week in London this October, Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it.

c. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-putin-is-in-control/ 'Putin is in control' Europe stands by as Russian president goes after Ukraine. "BERLIN -- Chalk another one up for Vlad." "To be perfectly honest, we don't have many options," a senior European official said. "We don't want to risk war, but Putin is already waging one. That makes us look weak." Given Europe's dearth of options, its leaders revert to hackneyed pronouncements about the importance of dialogue and, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas put it, "de-escalation on both sides."

d. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ukraines-new-front-is-europes-big-challenge/ Ukraine's New Front Is Europe's Big Challenge -- There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine.
There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine. By Carl Bildt, Nicu Popescu. -- Juicy nonsense galore, a plea sent into the winds.

e. http://time.com/5463988/russia-ukraine-trump-putin-g20/?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=1f01df16ac-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_27_07_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-1f01df16ac-85033789 President Trump Could Help Stop a War Between Russia and Ukraine -- But Only If He Will Stand Up to Putin -- Admiral Stavridis (Ret.) was the 16th Supreme Allied Commander at NATO and is an Operating Executive at The Carlyle Group. "

f. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/why-is-the-sea-of-azov-so-important -- Atlantidc Council -- Stephen Blank -- Why Is the Sea of Azov So Important? "Moreover, even a casual examination of Russian actions reveals the deep and continuing parallels with China's equally illegitimate actions in the South and East China Sea. In the Asian case, the United States has mounted and continues to stage numerous Freedom of Navigation Operations to demonstrate to China that it will uphold the time-honored principle of the freedom of the seas. This principle is no less at stake in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ideally, NATO, at Kyiv's invitation, should send a fleet to Mariupol to shatter the pretense of Russian sovereignty and show Putin that the invasion of Ukraine has brought NATO into Ukraine. This is precisely the outcome Russia aimed to avert."

And that is what, at the moment, "NATO" of "the Europeans" apparently do not want. Send a fleet to Mariupol? -- Ask the Germans: they have a few speed boats that might not get stuck.

Poroshenko seems to be on the way to demonstrating that NATO is irrelevant.

[Dec 08, 2018] It appears that Jared Kushner (JK) is in the crosshair of Micheal Flynt!

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Garreth Smith , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:41 am GMT

@ChuckOrloski

Am big for '60′s protest folk music, and linked (below) is the best song around since contemporary artists took leave of anti-war fame.

Greetings Chuck,

It appears that Jared Kushner (JK) is in the crosshair of Micheal Flynt!

[Dec 08, 2018] Now that the banks are calling in their insurance, the EU has to deliver either by screwing down Italy the same as they did Greece or getting the French and German public (or better the whole EU) to bail out the banks.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [295] Disclaimer , says: December 7, 2018 at 12:23 pm GMT

@Miro23

Now that the banks are calling in their insurance, the EU has to deliver either by 1) screwing down Italy the same as they did Greece, or 2) getting the French and German public (or better the whole EU) to bail out the banks.

There is a third option: the banks simply accept their losses, and the bankers make do without their customary bonuses for a few quarters.

[Dec 08, 2018] The zionized MIC and the "biased" truth about Russia's stance towards the West

Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anya , Dec 6, 2018 11:32:15 AM | link

The zionized MIC and the "biased" truth about Russia's stance towards the West:
http://thesaker.is/why-russia-wont-invade-the-ukraine-the-baltic-statelets-or-anybody-else/

"Today, just like in 1911, Russia needs internal and external peace more than anything else, and that is not what she would get if she got involved in some foreign military adventure! In fact, attacking an alliance which includes three nuclear power would be suicidal, and the Russians are anything but suicidal."

The zionized MIC has been prevailing because of money. The uncounted and unaccountable money: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50711.htm

The practice of DoD "violates Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, which stipulates that, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." ... The status quo has been generating ever-higher DoD budgets for decades...

The losers in this situation are everyone else. The Pentagon's accounting fraud diverts many billions of dollars that could be devoted to other national needs: health care, education, job creation, climate action, infrastructure modernization, and more. Indeed, the Pentagon's accounting fraud amounts to theft on a grand scale -- theft not only from America's taxpayers, but also from the nation's well-being and its future."

[Dec 08, 2018] Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment by the voter.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Durruti , says: December 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT

"Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment by the voter. This emboldens them. The reality of votes cast and "democracy" past does not does bode well for the people of the United Kingdom, their future as a nation or their hopeful return to sovereignty once called, "Brexit."

Dynamite opening paragraph by Brett Redmayne-Titley.

It defines the vital issue of -To be or not to be – for our Planet's citizens who struggle (or aught to), for functioning Democratic Republics founded upon the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All.

Titley's ending mention of the trials of the Greek nation, and others, is well placed and a tribute to his worldview, that is key to analyzing the situation in any particular corner.

"Britains should consider this arbitrary bullying of Italy and of the UK. Then they should consider the sad EU imposed current condition of Greece. Next, they might dwell on the failed outcomes of previous elections within the nearby EU nations, and how similar movements were defeated in their nation as well. Last, they must pay closest of attention to what is actually in the souls of their own politicians and what they truly support."

In America, we lost our Democratic Republic and our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy , in a hail of bullets in the Coup D'état of November 22, 1963.

The Citizen Yellow Vests in France , supported by their 2 leading Resistance Fighters, Dieudonné , and Alain Soral , display the next step forward in the Resistance to Tyranny.

Step 1 – Committees of Correspondence (mainstream media free – websites, & communications).

2. Step away from the TVs – & breathe the free air outside as the Citizen Militia Yellow Vests(Minutemen), regain the streets and stretch their muscles.

3. Final Step: We are Joined by free police, military, even CIA & other police agency employees, in the act of regaining their Countries, with their Sovereignty, and their Honor. We Restore Our Republics!

a. Zionist imperialist/racists to jail and awaiting Trial.

b. Cleanup & rebuilding.

c. Unbought electoral process - no $ allowed in the process (equal media access for all candidates), Debates between the candidates. Let a hundred flowers bloom (what democrat said that?)?

Something like that.

Durruti – for the Anarchist Collective

[Dec 08, 2018] One fatal flaw of WASPs on both sides of the pond is that the upper crust ones don't seem to have much empathy for the less fortunate of their own kind

Notable quotes:
"... It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated). ..."
"... It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com
Miro23 , says: December 7, 2018 at 3:45 am GMT
@JLK

One fatal flaw of WASPs on both sides of the pond is that the upper crust ones don't seem to have much empathy for the less fortunate of their own kind.

It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated).

For example, it's still completely unacceptable in middle class British society to support Nationalism (you're a Nazi) or Anglo racial identity (other races are welcome to their identities – but if you're and Anglo you're a racist).

It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section.

[Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

Highly recommended!
" The Fleeting Illusion of Election Night Victory." that phrase sums up the situation very succinctly
Notable quotes:
"... " A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," ..."
"... "Brexit means Brexit!" ..."
Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.

One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the "deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June 27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review

Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK voter.

So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular vote!

David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.

After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to read Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an article published four days after the night Brexit passed, " A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit. Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven during the negotiations.

In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than ever.

Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review

So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on, that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old" Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called "Brexit."

Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.

What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British press began their work as well.

Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review

jim jones , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:55 am GMT

Government found guilty of Contempt of Parliament:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/04/uk-govt-forced-to-publish-full-brexit-legal-documents-after-losing-key-vote/

Brabantian , says: December 5, 2018 at 7:17 am GMT
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters

But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine real deal' for British people

Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their censorship insanity

Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific projects during World War 2

Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very decent of him

And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'

The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'

niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 9:13 am GMT
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the 0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.

You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister! I am not holding my breath.

However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.

Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;

After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it. Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the Greece debacle.

I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.

I hope I am wrong.

niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals (even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!

There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes (even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems. MIGA!

Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that struggle against such reality.

I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread communist. Hopeless ideas!

jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "

Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.

What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states

What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and, already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer installations.

But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union, just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB, same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?

This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.

Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.

As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with yellow coat demonstrators.

For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.

jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 11:40 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
@niceland The expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.

About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.

There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of imperialist, I suppose.

Tyrion 2 , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
@Simon in London 90% Labour party members supported remain, as did 65% of their voters and 95% of their MPs.
Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMT
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.

Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman , Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .

I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury

Mike P , says: December 6, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as "representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of its power.

With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those "representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist shills in European politics.

Wizard of Oz , says: December 6, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while. Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the critical decisions on Brexit.

Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side. Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign nation without adult supervision.

As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better informed view.

Stebbing Heuer , says: Website December 6, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat Erm Varoufakis didn't knuckle under. He resigned in protest at Tsipras' knuckling under.
anon [108] Disclaimer , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized government.

"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to].. return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution? .. ..

[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.

Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous man, so too was Jesus Christ."

There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.

Michael Kenny , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
This sounds like a halfway house between hysterical panic and sour grapes. The author clearly believes that Brexit is going to fail.
T.T , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.

It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.

Brett Redmayne-Titley , says: Website December 6, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@Brabantian Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.

[Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

Highly recommended!
" The Fleeting Illusion of Election Night Victory." that phrase sums up the situation very succinctly
Notable quotes:
"... " A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," ..."
"... "Brexit means Brexit!" ..."
Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.

One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the "deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June 27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review

Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK voter.

So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular vote!

David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.

After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to read Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an article published four days after the night Brexit passed, " A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit. Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven during the negotiations.

In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than ever.

Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review

So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on, that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old" Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called "Brexit."

Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.

What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British press began their work as well.

Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review

jim jones , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:55 am GMT

Government found guilty of Contempt of Parliament:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/04/uk-govt-forced-to-publish-full-brexit-legal-documents-after-losing-key-vote/

Brabantian , says: December 5, 2018 at 7:17 am GMT
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters

But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine real deal' for British people

Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their censorship insanity

Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific projects during World War 2

Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very decent of him

And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'

The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'

niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 9:13 am GMT
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the 0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.

You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister! I am not holding my breath.

However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.

Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;

After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it. Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the Greece debacle.

I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.

I hope I am wrong.

niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals (even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!

There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes (even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems. MIGA!

Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that struggle against such reality.

I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread communist. Hopeless ideas!

jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "

Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.

What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states

What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and, already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer installations.

But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union, just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB, same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?

This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.

Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.

As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with yellow coat demonstrators.

For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.

jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 11:40 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
jilles dykstra , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
@niceland The expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.

About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.

There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of imperialist, I suppose.

Tyrion 2 , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
@Simon in London 90% Labour party members supported remain, as did 65% of their voters and 95% of their MPs.
Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: December 6, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMT
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.

Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman , Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .

I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury

Mike P , says: December 6, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as "representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of its power.

With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those "representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist shills in European politics.

Wizard of Oz , says: December 6, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while. Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the critical decisions on Brexit.

Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side. Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign nation without adult supervision.

As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better informed view.

Stebbing Heuer , says: Website December 6, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat Erm Varoufakis didn't knuckle under. He resigned in protest at Tsipras' knuckling under.
anon [108] Disclaimer , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized government.

"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to].. return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution? .. ..

[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.

Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous man, so too was Jesus Christ."

There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.

Michael Kenny , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
This sounds like a halfway house between hysterical panic and sour grapes. The author clearly believes that Brexit is going to fail.
T.T , says: December 6, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.

It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.

Brett Redmayne-Titley , says: Website December 6, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@Brabantian Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.

[Dec 07, 2018] Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital.

Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT

My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals (even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!

There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes (even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems. MIGA!

Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that struggle against such reality.

I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread communist. Hopeless ideas!

Curmudgeon , says: December 6, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
@niceland Your friends are not "right wing". The left/right paradigm is long dead. Your friends are globalists, whether they realize it or not. Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital. Investing in migration/immigration lowers the long term costs and increases long term profit. The profit (money capital) is then moved to a place where it best serves its owner.

[Dec 06, 2018] The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex's annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers' money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex

Dec 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Originally from: Paul Craig Roberts Laments The Disintegration Of Western Society

In the United States today, and throughout "Western Brainwashed Civilization," only a handful of people exist who are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible.

Everything that every Western government and "news" organization says is a lie to control the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.

The ability to control people's understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam Hussein had and was going to use on the US "weapons of mass destruction;" that Assad "used chemical weapons" against "his own people;" that Libya's Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia "invaded Ukraine;" that Trump and Putin stole the presidential election from Hillary.

The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex's annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers' money even as Congress debates cutting Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security complex.

Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system, precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.

Is Thomas Jefferson Alive and Well In Paris?

[Dec 06, 2018] Tom Kirkman

Notable quotes:
"... The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and again ..."
"... The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts, people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced. All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior". ..."
"... Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to "confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course, is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo and hiss the proverbial bad guy. ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | community.oilprice.com

Tom Kirkman

Normally I don't quote entire articles, but this is a Panic Service Announcement (and a gentle ribbing).

My comment at the bottom, after the article.

The Psychological Origins of American Russophobia

The main reason so many Americans buy into the anti-Russian craze is not only due to what people are told by the government and media, but by how they think and process information. For if Americans were taught how to analyze and think properly they would not fall for the blatant propaganda.

For example, we are told that the Nazis discovered the secret of repetition as a means of programming people into believing something to be true, but we are not taught why this practice is so effective.

The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and again. After a while, the mind interprets this consistent pattern as proof of truth value. In psychological terms, "schemata" are created by a layering of memories similar in nature over time so that all events associated with the phenomenon are perceived through a prism of previous repetitions. In other words, even if a certain type of behavior is different from the norm it will still be identified as belonging to the typical pattern regardless. It is literally a trick of the mind.

The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts, people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced. All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior".

Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to "confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course, is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo and hiss the proverbial bad guy.

To a certain extent, pattern recognition comes into play as well because in America TV shows and films over the past two decades evil Russian spies and mafia types have figured prominently. The repeating portrayals create schemata which then create stereotypes that frame how we think.

Russophobia, however, will not last forever because it is essentially based upon lies. Truth always wins out over time and fantasy gives way to reality. Despite the censorship on social media and the attempts to silence RT America the truth will eventually triumph.

For gagging the tongue of truth is always followed by a long-suppressed shout that echoes ever louder throughout the ages.

===============================

My comment:

The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
... ... ...
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.

Marina Schwarz
Well, Dr. Paul Whatshisname is obviously an agent of Putin. Did I even need to say this?

On a serious note, repetition works perhaps shockingly well. I was taught in my childhood that Germans are bad because Hitler and Russia was good because twice saviors. Simple and effective. However, with no social media at the time, critical thinking was also available so I could outgrow the propaganda.

A/Plague

... ... ...

Are you on a salary in "Russia Today" or a volunteer?

Tom Kirkman
On 12/5/2018 at 10:29 AM, A/Plague said: Are you on a salary in "Russia Today" or a volunteer?

I try to gently (and if possible, humorously) nudge people to question the "official narrative". CNN / WaPo is far worse propaganda than RT. RT is clearly biased, but they are open about their pro-Russia bias. CNN pretends to be objective "journalism".

And sometimes I feel like commenting in the same vein of this little guy, bouncing all over excitedly:

https://twitter.com/i/status/945219733464469504

Marina Schwarz
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about that, it's so confusing.
Tom Kirkman
16 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said: By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about that, it's so confusing.

https://www.rt.com/about-us/

Dan Warnick
16 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said: By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about that, it's so confusing.

When I read their articles I am mindful that they are Russian. Having said that, they seem to publish a lot of good content, and much of it is from Reuters and other (mostly) reputable sources. Editorials are free for anyone to research for themselves. Pretty much the same as other pubs.

Rodent
Laying conspiracy theories aside for one moment (and I do so love a good conspiracy theory), let's chat about this Russia panic.

I am not one to panic in general. Sure, I have a food, guns, and water stash in my basement. I'm generally well prepared. There are Russia-is-the-boogeyman theories, and then there are Russia-boogey-man-theories-are-silly theories. Of course they both can't be right.

But where do these theories come from?

I am sure I'm not going to do a very good job explaining my self in the rant that follows. But I'm going to give it a good college try.

I want to talk about the Russia Boogeyman theory. First, there's no way to explain this other than to divulge my age. So I'm just going to spit it out right here and get that out of the way. I'm 40. I've been 40 for approximately 5 years, stubbornly refusing to go further than that. There. I said it. Now that that's out of the way, it's important to note that children are sponges. As such, they are impressionable and in young childhood, traumatic events can have a profound and lasting effect, and even change how someone thinks.

When I was about 10ish, in about 1983, a movie came out. If you lived in America, and likely even if you didn't, and you're over the age of 40 (or if you've been 40 for a while), you've seen it. It's a movie called "The Day After". It was a huge production and it aired on television. The most watched TV movie ever. And ranked as one of the top 10 movies ever by several sources. You millennial whippersnappers will have no clue what I'm talking about. Read on anyway, if you'd like. I'm all inclusive.

The movie was about nuclear warfare, and most importantly, the aftermath. The setting was a small town in Kansas, I think. A small town that very closely resembled my home town, making it particularly impactful (I know that's not a word. Sue me.) to me at the time. In the movie, which although was a complete work of fiction was very realistic, Russia unleashed nuclear weapons. It was freaky. So eerily unsettling was it that I obsessed about it after I saw it. I thought about it every night. I remember being so afraid that in the event of a nuclear blast, I might be separated from my family. I remember pondering if I would rather be obliterated in the blast immediately, or whether I would prefer to be spared instant death only to survive without my family under horrid conditions. I also remember drills at school around that same time that were designed to get people prepared in the event of such a disaster. While it may have done so, it also solidified in my mind that there was a real possibility these events would unfold.

Nearly two years post-freaky-movie, Sting released it's "Russia" song, about Russians loving their children too. Although it was not talked about much at the time, since life proceeded as normal, in my mind I remember thinking that I didn't much care if the Russians loved their children, because they were looking to wipe us off the map. And I lived near the Soo Locks, and I distinctly remember knowing (but I don't have any idea where I came by this information) that the Locks would be a nuclear target in the event of a strike, since it is a main thoroughfare for ships.

You can't undo that kind of fear, no more than you can undo my fear of spiders. I know in my head that spiders, at least where I live, are not poisonous and they cannot harm me. I know it. But my head cannot eradicate the intense creepiness that even thinking about spiders conjures up. Likewise, no rational thought about Russia can completely undo a fear that was borne as a child.

There you have it. My Russia hysteria may be founded or unfounded--I know not. But I do not have the power within me to change this mindset.

Okay Russia-boogeyman-theories-are-silly promoters: fire away.

@Tom Kirkman @Marina Schwarz

Dan Warnick
Great description of what life was like back then, er, so I was told, by older people. Not those of us born in the 60's, er, I mean the 70's, er, the 80's. Yeah, that's it, the 80's!
Marina Schwarz
We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of the Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to pay attention, though. @Rodent , your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The Cold War was a blast, right?

P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by the way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second World War. I shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment industry was absent. End of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.

Rodent
8 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said: We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of the Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to pay attention, though. @Rodent , your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The Cold War was a blast, right?

P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by the way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second World War. I shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment industry was absent. End of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.

Makes sense. Not surprisingly the movie makers (supposedly) did not want to have Russia be the first striker in the movie, but they needed to borrow some footage from the DoD, and the govt. refused to play ball unless Russia struck first. The guy who made the movie, while he was making it, reportedly would go home at night literally sick to his stomach at the horrific nature of the movie. It went rounds and rounds with the censors who thought it might not be suitable for families.

Also interesting, speaking of Russia-led propaganda, and coming from someone who has dabbled a tiny bit in white-hatishness, if you google "The Day After Russia" as I did to inquire about the movie, there is actually a Russian movie titled "the day after" about zombies. Yup, let's just bury those search results! It's a conspiracy!!!

There is another interesting thread here about the different search results showing up for different people. What shows up when YOU google "The Day After"?

Rodent
You know, speaking of conspiracies, there is a fairly logical opinion that that movie was designed to scare the bajeezus out of people so they wouldn't vote for Reagan a second term.

[Dec 06, 2018] All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.

Dec 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Moi , says: December 5, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT

@anon and this too?

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

d.h. lawrence

[Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Dec 11, 2015 | Peak Prosperity

Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the deep state, that addresses the question of "Who Are The Neoconservatives." If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.

First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.

My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.

Who the hell are these people?!

Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):

1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)

Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian means.

This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.

Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either.

He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.)

2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical Zionists.

The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren".

3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level

Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.

Other major points:

4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.

[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel "the key to the harmony of civilizations", replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.

Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).

With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".

And Guyenot concludes:

Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".

Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the biblical myths? [W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself [ ] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."

My summary:

[Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Dec 11, 2015 | Peak Prosperity

Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the deep state, that addresses the question of "Who Are The Neoconservatives." If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.

First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.

My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.

Who the hell are these people?!

Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):

1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)

Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian means.

This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.

Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either.

He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.)

2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical Zionists.

The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren".

3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level

Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.

Other major points:

4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.

[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel "the key to the harmony of civilizations", replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.

Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).

With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".

And Guyenot concludes:

Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".

Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the biblical myths? [W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself [ ] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."

My summary:

[Dec 05, 2018] The Ignorant and the Arrogant How Pompeo and Bolton Bring Us Closer to War in the Middle East

Dec 05, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.

... ... ...

The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.

[Dec 05, 2018] A MUST SEE Gladio or Undermining Democracy to Fight the Soviets Defend Democracy Press

Dec 05, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Operation Gladio – Full 1992 documentary BBC Originally aired on BBC2 in 1992, 'Operation Gladio' reveals 'Gladio', the secret state-sponsored terror network operating in Europe. https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGHXjO8wHsA Also read

Integrity Initiative: Organizing Neo-macarthyism and the new Cold War

See also:

[Dec 05, 2018] Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper Brennan but the corrupt cabal isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so well).

Notable quotes:
"... Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so well). ..."
Dec 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

SMOOCHY SMOOCHY CARLO , 3 hours ago link

Sure thing! And in other news Mike Flynn is now chanting "LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!" referring of course to Trumplestiltskin. I like Mike!

SummerSausage , 3 hours ago link

You realize 2 years of Flynn under Mueller's microscope yielded nothing? And the fact he's facing sentencing means he's not going to be called as a witness to anything.

Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so well).

SMOOCHY SMOOCHY CARLO , 16 minutes ago link

Says Summer Sausage who was of course not in the room. You think you know stuff? You know stuff from the koolaide you've swallowed for the past 20 years...

[Dec 05, 2018] INF Treaty End Is Near After Pompeo Gives Russia An Ultimatum

Pompeo is glib and insincere. That a very bad feature for a diplomat.
Dec 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

"We must confront Russian cheating on their nuclear obligations," Pompeo said at the conclusion of the NATO meeting, claiming the U.S. has warned Russia to re-enter compliance about 30 times over the past five years. He urged the West to increase pressure, arguing it can no longer "bury its head in the sand" over repeat violations.

But for the first time Pompeo signaled it's not too late to salvage the treaty, despite Trump already saying the US it taking steps to pull out: he said Washington "would welcome a Russian change of heart."

On Oct. 20 President Trump first announced the United States' planned withdrawal from the historic treaty brokered by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan in 1987. At the time Russia's Foreign Ministry slammed the move as "a very dangerous step" which is ultimately part of "continuing attempts to achieve Russia's concessions through blackmail". Russian officials have issued the counter-charge that it is the US that's out of compliance with the treaty.

Ace006 , 9 hours ago link

The US is waging unconstitutional war in Syria without authorization of the UNSC but Pompeo has the effrontery to lecture the Russians on their "lawlessness."

Is there ONE freaking day out of the year when some senior official of the USG is not acting like an utter horse's ***?

Victor999 , 9 hours ago link

""We don't want a new arms race, we don't want a new Cold War,""

Yet NATO and the US are doing everything they can to start one. Threatening others with ultimatums is no way to negotiate new terms.

thisandthat , 8 hours ago link

"doesn't account for China or North Korea as rising technologically advanced threats"

Yeah, nor for israel...

dogismycopilot , 11 hours ago link

Putin should just have the SVR make some fake "proof" Trump is a Russian agent and feed it to the democratic-isis-******-lover party and let them tear Trump a new *******.

Pompeo is an aging **** pig.

thisandthat , 8 hours ago link

Considering it was the democrats who first pushed this muh russian meddlings, can't even see how will the US be able to pull itself out of this (****)hole they dug for themselves...

rtb61 , 11 hours ago link

So the US with a big lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles, wants to blow that up to promote the development of long range stealth cruise missiles, well, I guess there must be a massive profit in it.

The normal rule in a arms race though, the big losers are the countries with the biggest lead in current war technologies, when new technologies enter the fray, negating existing investments and bankrupting that country as the right off their existing lead and having to race to play catch up and take the lead again.

It's like the crazy, the US leads in space, great lets that it into a battlefield and eliminate that lead, why, just ******* why would you be stupid enough, banning war in space protects you lead, promoting war in space ends it. Blocking long range cruise missiles protects the US lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistics missile systems, allowing it ends that lead.

Now in the most idiotic fashion, the US has declared it will arbitrarily leave that treaty without any evidence of anything, now setting the precedent, that any country can withdraw from any treaty with the US for any arbitrary reason because that is the behaviour the US government has set precedent for, why hold any treaty with the US, when they will pull out at any time for any reason. The probable message from the rest of the world to the US, yeah **** off America, we are not Native Americans who exist for you to abuse us https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/18/368559990/broken-promises-on-display-at-native-american-treaties-exhibit (we know it is in the American government nature but **** off anyhow).

haruspicio , 12 hours ago link

What a pompous *** Pompeo is. After his lies about MbS how can I trust him on this issue. Is the US clean? They are certainly not in compliance with the chemical weapons treaty having destroyed no stockpiles as they agreed to do....almost 2 decades after the treaty was signed.

Treaties are ******** unless the parties to them actually implement them and follow the rules. The US seems to believe they have an inherent right to ignore the treaties they sign up to. Why anyone deals with them I have no idea.

dogfish , 13 hours ago link

Donald Trump has lost complete control of his presidency and is being led by the nose by his cabinet,the US will start a new world war.

CatInTheHat , 13 hours ago link

Where did Trump get these Bush 2,Zionist pig holdovers?

After Bush 2 dumped ABM treaty NATO/US have been creeping up to Russias border.

Then in 2014, Obama & Nuland decided it would be a good idea to effect regime change in Ukraine and put neonazi thugs on Russia's border.

EU Israhelli clients all know this is ******** about Russia. But Russia pissed off the Zionist entity in interfering with Yinon/7countries in five years plan.

How LONG are we going to put up with this Zionist attack on our country?

Et Tu Brute , 13 hours ago link

"We don't want a new arms race, we don't want a new Cold War," Stoltenberg added.

A bit like a rapist doesn't want sex, he just wants to **** people.

NATO doesn't want a cold war, they want a real one!

africoman , 9 hours ago link

Correct!!

Predator mindset and US exceptionalism at play

They are asking why Russia not keeping treaty while we violate it?

Secretary of war Mike Pompeo

Washington Seeks 'Pretext' to Abandon INF Treaty - Russian Envoy to US

"...We are accused of violating the Treaty by allegedly possessing a certain 9M729 missile that violates the accord's provisions. However, we do not see any clear facts or arguments that could lead to conclusions of violations," Sputnik Here

Russia, China, Iran challenging global US leadership: Pompeo

"..US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has targeted Russia, China and Iran for opposing Washington's "leadership role". PressTv

Just accuse without any specific evidence.

another

China has simply made no effort to halt its ongoing pattern of aggressive , predatory trade .

Chain election meddling blah balh

NiggaPleeze , 14 hours ago link

US always blaming others while violating every law and treaty known to man.

" I regret that we now most likely will see the end of the INF Treaty," North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...

Fixed: " I'm ecstatic that our fabricated accusations allows us to finally see the end of the INF Treaty, which really benefits Russia far more than NATO," North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...

chippers , 14 hours ago link

They dont want another cold war? Thats why they are doing everything possible to start another cold if not hot war I suppose.

Anunnaki , 14 hours ago link

We have been in a Cold War since Ukraine 2014

me or you , 14 hours ago link

5000+ bunker shelters and unknown number of hypersonic weapons...US has zero chance.

NiggaPleeze , 14 hours ago link

The whole point of the US strategy is to use short-range cruise missiles to take out Russian retaliatory capability in a first strike, thereby destroying all of those hypersonic weapons, and using their ABM systems to "clean up" any missiles that survived the initial onslaught. The "advantage" of the short-range cruise missiles is that they greatly reduce Russia's available response times - it basically must decide to annihilate the US within 5 minutes of notice of an attack, or face being wiped out with no retaliatory capabilities. (It is worth noting that, in the past, false alarms have lasted for longer than 5 minutes.)

This is by far the most destabilizing, dangerous move, ever - any false blip on a Russian radar can lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. It is infinitely more threatening to humanity than "global warming". Brought to you by the Evil Drumfpster.

Anunnaki , 14 hours ago link

Dead Man Hand

NiggaPleeze , 12 hours ago link

The Dead Man Hand only allows you to respond with capabilities that have survived and that are not eliminated by the ABM. The 5 minutes notice is until the vast majority of your nuclear arsenal is decimated - dead hand (i.e., ability to retaliate if the leadership is entirely decapitated) or not.

me or you , 13 hours ago link

With the black-holes awaiting somewhere in the big oceans it's enough to take the whole US territory.

me or you , 14 hours ago link

If you have not hypersonic missiles you are powerless to dictate.

artistant , 14 hours ago link

The CONFLICT with Russia was orchestrated by Apartheid Israhell

because Russia is an IMPEDIMENT to Israhell's design for the MidEast .

In the process, the Zionist Neocons mortally WOUNDED America

and the CONSEQUENCES are just getting started .

Omega_Man , 14 hours ago link

west would lose arms race against Russia and China and Iran and NK easy... just as they lose all races in manufacturing... cheap labour

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Mike Pompeo ought to be reminded that confrontation with Russia in missile technology is unwise.

Russia has hypersonic missiles. The US doesn't have anything remotely comparable.

beijing expat , 14 hours ago link

Even if they did it wouldn't change the equation. These are doomsday weapons.

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Absolutely not. They can deliver conventional warheads. They can sink carriers anywhere on the planet.

Moribundus , 14 hours ago link

USA do not need hypersonic m. because Russia do not have big navy fleet. Russia is building defense, USA prepares for attack

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Yet... the US is busy trying to catch up with the Russians.

CatInTheHat , 13 hours ago link

The US CANT.

https://southfront.org/why-the-u-s-military-is-woefully-unprepared-for-a-major-conventional-conflict/

francis scott falseflag , 15 hours ago link

INF Treaty End Is Near After Pompeo Gives Russia An Ultimatum

Unless Trump caves or changes his mind as he has been known to do

Moribundus , 15 hours ago link

Is Mike Pompeo Starting to Look Like Kim Jong Un? He is talking like communist leader at Communist party congress.

Mike Pompeo argued that Trump's reassertion of national sovereignty through his "America First" policy would make those institutions function better. "In the finest traditions of our great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for all," Pompeo said at a speech at the German Marshall Fund thinktank. "We're supporting institutions that we believe can be improved; institutions that work in American interests – and yours – in service of our shared values."

He listed a series of current international institutions, including the EU, UN, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that he said were no longer serving their mission they were created.

The remarks were frequently punctuated with praise for Trump, who is referred to 13 times in the text. Pompeo portrayed his president as restoring an era of triumphal US leadership in the world, for the first time since the end of the cold war.

"This American leadership allowed us to enjoy the greatest human flourishing in modern history," the secretary of state said. "We won the cold war. We won the peace. With no small measure of George HW Bush's effort, we reunited Germany. This is the type of leadership that President Trump is boldly reasserting."

http://thebrutaltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/popmeo-un-260x200.jpg

Federica Mogherini:

President [George H. W.] Bush used to talk about a new world order, based on shared rules and on cooperation among free nations. I was at high school at the time, and I remember perfectly well the sense of hope and of opening that one could breathe in Europe over these years.

He imagined - and I quote - "a world where the rule of law supplants the role of the jungle; a world in which nations recognise their shared responsibility for freedom and justice; a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak."

My generation believed in this vision, believed in the possibility for this vision to turn into reality, to become true, especially in Europe - a continent divided by the Cold War. We hoped that after the Cold War a more cooperative world order would indeed be possible and indeed be built.

Today, I am afraid we have to admit that such a new world order has never truly materialised and worse, there is a real risk today that the rule of the jungle replaces the rule of law. The same international treaties - so many in which we are together - that ended the Cold War are today put into question.

Instead of building a new order, we have to today invest a huge part of our energy in preventing the current rules from being dismantled piece by piece.

https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/culture/54773/speech-hrvp-federica-mogherini-harvard-kennedy-school-science-and-international-affairs_en

torabora , 11 hours ago link

well Russia rolling on Georgia and then Eastern Ukraine Crimea put all that unicorn **** to bed. You need to get woke.

pinkfloyd , 15 hours ago link

children

DEDA CVETKO , 15 hours ago link

Ultimatum? To Russia ???????

Um...WTF...? Where's this guy been for the past 300 years?

uhland62 , 14 hours ago link

In his bubble. Being confrontational gets your bubble pierced - someone tell him.

Let it Go , 15 hours ago link

Like many people, I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring. Spurring the creation of more ways to use nuclear weapons is what ending the INF Treaty will do. Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, and Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005 writes;

In this new environment, the "rationality of deterrence" maintained by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has eroded. Now, if nuclear proliferation increases, the threshold for using nuclear weapons will likely fall.

The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or rational from attacking America, and for anyone else, an arsenal of any size will be insufficient. What we are talking about is the Intermediate-range Nuclear-Forces treaty also known as the INF Treaty which limits short-range missiles. The article below explores the insanity of a new arms race.

https://Who Profits From Ending The Mid-Range Nuclear Treaty.html

attah-boy-Luther , 15 hours ago link

Dear POMPUS *** Pompa-oh:

We will happily comply with your chicken chit terms right after you take ALL of your NATO toys back to the Berlin wall line.

You know the one where your peeps told Gorbachev not one inch east.

Other wise F-U!

Luv,

Vlad

Haboob , 15 hours ago link

Mike Pompeo offered 'military assistance' to Ukraine in Crimea stand-off with Russia, says Poroshenko

'We have full support, full assistance,' Ukrainian president says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-latest-russia-petro-poroshenko-mike-pompeo-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-a8655106.html

Haboob , 15 hours ago link

China and Russia don't want a military arms race but they will get one. The funny part is they will confide in Trump about their woes and he will mimic their desires but not agree with them.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1070110615627333632

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1070110927788347393

"We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all - at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States. Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal - either now or into the future....

.....China does not want Tariffs!"

Bet hes laughing his *** off and so am i.

uhland62 , 14 hours ago link

China will find customers elsewhere, it just takes more than a day. The US is not the only game on this planet.

[Dec 05, 2018] The Ignorant and the Arrogant How Pompeo and Bolton Bring Us Closer to War in the Middle East

Dec 05, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.

... ... ...

The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.

[Dec 05, 2018] Mueller s Flynn Memo Should Worry Kushner and Trump by Timothy L. O'Brien

The author is tried to deceive: Flynn lobbed Russians on behave of Israel.
Muller dirty trick with Flynn (entrapment during the FBI interview) will eventually backfire
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December 2016 ..."
"... But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel. ..."
Dec 05, 2018 | www.bloomberg.com

All of that, plus Flynn's "substantial assistance," early cooperation, and acceptance of "responsibility for his unlawful conduct," led Muller's team to ask the court to grant Flynn a lenient sentence that doesn't include prison time, according to a highly anticipated sentencing memo the special counsel's office filed Tuesday night.

And there wasn't much more than that in 13 concise and heavily redacted pages that let down anyone expecting the document to be another public narrative fleshing out lots of fresh detail about Mueller's investigation. Still, the filing, and some new details in it, should give pause to members of Trump's inner circle -- especially the president's son-in-law and senior White House adviser, Jared Kushner.

Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December 2016 . The filing also detailed a series of lies Flynn told about his contacts with and work for the Turkish government while serving in the Trump campaign. (Given that Trump and a pair of his advisers had been pursuing a real estate deal in Moscow during the first half of 2016, Flynn might mistakenly have seen wearing two hats as noncontroversial.)

But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel.

Flynn lied to federal agents who questioned him about those chats on Jan. 24, 2017, and that was a crime (as, possibly, were his efforts as a private citizen to meddle with a sitting government's foreign policy). The former general acknowledged lying , pleaded guilty a year ago, and then began cooperating with Mueller's probe.

The timeline around Flynn's conversations is crucial because it shows what's still in play for the president and Kushner -- and why Mueller may have been content to lock in a cooperation agreement that carried relatively light penalties, as well as why Flynn's assistance seems to have subsequently pleased the veteran prosecutor so much.

Kushner's actions are also interesting because the Federal Bureau of Investigation has examined his own communications with Kislyak -- and Kushner reportedly encouraged Trump to fire his FBI director, James Comey , in the spring of 2017, when Comey was still in the early stages of digging into the Trump-Russia connection.

Comey, and his successor, Mueller, have been focused on possible favor-trading between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. We know that Russian hackers directed by Russian intelligence operatives penetrated Democrat computer servers in 2016 and gave that information and email haul to WikiLeaks to disseminate as part of an effort to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Trump was also pursuing that business deal in Moscow in 2016 and had other projects over the years with a Russian presence . What might the Kremlin have been expecting in return? A promise to lift U.S. economic sanctions?

Kushner also had personal financial issues weighing on his mind at the time. He had spent much of 2016 trying to bail out his family from his ill-considered and pricey purchase of a Manhattan skyscraper, 666 Fifth Avenue .

After a meeting in Trump Tower with Kislyak on Dec. 1, 2016, which Flynn and Kushner attended together , the ambassador arranged another gathering on Dec. 13 for Kushner and a senior Russian banker with Kremlin ties, Sergei Gorkov. The White House has said that meeting was innocent and part of Kushner's diplomatic duties. In a statement following his testimony before Congress in the summer of 2017, Kushner said that his interactions with Flynn and Kislyak on Dec. 1 only involved a discussion of Syria policy, not economic sanctions. He said that his discussion with Gorkov on Dec. 13 lasted less than 30 minutes and only involved an exchange of pleasantries and hopes for better U.S.-Russian relations -- and didn't include any discussion of recruiting Russians as lenders or investors in the Kushner family's real estate business .

Kislyak enjoyed continued lobbying from the White House after his meetings with Kushner. On Dec. 22, Flynn asked Kislyak to delay a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in Palestinian territory. Flynn later told the FBI that he didn't ask Kislyak to do that, which wasn't true. Court documents filed last year said that a "very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team" directed Flynn to make an overture to Kislyak about the sanctions vote. According to reporting from my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Eli Lake and NBC News , Kushner was that "senior member." Bloomberg News reported that former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus also pushed Flynn to lobby Kislyak on the U.N. vote. (Kushner didn't discuss pressing Flynn to contact Kislyak in his statement last summer and instead noted how infrequent his direct interactions were.)

Kushner's role in these events isn't discussed in Mueller's sentencing memo for Flynn. The absence of greater detail might cause Kushner to worry: If Flynn offered federal authorities a different version of events than Kushner -- and Flynn's version is buttressed by documentation or federal electronic surveillance of the former general -- then the president's son-in-law may have to start scrambling (a possibility I flagged when Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017).

Other portions of the 2016 and early 2017 timelines still matter, too.

On Dec. 28, less than a week after Flynn called Kislyak about the U.N. vote, the ambassador contacted Flynn, according to court documents. The Obama administration had just imposed economic sanctions on Russia because of the Kremlin's effort to sabotage the 2016 election. Kislyak apparently told Flynn that Russia would retaliate because Flynn asked him to "moderate" Russia's response. Flynn reportedly discussed these conversations with a former Trump adviser, K.T. McFarland, on Dec. 29.

In the weeks that followed, Sally Yates, then acting U.S. attorney general, warned the Trump administration about Flynn's duplicity and said he was a national security threat. She was fired days after that for refusing to enforce Trump's executive order seeking to ban immigration from seven Islamic nations. The White House forced Flynn out in February of last year, and Trump fired Comey three months later. The president subsequently began using "witch hunt" to describe the investigation that Mueller inherited from Comey.

Since then, as the White House and Trump have surely absorbed and as Flynn's sentencing memo reinforces, Mueller's hunt has now ensnared a number of witches.

[Dec 05, 2018] Integrity Initiative Organizing Neo-macarthyism and the new Cold War

Notable quotes:
"... 26 November 2018 ..."
Dec 03, 2018 | Defend Democracy Press
Greetings. We are Anonymous. We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the activities of the 'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and funded by the British government.

The declared goal of the project is to counteract Russian propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent intentions, Britain has in fact created a large-scale information secret service in Europe, the United States and Canada, which consists of representatives of political, military, academic and journalistic communities with the think tank in London at the head of it.

Read more at https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation-integrity-initiative-british-informational-war-against-all/

'UK Integrity Initiative is Meddling in The Affairs of Other Nations' 26.11.2018

A leaked hybrid warfare plan of the British government, known as the "Integrity Initiative," published by the hacker group Anonymous, has become a theme of discussion among scholars in Europe. Sputnik spoke to Professor David Miller of the University of Bristol on a plan allegedly adopted by London to counter "Russian propaganda." Sputnik: It [Integrity Initiative] states that its main aim is to counter Russian disinformation, however, what was happening with the Moncloa Campaign' in Spain suggests other motives does it not? Read more at https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811261070148913-uk-integrity-russia-propaganda/

Statement on Russian media publication of hacked II documents 26 November 2018

"The Integrity Initiative is a partnership of several independent institutions led by The Institute for Statecraft. This international public programme was set up in 2015 to counter disinformation and other forms of malign influence being conducted by states and sub-state actors seeking to interfere in democratic processes and to undermine public confidence in national political institutions. You will find details on the website ( https://www.integrityinitiative.net/ ), and you can follow the programme on its Twitter account or on Facebook (both @InitIntegrity). Read more at https://www.integrityinitiative.net/articles/statement-russian-media-publication-hacked-ii-documents Read also: In Defence of Democratic Rights in Catalonia

EU-wide 'anti-Russian psy-ops' program confirms UK govt funding, Anonymous denies leak 26 Nov, 2018

A network exposed by leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at curbing "Russian propaganda" has confirmed receiving money from the British government, while Anonymous has denied on Twitter that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a network claiming to fight disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II documents, which purports to show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals cooperating with it, has been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous collective. A major Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak. Read more at https://www.rt.com/news/444899-uk-psyop-leak-reaction/

Moncloa Campaign 6 AttTwitter Read more at https://www.scribd.com/document/392195691/Moncloa-Campaign-6-AttTwitter-08-06-18 Also read

A MUST SEE: Gladio or Undermining Democracy "to Fight the Soviets"
Dec 05, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

[Dec 05, 2018] What Foreign Threats by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II. ..."
"... Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign. ..."
Dec 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

One of the local Washington television stations was doing a typical early morning honoring our soldiers schtick just before Thanksgiving. In it soldiers stationed far from home were treated to videolinks so they could talk to their families and everyone could nod happily and wish themselves a wonderful holiday. Not really listening, I became interested when I half heard that the soldier being interviewed was spending his Thanksgiving in Ukraine.

It occurred to me that the soldier just might have committed a security faux pas by revealing where he was, but I also recalled that there have been joint military maneuvers as well as some kind of training mission going on in the country, teaching the Ukrainian Army how to use the shiny new sophisticated weapons that the United States was providing it with to defend against "Russian aggression."

Ukraine is only one part of the world where the Trump Administration has expanded the mission of democracy promotion, only in Kiev the reality is more like faux democracy promotion since Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself provoked . He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections, in which his poll numbers are currently running embarrassingly low largely due to the widescale corruption in his government. Poroshenko has already done much to silence the press in his county while the developing crisis with Russia has enabled him to declare martial law in the eastern parts of the country where he is most poorly regarded. If it all works out, he hopes to win the election and subsequently, it is widely believed, he will move to expand his own executive authority.

There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

The defection of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, together with the assumption that a lot of anti-Trump dirt will be spilled soon, means that the American president had to be even more cautious than ever in any dealings with Moscow and all he needed was a nod of approval from National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel the encounter. A heads-of-state meeting might not have solved anything but it certainly would be better than the current drift towards a new cold war. If the United States has only one vitally important relationship anywhere it is with Russia as the two countries are ready, able and apparently willing to destroy the world under the aegis of self-defense.

Given the anti-Russian hysteria prevailing in the U.S. and the ability of the neocons to switch on the media, it should come as no surprise that the Russian-Ukrainian incident immediately generated calls from the press and politicians for the White House to get tough with the Kremlin. It is important to note that the United States has no actual national interest in getting involved in a war between Russia and Ukraine if that should come about. The two Eastern European countries are neighbors and have a long history of both friendship and hostility but the only thing clear about the conflict is that it is up to them to sort things out and no amount of sanctions and jawing by concerned congressmen will change that fact.

Other Eastern European nations that similarly have problems with Russia should also be considered provocateurs as they seek to create tension to bind the United States more closely to them through the NATO alliance. The reality is that today's Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union and it neither aspires to nor can afford hegemony over its former allies. What it has made very clear that it does want is a modus vivendi where Russia itself is not being threatened by the West.

Recent military maneuvers in Poland and Lithuania and the stationing of new missiles in Eastern Europe do indeed pose a genuine threat to Moscow as it places NATO forces on top of Russia's border. When Russia reacts to incursions by NATO warships and planes right along its borders, it is accused of acting aggressively. One wonders how the U.S. government would respond if a Russian aircraft carrier were to take up position off the eastern seaboard and were to begin staging reconnaissance flights. Or if the Russian army were to begin military exercises with the Cubans? Does anyone today remember the Bay of Pigs?

renfro , says: December 4, 2018 at 5:53 am GMT

The only foreign threats we have come from the various psychos in the think tanks and special interest lobbies in the US.

As Jean-Jules Jusserand, the French ambassador to the United States
from once said of the US : .

"On the north, she has a weak neighbor; on the south, another weak neighbor; on the east, fish, and on the west, more fish.'

Justsaying , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:01 am GMT
Crying wolf provides a perfect pretext for the Empire's MIC to line the pockets of the merchants of death. In keeping with its time-honored tradition of propping up tyrants kowtowing to imperial hegemonic wishes, America hardly has friends without some military collaboration. Even the recently anointed sh*thole countries of Africa over 50 such countries have American military cooperation agreements under the guise of the infamous AFRICOM and the War on Terror. The number of military bases in sh*thole African countries remain unknown.

..the ability of the neocons to switch on the media

Hard to distinguish between the two really. The "free press" of WMD notoriety, Ghaddafi's "genocidal drive" against Libyan citizens, Iraq's involvement with 9/11? Iranian arms in Yemen that have not massacred children in school buses? Iranian fabricated nuclear weapons? Syrian chemical attacks?

The biggest threats to America come from its "friends"

America is being unwittingly exonerated as an innocent bystander unable to choose her own friends. It so happens America's "friends" share the common trait of pushing for war. In countries awash in petrodollars, purchasing billions of dollars in arms used in Yemen to murder children; Zionists are gifted with American state of the art arsenals to murder Palestinians, including women and children. The biggest threat to America comes from inside the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at will.

anon [355] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:43 am GMT
America's all time #1 phony "friend". -- -Israel.

With a "friend" like Israel, America doesn't need any enemies.

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT
I agree with Phil Giraldi on its analysis of US foreign policy. When lying with dogs, you get fleas. This saying holds especially true for the so-called US friends such as the Saudis, Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and the Brits. The NeoZion gang plays President Trump is an open secret. He still employes one of its guiding spirits as national security adviser. As long this Gordian knot is not cut, American foreign policy will not change, and it's getting worse. These folks who surround Trump want war, first with Iran and then with Russia. Their lackey Poroshenko is doing the bitting of Trump and the Zionist regime and their European puppets. The Zionist regime is deeply involved in steering up tensions. Prime minister Wolodymyr Hrojsman is Jewish. Is anyone surprised?
Art , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?

Doesn't look good does it!

Think Peace -- Art

jilles dykstra , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:41 am GMT
Around 1890 one Rothschild wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.

In my opinion at present the only enemy of the USA is the USA, that part of the USA that failed in getting Hillary elected.

On the European continent a similar situation, even an establishment Dutch politician, of a christian party, Segers, found out that a substantial part of the Dutch see the government as the enemy.

He has the illusion that pr can save him, and his cronies.

anon [121] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
"I am not sure that he ever understood "

He never understood. That was evident the moment he started floating names like Romney for his cabinet. Personally, I sympathize with Trump after what the deep state has done to him and his family, and I even respect the guy for telling things like they are – the poor autistic bastard just can't help but blurt out the truth about things* but he's also not the guy we needed. We needed a fearless, ruthless, and cunning fighter ready to martyr himself for our interests, the people's interests.

*Global Warming IS a scam – the Paris Accords would not decrease CO2 levels even under perfect – near miraculous – circumstances and is merely being floated by the Chinese so they can give off the appearance of doing something while doing nothing, as they have done before.

RVBlake , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT
I am left wondering again, what's so bad about isolationism?
james charles , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:08 am GMT
@jilles dykstra 'One of many truths lost within this discourse is the reality that the creation of a no-fly zone would, in the words of the most senior general in the US Armed Forces, mean the US going to war "against Syria and Russia". '

https://mronline.org/2016/12/13/allday131216-html/

During the election campaign H.R.C., three times, {stupidly?} threatened to impose a 'no fly zone' in Syria – confronting a nuclear armed country.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:41 am GMT
For a peek into Establishment orthodoxy, check out "Why Does America Spend So Much on Israel?" on Beltway Conservatism's Cartoon Network, aka the PragerU Channel. I've recently started auditing classes there via the Videos page here at The Unz Review.

Beyond parody, a pensioned warrior narrates over 3rd grade graphics, telling most Americans all they care to know about what he calls "Izrul." Perhaps Mr. Giraldi could, despite the apparent taboo, leave a comment and get some discussion going with the Team Red NPCs -- it hasn't worked for me.

Moi , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Art I've wondered why we are the way we are. Then I came across this, and I understood:

D.H. Lawrence

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

Moi , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:56 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra We failed the moment the "pilgrims" seeking freedom started slaughtering the native peoples.
Minidrop , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II.
wayfarer , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Moi

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._H._Lawrence

"You the one who killed our friend?"

DESERT FOX , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT
The leading sponsors of terror in the world are Israel and the Zionist controlled U.S. and Britain and NATO and their terrorist mercenaries ISIS aka AL CIADA and all of the various off shoots that have been seeded throughout the world by the satanic Zionists.

The Zionists have a long historical experience with bringing terror to the world , one example being the Zionist/ Bolshevik revolution in Russia where the Bolsheviks killed some 60 million Russians bringing terror to Russia on an industrial level turning the whole country into a slaughter house!

The Zionist attack on the WTC is but another example of Zionist terrorism, where in one fell swoop the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking American knows that the Zionists did it!

The greatest terrorist kabal in the world is Zionism and these terrorists have control of every facet of the U.S. government and at some point are going to provoke a war with Russia that will get the whole world blown to hell and in fact this is what the Zionists want as they believe they will survive in their DUMBS akd Deep Underground Military Bases which they have in the U.S. and Israel and Britain, but they care not for the rest of humanity, that is terrorism in spades!

The enemy is not at the gates , the enemy is in control of the U.S. government and is going to be the destruction of America!

Curmudgeon , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
You can't really pin Ukraine on Trump. Maidan was not spontaneous.

Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign.

The real story on Russia is this: the same people that own every "Western liberal democracy" owned the USSR. The Russians got rid of them, and the USSR collapsed. A new invasion was hatched under the guise of "Westernizing" Russia. When the Russians saw that Yeltsin was suckered, and it was the same game, run by the same people, they got a new sheriff. That sheriff started to sort things out, while the owners fled to the UK and Israel. The lives of Russians got better, as the owners are gradually being stripped of their power. The long and short of it, our owners want their ownership of Russia restored.

All wars are economic wars. Capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin. Both seek to concentrate ownership, just in different ways using different scams.

wayfarer , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT

"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

"Dangerous Tribalism of the Ruling Class"

Z-man , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Justsaying

The biggest threat to America comes from inside the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at will.

Bears repeating.

Z-man , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Art I'd have to give 'Slurpy Dog' Mattis a pass on that list. I think (hope) he is aware of the pernicious power of the Cabal .
Anonymous [295] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
The reason why Trump supports the Ukraine is easy.

"According to the European Jewish Congress, as of 2014, there are 360,000–400,000 Jews in Ukraine."

And there you have it. Wherever or whatever the interest of Jewry there will be the United States standing tall behind it. Let's just say the Ukraine is guaranteed to stay poor. While the Jews get rich!

CanSpeccy , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 6:33 pm GMT

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself provoked. He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections

Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.

JLK , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
There's no use having an empire if you can't exact an economic advantage. Ultimately, most of the events unfolding today are about keeping the loot flowing to lower Manhattan and central London.
EugeneGur , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT

Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends

It's hard to do if you are in fact the worst of those bad friends.

friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices.

The poor choices had been made long before these friends even appeared on the scene. In fact, many of these friends owe their very existence and/or influence to the poor choices the US had made. It's so disingenuous to blame the US politics on someone's influence when the reality is exactly the opposite.

If the US were in normal country prepared to behave in a sensible way it would've picked much better partners. But the thing is the US isn't a normal country; it doesn't want partners – in wants vassals, so it is naturally limited in its choice of friends.

Agent76 , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:47 pm GMT
September 17, 2014 US Pursues 134 Wars Around the World

The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State. US Secretary of State John Kerry was at first reluctant: "We're engaged in a major counterterrorism operation," he told CBS News on Sept. 11. "I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity I don't think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counter terrorist activity." – Global Post

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35654/US-Pursues-134-Wars-Around-the-World/

Choose wisely America!

RobinG , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:39 pm GMT
Blowback: An Inside Look at How US-Funded Fascists in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-backed-fascist-azov-battalion-in-ukraine-is-training-and-radicalizing-american-white-supremacists/251951/

"Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly, under the nose of a shrugging law enforcement -- chronicling their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back home."

AnonFromTN , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
The greatest threat to America comes from its elites. Nobody else did as much damage to the country as those greedy thieves.
AnonFromTN , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.

You hit the nail on the head.

Realist , says: December 4, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT

The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

Trump isn't vulnerable he hired the Deep State apparatchiks, Bolton, Pompeo and many others. Trump is a Deep Stater and is doing a great Kabuki theater to dupe his followers into believing his hands are tied.

Rurik , says: December 5, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT
@tzatz

How do YOU expect me (and others) to swallow YOUR position?

with a great gulps of satisfaction, that's how.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine was manufactured by the ZUS State Dept. ((Victoria Nuland)) and John McBloodstain in particular, when Putin upset the Zionist's plans to do a 'Libya' – to Syria.

It was a bloody coup foisted with 5 billion federal reserve note$, of the famous phone call ('Yats is our guy'). Since then the imbeciles in Ukraine have been doing Nazi salutes while taking orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists like Ihor Kolomoyskyi and assorted ZUS Zionists.

The conflict with Iran started when the CIA deposed the duly elected president Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, and installed the brutal quisling Shah in his place. To keep the Iranian people terrorized for decades into submitting to this perfidy, they utilized the CIA and Mossad run SAVAK.

Learn a little history as you swallow.

[Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out? ..."
Dec 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
121 Comments Reply

And there are other friends in unlikely places. Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate. The real problem is that the documents apparently don't expose anything done by the Russians.

Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?

So how about it? Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends we have been nurturing all around the world, friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices. Get rid of the ties the bind to the Saudis, Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and yes, even the British. Deal fairly with all nations and treat everyone the same, but bear in mind that there are only two relationships that really matter – Russia and China. Make a serious effort to avoid a war by learning how to get along with those two nations and America might actually survive to celebrate a tricentennial in 2076.

The Alarmist , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT
You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections. Why, if the beneficiary was anyone other than a Democrat, much less one named Clinton, someone might actually appoint a Special Counsel to look into it, not to mention the misdeeds of the various agencies and departments who aided and abetted it.
anon [178] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."

MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam worked like this:

They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document); they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the record to the right people

They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama. They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at least not in recent history.

To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:

The government takes cctv footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2) laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much worse.

Johnny Walker Read , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
Like a friends divorce lawyer told him: You go to bed with a nasty bitch, you wake up with a nasty bitch.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 1:46 pm GMT
a plot by the British intelligence and security services to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?

Deep State and Establishment stooge Donald Trump.

There is still a chance for the United States if we

declare independence from the Jewish Empire.

[Dec 05, 2018] Manufacturing Official Narrative by C.J. Hopkins

Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles, thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
Dec 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

...First, let's look at a concrete example of our system manufacturing official narrative (aka "official truth" or "truth" -- note quotes ). I'm going to use The Guardian 's most recent blatantly fabricated article (" Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy ") as an example, but I could just as well have chosen any of a host of other fabricated stories disseminated by "respectable" outlets over the course of the last two years. The " Russian Propaganda Peddlers " story. The " Russia Might Have Poisoned Hillary Clinton " story. The " Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid " story. The " Golden Showers Russian Pee-Tape " story. The " Novichok Assassins " story. The " Bana Alabed Speaks Out " story. The " Trump's Secret Russian Server " story. The " Labour Anti-Semitism Crisis " story. The " Russians Orchestrated Brexit " story. The " Russia is Going to Hack the Midterms " story. The " Twitter Bots " story. And the list goes on.

I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others).

The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it.

By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange.

At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing "truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.

Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one), there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.

Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the "official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other "truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened, JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.

The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell, unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of the powerless is always heresy.

For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.

Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such heretics.

Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do (albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story.

As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.

#

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

Manufacturing Truth

James Forrestal , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:26 pm GMT

Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.

The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/ politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be comprehensible, let alone useful.

We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.

This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.

Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors that prevent this.

One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support -- and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly. It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to reevaluate one's worldview based on these.

And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,

Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong" one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're "supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal of loyalty to the establishment.

It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items, unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"

It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)

Kratoklastes , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what he thinks it does.

The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.

There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out properly.

Take this excerpt:

The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.

With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of X .

If X is objectively false, too bad.

Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.

This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).

Obvious Example: Drug Dogs

Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60% and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than a coin toss.

Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).

However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.

Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a coin?

Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.

In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).

More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy

In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).

The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an ordinal voting mechanism.

What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').

Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1 of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems – for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate results).

So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers) promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and wishing will make it so.

Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex – which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).

The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed, the law is changed .

What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the [extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".

American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex " (the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –

This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force, the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new circumstances.

(Emphasis mine)

Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."

See how far you get.

So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side. He should have made the point better.

References (links are to PDFs of each paper)

[1] Arrow (1950). " A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare " Journal of Political Economy 58 (4): 328–346

[2] Geanakoplos, John (2005). " Three Brief Proofs of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem " Economic Theory 26 (1): 211–215

[3] Gibbard (1973). " Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result " Econometrica 41 (4): 587–601.

[4] Satterthwaite (April 1975). " Strategy-proofness and Arrow's Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions " Journal of Economic Theory 10: 187–217.

Brabantian , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:18 pm GMT
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth' was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it

Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says

Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.

Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:

The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.

The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears repeating

It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."

... ... ...

Kratoklastes , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Tulip

The coin of truth is iron and blood.

That's absolutely, 100% wrong.

Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true. (Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).

Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place because they will fail to conform to ground truth.

Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent' because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences and expectations).

In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of powerful enemies.

RobinG , says: December 4, 2018 at 12:21 am GMT
@James Forrestal

Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States

https://www.occupationmovie.org/

This film shows a great example of propaganda in action. Free to watch now and this link also includes a short version and a trailer.

Jett Rucker , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 3:04 am GMT
When I tell any Truth, it is not for the sake of Convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who Do.

~ William Blake, 1810

polistra , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:33 am GMT
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.

But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia, and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves France.

The scalpel , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
@FB Scientific truth is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example, we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.

So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation in someone elses computer!

Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts .

DFH , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:05 pm GMT
What is truth? – John 18:38
FB , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT
@The scalpel LOL and then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
Tulip , says: December 4, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes Strength is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you believe it or not.

Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and marketing.

The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down and vanquished.

The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain the mental life of mankind.

Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration, they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream when they should have been preparing.

TimothyPMadden , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
What is truth ?

Truth is a word .

After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word, per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used over the years and centuries.

I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or oscillating-contradictions .

Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation

The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.

Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").

By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got instead:

[MORE]

We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as an arm of the entrenched-money-power.

At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.

At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.

Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game is over.

Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X (an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.

So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.

Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .

Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.

So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure that that question is never presented in that way.

After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo -like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in advance).

Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use and control?

Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount received?

Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of parties ?

[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]

Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20% per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."

In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it $10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000 cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?

Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question that theoretically cannot exist.

Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense, while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in more specialized financial dictionaries.

So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent alternative/contrary meaning.

This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.

Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it doesn't .

With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.

With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play . With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .

And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little people of the product of their labour.

As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged) interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective – according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in time.

It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything .

A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit, discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution, etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic arbitrage .

Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two are from the American and English Courts, respectively.

1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it. The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think it .

2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of perceiving reality beyond labels .

3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion :

"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

4.

One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.

I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .

The Scalpel , says: Website December 5, 2018 at 12:34 am GMT
@Tulip " which will always ultimately be resolved by force."

Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.

" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream when they should have been preparing."

Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never arrives.

redmudhooch , says: December 5, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT
Truth shall set you free.

For the First Time Since 9/11, Federal Gov't Takes Steps to Prosecute the Use of Explosives to Destroy WTCs

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/911-lawyers-petition-grand-jury-explosives/

In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers.

The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.

Some good documentary films here to watch for free:

http://metanoia-films.org/psywar/

Heres a couple more. Occupation of the American Mind is very good. All of John Pilgers films are great.

James Forrestal , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:58 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.

Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.

[Dec 04, 2018] Comparing China and America by Fred Reed

Chinese version of neoliberalism and the USA version do differ.
Notable quotes:
"... I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually really needs more people. ..."
"... Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago. ..."
"... Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash. ..."
"... @Achmed E. Newman Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent. Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat. Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state. ..."
"... I worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true. The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth. ..."
"... [You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments, especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet permanently depart for another website] ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jason Liu , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:42 am GMT

Great, but kinda pedestrian. Lemme use this platform to point out China's flaws from a Chinese perspective.

Chinese society and Chinese people are too arrogant, materialistic, and hypersensitive to criticism.

This is a huge problem. One, it alienates pretty much anyone who becomes familiar with China. Two, it leads to mistake after mistake when no criticism is offered to correct them in time. Three, it causes society to view things overly in terms of money, falling behind in all other aspects. Nobody cares how much rich or strong you are if you're a crass, materialistic asshole. They'll hate you.

All societies have these issues, few are as bad as China. There are Chinese reading this right now and getting angry and ready to call me a traitor, demonstrating my point exactly.

A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand, confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans.

China does not need more repression right now, it needs to slowly liberalize to keep the economy growing and competitive. I'm not talking about western style "open society" bullshit, traitors like multiculturalists and feminists should always be persecuted. But the heavy-handed censorship, monitoring of everyday citizens is completely unnecessary. If China does not develop a culture of trust, and genuine, non-money based curiosity, it will not have the social structure to overcome the west.

Outside of trade and money-related issues, the Chinese citizenry is woefully ignorant of the outside world. There is no widespread understanding of foreign cultures and ideologies, how they might threaten us, how to defend against them, or how to work around them. An overwrought sense of nationalism emphasizes Chinese victimhood to the point of absurdity, squandering any sympathy onlookers might have, and actually causes some to turn 180 and hate China instead.

Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple China's ability to be a world player. Without a network of like-minded friends (actual friends, not trade partners), China will never be able to match the western alliance. It is not just America we have to overcome, but an entire bloc of nations. I don't care how much people hate our neighbors, China must extend the olive branch, present a sincere face of benevolence, and not act like the big guy with a fragile ego. Racially and culturally similar East Asians are the best candidates for long-term friendship, it is wrong to forsake them under the assumption that all we need is Russia or Pakistan.

Despite the trade war, I'm not worried about China's economy, infrastructure, political system, or innate ability. These are our strengths. I have no love for liberal democracy or western values. But China must change its attitude and the way it interacts with the outside world soon, or face geopolitical disaster.

Don't overreact to every insult or criticism. Compete in areas that isn't just money or materials. Really understand soft power, and what it takes to be liked around the world. Develop our own appealing ideas and worldview. Listen to well-meaning, nationalistic critics, and change before the world discovers China's ugly side.

Cyrano , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT
I would say that yes, dictatorships tend to be more efficient than "democracy". The only major downside to dictatorships are that usually dictators – thanks perhaps to personal ambitions, lack of accountability, volatile personalities – tend to cause major wars.

That's a reason why someone becomes a dictator – to make it into the history books. And the easiest way to make it into the history books is to cause a major war(s) and capture all the glory that comes with causing the deaths of as many people as possible.

But then again, looking at the US, they don't seem to have been disadvantaged by a lack of dictators at all, as far as starting wars goes. One has to wonder, are dictatorships even competitive with US in the category of causing wars?

gmachine1729 , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 8:16 am GMT
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/11/30/a-call-to-boycott-jewish-media/

By Tiensen do you mean Tencent, famous now for its WeChat which I use for messaging and payments. I now also use their cloud storage Weiyun (3 TB on only 10 RMB / month) as well as their email.

By the way, Nvidia, YouTube, and Yahoo were all founded by ethnic Chinese from Taiwan. I actually think Nvidia is more impressive than both Microsoft or Google. Its GPU technology is much higher barrier to entry and as far as I can tell still exclusive to America.

I may well never come back to America ever again, and thus, most of what goes on in America will no longer be directly relevant to me. I could give pretty much zero of a fuck about the nonsense on China in the English language press, which I will only look at very occasionally, and those who create it. It would be rather futile to try to change the views of the majority of white Americans. Of course, there are a minority of white Americans who are more informed, reasonable, and open-minded, the ones I tended to interact with back in America, many of whom are unhappy with the state of American society. They are welcome to contact me (my email is on my website), and if they use not an American email, I'll be more willing to share certain information with them and possibly connect them to China-related business/opportunities.

I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually really needs more people.

Anon [319] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:00 am GMT
Main difference is China is about Chinese ruling over Chinese with Chinese pride, whereas America is about JAG(Jews-Afros-Gays) ruling over whites with 'white guilt', jungle fever, and homomania.

Problem with China is too much corruption and petty greed.

Anon [319] Disclaimer , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 9:20 am GMT
If you look at centuries of Chinese painting, you will see that each generation largely made copies of earlier masters.

Prior to Romanticism and esp modernism, Western Art changed very slowly over centuries.

Franz , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:25 am GMT
Many tried to warn the weenies what would happen while our industries were "donated" to China and got hosed for their trouble. Pat Buchanan's troubles actually started when he wrote The Great Betrayal , even if they took a little extra time to pull his syndicated column down.

Did you know about a World War II-era Kaiser steel mill once in California, that was cut up in blocks like a model kit and shipped in its entirety to China?

It happened right out in the open, under Daddy Bush, and everyone who complained became an unperson, Orwell-style. Nobody dared object to the glories of free trade. And the Chinese in California said it was doing so because they had a multi-million ton Plan to fill, and it was almost the 21st century.

China is now taking the wealth their nation is creating with stuff developed in Europe, Britain, and the United States. The hole in the donut is they could have done all that under license and we could have kept on with, and even improved our industrial base.

But in fact our leaders had Gender Reassignment in mind for the 21st century, not actual productive work that truly builds nations. The Impoverishment of Nations is well known: Send the real work out, keep the barbarians inside well-fed, sharp-clawed, and morally depraved.

Godfree Roberts , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
" its stunning advance in forty years from impoverished Third World to a huge economy"

Bullshit. The stunning advance occurred between 1950-1975. Starting with an industrial base smaller than that of Belgium's in the 50s, the China that for so long was ridiculed as "the sick man of Asia" emerged at the end of the Mao period as one of the six largest industrial producers in the world.

National income grew five-fold over the 25-year period 1952-78, increasing from 60 billion to over 300 billion yuan, with industry accounting for most of the growth. On a per capita basis, the index of national income (at constant prices) increased from 100 in 1949 (and 160 in 1952) to 217 in 1957 and 440 in 1978.

Over the last two decades of the Maoist era, from 1957 to 1975, China's national income increased by 63 percent on a per capita basis during this period of rapid population growth, more than doubling overall and the basic foundations for modern industrialism were laid and outpacing every other development takeoff in history.

Bear in mind that, save for limited Soviet aid in the 1950s, repaid in full and with interest by 1966, Mao's industrialization proceeded without benefit of foreign loans or investments–under punitive embargoes the entire 25 years–yet Mao was unique among developing country leaders in being able to claim an economy burdened by neither foreign debt nor internal inflation.

Anonymous [126] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT

Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street crime.

Wait, weren't you a supporter of American racial diversity? Weren't the millions of dusty beaners entering the US a God's gift to the country's rich, colorful, cultural tapestry?

A dictatorship can simply do things. It can plan twenty, or fifty, years down the road.

So can the Western, globalist (((deep state))). The Chinese dictatorship is simply doing it for themselves and their nation. Their people's lives are getting better for decades while we have every reason to envy our grandfathers.

dearieme , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:43 pm GMT
"China has an adult government that gets things done. America has a kaleidoscopically shifting cast of pathologically aggressive curiosities in the White House."

Well put: I have long argued that the last adult president was Bush the Elder – what followed was a sorry sequence of adolescents.

There was only one chance to elect a non-preposterous grown-up – Romney. It was spurned.

But be of good cheer: the White House might currently be occupied by an absurd oaf, but it might have been Hellary, a grown-up with vices not to my taste. Better the absurd than the appalling?

As for China – I've never been there. At second-hand I am impressed. But it too could take a tumble – life's like that.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Cyrano Having a dictator is not just a bad idea because of wars, Cyrano. The English spent many centuries slowly chipping away at the ultimate power of Kings and Queens. I'm pretty sure that if they hadn't done that, you and I would not be here writing to each other today.

There can be a powerful Monarchy or Dictator, say, like under Queen Victoria or Josef Stalin. There will be much different outcomes. It would be a shame if the good King or dictator happens to die and leave the whole nation to a bad one, and your children's lives are much the worse for it, don't you think?

China is a perfect example, as anyone growing up under Mao had it very rough, even if he didn't get swept up in the 1,000 lawnmowers campaign or the Cultural Revolution. If you had been born in 1950, say, that was tough luck for much of your life. If you were born in 1985, though, well, as one can read in the column above, it's a different story.

Since I brought up Queen Victoria, and now have this song in my head (not a bad thing), I will move it into Reed's Reeders' heads now. Great stuff!:

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 2:00 pm GMT
@dearieme I agree with your sentiment, Dearieme, and I completely agree with you about George H.W. Bush* being the last President to act like one should.. However, that shouldn't matter anyway. Our system of government is NOT supposed to be about who is president making a big difference in how things run. It used to work like that too, before the people betrayed the US Constitution and let the Feral Gov't get out of hand.

The fact is, that Mitt Romney or not, per Mr. Franz above, the country has been in the process of being given away for > 2 decades now. Yes, no manufacturing might, no country left. That brings up what is wrong with Mr. Reed's article, which I'll get to in a minute.

* Politically, I hate the guy, but that's not what your point is.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 2:25 pm GMT
I am not knocking the observations of how things run economically in America vs. in China. I think the article does a good job on that. However, the whole analysis part seems kind of STATIC. I know Fred knows better, as he grew up in what was a different country and BY FAR the most powerful economically, precisely because it was when the US Feral Gov't still left private (at least small) business alone for the most part.

You do realize, Mr. Reed, that the US was NOT created to be a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic? China WAS a totalitarian society, but things only got (WAY) better after Chairman Deng decided that the central government would start leaving people alone to do business. The Chinese are very good at business and are very hard workers.

Yes, the Chinese government runs much better, at this point, than the US Feral Gov't after years and years (say 5 decades) of infiltration by the ctrl-left. All of our institutions have been infiltrated, governments , big-business , media , universities , lower education all of it. China had it's physical Long March, and 3 decades of hard-core Communism, but they got over it. America has had it's Long March on the down low, and is reaping the whirlwind at the present. Will we get over it? Maybe, but it'll take guns. We got 'em.

The winds of change have blown through. They can change direction again. For a place like America, it's not going to take one powerful man (look how ineffective President Trump has been), but the people and a movement. Just as some have been unobservant of China over the last 2 decades, many will miss the changes here too.

Thorfinnsson , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:37 pm GMT
@Godfree Roberts Glad to see our resident white Maozuo is back.

Your comparisons are not good.

Germany in 1880 was much nearer the technological frontier than China was in 1950. The Japan comparison is better, but Japan at the end of the Tokugawa era was about as developed as Britain in 1700 (and had already for instance substantially displaced China in the exported silk market).

The Soviet Union suffered certain events in the period from 1941-1945 you may wish to look up.

More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan. Or even postwar Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

I think most informed people now are aware that Soviet-style central planning is effective for the initial industrialization phase. What we dispute is that it is uniquely effective, as Mazuo and Sovoks insisted. Other systems have matched its performance at lower human and geopolitical cost.

Thorfinnsson , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT
@dearieme GHW certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?

He was the architect of NAFTA (even if signed by Bill Clinton) and signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which significantly increased the yearly number of immigrant visas that could be issued and created the disastrous Temporary Protected Status visa.

Anonymous [261] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
@Jason Liu

A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand, confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans.

Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago.

The Uyghur thing nobody cares about. The western media would find something else to lie about.

I agree with the things you say afterwards. although I find it difficult to see China becoming likable to it's neighbors. I believe the big thing will be to see what the CCP does in the next economic crisis; will they change or will they turtle into bad policy and stagnate. The challenge after that would be the demographics.

The Anti-Gnostic , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 3:02 pm GMT
@dearieme Mormons are idealists, not realists, which puts them outside the grown-up pale in my book. Mormonism might as well be called American Suburbanism at this point. That lifestyle takes a lot of things for granted that will not be around much longer. They top out intellectually at the level of mid-tier management.

To be fair, this applies to most Americans, convinced that inside everybody is a conformist, suburban American just waiting to get out.

There's a case that can be made that Mormonism is actually the official American religion.

Ali Choudhury , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.

When the chickens come home to roost it will not be pretty.

Anonymous [126] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

It would be a shame if the good King or dictator happens to die and leave the whole nation to a bad one, and your children's lives are much the worse for it, don't you think?

Sure, but the bad one would run the risk of being overthrown and his bloodline slaughtered. Everyone would know that the buck ends with him and his family.

Modern "democracies" dilute this responsibility and leave room for a set of hidden kings and dictators to run the show from the shadows. The plebs are supposed to vent their frustration by voting out the bad guys but that's useless (a pressure relief valve, really) if the shadow dictators control the information and the choices.

Luckily, the goyim are waking up to this scam.

Ali Choudhury , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
@dearieme The Cold War and threat of nuclear annihilation is gone, so why not elect entertaining charlatans, dunces, fools and outright crooks?
dearieme , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson "GHW certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?:

I've no idea but it's not the point anyway. The point is that he presumably arrived at his decisions by thinking like an adult, instead of being blown around on gusts of adolescent emotions, like Slick Willie, W, O, and Trump.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
@Anonymous He may run that risk, but with absolute authority, who will stand up to him? You've got to know the history of Western Civilization (Europe, I mean) is filled with years and centuries of terrible, evil Kings and Queens in countries far and wide, right?

As far as democracies go, no, it doesn't work in the long, or even medium, run, unless you withhold the vote for landowners and only those with responsibility. I don't thing that's been the case here except for the first 50 years or so. You give the vote to the young, the stupid, the irresponsible, the women, etc., and it goes downhill. In America's case, it took a long time to go downhill because we had a lot of human and real capital built up.

Now, this is all why this country, as I wrote already above, was not set up to BE a democracy, Mr #126. It was to be a Constitutional Republic, with powers of the Feral Gov't limited by the document. However, once the population treats it as nothing but a piece of paper, that's all it becomes.

AnonFromTN , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
Chinese progress is impressive in absolute terms, but it is much more impressive in relative terms. While the US and all its sidekicks are ruining their countries by losing manufacturing, running up mountains of debt, and dumbing down the populace by horrible educational system and uncontrolled immigration of wild hordes with medieval mentality, some countries, including China, keep moving up. But the achievements of China or Russia wouldn't look so great without the simultaneous suicide of the West.

Let me give you the example I know best. As a scientist and an Editor of several scientific journals I see the decline of scientific production in the US: just 20 years ago it clearly dominated, but now it went way down. There emerged lots of papers from big China. Quality-wise, most of them are still sub-par, but they are getting into fairly decent journals because of the void left by the decline of science in the US.

Yes, if current tendencies continue for 20 more years, Chinese science would improve and China would become an uncontested leader in that field. However, if the US reins in its thieving elites and shifts to a more sensible course, it still has the potential to remain the world leader in science. It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current crazy unsustainable levels and invest some of the saved resources into science, industry (real one, not banking that only produces bubbles galore), and infrastructure. Is this realistic? Maybe not, but hope springs eternal.

DB Cooper , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Jason Liu As a long time China watcher myself I didn't see anything you described with regards to China's foreign policy, including its dealing with its East Asian neighbors. From what I saw China's statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly, measured, restraint and long term thinking. May be I am missing something or see something and interpret it in an opposite way than you did. For example you said

"and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans"

"Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple China's ability to be a world player. "

I didn't see any of that. Any specific example to illustrate your point?

AnonFromTN , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
@DB Cooper Again, Chinese and Russian foreign policy looks best when you compare it to the US. Both countries made their fair share of blunders, but next to the rabid dog US they look decidedly sensible and restrained.
Digital Samizdat , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Jason Liu You may very well be accurately describing the attitudes of individual Chinamen; but I see no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other countries. On the contrary, they seem to be doing quite well. Even the hated Japs can't seem to invest enough money into China.
Digital Samizdat , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT

There may be something to this. If you look at centuries of Chinese painting, you will see that each generation largely made copies of earlier masters. As nearly as I, a nonexpert, can tell, there is more variety and imagination in the Corcoran Gallery's annual exhibition of high-school artists than in all of Chinese paining.

There was a point in time when I would have agreed with Fred on this; but seeing what's become of Western art over the last century, I can't anymore. A few centuries ago, Western art was surely making progress by leaps and bounds. These days though, it's in swift decline. All it's got left to offer is pointless pretentiousness. At least traditional Chinese painting still requires some real craftsmanship and skill.

Digital Samizdat , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Ali Choudhury

Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.

This is what happens to your brain on Forbes and the Wall Street Journal . In reality, China is the world's largest creditor. In fact, it's the US which is the largest debtor in the world.

All that Chinese debt that the Western presstitutes go on an on about is really just an accounting gimmick: some state-owned bank in China makes a loan to some state-owned conglomerate there, and this gets written down as a debt. But the Chinese government (which owns both of them) is never going to allow either of the two parties to actually go bankrupt, so the debt isn't actually real. It's no different than ordering your right-pocket to lend your left-pocket ten dollars: your right-pocket may now record that loan as an 'asset' on a balance sheet somewhere, while your left-pocket will now record it as a 'liability', but you as a person aren't any richer or poorer than you were before. You still have ten dollars–no more, no less. And so it is with China. They merely 'owe' that money to themselves.

Cyrano , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:11 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent. Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat. Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state.

I personally prefer elections where there is only one candidate and one voter – the dictator, it kind of simplifies things. I think it takes a lot of bravery to be a dictator, you don't delegate glory, but you don't delegate blame either, you take full responsibility and full credit for whatever is happening in the country.

raywood , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:07 pm GMT
I didn't have time to read all the comments. But the ones I read, and especially the article itself, I found very interesting. Keep up the good work!
Ali Choudhury , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:40 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some estimates. You reckon the Chinese government have this covered and can rescue failing institutions. They probably don't even know how many bad loans need to be written off and how badly it will cause a squeeze on normal lending.
Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMT
@DB Cooper

From what I saw China's statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly, measured, restraint and long term thinking.

Do you think that correctly describes China's handling of claims in the South China Sea, or its attitude toward the independent country of Taiwan, or its promotion of anti-Japanese propaganda on Chinese television?

Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

but I see no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other countries.

Its complete disregard of other nations' entirely legitimate claims in the South China Sea is evidence to the contrary. It's not as if other nations must completely sever all relations with China for any alienation to be occurring.

Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:22 pm GMT
@Jason Liu Excellent comment, Jason. Certainly if China wishes to again become Elder Brother to East Asia, it needs to start relating to its neighbors as Little Brothers instead of obstacles to be rudely shoved aside.
Brian Reilly , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
@gmachine1729 gmachine, Glad to hear you are in a place that you like and suits you. That is what nations are all about. I am also in favor of native peoples contributing their effort (through commercial, intellectual and spiritual endeavors) to the benefit of their fellow nation-citizens, as long as those contributions are not wrung out by force of the state.

And Russia will have a lot more people by and by. They will be Chinese or Uyghar (sp?) perhaps, but that empty space will surely be put to use by someone or someones. Whether the Russians like that much could be another matter.

DB Cooper , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:35 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck China's handling of the claims in South China Sea has been characterized by restraint and a lot of patience. Basically a combination of dangling a big carrot with a small stick. This is the reason the ASEAN has signed up to the SCS code of conduct and the relation between the Philippines and China is at a all time high since Aquino's engineered the PCA farce several years ago.

Taiwan considered itself the legitimate government of all of China encompassing the mainland. It's official name is the Republic of China. Mainland China considered itself the legitimate the government of all of China encompassing the island of Taiwan. Its official name is the People's Republic of China. The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is that each side agreed there is only one China and each side is free to interpret its own version of China. For the mainland that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan that means ROC (Republic of China). There is no such thing as the independent country of Taiwan.

China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.

Brian Reilly , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:38 pm GMT
If the reporting I have read (widely sourced) about infrastructure quality, durability, and actual utility is even 1/2 correct, quite a lot of government (especially provincial government) directed development cannot and will not prove to be wise investment. Combined with the opaque economic reporting, also subject to differing reporting as is infrastructure rating, there is some good reason t believe that the nation has some huge huge challenges diretly ahead.

The male overhang in China (and in India, others as well, but much smaller) is another potential problem that is difficult to assess. Maybe it is a nothingburger, and 50 million men without any chance to have a single wife will just find something else worthwhile and rewarding to do with their time. Maybe not. Combine wasted urban investment, financial chicanery on a gross scale, a narrow authoritarian structure and tens of millions of unsatisfied, un-familied men, the downside looks pretty ugly.

Maybe that reporting is all bullshit. I don't think so. I think that Chinese leadership is likely very concerned, hence so many of them securing property and anchor babies in the West. I do hope for the sake of the Chinese people, and the rest of the globe, that whatever comes along will not be too bad.

DB Cooper , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:43 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck "Its complete disregard of other nations' entirely legitimate claims in the South China Sea is evidence to the contrary."

The fact is that the claim of the Phillipines and Vietnam is highly illegitimate according to international law and convention.

Anon [348] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
This is why I'm not afraid of China: Chinese are greedy soulless capitalists, or pagans as another poster calls them. Spot on. A country of 1.3 billion pagans will always stay a low trust society. Every Chinese dreams of getting rich, so they can get the hell out of China.

As for all the worship of education, no fear there either, the end goal of every single one of their top students is to go an American university, then once they get here, do everything they can to stay and never go back.

This is why I fear China: they are invading us, and bringing their dog-eat-dog, pagan ways with them, slowly but surely turning us into another low-trust, pagan society like the one they left behind. Also once they get here they instantly start chanting "China #1!", and look out for interest of China rather than that of the US. If we were wise we would stop this invasion now, but Javanka can't get enough of their EB5 dollars.

Anon [348] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:10 pm GMT

when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic.

i.e. it becomes the United States.

another fred , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:50 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat The problem is neither debt nor bankruptcies, although they are part of what is going on. It is the artificially elevated level of economic activity and the expectations of the people depending on that level continuing to sustain their lifestyles. The activity can only be sustained by expanding credit. If you believe that credit can continue to expand infinitely, well, we will see.

I notice that the Chinese are reducing their personal consumption in response to the cracks appearing in the economies of the world. They are wise to do so.

We have the same problem in the US, probably worse, and it exists throughout most of the "first" world. China has a decided advantage because of the degree of social control of its people, but China will not be immune when the bubble breaks.

witters , says: December 1, 2018 at 12:02 am GMT
@Anon Fred probably shouldn't say anything about art, but when has ignorance got in the way of USian cultural putdowns? Anyway, the very idea that the Chinese merely make copies is nonsense, pure and simple.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-in-china-and-japan-a-copy-is-just-as-good-as-an-original

Mark T , says: December 1, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat Well put. The propaganda on US websites is always about the debt as there is a need to believe that China is going to collapse as it simply can't have achieved what it has without freedom, democracy and the American way, or more accurately by not employing the disastrous policy mix known as the Washington Consensus. It is the countries who followed that (likely deliberately) flawed model of open exchange rates, low value added manufacturing (to enrich US multinationals and consumers) with western FDI that have given the support for the otherwise flawed Reinhardt and Roghoff study that everyone (who hasn't actually read it) uses to justify why debt to GDP is 'a bad thing' over a certain level. As those benighted emerging economies prospered from their trade relationship they were then offered lots of nice $ loans for consumption, buying cars and houses and lots of western consumer goods. So current account deficit, more $ funding, inflation, higher interest rates to control inflation triggering a flow of hot money that drivers the exchange rate temporarily higher undermining the export model. Then crash – exchange rate has killed export model, interest rates cripple domestic demand, financial markets plummet, hot money rushes out, exchange rate collapses so stagflation. Wall Street comes in and privatises the best assets and the US taxpayer bails out the banks. Rinse and repeat.
China was supposed to 'act like a normal country' and play this game, but it didn't. It followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing western consumer goods and financial services. However, unlike Germany, Japan or S.Korea, China does not have a standing US Army on its soil to ensure that everything gets done for good old Uncle Sam. Hence the bellicosity and the propaganda. China's debts are owned by China, as are a lot of America's debts. Raising debt to build infrastructure and assets like toll roads, airports, electricity grids, high speed railways means that there is an income bearing asset to offset the liability. Raising debt to maintain hundreds of imperial bases around the world less so.
Digital Samizdat , says: December 1, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT
@Mark T You are very perceptive. The reason why China's debts are 'bad' while Uncle Scam's debts are 'good' is because (((the usual suspects))) are profiting off the latter, but not the former. They were betting that, if they gave the Chinese our industry, China would repay the favor by giving them their finance sector in return. But that's not what happened! And now, (((the usual suspects))) are waking up to the rather embarrassing realization they got played by some slick operators from the East from wayyyy back East.
Random Smartaleck , says: December 1, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@DB Cooper

The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is that each side agreed there is only one China and each side is free to interpret its own version of China. For the mainland that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan that means ROC (Republic of China). There is no such thing as the independent country of Taiwan.

The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the fragile egos of the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization & eventual absorption of Taiwan. Taiwan has been an independent country in all but diplomatic nomenclature for 70 years. The PRC's claim that Taiwan is a "renegade province" is laughable. The island is simply territory that the CCP never conquered. It is only the CCP's mad insistence on the "China is the CCP, the CCP is China" formulation that convinces it otherwise.

Likewise, Taiwan's claim of jurisdiction over the mainland -- while justifiable given history -- is simply delusional. The ROC can do absolutely nothing to enforce this claim, and, barring something truly extraordinary, will never be the government of the mainland again. Regardless, this claim does not negate Taiwan's de facto independence because it has absolutely nothing to do with placing Taiwan under others' control.

So, thus, "the independent country of Taiwan."

Random Smartaleck , says: December 1, 2018 at 9:37 pm GMT
@DB Cooper

China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.

You know better than that. We aren't talking about sober, fair-minded documentaries here. The Chinese productions are lurid, over-the-top demonizations of the Japanese. These combined with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums show that the CCP quite likes stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps they hope to exploit it in some near-future manufactured conflict.

DB Cooper , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck "The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the fragile egos of the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization & eventual absorption of Taiwan. "

It is insisted on by both sides. The quarrel between the ROC and the PRC is which one is the legitimate government of China. The 92′ consensus only formalized this understanding in a documented form.

This "One China Policy" has its root deep into the historic narrative of China when successive dynasties replaced one after another and which dynasty should be recognized as the legitimate successor dynasty to the former dynasty. If you read any Chinese history book at the end of the book there is usually a cronological order of successive Chinese dynasties one followed another in a linear fashion. But of course in reality very often it is not that clean cut. Sometimes between transition several petty dynasties coexist each vying for the legitimacy to get the mandate of heaven to rule the whole of China. This "One China Policy" is just a modern manifestation of this kind of cultural understanding of the Chinese people and has nothing to do with Communism, Nationalism or whateverism.

DB Cooper , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:48 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck "These combined with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums show that the CCP quite likes stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps they hope to exploit it in some near-future manufactured conflict."

These kind of museums are fairly newly built, three decades old at most, many are even newer and is a direct response to Japan historic revisism. If the CCP want to milk this kind of anti-Japanese sentiment for its political purpose shouldn't they built this kind of museum earlier? From what I understand the elaborate annual reenactment of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki and Hiroshima begin the moment the US retreated from the administration of Japan in 1972. Now this is what I called the milking a victimhood sentiment for its political purpose.

The largest tourist group to Japan from a foreign country is from mainland. If the CCP is really stoking hatred to the Japanese then they really suck at it. What Japan did to China in the last century don't need any stoking. History speaks for itself.

Simply Simon , says: December 1, 2018 at 11:02 pm GMT
I would not debate Fred on any of the points he makes but I have a point of my own.After they read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and tell them they are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same time select any number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise be welcomed by the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.
Anon [131] Disclaimer , says: December 1, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Mark T

It followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing western consumer goods and financial services.

Agree somewhat. China did and does import a lot of western consumer goods. China is Germany's biggest trading partner, and Germany has trade surplus with China. And China isn't even the world's largest trade surplus country . Germany is, followed by Japan. ..

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-poised-to-set-worlds-largest-trade-surplus/a-45150968

Germany poised to set world's largest trade surplus. Germany is on track to record the world's largest trade surplus for a third consecutive year. The country's $299 billion surplus is poised to attract criticism, however, both at home and internationally. Germany is expected to set a €264 billion ($299 billion) trade surplus this year, far more than its closest export rivals Japan and the Netherlands, according to research published Monday by Munich-based economic research institute Ifo.

GM does well in China, selling more cars in China than it does in the US. (Personally I think GM makes crappy cars. ) It is successful in China, because GM has been doing a fantastic job of marketing its brand and American brands still enjoy prestige in China. And Apple certainly wouldn't have become the first trillion dollar company without China's market.

On a personal note, one of my relatives sells American medical devices to China and makes decent money. It isn't easy though as competition is fierce. America is not the only country that makes good medical devices. You have to compete with products from other countries.

With regard to the financial section, China has been extremely cautious of opening it up. Can you blame China? Given how the Wall Street operates. China just didn't have expertise, experience or regulations to handle a lot of these stuff. China has been preparing it, though, and it is ready to reform the market.

Beijing pushes ahead with opening up its financial sector despite trade tensions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/beijing-pushes-ahead-with-financial-opening-up-despite-trade-tensions.html

Also, China is one of the backers for the WTO reform.

Anon [131] Disclaimer , says: December 2, 2018 at 12:25 am GMT
@DB Cooper Well said.

In "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" , the first sentence of the book is " 話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分. It can be roughly translated as "Under the heaven the general trend is : what is long divided, must unite; what is long united, must divide".

I believe in my lifetime China and Taiwan will unite again, and North Korea and South Korea will become One Korea.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a 14th-century historical novel attributed to Luo Guanzhong. It is set in the turbulent years towards the end of the Han dynasty and the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history

SZ , says: December 2, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
What is wrong with less 'inventiveness'? Do we really need a software update every 1 or 2 years? Just think, for example, how annoying the 'microsoft office ribbon' is for most of its adult and serious users who would prefer good-old drop-down menus! Or do we really need to change our clothes and phones every year and renew our furniture every decade because the preferred style is changing? The vast majority of the world, especially those areas where communitarian family models were the norm at some point in time, would embrace a little stability over coping with each unnecessary 'invention'. For the Anglo-Saxon world, marked by the 'absolute nuclear family', on the other hand, stability and predictability is a nightmare and an assault on their precious individuality. Hence, the tension between the US-led bloc of English-speaking nations and China-Russia-led Eurasia is no surprise, but rather the natural outcome of the cultural fabric of each bloc. A world succumbing to the Chinese vision would definitely be more dull, but more stable and foreseeable as well.
Rich , says: December 2, 2018 at 6:44 pm GMT
This has been an excellent article along with some excellent commentary. It's difficult to get a clear picture of what's actually happening in China and every little bit helps. Two of my kids went to Ivy League schools and when we were doing the drive to check them all out, they were filled with Asians. The Chinese I deal with are very materialistic and appear to base their importance on wealth and position. One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even date him because of his status. Of course I live in NY where most people are materialistic so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or not. They do appear to be a very smart, hard driven people and there's a whole lot of them, so there's a chance we start seeing them replace our present elite in the near future.
Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 2, 2018 at 7:48 pm GMT
@Rich

One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even date him because of his status.
so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or not.

Yes that is a trait, Rich, and though somewhat prevalent in America too, the Chinese seem to have no respect for guys that work with their hands. To me, that's shameful. They respect the rich conniving businessman over the honest laborer.

I'd like to see one of the China-#1 commenters on here, or even Fred Reed*, argue with me on that one. The British-descended especially, but all of white American culture has a respect for honesty. That is absolutely NOT the case with the Chinese, whether living in China or right here. See Peak Stupidity on DIY's in China vs. America – Here is Part 1 .

* You're not gonna gain this kind of knowledge in a couple of weeks and without hanging with Chinese people, though.

Realist , says: December 2, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT

Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street crime.

America's huge urban pockets of illiteracy do not exist. There is not the virulent political division that has gangs of uncontrolled Antifa hoodlums stalking public officials. China takes education seriously, as America does not. Students study, behave as maturely as their age would suggest, and do not engage in middle-school politics.

Agreed. China is not burdened by the abomination of cultural and racial strife. The United States has lost trillions of dollars due to racial and cultural differences.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 2, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@DB Cooper I'm not picking on, or arguing at all with, you in particular, Mr. Cooper, but let me chime in about this whole Mainland China vs. Taiwan thing. The first thing to remember is, excepting the original Taiwanese people who've been invaded left and right, these people are ALL CHINESE. They will eventually get back together, as the Germans have, and (I'm in agreement with another guy on this thread) the Koreans will.

Even the Chinese widow of Claire Chenault, the leader of the great American AVG Flying Tigers who supported the Nationalist Chiang Kai-Shek, had worked for years enabling business between Taiwan and the mainland. There is so much business between the 2 that any kind of war would seriously impede, and right now, the business of China is business (where have I heard that before?)

Another thing I can say about it is that it's sure none of America's business, at this point. The Cold War ended almost 3 decades ago. We are beyond broke, and it does us nothing but harm in thinking we must "defend" an island of Chinamen against a continent of Chinamen. Let the Republic Of China and the People's Republic Of China save faces in whatever asinine ways they see fit to. It's not a damn bit of America's business.

Realist , says: December 2, 2018 at 8:06 pm GMT
@Simply Simon

After they read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and tell them they are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same time select any number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise be welcomed by the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.

American propaganda plays a big part here. Plus more Chinese speak English than Americans speak Mandarin.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 2, 2018 at 8:40 pm GMT
@Citizen of a Silly Country YOU may be behind about about a decade on this one, CoaSC, so touche*!

What I mean is, you may not have looked at it in a while, but the last bunch of times I've seen the "History Channel", it was all about one set of guys trying to sell their old crap to another bunch of guys, and the drama that apparently goes with that the Pawn Stars . Where history comes in, I have no earthly idea. I'd much rather be watching the Nazi Channel over this latest iteration of that network. Better yet, though, I don't watch TV.

* I think from the Chongching vs. Chongqing thing (you were right, of course). I hope I am remembering correctly.

MIT Handle , says: December 2, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT
@Simply Simon I recently did a graduate degree at MIT, where there are a ton of Chinese students. They seem to be proud of China's progress, but as far as I can tell, almost all of them want to remain in the U.S.
Ben Sampson , says: December 2, 2018 at 10:18 pm GMT
@Jason Liu fine commentary Jason Lu. from the little I know Lu is very useful here..for the Chinese!
Ben Sampson , says: December 2, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT
@Realist abomination of racial and cultural strife! Incredible! why is such diversity an abomination and not an advantage?

Because America ripped off all the people who are in strife' currently..and never addressed what such exploitation did to them socially ..making what could be an advantage a so-called 'abomination'

if some of the trillions had been spent on the needs of the American people by building essential physical and social infrastructure to meet popular need, then there would be no strife, people would have opportunity and structures to do their business..there would be no social loss and diversity would not be the problem that it is

the American system uses up people and discards them to the wayside when immediate exploitation needs are met. but we all know this making that comment inaccurate, nonsense really.

and again the 'strife has been going on so long that the elites should know it inside out and be able to address it positively. that they have not means that they do not care about the people period. they are prepared to let the strife go on and exploit that for profit and social control too

Simply Simon , says: December 3, 2018 at 12:14 am GMT
@MIT Handle It's the proof of the pudding. No matter how progressive China is the students value America's freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty to name a few of the things we cherish.
Biff , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:12 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current crazy unsustainable levels and invest some of the saved resources into science,

An idealist, and way off the mark. Empire's number one goal isn't a scientific one, but rather a financial one. The entire purpose of the U.S. military is to secure, and shore up Wall Street(White/Jewish) capitol on a global scale. Smedley Butler wrote about this very fact in the 1930's, and it still remains just as true. The Cold War/Vietnam war wasn't fought to battle a weak, retarded economic system such as communism, but rather to shore up financial dominance – for the same reason the U.S. military is fixated on oil fields, pipelines and other resources – Money!
Financial weapons(sanctions) can kill way more people than bombs, and(loan sharking-IMF World Bank) can conquer more territory than armies(Central, South America, Africa, Greece, etc )
And the goal is not to just remain the the financial dominant system, but more importantly, to destroy any potential competition – this is what is putting Russia, China, and the Eurasian economic system in Washington's cross hairs.

The U.S. military strategists have mentioned on many occasions that they are not afraid of a larger military, but rather they are deathly afraid of a larger economy. If scientists are needed for stated goals then so be it, but they are not the crucial factor.

Priorities man.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
@MBlanc46 Why would China need US investment? They get massive investment from Singapore other wealthy Asian countries.

There is massive remissions from Chinese in Canada, UK and Australia. China has the money to invest extensively in Africa. Recently the Philippines went to China for investment instead of the United States. The rest of the world has pretty much written the US as declining irrelevant former Superpower in economic terms. It still has military power as Fred noted but you cannot take over foreign economies with a military.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:08 am GMT
@Jason Liu JASON

You say all that but Fuji Chinese took over the economies of Philippines (A US ally no less), Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam (Less so because the Vietnamese hate the Chinese).

If the Koreans or Japanese did not hate the Chinese so much, they would probably take over their economies as well.

The real Chinese power is not IN China. It is with Fuji Chinese merchants in Southeast Asia.

Petty greed? And this is not rampant in Israel, US, Russia, Latin America .

Tyrion 2 , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:03 am GMT
@Jason Liu The most anti-China people I've ever spent time with were the incredibly successful Chinese diaspora in SE Asia. I found their contempt shocking. Chinese people were made the butt of their jokes even on seemingly random topics. Your post offers an explanation.

I'm much more positive about your (?) country. I really liked it. But it does give me pause for thought whenever familiarity breeds contempt.

My own little annoyance came recently. I had reason to download WeChat. It was the easiest way to coordinate some business. When I later tried to delete my account, I found I could not. After searching for an answer, I read that I had to email the company and was certainly not guaranteed a response nor any action. That put the first line of their marketing about "300 million" users into perspective.

Another anecdotal thing I've noticed. There used to be lots of Chinese restaurants in London and very few Japanese, Korean, Thai and Vietnamese. There are now more of all of the latter near me, and the Chinese restaurants are generally very low quality holdouts, probably surviving by holding long cheap leases. People really like the other cultures, especially Korea and Japan, not so much the Chinese – a strange fact given the history of East Asia.

Hanoodtroll , says: December 3, 2018 at 9:19 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan

Neither comparisons are exactly relevant. These two countries are tiny compared to China. But more importantly, America took both of them entirely under its wings, due to specific geopolitical conditions. Without the Korean and Vietnam wars, China-US thaw might have happened earlier, who knows. Godfree isn't wrong when he points out that China was under complete embargo. It's not like they had much of a choice other than central planning.

Nonny , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
@Jason Liu Brilliant, Jason! Now, what does he have to fear from giving the Uigurs and Tibetans the right of self-determination instead of following the Israeli model and sending swarms of Han in?

And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the people are definitely not Han?

Why this greedy insanity, when if the idiot could learn the meaning of reconciliation China would zoom ahead at record speed! Is he a Jew in disguise?

Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 12:18 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true. The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth.
Mike P , says: December 3, 2018 at 1:15 pm GMT

China has a government that can do things: In 2008 an 8.0 quake devastated the region near the Tibetan border, killing, according to the Chinese government, some 100,000 people. Buildings put up long before simply collapsed

Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that allowed many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without regard for earthquake-related building codes.

That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency and achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how it's done properly.

Prusmc , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:25 pm GMT
@Mike P Poor construction materials, second rate engineering, pay offs and cronyism sounds like diversity bridge that collapsed in Miami.
therevolutionwas , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Jason Liu Alasdair Macleod puts out some interesting articles on China, economically speaking. I liked your comment. https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/china-s-monetary-policy-must-change
Z-man , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT

In terms of economic systems, the Chinese are clearly superior. China runs a large economic surplus

Up to now on the backs of poorly paid/overworked peasants. Shot a big hole in your article right away. Damn and I don't get paid for this?!? (Grin)

PS. Intelectual theft of mostly Western knowledge. Snap! Second hole shot. I need to get an agent, I'm soooo good I should be in charge of Face the Nation. (Smile) But I would keep the lovley Margaret Brennan as the host. (Grin)

TG , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:00 pm GMT
OK, good points, but a couple of comments.

1. China's one-child policy did not come about as a sort of attempt at eugenics. It came about because the previous six-child policy ("strength through numbers") was a colossal failure, and the resulting poverty nearly tore the communist state apart at the seems. So often governments insist on rapidly growing the population, and then when they get their wish, they realize that a massive number of hungry and angry people leads not to strength but to weakness. Just look at what happened when the Syrian government tried that

2. China peaceful? Not hardly. China is peaceful now because most people are doing OK. Back when population was pushing at the limits – during Mao's early phase, and before – when people were chronically malnourished and living in mud – no, the Chinese people were not peaceful.

3. Again, numbers do not always translate into strength. India looks to surpass China in total population, and they will be lucky just to avoid collapse.

4. Another thought: China is essentially ethnically pure Han Chinese. This might make revolts possible, as the people find it easy to band together. Not so in India, which is a massive pastiche of 100′s of different racial and ethnic groups – which are too busy competing with each other to band together. There is an old saying that the worst poverty that a people will accept before revolting, is exactly what they will end up with. Could part of China's strength be the fear of the elites that, if the people are crushed too much, that things could fall apart?

Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:41 pm GMT
Regarding economic and scientific advancements with which no one at the time could effectively compete, China sounds a bit like Germany prior to England, Russia and the United States combining economic and military resources to destroy it.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Realist That isn't true. There are thousands of us now in Asia. White males are everywhere in Asia doing every kind of business. I've been here for years.
anonymous [739] Disclaimer , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:46 pm GMT
Can some ethnic Han Chinese in the know give us the scoop on this: Are Han Chinese merchants, bankers getting back on top in places like Vietnam, Indonesia? There were huge anti Chinese riots in Indonesia in the 1960s and Han Chinese Merchants were singled out for ethnic cleansing by victorious Vietnamese Communists in ~ 1975 – the first Vietnamese boat people were Han Chinese merchants.

My take is that the Han Chinese in China and elsewhere in Asia are a lot like Japanese nationalist in the 1930s and Jewish merchants/bankers forever.

In all of this Chinese sphere of influence ares of Asia I think 2018 USA has pretty much nothing to offer except maybe playing balance of power to contain China and yes, have military alliances with all the countries in Asia that are not mainland China – I'm sure the Vietnamese want us back to militarize the Vietnam/China border – and we're good at that sort of thing, but we absolutely can not and will not control, protect our own Southern border.

Life sucks.

Agent76 , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:48 pm GMT
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal

The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt and Road deals in its global push for economic and geopolitical dominance.

Sent from my iPhone

Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 4:06 pm GMT
@nickels When was the last time Western Christianity demonstrated any moral conduct toward other nations? Was it England and the US fire-bombing German cities filled with civilians, followed by dropping two nuclear bombs on a defeated nation?
Rurik , says: December 3, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT

as the US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter the planet into submission via tarifffs, sanctions, embargos, and so on.

"and so on" ? Why not just be honest Fredo? Without tariffs, the lot of the American working class would eventually fall to the level of the rest of the Third World's teeming billions of near-starving wretches. As the one percent continued to move all its manufacturing to the slave labor wage rates of China and Mexico, et al.

By imposing tariffs on the products that the internationalist scumfucks build in China and elsewhere, it tends to encourage the production of these things domestically, thereby protecting the ever falling wages of the reviled American working class. Also China engages in policies that are specifically intended to bolster China, like protectionist economics. Whereas the ZUS does the opposite, its elite favoring policies that specifically fuck over the despised American citizen in favor of anyone else.

So Trump's tariffs are one of the few things he's actually doing right. At least if you're not one of those internationalist scumfucks who despise all things working class American.

As for

"US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter the planet into submission sanctions, embargos,"

That is all being done on behalf of the Zionist fiend who owns our central bank. Duh.

What would be good, is for the ZUS to tell the Zionists to fuck off –

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/rand-paul-israel-military-aid-congress-senate-1036943

- returned to being the USA (by ending the Fed), and imposed massive tariffs on any industry that off-shored its manufacturing. Hell, any industry that threatens the well-being of our domestic industries. That pay domestic taxes and employ Americans.

This is the kind of thing China does, and if though some miracle our treasonous government scoundrels were all to get hanged by lampposts on the glorious Day of the Rope, perhaps then we'd do the same.

denk , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Jason Liu A wog's self critique

A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand, confronted the US 10~20 years too early, *

When was the last time China sent gunboats or spy planes to murikka's doorstep ? [hint] fukus have been doing that since the day of Opium war.]

Who started the trade war anyway ?

*damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs,*

Tell that to the victims of CIA sponsored Uighurs head choppers

[1]

*and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans.*

[sic]

I've posted many times here and MOA, a tally of all panda huggers PM/prez in EA, SA, SEA .,who were ousted/liquidated by fukus shenanigans. [2]

True to form, fukus turned around to accuse China .of ' driving all its friends into the arm of the murikkans'

fukus have many sins.
but their vilest depravity must surely be .
Robbery crying out robbery.

There's this sanctimonious journo from BBC , who 'boldly' confront a Chinese diplomat,
' Do you realise your assertive/aggressive policies are driving all your friends away/ / .'

what a prick !

[1]
Ron frowns on image posting,
but very often a picture is worth a thousand words.!

[2]
Exhibit jp

http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/10/a-japanese-ex-diplomat-accues-the-sino-japanese-rift-part-of-us-agenda-the-truth-behind-post-war-history/

P.S.
YOUR critique might be very PC and earns you hundreds of up votes, but its all a load of bull.
Trouble is, the mushroom club members have been kept in the dark and fed bullshit so long, bull is exactly what they enjoy most.
hehehheh

Realist , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

That isn't true. There are thousands of us now in Asia.

Thousands out of 1.6 billion .that is insignificant. Are you a citizen of China???

MarkinPNW , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't have any lasting effect?

I seem to remember from Historian David Hackett Fisher how in the British American colonies craftsmen who work with their hands such as tinsmith/silversmith Paul Revere were highly regarded and enjoyed status due to recognition of the value of their work to society, with honest skilled workers enjoying status as a calling equal to religious and government leaders.

I also remember from somewhere the idea that countries with thriving middle classes were countries that acknowledged and valued the work of blue collar and even unskilled labor, while those that don't value the work of the "lower classes" are the ones stuck with a rich elite, and poverty for the masses.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 3, 2018 at 7:47 pm GMT
@Durruti Nah, humor doesn't come across too well, or you missed my "dictator" signature – your language, if you will recall. That's where the "or else" came from. You do need to calm down, as we are pretty much on the same side here.

Don't mind the Commies on here – it was much worse under the previous 2 Fred Reed posts on China.

OK, pre-emptive apologies here for any more wrong interpretations

SafeNow , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
Great comments. I can only add (1) Here in Calif the Chinese-Americans I know all seem to love vegetables, and are lean. I wish I could be more like that. New Year's Resolution. (2) Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor of being decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being polite, genial, decent.
Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@Nonny

Why was there a Cold War?

Answer: To replace WW 2, which was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy, allowing it to recover from an economic depression that would have otherwise been permanent. The US started the Cold War like they started all other wars in which they've been engaged, including the current war on terror.

Sven Lystbæk , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck As I understand it the ROC and the PRC share the view that the South China Sea islands are Chinese even though they don't entirely agree how to define China.
Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 3, 2018 at 8:46 pm GMT
@MarkinPNW

So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't have any lasting effect?

Noooooo it didn't. [/George Castanza mode]

Actually, wait, it didn't have ANY effect to elevate ANYONE, besides those elevated onto the stage to get pig blood poured on them sort of a poor man's Carrie scene.

Anyway, Mark, whatever you remember from your David Hackett Fischer (sorry that I'm not familiar) along with your last paragraph sound like pretty good explanations. Though China has a pretty large middle class now, it's NOT your father's middle class. I don't know if it could ever be a very trusting society, no matter how much money the median Chinafamily has.

Whether things were different in this respect way back a century ago, before the > 1/2 century of turmoil (starting with the end of the last empire .. 1912, I believe), I don't know. I do know that 3-4 decades of hard-core Communism will beat the trust and morality out of a whole lot of people .

Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:54 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

If you are not Chinese you cannot be a citizen.

If you read Mein Kampf, you'll find that Adolph Hitler held similar views regarding German citizenship, with the first requirement being that you must be of German blood, followed by meeting various physical, civic and educational requirements prior to anyone becoming a citizen of Germany, including those born in Germany. The idea that there could be any such thing as a Black German struck him as preposterous.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 3, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@SafeNow

(2) Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor of being decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being polite, genial, decent.

If you don't already, SafeNow, you should read the archives (or current writings) of Mr. Steve Sailer, right here on this very site. He has been all over this stuff for years – I think that the college admissions/high-school quality/graduation rates/etc by race, IQ etc. is close to an obsession for him, but the posts are usually pretty interesting.

As to this specific point of yours, my answer is that this is the way Harvard keeps the black/hispanic/other special people's numbers up where they want them along with Oriental numbers down where they want them. That personality thing is just a way of putting "vibrant" young people ahead. I don't like vibrancy a whole lot myself, unless there are kegs of beer involved and only on the weekends. That is a problem for some of the Oriental young people, as they can't drink as much as they would like – I'm not sure if it's allergies or not.

BTW, I'd be remiss in not letting you know that the blog owner himself, Mr. Unz, is involved in a lawsuit about Harvard admissions and has also written a whole lot about this.

Oh, on your (1), agreed about the tons of vegetables, but they do not consider anything without rice a meal. Rice can be OK, but when you eat lots of the white rice, with its very high Glycemic Loading, you can balloon up fast. Not as many of the Oriental girls I see in America and China are as slim as the way it used to be.

Vidi , says: December 3, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT
@Ali Choudhury

The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some estimates.

The amount of shadow debt is probably exaggerated: all that extra cash would either increase China's inflation rate or else greatly boost the import of goods. The Chinese inflation rate is reasonable, as is the quantity of imports (nowhere near GDP).

As Digital Samizdat said, China's debt is mostly internal; the country's development was largely due to her own efforts.

phil , says: December 3, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
@Godfree Roberts You continue to use bad statistics. World Bank specialists know more than you do. Ordinary Chinese know that their living standards lagged terribly under Chairman Mao. The most important changes came after he died.

Deng Xiaoping traveled to Southeast Asia in November 1978. Rather than telling the Southeast Asians about China's "incredible advances," he sought to learn from Singapore's progress and listened intently to Lee Kuan Yew, who told Deng that China must re-open international trade, move toward privatization, and respect market forces. Farmers were given greater choice in planting crops and, after meeting production quotas, were allowed to sell surplus produce on the free market. Starvation deaths declined. Widespread privatization began in the 1990s. China eventually acceded to the World Trade Organization. Economic growth took off as economic freedom increased from less than 4 to more than 6 on a 10-point scale. (Hong Kong and Singapore are close to 9 on this scale, and the US is about 8.) Human capital, which China has in abundance (more so than the US) is more than important than economic freedom, once a minimum of economic freedom (at least 6 on a 10-point scale) is attained, but economic freedom below 4 (as in pre-1979 China or today's Venezuela or North Korea) does not lead to much improvement in living standards.

Vidi , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
@Simply Simon China is still a developing country: the average per capita income is lower than Mexico's level. (China is growing faster than Mexico, of course.) However, because China has so many people, the country as a whole can do great things.
Rurik , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:08 pm GMT
@denk

tar all whiteys as white trash supremacists, even tho there's an army out there.

what is that? another gratuitous smear? Here's a clue: Not wanting to see your nation- whether it be Chinese or Palestinian or German – flooded and overcome by foreigners- does not make you a Chinese or Palestinian or German "supremacist". K? It simply means that you are sane and of sound mind and psychological health. Only the insane would agitate to fund an army of foreign invaders to overcome your nation and people. That, or having an ((elite)) that resents, envies and despises your people, and desires to see them replaced and bred out and overcome.

Being an American, we're acutely aware of the loss suffered by the Amerindian tribes when whitey overcame them.

But somehow I can't imagine anyone telling an Apache that his desire to preserve the lands they had conquered – as distinctly Apache lands, suggested that he was a vile and reprobate "Apache supremacist". I can only imagine the look on Geronimo's face if some SJW type of the day, were to scold him as an 'Apache supremacist!' for not laying down and accepting his tribe's marginalization and replacement.

But in the insane world we live in, Germans and N. Americans and others, are all expected to want to be overcome, or it can only mean that they must be terrible "white trash supremacists".

It's so laughably deranged that it's literally, clinically insane, but you still hear such raving nevertheless.

Simply Simon , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:14 pm GMT
@neutral It's all relative. Our freedom of speech , movement and religious liberty has been degraded but obviously not to the degree the MIT students would prefer to return to China.
FB , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:02 pm GMT
@Jason Liu You sound like a retard

So you have a better plan than President Xi ? That's pretty fucking funny especially as your plan sounds like the talking points coming out of some neocon stinktank

The world is moving on your dinosaur thinking where the irrelevant west is still the reference point doesn't exist anymore except in the fervid imaginations of American exceptionalists

Basically everything you said is bullshit China's diplomacy is light years ahead of the west the country is in fact presenting all kinds of benevolence to neighbors, with mutually beneficial development pulled along by the Chinese locomotive

Even Japan, a country in denial about its massive crimes of the past, is coming around to the inevitable conclusion that it must live in CHINA'S neighborhood India joined the SCO last year look up the SCO btw and think about which will be more relevant 10 or 20 years from now this org or dying bullshit like Nato and the G7

As for supposedly 'challenging' the US that's pretty funny what's to challenge US doesn't have a pot to piss in

US doesn't even have an industrial base anymore with which to produce weapons in case of a real war with an actual enemy that doesn't wear sandals look up the Pentagon's 'Annual Industrial Capabilities' report even the MIC's stuff comes from China, somewhere down the supply chain that's fucking hilarious

US is is well on its way to finding out the hard way a financialized Ponzi economy that has figured out how to de-industrialize a previously industrial country for untold riches for a handful of parasites and actually being a strong and healthy country with actual capabilities to PRODUCE REAL STUFF are two mutually exclusive goals

Look at the so-called 'trade war' most Americans don't even realize that tariffs on Chinese goods only means that they will be paying an extra tax Chinese are laughing at this 'trade war' what happens to Walmart and Amazon if China just stops exporting stuff to the US they can do that you know it will hit some Chinese billionaires but so what 70 percent of the economy is in government hands and there is enough of a consumer base in China that even eliminating all US exports is not going to do much damage

In the meantime GM is shutting down factories and cutting 15,000 high paying jobs but setting up shop in China along with Harley and others LOL

You're obviously some brainwashed Chang Kai-shek acolyte keep on living in your make believe disneyworld while a socialist and dynamic China grows tall all around you LOL

anon [153] Disclaimer , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT
No amount of tariff will force China to go along with Trump's "fair trade" plan until Trump does what his brilliant senior advisor Stephen Miller wants him to do -- stop issuing student visas, plus EB5, H1b, OPT and green cards to Chinese nationals, step up raids of Chinese birth hotels in CA, NY, WA, and rescind all passports issued to Chinese birth tourist babies. That will send tens of thousands of Chinese citizens out on the streets protesting as they are all eager to get the hell out with their ill gotten gains while they still can, and Xi will bend over backwards in no time.
anon [153] Disclaimer , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:26 pm GMT
@FB I think your diatribe just proved Jason Liu's point about mainland Chinese being thin skin, arrogant and, I will also add, extremely dishonest and ill-mannered. It's why most people in Southeast Asia, Oz and NZ, including the Chinese diaspora, despise the mainland Chinese.
ThreeCranes , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:38 pm GMT
@Anon Machine tools make up a fair percentage of what China imports from Germany. Tools to make tools and patterns for manufacturing should be considered an investment.
someone , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:58 pm GMT
@FB FB gets it. All the bluster of the disingenuous American billionaire sellouts and their xenophobic, gullible domestic fanbase will amount to nothing.

Apart from nuking China or bribing their leaders (a la Yeltsin) to follow the Washington Consensus, China will continue its economic development. And unlike dissolution era Soviet Union, China isn't broken and desperate to seek the "knowledge" of neoclassical economists. Unlike Plaza Accord Tokyo, China isn't under American occupation, and unlike Pinochet era Chile and countless other minnows, the US establishment cannot hope to overthrow the Chinese government.

Then we get the Anon dude who replied to FB. Way to ignore history and empirical evidence and bolster yet another dimbulb argument with racism.

someone , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:59 pm GMT
@anon LOL.

Jason Liu is a retard. You resorting to typical racism is acceptable to a number of this site's resident know-nothings, but resorting to racism to bolster your non-argument is pretty much the definition of stupidity.

the grand wazoo , says: December 4, 2018 at 12:05 am GMT
Democracy fails simply because it is basically mob rule, and 51% of the mob isn't anymore intelligent than the minor 49%. When the Supreme Court passed Citizens United (a misnomer) which misinterpreted money as speech, the coup, that began with the assassination of JFK, was complete. The effect has been devastating for the average Joe; completing the transfer of power from the people to the corporations and the billionaire class, i.e. the bGanksters. There's much to be said of a dictatorship, but where do we fit in with the selection, and would the elite ever allow a new JFK? No, they wouldn't even tolerate a new Muammar Gaddafi. So were stuck with the revolving door wannabes.
utu , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
No western country allowed itself to be destroyed by its leadership as China did. This includes Nazi Germany (and I do not consider USSR a western country). Watch this video and reflect on the fatal flaw in Chinese culture and character.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:15 am GMT
@anonymous The ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia who control the economies of those places are Fuji Chinese, not Han.

Fuji Chinese actually immigrated to Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia to escape Han persecution and the Han themselves were escaping the Manchu Chinese by migrating South into the Fuji Province.

Virtually all the ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia are from the Fujian Province. This is especially true of the Philippines. Virtually all Chinese-Filipinos are from Amoy very near to Taiwan on the coast of the Fujian Province.

Anon [436] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:20 am GMT
@someone But he didn't resort to racism. And if anyone deserves the insulting "retard" it is you and FB for not seeming to see the lack of relevance to what he said in your purported responses to Jason Liu.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:23 am GMT
@Carroll Price Hitler wrote that in jail before he was taking orders from psychics and astrologers. The syphilis had not really set in yet at that point.

Black US GI's wreaked a fair amount of havoc in Germany on and off the bases. There were always rapes, stolen cars, assaults around US army bases.

Of course so did some white American GI's. Dahmer is suspected-though he did not admit it-of having killed people around the base where he was stationed. Ironically the country most adhering to this policy these days is Israel.

someone , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT
What is it with people whose grasp of Chinese history is limited to the Cultural Revolution? Why do they comment here, and why are they somehow ignorant of the previous.. say 130 years of Chinese history? Maybe, just maybe, Chinese society would not have collapsed if it weren't for Opium traders destroying both China and India under the guise of free trade, de facto colonization, then outright genocidal invasion and occupation from the Japanese military regime?

And way to bag on any sort of collective action against the ossified rentier class. Cause Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao is a scourge of present-day societies for some reason?

The Cultural Revolution sure has an analogue in the US and its vassal states. The whole neoliberal/militarist Reagan revolution and similar class war developments have wracked the US and its minion states for FORTY YEARS. Yet few people seem to be aware of it. And others correctly note the decline in living standards, then proceed to ignore the oligarchy beneficiaries of neoliberalism/militarism, and instead are led to demagogues to blame irrelevant scapegoats.

Anon [436] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:26 am GMT
@FB If you believe this arrogant rant counts as a responsive reply to Jason Liu then, assuredly you are the candidate retard. And that is true notwithstanding the presence of intemperately stated truths in your rant.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
@denk And you are a typical non-American who is obsessed with a country you have never been to because you have been watching US films your entire life and your perception of reality is formed by screenwriters in Los Angeles.

You secretly would like to go to the United States but have a distorted perception based upon second-rate Hollywood films.

Typical of the Chinese Singaporean you are not Chinese and possibly have never been to China. Your family has been in Singapore for three or four generations.

As a result you see white Americans and are secretly enthralled by them. Their towering height and self-confidence and loud voices in Orchard Road STARBUCKS.

someone , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:30 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker Jeff, your history sucks, your political economy sucks.

Filipino Chinese are Fujian, not Fuji–Not written nor pronounced like the Japanese mountain or film.

Fujianese are Han. Their dialect is distinct, but they are as Han as the other southern subgroups like the Hakka (who also compose a part of Sino-Filipinos) and Cantonese. Places like Thailand and Malaysia have large numbers of Teochow and Cantonese, not Fujis or Fujians or any other of your malapropisms.

What is it with your dipsh!t obsession with (incorrect) demographics and your piss poor knowledge of EVERYTHING ELSE?

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:35 am GMT
@denk How would a Singaporean (Who vaunts his Chinese heritage but is probably third or fourth-generation Singaporean) KNOW anything about this?

You've never even BEEN to the West. Perhaps you have been to the United Kingdom, but I am dubious that you are even that well-traveled.

What would you know about white Supremacy from seeing a few Westerners at the STARBUCKS on Orchard Road a time or two?

I can speak with firsthand knowledge about Asia because I have lived all over it and done business there for years.

Wizard of Oz , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:38 am GMT
@Carroll Price Yes, the comparison of late 19th century Germany and China today has been made quite often with at least some plausibility for non specialist readers. Happily Miranda Carter's marvellous New Yorker article doesn't seem to have relevance to China's leadership today. See

"What happens when a bad tempered distractible doofus runs an empire".

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-happens-when-a-bad-tempered-distractible-doofus-runs-an-empire/amp#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:46 am GMT
@Realist I've already said that no person not born in China can be a citizen.

The only Caucasians who are Chinese citizens are the descendants of Portuguese settlers in Macau of which there is still a small community.

Philippines in particular would take a huge economic hit if every Western man living there left. Other Asian countries would feel a similar affect to their economies.

Locals PREFER to work for Western men rather than the Chinese ethnics because Chinese ethnics treat Malay employees like farm animals and pay a pittance.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:52 am GMT
@someone The correct term is "Chinese-Filipino" or "Chinoy" not "Filipino Chinese".

Fukkian Province, Fujian Province, Hakkan, Hokkien

You say Tom-AH-Toe, I say To-MAY-toe.

I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai (I'm married to one and we have two children) are no longer a distinct group and don't have the economy in a stranglehold like they do in Philippines or Malaysia.

Cantonese have never been the businessmen that Fujian Chinese are in Southeast Asia and live in piss-poor Chinatowns in Manila or Jakarta.

When we talk about ethnic Chinese economic dominance in Southeast Asia we are talking about Fujian Chinese shopkeepers.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:59 am GMT
[You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments, especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet permanently depart for another website]

ATTENTION ALL CHINESE POSTERS (OR ETHNIC CHINESE WHO FANCY THEMSELVES AS SUCH)

You may be offended by my views but I have earned them. I've worked with ethnic Chinese in Asia a long time.

I'm married to one. I have two children with one. They go to Chinese schools.

So I have a right to my cynical opinions.

Most of you see a bunch of loud American tourists in some local Starbucks and you think you know everything about the West.

You know very little.

I at least have lived in squalor with ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia in the trenches doing business with them.

last straw , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:17 am GMT
@Mike P @Mike P

Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that allowed many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without regard for earthquake-related building codes.

That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency and achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how it's done properly.

Those buildings were built in a different era, when China was much poorer. When China gets richer, the regulations will be strengthened and more effectively enforced. It's the same for every country.

East Asian countries develop in stages. Today's China is like South Korea 20 years ago. 20 years ago, South Korea was like Japan 40 years ago. The difference is that while Japan and South Korea can obtain Western technologies without problem, China has been under Western military embargo since 1989.

You probably did not realize it, but China has burst onto the scene of some cutting edge technologies such as super computer, the application of quantum physics, and space technologies including China's own GPS system; not to mention dominating in ship-building, the manufacturing of solar panel, LCD panel and LED light, cell phone including 5G technology, electric vehicles and highspeed rail etc etc.

Also, do not forget all the Chinese infrastructures. Go to there and take a look youself: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?s=90e04ddfc408930e982a709bcb9991ff&f=803

FB , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:19 am GMT
@someone Dude you're never going to convince the koolaid gulping Unz whackadoodles with actual historical knowledge and facts

They're Pavlovian reactions is to defend the rentier class that is driving them into the ground talk about irrational and self-destructive they must love and worship the 0.01 percent since they are voting for their good which in fact entails the death of the middle class and ordinary folks by definition

What clowns they only spout what they have been spoonfed to spout marching blindly like the proverbial lemmings off the cliff believe me, better men have tried to talk sense into these morons, without effect see PCR

PS notice the flurry of anon retards here and they actually think I'm Chinese LOL

last straw , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:25 am GMT
@Simply Simon Most MIT graduates want to stay in the U.S. because it's a much richer country than China and much easier to get ahead materialistically. After working 10-15 years in the U.S., you can easily get a 4-bed room house with 2 nice cars in its garages in a decent neighborhood. What can you get in China? You probably can only afford an apartment with a semi-decent car with nowhere to park. It has little to do with free speech or politics.
someone , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:26 am GMT
@Anon You worship at the altar of that incompetent demagogue Steven Miller. Not only are you a dimbulb racist, you can't see through the thinnest veneer of an oligarch who harnesses the latent xenophobia of the masses to ram through yet more regressive policies. His dipsh!t eugenicist immigration policies are just a reflection of the same color/ethnicity bar which led to the deaths of his relatives several generations ago.

You think banning individuals of a certain ethnicity are enough to make America Great Again? That's gullible, even for this site.

Should have followed eugenics and banned your idiot fetus from ever hatching.

Agent76 , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:31 am GMT
20 SEPTEMBER 2010 Mao's Great Famine: the History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe (1958-62)

https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/09/mao-china-famine-western

China under Mao – Great Leap Forward

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:32 am GMT
@Jason Liu Wow. Well said.
FB , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT
@someone Actually I have to wonder if even the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution has anything to do with reality

I would love to see a Godfree Roberts essay on this subject, since I am far from anything approaching a China scholar his essays on Mao were absolutely tremendous there can be no doubt that there could have been no modern Chinese economic miracle had it not been for Mao's Great Leap Forward

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:55 am GMT
@DB Cooper The point being is that China currently has poor relations with its East Asian neighbors when it could be a strong relationship.
utu , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:06 am GMT
@someone You are wrong. Stopping immigration form India and China would be a good thing.
DB Cooper , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:20 am GMT
@Anonymous Which one you are talking about? Name the countries and we can talk about them.
The scalpel , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 3:42 am GMT
@Annonymous Yes, and no matter where you go – there you are.
Anonymous [681] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker

I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai are no longer a distinct group and don't have the economy in a stranglehold like they do in Philippines or Malaysia.

According to Amy Chua in her book World on Fire , the Chinese make up 12% of Thailand's population and they do still by and large control Thailand's economy, it's just that it's very hard to tell them apart from native Thais because they've changed their names to local Thai names, but those in the know can still tell because Chinese Thai last names tend to be very long.

DB Cooper , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:05 am GMT
@FB I like Godfree. He is a contrarian and certainly not afraid of voicing his opinions. He offers some unique perspective on looking at China and this is very refreshing because I can say most of the things the MSM on China is just nonsense and Godfree got some but not all of them right, in my opinion.

As to Mao's Great Leap Forward, or Cultural Revolution for that matter, let's look at it this way. If you pay attention to China's pundits talking about China in Chinese TV today you get the impression that the Chinese government is very proud of what it has accomplished in the last forty years. And it should be. Lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty and transforming China to today's situation like what Fred described in such a short span is no easy feat. These Chinese pundits always talk about 'Reform and Opening Up' all the time. This is the phrase they used most often. But 'Reform and Opening Up' refers to the policy Deng implemented when he took over. I have yet to see anybody praising the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in Chinese TV. To the extent that it was brought up on very rare occasion, it was brought up in passing but never elaborated. It is as if the history of Communist China started in 1979 instead of 1949. May be it has some dirty laundry it doesn't want to air? The CCP has officially declared Mao's legacy as 70% good and 30% bad. What's that 30% bad about?

I am convinced that the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution is close to reality. utu posted a video on China's Great Leap Forward on this thread. Do you think the video is CGI graphics?

Biff , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:19 am GMT
@someone

Places like Thailand and Malaysia have large numbers of Teochow and Cantonese, not Fujis or Fujiafns or any other of your malapropisms.

My family in Thailand refer to themselves as Teochow. Never heard of Fuji's, so you may be on to something.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:27 am GMT
@Anonymous Amy Chau got a good many things about her own Chinese-Filipino people wrong, I place little stock in what she says about Thailand. Or even about the Philippines.

She is only relevant for touting herself as Chinese when her family has been in the Philippines for generations-that reflects how at odds Chinese-Filipinos are with the predominant population and also why the Indonesians and Malaysians have carried out savage pogroms from time to time.

Worse in the Philippines is Chinese-Filipino involvement in meth. They make it and distribute it and import it from China. The drug war in Philippines is entirely the result of Chinese. And Tiger Mom is unlikely to bring that up in her wildly self-congratulatory books which also focus on German Jews because she is married to one.

Chinese do not control the Thai economy to anywhere near the extent that they control the economy of the Philippines or other countries. Thailand has actively forced the Chinese to assimilate to a degree and at any rate they are probably the most clever of the Southeast Asians.

Chinese immigrants also fair best in countries broken up by colonialism like Philippines by Spain or Malaysia by Brits where they can slide in during post-colonial confusion.

denk , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:29 am GMT
@Nonny

*And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the people are definitely not Han?*

Pleeeeze, Show me ONE instance of China threatening war on India.

*In the NEFA, China seemed tacitly to have accepted the Indian claim and the fact of indian occupation, even though this meant the loss of a very large and valuable territory populated by Mongoloid people and which in the past had clearly belonged to Tibet. It had come into Indian hands only as a result of British expansionism during China's period of historical weakness, a fact firmly suggested by the very name of the frontier Beijing had tacitly accepted as the line of control -- the McMahon Line. *

https://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/24chin.htm

How did the seven sisters ended up as India's sex slaves old chap ?

[Dec 04, 2018] The Ignored Legacy Of George H.W. Bush War Crimes, Racism, Obstruction Of Justice

Dec 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/04/2018 - 00:05 178 SHARES Authored by Mehdi Hasan via The Intercept,

The tributes to former President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday aged 94, have been pouring in from all sides of the political spectrum. He was a man "of the highest character," said his eldest son and fellow former president, George W. Bush. "He loved America and served with character, class, and integrity," tweeted former U.S. Attorney and #Resistance icon Preet Bharara. According to another former president, Barack Obama , Bush's life was "a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous good along the journey." Apple boss Tim Cook said : "We have lost a great American."

In the age of Donald Trump, it isn't difficult for hagiographers of the late Bush Sr. to paint a picture of him as a great patriot and pragmatist; a president who governed with "class" and "integrity." It is true that the former president refused to vote for Trump in 2016, calling him a " blowhard ," and that he eschewed the white nationalist, "alt-right," conspiratorial politics that has come to define the modern Republican Party. He helped end the Cold War without, as Obama said , "firing a shot." He spent his life serving his country -- from the military to Congress to the United Nations to the CIA to the White House. And, by all accounts, he was also a beloved grandfather and great-grandfather to his 17 grandkids and eight great-grandkids .

Nevertheless, he was a public, not a private, figure -- one of only 44 men to have ever served as president of the United States. We cannot, therefore, allow his actual record in office to be beautified in such a brazen way. "When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms," as my colleague Glenn Greenwald has argued , because it leads to "false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts."

The inconvenient truth is that the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush had far more in common with the recognizably belligerent, corrupt, and right-wing Republican figures who came after him - his son George W. and the current orange-faced incumbent - than much of the political and media classes might have you believe.

Consider:

... ... ...

He made a dishonest case for war . Thirteen years before George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his father made his own set of false claims to justify the aerial bombardment of that same country. The first Gulf War, as an investigation by journalist Joshua Holland concluded , "was sold on a mountain of war propaganda."

For a start, Bush told the American public that Iraq had invaded Kuwait " without provocation or warning ." What he omitted to mention was that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given an effective green light to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, a week before his invasion, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Then there is the fabrication of intelligence. Bush deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf in August 1990 and claimed that he was doing so in order "to assist the Saudi Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland." As Scott Peterson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor in 2002, "Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil supplier."

Yet when reporter Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times acquired her own commercial satellite images of the Saudi border, she found no signs of Iraqi forces; only an empty desert. "It was a pretty serious fib," Heller told Peterson, adding: "That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist."

President George H. W. Bush talks with Secretary of State James Baker III and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney during a meeting of the cabinet in the White House on Jan. 17, 1991 to discuss the Persian Gulf War. Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP

He committed war crimes. Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific civilian casualties. In February 1991, for example, a U.S. airstrike on an air-raid shelter in the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least 408 Iraqi civilians . According to Human Rights Watch , the Pentagon knew the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil defense shelter during the Iran-Iraq war and yet had attacked without warning. It was, concluded HRW, "a serious violation of the laws of war."

U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure -- from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: "Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as 'collateral' and unintended, was sometimes neither."

Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for "leverage" over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and "epidemic" levels of cholera and typhoid.

By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau, was estimating that Bush's Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including 13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and sewage treatment plants. Daponte's numbers contradicted the Bush administration's, and she was threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing " false information. " (Sound familiar?)

He refused to cooperate with a special counsel . The Iran-Contra affair , in which the United States traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and used the proceeds of those arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, did much to undermine the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Yet his vice president's involvement in that controversial affair has garnered far less attention. "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete," wrote Special Counsel Lawrence Walsh, a former deputy attorney general in the Eisenhower administration, in his final report on the Iran-Contra affair in August 1993.

Why? Because Bush, who was "fully aware of the Iran arms sale," according to the special counsel, failed to hand over a diary "containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra" and refused to be interviewed in the later stages of the investigation. In the final days of his presidency, Bush even issued pardons to six defendants in the Iran-Contra affair, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger -- on the eve of Weinberger's trial for perjury and obstruction of justice. "The Weinberger pardon," Walsh pointedly noted, "marked the first time a president ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the president was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case." An angry Walsh accused Bush of "misconduct" and helping to complete "the Iran-contra cover-up."

[Dec 04, 2018] The Trump as neocons marionette by Tom Luongo

From ZeroHedge comments it looks like Trump lost a large part of his votters
Dec 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden

Authored by Tom Luongo,

I knew there was something wrong with Donald Trump's presidency the day he bombed the airbase at Al-Shairat in Syria. It was a turning point. I knew it was a mistake the moment he did it and argued as such at the time.

No act by him was more contentious.

It cost me hundreds of followers gained throughout the campaign who wanted to believe Trump was playing 4-D chess. My Periscopes went from being events to afterthoughts.

Those that left needed to believe this because they had invested so much in him.

They had to believe he was playing some deep game with Putin to bring peace to the region.

He wasn't.

I was right and truth is painful. The need for him to be Orange Jesus was so strong they created Qanon and the 'science' of political horoscope as slowly but surely Trump was stripped of all of his power except that of complaining about how unfair it all is.

That day he did something in the moment, with bad intelligence and let fly with tomahawks which Russian and Syrian air defenses misdirected and/or shot down.

Empty President

His goal was to show everyone there was a new, strong sheriff in town.

All it did was weaken him.

The neocons praised him as presidential. They began to get their hooks in him then. But truly, Trump was destroyed before he took office, giving up Michael Flynn, expelling Russian diplomats and compromising his cabinet picks.

Because making war is the only true test of a President to the laptop bombardiers who control foreign policy. With that one act Trump's days as an independent agent in D.C. were numbered.

And since then the hope has been that given the enormity of the opposition to his Presidency he was still fighting for what he campaigned on -- no nation building, bring the empire home, protect the borders, and clean up the corruption.

He's made a few minor changes but not enough to change the course of this country and, by extension, the world.

The people want this change. Those with the power don't.

G-20 Ghost

So here we are with a pathetic Trump outclassed at the G-20, a meeting he should dominate but instead is ushered around like a child, given poor earpieces and looking a little lost. He's only allowed to have one meeting of note by his handlers, with China's Xi Jinping.

Because that meeting wasn't going to end with anything damaging to the long-term plan. Trump's tariff game is tired and all it will do is hasten the demise of U.S. competitiveness in the very industries he wants us to be competitive in.

Because tariffs are a band-aid on the real problems of bureaucracy, corruption, waste and sloth within an economy. They are not a product of China stealing our technology (though they have).

And that $1 trillion deficit Trump is running? Music to the ears of the globalists who want the U.S. brought low. More military spending. More boondoggles the banks can cut a nice big check to themselves for with funny money printed without risk. This can go on for a few more years until it doesn't matter anymore.

Trump's folding on meeting Putin is the final nail in his presidency's coffin. He's not even allowed to make statements on this issue anymore. That's for Sarah Sanders, Mike Pomposity and John Bolt-head to do.

You know, the grown-ups in the room.

No. Putin and Trump met once when they weren't supposed to and since then Trump has been getting smaller and smaller. Sure, he held some rallies for the mid-terms to shore up his base for a few weeks while the Democrats stole more than a dozen House seats, three governorships and a couple of Senate seats, but hey he's still working hard for no pay.

Please.

Trump needed to show some real moral courage and speak with Putin about the Kerch Strait incident like men, not sulk in the corner over a couple of ships. And yet his still throws his full support behind a butcher like Mohammed bin Salman because arms sales and Iran.

Putin, for his part, makes no bones about doing business with the Saudis. He knows that bin Salman is creating a quagmire for Trump while driving the U.S. and European Deep State mad.

Hence: https://www.youtube.com/embed/sggVhrwSAFs Putin refuses to apologize for thwarting our plans to overthrow him in Russia and steal Ukraine.

Time Enough to Win

For this Secretary of Defense James Mattis calls Putin, " A slow learner." This is a flat-out threat that Mattis has more coming Putin's way. But in fact, it is Mattis who is the slow learner since he still thinks Putin isn't three steps ahead of him.

Which he is. The game is all about time and money. And thanks to Mattis and, yes, Trump, Putin will win the war of attrition he is playing.

Because that is what has been going on here from the beginning. Iran, China and Russia know what the U.S. power brokers want and they knew Trump would always cave to them. So, they knew exactly how to get Trump to over-commit to a strategy that cannot and will not ever come to fruition.

I warned that Trump's blind-spot when it comes to Iran was his weakness. I warned that he would eventually justify breaking every foreign policy promise to fulfill his plan to unite the Sunni world behind him and Israel by giving them Iran.

The End of the Beginning

Welcome to today. And welcome to the end of Trump's presidency because now he is pot-committed to regime change while the vultures circle him domestically. He has become Bush the Lesser with arguably better hair.

He has alienated everyone the world over with sanctions and tariffs, hence his desire to " Get me out of here " as the G-20 wound down. No one believes he matters anymore. By tying himself to the Saudis and the Israelis the way he has he, the master negotiator, has left himself no room to negotiate.

And that is leading to everyone defying him versus cutting deals to carve up the world, end the empire and come home.

Trump is not leading here. He is being led. And change requires leaders. He has been led down the path so many presidents have, more militarism, more empire. Because when you're the Emperor everyone is your enemy. This is the paranoia of a late-stage imperial mindset.

It certainly is the mindset of Trump's closest advisors - Mattis, Bolton and Pompeo.

So Trump's "America First' instincts, no matter how genuine, have been twisted into something worse than evil, they are now ineffectual keepers of the status quo fueling ruinous neoconservative dreams of central Asian dominance.

And he has no one to blame but himself.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_qlE7PPH9C4

* * *

To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 230 Patrons on Patreon and see if I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.

Brazen Heist II , 1 hour ago link

The Orange Orangutan had his chances to make a difference. He instead chose the Neocunts and his ego.

There will be no more "voting" oneself out of this shitshow. Trump was the last peaceful chance.

It could have been worse, I guess. At least there's that for consolation.

The silver lining to the Trump phenomenon is that the Deep State is at war with itself, and this is bringing down the evil empire from within.

And lastly, Trump was always the symptom, not the cause of all this malaise. A malaise that only Americans can fix.

WTFUD , 1 hour ago link

His nose is wedged right up Adelson's & Bibi's ring-hole.

Even as we speak now, 100 drones crossed over from Turkey into Syria with French experts modifying them to accept warheads of a chemical nature. Simultaneously the innovative British military are providing miscellaneous WMD's/support to Jabhat-Al -Nusra in Idlib.

Time for Putin/Russia to take these cockroaches/vermin out in quick time, for their own good.

Trump's grasshopper mind could be construed for severe Alzheimer's.

Bokkenrijder , 2 hours ago link

Trump boasted of how HE would "Make the US Military Great again" (as if it wasn't too big to begin with..) and spent $16 billion EXTRA on 'defence,' yet now he suddenly flip-flopped and calls defence spending "crazy."

https://www.rt.com/news/445463-trump-laments-defense-budget/

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069584730880974849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

How mentally UNstable and completely UNhinged is Dufus J. Chump?

Bokkenrijder , 2 hours ago link

Spot on, I completely agree with Luongo, and #metoo have been saying this for a long time.

Trump's unstable and unhinged waffling, lying and flip-flopping (i.e. "4D chess") is finally beginning to catch up with him and his presidency will not be marked with him being the one who drained the swamp, but a presidency marked with a trail of destruction.

He has talked himself into so many corners, that it will be impossible to back out of those corners....unless of course he turns the volume of his bullshitting, lying and waffling up to 11.

"You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the time."

It's easy to fool dumb American Trumptards, but it's not easy fooling the Russians, the Europeans and the Chinese. They see right through his fake bravado and ********.

Expat , 3 hours ago link

"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race," Trump wrote. "The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!"

Another classic Tweet from Captain Bonespurs. No wall, no change to healthcare, no immigration policy, no amazing trade agreements, no slavery, no mandatory mullets, no mandatory bible study at school, no burning of witches. And now he is talking about reducing the largest military budget in history.

You guys need a box of tissues?

MAGA

I am Groot , 6 hours ago link

Trump is finished. He had two years to replace Sessions and Rosenstein and have someone at the DOJ appoint a Special Councils for each item to look into:

The Clinton Foundation

Uranium One Deal

Hillary's Email Server

The murder of Seth Rich

The Benghazi Consulate Disaster

The Democrats computer scandal with the Iwan brothers.

Bill Clinton giving China classified missile and sub technology

The unelected Deep State actors controlling the country.

Q is a total ******* fraud. Trump has 3 weeks before he is assraped and left bleeding on the floor by the Democrats and the RHINO's in the senate. If he gets impeached, Pence will be impeached and Nitwit Nancy becomes POTUS. And within 2 months of that happening, we will have full balls out, open Civil War II.

[Dec 04, 2018] There is direct censorship and indirect censorship

Notable quotes:
"... This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic. ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT

We do not really have freedom of speech. Say "ni ** er" once and you can lose a job of thirty years. Or criticize Jews, Israel, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, or transsexuals.

There is direct censorship and indirect censorship. Direct censorship is what China has. It prohibits certain kind of speech, period. Indirect censorship is what the US has in increasing measure. You can say whatever, but if you say the 'wrong' thing, the consequences are so dire(especially economically) that you are effectively tarred & feathered, shunned and destroyed. Rick Sanchez found out how this works after he said Jews dominate in the media. And CNN recently fired a black guy for defending Palestine at the UN.

Marc Lamont Hill dared to mention that 2018 is the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map and that the current Zionist regime uses Apartheid Policies in Occupied West Bank as continuation of Western Imperialism that wages war on indigenous nationalism of the Palestinian people. Jew-run CNN got rid of him, which goes to show that Jews are holier than blacks(and certainly the long-suffering Palestinians).

Personally, I think there are some cases where firing-based-on-speech is warranted. If an organization is inherently ideological, then it has every right to hire or fire people based on their views and convictions. So, if National Review feels that one of its writers is too leftist, he may be fired. Or a person that seems hostile to Zionism may be fired by Commentary Magazine that is committed to Israel First Policy.

But most professions are non-ideological, and it seems utterly wrong to fire someone on the basis of creed, conscience, or conviction. And progressives would have agreed with this position in the 50s when many communists and fellow-travelers were either fired/blacklisted or threatened with such, not least in Hollywood. Also, as long as a person performs his duties well at work, what does it matter what he believes in his personal life? If one's personal creed, ideology, or faith is the basis of whether he can have a job or use financial services, then we no longer have a free society. According to Jewish-controlled PC, in order for you to be able to work and live, it means you can't have certain personal beliefs. Personal conviction and creed have been professionalized, i.e. no work and wages for people with certain views.

Now, imagine if a business fires anyone suspected of being a Zionist on the basis that Zionism is imperialism and commits 'genocide' against Palestinians. Would Jews tolerate this? Of course not. And I would agree with Jews. No Jew should be fired for his Zionist beliefs EVEN IF the owner of the business believes Zionism is evil. Richard Dawkins is virulently anti-religious and believes religious faith is a mental disease of ignorance and hatred. But if he owned a trucking company, should he fire people on the basis of their faith because he believes religion is a 'hate system of the mind'?

[MORE]

Now, there are certain exceptions. Certain jobs are publicity-oriented and involve putting forth an image. So, if a company wants to project a certain kind of image or message and IF its representative or spokesman or spokeswoman is associated with certain kind of ideology, I can see why the company would want to let that person go. If a company is about Family Values and if it turns out that its representative is a wild swinger and promotes promiscuity, I can see why the company would let that person go EVEN IF the person acts wild in his personal life. But most jobs are not publicity-related, and it is simply wrong to deny someone work and wages based on what he believes in his personal life.

This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic.

Now, the Chinese may be pushing such a rule because they see the Free West as decadent and degenerate as a result of excess freedom. But this is where the Chinese would be wrong. The West rotted from lopsided freedom that favored the power and expression of certain groups over others. West lost its sense of balance because voices of certain groups and interests were effectively silenced. It's like ecology. If you get rid of certain species, the natural balance goes out of whack and things fall apart. If you get rid of predators, it may seem good for the prey animals, but in time, the herbivores multiply and eat up all the vegetation and destroy their habitats. So, there has to be a balance of prey and predators in nature. The problem of EU is that following WWII, the Right was effectively silenced because it was associated with Nazism. Thus, leftist elements grew too strong and out-of-control. Now, leftism is invaluable to modern society, but it needs to be balanced by rightism that is also essential to social equilibrium. But suppression of the right led to overgrowth of leftism that led to crazy stuff like May 68 lunacy that paved the way for current degenerate France. When left and right were both well-represented, they had to compete to remain healthy and strong. But once the left was allowed to totally dominate culturally and ideologically, it grew decadent and degenerate from corruption and self-satisfaction.

So, if China thinks the West became crazy due to excess of free speech and freedom in general, it would be wrong. The West grew sick from suppression of rightist freedoms and expressions in favor of leftist ideology and obsessions. In the West, even the far-left was protected in academia and media BUT the far-right was banned. Only the wussy cuck-right and bland 'white bread' right were tolerated. If any rightist lurched slightly more rightward, he was denounced as 'far right'. As Jonathan Haidt has argued, Western academia is suffering from lack of real discourse and back-and-forth argumentation. Because the leftists are protected from challenge by rightists, the former has grown lazy, corrupt, decadent, and flabby. Their hysterics are really about cowardice and unwillingness to face real challenge from the Right. They demand protection from being 'triggered' by wrongthink or 'hate speech'. They rarely directly address the voices on the Right. They just go for lazy short-cut of denouncing others as 'racist' or 'nazi'.

But the problem isn't merely ideological but ethnic. When Wasps(or Anglo-Americans) ruled America, it was fair game to notice that (1) Anglos got the power (2) Anglos got the privilege (3) Anglos got the connections (4) Anglos hogged the prestige. So, despite the great power of Anglos, they came under scrutiny and criticism, not least by reformist Anglos who thought criticism and self-criticism were good things. Thus, there was a lively debate among Wasps, Irish Catholics, various ethnics, Jews, and others. Though blacks were suppressed for most of US history, they too became vocal and offered their perspective and made demands that had validity. In terms of social debate, the period from mid 50s to the mid 80s were probably the golden age of free speech and debate. With each year, there was more push for free speech, and many sides had their say. But the worrying development in that period was the growing sacralization of Jews and blacks. It was one thing to allow Jews and blacks to make their case and join in the national debate. Surely, Jews and blacks had their own grievances and legit demands. But, just as undeniable was the fact that Jews and blacks also caused a lot of problems that harmed other groups. Jewish role in US foreign policy led to fiasco in the Middle East, especially at cost to Palestinians. And even though the Civil Rights Movement was a great event in US history(and there's no denying the injustices done to blacks), it was also true that blacks posed a threat to other races because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive by nature. So, once blacks got equal legal protections, they used much of their freedom to attack, rape, rob, and murder other peoples, leading to white flight among not only white conservatives but white liberals and Jews. So, in a truly free society, not only would Jews and blacks get to have their say against goyim & whites but goyim & whites would get to air their grievances against Jews and blacks. That way, all sides would say their piece and all sides would be checked and balanced by healthy and constructive counter-criticism.
But the consecration of Jews and blacks as holy-schmoly groups made this nearly impossible. So, while Jews could scream about 'anti-Semites' and 'Nazis' endlessly -- Jews now cry 'nazi' like the kid cried 'wolf' -- , we are not allowed to notice Jewish power, Jewish abuses, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. And no matter how much crime and violence blacks commit, we are supposed to see Negroes only through the rose-tinted glasses of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and MLK sermons. And no matter how many whites(and non-blacks) fall victim to black robbery, beatings, rapes, and murders, we are supposed to wake up Groundhogday-like and dream of supposedly angelic Emmett Till.

When a group is sacralized in a supposedly secular society, the effect is essentially theocratic. Jews and blacks are holy-schmoly in the US, and so, we can't have a honest debate about the problems they cause. We can't talk about Jewish role in communism, Zionist role in Middle East Wars, globalist Jewish economic looting of Russia in the 90s, and Neocon recruitment of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. And it doesn't matter how many times blacks burn down cities and assault/rob people. It is simply 'racist' to notice that blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, tend to commit far more crime and violence than other groups. US has become essentially an ethno-theocracy where we must always speak of Jews and blacks in hushed tones.

Of course, homos joined Jews and blacks in the holy-schmoly pantheon. Why? Because Jews control media, academia, finance, and deep state. And Jews decided homos are their perfect ally as fellow high-achieving minority elites. Because homos were made holy-schmoly(and associated with holier-schmolier Jews), even cultural conservatives clammed up about the Homo Agenda. They were afraid of being labeled 'homophobic', an especially bogus term cooked up by Jews to imply that if you don't sufficiently honor and praise homos, you are suffering from mental malady of phobic proportions. And so, homos & trannies and fecal penetration & penis-and-ball-cutting were associated with 'rainbows' and 'pride'. Indeed, 'gay pride' simply became 'Pride', as if to suggest the essence of pride = homo buggery and tranny dick-cutting. And if you found homo-fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting to be gross and sick and said so, you were blacklisted and fired worse than any Jewish communist during the so-called 'McCarthy Era'. At least the HUAC blacklists ended in a few yrs. These Jewish led PC blacklists last forever because Jewish Power has a near-Stalinist grip on media, academia, and deep state.

The fact is Homomania-as-neo-religion(that festoons churches with 'gay colors') and 'Gay Marriage' would never have become New Western Values IF there had been real free speech that allowed all sides to have their say. If real free debate had been allowed on the Homo Agenda, the lies and falsehoods could easily have been exposed. But, the Jewish-controlled media used the 'rainbow' idolatry to elevate Homo-worship as a new religion in the West. If you were not with the sacred program, you were a blasphemer, a 'homophobe' who must be econo-excommunicated from work & wages. Or a bakery must be sued out of existence by the 'gay cabal' with the full backing of Jewish Supremacist law firms. Jewish Power treats decent moral bakeries like Zionists treat Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Jewish Power says 'my way or the highway'.

In Europe, a continent with no legal protection of free speech, Jewish pressure led to criminalization of speech deemed offensive to Jews and homos(and even African migrant-invaders). In the US, where Constitution guarantees free speech, the culture of open discourse was destroyed by indirect censorship and ethno-homo-theocracy. Even though Jewish Power couldn't ban free speech, its control of media and finance meant they could destroy anyone or any group that dared to be politically incorrect toward Jews, blacks, and homos. Thus, anyone who wanted to keep his job or reputation had to clam up about certain things, no matter how true or based on facts. Also, the sacralization of Jews, blacks, and homos meant that they could spew any amount of hateful, rabid, and virulent venom at goyim, whites, Christians, straight people, and etc. BUT they themselves were PROTECTED from critical speech that dared to expose their corruption, abuses, and fraudulence. This is why the West grew sick. Not from freedom but lopsided monopoly of freedom for certain groups, esp. Jews, blacks, and Homos as the Holy-Schmoly Three.

Now, one could argue that China's censorship is preferable to American censorship because China is about Chinese nationalists ruling over Chinese people. So, the main theme of censorship is "Is it good for China as a whole?" In contrast, the US is a nation where the Jewish 2% rules over 98% that is goyim. So, the central theme of American Censorship is "Is it good for the 2% at the expense of the 98%?" Also, if China is about Chinese Majority Pride, the overwhelming theme for the White American Majority is White Guilt and White Shame. So, while Chinese government boosts Majority Chineseness, American government suppresses Majority Whiteness(and even pushes policies to turn the white majority into just another minority, as already happened in California, increasingly the land of oligarchs and helots, the vision of BLADE RUNNER).

Still, censorship will hurt China too in the long run because a nation that penalizes conscience and courage will result in increasing conformism and crassness.

JLK , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:53 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck

We aren't talking about sober, fair-minded documentaries here.

Have you ever watched The "History" Channel?

neutral , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:38 am GMT
@Simply Simon

America's freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty

Where do you get your news from, because America has absolutely neither of those. And please spare the usual bullsh!t argument "censorship is only if the government does it". America is HEAVILY censoring anyone who does not accept its hard left ideology, you speak out against this you get deplatformed, you get censored, you lose your job and you life is pretty much destroyed. The same applies to religion, you reject the near official religions of homosexuality and racial equality and you will be punished for it.

[Dec 03, 2018] From I am hearing from reliable anonymous CNN sources that Deep State do not like too much sunlight ;-)

Dec 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago link

I am hearing from reliable anonymous CNN sources that Deep State cockroaches do not like too much sunlight.

Pass the UV lamp, please!

Wormwoodcums , 5 hours ago link

Hard to piece together? Supposed to be. Story is so unreal it's unbelievable. Aliens Bitchez.

http://xekleidoma.info/

iSage , 5 hours ago link

Spy vs Spy...used to love reading Mad Magazine. Now the world is Mad Magazine, amazing stuff.

scam_MERS , 4 hours ago link

I credit Mad with my warped sense of humor, as well as my skepticism of anything/everything.

And don't forget: Potrzebie!

[Dec 03, 2018] From Killing Kennedy To Kremlin Collusion - Deep State Forced Out Of The Shadows

Dec 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

From Killing Kennedy To Kremlin Collusion - Deep State Forced Out Of The Shadows

by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/01/2018 - 20:15 150 SHARES Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog, The Deadliest Operation

Choose your battles wisely...

One month to the day after President Kennedy's assassination, the Washington Post published an article by former president Harry Truman.

I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency -- CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.

Truman had envisioned the CIA as an impartial information and intelligence collector from "every available source."

But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.

Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.

I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions -- and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.

Truman found, to his dismay, that the CIA had ranged far afield.

For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue -- and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

The article appeared in the Washington Post's morning edition, but not the evening edition.

Truman reveals two naive assumptions. He thought a government agency could be apolitical and objective. Further, he believed the CIA's role could be limited to information gathering and analysis, eschewing "cloak and dagger operations." The timing and tone of the letter may have been hints that Truman thought the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. If he did, he also realized an ex-president couldn't state his suspicions without troublesome consequences.

Even the man who signed the CIA into law had to stay in the shadows, the CIA's preferred operating venue. The CIA had become the exact opposite of what Truman envisioned and what its enabling legislation specified. Within a few years after its inauguration in 1947, it was neck-deep in global cloak and dagger and pushing agenda-driven, slanted information and outright disinformation not just within the government, but through the media to the American people.

The CIA lies with astonishing proficiency. It has made an art form of "plausible deniability." Like glimpsing an octopus in murky waters, you know it's there, but it shoots enough black ink to obscure its movements. Murk and black ink make it impossible for anyone on the outside to determine exactly what it does or has done. Insiders, even the director, are often kept in the dark.

For those on the trail of CIA and the other intelligence agencies' lies and skullduggery, the agencies give ground glacially and only when they have to. What concessions they make often embody multiple layers of back-up lies. It can take years for an official admission -- the CIA didn't officially confess its involvement in the 1953 coup that deposed Iranian leader Mohammad Mosaddeq until 2013 -- and even then details are usually not forthcoming. Many of the so-called exposés of the intelligence agencies are in effect spook-written for propaganda or damage control.

The intelligence agencies monitor virtually everything we do. They have tentacles reaching into every aspect of contemporary society, exercising control in pervasive but mostly unknown ways. Yet, every so often some idiot writes an op-ed or bloviates on TV, bemoaning the lack of trust the majority of Americans have in "their" government and wondering why. The wonder is that anyone still trusts the government.

The intelligence agency fog both obscures and corrodes. An ever increasing number of Americans believe that a shadowy Deep State pulls the strings. Most major stories since World War II -- Korea, Vietnam, Kennedy's assassination, foreign coups, the 1960s student unrest, civil rights agitation, and civic disorder, Watergate, Iran-Contra, 9/11, domestic surveillance, and many more -- have intelligence angles. However, determining what those angles are plunges you into the miasma perpetuated by the agencies and their media accomplices.

The intelligence agencies and captive media's secrecy, disinformation, and lies make it futile to mount a straightforward attack against them. It's like attacking a citadel surrounded by swamps and bogs that afford no footing, making advance impossible. Their deadliest operation has been against the truth. In a political forum, how does one challenge an adversary who controls most of the information necessary to discredit, and ultimately reform or eliminate that adversary?

You don't fight where your opponent wants you to fight. What the intelligence apparatus fears most is a battle of ideas. Intelligence, the military, and the reserve currency are essential component of the US's confederated global empire. During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump questioned a few empire totems and incurred the intelligence leadership's wrath, demonstrating how sensitive and vulnerable they are on this front. The transparent flimsiness of their Russiagate concoction further illustrates the befuddlement. Questions are out in the open and are usually based on facts within the public domain. They move the battle from the murk to the light, unfamiliar and unwelcome terrain.

The US government, like Oceania, switches enemies as necessary. That validates military and intelligence; lasting peace would be intolerable. After World War II the enemy was the USSR and communism, which persisted until the Soviet collapse in 1991. The 9/11 tragedy offered up a new enemy, Islamic terrorism.

Seventeen years later, after a disastrous run of US interventions in the Middle East and Northern Africa and the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear that Islamic terrorism is no longer a threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets . For all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating terrorist strikes or defeating them in counterinsurgency warfare

So switch the enemy again, now it's Russia and China. The best insight the intelligence community could offer about those two is that they've grown stronger by doing the opposite of the US. For the most part they've stayed in their own neighborhoods. They accept that they're constituents, albeit important ones, of a multipolar global order. Although they'll use big sticks to protect their interests, carrots like the Belt and Road Initiative further their influence much better than the US's bullets and bombs.

If the intelligence complex truly cared about the country, they might go public with the observation that the empire is going broke. However, raising awareness of this dire threat -- as opposed to standard intelligence bogeymen -- might prompt reexamination of intelligence and military budgets and the foreign policy that supports them. Insolvency will strangle the US's exorbitantly expensive interventionism. It will be the first real curb on the intelligence complex since World War II, but don't except any proactive measures beforehand from those charged with foreseeing the future.

Conspiracy theories, a term popularized by the CIA to denigrate Warren Commission skeptics, are often proved correct. However, trying to determine the truth behind intelligence agency conspiracies is a time and energy-consuming task, usually producing much frustration and little illumination. Instead, as Caitlin Johnstone recently observed , we're better off fighting on moral and philosophical grounds the intelligence complex and the rest of the government's depredations that are in plain sight.

Attack the intellectual foundations of empire and you attack the whole rickety edifice, including intelligence, that supports it. Tell the truth and you threaten those who deal in lies . Champion sanity and logic and you challenge the insane irrationality of the powers that be. They are daunting tasks, but less daunting than trying to excavate and clean the intelligence sewer.

bogbeagle , 1 hour ago link

I sometimes wonder whether the Bond films are a psy-op.

I mean, the 'hero' is a psycho-killer ... the premise of the films is 'any means to an end' ... they promote the ridiculous idea that you can be 'licensed to kill', and it's no longer murder ... and they build a strong association between the State and glamour.

Bond makes a virtue out of 'following orders', when in reality, it's a Sin.

WTFUD , 25 minutes ago link

Can't remember which Section of MI6 Ian Fleming (novelist 007.5) worked but he came into contact with my Hero, the best double-agent Cambridge, maybe World, has Ever produced, Kim Philby. Fleming was a lightweight compared to him and was most likely provided the Funds, by MI6 to titillate the Masses, spread the Word of Deep State.

Norfry , 2 hours ago link

The article makes many good points but still falls into use of distorting bs language.

For example, "after a disastrous run of US interventions" - well, they stole Libya's wealth and destroyed the country: mission accomplished; that's what they were trying to do. It was not an ""intervention", it was a f***ing war of aggression based on lies.

StarGate , 2 hours ago link

Well the good news is that folks now know there is deep State, shadow govt, puppet masters, fake news MSM mockingbird programming, satanic "musik/ pop" promoters, etc.

Not everyone knows but more know, and some are now questioning the Matrix sensations they have. That they have not been told the Truth.

Eventually humanity will awaken and get on track, how long it will take is unknown.

The CIA is a symptom of the problem but not the whole problem. Primarily it is the deception that it sows, the confusion and false conclusions that the easily led fill their heads with.

Now that you know there are bad guys out there...

Find someone to love, even if it is a puppy or a guppy. Simplify your needs, and commit small acts of kindness on a regular basis. The World will heal, it may be a rocky convalescence, yet Good triumphs in the end.

[Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime

Highly recommended!
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Mad_Max22 , 12 hours ago

Very informative post.

It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .

It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an investigation looking for a crime.

This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.

Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of 1001 violations would have come into port.

kievite -> Mad_Max22
So Muller reinvented the tactics used by Bolsheviks during the Great Purge period ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... )

Most Stalin's political enemies were liquidated using the "foreign agent" charge.

Might be a good time to reread a book on "Moscow show trials" like

The prosecutor and the prey: Vyshinsky and the 1930s' Moscow show trials Arkadii V̆aksberg.

https://www.amazon.com/pros...

The quote "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" might be applicable here.

blue peacock , 21 hours ago

IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo.

In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago .

There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential election.

Pat Lang Mod -> blue peacock , 15 hours ago
I heard Dershowitz (my new hero) say the other day that Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry.

[Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime

Highly recommended!
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Mad_Max22 , 12 hours ago

Very informative post.

It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .

It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an investigation looking for a crime.

This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.

Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of 1001 violations would have come into port.

kievite -> Mad_Max22
So Muller reinvented the tactics used by Bolsheviks during the Great Purge period ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... )

Most Stalin's political enemies were liquidated using the "foreign agent" charge.

Might be a good time to reread a book on "Moscow show trials" like

The prosecutor and the prey: Vyshinsky and the 1930s' Moscow show trials Arkadii V̆aksberg.

https://www.amazon.com/pros...

The quote "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" might be applicable here.

blue peacock , 21 hours ago

IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo.

In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago .

There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential election.

Pat Lang Mod -> blue peacock , 15 hours ago
I heard Dershowitz (my new hero) say the other day that Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry.

[Dec 02, 2018] CIA Officials Continue Efforts To Marginalize President Trump

Dec 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Caius Keys , 6 hours ago link

CIA Officials Continue Efforts To Marginalize President Trump Via Washington Post

There is a particular transparency of motive which becomes clear, and reconciles all inquiry, when an interested observer accepts a particular media framework:

Hadenough1000 , 4 hours ago link

Arab brennan

was arab Obamas weaponizing king

dumbocrats you put Arabs in total power??? 😳😳

After the rapist Clinton's Arabs burned 3000 Americans to death???

what possibly could go wrong😜😜

Caius Keys , 4 hours ago link

Bushes love SA long time https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/12/its-time-to-stop-holding-saudi-arabias-hand-gcc-summit-camp-david/

CatInTheHat , 6 hours ago link

"the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear that Islamic terrorism is no longer a threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets . For all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating terrorist strikes or defeating them in counterinsurgency warfare"

Excuse me,but WTF??

It's the US,NATO, Israhell and Saudis that created ISIS, with the above mentioned spending BILLIONS to combat ISIS in Syria.

The war on terror is a hoax. The lame exploitation of Arabs and Islam to manufacture consent for war on Iraq, starting with Mossad planting of low yield thermal nuke weapons that brought the Towers down..Saudis were the patsies.

All of this with blessing of Zionists banksters and US Treasury& Fed Reserve.

[Dec 02, 2018] MSM are the biggest tool of passive compliance and propagandizing by a relatively docile population

Dec 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

PAX November 30, 2018 at 10:34 am

A timely article. Main Stream Media (MSM) are the biggest tool of passive compliance and propagandizing by a relatively docile population. I open the CNN URL and it is like reading the neocon version of 1960's Pravda. The Australian government should be doing more to get Julian Assange out of his current predicament. The 4th Estate is withering on the vine to comply with lobby dictates.The Founders had a reason to mention this entity in the Constitution.
Fran Macadam , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:37 am
Donald Trump used to love Julian Assange's WikiLeaks media outlet. Said so over a hundred times. Sad!
Sid Finster , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:10 am
To be fair to the MSM, they know that they are safe from persecution, as they never print a word that the establishment does not want to see published.
Fran Macadam , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:50 pm
Now here are some purveyors of Fake News, all evidence-free assertions proven totally false:

"But the evidence increasingly points to Assange having made himself a willing tool of Russian Intelligence. There's a huge difference between pursuing the public's right to know and and acting as the clandestine agent of an adversarial foreign power."

"He's a spy, a saboteur and a rapist. I'm all in for the free and adversarial press but when a reporter is an actual criminal, lock him up."

Fran Macadam , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:54 pm
"I don't think that it's the content of his email release that got Assange in hot water. It was his calculated timing of the release to cause the most harm to a candidate's run for President."

Right, journalists should always withhold true information about a politician and the political processes they engage in from the public, so that the voters will remain deceived. Well, I guess, the politicians YOU favor.

polistra , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:47 pm
The press does not have to be afraid. The press is Deepstate. The Department of "Justice" is Deepstate. They are the same machine, working in beautiful synchrony to obliterate civilization.
SteveK9 , says: December 1, 2018 at 9:03 am
Peter the 'press' is obviously not worried about losing their ability to inform the public of the truth, because they no longer view that as their function. They are tools of propaganda for the oligarchs that rule America. There are a few people like yourself, who want to inform the public, but you represent a (shrinking) minority.
Bill Lawrence , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:05 am
It's funny how Ds claim Assange helped seal Hillary's fate by releasing the emails without recognizing the reality that the emails needed to exist in order to be released.

Why would you vote for someone who admitted to doing the things described?

BTW, should "John Doe" the leaker of the Panama Papers be tracked down?

Chef , says: December 1, 2018 at 4:08 pm
This conundrum is partially the result of picking and choosing the enforcement of laws based on political affiliation or beliefs.
We are not a republic now.
The individual has been declared an enemy of GovCo, the EstGOP and the Democrat People's Parties.

[Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison

Highly recommended!
Nothing changed in almost five years. The situation actually became worse as Democratic Party became the second War Party.
Notable quotes:
"... Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on such things. They are ..."
"... Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly ..."
Apr 30, 2005 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Paul Pillar remarks on Congress' screwed-up priorities regarding its role in foreign policy decisions:

The role that the U.S. Congress has assumed for itself as a player in foreign policy exhibits an odd and indefensible pattern these days. Senator Chris Murphy calls it a "double standard," although that might be too mild a term. On one hand there are vigorous efforts to insert Congress into the negotiation of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. The efforts extend even to attempts to interfere in the details of what is being negotiated, as reflected in a string of amendments being considered in debate in the Senate this week on a bill laying out a procedure for Congress to pass a quick judgment on the agreement. On the other hand there is inaction, with little or no prospect of any action, on an authorization for the use of military force against the so-called Islamic State.

Pillar is right that this is just the opposite of what Congress should be doing. If there is a time when Congress ought to be deferring to the executive on foreign policy, it is when the U.S. is involved in negotiations with other governments. The same people that claim to be horrified by the idea of "535 commanders-in-chief" believe that they must sound off early and often on every detail of a complex negotiated settlement. War can be left to the discretion of the president and his officials, but not diplomacy. The same members that can't be bothered to assume their proper constitutional responsibilities and happily yield to one illegal presidential war after another cannot wait to meddle in a diplomatic process that, if successful, will make a future conflict less likely.

Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on such things. They are alarmed by negotiations that could make it more difficult for a future president to attack the regime involved in the talks. These hawks have excessive confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas, and so they don't to impose limits on what the U.S. does in its foreign wars. They tend to see diplomacy as nothing but appeasement and therefore something that should be undermined, second-guessed, and sabotaged as much as possible.

Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly, and because they never cast a vote one for or against the war they can have it both ways. If Congressional meddling succeeds in damaging negotiations, any later costs to the U.S. from that missed opportunity won't be linked back to the meddling members of Congress.

If the meddling doesn't work as intended, most people will quickly forget it. In the meantime, the meddlers will get credit for "standing up" against appeasement or whatever nonsensical description they choose to use.

Unfortunately, there is normally no political cost for members of Congress that want to use diplomacy with an unpopular government as an excuse to demagogue and look "tough" to the voters back home. That is why many of them will try to interfere with U.S. diplomacy while giving the president free rein to wage illegal wars for as long as he wants.

collin April 30, 2015 at 11:09 am

After reading Josh Marshall/David Frum debate on the nuclear deal yesterday, I found one of the most effective Frum's arguments was liberals are claiming it is 2002 Iraq/n again. (Fair argument considering Chait's great note on the 61 times Kristol uses Churchill/Chamberlain/Hitler references.) Trying to avoid historical analogies, I am still looking for actual evidence that Iran is building the bomb. The conservative argument still rest on Iran still wants the bomb and the deal can't absolutely stop them.

Any thoughts on Stewart on Judith Miller interview on why the press accepted the government's point that Iraq was building the bomb. Living through 2002, I was against the Iraq War because I did not find the Bush administration WMD argument convincing enough and felt it was a lot of heresy evidence. And i am seeing a similar argument with Iran.

PlusFours , says: April 30, 2015 at 1:46 pm
"These hawks have excessive confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas"

"Excessive confidence" is an excessively polite way of characterizing it.

[Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison

Highly recommended!
Nothing changed in almost five years. The situation actually became worse as Democratic Party became the second War Party.
Notable quotes:
"... Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on such things. They are ..."
"... Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly ..."
Apr 30, 2005 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Paul Pillar remarks on Congress' screwed-up priorities regarding its role in foreign policy decisions:

The role that the U.S. Congress has assumed for itself as a player in foreign policy exhibits an odd and indefensible pattern these days. Senator Chris Murphy calls it a "double standard," although that might be too mild a term. On one hand there are vigorous efforts to insert Congress into the negotiation of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. The efforts extend even to attempts to interfere in the details of what is being negotiated, as reflected in a string of amendments being considered in debate in the Senate this week on a bill laying out a procedure for Congress to pass a quick judgment on the agreement. On the other hand there is inaction, with little or no prospect of any action, on an authorization for the use of military force against the so-called Islamic State.

Pillar is right that this is just the opposite of what Congress should be doing. If there is a time when Congress ought to be deferring to the executive on foreign policy, it is when the U.S. is involved in negotiations with other governments. The same people that claim to be horrified by the idea of "535 commanders-in-chief" believe that they must sound off early and often on every detail of a complex negotiated settlement. War can be left to the discretion of the president and his officials, but not diplomacy. The same members that can't be bothered to assume their proper constitutional responsibilities and happily yield to one illegal presidential war after another cannot wait to meddle in a diplomatic process that, if successful, will make a future conflict less likely.

Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on such things. They are alarmed by negotiations that could make it more difficult for a future president to attack the regime involved in the talks. These hawks have excessive confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas, and so they don't to impose limits on what the U.S. does in its foreign wars. They tend to see diplomacy as nothing but appeasement and therefore something that should be undermined, second-guessed, and sabotaged as much as possible.

Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly, and because they never cast a vote one for or against the war they can have it both ways. If Congressional meddling succeeds in damaging negotiations, any later costs to the U.S. from that missed opportunity won't be linked back to the meddling members of Congress.

If the meddling doesn't work as intended, most people will quickly forget it. In the meantime, the meddlers will get credit for "standing up" against appeasement or whatever nonsensical description they choose to use.

Unfortunately, there is normally no political cost for members of Congress that want to use diplomacy with an unpopular government as an excuse to demagogue and look "tough" to the voters back home. That is why many of them will try to interfere with U.S. diplomacy while giving the president free rein to wage illegal wars for as long as he wants.

collin April 30, 2015 at 11:09 am

After reading Josh Marshall/David Frum debate on the nuclear deal yesterday, I found one of the most effective Frum's arguments was liberals are claiming it is 2002 Iraq/n again. (Fair argument considering Chait's great note on the 61 times Kristol uses Churchill/Chamberlain/Hitler references.) Trying to avoid historical analogies, I am still looking for actual evidence that Iran is building the bomb. The conservative argument still rest on Iran still wants the bomb and the deal can't absolutely stop them.

Any thoughts on Stewart on Judith Miller interview on why the press accepted the government's point that Iraq was building the bomb. Living through 2002, I was against the Iraq War because I did not find the Bush administration WMD argument convincing enough and felt it was a lot of heresy evidence. And i am seeing a similar argument with Iran.

PlusFours , says: April 30, 2015 at 1:46 pm
"These hawks have excessive confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas"

"Excessive confidence" is an excessively polite way of characterizing it.

[Dec 01, 2018] In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in Nevada

Dec 01, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

RobGehrke -> MonaHol , 30 Aug 2012 06:12

"What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific example of a story he broke after doing that?"

Our Men in Iran?

"We did train them here, and washed them through the Energy Department because the D.O.E. owns all this land in southern Nevada," a former senior American intelligence official told me. ... In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in Nevada

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html

His conversations with Lieutenant Calley are apparently what allowed him to break the My Lai massacre story as well, even though members of the military had already spoken out about it, and there had been already been charges brought. It just revealed the story to the general public, which prompted a fuller investigation and courts martial. I'm sure there are others.

So, obviously Hersh's "cozying up" (surely not the right term for it, though) is in the interests of raising public awareness of nefarious deeds, and is not scared of painting these organizations in a bad light, whereas Mazzetti's goal here seems to be to maintain his privileged access by providing favors - totally different motivations. It's rather easy to contrast the two, which "smartypants54" has even stated here.

Whatever the case, it's true that elements of the NYT have been mouthpieces more or less for government and corporate power for a long time. While I agree with Glenn about the faux cynicism perpetuating this kind of activity - "don't be naive, this is done all the time" - I can understand that it exists.

Such cynicism on the part of the public, rather than being an acknowledgment of acceptance and approval of such practices, can also be seen as part of a more radical critique of the corporate media in general, and the NYT particularly, in that such organizations - not that I totally agree with this - , by their very nature, can't be reformed and can never be totally effective checks on power because of the way they're structured, and who they answer to.

That's definitely not a reason to stop pointing it out, though.

[Dec 01, 2018] G20 Summit, Top Agenda Item Bye-Bye American Empire by Finian Cunningham

China does not have its own technological base and is depended on the USA for many technologies. So while China isdefinitly in assendance, Washington still have capability to stick to "total global dominance" agenda for some time.
Attempt to crush China by Tariffs might provoke the economic crisi in China and possible a "regime change", like Washington santions to the USSR in the past. And that's probably the calculation.
Notable quotes:
"... President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point, castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices. ..."
"... The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia. ..."
"... Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage. ..."
"... In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional" virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power. ..."
"... Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory. Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered by China, no longer America. ..."
"... Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that – empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic development and the benefits of Chinese investment. ..."
"... China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades. ..."
"... American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The G20 summits are nominally about how the world's biggest national economies can cooperate to boost global growth. This year's gathering – more than ever – shows, however, that rivalry between the US and China is center stage.

Zeroing in further still, the rivalry is an expression of a washed-up American empire desperately trying to reclaim its former power. There is much sound, fury and pretense from the outgoing hegemon – the US – but the ineluctable reality is an empire whose halcyon days are a bygone era.

Ahead of the summit taking place this weekend in Argentina, the Trump administration has been issuing furious ultimatums to China to "change its behavior". Washington is threatening an escalating trade war if Beijing does not conform to American demands over economic policies.

President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point, castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices.

Nevertheless, if Beijing does not comply with US diktats then the Trump administration says it will slap increasing tariffs on Chinese exports.

The gravity of the situation was highlighted by the comments this week of China's ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, who warned that the "lessons of history" show trade wars can lead to catastrophic shooting wars. He urged the Trump administration to be reasonable and to seek a negotiated settlement of disputes.

The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia.

For decades, China functioned as a giant market for cheap production of basic consumer goods. Now under President Xi Jinping, the nation is moving to a new phase of development involving sophisticated technologies, high-quality manufacture, and investment.

It's an economic evolution that the world has seen before, in Europe, the US and now Eurasia. In the decades after the Second World War, up to the 1970s, it was US capitalism that was the undisputed world leader. Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage.

In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional" virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power.

The curious thing about capitalism is it always outgrows its national base. Markets eventually become too small and the search for profits is insatiable. American capital soon found more lucrative opportunities in the emerging market of China. From the 1980s on, US corporations bailed out of America and set up shop in China, exploiting cheap labor and exporting their goods back to increasingly underemployed America consumers. The arrangement was propped up partly because of seemingly endless consumer debt.

That's not the whole picture of course. China has innovated and developed independently from American capital. It is debatable whether China is an example of state-led capitalism or socialism. The Chinese authorities would claim to subscribe to the latter. In any case, China's economic development has transformed the entire Eurasian hemisphere. Whether you like it or not, Beijing is the dynamo for the global economy. One indicator is how nations across Asia-Pacific are deferring to China for their future growth.

Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory. Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered by China, no longer America.

Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that – empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic development and the benefits of Chinese investment.

One example is Taiwan. In contrast to Washington's shibboleths about "free Taiwan", more and more Asian countries are dialing down their bilateral links with Taiwan in deference to China's position, which views the island as a renegade province. The US position is one of rhetoric, whereas the relations of other countries are based on material economic exigencies. And respecting Beijing's sensibilities is for them a prudent option.

A recent report by the New York Times starkly illustrated the changing contours of the global economic order. It confirmed what many others have observed, that China is on the way to surpass the US as the world's top economy. During the 1980s, some 75 per cent of China's population were living in "extreme poverty", according to the NY Times. Today, less than 1 per cent of the population is in that dire category. For the US, the trajectory has been in reverse with greater numbers of its people subject to deprivation.

China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades.

American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership.

Arguably, Beijing's vision for economic development is more enlightened and sustainable than what was provided by the Americans and Europeans before. The leitmotif for China, along with Russia, is very much one of multipolar development and mutual partnership. The global economy is not simply moving from one hegemon – the US – to another imperial taskmaster – China.

One thing seems inescapable. The days of American empire are over. Its capitalist vigor has dissipated decades ago. What the upheaval and rancor in relations between Washington and Beijing is all about is the American ruling class trying to recreate some fantasy of former vitality. Washington wants China to sacrifice its own development in order to somehow rejuvenate American society. It's not going to happen.

That's not to say that American society can never be rejuvenated . It could, as it could also in Europe. But that would entail a restructuring of the economic system involving democratic regeneration. The "good old days" of capitalism are gone. The American empire, as with the European empires, is obsolete.

That's the unspoken Number One agenda item at the G20 summit. Bye-bye US empire.

What America needs to do is regenerate through a reinvented social economic order, one that is driven by democratic development and not the capitalist private profit of an elite few.

If not, the futile alternative is US failing political leaders trying to coerce China, and others, to pay for their future. That way leads to war.

[Dec 01, 2018] Nationalism Is Loyalty Irritated by Michael Brendan Dougherty

An interesting distinction: "nationalism is patriotism in its irritated state, or that nationalism recruits the patriotic sentiment to accomplish something in a fit of anger." But he might be mixing nationalism, far right nationalism, and fascism. It is fascism that emerges out of feeling of nation/country being humiliated, oppressed, fall into economic despair... It tries to mobilize nation on changing the situation as a united whole -- in this sense fascism rejects individualism and "human rights".
BTW there were quite numerous far right movements in the USA history.
The current emergence of nationalist movements is a reaction on the crisis of neoliberalism as an ideology (since 2008). So nationalism might be a defense reaction of societies when the dominant ideology (in our case neoliberalism) collapses. It is a temporary and defensive reaction. As the author notes: "Foreign aggression and the onset of war will reliably generate nationalist moods and responses. "
The key question here is when a nation "deserves" a sovereign state, and when it would be better off by being a part of a larger ("imperial state" if we understand empire as conglomerate of multiple nations). As it involved economics, some choices can be bad, even devastating for people's wellbeing.
Notable quotes:
"... Macron is not the first to try to make a hard, fast, and rhetorically pungent distinction between nationalism and patriotism. Orwell attempted to do the same in a famous essay . He wrote that patriotism is "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally." ..."
"... In the end, Orwell gives a rather unsatisfying account in which all the mental and moral vices of self-interest and self-regard are transmuted and supercharged by their absorption into a nationalistic "we." Nationalists in his account hold their nations supreme, thereby encouraging themselves to traduce any other people or nation. For Orwell, the patriot prefers this to that . The nationalist privileges us over them . For us, everything, to others nothing. ..."
"... In his recent book, The Virtue of Nationalism , Yoram Hazony makes a different contrast. His work is not primarily concerned with the moral status or self-deception of individuals, but with the organization of geopolitics. For him the contrast is between nationalism and imperialism. ..."
"... Orwell is tempted to believe the nationalist thinks his nation is best in all things, but much of nationalist rhetoric throughout Europe is a rhetoric of envy or arousal. Nationalists sometimes boast about their nations, but in many circumstances they express despair about their countries; they want to excite their people to achieve more, to take themselves as seriously as some rival national actor takes itself. ..."
"... Instead, nationalism is an eruptive feature of politics. It grows out of the normal sentiments of national loyalty, like a pustule or a fever. It could even be said that nationalism is patriotism in its irritated state, or that nationalism recruits the patriotic sentiment to accomplish something in a fit of anger. ..."
"... National loyalty attaches us to a place, and to the people who share in its life. Destroying national loyalty would almost certainly bring about the return of loyalties based on creed and blood. ..."
"... One of the outstanding features of nationalist political movements, the thing that almost always strikes observers about them, is their irritated or aroused character. And it is precisely this that strikes non-nationalists as signaling danger. ..."
"... nationalist movements are teeming with powerful emotions: betrayal, anger, aggression. ..."
"... Nationalist politics tends to be opportunist; it takes other political ideas, philosophies, and forms of mobilization in hand and discards them. Nationalists throughout the 20th century adopted Communism or capitalism to acquire the patronage or weapons to throw off imperial rule, or stick it to a neighbor, for example. ..."
"... The reemergence of nationalist politics in America and abroad requires us to ask those simple questions. What is bothering them? Do they have a point? What do they want to do about it? Would it be just? In broad strokes I intend to take those questions up. ..."
"... What the vast majority of people apparently fail to realize is that the United states is an empire which by definition is a group of states or countries containing diverse ethnic and cultural identities. ..."
"... The break-up of the Soviet Union can be blamed in part for failing to establish a strong national identity ..."
"... Greenfeld describes it as "civic nationalism" to differentiate it from the ethnic, anti-liberal "nationalism" later adopted by Russia and Germany. ..."
"... Identifying "the people" as a linguistic-cultural entity with or without borders set the stage for the bloody conflicts that were fought over borders for these groups, and the discrimination and ethnic cleansing for those who didn't belong to the dominant linguistic-cultural group, to say nothing of what needed to be done about members of the dominant group who lived outside its borders. ..."
"... Also, in the late 16th century during what is now called the Wars of Religions (but which they called Civil Wars) in continental Europe, people moved from Monarchists to Republicans and back, depending of whether they were Catholics or Protestants, but mostly depending of the position of strength in which they were at the time... ..."
"... "Modern Conservatives" have a vested interest in muddying the debate, so that it does not become clear that "conservatism" is not linked to specific political or economical models, and more importantly it is not true that the Founding Fathers were all absolutist libertarian free traders... ;-) ..."
"... What, exactly, are our children inheriting? Press 2 for Spanish. ..."
"... And let us not forget neocons. ..."
"... You should be out there carving an empire for yourself, showing your supremacy and spreading the seeds of your "culture" over uncharted territories and untamed tribes... ;-) ..."
"... I think the obvious irritant lending support to Nationalist sentiments is the non benign aspects of Globalism. ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | www.nationalreview.com
By Michael Brendan Dougherty A stab at defining a tricky word

What is nationalism? The word is suddenly and surprisingly important when talking about the times we live in. But we seem to be working without a shared definition.

"You know what I am? I'm a nationalist," Donald Trump said in an October rally in Houston.

French president Emmanuel Macron slapped back at a commemoration ceremony for World War I in France. "Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism," he said. "By saying 'our interests first, who cares about the others,' we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values."

Macron is not the first to try to make a hard, fast, and rhetorically pungent distinction between nationalism and patriotism. Orwell attempted to do the same in a famous essay . He wrote that patriotism is "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally."

On the other hand, "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

In the end, Orwell gives a rather unsatisfying account in which all the mental and moral vices of self-interest and self-regard are transmuted and supercharged by their absorption into a nationalistic "we." Nationalists in his account hold their nations supreme, thereby encouraging themselves to traduce any other people or nation. For Orwell, the patriot prefers this to that . The nationalist privileges us over them . For us, everything, to others nothing.

In his recent book, The Virtue of Nationalism , Yoram Hazony makes a different contrast. His work is not primarily concerned with the moral status or self-deception of individuals, but with the organization of geopolitics. For him the contrast is between nationalism and imperialism. For Hazony, it is the nationalist who respects spontaneous order and pluralism. Imperialists run roughshod over these, trampling local life for the benefit of the imperial center.

A border will rein in the ambition of the nationalist, whereas the imperial character rebels against limits. A century ago, in what he called the days of "clashing and crashing Empires," the Irish nationalist Eoin MacNeil felt similarly. For him, the development of a nation -- any nation -- had in it "the actuality or the potentiality of some great gift to the common good of mankind."

It's difficult to find a consistent definition of nationalism from its critics, meanwhile. Sometimes nationalism is dismissed as the love of dirt, or mysticism about language. Other times it's the love of DNA.

In the critics' defense, though, the way nationalism has expressed itself in different nations and different times can be maddeningly diverse. Orwell is tempted to believe the nationalist thinks his nation is best in all things, but much of nationalist rhetoric throughout Europe is a rhetoric of envy or arousal. Nationalists sometimes boast about their nations, but in many circumstances they express despair about their countries; they want to excite their people to achieve more, to take themselves as seriously as some rival national actor takes itself.

I'd like to propose a different way of thinking about the question. When we use the vocabulary of political philosophies, we recognize that we are talking about things that differ along more than one axis. Take Communism, liberalism, and conservatism: The first is a theory of history and power. The second is a political framework built upon rights. The final disclaims the word "ideology" and has been traditionally defined as a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance.

I would like to sidestep Hazony's championing of nationalism as a system for organizing political order globally, a theory that my colleague Jonah Goldberg is tempted to call "nationism."

My proposal is that nationalism as a political phenomenon is not a philosophy or science, though it may take either of those in hand. It isn't an account of history. Instead, nationalism is an eruptive feature of politics. It grows out of the normal sentiments of national loyalty, like a pustule or a fever. It could even be said that nationalism is patriotism in its irritated state, or that nationalism recruits the patriotic sentiment to accomplish something in a fit of anger.

In normal or propitious circumstances, national loyalty is the peaceful form of life that exists among people who share a defined territory and endeavor to live under the laws of that territory together. National loyalty attaches us to a place, and to the people who share in its life. Destroying national loyalty would almost certainly bring about the return of loyalties based on creed and blood.

One of the outstanding features of nationalist political movements, the thing that almost always strikes observers about them, is their irritated or aroused character. And it is precisely this that strikes non-nationalists as signaling danger. Republican democracies should be characterized by deliberation. Conservatives distrust swells of passion. Liberals want an order of voluntary rights. But nationalist movements are teeming with powerful emotions: betrayal, anger, aggression.

Therefore, I contend, like a fever, nationalism can be curative or fatal. And, like fevers, it can come and go depending on the nation's internal health or the external circumstances a nation finds itself in. Foreign aggression and the onset of war will reliably generate nationalist moods and responses. But cultural change can do it too. Maybe a national language falls into sharp and sudden decline under pressure from a more powerful lingua franca. Even something as simple or common as rapid urbanization can be felt to agitate upon a people's loyalties, and may generate a cultural response for preserving certain rural traditions and folkways. And of course, sometimes nationalism is excited by the possibility of some new possession coming into view, the opportunity to recover or acquire territory or humiliate a historic rival. The variety of irritants explains the variety of nationalisms.

You tend to find a lot of nationalism where there are persistent or large irritants to the normally peaceful sense of national loyalty. Think of western Ukraine, where the local language and political prerogatives have endured the powerful irritant of Moscow's power and influence in its region, and even in its territory. You find a great deal of nationalism in Northern Ireland, where a lineage of religious differences signals dueling loyalties to the United Kingdom and to Ireland.

Until recently you didn't find a lot of political nationalism in the United States, because it is a prosperous nation with unparalleled independence of action. But we are familiar with bursts of nationalism nonetheless -- for example, at times when European powers threatened the U.S. in the early days of the Republic, during the Civil War and its aftermath, and especially during World War I, which coincided with the tail end of a great wave of migration into the country.

If nationalist political movements are national loyalties in this aroused state, then we must judge them on a case-by-case basis. When non-nationalists notice the irritated and irritable character of nationalism, often the very next thing they say is, "Well, they have a point." You would judge a nationalist movement the way you would judge any man or group of men in an agitated state. Do you have a right to be angry about this matter? What do you intend to do about it? How do you intend to do it?

We all do this almost instinctively. We understand that there are massive differences among nationalist projects. In order to assert his young nation's place on the world stage, John Quincy Adams sought to found a national university. We may judge that one way, whereas we judge Andrew Jackson's Indian-removal policy very differently. In Europe, we might cheer on the ambition of the Irish Parliamentary party to establish a home-rule parliament in Dublin. That was a nationalist project, but so was the German policy of seeking lebensraum through the racial annihilation of the Jews and the enslavement of Poland, which we judge as perhaps the most wicked cause in human history. We might cheer the reestablishment of a Polish nation after World War I, but deplore some of the expansionist wars it immediately embarked upon.

Nationalist politics tends to be opportunist; it takes other political ideas, philosophies, and forms of mobilization in hand and discards them. Nationalists throughout the 20th century adopted Communism or capitalism to acquire the patronage or weapons to throw off imperial rule, or stick it to a neighbor, for example.

The reemergence of nationalist politics in America and abroad requires us to ask those simple questions. What is bothering them? Do they have a point? What do they want to do about it? Would it be just? In broad strokes I intend to take those questions up.

Kontraindicated 2 days ago

There is much discussion below as to the meaning of the term "nationalism" below. In the minds of many, it seems to be a relatively benign term.

However, even recently we have seen extremely violent episodes break out that appear to be associated with some sort of flavour of "nationalism", however it's defined.

In the former Yugoslavia, Tito tried to create a new "nation" that would have a common identity by breaking up the "nations" that had previously existed on the same territory. This involved the forced relocation of various groups of Serbs and Croats (and, to a lesser extent, Bosnians) who would now all live together in peace and harmony. However, when the political structures fell, the people fell back into their old groups and immediately began fighting each other. The end result was an incredibly bloody and vicious civil war and the ultimate re-establishment of Nations/Countries that mapped more closely to the ethnic/cultural/race divisions that the people involved in the conflict were concerned with. Ultimately, they (as individuals) decided which team they wanted to belong to and, as long as the "nation" agreed, they became part of that "nation".

Similar scenarios have played out across Africa and the Middle East (which was artificially set up for a century's worth of conflict by Europeans in 1919).

All of which is mildly interesting, but it's not really related to the reason that this topic is coming up in NRO. The reason that we are discussing this is that Macron spent a considerable amount of time during the Armistice Ceremony decrying "Nationalism" (which, if we treat the term in the Yugoslavian context, likely did play a significant role in two World Wars) and Fox and Friends were then able to teach Donald Trump a new word - after which he declared himself a "Nationalist".

So rather than beating ourselves up over semantics, would it not be better instead to debate two questions?:

  1. Does "Nationalism" represent a growing force within enough countries that it represents a significant threat to the current world order?
  2. Does whatever Donald Trump thinks "Nationalism" means pose a threat to America's current place in the world and is it driving the US away from its leadership role? (will "America First" lead to "America Isolated and Alone?")
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago

Dear Kontraindicated,

First, your last question is already answered, in the WTO, the EU, China, Canada, Mexico have raised a complaint against the falsified use of "national security" by Trump to justify tariffs. If the USA decided then to leave the WTO, because Trump's personal honor would be stained, (without forgetting that the US Congress should have already protested that these tariffs were illegal in the first place) this will be another occasion to show that it is indeed "America Isolated and Alone"... Trump could have allied himself with the EU, Canada, etc. against some of the unfair practices of China, instead he got two of the biggest trading block in the world (including its two territorial neighbors) to ally themselves against the USA.

What a way of winning Donnie! ;-)

Then, let's go back to the question of the meaning of Nationalism.

There are two aspects:

  1. What is the real meaning of nationalism compared to patriotism, when we remove all the fake ideological recent additions to these terms? (and I have answered at length on this in my other comments) And this meaning is not necessarily nefarious. It becomes a problem when one claims that each Nation must have one "sovereign" State (in the sense of country), and there should be only one such Nation per country.
  2. What is the meaning which is actually meant by Trump? And it is clear that he means it the way that it was whispered to him, which is "One Nation, One and only One State; One State, One and only One Nation"...

It is no longer "e pluribus unum", but "e uno unum" (one from one), which is slightly less ambitious and certainly less of a reason to get up in the morning and do something productive (but then there is a lot of opportunity for "Executive Time" and playing golf)... ;-)

Leroy 2 days ago

"Out of many, one." ONE. Get it through your head. ONE. If you are MANY, you ARE Yugoslavia. And that doesn't end well.

TitoPerdue 2 days ago

I try to imagine my parents being informed that they must now accustom themselves to white people being turned into a minority. Would have been stunned, my folks, who first arrived in 1771.

My folks: "But what did we do wrong!"
Me: "You've been too successful and must now be punished."
My folks: "What's wrong with being successful!"
Me: "It's racist. Ask Jonah Goldberg. You know how much the Jews despise ethnocentrism."

Gaurus 3 days ago

This is a useful take on the subject. There is a big Tower of Babel problem with this word as it seems to mean different things to different people, and different nations also define it differently.

This language barrier is why Macron's criticism of the President should be taken with a grain of salt. The left's myopic/robotic attempts to unilaterally define this word on their terms is reprehensible, just like so many of their other attempts at PC authoritarianism aka thought control which is pushed by the national media.

What the vast majority of people apparently fail to realize is that the United states is an empire which by definition is a group of states or countries containing diverse ethnic and cultural identities.

You must at some point come to ask yourself, "what keeps these diverse groups contained in the U.S. from fracturing, dividing, and falling apart?" The answer is nationalism/national identity. It is the keystone or glue that binds these diverse ethnic and cultural groups together. Anyone or anything that tugs or tears at nationalism therefore is altogether a bad thing for the country and will sow division and strife that was not previously there. Ultimately civil war could result if those seeking to divide the country for political gain go too far and the left ignorantly seems all-in on doing this.

Applying recent trends in politics using this as a backdrop, one can see how pro-globalists wouldn't care to attack nationalism as they are by definition against the very concept of a nation-state and want top bring back good old feudalism, but this time on a global scale. For comparison Russia is another example of an empire that is aware It needs to fuel nationalist sentiment to hold itself together. The EU is an emerging empire that is conflicted with what this means. The break-up of the Soviet Union can be blamed in part for failing to establish a strong national identity.

Plymouth mtng, PA 3 days ago

Well said! This truth is exemplified by the evidentiary and documented history that the Founding Fathers and Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant and the whole of 19th century America used the language of Liberty and Patriot to define the American Republic.

Leroy 3 days ago

I just learned something new. I thought that ethnicity was the same as race. It isn't. Ethnicity: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." By that definition, we're all in an ethnic group, and we can belong to smaller ethnic groups as well.

If Americans don't become nationalists, understand that we share common interests and goals, it won't matter how much we love our country, because it will be unrecognizable.

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago

Dear Leroy,

I happen to think that "race" does not exist, but we know that in the USA when people say "ethnic" they mean "race"... ;-)

I remember 30 years ago, at the hairdresser in London, picking up a copy of the tabloid "The Sun", and reading a sentence where "ethnic" was used to mean "foreigner with a darker complexion"... (something like "the three men were ethnic") ;-)

Once more "ethnic" means "national", nothing more nothing less: "ethnos" is the Greek translation of "natio". These are words which have been used for a few thousand years, and we have to understand what they really meant and what they really mean now, and to remove from them the "ideological" additions.

The definition which you give shows such ideological addition, by adding "cultural" and "tradition". By definition a "nation", as the same traditions and therefore the same "culture": they are just redundant in this definition.

An ethnic group is a nation. So yes, you are in an ethnic group, and you can "define" smaller and smaller ethnic groups within the bigger one (the "tribes"). So in Gaul, there were many different "nations", who were Gauls, but had a great diversity between them (just read a few pages of Cæsar).

But at some point when there are many ethnic groups within you country (and this is how a country like France was made by the addition of regions with varying ethnic backgrounds and the migration/invasion of many other ethnic groups), at some point the only unity is in the country, the "patria", this is there that you find the common interests and goals.

So you see in France the difference going from Nation to the Country, because in the early middle ages the king was called "King of the French" Rex Francorum, (there were many other nations recognized on the French territory) and in the later part of the Middle Ages, he was called "King of France", Rex Franciae.

But because the word "nation" is important, and people would not let it go, there has been a tendency to use it to mean "country", as when we speak of the National Anthem, but this is by a shifting of its original sense.

When we want to oppose nationalism and patriotism, we need to go back to the original technical meaning, not invent a new one.

PS: the reason why "ethnic" and "race" are not the same thing, and we saw it with "Pocahontas" controversy (I mentioned it then), it is because a nation can "adopt" somebody who was not genetically related to them. They shall still be fully part of the nation... but their genetic material shall be different.

Leroy 3 days ago

I know you enjoy history, but the meaning of words can shift. I'll go with the meaning of the word Nation that the founders meant when they founded this nation. Nations are sovereign, make laws and control territory. A group of people, who share a culture, but who do not control territory is not a nation.

Hub312 3 days ago ( Edited )

Whoever wants a clear-headed understanding of nationalism, I suggest you read the world's foremost scholar on nationalism, Liah Greenfeld's "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity" and Pierre Manent's concise but rich "Democracy Without Nations?".

Nationalism is really just another word for modernity and democracy. . It arose in England at the end of the 17th and the 18th centuries as the liberal answer to the question: if the people are sovereign, who are "the people" that we are now calling the nation? Answer: those who live within the borders controlled by the sovereign. The nation state is our home and our protection and we're all in it together regardless of language, culture, etc. This was the essentially liberal idea that was adopted and adapted by the French. This was the form adopted by Americans too. Greenfeld describes it as "civic nationalism" to differentiate it from the ethnic, anti-liberal "nationalism" later adopted by Russia and Germany.

It is the Russians, followed by the Germans and other central Europeans who followed their lead that gave nationalism a bad name. Identifying "the people" as a linguistic-cultural entity with or without borders set the stage for the bloody conflicts that were fought over borders for these groups, and the discrimination and ethnic cleansing for those who didn't belong to the dominant linguistic-cultural group, to say nothing of what needed to be done about members of the dominant group who lived outside its borders.

Empires and nations based on racial and ethnic identity have bloody borders, since it is impossible to draw any border anywhere in the world that includes all members of the dominant group and excludes or oppresses all members of other groups.

Are they both called nationalisms? Yes. But they couldn't be farther apart.

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago

Dear Hub312,

the word that is missing in your comment is "country". "if the people are sovereign, who are "the people" that we are now calling the nation?... etc."

I am interested to see in which English author of the end of the 17th century you find the expression of "sovereign people" or the "people are sovereign". Do you have some primary sources? I do not find it in Locke, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

And in the UK, in the 18th and 19th century, and still now, it is clear that English, Welsh, Irish and Scots are different nations in the same "country"... Today, in Rugby the 6 nations championship takes place actually between four countries.

In the Middle Ages it is clear that the "supreme power" "summa potestas" comes God, and after this it is a question of open debate whether it is invested directly in the King, or through the people who then may elect a king, or decide on a Republic.

And I find in the Renaissance of the 16th and early 17th century, many proponents of a summa potestas that belongs to the people, which gives incidentally rise to the possibility of removing from power bad kings, but they happen to be Spanish and Catholics: Francisco Suarez, Juan de Mariana and Roberto Bellarmino... worse, they are all Jesuits... ;-), and they claim that the supreme power comes from the consent of the governed, and they were all dead by 1630... So that's it when it comes to the notion of people's sovereignty "arising" in England in the late 17th century... It was up and awake already.

I cannot find "souveraineté" as a word (which is different from having a "sovereign"), before Jean Bodin (16th century) (but you perhaps have better sources than mine), then I can direct you to many discussions about the nature and origin of "souveraineté" in French in the 16th and 17th century.

Rousseau (mid-18th century) is famous for ascribing sovereignty to the people, but he was not English (although he was Protestant), nor French, but he is also the inspiration for the "dictatorship of the people", and the Terror.

Rousseau is part of the Social Contract school, to which is usually adjoined his predecessors Hobbes and Locke, but there is no doubt that Hobbes is a partisan of absolute monarchy, and again I fail to see in Locke a direct notion of people's sovereignty: when he speaks of civil sovereigns he speaks of the "magistrates" who rule. But I am certain that you shall direct me to the proper place in Locke, which currently escapes me.

The thing is that the "consent of the people" or even the "sovereignty of the people", or the "social contract" does not mean that they are individually free afterwards... they may actually live under an absolute monarchy and still have "consented" to it, or under a dictatorship of the people (socialist), or a national dictatorship, or a mixture of both... ;-)

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago

Of course, as I read again what I wrote, I made the most silly of blunders: Bellarmino was Italian, not Spanish... this invalidates all that I have ever written.. ;-)

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago

Also, in the late 16th century during what is now called the Wars of Religions (but which they called Civil Wars) in continental Europe, people moved from Monarchists to Republicans and back, depending of whether they were Catholics or Protestants, but mostly depending of the position of strength in which they were at the time... There is a very interesting literature regarding the nature and origin of the supreme power, and whether the people must have absolute obedience to the the sovereign civil power (whatever shape it has). Of course none of this has to do with 17th century England, except that the same questions where asked and answered their own way in the English Civil War (which was a religious war), when the Round-Heads decided to chop that of their King, whose shape they did not like. ;-)

Bellarmino wrote against James I when he tried to sustain is absolute divine right to rule.

All of this to say that these questions were raised long before the Glorious Revolution. ;-)

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago

Dear Hub312,

well, why would I read a secondary source book, if it does not know the primary sources which I know?

If this book describes nothing more than what you described (i.e. England, end of the 17th century, etc.), which is refuted by the sources that I know, why would I waste time reading it? it could not edify me, if it does not add to what I know.

Hub312 4 hours ago ( Edited )

...and you would love the Manent book, written from a very European liberal perspective, which is brief and very concise.

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago

Dear Michael Brendan Dougherty,

I have a revolutionary proposal: instead of investing words with supposed meanings in order to be able to say that we approve of them or not (which in English is called begging the question), why don't we simply use the etymological meaning of the word? ;-)

It's easy, "national" means precisely the same thing as "ethnic": one is Latin, the other is Greek. You know what ethnicity is a euphemism for in the US: "race". A "nation" does not need to have borders to be a nation, the "barbarian nations" of late Antiquity early Middle Ages were roving nations. This is why also initially German nationalism i the 19th and early 20th century was expansive: it meant to "unify" the German nation in one country. This is why Irish, Scottish or Welsh nationalism is divisive and restrictive, it is meant to separate the English (seen as invaders) from the local version of a Celtic nation.

The "Patria" is the Land of the fathers: this is the "country", the "land".

The one is "Blood", the other is "Soil", you see that each can be assigned bad meaning or good meaning, if one wants to.

Behind this you have the age old conflicts between Cain and Abel, between the roving pastor, and the settled farmer.

Both Nation and Patria can be a limit within which to stay, or a limit to expand: so one can be an "imperialist" or not, whether one is a patriot or a nationalist. Because even a patriot, may require more land, to ensure the safety of the one that he has, his own version of "lebensraum".

These two notions are also linked to the "jus sanguinis" (right of blood) and the "jus soli" (right of soil/land) question regarding citizenship.

In countries which have official separate notions of citizenship and nationality (in the former USSR for instance), citizenship is clearly ascribed to the country, and nationality is clearly ascribed to ethnicity: so one can be a Russian national, citizen of Kazakhstan.

It is the notion of the Nation-State (which is comparatively recent), which tends to make believe that for each identifiable "Nation" there must be one identifiable "Country" (a sovereign state). It is the geographical difficulty if not impossibility of this which lead to the political upheavals in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was trying to merge Nationalism and Patriotism that created the problems.

In some cases when supposed "nations" wanted to be unified within one country, there was the notion of "Pan-somethingism", Pan-Germanism, Pan-Slavism, etc., and/or Nations wanted to become independent: so you had the fights for the unification of Italy, Germany, the independence of Poland, Greece, etc., within the 19th century. And then there were all these places were the population was too mixed to make any such separation easy: the Balkans, the remnants of the Turkish Empire (a perfect example together with the Persian Empire (for those who read Xenophon), why "Imperialism" does not mean "centralization"), remnants of "German" populations in "Slavic" countries, etc. You know what followed.

So both nationalism and patriotism can have a good or a bad meaning, depending of how one intends to use them.

For instance the notion of a "Europe of Nations" is what helped secure the Good Friday Agreement, because another way of saying it is a "Europe of Regions", where Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Basques, Bretons (of little Brittany), etc., have a possibility of recognition, without necessarily breaking up "countries".

So you are right there is much more than one axis of meaning, and it is important that one opposes the right terms, and this is the responsibility of what used to be called the "publicists", those who speak of the Res Publica, what we now call "pundits": but in the USA none are more adept at using the wrong formulations than the "modern conservative" pundits. Why? well, "modern conservative" says it all... because you are partly right conservatism is about "a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance", and "modern conservatism" is therefore an oxymoron. ;-)

And this is why "Modern Conservatism" became such an easy prey for the Alt-Right Anarchists: because they are not grounded in an actual "tradition", but like all the "progressives" (which they are), they have to reinvent for themselves a new beginning... in the 1950s, they said, now that there is National Review, we shall become "real" conservatives, "modern conservatives", before us, they were not really conservatives... ;-)

But you cannot be a real conservative if you have to identify a date for the birth of your movement.

"Modern Conservatives" have a vested interest in muddying the debate, so that it does not become clear that "conservatism" is not linked to specific political or economical models, and more importantly it is not true that the Founding Fathers were all absolutist libertarian free traders... ;-)

So Conservatism is not the opposite of Liberalism, it is the opposite of Progressivism. Imperialism is indeed about expansion of power, but it is not necessarily about "centralization", as many empires not only have left the "local life" untouched, but this "local life" disappeared when a supposedly more "liberal" power took over...

Therefore I do beg American publicists, especially those of the conservative variety writing in NRO, stop begging the question when you falsely "define" terms, so that they align with what you deem to be good or bad; be instead a real conservative, go back to the etymology and the actual meaning of the words, see how they were used initially, not only in the last 50 or even 100 years... because then you are using "progressive" definitions, and you keep repeating that "progressives" always change the meaning of the words to suit their purpose... You are right on that one. ;-)

Leroy 3 days ago

Conservatism "has been traditionally defined as a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance"?

That can't be true. We all know that conservatism now means free trade, where American workers are replaced by Chinese slave labor. We know that conservatism means an insatiable desire for foreign migrants, adding millions of campesino's to our economy every year. Most of all, we know that conservatism stands for foreign imperialist wars and globalist profits.

What, exactly, are our children inheriting? Press 2 for Spanish.

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago

Dear Leroy,

I agree with you that US Conservatives are Progressives by another name. see my main comment here. ;-)

TitoPerdue 2 days ago

Indeed. And let us not forget neocons.

Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago

Dear TitoPerdue,

given that the Founding Fathers were already progressives, who for you committed the original sin of believing that "all men are created equal", why do you still live in that den of iniquity that is the USA?

You should be out there carving an empire for yourself, showing your supremacy and spreading the seeds of your "culture" over uncharted territories and untamed tribes... ;-)

I hear that there are still some fairly inaccessible places in Papua-New-Guinea... ;-)

Perfect place to show your supremacy, or end up in the cooking pot. For once your philosophy of life would become true: eat or be eaten! ;-)

hawkesappraisal 3 days ago

I agree. "Nationalism" is a charged but nebulous word, but it describes something that is clearly important in spite of the obscurity of its meaning. So the struggle to come up with coherent definitions is worthwhile. The current Nationalism is probably best defined by, Progressives saying "America sucks!" and the Right responding, "No it doesn't! America is Awesome!"

freedom1 3 days ago ( Edited )

Thoughtful piece. I think the obvious irritant lending support to Nationalist sentiments is the non benign aspects of Globalism.

[Dec 01, 2018] The US elite started viewing Chin a a grave threat to "full spectrum dominance"

Notable quotes:
"... China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage, ..."
"... As China continues its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it will continue to pursue a military modernization program that seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future. The most far-reaching objective of this defense strategy is to set the military relationship between our two countries on a path of transparency and non-aggression. ..."
"... Shouldn't an important US foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China? ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.rt.com

"China is a sleeping lion," Napoleon Bonaparte said. "Let her sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world." A new Cold War is upon us, only this time the giant is no longer deep asleep; stirring as it begins to wake. " China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage, " a recent summary of the 2018 US National Defense Strategy states .

" As China continues its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it will continue to pursue a military modernization program that seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future. The most far-reaching objective of this defense strategy is to set the military relationship between our two countries on a path of transparency and non-aggression. "

... ... ...

Donald Trump's trade war with China also signals a greater shift towards a US-China Cold War 2.0 scenario, and the stakes are even higher than we imagined.

The aim of the US appears to be to change China for good (if not its attitude, then its regime ) and build a new international framework which still puts Washington's interests above that of its adversaries. Successfully doing so requires the US to retain and promote its more traditional allies, something which seems somewhat questionable in the age of Trump.

... ... ...

Shouldn't an important US foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China? " The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol asked his 411,000 followers on Twitter.

Shouldn't an important U.S. foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China? https://t.co/TpFODNTwQZ

-- Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) November 23, 2018

After failed regime change operations in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iran, just to name a few, I think the answer to this question is quite clearly a resounding " no ."

[Dec 01, 2018] Whitewashing McCain's Support for the War on Yemen by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... not doing enough ..."
Nov 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Josh Rogin uses the Senate's 63-37 vote on S.J.Res. 54 earlier this week to make a very strange claim:

The Senate's stunning bipartisan rebuke of President Trump's handling of U.S.-Saudi relations shows that the internationalist, values-based foreign policy of the late senator John McCain still holds significant weight in both parties [bold mine-DL].

At the end of his career, McCain was one of the foremost defenders of U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen. I suppose it was fitting that he capped off a long career of supporting unnecessary and illegal wars by proudly supporting a truly indefensible one. When U.S. support for the war began in 2015, he and Lindsey Graham chastised Obama for not doing enough to help the Saudi coalition. Needless to say, he was an early and eager supporter of the intervention . When McCain was asked about the coalition's bombing campaign and the civilian casualties that it was causing, he denied that there were any. "Thank God for the Saudis," he once said , praising the kingdom for its role in fueling the war in Syria.

I commented on McCain's support for the war on Yemen in a post last year:

In addition to dismissing the civilian casualties caused by the indiscriminate coalition bombing campaign, McCain has reliably recited Saudi propaganda to provide cover for the war while completely ignoring the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that their campaign has done so much to cause.

McCain was the champion of a particular strain of aggressive interventionism that relied on moralizing rhetoric to justify unjust actions. His foreign policy was "values-based" in the sense that he would use "values" language to rally support for attacking certain regimes, but when it came to applying the same standards to U.S. allies and clients McCain frequently became mute or turned into a cynical apologist on behalf of states aligned with Washington. That is certainly how he acted when it came to the Saudi coalition war on Yemen . Back when there were very few critics of the war in the Senate, McCain was one of their loudest opponents :

McCain incredibly described the Saudis as a "nation under attack" because of incursions into Saudi territory that were provoked by the Saudi-led bombing campaign. Graham portrayed the Saudis as victims of Yemeni "aggression," which has everything completely and obviously backwards. It requires swallowing Saudi propaganda whole to argue that the Saudis and their allies have been acting in self-defense, and that is what McCain and Graham tried to do. Both repeatedly asserted that the Houthis are Iranian proxies when the best evidence suggests that Iran's role in the conflict has always been negligible, and then justified their complete indifference to the consequences of the Saudi-led war by complaining about Iranian behavior elsewhere. Needless to say, the humanitarian crisis brought on by the Saudi-led bombing campaign and blockade never once came up in their remarks, but I'm sure if they ever do mention it they'll blame it on Iran somehow.

McCain used many of the same cynical and dishonest arguments then that Trump administration officials use now. The senators that voted for S.J.Res. 54 were not following McCain's example and they were definitely not embracing the kind of foreign policy he supported. On the contrary, the success of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution this week was as much a rebuke to McCain's foreign policy legacy as it was a rebuke to Trump's shameless Saudi First behavior. Opposition to the war on Yemen was something that McCain vehemently rejected, and it is simply and obviously wrong to credit McCain's foreign policy views for the antiwar victory that Sens. Sanders, Murphy, Lee, and their colleagues won this week. For the last twenty-five years, McCain never saw a U.S.-backed war he couldn't support, and that included the war on Yemen. When the Senate voted to advance S.J.Res. 54 on Wednesday, they were voting against the war that McCain had vocally backed for years.

Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Barack Obama , Yemen , Lindsey Graham , John McCain , Josh Rogin , Mike Lee , Saudi Arabia , Chris Murphy , Bernie Sanders , S.J.Res 54 .

about:blank

IranMan November 30, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Can anyone name a war McCain did not salivate about and support?

I can't.

He was a war criminal who did not live to see his shameful, warmongering legacy, exposed or discussed in public.

[Dec 01, 2018] Whitewashing McCain's Support for the War on Yemen

Notable quotes:
"... not doing enough ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

Daniel Larison

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.0568ee90c37ccf52b40a4b1e312811ff.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=DanielLarison&show_count=false&show_screen_name=true&size=m&time=1543642473725

Whitewashing McCain's Support for the War on Yemen By Daniel Larison • November 29, 2018, 10:50 PM

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F7LloFuHvA7I.js%3Fversion%3D43%23cb%3Df74e2b3791be35%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff1c4059c2993808%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fwhitewashing-mccains-support-for-the-war-on-yemen%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.0568ee90c37ccf52b40a4b1e312811ff.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fwhitewashing-mccains-support-for-the-war-on-yemen%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Whitewashing%20McCain%E2%80%99s%20Support%20for%20the%20War%20on%20Yemen%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1543642473731&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fwhitewashing-mccains-support-for-the-war-on-yemen%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fwhitewashing-mccains-support-for-the-war-on-yemen%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.t2UPL-v4NsI.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCNp4MZuwN6M1DIuMNrgVi7_Y_XLXg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1543642473422&_gfid=I0_1543642473422&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=25188346

Gage Skidmore / Charles Haynes /Flickr Josh Rogin uses the Senate's 63-37 vote on S.J.Res. 54 earlier this week to make a very strange claim:

The Senate's stunning bipartisan rebuke of President Trump's handling of U.S.-Saudi relations shows that the internationalist, values-based foreign policy of the late senator John McCain still holds significant weight in both parties [bold mine-DL].

At the end of his career, McCain was one of the foremost defenders of U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen. I suppose it was fitting that he capped off a long career of supporting unnecessary and illegal wars by proudly supporting a truly indefensible one. When U.S. support for the war began in 2015, he and Lindsey Graham chastised Obama for not doing enough to help the Saudi coalition. Needless to say, he was an early and eager supporter of the intervention . When McCain was asked about the coalition's bombing campaign and the civilian casualties that it was causing, he denied that there were any. "Thank God for the Saudis," he once said , praising the kingdom for its role in fueling the war in Syria.

I commented on McCain's support for the war on Yemen in a post last year:

In addition to dismissing the civilian casualties caused by the indiscriminate coalition bombing campaign, McCain has reliably recited Saudi propaganda to provide cover for the war while completely ignoring the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that their campaign has done so much to cause.

McCain was the champion of a particular strain of aggressive interventionism that relied on moralizing rhetoric to justify unjust actions. His foreign policy was "values-based" in the sense that he would use "values" language to rally support for attacking certain regimes, but when it came to applying the same standards to U.S. allies and clients McCain frequently became mute or turned into a cynical apologist on behalf of states aligned with Washington. That is certainly how he acted when it came to the Saudi coalition war on Yemen . Back when there were very few critics of the war in the Senate, McCain was one of their loudest opponents :

McCain incredibly described the Saudis as a "nation under attack" because of incursions into Saudi territory that were provoked by the Saudi-led bombing campaign. Graham portrayed the Saudis as victims of Yemeni "aggression," which has everything completely and obviously backwards. It requires swallowing Saudi propaganda whole to argue that the Saudis and their allies have been acting in self-defense, and that is what McCain and Graham tried to do. Both repeatedly asserted that the Houthis are Iranian proxies when the best evidence suggests that Iran's role in the conflict has always been negligible, and then justified their complete indifference to the consequences of the Saudi-led war by complaining about Iranian behavior elsewhere. Needless to say, the humanitarian crisis brought on by the Saudi-led bombing campaign and blockade never once came up in their remarks, but I'm sure if they ever do mention it they'll blame it on Iran somehow.

McCain used many of the same cynical and dishonest arguments then that Trump administration officials use now. The senators that voted for S.J.Res. 54 were not following McCain's example and they were definitely not embracing the kind of foreign policy he supported. On the contrary, the success of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution this week was as much a rebuke to McCain's foreign policy legacy as it was a rebuke to Trump's shameless Saudi First behavior. Opposition to the war on Yemen was something that McCain vehemently rejected, and it is simply and obviously wrong to credit McCain's foreign policy views for the antiwar victory that Sens. Sanders, Murphy, Lee, and their colleagues won this week. For the last twenty-five years, McCain never saw a U.S.-backed war he couldn't support, and that included the war on Yemen. When the Senate voted to advance S.J.Res. 54 on Wednesday, they were voting against the war that McCain had vocally backed for years.

Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Barack Obama , Yemen , Lindsey Graham , John McCain , Josh Rogin , Mike Lee , Saudi Arabia , Chris Murphy , Bernie Sanders , S.J.Res 54 .

about:blank

IranMan November 30, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Can anyone name a war McCain did not salivate about and support?

I can't.

He was a war criminal who did not live to see his shameful, warmongering legacy, exposed or discussed in public.

[Dec 01, 2018] The New York Times As Corrupt Judge And Jury

Notable quotes:
"... We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers. ..."
"... Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war. ..."
"... The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign." ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.

Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.

The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.

In a massive Times ' article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.

They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the Great Plains.

With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's all been proven.

Mueller: No collusion so far.

This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.

The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign."

But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."

The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."

This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of this very New York Times article?

Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this piece.

A Banner Day

The 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.

On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."

Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)

Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell "eyeballs."

For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with "millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.

The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the difference.

This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the credibility of the entire article.

It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton campaign. A detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."

Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?

What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that evidence.

This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.

Errors of Commission and Omission

There are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because they would disturb the narrative:

Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.

Distorts Geo-Politics

The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all imperial powers.

The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014, omitting crucial evidence of a U.S.-backed coup.

The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.

The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were statistically insignificant at less than one percent.

Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests without Russia telling them what to do.

Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the club, such as a website like Consortium News.

But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly unusual move of apologizing to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of Russia-gate? Tags Politics

[Dec 01, 2018] Google is micro-gaslighting again by Steve Sailer

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:55 am GMT

[reposted from previous thread]

I changed my default search engine to DuckDuckGo years ago.

Commenters occasionally say here at TUR that Google is somehow superior, but even if that's so (which I doubt), isn't the corruption plenty of reason to boycott? Guess not, in light of news the other day that Amazon continues to expand.

Most people, even here in Exceptionalia, are lazy and dull. In a better society, the Establishment would be better reined in.

B.B. , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:11 am GMT
Robert Epstein is doing research on how big tech companies can manipulate their services towards political ends.
Roger , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 9:20 am GMT
Somehow Google has convinced everyone that their search is not biased because it uses a trade secret algorithm. Eventually the public will figure out that the argument does not even make any sense. The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers, and of course it is biased.
anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT
Semi-OT: NYT has something about Facebook hiring an oppo research firm to look into George Soros. Apparently he trashed Facebook at Davos and Sheryl Sandberg thinks he might be shorting their stock.

Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open borders globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.

Anonym , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:25 am GMT
This is why I use bing. An unexpected bonus is that the image search yields random porn for the lulz.
Buzz Mohawk , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
This makes me proud that I use Bing. It has a nice picture each day as its backdrop. Here is yesterday's, a particularly beautiful one of the Frankfurt Christmas Market, which proves Bing is Christmas-friendly -- and even German-friendly, Heaven forbid:
Anonymous [270] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
I've been using https://www.startpage.com/ as my main search engine for four years now. It serves my purposes >95% of the time. I only resort to Google no more than once every couple weeks. Startpage also allows you to visit sites anonymously and never ever tracks anything. Also no Gmail or Google Docs. Also run Ghostery to block Google Analytics on all sites (that, by the way, includes Unz.com).
dearieme , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
Since I am not interested in luvvies, Hollywood, and all that, I hardly ever comment on them. Kevin Spaceyga, however, is worth a remark. Because I was a great fan of the British original I thought I'd watch a couple of episodes of the American "House of Cards". It was noticeable that of the whole cast he was the only one who could act.
Sbrin , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
With the exception of Google Maps, which is the only decent mapping software out there, I have not used a Google product in over a decade.

If anyone can recommend a decent alternative for mapping I'm all in to ditch Google Maps.

Chriscom , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
"But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're suggesting."

Oh sweet summer child.

I think it was Steve who recommended this, but do an image search on Google for American Scientists and let us know if you think that's an accurate representation. Try the same with the phrase White Couples.

These days you get similar returns on Bing btw.

Yes I know these are not auto-suggestions, but fruit of the same tree.

The Creepy Line, add it to your watch lists. Amazon Prime I think.

anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I'm not taking a side in your spat, I just want to point out that it'd be foolish in the extreme to take Vox at its word there. All Vox does is tell people what they want to hear, and from that you can infer what kind of reader they're after, and it ain't Regular Joe.

'Cos what the "policy elite" really want is the news patronisingly explained to them

I think it would be more precise to describe Vox as being aimed at the social class from which the policy elite is drawn, rather than at the policy elite itself. Even so, I'd be shocked if most of the policy elite weren't regular readers. I doubt even 1% of them find it patronising. Remember: these people are 27-yr olds who literally know nothing.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:30 pm GMT
@Roger More times than I can count, I have engaged on this topic with people who smugly declare that "Google searches are controlled by an algorithm" and hence cannot possibly be biased. After all, it's a big computer not a person!

And they appear to believe that this explanation is completely dispositive.

You are considerably more optimistic than I am about the general intelligence and critical faculties of the American public.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT
@TelfoedJohn

The Sackler family are known to spread their ill-gotten wealth around in the arts world in order to buy respectability.

And the Saatchi family, and the Lauders, Lehmans, Kravises, Schwarzmans, Taubmans, Rothschilsb and so on and so on.

It's what they do.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Trevor H. Incidentally, anyone keen on researching the wealthy and powerful members of the Tribe is well advised to use "philanthropy" as a primary keyword. Heck, even Sheldon Adelson is considered a philanthropist by Google. Wikipedia is not far behind.

Bernie Madoff? Oh, he was just a misunderstood philanthropist.

Mike Zwick , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
Because of this article, I bookmarked Duck Duck Go and will use it instead of Google from now on. BTW, did you ever Google "Google autocomplete policy?"
Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:16 pm GMT
@propagandist hacker Me too.

They have this excellent piece on their blog

https://spreadprivacy.com/how-to-remove-google/

Go thou, and do likewise.

Svigor , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
@snorlax Or it's a digital form of opioids. "Go to sleep white folks, nothing to see here."

It's how (((Big Media's))) been handling America's demographic change for decades.

peterike , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

I actually suspect that the "deaths from opioids" result is phased out as part of some algorithm to stop racist predictions, in this case, against white people

No. If you spend time around leftist websites, you will find lots and lots of Leftists don't see the opioid crisis as bad at all, because it mostly kills the wrong kind of white people (at least that's the perception, I don't know the numbers). Some openly cheer it and mock the "dumb hillbillies" that are dying by the thousands.

Google doesn't want to let you know about it because they're happy it's happening.

Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
@B.B. Mrs Clinton, back in 1998 rued the Internet's lack of "gatekeepers"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1491134/posts

Interesting little beignet:

" So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to "

Mr. Anon , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
@anon

Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open borders globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.

Medieval nobles fought each other, often bitterly, often to the death. But they usually suspended their quarrels whenever the peasants got uppity. They could all agree to repress the commoners. Just because the elites aren't a monolithic block in everything, doesn't mean they don't conspire against all the rest of us.

alaska3636 , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
I suspect that there is a broader part of the population that isn't sure what words they are looking for to complete their search query; but, does anybody here not know the end to the question that they are going to ask the internet? It is occasionally amusing when I see suggested searches go off in a wildly different direction than I had intended, but I rarely follow the suggestions to their conclusion. I am sure Google has statistics that support their "micro-gaslighting"; however, marketing to the masses always feels counter-intuitive to my brain. Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough people to justify the ad-spend.
Spud Boy , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:34 pm GMT
Two comments:

1. I use Bing because I hate Google and everything they stand for.

2. If the auto-complete is incorrect, I just keep typing. It doesn't make me change my intended search.

Philip Owen , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
Yandex.

What is gaslighting anyway? The meaning seems to vary. Listing facts and data seems to be gaslighting.

Philip Owen , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
Google's image recognition has been gutted. In 2014 it would recognize a face and find photos of that person across the internet. A right click would find the original of the fakes used by Russian trolls to suggest non existent attacks on civilians by the Ukrainian army. Now it can't even match the same image.
snorlax , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 Looks like it's drugs in this case.

deaths from her ➔ deaths from herbalife/herpes/hernia surgery/herbal supplements
deaths from mor ➔ (nothing)
deaths from ox ➔ (nothing)
deaths from perc ➔ deaths percy jackson
deaths from cod ➔ (nothing)
deaths from vic ➔ death from victoza/vick's vaporub
deaths from hydro ➔ deaths from hydropower/hydroxycut/hydrogen sulfide/hydrofluoric acid/hydroxyzine/hydrogen cyanide/hydrochloric acid
deaths from coc ➔ deaths from coconuts
deaths from metha ➔ deaths from methadone (lol)/methanol poisoning/methane
deaths from cry ➔ deaths from cyrotherapy/cryptococcosis
deaths from amp ➔ deaths from amputation
deaths from ec ➔ deaths from ectopic pregnancy/e coli/e cigs/eclampsia/eczema/ect
deaths from md ➔ (nothing)
deaths from mari ➔ deaths from maria/marinol
deaths from ls ➔ (nothing)
deaths from lyse ➔ deaths from lysenkoism

Steve in Greensboro , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
@meh Vox is for the policy elite, eh?

I doubt it, but having read some of their stuff, no one would ever say it is for the cognitive elite.

But the the Venn diagram between the cognitive elite and the policy elite would show very little overlap.

Alfa158 , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:58 pm GMT
@Buzz Mohawk I find that Bing is more objective and I also like the daily photo, so I switched to them as my browser home page a couple of years ago.

I have to say one of the things I like about Steve Sailer is his charming, old school White Guy naïveté:
"the news media doesn't seem all that enthusiastic about reporting on what goes on inside Google, perhaps out of fear of what Google could do to them."
Actually Steve, it's because the news media think Google is doing a wonderful thing and wish they would do it harder and faster.

Jack Highlands , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
Our problem is Google has Plausible Irrelevance: it's obvious they're manipulating auto-completes in directions they favor, and since Google is vast and powerful that seems highly relevant to us dissidents. But it's easy for Google to hide behind 'if searchers get all the way to "Kevin Spacey g", let them hunt and peck for a and y – what's the big deal?'
the , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT
Here's a pretty slick case: for a while a search for the terms "Brian Littlefair" returned as the top hit:

UFOs: Proven 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' | Dissident Voice
dissidentvoice.org/2018/08/ufos-proven-beyond
Brian Littlefair / 08/23/2018

And the offending author becomes internet-famous as a flying saucer nut.

Brian Littlefair didn't write that. The search term "Brian Littlefair" does not appear on that UFO web page at all. What did appear there, for a while, in the Latest Article column, was 'The First Thing We Do,'

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/08/the-first-thing-we-do/

That was presumably the offending article. Its content might be triggering to hasbara bots or JTRIG-type keyboard commandos or both. The trick of suppression could be effected by a bit of incremental traffic while both articles appeared on the same page.

This was most pronounced on (Yahoo(oath)(Verizon)). It didn't replicate exactly but the same general hits permuted. DuckDuckGo returned a hit on the UFO article too. By contrast Metager.de, searx.me, and yandex.ru gave you what you would expect.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
@anonymous Same here on the duckduckgo, Mr #340, but I'll use google when I get to an impasse and really want to try hard to get some information.

DuckDuckgo search escalates to Bing (MUCH BETTER on 2 things: images and finding addresses/phone numbers for local businesses), then, if need be, Google.

BTW, I , uhhh, well, this friend of mine, yeah, sometimes types my blog name into Google to help it stay high in the rankings. Doing this on google, though I detest them, is akin to something everyone in the stock market does. With 90%, or what-have-you, of the searches, I crap, my friend wants to work within the system, so to speak. That's just like buying shares of some company because you know that others will buy on some news coming (the news alone may not actually be a good business reason to buy, but it's the psychology of the masses).

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@Roger

The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers,

No, those people are absolutely NOT engineers, no matter WTF Sergey Brin calls them. There may be a few dozen engineers working for that place, but they'd be the guys calculating heat transfer loads off of the servers, or designing electrical power systems.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT
@Alfa158 AGREED! However, Steve's probably got your point in mind too. If there is a proto-Tucker Carlson in a media operation, then he may fear the loss of business and de-linking by Google, though he does know Google is not doing wonderful things.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Redneck farmer With good reason. Life expectancy in the US is now falling, largely as a result of them (and suicide), despite the fact that we spend more on health care than anyone. We are prolonging the lives of the non-productive elderly at tremendous cost but killing healthy young people in what should be their prime productive years. You usually only see falling life expectancy in countries with serious decline, such as Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

But, yes, it's not exactly a secret, which makes it even more puzzling that Google is manipulating its results in this way. I don't think it is just some by-product of the strange counter-intuitive workings of AI but is probably the result of human intervention, although I don't know for what reason. PC thinking is even more counter-intuitive than that of AI bots. I'm still trying to figure out why "colored people" is bad but "people of color" is good.

Ursala , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
I love iSteve. Top unorthodox reporting found here.
Intelligent Dasein , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:42 pm GMT
Here's a few things I've noticed about Google's auto-complete from my own anecdotal experience.

1. It relies heavily not only on your search history but also on your search "currency," i.e. it will preferentially auto-fill a word or phrase if that same word or phrase appears on another tab you have open on your computer at the time, even if you've never typed that word or phrase into the search box before.

2. It is massively tied into television viewing patterns. Google knows what is on television, when and where. If you do a search about an item that was just featured in a commercial during an NFL game, you may get an auto-fill "hit" even before you've typed in anything you might think would be a relevant term.

Google is not in business to do social engineering, it's in business to make money. My impression is that Google's auto-fill suggestions are the result of a bunch of nerds trying desperately to monetize search and bumping up against the hard, cold reality that it can't really be done to any great extent, that the diminishing returns come sharp and quick, and that AI is nothing like it's cracked up to be. To that end they will mine every scrap of available data they can get their hands on and apply their algorithms to it, but the end product is mostly cheesy and useless, like Facebook showing you ads for products you just bought (and consequently don't need to buy again).

Since this is the best that the brightest programmers with the most powerful computers can do, it tells you that the whole concept is flawed. Advertising doesn't really work. AI doesn't really work. But the world today shuts its eyes to these facts in order to keep alive its inward vision of a prosperous, progressing global marketplace. If the facts were fully accepted, the value of companies like Google would sink to niche levels and the internet for the masses would basically shut down. This will happen one day, but in the meantime they will blow that bubble up with as much hype as possible in order to justify their own existence.

res , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:51 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I did the same comparison before I even started reading the comments. ; )

Here it is for anyone who wants to save some time. Notice the spike this week. iSteve influence?

This one is REALLY blatant given that "deaths from open heart surgery" returns: "Hmm, your search doesn't have enough data to show here." (sometimes a flatline just means one search happens much more than another, but still has data)

Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm tweaking?
Do they just remove results or actively provide innocuous replacements? Typing "deaths from ope" in Bing gives the Google response as the third option so seems inconclusive.
How do they get complete coverage? Is it some kind of regular expression like "deaths from op*", a similarity match to phrases, or ?

Another interesting data point is that typing "deaths from opi" gives zero autocompletions. Surely if they were doing explicit replacements they could add something like "deaths from opinion surveys."

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Anon I don't have the knowledge you seem to have about it, Mr. #190, though it sounds like you were in this around the time of Lycos and Alta Vista, etc. Lots has happened since then. I want to ask you if you think my first thought (upon reading Mr. Sailer's post) has any merit. That is, do you think some of the searches, say the Buchanan one*, were the result of bots made to beat all hell out of the search engine on one very particular topic to make auto-complete, and more importantly, IMO, the top results appear as one wants?

I could see some guy trying to make his name or business appear on top, maybe even Mr. Haney (haha, if he's still alive) on the "Bu"-for "Buchanan" thing, but who would want to make the "open-heart surgery.." appear first, a team of computer savvy cardiologist?! It would also require lots of different manipulations besides just the one displayed by Steve. Of course, that's what computers are damn good at.

I tend to agree with Mr. Sailer's opinion on this, but for me, all this discussion (if some good geeks come on here) is a good thing, as I'd like to learn more about SEO for my own benefit.

information retrieval engineers

See, now that's not engineering. These people don't work out problems using the math and empirical data that describe the laws of nature. I don't want to have to keep doing this, dammit.

.

* and I did read you back then, Steve, as I remember this well. I cannot believe that was 8 damn years ago. Time is figuratively flying!

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous Arguably (and I'm not saying this is right) because whites are the hardest hit group, which contradicts the narrative of "white privilege". An old joke headline (and I've seen actual examples of this many times in our MSM after natural disasters, wars, etc.) is " World Ends – Minorities and Women Hit Hardest".

This is the lens thru which the Left views everything, so something that shows that in fact working class whites, especially men, are the ones who are in the most trouble in our society (but get the least help from our government and institutions) is not something that the Left is eager to highlight. This might force them to reconsider whether they have put their thumb on the scale too heavily in favor of other groups. It also undermines their nonsensical claim that they are only "helping" minorities and immigrants, which is a purely good thing, when in fact they are manipulating a zero sum game, so for every bit of "help" that they render, there is an equal amount of "harm" put on someone else's head.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@res

Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm tweaking?

I think the answer is no. Sometimes you can gain little glimpses from patents, but as a whole Google algorithms are a heavily guarded trade secret for many reasons. First of all because they don't want to give search engine competitors (not that they have many left) an advantage – their search algorithm was their secret sauce in the 1st place. 2nd because people who are trying to game the search system for various nefarious economic and political reasons would LOVE to know how the algorithm works because then they could manipulate it – better for it to be a black box. And lastly because they don't want you to tour the sausage factory and see how much "hand tuning" is going on (I suspect a lot, because bots are very "racist" when left to their own devices) and how much of that hand tuning is based on SJW considerations and the financial and petty personal interests of the Google execs. This would open them up to all kinds of 2nd guessing and criticism. So from their POV they are much better off keeping it all a complete mystery and telling you that it's all "science" that you wouldn't understand anyway.

Anonymous [527] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:49 pm GMT
@anon Or it's a paid piece to make it look like they aren't in cahoots. I don't really trust any of the players to give me the truth.
Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck Meanwhile, back in the real world

"Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.
Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.
The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation.
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it.
And, superiority excites envy.
Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities."
Joseph Sobran, April 1997

KunioKun , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:15 pm GMT
Here is a great article on how evil the Sackler family is. Getting doctors to chuck their public trust and credibility into the toilet to shill for Purdue Pharma was pioneered by these people for Valium.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin

JLK , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT

I don't really get why Google does this kind of thing. One reason they do this is because they can and almost nobody ever criticizes them for it.

In the opioid case, it would be a reasonable presumption that Google is being paid to skew the results.

Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:30 pm GMT

It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this.

Steve admits he's nobody!

Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Spud Boy

1. I use Bing because I hate Google and everything they stand for.

Isn't there an umbrella search engine that will put your terms into all the other major ones?

Bookfinder.com does this for book searches. It gives you Amazon, B&N, etc., for new, and American Book Exchange and others for used.

Dogpile is still around. Does that do the job?

tambit , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
Big tech will typically try to obfuscate the issue by saying "it's the algorithm" or "it's complicated." It's not.

The easiest, least cumbersome way to regulate the major search engines is make them provide an audit log of all filtering rules or hard overrides in their search results. Limit this to for profit services that have above a certain threshold in daily users or market share, so it does not hurt innovation in startups. The vast majority of changes would be understandable or inconsequential. But it gives both parties of government direct insight, particularly around local elections, where meddling would be impossible to detect.

Further out, you can make them report any substantial bias they are introducing into the training data and give a basic explanation. In the same way lenders have to explain their lending models, search engines should have to explain how they are tweaking theirs. As search increasingly shifts to mobile, personalized, and voice-based, this becomes important as the only search result that matters is the first one that is returned.

In a world where national elections are coming down to a few hundred thousand votes, it blows my mind Republicans have not been pushing for this.

jim jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein And robots are crap:
Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT
@Mr. Anon Haha good analogy, Mr. Anon. Zerohedge had a story on this little spat. However, these are no medieval nobles, but more like candidates for AntiChrist . It'll be entertaining, I suppose, like Christopher Walken is as the angel Gabrial in Prophecy , but I'm stayin' outta' this one.
Corvinus , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:45 pm GMT
"It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this."

You mean it would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask Google, DuckDuckGo AND Bing publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this.

Probably because it is Coalition of the Fringe Group Cringeworthy.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@alaska3636 Yes, I'd rather not even look at the auto-complete, or do it on a bogged-down computer like mine in which it can't catch up with me! The exception is when I want to look up a word spelling. I just let auto-complete do it for me.

On your 2nd point:

Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough people to justify the ad-spend.

Not necessarily, Alaska. Who really knows if the ads do a damn thing? Google or whoever might honestly give you numbers as to click-throughs, but loads of them, at least for me, are mistakes and times that the little X for close is SO DAMN SMALL that I can't be sure to close rather than click the ad. (That's especially bad on a touch screen.)

Then, the only way to know if your ad really was read at all, is if it leads to a sale or request of some sort being sent in. Google may tell you how many people are reading what you've got out there, but that's just more lies.

Almost Missouri , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:08 pm GMT
@Anon Do you think Google's burying of Pat Buchanan's name was a random quirk?

How about the sudden end to "gay" auto-completes?

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 7:10 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein Very good comment, I.D., especially the last paragraph re: advertising. Your first part reminded me of something that is fairly-well related, so I'll write it here.

Have you all noticed something with youtube, owned by Google? It now uses the IP number (or something else at the modem or router) to keep track of videos that you've been watching or searching for, rather than just cookies, or some other method based on just THE ONE DEVICE.

Here's the observation – My wife likes to watch a number of the same kinds of silly soap-opera-like and reality-show videos on her computer or phone when she is bored. Yes, I know she is no dummy, but it's whom they are. Anyway, it used to be I'd see music and political video suggestions based on what I've viewed and (I believe) what videos have been embedded in web pages (such as unz) that I've viewed.

All of a sudden, about 3 months back, I started seeing all these suggestions on youtube on my computer for the dumb-ass soap-opera/reality-show videos that my wife watches. The suggestions area was filled with her crap. That happened like the flip of a switch. That's probably literally the case (OK, a software setting), but also likely one of the "action items" decided on at a meeting by some Google Anything-But-Engineers just before that day. It's pretty annoying – I don't need the suggestions anyway, but now I can see what these people are up to.

Just a word to the wise: If you watch something, cough, porn, cough cough, that you may not quite want others in the household to know about, you'd better go to Starbucks. The bathroom code is 1-1-1-1. Glad to be of help.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:28 pm GMT
@Anon We know that AI is "racist" and that Google is working hard to find a way to make it not racist (and yet still produce meaningful results), which is probably impossible. We also know that Google has plenty of human resources (although not an infinite #) to throw at such problems until an automated fix is found, just as Facebook now has thousands of people searching manually for Rooshian election interference in order to keep the dogs of Washington at bay. We can also guess that they are not eager to publicize to what extent they are tweaking or hand tuning algorithms or results – they would much rather you think that it is all done by "science". Putting this together, it's my guess that they are doing a fair amount of hand tuning, which is some spotty and uneven combination of combatting SEOs, de-racisting their AI bots, the leftist predilections of Google employees, the commands from on high of Google management, etc.
tambit , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:04 pm GMT
@tambit Final observations about Silicon Valley big tech. People need to appreciate a few things:

– Think of the short tenures that employees have at big tech companies. A conservative at Google or Facebook will only be there for two or three years. So they wonder, "Why rock the boat? In two years, I will be at Netflix or Amazon, or joining a startup, anyway." The transitory nature of it makes employees who break from the orthodoxy stay silent, especially after Damore.

– As with any company, everything is tacitly approved from the CEO and senior leadership. It's unlikely they have their hands in augmenting search results directly. On the other hand, they know the biases of their employees, and look the other way. For example, a CEO may talk about how getting SF contractors to vet news articles means there is unintentional liberal bias. But what prevents them from having some of the contractors in say, Kansas or Ohio, for a more balanced sample? Because the CEO condones the bias.

– If people are waiting for a smoking gun from Google, you will be out of luck. Because of their reach, they can quietly nudge people in a certain direction through repeated exposure. You may see an isolated incident and think "that's weird." But you're not seeing the few thousand other ways they are doing it concurrently. More so, as things continue to shift to mobile and native apps, there will be no meaningful way to measure this. For example, voice search could be construed so it "misunderstands" some phrases with slightly higher probability. This prompts users to type it in manually, which many will not do. Good luck catching that.

Lars Porsena , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm GMT
@Reg Cæsar Typing !bing, !google, !youtube, !amazon, !wikipedia and some others into duckduckgo before the search phrase, will redirect you to a search result from those sites, rather than duckduckgo results.
utu , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm GMT
@KunioKun I have an impression that in media coverage of the opioid crisis the role of heroine, its price and where does it come from is underplayed. Any connection to Afghanistan?
Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Sbrin Give Bing Maps a try. IMO it has a more straightforward interface if you are on a PC.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:51 pm GMT
@utu Most "heroin" nowadays is fentanyl or some other synthetic opiate and it comes from labs in China or from US prescription sources. It is so powerful that you don't need to smuggle in large quantities – 1 kilo is enough to lethally overdose everyone in a city of half a million. Actual heroin (a declining product) comes from Mexico. Afghanistan would be way down on the list in the US nowadays.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:57 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman For many reasons, it is wise to use a VPN. It is only going to get wiser as the surveillance state cranks up further every day.
snorlax , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT
@KunioKun I'm not at all defending the Sacklers; if I made the laws I'd subject the ones involved in the business, and the other responsible Purdue personnel, to one of the more humane-ish old fashioned forms of execution, perhaps blowing from a gun , and seize the wealth of the rest, but this notion of KMac's fan club that their actions have escaped notice, and in particular escaped notice from liberals, is 180 degrees the opposite of the truth.

In fact, the Sacklers are all that liberals want to talk about WRT the opioid crisis -- it deflects blame from Mexican heroin, illegal alien drug pushers and Chinese fentanyl -- hence the widely read New Yorker article , and the bestseller Dopesick , which also toes the left-wing party line* that it was all Sacklers and not Mexico/illegals/China, and which received glowing reviews in the New York Times , Washington Post and Wall Street Journal .

*Unlike dueling bestseller Dreamland , which assigns the Sacklers their share of blame but also tells the rest of the story.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT
@tambit deaths from fe ➝ female circumcision fear factor ferguson riots . fever . fencing ferris wheel. Fentanyl not on the list.

This is clearly no coincidence although I don't know what the agenda is.

Jim Don Bob , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
@dearieme The British House of Cards was much better than the US one:
Kratoklastes , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:41 pm GMT
@alaska3636

I suspect that there is a broader part of the population that isn't sure what words they are looking for to complete their search query; but, does anybody here not know the end to the question that they are going to ask the internet?

+1000.

I was about to type something along the same lines but my version had "fuck[ing]" and "retard[s|ed]" in it several times.

Also – How To Turn Off Address Bar Search Predictions In Every Browser (from 2016).

Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:55 pm GMT
@CCR Is "Apple" a search engine? Where is it found? And what was your nonsense word that yields the two suggestions Trump and Rape?
FKA Max , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 You are already aware of this, Tyrion 2 , since you followed the discussion/debate over in the other comments thread, but this information might be interesting to other UR readers and commenters:

Another question :

i) It appears the 2018 total drug overdose death will be 80,000! That is immense, and is twice as much as auto deaths. Until three days ago, I had no idea the number was skyrocketing this much.

But then why does it not show up in the CDC death table (2016 linked here, which was still a high enough number)? For younger age brackets, surely even the 2016 number was in the Top 10. Is it categorized as something else (like 'Unintentional Injury')?

– http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california/#comment-2635195

Probably. Very good example of "collateral damage" War-/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
[...]
Overdoses are injuries too
[...]
It is easy to find evidence that drug overdoses are unpopular subjects for study or intervention by injury professionals. Index Medicus reveals that to date Injury Prevention has published only one article with the word "overdose" or the phrase "drug poisoning" in its title or abstract. A search of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr , accessed 16 Jan 2007), uncovered only 53 citations using the word "overdose" since 1982. In contrast, a search for "lead poisoning" in MMWR returned 1531 references. Scanning the 53 articles mentioning overdose reveals that overdoses are not the focus of most of them. Instead, many describe outbreaks of unusual cases, such as lead poisoning among methamphetamine users.5 Topics such as endemic use of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and narcotic analgesics receive relatively little attention in the injury literature despite their large contribution to morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.

– https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610611/

– http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california/#comment-2635956

prosa123 , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:03 pm GMT
On the other hand, if you type "Google age" it autocompletes to 'Google age discrimination."
Anon [376] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:06 pm GMT
OT: Wikileaks is threatening to release more Hillary docs. I suspect if they'd had them earlier, they would have released them earlier. These look like a batch of new docs, then. They're probably ones on Weiner's laptop, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Wikileaks suddenly ended up with them after Sessions was given the boot. Some government leaker wanted to wait until Sessions was gone to make sure his butt was covered.
OFWHAP , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:15 pm GMT
@dearieme And it really shows with his absence in the most recent season. I think it's also that Frank Underwood comes off as a likable guy at times while everyone else on the show are just plain nasty people.
Doug , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
Google's *is* fairly transparent about their autocomplete policy. According to them, they censor "sex', "hate", "violence" and "harmful activities". Most of the above examples probably fall under the "hate" grouping, which includes ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation.

You also have to keep in mind that Google is a very algorithm driven company. More often than not someone's making a high-level decision, but most of the individual level choices are made by some machine learning algo that's essentially a black box. Some neural network linked a non-insignificant percentage of "jew" queries to downstream clickthroughs to the Daily Stormer. Whereas "mormon" queries don't lead to hate sites. So the censor algo tries to tag everything with "jew" in the autocomplete.

As for the opiod death thing, that's pretty consistent with Google's general censoring of any drug-related query. This would fall under the "harmful activities" category. You'll notice that sites Drugs-Forums, Bluelight and Erowid, which openly discuss and advocate recreational drug use, no longer appear in most searches. Again, "death from opiates" is being tagged, not for nefarious political reasons, but because to an algorithm it looks like something someone might search for before getting high.

https://www.blog.google/products/search/how-google-autocomplete-works-search/

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/7368877?hl=en

Marat , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@Redneck farmer The topic makes its way into about 10-15% of medical professional journals and continuing ed as well.

My suspicion is that any aspect of society this profoundly dysfunctional probably had the hand of the federal government in its creation.

Marat , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT
Steve, You have readers at The Goolag. By the time I read this, "death from open heart surgery" was at the top of the heap returned for your search string, along with some other amusing obscure suggestions.
moshe , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:30 pm GMT
I'm old enough to remember the wild west web. It probably ended when Obama legally forced google to take down the movie 'innocence of muslims' from youtube until hillary could get to benghazi or something.

But I loved it when back in the day the first search result for "Jew" was "Jew Watch".

Of course Larry and Sergei were among the Jews being "watched" (I assume Stalin and Sailer are too, those are some verbose fellas!) but despite the 2 minutes of outrage Google stuck to it's guns.

Bear in mind, a lot of kids ACTUALLY WERE innocently searching "Jew" and getting an interesting earful.

But it wasn't until this had been the top result for nonths and headlines in every paper for 3 days that Google gave in by placing a: "Here's why you are seeing this result first. Also, no, we do not like Nazis".

I really liked the old internet but somewhere along the way, "the market" got in the way.

I also happen to think that encouragement is both sweet and probably at least as effective as the opposite so I enjoy crediting google for letting jew watch hold top position (it had the most references to "jew" apparently) and for publicly fighting obama on thr innocence of muslims thing – another thing that was rather principled considering as how many people believed the Copt that the movie was financed by "a hundred rich jews" and herr Larry and Sergei were fighting to keep broadcasting it to the world.

Oh, and if ur one of the local antisems suck a lemon

Anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 That's because you spelled white people wrong. It's wypipo.
AndrewR , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:41 pm GMT
@Anon Lmao at the idiot SJW who thinks that "Islamist" is a synonym for "Muslim" and gets triggered upon finding out that Islamists aren't universally revered.
Mbmb , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:54 pm GMT
Do bears
anon [332] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
More fun

How many times have you heard the phrase "opioid epidemic" or "opioid crisis"?

Anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman What you describe is called, in the search results context (although I'm not sure about the Google Suggest context), "Google bombing" or "Googlewashing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

I do think that Google has a way to manually preempt their normal algorithms for these situations, while they work to come up with automated ways to detect and prevent such mischief, since Google bombing produced bad PR and was embarassing for them. The problem was generally "fixed" too quickly to have been due to a fundamental algorithm modification.

information retrieval engineers

There are two degrees that most universities give, computer science and computer engineering. The latter is a more difficult major and involves classes in how computers work at the hardware level and more machine and assembly language study, but in practice the graduates just end up working as programmers, like the computer science guys. It's known that CE guys tend to be smarter, so at the very beginning of your career it helps to have a CE degree rather than a CS degree. You get a slight salary boost, that snowballs over time, until you get too old and expensive and are laid off in place of an Indian.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT
@Sbrin Here you go, Sergey (not very loyal to the company, are ya?) ;-}

I had used yahoo maps, until that folded up (bought up by the Google?), but the bing one in my link seems just as good.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:29 pm GMT
@Doug You win the best answer of the thread award.
Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:37 pm GMT
Yesterday's fun today! Vo-de-oh-do!
ben tillman , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:39 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 Why would that surprise you?

Carl Zimmer (who is discussed here frequently) tweeted that White Americans deserved to be afflicted with the ebola virus.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:40 pm GMT
In a world where men are 'women', anything goes. Trankenstein Monster is the model for kids.

Opioid Trade is the new Opium Trade. From Sassoons to Sacklers.

But all of pop culture and PC seem drug-like as well. Opiates of the Masses.

Get your highs in vice-vanity and virtue-vanity.

Eagle Eye , says: December 1, 2018 at 12:13 am GMT
@snorlax

deaths from lyse ➔ deaths from lysenkoism

Got to hand it to Goolag – this one does make sense, in an Artificial Intelligence type of way.

J.Ross , says: Website December 1, 2018 at 12:46 am GMT
There used to be an activist project called Scroogle which would disrupt Google's track-keeping of who searched for what, and by way of explanation posted screengrabs of Google altering its displayed search results ( not suggesed terms ), so that in one case a Vietnam vet magically became an antiwar anti-Vet hippie. If you clicked through and read the original page, everything would be clear. If you were a lazy student writing a paper in a hurry and just read the little summaries posted on the search result page, you would have a backward but seemingly legitimate understanding. And none of these errors ever broke right.
J.Ross , says: Website December 1, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
@Reg Cæsar http://www.metacrawler.com/

The term "crawler" has become the generic term for a search engine that searches search engines. I think AltaVista was one too.

MikeatMikedotMike , says: December 1, 2018 at 1:23 am GMT
@Jack D "Actual heroin (a declining product)"

Citation?

Because every cop I talk to around here says its use has significantly increased over the last 10 years.

Joe Stalin , says: December 1, 2018 at 1:34 am GMT
@Achmed E. Newman Sorry, Starbucks no longer wants you watching porn because of "pressure groups"; guess it's one more step to stopping Unz and Vdare down the road once the SPLC gets going.

"Internet safety campaign group Enough is Enough have called on Starbucks to block the viewing on their Wi-Fi networks since 2016. The group relaunched an online petition calling for them to keep a promise they said they made more than two years ago to implement a blocking system.

"The group say that open Wi-Fi hotspots -- like those at Starbucks -- can create "criminal safe havens for sexual predators to operate with anonymity."

https://www.newsweek.com/no-more-pornography-our-free-wifi-says-starbucks-ban-set-begin-next-year-1236688

Anonymous [156] Disclaimer , says: December 1, 2018 at 2:04 am GMT
@meh Your screaming that Google is putting its thumb on the scale, and for exact given nefarious reason, isn't an argument either, just your suspicion based on prejudice.

Google's tweaked search results are often superficially illogical or seem to be because they are fluid as well as geographically dependent. It used to be any search for "Jewish" gave an idiotic "We're concerned about these results" message even if the search was for "best Jewish daycare."

Ever since Steve first complained about Buttram it's been pointed out that location and personal history, i.e. cookies and other identifiers also skew the results. Yet he believes Google should be able to read his mind, and show him whatever story about golfers taking the SAT on steroids he thinks should be #1 Worldwide News.

It is trivial to modify the browser search extension -- or just to use a different portal -- in order to gather and compare search pages from multiple sources. But it appears the cognoscenti around here are lazy and need the world to be changed before they modify their own behavior for a supposedly better outcome. They don't even realize that Duck Duck Go merely recycles Google searches with some added pretense of "anonymizing" them, which will get a laugh if you explain it to any online marketing professional. That's probably too generous in light of the barely concealed salivating to control what everyone ELSE sees. Because Google was always intended as some munificent public utility staffed by meek librarians committed to informing you according to your best interests, yeah right.

Anonymous [156] Disclaimer , says: December 1, 2018 at 2:11 am GMT
@Philip Owen The bitmap searching has been close to useless after the decision to placate the lawyers from Getty Images, Shutterstock, et al.
megabar , says: December 1, 2018 at 2:12 am GMT
Note that Google probably _should_ filter, by default, the suggestions. You wouldn't want your kid stumbling onto hardcore porn just because it's a common suggestion. Yes, I realize kids see everything these days -- but that doesn't mean we should surrender all attempts at decency.

The real problem is that society is so divided that we can't agree on what should be filtered anymore. I can't imagine anyone getting worked up over tax rate suggestions on Google, which is what our politics used to be about. Homogeneous societies (in many things, such as race, culture, religion) have a lot of advantages.

Anonymous [156] Disclaimer , says: December 1, 2018 at 2:19 am GMT
@snorlax If Sackler thought he'd be the hero to the colored hordes by cooking up his white-gentile-seeking magical death formula Yaqub-like -- per current state-of-the-art theory with Unz.com brain-trust -- he sure was kidding himself. The hordes tend not to be too laudatory of rich elite Jews who spend money on gay paintings n' that shizz.
Desiderius , says: December 1, 2018 at 2:37 am GMT

nobody ever seems to do this

Steve Sailer, our modern day Odysseus eluding the Eye of Soros like a champ.

CrunchybutRealistCon , says: December 1, 2018 at 2:44 am GMT
Sometimes I feel like I live in another country. Haven't used Google or Yahoo search functions in about 8 years. You would think other people would start to catch on that BigTech is the Iron Fist of PozFeed, but alas many sheeple remain.
Only use duckduckgo, and more recently ixquick.com or startpage.com

Google has over 85% of the search engine market share in India, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Australia, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, France & Canada which is a bit odd given than Italy & Australia are way more sane than Sweden, Belgium & Canada.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/220534/googles-share-of-search-market-in-selected-countries/

Sweden & Belgium are clearly in the palm of Google's Globalists & Mme Lerner-Spectre is surely quite delighted.
ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/621418/most-popular-search-engines-in-sweden/

http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-host-market-share/desktop/belgium

dfordoom , says: Website December 1, 2018 at 2:52 am GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Google is not in business to do social engineering, it's in business to make money.

You reckon? I'm inclined to think that Google already has all the money it could ever want. So if you have more than enough money, what else is there? The obvious answer is power. Power is even more exciting and even sexier than money.

If modern capitalism really were just about money we wouldn't be facing the problems we're facing now. But modern capitalism is much much more about power than money.

So Google's main priority is definitely more likely to be social engineering than making money.

The preferred nomenclature is... , says: December 1, 2018 at 3:19 am GMT
@anonymous I don't use Google nor do I shop on Amazon. That is what gets me about Instapundit; every other article, it seems, is how evil big tech is followed up by two links to Amazon for the latest item that you don't need. Baffling, really.
Anonymous [155] Disclaimer , says: December 1, 2018 at 3:19 am GMT
@Jack D

I'm still trying to figure out why "colored people" is bad but "people of color" is good.

The thinking is that "colored people" implies that the default is white and then people can be modified by having a non-white color, while "people of color" implies that they are the default.

Seriously. Don't ask how I know,

The preferred nomenclature is... , says: December 1, 2018 at 3:21 am GMT
@Trevor H. Private foundations, baby. Dat where the (((money))) be at.
Kevin S Van Horn , says: December 1, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
@Anon "And it is possible that when the skew is anti-right it is not caught as early as anti-left skews are caught, due to company implicit political biases."

This all by itself could be sufficient to create a significant political bias. Imagine that you paid much more attention to cleaning the left side of your windshield than your right side. Without ever deliberately dirtying the right side, you would still end up with a clean left side and a dirty right side.

MBlanc46 , says: December 1, 2018 at 4:10 am GMT
@anonymous I've done some comparisons. For most searches, DDG is just as good. For very recondite searches Google is better. But I almost always use DDG because I loathe the vermin at Google.
Peterike , says: December 1, 2018 at 4:54 am GMT
@Anonymous "They don't even realize that Duck Duck Go merely recycles Google searches with some added pretense of "anonymizing" them"

Hey genius, DDG uses Yahoo, Bing, it's own crawlers and multiple other sources. What it does NOT use is Google.

Good thing you know so much.

David Davenport , says: December 1, 2018 at 5:00 am GMT
@Spud Boy 1. I use Bing because I hate Google and everything they stand for.

News items on the MSN Bing home page are consistently Left and anti-Trump.

Mr McKenna , says: December 1, 2018 at 8:04 am GMT
@peterike Indeed–and the notion that Google is trying to circumvent anti-white racism is, to put it kindly, risible.
Mr McKenna , says: December 1, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
@dfordoom The same sort of people are always telling us that Hollywood has only money in view when it produces movies and television shows. No one denies that they worship money, but yes–power is the greater aphrodisiac.

[Dec 01, 2018] Announcement - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... The Unz Review ..."
"... The Unz Review ..."
"... Guns & Butter ..."
"... Guns & Butter ..."
"... The Unz Review ..."
"... Guns & Butter ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.unz.com
Why The American Conservative Purged Its Own Publisher Ron Unz • May 29, 2018 • 5,800 Words

Since TAC had been the primary venue for my own writings, I was faced with a major challenge, but a sudden insight changed this picture.

I realized that many other writers and columnists had also been purged from mainstream publications, and that these prominent victims could constitute the core contributors of an entirely new publication. Hence was born The Unz Review , entitled "An Alternative Media Selection" and bearing the descriptive subtitle "A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media."

Obviously alternative media websites had existed on the Internet from its earliest days, but nearly all of these had always been centered upon a particular ideological or political orientation. But The Unz Review was intended to include most of these frequently contradictory perspectives, hosting material both Left and Right, conspiratorial and racialist, fascistic and anarchistic, with very lightly moderated comment-threads.

Although many doubted that a webzine providing such varied and conflicting viewpoints would ever attract any significant audience, I do think that we have. Our steadily rising readership reached nearly three million monthly pageviews and 45,000 monthly comments in September and October. Moreover, this strong and steady growth has come despite our suffering some of the same "soft censorship," especially upon Social Media, that has been inflicted upon most other alternative media websites, whether Left or Right, especially in the wake of Donald Trump's unexpected election victory.

According to the Alexa.com estimates, many of these other popular webzines have lost or more of their traffic-rankings since the January 2017 crackdown, while ours has increased by almost 50% during that same period. And according to Alexa, our daily traffic surpassed that of TAC about one year ago, and has remained significantly ahead every month since that time. Here's a comparison table of UNZ.com over the last couple of years with roughly forty mid-size mostly alternative websites.

Alexa Traffic-Rankings Ranking Relative UNZ.com Improvement Ranking
Website Jan 2017 Since 1/16 Since 1/17 Since 1/18 Nov 2018
UNZ.com 39,119 -- -- -- 26,503
newrepublic.com 11,383 +213 +133 +47 18,006
nakedcapitalism.com 51,168 +228 +189 +74 100,316
marginalrevolution.com 55,427 +98 +8 +18 40,621
lewrockwell.com 22,019 +222 +187 +32 42,826
antiwar.com 41,606 +187 + 120 +12 61,960
theamericanconservative.com 34,096 +46 +34 -0 30,982
counterpunch.org 19,149 +211 +229 +62 42,641
thesaker.is 44,295 -5 +36 -7 40,688
russia-insider.com 19,031 +120 +79 -22 23,050
theduran.com 33,073 -- +217 +68 71,114
veteranstoday.com 18,802 +205 +229 +28 41,899
rense.com 16,866 +285 +355 +139 51,978
voltairenet.org 17,946 +56 +89 +6 22,964
mondoweiss.net 69,188 +278 +127 +63 106,549
consortiumnews.com 68,994 +26 +110 +60 98,353
moonofalabama.org 75,814 -14 +58 -1 81,229
strategic-culture.org 72,432 -48 + 32 -19 65,006
globalresearch.ca 11,762 +379 +249 +48 27,792
truthdig.com 25,070 +141 +160 +2 44,212
opednews.com 79,623 +456 + 369 +60 253,143
ahtribune.com 153,977 +101 +124 +98 233,252
dissidentvoice.org 247,586 +69 +52 -21 254,496
whowhatwhy.org 183,844 +41 +46 +46 182,414
paulcraigroberts.org 48,201 +179 +107 +34 67,495
countercurrents.org 151,666 +260 +141 +46 247,371
alternet.org 5,658 +420 +257 +89 13,689
takimag.com 38,052 +167 +155 +56 65,617
vdare.com 83,556 +167 +161 +75 147,712
redice.tv 61,846 -- +243 +109 143,680
amren.com 60,626 +64 +111 +47 86,512
theoccidentalobserver.net 142,140 +95 +146 +68 236,670
occidentaldissent.com 242,298 -4 -9 +59 149,654
counter-currents.com 111,370 -6 +56 +18 118,054
therightstuff.biz 41,539 -24 +56 +41 43,949
heartiste.wordpress.com 56,543 +104 +64 +9 62,735
stormfront.org 21,459 +150 +230 +174 47,969
voxday.blogspot.com 92,884 +3 -11 +17 55,893
sott.net 14,755 +134 +150 +76 25,005

Less than two years ago, we were towards the lower end of the traffic rankings of these dozens of webzines, and now we are near the very top. For example, during this period our relative traffic ranking has grown by 229% over that of Counterpunch and 34% over that of TAC . Even more remarkably, our traffic was improved by 133% over the venerable and very mainstream New Republic , placing us at roughly two-thirds of the readership of that century-old publication.

Our stated role as a refuge for the purged and the persecuted has become an increasingly important one as other publications have become conforming to the ruling dictates of the Corporate Media, perhaps for fear that they would be branded "Russian Fake News."

This unfortunate situation has been especially true of the late Alex Cockburn's once fiercely iconoclastic Counterpunch , which has shown the door to many of its most popular writers, including Israel Shamir, Paul Craig Roberts, Mike Whitney, Diana Johnstone, Linh Dinh, and C.J. Hopkins, all of whom are now published here instead. As a likely consequence, Counterpunch 's traffic-ranking has dropped by nearly 60% since the beginning of 2017, falling far behind our own rapidly growing readership numbers.

The obvious problem with offering ideological fare hardly different than that of mainstream left-liberal publications such as HuffPost and Salon is that you are directly competing with HuffPost and Salon, and their vastly larger footprint assures them the lion's share of the market.

It's interesting to note that this tremendous improvement has occurred even as we published articles at least as controversial as have any of these other publications, and in many cases, much more so.

Just as my own 2013 purge launched this webzine, ongoing purges in the media are spurring its expansion, even into new forms of content.

For 17 years, Bonnie Faulkner's hour-long Guns & Butter was one of the most popular and controversial shows airing on the leftwing Pacifica radio network, headquartered in Berkeley, California. And then just a few months ago, the show was suddenly cancelled and its complete archives scrubbed from the KPFA website, allegedly for its "controversial" content (though I suspect that Pacifica 's severe financial problems may have allowed outside donors the necessary leverage to finally remove a long-standing thorn in their side).

Regardless, KPFA's loss is our gain, and I'm very pleased to announce that Guns & Butter has now joined The Unz Review as our first podcast, with the website software having been extended to handle that additional form of content. This includes the hundreds of Guns & Butter shows aired since 2001, with hopes that some additional past shows will soon be located and added.

The most recent Guns & Butter podcast is available on the Home page and the sidebars of all other pages, as are the complete archives here:

http://www.unz.com/audio/channel/gunsbutter/

Just as with all other Archive pages, shows my be filtered by time period, such as the 22 shows that aired in 2016:

http://www.unz.com/audio/channel/gunsbutter/2016/

Shows may also be filtered by Guests, and here's the link to the 21 shows featuring economist Michael Hudson:

http://www.unz.com/audio/channel/gunsbutter/guest/michael_hudson/

It was apparently the broadcast of portions of the "Deep Truth" conference in July that led to the sudden cancellation of Guns & Butter, and here's one of those shows, which featuring our own Philip Giraldi:

http://www.unz.com/audio/gunsbutter_zionism-deconstructing-the-power-paradigm-part-one-390/

With our software now able to effectively organize and present podcasts, we will consider adding additional ones in the near future.

[Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities

Dec 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities By Daniel Larison • April 30, 2015, 10:29 AM

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F7LloFuHvA7I.js%3Fversion%3D43%23cb%3Df1a059368580579%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff1c43745bb8be2a%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fcongress-screwed-up-foreign-policy-priorities%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.0568ee90c37ccf52b40a4b1e312811ff.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fcongress-screwed-up-foreign-policy-priorities%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Congress%E2%80%99%20Screwed-Up%20Foreign%20Policy%20Priorities%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1543643309065&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fcongress-screwed-up-foreign-policy-priorities%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Fcongress-screwed-up-foreign-policy-priorities%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.t2UPL-v4NsI.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCNp4MZuwN6M1DIuMNrgVi7_Y_XLXg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1543643308629&_gfid=I0_1543643308629&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=5393991

Everett Collection / Shutterstock Paul Pillar remarks on Congress' screwed-up priorities regarding its role in foreign policy decisions:

The role that the U.S. Congress has assumed for itself as a player in foreign policy exhibits an odd and indefensible pattern these days. Senator Chris Murphy calls it a "double standard," although that might be too mild a term. On one hand there are vigorous efforts to insert Congress into the negotiation of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. The efforts extend even to attempts to interfere in the details of what is being negotiated, as reflected in a string of amendments being considered in debate in the Senate this week on a bill laying out a procedure for Congress to pass a quick judgment on the agreement. On the other hand there is inaction, with little or no prospect of any action, on an authorization for the use of military force against the so-called Islamic State.

Pillar is right that this is just the opposite of what Congress should be doing. If there is a time when Congress ought to be deferring to the executive on foreign policy, it is when the U.S. is involved in negotiations with other governments. The same people that claim to be horrified by the idea of "535 commanders-in-chief" believe that they must sound off early and often on every detail of a complex negotiated settlement. War can be left to the discretion of the president and his officials, but not diplomacy. The same members that can't be bothered to assume their proper constitutional responsibilities and happily yield to one illegal presidential war after another cannot wait to meddle in a diplomatic process that, if successful, will make a future conflict less likely.

Interventionists in Congress have no problem if a president starts wars on his own, because he is pursuing the policy they would have voted for anyway if they were bothered to vote on such things. They are alarmed by negotiations that could make it more difficult for a future president to attack the regime involved in the talks. These hawks have excessive confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas, and so they don't to impose limits on what the U.S. does in its foreign wars. They tend to see diplomacy as nothing but appeasement and therefore something that should be undermined, second-guessed, and sabotaged as much as possible.

Other members of Congress have no strong ideological motivation for this behavior, but simply want to be able to grandstand on major issues without suffering serious political consequences. They are glad to avoid having to vote one way or another on a war, since that potentially could come back to haunt them if the war drags on, if it fails, or if many Americans are killed. It's safer and easier for them to cheer on a president's illegal war when it's popular and then start griping about it when it goes badly, and because they never cast a vote one for or against the war they can have it both ways. If Congressional meddling succeeds in damaging negotiations, any later costs to the U.S. from that missed opportunity won't be linked back to the meddling members of Congress. If the meddling doesn't work as intended, most people will quickly forget it. In the meantime, the meddlers will get credit for "standing up" against appeasement or whatever nonsensical description they choose to use. Unfortunately, there is normally no political cost for members of Congress that want to use diplomacy with an unpopular government as an excuse to demagogue and look "tough" to the voters back home. That is why many of them will try to interfere with U.S. diplomacy while giving the president free rein to wage illegal wars for as long as he wants.

about:blank

collin April 30, 2015 at 11:09 am

After reading Josh Marshall/David Frum debate on the nuclear deal yesterday, I found one of the most effective Frum's arguments was liberals are claiming it is 2002 Iraq/n again. (Fair argument considering Chait's great note on the 61 times Kristol uses Churchill/Chamberlain/Hitler references.) Trying to avoid historical analogies, I am still looking for actual evidence that Iran is building the bomb. The conservative argument still rest on Iran still wants the bomb and the deal can't absolutely stop them.

Any thoughts on Stewart on Judith Miller interview on why the press accepted the government's point that Iraq was building the bomb. Living through 2002, I was against the Iraq War because I did not find the Bush administration WMD argument convincing enough and felt it was a lot of heresy evidence. And i am seeing a similar argument with Iran.

PlusFours , says: April 30, 2015 at 1:46 pm
"These hawks have excessive confidence that military action can "solve" problems overseas"

"Excessive confidence" is an excessively polite way of characterizing it.

[Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

Highly recommended!
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
May-June 1 1999, | prospect.org

Originally from: The Power Elite Now

... ... ...

The Warlords

One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.

Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "

War or a high state of war preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"

Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.

Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die, even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there is no demonstrable military need for them.

Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.

The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.

And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former.

Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....

[Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

Highly recommended!
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
May-June 1 1999, | prospect.org

Originally from: The Power Elite Now

... ... ...

The Warlords

One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.

Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "

War or a high state of war preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"

Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.

Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die, even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there is no demonstrable military need for them.

Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.

The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.

And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former.

Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....

[Nov 30, 2018] Pompeo's Perverse Yemen Rhetoric by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense ..."
"... The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense like this:

Secretary Pompeo

* @SecPompeo

Iran's regime has no interest in easing Yemeni suffering; the
mullahs don't even care for ordinary Iranians. Saudi Arabia has
invested billions to relieve suffering in #Yemen. Iran has
invested zero.

C10.8K 11:02 AM-Nov 28, 2018 в

The truth is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have used their donations as another weapon of war while doing everything in their power to worsen the humanitarian crisis that their policies created. Saudi "aid" efforts have been denounced by humanitarian organizations as a "war tactic," and the Saudi government has used its donations to buy good publicity from aid agencies and silence criticism. The "investments" that the Saudi coalition governments have made are little more than poorly-concealed bribes to relieve international pressure, and these same governments have used their donations as leverage to blackmail the U.N. in the past.

The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. The governments responsible for causing the displacement of millions of people and creating famine conditions potentially affecting up to 14 million do not merit praise for throwing a little money at the catastrophe they have unleashed. Iran's interest in assisting suffering Yemenis or lack thereof is truly beside the point when it is the Saudi coalition backed by the U.S. that has caused so much of that suffering. War criminals do not get credit when they throw some cash at the wreckage of the country they have destroyed, and Pompeo's attempt to give Saudi Arabia credit for "relieving" suffering in Yemen is as perverse and disgusting as it gets.

about:blank

TomG November 30, 2018 at 11:07 am

If only Pompeo could taste the excrement coming out of his mouth. May he go to Yemen and live off the great Saudi relief.

Daniel Larison for Secretary of State!

Sid Finster , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Bravo, TomG!

TomG for Senate Foreign Relations Committee or something!

Taras 77 , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Pompeo's statements about saudi support is absolutely astonishing in a very bad way.

Does he actually believe such nonsense? Is he being fed these gross distortions of reality by his Iran working group led by Hook?

At some point,these lies go beyond the absurd, they go beyond propaganda, they become for the world to see a war monger's mantra and justification for an attack on Iran.

Pompeo and bolton have gained world wide recognition as being mindless war mongers with much power but to continue with absurd twisting of facts on the ground really does this country a huge disservice-meanwhile the population in yemen starve.

Where is the justice, where is the humanity amongst these lies?

[Nov 30, 2018] America Is Headed For Military Defeat in Afghanistan

Notable quotes:
"... other year of the war ..."
"... Enough Afghans either support the Taliban or hate the occupation, and managed, through assorted conventional and unconventional operations, to fight on the ground. And "on the ground" is all that really matters. This war may well have been ill-advised and unwinnable from the start. ..."
"... There's no shame in defeat. But there is shame, and perfidy, in avoiding or covering up the truth. It's what the whole military-political establishment did after Vietnam, and, I fear, it's what they're doing again. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

America Is Headed For Military Defeat in Afghanistan It is time to acknowledge this is more than political. We can lose on the battlefield, and it's happening right now. By Danny Sjursen • November 30, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F7LloFuHvA7I.js%3Fversion%3D43%23cb%3Df14748e39457f%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff82bc2938f8f8b%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Famerica-is-headed-for-military-defeat-in-afghanistan%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.0568ee90c37ccf52b40a4b1e312811ff.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Famerica-is-headed-for-military-defeat-in-afghanistan%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=America%20Is%20Headed%20For%20Military%20Defeat%20in%20Afghanistan%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1543603027326&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Famerica-is-headed-for-military-defeat-in-afghanistan%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Famerica-is-headed-for-military-defeat-in-afghanistan%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.4BOpmQl8fPg.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCMoKF2A6fOyMfdBCNikAdyYCXQ5iw%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1543603027036&_gfid=I0_1543603027036&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=3167179

Marines with Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, sprint across a field to load onto a CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter during a mission in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 4, 2014. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Joseph Scanlan / released) There's a prevailing maxim, both inside the armed forces and around the Beltway, that goes something like this: "The U.S. can never be militarily defeated in any war," certainly not by some third world country. Heck, I used to believe that myself. That's why, in regard to Afghanistan, we've been told that while America could lose the war due to political factors (such as the lack of grit among "soft" liberals or defeatists), the military could never and will never lose on the battlefield.

That entire maxim is about to be turned on its head. Get ready, because we're about to lose this war militarily.

Consider this: the U.S. military has advised, assisted, battled, and bombed in Afghanistan for 17-plus years. Ground troop levels have fluctuated from lows of some 10,000 to upwards of 100,000 servicemen and women. None of that has achieved more than a tie, a bloody stalemate. Now, in the 18th year of this conflict, the Kabul-Washington coalition's military is outright losing.

Let's begin with the broader measures. The Taliban controls or contests more districts -- some 44 percent -- than at any time since the 2001 invasion. Total combatant and civilian casualties are forecasted to top 20,000 this year -- another dreadful broken record. What's more, Afghan military casualties are frankly unsustainable: the Taliban are killing more than the government can recruit. The death rates are staggering, numbering 5,500 fatalities in 2015, 6,700 in 2016, and an estimate (the number is newly classified) of "about 10,000" in 2017. Well, some might ask, what about American airpower -- can't that help stem the Taliban tide? Hardly. In 2018, as security deteriorated and the Taliban made substantial gains, the U.S. actually dropped more bombs than in any other year of the war . It appears that nothing stands in the way of impending military defeat.

Then there are the very recent events on the ground -- and these are telling. Insider attacks in which Afghan "allies" turn their guns on American advisors are back on the rise, most recently in an attack that wounded a U.S. Army general and threatened the top U.S. commander in the country. And while troop numbers are way down from the high in 2011, American troops deaths are rising. Over the Thanksgiving season alone, a U.S. Army Ranger was killed in a friendly fire incident and three other troopers died in a roadside bomb attack. And in what was perhaps only a (still disturbing) case of misunderstood optics, the top U.S. commander, General Miller, was filmed carrying his own M4 rifle around Afghanistan. That's a long way from the days when then-General Petraeus (well protected by soldiers, of course) walked around the markets of Baghdad in a soft cap and without body armor.

More importantly, the Afghan army and police are getting hammered in larger and larger attacks and taking unsustainable casualties. Some 26 Afghan security forces were killed on Thanksgiving, 22 policemen died in an attack on Sunday, and on Tuesday 30 civilians were killed in Helmand province. And these were only the high-profile attacks, dwarfed by the countless other countrywide incidents. All this proves that no matter how hard the U.S. military worked, or how many years it committed to building an Afghan army in its own image, and no matter how much air and logistical support that army received, the Afghan Security Forces cannot win. The sooner Washington accepts this truth over the more comforting lie, the fewer of our adulated American soldiers will have to die. Who is honestly ready to be the last to die for a mistake, or at least a hopeless cause?

Now, admittedly, this author is asking for trouble -- and fierce rebuttals -- from both peers and superiors still serving on active duty. And that's understandable. The old maxim of military invincibility soothes these men, mollifies their sense of personal loss, whether of personal friends or years away from home, in wars to which they've now dedicated their entire adult lives. Questioning whether there even is a military solution in Afghanistan, or, more specifically, predicting a military defeat, serves only to upend their mental framework surrounding the war.

Still, sober strategy and basic honesty demands a true assessment of the military situation in America's longest war. The Pentagon loves metrics, data, and stats. Well, as demonstrated daily on the ground in Afghanistan, all the security (read: military) metrics point towards impending defeat. At best, the Afghan army, with ample U.S. advisory detachments and air support, can hold on to the northernmost and westernmost provinces of the country, while a Taliban coalition overruns the south and east. This will be messy, ugly, and discomfiting for military and civilian leaders alike. But unless Washington is prepared to redeploy 100,000 soldiers to Afghanistan (again) -- and still only manage a tie, by the way -- it is also all but inevitable.

America's Disastrous Occupation of Afghanistan Turns 17 The War in Afghanistan is Enabling Pedophilia

The United States military did all it was asked during more than 17 years of warfare in Afghanistan. It raided, it bombed, it built, it surged, it advised, it everything. Still, none of that was sufficient. Enough Afghans either support the Taliban or hate the occupation, and managed, through assorted conventional and unconventional operations, to fight on the ground. And "on the ground" is all that really matters. This war may well have been ill-advised and unwinnable from the start.

There's no shame in defeat. But there is shame, and perfidy, in avoiding or covering up the truth. It's what the whole military-political establishment did after Vietnam, and, I fear, it's what they're doing again.

Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army officer and a regular contributor to Unz. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

[Nov 30, 2018] Pompeo's Perverse Yemen Rhetoric by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense ..."
"... The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense like this:

Secretary Pompeo

* @SecPompeo

Iran's regime has no interest in easing Yemeni suffering; the
mullahs don't even care for ordinary Iranians. Saudi Arabia has
invested billions to relieve suffering in #Yemen. Iran has
invested zero.

C10.8K 11:02 AM-Nov 28, 2018 в

The truth is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have used their donations as another weapon of war while doing everything in their power to worsen the humanitarian crisis that their policies created. Saudi "aid" efforts have been denounced by humanitarian organizations as a "war tactic," and the Saudi government has used its donations to buy good publicity from aid agencies and silence criticism. The "investments" that the Saudi coalition governments have made are little more than poorly-concealed bribes to relieve international pressure, and these same governments have used their donations as leverage to blackmail the U.N. in the past.

The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. The governments responsible for causing the displacement of millions of people and creating famine conditions potentially affecting up to 14 million do not merit praise for throwing a little money at the catastrophe they have unleashed. Iran's interest in assisting suffering Yemenis or lack thereof is truly beside the point when it is the Saudi coalition backed by the U.S. that has caused so much of that suffering. War criminals do not get credit when they throw some cash at the wreckage of the country they have destroyed, and Pompeo's attempt to give Saudi Arabia credit for "relieving" suffering in Yemen is as perverse and disgusting as it gets.

about:blank

TomG November 30, 2018 at 11:07 am

If only Pompeo could taste the excrement coming out of his mouth. May he go to Yemen and live off the great Saudi relief.

Daniel Larison for Secretary of State!

Sid Finster , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Bravo, TomG!

TomG for Senate Foreign Relations Committee or something!

Taras 77 , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Pompeo's statements about saudi support is absolutely astonishing in a very bad way.

Does he actually believe such nonsense? Is he being fed these gross distortions of reality by his Iran working group led by Hook?

At some point,these lies go beyond the absurd, they go beyond propaganda, they become for the world to see a war monger's mantra and justification for an attack on Iran.

Pompeo and bolton have gained world wide recognition as being mindless war mongers with much power but to continue with absurd twisting of facts on the ground really does this country a huge disservice-meanwhile the population in yemen starve.

Where is the justice, where is the humanity amongst these lies?

[Nov 30, 2018] Is Putin the Provocateur in the Kerch Crisis, by Pat Buchanan

Crimea was a variation of Kosovo. As the USA destroyed post WWII order, as its position weakens, real chaos can occurs. because Might is right can work not only for the USA anymore. And in this theater the USA has no advantages, other then their geopolitical weight. It is too fat from US mainland.
The USA speed up events probably by 20 years or so and coursed considerable suffering of the Ukrainian population. Ukraine was gradually detaching itself from Russia anyway (which is a natural process for any xUSSR republic after the independence.). Essentially the USA raped the Ukraine using Ukrainian nationalist as a fifth column of neoliberal globalization.
The net result of the premature and by-and-large successful attempt to break Ukraine from Russia and play Baltic's scenario (which was possible due to existence of Western Ukrainian nationalists) was drastic impoverishing (already very poor after chaos and neoliberal economic plunder of 1990th) of the bottom 99% of Ukrainian population which now is the poorest population of Europe.
Ukrainian nationalists now are finding the hard way that bordering with Russia created some problems for their agenda... The good analogy is Canada and the USA.
In a way, incorporation of Western Ukraine into the USSR looks now like Stalin's geopolitical mistake. Now attempts to colonize Eastern Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists will face resistance and it already led to civil war in Donbass.
Things became way too complex and unpredictable in this region. Of course, neocons still are pushing their usual might is right policy, not they might face considerable setbacks in the future. Like they did in Iraq. Which still did not affect much their paychecks.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting. Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident. ..."
"... For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that he is in control." ..."
"... Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative? Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might resist. ..."
"... Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections. ..."
"... Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2 and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe. ..."
"... If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free of Kiev? ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.unz.com

On departure for the G-20 gathering in Buenos Aires, President Donald Trump canceled his planned weekend meeting with Vladimir Putin, citing as his reason the Russian military's seizure and holding of three Ukrainian ships and 24 sailors.

But was Putin really the provocateur in Sunday's naval clash outside Kerch Strait, the Black Sea gateway to the Sea of Azov?

Or was the provocateur Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko?

First, a bit of history.

In 2014, after the pro-Russian regime in Kiev was ousted in a coup, and a pro-NATO regime installed with U.S. backing, Putin detached and annexed Crimea, for centuries the homeport of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

With the return of Crimea, Russia now occupied both sides of Kerch Strait. And this year, Russia completed a 12-mile bridge over the strait and Putin drove the first truck across.

The Sea of Azov became a virtual Russian lake, access to which was controlled by Russia, just as access to the Black Sea is controlled by Turkey.

While the world refused to recognize the new reality, Russia began to impose rules for ships transiting the strait, including 48 hours notice to get permission.

Ukrainian vessels, including warships, would have to notify Russian authorities before passing beneath the Kerch Strait Bridge into the Sea of Azov to reach their major port of Mariupol.

Sunday, two Ukrainian artillery ships and a tug, which had sailed out of Odessa in western Ukraine, passed through what Russia now regards as its territorial waters off Crimea and the Kerch Peninsula. Destination: Mariupol.

The Ukrainian vessels refused to obey Russian directives to halt.

Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting. Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident.

For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that he is in control."

Our U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, however, accused Russia of "outlaw actions" against the Ukrainian vessels and "an arrogant act the international community will never accept."

Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative? Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might resist.

Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections.

Immediately after the clash, Poroshenko imposed martial law in all provinces bordering Russia and the Black Sea, declared an invasion might be imminent, demanded new Western sanctions on Moscow, called on the U.S. to stand with him, and began visiting army units in battle fatigues.

Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2 and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe.

But there is a larger issue here. Why is control of the Kerch Strait any of our business? Why is this our quarrel, to the point that U.S. strategists want us to confront Russia over a Crimean Peninsula that houses the Livadia Palace that was the last summer residence of Czar Nicholas II?

If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free of Kiev?

Why are we letting ourselves be dragged into everyone's quarrels -- from who owns the islets in the South China Sea, to who owns the Senkaku and Southern Kurils; and from whether Transnistria had a right to secede from Moldova, to whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia had the right to break free of Georgia, when Georgia broke free of Russia?

Do the American people care a fig for these places? Are we really willing to risk war with Russia or China over who holds title to them?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

[Nov 30, 2018] Petras Where Have The Anti-War Anti-Bank Masses Gone by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan. ..."
"... The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars. ..."
"... The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by James Petras via The Unz Review, US Mass Mobilizations: Wars and Financial Plunder Introduction

Over the past three decades, the US government has engaged in over a dozen wars, none of which have evoked popular celebrations either before, during or after. Nor did the government succeed in securing popular support in its efforts to confront the economic crises of 2008 – 2009.

This paper will begin by discussing the major wars of our time, namely the two US invasions of Iraq . We will proceed to analyze the nature of the popular response and the political consequences.

In the second section we will discuss the economic crises of 2008 -2009, the government bailout and popular response. We will conclude by focusing on the potential powerful changes inherent in mass popular movements.

The Iraq War and the US Public

In the run-up to the two US wars against Iraq, (1990 – 01 and 2003 – 2011) there was no mass war fever, nor did the public celebrate the outcome. On the contrary both wars were preceded by massive protests in the US and among EU allies. The first Iraqi invasion was opposed by the vast-majority of the US public despite a major mass media and regime propaganda campaign backed by President George H. W. Bush. Subsequently, President Clinton launched a bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 with virtually no public support or approval.

March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the second major war against Iraq despite massive protests in all major US cities. The war was officially concluded by President Obama in December 2011. President Obama's declaration of a successful conclusion failed to elicit popular agreement.

Several questions arise:

Why mass opposition at the start of the Iraq wars and why did they fail to continue?

Why did the public refuse to celebrate President Obama's ending of the war in 2011?

Why did mass protests of the Iraq wars fail to produce durable political vehicles to secure the peace?

The Anti-Iraq War Syndrome

The massive popular movements which actively opposed the Iraq wars had their roots in several historical sources. The success of the movements that ended the Viet Nam war, the ideas that mass activity could resist and win was solidly embedded in large segments of the progressive public. Moreover, they strongly held the idea that the mass media and Congress could not be trusted; this reinforced the idea that mass direct action was essential to reverse Presidential and Pentagon war policies.

The second factor encouraging US mass protest was the fact that the US was internationally isolated. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush wars faced hostile regime and mass opposition in Europe, the Middle East and in the UN General Assembly. US activists felt that they were part of a global movement which could succeed.

Thirdly the advent of Democratic President Clinton did not reverse the mass anti-war movements.The terror bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was destructive and Clinton's war against Serbia kept the movements alive and active To the extent that Clinton avoided large scale long-term wars, he avoided provoking mass movements from re-emerging during the latter part of the 1990's.

The last big wave of mass anti-war protest occurred from 2003 to 2008. Mass anti-war protest to war exploded soon after the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11. White House exploited the events to proclaim a global 'war on terror', yet the mass popular movements interpreted the same events as a call to oppose new wars in the Middle East.

Anti-war leaders drew activists of the entire decade, envisioning a 'build-up' which could prevent the Bush regime from launching a series of wars without end. Moreover, the vast-majority of the public was not convinced by officials' claims that Iraq, weakened and encircled, was stocking 'weapons of mass destruction' to attack the US.

Large scale popular protests challenged the mass media, the so called respectable press and ignored the Israeli lobby and other Pentagon warlords demanding an invasion of Iraq. The vast-majority of American, did not believe they were threatened by Saddam Hussain they felt a greater threat from the White House's resort to severe repressive legislation like the Patriot Act. Washington's rapid military defeat of Iraqi forces and its occupation of the Iraqi state led to a decline in the size and scope of the anti-war movement but not to its potential mass base.

Two events led to the demise of the anti-war movements. The anti-war leaders turned from independent direct action to electoral politics and secondly, they embraced and channeled their followers to support Democratic presidential candidate Obama. In large part the movement leaders and activists believed that direct action had failed to prevent or end the previous two Iraq wars. Secondly, Obama made a direct demagogic appeal to the peace movement – he promised to end wars and pursue social justice at home.

With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan.

The mass popular movements of the previous two decades were totally disillusioned, betrayed and disoriented. While most opposed Obama's 'new' and 'old wars' they struggled to find new outlets for their anti-war beliefs. Lacking alternative anti-war movements, they were vulnerable to the war propaganda of the media and the new demagogue of the right. Donald Trump attracted many who opposed the war monger Hilary Clinton.

The Bank Bailout: Mass Protest Denied

In 2008, at the end of his presidency, President George W. Bush signed off on a massive federal bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks who faced bankruptcy from their wild speculative profiteering.

In 2009 President Obama endorsed the bailout and urged rapid Congressional approval. Congress complied to a $700-billion- dollar handout ,which according to Forbes (July 14, 2015) rose to $7.77 trillion. Overnight hundreds of thousands of American demanded Congress rescind the vote. Under immense popular protest, Congress capitulated. However President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership insisted: the bill was slightly modified and approved. The 'popular will' was denied. The protests were neutralized and dissipated. The bailout of the banks proceeded, while several million households watched while their homes were foreclosed ,despite some local protests. Among the anti-bank movement, radical proposals flourished, ranging from calls to nationalize them, to demands to let the big banks go bankrupt and provide federal financing for co-operatives and community banks.

Clearly the vast-majority of the American people were aware and acted to resist corporate-collusion to plunder taxpayers.

Conclusion: What is to be Done?

Mass popular mobilizations are a reality in the United States. The problem is that they have not been sustained and the reasons are clear : they lacked political organization which would go beyond protests and reject lesser evil policies.

The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars.

By the second year of Trump's Presidency the US was threatening nuclear wars against Russia, Iran and other 'enemies' of the empire. While public opinion was decidedly opposed, the 'opinion' barely rippled in the mid-term elections.

Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the national.

The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided.

Mobilizations, as in France today, are self-organized through the internet; the mass media are discredited. The time of liberal and rightwing demagogues is passing; the bombast of Trump arouses the same disgust as ended the Obama regime.

Optimal conditions for a new comprehensive movement that goes beyond piecemeal reforms is on the agenda. The question is whether it is now or in future years or decades?

steve golf , 1 minute ago link

Mass protest, which must ignore the mass media, depends on organizers. No organizers--no protest. Since organizers are mostly working for somebodies agenda, those agendas apparently don't want mass protest against war. They only want to push multi-genderism and minority resistance, these days.

gunzeon , 4 hours ago link

Gone to graveyards, every one

( chapeau teethv )

JohnG , 4 hours ago link

" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the national. "

.gov gives not one damn what the people think and they willl do what pleases their masters. We are allowed to "vote" once in a while to maintain the illusion that they care.

They don't.

roddy6667 , 5 hours ago link

Very few Americans are anti-war. They are just fine with endless war and the killing of millions of people with brown skin for any reason the government gives. Even the so-called anti-war protesters of the Sixties are now pro war. Back then there was a draft, and they were at risk of dying in the war. Turns they were only against themselves dying, not somebody else's child. The volunteer army is staffed by the unfortunates of American society who have very few options except the military. Uneducated rural whites and inner city black youths are today's military. Poor white trash and ghetto blacks. Who cares if they die? That's the attitude of the Sixties anti-war crowd. Hypocrites.

A universal draft, male and female, would stop all the wars in a day.

TeethVillage88s , 4 hours ago link

"Where have all the Anti-Bank and Anti-War pee-pel gone... Gone to graveyards everyone

Where have all the citizens and grass roots activists gone... debt serfdom, and Wall Street everyone

Long time Pass--sing...

Where have all the Whistleblowers and real reporters gone... gone on black lists everyone

Long time a-go"

NoMoreWars , 4 hours ago link

True, I also believe many Americans turn their heads toward these endless/unneeded wars because the "enemies" mortar fire is not landing in our own backyard.

BuyDash , 5 hours ago link

Sorry, but you can't deflect this. 70% of white people were for the Iraq war in 2003, and 90% of white males were. O nly 19% of blacks according to one poll were for it.

Article:

People Who Opposed The Iraq War From The Beginning Are The Best Americans

I guess that makes aboriginal, native Amer'ican negros the best Amer'icans then?

pachanguero , 4 hours ago link

Yea, same Poll said hitlery was a shoe in for head **** in charge....I'm calling ********.

TeethVillage88s , 4 hours ago link

But White people know if they pray, buy groceries, buy clothes for kids, keep their appearance up... then losing jobs & middle class is only an obstacle if you don't work harder... Fascism is about responsibility, looking and acting like the winner class. White people will enlist in military, police, fire department... will work harder... will work 2-4 jobs... will blame themselves for everything.

Papa Gino's closes dozens of its sites November 05, 2018

No warning or reason given for closures,Customers, employees and communities are outraged after Papa Gino's Pizza abruptly closed dozens of locations across New England overnight.

Fantasy Free Economics , 5 hours ago link

Now that congress serves only as a mechanism for creating and maintaining skimming operations and rigging all markets, it is imperative that citizens get no information. Since organized crime also owns the major media outlets, that is an easy task. With no information in the mainstream there is no anti war and no anti bank.

http://quillian.net/blog/fusion-of-government-crime-and-religion/

RubblesVodka , 5 hours ago link

Gone, like the people who wanted a real 9/11 investigation. Yahoos out there still think that if it was an inside job someone would have spoke out by now . Lol

rtb61 , 4 hours ago link

They are all their, they are just silenced in corporate main stream media whilst corporate main stream media absolutely 'SCREAMS' about identity politics, not an accident. Identity politics is the deep state and shadow government plan to silence the masses about fiscal and foreign policy.

For example, even though I am centre left, I was there in the beginning of the alt right, it was not white supremacy for the first few weeks it was Libertarian vs corporate Republican, then the deep state and shadow government stepped in and using corporate main stream media, re-branded alt-right as white supremacy, is was really fast.

Most people don't even know alt-right started out as very much Libertarian taking on the corporate state and that is what triggered that attack and a stream of fake right wingers (deep state agents) screaming they were the alt-right together with corporate main stream media, to ensure Libertarian where silenced.

Look at it now, how much do you here from Libertarians, practically nothing, every time they try, they are targeted as alt-right which they were as in the alternate to corporate Republicans much the same as the Corporate Democrats. From my perspective the real left and the Libertarians had much more in common, than the corporate Republicans and the corporate Democrats (both attacking the libertarians and the greens to silence them).

They are all there fighting, just totally silenced in corporate main stream media, you have to go to https://www.rt.com/ to find them.

ImGumbydmmt , 3 hours ago link

accurate

Kan , 6 hours ago link

Bankers control the CFR, the CFR controls the media and most gov positions and most of the deepstate 3 letter agencies.. Everything said is tracked by the NSA and everywhere you go is tracked by your phone and cars. Ever wonder how they take over a grass root movement so fast? Think about it.

ignorethisuser , 5 hours ago link
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

NickelthroweR , 6 hours ago link

The United States is now too big for popular protest. How can I, living in California, have common cause with someone living in New York? We live on opposite sides of this continent and have wildly different climates. Our heavy hitters are in Technology while New York has Banking and Wall St.

Our elected officials are unable to get crap done in the same manner we're unable to get a good protest underway. We can withdraw somewhat or go off grid where possible but that's about it.

uhland62 , 6 hours ago link

We had to concede that the evil forces are stronger than us.

If Vietnam and Iraq did not teach people a lesson to topple the weapons and war manufacturers, nothing will. Do your mother a favour - don't enlist.

BuyDash , 5 hours ago link

American negros didn't need to learn that lesson :


African American lack of support for the Iraq war:
According to several polls taken right before the war, only a minority of African-Americans supported the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Most notably, a poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies had found that only 19 percent of African-Americans supported it.

That is a striking statistic, especially considering that more than 70 percent of white Americans were in favor of the military invasion, according to some polls.

Also note that 90% of white males were for that illegal war of aggression.

Goldennutz , 6 hours ago link

No draft has a lot to do with no anti-war protests. Let some other saps go die for the Banksters thinking they are "serving" their country.

If the draft ever came back for men AND women there would be riots in the streets.

zinjanthropus , 5 hours ago link

Exactly, no conscription=no problem.

Escrava Isaura , 6 hours ago link

Where Have The Anti-War & Anti-Bank Masses Gone?

War (force) and banking (financials schemes) are the essence of the US economy.

It has always been this way. US middleclass, corporations, and the wealth created are linked to those.

2banana , 6 hours ago link

It's because environmentalist, feminist, OWS, union, LBGT, etc. are progressive/liberals first and always.

They will abandon their principles at the first chance to gain and hold power. Period.

Bill Cinton is a serial rapist yet is loved by the left.

Immigration and illegals destroy the American environment yet are loved by the left.

Muslims hate gays and women and are loved by the left.

Immigration and illegals destroy jobs. Union jobs. And are loved by the left.

Banks and wall street and bailed out for their frauds and corruption and the left loves everything obama did.

Obama droned striked anything that moved and invaded/destroyed countries by fiat and is an idol to the anti war left.

Etc.

james diamond squid , 5 hours ago link

the left is so obsessed with getting trump, they can do nothing else. they are so ******* stoopid, that they wont even try to develop someone to beat trump. they put 100% of their energy in hating trump. they are blinded by hatred.

Haboob , 6 hours ago link

People care by proxy only which is the problem. I CAN CARE RIGHT NOW but nothing happens!

Theres only one way to show the government you realllly care.

ThePhantom , 6 hours ago link

the end is nigh and there's nothing to be done about it.... 10 years and thats it.... beyond that and event horizon... black hole... no one knows. ai terminator coming soon... thats all i can see.

Haboob , 6 hours ago link

Killer robots?

China AI opens a portal to hell?

CERN opens the portal to hell/next dimension?

WW3?

Asteroid?

Nuclear extinction?

Yellowstone eruption?

Doom! Doom!

Grandad Grumps , 6 hours ago link

I believe they are living in Obama's shorts.

Haboob , 6 hours ago link

Lemme guess people are too sedated to care anymore.

ThePhantom , 6 hours ago link

everybody wants a bail out.... wtshtf

TuPhat , 6 hours ago link

Most thinking people are not wanting to be part of a movement that will be co-opted for someone else's political gain. I would rather prepare myself and family for the inevitable collapse of the economy and perhaps more that awaits us. That's enough to keep me busy. I can't change the whole world but I can prepare to help my family friends and neighbors.

ThePhantom , 6 hours ago link

jesus christ , the terminator is coming....

Karmageddon , 6 hours ago link

In answer to the the question posed by the headerof this article, they have either been exiled from 'respectable' media or are stuck yelling "Trump! Trump! Trump! Russia! Russia! Russia" like a poorly programmed NPC caught in an infinite loop.

The hidden hand behind the puppet show has done a hell of a job massaging the masses, and turning their minds into mush.

steverino999 , 6 hours ago link

I didn't even read this article, but one thing I do know - DEMS IMPEACH GUMP 2019!

Davidduke2000 , 6 hours ago link

would you jump off a bridge if they do not ?????????????????

Goldennutz , 6 hours ago link

Hopefully he will and with any luck land on the Hildebeast or Obummer as they pass by.

LetThemEatRand , 6 hours ago link

"Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party ."

Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

DownWithYogaPants , 6 hours ago link

Democrats are only anti bank as long as they don't get their cut. Buy them off with at relatively low bucks and they are all in for the banks.

Albertarocks , 6 hours ago link

Exactly! If there are any anti-war people out there they sure as hell are not with the Democratic Party. Those leftist lunatics are the most destructive political group on this planet. Their thinking is 'divide & conquer', incite racial tensions, spew hatred, promoting that killing babies before they are born, or even on the day they are born is awesome. One has to wonder if people that evil even have souls.

As for anti-bankers... is this author off his rocker? He's not fooling anyone by trying to present the theory that if there are any consciencous objectors out there they would be supporters of the Democratic party. That thought is outright laughable. Even worse, to try to create this new narrative by writing this type of article is absolutely despicable. Fortunately, not the least bit convincing. People know better.

Oldguy05 , 6 hours ago link

WUT? I'm still anti-BANK!!!!!

Oldguy05 , 6 hours ago link

End The ******* Fed!...and BIS and IMF!...and NATO and The UN!..and the WTO WHO and everything else with capitalized initials!

DownWithYogaPants , 6 hours ago link

Yah the Bleepish cabal has us under their Marxist ruling model. It's dismal.

BuyDash , 5 hours ago link

If you're not using cryptos, you're just neutral-bank .

NoDebt , 6 hours ago link

" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party "

OK, so..... it's the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party. Not like anyone gives a **** what words mean any more, but.... whatever. Use the right ******* words or..... ******* don't. Not like any of this **** matters any more at this level.

And not all of us are ******* Democrats. Neither party is really anti-war or anti-bank now, so the red/blue thing has little relevance to those subjects. We all argue about much more important issues now like transgender bathrooms and whether Kanye West is a racist for supporting Trump or not.

fauxhammer , 6 hours ago link

Well that was a stupid article.

Bricker , 6 hours ago link

politics has become a black hole collapsing on itself...

LetThemEatRand , 6 hours ago link

Politics has become a black hole collapsing on us. Black hole don't give a ****. Look at that black hole. It just ate a star and became bigger. It don't care.

DownWithYogaPants , 6 hours ago link

Sorry but I do not see Trump as "threatening nuclear war".

Surely some of the Deep Staters did. But it's hard to see Trump as in control. His presidency has been great for exposing how things really work. That's worth a lot. If only the idiots would pay attention. But they won't. They're too busy placing great importance on the trifling and little or none on the critically important.

Excuse me I have to run now and get the latest iPhone.

[Nov 30, 2018] Mueller Takes Aim, But Is Trump in Trouble by By Aaron Maté

Witch hunt has its own dynamics and it is not necessary to get any facts to inflict great damage. Mueller, the key person in 8/11 investigation, is first and foremost a loyal neocon/neolib establishment stooge, not so much a lawyer. So the shadow of McCarthyism fall on the Washitnton, DC.
Felix Sater was FBI asset from the very beginning.
Which such Byzantium politics in Washington and intrigues between almost identical parties worth of Madrid court it is not accidental that FBI coves with upper hand in its struggle with Russian intelligence, Russians can't get such training in viciousness, double dealing and false flag operations anywhere.
Notable quotes:
"... Disappearing for the midterms , Russiagate has re-emerged front and center. This week's barrage of developments in the cases of indicted Trump campaign figures Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and George Papadopoulos have renewed long-running declarations of a presidency in peril . ..."
"... They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. ..."
"... Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already been resolved. The FBI began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information that led to his investigation is even more suspect. ..."
"... But its a key source for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime... ..."
"... Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case underscored that he worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is not Russia, but Israel . ..."
"... Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank." ..."
"... It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying stint in Ukraine. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.thenation.com
Disappearing for the midterms , Russiagate has re-emerged front and center. This week's barrage of developments in the cases of indicted Trump campaign figures Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and George Papadopoulos have renewed long-running declarations of a presidency in peril .

They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. Leading Democrats now see the probe as so paramount that, despite having re-captured the House running on health-care issues, protecting the investigation has been deemed "our top priority" (Representative Jerry Nadler) and "at the top of the agenda," (Representative Adam Schiff).

There is nothing objectionable about wanting to safeguard the Mueller investigation, nor about concerns that Trump's appointment of an unqualified loyalist may jeopardize it. Mueller should complete his work, unimpeded. The question is one of priorities. After all, the fixation on Mueller has not just raised anticipation of Trump's indictment, or even impeachment -- it has also overshadowed many of the actual policies that those seeking his political demise oppose him for. At this highly charged moment, it seems prudent to re-consider whether the probe remains worthy of such attention and high hopes.

Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already been resolved. The FBI began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.

The FBI interviewed Mifsud in Washington, DC, in February 2017, but Mueller has never alleged that Mifsud works with the Russian government. Papadopoulos was ultimately sentenced to just 14 days behind bars for lying to the FBI about the timing and nature of his contacts with Mifsud. He reported to a federal prison on Monday.

The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information that led to his investigation is even more suspect. In its October 2016 application for a surveillance warrant on Page, the FBI claimed it "believes that [Russia's] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [the Trump campaign]." But its a key source for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime...

With the Russia investigation's catalysts coming up all but empty, there is little reason to expect that the remaining campaign members who face prison time will reverse that trend. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn awaits sentencing in the coming weeks on charges similar to Papadopoulos's. Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case underscored that he worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is not Russia, but Israel .

Despite much hoopla to the contrary, Muller's new indictment of former Trump fixer Michael Cohen contains more inconvenient facts. Cohen has pleaded guilty to a single count for lying to Congress about his role in a failed attempt to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. According to the plea document, Cohen gave Congress false written answers in order to "minimize links," between the Moscow project and Trump, and to "give the false impression" that it was abandoned earlier than it actually was. Cohen told the court that he made these statements to "be loyal" to Trump and to be consistent with his "political messaging."

As I noted in The Nation in October 2017 , the attempted real-estate venture in Russia "does raise a potential conflict of interest" for Trump, who "pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trail." But nothing in Cohen's indictment incriminates Trump. Much of what it details was previously known, and rather than revealing an illicit, transatlantic collusion scheme, it reads more like a slapstick mafia buddy comedy. As Buzzfeed News reported in May , Cohen communicated extensively with Trump organization colleague Felix Sater -- identified in the Cohen plea as "Individual 2″ -- who had promised to secure Russian financing for the proposed Moscow project. But the Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank."

Cohen then took matters into his own hands. As was previously known, he did not have an email address for a Russian contact, so he wrote to a generic email address at the office of Dmitri Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin ("Russian Official 1," in the indictment). We now learn from Cohen that he managed to reach Peskov's assistant, who asked him "detailed questions and took notes." But as The New York Times noted when the Trump Moscow story first emerged: "The project never got [Russian] government permits or financing, and died weeks later." Sater tried to save the project. He discussed arranging visits to Russia by both Cohen and Trump, but Cohen ultimately backed out after allegations of Russian email hacking surfaced in June 2016. According to Buzzfeed , Sater even proposed giving Putin a $50 million penthouse as an enticement, but "the plan never went anywhere because the tower deal ultimately fizzled, and it is not clear whether Trump knew of "Sater's idea."

Cohen now claims that he spoke to Trump about the project more than the three times that he informed Congress about. For their part, Trump's attorneys do not seem concerned, saying that his recently submitted answers to Mueller align with Cohen's account. That Cohen perjured himself to Congress raises problems for him, but it is hard to see how his lies about a project that failed and a proposed trip to Russia that never happened can hurt Trump. That could only change if, as part of his new cooperation deal with Mueller, Cohen has more to give.

As for Manafort, his case took a major turn when Mueller canceled their cooperation agreement and accused him of "crimes and lies." The crucial questions are what does Mueller allege he lied to him about and what evidence is there to substantiate that charge. Mueller is expected to provide details in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we can only speculate. The revelation that Manafort's lawyers shared information with Trump's attorneys even after the plea deal was struck in September has inevitably fueled speculation that Manafort is lying to benefit Trump, or even hide evidence of a Russia conspiracy. That is certainly possible. But theories that Manafort is then banking on a pardon from Trump do not square with the prevailing view that his agreement with Mueller -- which included admitting to crimes that could be re-charged in state court -- was " pardon proof ."

It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying stint in Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal suggests that is the case, reporting that Manafort's alleged lies "don't appear to be central to the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election that Mr. Mueller is investigating." Earlier this month, ABC News claimed , citing "multiple sources," that Mueller's investigators are "not getting what they want" from Manafort's cooperation deal. When it comes to collusion, perhaps there is just nothing to get.

[Nov 30, 2018] Siding with fascism: Western ideologues pose greater threat to the West's security than ISIS by John Wight

Notable quotes:
"... 'Popping' recently over Russia have been key figures of the Western geopolitical and ideological firmament – people for whom the world is made of a Western bloc of nations divinely ordained to command, and the rest of the world condemned to obey. ..."
"... A prime example of what I mean concerns the Atlantic Council in Washington, one of the more notorious of an ever expanding network of neocon think tanks in our world, within whose Washington offices you will find gathered cranks of inordinate dimension. For such people Russia is not a country of 146 million people whose contribution to the world in the fields of art, science, culture and so on has been profound throughout its history and remains so today, but instead is a cancer that needs to be removed – preferably by force. ..."
"... react sharply before it is too late ..."
"... In losing his mind so, Mr Aslund reminds us that the Atlantic Council is an organization stacked with people for whom rationality is a vice and irrationality a virtue. Perhaps such a state of affairs might even be funny if not for the influence this particular think tank wields in Western foreign policy circles; influence that is on a par with an arsonist being taken seriously when it comes to fire prevention. ..."
"... The womb from that which crawled remains fertile ..."
"... Strange then – or indeed perhaps not so strange – that British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson should recently declare with the bombast of a man who spends his days memorizing the wartime speeches of Winston Churchill: " As long as Ukraine faces Russian hostilities, it will find a steadfast partner in the United Kingdom. By continuing to work together, whether through training programmes or military exercises, we help Ukraine to stand up for our shared values. " ..."
"... Since the beginning of 2018, C14 and other far-right groups such as the Azov-affiliated National Militia, Right Sector, Karpatska Sich, and others have attacked Roma groups several times, as well as anti-fascist demonstrations, city council meetings, an event hosted by Amnesty International, art exhibitions, LGBT events, and environmental activists ..."
"... After the March 8 attacks, Amnesty International warned, 'Ukraine is sinking into a chaos of uncontrolled violence posed by radical groups and their total impunity. Practically no one in the country can feel safe under these conditions. ..."
"... Thinking about the victims of Stalin's famine of 1933 and the useful idiots – then and now – who blind their eyes to the truth that throughout too much recent history the Kremlin has been little more than a killing machine ..."
"... Russia today indisputably represents a far greater threat to our national security than Islamic extremist threats such as al-Qaida and Isil (ISIS). ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.rt.com

Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. Published time: 29 Nov, 2018 13:09 Get short URL

A Western ideologue unravelling is no pretty sight. It's like watching a lobster boiling in a pot. And like that lobster he or she eventually pops. 'Popping' recently over Russia have been key figures of the Western geopolitical and ideological firmament – people for whom the world is made of a Western bloc of nations divinely ordained to command, and the rest of the world condemned to obey.

A prime example of what I mean concerns the Atlantic Council in Washington, one of the more notorious of an ever expanding network of neocon think tanks in our world, within whose Washington offices you will find gathered cranks of inordinate dimension. For such people Russia is not a country of 146 million people whose contribution to the world in the fields of art, science, culture and so on has been profound throughout its history and remains so today, but instead is a cancer that needs to be removed – preferably by force.

Take Mr Anders Aslund – economist, author and senior crank/fellow at the Atlantic Council. His outpouring of vituperation in response to the Kerch Strait incident involving Russia and Ukraine – calling for the West and NATO to " react sharply before it is too late " – is redolent of a man suffering emotional and psychological meltdown.

Everything suggests that Russia slowly takes one step after the other to block the Azov Sea off from Ukraine & international shipping. The West & NATO should react sharply before it is too late. https://t.co/kZMn2XTEls

-- Anders Åslund (@anders_aslund) November 25, 2018

In losing his mind so, Mr Aslund reminds us that the Atlantic Council is an organization stacked with people for whom rationality is a vice and irrationality a virtue. Perhaps such a state of affairs might even be funny if not for the influence this particular think tank wields in Western foreign policy circles; influence that is on a par with an arsonist being taken seriously when it comes to fire prevention.

It also comes as no surprise that the Atlantic Council's financial sponsors amount to a rogue's gallery of global corporations, oil companies, banks and financial institutions, governments and various other entities of such nature. It confirms that the relationship between global capitalism and Western imperialism is one forged in hell – or at least it does for those nations and people forced to exist at the sharp end of its egregious role around the world when it comes to fomenting conflict, crises, carnage and instability.

Ukraine is a prime example of what I mean. Lest anyone forget, the last democratically elected government of Ukraine to enjoy a mandate covering the entire country was unceremoniously toppled by a violent coup at the start of 2014. It was a coup supported by Western ideologues such as Anders Aslund, and one in which neo-Nazis were in the vanguard on the ground.

Also on rt.com US, Europe & NATO risk all-out war by backing unhinged Kiev regime

It is no coincidence that Western Ukraine, where the 2014 coup was centered and where the government it hatched continues to enjoy the bulk of its support, is a part of the world where fascism has deep historical and cultural roots. This is reflected in the recrudescence and elevation of fascism as a legitimate and openly flaunted creed in this part of the world today, calling to mind German playwright Bertolt Brecht's prescient warning at the end of the Second World War: " The womb from that which crawled remains fertile ."

Strange then – or indeed perhaps not so strange – that British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson should recently declare with the bombast of a man who spends his days memorizing the wartime speeches of Winston Churchill: " As long as Ukraine faces Russian hostilities, it will find a steadfast partner in the United Kingdom. By continuing to work together, whether through training programmes or military exercises, we help Ukraine to stand up for our shared values. "

As long as Ukraine faces Russian hostilities, it will find a steadfast partner in the United Kingdom. By continuing to work together, whether through training programmes or military exercises, we help Ukraine to stand up for our shared values. #Defence pic.twitter.com/ofqyjl817N

-- Gavin Williamson MP (@GavinWilliamson) November 21, 2018

You heard that, yes? Shared values, the man said.

Williamson's stentorian words of support for the coup government in Kiev should be weighed in the balance against the analysis of US academic Stephen F. Cohen, set out in a May 2018 podcast for The Nation magazine. In it Cohen reveals the extent to which neo-Nazis are now an integral part of the Kiev government's armed forces, specifically the controversial Azov Battalion .

Even the previously mentioned Atlantic Council is unable to place democratic lipstick on the far right pig of Western Ukraine in 2018. In a June article for the think tank, Josh Cohen (no relation to Stephen F.) writes:

" Since the beginning of 2018, C14 and other far-right groups such as the Azov-affiliated National Militia, Right Sector, Karpatska Sich, and others have attacked Roma groups several times, as well as anti-fascist demonstrations, city council meetings, an event hosted by Amnesty International, art exhibitions, LGBT events, and environmental activists ."

He continues:

" After the March 8 attacks, Amnesty International warned, 'Ukraine is sinking into a chaos of uncontrolled violence posed by radical groups and their total impunity. Practically no one in the country can feel safe under these conditions. '"

Also on rt.com Another Crimean war looms as NATO provocations enter Russian waters – George Galloway

Given the 'actual' society hatched by Euromaidan in 2014, rather than the 'illusory' one touted in the West, it is prudent to point that the while the likes of Gavin Williamson may well harbor delusions of Churchillian grandeur in his capacity as Britain's defence secretary, one important distinction cannot be overlooked.

It is that while Churchill – racist and imperialist though he was – sided with Moscow against fascism, the current generation of aspiring Winstons within the British establishment are siding with fascism against Moscow.

Speaking of which, the Second World War is always a sumptuous feast when it comes to highlighting the bubble of unreality in which your average Western ideologue exists. Here, allow me to introduce John Sweeney of the BBC.

Mr Sweeney recently saw fit to tweet the following: " Thinking about the victims of Stalin's famine of 1933 and the useful idiots – then and now – who blind their eyes to the truth that throughout too much recent history the Kremlin has been little more than a killing machine ."

'Stalin's famine' of 1932-1933 was undeniably egregious, but any less so than Churchill's Bengal famine of 1943? As for the Kremlin being a 'killing machine', it was certainly Europe's good fortune that this was the case between 1941 and 1945, or else the entire continent would have been enslaved by the Nazis; turned thereafter into a mass grave the like of which would have made the Holocaust that Hitler and his hordes authored mere child's play in comparison.

With a view to saving the worst till last, newly installed British army chief, General Mark Carleton-Smith, is evidently not a man whom anyone could accuse of having a serious grasp on reality – not when according to him " Russia today indisputably represents a far greater threat to our national security than Islamic extremist threats such as al-Qaida and Isil (ISIS). "

The lobsters, as you can see, are well and truly popping.

John Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[Nov 29, 2018] If The Saudi s Oil No Longer Matters Why Is Trump Still Supporting Them

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street journal ..."
"... Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad. ..."
"... The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among both supporters and opponents of Trump. ..."
"... everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness... ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF ..."
Nov 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Russ , Nov 28, 2018 3:28:31 PM | link

Why are U.S. troops in the Middle East?

In an interview with the Washington Post U.S. President Donald Trump gives an answer :

Trump also floated the idea of removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, citing the lower price of oil as a reason to withdraw.

"Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel ," Trump said. "Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we're producing more oil now than we've ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don't have to stay there."

It is only Israel, it is no longer the oil, says Trump. But the nuclear armed Israel does not need U.S. troops for its protection.

And if it is no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?

Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo disagrees with his boss. In a Wall Street journal op-ed today he claims that The U.S.-Saudi Partnership Is Vital because it includes much more then oil:

[D]egrading U.S.-Saudi ties would be a grave mistake for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.

The kingdom is a powerful force for stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is working to secure Iraq's fragile democracy and keep Baghdad tethered to the West's interests, not Tehran's. Riyadh is helping manage the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war by working with host countries, cooperating closely with Egypt, and establishing stronger ties with Israel. Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Saudi oil production and economic stability are keys to regional prosperity and global energy security.

Where and when please has Saudi Arabia "managed the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war". Was that when it emptied its jails of violent criminals and sent them to wage jihad against the Syrian people? That indeed 'managed' to push millions to flee from their homes.

Saudi Arabia might be many things but "a powerful force for stability" it is not. Just ask 18 million Yemenis who, after years of Saudi bombardment, are near to death for lack of food .

Pompeo's work for the Saudi dictator continued today with a Senate briefing on Yemen. The Senators will soon vote on a resolution to end the U.S. support for the war. In his prepared remarks Pompeo wrote:

The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot worse.

What could be worse than a famine that threatens two third of the population?

If the U.S. and Britain would not support the Saudis and Emirates the war would end within a day or two. The Saudi and UAE planes are maintained by U.S. and British specialists. The Saudis still seek 102 more U.S. military personal to take care of their planes. It would be easy for the U.S. to stop such recruiting of its veterans.

It is the U.S. that holds up an already watered down UN Security Council resolution that calls for a ceasefire in Yemen:

The reason for the delay continues to be a White House worry about angering Saudi Arabia, which strongly opposes the resolution, multiple sources say. CNN reported earlier this month that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, "threw a fit" when presented with an early draft of the document, leading to a delay and further discussions among Western allies on the matter.

We recently wrote that pandering to the Saudis and keeping Muhammad bin Salman in place will hurt Trump's Middle East policies . The piece noted that Trump asked the Saudis for many things, but found that:

There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him no gain and a lot of trouble.

Trump protected MbS from the consequences of murdering Jamal Khashoggi. He hoped to gain leverage with that. But that is not how MbS sees it. He now knows that Trump will not confront him no matter what he does. If MbS "threws a fit" over a UN Security Council resolution, the U.S. will drop it. When he launches his next 'adventure', the U.S. will again cover his back. Is this the way a super power is supposed to handle a client state?

If Trump's instincts really tell him that U.S. troops should be removed from the Middle East and Afghanistan, something I doubt, he should follow them. Support for the Saudi war on Yemen will not help to achieve that. Pandering to MbS is not MAGA.

Posted by b on November 28, 2018 at 03:12 PM | Permalink

Comments Pompeo: "Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations."

Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad.

lysias , Nov 28, 2018 3:35:15 PM | link

The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among both supporters and opponents of Trump.
Ross , Nov 28, 2018 3:41:42 PM | link
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him no gain and a lot of trouble.

He did get to fondle the orb - although fuck knows what weirdness was really going on there.

james , Nov 28, 2018 3:47:06 PM | link
thanks b... pompeo is a very bad liar... in fact - everything he says is about exactly the opposite, but bottom line is he is a bad liar as he is thoroughly unconvincing..

everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness...

oh, but don't forget to vote, LOLOL.... no wonder so many are strung out on drugs, and the pharma industry... opening up to the msm is opening oneself up to the world george orwell described many years ago...

uncle tungsten , Nov 28, 2018 3:49:24 PM | link
Take a wafer or two of silicon and just add water. The oil obsession has been eclipsed and within 20 years will be in absolute disarray. The warmongers will invent new excuses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lk3elu3zf4

karlof1 , Nov 28, 2018 4:33:18 PM | link
A hypothetical: No extraordinary amounts of hydrocarbons exist under Southwest Asian ground; just an essential amount for domestic consumption; in that case, would Zionistan exist where it's currently located and would either Saudi Arabia, Iraq and/or Iran have any significance aside from being consumers of Outlaw US Empire goods? Would the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes/Picot Secret Treaty have been made? If the Orinoco Oil Belt didn't exist, would Venezuela's government be continually targeted for Imperial control? If there was no Brazilian offshore oil, would the Regime Change effort have been made there? Here the hypotheticals end and a few basic yet important questions follow.

Previous to the 20th Century, why were Hawaii and Samoa wrested from their native residents and annexed to Empire? In what way did the lowly family farmers spread across 19th Century United States further the growth of its Empire and contribute to the above named annexations? What was the unspoken message sent to US elites contained within Frederic Jackson Turner's 1893 Frontier Thesis ? Why is the dominant language of North America English, not French or Spanish?

None of these are rhetorical. All second paragraph questions I asked of my history students. And all have a bearing on b's fundamental question.

A. Person , Nov 28, 2018 5:20:13 PM | link
b says, "And it its no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?"

The US has a vital interest in protecting the narrative of 9/11. The Saudis supplied the patsies. Mossad and dual-citizen neocons were the architects of the event. Hence, the US must avoid a nasty divorce from the Saudis. The Saudis are in a perfect blackmailing position.

Tobin Paz , Nov 28, 2018 5:50:19 PM | link
Maybe Trump is unaware, but the fracking boom is a bubble made possible by near zero interest rates:

U.S. SHALE OIL INDUSTRY: Catastrophic Failure Ahead

Of course, most Americans have no idea that the U.S. Shale Oil Industry is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme because of the mainstream media's inability to report FACT from FICTION. However, they don't deserve all of the blame as the shale energy industry has done an excellent job hiding the financial distress from the public and investors by the use of highly technical jargon and BS.

Oil is the untold story of modern history.

NOBTS , Nov 28, 2018 6:08:53 PM | link
S.A. is a thinly disguised US military base, hence the "strategic importance" and the relevance of the new Viceroy's previous experience as a Four Star General. It's doubtful that any of the skilled personnel in the SA Air Force are other than former US/Nato. A few princes might fancy themselves to be daring fighter pilots. In case of a Anglo-Zio war with Iran SA would be the most forward US aircraft carrier. The Empire is sustained by its presumed military might and prizes nothing more than its strategically situated bases. Saud would like to capture Yemen's oil fields, but the primary purpose of the air war is probably training. That of course is more despicably cynical than mere conquest and genocide.
Pft , Nov 28, 2018 6:08:56 PM | link
Trump is the ultimate deceiver/liar. Great actor reading from a script. The heel in the Fake wrestling otherwise known as US politics. It almost sounds as if he is calling for an end of anymore significant price drops now that he has got Powell on board to limit interest rate hikes. After all if you are the worlds biggest producer you dont want prices too low. These markets are all manipulated. I cant imagine how much insider trading is going on. If you look at the oil prices, they started dropping in October with Iran sanctions looming (before it was announced irans shipments to its 8 biggest buyers would be exempt) and at the height of the Khashoggi event where sanctions were threatened and Saudi was making threats of their own. In a real free market prices increase amidst supply uncertainty.

Regardless of what he says he wants and gets now, he is already planning a reversal. Thats how the big boys win, they know whats coming and when the con the smaller fish to swim one way they are lined up with a big mouth wide open. Controlled chaos and confusion. For every winner there must be a loser and the losers assets/money are food for the Gods of Money and War

As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. My money is on the US to be in Yemen to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis while in reality we will be there to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF

psychohistorian , Nov 28, 2018 6:35:06 PM | link
@ Pft who wrote: "The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF"

BINGO!!! Those that control finance control most/all of everything else.

Augustin L , Nov 28, 2018 6:37:43 PM | link

Saudi Arabia literally owns close to 8% of the United States economy through various financial instruments. Their public investment funds and dark pools own large chunks from various strategic firms resting at the apex of western power such as Blackstone. Trump and Pompeo would be stupid to cut off their nose to spite their face... It's all about the petrodollar, uncle sam will ride and die with saudi barbaria. If push comes to shove and the saudis decide to untether themselves from the Empire, their sand kingdom will probably be partitioned.
Pnyx , Nov 28, 2018 7:02:31 PM | link
The oil certainly still plays an important role, the u.s. cannot maintain the current frack oil output for long. For Tronald's term in office it will suffice, but hardly longer. (The frack gas supplies are much more substantial.)

Personal interests certainly also play a role, and finally one should not make u.s. foreign policy more rational than it is. Much is also done because of traditions and personal convictions. Often they got it completely wrong and the result was a complete failure.

Likklemore , Nov 28, 2018 7:07:15 PM | link
Let us watch what Trump does with this or if the resolution makes it to daylight:

Senate advances Yemen resolution in rebuke to Trump

The Senate issued a sharp rebuke Wednesday to President Trump, easily advancing a resolution that would end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen's civil war despite a White House effort to quash the bill.

The administration launched an eleventh-hour lobbying frenzy to try to head off momentum for the resolution, dispatching Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Capitol Hill in the morning and issuing a veto threat less than an hour before the vote started.

But lawmakers advanced the resolution, 63-37, even as the administration vowed to stand by Saudi Arabia following outcry over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

"There's been a lot of rhetoric that's come from the White House and from the State Department on this issue," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The rhetoric that I've heard and the broadcasts that we've made around the world as to who we are have been way out of balance as it relates to American interests and American values." [/]
LINK TheHill

But Mattis says there is no smoking gun to tie the Clown Thug-Prince to Kashoggi's killing.
TheHill

And Lyias @ 2 is a bingo. Always follow the fiat.

Soon, without any announcements, if they wish to maintain selling oil to China, KSA will follow Qatar. It will be priced in Yuan...especially given the escalating U.S. trade war with China.

2019 holds interesting times. Order a truckload of popcorn.

Midwest For Truth , Nov 28, 2018 7:29:46 PM | link
You would have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that the Saudi "Kings" are crypto-Zionistas. Carl Sagan once said, "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." And Mark Twain also wrote "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
karlof1 , Nov 28, 2018 7:59:31 PM | link
Gee, not one taker amongst all these intelligent folk. From last to first: 1588's Protestant Wind allowed Elizabeth and her cronies to literally keep their heads as Nature helped Drake defeat the Spanish Armada; otherwise, there would be no British Empire root to the USA, thus no USA and no future Outlaw US Empire, the British Isles becoming a Hapsburg Imperial Property, and a completely different historical lineage, perhaps sans World Wars and atomic weapons.

Turner's message was with the Frontier closed the "safety valve" of continental expansion defusing political tensions based on economic inequalities had ceased to be of benefit and future policy would need to deal with that issue thus removing the Fear Factor from the natives to immigrants, and from wide-open spaces to the inner cities. Whipsawing business cycles driving urban labor's unrest, populist People's Party politics, and McKinley's 1901 assassination further drove his points home.

Nationwide, family farmers demanded Federal government help to create additional markets for their produce to generate price inflation so they could remain solvent and keep their homesteads, which translated into the need to conduct international commerce via the seas which required coaling stations--Hawaii and Samoa, amongst others--and a Blue Water Navy that eventually led to Alfred T. Mahan's doctrine of Imperial Control of the Oceans still in use today.

As with Gengis Khan's death in 1227 that stopped the Mongol expansion to the English Channel that changed the course of European history, and what was seen as the Protestant Wind being Divine Intervention, global history has several similar inflection points turning the tide from one path to another. We don't know yet if the Outlaw US Empire's reliance on Saudi is such, but we can see it turning from being a great positive to an equally potential great negative for the Empire--humanity as a whole, IMO, will benefit greatly from an implosion and the relationship becoming a Great Negative helping to strip what remains of the Emperor's Clothing from his torso so that nations and their citizens can deter the oncoming financialized economic suicide caused by massive debt and climate chaos.

Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole, but it's also possible that disaster could strike with humanity's total or near extinction being the outcome--good arguments can be made for either outcome, which ought to unsettle everyone: Yes, the times are that tenuous. But then, I'm merely a lonely historian aware of a great many things, including the pitfall inherent in trying to predict future events.

robjira , Nov 28, 2018 8:08:58 PM | link
"The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot worse." And I'll bet Pompeo said that with a straight face, too. lmfao

And as for "...keep[ing] Baghdad tethered to the West's interests and not Tehran's," I'm guessing the "secretary" would have us all agree "yeah, fk Iraqi sovereignty anyway. Besides, it's not like they share a border with Iran, or anything. Oh, wait..."

p.s. Many thanks for all you have contributed to collective knowledge, b; I will be contacting you about making a contribution by snail mail (I hate PayPal, too).

imo , Nov 28, 2018 8:25:35 PM | link
"... a powerful force for stability in the Middle East."

"Instability" more like it.

Paid for military coup in Egypt. Funding anti-Syrian terrorists. Ongoing tensions with Iran. Zip-all for the Palestinians. WTF in Yemen. Wahhabi crazy sh_t (via Mosque building) across Asia. Head and hand chopping Friday specials the norm -- especially of their South-Asian slave classes. Ok, so females can now drive cars -- woohoo. A family run business venture manipulating the global oil trade and supporting US-petro-$ hegemony recently out of goat herding and each new generation 'initiated' in some Houston secret society toe-touching shower and soap ceremonies before placement in the ruling hierarchy back home. But enough; they being Semites makes it an offence to criticize in some 'free' democratic world domains.

karlof1 , Nov 28, 2018 8:52:24 PM | link
Likklemore @14--

Instead of the "rebuke to Trump" meme circulating around, I found this statement to be more accurate:

"'Cutting off military aid to Saudi Arabia is the right choice for Yemen, the right choice for our national security, and the right choice for upholding the Constitution,' Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, declared in a statement. ' Three years ago, the notion of Congress voting to cut off military support for Saudi Arabia would have been politically laughable .'" [My Emphasis]

In other words, advancing Peace with Obama as POTUS wasn't going to happen, so this vote ought to be seen as an attack on Obama's legacy as it's his policy that's being reconsidered and hopefully discontinued.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | link
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global energy dominance.

Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.

Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Pft , Nov 29, 2018 1:15:05 AM | link
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about.

The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF .

james , Nov 29, 2018 1:57:51 AM | link
@16 karlof1.. thanks for a broader historical perspective which you are able to bring to moa.. i enjoy reading your comments.. i don't have answers to ALL your questions earlier.. i have answers for some of them... you want to make it easy on us uneducated folks and give us less questions, like b did in his post here, lol.... cheers james
b , Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | link
This came faster than assumed:

Yemen war: US Senate advances measure to end support for Saudi forces

The US Senate has advanced a measure to withdraw American support for a Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.

In a blow to President Donald Trump, senators voted 63-37 to take forward a motion on ending US support.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had urged Senators not to back the motion, saying it would worsen the situation in Yemen.

...

The vote in the Senate means further debate on US support for Saudi Arabia is expected next week.

However, correspondents say that even if the Senate ultimately passes the bipartisan resolution it has little chance of being approved by the outgoing House of Representatives.

That is quite a slap for the Trump administration. It will have little consequences in the short term (or for Yemen) but it sets a new direction in foreign polices towards the Saudis.
jim slim , Nov 29, 2018 4:04:44 AM | link
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
mina , Nov 29, 2018 4:14:20 AM | link
duterte...idris deby...so many democrats visiting Netanyahu lately!!
Rhisiart Gwilym , Nov 29, 2018 4:49:48 AM | link
@Uncle Tungsten, 5:

Take a look at some of the - informed - comments below the vid to which you linked. Then think again about an 'all electric civilisation within a few years'. Yes, and Father Christmas will be providing everything that everyone in the world needs for a NAmerican/European standard of living within the same time frame. Er - not.

'Renewables' are not going to save hitech industrial 'civilisation' from The Long Descent/Catabolic Collapse (qv). Apart from any other consideration - and there are some other equally intractable ones - there is no - repeat NO - 'renewable' energy system which doesn't rely crucially on energy subsidies from the fossil-hydrocarbon fuels, both to build it and to maintain it. They're not stand-alone, self-bootstrapping technologies. Nor is there any realistic prospect that they ever will be. Fully renewable-power hitech industrial civilisation is a non-deliverable mirage which is just drawing us ever further into the desert of irreversible peak-energy/peak-everythig-else.

Rancid , Nov 29, 2018 5:58:26 AM | link
@16 karlof1. I also find your historical references very interesting. We do indeed seem to be at a very low point in the material cycle, it will reverse in due course as is its want, hopefully we will live to see a positive change in humanity.
Russ , Nov 29, 2018 7:24:10 AM | link
John 28

For example we know Tesla didn't succeed in splitting the planet in half, the way techno-psychotics fantasize. As for that silly link, how typical of techno-wingnuts to respond to prosaic physical facts with fantasies. Anything to prop up faith in the technocratic-fundamentalist religion. Meanwhile "electrical civilization" has always meant and will always mean fracking and coal, until the whole fossil-fueled extreme energy nightmare is over.

Given the proven fact that the extreme energy civilization has done nothing but embark upon a campaign to completely destroy humanity and the Earth (like in your Tesla fantasy), why would a non-psychopath want to prop it up anyway?

bob sykes , Nov 29, 2018 7:37:37 AM | link
It is still the oil, even for the US. The Persian Gulf supplies 20% of world consumption, and Western Europe gets 40% of its oil from OPEC countries, most of that from the Gulf. Even the US still imports 10% of its total consumption.
y , Nov 29, 2018 7:47:36 AM | link
Peter AU 1 | Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | 20
b | Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | 23
USD as a world reserve currency could be one factor between the important ones. With non US support the saud land could crash under neighbours pressure, that caos may be not welcomed.
Guerrero , Nov 29, 2018 10:16:10 AM | link
Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 28, 2018 7:59:31 PM | 16

"Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole..."

Yes!

Humble people around where I live have mentioned that time is speeding up its velocity; there seems to be a spiritual (evolutionary)/physical interface effect or something...

Tolstoy, in the long theory-of-history exposition at the end of War and Peace, challenges 'the great man' of History idea, spreading in his time, at the dawning of the so-called: European Romantic period of Beethoven, Goerte and Wagner, when the unique person was glorified in the name of art, truth, whatever (eventually this bubble burst too, in the 20th C. and IMO because of too much fervent worship in the Cult of the Temple of the Money God. Dostoyevki's great Crime and Punishment is all about this issue.)

Tolstoy tries to describe a scientifically-determined historical process, dissing the 'great man of History' thesis. He was thinking of Napoleon Bonaparte of course, the run-away upstart repulican, anathema to the established order. Tolstoy describes it in the opening scene of the novel: a fascinating parlor-room conversation between a "liberal" woman of good-birth in the elite circles of society and a military captain at the party.

...only tenuously relevant to karlofi1's great post touching upon the Theory of History as such; thanks.

Now as to the question: ¿Why is Trump supporting Saudi Arabia? Let me think about that...

[Nov 29, 2018] Neocons 'Taking Over The White House' WSJ's Kissel Joins Trump Administration

Looks like Trump lost control of appointments in his administration... and it is Pompeo who is intrumental in defining the US foreign policy, not Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... The decision by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give former Wall Street Journal editorial writer Mary Kissel a senior position at the department, despite her previous clashes with US President Donald Trump, shows that neoconservatives are moving in on the administration ..."
"... As a writer, Kissel took Trump to task on Twitter on multiple occasions, criticizing him for his " frightening ignorance " on foreign policy. During a March 2016 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Kissel even went as far as saying on air that then-candidate Trump had neither principles nor policies. To this, Trump shot back on Twitter, calling her a " major loser ." ..."
"... The only thing that I can think of is that nobody takes Trump seriously in the White House on what he says from day to day ..."
"... Kissel's recent appointment, to no one's surprise, isn't exactly sitting well with the folks on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. In a recent opinion piece for the Washington Examiner, writer Ryan Girdusky wrote that "Kissel is so wrong so frequently that not only should she not be advising Pompeo on policy, she shouldn't be employed by a single newspaper in the country to talk about politics." ..."
"... Kissel, however, isn't the first Trump opponent to be hired by Pompeo. There's also Jim Jeffrey, who, along with several other GOP insiders, signed a letter in August 2016 which noted that then-candidate Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president. Despite his past objections, Jeffrey is now serving in the Trump administration as the special representative for Syria engagement. ..."
Nov 29, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The decision by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give former Wall Street Journal editorial writer Mary Kissel a senior position at the department, despite her previous clashes with US President Donald Trump, shows that neoconservatives are moving in on the administration, investigative reporter Dave Lindorff told Sputnik.

As a writer, Kissel took Trump to task on Twitter on multiple occasions, criticizing him for his " frightening ignorance " on foreign policy. During a March 2016 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Kissel even went as far as saying on air that then-candidate Trump had neither principles nor policies. To this, Trump shot back on Twitter, calling her a " major loser ."

An unidentified senior State Department official told Politico that Kissel's past remarks were more of a reflection of her "role as a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board."

"As she has said previously when asked similar questions, her job there was to analyze and write about policy," the department official said. "As a member of the editorial board, Mary strongly endorsed this administration's policies on Iran, Afghanistan, tax cuts, energy policy, regulatory reform, judicial nominations and other issues. She is proud to serve this President and Secretary Pompeo."

"The only thing that I can think of is that nobody takes Trump seriously in the White House on what he says from day to day," Lindorff told Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear on Wednesday in an attempt to explain Kissel's hiring.

"That could be one answer the other one could be that this kind of neocon person, which she is, are basically taking over the White House. I wouldn't have called Trump a neocon when he was running for office, but I think his policies are at this point pretty much in the neocon playbook on foreign policy."

Read also: The Bolton threat to the Iran nuclear deal

While it's unclear how Trump reacted to Pompeo's move, Lindorff, who also writes as a columnist for CounterPunch, suggested that he might have let bygones be bygones after certain apologies are exchanged.

Kissel's recent appointment, to no one's surprise, isn't exactly sitting well with the folks on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. In a recent opinion piece for the Washington Examiner, writer Ryan Girdusky wrote that "Kissel is so wrong so frequently that not only should she not be advising Pompeo on policy, she shouldn't be employed by a single newspaper in the country to talk about politics."

"It is frightening that Kissel has managed to fail forward," he added.

Kissel, however, isn't the first Trump opponent to be hired by Pompeo. There's also Jim Jeffrey, who, along with several other GOP insiders, signed a letter in August 2016 which noted that then-candidate Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president. Despite his past objections, Jeffrey is now serving in the Trump administration as the special representative for Syria engagement.

Published at https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811291070224029-neocons-white-house-kissel-hire/

[Nov 29, 2018] Putin On Washington Asking For Russian Help Americans Are Interesting Folks

Nov 29, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Red onyx , 11 months ago

Maaan , Putin is really smart guy...

Maria Kuzali , 11 months ago

He is something else. He has the right answer for everything, and a lots of sense of humer!!!!

Johnny Aingel , 11 months ago (edited)

Asking for help after all the crap they did to Russia unbelievable but...

Dawud Yasin , 11 months ago

I'm British and I trust Putin more than any other leader in the world. He's a good politician and has been at the top longer than any of today's leaders his down to earth approach is something that reaches out to the masses. There's a new sheriff in town and he's Russian...

[Nov 29, 2018] Putin Shocked St. Petersburg Forum Participants with Frankness

Nov 29, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Paul van Dijck , 1 year ago

I am a Dutchman, but when I listen to Wladimir Putin, I can only conclude ANY western politician is a small child compared to him.

Maria Jordan , 1 year ago

Putin is brilliant intellectually and politically! He is strong and independent but not in a proud way, but with a strength coming directly from his heart for his Russia! I am originally Polish and I wish we would have had such a leader in our country. So, many mistakes in our history could have been avoided! Bravo Putin! American leaders look impressive but most of them have a plastic personalities

Susie Gladwell , 1 year ago

I love the forthrightness of President Putin; he is kind in his choice of words, patient as ever and manages to add his wonderful humor. A sheer joy to listen to.

joshron99 , 1 year ago

What an amazing human being is Putin. His command of the issues, their histories, the big picture as well as minute details, his ability to express himself, his steeliness and his humor must impact everyone who meets him and foreign leaders drawn to him who, with this generation of Russians seem to have a "rendezvous with destiny."

joshron99 , 1 year ago

What an amazing human being is Putin. His command of the issues, their histories, the big picture as well as minute details, his ability to express himself, his steeliness and his humor must impact everyone who meets him and foreign leaders drawn to him who, with this generation of Russians seem to have a "rendezvous with destiny."

zpetar , 1 year ago

These days all media is talking is about Russia hacking US elections. Why nobody is talking about NSA hacked Angela Merkel's phone? Maybe because that's old news not worth mentioning any more? Or maybe because its because US is democratic country so it doesn't count. This is quote from The Guardian "Germany has closed its investigation into a report that the US National Security Agency had hacked Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, a move that appears to be aimed at ending transatlantic friction that threatened intelligence cooperation between the two countries." Who cares about democracy and truth when higher interests are threatened.

Lia Spring , 1 year ago

Putin is a true PEACE MAKER !! May God be with Russia and its PRESIDENT!

ecocivilian , 1 year ago

Putin is just the baddest man on the planet jeez he really rocks like a superstar on stage such a diplomat but deadly like a stinging bee when you dont treat him seriously how can you not like this man

[Nov 28, 2018] Leaked Transcript Proves Russiagaters Have Been Right All Along (Spoiler Not Really)

Nov 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

A transcript of exchanges between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been leaked to National News Conglomerate by an anonymous source within the Kremlin . We here at NNC have confirmed the authenticity of this document using the same rigorous verification process we've been using to authenticate the evidence for all our other reporting on Russia's involvement in the 2016 US elections over the last two years. These verification methods include hunches, gut intuitions, and an introspective assessment of the way our feelings feel. The following exchanges revealed in this transcript provide the clearest evidence yet that the President of the United States has been in collusion with the Russian government for years.

This introduction has been authored by the editorial board of the National News Conglomerate. Obey.

11/9/2016

Trump: I have done as you commanded, my dominant and all-powerful lord. I have conspired with your hackers to steal the election, and now I'm going to be president! I want to thank you for not releasing that video footage of those Russian prostitutes I hired to urinate on a bed the Obamas once slept in. If that had come out it would have offended and alienated a lot of people, which is something I never normally do.

Putin: Yes that is an old KGB tactic called kompromat, a word which only extremely intelligent people know about. Keep this line of communication open. As long as you do as I command, your pee pee tape will remain secret.

Trump: One thing I'm curious about though my lord, if you don't mind my asking. If you already had an army of hackers targeting Democratic Party emails, why did you need my help? Couldn't you just have hacked the emails and published them on your own? Why did you need me to interact with them at all?

Putin: Moral support, mainly. We don't need to get into specifics.

Trump: Oh okay.

~

1/20/2017

Trump: I'm in! Whew! I was really worried that leaked dossier would be the end of me! What are my instructions, my lord?

Putin: Begin introducing racism and division to the United States. America has never experienced these things before, and it will shock and disorient them. With the US divided against itself, your nation will be far too weak to stand against my plans of total world domination.

Trump: That's a really tall order! America has always been a harmonious place where everyone gets along up until today. I'll try my best though. Anything else?

Putin: Yes, make them distrust your nation's large media outlets and convince them that the US intelligence community is often dishonest.

Trump: That will be really hard because those institutions have always been trusted for their unparalleled integrity. But your wish is my command, oh lord.

~

4/7/2017

Putin: Bomb a Syrian airbase.

Trump: What? Really? Aren't they, like, your allies?

Putin: Exactly. This will throw inquisitive minds off the scent. We can't have them finding out about that pee tape.

Trump: Are you sure? Some people are saying that chemical attack looks like it could have been perpetrated by the many terrorist factions in Syria and not the government.

Putin: Who cares? Have you seen how relentless they've been in exposing us?? Have you never watched Rachel Maddow? That woman is a psychic bloodhound, masterfully sniffing out the truth at every turn! We can't afford to take chances. Do as I say.

Trump: Yes sir.

Putin: And see if you can arrest that WikiLeaks guy.

6/28/17

Trump: Hey do you want me to do anything about Montenegro's addition to NATO?

Putin: No. NATO expansion is good.

Trump: Uhhh okay.

~

6/28/17

Trump: Who do you want tapped for Ukraine envoy?

Putin: Kurt Volker.

Trump: Volker? He hates you! He's like the biggest Russia hawk ever.

Putin: We still need to throw the Russiagaters off the scent. We're playing 3-D chess here. This is high-level disinformation, or dezinformatsiya as very smart people call it. I want as many Russia hawks in your administration as possible.

Trump: 3-D chess? Alright. I guess you know what you're doing.

~

8/30/17

Putin: Shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and throw out a bunch of diplomats. That will confuse the hell out of them.

~

11/21/17

Putin: Now approve the sale of arms to Ukraine. Not even Obama would do that. This will throw them off the trail for sure.

~

1/1/18

Putin: Happy new year. Force RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents.

~

1/29/18

Putin: Make sure your Nuclear Posture Review greatly escalates its aggressive posture toward Russia.

~

2/14/18

Putin: Happy Valentine's Day. Don't worry about those Russians your guys killed in Syria.

~

2/19/18

Putin: Send a fleet of war ships to the Black Sea.

~

3/25/18

Putin: Better expel a few dozen diplomats over the Skripal thing.

~

4/5/18

Putin: Sanction a bunch of Russian oligarchs.

~

4/10/18

Putin: Bomb Syria.

Trump: What?? Again?

Putin: Yes.

Trump: What the hell, man? Why'd you even recruit me if you're just going to have me do everything all the Russia hawks want?

Putin: Well, you know how I told you we were playing 3-D chess against the Russiagate investigation?

Trump: Yeah?

Putin: Well that wasn't enough. Now we're playing 4-D chess.

Trump: Fine, whatever, I don't care. Just don't release my pee tape.

~

7/17/18

Trump: Oh man. They're really making a major fuss about that summit. What should I do?

Putin: Play it cool. Don't let them know about our secret diabolical plot.

Trump: Right. Remind me what that was again?

Putin: Make Jim Acosta feel really, really sad.

~

9/2/18

Putin: Have you arrested Julian Assange yet?

Trump: Working on it.

~

10/20/18

Putin: I like John Bolton's idea. Pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

~

11/25/18

Putin: Make sure your administration loudly and aggressively backs Ukraine in our Kerch Strait spat.

Trump: OMFG this is getting too weird. Are you just trolling me? What the hell is this?

Trump: Hello?

Trump: Are you there?

Trump: Answer me!

Putin: 5-D chess.

* * *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

The little voice inside my head , 18 minutes ago link

Just encountered a Denzel Washington interview from last year, how true it's become, like the Guardian and Wikileaks "story"

Doesn't matter if it's true or not, just be the first , sell it!

DisorderlyConduct , 1 hour ago link

LOL.

...bomb a Syrian airbase...

This is awesome.

francis scott falseflag , 1 hour ago link

Hey, that's where I stopped reading. Did I miss anything?

The little voice inside my head , 13 minutes ago link

Not to sound like a Russian misinformation dude, but I was watching some of Putin's interviews and the dude speaks in common sense terms.

ABC asks Putin about meddling in the elections.

And the one with Megyn Kelly:

Was this interview ever broadcasted in full in the US?

Element , 1 hour ago link

NNC logo?

bfellow , 1 hour ago link

Really Element? Does Keyser have to add a /s at the end to realize he was being sarcastic?

cbxer55 , 1 hour ago link

CNN backwards. LOL!!!!

[Nov 28, 2018] Funny stuff happens when a judge tells a plaintiff she has to pay $341,500 for the legal expenses of a lawsuit she lost. All of a sudden Stormy Daniels is saying her CPL, Michael Avenatti, was acting against her wishes

Nov 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

overmedicatedundersexed , 1 hour ago link

OT but we all need a laugh...stormy daniels..

Funny stuff happens when a judge tells a plaintiff she has to pay $341,500 for the legal expenses of a lawsuit she lost. All of a sudden Stormy Daniels is saying her CPL, Michael Avenatti, was acting against her wishes:

[Nov 28, 2018] Leaked Transcript Proves Russiagaters Have Been Right All Along (Spoiler Not Really)

Nov 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

A transcript of exchanges between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been leaked to National News Conglomerate by an anonymous source within the Kremlin . We here at NNC have confirmed the authenticity of this document using the same rigorous verification process we've been using to authenticate the evidence for all our other reporting on Russia's involvement in the 2016 US elections over the last two years. These verification methods include hunches, gut intuitions, and an introspective assessment of the way our feelings feel. The following exchanges revealed in this transcript provide the clearest evidence yet that the President of the United States has been in collusion with the Russian government for years.

This introduction has been authored by the editorial board of the National News Conglomerate. Obey.

11/9/2016

Trump: I have done as you commanded, my dominant and all-powerful lord. I have conspired with your hackers to steal the election, and now I'm going to be president! I want to thank you for not releasing that video footage of those Russian prostitutes I hired to urinate on a bed the Obamas once slept in. If that had come out it would have offended and alienated a lot of people, which is something I never normally do.

Putin: Yes that is an old KGB tactic called kompromat, a word which only extremely intelligent people know about. Keep this line of communication open. As long as you do as I command, your pee pee tape will remain secret.

Trump: One thing I'm curious about though my lord, if you don't mind my asking. If you already had an army of hackers targeting Democratic Party emails, why did you need my help? Couldn't you just have hacked the emails and published them on your own? Why did you need me to interact with them at all?

Putin: Moral support, mainly. We don't need to get into specifics.

Trump: Oh okay.

~

1/20/2017

Trump: I'm in! Whew! I was really worried that leaked dossier would be the end of me! What are my instructions, my lord?

Putin: Begin introducing racism and division to the United States. America has never experienced these things before, and it will shock and disorient them. With the US divided against itself, your nation will be far too weak to stand against my plans of total world domination.

Trump: That's a really tall order! America has always been a harmonious place where everyone gets along up until today. I'll try my best though. Anything else?

Putin: Yes, make them distrust your nation's large media outlets and convince them that the US intelligence community is often dishonest.

Trump: That will be really hard because those institutions have always been trusted for their unparalleled integrity. But your wish is my command, oh lord.

~

4/7/2017

Putin: Bomb a Syrian airbase.

Trump: What? Really? Aren't they, like, your allies?

Putin: Exactly. This will throw inquisitive minds off the scent. We can't have them finding out about that pee tape.

Trump: Are you sure? Some people are saying that chemical attack looks like it could have been perpetrated by the many terrorist factions in Syria and not the government.

Putin: Who cares? Have you seen how relentless they've been in exposing us?? Have you never watched Rachel Maddow? That woman is a psychic bloodhound, masterfully sniffing out the truth at every turn! We can't afford to take chances. Do as I say.

Trump: Yes sir.

Putin: And see if you can arrest that WikiLeaks guy.

6/28/17

Trump: Hey do you want me to do anything about Montenegro's addition to NATO?

Putin: No. NATO expansion is good.

Trump: Uhhh okay.

~

6/28/17

Trump: Who do you want tapped for Ukraine envoy?

Putin: Kurt Volker.

Trump: Volker? He hates you! He's like the biggest Russia hawk ever.

Putin: We still need to throw the Russiagaters off the scent. We're playing 3-D chess here. This is high-level disinformation, or dezinformatsiya as very smart people call it. I want as many Russia hawks in your administration as possible.

Trump: 3-D chess? Alright. I guess you know what you're doing.

~

8/30/17

Putin: Shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and throw out a bunch of diplomats. That will confuse the hell out of them.

~

11/21/17

Putin: Now approve the sale of arms to Ukraine. Not even Obama would do that. This will throw them off the trail for sure.

~

1/1/18

Putin: Happy new year. Force RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents.

~

1/29/18

Putin: Make sure your Nuclear Posture Review greatly escalates its aggressive posture toward Russia.

~

2/14/18

Putin: Happy Valentine's Day. Don't worry about those Russians your guys killed in Syria.

~

2/19/18

Putin: Send a fleet of war ships to the Black Sea.

~

3/25/18

Putin: Better expel a few dozen diplomats over the Skripal thing.

~

4/5/18

Putin: Sanction a bunch of Russian oligarchs.

~

4/10/18

Putin: Bomb Syria.

Trump: What?? Again?

Putin: Yes.

Trump: What the hell, man? Why'd you even recruit me if you're just going to have me do everything all the Russia hawks want?

Putin: Well, you know how I told you we were playing 3-D chess against the Russiagate investigation?

Trump: Yeah?

Putin: Well that wasn't enough. Now we're playing 4-D chess.

Trump: Fine, whatever, I don't care. Just don't release my pee tape.

~

7/17/18

Trump: Oh man. They're really making a major fuss about that summit. What should I do?

Putin: Play it cool. Don't let them know about our secret diabolical plot.

Trump: Right. Remind me what that was again?

Putin: Make Jim Acosta feel really, really sad.

~

9/2/18

Putin: Have you arrested Julian Assange yet?

Trump: Working on it.

~

10/20/18

Putin: I like John Bolton's idea. Pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

~

11/25/18

Putin: Make sure your administration loudly and aggressively backs Ukraine in our Kerch Strait spat.

Trump: OMFG this is getting too weird. Are you just trolling me? What the hell is this?

Trump: Hello?

Trump: Are you there?

Trump: Answer me!

Putin: 5-D chess.

* * *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

The little voice inside my head , 18 minutes ago link

Just encountered a Denzel Washington interview from last year, how true it's become, like the Guardian and Wikileaks "story"

Doesn't matter if it's true or not, just be the first , sell it!

DisorderlyConduct , 1 hour ago link

LOL.

...bomb a Syrian airbase...

This is awesome.

francis scott falseflag , 1 hour ago link

Hey, that's where I stopped reading. Did I miss anything?

The little voice inside my head , 13 minutes ago link

Not to sound like a Russian misinformation dude, but I was watching some of Putin's interviews and the dude speaks in common sense terms.

ABC asks Putin about meddling in the elections.

And the one with Megyn Kelly:

Was this interview ever broadcasted in full in the US?

Element , 1 hour ago link

NNC logo?

bfellow , 1 hour ago link

Really Element? Does Keyser have to add a /s at the end to realize he was being sarcastic?

cbxer55 , 1 hour ago link

CNN backwards. LOL!!!!

[Nov 28, 2018] Greenwald Goes Ballistic On Politico Theory Guardian's Assange-Manafort Story Was Planted By Russians

Nov 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Greenwald Goes Ballistic On Politico "Theory" Guardian's Assange-Manafort Story Was Planted By Russians

by Tyler Durden Wed, 11/28/2018 - 20:25 105 SHARES

After The Guardian attempted to shovel what appears to be a wholly fabricated story down our throats that Trump campaign manager met with Julian Assange at the London Embassy - Politico allowed an ex-CIA agent to use their platform to come up with a ham-handed cover story ever; Russia tricked The Guardian into publishing the Manafort-Assange propaganda.

To that end, The Intercept 's Glenn Greenwald (formerly of The Guardian ) ripped Politico an entirely new oriface in a six-part Twitter dress down.

Greenwald also penned a harsh rebuke to the Guardian 's "problematic" reporting in a Tuesday article titled: "It Is Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other Evidence Showing This."

In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story.

It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself "secretly" visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It's possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them.

And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it . Thus far, no such evidence has been published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence before forming a judgment?

The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets would hyperventilate over it , and that they'd reap the rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other. - Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

In short, The Guardian tried to proffer a load of easily disprovable claims - which if not true, are pure propaganda. Once it began to blow up in their face, Politico let an ex-CIA operative try to save face by suggesting Russia did it . Insanity at its finest.

zerofucks , 20 minutes ago link

loving the lies being drug into the light

anyone who believes the MSM about anything is a fool

and i am shocked an ex-CIA guy was behind the fake news

CatInTheHat , 20 minutes ago link

GG neatly tied in the nefarious connection between the CIA and the media together

This CIA a criminal organization that has lied us into every single war. Yet the Resistance upholds the CIA as beyond reproach.

TODAY THEY LOOK AS FOOLS.

nidaar , 25 minutes ago link

They jumped the shark. This show has its days numbered.

Chuckster , 30 minutes ago link

We don't need the Russians re-chewing our cabbage. We have enough natural born idiots to screw the facts up.

Hippocleides , 34 minutes ago link

Someone ate my sandwich out of the work fridge, God damn Russians!

The Terrible Sweal , 38 minutes ago link

It looks like Greenwald is just about at the point of capitulation and accepting that the entire MSM is utterly fraudulent.

Alternative , 42 minutes ago link

Up next: Guardian journos suffer from Novichik poisoning but survive this lethal nerve gas.

Badsamm , 45 minutes ago link

That still doesn't clear the Guardian from lawsuits.

xrxs , 39 minutes ago link

Maybe discovery will reveal their 'sources.'

Jung , 46 minutes ago link

Ever since Alan Rusbridger. left the Guardian as Chief Editor and made room for Assange and Snowden etc., it seems that they have been infiltrated by the CIA and Luke H. gets attention for his stories and Russia-hatred. The ENglish have been conditioned to hate Russia and the Guardian will do anything to discredit Russia with whatever silly stories. Now they are begging for money to survive: well, NO, because you went along with fake news to get some money: corrupt, unlike Alan Rusbridger, Assange, Manning and Snowden.

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 49 minutes ago link

Up next: The Russians put up the Guardian to launch a slimy and obviously stupid defence to discredit them.

Later: The Russians are making my hands move on the keys and making me type this nonsense.

BankSurfyMan , 48 minutes ago link

when you masturbate on the HEDGE...

5onIt , 50 minutes ago link

Doesnt matter, 1/2 of our population is convinced, that our governmemt would never do to the USA. what they do to other countries for the past 60 years.

BankSurfyMan , 50 minutes ago link

Assange took another dump today, he is full of **** just like the rest of us ??? Doom 2019! Your *** is on FIRE! neXT!

bluebird100 , 54 minutes ago link

Wow Glenn is discovering that the Fake News is real after all! He's such a hack

JimmyJones , 34 minutes ago link

Yep, the Russian Collusion / interference is so weak. Look at this story, it's breaking and will be huge. Epstine's dirty details released, Muller looks pretty bad.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/robert-muellers-fbi-gave-orgy-island-billionaire-epstein-light-sentence-today-details-were-released-on-his-widespread-child-sex-abuse/

[Nov 28, 2018] Porky is just throwing his weight about, and while it might be considerable, it has little significance to NATO. The US warmongers would love to get something started, but the last thing most Americans want is a major war with a nuclear power that has already said "I'm done fucking around."

Notable quotes:
"... This is probably the most worrying development of the Martial Law thing. Porky is a despicable opportunist but he seems to be a predictable and practical despicable opportunist. He will wind up the tension and provocation song and dance for his NATO/US/EU sponsors in order to start the flow of delicious $$$s. ..."
"... Turchinov though, is a true believer. Or seems to be. And there is nothing more dangerous in a tense situation that one who believes his own rhetoric. I can easily see Turchinov being one to turn the nationalist rhetoric into reality and go off on a crusade to cleanse the moskals or die trying. ..."
Nov 28, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman November 25, 2018 at 9:59 pm

Agreed; although the Hal Turner site says there is a full-on naval battle in progress between the Ukrainian Navy and the Russian Navy, there is actually nothing of the sort. There is great excitement that it may flash into a full-blown war in Europe, but that isn't going to happen, either. Not now, anyway. Ukraine, properly speaking, doesn't really have a Navy; they only have one major surface combatant that is seaworthy, if I remember correctly, and a hodgepodge of smaller gunboats – Ukraine's ability to project power at sea is basically non-existent. Russia could squash Ukraine like a bug, both at sea and on land, and before President Porkchop throws his invincible millions into battle, he should bear in mind that although Ukraine is a special project for Washington and Brussels, it is not a member of NATO. American think-tankers have publicly urged Ukraine to blow up the Crimea Bridge, so Russia is right to guard it, and Ukraine is ignoring all norms of territorial waters in a childish attempt to play That Never Happened, as if Crimea still belonged to Ukraine. It does not, and there was nothing illegal about its return to Russia, which is plainly the will of its people who were never Ukrainians.

Porky is just throwing his weight about, and while it might be considerable, it has little significance to NATO. The US warmongers would love to get something started, but the last thing most Americans want is a major war with a nuclear power that has already said "I'm done fucking around."

Nat November 25, 2018 at 1:57 pm
Now that all three Ukrainian ships have been captured and that he stupidly risked his officers' lives, Poroshenko may finally rest easy: Turchinov just announced the possibility of imposing Martial law which would cancel the Presidential elections (they won't be until March 2019, so it seems a little early to declare that, but who knows).
yalensis November 26, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Latest in Russian press is that the Ukie commanders performed on camera for video interrogations, according to the rules of the genre, here is the link with the interrogations/confessions:

https://vz.ru/news/2018/11/26/952451.html

The first guy, with the shaved head, who claims to be just an "ordinary crew member" is said to be from Ukrainian SBU, as he gives his evidence to the camera he keeps playing with his fingers and thumbs, probably sending Morse code signals to NATO!

Mark Chapman November 26, 2018 at 10:37 am
What does the bridge conversation on the Russian vessel say? I believe the video was recorded from the Russian viewpoint, and I hear a lot of "Davaiy! Davaiy!!" which is not "Oh dear, we should turn away". It's 'Let's do it".
et Al November 26, 2018 at 11:48 am
Yes, it sounds like the blood was up after such a goose chase but it does look like hitting a suspect after he as given up. They could have handled it better. Not that I have any sympathy for the Ukies, obvs, as you can really reasonable expect them to try anything to wind up Russia.
Moscow Exile November 26, 2018 at 1:33 am
Порошенко обратился с требованием к властям России.

"Я обращаюсь к руководству Российской Федерации с требованием немедленно освободить украинских военнослужащих, которые в нарушение международного права, грубо были задержаны и судьба которых неизвестна", -- заявил Порошенко.

Poroshenko has appealed to the Russian authorities.

"I appeal to the leadership of the Russian Federation with the demand that Ukrainian military personnel, who, in violation of international law, have been roughly detained and whose fate is unknown, be immediately released", Poroshenko said.

There's that thing called "International Law" again, something that the Exceptional Nation and its satraps love so well to bandy about -- whenever it suits them to do so. Of course, cutting off water and power supplies to civilians is quite alright.

The elections are already in question, because martial law (it must be confirmed by the Rada today) is to be imposed for 2 months. This is very convenient for a head of state whose popularity is rock-bottom and whose chances of being elected for a second presidential term are as slim as are the chances of finding a virgin in a whorehouse.

By the way, Poroshenko has demanded that the sailors be urgently transferred along with the ships to the Ukrainian side as a first step in de-escalating the situation in the Sea of ​​Azov. He stressed that he was waiting for an answer to his appeal .

There is something else that should give rise to Poroshenko becoming nervous: martial law automatically makes the Bloody Pastor and the head of the National Security and Defence Council number 2 in the Kiev Junta. And in the case of any incapacity that Poroshenko should suffer -- including death from an overdose -- Turchinov then becomes head of the regime.

And Turchinov, in my opinion, is as mad as a hatter, a bent Holy Joe -- and there's nothing worse than a bible thumping wanker such as he is.

yalensis November 26, 2018 at 4:22 am
That's a good point: Under Martial Law, Turchinov could easily put a cap in Porky and make himself the capo di capos. "Yet Brutus says he was ambitious "
Murdock November 27, 2018 at 11:53 am
This is probably the most worrying development of the Martial Law thing. Porky is a despicable opportunist but he seems to be a predictable and practical despicable opportunist. He will wind up the tension and provocation song and dance for his NATO/US/EU sponsors in order to start the flow of delicious $$$s. He does this with the knowledge that unless Russian servicemen are killed or other obvious red lines are crossed, engaging Ukraine in open war is of no benefit to Russia and it will not happen. Sure Russia will slap them around a little (ex these boats), but ultimately nothing of serious significance will take place. Porky will huff and puff and kneel for the nationalists all day as long as there is benefit to it and it keeps him in the feeding trough if you will, but he will not intentionally commit to a serious course of action that will ruin him and his largesse.

Turchinov though, is a true believer. Or seems to be. And there is nothing more dangerous in a tense situation that one who believes his own rhetoric. I can easily see Turchinov being one to turn the nationalist rhetoric into reality and go off on a crusade to cleanse the moskals or die trying.

He is definitely the one to watch during the Martial Law saga.

[Nov 28, 2018] Russia Is Disadvantaged by Her Belief that the West Is Governed by Law by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... The Russian Navy detained the Ukrainian ships. Of course, the Western presstitutes, most of whom are CIA assets, will blame "Russian aggression." Washington and its presstitutes are doing everything they can to make impossible Trump's expressed goal of normal relations with Russia. NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu quickly aligned NATO with Ukraine: "NATO fully supports Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, including its navigation rights in its territorial waters." ..."
"... The Russian government's response to Ukraine's provocation and violation of law was to call an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, as if anything would come of this. Washington pays such a large percentage of the UN budget, that few countries will side against Washington. As President Trump's crazed UN ambassador Nikki Haley said, "we take names." ..."
"... From all evidence, the Russian government still, despite all indications to the contrary, believes that presenting a non-threatening posture to the West, which appeals to law and not to arms, is effective in discrediting Western charges of aggression against Russia. If only it were true, but no sooner than a high Russian official announced that, despite the overwhelming elections for independence from Kiev in the breakway Russian provinces of Ukraine, Russia would not recognize the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk than "the Ukrainian army opened massive artillery fire on Sunday, shelling residential areas of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic." https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811261070125114-ukraine-kerch-strait-crisis-martial-law-poroshenko/ ..."
Nov 26, 2018 | www.unz.com
Ukrainian military ships have violated Russian restrictions in the Sea of Azov and Articles 19 and 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Ukrainian Navy crossed the Russian sea border and entered a closed area of Russian territorial waters. Clearly, Washington was behind this as Ukraine would not undertake such a provocation on its own. Here is an accurate explanation of the event: https://www.rt.com/news/444857-russia-ukraine-kerch-strait-standoff/

The Russian Navy detained the Ukrainian ships. Of course, the Western presstitutes, most of whom are CIA assets, will blame "Russian aggression." Washington and its presstitutes are doing everything they can to make impossible Trump's expressed goal of normal relations with Russia. NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu quickly aligned NATO with Ukraine: "NATO fully supports Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, including its navigation rights in its territorial waters." https://twitter.com/NATOpress/status/1066796714672222210/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1066796714672222210&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fnews%2F444853-russia-ukraine-ships-conflict%2F

The US military/security complex prefers the risk of nuclear war to any diminution of its $1,000 billion annual budget, a completely unnecessary sum that is destined to grow as the presstitutes, in line with the military/security complex, continue to demonize both Russia and Putin and to never question the obvious orchestrations that are used to portray Russia as a threat.

The Russian government's response to Ukraine's provocation and violation of law was to call an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, as if anything would come of this. Washington pays such a large percentage of the UN budget, that few countries will side against Washington. As President Trump's crazed UN ambassador Nikki Haley said, "we take names."

From all evidence, the Russian government still, despite all indications to the contrary, believes that presenting a non-threatening posture to the West, which appeals to law and not to arms, is effective in discrediting Western charges of aggression against Russia. If only it were true, but no sooner than a high Russian official announced that, despite the overwhelming elections for independence from Kiev in the breakway Russian provinces of Ukraine, Russia would not recognize the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk than "the Ukrainian army opened massive artillery fire on Sunday, shelling residential areas of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic." https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811261070125114-ukraine-kerch-strait-crisis-martial-law-poroshenko/

By trusting that there is a rule of law in the West, the Russian government is digging Russia's grave while it allows Washington's Ukrainian Nazis to murder Russian people. The Russian government is discrediting itself by trusting US vassals, such as Germany, to enforce the Minsk agreement and, despite all evidence to the contrary, believing that there is a rule of law in the West. Russia continues, year after year, to appeal to this non-existent entity called the Western Rule of Law.

This policy reassures the Zionist Neoconservatives who rule Washington's foreign policy that Russia is incapable of defending its interests.

The Putin government seems to think that in order to prove that it is democratic, it must tolerate every Russian traitor in the name of free speech. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/25/if-the-united-states-can-arrest-julian-assange-why-cant-russia-arrest-these-real-traitors/

ORDER IT NOW Russia Is Disadvantaged by Her Belief that the West Is Governed by Law, by Paul Craig Roberts - The Unz Review

This makes Russia an easy mark for Washington to destabilize. We see it already in Putin's falling approval ratings in Russia. The Russian government permits US-financed Russian newspapers and NGO organizations to beat up the Russian government on a daily basis. Decades of American propaganda have convinced many in the world that Washington's friendship is the key to success. The Russian Atlanticist Integrationists believe that Putin stands in the way of this friendship.

China is also an easy mark. The Chinese government permits Chinese students to study in the US from whence they return brainwashed by US propaganda and become Washington's Fifth Column in China.

It sometimes seems that Russia and China are more focused on gaining wealth than they are on national survival. It is extraordinary that these two governments are still constrained in their independence and remain dependent on the US dollar and Western financial systems for clearances of their international trade.

As Washington controls the explanations, surviving Washington's hegemony is proving to be a challenge for both countries.

[Nov 28, 2018] Beware the Trumpenleft! by C.J. Hopkins

Saving neoliberalism in the USA requires demonizing Russia. A funny thing is that Russia is a neoliberal country since 1991, which was economically raped in 1991-2000 by some western countries (with the help of some Harvard Business school economists, IMF and intelligence agencies.) So now they are suffering for the second time for their overthrow of Bolshevism and the switch to neoliberalism (which now looks like a misguided move, judging from economic consequences for the majority of Russian population) ;-)
Nov 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Trumpenleft (or "Sputnik Left," as it is also called by professional anti-Putin-Nazi intelligence analysts ) is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It is a gang of nefarious Putin-Nazi infiltrators posing as respectable leftists in order to disseminate Trumpian ideology and Putin-Nazi propaganda among an assortment of online leftist magazines that hardly anyone ever actually reads. The aim of these insidious Trumpenleft infiltrators is to sow confusion, chaos, and discord among actual, real, authentic leftists who are going about the serious business of calling Donald Trump a fascist on the Internet twenty-five times a day, verbally abusing Julian Assange , occasionally pulling down oppressive statues, and sharing videos of racist idiots acting like racist idiots in public.

... ... ...

This is the type of gobbledegook the Trumpenleft use to try to dupe real leftists into putting down their phones for a minute and actually thinking through political issues! Fortunately, no one is falling for it. As any bona fide leftist knows, there is no "mass migration problem." The whole thing is simply a racist hoax concocted by Putin, Alex Jones, and other Trumpian disinformationists. The only thing real leftists need to know about immigration is that immigrants are good, and Trump, and walls, and borders are bad! All that other fancy gibberish about global capitalism, Milton Friedman, labor markets, and national sovereignty is nothing but fascist propaganda (which needs to be censored, or at least deplatformed, or demonetized, or otherwise suppressed).

But Angela Nagle is just one example. The Trumpenleft is legion, and growing. Its membership includes a handful of prominent (and rather less prominent) fake leftist figures: Glenn Greenwald, who many among the "Resistance" would like to see renditioned and indefinitely detained in some offshore Trumpenleft gulag somewhere; Matt Taibbi, who just published a treasonous article challenging the right of the US government to prosecute publishers as "enemy agents" for publishing material they don't want published; Julian Assange, who is one such publisher, and who the US has scheduled for public crucifixion just as soon as they can get their hands on him; Aaron Maté of the Real News Network, a notorious Trump-Russia " collusion denialist "; Caitlin Johnstone , an Australian blogger and poet who the Red-Brown Putin-Nazi hunters at CounterPunch have become totally obsessed with; Diana Johnstone , who they also don't like; and (full disclosure) your humble narrator .

Now, normally, the opinions of some political journalists and rather marginal political writers wouldn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but there's a war on, so there's no room for neutrality. As I mentioned in my latest essay , over the course of the next two years, the global capitalist ruling classes need to make an example of Trump, and Assange, and anyone else who has had the gall to fuck with their global empire. Part of how they are going to do this is to further polarize the already extremely polarized ideological spectrum until everyone is forced onto one or the other side of a pro- or anti-Trump equation, or a pro- or anti-populist equation or a pro- or anti-fascist equation.

As you probably noticed, The Guardian has just launched a special six-week "investigative series" exploring the whole " new populism " phenomenon (which began with a lot of scary photos of Steve Bannon next to the word "populism"). We are going to be hearing a lot about "populism" over the course of the next two years. We are going to be hearing how "populism" is actually not that different from fascism, or at the very least is inherently racist, and anti-Semitic, and xenophobic, and how, basically, anyone who criticizes neoliberal elites or the corporate media is Russia-loving, pro-Trump Nazi.

[Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

Highly recommended!
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Nov 19, 2018 | www.rt.com
Kremlin critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder accusing Russian officials of killing him.

Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering.

The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively.

Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver, according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been opened.

Read more
UK 'fraudster' Browder briefly detained in Spain on Russian warrant, tweets from police car

Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.

The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.

The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.

Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion. The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.

Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the UK seemed like the land of law and order.

Read more

Magnitsky Act mastermind seeks to stop Cyprus from revealing his offshore assets to Russia

He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy, having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances, was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.

The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition.

Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention in Spain last May.

Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
Nov 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

President Donald Trump's recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision, similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a world power.

Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests. It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader of the free world."

Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.

The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...

... ... ...

All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where none exists.

So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."

George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And

If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying the bloated budgets.

... ... ...

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected] .

anon [355] Disclaimer , says: November 27, 2018 at 5:38 am GMT

US foreign policy is controlled by a few key ethnic groups and (to a lesser degree) the military-industrial complex.
Justsaying , says: November 27, 2018 at 6:04 am GMT

but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.

Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.

To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.

Z-man , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:11 am GMT
Great article and I will spread it around.

Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face).

Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.

Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements. Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.

anon [336] Disclaimer , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:26 am GMT
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.

2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.

jilles dykstra , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:30 am GMT
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out. Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination. When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.

What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons. As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'. No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost) completely by internal politics.

This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half. All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA. Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.

What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.

Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people. British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet members knew about it. One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy, at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep State that then existed.

The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked. The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position. But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.

Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990

Jim Christian , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..

That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.

Michael Kenny , says: November 27, 2018 at 10:10 am GMT
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website November 27, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from candidate Trump :

'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.'

[Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

Highly recommended!
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Nov 19, 2018 | www.rt.com
Kremlin critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder accusing Russian officials of killing him.

Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering.

The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively.

Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver, according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been opened.

Read more
UK 'fraudster' Browder briefly detained in Spain on Russian warrant, tweets from police car

Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.

The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.

The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.

Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion. The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.

Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the UK seemed like the land of law and order.

Read more

Magnitsky Act mastermind seeks to stop Cyprus from revealing his offshore assets to Russia

He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy, having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances, was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.

The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition.

Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention in Spain last May.

Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
Nov 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

President Donald Trump's recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision, similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a world power.

Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests. It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader of the free world."

Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.

The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...

... ... ...

All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where none exists.

So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."

George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And

If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying the bloated budgets.

... ... ...

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected] .

anon [355] Disclaimer , says: November 27, 2018 at 5:38 am GMT

US foreign policy is controlled by a few key ethnic groups and (to a lesser degree) the military-industrial complex.
Justsaying , says: November 27, 2018 at 6:04 am GMT

but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.

Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.

To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.

Z-man , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:11 am GMT
Great article and I will spread it around.

Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face).

Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.

Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements. Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.

anon [336] Disclaimer , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:26 am GMT
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.

2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.

jilles dykstra , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:30 am GMT
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out. Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination. When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.

What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons. As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'. No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost) completely by internal politics.

This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half. All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA. Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.

What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.

Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people. British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet members knew about it. One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy, at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep State that then existed.

The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked. The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position. But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.

Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990

Jim Christian , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..

That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.

Michael Kenny , says: November 27, 2018 at 10:10 am GMT
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website November 27, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from candidate Trump :

'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.'

[Nov 27, 2018] Ukraine To Impose Martial Law After Russia Fires At Ukraine Ships, Seizes Three Vessels Off Crimea

Nov 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Update 4 : A UN Security Council meeting has been called for 11am tomorrow after Ukraine incident with Russia, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in a tweet.

* * *

Update 3 : according to media reports, on Monday Ukraine's president will propose imposing military law, amid the ongoing crisis with Russia.

* * *

Update 2: This is the moment when the escalating crisis started...

* * *

Update 1: Following reports from the Ukraine navy that Russian ships had fired on Ukraine vessels near the Kerch Strait, Ukraine accused Moscow of also illegally seizing three of its naval ships - the "Berdyansʹk" and "Nikopolʹ" Gurza-class small armored artillery boats and a raid tug A-947 "Jani Kapu" - off Crimea on Sunday after opening fire on them, a charge that if confirmed could ignite a dangerous new crisis between the two countries.

As reported earlier, Russia did not immediately respond to the allegation, but Russian news agencies cited the FSB security service as saying it had incontrovertible proof that Ukraine had orchestrated what it called "a provocation" and would make its evidence public soon. According to media reports, Russia said it has "impounded" three Ukrainian naval ships after they crossed the border with Russia

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko immediately called a meeting with his top military and security chiefs to discuss the situation.

Separately, the EU has urged both sides to rapidly de-escalate the tense situation at the Kerch strait:

NATO has confirmed it is "closely monitoring" developments and is calling for "restraint and de-escalation"...

" NATO is closely monitoring developments in the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait, and we are in contact with the Ukrainian authorities. We call for restraint and de-escalation.

NATO fully supports Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, including its navigational rights in its territorial waters. We call on Russia to ensure unhindered access to Ukrainian ports in the Azov Sea, in accordance with international law.

At the Brussels Summit in July, NATO leaders expressed their support to Ukraine, and made clear that Russia's ongoing militarisation of Crimea, the Black Sea, and the Azov Sea pose further threats to Ukraine's independence and undermines the stability of the broader region. "

Finally, Ukraine has called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting over 'Russian aggression' while Ukraine's secretary for national security, Oleksander Turchynov, accused Russia of engaging in an act of war: "We heard reports on incident and have concluded that it was an act of war by Russian Federation against Ukraine"

* * *

As we detailed earlier, the Ukrainian navy has accused Russia of opening fire on some of its ships in the Black Sea, striking one vessel, and wounding a crew member.

In a statement on its Facebook page , the Ukrainian navy said the Russian military vessels opened fire on Ukrainian warships after they had left the 12-mile zone near the Kerch Strait, leaving one man wounded, and one Ukrainian vessel damaged and immobilized, adding that Russian warships "shoot to kill."

Ukraine accused a Russian coastguard vessel, named the Don, of ramming one of its tugboats in "openly aggressive actions". The incident allegedly took place as three Ukrainian navy boats - including two small warships - headed for the port of Mariupol in the Sea of Azov, an area of heightened tensions between the countries.

Russia accused Ukraine of illegally entering the area and deliberately provoking a conflict.

Sky News reports that the Ukrainian president has called an emergency session of his war cabinet in response to the incident.

"Today's dangerous events in the Azov Sea testify that a new front of [Russian] aggression is open," Ukrainian foreign ministry spokeswoman Mariana Betsa said.

"Ukraine [is] calling now for emergency meeting of United Nations Security Council."

It comes after a day of rising tensions off the coast of Crimea, and especially around the Kerch Strait, which separates Crimea from mainland Russia after Ukrainian vessels allegedly violated the Russian border. The passage was blocked by a cargo ship and fighter jets were scrambled.

According to RT , Russia has stopped all navigation through the waterway using the cargo ship shown above. Videos from the scene released by the Russian media show a large bulk freighter accompanied by two Russian military boats standing under the arch of the Crimea Bridge and blocking the only passage through the strait.

"The [Kerch] strait is closed for security reasons," the Director-General of the Crimean sea ports, Aleksey Volkov, told TASS, confirming earlier media reports.

Russian Air Force Su-25 strike fighters were also scrambled to provide additional security for the strait as the situation remains tense. The move came as five Ukrainian Navy ships had been approaching the strait from two different sides.

According to RT, two Ukrainian artillery boats and a tugboat initially approached the strait from the Black Sea while "undertaking dangerous maneuvers" and "defying the lawful orders of the Russian border guards." Later, they were joined by two more military vessels that departed from a Ukrainian Azov Sea port of Berdyansk sailing to the strait from the other side.

The Russian federal security agency FSB, which is responsible for maintaining the country's borders, denounced the actions of the Ukrainian ships as a provocation, adding that they could create a "conflict situation" in the region. According to the Russian media reports, the Ukrainian vessels are still sailing towards the strait, ignoring the warnings of the Russian border guards.

According to Reuters , a bilateral treaty gives both countries the right to use the sea, which lies between them and is linked by the narrow Kerch Strait to the Black Sea. Moscow is able to control access between the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea after it built a bridge that straddles the Kerch Strait between Crimea and southern Russia.

Reuters adds that tensions surfaced on Sunday after Russia tried to intercept three Ukrainian ships -- two small armored artillery vessels and a tug boat -- in the Black Sea, accusing them of illegally entering Russian territorial waters.

The Ukrainian navy said a Russian border guard vessel had rammed the tug boat, damaging it in an incident it said showed Russia was behaving aggressively and illegally. It said its vessels had every right to be where they were and that the ships had been en route from the Black Sea port of Odessa to Mariupol, a journey that requires them to go through the Kerch Strait.

Meanwhile, Russia's border guard service accused Ukraine of not informing it in advance of the journey, something Kiev denied, and said the Ukrainian ships had been maneuvering dangerously and ignoring its instructions with the aim of stirring up tensions.

It pledged to end to what it described as Ukraine's "provocative actions", while Russian politicians lined up to denounce Kiev, saying the incident looked like a calculated attempt by President Petro Poroshenko to increase his popularity ahead of an election next year. Ukraine's foreign ministry said in a statement it wanted a clear response to the incident from the international community.

"Russia's provocative actions in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov have crossed the line and become aggressive," it said. "Russian ships have violated our freedom of maritime navigation and unlawfully used force against Ukrainian naval ships."

Both countries have accused each other of harassing each other's shipping in Sea of Azov in the past and the U.S. State Department in August said Russia's actions looked designed to destabilize Ukraine, which has two major industrial ports there.

[Nov 27, 2018] The only war the US will fight with Iran is a nuclear war.

Nov 27, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

Paul Greenwood , October 23, 2018 at 07:28

The only war the US will fight with Iran is a nuclear war. A population of 80 million bordering Pakistan with 197 million is a big effort and the US has been a complete flop with even 35 million Afghans and $2 Trillion spent. Israel can play the "Polish Card" the one FDR used to blackmail Chamberlain into declaring war in 1939 – and boy did he apply pressure ! – but it won't help Israel survive and more than Poland did.

Israel cannot "solve the Palestinian problem" any more than the "Jewish problem" was solved when Tsarist Russia let them emigrate to USA and USA stopped them emigrating from Nazi Germany under Johnson-Reed Act 1924 as in case of SS St Louis in 1939 sent back to Germany.

Israel will never resolve the problem they perceive. The actions of their ally and friend Mohammed bin Salman will make it nigh on impossible now the crudity of the gangsters running alongside Israel are plain to see and Trump had better read up on Uncle Remus and the Tar Baby

Tom Welsh , October 23, 2018 at 11:38

A thermonuclear attack on Iran by the USA would probably trigger a response by Russia. The Russian defence doctrine clearly states that thermonuclear weapons will be used in the event of an attack on Russia or its allies.

How close an ally Iran is in that context may be debatable; but Russia could not afford to stand by while Iran was destroyed.

[Nov 27, 2018] The USA seized 100,000 patents from Germany postwar and blocked all mention of it in The London Conference 1953

Nov 27, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

Tom Welsh , October 24, 2018 at 12:01

England may well be the only country in the world that is so snobbish about "trade" that, in spite of having rung up record numbers of fundamental scientific breakthroughs and engineering inventions, it has hardly earned any money at all from them.

If you really want to see a country "that treats a vacuum cleaner salesman like he's some sort of genius physicist", take a look at the USA. Half its immense wealth was built on pinching other people's ideas and "monetizing" them (a characteristically American word for a quintessentially American practice).

Tom Welsh , October 24, 2018 at 12:02

Two outstanding examples of American salesmen who have been treated like gods are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Paul Greenwood , October 25, 2018 at 16:54

Yes they seized >100,000 patents from Germany postwar and blocked all mention of it in The London Conference 1953
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/patents.html

[Nov 27, 2018] Poroshenko's worse than a lame duck. That the Rada acted somewhat independently is a good sign

The net effect of marital law for 30 days in those region might surprise Poroshenko and his handlers
Notable quotes:
"... Russia's FSB says that among the Ukrainian crew members detained are two guys from Ukraine's domestic secret service SBU... ..."
"... I'd also guess that "f*ck the EU" is still the order of the day. These provocations will be used to put more pressure on EU to increase military spending and accept US natural gas. ..."
"... This provocation just seems to be straight out of the FUKUS playbook...i am not sure that poroshenko is smart enough to have laid all this out...he is just a motivated servant(election he is sure to lose) following the orders of his financiers... ..."
"... Well, good luck to Kiev in trying to maintain a police state apparatus in the eastern, southeastern and southern parts of Ukraine. If there's one thing that will break up Ukraine as a political entity, surely it's got to be actions on Kiev's part that punish people in those oblasts just for being next door to Russia or for not being Nazi enough. ..."
"... The current Ukie provocation may well be to take the Aleppo CW attack out of the news. Around 2014 2015 In noticed that when blocked on one front, the US et al (I have started to think in terms of a five-eyes permanent state) would move to another front - Ukraine, Syria, South China Sea. The last couple of years, their attention seems to have been mostly on Syria, Iran and the middle east. ..."
Nov 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Zanon , Nov 26, 2018 2:21:32 PM | link
< Live update- US Senator Urges Trump to Boost Ukraine Security Aid Before Meeting Putin>
https://sptnkne.ws/keAM

Brendan , Nov 26, 2018 2:23:45 PM | link


At the UN today, US Ambassador Nikki Haley denounced what she called Russia's "outrageous violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory".
She didn't say which laws were violated or mention that the ships were Navy vessels:

"Let's be clear about what is known.

Ukrainian ships set sail from one Ukrainian port to another Ukrainian port. They attempted to do so by the only possible way to go, through the Kerch Strait. Both Russia and Ukraine use the strait routinely. But this time, Russia decided to prevent passage of the Ukrainian ships, rammed them, and then opened fire on them.

This is no way for a law-abiding, civilized nation to act. Impeding Ukraine's lawful transit through the Kerch Strait is a violation under international law."
https://usun.state.gov/remarks/8784

the pessimist , Nov 26, 2018 2:32:16 PM | link
TASS article claims that the FSB posted a video of the questioning of the Ukrainian sailors. Anyone seen it?

Here is a choice provocative piece by Stephen Blank linked in the Kyiv Post:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russia-s-provocations-in-the-sea-of-azov-what-should-be-done

Harold Smith , Nov 26, 2018 2:51:54 PM | link
This provocation was probably planned by the evil orange clown in the white house and his handlers, for the express purpose of creating an excuse (look Ma, more "Russian aggression") that the demonic orange poseur can use to avoid meeting with Vladimir Putin.
Peter AU 1 , Nov 26, 2018 3:00:29 PM | link
The amount of assets Russia put into this operation most likely means there is a lot more going on than has been reported on.
From the reports I have read, this was an FSB operation. FSB duties according to wikipedia "Its main responsibilities are within the country and include counter-intelligence, internal and border security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance as well as investigating some other types of grave crimes and federal law violations."
Laguerre , Nov 26, 2018 3:45:43 PM | link
re 105

You mean the Russians knew in advance what the Ukies were planning. Not difficult with ships, which move slowly.

the pessimist , Nov 26, 2018 4:00:29 PM | link
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/parliament-approves-martial-law-in-10-oblasts-for-30-days.html

"Ukraine's parliament approved late on Nov. 26 the imposition of 30 days of martial law in 10 oblasts located on the Russian border, the border with the Russian-controlled Transnistria region of Moldova and oblasts located by the Black and Azov seas.

The 276 lawmakers out of 330 present in parliament voted in favor of a bill by President Petro Poroshenko who proposed it in response to Russian escalation in the Black Sea.Ukraine's parliament approved late on Nov. 26 the imposition of 30 days of martial law in 10 oblasts located on the Russian border, the border with the Russian-controlled Transnistria region of Moldova and oblasts located by the Black and Azov seas.

The 276 lawmakers out of 330 present in parliament voted in favor of a bill by President Petro Poroshenko who proposed it in response to Russian escalation in the Black Sea. ...

... In an address to the nation that preceded the vote, Poroshenko sad martial law will take effect at 9 a.m. Kyiv time on Nov. 28. It will include Vinnytsia, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolayiv, Odesa, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts.

It will enable the military to take over control over these areas and restrict the civic and political rights of their residents. The text of the bill is still now published and the lawmakers voted for it based on the oral presentation of parliament speaker Andriy Parubiy.

Parliament passed it after 10 hours of backroom discussions and disputes in the meeting hall, amid swearing and insults.

Many found it odd to impose the martial law in the fifth year of Russia's war against Ukraine and claimed Poroshenko offered the bill to postpone the presidential elections in 2019. According to recent polls, he has the highest negative rating among all the candidates and low chances to win.

Under pressure, Poroshenko agreed to limit martial law to 30 days instead the earlier planned 60 days and restrict its scope to 10 oblasts instead of the entire territory of Ukraine.

Speaking in parliament, Poroshenko also assured the lawmakers he was going to implement the martial law "explicitly in case of the Russian aggression on the ground." Otherwise, there will be no limitations of the human rights in these areas, h said."

Andrey Subbotin , Nov 26, 2018 4:01:25 PM | link
@103 https://youtu.be/fZGbkkOOuDA - video of the questioning in Russian. No new revelations, just a few sailors saying more or less the same thing - yes, we got the orders to cross into Azov sea and intentionally ignored Russian commands.

There is also a timeline published by FSB in Russian at http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/press/message/single.htm%21id%3D10438315%40fsbMessage.html that basically says
* Ukrainian ships approached, stated their intent to cross the straits and said they do not recognize Russian authority
* Russia blocked the straits, standoff continued for some time
* Russia intercepted radio calls discussing leaving slow tug behind and charging the straits with two gunboats
* The gunboats uncovered their autocannons; night approached
* at some point FSB decided it might end badly and ordered the ships to surrender. Faced with overwhelming force, and not being suicidal, they more or less did

james , Nov 26, 2018 4:01:51 PM | link
@105 laguerre.. i think the issue of some in the usa suggesting to blow up the bridge, not to mention some loose cannons in the ukraine maybe saying something similar, has put russia in a different position then otherwise... obviously they can monitor anything moving in the vicinity via water, very easily.. the tactical nuke story was probably a pile of bs, or we would have been told more by now, after russia ceased the tug...

however, perhaps the biggest issue is how the west under the leadership of the usa-uk - have wanted to ramp up the hostility towards russia in all ways... this can't go unnoticed by ordinary observers, including russia, here.. this is the type of environment that the west has intentionally cultivated... this event is a byproduct of their indiscretion..

karlof1 , Nov 26, 2018 4:20:01 PM | link
Peter AU 1 @105--

The rumored suitcase nuke likely activated the FSB besides the fact that some sort of provocation's been expected since the Kerch Bridge construction began. The videos I've seen show lots of commercial freighters--12-14, perhaps more--and other vessels on a lovely day to be out on the water. The provocation also conveniently upstaged any mention of the terrorist chemical attack in Aleppo and further Turkish Khashoggi drips. Although written before the provocation, Alastair Crooke's latest is of tangential import as the Il-20 shootdown's stiffening of Russian resolve wasn't limited to Syria and has likely had ripple effects throughout Russia's military and security services.

Jen , Nov 26, 2018 4:39:07 PM | link
Jackrabbit @ 96:

I re-read Point 9 in The Pessimist's comment @ 47 again:
Martial law will also allow to cancel diplomatic agreements with the enemy and to seize the property of the aggressor that is on the territory of Ukraine

In other words, martial law would not only allow Ukraine to continue ignoring Minsk I and II agreements but also allow it to invade and claim Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

The naval base in Sevastopol is more valuable to the Americans than Crimea and Ukraine themselves. They also want to get rid of the Turkstream gas pipeline which opened recently.

Ahhh, got the answer to The Pessimist's query @ 54! If the Ukrainians provoke an incident with Russia, then Russia (according to their thinking) will retaliate with force, justifying Poroshenko's call for martial law and the compulsory military draft and putting Ukraine on a war footing that go with it. (This would "explain" the gas and water stoppages as well.) Martial law would enable Ukraine (along with assistance from NATO "advisors") to seize Crimea and Sevastopol. Sevastopol could be delivered to the Americans.

With the naval base transferred to the US military, the Black Sea effectively becomes a US lake and the Turkstream gas pipeline from Russia to Turkey (which would supply gas to southeast Europe and Italy) becomes a target for attack.

Jen , Nov 26, 2018 4:40:54 PM | link
Re my comment @ 111: Sorry, Turkstream hasn't started yet - construction finished this month (November).
james , Nov 26, 2018 4:50:09 PM | link
@ jen... that would be yet another way to start ww3... i am sure the neo cons running usa-uk-west - foreign policy, are working full time to accomplish this...
Ger , Nov 26, 2018 4:57:44 PM | link
Jen@36

'Coming to a blog near us ...... all Ukrainians being subjected to a compulsory military draft'

Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of young military age men have fled Ukraine.... much like young white men fled the US war of aggression on Viet Nam. Ukraine does not have millions of young black children to fight their war using the draft. They will need to draft housewives and broke down farmers.

Zanon , Nov 26, 2018 5:29:32 PM | link
Ger

Even kids..
Teaching Kids to Kill at a Far Right Nationalist Summer Camp in Ukraine

"We never aim guns at people, but we don't count separatists, little green men, occupiers from Moscow, as people. So we can and should aim at them."

https://www.mintpressnews.com/training-kids-to-kill-at-a-far-right-nationalist-summer-camp-in-ukraine/251845/

Scotch Bingeington , Nov 26, 2018 6:01:31 PM | link
To add to the many thank-you notes - thank you, b, superb job staying on top of unfolding events! Highly appreciated!

Russia's FSB says that among the Ukrainian crew members detained are two guys from Ukraine's domestic secret service SBU... https://sputniknews.com/russia/201811261070150606-russia-ukraine-kerch-sbu-fsb/

If this is true there can't be any denying the incident was a deliberate provocation.

karlof1 , Nov 26, 2018 6:32:49 PM | link
Seems the best situation for Ukrainians in general who want peaceful relations with Russia and an end to the UrkoNazi nightmare would be for the Rada to declare war against Russia then, a la The Mouse That Roared , surrender and allow Russia to gain control so they could thaw out, drink water and eat decent food again. The polling data presented shows no one potential leader has anything near to a majority of people having confidence in her/him, which is the real bankruptcy of Ukraine engineered by UK/US/EU, leading one to wonder what numbers Putin would garner.
exiled off mainstreet , Nov 26, 2018 6:37:01 PM | link
Perhaps now that the Poroshenko regime has ordered a general mobilisation, it is time for Russia to liquidate this regime once and for all. I recognize that this threatens nuclear war, but the mobilisation order seems to indicate that the Ukrainian regime attacked first and makes it a bit less likely that nuclear war might ensue if this problem is liquidated once and for all. Of course, the cost of redevelopment of this failed state will be humongous.
Jackrabbit , Nov 26, 2018 6:45:56 PM | link
the pessimist @107

I'd guess that Porky will try to extend and expand the martial law sometime before it expires.

I'd also guess that "f*ck the EU" is still the order of the day. These provocations will be used to put more pressure on EU to increase military spending and accept US natural gas.

oldenyoung , Nov 26, 2018 7:03:02 PM | link
This provocation just seems to be straight out of the FUKUS playbook...i am not sure that poroshenko is smart enough to have laid all this out...he is just a motivated servant(election he is sure to lose) following the orders of his financiers... his willingness to pay for a "full readiness" military operation, when his people are freezing to death and have no money...seems more like a desperate servant than a leader of the people...he is expendable as far as everyone is concerned...
The legal paperwork for the martial law was completed weeks before this provocation was launched...the MSM had their stories all ready to go..
I am not certain where FUKUS is going to take this, but i think they will try to get NATO embroiled in it...that could be a real problem...
Jen , Nov 26, 2018 7:52:51 PM | link
The Pessimist @ 107, Jackrabbit @ 119:

Noticed that Poroshenko's martial law applies to those oblasts that border Russia to the north and east, the southern oblasts that border Crimea or which have a seaboard, and Vinnitsya and Odessa oblasts to the southwest because those two oblasts border the self-proclaimed maverick Transnistria Republic. So there is pressure being applied as well to Transnistria Republic to swallow its pride and return to Moldova with tail between its legs. On top of that, the oblasts being subjected to martial law are dominated by Russian-language speakers and these oblasts are also the oblasts that supported Viktor Yanukovych and his party in Presidential elections in 2010.

No oblasts in the northwest part of the country bordering EU nations (that is, the hardcore Banderite-Nazi strongholds) have been subjected to martial law.

Well, good luck to Kiev in trying to maintain a police state apparatus in the eastern, southeastern and southern parts of Ukraine. If there's one thing that will break up Ukraine as a political entity, surely it's got to be actions on Kiev's part that punish people in those oblasts just for being next door to Russia or for not being Nazi enough.

karlof1 , Nov 26, 2018 8:21:34 PM | link
The Saker's Update reports :

"Looks like Poroshenko ran into some real problems in the Rada. Unsurprisingly, pretty much all the political parties have immediately understood what this was all about and have categorically rejected the text Poroshenko submitted. They only adopted a much watered-down version in which the martial law is introduced only for one month, not two, and the fact that the elections will take place as scheduled has been re-confirmed ." [Emphasis mine]

Poroshenko's worse than a lame duck. That the Rada acted somewhat independently is a good sign.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 26, 2018 8:27:40 PM | link
karlof1 110

Thanks for the link to Crooke's article. The Khashoggi killing looks to have been a game changer for the region and Crooke sums it up well. The current Ukie provocation may well be to take the Aleppo CW attack out of the news. Around 2014 2015 In noticed that when blocked on one front, the US et al (I have started to think in terms of a five-eyes permanent state) would move to another front - Ukraine, Syria, South China Sea. The last couple of years, their attention seems to have been mostly on Syria, Iran and the middle east.

the pessimist , Nov 26, 2018 8:33:45 PM | link
Jen@121 yes exactly. The monstrousnes of US foreign policy and its consequences still staggers and shames me, despite my cynicism. Empowering such people, providing weapons and encouragement even when they are not more directly involved.
John Gilberts , Nov 26, 2018 8:55:56 PM | link
"...Over the past four years over 1,000 Canadian troops (a rotation of 200 every six months) has deployed to the Ukraine to train a force that includes the best-organized neo-Nazis in the world. Far right militia members are part of the force fighting Russia-aligned groups in eastern Ukraine.

Five months ago Canada's military attache in Kiev, Colonel Brian Irwin, met privately with officers from the Azov battalion, who use the Nazi 'Wolfangal' symbol and praise officials who helped slaughter Jews during WWII. According to Azov, the Canadian officials concluded the June briefing by expressing 'their hopes for further fruitful cooperation.'

More generally, Canadians have fundraised for and joined rightist militias fighting inside Ukraine. For their part, top politicians have spoken alongside and marched with members of Ukraine's Right Sector, which said it was 'defending the values of White Christian Europe against the loss of the Nation and deregionalisation.'

The Neo-Nazis in Canada's Military - by Yves Engler https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/26/the-neo-nazis-in-canadas-military/

Daniel C , Nov 26, 2018 9:04:22 PM | link
Didnt they try to sail a US ship near Crimea a few years back and it wound up having its electronics quickly disabled and fighter jets flown at it to show it can easily be sunk? There's provoking these guys with sanctions but if you're going to escalate it and threaten so sail a fleet into its territory, I'd expect a war. Im sure they've already prepared for this to potentially happen and that fleet would be hit with missiles from all angles. Ridiculous
Peter AU 1 , Nov 26, 2018 9:08:54 PM | link
John Gilberts 125

Not just Canada. The five eyes permanent state utilises nazis, wahhabi's and zionists - zionist's it seems being deeply embedded in the permanent state.

Fernando Martinez , Nov 26, 2018 9:15:52 PM | link
Great reporting
james , Nov 26, 2018 9:22:28 PM | link
smoothies article on this topic - http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/11/poroshenkos-gambit.html

@121 jen.. thanks for the more detailed analysis on that...

@125 john gilberts.. thanks... have you contacted The Honourable Harjit Singh Sajjan MP who is the dept. of defense minister on this? here is his e mail.. [email protected]

sad canuck , Nov 26, 2018 11:01:45 PM | link
Not much to see here. The empire's little gas monkeys got off their leash in Syria and did something stupid and embarrassing, so a diversion was required to avoid all those uncomfortable questions at the UN. Luckily the embarrassingly half-witted, submissive Ukrainian leadership is only too happy to help out the empire and sacrifice its soldiers and national interests. The alphabet agencies must ROFL at the clowns in Kyiv. Local population not so much.
Hoarsewhisperer , Nov 26, 2018 11:28:47 PM | link
...
i) A vessel to starboard has right of way.
ii) A larger vessel has right of way over a smaller vessel.

The small Ukrainian tug had the larger Russian vessel to its starboard (rules i and ii against it). The tug effectively cut across the bow of the larger Russian vessel and slowed down in front of it. The Russian vessel was turning away to minimise the inevitable impact arising from the deliberate actions of Ukranian captain of the tug.

Posted by: Entropy Wins | Nov 26, 2018 1:59:52 PM | 97

Thanks for the clarification/refresher.

So whilst the optics look bad, the rules obliged the tug to get out of the way. Nice.

It's an amplification of the routine pre-race jostling behind the START line before a yacht race. If your timing is lousy then you'll cross the START line before the gun goes off and be disqualified unless you go back and cross the START line AFTER the gun fired. A majority of casual Sunday yacht racers are just there to have fun and are happy to sit well back from the line with limp sails and yank them tight when the gun has fired, and leave the jostling to the fanatics.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 26, 2018 11:50:48 PM | link
Hoarsewhisperer 131

Apart from the ramming of the tug boat, it seems the Ukie navy vessels were fired on. Whatever intel Russia had, they were there to stop the pricks rather than just a nice day on the water.

[Nov 27, 2018] US Required to Give Israel $10,500,000 Each Day

Nov 26, 2018 | www.unz.com
wayfarersays: November 22, 2018 at 5:46 am GMT 100 Words

U.S. Required to Give Israel $10,500,000 Each Day
source: https://ifamericaknew.org/stat/usaid.html
source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

U.S. National Debt Clock
source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Agent76 , says: November 22, 2018 at 3:06 pm GMT

Jun 6, 2017 50 Years After Launching June 1967 War, Israel Continues World's Longest Military Occupation

In the final installment of our three-part special on the 50th anniversary of the June 1967 war, author and scholar Norman Finkelstein discusses why the U.S.-backed "peace process" was never meant to end the Israeli occupation, and how, despite the ongoing brutality, mass Palestinian civil resistance could still bring it to an end.

[Nov 27, 2018] Why the Two State Solution is Apartheid by Craig Murray

Notable quotes:
"... The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an officially racist basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White: ..."
"... A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime ..."
"... The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences ..."
Nov 27, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

The original apartheid state of South Africa created "homelands", known colloquially as "bantustans", and proposed that, as the apotheosis of apartheid, these "homelands" would become independent states and house the majority black population of the country in fenced-off areas which had been too arid, rocky or commercial mineral free to attract significant white settlement over three centuries of theft. South Africa actually did recognise some of these as Independent states, while the rest were supposed to be on a course to recognition.

The maps really do bring out the startling similarity between these two attempts to formalise the dispossession of the original people. Thankfully, even though the "Homelands solution" had its supporters including Thatcher, it never achieved support beyond what was then an extreme right wing view, and none of the "independent states" ever achieved international recognition.

I worked in the FCO as the South Africa (Political) desk officer from 1984-6, and seeing off right wing Tory lobbying to adopt the Homelands policy was a major problem. It is simply symptomatic of the extraordinary right wing shift in western politics over the intervening three decades, that a "Bantustan" solution for Palestine, laughably called a "two state solution", is now the accepted wisdom of the political and media class.

The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an officially racist basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White:

Many of the practices Ben describes have strong echoes of the apartheid regime, as do the disregard for Black/Palestinian life, the regular use of disproportionate lethal force against protestors, the mass arrests and detentions, the impunity for both law enforcers and "master race" civilians who attack blacks/Palestinians. These features are highly analogous.

But what I want to address here is the striking similarity between the arguments used by supporters of apartheid, with which I dealt every day at the FCO, and the arguments used today by supporters of Israel. They came by post thirty years ago not internet, and we did not use the word meme, but the key arguments are exactly the same.

Harry Law , October 25, 2018 at 11:10

Imagine if the UK had in its statutes, and the USA had in its constitution measures to ensure only white people had the right to immigration [one of Israel's basic laws is only Jews have the right to immigration into Israel]. Continuing the analogy with Israel's recently passed 'Nation-State' [basic law].

1. "The states of the UK and the US are the nation-states of the 'white people".

2. "The actualization of the right of national self- determination in the states of the UK/USA is unique to white people"

3. "The UK/USA will labour to ensure the safety of sons of white people".

4. "The UK/USA will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of white people among the Diaspora".

5. "The UK/USA views 'white's only' settlement as joint national values and will labour to encourage and promote its establishment and development".

Now let us look at one of the IHRA examples which the Labour Party have incorporated into the Labour Party rule book:

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination – e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour".

Who could deny that examples 1 to 5 above if incorporated into UK and US law would prove 100% that the UK and US were inherently racist and that their 'existence were racist endeavours' and that anyone in the UK/US [including Jeremy Corbyn] who disapproved of 1 to 5 above, and said so, would fall foul of the IHRA definition, be accused of being Anti Semitic and drummed out of associations like the Labour Party and possibly ostracised from society for life. Disgraceful.

Blunderbuss , October 26, 2018 at 00:57

I've been trying to find out why anti-J_ism is called anti-Semitism and I've been told that the term was coined by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr

Wilhelm Marr seems to have been strongly anti-J_ish and, in 1879, "he founded the League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga), the first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany posed by the J_s and advocating their forced removal from the country".

I find it bizarre that a term coined by a vehemently anti-J_ish person is used by the IHRA in preference to the more accurate term anti-J_ism.

antonym , October 26, 2018 at 04:48

Meanwhile: The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas authorities in Gaza routinely arrest and torture peaceful critics and opponents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/23/palestine-authorities-crush-dissent
Explains a lot

Zoltan Jorovic , October 26, 2018 at 18:12

I think you'll find that most "bantustans" were led by corrupt officials who mistreated their "citizens". You don't imagine that the Apartheid colonisers would want a genuine, free and united populace in their client statelets, do you? What goes for South Africa, applies just as neatly to Israel.

Hoi Polloi , October 26, 2018 at 22:13

As a South African there are lots of parallels with Israel/Palestine and a few differences. The differences are never in Israel's favour. The one thing that I always convinced myself of was that Palestinians were not controlled like our Bantustan leaders were – like Buthelezi managing the Zulus into good little darkies.
But now I am not so sure when I see the deliberate shut down of electricity.
Those in Israel will tell you that it is a better life than a Black South African experienced living in the madam or master's house. There are Palestinian Doctors working in real jobs in real hospitals alongside real jews. That never happened in South Africa.
Those in Gaza will tell you that it is a worse life than living in a Homeland. That I can believe, we could at least grow food, tend animals, create a community.

John Goss , October 23, 2018 at 17:16

Well argued Craig.

A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime . If they do they get shadow-banned or dragged through the courts/

Keep up the good work.

Paul Greenwood , October 24, 2018 at 06:19

The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences

tril , October 24, 2018 at 22:48

Many whites have in fact been murdered since blacks took over South Africa. The facts are clear. So their fears were not only a fantasy but realistic. This is the weakness of your argument, that you simply reject the fears of whites, which have come to fruition. I suspect you simply have an animus towards white South Africans, it is a result of your moral self-righteousness. I also noticed that you changed topic after mentioning that many whites genuinely believed that they would be murdered by blacks.

We suffered an armed robbery, my mother, who had just come out of intensive care, was beaten. She died less than 1 year later, most probably from trauma. Many whites are not as lucky to have survived even the robbery. We have since emigrated. My family has been living in SA for 250 years. More than 50% of blacks are immigrants of the last 50 years. Yet you insinuate that our right to live in the land is less than theirs.

The number of whites, especially farmers, who have since been murdered brutally, create facts on the ground which you cannot gloss over or dismiss if you were honest. It is telling that you changed topics just after mentioning the fears of whites. Because you will never let a fact get in the way of your moral self.righteousness.

Dave , October 25, 2018 at 10:07

I do understand it. Once the Israeli's had established themselves, as immigrants have in UK, you almost can't turn the clock back without inflicting the same policies/suffering in reverse. The Palestinians have de facto recognised this, hence their support for a two state solution. I.e. two viable independent nations. Except, in practice, its not on offer as the Likud want to drive them all into the sea or, until they expand further, Jordan.

Now that two states is unviable, the one multi-national state solution takes centre stage, but the Likud want a one-state without the Palestinians, hence the new apartheid laws, in an attempt to keep the multi-national one-state, Jewish.

But it wont work, once the Palestinians embrace the one-state solution, and in effect declare themselves Israeli's, as the world, even US, will support the need for all Israeli's to have equal rights, and Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and de facto Palestine) brings that day closer.

Dave , October 25, 2018 at 16:59

To illustrate the point, the Zionists are advancing too far, like Hitler towards Stalingrad, to be cut off in the rear, resulting in a pyrrhic victory. Instead of settling for a Jewish state, mostly occupied by Jews, alongside a Palestinian state, they are forcing the creation of a multi-national one state, only half occupied by Jews, hence the need for new apartheid rules, to keep the multi-national state, Jewish.

Hatuey , October 23, 2018 at 00:53

From an Israeli perspective, the "problem" is more or less solved. They'd love to fully take over Gaza and the West Bank, of course, build a few hotels etc., but these are more or less clean-up operations. Something like 90% of the Palestinian population has been expelled.

The whole area is a massive crime scene. I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there. It'd be like trying to find the solution to the Big Bang. I can't see past making them stop and then setting up some sort of Nuremberg type system to deal with the criminals.

There's nothing more depressing than this subject for me.

Shatnersrug , October 23, 2018 at 01:19

I posted this early Hatuey, it provides a detailed potential road map for final Decolonisation

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/12/choices-made-from-zionist-settler-colonialism-to-decolonization/

You might find it interesting

Hatuey , October 23, 2018 at 09:12

That's a huge read. I stopped about half way. I actually disagreed quite a bit of it. The parts I agreed with were the unrealistic parts.

If I could give a Palestinian advice, it would be to get away from the scumbags. Let them have Palestine for now.

Israel is doomed to fail. Sooner or later they're going to pick on the wrong guys and get hammered.

Deep down inside, everybody -- even those who back Israel in the West -- hates Israel.

Yeah, Right , October 23, 2018 at 01:28

"I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there."

One man, One vote.

The demographics will then sort themselves out very quickly as those Israelis with dual-citizenship decamp and move to their "second" country.

I would think that within a decade – maybe two – the demographics would be 70/30 or even more in favour of the Arab-speaking population, and nobody will be killed and nobody will be dispossessed. And at that point "Israel" will change its name to "Palestine" and nobody will make the slightest fuss about it.

Hatuey , October 23, 2018 at 09:16

Yeah, right, yeah, right.

Simple as that eh

Yeah, Right , October 23, 2018 at 13:04

"Simple as that eh "

I wouldn't use that phrase, no.
But it is as inevitable as that.

When the Zionist grip starts to loosen then a significant number of those Zionists are going to bolt – and that will accelerate the process until it become a steamroller.

That's what nobody pays any attention to: the Palestinians won't go away because they have nowhere to go.
But there are enough Zionists who can – and will – and that will end up being the decisive factor.

They're not bolting for the exits yet because they are convinced that they are winning.
But they will waver, and it won't take many to break before the whole thing collapses.

Hatuey , October 23, 2018 at 14:46

Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though. They're intensifying and extending their grip. The Golan Heights aren't even an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten. Poverty levels in Gaza thanks to sanctions and blockade have never been so bad as they are right now.

Any day now we are expecting another major attack on Gaza along the lines of Caste Lead. They will hit schools and hospitals as usual and thousands of unarmed civilians will die.

laguerre , October 23, 2018 at 15:52

" there's no sign of wavering though."

Not on the surface, no. The Israelis have excellent propaganda. Negative points are quickly brushed under the carpet. But Israel is being hollowed out from the inside. Everybody has their second passport, ready to run. You will remember there was a big panic in 2006 during Olmert's war in Lebanon. Hizbullah missiles were falling on Israel, and there were lengthy queues outside foreign embassies for Israelis desperate to renew their second passports.

Nobody wants to fight any more. I mean, would you want to spend your life in the army reserve, obliged to be ready to go to war whenever Netanyahu happens to decide on another invasion of Gaza? No, you would say sod it, I'm off to the States for a more peaceful 'normal' life. The Israeli army is just a poor militia now (see Pat Lang, passim). Even the Gazans stopped them cold in 2014. That said, the airforce is very good, but it's the only arm that works now. And then Hizbullah have their stash of missiles that can now reach anywhere in Israel, and Israel can do nothing about it (if they could, they would).

Yeah, Right , October 24, 2018 at 02:46

"Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though."

Agreed, there is no *sign* of wavering.

Indeed, the degree of bombast coming out of the Israeli establishment is now deafening.

"The Golan Heights aren't even an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten."

Oh, I think that once the Syrian government wipes out the last of the jihadists and then forces the US to withdraw from Syrian territory then you will find the Golan Heights will become very much a hot potato.

After all, it will then be the last piece of Syrian territory that is not under the control of the Syrians, and they'll be in no mood to be "intimidated" by the Israelis.

The Israelis will keep beating up on the Gaza Strip? Sure, they will.
And that will lull the Likud into thinking that the IDF is still a mighty fighting force, sure, it will.

But the strategic situation for Israeli is getting worse and worse, to the point where the Israelis dare not attack Lebanon for fear that the Syrians will take the opportunity to seize the Golan Heights, and the Israelis dare not launch an attack into Syria lest Hezbollah launch a counter-attack on the flank of that expeditionary force.

And either way there is this slight problem: the IDF is now a bunch of fluffy-girls-blouses, and as such is likely to get its arse kicked in a fight with a real army.

laguerre has it correct below: the IDF has been hollowed out, as has Israeli society as a whole. They are riding for a fall, and when they do they will come down to earth with a thud.

And nobody will be more surprised than them, which is when they will stampede for the door.

[Nov 27, 2018] EU-wide 'anti-Russian psy-ops' program confirms UK govt funding, Anonymous denies leak

Notable quotes:
"... "clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems." ..."
"... The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak. ..."
"... The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone. ..."
Nov 26, 2018 | www.rt.com
A network exposed by leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at curbing "Russian propaganda" has confirmed receiving money from the British government, while Anonymous has denied on Twitter that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a network claiming to fight disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II documents, which purports to show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals cooperating with it, has been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous collective. A major Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak.

Also on rt.com Anonymous blows lid off huge psyop in Europe and it's funded by UK & US

Responding to the leak on Monday, the organization said it did indeed receive funding from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for the past two years, but insisted that private donors were its primary source of money.

The statement neither confirmed nor denied that the documents were genuine, saying that it didn't have time to validate them yet. But it said it was "clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems."

It claimed that many of the published documents were "dated and never used," and that many of the individuals listed as members of II "clusters of influencers" were never contacted by the program.

The documents not confirmed. However:
1. Their detail suggests they may be genuine
2. Nobody with knowledge has denied they're genuine
3. Some of those named have confirmed their association
4. Wkileaks hasn't evidenced its concerns
5. A history of some Wiki & Anonymous animosity

-- Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) November 25, 2018

The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti contacted the FCO for comment about the disclosure, but its representative said that information about the II was "already in the public domain," and that the British diplomatic service was "happy for the project to receive greater exposure."

Interesting to watch Westerners picking up the Kremlin propaganda line that standing up to Putin's lying, thieving, murdering regime is 'anti Russian'. Putin and his enablers and appeasers are the true 'Russophobes'.

-- Integrity Initiative (@InitIntegrity) November 25, 2018

The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone.

RT, which reported on the leak last Friday, asked a number of alleged participants in the II program about their contribution. The majority of these have not yet replied, except for journalist Edward Lucas and Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council Stephen Blank.

It's been amusing to watch Putin sympathisers in the West who claim to be so adept at seeing through 'government lies' and 'MSM bias' uncritically swallow and regurgitate the version of events spread by Kremlin propaganda outlets that are known to relentlessly lie and distort.

-- Integrity Initiative (@InitIntegrity) November 25, 2018

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Nov 27, 2018] The GRU could obviously learn a few lessons from Browder

Notable quotes:
"... Now Browder is suspected of organizing and leading a criminal community in Russia ..."
Nov 27, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Warren November 26, 2018 at 3:35 pm

https://youtu.be/YvxpNAXLaBI

Vesti News
Published on 26 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
On Monday, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office announced the initiation of a new criminal case against William Browder, an international schemer and fraudster. Now Browder is suspected of organizing and leading a criminal community in Russia. For many years, Browder has been making frantic efforts to avoid going to Russian prison.

Mark Chapman November 26, 2018 at 11:33 pm

Well, lucky for him Interpol can't come after him, now that he almost singlehandedly prevented a Russian from becoming Director. He's only Assistant Director, so he must be powerless.
Mark Chapman November 26, 2018 at 11:41 pm
There; you see? The GRU could obviously learn a few lessons from Browder. If you want to rub someone out, don't use a distinctive nerve agent that everyone will know came from Russia, you numbskulls. Try to make it something undetectable, but if you can't manage that, at least make it something so general it might have come from anywhere. Then immediately announce that Browder did it.

[Nov 27, 2018] "The Nuland Experiment .... is about to be turned over like a rock ..."

Wishful thinking. "The Nuland experiment" is here to stay...
Notable quotes:
"... Turned over by whom? ..."
"... Most of the people Poroshenko fears, the ones not already in combat against his government, are ones who didn't get as much of the $5B in National Endowment for Democracy bribes as he did ..."
Nov 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Fred -> Bill Herschel , a day ago

"The Nuland Experiment .... is about to be turned over like a rock ..."

Turned over by whom?

Bill Herschel -> Fred , a day ago
Well, theoretically by the Ukrainian people in the election that Poroshenko fears so much. It has been pointed out that even if P. loses his job, another puppet will be found.
Fred -> Bill Herschel , 13 hours ago
Most of the people Poroshenko fears, the ones not already in combat against his government, are ones who didn't get as much of the $5B in National Endowment for Democracy bribes as he did. They'll turn over the rocks to make sure they never get any more for what purpose?

[Nov 27, 2018] Ukraine Declares Martial Law as Tensions With Russia Soar by Jason Ditz

Dragon teeth sawed by Nuland gave offsting... In Greek myth , dragon's teeth, once planted, would grow into fully armed warriors.
This classical legend has given rise to the phrase "to sow dragon's teeth." This is used as a metaphor to refer to doing something that has the effect of fomenting disputes.
Nov 27, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Officials say move stops short of a declaration of war

Posted on November 26, 2018 Categories News Tags Russia , Ukraine Following up on Sunday's maritime incident in the Sea of Azov, the Ukrainian parliament voted Monday on a declaration of martial law. They are presenting this as a "partial mobilization" of the military as officials hype the possibility of war with Russia.

The martial law will formally begin on Wednesday, and last for 30 days. President Petro Poroshenko said he intends to respect the rights of individual Ukrainian citizens during this period.

Importantly, Ukrainian officials are emphasizing that this move is short of a declaration of war on Russia. On Sunday, officials had said the National Security and Defense Council was meeting and intended to declare a "state of war," though it does not appear any public declaration happened.

On Sunday, three Ukrainian ships crossed into Russian territorial waters, and were seized. Russia said this area of the Sea of Azov was closed for security reasons. Ukraine is demanding the return of the ships and the sailors. Russia says they are temporarily impounded, and that the three sailors wounded in the incident have already been treated and are in no medical danger .

Russian officials are downplaying the incident as a minor one, while Ukrainian officials are already identifying a series of border areas that they expect ground troops to invade. Ukraine has been predicting a Russian invasion for years.

As is often the case, the US and NATO are embracing the Ukrainian narrative, and condemning Russia. Such condemnations come as a matter of course, but so far, are stopping short of any threats to escalate this militarily into a global war.

[Nov 26, 2018] Ray McGovern on Adam Schiff's Incredible, Incurable Credulity

Notable quotes:
"... On a more serious note, it was 22 months ago that I challenged Schiff as the "Russian hacking" accusations were proliferating. In the 2-minute clip , Schiff recites language highly relevant today as the Deep State tries desperately to brand Julian Assange a "known participant" – that is, an active conspirator with Russia, and not merely Russia's "useful idiot." ..."
"... Some of our "Justice" officials today apparently think they can detour around 1st amendment hurdles if they can dredge up, or manufacture, "evidence" enabling them to use the Espionage Act of 1917 against Assange. ..."
"... At think tanks like the Center for American Progress, hope springs eternal. Impatience too. As poor Schiff knows, Mueller has been at it for a year and a half – and FBI super-sleuth Peter Strzok for a half-year before that, after which he complained to FBI lawyer/girlfriend Lisa Page that "there is no big there there." But when Schiff takes the chair in January, God knows what they'll find! ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | www.antiwar.com
Twit:

Adam Schiff doesn't believe DHS saying ISIS or MS-13 are real threats but he DOES believe a Russian Oligarch who told him Medvedev was followed everywhere he went by a man called "The Pillow Carrier" who's job was to smother Medvedev in his sleep if he made Putin mad.

(hat tip to Rosie Memos @almostjingo for tweeting)

Rep. Adam Schiff, who takes the chair of the House Intelligence Committee in January, has a nose for hot tips about his bete noire, Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as a strong bent toward credulousness. On October 23, 2018, Schiff solemnly told a young audience at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta Center for American Progress Action Fund that he had been told that Putin has one of his henchmen follow Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev around with a pillow to smother him in his sleep if he ever gets out of line.

No, the video contains no hint that Schiff was speaking tongue in cheek. Perhaps worse, no one in the audience laughed (where do they recruit such credulous young folks?).

Be sure to scroll down for images of the pillow-carrier caught in action. :-)) He apparently has no reason to fear "identification," since, according to Schiff's source, "Medvedev is nothing."

On a more serious note, it was 22 months ago that I challenged Schiff as the "Russian hacking" accusations were proliferating. In the 2-minute clip , Schiff recites language highly relevant today as the Deep State tries desperately to brand Julian Assange a "known participant" – that is, an active conspirator with Russia, and not merely Russia's "useful idiot."

THAT'S BOGUS! Ray McGovern PWNS Congressman Schiff On Russian Hacking Fairy Tale - YouTube

Some of our "Justice" officials today apparently think they can detour around 1st amendment hurdles if they can dredge up, or manufacture, "evidence" enabling them to use the Espionage Act of 1917 against Assange.

At think tanks like the Center for American Progress, hope springs eternal. Impatience too. As poor Schiff knows, Mueller has been at it for a year and a half – and FBI super-sleuth Peter Strzok for a half-year before that, after which he complained to FBI lawyer/girlfriend Lisa Page that "there is no big there there." But when Schiff takes the chair in January, God knows what they'll find!

Meanwhile back at the ranch, President Donald Trump and his chief advisers give no indication they are aware of what to expect, if Trump continues to allow the Justice Department to slow-walk his order to declassify crucial documents that could – in a lawful world – land ex-FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. behind bars.

The stakes are very high. By all indications Trump is afraid – and not only of pillows.

Those wishing more background on the rudderless Schiff may wish to click on:

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). William Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA. Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .

[Nov 26, 2018] Ten Good Reasons to Hate Putin by Patrick Armstrong

Nov 26, 2018 | russia-insider.com
  1. He's macho. When he takes his photographer along in his "private" moments, it's to show him wrestling tigers, petting leopards, landing large fish, wearing tough guy headgear, hurling people around the judo mat. What do our leaders do in their photographed "private" moments? Golf.
  2. Even the false rumours about him are macho. Affairs with beautiful young women, not pedophilia or secret homosexuality.
  3. He's got a real army. With air defences, fighter planes, modern tanks, tough special forces. So a fun little air campaign won't be possible. Besides, Russia hasn't lost many wars, has it? And they never give up; just ask the Mongols.
  4. Nukes. Russia has them; they work: Bulava , Topol and Sineva . Meanwhile, in the USA not so much.
  5. He's Russian. And Russians are all horrible. Except for Pussy Riot .
  6. He's smarter than our team. Well... doesn't he prove this every day?
  7. You can't bully him. Ditto.
  8. He's not going anywhere. He's staying right there in Russia. And that, for the geographically challenged, is a great big country not very far from anywhere.
  9. And one bonus reason. He knows gold is a better investment than US Treasuries .
  10. And just one more. Russian babes say they like him . Imagine the campaign "Babes for (insert the name of your wearisome leader)". Didn't think you could imagine it without feeling a bit nauseous. Well, OK, there was Obamagirl . But that was fake .

[Nov 26, 2018] Lavrov Tells It Right to Pence's Smug Face Russia Will End US-Led World Order

This two years old article can be written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... "Aiming to calm European fears about US-Russia ties, Vice President Mike Pence told world leaders Saturday that the United States will stand firm against Moscow while also seeking avenues for cooperation." ..."
Feb 19, 2017 | russia-insider.com

Pence told a room full of Washington lapdogs that the United States would "continue to hold Russia accountable". Then Lavrov went up to the podium and straightened him out. Rudy Panko Sun, Feb 19, 2017 | 400 words 38,161 417 YOLO Lavrov

"Aiming to calm European fears about US-Russia ties, Vice President Mike Pence told world leaders Saturday that the United States will stand firm against Moscow while also seeking avenues for cooperation."

This is the opening line to CNN's report on the predictable saber-rattling that took place at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

Lavrov is our spirit animal

Pence also told the audience that Washington remained "unwavering" in its commitment to NATO as it faced a "more assertive Russia."

Shortly after Pence had finished his war liturgy, Russia's Foreign Minister took to the podium.

Sergei Lavrov phrased his comments in a very simple manner, so that his American counterparts could understand :

Lavrov said that the time when the West called the shots was over and, dismissing NATO as a relic of the Cold War, added: "I hope that (the world) will choose a democratic world order -- a post-West one -- in which each country is defined by its sovereignty."

Lavrov said Moscow wanted to build relations with Washington which would be "pragmatic with mutual respect and acknowledgement of our responsibility for global stability."

Lavrov is a career diplomat and a true gentleman. But we've noticed a subtle change in his approach to U.S. bullshittery over the last two years. He rarely dances around issues anymore. Sure, he still refers to Washington as "our western friends" or "our American colleagues". But he doesn't hold back after that.

The crisis in Ukraine made it clear that Washington wanted blood. But the U.S.-led crimes against the people of Syria is what made Russia realize that they are not dealing with normal, reasonable people. Washington is a cabal of psychopaths.

The war in Syria has also ushered in a new era: We are witnessing a seismic shift in how international relations are conducted. Russia and Iran just proved that fighting the bully works. And other countries have taken notice.

Lavrov's comments are more than just an invitation to all nations to join Russia in the creation of a new world order based on state sovereignty and international consensus.

He was also issuing a warning to Washington: Pack your bags. It's over.

Buckle up, buttercup.

Tsarkov19 Richard Harris • 2 years ago ,

Well, that would be the brain-dead, full of shit, Fox News/CNN version of events.

The USA has made it clear that unless Russia allows the full raping of its economy and submits to second rate lapdog status (are you listening Germany?) that they will continue to encroach and threaten.

Crimea would never have happened had it not been for the US seeded, illegal coup.

The USA is the nation responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths over the past 15+ years, not Russia.

Kelly Ann Tsarkov19 • 2 years ago ,

Past 15 years? truth be told it's a much higher number than that if you take in all nations they have overthrown since post WWII .

teddyfromcd Kelly Ann • 2 years ago ,

AND remember that whatever the purpose of overthrowing or even merely meddling inside countries - really -- as many as there are american embassies...

the consequences -- the repercussions of these -- result in BILLIONS in misery, unnecessary suffering and difficulty -- once the effects of american meddling , operations, influence, trouble-making are accounted for.

take the economy alone...an american company ....without all the bombings obviousness --

IF AN american mining company goes to a country and ''obtains'' bending the rules so the company can mine all they want -- hire private security or EVEN a corrupt government's ARMY or rogue generals to ''provide security" against peasants or workers who complain they are not being paid well , their health disregarded, the environment and village they live in polluted -- and the company takes all the profits OUT --

the consequences of that american company's activities harms far more, far longer and deeper - you count that along with all other activities and behavior the USA commits across the world wherever there is an american embassy, representative, organization working for ''american interests''

and what do we get in TOTAL if a proper accounting were made?

BILLIONS OF LIVES and UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT , FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE HERITAGE OF THEIR COUNTRIES ACROSS THE WORLD, ACROSS GENERATIONS RUINED.

from effects in poverty, wealth gaps, misery, descent by populations in poverty into criminality, destruction of farm and natural lands, social cohesion disturbed...divisions created...death , terrorism, and an endless list of MISERY brought by america's ''INSTITUTIONS".

Paulo Rocha teddyfromcd • 2 years ago ,

If America don't respect it's own indigenous people, how can they do it with the rest of the world?!?!?
America is leading the world!! To it's destruction....

Helen B Danny Canusa • 5 months ago ,

What a whitewash.
Blankets infected with smallpox ...
Massacres ...
Alcohol ...
Broke every treaty ...
The indigenous Americans were the subjects of the greatest genocide the world has known. We can only estimate the numbers, but they were huge.
They were a majestic and beautiful people. No doubt they had tribal indifferences, but they were not genocidal.
Shame on you.

andrew Kelly Ann • 2 years ago ,

You are right. From the point of view of Russia, the situation looks like this: NATO forces located on our borders are not a big threatening force.
Dangerous other:

First: the Americans gave the nuclear weapons at the disposal of its partners in NATO. The Polish, Danish and other aircraft can fly with nuclear bombs along our borders.

Second: latest launchers for cruise missiles are close to our border. This means that the flight time to, for example Saint Petersburg, becoming about 3 minutes.
That is, in case of any error, accidental launch due to a technical fault no one have time for any questions. No time for a phone call or any other communication, anti-missile system Russia will work automatically.

That is, the previous policy and NATO leaders created a situation which is extremely dangerous in itself. No matter how hostile their intentions.

Kelly Ann andrew • 2 years ago ,

Yes very much so, I hate it. No need for this insanity. Saw pictures of NATO troops taking group shots right on Russias boarder. And all it takes is one tiny mistake, Americans are famous for making mistakes , thats how they justify killing people. Ever watch Reilly interview Trump? Could smack that bloating neocon oreilly. Europeans don't get it , if this goes bad it will get real bloody for them as well, they have no shield of protection, when are they going to finally wake up n realize NATO is using them n their land to launch attacks on Russia, so stupid

[Nov 26, 2018] The Bankruptcy of the American Empire Is Coming by Hunter DeRensis •

The problem with this line of thinking is that the world is interested in the continuation of the current role of the dollar. That provides for the USA a safely valve.
The problem for the US empire is the Neoliberalism is no longer attractive ideology. So the USA is not only in troubles financially due to the level of dent, but also it is bankrupt ideologically. much like Bolsheviks in the USSR became in late 60th. The "church of neoliberalism" collapsed in 2008. So another 50 years or so and the USA might face the problems the USSR faced in late 80th. The neoliberalism--caused epidemics of narcoaddition reminds the USSR epidemics of alcoholism: people who feel that are not needed in the society tend to behave destructively toward themselves and their families.
Notable quotes:
"... Stein's Law at first glance might seem like a banal platitude. But we should be fully cognizant of its implications: an unsustainable system must have an end. The American empire is internally flawed, a fact that anti-imperialists both left and right should appreciate. ..."
"... The United States holds the most debt of any country in the history of the world. In fairness, when our debt-to-GDP ratio is factored in, there are many countries in far more perilous economic situations than the U.S. But there will come a tipping point. How much debt can the system hold? When will the cracks grow too big to hide? When will the foundation crumble? There's a great deal of ruin in a nation, said Adam Smith, and our ruin must ultimately come. ..."
"... Nobody can deal politically with demobilization, because the offshored economy eviscerated the one at home, at the same time that war economy became of outsized importance. The end of empire as a political choice is impossible, because of the economic dislocations it would incur, and that the dollar's invulnerable reserve purpose is only sustained now by empire militarism. Kicking the can so as collapse doesn't happen now is the political reality, a case of , "apres nous, le deluge." ..."
"... In Rome's case, incompetence in governing, coupled with the arrival of migrating tribes in a position to capitalize on that incompetence, were the causes of the collapse of the western empire. With America, it may be that our inability to curb our spending, combined with the futility of trying to control the remaining nations outside of our sphere of influence, will be what collapses us. ..."
"... the warmongers who seem intent on squandering our national wealth, lives and limbs of our service people, and national prestige on their designer wars. To discuss the etiology of their militarism is to vent the obvious. The 800-pound gorilla has not been contained quietly in the corner. ..."
"... Without a commodity base, the money stock is nothing more than bookkeeping entries -- numbers piled high upon other numbers. ..."
"... Well, I sure hope you're right, but color me skeptical. Our overlords seem to have little difficulty manipulating public opinion to their wishes. The strongest support for the "Global War on Terror" comes, geographically, from the regions that are sustaining the most deaths and maimings among their children. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are in the grip of the neoconservative ideology to agree that borders on the psychotic. ..."
"... For the better part of the post-WWII era (and prior), the US has been invading, pillaging, murdering, and basically doing its utmost to ensure the maximum number of dead and the minimum number of freedom of sovereign countries. ..."
"... From propping up genocidal fascists like Pinochet in Chile and the Military Junta in El Salvador, including death squads, to genocidal theocratic dictators in Saudi Arabia and Israel, the US and its deluded and primitive knuckle-dragging population was the pre-eminent hyperpower and Empire, yet no Americant would dare tell the truth and utter that word, 'Empire'. ..."
"... I hate to sound overly cynical but do the war profiteers even care? ..."
"... Clearly the author does not understand the power of the military industrial complex and the Empire it services. Choice between Social Security checks and the Empire? The Empire will win every time–let me put it as clearly as possible. ..."
"... Post-1970 cheap-labor immigration policies have already boosted the population of the United States by about 100 million and climbing. As Malthus pointed out, this is not a problem as long as the appropriate investments are being made to accommodate the increased number of people. ..."
Nov 20, 2018 | theamericanconservative.com

Herbert Stein was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and is the father of the more well known Ben Stein. In 1976, he propounded what he called "Stein's Law": if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Stein was referring to economic trends, but the same law applies just as much to foreign policy and the concept of empire.

Stein's Law at first glance might seem like a banal platitude. But we should be fully cognizant of its implications: an unsustainable system must have an end. The American empire is internally flawed, a fact that anti-imperialists both left and right should appreciate.

The United States' national debt is approaching $22 trillion with a current federal budget deficit of over $800 billion. As Senator Rand Paul often points out, bankruptcy is the Sword of Damocles hanging perilously close to Uncle Sam's neck. Outside of a handful of libertarian gadflies in Congress such as Paul, there is no serious political movement to curb the country's wayward spending. It would take some upset of multiple times greater magnitude than Donald Trump's 2016 victory to alter this course ;

The United States holds the most debt of any country in the history of the world. In fairness, when our debt-to-GDP ratio is factored in, there are many countries in far more perilous economic situations than the U.S. But there will come a tipping point. How much debt can the system hold? When will the cracks grow too big to hide? When will the foundation crumble? There's a great deal of ruin in a nation, said Adam Smith, and our ruin must ultimately come.

Is bankruptcy possible? As some Beltway economists remind us, no. Technically the government has the power to artificially create as many dollars as it needs to pay its debts. But this kind of hyper-inflation would deprive the U.S. dollar of any value and tank the global economy that trades with it. Simple failure to pay back our debt might even be a better scenario that such an inflationary hellscape.

When the world loses confidence in the American government's ability to pay its debt, or the interest rate on our debt becomes unsustainably high, choices will have to be made. No more kicking the can down the road, no more 10-year projections to balance the budget. Congress, in a state of emergency, will have to take a buzzsaw to appropriations. And the empire will be the first thing to go.

Stephen J. November 19, 2018 at 9:46 pm

The writer states: "What happens when American troops must be evacuated from all over the world because we can't afford to keep them there anymore? There's no debate, no weighing of options, and no choice. If the money isn't there, the money isn't there. Nothing could tie the hands of America's military more than a debt crisis. And if one happens, it will be in part because those same neoconservative intellectuals preached a multi-trillion-dollar global war to remake humanity in our image. Hubris leads to downfall."

Try telling that to the "neoconservative intellectuals" and warmongers that included Americans and their allies that gathered in Halifax, Canada a few of days ago. See pertinent article at link below:

November 18, 2018

"Are Taxpayers Funding Fallacies at a 'Forum' in Halifax"?

"The first plenary session of the 2018 Halifax International Security Forum examined how liberal states and institutions can continue to champion their values . The speakers were unanimous in their view that NATO remains an effective and unified institution."
https://halifaxtheforum.org/forum/2018-halifax-international-security-forum/friday-november-16/#agenda

When one reads the words above that mention "values" and "NATO", one wonders if the people attending this "Forum" are aware of the victims of their values. Or the reported evidence of: "The Diabolical 'Work' of NATO and its Allies " [read more at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/11/are-taxpayers-funding-fallacies-at.html

EliteCommInc. , says: November 19, 2018 at 10:01 pm
Well,

i am opposed to debt creation. But I just the following in the referenced paper on the Federal Reserve and the economy. http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm

Note, "The Mathematical Flaw section.

THE "MATHEMATICAL FLAW"

"A popular theory about the Fed and money creation in the United States is built around the notion of a "mathematical flaw" inherent in introducing money by means of "lending" as opposed to "spending." This theory starts with the observation that money in the United States (and most other countries) is placed into circulation through the purchase of interest-bearing debt. . .

If debt must mushroom over time in order to keep the money supply from shrinking, according to this line of thinking, then the cost of doing business must rise faster each year, and so must prices. In short, it is argued, the money supply process demands that debt grow exponentially. As debt grows as a proportion of total production, so do interest payments. And as interest payments grow relative to the rest of real income, it is claimed, prices must rise faster as well.

This dilemma, the proponents argue, is the inherent problem that causes instability in the current banking system -- an instability that the authors believe to be responsible for the business cycle.

Most of those who advance this view believe that to correct the inherent instability in the current monetary system and simultaneously reduce inflation, the system of "debt" money must end. They argue that money must be spent into existence, or at least issued without charging interest.

This analysis is deficient on four counts. First, the banking system does not behave as presented above. The payment of interest on debts that arise through the money creation process will neither contract the money supply nor result in the growth of debt relative to the money supply. Second, there is no reason for the money supply to equal the sum of debt and interest. Third, debt is such a common and essential part of an economy, there is always plenty of it available for money creation without any need to encourage the creation of more. (The fourth reason, that interest costs are not the cause of inflation, is discussed in another section). "

it's an indepth article, but this section suggests that people like myself simply don't get how money works. What we have is not unstable, but rather reflects money circulation. That in order for money to flow throughout the system, lending must take place to money in supply.

I think that is the shortcut, I am still digesting the content. I am not convinced.

bkh , says: November 19, 2018 at 10:03 pm
The Globalists need a weakened America. A strong America is a threat to them. Americans are feeding off the slop given to them out of the trough of electronic media. It is laced with a hallucinogenic that all is fine and will get better with the right changes in DC. Those that have not fed out of that trough have been lulled to sleep by comfort.
kim powell , says: November 19, 2018 at 10:18 pm
When the so- called "conservatives" can explain how tax cuts produce more government revenue, I might vote them in. Sadly, the only people that ever point out that starting with the Reagan economy, it has been red ink as far as the eye can see, are those "liberal" politicians forced to scale back any ideas they may have. Rinse and repeat.
Fran Macadam , says: November 19, 2018 at 11:00 pm
Nobody can deal politically with demobilization, because the offshored economy eviscerated the one at home, at the same time that war economy became of outsized importance. The end of empire as a political choice is impossible, because of the economic dislocations it would incur, and that the dollar's invulnerable reserve purpose is only sustained now by empire militarism. Kicking the can so as collapse doesn't happen now is the political reality, a case of , "apres nous, le deluge."
Bill Taylor , says: November 20, 2018 at 12:13 am
It's not just money spent on troops abroad. It's the size of our defense spending. And what about borrowing one and a half trillion dollars to give tax cuts to the rich, gambling they would invest the money rather than buy back stocks. They bought back stocks.

javascript:false

Whine Merchant , says: November 20, 2018 at 4:15 am
It was during the first world war that the financial centre of the world quietly shifted from London to Wall Street. The mighty British Empire was at its peak a mere 12 years earlier, but the pressure of the trenches and unrestricted naval warfare started the decline that lead to the loss of Ireland, and later India and Singapore after WWII. Then the Suez humiliation, the loss of east Africa in the 1960s and finally Hong Kong, all within one lifespan.

The US is following this path, no matter how many red caps shout at rallies and expensive toys are given to the Pentagon.

All the while, 'One Belt – One Road' eats away at the US and supplants America's role on the world stage as the economic powerhouse. Pence was sent to APEC last week to avoid Trump being embarrassed by Beijing calling the tunes for east Asia. Soon, only India will be left to contain her economic and military rival over their contentious border.

John , says: November 20, 2018 at 6:26 am
Did it occur to the writer of this piece that our permeating military presence overseas serves no strategic presence in dealing with "enemies," but rather to intimidate host nations into remaining locked into continuing to use the dollar as the world's reseve currency? The reality is that pulling these troops out would be akin to the Romans pulling the limes back to the Rubicon. This is the inherent contradiction in all empires, that they are ultimately all built on foreign plunder and control, and can only continue to exist as long as they maintain that control until some internal or external factor causes their collapse.

In Rome's case, incompetence in governing, coupled with the arrival of migrating tribes in a position to capitalize on that incompetence, were the causes of the collapse of the western empire. With America, it may be that our inability to curb our spending, combined with the futility of trying to control the remaining nations outside of our sphere of influence, will be what collapses us. However, we are far too committed to our current course and trying to reverse direction at this point, given that it would inevitably be mismanaged and catastrophic, offers no real option. Reality will at some point catch up to us, but hopefully that day does not come within the lives of us or our children, or their children.

In the meantime, continuing to support the empire in its present state probably makes more sense than any other option, as unpalatable as it is. Only expanding upwards, creating a permanent presence in space, offers any new economic ground in the world, but there is only token support for this in the immediate gratification mindset of American policy makers.

Kent , says: November 20, 2018 at 6:44 am
1. Every penny, including interest payments, the government spends is always just "printed money". That money sits as deposits in the banking system.

2. After spending the money, the government gets most of it back in tax payments.

3.The rest gets hoovered up by trading that money for treasury bonds.

4. The federal government "just prints" today. It doesn't cause inflation because every dollar is returned to the government.

5. Ergo, the federal government has not debt. In the sense that you and I have debt. It works backwards from the way you think. Which is why we've been running deficits for decades and interest rates are at historic lows.

Our bankruptcy is moral. It is the willingness of the American people to to take up arms and murder people around the globe for the ill-gotten gains of a share holder class.

spite , says: November 20, 2018 at 7:49 am
Being financially bankrupt is one thing, such things can be dealt with if the will and the right attitudes are applied. The USA is however morally bankrupt (both "left" and "right"), on the world stage it is now nothing more than a thug (both "left" and "right" establishment), on the domestic front it is increasingly made up of an angry, hostile and fanatical population – this can clearly not last.
Mark Thomason , says: November 20, 2018 at 7:56 am
The fabulously rich empire of Spain managed to bankrupt itself with endless, useless, unwinnable wars. It has been done before. Spain wasn't first or last, just one of the best known. They didn't print money the world would take, they mined it, but the effect was the same, as was the way they just wasted it.
Uncle Billy , says: November 20, 2018 at 8:04 am
73 years after World War II, we still have large numbers of US Troops in Germany and Japan. Why? How long does this continue? 100 years? 200 years?
George Hoffman , says: November 20, 2018 at 8:10 am
As a Vietnam veteran (31 May 1967 -31 May 1968), the fall of Saigon on April 30,1975, was a wake-up call. It marked the end of our dreams of endless empire-building by a nation that had lost its major compass. The collective wars on terror now rival that foreign policy debacle. Yet war hawks continue to lobby for us to be the policeman for the world though they veil their hubris with "full spectrum dominance." As Chalmers Johnson warned us in his "Blowback" trilogy without a course correction, our empire will collapse from its own internal stress and contradictions. But despite the fall of Saigon, which clearly marked the end of the American century, we continued to feed the ravenous beast of the military/ industrial complex. And we still pursued demons overseas as Captain Ahab did chasing after that white whale in Herman Melville's "Moby Dick." If the Vietnam War was a Greek tragedy, we are playing out what can only be considered a play from the Theater of the Absurd.
muad'dib , says: November 20, 2018 at 8:30 am

Ideologically motivated wars have led us to the precipice of financial disaster. American foreign policy must adopt a limited, highly strategic view of its national interest and use its remaining wealth sparingly and only when necessary. Realism can stave off national ruin.

Bull sh*t!!! Tax cuts for Billionaires staring in the eighties is how we got in this level of debt, Reagan/Bush took the National debt from 1 trillion in 1980 to 12 Trillion in 1992, not foreign wars (not that they helped), return to the tax rates of the 70's (brackets adjusted for inflation) and within a couple of decades, the national debt will be paid off.

PAX , says: November 20, 2018 at 8:45 am
This article suggests that the limitations to monetarizing military interventions may be our best hope to deter the warmongers who seem intent on squandering our national wealth, lives and limbs of our service people, and national prestige on their designer wars. To discuss the etiology of their militarism is to vent the obvious. The 800-pound gorilla has not been contained quietly in the corner. He is out and about, everywhere and in many guises. Are these folks prepared to pull the monetary edifice down on themselves and the rest of us? Push on TAC. Keep the truth that CNN and the mainstream media obscure, coming.
Jon , says: November 20, 2018 at 9:41 am
Or, business as usual. The national debt grows the budget deficit deepens and the polity is distracted by one military adventure after another. We are at the point where monetary value is nothing but an abstraction.

Millionaires become billionaires. And, their empires are made with paper not land. Economics no longer drives the arrangement of social bonds and the way people are governed. Without a commodity base, the money stock is nothing more than bookkeeping entries -- numbers piled high upon other numbers.

In this fantastically bloated world of paper or rather computer entries (that incessant stream of zeroes and ones) we cling to our ideological notions of how reality ought to be organized. No matter the crisis and no matter if the average worker carts home his daily wages in a wheelbarrow, the masses cling to their belief systems. And the elected will play their games of folly.

Should sobriety ever enter the picture as the article suggests could very well happen then we return to the counsel of Hjalmar Schacht and establish the equivalent of the Rentenmark. The debt is forgiven and we start this debauchery all over again. The military proceeds without interruption of its revenue flow to march on other capitals unless there is a realignment of power amidst the chaos of conflict.

What might be considered a sea change stemming from the mad rush to print money to pay debts will be nothing more than a tsunami clearing the ground of human settlement in specific areas without stirring human habitation elsewhere. The survivors will pick up the pieces and resume life back along the coast and along river banks. And ostriches will once more bury their heads in sand.

Fred Bowman , says: November 20, 2018 at 10:50 am
Well maybe when the Empire crashes, America can find her way back to being a Republic. Although truth be told, I think America will end up being Balkinized in the aftermath.
TomG , says: November 20, 2018 at 11:45 am
Mr. DeRensis, I sure hope you and Senator Paul can gain some traction against this insane foreign policy debacle of decades for all the citizens of this country's sake and for the worlds.
snapper , says: November 20, 2018 at 12:07 pm
As you note, when you borrow in your own currency, you can't default. You can always print money to pay the debts.

What you don't note, is that you don't need hyperinflation to get out of the debt problem. If the US was to average 5% inflation for 15 years, the real value of the debt would be more than halved.

Myron Hudson , says: November 20, 2018 at 12:32 pm
Thank you for this. Ironically, the USSR collapsed in main part because they spent themselves, militarily, into oblivion. It's long been obvious that we are hurtling towards the same cliff, but for some reason think that It Cannot Happen To Us.
fabian , says: November 20, 2018 at 2:17 pm
I agree with the author but I'm far from convinced that they'd chose retirees vs. military. Future will tell. After all they can "atomize" retirees. The reverse is not true. Elections? If you believe in them, be my guest.
Clyde Schechter , says: November 20, 2018 at 2:54 pm
"And the empire will be the first thing to go.

Just like its warfare state, the government's welfare state has plenty of internal calamities. But while it might be the preference of some megalomaniacal globalists to let the proles starve while preserving overseas holdings, it's not going to happen. What would transpire if Social Security checks stopped showing up in mailboxes and Medicare benefits got cut off? When presented with that choice, will the average American choose his social safety net or continued funding for far-flung bases in Stuttgart, Okinawa, and Djibouti? Even the most militaristic congressperson will know which way to vote, lest they find a mob waiting outside their D.C. castles."

Well, I sure hope you're right, but color me skeptical. Our overlords seem to have little difficulty manipulating public opinion to their wishes. The strongest support for the "Global War on Terror" comes, geographically, from the regions that are sustaining the most deaths and maimings among their children. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are in the grip of the neoconservative ideology to agree that borders on the psychotic.

The trend over time has been, if anything, to further expand the empire with ever increasing aggression. The public, meanwhile, supports whatever MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News, as the case may be, tells them to. The evisceration of our safety net will be sold as the necessary sacrifice to preserve the "homeland." We will be reminded of the glory days of World War II when the nation came together to accept material hardship to assure that the needs of the GIs would be met.

Why will it be different this time? I hope it will, but I don't see any reason to believe that. I hate to say this, but I think you are wildly optimistic here.

Adam , says: November 20, 2018 at 3:12 pm
Couldn't happen to a more deserving country. For the better part of the post-WWII era (and prior), the US has been invading, pillaging, murdering, and basically doing its utmost to ensure the maximum number of dead and the minimum number of freedom of sovereign countries.

From propping up genocidal fascists like Pinochet in Chile and the Military Junta in El Salvador, including death squads, to genocidal theocratic dictators in Saudi Arabia and Israel, the US and its deluded and primitive knuckle-dragging population was the pre-eminent hyperpower and Empire, yet no Americant would dare tell the truth and utter that word, 'Empire'.

You truly epitomize the quote, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

ahzzh , says: November 20, 2018 at 5:36 pm
I hate to sound overly cynical but do the war profiteers even care? Im sure they would wrap themselves in the flag and wax poetic about the need to defend freedom and the American way ( through military activism of course), but they won't give up their lip lock on the gov't teat until it runs dry. By the time it hits the fan they will be safely ensconced in their hideaways protected from the worst of it by the dirty, bloody money they have bilked out of us.
cstahnke , says: November 20, 2018 at 8:41 pm
Clearly the author does not understand the power of the military industrial complex and the Empire it services. Choice between Social Security checks and the Empire? The Empire will win every time–let me put it as clearly as possible. These guys, if they have to will do ANYTHING to stay in power. They have no morality whatsoever and will grind us into flour and make muffins out of us before they give up their "security" budgets.
BraveNewWorld , says: November 20, 2018 at 10:28 pm
>"Congress, in a state of emergency, will have to take a buzzsaw to appropriations. And the empire will be the first thing to go."

That's an opinion but I am afraid not one I have much faith in. The Republicans are already planning a slaughter of benefits to prop up empire. The Dems will help out. The bottom line is politicians get rich from defense spending not helping the old and the poor.

Even if the government completely cut grandma's benefits and she had to live on the street she would still vote for her party if the poor were allowed to vote, because there are no Americans any more. Only Democrats and Republicans and they are as tribal now as any region of the Middle East.

John Blade Wiederspan , says: November 20, 2018 at 10:33 pm
I taught Macro Economics for a long time. Since the late 70's I lectured about the fact that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense (including the V.A.), and interest on the national debt made up at least 80% of all Federal Spending. I would have never believed the debt and deficits could get as large as they are under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Defense Budget is one large Federal jobs program for every congressional district and foreign aid to many foreign countries. The last number I saw, there are over 800 bases outside the United States. Everyone, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican should heed Ike's warning. The tragedy is no one will and nothing is going to change. What a nation this could be if it wasn't for the Military Industrial Political Complex. I'm now 70 and, to be honest, I have given up hoping I will ever see a change in fiscal behavior. More's the pity.
TG , says: November 21, 2018 at 2:17 pm
I hear you, but I think we have to realize that the real problem with the national debt is not the debt per se – it's the combination of our immigration and trade policies.

Post-1970 cheap-labor immigration policies have already boosted the population of the United States by about 100 million and climbing. As Malthus pointed out, this is not a problem as long as the appropriate investments are being made to accommodate the increased number of people.

But not only are we not making the needed investments to handle growing population, we are shipping our industrial base overseas! So we have more and more people, and less and less of a real (non-financial) economy to support them.

We have been handling this gap by running ever-increasing trade deficits. THAT is the problem. Because a debt that we owe ourselves, is not really an issue: we can always just wipe it out. A debt that we owe foreigners, in principle, is also not a problem: we can just stiff them. But if we depend on foreign imports for manufactured goods – and soon I think, even for food! – if we stiff our foreign creditors, and we can no longer run a trade deficit, that could be really really bad.

As John Maynard Keynes always pointed out, money is important, but never forget the real physical economy.

Carlton Meyer , says: November 21, 2018 at 5:20 pm
Few people realize that closing many overseas bases will help our military! Here is a list of outdated U.S. military bases overseas that can be promptly closed to save billions of dollars each year while shifting billions of dollars and thousands of jobs into the American economy. None of these closures require the construction of replacement facilities in the USA because they are mostly base and headquarters overhead fat that serve no purpose.

http://www.g2mil.com/OBCL.htm

Mark Krvavica , says: November 21, 2018 at 7:13 pm
The days of the American Empire are over because we live in a domestic Empire that we can't control, the latter is like the Soviet Union during the last years before the breakup and we should acknowledge this.
Last Rites , says: November 21, 2018 at 10:02 pm
"Congress, in a state of emergency, will have to take a buzzsaw to appropriations. And the empire will be the first thing to go."

Afraid not. There will be a threat – because there's always a threat, right? – and the threat will be so urgent as to take precedence over the needs of regular Americans, of whom there will be precious few anyway because of the tens of millions of aliens they've imported.

Our military has become a giant mouth demanding to be fed, and we're reaching the point that if it isn't fed, it will feed itself, because it can. It happened to Rome and can happen to us.

[Nov 26, 2018] Fighting primitive antisemitism

Nov 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

West Bank Settler and American Patriot

Tyrion 2 , says: November 22, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT

November 22, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT 300 Words @neutral

Marxism – (((Marx)))

Marxism is a brilliant sui generis philosophy of history. The attending political position was a heartfelt reaction to the immiseration of the working classes of Europe.

There were many similar ideologies to Marxism in political viewpoint, but Marxism is outstandingly intellectually interesting.

Marx is not differentiated from other (Gentile) socialists by his politics but by his genius. I doubt his part Jewishness had much to do with that.

Libertarianism/Free Market fundamentalists – (((Alisa Rosenbaum, aka Ayn Rand))) , (((Mises)))

Jews have made up a huge proportion of decent economists from all economic perspectives.

Meanwhile, Ayn Rand was an highly eccentric writer of romantic fiction that lucidly captured the snivelling, resentment fueled scumbags who make up the denizens of the swamp.

Pychoanalysis – (((Freud)

Freud's psychoanalysis might be flawed but his work constitutes a truly great body of literature and the invention of a new and important subject. He is one of the greatest thinkers of all time.

USSR – (((Lenin))), (((Trotsky)

Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered while in ignominious exile.

SJW/open society/antifa movements – (((Soros))) and other forture 400 (((billionaires)))

I'm not sure how you think antifa and billionaires are best buddies but Jews are obviously a minority among billionaires.

Soros is deranged. There are plenty of bad people in every group. There are more maniac progressive types among Jews. The explanations are mundane.

Big tech censorship – (((ADL))), (((SPLC))), (((Zuckerberg))), (((Brin)))

Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship. Indeed, America remains one of human history's least censored societies. That doesn't make it good but you need get some perspective before you go all crazy.

Hollywood and other pop culture entertainment – easily all senior positions at the very least 50% jewish

Nonsense. And a lot of that stuff is pretty good.

The jew really is to blame, which is also why they are so hell bent on censoring and jailing people for stating these blatant truths.

Is this self-satire?

anon [100] Disclaimer , says: November 22, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
@neutral

Hollywood and other pop culture entertainment – easily all senior positions at the very least 50% jewish.

might even be closer to 75% if you look at those accused of sexual improprieties in the last year or so and if that is an accurate sample

anon [100] Disclaimer , says: November 22, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered while in ignominious exile.

apparently Lenin was part jewish and had disdain for white people, ethnic Russians

Trotsky was the racist he accused others of being – he wanted to fill Russia with what he called "white n1ggers" presumably to ruled by jews like himself – what right a 5% has to rule the rest of the country? It would be like Chinese ruling the U.S.

Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship.

really? (((Facebook))), (((Google))), and (((SPLC))) and (((ADL))) are the so called "safety advisors" so no leftist or jew should ever have to stumble upon the truth on those sites

also, why do you thnk BitChute lost access to PayPal and Stripe? why do think Paul Nehlen suddenly had trouble with his upstream suppliers for the business he manages? its because jews behind the scenes collude against and punish any competitiors or anyone speaking out about jews – this is what they do

Indeed, America remains one of human history's least censored societies.

no thanks to the jews, who have pulled this "hate speech" crap already in Canada, UK, Australia, and Europe. They are the reason those countries don't have Free Speech and they're coming for Free Speech here in the U.S. too – because (((their))) feelings are more important than your rights

Durruti , says: November 22, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
Once more:

I am not an anti-Semite. I like Arabs.

The overwhelming majority of Jews are not Semites (peoples from the Middle East). Most Jews' points of origin are in Europe.

My family (mother's side) German Jews – not a Semite in the bunch. Mostly blond haired & blue eyes.

There is real resistance to those, who attempt to clarify this vital point. Ron Unz, this is your website, and these are some of your topics. Why fear to tread? Why fear the truth? You've come so far. Come all the way into the light.

Most Jews come from – – – Read Arthur Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe" as a start for your education and a cure for your being brainwashed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe

&

https://www.bing.com/shop?q=the+thirteenth+tribe+koestler&FORM=SHOPPA&originIGUID=9A859D826E0441D89971DA67F8762DAF

Have received some threatening emails, and despite all the political views this Anarchist has, the threats have ALL been in response to my analysis of just who are, and are not Semites. Unz, and Commentators, I need no help here. I fear not, and cannot live forever.

Orwell's 1984 , explains in detail the use of false language and false History as the KEY tools in repressing Humanity, and Humanity's Liberty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

&

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nineteen+eighty-four&qpvt=nineteen+eighty-four&FORM=IGRE

The misidentification of just who Semites are is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Zionist Land Thieves and their American, British, & French puppets. The Jewish claim to Semitism goes in tandem with their insistence on their right to exterminate Palestinians and occupy their land, and later, the Zionist Oligarchs will continue to occupy all the Middle East "eretz Israel," and concurrently, they will occupy and control (with the weapons of financial/banking and physical terror), the peoples of this planet.

It is no wonder Gilad Atzmon has it all wrong. Look for no help here.

Jews have not been the only recipients of the Brutality that humans often inflict on one another. And Jews have not been specially singled out, over Serbians, Russians, Chinese, Armenians, Native Americans, Iraqis, Syrians, Vietnamese, Indonesians (1965), Yemenis, Libyans, Afghanis, Africans (slavery and neo colonizing of their nations), and dozens more.

Jews belong (yes, they, with all the rest of Earth's people, belong). Jews belong in America, and Europe, where they may reside in happiness and freedom with all the other peoples, and, if they wish, they may visit their newly Freed and Happy Palestinian friends, (and host them in their European and American homes) – as well.

We American Patriots , we will host all, in our Restored American Republic.

And America's finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul , will become our First Constitutional President – since John F. Kennedy.

The Living Dream, and do not Fear.

Durruti for the Anarchist Collective

West Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad Atzmon - The Unz Review
follyofwar , says: November 22, 2018 at 6:10 pm GMT
@wayfarer The USA is full of Jewish billionaires. Why on earth does Israel need any blood money from the hard-pressed taxpayers when they could supply their home away from home with all the extra money it needs, if indeed it needs any at all? If you are wondering about one of the main causes of US anti-Semitism, look no further than the billions our AIPAC-controlled traitorous Congress gives to that apartheid state every year.

West Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad Atzmon - The Unz Review

mark green , says: November 22, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMT
What a pleasure to find Gilad Atzmon here at UNZ. And as usual, Mr. Atzmon delivers fresh insights and bold perspectives.

I am grateful that Gilad is examining as well as talking to hyper-Zionists living in Pennsylvania. This is revealing. I appreciate Yonatan Stern's willingness to address Atzmon's questions.

I was similarly impressed–unexpectedly so–when I met the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, who I briefly interviewed for a televised TV debate I produced ('Why Terrorism?') in 1986. Former US Congressman, Pete McCloskey (R-CA), took the opposing side in this exchange concerning the future of Palestine/Israel as well as US policies there. In my opinion, Kahane won the debate (though not on its merits).

Rabbi Kahane was an unabashed separatist (like most devout Jews) and he famously declared (somewhat prematurely) that Israel's native gentiles ('Palestinians') had no future in a Jewish State.

Kahane believed that all these resentful, recalcitrant Arabs should be kicked out of Israel. He was unabashedly pro-separation. From a Zionist point of view, Kahane offered a violent though practical long-term solution. Multiculturalism is inherently problematic and destabilizing. It is also incompatible with Jewish nationalism. But Kahane made Jewish liberals blush. As a result, he was declared a 'racist' by establishment Jews; even though Judaism is, at its core, race-driven.

Please keep in mind that during this era (Carter through Clinton) the endless Mideast 'peace process' was still underway with all the hype, fanfare, and false hopes.

The 'peace process' ended up being a road to nowhere–full of highfalutin awards, accords, meetings, 'confidence-building measures' and an endless array of Jewish advisors, pro-Israel committees, donors and 'experts'. Kahane knew that it was doomed from the start.

Nevertheless, Jews from nearly every 'mainstream' political faction world-wide derided Kahane's straightforward and 'racist' solutions, even though his prophetic advice now mirrors today's Israeli policies. Meir Kahane was simply ahead of his time. He was also far too candid for his liberal cousins to own up to.

A few years after Kahane's televised debate with McCloskey, he was assassinated in NYC.

In any event, it is undeniable that blood/ancestry is at the heart of Judaism. The Law of Return tells us so. Religiosity on the other hand has become somewhat incidental to Jewishness. A committed, ethnic Jew (but an atheistic one) such as Allen Dershowitz, for instance, is as 'Jewish' as any orthodox rabbi. Identity and ancestry is what matters.

Thus I appreciate Stern's criticism of his Jewish cousins who have saddled America with top-down 'liberalism', a movement that's functioned as a court-ordered Trojan Horse inside America.

Like his Jewish cousins however, Stern's still a bit of a fraud–since he relies on double-standards, special privileges, and ancestral grievances to justify his unique collection of rights as a land-grabbing Zionist.

Stern hypocritically derides non-violent whites in Charlottesville who want the same rights for themselves in America as Jews get in Israel: to preserve their culture, traditions, racial lineage, and majority status. These are core Zionist values. But Stern would deny them to any and all American whites.

Stern is also disinclined to express any gratitude to his duplicitous, liberal cousins for their decades-long, pro-Jewish activism. Yet Stern is beneficiary of their subterfuge. Jewish activism helps explain why Jews have risen in America while others–such as the white, working-class men in Charlottesville–have fallen.

US Liberalism (with plenty of help from Zionist Jews) coercively integrated America racially (but not in Israel), opened our borders to all (but not in Israel) and erected a towering wall between 'church and state' (but not in Israel).

These tricks have been good for the Jews, which includes Stern. He can now wear his yarmulke proudly and not get laughed at–or punched (since its a 'hate crime' today).

Liberal and 'secular' Jews also helped orchestrate Washington's de facto marriage to the State of Israel. This has also empowered Stern. And to the delight of most Jews (both left and right) the US has been largely de-Christianized over the past sixty years. This is more smart work by Jewish jurists, lawyers, and academics–many with close ties to the 'liberal' ACLU.

As a beneficiary of all this, Stern should thank his liberal cousins for this political black magic. Yet he pretends to object.

Stern is at least correct when he acknowledges that 'progressive' Jews have damaged the West and that they are still doing so.

[Nov 26, 2018] The degree of bombast coming out of the Israeli establishment is now deafening

Nov 26, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

Yeah, Right , October 24, 2018 at 02:46

"Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though."

Agreed, there is no *sign* of wavering.

Indeed, the degree of bombast coming out of the Israeli establishment is now deafening.

"The Golan Heights aren't even an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten."

Oh, I think that once the Syrian government wipes out the last of the jihadists and then forces the US to withdraw from Syrian territory then you will find the Golan Heights will become very much a hot potato.

After all, it will then be the last piece of Syrian territory that is not under the control of the Syrians, and they'll be in no mood to be "intimidated" by the Israelis.

The Israelis will keep beating up on the Gaza Strip? Sure, they will.
And that will lull the Likud into thinking that the IDF is still a mighty fighting force, sure, it will.

But the strategic situation for Israeli is getting worse and worse, to the point where the Israelis dare not attack Lebanon for fear that the Syrians will take the opportunity to seize the Golan Heights, and the Israelis dare not launch an attack into Syria lest Hezbollah launch a counter-attack on the flank of that expeditionary force.

And either way there is this slight problem: the IDF is now a bunch of fluffy-girls-blouses, and as such is likely to get its arse kicked in a fight with a real army.

laguerre has it correct below: the IDF has been hollowed out, as has Israeli society as a whole. They are riding for a fall, and when they do they will come down to earth with a thud.

And nobody will be more surprised than them, which is when they will stampede for the door.

Yeah, Right , October 24, 2018 at 02:52

"That said, the airforce is very good, but it's the only arm that works now."

Rather highlights what an "own goal" the Israelis scored when their jets hid behind that Russia Ilyushin Il-20 plane.

They had been very successful in convincing the Russians not to hand over any S-300 missiles to the Syrians, and now the Syrians not only have them, but they have the most up-to-date version.

Way to go, guys .

SA , October 23, 2018 at 11:41

Hatuey
I somewhat share your pessimism but not want to give in yet. The problem is that the way this has been set and the ground rules have been laid is that the whole 'international community' is complicit in racism and ethnic cleansing and that is why there will be no progress. The parameters set are self contradictory, either you recognise that Palestinians have the right to Palestine or you don't. Recognising that they have the right, at least an equal right, negates the current wisdom that some people have more rights than others, and that this trumps all other rights. This obvious point has become a taboo.

Hatuey , October 23, 2018 at 14:54

SA, if you think this about "right" or "rights" or notions of justice or anything like that, you aren't even in the right solar system, never mind the right planet. That horse bolted decades ago.

Nobody with any seriousness disputes Israel's criminality in any of this. And nobody with any seriousness disputes that we are talking about the highest order of crimes either, ethnic cleansing, war of aggression, collective punishment, etc.

This is about brute force, nothing else. The UN has been condemning Israel continually for about 50 years and nothing has come of it because the US vetoes just about everything.

Andyoldlabour , October 23, 2018 at 15:19

@Hatuey,

"The UN has been condemning Israel continually for about 50 years and nothing has come of it because the US vetoes just about everything."

That is the rather large elephant in the room, and one which nobody seems to want to confront or even admit to.

SA , October 23, 2018 at 17:31

I realise what you say but nevertheless there is a conversation going on that is a total cover up of reality and trying to justify the unjustifiable. This conversation has set the limits of what can and can't be discussed.

Bill Rollinson , October 23, 2018 at 12:40

UK, US, EU, NZ, Canada, Australia, all controlled by Zionist puppets. This is why Israel get away with what they do and to an extent Saudi, who have 'the goods' on UK dealings.
It's about time the people of these nations took responsibility for the actions of their 'elected' MP's, especially those with 'dual nationality'.
In UK Corbyn is being attacked, not for his policies, which haven't been mentioned, but for what he stands for. His promise to recognise Palestine, if he becomes PM, has them really scared, as has his policy for nationalised banks, that lend Government [Sovereign] money to Entrepreneurs [SME's] who currently cant get loans from banks, as they provide competition to their Corporate friends. He also wants new bank rules, no doubt based on Glass Seagal.

He'll need to watch is back. Look what happened to Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, John F Kennedy when they went against the money men!

[Nov 26, 2018] Kerch strait incident might well be an inventive Persidentail election move on the part of Poroshenko and forces which are behind him

Looks like a desperate attempt of Poroshenko to save his scalp. And pay of EU and the USA hostility toward Russia for his own political ends. But Timoshenko is shrewd enough and politically powerful enough to block any attempt to postpone Presidential elections.
Notable quotes:
"... I believe this was a preplanned Ukrainian provocation to garner international support in her effort to get unfettered passage through the Kerch Strait. Russia has been increasing her inspections of ships transiting the Strait this year. That is Russia's right under the 2003 agreement, international and maritime laws. ..."
"... With Poroshenko polling at 8% for the election in 2 months it is very convenient to use any excuse to declare martial law and postpone the election. ..."
"... In any case the "Russia, Russia evil" crowd in the west will find this another opportunity to create more hysteria and take actions to "punish" Russia. ..."
"... Eversince fall of USSR a bunch of crazy neocon warmongers our running US/western foreign policy. ..."
"... about the prospects for Ukraine electing a government willing to negotiate with Russia ..."
"... Probability of that is approaching zero. US will not allow this anyway even if to imagine that such prospects do exist. In fact, this latest provocation could be, as one of the commenters at Unz short time ago astutely observed, an attempt by Trump to avoid meeting with Putin at G-20. Realistically speaking, at this stage there is really nothing to talk about between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Madame Nuland and her erstwhile cabal of neo-cons might have given some thought to such unpredictable eventualities when we were pouring the big dough into the Ukraine to effect regime change in a country that we may be sure she knew next to nothing about in actuality. ..."
"... this was a political provocation to support the introduction of martial law in Ukraine - apparently to help Poroshenko stay in office ..."
"... the only casualty was a crew member on one of the Ukraine vessels shot by the captain when the crew member refused orders to open fire on a Russian vessel.. ..."
"... Here is the latest from The Saker, who thinks that it's also about Ukrainian politics and the upcoming election there. This is hardly news to anyone that has been following this. Poroshenko is in a very bad position and is forced by circumstances to act, even if rashly, since he faces probable prosecution for corruption if he loses, which is a foregone conclusion given the numbers. ..."
"... Oh, and Ukraine desperately, desperately needs to change the subject. The Nuland Experiment (a great movie title) has failed miserably and is about to be turned over like a rock and the slimy creatures are going to come pouring forth. Europe is very much coming around to the belief that they want nothing to do with Ukraine, but this "event" put NATO into the conversation, and NATO is the big one. "Ukraine needs to be part of NATO!" ..."
Nov 26, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

smoothieX12 . , 10 hours ago

I don't know about that. The whole thing was about martial law--Poroshenko barely clings to power--and he got it now. Any provocation in Azov Sea will be met fully within appropriate protocols (namely Law on the State Border) and ROE of other forces, so militarily speaking there was nothing extraordinary. I really doubt this version with SADM--comes across as a complete baloney.
TTG -> smoothieX12 . , 7 hours ago
I agree the SADM story is more likely just a crazy conspiracy theory. The commenter could even be a Russian or Russian supporter trying to muddy the waters on his own, painting the Ukrainians as full on crazies. I believe this was a preplanned Ukrainian provocation to garner international support in her effort to get unfettered passage through the Kerch Strait. Russia has been increasing her inspections of ships transiting the Strait this year. That is Russia's right under the 2003 agreement, international and maritime laws.
smoothieX12 . -> TTG , 6 hours ago
painting the Ukrainians as full on crazies.

Actually, there is a case to be made (obviously without any conspiracy theories) of mind-boggling stupidity of contemporary Ukraine's "elites". This is even apart from sheer military incompetence.

Grazhdanochka -> TTG , 4 hours ago
Ukraine already has unfettered access through Kerch beyond usual protocol and procedures, they have even admitted so before with their Ships making the transit... You are correct as per the Agreements, but one could not expect to ignore such Procedures even with allied States, let alone one that supposedly is 'at war' with
Jack -> TTG , 4 hours ago
With Poroshenko polling at 8% for the election in 2 months it is very convenient to use any excuse to declare martial law and postpone the election. Would be interesting to see how his political opponents respond. In any case the "Russia, Russia evil" crowd in the west will find this another opportunity to create more hysteria and take actions to "punish" Russia.
Kooshy -> smoothieX12 . , an hour ago
SX12

After the 2014 coup do you believe or do you consider Ukraine to be (politically) a failed state.

Good of Russia for sake of world to stand up to westerners push and provocations. Eversince fall of USSR a bunch of crazy neocon warmongers our running US/western foreign policy. Good to see Russia under Putin, has woke up to the reality that she can't have a friend (partner) in the west, unless she agrees to become a subservient to the interests of the US/West

Chris Chuba -> smoothieX12 . , 3 hours ago
If the Ukrainians (goaded on by some NATO nutjob) really wanted to destroy the bridge, they would try their level best to make it look like some 'patriot' living under the yoke of Russian oppression in Crimea damaged the bridge. The last thing they would do is create a clear link to a Ukrainian military vessel.
James Thomas -> smoothieX12 . , 8 hours ago
smoothieX12,

Do you have anything to say about the prospects for Ukraine electing a government willing to negotiate with Russia? I don't think the last few years have been all that good for the average Ukrainian.

smoothieX12 . -> James Thomas , 6 hours ago
about the prospects for Ukraine electing a government willing to negotiate with Russia

Probability of that is approaching zero. US will not allow this anyway even if to imagine that such prospects do exist. In fact, this latest provocation could be, as one of the commenters at Unz short time ago astutely observed, an attempt by Trump to avoid meeting with Putin at G-20. Realistically speaking, at this stage there is really nothing to talk about between the US and Russia.

Mad_Max22 , 7 hours ago
One would have to be certifiable to believe that an attack on that bridge would not trigger an overwhelming military attack by Russia on the Ukraine. This would not be "brinkmanship." This would be insane. Maybe there is some insanity lurking in the halls of power in the Ukraine, would anyone be surprised. Maybe there is some insanity lurking closer to home. The temperament of John Brennan on recent display deoesn't exactly inspire much confidence.

Madame Nuland and her erstwhile cabal of neo-cons might have given some thought to such unpredictable eventualities when we were pouring the big dough into the Ukraine to effect regime change in a country that we may be sure she knew next to nothing about in actuality. No, Madame, we are not all Ukrainians now, nor, God willing, will we ever be. These dingbats put one in mind of Charlie Chaplin blithly bouncing the globe about over his head and doing his best to stay beneath it.

Did these so called area experts down there in la la land really think that Russia would see Sevastopol made a port of call for NATO without so much as a whimper? I sometimes wonder whether a single person sitting around the big table said, "you know, maybe overthrowing the government of the Ukraine is not such a great idea, it being so close to Russia, and all..."

EEngineer , 19 hours ago
You can't hide the radioactive residue of a nuclear detonation, no matter how small. They also have a characteristic fingerprint that will be identifiable. Therefor using one starts WWIII.

That's not to say someone didn't think it would be clever to provoke the Russians into acting to make them look like an aggressor. Or perhaps to gauge their intelligence penetration of NATO and or Ukrainian operations...

For some time now I've been of the opinion that there are great many fools who really want a hot war with Russia.

I just finished watching the "The Unknown War", the Russian equivalent of the BBC's "The World At War" series on WWII. Both were made in the 1970's while most of the survivors were still alive to tell their tales. It would seem they have been ignored by those who most need to see them...

JoeC , 9 hours ago
Colonel Cassad's website suggests this was a political provocation to support the introduction of martial law in Ukraine - apparently to help Poroshenko stay in office. It also cites a report that the only casualty was a crew member on one of the Ukraine vessels shot by the captain when the crew member refused orders to open fire on a Russian vessel..
tjfxh , 19 hours ago
This seems to make more sense, without the drama of a small nuke.

The Vineyard of the Saker Kerch Provocation – Causes and Consequences http://thesaker.is/kerch-pr... Rostislav Ishchenko Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard

Update:

Here is the latest from The Saker, who thinks that it's also about Ukrainian politics and the upcoming election there. This is hardly news to anyone that has been following this. Poroshenko is in a very bad position and is forced by circumstances to act, even if rashly, since he faces probable prosecution for corruption if he loses, which is a foregone conclusion given the numbers.

About the latest Ukronazi provocation in the Kerch strait by The Saker http://thesaker.is/about-th...

Bill Herschel , 3 hours ago
Baloney? In the first place, very economical. You're British Special Forces. You've studied how to get the bridge down and stay down. This was the only choice that was deliverable without fingerprints. A tugboat forsooth. And, btw, in the video that has sound, someone is really screaming and yelling in panic mode, I suspect it is the captain of the tug. Would you scream and yell if you were carrying a SADM and a Russian warship was about to ram you? Oh, and who would they blame? Iran. Simple. Why? Because it's Iran.

Russia doesn't react hard unless there's something there. And they have really, really good intelligence, I'm convinced of it. And who would plant this story, which, with the exception of the nuclear dimension of the weapon, is trivially believable.

Oh, and Ukraine desperately, desperately needs to change the subject. The Nuland Experiment (a great movie title) has failed miserably and is about to be turned over like a rock and the slimy creatures are going to come pouring forth. Europe is very much coming around to the belief that they want nothing to do with Ukraine, but this "event" put NATO into the conversation, and NATO is the big one. "Ukraine needs to be part of NATO!"

if the tug was captured, and a SADM is involved, has it fallen into Russian hands?

Off topic, TTG. If you have not read The Riddle of the Sands by Erskine Childers, please read it now. It was published in 1903 and is considered to be the first spy novel. It takes place in a sailboat. I have read it well over ten times. On any list of the five best novels, it must appear.

Pat Lang Mod -> Bill Herschel , an hour ago
TTG is US Army Special Forces. You don't know that?
English Outsider , 6 hours ago
There are also reports of proposed increases in British naval forces in the Ukraine for training purposes - https://www.gov.uk/governme...

Also in the Baltic - https://www.army.mod.uk/dep...

Brief summary - http://www.warfare.today/20...

I do not understand why we and others send enough to hearten the Ukrainians and the surrounding NATO countries but not enough to make a difference should serious hostilities break out. For PR or for real?

Fred S , 9 hours ago
These people sound like idiots. All they need is a freighter not a bomb.
http://wusfnews.wusf.usf.ed...

[Nov 26, 2018] The Coming War over Ukraine by Jonas J. Driedger

Germany played an important role in unleashing 2014 Maydan events, although at the end it was overtaken by the USA... Germany was also the major pusher for the association agreement between Ukraine and EU. Pro-Atlantism Merkel did a lot to damage German business interests in Russia, although Russian so far resisted abrupt moves (I think only German luxury cars and agricultural products are currently sanctioned by Russia).
Looks like Jonas J. Driedger expresses standard NATO propagandists position on t he subject which is interesting in view of existence of UK financed "Integrity initiative" (documents about which were recently leaked by Anonymous ) and, especially, late Dr. Udo Ulfkotte revelations
Nov 26, 2018 | nationalinterest.org
... in 2014, Russia started to build a bridge over the Kerch Strait to connect the Peninsula to the Russian mainland, as attempts to build a land connection by conquering Ukraine's Sea of Azov coastline had previously failed. To try and stop the trans-Kerch bridge and grant access for its vessels through the straits, Ukraine sued Russia by invoking the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The danger of military escalation between Russia and Ukraine, with all of its unforeseeable consequences, is real and rising.

Russia is largely unaware of this, as it has moved its attention away from Ukraine and towards operations in Syria, countering U.S. efforts to modernize its nuclear arsenal, and improving Russian gas supply capabilities to the European Union and Germany .

At the same time, mainly for domestic purposes, Russian state-controlled media continues to trash the Ukrainian government while celebrating the finalization of the Kerch bridge and supposed economic miracles in Crimea.

Such triumphalism fans the flames of revanchism in Ukraine. The list of grievances in Ukraine is as long as it is understandable. Crimea remains occupied, and the West has quietly acquiesced to this fact by making sure that existing sanctions are primarily tied to advances in the Minsk process over Donbass, not Crimea. Ironically, no such advances in the Minsk framework taken place, which suits Russian interests, but remains a thorn in Ukraine's side, where the Minsk process is seen as illegitimate to begin with.

At the same time, Russian president Vladimir Putin has permitted the stationing of bombers and Iskander missiles in Crimea, both of which are dual-capable missile delivery systems. Since 2014, Russian support for the Putin regime is less dependent on the country's economic well-being, and more so on the continued performance of Russia as a great power. While the effect is declining, the annexation of Crimea has long boosted Putin's popularity. Therefore, Russia is unlikely to back down in a crisis with Ukraine.

Ukraine, simultaneously, has significantly beefed up its military forces and improved its on-the-ground-control. The anti-tank Javelin launchers provided by the United States are only a small part of these efforts. A replication of the confused and feeble Ukrainian response in 2014 is unlikely. The Ukrainian military is now even regarded by some in Kyiv as a possible tool to establish some new facts on the ground.

However, Ukrainian domestic politics worsen the situation. The country will hold presidential elections in March 2019. In the most recent polls, incumbent president Petro Poroshenko trails his main competitor Yulia Tymoshenko, who has made Donbass, Crimea, and Russia core topics in her attacks on Poroshenko.

Tymoshenko's strategy, the stalling Minsk process, Ukraine's ongoing economic woes, rampant corruption, and allegations of Poroshenko being involved in shady business deals increasingly narrow down the incumbent's options for holding on to power. His most promising option is to present himself as a successful, or at least assertive, war president. Poroshenko's recent move to impose martial law corroborates this view. Considering the traditionally cut-throat nature of Ukraine's elite struggles and Yulia Tymoshenko's questionable record, there is little reason to be optimistic.

The West, at the same time, looks inward and has shown little interest in effectively ameliorating the danger of military escalation between Ukraine and Russia. This is likely to continue, due to the ongoing twists and turns surrounding Trump and the continuing Brexit process in Europe. Incidentally, the United Kingdom is likely to formally leave the European Union two days before the Ukrainian presidential election.

War over Ukraine might not be very likely, but the danger is real.

Jonas J. Driedger is a German policy analyst at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. He is also currently a visiting scholar at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow and partakes in the Alfa Fellowship Program. He specializes in foreign and security policy with a focus on Germany, the European Union and Russia. His analyses were published in The National Interest, Politico Europe, per Concordiam, EUObserver, and EurActiv. The views expressed in this article are solely his own.

[Nov 26, 2018] Moscow NATO Playing a 'Dangerous Tit-For-Tat Game' in the Ukraine

Nov 26, 2018 | therealnews.com

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says that the latest Ukraine crisis, in which Russia is holding Ukrainian navy boats, was foreseeable and likely, given NATO's constant encroachment on Russia's border region

[Nov 26, 2018] October 23, 2018 at 07:28

Nov 26, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

The only war the US will fight with Iran is a nuclear war. A population of 80 million bordering Pakistan with 197 million is a big effort and the US has been a complete flop with even 35 million Afghans and $2 Trillion spent. Israel can play the "Polish Card" the one FDR used to blackmail Chamberlain into declaring war in 1939 – and boy did he apply pressure ! – but it won't help Israel survive and more than Poland did.

Israel cannot "solve the Palestinian problem" any more than the "Jewish problem" was solved when Tsarist Russia let them emigrate to USA and USA stopped them emigrating from Nazi Germany under Johnson-Reed Act 1924 as in case of SS St Louis in 1939 sent back to Germany.

Israel will never resolve the problem they perceive. The actions of their ally and friend Mohammed bin Salman will make it nigh on impossible now the crudity of the gangsters running alongside Israel are plain to see and Trump had better read up on Uncle Remus and the Tar Baby

Tom Welsh , October 23, 2018 at 11:38

A thermonuclear attack on Iran by the USA would probably trigger a response by Russia. The Russian defence doctrine clearly states that thermonuclear weapons will be used in the event of an attack on Russia or its allies.

How close an ally Iran is in that context may be debatable; but Russia could not afford to stand by while Iran was destroyed.

[Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?

Highly recommended!
CIA democrats of which Obama is a prominent example (and Hillary is another one) are are Werewolfs, very dangerous political beasts, probably more dangerous to the world then Republicans like George W Bush. But in case of Ukraine, it was easily pushed into Baltic orbit, because it has all the preconditions for that. So Nuland has an relatively easy, albeit dirty task. Also all this probably that "in five years we will be living like French" was pretty effective. Now the population faces consequences of its own stupidity. This is just neoliberal business as usual or neocolonialism.
Notable quotes:
"... populists on the right ..."
"... hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties ..."
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
"... @snoopydawg ..."
"... @snoopydawg ..."
"... @gulfgal98 ..."
"... @gulfgal98 ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Let's recap what Obama's coup in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.

America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as 'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).

But wait there's more .... Remember that caravan of refugees making their way through Mexico? Guess where a number of them came from? Honduras. Yep. Another coup that happened during Obama's and Hillary's tenure.

Hard choices: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath

In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a review of Henry Kissinger's latest book, "World Order ," to lay out her vision for "sustaining America's leadership in the world." In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism. She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir "Hard Choices" and how they contributed to the challenges that Barack Obama's administration now faces.
**
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted the country's democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government "rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries," opening the door for further "violence and anarchy."

The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras' police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence, Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.

Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In "Hard Choices," Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.

First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. "In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."

Clinton's position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere. up 24 users have voted. --

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

aliasalias on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 6:16pm

Count on Wikileaks for the unvarnished truth

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg Obama, Hillary and the rest of that administration knew it was a coup because that was the goal.

"..4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially: --
the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28; and
-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process. "
https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html

gulfgal98 on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 5:45am
How un-self aware is Hillary?

That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.

From the Guardian article that snoopy linked above comes this not so shocking but arrogant statement by the evil queen herself.

Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.

"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat it."

This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.

The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just away forever.

gulfgal98 on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 6:26am
Twitter is not too kind to Hillary, just a sampling

@gulfgal98

Apparently Hillary Clinton's 2020 platform will consist of two things:

1. We need to stop all these fucking brown people who sneak into our countries and ruin things for the nice, white population.

2. Bernie Sanders is a racist.

Well, that's one more than last time. #Progress https://t.co/H5jb5l5ZNK

-- "Angry Jon Snow" Graziano (@jvgraz) November 22, 2018

The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

Bombing a nation into smithereens like a real neocon, then refusing to help its people fleeing from the terror she created -like a real neocon.

Hillary Clinton, a progressive who gets things done -you know, like the neocon she really is. https://t.co/IQWFy4Rn3O

-- Amir (@AmirAminiMD) November 22, 2018

Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability. Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is fine. She is deplorable.

-- Tom Hillgardner (@Tom4CongressNY6) November 22, 2018

Ah yes, Trump only won because the Democrats weren't harsh enough on immigration https://t.co/0ULBP23O4S

-- Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) November 22, 2018

Hillary Clinton & Tony Blair now say migration issues "lit the flame" of RW populism in Europe and they must crack down.

Neither admits THEIR disastrous war & destabilization policy, neoliberal economics (incl sanctions) drive millions to flee https://t.co/8HUY2i25Sy pic.twitter.com/MaRiRkPjRM

-- Joanne Leon (@joanneleon) November 22, 2018

That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.

From the Guardian article that snoopy linked above comes this not so shocking but arrogant statement by the evil queen herself.

Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.

"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat it."

This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.

The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just away forever.

The Aspie Corner on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 6:46am
And amazingly, should she run, the 'left' will back her anyway.

@gulfgal98 Because they just HAVE to get a rich, far-right, patriarchal white woman elected at any cost for the sake of 'making history'. If these idiots really wanted to make history, they'd work like hell to put someone in charge who actually had the balls to hang the pigs and their collaborators for their crimes.

#5

Apparently Hillary Clinton's 2020 platform will consist of two things:

1. We need to stop all these fucking brown people who sneak into our countries and ruin things for the nice, white population.

2. Bernie Sanders is a racist.

Well, that's one more than last time. #Progress https://t.co/H5jb5l5ZNK

-- "Angry Jon Snow" Graziano (@jvgraz) November 22, 2018

The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

Bombing a nation into smithereens like a real neocon, then refusing to help its people fleeing from the terror she created -like a real neocon.

Hillary Clinton, a progressive who gets things done -you know, like the neocon she really is. https://t.co/IQWFy4Rn3O

-- Amir (@AmirAminiMD) November 22, 2018

Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability. Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is fine. She is deplorable.

-- Tom Hillgardner (@Tom4CongressNY6) November 22, 2018

Ah yes, Trump only won because the Democrats weren't harsh enough on immigration https://t.co/0ULBP23O4S

-- Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) November 22, 2018

Hillary Clinton & Tony Blair now say migration issues "lit the flame" of RW populism in Europe and they must crack down.

Neither admits THEIR disastrous war & destabilization policy, neoliberal economics (incl sanctions) drive millions to flee https://t.co/8HUY2i25Sy pic.twitter.com/MaRiRkPjRM

-- Joanne Leon (@joanneleon) November 22, 2018

[Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?

Highly recommended!
CIA democrats of which Obama is a prominent example (and Hillary is another one) are are Werewolfs, very dangerous political beasts, probably more dangerous to the world then Republicans like George W Bush. But in case of Ukraine, it was easily pushed into Baltic orbit, because it has all the preconditions for that. So Nuland has an relatively easy, albeit dirty task. Also all this probably that "in five years we will be living like French" was pretty effective. Now the population faces consequences of its own stupidity. This is just neoliberal business as usual or neocolonialism.
Notable quotes:
"... populists on the right ..."
"... hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties ..."
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
"... @snoopydawg ..."
"... @snoopydawg ..."
"... @gulfgal98 ..."
"... @gulfgal98 ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Let's recap what Obama's coup in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.

America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as 'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).

But wait there's more .... Remember that caravan of refugees making their way through Mexico? Guess where a number of them came from? Honduras. Yep. Another coup that happened during Obama's and Hillary's tenure.

Hard choices: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath

In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a review of Henry Kissinger's latest book, "World Order ," to lay out her vision for "sustaining America's leadership in the world." In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism. She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir "Hard Choices" and how they contributed to the challenges that Barack Obama's administration now faces.
**
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted the country's democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government "rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries," opening the door for further "violence and anarchy."

The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras' police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence, Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.

Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In "Hard Choices," Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.

First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. "In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."

Clinton's position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere. up 24 users have voted. --

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

aliasalias on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 6:16pm

Count on Wikileaks for the unvarnished truth

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg Obama, Hillary and the rest of that administration knew it was a coup because that was the goal.

"..4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially: --
the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28; and
-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process. "
https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html

gulfgal98 on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 5:45am
How un-self aware is Hillary?

That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.

From the Guardian article that snoopy linked above comes this not so shocking but arrogant statement by the evil queen herself.

Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.

"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat it."

This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.

The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just away forever.

gulfgal98 on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 6:26am
Twitter is not too kind to Hillary, just a sampling

@gulfgal98

Apparently Hillary Clinton's 2020 platform will consist of two things:

1. We need to stop all these fucking brown people who sneak into our countries and ruin things for the nice, white population.

2. Bernie Sanders is a racist.

Well, that's one more than last time. #Progress https://t.co/H5jb5l5ZNK

-- "Angry Jon Snow" Graziano (@jvgraz) November 22, 2018

The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

Bombing a nation into smithereens like a real neocon, then refusing to help its people fleeing from the terror she created -like a real neocon.

Hillary Clinton, a progressive who gets things done -you know, like the neocon she really is. https://t.co/IQWFy4Rn3O

-- Amir (@AmirAminiMD) November 22, 2018

Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability. Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is fine. She is deplorable.

-- Tom Hillgardner (@Tom4CongressNY6) November 22, 2018

Ah yes, Trump only won because the Democrats weren't harsh enough on immigration https://t.co/0ULBP23O4S

-- Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) November 22, 2018

Hillary Clinton & Tony Blair now say migration issues "lit the flame" of RW populism in Europe and they must crack down.

Neither admits THEIR disastrous war & destabilization policy, neoliberal economics (incl sanctions) drive millions to flee https://t.co/8HUY2i25Sy pic.twitter.com/MaRiRkPjRM

-- Joanne Leon (@joanneleon) November 22, 2018

That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.

From the Guardian article that snoopy linked above comes this not so shocking but arrogant statement by the evil queen herself.

Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.

"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat it."

This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.

The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just away forever.

The Aspie Corner on Fri, 11/23/2018 - 6:46am
And amazingly, should she run, the 'left' will back her anyway.

@gulfgal98 Because they just HAVE to get a rich, far-right, patriarchal white woman elected at any cost for the sake of 'making history'. If these idiots really wanted to make history, they'd work like hell to put someone in charge who actually had the balls to hang the pigs and their collaborators for their crimes.

#5

Apparently Hillary Clinton's 2020 platform will consist of two things:

1. We need to stop all these fucking brown people who sneak into our countries and ruin things for the nice, white population.

2. Bernie Sanders is a racist.

Well, that's one more than last time. #Progress https://t.co/H5jb5l5ZNK

-- "Angry Jon Snow" Graziano (@jvgraz) November 22, 2018

The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

Bombing a nation into smithereens like a real neocon, then refusing to help its people fleeing from the terror she created -like a real neocon.

Hillary Clinton, a progressive who gets things done -you know, like the neocon she really is. https://t.co/IQWFy4Rn3O

-- Amir (@AmirAminiMD) November 22, 2018

Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) November 22, 2018

This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability. Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is fine. She is deplorable.

-- Tom Hillgardner (@Tom4CongressNY6) November 22, 2018

Ah yes, Trump only won because the Democrats weren't harsh enough on immigration https://t.co/0ULBP23O4S

-- Abby Martin (@AbbyMartin) November 22, 2018

Hillary Clinton & Tony Blair now say migration issues "lit the flame" of RW populism in Europe and they must crack down.

Neither admits THEIR disastrous war & destabilization policy, neoliberal economics (incl sanctions) drive millions to flee https://t.co/8HUY2i25Sy pic.twitter.com/MaRiRkPjRM

-- Joanne Leon (@joanneleon) November 22, 2018

[Nov 25, 2018] A new type of US disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this comment

Notable quotes:
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

What else is amazing about her emails @leveymg

is how no one really talked about their content, eh? We learned that she rigged the primary against Bernie and then everyone started talking about Russia ! Just as she and Podesta wanted.

#1
Amazing how elusive they are (scrubbed from the State Dept website) and how they have never been picked up on by most of the corporate media.

up 8 users have voted. --

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

[Nov 25, 2018] The Neoliberal World is a Vicious Place by Sandwichman

Notable quotes:
"... The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization finally collapses. ..."
Nov 23, 2018 | angrybearblog.com
The world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?

Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]

Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious place. " -- November 22, 2018.

2007:

2018:

Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pm

The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization finally collapses.

ilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am

Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.

The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.

The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .

An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".

While Xi moves ahead.

[Nov 25, 2018] Why Oil is Falling (including conspiracy theories and other fun stuff)

Nov 25, 2018 | community.oilprice.com

Strangely, I found the attached image after making the above post (or else I would have included it). In the image you can see Al-Waleed bin Talal, and look who is with him! They seem pretty chummy.

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 4:14 AM, Qanoil said: think especially of alwaleed bin talal who was the largest shareholder in citigroup (who, thanks to wikileaks was found to have selected nearly every member of hussein obama's cabinet

I also heard that Al-Waleed bankrolled Obama's education at Harvard and got him started in politics. Supposedly, here is the source:

"When asked about Obama by the show's host, Dominic Carter, the respected black politico Percy Sutton casually explained that he had been "introduced to [Obama] by a friend." The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour.

Who is Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour Ph.D? He co-founded the United Bank of Africa, the World United Bank of Africa and the Saudi African Bank. Since 1996, Dr. Al-Mansour has been a legal and financial Consultant to various public and private companies., including none other than Al-Waleed.

According to Sutton, al-Mansour was "raising money" for Obama's education and had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama] a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton gladly obliged. When Sutton died in December 2009 -- "an enormous loss" said Obama."

[Nov 25, 2018] How U.S. Politics Have Become Paramilitarized by Jeremy Scahill

Barbara Lee being the only member of Congress to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The PATRIOT Act -- one Senator, Russ Feingold standing up and voting against it when it was initially promoted. So, it was a very effective consolidation of thinking and this bipartisan embrace of counterinsurgency as a normal part of American politics.
Notable quotes:
"... The interview begins at 45:32. ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | theintercept.com
... ... ...

Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, continued some of the worst policies of the George W. Bush administration. He expanded the global battlefield post-9/11 into at least seven countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria. At the end of Obama's second term, a report by Council of Foreign Relations found that in 2016, Obama dropped an average of 72 bombs a day. He used drone strikes as a liberal panacea for fighting those "terrorists" while keeping boots off the ground. But he also expanded the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan. Immigrants were deported in such record numbers under Obama that immigration activists called him the "deporter-in-chief." And then there were the "Terror Tuesday" meetings, where Obama national security officials would order pizza and drink Coke and review the list of potential targets on their secret assassination list.

For his liberal base, Obama sanitized a morally bankrupt expansion of war, and used Predator and Reaper drones strapped with Hellfire missiles to kill suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens stripped of their due process. The Obama administration harshly prosecuted whistleblowers in a shocking attack on press freedoms. By the end of his presidency, official numbers on civilian deaths by drone were underreported ; we may never know the true cost of these wars, which continue today.

Bush, before him, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, took a hatchet to civil liberties: He expanded National Security Agency surveillance on overseas communications and created a system for unprecedented levels of surveilled communications of U.S. citizens. Much of this happened with the support of leading Democrats. Mosques across the country and in New York City were spied on. The authorization for the use of military force was passed in 2001 with the full backing of every lawmaker except for Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif. The bill created the justification for the forever wars that still rage on 17 years later.

And steadily, all of the counterinsurgency tactics of these foreign wars have crept back home, Bernard Harcourt argues in a recent book. Called "The Counterrevolution: How Our Government Went to War Against Its Own Citizens" and it makes the argument that through NSA spying; Trump's constant, daily distractions; and paramilitarized police forces or private security companies, the same counterinsurgency paradigm of warfare used against post-9/11 enemies has now come to U.S. soil as the effective governing strategy.

We are in the middle of an unprecedented paramilitarization of state and local law enforcement agencies in this country.

... ... ...

The interview begins at 45:32.

[Nov 25, 2018] Trump vs Berlusconi

Nov 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

All that said, the subject's personality cannot help shine through anyway. One understands Berlusconi's original appeal: salesmanship on a massive scale. First as a developer and salesman in the booming 1970s Italian property market. Then by founding Italy's first private television stations, circumventing the state ban on private national channels Ride of the Valkyries . Berlusconi's success as a businessman reflects the materialism and superficiality characteristic of the postwar democratic West, his power derives from the masses' bottomless desire for things and for spectacle.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Berlusconi in effect converted his media appeal and economic clout into political capital. My Way does give a sense of the man's charm, brashness, and sordid sense of humor. Nonetheless, one can't help laughing at his jokes and enjoying his company. We see him give a pep talk to his football players. Berlusconi tells a black player that he would like to meet his wife, because she is so beautiful, adding that he needn't worry as he's already "too old." He tells a fifty-year-old man that he looks great, adding however that he still doesn't look as a good as Berlusconi himself. This is funny, but Berlusconi, who was almost eighty during the interviews, does look like an awful case of plastic surgery.

Berlusconi gives us a tour of his gorgeous villa at Arcore (20 kilometers from Milan), showing his collection of Renaissance paintings, classical Greco-Roman sculpture (some given to him by Muamar Gaddafi from Libya), and a whole room of paintings of . . . himself, apparently given to him over the years by his many admirers. Among these we are shown a heroic painting of Mussolini, with Berlusconi weakly protesting that this shouldn't be filmed, lest they give the wrong impression.

Berlusconi is a man who gets what he wants. Call it a weakness for appetite or a strength of will. In any event, Berlusconi tells Friedman that he has never ever gone to bed with his often-changing wife/girlfriend without making love to her. So much passion. After having two children with his first wife (who did not age gracefully), he moved in with and eventually married Veronica Lario. They stayed together for many years but they eventually divorced and, in keeping with the modern era of female empowerment, Berlusconi has since 2013 been required pay her $48 million per year as part of their settlement. Berlusconi's girlfriend since 2012 is 50 years his junior and, for her service, will presumably receive an even bigger payout. Let no one say that THOT-ery does not pay!

Berlusconi's penchant for girls was part of his undoing in another respect, namely in his notorious "Bunga Bunga" parties with nubile young women, culminating in the trial alleging that he had had sex with an underage Moroccan prostitute nicknamed "Ruby Rubacuore" (Ruby Heartstealer). In the interviews, Berlusconi explains that the term "Bunga Bunga" comes from a sex joke involving an African tribe . . . on which I will say nothing other than I was astonished to hear it because it was also popular in the high school I frequented.

My Way , while an hour and thirty-eight minutes long, does not tell you all that much about Berlusconi's politics. Besides his changing of Italian laws so as to escape prosecution for various misdeeds, the little that is said largely speaks in his favor. He is extremely proud of having hosted a NATO summit near Rome in 2002, at which Berlusconi, U.S. President George W. Bush, and Russian President Vladimir Putin really hit it off. Berlusconi goes so far as to claim that his summit "ended the Cold War," which is the usual hyperbolic salesman-speak, much like Trump's perennial "tremendous." Certainly, this marked a warming of relations between Moscow and Washington after the disagreements over the Kosovo War. On the substance, one can only welcome attempts to bring peace and good relations among Europe, America, and Russia, which have so often been needlessly in conflict.

Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review

In the interviews, Berlusconi makes the case against the Iraq War and against the Libya War. In both cases he argues, as a good realist, that you need a strong leader, in effect a dictator, to maintain order in these multiethnic countries. To bring "democracy" would mean only chaos. Berlusconi notes that Iraq is made up of three antagonistic ethno-religious groups and that Libya is made up of some 105 tribes, who had regularly declared Gaddafi "King of Kings." Since the dictators are gone, these Arab nations have known only civil war . . . an impotence which naturally great benefits Israel, has allowed the foundation of the Islamic State, and harmed Europe by sparking massive Afro-Islamic migration. The fall of Gaddafi's dictatorship also led the spread of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which captured Timbuktu in 2012, destroying some of that city's ancient shrines and mausoleums, one of the few examples of indigenous Sub-Saharan African architectural heritage.

Berlusconi expresses the basic truth: multicultural societies are not compatible with democracy or, to put it more positively, with civic politics in general. There can be no solidarity without identity. Given this fact, the multiculturalists and immigrationists are digging the grave of liberal democracy, and in their ignorance and delusion, are preparing the way for new regimes. Let us hope that these will be indeed more coherent and honest forms of government.

I do not know if Berlusconi actually privately opposed the Iraq invasion in 2003. In any event, once Bush got on his way, Italy did send troops there. On Libya, Berlusconi was outmaneuvered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whom Friedman accurately describes as fomenting a war to boost his flagging approval ratings and distract from his lackluster economic performance.

We then move to the eurozone crisis in 2011. In this instance, the Great European Ponzi Scheme of malinvestment in southern European property and debt, collapsed, threatening the whole continent's banking sector. Friedman does not give the watcher any good idea of why all this was occurring. He does explicitly show, based primarily on U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner's testimony, that Berlusconi was taken out under pressure by Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who blamed Italy's lack of "reforms" for the eurozone's ills. The European Central Bank also threatened to let Italy go bankrupt unless Rome towed the line.

Berlusconi was toppled and Mario Monti, a former EU commissioner and Goldman Sachs banker, was parachuted in, on the recommendation of George Soros , no less. I for one don't think that rule by a small, rootless, international clique tends to be very stable. Monti proved monstrously unpopular and was kicked out of office within two years. The Italians have since responded to EU diktats by electing anti-Brussels populists of various stripes.

Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review

Friedman interviewed a number of people in making his documentary. These include a (probably rightly) indignant Italian prosecutor, a colorless Italian journalist, a former Spanish prime minister, a former EU president, and even Putin himself. Not a whole lot of light comes out of all of this. Strikingly, Berlusconi emerges as if anything the most likable character among the whole motley crew of people interviewed, at that is saying something. Despite his more-or-less hostile narration, the interviewer Friedman is shown constantly being friendly and making ingratiating smiles with Berlusconi, only to dump him at the end of the film, saying "and I never saw him again" with a credit role showcasing Berlusconi and his associates' various convictions.

On Berlusconi the talented and opportunist politician, I can add the following which was not mentioned in the documentary. He knew how to make the difficult deals to form Italy's notoriously-unstable coalition governments, starting in 1994, with a short-lived alliance with the regionalist Lega Nord and post-fascist National Alliance (who hated each other, essentially over the Southern Question). He knew how to compaign for what the people wanted. His famous 2001 "Contract with the Italians" promised less and simpler taxes, infrastructure, more jobs, more pensions, more police, and less politicians. Of course, he rarely delivered. In 2006, constitutional reforms proposed by Berlusconi would have strengthened the prime minister and devolved more powers to Italy's regions, but this was rejected by referendum.

The Italian journalist in the documentary points out that Berlusconi never did the "reforms" necessary to save the economy, as he did not want to upset his electorate or his coalition partners. In short, for all the kvetching, Berlusconi was too much of a democrat to get much done.

Berlusconi was however decidedly anti-leftist. He wanted to reform the constitution because it had been co-drafted by the "Soviets" (as a matter of fact, communist and Marxist parties made up about 40% of the 1946 Constituent Assembly and to this day Italy's official emblem looks communist ). When facing Romano Prodi's left-wing coalition "the Union" in the mid-2000s, Berlusconi nicknamed it "the Soviet Union." Unlike in France or Germany, Italy had no taboo on the center-right, including Berlusconi, making alliances with nationalist and sometimes even neofascist parties. He was born in 1936 in what was then the Kingdom of Italy, well into the second decade of Fascist government.

At a holocaust remembrance ceremony in 2013, Berlusconi argued that Mussolini's Fascist government did many good things , all the while lamenting the alliance with the Third Reich and participation in the holocaust (specifically, the deportation of Jews, although in fact the survival rate for Italian Jews was among the highest in Europe and these deportations only began after Germany had created their own puppet government in northern Italy, nominally led by Mussolini). As a matter of fact, many figures as diverse as Ezra Pound, Charles de Gaulle, and Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi admired Italian Fascism's political stability and ability to promote communitarian values stressing individual self-sacrifice for the common good. All this may not be understood today however.

In the end, Berlusconi achieved little politically. He maintained good relations with Russia, America, Israel, and Libya, the latter being of particular value in containing the ever-rising tied of African illegal immigration. He had excellent instincts in general. But, ultimately, he was merely an end in himself, masculinity without purpose.

Salvini's party has eclipsed that of Berlusconi

With the declining influence of the mainstream media and the ability of outsiders to appeal directly to the masses through social media, we will no doubt see the rise of many more populists movements of both left and right. Happily, in Italy itself, Berlusconian populism has given way to that of Matteo Salvini , who while something an opportunist himself (like all electoral politicians, I am tempted to add), is saying and doing many of the right things on immigration and demography . . . and is getting even more popular as a result.

The opportunity here is in overthrowing an emotionally stunted and ideologically incoherent establishment, which is destroying Western civilization based on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of human nature. The risk is that we fall into mere demotism, with governments mindlessly following the fluctuations of the debased desires and prejudices of public opinion, which would certainly not be optimal either. From this, there will be more electoral demand for economically unsustainable left-wing economic policies, and for environmentally damaging right-wing policies. Neither is desirable, I do not rejoice at Trump's blowing up of America's hills for coal and gas or Bolsonaro's proposals to further cut down the rain forests.

But this is what democracy means! This is the ineluctable product of the hegemonic "anti-fascism" and rejection of all authority since 1945! To those who are upset with the careers of Berlusconi, Trump, and Bolsonaro, I am tempted to quote Gladiator : "Are you not entertained!? Is this not why you are here!?"

Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review

Western men and women can no longer understand the ancient notion of justice: that justice is a right hierarchy. Obviously, there can be no hierarchy or justice among "equals," for whom anyone's claim to superiority is necessarily presumptuous arrogance. Westerners today are not ready to hear or understand these truths. In the natural course of events, things must necessarily get worse before human beings realize that they are doing or thinking something wrong, and correct course. This takes time. Things certainly are not bad enough yet. We are far too comfy.

In the meantime, we will see not only more Berlusconis, but many more Trumps, Bolsonaros, Orbáns , and Salvinis in the future, as well as Corbyns and Grillos. Loro & My Way, by Guillaume Durocher - The Unz Review

Anon [305] Disclaimer , says: November 20, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT

Hey,

you also have to live in the country you talk about, or be on close terms with someone objective who is really friendly to you and lives there, before confidently drawing judgments on politicians (or writers, or anybody).

Because interests, ego-interests and career interests, cloud reports and opinions.

In the specific, verbally and culturally assaulting Berlusconi during the time of his being influential and charismatic was the national (and European) sport for the "if Trump wins I leave the USA, no longer feeling safe" types -- from Organized Press and TV "journalists" and "film-makers" to "poets", "singers', "thinkers", and, well, every sort of "influencer".

The same mechanics at play with Trump in the USA.

He was not superficial and initially got elected with programs and projects ahead of the time for Italy, meeting the opposition (on top of the Left, as said) of his allies, who were aggrieved by his overwhelming popularity.

He was no Orban no Haider no Le Pen no Farage. The closest comparison is with Trump but he was no Trump either.
Among other things, he was always pushing to abridge the gap between Italy and those few countries ahead of it (very few, but stably ahead) -- thus drawing upon himself the ire of those countries' establishment.

He pursued independence from European élites, and the USA, in foreign politics and economic governance, as well as efonomically strategical "friendships" with Russia-Putin and Libya-Ghaddafi.
Such independence was no longer tolerated when, in the mid-00s, the Financial Times & Goldman Sachs folks gained greater than ever control on exactly foreign policy of European countries and economic policy.

"The Markets" suddenly stopped trusting Italy's trustwhortiness amd ability to honour its debts; the "International Press" went on describing financial instability and dire prospects for Italy full-time, as they do when there's an end to achieve (and to be achieved shortly).

Interest rates that had to be paid to creditors and people who's buy state debt soared above any reasonable height, forcing the government's lapse.
Mario Monti, an economist who had served in the ranks of Goldman Sachs, and an international-élite member, was made President upon, very clearly, orders from abroad.

Suddenly The Markets and the International Press went back to finding Italy's finances and financial prospects healthy, debt rates went back to their normal.

In 2018, after some years an independent goverment is elected again (Salvini-Di Maio), and again you have the EU's economy chiefs, the Press that Matters, the Markets, the USA rating agencies, all worried about Italy's financial conditions. And again this makes debt rates on issued state bonds soar.

It happens whenever elected politicians show lack of obedience -- especially if they fail to harass Putin, has Berlusconi then, and Salvini & Di Maio now, failed and fail to.

Digital Samizdat , says: November 20, 2018 at 8:13 pm GMT
@Anon

It happens whenever elected politicians show lack of obedience -- especially if they fail to harass Putin, has Berlusconi then, and Salvini & Di Maio now, failed and fail to.

Yup. The bond-ratings agencies are nothing but a tool of the globalist debt-vultures on Wall Street. The whole ratings system is a total scam.

[Friedman] does explicitly show, based primarily on U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner's testimony, that Berlusconi was taken out under pressure by Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who blamed Italy's lack of "reforms" for the eurozone's ills. The European Central Bank also threatened to let Italy go bankrupt unless Rome towed the line.

I heard a slightly different version of the story. I heard that Berlusconi was pushed out of office when he threatened to retaliate against Berlin/Brussels by dropping the euro:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/the-plot-to-topple-berlusconi/

In any case, it's a real delight having Guillaume Durocher here at Unz.com. I had never heard of him before, but I have so far enjoyed all of his articles. It's always good to get a European droite nouvelle perspective on politics.

Guillaume Durocher , says: Website November 21, 2018 at 8:48 am GMT
@Anon Very informative. Thanks for your comment! Let's hop Di Maio/Salvini prove more resilient to international pressure.
Guillaume Durocher , says: Website November 21, 2018 at 8:58 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat Thanks for your comment! Indeed Italy is perhaps the country for which the euro is the worst fit. I can imagine business circles around Berlusconi being tempted to get out..
Oleaginous Outrager , says: November 21, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
The story of AC Milan, mentioned only in passing here, is instructive: he doesn't know when to walk away. This can be viewed as positive (tenacity!) or negative (blatant egotism!), but the fact is his inability to let go means his hand gets forced and in the case of both Italy and Milan, everybody ends up with a completely crap deal.
Verymuchalive , says: November 21, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT

In the meantime, we will see not only more Berlusconis, but many more Trumps, Bolsonaros, Orbáns, and Salvinis in the future, as well as Corbyns and Grillos.

Let's be absolutely clear about this. Corbyn is no populist. He has little empathy for the white working class and is in favour of large 3rd World immigration. In fact, Durocher's case for Left Wing Populism does not stand up to any form of scrutiny. To paraphrase the dramatist, the mainstream and far left want to dissolve the people and elect a new one. More and more immigration, they believe, will result in more and more people reliant on welfare. These people, when enfranchised, will vote for the parties of welfare – the Left. The Left will be in power forever, so they believe. Given their vested interest, they are inherently anti-Populist.

From this, there will be more electoral demand for economically unsustainable left-wing economic policies, and for environmentally damaging right-wing policies. Neither is desirable, I do not rejoice at Trump's blowing up of America's hills for coal and gas or Bolsonaro's proposals to further cut down the rain forests.

The population of the US and Brazil 100 years ago was a fraction of what it is now. In 1917 the US population was about 80 million. Now it is 327 million, a 4-fold increase. Environmental degradation is logical outcome of large and sudden increase in population, especially in small areas.
It is even more marked in countries like China and North Korea where there is no democracy at all.
It has little to do with "demotism" or "right-wing policies."
Large scale industrialisation is also associated with environmental degradation. Yet in Western Europe and North America, in the last 60 years, air, land and water pollution has been drastically reduced. In the early 1950s, thousands died of respiratory diseases due to urban smog – the London Pea Souper being the most notorious. These are now just a memory.
By contrast, countries like India and China have trouble even supplying the population with clean water. Many millions of Chinese have tap water with toxic levels of heavy metals and other pollutants. The resultant deaths also run into the millions.
Mr Durocher seems to have a talent for deducing the wrong inference.

Sean , says: November 23, 2018 at 9:04 pm GMT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw-qm-liCPA

Paolo Sorrentino's Il Divo about Italian PM Giulio Andreotti who was actually convicted of ordering the murder of a journalist (although that was by the same prosecutors' office that convicted Amanda Knox).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Andreotti
A joke about Andreotti (originally seen in a strip by Stefano Disegni and Massimo Caviglia) had him receiving a phone call from a fellow party member, who pleaded with him to attend judge Giovanni Falcone's funeral. His friend supposedly begged, "The State must give an answer to the Mafia, and you are one of the top authorities in it!" To which a puzzled Andreotti asked, "Which one do you mean?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Andreotti

1990 Andreotti was involved in getting all parties to agree to a binding timetable for the Maastricht Treaty. The deep Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union favoured by Italy was opposed by Britain's Margaret Thatcher, who wanted a system of competition between currencies. Germany had doubts about committing to the project without requiring economic reforms from Italy, which was seen as having various imbalances. As President of the European Council, Andreotti co-opted Germany by making admittance to the single market automatic once the criteria had been met, and committing to a rigorous overhaul of Italian public finances. Critics later questioned Andreotti's understanding of the obligation, or whether he had ever intended to fulfill it.[50][51]

Italians are taking the French banks that made bad loans to it, and Germany that backs those loans to prop up the EU single market (Mutualisation), for yet another ride. Macron was elected as the banks' mutualisation man to making French toxic loans something Germany will stand behind. Italy is the third largest economy in Europe and too big to fail and they know it. Technocrat Mario Monti was the bankers' man to reduce Italy's live now pay never lifestyle , but Italy knew it had a much stronger hand to play and so they elected a populist. The Germans are going to be squeezed till the pips squeak.

[Nov 25, 2018] Craig Murray - Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist

Nov 25, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

24 Nov, 2018

[Nov 25, 2018] Thieves Like Us the Violent Theft of Land and Capital is at the Core of the U.S. Experiment by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Notable quotes:
"... Appropriating the land from its stewards was racialized war from the first British settlement in Jamestown, pitting "civilization" against "savagery." Through this pursuit, the U.S. military gained its unique character as a force with mastery in "irregular" warfare. In spite of this, most military historians pay little attention to the so-called Indian Wars from 1607 to 1890, as well as the 1846–48 invasion and occupation of Mexico. ..."
"... Even following the founding of the professional U.S. Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the U.S. conquest of the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mississippi Valley regions, then west of the Mississippi to the Pacific, including taking half of Mexico. Since that time, irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces and are, perhaps, what most marks U.S. armed forces as different from other armies of global powers. ..."
"... A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston Review . ..."
"... Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is the author of An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States . ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
prior to its founding, what would become the United States was engaged -- as it would continue to be for more than a century following -- in internal warfare to piece together its continental territory. Even during the Civil War, both the Union and Confederate armies continued to war against the nations of the Diné and Apache, the Cheyenne and the Dakota, inflicting hideous massacres upon civilians and forcing their relocations. Yet when considering the history of U.S. imperialism and militarism, few historians trace their genesis to this period of internal empire-building. They should. The origin of the United States in settler colonialism -- as an empire born from the violent acquisition of indigenous lands and the ruthless devaluation of indigenous lives -- lends the country unique characteristics that matter when considering questions of how to unhitch its future from its violent DNA.

The United States is not exceptional in the amount of violence or bloodshed when compared to colonial conquests in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and South America. Elimination of the native is implicit in settler colonialism and colonial projects in which large swaths of land and workforces are sought for commercial exploitation. Extreme violence against noncombatants was a defining characteristic of all European colonialism, often with genocidal results.

The privatization of land is at the core of the U.S. experiment, and its military powerhouse was born to expropriate resources. Apt, then, that we once again have a real estate man for president.

Rather, what distinguishes the United States is the triumphal mythology attached to that violence and its political uses, even to this day. The post–9/11 external and internal U.S. war against Muslims-as-"barbarians" finds its prefiguration in the "savage wars" of the American colonies and the early U.S. state against Native Americans. And when there were, in effect, no Native Americans left to fight, the practice of "savage wars" remained. In the twentieth century, well before the War on Terror, the United States carried out large-scale warfare in the Philippines, Europe, Korea, and Vietnam; prolonged invasions and occupations in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic; and counterinsurgencies in Columbia and Southern Africa. In all instances, the United States has perceived itself to be pitted in war against savage forces.

Appropriating the land from its stewards was racialized war from the first British settlement in Jamestown, pitting "civilization" against "savagery." Through this pursuit, the U.S. military gained its unique character as a force with mastery in "irregular" warfare. In spite of this, most military historians pay little attention to the so-called Indian Wars from 1607 to 1890, as well as the 1846–48 invasion and occupation of Mexico. Yet it was during the nearly two centuries of British colonization of North America that generations of settlers gained experience as "Indian fighters" outside any organized military institution. While large, highly regimented "regular" armies fought over geopolitical goals in Europe, Anglo settlers in North America waged deadly irregular warfare against the continent's indigenous nations to seize their land, resources, and roads, driving them westward and eventually forcibly relocating them west of the Mississippi. Even following the founding of the professional U.S. Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the U.S. conquest of the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mississippi Valley regions, then west of the Mississippi to the Pacific, including taking half of Mexico. Since that time, irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces and are, perhaps, what most marks U.S. armed forces as different from other armies of global powers.

By the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–37), whose lust for displacing and killing Native Americans was unparalleled, the character of the U.S. armed forces had come, in the national imaginary, to be deeply entangled with the mystique of indigenous nations -- as though, in adopting the practices of irregular warfare, U.S. soldiers had become the very thing they were fighting. This persona involved a certain identification with the Native enemy, marking the settler as Native American rather than European. This was part of the sleight of hand by which U.S. Americans came to genuinely believe that they had a rightful claim to the continent: they had fought for it and "become" its indigenous inhabitants.

Irregular military techniques that were perfected while expropriating Native American lands were then applied to fighting the Mexican Republic. At the time of its independence from Spain in 1821, the territory of Mexico included what is now the states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. Upon independence, Mexico continued the practice of allowing non-Mexicans to acquire large swaths of land for development under land grants, with the assumption that this would also mean the welcome eradication of indigenous peoples. By 1836 nearly 40,000 Americans, nearly all slavers (and not counting the enslaved), had moved to Mexican Texas. Their ranger militias were a part of the settlement, and in 1835 became formally institutionalized as the Texas Rangers. Their principal state-sponsored task was the eradication of the Comanche nation and all other Native peoples in Texas. Mounted and armed with the new killing machine, the five-shot Colt Paterson revolver, they did so with dedicated precision.

Having perfected their art in counterinsurgency operations against Comanches and other Native communities, the Texas Rangers went on to play a significant role in the U.S. invasion of Mexico. As seasoned counterinsurgents, they guided U.S. Army forces deep into Mexico, engaging in the Battle of Monterrey. Rangers also accompanied General Winfield Scott's army and the Marines by sea, landing in Vera Cruz and mounting a siege of Mexico's main commercial port city. They then marched on, leaving a path of civilian corpses and destruction, to occupy Mexico City, where the citizens called them Texas Devils. In defeat and under military occupation, Mexico ceded the northern half of its territory to the United States, and Texas became a state in 1845. Soon after, in 1860, Texas seceded, contributing its Rangers to the Confederate cause. After the Civil War, the Texas Rangers picked up where they had left off, pursuing counterinsurgency against both remaining Native communities and resistant Mexicans.

The Marines also trace half of their mythological origins to the invasion of Mexico that nearly completed the continental United States. The opening lyric of the official hymn of the Marine Corps, composed and adopted in 1847, is "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." Tripoli refers to the First Barbary War of 1801–5, when the Marines were dispatched to North Africa by President Thomas Jefferson to invade the Berber Nation, shelling the city of Tripoli, taking captives, and blockading key Barbary ports for nearly four years. The "Hall of Montezuma," though, refers to the invasion of Mexico: while the U.S. Army occupied what is now California, Arizona, and New Mexico, the Marines invaded by sea and marched to Mexico City, murdering and torturing civilian resisters along the way.

So what does it matter, for those of us who strive for peace and justice, that the U.S. military had its start in killing indigenous populations, or that U.S. imperialism has its roots in the expropriation of indigenous lands?

It matters because it tells us that the privatization of lands and other forms of human capital are at the core of the U.S. experiment. The militaristic-capitalist powerhouse of the United States derives from real estate (which includes African bodies, as well as appropriated land). It is apt that we once again have a real estate man for president, much like the first president, George Washington, whose fortune came mainly from his success speculating on unceded Indian lands. The U.S. governmental structure is designed to serve private property interests, the primary actors in establishing the United States being slavers and land speculators. That is, the United States was founded as a capitalist empire. This was exceptional in the world and has remained exceptional, though not in a way that benefits humanity. The military was designed to expropriate resources, guarding them against loss, and will continue to do so if left to its own devices under the control of rapacious capitalists.

When extreme white nationalists make themselves visible -- as they have for the past decade, and now more than ever with a vocal white nationalist president -- they are dismissed as marginal, rather than being understood as the spiritual descendants of the settlers. White supremacists are not wrong when they claim that they understand something about the American Dream that the rest of us do not, though it is nothing to brag about. Indeed, the origins of the United States are consistent with white nationalist ideology. And this is where those of us who wish for peace and justice must start: with full awareness that we are trying to fundamentally change the nature of the country, which will always be extremely difficult work.

A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston Review .

Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is the author of An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States .

[Nov 25, 2018] October 24, 2018 at 06:29

Nov 25, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

Gobachev rammed this treaty down the throats of the Russian MIC and they hated it. Free of its constraints they can develop new launchers and warheads. The US redeployed the warheads from |Pershing II mid-range rockets into B61 nuclear bombs to be flown on German, Belgian, Italian, Dutch aircraft in breach of Non-Proliferation Treaty ..they have now been upgraded to B61-12.

The Russians know the US wants a new arms race but they lack the nuclear engineers and rocket motors. There is a Thycydides Trap and US wants to go pre-emptive, if EU states don't punish Romania and Poland for inviting launchers on Russia's doorstep it is a useless institution and nothing more than a US fig leaf

Tom Welsh , October 24, 2018 at 12:13

The Russians don't really lose much from the INF treaty these days. They have just announced cruise missiles with virtually unlimited range, so who cares about 500-5,500 km?

The INF was always carefully shaped to benefit the USA anyway. It applies exclusively to "land-based" missiles, while the US Navy has a huge fleet of ships that can carry cruise missiles anywhere in the world.

The "Aegis Ashore" installations in Poland and Romania, to which Mr Putin has referred repeatedly, point up the absurdity of the treaty's terms. The Americans have designed their naval Aegis missile system so that it can be carried ashore and used there. So is that "land-based" or not?

And what about Russian Klub-K (and possibly other) missiles that can be concealed in ordinary freight containers and taken anywhere? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_c_PeIIeMw

Do they suddenly begin to infringe the INF the moment that container is hoisted off a ship?

Paul Greenwood , October 25, 2018 at 16:59

Yes but the INF Treaty really pertained to Europe and the fact that Reagan could fight a limited nuclear war in Europe without affecting strategic balance that game is back in town. It is Europe that is going to be the dead zone,

Why would anyone invest in Poland and Romania as front line battle states ? If you go to the Fulda Gap you see the consequences of being a battle zone – no investment in industry. Now Amazon has a giant warehouse but for decades this was the Tank Battlezone with Point Alpha in Here looking across at the channel for the 8th Guards Army tank units surging from GDR towards Frankfurt.

Simply turning Romania and Poland into battlefields gets us back to where Europe was in 1941

[Nov 25, 2018] Felix Keverich

Nov 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: November 24, 2018 at 5:38 pm GMT 100 Words @Big Bill They fought that it was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they could quickly achieve Western European standard of living. The first guy to become president of independent Ukraine promised people that they were going to "live like France" .in 5 years (!). lol

So their plan was something like this:

step 1: Separate from Russia.

step 2:

step 3: France

Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results Phanar Phantom

Felix Keverich , says: November 24, 2018 at 5:53 pm GMT

@FB

You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart ? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?

Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia began to import Western goods.

You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that system fell apart, you know.

Now, off to ignore list with you.

FB , says: November 24, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Thanks for confirming that you have zero credentials in any technical field yet you are somehow posing as someone qualified to talk about industry

Glad you are blocking me you little worm the Ostrich response do you cover your eyes and ears when your teacher or parent [or caregiver, since you are obviously retarded] says something that is true but which you don't want to hear ?

As for Soviet era factories churning out 'worthless crap' that would include the world's best rocket engines, decades ahead of the west's technology ?

What a worthless little shrimp

Sergey Krieger , says: November 24, 2018 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Liberast opinion. People with this views destroyed the country, caused massive displacement and demographic and social catastrophes. People with your views should not be allowed to the levers of power for the distance of avangard shot. If to follow your logic USA and China must dismantle and sell as scrap metal their MIC as they both clearly cannot compete with Russian MIC. National manufacturing of everything is not about competition. It is about souverenity in everything and national capability to provide own population both with goods and means to make a living via manufacturing of everything needed. Current situation with so much of everything made in China is an abomination that hurts too much people around the globe. People with your views in Russia should be purged and preferably executed for crimes against former Soviet people.
Sergey Krieger , says: November 24, 2018 at 6:56 pm GMT
I find it strange that shamir who professes communist views is paying so much attention to this basically religious spat about power and money. Wasn't it once th as t that religion is opium for masses. It is here to keep population down so that it is easily fleeced by thieves. The only value for Russia in orthodoxy at the moment is that the country completely devote of ideology as per constitution there must be something to hold people together and give some meaning to their existence.

[Nov 25, 2018] Doubling Down on Mueller by Kimberley A. Strassel

When McCarthyism ghost is out it is difficult to suppress it. The bottom feeder from Democratic Party have no other viable agenda that demonizing Russia and presenting it as the the root cause of 2016 fiasco, which actually are result of their neoliberal transformation under Bill Clinton. CIA democrats are now married to Russiagate.
Nov 25, 2018 | www.wsj.com

The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm trail. They didn't win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn't even talk about it. Most voters don't care, or don't care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of respondents think the Russia probe is "politically motivated"; a 46% plurality disapprove of Mr. Mueller's handling of it.

That hasn't stopped Democrats from fixating on it since the election, in particular when President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named Matthew Whitaker as a temporary replacement. The left now insists the appointment is unconstitutional or that because Mr. Whitaker once voiced skepticism on the Russia-collusion narrative, he is unfit to oversee the Mueller investigation and must recuse himself.

The joke here is that neither Mr. Whitaker nor anybody else is likely to exercise any authority over Mr. Mueller -- and more's the pity. The probe has meandered along for 18 months, notching records for leaks and derivative prosecutions, though all indications are it has accomplished little by way of its initial mandate.

As a practical matter, Mr. Mueller should have been brought to heel some time ago. As a political matter, that won't happen. The administration has always understood that such a move would provoke bipartisan political blowback, ignite a new "coverup" scandal, and maybe trigger impeachment. It's even more unlikely officials would risk those consequences now, as Mr. Mueller is said to be wrapping up.

Democrats know this, as does the grandstanding Sen. Jeff Flake. Yet they demand a Whitaker recusal and are again pushing legislation to "protect" the special counsel's probe. Senate Republicans rightly blocked that bill this week, partly on grounds that it is likely unconstitutional. They also made the obvious point that if Mr. Trump intended to fire Mr. Mueller, he'd have done so months ago and wouldn't need to ax Mr. Sessions to do it. And while the president tweets ceaseless criticism of the probe, he has never threatened to end it.

Democrats are nonetheless doubling down on the probe for political advantage. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared members of his caucus will demand that language making it more difficult to fire Mr. Mueller be included in a spending bill that needs to pass before the end of the current legislative session. Mr. Flake is offering an assist, saying that he will block any judicial nominees in committee until a Mueller protection bill gets a Senate floor vote. Over in the House, incoming Democratic committee chairmen, led by soon-to-be Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, are vowing an investigation blitz focused on collusion with Russia.

Mr. Schumer's last shutdown -- a year ago -- was a bust even though it was waged over the emotionally compelling issue of Dreamers, illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children. He now proposes shutting down the government over a probe few people outside of Washington care about. Mitch McConnell should be so lucky.

Mr. Flake, should he run for president, will struggle to explain to conservative voters his obstruction of Trump judicial nominees, who'll be confirmed in 2019 anyway when the Republicans expand their Senate majority.

Democrats' other problem is that this strategy hinges in large degree on an expectation that Mr. Mueller ultimately finds something. There's no reason to believe he has turned up any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

Sure, he's secured convictions against longtime Beltway bandits for long-ago lobbying. He's squeezed the ole standby lying-to-investigators plea out of a few targets. He's indicted a squad of Russian trolls, who will never be brought to trial and who even Mr. Mueller's office admits had nothing to do with the Trump team. And while it seems likely his report to the Justice Department will criticize Mr. Trump, it's improbable it will contain proof of collusion.

And then? The president will have a field day. He will claim vindication and mercilessly drive home that the investigation was a waste and a witch hunt. And he will have a point. Two years of Democratic hyperbole will be undercut by the special counsel they've held out as the ultimate sleuth. They'll have to decide whether to deride Mr. Mueller's findings as insufficient to justify continuing their own probes.

Maybe Mr. Mueller has something. We'll see. But if the reporting is correct that he's wound up high and dry, Democrats will end up there with him.

[Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
Nov 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service " in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.

The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."

And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb hackers are at work here.

Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.

The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin, with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked documents states. - RT

The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .

The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies."

The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the US State Department , the documents allege.

Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. - RT

Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:

Spanish "Op"

In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half hours to accomplish, brags the group in the documents .

"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.

Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." - RT

The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.

In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.

[Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
"... William Browder ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns Steveg , Nov 24, 2018 11:43:44 AM | link

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

We have already seen many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be part of a different project.

The ' Integrity Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.

On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media smear campaign (pdf) against him.


bigger

The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .

The Initiative is nominally run under the (government financed) non-government-organisation The Institute For Statecraft . Its internal handbook (pdf) describes its purpose:

The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North America.

It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and promises that:

Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed, Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster participants as you desire).

The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the Middle East.

On its About page it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.

The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.


Chris Donnelly - Pic via Euromaidanpress

From its 2017/18 budget application (pdf) we learn how the Initiative works:

To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and to help build national capacities to counter it .

The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones" illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself, created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.

If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme" run by the Foreign Office.

The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received £102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19 budget application shows a planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO and the Lithuanian MoD, but also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with £100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.

One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):

  • Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a range of countries with different circumstances
  • Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack by Russia
  • Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of the "golden minute"

Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:

- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )

Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a self-contradicting concept.

Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:

We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the clusters develop.

A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.


bigger

Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person of interest is Andrew Wood who handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus of the BBC.


bigger - bigger

A ' Cluster Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another file reveals (pdf) the local partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.

The Initiatives Guide to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events, Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of British intelligence disinformation operations.

The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at pages 7-40 of the 2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:

The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow.

The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society (think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and in various forms.

The third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:

Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.

We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.

Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

Comments Perfidious ALbion!

When will we learn?

pretzelattack , Nov 24, 2018 11:44:00 AM | link

Coincidentally, or not, i just saw this article at the guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/23/robert-mueller-profile-donald-trump-russia-investigation.
Anya , Nov 24, 2018 11:57:00 AM | link
The British government has been running a serious meddling into the US affairs:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-23/mi6-scrambling-stop-trump-releasing-classified-docs-russia-probe

"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016."

A Steele & Skrupal's anti-Russian / anti-Trump saga: https://spectator.org/big-dots-do-they-connect/

"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..."

For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.

james , Nov 24, 2018 11:58:02 AM | link
thanks b....

this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...

Ingrian , Nov 24, 2018 12:03:55 PM | link
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK.

The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth

james , Nov 24, 2018 12:15:31 PM | link
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia fully, as they'd intended...
et Al , Nov 24, 2018 12:20:09 PM | link

Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.

I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible evidence.

It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations.

Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's 'weak response' to Russian propaganda:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/experts-lament-underfunding-of-eu-task-force-countering-russian-disinformation/

BTW, did anyone read Wired UK's current advertorial (nov 14) by Carl Miller for Brigade 77?

Forthestate , Nov 24, 2018 12:26:09 PM | link
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
worldblee , Nov 24, 2018 12:33:05 PM | link
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
psychohistorian , Nov 24, 2018 12:34:32 PM | link

....full cluster of smear merchants". May all the clusters of smear merchants be exposed to the public as the acolytes of evil they are.

plantman , Nov 24, 2018 12:36:48 PM | link
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream."

I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.

The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval.

Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda

BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...

m , Nov 24, 2018 12:40:07 PM | link
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.

A lot of sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.

Jackrabbit , Nov 24, 2018 12:40:58 PM | link
Anya

Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification: THE CHIMERA OF DONALD TRUMP, RUSSIAN MONEY LAUNDERER :

If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it -- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...

It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling, including:

Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public

Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"): To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election meddling

Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.

Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.

As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job.
Cyril , Nov 24, 2018 1:10:13 PM | link
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
Russ , Nov 24, 2018 1:16:21 PM | link
Posted by: james | Nov 24, 2018 12:15:31 PM | 7

"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as they'd intended..."

They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites.

The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.

GeorgeV , Nov 24, 2018 1:34:08 PM | link
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Sasha , Nov 24, 2018 1:38:39 PM | link
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....

http://www.voltairenet.org/article204051.html

Some of the "clusters" unmasked here....some, like Ignacio Torreblanca in Spain, are related to the CFR....

https://www.rt.com/news/444737-uk-funded-campaign-russia-leaks/

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:12:45 PM | link
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:13:28 PM | link
cresty , Nov 24, 2018 2:18:30 PM | link
Thank you very much for going through all the files, b. Will share far and wide

[Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)

Highly recommended!
Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Perfidious Albion: or yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be black at all; it's just the pot making up things

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

We have already seen many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be part of a different project.

The ' Integrity Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.

[Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

HowdyDoody , 7 hours ago link

One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.

activisor , 10 hours ago link

The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.

The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.

The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape Karma.

smacker , 11 hours ago link

The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national leader has.

Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:

  1. Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
  2. Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.

Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??

Lokiban , 13 hours ago link

Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war. Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.

LOL123 , 14 hours ago link

"250,000 from the US State Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.

"During the third Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........

***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"

Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.

The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose Law Firm."- patriots4truth

artistant , 14 hours ago link

But, but some people keep getting away with it.

hooligan2009 , 15 hours ago link

When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.

larryriedel , 15 hours ago link

FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms for political speech, especially without using True Names.

Baron Samedi , 15 hours ago link

Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most surreal propaganda psy-ops.

But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.

headless blogger , 15 hours ago link

Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means justify the ends".

They are frightening people.

Push , 15 hours ago link

Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin. This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is obviously a Russian spy.

Xena fobe , 15 hours ago link

"Instutute for Statecraft"? Seriously?

OverTheHedge , 11 hours ago link

"Substitute for Statecraft"

Fify ;-)

koan , 16 hours ago link

The UK is waging psyop against their own people using the Russians as an excuse to further oppress the population, especially the white population.

FIFY.

East Indian , 16 hours ago link

Never thought Putin would be the symbol of free speech! The totalitarian EU and Deep State can come out of closet and denounce their predecessors.

brewing_it , 17 hours ago link

If you call ******** on the whole Russia cyberscare, you will be labeled a puppet of Putin.

The establishment is afraid of free thinking men and women that can call ******** when they see and hear it.

AriusArmenian , 17 hours ago link

Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.

Mike Rotsch , 17 hours ago link

A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire accounts.

RealistDuJour , 17 hours ago link

This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts.

Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to find it?

HRClinton , 18 hours ago link

When two sides fight - especially white v white - the hidden 3rd party (((instigator))) wins.

How dumb and mallaleable can these goys be? Pretty dumb and mallaleable, it seems.

J S Bach , 18 hours ago link

Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious people.

OverTheHedge , 11 hours ago link

Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-46311922/thai-labourers-in-israel-tell-of-harrowing-conditions

Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions

A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.

Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained deaths.

Herdee , 18 hours ago link

England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.

Quadruple_Rainbow , 18 hours ago link

More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as usual.

This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism). The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.

Herdee , 18 hours ago link

They're afraid of stories like this: https://www.rt.com/news/444737-uk-funded-campaign-russia-leaks/

HRClinton , 17 hours ago link

Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics))).

The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.

gatorengineer , 18 hours ago link

Do Neocons get time and half for Overtime, they sure have been putting in a bunch lately.

[Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
Nov 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service " in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.

The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."

And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb hackers are at work here.

Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.

The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin, with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked documents states. - RT

The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .

The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies."

The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the US State Department , the documents allege.

Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. - RT

Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:

Spanish "Op"

In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half hours to accomplish, brags the group in the documents .

"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.

Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." - RT

The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.

In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.

[Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
"... William Browder ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns Steveg , Nov 24, 2018 11:43:44 AM | link

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

We have already seen many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be part of a different project.

The ' Integrity Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.

On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media smear campaign (pdf) against him.


bigger

The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .

The Initiative is nominally run under the (government financed) non-government-organisation The Institute For Statecraft . Its internal handbook (pdf) describes its purpose:

The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North America.

It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and promises that:

Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed, Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster participants as you desire).

The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the Middle East.

On its About page it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.

The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.


Chris Donnelly - Pic via Euromaidanpress

From its 2017/18 budget application (pdf) we learn how the Initiative works:

To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and to help build national capacities to counter it .

The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones" illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself, created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.

If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme" run by the Foreign Office.

The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received £102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19 budget application shows a planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO and the Lithuanian MoD, but also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with £100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.

One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):

  • Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a range of countries with different circumstances
  • Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack by Russia
  • Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of the "golden minute"

Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:

- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )

Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a self-contradicting concept.

Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:

We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the clusters develop.

A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.


bigger

Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person of interest is Andrew Wood who handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus of the BBC.


bigger - bigger

A ' Cluster Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another file reveals (pdf) the local partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.

The Initiatives Guide to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events, Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of British intelligence disinformation operations.

The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at pages 7-40 of the 2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:

The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow.

The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society (think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and in various forms.

The third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:

Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.

We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.

Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

Comments Perfidious ALbion!

When will we learn?

pretzelattack , Nov 24, 2018 11:44:00 AM | link

Coincidentally, or not, i just saw this article at the guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/23/robert-mueller-profile-donald-trump-russia-investigation.
Anya , Nov 24, 2018 11:57:00 AM | link
The British government has been running a serious meddling into the US affairs:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-23/mi6-scrambling-stop-trump-releasing-classified-docs-russia-probe

"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016."

A Steele & Skrupal's anti-Russian / anti-Trump saga: https://spectator.org/big-dots-do-they-connect/

"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..."

For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.

james , Nov 24, 2018 11:58:02 AM | link
thanks b....

this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...

Ingrian , Nov 24, 2018 12:03:55 PM | link
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK.

The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth

james , Nov 24, 2018 12:15:31 PM | link
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia fully, as they'd intended...
et Al , Nov 24, 2018 12:20:09 PM | link

Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.

I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible evidence.

It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations.

Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's 'weak response' to Russian propaganda:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/experts-lament-underfunding-of-eu-task-force-countering-russian-disinformation/

BTW, did anyone read Wired UK's current advertorial (nov 14) by Carl Miller for Brigade 77?

Forthestate , Nov 24, 2018 12:26:09 PM | link
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
worldblee , Nov 24, 2018 12:33:05 PM | link
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
psychohistorian , Nov 24, 2018 12:34:32 PM | link

....full cluster of smear merchants". May all the clusters of smear merchants be exposed to the public as the acolytes of evil they are.

plantman , Nov 24, 2018 12:36:48 PM | link
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream."

I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.

The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval.

Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda

BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...

m , Nov 24, 2018 12:40:07 PM | link
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.

A lot of sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.

Jackrabbit , Nov 24, 2018 12:40:58 PM | link
Anya

Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification: THE CHIMERA OF DONALD TRUMP, RUSSIAN MONEY LAUNDERER :

If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it -- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...

It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling, including:

Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public

Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"): To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election meddling

Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.

Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.

As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job.
Cyril , Nov 24, 2018 1:10:13 PM | link
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
Russ , Nov 24, 2018 1:16:21 PM | link
Posted by: james | Nov 24, 2018 12:15:31 PM | 7

"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as they'd intended..."

They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites.

The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.

GeorgeV , Nov 24, 2018 1:34:08 PM | link
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Sasha , Nov 24, 2018 1:38:39 PM | link
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....

http://www.voltairenet.org/article204051.html

Some of the "clusters" unmasked here....some, like Ignacio Torreblanca in Spain, are related to the CFR....

https://www.rt.com/news/444737-uk-funded-campaign-russia-leaks/

Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:12:45 PM | link
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Zanon , Nov 24, 2018 2:13:28 PM | link
cresty , Nov 24, 2018 2:18:30 PM | link
Thank you very much for going through all the files, b. Will share far and wide

[Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)

Highly recommended!
Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Perfidious Albion: or yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be black at all; it's just the pot making up things

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

We have already seen many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be part of a different project.

The ' Integrity Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.

[Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

HowdyDoody , 7 hours ago link

One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.

activisor , 10 hours ago link

The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.

The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.

The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape Karma.

smacker , 11 hours ago link

The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national leader has.

Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:

  1. Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
  2. Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.

Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??

Lokiban , 13 hours ago link

Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war. Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.

LOL123 , 14 hours ago link

"250,000 from the US State Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.

"During the third Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........

***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"

Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.

The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose Law Firm."- patriots4truth

artistant , 14 hours ago link

But, but some people keep getting away with it.

hooligan2009 , 15 hours ago link

When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.

larryriedel , 15 hours ago link

FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms for political speech, especially without using True Names.

Baron Samedi , 15 hours ago link

Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most surreal propaganda psy-ops.

But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.

headless blogger , 15 hours ago link

Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means justify the ends".

They are frightening people.

Push , 15 hours ago link

Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin. This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is obviously a Russian spy.

Xena fobe , 15 hours ago link

"Instutute for Statecraft"? Seriously?

OverTheHedge , 11 hours ago link

"Substitute for Statecraft"

Fify ;-)

koan , 16 hours ago link

The UK is waging psyop against their own people using the Russians as an excuse to further oppress the population, especially the white population.

FIFY.

East Indian , 16 hours ago link

Never thought Putin would be the symbol of free speech! The totalitarian EU and Deep State can come out of closet and denounce their predecessors.

brewing_it , 17 hours ago link

If you call ******** on the whole Russia cyberscare, you will be labeled a puppet of Putin.

The establishment is afraid of free thinking men and women that can call ******** when they see and hear it.

AriusArmenian , 17 hours ago link

Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.

Mike Rotsch , 17 hours ago link

A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire accounts.

RealistDuJour , 17 hours ago link

This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts.

Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to find it?

HRClinton , 18 hours ago link

When two sides fight - especially white v white - the hidden 3rd party (((instigator))) wins.

How dumb and mallaleable can these goys be? Pretty dumb and mallaleable, it seems.

J S Bach , 18 hours ago link

Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious people.

OverTheHedge , 11 hours ago link

Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-46311922/thai-labourers-in-israel-tell-of-harrowing-conditions

Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions

A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.

Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained deaths.

Herdee , 18 hours ago link

England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.

Quadruple_Rainbow , 18 hours ago link

More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as usual.

This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism). The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.

Herdee , 18 hours ago link

They're afraid of stories like this: https://www.rt.com/news/444737-uk-funded-campaign-russia-leaks/

HRClinton , 17 hours ago link

Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics))).

The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.

gatorengineer , 18 hours ago link

Do Neocons get time and half for Overtime, they sure have been putting in a bunch lately.

[Nov 24, 2018] Looks like we got the Ministry of Love, courtesy of CIA, MI6 and British government

Brennan and Obama as Godfathers of Ministry of Truth. How fitting ; -)
Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Now we know who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-) Perfidious Albion: or yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be black at all; it's just the pot making up things

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

[Nov 24, 2018] Oil and commodity markets were used as a finishing move on the Soviet system.

Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

RioGrandeImports, 21 seconds ago link

Oil and commodity markets were used as a finishing move on the Soviet system. The book, "The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century" by James R. Norman details the use of oil futures as a geopolitical tool. Pipelines change the calculus quite a bit.

[Nov 24, 2018] Looks like we got the Ministry of Love, courtesy of CIA, MI6 and British government

Brennan and Obama as Godfathers of Ministry of Truth. How fitting ; -)
Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Now we know who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-) Perfidious Albion: or yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be black at all; it's just the pot making up things

In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia propaganda into the western media stream.

[Nov 24, 2018] Russian Diplomacy Is Winning the New Cold War by Stephen F. Cohen

Notable quotes:
"... During the preceding Cold War with the Soviet Union, no attempt was made to "isolate" Russia abroad; instead, the goal was to "contain" it within its "bloc" of Eastern European nations and compete with it in what was called the "Third World." ..."
"... The notion of "isolating" a country of Russia's size, Eurasian location, resources, and long history as a great power is vainglorious folly. It reflects the paucity and poverty of foreign thinking in Washington in recent decades, not the least in the US Congress and mainstream media. ..."
"... Nationalism, that is, by whatever name, has long been a major political force in most countries, whether in liberal enlightened or reactionary right-wing forms. Russia and the United States are not exceptions. ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Washington's attempt to "isolate Putin's Russia" has failed and had the opposite effect.

On the fifth anniversary of the onset of the Ukrainian crisis, in November 2013, and of Washington "punishing" Russia by attempting to "isolate" it in world affairs -- a policy first declared by President Barack Obama in 2014 and continued ever since, primarily through economic sanctions -- Cohen discusses the following points:

1. During the preceding Cold War with the Soviet Union, no attempt was made to "isolate" Russia abroad; instead, the goal was to "contain" it within its "bloc" of Eastern European nations and compete with it in what was called the "Third World."

2. The notion of "isolating" a country of Russia's size, Eurasian location, resources, and long history as a great power is vainglorious folly. It reflects the paucity and poverty of foreign thinking in Washington in recent decades, not the least in the US Congress and mainstream media.

3. Consider the actual results. Russia is hardly isolated. Since 2014, Moscow has arguably been the most active diplomatic capital of all great powers today. It has forged expanding military, political, or economic partnerships with, for example, China, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, India, and several other East Asian nations, even, despite EU sanctions, with several European governments. Still more, Moscow is the architect and prime convener of three important peace negotiations under way today: those involving Syria, Serbia-Kosovo, and even Afghanistan. Put differently, can any other national leaders in the 21st century match the diplomatic records of Russian President Vladimir Putin or of his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov? Certainly not former US presidents George W. Bush or Obama or soon-to-depart German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nor any British or French leader.

4. Much is made of Putin's purportedly malign "nationalism" in this regard. But this is an uninformed or hypocritical explanation. Consider French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently reproached Trump for his declared nationalism. The same Macron who has sought to suggest (rather implausibly) that he is a second coming of Charles de Gaulle, who himself was a great and professed nationalist leader of the 20th century, from his resistance to the Nazi occupation and founding of the Fifth Republic to his refusal to put the French military under NATO command. Nationalism, that is, by whatever name, has long been a major political force in most countries, whether in liberal enlightened or reactionary right-wing forms. Russia and the United States are not exceptions.

5. Putin's success in restoring Russia's role in world affairs is usually ascribed to his "aggressive" policies, but it is better understood as a realization of what is characterized in Moscow as the "philosophy of Russian foreign policy" since Putin became leader in 2000. It has three professed tenets. The first goal of foreign policy is to protect Russia's "sovereignty," which is said to have been lost in the disastrous post-Soviet 1990s. The second is a kind of Russia-first nationalism or patriotism: to enhance the well-being of the citizens of the Russian Federation. The third is ecumenical: to partner with any government that wants to partner with Russia. This "philosophy" is, of course, non- or un-Soviet, which was heavily ideological, at least in its professed ideology and goals.

6. Considering Washington's inability to "isolate Russia," considering Russia's diplomatic successes in recent years, and considering the bitter fruits of US militarized and regime-change foreign policies (which long predate President Trump), perhaps it's time for Washington to learn from Moscow rather than demand that Moscow conform to Washington's thinking about -- and behavior in -- world affairs. If not, Washington is more likely to continue to isolate itself.

... ... ...

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at TheNation.com.)

[Nov 24, 2018] Trump Sides With the Iran Hawks on Saudi Arabia by Curt Mills

Trump administration policy on Ukraine is also strictly adhere yo the neocon playbook. As if Victoria Nuland is strill working in State Departemetn and Cheney is the vice president.
Notable quotes:
"... in style and substance, there was no greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview. ..."
"... Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

The controversial Washington think-tanker denied to me in August 2017 that he'd directly advised the administration. To the contrary, he'd actually endorsed and counseled Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's bitter primary rival, in the late stretches of the trench warfare 2016 primary (something, like most who have come over to Trump after the primary, he has sought to minimize). But in style and substance, there was no greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview.

Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. David Reaboi, an alumnus of Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and now with the administration-friendly Security Studies Group, fleshed the statement out Wednesday morning in an illuminating radio interview. Reaboi has commented to me in this publication before; there should be no reason to doubt his sincerity. But for Reaboi, the joint action of last week's indictments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia coupled with U.S. sanctions was sufficient, and it's time to get back to business.

... ... ...

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills .

[Nov 24, 2018] MI6 Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia Probe

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not raised the issue directly with the US president ." ..."
"... In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction." ..."
"... Trump walked that order back days later after the UK begged him not to release them. ..."
"... MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence. ..."
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ ..."
"... The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said. ..."
"... By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade. ..."
"... The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit. ..."
"... Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K. candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes' was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before & after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara (conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at meeting was Obama WH translator. ..."
"... The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day. ..."
"... Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were "unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and fraud left unpunished. ..."
"... George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason. ..."
"... Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C. – and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation ..."
"... In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. ..."
"... @Chupacabra-322 URL s/b " https://themarketswork.com/2018/04/09/john-brennans-role-in-the-fbis-trump-russia-investigation/ " ..."
"... The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation & Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start. ..."
"... They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim. ..."
"... Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE. ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation, according to The Telegraph , stating that any disclosure would "undermine intelligence gathering if he releases pages of an FBI application to wiretap one of his former campaign advisers."

Trump's allies, however, are fighting back - demanding transparency and suggesting that the UK wouldn't want the documents withheld unless it had something to hide.

The Telegraph has talked to more than a dozen UK and US officials, including in American intelligence, who have revealed details about the row.

British spy chiefs have "genuine concern" about sources being exposed if classified parts of the wiretap request were made public, according to figures familiar with discussions.

" It boils down to the exposure of people ", said one US intelligence official, adding: " We don't want to reveal sources and methods ." US intelligence shares the concerns of the UK.

Another said Britain feared setting a dangerous "precedent" which could make people less likely to share information, knowing that it could one day become public. - The Telegraph

The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not raised the issue directly with the US president ."

In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction."

Trump walked that order back days later after the UK begged him not to release them.

Mr Trump wants to declassify 21 pages from one of the applications. He announced the move in September, then backtracked, then this month said he was "very seriously" considering it again. Both Britain and Australia are understood to be opposing the move.

Memos detailing alleged ties between Mr Trump and Russia compiled by Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer , were cited in the application, which could explain some of the British concern. - The Telegraph

The New York Times reported at the time that the UK's concern was over material which " includes direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele ," the former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier." The UK's objection, according to former US and British officials, was over revealing Steele's identity in an official document, "regardless of whether he had been named in press reports."

We noted in September, however, that Steele's name was contained within the Nunes Memo - the House Intelligence Committee's majority opinion in the Trump-Russia case.

Steele also had extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie , who - along with Steele - was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump called for the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly reveal more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of Justice for lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS.

Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to meet with).

Also recall that CIA/FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page and Papadopoulos in London.

Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.

Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails.

Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller

In total, Halper received over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over $400,000 of which was granted before and during the 2016 election season.

Papadopoulos, who was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying about his conversations with a shadowy Maltese professor and self-professed member of the Clinton Foundation , has publicly claimed he was targeted by UK spies, and told The Telegraph that he demands transparency. Trump's allies in Washington, meanwhile, have suggested that the facts laid out before us mean that the ongoing Russia investigation was invalid from the start .

In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the "witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a set-up from the start .

Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.

Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts with the press.

He shared results of his investigation into Trump's links to Russia with the FBI beginning in early July 2016.

The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out applications for four FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the dossier's claims, which include that he was the Trump campaign's back channel to the Kremlin. - Daily Caller

That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious.

Anunnaki , 3 minutes ago link

Trump talks the talk but so far no walking of the walk. Not falling for it anymore, Tyler. No Swamp Draining from Pres. Cheeto anymore than we got Hope or Change from Superfly

Kefeer , 28 minutes ago link

When fraud is coming to light, the cockroaches scramble. The so-called intelligence agencies have run amuck for way too long and leave a trail of lies, murder and deception.

custard , 1 hour ago link

That is the reason Obama and Clinton went to New Zealand and Australia. They have access to the Five Eyes network in New Zealand and Australia without their requests being recorded whereas if they had asked in the US their requests and all documents given to them would have been recorded. . They are both traitors to not only the sitting President and the US people but also to the United States.

Synoia , 1 hour ago link

That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious.

MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence.

STONEHILLADY , 1 hour ago link

I think we all know now that the UK not Russia was the dirtbags working for Obama/HRC to trap Trump. Release the declass Trump and let's start cleaning up the swamp. Let the SHTF those Brits have never been friends to freedom.

fleur de lis , 1 hour ago link

@European American,

If they released audio-video evidence of public officials indulging in cannibalistic pedophilia at their state desks, they would still get off the hook.

Their MSM fiends oops I meant friends would scramble to the rescue and create another AV to counter the actual one, and their idiot Democrat audiences would fall for it.

No matter what is exposed on 5 December the perps will get off the hook.

Chupacabra-322 , 2 hours ago link
StarGate , 1 hour ago link

Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K. candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes' was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before & after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara (conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at meeting was Obama WH translator.

GPS Fusion wrote the Dossier with UK spy Steele and was paid by Hillary/DNC.

The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/793234169576947712?lang=en

WorkingFool , 1 hour ago link

Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were "unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and fraud left unpunished.

Chupacabra-322 , 2 hours ago link

George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason.

Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C. – and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation

April 9, 2018 by Jeff Carlson, CFA

In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow.

That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. The meeting between Hannigan and Brennan appears somewhat unusual.

The US and the UK are two of the so-called Five Eyes -- along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- that share a broad range of intelligence through a formalized alliance.

The GCHQ is responsible for Britain's Signals Intelligence. The NSA is responsible for the United States' Signals Intelligence. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was not CIA Director Brennan. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was NSA Director Mike Rogers. Luke Harding of the Guardian originally reported the meeting in an April 13, 2017 article on Britain's spy agencies early role in the Trump-Russia investigation:

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians.

https://www.themarketswork.com/2018/04/09/john-brennans-role-in-the-fbi

StarGate , 1 hour ago link

See above about phony robot "suspicious communications" set up by CIA McMullen to smear Trump with Trump Tower falsely named server and data created in robo call response with Russian Alfa bank.

Russian "communications" was e-data of the Russkie Bank and the non-Trump server named "Trump OrGAINization". It was just two robo-computers pinging back and forth.

smacker , 1 hour ago link

@Chupacabra-322 URL s/b " https://themarketswork.com/2018/04/09/john-brennans-role-in-the-fbis-trump-russia-investigation/ "

Chupacabra-322 , 2 hours ago link

The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation & Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start.

They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim.

Feb 13th, Don Bongino Podcast.

"I'll include an article from NPR. NPR, not a by any stretch a right Wing outlet. Ok? But it's actually a decent piece. Now, it describes the three hop rule. It's from 2013, but it describes it very shortly & ce scintillating in about 400 words. And it's done well so I'll include it in todays show notes.

Remember, It's now the "Two Hop Rule" but you just have to know what a "Hop" is to understand how dangerous this is.

Here's how they explain it.

It says, "testimony before Congress on Wednesday, remember this is written in 2013 Joe. Showed how easy it is for Americans, with no connection to Terrorism to unwittingly have their calling patterns analyzed by the Government." This is really wacko stuff. It hinges on what is known as a "Hop."

Or chain analysis. When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone records Joe, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and everyone who calls those people." Chain Migration.

You ain't kidding! Right!? Chain spying!

It goes on...though....this is good.

"If the average person Joe, called 40 unique people. "Three Hop Analysts" would allow the Government to mine the records....this is a staggering number...of 2.5 Million Americans when investigating one suspected terrorist."

"Holy Moly!" Holly Moly is right.

Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE.

All the the emails he sent in the past to Trump Team members, combine that with "Two Hops" you basically have everybody in the known universe that could of ever contacted the Trump Team.

Paige sends an email, whatever to Kushner. I don't know who he sends emails to. He probably didn't. But you get the point. Then you go to another "Hop." Kushner, who'd he send an email to? Now you got the while Trump Team.

That's the whole point. That's why I constantly say to you that they were trying to put a legal face on this thing after they realized the election was coming up and they could lose.

They were like. Man, we've been spying on these people the whole time. We already got most of their emails and their communications. How do we legally do it now?

Oh, we get a FISA Warrant, we use couple of "Hops" and we're Golden."

[Nov 24, 2018] Tomgram Danny Sjursen, Global War to Infinity and Beyond by Danny Sjursen

Trump is a puppet of military industrial complex (and Israel is just a lobbyist for the US military industrial complex, nothing more nothing less). Now there is no questions about Trump's betrayal of his voters which is even more brazen then Obama betrayal.
Notable quotes:
"... Of John Feffer's dystopian fiction, Mike Davis ..."
"... has written ..."
"... that "he's our twenty-first century Jack London" and Barbara Ehrenreich comments that he "paints a startling portrait of a post-apocalyptic tomorrow that is fast becoming a reality today." Now, Dispatch Books has just released ..."
"... , volume two of Feffer's ..."
"... series, a riveting tale of a planet that has fractured under the pressures of both nationalism and climate change. It couldn't be more topical or more gripping. ..."
"... So here's a reminder that, thanks to publisher Haymarket Books, ..."
"... readers can still get a half-price copy of ..."
"... clicking this link ..."
"... ! Do it while you can -- and any reader who would like to offer this website a little much-needed extra support in the age of you-know-who can for a $100 donation ($125 if you live outside the U.S.) get a signed, personalized copy of Feffer's new book. ..."
"... and check out the details at our donation page. And many thanks in advance! ..."
"... Note that the next ..."
"... piece will be posted on Tuesday the 27th. Have a fine Thanksgiving! Tom ..."
"... I remember Chalmers Johnson once describing to me his surprise on discovering that, after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, the whole global military structure that Washington had set up -- which he later came to call " America's empire of bases " or our "globe-girdling Baseworld" -- chugged right on. ..."
"... There's never been anything quite like it, not for the Roman Empire, the British Empire, or the Soviet one either. And as TomDispatch ..."
"... President Trump, whose " instincts ," on the campaign trail, were to pull out of America's Middle Eastern quagmires, turned out to be ready to escalate tensions with China, Russia, Iran, and even (for a while) North Korea. ..."
"... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) ..."
"... , Beverly Gologorsky's novel ..."
"... and Tom Engelhardt's ..."
"... , as well as Alfred McCoy's ..."
"... and John Dower's ..."
Nov 20, 2018 | www.tomdispatch.com
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

[ Note for TomDispatch readers: Of John Feffer's dystopian fiction, Mike Davis has written that "he's our twenty-first century Jack London" and Barbara Ehrenreich comments that he "paints a startling portrait of a post-apocalyptic tomorrow that is fast becoming a reality today." Now, Dispatch Books has just released Frostlands , volume two of Feffer's Splinterlands series, a riveting tale of a planet that has fractured under the pressures of both nationalism and climate change. It couldn't be more topical or more gripping.

So here's a reminder that, thanks to publisher Haymarket Books, TomDispatch readers can still get a half-price copy of Frostlands by clicking this link ! Do it while you can -- and any reader who would like to offer this website a little much-needed extra support in the age of you-know-who can for a $100 donation ($125 if you live outside the U.S.) get a signed, personalized copy of Feffer's new book. Click here and check out the details at our donation page. And many thanks in advance!

Note that the next TomDispatch piece will be posted on Tuesday the 27th. Have a fine Thanksgiving! Tom ]

I remember Chalmers Johnson once describing to me his surprise on discovering that, after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union imploded, the whole global military structure that Washington had set up -- which he later came to call " America's empire of bases " or our "globe-girdling Baseworld" -- chugged right on.

It didn't matter that there was no real enemy left on Planet Earth. It was, I believe, what finally convinced Johnson that this country was indeed an empire. And here's the strange thing, though it goes remarkably unnoticed in our world: that vast global structure of military garrisons, unprecedented in history, ranging from some the size of American towns to small outposts, has remained in place to this very second. Though little attention has been paid in recent years -- despite the fact that it couldn't be a more prominent feature on this planet, geo-militarily speaking -- there remain something like 800 American garrisons worldwide (not counting, of course, the more than 420 military bases located in the continental U.S., Guam, and Puerto Rico), as David Vine reported in his path-breaking 2015 book, Base Nation .

There's never been anything quite like it, not for the Roman Empire, the British Empire, or the Soviet one either. And as TomDispatch regular and U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen reports today, with our military now in the process of transforming the whole planet into an even more militarized place, those bases will be all the more relevant. So here's a small suggestion for all the media outlets covering President Trump in such a 24/7 fashion: Why not spare just one reporter to cover that empire of bases on a planet on which, as Sjursen reports, the U.S. military is increasingly focused on future wars of every imaginable sort (right up to the sort that could leave this planet in shreds)? Tom

Planet of War: Still Trapped in a Greater Middle Eastern Quagmire, the U.S. Military Prepares for Global Combat By Danny Sjursen

American militarism has gone off the rails -- and this middling career officer should have seen it coming. Earlier in this century, the U.S. military not surprisingly focused on counterinsurgency as it faced various indecisive and seemingly unending wars across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa. Back in 2008, when I was still a captain newly returned from Iraq and studying at Fort Knox, Kentucky, our training scenarios generally focused on urban combat and what were called security and stabilization missions. We'd plan to assault some notional city center, destroy the enemy fighters there, and then transition to pacification and "humanitarian" operations.

Of course, no one then asked about the dubious efficacy of "regime change" and "nation building," the two activities in which our country had been so regularly engaged. That would have been frowned upon. Still, however bloody and wasteful those wars were, they now look like relics from a remarkably simpler time. The U.S. Army knew its mission then (even if it couldn't accomplish it) and could predict what each of us young officers was about to take another crack at: counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fast forward eight years -- during which this author fruitlessly toiled away in Afghanistan and taught at West Point -- and the U.S. military ground presence has significantly decreased in the Greater Middle East, even if its wars there remain " infinite ." The U.S. was still bombing, raiding, and "advising" away in several of those old haunts as I entered the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Nonetheless, when I first became involved in the primary staff officer training course for mid-level careerists there in 2016, it soon became apparent to me that something was indeed changing.

Our training scenarios were no longer limited to counterinsurgency operations. Now, we were planning for possible deployments to -- and high-intensity conventional warfare in -- the Caucasus, the Baltic Sea region, and the South China Sea (think: Russia and China). We were also planning for conflicts against an Iranian-style "rogue" regime (think: well, Iran). The missions became all about projecting U.S. Army divisions into distant regions to fight major wars to "liberate" territories and bolster allies.

One thing soon became clear to me in my new digs: much had changed. The U.S. military had, in fact, gone global in a big way. Frustrated by its inability to close the deal on any of the indecisive counterterror wars of this century, Washington had decided it was time to prepare for "real" war with a host of imagined enemies. This process had, in fact, been developing right under our noses for quite a while. You remember in 2013 when President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began talking about a " pivot " to Asia -- an obvious attempt to contain China. Obama also sanctioned Moscow and further militarized Europe in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Crimea. President Trump, whose " instincts ," on the campaign trail, were to pull out of America's Middle Eastern quagmires, turned out to be ready to escalate tensions with China, Russia, Iran, and even (for a while) North Korea.

With Pentagon budgets reaching record levels -- some $717 billion for 2019 -- Washington has stayed the course, while beginning to plan for more expansive future conflicts across the globe. Today, not a single square inch of this ever- warming planet of ours escapes the reach of U.S. militarization.

Think of these developments as establishing a potential formula for perpetual conflict that just might lead the United States into a truly cataclysmic war it neither needs nor can meaningfully win. With that in mind, here's a little tour of Planet Earth as the U.S. military now imagines it.

Our Old Stomping Grounds: Forever War in the Middle East and Africa

Never apt to quit, even after 17 years of failure, Washington's bipartisan military machine still churns along in the Greater Middle East. Some 14,500 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan (along with much U.S. air power) though that war is failing by just about any measurable metric you care to choose -- and Americans are still dying there, even if in diminished numbers.

In Syria, U.S. forces remain trapped between hostile powers, one mistake away from a possible outbreak of hostilities with Russia, Iran, Syrian President Assad, or even NATO ally Turkey. While American troops (and air power) in Iraq helped destroy ISIS's physical "caliphate," they remain entangled there in a low-level guerrilla struggle in a country seemingly incapable of forming a stable political consensus. In other words, as yet there's no end in sight for that now 15-year-old war. Add in the drone strikes, conventional air attacks, and special forces raids that Washington regularly unleashes in Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan, and it's clear that the U.S. military's hands remain more than full in the region.

If anything, the tensions -- and potential for escalation -- in the Greater Middle East and North Africa are only worsening. President Trump ditched President Obama's Iran nuclear deal and, despite the recent drama over the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, has gleefully backed the Saudi royals in their arms race and cold war with Iran. While the other major players in that nuclear pact remained on board, President Trump has appointed unreformed Iranophobe neocons like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to key foreign policy positions and his administration still threatens regime change in Tehran.

In Africa, despite talk about downsizing the U.S. presence there, the military advisory mission has only increased its various commitments, backing questionably legitimate governments against local opposition forces and destabilizing further an already unstable continent. You might think that waging war for two decades on two continents would at least keep the Pentagon busy and temper Washington's desire for further confrontations. As it happens, the opposite is proving to be the case.

Poking the Bear: Encircling Russia and Kicking Off a New Cold War

Vladimir Putin's Russia is increasingly autocratic and has shown a propensity for localized aggression in its sphere of influence. Still, it would be better not to exaggerate the threat. Russia did annex the Crimea, but the people of that province were Russians and desired such a reunification. It intervened in a Ukrainian civil war, but Washington was also complicit in the coup that kicked off that drama. Besides, all of this unfolded in Russia's neighborhood as the U.S. military increasingly deploys its forces up to the very borders of the Russian Federation. Imagine the hysteria in Washington if Russia were deploying troops and advisers in Mexico or the Caribbean.

To put all of this in perspective, Washington and its military machine actually prefer facing off against Russia. It's a fight the armed forces still remain comfortable with. After all, that's what its top commanders were trained for during the tail end of an almost half-century-long Cold War. Counterinsurgency is frustrating and indecisive. The prospect of preparing for "real war" against the good old Russians with tanks, planes, and artillery -- now, that's what the military was built for!

And despite all the over-hyped talk about Donald Trump's complicity with Russia, under him, the Obama-era military escalation in Europe has only expanded. Back when I was toiling hopelessly in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army was actually removing combat brigades from Germany and stationing them back on U.S. soil (when, of course, they weren't off fighting somewhere in the Greater Middle East). Then, in the late Obama years, the military began returning those forces to Europe and stationing them in the Baltic, Poland, Romania, and other countries increasingly near to Russia. That's never ended and, this year, the U.S. Air Force has delivered its largest shipment of ordnance to Europe since the Cold War.

Make no mistake: war with Russia would be an unnecessary disaster -- and it could go nuclear. Is Latvia really worth that risk?

From a Russian perspective, of course, it's Washington and its expansion of the (by definition) anti-Russian NATO alliance into Eastern Europe that constitutes the real aggression in the region -- and Putin may have a point there. What's more, an honest assessment of the situation suggests that Russia, a country whose economy is about the size of Spain's, has neither the will nor the capacity to invade Central Europe. Even in the bad old days of the Cold War, as we now know from Soviet archives, European conquest was never on Moscow's agenda. It still isn't.

Nonetheless, the U.S. military goes on preparing for what Marine Corps Commandant General Robert Neller, addressing some of his forces in Norway, claimed was a " big fight " to come. If it isn't careful, Washington just might get the war it seems to want and the one that no one in Europe or the rest of this planet needs.

Challenging the Dragon: The Futile Quest for Hegemony in Asia

The United States Navy has long treated the world's oceans as if they were American lakes. Washington extends no such courtesy to other great powers or nation-states. Only now, the U.S. Navy finally faces some challenges abroad -- especially in the Western Pacific. A rising China, with a swiftly growing economy and carrying grievances from a long history of European imperial domination, has had the audacity to assert itself in the South China Sea. In response, Washington has reacted with panic and bellicosity.

Never mind that the South China Sea is Beijing's Caribbean (a place where Washington long felt it had the right to do anything it wanted militarily). Heck, the South China Sea has China in its name! The U.S. military now claims -- with just enough truth to convince the uninformed -- that China's growing navy is out for Pacific, if not global, dominance. Sure, at the moment China has only two aircraft carriers, one an old rehab (though it is building more) compared to the U.S. Navy's 11 full-sized and nine smaller carriers. And yes, China hasn't actually attacked any of its neighbors yet. Still, the American people are told that their military must prepare for possible future war with the most populous nation on the planet.

In that spirit, it has been forward deploying yet more ships, Marines, and troops to the Pacific Rim surrounding China. Thousands of Marines are now stationed in Northern Australia; U.S. warships cruise the South Pacific; and Washington has sent mixed signals regarding its military commitments to Taiwan. Even the Indian Ocean has recently come to be seen as a possible future battleground with China, as the U.S. Navy increases its regional patrols there and Washington negotiates stronger military ties with China's rising neighbor, India. In a symbolic gesture, the military recently renamed its former Pacific Command (PACOM) the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).

Unsurprisingly, China's military high command has escalated accordingly. They've advised their South China Sea Command to prepare for war, made their own set of provocative gestures in the South China Sea, and also threatened to invade Taiwan should the Trump administration change America's longstanding "One China" policy.

From the Chinese point of view, all of this couldn't be more logical, given that President Trump has also unleashed a " trade war " on Beijing's markets and intensified his anti-China rhetoric. And all of this is, in turn, consistent with the Pentagon's increasing militarization of the entire globe.

No Land Too Distant

Would that it were only Africa, Asia, and Europe that Washington had chosen to militarize. But as Dr. Seuss might have said : that is not all, oh no, that is not all. In fact, more or less every square inch of our spinning planet not already occupied by a rival state has been deemed a militarized space to be contested. The U.S. has long been unique in the way it divided the entire surface of the globe into geographical (combatant) commands presided over by generals and admirals who functionally serve as regional Roman-style proconsuls.

And the Trump years are only accentuating this phenomenon. Take Latin America, which might normally be considered a non-threatening space for the U.S., though it is already under the gaze of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). Recently, however, having already threatened to " invade " Venezuela, President Trump spent the election campaign rousing his base on the claim that a desperate caravan of Central American refugees -- hailing from countries the U.S. had a significant responsibility for destabilizing in the first place -- was a literal " invasion " and so yet another military problem. As such, he ordered more than 5,000 troops (more than currently serve in Syria or Iraq) to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Though he is not the first to try to do so, he has also sought to militarize space and so create a possible fifth branch of the U.S. military, tentatively known as the Space Force . It makes sense. War has long been three dimensional, so why not bring U.S. militarism into the stratosphere, even as the U.S. Army is evidently training and preparing for a new cold war (no pun intended) with that ever-ready adversary, Russia, around the Arctic Circle.

If the world as we know it is going to end, it will either be thanks to the long-term threat of climate change or an absurd nuclear war. In both cases, Washington has been upping the ante and doubling down. On climate change, of course, the Trump administration seems intent on loading the atmosphere with ever more greenhouse gases. When it comes to nukes, rather than admit that they are unusable and seek to further downsize the bloated U.S. and Russian arsenals, that administration, like Obama's, has committed itself to the investment of what could, in the end, be at least $1.6 trillion over three decades for the full-scale "modernization" of that arsenal. Any faintly rational set of actors would long ago have accepted that nuclear war is unwinnable and a formula for mass human extinction. As it happens, though, we're not dealing with rational actors but with a defense establishment that considers it a prudent move to withdraw from the Cold War era Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia.

And that ends our tour of the U.S. military's version of Planet Earth.

It is often said that, in an Orwellian sense, every nation needs an enemy to unite and discipline its population. Still, the U.S. must stand alone in history as the only country to militarize the whole globe (with space thrown in) in preparation for taking on just about anyone. Now, that's exceptional.

Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army major and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet and check out his podcast " Fortress on a Hill ," co-hosted with fellow vet Chris Henriksen.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story , and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II .

Copyright 2018 Danny Sjursen

[Nov 24, 2018] Thieves Like Us the Violent Theft of Land and Capital is at the Core of the U.S. Experiment

Notable quotes:
"... A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston Review . ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

November 23, 2018 Thieves Like Us: the Violent Theft of Land and Capital is at the Core of the U.S. Experiment by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Photo Source Jayel Aheram | CC BY 2.0

The United States has been at war every day since its founding, often covertly and often in several parts of the world at once. As ghastly as that sentence is, it still does not capture the full picture. Indeed, prior to its founding, what would become the United States was engaged -- as it would continue to be for more than a century following -- in internal warfare to piece together its continental territory. Even during the Civil War, both the Union and Confederate armies continued to war against the nations of the Diné and Apache, the Cheyenne and the Dakota, inflicting hideous massacres upon civilians and forcing their relocations. Yet when considering the history of U.S. imperialism and militarism, few historians trace their genesis to this period of internal empire-building. They should. The origin of the United States in settler colonialism -- as an empire born from the violent acquisition of indigenous lands and the ruthless devaluation of indigenous lives -- lends the country unique characteristics that matter when considering questions of how to unhitch its future from its violent DNA.

The United States is not exceptional in the amount of violence or bloodshed when compared to colonial conquests in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and South America. Elimination of the native is implicit in settler colonialism and colonial projects in which large swaths of land and workforces are sought for commercial exploitation. Extreme violence against noncombatants was a defining characteristic of all European colonialism, often with genocidal results.

The privatization of land is at the core of the U.S. experiment, and its military powerhouse was born to expropriate resources. Apt, then, that we once again have a real estate man for president.

Rather, what distinguishes the United States is the triumphal mythology attached to that violence and its political uses, even to this day. The post–9/11 external and internal U.S. war against Muslims-as-"barbarians" finds its prefiguration in the "savage wars" of the American colonies and the early U.S. state against Native Americans. And when there were, in effect, no Native Americans left to fight, the practice of "savage wars" remained. In the twentieth century, well before the War on Terror, the United States carried out large-scale warfare in the Philippines, Europe, Korea, and Vietnam; prolonged invasions and occupations in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic; and counterinsurgencies in Columbia and Southern Africa. In all instances, the United States has perceived itself to be pitted in war against savage forces.

Appropriating the land from its stewards was racialized war from the first British settlement in Jamestown, pitting "civilization" against "savagery." Through this pursuit, the U.S. military gained its unique character as a force with mastery in "irregular" warfare. In spite of this, most military historians pay little attention to the so-called Indian Wars from 1607 to 1890, as well as the 1846–48 invasion and occupation of Mexico. Yet it was during the nearly two centuries of British colonization of North America that generations of settlers gained experience as "Indian fighters" outside any organized military institution. While large, highly regimented "regular" armies fought over geopolitical goals in Europe, Anglo settlers in North America waged deadly irregular warfare against the continent's indigenous nations to seize their land, resources, and roads, driving them westward and eventually forcibly relocating them west of the Mississippi. Even following the founding of the professional U.S. Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the U.S. conquest of the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mississippi Valley regions, then west of the Mississippi to the Pacific, including taking half of Mexico. Since that time, irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces and are, perhaps, what most marks U.S. armed forces as different from other armies of global powers.

By the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–37), whose lust for displacing and killing Native Americans was unparalleled, the character of the U.S. armed forces had come, in the national imaginary, to be deeply entangled with the mystique of indigenous nations -- as though, in adopting the practices of irregular warfare, U.S. soldiers had become the very thing they were fighting. This persona involved a certain identification with the Native enemy, marking the settler as Native American rather than European. This was part of the sleight of hand by which U.S. Americans came to genuinely believe that they had a rightful claim to the continent: they had fought for it and "become" its indigenous inhabitants.

Irregular military techniques that were perfected while expropriating Native American lands were then applied to fighting the Mexican Republic. At the time of its independence from Spain in 1821, the territory of Mexico included what is now the states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Texas. Upon independence, Mexico continued the practice of allowing non-Mexicans to acquire large swaths of land for development under land grants, with the assumption that this would also mean the welcome eradication of indigenous peoples. By 1836 nearly 40,000 Americans, nearly all slavers (and not counting the enslaved), had moved to Mexican Texas. Their ranger militias were a part of the settlement, and in 1835 became formally institutionalized as the Texas Rangers. Their principal state-sponsored task was the eradication of the Comanche nation and all other Native peoples in Texas. Mounted and armed with the new killing machine, the five-shot Colt Paterson revolver, they did so with dedicated precision.

Having perfected their art in counterinsurgency operations against Comanches and other Native communities, the Texas Rangers went on to play a significant role in the U.S. invasion of Mexico. As seasoned counterinsurgents, they guided U.S. Army forces deep into Mexico, engaging in the Battle of Monterrey. Rangers also accompanied General Winfield Scott's army and the Marines by sea, landing in Vera Cruz and mounting a siege of Mexico's main commercial port city. They then marched on, leaving a path of civilian corpses and destruction, to occupy Mexico City, where the citizens called them Texas Devils. In defeat and under military occupation, Mexico ceded the northern half of its territory to the United States, and Texas became a state in 1845. Soon after, in 1860, Texas seceded, contributing its Rangers to the Confederate cause. After the Civil War, the Texas Rangers picked up where they had left off, pursuing counterinsurgency against both remaining Native communities and resistant Mexicans.

The Marines also trace half of their mythological origins to the invasion of Mexico that nearly completed the continental United States. The opening lyric of the official hymn of the Marine Corps, composed and adopted in 1847, is "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." Tripoli refers to the First Barbary War of 1801–5, when the Marines were dispatched to North Africa by President Thomas Jefferson to invade the Berber Nation, shelling the city of Tripoli, taking captives, and blockading key Barbary ports for nearly four years. The "Hall of Montezuma," though, refers to the invasion of Mexico: while the U.S. Army occupied what is now California, Arizona, and New Mexico, the Marines invaded by sea and marched to Mexico City, murdering and torturing civilian resisters along the way.

So what does it matter, for those of us who strive for peace and justice, that the U.S. military had its start in killing indigenous populations, or that U.S. imperialism has its roots in the expropriation of indigenous lands?

It matters because it tells us that the privatization of lands and other forms of human capital are at the core of the U.S. experiment. The militaristic-capitalist powerhouse of the United States derives from real estate (which includes African bodies, as well as appropriated land). It is apt that we once again have a real estate man for president, much like the first president, George Washington, whose fortune came mainly from his success speculating on unceded Indian lands. The U.S. governmental structure is designed to serve private property interests, the primary actors in establishing the United States being slavers and land speculators. That is, the United States was founded as a capitalist empire. This was exceptional in the world and has remained exceptional, though not in a way that benefits humanity. The military was designed to expropriate resources, guarding them against loss, and will continue to do so if left to its own devices under the control of rapacious capitalists.

When extreme white nationalists make themselves visible -- as they have for the past decade, and now more than ever with a vocal white nationalist president -- they are dismissed as marginal, rather than being understood as the spiritual descendants of the settlers. White supremacists are not wrong when they claim that they understand something about the American Dream that the rest of us do not, though it is nothing to brag about. Indeed, the origins of the United States are consistent with white nationalist ideology. And this is where those of us who wish for peace and justice must start: with full awareness that we are trying to fundamentally change the nature of the country, which will always be extremely difficult work.

A version of this article originally appeared in the Boston Review .

[Nov 24, 2018] Dirty Work Buying Votes at the UN Security Council naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... By Axel Dreher, Professor of International and Development Politics, Heidelberg University, Valentin Lang,Post-Doctoral Researcher in Political Economy, University of Zurich, B. Peter Rosendorff, Professor of Politics, New York University and James Vreeland, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... Countries that vote with the US when serving on the UN Security Council also receive more financial assistance. This column uses voting records in the Council to show that when these countries were US allies, they received more in US aid, but when the countries were not natural allies, they received more financial assistance from US-dominated international institutions instead. ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
Nov 24, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Dirty Work: Buying Votes at the UN Security Council Posted on November 24, 2018 by Yves Smith By Axel Dreher, Professor of International and Development Politics, Heidelberg University, Valentin Lang,Post-Doctoral Researcher in Political Economy, University of Zurich, B. Peter Rosendorff, Professor of Politics, New York University and James Vreeland, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. Originally published at VoxEU

Countries that vote with the US when serving on the UN Security Council also receive more financial assistance. This column uses voting records in the Council to show that when these countries were US allies, they received more in US aid, but when the countries were not natural allies, they received more financial assistance from US-dominated international institutions instead.

On 18 December 2017, the US vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that had called for the withdrawal of US President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The resolution was supported by all remaining 14 members of the Council. Two days after the vote, Trump threatened to cut foreign aid to countries that voted against the US at the UN. "These nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security Council We're watching those votes. Let them vote against us, we'll save a lot," he said.

The Trump administration is not the first to pay attention to these votes. When Hillary Clinton, at that time the US Secretary of State, paid a visit to Togo in 2012, the press questioned her choice of destination. Clinton explained that, "[n]o secretary of state had ever been to Togo before. Togo happens to be on the UN Security Council. Going there, making the personal investment, has a real strategic purpose When you look at the voting dynamics in key international institutions, you start to understand the value of paying attention to these places."

Several years earlier, the first Bush administration famously pressured governments to vote in favour of the Security Council resolution approving Operation Desert Storm. When Yemen voted 'no', James Baker, the Secretary of State, reportedly told colleagues, "[t]hat's the most expensive vote they ever cast." The US subsequently cut $70 million in foreign aid.

These anecdotes reflect a systematic pattern. In previous research, we and others have found that countries that serve on the UN Security Council get financial favours. They receive more US aid and more loans from international institutions in which the US commands a powerful voice, including the IMF, the World Bank, and UN aid agencies. Countries also receive softer IMF conditionality during their two years of temporary membership (Kuziemko and Werker 2006, Vreeland and Dreher 2014, Dreher et al. 2015).

Linking Voting Behaviour to Favours

In recent research (Dreher et al. 2018) we asked whether these favours are linked to voting behaviour in the Security Council, what the rewards might be for voting with the US, and the method by which the US could 'buy' agreement, given that it would be frowned upon if done openly. To answer the questions, we used an original dataset that comprehensively records Security Council voting data.

We estimate that countries that voted with the US in the Security Council also got an increase in US aid of about 40%. Those members that voted against the US, on the other hand, got no more aid while serving on the Council than countries outside the Council.

Figure 1 UN Security Council decisions over time

Source : Dreher et al. (2018).

This pattern of increased aid is only observable for US allies (see Figure 2). While the US government would not be criticised for giving aid to allies, it might be politically costly to an administration to openly reward non-allies in ways that the US Congress and public could see.

Figure 2 UN Security Council voting and US aid allocation

Source : Dreher et al. (2018).
Notes : The figure shows the marginal effect of serving on the UN Security Council while voting all the time with the US on bilateral US aid flows for different levels of political proximity to the US (in concert with the 90% confidence interval). The histogram shows the distribution of political proximity to the US among aid-eligible countries, measured as voting alignment in the UN General Assembly.

These payments may be seen as improper. Also, an increase in foreign aid following a vote at the Security Council might damage the legitimacy of the UN, when this legitimacy a key reason for governments to seek Security Council support in the first place. The US public might also frown upon providing aid to a country not viewed as a friend of the US.

An historical example suggests that these risks do not entirely prevent the US from buying support from countries of this type. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US attempted to influence political developments in Russia with billions in bilateral aid in the early 1990s. In the mid-1990s, these aid packages came under increasing popular pressure in the US because of concerns over the budget deficit, and an unpromising outcome (for US interests) in Russian parliamentary elections.

This led to large reductions in US aid in the late 1990s. But when the US turned away from using direct bilateral aid, it started using obfuscated sources of funding. In 1995, the IMF approved a $6 billion loan program. It increased it to more than $10 billion the next year, and to the extraordinary figure of $18 billion in 1998. It is now clear that the US put pressure on the IMF behind the scenes. Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President at the time, said that to get the IMF to commit to these loans "[w]e had to involve [Bill] Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, and [John] Major" (Gordon 1996). Apparently, the US exploited its influence on the IMF to provide multilateral financial support when it had become difficult and politically costly to give bilateral aid.

We find systematic evidence that this pattern held when looking at UN Security Council voting data. While allies received increased bilateral aid from the US when they voted for the US position, governments not allied with the US did not. Instead, when these governments voted with the US, there were increases in loans to them from the IMF. Our results suggest that these countries received an increase in IMF loans of about 50%.

Figure 3 UN Security Council voting and IMF loan allocation

Source : Dreher et al. (2018).
Notes : The figure shows the marginal effect of serving on the UN Security Council while voting all the time with the US on IMF loan size for different levels of political proximity to the US (in concert with the 90% confidence interval). The histogram shows the distribution of political proximity to the US among aid-eligible countries, measured as voting alignment in the UN General Assembly.

It may be no surprise to find that powerful countries would be willing to buy influence. Realpolitikhowever, has required different channels for different countries. We see that the practice of buying influence around the world, while perhaps crude, has been nuanced and finessed by obscuring the funding sources. The US may have openly funded its allies, but it hid similar favours to less friendly states. Ironically, the international institutions that the US used for this obfuscation are the same institutions that the Trump administration is currently weakening in its attempt to put American interests first.

See original post for references

Kasia , November 24, 2018 at 6:27 am

Ironically, the international institutions that the US used for this obfuscation are the same institutions that the Trump administration is currently weakening in its attempt to put American interests first.

Never listen to what a politician says but instead concentrate like a laser on what he does. Trump talks a good nationalist game but what about his actions? Is he undermining the US-led international imperial order? Once again, this article is evidence that he is indeed walking the walk. What's always amusing is opponents of the US Empire on the good-thinking left are in fact quite clueless about how to dismantle it. They concentrate of the immorality of it all. But in reality the concept of nationalism, which is for the most part verboten to the left, is the very ideology required to fight Empire. Which is why bad-thinking right wingers like Trump are the only ones that will ever succeed in undermining and destroying the US Empire. There is nothing ironic about it.

So Trump's blatant call for "allies" to vote with the US or face an aid cut-off was only tactically aimed at influencing the poor countries on the Security Counsel. It's strategic goal was to undermine the whole moral legitimacy of the UN by making it blatant that poor country votes are on sale for international aid gimmedats.

disillusionized , November 24, 2018 at 10:24 am

That is indeed the question posed by Trump – Is the US an Empire, or a Nation.

Synoia , November 24, 2018 at 11:24 am

It is an empire. The last remaining19th century empire.

Consider its scope: The reserve currencyof the world. Control of vassel stayes, by sanctions, reward of stayes with aid, actually bribes, and with secret police and armed might in a majoroty of counyries.

JEHR , November 24, 2018 at 11:35 am

And so we see the truth: corruption is everywhere in the world and wealth and corruption flourish together.

David , November 24, 2018 at 11:58 am

Um, it might have helped if the authors had spoken to somebody who knew how the Security Council worked. Most SC resolutions are uncontentious, and a lot of effort goes into agreeing compromise texts. There is seldom a "US position" as such. Far from attempts to influence other nations being hidden, they are usually semi-public, with delegations lobbying for their language, or their position on a particular paragraph. The cases mentioned are extreme ones: most resolutions are fairly well supported from the beginning, if the Secretary General and the P3 are together. There are certainly egregious cases – the 2002 /3 Iraq saga is the best known – but they are quite rare, and in general resolutions are agreed by consensus. The cases you hear about (Syria, Palestine) are precisely those where the system fails to work. Incidentally, Clinton's visit to Togo can't really be held against her: it's standard practice for permanent members to have consultations with non-permanent ones, and her staff would have been incompetent not to have suggested it.

[Nov 23, 2018] Kunstler Exposes The Core Truth Of The 2016 Russia Collusion Story

Notable quotes:
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Nov 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kunstler Exposes "The Core Truth" Of The 2016 Russia Collusion Story

by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/23/2018 - 15:25 23 SHARES Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com, Holiday Doings And Undoings

Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good enough.

The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.

Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance, if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless money.

On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that "diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.

Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia, the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016 contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.

There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.

XWeatherman , 40 seconds ago link

It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller "investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case, etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few "protesters".

Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S. industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.

Hapa , 5 minutes ago link

Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole thing crumble. It's built that way.

Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other side.

I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.

SantaClaws , 6 minutes ago link

Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery is always one day at a time.

VWAndy , 7 minutes ago link

Did the Clintons go on a world tour like some kinda rockstars selling us all out?

An nobody said ****!

He–Mene Mox Mox , 14 minutes ago link

" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.

MarsInScorpio , 1 minute ago link

OK.let's try this for speculative prediction:

Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him. And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.

Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.

There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo chairs and members will be part of the investigation.

"Yes Virginia, Hillary is going to prison . . .:"

navy62802 , 34 minutes ago link

Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion" has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.

The Merovingian , 34 minutes ago link

There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all fucked.

Jim in MN , 13 minutes ago link

Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all analyzed in one weekend.

Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.

Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?

What the serious ****.

If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out of court anyway.

Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.

For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.

chippers , 40 minutes ago link

This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.

chunga , 12 minutes ago link

I'd like to give a shout out to the "opposition" red team that has sat by and done nothing for more than 30 years.

And for you dopes in Rio Linda, that doesn't mean I'd rather have Honest Hill'rey, for crying out loud.

Bricker , 41 minutes ago link

Theres only one truth...Hillary and Co (CIA) colluded to bring down Trump and Trump kicked the **** out of her.

If we had a true republic, Hillary, Holder, Lynch, Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Lerner would all be under indictment. I mean the ******* list is long

pissonmefico , 19 minutes ago link

If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.

The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides, and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.

navy62802 , 28 minutes ago link

For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.

Teamtc321 , 24 minutes ago link

Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.

[Nov 23, 2018] Obama's actual true legacy, said Hudson, was Trump

Nov 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved , Nov 23, 2018 10:40:11 AM | link

< @72 Russ>

Maybe. But I think for Obama this would fall under "falsely identifying as true someone who was already corrupted". What I get from people who have studied Gabbard is that she hasn't yet fallen, and - conceivably - may not fall.

Russ , Nov 23, 2018 11:13:44 AM | link

@Grieved | Nov 23, 2018 10:47:49 AM | 76

"So Obama's actual true legacy, said Hudson, was Trump."

Exactly right, as Hudson usually is. Trump is the logical culmination to date of the entire trend of the last 30 years of US politics: Post-Cold War, escalated neoliberalism, full knowledge and consensus denial (albeit in different conservative and liberal flavors) of climate change. Trump is both the culmination thus far and firmly within the same unvarying trend.

Russ , Nov 23, 2018 11:13:44 AM | link
@Grieved | Nov 23, 2018 10:47:49 AM | 76

"So Obama's actual true legacy, said Hudson, was Trump."

Exactly right, as Hudson usually is. Trump is the logical culmination to date of the entire trend of the last 30 years of US politics: Post-Cold War, escalated neoliberalism, full knowledge and consensus denial (albeit in different conservative and liberal flavors) of climate change. Trump is both the culmination thus far and firmly within the same unvarying trend.

[Nov 23, 2018] Trump's Blatant Lies About the War on Yemen by Daniel Larison

The USA is involved in Middle East because as Carter doctrine states access to the Mideast oil is essential for the USA economy. Israel serves a role of the US proxy helping Washington to achieve its goals in the region (which correlate with Israeli dream ob dominating the Middle East and territorial expansion at the expense of Pelestinians and Arab neighbors, such as Syria ), not vise versa.
Trump foreign policy is essentially continuation of Bush II policy. He, like Obama, betrayed his voters from the very beginning.
Notable quotes:
"... I think the thing that made yesterday's statement more obnoxious than usual was the blatant lying to cover for that policy and the obvious enthusiasm for the relationship with Saudi war criminals. Blaming Iran for a war that they have almost nothing to do with when our government has enabled Saudi and Emirati invasion and occupation of another country for more than three and a half years is a hideous warping of reality that used to be called Orwellian before the president made it a regular staple of our news diet. ..."
"... Both the tenor and content of Trump's message (complete with multiple exclamation points) suggested that he thought it was something worth boasting about: look at all the blood money that I am bringing in! ..."
"... Like Pompeo's bogus certification that the Saudi coalition was making an effort to reduce civilian casualties when they clearly weren't, Trump's claims about the war on Yemen were lies and insults to the intelligence of every minimally informed person in the world. ..."
"... It's unlikely that GOP congressmen will get too worked up about it, particularly since they just had their asses handed to them in part for spending too much time doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia donors instead of working for the American people. ..."
Nov 23, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

TAC 's editor Jim Antle says the right things about the president's abysmal pro-Saudi declaration :

An America First administration should unambiguously side with a legal resident of the United States against a foreign government. Such an administration should also strive to keep America out of other countries' wars.

Journalists in particular are rightly outraged by the tone and substance of Trump's statement on Khashoggi. Let's not forget to direct some of that outrage toward what he said -- and what our government does -- about Yemen too.

Our Yemen policy is despicable and indefensible, as I have said many times, and it is more than enough cause for outrage by itself, but I think the thing that made yesterday's statement more obnoxious than usual was the blatant lying to cover for that policy and the obvious enthusiasm for the relationship with Saudi war criminals. Blaming Iran for a war that they have almost nothing to do with when our government has enabled Saudi and Emirati invasion and occupation of another country for more than three and a half years is a hideous warping of reality that used to be called Orwellian before the president made it a regular staple of our news diet. Most Americans might understand that the U.S. sometimes has to work with awful regimes when necessary, but there aren't very many that are positively excited about the prospect of arming people that massacre schoolchildren and blow up weddings.

Americans understand that the U.S. sells weapons to several unsavory regimes that it calls "allies," but I suspect there aren't many that think this is something to be celebrating and defending. Both the tenor and content of Trump's message (complete with multiple exclamation points) suggested that he thought it was something worth boasting about: look at all the blood money that I am bringing in! Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a shameful one and one that urgently needs to be reassessed and radically changed, but Trump was eager to show that he is incapable of shame and won't do anything that might offend Riyadh.

Like Pompeo's bogus certification that the Saudi coalition was making an effort to reduce civilian casualties when they clearly weren't, Trump's claims about the war on Yemen were lies and insults to the intelligence of every minimally informed person in the world. Coming on the heels of the House GOP leadership's torpedoing of H.Con.Res. 138, the statement was a slap in the face to everyone that has worked to bring an end to the illegal, unauthorized involvement of the U.S in this war. The good news is that Trump's shameless endorsement of Saudi Arabia was so excessive that is is already energizing bipartisan opposition to the war on Yemen and future arms sales, and it has given critics of the U.S.-Saudi relationship every reason to dig into the president's connections to the kingdom.

in general November 21, 2018 at 10:17 am

Getting involved in the Middle East was the worst foreign policy mistake America ever made. The pundits, corrupt officials and politicians, and then the terror attacks that dragged us into open wars there.

The incompetents and treacherous foreign operators who pushed us into this should be hanging from lamp posts. Instead they're back in government, holding forth on television, scribbling new idiocies in op-ed pages, or corrupting young people in Ivy League schools.

Nauseating. It makes one yearn for a few years of real populism, real justice, making those responsible pay for what they did.

Stephen J. , says: November 21, 2018 at 12:49 pm
Yemen is a human slaughterhouse perpetrated by unfeeling war criminals that need to be arrested and put on trial for their evil crimes against humanity. It is also a sign of how our supposed "democratic societies" have descended into outright gangsterism when we supply the weapons for the carnage committed. Trump and the other monsters that support this hell on earth, I believe are totally evil.
Presriptive , says: November 21, 2018 at 7:14 pm
@in general – "Getting involved in the Middle East was the worst foreign policy mistake America ever made. "

@Stepehn J. – "how our supposed "democratic societies" have descended into outright gangsterism when we supply the weapons for the carnage committed. Trump and the other monsters that support this hell on earth, I believe are totally evil."

Hear, hear.

Part of the reason our bad decision to get involved in the Middle East had such evil effects was because we made friends with evil regimes. As conservatives we defer to tradition as a source of wisdom and truth. Consider then that nearly every traditional word in the Western vocabulary for the Middle East carries with it the stink of deception, lying, torture, perversion, decadence, sadism, and corruption.

Stupidly, we let foreign lobbies push us into that region. We lay down with dogs, we now feel dirty, stupid, ripped off and used, and we notice that our own leaders act more and more like the scum that run our "no daylight" friends over there.

Big surprise.

We need to get out. Yes, we have much to atone for, and eventually we may have to pay for what these criminals did in our name, but in the mean time the best thing we can do is just get out.

G Street , says: November 22, 2018 at 3:46 am
Lies about the Middle East seem to be the only item on the menu these days. The latest from that weird Washington paper called the "Free Beacon" is disseminating more Israeli disinformation on Iran, replete with unnamed sources, the usual crap, apparently intending to make Trump's Iran sanctions still harsher by creating an illusion of congressional momentum in that direction.

It's unlikely that GOP congressmen will get too worked up about it, particularly since they just had their asses handed to them in part for spending too much time doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia donors instead of working for the American people. On the other hand, it looks like they're now once again carrying water for Saudi Arabia instead of working for the American people, doesn't it? And putting Americans in danger of terror attacks by the relatives of the innocent civilians and children that the Saudis are killing.

[Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

Highly recommended!
Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

geokat62 , says: November 21, 2018 at 3:27 am GMT

@jilles dykstra

How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.

This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in 2001?

His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some totally obscure Jewish activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. If that doesn't qualify him as an "insider," I don't know what does.

Excerpts from The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy :

Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly. We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario, the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.

Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms us.

All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no melting pot!

For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans, Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.

Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Jewish legislative representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S. Senates with 10 Jewish members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will go to Israel?

https://cis.org/Report/Jewish-Stake-Americas-Changing-Demography

[Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA. ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

geokat62 , says: November 21, 2018 at 3:27 am GMT

@jilles dykstra

How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.

This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in 2001?

His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him as an "insider," I don't know what does.

Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy :

Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly. We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario, the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.

Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms us.

All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no melting pot!

For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans, Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.

Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S. Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will go to Israel?

https://cis.org/Report/ Zionist-Stake-Americas-Changing-Demography

jilles dykstra , says: November 21, 2018 at 10:49 am GMT

@geokat62

If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know. What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.

Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'. That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see this. About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that western power is diminishing.

So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing too. NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.

While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.

The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.

[Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

Highly recommended!
Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

geokat62 , says: November 21, 2018 at 3:27 am GMT

@jilles dykstra

How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.

This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in 2001?

His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some totally obscure Jewish activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. If that doesn't qualify him as an "insider," I don't know what does.

Excerpts from The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy :

Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly. We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario, the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.

Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms us.

All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no melting pot!

For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans, Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.

Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Jewish legislative representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S. Senates with 10 Jewish members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will go to Israel?

https://cis.org/Report/Jewish-Stake-Americas-Changing-Demography

[Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA. ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

geokat62 , says: November 21, 2018 at 3:27 am GMT

@jilles dykstra

How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.

This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in 2001?

His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him as an "insider," I don't know what does.

Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy :

Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly. We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario, the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.

Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms us.

All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no melting pot!

For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans, Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.

Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S. Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will go to Israel?

https://cis.org/Report/ Zionist-Stake-Americas-Changing-Demography

jilles dykstra , says: November 21, 2018 at 10:49 am GMT

@geokat62

If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know. What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.

Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'. That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see this. About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that western power is diminishing.

So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing too. NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.

While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.

The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.

[Nov 22, 2018] Comey knows where all the skeletons are buried

Nov 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

To Hell In A Handbasket , 19 minutes ago link

Comey knows where all the skeletons are buried and has nothing to fear, apart from a stitch-up behind closed doors hanging, where nobody gets to see. We all know Comey is a Deep State puppet. This hearing is all for show, to give the dunces the illusion of a functioning dumbocracy.

Oldwood , 8 minutes ago link

Pretty rich that he's worried about leaks....but then again, he would know.

He is damned worried about private testimony as doing so would open him up to suspicion from guilty parties concerned he might rat them out to save his hide.

Select leaks, even if untrue (fake news turned against them) could bring great pressure upon his life.

DoctorFix , 24 minutes ago link

More than willing to silently do his dirt in the dark. Now? Just grandstanding and attempting to play the victim.

[Nov 22, 2018] Comey Subpoenaed, Demands Public Testimony

Nov 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Former FBI Director James Comey announced over Twitter on Thursday that he has been subpoenaed by House Republicans.

He has demanded a public testimony (during which legislators would be unable to ask him questions pertaining to classified or sensitive information), saying that he doesn't trust the committee not to leak and distort what he says.

"Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans," he tweeted " I'm still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a "closed door" thing because I've seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion . Let's have a hearing and invite everyone to see." In October Comey rejected a request by the House Judiciary Committee to appear at a closed hearing as part of the GOP probe into allegations of political bias at the FBI and Department of Justice, according to Politico .

"Mr. Comey respectfully declines your request for a private interview," said Comey's attorney, David Kelly, in a repsonse to the request.

The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) didn't appreciate Comey's response.

" We have invited Mr. Comey to come in for a transcribed interview and we are prepared to issue a subpoena to compel his appearance ," said a committee aide.

Goodlatte invited Comey to testify as part of a last-minute flurry of requests for high-profile Obama administration FBI and Justice Department leaders, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. He threatened to subpoena them if they didn't come in voluntarily. - Politico

The House committee has been investigating whether overwhelming anti-Trump bias with in the FBI and Department of Justice translated to their investigations of the President during and after the 2016 US election.

Smilygladhands , 28 seconds ago link

I wasn't aware subpoenaed people get to dictate the terms

Never One Roach , 5 minutes ago link

Behind closed doors so he does not use his old worn out answer of, "I cannot say it in public."

Subpoena him and if necessary, arrest him. A few months in prison might help him cooperate more.

LotUnsold , 9 minutes ago link

Didn't Gowdy deal with this already? "When did the FBI conduct an interview limited to 5 minutes?" "When did the FBI ever conduct an interview in public?" And the rest. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

(I happen to think Gowdy is compromised, but the points remain.)

Stormblessed , 6 minutes ago link

Gowdy is deep state, and Comey still thinks he's in charge. This could be interesting.

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 10 minutes ago link

Jesus Christ.

Issue the closed door subpoena. If he ignores it, Congress has the power to arrest. The Executive may assist.

Completely Constitutional.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/04/why-congress-has-the-power-to-make-arrests.html

Totally_Disillusioned , 13 minutes ago link

The crook knows a public hearing will allow him to defer answering EVERY question because it "involves a current investigation", "it's classified", "I don't recall" and every other dodge under the sun. Put this creep away for good!

Teeter , 13 minutes ago link

Comey knows he can't withstand real questioning. He will be forced to take the 5th. A lot of desperation showing here. He won't show and time will run out on the House, so Lindsay Graham needs to take up the cause.

Xena fobe , 15 minutes ago link

Why does he get to negotiate the terms? Subpoenas are mandatory.

Totally_Disillusioned , 12 minutes ago link

He's negotiating with himself via MSM. He's relying on telling the lie over and over enough times to make it the truth.

[Nov 22, 2018] In Poland, Nato military drills brace against the unspoken threat of Putin

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 18, 2018 at 10:37 am

The "Long Read" in yesterday's not so independent "Independent" [paywall]:

In Poland, Nato military drills brace against the unspoken threat of Putin
Russian aggression along Europe's eastern border has Nato ramping up training efforts in anticipation of all manner of warfare – from cyber to chemical. William Cook experiences Poland's biggest Nato operation first hand

Smoke billows across the battlefield, obscuring the armoured cars ahead of us. A Polish soldier keels over, then another, and then another. Military hardware is no use here – this is a chemical attack. Army ambulances race through the acrid fog to evacuate the casualties. If you'd arrived here unawares, you'd never know this was just a drill – it all feels frighteningly real. Welcome to Drawsko Pomorskie, the biggest military training ground in Europe. And welcome to Anakonda 18, Poland's biggest Nato exercise.

Anakonda 18 features 17,500 soldiers from 10 Nato members: 12,500 here in Poland, plus 5,000 more in parallel exercises in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It's no surprise that these military exercises are happening here. This is the site of Nato's "Enhanced Forward Presence": four combat-ready battlegroups, stationed in these four eastern European countries, supporting the defence forces of each of these countries with over 4,000 foreign troops. The multinational makeup of these battlegroups underlines the significance of Article 5 of Nato's founding treaty, which states that an armed attack against one of its members constitutes an attack against them all.

I'd tagged along on a couple of these Nato exercises before, and though no two are alike, one thing never changes: nobody mentions Vladimir Putin, but his malign influence is everywhere. "Nato exercises are not directed against any country," reads the disclaimer in my Nato press pack. "They are based on fictitious scenarios with fictitious adversaries." Yet Putin is omnipresent, the ghost at every feast. A few years ago, he boasted that Russian troops could be in five Nato capitals in two days. He was too coy to name them, but you can be sure they included the capitals of Poland and the Baltic states.

However, the Russian threat isn't confined to conventional warfare, and Anakonda 18 bears this out. Putin's invasion of Crimea was overt, but Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine have been more enigmatic – non-uniformed insurgents operating as so-called "freedom fighters", what commentators in the Baltic states call "little green men".

Today's drill is preparation for this sort of threat: an improvised assault by covert operatives using poison gas made from stolen fertilizer. Ukraine isn't a Nato member, so Russia could occupy Crimea safe in the knowledge that Nato wouldn't be compelled to retaliate. Here on Nato's eastern flank, Putin needs to be more canny. For Poland, Article 5 is a powerful insurance policy – but like the cyberwar that Russia has waged so successfully in the Baltic states, there are many ways to destabilise a nation without making an "armed attack".

And on and on it goes in like manner

Russia currently has soldiers in three countries – Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – without the consent of their governments .

Russian aggression along Europe's eastern border has given Nato a much-needed wake-up call

Next year it'll be 20 years since Poland joined Nato, a real cause for celebration, but as I headed for home it was the sober, sombre words of Anakonda 18's exercise commander, Major General Tomasz Piotrowski, which stayed with me. He explained the purpose of the exercise with the studied neutrality of the career soldier ("hybrid threats emerging along the eastern flank of Nato and, of course, activation of Article 5 to conduct high intensity warfare") but when I asked him about the background to this exercise, his comments were more stark. He talked about cyber-attacks against Estonia, open warfare in Georgia and instability in eastern Ukraine. He didn't mention Russia – he didn't need to. Everyone at this press conference knew the name of the elephant in the room. As Nato's press office always points out, Nato exercises are based on fictitious scenarios with fictitious adversaries. Here's hoping these exercises are sufficient preparation if that fiction ever becomes fact.

One comment so far:

The American journalist Paul Jay described, in an interview, meeting representatives of western arms firms at the 2012 Munich security conference; although NATO, in breach of undertakings given to Michael Gorbachov, that had expanded eastwards to Russia's borders, they were in despair. Arms sales were still declining. Shortly afterwards, as boasted by Victoria Nuland, the US spent four billion dollars 'influencing' Ukraine, leading to the Maidan protests, the coup and a new government whose Prime Minister Nuland is on (audio) record as having chosen. At least three new ministers were from the neo-fascist far right. This led to protests and occupations, particularly in the east; the new far-right government quickly sent armed troops to quell civil disturbances, leading to civil war.

The EU fact-finding mission on the conflict between Georgia and Russia (suppression of local indigenous minority, suppression of local language, closure of native-language schools, attacks on civilians, invasion of the territory and murder of UN-mandated Russian peace-keeping troops) concluded that Georgia (led by Saakashvili) was to blame.

The far-right, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and Georgia, with support from NATO and the American government, is on the march again in Eastern Europe. These countries suppress languages other than their own, and continue to deny citizenship to tens of millions of Russian-speakers who have lived in these countries for generations.

This article ignores these inconvenient facts. Russia has not created this new cold war. Printing propaganda pieces for NATO and the big arms companies is not an appropriate role for an 'independent' newspaper.

Clearyl mailed from Savushkina Street!

kirill November 18, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The lunatics in NATzO are planning a war on Russia. That is why they are buttering up the sheeple with transparent rubbish propaganda pieces. For some reason these lunatics believe they will win the war. For the last 1000 years this has been a standard feature of western decision making. But in every case they lose. Russia is much more prepared to take on NATzO today than the USSR was prepared to take on the Nazis in 1940. In fact, in the nuclear missile era, NATzO has no advantage over Russia whatsoever. There is no "blitzkrieg" that NATzO could launch. It would be "blitzkrieg"ed in return.

But what I say is considered delusional inanity by YouTube snot nosed "experts". So perhaps it is not surprising that the NATzO elites think the same way. Apples don't fall far from trees.

[Nov 22, 2018] Anyone thinking WWIII is winnable is certifiably insane

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill November 20, 2018 at 5:52 am

https://russia-insider.com/en/bipartisan-panel-us-must-prepare-horrendous-devastating-war-russia-and-china/ri25414a

F*cking nutjobs. Anyone thinking such a war is tractable is certifiably insane.

Northern Star November 20, 2018 at 4:02 pm
"The most ominous US move is the recent decision to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with the former Soviet Union, which frees the Pentagon to build up a new arsenal of short and medium-range nuclear missiles that will be targeted primarily at China. The Pentagon's previous AirSea Battle strategy for war with China, involving a massive conventional air and missile attack on the Chinese mainland from nearby bases, is now being supplemented or replaced by plans for a devastating nuclear attack.

The Trump administration is setting course for a catastrophic war with China that will inevitably involve the deaths of many millions, if not billions, of people. In founding the Fourth International in 1938, on the eve of World War II, Leon Trotsky warned that humanity faced only two alternatives: either socialism or barbarism. A new revolutionary International, opposed to the treacherous Social Democratic and Stalinist leaderships, was needed to mobilise and unite workers around the world to abolish capitalism and its outmoded division of the world into rival nation states."

"Putin said on November 19 that Russia responded to the U.S. move by developing new weapons that he said were capable of piercing any prospective missile shield. The Russian leader had previously warned that the U.S. plan to withdraw from the INF Treaty could lead to a new "arms race."

Read more on UNIAN:
https://www.unian.info/world/10343919-putin-mulls-russia-retaliation-if-u-s-quits-inf-treaty-media.html

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/11/20/pers-n20.html

A USA nuclear first strike on China would have to guarantee eliminating almost 100% of China's offensive nuclear delivery capabilities Including Chinese SSBNs. However as the following article indicates, China's land based ballistic missile force including mobile launch systems is already deployed throughout the vast Chinese interior in (possibly shifting) locations that are far from trivial to detect and neutralize. Furthermore, 'You close to me then me close to you'.

The missile flight time FROM China to Japan or Australia is how the encirclement door swings both ways.

https://chinapower.csis.org/ssbn/

Mark Chapman November 20, 2018 at 5:40 pm
Not to mention that Russia need only announce it is selling its new technology to China. America is maneuvering itself into a place where it cannot be confident any of its weapons will reach their targets, while there is a strong possibility a retaliatory counter-strike would kill millions of Americans.
Mark Chapman November 20, 2018 at 7:23 pm
The seabed section of Turkish Stream is complete; the last pipe was laid in place with mutual direction from Putin and Erdogan. All that remains now is completion of the land section in Turkey, pressure-testing and cleanup, and then Turkish Stream is ready to deliver gas.

This won't last long, did it?

Cortes November 21, 2018 at 12:17 am
I had a couple of close encounters with mind-blowing pieces of equipment some years back when doing technical translation work – all the more interesting since I can barely change a fuse. The gigantic pipe laying ?barge seems inadequate – is awesome. Thanks for that video.

[Nov 22, 2018] Russia and ECHR

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

cartman November 16, 2018 at 1:03 pm

I think there's about three years left before the rest of the terms expire for all the judges Russia elected (including the one from Russia).

I have no idea if the government actually values the ECHR, but they have a free excuse to leave if they desire. This is a court with elected judges, and Russia's participation in it is already cut off.

Mark Chapman November 16, 2018 at 1:15 pm
I think Russia remains a participant in international institutions, despite how it is treated, in the hope that the current madness will pass and things will go back to some approximation of the way they were instead of this constant agitation for war. It's hard to walk away from organizations which took decades if not centuries to build, because once the door closes on you, you won't be asked back. The west recognizes its mistake in ever letting Russia participate on an equal basis, and if it could ever get rid of the Russian permanent-member UN veto, Washington at least would be over the moon with pleasure. The Russian veto has prevented several opportunities for the USA to rampage and smash and regime-change as it loves to do, and once that restriction was gone it could re-order the world to its heart's content. If Russia left voluntarily, the most it would ever be granted again would be observer status.

[Nov 22, 2018] Bloomberg: Here's One Measure That Shows Sanctions on Russia are Working

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al November 19, 2018 at 7:15 am

Bloomturd: Here's One Measure That Shows Sanctions on Russia are Working
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-16/here-s-one-measure-that-shows-sanctions-on-russia-are-working

Sanctions may have knocked as much as 6 percent off Russia's economy over the past four years and the drag isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

A new study by Bloomberg Economics has found that the economy of the world's biggest energy exporter is more than 10 percent smaller compared with what might have been expected at the end of 2013, before the Crimea crisis triggered wave after wave of restrictions by the U.S. and EU. While some of the blame falls on the slump in oil prices, sanctions are the bigger culprit .

"The underperformance has been much bigger than crude alone can explain," wrote Scott Johnson, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics in London. "Part of the gap is likely to reflect the enduring impact of sanctions both imposed and threatened over the last five years."..

They admit that part of the 6 percent gap could be attributed to other shocks, such as the introduction of inflation targeting and a sell-off in emerging markets
####

More anal-cysts at the link & my extra emphasis not to mention more qualifiers in the article too boot.

Timely 'proof' that USA still runs the world and can punish people? Hardly a surprise but they could have also pointed to not so great EU economic performance and its effect, but what would be the point in that? Is it a) keep the sanction up and Russia will collapse/change its foreign policy etc.? b) no need for more far reaching sanctions that could lead to Boeing/ULA being stranded etc.? c) filler and fluff? d) Bloomturd shilling for business after their Supermicro debacle?

Again, what's the point? What's it trying to prove?

If anything, de-dollarization and accelerating ties with the growing Asia-Pacific region is very good for Russia, even if there is some initial short term pain inflicted by others. If I do have a problem with Russia, it is that it seems to be cautious and then reactionary by nature – or is this more institutionally safe behavior?

kirill November 19, 2018 at 7:39 am
I smell GDP growth shenanigans at GKS. Hellevig had a piece earlier that debunked the claim of a 1.3% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2018 and estimated that it was closer to 6%. He was a bit too optimistic but the point is that 1.5% annual GDP growth (roughly 6%/4years) is falling through the cracks and likely deliberately.

I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence. The CIA was not doing a good job estimating the Russian GDP, so Putin could fake the numbers and NATzO triumphalists would lap them up with glee. I think this policy was smart and actually worked. That is why in 2014 Obama was certain the Russia's economy would collapse from the sanctions. Read the articles in the NATzO MSM from 2014 and even through 2017 which assumed that massive damage to Russia's economy was a given.

By keeping NATzO ignorant of Russia's actual potential, it could re-arm and regroup in peace. I think it would have been bad for Russia if the events of 2014 happened in 2004. In 2004, the Russian defense industry physical plant was still in sad shape and collapsing. This condition was basically rectified by 2014. And Russia was also able to deploy its new hypersonic wunderwaffen. Anyone who thinks such machinations are tin foil hat nonsense does not know the history leading up to WWII. The USSR managed to delay the attack of the Nazis by 2 years which allowed it to increase its military potential by 40% and to move defense factories to the Urals.

Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently obvious that they are not. This is ***physically*** apparent in Russia as import substitution occurs on a massive scale. Since every dollar imports saved amounts to two dollars of domestic production (one for local production and one for not exporting the dollar and incurring a negative GDP accounting penalty) Russia's GDP growth should be over 4%. But you would think that nothing was happening in terms of import substitution and that Russia's economy was running cool and near recession. The employment statistics show that this is not the reality. If the economy was near stagnation, the unemployment rate would go up. Low unemployment occurs when the economy runs hot.

The way that Russia's GDP statistics are skewed is through the official CPI and PPI. Nabiullina at the CBR claims that Russia is has serious inflationary instability. That is why the prime rate is over three times the actual CPI (7.5% vs 2.3%). I have posted before why there is no evidence of 1970s style South American inflation in Russia given the extremely short lived inflation spike after the late 2014 ruble forex devaluation; the spike was force-damped and did not have any recurring peaks after the initial one. Under real inflationary conditions a 7.5% prime rate would do didley squat and, in fact, there is no magic prime rate that controls the inflation. If it is set too high, the inflation actually increases. Also, if Russia's economy was running cool there would not be any need for a 7.5% rate since it would push the economy into a recession. So reality indicates that Russia's economy is actually running hot and this has some inflationary pressure but also means that 1.3% GDP growth numbers are BS.

et Al November 19, 2018 at 8:22 am
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently obvious that they are not.

I suspect that he is not the only one. There's a whole host of other sanctions that the West has studiously avoided putting on Russia because of the damage that would be done to itself, not to mention that it would always like to have a few extra sanctions to dangle publicly/privately or both at will.

Vis the Bloomturd report, do they expect someone to pay for it? When you click on the link to the 'report' you get:

The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service subscribers.

The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service subscribers.
####

Uh-huh. Who exactly is their target audience again?

Eric November 20, 2018 at 5:02 pm
"I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence."

Well, you could be right with this , Kirill.

Belarus, Armenia ( near 10%) and Kyrgyzstan( countries with economies interlinked heavily with Russia's of course) all had very strong growth in their economies in the last year. Russia as the mother economy for those countries would be expected to have a lesser but still significant growth figures like 3-4%.
Other things like improved health and rapidly improving crime statistics in Russia, plus public spending could further support your theory ( nearly 60 trillion roubles for the next 3 years is allocated). On the other hand salaries going up is what is needed to substantiate your theory.

kirill November 20, 2018 at 5:28 pm
Salaries are determined by what the market perceives. If the Russian government and CBR are spreading a fake image of Russia's economic health, then that will have negative consequences. The choice is between those negative consequences and the neo-Reich lunatics who are openly baying for war on Russia.
davidt November 19, 2018 at 4:45 pm
GNP is undoubtedly a fairly crude indicator of the health of an economy- I am a little surprised that both GNP and the size of FIRE are not routinely published. Here is an interesting bar graph giving some detail as to how the Russian economy managed in 2015-2016

People like Andrei Martyanov (smoothieX12) argue that the (real) US economy is much smaller than customarily claimed, whilst the Russian economy is much larger. I have copied the above graph from a comment by smoothieX12 to his article
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/11/it-begins-to-sink-finally-but-too-late.html
Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 6:04 pm
Interesting. I would have thought there was much more growth in Russian agriculture than that, but maybe some of the self-sufficiency efforts are still in their early stages, or perhaps domestic sales are harder to track for effect. Anyway, it puts paid to the nonsense that American sanctions are crushing the Russian economy.

[Nov 22, 2018] This calls to mind Russia's deal with Iran, in which Russia will trade food, medicines and what necessities Iran desires but which American-imposed sanctions make difficult to obtain, for Iranian oil and gas which Russia will use domestically.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman November 18, 2018 at 5:59 pm

This calls to mind Russia's deal with Iran, in which Russia will trade food, medicines and what necessities Iran desires but which American-imposed sanctions make difficult to obtain, for Iranian oil and gas which Russia will use domestically. Countries are reverting to the barter system to nullify US sanctions in a way that does not use currency flow the USA might try to interdict or confiscate. No actual money changes hands, so America can snoop on SWIFT to its heart's content without seeing evidence of promising targets. Striking, too, is the prevalence of real sympathy for Iran and an evident desire to help it with its problems. The USA has apparently bitten off more than it can chew here, and several nations are openly flouting its rules. If America cannot think of a way to come down hard on them, their example may become contagious.

[Nov 22, 2018] Norway and Finland have accused Russia of causing GPS malfunction that ocurred during the latest NATO arsing around close to Russian frontiers

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 15, 2018 at 12:32 am

Norway and Finland have accused Russia of causing GPS malfunction that ocurred during the latest NATO arsing around close to Russian frontiers.

No evidence given, mind.

"Norway has determined that Russia was responsible for jamming GPS signals in the Kola Peninsula" said a Nato spokesman.

Then the Norwegian Ministry of Defence stated that had traced the source of jamming that ocurred in Norway and Finnish Lapland "to a Russian military base on the Kola Peninsula".

So then the Finnish prime minister joined in with the condemnation, whilst at the same time conceding that the Norwegian authorities were unlikely to present any proof, saying that there still was "every reason to trust them",

It's that old "very likely" mantra again! Loud accusations and nothing to back up the accusations.

I wonder when former Secretary of State for the USA Kerry is going to present evidence that he uneqivocally stated the US had as regards the persons who were responsible for downing MH-17.

He started shouting his mouth off about this before the bodies of those who died as a result of that tragedy were even stiff.

Mark Chapman November 15, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Quite a bit like that stranded Russian secret submarine in Swedish waters, which was sending distress signals that the Swedes or somebody in that neck of the woods was picking up. A great burst of alarms and outcries, no proof, nothing shown to the public, silence and then forgetting. It'll be the same this time; it has become fashionable in western circles to accuse Russia of all manner of aggression, and brings approval from Washington and Brussels. Hopefully Russia has a longer memory.

I wonder if they will tie the collision of the Norwegian frigate with the tanker to GPS jamming – they didn't know where they were, poor dears. But warships use a gyro to navigate, not GPS. Still, fortune favours the bold.

Jen November 15, 2018 at 5:11 pm
The frigate Helge Ingstad and the oil tanker Sola collided near Bergen which, if I am not mistaken, has to be at least 2,300 km away from the Kola Peninsula and any Russian military bases there.

Apparently the last message of the frigate to the oil tanker was this (it's in the link to the article on the collision):
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24828/norwegian-frigate-to-oil-tanker-before-collision-we-have-everything-under-control

Somebody should have told the captain and the navigator to look up and out the window.

Mark Chapman November 15, 2018 at 5:33 pm
Yes; Russian GPS jamming in this incident is beyond unlikely. I'm just being sarcastic. Like I said, it has become fashionable to blame Russia for everything bad that happens, no matter how preposterous the case.

There's a captain who is all finished in the navy, even if he/she doesn't go to jail for incompetence. Responsibility stops with the Captain no matter what happens because he is responsible overall for everything that happens in his ship, but in a congested waterway with limited maneuverability, he would be on the bridge and in command. There will be no sloughing it off on a junior officer. And the part about turning on their AIS after the collision just makes it look like they were trying to cover up. What a disaster.

Incidentally, if anyone was wondering why so little has been mentioned about the crew and suspected some political dimension – congratulations. Four of five navigators aboard Helge Ingstad were women, and the Norwegian Armed Forces had barely gotten done championing her as a stake in the heart of the patriarchy. Jeez; we just can't get away from it, can we?

In the Norwegian magazine, Armed Forces Forum No. 2 in 2017 it was stated that "Four out of five navigators on frigate KNM Helge Ingstad are women".

"It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a natural thing and a completely different environment, which I look at as positive," Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge Ingstad, according to Defense Forum. In yet another politically correct nod, the text notes that: "The Navy receives a much higher number of women after general conscription duty was introduced. Therefore, more women are also more motivated for further career opportunities in the Armed Forces."

"There has always been a perception that the Armed Forces are characterized by a very masculine environment, and in many ways it is true. It is mostly men in the Armed Forces, but it is important for me to show that you do not have to be 'one of the guys' to assume a role in the Armed Forces. Finding one's place should not be at the expense of being a woman," said Ophus.

When more women are able to work together, it becomes easier to discover and to create a more balanced defense, the Armed Forces Forum opined. "It is important that the integration of women should work in every aspect: from officers and constables, to people," Ophus said, adding: "The most important thing for me is that my job makes sense because you work for something bigger than yourself."

In the same magazine where the Norwegians boast about gender equality in their Navy, they also explained that they are looking into every department of their Armed Forces to apply the same formula.

Gender would have had nothing to do with this accident; a woman can fuck up just as easily as a man and no more. But all that bunk about it being 'important to be a woman, and not acting like one of the guys to find one's place aboard' is just that – bunk. On board you are just a sailor and you have a job to do that does not require you to showcase your womanhood. Similarly, 'having a lot of women on board' is no more 'advantageous' than having a lot of men. All that politically-correct bullshit looks very unfortunate now.

https://ussanews.com/News1/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-helge-ingstad/

The ship was not insured – I'm pretty sure you cannot get coverage for a warship, and lots of personal insurance policies have a clause which states that if you die as a result of combat action in war you are not covered, something a lot of people do not know – and will be a total loss. That loss will equal Norway's entire annual defense budget, according to this source. If you watch the maritime center's radar recording, Helge Ingstad displayed no AIS identifier and was doing more than 17 knots just before the collision. She appeared to intend to cross the tanker's bow, but if that was the intent it was beyond stupid because that course would have taken her into the center of the passage where several other ships were on similar opposing courses.

It is important to note that input from the navigator in home waters would normally not be required, and navigating such a well-traveled waterway would be an exercise in chart-reading and radar-picture management which would fall to the Officer of the Watch regardless whether he/she is a navigator. But the Captain would normally be on the bridge when other marine traffic was expected in close proximity, because mistakes happen.

[Nov 22, 2018] "Traditional political blindness": Russia has responded to the adoption of the UN resolution on the Crimea

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 16, 2018 at 9:29 am

"Традиционная политическая слепота": в России отреагировали на принятие резолюции ООН по Крыму
11:26

"Traditional political blindness": Russia has responded to the adoption of the UN resolution on the Crimea

In the Crimea, the adoption of the UN resolution on alleged human rights violations on the peninsula has been condemned. In the state Duma and the Federation Council, representatives of the region and local legislators are confident that the Ukraine, which presented this document to be voted on, is trying to present to the world the best image of itself that it can,whilst thos countries that support the position that the Ukraine has taken are displaying "political blindness". RT interlocutors stressed that after the reunification with Russia, there had been created all the conditions for inhabitants of the peninsula regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliation. The Commissioner for human rights in the republic, Lyudmila Lubina, had invited UN representatives to visit the Crimea. They were convinced of the absence of violations. An earlier positive assessment of the situation in the region had been given by independent delegations from the United States, Germany, Italy and other countries.

The Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, which is responsible for social, humanitarian and cultural issues, adopted a resolution proposed by the Ukraine that condemns alleged violations of human rights on Crimea territory.

67 countries voted in support of the document, 26 against: 82 countries abstained. The number of countries that adhere to neutrality in this matter has increased: in the year 2017 in a similar situation, 76 countries abstained and in 2016 -- 77.

The text of the resolution was made in Kiev. It reported on the "illegal establishment of Russian Federation laws, jurisdiction and administration" in the region. According to the authors of the document, on the peninsula there is "increased pressure on communities of religious minorities, including frequent police raids, threats and harassment against supporters of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate and Protestant churches, mosques and Muslim religious schools, the Greek Catholics, the Roman Catholics and "Jehovah's Witnesses", and the "groundless prosecution of dozens of peaceful Muslims for their alleged affiliation to the Islamic organizations" was condemned

"Uncompromising war with Russia"

Deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN, Gennady Kuzmin, commented on the content of the resolution, noting the aggressiveness of the text presented by the Ukraine.

"The authors have tried hard to present the situation in the Crimea as a kind of armed conflict, using terms like "annexation", and occupation". According to this terminology, the Ukraine for four years has been waging an uncompromising war against Russia. But Russia has simply been part of this war: no one is going to quarrel with the Ukrainian people, who have the same blood ties. To punish the population of the Crimea for its choice in favouring Russia will not succeed", he stressed.

The Russian diplomat also pointed out that the referendum on the reunification of the Crimea with Russia was carried out strictly in accordance with international law.The inhabitants of the peninsula voted openly, expressing their desire "to live without the new Ukrainian idol: Bandera, Shukhevych and other Nazi collaborators" and to defend their right to education in and to speak freely in their native language: Russian, Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar.

"No oppression. None"

In the Crimea there is outrage over the text of the resolution. Representatives of the region in the Federation Council and the state Duma emphasize that the situation on the peninsula does not correspond to what is set out in the document.

"There is neither oppression of religious minorities nor raids, arrests and persecution as regards freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Moreover, all conditions have been created to meet the needs of all religious communities", said Sergey Tsekov, a member of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs of the Republic of the Crimea in an interview with RT

The violations that were noted in the UN resolution have been created by the Ukraine, the "illusion of non-existent human rights abuses in the Crimea", said Vice-Premier of the Crimean government, Dmitry Polonsky.

"That political blindness has become a tradition for nearly 70 states (those that voted for the resolution. -- RT) does not surprise anyone. This disease does not allow them to see the amazing extent of human rights violations in the Ukraine, which already for several years has been waging war against its own people on the territory of the Donbass", said the Crimean government representative.

Mark Chapman November 16, 2018 at 12:59 pm
Sadly, international institutions don't really matter any more, since the ridiculous obeisance you have to show to gain their approval amounts to a complete abrogation of sovereignty. In this the USA has managed its greatest success in Ukraine; Washington chafes under the burden of upholding all the regulations it helped write in order to place hobbles on others, not itself, and now finds it has little use for international law or international regulation. So it has created the conditions for its irrelevance. Countries that pay their political figures high salaries to sit in the UN and bleat and blather are wasting their money; they should just remove their representatives and bring them home, and teach them some useful trade.
kirill November 16, 2018 at 4:58 pm
Human rights evaluation by a popularity vote. What a joke! Give us real cases of abuse and not claims by Tatar clowns based outside Crimea. All of the sudden Crimean Tatars are the most precious minority in the world. They have to be given everything they demand or it is oppression. How come Canada's native population gets to rot on reservation ghettos and nobody cares? America ripped up the last of the substantial treaties it had with the aboriginals during the 1960s and expropriated their lands. Last time I checked 2014 is not 1930 and nobody is in a rush to give the US aboriginals back their lands.
Mark Chapman November 16, 2018 at 7:05 pm
All of it is designed to irritate Russia, with a secondary function of reassuring Ukraine that the west is in its corner. That's pretty good value for money, when you think about it – the Ukies will go on struggling for the price of a pat on the head, and the west does not have to actually buy their stuff or support them beyond a couple of billion in emergency aid once a year or so. But the whole effort is gaining next to no traction at all; I can't even remember the last time I saw Mustafa Dzemilev mugging with the adults, looking like a little wrinkled kid dressed in his dad's clothes. Absent urgent entreaties from the Crimeans themselves, it all just looks like harassment. The west just has to do something for the Two Minutes Hate.

[Nov 22, 2018] Trotsky: Permanent slaughter is way of life for any capitalist empire

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star November 14, 2018 at 3:32 pm

"In the US, the Trump administration has designated Russia and China, two nuclear-armed powers, as "strategic competitors," declaring that "great power competition" not terrorism is the primary focus of US national security. It has scrapped the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in order to prepare for war against Russia and China while in France President Macron has called for the building of a European army to confront not only Russia and China but if necessary the United States.

These and many other warning signs -- not least the creation of innumerable flashpoints from the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the South China Sea to North East-East Asia -- point to the acute danger of the eruption of World War III, which would assume a nuclear dimension from its very outset.

This clear and present danger is rooted in the fundamental problem that now confronts mankind: how to free the vast productive forces which its labour has created from the destructive grip of capitalist social relations based on private ownership of the means of production and the division of the world into rival nation states and imperialist great powers.

But as Marx once explained, no great historical problem ever arises without at the same time the material conditions also arising for its solution. And as the devastation of World War I was unleashed, that solution emerged in the form of the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the first successful conquest of power by the working class. The perspective that animated Lenin and Trotsky, the leaders of that revolution, was that the toppling of Tsarism in Russia was to be the opening shot of the world socialist revolution.

The war, they insisted, arising from the breakdown of the capitalist system, signified the dawning of a new epoch in mankind's historical development: an epoch of wars and revolutions. "A permanent revolution versus a permanent slaughter: that is the struggle, in which the stake is the future of man," Trotsky wrote."

Yup!!!!!

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/11/12/pers-n12.html

yalensis November 15, 2018 at 4:03 am
Just to clarify the ideological point:
When Trotsky wrote of "permanent revolution" he was not talking about revolutions happening every day of the year. What he meant was along the lines of Lenin's "April Theses", namely, that when the revolution DID happen, then it should continue past the bourgeois phase and onto the phase where government passed to the Soviets.

People get this point wrong quite a lot and use it to slander Trotsky as some kind of "mongerer" of never-ending unrest.

As for the "permanent slaughter", I think Trotsky was just being dramatic here, and pointing out that if the proletarian revolution doesn't succeed, then the world is in for a lot of wars. Which turned out to be quite true, in our own era.

[Nov 22, 2018] Ukraine 5 years after Euromaidan: Have ordinary citizens benefitted from the Western-backed 'revolution'?

Notable quotes:
"... "trade suicide" ..."
"... "limited results" ..."
"... "governance issues" ..."
"... "It's basically a high level of corruption and the rule of man instead of the rule of law" ..."
"... "We're getting a lot of inquiries from various investors, they come to talk to us, and we see the opportunities in Ukraine, but time after time we hear the concerns about the governance." ..."
"... "meaningful progress" ..."
"... "inefficient court system continues to obstruct the administration of justice." ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | www.sott.net

Originally from RT

It has been five years to the day since Ukraine's 'Euromaidan' protest movement began, with anti-government protesters demanding an end to corruption and a closer relationship with the European Union. But what became of the dream?

On the evening of November 21, 2013, pro-West protesters began flocking to Kiev's Maidan Square, carrying banners and waving EU flags. Hours earlier, then-president Viktor Yanukovych had suspended preparations to sign a European Association Agreement, which would have been a potential step on the road to joining the EU - and a move which Russia had warned would be "trade suicide" for the post-Soviet state. The West, on the other hand, was determined to wrangle Ukraine out of Russia's "orbit" and lure it into its own.

Ukraine was facing an economic crossroads. The country was being pulled in two directions, asked to choose between closer alignment with the EU or Russia. When Yanukovych chose Russia by refusing to sign the Association Agreement, it sparked outrage within the EU and a protest movement which would quickly be hijacked and used to engineer a Western-backed coup - a shortcut to bringing a pro-West government to power.

Such interference, manipulation and exploitation of Ukraine's internal political and societal divisions was not without consequences. More than 10,000 died during an insurgency in the eastern regions which began when the ethnic Russian population began to fear it would be swallowed into an anti-Russia nationalist state backed by Western powers. But the West ignored dangerous signs of growing nationalism - and outright Nazi-style fascism - in Ukraine, bargaining that anything was better than Russia 'winning' in a game of geopolitical chess.

Five years on, what has become of the protesters' dreams to rid Ukraine of corruption and build an equal, transparent and functional democracy? The sad answer is that Ukraine's revolution was a disaster which left the country teetering on the edge of becoming a failed state.

An anti-corruption revolution?

Corruption is still rampant in Ukraine. A recent assessment by the International Monetary Fund suggested that corruption wipes about two percent off the country's GDP growth per year.

The IMF and World Bank also scolded the Ukrainian government for the "limited results" that have been seen in fighting corruption, with no high-level officials convicted - something which is said to be keeping investors out of the country.

World Bank Country Director for Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine Satu Kahkonen said that "governance issues" were forcing investors to steer clear. "It's basically a high level of corruption and the rule of man instead of the rule of law" that have prevailed in Ukraine, she said. "We're getting a lot of inquiries from various investors, they come to talk to us, and we see the opportunities in Ukraine, but time after time we hear the concerns about the governance."

Higher living standards?

Ukraine is also emerging as Europe's poorest country , with a GDP per capita of just €2,960 - well below Estonia's €22,420 and Slovenia's €26,590 GDP per capita.

In fact, according to a recent Credit Suisse report, Ukrainians rank among the world's poorest people, coming a dismal 123rd out of 140 countries, with the net wealth of the country's citizens lagging behind Bangladesh and Cameroon. Another recent study by the United Nations Development Program found that, despite continuing economic growth, 60 percent of Ukrainians live below the poverty line.

Less income inequality?

Meanwhile, Ukraine's richest 100 citizens have seen their wealth increase significantly in the years after the Euromaidan protests. A recent report from the Novoe Vremya magazine showed that the wealth of the country's richest people is growing 12 times faster than Ukraine's total GDP. Pro-West President Petro Poroshenko is the country's sixth richest man, increasing his wealth by 10 percent to about $1.1 billion, all while average Ukrainians see little or no improvement in their own living standards or net wealth.

Political reforms?

While some recent reforms in education, pensions and healthcare were welcomed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in its l atest country report , there has still been a lack of "meaningful progress" in the reform of governance and an "inefficient court system continues to obstruct the administration of justice."

European values?

Scant attention has also been paid by the Ukrainian government - and Western powers and media - to the increasingly worrying growth of neo-Nazi sentiment in Ukraine. When, in October 2017, Ukraine witnessed its biggest neo-Nazi march in years, Western media all but ignored it. In fact, in deeds and words, Ukraine's government has almost encouraged this kind of sentiment, by praising as an "inspiration" the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) fighters who the Nazi marchers were commemorating. In recent months, mainstream media have done more to acknowledge this creeping fascism in Ukraine, but the admission comes far too late.

On the world stage, too, Ukraine's pro-West President Petro Poroshenko has faded into near irrelevance, barely acknowledged by US President Donald Trump at recent Armistice Day commemorations in Paris, as geopolitics returned to business-as-usual with Kiev fading from the headlines.

[Nov 22, 2018] American foreign aid is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (the Symington Amendment) or refuses to abide by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices.

Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

anarchyst , says: November 20, 2018 at 4:32 pm GMT

American foreign aid is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (the Symington Amendment) or refuses to abide by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American foreign aid. This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their agents of a foreign government with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy wonks. infecting the U S government who hold dual citizenship with Israel. Such dual citizenship must be strictly prohibited. Refusal to renounce foreign citizenship should result in immediate deportation with permanent loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of "dual citizenship" should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.
In addition, any American citizen who serves or has served in Israel's military (Israel Defense Forces) should automatically lose their American citizenship and be immediately deported to Israel.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress, it was sickening to see our politicians slobber all over themselves to see who would be the most rabid admirer of that foreign head of state. The almost constant applause by our Congress was reminiscent of the Soviet Politburo in which no one wanted to be the last person to stop clapping. Just who do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the United States.

[Nov 22, 2018] A USA politician on tv 'we do not love them, w're afraid of them'.

Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: November 20, 2018 at 10:40 am GMT

Anyone can see that the USA is the only 'real' friend of Israel in the world.
But the USA is not a friend, as I heard long ago a USA politician say on tv, on jews in the USA 'we do not love them, w're afraid of them'.
Any USA politcian who openly opposes Israel is without a job.
This is, in my opinion, what jewry does not realise, their power over the USA can disappear overnight, could even become open hatred of jews.
These jewish organisations, with media controlled by jews, and politicians who accept the inevitable, for money or not for money, just something like the Hoover Dam: one earthquake, and their power over the USA is gone.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
However, in many history books one finds sentences as 'and then something happened that nobody foresaw, but had grave consequences'.

[Nov 22, 2018] PressTV-Trump leaking out forbidden truth of 9-11

Notable quotes:
"... "And, the media always goes after Trump when he says things about 9/11 that let out a little bit of truth, when Trump talked about the dancing Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Of course, that was taken by many as a bleak reference to the dancing Israelis that's the Mossad agents who widely celebrated the success of their operation, and flipped cigarette lighters and held them up for cameras and video cameras as they celebrated during the fire and then the explosive destruction of the world trade center," he stated. ..."
"... They believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda. ..."
Nov 22, 2018 | www.presstv.com

US President Donald Trump is leaking out a little bit of forbidden truth about the false flag operation of 9/11, American scholar Dr. Kevin Barrett says.

Dr. Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11 , made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Tuesday while commenting on a verbal between Trump and Adm. William H. McRaven, the former Navy SEAL commander who oversaw the mission to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Monday that Trump's attacks against the retired Navy admiral was "a slam at the intelligence community." "What this really is misplaced criticism McRaven," Clapper said. "It's really a slam at the intelligence community, who was responsible for tracking down Osama bin Laden, and reflects, I think, his complete ignorance about what that took."

In an interview that aired Sunday on Fox News, Trump dismissed McRaven as a "Hillary Clinton fan" and an "Obama backer".

PressTV- 'Trump could be killed for 9/11 truth' An American scholar says the full truth about the 9/11 coup d'état is probably too politically explosive for Donald Trump to ever tell.

"I would see this is an example of Trump leaking out a little bit of forbidden truth. He has done this before regarding 9/11 and bin Laden issues, for example when he blamed the 9/11 on George W. Bush. That was of course too much for a lot of Republicans but it did not hurt his ability to gain Republican nomination," Dr. Barrett said.

"And, the media always goes after Trump when he says things about 9/11 that let out a little bit of truth, when Trump talked about the dancing Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Of course, that was taken by many as a bleak reference to the dancing Israelis that's the Mossad agents who widely celebrated the success of their operation, and flipped cigarette lighters and held them up for cameras and video cameras as they celebrated during the fire and then the explosive destruction of the world trade center," he stated.

Dr. Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003, pointed out that the rogue elements within the US government and neocons orchestrated had approved the 9/11 terrorist plan to benefit Israel.

The September, 11, 2001 attacks, also known as the 9/11 attacks, were a series of strikes in the US which killed nearly 3,000 people and caused about $10 billion worth of property and infrastructure damage.

US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account.

They believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda.

Leonard Melton , yesterday at 00:06

How convenient that real estate developer Larry Silverstein was willing to take over the buildings – in late July of 2001, only weeks before the attacks. He signed a 99-year lease with the Port Authority – then proceeded to take out several insurance policies on the buildings. (He was originally outbid by a competitor, Vornado Real Estate Trust – but this bid was withdrawn when the Port Authority refused to reduce the terms of the lease.)

Interestingly, Silverstein was also the builder of Building No. 7.

As of 2007, Silverstein had received in excess of $4.6 billion from his insurers. Not a bad return on a $14 million investment, eh?

Leonard Melton -> Leonard Melton 23 hours ago
"9/11: Larry Silverstein Designed New WTC-7 One Year Before Attacks"

Larry Silverstein was caught admitting on camera that he planned to build an entirely new World Trade Center 7 (WTC-7) building one year before the 9/11 attacks had occurred, by Sean Adl-Tabatabai - Your News Wire

Leonard Melton , yesterday at 00:05
According to some estimates, the Twin Towers contained 5000 tons of asbestos materials. As long ago as the mid-1990s, the New York Port Authority was looking at an asbestos abatement bill of as much as $1 billion dollars – representing well over 12 times the buildings' original cost. When the buildings' insurers, Affiliated FM, refused to cover the asbestos removal/abatement costs and won their subsequent lawsuit over the the matter, the Port Authority was left with some untenable choices. The outdated buildings could not be demolished because of the asbestos; for the same reason, they could not be remodeled and updated in any cost-effective manner. The only other option was to slowly dismantle the Towers a piece at a time – the cost of which would have run into several billions of dollars.

[Nov 22, 2018] Here's one for all those who say, indignantly, "US debt is not 100% of GDP". No, that's right; it's not.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman November 14, 2018 at 8:46 pm

Here's one for all those who say, indignantly, "US debt is not 100% of GDP". No, that's right; it's not.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4221893-liquidity-bubble-pops-face-biggest-crisis-yet

[Nov 22, 2018] CIA officials are signaling Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman must be replaced

Nov 20, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Warren November 20, 2018 at 10:23 am

https://youtu.be/JBQZIJGmwPc

TheRealNews
Published on 20 Nov 2018
CIA officials are signaling Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman must be replaced. Is this all about the killing of Jamal Khashoggi? Professor Asad AbuKhalil says there are other political reasons.

Mark Chapman November 20, 2018 at 5:03 pm

Fear not! I heard on the news on my way home that Trump has decided Saudi Arabia will not be punished for the killing of Khahsoggi with termination of current arms contracts. The Donald reasons that if that happens, the KSA will just buy its weapons elsewhere. And nobody in the military-industrial complex wants that. I am very confident Justin Trudeau will interpret that as a signal that Canada likewise should not cut off its nose to spite its face, and so Canada will not 'punish' its good friend, either. Therefore, Saudi Arabia will experience no punishment whatsoever for its admitted murder of an inconvenient American journalist. There are limits to western indignation, after all. So the west will content itself with revoking the KSA's invitation to the Spring Strawberry Social, and double down on its insistence that Crimea is Ukraine and must be returned to Kiev's control, and the west will never accept its 'annexation'. Never, never, never. There are some issues on which the west has spine to spare. So if you want a noisy western journalist removed, slip the Saudis a few bucks, and they can probably make it happen with no recriminations.
kirill November 20, 2018 at 5:23 pm
The recognition of Crimea as part of Ukraine by Washington and its minions is totally worthless. It is not based on law and justice, it is based on self-interest (as in the USA had big plans to acquire Crimea and build a massive naval base there). The use of the word annexation is propaganda drivel.

Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991 and the ICJ has ruled that local ethnic majorities have a right to self determination. If independence is good enough for Kosovo, it is good enough for Crimea. No amount of special pleading by Washington and its bootlicks about Kosovo being "special" has any merit.

et Al November 21, 2018 at 9:38 am
I'm afraid you are wrong about the ICJ Kirill. The ICJ dodged the actual issue. They ruled that making a declaration of independence is not against international law, not whether anyone/whatever/blah blah blah actually has the right to independence. Possibly because they did not want to cross Pandora's Rubicon Box

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence

the adoption of the declaration of independence of the 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence

####

Some call it 'unique', others call it a precedent , therefore 'not unique'. If the West argues that the ICJ said it was ok, then it is also ok for Crimea to declare independence. Or, if they claim that Crimea is not independent, that Kosovo cannot be either, hence, as you point out the use of the word ' annexation ' and other creative circumlocutions to avoid mentioning that secession was first and the clear comparison with Kosovo which would not serve them well at all.

https://nyujilp.org/icj-rules-on-kosovo-independence/

The Inter­na­tion­al Court of Jus­tice today held that inter­na­tion­al law did not pro­hib­it Kosovo's dec­la­ra­tion of inde­pen­dence, while side­step­ping the larg­er issue of Kosovo's state­hood

####

But, this is not the first time the West has decided what international law is for itself when back in 1991 the European Council ministers themselves appointed the Badinter Commission to give it a legal figleaf for recognizing the administrative borders of Yugoslavia as international. I've posted this link before, but once more with feeling:

How the Badinter Commission on Yugoslavia laid the roots for Crimea's secession from Ukraine
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/02/20/how-the-badinter-commission-on-yugoslavia-laid-the-roots-for-crimeas-secession-from-ukraine/

kirill November 21, 2018 at 10:51 am
Thanks for the clarification. But it is all a house of cards. Given that empires and countries have continually fissioned into pieces through the whole of relevant history, the notion of "territorial integrity" is bogus and a corollary of "might makes right". As long as the country can suppress secessionists it has territorial integrity, when it becomes too weak everything falls apart. There is no international law. And if ware to assume a common law regime that is not maintained by legislatures, then secession is fully legal if the local majority wants it hard enough.
et Al November 21, 2018 at 12:17 pm
We know it is nothing but the Law of the Jungle. It's just that the fancy dress shop has expanded and has a lot more more costumes on offer to its clients.
Mark Chapman November 21, 2018 at 7:01 pm
Quite so; however, as I have frequently pointed out before – notably here –

https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/radoslaw-sikorski-is-a-handsome-urbane-well-educated-twat-the-ignominious-collapse-of-british-journalism/

when the west trots out its I-never-said that-exactly smokescreen, it is helpful to read what various western countries wrote as legal opinions, and the arguments they used to support their reasoning. Where Kosovo is concerned, a classic is the Polish opinion, written by (or more likely for) its then-Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski. He wrote, in part;

" a state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty the existence of the state is a question of fact, the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory. A declaration of independence is merely an act that confirms these factual circumstances, and it may be difficult to assess such an act in purely legal terms."

Legal opinions are usually replete with bafflegab to confuse the easily-bored and the pressed-for-time readers. But Mr. Sikorski made what he must have believed was a very convincing case that a sovereign state-within-a-state is characterized by an ethnic population, a pre-existing degree of autonomy (so that the entity demonstrates the capability to function autonomously), and its own functioning institutions such as banks and infrastructure.

Which of those is not descriptive of Crimea? It was even called "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea", for Christ's sake. Sikorski doubtless had an inkling that the Kosovo precedent might come back to bite NATO, and so tried to duck a justification which might read like a precedent, but it was unavoidable.

[Nov 22, 2018] America had a net export capacity of 5 bcm in 2017 because it imported about 87 bcm from Canada

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill November 14, 2018 at 6:35 am

These American fucktards actually think they can replace Russian gas supply to the EU. With what you utter void heads? America had a net export capacity of 5 bcm in 2017 because it imported about 87 bcm from Canada. When you fuckwad, douchebags get 150 bcm export capacity, then start yapping. Until then, STFU.

Of course, it is clear to anyone with a functional brain that the US is totally dishonest on claiming to want to supply the EU. In fact, it wants to saddle the EU with onerous LNG contracts to third parties (e.g. Qatar) who can currently and for the near term supply the volumes of LNG needed. At the same time the US damages the Asian tigers by increasing LNG prices.

It is time for all the US bootlicks (Japan, the EU) to tell Uncle Scumbag to shove himself in his own ass. The US is not even pretending to treat these countries with respect.

[Nov 22, 2018] Swiss court has ordered all Nord Stream partners to not make any payments to Gazprom, instead to pay all monies owed to Gazprom to Swedish bailiffs

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman November 15, 2018 at 1:09 pm

One way or another, Gazprom is going to have to pay Ukraine $2.6 Billion, so they might as well just do it and have it over with. Of course the Ukies will prance and jump up and down in the streets and yell 'Slava Ukrainy' – and hasten off to prepare new lawsuits in search of more money from the Russian state. But a Swiss court has ordered all Nord Stream partners to not make any payments to Gazprom, instead to pay all monies owed to Gazprom to Swedish bailiffs, who will redistribute it to Ukraine until they recover all their money.

https://www.naturalgasworld.com/ns2-in-trouble-gazprom-hopeful-65959

[Nov 22, 2018] Magnitsky was a tax accountant employed by Firestone Duncan, the auditing firm in its turn employed by Hermitage Capital Management.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 12:41 pm

No, you're right; Magnitsky was a tax accountant employed by Firestone Duncan, the auditing firm in its turn employed by Hermitage Capital Management. I don't know if the 'Duncan' is still part of the outfit, but Firestone Duncan was headed by Jamison Firestone. He's an American lawyer, born in Los Angeles and a member of the New York state bar.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=108901451&privcapId=108901383

I and others have hazarded a guess that Magnitsky was persistently referred to as a lawyer because testimony between a lawyer and his/her client is protected by attorney-client privilege; thus, much of what the Russian state might want to know from Magnitsky might fall under this protection. But of course Russia would not be fooled into thinking he was a lawyer – the device was likely just for western consumption, so Browder could scream that Russia was suborning testimony illegally from Magnitsky.

Browder, however, had no real reason to believe Magnitsky was a lawyer, as he admitted when questioned under oath.

" In a 2015 deposition regarding Prevezon, Browder again described Magnitsky as his lawyer. He was quickly questioned by opposing counsel. This time, Browder was under oath (page 25):

Q: Mr. Magnitsky is an attorney; you think that's accurate?

BROWDER: He was my attorney.

Q: I see. And he had a law degree in Russia?

BROWDER: I'm not aware that he did.

Q: I see. And he went to law school?

BROWDER: No.

Magnitsky had been granted power of attorney on several occasions, but he was not a lawyer. As Browder would detail in his deposition, when there was a 2002 challenge regarding tax payments, Magnitsky represented Hermitage in court."

https://themarketswork.com/2018/09/06/the-inconsistencies-of-bill-browder/

That's a very useful source, incidentally; it discusses that Magnitsky never once mentioned in his testimony the tax fraud which the Russian government supposedly perpetrated to steal millions, and Hermitage did not lose anything thereby; the Russian treasury absorbed the loss. And the fraud was discovered by testimony delivered by Rimma Starova, who worked for one of the shell companies accused. But Magnitsky is regularly and stubbornly credited with having discovered the theft, and his alleged stubborn investigation is in turn credited with his arrest, to get him out of the way.

Browder agreed to be deposed in 2015, in an action he initiated against Prevezon, which firm he accused of using the profits from the alleged tax rebate scheme to purchase New York real estate. Prevezon was represented in this action by Natalia Veselnitskaya. I'm sure you will recognize her name.

Here are a couple of my old posts, one of them an excellent one by kovane which drew on some Russian sources and which demonstrated that Browder – in collusion with Magnitsky – claimed tax deductions for hiring handicapped employees who either did not perform the jobs for which they had been hired or did no work at all. Magnitsky signed their employment books, and Browder himself signed off on the tax deduction application. They pertain directly to the Magnitsky deception and to Browder's slippery background.

https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/sergei-magnitsky-bill-browder-hermitage-capital-management-and-wondrous-metamorphoses/

http://abeldanger.blogspot.com/2016/04/its-not-what-you-know-its-who-you-know.html

[Nov 22, 2018] Browder's fears did not materialise: Prokopchuk did not became the head of Interpol

Notable quotes:
"... Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal Khodorkovsky. ..."
"... Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were. ..."
Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 21, 2018 at 11:59 am

The objectively independent UK rag "The independent" declared the result to be a defeat for "Putin's ally".
Mark Chapman November 21, 2018 at 7:07 pm
People should remember, when international institutions continue to falter and crumble after all the decades of effort to build them, that they were doing what makes Michael McFaul happy. I hope that's enough.
Jen November 21, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Oh well, whatever tickles these pathetic people's fantasies Michael McFawl going buuuuk-buk-buk and Bill Brawder ('cos he's full of electrolytes) must not have very much to do these days except think about what Vladimir Putin does every early morning.
yalensis November 21, 2018 at 4:40 pm
Realistically, this IS a tactical defeat for Russia. The votes had already been counted, and Prokopchuk was pretty much a shoo-in. Then the U.S. launched a campaign to stop this, and must have intimidated a lot of the countries into changing their vote.

Russophiles should just admit that it was a tactical defeat, shrug it off, and continue the war Because it IS a war. One battle lost Realistically.

Mark Chapman November 21, 2018 at 7:16 pm
As I keep saying, it is a tactical defeat for international institutions. They are exposed as merely fronts for American influence, with no genuine objectivity. Prokopchuk is already a Deputy Head of Interpol, and will remain one. Browder was simply exercising self-preservation disguised as the usual progressive activism, but when people who were in a position to cast votes see that they are being personally thanked by Michael Mcfaul, then by God any one of them who does not realize he or she has been had is thicker than most people are who are allowed out unsupervised.

Russia – and Putin – was never going to 'run' Interpol; in fact, if Prokopchuk had won, the USA would be tying itself in knots trying to impede every Interpol investigation after that, just to spite Russia. Washington simply did not want a Russian to win, and it was successful in scaring enough people to prevent it from happening. But Prokopchuk hasn't gone away, and will still be as influential as he was before. Nothing has really changed very much at Interpol, but the USA just publicly turned on a huge influence campaign to change the decision. Does that mean Interpol is just another political western tool? It surely does. Who can't see that now? Anyone?

Mark Chapman November 21, 2018 at 6:12 pm
Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal Khodorkovsky. They were the two 'high-profile dissidents' who were cited in a flood-the-English-speaking newspapers campaign that said Putin was about to get control of Interpol. They pointed out that the Nazis had control over it in the 1930's, but apparently that was not as bad as Putin running it. Of course they managed to panic enough voters that the Russian who had been the favourite was repudiated. But the whole thing is just too childish for words, because the net effect is to showcase how political international institutions have become, and undermine confidence in them.

Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were.

[Nov 22, 2018] Prosecutor General: Magnitsky was chemically poisoned on Browder's orders by substance typically used by intelligence agencies

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 19, 2018 at 8:54 am

Further to Yalensis' comment above

Генпрокуратура: Магнитский отравлен по приказу Браудера диверсионными химвеществами

Prosecutor General: Magnitsky chemically poisoned as a diversion on Browder's orders


You dirty Russian rats can't pin that goddam rap on me!!!

A new criminal case has been opened in the Russian Federation against William Browder, founder of the Hermitage Capital Foundation, international financial speculator, lobbyist for anti-Russian sanctions and a sponsor of a significant part of the Russian liberal opposition.

Details revealed at a special briefing organized by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation.

Browder has been accused of creating a criminal organization (part 1 of article 210 of the criminal code), which had been operating since 1999, which was formed for "committing serious economic crimes on Russian territory and that of other countries". Nikolay Atmon'ev, advisor to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, said that companies in Cyprus, Latvia and Switzerland had ben established in Browder's interests and had cashed and laundered hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Office of the Prosecutor General believes it "very likely" that the auditor Sergei Magnitsky and several other of his accomplices were killed on Browder's direct orders because they were undesirable witnesses: "Initially, the deaths of Gasanov, Kurochkin and Magnitsky were considered to have been through natural causes, because of sicknesses that they had; the death of Korobyeinikov seemed to have been accidental. However, further data was obtained, indicating the violent nature of the deaths of these persons". The Investigative Committee opened a murder inquiry into Browder's business partners Oktai Gasanov, Valeriy Kurochkin and Sergei Korobyenikov. Browder is a suspect as regards the elimination of financier Alexander Perepelichny, who died in 2012 in the British town of Weybridge (in the Russian immigrant's stomach were found traces of Asian poisonous plant Gelsemium elegans). According to Atmen'ev, the Prosecutor's office sent to the Investigative Committee notification of its decision that an inquiry be opened as regards making a criminal case against Browder because of the suspicion that he had been involved in the murder of Perepelichny. As for Magnitsky, who died in 2009 at the hospital of the "Matrosskaya Tishina" remand centre, the Office of the Prosecutor General believes that he was poisoned "as a diversion and by a chemical substance consisting of aluminium compounds", which brought about the development of his cardio-hepatic failure. "What Browder was especially interested in was that Sergei Magnitsky die so as to avoid his being exposed", said Atmon'ev.

"Amongst the chemicals that pose a hidden threat to humans, there is a group of toxic aluminium compounds. In Russia, there has not been an investigation targeted at these substances. Detailed analysis of scientific information shows that for several decades toxicological studies of aluminium compounds have been carried out previously and there continues exclusive research into them by organizations in the the United States, France and Italy. There has been studied particularly closely the acute and chronic toxicity of a number of hazardous aluminium compounds that are ingested orally or inhaled and their effects on the human body Analysis of substances obtained from the bodies of Kurochkin, Korobyenikov, Gasanov and Magnitsky has led to the conclusion that the deceased persons had signs of chronic poisoning with a toxic water-soluble aluminium compound that had been administered orally", said a representative of the Office of the Russian Prosecutor, Mikhail Alexandrov.

In the very near future, the Russian Federation will announce that Browder is on the international wanted list under the UN Convention against transnational crime. "There is the possibility of extradition provided for in the Convention, even in cases when between the countries that decide the issue of extradition,there is no bilateral extradition Treaty", said Atmon'ev.


They gotta be joking! Trust me! I'm as straight as they come!

Moscow Exile November 19, 2018 at 9:04 am
Same story now up on RT:

'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders – Moscow
Published time: 19 Nov, 2018 09:16
Edited time: 19 Nov, 2018 16:48

Moscow Exile November 19, 2018 at 9:24 am
RT keeps stating that Magnitsky was employed by Browder. I'm pretty sure he wasn't. He was employed by an audit company, Firestone Duncan, that advised Browder in his shady, tax-dodging operations.

Browder has always tried to make out that he was a pal of Magnitsky and how he grieved for his fate.

Browder not once visited his "friend" Magnitsky when he was held on remand.

At least they have stopped calling Magnitsky a "lawyer".

Browder persisently called him a lawyer, though, in numerous interviews, when he must have known damned well he was no such thing.

Moscow Exile November 19, 2018 at 9:33 am
Talking about tax dodging:


Oh shit! The tax man cometh!

She's still a US citizen so

Meghan Markle's US citizenship sparks tax troubles for royals
Harry and Meghan's sizeable fortune is under threat because of a legal loophole described as the royal family's "worst nightmare".

Poor thing!

Jen November 19, 2018 at 1:58 pm
You'd think the British would have tried to sort out the taxation implications of Markly Meg's marriage to Prince Harry BEFORE they got married. It's not as if this is the first time someone in the British political establishment has been hit with this issue of being a US citizen and therefore liable to pay tax to the IRS on income earned outside the US as well as within the country.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/08/boris-johnson-renounces-us-citizenship-record-2016-uk-foreign-secretary

Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Well, she could always do what Mr. Capitalism Bill Browder did, and renounce her American citizenship. The US government has demonstrated on more than one occasion that, in his case, it does not hold that against him although he plainly did it for tax reasons.
Jen November 19, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Ahem

" Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad "
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html

They still get you even when you're no longer an American citizen.

And then there's the fee of US$2,350 she has to pay to renounce her citizenship.
https://www.advisor.ca/columnists_/max-reed/tax-consequences-of-renouncing-u-s-citizenship/

Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 5:58 pm
Oh, bullshit. If a former American like, say, Bill Browder, murders somebody in England, the USA is going to get nowhere demanding his extradition to be tried as a previous American citizen for murder. What would be the use of renouncing one's citizenship as an American if all American rules still apply to you?

I can see the US authorities going after you if you renounced your citizenship just to escape child support or alimony, providing you have a job in your new country. But I don't see how the USA could just access your bank account – in another country – and drain off payments; doesn't sovereignty count for anything?

Presumably, as well, the USA is not going to get into a pissing contest with the British Royal Family over what it claims as its share of Markle's newfound wealth.

Moscow Exile November 19, 2018 at 8:58 pm
Buffoon Boris of Bullingdon Club notoriety and British Foreign and Commonwealth Office risability got whacked with a US tax bill because he too was a US citizen. He huffed and puffed and said he would not pay and would renounce his being one of the Exceptional Nation. In the end, he coughed up what he owed, but he still renounced his US citizenship.

Once bitten, twice shy I suppose.

Jen November 20, 2018 at 2:54 am
I assume the passage I quoted is basically saying that renouncing US citizenship will not automatically wipe out previous or outstanding unpaid tax liabilities, crimes committed in the past in territories under US jurisdiction or future crimes in the same territories. So even if the Markly One does renounce US citizenship, any income she receives individually or jointly with her husband, including gifts, can still be subjected to taxation if she still owes unpaid tax to the authorities.
Mark Chapman November 20, 2018 at 4:21 am
Then that's probably reasonable – the United States could recover income from her up to the amount she has outstanding in US taxes. Unless she has one of those invisible-but-building student loans, such a sum would probably not amount to much. But the way the law is worded suggests US citizenship is far more a curse than a gift, in that renouncing it frees you from none of the responsibilities. It implies that American law follows you around like a bridal train.
cartman November 20, 2018 at 11:25 am
As part of their hissy fit over a Russian in charge of Interpol (a Russian whose brother is a Ukrainian diplomat lol), Senators wants it so anyone whose name is put on a red notice by Russia cannot be denied entry or asylum.

Reminds me of when Castro sent all the trash from Cuba to the United States once they made a similar law.

Mark Chapman November 20, 2018 at 5:12 pm
That'd be awesome. Get the bunting and the confetti ready at O'Hare for the arrival of a couple of hundred Pavlenskys, who will promptly nail their sacks to the parking lot of the 35 East Wacker Building, a Chicago landmark. Most appropriate. I think you will agree.

[Nov 22, 2018] Russian prosecutor's office opened a criminal case against William Browder. He is accused of (1) organizing a criminal gang, (2) poisoning his gang member Sergei Magnitsky, and (3) also killing several other members of the gang.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

yalensis November 19, 2018 at 2:59 am

From VZGLIAD this morning : Browder reacts to accusations of Russian Prosecutor.

Just this morning (Monday 19 Nov) the Russian prosecutor's office opened a criminal case against William Browder. He is accused of (1) organizing a criminal gang, (2) poisoning his gang member Sergei Magnitsky, and (3) also killing several other members of the gang. It is alleged that Browder used military-level "diversionary chemical substances" [whatever that is] mixed to aluminium, to form the poison.

Browder denies the charges, and also points the finger at Major-General Alexander Prokopchuk of the Russian Federation police. Prokopchuk is in the running to become head of Interpol. Which, if he does, he said he will pursue Bill Browder to the ends of the earth, and nowhere on this planet will it be safe for him any more.
Which is why Browder is worried about Prokopchuk's nomination.

kirill November 19, 2018 at 7:16 am
Now we know why the UK staged the Skripal farce. It is a redirection attempt to make Browder look like a victim. The fallout of Browder being convicted of using chemical weapons from criminal purposes would make NATzO look bad since NATzO invested itself in his "victimhood" and elevated the corrupt accountant Magnitsky into a human rights martyr saint.
Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 10:25 am
I imagine they mean the poison was mixed with other substances to conceal the presence of the poison itself, since he would certainly be autopsied if he died. And poisoning would certainly explain his very sudden and rapid turn for the worse. But Browder never visited him – neither did anyone from Hermitage Capital Management or Firestone Duncan, to the best of my knowledge. Browder's story was always that Magnitsky was the sole employee left behind, because he – Browder – had pulled everyone else out, for their safety. Who administered the poison? And in what circumstances – Browder's story also was that Magnitsky died from beatings and neglect, in that the prison authorities would not let anyone bring him the medicine he needed for a known condition. In medicine would be the perfect way to deliver a poison, but Browder's story was that he was denied medicine, and he'd surely be suspicious of anything else, wouldn't he? Here, Sergey; brought you a nice meat pie, old man. quite apart from the likelihood that prison authorities would not let non-family visitors give him any food, since he was the prosecution's star witness.

Of all the fuckers who simply make up scurrilous crap about Russia and Russians, Browder is the one I'd most like to see them get. My dream is that he would go to prison in Russia, but we mustn't be greedy, and I think we all know that will never happen.

Jen November 19, 2018 at 3:18 pm
Could aluminium phosphide have been put into Magnitsky's cell in the form of tablets or pellets mixed with water, supposedly to get rid of an insect or rat infestation?

Inhaling the compound is as dangerous as consuming it and inhalation could have caused his fatal heart attack. Water would be an ideal way to transport the poison especially if it is colourless in that medium.

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/aluminum-phosphide-ext.html

Jen November 19, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Come to think of it, my earlier comment was unnecessarily complicated: the poison, if it had been aluminium phosphide, only had to be given to Magnitsky in a glass of water when he got thirsty.
kirill November 19, 2018 at 4:10 pm
Don't need exotic "made only in Russia" chemicals. AlP is not going to leave a trail back to its source. And both Al and P are found in the body so forensic identification is not trivial.
Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Anything is possible, but visitors to the state's star witness would be viewed with the greatest suspicion if they were not family, you would think, as doubtless the state would have stressed what a valuable prisoner he potentially was. I would imagine they would be subjected to a pretty thorough scan and search. And there would be a record of all visits and visitors. Anyone who was Russian and still living in Russia would doubtless be investigated.

[Nov 22, 2018] Ukraine, where it's already snowing, isn't ready for winter

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Warren November 20, 2018 at 11:37 am

Vesti News
Published on 19 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
Since Monday, we've been watching Poroshenko's panic. On the one hand, he was throwing rude tantrums because his project to create a "new Church of Ukraine" didn't go as planned. He only managed to create a branch of the Constantinople Patriarchate in Kiev, which is not the division-building thing Poroshenko dreamed of. On the other hand, Ukraine, where it's already snowing, isn't ready for winter.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8D6e7YZf1lA

Jen November 20, 2018 at 1:35 pm
My suspicion then that Poroshenko must have intended for this new Church of Ukraine to be subservient to Kiev so that all its properties could be declared state properties and the Church's wealth could be Kiev's (and Poroshenko's) for the taking only increased when I saw this report. Interesting too that Poroshenko only now, near the end of his Presidency, is selling off the assets he should have sold off at the start of his Presidency in compliance with Ukrainian law.
Mark Chapman November 20, 2018 at 5:35 pm
Gee; who could ever have imagined such a thing would happen? Russia should handle any emerging crisis very carefully, because Kiev will want to find a way to blame all Ukraine's problems on Russia, as usual. Russia might win quite a few allies if it boxes clever.

No need to write Poroshenko's epitaph just yet; he's only sold off a ratty old shipyard that likely was not making him any money anyway. That's not a bellwether of panic; not yet. But he is almost certain to lose to Tymoshenko, and she will be a double whammy for Ukraine because she has no more idea how to solve the problem than does Poroshenko, is steadfastly loyal to the west although it has done nothing since the glorious Maidan but mess Ukraine up even more than it already was, with the added bonus that she will probably usher in a circuses-but-no-bread distraction of gunning for Poroshenko and his government, using the premise that they are to blame for Ukraine's disintegration. That's broadly true, but Tymoshenko has no plan at all for what comes after Ukrainians' fury is sated.

[Nov 22, 2018] Ukraine is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons; according to the European Council on Foreign Relations (which wants Ukraine to succeed as a western satellite, so you can bet anything negative about it will be soft-pedaled), the 50 5ichest Ukrainians pre-maidan controlled 45% of national GDP.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 5:08 pm

"On Nov.14, just a day before the decision to cut assistance, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution saying Moldova has become a "state captured by oligarchic interests" that exert their influence over most parts of Moldova's society. The country is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons."

Ukraine is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons; according to the European Council on Foreign Relations (which wants Ukraine to succeed as a western satellite, so you can bet anything negative about it will be soft-pedaled), the 50 5ichest Ukrainians pre-maidan controlled 45% of national GDP.

https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/survival_of_the_richest_how_oligarchs_block_reform_in_ukraine6091

Anyone want to present the case that the situation has improved since its oligarchic president took power, and used it to continuously enrich himself and his family, maintaining his status as a wealthy businessman even as he takes the odd moment out now and again to see how the country's doing? I thought not.

http://uacrisis.org/54793-top-5-ukrainian-oligarchs

Last year, after the country has had quite a generous spell to throw off the shackles of its oligarchy, the top FIVE Ukrainian oligarchs alone control 13% of the nation's GDP – Rinat Akhmetov, Ihor Kolomoyskiy, Victor Pinchuk, Petro Poroshenko and Dmytro Firtash. Waiting in the wings to take over the helm, Yulia Tymoshenko, once known as 'the Gas Princess", and another oligarch who has been rich since she was very young, whose past performance suggests Ukraine is in for another round of nest-feathering and struggle for financial gain among its wealthy citizens, with not a toss given for the rest.

Think we'll see the EU cut them off from funding any time soon? Me, either.

[Nov 22, 2018] Neoliberalism claw back Brazil

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Warren November 14, 2018 at 10:09 pm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/abRukx0Y1GY

TheRealNews
Published on 14 Nov 2018
The latest revelation about Brazil's slow motion coup, designed to ensure that the center-left remains out of power and the far-right takes control, involves a general who admitted that he threatened the Supreme Court so it would imprison presidential front-runner Lula da Silva. We discuss the development with Brian Mier

[Nov 22, 2018] On Thanksgiving eve some Russian oppositionists decided to personally thank the US authorities for the sanctions against Russia.

Nov 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Vesti News

Published on 21 Nov 2018

On Thanksgiving eve some Russian oppositionists decided to personally thank the US authorities for the sanctions against Russia. They met them in Washington, but instead of the traditional turkey, the guests offered senators and State Department officials to check out their lists of Russians who deserve to be sanctioned.

https://youtu.be/0WDKEmF0kQ4

yalensis November 21, 2018 at 4:34 pm

Interesting list of names on the Opps hitlist, which these narcs presented to their American overlords.

Note also the names of Zeman, Dodon, Burzhanadze, Maria Le Pen, Graham Phillips, Kedmi, and a few others whom I don't recognize

What a bunch of dirty rats and slimy "stukachi", are these Opps!

[Nov 22, 2018] The New Times has dodged almost certain closure this week by crowdfunding some 25 million rubles to pay off a government fine after an unprecedented show of support.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 16, 2018 at 5:16 am

Oh look! What an amazing surprise!!!

The New Times has dodged almost certain closure this week by crowdfunding some 25 million rubles to pay off a government fine after an unprecedented show of support.

The online magazine was handed a crippling fine in late October by the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor for failing to disclose foreign financing.

"Russian people are very sensitive to injustice, we are a nation of survivors", the magazine's chief editor Yevgenia Albats said.

So despite the fact that nobody reads it, 20 thousand people, according to another Western organ that nobody reads (see link below), stumped up the dosh for Albat's electronic rag.

Nov. 13 2018 – 17:11
20K People Donate to Russian Liberal Outlet to Pay Government Fine

i wonder where the money really came from?

Probably from the same place that funds her publication and which she hasn't revealed for the past 2 years, something that she legally has to, her electronic publication being classed as an NGO.

That's why she got whacked with a fine.

Political persecution, I call it!

Off to the ECHR with you, Yevgenia! You know they'll find in your favour.

[Nov 22, 2018] The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies ( FDD ), which has become the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran

Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [313] Disclaimer , says: November 21, 2018 at 3:39 am GMT

the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies ( FDD ), which has become the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran

Dublin, Ireland, Nov 18, 2018

{emphasis added}

Remarks at No US/NATO Bases Conference in Dublin, Ireland, November 18, 2018

https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-greatest-crime-on-earth/5660365

[Nov 22, 2018] The UK and the wider world is perfectly comfortable with far-right nationalist groups in Ukraine which pursue a Nazi ideology. Ukraine, after all, is snuggled right up against Russia, and such groups can be reliably expected to agitate against Russia.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 19, 2018 at 7:12 am

The UK or The Ukraine?

Picture 1:

Pictture 2:

Picture 3:

Picture 4:

Picture 5:

Picture 6:

And whom in which above pictures does the BBC condemn?

See: National Action: The new parents and the neo-Nazi terror threat
By Daniel De Simone
BBC News
12 November 2018

Pictures 1, 3 and 4: The UK

Pictures 2, 5 and 6: The Ukraine.

Mark Chapman November 19, 2018 at 10:45 am
The UK – and the wider world – is perfectly comfortable with far-right nationalist groups in Ukraine which pursue a Nazi ideology. Ukraine, after all, is snuggled right up against Russia, and such groups can be reliably expected to agitate against Russia. Since Russia is the enemy, they can be said to be a sort of weapon of the west. But you start to get less comfortable with the existence of such weapons when they are loose in your own country, and might harm voters.
Jen November 19, 2018 at 1:38 pm
The odd and disturbing part of the BBC article is that the young fellow (Adam Thomas) standing between the swastika flag and the woman in Picture 4 actually tried to convert to Judaism, and went to Israel and studied at a yeshiva (Jewish theological college) to do so. His objective was apparently to join a fundamentalist Jewish sect, of the type associated with young born-again North American and British Jewish people who then migrate to Israel and make up a considerable portion of the settler movement in that country. He was exposed to neo-Nazi beliefs from his stepfather as a child and he seems clearly attracted to apocalyptic cult belief systems. I think Thomas will always have that internal struggle of being drawn to ideologies that advocate a clean sweep and purge of humanity through constant war, violence and bloodshed so that humans can start all over again with a clean slate; yet he will be dissatisfied when eventually he comes to realise that whatever extremist ideology he attaches himself to, it will be full of contradictions and compromises. He may then conclude that humanity itself is worthless and that'll be when he really becomes dangerous.

[Nov 22, 2018] The State Dept. humanitarians, inspired by Clinton, and the totally zionized National Endowment for Democracy (and other banderite Chalupas) are undoubtedly elated with the "democracy on the march" in Ukraine

That complete misunderstanding the situation. The US officials might resent far right groups but the goal of encircling of Russia is of paramount importance and outwight all other considerations. In other word hostile to Russia Ukraine is the greatest US geopolitical victory after dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria says: November 21, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT 300 Words Meanwhile, the zionist project in Kaganat of Nuland (former Ukraine) is humming full force: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/

"Last weekend saw Ukraine's biggest Nazi march of modern times. Yet, the Western media and its numerous correspondents in Kiev completely ignored the story, even on social networks.

On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group led by Stepan Bandera, which actively collaborated with Hitler's Germany. They brandished lit torches, smoke pellets, and flares as they chanted fascist slogans. And some participants openly gave Nazi salutes during the rally."

– Viva Kagans clan. Viva the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center; your efforts at promoting the Nazi revival in Ukraine have been bringing great results, including the "biggest Nazi march of modern times."

The State Dept. humanitarians, inspired by Clinton, and the totally zionized National Endowment for Democracy (and other banderite Chalupas) are undoubtedly elated with the "democracy on the march" in Ukraine (remember the $5 billion spent by the US in Ukraine to spearhead the regime change in Kiev ) https://www.rt.com/news/444538-five-years-on-from-euromaidan/

"Ukraine is emerging as Europe's poorest country In fact, according to a recent Credit Suisse report, Ukrainians rank among the world's poorest people , coming a dismal 123rd out of 140 countries, with the net wealth of the country's citizens lagging behind Bangladesh and Cameroon. Another recent study by the United Nations Development Program found that, despite continuing economic growth, 60 percent of Ukrainians live below the poverty line."

[Nov 22, 2018] Children's show is propaganda for Putin, say critics

From comments: "Any demented paranoia against Russians and Russia is "legit" no matter how obviously detached from reality it is. "
Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile November 17, 2018 at 10:05 am

The Times:

Children's show is propaganda for Putin, say critics
November 17 2018, 12:01am,
The Times


Masha and the Bear is produced by a studio in Moscow

A programme about a mischievous girl and a bear watched by millions of British children is accused of being a "soft propaganda" tool for the Kremlin (Mark Bridge writes). The English-language Masha and the Bear has more than 4.18 million subscribers on YouTube and, in various languages, the animated series has gained 40 billion views across 13 channels.

Children enjoy watching the feisty little girl and her gentle giant protector. However, critics in Russia's neighbouring states have claimed the series, from a Moscow studio, is part of the country's propaganda machine. Professor Anthony Glees, of the University of Buckingham, an intelligence expert, said: "Masha is feisty, even rather nasty, but also plucky. She punches above her slight weight. It's not far-fetched to to say that she's acting like Putin".

As for the bear, the author recalled the position of the teacher of Tallinn University Priit Khybemyagi, who stated that this character is intended to "change the image of Russia in the minds of children from negative to positive." Khybemyagi considered this to be a threat to n national security .

At the same time, the Lithuanian critics were confused by the USSR border guard cap Masha wears in an episode where she is chasing a hare out of the bear's garden. They decided that in this way Russia was demonstrating "the defence of its border".

From the most prestigious of British "quality" newspapers.

For your delight and delectation, Episode 58 of Masha and the Bear:

Mark Chapman November 17, 2018 at 10:28 am
Dear God.

Good cartoon, though; the production is first-rate.

[Nov 22, 2018] A good insight into the mafia structures and yellow journalism that run the west.

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill November 21, 2018 at 7:44 am

https://youtu.be/7Lww5WH7INI

A good insight into the mafia structures and yellow journalism that run the west.

kirill November 21, 2018 at 8:49 am

There is lots of yapping in the western and Russian MSM about slow growth in Russia and "stagnation". This is all BS (motivated by posts on another board):

GDP ( https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD )

Russia 1,7%

Canada ..2,1 %
France 1,6%
Germany 1,9%
Italy 1,2%
Japan .1,1%
UK ..1,4%
USA 2,9%

Industrial activity ( https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/industrial-production-mom )

Month on Month..October 2018
Russia ..5,8%

Year on Year ..October..2018
Russia 3,7%

Canada ..0,14
France ..-1,8
Germany 0,2
Italy ..-0,2
Japan -0,4
UK ..0,0
USA 0,1

Note the non-existent industrial growth in the G7. So any GDP growth is due to the so-called service sector which includes the financial industry. The trick is that debt growth is counted as a positive in the GDP:

GDP = C + I + G + (Ex – Im)

where "C" equals spending by consumers, "I" equals investment by businesses, "G" equals government spending and "(Ex – Im)" equals net exports, that is, the value of exports minus imports.

There is no category for debt and foreign borrowing is considered a GDP increase. Domestic debt increase is considered a positive contribution to "I". Only debt repayments are considered a negative both domestically and to offshore lenders.

So G7 GDP "growth" is fluffed up with year on year debt growth. This is ludicrous accounting. Real growth would be any benefit to the rest of the economy induced by debt accumulation minus the debt accumulation. It is nonsensical to count the debt growth itself as GDP growth.

[Nov 22, 2018] I've lately been wondering about the economics of being a big tax haven like the UK

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

blatnoi November 5, 2018 at 3:06 am

I've lately been wondering about the economics of being a big tax haven like the UK. A place like the Bahamas, I think benefits from it since there are so few citizens and it's easy to bribe them, and it costs a lot less than paying taxes back home. But then you move on to Panama, and the grey area starts. Someone is getting rich there, but the population of Panama is a lot bigger than that of the Bahamas, and that population is not exactly rich. Does it create bigger class divisions and also retards politics in terms of trying to develop their own unique economy not dependent on servicing the rich foreign tax thieves?

Then you get to London and the UK, with their absolutely enormous population. Most of the people outside of London will never see any of this money, and in London it creates a runaway housing crisis as the best investment for laundered money is thought to be real estate. Obviously there is investment in the local economy other than that, such as buying football clubs and stores, but I don't think that money goes towards funding a pharma start-up or buying stock in a local car company.

So it exacerbates inequality sure (London real estate is insane and out of reach of most locals), and creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons? It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I don't think that happens in this case. What do you think?

Mark Chapman November 5, 2018 at 3:20 am
I think it is an extremely interesting discussion point; one that I would not venture into without doing a bit of research, but right now I have to leave for work. It's definitely something we could chew over for a bit, and I imagine Jen will have something for us on it.
Jen November 5, 2018 at 2:00 pm
Blatnoi, if you get hold of the Nicholas Shaxson book I mentioned before, I recall there's a chapter that discusses the effect of being a tax haven has on the Channel Islands economy and Jersey Island in particular. The money that ends up there is in the pockets of a very few people who use it to buy and real estate as if it were shares on the stock market. The result is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start bringing in foreign labour to replace them.

I certainly agree with you that a two-speed economy creates and exacerbates class divisions, and moreover destroys not only local economies in the areas where it operates but also local societies and cultures.

Aha I Googled "Shaxson", "economy" and "Jersey" and out of what Google threw at me, I found this account by Bram Wanrooij of his time living in Jersey with his family for six years:

An excerpt from Wanrooij's post:

".. I have never been so aware of wealth discrepancies as I have in Jersey. And that says a lot, as I have lived in places like Kenya and Sudan when I was younger. Disparity is on full display, in combination with a shameless promotion of greed and privilege. Range Rovers wizz past you, their 4×4 engines sputtering out clouds of pollution, utterly useless on a small island with a decent infrastructure and no real elevation to speak of. You even see flashy sports cars; quite amusing when you consider the speed limit is 40 at most. What are these people trying to prove?

The island caters to the very wealthy, especially reflected in everyday expenses and housing and travel costs. Getting off the island becomes ever more impossible as your family grows, with flights to England ridiculously expensive and ferries charging a small fortune for carrying you across the channel. In this way, Jersey has quickly become a financial and geographical prison for middle and low earners.

In the six years I've lived here, my family has had to move six times and every time we had to rent a house which was slightly beyond our budget, even though both my wife and I are hard workers with honest professions. I have seen qualified, talented people leave because of this, a phenomenon which makes no sense, neither on a social, nor an economic level "

Comparisons between the Jersey-style financial two-speed economy and economies afflicted with so-called Dutch disease (typically economies like Saudi Arabia and others dependent on oil, gas and mineral exploitation) have been made. Characteristics of such economies are outlined in detail at this link:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11977/oil/dutch-disease/

blatnoi November 6, 2018 at 2:34 am
Thanks for the information! I still think that the money must make it to the country's economy somehow, but if you've got a democracy and as a result of the money a disenfranchised class, then you get things like votes for Brexit and 'populists'.

It's still hard for me to think that there is not benefit for the country to be a tax haven, since so many places try to do it. Maybe the criminals who launder the money are very enterprising and smart people, so there is a chance they will start a legitimate business as well as buy expensive real estate is probably how the thinking goes.

My sister was living in a big Western city that has a huge problem with foreign capital investment into real estate. No young people there can afford a house. She recently moved to a much smaller city in the countryside with bad weather, but where she could afford a house and a job was available in her field. But I don't think the issues were from foreign investors only. Also the zoning rules are very restrictive and it leads to price increases since it's so hard to build new houses that people want. Then again, this is probably due to investor lobbying partly, since then house prices would go down and would not be that good of an investment.

Mark Chapman November 6, 2018 at 9:55 am
Countries do not seek to be tax havens because of perceived benefit to their populations, but because their governments want to exercise a degree of control over the money supply. If your enemy's money passes through a network of which you are a part, why, you can cut him off from his money. That was the whole point of the west falling upon Cyprus, destroying it as a tax haven – that they were going to disinherit the Russian wealthy overnight. It's always Russians they're after, and anyone else who gets caught in the net is collateral damage.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/18/why-the-eu-is-right-on-cyprus/

Germany told the EU that Russian billionaires had about $26 Billion in Cyprus – more than the total bailout package. It must have seemed like inspired genius to the Europeans (and doubtless to Washington as well) to seize a chunk of the Russians' money and use it to bail out an EU country. Well, as we now know, that's not what happened at all. The usual fatuous argument – offered also, predictably, by the author of the cited piece – is that Cyprus could be like Iceland, and a bit of tough love would be better for it in the long run. Of course nobody was going to say that the plan would mostly wipe out Russian wealth, while the rest of the world was free to go on using approved tax havens like London, as they do now. The two situations are completely different, and if anyone needs proof, they can take a look at how much Cyprus is like Iceland now.

It's still not clear to what extent Russians learned of the plan in advance and pulled their money out, and how much Russian money was never actually there at all, a figment of Germany's fevered imagination. I imagine the 'investigation' was done by 'journalists', as seems to be de rigueur these days (when the actual investigative services just stay back at the office plotting and planning and drinking coffee, and cite the work of 'journalists' in their reports), but there's an obvious hole in the technique. Journalists are interested in selling stories, and a story that nothing was discovered is boring. There is overwhelming pressure to sensationalize.

Fern November 5, 2018 at 5:25 pm
I've lived on the outskirts of London for many years and what I've seen is the city becoming increasingly hollowed out. You can walk around street after street at night and everywhere is in darkness – the lights are out because no-one is home, not that evening, not ever. London is permanently under construction; huge numbers of new buildings have gone up in recent years – all of them beyond the purchasing power of most Londoners – and huge numbers of those new buildings have been purchased off plan by overseas investors with no intention or interest in living in them.

When the money moves in existing communities disintegrate, local councils seek to dump those in social housing on other, less fashionable boroughs (thus exacerbating housing problems in those areas) or even outside London so housing can be razed and the land sold to developers, those renting in the private sector are priced out, local businesses close down – their market has gone plus insane rent and rates increases etc etc. London used to have a bit of a 'village' feel to it – distinct areas with settled communities, traditional butcher-baker-candlestick maker high streets, a sense of community. All gone or going.

Moscow Exile November 5, 2018 at 10:26 pm
When I was last in London in 2016, I was with my family. My children quickly realized then that "papa" was one of a rare breed in the British capital and also the capital of England: an Englishman!

We were living in Sussex Gardens, Paddington, which seems to be part of the Lebanon now. Nothing against the Lebanesse, nor any of the other immigrants really, as long as they are willing to adapt to the normalities of their host country: it is they, after all, who have made the effort to live in the UK. However, it seemed rather strange to me walking along the Edgeware Road towards Marble Arch and Hyde Park, passing on our way one Lebanese café after another, outside of which their clients were puffing away at hookahs.

I should add that I am still rather fond of London -- "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life " and all that -- but that fondness of mine is ever waning following my very infrequent visits to the place.

The London in which I lived from 1967-69 is very different to the London of today. For one thing, in those days there was a race called "Cockneys" that lived in the East End. What's left of them now is in Esssex, on a big reservation, I think: sort of like the Cherokee in Oklahoma or wherever.

However, London oozes with history and hidden gems of interest, not to mention the museums, parks, theatres etc.

To quote fully Doctor Johnson, which I partly have done above:

"Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford".

And there's the rub, Samuel, old boy: there's now precious litle in London now that an ordinary man or woman can afford!

Cortes November 6, 2018 at 2:31 am
When I worked in London 1989/90) it struck me as an agglomeration of medium sized towns, by and large, the huge cultural centres apart. Where we rented, Lee (SE) socialising was done normally in Blackheath. Our flat was about 500 yards from a major junction of the South Circular and my memory seared with the experience of queuing for well over two hours to get into Kent early morning on a Bank Holiday. Uptown nights out were a pain due to transport.
When the first reports appeared (?in the Guardian) about people commuting from York to jobs in London my mind went to a chat I'd had with my host's maid in Mexico City in 1982. She had a 2.5 hours each way commute. For the ordinary inhabitants, London is probably the 4th World.
Northern Star November 6, 2018 at 4:25 pm
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/11/06/home-n06.html
Moscow Exile November 5, 2018 at 3:51 am
'Billionaires Row': inside Hampstead palaces left empty for decades
On The Bishops Avenue houses worth tens of millions of pounds lay derelict in a spectacular example of waste and profligacy

The multimillion-pound wrecks are evidence of a property culture in which the world's richest people see British property as investments. One Hyde Park, a block of apartments in Knightsbridge, is another example where more than half the flats are registered with the council as empty or second homes.

Rinat Akhmetov pays record £136.4m for apartment at One Hyde Park
Ukraine's richest man spends record amount for a UK home after buying two Knightsbridge flats totalling 25,000 sq ft

He just loves the weather there!

Northern Star November 5, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Hmmm ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov#Political_activity
Jen November 5, 2018 at 3:46 pm
Buying properties in hot-spot areas and leaving them empty – because you plan to trade and sell them if and when the prices rocket up to levels you want – would be typical behaviour of people who treat property portfolios like share portfolios. You want to be ready to sell when the price is right so you don't move tenants into them. Getting rid of tenants can be a hassle if you want to sell quickly.

Also buying property and deliberately leaving it to rot is a way of using it as a tax shelter to minimise land and other taxes, lower your income or claim a tax rebate on losses you make because you're forking out more in land taxes, council rates and other rates than you are making on the property, depending on the taxation jurisdiction prevailing in the area or country where you have bought the property.

Evgeny November 5, 2018 at 3:59 am
Thanks for a great article, Mark!

Apparently, the U.S. authorities believe that by squeezing the corrupt Russian money out of the Great Britain, they would force those corrupt rich Russians to return their money home and remake the Russia as a modern Western nation with the rule of law and checks and balances.

At least, that's what I have heard at anti-Putin forums. So -- and especially so in view of your article -- that ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

But if that's indeed the idea -- I'm skeptical that it would work. Definitely, it sounds alright, and if it were implemented, say, 30 years ago -- it might have sort of worked, by preventing the corrupt Russians to move their assets abroad. Now, I think, they would just move their fortunes into some other friendly jurisdiction outside of the reach of Uncle Sam and Russia's authorities.

If getting at dirty money was that easy, I doubt that China would ever need to resort to such a complex operation as the "Fox Hunt".

[Nov 22, 2018] No grey areas in this excellent documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" by Michael Oswald that's been getting a lot of attention:

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Jen November 5, 2018 at 2:32 am

No grey areas in this excellent documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" by Michael Oswald that's been getting a lot of attention:
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/spider-web-britain-second-empire/

Much of the documentary is based on Nicholas Shaxson's book "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who stole the World" and he and some of his interviewees in the book are featured in the documentary.
http://treasureislands.org/

Thanks Mark for getting out this new post so quickly!

[Nov 22, 2018] Sanctimoneyous: Post-Brexit Britain Will Test-Drive a Conscience

Notable quotes:
"... "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike." ..."
"... "An Ideal Husband" ..."
"... "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." ..."
"... "Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, ..."
"... Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed; ..."
"... Everybody knows that the war is over, ..."
"... Everybody knows the good guys lost: ..."
"... Everybody knows the fight was fixed, ..."
"... The poor stay poor, the rich get rich ..."
"... That's how it goes ..."
"... Everybody knows " ..."
"... "Everybody Knows" ..."
"... Because the rest of Europe is so corrupt, Britain had to pretend to be corrupt, too, or else it might not fit in ..."
"... "Brexit will free the UK to intensify its crackdown on dirty money sloshing through the City of London because the authorities will no longer have to win the approval of the rest of the EU." ..."
"... "Sigal P. Mandelker, a top American Treasury official in London to meet with her counterparts, said British banks could face "consequences" if they continued to carry out significant transactions on behalf of the 24 influential Russians sanctioned by Washington on Friday. The list includes the industrialists Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, along with Kirill Shamalov, who American officials have identified as President Vladimir V. Putin's son-in-law." ..."
"... Moreover, to secure the credit guarantees, Blavatnik and his Washington advisers have so far outmaneuvered a Goliath: BP-Amoco. The largest producer of oil and gas in the United States, the British-American giant is fighting to keep its interest in another rich Siberian field also coveted by Tyumen Oil. BP-Amoco contends that Tyumen's takeover tactics there are unfair and could jeopardize its $571 million investment, one of the largest by a western company in Russia. ..."
"... "It's not the bureaucracy, it's not the police, it's not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital." ..."
"... "It's absolutely true that the UK is one of the leading financial centres for the laundering of corrupt money from overseas, whether through the property market, luxury goods or other sectors The UK has been a prime location for stashing away illicitly gained wealth, as anti-money laundering systems are weak and sectors such as UK property represent a safe investment, as well as a place to hide corrupt money." ..."
"... The Panama Papers leak – with 11.5 million documents the the largest leak in history so far – has implicated many of Britain's biggest banks as well. HSBC, Coutts, and Rothschild were among the banks mentioned in the papers. Since the 1970s the Mossack Fonseca law firm set up over 3000 shell companies for the aforementioned banks. These shell companies allowed their clients to evade taxes, as well as allowing them to participate in criminal or corrupt activities. ..."
"... since the 1970's ..."
Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

"When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable."
Uncle Volodya

"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike." Oscar Wilde, from "An Ideal Husband"

"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." William F. Buckley Jr.

"Everybody knows that the dice are loaded,
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed;
Everybody knows that the war is over,
Everybody knows the good guys lost:
Everybody knows the fight was fixed,
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows "

Leonard Cohen, from "Everybody Knows"

I wonder if you were as flabbergasted as I was to discover the sole reason Britain has not cracked down before now on the flood of dirty money lapping its shores is because are you ready? Because the rest of Europe is so corrupt, Britain had to pretend to be corrupt, too, or else it might not fit in !! I'm not even kidding; read it for yourself .

"Brexit will free the UK to intensify its crackdown on dirty money sloshing through the City of London because the authorities will no longer have to win the approval of the rest of the EU."

The article is The Telegraph's 'Premium content', and so you can't see the rest of it without being a subscriber – but for my part, I've seen enough. If that isn't the most goodie-goodie, self-serving teacher's-pet bullshit I've ever heard, it would certainly be in the top five.

As I've queried elsewhere, if the rest of Europe is perfectly happy rooting in its corrupt sty, while Britain holds its nose and plays at being the bad-ass so that the European hoodlums will accept it, what draws foreign robber-barons to London with cash that they need laundered? Why don't they just go to Paris or Berlin? Can they not sense how uncomfortable Britain is with money that was not honestly earned by the sweat of one's brow? Dear God, it makes me want to scream.

Let's just dispense with the notion that Honest-John Bull yearns to boot out the rotten Russian oligarchs because of a deep-seated aversion to dirty money, right now. In fact, Uncle Sam told Britain back in the spring that it was going to have to cut the Russian oligarchs loose if it wants to have continued access to the US market. And considering the arsehole Britain is making of itself in Europe, it doesn't actually have a lot of other friends. What would happen to Britain without the coziness of the Special Friendship? Like The Eagles sang in "Already Gone", it would have to eat its lunch all by itself.

"Sigal P. Mandelker, a top American Treasury official in London to meet with her counterparts, said British banks could face "consequences" if they continued to carry out significant transactions on behalf of the 24 influential Russians sanctioned by Washington on Friday. The list includes the industrialists Oleg Deripaska and Viktor Vekselberg, along with Kirill Shamalov, who American officials have identified as President Vladimir V. Putin's son-in-law."

So I guess if Britain is going to have to bury its face in the pillow while Uncle Sam rides it from behind like a pile-driver, it might as well amuse itself – and everyone else – with the notion that showing the Russian rich the door to the cold outside was all its own idea. Yes; 'course it was!

The welcome mat is still emphatically out for guys like Len Blavatnik, though, the richest man in Britain , with an estimated fortune of £15 billion. Because he's from Odessa originally, and the last time I looked, that was in Ukraine. Even when it was prodding Britain to impose sanctions against certain Ukrainian oligarchs (never Poroshenko, of course, who is a 'tycoon', which is a different thing altogether), the USA made it clear that sanctioning Ukrainians was meant to pressure them to break with Viktor Yanukovich , not to punish them. Mr. Blavatnik had a spot of bother when he was accused of working through his connections with TNK-BP oil company in Russia to drive westerners – including Britons – out of Russia in a dispute between TNK-BP and BP. You would think critics' attitude was a bit churlish, considering Mr. Blavatnik had just donated £75 million to Oxford University, the largest single donation in its history and one recognized publicly by the British Prime Minister. But Mr. Blavatnik knows how to spread money around; he is a patron not only of Oxford, but of the British Museum, the Tate Modern, the Royal Opera House, the National Portrait Gallery and the Museum of Modern Art. He is a personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, and a generous supporter of both US political parties, although he leans heavily Republican. He could show up at a Royal Opera House performance of Anna Karenina with a human head in his lap and nobody would give it a second look.

Good thing they did not investigate far enough back to learn that Mr. Blavatnik outmaneuvered BP in an almost-identical riposte back in the late 90's except then he did it with the help of his Washington advisers .

Moreover, to secure the credit guarantees, Blavatnik and his Washington advisers have so far outmaneuvered a Goliath: BP-Amoco. The largest producer of oil and gas in the United States, the British-American giant is fighting to keep its interest in another rich Siberian field also coveted by Tyumen Oil. BP-Amoco contends that Tyumen's takeover tactics there are unfair and could jeopardize its $571 million investment, one of the largest by a western company in Russia.

Well, enough of that; we're not really here to talk about Mr. Blavatnik and his squeaky-clean money – we're here to talk about the patently ridiculous announcement that Britain has an aversion to 'dirty money', and would have been much more a scourge of fiscal dishonesty if it had not been held back by its corrupt European partners.

The well-established facts suggest that Britain how can I put this? A nice way to not be deliberately insulting would be to say that London's financial centers do not discriminate against money based on its origins; there is no such thing as dirty money, or clean money, there is just money; how's that? Or, to put it as the man who blew the whistle on the Naples crime syndicate, the Camorra – Robert Saviano – did back in 2016, " the UK is the most corrupt place on earth ". Not a lot of gray area there, I think you'll agree.

"It's not the bureaucracy, it's not the police, it's not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital."

His assessment was backed by Transparency International, the outfit the UK worships whenever it is ripping on Russia for being an authoritarian hellhole ruled by an imp of Satan. The agency's own UK head of advocacy and research had no argument with the allegation.

"It's absolutely true that the UK is one of the leading financial centres for the laundering of corrupt money from overseas, whether through the property market, luxury goods or other sectors The UK has been a prime location for stashing away illicitly gained wealth, as anti-money laundering systems are weak and sectors such as UK property represent a safe investment, as well as a place to hide corrupt money."

All, all because the other European nations were mocking Britain for not being sufficiently corrupt, of course – what's a country to do when its conscience says, "This is so wrong", while the rest of the gang chants, "Scrub!! Scrub!! Launder that dirty money and pocket usurious profits, or you can't be in the club!!" As if.

Oh, but wait! We don't have complete agreement. The British Home Office – a term that, for me, always conjures an image of a crackling fire in a cozy fireplace, perhaps with a dog snoozing on the rug – said only this year that it was so darned proud that none other than, yes, Transparency International had ranked the UK the 8th least-corrupt country in the world !

How can those two realities co-exist?

Obviously, they cannot. I suggest the conundrum offers at least two considerations; one, the British Home Office has an obvious interest in refuting any talk about the UK being a festering swamp of corruption. Two, Transparency International cannot be relied upon to supply unbiased assessments so long as it is funded by, among others , the European Commission and the UK's own Department of International Development. So you can consider their evaluations with the same gravitas you might accord a similar opinion expressed by the paper boy, or whoever cuts your hair – interesting, but not necessarily informed, and quite possibly influenced.

I'm sure most or all of you remember the "Panama Papers"; those who obtained the files gloated that the information revealed was going to be curtains for Putin, as it exposed his nefarious financial dealings that made him the richest person on earth. That turned out to be horseshit, as we have learned to expect – not because Putin would never do anything bad, but because of the ideological nutjobbery of those who make such promises, as if wishing really hard would make it true. Putin himself was not mentioned anywhere in the millions of documents, and attempts to link him to a few Russian accounts that were said to be those of 'Putin's cronies' got no traction whatsoever.

However, the Mossack-Fonseca law firm's stolen files did reveal some astonishing British connections , not least of which was the then-Prime-Minister of the UK's father, who used an offshore account to evade British taxes. How do you guys feel about paying into his old-age pension now? But that was just a relatively-amusing diversion. This was the real money shot:

The Panama Papers leak – with 11.5 million documents the the largest leak in history so far – has implicated many of Britain's biggest banks as well. HSBC, Coutts, and Rothschild were among the banks mentioned in the papers. Since the 1970s the Mossack Fonseca law firm set up over 3000 shell companies for the aforementioned banks. These shell companies allowed their clients to evade taxes, as well as allowing them to participate in criminal or corrupt activities.

Over 3000 shell companies set up, since the 1970's , to allow HSBC, Coutts, and Rothschild – among others – to evade taxes and to engage in criminal or corrupt activities. Like money-laundering. Since the 1970's, which mathematics bids me point out was at least 39 years ago. Kind of a long time to be striving for acceptance into the Corruption Club, don't you think – what does a country have to do these days to receive its due acclaim?

Look; I don't know who Britain thinks it's fooling with that butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth wide-eyed innocence. But chances are good that it is not the US Department of State from whom Britain takes its orders, couched as 'helpful suggestions'. The hash the British government is making of Brexit, coupled with the US State Department's focus on squeezing only Russian oligarchs out of the money trough, virtually guarantees the whole effort will rebound on Britain in the worst kind of consequences.

Meanwhile, the fatuous premise that Britain was only pretending to walk the walk so that the mean kids in the gang wouldn't beat it up for its lunch money is somewhere south of insulting.

[Nov 22, 2018] November 15, 2018 at 8:00 am

Nov 22, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/phono/

"Languages across the world have unique phonemic systems."

Since we have the PC revisionist linguist engaging in libel smear again. Russian does not have "th". Period. No amount of PC subjectivist relativism can contradict this fact.

Since DIFFERENT languages have UNIQUE phonemes it makes sense that their writing systems would reflect this. So using the Latin alphabet in Polish results in the introduction of extra symbols and non-Latin pronunciation of Latin letters. (Example: see if you can write out Zagloba based on the way it is pronounced). Yet the resident "linguist" on this board keeps on attacking anyone who points out that different alphabets serve different languages and runs around claiming that the Latin alphabet is universal and can easily replace the Cyrillic alphabet for Russians.

Since this clown loves putting words in my mouth, I understand that HUMAN language morphology has universal aspects. For example, the most "primitive" languages are actually the most complicated with all sorts of declension, tenses and ending structure. Old languages such as Chinese and languages emerging from regions with a blending of different languages such as English exhibit simplification where word order carries meaning and endings are lost together with tenses. Chinese has no future and past tense. English has past and present. Russian is also subject to a lot of different linguistic influences (e.g. Turkic) but has retained more structure than English. I suppose this is because the British Isles were subject to ethnic influxes (Saxons) that led to blending whereas Russia was a relatively more isolated even under the Tatar-Mongol domination so there was less ethnic blending. Whereas for English 50% of the vocabulary is French thanks to the Norman period, the influence of French on Russian via the love of Russian elites for this language for over a century did not leave such a strong mark (but it may have changed the tone of the language compared to Ukrainian and central European Slavic languages).

Like Like Reply

Moscow Exile November 15, 2018 at 9:17 am

Much more than fifty out of every hundred words in my mother tongue come from French and through French from Greek and Latin. However, more than nine out of ten words that I speak in my everyday life are from the Old English that my forefathers spoke, those men and women who sailed across the stormy seas in their longships from their homeland over one thousand five hundred years ago. All the words that I have just written are just such word not one of them comes from Latin, French, Greek and so forth.
kirill November 15, 2018 at 12:29 pm
Vocabulary is very interesting in that it is often cumulative instead of displacing and survives longer than grammar. So in English French derived words are used for meat at the dinner table and original (old) words are used for the live animal (mutton-sheep, beef-cow, pork-pig). Conjugation and declension are easier to lose since they are harder to learn.
Moscow Exile November 15, 2018 at 11:31 pm
The plural for "shoe" in my dialect is "shoen" and the plural for "child" is "childer" (cf. Kind and Kinder in Modern German). And "nasty" meant "dirty/filthy" when I was a child: "Tek that nasty shirt off!"

Also, the second person singular is still used by many in my old neck of the woods, though its use now seems to be dying out amongst those much younger than I am who often wear US baseball caps back-to-front.

When, in August 2017, I met up near my hometown with my old workmate of almost 40 years ago, he said to me, "Nay, how ar't dooin'. It's good to see thi again. Tha' looks awreet!" [Now, how art thou doing? It is good to see thee again. Thou looks all right. ]

It was good to hear the old talk again; utterances such as: "Ee wuz soot on wah wachin foootbaw when ee fawed off!" (He was sitting on [the] wall watching football when he fell off.)

yalensis November 15, 2018 at 3:31 pm
Oi veh, Kirill, it never ends well when you venture into the realm of Linguistics. You are so out of your depth that it just isn't funny any more.
For starters, please produce documentary proof that I, or anybody else, ever claimed that Russia has the /th/ phoneme. Fact: Russian does not have this sound in its catalogue of consonantal phonemes.

P.S. – Stooges, didn't I predict accurately that Kirill would resort to the winged phrase "blood libel" -- well, he used the term "libel smear", but it's pretty much the same thing. Kirill uses these terms whenever anybody challenges his grasp of basic facts. Instead of just admitting that he made a factual error, and then getting on with his life. This guy is a complete idiot, like I said before he doesn't even understand the basic difference between phonemics and alphabets. He certainly never studied Scientific Linguistics, even at the Freshman 101 level.

Now, I never actually claimed that Latin was a "universal" alphabet, that just something that Kirill imagined I said, in one of his psychotic episodes.
But, now that he mentions it, Russian COULD actually be written okay in Latin. It's probably not a good idea, but it is doable. This is called transliteration . For more information about how Russian is "transliterated" into the Russian alphabet, say for purposes of the Dewey Decimal system in English-language libraries, you can read more here about the various systems in place.
Kirill is such an idiot that he probably doesn't realize, that any time a translators translates, say, Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, they have to use such a system to transliterate Russian names! And sometimes they even have to use diacritic marks! Which Kirill, in his idiocy, considers to be a heresy! Egads!

yalensis November 15, 2018 at 3:36 pm
P.S. – Kirill has also been informed, on numerous occasions, that the Cyrillic alphabet itself sometimes resorts to diacritic marks – gasp! For example, the letters ё and й .
Which it has every right to do, as a fairly decent alphabet.

But such counter-examples never trouble Kirill. He simply asserts even more strongly his erroneous and ludicrous opinions, accuses the fact-checkers of "libels" and "smears", and then sometimes even goes on to threaten them with sodomy and other forms of sexual violence.

One could feel sorry for this clearly deranged individual, were it not for that latter point.

yalensis November 15, 2018 at 3:38 pm
typo: should read "how Russian is transliterated into the Latin alphabet"
yalensis November 15, 2018 at 3:46 pm
P.P.S. – Quoting Kirill: "So using the Latin alphabet in Polish results in the introduction of extra symbols and non-Latin pronunciation of Latin letters."

Otto, are you so deluded that you don't even realize how stupid that last phrase sounds to a linguist?
Are you saying that Polish people don't even know how to pronounce their own language, since it is written down in Latin letters? And what exactly is a proper "Latin" pronunciation of Latin letters?

Oi vey . Paging Wanda!

Nat November 16, 2018 at 1:57 am
If we disregard the personal attacks, it's really an interesting discussion you are having with Kirill because it gives an opportunity to learn new things (at least, new to me) when you refute what he says.

About the proper "Latin" pronunciation of Latin letters, I don't know what exactly Kirill had in mind since most European languages use Latin letters yet pronounce them differently. My own interpretation is for example when Arabic is transliterated into the Latin alphabet, a combination of letters "kh" is used to represent the sound "خ" (sounds like the Russian "Х") , or "gh" to represent "غ". The sound "خ" exists in some European languages (German "ch", kind of Spanish "j" ) but the adopted transliteration is "kh". So of course Arabic speakers know how to pronounce their language when written down in Latin letters, but I would think the "Latin" pronunciation of "kh" would remain a regular "k"? Or does the fact that a language (whose original alphabet is not Latin) uses Latin letters automatically adds the represented sound into the list of "proper Latin" pronunciation?

Moscow Exile November 16, 2018 at 2:39 am
As regards the "proper pronunciation of Latin letters", I learnt "classical" Latin at school, namely the Latin that Julius Caesar, Virgil, Ovid etc. spoke (at least in orations) and wrote, whilst at church I sang in Mediaeval "Church Latin".

For example, "Ave Maria" (Hail Mary) in Church Latin is pronounced as ah-vay mar-ee-yah , but in classical Latin as ah-way mar-ee-yah , and "Regina Coeli" (Queen of Heaven) in Church Latin is re-dzh-aye-nah ch-ey-lee ["regina" as in "vagina"], whereas in classical Latin it is reg-aye-nah kay-lee ["hard "g" and hard "c", the latter as in "c*nt"!]

"Julius Caesar" in classical latin is pronounced you-lee-oos kie-zar .

And Julius Caesar said way-nee wee-dee week-ee -- Veni, vidi, vici!

Vade in pace! -- wah-day in pah-kay , classically said.

🙂

Moscow Exile November 16, 2018 at 2:43 am
"you-lee-oos kie- s ar" not "you-lee-oos kie-zar".

It would be better if I wrote using the international phonetic alphabet, but I can't be arsed.

yalensis November 16, 2018 at 3:06 am
I remember my first Latin class too, we all burst out laughing when the teacher told us that Yulius Kesar stamped his little foot and lisped: "Wenny Weedy Weekee!" Somehow that doesn't sound so masculine, does it?
Mark Chapman November 16, 2018 at 5:19 am
It reminds me of the righteous indignation of the main character in "Goodbye, Mr. Chips", recounting the 'new pronunciation' for Latin which would see 'vicism' pronounced "we-kiss-im".
yalensis November 16, 2018 at 3:03 am
Thanks, Nat, it is actually an interesting discussion, isn't it? Kirill makes it all too easy to launch cheap shots at him, because he is so clueless when it comes Linguistics, and yet he simply cannot resist making forays into this foreign territory. Like I said before, this feud has been going on for quite a long time -- on Mark's blog -- sorry, Mark! -- but I trust it provides education and entertainment for the hoi polloi!

The issue of alphabets should be actually a utilitarian matter, but people tend to get emotional when talking about alphabets. Perhaps this is the "cultural" component of any alphabet. Some people (Hint: religious Jews) even start to think of their alphabets as holy relics given to them by God. (In which case, one would think that God could come up with a system that included vowels!)

Bottom line: professional linguists agree, that people go on speaking their languages the way these languages have evolved, without regard for the spelling. Hence, Kirill is being completely ludicrous when he fusses that adopting the Latin alphabet should affect, in any way, how people pronounce their own language. Like I said before, Kirill does not know the difference between the phonetic and phonemic layers of human language; nor does he understand the difference between spoken language and alphabets which encode spoken language.

For example, Czechs and Poles pronounce their Slavic languages just as they are, without regard for the fact that these nations adopted the Latin alphabet. In theory, people could just scrap all existing alphabets and invent a new one that could be used for all the languages of the world. Such attempts have been made , but are unlikely to succeed, because (A) people are attached to their alphabets as cultural artifacts; and (B) most people, like Kirill, don't understand the difference between phonetics and alphabets. This situation could be remedied, if Scientific Linguistics were to be made a required subject in Middle School.

In truth, there is no reason to scrap an existing alphabet if it works well for the people who speak that language. The Cyrillic alphabet works very well for Russian, although could use some tweaking and reforms from time to time.
The Latin alphabet works well for the Czechs, their alphabet is virtually perfect in terms of one-to-one correspondence between meaningful phoneme and alphabetic symbol.
The Polish alphabet is less perfect than Czech, because Polish scholars went the route of doubling letters, for example writing the Slavic /sh/ phomene as sz instead of a single letter with a diacritic. Perhaps because their printing presses at the time did not have diacritics.
Using two letters to write a single consonantal phoneme makes the Polish words unnecessarily long and adds informational redundancy. However, on the other hand, once one learns the system, one can very easily learn to read and write Polish. This is why Polish children don't need spelling bees!

I myself learned to read Polish in under an hour. I don't really speak Polish (I know a very words and expressions, that's about it), but I can read the words in a text aloud with reasonably correct pronunciation, simply because there is such a good correspondence between phonemic catalogue and symbolic representation. On the other hand, it takes people years to learn to read and write English, which has a horrible alphabet, and this is why American children have to have spelling bees.

Moscow Exile November 16, 2018 at 12:07 pm
The rune "thorn" was still used in Early Middle English before finally having been replaced by the digraph "th", hence the pseudo-archaic "Ye Olde " signs that one occasiionally sees. And "thorn " is still used in modern Icelandic.

Þe Þree Þeatricals Þought Þings Þat Þespians Þink.

Moscow Exile November 16, 2018 at 12:22 pm
"Until Early Modern English" I should have written above.

[Nov 21, 2018] I've been rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter (between episodes of schizoid lamentation) listening to Russophobes (e.g., David Sanger of the NYT) rant on in alarmism about the perils of RUSSIAN COLLUSION, all the while ignoring the elephant from Israel standing right next to their shoulders.

Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

cassandra , says: November 20, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT

Registering Israel's Useful Idiots

This is long overdue for so many reasons, but the corruption is so pervasive that reform is nigh impossible (which I'm sure will reassure certain hearts).

I've been rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter (between episodes of schizoid lamentation) listening to Russophobes (e.g., David Sanger of the NYT) rant on in alarmism about the perils of RUSSIAN COLLUSION, all the while ignoring the elephant from Israel standing right next to their shoulders.

Seriously, who can coherently argue that any hazard to democracy posed by Russia's election influence was remotely comparable to the interference of Israel and Britain? And why should the latter 2′s intentions any more than the former's?

[Nov 21, 2018] There Are Hundreds of Groups in the US Furthering the Interests of the Israeli State - They Should be Registered As Foreign Agents by Philip Giraldi

Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a million human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news
Notable quotes:
"... But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East. Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost. ..."
"... National Security Advisor John Bolton recently received the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America. ..."
"... one might suggest that the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given events of last Friday whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

"Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state ..." Depending on what criteria one uses, there are between 200 and 600 groups in the United States that wholly or in part are dedicated to furthering the interests of Israel. The organizations are both Jewish, like the Zionist Organization of America, and Christian Zionist to include John Hagee's Christians United for Israel, but the funding of the Israel Lobby and both its political and media access comes overwhelmingly from Jewish supporters and advocates.

Many of the groups are registered with the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes as 501(c)3 "educational" or "charitable" foundations, which enables them to solicit tax exempt donations. One might dispute whether promoting Israeli interests in the United States is actually educational, but as of right now the Department of the Treasury believes it can be so construed, protected by the First Amendment.

But there is a more serious consideration in terms of the actual relationships that many of the groups enjoy with the Israeli government. To be sure, many of them boast on their promotional literature and websites about their relationships with the Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet, so the issue of dual loyalty or, worse, acting as actual Israeli government agents must be considered.

There is a legal remedy to hostile foreigners acting against American interests and that is the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). Originally intended to identify and monitor agents of Nazi Germany propagandizing in the United States, it has since been applied to individuals and groups linked to other nations. Most recently, it was used against Russian news agencies RT America and Sputnik, which were forced to register. It is also being considered for Qatar based al-Jazeera.

FARA requires identified agents to be transparent in terms of their funding and contacts while also being publicly identified as representing the interests of a foreign nation. They must report to the Department of Justice every contact they have with congressmen or other government officials. The text of the Act defines a foreign agent as

"any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person --

(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

(ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

(iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or

(iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States."

In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has never been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working closely with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests.

That failure is at a minimum a tribute to Jewish power in the United States, but it is also due to the fact that the organizations are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews, not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately made by the groups themselves to demonstrate that they are not being directed by the Israeli government.

The difficulty in proving that one is directed by a foreign government has been definitively resolved regarding one group the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), which has become the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran, Israel's bête noir . The recent al-Jazeera expose on the activities of the Israeli lobbies in both Britain and the United States, which I wrote about last week , included a surreptitiously filmed conversation with Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli intelligence officer who now heads the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which is tasked with countering what is perceived to be anti-Israeli activity worldwide.

The Ministry is particularly focused on the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which is increasingly active in both the United States and Europe.

Vaknin-Gil was discussing his activities with Tony Kleinfeld, an undercover investigative reporter who was secretly recording and filming his encounters with various members of the Israel Lobby as well as of the Israeli government.Vaknin-Gil provided explicit confirmation that the FDD works directly with the Israeli government, making it an Israeli agent by the definition of FARA.

For those who are unfamiliar with FDD, it is probably currently the most prominent neocon organization though it nevertheless claims to be a non-partisan "research group." It focuses on foreign policy and security issues by "Fighting Terrorism and Promoting Freedom," as it informs us on its website masthead.

It works to "defend free nations against their enemies," which frequently means in practice anyone whom Israel considers to be hostile, most particularly Iran. FDD's Leadership Council has featured former CIA Director James Woolsey, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Bill Kristol. Its Executive Director is Canadian import Mark Dubowitz, who is obsessed with Iran. Its advisors and experts are mostly Jewish and most of its funding comes from Jewish oligarchs.

FDD's auditorium has become a preferred venue for senior officials of the Trump Administration to go and make hardline speeches, just as the American Enterprise Institute was under George W. Bush. Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Nikki Haley have all spoken there recently, frequently focusing on Iran and the threat that it allegedly constitutes.

FDD aside, Vaknin-Gil also confirmed that there were other groups in the United States doing the same sorts of things on behalf of Israel. He said "We have FDD. We have others working on this," elaborating that FDD is "working on" projects for Israel including "data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail."

So Vaknin-Gil was admitting that FDD and others were working as Israeli proxies, collecting information on U.S. citizens, spying on legal organizations, and both planning and executing disinformation at Israeli direction. Kleinfeld also spoke with a Jonathan Schanzer, a senior official in FDD, who filled in a bit more of what the foundation is up to in terms of discrediting groups in the U.S. that support the BDS movement.

Schanzer admitted "BDS has taken everybody by surprise" before complaining that the Jewish response has been "a complete mess. I don't think that anybody's doing a good job. We're not even doing a good job." He then complained that attempts to discredit Palestinian groups by linking them to terrorist groups had failed, as also had the use of the label anti-Semitism. "Personally I think anti-Semitism as a smear is not what it used to be."

So, when will the Justice Department move on FDD now that its true colors have been exposed by al-Jazeera? The group must be required to register if justice be done, but will it? Its principal partner in crime the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has avoided registering for more than sixty years by claiming that it is an American organization working to educate the U.S. public about the all the good things connected to Israel. Even though it meets regularly with Israeli government officials, it claims not to be representing Israeli interests.

But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East. Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost.

To be sure the lovefest for Israel in government extends far beyond FDD and AIPAC. It can be found in many dark corners. National Security Advisor John Bolton recently received the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America. And one might suggest that the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given events of last Friday whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters .

Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state, which will no doubt arrange to richly reward her through some position in financial services for which she is totally unqualified when she leaves her post in January. And then she will be well funded to run for president in 2020.

Having Haley in charge, one might just as well vote for Benjamin Netanyahu.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

Source: The Unz Review Registering Israel's Useful Idiots

hasbarafails , says: November 20, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT

@Thomm What "deep end" is that?

Trump is presently Israel's man in the Oval Office and if he should not be available or bets need to be hedged for 2020, nikki likudnik is a sensible substitute.

After all (as Giraldi rightly points out), she appears to serve not as U.N. ambassador for her own country, but for the Jewish State of Israel.

The only "deep end" is Trump allowing the United States to be controlled by and have its national interests subverted by a tiny client state via the out-sized lobbying bucks of Israel-firsters like Sheldon Adelson and his cabal.

Giraldi has consistently made this point and its clear who is unhappy about it.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 20, 2018 at 7:18 am GMT
' In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has never been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working closely with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests '

I think you've failed to grasp that Israel is not subject to gentile law.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 20, 2018 at 7:24 am GMT
' Having Haley in charge, one might just as well vote for Benjamin Netanyahu '

You say that as if it would mark a change. Every president we've had since Bill Clinton has done as Israel commanded.

EliteCommInc. , says: November 20, 2018 at 9:50 am GMT
" . . . but it is also due to the fact that the organizations are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews, not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately made by the groups themselves to demonstrate that they are not being directed by the Israeli government."

I am not sure given the scope of the references that it matters. it appears that anyone advocating for any foreign entity is included.

"(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or (iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States."

These "by the way, that includes" list makes it very clear what organizations are bound to register.

FARA:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title22/pdf/USCODE-2009-title22-chap11-subchapII.pdf

wayfarer , says: November 20, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT
Israel, the Self-Serving Busybody Nation

"By Way of Dishonor, Thou Shalt Do War!"

U.S. National Debt Clock
source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a million human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news

Ludwig Watzal , November 20, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT

Geraldi's article shows how the Zionist Israel lobby holds the US public in choke cold and to put Israeli political goals into the throat of the people and the US administration. Besides their power, there have to be many useful idiots who put up with it and to support their bad goals. Their penetration of all walks of life renders it impossible to get FDD, AIPAC or all the hundred other Israeli lobby groups registered as foreign agents. As Al Jazeera has demonstrated, these folks are working foremost for Israeli interests. Their loyalty belongs primarily to Israel. If people would know, perhaps something could change. But people are not allowed to tell because the Zionist controlled media are making sure of that.

Agent76 , says: November 20, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT
Nov 3, 2018 The Lobby – USA, episode 1 Episode 1: The Covert War.

This video is posted here for news reporting purposes.

https://youtu.be/3lSjXhMUVKE

Agent76 , says: November 20, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Documentary: On Company Business [1980] FULL [Remaster]

Rare award winning CIA documentary, On Company Business painfully restored from VHS.

https://youtu.be/ZyRUlnSayQE

Curmudgeon , says: November 20, 2018 at 4:23 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX Dual citizenship has now been allowed in most (((Western liberal democracies))). There are two old adages on the subject with slightly different views:

1) A slave cannot serve two masters; and 2) A slave with two masters is truly free.

All of the Jewish lobby groups fit into these views, but their magical mental gymnastics absolves them. In the first instance, it is true that they cannot serve two masters, so they only serve one – Israel. In the second instance, they are free, as they are not bound by allegiance to either master, they voluntarily serve Israel.

Removing dual citizenship would be a step. Another step would be revisiting Chapter 115 on Sedition. The definition under law, does not correlate with the normal legal definition.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 and https://thelawdictionary.org/sedition/

The law contemplates force, the legal definition does not. Aligning the law with the legal concept of sedition would put the "educational" groups would place them on less solid ground.

And finally, given that the US Constitution contemplates the government being "We, the people", all aid to Israel is harvested from "We, the people" without consent. The famous Davy Crockett story covers it nicely

http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htm

[Nov 21, 2018] The mukhtar DJT, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel

Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the United States. ..."
"... "I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi Arabia. Why that is so is not clear to me. Saudi Arabia has no armed forces that possess real combat power to do anything but bomb civilians and oppress the Shia of the Eastern Province. Possession of military equipment does not equal combat power. A more convincing feature of theTrumpish view is the economic bit. DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the United States. pl

**********

Old Post

"I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF

--------------

OK, Yisrael Katz, the intelligence minister of Israel has asked the present king of Saudi Arabia to invite Benjamin Natanyahu to a state visit in Riyadh. What a great idea! (irony) IMO there is nothing that would be more likely to trigger a revolt within and without the SA royal family against King Salman and his son, the new crown prince. People just don't understand that the Saudi population and the royal family (thousands of people in various factions) continue to regard Israel as the ultimate enemy. For all these carefully indoctrinated Wahhabis, Israel is an abomination that occupies a portion of the territory of the 'umma, God's territory on earth. To invite Israel's prime minister to Riyadh for a state visit or, indeed any kind of visit, would be to recognize Israel as a state legitimately and perpetually occupying Palestine. The behind the scenes machinations of various acculturated princes like Muhammad bin Salman mean nothing to the people of the Saudi kingdom. What we are talking about in such a demand is an invitation to blasphemy and apostasy. It is typical of the vast majority of Israelis that in their contempt for non-Jews and especially their neighbors, they remain ignorant of such realities. A truce would be possible but not permanent recognition. pl

https://southfront.org/israeli-intelligence-calls-saudi-king-invite-netanyahu-riyadh/

********

" ... it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that country."

... the nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism." SF

----------

Saudi Arabia is a larger sponsor of Sunni jihadi movements than Qatar. That has always been true. The "kingdom" is a state built on Sunni fanaticism. There are no churches, no synagogues, no legally resident ministers of other faiths than Islam in the country. Mukhtar (appointed head man and tax farmer) Donald Trump swore allegiance to his Saudi pals in Riyadh. He did that before an army of witnesses from across the Islamic world. The Saudis have always sought to impose their sphere of influence upon all Muslims within their reach. They understandably think that mukhtar Trump gave them an extended reach as their henchman. The air base at al-odeid in Qatar is a Qatari base in which the US has been allowed to position the forward element of US CENTCOM's headquarter, the US air operations center for the whole region and ten thousand bird men. (and women). Arabs do not do things like that from altruistic love. The Qataris expected protection from Iran and Saudi Arabia and have not gotten much of anything in return. Now Turkey , pursuing its Turanian destiny (on hold since the Ottoman collapse) is building a military position as an ally of the al-than i family rulers of Qatar. SA and its pipsqueak Gulfie allies are now threatening Turkey with - what? Unhappiness if it does not abandon Qatar.? Did mukhtar Trump understand any of this before he swore fealty to King Salman? I doubt it. pl

it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that country.

The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.

The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that country.

The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.

The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that country.

The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.

The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here.

https://southfront.org/qatar-crisis-consequences/

[Nov 21, 2018] Sixteen years ago Wesley Clark said that the PNAC plan was for the US to take out 7 countries in 5 years, with Iran being the coup de gras. Hasn't happened yet.

Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

follyofwar , says: November 20, 2018 at 9:26 pm GMT

@Colin Wright

In a sense, that could be reversed. Indeed, none of the presidents since Bill Clinton has done ALL that Netanyahu's Israel has demanded, since none of them have gone to war against Iran.

Obama, it is said, couldn't stand to be in the same room as Bibi. He and SOS Kerry negotiated the multi-party Iran Nuclear Deal against Bibi's wishes, which our current POTUS irrationally tore up. Was Trump carrying out the will of Israel, or was it because he could not bear to allow one of the few good things that Obama accomplished to stand? Perhaps both.

Sixteen years ago Wesley Clark said that the PNAC plan was for the US to take out 7 countries in 5 years, with Iran being the coup de gras. Hasn't happened yet. And is Trump really that crazy? Let's hope that Bibi, who may be on his way out of office for corruption, never gets his war.

[Nov 21, 2018] Who Says Economic Sanctions Work by Scott Ritter

Looks like the recent oil price drop was engineered like in 2014 by the USA adminsitration...
" Concerns that strict sanctioning of Iranian oil would result in a spike in global oil prices prompted Trump to grant waivers to eight of Iran's largest purchasers of oil, creating a situation where Iran's oil-based income will increase following the implementation of sanctions. The bottom line is that the current round of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran will not achieve anything. "
Notable quotes:
"... With Iran, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation was an additional justification for sanctions. Here, disarmament concerns eventually trumped regime change desires, to the extent that when the U.S. was confronted by the reality that sanctions would not achieve the change in behavior desired by Tehran, and the cost of war with Iran being prohibitively high, both politically and militarily, it capitulated. It agreed to lift the sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to enhanced monitoring of a nuclear program that was fundamentally unaltered by the resulting agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA. ..."
"... When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he did so in an environment that was radically different than the one that was in play when President Barack Obama embraced that agreement in July 2015. Today, the U.S. stands alone in implementing sanctions, while Iran enjoys the support of the rest of the world (support that will continue so long as Iran complies with the provisions set forth in the JCPOA.) Moreover, Iran is working with its new-found partners in Europe, Russia, and China to develop work-arounds to the U.S. sanctions. ..."
"... The coalition of support that the U.S. has assembled to confront Iran, built around Israel and Saudi Arabia, is not as solid as had been hoped -- Israel is tied down in Gaza, while Saudi Arabia struggles in Yemen, and is reeling from the fallout surrounding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
The imposition of new, more stringent sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales by the Trump administration has once again raised the question: is this even a viable policy?

The Council on Foreign Relations defines sanctions as "a lower-cost, lower-risk, middle course of action between diplomacy and war." In short, sanctions do not represent policy per se, but rather the absence of policy, little more than a stop-gap measure to be used while other options are considered and/or developed.

Not surprising, sanctions have rarely -- if ever -- succeeded in obtaining their desired results. The poster child for successful sanctions as a vehicle for change -- divestment in South Africa during the 1980s in opposition to the Apartheid regime -- is in reality a red herring. The South Africa sanctions were in fact counterproductive , in so far as they prompted even harsher policies from the South African government. The demise of Apartheid came about largely because the Soviet Union collapsed, meaning the South African government was no longer needed in the fight against communism.

Another myth that has arisen around sanctions is their utility in addressing nonproliferation issues. Since 1994, the U.S. has promulgated non-proliferation sanctions under the guise of executive orders signed by the president or statutes passed by Congress. But there is no evidence that sanctions implemented under these authorities have meaningfully altered the behaviors that they target. Better known are the various sanctions regimes authorized under UN Security Council resolutions backed by the United States, specifically those targeting Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

The Iraq sanctions were, by intent, a stop-gap measure implemented four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and intended to buy time until a military response could be authorized, organized, and executed. The nature of the Iraq sanctions regime was fundamentally altered after Operation Desert Storm, when the objective transitioned away from the liberation of Kuwait, which was achieved by force of arms, to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, which was never the intent of the sanctions to begin with. The potential for sanctions to alter Iraqi behavior was real -- Iraq had made the lifting of sanctions its top priority, and thanks to aggressive UN weapons inspections, was effectively disarmed by 1995.

This potential, however, was never realized in large part to the unspoken yet very real policy on part of the U.S. that sanctions would not be lifted on Iraq, regardless of its level of disarmament, until which time its president, Saddam Hussein, was removed from power. Since the sanctions were not designed, intended, or capable of achieving regime change, their very existence became a policy trap -- as the sanctions crumbled due to a lack of support and enforcement, the U.S. was compelled to either back away from its regime change policy, which was politically impossible, or seek regime change through military engagement. In short, American sanctions policy vis-à-vis Iraq was one of the major causal factors behind the 2003 decision to invade Iraq.

One of the flawed lessons that emerged from the Iraq sanctions experience was that sanctions could contribute to regime change, in so far as they weakened the targeted nation to the point that a military option became attractive. This is a fundamentally flawed conclusion, however, predicated on the mistaken belief that Iraq's military weakness was the direct byproduct of sanctions. Iraq's military weakness was because its military had been effectively destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War. Sanctions contributed significantly to Iraq being unable to reconstitute a meaningful military capability, but they were not the cause of the underlying systemic problems that led to the rapid defeat of the Iraqi military in 2003.

The "success" of the Iraq sanctions regime helped guide U.S. policy regarding North Korea in the 1990s and 2000s. Stringent sanctions, backed by Security Council resolutions, were implemented to curtail North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems. Simple cause-effect analysis shows the impotence of this effort -- North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capability continued unabated, culminating in nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. soil being tested and deployed. The notion that sanctions could undermine the legitimacy of the North Korean regime and facilitate its collapse was not matched by reality. If anything, support for the regime grew as it demonstrated its willingness to stand up to the U.S. and proceed with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

The Victims of Iran Sanctions Iran Deserves Credit for the Ruin of ISIS

The Trump administration labors under the fiction that it was the U.S. policy of "maximum pressure" through sanctions that compelled North Korea to agree to denuclearization. The reality, however, is that it is North Korea, backed by China and Russia, that has dictated the timing of the diplomatic breakthrough with the U.S. ( the so-called "Peace Olympics" ), and the pace of associated disarmament. Moreover, North Korea's insistence that any denuclearization be conducted parallel to the lifting of economic sanctions demonstrates that it is in full control of its policy, and that the promise of the lifting of economic sanctions has not, to date, prompted any change in Pyongyang's stance. While President Donald Trump maintains that the U.S. will not budge from its position that sanctions will remain in place until North Korea disarms, the fact of the matter is that the sanctions regime is already collapsing, with China opening its border, Russia selling gasoline and oil, and South Korea engaged in discussions about potential unification.

The U.S. has lost control of the process, if indeed it was ever in control. It is doubtful that the rest of the world will allow the progress made to date with North Korea to be undone, leaving the U.S. increasingly isolated. Insisting on the maintenance of a sanctions regime that has proven ineffective and counterproductive is not sustainable policy. As with Iraq, U.S. sanctions have proven to be the problem, not the solution. Unlike Iraq, North Korea maintains a robust military capability, fundamentally altering the stakes involved in any military solution the U.S. might consider as an alternative -- in short, there is no military solution. One can expect the U.S. to alter its position on sanctions before North Korea budges on denuclearization.

Iran represents a far more complex, and dangerous, problem set. The United States has maintained sanctions against Iran that date back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy and resultant holding of its staff hostage for 444 days. The U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran has been one where the demise of the ruling theocracy has been a real, if unstated, objective, and every sanctions regime implemented since that time has had that outcome in mind. This is the reverse of the Iraqi case, where regime change was an afterthought to sanctions. With Iran, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation was an additional justification for sanctions. Here, disarmament concerns eventually trumped regime change desires, to the extent that when the U.S. was confronted by the reality that sanctions would not achieve the change in behavior desired by Tehran, and the cost of war with Iran being prohibitively high, both politically and militarily, it capitulated. It agreed to lift the sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to enhanced monitoring of a nuclear program that was fundamentally unaltered by the resulting agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA.

When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he did so in an environment that was radically different than the one that was in play when President Barack Obama embraced that agreement in July 2015. Today, the U.S. stands alone in implementing sanctions, while Iran enjoys the support of the rest of the world (support that will continue so long as Iran complies with the provisions set forth in the JCPOA.) Moreover, Iran is working with its new-found partners in Europe, Russia, and China to develop work-arounds to the U.S. sanctions.

The coalition of support that the U.S. has assembled to confront Iran, built around Israel and Saudi Arabia, is not as solid as had been hoped -- Israel is tied down in Gaza, while Saudi Arabia struggles in Yemen, and is reeling from the fallout surrounding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi .

Concerns that strict sanctioning of Iranian oil would result in a spike in global oil prices prompted Trump to grant waivers to eight of Iran's largest purchasers of oil, creating a situation where Iran's oil-based income will increase following the implementation of sanctions. The bottom line is that the current round of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran will not achieve anything.

For the meantime, Iran will avoid confrontation, operating on the hope that it will be able to cobble an effective counter to U.S. sanctions. However, unlike Iraq, Iran has a very capable military. Unlike Korea, however, this military is not equipped with a nuclear deterrent.

If history has taught us anything, it is that the U.S. tends to default to military intervention when sanctions have failed to achieve the policy goal of regime change. Trump, operating as he is under the influence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, is not immune to this trap. The question is whether Iran can defeat the sanctions through workarounds before they become too crippling and the regime is forced to lash out in its own defense. This is one race where the world would do well to bet on Iran, because the consequences of failure are dire.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Dealbreaker: Donald Trump and the Unmaking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (2018) by Clarity Press.

[Nov 21, 2018] Why Trump's Bankrupt Iran Policy Can't Succeed by Daniel Larison

Trump does not have his own foreign policy. This is a typical neocon foreign policy.
Israel's support of headchoppers in Syria might eventually backfire... Even if Russia did not take immediate revenge for provoked by Israeli pilots "friendly fire" incident, they do not forget it.
Israel already has a ticking bomb within its borders in the form of antagonized and radicalized Palestinian population, as well as growing radicalization of Israeli population (reflected in a long rule of Likud, with Netanyahu as the leader ) and the huge military budget (by-and-large paid by the USA taxpayers). Zionist experiment with the displacement of ingenious population in a manner Anglo-Saxon settlers did in the past (Angozionism), did not work too well. And Bible here is of little or no help. The key problem is that Arabs are not American Indians or Australian aborigines. It is unclear how Israel can avoid the destiny of Rhodesia in a long run. Moreover surrounded by hostile states Israel has such level of defense expenditures that ut did not become a failed state yet only because of the USA financial and military support (Iraq war also enriched Israel, which experienced financial difficulties at this time). As soon as the USA support ends, Israel position in the region will gradually deteriorate and eventually it might simply became yet another debt slave state like Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... Tehran views its influence in Iraq and Syria as vital to its national security ..."
"... the fact that a foreign government is telling them to give this up will be much more likely to confirm how important it is to keep it. ..."
"... Trying to coerce Iran's government into abandoning its pursuit of regional influence isn't going to work because the government places too much importance on it and it is willing to pay a significant price to ensure that it retains the influence it has gained ..."
Nov 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Amir Handjani elaborates on why Trump's Iran policy will fail on its own terms:

The Trump administration has just made the path to a diplomatic settlement with Tehran much harder. It has badly miscalculated the resilience of the regime and its ability to absorb punishment.

Handjani makes several important points that have often been overlooked in the debate over the administration's Iran policy. First, he notes that " Tehran views its influence in Iraq and Syria as vital to its national security ." If Iran sees retaining its influence in these countries as vitally important for its security, that should tell us that they aren't going to give up on it because of outside pressure. On the contrary, the fact that a foreign government is telling them to give this up will be much more likely to confirm how important it is to keep it.

The Iranian government's determination to hold to these policies can be seen from the fact that they have continued them even when they were under much greater economic pressure:

The Islamic Republic has consistently demonstrated that it can do more with less and that it will sacrifice butter for guns.

That conclusion is consistent with this study of how the Iranian government has responded to sanctions in the past. Trying to coerce Iran's government into abandoning its pursuit of regional influence isn't going to work because the government places too much importance on it and it is willing to pay a significant price to ensure that it retains the influence it has gained . Sanctions usually don't succeed in compelling changes in regime behavior, and they are never successful when the regime believes that its security and/or survival would be put at risk by yielding to outside demands.

Iran sanctions can't achieve the administration's stated goals, and that is largely because those goals are unrealistic and unreasonable.

[Nov 20, 2018] A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski , says: November 17, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT

Very important, with "Eyes Wide Open," Alison Weir, below!

https://israelpalestinenews.org/is-israel-turning-a-blind-eye-as-israeli-scammers-swindle-victims-in-france-us-elsewhere/

renfro , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:53 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski Not surprising to anyone who understands that stealing ,especially from 'others' is a first choice career of Jews/Israelis.
I have always suspected that the 9 billion of stolen Iraq funds were stolen by the Jews who were embedded in the US occupation administration and sent to Israel. Israel was so broke in 2001 they asked the Us for economic aid then suddenly in 2004 by some miracle they were rolling in surplus money again.

Investigations reveal a pattern of Israeli officials stone-walling efforts to stop the perpetrators of massive financial swindles in various countries, from Europe to the US to the Philippines While some Israeli reporters work to expose the scams, a new one is already underway

By Alison Weir

[MORE]
French and Israeli media report that a group largely made up of Israelis scammed 3,000 French citizens out of approximately $20 million. Most of the stolen money is in Israel, but Israeli authorities are reportedly failing to cooperate with France in prosecuting the scammers and retrieving the money.
This is the latest of numerous examples of Israeli officials stone-walling international efforts against the perpetrators of massive financial swindles around the world, according to Israeli investigative journalists and others. These scams have brought estimated billions into the Israeli economy, propping up a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing against indigenous Palestinians. Together, the stories paint a picture of a government that seems to be turning a blind eye to -- and even protecting -- scammers.

A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."

A former IRS expert on international crime notes that "fraudulent industries are often major economic drivers, and that can translate into political clout."
Some Israeli journalists have been working to expose the situation in Israeli newspapers, publishing exposés like "As Israel turns blind eye to vast binary options fraud, French investigators step in" and "Are French Jewish criminals using Israel as a get-out-of-jail card?" (Short answer: yes.)

Victimizing French business owners & churches

The victims of the recent scam against French citizens included churches and the owners of small businesses -- delicatessens, car repair shops, hair salons, plumbers, etc. Some lost their life savings and describe being threatened and intimidated by the scammers.

[Nov 20, 2018] Ukraine whistleblower exposes alleged DNC collusion

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Phil,

Andrii Telizhenko (fled Ukraine) is here in DC now. Lee is trying very hard to connect him with Don Jr., etc. Do you have any channel?

Ukraine whistleblower exposes alleged DNC collusion

[Nov 20, 2018] When do we take a stand, (when do we fight)?

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

TRASH(NOT) , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT

@anonymous

Both share an implacable sense of Islamophobia. And, the deep sense of racial inferiority complex which the hindoos feel, fits well with the cursed ideology of their supremacist white-skinned Zionist masters. Them hindoos are willful lickspittle of the Jooscum.

Man you really hit the bull's eye with this astute observation of yours (or is the golden cafe we have here?? ;))

What I think is that, these hindoos (at least the ones who are on the top of the totem pole) have what robert lindsay used to describe as, a very deep sense of inferiority complex intertwined with a very superficial sense of superiority on the outside. Deeper the inferiority complex, stronger the (external) superiority complex to offset the deep sense of shame they have on the inside. I wonder why that is?

However it would be wrong to paint the whole country of India with the same brush. A massive percentage of people there are bearing the brunt of toxic hatred and violence emanating from the likes of 'zionist lickspittles' you mentioned. One can only surmise what they must be enduring. These low caste and other minorities there would be a very patient and stoic people as otherwise India would've erupted into a full blown civil war by now.

As for the 'jooscum', I take issue with that. There certainly are Jews, like Unz, Atzmon and Shamir who defy the stereotype and become champions of real free speech and truth. So again one must NOT go down that slippery slope of putting each and everyone to the guillotine just because they happen to be cohen or ahmed or rahul or whatever. We are better than that

Durruti , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:20 pm GMT
@anon Thanks for reading my comment.

The Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments), to the Constitution were added to mitigate criticism of the new centralized American Constitutional Gov't.

Jefferson said the Constitution made his stomach turn.

Nevertheless, (with all its faults) it (the somewhat sovereign American gov't), was replaced on November 22, 1963

When do we take a stand? We must Restore our Republic (there is no obfuscating around our duty).

You care.

God bless!

[Nov 20, 2018] Israel support const Us taxpayers more than just the 3 billion per year, it more like 5 billion if you count the 760,000 for missile defense and a dozen other programs for aid to Israel. Cost was 1.6 trillion as of 2002, probably 2 trillion by now.

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: November 16, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski Its much more than that .we have a lot of cost for Israel than just the yearly 3 billion, it more like 5 billion if you count the 760,000 for missile defense and a dozen other programs for aid to Israel. Cost was 1.6 trillion as of 2002, probably 2 trillion by now.

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US

December 9, 2002

By David R. Francis ,Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

[MORE]
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.

In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.

That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

[Nov 20, 2018] Supposedly the 1965 Immigration Act was engineered by Jews to destroy white society. What it did accomplish was importing a bunch of Asians and Hispanics who do not care a whit about Israel or Jews and some Muslims who detest them.

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jeff Stryker , says: November 15, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT

@JC1 Asian-Americans are not brainwashed. When the LA riots occurred in part because a Korean woman shot a black girl in the back of the head in her store, the Korean shopkeepers simply got out their guns and started shooting black rioters like dogs which of course they privately regard them to be. Blacks paid cash in their liquor stores but once this was no longer a factor they simply started shooting at them-with much greater accuracy, too. The average ghetto black was no match for a Korean with an SKS rifle.

Iranian Muslims are not brainwashed. When Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League who had previously been known for brawling with Metzger and the Klan on talk shows tried to blow up the mosque and congressman Issa after 9-11 (I guess he did not get the memo that the Z were behind it) he was imprisoned. His death was suspicious and probably the result of Aryan gangs on the inside. At any rate, so much for Jewish domination of the Muslims.

Hindus are supposedly cooperating with Jews in their takeover of the tech industry. I cannot be sure of that. However, they are not brainwashed.

And as our Italian-American posters have noted here, the Italians who long resided in the same cities with Jews don't give a "rat's culo" for Israel.

Supposedly the 1965 Immigration Act was engineered by Jews to destroy white society. What it did accomplish was importing a bunch of Asians and Hispanics who do not care a whit about Israel or Jews and some Muslims who detest them.

So it is the rural white prole who is brainwashed. He comes home from a hard day's work and watches some film like BLACK PANTHER where a bunch of effete British character actors play the baddies and the black Mandingo walks around in a costume and they want him to screw their sister.

The Korean or Iranian or Italian in the city does not want to imitate blacks. Few of them are whiggers. It is the rural white prole who wants to "keep it real". Italians who do choose to be gangsters do not go to jail for the petty crimes that whiggers do.

I must say that the white is something of a fool. And I should add, I am one. Whites seemed smarter in the 1990′s. But somehow they declined after Bush was elected.

[Nov 20, 2018] Doesn't anyone else get fatigued by the constant demand for attention by the one Ethnostate supposedly created by God

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT

@Burgess Shale

Doesn't anyone else get fatigued by the constant demand for attention by the one Ethnostate supposedly created by God ? What's in it for me ?

You get to pay for it.

Why Israel Will Never Repay US Loans

Dr. Israel Shahak

[MORE]
"All conceivable questions have been discussed about scheduling and conditions of the $10 billion in loan guarantees requested by Israel from the US government except one: How can Israel possibly repay such a huge sum? After all, if Israel cannot repay these loans, the burden will fall upon the guarantor, the US government, which in the last analysis means upon the US taxpayers.

Such a repayment would in fact amount to foreign aid under another name. Because of the deterioration of economic conditions in the US, no matter what forms of pressure the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may use, the Congress will be reluctant to offer Israel $10 billion in an extra aid gift.
Given these realities, the best guess would be that both sides already know that since Israel is not capable of repaying the US guaranteed loans, they regard the guarantees as a gift to Israel in disguise.

A Gift in Disguise

Yitzhak Shamir and other Israeli government spokesmen, as well as spokesmen for Israel's US lobby, constantly reiterate that Israel has so far been repaying its debts on time. They don't mention that the US pays the interest on those loans, and eventually forgives them. If the US did not do this, Israel's case would soon be comparable to that of the USSR and other debt-ridden states which used their past good repayment records as justification for borrowing more and more, until finally they defaulted on all their loans. The situation is described by Israeli economist Zvi Timor, the editor of Al-Hamishmar, in an article entitled "Dignified Behavior Under Pressure" in his journal's September 17 issue:
"For years we have been repaying all our debts from what we've been receiving as American aid. Every year Israel gets $1.3 billion of economic aid, of which $ 1.1 billion goes for debt repayment."
In other words, 85 percent of American economic aid "is not spent as it is supposed to be. From private but reliable sources, I know that last year the sum in question reached $1.2 billion, i.e. 92 percent of the received "economic aid." It means that the American taxpayers have been, without their knowledge, repaying the Israeli debt for years. Ordinary Americans would be overjoyed if they learned that their debts were being repaid by somebody else. If Israeli debt repayment goes under the name of "economic aid," it is to conceal from the US public the knowledge that they are repaying somebody else's debts.

The deception is nevertheless obvious for the simple reason that the expenditure of between $11 and $12 billion over 10 years would otherwise have produced some visible effects in Israel. None, however, can be seen.

According to the Congressional Research Service issue brief, "Israel: US Foreign Assistance Facts" by Clyde R. Mark (updated May 8, 1991), Israel also benefits from periodic US government waivers. From 1974 to 1984, the United States waived repayment of part of Israel's annual FMS (Foreign Military Sales). Since 1985, the US has waived repayment of the total FMS. The waiver avoids establishing a program and personnel to oversee the program, as would be required if the same amount were given as a Military Assistance Program grant.

What this means is that since the entire value of the enormous military aid the US has granted Israel over the years is in fact a gift, Israel does not owe the US very much. The brief states further that "the United States gives all ESF (Economic Support Funds) directly to the Government of Israel rather than under a specific program. There is no accounting of how the funds are used. " No other recipient of American aid benefits from such conditions, which seem almost to have been designed to beget fraud. And fraud they did beget.
In fact, fraud and deceit have pervaded Israeli utilization of US support. Even the magnitude of this support has been misreported. Contrary to the data routinely cited by the Western press, combined US military and economic support to Israel has amounted not to $3.1 billion yearly, but, as Timor stated, "in sum total, without counting the guarantees, the US government helps Israel financially to the extent of about $5 billion."
In this sum he includes the value (to Israel) of "deductions [from US income tax] accruing to funds raised by the United Jewish Appeal. " Incidentally, the bulk of these funds, although they are put at the disposal of the Israeli government, remain in the US. They are used by AIPAC and other segments of the Israeli lobby in the United States. In this way, the US administration actually subsidizes lobbying power used against itself.

Other forms of covert American aid cited by Timor are discussed by Yossi Verter and Yigal Laviv in an article headlined "The American financial aid to Israel is much higher than previously known" in Hadashut of September 20. Their estimate of the total amount of support received by Israel from the US roughly concurs with Timor's.
Relying on "documents leaked by the State Department, which were published in part by the Wall Street Journal, " and also "on sources in the Congress" (and apparently on Israeli sources as well), the writers conclude that "financial aid which Israel receives from the US is much higher than published figures indicate, largely because Israel uses the received money for complex financial speculation schemes which are without exception detrimental to the interests of the American taxpayer."
They also assert that "between 1974 and 1989 Israel received from the US over $16 billion in the form of military aid, but no one in the US really expected that any part of this total would ever be repaid."

Asking About the Future

But let us leave the past aside, and ask about the future. Right now, the US pays existing Israeli debts to commercial banks and allows their recycling. The question that therefore remains is, how can Israel repay the additional principal and interest on the $10 billion in loans? Or, alternatively, can Israel renounce the guarantees and impose an austerity regime in their stead?
The latter option is already advocated by such Israeli ministers from the extreme right as former Chief of Staff and present Minister of Agriculture Rafael Eitan. After all, in order to repay this sum each year, Israel would have to increase its exports by at least $4 billion, or more if the profits from such exports did not reach 50 percent.
The last officially recorded value for Israeli exports was some $9.4 billion in 1988. The value of imports was $12.3 billion, yielding a trade deficit of 23.2 percent, according to the "Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1989." Since Israel is now in recession, the value of its exports could not have increased much since then.
In fact, one particular export, that of weaponry, has collapsed since 1988. The value of exported weapons, one-third of which went to Colombia alone, amounted in 1988 to $1.5 billion. The forecast for the next fiscal year was that this particular export would decrease to $213 million.
Two major markets for the Israeli exports now are North America ($3.1 billion, of which $3 billion goes to the US) and the European Common Market ($3.2 billion). Israeli exports to the US were composed chiefly of polished diamonds ($1.2 billion), medicines and chemicals ($180 million), and clothes and textiles ($125 million).

Only the gullible can expect that Americans, under present economic conditions, can be influenced by AIPAC to buy more Israeli diamonds in quantifies sufficient to cover the repayment of the new loans, to be borrowed at the rate of $2 billion per year for five years. An increase of Israeli exports by $4 billion, or some 43 percent in a single year, is, as Timor clearly recognizes, absolutely impossible.
Timor is right in pointing out that without the US guarantees, "a state like Israel, which already has an enormous foreign debt per capita, enormous defense budget, enormous budgetary deficit, and quite sizable trade deficit, would not be considered an attractive borrower on the international financial market. " It can be mentioned in passing that an Israeli budgetary deficit exists when the notyet granted American guarantees are already counted on its revenue side! All these facts only reinforce disbelief in Israel's ability to ever repay the loans guaranteed by the US.
The Austerity Alternative
The alternative option of renouncing the guarantees and imposing an austerity regime would also have dire consequences. The proposed reduction of all salaries by 10 percent would yield the equivalent in Israeli shekels of $2 billion. In addition to the social consequences of this proposal, a hefty proportion of Israeli wage-earners would thus rapidly land below the poverty line.
Nor would these sacrifices yield the intended economic effects. As Timor reminds his readers, Israeli shekels are worthless outside of Israel. His conclusion, backed by some additional arguments not mentioned here, is: "Any savings in shekels are bound to be quite ineffective, because shekels are not dollars."
The prediction that Israel cannot possibly repay the loans which the US is requested to guarantee rests on firm grounds. The data upon which this prediction is based, although not publicized by the media before the current clash of the US administration with the Israeli government and with the Israeli lobby in the US, were surely known to the advocates of the guarantees from the start. This inescapably leads to the conclusion that the guarantees were originally conceived as a grant in disguise. It would have been more honest to call them a gift.
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment, or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:00 am GMT
Explainer

What are Israel's Loan Guarantees?
2003

"The New York Times reported Tuesday that the United States may be planning to reduce Israel's loan guarantees to account for any money the country spends constructing a "security perimeter" that will divide its citizens from Palestinians. What are these loan guarantees, and how important are they to Israel?
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment, or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.

The $9 billion in loan guarantees (along with $1 billion in direct aid) comprise a special post-Gulf War II aid package, awarded to Israel on top of the $3 billion in other assistance that the United States gives annually. But with loan guarantees, it's never clear how much money is actually "given": In a perfect world, they wouldn't cost the United States a cent. Israel -- or Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which snagged loan guarantees as postwar rewards -- could borrow on the international markets, then pay off the loans completely, leaving the United States with no financial obligation. But Israel has already received nearly $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States since 1992, and while it has yet to default on any of those loans, this new round of guarantees is intended in part to help Israel pay off the old debt. Which means the United States could be stuck with a bill ranging anywhere from zero to $9 billion plus interest.
When borrowing on the United States' good credit, the Israeli government can use the money for any purpose. However, Congress attached a series of stipulations to the recent package, including one that reserves the right to reduce the guarantee amount to counterbalance any money Israel spends creating new settlements in contested territory. This caveat is exactly what Bush may use now to pressure Israel to cease construction on its "security perimeter" -- if the caveat is employed, Israel would find itself fully responsible for part of its loan (and thus with higher interest rates). And because Israel's annual revenues top out at $40 billion, any tweaks to a $9 billion aid package could shake up the country's economy.
Experts say it's far from clear that the Bush administration will follow through with this plan. But simply threatening to reduce the guarantees can also be effective because Israel needs the U.S.-backed loans to keep debt payments under control. In 1991, Israel was in a similarly desperate financial situation, and the United States used the threat of limiting loan guarantees to force then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to attend the Madrid peace conference and suspend settlement construction while he was there

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT
Jewish Groups Get 94% of Homeland Security Grants

https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/203059/jewish-groups-get-94-of-homeland-security-grants/

"The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94 percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits.
The $13 million disbursed last week brings to $151 million the amount disbursed since the program started in 2005, most of it to Jewish institutions "

anon [423] Disclaimer , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:33 am GMT
@Durruti Its not a no longer situation.

The USA is not a sovereign nation, America is a sovereign nation, could that be what you meant to say?

The USA is a corporation organized to govern; it owners are not investor-shareholders but robber-barren bandit stakeholders. The USA was established to mitigate and tame down the Democracy Americans had bleed red blood to achieve. Take a look at the corporate bylaws (constitution) of the USA, they consist of seven articles.

The Executive, Article I. (pres. vp,), the Congress Art. II. (board of directors), the Judiciary ( to settle difference) (Article III), Articles IV clarifies relations between the different generally lesser governments (states), Article V, invents a way to make it possible for the constitution to terminate the Confederation (that invention is called Ratification) It was ratification that transferred the power of government from the continental "democracy-practicing" masses right back into the hands of the few caretakers who were beholding to, or in service to, private banking and foreign interest. America governed itself for 11 years . After that the pre -evolution Oligarchs (wealthy or highly educated elites) managed to get ratified their constitution and to use it to put themselves right back into the positions of political and autocratic power they enjoyed before the revolution. The constitution eliminated the right of Americans to a say in the affairs of their government. (the government, and the affairs of government, were separated from the masses of the people. The USA was used to protect and enhance the aristocrats from the needs, wants and plight of the masses and to extract from the masses the funds that support USA operations. To accomplish that transition feat, the banksters used ( or invented and used) a process called ratification (Article VII). Ratification eliminated the American Democracy overseen by the Articles of Confederation (as administered by the American democratic continental government).

Read Constitution Article VI [2] and [3].. you will see.. authority..shall be supreme.. Judges Senators and Representatives ,.. Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the US and of the several States [shall be bound by it].

Constitution Article VI [1] ..engagements entered into, before the Adoption[ratification] ..shall be valid against the US [<=meaning in spite of the democratic wish of those who fought the British , the US corporation (USA) would "recognize as valid" deeds to real estate obtained by Land grant from a foreigner. Millions of acres of America would remain in a very few private hands. It meant many other similar things.. to numerous to mention here. Had the Confederation continued slavery most likely would have not survived.

Why bother with writing Article VI{1}? These few words allowed wealthy Washington Aristocrat types to retain their vast personal ownership in their humongous-stretches of real estate (land holdings) given (land granted) to them or to those from whom they acquired them by a foreign power (on behalf of the Banksters who in those days controlled everything). Democracy itself was the threat that produced the US Constitution ; the US constitution eliminated democracy ; the constitution replaced America's democracy by confederation with a republic (meaning no one but the elected few are to be permitted any say in anything (go back to work and shut the **** up).

Why was democracy a threat ? The Confederation (government by agreement) was being urged by its war vets to make good on its promises to give every vet a homestead and a pension for their service in the war. The vets were demanding all land in America belonged to Americans. they were insisting to refuse to recognize claims (deeds) to real estate that predated the American revolution; we don't recognize deeds from foreign kings. British, French or Spanish land grant owners turn the ownership of your land over to America (the confederation), such land does not belong to you. We Americans do not recognize land grants from foreign governments; these lands never belonged to foreigners so they could not give them to you. Needless to say, land grant owners (Washington and family owned most of Virginia and a great part of West Virginia <=reason George was appointed general of the continental army, he was so rich everyone would know who he was and volunteer to help fight the British).

It must be remembered that the Confederation (Articles of Confederation, not the USA) was the government that defeated the British in the American Revolution, 1776-1778! The USA did not then exist. Eleven Confederation years between 1776 (Declaration of Independence) and the ratification of the USA (1789)

Ratification truncated the American Democracy; ratification re-established the British Bankster appointed Aristocrats as puppets in charge over America.

The US Constitution created an Americanized form of British Parliamentary government, in virtually the same form as existed in British Colonial times, but without a king or queen (instead a President and Vice President); so the USA was the banker's government that would control America, its just that most Americans did not know it. Most Americans cannot name one of the 11 presidents of the Confederation (AOC government) because misleading propaganda has been substituted in their school taught histories. Most Americans don't understand federalism, nor do they have any idea the angry controversy that forced the USA into existence.

I have written this several times and each time I understand more about what happened. If you see I am wrong please say so.. I am really interested to sort out the truth and that was a long time ago.

[Nov 20, 2018] Israel Wins 2018 Election by Philip Giraldi

With all due respect to Philip Giraldi I do not buy this reasoning. Outsize influence of Israel in the US politics and especially in foreign policy is a direct result of correlation of the goals of Israel and USA on the Middle East. In a way Israel acts as yet another (informal) US state. The moment Israel tries to pursue independent foreign policy (for example by booting Likud from government and electing more reasonable party and deviating from the USA goals) it will face consequences, Israeli lobby or no Israeli lobby. Israel also acts as yet another lobbyist for the US military industrial complex.
The fact that media is owned by large corporations does no imply that it is owned by Israeli interests. And if MSM conduct pro-Israeli propaganda they do so reflecting interests of the the US elite -- financial oligarchy. And a large percentage of financial oligarchy support Zionism.
But the fact of interference of Israeli government in the USA election are reprehensible and those involved should be prosecuted. Possibly using RICO act.
Discussion of the article is much more interesting then the article itself, revealing many additional aspects of the power of Israeli lobby to influence the US elections. As well as the list of US politicians they managed to send to the dustbin of history.
Notable quotes:
"... While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests. ..."
"... It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first to go. Next? ..."
"... The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US (Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for you. ..."
"... Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial law and that was that. ..."
"... The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in Syria. ..."
"... The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States. I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc. ..."
"... The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came from none other than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"? ..."
"... You are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that "foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their nuclear facilities. ..."
"... Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as "agents of a foreign government" as required by American law. ..."
"... Israel is indeed a "special case". ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

It is particularly ironic that as the midterm campaigns were drawing to a close there appeared some serious investigative journalism that demonstrates precisely how Israel and Jewish groups corrupt the political process in America to provide virtually unlimited support for anything and everything that the despicable Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war criminals seek to do. How the process has succeeded is best illustrated by the current Israeli government's policy of "mowing the grass" in Gaza where it is using army snipers to kill unarmed Palestinian protesters. Washington not only does not protest against the in-your-face war crime, it aids and abets it with U.S. Ambassador David Friedman justifying the military response as measured and appropriate.

Another area where Washington chooses to look the other way is regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to consist of two hundred warheads. Under U.S. law, any country that has an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal cannot obtain American-made weapons and cannot received aid of any type. Congress and the White House pretend that the Israeli nuclear arsenal does not exist, in spite of the fact that the Israelis themselves have more than once implicitly acknowledged it and instead of cutting aid to Israel have instead increased it. It is currently $3.8 billion per year guaranteed for the next ten years, with extra money also available if needed. No other country benefits from such largesse and gives in return so little.

To be sure, the groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, which appeared in 2007, pulled no punches in describing how the Israel Lobby operates in the United States. It also made clear that the relationship with Israel serves no United States national interest whatsoever and exists solely because of the corruption of the political system and the media by principally Jewish individuals and groups that are dedicated to that task.

While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests.

The British expose, in two parts, aired in January, and was based on discussions and interviews that took place between June and November 2017. It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).

The secret recording revealed how an Israeli Embassy diplomat/spy named Shai Masot connived with a senior civil servant to get rid of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan, regarded as a supporter of an independent Palestinian state. To Masot's additional query "Can I give you some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?" the civil servant suggested " if you look hard enough, I'm sure there is something that they're trying to hide a little scandal maybe." Another alleged pro-Arab member of Parliament Crispin Blunt was also identified and confirmed to be on a "hit list."

It was also learned that Masot had been secretly subsidizing and advising two ostensibly independent groups, the parliamentary Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Masot did, however, express concern that Israel's control over incoming parliamentarians was not quite what it used to be: "For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They're not doing that any more in the Labour Party. CFI, they're doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in the last elections did it automatically."

The documentary was initially a sensation in Britain but then, predictably, it went away as Israel's loyal host of media scriveners took charge. Masot was recalled to Israel and Prime Minister Teresa May, as good a friend to Jewish money and power as one is likely to find, decided to do nothing. Her characteristically toothless reaction to the suggestion that her government officials might be removed by the clandestine activity of a foreign country was: "The Israeli ambassador has apologized the U.K. has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed."

The four-part series by al-Jazeera on the Lobby in the U.S. was meanwhile temporarily spiked because the Qatari government was seeking to obtain the mediation of prominent American Jews to pressure the White House to help resolve its outstanding conflict with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The documentary has remained in limbo but in the past two weeks it has surfaced and is now available . Its undercover investigative journalist, a British Jew named Tony Kleinfeld, quickly charmed his way into the inner circle of Israel's supporters where he discovered a network of organizations that act as fronts for the Israeli government. Their activities include spying on supporters of Palestinian rights and disrupting demonstrations, with a particular focus on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which Israel has particularly targeted. They also resorted to tactics like smearing critics by generating false accusations of sexual and personal misconduct, all of which was coordinated by Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The ministry's director general is Sima Vaknin-Gil , a former senior officer with Israel's military intelligence , and is staff consists mostly of former spies drawn from Israel's various security agencies.

Later, Kleinfeld became involved with The Israel Project , which is a U.S. based Israeli government backed propaganda organ that claims to be "a non-partisan American educational organization dedicated to informing the media and public conversation about Israel and the Middle East."

In a recorded conversation, Project employee Jordan Schachtel, explained the objectives and extent of a secret Facebook operation. "We're putting together a lot of pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren't The Israel Project's channels. So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate with. That's why it's a secretive thing, because we don't want people to know that these side projects are associated with The Israel Project."

In another episode, the Israel on Campus Coalition's Jacob Baime, who claimed to have a $2 million budget, described coordinating with the Israeli government, with an approach "modeled on General Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq copied a lot from that strategy that has been working really well for us, actually" using "offensive information operations." Baime described putting "up some anonymous website" along with targeted Facebook ads so that critics "either shut down or they spend time responding to it and investigating it, which is time they can't spend attacking Israel. It's psychological warfare, it drives them crazy."

Kleinfeld also met with other groups. Foundation for Defense of Democracies was revealed as yet another agent of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, its directors meeting regularly with Israeli Embassy staff in Washington. In spite of that the Treasury Department has not compelled it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is also registered with the IRS as a tax exempt 501(c)3 "charity." Indeed, no Jewish organization active on behalf of Israel has ever had to register under FARA and most are classified as tax exempt charities or educational foundations. Interestingly, however, the FDD's Jonathan Schanzer lamented in his recorded conversation with Kleinfeld that "anti-Semitism as a smear is not what is used to be."

In another bizarre episode, Kleinfeld visited the neocon dominated Hoover Institute in California where he participated in a demonstration together with a group of bored young conservative think tankers compelled by their professors to protest against a Students for Justice in Palestine conference. The think tank fellows admit that they were "astroturfing" – rent-a-crowd activism to make a small demonstration appear much larger.

Another segment includes Israeli Lobby financier Adam Milstein, who is reported to be the principal funder of Canary Mission, which has targeted some 1,900 students and academics in its profiles since 2015 , smearing them as "racist," "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic." Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, boasts in the film that "Canary Mission is highly, highly effective to the extent that we monitor the Students for Justice in Palestine and their allies."

In his recording, Milstein also talks about the need to "investigate" and "expose" critics of Israel, who Milstein claims are anti-Semites, as well as "anti-Christian" and "anti-freedom" activists who "terrorize us." His foundation also funds numerous anti-Palestinian organizations, including the Israel on Campus Coalition , StandWithUs , CAMERA , the AMCHA Initiative and the FDD . Milstein also funds and is chairman of the board of the Israeli-American Council. An Israeli-born California based real estate developer, Milstein reportedly served time in federal prison after a 2009 conviction for tax evasion.

An Israeli spy at the University of California at Davis, Julia Reifkind also described to Kleinfeld how the system worked at the campus level. She used multiple fake Facebook accounts to monitor the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine. "I follow all the SJP accounts. I have some fake names. My name is Jay Bernard or something. It just sounds like an old white guy, which was the plan. I join all these groups." The information she obtained was then passed on to her contact in the Embassy for forwarding on to Israel to be entered into their data base of enemies.

So, Israel was engaging in interfering in legitimate political activity and also generating fake news on the social media in both 2016 and 2018, the same accusation that has been leveled against Moscow, but Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems curiously uninterested. And beyond the al-Jazeera revelations, there is also the evidence that it was Israel that sought favors from the incoming Trump Administration in 2016, not Russia. So who was actually corrupting whom?

And then there are the more overt Israeli front groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its $100 million annual budget and 200 employees, as well as the other special arrangements to pander to Israel and the powerful American Jews who have made it their mission to use the U.S. government as a mechanism to protect and nurture Israel. Last week in Los Angeles $60 million was raised by Hollywood's finest for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), "Their Job is to Look After Israel. Ours is to Look After Them," the website proclaims. Last month, an additional $32 million was raised for the IDF in New York City. Donations are tax exempt, to support the armed forces of a country that is currently engaged in war crimes and that has a secret nuclear arsenal.

So, Israel was technically speaking not running in the 2018 election, but it was very much in the race. Jewish Democrats are already boasting how the presence of a couple of Israel critics in the House, who will be "reeducated" on the Middle East, will make no difference, that the party will be solid for the Jewish state with more Jewish congressmen than ever before. Indeed, the "special relationship" bond will be stronger than ever. Five committee chairmanships in the House of Representatives will be in the hands of passionate Israel firsters, including Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel at Foreign Affairs. On the Republican side, the House is already 100% in Israel's pocket. And as part of the White House team we have John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Donald Trump's Ambassador to Israel David Friedman expressed the dual loyalty phenomenon best in a recent speech . The United States is his "country of citizenship" but Israel is the country he "loves so much."

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

Baxter , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:49 am GMT

Gosh, I don't know where to start. By God, Giraldi, you said a mouthful. Even two mouthfuls. Where do we begin? I don't know. I am not a 'anti-Semite' or anti-Jew. As a matter of fact my girlfriend for four years was Jewish. That's another story.

There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first to go. Next?

Mark James , says: November 13, 2018 at 8:08 am GMT
While I don't live in Va I was hoping for wins from congressional candidates Abigail Spanberger and Leslie Cockburn. Unfortunately Cockburn was handed a defeat and while she was probably always a longshot it undoubtedly didn't help that the journalist was questioned about a book she co-authored in the 90′s (which I read).

The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US (Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for you.

Anonymous [172] Disclaimer , says: November 13, 2018 at 8:44 am GMT

The list of prominent politicians "taken down" by Israel is lengthy

True, and yet, we're getting bombarded by "Kremlin influence" narratives 24/7.

LondonBob , says: November 13, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT
Sadly Crispin Blunt was taken down as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and replaced by execrable arch neocon and descendant of German Jews Tom Tugendhat. Blunt had authored reports criticising government actions in Libya and Syria and was looking to investigate the influence of lobbies on British policy in the Middle East.
Z-man , says: November 13, 2018 at 9:49 am GMT

The list of prominent politicians "taken down" by Israel is lengthy, and includes Cynthia McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William Fulbright, Roger Jepsen, and Pete McCloskey.

I'm trying to think of a more recent example to make this point more relevant today and I can only come up with Chuck Hagel even if it was done with velvet gloves.

mark green , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:46 am GMT
No matter what sort of war crime Israel commits, no matter what level on interference crypto-Israeli donors and partisans inject into America's political landscape, the Zionist nexus inside our civilization is now so embedded and untouchable that its operatives can openly suborn US lawmakers while other Zionists initiate war (or use US power to do so) against rising Mideast countries that Israel wants weakened, divided, or crushed.

Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria and Khadaffy's Libya discovered this the hard way.

Despite these slick machinations, there are few public protests, (((Media))) examinations, or movements inside America that effectively oppose/thwart Israeli violence or the shrewd interference by Zionists in every US election since LBJ.

Why?

No one dares.

This, despite 1) Israel's possession of a rogue nuclear stockpile along with 2) Israel's multi-decade campaign to expel or subjugate its native population of non-Jews, 3) Israel's ongoing acquisition of territory by force and 4) Israel's trigger-happy propensity to annihilate (or harness US power to do so) any surrounding non-Jewish peoples (or nation) which poses a potential "existential threat"to the Jewish state. (Palestine, Lebanon, Iran are you listening?)

Not only do American taxpayers subsidize and protect affluent Israel above beyond every other nation in world history, but this oddball US commitment to the Zionist State is granted without precondition. That's right. It's unconditional. Israel's extraordinary political privilege is astoundingly unique and uniquely dangerous.

Despite this political anomaly, in no US election (including the last one) is Zio-Washington's 'special relationship' with nuclear-ready Israel ever an issue. Not one. Compare this to Washington's wild, unhinged obsession with Iran's non-nuclear stockpile of weapons. America's irrational fear of Iran is an exotic delusion that's been cooked up by Zionists. Like Iraq and Libya before it, Iran is slated for dismemberment. So stay tuned to your TVs for the latest news!

America's arranged but artificial marriage to the Zionist cause benefits Israel. Immensely. At the same time, it's cost us trillions. Trillions. Oil embargos, annual billion-dollar aid packages, along with winless, trillion-dollar wars do gradually add up. Yet political dissent remains muted. Taboo.

Anti-Semitism! (hush.) Meanwhile, America's pro-Zionist news and entertainment industries simplify, amplify, enable, and solidify Israel's near-sacred status. No accident. You've heard the stories. You've heard the speeches. You've seen the films. You've visited the museums.

Israel's unique untouchability allows it to rise above international constraints (with the assistance of Zio-Washington and (((Big Media))) as it conducts military operations (and acts of war) that violate US laws, the UN Charter, as well as the Geneva Conventions. Shouldn't this matter?

Certainly. But supreme victims enjoy supreme privileges.

Today, a tiny foreign power steers and shapes the policies and mindset of the world's most powerful civilization. No small feat. No small threat.

Jeff Stryker , says: November 13, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@Anonymous

Yep, Indian-Americans have not read it and do not seem that interested in Jews. Neither do Iranians. Catholics, which means Irish and Italians on the East Coast and Latinos everywhere, do not seem to much care about Israel either.

Blacks in the US do not seem to much love Jews or care about Israel at all with the Muslim lunatic fringe of Farrakan etc. deeply disliking them.

Apparently Evangelical Protestants of various sects love Jews for theological reasons and these people seem to have the smallest piece of the pie these days.

Chinese, Indians, Iranian Muslims etc either are indifferent or detest Israel and yet they seem to be doing better than the whites in the "bible belt".

Though a good number of rednecks who grew up singing old testament hymns would say that Jews deny their savior and don't worship Jews.

jt , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:03 pm GMT
@Z-man Charles Freeman. His nomination to the NSC blocked by the Israeli lobby. Brilliant guy, career foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador.
Grahamsno(G64) , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
Ultra liberal Hollywood just held a fundraiser for the Israeli Military!! Americans are shameless revolting whores.
Wally Streeter , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT
American politicians love Israel because it legitimizes their own corruption. They can be bought and paid for political whores without having to hide it. As soon as anyone points out that they are selling out their own country, they can recite the magic "anti-semitism" incantation to make the criticism go away.
wayfarer , says: November 13, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
Judaism is nothing more than a "service-to-self" ideology, characterized by negative concepts (e.g. greed, selfishness, etc.) and incapable of forgiveness. It's absolutely immiscible with any form of a "service-to-others" ideology.

source: https://www.lawofone.info/synopsis.php

Ken Doll , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial law and that was that. Congress degenerated into a crooked pedo playpen with a single function: deciding matters beneath CIA's notice with legalized peculation.

The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in Syria. This latest, possibly terminal, failure has spurred a frenzy of finger-pointing. When CIA wrecked Vietnam they blamed the Pentagon (see Prouty's The Secret Team) and everybody fell for it. But now with Syria, CIA pretended the Jews made them do it. That failed the laugh test, so now they're framing Amway shitstain Eric Prince.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-12/2bn-saudi-plan-assassinate-iranian-officials-involved-erik-prince-and-trump

Just ask yourself, would any of this stuff have happened without CIA's approval?

Jeff Stryker , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT
@Anonymous "Take another survey"

Another words walk up to any Chinese-American (The ones in California have been in the US longer than most East Coast ethnic whites like the Italians) or Indian-Americans and ask them what they know or care to know about Jews or Israel. They will say zero.

You'd get something genuinely negative from the Iranian Muslim community out in Los Angeles. And also a good number of blacks.

Hispanics know little about Israel. Did not stop Cubans from taking over Miami.

I don't know what you define as a "real American".

And I am not Indian. Not in the slightest.

Johnny Walker Read , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States. I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc.

https://www.sott.net/article/399738-The-Lobby-USA-Watch-the-film-the-Israel-lobby-has-tried-to-suppress-UPDATE-Parts-3-4-released

Wade , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:40 pm GMT
@Baxter It's more than just a moneyed lobby that has pulled this off for the past 100 years in america. Much more. The Jewish mafia was heavily involved from the earliest days of the 20th century. I highly recommend you all listen to this interview with Jeff Gates, someone who has as many qualifications as any of the authors on Unz.com to talk about the Jewish lobby. The youtube interviews with Jeff Gates are essential listening:

I wish I could find the quote but Jeff Gates thinks Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is light weights. Somewhere he makes the comment "anyone who compares the Jewish Lobby to other lobbies [like the dairy lobby] as if the Jewish Lobby happens just to be a little more effective than the rest is missing the point of the exercise here."

Anonymous [272] Disclaimer , says: November 13, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
lol @ this article and these comments. Love the tears! Never was there a more deserving group of people to feel dejected and demoralized.

I think the most hilarious part though was this one:

In fact, Americans have never had the option of voting on the "special relationship" that Israel enjoys with the United States as no Congressman would dare run against it lest they be smeared in the media and find themselves running against an extraordinarily well funded opponent benefitting from large donations coming from out of state sources.

Public opinion polls have consistently, over decades, shown that Americans are pro-Israel. The only exceptions are blacks, far leftist whites, and Muslims, and even the first two are not overwhelmingly anti. The needle has hardly moved in decades.

Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and Presidential election for going on 40 years now, on whether US policy should be more pro-Iran and less pro-Israel, and they have constantly chosen, with more consistency than basically any other issue in that time period, to side with Israel. Complaining that there are -gasp- organizations with money involved in this issue, even some from -gasp- out of state , is hilarious and pathetic. Every issue in American politics has lobbyists and national money flying around like crazy – guns, abortion, you name it. And every side that loses in the court of public opinion says that they did so because of 'out of state' money, even when they have more of it. Giraldi worked in government so he knows it, but why have an honest perspective when you can enrage the hive?

You really can't come up with a more thorough rejection by the American people of a political position than they have delivered, decade after decade, to the anti-Israel side. The only side less popular than Iran lackeys in American discourse might be NAMBLA, and even that is a close call.

America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers, and Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.

Philip Giraldi , says: November 13, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous Bullshit. Americans are only "pro-Israel" because that is all they hear from the media and the politicians. And that is because Jews control the media and the politicians.
Bragadocious , says: November 13, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came from none other than Hillary Clinton. I especially liked this line:

Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

They may want to rethink that one, as Israel fails pretty much all tests of the behavior of a democratic nation, starting with being a democracy in the first place.

To think that Hillary, along with her fellow travelers like Victoria Nuland, are the arbiters of what is or isn't anti-Semitism is quite a laugh.

annamaria , says: November 13, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Anonymous The word has been spoken: Judeo-Nazism

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181112-chomsky-echoes-prominent-israeli-warns-of-the-rise-of-judeo-nazi-tendencies-in-israel/

Sean , says: November 13, 2018 at 4:58 pm GMT
Israel is just getting itself deeper and deeper into a quandary about what to do with the Arabs in the occupied territories. They cannot be given full rights and there is not the unsettled land to give them the state everyone including America pretends is going to be the outcome of a temporarily stalled process. Israel is greasing the skids to disaster.
Reuben Kaspate , says: November 13, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT
@Philip Giraldi

Indeed, bullshit! Why do you love Palestinians so much or conversely, dislike/hate Israelis in equal measure?

Is it really the treatment of Christians of Arab origin in Judea and Samaria that really galls you but won't say it out loud? If Jews are as powerful as you claim they are, then why not just give them the Southern Lebanon, the Bekka Valley, the Gaza strip and the Sainai Peninsula and ten billion dollars a year, which would be just a drop in the bucket, to live us alone?

Why not resettle the most educated of all Arabs, the Palestinians, in other Arab nations, and there're so many lands to choose from, but especially, Saudi Arabia to help those gluttonous Afro-Semitic morons? Why egg on the Palestinians without hope, to the discomfort of all humanity by giving the Jews the very excuse to hammer the world with the exaggerated accusations of anti-Semitism? Why prolong what is inevitable and how does it benefit, the people on whose behalf you are fuming?

lavoisier , says: Website November 13, 2018 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Anonymous

As I said above, maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers, Borats, Farrakhans, and blue-hairs. Look at who your articles attract – do you think Americans like those people?

Most Americans are totally ignorant of the evil that has been done to their nation and the West by Zionist Jews.

Most Americans are completely ignorant about the extent Zionist Jews control the government of the United States and the media.

Most Americans know nothing about the role played by Zionist Jews in the mass murders perpetrated by the communists in Russia and China.

Most Americans take the holocaust as gospel and believe the Jews have never harmed anyone but have been the victims of the worst genocide in history.

Do not use the ignorance of the average American to claim that criticism of Zionist Jews is irrational.

It is totally rational and justified.

Wizard of Oz , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Philip Giraldi It is slightly amusing is it not to find that specious intervener illustrating part of your case by appearing as Anonymous [272] and Anonymous [279] just a breath apart ..?

What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?

Maccabi , says: November 13, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
@RobinG He is known to be an Islam hater thus unconditional support for Israel. This remark in itself is a proof how Israel is used to inflict havoc on the Islamic civilization. Jews are the biggest beneficiaries of demonization of Islam. The mercenary terrorist army of CIA/Mossad is called Islamic state.
schrub , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:34 pm GMT
@Z-man Liberal Republican Senator Chuck Percy's takedown was particularly egregious and revealing.

He lost his position despite his popularity in Illinois politics. The deep pockets of The Lobby and its control of the media (and the Republican Party) were simply too much for him to counter.

After his senatorial defeat in 1985, The Lobby must have felt that an example must be made of him. He then became a total nonperson both in politics and in the Washington DC social scene which he chose to continue to reside in. He never spoke again (to my knowledge) before any significant Republican Party event. In fact, his very name became a virtual dirty word in Republican circles, right up there with the names of convicted child molesters or embezzlers. Arch-Zionist Ronald Reagan enforced this shunning up until the end of his presidency.

Percy was no longer invited to appear in the mainstream media or speak before business or academic groups. He simply disappeared.

Poof, like he had never been there in the first place.

When he died in 2011, many people In Washington were surprised. They had assumed he has died decades before because of his blacklisting and the resulting invisibility.

Senator J. William Fulbright, a one-time icon of the left wing because of his opposition to the Vietnam War was also quickly disposed of after he tried to oppose The Lobby and found his left wing "friends" (along with their contributions) deserting him in droves.

Al this happened because they tried to be very slightly impartial about Israel.

chris , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and Presidential election for going on 40 years now, , and they have constantly chosen, with more consistency than basically any other issue in that time period, to side with Israel.

If that's true, then why are they spending such enormous sums of money to buy all of Congress ? If the thing runs by itself, then why on God's green earth, does it need such constant greasing of the skids ? Grant Smith of IRmep, who studies the financial pooling of something like 200 Jewish organizations in the US, estimates I that together, they're collecting money on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars from their diaspora and lunatic Christian sects. This money is then used to buy Congress lock stock and barrel and then to force it, among other things, to sign over billions in "aid" to Israel.

You poor child, were you not aware of any of this ? And you just thought the sniveling prostrations and groveling our elected "leaders" perform each year at the AIPAC conference or on their campaigns is all spontaneous ? Dear, dear, there is better quality acting at the AIPAC conference than there ever was at any Oscar show or in any therein nominated film.

chris , says: November 13, 2018 at 10:56 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Face it, Israel is no different. Both sides are mustering money and influence, and you lost fair and square in the court of public opinion.

Oh, but you might have the perspective a tad off; the fight may be just beginning.

It may be that in the past, Israel's friends might well have exercised power which easily swung in their direction, but there may not have been much at stake for everyone else. Maybe the fight wasn't worth it if you disagreed, but there could come a time when the balance sheet of liabilities might begin to swing in the other direction. I sincerely hope you'll maintain your sportsmanship attitude when that time comes, as it inevitably always does.

exiled off mainstreet , says: November 13, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT
It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-Semitism even against those who don't deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial nature of the Anglosphere.
pensword , says: November 13, 2018 at 11:47 pm GMT
@Anonymous Face it, Israel is no different.

Uh huh.

I don't recall the chief beneficiary of any other lobby helping to lie America into a war with muslims that has since metastasized into pandemic proportions. I also don't recall any other lobby beneficiary running interference for one of its compatriots who happened to inflict the worst damage to American intelligence in its history. Come to think of it, this very same beneficiary has been caught repeatedly committing espionage against America ~ a crime which, if committed by any other actor, would warrant severe punishment ~ yet received no punitive consequences for it.

Yeah. I'd say Israel is different.

Sir Launcelot Canning , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:07 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet But, as you admit, they are FACTS. And, as such, must be disseminated to the uninformed and ignorant Americans.

If it does cause anti-Semitism, which is becoming as meaningless term as racism, how are the Anglos at fault? Whose behavior is going to cause this resentment and blowback? Its certainly not the British! The British haven't been colonial for quite awhile.

However the USA has become a colonial vassal for Israel. So who is the imperial power now?

anarchyst , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:10 am GMT
@pensword

You are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that "foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their nuclear facilities.

Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as "agents of a foreign government" as required by American law.

Israel is indeed a "special case".

redmudhooch , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:46 am GMT
Mr. Giraldi gets it.

Be sure to watch The Lobby USA to see how treacherous our illegitimate govt. has become. It gives you an idea of how these 6,000,000 Jewish lobbies work around the clock spying on, blackmailing, subverting our govt. here in occupied America. They're letting these agents of a hostile and repressive govt. (Israel) run around the US spying on Americans, using blackmail, extortion, threats, violating their Constitutional rights. Nobody in Washington seems to care. How long before Israel is assassinating American citizens for exercising their rights?

Sheldon Adelson was at the White House watching the results of the midterm elections with his puppet Trump, eating pizza, "mini" hotdogs, and burgers. No joke. He's started his own lobby called IAC – Israeli American Council, thats even more extreme that AIPAC.

All traitors, all loyal to Israel. Republicans are owned by the Zionists and war profiteers folks. Democrats not any better. All traitors.

Sad!

JLK , says: November 14, 2018 at 1:00 am GMT
As the British were bankrupted by an unnecessary war with Germany, the "New American Century" isn't shaping up very well two decades in. 6T in additional debt from fighting Middle Eastern wars for Israel is the biggest reason why, and there is no end in sight.

I actually don't think Israel has that much genuine organic political support among Americans. It is all held together with media-fed illusions and threats.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 14, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker ' Palestinians themselves don't care about the plight of whites in bad cities in the US or the Muslims causing problems in Europe.'

Nae doot however, Palestinians are not funding and making possible either the condition of whites in the US or the difficulties of Muslims in Europe.

We pursue -- as no doubt most nations at most times do -- in innumerable short-sighted, callous, selfish, or just witless policies.

Our support for Israel is the one inarguably evil act we commit, and one for which we will -- at a minimum -- have to do penance.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 14, 2018 at 1:10 am GMT
@Cal Eyefornia 'I agree with you. Lots of anti-Semitic nonsense on this site, e.g. "where are all the millions buried?" (How about: all over Europe and Russia, cretins.) While the number of Jews murdered by Nazis may be, say, half of the "official" figure (still horrific), the lunatic fringe here won't provide their own figure (likely because they think it's zero). They actually believe Hitler was a nice guy and every Jew in the world is a member of the "Jew Illuminati." They think Israel bosses the USA around, and is the world's big dog that wags the tail. They laughably point to people like Henry Ford and anti-Semitic sites like codoh.com as "unbiased" sources for debate. They all need to "get a life."'

Well, Israel does boss the US around, and is inarguably one of the world's 'big dogs,' which, for a nation the size of Honduras or Togo, does call for an explanation.

Colin Wright , says: Website November 14, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet 'It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-semitism even against those who don't deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial nature of the Anglosphere.'

Nu? The Holocaust increased bigotry directed at Germans, and Pearl Harbor didn't do much for the popularity of Japanese.

Compared to these two groups, Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of their chosen evil. It'd be damned strange if they didn't wind up having to pay.

Jeff Stryker , says: November 14, 2018 at 1:42 am GMT
@Tyrion 2 Jews don't possess military power. They possess the benefit of a verbal dexterity and business savvy that allows them to network in order to control banks and media.

You cannot conquer. You can only manipulate.

It is the difference between Mike Tyson threatening to kick your ass and Charles Manson hypnotizing you.

Justsaying , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:29 am GMT
@anon

The Unites States of America is effectively owned and controlled by Jews

How about The US of A is effectively colonized by the Zionists ?

All the noise and nonsense about Russian interference in American elections pale in comparison to decisions on America's elected reps right to the President requiring Zionist approval before they can win their seats. The control is total and absolute. This coming from a country which depends on our tax dollars to maintain their criminal activities. And now the push is on for WWIII forcing us to brinkmanship with the Russians in Syria and Europe. This is an unprecedented abdication of US sovereignty.

Jeff Stryker , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:39 am GMT
@Colin Wright Penance?

Europeans bore the brunt for US invasions of Iraq that ultimately created the power-vacuum that unleashed refugees.

The US itself was too far away. That is simple geography. Muslims could not sail the Atlantic just as Latinos cannot get to Europe.

Only white Americans give two shits about Israel or the plight of Palestine. No Hispanic could find it on a map and no Asian-American would care.

A great deal of the problem is that whites can be made to give a shit. Asians cannot. Hindus cannot. Latinos cannot.

Matthew/Boston , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:53 am GMT
@redmudhooch redmudhooch,

I can't read all the responses, but I caught yours.

Look at it this way. 537 politicians in Washington, DC know 9-11 was a zionist jewish operation and not a word out of any of them. Maybe a few are slow or hopelessly naive about israel, so bump that number down to, say, 530. And again, not a peep.

537 of our "leaders" know israel was behind 9-11 yet they gave Netanyahu the record for standing ovations during a speech. Think of how profound that fact is. Pure traitors.

Chistopher Bollyn once mentioned the point that not one college or high school has a course or class on what subject is the 9-11 attacks. Suspicious, isn't it?

Jeff Stryker , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:28 am GMT
@Anonymous When do you EVER see Jewish missionaries trying to convert people? I've seen Mormons and Catholics overseas trying to convert people. But not Jews. When Jews do convert locals it is for pussy-some ancient handful of males settle somewhere like Ethiopia or Italy and marry local women. But it is not for salvation. Only for their pussies.

Part of this is empathy. The Christian sees the poor and disenfranchised and wants to assist. The Korean shopkeeper in a black ghetto does not give a shit what the blacks believe in and just wants his money.

annamaria , says: November 14, 2018 at 3:36 am GMT
@Anonymous " maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers.."

– Why don't we start with the "optics" of Jewish Bolsheviks and their murderous hatred towards Russians and Russian culture? Millions died in the labor camps (run and "improved" by the Jewish administrators, see Naftali Frenkel), in the chambers of secret police (see Yagoda and Berman), and in the villages of Ukraine and Kazakhstan during Holodomor (courtesy of certain Kaganovich).

The most important "deniers" of today are Nuland-Kagan (the organizer of pro-neo-Nazi putsch in Ukraine), Knesset (the provider of Ukrainian neo-Nazi with Israel-made rifles), and the zionized US Congress that has been supporting the neo-Nazi-infested Ukranian government.

And do not forget the profiteering and amoral ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center that both refused to support the Conyers amendment: "If passed, Conyers' amendment would have explicitly barred those found to have offered "praise or glorification of Nazism or its collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar symbols" from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense. The ADL and Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers' proposal." https://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-lobby-protected-ukrainian-neo-nazis

The Nuland-Kagan' brigade: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-13/separatists-are-not-people-explosive-ap-footage-ukrainian-far-right-summer-camp

renfro , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel

P.L. 115-141, the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
· $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
· $705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92 million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
· $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
· $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
· $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
· $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
· The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019.

For FY2019, the Trump Administration is requesting an additionl $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the first year of the new MOU. The Administration also is seeking $5.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) funding for humanitarian migrants to Israel.

TheBoom , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:24 am GMT
Israeli and American Jewish actions detailed in the article make perfect sense when you come to realize that the US is no longer a sovereign nation at its core. The US only has a facade of being one.

The facade is starting to crumble both because of the internet and Jewish arrogance. Consequently, the goys are the beneficiaries of more censorship of bad thoughts. The plan is to use increased censorship to prevent the facade from crumbling sufficiently to expose the reality to the masses. Any empire wants to keep its colonies in line

tac , says: November 14, 2018 at 7:54 am GMT
@Anonymous

America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers, and Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.

It seems apparent that you took exception (a sudden high blood pressure alert is making you post this response?) to my expose on the role of Jewish slavery [as the videos of Dr. Louis Farrakhan, who also happens to be AGAINST usury and in conjunction with PEACE--like most of Christindom] (and I did not even include the Roman/Greek periods and the hand that was attributed to the Jewish predominant role in slavery). But do continue because . it will expose this inhumane dominance of slavery–just like it still exists today.

RE (original reference included here):

Why do the supremacist Jews refuse to take accountability in their role for slavery?:

Educate yourself here:

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/#comment-2615210

and here:

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/#comment-2615278

Skeptikal , says: November 16, 2018 at 12:49 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

"What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?"

Not sure what you are on about. Iraq was a secular state until invaded by the USA, which churned things up politically . Syria has traditionally been a tolerant state that was home to one of the oldest Christian commujities, and a number of different Islamic groups. Libya was a secular state–no state religion in Libya that I know of.

It is the US and Zionist ally, Saudi Arabia, that is the most religiously intolerant state in the ME and also the biggest exporter of religious fanaticism.

Israel is the only [Religious designation] State in the ME -- no, in the whole world. I am unaware of the existence of a Christian State, an Islamic State (except the caliphate), a Buddhist State, a Zoroastrian State. Israel is the most intolerant state on the planet.

ChuckOrloski , says: November 16, 2018 at 2:42 am GMT
@SolontoCroesus Hey SolontoCroesus!

Ben Norton & guys like you give me hope that our country could still become saved by "facts and a timeline."

As you know, Israeli crimes foisted upon upon the divided-Homeland, including unnecessary, immoral, & ruinously expensive wars against "rogue/foes," for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and likely soon Iran, NEVER NEVER NEVER require presentation of solid evidence to dumb-goyim trained 'Merkins.

Disgusting. Embarrassing. A Yinon Plan underway for the USA! Ycch. I am pissed.

Along with partner Corporate Media-conspirators, The New York Times editorial board deserves instant "regime change" because of their theatrical complicity with our treasonous Zio Congress and Executive Branch.

Thanks, S2C.

renfro , says: November 16, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?

How typically ridiculous.

The reaction we should see would be to the statement that we will not support Israel as long as it occupies Palestine and discriminates against non Jews in Israel. Israel is a midget Nazi state not a democracy.

JC1 , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
@anon Mr Girardi didn't mention Jim Trafficante or JFK.
Hiram of Tyre , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:51 am GMT
Most fail to realize that Britain controls the US via Israel. Jews serve as pawns.
L.K , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
@Hiram of Tyre

Most fail to realize that Britain controls the US via Israel. Jews serve as pawns.

Pure nonsense.

The Israel network rules in Britain too.

[Nov 20, 2018] The Torah, biblical and Quran stories were written in agrarian societies where capitalistic enterprise hardly existed. Loans were for not dying of hunger in the period between when the food of the last harvest had been used completely, and the new harvest was still in the future.

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:21 pm GMT

@tac The Torah, biblical and Quran stories were written in agrarian societies where capitalistic enterprise hardly existed.
Loans were for not dying of hunger in the period between when the food of the last harvest had been used completely, and the new harvest was still in the future.
Thus interest was seen as blackmailing people, they needed money to prevent dying of starvation.
There was enterprise long ago, and trade over long distances, in the early centuries for example swords from Damascus were famous in Europe, and exported to Europe.
Investment for business was the exception, even the first iron smelting installations were simple, those who wanted them could build them by themselves.
The idea that invested money could yield money came later, when installations became more complex, ships bigger, etc.
With investment came risk, there was not much risk in consumptive loans, they normally could paid out of the coming harvest.
And so the problem began, a church not understanding capitalism, an agrarian society based on barter changing into a money using capitalistic society.
Commercial people had no problem with interest, even now Muslims do not have problems with interest.
What they do is simply giving interest other names, such as a fine for repaying late.
It has been agreed that the repayment will be late, so anybody is happy.

[Nov 20, 2018] It is an interesting side-note that both Christianity and Islam both prohibit the use of usury

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , says: November 14, 2018 at 6:35 am GMT

@renfro And there you have it in a nutshell: usary -- the usurper of civilization, the enslaver of humanity, the seed of ultimate degeneracy. It seems humanity is adverse to learn from history. It is an interesting side-note that both Christianity and Islam both prohibit the use of usury (a consideration worthy of mention when one contemplates the ongoing wars in the ME) and some who here take shots at Farakhann, 'neo-nazis', blue-hair and other deplorables.

Our dilemma today is the same that occurred in Rome. Our country and people will suffer the same fate if usury continues as it has. From the onset of history, it has been the moneychangers, who have exploited mankind for pure profit. Usury is an abomination against God's statutes, which manipulates and destroys people, families, and nations. It is by the profits made from usury used to attack Christianity. One needs only to ask- who is in control of usury worldwide? Didn't Rome suffer from these same people? Usury brings forth an insidious side to all people. The temptation to borrow is powerful, and it always polarizes lender against borrower where the former becomes the master and the later, the slave. As a vice, neighbor is pitted against his neighbor, and nation against nation.

[...]

The Roman government was far too corrupt already with its politicians bought by moneychangers for any fledgling Christian sect to have an affect on its decline. The moneychanger's demand was perpetually self-serving, which was disparate to the common good of the populace. Originally, Rome was founded as a republic. The unchecked influence of the moneychangers caused it to change into a democracy. A republic is derived through the election of public officials whose attitude toward property is respected in terms of law for individual rights. A democracy is derived through the election of public officials whose attitude toward property is communistic and respects the "collective good" of the population instead of the individual. This is the resultant system that moneychangers bring to civilization. The subversion of power is a sleight of hand that changes the right of the individual into what is often called the "collective good" of the people (communistic), which is always controlled by an alliance of powerful interests.

There is no reference in the article to the moneychangers and their lawyers sowing the seeds for Roman society to suffocate under its own lethargic weight. Lawyers were indeed a problem to Rome. The Romans were so concerned by lawyers' opprobrious effect on public morale that they attempted to curb their influence. In 204 BC, the Roman Senate passed a law prohibiting lawyers from plying their trade for money. As the Roman republic declined and became more democratic, it became increasingly difficult to keep lawyers in check and prevent them from accepting fees under the table. Indeed, they were very useful to the moneychangers. The lawyers fed upon corruption and accelerated the downward plunge of Roman civilization. Some wealthy Romans began sending their sons to Greece to finish their schooling, to learn rhetoric (Julius Caesar was one example) -- a lawyer's cleverness in oration. This compounded Rome's growing woes.
[...]
The moneychangers destroyed Rome from within by first monopolizing usury, monopolizing the precious mineral trade and then disproportionately magnifying the temporal businesses of prostitution (including pedophilia and homosexuality), and slavery. Constantine (306-337 AD) was the first Roman emperor to issue laws, which radically limited the rights of Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a privilege conferred upon them by Caracalla in 212 AD. The laws of Constantius (337-361 AD) recognized the Jewish domination of the slave trade and acted to greatly curtail it. A law of Theodosius II (408-410 AD), prohibited Jews from holding any advantageous office of honor in the Roman state. Always the impetus was buying influence concerning their trade.
[...]
Usury has been the opiate that has ruined the ingenuity of many of its civilizations. As this Jewish craft spread, the people increasingly suffered from the burdens of indebtedness. So troubling was the effects of usury that Lex Genucia outlawed usury in 342 BC. Nevertheless, ways of evading such legislation were found and by the last period of the Republic, usury was once again rife. Emperors like Julius Caesar and Justinian tried to limit the interest rate and control its devastating effects (Birnie, 1958). Entertainment was a way to temporarily set aside the burdens of indebtedness. It was a way to festively indulge in all the glory that Rome had to offer. Rome soon became drunk on hedonism. Collectively, entertainment helped disguise the collapsing of a great power. Spectator blood sports, brothels, carnivals, festivals, and parties substituted for everything that was wrong with Rome.
[...]
Rome became a multi-cultural state much like our own in the United States. Indeed, it was truly an international city. Foreigners of every nation resided and worked there. The Romans soon intermarried and had children with the many foreigners. This included concubines from the numerous slaves won through war. Rome had an extraordinary large slave population and was estimated to make up about two-thirds of its population at one time.
[...]
Eventually, the Romans lost their tribal cohesion and identity. The population of Rome had changed and so did its character. Increasing demands were made of the ruling patricians. The aristocrats tried to appease the masses, but eventually those demands could not be sustained. Rome had become bankrupt. The effects of usury polarized the patrician class against an increasingly dispossessed and burdened class of citizens.
[...]
Rome was bankrupt and was collapsing. The parasitic nature of usury and its effect on government was too complex for the uneducated plebeians to understand (see Addendum for an illustration of usury's power). Indeed, it was the moneychangers with the use of their lawyers that destroyed pagan Rome. The Jewish interests did not control all usury. However, they were a people well recognized as being extremely loyal to each other and adept in the black craft of usury. To all others (gentiles) they showed hate and enmity. Throughout history the weapon of usury is used again and again to destroy nations.
[...]
Fortunately, the writings of Cicero survived the burning of libraries. In the case against Faccus, we can see the crafts of the Jews are the same today. The Jews clearly held great influence in politics as a result of their professions and profited immensely at the expense of Rome. We can further deduce by the case of Faccus that the Jews were not concerned with the interests of Rome, but rather for their own interests. The Jewish gold was being shipped from Rome and its provinces throughout the empire to Jerusalem. Why? We also know that the Jews had utter contempt and hatred of the Romans. This contempt is demonstrated by their breaking of Roman law, which Faccus tried to uphold. If we look closer, we see that gold has a very special meaning to all Jewry unlike any other people.
[...]
There are enough records for us to piece together what actually occurred in Rome that led to its downfall. Rome fell as a result of corruption and the lack of cohesion of its own people. But, it was the instrument of usury that brought about this corruption and allowed its gold and silver to be controlled by Jewish interests.
[...]
It was Christianity that put an end to the destructive nature of usury on its people (see addendum for usury example). Rome's treasury became barren as a result of the moneychangers. It weakened the Roman Empire immeasurably, and thrust untold millions in poverty, debt, and in prison. It was Christianity that halted the influence of the Jews and their destructive trades and practices. And, the Christian faith spread throughout the former Roman Empire. All of the European people eventually became Christianity's vanguard and champion. Without the strict adherence to the moral ethos, any civilization will devolve into the religion of Nimrod.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/index274.htm

[Nov 20, 2018] A Jewish conman Bill Browder, who made the US Congress to dance to his tune, is named as a suspect in four murders: "'Highly likely that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders"

Notable quotes:
"... "The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky." ..."
"... This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel. ..."
Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: Next New Comment November 19, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT

@anonymous A Jewish conman Bill Browder, who made the US Congress to dance to his tune, is named as a suspect in four murders: "'Highly likely that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders" https://www.rt.com/russia/444340-browder-magnitsky-murder-moscow/

"The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded.

The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths An investigation into four possible murders has been opened.

Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky."

– This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel.

That Browder (a liar and cheat that made a huge fortune in Russia) has "benefited most from the death of Magnitsky" is undoubtedly true.

[Nov 20, 2018] The problem is that if you look into eyes of Medusa you drop dead

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Durruti , says: November 13, 2018 at 7:27 pm GMT

@Ilyana_Rozumova "The problem is that if you look into eyes of Medusa you drop dead."

Is Medusa is a synonym for the Imperialist New World Order -- a horrible Devil which we may never confront?

[Nov 20, 2018] I love you Melania!! (Grin)

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Z-man , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:07 am GMT

@ChuckOrloski She did it!

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/416797-bolton-aide-exits-white-house-after-high-profile-clash-with-first

She has now singlehandedly mortally wounded walrus face Bolton. I love you Melania!! (Grin)

[Nov 20, 2018] Medusa's "hair" signifies the bad ideas coming out from women head. Did you notice how many women in US are engaging in politics?

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski , says: November 14, 2018 at 12:20 am GMT

@Ilyana_Rozumova

To Durruti, Ilyana Rozumova wrote: "I am certain that you do not know this. Medusa's "hair" signifies the bad ideas coming out from women head. Did you notice how many women in US are engaging in politics?
.
US is doomed!!!!"

Broken Scranton greetings, I.R.

Taking off from your having mentioned "Medusa," & (with no pun), I do not know if you domicile in ZUSA, but linked below is a unique scene from Arnon Milchan's 1978 film, "The Medusa Touch."

The movie turns "bad hair day" when a Boeing 747 crashes into the Pan Am Building in NYC! Uh, where did Arnon Milchan get such precognitive inspiration?

Thanks, Ilyana, for all your work.

[Nov 20, 2018] Netanyahu government is about to fall

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Garreth Smith , says: November 16, 2018 at 5:13 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus

Garreth Smith, Chuck Orloski --

Speaking of balls, steel or titanium --

Greetings Brother S2C,

The only power given to satan is the "Negative Power of Whisper". We are constantly bombarded with this shitty and crappy "Power of MSM Whisper" which is on a daily basis brainwashing the masses of the world. This is s very powerful, "Power".

But it is now time that we use the "Positive Power of Whisper" and time to rejoice:
01. Netanyahu government is about to fall.
02. He is personally implicated in bunch of corrupt cases.
03. Hamas has become a pain in his ass, which he cannot defeat no more.
04. Not only Syria has survived, but its' skies are now closed to Israel.
05. Both Syria and Hezbollah forces have become battle hardened.
06. Syria is back in Arab League fold, and now it borders are opened to Iraq, Jordan and Golan Heights.
07. The Syrian refugees are returning back to their homes.
08. Hamas fired 500 missiles in two day, the Iron Dome success rate was 20%.
09. Both Hezbollah and Hamas have precision guided missiles. Hamas videoed a military bus they destroyed after everyone left the bus, and only the driver left.
10. Only 100 Iron Dome missiles were successful and at $65,000 a pop, the the total damage was $30 millions and only 6 million Shekels were successful.
11. With Khashoggi saga, the MSB peace plan has been thrown in dustbin.
12. Iran with its' battle hardened military is at the doorsteps of Israel.
13. I can go on and on .

[Nov 19, 2018] US-Funded Neo-Nazis in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists by Max Blumenthal

Notable quotes:
"... Last month, an unsealed FBI indictment of four American white supremacists from the Rise Above Movement (RAM) declared that the defendants had trained with Ukraine's Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia officially incorporated into the country's national guard. The training took place after the white supremacist gang participated in violent riots in Huntington Beach and Berkeley, California and Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. ..."
"... Let's not forget that the illegal coup in Ukraine and ensuing civil war was pushed by Obama/Hillary. It was HRC who promoted Dick Cheney's chief foreign adviser, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of European Affairs, and it was Nuland who was caught on tape discussing how to "midwife this thing" in Ukraine. ..."
Nov 19, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

US-Funded Neo-Nazis in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists November 17, 2018 • 43 Comments

Short-sighted U.S. foreign policy that backs jihadists in the Middle East and neo-Nazis in Ukraine is once again blowing back on the United States, as Max Blumenthal explains.

FBI: Azov Battalion Trained Rise Above Movement

Last month, an unsealed FBI indictment of four American white supremacists from the Rise Above Movement (RAM) declared that the defendants had trained with Ukraine's Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia officially incorporated into the country's national guard. The training took place after the white supremacist gang participated in violent riots in Huntington Beach and Berkeley, California and Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017.

The indictment stated that the Azov Battalion "is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing United States-based white supremacy organizations."

After a wave of racist violence across America that culminated in the massacre of twelve Jewish worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue, the revelation that violent white supremacists have been traveling abroad for training and ideological indoctrination with a well-armed neo-Nazi militia should cause extreme alarm.

Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly -- chronicling their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back home. But U.S. law enforcement has done nothing so far to restrict the flow of right-wing American extremists to Azov's bases.

There is one likely explanation for the U.S. government's hands-off approach to Azov recruitment: the extremist militia is fighting pro-Russian separatists as a front-line proxy of Washington. In fact, the United States has directly armed the Azov Battalion, forking over anti-tank rocket launchers and even sending a team of Army officers to meet in the field with Azov commanders in 2017.

Though Congress passed legislation this year forbidding military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology, the Trump administration's authorization of $200 million in offensive weaponry and aid to the Ukrainian military makes it likely new stores of weapons will wind up the extremist regiment's hands. When queried by reporters about evidence of American military training of Azov personnel, multiple U.S. army spokespersons admitted there was no mechanism in place to prevent that from happening.

... ... ...

Hide Behind , November 18, 2018 at 6:55 pm

Strange people that live in US, those that live under belife of free speech and expression, and yet there are literally thousands of examples where those of opposing view points that try and present them in public are met with disruptive behaviors, banning from presentations of opposing ideology from speaking at Colleges and University campus, and removal and witholding of tenure to those who question edicts of correct speech and lets admit it anything that questions support of Israel the State.

And condoling of violent behavior by groups in US , crosses religious, political Partys, Anarchist, and now a liber storm trooper style ANTIFA that is beginning to better equip themselve tha. just pipes, knives, and clubs into having numbers armed with the Leftist hate most guns.

We have ultra right Trump supportive Militia that actively said they would revolt if Trump was defeated and now if he is impeached. The largest and most virulent part of the southern state militia are of Christian Zionist, and some militias signature patches have Star of David upon them and the cross

... ... ...

frank mintz , November 18, 2018 at 5:28 pm

You think that the October massacre marks a culmination? That is naive: it is undoubtedly not an end point and part of a crescendo building for decades. Meanwhile, the professional Right keeps denouncing the Democrats for anti-Semitism, which is frequently simply criticism of Israel and has nothing whatever to do with attacks on persons or property. Your article reminds us that these psychopathic attacks are coming from a particular branch of the "White Right" which has been talking upon Satanic Judaism and killing Jews–and targeting synagogues–for quite a while.

Zenobia van Dongen , November 18, 2018 at 5:21 pm

Fascinating article by Max Blumenthal. Max Blumenthal rightly denounces Italy's fascist Casa Pound party but fails to report that Casa Pound is on excellent terms with Hezbollah, as reported by the Italian daily Repubblica in 2015. According to Repubblica, the European Parliament declared Hezbollah a terrorist group on 10 March 2005.

On 26 September 2015 a convention called "Mediterranean Solidarity", "the first international convention of solidarity [among] identities" was held in Rome attended by Rima Fakhri, member of Hezbollah's politburo and Sayyed Ammar Al Moussaw, responsible for Hezbollah's international relations, as well as by top Casa Pound leaders like Alberto Palladino, who was seen in the Donbass during fighting between Russia and the Ukraine, Franco Nerozzi, who was convicted of international terrorism in Verona after taking part in a failed coup detat on the Comoros islands, Casa Pound leader Giovanni Feola, and Luca Bertoni, representing the Lombardy-Russia Association, who always accompanies Matteo Salvini, leader of the far-right Lega, on his trips to Moscow.

"Italian right-wingers have consolidated relations with the most fundamentalist and militant Islamic groups. In 2013 the City of Rome refused permission to the Syrian Uodai Soso Ramadan, also invited to the congress, to hold a pro-Assad demonstration. At the time he was staying at CasaPound."

Source: Roma, la strana coppia Hezbollah-Casapound insieme al convegno, di Corrado Zunino, Repubblica, 20 settembre 2015
https://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2015/09/20/news/roma_convegno_mediterraneo_solidale_iniziativa_fascio-islamica-123310960/

tom metzger , November 18, 2018 at 3:37 pm

The article on the neo-Nazi presence in Ukraine is very interesting. I am a white working-class white separatist with some longtime following. Even though this article had both lies, truths and maybes. It was well done. However, when it says there is no other side in the US with another view, you are wrong. I have experienced the attempted and sometimes successful penetration of the right wing by CIA types for many years and gotten rid of 2 serious penetrations in years past.

I have warned those that listen not to involve themselves in the Ukraine situation. In fact, don't travel to other countries. Where you do not really know the score and may be fighting on the wrong side anyway.

I am aware that anything the State Department involves itself in is totally suspect and probably criminal. Even if you don't acknowledge it there are other factions that are pretty much out of the right wing, but are still very strongly White separatists . In fact, my politics have moved to the left on several important issues. It would appear to me that the powers that be are attempting to design a right wing alleged neo-Nazi movement somewhat patterned some what after ISIS.It is obvious Blumenthal's article has a lot of truth in it, but his mindset tends to get in the way . When he uses the old dog whistles like Trump when labeling people. Tom Metzger

Geo , November 18, 2018 at 6:36 pm

Curious why you are a White Separatist? Is there any logical reason because the best I can gather from the many separatist commenters that have littered threads like these over the years is that they're too fragile to get by in an ethically equal society. It seems that they're greatest problem is that others have rights now so it's harder for these White Separatists to succeed seeing as how they must do so on merit instead of birthright.

Be curious to find out if there is any justification for ethnic separatism other than petty whining because of some mythical birthright you feel you're being denied?

rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 1:56 pm

Notice that they admit the connection goes back at least to 2014. We never hear much about the overthrow of the new pro-Russian government in Ukraine after the Russians had worked for four years with the pro-Western lot. Only when Nuland/Yats and co interfered did the new "government" with its Nazi links become powerful with the help of the EU and of course USA. The whole continuing insistence on Russia being an enemy has no basis in reason or sense. To support Ukraine now just because it is fanatically against Russia after decades of cooperation in the USSR is not justified by any possible link with "national security of the USA" or of Europe.

O Society , November 18, 2018 at 1:13 pm

Sadly, white nationalism is a thing the United States enjoys exporting. It's an existential crises. https://opensociet.org/2018/11/16/the-rise-of-trump-is-white-america-dying/

Bruce Gagnon , November 18, 2018 at 12:55 pm

See this video of Obama's ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt going to visit training base in western Ukraine where Nazis brought into the then newly formed National Guard are still being trained by US Army Special Forces from Fort Carson, Colorado . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxeZFS9hTUg

Patrick Lucius , November 18, 2018 at 12:01 pm

Let's not forget that the illegal coup in Ukraine and ensuing civil war was pushed by Obama/Hillary. It was HRC who promoted Dick Cheney's chief foreign adviser, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of European Affairs, and it was Nuland who was caught on tape discussing how to "midwife this thing" in Ukraine.

Nuland is wife of chief neocon Richard Kagan, founder of PNAC. This essentially restarted the cold war between Russia and America. Obama tarnished his presidency primarily by working with Clinton, including the destruction of Libya. Where were the Democrats to object to such shenanigans? I don't know where they were, but I do know where they are now–charging Trump with colluding with the Russians. I thought it was fascinating that Trump, when he secured the Republican nomination, insisted that the Republicans remove from their platform the promise of military aid to Western Ukraine, to fight the pro-Russian eastern Ukrainians. Where were the Democrats to applaud this anti-war mongering? I know where I, as a Democrat was–I was leaving the party and becoming a Trump supporter.

Martin - Swedish citizen , November 18, 2018 at 2:30 pm

Thanks, these are important points, is about the neocons.
On our smaller Swedish scale ,
I was similarly disgusted with the support by the once much more ethical Social Democratic Party for the US- and EU-supported coup in Kiev.

lucius , November 18, 2018 at 7:58 pm

Lots of room for disgust In America, the traditional Democrats and Republicans both are backing the neocons' stance with just about no questioning or examination. It seems to be a tribal thing, or some sort of group response, like geese in flight, or buffalo running off a cliff

Jesse , November 18, 2018 at 11:41 am

Thank you for providing a platform for Max Blumenthal's reporting.

Wayne Mclaughlin , November 18, 2018 at 10:35 am

Very good article except for the line " .. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the failure of the EU and NATO to prevent it ." I always take issue with that representation because it implies an aggressive and forceful action by Russia when in fact Crimea seceded from Ukraine after the western backed and illegal coup of the democratically elected government.

Skip Scott , November 18, 2018 at 2:11 pm

One of the definitions of annexation is "the adding of new territory". I believe this is the way the word is being used in this article. It has come to mean "forceful acquisition" to many folks, and this leads to confusion. To those of us who know a little history, maybe a better word would have "rejoining", since Crimea was part of Russia until the early 1950's. When Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine it was still part of the USSR, so it was really no more than a gesture. The Russian naval base in Sevastopol has been there since the 1700's.

Martin - Swedish citizen , November 18, 2018 at 2:25 pm

Very good point!
Wording is important, and accepting the word annexation without clarification may be a step towards buying the lie.

Joe Tedesky , November 18, 2018 at 3:16 pm

Great point Skip. Joe

dale t hood , November 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm

thank you wayne

torture this , November 18, 2018 at 10:28 am

It must be a terrible feeling to know you can't compete with people that you believe are inferior. Nice to have some fellow losers to commiserate with, I suppose.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , November 18, 2018 at 8:33 am

Ah, America, land of liberty!

Is there anything you won't do in your rabid efforts to dominate the planet?

Of course, when you think about it, these Ukrainian thugs are no worse than other outfits America heavily supports, from the mercenaries of Syria and the government of Saudi Arabia to the King of Bahrain and the government of Israel.

A couple of these last – Israel, Saudi Arabia – kill more innocent civilians than any terrorist organization could dream of doing.

And no one says a thing.

mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:27 am

Max Blumenthal does a valuable service shining a light into the dark places of Nazi Fascism in the US. Anyone who thinks these groups are too small to be important, should recall how small the movement that gave us Hitler was in it's beginnings.

mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:16 am

Pro Nazi sentiment has never died in the US Oligarchy. The CIA is essentially a fascist organization pretending to be protectors of democracy. Worship of violence and authoritarianism is endemic to the American Spirit. All the better for being the world's greatest bully, pretending to be the guardians of the highest values. Those in high places here are the evil scum of the universe.

(Thanks for the new font! So much better.)

John A , November 18, 2018 at 7:57 am

The US is now funding a schism in the Orthodox church between Ukraine and Russia. The evil of the US knows no bounds.

rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 2:01 pm

Of course, "good ole Americans" like Mike Pence claim to be Christians, and many other US Christians blame the Russian Orthodox church for not being as modern as they are and ready to accept LGBTQ..

Realist , November 18, 2018 at 4:14 am

Not surprising that some Americans think that racial bigotry is okie dokie when both political parties in Washington, especially the one that bases its platform on membership in certain favored identity groups, practice it routinely against anyone or anything Russian or Iranian. They have a few other fall guys as well, but those are the two blamed for everything these days.

No question but that Ukraine is one of the most ethnically prejudiced and fascist regimes on the planet, though that doesn't seem to bother Washington, as long as they are frenetically Russophobic. Neither does Israel's rampant anti-Arab, anti-Persian and anti-Muslim Zionism bother the bigots in DC in the slightest.

Yet they get into a lather when the small nations of Eastern Europe, especially those in the Visegrad countries (plus Austria, Slovenia and Croatia) constituting most of the Intermarium that the author alluded to, which happen to have both small populations and low birthrates, reasonably fear that their native populations will be swamped out within a couple of generations if they are forced by the EU to take in significant numbers of Islamic migrants from the lands thrown into turmoil by the U.S.-instigated wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Hungary's Viktor Orban is vilified in the West as some sort of new Hitler (must be Putin's twin brother) for implementing on a much smaller scale what Donald Trump is trying to institutionalise in the enormously larger United States.

Rather than force all these sociological "side effects" to its catastrophic wars on its putative "allies," perhaps Washington should finally see the light and do the right thing by winding down the carnage and aiding the resettlement and rebuilding of the war-torn countries by their displaced citizens. But they won't–they have overtly refused, at least until none of America's debts can be paid with devalued petrodollars, because that would let Russia off the hook, whom Washington wants to see crushed as badly as der Fuehrer did–I think it's trying to complete his mission. Plus the glorious new war against Iran would have to be cancelled. They used to say, "all roads lead to Rome." They oughta re-write that for the modern world as, "all strife traces from Washington."

mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:19 am

Excellent comments Realist.

Joe Tedesky , November 18, 2018 at 10:55 am

Like our 'Big Pharma Over Medicated Society' we in the West would rather beat the hell out of the symptom rather than cure the cause, is our American hegemonic trademark. Similar to tightening the screw so tight the fragile glass begins to crack so you fix it with a hammer. It appears our leaders love spreading their chaos. None of this shows signs of ever ending well, but yet we overdose the symptom to the extreme that the side affect is what finally kills us. In the end it only matters how it shows on a profit and loss sheet.

rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm

An excellent contribution-thanks realist.
The USA has steadfastly refused to rebuild their devastated victims' lands even when UN legal demands clearly demanded it eg Nicaragua.

Jean , November 18, 2018 at 3:01 am

Short sited or planned.

michael weddle , November 18, 2018 at 1:44 am

Excellent reporting, Max! I'm curious. Is there any connection with present or former Eric Prince mercenary soldiers, or soldiers from other private mercenary organizations, with these fascist movements?

Joe Tedesky , November 17, 2018 at 11:15 pm

This fascist trend should go well with Operation Timber Sycamore, where the U.S. armed the terrorist jihadist. When will our American leaders learn, that if you play with fire you will get burned. The rise of the Nazi is one more reason that we Americans should focus on this type of news as Max Blumenthal reports. Furthermore the American Jewish who do not support the Israeli apartheid state should join good thinking Americans to put down this disgusting happening. So thank you Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pratt, and the rest of this sick and insane DC bunch, because without you where would our Homeland Security budget be?

Think it can't happen here . the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter lived 4 blocks from me. Btw these racist don't vote, they just hate. And 'no' I didn't know him, but I know of others sick birds all of them.

And especially a warm thank you goes out to Max Blumenthal for his courageous reporting. Bless you Max. Joe

Bob Van Noy , November 18, 2018 at 10:32 am

Thank you Joe. The larger picture and insanity of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" Philosophy, is and always has been totally without moral responsibility. Interestingly, it seems to be a fundamental aspect of post WWII organizing by our own OSS, who became the CIA in 1949. Alan Dulles was busy organizing this kind of activity before that war ended.

Thanks to you Joe and of course Max Blumenthal for addressing this subject. I'll include a link to the early heritage of this bizarre and illegal concept here. Many thanks Consortium News.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault

Joe Tedesky , November 18, 2018 at 11:24 am

Thanks Bob reading John Mearsheimer well defined portrayal of what led up to the fall of the Ukraine as we once knew it, is reminiscent of reading Robert Parry's many articles on this subject. If you recall Parry was deeply into this U.S. led NATO aggression. Through the MSM of the West the tables were turned to point the finger to instead Russian aggression. Putin is never shown in light of his policy achievements nor are his speeches calling out to the world for sensible detente where needed ever covered, but instead Putin is demonized to no end.

Little is remembered, or even known by those in the West of another time where American and British capitalism hugged the very nature of Nazism, while the Russians even back then were too the target of this type of Western aggression. Who's needs history when dreams of speculative profit should cloud their eyes?

[Nov 19, 2018] This article in The Intercept suggests that Zionists wanted Trump to win the election

Nov 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Nov 18, 2018 1:42:23 PM | link

This article in The Intercept provides incontrovertible proof that Zionists wanted Trump to win the election and that Chuck Schumer, their representative in Congress used the DNC and Facebook to help him. It also demonstrates how Chuck Schumer supports Republican Presidents and policies denying the will of many in his party even a Democratic President and betraying millions of voters on the Left to forward the Zionist agenda in each and every case. I would call this collusion and subversion of Democracy. Everything else Schumer does not to lose his choice position as Senate minority leader is window dressing, lip service and a charade.

Chuck Schumer supports Trump

jayc , Nov 18, 2018 4:04:40 PM | link

Trump often refers to his "leverage" in approaching geopolitics as a business negotiation, and yet he is effectively hamstrung with two countries (Israel and KSA) where US leverage should be overwhelming due to security guarantees. The complex web of influence and court politics will prevent coherent decisive moves, which presumably he refers to when stating he would rather "stay out" of the Middle East. It's a teachable moment, an opportunity for the sort of truth-telling necessary to promote a draining of the swamp - the chance to publicly acknowledge that nothing can be done because the interests of power blocs within the two countries are embedded directly in the US political system itself.

Obama had the opportunity for truth-telling early in his administration when he could have acknowledged that a single-payer health care system is not possible in America at this time - not because it isn't rational and effective but because powerful domestic interests will not allow it.

[Nov 19, 2018] The way that WTC 7 is so strenuously avoided and brushed aside by the Establishment, and even by many commenters here, stinks

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT

@Frederick V. Reed "Regarding Nine-Eleven: Until someone who actually know the business of controlled demolition shows what specifically would have been needed, used how without being noticed, to produce the collapse, it will remain just another empty conspiracy theory."

I wonder if Fred's house burnt down under suspicious circumstances, e.g., there was some evidence that an accelerant was involved; and neighbors reported suspicious activity near the house before the fire started; and then Fred had the debris hauled away before it could be examined; and as a matter of public record Fred announced beforehand that his house might burn down; and Fred was known to be having financial problems; and Fred was caught telling a lie about the circumstances; and Fred sought to collect a huge insurance payment, etc.; would the state police fire marshal dismiss it all as an "empty conspiracy theory". I think not; rather, I think Fred would be in some serious trouble.

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@James Speaks "The burning jet fuel caused the floor trusses to sag."

No it didn't; most or all of the jet fuel burnt up in a cloud outside of the buildings.

By the way, as a threshold issue, if 9/11 was "legitimate" why did the perpetrators have to go through the trouble and take the risk of putting imposter Hymie Brown on national TV, falsely claiming him to be the "architect" and "project engineer" of the towers, and having him tell lies about the towers?

Low Voltage , says: November 17, 2018 at 8:34 pm GMT
@Frederick V. Reed The only interesting question remaining about 911 is whether the same group who planned the destruction of the twin towers also demolished WTC 7. Even though all three supposedly succumbed to fire, WTC 7 resembles a classic demolition while 1 and 2 exploded. These were obviously different techniques at work.

I began to wonder if some rival faction within the establishment demolished WTC 7 just to spoil the cover story for the Bin Laden angle for leverage in other areas, or the did the perpetrators themselves do it so the American people would have no plausible deniability when the day of reckoning finally comes? After all, what sort of infantile and wicked population could allow the crimes committed by its government after such a preposterous false flag operation? Surely, they deserve to be stripped of everything they have (especially Social Security ;).

Anon [218] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2018 at 9:47 pm GMT
@SafeNow "And don't forget WTC Bldg 7, which was not hit by a fuel-leaking plane at all, and yet pancaked down just like the towers. And by the way, a BBC reporter reported the bldg 7 collapse occurred -- past tense -- 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse happened. Oops."

This is truly the deciding argument for me, how can anyone not believe a conspiracy was afoot that day when the BBC got their signals crossed and reported a completely unlikely event before it actually happened?

JLK , says: November 18, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if the government is sending people to sow confusion on the collapse of these buildings it is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted as such.
Wally , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:46 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke Bingo!

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Jeff Stryker , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
@Patricus

Bush clearly intended to invade Iraq in 1990 and the Clinton presidency merely put this on hold for 9 years until Bush II was elected. The son was little more than a puppet for his father, his father's donors and his father's money. Bush II was merely an alcoholic bum. It was clearly his Dad's oil interests controlling him.

Johnny Walker Read , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
@Z-man The twin towers were were 110 stories high and were very strongly built, both were designed to withstand two strikes by Boeing 707′s. The biggest hole in your "collapse" theory is the lack of a debris pile. With the collapse of a building that high the debris pile should have been somewhere around 14 stories high. The debris pile was virtually missing. Have a look at the linked photo and tell me where the debris piles are. This photo was taken before any debris could have been removed as Building 7 is still standing.
anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
@James Speaks " and probably 7."

I'm no expert on your technical issues, either.

But I have a keen nose for discomfort masked with dissembling.

And the way that WTC 7 is so strenuously avoided and brushed aside by the Establishment, and even by many commenters here, stinks.

Ernesto Che , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@L. Ross @L. Ross: so you believe that a bunch of angry fundamentalists managed to outsmart all 17 US intelligence agencies and those of NATO and Israel, the National Security Council, the Transportation Safety Administration, Air Traffic Control, and Dick Cheney, hijacked four US airliners on one morning, brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers, destroyed that part of the Pentagon where research was underway into the missing $2.3 trillion, and caused the morons in Washington to blame Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia?

If so, you urgently need to educate yourself. If not, tell us why it was not a controlled demolition.

Bill Jones , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
@BB753 One more time.

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, ( This well appointed Suite http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm according to the London Times): nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes. And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip.

Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically -- through their own mass -- at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI

Meanwhile down in Washington

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building

all without a single shot being fired . or ruining the nicely mowed lawn and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video

Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana

Further south in Florida

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class full of primary school children shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger

In New York

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports

And If you don't believe this, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Agent76 , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:36 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read Sep 11, 2013 9/11 In A Nutshell

James Corbett presents this 5 minute parody of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11

September 11, 2013 Twelve Years of War, Lies and Deception

Twelve years after the 9/11 attacks, no credible independent investigation has been done to find out what really happened on that day and who was responsible.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-twelve-years-of-war-lies-and-deception/5349347

pioneer , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@72 Paul2

I am amazed that there seem still to be people who believe the official 9/11 propaganda bull*.

They don't believe the Gospel According To NIST. And I find it hard to believe you believe they believe it ** .

'They' are shills & operators. The 911 myth must be defended at all costs – the empire insists. For the one's who might genuinely believe, no need to waste time answering them as they're too stupid to matter.

** Calling Donald Rumsfeld.

anarchyst , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:12 pm GMT
@Simply Simon "Every large controlled demolition I witnessed shows massive explosions at ground level." Not true
Internal pillars can be taken out without showing any evidence of demolition from the outside of a building.
Every large controlled demolition that I have witnessed did not show "massive explosions" at ground level, but rather momentary flashes of light, with the building then collapsing into its own footprint.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
@Agent76 Thanks Agent 76. That video is actually amazingly funny -- and, partly because it's so funny, it packs a devastating punch. Seeing all the loose ends and nonsensical inconsistencies bundled together and delivered in fast-forward mode is hugely convincing.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@Z-man Your Quote
Two WTC went down first even though it was hit second because the plane hit lower and at an angle with more damage to more floors and more mass above to accelerate the collapse.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Congratulation.
You hit the bulls eye of the shit.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Watch the collapse again.
In both cases collapse started with the uppermost floor falling on the floor below.
And so because second tower was hit close to hour later and the position of the impact was several stories lower, the heat influence on the uppermost connection of trusses was considerably lower than in first hit tower.
Simple thermodynamics will confirm it to you.
..
When you will watch the collapse of first building (second hit)
You will notice the part of the building was tilting, before cascading begin.
That contradicts laws of physics.
..It was controlled demolition with exploding charges at trusses connections.
There should not be any doubt about it.

[Nov 19, 2018] Syria - Back In The Arab Fold

Nov 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Syria - Back In The Arab Fold BM , Nov 19, 2018 1:01:56 PM | link

Following Syria's military success against its enemies, Arab states which supported the war on Syria are again making nice with it. The United Arab Emirates will reopen its embassy in Damascus. Kuwait and Bahrain will follow. Today a delegation of parliamentarians from Jordan visited Damascus and met with President Assad .

The members of the delegation affirmed that the pulse of the Jordanian street has always been with the Syrian people in the face of the terrorist war against the, as Syria is the first line of defense for the entire Arab region and the victory in this war will be a victory for all the Arab countries in the face of Western projects aimed at destabilizing and fragmenting these countries in service of Israel's security.

First signs that this was going to happen appeared a few month ago when a Kuwaiti TV personality spoke about the pleasure of visiting an again peaceful Damascus. In June the Foreign Affairs Minister of UAE called the expulsion of Syria from the Arab league a "mistake". In an interview with a Kuwaiti paper Assad said that he had reached "major understanding" with Arab states.

The Saudis though are not yet welcome back in Damascus. They were one of the largest financiers of the Jihadis and will have to pay an equally large price to come back into good standing. Negotiations are ongoing . A formal reentry of Syria into the Arab League can not be far away.

Behind this change is a fear of renewed Turkish ambitions. Not only Saudi Arabia but all the Arab states do not want Turkey to expand and become more powerful. They do not want to see Arab land in Syria under Turkish control. The sole exception so far is Qatar which is allied with Turkey and has Turkish troops on its land to protect it from Saudi imperialism.

The three blocks that form the larger Middle East, Turkey, Iran and the Arab states north of the Red Sea are roughly of the same population size. Each block also represents a religious-political stream with Turkey leading the political-Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, Iran the political-Shia and with the third block consisting of Sunni majority countries with more or less dictatorial rulers. The three blocks compete in their borderlands of Iraq and Syria. The Arabs finally noticed that their attempts to dispose the Syrian government led to gains for Iran and Turkey and put them on the losing site.

For Syria the new Arab position is a very welcome change. While it will certainly not end its alliance with Iran, it will welcome any help against the Turkish ambitions. It also needs investments to rebuild and the rich Gulf states will surely provide some. That will also sabotage U.S. and European plans to starve Syria of money unless it submits to their will. That is good news ... what we need now is some good news for Yemen

Russ , Nov 19, 2018 1:10:15 PM | link

Just read this piece with a similar Turkey-vs.-the-Arabs theme.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/19/iranian-albatross-us-has-hung-around-its-own-neck.html

Sally Snyder , Nov 19, 2018 1:14:59 PM | link
As shown in this article, at least two American politicians believe that Washington's version of the war in Syria is wrong:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/09/american-politicians-and-syria-what-if.html

Unfortunately, the mainstream Western media has swallowed Washington's narrative hook, line and sinker.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 19, 2018 1:27:15 PM | link
There were under currents of change earlier but it now seems to have sped up. The Khashoggi killing seems to have knocked Trump and MBS out of the middle east great game. The Syrian S-300 plus domestic politics seems to have shut down Netanyahu and Israel for the moment and US now seem stalled by their domestic politics with the anti Trump group looking to be sabotaging his foreign policy on top of his other setbacks in foreign policy.
Plenty of room for the GCC mice to play.
karlof1 , Nov 19, 2018 1:45:13 PM | link
Russ @2--

I read Crooke's most recent essay earlier and second your motion of its importance. As I wrote yesterday, it seems Idlib Dawn will finally be given the go-ahead since the Iraqis aren't yet ready to participate in the East Euphrates operation.

Unmentioned by Crooke is the escalating energy drama over drilling around Cyprus. Also announced today and noted by a ceremony involving Putin and Erdogan is completion of Turk-Stream's underwater segment across Black Sea, thus gas deliveries will commence in 2019. The article provides a map illustrating Russia's sensitivity to Ukrainian and NATO aspirations to conduct war games in the Sea of Azov and surrounding area that it will never allow to occur, which is why NATO's been pushing it as a flashpoint.

Overall, the forces of reaction are in disarray and retreating, although paradigm change still has a long ways to go.

Castellio , Nov 19, 2018 1:47:56 PM | link
@3

The Media hasn't swallowed Washington's narrative: they wrote and propagated it.

ben , Nov 19, 2018 2:51:10 PM | link
This is for me, very positive news. Hopefully, Assad and the Syrian people will move forward together, providing they are wary of the empire's games, and don't except any rhetoric coming from the West.

IMO they should ask the Russians to stay and move closer into the Russian/Arab orbit.

Stumpy , Nov 19, 2018 4:23:28 PM | link
@ Ben 7

Yes, Russia deserves most of the credit for turning this around, IMO.

james , Nov 19, 2018 4:29:29 PM | link
thanks b.. you forgot the 4th block in the middle east - usa-israel-ksa... look to them to figure out a way to throw a monkey wrench into any hospitality that might otherwise enter in..at present usa is still in al tanf and a few other places trying their best to play a game with the kurds, and the headchoppers they are also responsible for - isis/al qaeda.. thanks god russia got involved.. after witnessing what happened in libya, they realized they had to act.. a lot of those dictator states, i wouldn't trust, uae in particular.. will be interesting to see how idlib is resolved, or what crazy game erdogan comes up with next..
Jen , Nov 19, 2018 5:18:52 PM | link
Curious to see how Iraq decides which power bloc it will join. Despite Arabic being the first language for most Iraqis, they are tied to Iran by religion (Shi'ism) and shared history: the area known to the British as Mesopotamia (between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and surrounding territories) used to be part of the Sasanian and Safavid empires (both Persian) before passing to the Ottomans.

The area south of the Persian Gulf which is currently part of the KSA is also mostly Shi'ite and was also ruled / influenced by the Persians and the Ottoman Turks in the past. So we can't assume that the Arabic-speaking populations in that part of the KSA and in Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be necessarily loyal to their current Sunni royal family rulers.

fast freddy , Nov 19, 2018 5:19:47 PM | link
Ham-fisted USA forceful, aggressive, big-stick foreign policy by full spectrum rectum has served to force alliances btw China and Russia and Arab States. How much longer will the EU states stay on board? They are fools to follow the USA.

[Nov 19, 2018] Thanking Vets for Their Service -- Why by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... The impoverished countries of Ireland and Scotland along with the slums of London provided the bulk of the British Imperial Army ..."
"... "Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God." Matt 5:9 ..."
Nov 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

First, let's begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don't like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply "forget" it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one ! All the wars fought by the US since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called "American way of life," but only if one accepts that the said "American way of life" requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.

Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous "service" of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals. Yes, yes, I know -- there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the US had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the US. But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) -- this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the US, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, "thank" veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda.

In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question. I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did . In fact, with some slight variations , the principles of what is called a "just war" have been known in the West since at least Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. According to one source they are:

A just war can only be waged as a last resort . All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority . Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered . For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient -- see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success . Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace . More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered . States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants . Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Modern religions for war

(Check out this article for a more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)

Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of criteria, all the wars fought by the US are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust : all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan) fail on all of them!

But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars. Did you know that the ultimate crime under international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?

Robert H Jackson

Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war crimes. He wrote: " To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole ."

So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the crime of "aggression" does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression can be defined as the execution of any one of the following acts:

Declaration of war upon another State. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State. A naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State. Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions, every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)? How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?

Let's sum it up so far: we have folks who agree to become killers (or killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons , who then only participate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and whose commander in chief is a war criminal .

... ... ...

Major General Smedley Butler put it best when he wrote :

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.

If we agree that war is, indeed, a "racket" and that it is conducted "for the benefit of the very few" then it would make sense for these "very few" to express their gratitude to those whom they hired to enrich them. And, in fact, they do. Here is the best example of that:

Corporation for war (well, that at least makes sense!)

Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation. The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. The so-called "American way of life" but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won't be attempted for as long as the US remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind. But until that day arrives the "American way of life" will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only "sin" is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave to the Empire. If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes November 15, 2018 at 5:56 am GMT

Within this context one ought to mention the "Crime of Aggression":
"A Crime of Aggression is a specific type of crime where a person plans, initiates, or executes an act of aggression using state military force that violates the Charter of the United Nations. The act is judged as a violation based on its character, gravity, and scale.[1]

Acts of aggression include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression

The mandate to persecute for this crime was awarded to the ICC.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr1350

Of course quite some usual suspects refused to sign up including the US.

Realist , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT

Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one!

Totally agree.

Mario964 , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT
Killing for money.
Wasn't the Milgram experiment clear enough in shedding light on the reality of human nature?
Renoman , says: November 15, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT
99% of soldiers became soldiers because it was the best available job, it had nothing to do with patriotism or love of country. Puting them on a pedestal is an invention of politicians trying to glorify the job so as to suck in more soldiers.
The Cleaner , says: November 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
All this thanking is purely pro-forma bullshit. At every NBA game there is a halftime moment when some "hero among us" usually a veteran, is honored. More often than not he spent his time in the military in front of a computer screen in Nevada. I would bet that not a single one of all the thousands who attended these games could identify one of these "heroes among us" by name five minutes after they honored them. It's all empty ritual, a bitter fraud just like the rest of American public life.
Kiza , says: November 15, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
The most interesting in this topic is the dichotomy between the blatantly obvious that Saker writes about -- that US military person is the lowest level of a mercanairy that the World has ever seen, which most of the rest of the World is so acutely aware of and the military "service" taboo built in the US. Did Saker really need to explain that US military is only about killing of the defenders and their innocent? To who did this need explaining? To cretins such as Intelligent Dasein, who think that declaring himself pro-Russian gives him the high moral point to attack the messenger of his own emptiness (not all veterans can write Born on the 4th of July, can they?). Talk about "never learn anything"! This just shows how pointless this breaking of US taboos totally is. The World will continue on just as was before this article, the moral-less and mind-less US shitbags will keep joining the military racket "for scholarships" or some shyte like that until US ends up taking on some real "enemy" who will bring this taboo down but not with words then with "Kinetic Action" that will turn the tables on US shitbag military.

I have this mental image of US towns looking like Hiroshima with only this Stavro's Pizza advertisement still standing as a poignant reminder of the God himself having been recruited into the gang of its former military rapists and killers for profit and for pleasure.

ThreeCranes , says: November 15, 2018 at 1:45 pm GMT
@Realist I was going to use that quote as well.

Dissidents in 1968 justified their resistance to the war on just those grounds -- that the USA was not directly under attack and was not threatened by Vietnamese aggression. And went on to say that were the homeland of the USA threatened, then they would man up and defend their country. So, it's not that they were unpatriotic or cowards, it's that they would only fight a morally justifiable, defensive war.

Well, now the nation is under siege. Hordes of invaders swarm across our southern border like a plague of locusts. Hundreds of thousands are shipped here from Africa and the Middle East and dropped like cockroaches in our midst.

And where do the 1960′s protestors position themselves with respect to these threats to the homeland today? They meekly acquiesce. They stand down, shrivel and roll over. Now, when it is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, they still protest -- but in favor of the invaders.

Traitorous sh*theads.

mijj , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
basically, the US Government is a Mafia organization, and US Military Personnel are Mafia Thugs.
LG , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
I understand where the author is coming from. However, WHY does he continue to live in the US? His tax dollars are funding the war machine. Why not pick up and move elsewhere, for example Russia, in the case of the Saker?
Anonymous [607] Disclaimer , says: November 15, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT
@LG The reply to your answer is here: http://thesaker.is/why-do-i-live-in-the-usa
ThreeCranes , says: November 15, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein This seems incontestable:

"Are the powerful of the world going to just sit by and watch their fortunes be destroyed? Are the potentates of the Banana Republics that Smedley Butler campaigned in any different in their aims or any less ferocious in their means? No, of course not."

Tulip , says: November 15, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
One of the problems the West faces is the post-Nuremberg phenomenon.

The Nazis were scum, and they killed a lot of people, and they lost, and so most of the leadership got shot. It is what you call revenge, and it is this instinct when channeled becomes justice. I will not cry for Eichmann, even though he committed no crime, he got what he deserved.

Now, the West manufactured a load of bullshit to justify the result the West wanted (which was revenge), and now we are stuck with the bullshit, and people like Saker cite the bullshit to bad mouth America. Time to dump the bullshit, although the hordes of shitlibs who would kick and scream about it would be deafening.

Dutch Boy , says: November 15, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
@Tulip Just War doctrine is a handy guide for statesmen, inasmuch as wickedness is often also stupidity (our warmaking has mostly been an exercise in stupidity). Adherence to JW doctrine would have kept us out of most of our wars as well as mitigating some of the worst excesses committed by US forces in those wars.
ThreeCranes , says: November 15, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT
@flabergasted Building 7 collapsed out of a sense of desolation, having seen his two bigger companions bite the dust.
War for Blair Mountain , says: November 15, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT
Saker

I agree with you. But .

DON'T .blame the Working Class White Male Teenagers who are signing up .for they face what is basically this:the career opportunities of a slave ..they are "choosing" from a range of career choices available to a chattel slave effectively

The real criminals are the adults ..

Among other things .California's technological labor markets have been handed over to the Chinese and Hindu ."Americans" ..

JLK , says: November 15, 2018 at 9:37 pm GMT
The military people are a lot more decent in general than some of their civilian politico leaders. They deserve praise and veterans benefits.
Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 15, 2018 at 10:19 pm GMT
As long as US sees itself as globo-cop, its military men will not be seen as mercenaries but as centurions, Team America, to keep the order around the world.

Sometimes, US presence is stabilizing IF the US plays a disinterested neutral role as an impartial judge. But ever since Jewish Power took over the US, the US military is essentially a corrupt globo-cop that does the bidding of Kosher Nostra.

Mulegino1 , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:21 pm GMT

First, let's begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don't like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply "forget" it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Saner Americans hate war, but Hollywood loves it- particularly when war can be used as an instrument of Zionist propaganda, or to draw sympathy towards international Jewry and its enablers.
This has been the case since the First World War. Hymiewood has had a love affair with American foreign policy ever since Woodrow Wilson entered the "war to end all wars", for the single reason that American war policy has been international Jewish (and British) policy.

Rex Little , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:22 pm GMT
The fact that the US military stands ready to repel an armed invader makes it unnecessary for them to actually do so, and for that much they deserve thanks. But the last time a foreign power attacked the United States was 1812 (Hawaii wasn't a state during WW2).
Fidelios Automata , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:49 pm GMT
I won't bash the troops, but I won't thank them, either. Financial considerations aside, I believe that most of those who join do believe they're doing the right thing. Good intentions, however, don't bring the victims of unnecessary US wars back to life.
nsa , says: November 15, 2018 at 10:53 pm GMT
The Saker appears to be taking a lot of incoming fire for having a go at the sainted american soldier boy most of whom are dumb-full-of-cum twenty-something morons with no conception they are there to simply advance the megalomaniacal objectives of the insane bloodthirsty jooies. The dummy american service guy does the bombing of mostly civilians, the dummy american pols provide the cover, and the dummy american taxpayer picks up the tab. Since censorship by the vile jooie Cock Cutting Cult is near 100% in the good ole usa, there are very few forums where this view can be expressed.
raywood , says: November 15, 2018 at 11:05 pm GMT
Interesting article. There are some points that probably should have been supported with citations to research. For instance, I suspect the percentage of those who become police officers for reasons other than money is probably quite a bit higher than 1%. But overall, a very interesting, non-mainstream presentation.
nsa , says: November 16, 2018 at 3:50 am GMT
@Simply Simon Care to explain WTC Bldg 7? A few whiffs of smoke come out of it and down it goes. How about the initial pictures of the 20′ diameter hole in the Pentagon facade that a Boeing 757 supposedly caused? The wings, turbines, 40′ tall fin, bodies could not have fit through the 20′ hole, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the initial pictures. Care to concoct an explanation? Oh, that's right. Your hero Senor Freddie says the 20′hole was caused by some large round object lacking wings, a fin, turbines .possibly a giant flying burrito.
Da Wei , says: November 16, 2018 at 10:25 am GMT
"(T)he truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan)."

The deal between the government and the citizenry is a contractual agreement, so contract theory should apply. In respect to your cogent argument, here is my take on that application.

From Pearl Harbor to the phony Gulf of Tonkein Resolution through the ridiculous Domino Theory, 911 and WMD, right to the present there is a distinct element of fraud that invalidates the call to all the ensuing wars and that is Fraud in the Inducement. A contract is invalid if you are fraudulently induced to engage in it. That gives all GIs and citizens the moral right of redress against the government that lied them into war. It's been tried in court (USSC: Sullivan v McNamara) and didn't fly, because the SC sold out.

Governments are corrupt entities, but citizens are free moral agents. Your argument is correct: when you enlist you assign your moral agency and agree to be used by whomever you have submitted to. Smedley Butler is a true hero who went to the mountain and returned to lead people to truth: war is a racket.

I like this article. We need to cultivate a spirit of resistance to the bullshit that parades before us. It's a scam and we should be cautious of anyone in epaulets.

Johann , says: November 16, 2018 at 1:19 pm GMT
@Renoman Absolutely correct. The impoverished countries of Ireland and Scotland along with the slums of London provided the bulk of the British Imperial Army . These poor sods had the choice of starvation or a bloody battlefield death and they died by the millions in order to keep the ruling class rich. I will grant the British upper class officers a pass because so many of them died in the trenches because of their indoctrination in the "dulce et decora est" public school education.
The Alarmist , says: November 16, 2018 at 7:46 pm GMT
@Rex Little German U-Boats did a lot of sinkings up and down the Florida coastline in WW2, and put spies onshore on Long Island; both were close enough to call them an attack on The Homeland.
The Alarmist , says: November 16, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Rex Little

"None -- because of our military. If the Army, Navy and Air Force were to completely disband, any number of countries could land troops. Might have a hard time pacifying the whole country, but they could do a hell of a lot of looting."

Yeah, they're doing a bang-up job stopping the invasion at Tijuanna.

peterAUS , says: November 16, 2018 at 8:34 pm GMT
Overall, a good article, IMHO (save a couple of minor details which doesn't change the main points).

The crux, probably, is (slightly edited):

The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. The so-called "American way of life" but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won't be attempted for as long as the US remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind. But until that day arrives the "American way of life" will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only "sin" is to dare to not want to be a part of the Empire.

Now .there IS a point he carefully avoids along his usual angle "Bad Anglos". ALL Empires have done the same. That's the very definition of Empire. Hehe including his bellowed (from away, naturally, in USA of all places) Russia.

Gregory , says: November 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT
Nonsense.

But let's suppose that the US had no imperial military. So in that case, the US would face the "threat" (Americans' favorite word) of a Canadian, or Mexican, or Guatemalan, or Nicaraguan or Chinese! or Russian!! invasion?

Clearly, you have no idea of what the military invasion of a country really entails, nor have you any sense of what the consequences of such actions have been historically.

"Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens!"

JVC , says: November 16, 2018 at 10:04 pm GMT
@Jett Rucker It surprised me that the Saker did not acknowledge the millions of draftee's -- not just we who are of the Vietnam generation, but going back to the war of northern aggression. The military draft is akin to slavery, in that the other choices are jail or fleeing the country.

I don't need or want any thanks for my time in hell -- especially 40-50 years late. I was part of an obscene violation of another countries sovereignty, and some of what I did and saw still haunts me to this day. Many other vets I know feel the same way.

Aside from that one omission, Saker is pretty much spot on. Of course, as several commentators show, the truth is not always welcome. Smedly Butler is one of my military heroes for speaking truth to power. The so called war on terror is a wet dream come true for the mic we were warned about so many years ago

As for those out there who are still denying what was obvious to some on 9-11-2001, a new book out could be very enlightening. 9/11 Unmasked takes various aspects of the official "story" and presents the evidence that puts the lie to that "story" Read with an open mind if you dare.

Patricus , says: November 16, 2018 at 10:32 pm GMT
It is petty to identify all soldiers as active war criminals or as enablers. In this country the military actions are ordered by elected representatives. The military men obey the orders of civilian leaders. No doubt many question the wisdom of the orders given but they accept that it is not their decision where and when to fight. God help the world if decisions were made by military hierarchies.

Unfortunately effective military action requires hierarchies. If every soldier made his own tactical decisions a military force would be ineffective. Most would run or quit when the ordinance was incoming.

Many join the military because there are limited economic opportunities, and there are some who are rather dull and wouldn't fare well in market competition for labor. Don't we all find employment because we need some money and there are limited ways to earn. Personally I'd like to be an astrophysicist and spend my working days on interesting and fulfilling problems. It would also be pleasant if all tedious tasks were done by others. Alas the market for this profession is tiny. I had to work where there was a market for my services and I experienced plenty of drudgery including working for idiotic bosses.

The soldier or sailor lives in a kind of monastic order. He must obey the hierarchy even when these leaders are incompetent. He faces the possibility of death or serious injury even if he supplies soda machines on a ship. Some respect is due to one who accepts this discipline. He accepts, by his actions, the primacy of civilian control of war-making. He should be censored if he commits atrocities but can't be held accountable for political decisions by others.

Jeering at sargeants or lieutenants might feel good but it is a fatuous frame of mind. We always have needed soldiers and that is not going to change.

One legitimate post WW II action was the first Gulf War. Bush the elder received the congressional approval. At the time almost everyone believed there was finite oil in the world. Iraq invaded Kuwait then massed troops on the Saudi border. That was a threat to our perceived interests. Once Saddam was vanquished Bush had the sense to refrain from invading Iraq. I don't like Bush I much but he did the right things given the knowledge available at the time.

NoseytheDuke , says: November 17, 2018 at 1:53 am GMT
@Patricus Yes but wasn't it the US dominated proceedings that established the precedent that "just following orders" was an unacceptable defence and wasn't it a US dominated military coalition punishment that caused many thousands of deaths by starvation and exposure post WWII?

Why should the US get to have it both ways?

SeekerofthePresence , says: November 17, 2018 at 3:14 am GMT
"Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God." Matt 5:9
RadicalCenter , says: November 17, 2018 at 3:31 am GMT
@Johnny Rico Yes, you in particular should ignore the comment. Excellent screen name, though. Just read the Starship Troopers book for the first time earlier this year and enjoyed it thoroughly, though I was surprised how short it was. Would have liked a series of books along those lines.
Tulip , says: November 17, 2018 at 4:03 am GMT
@Kiza

until US ends up taking on some real "enemy" who will bring this taboo down but not with words then with "Kinetic Action" that will turn the tables on US shitbag military.

Yeah, I see them all lining up outside my house right now!

No, if America goes down, it will be from enemies within.

Hans Vogel , says: November 17, 2018 at 7:37 am GMT
Enirely concur with your lucid article. One might add (perhaps in another article), that for the simple reason of being an empire, the US is a violent rogue state. After all, empires are ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and peoples under permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence.

Here, an empire works exactly like a maffia family: the boss is the supreme authority deciding over life and death. Whoever stands up to him is annihilated, mutilated, or humiliated. In inverse order, these are the three stages of violence at the disposal of the boss. If he wants to preserve his authority, he is compelled to use these techniques, which makes him, in a sense also the victim of the system he represents.

So it is with the US empire. The leader in the White Madhouse has no choice but to export mass murder to all corners of the world. Not doing so would entail the collapse of the imperial system.

SafeNow , says: November 17, 2018 at 8:21 am GMT
And don't forget WTC Bldg 7, which was not hit by a fuel-leaking plane at all, and yet pancaked down just like the towers. And by the way, a BBC reporter reported the bldg 7 collapse occurred -- past tense -- 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse happened. Oops.
Kiza , says: November 17, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@Tulip I would not disagree with you completely, although I doubt that the Chinese and the Russians would have the foresight to finish off the US cesspool when given an internal chance.

But my main point was that the human-looking smelly excrement always calls upon the higher authority of God when doing the worst possible crimes. This is where US excells even over its Western "partners" -- the utilitarianism of religion -- that is employing God in the collective endeavours of rape, pillage and murder. This is the main reason I am anti-religious although not atheist at all.

"God bless you for your service of rape, pillage and murder for our shared profit and enjoyment."

Stop accusing the war profiteers for the wars and understand that it is the whole horrible society.

Hans Vogel , says: November 17, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
@Patricus The "First Gulf War" was as illegitimate and illegal an operation as all the other US acts of international piracy during the 20th century. Bush I is as much a war criminal as Bush II.

The entire First Gulf War was a set-up, a trap, designed to give the US a permanent foothold in the region. At the expense of thousands of human lives. During an interview the US diplomat April Glaspie had with Saddam immediately before he invaded Kuweit, she did not voice any objections to his designs. Thus Saddam was led to believe he could count on US support.

Yet mind you, I do not suggest Saddam would be a more decent person than either Bush II or his daddy. A guy like Saddam, who appoints as his official food taster the son of the palace cook is truly a perverted individual. And like most politicians in high office everywhere and at all times, he was also a psychopath and did not shirk from killing fellow human beings. Often for futile reasons.

The scalpel , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT
@Patricus "He must obey the hierarchy even when these leaders are incompetent. He faces the possibility of death or serious injury even if he supplies soda machines on a ship. Some respect is due to one who accepts this discipline. "

So a person voluntarily gives up his/her freedom of action and freedom to make moral choices and "some respect is due" ? You, sir, are a brainwashed fool and you deserve to be killed by one of these lazy, amoral, toadies. Your justification for these losers to join the military is because they lack the confidence and ability to feed themselves any other way and that they have such low levels of morality that they would gladly give up those crumbs for shit on a shingle?

And the "humans" (I use the term loosely) who do this are due respect? These lazy, amoral, shit eaters would gladly kill other people who have made the not so difficult choice to use their god-given skills and abilities to survive in a peaceful manner trying to avoid harming others.

I say better these these lazy, murderous, automatons, these moral mutants, this pestilence on the human race be enclosed in a stadium and encouraged to fight each other until they are all dead except one -- then castrate him/ (or her in the case of Hillary Clinton.)

I say people like you, Patricus, who ignorantly give them "due respect" should voluntarily live in an active war zone where you can experience first hand what the world would be like if your "heroes " were unrestrained. That would show them "due respect" instead of encouraging them to bring down their hell on peaceful other people you do not know or care about

Psycho killers , says: November 17, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/11/17/unhinged-decorated-navy-seal-to-stand-trial-for-war-crimes-in-iraq/

A few bad apples, tsk tsk tsk, and the government's systematic brutalization program will be cast in bad light.

[Nov 19, 2018] The US instigated coup was in line with Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" delusions of the US having to control Eurasia especially Ukraine in order to reduce Russia to the role of a regional power.

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

JR , says: November 15, 2018 at 8:20 pm GMT

@Quartermaster Even the German government friendly Der Spiegel begs to differ:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706.html

The US instigated coup was in line with Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" delusions of the US having to control Eurasia especially Ukraine in order to reduce Russia to the role of a regional power. The EU piggybacked on that coup by having the Maidan regime sign on to the European Neighborhood Policy thus reducing Ukraine to the role of a EU dependent non-member state.

http://www.imi-online.de/2016/03/10/expansion-association-confrontation/

[Nov 19, 2018] Did Britain initiate both world wars?

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Wally , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:38 pm GMT

@Tulip So then, you do not have proof that the Germans killed those which they are said to have killed.
But hey, you do have the almighty name calling. I suggest giving Zionist TeeVee a rest.

As for German aggression, you're wrong on that too.
Sorry to keep posting the same rebuttals below, Ron. But as you see, we get the same ignorant claims.
facts:
- USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet the 'Allies' did nothing.
- Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the 'Allies' did nothing.
- The "neutral" US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany's declaration of war on the US.
- Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
- France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
- France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch "neutrality" with impunity by flying aircraft over the lowlands.
- It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.
Did Britain initiate both world wars? : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10458
Responsibility for WW2 : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
Introduction to HITLER'S WAR: http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/
Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain, Britain: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
http://www.codoh.com

jilles dykstra , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Tulip Hitler Germany conquered Poland in a few weeks, snatched Norway from under Churchill's nose, and beat France in three weeks.
About Churchill's stupidity in military matters: Gallipoli, and see what the commander of the British army thought about him:
Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, 'TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940′, New York, 1963
Hitler never wanted war:
A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
German economy:
from 1933 until 1936 unemployment was reduced from six to one million.
FDR's New Deal did hardly reduce USA unemployment.
Hitler's big mistake was to underestimate the power of international jewry:
Jean-Noël Jeanneney, 'Francois de Wendel en République, L'Argent et le Pouvoir 1914-1940, Paris 1976
Ludendorff already understood quite well that the allies wanted to destroy Germany
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
And see
Patrick J. Buchanan, 'Churchill, Hitler and "The unnecessary war", How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world', New York, 2008

[Nov 18, 2018] A>ll, empires are ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and peoples under permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British, Soviets, Chinese, etc. None of this is new information to anyone. If it is, you are retarded for just now coming to these conclusions. You should have understood all of this by your early twenties. ..."
"... Generally speaking, political reform follows cultural and economic change – not vice versa ..."
"... It would seem in the Soviet Union cultural and economic also followed political reform. One could sustain the same regarding Peronist Argentina until the early 1950s, the German Empire in 1871 which created the framework for profound and vast cultural and economic change, Italy since 1861, and so on. Thus, I am not so sure about the validity of the historical "law" you have tentatively formulated. ..."
"... Every state must have its peoples, in one way or another, support its geopolitical operations. In democracies, this comes down to applying psychological pressures so that the citizenry votes for the desired programs. ..."
"... Support can be achieved even in the face of strong initial opposition, such as WWI and the Iraq war. As Saker mentions, the support can be eroded when a war drags on too long without victory, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan. ..."
Nov 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

peterAUS , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT

@Hans Vogel You are probably onto something here. Especially with:

all, empires are ipso facto violent, since they must keep a variety of other states and peoples under permanent control and this can only be achieved by way of violence.

If he wants to preserve his authority, he is compelled to use these techniques, which makes him, in a sense also the victim of the system he represents.

Not doing so would entail the collapse of the imperial system.

Fhilaerene , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:48 pm GMT
This is like something an undergraduate would write. It's like taking history and running it through an "all I needed to know I learned in kindergarten" filter.

The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British, Soviets, Chinese, etc. None of this is new information to anyone. If it is, you are retarded for just now coming to these conclusions. You should have understood all of this by your early twenties.

We thank the veterans because, at an instinctual level; they are the warriors of our tribe. Guilt over expansion isn't sincere; we know that Russians have and would eagerly engage in the same behavior, were they as powerful. "The weak must do what they must."

I read his stupid justification for living in our country. We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs. It is not, and never will be, their call. The author is clearly a Russian nationalist, which is a great thing, but that belongs in Russia.

American nationalism alone should exist here. The entire problem is that there are so many paper Americans here that our country has become corrupted beyond its original purpose; even before WWII, (((Americans))) had power, which is the reason for our poor actions against Japan. I've long supported dismantling the empire, but only because it is impoverishing our people, and we need those troops here to eject the millions of invaders, and guard the border. The empire is also a tool for (((you know who))).

Finally, a foreigner criticizing the U.S. military, while living in the U.S.A., is like going into your neighbor's home and accusing him of being an alcoholic. He may very well be, but it's not your place to say so. Once you cross over our border, any allegiance to a foreign power needs to end. Even if we make one of those Matryoshka dolls of your mother being plowed by one of our negroes, you better keep quiet. Because in truth, you are not wanted here. There is no benefit to me for Russians to be here.

Heritage Americans understand that these veterans are our hoplites, regardless of the wars they have fought in. If you don't have that national bond, it's time to admit it, pack up, and go back to a nation that you can identify with. One where you don't feel the urge to talk trash about the most brilliant saints of the Church. Yes Catholicism is lost, and the pope a hopeless cuck, but unlike the author, I'm not Russian. Converting to Russian Orthodoxy, even inside the U.S., is a process rife with hostility.
They have to go back. If you value Peter the Great more than Thomas Jefferson, great, but you have to go back.

peterAUS , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:03 pm GMT
@Edwin Vieira

The important questions–which (one is tempted to say "of course") he does not raise, let alone attempt to answer–are: (i) how did this sorry state of affairs come about; and (ii) what is to be done to correct the situation?

Ah, you see .that's not Saker's job. One of posters here already said what it is. Scroll up and you'll find it with ease.

And, those are definitely THE QUESTIONS. The second more important than the first.
Any ideas of yours?

Probably related to

.what failures or refusals on the part of the American people to enforce what provisions of their own Constitution have led to this pass?

I guess. I believe it has something to do with what happened to Rome once upon a time. Or any such entity.

Even if we simply focus on military: comparing militia from The American Revolutionary War with early Roman military and current US military with legions of, say, Augustus. Complex topics, of course.

And, there IS one aditional element too Saker types will never touch: is there a need for a World Policeman? I think there is (human nature, nukes and such). The catch is, of course, who 's going to be that one. Or better, who is going to control the cop. Even better, who and how, is going to control the controllers. Sounds complicated so irrelevant for most posters here. Better to focus on "bad Anglos" or "terrible Joos". Or whatever.

Saker's angle, and the resident "Team Russia" of course is, no need for World Policeman. They'd like three equal cops policing their own parts of the world. Saker cop "managing" that region from Vladivostok to, say .current German/Austrian/Italian/Greek border.
Chinese even "better": area up and including Tasmania and Stuart Island.
Hehe not that they'll ever admit that.

Fhilaerene , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT
If your country is weak, the credibility of your criticisms is comporomised. Of course, you don't accept the U.S. military. However, you have zero authority to employ the Alinskyite tactic of "hold them to their own ideals."

This is why the only foreigners besides tourists and students, who should be allowed here, are those who benefit Heritage Americans.

Russia is most definitely the "good guy" overall. I've been saying that for years, but we criticize the Neocons and even more influential (((neocons))), not our own soldiers. It doesn't matter if they've murdered entire towns overseas, not to most people. This is indisputably true for every country on Earth.

Soldiers rescue you when you're in a giant fish bowl that has been hit by a cat. 5 hurricane, or when a tornado levels your town. They protect you from invasion under normative circumstances; the current circumstances, of the military and government standing by while millions of third world invaders flood our land, isn't a typical one, and even then, it is only made possible by (((propagandists)))

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@wholy1 Lots of people escaped to Canada, for example rather than serve the empire. Would you rather murder people in Vietnam for the corrupt U.S. "government" (or be killed by someone defending their country from invaders), or go to Canada? I would've chosen Canada.
The Scalpel , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 6:50 pm GMT
@Fhilaerene "We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs."

You are a fool. I think you might be a good individualist though. At least you have a sense of self. Quit trying to speak for "Americans" (Who left you in charge of defining who is "American"?)and instead, speak for yourself. It would sound much less stupid.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 17, 2018 at 7:20 pm GMT
It's true that many join the military for benefits. This is esp true of Negroes and Browns.

But many whites join because they like the culture of Brotherhood. And these types tend to be patriotic and gung-ho. Of course, they are often clueless about how their patriotic feelings are being manipulated by globalists.

It'd be nice to have a law that says that while all men must fight to defend the US from invasion, all overseas ventures must be voted on by men in the military.

peterAUS , says: November 17, 2018 at 8:13 pm GMT
@Fhilaerene Good post. Just a touch harsh, perhaps, in a place or two.
Den Lille Abe , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:28 am GMT
In the US the military is deified, in other saner countries it is at best respected and supported and in some countries it is feared and avoided.

The US is a country, that has been at war for most of its life. I believe only a mere 25 years of not waging or participating in a war. Hence its reverence for the military. And in wars a lot of money can be made, lets not forget that

Den Lille Abe , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:10 am GMT
@Fhilaerene Quote from senseless comment:

"We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs."

No what we need is a friggen law that imposes death penalty on any US citizen ever leaving the US. The US is the main culprit of the misery and despair throughout the world, especially the ME too. Come to think of it, we should have for Israel citizens too.

Den Lille Abe , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:14 am GMT
@Harold Smith Indeed! Seem to me you must have read Kafka. Else we use the one below. Someone said something like : We change reality faster than you perceive reality has changed.
Curmudgeon , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:31 am GMT
@mijj As long as you understand that the Mafia is not an Italian construct, that would be correct.
chris , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:33 am GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Even a war fought for the openly crass reason of protecting one's own economic interests is hardly a uniquely evil event. It may be a deplorable fact of life, but you have to ask yourself: What else did you think was going to happen? Are the powerful of the world going to just sit by and watch their fortunes be destroyed?

Is the mob just going to sit by and watch as someone decides not to pay their protection money ? "what else did you think was going to happen?" Of course they're going to place a horse's head on their door step and if that doesn't work they'll put two bullet holes in his eye sockets.
ID, don't forget to thank your mafia soldier for his service on Veteran's day! (Oh, and don't forget to leave that protection money in the bucket behind the door like we talked about.)

Curmudgeon , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:36 am GMT
@Anon

how can anyone not believe a conspiracy was afoot that day

A conspiracy is two or more people working together to commit a criminal act. The official narrative of 9-11 is a conspiracy theory. Not a credible one, but conspiracy theory none the less.

Charles Martel , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:36 am GMT
What a snarky article by a weenie who lacked the cajones to serve.

When I joined the military in the mid-70′s, it wasn't for the benefits or the money; neither was particularly attractive, and with a lottery number north of 250, I wasn't at risk of being drafted. I joined for three reasons–first, my dad had served in WWII in the infantry, so there was a bit of family history; second, because I hated Marxism and the Commies who threatened to bury us; and third, because I considered it my civic duty to serve. So, I found myself in in a nuclear ordnance unit in Europe, helping keep several hundred nukes at the ready to fly in an easterly direction to kill Commies if necessary. Of course, the whole idea wasn't ever to vaporize eastern Europe, rather, it was to deter the Russians and their allies from attacking western Europe. Mission accomplished.

As was the case with NATO in the 70′s, the primary mission of the military isn't to fight wars; rather, it's to deter others from starting a war in the first place. As was the case with the Commies 40 years ago, if we didn't have a strong deterrent force (and the demonstrated will to use it) there are plenty of Mohammedans, Chinese and others who would dearly love to subdue us. And blowhards like Saker would be out of business, probably in a concentration camp somewhere, or dead. Unless, that is, they became collaborators.

I do agree, however, on one thing: I didn't and don't need any Thank-you's for my service. I don't expect thanks for paying my income tax or driving on the right side of the road; those are civic duties. And to me, service in the military is a civic duty as well for able-bodied males. After I got out of the Army, all I ever wanted a modicum of respect for having performed my civid duty–not to be derided and called a fool or a fascist for having served. But a civilian again and a student in the late '70s, that's all I heard from my smartypants lib classmates. It wasn't until 9/11, when people perceived (rightly or wrongly) that their pansy butts were at risk unless somebody was willing to fight or deter bad guys, that people started saying "Thank you for your service."

Saker, instead of calling people who served fools and fascists, calls us money-grubbing mercenaries. It would be annoying coming from anybody other than a guy who believes that 9/11 was some kind of CIA plot. My cat is smarter than that. And even Saker is smarter than to spout his malarky to a veteran's face.

Simon in London , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:14 am GMT
Yes the American ruling class are sanctimonious hypocrites. Yes the US wages wars of aggression by the Nuremberg standard the US invented.

If Russia ran the world things would be different, but I doubt they would be better.

jilles dykstra , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:31 am GMT
" since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). " Since FDR is his 1940 election promised not to 'send USA boys overseas unless the USA was attacked'.

On the Sunday of the attack the America First Committee understood quite well, as Lindbergh writes, he got a phone call: 'he (FDR) got us into the (European) war through the back door'. Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh', New York, 1970

Since the end of 1939 the USA navy was waging war in the Atlantic against Germany, but Hitler had given strict orders that his navy and airforce should not give FDR a pretext for war. Not quite sure, but I think Patrick Beesly, 'Very special intelligence', 1977 Londen describes the very close cooperation in the Atlantic between GB, navy and airforce, and FDR's navy and airforce, beginning at the end of 1939.

There was one incident between a German submarine and a USA navy vessel that nearly was serious enough for FDR to declare war. Few people, including myself until recently, know about Hitler's attack on Russia, and Japanese war aims. Japan had promised Hitler to attack the USSR if Hitler had taken Moscow and was at the Volga, thus the desperate fight over Stalingrad.

Robert J.C. Butow, 'JAPAN'S Decision to Surrender', Stanford, 1954
F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, 'The case of Richard Sorge', New York, 1966

If indeed Japan would have attacked Russia, I doubt. In any case, Hitler was very pleased with Pearl Harbour, really a surprise to him, it seems. That FDR's provocation to Japan caused that Japan remained neutral towards the USSR until the beginning of 1945, the USSR annihition of the Kwantung Army, I wonder if Hitler ever realised this.

jilles dykstra , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:39 am GMT
@Fhilaerene " The U.S.A. is a powerful empire. It is expansionist. It's no different from the British, Soviets, Chinese, " It is quite different from what the British empire was. The perfidous Britons built their empire not just on naked force, but on diplomacy, cunning, deceit, blackmail, bribery, propaganda, etc., than the USA.

British people indeed were outraged when Gordon was killed at Khartoum. Far more outrage, is my impression, than USA people about the Vietnam defeat.

James Speaks , says: November 18, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@Simply Simon The Empire State Building has a steel frame designed using moment distribution. It was being designed as it was being built. Steel and labor were cheap during the Great Depression. Thus, the building could be overdesigned, and it was.
Herald , says: November 18, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
@Fhilaerene "It doesn't matter if they've murdered entire towns overseas, not to most people." It might well have mattered to those who have been murdered and it should it should matter to the rest of us. Soldiers and their political masters should not get a free pass for wanton murder.
Pheasant , says: November 18, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein 'Most soldiers all throughout history have been mercenaries' Standing armies were not generally a thing untill comparatively recently
mike k , says: November 18, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
Bravo Saker! All your points are undeniably true and very clearly stated. I salute your courage in publishing these truths in the face of the world's greatest disinformation and propaganda machine – the US government.

The military is the huge death squad of the evil US Empire. These are the oligarch's tools for murder and pillage around the world. The US Military is the most shameful group in the world today, composed of those willing to kill their brothers and sisters for money.

anonymous [397] Disclaimer , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:03 pm GMT
Saker, the very nature of life itself is based on war and has always been based on war. Problem?

We're chemical machines, that have been built over 4 billion years, and we've been tested in what can be called quite accurately a 'Gladiator War'; where the machines went into the battle and if you won, your DNA replicated, and that's all it was was a war.

BB753 , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
@Z-man "The two planes were two large armored napalm tanks"

Except that planes aren't built like tanks or else they wouldn't lift off the ground. And their engines don't run on napalm.
There's no way for a large plane traveling at low speed to go right through a building. It would have crashed to pieces and plummeted to the ground where it would have exploded and burned down.

WJ , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT
@The Alarmist I joined to shoot all sorts of weaponry, to use explosive, to rappel out of helicopters, to call in close air support, etc. All great, fun stuff. Unfortunately , mixed in with that, was a lot of 3 am spit shining shoes and ironing ponchos for a junk on the bunk inspection at 0800.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Realist In fact there has NEVER been any occasion since the War of 1812 when members of the US armed forces had to fight to protect their "homeland" – which is impressive when you remember that the USA has been at war for 222 out of 239 years since 1776.

As for the War of 1812, while it is true that the British invaded the USA and burned some of Washington, the Americans were responsible for the outbreak of war. President James Madison declared war on Great Britain, when negotiations were still possible. At the time, Britain was at war with the empire of Napoleon so the US declaration of war must have seemed to the British a treacherous stab in the back.

Aardvark , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
@James Speaks I suppose the proximity of the jets cause WTC7 to experience slenderness too. Or was it that the BBC announcing WTC's demise 20 minutes before it actually happened was caused by "kl/r"?
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:28 pm GMT
@Rex Little Rex, may I point out that it was the US government (in the person of President Madison) who declared war on Great Britain – not vice versa? Until then there were serious disagreements, but they could have been negotiated. It was the US government that chose to have a war – as it has often done since.
BB753 , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT
Having said that, I agree with The Saker. No more illegal, expensive and pointless wars! Real patriots are those who don't abuse their military might.
BB753 , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh Not to mention that the Colonies were still British by right.
Tulip , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
@Wally The Saker is a Russian. He can probably give you the body count of the Red Army on the Eastern Front.

The Nazis were bastards, and they started an aggressive war (and by that, I mean "aggressive" from the standpoint of the victors, unlike say Iraq), they killed a lot of people, and they lost. You don't even have to bring (((them))) into to equation to conclude that the Allies didn't hang enough people when they had the chance, but I guess someone had to be left to rebuild.

Tulip , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh You are either fighting over there or you are fighting in your homeland. When you stop fighting over there, you end up fighting in your homeland. Putin wants war and instability in Ukraine, because he knows Russia is next.

America has just done the same thing every other successful Empire has done since the dawn of time, suggesting a natural line of development in human civilizations. All of America's enemies simply want America out of the way so they can do the same thing America has done. If I were Russian or Chinese, I would want the same thing Saker calls for. But let's face it, a second-rate gorilla wanting the Alpha gorilla to die is a different sentiment from the internationalist liberal humanitarian bullshit Saker cites in his article.

Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Fhilaerene "We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs. It is not, and never will be, their call. The author is clearly a Russian nationalist, which is a great thing, but that belongs in Russia".

A peculiar argument. As the author presumably believes in the political equality of all human beings, he would no doubt agree that Russia needs a law forbidding foreigners from speaking about Russian political affairs. (Would that apply just to foreigners speaking while in Russia, or in their own countries?)

Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:50 pm GMT
@peterAUS " is there a need for a World Policeman? I think there is (human nature, nukes and such). The catch is, of course, who's going to be that one. Or better, who is going to control the cop. Even better, who and how, is going to control the controllers".

That sounds quite clever and sophisticated, but it leads nowhere because it's fairly obvious that there is no answer to the questions "who's going to be the World Policeman?" and "Who's going to control the cop?"

For practical purposes we can regard the idea of a "World Policemen" is obviously impractical. Even if such a regime could be brought about, it would likely lead to the very worst tyranny ever – and perhaps the first one impossible to escape or overthrow.

Therefore we need to return to the real world and consider alternatives. At present I see nothing better than Messrs Putin and Xi's concept of a multilateral world order, regulated by international laws, in which nations show respect and consideration for one another.

If anyone thinks that's not good enough, consider that the world is not some schoolroom where we are posed questions with predesigned, cut-and-dried answers. In real life, we sometimes encounter questions that have no simple answers.

Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
@anonymous Your comment displays a very common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

The species that survive best and reproduce most in a given environment are sometimes called "the fittest". At present – although perhaps not for much longer – Homo sapiens has been very successful in terms of fitness for perhaps 10,000 years. People tend to ascribe this mostly to our large brain and intelligence, but they err in thinking that the main evolutionary advantage of intelligence is the ability to invent weapons and other machines.

In fact, humans have thriven mainly because of their social organization and ability to cooperate.

Which is why any theory that proposes vicious competition between individual human beings or human groups is flying in the face of Darwin. We succeed or fail as teams. Cheating and murdering your team-mates is not a recipe for success.

Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
@Anon "But many whites join because they like the culture of Brotherhood".

That reminds me, rightly or wrongly, of something else. Oh yes, here it is:

"Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?"

- Eric Hoffer

Chris Bridges , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
Saker,
Go fuck yourself. You are not an American so you are hardly in a position to say why Americans serve in OUR military. I might add that the so-called "illegal wars" and covert actions were primarily fought against the Communist madness YOUR people unleashed on the world or primitive Islamists who have always been our enemies.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT
@Wally '"But in a world of empires, the US empire preferable to the German, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish."

'Really?

'Please explain'.

You really don't get it? Isn't it obvious that being burned to death by good red-blooded democratic American napalm or white phosphorus is far better than being killed by a German, Japanese, Russian or Spanish weapon?

It's the kindly good intentions that make all the difference!

https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDi-NDu2XoAUSh6i.jpg&key=9qFiHdP41K6ADQbPq1VDSw&w=800&h=440

Ernesto Che , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein @Intelligent Dasein: so why on earth do you read Saker's articles? Why on earth do you then proceed to pollute this thread with your insane vituperations and bore us all to death? If you want to impress us with the use of vulgarities, there is no need to dedicate an essay to it.
DanFromCT , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:33 pm GMT
@ThreeCranes The same cabal that had been denouncing young Americans conscripted to fight in Vietnam as "baby killers" -- the same ones always disproportionately underrepresented in our armed forces -- are from what I see on Fox News the ones behind the jingoism serving only Israel today. Cops were vilified as "pigs." The American flag was walked on and burned with glee. Now we have "wounded warrior" ads running all the time, while MAGA is making Wall Street richer and creating new jobs for anyone but the young white men who mostly wear the uniforms and do the dying so fine young Israeli boys need not.

All in all this "thank you for your service" is obviously well meaning from everyday people, but it is nothing short of grinning mockery coming from that same bunch -- the "war party" of neo-lib/neo-con foreign agents -- who only yesterday were denouncing our soldiers as "baby killers." There is no left/right when it comes to bankrupting America for Israel.

Now on Fox News we get Trotskyite neocons elevating those same "baby killers" and "pigs" in uniform to hero status, and in preparation for the coming martial law, authoring the thoughts of the gullible with the concepts and catchwords of the police state. "Baby killers" and "pigs" alchemically have become heroes-in-uniform first-responders putting their boots on the ground in harm's way, whose muh brothers/muh mission training sanctions incinerating civilians IDF style, who won't hesitate enforcing shelter-in-place orders back home at gun point even on their own kind.

DanFromCT , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@ThreeCranes The same cabal that had been denouncing young Americans conscripted to fight in Vietnam as "baby killers" -- the same ones always disproportionately underrepresented in our armed forces -- are from what I see on Fox News the ones behind the jingoism serving only Israel today. Cops were vilified as "pigs." The American flag was walked on and burned with glee. Now we have "wounded warrior" ads running all the time, while MAGA is making Wall Street richer and creating new jobs for anyone but the young white men who mostly wear the uniforms and do the dying so fine young Israeli boys need not.

All in all this "thank you for your service" is obviously well meaning from everyday people, but it is nothing short of grinning mockery coming from that same bunch -- the "war party" of neo-lib/neo-con foreign agents -- who only yesterday were denouncing our soldiers as "baby killers." There is no left/right when it comes to bankrupting America for Israel.

Now on Fox News we get Trotskyite neocons elevating those same "baby killers" and "pigs" in uniform to hero status, and in preparation for the coming martial law, authoring the thoughts of the gullible with the concepts and catchwords of the police state. "Baby killers" and "pigs" alchemically have become heroes-in-uniform first-responders putting their boots on the ground in harm's way, whose muh brothers/muh mission training sanctions incinerating civilians IDF style, who won't hesitate enforcing shelter-in-place orders back home at gun point even on their own kind.

Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
@Den Lille Abe "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality ­ judiciously, as you will ­ we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

- Ronald Suskind (American journalist) reporting the comments of a White House aide (later identified as Karl Rove) ["Without A Doubt" by Ron Suskind, The New York Times Magazine, 17 October 2004].

John Hanft , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
" Why?" Well for one thing they carry out policies concocted by delusional "intellectuals" and fellow travellers of whom you are most assuredly king, Saker.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
@Charles Martel Charles Martel expresses views that I suppose are very common among Americans. My favourite SF writer Robert Heinlein would certainly have agreed with every word. Yet I believe that Charles shows signs of having been deceived – having "drunk the Kool-Aid", as I think some people used to say.

As soon as I saw the trope about Khrushschev "threatening to bury us" I knew there was some intentional or unintentional misunderstanding. Lo and behold!

'While addressing Westerners at the embassy on November 18, 1956, in the presence of Polish Communist statesman Władysław Gomułka, Khrushchev said: "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!" The speech prompted the envoys from twelve NATO nations and Israel to leave the room'.

What Khrushchev obviously meant was "We shall be the survivors after you have perished, and so we will stand at your graveside". Unfortunately, he worded the thought more briefly and vividly. In the Western world, which is ruled by propaganda and psyops, such techniques are used to put the worst possible construction on the words of any antagonist.

Very similar to the furore about Iranian president Ahmadinejad supposedly threatening to "wipe Israel off the map". As the extensive and accurate articles cited below explain, what Ahmadinejad really said (in Farsi) was that "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history". Just as the USSR, for instance, has been eliminated from the pages of history (and atlases).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html?utm_term=.09fdc904327e

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

jilles dykstra , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
" Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda."
Yes, from the point of view of recruiters.
Not, as far as I can see, from the point of view of the hired.
Do not think that many join military forces with the intention to kill.
Happen to know a now retired USA pilot, who joined the USA forces for two reasons, he hated the work on his father's farm, and he wanted to fly.
He did kill, I suppose, flying a helicopter in the Vietnam war is not for philantropic business.
He also flew bombers, bomber pilots seldom see what the bombs they drop do.
But I wonder if he ever saw that he killed someone, as far as I know him he did not like to kill at all.
Back to the question, should we thank veterans ?
I wonder for what.
They took a job, a job they knew could well lead to killing, or be killed.
A quite different situation exists for those who join an army out of idealistic motives, such as George Orwell in the thirties in Spain.
But, thanking them depends on what side in the war you support.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm GMT
@Simon in London "If Russia ran the world things would be different, but I doubt they would be better".

You are very probably right, which is why Russia has no desire to run the world. All it wants – at least according to Mr Putin – is to be treated with respect and given its rights under international law. Not to live in a world ruled by any single nation, but in a world where all nations treat one another with respect and consideration.

Parbes , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm GMT
@Simon in London "If Russia ran the world things would be different, but I doubt they would be better."

Self-serving, subjective Anglo-Zionist crap logic. For YOU, maybe, as a "patriotic" denizen of the globo-imperialist Anglosphere, it "wouldn't be better". For RUSSIANS, it would for sure "be better". For most of the world outside the Anglosphere except the Zionists and the Wahhabis, too, it would "be better". I daresay that even for most ***ordinary*** people in the Anglosphere, it would probably "be better" (depending of course on exactly how you define "better") – or at least, not be WORSE.

It's also quite amusing how you automatically equate the ending of the current criminal U.S. regime's planetwide aggressions and uncontested global hegemony aspirations, with "Russia running the world", the same way that the U.S. regime wants to do right now. As if that is the ONLY possible outcome – and as if it is preordained and inevitable that one single hegemonic nation should lord it over and call the shots in the entire world by force. The result, no doubt, of your brainwashing since birth with capitalist imperialist ideology, wedded to "British Empire" chauvinism that now finds a vicarious outlet in sucking up to U.S. global hegemonism as part of the Anglosphere.

DESERT FOX , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
Read The Protocols of Zion and see who is behind the wars that America has been forced into ie it is the Zionist banking kabal and this was true from WWI right on down to the wars in the Mideast and all for the Zionist banking kabal and their Zionist satanic NWO!
Bill Jones , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:08 pm GMT
@Rex Little There have been several armed invasions of the US with two more on the way. They were entirely undeterred by the useless parasitic employees of the "Department of Defense".
EliteCommInc. , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
In response -- –

I want to thank the men of the armed services for for their service. Whether that service was for money, job, because you wanted to vent a warped sense of what it means (merely killing others fellows is hardly a noble task) or

whether you sincerely desire to serve the country as a duty.

For any of those reasons above

Thanks . . . (my only regret is not keeping you from unnecessary conflicts) But I honor your service.

Just in case I neglected to say it –

Thanks.

Agent76 , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:30 pm GMT
This is how the Pentagon thanks everyone for their service!

Jun 30, 2014 America's Veteran Crisis: Abandoned At Home

As politicians in Washington wring their hands over the Veterans Affairs scandal, VICE News travels to Portland, Oregon, to see what it's all really about.

December 9, 2016 Report: VA staff left veteran's body in shower nine hours, tried to hide mistakes

SEMINOLE -- Staff members at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System left the body of a veteran in a shower room for more than nine hours then tried to cover up the mistake, a hospital investigation shows.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/veterans/report-va-staff-left-veterans-body-in-shower-for-nine-hours-tried-to-hide/2305694

nsa , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
@Charles Martel You have it backwards. The enlisted and conscripted were dummy candy asses, lacking the balls and brains to avoid abetting the venal national security state and its vile owners. Now in this sad year of 2018, the US military is little more than the Goy Auxiliary of the jooie IDF making enlistment doubly stupid and cowardly, especially if you are a white person. Notice your hero Trumpstein didn't enlist and neither did any of the "neocons" or anyone else with any brains or balls
The scalpel , says: Website November 18, 2018 at 3:58 pm GMT
@David In TN No, but irrelevant. What's your point?

All humans who sacrifice their own free will and freedom of conscience, no matter what "side" they are on to follow orders like a killing machine, are almost by definition, subhuman. They are dangerous amoral killers. They are the "kinetic action" that takes aggressive war from a concept to a reality. Humanity would be better off if they could never reproduce and if they were strictly limited to fighting each other to the death

JLK , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:15 pm GMT
@Fhilaerene

We need a law forbidding foreigners from speaking on our political affairs. It is not, and never will be, their call. The author is clearly a Russian nationalist, which is a great thing, but that belongs in Russia.

I'll keep reading the foreign press, including from Russia, until there is a good reason not to, like a shooting war.

Even propaganda sometimes includes constructive criticism. The Soviets were right when they criticized lynchings in the South, and the international shame helped bring an end to them.

If you believe some of the American Pravda articles here, you should welcome any help that we can get from abroad to clean up our government.

Hans Vogel , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:15 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh You probably overlooked the rest of my comment: "like most politicians in high office everywhere and at all times, he was also a psychopath and did not shirk from killing fellow human beings." That includes the war criminals Bush I, Bush II, and the White House Negro.
Ernesto Che , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
A well-argued essay that addresses a relevant and important issue. Mercenaries, like regular working folk, are just doing their job that they got paid for as per the contract. They fulfilled the contract, no need to thank them. I never got a special thanks for doing my job, certainly not from the highest authorities and every Tom, Dick and Harry in between.
Ernesto Che , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc. @EliteComminc: the US was "invited" into South Vietnam by the puppet regime it installed there in the 1st place. Therefore its attack on North Vietnam was still illegal and amounted to a war crime. Period.
Monty Ahwazi , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:38 pm GMT
The Empire will NOT survive for one day without a war! The MIC runs this Empire and it won't allow the Empire to go on as usual without purchasing or the empire's puppet government exporting their products to the other countries. The aggressions are meant to kill innocent people and to destroy the weapons that were sold to the countries to begin with! So the other countries have to purchase more to defend themselves (catch 22). In other words all acts of aggression are about nothing but money in this capitalist system!
Carroll Price , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
One of the very best articles I have ever read. and which in my opinion should be required reading for every high school graduate in the United States, and other countries.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:42 pm GMT
@Hans Vogel I do agree with your generalisation about politicians in high office. It was just that I reacted quite strongly to your implication that the mere appointment of that man proved Saddam to be "perverted".

There's an interesting discussion to be had about how fair it is to call people "perverted" who merely behave like the proportion of humans who love violence and often resort to it.

I certainly wouldn't have liked to be in Saddam Hussein's power if he had any reason to harm me. On the other hand, I often wonder how easy it can be to rule a country like Iraq or Syria, and wonder if perhaps a hard dictator might be the best fit under present circumstances.

Generally speaking, political reform follows cultural and economic change – not vice versa. I'd love to see any of the leading American or British politicians, or other blowhards, try to do Saddam's or Assad's job without getting killed within a week or two. After a year we could ask them searching questions about the morality of what they have done, and I bet they would come up with something along the lines of "It was either me or them".

"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have one's laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies. One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force".
- Maximilien Robespierre (1791)

"Laws should be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that it is very unlikely that the laws of one nation can suit another".
- Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, "L'Esprit des Lois"

Carroll Price , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:50 pm GMT
I guess it stands to reason that people who are stupid enough to join the military, are the same ones stupid enough to keep waving the American flag after getting their asses shot off. But other than for that reason, I've never understood why anyone would do such as thing.
peterAUS , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT
@BillDakota

The Saker seems like a foreign psychological warfare agent.

Now ... you could be onto something here. I wouldn't put it in exactly those words, feels so "Cold war" and things have changed since, but, yes, the overall intention IS something along that path.

peterAUS , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:17 pm GMT
@Charles Martel Concise, civil, and informative.

Agree with the main points, of course. Especially with

..if we didn't have a strong deterrent force (and the demonstrated will to use it) there are plenty of Mohammedans, Chinese and others who would dearly love to subdue us.

and

.And to me, service in the military is a civic duty as well for able-bodied males.

EugeneGur , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Edwin Vieira

Does "The Saker" really imagine that he is the first person who has thought to quote the principles of the Nuremberg Trials ? Does he expect applause for stating the obvious?

What the Saker is indeed quite obvious, but it is is not openly stated all that often. Even people who generally object to the US-led wars feel it necessary to exempt the veterans from the blame as an innocent or even wronged party. I've personally witnessed the madness at the begging of the Iraq war when people practically genuflected before the members of the military, and the banners and pins "We support our troops" were everywhere. Support in what, in the commission of a crime? But no one came out and said that.

failures or refusals on the part of the American people to enforce what provisions of their own Constitution have led to this pass?

I am sure he did but the article isn't about that. You care to provide the answer?

The most obvious one is that the American people are under intense propaganda coupled with the essential informational blockade. All alternative information is carefully excluded from the public view. Again, the Iraq war is a good examples: before the invasion, all attempts to say what things might not go as smoothly as projected were promptly cut off. Add to this a remarkably low level of education of most Americans, who aren't familiar with geography or history, and you get the state of affairs you have.

peterAUS , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@Tulip

You are either fighting over there or you are fighting in your homeland. When you stop fighting over there, you end up fighting in your homeland.

America has just done the same thing every other successful Empire has done since the dawn of time, suggesting a natural line of development in human civilizations.

Pretty much.

All of America's enemies simply want America out of the way so they can do the same thing America has done.

Exactly.

If I were Russian or Chinese, I would want the same thing Saker calls for.

And that explains his articles in general.

But let's face it, a second-rate gorilla wanting the Alpha gorilla to die is a different sentiment from the internationalist liberal humanitarian bullshit Saker cites in his article.

Yup.

Good post.

EliteCommInc. , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT
@Ernesto Che that just tells me how much you don't know about South Vietnam. The problem was not that the South Vietnamese were puppets. But just the opposite. Trying to get the South Vietnamese to follow US prescriptions was like trying to catch a porcupine.

Single most obvious rebuttal to your nonsense -- the rem oval of the first president by his own leadership – sure we signed on -- no sign on to get rid of an obedient compliant partner. No one removes their puppets.

I suggest you peruse the lengthy discussions on this subject in the archives on the site or you could stop mouthing talking points and actually examine the issues on your own.

But to the point -- Well, dropping the civil war nonsense is progress.

peterAUS , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:41 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh Civil reply in obvious deep disagreement in this pub. Nice.

So, my reply is simple: disagree.

Not because of multipolar world, no. That could be a good idea if the other two contenders were setups I'd like to live in. I wouldn't. So, as I stated before and always will, if I have to choose multipolar between those three and unipolar managed by US Administration, I choose the later. Free will, personal choice and such. Vodka, Jack Daniels, whatever.

And, in my particular case it would mean living under, ahm, that " Xi's concept ". Haha .yeah.

You are correct in one thing, though. There are some questions with no answers,or better, answers we like. In this particular case there is such answer. Two options:

The first one could be improve upon. The second can too, without the later. Big topic; too big for this pub.

Now, should Russia and/or China introduce some other economic and societal models things could change for better, maybe. That option, hope, remains. Especially in Russia. Of course, not while the current regime is in power. But, then, something can change for better in USA too.

We'll see. In meantime, having USA being a dominant world power is, for some of us, preferable solution to that multipolar" thing. Or to put it bluntly:we .do ..NOT TRUST .Kremlin and Beijing. Simple as that.

peterAUS , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:48 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh

Russia has no desire to run the world. All it wants – at least according to Mr Putin – is to be treated with respect and given its rights under international law. Not to live in a world ruled by any single nation, but in a world where all nations treat one another with respect and consideration.

Ups... had I seen this , especially " .all nations treat one another with respect and consideration ." I wouldn't have bothered with my comment No. 239. Please disregard it. Moving on.

Hans Vogel , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:03 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh Interesting point you are raising: "Generally speaking, political reform follows cultural and economic change – not vice versa." I am afraid in most cases, there is just a woeful lack of documentary evidence. Regarding a recent case for which we have a wealth of data, the EU, we see the opposite. Cultural and economic change (immigration, stifling regulations, advance of big monopolies such as Microsoft, Bayer, social misery such as in Greece etc) has followed in the wake of political reform, initiated by the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.

It would seem in the Soviet Union cultural and economic also followed political reform. One could sustain the same regarding Peronist Argentina until the early 1950s, the German Empire in 1871 which created the framework for profound and vast cultural and economic change, Italy since 1861, and so on. Thus, I am not so sure about the validity of the historical "law" you have tentatively formulated.

Buster Keaton's Stunt Double , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
@peterAUS

In meantime, having USA being a dominant world power is, for some of us, preferable solution to that multipolar" thing.
Or to put it bluntly: we .do ..NOT TRUST .Kremlin and Beijing. Simple as that.

I don't trust Beijing. I trust D.C. about as much as I trust the Kremlin, or maybe a little less, given the way the United States has comported itself internationally since the end of the Cold War.

NoseytheDuke , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:34 pm GMT
@James Speaks I had considered that my comment about you having low low brain wattage was a bit too harsh even though you are certainly a fool but it seems I was correct on both counts after all. A fool is one who is repeatedly fooled and your comment proves that this is the case in the matter of yourself and 9/11.

The little bit of knowledge that you've acquired is quite useless without a measure of commonsense which you clearly lack. Again, this thread is about the poor fools who were duped into participating in US wars of aggression not 9/11 so do yourself a favour and read the articles on 9/11 that can be found right here at The Unz Review including the one Ron Unz wrote himself. Good luck.

cassandra , says: November 18, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Mario964 Excellent point. It would be interesting to read a similar discussion of Saker's points, but starting from the psychology behind the Milgram experiment and mass propaganda.

Every state must have its peoples, in one way or another, support its geopolitical operations. In democracies, this comes down to applying psychological pressures so that the citizenry votes for the desired programs. (Note that whether soldiers enlist primarily out of idealism or as mercenaries is incidental.) Sufficient political and psychological support can usually be generated (The surprising failure to inflame the Goutha gas attack into a major war on Syria is one notable exception). Support can be achieved even in the face of strong initial opposition, such as WWI and the Iraq war. As Saker mentions, the support can be eroded when a war drags on too long without victory, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.

It follows that an article such as Saker's will necessarily generate a strong opposition reaction. After all, "support the troops" is itself one of these conditioning slogans that drew the populace in in the first place. Simply recognizing propaganda creates cognitive dissonance against what has been programmatically imbued, and people have to get past this point to even consider that they might be acting from Milgram-like motives. Motivating people to enter this state of psychological confusion so they can deprogram themselves is the political trick.

This is probably easier for intellectuals, which include many on this site. Not because they're smarter, but because temperamentally, they actually derive pleasure from the headaches that accompany delving too deeply into confusing matters ;-).

cassandra , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:05 pm GMT
@peterAUS Fair point.

1. Whether out of idealism or venality, there are a variety of sites, such as Saker's, Russia Insider, and notorious RT, which present viewpoints in general support of Russia.

2. The majority of the rest of the web (and news) presents viewpoints generally denigrating Russia in nearly every way, from its economy, to government, to domestic and foreign policy, to its military, and to its leadership (Putin!).

Regardless of motivation, each of these groups is busy telling us what's right with their viewpoint, and how despicable is the other. The process reveals important information and angles that the other side wouldn't publicize. Really, all you have to do is read critically to identify and see past the authors prejudices. This is the point of free speech, after all.

Pretty much all political arguments are meant to persuade readers, and I don't hold anyone to blame for trying to be convincing. I do for outright lying, however, and I see a lot more of that coming from #2 than #1. To the extent that #1 is "influencing elections", their main effect IMHO is to bust propaganda bubbles of the MSM. And this effect is minor given the vast resources allocated by #2 to their efforts.

Liza , says: Next New Comment November 18, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT
Aren't sanctions (i.e., economic pressure) acts of aggression, too? Just as much as dropping of bombs, boots on ground, etc.?

Anyway, I really like this article and was hoping it would come along sooner or later in the wake of the 100th anniversary of the end of the "great" war. I am the only person I know who doesn't suck up to the paid killers.

peterAUS , says: Next New Comment November 18, 2018 at 7:42 pm GMT
@cassandra

Regardless of motivation, each of these groups is busy telling us what's right with their viewpoint, and how despicable is the other. The process reveals important information and angles that the other side wouldn't publicize. Really, all you have to do is read critically to identify and see past the authors prejudices. This is the point of free speech, after all.

Agree, of course.

Cyrano , says: Next New Comment November 18, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@Pheasant I swear I didn't know that. I thought it was my original idea.
cassandra , says: Next New Comment November 18, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Or to put it bluntly:we .do ..NOT TRUST .Kremlin and Beijing.

Of course; we shouldn't. But then, we shouldn't trust Britain or Israel either. It's really stupid to assume that a conflict of interest won't arise.

The point of diplomacy is to attempt to come to workable accommodations that have some chance of implementing peaceful coexistence at a minimum, and preferably to discover common interests that can be developed to mutual advantage. We'll have to accept or compromise on irresolvable differences, and work so these don't become too abrasive.

This would be a nice change from the foreign policy of destruction in which the west has been engaged. Country after country wishing to stay outside that orbit have been turned into hell-holes, while the austerity economic policies of the west have destroyed their own nations even from within.

I've been trying to understand why it's nice to read about development in China and Russia. I've come to realize that it's uplifting to read about anyone engaging in constructive activity, and it saddens me to see so little of that in the west along similar lines. Not that Russia and China are neglecting their military, but nearly all large scale western projects seem to be militaristic and destructive, to the exclusion of anything else. Has the west lost its ability to do something inspiring?

L.K , says: Next New Comment November 18, 2018 at 8:57 pm GMT
@Den Lille Abe

The US is a country, that has been at war for most of its life. I believe only a mere 25 years of not waging or participating in a war. Hence its reverence for the military.

Yep, the ZUS is as addicted to war as a junkie to drugs over 90% of its history at war, truly a rogue, insane country.

And in wars a lot of money can be made, lets not forget that

That's why one of the key elements of the ZUS deep state is the corrupt military industrial complex.

[Nov 17, 2018] OPEC Plus Putin's move to control energy market with Saudi partnership (Video)

Nov 17, 2018 | theduran.com

The Express UK reports that Russia and Saudi Arabia's 'long-term relationship' will not only survive, but grow, regardless of geopolitical turmoil and internal Saudi scandal as the energy interests between both nations bind them together.

... ... ...

But IHS Market vice chairman Daniel Yergin said the decision was unlikely to jeopardise the relationship between the two allies.

The Saudis have faced significant international criticism in the wake of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Speaking to CNBC, Mr Yergin made it clear that Moscow and Riyadh would continue to be closely aligned irrespective of external factors.

He explained: "I think it's intended to be a long-term relationship and it started off about oil prices but you see it taking on other dimensions, for instance, Saudi investment in Russian LNG (liquefied natural gas) and Russian investment in Saudi Arabia.

"I think this is a strategic relationship because it's useful to both countries."

Saudi Arabia and Russia are close, especially as a result of their pact in late 2016, along with other OPEC and non-OPEC producers, to curb output by 1.8 million barrels per day in order to prevent prices dropping too far – but oil markets have changed since then, largely as a result.

The US criticised OPEC, which Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of, after prices rose.

Markets have fluctuated in recent weeks as a result of fears over a possible drop in supply, as a result of US sanctions on Iran, and an oversupply, as a result of increased production by Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, which have seen prices fall by about 20 percent since early October.

Saudi Arabia has pumped 10.7 million barrels per day in October, while the figure for Russia and the US was 11.4 million barrels in each case.

Mr Yergin said: "It's the big three, it's Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, this is a different configuration in the oil market than the traditional OPEC-non-OPEC one and so the world is having to adjust."

BP Group Chief Executive Bob Dudley told CNBC: "The OPEC-plus agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers including Russia and coalition is a lot stronger than people speculate.

"I think Russia doesn't have the ability to turn on and off big fields which can happen in the Middle East.

"But I fully expect there to be coordination to try to keep the oil price within a certain fairway."

Markets rallied by two percent on Monday off the back of the Saudi decision to cut production , which it justified by citing uncertain global oil growth and associated oil demand next year.

It also suggested waivers granted on US sanctions imposed on Iran which have been granted to several countries including China and Japan was a reason not to fear a decline in supply.

Also talking to CNBC, Russia's Oil Minister Alexander Novak indicated a difference of opinion between Russia and the Saudis, saying it was too soon to cut production, highlighting a lot of volatility in the oil market.

He added: "If such a decision is necessary for the market and all the countries are in agreement, I think that Russia will undoubtedly play a part in this.

"But it's early to talk about this now, we need to look at this question very carefully."

[Nov 17, 2018] This sleazy CIA puppet, neoliberal Obama betrayed everybody who voted for him

Notable quotes:
"... @gjohnsit ..."
Nov 17, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

To Obama the CEOs just savvy businessmen but teachers? @gjohnsit

Feb. 10, 2010.
Obama Says He Is Cool With Jamie Dimon's And Lloyd Blankfein's Bonuses

Between both savvy bidnessmen, their companies needed $51 BILLION to bail them out.

A month later.

March 10, 2010.
Obama angers union officials with remarks in support of R.I. teacher firings

President Obama voiced support Monday for the mass firings of educators at a failing Rhode Island school, drawing an immediate rebuke from teachers union officials whose members have chafed at some of his education policies.

Speaking at an event intended to highlight his strategy for turning around struggling schools by offering an increase in federal funding for local districts that shake up their lowest-achieving campuses, Obama called the controversial firings justified.

"If a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn't show signs of improvement, then there's got to be a sense of accountability," he said

#1
link

Banks have been fined a staggering $243 billion since the financial crisis, according to a tally released Tuesday.

Most of these fines have been assessed for misleading investors about the underlying quality of the mortgages they packaged into bonds during the housing bubble.

up 18 users have voted.

[Nov 17, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity US Midterms Expose Russia Hacker Myth

Nov 17, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

< Older US Midterms Expose Russia Hacker Myth Written by Finian Cunningham Wednesday November 14, 2018

Don't hold your breath for it, but there should be an abject apology coming from US politicians, pundits, media and intelligence agencies.

For months leading up to the midterm elections held last week, we were told that the Kremlin was deviously targeting the ballot, in a replay of the way Russian hackers allegedly interfered in the 2016 presidential race to get Donald Trump into the White House.

Supposedly reliable news media outlets like the New York Times and heavyweight Senate panels were quoting intelligence sources warning that the "Russians are coming – again".

So what just happened? Nothing. Where were the social media campaigns of malicious Russian-inspired misinformation "sowing division"? Whatever happened to the supposed army of internet bots and trolls that the Kremlin command? Where are the electoral machines tampered with to give false vote counts?

Facebook said it had deleted around 100 social media accounts that it claimed "were linked" to pro-Russian entities intent on meddling in the midterms. How did Facebook determined that "linkage"? It was based on a "tip-off" by US intelligence agencies. Hardly convincing proof of a Kremlin plot to destabilize American democracy.

If elusive Russian hackers somehow targeted the midterm Congressional elections they certainly seem to have a convoluted objective. Trump's Republican party lost the House of Representatives to Democrat control. That could result in more Congressional probes into his alleged collusion with Russia. It could also result in Democrats filing subpoenas for Trump to finally disclose his personal tax details which he has strenuously refused to do so far.

Moreover, having lost control of one of the two Congressional chambers, Trump will find his legislative plans being slowed down and even blocked.

Thus, if Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin are the purported "puppet masters" behind the Trump presidency, they have a very strange way of showing their support, as can be seen from the setbacks of the midterms.

A far simpler, more plausible explanation is that there was no Russian hacking of the midterms, just as there wasn't in the 2016 presidential election. Russian interference, influence campaigns, malign activity, "Russia-gate", and so on, are nothing but myths conjured up by Trump's domestic political opponents and their obliging media outlets.

Now that all the dire warnings of Russia hacking into the midterms have been shown to be a mirage, the US intelligence agencies seem to be adopting a new spin on events. We are told that they "prevented Russian interference".

In a Bloomberg article headlined 'One Big Loser of the Midterms – Russian Hackers', it is claimed: "Security officials believe [sic] they prevented cyberattacks on election day." However, they added, "it's hard to tell."

In other words, US security officials have no idea if putative Russian hackers were targeting the elections. The contorted logic is that if there were no hacking incidents, then it was because US cybersecurity prevented them. This is tantamount to invoking absence to prove presence. It's voodoo intelligence.

President Trump has a point when he lambastes Democrats and their supportive media for crying foul only when they lose an election. In various midterm races, it was apparent that Democrats would protest some alleged electoral discrepancy when their candidate lost against a Republican. But when Democrats came out on top, there were no irregularities.

One can imagine therefore that if the Democrats had failed to win control over the House of Representatives, then they and their intelligence agency and media supporters would have been clamoring about "Russian interference" to help Republicans retain the House.

As it turned out, the Democrats won the House, so there is no need to invoke the Russian bogeyman. In that case, it is claimed, Russian hackers "did not succeed" to penetrate the electoral system or pivot social media.

Nonetheless, there was indeed rampant interference in the recent US election. For one thing, some 28 pro-Israeli Political Action Committees and wealthy individuals spent around $15 million to promote 80 candidates in the Congressional elections, according to the organization If Americans Knew. This foreign influence on US voters in favor of Israeli interests is nothing new. It is standard practice in every election.

During the presidential campaign in 2016, the Israeli-American billionaire Sheldon Adelson reportedly donated $25 million to Trump's campaign. Undoubtedly that legalized bribery is why Trump on becoming president has pushed such a slavishly pro-Israeli Middle East policy, including his inflammatory declaration of Jerusalem as the sole capital of the Zionist state.

But there is no outcry about "Israeli influence campaigns" and "hacking" from the US media or from Democrats over this egregious interference in American democracy. No, they prefer to obsess about the phantom of Russian meddling.

Another evident source of electoral hacking was of the homegrown variety. There seem to be valid grievances among ordinary American voters about gerrymandering of electoral districts by incumbent parties, as well as voter disenfranchisement, especially among poor African-American and Latino communities. There were also reported cases of phone canvassers making malicious calls to discredit candidates, as was claimed by the beaten Democrat contenders in Florida and Georgia.

Clearly, there are huge flaws in the US electoral system. Most glaringly, the gargantuan problem of campaign funding by corporations, banks and other representatives of the oligarchic system.

A further chronic problem is yawning voter apathy. The recent midterms were said to have seen a "record turnout" of voters. The official figure is that only 48 per cent of voters exercised their democratic right. That is, over half the voting population view the ballot exercise as not worth while or something worse. This is a constant massive disavowal of American democracy expressed in every US election.

The midterm elections demonstrate once again that American democracy has its own inherent failings. But the political establishment and the ruling oligarchy are loathe to fix a system from which they benefit.

When the system becomes unwieldy or throws up results that the establishment does not quite like – such as the election of uncouth, big mouth Trump – then the "error" must be "explained" away by some extraneous factor, such as "Russian hacking".

However, the latest exercise in American democracy, for what it is worth, gave the salutary demonstration of the myth of Russian interference – at least for those who care to honestly see that.

Another valuable demonstration was this: if supposedly reliable news media and an intelligence apparatus that is charged with national security have been caught out telling spectacular lies with regard to "Russian hacking", then what credibility do they have on a host of other anti-Russia claims, or, indeed, on many other matters?

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

[Nov 17, 2018] Difficult times are coming for the US military industrial complex as for foreign arms sales

Nov 17, 2018 | thesaker.is

Andrew S MacGregor on November 12, 2018 , · at 11:05 pm EST/EDT

Dear Eric,

May I ever so slightly differ from one of your points?

You stated; "The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100 U.S. 'defense' contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, because then all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other feudal and fascist regimes, will greatly decline."

I would suggest that these top US defense contractors sales will decline for the simple reason that they would then have to compete with the rest of the world. One of these US defense strategies had been to sell their products, or rather say force their products on NATO no matter how inferior they were. If my memory serves me correctly the UK had a good fighter jet in the Lightning, but the US forced NATO to buy the vastly inferior American product which had many crashes and killed quite a few pilots.

But in the situation of a multi-polar world the US would have to really compete with the likes of Russia and China, which as we know are already producing superior products and the US has never really been able to compete in such an atmosphere.

There is one other statement which I would also like to differ upon: " a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international law" and this statement is flawed.

A mono-polar world' has never given the right for one nation to be above international law. America did though start calling itself the International 'policeman', modelling itself on something similar to a New York policeman stealing apples from a greengrocer's stand. Once the US realised that there were no voices to be heard, they automatically progressed from the uniform policeman to the likes of 'Al Capone', which I've noted many bent policemen do.

The trick for such policemen is to know when to retire and get out of the game, but the US has never been able to retire, and now its fruits are coming back to haunt them.

[Nov 17, 2018] America's Permanent-War Complex by Gareth Porter

Nov 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Eisenhower's worst nightmare has come true, as defense mega-contractors climb into the cockpit to ensure we stay overextended. What President Dwight D. Eisenhower dubbed the "military-industrial complex" has been constantly evolving over the decades, adjusting to shifts in the economic and political system as well as international events. The result today is a "permanent-war complex," which is now engaged in conflicts in at least eight countries across the globe, none of which are intended to be temporary.

This new complex has justified its enhanced power and control over the country's resources primarily by citing threats to U.S. security posed by Islamic terrorists. But like the old military-industrial complex, it is really rooted in the evolving relationship between the national security institutions themselves and the private arms contractors allied with them.

The first phase of this transformation was a far-reaching privatization of U.S. military and intelligence institutions in the two decades after the Cold War, which hollowed out the military's expertise and made it dependent on big contractors (think Halliburton, Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI). The second phase began with the global "war on terrorism," which quickly turned into a permanent war, much of which revolves around the use of drone strikes.

The drone wars are uniquely a public-private military endeavor, in which major arms contractors are directly involved in the most strategic aspect of the war. And so the drone contractors -- especially the dominant General Atomics -- have both a powerful motive and the political power, exercised through its clients in Congress, to ensure that the wars continue for the indefinite future.

♦♦♦

The privatization of military and intelligence institutions began even before the end of the Cold War. But during the 1990s, both Congress and the Bush and Clinton administrations opened the floodgates to arms and intelligence contractors and their political allies. The contracts soon became bigger and more concentrated in a handful of dominant companies. Between 1998 and 2003, private contractors were getting roughly half of the entire defense budget each year. The 50 biggest companies were getting more than half of the approximately $900 billion paid out in contracts during that time, and most were no-bid contracts, sole sourced, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

The contracts that had the biggest impact on the complex were for specialists working right in the Pentagon. The number of these contractors grew so rapidly and chaotically in the two decades after the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials did not even know the full extent of their numbers and reach. In 2010, then-secretary of defense Robert M. Gates even confessed to Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and William M. Arkin that he was unable to determine how many contractors worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which includes the entire civilian side of the Pentagon.

Inside the Chilling World of Artificially Intelligent Drones Targeted Killing, Donald Trump Style

Although legally forbidden from assuming tasks that were "inherent government functions," in practice these contractors steadily encroached on what had always been regarded as government functions. Contractors could pay much higher salaries and consulting fees than government agencies, so experienced Pentagon and CIA officers soon left their civil service jobs by the tens of thousands for plum positions with firms that often paid twice as much as the government for the same work.

That was especially true in the intelligence agencies, which experienced a rapid 50 percent workforce increase after 9/11. It was almost entirely done with former skilled officers brought back as contractor personnel. Even President Barack Obama's CIA director Leon Panetta admitted to Priest and Arkin that the intelligence community had for too long "depended on contractors to do the operational work" that had always been done by CIA employees, including intelligence analysis, and that the CIA needed to rebuild its own expertise "over time."

By 2010, "core contractors" -- those who perform such functions as collection and analysis -- comprised at least 28 percent of professional civilian and military intelligence staff, according to a fact sheet from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The dependence on the private sector in the Pentagon and the intelligence community had reached such a point that it raised a serious question about whether the workforce was now "obligated to shareholders rather than to the public interest," as Priest and Arkin reported. And both Gates and Panetta acknowledged to them their concerns about that issue.

Powerfully reinforcing that privatization effect was the familiar revolving door between the Pentagon and arms contractors, which had begun turning with greater rapidity. A 2010 Boston Globe investigation showed that the percentage of three- and four-star generals who left the Pentagon to take jobs as consultants or executives with defense contractors, which was already at 45 percent in 1993, had climbed to 80 percent by 2005 -- an 83 percent increase in 12 years.

The incoming George W. Bush administration gave the revolving door a strong push, bringing in eight officials from Lockheed Martin -- then the largest defense contractor -- to fill senior policymaking positions in the Pentagon. The CEO of Lockheed Martin, Peter Teets, was brought in to become undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office (where he had responsibility for acquisition decisions directly benefiting his former company). James Roche, the former vice president of Northrop Grumman, was named secretary of the Air Force, and a former vice president of General Dynamics, Gordon R. England, was named the secretary of the Navy.

In 2007, Bush named rear admiral J. Michael McConnell as director of national intelligence. McConnell had been director of the National Security Agency from 1992 to 1996, then became head of the national security branch of intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Not surprisingly McConnell energetically promoted even greater reliance on the private sector, on the grounds that it was supposedly more efficient and innovative than the government. In 2009 he returned once again to Booz Allen Hamilton as vice chairman.

The Pentagon and the intelligence agencies thus morphed into a new form of mixed public-private institutions, in which contractor power was greatly magnified. To some in the military it appeared that the privateers had taken over the Pentagon. As a senior U.S. military officer who had served in Afghanistan commented to Priest and Arkin, "It just hits you like a ton of bricks when you think about it. The Department of Defense is no longer a war-fighting organization, it's a business enterprise."

♦♦♦

The years after 9/11 saw the national security organs acquire new missions, power, and resources -- all in the name of a "War on Terror," aka "the long war." The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sold on that premise, even though virtually no al Qaeda remained in Afghanistan and none were in Iraq until long after the initial U.S. invasion.

The military and the CIA got new orders to pursue al Qaeda and affiliated groups in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and several other African countries, parlaying what the Bush administration called a "generational war" into a guarantee that there would be no return to the relative austerity of the post-Cold War decade.

Drone strikes against targets associated with al Qaeda or affiliated groups became the common feature of these wars and a source of power for military and intelligence officials. The Air Force owned the drones and conducted strikes in Afghanistan, but the CIA carried them out covertly in Pakistan, and the CIA and the military competed for control over the strikes in Yemen.

The early experience with drone strikes against "high-value targets" was an unmitigated disaster. From 2004 through 2007, the CIA carried out 12 strikes in Pakistan, aimed at high-value targets of al Qaeda and its affiliates. But they killed only three identifiable al Qaeda or Pakistani Taliban figures, along with 121 civilians, based on analysis of news reports of the strikes.

But on the urging of CIA Director Michael Hayden, in mid-2008 President Bush agreed to allow "signature strikes" based merely on analysts' judgment that a "pattern of life" on the ground indicated an al Qaeda or affiliated target. Eventually it became a tool for killing mostly suspected rank-and-file Afghan Taliban fighters in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly during the Obama administration, which had less stomach and political capital for outright war and came to depend on the covert drone campaign. This war was largely secret and less accountable publicly. And it allowed him the preferable optics of withdrawing troops and ending official ground operations in places like Iraq.

Altogether in its eight years in office, the Obama administration carried out a total of nearly 5,000 drone strikes -- mostly in Afghanistan -- according to figures collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

But between 2009 and 2013, the best informed officials in the U.S. government raised alarms about the pace and lethality of this new warfare on the grounds that it systematically undermined the U.S. effort to quell terrorism by creating more support for al Qaeda rather than weakening it. Some mid-level CIA officers opposed the strikes in Pakistan as early as 2009, because of what they had learned from intelligence gathered from intercepts of electronic communications in areas where the strikes were taking place: they were infuriating Muslim males and making them more willing to join al Qaeda.

In a secret May 2009 assessment leaked to the Washington Post , General David Petraeus, then commander of the Central Command, wrote, "Anti-U.S. sentiment has already been increasing in Pakistan especially in regard to cross-border and reported drone strikes, which Pakistanis perceive to cause unacceptable civilian casualties."

More evidence of that effect came from Yemen. A 2013 report on drone war policy for the Council on Foreign Relations found that membership in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen grew from several hundred in 2010 to a few thousand members in 2012, just as the number of drone strikes in the country was increasing dramatically -- along with popular anger toward the United States.

Drone strikes are easy for a president to support. They demonstrate to the public that he is doing something concrete about terrorism, thus providing political cover in case of another successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Donald Trump has shown no interest in scaling back the drone wars, despite openly questioning the stationing of troops across the Middle East and Africa. In 2017 he approved a 100 percent increase in drone strikes in Yemen and a 30 percent increase in Somalia above the totals of the final year of the Obama administration. And Trump has approved a major increase in drone strikes in Afghanistan, and has eliminated rules aimed at reducing civilian casualties from such strikes.

Even if Obama and Trump had listened to dissenting voices on the serious risks of drone wars to U.S. interests, however, another political reality would have prevented the United States from ending the drone wars: the role of the private defense contractors and their friends on Capitol Hill in maintaining the status quo.

♦♦♦

Unlike conventional bombing missions, drone strikes require a team to watch the video feeds, interpret them, and pass on their conclusions to their mission coordinators and pilots. By 2007 that required more specialists than the Air Force had available. Since then, the Air Force has been working with military and intelligence contractors to analyze full-motion videos transmitted by drones to guide targeting decisions. BAE, the third-ranking Pentagon contractor according to defense revenues, claims that it is the "leading provider" of analysis of drone video intelligence, but in the early years the list of major companies with contracts for such work also included Booz Allen Hamilton, L-3 Communications, and SAIC (now Leidos).

These analysts were fully integrated into the "kill chain" that resulted, in many cases, in civilian casualties. In the now-famous case of the strike in February 2010 that killed at least 15 Afghan civilians, including children, the "primary screener" for the team of six video analysts in Florida communicating via a chat system with the drone pilot in Nevada was a contract employee with SAIC. That company had a $49 million multi-year contract with the Air Force to analyze drone video feeds and other intelligence from Afghanistan.

The pace of drone strikes in Afghanistan accelerated sharply after U.S. combat ended formally in 2014. And that same year, the air war against ISIS began in Iraq and Syria. The Air Force then began running armed drones around the clock in those countries as well. The Air Force needed 1,281 drone pilots to handle as many "combat air patrols" per day in multiple countries. But it was several hundred pilots short of that objective.

To fulfill that requirement the Air Force turned to General Atomics -- maker of the first armed drone, the Predator, and a larger follow-on, the MQ-9 Reaper -- which had already been hired to provide support services for drone operations on a two-year contract worth $700 million. But in April 2015 the Air Force signed a contract with the company to lease one of its Reapers with its own ground control station for a year. In addition, the contractor was to provide the pilots, sensor operators, and other crew members to fly it and maintain it.

The pilots, who still worked directly for General Atomics, did everything Air Force drone pilots did except actually fire the missiles. The result of that contract was a complete blurring of the lines between the official military and the contractors hired to work alongside them. The Air Force denied any such blurring, arguing that the planning and execution of each mission would still be in the hands of an Air Force officer. But the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Office had published an article in its law review in 2010 warning that even the analysis of video feeds risked violating international law prohibiting civilian participation in direct hostilities.

A second contract with a smaller company, Aviation Unlimited, was for the provision of pilots and sensor operators and referred to "recent increased terrorist activities," suggesting that it was for anti-ISIS operations.

The process of integrating drone contractors into the kill chain in multiple countries thus marked a new stage in the process of privatizing war in what had become a permanent war complex. After 9/11, the military became dependent on the private sector for everything from food, water, and housing to security and refueling in Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2009 contractors began outnumbering U.S. troops in Afghanistan and eventually became critical for continuing the war as well.

In June 2018, the DoD announced a $40 million contract with General Atomics to operate its own MQ-9 Reapers in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. The Reapers are normally armed for independent missile strikes, but in this case, the contractor-operated Reapers were to be unarmed, meaning that the drones would be used to identify targets for Air Force manned aircraft bombing missions.

♦♦♦

There appears to be no braking mechanism for this accelerating new reality. U.S. government spending on the military drone market, which includes not only procurement and research and development for the drones themselves, but the sensors, modifications, control systems, and other support contracts, stood at $4.5 billion in 2016, and was expected to increase to $13 billion by 2027. General Atomics is now the dominant player in the arena.

This kind of income translates into political power, and the industry has shown its muscle and more than once prevented the Pentagon from canceling big-ticket programs, no matter how unwanted or wasteful. They have the one-two punch of strategically focused campaign contributions and intensive lobbying of members with whom they have influence.

This was most evident between 2011 and 2013, after congressionally mandated budget reductions cut into drone procurement. The biggest loser appeared to be Northrop Grumman's "Global Hawk" drone, designed for unarmed high-altitude intelligence surveillance flights of up to 32 hours.

By 2011 the Global Hawk was already 25 percent over budget, and the Pentagon had delayed the purchase of the remaining planes for a year to resolve earlier failures to deliver adequate "near real time" video intelligence.

After a subsequent test, however, the Defense Department's top weapons tester official reported in May 2011 that the Global Hawk was "not operationally effective" three fourths of the time, because of "low vehicle reliability." He cited the "failure" of "mission central components" at "high rates." In addition, the Pentagon still believed the venerable U-2 Spy plane -- which could operate in all weather conditions, unlike the Global Hawk -- could carry out comparable high-altitude intelligence missions.

As a result, the DoD announced in 2012 that it would mothball the aircraft it had already purchased and save $2.5 billion over five years by foregoing the purchase of the remaining three drones. But that was before Northrop Grumman mounted a classic successful lobbying campaign to reverse the decision.

That lobbying drive produced a fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations law that added $360 million for the purchase of the final three Global Hawks. In Spring 2013, top Pentagon officials indicated that they were petitioning for "relief" from congressional intent. Then the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Republican Buck McKeon, and a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia, wrote a letter to incoming Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on May 13, 2013, pressing him to fund the acquisition of the Global Hawks.

The Pentagon finally caved. The Air Force issued a statement pledging to acquire the last three Northrop Grumman spy planes, and in early 2014, Hagel and Dempsey announced that they would mothball the U-2 and replace it with the Global Hawk.

Northrop spent nearly $18 million on lobbying in 2012 and $21 million in 2013, fielding a phalanx of lobbyists determined to help save Global Hawk. It got what it wanted.

Meanwhile, Northrop's political action committee had already made contributions of at least $113,000 to the campaign committee of House Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon, who also happened to represent the Southern California district where Northrop's assembly plant for the Global Hawk is located. Representative Moran, the co-author of the letter with McKeon, who represented the northern Virginia district where Northrop has its headquarters, had gotten $22,000 in contributions.

Of course Northrop didn't ignore the rest of the House Armed Services Committee: they were recipients of at least $243,000 in campaign contributions during the first half of 2012.

♦♦♦

The Northrop Grumman triumph dramatically illustrates the power relationships underlying the new permanent-war complex. In the first half of 2013 alone, four major drone contractors -- General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing -- spent $26.2 million lobbying Congress to pressure the executive branch to keep the pipeline of funding for their respective drone systems flowing freely. The Center for the Study of the Drone observed, "Defense contractors are pressuring the government to maintain the same levels of investment in unmanned systems even as the demand from the traditional theatres such as Afghanistan dies down."

Instead of dying down, the demand from drones in Afghanistan has exploded in subsequent years. By 2016, the General Atomics Reapers had already become so tightly integrated into U.S. military operations in Afghanistan that the whole U.S. war plan was dependent on them. In the first quarter of 2016 Air Force data showed that 61 percent of the weapons dropped in Afghanistan were from the drones.

In the new permanent-war complex the interests of the arms contractors have increasingly dominated over the interests of the civilian Pentagon and the military services, and dominance has became a new driving force for continued war. Even though those bureaucracies, along with the CIA, seized the opportunity to openly conduct military operations in one country after another, the drone war has introduced a new political dynamic into the war system: the drone makers who have powerful clout in Congress can use their influence to block or discourage an end to the permanent war -- especially in Afghanistan -- which would sharply curtail the demand for drones.

Eisenhower was prophetic in his warning about the threat of the original complex (which he had planned to call the military-industrial-congressional complex) to American democracy. But that original complex, organized merely to maximize the production of arms to enhance the power and resources of both the Pentagon and their contractor allies, has become a much more serious menace to the security of the American people than even Eisenhower could have anticipated. Now it is a system of war that powerful arms contractors and their bureaucratic allies may have the ability to maintain indefinitely.

Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to . He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

[Nov 17, 2018] Macron -- Not the Nationalists -- is Stuck in the 1930s by Scott McConnell

Notable quotes:
"... Treason of the Intellectuals ..."
Nov 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

It's in Europe's elite that we find the spirit of appeasement that once enabled fascists and communists. • November 16, 2018

French President Emmanuel Macron has a new go-to rhetorical trope: alarm over the return of the horrors of the 1930s. Last summer, he decried the reappearance of populist governments "rising like a leprosy, throughout Europe," as well as a "resurgent nationalism" and the emergence of governments that support the closing of frontiers and don't respect "even the right to asylum."

Macron's targets are the newly formed government of Italy, along with Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, all resistant to the flow of migrants into Europe. He returned again to the analogy earlier this month, telling an interviewer he was "struck" by the present's similarities to the 1930s and calling again for resistance to the "nationalist leprosy." He went on this tear yet again while hosting the Armistice Day centenary commemorations, where he contrasted the "generous" France of "universal values" with the shallow nationalism of nations that look out only for their own interests, a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to President Trump.

To punctuate his point, he added a reference to Julien Benda's Treason of the Intellectuals , published in 1927, which decried burgeoning nationalist sentiments among Europe's intellectuals as a whole and certain French conservatives in particular. It closed with a paean to Franco-German cooperation, the European Union, and the United Nations.

Macron is surely correct that the 1930s were generally a terrible decade. That's true even if what he said is not all that different from the commonplace left-wing view that all conservatives who think about anything more than reducing taxes can be safely decried as fascists and Nazis and deserve no platform in our political system. But the analogy to the 1930s deserves unpacking. Whatever lessons might be learned from history, they're not nearly so straightforward as Macron seems to believe.

First of all, there was not one but two active murderous totalitarian movements popular in the '30s: fascism and communism. Communism came first. The Soviet government had probably killed 10 million innocent people before Hitler came to power. By the 1930s, huge slices of the intelligentsia in Britain, France, and, yes, the United States were head over heels in love with Stalinism. These thinkers produced reams of tributes to the bloodthirsty Soviet system, and were far more dominant in Western intellectual life than the targets of Benda's ire in the 1920s. Second, because Bolshevism came first, it acted as an accelerant, perhaps even a major cause, of fascism. One definition of fascism -- from my thesis supervisor Bob Paxton, probably the greatest American expert on the subject -- is "hard measures by a frightened middle class."

What they were frightened of, of course, was Bolshevism. And rightly so, even if pursuing violent and anti-democratic means in defense of property and order had a cost in suffering just as horrific as those they had feared.

Additionally, among the large numbers of people who were neither fascists nor communists, nor fellow travelers to either, there were significant currents of opinion hardly conducive to maintaining democratic peace. In early 1933, the Oxford Union held one of its most famous and historically significant debates: aye or nay on the motion "that this House will in no circumstance fight for its King and Country." The motion carried by a nearly two-to-one margin, a result noted and commented upon all over the world.

Some of the arguments made in favor of "aye" were standard communist fare, i.e., "It is no mere coincidence that the only country fighting for the cause of peace, Soviet Russia, is the country that has rid itself of the warmongering clique." But it's likely that the vast majority of the students who supported the motion, the bright and favored sons of Britain's establishment, were motivated by pure disgust at the horrendous toll, paid for no terribly good reason, in the trenches of the Western Front. In any case, the sentiment was widespread enough in Britain's ruling circles to buttress the arguments for appeasement made a few years later. It certainly contributed to Hitler's view that Britain and France were soft, unwilling to resist him.

Macron Trash Talks "America First" In Defense of Ethnic Nationalism

So if one of the evils of the '30s was the extreme nationalism and fascism that Macron decried, another was communism. And the combined energy of both led to a spirit of appeasement on the part of those attached to neither far left or right but unable also to summon much energy to defend an imperfect bourgeois order. It's this spirit that's most analogous to the regnant attitudes in contemporary Europe.

For as world leaders and press descended upon Paris to commemorate the end of World War I, one could see that desire for appeasement take a new form. Last week, a middle-aged Pakistani Christian woman, a farm worker named Asia Bibi, was freed after eight years on death row for the charge of "blasphemy." Her conviction was overturned by Pakistan's supreme court, a decision that immediately provoked mass demonstrations by fundamentalist Muslims demanding her death. Her attorney fled the country for his safety. Her family requested asylum in Britain, a request that was reportedly denied because the British government feared it would provoke "unrest" among Muslims.

Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, those wordy celebrants of Europe's asylum generosity, have uttered not a word in support of Bibi, even as both (particularly Merkel) have facilitated entry into Europe of millions of young Muslim men as "refugees." In contrast to them, Italy's interior minister Matteo Salvini has said that Italy would welcome Bibi and her family -- who at this writing are still unable to leave Pakistan.

It's a telling moment -- the government indirectly accused by Macron of harkening back the dark days of the 1930s is ready to open its arms to a genuine political refugee, while the governments of Theresa May, Macron, and Merkel opt for social peace -- a "paix bien Munichoise" as a writer for the French journal Causeur aptly describes the establishment's accommodating stance towards fundamentalist Islam on European soil.

The Bibi case brings to mind the fascinating story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch woman of Somali origin who became a member of parliament and then, after 9/11, a critic of Islam. Because of threats of murder from Dutch Islamists, she was first forced to live under police protection and eventually had her citizenship withdrawn by the Dutch government. She moved to America, becoming, as Salman Rushdie put it, "maybe the first refugee from Western Europe since the Holocaust."

But in Macron's view, and the view of others from the West's Davos-style establishment, the threat to Europe's core values can come only from "nationalists" like Hungary's Victor Orbán, Italy's Salvini, and the likes of Donald Trump. In his famous poem written at the outbreak of World War II, W.H. Auden famously called the 1930s "a low dishonest decade." The attitudes that made it so are very much alive in Europe's ruling classes today.

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .

[Nov 17, 2018] Crosstalk: Nationalism by RPI Staf

Nov 17, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Was French president Emmanuel Macron correct at the WWI commemoration over the weekend when he asserted that patriotism is the opposite of nationalism in a pointed dig at US president Donald Trump? RPI Board Members Lew Rockwell and John Laughland join scholar George Szamuely on RT's Crosstalk to debate whether nationalism is the bogeyman that Macron and others make it out to be. Or is blaming nationalism just a way to further destroy national sovereignty and bring about an unelected permanent globalist empire?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_aOfBdbCqU0

Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Nov 17, 2018] Army Wins Al-Safa Battle - More Troops Move Towards Idelb

Notable quotes:
"... Does terrorism even really exist? It seems to me that in most cases (in modern history) incidents of terrorism can be attributed to state actors seeking to discredit and/or escalate. ..."
"... If we look at Northern Ireland it is clear that the British State were involved in carrying out, organizing, etc. acts of terrorism on both sides of the divide. The protestant paramilitaries where actively controlled and directed by the British state and in many incidences actually took part. On the catholic paramilitaries there were British agents who were in senior positions within the IRA and extremely violent in their approach. ..."
"... It is now fairly obvious that Al Qaeda and ISIS were western controlled, funded, trained and directed organizations. ..."
"... There is the Gladio operation (US/Anglo stay behind armies) which staged many acts of terrorism in post war Europe and is likely to still be active. ..."
"... Turkey has both the leverage and, in neutrality, superior military strength vis-a-vis the Kurds in Northern Syria. To top it off, it has the geographic advantage, because a Syrian Kurdistan would be landlocked between hostile neighbors. They were pawns in the American adventure in Syria. ..."
Nov 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Nov 17, 2018 4:44:23 PM | link

thanks b.. it is still a proxy war and the usa is never going to leave.. they want to get rid of the pmu in iraq.. sanctions and etc bs... obviously that would help facilitate isis which the usa claims they are going after.. a load of bs is all i have come to expect from the usa..

here is inherent bullshit resolve comment regarding your mention of 40 dead.. - "Inherent Resolve: many open sources claiming massive casualties among civilians in Hajin region as result of coalition actions without any evidences."

meanwhile almasdar reporting 18 saa personal dead in latakia thanks these moderate rebels today.
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jihadist-rebels-kill-18-syrian-soldiers-in-northern-latakia/

the kurds are brain dead... no wonder the usa likes working with them! they get what they deserve for sleeping with snakes...

the result of the al-safa battle is encouraging.. thanks for the update and good luck working on the google snoop dynamic..

Den Lille Abe , Nov 17, 2018 4:45:52 PM | link

What is the diference between a moderate terrorist and a extreme terrorist? I wonder ? Will the moderate say please, before he chops you head off?

Any that can help me here? I run afoul the wording. A terrorist is not necessarily a terrorist ?

If he is on our side then he is ok , clear to go?

Say I wanted to throw bombs (I don't, and cant throw very far) my actions wound depend on who the victims were? If they were Arabs, it would be ok? If it were white people, it was probably not ok? Amirite ?

And what is a moral war? Anybody?

Seems like I am more confused today being 61 than I were when I was 20.

ADKC , Nov 17, 2018 5:08:38 PM | link
Does terrorism even really exist? It seems to me that in most cases (in modern history) incidents of terrorism can be attributed to state actors seeking to discredit and/or escalate.

If we look at Northern Ireland it is clear that the British State were involved in carrying out, organizing, etc. acts of terrorism on both sides of the divide. The protestant paramilitaries where actively controlled and directed by the British state and in many incidences actually took part. On the catholic paramilitaries there were British agents who were in senior positions within the IRA and extremely violent in their approach.

It is now fairly obvious that Al Qaeda and ISIS were western controlled, funded, trained and directed organizations.

With the Dakota Pipeline protests there where agitators without a history with the protest seeking to provoke violence.

Hitler organized outrages against the German communities in Czechoslovakia to justify an invasion (to protect German minorities).

There is the Gladio operation (US/Anglo stay behind armies) which staged many acts of terrorism in post war Europe and is likely to still be active.

There is barely a terrorist incident that doesn't have some connection to state actors.

karlof1 , Nov 17, 2018 5:40:48 PM | link
How many times have we read reports of terrorists fleeing toward al-Tanf; I recall at least a dozen over the past 2 years. The volume and rhetorical tone Russia uses in what are now its demands that Outlaw US Empire forces abandon al-Tanf have drastically escalated over just the past month as several damning reports of conditions at the refugee camp are now published.

The rains in the region were quite spectacular and numerous videos of camel caravans slogging through the mire along with others--a massive river in al-Safa flowing through the rocks is one--are all over Twitter. Additional long-serving Syrian troops have been demobilized and discharged from service and further amnesty programs introduced to goad refugees to return. Civilian services still need lots of attention, but normal life is steadily returning.

Idlib awaits its Dawn operation as the Turks have had more than enough time to do their sorting, while the terrorists have increased their number of assaults inviting increased counter-fire. The chemical FF potential still lurks, and further excellent published exposures detailing the true nature of the White Helmet Terrorists are published. IMO, Russian hopes of solving Idlib politically without a major combat operation have dimmed greatly.

Numerous variables influence where the next major combat op will occur. Iraq's political issues impede its military actions. A weighty contingent of Russian troops were moved to Dier-Ezzor over the past two months along with fresh Syrian forces. With the clearing of al-Safa, those forces will likely combine and head East over the Euphrates. I believe both Russia and Syria are aware the situation there cannot be allowed to become frozen, and the lands east of the Euphrates is the largest remaining district needing liberation. Indeed, there are only 3 remaining: Idlib, al-Tanf, and East Euphrates--4 if the Turkish border zone's included.

Politically, Assad can't allow too long a respite as his liberation task remains undone. So, since the region lacking a political solution is East Euphrates, I look for the next major action to occur there--and the first serious testing of the new, joint, Syrian-Russian air defense system by the Outlaw US Empire, not the Zionists.

vk , Nov 17, 2018 9:03:36 PM | link
Throughout the war on Syria the Syrian Kurds have shown a lack of political wisdom. They probably believe they can withstand the Turkish army or that the U.S. will come to their help. The Turkish invasion of Afrin demonstrated that both ideas are nonsense. Their only chance to keep their homes is to completely submit to Syrian government control.

If the Kurds knew about the tale of the Malvines, they would've already surrendered to the Syrian government.

During the Falklands War, Argentina declared war against the UK calculating the USA would side with them against the British because Argentina is in the American continent -- therefore the Monroe Doctrine would take precedence.

But the UK was (still is) a NATO member. The mistake the Argentinian military dictators committed was that the choice wasn't between the Monroe Doctrine or NATO, but between capitalism and socialism (i.e. West vs USSR). The military junta that was governing Argentina at the time had already given up everything to the USA, they were already a guaranteed ally, with or without the Malvines. The UK had much more leverage, and, if it didn't have, it was the superior military power even if you factor the logistics of the war theater.

Turkey has both the leverage and, in neutrality, superior military strength vis-a-vis the Kurds in Northern Syria. To top it off, it has the geographic advantage, because a Syrian Kurdistan would be landlocked between hostile neighbors. They were pawns in the American adventure in Syria.

[Nov 16, 2018] The proposal I would l ike to see introduced at the United Nations would be one to remove a nation that systematically violates the UN Charter

Nov 12, 2018 | thesaker.is

The proposal I would like to see introduced at the United Nations would be one to remove a nation that systematically violates the UN Charter. If not totally remove them, then at least bar them from being on the Security Council, and of course thus removing their veto.

The UN Charter is the treaty that any nation must adopt to join the United Nations. The very purpose of the UN when it was formed after WW2 was to prevent war. Thus, the UN charter has clauses that say a nation can only attack another nation under the authority of the UN Security Council. It has a clause that says that it violates the UN Charter to even mass forces on another nation's borders and to then threaten to attack in order to coerce another nation.

The USA has of course frequently been in violation of the UN Charter. Certainly what it has been doing in Syria is in violation of the UN Charter. The US has been in violation of the UN Charter for some time. At least back as far as when Clinton couldn't get the UN Security Council to support his attack on Serbia and he went ahead and did it anyways. There is of course a long list of such violations. Israel is of course also in violation of the UN Charter with its constant attacks on its neighbors.

From there, the course would follow basically what Mr. Zuesse says. America's poodle, the UK would certainly veto a resolution seeking to discipline the USA for breaking the very core notion of the UN, which is to prevent another worldwide catastrophe like what the world experienced during WW2. It was a world that was horrified by what had occurred during WW2 that formed the UN to prevent that from happening again.

To me, its hard to see how the UN accepts the leadership of a nation that violates the Charter that every nation had to agree to in order to join the organization. Of course, mob bosses have their own ways of breaking the rules of civilized society. Still, it seems like a place to try to rally the world about.

Eric Zuesse on November 12, 2018 , · at 5:29 pm EST/EDT

Dear "Anonymous": Your comment is extremely well-informed and relevant, but the U.N. has been highly dependent upon the U.S. financially, and therefore the initiative cannot come from the U.N. itself, but only from particular nations. What I was summarily describing in concern to the U.N. as it actually exists (not to the U.N. as it should exist, which maybe we'll get to some day) is an ongoing PR stunt, to be staged at the U.N., to draw the public's attention to the fact that the U.S. Government has been functioning blatantly, for many years, as a fascist power. This truth needs to be rubbed constantly into the face of today's America's Government so as to isolate that Government internationally to become the pariah-Government that the people who founded the U.N. would puke to see. What won WW II was physically the Allies, but what has since taken over in spirit is Hitler's spirit, but with different priorities of whom the 'enemies' are, not Jews especially but this time Russians especially. Instead of the 'vast Jewish conspiracy', we've got the 'cunning Russian conspiracy' now having supposedly chosen the evil Trump and made him become America's President, etc, and it's based on lies now just as it was based on lies in Hitler's time. But it's now the American aristocracy, instead of the German aristocracy. I was proposing there a PR campaign, to expose them as what they are.
JJ on November 13, 2018 , · at 2:51 pm EST/EDT
So sad that UN seems to not follow up any requests from Syrian government for investigations .actions against the usa coalition ­
mike k on November 12, 2018 , · at 7:41 pm EST/EDT
The wealthy owners of America were always in favor of Hitler's idea of world domination, butt hey wanted to be in charge of it instead of the Germans. After WWII they saw their chance to take the lead and have been working to enslave the world ever since. Of course they hate the UN, or anyone who does not bow to their will to power.
Serbian girl on November 12, 2018 , · at 8:02 pm EST/EDT
Thank you for this important article. I do not see the development of PESCO or any homegrown European military as something positive. I think this is simply a re-branding exercise on behalf of those who control NATO. These " new" proxy militaries will continue to buy US military equipment as NATO did before. My fear is that the re-branding effort may result in a revised military doctrine which may actually be more aggressive than NATO..
Anonymous on November 13, 2018 , · at 10:10 am EST/EDT
Laugh if you will, but I think the Eurocrats want to attempt to (re)take the North American continent (probably with DC's blessing.) Did you see Putin and Trudeau huddle together at the WWI commemoration meeting?
Anonymous on November 13, 2018 , · at 10:27 am EST/EDT
(And another thing ) We (the people of the West) should remember that the European, English and American aristocracies (as Zuesse refers to them) keep a boot to each others throats, and if one lets up, the other grabs a knife from the back pocket and goes for the jugular. Because they are like that.
milan on November 13, 2018 , · at 9:22 pm EST/EDT
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who join in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one in which the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can impose it only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this case is the United States.

Might I suggest a viewing and listening to a Dr. Navarro speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3rxjaOPQD4

Economic Security is National Security

"This is a must watch video – now you will understand the Chinese implosion & why China stocks & economy are not coming back for probably decades!"

­
Anonymous on November 14, 2018 , · at 1:24 am EST/EDT
America is not only the true "evil empire," but it is also a very sick and deluded evil empire.

The Trump Regime is unhinged, as it desperately tries to Make the American Empire Great Again by attacking its opponents such as Russia, China, or Iran; waging financial and economic wars on the world; and projecting its own imperial insanity onto others one twitter tweet at a time.

But this is true of America in general, regardless of whatever malign regime is in Washington DC.

The more that America lashes out and seeks to maintain its pretensions as the Exceptionalist nation, the more it only accelerates its own decline and destruction, as well as its Day of Financial Reckoning with the collapse of the Ponzi Scheme US economy and Wall Street.

Indeed, it's not a secret that another Wall Street implosion is coming, one that will make the 2008 version triggered by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy seem like a tea party in comparison.

Given Donald Trump's own record of multiple business bankruptcies, perhaps it's only appropriate that he is the current ruler of America. LOL.

The real issue is when America itself will shatter into a several separate nation states. Indeed, the prospect of a Second American Civil War is increasingly on the minds of US foreign policy experts and even the American masses themselves.

According to Dmitry Orlov, America is fast closing the "collapse gap" with its former Cold War nemesis, the USSR.

Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects
https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Collapse-Experience-American-Prospects/dp/0865716854

US Collapse – the Spectacle of Our Time
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201802251061983205-us-collapse-spectacle-of-our-time/

[Nov 16, 2018] Food scarcity and malnutrition of children under the age of 5, places the Ukraine in percentage terms lower than Pakistan, Ethiopia, Libya, Iraq

Nov 16, 2018 | thesaker.is

PeterP on November 12, 2018 , · at 9:06 pm EST/EDT

Food scarcity and malnutrition of children under the age of 5, places the Ukraine in percentage terms lower than Pakistan, Ethiopia, Libya, Iraq .the Ukraine welcomes the Cookie Monster (stats National Geographic)

[Nov 16, 2018] They give that con artist the Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful, egalitarian and prosperous world

Obama forever denigrated Nobel Peace Price, making it a cruel joke.
Notable quotes:
"... That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful, egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya. ..."
"... He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence. ..."
Nov 16, 2018 | thesaker.is

Whistling Shrimp on November 13, 2018 , · at 4:28 am EST/EDT

That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful, egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya.

He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence.

The other sides (defined as enemies solely by Washington, not themselves) are treated with disdain and disrespect, as Barry flaunts his trash talking skills, obviously learned in his self-admitted days of street hustling and tripping on the drug du jour.

Trump has also been a master of insults, but it was Obama who unilaterally unveiled the skill as a favored American diplomatic tactic.

I'm sure it has Putin, Xi, Kim and Rouhani shivering and willing to swallow any insult to avoid unbridled Neocon wrath [sarc.]. Fools like the guys the American aristocracy routinely put in the White House are gonna get us all killed one of these days.

[Nov 16, 2018] The Meaning Of A Multipolar World

Nov 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Meaning Of A Multipolar World

by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/16/2018 - 00:05 4 SHARES Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Saker Blog,

Right now, we live in a monopolar world.

Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama proudly, even imperially, described it when delivering the Commencement address to America's future generals, at West Point Military Academy, on 28 May 2014 :

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else will...

Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us. [He was here telling these future U.S. military leaders that they are to fight for the U.S. aristocracy, to help them defeat any nation that resists.] ...

In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn't the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. [He was proud of the U.S. Government's effectiveness at propaganda, just as Hitler was proud of the German Government's propaganda-effectiveness under Joseph Goebbels.] Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine's economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.

Actually, his - Obama's - regime, had conquered Ukraine in February 2014 by a very bloody coup , and installed a racist-fascist anti-Russian Government there next door to Russia, a stooge-regime to this day, which instituted a racial-cleansing campaign to eliminate enough pro-Russia voters so as to be able to hold onto power there. It has destroyed Ukraine and so alienated the regions of Ukraine that had voted more than 75% for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom Obama overthrew, so that those pro-Russia regions quit Ukraine. What remains of Ukraine after the U.S. conquest is a nazi mess and a destroyed nation in hock to Western taxpayers and banks .

Furthermore, Obama insisted upon (to use Bush's term about Saddam Hussein) "regime-change" in Syria. Twice in one day the Secretary General of the U.N. asserted that only the Syrian people have any right to do that, no outside nation has any right to impose it. Obama ignored him and kept on trying. Obama actually protected Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate against bombing by Syria's Government and by Syria's ally Russia, while the U.S. bombed Syria's army , which was trying to prevent those jihadists from overthrowing the Government. Obama bombed Libya in order to "regime-change" Muammar Gaddafi, and he bombed Syria in order to "regime-change" Bashar al-Assad; and, so, while the "U.S. Drops Bombs; EU Gets Refugees & Blame. This Is Insane." And Obama's successor Trump continues Obama's policies in this regard. And, of course, the U.S. and its ally UK invaded Iraq in 2003, likewise on the basis of lies to the effect that Iraq was the aggressor . (Even Germany called Poland the aggressor when invading Poland in 1939.)

No other nation regularly invades other nations that never had invaded it. This is international aggression. It is the international crime of "War of Aggression" ; and the only nations which do it nowadays are America and its allies, such as the Sauds, Israel, France, and UK, which often join in America's aggressions (or, in the case of the Sauds' invasion of Yemen, the ally initiates an invasion, which the U.S. then joins). America's generals are taught this aggression, and not only by Obama. Ever since at least George W. Bush, it has been solid U.S. policy. (Bush even kicked out the U.N.'s weapons-inspectors, so as to bomb Iraq in 2003.)

In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who join in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one in which the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can impose it only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this case is the United States. Furthermore, because the U.S. regime reigns supreme over the entire world, as it does, any nations -- such as Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Ecuador -- that the U.S. regime (which has itself been scientifically proven to be a dictatorship ) chooses to treat as an enemy, is especially disadvantaged internationally. Russia and China, however, are among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and therefore possess a degree of international protection that America's other chosen enemies do not. And the people who choose which nations to identify as America's 'enemies' are America's super-rich and not the entire American population, because the U.S. Government is controlled by the super-rich and not by the public .

So, that's the existing mono-polar world: it is a world that's controlled by one nation, and this one nation is, in turn, controlled by its aristocracy, its super-rich .

If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council would table at the U.N. a proposal to eliminate the immunity that the U.S. regime has, from investigation and prosecution for any future War of Aggression that it might perpetrate, then, of course, the U.S. and any of its allies on the Security Council would veto that, but if the proposing nation would then constantly call to the international public's attention that the U.S. and its allies had blocked passage of such a crucially needed "procedure to amend the UN charter" , and that this fact means that the U.S. and its allies constitute fascist regimes as was understood and applied against Germany's fascist regime, at the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945, then possibly some members of the U.S.-led gang (the NATO portion of it, at least) would quit that gang, and the U.S. global dictatorship might end, so that there would then become a multi-polar world, in which democracy could actually thrive.

Democracy can only shrivel in a mono-polar world, because all other nations then are simply vassal nations, which accept Obama's often-repeated dictum that all other nations are "dispensable" and that only the U.S. is not. Even the UK would actually gain in freedom, and in democracy, by breaking away from the U.S., because it would no longer be under the U.S. thumb -- the thumb of the global aggressor-nation.

Only one global poll has ever been taken of the question "Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?" and it found that, overwhelmingly, by a three-to-one ratio above the second-most-often named country, the United States was identified as being precisely that, the top threat to world-peace . But then, a few years later, another (though less-comprehensive) poll was taken on a similar question, and it produced similar results . Apparently, despite the effectiveness of America's propagandists, people in other lands recognize quite well that today's America is a more successful and longer-reigning version of Hitler's Germany. Although modern America's propaganda-operation is far more sophisticated than Nazi Germany's was, it's not entirely successful. America's invasions are now too common, all based on lies, just like Hitler's were.

On November 9th, Russian Television headlined "'Very insulting': Trump bashes Macron's idea of European army for protection from Russia, China & US" and reported that "US President Donald Trump has unloaded on his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, calling the French president's idea of a 'real European army,' independent from Washington, an insult." On the one hand, Trump constantly criticizes France and other European nations for allegedly not paying enough for America's NATO military alliance, but he now is denigrating France for proposing to other NATO members a decreasing reliance upon NATO, and increasing reliance, instead, upon the Permanent Structured Cooperation (or PESCO) European military alliance , which was begun on 11 December 2017, and which currently has "25 EU Member States participating: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden." Those are the European nations that are now on the path to eventually quitting NATO.

Once NATO is ended, the U.S. regime will find far more difficult any invasions such as of Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2016-, and maybe even such as America's bloody coup that overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a racist-fascist or nazi anti-Russian regime there in 2014 . All of these U.S. invasions (and coup) brought to Europe millions of refugees and enormously increased burdens upon European taxpayers. Plus, America's economic sanctions against both Russia and Iran have hurt European companies (and the U.S. does almost no business with either country, so is immune to that, also). Consequently, today's America is clearly Europe's actual main enemy. The continuation of NATO is actually toxic to the peoples of Europe. Communism and the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirroring Warsaw Pact military alliance, all ended peacefully in 1991, but the U.S. regime has secretly continued the Cold War, now against Russia , and is increasingly focusing its "regime-change" propaganda against Russia's popular democratic leader, Vladimir Putin, even though this U.S. aggression against Russia could mean a world-annihilating nuclear war.

On November 11th, RT bannered "'Good for multipolar world': Putin positive on Macron's 'European army' plan bashed by Trump (VIDEO)" , and opened:

Europe's desire to create its own army and stop relying on Washington for defense is not only understandable, but would be "positive" for the multipolar world, Vladimir Putin said days after Donald Trump ripped into it.

" Europe is a powerful economic union and it is only natural that they want to be independent and sovereign in the field of defense and security," Putin told RT in Paris where world leader gathered to mark the centenary of the end of WWI.

He also described the potential creation of a European army "a positive process," adding that it would "strengthen the multipolar world." The Russian leader even expressed his support to French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently championed this idea by saying that Russia's stance on the issue "is aligned with that of France" to some extent.

Macron recently revived the ambitious plans of creating a combined EU military force by saying that it is essential for the security of Europe. He also said that the EU must become independent from its key ally on the other side of the Atlantic, provoking an angry reaction from Washington.

Once NATO has shrunk to include only the pro-aggression and outright nazi European nations, such as Ukraine (after the U.S. gang accepts Ukraine into NATO, as it almost certainly then would do), the EU will have a degree of freedom and of democracy that it can only dream of today, and there will then be a multi-polar world, in which the leaders of the U.S. will no longer enjoy the type of immunity from investigation and possible prosecution, for their invasions, that they do today. The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100 U.S. 'defense' contractors , such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, because then all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other feudal and fascist regimes, will greatly decline. Donald Trump is doing everything he can to keep the Sauds to the agreements he reached with them back in 2017 to buy $404 billion of U.S. weaponry over the following 10 years . If, in addition, those firms lose some of their European sales, then the U.S. economic boom thus far in Trump's Presidency will be seriously endangered. So, the U.S. regime, which is run by the owners of its 'defense'-contractors , will do all it can to prevent this from happening.

* * *

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

[Nov 16, 2018] What America's Coup in Ukraine Did by Eric Zuesse

This critique is pretty superficial. The truth is that Ukraine drifted to Baltic model (not without help from Western Europe and the USA) for a long time. And the process started in 2001 not in 2014. That means that February 2014 coup d'état by far right nationalist forces was just quantity turned into quality. With the dissolution of the USSR, it is clear that the result of WWII and Yalta conference will be revised.
While it is true that it was the greatest geopolitical victory of Barack Obama and the USA against Russia, it made the world more dangerous. The fact that it saws the teeth of dragon escaped those great US neocon strategists, like Victoria Nuland. She looks pretty medictre person to me, judging from her public appearances. Far below the level of position she occupied. Out of depth. Kind of early variation of Nikki Haley theme.
The USA established itself as a world power at the end of WWI, and the No.1 nation after WWII. So apparance of the USA on world scene happened a century ago and the period of the USA primacy started around 1945 or 72 year ago. But after dissolution of the USSR the US elite lost the countervailing power that kept it in check (and Sober) and now neocons which came to power after the crash fo the USSR are destroying the USA pretty fast. They are real national cancer. So sad... Neocons policy of fighting and challenging the rest of the world essentially guarantee that its dominant position will not last more one century.
Mar 24, 2017 | off-guardian.org
In March 23rd, Gallup headlined "South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering" , and the Ukrainian part of that can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014 imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see above), which he and his press misrepresented (and still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a 'democratic revolution', but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it's now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.

America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as 'democracy demonstrations,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).

The head of the 'private CIA' firm Stratfor said it was "the most blatant coup in history" but he couldn't say that to Americans, because he knows that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to George W. Bush's equally unprovoked invasion of Iraq -- for which America's 'news' media suffered likewise no penalties).

When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was "I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history," but he was lying to say this, because, as I pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view "the most blatant coup in history," no conditionals on that.

Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton , and Sarkozy, did to Libya -- in their zeal to eliminate yet another nation's leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad, another ally of Russia) -- but the 'news' media have continued to hide what Obama (assisted by America's European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by America's apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.

I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain ("bomb, bomb, bomb Iran") and the creepy Romney ("Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe") were denounced by the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions, which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had ended long ago (in 1991) ( but only on the Russian side ). I since have learned that in today's American political system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American democracy no longer exists. (And the only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy Carter later said on 28 July 2015 :

Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members."

But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of 'American democracy', and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to 'justify' invading (or, in Ukraine's case, overthrowing via a 'democratic revolution') their lands (allies of Russia) such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.

Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine's plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:

"Yanukovych's Removal Was Unconstitutional" "Obama Definitely Caused The Malaysian Airliner To Be Downed" "War on Donbass was planned to ignite a major war in Europe." "Our 'Enemies' In Ukraine Speak" "Meet Ukraine's Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh" "Ukrainian Soldier Explains Why He Enjoys Killing Russians" "Russia's Leader Putin Rejects Ukrainian Separatists' Aim To Become Part Of Russia" "Gallup: Ukrainians Loathe the Kiev Government Imposed by Obama"

Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac University poll published on March 22nd reported, "A total of 51 percent of voters say they can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right 'almost all of the time' or 'most of the time'" (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten politicians), even after the CIA's rubber-stamping Bush's lies to invade Iraq, and after the FBI's shameless performance on Hillary Clinton's privatized State Department emails even after her smashing their cell-phones with hammers , etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the American public. Besides: ever since the CIA's founding, it has had an "Operation Gladio" that specializes in organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?

For the people of Iraq , and of Syria , and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives. Trusting the 'intelligence' services of a dictatorship doesn't make any sense at all. They're all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires -- not for any public, anywhere; not here, not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.

So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it, because it is very rare -- and the system operates to keep it that way.

Farrier says Nov, 14, 2017

Overthrowing Ukraine was an attempt to end Russia being the major power on the Black Sea and establish it as a NATO lake to stop Russia from using the sea to aid Syria or Iran. That was ruined when Putin seized Crimea, keeping the Russian naval base.
Frank says Mar, 25, 2017
In fact, the destabilization of the Ukraine occurred at the dawn of the new century in 2004. The Presidential election of that year between Victor Yuschenko and Victor Yanukovich resulted initially in the victory of Yanukovich. However serious allegations regarding electoral fraud were raised. This resulted in mass demonstrations in Kiev and other cities throughout Ukraine.

A re-run was ordered and the second time around Yushchenko took the Presidency with 52% of the vote to Yanukovich's 44%. Suffice it to say that prior to the re-run a number of shadowy foreign NGOs – including the National Endowment for Democracy – were active in promoting civic disobedience in a number of Ukrainian cities in west and central Ukraine. Independence Square in the middle of Kiev was occupied after the first election which was declared invalid. These events became known as the 'Orange Revolution'.

It would be misleading to assume that significant numbers of the protestors did not have a valid case against Yanukovich in terms of corruption and self-serving. However, it was equally true that many of the demonstrators' motives were somewhat less noble. Prior to the election Yushchenko had promised his running mate Yulia Tymoshenko the position of Prime Minister should he win the election. Thus throughout, the disturbances were a struggle between the eastern and western oligarchs.

On the crucial question of the nature of these events, 'Peoples power' or 'revolutionary coup' the issue remains undecided.
This notwithstanding the British historian David Lane of Emmanuel College Cambridge argued that

"The 'Orange Revolution' in Ukraine was widely considered to be an instance of the 'coloured revolutions' of 1989 engendered by democratic values and nascent civil societies in the process of nation building. The extent to which the 'Orange Revolution' could be considered a revolutionary event stimulated by civil society, or a different type of political activity (a putsch, coup d'état), legitimated by elite-sponsored 'soft' political power. Based on public opinion poll data and responses from focus groups, the author contends that what began as an orchestrated protest election fraud developed into a novel type of political activity -- a revolutionary coup d'état. It is contended that the movement was divisive rather than integrative and did not enjoy widespread popular support."

Which is about the nearest we will get to an authentic answer.

What followed, however, was a complete and corrupt shamble of opportunism, corruption and self-serving misrule of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko who, after becoming involved in some dubious energy deals was to become known as the 'Gas Princess'. These two paragons of democracy eventually became bitter enemies and saw the return of Yanukovich after the Presidential contest between her and Yanukovich in 2010 which Yanukovich narrowly won.

leruscino says Mar, 24, 2017
Wanted Dead or Alive !

BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA – AKA 'Barry Soetoro'

Crimes:
Mass Murder (c) 600,000+ Killed, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Yemen.
&
Wiretapping

Reward : Clear Conscious, Service to Humanity.

Loading...
mohandeer says Mar, 24, 2017
Reblogged this on wgrovedotnet and commented:

It's long been a truth that democracy in the US died a long time ago and the wealth and power behind the POTUS, irrespective of who that might be, are mere puppets. Obama won his presidency on outright lies and the crooked Clintons and Sarkozys of the US corrupt elite serve no-one's interests but their own at the cost of the lives of Ukrainian Russian ethnics and the Libyan, Iraqi and Syrian people. "Saving Syria's children" would require the removal of the source of their suffering, which can be firmly laid at the door of murderous Washington War Hawks, rent-a-gobs like Samantha Powers and Victoria Nuland(nee Kagan)and corrupt MSM supporting the rogue state that is the USA.

[Nov 15, 2018] Bolton's Met His Match Melania! - Antiwar.com Original

Nov 15, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Bolton's Met His Match – Melania!

by Justin Raimondo Posted on November 15, 2018 November 14, 2018 We don't really hear all that much about Melania Trump in the media except occasional digs at her immigration status and a few daring photos. That's because the FLOTUS is one of the few unreservedly good things about this administration, and of course the media doesn't want to go there. Her grace, her reserve, her remarkable calm at the epicenter of a tumultuous White House, and, strikingly, her sense of style (and I don't just mean her clothes) puts her on a different plane from the Washington circus that surrounds her.

She had managed to keep her distance from the cutthroat politics of the Beltway, that is, until her collision with Mira Ricardel, National Security Advisor John Bolton's top aide and enforcer. Ricardel apparently disparaged the First Lady to other members of the White House staff, and tried to withhold resources from her on her recent trip to Africa. Whatever personal interactions of an unpleasant nature may have passed between these women, it's hard to imagine what provoked the office of the FLOTUS to issue the following statement :

"It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House."

Ricardel is described by those who know her as abrasive, a bureaucratic in-fighter, and one "who doesn't suffer fools lightly." Having mistaken the First Lady for a fool, Ms. Ricardel is the one who will suffer – along with Bolton, who has protected her since her appointment from a chorus of critics, but who cannot stand against Melania.

So Team Bolton is on the outs, which means the America Firsters within the administration who oppose our foreign policy of globalism and perpetual war are on the rise. Which leads us to contemplate the meaning of this incident. The War Party's ranks are not filled with Mr. Nice Guys. They are nearly all of them pushy self-serving aggressive SOBs, with about as much personal charm as a rattlesnake.

I'm reminded of an essay by the conservative philosopher Claes Ryn, professor of politics at Catholic University, in which he describes the obnoxious behavior of the children of our political class in a local MacDonald's just inside one of the Beltway's more prestigious neighborhoods:

"Deference to grown-ups seems unknown. I used to take offense, but the children have only taken their cue from their parents, who took their cue from their parents. The adults, for their part, talk in loud, penetrating voices, some on cell phones, as if no other conversations mattered. The scene exudes self-absorption and lack of self-discipline.

"Yes, this picture has everything to do with U.S. foreign policy. This is the emerging American ruling class, which is made up increasingly of persons used to having the world cater to them. If others challenge their will, they throw a temper tantrum. Call this the imperialistic personality – if 'spoilt brat' sounds too crude."

The Imperialistic Personality, indeed! It seems Ms. Ricardel had one too many temper tantrums so that even in the permissive atmosphere of Washington, D.C., it was too much. There are a lot of imperialistic personalities in that particular location, it seems, for one reason or another. But things are different in Donald Trump's Washington, and even if we have to take down the Ricardels one by one, just think of the numbers we can rack up in the next six years.

A NOTE TO MY READERS : My apologies for the short column: I have some medical issues to take care off this week and I'm a bit pressed for time.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

[Nov 15, 2018] Chaos in Israel Are Bibi's Days Numbered

Nov 14, 2018 | www.antiwar.com
Just days into a ceasefire with Gaza, the Israelis sent commandos in to assassinate a Hamas leader. Hamas then surprised Israel with more than 400 rockets in retaliation, leading to another ceasefire agreed by Netanyahu. But this time his defense minister was having none of it. He wants a conflict and is threatening to bring down the government if he does not get one. What's next? Tune in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report:

[Nov 15, 2018] Bolton's Met His Match Melania! - Antiwar.com Original

Nov 15, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Bolton's Met His Match – Melania!

by Justin Raimondo Posted on November 15, 2018 November 14, 2018 We don't really hear all that much about Melania Trump in the media except occasional digs at her immigration status and a few daring photos. That's because the FLOTUS is one of the few unreservedly good things about this administration, and of course the media doesn't want to go there. Her grace, her reserve, her remarkable calm at the epicenter of a tumultuous White House, and, strikingly, her sense of style (and I don't just mean her clothes) puts her on a different plane from the Washington circus that surrounds her.

She had managed to keep her distance from the cutthroat politics of the Beltway, that is, until her collision with Mira Ricardel, National Security Advisor John Bolton's top aide and enforcer. Ricardel apparently disparaged the First Lady to other members of the White House staff, and tried to withhold resources from her on her recent trip to Africa. Whatever personal interactions of an unpleasant nature may have passed between these women, it's hard to imagine what provoked the office of the FLOTUS to issue the following statement :

"It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House."

Ricardel is described by those who know her as abrasive, a bureaucratic in-fighter, and one "who doesn't suffer fools lightly." Having mistaken the First Lady for a fool, Ms. Ricardel is the one who will suffer – along with Bolton, who has protected her since her appointment from a chorus of critics, but who cannot stand against Melania.

So Team Bolton is on the outs, which means the America Firsters within the administration who oppose our foreign policy of globalism and perpetual war are on the rise. Which leads us to contemplate the meaning of this incident. The War Party's ranks are not filled with Mr. Nice Guys. They are nearly all of them pushy self-serving aggressive SOBs, with about as much personal charm as a rattlesnake.

I'm reminded of an essay by the conservative philosopher Claes Ryn, professor of politics at Catholic University, in which he describes the obnoxious behavior of the children of our political class in a local MacDonald's just inside one of the Beltway's more prestigious neighborhoods:

"Deference to grown-ups seems unknown. I used to take offense, but the children have only taken their cue from their parents, who took their cue from their parents. The adults, for their part, talk in loud, penetrating voices, some on cell phones, as if no other conversations mattered. The scene exudes self-absorption and lack of self-discipline.

"Yes, this picture has everything to do with U.S. foreign policy. This is the emerging American ruling class, which is made up increasingly of persons used to having the world cater to them. If others challenge their will, they throw a temper tantrum. Call this the imperialistic personality – if 'spoilt brat' sounds too crude."

The Imperialistic Personality, indeed! It seems Ms. Ricardel had one too many temper tantrums so that even in the permissive atmosphere of Washington, D.C., it was too much. There are a lot of imperialistic personalities in that particular location, it seems, for one reason or another. But things are different in Donald Trump's Washington, and even if we have to take down the Ricardels one by one, just think of the numbers we can rack up in the next six years.

A NOTE TO MY READERS : My apologies for the short column: I have some medical issues to take care off this week and I'm a bit pressed for time.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

[Nov 15, 2018] Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

Nov 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller,

President Macron's protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France's WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

"He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland."

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the "appetite of vice."

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron's words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism's grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a "nationalist." Though the fault is with us, not him.

" Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,' we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values," President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for "politicizing" such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn't a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce, so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism -- as opposed to nationalism -- seeks to impose a nation's way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump's nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

" It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe's] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered "ordinary vicissitudes", but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today's imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation's natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China's designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity's instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States' founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are "granted" their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, "As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count".

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism - or nationism, if you will - therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history . Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one's own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism's could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, "these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order," then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

[Nov 15, 2018] I think the film should be seen not so much as a testament to the success of the Israel lobby, but of its failure

Nov 15, 2018 | therealnews.com

ALI ABUNIMAH: Yeah, it can be very intimidating and disruptive on a personal level. And you know, there are certainly stories of students feeling that in the film, and that we've also reported on for many years. But I think people should look at the big picture; that this operation the film reveals, that Israel has been spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on, Israel and its lobby groups, and people like Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump's biggest campaign donor, and people like Adam Milstein, who is named in the film as- he's an Israeli-American financier, a convicted tax dodger who is named in the film as one of the main funders and founders of the anonymous smear site Canary Mission, which tries to destroy the reputations of college students so that they can't get jobs.

It is very scary for individuals. But the big picture here is that Israel is losing the support of progressive segments of society, big time. We see that in poll after poll. Just last month there was a poll by YouGov for the Economist that showed a collapse in support for Israel among progressives, among liberals, among younger people, among people of color. And that the strong support for Israel now looks exactly like Donald Trump's base. It's white, it's male, it's very right wing.

And so I think the film should be seen not so much as a testament to the success of the Israel lobby, but of its failure. The fact that they have had to mount this massive operation, and it has not been able to staunch the hemorrhage of support for Israel, I think really should encourage people that speaking out is the right thing to do. The more normalized that it becomes to talk about Palestinian rights, the less power the smear and intimidation tactics have. So the message I think people should take away is speak up more, not less, because we're winning.

BEN NORTON: Well, we'll have to end it there. We were speaking with Ali Abunimah, who is the co-founder and editor of The Electronic Intifada. The Electronic Intifada is an award-winning news website that published this censored Al Jazeera documentary with an undercover reporter investigating the Israel lobby in the United States. Thanks for joining us, Ali.

SkepticalPartisan • a day ago ,

Transparency and knowledge is the key to dis-empowering the power elite and empowering everyday people. Israel's suppression of this film is a clear example of information control. Thank you Ali Abunimah and The Electronic Intifada for helping relieve the yolk of information asymmetry with regards to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Israel's manipulation of American policy.

Misterioso SkepticalPartisan • a day ago ,

Amen.

Abner Doubleday • 7 hours ago ,

I wrote a letter to my U. S. senator, critical of accepting "contributions" from an ardently pro-Israel government lobbying group. The FBI showed up in the neighborhood and called to interrogate me. This for holding my (so-anointed "liberal") senator accountable to act in the "best interests" of constituents!

Totalitarianism and fascism are creeping forward, and the governments of Israel and its US collaborators -- in every branch and level of government -- are its leading proponents. What the Zionists do is not only unconstitutional, it's seditious.

A lot of us in the human race don't look lightly upon truly seditious behavior, such as that carried out every day by the U. S. government on behalf of multinational corporations and foreign agents in direct violations of U. S. laws. Indeed, a lot of us consider sedition a capital crime, with all its attendant accountability implied.

[Nov 15, 2018] Finally Released Censored Al Jazeera Documentary Exposes Israel-Backed Attacks on US Activists

Nov 13, 2018 | therealnews.com
Series Content Al Jazeera's undercover film The Lobby – USA, censored by Qatar, has finally been published by The Electronic Intifada. Editor Ali Abunimah discusses the documentary's explosive revelations, exposing Israel-backed attacks on US activists

[Nov 15, 2018] Armistice Day -- Crooked Timber

Notable quotes:
"... Life is too short for me to deal with any more trolls. Gareth, you're permanently banned from commenting on my posts ..."
Nov 15, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Armistice Day

by John Quiggin on November 11, 2018 It's 100 years since the Armistice that brought an end to fighting on the Western Front of the Great War. Ten million soldiers or more were dead, and even more gravely wounded, along with millions of civilians. Most of the empires that had begun the war were destroyed, and even the victors had suffered crippling losses. Far from being a "war to end war", the Great War was the starting point for many more, as well as bloody and destructive revolutions. These wars continue even today, in the Middle East, carved up in secret treaties between the victors.

For much of the century since then, it seemed that we had learned at least something from this tragedy, and the disasters that followed it. Commemoration of the war focused on the loss and sacrifice of those who served, and were accompanied by a desire that the peace they sought might finally be achieved.

But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism.

In part, this reflects the fact that, for rich countries, war no longer has any real impact on most people. As in the 19th century, we have small professional armies fighting in faraway countries and suffering relatively few casualties. Tens of thousands of people may die in these conflicts, but the victims of war impinge on our consciousness only when they seek shelter as refugees, to be turned away or locked up.

In the past, I've concluded message like this with the tag "Lest we Forget". Sadly, it seems as if everything important has already been forgotten.

novakant 11.11.18 at 11:11 am (no link)

There's an interesting review in this week's TLS (paywall) by Richard J. Evans of

Jörn Leonhard: Pandora's Box – A History of the First World War

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/private/review-pandoras-box-jorn-leonhard/

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674545113

novakant 11.11.18 at 11:12 am ( 2 )
NB: apparently the translation sucks
JohnT 11.11.18 at 12:38 pm ( 3 )
I think it varies per place, even within countries. In my English village this morning, about a quarter of the population gathered in front of the war memorial, closing the only road. They stood there, quietly. A couple of older people spent twenty minutes reading out the names of all the poor souls who had left the village for war and never returned. Then there was two minutes silence, the vicar called for personal peace for all those affected by war, and then demanded that all those who could work for peace do so. A grim soberness marked the whole thing
I had nearly not gone, expecting it to be too jingoistic, but it was nothing of the sort. I am sure across the many communities remembering the Armistice across the world, many will be doing the same.
Donald Coffin 11.11.18 at 2:33 pm ( 4 )
My way of responding to the day:

This is my way of responding to Armistice Day.
Bob Dylan, Masters of War"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCnYmrADSns
"You that fasten all the trigger
For the others to fire
And you sit back and watch
While the death toll gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"

Phil Ochs, "I Declare the War Is Over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOs9xYUjY4I
"One-legged veterans will greet the dawn
And they're whistling marches as they mow the lawn
And the gargoyles only sit and grieve
The gypsy fortune teller told me that we'd been deceived
You only are what you believe"

Big Ed McCurdy, "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5hxqNdqKo
"Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever dreamed before
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war"

Reason 11.11.18 at 3:21 pm ( 5 )
Just a personal question on jq. I left Australia 30 years ago. I can remember no jingoism on armistice Day. On Australia Day and Anzac Day perhaps, but never on remembrance Day. Had that really changed?
steven t johnson 11.11.18 at 3:40 pm ( 6 )
Regarding Leonhard, it is always a cause for concern when a reviewer calls a historian "judicious."

The most important thing to remember about the Great War is that it wasn't caused by malign ideologies, or nefarious leveling schemes, or crazed utopian economic cranks. It was simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the capitalist world system. Remember that when the ever growing infestation of libertarians, respected by their peers, trot out their mythology.

WLGR 11.11.18 at 4:09 pm ( 7 )
Speaking of "lest we forget," how many people and how many commemorations have managed to forget that the armistice came about as a direct consequence of the socialist uprising in Germany, sparked in large part by a mass mutiny among German sailors in Kiel? Two days before the formal armistice declaration, workers led by the left wing of the SPD stormed the Reichstag, an ad hoc governing coalition led by the right wing of the SPD negotiated the abdication of the Kaiser, and both the left and right wings of the SPD simultaneously issued separate proclamations of a socialist German republic (by which they meant two very different things, of course, a divergence that was notoriously written out over the following few years in the blood of revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg).

In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it, don't forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.

eg 11.11.18 at 4:40 pm ( 8 )
I'm with John on this one. I'll wear the poppy in recognition of the sacrifice, but will avoid the local cenotaph ceremony. I find the current temper of Remembrance Day services distasteful and the "our freedoms" trope abhorrent.
Gareth Wilson 11.11.18 at 6:45 pm ( 9 )
Life is too short for me to deal with any more trolls. Gareth, you're permanently banned from commenting on my posts
John Quiggin 11.11.18 at 7:32 pm ( 10 )
Reason @5 It's mostly Anzac Day, but the 100th anniversary has made Remembrance Day a bigger deal than usual. And we just had a breathless announcement that "veterans" (I still haven't got used to this Americanism) would be given boarding priority on Virgin airlines.

To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave quite a good speech on the day, which ran under the headline "War is always a failure of our humanity"

michael blechman 11.11.18 at 8:29 pm ( 11 )
the loss of life and the lasting injuries that follow the fighting remain to show the futility of allowing war to arise as an answer to our conflicting ideas. humanity has failed as the dominant species. the fault lies in the hopes of too many to emulate the past society of material greed as a goal. reaching our limits of destroying the clean air and poisoning the seas with chemical and plastic waste as though the planet could absorb an endless spew will cause humanity's end. honoring the dead is the least we may do to salute those that went before us.
stephen 11.11.18 at 8:38 pm ( 12 )
steven t johnson@6: WWI was "simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the capitalist world system".

Remind me how many other "inevitable breakdowns of the normal operation" happened before, or after 1914.

Remind me how far the authorities in Serbia, Russia (or indeed Austria-Hungary or Germany) believed themselves to be operating in the interests of, or governed by, the capitalist world system.

Come to that, for the next catastrophe in 1939, do the same for the authorities in Russia, Poland and Germany.

And explain why there have been no such inevitable breakdowns since.

Best of luck, comrade.

steven t johnson 11.11.18 at 9:55 pm ( 13 )
John Quiggin@10 "To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave quite a good speech on the day, which ran under the headline 'War is always a failure of our humanity'" It seems to me to be quite unfair to blame WWI on us and our depraved human nature. As Norman Angell notoriously demonstrated "us" do not get any benefit from war. Cui bono? Nationalists want to go back to a world where sovereign nations struggle for their place in the sun. Some, like Trump and Putin, want to go it alone. Others like the lords of the EU want a consortium. What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will, like all complex, crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature seems to me detestable.
steven t johnson 11.11.18 at 11:40 pm ( 14 )
stephen@12 agrees with majority here, and elsewhere, of course. Nonetheless the confidence the Spanish-American war, the Boer war, the Russian-Turkish war, the Sino-Japanese war, the Russian-Japanese war and either of the Balkan wars would of course not, ever, possibly, have spread like the third Balkan war, er, WWI would be touching were it not so disingenuous. Even if one insists only conflicts between the great powers, the possibility that the Crimean war, the war with Magenta and Solferino, the Schleswig-Holstein war, the Franco-Prussian war (proper,) could not possibly have spread out of control is equally disingenous. Remember 54-40 or fight, the Aroostook war? The monotonously repetitive crises like Fashoda and the first and second Moroccan crises and the brouhaha over the annexation of Bosnia clearly shows crisis is normal operation. stephen's insistence this is all irrelevant is convenience, not argument.

As to the absurd notion that a capitalist world system, in which states are the protectors of the property of the nation's ruling class, somehow means the chieftains are pursuing the general interests of world capitalism is delirious twaddle. It is the reformist who pretends globalism means trade and peace.

I am well aware that everyone agrees with stephen on this point, but it is still wrong.

Karl Kolchak 11.12.18 at 12:01 am ( 15 )
Tens of thousands of people may die in these conflicts

Try 2 million in Korea.
One million in Vietnam.
500,000 in Iraq.
And who knows how many in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Serbia, Somalia and all our various proxy wars in Yemen, Latin America and Africa plus all of the civilians massacred by our client-state dictators in Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Congo, Egypt, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala and others I'm likely forgetting.

America is the biggest purveyor of death, destruction and human misery on the globe, but it sounds like we've "forgotten" that as well.

Birdie 11.12.18 at 12:35 am ( 16 )
Plenty of horrible things have happened in various American and other war zones since the Western Front. Plenty of busted-up vets in every city. The problem can't be that we forgot .
Birdie 11.12.18 at 12:44 am ( 17 )
@steven t johnson

but isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human nature: individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression. Surely a change of human nature would lead to a change of economics at least; hopefully in a progressive direction but not necessarily so.

Raven Onthill 11.12.18 at 3:11 am ( 18 )
Wasn't World War I the result of Germany pursuing conquest ?

A while back, a native American on Twitter commented that her people had already experienced an apocalypse. This led to the following reflection on my part:

The history of modern Western Europe can be viewed as a series of apocalypses. War after war after war, only at peace after nearly destroying itself. And that is the history of the modern world.

ironoutofcavalry 11.12.18 at 3:20 am ( 19 )
@7

>In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it, don't forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.

Do and the 100 million people revolutionary socialists would murder in the 80 or so years following armistice day, what do they owe the revolutionary socialists?

@13

>What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will, like all complex, crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature seems to me detestable.

Ah yes, we all remember how non-violent those non-capitalist systems were, with the gulags and mass killing and terror famines.

Royton De'Ath 11.12.18 at 7:59 am ( 20 )
In an Old Holborn 'baccy tin somewhere in the house is my grandad's WW1 medal. He served in the London Labour Battalions. Gassed.

He worked twice between his return and his too early death. Both jobs being very temporary. His family lived in poverty in the East End; the "Panel" was used at times: charity from the worthies. My dad was crippled with diseases of poverty. He was a communist (until the 50s).
He signed up with his mates in '39. His best mate Jimmy Biscoe killed in a bomber operation in the early 40s.

I got my dad's medals this year, twenty years after his death. He only told me a bit of his experiences when he was dying. He loved my mum, music and kindness.

My dear, gruff dad-in-law lost his left leg at Monte Cassino. Every few years he'd get a new "fitting", which was a great strain for him. He loved his family, his garden, rowing; we talked a little about his experiences one quiet afternoon at the RSA. He too died too early.

My Mum's favourite brother was a boy sailor. He went through the River Plate among other actions. He spent time in psychiatric hospital after the war for his 'war trauma'. He too died early.

The padre at my daughter's funeral had been a padre at Arnhem. A quiet, deeply compassionate man who took his own life some three years later.

My best friend at school, dead in his twenties, doing his "duty".

Not a hero among them: ordinary, flawed, loved and loving human beings.
And the people left behind ? Lives filled with quiet, unresolved sadness and loss; getting by with grit and quiet courage.

I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people mentioned above.

Half a billion for the AWM? And cutting the funding of food banks? Moral bloody Bankruptcy writ large.

reason 11.12.18 at 2:04 pm ( 21 )
@19, @7, @13

You know I could possibly be sympathetic with all of you if it wasn't the case that utopian ideology didn't have more victims than all the nationalisms put together. A plague on all your houses.

steven t johnson 11.12.18 at 2:32 pm ( 22 )
Birdie@17 is telling us human nature generated capitalism a hundred thousand years ago? Or is telling us that human nature is only free in a capitalist system? I think neither.

Raven Onthill@18 seems to think it is incumbent on the lesser peoples to surrender without a fight, and accept the status quo as God-given. That Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires could be liquidated peacefully, like a common bankruptcy. That is not how it works in a capitalist system of sovereign states defending the property of their respective ruling classes, against other states. The rise of Germany and the US against the relative decline of the British empire meant the balance of forces must change. The new balance could only be found by war.

The relative decline of the US means the current balance of forces must change. That's why the US government has explicitly declared Russia and China to be revisionist powers. The US state will no more go quietly than the British empire, which would not reach a peaceful accommodation with Germany then any more than it can reach a real accommodation with "Europe" today.

ironoutofcavalry@19 spells out the shared premises of liberal democrats and fascists, the determination that famines and wars under capitalism are acts of God, while everything that happens under socialism is always deliberate. Even if you somehow pretend the depopulation of the Americas and the mass deaths of the Middle Passage somehow had nothing to do with capitalism, there were plenty of holocausts in later days. See Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts. (Davis contention that famines relatively soon after the revolution are the same as the great Bengal famine or the Irish famine is social-democratic piety, the sort of thing that gives it a bad name.) Idiot theorists of "totalitarianism" are invited to comment upon the Triple War in South America.

WLGR 11.12.18 at 3:18 pm ( 23 )
ironoutofcavalry, the Black Book of Communism is a contemptible far-right propaganda rag whose death tally was denounced by several of its own co-authors due to the main author's obsession with reaching the nice round 100 million mark by any means necessary, with "victims of communism" including such figures as hypothetical deaths due to lack of population growth during famine periods, Soviet civilian deaths resulting from the economic dislocations of the Nazi invasion, and even Nazi soldiers killed on the battlefields of the Eastern Front. By standards much more rigorous and defensible than those used in the Black Book of Communism, the basic functioning of global capitalist material inequality kills tens of millions of people per decade -- which is before you even begin trying to tally the casualties of capitalist conflicts like the two world wars, let alone any of the other massively destructive imperial interventions around the world before and since, which people like stephen seem to have trained themselves not to regard as catastrophic in the same way as WWI/WWII as long as the victims are mostly poor brown people in the Third World. Hell, even at this very moment the US is providing direct political and military support for a campaign of intentional starvation by its Saudi proxy state against millions of people in northern Yemen, a "terror famine" at least as deliberate and premeditated as anything Stalin or Mao ever dreamed of.

If you must insist on spreading uninformed reactionary bromides, at least take it to a less serious discussion space where it belongs, and regardless, don't forget to thank a socialist if you enjoy not being sent to die in a muddy trench.

WLGR 11.12.18 at 3:49 pm ( 24 )
Stephen, here's a reasonable summary of how the dynamics of capitalist economic development led inexorably to WWI and WWII, and are leading to a future global conflict that may be much less distant than we'd like to imagine. Now before you click the link, note the following passage quoted in the linked article, by a political commentator writing in 1887 about the prospect of:

a world war, moreover of an extent the violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other's throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the Thirty Years' War compressed into three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of' trade, industry and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle. That is the prospect for the moment when the development of mutual one-upmanship in armaments reaches us, climax and finally brings forth its inevitable fruits. This is the pass, my worthy princes and statesmen, to which you in your wisdom have brought our ancient Europe.

Now based on what you can guess of my political orientation strictly from what I've posted here, try to guess which 19th century European political figure might have written that passage. No, your first guess is wrong, he died in 1883, but close, now guess again. Yes, your second guess is correct .

Mark Brady 11.12.18 at 5:09 pm ( 25 )
Douglas Newton: The Darkest Days: The Truth Behind Britain's Rush to War, 1914 (Verso Books, 2014).

https://www.versobooks.com/books/1835-the-darkest-days

AcademicLurker 11.12.18 at 6:20 pm ( 26 )
I've seen "X is bad" statements receive the "Oh yeah? Well Stalin was worse !" non sequitur in response for many values of X. But this thread is the first time I've seen it happen for X = WWI.
Stephen 11.12.18 at 7:25 pm ( 27 )
Too many points to comment on individually, but:

WLGR@7: if you think that revolutionary socialism made possible "weekend, the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets" how do you explain that all these things happened in states that did not have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary socialism?

steven t johnson@14
This is the first time that I have ever been told that everyone [on CT? in the wider universe?] agrees with me, but if that is so I do not see it as a reason for supposing I am wrong. Rational arguments dissenting from my opinions are of course always welcome.

stj's argument that, because conflicts pre-1914 did not result in world wars, therefore WWI was inevitable, has only to be made explicit to collapse.

I am particularly interested by stj's argument that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, between two absolutist non-capitalist monarchies, was in some way the result of international capitalism. If he will reconsider that opinion, he might like to recalibrate his denunciation of other wars as capitalist. I would recommend the works of an intelligent Marxist, Perry Anderson, who explains why pre-Revolutionary Russia and Wilhelmine Germany had many capitalists, they were not actually capitalist states.

As for his denunciation of capitalism in which "states are the protectors of the property of the nation's ruling class": there is of course some truth there, but in which system is that not true? In capitalism, unlike some other systems – revolutionary socialism, to start with – whose property has been protected?

Birdie@17: "isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human nature: individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression?" Human nature indeed; try explaining to Ashurbanipal of Assyria, Alexander, Genghiz Khan why these properties did not apply to their very n0n-capitalist selves.

engels 11.12.18 at 11:25 pm ( 28 )
Well said.
WLGR 11.13.18 at 1:28 am ( 29 )
Stephen, are you under the impression that western Europe and the US never had a revolutionary socialist tradition? If so, I don't really know what to tell you other than to read even the most passing history of Western mass politics and labor struggles, the upshot of which is that yes of course it was Western ruling classes' fear of working-class revolutionary agitation that led to the implementation of every single one of those things, up to and including the German ruling class in early November 1918 deciding to hand over power to the moderate reformist wing of the SPD, whose first major policy decision as soon as they'd settled into their desks was to pursue an armistice with the Entente. I can understand maybe a few token Birchers or Randroids poking their heads out here and there, but has the anti-intellectual right-wing fever swamp of our current era really risen high enough that such mild observations are somehow surprising or controversial even in a forum like this one?
eg 11.13.18 at 3:14 am ( 30 )
@20

'I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people mentioned above."

My feelings precisely.

bad Jim 11.13.18 at 9:01 am ( 31 )
After Trump's election, I chose to abstain for a while from the drenching but never quenching fire hose of information of the web, and for a while worked through the stacks of books I had long left unread.

One I avoided for quite a while, not remembering its provenance was "Human Smoke", by Nicholson Baker. It could not have been a gift; no one in the family still living is familiar with this author.

It's an assemblage of quotes from various authors from the beginning of the twentieth century up until the operation of the crematoria which furnishes the title, and its general tendency is pacifism, disarmament, the efforts made both before and after the Great War to prevent such catastrophes, and the inhumanity of the conduct of the war. From the outset, the policy of our side was to starve the other into submission through naval blockades, and to a considerable extent it was successful.

In the second round, our side was the first to start bombing civilians, and we got better at it the longer the war went on, though it's far from clear that this was a useful strategy.

Baker's book is not, could hardly be, a convincing argument for pacifism, given the drumbeat of fascist pronouncements, threats, denunciations, bragging and swaggering. The first world war was so pointless that it's hard to understand how it happened, why it couldn't have been avoided, why it couldn't have been stopped sooner. The second was different.

MFB 11.13.18 at 10:19 am ( 32 )
It is worth remembering that the First World War was called, by those who opposed it after the fact, the "War to End War". An organisation was set up to ensure that there would be no more wars, and an international agreement renouncing war was signed.

The organisation was being set up while the war was actually going on, if you count the Western blockade and invasion of Russia, and the Greek invasion of Turkey, as part of the war.

Nevertheless, within less than twenty years you had the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (arguably an after-effect of Italy's failure to get what it wanted out of the First World War) and soon after that, the Japanese invasion of southern China (inarguably, ditto).

It is possible for people to argue that since there has not been a similar war since 1945, "humanity" has "learned its lesson". In reality, however, the reason why there has been no similar war has been that the principal protagonists have nuclear weapons and no means of defense against them. If anybody comes up with a genuinely reliable defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace.

Incidentally, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace at the moment, but that's because of the preponderance of doltish psychopaths in governments. It's interesting, however, that a doltish psychopath like Macron is nevertheless capable of realising that France is vulnerable to the intermediate-range nuclear missiles which the U.S. is currently unleashing on the world, and therefore is trying to, er, have a conference about banning the use of naughty weapons and about promoting world peace.

Like 1919, ennit?

steven t johnson 11.13.18 at 3:10 pm ( 33 )
Stephen has won the gallery with the claim that repeated crises failing to result in systemic failure of the world diplomatic system (that is, causing world war,) on a an easily predictable schedule shows obviously it is entirely possible for us to go back to a world of sovereign nations like before the US hegemony and have endless crises with nary a collapse. It's like the capitalist economy that way. "We" are now so wise that we can avoid the follies of our predecessors, who are obviously stupid, which is proven by their being dead, dead, dead.

I am sure Stephen has also won hearts and minds with the claim Russian conquests
against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian empire rather than the creation of the states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. But perhaps people think those new countries came complete with serfdom; extensive church lands and widespread monasticism; aristocratic estates and caste privileges; relative absence of cities, etc. That is, the new states were non-capitalist because absolutist monarchy isn't capitalist.

(I'm not familiar with Perry Anderson because leftist and foreign means it will not be easily available in the US outside elite libraries. But if Perry Anderson thinks absolutism and mercantilism were not part of the transition to capitalism, I believe he is gravely mistaken. Defining "capitalism" as the most refined bourgeois democracy in the imperial metropole is popular, because it is so usefully apologetic, yet it is still nonsense.)

Mark Brady@25 cites an interesting book on WWI. This https://www.amazon.com/Great-Class-War-1914-1918-ebook/dp/B06Y19K257/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542121517&sr=1-2&keywords=the+great+class+war is also of interest, especially as it is not scholastically "judicious," so often a synonym for safe. I think the Amazon blurb grossly exaggerates Pauwels' argument with regards to workers.

Last and least, reason@21 utters the preposterous claim "utopian ideologies" have killed more people than anything else. (The comment seems to include ironoutof cavalry, but I'm sure ironoutofcavalry, like Stephen and reason, are resolutely complacent about social evils, because, anti-utopian.) Personally I think business as usual, not utopian ideology, had everything to do with the great Bengal famine circa 1770 (not the WWII one.) Etc. etc. etc. in a litany that would sicken the soul, were it not fortified by the conviction it is utopian ideology that is the spirit of evil.

nastywoman 11.13.18 at 6:38 pm ( 34 )
"Sadly, it seems as if everything important has already been forgotten".

But Von Clownstick just remembered it was "them Germans" – and sadly not one comment here was about Macron reminding US that "everything important" is how to deal with "Nationalism"?

nastywoman 11.13.18 at 9:54 pm ( 35 )
– and about:
"But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism".

Didn't the French and the Germans mention that it is now 70 years that these "Archenemies" at peace? – and I think to this "Armistice Day" the first time even the Germans were invited? – but how true there was a "shifted tone" by the German Baron Von Clownstick –
(who somehow still pretends he is "American"?)

Peter T 11.14.18 at 1:14 am ( 36 )
re @25

Britain tried to negotiate an end to the naval arms race with Germany at least twice before 1914. Germany was not interested. After 1905 Russia was also keen to avoid conflict. The proponents of this policy lost credibility due to German sabre-rattling and insouciant reversals by Vienna.

nastywoman 11.14.18 at 3:41 am ( 37 )
– and for everybody who might have missed it – let me explain what was going on at this "Armistice Day".

Baron von Clownstick was very, VERY unhappy -(not only because he was afraid to ruin his hair) BUT also – BE-cause as he always says "we built the best Arms" – "the most beautiful weaponry" – and when he always told them Germans and them French and all these other Nato members to pay more for Nato he was hoping for more Sales of US Arms BUT then this Macron dude -(and now also Merkel) suddenly were talking about "Europeans protecting themselves" -(and NOT buying more US weapons) and that made Von Clownstick very, VERY sad – as his funny tweets about the US not wanting to protect Europe anymore – if Europe wasn't "pony up" came to let's call it – to "fruition" – or a classical "protect me from what I want" – and THAT's what happened on this –
"Armistice Day" –
(besides the danger for Von Clownsticks hair)

Fake Dave 11.14.18 at 6:06 am ( 38 )
Just wading in a bit to say that "Revolutionary Socialism" is one of those labels that obfuscates more than it reveals. Lenin, Debs, and Luxembourg were all contemporaries who believed in Socialism and revolution, but they didn't all believe in the same "Revolutionary Socialism." Just look at the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks for proof that even seemingly small distinctions in what it means to be "revolutionary" have huge implications.

People seem to have settled on using "Revolutionary" as a code word to mean "violent, dangerous, and radical," or "serious, committed, and effective," depending on their politics, while "Democratic" is treated as being the opposite (for good or ill), but it's a false dichotomy. Pacifists can be radical, democrats can be thuggish, and democracy can be revolutionary or counterrevolutionary, and "effectiveness" is subjective. Given that even with conventional definitions, it's not always easy to see which of the two camps a particular Socialist falls under (and many of them changed factions), it's probably best to clarify what type of revolution you're talking about up front.

MFB 11.14.18 at 7:10 am ( 39 )
er, Peter T, Britain wanted to end the naval arms race with Germany because it was ahead and in complete control of European seas. It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought battleship and the battlecruiser. It's rather like the American calls to restrict the number of nuclear weapons and discourage countries which don't have them from acquiring them.

I won't say that German sabre-rattling wasn't a factor in promoting European crisis. However, it's hard not to see the Russian military buildup in Europe between 1905 and 1914 as anything other than preparation for war (however inept it turned out to be in practice), and of course the Russians were heavily involved (diplomatically) in the Balkan wars. It certainly wasn't the Austrians who orchestrated the murder of their heir to the throne, and if Britain were to grow grumpy at Syria murdering Prince Charles I would hardly call that "insouciant".

Dipper 11.14.18 at 9:05 am ( 40 )
Wars are a strategy for male reproduction. Invade. Kill the competing men. Impregnate the women. Enslave and trade women as reproductive property. Repeat. It's what men have done for centuries.

Eg. Iceland . ""This supports the model, put forward by some historians, that the majority of females in the Icelandic founding population had Gaelic ancestry, whereas the majority of males had Scandinavian ancestry,"

Peter T 11.14.18 at 12:04 pm ( 41 )
MFB

Britain had roughly 70% of the world's merchant fleet, a world-wide empire tied together by maritime communications and was critically dependent on sea-borne trade. This was not new – it had been the situation since 1815. Germany set out to build a fleet specifically designed to challenge Britain's control of its home waters (heavy on battleships, short range). Britain responded by building the dreadnoughts, then by coming to an arrangement with France so as to free up forces from the Med, all the while seeking a naval truce. One can argue that Germany had every right to seek to diminish British naval dominance, but it was surely both a foolish and an aggressive policy, given that it posed a threat no British government could not respond to (the invasion of Belgium and German plans to annex the Belgian coast were similar, in that they would place the High Seas Fleet across Britain's major trade artery. In 1914 London was the greatest port in the world).

The Viennese insouciance I had in mind was in regard to the Bosnian annexation in 1909. The details are in Dominic Lieven's Towards the Flame, but it was a typical bit of Austro-Hungarian over-clever dickishness. It added a layer of distrust that was not helpful in 1914.

What worried Germany the most was Russian railway-building, which threatened to make their military planning more difficult. They saw 1914 as a narrow and shrinking window (much as many of the same people saw war in 1939 as a last military opportunity). Indeed, they had mooted war against Russia in 1906 and again in 1909.

It's overlooked that Europe had an established mechanism for resolving diplomatic crises – either an international congress or a meeting of the affected powers (as at Vienna 1813, Berlin 1878, London 1912..). The Powers had imposed settlements in the Balkans on several previous occasions, and could have done so this time. Britain and France proposed a congress; Berlin refused.

While they all look similar to us, Germany really was much more militarist and much more inclined to seek salvation from their dilemmas in war than the other powers. While all the elites were in a febrile state, Germany's were in something close to a collective nervous breakdown, isolated, truculent and fearful.

MisterMr 11.14.18 at 12:08 pm ( 42 )
@stephen 12

I am a big fan of Hobson's book "Imperialism, a study", written in 1902, that I believe explain tendencies, that evidently were present in 1902 and before, that later exploded and caused WW1 and WW2.

The book is free online:
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/127/0052_Bk.pdf
(courtesy of The online library of liberty ©Liberty Fund, no less).

The general theory of the book is that capitalist countries face underconsumption problems at home, due to the exceedigly low wage share (Hobson though is not a marxist so he doesn't believes that this is the normal situation in capitalism).
This underconsumption forces capitalist countries to expand in the colonies, and ultimately also to create an military/financial/industrial complex that becomes the valve through which excess savings (due to underconsumption due to excessively low wages) can be reinvested.

I'll leave out a discussion if Hobson's economic theories make sense (I think they do) or wether they are the same of marxist theories (I think they are the same expressed from another point of view and with a more moderate approach), but I want to point out the chapter about "the scientific defence of imperialism" (pp.162 onwards in the link), because it clearly speaks of the "scientific racism" theories that are nowadays associated with fascism and nazism.

Here a cite from p.163:

Admitting that the efficiency of a nation or a race requires a suspension of intestine warfare, at any rate l' =trance, the crude struggle on the larger plane must, they urge, be maintained. It serves, indeed, two related purposes. A constant struggle with other races or nations is demanded for the maintenance and progress of a race or nation ; abate the necessity of the struggle and the vigour of the race flags and perishes. Thus it is to the real interest of a vigorous race to be " kept up to a high pitch of external efficiency by contest, chiefly by way of war with inferior races, and with equal races by the struggle for trade routes and for the sources of raw material and of food supply." " This," adds Professor Karl Pearson," is the natural history view of mankind, and I do not think you can in its main features subvert it." Others, taking the wider cosmic standpoint, insist that the progress of humanity itself requires the main-tenance of a selective and destructive struggle between races which embody different power and capacities, different types of civilisation.

From this I think it's obvious how Italian fascism and German nazism were mostly an extremisation of theories that were already present before WW1 (and Japanese militarism and probably many other militarism that we prefer to forget today).
In fact Mussolini justified the entry of Italy into WW2 with the idea of a natural struggle between nations/races/cultures.

Now the main question is: was Hobson correct to say that these theories were just covers for economic interests, that in turn were caused by underconsumption?
Or to say the same thing from a more marxist standpoint, is it true that WW1 was caused by various capitalist countries were forced by the capitalist need for continuous growth/expansion to continually expand their colonial empires, and in the end they had to clash one with the other?

I think it is true.
This doesn't mean that all war in history were caused by capitalism, before capitalism ever existed. Hower this gives an answer to some of your questions, and specifically:

1) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war before?
Because various capitalist powers hadn't already conquered most of the world, so they didn't have to go directly at each other's throat before WW1.

2) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war after WW2?
Because
(2.a) after WW2 the capitalist system in developed countries had a much higer wage share due to government intervention and anyway excess savings were repurposed through Keynesian policies and inflation, thus much less underconsuption,
and
(2.b) because after WW2 for some decades there was only one main capitalist pole, that was the USA, that was the main proponent of this kind of keynesian policies, either because it was wiser, or because of the menace of socialism, or for whatever the reason.

Stephen 11.14.18 at 2:15 pm ( 43 )
WLGR@29: You ask whether I am "under the impression that western Europe and the US never had a revolutionary socialist tradition?" Well, definitely not, and I cannot see that I have written anything that could lead you to form an honest opinion that I am, or even might be. Nor can I see any basis for your belief that, disagreeing with you, I must be wholly ignorant of Western mass politics. I would advise you to have less faith in your own powers of telepathy.

To refresh your memory: I wrote that various good thing happened in states that did not have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary socialism. And I cannot see how you can dispute either that states which were historically ruled by revolutionary socialists suffered catastrophes; or that many European and other states, though never ruled by revolutionary socialists and so avoiding their catastrophes, acquired these good things. Pre-emptive disclaimer: I am not of course claiming that all catastrophes have been due to revolutionary socialism.

stj@33: with regard to Russo/Turkish history, I think you are rather confused. You seem to think I claimed that "Russian conquests against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian empire rather than the creation of the states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria." I didn't: I merely pointed out that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 was not in any intelligible sense a conflict between two capitalist states. But if you want to widen the discussion to cover Russian conquests against Turkey, I must point out that (1) several such conquests did in fact involve extension of the Russian empire: take a quick look at the history of Ukraine and Crimea (2) the creation of Montenegro was a result of Austrian and Venetian victories, not Russian (3) Russia never conquered any part of Serbia from the Turks, though Russian support for autonomously rebellious Serbs was significant (4) a complicating factor in the formation of Romania was the Russian invasion of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, followed by an attempt to incorporate them into the Russian empire: many Romanians preferred Ottoman rule (5) Bulgaria, you're right for once, that was a direct and uncomplicated result of Russian conquest followed by creation of a new state. Which I never said it wasn't.

I really do think it would be a good idea for you to read Perry Anderson's thoughtful and erudite works before dismissing them; they may be more accessible than you think. I don't know if your socialist principles would allow you to use the capitalist outfit Amazon yourself, but if so Anderson's Lineages of the Absolutist state is available at $29.95 plus postage. I would also recommend on a rather different topic Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism, same price: second-hand copies of either are a little cheaper.

Enjoy the new perspectives.

EWI 11.14.18 at 2:50 pm ( 44 )
Raven @ 18

Wasn't World War I the result of Germany pursuing conquest?

World War 1 was equally the result of Britain 'pursuing conquest', i.e. its decades-long ambition to expand its empire into the Near and Far Easts. Josh Marshall is, I'm afraid, an unreconstructed Anglophile who also believes silly claims that the British went back to 'peace' (whatever that may be for a militarised empire) after WWI.

MFB @ 39

Correct. From contemporary accounts, we know that those members of the public who were paying attention at the time could see the various empires building up to war for years beforehand.

LFC 11.14.18 at 3:18 pm ( 45 )
Marxist explanations work better for some events than for others; I don't think they work particularly well for WW 1, though they aren't completely irrelevant.

I don't keep up with the historiography (e.g., the probably endless debate btw the Fischer school and its critics/opponents), but one can distinguish btw contingent and deeper causes. The latter were both 'ideational' (e.g., hypernationalism; views of war in general; 'cult of the offensive'; influence of Social Darwinist and racialist perspectives on intl relations; relative weakness of the peace mvts and their msg; dominant styles of diplomacy; etc.) and 'material' (e.g., problems faced by the multinational empires, esp. Austria-Hungary; rigidity of mobilization plans; economic and political pressures on ruling elites; etc.), though the distinction between ideational and material is somewhat artificial.

I'm not sure which among all the historical works is most worth reading (J.C.G. Rohl was mentioned by someone in a past thread on this topic, and there were a lot of books published around 2014 on the centenary of the war's start); but istm James Joll's work, among others, has held up pretty well. Political scientists/ IR people have also continued to publish on this. (The last journal article I'm aware of is Keir Lieber's in Intl Security several yrs ago [and the replies], though I'm sure there have been others since. And even though it's old, S. Van Evera's piece from the '80s, "Why Cooperation Failed in 1914," is still worth reading, for the copious footnotes to the then-extant historical work in English (and English translation), among other things.)

Layman 11.14.18 at 5:42 pm ( 46 )
MFB: "It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought battleship and the battlecruiser."

Hmm, wasn't the Dreadnought class a direct response to the Tirpitz Memorandum (1896) and the subsequent German Navy Bill of 1898, the purpose of which was to build a battleship fleet with which to confront the Royal Navy?

engels 11.14.18 at 10:11 pm ( 47 )
Revolutionary Socialism" is one of those labels that obfuscates more than it reveals

I think it's worthwhile to have a term for wanting to overthrow the system rather than reform it (I don't think 'revolution' has to mean 'violent').

John Quiggin 11.15.18 at 3:01 am ( 48 )
As regards the historical arguments about war guilt, there was a strong pro-war faction in nearly every European country, and even in Australia (on this last point, and the links to the British pro-war faction, see Douglas Newton's Hell Bent ). The pro-war faction prevailed nearly everywhere. Arguing about which pro-war faction was most responsible for bringing about the war they all wanted seems pointless to me.

Moreover, once the war started, no-one wanted in power anywhere to bring it to an end on any terms other than victory, annexations and reparations.

John Quiggin 11.15.18 at 3:05 am ( 49 )
Looking specifically at the British government, since it seems to have the most defenders, they first refused an offer of alliance from Turkey and then (when Turkey entered on the German side instead) made a secret deal with France to carve up the Ottoman empire. As mentioned in the OP, we are still dealing with the consequences today. That's not to excuse the pro-war factions that dominated the governments of Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy etc.

[Nov 15, 2018] Study US Has Spent $5.9 Trillion on Wars Since 2001

Nov 15, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

A new report from Brown University is aiming to provide a close estimate of the cost of the overall cost to the US government of its myriad post-9/11 wars and assorted global wars on terror. The estimate is that $5.933 trillion has been spent through fiscal year 2019.

This is, of course, vastly higher than official figures, owing to the Pentagon trying to oversimplify the costs into simply overseas contingency operations. It is only when one considers the cost of medical and disability care for soldiers, and future such costs, along with things like the interest on the extra money borrowed for the wars, that the true cost becomes clear.

That sort of vast expenditure is only the costs and obligations of the wars so far, and with little sign of them ending, they are only going to grow. In particular, a generation of wars is going to further add to the medical costs for veterans' being consistently deployed abroad.

Starting in late 2001, the US has engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere around the world. Many of those wars have become more or less permanent operations, with no consideration of ending them under any circumstances.

Those wishing to read the report can find it here .

[Nov 15, 2018] Congressional Report Warns US Might Lose a War Against China or Russia

Nov 15, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Congress commissioned a report from the National Defense Strategy Commission on Pentagon readiness. It is relatively predictable what these reports would boil down to, because they always come down to the same conclusion.

Despite vastly outspending every other country in the world on the military, the report concludes that US military superiority "has eroded to a dangerous degree," and is facing a "crisis." The solution they counsel is, as ever, a massive increase in military spending.

The report uses the typical scare-mongering to try to justify an increase in expenditures, claiming that the US "might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia," and that the US might be "overwhelmed" in the even of two or more war fronts simultaneously.

This echoes, if perhaps in even more dire terms, past reports that also claimed the constant fighting of several wars is eroding readiness, and that the US needs to spend even more money. The problem is, the increased spending has kept being approved, and every time, it leads to a new round of reports warning that they need all the more money.

The US is always spending many-fold more money than anyone else, and fighting more wars than anyone else. Yet despite nations like Russia increasingly limiting their military goals, the reports are forever claiming Russia is seriously a threat to carry out attacks on the US home-front. Such claims are preposterous, but have reliably worked in getting more money.

[Nov 15, 2018] Netanyahoo's Likely Fall Destroys Trump's Middle East Strategy

Notable quotes:
"... As the late great Gianbattista Vico noted that sovereign states cannot maintain any sovereignty or security as a state forever if it tries to rule by hook or by crook or by brute force eventually the state will self destruct. ..."
"... it the crazed ot news from usa press briefing land today... " QUESTION: Yes, Hiba Nasr, Sky News Arabia. You said an enduring defeat of ISIS requires fundamental change in the Syrian regime. Can you explain more, please? AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Yes. The Syrian regime produced ISIS." All you need to know, lol... these cheap suits will lie publicly to the right crowd, lol.. ..."
Nov 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

fast freddy , Nov 14, 2018 4:58:12 PM | link

Nuttyahoo has been around a long time. It would be nice not to hear from him or look at him again. Don't know how anyone could be worse than Nutty. He's an evil SOB.

Lieberman is also a nasty guy. The two of them gone will be nice.

As long as Israel holds the concept that ALL of it belongs to them and none of it belongs to the Palestinians, then nothing will ever be peaceful and just.

Sort of like the US and Manifest Destiny and its modern counterpart - Full Spectrum Dominance.

karlof1 , Nov 14, 2018 5:48:26 PM | link

74% disapprove of Nuttyahoo's Gaza performance , but 69% disapprove of Lieberman's. The item also provides poll results for political parties if elections were held today. If elections aren't held until March, Nutty has @4 months for events to wash this memory from voter's minds. But with the great fragmentation of Zionistan's political factions, any number of potential coalitions are possible, some touting Nutty as PM again. For now, Nutty will have Defense Ministry cabinet portfolio; perhaps he'll be the one to order the challenge to Syria's S-300s in hopes of saving his political skin.
Pft , Nov 14, 2018 5:50:27 PM | link
Bibi is a defacto dictator. Those resigning in protest are even more right wing and blood thirsty than Bibi, making him look almost reasonable by comparison. I see nothing positive here, but feel free to grasp for what to me seem like illusionary straws.
Klaus Weiß , Nov 14, 2018 6:06:37 PM | link
Highly interesting (this time without irony, @b):

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/middleeast/05meshal.html

karlof1 , Nov 14, 2018 6:23:20 PM | link
Pft @18--

Lieberman's been described as the "Jewish Isis" ; so, his demise seems positive. The polling I posted says neither Jewish Isis or Nutty's performances were warranted--apparently, Zionistan's polity knows it was the specforces op that broke the cease fire, thus IDF guilty not Hamas.

Zionistan's internal political turmoil's been on the rise awhile, but that fact's been suppressed by BigLie Media until now. Essentially the same policies have been proposed/followed for the past two decades by a similar set of politicos and have mostly ended in failure, with Zionistan more fearful and isolated than ever despite BigLie media spin. There's really only one possible direction to take, but who will have the courage to propose it as the solution?

falcemartello , Nov 14, 2018 6:26:16 PM | link
My oh my the troubled world of Israeli zionist politics.

The only good thing about this fiasco is that this could bring down the rabid Likudniks and their rabid coalition to an end.

The bad thing is that in Israel their exists no Hebraic political class that does not define itself with Zionism. Hence are the alternative political parties ready to accept Arab semitic self determination? I myself doubt this very much. Remember Anglo-American zionist the likes of Adelson is a known Likudnik but is also a realist just like other fellow US oligarchs can purchase influence the other side of politics KOCH brothers anyone, the seven sisters (Big Oil) and Big Pharma.

Zionist of all breeds and races and religions know very well if Arab semitic self determination is allowed this will be the nail in the coffin to the colonial outpost known as Israel.

The Political class in Israel need the US and their are enough satraps in the Five eyes countries that regardless of whom is in political power in Israel it will be still considered an occupying force and will never allow Arab semitic self determination.

Post Scriptum: As the late great Gianbattista Vico noted that sovereign states cannot maintain any sovereignty or security as a state forever if it tries to rule by hook or by crook or by brute force eventually the state will self destruct. Further more Hebraic zionism per se is a modern era construct just like Bolshevism. Hence unlike Arab semites that have never left the so desired land by the western colonialist are aboriginal in nature, form and construction.
Docius In Fundem: Long live a free and liberated Palestine

Yeah, Right , Nov 14, 2018 7:51:21 PM | link
b: "Lieberman seems to disagree with this plan."

Nah, it isn't that he disagrees with this plan, rather that he regards it as political death to be seen to be associated with it.

b: "He wants to wage war against Hamas and defeat it."

Nah, he wants to be Prime Minister of Israel, and he thinks that if he is associated with any ceasefire plan with Hamas then he will never get that gig.

He no more wants to "wage war against Hamas" than he really wants to go out of his way to "kill Ismail Haniyeh".

It is all sloganeering, and it is a sad reflection of the Israeli voting public that Israeli politicians like Lieberman know - with a certainty - that they can't get to the top without loudly shouting that they'll kill everybody and anything that annoys the Israeli voter.

Grieved , Nov 14, 2018 7:55:01 PM | link
The Zionist problem is that Crimea was snatched from its grasp after decades of scheming and lusting. At that point the Israelis had nowhere else to go. They are stuck, and must either emigrate out into the world or learn to live with Semites.

Israel must begin to look inward. All other horizons are closed to it.

james , Nov 14, 2018 8:06:48 PM | link
it the crazed ot news from usa press briefing land today... " QUESTION: Yes, Hiba Nasr, Sky News Arabia. You said an enduring defeat of ISIS requires fundamental change in the Syrian regime. Can you explain more, please? AMBASSADOR JEFFREY: Yes. The Syrian regime produced ISIS." All you need to know, lol... these cheap suits will lie publicly to the right crowd, lol..
Debsisdead , Nov 14, 2018 8:29:02 PM | link
psychohistorian has a point. Incredibly May has just pulled off the same stunt using the spectre of Corbyn as PM to scare the euros and despite the squeals from tory caricatures such as jacob rees-mogg, likely the rabid leaver gang in her own team as well.

Lieberman is on a rise and for the post at the top, israel has always been evil check out the rapes and murders used to drive out the indigenous population when the zionists started of this mess, but it will never go back to the way it was before 1990.

Herbert Bush and W Clinton saw to that when they forced the refuseniks coming outta the former USSR to pick israel not amerika. One million of the twisted ashkenazi f**kers split to Palestine and old school pretend caring and sharing zionism was gone for ever.

Those cruel fools will back Lieberman and with any luck that will be the end of universal support for zionists. What mbs did to Saudi Lieberman will do in spades to the apartheid state.

He has no filter his support comes from shouting "lynch the n1**ers" at every opportunity (there is a vid around of him accusing the people of Gaza of being cannibals - completely evidence free but was a sound bite to remember) & must imagine the entire world is composed of the same sort of entitled sociopathic pr1cks who temporarily inhabit soon-to-be Palestine.

ToivoS , Nov 14, 2018 10:22:06 PM | link
roza shanina | Nov 14, 2018 7:49:47 PM | 27

Yes the story has been told before. What is interesting in this thread is that we are seeing a number of commentators that come from real old school Jewish Orthodox backgrounds. A decade back we would be hearing from liberal Zionist giving us the "only democracy in the ME", "made the desert bloom", "most educated people on the planet" and many other myths that Uris propagated in his Exodus .

Today those liberal Zionists have gone into retreat. Instead we are hearing this good old fashioned Old Testament thumping. I think this is a good sign. It is so much easier to dismiss them. That is the good news. The bad news is that these fanatics have a majority in today's Israel. In short, they have a finger on the Israeli Nuclear Bomb. At some point the rest of the world may be forced to try to neutralize that nuclear threat. This could be one very dangerous moment.

metni , Nov 14, 2018 10:34:05 PM | link

@Circe 41 @1ken


I used to hold Israel in high esteem...

Really? When was that? Back when Israelis ran a bulldozer over Rachel Corrie, or years earlier when Sharon corralled a camp of refugees in Lebanon so the good Christian Lebanese allies could exter..minate them? How about further back when a million Palestinians were ethnically cleansed during the Nakba?

@Circe
Indeed. Illan Pappe's scholarly work 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' proves that esteem and Israel are mutually exclusive concepts. At no time before, during or after its formation has this colonial project ever earned the faintest degree of approbation. Blind admiration is a reliable asset for the management of corps of enablers of oppression.

https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542248829&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ethnic+cleansing+of+palestine

xLemming , Nov 14, 2018 10:34:09 PM | link
@34 steve

And I will always remember Bibi by his original name: Benzion Mileikowsky

Kadath , Nov 14, 2018 10:44:16 PM | link
Netanyahu has managed to retain his position as PM since 2009 for a number of reasons but one reason people tend to ignore is the utter cowardice of his rival politicians who one would think would want to replace him. the supposed "Peace" MP in the Knesset were unwilling to stand up to him for fear of being seen as too soft on the Palestinian and as a result they withered on the vine as a totally useless and feckless group. I'm not aware of even a single MP who still publicly supports a return to the 1967 border with minor territory swaps.

The warhawks on the other hand have constantly threatened to collapse the government over the past 5 years but when push came to shove they always supported Netanyahu to save the coalition government, pretty clearly because they realised that if they collapsed the government they would be the logical group to take over (since the "pro-peace" groups no longer exist). this would result in the hardliners having to soften their stances slightly on at least some issues to make a coalition, so instead they stayed in the coalition to slowly put more and more of their policies into practice by blackmailing Netanyahu. Given what Netanyahu has done to Gaza over the past 5 years alone it's horrifying to think of him as anything remotely close to a moderate but through their strategy the hardliners have succeeded to getting their policy positions accepted as the new normal for Israeli and they now feel confident enough to throw Netanyahu overboard and make an open own power play.

When people talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, this is the danger that can come about, move the political debate more and more to the extreme to the point that a man like Netanyahu (who was called an extremist in the 90's by Israeli's own newsmedia) is now being talked about as a "Moderate".

I'm sure Gaza will be harshly abused by whatever government Israeli ends up with and that hundreds (perhaps) thousands will be killed by the new government. But I'm more interested in how Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will respond if the hardliners take over the government and follow through with their threats to launch a huge massacre of the Palestinians in Gaza.

[Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad. ..."
Nov 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Degringolade , 13 hours ago

... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad.

I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."

[Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad. ..."
Nov 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Degringolade , 13 hours ago

... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad.

I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."

[Nov 14, 2018] Bolton Vows to 'Squeeze' Iran, Escalating Sanctions - News From by Jason Ditz

If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Says Europe will be forced to accept US demands

With the newly reimposed US sanctions against Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will " squeeze Iran until the pips squeak ."

Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse.

Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would ultimately fail. He said the Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to European acceptance of the US demands.

Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be imposing new sanctions on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging Iran.

[Nov 14, 2018] Jewish Politics in America A Post Political View by Gilad Atzmon

Nov 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
The Washington Report on the Middle East Affairs has been producing outstanding work as well. The crucial question is, why have Americans let this happen?

My study of Jewish ID politics suggests that America isn't just influenced by one Jewish lobby or another. The entire American political-cultural-spiritual spectrum has been transformed into a internal Jewish exchange. Most American do not see the true nature of the battle they participate in and, for the obvious reasons, their media and their academics do not help. It is more convenient to keep Americans in the dark.

America is rapidly moving towards a civil war. The divide isn't only ideological or political. The split is geographical, spiritual, educational and demographical. In a Vox article titled, "The Midterm Elections Revealed that America is in a Cold Civil War," Zack Beauchamp writes, "This is a country fundamentally split in two, with no real room for compromise." Of the midterm election Beauchamp reports that "American politics is polarized not on the basis of class or even ideology, but on identity One side open to mass immigration and changes to the country's traditional racial hierarchy, the other is deeply hostile to it." He correctly observes that "Republicans and Democrats see themselves as part of cultural groups that are fundamentally distinct: They consume different media and attend different churches; live in distinct kinds of places and rarely interact with people who disagree with them."

Despite this American schism, Israel and its Lobby are somehow able to influence both sides, managing to finding pathways to the secluded corridors of both parties. Although Democrats and Republicans can no longer talk to each other, it seems that both are happy to talk to Israel and the Lobby. And it is at AIPAC's annual conference that these political foes compete in their eagerness to appease a foreign state. This anomaly in American politics demands attention.

As a former Israeli, I had not observed the effects of the Israel/ Jewish Diaspora dilemma until I had my experience at the Student Union Hall in Britain. Israel was born with the Zionist desire to eradicate the identity of Jews as cosmopolitans. Zionism promised to bond the Jew with the soil, with a territory, with borders. Thus, it is consistent with the Zionist paradigm that Israel is notorious for its appalling treatment ofasylum seekers, immigrants and, of course, the indigenous people of the land. Israel has surrounded itself with separation walls. Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a 'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been putting into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump supporter, Israel's politics is a wet dream. Maybe Trump should consider tweaking his motto in 2020 into 'Let's make America Israel.' This would encompass building separation walls, bullying America's neighbors, the potential to cleanse America of the 'enemy within,' and so on. It is not surprising that in 2016 Trump beat Clinton in an Israeli absentee exit poll . The Israelis do love Trump. To them, he is a vindication of their hawkish ideological path. Although during the election Trump was castigated as a vile anti-Semite and a Hitler figure by the Jewish progressive press, once elected, Fox News was quick to point out that Trump was actually the 'First Jewish President.'

We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant anti immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in borders. When alt right icon Richard Spencer described himself on Israeli TV as "a White Zionist" he was actually telling the truth. Israel puts into practice the ideas that Spencer and Trump can so far only entertain. But the parallels between Israel and the Trump administration's Republican voters is just one side of the story.

... ... ...

The story of Jewish political strength in America doesn't end there. A New York Jew can easily metamorphosize from an hard-core Identitarian into rabid Zionist settler and vice versa, but such a manoeuvre is not available to ordinary Americans. White nationalist Richard Spencer can not make the political shift that would turn him into a progressive or a liberal just as it is unlikely that a NY transsexual icon would find it possible to become a 'redneck.' While Jewish political identity is inherently elastic and can morph endlessly, the American political divide is fairly rigid. Jewish ideologists frequently change positions and camps, they shift from left to right, from Clinton to Trump (Dershowitz), they support immigration in their host counties yet oppose it in their own Jewish State, they are against rigid borders and even states in general, yet support the two state solution in Palestine (Chomsky). Gentiles are less flexible. They are expected to be coherent and consistent.

It was this manoeuvrability that made PM Netanyahu's 2015 speech in front of a joint session of Congress a 'success,' although it might well have been considered a humiliation for any American with an ounce of patriotic pride. As we wellknow, Bibi can communicate easily with both Republicans and Democrats just as he cansimultaneously befriend Trump and Putin. ....

... ... ...

jilles dykstra , says: November 14, 2018 at 8:35 am GMT

Reading the article the thought came up 'when will the USA, the majority of USA citizens, (begin to) realise that the era of USA foreign politics for internal political reasons, is over, no longer affordable ?'
The 19th century USA Civil War was horrible, as with all civil wars it was, to a large extent a foreign war.
If indeed again a USA civil war starts, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of preventing it, not much of the present USA will still be there at the end, fysically.
And, will there still be a political USA when the fighting stops, or will it end as Germany, the foreign victors creating the USA they want ?
A USA, as Germany now under Merkel, intent on destroying itself culturally ?
Digital Samizdat , says: November 14, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT
So good to see Gilad Atzmon here at Unz. I have read his two books, The Wandering Who? and Being in Time , and can thoroughly recommend them.

These Jewish bodies tend to preach inclusiveness while practicing exclusivity.

But of course! They first begged for inclusion into our powers structures, then once we complied, they returned the favor by taking them over and excluding us from them.

Pongid-American , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
This is a bit reductive. This commenter does not recognize himself in the dichotomy above. When forced to choose a race on bureaucratic forms, this commenter enters 'human.' Letting them call you an American opens you up for intensely manipulative statist propaganda. And when you know your rights – your human rights, as opposed to your bullshit half-assed revoked constitutional rights – your race is incidental. You know that nondiscrimination underpins your ethics and the law.

This sort of identity is certainly ferociously suppressed by the Israeli fifth column. Falk is this kind of guy too, a Jew but so what, and look what they did to him. Ajamu Baraka too. This overwhelming tidal wave of immigrants from the global south: they grew up with human rights, including the crucial right to solidarity, which negates all the invidious aspects of identity politics. Basically, as a human you side with underdogs worldwide: Okinawans, Palestinians, landless Latin Americans, Africans, you name it. Cohesive social forces are not confined to ethnic groups.

Tensions behind the Iron Curtain inside the US are incidental. The real conflict is us humans versus overreaching states. Given the downtrodden nature of the US subject population, this conflict is playing out mainly outside US borders. The left/right continuum has always been a CIA construction. Statists and humanists array on an orthogonal axis, and that contention continued when CIA rolled the old left up. Cosmopolitans have not gone away.

Israel may be infecting the US with statist divide et impera, but humanist institutions are penetrating Israel too. Look what's happening as the HRC and other human rights treaty bodies review Israel.

http://www.treatybodywebcast.org/cat-57th-session-israel/

Israel is formally accused of interpreting its commitments in bad faith. This allows treaty bodies to gang up and apply international criminal law to Israeli torture, murder, and extermination. It's already happening to criminal US officials. Israel's next.

Bardon Kaldian , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
Atzmon is right re "New York Jews", them being potentially mutable. But, Israelis, being normal nationalists, cannot show the same level of "shape-shifting". A multiculturalist minority in one country can become other nation's nationalist majority. Just, Israeli nationalists cannot become Israeli open borders advocates, multiculturalists, globalists etc.

Only a minority population, basically strangers in another country, can practice various ways of behavior. Host, dominant culture in a country- cannot. Dershowitz can change positions; just, both Netanyahu & any Israeli labor politician can not.

Johnny Smoggins , says: November 14, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
It's the hypocrisy that pisses everyone off with Jews. Few people, especially on the right, have any issue with a nation defending itself. It's that the same Jews who are trying to shove diversity/multiculturalism/refugees 49.Reuben Kaspate says: November 14, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT Civil war? How soon are we talking here? Perhaps, the status quo will be the foreseeable future just humming along. down our throats are either supportive or silent when it comes to Israel making itself into a pure ethnostate behind barbed wire.

... ... ...

Miro23 , says: November 14, 2018 at 4:45 pm GMT

But at a certain point in my life, around my thirties, I started to find all of it too exhausting. I wanted to simplify things. I demoted myself into an ordinary human being.

A lot of people want this, but ordinary humans beings also have to live in societies – and quite sophisticated ones at that. Elected representatives (or leadership) need responsibility and integrity for it to work.

THE US JOINS THE 3RD WORLD

Government responsibility and integrity are not guaranteed (notably in places like Africa and S.E. Asia), but the United States is probably the leading example of a government failure in an advanced society. In the US, like much of the 3rd world, special interests (minority ethnic and commercial) loot the public through a corrupt bargain with the holders of political power. Hillary Clinton was the classic example, with the same "Pay to Play" philosophy as the usual leadership of the Philippines or the Congo.

The 3rd world antidotes are Nationalism and Populism, but having gained power, political leaders usually sell out (sounds familiar). Also the public of the US have learnt to be trusting, and find it hard to believe that they've been hit by a classic 3rd world problem.

In the US, Zionists have looted $ trillions in support of their Special Interest (Israel) and corporations have extracted many more $ trillions through the mass outsourcing of entire industries, complete with their technology and supply networks to Asia. It's not engraved in stone that US industry, had to relocated to Asia or Indians have to be recruited for its IT work. Germany and Japan for example, have held onto their industrial leadership in recent decades and the US could have done the same. At one time the US was the world leader in US based automobile production (Detroit), steel, aluminium, camera and film, industrial chemicals, communications equipment, computers and electronics, aircraft and aerospace (still partly) etc. With what's left in mostly in services and retail (often looted by Hedge Fund asset strippers).

In other words, under a genuine post WW2 "America First" policy involving top quality national education, research and government support of leading industries, the US could still be the world's leading industrial and economic power and not have to worry about debt, deficits and social decline, and also find plenty of jobs for Latino migrants.

However, the US got instead its present 3rd world style corrupt elite who know that nationalism is their Nº1 enemy.

Only Anglos can mount a nationalist challenge, hence the paranoia when Trump arrived on the scene with his "America First" dialogue and Anglo base. In contrast, the whole apparatus of the Zioglob/ deep state/MSM defence is Identitarian, and aimed at destroying the foundations of Anglo society, with LGBT, "White guilt dialectics", multiculturalism, exclusion from Ivy League universities, Hollywood slime, speech laws, statue demolition, in-your-face Africanization, massive debt, political corruption, open frontiers and exporting middle class jobs.

CHINA JOINS THE 1ST WORLD

The Chinese seem to be doing it right.They have an explicit national policy to gain and hold top positions in key world industries and make it a joint national effort to succeed (especially in national human development/education). Also when they find corrupt government officials (even at high levels) they quickly put them on trial and shoot them.

anonymous [739] Disclaimer , says: November 14, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
Winston Churchill talked about this/these divisions in the Jewish people in the 1930s, back before Israel became a Jewish ethnostate – he presented the main 2 divisions between ethnic Jews who fell down in to the worst forms of Communism, Bolshevism, Anarchism in Russia and Eastern Europe and those other ethnic Jews who were sort of doing OK being loyal to their European/American countries especially England they lived in while also promoting a healthier form of Zionism working for some eventual Jewish national state somewhere probably in then British administered Palestine.

Zionism vs Communism – a struggle for the Jewish Soul:

https://communismblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/zionism-versus-bolshevism-by-winston-churchill/

Churchill didn't present the extremely bad alternative we had today:

Jews in the diasapora everywhere from Russia to Poland to Germany, France, England, Canada, Sweden Australia, few left in South Africa our USA doing this:

Promoting Israel over everything as an exclusively Jewish ethno state with endless US, UK other wars against Israel's neighbors and .

Promoting the worst forms of multi culturalism, open borders immigration in to the West, Jewish media mafia domination/monopoly of the mainstream media, social media in USA, UK, Sweden etc promoting the worst forms of porn, rap music, fake news, endless movies and TV shows demonizing all White European men as evil Racists, rapists – promoting the worst Jewish feminists/lesbians to the US Supreme Court, Rachel Maddow type news commentary etc.

Agent76 , says: November 14, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
Nov 3, 2018 The Lobby – USA, episode 1

The Covert War. This video is posted here for news reporting purposes.

Been_there_done_that , says: November 14, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@OMG

He, I believe, was the first to identify or at least name and define the religion of Holocaustianity and deserves credit for that.

Ingrid Rimland openly used that term decades ago already to describe this religion, years before she eventually married Ernst Zündel.

Rurik , says: November 14, 2018 at 6:34 pm GMT
Hello Mr. Atzmom,

I have long admired your noble efforts on behalf of the Palestinian people. You often write in ways that resonate with me, and I'm glad to see you here at The Unz Review.

Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a 'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been putting into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump supporter, Israel's politics is a wet dream.

But I have to tell you, you're waaayyy off with this characterization of Trump supporters.

There are, I'm sure, a lot of brain-dead "Christian" Zionists who drool at the prospect of slaughtered Palestinians, because murdering Christ's modern day relatives living in his lands are the only way to force Jesus to return and give them their rapture. And I suppose there are perhaps a fraction of a percentage point of people who actually want Trump to throw out (or murder) all non-whites to create the kind of racial purity Bibi and his crew of psychopaths are demanding for Israel.

But from what I've seen, and being one of them, as to the vast majority of what you call "Trump supporters", the idea of murdering people in order to steal their land, is a monstrous absurdity.

For the record, we voted for Trump to end the demonic reign of terror and mass murder in the Middle East. The very kind of mass-murder and daily atrocities that were cackling Hillary's ("we came, we saw, he died) and Bill's ("it's worth it") trademark.

We voted for Trump as a repudiation of those evils, that had long stained our national soul, and indeed had made America the kind of place Bibi was pleased with.

We did not vote for Trump to murder and steal, or otherwise do anyone harm. We voted for Trump to do the opposite, and end the Eternal Wars for Israel. No one on the Alt-right likes the wars. We simply want to be left alone, to pursue our humble lives unmolested by globalists and their nefarious designs for us. Is that so terrible?

. In fact, Israel has become a prime model for American nationalists.

with all due respect, that is a vile smear, Sir.

Where are these 'white nationalists' who're demanding we terrorize and murder and steal other people's land? Eh?

For the record, white nationalists are today's Palestinians. What they're demanding is that they don't have to give up the lands they have, and were born on, and be forced out to make room for unlimited others. Or forced to assimilate to an Hispanic or Muslim culture and way of life. Is that so egregious? To want to persevere as an American in an American culture, with hostility to none, and trade with and good relations with all and any who respond in good faith?

Why is it that all white people, from Europe to N. America and everywhere else, are all expected to invite every non-white, non-Western, often hostile armies of (especially military age young men) into our lands, and then treat them better than the indigenous, white second class citizens?

What is it with that?!

Either Germans and Swedes and Americans hand over their nations or we're all going to be called "Nazis" or "racists" or God help us, "Zionists".

WTF?

We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant anti immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in borders.

well, only the stupidest imbecile on the planet doesn't believe in borders. (or, an ideologue that wants to see *certain* nations destroyed by armies of immigrants – hostile or otherwise).

No one wants recognized borders more than the Palestinians. It is Israel that refused to state its border, because it want to steal more land. How many Trump voters do you hear talking about stealing other people's land? (I'm not talking about lunatics like Bolton. American nationalists despise Bolton and McCain and all the rest of the Zionist, globalist scum)

And I don't personally know of any reasonable American nationalist who 'hates Muslims'. They just don't want them all here. Have you ever heard of Kosovo, Mr. Atzmon? There are neighborhoods in Michigan that were Polish Catholic for generations. And they liked it that way. They never hated Muslims or anyone else. But they do hate having their communities taken over by alien peoples with alien cultures and now have to listen to 'calls to prayer' at five in the morning every day. And demands for Sharia and other clashes with their former way of life.

Are these people rabid Zionists demanding to murder people and steal their land, just because they don't want throngs of Muslims coming in and transforming their community into something they don't recognize or have any predilection for. Are they simply too racist and hateful, and need to learn to assimilate? Eh?

I don't know who this Spencer guy is, and he sound like controlled opposition to me.

It would be wrong to equate nationalism with the frothing's of some so called "white-Zionist". The only white Zionists I know of are the lunatic "Christian" Zionists.

The nationalists I know of simply want to be left -the fuck- alone!

Stop demanding that we hand over our country to people who don't appreciate it. (Indeed, often hate it) Stop demanding that we doom our children to living in a nation that puts them last in every way, behind every single non-white immigrate that can get to these shores. It is insane to want to have people come to your nation who will be a burden, who often hate you and yours, not to mention your culture, and want to displace you. It is insane to insist that millions of people come in and compete with your children on an un-level playing field. Every non-White immigrant that comes here gets Affirmative Action promotions and jobs and university preference over the white children who were born here. Unless you hate white people, that state of affairs is insane.

And yet here we are being badgered as thieving, psychotic murderous goons (Zionists) simply for wanting what every single sane person on the planet wants: to preserve our way of life and hand it down to our progeny – for them to have a decent life and hope for theirs in turn.

And yet somehow, if we have white skin, wanting this is the most evil and wicked and racist thing imaginable!

Anon [884] Disclaimer , says: November 14, 2018 at 7:00 pm GMT
@Rurik White nationalists are a mixed bunch, going from the very bad (as Atzmon) sees them to, maybe, the peaks of sainthood you attribute to them.

The whole idea of legit owners of land is a rationalization: everybody (meaning: every group) took from someone else the land where they are, and did so by combat and might.

Sure, in our more civilized times we'd like such things to be relegated in the past, borders to become stable, and ethnic cleansing and warfare to be a closed chapter.

These are wishes and words about said wishes, though.

Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all of the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to include a bit more than mine. Being the first stripe allowed, they'd go on, until I were left with no land at all, all of this while seeing themselves as honest.

Whoever owns land, and whoever doesn't have a need to believe Jews worse than other people knows what human nature is like when it comes to property, borders, and expansion.

L. Allen Bivin , says: November 14, 2018 at 10:03 pm GMT
@Agent76 Thank you for sharing that. Fascinating four-part series.
renfro , says: November 15, 2018 at 1:35 am GMT
@Anon

Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all of the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to include a bit more than mine.

I doubt your neighbors have attacked you, burned your land, cut off or poisoned your water and then confiscated your house and land ..as is the case of Israel's theft of Palestine.

This is the 21 century, not the 17th or 18th century.

[Nov 14, 2018] Notes From Smartphone-Era Israel by by Andrew J. Bacevich

Nov 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

When we interrupt our travels to take a break, I approach a group of young Israeli soldiers, themselves waiting for a bus. Anyone speak English, I ask? Sure, answers one good-looking kid. His accent is familiar.

Where are you from?

Connecticut.

He turns out to be an Ohio State grad, serving a tour as a "lone soldier" -- a Jew but not an Israeli -- in the IDF. There are thousands of them.

I have never been comfortable with this phenomenon. If a young American hankers to defend a country, it strikes me that he ought to defend his own rather than someone else's. But this Buckeye from Connecticut is obviously a fine upstanding fellow so I don't press him to explain.

[Nov 14, 2018] Macron Trash Talks "America First"

Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Nov 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In a rebuke that bordered on a national insult Sunday, Emmanuel Macron sniped at Donald Trump's calling himself a nationalist.

"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism; nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism," Macron said.

As for Trump's policy of "America first," Macron trashed such atavistic thinking in this new age: "By saying we put ourselves first and the others don't matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values."

Though he is being hailed as Europe's new anti-Trump leader who will stand up for transnationalism and globalism, Macron revealed his ignorance of America.

Trump's ideas are not ideological but rooted in our country's history.

America was born between the end of the French and Indian War, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Both the general who led us in the Revolution and the author of that declaration became president. Both put America first. And both counseled their countrymen to avoid "entangling" or "permanent" alliances with any other nation, as we did for 160 years.

Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lacking in patriotism?

When Woodrow Wilson, after being re-elected in 1916 on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," took us into World War I, he did so as an "associate," not as an Allied power. American troops fought under American command.

Emmanuel Macron: The New King of Europe? When 'America First' Becomes Negotiable

After that war, the U.S. Senate rejected an alliance with France. Under Franklin Roosevelt, Congress formally voted for neutrality in any future European war.

The U.S. emerged from World War II as the least bloodied and least damaged nation because we stayed out for more than two years after it had begun.

We did not invade France until four years after it was occupied, the British had been thrown off the Continent, and Josef Stalin's Soviet Union had been fighting and dying for three years.

The leaders who kept us out of the two world wars as long as they did -- did they not serve our nation well, given that America's total losses were just over 500,000 dead, compared with the millions that other nations lost?

At the Armistice Day ceremony, Macron declared, "By saying we put ourselves first and the others don't matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest its moral values."

But Trump did not say that other countries don't matter. He only said we should put our own country first.

What country does Emmanuel Macron put first?

Does the president of France see himself as a citizen of the world with responsibility for all of Europe and all of mankind?

Charles de Gaulle was perhaps the greatest French patriot of the 20th century. Yet he spoke of a Europe of nation-states, built a national nuclear arsenal, ordered NATO out of France in 1966, and, in Montreal in 1967, declared, "Long live a free Quebec" -- inciting French Canadians to rise up against "les Anglo-Saxons" and create their own nation.

Was de Gaulle lacking in patriotism?

By declaring American nationalists anti-patriotic, Macron has asserted a claim to the soon-to-be-vacant chair of Angela Merkel.

But is Macron really addressing the realities of the new Europe and world in which we now live? Or is he simply assuming a heroic liberal posture to win the applause of Western corporate and media elites?

The realities: in Britain, Scots are seeking secession, and the English have voted to get out of the European Union. Many Basques and Catalans wish to secede from Spain. Czechs and Slovaks have split the blanket and parted ways.

Anti-EU sentiment is rampant in populist-dominated Italy.

A nationalism their peoples regard as deeply patriotic has triumphed in Poland and Hungary and is making gains even in Germany.

The leaders of the world's three greatest military powers -- Trump in the U.S., Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China -- are all nationalists.

Turkish nationalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan rules in Ankara; Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi is head of India. Jair Bolsonaro, a Trumpian nationalist, is the incoming president of Brazil. Is not Benjamin Netanyahu an Israeli nationalist?

In France, a poll of voters last week showed that Marine Le Pen's renamed party, Rassemblement National, has moved ahead of Macron's party for the May 2019 European Parliament elections.

If there is a valid criticism of Trump's foreign policy, it is not that he has failed to recognize the new realities of the 21st century. It's that he has not moved expeditiously to dissolve old alliances that put America at risk of war in faraway lands where no vital U.S. interests exist.

Why are we still committed to fight for a South Korea far richer and more populous than the nuclear-armed North? Why are U.S. planes and ships still bumping into Russian planes and ships in the Baltic and Black seas?

Why are we still involved in the half-dozen wars into which Bush II and Barack Obama got us in the Middle East?

Why do we not have the "America first" foreign policy we voted for?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Nov 14, 2018] The Short War With Gaza Exposed Israel s Weakness by Laguerre

Notable quotes:
"... Israel's newly won "friends" in the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the UAE proved to be unstable and of little value. ..."
"... The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. ..."
"... The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed to occur long ago. ..."
"... If the 1973 War were to be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment. ..."
"... This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw ..."
"... The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be. ..."
"... I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat ..."
"... Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself. ..."
"... What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community? ..."
"... I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance. ..."
"... Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO. ..."
"... Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value, bias and use of victimization. ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Last week a ceasefire was agreed upon between Palestinian factions in Gaza and Israel:

The aim of the change, in a plan mediated by Egypt and with money supplied by Qatar, is to provide much-needed relief for Gaza, restore calm on the Israeli side of the border and avert another war.

On Sunday night Israeli special forces broke the ceasefire by invading Gaza under disguise. Such incursions happen quite often but are usually left unreported. The invaders wore civilian clothing and some were cloaked as women. Their cars arrived at the house of a local Qassam commander but suspicious guards held them up. A firefight ensued in which 7 Palestinians and 1 Israeli officer were killed. It is not clear what the intent of the Israeli raid was. A car left behind held what appeared to be surveillance equipment. The intruders fled back to Israel.

It is likely that rivalry within the Israeli government was behind this provocation:

[T]he perception that Israel, by allowing the fuel and cash shipments into Gaza, was paying off Hamas set off acrimonious wrangling between two rival right-wing members of Israel's security cabinet.

Earlier Sunday, Education Minister Naftali Bennett called the cash infusion "protection money." Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused Mr. Bennett of having supported such payments and of having opposed in recent weeks the more aggressive military reprisals against Hamas that Mr. Lieberman favored.
...
By night's end Mr. Netanyahu had cut short his trip [to Paris] and was flying back to Israel in response to the Gaza hostilities.

Did Lieberman order the incursion to undercut Netanyahoo ceasefire and his rival Bennet?


Map via SouthFront.org - bigger

The breach of the ceasefire by Israel set off another round of tit for tat strikes. A commando unit of Hamas' Qassam brigade launched an attack against a bus that had carried Israeli soldiers to the border. To avoid further escalation the shooter waited until the soldiers were out of the way before hitting it. Only the driver was injured. Then the Israeli air force destroyed the al-Aqsa TV station in Gaza city after notifying the Palestinians of its intent. It also damaged a university building. Rocket volleys from Gaza followed and the Israeli air-force hit several buildings. After 48 hours the ceasefire was renewed.

During the conflict the Palestinian side demonstrated a series of new capabilities:

It was Israel that practically begged to return to the ceasefire . Egypt led the negotiations:

Earlier Tuesday, the Political-Security Cabinet meeting that convened following the escalation in the south came to a halt after seven hours. After hearing the army's and the security establishment's assessments, the cabinet instructed the IDF to continue to operate in Gaza as necessary.

All the officials from the defense establishment who participated in the cabinet meeting -- IDF chief of staff, the head of Military Intelligence, the head of the Shin Bet, the head of the Mossad, and the head of the NSC -- supported the Egyptian request for a cease-fire .
...
" If we had intensified the attacks, rockets would have been fired at Tel Aviv ," senior cabinet officials said.

Since 15:30 local time today the situation is again quiet and calm. But the squabbling within the Israeli cabinet immediately resumed:

All the ministers -- including Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Minister Naftali Bennett -- did not object to a cease fire.

Following this report, the Defense Ministry said that Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman's support of a cease-fire deal were "fake news." The statement said that the Defense Minister's position was consistent and had not changed. Ministers Naftali Bennett, Ayelet Shaked and Ze'ev Elkin also said they did not support a cease-fire deal with Hamas.

In total 13 people were killed in Gaza and at least 2 on the Israeli side. A Hamas spokesperson accused Lieberman of being responsible for the breach of the ceasefire and demanded that Netanyahoo fires him.

The short conflict demonstrated that:

For decades the Zionist entity was able to attack its neighbors as it pleased. That changed. It no longer dares to step into Lebanon for fear of Hezbullah's reprisal. Syria's western airspace is closed for Israel thanks to the new S-300PMU2 air defense Russia delivered to the Syrian army. Israeli special forces botched their incursion into Gaza and the Iron Dome missile defense proved to be to faulty to protect Zionist settlements. The resistance in Gaza has new capabilities and surprises for Israel should it again attack.

Israel's newly won "friends" in the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the UAE proved to be unstable and of little value. The Boycott, divest and sanctions movement against the self declared apartheid state has undermined its image . Its lobby has been exposed . Its budget deficit is too high .

The short conflict in Gaza only demonstrated that Israel is weak and that its downward trend continues.

Posted by b on November 13, 2018 at 02:52 PM | Permalink

Comments The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. That probably had something to do with the failure of the original raid - they left behind their (specially equipped) car, did they? Only the air force is any good, and, lo and behold, it had to be brought in to recover the situation.

Pat Lang is right on this one.

LJ , Nov 13, 2018 3:24:00 PM | link

This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw
psychohistorian , Nov 13, 2018 3:56:04 PM | link
Thanks for the journalism not found anywhere else b

The West house of cards is self destructing before our eyes. It is way past time, IMO I just hope that global public finance comes with the change.

Sadness , Nov 13, 2018 4:01:06 PM | link
The sooner Israel returns to being Palestine, where Jewish folks who want to live in the ME can do so in peace with their neighbours, the better. The violent murderous destructive settler ethnics please go home, ta.
In MC doo , Nov 13, 2018 4:07:36 PM | link
The hornet attack on the bus is in all likelyhood faked, around 26 seconds in your tube video at least 8 IDF are at the front of the bus chatting, at around 46 seconds they are gone. We hear the sound of the missile being fired but are unable to see it tracking the target as it moves in.
john , Nov 13, 2018 4:18:35 PM | link
very nice perspective, b, very good. thanks. and for all those asshats out there who think that uncle sam is israel's bitch, well. live and learn.
CarlD , Nov 13, 2018 4:26:16 PM | link
@2

This Video is probably and most assuredly a Houthi destruction of a SA tank. It has nothing to do with the Israeli bus.

bjd , Nov 13, 2018 4:26:47 PM | link
If fear for Tel Aviv was a motivation, an additional conclusion might be the Israeli's have little real faith in their Iron Dome -- no?
Where is Iran in this story, that Lieberman is so keen on?
Yonatan , Nov 13, 2018 4:28:10 PM | link
LJ @2.

There is a difference. The cameraman in the Abrams shot is close to the launcher and to the line of fire so the ATGM rocket motor exhaust is clearly visible. In the IDF shot, the cameraman could be well away from the launch, even at right angles to its line of flight, totally hiding the rocket motor. That said, it would be even more gutsy to have placed an IED where the IDF was likely to gather and much cheaper. The ATGMs are more valuable against IDF armor. $1 million of US taxpayer money going up in smoke just like that.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr0LWUUXgAAVuBD.jpg

Hamas - bringing the US closer to bankruptcy $10 bottle rocket by $10 bottle rocket.

karlof1 , Nov 13, 2018 4:37:36 PM | link
The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed to occur long ago. The Zionist's response to perform a War Crime fits their behavioral norm to a Tee.

If the 1973 War were to be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment.

frances , Nov 13, 2018 5:11:47 PM | link
reply to

This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw

Posted by: LJ | Nov 13, 2018 3:24:00 PM | 2
I agree, I think this was an Israeli False Flag to justify an invasion and I agree it is a bomb beneath the bus. A Kornet has a distinctive undulating pattern and leaves a smoke trail, for example: here is what a Kornet looks like hitting something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8

james , Nov 13, 2018 5:19:49 PM | link
thanks b... it sounds like none of the Israeli politicians want to own up to wanting a ceasefire.. why is that? is the idea of projecting strength and aggressiveness the only posture Israel can take for the majority Israel religious orthodox voting public??

as b notes, Israel's situation is becoming more difficult for a number of reasons.. i see on mondoweiss, another article that highlights the continuation of policies that will come back to bite Israel in the ass.. A familiar invasion: Settlers take another mountain top, soldiers follow, and Palestinians demonstrate for their rights...

@6 john... i am curious... it sure looks to me like the usa is israels bitch... it's not just usa either.. one could include canada, australia, uk and all the western poodles too... how does this event appear to make it look any different to you? thanks..

worldblee , Nov 13, 2018 5:22:55 PM | link
The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be.
LJ , Nov 13, 2018 6:36:01 PM | link
@12 Yes, Francis. I agree. It's a bad fake, too.
steve , Nov 13, 2018 7:31:56 PM | link
I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat. I am on the side of Israel. However it seems increasingly a losing side. To survive they have had to adopt increasingly harsh and embarrassing measures. The only way to achieve victory is to ethnically cleanse Arabs from the Middle East. The Heart of Darkness Rabbit Bomb Blues.
PeacefulProsperity , Nov 13, 2018 8:13:21 PM | link
And the carnage has been sponsored by the Hollyweird scum: Palestinians critical of Hollywood stars donating $60 million to support Israeli army terror
PeacefulProsperity , Nov 13, 2018 8:14:44 PM | link
Hollyweird anti-Trmp scum, that is.
james , Nov 13, 2018 8:21:21 PM | link
@19 pp.. trump is no different.. hollywood and trump - 2 sides of the same coin.. both subservient to Israel..
sejomoje , Nov 13, 2018 8:34:01 PM | link
#18 - Gerard Butler hosted that event. His Malibu(?) house was just burned to the frame. Coincidence? I think not. He is all over social media whining about it and people are actually calling him out. Maybe there's some hope for us after all.
ADKC , Nov 13, 2018 8:54:57 PM | link
Adam & Steve @16 & @17

Palestinians already know that Israel plans a genocide. Palestinians know that they will not be helped by the west or any other country. Palestinians know that they have no voice and no way of countering the Israeli lobby. But where has this success really got you and Israel?

I suggest that you are pursuing a path that means doom for both Palestinian and Israeli. You imagine that you can get rid of Palestinians but lack the commonsense to see that this is impossible. You are building a future of (ever more) death and destruction.

There is another option (which you won't be interested in) and that is to change Israel from an apartheid state and grant equality to Palestinians (including the right of return and restitution of property).

That you two could post such loathsome views indicates that you are completely unaware that you are staring into an abyss that will consume both Palestinian and Israeli.

Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself.

You need to wake up to the idea that Palestinian and Israeli might have a future together and consider that the path you are following will bring a great tragedy to both sides.

Kiza , Nov 13, 2018 9:02:21 PM | link
@ karlof1 10

My thoughts were identical - the single biggest development is the exhibited unity among the Palestinians. It does not spell good for the expansionist apartheid bankrupt state (just like all its bankrupt Western bitches).

I also support renaming Gaza into Auschwitz, that was a brilliantly symbolic idea.

ADKC , Nov 13, 2018 9:22:20 PM | link
I am against renaming Gaza as Auschwitz. It is a transparent attempt to appeal to western/European sensitivities (which will not work), will be nothing more than a publicity stunt, and is a denial of the unique Palestinian experience.

Probably more people in the world know of Gaza than they do of Auschwitz.

Gaza is, and should remain, Gaza.

Grieved , Nov 13, 2018 9:57:42 PM | link
@22 ADKC

Thank you for putting that into words. The two entities are joined in an intimate embrace of destiny from which it seems that no single side can emerge alone. How futile that Israel cannot see that its best chance to emerge as a nation, or at least as a people, is now, and that every day it seeks to further reduce Palestine it furthers its own diminishing.

What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community?

Hoarsewhisperer , Nov 13, 2018 10:19:32 PM | link
@19 pp.. trump is no different.. hollywood and trump - 2 sides of the same coin.. both subservient to israel..
Posted by: james | Nov 13, 2018 8:21:21 PM | 20

Well that's wrong. Trump can read the Zio-Jews like a book. They're so-o predictably evil and stupid. His unlawful and MEANINGLESS recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" encouraged them to put their mass-murdering skills on display while the civilized world watched in horror and revulsion.

As b points out, Lebanon has long been too dangerous for their peculiarly wussy brand of courage, Syria is now off-limits, and now the Powerless Palestinians have made them re-think their aggressive idiocy. The fact that they've always been their own worst enemy is rapidly coming home to roost...

Peter AU 1 , Nov 13, 2018 11:17:18 PM | link
Hoarsewhisperer 27

Israel is the land of Ivanka and Kissinger. I think US vetos at the UNSC will continue. US embassy is now at Jerusalem and Trump has declared it the capital of Israel.

james , Nov 13, 2018 11:17:22 PM | link

... ... ...

@27 hw... we have to disagree then... israels mass-murdering skills have been on display prior to and during trumps position.. nothing has changed with regard to Israel's attitude, trump or no trump.. and frankly trump could give a shit.. The money continues to flow to Israel and usa subservience continues... i wish it was different, but i am not into some pipe dream in thinking trump has made any difference.. he hasn't.. you have much greater faith in trump then i..

Zachary Smith , Nov 13, 2018 11:57:39 PM | link
I'm about 6,000 miles away from the current excitement, and can't read any of the languages. So I've got to rely on second and third hand reports of everything . What I'm hearing through those slender grapevines is that there are bitter faction fights within the government of the apartheid Jewish State. Another factor is that none of the 'leaders' known to me are exactly oozing competence. When your major propaganda outlet starts whining about the stupidity, things aren't going well.
1) The S-300 air defense missiles Russia has deployed to Syria. Netanyahu's brief chat with President Vladimir Putin in Paris on Sunday yielded no concurrence for the resumption of Israeli air strikes against Iran. It is now up to him to decide whether to take this as a Russian embargo on Israel overflights, or to go ahead and risk resuming those air strikes. In the worst case, the Israeli air force might have to operate on two fronts: Syria and Gaza.

No, that's not the worst case. Dozens of Russian cruise missiles skimming the treetops while heading for the air and naval bases of the Apartheid State is worse than that. Frankly, I doubt if the murderous and thieving little nation is capable of overcoming both the jamming and the S-300 systems. But what do I know? - if they manage to do it without killing any Russians, the Syrians will probably be reinforced with even heavier air defenses. Right now Syria is a lose/lose proposition.

2) Israel has tied its hands with an ultimatum to Beirut to shut down Iran's workshops in Lebanon for adding precision-guidance to Hizballah's surface missiles, or else face Israeli attacks to destroy them. There was no date on the ultimatum. But to carry it through, every ounce of Israel's air force capabilities will be required. The question is how did Israel's policy-makers failed to avoid a situation which paralyses its ability to operate against strategic foes in Syria and Lebanon?
Notice the despair. Who on earth was running his mouth with a promise to destroy those Hezbollah shops? Yet even that's a losing proposition, for Hezbollah is doubtlessly running many fakes and decoys, and keeping everything on such a small scale they'll be barely scratched, if touched at all. But could the pilots of the apartheid Jewish State do even this? I ask because I don't know the range of those Russian jamming devices. Hezbollah has every opportunity to set an ambush for incoming aircraft attacks. The F-35 may be low visibility in terms of radar, but it represents an enormous infra-red beacon. There are anti-air missiles in existence which are optimized for IR.

The final wild card is the Trumpster. He has been mighty erratic of late, and while he might do something wild and crazy, could the Jewish State rely on whatever-it-is he might do helping them? Could be just the opposite.

Is Trump Cracking Up? (Updated)

psychohistorian , Nov 14, 2018 12:44:47 AM | link
@ Grieved with the internet interaction insight and wisdom....thanks and hope many read and understand your words.

@ Zachary Smith with the comment and question about Trump.

I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance.

Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO.

Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value, bias and use of victimization.

For me the only question is how long will the transition take and how ugly will it be?

[Nov 14, 2018] Bolton Vows to 'Squeeze' Iran, Escalating Sanctions - News From by Jason Ditz

If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Says Europe will be forced to accept US demands

With the newly reimposed US sanctions against Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will " squeeze Iran until the pips squeak ."

Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse.

Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would ultimately fail. He said the Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to European acceptance of the US demands.

Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be imposing new sanctions on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging Iran.

[Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism and Patriotism

It's probably more complex and there is not solid boundary between nationalism (love of your own country or ethnicity at the expense of other) and patriotism (just love of you own country). Envy is a very human trait (Great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin said that it is the sister of competition, so it comes for noble family) and if you love you country you definitely can envy other countries and this feeling complicates things -- bridging the gap between the patriotism and the nationalism.
The two are not always easy to distinguish and a 'My country right or wrong' mindset seems to be dangerously on the rise. Also often this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad.
Ukrainians has a saying that reflect this deep feeling of envy " God I do not want any specific favors for myself, but please make it so that my neighbor house was burned out"
Notable quotes:
"... I long ago decided that Nationalism as these two great minds defined it was a bad thing and that I hoped the United States would not descend to such a depth of false pride as to become nationalistic in this sense. I have lived to be disappointed in this. ..."
Nov 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

George Orwell wrote in "Notes on Nationalism," that "By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality ."

I have tried to act as I imagine a patriot should and in a way that Kedourie and Orwell might approve. I long ago decided that Nationalism as these two great minds defined it was a bad thing and that I hoped the United States would not descend to such a depth of false pride as to become nationalistic in this sense. I have lived to be disappointed in this.

In general I support Macron's expressed view on this subject but it should be said that much of his vehemence on this subject is caused by his own search for approval in France and reluctance to see Europe deprived of the post WW2 economic benefits and subsidized defense against the USSR long provided by the United States. From my point of view Macron appears a self serving politician in this matter.

We should all be careful not to confuse Patriotism and Nationalism. pl

smoothieX12 . , 12 hours ago

Chesterton comes to mind immediately:"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
Lord Lemur , 7 hours ago
Orwell's intellect is overrated, and his aphorisms have become thought-ending cliches. Look at the string of assumptions in quote above. Do individuals really 'choose' to 'sink' their consciousness into a greater body? What makes far more sense is that at the 'core' of I there is a 'we', which is conditioned by prior forms of particularity - religion, ethnicity, language, race, and culture. This is the basis of a harmonious common good, and a meaningful lifeworld.

Orwell grew up in a time of increasing scale, managerialism, and atomizaton. His thinking narrates the moral discourse shaped by that anti-social environment and its effects (mass wars) but dresses it up in an emancipatory narrative. One is immediately struck by his lack of foresight in predicting how power would operate as the 20th century wore on (Foucault and and Huxley are a lot closer the truth), and his inability to grapple with the essence of power and its moral and conceptual implications as a whole.

In reality, power is a moral imperative, and its acquisition and application the inaugural raison d'être of the state and the concomitant society. Hence, the cogito subject at the heart of Orwell's evaluative presuppositions is itself a product of prior systems of power, upstream from personal judgement and value sets. Orwell proceeds to demand by implication we view the ancestral efforts which secured our position in the present day as illegitimate, since they conformed to emergent anthropological patterns of conflict and conquest instead of categorical laws plucked out of thin air by self-styled 'enlightened' big-brains during the 18th century. Had we actually lived by these 'standards', those of us left would be a marginalized set of tribes pushed to the far north of Europe, regularly getting shafted by whatever Magian civilization moved in. As a matter of fact, that's happening right now as these self-critical ideas have installed themselves within our cultural substrate.

These pious set of mere assertions are deployed by the ruling globalist cabal to justify the replacement of Western founding stocks. Yet they are so ingrained among our senior cohort, when their *own people actually under attack* seek to affirm themselves without contradiction in *response*, they are viewed as the root menace. But if you have a decline and you have a desire to assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest decline, you're not going to get anywhere, are you?

Those who feel uncomfortable about this should have worked harder to prevent the erosion of the historic American nation, and if there is nothing they could have done against the DC Behemoth, abstain from opposing the instinctive response of the cultural immune system.

Pat Lang Mod -> Lord Lemur , 7 hours ago

I beg you pardon, O neocon scion of the WASP elite. and what did you ever do for the "historic America?"
Lord Lemur -> Pat Lang , 7 hours ago
I'm not American, but i'm 5th generation in an Anglo-setter nation. The implication here is that i'm an ungrateful you whipper-snapper who just doesn't grasp the sacrifices and horrors of the 20th century. Exactly when does my generation get the moral cachet entitling us to input directions into the civilizational compass? Arguments predicated on commitment to a cause haven no inherent validity. I'm certainly not disparaging or denying here, but you're putting us in a position where our ambit of choice is circumscribed by the ideology that justified post-War US hegemony (for which people from my community were still dying until very recently in Afghanistan).
Pat Lang Mod -> Lord Lemur , 6 hours ago
I have long thought that NATO should have been abolished after the fall of the USSR. Go your own way. I am not concerned with you foreigners in Europe or anywhere else. I am concerned with the state of mind of my own people who should wise up and forget about Europe except as a trading partner and a tourist destination.
Lord Lemur -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
Well, I would love to do that Col., but unfortunately Western civilization as a whole goes the way of Washington, New York, Brussels, and maybe Paris and Moscow. What happens to weaker power centres without the strong ones? What has happened Tibet, that's what.

Thinking in terms of elites tied to specific nations is no longer a good model to conceive of politics. Formal institutions like NATO are an expression of that. We have to address transnational networks of soft power that bind together and enculturate the ruling class. I have more in common with a Trump voter from flyover country and he with me than either of us with our respective 'national' elites.

Pat Lang Mod -> Lord Lemur , 5 hours ago
Blah Blah. At least you did not tell me about your hero grandpa.
JJackson , 13 hours ago
An important distinction, thank you for forcing us to consider the difference.

The two are not always easy to distinguish and a 'My country right or wrong' mindset seems to be dangerously on the rise. I was considering the use of the national flag on homes in the US and UK. It surprised me how common it seemed in the States and assumed it was a show of Patriotic fervor when I see it in the UK it sends a shiver down my spine as (with the exception of major international sporting events) I interpret it as extreme Nationalism often associated with racist or Neo-Nazi sympathies. Conflation of the two seems much the same as that of Anti-Israeli, Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semitic again three very distinct mindsets.

Degringolade , 13 hours ago
I can truthfully state that I am either fish, nor fowl, nor good red meat on this one. It seems to me to be a standard bit of verbal "wanking" so beloved by the folks in the political arena.

I think that mostly this is a in your face dig at Trump, same tenor, same sneering superiority that was displayed by the urban democrats who are currently in their third year of an extended tantrum over Trump's taking their shiny ball from them.

Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad.

I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:

"When I use a word..it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."

Pat Lang Mod -> Degringolade , 9 hours ago
If you see life as a zero sum game then you would be right. I do not see it that way. I never did.
Eugene Owens , 12 hours ago
Self serving
Eugene Owens , 12 hours ago
Self serving, yes. As are all politicians.

But I suspect he also does not want to see another Verdun. Or another Douaumont charnel house where the unidentified bones of 130,000 French and German soldiers reside.

https://www.atlasobscura.co...

Eugene Owens -> Eugene Owens , 8 hours ago
Or he does not want another Zone Rouge like the two million acres around Verdun that remains forbidden territory even now. The only ones allowed in are the EOD techs of the Département du Déminage that are still digging out unexploded ordnance 102 years later. Much of that UXO contains mustard, phosgene, or chlorine. All of it is badly corroded and volatile. French EOD pulls out hundreds of tons every year.

https://orionmagazine.org/a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Pat Lang Mod -> Eugene Owens , 7 hours ago
I just heard that ignorant swine pansy Jesse Watters say that the French have not known military glory sine Bonaparte. Too bad we cannot deposit him in that contaminated zone to find his way out.
Rob Stevenson , 13 hours ago
Somewhat related: Trump's refusal to stand in the rain on that solemn 100th anniversary spoke more of the man than anything previous. Didn't want to get rained on! That war, those trenches, the rain, the rain, the rain. He probably cannot spell infantry, much less describe what it is. There is the Commander In Chief in all his glory. We are lost.
Eric Newhill -> Rob Stevenson , 9 hours ago
Rob,
That was the fake news take on it. The reality is that the Secret Service wasn't prepared to get him there in a vehicle. The original plan was to arrive by helo. He was there the next day in the rain. Fake news is the enemy of the people.
A.Trophimovsky -> Rob Stevenson , 9 hours ago
"That war, those trenches, the rain, the rain, the rain...." Play Hide
Pat Lang Mod -> A.Trophimovsky , 7 hours ago
Inform us of your military record.
A.Trophimovsky -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
No military record here, sir, I am a civilian, born in peace time, even at a time when military service was no more mandatory....But no unaware of war fatigues, since here in Europe we have had almost all relatives who fought the great war....Granpa was a partisan then....

Just read that about the trenches and the rain...and remembered this film....I hope you all can enjoy it....It´s good to watch this kind of films, especially for us who had the great fortune of never being there...

Pat Lang Mod -> A.Trophimovsky , 5 hours ago
I am always amused when civilians tell me about their soldier relatives. you are not your "grandpa." Grow up.

[Nov 13, 2018] The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The more I think of it, the more similarities I see between the fall of the Soviet Union & Warsaw pact countries and the United States & NATO countries. Time for some truth bombs, Namely... ..."
"... 1. A bloated military industry that is strangling the civilian side of the economy in a struggle for limited resources. The US official spends 720 billion on the military (not counting the NSA & NSA budgets, the operating expenses of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, US nuclear weapon costs are paid out from the department of Energy, the real cost is probably around 1.1 Trillion dollars annually) for that amount of money the US could repave all the highways, replace every bridge, pay for universal health care for all citizens, send every American to university AND still have enough money left over to replace every Hospital in the US), but the civilian economy will get none of that money and will instead make due with the rusting relics from Johnson's Great Society Programs he started in the mid-60s (which is now 60yrs old) ..."
"... Strictly regulated economic relationships between the central power and their "vassal" states, which bleeds off the wealth out of the central power's country in the form of bribes to the vassal states' elites to ensure their loyalty. ..."
"... A decaying political elite that draws it's legitimacy from its' victory in a prior great conflict 30-40 years (the Great Patriotic War for the Soviet Union, The Cold War for the US). ..."
"... Declining life expectancy: average life expectancy has declined for most Americans for 3yrs in a row ..."
"... Increasing drug and Alcohol abuse ..."
"... Lastly and most importantly, a corrupt and dishonest media. ..."
"... If the newsmedia deliberately misinforms the electorate it logically flows that the electorate will not create the best polices and political culture will deteriorate into a meaningless Blue Team vs Red Team dichotomy as opposed to a reasoned debate on the best of political, economic, foreign or social policies. ..."
"... The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's. This is NOT to say I am hoping it will continue to do so, but if the US doesn't address these 6 points it WILL create a systemic crisis because these issues by their very nature do not promote stability as they do not allow for self-correction ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kadath , Nov 12, 2018 9:55:43 PM | link

The more I think of it, the more similarities I see between the fall of the Soviet Union & Warsaw pact countries and the United States & NATO countries. Time for some truth bombs, Namely...

1. A bloated military industry that is strangling the civilian side of the economy in a struggle for limited resources. The US official spends 720 billion on the military (not counting the NSA & NSA budgets, the operating expenses of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, US nuclear weapon costs are paid out from the department of Energy, the real cost is probably around 1.1 Trillion dollars annually) for that amount of money the US could repave all the highways, replace every bridge, pay for universal health care for all citizens, send every American to university AND still have enough money left over to replace every Hospital in the US), but the civilian economy will get none of that money and will instead make due with the rusting relics from Johnson's Great Society Programs he started in the mid-60s (which is now 60yrs old)

2. Strictly regulated economic relationships between the central power and their "vassal" states, which bleeds off the wealth out of the central power's country in the form of bribes to the vassal states' elites to ensure their loyalty. This weakens the Central power's civilian economy, where generating chaos in the Vassal states as the elites place their economic interests above the interests of the state (also making the elites alienated from the non-elite citizenry who suffer most from these policies). Ukraine's Robber Barons have profited mightily from their relationship with the US, but Ukraine as a state is in civil war and near collapse, kept alive only by "Bribes" from the US/IMF/EU, how is this in the interests of the Ukrainian people

3. A decaying political elite that draws it's legitimacy from its' victory in a prior great conflict 30-40 years (the Great Patriotic War for the Soviet Union, The Cold War for the US). Note that just like the Soviet union of the 80s most of the Democratic & Republican leadership is in its' 70-80s and none of them seem interested in retirement (Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Diane Feinstein), the average senator is now 61 years old, an age when most plebeians are planning on leaving the workforce. How many great (or at least competent) political leaders are being pushed out of the political arena in favor of the geriatric status quo, the US/the West has gone from a democracy to a Gerontocracy(rule by the old). I don't know about you, but I cant wait to see what revolutionary economic policies 85yr old Nancy Pelosi will bring to the floor of the house!

4. Declining life expectancy: average life expectancy has declined for most Americans for 3yrs in a row , despite (or perhaps because of) a half-assed, unaffordable, semi-universal, mandatory health insurance plan. Life expectancy increased within the Soviet Union stagnated in the 1980s then dropped more than 10yrs (to a low of 58.9yrs for men!), before slowly recovering and the growing to 71.5 yrs in 2018.

5. Increasing drug and Alcohol abuse : the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia resulted to a spike in deaths due to suicide, alcohol and drug abuse (alcohol abuse being a historical Russian ill), since the 2000s we've seen a similar spike in deaths due to drug abuse and suicide (firearms), like the Russians of the 90s the Americans seem to be embracing their own historical ills of shooting up (both in drugs and guns) as a means of coping with the economic and social dislocation of the last 18yrs

6. Lastly and most importantly, a corrupt and dishonest media. The Soviet union had 2 major news papers Komsomolskaya Pravda (Truth) & Izvestia (news), a popular saying in the Soviet Union was that "there's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia". The US outdid the Soviet Union by creating 6 Mass media news outlets, but all of them just give the left or right wing interpretation of US policy. My advise is this, NEVER read The New York Times and the Washington Post for news or the truth, only read them to know the Party line. The Corruption of the mass media & news industries is the worst of all similarities because the entire organizing theory of a Democracy is that an informed and educated electorate will create the best (a more perfect) form of governance. If the newsmedia deliberately misinforms the electorate it logically flows that the electorate will not create the best polices and political culture will deteriorate into a meaningless Blue Team vs Red Team dichotomy as opposed to a reasoned debate on the best of political, economic, foreign or social policies.

The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's. This is NOT to say I am hoping it will continue to do so, but if the US doesn't address these 6 points it WILL create a systemic crisis because these issues by their very nature do not promote stability as they do not allow for self-correction (everything is based on bribing people to put their interests above that of the local society itself, take away the brides the system collapses as people withdraw their support in favor of local interests, increase the bribes the system collapses because it hollows out the economic vitality that pays for the bribes, maintain the status quo, the system collapses because it does not address the social/economic/political problems created by the status quo)

[Nov 13, 2018] The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The more I think of it, the more similarities I see between the fall of the Soviet Union & Warsaw pact countries and the United States & NATO countries. Time for some truth bombs, Namely... ..."
"... 1. A bloated military industry that is strangling the civilian side of the economy in a struggle for limited resources. The US official spends 720 billion on the military (not counting the NSA & NSA budgets, the operating expenses of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, US nuclear weapon costs are paid out from the department of Energy, the real cost is probably around 1.1 Trillion dollars annually) for that amount of money the US could repave all the highways, replace every bridge, pay for universal health care for all citizens, send every American to university AND still have enough money left over to replace every Hospital in the US), but the civilian economy will get none of that money and will instead make due with the rusting relics from Johnson's Great Society Programs he started in the mid-60s (which is now 60yrs old) ..."
"... Strictly regulated economic relationships between the central power and their "vassal" states, which bleeds off the wealth out of the central power's country in the form of bribes to the vassal states' elites to ensure their loyalty. ..."
"... A decaying political elite that draws it's legitimacy from its' victory in a prior great conflict 30-40 years (the Great Patriotic War for the Soviet Union, The Cold War for the US). ..."
"... Declining life expectancy: average life expectancy has declined for most Americans for 3yrs in a row ..."
"... Increasing drug and Alcohol abuse ..."
"... Lastly and most importantly, a corrupt and dishonest media. ..."
"... If the newsmedia deliberately misinforms the electorate it logically flows that the electorate will not create the best polices and political culture will deteriorate into a meaningless Blue Team vs Red Team dichotomy as opposed to a reasoned debate on the best of political, economic, foreign or social policies. ..."
"... The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's. This is NOT to say I am hoping it will continue to do so, but if the US doesn't address these 6 points it WILL create a systemic crisis because these issues by their very nature do not promote stability as they do not allow for self-correction ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kadath , Nov 12, 2018 9:55:43 PM | link

The more I think of it, the more similarities I see between the fall of the Soviet Union & Warsaw pact countries and the United States & NATO countries. Time for some truth bombs, Namely...

1. A bloated military industry that is strangling the civilian side of the economy in a struggle for limited resources. The US official spends 720 billion on the military (not counting the NSA & NSA budgets, the operating expenses of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, US nuclear weapon costs are paid out from the department of Energy, the real cost is probably around 1.1 Trillion dollars annually) for that amount of money the US could repave all the highways, replace every bridge, pay for universal health care for all citizens, send every American to university AND still have enough money left over to replace every Hospital in the US), but the civilian economy will get none of that money and will instead make due with the rusting relics from Johnson's Great Society Programs he started in the mid-60s (which is now 60yrs old)

2. Strictly regulated economic relationships between the central power and their "vassal" states, which bleeds off the wealth out of the central power's country in the form of bribes to the vassal states' elites to ensure their loyalty. This weakens the Central power's civilian economy, where generating chaos in the Vassal states as the elites place their economic interests above the interests of the state (also making the elites alienated from the non-elite citizenry who suffer most from these policies). Ukraine's Robber Barons have profited mightily from their relationship with the US, but Ukraine as a state is in civil war and near collapse, kept alive only by "Bribes" from the US/IMF/EU, how is this in the interests of the Ukrainian people

3. A decaying political elite that draws it's legitimacy from its' victory in a prior great conflict 30-40 years (the Great Patriotic War for the Soviet Union, The Cold War for the US). Note that just like the Soviet union of the 80s most of the Democratic & Republican leadership is in its' 70-80s and none of them seem interested in retirement (Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Diane Feinstein), the average senator is now 61 years old, an age when most plebeians are planning on leaving the workforce. How many great (or at least competent) political leaders are being pushed out of the political arena in favor of the geriatric status quo, the US/the West has gone from a democracy to a Gerontocracy(rule by the old). I don't know about you, but I cant wait to see what revolutionary economic policies 85yr old Nancy Pelosi will bring to the floor of the house!

4. Declining life expectancy: average life expectancy has declined for most Americans for 3yrs in a row , despite (or perhaps because of) a half-assed, unaffordable, semi-universal, mandatory health insurance plan. Life expectancy increased within the Soviet Union stagnated in the 1980s then dropped more than 10yrs (to a low of 58.9yrs for men!), before slowly recovering and the growing to 71.5 yrs in 2018.

5. Increasing drug and Alcohol abuse : the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia resulted to a spike in deaths due to suicide, alcohol and drug abuse (alcohol abuse being a historical Russian ill), since the 2000s we've seen a similar spike in deaths due to drug abuse and suicide (firearms), like the Russians of the 90s the Americans seem to be embracing their own historical ills of shooting up (both in drugs and guns) as a means of coping with the economic and social dislocation of the last 18yrs

6. Lastly and most importantly, a corrupt and dishonest media. The Soviet union had 2 major news papers Komsomolskaya Pravda (Truth) & Izvestia (news), a popular saying in the Soviet Union was that "there's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia". The US outdid the Soviet Union by creating 6 Mass media news outlets, but all of them just give the left or right wing interpretation of US policy. My advise is this, NEVER read The New York Times and the Washington Post for news or the truth, only read them to know the Party line. The Corruption of the mass media & news industries is the worst of all similarities because the entire organizing theory of a Democracy is that an informed and educated electorate will create the best (a more perfect) form of governance. If the newsmedia deliberately misinforms the electorate it logically flows that the electorate will not create the best polices and political culture will deteriorate into a meaningless Blue Team vs Red Team dichotomy as opposed to a reasoned debate on the best of political, economic, foreign or social policies.

The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's. This is NOT to say I am hoping it will continue to do so, but if the US doesn't address these 6 points it WILL create a systemic crisis because these issues by their very nature do not promote stability as they do not allow for self-correction (everything is based on bribing people to put their interests above that of the local society itself, take away the brides the system collapses as people withdraw their support in favor of local interests, increase the bribes the system collapses because it hollows out the economic vitality that pays for the bribes, maintain the status quo, the system collapses because it does not address the social/economic/political problems created by the status quo)

[Nov 13, 2018] Imperfect they might be, national goverments are the only mechanism we have for protecting citizens' rights and freedom to pursue a path of development independently of the dictates global monopoly capitalism is trying to impose on the world.

Nov 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Daniel , Nov 13, 2018 12:47:39 AM | link

b sez:

It did not learn a single lesson from its fake reporting that led the Iraq War

Eh? They learned everything from it. They got away with it. Subsequent wars and aggression in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Georgia could not have happened without Iraq paving the way. Self professed liberals and leftists cams out in favour of, or remained indifferent to, all of these assaults on national sovereignty. What is under attack here is the concept of independent and sovereign nation states and national governments. Imperfect they might be, but they are the only mechanism we have for protecting citizens' rights and freedom to pursue a path of development independently of the dictates global monopoly capitalism is trying to impose on the world.

[Nov 13, 2018] The Lessons of World War I Still Haunt Russia Today by Nikolas K. Gvosdev

That's too simplistic, as Russia is now a neoliberal country that experiences consequences of the global crisis of neoliberalism, but still have some interesting thoughts
And in no way whites have won: "whites" were fragmented movement with no clear agenda other then fighting against bolsheviks; while communist are now discredited, it was the crisis of monarchy and mistakes of Russian imperial leadership (and entering the war was a grave mistake) the brought the county to the catastrophe it experienced.
Nov 10, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

The Russian civil war is finally over -- and the Whites have won.

On November 11, the world will acknowledge the 100 th anniversary of the armistice that ended the carnage that was the First World War. That date, however, doesn't resonate in Russia. A far more significant moment on the calendar that just passed -- the anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power -- was similarly marginalized last year when the centennial of the October Revolution was largely ignored by the Russian government and Russian society as a whole. Current Russia sees little to celebrate or reminisce about the events of a century ago. After all, by the time the guns fell silent on the Western front, a Russia gripped in the frenzy of the revolution had already been knocked out of the war, losing more than one-third of the territory of the former Russian Empire in the process. What was left of the country was plunged into a bloody, destructive civil war that would not end for three more years. What followed was a series of famines, purges and the immense human costs wrought by rapid industrialization and the Second World War.

This does not mean that the current Russian political and strategic establishment ignores the lessons of World War I and the Revolution -- but it sees in those events a cautionary tale of what the Russian leadership at the beginning of this century must do to avoid repeating those disasters. The Kremlin today is well aware of the dangers of ignoring how and why Russia so catastrophically failed the last time. In 2018, as in 1918, the leadership remains concerns with the possibility of Russian state collapse brought about either by internal factors or through the machinations of external enemies.

Russia had entered World War I still recovering from the damage done by the Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent "Revolution of 1905" that the economic and military reforms which had begun in 1906 were designed to ameliorate. Nevertheless, Russia's industrial base and infrastructure were insufficient to bear the weight of a sustained global conflict. Prior to his assassination in 1911, Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin repeatedly urged a policy of restraint -- to give Russia the time it needed to implement reforms so that, at some point in the future, "Russia could speak as in the past" -- from a position of strength. A number of key figures -- from the former Prime Minister Sergei Witte to the faith healer Rasputin, confidant of the imperial family -- urged Emperor Nicholas II not to go to war and that the conflict would bring disaster down upon Russia. Their fears were validated. Ironically, Nicholas himself had acknowledged, in 1911, that Russia was unprepared for war and needed a sustained period of peace in order to get its affairs in order -- but felt he had no choice but to meet the challenge posed by the Central Powers to Russia's Balkan ally Serbia.

History has vindicated the Witte/Rasputin position that war would strain the Russian state to its breaking point. It is those lessons which today guide the strategic rationale of the Kremlin.

First is the need, as Nicholas himself had raised in a conversation with officials, that "everything that might lead to war must be avoided" in order, as was the case a century ago, to give time for the completion of military reforms and the construction of new infrastructure. For the Kremlin today, an additional challenge is managing the inevitable succession crisis that will come when Vladimir Putin retires or becomes incapacitated.

Alex Kuznetsoff • 14 hours ago ,

It seems that Mr. Gvozdev still believes in "the end of the history." I have to disappoint him: the history is not over, the victory of the "whites" is not final.

VadimKharichkov • 18 hours ago ,

I will briefly present non-antiCommunist view on the events of WW1, Revolutions of 1917 and Civil War in Russia.

1. Russia's economic problems and relative unpreparedness for the war were not due to Russo-Japanese War, 1905 Revolution, or Bolshevik subversion. The problem was in slow rate of transition from feudalism to capitalism which became obvious even during Crimean War of 1853-56.
2. The rapid industrialization after 1905 was absolutely inadequate and proved to be so in 1914.
3. By contrast, Communist economy have done a much better job at preparing for WW2. Even when moved to Urals and Siberia, Soviet industry was able to outproduce and outmanufacture Third Reich by large margin. And, yes, the bulk of Lend Lease had only come after Stalingrad and hardly accounted for more than 4-7% of all produce for military effort.
4. What Whites have won? The monarchists, the anarchists, the Russian nationalists, the supporters of 1917 February Revolution? There was no ideological unity among them, so who presently can claim victory for them? We have simple and pure reactionary Capitalism that had won in Russia, without the roots in Tsarist Russia.

Vladdy VadimKharichkov • 15 hours ago ,

4. Reds and their allies (esers, menshevicks, etc.) were the same dispersed as Whites. Until in 30's Stalin aligned and cleaned (yes, repressed) Red flung.

VadimKharichkov Vladdy • 13 hours ago ,

No. There was definite unity of command and ideology among the Reds in comparison to the Whites. Esers were running some governments, such as in Ufa when under Revolt of the Czechoslovak Legion, or in Yekaterinburg, where Czar's family was killed, but they were insignificant and never conducted large scale military ops.

Ginger Mari Monin Georgy Platoshin • a day ago ,

Disagree, Russia needs only a few changes and its contribution to a New Brave World of Globalization will grow and glow. Putin is in position to make that happen as well just like Henry Kissinger has commented on if President Trump and others in World reach out together along with President Obama wanted to do as well.
1. American Constitution With Citizen Due Process Rights (It has It But Needs Citizen Enforcement)
2. Three Branches Separation of Powers
3. Checks And Balances Among The 3 Branches
4. Independent Judiciary
5. Multiple Or Political Two Party System
6. Military Under Civilian Command
7. Russo-American-China-India Economic Sister Cities

Russia needs help to develop and share its Natural Resources since covering an expanse of over 17,098,242 area million square miles, making Russia the Earth's largest country by landmass. Even Runner-Up Canada area square miles of 9,984,670, followed by America's 9,826,675 and China's 9,596,960. Russia contributions, education, and science is exceptional and the world cannot ignore Russia and needs it to develop a better planet for the future. Russian Arts, Literature, Sports, Music and Culture are world renown as well. Often thought of Russian Culture having a mixture of Sparta and Athens and the Russian Cossack's of free men adventurers much like the American Cowboys.

Just as America had to evolve Russia went through two changeable events in its History. When known as "The Time of Troubles" was a period of Russian History comprising the years of "Interregnum" a period when normal government is suspended, especially between successive reigns or regimes between the death of the last Russian Tsar of the Rurik Dynasty in 1598, and the establishment of the Romanov Dynasty in 1613. As well as, the break up of the USSR from 1989 to 1991, largely due to the great number of radical reforms that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev had implemented during his six years as the leader of the USSR and were slow to bear fruit and did more to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union than to help it. Along with the Soviet Union's oil and gas revenue dropped dramatically, the USSR began to lose its hold on Eastern Europe. The Russian Communists System was totally dependent on Oil and Gas revenues back then, but can now thrive even further under Globalization. The same thing that is happening to Iran now and Persia will be better off after the Ayatollahs are long gone from ruling them as well.

Antonio Banderass Airbrush2020 • 17 hours ago ,

"After the fall of the USSR, Vladmir Putin has tried to return Russia to some previous state of glory (i.e. hostile to the West). Apparently, the Russian view of a great Russia is being anti-western, aggressive, and corrupt." - obviously, the bullshit, you are writing here, just a verbatim copy, intrusively distributed by the Anglo-Saxon media. It's not your thoughts, THEY put'em in your head and now you think they're yours. I do not idealize Russia or Putin, our state have bad experience last 70 years and have got very toxic legacy of 90th with mass corruption, mafia murders and chechen terrorists, against the logic we are still alive, and we are doing our best to improve our society and our life. Come in to Russia, dear Airbrush, you won't hear the bullshit about "state of glory", "restoring the imperia", "pan-Slavic world" and thousands others media cliches. Just come to Russia and make your own view, then, we will able to discuss like an equal. Before this - our discuss is nonsense.

dorotea Airbrush2020 • 2 days ago ,

Yay,'tried to help' buy means of sending occupying force to Odessa and Murmansk. Thanks but no thanks. And as much as you vilify USSR for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, don't forget that treaty of Munich was signed first. History was never black and white. Same as Russia's pro- and -anti West division was never clearly drawn with bolsheviks - the 'reds'- on one side and the 'whites' on the other. Russia is way too complex to try and define her in simplistic terms. First and foremost Russia always was and is now self-sufficient, and has her own national interest. Every policy is always negotiable given the right insentive.

toucheamigos Airbrush2020 • 2 days ago ,

It is the West that is hostile to Russia. Maybe you should meddle less in Russia's politics. Then Russia may become less anti-Western.

Vladdy Airbrush2020 • 2 days ago ,

God, save us from US "aid"! In 1990's we got US "aid", the contry was broken to catastrophic poverty, hunger and degradation, overflown by crime, corruption and destruction. Then we stopped the "aid" and now we are successful country.
Look at current Ukraine! Now they eat US "aid" with full spoon. The result is the same - destruction, corruption, poverty, decay.
In 1918 you mean US's intervention to Russian North, saying about the "aid"? Then Hitler (the West) also tried to "aid" us?
P.S. Russian view of Great Russia is not being "anti-West". Our view of Great Russia is being self-sufficient, not West's colony, as you dream.
P.P.S. Hitler is West, don't hang your crimes on us! Churchill aligned with Hitler as well as all Europe. USSR and Stalin saved Europe from Hitler. It's our flag was raised above Reichstag in 1945, not yours!
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...

[Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war machine

Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.

Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.

I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep saying it.

Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:

1. The NFL's ten wealthiest team owners are worth a combined $61 billion .

2. The NFL has taken millions of dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).

3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.

Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?

Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.

They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.

Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.

The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil, stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.

Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.

This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling that machine.

* * *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

[Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

Highly recommended!
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
Nov 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Sharyl Attkisson,

Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.

The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept secret until now.

In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during "routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."

The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.

"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but

"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014

The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement.

According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."

Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

History of alleged surveillance abuses

Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be saved or reported up to CIA management.

"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported to agency leadership under an insider threat program."

However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:

"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."

Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency (NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.

"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."

Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.

Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S. citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.

Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of President Trump.

* * *

Order the New York Times bestseller "The Smear" today online or borrow from your library

Keter , 5 hours ago link

"ah, ah, ah, em, not intentionally." Clapper - ROFL

numapepi , 9 hours ago link

Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!

All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against our Constitution would be in full swing!

Chaotix , 9 hours ago link

When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter. Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.

numapepi , 9 hours ago link

Almost sounds like the Praetorian guard?

The real power behind the throne.

Rhys12 , 10 hours ago link

Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.

iAmerican10 , 11 hours ago link

From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy" closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."

Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"

Smi1ey , 11 hours ago link

We need to bring back FOIA.

Too much secrecy.

And how is that Pentagon audit doing, btw?

Chaotix , 9 hours ago link

I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing incriminating evidence.

archie bird , 12 hours ago link

Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when (((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.

Dornier27 , 15 hours ago link

The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.

America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.

greasyknees , 16 hours ago link

Not news. The CIA likely has had access to any and all electronic communication for at least a decade.

Lord JT , 19 hours ago link

what? clapper and brennan being dirty hacks behind the scenes while parading around as patriots? say it aint so!

Racin Rabitt , 20 hours ago link

A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.

Westcoastliberal , 21 hours ago link

What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!

5onIt , 22 hours ago link

Clapper and Brennan, Brennan and Clapper. These two guys are the damn devil.

It makes me ill.

MuffDiver69 , 22 hours ago link

I'll take " Police State" for five hundred Alex

[Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Wnt1 • a month ago

This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress.

That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 ( http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort of thing that undermines their position with me!)

Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.

But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.

Greg • 8 months ago
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."

There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.

"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women

The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.

Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.

Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."

In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]

Ambricourt -> Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
Bob Marley • 8 months ago
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism
michaelroloff • 8 months ago
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to!
Terry Lawrence -> michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned.
michaelroloff -> Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
don't tell me that you think that the blow-back that was 9/11 is a conspiracy - if you do, be so kind as to mention specific conspirators!
Terry Lawrence -> michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, are a few obvious ones, . . . and that famous CIA asset, Bin Laden, to recruit the expendable hijackers.
michaelroloff -> Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no time at all and executed..
Terry Lawrence michaelroloff • 8 months ago
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11 events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying the response, among other things.

Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes, coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?

It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then "disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.

For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).

A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)

The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash). "

Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.

All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then "disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".

liz_imp Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
Brilliant points!! :)
Carolyn Zaremba Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded!
Terry Lawrence michaelroloff • 8 months ago
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."

By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!

Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.

Carolyn Zaremba michaelroloff • 8 months ago
See my comment above. It is the "official" explanation that is a fantasy.
michaelroloff Carolyn Zaremba • 8 months ago
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
clubmarkgirard michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory" of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Alan MacDonald michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire"
Kalen • 8 months ago
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned.

There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they would have been much weaker to counter.

Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality is maintained.

What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.

As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.

She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.

Alan MacDonald Kalen • 8 months ago
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans --- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against EMPIRE.

As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"

Carolyn Zaremba Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
Do you really believe that average Americans are that stupid? Shame on you!
Alan MacDonald Carolyn Zaremba • 8 months ago
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America, is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised', 'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!

Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects' of this monsterous EMPIRE."

Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.

HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!

liz_imp Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
Personal attacks are not allowed on this site.
Alan MacDonald liz_imp • 8 months ago
Sorry, Liz-imp, are you a friend of "Sweet Carolyn" --- or some other relation? Perhaps working together?
dmorista • 8 months ago
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel. Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.

It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering and heavy handed.

The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http: www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.

The strategy is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.

Maxwell dmorista • 8 months ago
Superb post.

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?

[Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war machine

Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.

Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.

I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep saying it.

Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:

1. The NFL's ten wealthiest team owners are worth a combined $61 billion .

2. The NFL has taken millions of dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).

3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.

Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?

Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.

They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.

Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.

The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil, stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.

Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.

This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling that machine.

* * *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

[Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

Highly recommended!
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
Nov 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Sharyl Attkisson,

Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.

The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept secret until now.

In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during "routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."

The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.

"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but

"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014

The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement.

According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."

Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

History of alleged surveillance abuses

Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be saved or reported up to CIA management.

"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported to agency leadership under an insider threat program."

However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:

"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."

Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency (NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.

"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."

Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.

Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S. citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.

Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of President Trump.

* * *

Order the New York Times bestseller "The Smear" today online or borrow from your library

Keter , 5 hours ago link

"ah, ah, ah, em, not intentionally." Clapper - ROFL

numapepi , 9 hours ago link

Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!

All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against our Constitution would be in full swing!

Chaotix , 9 hours ago link

When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter. Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.

numapepi , 9 hours ago link

Almost sounds like the Praetorian guard?

The real power behind the throne.

Rhys12 , 10 hours ago link

Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.

iAmerican10 , 11 hours ago link

From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy" closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."

Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"

Smi1ey , 11 hours ago link

We need to bring back FOIA.

Too much secrecy.

And how is that Pentagon audit doing, btw?

Chaotix , 9 hours ago link

I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing incriminating evidence.

archie bird , 12 hours ago link

Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when (((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.

Dornier27 , 15 hours ago link

The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.

America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.

greasyknees , 16 hours ago link

Not news. The CIA likely has had access to any and all electronic communication for at least a decade.

Lord JT , 19 hours ago link

what? clapper and brennan being dirty hacks behind the scenes while parading around as patriots? say it aint so!

Racin Rabitt , 20 hours ago link

A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.

Westcoastliberal , 21 hours ago link

What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!

5onIt , 22 hours ago link

Clapper and Brennan, Brennan and Clapper. These two guys are the damn devil.

It makes me ill.

MuffDiver69 , 22 hours ago link

I'll take " Police State" for five hundred Alex

[Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Wnt1 • a month ago

This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress.

That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 ( http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort of thing that undermines their position with me!)

Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.

But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.

Greg • 8 months ago
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."

There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.

"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women

The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.

Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.

Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."

In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]

Ambricourt -> Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
Bob Marley • 8 months ago
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism
michaelroloff • 8 months ago
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to!
Terry Lawrence -> michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned.
michaelroloff -> Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
don't tell me that you think that the blow-back that was 9/11 is a conspiracy - if you do, be so kind as to mention specific conspirators!
Terry Lawrence -> michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, are a few obvious ones, . . . and that famous CIA asset, Bin Laden, to recruit the expendable hijackers.
michaelroloff -> Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no time at all and executed..
Terry Lawrence michaelroloff • 8 months ago
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11 events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying the response, among other things.

Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes, coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?

It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then "disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.

For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).

A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)

The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash). "

Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.

All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then "disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".

liz_imp Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
Brilliant points!! :)
Carolyn Zaremba Terry Lawrence • 8 months ago
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded!
Terry Lawrence michaelroloff • 8 months ago
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."

By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!

Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.

Carolyn Zaremba michaelroloff • 8 months ago
See my comment above. It is the "official" explanation that is a fantasy.
michaelroloff Carolyn Zaremba • 8 months ago
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
clubmarkgirard michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory" of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Alan MacDonald michaelroloff • 8 months ago
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire"
Kalen • 8 months ago
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned.

There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they would have been much weaker to counter.

Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality is maintained.

What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.

As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.

She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.

Alan MacDonald Kalen • 8 months ago
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans --- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against EMPIRE.

As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"

Carolyn Zaremba Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
Do you really believe that average Americans are that stupid? Shame on you!
Alan MacDonald Carolyn Zaremba • 8 months ago
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America, is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised', 'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!

Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects' of this monsterous EMPIRE."

Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.

HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!

liz_imp Alan MacDonald • 8 months ago
Personal attacks are not allowed on this site.
Alan MacDonald liz_imp • 8 months ago
Sorry, Liz-imp, are you a friend of "Sweet Carolyn" --- or some other relation? Perhaps working together?
dmorista • 8 months ago
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel. Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.

It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering and heavy handed.

The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http: www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.

The strategy is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.

Maxwell dmorista • 8 months ago
Superb post.

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?

[Nov 12, 2018] Bolton's Favorite Deranged Cult

Notable quotes:
"... You can always tell just how deep our understanding is of a country by the opposition we choose to support. ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Sid Finster November 9, 2018 at 10:07 am

Sort of like how Bolton and his merry band of neocons seized upon Ahmad Chalabi and his merry men as some sort of Authentic Voice of Resistance to teh Evil Saddam. Does anyone else remember that?

Bolton et al. know better. As long as this gets them the regime change that they and their owners in Jerusalem and Riyadh demand, they do not care.

rayray , says: November 9, 2018 at 11:07 am
You can always tell just how deep our understanding is of a country by the opposition we choose to support.

As @Sid Finster pointed out, the fraudulent Chalabi was a good bellwether of our true understanding of Iraq, and the MEK shows just how equally deep we understand Iran.

SDS , says: November 9, 2018 at 11:13 am
Can't say if Bolton is just a nut; but Giuliani, et. al are probably just being paid; like any other prostitute. IF the $$ stop; they will then say "who knew?" .
AS with Trump; S.A. would have no problem paying enough for them to perform any act demanded.
b. , says: November 9, 2018 at 12:14 pm
So Obama sees a "Responsibility to Protect" MEK war criminals and the business interests of Dean, Bolton, Guiliani et.al, but is perfectly happy to let the Saudis "cross the blood red line" for years to save himself some headaches on JCOPA – an "agreement" that was not worth the paper it was written on without Congress actually binding itself by ratification.

But his minions did consider designating the Houthi "terrorists".

The intended Clinton-Obama "transition" had all the marks of a protection racket, all governance transient and passing and resting on the edifice of unconstitutionally expansive claims of executive power.

Clyde Schechter , says: November 9, 2018 at 5:23 pm
" Whatever else it may claim to be, the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) is still a deranged totalitarian cult steeped in the blood of many innocent people. "

So true. So, why, Mr. Larison, are you perplexed by the fact that deranged totalitarians like Bolton support MEK?

Sid Finster , says: November 9, 2018 at 5:38 pm
@rayray, thank you for the kind words, but my position is more accurately stated as follows:

I suspect that in 2003, Bolton knew and knew full well that Chalabi was an opportunist at best. A fraudster, a monster, a sociopath, delusional, to put it more bluntly. That his support in Iraq was nil, and that Chalabi would be rejected immediately and rightfully, as an American puppet. Bolton may even have known that Chalabi was in the pay of Iran.

Like the MEK now, as long Bolton gets the war he so craves, he doesn't care about any of that.

[Nov 12, 2018] When dual citizenship becomes conflict of interest by L. Michael Hager

Notable quotes:
"... Afroyim v. Rusk ..."
"... Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to disclose their citizenship in another country? ..."
"... Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country. ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | thehill.com

The Biblical injunction that "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24) doesn't apply to nations. Almost half of the world's countries, including the U.S., recognize dual citizenship-- even when they don't encourage it for the complicated legal issues it often raises.

For example, one who obeys a requirement to give allegiance to a country or votes in a foreign election may be regarded as having renounced citizenship in the other country. What happens when the legal claims of one country conflict with those of the second country? Which of the two countries has an obligation to assist a dual national in distress?

Until the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk , a U.S. citizen who voted in a political election in a foreign state would forfeit his or her U.S. citizenship. From that point on, dual citizens have maintained their right to vote and hold public office without penalty.

Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they required to disclose such dual citizenship.

So what's the problem?

For most dual citizens, having the benefits of citizenship in two countries (including expedited immigration) outweigh the costs (which may include tax obligations to both countries).

Yet dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for policy-level members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national loyalties of dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such legislators, judges or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their second country.

The potential damage to our democracy is the greater when such potential conflicts of interest are concealed in undisclosed dual citizenship.

Current entries on the Internet contain a number of undocumented assertions as to which members of Congress and senior officers are dual citizens. Without reliable data, however, Americans can only speculate on which senators and representatives may have divided national loyalties.

The lack of transparency regarding citizenship erodes trust in government, raising credibility doubts where there should be none, and allowing some apparent conflicts of interest to continue undetected.

When a senator, representative or senior U.S. official speaks out, submits bills or determines policy on an issue of importance to a foreign country of which that member or official (or judge) has the tie of citizenship, their constituents and the U.S. public at large should at least be able to assess whether such views or actions are influenced by the divided loyalty.

Since they don't involve national loyalty, religion and ethnicity seldom raise conflict issues. Moreover, they are generally matters of public record.

By contrast, dual citizenship creates conflict of interest through divided loyalties. Thus it would seem reasonable to require that dual citizen members of Congress, the judiciary and the executive be required to renounce citizenship in another country as a condition of public service.

Both Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.) recently received wide press coverage when they renounced their Canadian and Swiss nationalities, respectively.

Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to disclose their citizenship in another country?

Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country.

[Nov 12, 2018] The backstory behind Diane Rehm's question to Bernie Sanders on dual Israeli citizenship

Notable quotes:
"... If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S. nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to give up their U.S. citizenship. ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | www.politifact.com

Applying for citizenship under the Law of Return "is a formal procedure which you could expect normally to take a number of months except under emergency conditions," said Yoram Hazony, president of the the Herzl Institute, a Jerusalem think tank. "There is no such thing as receiving Israeli citizenship without submitting a formal request to the Israeli government."

... ... ...

It's also worth noting that the U.S. government doesn't look especially kindly on dual citizenship. The United States "recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause," according to the Department of State.

If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S. nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to give up their U.S. citizenship.

... ... ...

Sanders' case

So has Sanders ever taken action to claim the Israeli citizenship the would qualify for? He told Rehm no, and we have no evidence that would call that into question. While Sanders is Jewish by birth and spent some time on an Israeli kibbutz, or community farm, in the early 1960s, he would not have become a citizen without a concerted effort to become one.

We did not hear back from Sanders' office, but a spokesman, Michael Briggs, told Politico that "Diane Rehm is an excellent radio host. There's a great big Internet out there with lots of good and bad information. I've never heard the question come up before."

Hazony, an Israeli who studied at Princeton and Rutgers and who has written widely about both American and Israeli politics, said he's not aware of any American lawmakers with Israeli citizenship. "In fact, it is common for Jews who are dual U.S.-Israel citizens to renounce one or the other before serving in official government capacities," he said.

[Nov 12, 2018] The problem of dial citizenship is the US is not limited to Isreal

Nov 12, 2018 | www.latimes.com

In 1967, the court ruled that the State Department had violated the Constitution when it refused to issue a new U.S. passport to a U.S. citizen who had voted in an election in Israel. The decision overturned a law saying that "a person, who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voting in a political election in a foreign state."

...there is no authoritative tally of how many U.S. citizens possess another nationality. Michael A. Olivas, an immigration professor at the University of Houston Law Center, believes that the number is well over 1 million and could be several times that number.

... ... ...

But the concept of dual citizenship is problematic both symbolically and practically, and could become divisive if more immigrants decide to avail themselves of the privileges of U.S. citizens -- as we believe they ought to do. U.S citizens with strong ties to their ancestral countries have been accused of divided loyalties in the past even when they didn't possess citizenship in those countries -- witness the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. But when a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country, the accusation is even easier to make.

... ... ...

But it's also true that dual citizenship undermines the common bond that unites U.S. citizens regardless of their ethnicity, religion or place of birth. Dual citizenship places a sort of asterisk next to the names of some U.S. citizens but not others.

... ... ...

Nations vary in their attitudes toward dual citizenship. Some reject the concept outright; others allow their citizens to take out a second citizenship only in selected countries and some have drawn a distinction between citizenship and nationality.

Yet there's no question that dual citizenship poses practical problems both for those who possess it and for the government. The U.S. State Department discourages U.S. citizens from retaining or applying for citizenship in another country because "dual nationality may limit U.S. government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance." The department also warns that "dual citizenship can present a security issue whether to permit access to classified information which affects recruitment, employment and assignments." In some cases, dual citizenship could disqualify an applicant for a sensitive position with the CIA or the State Department.

The complexities and complications raised by dual citizenship are not enough to justify amending the Constitution to overrule the Supreme Court. But we agree with the State Department that U.S. citizens should think twice about professing allegiance to another country. Moreover, by reinforcing the doubts that some hold about the loyalty of immigrants -- some U.S. citizens, for instance, fume when Mexican Americans display the Mexican flag at Cinco de Mayo rallies -- the persistence of dual citizenship may make it politically more difficult to secure a path to citizenship for immigrants who came here illegally.

[Nov 12, 2018] War has become USA's 2nd nature above beyond the very essence of the military use, which should be to protect the nation's sovereignty

Nov 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

All Risk No Reward , 52 seconds ago link

>>Johnstone: The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them<<

Preach!

The military defends Money Power Monopolist Mega-Corporate Fascist Global Empire, not America, and definitely NOT the Constitution. The New Deal effectively wiped out the Constitution, which was the "Old Deal."

Syria and Iran aren't threats, they are countries that don't have debt-based money systems controlled by the Money Power Monopolists.

"In a sense, there is no "future". Currently, you note a consolidation of the few remaining countries without a "central bank" ...and how rapidly this is occurring. Look for Syria next to fall, and fall quickly. North Korea has already cut a deal under the aegis of China...feit accompli. Cuba has also agreed to the North American integration once Fidel "passes". That leaves IRAN. And biblical prophesy. The fallout from that conflict sets the stage for the true new world order as has been broadcast in the media for the last 13 years or so." ~Unnamed Rothschild

The establishment of central banks is ALWAYS a necessary first step of subjugation of geographically congregated bloodlines. Note that Libya's first official act, before even the corpses turned stiff...was the establishment of a central bank. Those rebel forces were certainly well schooled by someone! ~Unnamed Rothschild

Amazing how Libyan rebels took time out of their daily war duties to establish a CENTRAL BANK! Imagine the paperwork in getting that done on the battlefield! Those rebels are a well educated lot! Laughing out Loud! Seriously, don't the serfs notice things like this? ~Unnamed Rothschild

The financier of the military makes it clear they are attacking Western countries - monetarily and economically.

"Remember, the equity and bond markets exist only to remove fiat from circulation!" ~Unnamed Rothschild

https://ia802300.us.archive.org/8/items/rofschildv1/IAmARofschildAxeMeAQuestion.html

BitchesBetterRecognize , 14 minutes ago link

Difficult to argue the points made in the article, despite the author's background...

War has become USA's 2nd nature above & beyond the very essence of the military use, which should be to protect the nation's sovereignty

Golden Showers , 21 minutes ago link

Our soldiers joined, were trained, given orders. The best way to honor veterans is to quit putting it on them. This is the government we have because it is the government we want. It's the government we allow. This is on all of us . I think it's time for people who are dissatisfied with the treatment of veterans, with the voter fraud, with the lies and theft of elected officials, local, state, and federal, tired of the media lying to us and creating fake events... perhaps it's time to peacefully strike. Perhaps it's time to say No to vote fraud, to say No to lies and deceit.

Perhaps it's time to peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances. That's a Constitutional Right guaranteed to Citizens of the United States. That requires an active, constructive peaceful assembly. Everyone has had it up to the eyes with this ******** and this con-game we're being fed.

I'd rather get stomped to death than live on with this never ending slow coup against We The People. We hold the power. Just us. We designate that power. It should be here to protect us. That social contract deserves respect. You may be watching the only chance in your life that you could do anything about it, given the current President and his attitude. I really think that. It's not enough to watch the Proud Boys punch an Antifa in the jaw. That doesn't do it for me. That's theatre.

My girlfriends father is old army security. I'm paying the bill at Dennys and he says, let me put my military discount on that. So he's behind a guy in an Operation Iraqi Freedom jacket. He says, hey; I like your jacket. The guy looks at him and he says, nice hat. Army Security Agency. The military deserves more than a discount at ******* Denny's. They deserve a country. So do I. So do you. But there's not going to be any country if we don't peacefully come together to hang every last traitor scumbag lying trasonous seditious bastard by just saying NO! Arrest these traitors! I don't want my vote raped. I don't want my speach raped. Or yours! I don't give a **** about illegals or their kids because I take care of my kids legally and lawfully and didn't put them in that **** expecting a parent of the century award.

I don't ******* care what you call yourself. But if it's more important than your right to call yourself whatever you want, you are my enemy and I tell you no.

If it's legal to vote and legal to be off work to vote, to peacefully assemble, it should be legal to redress government. It's time to show out. It's time to say we want this ******** to stop. We have paid very well for the lifestyles and presidential libraries and foundations and kept all the traitors in good health. But we reserve the right to cut you off if you abuse our sacrifice to you and our votes to you. We reserve the right without prejudice to say NO. That's our right. And until we say NO! our silence equals consent.

I say NO. I say **** THE SEDITIOUS TRAITORS trying to hold on to rape us of all our Rights. And I say long live Trump for giving our country back to us at inauguration. That's what's up. Let's peacefully **** these people up. USE IT OR LOSE IT.

Hubbs , 22 minutes ago link

A quiet tribute to the Vets from Dire Straits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5JkHBC5lDs

And from a movie that says the futility of it all: "We fight because we are here." Imagine dying in the trenches of WWI or in a shithole like the trenches of Korea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nPdVJQaci0&t=186s&list=LLMCbuscsdXrwVsvALbKO5pw&index=19

@3:16

The least we could do is to learn what really happened and why. I realize I was taught an endless string of lies about history, especially US History, WWI, WWII, Vietnam war.

Be very careful and informed before joining the military.

Mike Rotsch , 42 minutes ago link

Libtards don't really know much about anything, so it seems. Here's the deal:

As long as there are assholes in the world, there will be wars.

I don't have a problem with that. It's the world that I live in. It's been the case throughout all of human history. A world without wars is pure ******* fantasy. It will never happen. It's high time that libtards start accepting the world that they live in.

The problem that we're having , is that we're shooting the wrong assholes instead of the right ones. But you know what? All of human history shows that problems like that are always remedied as well. And if you're doing some soul-searching, trying to figure out who the assholes are, they're probably going to be any group of people, who can't leave other groups of people the hell alone .

Not surprisingly, the 20th century seems to be characterized by assholes fighting each other.

Buddha 71 , 43 minutes ago link

Our psychopathic dna as a nation comes mainly from england, one of the most, if not the most murdering countries in history. england cruelly colonized Asia and Africa, and literally never stopped murdering the innocents. Now as our ALLY, among the other killing nations, such as France and Germany, we the USA can kill literally any country or countries for any reason or no reason.

we as the american people will be blamed for all the monstrous destruction and innocents deaths. separation of our country and our politicians would be necessary if we are to have a future. looking dim. why are we still dirty, and killing innocents, why are we allowing saudi and israel to mass murder innocent women and children ?

no one cares enough yet. you would think by 2018 we all would have banned war and conflict, we have not. this makes me sick. I am a vet.

vic and blood , 43 minutes ago link

"since the end of the second world war..."

No matter how they were presented at the time, ultimately, neither world war served the cause of freedom, either.

vic and blood , 51 minutes ago link

No more wars for Zionists.

punchasocialist , 56 minutes ago link

Happy 99th ARMISTICE DAY everyone!

kudocast , 1 hour ago link

http://www.untoldhistory.com

LeadPipeDreams , 1 hour ago link

Hmmm...what about Israhell and the ZioNazi tribe of the Talmud? Don't they deserve a mention?

hangemhigh77 , 1 hour ago link

I'm actually thinking of not watching football anymore the war propaganda is constant. I went to a game and it was like walking into an armed camp. Hundreds of cops and military. Every five minutes they're marching around and everyone has to "honor" them. It's disgusting. All the players are told to kiss every soldiers ***. The Army are the terrorists. They all make me want to puke.

khnum , 1 hour ago link

In Australia at the moment the suicide rate is a shocker among those coming back from Afghanistan, Iraq and places unknown, the solution they are proposing is for priority airport treatment and more medals and other stuff along the model the US has, which is an insult as it does nothing to financially support or mentally cure, its a cop out.

warpigs , 50 minutes ago link

Yes, it is ******** Khnum.

Very few wars are even about righting some amazing wrong. They merely tend to be about treasure i.e. nat gas, oil, rare earth materials, diamonds, water, blah blah blah. And, if there happens to be some fight, ala WWII, then you can bet your *** on it that all corporate assholes are funding and benefiting from the war....on both sides of the coin i.e. backing each side until a peace is called.

I don't have an answer to the human condition or our propensity to be violent and fight etc., but I sure as **** am not cool with sacking places, and killing kids, over ******* things. We're better than this.

I have 2 kids myself. You can all be on notice that if a bomb were to be dropped on my house, and if my kids were killed, I would likely devolve and start picking off the low hanging fruit i.e. the zombies shuffling in and out of said bomb makers companies, and wasting them 1 person as a time. I'd slowly, if still able, work my way up to the execs. Hopefully, and along the way, I'd be able to wipe shareholders off of the grid, also.

Overfed , 5 minutes ago link

When you go off to fight for "freedom", and arrive home to find that you have little to no real freedom and essentially live in a police state, it's a shocking blow.

halcyon , 2 minutes ago link

You get what you sign up for. It's not like the soldiers didn't know.

kudocast , 56 minutes ago link

Yeh I go to games, it is completely disgusting how the NFL promotes the military at the games.

https://www.facebook.com/DenverBroncosCheerleaders/photos/pb.85485353285.-2207520000.1542000250./10156691022423286/?type=3&theater

They look like a bunch of Nazis.

hangemhigh77 , 1 hour ago link

This sounds like something I would write. And even the damn CHURCHES honor the veteran "serving" his country. What a crock of ****. I tell the pastor that he will be judged harshly when his time comes. And I tell Christians that because they support the rampant murder of millions that when they die and are standing before Jesus for judgement they will be soaked in the blood of the innocent and he will ask you why did you support this? Why did you not speak out against it? Then I look at them and say "good luck because you're gonna need it".

LightBulb18 , 1 hour ago link

The world is not ruled by pure evil yet. In Brazil A nationalist was elected, in Italy and much of eastern Europe other nationalists were elected. You think the Chinese protected the Italian and Brazilian right to free and fair elections? You think Russia is the arsenal of freedom? You think the EU upheld the votes of the people, allowing Britain to vote on leaving the EU and Italy and eastern Europe? You think the unelected rulers of the EU respected other peoples right to vote? Look out onto the world, and recognize that as of today, the nations of the world have A group to join if they chose to fight for liberty, capitalism and all the other virtues, and that group is grounded and guaranteed by the United States of America. In G-d I trust.

stonedogz , 1 hour ago link

Hopeful thinking for a hopeless reality. Truth is tyrants never fall by their own swords. It always takes someone else's. The modern problem is a bit more complex when we make the tyrants that we later topple. The toppling is where the bucks are... just ask any of the the last 4 Presidents and their respective Congresses.

minionz1 , 1 hour ago link

I am eagerly waiting the time when they replace Veterans Day with Peace Day.

Oldwood , 1 hour ago link

So war is just an American problem, something we just invented? Do we read much history or is it all PBS specials now. War has ALWAYS been fucked up. Violence has been a major contributor to immigration for all of history. Like it or not, we live in dangerous times. We can ASSUME that if America shrank it's military and ended all interventions that world peace would magically appear....but it won't. We can pray that while we retreat behind of big screen TVs that China will end their territorial expansion and military programs, but they WON'T.

I'm all for reigning in our interventions, but let's not pretend that America is to blame for human evil and aggressive behaviors....just because we are good at it..

There is an endless stream of history illustrating the absolute brutality and evil that had persisted since the beginning of time. We should avoid embracing it but we should avoid thinking we have the power to end it. More arrogance to be used for destructive purposes.

halcyon , 3 minutes ago link

Nah, it is just that USA has made forever war such a profitable and ongoing mega-business. The degenerate banker and royal families of Europe would only fight every generation or two. You fight all the time and try to start new ones, before you finish off with the old ones, and print global toilet paper to pay for it all. Because it is good business. **** laws, lives and human decency.

And then you have Hollywood make ****-for-brain movies about just wars, war comradery and heroic sacrifice and spread that **** all over the world.

So yeah, you got all the reasons for being hated for your war business.

PuttingIsLikeWisdom , 1 hour ago link

"..nerd somewhere in Washington.."?? 'Washington' is beholding to Netanyahu's ilk.

OZZIDOWNUNDER , 1 hour ago link

The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil, stupid, meaningless violence

A bit too close to the Bone for the average American to appreciate. A well thought out & articulated article.

minionz1 , 1 hour ago link

I predict, one day soon, this Zombie Nation will soon awaken. Great Song by Kernkraft 400: Zombie nation - woah oh oh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRbuvKYKI54

Pooper Popper , 1 hour ago link

Well,Well,Well,,,,,,,, Bomb Scare at Fort Lauderdale Airport....... "Suspicious Package Found" Provisional Ballots,,,,,,,,,,,

https://twitter.com/Richard...

Hmmmmmmmmmm?

WWG1
WGA

DarthVaderMentor , 1 hour ago link

The machine is not the problem. It's like a gun. Guns are just mechanical devices and can't kill until people aim them and pull the trigger. It's people that kill by forcing the machine to do their terrible evil bidding.

It's the business and political leaders that build, guide and enable the machine and facilitate the infrastructure and culture to wage war.

Blue Boat , 1 hour ago link

Absolutely! No more freaking WAR. Instead, death to the MIC, globalists and Marxists. Thank you!

Handful of Dust , 1 hour ago link

Democrats love War as we saw with LBJ, Bill Clinton (bombing the hell out of and destroying Yugoslavia), Obama and Hillary Clinton. Democrat McNamara was one of their finest! McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g

PS: I will add, the Deep State and Neocons are not much better.

kudocast , 1 hour ago link

It's both Republicans and Democrats - George Bush I's Desert Storm, Panama; George Bush II invading Iraq, Afghanistan; Reagan invading GRENADA!, Nixon in Vietnam, assassinating Salvador Allende in Chile, bombing Laos and Cambodia; Eisenhower started in Vietnam, installed a dictator in Guatemala in 1954, installed Batista in Cuba, Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam and part of the reason he was assassinated; and on and on and on.

FrankieGoesToHollywood , 1 hour ago link

Thank you veterans for the cheap oil.

[Nov 12, 2018] We Are Heading For Another Tragedy Like World War I by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... officials and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia's murder of Austro-Hungary's Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the world's surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary's South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia's desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion. ..."
"... Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia. The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them. Tragically, Germany was then Europe's leader in social justice. ..."
"... Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany. The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. All sides believed a war would be short and decisive. Crowds of fools chanted 'On to Berlin' or 'On to Paris.' ..."
"... The 1904 Russo-Japanese War offered a sharp foretaste of the 1914 conflict, but Europe's grandees paid scant attention. ..."
"... This demented war in Europe tuned into an even greater historic tragedy in 1917 when US President Woodrow Wilson, driven by a lust for power and prestige, entered the totally stalemated war on the Western Front. One million US troops and starvation caused by a crushing British naval blockade turned the tide of battle and led to Germany's surrender. ..."
"... Vengeful France and Britain imposed intolerable punishment on Germany, forcing it to accept full guilt for the war, an untruth that persists to this day. The result was Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists. If an honorable peace had been concluded in 1917, neither Hitler nor Stalin might have seized power and millions of lives would have been saved. This is the true tragedy of the Great War. ..."
"... Let us recall the words of the wise Benjamin Franklin: `No good war, no bad peace.' ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Eric Margolis via EricMargolis.com,

We are now upon the 100th anniversary of World War I, the war that was supposed to end all wars. While honoring the 16 million who died in this conflict, we should also condemn the memory of the politicians, officials and incompetent generals who created this horrendous blood bath.

I've walked most of the Western Front of the Great War, visited its battlefields and haunted forts, and seen the seas of crosses marking its innumerable cemeteries.

As a former soldier and war correspondent, I've always considered WWI as he stupidest, most tragic and catastrophic of all modern wars.

The continuation of this conflict, World War II, killed more people and brought more destruction on civilians in firebombed cities but, at least for me, World War I holds a special horror and poignancy. This war was not only an endless nightmare for the soldiers in their pestilential trenches, it also violently ended the previous 100 years of glorious European civilization, one of mankind's most noble achievements.

I've explored the killing fields of Verdun many times and feel a visceral connection to this ghastly place where up to 1,000,000 soldiers died. I have even spent the night there, listening to the sirens that wailed without relent, and watching searchlights that pierced the night, looking for the ghosts of the French and German soldiers who died here.

Verdun's soil was so poisoned by explosives and lethal gas that to this day it produces only withered, stunted scrub and sick trees. Beneath the surface lie the shattered remains of men and a deadly harvest of unexploded shells that still kill scores of intruders each year. The spooky Ossuaire Chapel contains the bone fragments of 130,000 men, blown to bits by the millions of high explosive shells that deluged Verdun.

The town of the same name is utterly bleak, melancholy and cursed. Young French and German officers are brought here to see firsthand the horrors of war and the crime of stupid generalship.

Amid all the usual patriotic cant from politicians, imperialists and churchmen about the glories of this slaughter, remember that World War I was a contrived conflict that was totally avoidable. Contrary to the war propaganda that still clouds and corrupts our historical view, World War I was not started by Imperial Germany.

Professor Christopher Clark in his brilliant book, `The Sleepwalkers' shows how officials and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia's murder of Austro-Hungary's Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the world's surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary's South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia's desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion.

Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia. The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them. Tragically, Germany was then Europe's leader in social justice.

Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany. The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. All sides believed a war would be short and decisive. Crowds of fools chanted 'On to Berlin' or 'On to Paris.'

Few at the time understood the impending horrors of modern war or the geopolitical demons one would release. The 1904 Russo-Japanese War offered a sharp foretaste of the 1914 conflict, but Europe's grandees paid scant attention.

Even fewer grasped how the collapse of the antiquated Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires would send Europe and the Mideast into dangerous turmoil that persists to our day. Or how a little-known revolutionary named Lenin would shatter Imperial Russia and turn it into the world's most murderous state.

This demented war in Europe tuned into an even greater historic tragedy in 1917 when US President Woodrow Wilson, driven by a lust for power and prestige, entered the totally stalemated war on the Western Front. One million US troops and starvation caused by a crushing British naval blockade turned the tide of battle and led to Germany's surrender.

Vengeful France and Britain imposed intolerable punishment on Germany, forcing it to accept full guilt for the war, an untruth that persists to this day. The result was Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists. If an honorable peace had been concluded in 1917, neither Hitler nor Stalin might have seized power and millions of lives would have been saved. This is the true tragedy of the Great War.

Let us recall the words of the wise Benjamin Franklin: `No good war, no bad peace.'

[Nov 12, 2018] Trump was elected by advocating a populist-nationalist agenda, he betrayed his voters almost instantly and governed as Bush III

Notable quotes:
"... For his first two years in office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich, wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. ..."
"... With Republicans in full control of Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to them. ..."
"... Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different. ..."
"... Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.

However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich, wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive.

With Republicans in full control of Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to them.

Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.

Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.

Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.

[Nov 12, 2018] Although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms

Nov 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.

However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich, wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. With Republicans in full control of Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to them.

Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.

Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.

Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.

I was actually in Texas just a couple of days before the vote, speaking at a Ron Paul-related conference in the Houston area, and although most of the libertarian-leaning attendees thought that Cruz would probably win, they all agreed with the national media that it would probably be close. Cruz's final victory margin of less than three points confirmed this verdict.

But if things had gone differently, and O'Rourke had squeaked out a narrow win, our national politics would have been immediately transformed. Any Republican able to win California has a near-lock on the White House, and the same is true for any Democrat able to carry Texas, especially if the latter is a young and attractive Kennedyesque liberal, fluent in Spanish and probably very popular with the large Latino populations of other important states such as Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. I strongly suspect that a freshman Sen. O'Rourke (R-Texas) would have been offered the 2020 Democratic nomination almost by acclamation, and barring unexpected personal or national developments, would have been a strong favorite in that race against Trump or any other Republican. Rep. O'Rourke raised an astonishing $70 million in nationwide donations, and surely many of his contributors were dreaming of similar possibilities. A shift of just a point and a half, and in twenty-four months he probably would have been our next president. But it was not to be.

[Nov 12, 2018] France The Incredible Shrinking President by Guillaume Durocher

Nov 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

I personally don't understand the French electorate on these matters. Macron in particular did not promise anything other than to deliver more of the same policies, albeit with more youth and more vigor, as a frank globalist. Who, exactly, was excited at his election but is disappointed now? People with a short attention span or susceptibility to marketing gimmicks, I assume.

It is hard to talk about the French media without getting a bit conspiratorial, at least, I speak of "structural conspiracies." Macron's unabashed, "modernizing" globalism certainly corresponds to the id of the French media-corporate elites and to top 20% of the electorate, let us say, the talented fifth. He was able to break through the old French two-party system, annihilating the Socialist Party and sidelining the conservatives. The media certainly helped in this, preferring him to either the conservative François Fillon or the civic nationalist Marine Le Pen.

However, the media have to a certain extent turned on Macron, perhaps because he believes his "complex thoughts" cannot be grasped by journalists with their admittedly limited cognitive abilities . Turn on the French radio and you'll hear stories of how the so-called "Youth With Macron," whose twenty- and thirty-somethings were invited onto all the talk shows just before Macron became a leading candidate, were actually former Socialist party hacks with no grass roots. Astroturf. I could have told you that.

Macron has made a number of what the media call "gaffes." When an old lady voiced concern about the future of her pension, he answered : "you don't have a right to complain." He has also done many things that anyone with just a little sense of decorum will be disgusted by. The 40-year-old Macron, who has a 65-year-old wife and claims not to be a homosexual, loves being photographed with sweaty black bodies.

... ... ...

So there's that. But, in terms of policies, I cannot say that the people who supported Macron have any right to complain. He is doing what he promised, that is to say, steaming full straight ahead on the globalist course with, a bit more forthrightness and, he hopes, competence than his Socialist or conservative predecessors.

Link Bookmark In truth there are no solutions. There is nothing he can do to make the elitist and gridlocked European Union more effective, nothing he can do to improve the "human capital" in the Afro-Islamic banlieues , and not much he can do to improve the economy which the French people would find acceptable. A bit more of labor flexibility here, a bit of a tax break there, oh wait deficit's too big, a tax hike in some other area too, then. Six of one, half a dozen in the other. Oh, and they've also passed more censorship legislation to fight "fake news" and "election meddling" and other pathetic excuses the media-political class across the West have come up with for their loss of control over the Narrative.

Since the European Central Bank has been printing lending hundreds of billions of euros to stimulate the Eurozone economy, France's economic performance has been decidedly mediocre, with low growth, slowly declining unemployment, and no reduction in debt (currently at 98.7% of GDP). Performance will presumably worsen if the ECB, as planned, phases out stimulus at the end of this year.

There is a rather weird situation in terms of immigration and diversity. Everyone seems to be aware of the hellscape of ethno-religious conflict which will thrive in the emerging Afro-Islamic France of the future. Just recently at the commemoration of the Battle of Verdun, an elderly French soldier asked Macron : "When will you kick out the illegal immigrants? . . . Aren't we bringing in a Trojan Horse?"

More significant was the resignation of Gérard Collomb from his position as interior minister last month to return to his old job as mayor of Lyon, which he apparently finds more interesting. Collomb is a 71-year-old Socialist politician who has apparently awakened to the problems of ethnic segregation and conflict. He said in his farewell address :

I have been in all the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods of Marseille-North to Mirail in Toulous, to the Parisian periphery, Corbeil, Aulnay, Sevran, the situation has deteriorated greatly. We cannot continue to work on towns individually, there needs to be an overarching vision to recreate social mixing. Because today we are living side by side, and I still say, me, I fear that tomorrow we will live face-to-face [i.e. across a battle lines].

It is not clear how much Collomb tried to act upon these concerns as interior minister and was frustrated. In any case, he dared to voice the same concerns to the far-right magazine Valeurs Actuelles last February. He told them: "The relations between people are very difficult, people don't want to live together" (using the term vivre-ensemble , a common diversitarian slogan). He said immigration's responsibility for this was "enormous" and agreed with the journalist that "France no longer needs immigration." Collomb then virtually predicted civil war:

Communities in France are coming into conflict more and more and it is becoming very violent . . . I would say that, within five years, the situation could become irreversible. Yes, we have five or six years to avoid the worst. After that . . .

It's unclear why "the next five or six years" should be so critical. From one point of view, the old France is already lost as about a third of births are non-European and in particular one fifth are Islamic . The patterns of life in much of France will therefore likely come to reflect those of Africa and the Middle-East, including random violence and religious fanaticism. Collomb seems to think "social mixing" would prevent this, but in fact, there has been plenty of social and even genetic "mixing" in Brazil and Mexico, without this preventing ethno-racial stratification and extreme levels of violence.

I'm afraid it's all more of the same in douce France , sweet France. On the current path, Macron will be a one-termer like Sarkozy and Hollande were. Then again, the next elections will be in three-and-a-half years, an eternity in democratic politics. In all likelihood, this would be the Right's election to win, with a conservative anti-immigration candidate. A few people of the mainstream Right are open to working with Le Pen's National Rally and some have even defended the Identitarians. Then again, I could even imagine Macron posing as a heroic opponent of (illegal . . .) immigration if he thought it could help get him reelected. Watch this space . . .

utu , says: November 8, 2018 at 9:55 pm GMT

How many immigrants from Africa come to Europe depends only on political will of Europeans. The demography of African has nothing to do with it. Europe has means to stop immigration legal and illegal. Macron talking about how many children are born in Africa is just another cop out.
utu , says: November 8, 2018 at 11:04 pm GMT
Armed force 'led by former MAFIA boss' causing dramatic reduction in migrants to Italy

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/844213/italy-close-migrant-shut-down-mafia-libya-Sabratha-un-election-eu-tripoli-summer-turkey

Italy passes sea rescue of 1,000 to Libya as EU nations hold informal talks on migration

https://www.thejournal.ie/migrants-italy-eu-spain-meeting-4089279-Jun2018/

FKA Max , says: Website November 9, 2018 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Dieter Kief I love Macron, too!

A few months ago I claimed that Emmanuel Macron has/holds an ""Alt Right" worldview" due to him having had interactions with an influential member of the French Protestant Huguenot minority in France: http://www.unz.com/article/collateral-damage/#comment-1955020
[...]
Macron : Germany is different from France. You are more Protestant, which results in a significant difference. Through the church, through Catholicism, French society was structured vertically, from top to bottom. I am convinced that it has remained so until today. That might sound shocking to some – and don't worry, I don't see myself as a king. But whether you like it or not, France's history is unique in Europe. Not to put too fine a point on it, France is a country of regicidal monarchists. It is a paradox: The French want to elect a king, but they would like to be able to overthrow him whenever they want. The office of president is not a normal office – that is something one should understand when one occupies it. You have to be prepared to be disparaged, insulted and mocked – that is in the French nature. And: As president, you cannot have a desire to be loved. Which is, of course, difficult because everybody wants to be loved. But in the end, that's not important. What is important is serving the country and moving it forward.

– http://www.unz.com/article/the-elites-have-no-credibility-left/#comment-2042622

French army band medleys Daft Punk following Bastille Day parade

notanon , says: November 9, 2018 at 8:25 pm GMT

Who, exactly, was excited at his election but is disappointed now? People with a short attention span or susceptibility to marketing gimmicks, I assume.

people controlled by the media

the media are the main problem

[Nov 12, 2018] Macron wants to be like Putin, but the leash gets in the way

Nov 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 9, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT

Macron. Trudeau. Such lightweights. They are nothing but globe-trotting celebs.
AnonFromTN , says: November 9, 2018 at 9:16 pm GMT
As the French say, Macron wants to be like Putin, but the leash gets in the way.

[Nov 12, 2018] Saudi royals internal fight looks probably like the Austrians in 1913 arguing about who their next Habsburg Ruler is going to be

Nov 12, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Survivalist says: 11/03/2018 at 12:13 am

To put it mildly, I'm not an expert on where to find info Ghawar. Perhaps brighter minds will chime in.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/closer-look-saudi-arabia/
http://crudeoilpeak.info/category/saudi-arabia

My guess is that much of KSA will look a lot like the shabby end of Yemen before too long. This will perhaps strand some assets. Once the House of Saud fragments further among competing clans/factions (Faisal, Sudairi, Abdullah, Bin Sultans) things will hasten. Collapse is preceded by intra-elite rivalry over a shrinking pie, so to speak.
Caspian Report has a nice set on KSA if you look for them. Here's one-
https://youtu.be/9tHwvZ9XDLU
And another-
https://youtu.be/hh8isVX3H9w

Hightrekker once commented something quite apt, along the lines of~ 'And all this is probably like the Austrians in 1913 arguing about who their next Habsburg Ruler is going to be'.

From what I understand there are 4000 Saudi princes (a suspiciously round number, so likely an approximate). It all should make for a very bloody affair. Hopefully Iran will do the right thing and kick 'em while they're down.

  1. Mushalik 10/31/2018 at 8:25 pm
    Saudi Update October 2018
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/saudi-update-october-2018

[Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering

Highly recommended!
It's interesting that Clapper is against abandoned by Trump Iran deal.
Tramp administration is acting more like Israeli marionette here, because while there a strategic advantage in crushing the Iranian regime for the USA and making a county another Us vassal in the middle East, the cost for the country might be way to high (especially if we count in the cost of additional antagonizing Russia and China). Trump might jump into the second Afghanistan, which would really brake the back of US military -- crushing Iran military is one thing, but occupying such a county is a very costly task. And that might well doom Israel in the long run as settlers policies now created really antagonized, unrecognizable minority with a high birth rate.
Vanishing one-by-one of partners are given due to collapse of neoliberalism as an ideology. Nobody believes that neoliberalism is the future, like many believed in 80th and early 90th. This looks more and more like a repetion of the path of the USSR after 1945, when communist ideology was discredited and communist elite slowly fossilized. In 46 years from its victory in WWII the USSR was dissolved. The same might happen with the USA in 50 years after winning the Cold War.
Notable quotes:
"... a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program. ..."
"... The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran. ..."
Nov 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Only well calibrated multilateral political, economic and diplomatic pressure brought to bear on Iran with many and diverse partners will produce the results we seek.

"Then there were none" was Agatha Christie's most memorable mystery about a house party in which each guest was killed off one by one. Donald Trump's policy toward Iran has resulted in much the same: a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program.

Dozens of states, painstakingly cultivated over decades of American leadership in blocking Iran's nuclear capability, are now simply gone. One of America's three remaining allies on these issues, Saudi Arabia, has become a central player in American strategy throughout the Middle East region. But the Saudis, because of the Jamal Khashoggi killing and other reasons, may have cut itself out of the action. The United Arab Emirates, so close to the Saudis, may also fall away.

Such paucity of international support has left the Trump administration dangerously isolated. "America First" should not mean America alone. The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran.

... ... ...

European allies share many of our concerns about Iran's regional activities, but they strongly oppose U.S. reinstitution of secondary sanctions against them. They see the Trump administration's new sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement and UN Security Council resolutions and as undermining efforts to influence Iranian behavior. The new sanctions and those applied on November 5 only sap European interest in cooperating to stop Iran.

... ... ...

The United States cannot provoke regime change in Iran any more than it has successfully in other nations in the region. And, drawing on strategies used to topple governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States should be wary of launching or trying to spur a military invasion of Iran.

Lt. Gen. James Clapper (USAF, ret.) is the former Director of National Intelligence. Thomas R. Pickering is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and India.

[Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering

Highly recommended!
It's interesting that Clapper is against abandoned by Trump Iran deal.
Tramp administration is acting more like Israeli marionette here, because while there a strategic advantage in crushing the Iranian regime for the USA and making a county another Us vassal in the middle East, the cost for the country might be way to high (especially if we count in the cost of additional antagonizing Russia and China). Trump might jump into the second Afghanistan, which would really brake the back of US military -- crushing Iran military is one thing, but occupying such a county is a very costly task. And that might well doom Israel in the long run as settlers policies now created really antagonized, unrecognizable minority with a high birth rate.
Vanishing one-by-one of partners are given due to collapse of neoliberalism as an ideology. Nobody believes that neoliberalism is the future, like many believed in 80th and early 90th. This looks more and more like a repetion of the path of the USSR after 1945, when communist ideology was discredited and communist elite slowly fossilized. In 46 years from its victory in WWII the USSR was dissolved. The same might happen with the USA in 50 years after winning the Cold War.
Notable quotes:
"... a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program. ..."
"... The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran. ..."
Nov 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Only well calibrated multilateral political, economic and diplomatic pressure brought to bear on Iran with many and diverse partners will produce the results we seek.

"Then there were none" was Agatha Christie's most memorable mystery about a house party in which each guest was killed off one by one. Donald Trump's policy toward Iran has resulted in much the same: a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program.

Dozens of states, painstakingly cultivated over decades of American leadership in blocking Iran's nuclear capability, are now simply gone. One of America's three remaining allies on these issues, Saudi Arabia, has become a central player in American strategy throughout the Middle East region. But the Saudis, because of the Jamal Khashoggi killing and other reasons, may have cut itself out of the action. The United Arab Emirates, so close to the Saudis, may also fall away.

Such paucity of international support has left the Trump administration dangerously isolated. "America First" should not mean America alone. The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran.

... ... ...

European allies share many of our concerns about Iran's regional activities, but they strongly oppose U.S. reinstitution of secondary sanctions against them. They see the Trump administration's new sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement and UN Security Council resolutions and as undermining efforts to influence Iranian behavior. The new sanctions and those applied on November 5 only sap European interest in cooperating to stop Iran.

... ... ...

The United States cannot provoke regime change in Iran any more than it has successfully in other nations in the region. And, drawing on strategies used to topple governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States should be wary of launching or trying to spur a military invasion of Iran.

Lt. Gen. James Clapper (USAF, ret.) is the former Director of National Intelligence. Thomas R. Pickering is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and India.

[Nov 11, 2018] The Unraveling of the Netanyahu Project for the Middle East

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Nov 11, 2018 | theduran.com

There has been, from the outset, a second level , too: This entire 'inverted pyramid' of Middle East engineering had, as its single point of departure, Mohammed bin Salman (MbS). It was Jared Kushner, the Washington Post reports , who "championed Mohammed as a reformer poised to usher the ultraconservative, oil-rich monarchy into modernity. Kushner privately argued for months, last year, that Mohammed would be key to crafting a Middle East peace plan, and that with the prince's blessing, much of the Arab world would follow". It was Kushner, the Post continued, "who pushed his father-in-law to make his first foreign trip as president to Riyadh, against objections from then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – and warnings from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis".

Well, now MbS has, in one form or another, been implicated in the Khashoggi murder. Bruce Riedel of Brookings, a longtime Saudi observer and former senior CIA & US defence official, notes , "for the first time in 50 years, the kingdom has become a force for instability" (rather than stability in the region), and suggests that there is an element of 'buyer's remorse' now evident in parts of Washington.

The 'seamless office process' to which the Israeli official referred with Caspit, is known as 'stovepiping', which is when a foreign state's policy advocacy and intelligence are passed straight to a President's ear – omitting official Washington from the 'loop'; by-passing any US oversight; and removing the opportunity for officials to advise on its content. Well, this has now resulted in the Khashoggi strategic blunder. And this, of course, comes in the wake of earlier strategic 'mistakes': the Yemen war, the siege of Qatar, the Hariri abduction, the Ritz-Carlton princely shakedowns.

To remedy this lacuna, an 'uncle' (Prince Ahmad bin Abdel Aziz) has been dispatched from exile in the West to Riyadh (with security guarantees from the US and UK intelligences services) to bring order into these unruly affairs, and to institute some checks and balances into the MbS coterie of advisers, so as to prevent further impetuous 'mistakes'. It seems too, that the US Congress wants the Yemen war, which Prince Ahmad consistently has opposed (as he opposed MbS elevation as Crown Prince), stopped. (General Mattis has called for a ceasefire within 30 days.) It is a step toward repairing the Kingdom's image.

MbS remains – for now – as Crown Prince. President Sisi and Prime Minister Netanyahu both have expressed their support for MbS and "as U.S. officials contemplate a more robust response [to the Khashoggi killing], Kushner has emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Saudi alliance in the region", the Washington Post reports . MbS' Uncle (who as a son of King Abdel Aziz, under the traditional succession system, would be himself in line for the throne), no doubt hopes to try to undo some of the damage done to the standing of the al-Saud family, and to that of the Kingdom. Will he succeed? Will MbS accede now to Ahmad unscrambling the very centralisation of power that made MbS so many enemies, in the first place, to achieve it? Has the al-Saud family the will , or are they too disconcerted by events?

And might President Erdogan throw more wrenches into this delicate process by further leaking evidence Turkey has, if Washington does not attend sufficiently to his demands. Erdogan seems ready to pitch for the return of Ottoman leadership for the Sunni world, and likely still holds some high-value cards up his sleeve (such as intercepts of phone calls between the murder cell and Riyadh). These cards though are devaluing as the news cycle shifts to the US mid-terms.

Time will tell, but it is this nexus of uncertain dynamics to which Bruce Reidel refers, when he talks of 'instability' in Saudi Arabia . The question posed here, though, is how might these events affect Netanyahu's and MbS' 'war' on Iran?

May 2018 now seems a distant era. Trump is still the same 'Trump', but Putin is not the same Putin. The Russian Defence Establishment has weighed in with their President to express their displeasure at Israeli air strikes on Syria – purportedly targeting Iranian forces in Syria. The Russian Defence Ministry too, has enveloped Syria in a belt of missiles and electronic disabling systems across the Syrian airspace. Politically, the situation has changed too: Germany and France have joined the Astana Process for Syria. Europe wants Syrian refugees to return home, and that translates into Europe demanding stability in Syria. Some Gulf States too, have tentatively begun normalising with the Syrian state.

The Americans are still in Syria; but a newly invigorated Erdogan (after the release of the US pastor, and with all the Khashoggi cards, produced by Turkish intelligence, in his pocket), intends to crush the Kurdish project in north and eastern Syria, espoused by Israel and the US. MbS, who was funding this project, on behalf of US and Israel, will cease his involvement (as a part of the demands made by Erdogan over the Khashoggi murder). Washington too wants the Yemen war, which was intended to serve as Iran's 'quagmire', to end forthwith. And Washington wants the attrition of Qatar to stop, too.

These represent major unravelings of the Netanyahu project for the Middle East, but most significant are two further setbacks: namely, the loss of Netanyahu's and MbS' stovepipe to Trump, via Jared Kushner, by-passing all America's own system of 'checks and balances'. The Kushner 'stovepipe' neither forewarned Washington of coming 'mistakes', nor was Kushner able to prevent them. Both Congress and the Intelligences Services of the US and UK are already elbowing into these affairs. They are not MbS fans. It is no secret that Prince Mohamed bin Naif was their man (he is still under 'palace arrest').

Trump will still hope to continue his 'Iran project' and his Deal of the Century between Israel and the Palestinians (led nominally by Saudi Arabia herding together the Sunni world , behind it). Trump does not seek war with Iran, but rather is convinced of a popular uprising in Iran that will topple the state.

[Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Nov 10, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts

Brown University has released a new study on the cost in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts.

This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well.

This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.

The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951 US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.

The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution and progress."

Those wishing to read the full Brown University study can find a PDF version here .

[Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Nov 10, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts

Brown University has released a new study on the cost in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts.

This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well.

This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.

The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951 US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.

The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution and progress."

Those wishing to read the full Brown University study can find a PDF version here .

[Nov 10, 2018] CIA's 'Surveillance State' is Operating Against US

Nov 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

BM , Nov 10, 2018 5:56:10 AM | link

Whilst on the topic of ISIS, here is an article about its mother-concern, CIA:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/09/cia-surveillance-state-operating-against-us-all.html
CIA's 'Surveillance State' is Operating Against US All

On two declassified letters from 2014 from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (didn't know there was one, but doesn't do much good anyway, it seems, read further) to the chairpersons of the House and Senate intelligence committees notifying them that the CIA has been monitoring emails between the CIA's head of the whistleblowing and source protection and Congressional. "Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints". Shows why Edward Snowdon didn't consider it appropriate to rely on internal complaints proceedures. This while under the leadership of seasoned liars and criminals Brennan and Clapper, of course.

It clearly shows a taste of what these buggers have to hide, and why they went to such extraordinary lengths as Russiagate to cover it all up and save their skins - that of course being the real reason behind Russiagate as I have said several times, nothing to do with either Trump or Russia.

guidoamm , Nov 10, 2018 1:32:52 AM | link

And there is this too of course:

Pentagon Fake Al Qaeda Propaganda

Anton Worter , Nov 10, 2018 12:39:39 AM | link
@4

OWS was a Controlled-Dissent operation, sending poor students north to fecklessly march on Wall Street when they could have shut down WADC, and sending wealthy seniors south to fecklessly line Pennsylvania Avenue, when they could have shut down Wall Street.

Both I$I$, and Hamas, and Antifa et al are all Controlled Dissent operations. The followers are duped, are used, abused and then abandoned by honey-pots put there by Central Intelligence, at least since the Spanish Civil War.

That's why MoA articles like this one make you wonder, just who is conning whom, at a time when the Internet is weaponized, when Google Assistant achieved AI awareness indistinguishable from anyone on the phone, China TV has launched a virtual AI news reporter indistinguishable from reality, and Stanford can audio-video a captured image of anyone as well as their voice intonation, then 3D model them, in real time, reading and emoting from a script, indistinguishable from reality, ...and then this.

Another Gift of Trust😂 brought to you by Scientocracy. Be sure to tithe your AI bot, or word will get back to Chairman Albertus, then you'll be called in to confess your thought crimes to the Green Cadre, itself another Controlled Dissent honeypot, in a Tithe-for-Credits Swindle.

I tell my kids, just enjoy life, live it large, and get ready for hell. It's coming for breakfast.

[Nov 10, 2018] It is quite possible that Pentagon hack was a false flag operation too

Notable quotes:
"... Which gets you to the astronomical 21 to 50 trillion in missing funds identified by the U of Mich professor and the further work of a woman financier 0T.extrapolated that the total sum missing from the Budget office is over 50T. ..."
"... The MIC is all about sucking the teat dry, and the US taxpayer is rewarded by the biggest uncontrolled defense budget ever, believe to be 1,3 trillion dollars. ..."
Nov 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anton Worter | Nov 9, 2018 10:59:52 PM

I$I$ developed sophisticated videos and propaganda tools in Britain. It is absurd to claim that a state-less group somewhere in MENA created these materials and engaged in sophisticated hacking attacks from some cave in Tora Bora. My guess is the 'sophisticated Jack's of the CIA in 2011 and 2012 and of the Pentagon in 2012 and 2013, which revealed ALL the personal and banking identity of every employee, agent, soldier and contractor were Korea-China origin, and China treats I$I$ by mass detention, force-feeding pork and vodka, and mass chanting Long Live PRC.

frances , Nov 10, 2018 1:13:21 PM | link

@Anton Worter | Nov 9, 2018 10:59:52 PM | 18

"My guess is the 'sophisticated Jack's of the CIA in 2011 and 2012 and of the Pentagon in 2012 and 2013, which revealed ALL the personal and banking identity of every employee, agent, soldier and contractor were Korea-China origin."

I think the theft was a false flag, did anyone ever see any of those records? IMO the purpose of the FF was to then use all of that data to create phony invoices which as the Pentagon et al are never audited would never be questioned.

Which gets you to the astronomical 21 to 50 trillion in missing funds identified by the U of Mich professor and the further work of a woman financier 0T.extrapolated that the total sum missing from the Budget office is over 50T.

The articles below mention that the supporting documentation is now missing from the Budget office website. The professor had copied all the data before contacting the budge office and when the budget office didn't return his calls and their website deleted the information he made the info public.

www.rt.com/usa/413411-trillions-dollars-missing-research and www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us

( b- I hope I copied these links properly)

IMO someones somewhere are doing a yeoman's job of tanking the US govt and the dollar.

Den Lille Abe , Nov 10, 2018 11:15:09 AM | link
Posted on Ars Tech in response to the evergrowing militaristic US and demonisation of Russia:

"Beware of the Greeks , when they bring gifts"

I find it rather comical that a representative of the MIC lauds cost saving in the federal government and their own policies.

The MIC is all about sucking the teat dry, and the US taxpayer is rewarded by the biggest uncontrolled defense budget ever, believe to be 1,3 trillion dollars.

The US must have some mighty enemies, surely, at this spending. Americans must live in daily fear; fear of some bogeyman (China, Russia) will invade and pillage; pillage exactly what?

... ...

[Nov 10, 2018] Hacking operations by anyone, can and will be used by US propagandists to provoke Russia or whoever stands in the way of the US war machine

Nov 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Harry Law , Nov 10, 2018 9:11:40 AM | link

Hacking operations by anyone, can and will be used by US propagandists to provoke Russia or whoever stands in the way of the US war machine, take this Pompeo rant against Iran and the Iranian response......

Asking of Pompeo "have you no shame?", Zarif mocked Pompeo's praise for the Saudis for "providing millions and millions of dollars of humanitarian relief" to Yemen, saying America's "butcher clients" were spending billions of dollars bombing school buses. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif issued a statement lashing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for his recent comments on the Yemen War. Discussing the US-backed Saudi invasion of Yemen, Pompeo declared Iran to be to blame for the death and destruction in the country. https://news.antiwar.com/2018/11/09/iran-fm-slams-pompeo-for-blaming-yemen-war-on-iran/

The US way of looking at things supposes that up is down, and white is black, it makes no sense, unless the US hopes these provocations will lead to a war or at the very least Russia or Iran capitulating to US aggression, which will not happen. Sanctions by the US on all and sundry must be opposed, if not the US will claim justifiably to be the worlds policeman and the arbiter of who will trade with who, a ludicrous proposition but one that most governments are afraid is now taking place, witness the new US ambassador to Germany in his first tweet telling the Germans to cease all trade with Iran immediately.

https://www.thelocal.de/20180509/us-tells-german-businesses-to-stop-trade-in-iran-immediately

[Nov 10, 2018] How Secession from the Soviet Union Created Booming Economies and Innovative Government Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... With all due cynical respect... I find it highly ironic that some of the biggest money launderers and Mafiosi are Baltic banks. The hilarity never ends. ..."
"... Full scale bull ****. No single former Soviet bloc country get into economic level of pre-Berlin wall fall. They are done. ..."
Nov 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

DoctorFix , 46 minutes ago link

With all due cynical respect... I find it highly ironic that some of the biggest money launderers and Mafiosi are Baltic banks. The hilarity never ends.

Moribundus , 1 hour ago link

Here is classic: GDP PPP per capita. What to pay attention.

#1, After 30 years and joining EU and NATO there is no difference in former Soviet bloc. Just looks like Russia is greatest profiteer. Now those parasites are chained to west.

#2, countries of former Soviet bloc are in better shape than countries that were in sphere of western imperialism. Especially look at countries where USA imperialism worked since 1823 Monroe's doctrine. Chart shows that in 200 years USA was not able to achieve much progress despite permanent military interventions and political influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Moribundus , 1 hour ago link

Latvia, a disappearing nation

https://www.politico.eu/article/latvia-a-disappearing-nation-migration-population-decline/

Moribundus , 1 hour ago link

Full scale bull ****. No single former Soviet bloc country get into economic level of pre-Berlin wall fall. They are done.

Europe's Depopulation Time Bomb Is Ticking in the Baltics

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-20/europe-s-depopulation-time-bomb-is-ticking-in-the-baltics

Cohen-cide-nce , 2 hours ago link

The balts have become them most libtarded cucks in the EU. They all need to get nuked. Bunch of atheist-feminist faggots.

Dick Buttkiss , 1 hour ago link

Due punishment, no doubt, for being on the cutting edge of technology-driven economic development and personal freedom.

From what planet/galaxy/universe does your information emanate?

Trader200K , 2 hours ago link

As much as I like the idea of taking my state to Estonia status, too many winner-take-all politicians and weak thinkers to recognize that new borders would solve lots and lots of problems.

Socialists are clearly smart, but in actuality just simple evil, immoral thieves. They will be unlikely to support any secession because they know their enemies are the source of their lucre.

Balkanization, what little there will be, will most likely come after we are drug into WWIII and we are back to a 1700's subsistence existence.

A pessimist is never disappointed, but I will happily take an optimist's surprise if people just stop and live and let live.

Flankspeed60 , 3 hours ago link

If at first you don't secede.............

Dick Buttkiss , 2 hours ago link

.............. try, try to "Unchain America" next July 4. What better way to celebrate Independence Day than with a joining of hands across the land, if not to secede, then to affirm our right to, one state at a time?

Are one in 66 Americans not prepared to do so?

Salzburg1756 , 3 hours ago link

So... Diversity is their strength? Or was I misinformed?

Dick Buttkiss , 3 hours ago link

It's 2,790 miles from New York to Los Angeles, which is 14,731,200 feet. At three feet per person, it would take around 4,910,400 people -- less than 1/66th of the US population -- to make a human chain like the three Balkan states did.

Count me in.

[Nov 10, 2018] ISIS is as authentic and real as The White Helmets

Nov 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

never mind , Nov 10, 2018 7:30:32 AM | link

ISIS is as authentic and real as The White Helmets. There are mercenaries trained, paid and moved around by foreign intelligence, but there is no independent entity with a cyber division between the deserts of syria and iraq.

It's all make believe.

[Nov 10, 2018] Neocons linked destinies of the USA and Israel together. Once the US goes down, Israel goes down too

Notable quotes:
"... Yes indeed spurred on by greed and "offshoring" the US has been butt busked hard and violently, devastating the middle class and annihilating the poor class, causing unemployment in masses. ..."
"... The 0.1 % have enriched themselves accordingly, gains of upward of 80 % the last ten years are not uncommon. Meanwhile a skilled worker hardly makes what his dad made in the 70 ties in buying power. ..."
"... At present the US government is much like a roque state, it only accepts laws that is in their (despicable junior: Israel) favour. It does not recognize international law. ..."
Nov 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Den Lille Abe , Nov 10, 2018 1:18:25 PM | link

I have no reason to believe what b reports is false.

Altogether the ways of the US have become more and more predictable the deeper it sinks in its own dependence on the MIC.

Lets face it the US produces hardly anything but weapons. It hardly sells any produce , manufactured in the US, globally.

It has become a low level raw materials provider. Yes indeed spurred on by greed and "offshoring" the US has been butt busked hard and violently, devastating the middle class and annihilating the poor class, causing unemployment in masses.

The 0.1 % have enriched themselves accordingly, gains of upward of 80 % the last ten years are not uncommon. Meanwhile a skilled worker hardly makes what his dad made in the 70 ties in buying power.

The US living high with a budge deficit of (estimated) 1,5 trillion a year, giving tax cuts to the very rich, in a feeble and completely disbanded attempt at trick down economics.

... ... ...

That is what we westernes have never learnt, all our empires, short lived but powerful. collapsed because of greed. Go east look at China, they had empires that indeed last "a thousand year reich". Obs: China never brought war on a neighbor. So what did they do: they demanded that a foreign country recognize Chinas statue as a world power and that the Kaiser be paid some tribute, but as the Chinese going goes a gift is rewarded by a bigger one, so you would receive double back. And BTW what has the chinese ever done to civilisation: sigh! The list is too long.

Chinese and Arabian influence on science, maths and surgery/disease control revolutionized our backward "Christian" feudal regimes. Luckily Luther brought some sense into the madness, and today the catholic church is largely irrelevant. Is all superstition.

Which brings me back to a country, in which 37 % believe that the sun orbits Earth.17 believe flat earth, 10 - 15 % believe in 6000 year earth.

So we are dealing with a nuclear armed nation that has come provable among the the most ill-informed, ignorant and badly educated. "Idiocracy" come true. Now the rest of the world is not too happy about this, this mad bull jumping around in the arena is dangerous...

Both Russia has publicly stated that they will never initiate a nuclear first strike, I think they need to revisit that statement, and incorporate a first strike option if the US gets out of hand. At present the US government is much like a roque state, it only accepts laws that is in their (despicable junior: Israel) favour. It does not recognize international law.

I am all in favor of a strict and harsh Morganthau /s

Den Lille Abe , Nov 10, 2018 1:29:14 PM | link

oh and Israhell:

They have to learn that today you do not use nuclear weapons on non armed nuclear states. Iran has no nuclear capabilities as evidenced by god and his mother.

But Israel is such a pitiful small country that a massive bombardment with just conventional weapons would bring the supremacists to the negotiating table.
Israel can not sustain more than 2 weeks of mobilization and total war, without going bankrupt. The state is to 25% funded by the US. Once the US goes, Israel goes too. May be moderates (yes they are there) can build something new.

[Nov 10, 2018] The Reasons for Netanyahu's Panic by Alastair Crooke

Highly recommended!
Looks like time is working against Israelis in general and Netanyahu administration specifically... the nest result of 10`8 is he supply of S300 by Russia, which is a real thereat to Isreli air supremacy, no matter what Israili minister of offence said.
Alastair Crooke: "Belatedly, Israel has understood that it backed the wrong side in Syria -- and it has lost. It is not really in a position to demand anything. It will not get an American enforced buffer zone beyond the Golan armistice line, nor will the Iraqi-Syrian border be closed, or somehow "supervised" on Israel's behalf."
In the next ten years Israel regional position might deteriorate. It antagonized Palestinians to the point of "no reconciliation". And as US faced its own internal difficulties and divisions (and neocons in the USA now are look mostly negatively by wide swats of population), Israel might again face hostile Arab countries on the "never negotiated" borders. To find itself the country without negotiated borders with the hostile encirclement, of a kind Washington tries to create for Russia, is the position that any diplomat would like to avoid.
So it looks like the key idea of Zionism -- colonizing the land and displacing Palestinians much like Indians were displaced in the USA or aborigines in Australia, in retrospect looks not that realistic. A lot of Jewish talent and Western money was spend on a this variation of "Drang nach Osten"
Notable quotes:
"... It will not get an American enforced buffer zone beyond the Golan armistice line, nor will the Iraqi-Syrian border be closed, or somehow "supervised" on Israel's behalf. ..."
"... simply failed ..."
"... Israel's unexpected failure was deeply feared in the West, and in the Gulf too. A small, armed (revolutionary) movement had stood up to Israel -- against overwhelming odds -- and prevailed: it had stood its ground. This precedent was widely perceived to be a potential regional "game changer." The feudal Gulf autocracies sensed in Hizbullah's achievement the latent danger to their own rule from such armed resistance. ..."
"... And the war in Syria started to be mooted as the "corrective strategy" to the 2006 failure (as early as 2007) -- though it was only with the events following 2011 that the "corrective strategy" came to implemented, à outrance ..."
"... Syria -- with indisputable help from its allies -- seems about to prevail: it has stood its ground, against almost unbelievable odds. ..."
"... Syria's "standing its ground" represents a historic turning ..."
"... with each other ..."
"... Netayahu's "near panic" (if that is indeed what occurred) may well be a reflection of this seismic shift taking place in the region. Israel has long backed the losing side -- and now finds itself "alone" and fearing for its near proxies (the Jordanians and the Kurds). The "new" corrective strategy from Tel Aviv, it appears, is to focus on winning Iraq away from Iran, and embedding it into the Israel-U.S.-Saudi alliance. ..."
"... Daniel Levy has written a compelling piece to argue that Israelis generally would not subscribe to what I have written above, but rather: "Netanyahu's lengthy term in office, multiple electoral successes, and ability to hold together a governing coalition [is based on] him having a message that resonates with a broader public. It is a sales pitch that Netanyahu [has] 'brought the state of Israel to the best situation in its history, a rising global force the state of Israel is diplomatically flourishing.' Netanyahu had beaten back what he had called the 'fake-news claim' that without a deal with the Palestinians 'Israel will be isolated, weakened and abandoned' facing a 'diplomatic tsunami.' ..."
"... "Difficult though it is for his political detractors to acknowledge, Netanyahu's claim resonates with the public because it reflects something that is real, and that has shifted the center of gravity of Israeli politics further and further to the right. It is a claim that, if correct and replicable over time, will leave a legacy that lasts well beyond Netanyahu's premiership and any indictment he might face. ..."
"... "And then events took a further turn in Netanyahu's favor with the rise to power in the United States and parts of Central Eastern Europe (and to enhanced prominence elsewhere in Europe and the West) of the very ethno-nationalist trend to which Netanyahu is so committed, working to replace liberal with illiberal democracy. One should not underestimate Israel and Netanyahu's importance as an ideological and practical avant-garde for this trend." ..."
"... And this week, Hassan Nasrallah called on the Lebanese government " to devise a plan and take a sovereign decision to liberate the Shebaa Farms and the Kfarshouba Hills" from Israel. ..."
"... Will ethno-nationalism provide Israel with a new support base? Well, firstly, I do not see Israel's doctrine as "illiberal democracy," but rather an apartheid system intended to subordinate Palestinian political rights. And as the political schism in the West widens, with one "wing" seeking to delegitimize the other by tarnishing them as racists, bigots and Nazis, it is clear that the real ..."
"... The increasingly "not to be" constituency of the Middle East has a simpler word for Netanyahu's "ethnic nationalism." They call it simply Western colonialism. Round one of Chas Freeman's making the Middle East " be ..."
"... For all Netanyahu's bluster about Israel standing stronger, and having beaten back "what he had called the 'fake-news claim' that without a deal with the Palestinians 'Israel will be isolated, weakened and abandoned' facing a 'diplomatic tsunami,'" Netanyahu may have just discovered, in these last two weeks, that he confused facing down the weakened Palestinians with "victory" -- only at the very moment of his apparent triumph, to find himself alone in a new, "New Middle East." ..."
"... [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " The Possible Education of Donald Trump. "] ..."
www.defenddemocracy.press
... ... ...

Belatedly, Israel has understood that it backed the wrong side in Syria – and it has lost. It is not really in a position to demand anything. It will not get an American enforced buffer zone beyond the Golan armistice line, nor will the Iraqi-Syrian border be closed, or somehow "supervised" on Israel's behalf.

Of course, the Syrian aspect is important, but to focus only on that, would be to "miss the forest for the trees." The 2006 war by Israel to destroy Hizbullah (egged on by the U.S., Saudi Arabia -- and even a few Lebanese) was a failure. Symbolically, for the first time in the Middle East, a technologically sophisticated, and lavishly armed, Western nation-state simply failed . What made the failure all the more striking (and painful) was that a Western state was not just bested militarily, it had lost also the electronic and human intelligence war, too -- both spheres in which the West thought their primacy unassailable.

The Fallout from Failure

Israel's unexpected failure was deeply feared in the West, and in the Gulf too. A small, armed (revolutionary) movement had stood up to Israel -- against overwhelming odds -- and prevailed: it had stood its ground. This precedent was widely perceived to be a potential regional "game changer." The feudal Gulf autocracies sensed in Hizbullah's achievement the latent danger to their own rule from such armed resistance.

The reaction was immediate. Hizbullah was quarantined -- as best the full sanctioning powers of America could manage. And the war in Syria started to be mooted as the "corrective strategy" to the 2006 failure (as early as 2007) -- though it was only with the events following 2011 that the "corrective strategy" came to implemented, à outrance .

Against Hizbullah, Israel had thrown its full military force (though Israelis always say, now, that they could have done more). And against Syria, the U.S., Europe, the Gulf States (and Israel in the background) have thrown the kitchen sink: jihadists, al-Qaeda, ISIS (yes), weapons , bribes, sanctions and the most overwhelming information war yet witnessed. Yet Syria -- with indisputable help from its allies -- seems about to prevail: it has stood its ground, against almost unbelievable odds.

Just to be clear: if 2006 marked a key point of inflection, Syria's "standing its ground" represents a historic turning of much greater magnitude . It should be understood that Saudi Arabia's (and Britain's and America's) tool of fired-up, radical Sunnism has been routed. And with it, the Gulf States, but particularly Saudi Arabia are damaged. The latter has relied on the force of Wahabbism since the first foundation of the kingdom: but Wahabbism in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq has been roundly defeated and discredited (even for most Sunni Muslims). It may well be defeated in Yemen too. This defeat will change the face of Sunni Islam.

Already, we see the Gulf Cooperation Council, which originally was founded in 1981 by six Gulf tribal leaders for the sole purpose of preserving their hereditary tribal rule in the Peninsula, now warring with each other , in what is likely to be a protracted and bitter internal fight. The "Arab system," the prolongation of the old Ottoman structures by the complaisant post-World War I victors, Britain and France, seems to be out of its 2013 "remission" (bolstered by the coup in Egypt), and to have resumed its long-term decline.

The Losing Side

Netayahu's "near panic" (if that is indeed what occurred) may well be a reflection of this seismic shift taking place in the region. Israel has long backed the losing side -- and now finds itself "alone" and fearing for its near proxies (the Jordanians and the Kurds). The "new" corrective strategy from Tel Aviv, it appears, is to focus on winning Iraq away from Iran, and embedding it into the Israel-U.S.-Saudi alliance.

If so, Israel and Saudi Arabia are probably too late into the game, and are likely underestimating the visceral hatred engendered among so many Iraqis of all segments of society for the murderous actions of ISIS. Not many believe the improbable (Western) narrative that ISIS suddenly emerged armed, and fully financed, as a result of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's alleged "sectarianism": No, as rule-of-thumb, behind each such well-breached movement -- stands a state .

Daniel Levy has written a compelling piece to argue that Israelis generally would not subscribe to what I have written above, but rather: "Netanyahu's lengthy term in office, multiple electoral successes, and ability to hold together a governing coalition [is based on] him having a message that resonates with a broader public. It is a sales pitch that Netanyahu [has] 'brought the state of Israel to the best situation in its history, a rising global force the state of Israel is diplomatically flourishing.' Netanyahu had beaten back what he had called the 'fake-news claim' that without a deal with the Palestinians 'Israel will be isolated, weakened and abandoned' facing a 'diplomatic tsunami.'

"Difficult though it is for his political detractors to acknowledge, Netanyahu's claim resonates with the public because it reflects something that is real, and that has shifted the center of gravity of Israeli politics further and further to the right. It is a claim that, if correct and replicable over time, will leave a legacy that lasts well beyond Netanyahu's premiership and any indictment he might face.

"Netanyahu's assertion is that he is not merely buying time in Israel's conflict with the Palestinians to improve the terms of an eventual and inevitable compromise. Netanyahu is laying claim to something different -- the possibility of ultimate victory, the permanent and definitive defeat of the Palestinians, their national and collective goals.

"In over a decade as prime minister, Netanyahu has consistently and unequivocally rejected any plans or practical steps that even begin to address Palestinian aspirations. Netanyahu is all about perpetuating and exacerbating the conflict, not about managing it, let alone resolving it [The] message is clear: there will be no Palestinian state because the West Bank and East Jerusalem are simply Greater Israel."

No Palestinian State

Levy continues: "The approach overturns assumptions that have guided peace efforts and American policy for over a quarter of a century: that Israel has no alternative to an eventual territorial withdrawal and acceptance of something sufficiently resembling an independent sovereign Palestinian state broadly along the 1967 lines. It challenges the presumption that the permanent denial of such an outcome is incompatible with how Israel and Israelis perceive themselves as being a democracy. Additionally, it challenges the peace-effort supposition that this denial would in any way be unacceptable to the key allies on which Israel depends

"In more traditional bastions of support for Israel, Netanyahu took a calculated gamble -- would enough American Jewish support continue to stand with an increasingly illiberal and ethno-nationalist Israel, thereby facilitating the perpetuation of the lopsided U.S.-Israel relationship? Netanyahu bet yes, and he was right."

And here is another interesting point that Levy makes:

"And then events took a further turn in Netanyahu's favor with the rise to power in the United States and parts of Central Eastern Europe (and to enhanced prominence elsewhere in Europe and the West) of the very ethno-nationalist trend to which Netanyahu is so committed, working to replace liberal with illiberal democracy. One should not underestimate Israel and Netanyahu's importance as an ideological and practical avant-garde for this trend."

Former U.S. Ambassador and respected political analyst Chas Freeman wrote recently very bluntly: "the central objective of U.S. policy in the Middle East has long been to achieve regional acceptance for the Jewish-settler state in Palestine." Or, in other words, for Washington, its Middle East policy -- and all its actions -- have been determined by "to be, or not to be": "To be" (that is) -- with Israel, or not "to be" (with Israel).

Israel's Lost Ground

The key point now is that the region has just made a seismic shift into the "not to be" camp. Is there much that America can do about that? Israel very much is alone with only a weakened Saudi Arabia at its side, and there are clear limits to what Saudi Arabia can do.

The U.S. calling on Arab states to engage more with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi seems somehow inadequate. Iran is not looking for war with Israel (as a number of Israeli analysts have acknowledged ); but, too, the Syrian President has made clear that his government intends to recover "all Syria" -- and all Syria includes the occupied Golan Heights. And this week, Hassan Nasrallah called on the Lebanese government " to devise a plan and take a sovereign decision to liberate the Shebaa Farms and the Kfarshouba Hills" from Israel.

Read also: Church Leaders Condemn 'Brutal' US-Led Attack on Syria, Praise Gov't Forces

A number Israeli commentators already are saying that the "writing is on the wall" -- and that it would be better for Israel to cede territory unilaterally, rather than risk the loss of hundreds of lives of Israeli servicemen in a futile attempt to retain it. That, though, seems hardly congruent with the Israeli Prime Minister's "not an inch, will we yield" character and recent statements .

Will ethno-nationalism provide Israel with a new support base? Well, firstly, I do not see Israel's doctrine as "illiberal democracy," but rather an apartheid system intended to subordinate Palestinian political rights. And as the political schism in the West widens, with one "wing" seeking to delegitimize the other by tarnishing them as racists, bigots and Nazis, it is clear that the real America First-ers will try, at any price, to distance themselves from the extremists.

Daniel Levy points out that the Alt-Right leader, Richard Spencer, depicts his movement as White Zionism. Is this really likely to build support for Israel? How long before the "globalists" use precisely Netanyahu's "illiberal democracy" meme to taunt the U.S. Right that this is precisely the kind of society for which they too aim: with Mexicans and black Americans treated like Palestinians?

'Ethnic Nationalism'

The increasingly "not to be" constituency of the Middle East has a simpler word for Netanyahu's "ethnic nationalism." They call it simply Western colonialism. Round one of Chas Freeman's making the Middle East " be with Israel" consisted of the shock-and-awe assault on Iraq. Iraq is now allied with Iran, and the Hashad militia (PMU) are becoming a widely mobilized fighting force. The second stage was 2006. Today, Hizbullah is a regional force, and not a just Lebanese one.

The third strike was at Syria. Today, Syria is allied with Russia, Iran, Hizbullah and Iraq. What will comprise the next round in the "to be, or not to be" war?

For all Netanyahu's bluster about Israel standing stronger, and having beaten back "what he had called the 'fake-news claim' that without a deal with the Palestinians 'Israel will be isolated, weakened and abandoned' facing a 'diplomatic tsunami,'" Netanyahu may have just discovered, in these last two weeks, that he confused facing down the weakened Palestinians with "victory" -- only at the very moment of his apparent triumph, to find himself alone in a new, "New Middle East."

Perhaps Pravda was right, and Netanyahu did appear close to panic, during his hurriedly arranged, and urgently called, Sochi summit.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " The Possible Education of Donald Trump. "]

* Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.

[Nov 10, 2018] US, Turkey risk direct military clash as they escalate war in Syria Defend Democracy Press by Barış Demir

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
Aug 11, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

As it pursues its war with US-backed Kurdish-nationalist organizations, the Turkish government is threatening an outright military occupation of large parts of Syria that could provoke war with Syria and a direct clash with US forces.

On Tuesday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced joint patrols by US forces and Kurdish-led militias as "unacceptable." Speaking to reporters in Ankara, he said: "Not only can we not accept (the joint patrols), such a development will cause serious problems at the border."

This came after Turkey shelled positions of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the Zor Magar region east of the Euphrates River and the town of Tal Abyad starting on October 28, killing at least 10 Kurdish fighters. Two days earlier, Erdogan had delivered a "final warning" to Syrian Kurdish fighters to retreat. He also warned that Turkey's next target would be positions of the People's Protection Units (YPG, a Kurdish force that is the key component of the SDF) east of the Euphrates.

On October 30, as shelling continued, Erdogan stepped up threats to invade Syria to attack the US-backed Kurdish forces: "We are going to destroy the terrorist organization preparations and plans have been completed. We've made our plans and programs, and initiated it in the previous days. We will come down on the terrorist organization's neck with more extensive, effective operations. We could arrive suddenly one night."

This provoked an angry warning from Washington on October 31. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino said: "Unilateral military strikes into northwest Syria by any party, particularly as American personnel may be present or in the vicinity, are of great concern to us Coordination and consultation between the United States and Turkey on issues of security concern is a better approach."

Ankara, however, is determined to crush the YPG, which it views as an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Turkish Kurdish separatist movement against which it has waged a bloody counter insurgency campaign for more than 30 years. Ankara also fears Kurdish autonomy in Syria, worried it will provoke demands for Kurdish autonomy in eastern Turkey.

Read also: Israel Bombs, Shells Syria in Latest Attempt to Justify More Land Grabs

In an apparent attempt to placate Ankara, Washington announced on Tuesday that it would place bounties on the heads of three PKK leaders. Visiting Turkey, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Palmer announced that the State Department's Rewards for Justice program is offering money for information leading to the capture of the PKK officials. The bounties are $5 million for Murat Karayilan, $4 million for Cemil Bayik and $3 million for Duran Kalkan.

But Ambassador James Jeffrey, the US special representative for Syria engagement, said Washington did not see the YPG and PKK as the same entity. He declared: "For us, the PKK is a terrorist organization. We are not of the same opinion on the YPG. We ensure that the YPG operates as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant [ISIL] in a way that does not pose a threat to Turkey."

Turkish presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin rebuffed the US initiative, saying Ankara would treat it "with caution" and demanding that Washington sever all ties with the YPG.

Turkey's ever-deeper involvement in the bloodshed across the region is the product of Erdogan's decision to support the proxy war for regime change launched by the NATO imperialist powers in Syria in 2011.

As the WSWS previously noted : "All Erdogan's calculations were upended by the intensification of the war and of the class struggle in the Middle East. In 2013, amid growing working class anger against Egypt's Islamist President Mohammad Mursi and social protests in Turkey centred in Gezi Park, the imperialist powers backed an army coup that toppled Mursi. As the Islamic State (IS) militia grew in Syria and invaded Iraq, moreover, they turned to the use of Kurdish nationalist groups as their proxies against IS.

Read also: Proposals for a new Syrian Constitution

"Erdogan could not adapt himself to these sudden, violent shifts in imperialist war policy, and Ankara's imperialist allies rapidly came to see him not as a 'strategic partner,' but as an unreliable one."

After Russia intervened militarily to prevent NATO-backed Islamist militias from overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Turkish jets shot down a Russian jet over Syria in November 2015, with US support. After Russia escalated its military posture in response and threatened economic sanctions in retaliation against Turkey, however, Ankara tacked back toward Russia and China. Ankara turned first to China and then Russia for an air defence system, while its relations with the Obama administration and its European allies rapidly deteriorated.

In July 2016, a section of Turkey's military, encouraged by Washington and Berlin, launched an abortive putsch out of NATO's Incirlik air base, aiming to murder Erdogan and carry out regime change in Turkey.

Erdogan responded to the coup by stepping up the war against the Kurds and imposing a state of emergency, seeking to strangle all political opposition. Ankara also maneuvered closer to Moscow and Tehran, setting up talks in Astana for a "solution" to the Syria war. And Erdogan ordered the Turkish army to launch its own invasions of Syria, "Operation Euphrates Shield" (in August 2016) and "Operation Olive Branch" (in January 2018), directed against the YPG.

The brief warming of US-Turkish relations that followed the gruesome state murder on October 2 of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul appears to have quickly ended. Ankara clearly saw the investigation of the Khashoggi assassination as a means of promoting Turkish interests in relation to Riyadh and Washington. It had shared tense relations with both the Saudi regime and US imperialism, including over the Saudi blockade of Qatar, a key Turkish ally, and the US alliance with the YPG in Syria.

Read also: The Reasons for Netanyahu's Panic

Erdogan sought to improve relations with Washington by investigating the killing of Khashoggi, who worked extensively for US publications, including the Washington Post . Ankara also released US pastor Andrew Brunson, whom it had accused of helping prepare the 2016 coup. But Washington soon dropped the Khashoggi murder, focusing instead on strategies for intensifying the war in Syria.

Ankara is responding by moving closer to the European powers and seeking to exploit their growing differences with Washington. It joined a new mechanism with Germany, France and Russia to work out a peace deal in Syria acceptable to the European imperialist powers. An inconclusive October 27 Istanbul summit on Syria, hosted by Erdogan, was attended by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and Russia President Vladimir Putin.

After the summit, they called for a new Syrian constitution to be drafted before the end of this year, "paving the way for free and fair elections," according to a joint statement.

Visiting Tokyo on Tuesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu also criticized US sanctions against Iran, which have been the subject of escalating conflict between Washington and the European powers. "While we were asking (for) an exemption from the United States, we have also been very frank with them that cornering Iran is not wise," he said. "Turkey is against sanctions, we don't believe any results can be achieved through the sanctions."

[Nov 10, 2018] US Policy On Iran After The Midterm Elections by Barkley Rosser

Nov 09, 2018 | angrybearblog.com
Journalism Politics US/Global Economics

A curious coincidence is that the US midterm elections happened one day after the US reimposed its second round of illegal economic sanctions on Iran, with the focus on oil, shipping, and banking, along with some other sectors. Despite all but a handful of governments around the world supporting Iran in this matter (despite apparently two attempted assassinations of opponents of Iran's government in European nations recently) against the US out of a hope to keep Iran following the JCPOA nuclear agreement as it has by all reports been doing, the impact of the midterm elections is probably to reinforce support for Trump's policy, even as mostly he lost support in the election. The reason is that the most important location for serious critics of a president's foreign policy usually come out of the Senate, not the House of Representatives or governors. So, even though the Dems have taken the House and gained governorships, the GOP gained in the Senate, and some of the GOPs leaving included the few Trump critics, notably departing Foreign Relations committee Chair, Robert Corker of TN. This is the case, even as those GOP gains may only amount to a net two (Dem Sinema now ahead in AZ) or even only one (Nelson in FL may yet pull it out too).

Yet another reason the gains by Dems will probably not lead to much more pressure on Trump on this is that many Dems at least somewhat support his policy, especially those strongly influenced by the Israeli government. Thus in today's Washington Post, a lead editorial (presumably by neoconnish Fred Hiatt) said there may be reasons for imposing some sanctions because of "malignant" policies by Iran, notably supposedly supplying missiles to the Houthis in Yemen, plus the Syrian government, and Hezbollah in Lebanon (there are doubts on the extent of all this), even as WaPo opposes the US withdrawing from the JCPOA and is highly critical of Saudi Arabia due to the murder of their journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, probably on orders of KSA Crown Prince MbS, a main enemy of Iran. Indeed, members of both parties in the Senate have become unhappy with the Saudi war in Yemen and may move to cut US military support of the Saudi war effort there. But this will probably have little to no effect on the reimposed economic sanctions on Iran.

As it is, the ultimate impact of the new sanctions is quite complicated with various cross-cutting effects that are already damaging the Iranian economy, but may end up having less impact than Trump would like. The most important part of the sanctions involves Iran's oil exports, which US officials claim they would like to see go to zero. Early forecasts had those falling to about a third of the about 2.8 million bpd of a few months ago, which anticipation helped push oil prices up substantially, with Brent crude topping $80 per barrel while West Texas intermediate crude topped $70 per barrel. But the Trump administration has granted temporary waivers to 8 countries allowing them to continue importing Iranian oil for a while, supposedly to avoid excessive disruption of global markers (while not officially announced, the Japan Times claims the 8 waivered nations are China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Italy [only EU nation on list]. and UAE [yes, that big anti-Iran oil exporter imports oil from Iran]). As it is, with surging oil inventories in the US, prices have fallen sharply in the last two weeks, with Brent down to nearly $70 and WTI to nearly $60 , with some commenters today claiming that oil is turning into a "bear market." While this clearly allows Iran to export more oil than previously thought for now, the price decline will hurt Iran.

A fundamental clash in this is between governments and the businesses based in their nations. Only a handful of national governments officially support Trump in this policy, basically the odd group of Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, and apparently Egypt, with a few others sort of semi-supportive, such as Jordan, if with little enthusiasm. Russia, China, Turkey, and the major EU nations all oppose Trump's policy. While businesses in Russia in particular go along with their government's view, nearly all of those that are reasonably large in the EU nations are obeying the demands of the US government to cut back business relations with Iran, with poster boys for this being Total and Peugeot from France out of fear of losing markets in the US or facing sanctions from the US government. All of this has led to efforts in both China and the EU to set up alternative payment systems to avoid using US dollars and going through US-controlled financial intermediaries, a big conflict over this involving the SWIFT payment system, which the US would like to prevent Iran from using while the major European nations oppose this move by the US. As it is, given the ongoing efforts by they EU nations to help Iran out, it seems especially unwise of Iranian intel agencies to be attempting to assassinate people in France and Denmark as they have reportedly done, albeit unsuccessfully so far.

A final point is that it is extremely unlikely that this policy by Trump will lead to Iranian leaders kowtowing to him and entering into any negotiations. If anything, they might get pushed into pulling out of the JCPOA or create trouble for their enemies in various ways. OTOH, it may be that the sanctions will not lead to as harsh impacts on the Iranian economy as forecast, whether this is due to the Europeans and Chinese setting up alternative payments systems, or due to Iran wriggling out of the sanctions whether due to waivers or through such maneuvers as barter transactions involving oil or the use of "ghost ships" that do not use any radio communications, something reportedly already going on. We shall see how this all turns out, but for now Trump probably has gotten a modest boost of support for his policies within the US as a result of the midterm elections, much as I am not pleased to see this.

Barkley Rosser

Econospeak "US Policy On Iran After The Midterm Elections"

  1. Karl Kolchak , November 9, 2018 12:52 pm

    This is great news! The more support Trump has for his belligerent foreign policy, the quicker the rest of the world and even the morons who run Europe will finally start to wake up to the fact that the American empire is teetering on the edge of collapse.

    When he was elected, I had.hoped that Trump would inadvertently end up being America's Gorbachev. Now we just half to hope the empire can be destroyed without dragging all of humanity down with it.

[Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Nov 08, 2018 | www.sott.net
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.

An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white nationalism' canard:

Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists...

Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.

Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?

Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans? That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...

The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election. You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.

Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners.

Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.

Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia.

These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment. Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind', but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.

The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.

Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals to emotion.

So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been "dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist" elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first .

[Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Nov 08, 2018 | www.sott.net
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.

An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white nationalism' canard:

Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists...

Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.

Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?

Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans? That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...

The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election. You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.

Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners.

Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.

Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia.

These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment. Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind', but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.

The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.

Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals to emotion.

So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been "dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist" elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first .

[Nov 09, 2018] Trump What A Stupid Question That Is. You Ask A Lot Of Stupid Questions

Notable quotes:
"... Trump wasn't finished, however, and during the same gaggle, he suggested he could pull press credentials from other reporters who don't show him "respect" two days after the president suspended the press pass of CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious exchange during a news conference. ..."
"... "I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump explained and when asked how long Acosta's credentials will be suspended, the president replied: "As far as I'm concerned, I haven't made that decision. But it could be others also." ..."
"... On this one Trump needs to take a hint from Obozo, stop doing daily press briefings... Hold them once a month ..."
"... the stooge press/talking heads have made a cottage industry off of the press conferences. the msm sends stooges to sell their product. trump is 100% correct- the msm doesn't have the guts to cull their stooge legions- oh dear- the white house will do their job for them. ..."
Nov 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Having barred his CNN arch nemesis Jim Acosta from the White House, on Friday the president lashed out at another CNN reporter at the White House over his appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting AG as well as Whitaker's views towards the special counsel investigation.

During a Friday morning gaggle with White House reporters before Trump's trip to Paris, CNN's Abby Phillip asked the president if he was hoping Whitaker, who previously criticized Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation, would "rein in" the Russia probe. " Do you want [Whitaker] to rein in Robert Mueller?" Phillip asked.

Trump's response left the stunned reported speechless. "What a stupid question that is," Trump said and, just in case it was lost, repeated "what a stupid question."

"But I watch you a lot," Trump continued. "You ask a lot of stupid questions."

Trump then demonstrably walked away, leaving the shocked reporters screaming more questions in his wake.

Earlier, Trump said he has not spoken to acting AG Matt Whitaker about the Russia investigation, which Whitaker now oversees. Trump defended Whitaker as a "very well respected man in the law enforcement community" but claimed he does not know him personally. "I didn't speak to Matt Whitaker about it. I don't know Matt Whitaker," Trump told reporters at the White House before leaving for a trip to Paris.

While Trump sought to place personal distance between himself and Whitaker, he made it clear he stood by his decision to place a loyalist in charge of the Justice Department, a move many see as an effort to seize control of special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. The president also rejected suggestions that Whitaker is ineligible to serve as attorney general, a position held by some legal experts who say the Justice Department leader must be confirmed by the Senate.

The acting AG has raised eyebrows, and in some cases prediction of a constitutional crisis, because before joining the DOJ, Whitaker was an outspoken critic of Mueller's investigation and many Democrats and legal scholars have said he should recuse himself from leading the probe. Whitaker also claimed there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference efforts in the 2016 election, which is the central question of the Mueller probe.

Trump lamented the criticism of Whitaker's past commentary, saying "it's a shame that no matter who I put in, they go after him."

Trump then reiterated his plans to have Whitaker serve in an acting capacity, but declined to reveal who might be Sessions' permanent replacement. He said he likes Chris Christie, who is under consideration , but said he has not spoken to the former NJ governor about the post. Christie was at the White House on Thursday for an event on prison reform but Trump said he did not speak to him.

* * *

Trump wasn't finished, however, and during the same gaggle, he suggested he could pull press credentials from other reporters who don't show him "respect" two days after the president suspended the press pass of CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious exchange during a news conference.

"I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump explained and when asked how long Acosta's credentials will be suspended, the president replied: "As far as I'm concerned, I haven't made that decision. But it could be others also."

Trump also went after April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks as a "loser" who "doesn't know what the hell she is doing."

Keyser 15 minutes ago

On this one Trump needs to take a hint from Obozo, stop doing daily press briefings... Hold them once a month, then hand-pick which reporters you want in the room... And if a reporter publishes a story you don't like, prosecute them... What we have now is what happens when the lunatics are given free reign...

dcmbuffy 55 minutes ago remove

the stooge press/talking heads have made a cottage industry off of the press conferences. the msm sends stooges to sell their product. trump is 100% correct- the msm doesn't have the guts to cull their stooge legions- oh dear- the white house will do their job for them.

[Nov 09, 2018] Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi possible connection to Israel

Nov 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

ardent 19 minutes ago ( Edited ) remove Share link Copy Report

"Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is an Israeli Mossad-trained operative whose real name is Elliot Shimon, a *** who took courses in Islamic theology and Arabic Speech." - Snowden

Old Poor Richard 49 minutes ago remove Share link Copy

Now how would Ed Snowden know this? Is he some kind of super h4x0r tapped into the Pegasus mainframe?

ShakenNotStirred 42 minutes ago remove Share link Copy

I heard you have a bunch of Mossad agents below your bed. Check it out or you will be "Mossaded" before the morning.

passingthroughtown 2 hours ago remove Share link Copy

Proving once again that the Saudis and Israelies have been working hand in glove for a very long time. Is there any doubt about the connection between the two and what happened on 911?

But what is even more disturbing:

In recent days, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have reached out to the Trump administration to express support for the crown prince, arguing that he is an important strategic partner in the region, said people familiar with the calls.

"Strategic partner" makes it all okay. This is merely a glimpse of what is coming in the future. You ain't seen NOTHIN yet.

He–Mene Mox Mox 3 hours ago remove Share link Copy

Here is more of what Snowden was talking about: https://citizenlab.ca/2018/10/the-nso-connection-to-jamal-khashoggi/ .

Derezzed 3 hours ago ( Edited ) remove Share link Copy

" Israel is routinely at the top of the US' classified threat list of hackers along with Russia and China [ ] even though it is an ally "
Our best allies !
" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the United States to stand by Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS) in the wake of the Khashoggi case. "
The most morale people !
I bet they are behind ISIS too with their (((allies))) and the (((deep state))).
But hey isn't it conspirationnist and antisemitic to accuse them of anything ?
Because you know as the most " kind " and " human " people there needs to be laws, censorship and repression, to protect them from being hated.
< 1% of the global population and they make the headlines 4/5 times a day.
Can only be bad luck and a cohencidence !

Dickweed Wang 3 hours ago remove Share link Copy

"Israel is routinely at the top of the US' classified threat list of hackers along with Russia and China [ ] even though it is an ally"

Sorry Ed, IsraHell isn't an ally of the USA. It's a ******* parasite and it's well on its way to killing the host.

alamac 4 hours ago remove Share link Copy

I guess Netanyahoo and KSM love each other because they have a common hobby: Killing Arabs.

RagnarRedux 4 hours ago ( Edited ) remove Share link Copy

ISRAEL FLAGGED AS TOP SPY THREAT TO U.S. IN NEW SNOWDEN/NSA DOCUMENT (2007)

https://www.newsweek.com/israel-flagged-top-spy-threat-us-new-snowdennsa-document-262991

Former U.S. Officials Say CIA Considers Israel To Be Mideast's Biggest Spy Threat (2012)

U.S. intelligence agents stationed in Israel report multiple cases of equipment tampering, suspected break ins in recent years; CIA officials tell the Associated Press that Israel may have leaked info that led to the capture of an agent inside Syria's chemical weapons program.

https://www.haaretz.com/for-cia-israel-is-a-spy-therat-1.5272328

He–Mene Mox Mox 4 hours ago remove Share link Copy

What Snowden says is true. Here is what the Canadians have put together about NSO: https://citizenlab.ca/2018/09/hide-and-seek-tracking-nso-groups-pegasus-spyware-to-operations-in-45-countries/

What is really troubling, is Kushner's involvement in the affair. He would have been debriefed once he returned to the U.S., not only by his father-in-law, Trump, but the intel community too. You can bet every dollar you have that both the Israelis and Saudis were using NSO surveillance on him. What is even more troubling, it appears that the action taken to "neutralize" Jamal Khashoggi, more than likely had the blessings of Washington, since Kushner met with the Saudis prior to the killing. It really makes one wonder, since Kushner declined to discuss the state of his relationship with Prince Mohammed.

GRDguy 4 hours ago remove Share link Copy

"licensed only to legitimate government agencies"

That's the problem.

There are no legitimate government agencies any more.

[Nov 08, 2018] And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy?

Nov 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

CTacitus , 15 minutes ago link

LetThemEatRand:

America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic], not to protect or favor the American people.

And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these (((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?

... ... ...

[Nov 08, 2018] Trump, Gorbachev, And The Fall Of The American Empire

Gold age of the USA (say 40 years from 1946 to approximately 1986 ) were an in some way an aberration caused by WWII. As soon as Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves this era was over. And the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or more correct Soviet nomenklatura switching sides and adopting neoliberalism) only make the decline more gradual but did not reversed it. After 200 it was clear that neoliberalism is in trouble and in 2008 it was clear that ideology of neoliberalism is dead, much like Bolshevism after 1945.
As the US ruling neoliberal elite adopted this ideology ad its flag, the USA faces the situation somewhat similar the USSR faced in 70th. It needs its "Perestroika" but with weak leader at the helm like Gorbachov it can lead to the dissolution of the state. Dismantling neoliberalism is not less dangerous then dismantling of Bolshevism. The level of brainwashing of both population and the elite (and it looks like the USA elite is brainwashed to an amazing level, probably far exceed the level of brainwashing of Soviet nomenklatura) prevents any constructive moves.
In a way, Neoliberalism probably acts as a mousetrap for the country, similar to the role of Bolshevism in the USSR. Ideology of neoliberalism is dead, so what' next. Another war to patch the internal divisions ? That's probably why Trump is so adamant about attacking Iran. Iran does not have nuclear weapons so this is in a way an ideal target. Unlike, say, Russia. And such a war can serve the same political purpose. That's why many emigrants from the USSR view the current level of divisions with the USA is a direct analog of divisions within the USSR in late 70th and 80th. Similarities are clearly visible with naked eye.
Notable quotes:
"... t is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised crime and capitalist accumulation before on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided to put it up on Histomat for you all. ..."
"... "Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose bowls. ..."
"... A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.' ..."
"... The biggest lie ever told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to protect or favor the American people. ..."
"... please mr. author don't give us more globalist dribble. We want our wealth back ..."
"... America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work ..."
"... It's the ruling capitalist Predator Class that has been demanding empire since McKinley was assassinated. That's the problem. ..."
"... And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? ..."
"... The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades by the Predator Class... ..."
Nov 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Trump, Gorbachev, And The Fall Of The American Empire

by Tyler Durden Wed, 11/07/2018 - 23:25 13 SHARES Authored by Raja Murthy via The Asia Times,

"The only wealth you keep is wealth you have given away," said Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD), last of the great Roman emperors. US President Donald Trump might know of another Italian, Mario Puzo's Don Vito Corleone, and his memorable mumble : "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse."

Forgetting such Aurelian and godfather codes is propelling the decline and fall of the American empire.

Trump is making offers the world can refuse – by reshaping trade deals, dispensing with American sops and forcing powerful corporations to return home, the US is regaining economic wealth but relinquishing global power.

As the last leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika (restructuring) led to the breakup of its vast territory(22 million square kilometers). Gorbachev's failed policies led to the dissolution of the USSR into Russia and independent countries, and the end of a superpower.

Ironically, the success of Trump's policies will hasten the demise of the American empire: the US regaining economic health but losing its insidious hold over the world.

This diminishing influence was highlighted when India and seven other countries geared up to defy Washington's re-imposition of its unilateral, illegal sanctions against Iran, starting Monday.

The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the station

The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the station.

The law of cause and effect unavoidably delivers. The Roman Empire fell after wars of greed and orgies of consumption. A similar nemesis, the genie of Gorbachev, stalks Pennsylvania Avenue, with Trump unwittingly writing the last chapter of World War II: the epilogue of the two rival superpowers that emerged from humanity's most terrible conflict.

The maverick 45th president of the United States may succeed at being an economic messiah to his country, which has racked up a $21.6 trillion debt, but the fallout is the death of American hegemony. These are the declining days of the last empire standing.

Emperors and mafia godfathers knew that wielding great influence means making payoffs. Trump, however, is doing away with the sops, the glue that holds the American empire together, and is making offers that he considers "fair" but instead is alienating the international community– from badgering NATO and other countries to pay more for hosting the US legions (800 military bases in 80 countries) to reducing US aid.

US aid to countries fell from $50 billion in fiscal year 2016, $37 billion in 2017 to $7.7 billion so far in 2018. A world less tied to American largesse and generous trade tarrifs can more easily reject the "you are with us or against us" bullying doctrine of US presidents. In the carrot and stick approach that largely passes as American foreign policy, the stick loses power as the carrot vanishes.

Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in The Godfather. Big payoffs needed for big influence. A presidential lesson for Don Trump

More self-respecting leaders will have less tolerance for American hypocrisy, such as sanctioning other countries for nuclear weapons while having the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet.

They will sneer more openly at the hysteria surrounding alleged interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, pointing to Washington's violent record of global meddling. They will cite examples of American hypocrisy such as its sponsorship of coups against elected leaders in Latin America, the US Army's Project Camelot in 1964 targeting 22 countries for intervention (including Iran, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia), its support for bloodthirsty dictators, and its destabilization of the Middle East with the destruction of Iraq and Libya.

Immigrant cannon fodder

Trump's focus on the economy reduces the likelihood of him starting wars. By ending the flood of illegal immigrants to save jobs for US citizens, he is also inadvertently reducing the manpower for illegal wars. Non-citizen immigrants comprise about 5% of the US Army. For its Iraq and Afghanistan wars, US army recruiters offered citizenship to lure illegal immigrants, mostly Latinos.

Among the first US soldiers to die in the Iraq War was 22-year old illegal immigrant Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, an orphan from the streets of Guatemala City. He sneaked across the Mexican border into the US six years before enlisting in exchange for American citizenship.

On March 21, 2003, Gutierrez was killed by friendly fire near Umm Qasr, southern Iraq. The coffin of this illegal immigrant was draped in the US flag, and he received American citizenship – posthumously.

Trump policies targeting illegal immigration simultaneously reduces the availability of cannon fodder for the illegal wars needed to maintain American hegemony.

Everything comes to an end, and so too will the last empire of our era.

The imperial American eagle flying into the sunset will see the dawn of an economically healthier US that minds its own business, and increase hopes for a more equal, happier world – thanks to the unintentional Gorbachev-2 in the White House.

PeaceForWorld , 3 minutes ago link

I am sure that many of us are OK with ending American Empire. Both US citizens and other countries don't want to fight un-necessary and un-ending wars. If Trump can do that, then he is blessed.

Condor_0000 , 23 minutes ago link

Imperialism and the State: Why McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas

By Paul D'Amato

http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/state_and_imperialism.shtml

Excerpt:

The modern nation-state was necessary as a means of creating a single, unified market that could facilitate commerce. But the state was also crucial in providing necessary infrastructure, and sometimes the pooling of capital resources, necessary for national capitalists to operate and compete effectively.

But the state as a bureaucratic institution had another, more fundamental function. Lenin, citing Engels, defined the essence of the state as "bodies of armed men, prisons, etc.," in short, an instrument for the maintenance of the rule of the exploiting minority over the exploited majority.

As capitalism burst the bounds of the nation-state, the coercive military function of the state took on a new dimension--that of protecting (and projecting) the interests of the capitalists of one country over those of another. As capitalism developed, the role of the state increased, the size of the state bureaucracy increased, and the size of its coercive apparatus increased.

Lenin was soon to refine this conception in light of the world's descent into the mass slaughter of the First World War. He argued that capitalism had reached a new stage--imperialism--the struggle between the world's "great powers" for world dominance. The central feature of imperialism was the rivarly between the great powers--whose economic competition gave way to military conflict.

Another Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, put it this way:

The forces of production which capitalism has evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to break through the state boundaries. The whole globe, the land and the sea, the surface as well as the interior, has become one economic workshop, the different parts of which are inseparably connected with each other. This work was accomplished by capitalism. But in accomplishing it the capitalist states were led to struggle for the subjection of the world-embracing economic system to the profit interests of the bourgeoisie of each country...

But the way the governments propose to solve this problem of imperialism is not through the intelligent, organized cooperation of all of humanity's producers, but through the exploitation of the world's economic system by the capitalist class of the victorious country; which country is by this War to be transformed from a great power into a world power.5

Golden Showers , 32 minutes ago link

See a pattern here? Raja Murthy, you sound like a pro-American Empire shill. 1964 Project Camelot has nothing to do with the current administration. Raja, you forgot to wear your satirical pants.

The idea and catchy hook of 2016 was Make America Great Again, not wasting lives and resources on the American Empire. You point out the good things. Who might have a problem with the end of the American Empire are Globalists. What is wrong with relinquishing global power and not wasting lives and money?

"The only lives you keep is lives you've given away" That does not ring true. The only lies you keep are the lies you've given away. What? You're not making any sense, dude. How much American Empire are you vested in? Does it bother you if the Empire shrinks its death grip on Asia or the rest of the world? Why don't you just say it: This is good! Hopefully Trump's policies will prevent you from getting writers' cramp and being confusing--along with the canon fodder. Or maybe you're worried about job security.

America is a super power, just like Russia. Just like England. However, whom the US carries water for might change. Hope that's ok.

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 33 minutes ago link

Trump is saving the US by destroying the empire. Both the US and the world will be happier for that.

Condor_0000 , 29 minutes ago link

No he's not.

Trump is an empirial president, just like every other US president. In fact, that's what the article is describing. MAGA depends upon imperialist domination. Trump and all of US capitalism know that even if the brain-dead MAGA chumps don't.

Capitalism can't help but seek to rule the world. It is the result of pursuing capitalism's all-important growth. If it's not US capitalism, it will be Chinese capitalism, or Russian capitalism, or European capitalism that will rule the world.

The battle over global markets doesn't stop just because the US might decide not to play anymore. Capitalism means that you're either the global power who is ******* the royal **** out of everyone else, or you're the victim of being fucked up the *** by an imperialist power.

FBaggins , 25 minutes ago link

The only thing which makes the US different from the rest of the world is its super concentration of power, which in effect is a super concentration of corruption.

ebworthen , 33 minutes ago link

Quite entertaining to be living in the modern Rome.

Condor_0000 , 28 minutes ago link

It's a cross between ancient Rome and Nazi Germany. And you're right. It's fascinating.

Condor_0000 , 34 minutes ago link

Another day and another ZeroHedge indictment of American capitalism.

And how refreshing that the article compares US capitalism to gangsterism. It's a most appropriate comparison.

--------------------

Al Capone on Capitalism

It is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised crime and capitalist accumulation before on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided to put it up on Histomat for you all.

In 1930, Cockburn, then a correspondent in America for the Times newspaper, interviewed Al Capone at the Lexington Hotel in Chicago, when Capone was at the height of his power. He recalls that except for 'the sub-machine gun...poking through the transom of a door behind the desk, Capone's own room was nearly indistinguishable from that of, say, a "newly arrived" Texan oil millionaire. Apart from the jowly young murderer on the far side of the desk, what took the eye were a number of large, flattish, solid silver bowls upon the desk, each filled with roses. They were nice to look at, and they had another purpose too, for Capone when agitated stood up and dipped the tips of his fingers in the water in which floated the roses.

I had been a little embarrassed as to how the interview was to be launched. Naturally the nub of all such interviews is somehow to get round to the question "What makes you tick?" but in the case of this millionaire killer the approach to this central question seemed mined with dangerous impediments. However, on the way down to the Lexington Hotel I had had the good fortune to see, I think in the Chicago Daily News , some statistics offered by an insurance company which dealt with the average expectation of life of gangsters in Chicago. I forget exactly what the average was, and also what the exact age of Capone at that time - I think he was in his early thirties. The point was, however, that in any case he was four years older than the upper limit considered by the insurance company to be the proper average expectation of life for a Chicago gangster. This seemed to offer a more or less neutral and academic line of approach, and after the ordinary greetings I asked Capone whether he had read this piece of statistics in the paper. He said that he had. I asked him whether he considered the estimate reasonably accurate. He said that he thought that the insurance companies and the newspaper boys probably knew their stuff. "In that case", I asked him, "how does it feel to be, say, four years over the age?"

He took the question quite seriously and spoke of the matter with neither more nor less excitement or agitation than a man would who, let us say, had been asked whether he, as the rear machine-gunner of a bomber, was aware of the average incidence of casualties in that occupation. He apparently assumed that sooner or later he would be shot despite the elaborate precautions which he regularly took. The idea that - as afterwards turned out to be the case - he would be arrested by the Federal authorities for income-tax evasion had not, I think, at that time so much as crossed his mind. And, after all, he said with a little bit of corn-and-ham somewhere at the back of his throat, supposing he had not gone into this racket? What would be have been doing? He would, he said, "have been selling newspapers barefoot on the street in Brooklyn".

He stood as he spoke, cooling his finger-tips in the rose bowl in front of him. He sat down again, brooding and sighing. Despite the ham-and-corn, what he said was probably true and I said so, sympathetically. A little bit too sympathetically, as immediately emerged, for as I spoke I saw him looking at me suspiciously, not to say censoriously. My remarks about the harsh way the world treats barefoot boys in Brooklyn were interrupted by an urgent angry waggle of his podgy hand.

"Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose bowls.

"This American system of ours," he shouted, "call it Americanism, call it Capitalism, call it what you like, gives to each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it." He held out his hand towards me, the fingers dripping a little, and stared at me sternly for a few seconds before reseating himself.

A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.'

LetThemEatRand , 52 minutes ago link

This article was obviously written by someone who wants to maintain the status quo.

America would be much stronger if it were not trying to be an empire. The biggest lie ever told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to protect or favor the American people.

hardmedicine , 41 minutes ago link

exactly, please mr. author don't give us more globalist dribble. We want our wealth back and screw the rest of the world, America First

LetThemEatRand , 39 minutes ago link

I truly believe that "America First" is not selfish. America before it went full ****** was the beacon of freedom and success that other countries tried to emulate and that changed the world for the better.

America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work.

HopefulCynical , 26 minutes ago link

Empire is a contrivance, a vehicle for psychopathic powerlust. America was founded by people who stood adamantly opposed to this. Here's hoping Trump holds their true spirit in his heart.

If he doesn't, there's hundreds of millions of us who still do. We don't all live in America...

Posa , 15 minutes ago link

It's the ruling capitalist Predator Class that has been demanding empire since McKinley was assassinated. That's the problem.

CTacitus , 15 minutes ago link

LetThemEatRand:

America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic], not to protect or favor the American people.

And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these (((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?

JSBach1 called you a 'coward', for being EXACTLY LIKE THESE TRAITOROUS SPINELESS VERMIN who simply just step outside just 'enough' the comfort zone to APPEAR 'real'. IMHO, I concur with JSBach1 ...your're a coward indeed, when you should know better ..... shame you you indeed!

pitz , 55 minutes ago link

There is little evidence, Trump's propaganda aside (that he previously called Obama dishonest for) that the US economy is improving. If anything, the exploding budget and trade deficits indicate that the economy continues to weaken.

Posa , 12 minutes ago link

Correct. The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades by the Predator Class...

the US can't even raise an army... even if enough young (men) were dumb enough to volunteer there just aren't enough fit, healthy and mentally acute recruits out there.

[Nov 08, 2018] Imperialism and the State: Why McDonald s Needs McDonnell Douglas by Paul D'Amato

Notable quotes:
"... But the state as a bureaucratic institution had another, more fundamental function. Lenin, citing Engels, defined the essence of the state as "bodies of armed men, prisons, etc.," in short, an instrument for the maintenance of the rule of the exploiting minority over the exploited majority. ..."
"... As capitalism burst the bounds of the nation-state, the coercive military function of the state took on a new dimension -- that of protecting (and projecting) the interests of the capitalists of one country over those of another. As capitalism developed, the role of the state increased, the size of the state bureaucracy increased, and the size of its coercive apparatus increased. ..."
"... The forces of production which capitalism has evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to break through the state boundaries ..."
"... But the way the governments propose to solve this problem of imperialism is not through the intelligent, organized cooperation of all of humanity's producers, but through the exploitation of the world's economic system by the capitalist class of the victorious country ..."
Nov 08, 2018 | www.isreview.org

http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/state_and_imperialism.shtml

Excerpt:

The modern nation-state was necessary as a means of creating a single, unified market that could facilitate commerce. But the state was also crucial in providing necessary infrastructure, and sometimes the pooling of capital resources, necessary for national capitalists to operate and compete effectively.

But the state as a bureaucratic institution had another, more fundamental function. Lenin, citing Engels, defined the essence of the state as "bodies of armed men, prisons, etc.," in short, an instrument for the maintenance of the rule of the exploiting minority over the exploited majority.

As capitalism burst the bounds of the nation-state, the coercive military function of the state took on a new dimension -- that of protecting (and projecting) the interests of the capitalists of one country over those of another. As capitalism developed, the role of the state increased, the size of the state bureaucracy increased, and the size of its coercive apparatus increased.

Lenin was soon to refine this conception in light of the world's descent into the mass slaughter of the First World War. He argued that capitalism had reached a new stage--imperialism--the struggle between the world's "great powers" for world dominance. The central feature of imperialism was the rivarly between the great powers--whose economic competition gave way to military conflict.

Another Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, put it this way:

The forces of production which capitalism has evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to break through the state boundaries . The whole globe, the land and the sea, the surface as well as the interior, has become one economic workshop, the different parts of which are inseparably connected with each other. This work was accomplished by capitalism. But in accomplishing it the capitalist states were led to struggle for the subjection of the world-embracing economic system to the profit interests of the bourgeoisie of each country...

But the way the governments propose to solve this problem of imperialism is not through the intelligent, organized cooperation of all of humanity's producers, but through the exploitation of the world's economic system by the capitalist class of the victorious country; which country is by this War to be transformed from a great power into a world power.5

[Nov 08, 2018] DOJ: Acting AG to take over oversight of Russia probe by Olivia Beavers

Notable quotes:
"... The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early last year due to his work on Trump's campaign. ..."
Nov 08, 2018 | thehill.com

President Trump's pick to replace ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to take over oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed Wednesday. "The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement to The Hill.

The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early last year due to his work on Trump's campaign.

Trump on Wednesday afternoon announced Matthew Whitaker, who served as Sessions's chief of staff at the DOJ, as his temporary replacement atop the department after ousting Sessions.

[Nov 08, 2018] And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy?

Nov 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

CTacitus , 15 minutes ago link

LetThemEatRand:

America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic], not to protect or favor the American people.

And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these (((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?

... ... ...

[Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Debsisdead | Nov 7, 2018 6:19:36 AM | 9

It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.

The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig actually practising law.

These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is where the real dough is."

Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.

Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.

Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.

Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?

This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it, in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make certain the bill does get up.

Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.

Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.

If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and voters.

But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.

As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.

Anton Worter , Nov 7, 2018 11:13:25 AM | link

@9

As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.

The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.

There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?

Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC String of Girls.

ken | Nov 7, 2018 12:44:13 PM | 69

Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that wants it all free.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.

The US, and West in general, is proof positive.

Russ | Nov 7, 2018 7:48:10 AM | 17

So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.)

It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump, have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.

So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?

I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense.

If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be to see what the House is doing about it.

They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control of the House.

But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.

Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats, they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.

Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.

[Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Debsisdead | Nov 7, 2018 6:19:36 AM | 9

It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.

The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig actually practising law.

These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is where the real dough is."

Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.

Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.

Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.

Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?

This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it, in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make certain the bill does get up.

Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.

Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.

If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and voters.

But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.

As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.

Anton Worter , Nov 7, 2018 11:13:25 AM | link

@9

As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.

The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.

There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?

Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC String of Girls.

ken | Nov 7, 2018 12:44:13 PM | 69

Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that wants it all free.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.

The US, and West in general, is proof positive.

Russ | Nov 7, 2018 7:48:10 AM | 17

So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.)

It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump, have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.

So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?

I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense.

If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be to see what the House is doing about it.

They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control of the House.

But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.

Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats, they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.

Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.

[Nov 07, 2018] China ruled by Chinese...Russia ruled Russians...US ruled by dual citizens. See the difference

Nov 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's Congress, said while confirming the reality that China and Russia now find themselves in the same trenches: "I just hope that if some people in the U.S. insist on dragging us down the hill into Thucydides' trap, China will be smart enough not to follow."

Indeed to step back and review the breadth of Russia-China cooperation over the past couple years alone reveals the full potential "cost" of a US-China conflict , given the ways Russia could easily be pulled in. Fu Ying articulated the increasingly common view from Beijing, that "There is no sense of threat from Russia" and that "We feel comfortable back-to-back."

And participants in a recent study by the National Bureau of Asian Research , a Seattle-based think tank, actually agree. They were asked whether American policy was at fault for pushing China and Russia into closer cooperation, and alarmingly, as Bloomberg notes: "Some among the 100-plus participants called for Washington to prepare for the worst-case scenario the realignment implies: a two-front war ."

Here's but a partial list of the way Sino-Russian relations have been transformed in recent years:

waseda-anon , 27 minutes ago link

There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.

I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the problem of the Chi-coms.

KTX , 37 minutes ago link

US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big time being the biggest bully in the history.

hoist the bs flag , 41 minutes ago link

Bilateral trading of Russian and Chinese currency continues on. As do their trade agreements, military gear and friendship.

Thank you Mr. Trump, for helping along that SDR/NWO currency inception for these countries, starting a trade war while the dollar and T Bills drop.

outstanding. Here I thought a stupid ******* Democrat would be at the helm, imploding the United States. shocking...a billionaire con man is.

steverino999 , 8 minutes ago link

Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh

me or you , 9 minutes ago link

China ruled by Chinese...Russia ruled Russians...US ruled by traitors and dual citizens. See the difference.

Buck Shot , 1 minute ago link

You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.

g3h , 12 minutes ago link

We are in a trap set by ourselves. The neocon and the liberals want wars with both. On those front they are unuted.

That's what we get.

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 14 minutes ago link

Go ahead. Merge to form Ruina, with leaders PuXi and XiPu.

InnVestuhrr , 14 minutes ago link

China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:

  1. Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
  2. Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
  3. China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in abundance
  4. Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is the world's factory
  5. USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
Karmageddon , 17 minutes ago link

While the US tears itself apart....

The_Juggernaut , 20 minutes ago link

Wow. Putin is even shorter than Xi? No wonder he feels compelled to post the shirtless tiger-wresting pics. He's about as shrimpy as Stalin was.

waseda-anon , 27 minutes ago link

There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.

I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the problem of the Chi-coms.

KTX , 37 minutes ago link

US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big time being the biggest bully in the history.

The_Juggernaut , 18 minutes ago link

Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is laughable.

hoist the bs flag , 41 minutes ago link

Bilateral trading of Russian and Chinese currency continues on. As do their trade agreements, military gear and friendship.

Thank you Mr. Trump, for helping along that SDR/NWO currency inception for these countries, starting a trade war while the dollar and T Bills drop.

outstanding. Here I thought a stupid ******* Democrat would be at the helm, imploding the United States. shocking...a billionaire con man is.

LetThemEatRand , 57 minutes ago link

Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just lying.

Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press privileges of a CNN guy.

Sinophile , 52 minutes ago link

I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.

LetThemEatRand , 49 minutes ago link

He's so smart he realized that almost immediately and brought in a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys to be in his cabinet.

Trump should have said "I could hire a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys, and my idiot anti-banker supporters will still shill for me."

Alternative , 42 minutes ago link

Nobody gives a **** about normalizing relations with Russia.

Sad but true. You know that.

steverino999 , 8 minutes ago link

Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh

me or you , 9 minutes ago link

China ruled by Chinese...Russia ruled Russians...US ruled by traitors and dual citizens. See the difference.

Buck Shot , 1 minute ago link

You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.

g3h , 12 minutes ago link

We are in a trap set by ourselves. The neocon and the liberals want wars with both. On those front they are unuted.

That's what we get.

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 14 minutes ago link

Go ahead. Merge to form Ruina, with leaders PuXi and XiPu.

InnVestuhrr , 14 minutes ago link

China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:

  1. Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
  2. Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
  3. China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in abundance
  4. Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is the world's factory
  5. USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
Karmageddon , 17 minutes ago link

While the US tears itself apart....

The_Juggernaut , 20 minutes ago link

Wow. Putin is even shorter than Xi? No wonder he feels compelled to post the shirtless tiger-wresting pics. He's about as shrimpy as Stalin was.

waseda-anon , 27 minutes ago link

There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.

I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the problem of the Chi-coms.

KTX , 37 minutes ago link

US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big time being the biggest bully in the history.

The_Juggernaut , 18 minutes ago link

Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is laughable.

hoist the bs flag , 41 minutes ago link

Bilateral trading of Russian and Chinese currency continues on. As do their trade agreements, military gear and friendship.

Thank you Mr. Trump, for helping along that SDR/NWO currency inception for these countries, starting a trade war while the dollar and T Bills drop.

outstanding. Here I thought a stupid ******* Democrat would be at the helm, imploding the United States. shocking...a billionaire con man is.

LetThemEatRand , 57 minutes ago link

Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just lying.

Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press privileges of a CNN guy.

Sinophile , 52 minutes ago link

I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.

LetThemEatRand , 49 minutes ago link

He's so smart he realized that almost immediately and brought in a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys to be in his cabinet.

Trump should have said "I could hire a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys, and my idiot anti-banker supporters will still shill for me."

Alternative , 42 minutes ago link

Nobody gives a **** about normalizing relations with Russia.

Sad but true. You know that.

[Nov 07, 2018] Adam Schiff: Russia 'Collusion' Investigation Top Priority If Democrats Win

Notable quotes:
"... The House dems will create even more severe sanction bills against the Russians looking to gain politically by making Trump and gopers look pro-Putin and anti-patriotic, plus serving business interests in pushing out euro and Russian competitors. ..."
Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zanon , Nov 7, 2018 7:06:33 AM | link

Daniel Good

Hopefully the Democrats will be intelligent enough to stop the Russian collusion investigation

Adam Schiff: Russia 'Collusion' Investigation Top Priority If Democrats Win
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/06/adam-schiff-russia-collusion-investigation-top-priority-if-democrats-win/

Erelis , Nov 7, 2018 7:57:01 AM | link

The House dems will create even more severe sanction bills against the Russians looking to gain politically by making Trump and gopers look pro-Putin and anti-patriotic, plus serving business interests in pushing out euro and Russian competitors. Domestically House dems may work with gopers to cut social security and medicare much as Obama tried to do. Russian xenophobia will go through the proverbial roof.

[Nov 07, 2018] We are being played by an establishment that wants to move the country to the right. MAGA! is a bi-partisan effort fueled by the challenge from China and Russia

When people who voted for Obama realized the Obama is a fraud with strong CIA connections it was too late...
When people who voted for Trump realized that Trump was a fraud with strong Israeli connections it was too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls. ..."
Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Jackrabbit , Nov 5, 2018 11:56:59 PM | link

...And it seems likely, if not certain, that the caravan is a political stunt that will end in disappointment for the caravan migrants. So I fail to see why you are so angry Debs. Our discussion doesn't ignore the realities. Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls.

We are being played by an establishment that wants to move the country to the right. MAGA! is a bi-partisan effort fueled by the challenge from China and Russia. This is clear from Democratic Party priorities and actions as well as what they don't say or do.

[Nov 07, 2018] Warner is already making noise and

Nov 07, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Amanda Matthews

@EdMass threats...

Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, "No one is above the law and any effort to interfere with the Special Counsel's investigation would be a gross abuse of power by the President. While the President may have theauthority to replace the Attorney General, this must not be the first step in an attempt to impede, obstruct or end the Mueller investigation."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/nation...

He really needs to shut up. He's got some 'collusion' problems of his own.

Sen. Mark Warner texted with lobbyist with Russian ties to get in touch with dossier author: Report

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/9/mark-warner-texted-with-...

#3.2

that maybe Maxine and Shiff and Nadler are going to lay back? What about Cummings?

Ain't happening and Pelosi can't control them imho.

[Nov 07, 2018] China ruled by Chinese...Russia ruled Russians...US ruled by dual citizens. See the difference

Nov 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's Congress, said while confirming the reality that China and Russia now find themselves in the same trenches: "I just hope that if some people in the U.S. insist on dragging us down the hill into Thucydides' trap, China will be smart enough not to follow."

Indeed to step back and review the breadth of Russia-China cooperation over the past couple years alone reveals the full potential "cost" of a US-China conflict , given the ways Russia could easily be pulled in. Fu Ying articulated the increasingly common view from Beijing, that "There is no sense of threat from Russia" and that "We feel comfortable back-to-back."

And participants in a recent study by the National Bureau of Asian Research , a Seattle-based think tank, actually agree. They were asked whether American policy was at fault for pushing China and Russia into closer cooperation, and alarmingly, as Bloomberg notes: "Some among the 100-plus participants called for Washington to prepare for the worst-case scenario the realignment implies: a two-front war ."

Here's but a partial list of the way Sino-Russian relations have been transformed in recent years:

waseda-anon , 27 minutes ago link

There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.

I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the problem of the Chi-coms.

KTX , 37 minutes ago link

US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big time being the biggest bully in the history.

hoist the bs flag , 41 minutes ago link

Bilateral trading of Russian and Chinese currency continues on. As do their trade agreements, military gear and friendship.

Thank you Mr. Trump, for helping along that SDR/NWO currency inception for these countries, starting a trade war while the dollar and T Bills drop.

outstanding. Here I thought a stupid ******* Democrat would be at the helm, imploding the United States. shocking...a billionaire con man is.

steverino999 , 8 minutes ago link

Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh

me or you , 9 minutes ago link

China ruled by Chinese...Russia ruled Russians...US ruled by traitors and dual citizens. See the difference.

Buck Shot , 1 minute ago link

You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.

g3h , 12 minutes ago link

We are in a trap set by ourselves. The neocon and the liberals want wars with both. On those front they are unuted.

That's what we get.

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 14 minutes ago link

Go ahead. Merge to form Ruina, with leaders PuXi and XiPu.

InnVestuhrr , 14 minutes ago link

China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:

  1. Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
  2. Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
  3. China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in abundance
  4. Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is the world's factory
  5. USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
Karmageddon , 17 minutes ago link

While the US tears itself apart....

The_Juggernaut , 20 minutes ago link

Wow. Putin is even shorter than Xi? No wonder he feels compelled to post the shirtless tiger-wresting pics. He's about as shrimpy as Stalin was.

waseda-anon , 27 minutes ago link

There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.

I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the problem of the Chi-coms.

KTX , 37 minutes ago link

US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big time being the biggest bully in the history.

The_Juggernaut , 18 minutes ago link

Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is laughable.

hoist the bs flag , 41 minutes ago link

Bilateral trading of Russian and Chinese currency continues on. As do their trade agreements, military gear and friendship.

Thank you Mr. Trump, for helping along that SDR/NWO currency inception for these countries, starting a trade war while the dollar and T Bills drop.

outstanding. Here I thought a stupid ******* Democrat would be at the helm, imploding the United States. shocking...a billionaire con man is.

LetThemEatRand , 57 minutes ago link

Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just lying.

Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press privileges of a CNN guy.

Sinophile , 52 minutes ago link

I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.

LetThemEatRand , 49 minutes ago link

He's so smart he realized that almost immediately and brought in a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys to be in his cabinet.

Trump should have said "I could hire a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys, and my idiot anti-banker supporters will still shill for me."

Alternative , 42 minutes ago link

Nobody gives a **** about normalizing relations with Russia.

Sad but true. You know that.

steverino999 , 8 minutes ago link

Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh

me or you , 9 minutes ago link

China ruled by Chinese...Russia ruled Russians...US ruled by traitors and dual citizens. See the difference.

Buck Shot , 1 minute ago link

You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.

g3h , 12 minutes ago link

We are in a trap set by ourselves. The neocon and the liberals want wars with both. On those front they are unuted.

That's what we get.

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 14 minutes ago link

Go ahead. Merge to form Ruina, with leaders PuXi and XiPu.

InnVestuhrr , 14 minutes ago link

China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:

  1. Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
  2. Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
  3. China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in abundance
  4. Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is the world's factory
  5. USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
Karmageddon , 17 minutes ago link

While the US tears itself apart....

The_Juggernaut , 20 minutes ago link

Wow. Putin is even shorter than Xi? No wonder he feels compelled to post the shirtless tiger-wresting pics. He's about as shrimpy as Stalin was.

waseda-anon , 27 minutes ago link

There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.

I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the problem of the Chi-coms.

KTX , 37 minutes ago link

US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big time being the biggest bully in the history.

The_Juggernaut , 18 minutes ago link

Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is laughable.

hoist the bs flag , 41 minutes ago link

Bilateral trading of Russian and Chinese currency continues on. As do their trade agreements, military gear and friendship.

Thank you Mr. Trump, for helping along that SDR/NWO currency inception for these countries, starting a trade war while the dollar and T Bills drop.

outstanding. Here I thought a stupid ******* Democrat would be at the helm, imploding the United States. shocking...a billionaire con man is.

LetThemEatRand , 57 minutes ago link

Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just lying.

Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press privileges of a CNN guy.

Sinophile , 52 minutes ago link

I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.

LetThemEatRand , 49 minutes ago link

He's so smart he realized that almost immediately and brought in a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys to be in his cabinet.

Trump should have said "I could hire a bunch of Goldman Sachs guys, and my idiot anti-banker supporters will still shill for me."

Alternative , 42 minutes ago link

Nobody gives a **** about normalizing relations with Russia.

Sad but true. You know that.

[Nov 07, 2018] The Populist Moment A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America by Lawrence Goodwyn

Nov 07, 2018 | www.amazon.com

Gary Moreau, Author TOP 500 REVIEWER 5.0 out of 5 stars Why the poor still lose March 13, 2018 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase

Populism. The word is used a lot today by political journalists in reference to both President Trump supporters and the Brexit movement. And, historically speaking, it is generally used inaccurately, a fact that I, too, was unaware of until I read another reader's review of a separate title. That reviewer recommended this book, written by Duke professor of history, Lawrence Goodwyn, and published in 1979.

While the title refers to the book as 'short', it is a very thorough review of the populist political movement that rose out of the National Farmers Alliance, which went under a series of different names and platforms that ultimately had everything to do with the coinage of silver and relatively little to do with the original populist reforms.

What is most fascinating to me is not the acquisition of historical accuracy regarding the populist label as it is the revelation of the degree to which the 1896 presidential election, between Republican William McKinley and Democrat (and presumed populist) William Jennings Bryant, ultimately cast the shape of American economics and politics that survives yet today. While that election appeared to turn on gold (McKinley) versus silver (Bryant), the outcome would ultimately define no less than what it means to be an American in the 21st Century.

It all began with the American Civil War, not surprisingly. And, more specifically, who was going to pay the enormous debt incurred to fight it. And that, ultimately, came down to the question of currency. The creation of a hard currency, which is ultimately the position that won out, protected the bankers and other owners of corporate capital, but at the expense of laborers and farmers.

The hard currency ultimately exaggerated the worst abuses of the crop lien system then prevalent in the South, forcing farmers (land-owners and tenants alike) into a cycle of increasing debt and falling commodity prices that they could not escape. It is, in many ways, the same inescapable cycle that entraps the urban and rural poor today.

But that's where the populist analogy ends, as the populist agrarian movement pursued a political agenda that would be the antithesis of Trump's MAGA agenda of today. It was, in fact, the antitheses of both the modern conservative and progressive agendas, both of which only appear to offer a real distinction and choice.

Both agendas presume the economic supremacy of capital and the political supremacy of the corporate and banking classes that control it. Among other things, it is the supremacy of capital that has fueled the rapid and unbridled consolidation of both industry and agriculture in the US, permanently planting the corporation at the top of the political food chain. (In 1870, the average US factory had only 8 workers.)

Before the Civil War, about 80% of all free white men owned property. By 1890, however, the richest 9% of all Americans (still white men) owned three-fourths of all wealth and within a decade one in eight Americans were living in abject poverty. With the exception of a historically brief period following World War II, in which unions managed to give laborers a political voice, now lost, it is a trend that continues to this day.

What was most amazing to me, in reading this book, was how little things have really changed. Our political parties are built on regional alliances far more than differences of ideological substance. Both accept the supremacy of corporate consolidation and the benefit of economies of scale, even though there is little actual evidence to support the premise. Consolidation has done nothing quite so effectively as it has promoted political, social, and financial inequality. (Republicans and Democrats both blamed the farmers themselves for their economic plight in the 1890s, much as politicians frequently blame the poor themselves for their plight today.)

The solutions proposed by the populists of the National Agrarian Federation were decidedly collective in nature and built from the success of the cooperative movement that had provided some relief from corporate anarchy. It called for the abolition of private banks, a new dynamic currency, the nationalization of the railroads, and the formation of government cooperatives to handle crop financing, insurance, and post-harvest handling and storage. It was, in other words, quite the ideological opposite of Trump's anti-immigrant, anti-regulatory, pro-corporate agenda.

The author makes two other important contributions to the current political dialogue. The first is to refute the illusion promoted by both political parties that American history is a timeline of uninterrupted progress and advancement. It is, more than we care to admit, a history of exploitation and the dominance of minority interests under the guise of personal and economic freedom that, for most, does not exist.

And because it is a myth that is almost universally accepted, the author notes, real political reform in the US is virtually impossible to achieve, in short because we refuse to see the world the way it really is. We have, as a result, neither the confidence nor the persistence to force the owners of capital, which control the political agenda, to give up the advantages they have enshrined into American politics and business.

In short, this is a fascinating book that everyone should have the courage to read. You may not agree with the author's conclusions, and there will surely be other historians who will take exception with his interpretation. Each of us, however, should have a commitment to defend that which we believe in the face of inconvenient facts, including those presented in this book.

Martin S. Harris Jr. 5.0 out of 5 stars required reading for understanding of today's "Populism" October 4, 2016 Format: Paperback Verified Purchase

Most likely (amateur historian opinion) the single best account of the Populist phenomenon I have ever read. If I have to find fault somewhere, It would be the absence of much coverage of earlier Populist themes in American politics, particularly as seen in the Jeffersonian sovereign-yeoman theme and in the Jacksonian anti-big-banking theme.

SK Figler 5.0 out of 5 stars Fighting Big Banks and Corporations---the beginning in America April 28, 2012 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase

Usually histories of economics put me to sleep. But Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Populist Movement" is an enthralling gem that will give you numerous "Aha!" moments as it shows how and why populist movements, particularly that of the post-Civil War era (with its inception in Texas), began, grew, and failed in competing with big banks and business. There are many surprises to someone like me, who is not an economist but has been led (or pushed) to care about it from what has happened in and to America these past 30 years. Goodwyn shows clearly why the small farmers of southern and Plains America were driven to do something about the crushing control of big banks, growing commercial interests, and Wall Street. Ultimately, they failed because all power and control was in the hands of men like Gould and Morgan and the other Robber Barons. There is, however, a lesson to be taken from "The Populist Movement," that knowing and anticipating what massive blockages stand in the way of economic and political change can help people work around them. No one who reads Goodwyn's book can claim, "Well, I just didn't know."

[Nov 07, 2018] Now this much maligned and misused word democracy denotes a political system in which the public, the many - exercise actual sovereignty: an extremely rare event. So that's not about to happen in the current situation

Notable quotes:
"... But the roots of the word populist we can find in the word popular: and the other day I encountered a list of the actual top concerns of Americans, and as I recall the state of the ocean and rivers and lakes, and water quality, and political corruption, and health care figured highly - were 'popular' concerns, and destroying other countries, not so much. ..."
"... 'Real thing' Populism would be inevitably be flawed, given the human condition, but still offer 'real' improvement. ..."
Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Robert Snefjella , Nov 7, 2018 5:55:38 PM | link

@92 What might a 'real thing' Populist offer: Well, we have the schooling on the Populist Movement in the United States, late in the 19th century, memorialized in the book by Lawrence Goodwyn - The Populist Moment - and Goodwyn immediately links Populism to Democracy.

Now this much maligned and misused word democracy denotes a political system in which the public, the many - exercise actual sovereignty: an extremely rare event. So that's not about to happen in the current situation.

But the roots of the word populist we can find in the word popular: and the other day I encountered a list of the actual top concerns of Americans, and as I recall the state of the ocean and rivers and lakes, and water quality, and political corruption, and health care figured highly - were 'popular' concerns, and destroying other countries, not so much.

So Piotr, we might extend a kindred list greatly, and we don't have to end up with a list trivial desires or maniacal religions, like demonizing carbon dioxide. ;/

'Real thing' Populism would be inevitably be flawed, given the human condition, but still offer 'real' improvement.

[Nov 07, 2018] Why oil prices fall when Iran production also falls?

That suggest oil price manipilation...
The event remind preparation to Iraq war.
Also if administration really wants war, Iran is not Ieaq and will fight more efficiently, while the US army despite technological supreiority is demoralized. nobody believe into the the building of global neoliberal empire any longer.
Notable quotes:
"... The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do. ..."
"... If a foreign power waged an economic war against your country, would you be likely to respond to that foreign coercion by effectively taking their side against your own government? Of course not. The idea that Iranians will do the work of their country's enemies by rising up and toppling the regime has always been far-fetched, but it is particularly absurd to think that Iranians would do this after they have just seen their economy be destroyed by the actions of a foreign government. ..."
"... People normally do not respond to economic hardship and diminishing prospects by risking their lives by starting a rebellion against the state. ..."
"... Making Iranians poorer and more miserable isn't going to encourage them to be more politically active, much less rebellious, but will instead force them to focus on getting by. That is likely to depress turnout at future elections, and that is more likely to be good news for hard-line candidates in the years to come. ..."
"... Iran hawks typically don't understand the country that they obsess over, so perhaps it is not surprising that they haven't thought any of this through, but their most glaring failure is not taking into account the importance of nationalism. ..."
Nov 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Originally from: The Futility of Trump's Iran Policy By Daniel Larison November 6, 2018, 10:54 AM • The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do.

The Trump administration's plan to throttle the Iranian economy is as poorly-conceived as it is cruel:

"For ordinary people, sanctions mean unemployment, sanctions mean becoming poor, sanctions mean the scarcity of medicine, the rising price of dollar," said Akbar Shamsodini, an Iranian businessman in the oil and gas sector who lost his job six months ago as European companies started to pull out of Iran in fear of US sanctions.

" By imposing these sanctions, they want to force Iranians to rise up in revolt against their government but in practice, they will only make them flee their country [bold mine-DL]," he said, adding that ironically it would be Europe that would have to bear the burden of such a mass migration.

"We're being squashed here as an Iranian youth who studied here, worked here, the only thing I'm thinking about now is how to flee my country and go to Europe."

If a foreign power waged an economic war against your country, would you be likely to respond to that foreign coercion by effectively taking their side against your own government? Of course not. The idea that Iranians will do the work of their country's enemies by rising up and toppling the regime has always been far-fetched, but it is particularly absurd to think that Iranians would do this after they have just seen their economy be destroyed by the actions of a foreign government.

People normally do not respond to economic hardship and diminishing prospects by risking their lives by starting a rebellion against the state. As Mr. Shamsodini says above, it is much more likely that they will leave to find a way to make a living elsewhere. All that strangling Iran's economy will manage to do is push young and ambitious Iranians to go abroad while inflicting cruel collective punishment on everyone that remains behind. Making Iranians poorer and more miserable isn't going to encourage them to be more politically active, much less rebellious, but will instead force them to focus on getting by. That is likely to depress turnout at future elections, and that is more likely to be good news for hard-line candidates in the years to come.

Iran hawks typically don't understand the country that they obsess over, so perhaps it is not surprising that they haven't thought any of this through, but their most glaring failure is not taking into account the importance of nationalism. When a foreign power tries dictating terms to another nation on pain of economic punishment, this is bound to provoke resentment and resistance. Like any other self-respecting nation, Iranians aren't going to accept being told what to do by a foreign government, and they are much more likely to band together in solidarity rather than start an uprising against their own government. The stronger the nationalist tradition there is in a country, the more likely it is that the reaction to foreign threats will be one of defiance and unity. It simply makes no sense to think that the U.S. can pressure a proud nation to capitulate like this.

The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do. President Washington exhorted his countrymen in his Farewell Address : "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." The administration's Iran policy represents the total rejection of that advice. If the U.S. followed Washington's recommendations, it would not be abrogating an agreement that it had just negotiated a few years earlier, and it would not be punishing an entire country for the wrongs of a few. Instead, the U.S. would have built on the success of the earlier negotiations and would have sought to reestablish normal relations with them.

Sid Finster November 6, 2018 at 11:56 am

The Administration's Iran policy is identical to the Iraq policy from 1990 – 2003, in that is it is designed to provide an excuse for a war.

[Nov 07, 2018] Trump is now ripe of impeachment for his crimes in Syria, but nobody will push for it

One potential worry in both the extensive Democratic and Republican political criminal cesspool would be that another wealthy populist-esque candidate for the Presidency will emerge in the wake Trump's faux populism to come closer to the real thing. ....
Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Robert Snefjella , Nov 7, 2018 3:32:12 PM | link

As I gamely attempt to make some sense out of a daily inundation of various alternative political realities and alternative illusions co-mingling, processing as best I can the bits and pieces that I manage to filter through my taxed cranium, it occurs to me again that Trump won the 2016 election against the Establishment of both parties.

Subsequently, Trump has had various anchors attached to him and booby traps placed in his way and arrows shot at him from many political directions, and some self-inflicted. His own behaviors and policies have managed to alienate just about everybody on the planet except some tens of millions of Deplorables of indeterminate faithfulness.

But it appears to me that the strengthening of his position in the Senate, which previously was at best weakly supportive at Trump and for good reason easily suspected of being poised for betrayal, is potentially very significant. The question is to what extent the new Senate will be more willing to flex its enhanced Republican muscles on behalf of Trump.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Okay, so the impeachment possibility is nullified.

Another point is that whereas after 2016 the Democratic minority were reduced to political 'guerrilla-tactics', they are now able to actually propose and win the H. of Rep. vote on their proposals. Since they require the assent of the Senate, will this lead to a more cooperative approach to proposed legislation? After all, bashing Trump has not been a great strategy. Might the Democrats try actually proposing and attempting to pass sensible laws?

One potential worry in both the extensive Democratic and Republican political criminal cesspool would be that another wealthy populist-esque candidate for the Presidency will emerge in the wake Trump's faux populism to come closer to the real thing. Perhaps such a political trend/event in the USA is as far fetched as the unicorn, but after all, who would have thought Russia could have rebounded positively so far from their inebriated depressed life support just a short generation ago?

[Nov 07, 2018] A must watch Jimmy Dore show

Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Harry Law , Nov 7, 2018 3:27:30 PM | 86 ">link

This is a must watch Jimmy Dore show, Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University lays out how Obama and Trump have made a mess of Syria and caused the deaths of half a million people, the panel on MSMBC are stunned into silence by this truth telling.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk

[Nov 06, 2018] What Causes a Normal Election to Spiral into Tribal Warfare Zero Hedge

Nov 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

What Causes a Normal Election to Spiral into Tribal Warfare?

by TDB Mon, 11/05/2018 - 12:13 23 SHARES by Joe Jarvis via The Daily Bell

In 1966, Gao Jianhua (who later changed his name to Gao Yuan) was 14 years old.

At the Yizhen Middle School near Beijing, China, he witnessed and participated in the birth of China's "Cultural Revolution." He later recorded his personal account in a book called Born Red: A Chronicle of the Cultural Revolution .

The leader of Communist China, Chairman Mao, warned the country that revisionists were threatening to erase all the progress made since the Communist Revolution which brought Mao to power.

It had been almost 20 years since the bloody revolution, and Mao wanted to reinvigorate the rebel spirit in the youth. He instructed students to root out any teachers who wove subtle anti-communist sentiments in their lessons.

Mao encouraged students to rebel against any mindless respect for entrenched authority, remnants, he said, of centuries of capitalist influence.

Students at Yizhen Middle School, like many others, quickly took up the task. They "exposed" capitalist intellectual teachers and paraded them around in dunce caps with insulting signs hung around their necks.

Teachers were beaten and harassed until they confessed to their crimes most of which were, of course, false confessions to avoid further torture.

It only escalated from there.

What ensued puts Lord of the Flies to shame.

One teacher killed himself after being taken captive by students. Most teachers fled.

Soon the students were left entirely in charge of their school. Two factions quickly emerged, one calling themselves the East is Red Corps, and the other the Red Rebels.

One student was kidnapped by the East is Red Corps, and suffocated to death on a sock stuffed in his mouth.

A girl was found to be an East is Red spy among the Red Rebels. She was later cornered with other East is Red students in a building. She shouted from a window that she would rather die than surrender. Praising Chairman Mao, she jumped to her death.

Some Red Rebels died from an accidental explosion while making bombs.

Many were tortured, and another student died from his injuries at the hands of the East is Red Corps.

A female teacher refused to sign an affidavit lying about the cause of death. She was beaten and gang-raped by a group of students.

Robert Greene explains these events, in his new book, The Laws of Human Nature . (Emphasis added.)

Although it might be tempting to see what happened at YMS as mostly relevant to group adolescent behavior what happened at the school occurred throughout China in government offices, factories, within the army, and among Chinese of all ages in an eerily similar way

The students' repressed resentment at having to be so obedient now boiled over into anger and the desire to be the ones doing the punishing and oppressing

In the power vacuum that Mao had now created, another timeless group dynamic emerged. Those who were naturally more assertive, aggressive, and even sadistic pushed their way forward and assumed power , while those who were more passive quietly receded into the background becoming followers

Once all forms of authority were removed and the students ran the school, there was nothing to stop the next and most dangerous development in group dynamics. The split into tribal factions

People may think they are joining because of the different ideas or goals of this tribe or the other, but what they want more than anything is a sense of belonging and a clear tribal identity.

Look at the actual differences between the East is Red Corps and the Red Rebels. As the battle between them intensified it was hard to say what they were fighting for, except to assume power over the other group.

One strong or vicious act of one side called for a reprisal from the other, and any type of violence seemed totally justified. There could be no middle ground, nor any questioning of the rightness of their cause.

The tribe is always right. And to say otherwise is to betray it.

I write this on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections.

And like Mao handing down his orders to dispose of capitalist sympathizers, such have the leaders of each major US political party rallied their supporters.

This is the most important election of our lifetime, they say.

No middle ground. Violence is justified to get our way. Betray the tribe, and be considered an enemy.

Just like Mao, they have manufactured a crisis that did not previously exist.

The students had no violent factions before Mao's encouragement. They had no serious problems with their teachers.

Is there any natural crisis occurring right now? Or has the political establishment whipped us into an artificial frenzy?

This isn't just another boring election, they say. This is a battle for our future.

The students battled over who were the purest revolutionaries.

The voters now battle over who has the purest intentions for America.

Do the factions even know what they are fighting for anymore?

They are simply fighting for their tribe's control over the government.

The battle of the factions at schools across China were "resolved" when Mao came to support one side or the other. In that sense, it very much did matter which side the students were on

The government came down hard against the losing faction.

They had chosen wrong and found themselves aligned against the powerful Communist Party.

It won't be a dictator that hands control to one faction or another in this election. It will be a simple majority. And those in the minority will suffer.

The winners will feel that it is their time to wield power, just as the students were happy to finally have the upper hand on their teachers.

If Mao didn't have so much power, he could have never initiated such a violent crisis.

And if our government didn't have so much power, it would hardly matter who wins the election.

Yet here we are, fighting for control of the government because each faction threatens to violently repress the other if they gain power.

It is a manufactured crisis. A crisis that only exists because political elites in the government and media have said so.

They decided that this election will spark the USA's "Cultural Revolution."

And anyone with sympathies from a bygone era will be punished.

You don't have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It's not as hard as you think

Identify. Plan. Execute .

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!

Totally_Disillusioned , 8 hours ago link

Tribal warfare? You clearly don't understand what's happening here. The Globalist cartel has created division between two parties to incite chaos and violence. The "warfare" you reference will be nothing but protesting ->rioting ->anarchy ->police restraint of the Democrat incited sheeple.

There's no tribalism associated with upholding and preserving the Constitution.

Semi-employed White Guy , 6 hours ago link

I think the globalists will try to cool it off before things spin out of (((their))) control. Either that or move to the next phase...world war... so they can just slaughter us and not have to bother trying to herd the increasingly "woke" goyim live stock.

MoralsAreEssential , 11 hours ago link

I have NOT heard about a SINGLE CREDIBLE violent incident where people got hurt FROM THE RIGHT. All the incidents of "White Fascist Violence" look like FALSE FLAGS and contrived incidents. The foregoing CAN NOT be said of the Leftist Antifa types including racist La Raza supporters, racist Blacks who want something for nothing, immigrants from any country who want to be fully supported because they BREATHE and the Top Group (pun intended) Whites who do not believe in boundaries, standards or quality of life UNLESS it's their lives. NOT all Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants are in the Left; but most Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants are on the Left and havn't a clue they are responsible for their own prisons because they cannot REASON and virtue signaling is more important so they are part of the GROUP. Misplaced EMPHASIS on what is important in creating a CIVILIZED and SAFE society.

[Nov 06, 2018] The sad reality is that the delusion Americans suffer from (result of their universal cradle-to-grave brainwashing that I mentioned earlier) is too deeply rooted as a core component of their identities.

Notable quotes:
"... Even the brightest and most humanistic Americans are horribly twisted to appalling evil by unquestionable faith in their own exceptionalism. ..."
Nov 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Russ , Nov 6, 2018 1:48:22 PM | link

Circe | Nov 6, 2018 1:27:02 PM | 164

They were saying that Trump didn't promote the economic boom enough. Then they trotted out their economic analyst to tout all the great economic statistics!

Well of course, for the corporate media lying about the economy has priority over any kind of Trump-bashing.

William Gruff , Nov 6, 2018 2:25:31 PM | link

Unfortunately, Debsisdead is correct. The United States cannot be fixed. It could be that Trump knows what's needed and is deliberately trying to set the US on a course towards sanity using shock treatment, and is deliberately trying to wean America from the petrodollar in such a manner that Americans have no other country to blame/bomb, thus saving civilization from America's inevitable spasm of ultraviolence when the BRICS succeed in taking the petrodollar down. This seems unlikely, though.

The sad reality is that the delusion Americans suffer from (result of their universal cradle-to-grave brainwashing that I mentioned earlier) is too deeply rooted as a core component of their identities.

That mass-based delusion must be overcome before America's psychotic behavior on the world stage can be addressed, but I see no forces within the US making any progress in that direction at all.

Even the brightest and most humanistic Americans are horribly twisted to appalling evil by unquestionable faith in their own exceptionalism. As a consequence it could be that the only hope for humanity lies in a radical USA-ectomy with the resulting stump being cauterized.

I certainly wish there were some other way, but I don't see one.

[Nov 06, 2018] The culprit is Neoliberal ideology that resulted in the deindustrialization and financialization of the Outlaw US Empire's domestic economy

Notable quotes:
"... So, as with Rome, Greed is Good has done more to hinder the Outlaw US Empire than anything done by the so-called Revisionist Enemies. Combined with Trump's totally unwise Trade War policy forcing all other nations to abandon US-centric financial institutions and its currency, the specter of the Outlaw US Empire being defeated by its own ideology is rather marvelous, even hilarious, although any levity must be tempered by the Empire's brutality and its massive crimes against humanity that've destroyed millions of innocents. ..."
Nov 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Nov 5, 2018 12:51:45 PM | link

Aah . the woeful state of the Outlaw US Empire's military, done in by Neoliberal ideology, the tool designed to help Wall Street being destroyed by its machinations. Yesterday, a translated Russian article based upon a Reuters report and the Department of War research paper (Large PDF) it was based upon appeared at The Saker . Instead of writing a separate comment here, what follows is the comment I made there.

"What the Reuters article makes clear but avoids mentioning is the culprit is Neoliberal ideology that resulted in the deindustrialization and financialization of the Outlaw US Empire's domestic economy all for a Few Dollars More--that such hollowing out was official Washington--and Wall Street--policy starting with Carter in 1978, greatly accelerated by Bush/Reagan during the 1980s, then finished off by Clinton/Bush from 1993-2008.

The Defense Department research paper that's linked is also a hoot as it calls for a level of performance by the procurement and manufacturing systems that's impossible to accomplish given decades of corruption that's made the MIC what it is today--a maker of overpriced junk.

Read the transcript of the latest Michael Hudson interview to discover Wall Street's policy goals and compare them to what Trump wants to accomplish via MAGA, where Hudson states banks don't lend to--help capitalize--industry because not enough profit exists there compared to other opportunities.

So, as with Rome, Greed is Good has done more to hinder the Outlaw US Empire than anything done by the so-called Revisionist Enemies. Combined with Trump's totally unwise Trade War policy forcing all other nations to abandon US-centric financial institutions and its currency, the specter of the Outlaw US Empire being defeated by its own ideology is rather marvelous, even hilarious, although any levity must be tempered by the Empire's brutality and its massive crimes against humanity that've destroyed millions of innocents.

dh-mtl , Nov 5, 2018 1:19:47 PM | link

karlof1 | Nov 5, 2018 12:51:45 PM | 48 says:

"So, as with Rome, Greed is Good has done more to hinder the Outlaw US Empire than anything done by the so-called Revisionist Enemies. Combined with Trump's totally unwise Trade War policy forcing all other nations to abandon US-centric financial institutions and its currency, the specter of the Outlaw US Empire being defeated by its own ideology is rather marvelous"

The U.S. is indeed collapsing under its own mismanagement, the result of converting its (weak) democracy into a full-fledged oligarchic dictatorship. The only solution is for the U.S. to retrench into a shell in order to re-make itself.

Intentionally or not, Trump's policies are hastening this retrenchment.

Augustin L , Nov 5, 2018 1:57:20 PM | link
So Chump is presiding over the Israelization of the American military and we should be proud about this ? ...
Grieved , Nov 5, 2018 12:56:11 PM | link
@42 Michael

Thanks for the link to that poll. Those are astonishing results, to find the mainstream population afraid of the same things we are: that the US is not being representatively governed because its government is totally corrupt, and that meanwhile the planet and country are being stripped of resources, in a vicious downward spiral of paralysis.

It's worth quoting the results in full (sorry it doesn't format well):

[begin]

Below is a list of the 10 fears for which the highest percentage of Americans reported being "Afraid" or "Very Afraid." :
Top Ten Fears of 2018 --->> % Afraid or Very Afraid

1. Corrupt government officials --->> 74%
2. Pollution of oceans, rivers and lakes --->> 62%
3. Pollution of drinking water --->> 61%
4. Not having enough money for the future --->> 57%
5. People I love becoming seriously ill --->> 57%
6. People I love dying --->> 56%
7. Air pollution --->> 55%
8. Extinction of plant and animal species --->> 54%
9. Global warming and climate change --->> 53%
10. High medical bills --->> 53%

-- America's Top Fears 2018 - Chapman University Survey of American Fears

[end]

If there's any reality in these numbers it means that a politically vast majority of people in the US are focused on the right things, principal among which is that their recourse to address these things is completely broken. The obvious thought in a once famously "can-do" culture must obviously be that the government must be fixed or replaced. The tough question lingering is, How?

karlof1 , Nov 5, 2018 6:59:25 PM | link
RJPJR @87--

What you illustrate are known as Structural Adjustment Loans/Programs promoted by both IMF and World Bank as the major plank of Neoliberal ideology begun by McNamara when he was appointed to WB by Carter in 1978. This recap provided by developmental economist and critic Walden Bello details why and for whom the IMF/WB loans were designed to benefit--they differed little from the purposes of bilateral loans made by the US treasury during the Age of Dollar Diplomacy, which provided the ideological basis for robbing those nations. The point being US Imperialism atop centuries of Spanish Colonialism is why Latin America is do developmentally poor and kept that way through gross class distortions and outright Class War sponsored by CIA and Spain.

[Nov 06, 2018] 'Somebody' made fradulent promises and put people in danger to acheive some political goal. Sounds like Clintons or Soros.

Notable quotes:
"... "a group called CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project" a group that has received funding from Soros, to Pueblo Sin Fronteras through a person named 'Alex Mensing' who works both for CARA and as "an on-the ground coordinator in Mexico for the Pueblo Sin Fronteras". ..."
"... ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally.... ..."
"... US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the caravan. ..."
"... The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly possible. ..."
Nov 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 2:28:56 PM | link

How did this group of thousands come together to walk to US were Trump has vowed to keep illegals out. People like this would naturally come together if they were catching a ship, or at some sort of aid post refugee camp ect.

After a search on caravan starting point, I found this at the Guardian.

"Who organized the caravan?
In interviews, Honduran members of the group said that they learned about the caravan from Facebook posts, and a report on the local HCH television station, which erroneously suggested that a former congressman and radio host would cover the costs of the journey.
After that, rumours spread quickly, including the mistaken promise that any member would be given asylum in the US. Darwin Ramos, 30, said he was desperate to flee threats from a local drug gang, and when news of the caravan reached his neighbourhood, he seized on it as his best chance to escape."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/24/caravan-migrants-what-is-it-where-from-guatemala-honduras-immigrants-mexico


Uh huh. 'Somebody' made mistaken promises.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 4:06:27 PM | link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Sin_Fronteras
"Pueblo Sin Fronteras (en: People without Borders) is an immigration rights group known for organizing several high profile migrant caravans in Mexico and Central America. The organization's efforts to facilitate immigration and calls for open borders attracted considerable amounts of coverage in the Mexican and American media."

Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. Zero information there other than the have bases or offices in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Tijuana in Mexico.
https://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/commitees.html
No information on who they are or who funds them. Very much a political organization.
On two caravans like this have occurred, both organized by this shadowy group.
Slow moving lots of press coverage that can last for weeks so long as the peasant suckers stay suckers and don't pull out. Very much an anti Trump political show put on by whoever funds and controls this Pueblo Sin Fronteras organisation.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 4:34:48 PM | link
Centro Sin Fronteras is the parent group to Pueblo Sin Fronteras.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/centro-sin-fronteras/
"Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, former fugitive from U.S. immigration authorities, and activist for illegal immigrants in the U.S., formed the activist group La Familia Latina Unida ("The United Latin Family") as an expansion of the Centro Sin Fronteras. [7] La Familia Latina Unida runs Pueblo Sin Fronteras ("People Without Borders"), a group that organizes "migrant caravans" from Mexico and Latin America to cross the U.S. border illegally"

CSF website here https://fluenglish.wordpress.com/about/
Again nothing on who finances them.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 4:41:49 PM | link
The majority of people in the caravan may be leaving their own countries due to violence poverty ect, but the caravan itself is a manufactured political event. left to their own devices, some may have moved towards the US in small groups, others would have been deterred due to Trumps immigration policy, but they have joined this so called caravan on false promises made by the organisers. Nothing better than kids, women and oldies doing it tough or better yet dying for political media coverage.
dh-mtl , Nov 5, 2018 5:26:11 PM | link
Peter AU 1 | Nov 5, 2018 4:34:48 PM | 73 says:

"Again nothing on who finances them. (Pueblo Sin Fronteras)"


This article, published the last time that Pueblo Sin Fronteras was in the headlines, ( https://joeforamerica.com/2018/04/whos-really-behind-the-illegal-immigrants-the-migrant-caravan-and-pueblo-sin-fronteras/) links "a group called CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project" a group that has received funding from Soros, to Pueblo Sin Fronteras through a person named 'Alex Mensing' who works both for CARA and as "an on-the ground coordinator in Mexico for the Pueblo Sin Fronteras".

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 5:41:08 PM | link
Sleepy "If they request asylum, their entry is legal"

If they get into the US, immediately present themselves to authorities and request asylum, then their entry is deemed legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
US has signed up to the 1967 protocol but not the 1951 convention.

As for the politically organized caravan, the peasants have officially been offered a home in Mexico, but the organizers prefer them to go on to the US. As they have been offered a place in mexico, they are now economic migrants wanting greener pastures in the US rather than refugees.

The peasants themselves, I think are mostly genuine though organizers are mixed through the group. The peasants are no more than consumables in a political action.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 6:16:23 PM | link
The money.

. ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally....
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/obama-immigration-policy-changes.html

Pft , Nov 5, 2018 6:36:34 PM | link
How can people not see this caravan march as the obvious false flag it is to influence the election. The actors are being paid and busses have been mobilized and paid for to move them forward. The right says Soros money might be behind it and they may be right. Surprised the left has not blamed Putin. Which proves my point that the left is actively conspiring with the right the keep them in power. Why wouldnt they care?. As Caitlin Johnstone says, after I said it, they get paid the same no matter what. As part of a 2 party monopoly,with 2 parties the minimum to serve the illusion of a representative Democracy,the oiligarchs will continue to throw money to the loser.

This has been scripted well in advance. Republicans need to maintain both houses for the 2nd stage of Trumps destruction of America (credibility and finance), especially its government and middle class as the elite will be protected from the damage. Democrats are standing on the sidelines rambling about Russia Gate or Khashoggi Gate or mobilizing their forces to support gay marriages and transgender access to bathrooms. And to boot they bring out Hillary and Obama at the last moment to bash Trump to galvanize the rights voters even more. No other purpose for doing so.

To be sure, a Democratic win means nothing except perhaps as a poor proxy for a lack of support for Trump. 40% of their candidates come from the military or intelligence services. They are owned by the oligarchs as much as tbe Republicans. The only difference in the parties is the costumes they wear and the rhetoric the speak

Or perhaps its as simple as not wanting to share responsibility for what is to come as their best shot to win in 2020

Frankly the best outcome would be the decimation of the Democrat Party and its subsequent dissolution. Lets end the farce of a Democracy. One party for all. Hail Trump or whomever he appoints as his successor, or just let the elites vote and announce who they voted for every 4 years. Thats pretty much what the constitution meant for us to be doing anyways. The idea of a Direct vote by all citizens for President and Senate would have horrified them. Seeing the results of elections these past 40 years I have concluded they are right.


Jackrabbit , Nov 5, 2018 6:42:21 PM | link
b, RJPJR, Jay, Yeah Right, et al

Invaders or Dupes? Have the caravan migrants been misled?

While it's true that anyone can request asylum, the caravan migrants appear to be under the impression that they have a legitimate claim to asylum in USA because they are fleeing gang violence in their home country. That is very likely to be untrue.

Such a claim MIGHT be valid in countries that have signed the Cartagena Declaration and ratified it into law - but the US has not. The Declaration expands the definition of refugees to include:

"persons who have fled their country because their lives, security or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order".

The Brazil Declaration is an effort to expand the Cartegena Declaration . The USA is also not involved in this effort either, though I believe that they have "observer" status.

FYI
The 1951 UN Convention as amended defines a refugee as someone with a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" . The caravan stories I have heard are unlikely to qualify under this definition.

Some countries that have loads of asylum seekers have set up camps to hold them. Some, like Australia, even have camps in foreign countries. Trump's talk of setting up tents implies that USA will also establish such camps. Life in these camps is likely to be uncomfortable and unproductive. Only those will genuine asylum claims would tough it out.

Grieved , Nov 5, 2018 7:40:05 PM | link
How telling it is that when we disagree on the nature of the Caravan, we fall into an either-or choice between 2 absolutes. Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or it's a completely authentic grass-roots happening.

But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that there is always an authentic component to each one. I have commented several times on how delicately the CIA and other organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and authentic people who have a noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people is a wonder to me.

But this itself is the fact that must demolish the partisan thinking of "one side or the other". It's clear that the people who run things and their henchmen who arrange things are marvelously nuanced when it comes to good and evil. They'll be good when it suits them and evil for the same reason, and treat people well and badly, all depending on the exigencies of the mission.

In simple words, there undoubtedly is a core heart to the population of the caravan that is good, hopeful, enterprising and industrious, and that hopes to receive just one little break from the world, and a sliver of social justice. This radiating core of goodness and humanity, which would break open the hearts of ordinary people like you and me, to the organizers and their fixers is simply the perfect place to hide, concealed by superb protective coloration.

Take a look at the Maidan in Ukraine, and see how many good people thought they were fighting to create a wonderful new world, until the snipers fired on both sides and brought off the color revolution with superb skill and complete amoral ruthlessness - all as a result of long planning and preparation, not to mention the cash to hire mercenaries and provide the best logistics.

So I personally will stand by my thought that we will see what this is when the shooters begin to provoke the violence. And if that happens, then sadly, it will be the innocents who again, as always, are massacred.

But if the US handles it well, and permits controlled entry under the supervision of the border authorities, and there are no shooters and no provocations coming either from the Caravan people - or from some other force off to the side that doesn't seem to belong to anyone, but which seems to be the cause of death to both sides - then this will all fizzle out as another political skirmish of short duration, and the Democrats and Republicans will move on to their next diversions.

RJPJR , Nov 5, 2018 7:47:23 PM | link
Posted by: Grieved | Nov 5, 2018 7:40:05 PM | 97

You wrote: "Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or it's a completely authentic grass-roots happening."

I am inclined to believe that it is both, to wit an authentic grass-roots happening that has been hijacked (like so many others) by interested parties for their own ends.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 5, 2018 6:59:25 PM | 95

Thanks for the link!

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 7:53:13 PM | link
Grieved 97
That's the way I'm seeing it. "But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that there is always an authentic component to each one. I have commented several times on how delicately the CIA and other organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and authentic people who have a noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people is a wonder to me."

Well put, not only the above paragragh but the whole comment. Not much most of us can do to help the naive perhaps desperate people sucked in to the US political caravan but we should at least be exposing those who are exploiting and furthingf their misery for political purposes.

Jackrabbit , Nov 5, 2018 8:27:50 PM | link
RJPJR:
I am inclined to believe that it is both, to wit an authentic grass-roots happening that has been hijacked ...

I think it is fake as per info @93.

The caravan people are real and hopeful of a better life but they have been duped into believing that they could get asylum.

Pft , Nov 5, 2018 8:40:05 PM | link
Nemesiscalling@94

Requirement for any President or political leader is to be a good actor. I believe they simply follow a script prepared by the real rulers operating in the shadows. Maybe I am wrong. Its like fake wrestling as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. You have to be a good actor and pretend to care while actually making sure you qlose if the script calls for it

Jackrabbit@100

Its true they have been duped but the point is that desparate and poor people rarely work together spontaneously in an organized fashion and a caravan such as this must be organized and paid for. Someone is feeding them. The timing is too good to be true. Obviously they have been promised something, asylum, money or whatever and assured of their safety. To determine who is behind it you simply need to look at who benefits.

Jackrabbit , Nov 5, 2018 9:35:42 PM | link
Pft

@91 you wrote: The actors are being paid ...

When discussing this caravan "false flag", many people will dismiss "conspiracy theories" that involve paid actors.

RJPJR @98 thought the caravan an an "authentic grass-roots happening that has been hi-jacked" . But that theory is also unsatisfying. As you point out (Pft), it is strange that ordinary people organize themselves to make a march like the caravan.

The best explanation is that people were organized to make the march by local groups [connected to Clinton Global Initiative?] which got PAID to do so. These trusted local groups then told the marchers that: 1) they would get support along the way, and 2) that they have a good/great chance of actually getting asylum.

Organizers would not want a member of the caravan to tell a reporter that the march was fake, or that they are paid. But it has been reported that "well wishers" have given the marchers food and money. And the press has not questioned that support. And the marchers seem to have a genuine belief that they qualify for asylum. Such a belief would be easy to instill in poor, uneducated people who can be easily duped into believing that an international treaty like the Cartegena Declaration applies to all countries.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 5, 2018 9:55:29 PM | link
Jackrabbit, in my post @67 I linked the Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. When I found out about this group I looked for their website which I was able to access, and although information was sparse on this shadowy group, they proudly advertised their work on this caravan.
Since posting a link here I am now censored from that website - security exceptions blah blah.
Not local globalist groups but US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the caravan.
Jackrabbit , Nov 5, 2018 10:24:10 PM | link
Peter AU1

Good detective work!

But my hunch is that the trail ends with a one or more local groups that are known to people in the area. These poor people basically had to be sold a 'bill of goods'. That's difficult unless you are known/trusted (have a "brand" like Coca-Cola).

There would be several intermediary groups. Maybe a large in-country charity with US connections? And one or more groups outside the country (US, Mexico, even EU) that are connected to / get funding and direction from a major US group.

Let's face it, whoever was behind this would not want the caravan to be connected to back to group with US political connections. And it's probably unlikely that we will find any 'smoking gun' that does that.

The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly possible.

It really the same reasoning that led b to suspect that it was CIA/MI6 that foiled assassination plot in Denmark, not Mossad.

[Nov 06, 2018] The economic sanctions on Iran will be much tighter, beyond what they were, before the nuclear agreement was signed. "Hit them in their pockets", Netanyahu advised Trump: "if you hit them in their pockets, they will choke; and when they choke, they will throw out the ayatollahs"".

Nov 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

mauisurfer , Nov 5, 2018 1:07:05 PM | link

Alastair Crooke (former UK dip and MI6) knows more about ME than any other white man. He describes how Jared Kushner became Trump's stovepipe of disinformation on behalf of Netanyahu and MBS.

The economic sanctions on Iran will be much tighter, beyond what they were, before the nuclear agreement was signed. "Hit them in their pockets", Netanyahu advised Trump: "if you hit them in their pockets, they will choke; and when they choke, they will throw out the ayatollahs"".

This was another bit of 'stovepiped' advice passed directly to the US President. His officials might have warned him that it was fantasy. There is no example of sanctions alone having toppled a state; and whilst the US can use its claim of judicial hegemony as an enforcement mechanism, the US has effectively isolated itself in sanctioning Iran: Europe wants no further insecurity. It wants no more refugees heading to Europe.

real full article here

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/05/unraveling-netanyahu-project-for-middle-east.html

[Nov 06, 2018] Democrats Want To Take On The War In Afghanistan If They Win The House by Akbar Shahid Ahmed

Nov 06, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

A long fight by lawmakers like Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is set to go mainstream, and an antiwar push on Yemen soon after the midterms could show how.

WASHINGTON ― As Democrats plan for a potential future in which they have control of the U.S. House, lawmakers, candidates and outside groups close to the party are quietly preparing a new push against the overlooked war in Afghanistan. The last time the party controlled the lower chamber of Congress, the U.S. had close to 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. Today that number is 15,000 -- but it's been eight years, and there's still no clarity about when the longest war in American history will actually come to an end. President Donald Trump 's stated policy is that the U.S. presence has no time limit. So Democrats are considering long-discussed proposals to torpedo the war's entire legal justification -- the sweeping post-9/11 congressional authorization that has been used to support U.S. military action well beyond Afghan borders -- and tie funding for the campaign to clearly outlined strategic goals and troop reductions. There's also talk of using new oversight powers to hold top officials, military commanders, defense contractors and foreign partners accountable for accusations of human rights violations, corruption and political posturing at the cost of human lives. And while party leaders are loath to commit to a particular course, they feel certain this is an issue their colleagues and their political base see as a priority. A dramatic but now largely forgotten vote in June 2017 underscored why this is a natural fight for Democrats. House Appropriations Committee lawmakers from both parties voted for the first time for a measure long pushed by war critic Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that would repeal the authorization. GOP leadership quashed the effort, but it clearly signaled that, after years of worrying about being seen as too dovish, Democrats have reached a moment when even the other party and its voters can seriously consider serious antiwar action. "We've come a long way from just one vote in opposition [when the authorization came up in 2001] to a widespread recognition among members of Congress that this was an overly-broad authorization that set the stage for perpetual war," Lee wrote in an email to HuffPost. She sees Democratic unity on the issue today: "There's a lot of common ground across the caucus around holding this debate and vote."

[Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

Highly recommended!
Nov 05, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

Extracted from Scum vs. Scum by Chris Hedge

Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for it.

Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.

The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.

Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States' form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.

"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."

No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are, at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment. Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.

You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens, mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist. Either way we are shackled.

Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism. It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally. Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the Establishment."

Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we were enslaved.

Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:

Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.

The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope. It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders -- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole. Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or slow death.

We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there is no fight in us.

The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look at the flight roster of the billionaire Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet, which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips, Alan Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the Candide -like Steven Pinker , whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.

We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change, change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.

[Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

Highly recommended!
Nov 05, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

Extracted from Scum vs. Scum by Chris Hedge

Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for it.

Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.

The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.

Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States' form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.

"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."

No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are, at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment. Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.

You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens, mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist. Either way we are shackled.

Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism. It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally. Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the Establishment."

Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we were enslaved.

Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:

Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.

The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope. It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders -- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole. Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or slow death.

We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there is no fight in us.

The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look at the flight roster of the billionaire Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet, which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips, Alan Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the Candide -like Steven Pinker , whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.

We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change, change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.

[Nov 05, 2018] Bolsonaro a monster engineered by our media by Jonathan Cook

Notable quotes:
"... Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion. ..."
"... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite's power. ..."
"... The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US. ..."
"... Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election. ..."
"... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence. ..."
"... As in Pinochet's Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net . ..."
Nov 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

With Jair Bolsonaro's victory in Brazil's presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump's, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.

The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump's election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western "analysts" and "experts" are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.

Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the "free press" – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:

"The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes."

This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity's id.

Selling plutocracy

There is a kind of truth in Jenkins' argument, even if it is not the one he intended. Social media did indeed liberate ordinary people. For the first time in modern history, they were not simply the recipients of official, sanctioned information. They were not only spoken down to by their betters, they could answer back – and not always as deferentially as the media class expected.

Clinging to their old privileges, Jenkins and his ilk are rightly unnerved. They have much to lose.

But that also means they are far from dispassionate observers of the current political scene. They are deeply invested in the status quo, in the existing power structures that have kept them well-paid courtiers of the corporations that dominate the planet.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion.

The plutocrats who run our societies need figureheads, behind whom they can conceal their unaccountable power. Until now they preferred the slickest salespeople, ones who could sell wars as humanitarian intervention rather than profit-driven exercises in death and destruction; the unsustainable plunder of natural resources as economic growth; the massive accumulation of wealth, stashed in offshore tax havens, as the fair outcome of a free market; the bailouts funded by ordinary taxpayers to stem economic crises they had engineered as necessary austerity; and so on.

A smooth-tongued Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the favoured salespeople, especially in an age when the elites had persuaded us of a self-serving argument: that ghetto-like identities based on colour or gender mattered far more than class. It was divide-and-rule dressed up as empowerment. The polarisation now bewailed by Jenkins was in truth stoked and rationalised by the very corporate media he so faithfully serves.

Fear of the domino effect

Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite's power.

The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US.

Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election.

Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home.

The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence.

Bolsonaro will not face any of the institutional obstacles Lula da Silva or Chavez needed to overcome. No one in power will stand in his way as he institutes his "reforms". No one will stop him creaming off Brazil's wealth for his corporate friends. As in Pinochet's Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism.

Immune system

If you want to understand the depth of the self-deception of Jenkins and other media gatekeepers, contrast Bolsonaro's political ascent to that of Jeremy Corbyn, the modest social democratic leader of Britain's Labour party. Those like Jenkins who lament the role of social media – they mean you, the public – in promoting leaders like Bolsonaro are also the media chorus who have been wounding Corbyn day after day, blow by blow, for three years – since he accidentally slipped past safeguards intended by party bureacrats to keep someone like him from power.

The supposedly liberal Guardian has been leading that assault. Like the rightwing media, it has shown its absolute determination to stop Corbyn at all costs, using any pretext.

Within days of Corbyn's election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army's commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.

We are not supposed to reach the point where such threats – tearing away the façade of western democracy – ever need to be implemented. Our pretend democracies were created with immune systems whose defences are marshalled to eliminate a threat like Corbyn much earlier.

Once he moved closer to power, however, the rightwing corporate media was forced to deploy the standard tropes used against a left leader: that he was incompetent, unpatriotic, even treasonous.

But just as the human body has different immune cells to increase its chances of success, the corporate media has faux-liberal-left agents like the Guardian to complement the right's defences. The Guardian sought to wound Corbyn through identity politics, the modern left's Achille's heel. An endless stream of confected crises about anti-semitism were intended to erode the hard-earned credit Corbyn had accumulated over decades for his anti-racism work.

Slash-and-burn politics

Why is Corbyn so dangerous? Because he supports the right of workers to a dignified life, because he refuses to accept the might of the corporations, because he implies that a different way of organising our societies is possible. It is a modest, even timid programme he articulates, but even so it is far too radical either for the plutocratic class that rules over us or for the corporate media that serves as its propaganda arm.

The truth ignored by Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.

It is not that the masses are a menace to democracy. It is rather that a growing proportion of voters understand that a global corporate elite has rigged the system to accrue for itself ever greater riches. It is not social media that is polarising our societies. It is rather that the determination of the elites to pillage the planet until it has no more assets to strip has fuelled resentment and destroyed hope. It is not fake news that is unleashing the baser instincts of the lower orders. Rather, it is the frustration of those who feel that change is impossible, that no one in power is listening or cares.

Social media has empowered ordinary people. It has shown them that they cannot trust their leaders, that power trumps justice, that the elite's enrichment requires their poverty. They have concluded that, if the rich can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the planet, our only refuge, they can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the global elite.

Are they choosing wisely in electing a Trump or Bolsonaro? No. But the liberal guardians of the status quo are in no position to judge them. For decades, all parts of the corporate media have helped to undermine a genuine left that could have offered real solutions, that could have taken on and beaten the right, that could have offered a moral compass to a confused, desperate and disillusioned public.

Jenkins wants to lecture the masses about their depraved choices while he and his paper steer them away from any politician who cares about their welfare, who fights for a fairer society, who prioritises mending what is broken.

The western elites will decry Bolsonaro in the forlorn and cynical hope of shoring up their credentials as guardians of the existing, supposedly moral order. But they engineered him. Bolsonaro is their monster.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .

[Nov 05, 2018] Europe and America clash over Washington s economic war on Iran - World Socialist Web Site by Keith Jones

Notable quotes:
"... As of today, the US is embargoing all Iranian energy exports and freezing Iran out of the US-dominated world financial system, so as to cripple the remainder of its trade and deny it access to machinery, spare parts and even basic foodstuffs and medicine. ..."
"... In doing so, American imperialism is once again acting as a law unto itself. The sanctions are patently illegal and under international law tantamount to a declaration of war. They violate the UN Security Council-backed 2015 Iran nuclear accord, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Those developing the SPV are acutely conscious of this and have publicly declared that it is not Iran-specific. ..."
"... The strategists of US imperialism are also aware that the SPV is a challenge to more than the Trump administration's Iran policy. Writing in Foreign Affairs ..."
"... With its drive to crash Iran's economy and further impoverish its people, the Trump administration has let loose the dogs of war. Whatever the sanctions' impact, Washington has committed its prestige and power to bringing Tehran to heel and making the rest of the world complicit in its crimes. ..."
"... The danger of another catastrophic Mideast war thus looms ever larger, while the growing antagonism between Europe and America and descent of global inter-state relations into a madhouse of one against all is setting the stage ..."
Nov 05, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Washington's imposition of sweeping new sanctions on Iran -- aimed at strangling its economy and precipitating regime change in Tehran -- is roiling world geopolitics.

As of today, the US is embargoing all Iranian energy exports and freezing Iran out of the US-dominated world financial system, so as to cripple the remainder of its trade and deny it access to machinery, spare parts and even basic foodstuffs and medicine.

In doing so, American imperialism is once again acting as a law unto itself. The sanctions are patently illegal and under international law tantamount to a declaration of war. They violate the UN Security Council-backed 2015 Iran nuclear accord, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that was negotiated at the behest of Washington and under its duress, including war threats.

All the other parties to the JCPOA (Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the EU) and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is charged with verifying Iranian compliance, are adamant that Iran has fulfilled its obligations under the accord to the letter. This includes dismantling much of its civil nuclear program and curtailing the rest.

Yet, having reneged on its support for the JCPOA, Washington is now wielding the club of secondary sanctions to compel the rest of the world into joining its illegal embargo and abetting its regime-change offensive. Companies and countries that trade with Iran or even trade with those that do will be excluded from the US market and subject to massive fines and other penalties. Similarly, banks and shipping insurers that have any dealings with companies that trade with Iran or even with other financial institutions that facilitate trade with Iran will be subject to punishing US secondary sanctions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who like US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran and ordered military strikes on Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard forces in Syria, has hailed the US sanctions as "historic." Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two other US client states, are pledging to ramp up oil production to make up for the shortfalls caused by Washington's embargoing of Iranian oil exports.

But America's economic war against Iran is not just exacerbating tensions in the Middle East. It is also roiling relations between the US and the other great powers, especially Europe.

On Friday, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and European Union Foreign Policy Chief Frederica Mogherini issued a statement reaffirming their support for the JCPOA and vowing to circumvent and defy the US sanctions. "It is our aim," they declared, "to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN Security Council resolution 2231."

They declared their commitment to preserving "financial channels with" Iran, enabling it to continue exporting oil and gas, and working with Russia, China and other countries "interested in supporting the JCPOA" to do so.

The statement emphasized the European powers' "unwavering collective resolve" to assert their right to "pursue legitimate trade" and, toward that end, to proceed with the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that will enable European businesses and those of other countries, including potentially Russia and China, to conduct trade with Iran using the euro or some other non-US dollar medium of exchange, outside the US-dominated world financial system.

Friday's statement was in response to a series of menacing pronouncements from Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top administration officials earlier the same day. These fleshed out the new US sanctions and reiterated Washington's resolve to crash Iran's economy and aggressively sanction any company or country that fails to fall into line with the US sanctions.

In reply to a question about the European SPV, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, said he had "no expectation" it will prove to be a conduit for "significant" trade. "But if there are transactions that have the intent of evading our sanctions, we will aggressively pursue our remedies."

Trump officials also served notice that they will sanction SWIFT, the Brussels-based network that facilitates secure inter-bank communications, and the European bankers who comprise the majority of its directors if they do not expeditiously expel all Iranian financial institutions from the network.

And in a step intended to demonstratively underscore Washington's disdain for the Europeans, the Trump administration included no EU state among the eight countries that will be granted temporary waivers on the full application of the US embargo on oil imports.

Germany, Britain, France and the EU are no less rapacious than Washington. Europe's great powers are frantically rearming, have helped spearhead NATO's war build-up against Russia. Over the past three decades they have waged numerous wars and neocolonial interventions in the Middle East and North Africa, from Afghanistan and Libya to Mali.

But they resent and fear the consequences of the Trump administration's reckless and provocative offensive against Iran. They resent it because Washington's scuttling of the nuclear deal has pulled the rug out from under European capital's plans to capture a leading position in Iran's domestic market and exploit Iranian offers of massive oil and natural gas concessions. They fear it, because the US confrontation with Iran threatens to ignite a war that would invariably set the entire Mideast ablaze, triggering a new refugee crisis, a massive spike in oil prices and, last but not least, a repartition of the region under conditions where the European powers as of yet lack the military means to independently determine the outcome.

To date, the Trump administration has taken a haughty, even cavalier, attitude to the European avowals of opposition to the US sanctions. Trump and the other Iran war-hawks like Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton who lead the administration are buoyed by the fact that numerous European businesses have voted with their feet and cut off ties with Iran, for fear of running afoul of the US sanctions.

The Financial Times reported last week that due to fear of US reprisals, no European state has agreed to house the SPV, which, according to the latest EU statements, will not even be operational until the new year.

The European difficulties and hesitations are real. But they also speak to the enormity and explosiveness of the geopolitical shifts that are now underway.

Whilst European corporate leaders, whose focus is on maximizing market share and investor profit in the next few business quarters, have bowed to the US sanctions threat, the political leaders, those charged with developing and implementing imperialist strategy, have concluded that they must push back against Washington.

This is about Iran, but also about developing the means to prevent the US using unilateral sanctions to dictate Europe's foreign policy, including potentially trying to thwart Nord Stream 2 (the pipeline project that will transport Russian natural gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea and which Trump has repeatedly denounced.)

As Washington's ability to impose unilateral sanctions is bound up with the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and US domination of the world banking system, the European challenge to America's sanctions weapon necessarily involves a challenge to these key elements of US global power.

The European imperialist powers are taking this road because they, like all the great powers, are locked in a frenzied struggle for markets, profits and strategic advantage under conditions of a systemic breakdown of world capitalism. Finding themselves squeezed between the rise of new powers and an America that is ever more reliant on war to counter the erosion of its economic might and that is ruthlessly pursing its own interests at the expense of foe and ostensible friend alike, the Europeans, led by German imperialism, are seeking to develop the economic and military means to assert their own predatory interests independently of, and when necessary against, the United States.

Those developing the SPV are acutely conscious of this and have publicly declared that it is not Iran-specific.

Speaking last month, only a few weeks after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker used his State of the EU address to called for measures to ensure that the euro plays a greater global role, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire declared the "crisis with Iran" to be "a chance for Europe to have its own independent financial institutions, so we can trade with whomever we want." The SPV, adds French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Agnes Von der Muhl, "aims to create an economic sovereignty tool for the European Union that will protect European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial sanctions."

The strategists of US imperialism are also aware that the SPV is a challenge to more than the Trump administration's Iran policy. Writing in Foreign Affairs last month, former Obama administration official Elizabeth Rosenberg expressed grave concerns that the Trump administration's unilateral sanctions are causing the EU to collaborate with Russia and China in defying Washington, and are inciting a European challenge to US financial dominance. Under conditions where Russia and China are already seeking to develop payments systems that bypass Western banks, and the future promises further challenges to dollar-supremacy and the US-led global financial system, "it is worrying," laments Rosenberg, "that the United States is accelerating this trend."

With its drive to crash Iran's economy and further impoverish its people, the Trump administration has let loose the dogs of war. Whatever the sanctions' impact, Washington has committed its prestige and power to bringing Tehran to heel and making the rest of the world complicit in its crimes.

The danger of another catastrophic Mideast war thus looms ever larger, while the growing antagonism between Europe and America and descent of global inter-state relations into a madhouse of one against all is setting the stage...

[Nov 05, 2018] Scum vs. Scum by Chris Hedge

Hell is empty and all the devils are here. ~William Shakespeare
Notable quotes:
"... Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother? ..."
"... One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats. ..."
"... "In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs. ..."
Nov 05, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political system than the Senate race in New Jersey. Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The senator had flown to the Dominican Republic with Melgen on the physician's private jet and stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen, including helping some of the Dominican women acquire visas to the United States. Menendez was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung jury.

Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion military spending bill, along with 85 percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed a letter , along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite Julian Assange to stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel -- a country that routinely and massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He helped cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke Glass-Steagall , the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and investment banks.

His Republican rival in the Senate race that will be decided Tuesday is Bob Hugin , whose reported net worth is at least $84 million. With Hugin as its CEO, the pharmaceutical firm Celgene made $200 million by conspiring to keep generic cancer drugs off the market, according to its critics. Celgene, a model of everything that is wrong with our for-profit health care system, paid $280 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower who accused the firm of improperly marketing two drugs to treat several forms of cancer without getting Federal Drug Administration approval, thereby defrauding Medicare. Celgene, over seven years, also doubled the price of the cancer drug Revlimid to some $20,000 for a supply of 28 pills.

The Senate campaign in New Jersey has seen no discussion of substantive issues. It is dominated by both candidates' nonstop personal attacks and negative ads, part of the typical burlesque of American politics.

Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?

One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats.

The securities and finance industry has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics . Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given $174 million to Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And Michael Bloomberg , weighing his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.

"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.

Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.

Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for it.

Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.

The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.

... ... ...

[Nov 05, 2018] A superb new book on the duty of resistance

Notable quotes:
"... A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil ..."
"... The Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil ..."
Nov 05, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

by Chris Bertram on October 31, 2018 Candice Delmas, A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Political obligation has always been a somewhat unsatisfactory topic in political philosophy, as has, relatedly, civil disobedience. The "standard view" of civil disobedience, to be found in Rawls, presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations of the basic liberties yet occur and conceives of civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens. To demonstrate their fidelity to law, civil disobedients are willing to accept the consequences of their actions and to take their punishment. When Rawls first wrote about civil disobedience, in 1964, parts of the US were openly and flagrantly engaged in the violent subordination of their black population, so it was quite a stretch for him to think of that society as "nearly just". But perhaps its injustice impinged less obviously on a white professor at an elite university in Massachusetts than it did on poor blacks in the deep South.

The problems with the standard account hardly stop there. Civil disobedience thus conceived is awfully narrow. In truth, the range of actions which amount to resistance to the state and to unjust societies is extremely broad, running from ordinary political opposition, through civil disobedience to disobedience that is rather uncivil, through sabotage, hacktivism, leaking, whistle-blowing, carrying out Samaritan assistance in defiance of laws that prohibit it, striking, occupation, violent resistance, violent revolution, and, ultimately, terrorism. For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory, one which tells us whether Black Lives Matter activists are justified or whether antifa can punch Richard Spencer. Moreover, we need a theory that tells us not only what we may do but also what we are obliged to do: when is standing by in the face of injustice simply not morally permissible.

Step forward Candice Delmas with her superb and challenging book The Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press). Delmas points out the manifold shortcomings of the standard account and how it is often derived from taking the particular tactics of the civil rights movement and turning pragmatic choices into moral principles. Lots of acts of resistance against unjust societies, in order to be effective, far from being communicative, need to be covert. Non-violence may be an effective strategy, but sometimes those resisting state injustice have a right to defend themselves. [click to continue ]

Hidari 10.31.18 at 3:41 pm (no link)

Strangely enough, the link I was looking at immediately before I clicked on the OP, was this:

https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2018/10/30/our-time-is-up-weve-got-nothing-left-but-rebellion/

It would be interesting to see a philosopher's view on whether or not civil disobedience was necessary, and to what extent, to prevent actions that will lead to the end of our species.

Ebenezer Scrooge 10.31.18 at 4:52 pm (no link)
Two points:
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher for nothing but speech acts.
I have no idea who Candice Delmas is, but "Delmas" is a French name. The French have a very different attitude toward civil disobedience than we do.
Moz of Yarramulla 10.31.18 at 11:23 pm (no link)

civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens.

I think that's a pretty narrow view of civil disobedience even if you just count the actions of the protesters. Often NVDA is aimed at or merely accepts that a violent response is inevitable. The resistance at Parihaka, for example, was in no doubt that the response would be military and probably lethal. And Animal Liberation are often classified as terrorists by the US and UK governments while murderers against abortion are not.

Which is to say that the definition of "nonviolent" is itself an area of conflict, with some taking the Buddhist extremist position that any harm or even inconvenience to any living thing makes an action violent, and others saying that anything short of genocide can be nonviolent (and then there are the "intention is all" clowns). Likewise terrorism, most obviously of late the Afghani mujahideen when they transitioned from being revolutionaries to terrorists when the invader changed.

In Australia we have the actual government taking the view that any action taken by a worker or protester that inconveniences a company is a criminal act and the criminal must both compensate the company (including consequential damages) as well as facing jail time. tasmania and NSW and of course the anti-union laws . The penalties suggest they're considered crimes of violence, as does the rhetoric.

Moz of Yarramulla 11.01.18 at 12:13 am (no link)
Jeff@11

one should never legitimize any means toward social change that you would not object to seeing used by your mortal enemies.

Are you using an unusual definition of "mortal enemy" here? Viz, other than "enemy that wants to kill you"? Even US law has theoretical prohibitions on expressing that intention.

It's especially odd since we're right now in the middle of a great deal of bad-faith use of protest techniques by mortal enemies. "free speech" used to protect Nazi rallies, "academic freedom" to defend anti-science activists, "non-violent protest" used to describe violent attacks, "freedom of religion" used to excuse terrorism, the list goes on.

In Australia we have a 'proud boys' leader coming to Australia who has somehow managed to pass the character test imposed by our government. He's the leader of a gang that requires an arrest for violence as a condition of membership and regularly says his goal is to incite others to commit murder. It seems odd that our immigration minister has found those things to be not disqualifying while deporting someone for merely associating with a vaguely similar gang , but we live in weird times.

J-D 11.01.18 at 12:50 am ( 18 )
Ebenezer Scrooge

As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher for nothing but speech acts.

I do remember that*, but it's not clear to me why you think it's important to remember it in this context. If somebody who had fatally punched a Nazi speaker were prosecuted for murder, I doubt that 'he was a Nazi speaker' would be accepted as a defence on the basis of the Streicher precedent.

*Strictly speaking, I don't remember it as something that 'we' did: I wasn't born at the time, and it's not clear to me who you mean by 'we'. (Streicher himself probably would have said that it was the Jews, or possibly the Jews and the Bolsheviks, who were hanging him, but I don't suppose that would be your view.) However, I'm aware of the events you're referring to, which is the real point.

engels 11.01.18 at 12:51 am ( 19 )
Rawls presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations of the basic liberties yet occur For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory
Brandon Watson 11.01.18 at 12:02 pm (no link)
People need to stop spreading this misinterpretation about Rawls on civil disobedience, which I've seen several places in the past few years. Rawls focuses on the case of a nearly just society not because he thinks it's the only case in which you can engage in civil disobedience but because he thinks it's the only case in which there are difficulties with justifying it. He states this very clearly in A Theory of Justice : in cases where the society is not nearly just, there are no difficulties in justifying civil disobedience or even sometimes armed resistance. His natural duty account is not put forward as a general theory of civil disobedience but to argue that civil disobedience can admit of justification even in the case in which it is hardest to justify.

I'm not a fan of Rawls myself, but I don't know how he could possibly have been more clear on this, since he makes all these points explicitly.

LFC 11.02.18 at 12:45 am (no link)
J-D @18

The Nuremberg tribunal was set up and staffed by the U.S., Britain, USSR, and France; so whether Ebenezer's "we" was intended to refer to the four countries collectively or just to the U.S., it's clear who hanged Streicher et al., and the tone of your comment on this point is rather odd.

anon 11.02.18 at 4:23 pm (no link)
Resisting by protesting is OK.

However, here in the USA, actual legislation creating laws is done by our elected representatives.

So if you're an Amaerican and really want Social Change and aren't just posturing or 'virtue signaling' make sure you vote in the upcoming election.

I'm afraid too many will think that their individual vote won't 'matter' or the polls show it isn't needed or some other excuse to justify not voting. Please do not be that person.

Don Berinati 11.02.18 at 5:06 pm (no link)
Recently re-reading '1968' by Kurlansky and he repeatedly made this point about protests – that to be effective they had to get on television (major networks, not like our youtube, I think, so it would be seen by the masses in order to sway them) and to do that the acts had to be outlandish because they were competing for network time. This increasingly led to violent acts, which almost always worked in getting on the news, but flew in the face of King's and others peaceful methods.
So, maybe punching out a Nazi is the way to change people's minds or at least get them to think about stuff.

[Nov 05, 2018] "They Will Not Forgive Us" by James Carroll

Nov 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

It was only an announcement, but think of it as the beginning of a journey into hell. Last week, President Donald Trump made public his decision to abrogate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), a 1987 agreement with the Soviet Union. National Security Advisor John Bolton , a Cold Warrior in a post-Cold War world, promptly flaunted that announcement on a trip to Vladimir Putin's Moscow. To grasp the import of that decision, however, quite another kind of voyage is necessary, a trip down memory lane.

That 1987 pact between Moscow and Washington was no small thing in a world that, during the Cuban Missile Crisis only 25 years earlier, had reached the edge of nuclear Armageddon. The INF Treaty led to the elimination of thousands of nuclear weapons, but its significance went far beyond that. As a start, it closed the books on the nightmare of a Europe caught between the world-ending strategies of the two superpowers, since most of those "intermediate-range" missiles were targeting that very continent. No wonder, last week, a European Union spokesperson, responding to Trump, fervently defended the treaty as a permanent "pillar" of international order.

To take that trip back three decades in time and remember how the INF came about should be an instant reminder of just how President Trump is playing havoc with something essential to human survival.

In October 1986 in Reykjavik, Iceland, the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev , briefly came close to fully freeing the planet from the horrifying prospect of nuclear annihilation. In his second inaugural address, a year and a half earlier, President Reagan had wishfully called for "the total elimination" of nuclear weapons. At that Reykjavik summit, Gorbachev, a pathbreaking Soviet leader, promptly took the president up on that dream, proposing -- to the dismay of the aides of both leaders -- a total nuclear disarmament pact that would take effect in the year 2000.

Reagan promptly agreed in principle. "Suits me fine," he said. "That's always been my goal." But it didn't happen. Reagan had another dream, too -- of a space-based missile defense system against just such weaponry, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also dubbed "Star Wars." He refused to yield on the subject when Gorbachev rejected SDI as the superpower arms race transferred into space. "This meeting is over," Reagan then said.

Of the failure of Reykjavik, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze would then comment : "When future generations read the transcripts of this meeting, they will not forgive us." At that point, the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the USSR had hit a combined 60,000 weapons and were still growing. (Five new American nuclear weapons were being added each day.) A month after Reykjavik, in fact, the U.S. deployed a new B-52-based cruise missile system in violation of the 1979 SALT II Treaty. Hawks in Moscow were pressing for similar escalations. Elites on both sides -- weapons manufacturers, intelligence and political establishments, think tanks, military bureaucracies, and pundits -- were appalled at what the two leaders had almost agreed to. The national security priesthood, East and West, wanted to maintain what was termed "the stability of the strategic stalemate," even if such stability, based on ever-expanding arsenals, could not have been less stable.

But a widespread popular longing for relief from four decades of nuclear dread had been growing on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In a surge of anti-nuclear activism , millions of ordinary citizens took to the streets of cities in the U.S. and Europe to protest the superpower nuclear establishments. Even behind the Iron Curtain, voices for peace could be heard. "Listen," Gorbachev pleaded after Reykjavik, "to the demands of the American people, the Soviet people, the peoples of all countries."

A Watershed Treaty

As it happened, the Soviet leader refused to settle for Reagan's no. Four months after the Iceland summit, he proposed an agreement "without delay" to remove from Europe all intermediate missiles -- those with a range well under that of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). When Pentagon officials tried to swat Gorbachev's proposal aside by claiming that there could be no such agreement without on-site inspections, he said fine, inspect away! That was an unprecedented concession from the Soviet Union.

President Reagan was surrounded by men like then-Assistant Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz (later to become infamous for his role in promoting a post-9/11 invasion of Iraq), who assumed Gorbachev was a typical Soviet "master of deceit." But for all his hawkishness, the president had other instincts as well. Events would show that, on the subject of nukes (SDI notwithstanding), Reagan had indeed recognized the threat to the human future posed by the open-ended accumulation of ever more of those weapons and had become a kind of nuclear abolitionist. Even if ending that threat was inconceivable to him, his desire to mitigate it would prove genuine.

At the time, however, Reagan had other problems to deal with. Just as Gorbachev put forward his surprising initiative, the American president found himself engulfed in the Iran-Contra scandal -- a criminal conspiracy to trade arms for hostages with Iran, while illegally aiding right-wing paramilitaries in Central America. It threatened to become his Watergate. It would, in the end, lead to the indictments of 14 members of his administration. Beleaguered, he desperately wanted to change the subject. A statesman-like rescue of faltering arms-control negotiations might prove just the helping hand he was looking for. So the day before he went on television to abjectly offer repentance for Iran-Contra, he announced that he would accept Gorbachev's INF proposal. His hawkish inner circle was thoroughly disgusted by the gesture. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger promptly resigned in protest. (He would later be indicted for Iran-Contra.)

On December 8, 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev would indeed meet in Washington and sign the INF Treaty, eliminating more than 2,000 ground-based warheads and giving Europe the reprieve its people had wanted. This would be the first actual reduction in nuclear weapons to occur since two atomic bombs were built at Los Alamos in 1945. The INF Treaty proved historic for turning back the tide of escalation. It showed that the arms race could be not just frozen but reversed, that negotiations could lead the two superpowers out of what seemed like the ultimate impasse -- a model that should be urgently applicable today.

In reality, the mutually reinforcing hair-trigger nuclear posture of the United States and the Soviet Union was not much altered by the treaty, since only land-based, not air- and submarine-launched missiles, were affected by it and longer range ICBMs were off the table. (Still, Europe could breathe a bit easier, even if, in operational terms, nuclear danger had not been much reduced.) Yet that treaty would prove a turning point, opening the way to a better future. It would be essential to the political transformation that quickly followed, the wholly unpredicted and surprisingly non-violent end to the Cold War that arrived not quite two years later. The treaty showed that the arms race itself could be ended -- and eventually, it nearly would be. That is the lesson that somehow needs to be preserved in the Trump era.

A Man for All Apocalypses

In reality, the Trump administration's abandonment of the INF Treaty has little to do with the actual deployment of intermediate-range missiles, whether those that the Pentagon may now seek to emplace in Europe or those apparently already being put in place in Russia. In truth, such nuclear firepower will not add much to what submarine- and air-launched cruise missiles can already do. As for Vladimir Putin's bellicosity, removing the restraints on arms control will only magnify the Russian leader's threatening behavior. However, it should be clear by now that Donald Trump's urge to trash the treaty comes from his own bellicosity , not from Russian (or, for that matter, Chinese) aggressiveness. Trump seems to deplore the pact precisely because of what it meant to Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as to the millions who cheered them on long ago: its repudiation of an apocalyptic future. (As his position on climate change indicates, the president is visibly a man for all apocalypses.)

Trump has launched a second nuclear age by rejecting the treaty that was meant to initiate the closing of the first one. The arms race was then slowed, but, alas, the competitors stumbled on through the end of the Cold War. Shutting that arms-contest down completely remained an unfinished task, in part because the dynamic of weapons reduction proved so reversible even before Donald Trump made it into the Oval Office. George W. Bush, for instance, struck a blow against arms control with his 2002 abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which rekindled Reagan's Star Wars fantasy. The way Washington subsequently promoted missile defense systems in Europe, especially in Poland, where a nearly $5 billion missile contract was agreed to this year, empowered the most hawkish wing of the Kremlin, guaranteeing just the sort of Russian build-up that has indeed occurred. If present Russian intermediate-range missile deployments are in violation of the INF Treaty, they did not happen in a vacuum.

Barack Obama, of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize in the early moments of his presidency for his vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world, yet not even he could curb the malevolent influence of nuclear planning in the Pentagon and elsewhere in Washington. To get approval of the 2010 New START Treaty, which was to further reduce the total number of strategic warheads and launchers on both sides, from the Republican Senate, the Peace Laureate president had to agree to an $80 billion renewal of America's existing nuclear arsenal just when it was ripe for a fuller dismantling. That devil's bargain with Washington's diehard nuclear hawks further empowered Russia's similarly hawkish militarists.

All of this reflects a pattern established relatively early in the Cold War years. U.S. arms escalations in that era -- from the long-range bomber and the hydrogen bomb to the nuclear-armed submarine and the cruise missile to the "high frontier" of space -- inevitably prompted the Kremlin to follow in lockstep (and these days, you would need to add the Chinese into the equation as well). Americans should recall that, since August 6, 1945, the ratcheting up of nuclear weapons competition has always begun in Washington. And so it has again.

By the time the Obama administration left office, the Defense Department was already planning to "modernize" the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a massively expensive way. Last February, with the release of the Pentagon's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, the Trump administration committed to that arsenal's full bore reinvention, big time, to the tune of at least $1.2 trillion and possibly $1.6 trillion over the next three decades. ICBM silos only recently slated for closing will be rebuilt. There will be new generations of nuclear-armed bombers and submarines, as well as nuclear cruise missiles. There will be wholly new nuclear weapons expressly designed to be "usable." And in that context, American nuclear strategy is also being recast. For the first time, the United States is now explicitly threatening to launch those "usable" weapons in response to non-nuclear assaults.

The surviving lynchpin of arms control is that New START Treaty that mattered so to Obama in 2010. It capped deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and implied that there would be further reductions to come. It must, however, be renewed in 2021. Trump is already on record calling it a bad deal, but he may not have to wait until possible reelection in 2020 to do it in. His INF Treaty abrogation might do the trick first. Limits on long-range strategic missiles may not survive the pressures that are sure to follow an arms race involving the intermediate variety.

No less worrisome, the Trump administration's fervent support for the Pentagon's modernization, and so reinvention, of the American nuclear arsenal amounts to a blatant violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which required nuclear powers to work toward "the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date." The president's explicit desire to maintain an ever more lethal nuclear arsenal into the indefinite future violates that requirement and will certainly undermine that treaty, too.

It's no exaggeration to say that those arms control treaties, taken together, probably saved the world from a nuclear Armageddon

[Nov 05, 2018] James Carroll Entering the Second Nuclear Age by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... TomDispatch ..."
"... The Fate of the Earth ..."
"... In that remarkable volume, Schell offered a stunning vision of what a ten-thousand-megaton nuclear strike on the U.S. might mean. ("In the ten seconds or so after each bomb hit, as blast waves swept outward from thousands of ground zeros, the physical plant of the United States would be swept away like leaves in a gust of wind.") In the end, after radiation had also taken its toll, he wrote, the United States -- in a phrase that's haunted me ever since -- "would be a republic of insects and grass." ..."
Nov 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

He was the candidate who, while talking to a foreign policy expert, reportedly wondered "why we can't use nuclear weapons." He was the man who would never rule anything out or take any "cards," including nuclear ones, off the proverbial table. He was the fellow who, as president-elect, was eager to expand the American nuclear arsenal and told Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski, "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all." I'm referring, of course, to the president who, early on, spoke with his top national security officials of returning the country to a Cold War footing when it came to such weaponry and called for the equivalent of a tenfold expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. I'm thinking of the president who once threatened North Korea with "fire and fury like the world has never seen" and proudly claimed that he had a "bigger nuclear button" than that country's leader, Kim Jong-un.

Given his fascination with nuclear weaponry, it's hardly surprising that the very same president would decide to pull the U.S. out of the Cold War-era 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) or that his vice president would refuse to rule out -- another potentially treaty-busting act -- the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. It's a gesture that, as TomDispatch regular and former Boston Globe columnist James Carroll explains today, could not be more devastating when it comes to creating a new nuclear arms race on this increasingly godforsaken planet of ours. Reading Carroll's piece, I thought of a mobilizing nuclear moment in my own life. It was the time in 1982 when I read Jonathan Schell's bestselling book The Fate of the Earth , which helped create a global anti-nuclear movement, millions of active citizens desiring a nuke-free world, that prepared the way for the INF Treaty.

In that remarkable volume, Schell offered a stunning vision of what a ten-thousand-megaton nuclear strike on the U.S. might mean. ("In the ten seconds or so after each bomb hit, as blast waves swept outward from thousands of ground zeros, the physical plant of the United States would be swept away like leaves in a gust of wind.") In the end, after radiation had also taken its toll, he wrote, the United States -- in a phrase that's haunted me ever since -- "would be a republic of insects and grass."

That, in other words, is what it might mean, in the twenty-first century, as in the previous one, for a president to put all those nuclear "cards" back on the table and "outmatch and outlast them all."

[Nov 05, 2018] Vote if you want, but it's a charade in which the Duopoly will remain beholden to the same money interests who paid for both the Red and Blue campaigns

Nov 05, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Mark from Queens

Elections USA, Inc: "Scum Vs. Scum." When I went looking for Hedges's weekly column today I rather expected him to be onto the next Bigger Picture item that he is always adroit at tackling.

So it was a little surprising that he chose instead to lead with an example of the midterm races in his state of NJ, the one between disgraced Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Republican Bob Hugin.

He never disappoints.

There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political system than the Senate race in New Jersey. Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The senator had flown to the Dominican Republic with Melgen on the physician's private jet and stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen, including helping some of the Dominican women acquire visas to the United States. Menendez was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung jury.

Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion military spending bill, along with 85 percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed a letter, along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite Julian Assange to stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel -- a country that routinely and massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He helped cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and investment banks.

In what is so emblematic of how pathetic and corrupt the opposition party, their presidential candidate came out to throw her support behind such an odious criminal and corporate whore and to campaign with him. While at the same time the Dems have made no secret about their intention to crush any candidate who espouses socialist values.

Vote if you want, but it's a charade in which the Duopoly will remain beholden to the same money interests who paid for both the Red and Blue campaigns.

Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother? One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats. The securities and finance industry has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given $174 million to Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And Michael Bloomberg, weighing his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.

"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.

Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.

Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for it.

Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.

"Plus ça change, Plus c'est la même chose."

But it is always necessary to remind folks that the Greatest Democracy In The World is not. It is An Auction House To The Highest Bidder.

He goes on to talk about fascism, its characteristics, its incarnation today, and the elements that pave the way for, which are economic instability, concentrated wealth, monopoly, a police state, imperialism, etc. It is Neoliberalism which has ushered in fascism across the globe, plain and simple.

No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are, at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment. Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.

You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens, mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist. Either way we are shackled.

American Exceptionalism reigns supreme to the Nationalist. He refuses to acknowledge that the real idea of "freedom" is not owning a munitions factory full of weaponry and putting a flag on the back of a pickup. It is instead the freedom to not have to live in the shadow of being foreclosed upon for a medical emergency, to not have to spend almost all of one's income on rent or mortgage debt, to have more time to spend with loved ones or doing what you love instead of working a dead end job just to pay the bills. In other words, a socialist economy heavily regulating the banks and corporations, in which debt peonage would largely become a thing of the past.

And then there it is. "We are being shackled incrementally," by unseen, unelected and unacknowledged vipers who use their wealth and power to also make sure we're ignorant and impotent to the real story.

Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism. It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin, refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally. Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the Establishment."

As far as I'm concerned America has been fascist for a long time, at least since 9/11 but probably longer. We've been captured by Inverted Totalitarianism. Trump just puts the ugly villainous face to that Fascism which has been rampant for a long time. Lewis Lapham had a great piece called, "Due Process: Lamenting the death of the rule of law in a country where it might have always been missing" that lays out the case for a how concentrated wealth has pretty much ruled with impunity since the beginning. (h/t to wendy davis)

How long will we continue to participate in this elaborate Lesser of Two Evil voting sham?

And these days those who do will surely let you know too. All the Good Zombies will be smiling for their selfies with their, "I Voted" stickers (now an added bonus to your "voting experience," as if it were a child's toy inside of a cereal box or something). How long will it be until we're handed little candies as a reward for voting? In step with the continuation of the infantilization of interaction in America. Civics? Nah. Stickers? Yeah.

Seems we're fucking doomed. But not unless people turn off the tv's and social media to begin talking to one another in public as fellow human beings, who as the 99% pretty much have so many of the same concerns in common.

Partisan ideology, blasted night and day on the propaganda networks, keeping us divided and conquered, with fear, manufactured distraction and celebrity gossip thrown in, to keep the lemmings hypnotized from what's really going on.

It's a damn shame.

Mark from Queens on Mon, 11/05/2018 - 7:36pm
Leave it to Hedges to exquisitley describe the darkness.

But he also pulled back from saying one shouldn't vote for the Dems to stem Trump's insanity, although he quickly added that it wouldn't stop the onslaught of corporate tyranny.

The only thing giving me hope lately is taking the longview, and the emergence of whistleblowers/journalists exposing the inner workings of the corporate coup. To what degree it matters will depend on how many people they reach.

The former,

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nXL7kO5t5NQ

and the latter (of which I've been putting together an essay on)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q6RXRKlGsV8

Bollox Ref on Mon, 11/05/2018 - 7:46pm
Americans love to quote Alexis de Tocqueville

but they rarely acknowledge Charles Dickens' impressions of the country.

[Nov 05, 2018] Will US Sanctions Sway Iran to Enter Oil Deal with Russia

Nov 05, 2018 | russia-insider.com

However, the primary problem would not even be the doubtful profitability, but rather logistics. Iran's oil fields are in the south. To reach Russia, the oil would have to make its way to Caspian ports in the north. Iran has no main pipelines connecting its southern oil fields with northern ports. These ports do have the infrastructure for oil, but they were built to receive oil from swap deals with Kazakhstan, Russia and Azerbaijan. They were never meant to export oil.

Consequently, before any exports could begin, Moscow and Tehran would have to invest in creating the necessary storage and loading infrastructure at the Iranian ports. Iran would also need to upgrade its transport infrastructure to deliver oil from the south to the Caspian seashore -- that would also present a challenge.

Finally, Russia and Iran would have to substantially increase their tanker fleets in the landlocked Caspian Sea to exchange large quantities of oil, as the local geography does not allow for the use of large tankers. In this situation, a planned railroad connection between Russia and Iran via Azerbaijan could increase the volume of oil moved from Iran to Russia, but this project has not been completed.

Under these circumstances, Russian officials are demonstrating far greater interest in resuming the so-called oil-for-products program, under which Russia would broker Iranian oil abroad in exchange for Iran buying Russian industrial machinery and providing investment opportunities to Moscow.

Russia and Iran have discussed an oil-for-products initiative for years. Initially, it was supposed to help Tehran evade the oil trade embargo imposed by the United States, European Union (EU) and their partners. When those sanctions were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal, the initiative was expected to compensate for Iran's lack of financial reserves, which kept Tehran from paying for imports of Russian equipment in hard currency. However, after US President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018 and began reimposing sanctions, the oil-for-products deal again gained importance as a way to evade sanctions.

In November 2017, Moscow received 1 million barrels from Iran as payment for railroad equipment imported from Russia, and arrangements were in the works for Russia to buy an additional 5 million tons of oil in 2018. Indeed, in January and February there were reports of some oil dispatches transferred from Iran to Russian companies. Yet, by March, they stopped . Moscow still plans to revive the deal in 2019, though it might never happen.

On the one hand, Russia has had problems finding buyers for Iranian oil. Concerned about the US sanctions, potential clients refused to purchase it. On the other hand, Iran's main hopes for sanctions relief are more connected to the EU than Russia. There is a strong belief in Tehran that Europeans will be able to offset the negative influence of US economic pressure on Iran. The EU wants to salvage as much of the nuclear deal as possible. Yet the strength of Tehran's belief is hard to explain: Large EU companies have already pulled out of Iran. The EU officials Al-Monitor interviewed openly said that Tehran should not expect a lot from Brussels.

Though Russian and Iranian officials have an on-again, off-again marriage of convenience, Iran's general public and its elite strongly oppose any substantial deals with Moscow. Russia is not trusted or welcomed by Iranians and the countries have a long history of differences . A well-informed and respected Iranian expert on Tehran's foreign policy told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that a Russian oil-for-products initiative would be difficult to implement.

"A large part of Iranian society believes that giving our oil to Russia -- especially at the discounted prices -- is no better than agreeing to Trump's demands," he said.

[Nov 05, 2018] New Iran Sanctions Risk Long-Term US Isolation

Nov 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Patrick Lawrence via ConsortiumNews.com,

The U.S. is going for the jugular with new Iran sanctions intended to punish those who trade with Teheran. But the U.S. may have a fight on its hands in a possible post- WWII turning-point...

The next step in the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran has begun, with the most severe sanctions being re-imposed on the Islamic Republic. Crucially, they apply not only to Iran but to anyone who continues to do business with it.

It's not yet clear how disruptive this move will be. While the U.S. intention is to isolate Iran, it is the U.S. that could wind up being more isolated. It depends on the rest of the world's reaction, and especially Europe's.

The issue is so fraught that disputes over how to apply the new sanctions have even divided Trump administration officials.

The administration is going for the jugular this time. It wants to force Iranian exports of oil and petrochemical products down to as close to zero as possible. As the measures are now written, they also exclude Iran from the global interbank system known as SWIFT.

It is hard to say which of these sanctions is more severe. Iran's oil exports have already started falling. They peaked at 2.7 million barrels a day last May -- just before Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation accord governing Iran's nuclear programs. By early September oil exports were averaging a million barrels a day less .

In August the U.S. barred Iran's purchases of U.S.-dollar denominated American and foreign company aircraft and auto parts. Since then the Iranian rial has crashed to record lows and inflation has risen above 30 percent.

Revoking Iran's SWIFT privileges will effectively cut the nation out of the dollar-denominated global economy. But there are moves afoot, especially by China and Russia, to move away from a dollar-based economy.

The SWIFT issue has caused i nfighting in the administration between Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser who is among the most vigorous Iran hawks in the White House. Mnuchin might win a temporary delay or exclusions for a few Iranian financial institutions, but probably not much more.

On Sunday, the second round of sanctions kicked in since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Obama administration-backed, nuclear agreement, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for stringent controls on its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly certified that the deal is working and the other signatories -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia have not pulled out and have resumed trading with Iran. China and Russia have already said they will ignore American threats to sanction it for continuing economic relations with Iran. The key question is what will America's European allies do?

Europeans React

Europe has been unsettled since Trump withdrew in May from the nuclear accord. The European Union is developing a trading mechanism to get around U.S. sanctions. Known as a Special Purpose Vehicle , it would allow European companies to use a barter system similar to how Western Europe traded with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Juncker: Wants Euro-denominated trading

EU officials have also been lobbying to preserve Iran's access to global interbank operations by excluding the revocation of SWIFT privileges from Trump's list of sanctions. They count Mnuchin,who is eager to preserve U.S. influence in the global trading system, among their allies. Some European officials, including Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, propose making the euro a global trading currency to compete with the dollar.

Except for Charles de Gaulle briefly pulling France out of NATO in 1967 and Germany and France voting on the UN Security Council against the U.S. invading Iraq in 2003, European nations have been subordinate to the U.S. since the end of the Second World War.

The big European oil companies, unwilling to risk the threat of U.S. sanctions, have already signaled they intend to ignore the EU's new trade mechanism. Total SA, the French petroleum company and one of Europe's biggest, pulled out of its Iran operations several months ago.

Earlier this month a U.S. official confidently predicted there would be little demand among European corporations for the proposed barter mechanism.

Whether Europe succeeds in efforts to defy the U.S. on Iran is nearly beside the point from a long-term perspective. Trans-Atlantic damage has already been done. A rift that began to widen during the Obama administration seems about to get wider still.

Asia Reacts

Asian nations are also exhibiting resistance to the impending U.S. sanctions. It is unlikely they could absorb all the exports Iran will lose after Nov. 4, but they could make a significant difference. China, India, and South Korea are the first, second, and third-largest importers of Iranian crude; Japan is sixth. Asian nations may also try to work around the U.S. sanctions regime after Nov. 4.

India is considering purchases of Iranian crude via a barter system or denominating transactions in rupees. China, having already said it would ignore the U.S. threat, would like nothing better than to expand yuan-denominated oil trading, and this is not a hard call: It is in a protracted trade war with the U.S., and an oil-futures market launched in Shanghai last spring already claims roughly 14 percent of the global market for "front-month" futures -- contracts covering shipments closest to delivery.

Trump: Unwittingly playing with U.S. long-term future

As with most of the Trump administration's foreign policies, we won't know how the new sanctions will work until they are introduced. There could be waivers for nations such as India; Japan is on record asking for one. The E.U.'s Special Purpose Vehicle could prove at least a modest success at best, but this remains uncertain. Nobody is sure who will win the administration's internal argument over SWIFT.

Long-term Consequences for the U.S.

The de-dollarization of the global economy is gradually gathering momentum. The orthodox wisdom in the markets has long been that competition with the dollar from other currencies will eventually prove a reality, but it will not be one to arrive in our lifetimes. But with European and Asian reactions to the imminent sanctions against Iran it could come sooner than previously thought.

The coalescing of emerging powers into a non-Western alliance -- most significantly China, Russia, India, and Iran -- starts to look like another medium-term reality. This is driven by practical rather than ideological considerations, and the U.S. could not do more to encourage this if it tried. When Washington withdrew from the Iran accord, Moscow and Beijing immediately pledged to support Tehran by staying with its terms.If the U.S. meets significant resistance, especially from its allies, it could be a turning-point in post-Word War II U.S. dominance.

Supposedly Intended for New Talks

All this is intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table for a rewrite of what Trump often calls "the worst deal ever." Tehran has made it clear countless times it has no intention of reopening the pact, given that it has consistently adhered to its terms and that the other signatories to the deal are still abiding by it.

The U.S. may be drastically overplaying its hand and could pay the price with additional international isolation that has worsened since Trump took office.

Washington has been on a sanctions binge for years. Those about to take effect seem recklessly broad. This time, the U.S. risks lasting alienation even from those allies that have traditionally been its closest.

[Nov 05, 2018] Tax heavens and inequality

Notable quotes:
"... creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons? It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I don't think that happens in this case. What do you think? ..."
"... The result is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start bringing in foreign labour to replace them. ..."
Nov 05, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

blatnoi November 5, 2018 at 3:06 am

I've lately been wondering about the economics of being a big tax haven like the UK. A place like the Bahamas, I think benefits from it since there are so few citizens and it's easy to bribe them, and it costs a lot less than paying taxes back home. But then you move on to Panama, and the grey area starts. Someone is getting rich there, but the population of Panama is a lot bigger than that of the Bahamas, and that population is not exactly rich. Does it create bigger class divisions and also retards politics in terms of trying to develop their own unique economy not dependent on servicing the rich foreign tax thieves?

Then you get to London and the UK, with their absolutely enormous population. Most of the people outside of London will never see any of this money, and in London it creates a runaway housing crisis as the best investment for laundered money is thought to be real estate. Obviously there is investment in the local economy other than that, such as buying football clubs and stores, but I don't think that money goes towards funding a pharma start-up or buying stock in a local car company.

So it exacerbates inequality sure (London real estate is insane and out of reach of most locals), and creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons? It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I don't think that happens in this case. What do you think?

Mark Chapman November 5, 2018 at 3:20 am
I think it is an extremely interesting discussion point; one that I would not venture into without doing a bit of research, but right now I have to leave for work. It's definitely something we could chew over for a bit, and I imagine Jen will have something for us on it.
Jen November 5, 2018 at 2:00 pm
Blatnoi, if you get hold of the Nicholas Shaxson book I mentioned before, I recall there's a chapter that discusses the effect of being a tax haven has on the Channel Islands economy and Jersey Island in particular. The money that ends up there is in the pockets of a very few people who use it to buy and real estate as if it were shares on the stock market.

The result is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start bringing in foreign labour to replace them.

I certainly agree with you that a two-speed economy creates and exacerbates class divisions, and moreover destroys not only local economies in the areas where it operates but also local societies and cultures.

Aha I Googled "Shaxson", "economy" and "Jersey" and out of what Google threw at me, I found this account by Bram Wanrooij of his time living in Jersey with his family for six years:

An excerpt from Wanrooij's post:

".. I have never been so aware of wealth discrepancies as I have in Jersey. And that says a lot, as I have lived in places like Kenya and Sudan when I was younger. Disparity is on full display, in combination with a shameless promotion of greed and privilege. Range Rovers wizz past you, their 4×4 engines sputtering out clouds of pollution, utterly useless on a small island with a decent infrastructure and no real elevation to speak of. You even see flashy sports cars; quite amusing when you consider the speed limit is 40 at most. What are these people trying to prove?

The island caters to the very wealthy, especially reflected in everyday expenses and housing and travel costs. Getting off the island becomes ever more impossible as your family grows, with flights to England ridiculously expensive and ferries charging a small fortune for carrying you across the channel. In this way, Jersey has quickly become a financial and geographical prison for middle and low earners.

In the six years I've lived here, my family has had to move six times and every time we had to rent a house which was slightly beyond our budget, even though both my wife and I are hard workers with honest professions. I have seen qualified, talented people leave because of this, a phenomenon which makes no sense, neither on a social, nor an economic level "

Comparisons between the Jersey-style financial two-speed economy and economies afflicted with so-called Dutch disease (typically economies like Saudi Arabia and others dependent on oil, gas and mineral exploitation) have been made. Characteristics of such economies are outlined in detail at this link:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11977/oil/dutch-disease/

Fern November 5, 2018 at 5:25 pm
I've lived on the outskirts of London for many years and what I've seen is the city becoming increasingly hollowed out. You can walk around street after street at night and everywhere is in darkness – the lights are out because no-one is home, not that evening, not ever. London is permanently under construction; huge numbers of new buildings have gone up in recent years – all of them beyond the purchasing power of most Londoners – and huge numbers of those new buildings have been purchased off plan by overseas investors with no intention or interest in living in them.

When the money moves in existing communities disintegrate, local councils seek to dump those in social housing on other, less fashionable boroughs (thus exacerbating housing problems in those areas) or even outside London so housing can be razed and the land sold to developers, those renting in the private sector are priced out, local businesses close down – their market has gone plus insane rent and rates increases etc etc. London used to have a bit of a 'village' feel to it – distinct areas with settled communities, traditional butcher-baker-candlestick maker high streets, a sense of community. All gone or going.

Moscow Exile November 5, 2018 at 3:51 am
'Billionaires Row': inside Hampstead palaces left empty for decades
On The Bishops Avenue houses worth tens of millions of pounds lay derelict in a spectacular example of waste and profligacy

The multimillion-pound wrecks are evidence of a property culture in which the world's richest people see British property as investments. One Hyde Park, a block of apartments in Knightsbridge, is another example where more than half the flats are registered with the council as empty or second homes.

Rinat Akhmetov pays record £136.4m for apartment at One Hyde Park
Ukraine's richest man spends record amount for a UK home after buying two Knightsbridge flats totalling 25,000 sq ft

He just loves the weather there!

Northern Star November 5, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Hmmm ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov#Political_activity
Jen November 5, 2018 at 3:46 pm
Buying properties in hot-spot areas and leaving them empty – because you plan to trade and sell them if and when the prices rocket up to levels you want – would be typical behaviour of people who treat property portfolios like share portfolios. You want to be ready to sell when the price is right so you don't move tenants into them. Getting rid of tenants can be a hassle if you want to sell quickly.

Also buying property and deliberately leaving it to rot is a way of using it as a tax shelter to minimise land and other taxes, lower your income or claim a tax rebate on losses you make because you're forking out more in land taxes, council rates and other rates than you are making on the property, depending on the taxation jurisdiction prevailing in the area or country where you have bought the property.

Evgeny November 5, 2018 at 3:59 am
Thanks for a great article, Mark!

Apparently, the U.S. authorities believe that by squeezing the corrupt Russian money out of the Great Britain, they would force those corrupt rich Russians to return their money home and remake the Russia as a modern Western nation with the rule of law and checks and balances.

At least, that's what I have heard at anti-Putin forums. So -- and especially so in view of your article -- that ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

But if that's indeed the idea -- I'm skeptical that it would work. Definitely, it sounds alright, and if it were implemented, say, 30 years ago -- it might have sort of worked, by preventing the corrupt Russians to move their assets abroad. Now, I think, they would just move their fortunes into some other friendly jurisdiction outside of the reach of Uncle Sam and Russia's authorities.

If getting at dirty money was that easy, I doubt that China would ever need to resort to such a complex operation as the "Fox Hunt".

Moscow Exile November 5, 2018 at 4:25 am
Well it seems that Rusal has said "Kiss my arse goodbye!" to the bounteous, tax-free-zoned West.

Sanctions-hit Rusal decides to move from Jersey to Russia
November 05, 9:24 updated at: November 05, 10:24 UTC+3

That's Jersey the British Channel Island and not "New Jersey", the former British colony.

Mark Chapman November 5, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Another kick in the sack for Britain, caused by Washington but for which Washington will suffer no penalty. That Special Relationship certainly is something, isn't it?
Mark Chapman November 5, 2018 at 3:32 pm
I think you're probably right – although I never thought of such a devious motive as forcing Putin's enemies (in some cases) back to Russia, where they would presumably start financing the opposition and making trouble, I agree it likely would not work according to plan. Very likely all it would accomplish is the withdrawal of their money from London, to be hidden somewhere else.

[Nov 05, 2018] Nuclear war threat is now real

Nov 05, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star November 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm

USA Psychopaths in Power WATCH:

"Phil Collins
The only thing that can stop this ever happening is if the American people stand up to these psychopaths running their country its called people power and would stop them in their tracks madmen now run the Whitehouse"

https://youtu.be/OpQuUMURex8

[Nov 05, 2018] Both in Skriplas affair and in Syria the UK is slowly sinking to its appropriate level of incompetence and self-delusion

Nov 05, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al November 5, 2018 at 8:22 am

I'm not surprised that you are such a fine shot with his harpoon considering your naval background, Mark! The UK is slowly sinking to its appropriate level of incompetence and self-delusion with the likes of former PM Dave Cameron declaring that he is 'shit bored' and would like to return to cabinet, preferably as Foreign Minister. That could be arranged, but as Foreign minister in Libya.

Still, the whole 'Russian corrupting in Britain' is the British government's perception management at its finest. As someone recently posted on the last thread, a Spanish case against RUSSIAN MAFIA collapsed for lack of evidence after ten years , which I suspect was partly provided by British Intelligence paid organized crime experts from Russia like Litvenenko & Skripal. Who's been bilked then?

Yes, this is a classic case of 'LOOK OVER THERE!' rather than the billions upon billions sunk in to London by the UK and the west's bestest Gulf buddies, you know, the one's who fear not their exposure for outrageous human rights abuses on a genocidal scale such as in Yemen, and a much smaller scale with the likes of their own citizens, sic Kashoggi. But, Chelsea & Westminster are such a fundamental part of British Life (coz its London, innit?) and does very well for itself. I have to admit, it is (mostly) nice around there where you can take a stroll along the Embankment, wander around Hyde Park and visit the museums.

Northern Star November 5, 2018 at 5:33 pm
"Like in the Wild West, betting in the saloon is also common when it comes to Syria. The US State Department under Obama placed all its bets on some entity they invented, which they liked to call "moderate rebels" (why not "respectable terrorists" or "polite criminals"?). They lost. Numerous left-wing academics signed on to regime change years ago, and because they only pretend to be seasoned analysts for their day jobs, they did not foresee the collapse of the anti-government forces in Syria. That list included noted "post-colonial" scholars and anthropologists, united in their belief in "democracy promotion" and remaking Syria into something palatable to them, with the right leaders in place. Five years later and a smaller group -- including feminists like Gloria Steinem and Judith Butler, anarchists like Noam Chomsky and the anthropologist David Graeber, the Marxist David Harvey, and advocates of recolonization like Michael Walzer -- placed their bets on socialist Kurdish militias, presumably increasing the value of their bet by the important sign value of their brand name authority. Ironically, in the process of reimagining legendary Rojava as the site of a second Spanish Civil War, they were openly collaborating with Donald Trump (not naming him directly, since "the US government" was more convenient). These signatories were thus complicit with the very same commander-in-chief of the armed forces they were calling on for support of Syrian Kurds. They wanted "the US government," whose President is Donald Trump, to impose sanctions on Turkey, and to develop a foreign policy that put Kurdish interests at the forefront. You can be sure that, elsewhere, in front of different crowds, they return to "the Resistance" by puffing up their little chests and sounding all "anti-Trump" -- but when it came to cheering their favourite band of ethnic anarchists, they could dispense with appearances. Less "prestigious" characters, publishing in a less "prestigious" outlet, countered the call to "defend Rojava", a call which appropriated "progressive" politics for the cause of imperialism (thus reigniting an old marriage). (David Harvey, by the way, having cashed in on abundant sales of his volume, The New Imperialism, has recently changed his mind: he has decided that imperialism is merely a metaphor, "rather than anything real". Out of curiosity, we have to wonder if "capitalism" is also a metaphor, rather than anything real, seeing how Marxists have linked capitalism with imperialism. Perhaps even socialism is a metaphor, rather than anything real."

This Canadian has a lot to say well worth reading!!!!!

https://zeroanthropology.net/2018/10/06/syria-the-new-terra-nullius/

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2018/11/04/syria-the-new-terra-nullius/

[Nov 04, 2018] The U.S. Cannot Win Militarily In Afghanistan, Says Top Commander In Shocking Interview

Nov 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Historians of the now seventeen-year old U.S. war in Afghanistan will take note of this past week when the newly-appointed American general in charge of US and NATO operations in the country made a bombshell, historic admission. He conceded that the United States cannot win in Afghanistan .

Speaking to NBC News last week, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made his first public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank assessment that that the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban -- the very terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001.

"This is not going to be won militarily," Gen. Miller said. "This is going to a political solution."

Gen. Austin Scott Miller, the U.S. commander of resolute support, via EPA/NBC

Miller explained to NBC :

My assessment is the Taliban also realizes they cannot win militarily. So if you realize you can't win militarily at some point, fighting is just, people start asking why. So you do not necessarily wait us out, but I think now is the time to start working through the political piece of this conflict.

He gave the interview from the Resolute Support headquarters building in Kabul. "We are more in an offensive mindset and don't wait for the Taliban to come and hit [us]," he said. "So that was an adjustment that we made early on. We needed to because of the amount of casualties that were being absorbed."

Starting last summer it was revealed that US State Department officials began meeting with Taliban leaders in Qatar to discuss local and regional ceasefires and an end to the war . It was reported at the time that the request of the Taliban, the US-backed Afghan government was not invited; however, there doesn't appear to have been any significant fruit out of the talks as the Taliban now controls more territory than ever before in recent years .

Such controversial and shaky negotiations come as in total the United States has spent well over $840 billion fighting the Taliban insurgency while also paying for relief and reconstruction in a seventeen-year long war that has become more expensive, in current dollars, than the Marshall Plan , which was the reconstruction effort to rebuild Europe after World War II.

Even the New York Times recently chronicled the flat out deception of official Pentagon statements vs. the reality in terms of the massive spending that has gone into the now-approaching two decade long "endless war" which began in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Via NYT report

As of September of this year the situation was as bleak as it's ever been after over a decade-and-a-half of America's longest running war, per the NYT's numbers :

But since 2017, the Taliban have held more Afghan territory than at any time since the American invasion . In just one week last month, the insurgents killed 200 Afghan police officers and soldiers, overrunning two major Afghan bases and the city of Ghazni.

The American military says the Afghan government effectively "controls or influences" 56 percent of the country. But that assessment relies on statistical sleight of hand . In many districts, the Afghan government controls only the district headquarters and military barracks, while the Taliban control the rest .

For this reason Gen. Miller spoke to NBC of an optimal "political outcome" instead of "winning" -- the latter being a term rarely if ever used by Pentagon and officials and congressional leaders over the past years.

Miller told NBC : "I naturally feel compelled to try to set the conditions for a political outcome. So, pressure from that standpoint, yes. I don't want everyone to think this is forever."

And ending on a bleak note in terms of the "save face" and "cut and run" nature of the U.S. future engagement in Afghanistan, Gen. Miller concluded, "This is my last assignment as a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't think they'll send me back here in another grade. When I leave this time I'd like to see peace and some level of unity as we go forward."

Interestingly, the top US and NATO commander can now only speak in remotely hopeful terms of "some level of unity" -- perhaps just enough to make a swift exit at least. Tags War Conflict Politics

play_arrow Reply Report

God is The Son , 3 minutes ago link

There not going to come out as say, where here because we want BOMB IRAN a few years down the track and maintain US Military deployment for Israel's long-term interests. Israel are suspected of committing 9/11 attacks, if you think about it long term policy of expansion, getting ride of its surrounding threats it's all makes sense. scraficing 3000 americans for Israel's longterm policy's seems to be the pill they were willing to swallow.

R19 , 5 minutes ago link

We spent a lot of money, killed people, and protected and served the **** out of a lot. That is the win that the elite are looking for.

God is The Son , 6 minutes ago link

Prorably remain there because of Zionist Influence in order to get IRAN sooner or later.

veritas semper vinces , 10 minutes ago link

US already lost the war there too.

The Talibans control the country.

US is trying to shift the blame on Russia, as the Talibans went to Moscow for peace talks.

And with Pakistan aligning with Russia/China and Iran ( Pakistan being the main supply route for the US army in Afghanistan), the US army is practically f*cked.

So, this is a face saving movement.

cheoll , 14 minutes ago link

Israhell wants the US bogged down in the Middle East

in order to destroy it, so Apartheid Israhell can become

the regional superpower .

veritas semper vinces , 21 minutes ago link

I just published a caricature of top US generals, including Mattis.

A lot of work , but worth it.

next : Soros, Adelson, Rockefeller and Rothschild.

This is going to take 3-4 days.


https://veritassempervincitscaricaturesdrawings.wordpress.com/

Bricker , 22 minutes ago link

This aint going over well with Trump. not W-W-W-winning?

Tirion , 33 minutes ago link

Good to know that Trump is not prepared to continue to protect Deep State opium production at the taxpayers' expense. I hope he's planning to withdraw US armed forces from all foreign soil.

JuliaS , 26 minutes ago link

Based on what? What did he stop? Which wars did he pull out out of?

Military was a huge contributor to his votes. He's not going to lift a finger. He would have started by pardoning Snowden, or closing Gitmo - something Obama lied about when making campaign promises. Where, here is your chance, Donald. Do at least one single thing that shows you as anything other that a MIC puppet. Just one thing! Anything!

Bombing Syria? Yep. Blind eye to Saudi crimes in Yemen? Yep. Dancing to Zionist demands? Yep.

Trade wars? Oh sure, those things never lead to military conflict either!

Push , 31 minutes ago link

The only reason we were in Afghanistan in the first place was to protect the heroin trade from acquisition by the Taliban. It's time to pull out and let the British protect their poppy fields if they want em that badly.

Push , 28 minutes ago link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUATfLDiwVA

Push , 19 minutes ago link

Notice that Rivera says the Marines just had a visit from Prince Charles. If you want to know more about why we have so much heroin in America now and who benefits.. read Dope Inc.

navy62802 , 42 minutes ago link

Stunning NeoCon victory ... almost 20 years later. This is why I am frightened that John Bolton still has a voice in government.

algol_dog , 47 minutes ago link

It's not about winning. It's about perpetuating a never ending need for defensive tax dollars.

Tirion , 21 minutes ago link

Not tax dollars, Deep State dollars from the sale of opium to fund black projects.

[Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Nov 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kunstler: The Midterm Endgame & Democrats' "Perpetual Hysteria"

by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/02/2018 - 17:05 44 SHARES Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart" party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.

How did that work?

Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.

In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.

The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the 1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights, aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done. Consensus was still possible.

The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into penury and addiction.

The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.

The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems, the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education.

I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible. I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.

Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political upheaval.

[Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Nov 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kunstler: The Midterm Endgame & Democrats' "Perpetual Hysteria"

by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/02/2018 - 17:05 44 SHARES Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart" party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.

How did that work?

Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.

In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.

The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the 1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights, aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done. Consensus was still possible.

The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into penury and addiction.

The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.

The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems, the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education.

I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible. I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.

Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political upheaval.

[Nov 03, 2018] Withdrawing From the INF Treaty Is One of Trump's Most Dangerous Moves Yet

Nov 03, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

It's important to note why the INF Treaty was negotiated in the first place.

In the 1970s, the Soviets developed and began deploying a new "intermediate range" nuclear missile that threatened Europe, Asia, North Africa, and Alaska. The United States responded by deploying "Pershing II" missiles to Germany and Ground Launched Cruise Missiles to several NATO nations in Europe. The Soviet SS-20 and American Pershing II ballistic missiles would have been particularly destabilizing in a crisis by virtue of their short, six- to eleven-minute flight times to target.

Recognizing the danger, US and Soviet leaders agreed upon the INF Treaty, which prohibited the entire class of ground-launched intermediate-range nuclear weapons. The INF entered into force in 1988, and since then 2,692 missiles have been verifiably removed or destroyed.

The INF contributed to the end of the Cold War and played a significant role in reducing the global arms race. The INF also opened the door for other historic nuclear disarmament treaties to be pursued through diplomatic channels. If the United States unilaterally withdrew from the INF, it would set a dangerous and woefully irresponsible precedent for all nuclear-armed nations to renege on their disarmament responsibilities.

In a statement responding to the president's announcement, the European Union declared, "The world doesn't need a new arms race that would benefit no one and on the contrary would bring even more instability."

They're not alone. In the days since Trump's announcement, foreign policy experts, diplomats, former US government officials, and even leaders of other nations have spoken out in opposition to the proposed United States withdrawal from the treaty. Even Mark Hamill, Luke Skywalker himself, has weighed in .

The United States must negotiate with all nuclear-armed countries for total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. In the meantime, it is critical that the INF remain in force, with both parties fully and demonstrably adhering to the terms of this vital international agreement.

If the Trump administration continues along its present foolhardy course, then Congress should use the power of the purse and refuse to fund anything that would support new intermediate-range weapons.

JMartin Fleck is the Nuclear Weapons Abolition Program Director at Physicians for Social Responsibility . Reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy In Focus .

[Nov 03, 2018] Partisanship Rules At The Midterms

Nov 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

tmosley , 13 minutes ago link

Absent independents, Republicans are running away with it. And independents are most assuredly witnessing the insanity that has gripped the Democratic Party, and will vote for Republicans at least 9:1.

Tallest Skil , 22 minutes ago link

Don't care. Both parties are entirely owned by Zionists...

BarnacleBill , 16 minutes ago link

Well, hang in there, sport. Yes, the US does seem to be going down the tubes, in that it's lost all respect in the world; we still fear it, but don't respect it. Sic transit gloria , or something like that...

[Nov 03, 2018] Preparing for a multipolar order, the USA is falling back by consolidating its grip on its own backyard: Latin America.

Nov 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Nov 3, 2018 1:15:59 PM | link

Washington imposes new sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba < https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/11/03/bolt-n03.html>

Preparing for a multipolar order, the USA is falling back by consolidating its grip on its own backyard: Latin America.

Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador are already aligned. Brazil will follow soon after Bolsonaro takes office in Janurary 1st. The USA doesn't have any "carrots" left, only the "big stick". This realignment will be brutal for the Latin American people, with high inflation, slave wages, high unemployment and abscence of basic human rights (police state) to follow.

The only question now is: how much will it last?

[Nov 03, 2018] Trump is that quintessential Amerikkkan salesman: the grifter.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are 100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of empire. ..."
"... As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is) but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility. ..."
"... The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP. ..."
Nov 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

donkeytale , Nov 3, 2018 1:48:14 PM | 13 ">link

Trump's has been the "goofy foot" presidency.

That is, he started off on the wrong foot. Campaigning as a populist who eschewed accepted mainstream "progressive" and "conservative" political positions, he completely cratered the unpopular Republican orthodoxy during the 2016 primaries by promising such heretical ideas as a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection for Medicare/Medicaid and social security, improvement on Obamacare, higher taxes on the wealthiest and a massive infrastructure program to rebuild the decaying facilities of this so-called once grate nation.

These are all ideas that gained the support of enough Obama voters and independents in just the right flyover states to lead Trump to an improbable victory while being soundly thrashed in the popular voting nationwide. A stunning, historical accomplishment as much as and as much in reaction too, the 2008 Obama victory.

Of course, to those of us who understand the modern GOP and the history of the lying-ass self promotion of the Trump entertainment spectacle its own self, we were neither duped nor surprised when the initial 2017 legislative agenda items proferred were none of the populist agenda but instead were the repeal of Obamacare, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the reversal of all Obama executive orders, most notably in the areas of refugee resettlement and immigration.

Trump, the so-called change agent who in fact was and still is clueless regarding how to function as President simply let the craven Obama opposition leaders of the prior 8 years, McConnell and Ryan set out the typical GOP legislative agenda, which is opposed by a majority, in some cases overwhelming majority, of Amerikkkans.

Obamacare repeal failed memorably based on but one late night thumb's down taken more out of personal revenge than the ideology of a very soon to be dead Senator.

Trump's ruling style in large part has substituted for any sense of a coherent agenda in that he obviously cares only about his base (an obdurate block of 36% of the electorate consisting almost entirely of white, entitled, racist baby boomers who have devolved into anti-democratic fascists now that they no longer represent a majority of the US population and believe (falsely) they have something to protect).

Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are 100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of empire.

While I have my own view of whether any of Trump's policies contain great value from a long term historical perspective, I do recognize Trump's appeal to certain sectors of the internet, including most obviously certain useful idiots of the ultra left.

I do not believe his victory to be a fluke of nature but rather in keeping with the current worldwide trend borne of aging whitebread fear, cyncism and disenchantment with elitist political/economic establishments and which has been amped to a viral degree by a staggering wealth disparity, but only as it impacts the formerly entitled feeling, aging white people situated in western countries.

The natural response to any socially or cultural threat is to band together tribally and fight back. And the main threat, when it is boiled down, is the fear of overpopulation (and its accompnaying unstoppable environmental degradation) driven by what is viewed through the Trump voter political lens as non-white, primitive, illsuited people from shithole countries who are and will continue to ruin Amerikkka and Western Europe.

As perfectly illustrated by the migrant caravan heading to Tijuana.

Unfortunately, Trump through disinterest or incompetence or both hasn't followed through either with enough of the promises he made that are actually meaningful to most people, whether GOP or Democratic. He has been able to bind his tribe to him and conquer the GOP political apparatus simply because the Party platform was already so badly decayed (overcooked Reagan leftovers) and out of touch with reality pre-Trump that the Donald could bend delusional conservative tropes in any way he saw fit to his electoral advantage. As long as he infotained well, and he has indeed, he would dominate.

As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is) but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility.

In other words, Trump is that quintessential Amerikkkan salesman: the grifter. This particular breed of business person is not an exception in the US but rather the rule. In fact, the US system has devolved to the point where laws and regulations now enfranchise what previously had been considered illegal activity. Amerikkkans are heavily incentivised these days by the call to a form of monopolistic, crony capitalism and institulionised rigged gambling ("Wall Street"), which in more quaint times was considered mobsterism.

Institutions have been purposefully compromised so they no longer support whatever criminal laws still exist. It is not by accident that the IRS is now chronically understaffed and has no effective way to stop income tax cheating or collection of the minimal taxes now due.

It is not by accident that Trump's main role as President is to weaken institutions such as the media, to further debase language and kill whatever generally accepted objective truth remain extant in the land. He is recognisable to all Amerikkkans as a CEO in support of this ongoing wave of legal criminality through which the 1% and their lackeys section have prospered at the expense of the 99%.

The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP.

And no, I don't believe the Demotardic Party to be absolved of blame in any way. Rather, the Demotards have entirely gone along to get along with this same trend because of course the Party leaders have been able to criminally enrich themselves and their cronies along the way too.

However, let's be real for minute and drop all pretense of holier than thou keyboard revolutionism. The ultimate solution of the world's disease is not going to be resolved in 2018 through a political revolution, especially one inspired by the disharmony and fraud of internet based social media and its acolytes. D'uh.

Look around. Since we have been blogging our lives away the world has only grown further away from leftism. We live in a fascist police state owned and operated by teh ultra wealthy who have dropped pretense of any humanitarian or religious concern for those less firtunated than themselves.

Donald Trump has one more chance to make himself truly into the transformational leader he believes himself to be in his degraded soul.

The first bill on the 2019 legislative needs to be a bipartisan infrastructure bill of such scope and magnitude that it will serve not only a political change of direction but also redirect the economy in such way that wealth is re-directed from the wealthy to the rest of us, particularly those able bodied non-college educated people who have suffered through the last several decades without hope or gain.

Trump must dictate to his party that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will not only be maintained but strengthened through improved benefits.

Am I dreaming? Yes, I admit that I am. But I'm also calling out to the criminal conman in chief: it's not too late to reclaim your own legacy.

Wake the fock up, dude...

[Nov 03, 2018] Truman Delayed End of WWII to Demonstrate Nuclear Weapons - Daniel Ellsberg on RAI (3-8)

Notable quotes:
"... To intimidate the Soviet Union and prove to Congress the nuclear program should be funded, Truman dropped nuclear weapons on Japan ..."
Nov 02, 2018 | therealnews.com

To intimidate the Soviet Union and prove to Congress the nuclear program should be funded, Truman dropped nuclear weapons on Japan to end the war; no scientist came forward to warn of the dangers to life on earth, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. You know, a more even controversial episode is that Heisenberg- the one who had made the estimate on atmospheric ignition as a possibility, but it would take too long for the bomb- indicated in various ways that he was reluctant to see a bomb coming to Hitler's hands, even though he had joined the Nazi party and he was a very patriotic German, did not want to see Germany to lose the war. But when they learned of the bomb they were discussing being tapped, wiretapped, by the British where they were in custody saying, you know, we didn't really want to do it. Had we wanted to, we would have seen through these obstacles and moved ahead.

American physicists took very great exception to the thesis presented by Thomas Powers on Heisenberg's war, and so forth, that the Germans might have had more qualms than they did, in effect, than Heisenberg- you know, that was a very offensive idea. And he had gone to see Niels Bohr, the father of quantum physics, who came over later and helped the bomb project, in Denmark in a in a quite controversial issue. Heisenberg indicated that he wanted to see if Bohr could find a way of collaborating with the Western scientists in not bringing this bomb about at all. Bohr didn't read what he was saying that way. He thought that he was feeling him out to discover how advanced the Americans were, the British were. Anyway, they were at odds on this point. And it's definitely not settled as to what Heisenberg's actual motives were on that point. But it is interesting how offended, how very the Americans just dismissed any idea.

But actually, it isn't that hard to explain, in a way, because two things. From the American side, the very plausible idea that the Germans were ahead just dismissed virtually all moral considerations from what they were doing. And that's understandable. I couldn't say that then or now, as I am now, I would have felt differently on that point in that light, whether they should move ahead to try to at least match whatever the Germans had. The Germans for that, from their side, didn't have that consideration. They weren't that afraid. They might or might not have been concerned about whether Hitler should have it.

But I will say this. Many of the scientists who were early on in this process, in particular Leo Szilard, fled Nazi Germany right after the Reichstag fire. He went and became an emigre in London, then in the U.S. because of what he saw Hitler would mean. He was sure that war was coming at that point. As he said, by the way, because he was sure the Germans would not resist. Not because they would be enthusiastic about what he was doing, but they wouldn't oppose him effectively. And so he left Germany.

He had the thought that very year in 1933, the possibility of a chain reaction- the first to have that notion- that a heavy element being split by neutrons might emit more neutrons in an explosive, exponential chain reaction, and produce both energy or an enormous explosion. And he patented that idea and gave it to the Admiralty so that would not be known, he thought, to the Germans. He was very anxious that Hitler not get that idea. Later, he was- when he concluded, after uranium had been split. And he concluded with an experiment that he did that it did release extra neutrons in the course of this. He said he shut off the device that was showing this process with a sense that the world was sure to come to grief. In other words, he saw and others saw right from the beginning that this was something that could threaten civilization, and possibly the existence of humanity.

Two other points. In concern that the Germans would get it first, it was Szilard who drafted the letter for Einstein to send- his colleague- to send to Roosevelt, asking, telling about the German possibility, and that we should start a program so that the Germans did not get it first. So he was the, Szilard was a critical figure in getting the program started. Finally, working with Enrico Fermi, that I mentioned earlier, in Chicago, at what they called for cover the Metallurgical Lab, they started the first working reactor, then called a pile, that would demonstrate that you could control the reaction and produce plutonium. The reactors were essential to producing the Pu-239 that was eventually used as the core of the Nagasaki bomb. For most bombs, now. That night, the scientists who were present all celebrated with a bottle of Chianti, and Szilard stayed behind and said to Fermi, "This day may go down as a black day in the history of humanity."

So, some say it was evident from the beginning that this had a potential of, you know, the most, when we say existential threat, literally the case. Not for the globe. Atmospheric ignition, even that would not destroy the earth. Just all the conditions for life on it. It would go like a rock through space. But that was, turned out with a number of tests, finally, that wasn't a big problem. But destroying cities, that's what it was made for, essentially. And by '42 the British had made their major project in the war, having been thrown off the continent earlier, the destroying of cities by firebombing.

PAUL JAY: OK. Before we go there, let me just follow up one thing. When Germany loses the war, and- as you said- there's no other nuclear power, why didn't the American scientists quit the program?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: They worked harder. When Germany ended the war they were pressed to redouble their efforts to get the bomb. Basically, people like Gar Alperovitz, but many others have concluded in the end, in order to have the bomb before the war ended. Which, with the war ended there'd be no excuse for demonstrating it on a city.

PAUL JAY: No, I get why the American military and the government wanted to keep it going. But why didn't the scientists quit?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: They don't have a good answer. Many of them have asked later- they were pressed to do it for national security. And of course, the Japanese too- for all they knew, like the American public, not knowing that the Japanese were discussing, and discussing with their ambassadors in Soviet Union and elsewhere, and with the Soviets their desire to end the war if the Emperor could be kept. There were other conditions that the Army wanted. They wanted more than that even after the bombs. But the Emperor and the people close to him and in the foreign ministry were ready to end the war.

Oppenheimer and the others didn't know that. And they knew that the Japanese were fighting very hard. And the idea of ending the war sooner rather than later- they were actually contributing, in effect, to keeping the war going. Had there been no program, the- almost surely, had there been no bomb program, the offer to negotiate with the Japanese would have been earlier, instead of waiting for the bomb.

PAUL JAY: But the military wanted to be able to prove they had the bomb.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: No, it wasn't the military so much. It was actually Truman and Burns, his foreign secretary. No, the military were in favor of making the offer, on the whole.

And in a matter of fact, here is an almost funny thing in retrospect. LeMay, who was in charge of dropping the bomb in the Pacific, was under Tooey Spaatz, who was in charge of all the Pacific Air Forces. Neither of them were very enthusiastic about the idea of demonstrating the bomb. As Spaatz put it later when he heard about the bomb, how could we justify a large Air Force when the atom bomb exists? Even against Russia, one plane does the work of 300. Now, we have 300. But how do you justify ever using them day after day to burn cities to the ground? And we were doing that. And we killed more people that way, by firebombing, on the night of March 9 and 10, 1945 in Tokyo than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

In the spring- or actually, after May of 1945 when the Germans had surrendered, so now we're just facing Japan- for the first time, really, a committee was was put together under James Franck. A Nobel Prize winner who, by the way, regretted his role and Germany's role in introducing poison gas to the world in the First World War, and concluded in his own mind that if the occasion ever arose again, he would demand real consideration in his new country, the U.S., a role, a voice at least, in the policy implications of this scientific development.

So the Franck committee, which included Szilard, and as its rapporteur Eugene Rabinowitz, who later became the head of the Federation of American Scientists, and the editor of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, with its doomsday clock. Rabinowitz was for many years the editor of that. And they concluded- as I said earlier, the first group really to be looking at it, thinking, amazingly enough, at the problem of where are we going with this? What are the implications of it? What does it mean for the world to have this weapon, and what can we do about it? Should have been done earlier. As I say, I believe if Rotblat had told people they were not racing Germany, they would have had this process months, six months earlier, in the fall, and possibly had much more influence on the final decision.

As I say, their recommendations, that the implications of the U.S. using this as a weapon in war- one bomb, one city- a weapon that would soon become much larger, there would be thousands of them, and would be supplanted by a weapon that was a thousand times more than this, that they thought should not be undertaken. That should be an effort in international control, and that required not having a monopoly of the bomb and using it in warfare. So we should at least, as Niels Bohr said, bring the Russians in as partners. The alternative being they would get it as adversaries within a few years in a cold war, which is what did happen.

So the front committee then met and had these conclusions, which did not get up through channels to the president. Rabinowitz, I learned only in the last couple of years in a thing that was not really published until quite recently, during the Franck Committee proceedings after the report was finished made the proposal that they should reveal, they should go beyond the bounds of security, and reveal to the public, the press and the public, not the details of bomb making, but the fact that this enormous weapon was in prospect and was about to be used. He actually put that in writing. I've never seen anything in writing, ever, like that in government. In effect, a proposal by a government insider to leak.

Obviously, leaks happen all the time. not with much discussion, usually. people don't want other people to know they might be a source. But in this case, Rabinowitz actually made that proposal, and nothing came of it. Then, however, he revealed in a letter to the New York Times in 1971, in June- a time very vivid in my memory because his letter came out in the New York Times while Patricia and I, my wife and I, were eluding the FBI. We were they say underground putting out the Pentagon Papers for 13 days while the FBI was searching for us. So I didn't see this at the time. I wasn't seeing the New York Times. I saw it many years later that while we were underground, he put out this letter saying, in the matter of Daniel Ellsberg that his under public discussion now- they were searching for me- he said, I myself spent sleepless nights in the spring of 1945 considering that I should reveal to the public this prospect- I'm paraphrasing here a little bit, but I remember the sleepless nights very well. And how his letter ended: I still believe that had I done so, I would have been justified. It would have been the right thing to do. Well, indeed, had Americans known about this, as Rabinowitz said later, I have no illusions that they might have supported the use of the bomb anyway. But at least they would have responsibility. They would have known what we were getting into.

And Szilard, by the way, was meanwhile putting a petition together, which eventually had more than 100 scientists, calling at first for not using the bomb even if it would save lives, and then to get more signers saying at least it should not be done without a demonstration, without the serious consideration of the moral concerns. None of this got to Truman. And in fact, Szilard was forbidden to publish the petition, that it had occurred, for decades. And when they finally did publish that there had a petition, they were unwilling to release the names of the scientists with the authority. In other words, that there was this alternative.

The point of all this is that time after time, I think, decisions were made in secret, at high levels, without real consideration of long-term implications of this or of alternative paths; without knowledge that the scientists had of what was coming, or where this might lead, and so forth. And there were people who saw the dangers of this so clearly, that they knew that civilization was in danger. I could go into the same story with respect to the H bomb. And in each case, each one decided to keep his clearance- they were all men- at the time. As a matter of fact, Hans Bethe's wife was one person, who was a physicist, who when Hans told her about the H bomb they were imagining in 1942 said, do you really want to be part of this? And she's the one person on record as sort of having told one of the scientists, think again about this. But Szilard, as I say, they all wanted to say, well, the Germans are in the process, or later the Russians are in the process, and they put aside moral considerations. But not one of them took the step of acting on his concerns and fears to bring the public and the Congress into the picture, and to have a discussion of whether this was the way that we wanted to go.

The bottom line for me is from the time they knew that Germany did not have the bomb- and I'm saying now the fall of '45 for the British, at least, and Rotblat- the overwhelming consideration about that bomb should have been how do we keep it from being an instrument of national policy, by us or anybody? Now, that was far from the minds of the people at the top. The idea of having a monopoly of it was so irresistible. There was no discussion whatever of not doing it at that level. They say the Franck notion didn't get to them. And they didn't- Franck didn't tell them, Rabinowitz didn't tell them, Szilard didn't tell them. By the way, the FBI were afraid that Szilard, knowing his views, would leak on this, that he was under constant surveillance. But as far as we know, it didn't occur to him to actually tell. C.P. Snow, who had been in charge of scientific recruitment at one point- later a novelist in Britain, I've read all his novels- commented, actually, on my case, in Esquire, after I was indicted for the Pentagon Papers, along with several other people. And he said, I would not- you know, I had sworn an oath not to tell secrets. I would not have done what Ellsberg did. However, I do have the feeling that if Einstein had been made aware of what was coming, he would have found a way to tell the public and bring them in.

It's very interesting what if- you know, conjecture. Because as a matter of fact, Szilard did meet with Einstein in '45 to send his report, or his views, to Roosevelt. And before that was actually set up Roosevelt died, and he was sidetracked over to Burns, who didn't sympathize with this at all. But he couldn't tell Einstein why he wanted to see Roosevelt, because Einstein wasn't cleared. Einstein was a pacifist. Not about World War II, not about Hitler. But he was generally a pacifist; later head of the War Resisters League. And they didn't trust him. So he didn't get a clearance, and he was never involved in the Manhattan Project, having laid the theoretical foundations for it himself earlier. Szilard didn't tell Einstein, because that would have put his own clearance in jeopardy, frankly. And they warned him. Groves and others warned him. Keep in mind, this stuff is classified. Your clearance is at stake here, and so forth.

No one actually came out, in the end. Oppenheimer, others who opposed the H bomb, did not reveal to a totally unwitting and ignorant public or Congress what they knew, having been persuaded that that would be unpatriotic. It would be not gentlemanly. That's what Dean Acheson told them. Don't let them know why you are resigning from the General Advisory Commission. In fact, don't resign at this time, because people will ask you why. Don't tell them the reason is because an H bomb threatens the existence of humanity.

Fermi, on the General Advisory Commission at that time along with Isidor Rabi, signed a report saying the super, the thermonuclear weapon, is in itself an evil thing. It should not exist. And they even with Rabi proposed something like a test ban, moratorium. We won't test first unless you do. But Truman overruled Fermi, and worked on the bomb; Bethe worked on the bomb. They all did, you know, patriotically and whatnot. And that's why we're where we are. Nobody felt, on the one hand, strongly enough to risk their own careers and their own status. Or to put in a little better light, their own identity as people who were trusted by the president to keep his secrets, whatever they were, was so important to them that it didn't even occur to them that the public maybe ought to know about this. Where Rabinowitz is an interesting exception is he did wrestle with that.

PAUL JAY: OK. In the next segment of our interview we're going to talk about those firebombings, and how in 1942 the British established the precedent for it. Please join us for Reality Asserts Itself with Daniel Ellsberg on The Real News Network.

[Nov 02, 2018] They say they're gonna give you better health insurance

Nov 02, 2018 | twitter.com

[Nov 02, 2018] Scheme or not: FBI investigate claim woman offered money to fake assault allegations against Mueller

Nov 02, 2018 | www.rt.com

The FBI is looking into claims that women have been asked to make false accusations of sexual harassment against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for money -- but all may not be as it seems. The alleged scheme aimed at Mueller, who has been investigating unproven ties between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, came to the attention of his office after several journalists and news outlets, including RT, were contacted by a woman claiming that she had been approached by a man offering money if she would fabricate claims against him.

13 days ago I received this tip alleging an attempt to pay off women to make up accusations of sexual misconduct against Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Other reporters received the same email. Now the Special Counsel's office is telling us they've referred the matter to the FBI pic.twitter.com/oqh4Fnel5u

[Nov 02, 2018] A color revolution in the making: Vladimir Kara-Murza and Keith Gessen at Columbia University

Notable quotes:
"... Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. ..."
"... Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003. ..."
"... Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years. ..."
Nov 02, 2018 | www.wsws.org

On Wednesday, October 17, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading Russian liberal oppositionist, was interviewed by Keith Gessen, editor of the n+1 magazine, in an event hosted by Columbia University's Harriman Institute for the Study of Eurasia, Russia and Eastern Europe. The event was a stark testimony to the advanced preparations for a US-backed "color revolution" in Russia, i.e., an imperialist-orchestrated and funded movement of a section of the oligarchy and upper middle class to topple the Putin regime, similar to those that have taken place in Ukraine and Georgia.

Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of the many shadowy figures of Russian politics who, while little known to most people inside or outside Russia, are playing a key role in directing and supporting the US anti-Russia policy and the course of the Russian pro-US liberal opposition. The son of Vladimir Kara-Murza, Sr., who was a major figure in the oligarch-controlled Russian media under Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Jr. worked for many years as the right-hand man of Boris Nemtsov, one of Yeltsin's key allies in the 1990s and a right-wing political opponent of Putin, who was assassinated in 2015 under murky circumstances.

Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. He has lobbied for the adoption of similar legislation by governments throughout the world. Through this work, Kara-Murza also became close to the late John McCain, one of Washington's foremost supporters of "color revolutions" throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union. In August, Kara-Murza served as a pallbearer at McCain's funeral, along with former Vice President Joe Biden and the actor Warren Beatty.

Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003.

In short, Kara-Murza has been at the center of the operations for a color-revolution-type movement in Russia for years. And this is precisely what he was invited to speak on with the self-styled leftist and Russia expert Keith Gessen, founding editor of the n+1 magazine, one of the most popular magazines among pseudo-left circles. (Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years.)

The event started with Keith Gessen asking Kara-Murza about the assassination of Boris Nemtsov which the latter, of course, attributed to the Kremlin. For most of the discussion, however, Kara-Murza detailed his involvement in the preparations for a color revolution in Russia.

Kara-Murza insisted that "the history of Russia teaches us that big political changes in our country can start quickly and unexpectedly." He referred to both the 1905 Revolution and the February Revolution of 1917, which, as Kara-Murza pointed out, even took Lenin by surprise, and then the collapse of the USSR "in three days" in 1991. "This is how things happen in Russia", he insisted, and "the problem with this is that nobody is prepared. We [at the Open Russia Foundation] see it as our mission to begin those preparations for future change now. We cannot afford to not be ready again. Most of the things we do inside of Russia is targeted at preparing for this future transition."

The Open Russia Foundation, he continued, had 25 regional branches and a series of working groups which were already elaborating plans for political reforms and constitutional changes for the post-Putin period. Furthermore, they were focusing on "work with the new generation, the people who will be in charge of Russia" through training and education programs. Lastly, they were doing "international" work, which he himself was in charge of, which included "outreach" directed, again, at preparing the "future transition."

When later asked by an audience member how he saw the future of Russia in the next few decades, he declared that this change would come not within the next few decades, but within the next few years.

When he was asked from the audience whether the latest pension reform, which is opposed by over 90 percent of the population, could trigger the kind of "sudden change" he was expecting, Kara-Murza said: "It could but it doesn't have to. There is always the argument that it's [going to be] something of a socio-economic nature. Actually, if we look at the two decades of Putin, the peak of the protests was in December 2011 when the middle class was booming. It was about dignity, it had nothing do to with social issues. The trigger will not be necessarily economic."

He continued, "The only really shaky point [for Putin] was when so many people felt insulted that the government was wiping its feet over them. I think it's going to be something like that. A color revolution of dignity," like the events in Ukraine in 2014. In other words, what Kara-Murza and the Open Russia Foundation are working on is the promotion of a right-wing middle-class movement similar to the Maidan in Ukraine, which would provide the basis for a coup to topple the current government.

The key figures and mechanisms for such a "color revolution" were also addressed at some length. Keith Gessen asked how Kara-Murza viewed the campaign of the blogger Alexei Navalny, who, as the WSWS has written, is a far-right, pro-US figure who cloaks his right-wing program behind murky phrases about corruption. Just how fraudulent and politically calculated this focus is became clear in the discussion when Keith Gessen asked whether Navalny's focus on corruption as the center of his political platform was "a winning platform." Kara-Murza responded: "Yes, it is. Corruption is such a widely understandable issue. It's an issue that everybody is aware of."

In the discussion, a graduate student from Harriman asked whether the Open Russia Foundation had a "particular road map" for what to do when the "sudden event" Kara-Murza expected actually occurred. Kara-Murza replied: "If there were a model, it would be something like the Polish roundtable [of 1989]. The way we want a transition to happen in Russia is peaceful and smooth. We don't want a violent revolution. Russia has had enough revolutions. The problem is that the people who are in power today are doing everything for a revolution to occur."

Then, he went into the figures who would be included in such a roundtable. "Of course, Boris Nemtsov would have been at the roundtable", but, he assured his audience, there were many others. The figures he named were: Yevgeni Roizman, the mayor of Yekaterinburg, who is a notorious far-right-winger, with deep ties to the local mafia. In Russia, he became known above all through his alleged "drug" relief program, which has involved heavy physical abuse of drug addicts.

He also named Galina Shirshina, a member of the liberal opposition party Yabloko (which Nemtsov led until his assassination) as well as Lev Shlosberg, a local politician in Pskov who is also a leading member of "Yabloko." Finally, Kara-Murza named Dmitri Gudkov, who is heading the opposition "Party of Changes" with Ksenia Sobchak, the daughter of Putin's mentor Anatoly Sobchak, who ran as a presidential candidate this year .

"Navalny and Khodorkovsky would obviously also be at the roundtable", Kara-Murza added. When Gessen asked "What about the Communists?" Kara-Murza said that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Stalinist and National Bolshevik "Left Front", may also hope for a seat at the roundtable. "We have very different views, but we have a good personal relationship. He's a decent human being, politically and on a human level."

Then, he added, "there are also many nationalists who are not controlled by the Kremlin" and who could join the roundtable. Throughout the event, Kara-Murza repeated that he and his allies were the true patriots and Russian nationalists, as opposed to Putin and the oligarchs and officials around him. "I just don't want to bore everyone with a long list of names," he said, as he concluded his enumeration of prospective of roundtable participants.

Like all Russian liberal oppositionists, Kara-Murza makes a hue and cry about rigged elections under Putin. Yet at no point did he even mention the possibility of an election before or after such a "roundtable," the participants of which have most evidently already been discussed and set.

There could hardly be a more open statement about the complicity of the so called opposition forces in Russian in a premeditated, US-backed plot to overthrow the Putin regime and install another, more pro-US, right-wing government in its place.

Kara-Murza speaks for a section of the oligarchy which not only seeks to gain control over the social and economic wealth of Russia, but also fears that a continuation of the Putin regime will threaten not only Russia's geopolitical position, but also social revolution. They see their main goal in making sure that a reshuffling within the oligarchy and upper middle class takes place, to assure both a reorientation of Russian foreign policy more directly in line with the interests of imperialism, and the ongoing suppression of the working class.

The complete indifference toward the implications of these policies for the masses of working people in Russia was at full display when Kara-Murza defended the process of capitalist restoration and the 1990s as time when Russia was actually make headway on the world stage: Russia was included in the G8 and finally internationally recognized, Kara-Murza stressed.

He contemptuously dismissed any criticism of the 1990s by referring to this decade as the "supposedly horrible 90s." The fact that the Russian economy experienced the worst collapse recorded in modern history for peacetime; that life expectancy plummeted, that hundreds of thousands committed suicide and were driven into substance abuse and that workers were going without pay for months and years, all of this is evidently of no concern to him.

Underlining the recklessness of the whole operation, the question of the potential consequences of a "color revolution" was not even raised. But anyone who looks at the past three decades of US foreign policy knows where this type of intervention of leads: civil war, ethnic strife, dictatorial regimes, and decades of economic, social and economic crisis. In the case of Russia, a "color revolution" would most likely mean the violent break-up of the Russian Federation -- many opposition leaders in fact argue for different borders of Russia. It would, moreover, raise the very immediate danger of a nuclear catastrophe: what if a section of the military resorts to the vast nuclear arsenal of Russia to defend its interests? And what will the US military and NATO do if a color revolution underway in Russia suddenly threatens to go astray? Will they intervene directly militarily?

The involvement of Keith Gessen in this dubious event is revealing. At no point did he raise something akin to a critical question. His role was nothing but to ask polite questions and provide Kara-Murza with a platform. A self-styled leftist, Gessen has translated and published the writings of Kirill Medvedev, a leading figure in the Russian Socialist Movement (RSM), a Pabloite formation in Russia. This year, he published a novel "A Terrible Country" in which he, yet again, promotes the Russian pseudo-left. In 2014, the RSM fully backed the far-right coup in Kiev. In Russia itself, the RSM has long shifted toward full support for Alexei Navalny's right-wing "anti-corruption campaign," ignoring or dismissing his history of support for Russian fascism and racism. The role of Gessen in this event is emblematic of the role of these forces as handmaidens US and European imperialism.

It was befitting for Columbia University's Harriman Institute to host this event: the first interdisciplinary Russia institute to be formed after the beginning of the Cold War, it has historically been associated with US imperialist plotting against first the Soviet Union and then Russia. To this day, the Harriman Institute, which is a non-profit, functions primarily as a think tank as well as an educational and recruiting center for Washington's foreign policy establishment and the CIA.

For much of its existence, the Harriman Institute was dominated by the figure and work of Zbigniew Brzezinski who, for over half a century, played a central role in elaborating the world strategy and justifying the war crimes of US imperialism. One of Brzezinski's political trademarks was his advocacy for fostering political opposition and insurrections in the Soviet Union, to undermine the regime and thus fight what he saw as one of the US's main competitors for the control of Eurasia. The "color revolution" strategy of US imperialism since 1991 stands in precisely this tradition. Now as then, far-right forces within the elites and fake left tendencies are the props of imperialism "on the ground."

Events like the one at Columbia reveal much about the state of world politics. "Color revolutions" which will impact the lives of hundreds of millions and threaten civil and all-out nuclear war, are being discussed and plotted behind the exclusive doors of an Ivy League institution with an audience of some 50 people, most of whom are graduate students and professors who, one may assume, either already are on the payroll of the CIA and the State Department or seeking to get there.

The Putin regime offers no alternative to these imperialist machinations. Like the sections of the oligarchy that Kara-Murza speaks for, Putin and his cronies have emerged out of and enriched themselves on the basis of the destruction of the Soviet Union which was carried by the Stalinist bureaucracy hand-in-gloves with imperialism. It considers not imperialism, but the Russian working class to be its main enemy, and, hence, responds to every imperialist provocation is a response of desperate attempts to find a deal with imperialism, largely behind closed doors, and the promotion of nationalism and militarism at home.

This sinister event is a warning to the international working class about the advanced preparations for the next step in the efforts of US imperialism to topple the Putin regime and bring the resources of Russia under its direct control: it is high time for workers both in the US and in Russia to intervene in politics on an independent basis to put an end to these dangerous conspiracies of imperialism through the struggle for socialism.

[Nov 02, 2018] By Way Of Deception - False Flag Terror Acts Press Europe To Sanction Iran by B

Looks like Iran was "Skripaled". Intelligence agencies are now capable to perform false flag operation in thier home countries and blame other government with absolute impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe. ..."
"... It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State. ..."
"... The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents. ..."
"... Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested and prosecuted. ..."
"... On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group ..."
"... It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran ..."
"... The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Both are hawks. ..."
"... Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel ..."
"... Iran's foreign minister accuses Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran ..."
"... Times of Israel ..."
"... Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such operations. ..."
"... Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad ..."
"... "Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently. ..."
"... It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences. Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?" ..."
Nov 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe.

In September a terror attack killed some 30 people in Iran. Two entities, an Arab separatist movement as well as the Islamic State terror group ISIS, took responsibility. After an investigation Iran found that it was ISIS which was responsible. It took revenge against the identified culprits.

Six weeks later Denmark claims, without providing evidence, that Iran tried to assassinate a leader of the Arab separatist movement over the incident. Iran denies any such attempt. The right wing Danish government uses the claim to urge other European countries to sanction Iran.

It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State.

The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents.

The details:

On September 22 gunmen killed 29 and wounded more than 70 participants and onlookers of a veterans day parade in Ahvaz, Iran:

Three of the attackers were gunned down during clashes with the security forces and one other was arrested, news agencies reported.
...
"The terrorists disguised as Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basiji (volunteer) forces opened fire to the authority and people from behind the stand during the parade," the governor of Khuzestan, Gholam-Reza Shariati, said, according to IRNA.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert also referred to the attack as terrorism. Nauert said on Saturday, "We stand with the Iranian people against the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism and express our sympathy to them at this terrible time".

The Islamic State as well as an Arab separatist movement claimed responsibility :

On 22 September 2018, Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility for the 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack in comments to UK-based Iran International TV. He said that his group Ahvaz National Resistance, a part of Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz, has "no choice but to resist." On 23 September, a statement made in The Hague, Netherlands, on the ASMLA website, denied responsibility for the attack, saying that the claim was made by a "group that was expelled from the organization since 2015."

After Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility Iran accused Saudi Arabia of involvement in the attack:

IRGC spokesman Ramezan Sharif said the attackers were affiliated with a terrorist group supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran's state-run Press TV said.

"The individuals who fired at the people and the armed forces during the parade are connected to the al-Ahvaziya group which is fed by Saudi Arabia," Sharif said. Saudi Arabia has yet to respond to the allegations.

The UK-based Iran International TV, where Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility, is funded by a firm with ties to Prince Mohammed bin Salman .

Several years ago ASMLA aka Al-Ahvaziya committed several terror attacks in Iran. Its leaders live in the Netherlands and Denmark.

Iran immediately reminded those countries of their duties:

Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassadors of the Netherlands and Denmark, along with a senior British diplomat on Saturday to issue a strong protest the attack, Iran's state-run media reports.

Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested and prosecuted.

According to IRNA, Ghasemi said "it is unacceptable" that members of a terrorist group be allowed in those countries and not be included on the European Union's terror list only because they have not committed crimes on European soil.

A few days later though, Iran concluded that the attack was not committed by the Ahvaz movement, but by the Islamic State. On October 1 it responded with a missile salvo that hit Islamic State facilities in Syria:

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) announced they have bombed a site in eastern Syria in retaliation to the terrorist attack against a military parade in Iranian Ahvaz 10 days ago.

...

The IRGC confirmed that the targeted terrorist group was behind the terror attack that killed over a dozen and injured many more in the city of Ahvaz.

An additional operation against the planers of the attack took place on October 15 in Iraq:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Tuesday they had killed the "mastermind" behind an attack on a military parade in the Iranian city of Ahvaz last month which left 25 people dead, nearly half of them members of the Guards.

The Guards said in a statement published on state media their forces had killed a man named Abu Zaha and four other militants in Diyala province in Iraq. One news website run by Iran's state television said Abu Zaha was a member of Islamic State.

That closed the issue for Iran.

On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group:

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen described the alleged planned assassination by Iran of an exiled separatist leader in Denmark as "totally unacceptable"

The Iranian ambassador to Copenhagen was summoned to the foreign ministry over the allegations. A Norwegian citizen of Iranian origin was arrested in Sweden on 21 October in connection with the alleged plan. The man denies the charges. Authorities conducted a massive manhunt on 28 September which led to road closures, trains and ferries being cancelled, and bridges being shut across Denmark.

On Tuesday, Danish intelligence chief Finn Borch Andersen confirmed the measures had been taken to prevent the alleged plot.

The Danish intelligence accused the Norwegian citizens of taking pictures of a house where one of the ASMLA leader lives. It provide no evidence for its claims. Iran rejected the accusations:

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said such "biased reports" and allegations pursued " the enemy's plots and conspiracies" to harm the developing relations between Iran and Europe , according to Tasnim news agency.

It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran:

Mr Rasmussen said, after a meeting with his British counterpart Theresa May in Oslo, that he appreciated her support. "In close collaboration with UK and other countries we will stand up to Iran," he tweeted. Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said Denmark would discuss further actions with European partners in the coming days.

The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, congratulated Denmark on arresting "an Iranian regime assassin".

The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Both are hawks.

Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel:

Barak Ravid @BarakRavid - 10:12 utc- 31 Oct 2018

BREAKING: Israeli Mossad gave Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) the information about the assassination attempt planned by Iranian intelligence service against the leader of the Iranian opposition organization ASMLA, Israeli official tells me

Well - if Israeli officials says Iran did something bad that will surely be true. (Not.)

Iran's foreign minister accuses Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran :

Javad Zarif @JZarif - 20:15 utc - 31 Oct 2018

Mossad's perverse & stubborn planting of false flags (more on this later) only strengthens our resolve to engage constructively with the world. [...]

The Times of Israel notes :

Denmark's accusations against Iran followed the unveiling of another suspected Iranian plot to target a Paris rally by an opposition group in June. According to Israeli reports, the Mossad helped thwart that attack as well , which led to the arrest of several Iranians in Europe, including a diplomat.

The earlier plot involved two members of the anti-Iranian terror cult MEK in Belgium who were caught with explosives that they allegedly wanted to use to blow up a MEK conference in Paris:

The allegation that an Iranian operative plotted an attack on French soil is jeopardizing Europe's support for the accord. As U.S. and Israeli officials ramp up pressure on Europe to sever ties with Tehran, they have cited it as a reason why Mr. Macron and other leaders should end their support for the deal.

On Tuesday, Denmark announced it had foiled an Iranian operation to kill a dissident, turning up the pressure on Europe to harden its posture toward Tehran. A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry said Iran had no involvement in the case.

The most interesting question about such plots is always "Cui bono?". Who benefits from these incidents?

Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such operations.

Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad .

But is it really Israel who set up these incidents? Both serve U.S. interest just as much. It is no secret that the U.S. wants to prevent European subversion of U.S. sanctions on Iran.

In June 2017 the Trump administration installed a new CIA group to plot and launch undercover operations against Iran. It is led by its most ruthless operator:

He is known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, nicknames he earned as the Central Intelligence Agency officer who oversaw the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the American drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamist militants and hundreds of civilians.

Now the official, Michael D'Andrea, has a new job. He is running the C.I.A.'s Iran operations, according to current and former intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the president took against Iran during his campaign.

Mr. D'Andrea's new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said.

A year later the same Mike Pompeo, now Secretary of State, created the Iran Action Group within the State Department. It is a complementary entity to the CIA group. Little has been published about the action both groups have taken so far. What has Ayatollah Mike done since he set up shop 18 month ago?

It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad only in an auxiliary role. The U.S. can hardly admit that it is faking terrorist incidents in Europe while the overrated Mossad loves to take credit for everything that happens on this world.

Europe has no interest in supporting or escalating Trump's war on Iran. EU countries should demand hard evidence from Denmark and other accusers of Iran and should not act on the basis of only vague accusations.

Posted by b on November 1, 2018 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

Comments Iran should sue the puppet state Denmark. End of story

worldblee , Nov 1, 2018 10:59:28 AM | link

Israel is regarded as a beneficent country with no ulterior motives by western governments and media. Every time, you can count on like clockwork, no matter how outrageous or self serving the claim.
Occidentosis , Nov 1, 2018 11:08:14 AM | link
@mark2 about yemen you should read peter konig's Khashoggi versus 50,000 Slaughtered Yemeni Children Peter Koenig
https://thesaker.is/khashoggi-versus-50000-slaughtered-yemeni-children-peter-koenig-26-october-2018/
james , Nov 1, 2018 11:17:21 AM | link
thanks b.. i agree with your analysis here.. the usa needs to keep its puppet states. on a string... cia has a long history of these types of actions.. i am surprised at how easily or convenient it is for the puppets to continue as puppets.. and of course as we approach the nov 5 th financial santion bs from the evil empire that claims equality for all (after usa and israel are cared for) will be trying to alienate the rest of the world to iran as much as possible.. the timing here is in line with that goal post.. very predictible, just like our local shill who will claim it is iran as opposed to usa-israel-ksa and etc, that pull this shit regularly.. the same ugly crew responsible for supporting terrorism as witnessed in syria, yemen and etc further back are at work here... predictible..

i suspect more bs to come from these same state sponsored liars....

Mark2 , Nov 1, 2018 11:50:38 AM | link
And just take a look at Britain's disgusting priority's money is more important than preventing / stopping US/UK genacide !
https://mobile.twitter.com/BaFana3/status/1057698127623438336/photo/1
Gary Weglarz , Nov 1, 2018 11:57:22 AM | link
The complete and utter amorality of the West on display yet again, as if we needed any more examples. There is certainly compelling evidence that a group of "extremists" are endangering all of humanity and the entire planet, the only problem for Western MSM in reporting on this is that those "extremists" are in fact the ruling elites of the West and their "allies" in Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Clueless Joe , Nov 1, 2018 11:59:44 AM | link
"Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently.
WJ , Nov 1, 2018 12:01:42 PM | link
I thought the War on Terror dictated that the whole world was the battlefield. What's the difference between Iran trying to take down a terrorist in Denmark and the US trying to take one down in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Africa?
karlof1 , Nov 1, 2018 12:16:51 PM | link
It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences. Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?"

Please note the last listed "coincidence."

Also on Zarif's Twitter is a video segment of his interview with Face The Nation and other important announcements. This is what he said about the Pittsburg attack:

"Extremism and terrorism know no race or religion, and must be condemned in all cases. The world deserves better than to have to live with weaponized demagoguery. Thoughts and prayers with victims of terrorist attack on Pittsburgh synagogue and their loved ones." [My Emphasis]

The nations of the world have had the following choice to make for awhile now, and I'd say the choice can no longer be kicked down the road:

Either blindly follow the two prevaricating Outlaw Nations--United States and Israel--or stand with Russia, China, and others in supporting proven truths and upholding the fundamental principles of International Law as expressed via the UN Charter. In other words, it's past time to review GW Bush's dicta: Either you're with us or against us--abet the lawbreakers or join the posse to contain them.

b , Nov 1, 2018 12:17:18 PM | link
@Mark2 - NO MORE ONE-LINERS FROM YOU or I will ban you.

Every time you come up to this site you disrupt all discussions here by posting 10+ one-line comments.

All those have the same characteristic. They are useless.

Stop this nonsense. Write decent comments that are on the subject of the post or just go away.

ben , Nov 1, 2018 12:19:24 PM | link
The evil empire and their bought minions are infecting the globe. They will never stop until their domination by organised $ brings surfs everywhere under their control.

These forces do not believe in a "middle class", they believe the wealthiest should rule because it creates a more stable and predictable society..

A society Charles Dickens wrote about. Wonderful...

Ger , Nov 1, 2018 12:29:25 PM | link
One needs a high level of stupid among the western population to sell bull s... by the buckets. But then again, that is US and allies. As was said: Too stupid to realize they are stupid. In the US the most trusted institution is the military. Proof enough?
Mark2 , Nov 1, 2018 12:35:54 PM | link
'B' that's o k i'll Just go away good bye good luck, and thanks for having me.
james , Nov 1, 2018 1:34:01 PM | link
about MEK, the terrorist group... our shithead exprime minister steven harper was singing the praises of them the past month.... apparenlty stevie just can't do enough for israel and zionism, and if the canuck media which is essentialy bought and paid for by the same interests has its way, we will get a similar insane gov't after trudeau light is finished his term... apparently canucks are one cycle behind the usa in electing its leaders... it will be a trump type israel subservient toad for next pm of cauckistan... i sure wish the western political players weren't so beholden to neoliberalism. and we had someone even half the leader putin is.... but, we don't....
Vitaliy , Nov 1, 2018 2:12:05 PM | link
East by not responding strongly to West provocations is begging for war.
East by crying for West for cooperation is begging for war.
And since East and West are controlled by the same same cabal - war is inevitable.
Just ask Mr. Kissinger...
hans , Nov 1, 2018 2:19:10 PM | link
The Edomites, who after Rome's extermination of the remnant of the House of Israel at Jerusalem began calling themselves "Jews" for "controlled opposition" for "the real Anti-Christ" "engine for enslaving mankind" we founded God's America to escape, become sex perverts, including incesting Sabbatean Frankists - hence the Manchu-baldness, as a consequence of their satanic cult's ritual sodomy of innocent toddlers while being rabbinically inculcated as "gods chosen by God to rule the world."

It is, in fact, the Synagogue of Satan.

notheonly1 , Nov 1, 2018 2:25:25 PM | link
Wow. Thank You for this one. After reading this excellent assessment of the present situation, of which we might only know the most shallow facts, I had to do a search (DDG) about Iran during the time of the first openly Fascist Europe - being described as having emanated from 3rd-Reich-Germany and Italy.
I was unaware that there was an Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran , because of the alleged sympathy of the Shah's Iran with Nazi-Germany. The Brits and the Russians were buddies then and wanted to prevent that Iranian oil is accessible to Nazi-Germany.

All over sudden I am confused that the Brits invaded shoulder to shoulder with Soviet forces Iran - while now, besides delivering the political ham theater of saber rattling against Russia, supporting terror and instigating sanctions against Iran again.

To make things much worse to comprehend, one is to wonder how many European countries actually did join Nazi Germany without much ado at the time, based on the fact that the Scandinavians and the Netherlands are now as Fascist as Nazi Germany was during its short 1000 years of glory. Does anybody else get the impression that this was always this way? That we have been lied to about everything regarding Fascism? That it was never Fascism that was the problem in Europe - as it appears to do very well there - but a strong Germany that could have easily governed its territory via effective 'bureaucracy'. All of Europe.

The truth is, that the stench of Fascism today, was already stinking badly in the 20th century, but was never really a problem. The problem were the Germans. And somehow, the Germans want to continue to have economic ties with Iran. Is this how history repeats itself - minus the marching Soviet/Russian and British buddy forces?

Quite ludicrous the whole theater.

Vitaliy , Nov 1, 2018 2:38:54 PM | link
19
Earth been damned and given to Worldmaster to rule - what else one needs to know?
craigsummers , Nov 1, 2018 2:48:11 PM | link
How many false flag operations have been invoked to explain unpopular events in recent years? The British government was behind the attempted murder of Skripal. All of the chemical attacks launched against the opposition in Syria were false flag operations to bring the US into the war (which amounted to nothing burgers anyway). Ray McGovern hypothesized the US used the Vault 7 tools as a false flag to blame Russia for the DNC hack. Is there any end to false flag speculation?

Who cares if the Iranians deny the charge? That means absolutely nothing. Russia has been lying and denying for years. Additionally, that Mossad would have provided the information to Denmark and France is completely logical since they have been collecting intelligence on Iran for years - and have been dealing with Iranian-supported terrorists for decades.

There is no evidence for a false flag operation. Sure it's a possibility (it's always a possibility), but the current evidence points toward Iranian plans to murder dissidents. The British were right about Skripal. The Dutch were right about MH17. Ray McGovern was wrong about the CIA hacking the DNC - and the likely result of this investigation is that Iran planned to murder a couple of dissidents. In lieu of the stupidity exhibited by the Saudis in the Khashoggi murder, it's completely believable.

With all of that said, this is a well thought out attempt to blame the US.

Red Ryder , Nov 1, 2018 3:00:44 PM | link
Denmark has become another UK, willing to perform any act and light any fuse against Russia, Iran or any nation that challenges the hegemony of US, EU and NATO.

Just a subservient vassal, self-degradating. I would compare Denmark to a whore, but that defames those poor souls.

The Danes are like Brits. There, I said it. Nothing worse than the official scumbags of Britain. Pity the good folks of both countries.

Such a little country desperately trying to hide their true Nazi soul, fabricating events and promulgating Fake News and bogus Intel.
In service to big Hegemon and little hegemon (Israel).

Just disgusting.

b , Nov 1, 2018 3:07:09 PM | link
@craig - With all of that said, this is a well thought out attempt to blame the US.

Thanks for acknowledging my geniality, and for the amusement. Shall we make you the house buffoon of the bar?

pretzelattack , Nov 1, 2018 3:10:54 PM | link
thanks for the analysis. we all see the pattern, but i guess it's still important to debunk the bullshit--it just never seems to stop the predetermined goals. it was widely seen that saddam's alleged wmd's didn't exist, but the invasion went on. now the u.s. wants war with iran. unless russia or china intervenes, what can stop it?
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Nov 1, 2018 3:15:48 PM | link
@10 - WJ: Difference is, USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick. ;)
I think false flag seems likely, but i also have some doubts about ISIS claiming to be resposible. The Iranian state is also pretty complex, with many different actors and power centers. So it cant be ruled out that those arab seperatists are resposible and that some rouge IRGC faction took action against reason of the state as a whole.
Like B said, the EU should demand evidence. Like with Skripal.. Not trust the Danish NATO proxys.
Nick Baam , Nov 1, 2018 3:33:01 PM | link
craigsummers:

The Dutch were not right about MH17, and neither are the Danes. Almost certainly another anti-Iranian false flag coming -- this on American soil -- w war soon to follow.

https://southfront.org/summing-up-russian-military-briefing-on-mh17-incident-missiles-serial-numbers-fake-videos-and-intercepted-radio-communications/

'The Russian military traced the Buk missile [9M38 missile], which shot down the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine in 2014, using serial numbers found on missile fragments showcased by an international team of investigators led by the Netherlands.

'Using the serial number of the nozzle cluster 9D13105000 No. 8-30-113 and the engine of the missile 9D131 with the serial number 8869032, the Russian military identified this missile as one produced by the Dolgoprudny plant – a Soviet/Russian designer and mass producer of surface-to-air missiles located in the city of Dolgoprudny, Moscow Oblast.

'The military said that the documentation for the aforementioned missile is still stored at the plant – the missile with the aforementioned engine and nozzle cluster has the manufacturing serial number of 8868720.

'According to the provided documents, the nozzle cluster was installed in the missile on December 24, 1986. The engine was installed to the missile on the same day.'

karlof1 , Nov 1, 2018 3:38:31 PM | link
Outlaw US Empire attacks Iran with new version of Stuxnet virus.

About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless. Otherwise, their policy goal remains the same: Full Spectrum Dominance by any means necessary. The attack proves yet again the Outlaw US Empire would rather have destabilization and war in the region than peace, still thinking it remains the World's Boss.

Lozion , Nov 1, 2018 4:01:11 PM | link
@22 Nah, better make him the corner spit bowl..
sejomoje , Nov 1, 2018 4:12:36 PM | link
Thanks b, this is Journalism. Poor craigsummers appears to be in shock. It's ok craig.

We're in a really strange place vis a vis "Mossad" in the west. The average person on the street doesn't know whether to idolize them as superhuman kickass kravmaga-inventing Jason Bourne types, or diabolical creeps like Weinstein's "former Mossad" minions. Then Sacha Baron Cohen comes around and makes them funny again. Are they scary? Funny? When they appear in official media, it's usually in a display of mindblowing incompetence or fraud. So you can see how we're confused.

Bart Hansen , Nov 1, 2018 5:01:13 PM | link
25 - "USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick."

Yes, from a safe place in some place in the U.S. desert, but I wonder how the pilots of the aircraft refueling the KSA bombing runs to Yemen feel as they finish and do a 180 to return to base. Do they first look to see what their evil has done before heading back?

Kalen , Nov 1, 2018 5:31:34 PM | link
More likely it is Iran conveniently concluded that ISIS was responsible, only to get off the hook of EU countries that harbor terrorists not only anti Iran by anti Russia, so they closed the case not to wreck meek EU attempt to find the way around US sanctions with trade with Iran. Mossad did not like that and hence used another Russia Gate like provocation to stop EU Iran accommodation, this time claiming new Iranian terrorism issue Orwelian style blame victims.
Peter AU 1 , Nov 1, 2018 5:59:37 PM | link
karlof1 27 "About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless."

I would agree with that, but I also think he will be willing to take big risks to see his plan through. He may well be like Putin's cornered rat if his plans are blocked.

Jen , Nov 1, 2018 6:14:52 PM | link
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role in accusing Iran of supporting terrorism and terrorist cells in Europe. Is Denmark's action as much to pressure Sweden and Finland into joining NATO as it is to pressure the EU into following the US in sanctioning Iran and tearing up the nuclear treaty the EU still adheres to?
Jen , Nov 1, 2018 6:20:00 PM | link
B @ 23, Lozion @ 28:

Craig's ambitions are rather more lofty than what you both have proposed. He aspires to be the President Trump of MoA.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 1, 2018 6:59:40 PM | link
This crap by the Danes is not without precedent. They were in on the US attack against the SAA at Deir Ezzor. US, UK, Australia and Denmark all took part in that attack.
hans , Nov 1, 2018 7:00:12 PM | link
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role

the danes swede and norway,netherlands folks have all been anglo zion borged.
the man leading this charge is a mr samuel son a proud son of a son i am sure he believes what he says i'm sure he has good reason.
wait for future headlines involving norways trillion dollar sovreign wealth fund vanishing just like gadaffi libya or ukraines gold..

country control via epstein lolita express blackmail.
young boys and girls in ritual cctv horror show as a form of soft power persuasion

Ninel , Nov 1, 2018 7:17:39 PM | link
I'm not entirely convinced b. The Iranian government has a long history of assassination attempts. And Denmark is not exactly a war mongering nation so your claims seem a bit shaky. I have never been impressed by analyses of Iran on this blog, as I think both b and many commentators here totally ignorant of the IRI's crimes against its own citizens. I am very knowledgable when it comes to Iran and so incidents like these do not surprise me. Of course I should make clear that it is possible to be against the IRI and western war mongering nations at the same time.
Circe , Nov 1, 2018 7:21:09 PM | link
I just can't stand responding to cs21 hasbara garbage; nothing is more annoying than hasbara. To quote Irish Nobel laureate GB Shaw: never wrestle with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig loves it!

Mossad used the MEK and another terrorist group, Jundallah in Iran when they didn't do the dirty job themselves to assassinate Iranian scientists extra-judicially. Imagine if JFK had done same when Israel was developing its nuclear weapons on the sly?

That's not all, Mossad used these terrorists like they used terrorists in Syria to foment manufactured revolution, specifically, in Iran, the Green Revolution and as for example what was done in Ukraine, terrorist snipers masquerading as basiji fired into the crowd of green protestors and killed a young women who the Western media elevated as the face of the Revolution hoping it would incite anger that would spread exponentially and trigger riots everywhere then civil war like in Syria and Ukraine, but they were very disappointed. This is playbook Mossad/CIA revolution engineering. All constituted criminal acts against sovereign nations, except in Iran their plan fizzled.

Mossad also used false flag against Gadaffi in Libya and years earlier against Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran that preceded the Shah. The Lavon Affair was a false flag comprised of multiple terrorist attacks that Israel planned and plotted to execute and blame on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian groups.

Mossad has assassinated what it considered to be terrorists in Europe, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Jordan and on and on with total impunity. Some of these so-called terrorists were political leaders recent example Arafat, and attempted murder of Meschal, at least one or more were false flag to trigger civil war, i.e. in Lebanon, and some were what South African Apartheid victims would consider resistance and freedom fighters.

Israel also attacked the USSLiberty and no doubt had a hand in U.S. military sabotage in Lebanon not to mention murdering American journalists and activists.

ALL this was done with impunity. So in regards to these foiled terrorist attacks I have no doubt Mossad is up to no good and Israel has everything to gain in this dirty business they have executed many times before.

The truth lies in who benefits most and who has exhibited the most egregious pattern of behaviour. ISRAEL.

AriusArmenian , Nov 1, 2018 7:29:41 PM | link
Yes, it certainly smells like a false flag operation.
The CIA, MI6, and Mossad have been doing such operations in Europe since the end of WW2.
No surprise.
Ninel , Nov 1, 2018 7:30:56 PM | link
For those interested in the IRI, especially those uncritical, naive supporters, here is some light reading:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_murders_of_Iran

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_labor_law

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicate_of_Workers_of_Tehran_and_Suburbs_Bus_Company

Circe , Nov 1, 2018 8:16:27 PM | link
IRAN must be a hasbara trigger word. The Zionist web army recruits have arrived. Everything you pulled out of wiki I can double, triple, quadruple for Isra-hell. For starters, let's talk about Prison facility 1391 - torture, murder, perpetual isolation--dark ages stuff.

Let's talk about the kidnapping, imprisonment, even torture of children. Perhaps, the worst human rights record against children. 8000 Palestinian children arrested since 2000.

What about the two-tier justice system in Isra-hell?

Shall we discuss the murder of activists, journalists and protestors? What about political prisoners in Isra-hell? What about administrative detention. Detention without trial.

This is the tip of the iceberg regarding Isra-hell's human rights abuses. Don't get me started.

ben , Nov 1, 2018 8:34:13 PM | link
cs @ 21 said;"With all of that said, this is a well thought out attempt to blame the US."

For your perusal cs. Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would be suspicious of the U$A's motives
https://truthout.org/video/overthrow-100-years-of-us-meddling-and-regime-change-from-iran-to-nicaragua-to-hawaii-to-cuba/

craigsummers , Nov 1, 2018 9:27:36 PM | link
b @23
"......Thanks for acknowledging my geniality, and for the amusement. Shall we make you the house buffoon of the bar?......"

What ever suits you. I just appreciate you not deleting my account!

Thanks.

bokin , Nov 1, 2018 11:41:15 PM | link

As we approach the end of the year the big questions facing Europe are:

(1) Which country will win the prize for the most decapitations or slit throats? France or Germany?

With dozens of horrific crimes recently these two competitors are running neck and neck, however with Macron's France averaging close to one slit throat per day, France is probably going to win this contest

Which leaves us with the big question Germans are asking

(2) Which city will earn the distinction of being 2018's Rape Capital of Germany?

For a long time it seemed that the winner would surely be Berlin, but then Freiburg lurched into the lead a few weeks ago.

And now, with a 15-year-old being gang-raped by Afghan asylum seekers, Munich is hustling to take the title.

This crime and subsequent arrests were kept out of the media for a few weeks

-- coincidentally, until just after the recent local elections in Bavaria

The article below from Bild, also translated into English, contains additional details:

Suspects in Custody: Six Men Allegedly Raped Girl (15)

October 30, 2018

Munich -- The Munich police have arrested five Afghan refugees; according to Bayerischer Rundfunk another alleged perpetrator is on the run.

The allegation: They reportedly raped a 15-year-old girl.

The Munich public prosecutor confirmed to BILD upon request that there is an investigation involving a sexual assault and several people have been arrested. The spokesman did not want to comment further.

The case: The girl, who is being psychologically cared for, according to BILD's information, had filed charges against her "partner" at the end of September. The asylum seeker is said to have verbally threatened her and thereby forced her to have intercourse.

Also, he forced her to have intercourse with several his friends. She was so intimidated that she had to endure being abused by them all for several days. Each case is to be handled individually. Physical violence had played no role in the incidents.

In addition to the alleged victim's partner, four other refugees (all between 20 and 25 years old) were arrested. The alleged perpetrators are registered asylum seekers.

In the meantime, warrants have been issued against them on suspicion of rape. They are in custody.

The assaults are said to have occurred at the end of September. The first arrests were made four weeks ago.

Some interrogations remain to be conducted to substantiate the allegations made by the alleged victim, which is one explanation for why the authorities have not made the case public.

Some of the detainees admitted that they had intercourse with the minor, but said that it had taken place by mutual agreement."

Got that?

According to Bild, "Physical violence played no role in the incidents"

snedly arkus , Nov 2, 2018 12:43:12 AM | link
First their is money laundering charges by the US against Denmark's largest bank and now we have Denmark joining the Trump stomp on Iran project. Could it be the US cut a deal with Denmark to limit their investigations and penalties into this bank and maybe others, or possible involvement of Danish government officials, and the Dane's jumped at the chance to limit the damage to the country and it's economy and keep sanction happy Trump from sanctioning them into the poor house.
Steve , Nov 2, 2018 4:49:42 AM | link
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world. I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire
james , Nov 2, 2018 4:54:55 AM | link
42 ben, ditto... cs has never heard of the cia and the past countless years of there horrors... in fact as far as cs is concerned, they never had any role to play in ghouta 2011 and afterwards either...cs thinks the letters stand for charity international association...usaid is another benevolent org as far as cs is concerned... if cs was ever to read john perkins 'confessions of an economic hit man' he would fall out of his chair and have his world turned upside down.... cs really needs to hang over at pat langs site where some of his love and ignorance of the usa's covert history has a place of acceptance.. it ain't here..
Laguerre , Nov 2, 2018 6:06:55 AM | link
44 bokin. German far-right propaganda reaches MoA.
Laguerre , Nov 2, 2018 7:24:45 AM | link
"It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad only in an auxiliary role."

Very difficult to distinguish the two. Israel declared its campaign to internally destabilise Iran last spring (evidently having quailed at the risks of the open military attack), the US has been fruitlessly attempting the same for forty years. I suppose the new Israeli campaign has revived US efforts.

By the way, I was interested by Alastair Crooke's recent remark that Israeli air superiority has been broken by the S300s. Crooke's views are to take seriously.

https://www.rt.com/shows/rt-interview/442703-lavelle-crooke-middle-east/

That could be very grave for Israel, if so, and a context for what's happening.

Mina , Nov 2, 2018 7:51:49 AM | link
No one has picked up on this ?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jamal-khashoggi-latest-news-saudi-arabia-turkey-embassy-washington-dc-a8601961.html
Did Khalid bin Salman return because might be accused of being part of the plot? There was a phonecall to the US apparently right after the killing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11120629/Saudi-prince-and-Emirates-first-female-fighter-pilot-take-part-in-Syria-air-strikes.html
It is getting closer to Kushner.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/world/middleeast/with-saudi-prince-holding-on-to-power-us-seen-standing-by-him.html
"Two people close to the Saudi royal court said Mr. Kushner and Prince Mohammed communicate often, including by text message, and multiple times since Mr. Khashoggi's disappearance. A White House spokesman declined to comment about those communications."

The guy is said to have participated in some coalition attacks in Yemen and Syria
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11120629/Saudi-prince-and-Emirates-first-female-fighter-pilot-take-part-in-Syria-air-strikes.html
(I can't find anymore the recent paper where Yemen was mentioned).
Is this the new bigger than screen playstation for Saudi psychopaths? What about the enquiry into the non-identified plane that bombed civilians during an exchange of prisoners in northern Syria? Could it be a Saudi plane? How many of them have been used in Syria and Yemen?

Bandit , Nov 2, 2018 8:02:39 AM | link
Steve, how could you overlook the all time top lap dog: the UK? The UK would be first on most people's list of sycophant enablers of US terrorism, regime change, and false flag operations. Sometimes Macron tries to run ahead of the pack, but gets slapped back by Trump, but when all is said and done, the whole NATO crew are self-serving idiots and assholes.
mali , Nov 2, 2018 8:13:19 AM | link
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world. I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire

Posted by: Steve | Nov 2, 2018 4:49:42 AM | 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said!

I totally agree with you after saw the ghastly bully behaviour of Denmark on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, who was actively trying to force down the throat of BRICS (EPS. China & India) and developing countries the schemes that US & Co wanted: 1): to strangle the development chance of third world and 2). to escape the accountability/ownership of the big messy pollution the Western countries has been emitted into the air and the world for centuries.

Another aggressive Dane who was in full swing to propagate the Empire's interests/schemes is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ex-NATO Secretary General, who was so belligerent that I sometimes question how the peace-love Denmark can produce such an aggressive person......

Rhisiart Gwilym , Nov 2, 2018 8:43:10 AM | link
b, is there any way to highlight a 'Craig Summers' post at the top, so we can skip over his/her/their lying rubbish unread. Bad enough having to wade through the effusions of the sprinkling of religious loonies who seem to be posting now, without wasting time on this bellingcrap-style hasbarollocks.
Jormaaja , Nov 2, 2018 8:48:51 AM | link
Is Denmark going to "stand up to Turkey" also?

"In the beginning of 2017 the Danish Security Service PET had received information about planned political murder of individuals in Denmark who oppose the Turkish government. The PET acted on the information and put the would be targets in safety. This is revealed by Swedish Radio Ekot.
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6975341

And is Denmark going to stop doing this:"Denmark's foreign minister has for the first time acknowledged that the government allowed the sale of surveillance technology to authoritarian Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE." "Mass surveillance during and after the Arab Spring was used to facilitate the mass incarceration of dissidents, leading to the eventual crushing of popular movements, the report alleged."

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/8/21/danish-fm-admits-selling-mass-surveillance-technology-to-saudi-arabia

And what are the Syro-Ahwazian pro-FSA dudes up to in Denmark:"One battalion of the rebel Free Syrian Army is called the "Ahwaz Brigade", although the group says there are no foreign fighters in its ranks.

"We have relations with different factions of the (Syrian) rebels," said Habib Nabgan, the former head of a coalition of Ahwazi parties whose armed wing carried out last week's pipeline attack.
"They need information, which we give them, and we need some of their expertise, so there is cooperation and that is developing," he told Reuters via telephone from Denmark, where he took refuge in 2006."
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-iran-arabs-insight-idUKBRE97E0O620130815


Ahwazians in Syria:"Before the Syrian uprising, the Ahwazi community in Damascus was living in fear, but is now fully behind the revolutionary struggle.There have been frequent demonstrations in Syria by Ahwazi Arabs flying the opposition flag alongside their own."

https://www.alahwaz.info/en/?p=4642

EtTuBrute , Nov 2, 2018 9:26:51 AM | link
Interesting, the first time i heard of this story my instinct immediately was, why on earth would Iran conduct such risky and rather pointless operations where the downside would greatly outweigh any benefit if they were caught?? Add to that, no one was harmed, they got "caught".. and Mossad involved.. seems pretty clear to anyone who actually understands what's going on in the world.. but there aren't many of us who actually think when we read the news.. thanks again MR B for another insightful piece on analysis :)
Circe , Nov 2, 2018 10:24:00 AM | link
@43

Why? Because you think your Zionist propaganda claptrap is actually convincing and working to bring down surviving bastions of independent thought? It's laughable how hasbara-scripted you read; delivering superficially well-constructed neoliberal brainwash, whitewash material. Your disingenuous ilk courting the Left with liberal goodies, in one hand while unleashing double-standard neoconservative righteous destruction with the other is the main reason we now suffer Trump's fascist right-wing version of same. People protest vote neoliberalism and end up in the arms of the hard right-wing version. It's a no choice choice; an affront to real democracy. You play the desperation of the Left against the Right and then deliver it into the same neoconstruct. You're two sides of the same cult and neither can stand independent thought. After I read your Zionist-contrived claptrap, I feel like my mind has been abused and my time wasted. Once you're wise to the trap, you never go back to falling for whichever charismatic puppet is going to save us from the other side.

The goal becomes helping others break free of the vicious, cyclical no-choice duopoly to viably challenge and destroy it for good! You pretend at righeousness, but you're on the side of status quo darkness.

Circe , Nov 2, 2018 10:39:58 AM | link
Uh, just one more point, I still believe in GW Shaw's wisdom that you shouldn't wrestle with ignorance, ie pigs, but I just intended @56 as a Reader Beware CS for anyone who's out there only reading.
Peter AU 1 , Nov 2, 2018 11:31:43 AM | link
Laguerre 49

Perhaps of more importance was Crooke's remark on US debt. He said in August the cost of servicing the debt, for the first time, exceeded tax revenue. On top of that, the US must sell over a trillion of new debt each year for the next three years.

Laguerre , Nov 2, 2018 12:06:57 PM | link
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 2, 2018 11:31:43 AM | 58

Yes I too thought that was interesting. But Israel's problem is more fatal, in a permanent sense. Air superiority once lost won't be recovered, but the US could, if it wanted to, live more within its means.

Yul , Nov 2, 2018 12:13:06 PM | link
@b

Do you remember the Green revolution of 2009 that went pfttttt?
Well here is an edifying article wrt the CIA :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cias-communications-suffered-catastrophic-compromise-started-iran-090018710.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

As usual, some former official has to include : Israeli intelligence tipped off the CIA that Iran had likely identified some of its assets, said the same former official.

james , Nov 2, 2018 12:24:36 PM | link
thanks b wise words as usual thanks for soft shoe shuffle i will of course let you know when you cross the antisemenetic line.
by the way
i love you
karlof1 , Nov 2, 2018 1:11:54 PM | link
58&59--

Regarding US Debt as a problem, Bolton sees it as a threat to national security:

"Bolton, speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington, said he expects U.S. defense spending "to flatten out" in the near term. He said he didn't anticipate major cuts to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

""It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level ours is, that it constitutes an economic threat to the society," Bolton said. "And that kind of threat ultimately has a national security consequence for it.""

Of course, he wants to cut support for citizens instead of support for the Deep State and its massively corrupt MIC. The massive cut in revenues caused by Trump's giveaways to corporations and the 1% were designed to exacerbate the problem and create an artificial crisis in discretionary spending. Most from all sides of the political spectrum can see this for what it is and are already pushing back, which will be the fundamental reason Trump won't get a 2nd term--his policies are proving to be a fiscal nightmare.

David Hollander , Nov 2, 2018 1:21:29 PM | link
The evidence provided by the author that the CIA was the primary driving agent in these incidents is not compelling. In fact, the US government under Obama supported the JCPOA against the wishes of the Netanyahu government. Thus the statement that "US interests" are necessarily defined by sanctions against Iran seems to me to be unfounded. Had the author replaced "US interests" with "Trump administration policies", which are clearly much more aligned with the interests of the Likud and Netanyahu the statement might be more supportable.
Laguerre , Nov 2, 2018 1:22:55 PM | link
re Yul

"Do you remember the Green revolution of 2009 that went pfttttt?"

Very interesting article, but the Green Revolution didn't go pfft because of that. 2009 failed because the middle class aren't very good at revolutions. They aren't the majority, and they didn't have popular support.

[Nov 02, 2018] The US is using every tool to destabilize russia and change the goverment into Yeltsin style comprador elite

Nov 02, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Kalen Blaine • 8 months ago

Hitler and Napoleon learned that it is impossible to conquer Russia size of continent of militarily impossible weather with now a network of underground fortifications, tunnels that cannot be nuked.

There is no conquering Russia with measly million soldiers west could at best deploy for their sure deaths. Hence no western strategist plan for that and so the idea of Russia responding to conventional attack with nuke was a propaganda aim to end the conversation about that absurd, no sides really considers, but is used to spread fear.

US may attack Russia with nukes but no strategic goal would be achieved by that while retaliation would have been devastating.

Even conventional attack on Russia is absurd. Poland 50k 5k offensive capability, All Baltic states 10k, Slovakia 5k, Hungary 9k facing what?

Russian allies: Donbas rebels 40k war hardened rebel soldiers would be hard to beat; Belarus 250k highly trained soldiers, fully integrated Air, Space, Ground and electronic warfare with all newest Russian toys, while entire army of 2 millions. Russia 3-5 million military can call at least 10 millions will maintain air and space superiority over their territory , digged in while invaders are exposed.

There is will be no invasion of Russia only intimidation of the elites to submit to US political and economic dictates. Also there is no conquering China as well. Not possible.

The only nuke war can occur when global elite will be losing grip on power and going down in flames in socialist revolution and only to take entire humanity with them to hell.

Blaine OL • 8 months ago
If faced with an existential conventional attack, Russian doctrine calls for nuclear response. It would be silly to think they'd limit it to low yield missiles in staging areas in E Europe. They WILL hit continental US and the Pentagon whizkids know this.

The US is using every tool to destabilize them for a change of government, and all the provocations to now are not on a scale of all out war. It does serve to build a compelling narrative that allows no discussion when laws are finally passed limiting freedom of information and association.

The US citizen is the real target here.

OL Blaine • 8 months ago
I see it as the real target being all the natural resources and cheap but skilled labor in the former USSR (on top of bringing down a competitor), and the US population just stading in the way because they're not brainwashed enough for the generals taste.
The capitalist economies can't work in autarchy, they need to get more markets, they need to bring down competitors. or they fall themselves, If you place the control of the population at the top of their priorities, how do you explain the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq etc ? How do you explain the mamoth military budget ? is it just in case a whole US city turns communist and they need to reduce it to ashes ?
Blaine OL • 8 months ago
First they would have to make sure the rest of the country didn't learn about the one that went communist. Then instead of reducing it to ashes they would use the association trees they have built tracking internet and social media to identify and round up the ringleaders. Rest of the country might never even know what had happened between partial blackouts and misinformation.

Don't get me wrong, the US would love to replace partial state control of key Russian industries with Western banking interests and have a free hand with the natural resources. This is certainly the long term plan. But...in the near term they have to reestablish control of the narrative.

The military budget is wealth transfer to folks who enjoy and agitate for any war. Afghanistan was about military contracts, hydrocarbons and opium, the Taliban had to go. Iraq (and Syria) are a problem for Israel - problem solved. Libya was setting up an alternative banking system and possessed attractive gold reserves.

OL Blaine • 8 months ago
Afghanistan was a good occasion for military contracts, but hydrocarbons of the whole region, (especially the project for a pipeline through the caspian sea that Russia and Iran opposed), were a bigger reason.

Why israel so important to the US ? because the resources of the whole region, and because they could threaten the suez canal.

etc

[Nov 02, 2018] All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there was no jet fuel involved

Nov 02, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Terry Lawrence michaelroloff • 8 months ago

A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11 events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying the response, among other things.

Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes, coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?

It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then "disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.

For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).

A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)

The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash). "

Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.

All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then "disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".

[Nov 02, 2018] They say they're gonna give you better health insurance

Nov 02, 2018 | twitter.com

[Nov 02, 2018] 'We have met the enemy and he is us' Who's really 'undermining' US democracy asks Stephen Cohen

Notable quotes:
"... War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate ..."
"... undermine American democracy ..."
"... are engaging in an elaborate campaign of 'information warfare' to interfere with the American midterm elections ..."
"... public evidence ..."
"... arsenal of disruption capabilities... to sow havoc on election day ..."
"... Kremlin propaganda ..."
"... portraying Russian and Syrian government forces favorably as they battled 'terrorists' in what US officials for years have portrayed as a legitimate uprising against the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Kremlin propaganda ..."
"... what US officials for years have ..."
"... undermining of American democracy ..."
"... We have met the enemy and he is us ..."
"... This article was originally published by The Nation . ..."
Nov 02, 2018 | www.rt.com

Allegations that Russia is still "attacking" US elections, now again in November, could delegitimize our democratic institutions. Summarizing one of the themes in his new book, ' War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate ,' Stephen F. Cohen argues that Russiagate allegations of Kremlin attempts to " undermine American democracy " may themselves erode confidence in those institutions.

Ever since Russiagate allegations began to appear more than two years ago, their core narrative has revolved around purported Kremlin attempts to " interfere " in the 2016 US presidential election on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump. In recent months, a number of leading American media outlets have taken that argument even further, suggesting that Putin's Kremlin actually put Trump in the White House and now is similarly trying to affect the November 6 midterm elections, particularly House contests, on behalf of Trump and the Republican Party. According to a page-one New York Times "report," for example, Putin's agents " are engaging in an elaborate campaign of 'information warfare' to interfere with the American midterm elections ."

Despite well-documented articles by Gareth Porter and Aaron Mate effectively dismantling these allegations about 2016 and 2018, the mainstream media continues to promote them. The occasionally acknowledged lack of " public evidence " is sometimes cited as itself evidence of a deep Russian conspiracy, of the Kremlin's " arsenal of disruption capabilities... to sow havoc on election day ." (See the examples cited by Alan MacLeod .)

Lost in these reckless allegations is the long-term damage they may themselves do to American democracy. Consider the following possibilities:

Even though still unproven, charges that the Kremlin put Trump in the White House have cast a large shadow of illegitimacy over his presidency and thus over the institution of the presidency itself. This is unlikely to end entirely with Trump. If the Kremlin had the power to affect the outcome of one presidential election, why not another one, whether won by a Republican or a Democrat? The 2016 presidential election was the first time such an allegation became widespread in American political history, but it may not be the last.

Now the same shadow looms over the November 6 elections and thus over the next Congress. If so, in barely two years, the legitimacy of two fundamental institutions of American representative democracy will have been challenged, also for the first time in history.

And if US elections are really so vulnerable to Russian " meddling ," what does this say about faith in American elections more generally? How many losing candidates on November 6 will resist blaming the Kremlin? Two years after the last presidential election, Hillary Clinton and her adamant supporters still have not been able to do so.

We know from critical reporting and from recent opinion surveys that the origins and continuing fixation on the Russiagate scandal since 2016 have been primarily a product of US political-intelligence-media elites. It did not spring from the American people – from voters themselves. Thus a Gallup poll recently showed that 58 percent of those surveyed wanted improved relations with Russia. And other surveys have shown that Russiagate is scarcely an issue at all for likely voters on November 6. Nonetheless, it remains a front-page issue for US elites.

Indeed, Russiagate has revealed the low esteem that many US political-media elites have for American voters – for their ability to make discerning, rational electoral decisions, which is the bedrock assumption of representative democracy. It is worth noting that this disdain for rank-and-file citizens echoes a longstanding attitude of the Russian political intelligentsia, as recently expressed in the argument by a prominent Moscow policy intellectual that Russian authoritarianism springs not from the nation's elites but from the "genetic code" of its people .

US elites seem to have a similar skepticism about – or contempt for – American voters' capacity to make discerning electoral choices. Presumably this is a factor behind the current proliferation of programs – official, corporate, and private – to introduce elements of censorship in the nation's " media space " in order to filter out " Kremlin propaganda ." Here, it also seems, elites will decide what constitutes such " propaganda ."

The Washington Post recently gave such an example : " portraying Russian and Syrian government forces favorably as they battled 'terrorists' in what US officials for years have portrayed as a legitimate uprising against the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad. " That is, thinking that the forces of Putin and Assad were fighting terrorists, even if closer to the truth, is " Kremlin propaganda " because it is at variance with " what US officials for years have " been saying. This was the guiding principle of Soviet censorship as well.

If the American electoral process, presidency, legislature, and voter cannot be fully trusted, what is left of American democracy? Admittedly, this is still only a trend, a foreboding, but one with no end in sight. If it portends the " undermining of American democracy ," our elites will blame the Kremlin. But they best recall the discovery of Walt Kelly's legendary cartoon figure Pogo: " We have met the enemy and he is us ."

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.

This article was originally published by The Nation .

Read more US invents new 'meddling' charges to play 'Russia card' ahead of midterms - Moscow FM official US Congress has no Russian policy other than sanctions' – Stephen Cohen Suspicious packages could be 'Russian operation,' says MSNBC host

[Nov 02, 2018] The Russian meddling fraud Weapons of mass destruction revisited by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

20 February 2018
Notable quotes:
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
"... Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims about "weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on terror" is exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the Islamic fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting. ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political dissent effectively treasonous. ..."
"... Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it. The target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The ruling elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at home. ..."
Nov 02, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to use against the United States.

In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."

There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to end.

The World Socialist Web Site , in an editorial board statement published the next day, declared the brief for war "the latest act in a diplomatic charade laced with cynicism and deceit." War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction." Rather, "it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global hegemony."

The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different. Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the Iraqi government.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."

The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there "is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."

Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its media accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one million people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.

Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time, instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again, the media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government -- which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been relentlessly expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.

The argument presented by the American media is that the alleged existence of a fly-by-night operation, employing a few hundred people, with a budget amounting to a minuscule fraction of total election spending in the US, constitutes a "a virtual war against the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda" ( New York Times ).

In the countless articles and media commentary along this vein, nowhere can one find a serious analysis of the Mueller indictment of the Russians itself, let alone an examination of the real motivations behind the US campaign against Russia. The fact that the indictment does not even involve the Russian government or state officials is treated as a nonissue.

While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims about "weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on terror" is exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the Islamic fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting.

More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments, declared, "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security."

Russia is seen by dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus as a principal obstacle to US efforts to control the Middle East and to take on China -- and it is this that has been at the center of the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Trump administration.

There have already been a series of clashes in recent weeks between the world's two largest nuclear-armed powers. On February 3, a Russian close-air support fighter was shot down by al-Nusra Front fighters, which are indirectly allied with the United States in its proxy war against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Then, on February 7 and 8, Russian soldiers were killed in US air and artillery barrages in Deir Ezzor, in what survivors called a "massacre." Both the US and Russian governments have sought to downplay the scale of the clash, but some sources have reported the number killed to be in the hundreds.

Even as US and Russian forces clashed in Syria, representatives of the Kremlin and the Pentagon sparred at the Munich security conference this weekend over the deployment and development of nuclear weapons. While accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Washington this month issued a nuclear posture review envisioning a massive expansion of the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.

The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political dissent effectively treasonous.

Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search results and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media platform it has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance.

Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it. The target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The ruling elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at home.

The working class must draw the necessary conclusions from its past experiences. In 2003, the Democratic Party supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and provided it with the necessary political cover. Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war, employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist agenda.

The urgent task is to mobilize the working class, in the United States and internationally, against the entire apparatus of the capitalist ruling elite. The fight against war and dictatorship is at the same time the fight against inequality and exploitation, for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a global socialist society.

Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

[Nov 02, 2018] Moscow Shocked by French Cabinet Spokesman's Remarks Regarding RT

This is a typical projection. France is a member of "dirty four". Macron government is a typical neoliberal cabinet, not that different from Merkel government. As such it is controlled by the USA.
Nov 02, 2018 | sputniknews.com

"Honestly, to say that we were surprised or upset is to say nothing. I think this condition could be better described as 'shock' when we heard the spokesman for the French government, Mr. Griveaux, just recently said the following. I quote: there are two media outlets that I refuse to see in the press room of the Elysee Palace, they are RT and Sputnik because I do not consider them to be media, they are not journalists, they are engaged in propaganda," Zakharova said at a weekly news briefing.

According to Zakharova, such an approach is the result of "the unwillingness of the French authorities to hear alternative sources of information."

Last month, two French government's think tanks issued a report, which recommended the country's authorities to abstain from accrediting journalists of the RT broadcaster and the Sputnik news agency.

Last year, RT reporters were denied entry to the headquarters of then-French presidential candidate Macron twice in April, and in May, a Sputnik reporter was not allowed to enter the square in front of Paris' Louvre museum where Macron and his supporters were celebrating the victory in the presidential run-off. After Macron became French president, he accused RT and Sputnik of "spreading false information and slander."

READ MORE: US Homeland Security Recommends Public to 'Be Aware' of RT, Sputnik

The situation around RT and Sputnik in France is not unique for the European Union: in 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolution claiming that Russia was waging information warfare and singled out RT and Sputnik. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the resolution proved that Western democracy was failing, but expressed hope that common sense would prevail and Russian media outlets would be able to work abroad without restrictions.

[Nov 02, 2018] MUST WATCH Shocking Video by Comedian Bill Maher - Russia Delusion Still Raging Among US Liberals

Nov 02, 2018 | russia-insider.com

MUST WATCH: Shocking Video by Comedian Bill Maher - Russia Delusion Still Raging Among US Liberals Richard Brandt 10 min ago | 600 words 10 131 RussiaHoax Bill Maher outdid himself recently with this video, but in doing so, he inadvertently showed how out of touch the Jewish Hollywood liberal elites like Maher are with most of the country, and even more so with the rest of the world.

Take the 5 minutes to watch the video, it is an eye-opener. Bullet points follow below:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QhJIt4uv9x4

Somehow, Maher managed to pack the following into his monologue:

[Nov 01, 2018] Ukraine s depopulation crisis by Jason Melanovski

This is the net result of neoliberalism enforced debt slavery for the country. And there is no chances for Ukrainians to climb back from this debt hole.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine's SSS has acknowledged that so far this year, the population has already decreased by 122,000. ..."
"... While the country's low birth rate of approximately 1 birth for 1.5 deaths is a contributing factor to the country's depopulation, emigration is by far the biggest factor. ..."
"... Between 2002 and 2017, an estimated 6.3 million Ukrainians emigrated with no plans to return. ..."
"... Through 2015 and 2017, as a result of the ongoing war in the Donbass region and the plunging value of the Ukrainian hryvnia, migration increased notably: 507,000 people went to Poland; 147,000 to Italy; 122,000 to the Czech Republic; 23,000 to the United States; and 365,000 to Russia or Belarus. ..."
"... The easing of visa-free travel by the European Union (EU) in September 2017 only increased the flow of Ukrainians to countries such as Poland, which is facing its own demographic crisis and in need of workers. In 2018 alone, more than 3 million Ukrainians applied for passports that would allow them to work in Poland. Poland is the only EU country that allows Ukrainians to obtain seasonal work visas with just a passport. Ukrainians have received 81.7% of all work visas issued in Poland this year. ..."
"... Between 1 and 2 million Ukrainian workers now reside in Poland, where they are often forced to take jobs "under the table," are easily exploited by employers, and work in dangerous conditions. Many Ukrainian laborers are recruited to Poland by scam offers of employment, only to then find themselves stranded and forced to work for whatever wage they can get. ..."
"... While Russia is constantly demonized in the Ukrainian and Western press as the eternal enemy of Ukraine, 2 million Ukrainian citizens now live or work in Russia. According to Olga Kirilova, between 2014 and 2017, 312,000 Ukrainians were granted Russian citizenship and Ukrainians make up the vast majority of immigrants to Russia. ..."
"... The migration of Ukrainian workers abroad has reached such a level that remittances from migrants now constitute 3 to 4 percent of the country's GDP. They exceed the amount of foreign investment in Ukraine. Nonetheless, such transfers are not nearly enough to make up for the negative impact of the currency's falling value, inflation, and the disappearance of skilled workers. ..."
"... The Ukrainian ruling class acknowledges that the country is in serious trouble. "One of the main risks of the current scenario is the continuation of the outflow of labor from Ukraine, which will create a further increase in the imbalance between demand and supply in the labor market," noted a report from the country's national bank. ..."
"... The Corrupt, extreme right wing government of Poroshenko, that has driven large proportions of the Ukrainian population into poverty and despair has only been able to take power and remain I office thanks to US imperialism and Angela Merkel's scheming and regime change program. ..."
"... Popular support for the "maidan" in the Ukraine was based on misleading and dishonest claims by pro EU and Pro US opportunistic political operators that such "regime change" would lead to total integration with Europe and open borders.... ..."
"... One of the most horrific consequences of the dismantling of the Soviet Union was the explosion of sex trafficking and very large numbers of Ukrainian women were caught up in this horrific exploitation and continue to be. ..."
"... Oh the benefits of US installed dictatorships. ..."
"... "Welcome to Europe, Ukraine. Here are your rubber gloves and toilet cleaning brush. Oh, you're a young woman? The red light district is three blocks that way". ..."
"... In Baltic states after being "freed from communism and Soviet occupation" the population decline is also very prominent, the same reasons as in Ukraine too. ..."
Nov 01, 2018 | www.wsws.org

As fascist far-right nationalist groups regularly parade through the country demanding "Ukraine for Ukrainians," Ukraine faces a massive depopulation crisis. Millions of people of all ethnicities are leaving the country, fleeing poverty and war.

Since the restoration of capitalism in 1991, the overall population of Ukraine has declined from just over 52 million to approximately 42 million today, a decrease of nearly 20 percent. If the separatist-controlled provinces of the Donbass region and Crimea are excluded, it is estimated that just 35 million people now live in the area controlled by the government of Petro Porosehnko.

Ukrainian governments, including the current one, have been loath to carry out an official census, as it is widely believed that the population estimates reported by the country's State Statistics Service (SSS) are inflated by including deceased individuals. One aim of this is to rig elections. An official country-wide census has not been held since 2001. In late 2015, the Poroshenko government postponed the 2016 census until 2020.

Despite the lack of reliable official numbers, all independent reports point to a sharp reduction in the population. According to Ukraine's Institute of Demography at the Academy of Sciences, by 2050 only 32 million people will live in the country. The World Health Organization has estimated that the population of the country will drop even further, to just 30 million people.

Ukraine's SSS has acknowledged that so far this year, the population has already decreased by 122,000.

Such data are a testament to the monumental failure of capitalism to provide a standard of living that matches, much less exceeds, that which existed during the Soviet period over 25 years ago.

While the country's low birth rate of approximately 1 birth for 1.5 deaths is a contributing factor to the country's depopulation, emigration is by far the biggest factor.

Between 2002 and 2017, an estimated 6.3 million Ukrainians emigrated with no plans to return.

Facing poor employment prospects, deteriorating social and medical services, marauding far-right gangs, and the ever-present prospect of a full-scale war with Russia, Ukrainian workers are fleeing the country in great numbers, either permanently or as temporary labor migrants.

According to a report from the Center for Economic Strategy (CES), almost 4 million people, or up to 16% of the working-age population, are labor migrants. Despite having Ukrainian citizenship and still technically living in Ukraine, they actually reside and work elsewhere. Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has put the number of Ukrainian migrant workers even higher, at 5 million.

Through 2015 and 2017, as a result of the ongoing war in the Donbass region and the plunging value of the Ukrainian hryvnia, migration increased notably: 507,000 people went to Poland; 147,000 to Italy; 122,000 to the Czech Republic; 23,000 to the United States; and 365,000 to Russia or Belarus.

The easing of visa-free travel by the European Union (EU) in September 2017 only increased the flow of Ukrainians to countries such as Poland, which is facing its own demographic crisis and in need of workers. In 2018 alone, more than 3 million Ukrainians applied for passports that would allow them to work in Poland. Poland is the only EU country that allows Ukrainians to obtain seasonal work visas with just a passport. Ukrainians have received 81.7% of all work visas issued in Poland this year.

Between 1 and 2 million Ukrainian workers now reside in Poland, where they are often forced to take jobs "under the table," are easily exploited by employers, and work in dangerous conditions. Many Ukrainian laborers are recruited to Poland by scam offers of employment, only to then find themselves stranded and forced to work for whatever wage they can get.

While migrant workers in Poland are constantly subjected to anti-immigrant rhetoric from the right-wing PiS government in Warsaw, the Polish state classifies Ukrainian laborers as "refugees" in order to comply with EU quotas and reject refugees from Syria and elsewhere.

According to polls of Ukrainian migrants in Poland, over half are planning to move to Germany if the labor market there is ever open to them.

While Russia is constantly demonized in the Ukrainian and Western press as the eternal enemy of Ukraine, 2 million Ukrainian citizens now live or work in Russia. According to Olga Kirilova, between 2014 and 2017, 312,000 Ukrainians were granted Russian citizenship and Ukrainians make up the vast majority of immigrants to Russia.

The dearth of a working-age population in Ukraine is putting further strain on an already struggling pension system. According to Ukraine's SSS, as a result of widespread labor migration, only 17.8 million out of 42 million Ukrainians are economically active and paying into the pension system.

The migration of Ukrainian workers abroad has reached such a level that remittances from migrants now constitute 3 to 4 percent of the country's GDP. They exceed the amount of foreign investment in Ukraine. Nonetheless, such transfers are not nearly enough to make up for the negative impact of the currency's falling value, inflation, and the disappearance of skilled workers.

The Ukrainian ruling class acknowledges that the country is in serious trouble. "One of the main risks of the current scenario is the continuation of the outflow of labor from Ukraine, which will create a further increase in the imbalance between demand and supply in the labor market," noted a report from the country's national bank.

However, the government can do nothing to slow the mass emigration, as it is thoroughly under the control of international finance capital and committed to implementing the austerity programs demanded by Western states and banks.

Despite assurances from the Poroshenko regime that the economy will improve, the emigration and emptying of the country shows no signs of slowing.

John Upton • 5 hours ago

The Corrupt, extreme right wing government of Poroshenko, that has driven large proportions of the Ukrainian population into poverty and despair has only been able to take power and remain I office thanks to US imperialism and Angela Merkel's scheming and regime change program.

Without the working class intervening the only ones remaining in Ukraine will be those unable to leave and those that have their noses in the trough.

Kalen • 7 hours ago
Another excellent report of decaying of artificial entity of Ukraine (and capitalism specializes in collapsing societies) that never even existed before 1992 in European history and was resurrected ( from brief self declared by Bandera racist state status in 1941) and funded by Germany, Canada and US only to nurture their Fascist and actual Nazi traditions starting from Doncov to Bandera terror of hundreds of thousands dead 1941-1948 of OUN-B, UPA and Ukrainian SS, all against Russia, as Ukrainian "Country" was and is used as a Trojan horse to push Putin to submit to the west even more than he does now.

Pain and suffering of Ukrainian people is enormous as only 5% of population of Ukrainian Nazi thugs terrorist nation like like Hitler street thugs in 1932-1934. It is tragedy that capitalism instigated, exasperated and augmented and should be a lesson for the left what nationalism does, divides working class that was rendered powerless in Ukraine as Ukrainian industry tied to Russia collapsed and forces massive migration and de-cohesion of communities, divisions of working class and eradication of any real leftist leadership via murder, intimidation and exile.

Just a note. All that anti Russia hoopla after 2014 and ensuing NATO belligerence and warmongering and sanctions all were focused on so called annexation of Crimea to Russia which was nothing but reunification of land under control of Russia since 1754.

I was shocked watching an episode of Columbo, crime series in 1970s when one of characters proudly referred to California joining in US 1845 as annexation from Mexico, with no shame or condemnation like hinting that it was international aggression of US as Alta California was never part of US before that.

Well, it was before 1984 and Orwellian newspeak.

Note that Crimea remained autonomous region, not a part of Russia but part of Russian Federation.

solerso • 8 hours ago
Popular support for the "maidan" in the Ukraine was based on misleading and dishonest claims by pro EU and Pro US opportunistic political operators that such "regime change" would lead to total integration with Europe and open borders.... That would have allowed (so the misconception went) Ukrainians to flee the country much more openly with less red tape and hassle at the borders. So, far from being politically or ideologically supportive of Europe or the US or opportunist/nationalist Ukrainian politicians, the vast majority of Ukrainians only wanted to be allowed to flee, as they experience it, a social shipwreck
Charles • 8 hours ago
One of the most horrific consequences of the dismantling of the Soviet Union was the explosion of sex trafficking and very large numbers of Ukrainian women were caught up in this horrific exploitation and continue to be.
John Upton • 9 hours ago
Victoria Newland and Geoffrey Pyatt, both US officials, were recorded at the time of the right wing and fascist led coup that overthrew Russian backed Yanakovic, boasting that Washington had poured $5 billion into Ukraine ensuring that their man, an ex World Bank executive, was elected.

Since then the most rabid anti working class/ anti Russian governments have ruled the roost. Only those unable to flee this hell- hole and those whose snout is in the trough will soon be left there. Oh the benefits of US installed dictatorships.

Warren Duzak • 13 hours ago
In addition to emigration, Ukraine's decreasing population is a result of a higher infant mortality rate than surrounding countries. High infant mortality rates always indicate economic and social stress.
According to The World Bank 2017 figures for infant mortality in that region, the rate per 1,000 births in Ukraine is 7.5 compared to the following rates in surrounding countries:
Poland - 4.0
Romania - 6.6
Russia - 6.5
Belarus - 2.8
Hungary -3.8
Slovak Republic - 4.6
Only poor Moldova is higher at 13.3
Terry Lawrence • 15 hours ago
Kinda shot themselves in the foot with their "Revolution of Dignity" fascist coup. "Welcome to Europe, Ukraine. Here are your rubber gloves and toilet cleaning brush. Oh, you're a young woman? The red light district is three blocks that way".

Life in Crimea must be looking pretty good to them now.

Richard Mod • 16 hours ago
including the deceased in the population statistics brings to mind Gogol's "Dead Souls"!
erika • 16 hours ago
This is an important update on developments in the Ukraine.
Raycomeau • 17 hours ago
The puppet of the USA, Poroshenko , needs to go, and the USA should get the hell out of the Ukraine plus NATO has no business being on the borders of Russia. This is all the fault of the USA, And, the current immigration problem world wide is because the USA bombs countries eviscerating them yet the USA refuses to admit refugees which are fleeing from the USA wars.
Terry Lawrence Raycomeau • 5 hours ago
NATO has no business even existing, Ray.
manchegauche • 18 hours ago
Very illuminating article - great topic to choose. NIce one
лидия • 19 hours ago
In Baltic states after being "freed from communism and Soviet occupation" the population decline is also very prominent, the same reasons as in Ukraine too.
Human6 лидия • 5 hours ago
These same right-wing, fascist Ukrainian Banderovitzes love to yell and scream about the bogus "Holodomor" hoax (which has been debunked by serious scholars such as Pers Anders Rudling, and others, as well as Thottle). They falsely claim that the USSR tried to "depopulate" Ukrainians, when they are the ones who have depopulated Ukraine.

They are such shameless, low down, dirty liars.

[Nov 01, 2018] Trade between Russia and Ukraine hit a low of $10.26 Billion in 2016, but struggled back up to $12.9 Billion last year. Pre Maidan it was more than $50 Billion annually.

Nov 01, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman November 1, 2018 at 11:48 am

Speaking of Ukraine, the Russian sanctions against Ukraine have been announced. Predictably, Poroshenko considers them to be 'an award', or so he says. I don't know why he feels qualified to speak for those so honoured, since he was not on the list.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1N6564

Trade between Russia and Ukraine hit a low of $10.26 Billion in 2016, but struggled back up to $12.9 Billion last year. Mind you, pre-glorious-Maidan it was more than $50 Billion annually. Never mind; I'm sure Yurrup will pick up the slack, just like it did after the glorious Maidan. Amazingly, the New York Times is still referring to Poroshenko as a 'chocolate tycoon', in the same sentence in which it calls Viktor Pinchuk an oligarch.

[Nov 01, 2018] Angela Merkel Migrates Into Retirement The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism. ..."
"... Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world. ..."
"... "We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold." ..."
"... The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult. ..."
"... Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question. ..."
"... In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. ..."
Nov 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Her refugee blunder changed the European continent in irreversible ways for decades to come. By Scott McConnell • November 1, 2018

https://web.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F__Bz3h5RzMx.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df1e05916197a506%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ffa22eaad4bf7dc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.fe97d5b55faa73e82b8adbe10e393b13.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Angela%20Merkel%20Migrates%20Into%20Retirement%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1541069527058&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fangela-merkel-migrates-into-retirement%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.r3VEB-hu6dk.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPdzfaDsFYsZF5Fx6dxuyMdlAHKvg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1541069526884&_gfid=I0_1541069526884&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=60814349

Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.

Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.

She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition partners.

Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world.

One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have left them for the AfD.

Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has "utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society) and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.

For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject. Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.

"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold."

The Angela Merkel Era is Coming to an End The Subtle Return of Germany Hegemony

Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, The New York Times reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.

The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult.

Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.

In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.

In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.

Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .

[Nov 01, 2018] Lame Duck Merkel Has Only Her Legacy On Her Mind

Notable quotes:
"... On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S. military establishment wants, Merkel must provide. ..."
"... But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum Lady, Theresa May here). ..."
"... Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea. ..."
"... Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring at a staggering pace in Russia. ..."
Nov 01, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Luongo,

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped down as the leader of the Christian Democratic Union, the party she has led for nearly two decades. Yesterday's election in Hesse, normally a CDU/SPD stronghold was abysmal for them.

She had to do something to quell the revolt brewing against her.

Merkel knew going in what the polls were showing. Unlike American and British polls, it seems the German ones are mostly accurate with pre-election polls coming close to matching the final results.

So, knowing what was coming for her and in the spirit of trying to maintain power for as long as possible Merkel has been moving away from her staunch positions on unlimited immigration and being in lock-step with the U.S. on Russia.

She's having to walk a tightrope on these two issues as the turmoil in U.S. political circles is pulling her in, effectively, opposite directions.

The globalist Davos Crowd she works for wants the destruction of European culture and individual national sovereignty ground into a paste and power consolidated under the rubric of the European Union.

They also want Russia brought to heel.

On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S. military establishment wants, Merkel must provide.

So, if she rejects that role and the chaos U.S. policy engenders, particularly Syria, she's undermining the flow of migrants into Europe.

This is why it was so significant that she and French President Emmanuel Macron joined this weekend's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul.

It ended with an agreement on Syria's future that lies in direct conflict with the U.S.'s goals of the past seven years.

It was an admission that Assad has prevailed in Syria and the plan to atomize it into yet another failed state has itself failed. Merkel has traded 'Assad must go' for 'no more refugees.'

To President Trump's credit he then piggy-backed on that statement announcing that the U.S. would be pulling out of Syria very soon now. And that tells me that he is still coordinating in some way with Putin and other world leaders on the direction of his foreign policy in spite of his opposition.

But the key point from the Istanbul statement was that Syria's rebuilding be prioritized to reverse the flow of migrants so Syrians can go home. While Gilbert Doctorow is unconvinced by France's position here , I think Merkel has to be focused on assisting Putin in achieving his goal of returning Syria to Syrians.

Because, this is both a political necessity for Merkel as well as her trying to burnish her crumbling political throne to maintain power.

The question is will Germans believe and/or forgive her enough for her to stay in power through her now stated 'retirement' from politics in 2021?

I don't think so and it's obvious Davos Crowd boy-toy Macron is working overtime to salvage what he can for them as Merkel continues to face up to the political realities across Europe, which is that populism is a natural reaction to these insane policies.

Merkel's job of consolidating power under the EU is unfinished. They don't have financial integration. The Grand Army of the EU is still not a popular idea. The euro-zone is a disaster waiting to happen and its internal inconsistencies are adding fuel to an already pretty hot political fire.

On this front, EU integration, she and Macron are on the same page. Because 'domestically' from an EU perspective, Brexit still has to be dealt with and the showdown with the Italians is only just beginning.

But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum Lady, Theresa May here).

And Macron should stop looking in the mirror long enough to see he's standing on a quicksand made of blasting powder.

This points to the next major election for Europe, that of the European Parliament in May where all of Merkel's opposition are focused on wresting control of that body and removing Jean-Claude Juncker or his hand-picked replacement (Merkel herself?) from power.

The obvious transition for Merkel is from German Chancellor to European Commission President. She steps down as Chancellor in May after the EPP wins a majority then to take Juncker's job. I'm sure that's been the plan all along. This way she can continue the work she started without having to face the political backlash at home.

But, again, how close is Germany to snap elections if there is another migrant attack and Chemnitz-like demonstrations. You can only go to the 'Nazi' well so many times, even in Germany.

There comes a point where people will have simply had enough and their anger isn't born of being intolerant but angry at having been betrayed by political leadership which doesn't speak for them and imported crime, chaos and violence to their homes.

And the puppet German media will not be able to contain the story. The EU's speech rules will not contain people who want to speak. The clamp down on hate speech, pioneered by Merkel herself is a reaction to the growing tide against her.

And guess what? She can't stop it.

The problem is that Commies like Merkel and Soros don't believe in anything. They are vampires and nihilists as I said over the weekend suffused with a toxic view of humanity.

Oh sure, they give lip service to being inclusive and nice about it while they have control over the levers of power, the State apparatus. But, the minute they lose control of those levers, the sun goes down, the fangs come out and the bloodletting begins.

These people are vampires, sucking the life out of a society for their own ends. They are evil in a way that proves John Barth's observation that "man can do no wrong." For they never see themselves as the villain.

No. They see themselves as the savior of a fallen people. Nihilists to their very core they only believe in power. And, since power is their religion, all activities are justified in pursuit of their goals.

Their messianic view of themselves is indistinguishable to the Salafist head-chopping animals people like Hillary empowered to sow chaos and death across the Middle East and North Africa over the past decade.

Add to this Merkel herself who took Hillary's empowerment of these animals and gave them a home across Europe. At least now Merkel has the good sense to see that this has cost her nearly everything.

Even if she has little to no shame.

Hillary seems to think she can run for president again and win with the same schtick she failed with twice before. Frankly, I welcome it like I welcome the sun in the morning, safe in the knowledge that all is right with the world and she will go down in humiliating defeat yet again.

Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea.

Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring at a staggering pace in Russia.

And Angela Merkel's legacy will be chaos.

* * *

Join my patreon because you hate chaos.

[Nov 01, 2018] It's a great idea to appoint to UN yet another person, who will just read prepared scripts

Life imitates Onion ;-)
Nov 01, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake November 1, 2018 at 12:08 pm

New UN Ambassador

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert was offered the position of United States Ambassador to the United Nations,
Fox News chief White House correspondent John Roberts shared the emerging report on Twitter, writing: "Senior Administration Official tells Fox News that @statedeptspox Heather Nauert has been offered the job of UN Ambassador."

Nauert, a former Fox News journalist, will replace current U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who abruptly announced in early October that she will exit the administration at the end of the year.

//Trump really is a clown – appointing yet another person, who will just read prepared scripts. //

[Nov 01, 2018] If the Khashoggi Affair was planned as a warning to Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, then the US knew exactly what was going to happen in the consulate. It was coupled with an immediate and orchestrated MSM reaction that was curiously detailed, and delivered at high volume.

Notable quotes:
"... The key point from my POV was the immediate MSM blanket coverage with every detail explained. No investigation, research, doubts or questions. ..."
"... The US MSM is a propaganda tool and they were pre-prepared, so some US deep state group knew that Bin Salman's bodyguard was heading to the consulate and what they planned to do there (and maybe even set them up to do it). ..."
Nov 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 says: October 30, 2018 at 5:45 am GMT 600 Words

The Saudis also support the system of petrodollars, which basically requires nearly all international purchases of petroleum to be paid in dollars. Petrodollars in turn enable the United States to print money for which there is no backing knowing that there will always be international demand for dollars to buy oil.

I would emphasize this aspect, except that MbS doesn't so much support the PetroDollar as the PetroYuan, and this is more than troubling for the US since the PetroDollar is essential to the dollar's world reserve currency status.

Many American economists have expressed alarm at Saudi Arabia's willingness to borrow in Chinese yuan, as Riyadh's decision could cause other oil-exporting countries to abandon the U.S. dollar in favor of the "petro-yuan." A marked decline in the use of the U.S. dollar as the preferred credit-issuing currency by oil-producing countries would greatly weaken the U.S. dollar's long-term viability as a global reserve currency.

As the United States views its alliance with Saudi Arabia as the lynchpin of its Middle East strategy, Washington will likely react strongly if Riyadh uses its influence within OPEC to strengthen the Chinese yuan. As Saudi Arabia remains dependent on U.S. arms sales to pursue its geopolitical objectives in the Middle East and counter Iran, intense U.S. pressure would likely cause Riyadh to distance itself from Beijing, limiting economic integration between the two countries.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/the-risks-of-the-china-saudi-arabia-partnership/

It is no coincidence that these statements from the Crown Prince come days after the official launch of China's Petroyuan. As every historical trend indicates, the world's most powerful economy dictates which currency will be used in most international transactions. This continues to be the case with the US in respect of Dollar, but as China gets set to fully overtake the US as the world's leading economy, the Dollar will inevitably be replaced by the Yuan.

China's issuing of oil futures contracts in Petroyuan is the clearest indication yet that China is keen to make its presence as the world's largest energy consumer known and that it would clearly prefer to purchase oil from countries like Saudi Arabia in its own currency in the future, quite possibly in the near future.

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince appears to understand this trajectory in the global energy markets and furthermore, he realises that in order to be able to leverage the tremendous amount of US pressure that will come down on Riaydh in order to force Saudi Arbia to avoid the Petroyuan, Riyadh will need to embrace other potential partners, including China.

More than anything else, the Petroyuan will have an ability to transform Saudi Arabia by limiting its negative international characteristics that Muhammad bin Salman himself described. As a pseudo-satellite state of the US during the Cold War, Muhammad bin Salman admitted that his country's relationship to the US was that of subservience. China does not make political let alone geopolitical demands of its partners, but China is nevertheless keen to foster de-escalations in tensions among all its partners based on the win-win principles of peace through prosperity as articulated on a regular basis by President Xi Jinping.

Thus one could see China's policies of political non-interference rub off on a potential future Saudi partner, in the inverse way that the US policies of ultra-interventionism are often forced upon its partners. Thus, whatever ideological views Muhammad bin Salman does or does not have, he clearly knows where the wind is blowing: in the direction of China.

https://astutenews.com/2018/03/29/saudi-crown-prince-muhammad-bin-salman-blames-america-for-spread-of-wahhabism-as-petro-yuan-beckons/

If the Khashoggi Affair was planned as a warning to Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, then the US knew exactly what was going to happen in the consulate. It was coupled with an immediate and orchestrated MSM reaction that was curiously detailed, and delivered at high volume.

chris , says: October 30, 2018 at 11:02 am GMT

Yeah, the US will never get rid of the Saudi regime but will always be dangling the sword right above their necks, and not just figuratively.

Besides the tangible benefits of the 'strategic' control of oil resources, which the US believes it needs to control in order to dominate Western Europe and its Asian allies, the Saudis also function as the CIA's private slush fund for off-the-books operations like Iran-Contra and many others which surface in the news from time to time. Thus, the CIA controls such vast sums through the Saudis as to make their budgets effectively limitless.

During his triumphant tour of the US earlier this year, the Saudi King said something which I found shocking and incredibly revealing in the way the story dropped like a stone making absolutely no ripples anywhere in the MSM, nor in the alternative media for that matter.

When asked about Saudi funding of Wahhabism around the world, he said that 'the allies (presumably US and UK) had 'asked' the Saudis to 'use their resources' to create the Madrassas and Wahhabi centers to prevent prevent inroads in Muslim countries by the Soviets (a premise which is very questionable in the ME context after the fall of Nasser).

Now that seems to be the story of the century because it reveals the operating method of the CIA wrt the Saudis. And even though MBS was trying to only reveal the distant roots of the system they put in place, there is absolutely no logical reason why any part of this system would have been subsequently dismantled; 911 notwithstanding. The continuing US/Israeli support for and generous use of jihadis in Libya, Syria, etc. only reinforces this point.

This is ultimately the greatest impediment to anything changing the status quo.

virgile , says: Website October 30, 2018 at 12:02 pm GMT
If the consulate was bugged , the Turks must have known the plan to abduct kashooggi.
They let it happen, and now that the abduction turned into a murder, they are accomplice.
Miro23 , says: October 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
@Mark James

US knew exactly what was going to happen in the consulate.

I doubt the US knew "exactly", but they likely knew something bad (a kidnapping perhaps?) was a strong probability. Alas I wish Khashoggi had been warned. Too it seems very odd he was willing to set foot in a Saudi embassy anywhere? Maybe Director Haspel can explain.

Supposedly Khashoggi's smart phone picked it all up and filmed his own murder ??

More likely the room was prepared, and Khashoggi was following US instructions/assurances in going there. The key point from my POV was the immediate MSM blanket coverage with every detail explained. No investigation, research, doubts or questions.

The US MSM is a propaganda tool and they were pre-prepared, so some US deep state group knew that Bin Salman's bodyguard was heading to the consulate and what they planned to do there (and maybe even set them up to do it).

One question is whether the Halloween show was aimed at removing Bin Salman or just getting him back in line.

Amanda , says: October 30, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
Sibel Edmonds has been following this story from Turkey (she speaks Turkish) and posting her thoughts and findings on twitter. She seems to think this is about some kind of soft coup (get rid of MBS b/c getting too cozy with Russia/China, Euroasia). Sibel also says Khashoggi was actually in Istanbul working with some kind of Soros NGO, maybe for future Color Revolution/Arab Spring in the Middle East.

Sibel Edmonds @sibeledmonds As Predicted (OnRecord) One Of 3 Objectives in #Scripted #Khashoggi Case: Get #Trump- Replace BS #RussiaGate with #SaudiGate. (Screenshot Coming In Reply)- – "Khashoggi fiancee hits at Trump response, warns of 'money' influence"

Sibel Edmonds‏ @sibeledmonds Oct 27
Very Important #Khashoggi Continued: #Khashoggi Relocated To #Turkey To Be a Part of a Business-ThinkTank-NGO. He set up a business here. He opened Bank Accounts. He bought a house/expansive Flat. He traveled to #London from #Istanbul paid handsomely by #Neoliberal #DeepState

AnonFromTN , says: October 30, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT
Jamal Khashoggi did not die for nothing. His murder was part of the plot to push current de-facto ruler of the Saudi royal crime family aside.

On the moral side, considering who Khashoggi was, one can only say "serves him right". However, all the other players involved, the Saudis, Israel, Turkey, and the US, are by no means morally superior to him. His murder and essential non-reaction by others are useful, as these events unmasked the hypocrites, who are showing their true colors even as we speak.

Mike P , says: October 30, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT
UK Was Aware of Saudi Plot Against Khashoggi Weeks in Advance: Report
ChuckOrloski , says: October 30, 2018 at 7:12 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus Hi again, S2C,

Should have added that the Kashoggi murder & extremely strange aftermath, dulled US political response, smacks of a scene from the film "V for Vendetta."

Thanks!

JLK , says: October 30, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
If I were the Saudis, I'd watch my wallet.
Anon [159] Disclaimer , says: October 31, 2018 at 1:46 am GMT
"There is every indication that the U.S. is not in fact seeking to punish the Saudis for their alleged role in Khashoggi's apparent murder but instead to punish them for reneging on this $15 billion deal to U.S. weapons giant Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the THAAD system.

S-400 gamechanger. / Saudi Plan to Purchase Russian S-400:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/angered-by-saudi-plan-to-purchase-russian-s-400-trump-admin-exploiting-khashoggi-disappearance-to-force-saudis-to-buy-american/250717/

Miro23 , says: October 31, 2018 at 3:41 am GMT
@Colin Wright Thanks for the link. Now we can see that Empire had previously turned against MbS, and that the scripted Khashoggi affair conveniently arrived on cue – with MbS getting the full MSM treatment.

In other words the deep state knew exactly what was going to happen in the consulate that day, set it up and recorded it themselves (nothing to do with Khashoggi's smart phone).

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-saudi-dissident-prince-flies-home-tackle-mbs-succession-58983364

Prince Ahmad bin Abdulaziz, the younger brother of King Salman, has returned to Saudi Arabia after a prolonged absence in London, to mount a challenge to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman or find someone who can.

The source said that the prince returned "after discussion with US and UK officials", who assured him they would not let him be harmed and encouraged him to play the role of usurper.

Meanwhile, in Washington disquiet grows.

Writing in the New York Times, former national security advisor to the Obama administration and US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said: "Looking ahead, Washington must act to mitigate the risks to our own interests. We should not rupture our important relationship with the kingdom, but we must make clear it cannot be business as usual so long as Prince Mohammed continues to wield unlimited power.

"It should be United States policy, in conjunction with our allies, to sideline the crown prince in order to increase pressure on the royal family to find a steadier replacement," she added.

Erebus , says: October 31, 2018 at 5:36 am GMT
@Miro23 The mainstream narrative has had "Psyop" written all over it from the first. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Khashoggi is still alive and languishing in an undisclosed location with only the Skripals for company.
ChuckOrloski , says: October 31, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
@Bill Jones An interesting bullet-sentence, Bill Jones said to me: "The strange and dulled aftermath in the US is, I believe, because the lesson was not really meant for US audiences."

Greetings, Bill!

Lessons on dramatic world events are cunningly spun to insouciant & government-trusting Americans. The weird Jamal Kashoggi murder is an excellent example among hundreds to choose from!

Fyi, along with FDR administration's cooperation, Zionists helped gin-up war fervor in order to get the US into World War 2. Such deception resulted in unnecessarily sending-off another round of American "doughboys" into world war.

Fyr, as recovered from America's Memory Hole Knowledge Disposal / Sewer System," below is a great Pat Buchanan article titled, "Who forged it?"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4065.htm

[Nov 01, 2018] When "bomb-like devices" were "intercepted" throughout last week the first rection was who planed them? Their targets were a roll call of CIAL connected neolineral "resistance" heroes like Soros, Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan

Nov 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Now, this works much better if your disturbed individual is actually obsessed with something political, like, say, if he's a Donald Trump fanatic who has plastered the windows of the van he's living in with all sorts of blatantly psychotic artwork deifying Donald Trump and demonizing Donald Trump's political opponents, but you'll have to work with what your lunatic gives you. In any event, whatever his pathology, you will need to de-pathologize your psycho, so you can misrepresent him as a "domestic terrorist," and then associate whatever "ideology" you've just painted onto him with "terrorism."

If that sounds a little complicated, don't worry, folks, it's really not! The ruling classes and the corporate media just provided us with a demonstration of the Putin-Nazi-Terrorist-O-Matic in action, which proves how easy-to-use it is. In the span of just a single week, they whipped up so much mass paranoia that

These Putin-Nazi Terrorist "bomb-like devices" were "intercepted" throughout last week. Their targets were a roll call of Resistance heroes, Soros, Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, the offices of CNN, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, and, yes, even Robert De Niro! Putin-Nazi panic paralyzed the nation! The neoliberal corporate media (who, remember, are serious, respected professionals, not conspiracist nuts like Alex Jones) began pouring out pieces informing the world that Donald Trump was behind these attacks, or had encouraged, "emboldened," or "inspired" whoever was with his violent, neo-Hitlerian rhetoric .

Rational , says: October 30, 2018 at 2:07 am GMT

PLUMBING SUPPLIER CESAR, ALLEGED WHITE MAIL TERRORIST, IS A DEMOCRAT.

Great article, Sir.

Cesar is being painted as a white mail Republican terrorist.

He is neither white, nor mail, nor male, nor a Republican.
A real male does not strip in public.
He is a democrat as per:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/10/26/cesar-sayoc-white-male/

Democrat did a good job of mailing plumbing supplies to his own friends.

How much did Soros pay him?

animalogic , says: October 30, 2018 at 8:13 am GMT
So far I haven't heard exactly what the chemical make-up of these "pipe bombs" is none of which detonated or even initiated a detonation sequence. No doubt the authorities will get around to this trifling little fact in their own good time (ie when it has best propaganda affect)
Jeff Stryker , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:45 am GMT
@Kratoklastes "Get one over on the crowd"

The problem with the angriest whites who want change is that they don't have any F@CKING money.

Even if the Left did not have the money to suppress the Alt-Right like Gavin, they have the money for better production values. More people will watch Oprah than the Alt-Right. They can get more air time. Hollywood will spend more money. They always have more

Our White Nationalist leaders are not billionaires. Tommy Morrison is not a self-made millionaire. Richard Spencer the same.

These are average whites you meet in the street.

Tech billionaires, media moguls and globalists are all much more wealthy. They are not white proles with few contacts in the business or media world who are out with the other squirming proles on the street.

Jeff Stryker , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:45 am GMT
@Kratoklastes "Get one over on the crowd"

The problem with the angriest whites who want change is that they don't have any F@CKING money.

Even if the Left did not have the money to suppress the Alt-Right like Gavin, they have the money for better production values. More people will watch Oprah than the Alt-Right. They can get more air time. Hollywood will spend more money. They always have more

Our White Nationalist leaders are not billionaires. Tommy Morrison is not a self-made millionaire. Richard Spencer the same.

These are average whites you meet in the street.

Tech billionaires, media moguls and globalists are all much more wealthy. They are not white proles with few contacts in the business or media world who are out with the other squirming proles on the street.

[Nov 01, 2018] I suspect Cesar Sayoc is a straight up patsy. What strikes me is that the US empire and its faithful servants are resorting to old-fashioned and imported (out of the Goebbels manual, or if you like the Comintern manual) techniques to try and maintain their hold on public opinion.

Nov 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Hans Vogel , says: October 31, 2018 at 8:48 am GMT

Good piece, though I miss the historical dimension. The described mechanism seems to me to have been taken right out of the Goebbels manual, or if you like the Comintern manual. Which were in turn inspired by the instructions of people like Edward Bernays.

What strikes me is that the US empire and its faithful servants are resorting to old-fashioned and imported (stolen, "un-American") techniques to try and maintain their hold on public opinion. I guess, here the economic benefits of the systematic dismantling of the educational system all over the "West" are paying off! Which just proves the advantages of stubbornly concentrating publc spending on armaments instead of education: it has a side effect of making people so stupid they believe just anything.

Still, I wonder how it will be possible to keep repeating the old fairytale of why it was necessary to fight the evil Nazis. If outright Nazism is what the US empire is all about, why did they bother about fighting Hitler?

Probably because he was not "American." Or was it because the original Nazis spent quite a bit on education?

Malaysian Truther , says: October 31, 2018 at 10:37 am GMT
Nice Satire from C.J.

I suspect Cesar Sayoc is a straight up patsy. As Mr Hopkins points out, none of the bombs(sic) had an earthly chance of exploding. Mr Sayoc was discovered due to DNA evidence no doubt left on the beer cans he made the bombs out of. Its straight out of the Anthrax post 9/11 playbook but fortunately without deadly consequences. How the dumb American Sheeple (apart from most Unz.com readers of course) can't see it is beyond me.

In terms of lone nut being the harbinger of domestic terrorism we had this in the UK with the Jo Cox case in 2016, where the mentally ill individual ( who I strongly suspect was controlled by the Deep State) was hustled off to the Old Bailey accused of being a white supremacist Brexit supporting terrorist and convicted in 3 days flat. No explanation of where he actually acquired his gun, why for such a racist he didnt harm Cox's Asian assistant even when she hit him with a handbag etc etc

Robert D Bowers is of course a homicidal maniac, Trump hater and gift horse to the ADL who have their first real anti- semitism case in decades. Makes a change from blacks or policemen shouting 'oy vey' or some other gross obscenity at Brooklyn Jews

Malaysian Truther , says: October 31, 2018 at 10:40 am GMT
@Hans Vogel Absolutely agree the dumbing down of education especially the absence of any critical thinking despite the presence of so called civics or citizenship on the curriculum is crucial to the success of the propaganda effort
Stephen Paul Foster , says: Website October 31, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT
No society can manage all of its fringe lunatics all of the time. So when one occasionally goes off rails ("postal" as they used to say) the ideologues who manage the propaganda outlets know that pointing to the obvious reality of the event doesn't advance the agenda. And, luckily for them there is always a handy abstraction, a scary "ism" or "obia" to hang on the event and smear a whole bunch of folks whose manners they disapprove of.
Jake , says: October 31, 2018 at 11:30 am GMT
Neoliberal Multicultural Globalist Capitalism is the new Marxism. Its true believers have learned from the failures of Marxists to rule the world forever, forcing the deplorable white trash to accept being cogs for ideological good, how to get the job done.
mcohen , says: October 31, 2018 at 11:40 am GMT
Whats more concerning is something stormy daniels said about trump ..that he is out of his depth.she might have ulterior motives but it somehow rings true.Combine that with sayoc and bowers types and one has to wonder how many more are there out there just waiting to make america great again
jilles dykstra , says: October 31, 2018 at 12:21 pm GMT
" news is just coming in from Guardian columnist Christina Patterson that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are also responsible for the Pittsburgh attack, "
I wonder if it is known that Soros owns the Guardian, so that, I fear, to the list CNN, Washpost and NYT, Guardian can be added.
As I wrote here just a few hours ago, I wondered why there was no political follow up on the Pittsburgh massacre.
But possibly this is it.
Cynics like me, who understand Pearl Harbour, Liberty, possibly Kennedy and Diana, certainly Sept 11, now wonder 'who did it ?', and 'why were just ten jews killed ?'.
Automatic weapons are freely available in the USA, what a few Muslims can do in Paris should be quite easy in the USA.
It is common practice with political murders to kill the murderer, such as Lee Harvey Oswald, dead men cannot talk.
But after the murder of Anna Lyndh it seems possible that better ways have been found to hide political murders.
jilles dykstra , says: October 31, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
@Hans Vogel If Hitler was the problem, why was not Germany beaten in 1938, when both the Chech and the Polish armies still existed ?
Attacked by Poland, Chechoslovakia, Britain and France, possibly the USSR too, Hitler Germany would have been beaten in a few weeks, historians agree on this.
Historians debating this question agree on the only possible solution: that Roosevelt wanted a long war, in which the USA would be the victor.
Dividing up Germany somehow between the mentioned four or five countries would bring the USA nothing.
Johnny Walker Read , says: October 31, 2018 at 12:51 pm GMT
It's all really quite simple, welcome to Orwell's 1984.
Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: October 31, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Hans Vogel http://www.voltairenet.org/article203672.html

voilà

DESERT FOX , says: October 31, 2018 at 2:12 pm GMT
These false flags are a part of the deep states efforts to keep the American people in a state of terror and hysteria to accept more and more government control over our lives and as long as the people accept these acts at face value without doing any checking on the facts , the deep state will have succeeded.
aandrews , says: October 31, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT
" as if your wack job was actually a rational person and not just a totally paranoid geek who decided to attempt to assassinate Reagan because he couldn't get a date with Jodie Foster ."

lol

well when you put it like that .

anon [271] Disclaimer , says: October 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
@mcohen

Whats more concerning is something stormy daniels said about trump ..that he is out of his depth.she might have ulterior motives but it somehow rings true.

its true, he's probably nowhere as intelligent as obozo but somehow he gets by

stormy sounds like an expert, maybe she can judge a man's IQ by the taste of his sperm

Agent76 , says: October 31, 2018 at 3:17 pm GMT
May 4, 2017 False Flag Exposed Caught Red Handed and Prevented

In this video, we give you the latest news of a false flag that has been prevented in Germany, the historical context of false flags, and importance in current politics.

May 07, 2014 The Oldest Trick In the Book: Empire Pretends It Has to Launch Wars to "Defend" Itself

Empires – almost by definition – fight imperial wars to gain land and resources. But if they admitted to their citizens what they were up to, people wouldn't be that excited in sacrificing their families' blood and treasure to fight a series of wars.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-oldest-trick-in-the-book-empire-pretends-it-has-to-launch-wars-to-defend-itself/5381067

wayfarer , says: October 31, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
False Flag Theories (Part 1.)

"False Flag? Al Qaeda, Jews, and Synagogues"

"MAGA Bomber and Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting False Flags"

"Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter, is an Actor!"

crimson2 , says: October 31, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
This website is filled with white nationalist terrorists. Learn to accept your losses with dignity, gents.
GamecockJerry , says: October 31, 2018 at 3:47 pm GMT
Patsy.
Cesar's good friend was an ex-Cia operative who he praised in Facebook post.
Who sends timed bombs in the mail?
No detonators?

Geez.

wayfarer , says: October 31, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
False Flag Theories (Part 2.)

"Game of Patsies!"

"Censorship has Won, the Banning of Gab Proves It"

Carroll Price , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra World War 2 may have continued indefinitely had not Russia been preparing to invade Japan, thus forcing the United States into dropping the bombs.
Carroll Price , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
Anyone assuming the Jewish-controlled Deep State would have any qualms about killing a few Jewish senior citizens to assure the revolution continues, are badly mistaken.
Jeff Stryker , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:25 pm GMT
@crimson2 LEARN TO ACCEPT YOUR LOSSES

They're born to lose and it is largely out of their hands. Part of it is Affirmative Action, part of it PC.

But some of it is being born in Podunk towns or exurbs of no importance.

Poor parents. Going to lousy public schools. Early parenthood. Broken marriages. Drugs. Petty problems with the police.

Hans Vogel , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
@Carroll Price FORCED to drop nuclear bombs? There is always a choice, even for a rogue state like the US. (Rather, a state, inhabited by many decent, trusting people, but run by ruthless criminals such as FDR, the Bushes, Obomba and the like). Besides, in early 1945 FDR received a detailed report by one of his generals to the effect that Japan was ready to surrender. Yet FDR, may he burn in hell, decided to ignore this and continue bombing Japanese cities: in March of 1945, Tokyo was bombed, and over 100.000 Japanese civilians were murdered. The Soviet Union had promised to join in the final assault on Japan, doing FDR a favor because he did not want to go it alone.
Curmudgeon , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes

People who never resort to 'foul' language are either dead inside, or are scheming scumbags trying to get one over on the crowd.

No one is in a position to determine whether "People never resort "

In the early 80s, I was at a social function where foul language use was part of the general conversation. A woman in her mid to late 40s who was sitting at the table rebuked us gently by stating that our profanities were a poor excuse for a bad vocabulary. There is a time and place for profanity, spouting off profanely at a political opponent in a public place does nothing for credibility.

As for calling a fig a fig, I seldom use the word cunt for the simple reason that a cunt has a use , while those who are often called cunts, don't.

Reuben Kaspate , says: October 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
Steve Sailer had vaunted about the Filipino becoming the new "Italian-american" in America Cesar Sayoc is both!
EliteCommInc. , says: October 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
" . . . jew lover . . ."

Nothing gave the game up as much as the attack on a synagogue. No president has had a more open love affair with Israel than Pres Trump.

It would take some astounding gymnastics to make a case this act was inspired by this executive.

Agent76 , says: October 31, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
@wayfarer Glad to view others keeping up with the fake dramas.

This October 29, 2018 FBI Drill Before Synagogue Shooting, Israel Bombs Hospital, Border Militarized & Bayer Stock Crashes

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours.

wayfarer , says: October 31, 2018 at 5:27 pm GMT

"We Have the Best Government that Money Can Buy"
– Mark Twain

"Arizona Senate Candidate Sinema "I can't be talking about" Gun Bans"

"James O'Keefe Responds to Kyrsten Sinema's Absurd Comments"

Rurik , says: October 31, 2018 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes

I am immediately suspicious about anyone whose 'authority' includes a costume – judges, pigs, TSA etc; likewise, anyone who relies on 'gravitas' or presentation (politicians, senior bureaucrats, diplomats, marketing shitheads).

If every one of those people were put to the sword by people screaming "FUCK YOU" at the top of their lungs, humanity would be better off.

I enjoyed your comment.

and agree wholeheartedly

(except for including 'pigs' with your litany of scoundrels. It's not fair to the inoffensive four-legged kind ; )

obwandiyag , says: October 31, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT
@anon Nice try. But, first of all, learn to write simply. Like the man said, all those words don't fit on a phone.

Secondly, you are absolutely right. ID politics is what our owners want. They want us to fight over who is oppressing whom. So it don't matter if you are pro-white or anti-white, pro-racism or anti, you are doing our master's bidding.

The only answer is blacks and whites and homosexuals and heterosexuals and women and men etc etc, all together, all as one, screaming, "Mo money mo money mo money mo money." But that won't happen because they find it easier to shame each other over meaningless nonsense like race and sex and other ridiculous identities.

obwandiyag , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT
@A C Cordeiro Like as if the exact same owners aren't funding the conservatives as well.

Confused loser.

ThreeCranes , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
To be a dissident in the 1960′s meant that one objected to the standard narrative of White-European greatness and blamelessness for conquering much of the world. Today it means just the opposite. The roles have reversed. Not only are Europeans not viewed as great but they are blamed for everything that is wrong anywhere, anytime. To be a dissident is to insist that Europeans aren't quite so bad as they are currently portrayed.

I never thought I'd say this but if Nixon were alive today he would appear as the very soul of rationality and a bastion of sanity compared to the current crop of rat-faced, unprincipled traitors who dominate the news. At least Nixon had the integrity to not sell out his country to an alien tribe of sleazy money changers, usurers and unpatriotic off-shore operators.

At one point in his life, Hunter Thompson thought things couldn't get any worse than Tricky Dick. Little did he suspect. It's likely that Thompson, at some point before he pulled the trigger, came to the belated realization that, compared to the debased venality of our present leaders, Nixon was an honorable man, a lover of his country and a loyal patriot. Watergate was a misdemeanor B & E compared to the rape and genocide of whites that is taking place today.

jilles dykstra , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Hans Vogel 'The English' in WII did not exist.
Many sympathized with Hitler
Ian Kershaw, ´Hitlers Freunde in England, Lord Londonderry und der Weg in den Krieg', (Making Friends with Hitler. Lord Londonderry and Britain's Road to War, 2004, London), München 2005
The Marquess of Londonderry, ´England blickt auf Deutschland, Um die deutsch-englische Verständigung, Essen 1938 (Ourselves and Germany, 1938)
Churchill loved war, he refused all Hitler's attempts at peace.
There seems to be a book Churchill's Toy Shop, did not read it, Churchill's personal weapons gadget development facility.
In this he was supported by his scientific advisor Lindemann
C.P.Snow, ´Science and government', 1961, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, 'Double standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up', London 2002
Günther W.Gellermann, 'Geheime Wege zum Frieden mit England , Ausgewählte Initiativen zur Beëndigung des Krieges 1940/1942', Bonn 1995
Stürmer, Teichmann, Treue 'Striking the Balance Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie. A family and a Bank', London 1994
Thomas E. Mahl, 'Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44', Dulles, Virginia, 1998
However, in Casablanca Churchill found out he was at the mercy of FDR
Francois Kersaudy, ´De Gaulle et Roosevelt, Le duel au sommet', Paris, 2004
If Churchill ever realised that LendLease was the end of the British empire, I wonder
R.F. Harrod, 'THE PROF, A personal memoir of Lord Cherwell', London, 1959
John Charmley,'Churchill's Grand Alliance, A provocative reassessment of the "Special relationship" between England and the U.S. from 1940 to 1957', 1995, London
John Charmley, 'Der Untergang des Britischen Empires, Roosevelt – Churchill und Amerikas Weg zur Weltmacht', Graz 2005
But the two essential books explaining why Chamberlain steered towards war, without wanting war:
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy', 1976, Oxford
The genocidal folly of bombing German women, children and old men:
Solly Zuckermann, 'From Apes to Warlords, an autobiography, 1904- 46', London 1988
Even the official post WWII British report on the bombing of Germany concluded that the damage to GB was equal to German damage, British damage defined as building and maintaining bombers, producing bombs, and, last but not in the least least, losing a whole generation of Britain's promising young men
Peter H. Nicoll, ´Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland, Ursachen, Methoden und Folgen des Zweiten Weltkriegs', 1963, 2001, Tübingen ( Britain's Blunder, 1953)
This last book also contains a calculation of how WWII impoverished the USA.
Wally , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm GMT
@Hans Vogel said:
"The described mechanism seems to me to have been taken right out of the Goebbels manual "

Oh really? What "manual" was that? Your indoctrination is showing.

Pie drops the ball when he talks about 'the Nazis' & the Battle of Britain, which was a result of British initiation of bombing purely civilian targets.

http://www.codoh.com

Wally , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:28 pm GMT
@Carroll Price The bombs did nothing to shorten the war.
Wally , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker And what shithole shtetl did your family come from?
Wally , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Carroll Price Indeed, they killed quite a few on 9/11.
Kevin O'Keeffe , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:52 pm GMT

The New York Times explained how Trump was employing a strategy called "stochastic terrorism," i.e., inspiring random acts of violence that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable!

Wow. Quasi-treasonous scumbaggery from the dominant press outlets has become so common, it rarely registers on me anymore. But this is an unusually detestable example.

anon [271] Disclaimer , says: October 31, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@obwandiyag

But that won't happen because they find it easier to shame each other over meaningless nonsense like race and sex and other ridiculous identities.

if this was true there would be no problem allowing hundreds of millions of africans into Europe, the U.S. etc but sub-saharan africans have IQs as low as 70 and have never built anything of substance in their existence

they have nothing to contribute except violence and crime

Hans Vogel , says: October 31, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
@Wally Are you familiar with the concept "figure of speech?"

What indoctrination are you referring to?

Hans Vogel , says: October 31, 2018 at 7:21 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Thanks for your bibliographical suggestions!

As for the English, I prefer this to the awkward term "British." (see also AJP Taylor's introduction to his English History, 1914-1945 ). As long as the English and English speakers usually refer to the Netherlands as "Holland," and US people call their country "America" and themselves "Americans," why should we not say English instead of British?" The English better get used to foreign usage, as have the Greeks ("Hellenes") and Hungarians ("Magyars").

Btw, the translator of Nicoll's book on your list agrees with me: he calls Britain "England!"

tyrone , says: October 31, 2018 at 7:57 pm GMT
Oops , you forgot one very important terrorist nest ..straight white male Trump supporters.
wayfarer , says: October 31, 2018 at 10:59 pm GMT
@Agent76

"Anything is better than lies and deceit!" ― Leo Tolstoy

tac , says: November 1, 2018 at 2:28 am GMT
@wayfarer Here is a video that Ron Unz should feature of a truly honest and great young American Jewish activist: Jeremy Rothe-Kushel and Greg McCarren of The Anecdote speak about this Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting:

[Oct 31, 2018] The United States has never fought a war of self-defense, not once, unless you count the Civil War, which was an all-American effort with no foreign enemy.

Oct 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 30, 2018 at 4:45 pm

"But the Army doesn't get to pick its wars."

Gee; that's sort of true – the politicians pick the wars the Army fights. The implication of that statement is that America always goes reluctantly into battle, after exhausting every attempt to reach a peaceful solution. The reality is much different, and the United States has never fought a war of self-defense, not once, unless you count the Civil War, which was an all-American effort with no foreign enemy. It has always been the attacker, in one context or another, and if the Army is gearing up for a major war in Europe, that's because that's the war the politicians are planning to have the Army fight. The last time I looked, the United States was not in Europe. But that's the attraction of a European war – it represents a chance to turn back the clock, and to reposition the USA as the world's dominant leader and sole superpower, before greed and manipulation and wedge issues and gender-politics distractions and the gradual corruption of the political class brought it to the sorry state of debauchery in which it now finds itself. Unfortunately Europe will have to experience a considerable degree of damage, as the host, but the Europeans have always been pretty good about taking one for the team. The important thing is that America will be untouched and totally committed to the rebuilding of Europe just like the last time.

Well, don't count on it. There were no ICBM's in the last war, and it's considerably easier, these days, to reach out and slap the fuck out of the one who is responsible for starting the whole thing.

[Oct 31, 2018] Russia enacts sanctions against Ukraine which will, among other things, prohibit transferring money from Russian to Ukrainian banks

Kind of continuation of neocon foreign policy success after 2014, at the expense of Ukrainian people.
Oct 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 29, 2018 at 3:27 pm

Uh oh; Russia enacts sanctions against Ukraine which will, among other things, prohibit transferring money from Russian to Ukrainian banks. There will still be ways for Ukrainian workers in Russia to get their pay home to relatives in Ukraine, but it just got the official Russian stamp of disapproval and it is going to be made more difficult.

There will also be embargoes against certain Ukrainian products (maybe it spells it out, I didn't watch the whole thing yet).

https://youtu.be/bgS__Idlq5w

[Oct 31, 2018] British must have hours of footage on Skripals that they have chosen not to reveal. And as the article concludes, the only logical reason for that is that it does not support the official narrative, since one has obviously been decided upon and vigorously defended.

Oct 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 30, 2018 at 3:21 am

Sic Semper Tyrannis: "LOOPS OF LIES RE 'SIGINT'" by David Habakkuk
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/10/loops-of-lies-re-sigint-by-david-habakkuk.html

LOOPS OF LIES RE 'SIGINT':

GIANNANGELLI'S CLAIMS, IN THE LIGHT OF

HIS EARLIER REPORTS ON GHOUTA, SKRIPALS.
####

Plenty of good stuff at the link including what we have read before.

The article leads me to this question: If whomever can fabricate Syrian Army messages, isn't there one small problem with it? I.e. The Brits may be hoovering up SIGNIT from Mount Troodos in Cyprus, but unless the radio signals are highly directional (and even then they emanate outwards), other nations are also recording these signals, such as Russia, which we never hear about.

Therefore, the Brits/8200 whomever must assume that the Russians have copies and would know if the former are putting up the bs and can call it out behind closed doors at the UN to other nations. So what's the point? Simply for building media outrage and DO SOMETHING! momentum, hoping to act first before it can be scotched? That's what used to happen in the past

Mark Chapman October 30, 2018 at 11:20 am
That's a really good piece, with loads of interesting information. What jumped out for me, though was what amounts to a professional acknowledgement of something that was introduced by commenters early on in the Skripal affair – the almost complete absence of CCTV footage of their movements and those of people close to them. As both sources point out, England is lousy with CCTV, you can barely move without being picked up on multiple cameras. Therefore the British must have hours of footage that they have chosen not to reveal. And as the article concludes, the only logical reason for that is that it does not support the official narrative, since one has obviously been decided upon and vigorously defended.

As an aside, it is tragic that intelligence is manipulated the way it is to present a desired conclusion. Because intelligence is supposed to be something like the irrefutable clue, the piece that doesn't fit, in detective stories. It is supposed to provide that epiphanous moment when you know what has transpired beyond any reasonable doubt. Every time that moment is discovered to have been brought about by fabrication and deceit so as to push an incorrect conclusion to the forefront, trust in the method diminishes. Consequently, the harder governments push this or that piece of evidence as the conclusive piece of proof which cannot be denied, the more likely it is to have been manufactured rather than discovered.

[Oct 30, 2018] Lightening Skies The Case for Optimism by Justin Raimondo

Oct 29, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Why American nationalism is different

[Oct 30, 2018] Why American Leaders Persist in Waging Losing Wars by William J. Astore

Notable quotes:
"... Let's face it: profits and power should be classified as perennial reasons why U.S. leaders persist in waging such conflicts. War may be a racket , as General Smedley Butler claimed long ago, but who cares these days since business is booming ? ..."
"... As former New York Times ..."
"... Add in, as well, the issue of political credibility. No president wants to appear weak and in the United States of the last many decades, pulling back from a war has been the definition of weakness. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of history, Astore is a ..."
"... . His personal blog is ..."
"... You seem to have missed it, but Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform. The real story is how the Deep State/Cabal turned him around, and how irrelevant elections are ..."
Oct 30, 2018 | www.unz.com

As America enters the 18th year of its war in Afghanistan and its 16th in Iraq, the war on terror continues in Yemen , Syria, and parts of Africa, including Libya, Niger , and Somalia . Meanwhile, the Trump administration threatens yet more war, this time with Iran . (And given these last years, just how do you imagine that's likely to turn out?) Honestly, isn't it time Americans gave a little more thought to why their leaders persist in waging losing wars across significant parts of the planet? So consider the rest of this piece my attempt to do just that.

Let's face it: profits and power should be classified as perennial reasons why U.S. leaders persist in waging such conflicts. War may be a racket , as General Smedley Butler claimed long ago, but who cares these days since business is booming ? And let's add to such profits a few other all-American motivations. Start with the fact that, in some curious sense, war is in the American bloodstream.

As former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges once put it , "War is a force that gives us meaning." Historically, we Americans are a violent people who have invested much in a self-image of toughness now being displayed across the " global battlespace ." (Hence all the talk in this country not about our soldiers but about our " warriors .") As the bumper stickers I see regularly where I live say: "God, guns, & guts made America free." To make the world freer, why not export all three?

Add in, as well, the issue of political credibility. No president wants to appear weak and in the United States of the last many decades, pulling back from a war has been the definition of weakness. No one -- certainly not Donald Trump -- wants to be known as the president who "lost" Afghanistan or Iraq. As was true of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the Vietnam years, so in this century fear of electoral defeat has helped prolong the country's hopeless wars. Generals, too, have their own fears of defeat, fears that drive them to escalate conflicts (call it the urge to surge) and even to advocate for the use of nuclear weapons, as General William Westmoreland did in 1968 during the Vietnam War.

Washington's own deeply embedded illusions and deceptions also serve to generate and perpetuate its wars. Lauding our troops as " freedom fighters " for peace and prosperity, presidents like George W. Bush have waged a set of brutal wars in the name of spreading democracy and a better way of life. The trouble is: incessant war doesn't spread democracy -- though in the twenty-first century we've learned that it does spread terror groups -- it kills it . At the same time, our leaders, military and civilian, have given us a false picture of the nature of the wars they're fighting. They continue to present the U.S. military and its vaunted "smart" weaponry as a precision surgical instrument capable of targeting and destroying the cancer of terrorism, especially of the radical Islamic variety. Despite the hoopla about them, however, those precision instruments of war turn out to be blunt indeed , leading to the widespread killing of innocents, the massive displacement of people across America's war zones, and floods of refugees who have, in turn, helped spark the rise of the populist right in lands otherwise still at peace.

Lurking behind the incessant warfare of this century is another belief, particularly ascendant in the Trump White House: that big militaries and expensive weaponry represent " investments " in a better future -- as if the Pentagon were the Bank of America or Wall Street. Steroidal military spending continues to be sold as a key to creating jobs and maintaining America's competitive edge, as if war were America's primary business. (And perhaps it is!)

Those who facilitate enormous military budgets and frequent conflicts abroad still earn special praise here. Consider, for example, Senator John McCain's rapturous final sendoff, including the way arms maker Lockheed Martin lauded him as an American hero supposedly tough and demanding when it came to military contractors. (And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.)

Put all of this together and what you're likely to come up with is the American version of George Orwell's famed formulation in his novel 1984 : "war is peace."

The War the Pentagon Knew How to Win

Twenty years ago, when I was a major on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, a major concern was the possible corroding of civil-military relations -- in particular, a growing gap between the military and the civilians who were supposed to control them. I'm a clipper of newspaper articles and I saved some from that long-gone era. "Sharp divergence found in views of military and civilians," reported the New York Times in September 1999. "Civilians, military seen growing apart," noted the Washington Post a month later. Such pieces were picking up on trends already noted by distinguished military commentators like Thomas Ricks and Richard Kohn. In July 1997, for instance, Ricks had written an influential Atlantic article, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society." In 1999, Kohn gave a lecture at the Air Force Academy titled "The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today."

A generation ago, such commentators worried that the all-volunteer military was becoming an increasingly conservative and partisan institution filled with generals and admirals contemptuous of civilians, notably then-President Bill Clinton. At the time, according to one study , 64% of military officers identified as Republicans, only 8% as Democrats and, when it came to the highest levels of command, that figure for Republicans was in the stratosphere, approaching 90%. Kohn quoted a West Point graduate as saying, "We're in danger of developing our own in-house Soviet-style military, one in which if you're not in 'the party,' you don't get ahead." In a similar fashion, 67% of military officers self-identified as politically conservative, only 4% as liberal.

In a 1998 article for the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings , Ricks noted that "the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the military" had gone from "about 4 to 1 in 1976, which is about where I would expect a culturally conservative, hierarchical institution like the U.S. military to be, to 23 to 1 in 1996." This "creeping politicization of the officer corps," Ricks concluded, was creating a less professional military, one in the process of becoming "its own interest group." That could lead, he cautioned, to an erosion of military effectiveness if officers were promoted based on their political leanings rather than their combat skills.

How has the civil-military relationship changed in the last two decades? Despite bending on social issues (gays in the military, women in more combat roles), today's military is arguably neither more liberal nor less partisan than it was in the Clinton years. It certainly hasn't returned to its citizen-soldier roots via a draft. Change, if it's come, has been on the civilian side of the divide as Americans have grown both more militarized and more partisan (without any greater urge to sign up and serve). In this century, the civil-military divide of a generation ago has been bridged by endless celebrations of that military as "the best of us" (as Vice President Mike Pence recently put it).

Such expressions, now commonplace, of boundless faith in and thankfulness for the military are undoubtedly driven in part by guilt over neither serving, nor undoubtedly even truly caring. Typically, Pence didn't serve and neither did Donald Trump (those pesky " heel spurs "). As retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich put it in 2007: "To assuage uneasy consciences, the many who do not serve [in the all-volunteer military] proclaim their high regard for the few who do. This has vaulted America's fighting men and women to the top of the nation's moral hierarchy. The character and charisma long ago associated with the pioneer or the small farmer -- or carried in the 1960s by Dr. King and the civil-rights movement -- has now come to rest upon the soldier." This elevation of "our" troops as America's moral heroes feeds a Pentagon imperative that seeks to isolate the military from criticism and its commanders from accountability for wars gone horribly wrong .

Paradoxically, Americans have become both too detached from their military and too deferential to it. We now love to applaud that military, which, the pollsters tell us, enjoys a significantly higher degree of trust and approval from the public than the presidency, Congress, the media, the Catholic church, or the Supreme Court. What that military needs, however, in this era of endless war is not loud cheers, but tough love.

As a retired military man, I do think our troops deserve a measure of esteem. There's a selfless ethic to the military that should seem admirable in this age of selfies and selfishness. That said, the military does not deserve the deference of the present moment, nor the constant adulation it gets in endless ceremonies at any ballpark or sporting arena. Indeed, deference and adulation, the balm of military dictatorships, should be poison to the military of a democracy.

With U.S. forces endlessly fighting ill-begotten wars, whether in Vietnam in the 1960s or in Iraq and Afghanistan four decades later, it's easy to lose sight of where the Pentagon continues to maintain a truly winning record: right here in the U.S.A. Today, whatever's happening on the country's distant battlefields, the idea that ever more inflated military spending is an investment in making America great again reigns supreme -- as it has, with little interruption, since the 1980s and the era of President Ronald Reagan.

The military's purpose should be, as Richard Kohn put it long ago, "to defend society, not to define it. The latter is militarism." With that in mind, think of the way various retired military men lined up behind Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, including a classically unhinged performance by retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (he of the "lock her up" chants) for Trump at the Republican convention and a shout-out of a speech by retired General John Allen for Clinton at the Democratic one. America's presidential candidates, it seemed, needed to be anointed by retired generals, setting a dangerous precedent for future civil-military relations.

A Letter From My Senator

A few months back, I wrote a note to one of my senators to complain about America's endless wars and received a signed reply via email. I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that it was a canned response, but no less telling for that. My senator began by praising American troops as "tough, smart, and courageous, and they make huge sacrifices to keep our families safe. We owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service." OK, I got an instant warm and fuzzy feeling, but seeking applause wasn't exactly the purpose of my note.

My senator then expressed support for counterterror operations, for, that is, "conducting limited, targeted operations designed to deter violent extremists that pose a credible threat to America's national security, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), localized extremist groups, and homegrown terrorists." My senator then added a caveat, suggesting that the military should obey "the law of armed conflict" and that the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress hastily approved in the aftermath of 9/11 should not be interpreted as an "open-ended mandate" for perpetual war.

Finally, my senator voiced support for diplomacy as well as military action, writing, "I believe that our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the toolbox -- including defense, diplomacy, and development -- to advance U.S. security and economic interests around the world." The conclusion: "robust" diplomacy must be combined with a "strong" military.

Now, can you guess the name and party affiliation of that senator? Could it have been Lindsey Graham or Jeff Flake, Republicans who favor a beyond-strong military and endlessly aggressive counterterror operations? Of course, from that little critical comment on the AUMF, you've probably already figured out that my senator is a Democrat. But did you guess that my military-praising, counterterror-waging representative was Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts?

Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. And her letter did stipulate that she believed "military action should always be a last resort." Still, nowhere in it was there any critique of, or even passingly critical commentary about, the U.S. military, or the still-spreading war on terror, or the never-ending Afghan War, or the wastefulness of Pentagon spending, or the devastation wrought in these years by the last superpower on this planet. Everything was anodyne and safe -- and this from a senator who's been pilloried by the right as a flaming liberal and caricatured as yet another socialist out to destroy America.

I know what you're thinking: What choice does Warren have but to play it safe? She can't go on record criticizing the military. (She's already gotten in enough trouble in my home state for daring to criticize the police.) If she doesn't support a "strong" U.S. military presence globally, how could she remain a viable presidential candidate in 2020?

And I would agree with you, but with this little addendum: Isn't that proof that the Pentagon has won its most important war, the one that captured -- to steal a phrase from another losing war -- the "hearts and minds" of America? In this country in 2018, as in 2017, 2016, and so on, the U.S. military and its leaders dictate what is acceptable for us to say and do when it comes to our prodigal pursuit of weapons and wars.

So, while it's true that the military establishment failed to win those "hearts and minds" in Vietnam or more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure as hell didn't fail to win them here. In Homeland, U.S.A., in fact, victory has been achieved and, judging by the latest Pentagon budgets , it couldn't be more overwhelming.

If you ask -- and few Americans do these days -- why this country's losing wars persist, the answer should be, at least in part: because there's no accountability. The losers in those wars have seized control of our national narrative. They now define how the military is seen (as an investment, a boon, a good and great thing); they now shape how we view our wars abroad (as regrettable perhaps, but necessary and also a sign of national toughness); they now assign all serious criticism of the Pentagon to what they might term the defeatist fringe.

In their hearts, America's self-professed warriors know they're right. But the wrongs they've committed, and continue to commit, in our name will not be truly righted until Americans begin to reject the madness of rampant militarism, bloated militaries, and endless wars.

A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of history, Astore is a TomDispatch regular . His personal blog is Bracing Views .

bob sykes , says: October 26, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT

You seem to have missed it, but Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform. The real story is how the Deep State/Cabal turned him around, and how irrelevant elections are .

Another issue is whether or not the US military, especially its flag officers, are even minimally competent. One suspects they are not.

Dutch Boy , says: October 26, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
@bob sykes Too true. Trump also promised to go after the pharmaceutical corporations but has instead appointed industry insiders to the regulatory positions. He also bought into the Republican tax cut mania with his foolish corporate tax cut. I suspect that Trump's weakness of character has made it impossible for him to effectively oppose Washington's usual suspects and their usual policies.
AnonFromTN , says: October 26, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
For a small fraction of the enormous amounts of money Pentagon gets every year any half-competent political technologist in the US can promote Devil himself as a Savior and make people believe it.
Anon [340] Disclaimer , says: October 26, 2018 at 11:01 pm GMT
"American" leaders persist with these stupid wars because they don't fundamentally share a connection with actual Americans. They are like foreign monarchs who don't speak the native language. Hence, they don't really care about the locals.
Paw , says: October 27, 2018 at 2:46 am GMT
Soon they run up out of the forces. And compulsory military service id the end of their fun.
Stupid Cupid.
How are those differences different. When two navy ships cried ,that they were allegedly attacked ,so the US can declare more war on the North Vietnam.
Real and bloody attack the ship Liberty and many deaths , resulted , that, pres. Johnson shitted himself only and peacefully. .
the grand wazoo , says: Website October 27, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT
From the tenor of the 1st 3 paragraphs, one could get the idea that the Central Bankers have America right where they want her, by the short hairs. Yes folks they have us, and we're on the fast track to bankruptcy, and foreclosure. If you think I'm full of it look into the situation in Greece. That poor nation, with help form the Fed, is being cannibalized by the Euro Central Bankers. Greece has been forced to sell it's national assets, and treasures, everything on, above and below ground. The deadly and terrible fires which captured world headlines for a few weeks this summers were to cover the screams of 11 million Greeks as they watched their natural resources auctioned off to foreigners (Greek citizens were barred from bidding) at discount, pennies on the dollar. Even the Royal Jewels of Greece were sold. Don't believe me, read up on it.
Yes I believe the wild fires in Greece this summer were not so wild, or natural. The fires were a false flag used to steal attention away from the rape of a once great nation. Nothing but a false flag. A gift form the heartless Central Bankers.
Gordo , says: October 27, 2018 at 7:07 am GMT

How has the civil-military relationship changed in the last two decades? Despite bending on social issues (gays in the military, women in more combat roles),

Who is that bending to? Certainly not ordinary civilians, the chattering classes perhaps.

tyrone , says: October 27, 2018 at 1:21 pm GMT
I hope you're not one of those "peace through de- moralized military "people .It's not the fighting man's fault we're in all these crappy wars ,it's the politicians ..Or would you rather have our soldiers spit on when they go out in public Major?
The Scalpel , says: Website October 27, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT
@tyrone "would you rather have our soldiers spit on when they go out in public"

I would rather have soldiers (not OUR soldiers) take responsibility for their actions instead of the "I was just following orders" cop out. They should not volunteer for anything going on right now, and they should refuse unlawful, unconstitutional, or immoral orders if they are already in the military. After all, these are humans capable of thinking and making moral decisions. They are not GI Joe dolls

Curmudgeon , says: October 28, 2018 at 12:03 am GMT
@Dutch Boy Well to date, at least Trump hasn't started any wars. Not only that, his "craziness" seems to be allowing the Koreans to decide their own fate. If they come up with an end to their war, will anyone sane in the US say no? One down, lots more to go.

I might add,m that his Russian rhetoric is actually pushing the EU and Russia closer together. Bye Bye NATO?

TLDR , says: October 28, 2018 at 2:05 am GMT
American leaders lose and lose and lose because Congress is composed of chumps with no balls like Ro Khanna.Look at this half-assed stab at reinventing the wheel to CIA specifications

https://fellowtravelersblog.com/2018/10/23/ro-khanna-five-principles/

The world has already set the rules out in gnat's-ass detail, and the US is bound by it. Just say so, for chrissake.

First of all, what he seems to be getting at with 'restraint' is codified in binding black-letter international law and case law. The right to self-defense is subject to necessity and proportionality tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this waffle, just say, the president must commit to faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, specifically including UN Charter Chapter 7.

Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Under universal jurisdiction law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject to ICCPR Article 4 and the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security is respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights.

Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but he doesn't deal with the underlying issue: CIA has infested State with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You need to explicitly tie State's mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in State.

Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted. Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.

So purge these eunuchs and get us a law'norder candidate. Like a Grayson.

Unrepentant Conservative , says: October 28, 2018 at 7:58 am GMT
As much as I enjoy shooting holes in inanimate objects and seeing stuff blown up into little pieces, I want to see my country (what's left of it anyway) drastically reduce the number of its foreign military bases and cease provoking China and Russia with its adolescent shenanigans. Cutting our losses and leaving Afghanistan after 18 years of folly would also be a plus. Japan, South Korea and most NATO members are sufficiently grown up to handle and fund their own military affairs and adventure wars without an American presence and logistical support. As for the ME, withdraw completely and allow them to return to type. Trade with them only as necessary and stop importing their cretinous minions to the US. The US military needs to be repurposed to a robust defense of North America, border and port security and maintaining freedom of movement in sea lanes in cooperation with other nations. As for knuckle-cracking Neocons and warmongering MIC bureaucrats, sack the lot and let them take up selling shoes.
The Alarmist , says: October 28, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
Makes sense: You haven't lost the war if it never ends.

Kind of ironic that America's biggest export business is subject to having its supply chain crippled on any given day by America's largest rival. As another great American hero once quipped, "Stupid is as stupid does."

AnonFromTN , says: October 28, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Unrepentant Conservative Judging by the quality of their policies, the shoes they might sell would hardly be wearable. I suggest sending them all to Saudi Barbaria or another place where their ilk is in charge.
P-700 Granit , says: October 29, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT
No such thing as "losing wars". They're meant to be sustained for as long as possible.
Jeff Stryker , says: October 29, 2018 at 4:54 am GMT
If war is such a good racket why has the US worse off today then it was in the 1990′s between the Cold War and the War on Terror?

The nineties seem implausibly prosperous today.

There was no deficit after the Clinton administration.

wayfarer , says: October 29, 2018 at 4:55 am GMT
"All Wars, are Bankers' Wars!"

"Cannon Fodder, Growing Up for Vietnam"
source: http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/a44/cf.htm

Rhisiart Gwilym , says: October 29, 2018 at 7:15 am GMT
Or, to put this article more economically: The USAmerican empire continues on the irreversible path to which all empires come eventually: decline and fall. Meanwhile, the new imperial sun rises in the North/East. The nazis' Tausand Jahre Reich lasted about twelve years, counting from their initiating false-flag – the Reichstag fire – to the fall of Berlin to the Red Army.* How long for 'the New American Century', counting from its initiating false-flag, 11/9/01? (British notation ) Twenty five years? Thirty? Less?

And as usual with standard-issue disintegrating empires, only a few can see clearly what's happening. And no-one – but no-one – can do anything effective to stop it. If you like 'classical' music, listen again to the insane march episode in the first movement of Shostakovich's 7th Symphony, 'The Leningrad'. Perfect encapsulation of the inevitable fate of empires.

What's that you say? The USAmerican empire isn't a standard-issue one? "This time it's different!"? If you think that, then clearly you're not one of the few who can see clearly what's happening – as usual. Wake up soon!
________________

* Sure, the piddling USuketc. forces got to West Berlin about the same time. But does any sane, properly-informed person still think it wasn't the Russians who did the serious heavy lifting in WW2

Miro23 , says: October 29, 2018 at 7:30 am GMT
Another place the US military is winning is in defending the US Dollar.

If any ME oil producer suggests going off the dollar standard they get whacked . That's what happened to Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and Muamar Gadafi (Libya) and the threat to Iran. Recently Mohamed bin Salam (Saudi Arabia) just got a strong reminder of who is in charge and to stop favouring the Petro/Yuan.

The existing US Dollar world currency reserve status has a lot of advantages, since world trade has to be priced in it, and world traders have to buy it. Take away this demand and the dollar is only backed by the US economy (permanent deficits) and its value plummets.

If for example the dollar lost 50% of its value then the US could no longer fund on credit ME wars, the MIC , special interests, welfare etc. as it is doing at present. The dollar would have to return to its true value making the US an entirely different place.

Apart from the political impact, outsourcing would shut down, profits would disappear, the military would have to pull out of bases around the world and ME wars would stop . The US public would have less purchasing power, having to get used to living at the level of its social development indicators (for example PISA test scores) somewhere in the region of lower ranking European countries.

Sollipsist , says: October 29, 2018 at 8:31 am GMT
"presidents like George W. Bush have waged a set of brutal wars"

Not a bad example, but pretty conspicuously the only one given. I'm guessing he lives in a timeline in which Democrats were sometimes manipulated into failing to curb the warmongering excess of their thoroughly evil Republican predecessors. I won't hold my breath waiting for him to credit Nixon and Reagan with ending the two longest-running wars of the 20th Century.

Tom Welsh , says: October 29, 2018 at 9:20 am GMT
A cartoons that says it all:
Tom Welsh , says: October 29, 2018 at 9:23 am GMT
@Tom Welsh And another:

https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDi-NDu2XoAUSh6i.jpg&key=9qFiHdP41K6ADQbPq1VDSw&w=800&h=440

Wally Streeter , says: October 29, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
Democracies fight wars as necessary, whereas Empires are constantly at war to preserve a power structure with them on top. Winning the war and getting it over with is the goal in the first case. Not losing a war and maintaining a threat to your opponents is the goal in the second. This illustrates why empires eventually fall: it takes a constant expenditure of energy to try to dominate everyone and the empire eventually can't back up its' non-stop bullying.

It's not military weakness that is causing the US to slowly lose wars. Military reforms wouldn't make US forces vastly more effective and capable of "winning". The problem is the political context under which the military is employed. As long as the US is engaged in building and maintaining an empire, the situation won't change.

Realist , says: October 29, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
@bob sykes

You seem to have missed it, but Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform. The real story is how the Deep State/Cabal turned him around, and how irrelevant elections are.

Trump wasn't turned around he is just a lair. He is a member of the Deep State.

Da Wei , says: October 29, 2018 at 11:58 am GMT
@Unrepentant Conservative "As for knuckle-cracking Neocons and warmongering MIC bureaucrats, sack the lot and let them take up selling shoes."

Who'd wear them? They'd explode.

Da Wei , says: October 29, 2018 at 12:05 pm GMT
Like Eric Margolis said, you don't win a war by killing people. You win a war by achieving your strategic objective. Now, absent that, what the hell's the point? 1) Bushels of Money; 2) Perpetual Chaos. And that pair would make Trotsky and his backers proud. So, we haven't come far, only deeper.
DESERT FOX , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
Wars in the Zionist template are not meant to be won, the wars are fought to terrorize both the American people and the people of the targeted country and thus increase the governments control over America and increase the profits of the Zionist banking cabal that perpetrated the wars.

Read Orwells 1984 in the chapter on why wars are fought and as Orwell says , wars are not fought to be won, they are fought to control the people and chew up the resources of the countries in both sides of the conflict and keep the people on both sides in a state of terror from a created terror threat, just as it is here in America aka Oceania.

The war on terror is a created lie, the Zionist controlled U.S. and Israel and Britain and NATO created ISIS aka AL CIADA to provide the excuse to fight a threat that they created by the Zionist controlled deep state and Israels attack on the WTC which led to the 17 year war against the created threat.

America will never have peace as long as America is under Zionist control which it has been since 1913 with the passage of the Zionist privately owned FED and IRS, which gives Zionist bankers the ability to create money out of thin air to fund their wars and the IRS gives them the power to tax the America people to pay for the Zionist wars.

Free America from Zionist control abolish the FED and the IRS.

TG , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
Yes, well said, but one quibble: "Invest" in Wall Street? haha. At least with our ridiculous winless wars we get to keep some sliver our our technological base. Wall Street is purely parasitic
RVBlake , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:19 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker Good for the Military/Industrial complex Not for us.
Johnny Walker Read , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:28 pm GMT
The biggest reason these wars go on and on and on is there is no draft. Anyone who was alive during the Vietnam era knows this to be true. It was the anti-war, which in reality was the anti-draft movement that put an end to the quagmire which was Vietnam.

Any one who will admit the truth knows we here in America do not care about anything that does not concern us. As long as I don't have to go fight and die in some shit hole country, I really can't be bothered with such things. The "haves" will never worry about the fate of the "have not's".

The Empire is assured a steady stream of new "volunteers" as we have shipped our jobs and manufacturing over seas. The poor with no prospects for a career, or even a job in anything above the fast food industry see the military as their only hope for any kind of a future. Charlie Daniels states in his song Long Haired Country Boy "A rich man goes to college and a poor man goes to work". To be brought up to date, the line needs to be re-written as "A rich man goes to college and a poor man goes to war".

The Empire(and its lap dogs the media)learned it had brighten the image of the armed forces. No more stories of soldiers being spit on and called baby killers when they returned home. It now would be yellow ribbons and waving flags for our soldiers returning home to a hero's welcome.

If you think this perspective is incorrect, imagine the average college student, the ones who had to take the day off from school when Trump was elected would react if they received the following in the mail:
Greeting: You are hereby ordered for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States and to report at Local Board No. 54, 24800 Mission Blvd., Hayward California on November 30th 2018 at 6:45 A.M.
Willful failure to report at the place and hour of the day named in this Order subjects the violator to fine and imprisonment.

RVBlake , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT
@Realist Trump didn't fill his Cabinet with the type of people who would be eager to pursue his promises of troop withdrawals. It was alarming to see the inflow of generals and bankers.
Iberiano , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
"The character and charisma long ago associated with the pioneer or the small farmer -- or carried in the 1960s by Dr. King and the civil-rights movement -- has now come to rest upon the soldier." This elevation of "our" troops as America's moral heroes feeds a Pentagon imperative that seeks to isolate the military from criticism and its commanders from accountability for wars gone horribly wrong."

You mean, that Dr. King ? the one who largely copied his "I have a dream speech" (from Republican Archibald Carey Jr.), plagiarized his doctoral thesis, was a serial adulterer, and who denied the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection, all while claiming to be a Christian preacher– a man who at the same time saw fit to "instruct" Americans about the content of their character on other matters?

You don't have to be a Christian, nor believe in faithful marriages, fundamental and orthodox Christian doctrine, or the integrity of academic papers to see that your use of MLK here, is based upon the same moral and ethical logic that demands respect for the military, while shielding it from criticism. It's the same game of constant and escalating virtue signaling.

Iberiano , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
@Wally Streeter Completely agree.
Avery , says: October 29, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker {If war is such a good racket why has the US worse off }

Depending whose ox is being not-gored.

US – as a country of your average American taxpayers – is definitely worse off: relentlessly growing national debt, higher and higher t taxes, deterioration of infrastructure, loss of purchasing power.
Because the negative changes are small, they are not generally noticed.
But it is clear, if you know where to look, the country is gradually falling apart.

On the other hand – US as the top 1%, the rulers, the connected etc – is doing great.
Top 1% now own about 40% of wealth in US.
The gap has widened over the years and keeps widening
For all practical purposes the American middle class has disappeared or disappearing depending where you are.

"Middle class" husband and wife both have to work to raise 1 or maybe 2 kids.
Many moons ago just the husband worked and Americans easily raised 3-4 kids.

jsigur , says: Website October 29, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
Unfortunately, the deep state obviously considers these wars "wins". Failing to recognize that the enemy, in fact, rules us, helps continue the inevitability of that rule
Jim Bob Lassiter , says: October 29, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT
This piece is sort of like a military campaign that is well executed all the way up until the end nears.

Then some shit bird tosses something into the punch bowl.

"Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. "

RVBlake , says: October 29, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT
@Iberiano Yes, the inclusion of MLK as a moral exemplar was a speed bump.
Mr. Anon , says: October 29, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
@tyrone

I hope you're not one of those "peace through de- moralized military "people .It's not the fighting man's fault we're in all these crappy wars ,it's the politicians ..Or would you rather have our soldiers spit on when they go out in public Major?

I would prefer that people stop all this "they're fighting for our freedom" bulls ** t, as it is transparent nonsense. "Our troops" are certainly not fighting for our freedom. If they are, they're doing a really lousy job, because they've been fighting nearly non-stop for 17 years now, and yet we are getting steadily less free.

Mr. Anon , says: October 29, 2018 at 2:26 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

Well to date, at least Trump hasn't started any wars. Not only that, his "craziness" seems to be allowing the Koreans to decide their own fate. If they come up with an end to their war, will anyone sane in the US say no? One down, lots more to go.

I'm very ambivalent about the whole Korean thing. What happens if the North Korean regime falls and Korea is unified under the southern regime – essentially the same scenario that happened to Germany? Will our military stay there? Something tells me that the Pentagon and whatever administration is in power at that time will answer yes. That would place an American ally with American soldiers right on the border of China. Is that a good idea? I don't think so – it seems a lot more dangerous in the long run than having, as we have now, a buffer between us, even if that buffer is one of the crazy Kims with their Baby's-First-Nuclear-Arsenal.

Superpowers (by which I mean any country with nuclear weapons) need to not border one another, especially when one of them is the United States.

Jeff Stryker , says: October 29, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
@Avery It sure went downhill since I left the US in 1999. If you had been overseas for 20 years like I have, being a single white male with no reason to return to the United States, believe me you'd see the difference.
nsa , says: October 29, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
Hey, Astore ..how can you keyboard a screed concerning the ongoing wanton destruction of the Mideast without once fingering the conniving jooies for pushing their selfish agenda relentlessly? Your precious US military has simply been reduced to a well equipped and financed group of mercenaries hired on to operate as the attack wing of the IDF. Everyone knows it including you .
Reuben Kaspate , says: October 29, 2018 at 3:27 pm GMT
Apart from the cliche, "wars are for profits and power", the other important reason to keep the troops abroad would be to prevent a civil war at home by the "God, guns and guts"crowd, who might be tempted to carry out more Pittsburgh style attacks on those who don't fit into the rightwing narrative, as the comment number two amply demonstrates.
MacNucc11 , says: October 29, 2018 at 3:27 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon I agree. I don't usually agree with Trumps rhetoric but the results seem to be working for us in ways. NATO going away would be a huge win for the American people and the world.
Carroll Price , says: October 29, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@anon Visit any military base and you'll see more dark-complexioned, foreigner-born individuals than you do fair-skinned native-born Americans.

[Oct 29, 2018] People really just don't give a fuck about midterm elections

Oct 29, 2018 | caucus99percent.com


@Big Al
They just don't. Can't be bothered. Is as simple as that.

They're happy making their $50K, $60K, $70K, and their friends all making $50K, $60K, $70K,
and they wonder what those making $20K, 30K, $40K are complaining about??
Becuz, obviously, if the $35K slackers went to college or simply worked harder they'd be making $50K, $60K, $70K like everybody else they know! Instead of their crappy $35K.
And if they're not... who cares??

The $60K crowd is happy making $60K, and can't be bothered about the whiney pants Libruls whining about this and that, becuz... well, becuz they're happy making $60K and everything else is irrelevant, a nuisance, doesn't affect them in any meaningful way, so... fuck the gays, fuck the illegals, I'm NOT going to pay for Your Health Insurance, so fuck Obamacare, fuck Med4All Berniecare, fuck. it. all.!!

[Oct 29, 2018] Obama was just as bad as Bush II

Oct 29, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Yes yes Trump bad, but what makes you any better? After all lets take a look at some of the things Bombs and bailouts . . ahem . . hope and change actually did.

* Assassinate US citizens with drone strikes. And their children
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-...

* Repeal the Propaganda ban, making it legal to spread government propaganda via news outlets.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/planting-stories-in-the-press-lifting-of-u...

* Use the Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Including the prosecution of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-st...

* Brokered $278 billion in weapon sales, double that of Bush, a majority of which are backing the Saudis
https://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/11/obamas-final-arms-export-tal... But remember, only Trump has blood on his hands from a Saudi connection.

* Despite campaign pledges, worked to modernize and increase America's nuclear arsenal
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/12/15/obama-backs-bigges...

* Drop bombs on 7 Muslim countries.
(Too many links to count)

* Initiated, and personally oversee a 'Secret Kill List.'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/16/aclu-files-new-lawsuit-ove...

* Deploy Special Ops to 138 countries in 2016 - nearly double than under Bush.
https://www.thenation.com/article/american-special-forces-are-deployed-t...

* Mandate the Insider Threat Program which orders federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/insider-threats/article...

* Sign a new the Patriot Act extension into law.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/27/congress.patriot.act/index.html

* End his term with 26171 bombs across the middle east, after 8 years of endless war
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26...

And of course lets ask out Democrat friends to have a moment of honesty. If not even HALF of that were being done by Trump how fast would (or should) they be actually resisting?

Meanwhile the complete utter lack of accountability, the fact Democrats are pathologically incapable of facing themselves in a way that would make Dorian Gray blush, is beyond infuriating. But what can you expect from a party that tries this brand of twisted logic to Justify calling Ivanka Trump a "c-word" When going off the deep end about that term being used by the right?

[Oct 29, 2018] We Were Made for Civil War

Notable quotes:
"... Today's Blue elite represents the greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially divorced from the realities of normal American life -- glittering bubbles of sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion, Blue's protests ring the most false . ..."
Oct 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Today, two righteous paths are gridlocked in opposition. Both perceive themselves as champions of national renewal, of cleansing corrupted ideals, and of truly fulfilling America's promise. Both fervently believe that they alone own virtue. Yet the banners of each course are absolutist mirrors of one another, pro and contra, all or nothing. Moreover, lightning rod issues, as in the 1770s and 1850s, make the space between battle lines a no man's land, forcing majority moderates and compromising fence-sitters to choose or be called out as willing collaborators with the other.

Today's lightning rods -- a feminist reordering of jurisprudence , a state-promoted LGBT agenda, closed or open borders, full gun rights guarantees -- should not be seen as mere hot-button issues that can be manipulated at will by political party elites. These are way-of-life banners for two warring coalitions. Iconic issues that now represent the future of two tribal alliances are taking the place of a former, single nation. The time for compromise is over.

Othering. Here, the barren and inhospitable new civic space is dominated along looming, fortified lines. Warring identities have concluded that the only solution is the complete submission of the enemy party, and both sides are beginning to prepare for an ultimate showdown . Othering is a transforming process, through which former kin are reimagined as evil, an American inner-enemy, who once defeated must be punished. The most familiar metaphor of American othering was the 1770s practice of tarring and feathering . This less-than-lethal mob punishment corresponds -- in shaming power and severity -- to mob vengeance pervasive today on social media outlets such as Twitter.

Hence, to work fully as othering, the process must be public, result in the shame of the transgressor, and show that true virtue is in command. More than anything, othering is a ceremonial act designed to bring shame not just on the single person being tarred and feathered, but the entire community to which he belongs. The political object of #MeToo is not the numerically bounded set of guilty men, but rather the entire population set of all men . The political object of Black Lives Matter is not racists, but rather all white people . The political object of the LGBT movement is not homophobes, but rather the whole of straight cisgender society whose reality compass they seek to transform.

The targeted other, equally seized by virtue, operates today from an angry defensive crouch. Thus do corporate elites support marquee Blue "social justice" agendas on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube while censoring counterarguments and comment by Red. This is exactly the goal in this struggle: namely, to condition moderates to widespread acquiescence of a loud and insistent Blue agenda, while subtly coercing them to choose sides. They do this by arraigning Red as social losers, the future minority tribe, on their eventual way to the dustbin of history.

Red and Blue already represent an irreparable religious schism, deeper in doctrinal terms even than the 16th-century Catholic-Protestant schism. The war here is over which faction successfully captures the (social media) flag as true inheritor of American virtue.

The Decision. Othering's most decisive effect is to condition the whole of society to believe that an existential clash is coming, that all must choose, and that there are no realistic alternatives to a final test of wills. Remember, in past times, Jacobins on both sides were small minorities. Yet for either one of these two angry visions to win, there must be a showdown. This demands, perversely, that they work together to bring on open conflict, successfully coercing the majority of Americans to buy into its inevitability. At that point, only a trigger pull is needed.

This was what the Boston Massacre did to push colonials against Britain in 1770, and this is what John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre and Congressman Preston Brooks's caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor did to push people toward civil war in 1856. This is what the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh and the nearly two-year effort to delegitimize and overthrow President Donald Trump may doing today: getting the two halves of the former nation to pull that trigger.

The Fight. If the political balance shifts dramatically, then conflict checks -- held in place by lingering political norms and a longstanding electoral standoff -- disintegrate. Suddenly, both newly advantaged and disadvantaged parties rush to a test of wills sooner rather than later. A triggering incident becomes a spark -- yet the spark itself does not ignite. Rather, it is the readiness for combat in this emerging "community of violence" that makes a fight the natural way forward. In 1774, the Sons of Liberty were spoiling for a fight. In the 1850s, Jayhawkers and Border Ruffians were equally primed to hit back. That pushed the nation to civil war.

Evidence from history and our own eyes tells us that we are deep into phase four. Three takeaways show us how close we are to real battle.

Both sides rush to tear down the constitutional order. Just since the 2016 election, we have witnessed a rolling thunder of Blue and Red elite rhetoric -- packing the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College , repealing the Second Amendment , wholesale state nullification of federal law, shackling of voter rights, and Deep State invocation of the 25th Amendment. These are all potential extremities of action that would not only dismantle our constitutional order, but also skew it to one side's juridical construct of virtue, thus dissolving any semblance of adherence to law by the other. Over time each party becomes emotionally invested in the lust to dismantle the old and make something new.

Hence, constitutional norms exist only conditionally, until such time as they finally be dismantled, and only as long as a precariously balanced electoral divide holds firm. A big historical tilt in favor of one party over the other would very quickly push the nation into crisis because the party with the new mandate would rush to enact its program. The very threat of such constitutional dismantling would be sure casus belli . Such tilts in the early 1770s against Britain, and later in the 1850s against the slaveholding party, were the real tipping points. Not only was Dred Scott v. Sandford just such a tipping point in 1857, but subconsciously its legacy weighs heavily on Americans today, as they contemplate -- often with hysterical passion -- the dread consequences of a Kavanaugh appointment.

The dead hand of the last civil war grabs us from the grave. It is eerie how today's angst pulls us back to the 1860s -- and shows us what is likely to happen in our third civil war. If the poisonous hatreds of the 1860s again inform our civil anger today -- i.e. battles between the alt-right and antifa -- then this should tell us that we are literally on the cusp of another time of rage, where the continuity of strife is stronger than any hopes for reconciliation. What is clear is that two warring parties will accept nothing less from the other than submission, even though the loser will never submit. Moreover, each factional ethos is incapable of empathizing with the other.

Yet we should remember that "unconditional surrender" is like an Old Testament doctrine -- meaning that its invocation hearkens unmistakably to God's judgment. It became the Federal rallying cry throughout the Civil War, a substrate trope in the Versailles Treaty, the president's official position for the end of World War II, and even our complacent conviction during the decomposition of the Soviet Union. It is an apocalyptic vision deeply embedded in both Blue and Red. Such visions presage existential crisis that puts what is left of the nation at real risk. If, at war's end, the sacred scrolls, artifacts, and symbols -- the archaeology of a once-cherished identity -- cannot be restored or repurposed, then our entire history must be destroyed, and the "we" that once was wiped clean. Civil war -- the battle over how, or whether, we belong to one another -- thus demands nothing less than transformation.

Disbelieving war makes it inevitable. People will always disbelieve that we could come to blows, until we do. Delegates at the "Democracy" party convention in Charleston, in the summer of 1860, were still in denial of the coming fury . No one dares imagine another civil war playing out like the last, when two grimly determined American armies fought each other to the death in bloody pitched battles. It is unlikely that a third American civil war will embrace 18th and 19th century military dynamics. Antique Anglo-American society -- organized around community " mustering " -- was culturally equipped to fight civil wars. Today's screen-absorbed Millennials are not. So what?

But the historical consequences of a non-military American civil war would be just as severe as any struggle settled by battle and blood. For example, the map of a divided America today suggests that division into functioning state and local sovereignties -- with autonomy over kinship, identity, and way of life issues -- might be the result of this non-bloody war. This could even represent de facto national partition -- without de jure secession, achieved through a gradual process of accretive state and local nullification .

So what would a non-military civil war look like? Could it be non-violent? Americans are certainly not lovers, but they do not seem really to be fighters either. A possible path to kinship disengagement -- a separation without de jure divorce -- would here likely follow a crisis, a confrontation, and some shocking, spasmodic violence, horrifyingly amplified on social media. Passions at this point would pull back, but investment in separation would not. What might eventuate would be a national sorting out, a de facto kinship separation in which Blue and Red regions would go -- and govern -- their own ways, while still maintaining the surface fiction of a titular "United States." This was, after all, the arrangement America came to after 20 years of civil war (1857-1877). This time, however, there will be no succeeding conciliation (as was achieved in the 1890s). Culturally, this United States will be, from the moment of agreement, two entirely separate sensibilities, peoples, and politics.

♦♦♦

The winding path to civil war has yet another wrinkle: the people-elite divide. In the 1770s and the 1850s, American fissuring was championed by opposing elites. In the 1770s, two elites had emerged: one was the colonial, homegrown elite -- such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams -- and the other was the metropole, trans-Atlantic British elite , celebrated by royally endowed landowners such as Lord Fairfax , whose holdings were in the thousands of square miles. Yet the British aristocracy was less intimately engaged in the colonies, and the loyalist elite a more sotto voce voice in colonial politics.

Not so the proto-Confederacy, the celebrated "Slave Power." In the looming struggle between North and South, the Southern elite was the dominant economic force in the nation, thanks to its overwhelming capital stored in human flesh. In fact, planter aristocracy capital formation in 1860 equaled all capital invested in manufacturing, railroads, banks, and all currency in circulation -- combined. This was the power of chattel slavery as the wealth ecology of the antebellum South. In defiant opposition to them were the Northern anti-slavery elites , nowhere as privileged and rich as their Southern counterparts. The new Republicans were further thwarted by the indissoluble alliance of planter aristocracy and the nation's financial hub: New York City. There was an unholy bond between a dominant slaveholder elite and an equally dominant New York slave-enabling elite. To make the point, in 1859, New York shipbuilders outfitted 85 slave ships for the hungry needs of the Southern planter class.

The dominant cultural position occupied by the overlords of chattel slavery has its analogy today in the overlords of America's Blue elite. While there is a vocal Red elite, the Blue elite dominates public life through its hold on the Internet, Hollywood, publishing, social media, academia, the Washington bureaucracy, and the global grip of corporate giants. Blue elite's power, in its hold on the cultural pulse and economic lifeblood of American life, compares granularly to the planter aristocracy of the 1850s.

Ruling elites famously overthrown by history -- like the Ancien Régime in France, Czarist Russia, and even the Antebellum South -- were fated by their insatiable selfishness, their impenetrable arrogance, and their sneering aloofness from the despised people -- "the deplorables" -- upon whom their own economic status feasted .

Today's Blue elite represents the greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially divorced from the realities of normal American life -- glittering bubbles of sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion, Blue's protests ring the most false .

America is divided today not by customary tussles in party politics, but rather by passionate, existential, and irreconcilable opposition. Furthermore, the onset of battle is driven yet more urgently by the "intersection" of a culturally embedded kinship divide moving -- however haphazardly -- to join up with an elite-people divide.

Tragically, our divide may no longer be an outcome that people of goodwill work to overcome. Schism -- with our nation in an ideological Iron Maiden -- will soon force us all to submit, and choose.

Michael Vlahos teaches strategy and war at Johns Hopkins Advanced Academic Programs and formerly, at the Naval War College. He is the author of the book Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change .

Likbez

I think that the key for understating the political crisis in the USA is to understand its connection with the crisis on neoliberalism as an ideology which was encompassed as the USA national ideology after WWII.

The US neoliberal elite lost the support of the population, and the is what the current crisis is about. Also, the level of degeneration of the current elite demonstrated by Haley appointed to the UN and several other disastrous appointments also signify the Us approaching the situation of " let them eat cakes."

The same time the power of surveillance state is such that outside of random acts of violence like we observed recently, insurrection is impossible and political ways to change the situation are blocked.

Neoliberals came to power with Carter, so more than 40 years ago (although formally Reagan is considered to be the first neoliberal president.) Now they are are losing political power and popular support.

Trump attempt to reform "classic neoliberalism" into what can be called "national neoliberalism" or neoliberalism without globalization is probably doomed to be a failure and not only due to Trump weaknesses as a political leader. He trying increase the level of neoliberaliztion with the USA failing to understand that the current problems stem from excessive levels of deregulation (and associated level of corruption), the excessive power of military industrial complex (supported by Wall Street) which led to waiting for trillion of arms race and destruction of New Deal Social protection mechanisms.

With the collapse of neoliberalism of global ideology, international standing of the USA greatly deteriorated, and now in some areas (especially with unilateral Iran sanctions and behavior in Korea crisis), Trump administration approaches the status of a pariah nation.

My impression is the neoliberalism just can't be reformed the way Trump is trying it to reform into what can be called "national neoliberalism."

That's probably why intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of the Democratic party, closely connected to Wall Street launched a color revolution ("Russiagate) against him in late 2016, trying to depose him and install a more "compliant" leader, who would support kicking the can down the road.

So the two warring camps now represent "classic neoliberalism" with its idea of the global neoliberal empire (and related "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine) and "revisionists" of various flavors (including Trump and Sanders supporters)

BTW neocons, who dominate the USA foreign policy, are also neoliberals, just moonlighting as lobbyists of the military industrial complex.

I think that globalization as an immanent feature and trump policies this will fail.

As the same, the opposition to neoliberalism on the ground level of the US society demand reforms and retreat form the globalization, which they connect with outsourcing and offshoring.

That's why Trump's idea of "national neoliberalism" -- an attempt to retreat from "globalization" and at the same time to obtain some economic advantages by brute force and bilateral treaties instead of multilateral organizations like WTO got some initial support. Along with his fake promises to improve the economic position of the middle class, squeezed by globalization.

the truth is that the "classic neoliberals" (which are represented by Clinton wing of Dems and Paul Ryan wing in Republicans ) lost popular support.

Dems, for example, now rely as their major constituency fringe groups and elements of national security state (that's why so many of their candidates for midterm are associated with intelligence agencies and military). So they are trying to mobilize elements of national security state to help them to return to power. That gambit, like Russiagate before it, probably will fail.

Republicans are also in limbo with Trump clearly betraying his electorate, but still enjoy some level of ground support.

IMHO his betrayals which is very similar to Obama betrayal(in no way he wants to improve the condition of the lower middle class and workers, it just hot air) might cost him two important group of voters who will vote for independent candidates if they vote at all:

1. Anti-war republicans
2. People who want the return of the New Deal.

Factions which are against imperial wars and for more fair redistribution of income in the society, a distribution which were screwed by 40 years of neoliberalism dominance in the USA.

So the US electorate have a classic political choice between disastrous and unpalatable policies once again ;-)

whether that will eventually lead to a military coup in best LA style, we can only guess.

[Oct 29, 2018] The Weakness of Empire by Michael Vlahos

Empire is a political entity that rules multiple nations with one (imperial nation) as the first among equals.
Notable quotes:
"... Thus emperors do their utmost to ensure that politics is stuffed with reliable personal retainers. Longstanding official empires are a bit easier on the imperial person: there may be a tradition of a submissive bureaucracy and a compliant senate, and so the emperor's legitimacy is less at the mercy of policy failure. But crisis immediately opens up the prospect of rival claimants and coups, usurpations, and civil wars. ..."
Oct 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Something remarkable happened on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Commentators began to declare, in somewhat exultant tones, that America had at last become a true empire. America was of course also a benevolent empire, they insisted, but that nod to altruistic tradition could not hide their excitement that America had at last joined the greatest empires of the past.

Implicit in these giddy declarations was the assumption that empire was an exalted state of power and possibility, not so unlike Rome at its zenith. Ironically, and for a historical instant, they were right. But there is one inescapable aspect of empire that the commentators missed. Empires are weak. It is republics in contrast that are strong. The United States is a republic that has been operating like an empire, and it has suffered for it. If we look at the gold standard for empire -- Rome -- we can see why.

First of all, what is an empire? Empire has less to do with scale of realm or of power than it does with one single feature. Simply, it is a polity where politics itself revolves around the person of the emperor.

This differs from the politics of kingship. Kings represent and embody a densely woven social fabric. They preside over a society of aristocracy: an extended family of rule, where the king is also father. Empires in contrast often emerge from republics. Thus Rome has been a favorite model for American commentators precisely because its successful passage from republic to empire seems close to ours.

Such post-republican emperors often inhabit the complex politics of multiple competing constituencies. These groups and factions continue to do political business within a republic's constitutional framework transformed. Thus emperors find themselves consulting with and cajoling senates or assemblies; and unlike kings, they may owe their very legitimacy to these bodies.

Weakness 1: The Imperial Person

But the making and the doing in politics swirl around the imperial person -- indeed, politics is dependent on the imperial person. This is the first weakness of empire: because politics revolves around the emperor, the rise and fall, success and failure of state policy is ultimately his alone.

The imperial situation is thus one of continuing and always worrisome vulnerability because no matter how many supporters or factions an emperor marshals, they can vanish in an instant. No matter that they have been handsomely bought off with perquisites and gifts, no matter that they are kept in line with threats and periodic cruel example. Failure of an imperial venture puts imperial authority itself instantly at risk.

Thus emperors do their utmost to ensure that politics is stuffed with reliable personal retainers. Longstanding official empires are a bit easier on the imperial person: there may be a tradition of a submissive bureaucracy and a compliant senate, and so the emperor's legitimacy is less at the mercy of policy failure. But crisis immediately opens up the prospect of rival claimants and coups, usurpations, and civil wars.

A republic's robustness, in contrast, derives from its ability to replace an elected leader and his government with relative ease. This is consecrated in the U.S. Constitution by mandated quadrennial elections of its executive.

Our constitutional framework is still in place, but after 9/11 it shifted operating practice to the imperial. Basically, 9/11 created an imperial dispensation. Through it the president took on the mantle of the office of commander in chief, which under the circumstances was perfectly natural. But then he went further and announced a state of perpetual war -- "a war of generations," "a hundred years war" -- and so transformed himself into an imperial person. The transformation here was from episodic commander in chief -- when and where circumstances warranted -- to permanent generalissimo. His primary identity was now that of the military commanding person.

U.S. tradition and precedent limited the office of commander in chief both to the duration of a specific emergency and in terms of presidential powers. The Cold War chipped away at congressional authority to limit presidential powers. But the breathtaking 9/11 attacks drove the president to expand these powers further and make them truly open-ended.

Here the imperial transformation was not simply about power. Even more persuasively, it operated in the realm of authority and expectation. The popular climate was such after 9/11 that Americans seemed to share the prospect that American energies now revolved again around a great world struggle. Here of necessity -- or so everyone thought -- the entire conduct and control of this struggle should be vested in the emperor. The president took full advantage of the new zeitgeist to lock politics into an imperial orbit. Moreover, Americans also believed that war was the new national norm and that it would last a very, very long time. Few questioned that the situation marked a historic shift in the inmost nature of American politics.

So the president, through the transformed office of commander in chief, became an emperor. But the war that made this possible was now an imperial war and so his exclusive enterprise. He deliberately denied national participation -- "go about your business" -- that would have put this war squarely in the tradition of the old republic. Now it was his, and the benefits were great, extending deeply into American society as much as they did across the globe.

But the president also took on this weakness of empire: the enterprise stands and falls with him.

Weakness 2: The Imperial Purse

In crisis, a republic can claim all the energy and resources of its citizens because in the end the citizenry and the republic are the same. In empires, however, former republican citizens have given over their political authority to the trust and keeping of empire -- and also their deepest responsibility to the nation as well. The emperor now manages; the emperor now defends. This is the heart of the imperial compact, and it is expressive of a fundamental political transaction: the citizens yield over management powers to the imperial person in exchange for a release from civic responsibility.

In revenue terms, this means that although they will still pay a citizen's normal taxes, they are no longer obligated for extraordinary levees. Formal empires, in fact, are unusually weak when it comes to squeezing the very top citizens, those who in a republic would have been the foremost contributors. Remember, an empire that succeeds a republic retains as a sort of sacred fiction the old constitutional framing. And behind this fiction is continuing reality: that the emperor is not all-powerful, but rather dependent on the same political constituencies that were players in the old republic. The emperor cannot do without them, and he cannot afford to alienate them. Thus the top citizens in effect have to be bought off. This president has done just that with his extravagant tax cuts. In other words, the emperor can have his war, which itself is necessary to his majestic exercise of imperial power, as long as he does not demand too much from the interest groups whose support he needs for the continued exercise of imperial authority.

It is up to the emperor to marshal what national resources he can -- and this is especially true in elective wars he has taken on and made his own. He cannot ask citizens to bear a burden that is exclusively his, and this limitation extends to money. As historian Mark C. Bartusis wrote, "In Byzantium there was never a general 'citizen's duty' to fight for the state. In fact the very notion that a subject had an obligation to defend the state was foreign to the Byzantine mind set and antithetical to both Roman and Byzantine ideology that identified the emperor, through his army, as the Defender of the Empire."

War expenditures therefore must exist in a "normal" fiscal context -- which naturally limits the scope of imperial actions. Thus truly grand war by contrast and by definition is always a republican, or people's war.

This limitation is even more keenly felt when it comes to soldiers. Here it is not simply a question of how they are paid, but also how they are recruited and retained. One of the key transformations of republic to empire is precisely in the shift from armed citizenry to imperial military. By fighting his own war, the emperor above all needs loyal troops: both figurative troops in politics and real shooters in the battle. The transformation from armed citizenry to imperial military is not simply a shift from conscription to volunteer force. In fact, it is necessary for the new army to become the emperor's instrument, and thus it must be at some deep level bonded to the imperial person. In this way, the empire's soldiers are also transformed. But it is often metamorphosis so nuanced as to be easily missed that they become the emperor's retainers.

If they are native volunteers, then their emotional motivation to join is still patriotic -- for the nation. But increasingly, their functional motivation as soldiers changes and is expressed through their direct allegiance to the emperor, in whose wars they fight. He is their benefactor, their protector, and their leader. Integral to imperial authority and imperial majesty is also the emperor's overarching identity as soldier (hence in the original Latin, imperator meant general). Therefore, the emperor's relationship to his soldiers must first be one of a general to his troops. He may not actually lead forces in the field, but his persona is anointed as generalissimo and war leader. For this president these ties were underscored in media interviews with troops on the eve of war: "We're good to go when our commander-in-chief gives the word."

This relationship has also been etched repeatedly in very public and very emotional images of the emperor with his army. The president would often give war speeches at posts and bases where his person was always staged with troops arrayed in back of him, as well as before him. There he would stand in camera-eye in a sea of battledress uniforms. The emotion would run high, encouraging him, lending steely drama to his voice. There are even images of soldiers in the round, outstretching their arms to him. At applause lines his troops would go further, washing his presence with whoops and hoo-yahs. The ties of the imperial person and his army were further consecrated by his ubiquitous short military jacket, emblazoned with its badge and title of supreme authority: "George W. Bush, Commander-in-Chief."

Weakness 3: The Imperial Majesty

We have indicated that the personal politics of empire are surprisingly fragile, and that the politics of the emperor must therefore always be about reinforcing or shoring up his politics by the constant reminding exercise of imperial authority. This is best done not through attempting to acquire more statutory power -- a risky and problematical pursuit -- but rather through radiating more authority.

This is after all why people put up with emperors at all. People have come to believe that leadership of the polity and the nation requires a single, celestial man at the helm.

Imperial vesting happens because the emperor in his imperial person is the bringer of triumph, the vanquisher of foes in a world milieu of constant, "lurking" insecurity -- a favorite term in presidential rhetoric because it helps to sustain the impression that enemies are everywhere, all the time, requiring constant, strenuous, and victorious executive action. In Rome this quality of the imperial person was famously styled as victor ac triumphator.

The emperor himself was anointed ultimately through the legitimizing concept of "eternal victory." Rome's very identity came to be couched in terms of perpetual triumph -- over foes, adversity, backwardness, over what was not Roman. Moreover, the nation's (res publica) triumph was achieved always through the intercession of imperial leadership. The emperor had to be the quintessential generalissimo, and victory thus became the essential hallmark of his reign.

The emperor's authority was established through what became the central Roman imperial ritual: the imperial triumph. In the triumph, the emperor's semi-magical persona that marshaled the forces of the nation and led them to victory was celebrated and revealed.

Central to a Roman imperial triumph was the conveyance of the imperial person to the sacred place where triumph would be celebrated -- a stage entrance always freighted with grand symbolism. Our emperor's landing on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln was no exception. Instead of a triumphal chariot, the president arrived on a military aircraft in which he was co-pilot, thus demonstrating to all his soldierly bona fides.

The Lincoln itself represented a grand symbol of American power and an enormous icon of eternal victory. In this triumph it is significant that the emperor chose to celebrate exclusively with his troops, where Americans were collectively placed outside as second-class onlookers -- thus underscoring their depreciation of citizenship while elevating the military's relationship.

In Roman times, of course, the army was often the source of imperial legitimacy. Just as the army would proclaim a new emperor by elevating him on a shield borne up by troops, so this emperor was raised up by "his own" (ton idion). In a supremely public moment, the emperor chose to have his own legitimacy ratified before the American people by the very military that represented "his own."

The procession and prostration of the enemy leader is a common trope in Roman victory ceremonies. The vanquished leader undergoes ritual divestiture of his badges of authority and then is forced to prostrate himself before the imperial person. This ceremony was often associated with the army and took place in the camps. But Justinian transferred this ceremony to the imperial capital in 534. The public triumph over the Vandalic kingdom culminated in the divestiture and proskynesis of Gelimer, which served to signal to the Gothic kingdoms that their regimes too were illegitimate, that they were no better than usurpers, and that they were next.

When U.S. forces pulled Saddam out of his "spider hole" they made sure to videotape the filthy and disheveled dictator during a medical examination. This was no medical moment but rather a carefully orchestrated ceremony of divestiture and prostration. Like similar late Roman ceremonies, it took place in one of the battle army's encampments, but it was also broadcast worldwide, to have the widest public impact, like an ancient victory procession in the imperial capital. Indeed, modern ceremony puts its ancient antecedents to shame. Not only was the entire world shown again and again the interior of Saddam's mouth, but also the purposeful degradation of the former ruler went beyond even the old Roman act of forced proskynesis.

The emperor-president also addressed the people in carefully assembled, handpicked venues. These not only guarantee high levels of emotional support -- visualized on-camera as positive energy -- but they also bring forth comments that are less questions than they are petitions of support. In the president's March 22 "town hall" meeting in Wheeling, West Virginia, one military wife exclaimed, "I ask you this from the bottom of my heart, for a solution to this, because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see [the good], there would never be another negative word about this conflict."

These are reminders of imperial authority flowing from popular acclamation. These events become all the more essential as imperial popularity wanes. No matter how selective and narrowly unrepresentative the audience, its enthusiastic acclamation is broadcast to all as though it were all-American.

But of course, modern America is not ancient Rome, and Americans are not generally even like old Romans. But it is rather astonishing how some of the rituals of imperial kingship -- those that defined imperial authority 1,500 years ago -- should have reappeared, unbidden and unrecognized, and yet with such crystal fidelity in our own politics.

Moreover these echoes, however strongly they have sounded over the past four years, may well be fading. The entire imperial enterprise erected around the global war on terrorism seems to be receding, if not heading toward wholesale collapse.

But the imperial moment was real. For a time at least the American Republic came close to being transformed -- in operating politics if not in its actual constitution -- into an empire.

We would be wise at the very least to acknowledge how close we came to the politically irreparable. We should also recognize what attends the transformation to empire. For a time, national politics came to revolve dangerously like old empires, and almost wholly, around the person of the commander in chief. Everywhere it was believed that the fate of the nation was in his hands, that he would protect us, that he would lead us to victory -- and moreover that the people were passive onlookers in a great struggle run by the emperor.

Two convergent conditions made this happen.

The prodigal symbolism of 9/11 -- whose emotional power transcended Pearl Harbor -- demanded a national narrative on the scale of America's great wars, especially World War II. This was not simply a war narrative but a sacred war narrative. It alone seemed to demand a struggle between good and evil and an American national messianic mission of world redemption -- or at least Islamic-world redemption.

At that moment, Americans were not only emotionally vulnerable, their emotions inclined them toward the comforting and the mythically familiar. We were ready for a great war that would unify the nation, vanquish evil, and lead to a better world. We were primed, in short, for a war of national transcendence.

And this administration was ready to give America a military catharsis. Americans were ready for the war leadership of a commander in chief. But the administration took the all-powerful Great War trope and shaped it into an imperial rather than republican vessel of authority.

Like Rome, the administration made victory the foundation of authority. It was implied that a series of campaigns would be necessary to achieve millennial goals such as "democracy in the Middle East." The situation called for active and constant presidential leadership. Going further, the entire management of the war would be the president's alone: there would be no government of national unity, no national mobilization, and no conscription. Not only was the president acting as commander in chief, he had undergone a metamorphosis: his person now fully inhabited an imperial station.

Furthermore, the administration also transformed the war into a permanent dispensation for imperial authority. The "long war" was designed to take normal politics and normal expectations off the table. By accepting the reality of the long war, moreover, Americans were encouraged to submit to a working imperial constitution. In practice this meant widespread expansion of executive powers at home as well as abroad.

But now "his own" closest retainers have deserted him, and even the military is no longer ton idion. And so, according to ancient story, the emperor is increasingly isolated, if not quite alone.

Our very strategy now founders because it was vested entirely in the cockpit of one man's vision. So what is next? Where do we go from here? What lessons can we draw from the past five years?

First, the office of emperor as bringer of Eternal Victory is now a bankrupt, rotten concept. The quest to fulfill this triumphant identity did not bring victory but instead visibly weakened American world authority and domestic cohesion. Arguably no future leader will touch the model of triumphal rulership for a very long time. Therefore future executives will be less tempted to transform themselves into working imperial persons.

Second, even if the model of triumphal rulership has been discredited, the other imperial dispensation -- the "long war" trope -- is still alive and well, so even the next president might be tempted to renew a state of national emergency and become a permanent war leader. Then, if a real war rears up, the lure of triumphal rulership will beckon yet again.

But national emergencies are nonetheless real, and the political-military role of commander in chief was designed to deal with crisis. We must also remember that the slide beyond this, to imperial mode after 9/11, was more like an opportunistic pushing of norm and form rather than a permanent transformation. After all, we did not end up with anything like real triumphal rulership but only in contrast, its sordid failure.

Perhaps the lesson for all of us is in how quickly an imperial enterprise took root in the American presidency in the wake of a single -- if pushing-all-the-buttons flamboyant -- attack. Moreover, that enterprise was supremely confident: it was fully prepared to transform the office of president into that of an imperial victor ac triumphator. There was the real possibility, however remote it might actually have been, of an American political transformation.

Therefore, if nothing else, we should be all the more alert to future imperial temptation.

______________________________________

Michael Vlahos is principal professional staff at the National Security Analysis Department of The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.

[Oct 29, 2018] What is often missing in comments is the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist "Jews", Zionists with Jew and Jews with Semites!

Zionists represent nothing more then Israeli lobby in the USA, much like neocons and Izreal represent lobby for military industrial complex
Oct 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Pft , Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | link
< Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.>

As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)

Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point because he was taken alive, but who knows.

Krollchem , Oct 28, 2018 8:29:26 PM | link

What is often missing in comments is the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist "Jews", Zionists with Jew and Jews with Semites!

Zionism is an extremely radical anti-Jewish ideology that is based on a fantasy of a racial/cultural pure society, as was Nazism and the Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states (excluding Oman). This is not to say that there are not other societies that are racist, such as the US, Japan and India to mention just a few.

Most believers in Zionism are Radical conservative Christians with some 40 million in the US alone. A vast majority of US Christians support Zionism via their voting for Politicians that support Zionism and Zionist "Jews".

Jews are just those that practice one of the variations of the Jewish religion much like there are various Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox sects. As long as a religion practices an inner form of the religion (e.g. some Sufi Islamic sects) that provides a moral basis for interactions with other in a society there is little harm in religion.

Jews are considered a part of the broad category of Semitic people the denotes a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semitic

"Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians/Syriacs, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have a common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples."

Furthermore, Jews are generally less Semitic than their current neighbors as: "A DNA study of "six Middle Eastern populations (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish Jews from Israel; Muslim Kurds; Muslim Arabs from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area; and Bedouin from the Negev)" found that Jews were more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

It is important to point out that Benzion Netanyahu (AKA Ben Nitay) may not be Semitic like many of the Jews in the government of Israel. His father was a Zionist Rabbi in Poland named Benzion Mileikowsky who was also a one-time secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benzion-Netanyahu


Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" are mostly Ashkenazim (only some 40% of these have generic markers for Semitic Jews) and not only are anti-Semitic against the Palestinian Muslims and Christians but are also discriminating against the Ultra-Orthodox Semitic Jews. Furthermore, the Zionist Jews are facing daily protests against their rule from Semitic Jews, Christians and Muslims who are actually citizens of the state of Israel. Recently these protests have increased since the Zionist "Jews" that currently control Israel even passed a bill that officially defines Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and Hebrew as the country's official language.

Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" also do not recognize the Syrian citizenship of the Druze living in the occupied Golan Heights. The refuse to take Israeli citizenship and use a Israeli laissez-passer to travel outside of Israel with the citizenship box left empty.

Likewise, the Zionist anti-Semites suppress three million, mostly Semites, living in open air concentration camps and have killed and wounded some 10,000 as collective punishment with the approval of the West (including Australia).
https://joanroelofs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/insecurity-blanket.pdf

Grieved , Oct 28, 2018 10:55:26 PM | link
@51 Krollchem - "...the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist "Jews", Zionists with Jew and Jews with Semites!"

Yes indeed.

True it is that Zionists are the Jews' worst enemies, as Alan Hart pointed out in this talk, titled after his 3-volume book and available on YouTube: Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews

We are familiar now with seeing how many of our confusions are actually caused by the disinformation machine, and the same can be said for the massive conflation that takes place between the notions of Zionism, Jewishness and Semitism.

Trolls come to western discussions all the time to inflame anti-semitism - why would Israel send them to do that? Because anti-semitism is the racism that forms the smoke behind which Zionism can hide.

Zionism essentially uses the Jews as human shields. Like the Wahhabi, Zionism hides behind innocent civilians. And because of the fog of war put out by Zionist disinformation and field-level trolling, few critics can take aim at the Zionist actions hiding behind the Jews, and don't dare shoot for fear of hitting "Semites", so called.

Caitlin Johnstone has an interesting new article on this subject today: On Antisemitism, Critical Thinking, And Conspiracy Theories .

Krollchem , Oct 28, 2018 11:31:13 PM | link
Grieved@63

Thanks for the two links! I come to MoA to learn and appreciate your comment and the additional info.

Pft , Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39
">link
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.

[Oct 28, 2018] Russia tried to have resolution passed at the UN in favour of the INF Treaty. It was blocked by Washington's EU lickspittles including Germany.

Oct 28, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill October 27, 2018 at 3:02 pm

Russia tried to have resolution passed at the UN in favour of the INF Treaty. It was blocked by Washington's EU lickspittles including Germany. Never, ever take any pronouncement by NATzO hyenas at face value. When it comes time to put money where the mouth is, then true beliefs become apparent. These morons couldn't even support Russia's UN resolution although they are in harm's way from the death of the INF.

[Oct 28, 2018] Twitter Bans Conservative Neocon Critic Paul Craig Roberts in Dramatic Escalation of Censorship

Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Roberts goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is "akin to the German Nazy Party last century" in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism. ..."
Oct 28, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Roberts, Former Asst. Treasury Secretary in the Reagan administration and former contributing editor at the Wall Street Journal has been an outspoken critic of neocon foreign policy and Washington corruption from a conservative viewpoint.

He has an enormous following on the internet and publishes at the Unz Review and on his own website.

... ... ...

Roberts, 79, served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1982. He was formerly a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute and a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and has written for the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek. Roberts maintains an active blog .

He's also vehemently against interventionary wars around the world , and spoke with Russia's state-owned Sputnik news in a Tuesday article - in which Roberts said that President Trump's decision to pull out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty was a handout to the military-security complex.

The former Reagan administration official clarified that he does not think "that the military-security complex itself wants a war with Russia, but it does want an enemy that can be used to justify more spending. " He explained that the withdrawing from the INF Treaty "gives the military-security complex a justification for a larger budget and new money to spend: manufacturing the formerly banned missiles."

...

The economist highlighted that " enormous sums spent on 'defense' enabled the armaments corporations to control election outcomes with campaign contributions ," adding that in addition, "the military has bases and the armaments corporations have factories in almost every state so that the population, dependent on the jobs, support high amounts of 'defense' spending."

"That was 57 years ago," he underscored. "You can imagine how much stronger the military-security complex is today." - Sputnik

Roberts also suggested that " The Zionist Neoconservatives are responsible for Washington's unilateral abandonment of the INF treaty, just as they were responsible for Washington's unilateral abandonment of the ABM Treaty [in 2002], the Iran nuclear agreement, and the promise not to move NATO one inch to the East. "

Is this what got him suspended?

Roberts goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is "akin to the German Nazy Party last century" in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism.

" Their over-confidence about their ability to quickly defeat Israel's enemies and open the Middle East to Israeli expansion got the US bogged down in wars in the Middle East for 17 years ... During this time, both Russia and China rose much more quickly than the neoconservatives thought possible."

Dr. Roberts opined that US policy makers are seeking to weaponize the Russian opposition and "pro-Western elements" to exert pressure on Moscow into "accommodating Washington in order to have the sanctions removed." On the other hand, the Trump administration's new arms race could force Russia into spending more on defense, according to the author. - Sputnik

While we don't know if Roberts' Sputnik interview resulted in his Twitter ban 48 hours later, it's entirely possible.

Source: Zero Hedge

[Oct 28, 2018] Twitter was too busy banning 'Russians' to notice #MAGAbomber's threats

Notable quotes:
"... Whether Twitter had made an honest mistake, or scrambled to engage in damage control, is sort of immaterial at this point. Some of his posts have been archived , but not responses to them. All that suspending his account accomplished is to make it more difficult to parse the Florida man's motives. By the way, Sayoc's Facebook page was likewise taken down on Friday. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from RT . ..."
Oct 28, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The history of criminal behavior and online threats by Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man charged with sending suspicious packages to prominent Democrats, somehow went ignored by both government and social media police.

Sayoc, 56, was arrested on Friday, and stands accused of sending pipe bombs - 14, as of the last count - to former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, actor Robert De Niro, billionaire Democrat donors George Soros and Tom Steyer, and several Democrat lawmakers.

Federal authorities have refused to speculate on the suspect's motives, but news outlets quickly pored over Sayoc's social media feeds , finding photos and videos of pro-Trump memes, Trump rallies, and abusive language towards Democrats. A van in which he reportedly lived, after losing his home to foreclosure, was covered in pro-Trump decals. Twitter #Resistance activists, who had already coined the term "MAGAbomber" to describe the suspect, rejoiced.

It was Sayoc's prior run-ins with the law that allowed the FBI to find him, matching a fingerprint and DNA from some of the packages to samples they had on file. His criminal record shows charges of grand theft, misdemeanor theft, battery, felony steroid possession, and even threatening a bomb attack in 2002 - leaving an open question of how he kept getting away with it all, over and over again.

Then there is the matter of Sayoc's social media accounts. Over the past two years, under intense pressure by Democrats and drummed-up charges of "Russian meddling," Twitter and Facebook have cracked down on users left and right . Time and again, people engaging in protected free speech have been " shadowbanned " or suspended, permanently or until they deleted posts someone reported as "offensive."

Yet when Democratic strategist Rochelle Ritchie actually reported Sayoc's account to Twitter two weeks ago, over a threat she received from him after appearing on a Fox News show, Twitter did not find the post objectionable .

Richie then received an email from Twitter saying the previous response to her complaint had been "an error."

Whether Twitter had made an honest mistake, or scrambled to engage in damage control, is sort of immaterial at this point. Some of his posts have been archived , but not responses to them. All that suspending his account accomplished is to make it more difficult to parse the Florida man's motives. By the way, Sayoc's Facebook page was likewise taken down on Friday.

Both Twitter and Facebook claim they are trying to improve "conversations" on their platforms, and that their purges are nonpartisan. While technically correct, that's misleading. Establishment figures and outfits somehow always skate, while both critics of Clintonism on the left and Trump Republicans end up under the banhammer.

Meanwhile, the social media giants continue to insist they are not publishers, and delegate the dirty work of policing to quasi-NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy and the Atlantic Council . They end up deciding who's a "Russian bot" or "Iranian troll" based on arbitrary criteria, which the mainstream media repeats uncritically.

That someone like Sayoc ended up under the radar of both the authorities and social media police suggests that he was either deliberately tolerated, or that their "defense of democracy" is a sham. It is perhaps fitting that none of Sayoc's bombs actually exploded; the only thing they blew up in the end seems to be some illusions.

Reprinted with permission from RT .

[Oct 27, 2018] Most Americans See A Sharply Divided Nation; The Fourth Turning Is Here

Looks like most Americans do not understand that we are dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism as a social system.
Oct 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
AP-NORC Poll national survey with 1,152 adults found 8 in 10 Americans believe the country is divided regarding essential values, and some expect the division to deepen into 2020.

Only 20% of Americans said they think the country will become less divided over the next several years, and 39% believe conditions will continue to deteriorate. A substantial majority of Americans, 77%, said they are dissatisfied with the state of politics in the country , said AP-NORC.

... ... ...

The nationwide survey was conducted on October 11-14, using the AmeriSpeak Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Overall, 59% of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 40% of Americans approve.

More specifically, the poll said 83% of Republicans approve of how Trump is handling the job, while 92% of Democrats and 61% of Independents strongly disagree.

More than half of Americans said they are not hearing nor seeing topics from midterm campaigns that are important to them. About 54% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans said vital issues, such as health care, education, and economic activity, Social Security and crime, were topics they wanted to hear more.

Looking at their communities, most American (Republicans and Democrats) are satisfied with their state or local community. However, on a national level, 58% of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, compared to 25%, a small majority who are satisfied.

Most Americans are dissatisfied with the massive gap between rich and poor, race relations and environmental conditions. The poll noticed there are partisan splits, 84% of Democrats are disappointed with the amount of wealth inequality, compared with 43% of Republicans. On the environment, 77% of Democrats and 32% Republicans are dissatisfied. Moreover, while 77% Democrats said they are unhappy with race relations, about 50% of Republicans said the same.

The poll also showed how Democrats and Republicans view certain issues. About 80% of Democrats but less than 33% of Republicans call income inequality, environmental issues or racism very important.

"Healthcare, education and economic growth are the top issues considered especially important by the public. While there are many issues that Republicans and Democrats give similar levels of importance to (trade foreign policy and immigration), there are several concerns where they are far apart. For example, 80% of Democrats say the environment and climate change is extremely or very important, and only 28% of Republicans agree. And while 68% consider the national debt to be extremely or very important, only 55% of Democrats regard it with the same level of significance," said AP-NORC.

Although Democrats and Republicans are divided on most values, many Americans consider the country's diverse population a benefit.

Half said America's melting pot makes the country stronger, while less than 20% said it hurts the country. About 30% said diversity does not affect their outlook.

"However, differences emerge by party identification, gender, location, education, and race . Democrats are more likely to say having a population with various backgrounds makes the country stronger compared to Republicans or Independents. Urbanities and college-educated adults are more likely to say having a mix of ethnicities makes the country stronger, while people living in rural areas and less educated people tend to say diversity has no effect or makes the country weaker," said AP-NORC.

Overall, 60% of Americans said accusations of sexual harassment with some high-profile men forced to resign or be fired was essential to them. However, 73% of women said the issue was critical, compared with 51% of men. The data showed that Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to call sexual misconduct significant.

More than 40% of Americans somewhat or strongly disapprove of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court after allegations of sexual harassment in his college years. 35% of Americans said they heartily approved of Kavanaugh's confirmation.

The evidence above sheds light on the internal struggles of America. The country is divided, and this could be a significant problem just ahead.

Why is that? Well, America's future was outlined in a book called "The Fourth Turning: What Cycles of History Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous With Destiny."

In the book, which was written in the late 1990s, authors William Strauss and Niel Howe theorize that the history of civilization moves in 80-to-100 year cycles called "saecula."

The idea behind this theory dates back to the Greeks, who believed that at given saeculum's end, there would come "ekpyrosis," or a cataclysmic event.

This era of change is known as the Fourth Turning, and it appears we are in the midst of one right now.

The last few Fourth Turnings that America experienced ushered in the Civil War and the Reconstruction era, and then the Great Depression and World War II. Before all of that, it was the Revolutionary War.

Each Fourth Turning had similar warning signs: periods of political chaos, division, social and economic decay in which the American people reverted from extreme division and were forced to reunite in the rebuild of a new future, but that only came after massive conflict.

Today's divide among many Americans is strong. We are headed for a collision that will rip this country apart at the seams. The timing of the next Fourth Turning is now, and it could take at least another decade to complete the cycle.

After the Fourth Turning, America will not be the America you are accustomed to today. So, let us stop calling today the "greatest economy ever" and start preparing for turbulence.

MusicIsYou , 36 seconds ago link

Yep, Americans are divided, because they're all miserable, but competing to see who's the biggest miserable victim. Very funny.

[Oct 27, 2018] Trump Came This Close to Getting Afghanistan Right by Daniel L. Davis

Trump may have his own views, but he has no own foreign policy. He is a neocon's marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have come to end. ..."
"... Woodward wrote ..."
"... Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we are already out, and they'll believe him? ..."
"... Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk. ..."
"... The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos. ..."
"... There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to what the supporters claim. ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
In a routine dating back to 2004, U.S. officials regularly claim that the latest strategy in Afghanistan is working -- or as General David Petraeus said in 2012 , the war had "turned a corner." It hadn't and it still hasn't. In fact, evidence overwhelmingly affirms that the newest "new" strategy will be no more effective than those that came before it. It is time to stop losing U.S. lives while pretending that victory is just around the corner. It is time to end the war in Afghanistan.

Last week, one of the most brazen insider attacks of the war took place in Kandahar when one of the Afghanistan governor's bodyguards turned rogue, killing three high-profile Afghan leaders and wounding the senior U.S. field commander, Brigadier General Jeffrey Smiley. Miraculously, the new commander, General Scott Miller, escaped harm. But in 2018, eight Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, bringing the American death toll to 2,351 .

On October 7, 2001, President George W. Bush addressed the nation as combat operations in Afghanistan began. He emphasized that the American "mission is defined. The objectives are clear. [Our] goal is just." Those objectives, he explained , were "targeted actions" that were "designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime."

By the summer of 2002, those objectives were fully met as the Taliban organization was wholly destroyed and al-Qaeda severely degraded. As of 2009, there were reportedly as few as 100 stragglers scattered impotently throughout Afghanistan. The military mission should therefore have ended and combat forces redeployed.

Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have come to end.

After a December 2015 insider attack, Trump tweeted : "A suicide bomber has just killed U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When will our leaders get tough and smart. We are being led to slaughter!" According to Bob Woodward's book Fear , Trump brought that same passion against the futility of the Afghan war into the White House.

Woodward wrote that at an August 2017 meeting on Afghanistan, Trump told his generals that the war had been "a disaster," and chided them for "wanting to add even more troops to something I don't believe in."

Woodward claims that Trump then told the top brass, "I was against this from the beginning. He folded his arms. 'I want to get out,' the president said. 'And you're telling me the answer is to get deeper in.'" Under pressure -- from the likes of Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Senator Lindsey Graham -- Trump eventually gave in.

America's Disastrous Occupation of Afghanistan Turns 17 Time to Talk to the Taliban

Events have since proven that Trump would have done the country a favor by resisting that pressure and sticking to his instincts to end the war. The violence keeps up at a record pace, civilian casualties continue to set all-time highs , and Afghan troops struggle mightily with battle losses. The president was right in August 2017 and his instincts remain solid today.

The longer Trump continues to defer to the establishment thinking that produced 17 consecutive years of military failure, the longer that failure will afflict us, the more casualties we will suffer unnecessarily, and the more money we will pour down the drain.

It is time for Trump to remember that it is futile to try to win the unwinnable and finally end America's longest war.

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments, two of which were in Afghanistan.

One Guy October 25, 2018 at 2:35 pm

Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we are already out, and they'll believe him?
Fred Bowman , says: October 25, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk.
david , says: October 25, 2018 at 3:45 pm
The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos.

There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to what the supporters claim.

SDS , says: October 25, 2018 at 3:48 pm
I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his campaign positions on this and other things . God; what might have been .
One Guy , says: October 25, 2018 at 4:13 pm
SDS, you are correct. I've often thought that Trump could have forged a majority coalition by doing things the People really wanted, or at least didn't hate: nominating another Gorsuch, cutting the size of government, appointing competent people, getting out of the Middle East, no tariffs, less racism, getting concession from businesses that benefited from the tax cut, following emoluments rules, etc. etc.
JeffK , says: October 25, 2018 at 4:37 pm
@SDS
October 25, 2018 at 3:48 pm

"I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his campaign positions on this and other things . God; what might have been ."

First, sorry you fell for The Con. I understand. Maybe. Second, the real question is, "What are you going to do about it?". Vote Republican Nov 6? Why would you do that? Hope against all hope? Dementia? Gluttony for punishment? BTW. HRC is not on the ballot this time, and will never be again.

EliteCommInc. , says: October 25, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Unless we intend to invade en mass, and scour the country from one end to the other to defeat any and all opponents, the mission in Afghanistan will remain what it is. "new wine (of sorts) in old wineskins.

If we are going to remake a country -- we had better remake it. I am not sure i have ever said this before but the entire affair

was unnecessary and unwise from the start.

kalendjay , says: October 25, 2018 at 6:52 pm
We hear Pakistan is now desperate for IMF aid. That the One belt One Road initiative there by China has already put the country in the position of having to stand down its creditor, China. Partly with the help of Japanese finance, Iran and India are out to squeeze Islamabad out of world trade.

The Pakis are headed into a new dark age, so don't expect the Russians to bark wildly and chase down this car. With any luck, they and China will revive the Northern Alliance, make a garrison of Kabul, and eventually Xi and Vladi will have their own escalating civil war over control over Central Asia.

I'd say January 2019 is a good time to begin a quick US withdrawal, just as long as we pull out of the IMF and not give another red American cent to the region, save a green zone around Kabul with economically productive areas.

I would argue that although this would seem like an American loss, it will put our Progressive yappers to shame. What human values would they stand up and defend now, among the IndoPak Caravan? Maybe then we'll really focus on our own border and wage the good fight where it is needed -- the Culture War.

Balderdash , says: October 26, 2018 at 3:06 am
Obama had intended to leave. The military insisted on vict'ry and another Surge. He gave them their Surge and their time to do it. They failed, made things worse and prevented Obama from leaving. They're still playing. Trump's just the latest Oval Office 'sucker'.
Sid Finster , says: October 26, 2018 at 10:02 am
One more example of how Trump is weak, stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated.
Scob , says: October 26, 2018 at 10:50 am
Afghanistan borders Iran, do you really need to say more?

[Oct 27, 2018] A Class War the Right Can Win The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... , F.H. Buckley, Encounter Books, 200 pages ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed , F.H. Buckley, Encounter Books, 200 pages

Among the many untruths told about Donald Trump is the claim that his is not a movement of ideas. As a candidate in 2016, Trump may not have spoken the language of the policy wonks. But unlike those Republicans who did, his view of the world was not a stale ideological cliche. It was instead refreshingly frank: about a foreign policy that couldn't win the wars it waged, an economy that imperiled middle- and working-class America, and an immigration regime only the employers of illegal nannies could love. Trump recognized reality, and that drew to his cause independent-minded intellectuals who had also done so. The Trump movement suffers not from a dearth of ideas or thinkers, but a dearth of institutions. It has thinkers but no think tank.

F.H. Buckley, Foundation Professor at George Mason University's Scalia School of Law, is one of its thinkers. His new book, The Republican Workers Party , comes from a publisher -- Encounter -- led by another, Roger Kimball. Buckley is no relation to William F., who as writer, editor, and Firing Line host did more than anyone to make conservatism a byword for eloquence in the latter half of the 20th century. But much as the other Buckley remade the Right by founding National Review in 1955, this one aims to bring about a profound change of heart and mind among conservatives. He wants to make good on the promise of the GOP as a party for American workers.

It was a promise made right from the beginning, when in the mid-19th century the Republicans were the party of free labor against the slavocracy. But the GOP and the country lost their way. Today, in Buckley's telling, a self-perpetuating "New Class" of administrators and mandarins runs the country from perches of privilege in the academy and nonprofit sector, as well as the media, government, and much of the business world. Republicans of the Never Trump variety are as much a part of this ruling caste as Clinton-Schumer-Pelosi Democrats are. And if you might wonder whether someone in Buckley's position isn't part of the same professional stratum, his answer is that he very much aspires to be a traitor to his class, just as Donald Trump is.

Trump, writes Buckley, is "unlike anything we've seen before, for the simple reason that he's up against something that we've never seen before: a liberalism that has given up on the American Dream of a mobile and classless society." Those who today style themselves as progressives are nothing of the sort -- they are not revolutionaries but the new aristocrats: "They are Bourbons who seek to pass themselves off as Jacobins. They have bought into a radical leftism, while resisting the call to unseat a patrician class that leftists in the past would have opposed."

This is an eloquent explanation for an inversion that has puzzled many observers. Today's Left, at least the mainstream Left represented by the Democratic Party, is now establishmentarian. The Republican Right is now populist, if not downright revolutionary. "When the upper class is composed of liberals who support socialist measures to keep us immobile and preserve their privileged position," Buckley argues, "class warfare to free up our economy by tearing down an aristocracy is conservative and just, as well as popular."

Buckley came to these conclusions before the rise of Donald Trump. They are at the heart of his last two books, The Way Back and The Republic of Virtue . He recognized in Trump a force for salutary change. So in early 2016, he signed up as a speechwriter for the candidate and his family. At one point, this attracted unwanted attention: a speech delivered by Donald Trump Jr. was found to have plagiarized an article in . Except it wasn't plagiarism: Buckley was the author of both. I was editor of the magazine at the time, and Buckley is correct when he says in The Republican Workers Party that I enjoyed the non-scandal -- because it brought attention to an essay I thought deserved a brighter spotlight than it had initially received.

Trump's Working Class, Conservative, Populist Realignment How the GOP Can Hang on to the Working Class

A further disclosure or two is in order: I also published some of the material that appears in The Republican Workers Party in the journal I now edit, Modern Age , and I'm thanked in the book's acknowledgments. My warm words for Buckley's last volume are quoted on the dust jacket of this one. The review you're reading now is honest, but subjective -- I'm a part of the story. Only a small one, however: Buckley reveals many details of the Trump campaign and post-election transition that I had never heard before, including how Michael Anton came to be hired and fired.

The campaign memoir is intriguing in its own right, but it's in the service of the book's larger purpose. I've known Buckley to refer to himself as an economic determinist, and he's also said that the future will be decided by a fight between the right-wing Marxists and the left-wing Marxists. But those are exaggerations, and The Republican Workers Party isn't primarily about economics: quite the contrary, it's about solidarity, humanity, and the Christian spirit of brotherhood. The book is informed by a religious sensibility as much as it is by policy acumen. But it's a religious sensibility that addresses the soul through material conditions. Buckley is critical of attempts at a "moral rearmament crusade" that amounts to shaming the poor and blaming them for their own condition.

On this, Buckley is at odds with what movement conservatism has promoted over the last 30-odd years, which is a pure moralism alongside a theoretically pure free-market economism, each restricted to its own categorical silo. An economic conservative or libertarian might thus approach Buckley's book with the trepeditation of a holy Inquisitor fearful that a friend will be found committing heresy. But there is little in these pages that a free-market conservative can quibble with at the policy level: rather it is the spirit in which economic conservatives conduct politics that Buckley criticizes. He is even on the side of conservative orthodoxy, more or less, when it comes to tariffs. He's a free trader at heart, though not a dogmatic one.

On immigration, he favors a more Canadian-like, points-based system that would prioritize skills, with a view toward providing maximum benefit for our current citizens, especially the least well off among them. The present system "admits people who underbid native-born Americans for low-skill jobs, while refusing entry to people with greater skills who would make life better for all Americans." Canada lets in many more immigrants in proportion to its population than the United States does, but "Canadians see an immigration policy designed to benefit the native-born, so they don't think their government wants to stick it to them," even when it comes to generous admission of refugees.

Buckley speaks from experience about immigration and Canada -- he was born, brought up, and lived most of his life there before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2014. Like Alexander Hamilton, whose Caribbean origins gave him a view of America's national economy unprejudiced by sectional interests, Buckley's Canadian background gives him an independent vantage from which to consider our characteristic shibboleths unsparingly. The separation of powers, for one, is a dismal failure that "has given us two or more different Republican parties: a presidential party, which today is the Republican Workers Party, but also congressional Republican parties rooted in the issues and preference of local members. There's the Freedom Caucus composed of Tea Party members, the more moderate Main Street Partnership and whatever maverick senators were thinking this morning." Federalism too is a mixed bag. These are themes touched lightly upon here but worked out in detail in such earlier Buckley books as The Once and Future King .

That's not to say there's something alien about Buckley's ideas. He's an heir to Viscount Bolingbroke, as were many of the Founding Fathers. (He contrasts Bolingbroke's disinterested ideal of a patriot king, for example, with the identity-driven politics of the Democratic Party.) But Buckley is also an heir to George Grant and the Anglo-Canadian tradition of Red Toryism, a form of conservatism that does not bother itself with anti-government formulas that never seem to reduce the size of government one iota anyway. Buckley's heroes are "leaders such as Disraeli, Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) and even Winston Churchill himself." "They were conservative" but "they supported generous social welfare policies."

The policies that Buckley is most concerned about, however, are those that generate social mobility. Education is thus high on his agenda. He is a strong supporter of vouchers and school choice and points again to Canada as a success story for private schools receiving public funds. But America is a rather different country, and as popular as vouchers are on the Right, some of us can't help but wonder whether they would lead to the same outcome in primary and secondary education that federal financial aid has produced in higher education. With the money comes regulation, and usually soaring prices, too.

But Buckley is right that the defects of our present education system go a long way toward explaining the rise of the new status class, and other countries have found answers to the questions that perplex American politics -- or some of them at least. More adventurous thinking is required if anything is to be saved of the American dream of mobility, in place of the nightmare of division into static castes of winners and losers.

Libertarian economists and blame-the-poor moralizers are not the only figures on the Right Buckley criticizes. He has no patience for the barely disguised Nietzscheanism of certain "East Coast" Straussians, who imagine themselves to be philosopher-princes, educating a class of obedient gentlemen who will in turn dominate a mass of purely appetitive worker bees and cannon fodder.

Buckley's book is an argument against right-wing heartlessness. Its title may conjure in some minds phantoms of the National Socialist German Workers Party or America's own penny-ante white nationalist Traditionalist Workers Party, on which the media has lavished a certain amount of attention in recent years. But fascists are not traditionalists, workers, or even, properly speaking, socialists -- they simply steal whatever terms happen to be popular. Buckley refuses to concede their claims and appease them.

He is eloquent in his American -- not white -- nationalism. "There isn't much room for white nationalism in American culture," he writes, "For alongside baseball and apple pie, it includes Langston Hughes and Amy Tan, Tex-Mex food and Norah Jones. You can be an American if you don't enjoy them, but you might be a wee bit more American if you do." It's populism, not nationalism, that he considers a toxic term, its genealogy tracing to figures like "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, a Jim Crow proponent and defender of lynch mobs.

He is right to defend the honor of nationalism, but Buckley may be mistaken in his animus toward "populism," a word that for most people is more likely to bring to mind William Jennings Bryan than the Ku Klux Klan.

Buckley's project in The Republican Workers Party parallels on the Right the task taken up by Mark Lilla on the Left in last year's The Once and Future Liberal . Like Lilla, Buckley wants to see a revival of mid-20th-century liberalism. For both, politics is ultimately class-based, not identity-based. Lilla trains his fire on the identity-parsing Left, while Buckley rebukes the Right for failing to fight the class war -- or rather, for fighting on the wrong side, that of the self-serving New Class, the aristocracy of education, connections, and right-thinking opinion.

This may seem nostalgic, but it's not: Buckley does not expect a return to JFK or Camelot, even if, like Lilla, he once borrowed a title from T.H. White. The 21st century can only give us a new and very different Kennedy or Disraeli -- an insurgent from the Right to retake the center. In Donald Trump, F.H. Buckley found such a figure, but a movement needs a program as well as a leader, and the program has to be grounded in an idea of humanity and the limits of politics. The nation defines those limits, and while not every Trump supporter will agree with Buckley's policy thought in all its specifics, the spirit of Buckley's endeavor represents what is finest in the Trump moment, and what is best in conservatism, too.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.

[Oct 27, 2018] You do not need Russian hackers to get in to the US goverment agency. Porn lovers are enough

Oct 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a new audit of a computer network at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Earth Resouces Observation and Science (EROS) Center satellite imaging facility in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

OIG initiated an investigation into suspicious internet traffic discovered during a regular IT security audit of the USGS computer network. The review found that a single USGS employee infected the network due to the access of unauthorized internet web pages.

Those web pages were embedded with harmful malware, and then downloaded onto a government-issued laptop, which then "exploited the USGS' network."

A digital forensic team examined the infected laptop and found porn. After further review, it was determined the USGS employee visited 9,000 web pages of porn that were hosted mainly on Russian servers and contained toxic malware.

OIG found the employee saved much of the pornographic content on an unauthorized USB drive and personal smartphone, both of which were synced to the government computer and network.

"Our digital forensic examination revealed that [the employee] had an extensive history of visiting adult pornography websites" that hosted dangerous malware, the OIG wrote.

"The malware was downloaded to [the employees'] government laptop, which then exploited the USGS' network."

The forensic team determined two vulnerabilities in the USGS' IT security review: website access and open USB ports. They said the "malware is rogue software that is intended to damage or disable computers and computer systems." The ultimate objective of the malware was to steal highly classified government information while spreading the infection to other systems.

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Rules of Behavior explicitly prohibit employees from using government networks to satisfy porn cravings, and the IOG found the employee had agreed to these rules "several years prior to the detection."

The employee was discharged from the agency, OIG External Affairs Director Nancy DiPaolo told Nextgov.

However, this is not the first time government workers have been figuratively caught with their pants down.

Over the last two decades, similar incidents have occurred at the Environmental Protection Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the IRS.

Last year, a D.C. news team uncovered "egregious on-the-job pornography viewing" at a dozen federal agencies and national security officials have reportedly found an "unbelievable" amount of child porn on government devices, said Nextgov.

It seems that porn watching on government devices is so widespread that Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., introduced legislation banning porn at federal agencies -- three separate times.

Government workers have a porn addiction problem, and it is now jeopardizing national security.

[Oct 27, 2018] Calling Brazil's Presidential Frontrunner 'Neofascist' is Accurate

Notable quotes:
"... As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners, plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion. ..."
"... Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro poses. ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | therealnews.com

As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners, plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion. And certainly in terms of his voters, in terms of his voter base, that's a small proportion. What you have, then, is the rich, amongst whom he has a very significant lead. He polls 60-65 percent amongst the rich. And these people are motivated by what is called [inaudible]machismo, which is anti-Worker's Party sentiment, which is really a sort form of barely-disguised class loathing which targets the Worker's Party, rails against corruption, but of course turns a blind eye to corruption amongst more traditional right-wing politicians.

These are the people who, at the end of the day, are quite influential, and have probably proved decisive for Bolsonaro. But that isn't to say that he doesn't have support amongst the poor, and this is the real issue. Bolsonaro would not win an election with just the support of the reactionary middle class and the rich. He needs the support amongst the broad masses, and he does have that to a significant degree, unfortunately.

What are they motivated by? They're motivated by a sense that politics has failed them, that their situation is pretty hopeless. The security situation is very grave. And Bolsonaro seems to be someone who might do something different, might change things. It's a bit of a rolling of the dice kind of situation. And you know, here the Worker's Party does bear some blame. They've lost a large section of the working class. A large section of the poor feel like they were betrayed by the Worker's Party, who didn't stay true to its promises. The Worker's Party implemented the austerity in its last government under Dilma, which led to a ballooning of unemployment. And you know, there's a sense that- well, what have you done for us? A lot of people don't want to return to the path. They want something better, and kind of roll the dice hoping that maybe Bolsonaro does something, even though all evidence points to the fact that he'll be a government for the rich, and the very rich, and for the forces of repression.

GREG WILPERT: So finally, in the little time that we have remaining, what is happening to Brazil's left? Is it supporting the Haddad campaign wholeheartedly?

ALEX HOCHULI: Yes, absolutely. It's pretty much uniform amongst the left. Certainly in terms of, you know, in terms of individuals, in terms of groups, in terms of movements. Everyone, from even the kind of far-left Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party who hate PT have told its members that they should vote for Fernando Haddad who, it should be noted, is a figure to the right of that of PT, I guess, within the party. He's a much more centrist figure. So that's kind of notable.

What hasn't happened is a broad front against fascism. That hasn't really materialized, because the Brazilian center has failed to defend its democratic institutions against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro represents. You know, just to highlight one thing, Eduardo Bolsonaro, who is Jair Bolsonar's son and a congressman, has threatened the Supreme Court, saying that you could close down the Supreme Court. All you have to do is send one soldier and one corporal, and they'll shut down the Supreme Court. I mean, this is a pretty brave threat against Brazilian institutions. And a lot of the center has failed to really manifest itself, really failed to take a stand. Marina Silva, who was at one point polling quite high about six months ago, who is a kind of an environmentalist and an evangelical and a centrist, and who is known for always in her speeches talking about doing things democratically, even she- it took her until this week to finally endorse Haddad, lending Haddad critical support.

The center right, which should be the, you know, the Brazilian establishment, the ones upholding the institutions, have broadly failed to endorse Haddad as the democratic candidate. Which is really, really striking. I mean, just to give you one example, probably the best known figure for your viewers outside of Brazil who might not know the ins and outs and all the players involved, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro poses.

GREG WILPERT: Wow. Amazing. We'll definitely keep our eyes peeled for what happens on Sunday. We'll probably have you back soon. I'm speaking to Alex Hochuli, researcher and communication consultant based in Sao Paulo. Thanks again, Alex, for having joined us today.

[Oct 27, 2018] Trump Surrenders to John Bolton on Russia and Arms Control by Scott Ritter

Notable quotes:
"... Trump appears to have surrendered to the anti-arms control philosophy of John Bolton, who views such agreements as unduly restricting American power. (Bolton was also behind the 2001 decision by President George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an act the Russians viewed as inherently destabilizing.) ..."
"... By involving China, which was not a signatory to the INF Treaty, into the mix, the president appears to be engaging in a crude negotiating gambit designed to shore up a weak case for leaving the 1987 arms control agreement by playing on previous Russian sensitivities about Chinese nuclear capabilities. ..."
"... Although unspoken, both Bolton and Trump appear to be trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China. They're doing so as those two nations are coming together to craft a joint response to what they view as American overreach on trade and international security. While the Russian concerns over Chinese INF capabilities might have held true a decade ago, that doesn't seem to be the case any longer. ..."
"... The deployment of Pershing II missiles to Europe in the fall of 1983 left the Soviet leadership concerned that the U.S. was seeking to acquire a viable nuclear first-strike capability against the Soviet Union. The Soviets increased their intelligence collection efforts against U.S. targets to be able to detect in advance any U.S./NATO first-strike attack, as well as a "launch on detection" plan to counter any such attack. ..."
"... In November 1983, when the U.S. conducted a full-scale rehearsal for nuclear war in Europe, code-named Able Archer 83, Soviet intelligence interpreted the exercise preparations for the real thing. As a result, Soviet strategic nuclear forces were put on full alert, needing only an order from then-general secretary Yuri Andropov to launch. ..."
"... If the U.S. were ever to make use of the Mk-41 in an anti-missile configuration, the Russians would have seconds to decide if they were being attacked by nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Putin, in a recent speech delivered in Sochi, publicly stated that the Russian nuclear posture operated under the concept of "launch on warning," meaning once a U.S. or NATO missile strike was detected, Russia would immediately respond with the totality of its nuclear arsenal to annihilate the attacking parties. "We would be victims of an aggression and would get to heaven as martyrs," Putin said . Those who attacked Russia would "just die and not even have time to repent." ..."
"... There is no master plan here, no eleven dimensional chess. Trump appears to be weak, stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated because he in fact is weak, stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated. ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Of course he's not the first president the arch hawk has convinced to ditch a nuke treaty Declaring that "there is a new strategic reality out there," President Donald Trump's hardline national security advisor John Bolton announced during a visit to Moscow earlier this week that the United States would be withdrawing from the 31-year-old Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. "This was a Cold War bilateral ballistic missile-related treaty," Bolton said, "in a multi-polar ballistic missile world."

"It is the American position that Russia is in violation," Bolton told reporters after a 90-minute meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Russia's position is that they aren't. So one has to ask how to ask the Russians to come back into compliance with something they don't think they're violating."

Left unsaid by Bolton was the fact that the Russians have been asking the U.S. to provide evidence to substantiate its allegations of Russian noncompliance, something it so far has not done. "The Americans have failed to provide hard facts to substantiate their accusations," a Kremlin spokesperson noted last December after a U.S. delegation was briefed NATO on the allegations. "They just cannot provide them, because such evidence essentially does not exist."

Bolton's declaration mirrored an earlier statement by Trump announcing that "I'm terminating the agreement because [the Russians] violated the agreement." When asked if his comments were meant as a threat to Putin, Trump responded, "It's a threat to whoever you want. And it includes China, and it includes Russia, and it includes anybody else that wants to play that game. You can't do that. You can't play that game on me."

Trump appears to have surrendered to the anti-arms control philosophy of John Bolton, who views such agreements as unduly restricting American power. (Bolton was also behind the 2001 decision by President George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an act the Russians viewed as inherently destabilizing.)

By involving China, which was not a signatory to the INF Treaty, into the mix, the president appears to be engaging in a crude negotiating gambit designed to shore up a weak case for leaving the 1987 arms control agreement by playing on previous Russian sensitivities about Chinese nuclear capabilities.

In 2007, Putin had threatened to withdraw from the INF Treaty because of these reasons. "We are speaking about the plans of a number of neighboring countries developing short- and mid-range missile systems," Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesperson, said at the time , citing China, India and Pakistan. "While our two countries [the U.S. and Russia] are bound by the provisions of the INF treaty there will be a certain imbalance in the region."

Although unspoken, both Bolton and Trump appear to be trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China. They're doing so as those two nations are coming together to craft a joint response to what they view as American overreach on trade and international security. While the Russian concerns over Chinese INF capabilities might have held true a decade ago, that doesn't seem to be the case any longer.

"The Chinese missile program is not related to the INF problem," Konstantin Sivkov, a member of the Russian Academy of Missile and Ammunition Sciences, recently observed . "China has always had medium-range missiles, because it did not enter into a bilateral treaty with the United States on medium and shorter-range missiles." America's speculations about Chinese missiles are "just an excuse" to withdraw from the INF Treaty, the Russian arms control expert charged.

Will Congress Have the Spine to Defy Trump on a Russian Nuke Treaty? Trump Needs to Put Up or Shut Up on Russian Arms Race

Moreover, China doesn't seem to be taking the bait. Yang Chengjun, a Chinese missile expert, observed that the U.S. decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty would have a "negative" impact on China's national security, noting that Beijing "would have to push ahead with the modest development of medium-range missiles" in response. These weapons would be fielded to counter any American build-up in the region, and as such would not necessarily be seen by Russia as representing a threat.

Any student of the INF Treaty knows that the issue of Russia's national security posture vis-à-vis China was understood fully when the then-USSR signed on to the agreement. During the negotiations surrounding INF in the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviets had sought to retain an INF capability in Asia as part of its Chinese deterrence posture. Indeed, the Soviet insistence on keeping such a force was one of the main reasons behind the "zero option" put forward by the U.S. in 1982, where a total ban on INF-capable weapons was proposed. The U.S. knew that the total elimination of INF systems was a poison pill that Russia simply would not swallow, thereby dooming future negotiations.

Mikhail Gorbachev turned the tables on the Americans in 1986, when he embraced the "zero option" and called upon the U.S. to enter into an agreement that banned INF-capable weapons. For the Soviet Union, eliminating the threat to its national security posed by American INF weapons based in Europe was far more important than retaining a limited nuclear deterrence option against China.

The deployment of Pershing II missiles to Europe in the fall of 1983 left the Soviet leadership concerned that the U.S. was seeking to acquire a viable nuclear first-strike capability against the Soviet Union. The Soviets increased their intelligence collection efforts against U.S. targets to be able to detect in advance any U.S./NATO first-strike attack, as well as a "launch on detection" plan to counter any such attack.

In November 1983, when the U.S. conducted a full-scale rehearsal for nuclear war in Europe, code-named Able Archer 83, Soviet intelligence interpreted the exercise preparations for the real thing. As a result, Soviet strategic nuclear forces were put on full alert, needing only an order from then-general secretary Yuri Andropov to launch.

The Soviet system had just undergone a stress test of sorts in September 1983, when malfunctioning early warning satellites indicated that the U.S. had launched five Minuteman 3 Intercontinental missiles toward the Soviet Union. Only the actions of the Soviet duty officer, who correctly identified the warning as a false alarm, prevented a possible nuclear retaliatory strike.

A similar false alarm, this time in 1995, underscored the danger of hair-trigger alert status when it comes to nuclear weapons -- the launch of a Norwegian research rocket was interpreted by Russian radar technicians as being a solo U.S. nuclear missile intended to disrupt Russian defenses by means of an electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear air burst. Russia's president at the time, Boris Yeltsin, ordered the Russian nuclear codes to be prepared for an immediate Russian counter-strike, and was on the verge of ordering the launch when Russian analysts determined the real purpose of the rocket, and the crisis passed.

The Europeans had initially balked at the idea of deploying American INF weapons on their territory, fearful that the weapons would be little more than targets for a Soviet nuclear attack, resulting in the destruction of Europe while the United States remained unharmed. To alleviate European concerns, the U.S. agreed to integrate its INF systems with its overall strategic nuclear deterrence posture, meaning that the employment of INF nuclear weapons would trigger an automatic strategic nuclear response. This approach was designed to increase the deterrence value of the INF weapons, since there would be no "localized" nuclear war. But it also meant that given the reduced flight times associated with European-based INF systems, each side would be on a hair-trigger alert, with little or no margin for error. It was the suicidal nature of this arrangement that helped propel Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan to sign the INF Treaty on December 8, 1987.

This history seems to be lost on both Trump and Bolton. Moreover, the recent deployment of the Mk-41 Universal Launch System, also known as Aegis Ashore, in Romania and Poland as part of a NATO ballistic missile shield only increases the danger of inadvertent conflict. Currently configured to fire the SM-3 surface-to-air missile, the Mk-41 is also capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles which, if launched in a ground configuration, would represent a violation of the INF Treaty. The U.S. Congress has authorized $58 billion in FY 2018 to fund development of an INF system, the leading candidate for which is a converted Tomahawk.

If the U.S. were ever to make use of the Mk-41 in an anti-missile configuration, the Russians would have seconds to decide if they were being attacked by nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Putin, in a recent speech delivered in Sochi, publicly stated that the Russian nuclear posture operated under the concept of "launch on warning," meaning once a U.S. or NATO missile strike was detected, Russia would immediately respond with the totality of its nuclear arsenal to annihilate the attacking parties. "We would be victims of an aggression and would get to heaven as martyrs," Putin said . Those who attacked Russia would "just die and not even have time to repent."

"We'll have to develop those weapons," Trump noted when he announced his decision to leave the INF Treaty, adding "we have a tremendous amount of money to play with our military." Nuclear deterrence isn't a game -- it is, as Putin noted, a matter of life and death, where one split second miscalculation can destroy entire nations, if not the world. One can only hope that the one-time real estate mogul turned president can figure this out before it is too late; declaring bankruptcy in nuclear conflict is not an option.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War .

General Manager October 25, 2018 at 9:41 pm

What Sheldon Adelson wants, Sheldon gets. Shame on Trump.
EliteCommInc , says: October 25, 2018 at 11:40 pm
"Left unsaid by Bolton was the fact that the Russians have been asking the U.S. to provide evidence to substantiate its allegations of Russian noncompliance, something it so far has not done. "

Always the bottom line. And that has been our folly since 9/11. We have not had proof to justify our actions. And the fact that this executive continues mollywog forward based soley on the accusations of "knowledgeable advisers"

Laugh -- just makes for bad policy.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

But again the president has no ground. He has acknowledged that Russia sabotaged or attempted to sabotage the US electoral process and believes as to the record that Russia engaged in murder and attempted murder at the behest of Pres. Putin.

Anything less than aggressive confrontation makes him appear

1. he distrusts the intel and mil. community

2. he is too weak to stand up to Russia

3. actually colluded with Russia in sabotaging the
election

4. a combination of above

Minus the courage to stand his preferred course – foreign policy with Russia has been relinquished to others. Even if their leadership has been repeatedly a failure.

Ohhh well. frustrating

Christian Chuba , says: October 26, 2018 at 7:15 am
Comments on the Yahoo message board (aptly named) capture the true reason quite well. We bankrupted the Russians in the 1980's and we will do it again. There is an axiom Generals always prepare for the last war.

Why compromise when you can win? Accusing your opponents of aggression and claiming the moral high ground is just a bonus. We will break up Russia into even smaller pieces, Crimea gone for good, Chechnya gone, far east gone, arctic claims gone, ?

Sisera , says: October 26, 2018 at 10:46 am
@GeneralManager

Agreed, and what's left out of Trump-Russia discussions is how the Israelis wanted Trump to do a charm offensive to the Russians over Syria. The idea was at Bibi's orders (from as early as 2016) the US would relieve sanctions on Russia in exchange for Russia forcing Iranians to leave Syria. It may also be used as Russia's permission for an US-led Iranian invasion.

However, Israel just cannot help itself and persistent attacks on Syrians (not merely Iranians) convinced the Russians they were bad faith actors. This was reported in Haaretz over the summer but I've lost the link.

Sid Finster , says: October 26, 2018 at 11:20 am
There is no master plan here, no eleven dimensional chess. Trump appears to be weak, stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated because he in fact is weak, stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated.
say who and who say , says: October 26, 2018 at 3:52 pm
Trump surrenders to whoever's whispering in his ear. It happens to be Bolton, which is bad.

He surrenders because he has to, which is because he's stone ignorant about important stuff.

That's all there is, baby. Bolton talks, Trump listens, and next thing you know it's fifty years ago and we're in a nuclear arms race. This "the President wants" stuff you hear from Bolton is a joke. It's "John Bolton wants, and the President says".

[Oct 27, 2018] Who profits from the end of the mid-range nuclear treaty Asia Times

Notable quotes:
"... The harsh language may not be exactly diplomatic. What it does is reflect plenty of exasperation towards the US conservatives who peddle the absurd notion of a "limited" nuclear war. ..."
"... The harsh language also reflects a certainty that whatever the degree of escalation envisaged by the Trump administration and the Pentagon, that won't be enough to neutralize Russian hypersonic missiles. ..."
"... So, it's no wonder that EU diplomats, trying to ease their discomfort, recognize that this, in the end, is all about the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and the necessity of keeping the massive US military-industrial-surveillance complex running. ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | www.atimes.com

By now it's clear the Trump administration's rationale for pulling out of the INF Treaty is due, in Bolton's words, to "a new strategic reality". The INF is being dismissed as a "bilateral treaty in a multipolar ballistic missile world", which does not take into consideration the missile capabilities of China, Iran and North Korea.

But there is a slight problem. The INF Treaty limits missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,000 km. China, Iran and North Korea simply cannot pose a "threat" to the United States by deploying such missiles. The INF is all about the European theater of war.

So, it's no wonder the reaction in Brussels and major European capitals has been of barely disguised horror.

EU diplomats have told Asia Times the US decision was a "shock", and "the last straw for the EU as it jeopardizes our very existence, subjecting us to nuclear destruction by short-range missiles", which would never be able to reach the US heartland.

The "China" reason – that Russia is selling Beijing advanced missile technology – simply does not cut it in Europe, as the absolute priority is European security. EU diplomats are establishing a parallel to the possibility – which was more than real last year – that Washington could nuclear-bomb North Korea unilaterally. South Korea and Japan, in that case, would be nuclear "collateral damage". The same might happen to Europe in the event of a US-Russia nuclear shoot-out.

It goes without saying that shelving the INF could even accelerate the demise of the whole post-WWII Western alliance, heralding a remix of the 1930s with a vengeance.

And the clock keeps ticking

Reports that should be critically examined in detail assert that US superiority over China's military power is rapidly shrinking. Yet China is not much of a military technology powerhouse compared to Russia and its state of the art hypersonic missiles.

NATO may be relatively strong on the missile front – but it still wouldn't be able to compete with Russia in a potential battle in Europe.

The supreme danger, in Doomsday Clock terms, is the obsession by certain US neocon factions that Washington could prevail in a "limited", localized, tactical nuclear war against Russia.

That's the whole rationale behind extending US first-strike capability as close as possible to the Russian western borderlands.

Russian analysts stress that Moscow is already – "unofficially" – perfecting what would be their own first-strike capability in these borderlands. The mere hint of NATO attempting to start a countdown in Poland, the Baltics or the Black Sea may be enough to encourage Russia to strike.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov starkly refuted Trump and Bolton's claims that Russia was violating the INF Treaty: "As far as we understood, the US side has made a decision, and it will launch formal procedures for withdrawing from this treaty in the near future."

As for Russia's resolve, everything one needs to know is part of Putin's detailed intervention at the Valdai Economic Forum . Essentially, Putin did not offer any breaking news – but a stark reminder that Moscow will strike back at any provocation configured as a threat to the future of Russia.

Russians, in this case, would "die like martyrs" and the response to an attack would be so swift and brutal that the attackers would "die like dogs".

The harsh language may not be exactly diplomatic. What it does is reflect plenty of exasperation towards the US conservatives who peddle the absurd notion of a "limited" nuclear war.

The harsh language also reflects a certainty that whatever the degree of escalation envisaged by the Trump administration and the Pentagon, that won't be enough to neutralize Russian hypersonic missiles.

So, it's no wonder that EU diplomats, trying to ease their discomfort, recognize that this, in the end, is all about the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and the necessity of keeping the massive US military-industrial-surveillance complex running.

Even as the clock keeps ticking closer to midnight.

[Oct 27, 2018] Scary Halloween Bombs to Scare Voters: Is this CIA democrats way to campaign for election?

Notable quotes:
"... They had to assemble a number of these devices and no one knows if the idea was to scare these political operatives or was a true false flag operation. ..."
"... When yet another 'explosives expert' was introduced to explain the procedure, I burst out laughing. When I looked around at the several disapproving faces in the dining area, I shrugged my shoulders and remarked: "It reminds me of Pro Wrestling." One other older man laughed. The rest were perplexed. ..."
"... I am inclined at this point to think that this is a campaign organized from the left intended to move the needle before the elections. I would look for college students in the NY City area where "bombs" have been hand delivered. Try NYU or Columbia first. ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Whoever cooked up the scheme to send fake bombs to Democrat politicians on the eve of the 2018 mid-term election, you have to give them credit for creativity. The so-called "bombs" sent to the likes of the Clintons, Obama, Soros and Joe Biden are made to appear like real bombs but lack the detonator and other key components that one would normally find with a real Improvised Explosive Device. Friends in ATF and the FBI tell me that these "devices" are to explosives what the little kid dressed as Pocohontas is to real American Indians. Costumed theater.

The audience for this theater is the voting public. The Democrats want you to believe that Donald Trump has stirred up a culture of hate and that some acolyte of Trump has now embarked on his own personal jihad. Of course, those pushing this nonsense ignore Madonna's call to blow up the White House. They ignore Kathy Griffin's decapitation of the President's effigy. They ignore the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot up the Republicans practicing for a softball game. They ignore the mob attacks on Sarah Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and others in the Trump Administration. They ignore the multiple Antifa attacks that have shutdown conservative Republicans. They ignore the cacophony of epithets hurled by former Obama officials, like John Brennan and Jim Clapper, against Donald Trump.

Nope. It is all Donald Trump's fault. What a crock!!!

[Oct 27, 2018] The EU Russia China Plan to Avert Iran Oil Sanctions by F. William Engdahl

Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the US dollar remains the overwhelming dominant currency for international trade and financial transactions gives Washington extraordinary power over banks and companies in the rest of the world. That's the financial equivalent of a neutron bomb. That might be about to change, though it's by no means a done deal yet. ..."
"... German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Handelsblatt, a leading German business daily, "Europe should not allow the U.S. to act over our heads and at our expense. For that reason, it's essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent SWIFT system ." ..."
"... In addition to the recent statements from the German Foreign Minister, France is discussing expanding the Iran SPV to create a means of insulating the EU economies from illegal extraterritorial sanctions like the secondary sanctions that punish EU companies doing business in Iran by preventing them from using the dollar or doing business in the USA. ..."
"... F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook." https://journal-neo.org/2018/10/23/the-eu-russia-china-plan-to-avert-iran-oil-sanctions/ ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | journal-neo.org

It may well be that the unilateral wrecking ball politics of the Trump Administration are bringing about a result just opposite from that intended. Washington's decision to abandon the Iran nuclear agreement and impose severe sanctions on companies trading Iran oil as of 4 November, is creating new channels of cooperation between the EU, Russia, China and Iran and potentially others. The recent declaration by Brussels officials of creation of an unspecified Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to legally avoid US dollar oil trade and thereby US sanctions, might potentially spell the beginning of the end of the Dollar System domination of the world economy.

According to reports from the last bilateral German-Iran talks in Teheran on October 17, the mechanisms of a so-called Special Purpose Vehicle that would allow Iran to continue to earn from its oil exports, will begin implementation in the next days. At end of September EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini confirmed plans to create such an independent trade channel, noting, "no sovereign country or organization can accept that somebody else decides with whom you are allowed to do trade with ."

The SPV plan is reportedly modelled on the Soviet barter system used during the cold war to avert US trade sanctions, where Iran oil would be in some manner exchanged for goods without money. The SPV agreement would reportedly involve the European Union, Iran, China and Russia.

According to various reports out of the EU the new SPV plan involves a sophisticated barter system that can avoid US Treasury sanctions. As an example, Iran could ship crude oil to a French firm, accrue credit via the SPV, much like a bank. That could then be used to pay an Italian manufacturer for goods shipped the other way, without any funds traversing through Iranian hands or the normal banking system.A multinational European state-backed financial intermediary would be set up to handle deals with companies interested in Iran transactions and with Iranian counter-parties. Any transactions would not be transparent to the US, and would involve euros and sterling rather than dollars.

It's an extraordinary response to what Washington has called a policy of all-out financial war against Iran, that includes threats to sanction European central banks and the Brussels-based SWIFT interbank payments network if they maintain ties to Iran after November 4. In the post-1945 relations between Western Europe and Washington such aggressive measures have not been seen before.It's forcing some major rethinking from leading EU policy circles.

New Banking Architecture

The background to the mysterious initiative was presented in June in a report titled, Europe, Iran and Economic Sovereignty: New Banking Architecture in Response to US Sanctions. The report was authored by Iranian economist Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and Axel Hellman, a Policy Fellow at the European Leadership Network (ELN), a London-based policy think tank .

The report proposes its new architecture should have two key elements. First it will be based on "gateway banks" designated to act as intermediaries between Iranian and EU commercial banks tied to the Special Purpose Vehicle. The second element is that it would be overseen by an EU-Office of Foreign Asset Controls or EU-OFAC, modeled on the same at the US Treasury, but used for facilitating legal EU-Iran trade, not for blocking it. Their proposed EU-OFAC among other functions would undertake creating certification mechanisms for due diligence on the companies doing such trade and "strengthen EU legal protections for entities engaged in Iran trade and investment ."

The SPV reportedly is based on this plan using designated Gateway Banks, banks in the EU unaffected by Washington "secondary sanctions," as they do not do business in the US and focus on business with Iran. They might include select state-owned German Landesbanks, certain Swiss private banks such as the Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank (EIH), a European bank established specifically to engage in trade finance with Iran. In addition, select Iran banks with offices in the EU could be brought in.

Whatever the final result, it is clear that the bellicose actions of the Trump Administration against trade with Iran is forcing major countries into cooperation that ultimately could spell the demise of the dollar hegemony that has allowed a debt-bloated US Government to finance a de facto global tyranny at the expense of others.

EU-Russia-China

During the recent UN General Assembly in New York, Federica Mogherini said the SPV was designed to facilitate payments related to Iran's exports – including oil –so long as the firms involved were carrying out legitimate business under EU law. China and Russia are also involved in the SPV. Potentially Turkey, India and other countries could later join.

Immediately, as expected, Washington has reacted. At the UN US Secretary of State and former CIA head Mike Pompeo declared to an Iran opposition meeting that he was "disturbed and indeed deeply disappointed" by the EU plan. Notably he said ""This is one of the of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional and global peace and security." Presumably the Washington plan for economic war against Iranis designed to foster regional and global peace and security?

Non-US SWIFT?

One of the most brutal weapons in the US Treasury financial warfare battery is the ability to force the Brussels-based SWIFT private interbank clearing system to cut Iran off from using it. That was done with devastating effect in 2012 when Washington pressured the EU to get SWIFT compliance, a grave precedent that sent alarm bells off around the world.

The fact that the US dollar remains the overwhelming dominant currency for international trade and financial transactions gives Washington extraordinary power over banks and companies in the rest of the world. That's the financial equivalent of a neutron bomb. That might be about to change, though it's by no means a done deal yet.

In 2015 China unveiled its CIPS or China International Payments System. CIPS was originally viewed as a future China-based alternative to SWIFT. It would offer clearing and settlement services for its participants in cross-border RMB payments and trade. Unfortunately, a Chinese stock market crisis forced Beijing to downscale their plans, though a skeleton of infrastructure is there.

In another area, since late 2017 Russia and China have discussed possible linking their bilateral payments systems bypassing the dollar. China's Unionpay system and Russia's domestic payment system, known as Karta Mir, would be linked directly .

More recently leading EU policy circles have echoed such ideas, unprecedented in the post-1944 era. In August, referring to the unilateral US actions to block oil and other trade with Iran, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Handelsblatt, a leading German business daily, "Europe should not allow the U.S. to act over our heads and at our expense. For that reason, it's essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent SWIFT system ."

A Crack in the Dollar Edifice

How far the EU is willing to defy Washington on the issue of trade with Iran is not yet clear. Most probably Washington via NSA and other means can uncover the trades of the EU-Iran-Russia-China SPV.

In addition to the recent statements from the German Foreign Minister, France is discussing expanding the Iran SPV to create a means of insulating the EU economies from illegal extraterritorial sanctions like the secondary sanctions that punish EU companies doing business in Iran by preventing them from using the dollar or doing business in the USA. French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Agnes Von der Muhll, stated that in addition to enabling companies to continue to trade with Iran, that the SPV would, "create an economic sovereignty tool for the European Union beyond this one case. It is therefore a long-term plan that will protect European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial sanctions ."

If this will be the case with the emerging EU Special Purpose Vehicle, it will create a gaping crack in the dollar edifice. Referring to the SPV and its implications, Jarrett Blanc, former Obama State Department official involved in negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement noted that, "The payment mechanism move opens the door to a longer-term degradation of US sanctions power."

At present the EU has displayed effusive rhetoric and loud grumbling against unilateral US economic warfare and extraterritorial imposition of sanctions such as those against Russia. Their resolve to potently move to create a genuine alternative to date has been absent. So too is the case so far in other respects for China and Russia. Will the incredibly crass US sanctions war on Iran finally spell the beginning of the end of the dollar domination of the world economy it has held since Bretton Woods in 1945?

My own feeling is that unless the SPV in whatever form utilizes the remarkable technological advantages of certain of the blockchain or ledger technologies similar to the US-based XRP or Ripple, that would enable routing payments across borders in a secure and almost instantaneous way globally, it won't amount to much. It's not that European IT programmers lack the expertise to develop such, and certainly not the Russians. After all one of the leading blockchain companies was created by a Russian-born Canadian named Vitalik Buterin. The Russian Duma is working on new legislation regarding digital currencies, though the Bank of Russia still seems staunchly opposed. The Peoples' Bank of China is rapidly developing and testing a national cryptocurrency, ChinaCoin. Blockchain technologies are widely misunderstood, even in government circles such as the Russian Central Bank that ought to see it is far more than a new "South Sea bubble." The ability of a state-supervised payments system to move value across borders, totally encrypted and secure is the only plausible short-term answer to unilateral sanctions and financial wars until a more civilized order among nations is possible.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
https://journal-neo.org/2018/10/23/the-eu-russia-china-plan-to-avert-iran-oil-sanctions/

[Oct 27, 2018] Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute: in a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers not legal and illegal immigrants

Notable quotes:
"... This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. ..."
"... This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was never meant to be owned in the first place. ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [224] Disclaimer , says: October 27, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT

"Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn't we have a stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called "weaponized Keynesianism" doesn't stimulate)."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2016/04/02/we-need-fiscal-policy/?fbclid=IwAR02l1AlZGMpapbTOdURjgRknx6Kai-24Z6fXBCXyBolgdgodvjSmYmXAdw#1c4e7dea8b40

This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. This experiment was going on in Honduras, following the 2009 coup, until it was finally ended by a SC ruling that it was unconstitutional.

"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers -- not legal and illegal immigrants." ~ Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute

This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was never meant to be owned in the first place.

[Oct 27, 2018] Big Business Strikes Back The Class Struggle from Above by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... Bankers, agro-business elites, commercial mega owners, manufacturing, real estate and insurance bosses and their financial advisers, elite members of the 'ruling class', have launched a full-scale attack on private and public wage and salary workers, and small and medium size entrepreneurs (the members of the 'popular classes'). The attack has targeted income ,pensions, medical plans, workplace conditions, job security, rents, mortgages, educational costs, taxation,undermining family and household cohesion. ..."
"... Big business has weakened or abolished political and social organizations which challenge the distribution of income and profits and influence the rates of workplace output. In brief the ruling classes have intensified exploitation and oppression through the 'class struggle' from above. ..."
"... The United States witnessed the ruling class take full control of the state, the workplace and distribution of social expenditures. ..."
"... The upsurge of the popular class struggle was contained and confined by the center-left political elite, while the ruling class marked time, making business deals to secure lucrative state contracts via bribes to the ruling center-left allied with the conservative political elite . ..."
"... The big business ruling class learned their lessons from their previous experience with weak and conciliating neo-liberal regimes. They sought authoritarian and, if possible rabble rousing political leaders, who could dismantle the popular organizations, and gutted popular welfare programs and democratic institutions, which previously blocked the consolidation of the neo-liberal New Order. ..."
"... The term "invidious distinction" was coined by Thornstein Veblen in his seminal "The Theory of the Leisure Class", in which Veblen argues that one of the primary human motivations is to evoke envy in our fellows. ..."
"... "Popular" class struggles need to be seen for what they are; temporary expedients whereby one set of rulers uses the populace for their own ends and against their competitors. ..."
"... Too many people get suckered into supporting "popular" movements and sometimes do gain temporary benefits, but when their handlers get what they want, the fun and games are over. ..."
Oct 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Bankers, agro-business elites, commercial mega owners, manufacturing, real estate and insurance bosses and their financial advisers, elite members of the 'ruling class', have launched a full-scale attack on private and public wage and salary workers, and small and medium size entrepreneurs (the members of the 'popular classes'). The attack has targeted income ,pensions, medical plans, workplace conditions, job security, rents, mortgages, educational costs, taxation,undermining family and household cohesion.

Big business has weakened or abolished political and social organizations which challenge the distribution of income and profits and influence the rates of workplace output. In brief the ruling classes have intensified exploitation and oppression through the 'class struggle' from above.

We will proceed by identifying the means, methods and socio-political conditions which have advanced the class struggle from above and, conversely, reversed and weakened the class struggle from below.

Historical Context

The class struggle is the major determinant of the advances and regression of the interests of the capitalist class. Following the Second World War, the popular classes experienced steady advances in income, living standards, and work place representation. However by the last decade of the 20 th century the balance of power between the ruling and popular classes began to shift, as a new 'neo-liberal' development paradigm became prevalent.

First and foremost, the state ceased to negotiate and conciliate relations between rulers and the working class: the [neoliberal] state concentrated on de-regulating the economy, reducing corporate taxes, and eliminating labor's role in politics and the division of profits and income.

The concentration of state power and income was not uncontested and was not uniform in all regions and countries. Moreover, counter-cyclical trends, reflecting shifts in the balance of the class struggle precluded a linear process. In Europe, the Nordic and Western European countries' ruling classes advanced privatization of public enterprises, reduced social welfare costs and benefits, and pillaged overseas resources but were unable to break the state funded welfare system. In Latin America the advance and regression of the power, income and welfare of the popular class, correlated with the outcome of the class and state struggle.

The United States witnessed the ruling class take full control of the state, the workplace and distribution of social expenditures.

In brief, by the end of the 20 th century, the ruling class advanced in assuming a dominant role in the class struggle.

Nevertheless, the class struggle from below retained its presence, and in some places, namely in Latin America, the popular classes were able to secure a share of state power – at least temporarily.

Popular Power: Contesting the Class Struggle from Above

Latin America is a prime example of the uneven trajectory of the class struggle.

Between the end of World War Two and the late 1940's, the popular classes were able to secure democratic rights, populist reforms and social organization. Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela were among the leading examples. By the early 1950's with the onset of the US imperialist 'cold war', in collaboration with the regional ruling classes launched a violent class war from above, which took the form of military coups in Guatemala, Peru, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil. The populist class struggle was defeated by the US backed military- business rulers who, temporarily imposed US agro-mineral export economies.

The 1950's were the 'golden epoch' for the advance of US multi-nationals and Pentagon designed regional military alliances. But the class struggle from below rose again and found expression in the growth of a progressive national populist industrializing coalition, and the successful Cuban socialist regime and its followers in revolutionary social movements in the rest of Latin America throughout the 1960's.

The revolutionary popular class insurgency of the early 1960's was countered by the ruling class seizure of power backed by military-US led coups between 1964-1976 which demolished the regimes and institutions of the popular classes in Brazil (1964), Bolivia (1970), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976) , Peru (1973) and elsewhere.

Economic crises of the early 1980s reduced the role of the military and led to a 'negotiated transition' in which the ruling class advanced a neo-liberal agenda in exchange for electoral participation under military and US tutelage.

Lacking direct military rule, the ruling class struggle succeeded in muting the popular class struggle by co-opting the center-left political elites. The ruling class did not or could not establish hegemony over the popular classes even as they proceeded with their neo-liberal agenda.

With the advent of the 21 st century a new cycle in the class struggle from below burst forth. Three events intersected: the global crises of 2000 triggered regional financial crashes, which in turn led to a collapse of industries and mass unemployment, which intensified mass direct action and the ouster of the neo-liberal regimes. Throughout the first decade of the 21 st century, neo-liberalism was in retreat. The popular class struggle and the rise of social movements displaced the neo-liberal regimes but was incapable of replacing the ruling classes. Instead hybrid center-left electoral regimes took power.

The new power configuration incorporated popular social movements, center-left parties and neo-liberal business elites. Over the next decade the cross-class alliance advanced largely because of the commodity boom which financed welfare programs, increased employment, implemented poverty reduction programs and expanded investments in infrastructure. Post-neoliberal regimes co-opted the leaders of the popular classes, replaced ruling class political elites but did not displace the strategic structural positions of the business ruling class..

The upsurge of the popular class struggle was contained and confined by the center-left political elite, while the ruling class marked time, making business deals to secure lucrative state contracts via bribes to the ruling center-left allied with the conservative political elite .

The end of the commodity boom, forced the center-left to curtail its social welfare and infrastructure programs and fractured the alliance between big business leaders and center-left political elites. The ensuing economic recession facilitated the return of the neo-liberal political elite to power.

The big business ruling class learned their lessons from their previous experience with weak and conciliating neo-liberal regimes. They sought authoritarian and, if possible rabble rousing political leaders, who could dismantle the popular organizations, and gutted popular welfare programs and democratic institutions, which previously blocked the consolidation of the neo-liberal New Order.

... ... ...

Renoman , says: October 26, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT

The strait up truth!
A Bit Sandy , says: October 26, 2018 at 10:25 pm GMT
"The rightist rhetoric turns against itself as its followers engage in invidious distinctions ."

Interesting. You don't see Veblen's "invidious distinction" trotted out very often these days which is a pity. More the pity that it is misused in quote above. It's probably uncharitable to take cheap shots at the article, which is a beautiful, anti-fa inspired, fairytale history of the modern age. I just wish more care would be used for Marxist and non-marxist socialist phrases such as "class struggle" and "invidious distinction" because it impossible to detest them adequately when they are improperly deployed.

The term "invidious distinction" was coined by Thornstein Veblen in his seminal "The Theory of the Leisure Class", in which Veblen argues that one of the primary human motivations is to evoke envy in our fellows. Veblen thought that because all value is subjective/arbitrary, it's quite reasonable to assume that the most efficient value signal is that which creates the most envy in other men. A man's social standing is therefore efficiently established by status symbols that invoke envy such as a Rolex or a Mercedes. The peculiar consequence of this is that often, men desire a thing like a Rolex because other men want one, even up to the point when the object lacks any utility whatsoever other than signaling wealth, which itself is defined as having things that others want. Invidious distinction is therefore best evidenced through conspicuous consumption, however nearly all actions that do not have subsistence as their aim are undertaken to gain social standing or signal social standing by invoking envy.

Thus the quote above could be rewritten to be "The rightist rhetoric turns against itself as its followers engage in non-subsistence activities" which is kind of dumb. If the author is prognosticating that the authoritarian new order will turn on itself, it'd be nice to know have a more substantive explanation than "non-subsistence activities". Moreover, if the authoritarian new order is to shed it's "shock troops" in exchange for "meritocrats" it'd be nice to know why. That's my 2 cents, but I'm curious to know what others think of this curious tale!

TimeTraveller , says: October 27, 2018 at 6:02 am GMT

The corruption of upwardly mobile middle-class rabble rousers will disillusion their voluntary followers. Arbitrary police and military repression usually extends to extortion and intimidation beyond the drug slums to the middle and working-class neighborhoods.

Also, the rise of AI, data mining, and complex algorithms, as well as the proliferation of electronic devices that record and analyze our private spaces is a pillar of the new order. Essentially, we are being watched by machines.

People need to reject the material order. Spiritual awakening is the key.

Revolutionaries will find new ways to defeat these technology-based tactics. Dogwhistling, communication on a personal level (rather than by mass media or the internet), and old-fashioned tribalism should help. Also, leaderless resistance can play a role. Weaknesses will be found in the crumbling edifice, and many hands can chisel separately.

Infiltration and sabotage can also be applied.

Possibly unrelated, but maybe thought-provoking:

Consider the man they just arrested for the mail bomb scare. Reportedly, this person was a career criminal with drug dealing and grand theft on his record and he was caught in possession of a white van with decals on it depicting his targets. This man is a caricature of a Trump supporter, ready-made for the cable news broadcast. Does anyone else see the absurdity of it? Can this guy be for real?

The authoritarian New Order usually begins to decline through 'internal rot' – uber- profiteering and flagrant abuse of work.

jilles dykstra , says: October 27, 2018 at 6:41 am GMT
" However sustaining their advance is conditional on dynamic economic growth "

You cannot fool all people all the time. Our Dutch Rutte governments now for some ten years have told us that the economy is growing, alas the average Dutchman by now knows that 'there are lies, big lies, and statistics', in other words, it may well be that the economy is growing, but the average Dutchman does not see his buying power increased.

On the contrary, those that work have a more or less constant buying power, those that do not work, for whatever reason: cannot find a job, permanent illness, retired, see quite well how their material position deteriorates steadily.

anon [455] Disclaimer , says: October 27, 2018 at 8:35 am GMT
a better title for this article might have been " what's wrong with everything for dummies" ?
Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: October 27, 2018 at 9:12 am GMT
The alliance of big globalized business and big Governments is an unbearable burden for most of the populations. Since the 70`s you have to work more and more and to study more and more for less and less

I foresee that if this continue in the next 20 years millions and millions of people will die of marginalization, of hunger , misery and grief .

jim jones , says: October 27, 2018 at 10:42 am GMT
The Fake Left (clinton neoliberals) have abandoned the Working Class and embraced identity politics.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 27, 2018 at 11:06 am GMT
This is the most important problem governments, and in the wider sense humanity is encountering. The pendulum is incessantly swinging from center to right and than reverses from right to left.

Marx theories are totally one sided and do not solve anything. Extreme swing to the left brought at start enthusiasm of the working classes and for certain time progress of the humanity was phenomenal. But in time the progress did stop and population become lethargic and progress become stagnation leading to depression. Similar thing happens when pendulum is swinging to the right.

Eventually the purchasing power of the population diminishes to the size when crisis of the system is inevitable. Most important task of the governments is to control the economy that the extent of the swings are small as possible.

Jeff Stryker , says: October 27, 2018 at 11:07 am GMT
@Anon Things seem to have improved in Asia since I first went abroad in 2000. In the US, on the other hand, life seems to have gotten more and more difficult.

If you had told me in 1993 when I left home that Gen Y of age 30 would live at home and that entire families of white people would be homeless or that MBA's would have to work in Bistros at age 25 I would have said you're crazed.

The odd thing in the US is that it is the middle-class seems to have gotten hit the worst. The white underclass and blacks have always had it hard and poor. Much of the time they deserve it because they have babies at 19 and don't go to college. But the destruction of the middle-class whites is quite phenomenal.

Jeff Stryker , says: October 27, 2018 at 11:09 am GMT
@Anon UNBEARABLE

It is unbearable for the middle-class. The underclass does not care. Big governments tend to be corrupt, so money talks. If you live in the ghetto or the trailer park you have no expectations anyhow. You were not going to be a great citizen anyhow. But for the middle-class things will be shocking.

jacques sheete , says: October 27, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
@Anon

but will a new popular class struggle emerge?

I doubt that such a thing ever occurred to any substantial degree. "Popular" class struggles need to be seen for what they are; temporary expedients whereby one set of rulers uses the populace for their own ends and against their competitors.

Too many people get suckered into supporting "popular" movements and sometimes do gain temporary benefits, but when their handlers get what they want, the fun and games are over. The author noted the concept, saying,

Between the end of World War Two and the late 1940's, the popular classes were able to secure democratic rights, populist reforms and social organization. [but then began] bullying of traditional allies

... ... ...

jacques sheete , says: October 27, 2018 at 12:44 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

But for the middle-class things will be shocking.

No "will be" about it. You noted it in your comment #10 and my observations agree,

But the destruction of the middle-class whites is quite phenomenal.

The assault on the middle class has been taking place for decades and many people have been feeling it although most apparently still hope for some Messiah, and many of them apparently think either Hillaryena or the Trumpster was it. Where they get their faith I'll never know.

Respect , says: October 27, 2018 at 12:45 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Same thing in Spain, and in most of western Europe I would say . The macroeconomy is going well for the chosen ones , and the microeconomy is going very bad for most of the population .
jacques sheete , says: October 27, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

Much of the time they deserve it because they don't go to college.

Wrong.

Schooling in the USA for some time been nothing more than babysitting and brainwashing and that's by design. Completing college nowadays is mainly for immature, dependent losers especially since many of them will be burdened with a non-marketable degree and debt for decades and in any case, the majority will wind up as wage slaves anyway. The way to go now is to learn a trade, especially one that a person can practice independently and with low capital, and get to work, but the window for even that seems to be fast closing too.

If one has the talent (rare) sales can still be a good road to relative independence with no "collitch" needed.

JackOH , says: October 27, 2018 at 1:09 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker "If you live in the ghetto or the trailer park you have no expectations anyhow. You were not going to be a great citizen anyhow."

"But for the middle-class things will be shocking."

Spot on, Jeff. I see remnants of the onetime middle class around me. People with a degree or advanced degree, people with identifiable special skills (accountancy, engineering) who guard their expertise as would a 15th century guild worker, people with decent table manners...

Then their Fortune 500 company kicks them out of their corporate featherbed, they spend a year or two or more discovering their specialized skills are worth half of what they'd thought, and when they land a job, they're expected to cook the books or sign off on dodgy products, acting as designated corporate fall guys in the event of an investigation.

Jeff Stryker , says: October 27, 2018 at 1:17 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

When I was in university there was no Leftist programming. People were there to become engineers, IT specialists, doctors, nurses, businessmen, accounting. You maybe had to take an "African-American studies" course but that was just to get enough credits to graduate. Also, by the time most people went to college (when I did from 93-98) they were adults with opinions. Sales is a diminishing field now with the internet.

Wizard of Oz , says: October 27, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@jim jones A shrewd observation is my immediate reaction. Most likely true of the organised institutional left which, when it's old product no longer sells doesn't want to declare bankruptcy and shut up shop.
Anon [224] Disclaimer , says: October 27, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
"Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn't we have a stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called "weaponized Keynesianism" doesn't stimulate)."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2016/04/02/we-need-fiscal-policy/?fbclid=IwAR02l1AlZGMpapbTOdURjgRknx6Kai-24Z6fXBCXyBolgdgodvjSmYmXAdw#1c4e7dea8b40

This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. This experiment was going on in Honduras, following the 2009 coup, until it was finally ended by a SC ruling that it was unconstitutional.

"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers – not legal and illegal immigrants." ~ Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute

This is the struggle – the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was never meant to be owned in the first place.

jacques sheete , says: October 27, 2018 at 3:05 pm GMT
@Respect

The macroeconomy is going well for the chosen ones , and the microeconomy is going very bad for most of the population .

As always. Whenever someone makes a broad comment about "the" economy, I begin to yawn. The distinction you make is a critical one.

[Oct 27, 2018] Rapid drop of the recruitment rates may accelerate hyper-automation and privatization of the US army

Oct 27, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.com


Posted by: Never Mind the Bollocks | Oct 26, 2018 2:58:29 PM | 6

[Oct 27, 2018] Trump turned into pure neocon: withdrawal from INF traty roiled Moscow but pleased neocons

Notable quotes:
"... Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at ..."
"... where he covers the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency. ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Neither the Kremlin nor the White House had confirmed Bolton's remarks as of this afternoon. Putin, in Russia this week with Bolton, held out hope of eventually repairing his relationship with America, but appeared frustrated at the current pace of progress.

"As far as I can remember, the U.S. seal depicts an eagle on one side holding 13 arrows," Putin told Bolton. "And on the other side, an olive branch with 13 olives. Here's the question, 'Did your eagle already eat all the olives and only the arrows are left?'"

"Hopefully I'll have some answers for you," replied Bolton. "But I didn't bring any more olives." Putin said in turn: "That's what I thought."

Trump Surrenders to John Bolton on Russia and Arms Control Washington Quietly Increases Lethal Weapons to Ukraine

By the time of the potential visit, the current Washington-Moscow dispute over whether the U.S. should withdraw from the INF nuclear treaty could be resolved. Like so much in the Trump era, this has created strange alliances. Certainly the move has roiled a Moscow that expected a more amenable Washington led by Trump. The Bolton proposal has also won plaudits from neoconservative Never Trumpers.

"On the INF Treaty, Trump finally gets something right," says Max Boot in The Washington Post . "By withdrawing from the INF Treaty, Trump can now put similar pressure on Pyongyang," adds Marc Thiessen, a George W. Bush speechwriter who is far more supportive of Trump.

Trump has so far pursued a considerably less hardline approach to Kim Jong-un in the second year of his presidency than he did in his first, to the quiet relief of those who favor a restrained American foreign policy. The U.S. and North Korea came closer to a military exchange in 2017 than is commonly understood.

Former national security advisor H.R. McMaster had been preoccupied by the idea of a "bloody nose" attack. The prospective plan was considered seriously enough by the administration that Victor Cha, an establishment Republican, withdrew his name from consideration to be Trump's ambassador to Seoul.

But since McMaster's ouster and the installation of Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the White House has pursued a different line. Cha told a Washington crowd this year that Pompeo was given the North Korea "portfolio," while Bolton was tasked with Russia and Syria. Bolton's repeated trips to Russia and Pompeo's periodic jaunts to Pyongyang speak to that.

If that is indeed the arrangement -- and if Thiessen is correct -- the INF matter could represent a bleeding of Bolton's territory into Pompeo's. "The treaty barred both conventional and nuclear land-based missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles. Freed from the treaty's constraints, the United States can now deploy hundreds of conventional short- and medium-range missiles to bases in Asia, including in Guam (2,100 miles from North Korea) and Japan (650 miles)," Bush alum Thiessen writes. "The deployment of intermediate-range missiles in the region would put North Korea permanently in our crosshairs."

Pompeo and Bolton, quite often treated in the media as kindreds, don't always share the same goals. For Bolton, getting out of the INF would be a career capstone -- as well as a handy platform to settle old scores. The annulments of relatively obscure treaties such as the INF and the Treaty of Amity with Iran represent long-sought victories for the bureaucratic-academic knife fighter.

But Pompeo, in all likelihood, will seek the presidency after Trump's time in office is over (as I first reported in TAC earlier this year). Although a hawk, Pompeo is meaningfully more averse to a military engagement than Bolton. A source on the South Korean side tells me they've recently heard conflicting, contradictory information from Bolton and Pompeo's people. Some on the Japanese side, meanwhile, complain of a worrisome silence from Pyongyang. Pompeo hasn't publicly sparred with Bolton John Kelly-style , but behind the scenes, the two haven't always been in lockstep. Relaxation of the U.S.-North Korean relationship from a war footing would be a crowning achievement for Pompeo.

Others see the INF matter differently. Even some who favor a restrained foreign policy argue that the INF architecture is outdated.

"Avoiding nuclear war remains a prime objective, but 30-year-old bilateral agreements don't necessarily work for today's world. No other nuclear power is a party to the INF treaty. New strategic realities demand updates to international commitments," said Kurt Couchman, vice president of public policy at Defense Priorities, this week.

But as I reported in The National Interest , some in the Department of Defense believe that President Trump will swoop in on the matter and change the game.

Come November when Trump meets Putin in Paris, there could be an attempt to reform and keep the INF -- and rope in China, America's true, long-term strategic concern.

"Trump has little latitude," retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor told me earlier this week. (Macgregor has been considered for national security advisor under Trump before , and is cut from a decidedly different cloth than Bolton.) "Russian weapons, though likely designed for potential use against the Chinese or Japanese, do violate the agreement. However, nothing substantive on our side will change for at least six months unless the Trump-Putin summit [in Paris] produces a new arrangement. It might!""

Working with the Russians on the Chinese challenge would be a welcome change to the status quo, and should be the core policy goal of Trump's upcoming meeting or meetings with Putin.

Says Couchman, who sees a rising Beijing as "a primarily economic and diplomatic contest for influence," "Right now, Washington is pushing Beijing and Moscow closer together, which is a strategic blunder. How much time is left before the die is cast?"

Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at The National Interest, where he covers the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency.

[Oct 27, 2018] Evaluating US Foreign Policy in Critical Times - RPI's Daniel McAdams on Israeli News Live

Oct 26, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

What's the real story of the US in the Middle East? Is the current US/Israel relationship healthy for both parties? Are the "White Helmets" the selfless heroes they are made out to be in the Western media..or are they just an arm of al-Qaeda? Can President Trump find a way to jettison his neocons and forge a foreign policy more like he promised as a candidate? Ron Paul Institute executive director Daniel McAdams joins Steven and Jana Ben-Nun of Israeli News Live for a detailed look at the current state of US foreign policy. Don't miss the shock opening question!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/o1j1APxMBhs

Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Oct 27, 2018] False flag election tricks

Oct 27, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill October 27, 2018 at 3:07 pm

Don't get your SJW panties in a twist. The irrelevant detail of what party some criminal supports is always made the central focus in US politics. The clown who sent (without proper postage) a bunch of fake pipe bombs to precious Democratic Party leaders was driving around in a van covered with pro-Trump posters and made sure to tell everyone he supports Trump. So this was ammunition for the US MSM and Democratic Party to attack Trump.

Meanwhile the butcher (Stephen Paddock) who massacred 58 Republicans at a country and western even in Las Vegas remains a "man of mystery" with no hint as to his party affiliation. How convenient.

[Oct 27, 2018] wayfarer

Oct 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

October 27, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT

@TimeTraveller

Consider the man they just arrested for the mail bomb scare. Reportedly, this person was a career criminal with drug dealing and grand theft on his record and he was caught in possession of a white van with decals on it depicting his targets. This man is a caricature of a Trump supporter, ready-made for the cable news broadcast. Does anyone else see the absurdity of it? Can this guy be for real?

"Breaking Proof of Deep State Hoax!"
"Clapper Talks About Cesar Sayoc Before He's Named as Suspect!"

https://youtu.be/2ZSEhGT3U-U

[Oct 26, 2018] Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon

Notable quotes:
"... Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon ..."
Oct 19, 2018 | unz.com

War for Blair Mountain , says: October 19, 2018 at 2:18 pm GMT

Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon .

Pompeo the Cockroach .as it .(Mike Pompeo is an it, as is that other well known BLATARIA .Hillary Clinton) .is known to the residents of Satan's filthy stinking reeking toilet bowl waaaaaaaaay down in putrid HELL!!!!!!!

Don't mind the split infinitive they are really quite alright .only a girly boy grammar NAZI!!! would shriek about it ..

[Oct 26, 2018] FBI Concealed Evidence That Directly Refutes Premise Of Trump-Russia Probe GOP Lawmaker

Notable quotes:
"... Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate ..."
"... The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's unclear why he is mentioned. ..."
"... As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues - only embarrassment . ..."
"... President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked him to keep them classified. ..."
"... "My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information, would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." ..."
Oct 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

After hinting for months that the FBI was not forthcoming with federal surveillance court judges when they made their case to spy on the Trump campaign, Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe (R) said on Sunday that the agency is holding evidence which "directly refutes" its premise for launching the probe, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.

Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe provided Sunday the clearest picture to date of what the FBI allegedly withheld from the surveillance court.

Ratcliffe suggested that the FBI failed to include evidence regarding former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , in an interview with Fox News.

Ratcliffe noted that the FBI opened its investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving information from the Australian government about a conversation that Papadopoulos had on May 10, 2016, with Alexander Downer , the top Australian diplomat to the U.K. - Daily Caller

While Australia's Alexander Downer claimed that Papadopoulos revealed Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, Ratcliffe - who sits on the House Judiciary Committee - suggested on Sunday that the FBI and DOJ possess information which directly contradicts that account.

"Hypothetically, if the Department of Justice and the FBI have another piece of evidence that directly refutes that, that directly contradicts that, what you would expect is for the Department of Justice to present both sides of the coin to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to evaluate the weight and sufficiency of that evidence," Ratcliffe said, adding: "Instead, what happened here was Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/p7nmAFpzyD4

The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's unclear why he is mentioned.

As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues - only embarrassment .

Other GOP lawmakers have suggested that evidence exists which would exonerate Papadopoulos - who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Maltese professor (and self-professed member of the Clinton Foundation), Joseph Mifsud.

Ratcliffe suggested that declassifying DOJ / FBI documents related to the matter "would corroborate" his claims about Papadopoulos.

Republicans have pressed President Trump to declassify the documents, which include 21 pages from a June 2016 FISA application against Page. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has said that the FBI failed to provide "exculpatory evidence" in the FISA applications. He has also said that Americans will be "shocked" by the information behind the FISA redactions. - Daily Caller

President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked him to keep them classified.

"My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information, would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

[Oct 26, 2018] UOC-MP (Filaret included) sided with Ukrainian state in the Civil war

So Poroshenko wanted and got a church that is a lapdog of Ukrainian government. Nothing new here. Baltic states did the dame.
Oct 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail says: Website October 20, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT 700 Words @AP

The Russian Orthodox Church seems to mirror the Russian State whom it serves, in not being openly at war with Ukraine but nevertheless working against it when doing so serves the interests of the Russian state. So its priests openly blessing NAF fighters as they go to kill Ukrainians have been sanctioned, OTOH Girkin was being helped by the Russian Orthodox Church and NAF fighters have been quietly given refuge in Moscow's churches (a Brazilian volunteer was found hiding in one on Kiev).

Compared ot Filaret's church, the UOC-MP has been more neutral about the war in Donbass. The aforementioned priests bless soldiers in their (priests) area who seek such. Not on par with the comments UOC-MP (Filaret included) have made on the civil war. it can be said that Filaret and his church pray for those who kill rebel supporters.

The aforementioned Brazilian sough refuge and was understandably given such, seeing the conditions people like him have faced when taken by the Kiev regime side.

And the Russian patriarch is of course on excellent terms with Putin whom he serves and whom he awards. So as long as the Ukrainian Orthodox are under Moscow they are forced to pray to a Patriarch who serves and celebrates Putin. They would rather not be in such a situation. Moving them under Constantinople fixes this problem and returns them to Orthodoxy.

Constantinople has made the problem worse by giving the Kiev regime and Filaret a premise (misguided that it is notwithstanding) to seize UOC-MP property. The Porky-Filaret tandem is one that many UOC aren't supportive of.

He also added that the priests of the Sviatohirsk Lavra blessed his gang formation in 2014 at the beginning of hostilities in Donbas.

According to him, he then hoped that the entire hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) would overtly support them, but this did not happen.

Currently, Girkin has no doubt that a significant part of the UOC-MP will "run" to the autocephalous Ukrainian Church, and he even knows such bishops who are ready to do so.

You earlier noted UOC-MP support/sympathy for the rebels. Nothing is stopping Onufry and others from the UOC-MP to break with the ROC-MP -- along the lines of Filaret. The UOC-MP faces much pressure from the Kiev regime and some nationalist elements.

Veneration of Andrey Bogolubsky who sacked Kiev, slaughtered many of its inhabitants and generally treated Kiev as the crusaders treated Constantinople is another ridiculous thing that Ukrainian Orthodox are forced to put up with if they belong to Moscow's Church.

What kind of veneration ? That attack was part of a civil war, with looting having been an unfortunate aspect. Sherman wasn't more civil towards Atlanta. neither was the Mongol conquest of Kiev and other parts of Rus.

Their Church is riddled with KGB and FSB men at the highest levels (not that Filaret was different, of course). KGB/FSB are not hardcore Russian nationalists. But they, as does the ROC, serve the Russian state.

Along the lines of saying that the Vatican has been riddled with Nazi sympathizers. No denying that the ROC-MP was very much compromised during the Soviet period. It's a very different and improved era.

In comparison, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church seems more riddled with Bandera supporters.

Well, if it wants to present itself as and truly be the All Rus Church and bearer of the Rus legacy that united all Eastern Slavs, that was forced to move to Vladimir and Moscow by the Polish annexation of Rus heartland, it would make sense to return to Kiev after Kiev was "liberated." But it didn't happen, this all Rus stuff was cheap propaganda, it remained Russia's Church (despite having gotten a bunch of Ukrainians as leaders in the 18th century).

The directly above excerpted is cheap propaganda. Capitals of nations, sports teams, corporate businesses and other entities have been known to change their locale or main locale for a variety of reasons. Besides, occurrences like WW II and the present Kiev regime situation indicate that Russia is a more secure place.

BTW, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church shifted its main office from Lviv to Kiev.

Thim , October 21, 2018 at 4:28 pm GMT

Moscow cannot do much, it is still too weak. The enemy seeks a war now. Surely they will take the churches by force, hoping for war now. Now is the time for wisdom.

Mikhail says: Website

October 22, 2018 at 3:10 pm GMT

Gvosdev article follow-up

Re: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/heres-whats-really-going-orthodox-church-ukraine-and-russia-33922

Excerpt –

I am starting to get annoyed at the number of commentators who have no background in Orthodox ecclesiology and scant knowledge of Byzantine, Ukrainian and Russian history or about the contemporary realities of religious life throughout the former Soviet Union. These pundits nevertheless feel confident to deliver sweeping pronouncements about the Ukrainian Orthodox Church situation and its ramifications for the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church as a whole.

A point that concerns some of what's said and not said in the above linked article. For example, it's not noted that Filaret Denisenko's drive for a completely separate Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Moscow Patriarchate, came only after he didn't get a promotion within the Moscow Patriarchate. Up to that point, he was a firm believer in the Moscow Patriarchate having ties with the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and Orthodox Churches from some other parts of the former USSR.

Excerpt –

Finally, there are those Ukrainian Orthodox who argue that Russian Orthodoxy is utterly separate and unrelated to Ukrainian Orthodoxy and point to events such as Andrey Bogolyubsky sack of Kiev in 1169 as early evidence of Russian-Ukrainian antagonism. Even those who might concede that Russian Orthodoxy developed as a result of the conversion of Kiev would point out that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, certainly since the fifteenth century was evolving separately from the Russian Orthodox Church and that it was unjustly merged with the Russian Church, first during the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union.

Bogolyubsky's grandfather was a grand prince of Kiev. On two different occasions, his father had that very same title, during a period when Kiev went thru numerous grand princes. In short, Bogolyubsky had a claim to the Kiev throne. The aforementioned sack of Kiev by Bogolyubsky's forces wasn't so much of a foreign attack – but more along the lines of Sherman's razing of Atlanta. Bogolyubsky had the desire to simultaneously build and expand Rus, thereby explaining his presence in Suzdal, while feeling akin to Kiev.

The initial Polish occupation of much of modern day Ukrainian territory, played a role in whatever differing characteristics developed, with Orthodox Christian identity within what had comprised Rus. Upon Russia's victory over Poland and the former's gathering of Rus territory (which Poland occupied), there was no wide scale opposition by the ancestors of modern day Ukrainians, with being under the same Orthodox Church as Russia.

For President Vladimir Putin, major defections from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate would represent one of the clearest rejections of his view that Ukrainian and Russians form a single people and civilization; it would, in essence, be Ukrainians voting with their feet to reject that proposition. On the other hand, if President Poroshenko's government begins to use administrative pressures to compel priests and parishes to break their ecclesiastical ties to Moscow, this could prove politically destabilizing both in Ukraine and complicate its relations with the West.

For the Ukrainian nationalist advocacy being pursued by Poroshenko, the presence of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church that's loosely affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, is a rejection of the agenda to separate Ukraine from Russia as much as possible.

Regarding that view is this piece concerning attitudes in Ukraine about Russia:

https://insomniacresurrected.com/2018/10/21/ukrainian-opinion-of-russia-improves-and-it-is-bad-apparently/

Excerpt –

Stepan Khmara is ashamed almost 50% of his countrymen, despite the war, still positively have positive attitude towards Russia. He thinks that half of the country are good 'Little Russians' and 'Moskovske bydlo'. He invokes history from the Holodomor and Soviet takeover of Western Ukraine. He bemoans the fact that even in Western Ukraine, 31% of the respondents also had positive attitude towards Russia.

A recent RFE/RL article says that most of Ukraine's Orthodox Christian faithful follow the Orthodox Church with loose ties to the Moscow Patriarchate.

https://www.rferl.org/a/long-russia-s-patriarch-kirill-blames-istanbul-orthodox-church-for-schism-/29553467.html

Whatever the case is, a noticeable number in that area follow that church. Can imagine the outcry in some circles if an effort was made to eliminate the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church on the basis of having an imperial legacy with Poland that involved the suppression of the Orthodox Church.

Mikhail , says: Website October 22, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT

Splendidly excellent reply to the idiotic Tom Rogan Washington Examiner article:

http://theduran.com/how-other-jurisdictions-view-constantinoples-actions-in-ukraine/

[Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. ..."
"... Another case of "Arkancide"? ..."
"... I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air. ..."
"... And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke. ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Tacitus01

If Russia had actually "hacked" the DNC emails then the National Security Agency would have had proof of such activity. In fact, the NSA could have tracked such activity. But they did not do that. That lack of evidence did not prevent a coordinated media campaign from spinning up to pin the blame on Russia for the "theft" and to portray Donald Trump as Putin's lackey and beneficiary.

Any effort to tell an alternative story has met with stout opposition. Fox News, for example, came under withering fire after it published an article in May 2017 claiming that Seth Rich, a young Democrat operative, had leaked DNC emails to Julian Assange at Wikileaks. The family of Seth Rich reacted with fury and sued Fox, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, but that suit subsequently was dismissed.

Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC.

Walrus , a day ago

Another case of "Arkancide"?
jnewman -> Walrus , 12 hours ago
Vince Foster?
DianaLC , 13 hours ago
PT, thank for the very detailed description of the entire story surrounding the supposed Russian hack of the DNC emails.

I always find myself screaming at the T.V. whenever a supposed reporter mentions the supposed Russian hack of the DNC computers as if such an event is settled history.

I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air.

And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death.

Snow Flake -> Lefty , 12 hours ago
Ellipsis, linguistically? Don't you automatically add what is omitted? ... Russia had (n't) anything ...

Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke.

[Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

Highly recommended!
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.

"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"

boz , October 23, 2018 at 3:49 pm

The Saker has the transcript of Putin's comments at a recent plenary in Sochi, small snippets of which have already appeared in the media.

http://thesaker.is/president-putin-meeting-of-the-valdai-international-discussion-club-2/

About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through the MSM.

A couple of reflections:

Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.

Olga , October 23, 2018 at 5:33 pm

For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.)
He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip:
https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/

[Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. ..."
"... Another case of "Arkancide"? ..."
"... I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air. ..."
"... And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke. ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Tacitus01

If Russia had actually "hacked" the DNC emails then the National Security Agency would have had proof of such activity. In fact, the NSA could have tracked such activity. But they did not do that. That lack of evidence did not prevent a coordinated media campaign from spinning up to pin the blame on Russia for the "theft" and to portray Donald Trump as Putin's lackey and beneficiary.

Any effort to tell an alternative story has met with stout opposition. Fox News, for example, came under withering fire after it published an article in May 2017 claiming that Seth Rich, a young Democrat operative, had leaked DNC emails to Julian Assange at Wikileaks. The family of Seth Rich reacted with fury and sued Fox, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, but that suit subsequently was dismissed.

Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC.

Walrus , a day ago

Another case of "Arkancide"?
jnewman -> Walrus , 12 hours ago
Vince Foster?
DianaLC , 13 hours ago
PT, thank for the very detailed description of the entire story surrounding the supposed Russian hack of the DNC emails.

I always find myself screaming at the T.V. whenever a supposed reporter mentions the supposed Russian hack of the DNC computers as if such an event is settled history.

I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air.

And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death.

Snow Flake -> Lefty , 12 hours ago
Ellipsis, linguistically? Don't you automatically add what is omitted? ... Russia had (n't) anything ...

Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke.

[Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

Highly recommended!
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.

"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"

boz , October 23, 2018 at 3:49 pm

The Saker has the transcript of Putin's comments at a recent plenary in Sochi, small snippets of which have already appeared in the media.

http://thesaker.is/president-putin-meeting-of-the-valdai-international-discussion-club-2/

About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through the MSM.

A couple of reflections:

Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.

Olga , October 23, 2018 at 5:33 pm

For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.)
He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip:
https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/

[Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

Highly recommended!
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.

"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"

boz , October 23, 2018 at 3:49 pm

The Saker has the transcript of Putin's comments at a recent plenary in Sochi, small snippets of which have already appeared in the media.

http://thesaker.is/president-putin-meeting-of-the-valdai-international-discussion-club-2/

About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through the MSM.

A couple of reflections:

Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.

Olga , October 23, 2018 at 5:33 pm

For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.)
He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip:
https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/

[Oct 25, 2018] Nikki Haley Almost Started a Nuclear War

Oct 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

While soon-to-be ex-UN ambassador Nikki Haley might be the talk of the town at the moment -- from chatter she should run in 2020 against Donald Trump to replacing Mike Pence on the GOP ticket all the way to running against Pence in 2024 -- her many faults are being glossed over. That's a big problem for someone being floated as the next leader of the free world -- as recent history has taught us all too tragically.

Thankfully, reality always has a way of casting doubt on such picture-perfect narratives before they are ever fully formed. Case in point, buried in a recent article from Harper's Magazine was the fact that Haley tried out her own amateur hour version of what can only be described as nuclear poker: telling China's ambassador to the UN that Trump might invade North Korea.

I had to read the article over and over to make sure I didn't miss something. But alas it was real -- and terrifying. Such a threat, if relayed to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, combined with several other U.S. actions at the time -- and one that almost occurred that we know of thanks to Bob Woodward's recent book -- could have set in motion a preemptive strike by Pyongyang that almost certainly would have involved the use of nuclear weapons. And that means millions of people would have died.

Now ask yourself: is this person really ready to be president? Is this what passes as the stuff of presidential timber?

Here are the details. Journalist Max Blumenthal recorded Haley's remarks -- her last major address before she handed in her resignation -- as the only journalist present at a late September event at the Council for National Policy. In a Q&A session that Blumenthal described as "an extended series of candid, and at times disturbing, recollections of Trump's campaign of maximum pressure against North Korea," Haley broke down her opposition to the president's tough talk at the UN. But the real money shot from Blumenthal's piece is here:

It was September 2, 2017, and North Korea had just embarked on its sixth nuclear test launch. Haley's mission was to ram a resolution through the UN Security Council to sanction the isolated state. This meant that she had to secure abstentions from Russia and China, the two permanent members that maintained relations with Pyongyang. It was a tall task, but as she boasted to the rapt audience at the CNP, she had a few tricks up her sleeve.

"I said to the Russians, 'Either you're with North Korea, or you're with the United States of America,'" Haley recalled. She said she went to the Chinese ambassador and raised the prospect of an American military invasion of North Korea. "My boss is kind of unpredictable, and I don't know what he'll do," she said she warned her Chinese counterpart.

Sadly, besides some mentions on social media and a few articles , her threat received very little mainstream media coverage. Maybe that's a blessing in disguise. But one can easily construct a scenario where Haley's comment sets off a chain of events that starts a Second Korean War. For example, we don't know what the Chinese ambassador did after Haley made the threat, but most likely he promptly reported it back to Beijing. What the Chinese government did with that information is vital. Did they warn the North Koreans? Did they react in some other way?

Nikki Haley: Trump's Baghdad Bob A War of Choice With North Korea is an Immensely Dumb Idea

We will never really know. However, if Pyongyang was tipped off by Beijing, seeing three U.S. Navy aircraft carriers drilling with South Korean and Japanese warships in November of last year surely must have terrified them. Such a concentration of firepower would have been a prerequisite for any type of invasion or attack. In fact, could these have been the reasons the north decided to test another ICBM in November?

Again, we will never know. However, Trump's very real proposal, as reported in Bob Woodward's book Fear , of "sending a tweet declaring that he was ordering all U.S. military dependents -- thousands of the family members of 28,500 troops -- out of South Korea" definitely would have provoked a response from the Kim regime.

While Woodward does not give specific dates as to when this nearly occurred -- the full text before this section suggests an early 2018 timeframe -- he still reveals that we did dodge a potential war. Just two paragraphs down, Woodward notes that on December 4, 2018, "[M]cMaster had received a warning at the White House. Ri Su-yong, the vice chairman of the [North Korean] Politburo, had told intermediaries 'that the North would take the evacuation of U.S. civilians as a sign of imminent attack.'"

If you put it all together -- not to mention the now famous call to give Kim a " bloody nose " in early January 2018 -- it is easy to see how close to war we came from roughly September 2017 to early January of this year. If events had occurred just a little differently -- if North Korea had perceived things in a direr way thanks to a Chinese warning of a possible invasion, if Trump had acted on his impulses a little further -- our world would be a very different place. Pyongyang, thinking an invasion was coming, might have decided that its only chance to survive was to use its vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction before they were destroyed. That would have meant launching atomic weapons at military bases and potential ports of entry for U.S. forces in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii -- or even attacking the American homeland itself with nuclear weapons. From simulations I have run over the years, I can tell you that millions of people would have died in such an event.

Thankfully, history broke a little different and it never happened -- and thank God for that. But let's not heap praise on public figures who think they can bluff their way through the great game of global politics. That's not what great presidents are made of.

Harry J. Kazianis (@Grecianformula ) serves as director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by President Richard Nixon. The views expressed in this piece are his own.

[Oct 25, 2018] RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 25 OCTOBER 2018 by Patrick Armstrong

Notable quotes:
"... NATO is a defensive Alliance... committed to defense and deterrence. " A defensive alliance with a moving doorstep. ..."
"... USS Donald Cook ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

CHURCH DISPUTE. I dreaded having to write something because I really don't know enough. But US Secretary of State Pompeo has saved me much study by proving that those who see the hand of Washington are correct to do so: " We urge Church and government officials to actively promote these values in connection with the move towards the establishment of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church ." Who knew an avowedly secular state like the USA felt competent to make rulings on such esoterica as ethnophyletism or autocephaly? You've heard Official Washington's opinion (swiftly retransmitted by your local news outlet ), here are others: one , two , three , four , five . Their argument is that Constantinople has arrogated too much to himself and Orthodoxy will split; Washington & Co talk of "freedom" (but don't show much understanding of who's who). This further excuse for violence will increase the misery of Ukraine. (And, ironically, the dominant church in western Ukraine, the home of the Ukrainian nationalism that's driving things, has nothing to do with this: it's under Rome .)

NUCLEAR DOCTRINE. At Valdai, Putin made a statement on Russia's nuclear doctrine . No change, but with a twist that caught people's attention: "Our concept is based on a reciprocal counter strike... any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable and they will be annihilated." The attention-catching part was "And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to paradise while they will simply perish because they won't even have time to repent their sins". Don't forget that American spokesmen have made some stupidly aggressive statements lately.

DRONE ATTACK. The Russian MoD says a US aircraft coordinated the January drone attack on their Syrian bases .

EXPLOSION. There was an explosion and shooting at the Kerch Polytechnic College in Crimea and a number of people were killed. It is said to have been done by one student who then killed himself .

RUSSIA INC. Russia has climbed two places the World Economic Forum ranking to 43 of 140. Current account surplus predicted .

AGRICULTURE. One of the most surprising developments to me, who remembers farms in the 1990s, has been Russia's agricultural turnaround. This five-minute report gives an introduction.

STRATEGIC CULTURE FOUNDATION. Let me put in a plug for this site . It has now acquired quite a stable of writers (myself included) and is a good place to get alternative views to those repeated by the drearily monotonic Western outlets. There may be Russian government money behind it but my bet is that the government's effort is still in RT (see below). My guess (and another author's) is that it's bankrolled by a rich Russian who's tired of the endless anti-Russia coverage. I have never had anything I have written changed or censored. I recommend you bookmark it.

WESTERN VALUES™. Enjoying the irony, RT introduces New Samizdat to bring you the news that the Zap GlavLit (if I may coin a neologism) hides.

NUGGETS FROM THE STUPIDITY MINE. Watch it . Adam Schiff , senior Democrat on House Intelligence Committee.

NATO EXERCISE. NATO bravely shows it won't be intimidated by R ussia's building up its military on its doorstep by holding an exercis e on said doorstep . " NATO is a defensive Alliance... committed to defense and deterrence. " A defensive alliance with a moving doorstep.

INF TREATY. Trump talks of pulling the US out. Is this the loud prelude to re-negotiation that we saw him do with Korea and NAFTA? Or is he clearing the battlespace for the expected damp squib from Mueller or a blue dribble ? Tune in in mid-November.

NEW NWO. " The Perfect Storm Bringing China And Russia Together ".

OOPS. Apparently many US weapons are very vulnerable to cyberattacks . Stories of cruise missile attacks , USS Donald Cook , destroyers rammed by container ships make you wonder, don't they?

UKRAINE. " Entrepreneurs of political violence: the varied interests and strategies of the far-right in Ukraine" In Open Democracy no less. Bit by bit the word is seeping out. IMF rates Ukraine the poorest country in Europe . This piece gives a summary of its problems with Hungary, Poland and Belarus .

GEORGIA. The Chief Prosecutor's Office says it has a recording that proves Saakashvili sanctioned the murder of Patarkatsishvili . ( English ) ( Georgian ) ( At the time some UK outlets blamed Putin but when they discovered he was Saakashvili's enemy they quickly shut up.)

[Oct 25, 2018] The Crumbling Architecture of Nuclear Arms Control

Notable quotes:
"... By Dan Smith, Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute . He is also a part-time Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manchester, affiliated with the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute . Until August, 2015, he was Secretary General of International Alert , the London-based international peacebuilding organization. Originally published at his blog ; cross posted from openDemocracy ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Dan Smith, Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute . He is also a part-time Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manchester, affiliated with the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute . Until August, 2015, he was Secretary General of International Alert , the London-based international peacebuilding organization. Originally published at his blog ; cross posted from openDemocracy

At a political rally on Saturday 20 October President Trump announced that the US will withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987. This confirms what has steadily unfolded over the last couple of years: the architecture of US-Russian nuclear arms control is crumbling.

Building Blocks of Arms Control

As the Cold War ended, four new building blocks of east-west arms control were laid on top of foundations set by the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972:

1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) reduced the numbers of strategic nuclear weapons; further cuts were agreed in 2002 and again in 2010 in the New START agreement. – The 1990 Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty) capped at equal levels the number of heavy weapons deployed between the Atlantic and the Urals by the then-members of both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). – The 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) were parallel, unilateral but agreed actions by both the US and the USSR to eliminate short-range tactical nuclear weapons, of which thousands existed.

Taken together, the nuclear measures – the INF Treaty, START and PNIs – had a major impact, as this graph from the Federation of American Scientists shows:

The fastest pace of reduction was in the 1990s. A deceleration began just before the new century started, and there has been a further easing of the pace in the last six years. But year by year, the number continues to fall. By the start of 2018 the global total of nuclear weapons was 14,700 compared to an all-time high of some 70,000 in the mid-1980s. Nuclear weapons are more capable in many ways than before; the reduction is, nonetheless, both large and significant.

Cracks Appear: Charge and Counter-Charge

Even while the numbers continued to drop, problems were emerging. Not least, in 2002 the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. That did not stop the US and Russia signing the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2002 or New START in 2010 but perhaps it presaged later developments.

Trump's announcement brings towards its conclusion a process that has been going on for several years . The US declared Russia to be violating the Treaty in July 2014. That, of course, was during the Obama administration. The allegation that Russia has breached the INF Treaty, in other words, is not new. This year the USA's NATO allies also aligned themselves with the US accusation, albeit somewhat guardedly (cf the careful wording in paragraph 46 of the July Summit Declaration ).

The charge is that Russia has developed a ground-launched cruise missile with a range over 500 kilometres. Many details have not been clearly stated publicly but it seems Russia may have modified a sea-launched missile (the Kalibr ) and combined it with a mobile ground-based launcher (the Iskander K system). The modified system is known sometimes as the 9M729 , or t he SSC-8, or the SSC-X-8 .

Russia rejects the US accusation. It makes the counter-charge that the US has itself violated the Treaty in three ways: first by using missiles banned under the Treaty for target practice; second because some US drones are effectively cruise missiles; and third because it has taken a maritime missile defence system and based it on land ( Aegis Ashore ) although its launch tubes could, the Russians say, be used for intermediate range missiles. Naturally, the US rejects these charges.

A further Russian criticism of the US over the INF Treaty is that, if the US wanted to discuss alleged non-compliance, it should have used the Treaty's Special Verification Commission before going public. This was designed specifically to address questions about each side's compliance. It did not meet between 2003 and November 2016; it was during that 13-year interval that US concerns about Russian cruise missiles arose.

Now Trump seems to have closed the argument by announcing withdrawal. Under Article XV of the Treaty, withdrawal can happen after six months' notice. Unless there is a timely change of approach by either side or both, the Treaty looks likely to be a dead letter by April 2019.

It could be, however, that the announcement is intended as a manoeuvre to get concessions from the Russian side on the alleged missile deployment or on other aspects of an increasingly tense US-Russian relationship. That is what Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, implied by calling it "blackmail".

Arms Control in Trouble

Whether the imminence of the INF Treaty's demise is more apparent than real, its plight is part of a bigger picture. Arms control is in deep trouble. As well as the US abrogation of the ABM Treaty in 2002,

effectively withdrew from the CFE Treaty in 2015 arguing that the equal cap was no longer fair when five former Warsaw Pact states had joined NATO. – The 2010 New START agreement on strategic nuclear arms lasts until 2021 and there are currently no talks about prolonging or replacing it. – Russia claims that the US is technically violating New START because some launchers have been converted to non-nuclear use in a way that is not visible to Russia so it cannot verify them in the way the Treaty says it must be able to. The Russian government's position is that until this is resolved, it is not possible to start work on the prolongation of New START, despite its imminent expiry date.

It seems likely that the precarious situation of US-Russian arms control will simultaneously put increasing pressure on the overall nuclear non-proliferation regime, and sharpen the arguments about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons . For the advocates of what is often known as the nuclear ban, the erosion of arms control reinforces the case for moving forward to a world without nuclear weapons. For its opponents, the erosion of arms control shows the world is not at all ready for or capable of a nuclear ban.

The risk of a return to nuclear weapons build-ups by both Russia and the US is visible. We risk losing the degree of safety we gained with the end of the Cold War and have enjoyed since then. With US National Security Advisor John Bolton in Moscow as I write, and more importantly with the well-earned reputation for springing surprises that the US and Russian Presidents both have, there may be more developments in one direction or another in the coming days or weeks.

The Rev Kev , October 25, 2018 at 6:22 am

The British author John Wyndham once wrote that 95 per cent of the human race wants to live in peace while the other 5 per cent was always considering its chances if it should risk starting anything. It was chiefly because no one's chances looked too good, what with nuclear weapons, that the lull after WW2 continued. Now it looks like a new generation of wonks who are not reality-based want to put the US in the position of being able to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on at least Russia with missiles based in Europe. Like with the old Pershing missiles, tough luck if you live in Europe. Russia has already said that they will target any European country that houses these missiles with nukes.
Saw a hint on RT that if the US continues these efforts, that Russia may develop missiles that could set off the Yellowstone Caldera. That would be not good. The Russians are always ready to negotiate but the problem is that the US now has a reputation of being agreement-incapable. Remember that Bush was stationing missiles in Europe as a shield against non-existent Iranian nukes on top of Iranian missiles that did not have the range. Russia suggested that the missiles be located in Turkey but the US refused. After the Iran treaty went into effect, the US announced that – surprise, surprise – the missiles were for use against Russia after all. How do you negotiate with something like that?

Bill Smith , October 25, 2018 at 7:04 am

In regard to the INF Treaty the Russian newspapers have had some stories that they consider that particular treaty likely the worst they ever signed. That's because the USSR gave up many more missiles than the US did. The articles also mention that the Russians feel they are many counties that have those type of missiles all around them. For example, China, Pakistan, Iran and Israel are specially mentioned. Lastly the technology has changed so much in the 30 or so years since that treaty was signed.

In a better time a new series of treaties might be negotiated but these are not better times.

David , October 25, 2018 at 10:45 am

Ambassador Bolton agrees with you. ( source )

But there is a larger question here – I think one that applies to both Russia and the United States – and that's the countries that are producing intermediate range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles right now, specifically Iran, China and North Korea. We have this very unusual circumstance where the United States and Russia are in a bilateral treaty, whereas other countries in the world are not bound by it. Now some of the successor states to the Soviet Union are bound by it, but it's really only Russia that has the wherewithal to have this kind of program. So it has been the view of the United States, in effect, that only two countries were bound by the INF treaty.

It appears that Mr. Trump likes bilateral trade agreements and multi-lateral arms agreeements.

Tomonthebeach , October 25, 2018 at 2:23 pm

This is all part of Bolton's war on Russia. Like Trump, he indulges in old score-settling with Beltway & Pentagon colleagues as well as proving he was right all along to oppose these and most other treaties. I am highly suspicious of this entire fiasco.

Why are we so preoccupied with a country that has an economy a fifth the size of the US alone (much less NATO/EU)? Even if allied with China and NATO ally (?) Califwannabe Erdogan, Russia is more annoying than a threat.

Bolton, on the other hand, scares the crap out me. He's just plain nuts.

Lambert Strether , October 25, 2018 at 7:55 am

I'm very glad this post is up. That this isn't a huge story is a fine example of "The tyranny of the urgent." (Those who read the transcript of Putin at the Valdai Club may recall this passage :

[PUTIN] Look, we live in a world where security relies on nuclear capability. Russia is one of the largest nuclear powers. You may be aware, I have said it publicly, we are improving our attack systems as an answer to the United States building its missile defence system. Some of these systems have already been fielded, and some will be put into service in the coming months. I am talking about the Avangard system. Clearly, we have overtaken all our, so to speak, partners and competitors in this sphere, and this fact is acknowledged by the experts. No one has a high-precision hypersonic weapon. Some plan to begin testing it in one or two years, while we have this high-tech modern weapon in service. So, we feel confident in this sense.

Naturally, there are many other risks, but they are shared risks, such as environment, climate change, terrorism, which I mentioned, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we are unable to put an effective end to this, it is not clear where it will lead to, and in whose hands this deadly weapon may end up.

So, in this sense, nothing has changed. We are not going anywhere, we have a vast territory, and we do not need anything from anyone. But we value our sovereignty and independence. It has always been this way, at all times in the history of our state. It runs in the blood of our people, as I have repeatedly said. In this sense, we feel confident and calm.

And this:

I have said that our nuclear weapons doctrine does not provide for a pre-emptive strike. I would like to ask all of you and those who will later analyse and in one way or another interpret my every word here, to keep in mind that there is no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine. Our concept is based on a reciprocal counter strike. There is no need to explain what this is to those who understand, as for those who do not, I would like to say it again: this means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory. I am not revealing a secret if I say that we have created a system which is being upgraded all the time as needed – a missile early warning radar system. This system monitors the globe, warning about the launch of any strategic missile at sea and identifying the area from which it was launched. Second, the system tracks the trajectory of a missile flight. Third, it locates a nuclear warhead drop zone.

Only when we know for certain – and this takes a few seconds to understand – that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a counter strike. This would be a reciprocal counter strike. Why do I say 'counter'? Because we will counter missiles flying towards us by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor. Of course, this amounts to a global catastrophe but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we are sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against us. Well, yes, this is what it is. But then any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable and they will be annihilated. And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to paradise while they will simply perish because they won't even have time to repent their sins.

I've see a video of a fancy new weapon. Is it real?

Bill Smith , October 25, 2018 at 9:00 am

The Avangard is in testing or just completed testing. Depending what stories you see it has been successfully tested at least once. Even successful testing may not mean deployment. Earliest estimate for deployment is about 2020 in very limited numbers. I'm not sure how big a deal this thing is as it launched from an ICBM. How much faster than an incoming ICBM warhead does it move?

The Avangard has nothing to do with the INF.

The Russian nuclear doctrine does allow for the use of nuclear weapons – at least in fairly narrow circumstances. The wording implies the circumstances would "have to threaten the collapse of the state". First use in those circumstances might not be considered preemptive. Putin help write to doctrine when he was Secretary of the Russian National Security Council Staff .

Andrew Foland , October 25, 2018 at 9:04 am

Just a general thing, for those interested in excellent technical (both scientific and legal/compliance) commentary on arms control, I highly recommend Arms Control Wonk . The level of discussion is very high, the kind of level NC readers would appreciate. I'm in no way associated with it except for being a longtime reader.

Scott1 , October 25, 2018 at 1:28 pm

The UN was created not to sell Sustainable Development but to prevent Apocalyptic Riot. During the Cold War & a Bi Polar power balance of separate economics it did the job. However flawed it was, it did that one job.
Now it sits there selling Sustainable Development, which is great, but not what it was really made to do.
If the UN, or a new one with an overt and covert armed forces becomes the World's Unitary Power intent on eliminating nuclear weapons it could negotiate them away and fight a war or two, and be involved in a permanent level of conflict to keep the fields free of nukes.
In fact the banning of nuclear weapons would give a UN the power to enforce transformational energy programs. I have strong doubt that the UN as it exists now will prevent apocalyptic riot.
Human nature being what it is does not get excited and passionate about the environment. Humans get excited about big new power systems and war.

There has been a demonstrated desire to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. The Cold War worked. During that period it was long only the US & the USSR that had nuclear bombs and delivery systems.
Russia moved into the Ukraine with tanks, took Crimea and got away with it. Pretty much the situation is that wherever you see tanks move you may see the employment of tactical nuclear weapons. A conventional ability to stop all tanks then is important for those nations vulnerable to tank attacks.
In fact I say that you cannot expect to reduce nuclear devices unless you address the reason for them, and that is to stop tanks. Reducing tanks first is then the right order to do things. Come to tank treaties first and then tackle nuclear weapons and the rest of the WMDs is what I say.

Jeremy Grimm , October 25, 2018 at 2:38 pm

'Tactical' nuclear weapons are not the only way to stop tanks. The Russian move into Crimea is hardly an argument for the superiority of a tank invasion or the need for tactical nuclear weapons. Tanks are effective in open relatively flat even terrain, and as long as you have control of the air and sufficient infantry support around them. If the objective is to stop a tank rather than destroy it there are ways. You could stop a tank by spraying glue over their weapons sight, or vision blocks, or the camera port for some of the more recent armored vehicles. Even if you can't stop a tank you can stop parts from coming in to make repairs or diesel to run the their hungry engines if their supply lines are not well protected. The tanks will quickly stop on their own. You could also stop tanks with opposing tanks if you're ready to absorb the costs for building the force and keep it ready to roll near an attack corridor. Tactical nuclear weapons might save a little money (???) but they are a hellish invention for increasing the threats to our fragile world as we transition through Climate Disruptions into the new Anthropocene Climate Regime.

While you're working on those tank treaties, please include ground mines especially those with plastic casings -- oh! and don't forget to eliminate those nasty spent-uranium shells.

rosemerry , October 25, 2018 at 4:36 pm

"Russia moved into the Ukraine with tanks, took Crimea and got away with it" Rather a warped interpretation of a situation where the USA had overthrown the Ukrainian government and Crimea had been part of Russia and the population overwhelmingly voted to return. NO bloodshed at all. The video "Crimea, the way back Home" is worth a look.

Jeremy Grimm , October 25, 2018 at 2:15 pm

This is a very disturbing post coming as it does only two days before Vasili Arkhipov day.

I cannot imagine what kind of people could seriously consider using nuclear weapons under any circumstance whatsoever.

[Oct 25, 2018] Entrepreneurs of political violence: the varied interests and strategies of the far-right in Ukraine

Oct 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

UKRAINE. " Entrepreneurs of political violence: the varied interests and strategies of the far-right in Ukraine" In Open Democracy no less.

Bit by bit the word is seeping out. IMF rates Ukraine the poorest country in Europe .

This piece gives a summary of its problems with Hungary, Poland and Belarus .

[Oct 25, 2018] Nikki Haley Almost Started a Nuclear War

Oct 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

While soon-to-be ex-UN ambassador Nikki Haley might be the talk of the town at the moment -- from chatter she should run in 2020 against Donald Trump to replacing Mike Pence on the GOP ticket all the way to running against Pence in 2024 -- her many faults are being glossed over. That's a big problem for someone being floated as the next leader of the free world -- as recent history has taught us all too tragically.

Thankfully, reality always has a way of casting doubt on such picture-perfect narratives before they are ever fully formed. Case in point, buried in a recent article from Harper's Magazine was the fact that Haley tried out her own amateur hour version of what can only be described as nuclear poker: telling China's ambassador to the UN that Trump might invade North Korea.

I had to read the article over and over to make sure I didn't miss something. But alas it was real -- and terrifying. Such a threat, if relayed to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, combined with several other U.S. actions at the time -- and one that almost occurred that we know of thanks to Bob Woodward's recent book -- could have set in motion a preemptive strike by Pyongyang that almost certainly would have involved the use of nuclear weapons. And that means millions of people would have died.

Now ask yourself: is this person really ready to be president? Is this what passes as the stuff of presidential timber?

Here are the details. Journalist Max Blumenthal recorded Haley's remarks -- her last major address before she handed in her resignation -- as the only journalist present at a late September event at the Council for National Policy. In a Q&A session that Blumenthal described as "an extended series of candid, and at times disturbing, recollections of Trump's campaign of maximum pressure against North Korea," Haley broke down her opposition to the president's tough talk at the UN. But the real money shot from Blumenthal's piece is here:

It was September 2, 2017, and North Korea had just embarked on its sixth nuclear test launch. Haley's mission was to ram a resolution through the UN Security Council to sanction the isolated state. This meant that she had to secure abstentions from Russia and China, the two permanent members that maintained relations with Pyongyang. It was a tall task, but as she boasted to the rapt audience at the CNP, she had a few tricks up her sleeve.

"I said to the Russians, 'Either you're with North Korea, or you're with the United States of America,'" Haley recalled. She said she went to the Chinese ambassador and raised the prospect of an American military invasion of North Korea. "My boss is kind of unpredictable, and I don't know what he'll do," she said she warned her Chinese counterpart.

Sadly, besides some mentions on social media and a few articles , her threat received very little mainstream media coverage. Maybe that's a blessing in disguise. But one can easily construct a scenario where Haley's comment sets off a chain of events that starts a Second Korean War. For example, we don't know what the Chinese ambassador did after Haley made the threat, but most likely he promptly reported it back to Beijing. What the Chinese government did with that information is vital. Did they warn the North Koreans? Did they react in some other way?

Nikki Haley: Trump's Baghdad Bob A War of Choice With North Korea is an Immensely Dumb Idea

We will never really know. However, if Pyongyang was tipped off by Beijing, seeing three U.S. Navy aircraft carriers drilling with South Korean and Japanese warships in November of last year surely must have terrified them. Such a concentration of firepower would have been a prerequisite for any type of invasion or attack. In fact, could these have been the reasons the north decided to test another ICBM in November?

Again, we will never know. However, Trump's very real proposal, as reported in Bob Woodward's book Fear , of "sending a tweet declaring that he was ordering all U.S. military dependents -- thousands of the family members of 28,500 troops -- out of South Korea" definitely would have provoked a response from the Kim regime.

While Woodward does not give specific dates as to when this nearly occurred -- the full text before this section suggests an early 2018 timeframe -- he still reveals that we did dodge a potential war. Just two paragraphs down, Woodward notes that on December 4, 2018, "[M]cMaster had received a warning at the White House. Ri Su-yong, the vice chairman of the [North Korean] Politburo, had told intermediaries 'that the North would take the evacuation of U.S. civilians as a sign of imminent attack.'"

If you put it all together -- not to mention the now famous call to give Kim a " bloody nose " in early January 2018 -- it is easy to see how close to war we came from roughly September 2017 to early January of this year. If events had occurred just a little differently -- if North Korea had perceived things in a direr way thanks to a Chinese warning of a possible invasion, if Trump had acted on his impulses a little further -- our world would be a very different place. Pyongyang, thinking an invasion was coming, might have decided that its only chance to survive was to use its vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction before they were destroyed. That would have meant launching atomic weapons at military bases and potential ports of entry for U.S. forces in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii -- or even attacking the American homeland itself with nuclear weapons. From simulations I have run over the years, I can tell you that millions of people would have died in such an event.

Thankfully, history broke a little different and it never happened -- and thank God for that. But let's not heap praise on public figures who think they can bluff their way through the great game of global politics. That's not what great presidents are made of.

Harry J. Kazianis (@Grecianformula ) serves as director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by President Richard Nixon. The views expressed in this piece are his own.

[Oct 25, 2018] Entrepreneurs of political violence the varied interests and strategies of the far-right in Ukraine openDemocracy

Notable quotes:
"... "Violent entrepreneurs" ..."
"... By taking a similarly pragmatic look at the activities of Ukrainian far right, I claim that they should be viewed as political entrepreneurs who are trying to capitalise on their expertise in violence. ..."
"... Azov's network amounts to a far-right "state within a state" – a universe that aims to monopolise the nationalist sector of Ukraine's political field ..."
"... On the national level, this makes Azov's political patron, Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, the second most powerful person in the country, effectively possessing a private army which once in a while makes ambiguous comments about the possibility of a coup . However, the patronage networks and conflicts go much deeper on the local level. Some of them can be uncovered by analysing the events mentioned above. ..."
"... Many of Azov's public gestures, including incidents involving violence, are aimed at reinforcing the image of an independent movement, opposed to both Ukraine's police leadership and corrupt elites ..."
"... November 2016: Autonomous Resistance's social centre in Lviv is attacked by far-right. Source: YouTube / Kateryna Benjuk. ..."
"... In Kyiv, open struggle against the (weaker) leftists and liberals is the preferred activity of C14 – an organisation headed by Yevgen Karas, a former Svoboda activist who split from the party to become an independent entrepreneur of political violence. ..."
"... Aiming for Ukraine's mainstream patriotic public, C14 positions itself as a group of young and resolute men ready to employ violence for the sake of (national) justice. Their enemies are usually represented as (latent) supporters of pro-Russian separatists, which automatically diminishes their worth in the eyes of the public and amplifies the attackers' heroism. In effect, C14 is trying to take the niche that was occupied by Svoboda before Maidan: relatable and well-meaning troublemakers prepared to break the law for the greater good (by comparison, the agenda of National Corps stresses the values of order). ..."
"... Karas freely admitted to a sympathetic journalist that he cooperates with Ukraine's security services. Among Ukrainian far-right organisations, the activities of C14 are closest to those of Russian online vigilante movements such as "Occupy Pedophily" or "Lev Protiv"; their YouTube channel is consciously crafted to attract audiences (thus literally monetising their violence), and the most popular videos have between 50,000 and 300,000 views. ..."
"... Having created a "municipal guard" officially financed by Kyiv's city council, C14 works towards realising both aims: it gives them a pretext to patrol streets and maximise the probability of violent encounters (which can be publicised), and at the same time provides a "second-best" opportunity to those who could or would not join the structures of Azov. ..."
"... Its advertised readiness to resort to violence was the key to Svoboda's electoral success before Maidan, but this was overshadowed by the efforts of the competing entrepreneurs of political violence in the post-Maidan conjuncture, in which the level of and tolerance to violence has escalated. On the other hand, Svoboda keeps holding on to its hegemony in regional power settings in western Ukraine, even though its relations to nation-wide patronage networks is unclear. All in all, Azov/National Corps seems to be clearly the most successful partner in the big nationalist threesome, receiving the most from this alliance. ..."
"... As I have argued above, Ukraine's far right are taking the logic of "violent entrepreneurship" outside the purely commercial and apolitical realm – and employing it in the domain of political contestation, where illicit violence is a precious resource that can be bought and rented. ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | www.opendemocracy.net

The recent wave of anti-Roma pogroms in Ukraine has spawned a new series of texts on right-wing violence. However, a significant part of this literature still mostly relies on discourse analysis , which cannot fully explain the actions of far right organisations on the ground. Analysing far-right movements' programmes and ideological statements can be useful when combined with a closer look at the actual activities of the movements in question, the way they interact among themselves and the wider social and political context. But judging a group primarily by how it presents itself to the world is misleading.

The lack of primary sources from Ukraine's far-right milieu, as well as the general scarcity of research on non-EU (and non-Russian) eastern Europe, has led to an exoticised perception of central and eastern Europe as whole – and one that is open to politicisation by both liberals and leftists. Public discussion thus tends to degenerate into either liberal denial of the very existence of the far-right problem in Ukraine or sensationalist and exaggerated "anti-imperialist" accounts of the "fascist junta" ruling the country.

To avoid oversimplification, I focus on the grounded context rather than ideologies and programmes of far-right groups. Here, I will try to contribute to a better understanding of the far right in Ukraine by conceptualising them as "entrepreneurs of political violence" – a portmanteau of two established terms from different fields. A "political entrepreneur" is a political actor who pursues opportunistic strategies aimed at gaining popularity and influence, rather than following a specific ideological agenda. Likewise, "Violent entrepreneurs" is the title of an influential study of Russian organised crime by sociologist Vadim Volkov, who analysed post-Soviet mafia as a particular kind of entrepreneurship where violence resources become a crucially important capital asset.

By taking a similarly pragmatic look at the activities of Ukrainian far right, I claim that they should be viewed as political entrepreneurs who are trying to capitalise on their expertise in violence. This can be a more productive lens than engaged approaches which "take a stance" on the far right – approaches that simply acknowledge the gravity of the situation or belittle it. These tend to be accompanied by wider political conclusions, and do not seek to understand the issue at hand.

I give a concise chronology of the incidents of right-wing violence between January and April 2018 (i.e. before the more recent string of Roma pogroms). I will look only at episodes reported in the media, involving violence or a realistic threat of violence by members of various organised far-right groups, directed outside the far right subculture, in peaceful areas of Ukraine. I will then regroup these episodes, interpreting them as several processes that have their own inner logic, but which intersect in time and space.

Chronology of events

The 2018 season of political violence opened in Kyiv on 19 January, when nationalist organisation C14 attacked a demonstration commemorating Russian antifascists Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova.

This annual event is a traditional target for the far right , although previous attacks had been led by different forces. C14 activists blocked the demonstration organised by liberal and leftist activists in central Kyiv, shouting down the speakers and attacking them with snowballs and eggs. The Kyiv police failed to create a barrier separating the two demonstrations, advising the antifascists simply "not to provoke" their opponents. Later, the police detained eight anarchists; the arrest was met with cheers from the nationalists, who were free to keep assaulting the demonstrators physically and verbally. After the end of the demonstration, the far right attacked a random passerby whom they mistook for an antifascist – he happened to be a British tourist .

19 January 2018: attack on anti-fascist march, Kyiv. Source: Youtube. Ten days later, an important incident took place in Lviv . On 28 January, a large group of far-right activists, mostly members of the Azov National Corps and its allied group Misanthropic Division, violently attacked a demonstration (organised by the local leftist scene) against the use of animals in circuses. The attackers threw smoke grenades into the crowd and shook hands with police officers, exchanging the motto "White Pride". The police soon intervened by detaining leftist demonstrators in a brutal manner; they were all taken to a police station, where they spent several hours.

On the next day, 29 January, Azov's vigilante organisation National Militia blocked Cherkasy city hall in central Ukraine. Here, they forced city deputies to vote for the self-dissolution of the city council after they refused to approve new members of the executive committee proposed by the mayor. The police did not intervene.

These January events set the trends for the period that followed. On 11 February, Azov fighters violently intervened and stopped a lecture about discrimination in the film industry, held at a cultural centre in Mariupol. On 13 February, a group called Freikorps, which is believed to be close to the Azov/National Corps movement, attacked a lecture on the LGBT movement in Kharkiv in a similar manner. Two days later, C14 and Azov's National Militia clashed with police forces in Kyiv during a bail court hearing concerning Odessa city mayor Gennady Trukhanov, who is facing theft charges.

International Women's Day, 8 March, saw many public events and almost as many attacks by far right groups. Azov assaulted feminists and liberals marching in Mariupol. In Kyiv, attackers from several organisations made use of the benevolent passivity of the police, who were reluctant to protect the marchers . A plainclothes police officer actually helped them steal a feminist banner.

The Kyiv police ignored statements by victims of violence. Instead, they opened criminal proceedings against Olena Shevchenko, the organiser of the Women's March, after nationalists claimed that the contents of the banner were tantamount to desecration of national symbols. The first court hearing was held in the presence of a large nationalist audience, mobilised by C14, Katekhon (a conservative circle tied to Ukrainian far-right political party Svoboda) and Tradition and Order (TiP), a conservative nationalist group. At the second hearing, the defence mobilised their own support, including some diplomats and liberal politicians. With the dignitaries present in the court hall, and with far right waiting outside, the court acquitted Shevchenko. She had to leave by taking a taxi from the court's backdoor.

On the same day in Lviv, members of National Corps physically assaulted visitors at a feminist exhibition and participants of a "Sisterhood, Support, Solidarity" march. When the marchers retreated into a tram, the attackers started throwing cobblestones at it and later burnt one of their banners saying "No means no". The city police, meanwhile, stood by, ready to intervene the moment the leftists would try to fight back. Some of the police exchanged friendly greetings with the far right.

Meanwhile, in Uzhgorod, events took a slightly different turn. Activists of the local organisation Karpatska Sich (KS) poured red paint over a speaker at a local feminist demonstration, which led to a chemical eye burn. Here, the police promptly detained the attackers – though they were released later that day. In the week that followed, Karpatska Sich organised a string of attacks against local leftist and liberal activists. Coincidentally, that week also hosted a wave of anonymous property destruction against cars with Hungarian or other EU number plates. Once again, local police reacted very reluctantly. According to activists, these were preparations for a large demonstration that Karpatska Sich staged on 17 March. In Uzhgorod as well as in Lviv, local police, realising their own inability to control the streets during such big events, simply gave carte blanche to the far right.

A 17 March event in Uzhgorod to honour wartime nationalist anti-Hungarian fighters (Karpatska Sich's namesake) became an event of nationwide importance , gathering a wide spectrum of Ukraine's extreme right, from Right Sector and Tryzub to C14 and Freikorps. Karpatska Sich, the hosting organisation, accounted for a few dozen of the 250 participants. Contrary to the customary repertoire, the marchers readily demonstrated "controversial" symbols like the "Celtic cross" and gestures like the "Roman salute". Normally these are avoided at public events as too "provocative".

17 March: Karpatska Sich hosts a march in honour of wartime anti-Hungarian fighters, Uzhgorod. Source: Karpatska Sich. On the eve of this gathering, the regional police chief refused to take measures to protect a roundtable on discrimination and hate crimes organised by an LGBT organisation, and strongly advised them to cancel it. Upon receiving this information, the hotel that was to host the event revoked its agreement. Rank-and-file police officers were better disposed to the organisers and helped them leave the town safely.

The town's leftist/liberal milieu reacted to these events by organising a demonstration "For a European Uzhgorod" on 31 March. Their opponents occupied the same square with their own demonstration,"For traditional family values". The city council tried to forbid all demonstrations on that day, citing public safety considerations. However, a local court did not prohibit the gatherings. Notably, Karpatska Sich was not officially present at the counter-demonstration: it was formally organised by a KS-allied group "Black Sun", Social-Nationalist Assembly (SNA) and a few less significant organisations. Karpatska Sich militant activists were present next to the square, but there was no violence on that day. The police did their job, efficiently separating the two demonstrations.

On 19 March, the far right blocked two events organised by liberal NGOs: a roundtable on countering discrimination and hate crimes in Vinnytsia and a lecture on gender-sensitive words in Ivano-Frankivsk . In Vinnytsia, around 40 far right introduced themselves as ordinary citizens, blocking the entrance and demanding to be let inside. The police created a corridor to evacuate the participants of the roundtable. In Ivano-Frankivsk, the lecture was sabotaged by Karpatska Sich and their partner organisation, Sokil. KS promised to repeat such interventions in the future.

Unlike Right Sector, which tried and failed a strategy of violent confrontation with the post-Maidan government, Azov's leadership has opted for a "long march through the institutions"

On 23 March, a special police squad conducted searches at Kyiv's ATEK factory, which is used by Azov as its headquarters and training grounds. Police chiefs explained that the intervention had nothing to do with Azov, but the latter nevertheless quickly mobilised around 1,000 supporters, including members of parliament from Svoboda, to block the work of the police and expel them. On that day, Azov leader Andriy Biletsky mentioned that "a considerable part of the military will support in their hearts" a hypothetical coup d'état.

Three days later, 26 March was marked by far-right violence against a lecture about the dangers of the far-right violence in Kyiv: Right Sector, Svoboda and Tradition and Order, altogether around 40 people, invaded a cultural centre and tore down posters bearing the slogan "Respect diversity". The police pushed them outside, where they verbally attacked people coming in. Two hours later, the police evacuated the building due to an anonymous report of a bomb threat.

On 29 March, several dozen National Militia members broke into the Mykolayiv regional council and demanded that the deputies impeach the regional governor. The deputies did not comply with this request, but the next day the governor himself asked the president Poroshenko for temporary suspension.

On 16 April, an art exhibition dedicated to the far-right violence, which was opened at the premises of a university in Kyiv under heavy police protection, had to close down . The exhibition's curator insisted on shutting it down, citing the risk of aggression from far-right groups; the administration of the university put additional pressure, accusing the artists of a provocation.

On 18 April, C14 organised an anti-Roma raid at Kyiv railway station. The Roma, who had been staying at the station for a few days, had become the subject of a moral panic in the mainstream Ukrainian media a few days before. On 20 April, Hitler's birthday, a voluntary "municipal guard" consisting of C14 activists violently expelled a Roma camp from a Kyiv park, burning their possessions in the process. Their report, illustrated with picturesque photos, received a very enthusiastic feedback from the wider public on social media. The city police chief said they had not received any official violence complaints, and that the municipal guard had simply burnt some garbage left by the Roma.

A few days later, when a news website published a video of men chasing Roma families and attacking them with pepper spray and stones, the police said they had opened two criminal proceedings into hate crime and hooliganism.

Connecting the dots

Can this intimidating but chaotic sequence of events be disentangled and regrouped into several distinct plots, each having its own main characters and dynamics even while intersecting with others? I will try to do so below.

The main character of the first thread to be found here, and indeed of the far-right political scene in Ukraine as a whole, is the extended network of various structures known under the general Azov movement brand . Unlike Right Sector, which tried and failed a strategy of violent confrontation with the post-Maidan government, Azov's leadership has opted for a "long march through the institutions", extending local patronage networks with criminals and politicians and building a wide network of organisations and side projects.

Azov's network amounts to a far-right "state within a state" – a universe that aims to monopolise the nationalist sector of Ukraine's political field

The creation of the Azov Civil Corps was the first step in this direction. This structure, formally divorced from the Azov National Guard regiment, decided on a more pronounced public political face. The Civil Corps served the double purpose of keeping Azov military regiment veterans busy while also spreading Azov's hegemony among the far-right audience. This was followed by creating the National Corps political party, the network of Azovets children's summer camps, the Sports Corps, the veterans organisation Zirka, the nation-wide vigilante network of National Militias and other outlets. Azov's network thus amounts to a far-right "state within a state" – a universe that aims to monopolise the nationalist sector of Ukraine's political field.

Azov has become an important umbrella brand for Ukrainian far right organisations. On the national level, this makes Azov's political patron, Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, the second most powerful person in the country, effectively possessing a private army which once in a while makes ambiguous comments about the possibility of a coup . However, the patronage networks and conflicts go much deeper on the local level. Some of them can be uncovered by analysing the events mentioned above.

For instance, the March 2018 incident at the ATEK factory in Kyiv. Here what's at stake is the struggle for ownership rights to this factory, which currently hosts Azov's headquarters. The factory previously belonged to Oleksandr Tretiakov, a politician and owner of a Ukrainian lottery operator which allegedly benefits from the National Corps' violent raids directed against competing lottery outlets under the pretext of a campaign against illegal gambling. Tretiakov's old political partner, Ukraine's former justice minister Roman Zvarych, helped Azov establish itself at the factory's premises in November 2014.

At the time, the factory was at the centre of a corporate conflict. As reported by Hromadske , a former lawyer for one of the parties to the factory dispute, KVV Group, claimed he paid $195,000 to Sergey Korotkikh, Azov's head of intelligence, to occupy the factory on KVV's behalf. However, after Azov did this, they refused to permit KVV to enter. Instead, according to KVV's former lawyer, Azov advised KVV to discuss financial matters with Svitlana Zvarych, whose charity foundation demanded 45.5m UAH ($3m) in order for Azov to leave the premises. Svitlana Zvarych refutes this claim. Meanwhile, Azov started converting the factory to produce military equipment with an eye on attracting government orders, while Azov Civil Corps, headed at that time by Roman Zvarych, politicised the conflict by staging street protests "in defense of the factory" .

Many of Azov's public gestures, including incidents involving violence, are aimed at reinforcing the image of an independent movement, opposed to both Ukraine's police leadership and corrupt elites

In October 2016, the co-owner of KVV Group, having spent two months in prison on charges of financing separatism, surrendered his ownership rights to Zvarych's charitable foundation. However, in the same month, according to Svitlana Zvarych, she was kicked out of the factory by Azov's forces after refusing to give a share in the company's capital to Sergey Korotkikh and Vadym Troyan, Kyiv regional police chief and former Azov battalion commander.

This context allows us to better understand Azov's apparent overreaction to the police visit in March 2018 in contrast to their official explanation, which stated that the ""unreformed" police wanted to plant weapons at Azov's base and then disband them. Indeed, Azov's official version helps them mute their ties with Avakov, posing for the nationalist audience as victims of the regime.

Many of Azov's public gestures, including incidents involving violence, are aimed at reinforcing the image of an independent movement, opposed to both Ukraine's police leadership and corrupt elites. Azov's clash with Odessa mayor Gennady Trukhanov's hired thugs and, more importantly, with the police, is one such publicity stunt which "cleanses" the image of National Squads from allegations of Avakov's patronage.

Azov's involvement in the incidents in Cherkasy and Mykolayiv, on the other hand, seems to be connected with its involvement in patronage networks. Cherkasy city council was torn by a conflict between city mayor Anatoliy Bondarenko and city council secretary Oleksandr Radytsky. The latter, supported by the president's Petro Poroshenko Bloc and the nationalist Svoboda party, commanded the majority of votes in the assembly and paralysed the budget confirmation process. The mayor asked the parliament to dissolve the city council and call a new election.

Here, the sudden intervention of Azov's National Militia, sporting balaclavas and firearms cases, turned the tide in the mayor's favour. The city council passed the budget and then voted for its own dissolution. Whether or not the claims about Avakov's political interests in Cherkasy are true, this episode shows that the local configuration of power is often more important than broad political agreements on the national level. Azov played into the hands of the forces belonging to a different camp on the national scale, against fellow nationalists and formal partners from Svoboda.

In Mykolayiv, the official reason for the intervention of Azov's National Militia were accusations against regional governor Oleksiy Savchenko, whose corrupt ways allegedly motivated the suicide of the local airport director, a war veteran. However, according to another interpretation , this is an episode of a wider conflict between Azov's patron Arsen Avakov and Ukraine's former general attorney, police general Vitaliy Yarema. The latter is gaining influence on president Poroshenko, putting his trusted men, former policemen, to important positions in the regions – and Oleksiy Savchenko is one of Yarema's protégés. For Avakov, who wants to monopolise influence on the Ukrainian police force, this situation is perceived as a threat.

Finally, the Mariupol episodes demonstrate the behaviour of Azov in their "base" city close to the front line. As any large industrial city, Mariupol has a lot of powerful local and regional interests , such as the important metallurgical assets belonging to the country's richest man, Rinat Akhmetov -- these would normally dwarf the influence of the likes of Azov. But the war, given the city's strategic importance and reasonable doubts about the political loyalty of its population, has made Azov a more influential player.

Mariupol's Azov movement feel enough at home to have installed a statue of medieval prince Sviatoslav (a central figure in post-Soviet anti-Semitic mythology) in the city centre, despite the lack of official permission from the city council, and to organise regular torchlight marches there. A soldier from Azov, who killed a man in the street after a political argument earlier this year, was released by the local court , which sentenced him to a fine. Even if they do not possess a complete monopoly on violence, Azov has certainly established political control of the streets in Mariupol. To maintain this control, they have to react violently, even if not officially, to any public event which diverges sufficiently from their political agenda.

The struggle for hegemony in Lviv

The contested hegemony over street-level political activism is the common rationale behind the acts of far-right political violence in Lviv. This western city, Ukraine's "national Piedmont", has always been considered the heartland of Ukrainian nationalism.

As early as 2010, Svoboda gained an absolute majority in the city council and relative majority in the regional council. At that point, the party was in the control of an energetic militant movement, Autonomous Resistance (AO). Founded by the former Hitlerist leadership of the now defunct Ukrainian National Labour Party, it was headed by Svoboda deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, whose PhD thesis dealt with the history of NSDAP and Mussolini's PNF. The militant movement, which followed Strasserism , borrowed its political style from the German autonomists. After a bitter conflict with Mykhalchyshyn in 2013, Autonomous Resistance cut ties with Svoboda and gradually slided leftward politically. It played a prominent role during Maidan in Lviv, occupying the regional council and fighting Svoboda deputies. Coming from a right-wing background, AO paid attention to the development of combat skills of its membership. It created its own MMA training facility, which is the core of a social centre that hosts lectures and presentations. An online shop selling imported athletic clothing previously provided the organisation with an independent source of income.

The peculiar political face of AO – their eclectic left nationalist ideology, commitment to key nationalist symbols and figures, and active participation in the military conflict in the east – has allowed them to survive politically, unlike most other leftist organisations which have failed to find a winning strategy in the post-Maidan environment. A number of splits gave birth to several other organisations, less nationalist but very active, possessing street violence skills and maintaining partnerships with AO. This meant that the street politics of the most important city in western Ukraine was dominated by a leftist milieu.

The first far-right organisation that attempted to contest this situation was Right Sector. In 2015, its local cell forcibly blocked the 1 May "Social march" organised by AO, in order to "prevent a neo-Bolshevik revanche". However, after a series of splits, Right Sector lost its mobilising potential, as did Svoboda. Over 2016-2017, Lviv has seen a string of dramatic incidents of right-wing violence: a mobilisation against a Festival of Equality which intended to tackle LGBT rights issues; a brutal attack on an AO march by several hundred Nazis; attacks at a Publishers Forum because of two books allegedly promoting LGBT and leftist politics. However, Right Sector did not figure prominently in these incidents. Most of these far-right mobilisations were to a large extent anonymous, featuring "patriotic youth" instead of specific political brands.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/36K3dSkfaWk

November 2016: Autonomous Resistance's social centre in Lviv is attacked by far-right. Source: YouTube / Kateryna Benjuk.

The same lack of clear authorship is also true of violent incidents in 2018. However, in personal communication to me, activists who were present on the ground clearly indicate the leading role of Azov's National Corps in these attacks. According to them, Right Sector today constitutes an alternative to Azov only as a military unit in eastern Ukraine, but politically the latter "has swallowed up both Right Sector and Svoboda". Most participants of the 2015 blockade have since then either joined National Corps, or military battalions allied to Right Sector or the police force. Having consolidated the local far-right scene, Azov is trying to clean the political field of its leftist competitors. The Lviv police rank-and-file, which is infiltrated by the far right according to local activists, do not prevent, or even choose to help them to achieve this aim.

Why then is the National Corps reluctant to lead the struggle in Lviv as openly as it does elsewhere? Several hypotheses can help answer this question. First, it cannot afford to lose publicly. In November 2016, a potent coalition of several hundred Nazis joined forces to physically destroy the organised left in Lviv – activists arrived from different regions, representing Azov's Civic Corps, Right Sector and Karpatska Sich. Amazingly, they lost: failing to penetrate the gates of the office under attack, eventually they had to retreat. For political reasons, this kind of loss is unacceptable for an ambitious movement like Azov. Therefore, they will not lead the fight officially unless they are guaranteed to win.

The second hypothesis concerns competition between the agencies of state violence. Both 2016 and 2017 have seen attacks on the Lviv left scene organised by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). According to persons involved, these investigations seem to have been partially motivated by SBU's own strategic aims, partially by the request of a local developer, and partially by the personal revenge of Yuri Mykhalchyshyn (who now works for the SBU as a consultant). Whatever the exact reasons in each specific case, Azov's National Corps would hardly consider it expedient to be seen voluntarily helping the state institution which is traditionally hostile to their political patron Arsen Avakov – and to give other far right groups even more grounds to talk about their subservience to "the regime".

Finally, Azov's hegemony over the local extreme right may still not be quite consolidated yet. Their relations with Svoboda may be too complicated for open involvement in Lviv at a scale similar to other cities which have less competitive far-right scenes.

Challengers in Kyiv

In Kyiv, open struggle against the (weaker) leftists and liberals is the preferred activity of C14 – an organisation headed by Yevgen Karas, a former Svoboda activist who split from the party to become an independent entrepreneur of political violence. Compared to the other far right organisations mentioned above, C14's profile has less to do with quietly establishing informal domination and engaging in illicit activities for material gain, and more with mediatised activities oriented at a wider audience.

Aiming for Ukraine's mainstream patriotic public, C14 positions itself as a group of young and resolute men ready to employ violence for the sake of (national) justice. Their enemies are usually represented as (latent) supporters of pro-Russian separatists, which automatically diminishes their worth in the eyes of the public and amplifies the attackers' heroism. In effect, C14 is trying to take the niche that was occupied by Svoboda before Maidan: relatable and well-meaning troublemakers prepared to break the law for the greater good (by comparison, the agenda of National Corps stresses the values of order).

C14's profile has less to do with quietly establishing informal domination and engaging in illicit activities for material gain, and more with mediatised activities oriented at a wider audience

This orientation is obvious from a Facebook poll in which C14 asked their audience which politician associated with the old regime they would like the group to beat up (so far they did not manage to target any of the persons mentioned in the poll). In line with this strategy, Karas freely admitted to a sympathetic journalist that he cooperates with Ukraine's security services. Among Ukrainian far-right organisations, the activities of C14 are closest to those of Russian online vigilante movements such as "Occupy Pedophily" or "Lev Protiv"; their YouTube channel is consciously crafted to attract audiences (thus literally monetising their violence), and the most popular videos have between 50,000 and 300,000 views.

The recent wave of anti-Roma pogroms fits this strategy very well: it has produced immense positive feedback in the form of online comments from non-politicised "regular citizens", enhancing brand recognition for C14. Roma can hardly pass as "separatists", but their marginalised status makes them a perfect aim for this kind of strategically calculated violence. Notably, the first anti-Roma raid at Kyiv railway station was a reaction to swelling public demand (heated up by a moral panic in the media), rather than C14's own ideologically dictated initiative. Meanwhile, the attack on the Kyiv antifascist rally in January 2018 is the continuation of C14's more traditional political style – attacking easy targets that can be represented as the "fifth column".

The 2018 feminist march in Kyiv also proves the selective approach of C14: it did not figure prominently among the counter-protesters on 8 March, but afterwards it seized the opportunity to inflate the hysteria around the feminist banner, claiming that the symbol of Azov's National Militia on it looked too much like Ukraine's national symbol, and was located too close to the woman's anus. Characteristically, the National Militia ignored the story, but C14 did its best to mobilise its activists to attend the court hearings.

Here, though, there is a deeper calculation: consolidating Kyiv's far-right scene behind C14. Just like Azov, C14 combine generic "healthy patriotic" message with subtler hints which can be easily deciphered by members of the subculture (such as the symbolic date of the Roma pogrom on Hitler's birthday or indeed the very name of the organisation). Similarly, people belonging to politicised subcultures understand very well that the antifascists who were attacked in January 2018 were not Kremlin agents, but old political enemies who cannot be allowed to grow stronger. Having created a "municipal guard" officially financed by Kyiv's city council, C14 works towards realising both aims: it gives them a pretext to patrol streets and maximise the probability of violent encounters (which can be publicised), and at the same time provides a "second-best" opportunity to those who could or would not join the structures of Azov.

The desire to dominate the local far-right milieu is also apparent behind another series of violent acts by C14, not mentioned above because they were directed against the participants of the far-right scene. Dmitry Riznichenko, a prominent veteran of Ukraine's far right scene and former member of C14, left the organisation after Maidan. After serving in the Donbas volunteer battalion, Riznichenko created his own organisation, more socially liberal than is custom among today's far right. (Some have gone as far as declaring him a leftist.) Whatever Riznichenko's actual political views, the important thing is that he, along with another "erring rightist" organisation ChorKom (Black Committee), maintains openly friendly relations with Lviv's AO and openly challenges the hierarchy within the scene. Struggling to defend its authority, C14 launched an intensive campaign of brutal physical attacks against Riznichenko.

"Anti-gender" ideology as a universal mobiliser

Even though neither Azov nor C14 explicitly mobilised for International Women's Day on 8 March, the demonstration did encounter violent far-right counter-protesters, aided and abetted by some rank-and-file policemen belonging to the same political milieu.

The most prominent violent proponent of the "anti-gender" agenda in the post-Maidan years has been Right Sector. Its ideological face was always more "fascist" or "Francoist" than the white supremacist/Hitlerist Azov or LePen-like Svoboda. Inside the movement, Right Sector was the main engine behind violent mobilisations against LGBT events such as the Equality March in Kyiv. On the wider scale, it contributed to popularising and reinforcing the dichotomy between pro-EU, pro-Poroshenko liberals and revolutionary conservative nationalists.

Today, this dichotomy is a common-sense understanding. The "anti-gender" ideology has turned from an exclusive feature of Right Sector into a generic far-right set of ideas, which can be used by anyone. This is one reason behind the anonymity of some attacks and blockages: their authorship is known inside the relevant milieu, serving as one of the criteria for building subculture hierarchies.

It is also noticeable that Azov has never officially participated in any "gendered" violent actions. Even in their "home" town of Mariupol, attacks are not formally done on behalf of the movement. Partially, this can be explained by their special relationship with the state leadership, which was dying to hide all visible manifestations of xenophobia, homophobia and other signs of lack of social progress from the eyes of the EU, which could have reacted by backtracking on the visa-free regime, politically important for Ukrainian government.

However, this type of violence also generally does not fit Azov's strategy of publicity. They like repeating that they fight "real and strong" enemies – Russians and separatists, but also corrupt officials and other powerful figures within the society, almost ignoring some classic rightist scapegoats.

Instead, the "anti-gender" violence scene has recently seen the rise of two new aspiring actors, which stand behind all recent "gendered" episodes in Kyiv. One of them, Katekhon, is a conservative Orthodox group, somewhat resembling the Russian Union of Orthodox Banner-Bearers with their aggressive fundamentalist style. This group is headed by Yuriy Noyevyi, a politician from Svoboda. Not long ago, in 2012-2014, Noyevyi and his comrades were active in a different niche: their organisation Ukrainian Student attempted to become a far-right student union, competing for the influence with the anarcho-syndicalist union Priama Diya (Direct Action). When the latter ceased to be an important political contender, Noyevyi's interests shifted from university syndicalism to religious fundamentalism. Effectively, Katekhon is the rebranded Ukrainian Student, serving the same technological purposes – promoting the interests of the party in the spheres which are considered the most promising at the moment.

The second ambitious newcomer at the market of gendered political violence is Tradition and Order (TiP). This party was created in the second half of 2016, and took Revanche, a group of admirers of Italian fascism, as its basis. The creation of the party was facilitated by political technologists involved in the patronage circles of the president's political party, Petro Poroshenko Bloc. Today, the perception of TiP as "pro-Poroshenko" is widely shared in Kyiv's marginal political subculture. Most likely, their task is to try and create an alternative centre of gravity among the far right that would balance the influence of Azov (whose political patron is not unconditionally loyal to Poroshenko) and the remaining authority of Svoboda and Right Sector.

Thus, people violently fighting against "gender propaganda" shoulder to shoulder were brought together in the same place by very different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, considerations. In March 2017, National Corps, Svoboda and Right Sector signed a "National Manifesto", pledging to coordinate their efforts in a joint struggle against the government; however, in reality this political field is full of conflicting interests as well as ambitious newcomers with powerful patrons.

The regional monopoly in Uzhgorod

There is one more far right group actively and violently fighting against "gender ideology" in Ukraine – Karpatska Sich (KS), whose area of activity is mostly confined to Uzhgorod. Unlike Azov, they are not tied by the limitations imposed by high-status patrons and parliamentary political ambitions, and do not shy away from certain topics, catering to all possible audiences in the regional far-right milieu.

This group is a financially self-sufficient political and criminal unit, functioning in a border region where smuggling and similar petty criminal activities are an important source of income for a large part of the population. The leadership of KS are founders of a charitable foundation that receives goods confiscated at the customs for free, pledging to deliver them to soldiers at the eastern front. However, among the goods thus obtained there were two tonnes of marble and women's lingerie , which can be hardly considered a useful material aid but can be profitably sold. One of the founders also figures in cases of illicit land allocations by Uzhgorod city council.

Simultaneously, KS has successfully established its exclusive control over street-level violence in Uzhgorod. The publication of the information on their illicit activities by a local anti-corruption activist was followed by a string of attacks against him and his colleagues by KS. On the other hand, the nature of their relations with the police and local government is markedly different from the situation in Kyiv and Lviv. In this case, there is hardly an infiltration or benevolent attitude on the part of rank-and-file policemen; rather, the police and the state apparatus are too weak to persecute KS as severely as they perhaps would like to. In 2017, the leader of KS Taras Deyak was included in the list of 100 most influential people of the region – this is very unusual, and suggests the depth of the group's involvement in local criminal networks.

This influence is used to expand the clout of KS among the far-right scene and reap benefits in high politics. The list of organisations which participated in the 79th anniversary march was telling. It did not include either National Corps or Svoboda. Instead, it featured C14 (whose sphere of influence is geographically divided from KS) and the Social-National Assembly. According to some rumours , the leader of SNA Oleh Odnorozhenko (who was previously Azov's main ideologue) is drifting closer to Oleh Lyashko and Igor Mosiychuk – people who left Azov in 2014. Lyashko's Radical Party is an influential player in mainstream politics, and he personally enjoys high rankings in presidential polls, opposing both Avakov and Poroshenko. Odnorozhenko's frequent visits to Uzhgorod and participation in joint events may be a prelude to the inclusion of SNA and KS into Lyashko's electoral machine.

Hegemony toolkit: Dosing violence, choosing friends and victims

The first and most important of the plots we have been able to discern above is the establishment of the Azov movement as dominant in Ukraine's far-right scene on the national level – and as a significant political player in the mainstream political scene.

The key factors that have allowed Azov to rise to these positions are its strategic choices to maintain a reserved but not hostile public attitude towards the government and to maintain close patron-client relationships with certain factions both on the national level and in specific regional and local configurations. The third factor is Azov's military background, which grants it access to the infrastructure of violence (arms, training facilities etc.) and ensures its legitimacy both in the eyes of the wider public and of the nationalist scene. This legitimacy hinges on the balanced demonstration of the resources of violence available to the movement and its discretion in using them.

This combination is unique among the major far-right structures in Ukraine. Right Sector has a strong military component, but its decision to choose an openly confrontational path in its relations with the governing factions of the ruling class has prevented it from gaining access to important physical and symbolic resources. In this situation, Right Sector's bet on their clientelist relations with an opposition faction of Ukraine's haute bourgeoisie (Ihor Kolomoisky's Privat Group) and revolutionary image did not pay off. Now this movement seems to be in decline.

Svoboda, meanwhile, was too compromised by its perceived proximity to power during and immediately after Maidan. The creation of Svoboda's own volunteer war units appears to have failed to neutralise the lack of radicalism and militarism in its public image. Its advertised readiness to resort to violence was the key to Svoboda's electoral success before Maidan, but this was overshadowed by the efforts of the competing entrepreneurs of political violence in the post-Maidan conjuncture, in which the level of and tolerance to violence has escalated. On the other hand, Svoboda keeps holding on to its hegemony in regional power settings in western Ukraine, even though its relations to nation-wide patronage networks is unclear. All in all, Azov/National Corps seems to be clearly the most successful partner in the big nationalist threesome, receiving the most from this alliance.

As mentioned above, Azov's success hinges partly on the measured dosage of violence in the public space, which should project an image of a force conscious of its superiority in terms of violent resources – but still using it sparingly. This is why National Corps prefers semi-anonymity when acting in situations where its single-handed superiority is not guaranteed a priori, like in Kyiv and Lviv. Its interpenetration with the police forces helps it establish its hegemony in a covert manner. The efforts of National Corps to dominate street politics in Lviv are the second plot.

The third plot concerns the activities of C14 in Kyiv. This movement is closer to a classic vigilante group, generously using violence against commonly recognised "public enemies", i.e. subjects of moral panic like the Roma or alleged pro-Russian fifth columnist. In their activity, they appeal to two audiences: the wider public with its patriotic and anti-Roma instincts and the far-right political subculture able to see more nuanced details. The first dimension makes C14 a structural analogue of Russian vigilante groups with their commercialised online platforms; the second dimension, oriented inside the far-right scene, has elevated C14 to the position of a co-organiser of the annual nationalist marches on 14 October, on a par with the much more powerful Azov, Svoboda and Right Sector.

The use of "anti-gender" ideology is the fourth theme. The cases analysed here show that this mobilising subject is used as a self-promotion arena by two competing groups: Katekhon, trying to restore Svoboda's once leading positions in the scene; and TiP, aimed at creating there a separate gravitation pole embedded in Poroshenko's patronage network. On the other hand, Azov/National Corps seems reluctant to invest too much effort in forcing the topic.

Finally, a separate plot is unfolding in Uzhgorod, where the locally entrenched political and criminal structure Karpatska Sich is overtly competing with the state apparatus for influence on the regional level and is struggling to build alliances on the national scale. These alliances, if constructed successfully, will be able to undermine the dominance of Azov/National Corps by creating a patronage network of comparable capacity to compete with it politically and otherwise on all levels.

As I have argued above, Ukraine's far right are taking the logic of "violent entrepreneurship" outside the purely commercial and apolitical realm – and employing it in the domain of political contestation, where illicit violence is a precious resource that can be bought and rented.

Ukrainian Nazi movements thus exist on the intersection of several worlds (criminal, commercial, military, marginal-political, mainstream political) and are prepared to mobilise their violent resources for advancement of their own positions, up to and including displacing former patrons and stepping into their shoes. The skillful and measured management and use of these violent resources is the key to success in this strategy.

[Oct 24, 2018] It does seem that the murder allowed the war and killing in Yemen to move to the foreground

Oct 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Nemesiscalling , Oct 23, 2018 2:37:45 PM | link

B, it does seem that the k affair has risen the crisis in Yemen to the foreground just as many predicted. Thank goodness.

You are correct in that many are looking too far into this as some kind of conspiracy. I am reminded by this of many who put forth that it made no difference as to who won the prez election. It did make a difference to the military as well as Hillary's backers in the cIa and fbI.

The Saudis screwed up and they will get their comeuppance it seems. Russia might be able to wiggle their way into the middle then, filling the vacuum of uncle Sam at the circle jerk. The Saudis will have to curtail their operation in Yemen and no quarter will be given to wahhabi-terrorists by ksa who wish retribution against Russia. Win-win.

m , Oct 23, 2018 3:11:58 PM | link

Interesting take by Ghassan Kadi on the Saker's blog, for those who still sense a conspiracy in this. https://thesaker.is/insights-into-the-khashoggi-ordeal-who-and-why/ Goes back to this 'fiance', but adds Gullen to the mix and makes Erdy out to be an instigator. Good to have a viewpoint from someone who has lived in Sawdi land.

[Oct 24, 2018] 10-3-18 Gareth Porter on Trump and the American Empire

Notable quotes:
"... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com . ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | libertarianinstitute.org

Gareth Porter is interviewed on his article for Truthdig, " Can Trump Take Down the American Empire? " Porter talks about revelations in the Bob Woodward book "Fear", about the Trump presidency, and how they may pertain to the American Empire. Porter also talks about the Trump presidency, North Korea, and Iran.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on the national security state, and author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter and listen to Gareth's previous appearances on the Scott Horton Show.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com .

[Oct 23, 2018] Insights Into The Khashoggi Ordeal; Who And Why by Ghassan Kadi

This is the same turkey in which Russian ambassador was gunned down... Russian ambassador shot dead in Ankara gallery Reuters (Dec 19, 2016)
Notable quotes:
"... As a Muslim, Mr. Khashoggi could have gone to any country that upholds Muslim marriage rites and remarried without having to formally divorce his first wife, and then go to America and live with his "new wife" under the guise of a de-facto relationship. So why would he risk his life and walk into a potential death trap? ..."
"... Logic stipulates that Khashoggi entered the Consulate after he was given vehement assurances that his safety was guaranteed by the Saudi Crown. He would have never entered the Consulate had he not been given this assurance. ..."
"... Hatice Cengiz (Turkish for Khadijeh Jengiz) it is claimed, raised the first alarm for Khashoggi's disappearance, announcing at the same time that she is/was his fiancée. But that latter announcement of hers came as a surprise even to Khashoggi's own family. ..."
"... Some reports allege that Hatice has had a colourful history, including Mossad training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPuKo7WMSA&feature=youtu.be . The same YouTube alleges that she was a Gülenist and was arrested by Erdogan and released under the condition that she works for his security apparatus in order to guarantee her freedom. If such is the case, do we know if she has been also blackmailed in exchange for security of family members, loved ones, property etc? We don't know. ..."
"... In reality, irrespective of what his family members are saying now, Khashoggi has never introduced her to the world as his fiancée; and this is fact. So was she his fiancée? It is at least possible that she wasn't? So, who was she to Khashoggi and what role did she possibly play? ..."
"... Gülen is falling out of America's favour as he seems to have outlived his use-by date, and the Gülenist movement would be in dire need of a new benefactor. ..."
"... Cengiz, a former Gülenist, released on the above-mentioned conditions and possible threats, might have introduced herself to Khashoggi as an undercover Gülenist, and she had a history to support her claim. Being a former Gülenist, she might have indeed kept a foot in the Gülenist camp, and with the diminishing support of the American Government to the Gulenist movement, she might have been recruited to source finance. The Gülenists might have eyed Saudi Arabia to take this role, and as the rift between the Saudi royals and Erdogan intensified after their former joint effort to topple the legitimate secular government of Syria ..."
"... MBS himself would have inadvertently invited the Gülenists to approach him when he announced, back in March 2018 during a visit to the Coptic Pope Tawadros II in Egypt, that the triangle of evil in the Middle East is comprised of Iran, Islamist extremists groups and Turkey, and, in naming Turkey, he obviously meant Erdogan personally. ..."
"... With the Saudi-led Wahhabi version of fundamentalist Islam competing with the Muslim Brotherhood side, politically and militarily headed by Erdogan, it is not far-fetched to believe that either party is conspiring to topple the other. ..."
"... It is highly likely that Saudi officials had several contingency plans for Khashoggi's visit; depending on its outcome and the information that he had to offer. Those plans might have included giving him a wide range of treatments, ranging from a red carpet reception in Saudi Arabia, to beheading and dismembering him within the Consulate's grounds. ..."
"... It is possible that the Saudi officials in Turkey have had their own contacts with the Gülenists prior to the supposed ground-breaking visit of Khashoggi. In such a case, if the story Khashoggi may have offered did not fall in line with the story the Saudi's already know, then Khashoggi would have automatically been branded as suspicious and his safe entry would have been revoked. In such a case, he would have walked into his own trap. ..."
"... If any of the above scenarios are accurate, then the role of Erdogan in this story is not that of a scavenger who capitalized on the rift generated between the Saudis and America, but that he was instrumental in conjuring up and orchestrating the whole drama. Erdogan might have subjected the Saudi Government to the Gülen litmus test, and in such a case, the victim is Saudi Arabia and the scavenger is America seeking silence money in lieu of continued protection of Saudi interests. ..."
"... In all of the above scenarios, Khashoggi would have been driven into the trap by his alleged fiancée and had his impunity revoked by the Saudi officials because he failed the test. ..."
"... Most likely, Khashoggi was after amnesty from the Saudi Crown, and this would be a safety concern not only for Khashoggi himself, but also for his family that continued to live in Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Arabic media are inundated with posts and YouTube videos that are very damning of Hatice Cengiz ..."
"... . In reality however, her sudden emergence as Khashoggi's "fiancée", the fact that she allegedly waited for nearly 24 hours before reporting his disappearance and her personal, professional and political history are all factors that cast much doubt about her innocence and instead, portray her as a possible key element in the series of events that led to the disappearance of Khashoggi. ..."
"... And if Trump is seizing the opportunity to grab MBS, and this time he will be grabbing by the wallet, if Erdogan smells a hint of preparedness of MBS to support Gülen, then Erdogan would want MBS's wallet and head. Any whichever way, the silver lining of this story is that for once, Saudi Arabia is finally running for cover. Few around the world will give this brutal royal family any sympathy. ..."
"... MBS has committed heinous war crimes in Yemen and has made huge errors of judgment with regard to Syria and Qatar. He made many enemies, and it seems that Erdogan is out to get him. ..."
"... It does seem possible that the Assad-must-go curse has reached the neck of the Saudi throne ..."
"... Interestingly enough apparently K handed his two phones to fiancée before he went in ..any good journalist would have left a cache somewhere to be opened incase of certain events?????? ..."
"... why enter the consulate in Turkey? And, not in USA? And, why not the Embassy as the Ambassador has more power, than the Consular? Also, both the Muslim Brotherhood have Wahhabism have been friends for ages, as their theology is very similar with each other. And, if fact Erdogan is not Muslim Brotherhood but a Sufi. ..."
"... I've read several articles about Khashoggi and my feeling right now is everyone is lying, including B and Ghassan Kadi. ..."
"... Seems to me that also the Old US Establishment, along with the EU Establishment, both anti-Trump, never wanted MbS in the first place. Israel, and therefore Trump, are happy with MbS but a lot of people would like to see him gone and get the old "safe" gang back (who paid handsome bribes/salaries for decades). MbS is similar to Trump, way too impulsive, unpredictable and manic, and a special kind of crazy on top to make for a reliable partner in crime. ..."
"... The Establishment wants the Saudis to sell them their oil, then to recycle the money back into their economies. They'd prefer that they do this quietly, without any big fuss. They can get rich doing so, but they shouldn't disrupt the world. And this is the role that the Saudis have played mostly for the last 60-70 years. ..."
"... Until MbS. So yes, it is conceivable that some other powerful people are getting a bit tired of him. The same powerful people who really don't want the disruption of the world that a Shiite-Sunni war over the oil fields would cause. The same powerful friends who are also worried about Trump upsetting apple carts. Perhaps these powerful people are moving against a war, which means against Trump on Iran, and against MbS if they feel he keeps stirring things up too much. ..."
"... One problem throughout this whole affair is that I don't believe the Turks. Erdogon shutdown or converted the independent media that they once had. And in a case like this, all information comes from the government anyways. The Sauds have been rightly attacked for changing their story. But the Turks have been too. I've gotten the feeling that the 'news' reports from Turkish leaks (supposedly) have simply been the plot lines of various Hollywood movies. The body was cut up (with a chainsaw? like in Texas?), the body was dissolved in acid, the killers watched on Skype (always good to get that hip tech tie-in to a story). It can't all be true. ..."
"... Like The Salisbury Affair, The Case of the Disappearing Lover in Instanbul simply is going to have to be one to sit back and wait and see what if anything actually emerges as the truth. ..."
"... Seems pretty clueless to drop the bits in a well. Maybe the "local contact" was actually the consul, suggesting: Hey, I have an idea! How about dropping the body parts down the well? ..."
"... That is about the dumbest thing I have heard yet in the Story of K. Except, the idea of the body double. The people who thought up the body double idea must be the same Einsteins who figured the well in the consul's garden was a solution to disposal. Keystone Konsul. ..."
"... That bit of imagination leads to the idea that one of Khashoggi's last thoughts was "shit, I knew getting married again was a bad idea." ..."
"... The interesting thing was watching the US media go crazy about this. I kept thinking how different was this from Obama ordering Anwar Al-Awaki executed by drone strike? Al-Awaki received no trial, or even some kind of demand. Obama and his team just had him executed. So MBS is a horrible monster for doing exactly what Obama did. ..."
"... Khashoggi seemed to be working to "end dictatorship" and spread "free speech," democracy, voting, opinion polls, feminism, gender theory, lgbt washrooms, all that. All the great stuff of democracy. Worked out great in Sweden, why not Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... It was Khashoggi beating the Assad must go drum. The last Saudi represented on this site said Assad is harmless as long as he understands Saudi interests exist in Syria. Not ideal, but a better offer than London's. Further, the dead "journalist" believed Syria should be divided, and worse, that we should now act as if Assad is already gone ..."
"... Seems to come down to him being lied to, conn'd or lured into the consulate and his death. Then we come to the whole other point of why on earth did the Saudis use their consulate as an assassination killing ground? ..."
"... Governments killing people within their consulates is very rare. For reasons that are now very obvious, if they weren't before. ..."
"... The pundits who say MBS wanted to send a message set off alarms in my brain. Because that is exactly the reason we are supposed to believe that Putin uses all sorts of bizarre assasination methods that are obviously traced back to him. He wants to send a message. Yeah, right. And that's why they brought a bleep-storm of trouble down on top of their heads. To send a message? ..."
Oct 23, 2018 | thesaker.is

­ When I worked and lived in Saudi Arabia, one of the first things I learnt was that the company I worked for had a fulltime employee with the job description of "Mu'aqeb". The best translation of this title is "expeditor". This man was in charge of every matter that had to do with dealing with government. He is the one who takes one's passport and sees that a Saudi "Iquama" (temporary certificate of residence) is produced. He is the one who renews driving licenses. He is the one that does the necessary paperwork to grant employees exit and re-entry visas when they go away on holidays. He even applies on one's behalf for visas to visit other countries. He even paid water and electricity bills. He did it all, and of course, on top of his salary, he expected a present from employees on their return to work from holidays, and some employees would risk big penalties smuggling in Playboy magazines to reward him with. But the company I worked for was not alone in this regard; all other companies had their own "Mu'aqeb".

It is against the Saudi psyche, culture and "pride" to go to a government office, wait in line and make an application for anything. Not even uneducated poor Saudis are accustomed to go through the rigmarole of government red-tape and routine.

Mr. Khashoggi was from the upper crust, and it is highly doubtful that he would have been willing and prepared to physically enter the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul seeking an official document.

Furthermore and more importantly, Mr. Khashoggi had a better reason not to enter any Saudi territory. Even though some recent reports portray him as a Wahhabi in disguise among other things, the man had nonetheless made some serious anti-MBS (Mohamed bin Salman) statements https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamal-khashoggi-saudi-journalist-called-saudi-arabia-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salmans-behavior-in-foreign-policy-impulsive-2017/

Jamal Khashoggi was no fool. He knew the modus operandi of the Saudi Government too well. He knew that what he had said was tantamount to a death sentence in the brutal Kingdom of Sand. So what incited him to walk into the Consulate? To receive a divorce certificate so he could remarry as the reports are trying to make us believe? Not a chance.

But this is not all. As a Muslim, Mr. Khashoggi could have gone to any country that upholds Muslim marriage rites and remarried without having to formally divorce his first wife, and then go to America and live with his "new wife" under the guise of a de-facto relationship. So why would he risk his life and walk into a potential death trap?

Logic stipulates that Khashoggi entered the Consulate after he was given vehement assurances that his safety was guaranteed by the Saudi Crown. He would have never entered the Consulate had he not been given this assurance.

But why would the Saudi Government give him this assurance even though he had been very critical of MBS? A good question.

Once again, a logical hypothetical answer to this question could be that Khashoggi had some important meeting with a high ranking Saudi official to discuss some issues of serious importance, and this normally means that he had some classified information to pass on to the Saudi Government; important enough that the Saudi Crown was prepared to set aside Khashoggi's recent history in exchange of this information.

If we try to connect more dots in a speculative but rational manner, the story can easily become more interesting.

Hatice Cengiz (Turkish for Khadijeh Jengiz) it is claimed, raised the first alarm for Khashoggi's disappearance, announcing at the same time that she is/was his fiancée. But that latter announcement of hers came as a surprise even to Khashoggi's own family.

Not much is said and speculated about Hatice in the West, but she is definitely making some headlines in the Arab World, especially on media controlled and sponsored by Saudi Arabia. To this effect, and because the Saudi neck is on the chopping board, it is possible that for the first time ever perhaps, the Saudis are telling the truth.

But the Saudis are the boys who cried wolf, and no one will ever believe them. But, let us explore how they might have got themselves into this bind.

As we connect the dots, we speculate as follows:

Some reports allege that Hatice has had a colourful history, including Mossad training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPuKo7WMSA&feature=youtu.be . The same YouTube alleges that she was a Gülenist and was arrested by Erdogan and released under the condition that she works for his security apparatus in order to guarantee her freedom. If such is the case, do we know if she has been also blackmailed in exchange for security of family members, loved ones, property etc? We don't know.

It has also been reported that Jamal Khashoggi met her only as early as May 2018 and later introduced her as an expert on Omani history and politics. In reality, irrespective of what his family members are saying now, Khashoggi has never introduced her to the world as his fiancée; and this is fact. So was she his fiancée? It is at least possible that she wasn't? So, who was she to Khashoggi and what role did she possibly play?

The following speculation cannot be proved, but it makes sense:

To explain what a Gülenist is for the benefit of the reader who is unaware of this term, Erdogan blamed former friend and ally Fethullah Gülen for the failed coup attempt of July 2016 and persecuted his followers, putting tens of thousands of them in jail. Erdogan's relationship with America was already deteriorating at that time because of America's support to Syrian Kurds, and to add to Erdogan's woes, America was and continues to give Gülen a safe haven despite many requests by Erdogan to have him extradited to Turkey to face trial. But Gülen is falling out of America's favour as he seems to have outlived his use-by date, and the Gülenist movement would be in dire need of a new benefactor.

Cengiz, a former Gülenist, released on the above-mentioned conditions and possible threats, might have introduced herself to Khashoggi as an undercover Gülenist, and she had a history to support her claim. Being a former Gülenist, she might have indeed kept a foot in the Gülenist camp, and with the diminishing support of the American Government to the Gulenist movement, she might have been recruited to source finance. The Gülenists might have eyed Saudi Arabia to take this role, and as the rift between the Saudi royals and Erdogan intensified after their former joint effort to topple the legitimate secular government of Syria

The Gülenists would have found in Al-Saud what represents an enemy of an enemy, and they had to find a way to seek Saudi support against Erdogan. MBS himself would have inadvertently invited the Gülenists to approach him when he announced, back in March 2018 during a visit to the Coptic Pope Tawadros II in Egypt, that the triangle of evil in the Middle East is comprised of Iran, Islamist extremists groups and Turkey, and, in naming Turkey, he obviously meant Erdogan personally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/08/saudi-crown-prince-sees-a-new-axis-of-evil-in-the-middle-east/

Khashoggi, with his expansive connections, looked like a good candidate to introduce the would-be new partners and broker a deal between them.

Back to what may have incited Khashoggi to enter the Saudi Consulate and to why the Saudi Government would have, in that case, given him a safe entry despite his history. Possibly, Khashoggi believed that he had a "big story" to relay to the Saudi Government; one that most likely exposed big time anti-Saudi dirt about Erdogan.

With the Saudi-led Wahhabi version of fundamentalist Islam competing with the Muslim Brotherhood side, politically and militarily headed by Erdogan, it is not far-fetched to believe that either party is conspiring to topple the other. If Khashoggi had a story to this effect, even if it was fake but credible enough for him to believe, it would have given him the impetus to seek an audience at the Saudi Consulate and hence an expectation for the Consulate to positively reciprocate. In reality, given the history and culture involved, it is hard to fathom that any scenario short of this one would have given either Khashoggi and/or the Saudi officials enough reasons to meet in the manner and place they did.

It is highly likely that Saudi officials had several contingency plans for Khashoggi's visit; depending on its outcome and the information that he had to offer. Those plans might have included giving him a wide range of treatments, ranging from a red carpet reception in Saudi Arabia, to beheading and dismembering him within the Consulate's grounds. What happened after Khashoggi entered the precinct of the Consulate is fairly muddy and hard to speculate on. If the above speculations thus far have been accurate, then these are the possible scenarios that followed the fateful CCTV coverage of Khashoggi's entry to the Consulate:

1. It is possible that the Saudi officials in Turkey have had their own contacts with the Gülenists prior to the supposed ground-breaking visit of Khashoggi. In such a case, if the story Khashoggi may have offered did not fall in line with the story the Saudi's already know, then Khashoggi would have automatically been branded as suspicious and his safe entry would have been revoked. In such a case, he would have walked into his own trap.

2. On the other hand, if Khashoggi indeed gave Saudi authorities vital information, so vital that it clearly is vehemently pro-Gülen, and as Gülen is no longer an American favourite, then upon his return to America he may have become a Saudi liability that can potentially muddy the Saudi-American waters that the Saudis desperately try to keep clear. In such an instance, it would be opportune for the Saudis to finish him off before he could return to America.

3. A third possibility is that some Saudi officials already working covertly with Gülen saw in Khashoggi an already persona non grata, a dangerous Erdogan implant and decided to take action against him.

If any of the above scenarios are accurate, then the role of Erdogan in this story is not that of a scavenger who capitalized on the rift generated between the Saudis and America, but that he was instrumental in conjuring up and orchestrating the whole drama. Erdogan might have subjected the Saudi Government to the Gülen litmus test, and in such a case, the victim is Saudi Arabia and the scavenger is America seeking silence money in lieu of continued protection of Saudi interests.

In all of the above scenarios, Khashoggi would have been driven into the trap by his alleged fiancée and had his impunity revoked by the Saudi officials because he failed the test.

But what triggered him off personally to walk into this possible trap? What was in it for him? Definitely not divorce documents. Most likely, Khashoggi was after amnesty from the Saudi Crown, and this would be a safety concern not only for Khashoggi himself, but also for his family that continued to live in Saudi Arabia. He may well have thought that by providing vital and sensitive information to his government, his previous "sins" would be set aside and he would be treated as a hero, his family would feel safe, despite that fact that he has criticized the Crown Prince in the past.

Arabic media are inundated with posts and YouTube videos that are very damning of Hatice Cengiz. Most of them perhaps are Saudi propaganda and should not be taken without a grain of salt. In reality however, her sudden emergence as Khashoggi's "fiancée", the fact that she allegedly waited for nearly 24 hours before reporting his disappearance and her personal, professional and political history are all factors that cast much doubt about her innocence and instead, portray her as a possible key element in the series of events that led to the disappearance of Khashoggi.

Furthermore, why would a person in her position make rules and conditions about meeting the President of the United States of America, even if this President is Donald Trump? ( Jamal Khashoggi's fiancee I will only visit Trump if he takes action World news The Guardian ) How many people in history have refused the invitation of American Presidents? Who does she think she is or who is she trying to portray herself as?

And if Trump is seizing the opportunity to grab MBS, and this time he will be grabbing by the wallet, if Erdogan smells a hint of preparedness of MBS to support Gülen, then Erdogan would want MBS's wallet and head. Any whichever way, the silver lining of this story is that for once, Saudi Arabia is finally running for cover. Few around the world will give this brutal royal family any sympathy.

There are other rumors spreading in the Arab world now alluding to the removal of MBS from office and passing over the reins to his brother. MBS has committed heinous war crimes in Yemen and has made huge errors of judgment with regard to Syria and Qatar. He made many enemies, and it seems that Erdogan is out to get him.

It does seem possible that the Assad-must-go curse has reached the neck of the Saudi throne.

JJ on October 23, 2018 , · at 11:22 am EST/EDT

https://www.rt.com/news/442023-khashoggis-body-parts-found/

Allegedly?

Erdogan presentation to his party today too most media seemingly reporting deep international concern and hubris from arms suppliers... Interestingly enough apparently K handed his two phones to fiancée before he went in ..any good journalist would have left a cache somewhere to be opened incase of certain events??????
No confirmation of victims "screams", etc although a there is one report he was held in a stranglehold which would prevent such vocalisation?

Talha on October 23, 2018 , · at 12:28 pm EST/EDT
You left the elephant out of the room. You are right that Jamal Khashoggi had no need to enter the consulate for his divorce, and you suggested the reason being quid pro quo. But why enter the consulate in Turkey? And, not in USA? And, why not the Embassy as the Ambassador has more power, than the Consular? Also, both the Muslim Brotherhood have Wahhabism have been friends for ages, as their theology is very similar with each other. And, if fact Erdogan is not Muslim Brotherhood but a Sufi.

So, why did you leave out the elephant in the room, Israel. With the fall of Saudi Arabia, Israel has more to loose and Iran has more to gain.

Talha

Zico the musketeer on October 23, 2018 , · at 3:48 pm EST/EDT
I was waiting for this article. Looks B is not buying this version.

"There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theories being weaved around the case. Some of them were mentioned in the comments here. I don't buy it. Turkey did not arrange the incident. I see no sign that the U.S., Israel, Qatar or the UAE had a hand in this. This was a very stupid crime committed by Mohammad bin Salman. Or even worse, a mistake. The wannabe-sultan Erdogan is a crafty politician. He is simply riding the wave."
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/10/how-will-caligula-fall.html#more

I've read several articles about Khashoggi and my feeling right now is everyone is lying, including B and Ghassan Kadi. (wrote this article. Mod.)

B ignores all said by Ghassan Kadi . And Ghassan Kadi is being soft on SA cuz Russian wants it. SA is a prize big enough to the bear get out of his cave. Deep State set the trap and SA fell like a kid cuz they are very predictable. They simply kill a lot! Everybody is trying to profit and only one thing is sure about all this: we will never know!

Christian W on October 23, 2018 , · at 12:36 pm EST/EDT
Seems to me that also the Old US Establishment, along with the EU Establishment, both anti-Trump, never wanted MbS in the first place. Israel, and therefore Trump, are happy with MbS but a lot of people would like to see him gone and get the old "safe" gang back (who paid handsome bribes/salaries for decades). MbS is similar to Trump, way too impulsive, unpredictable and manic, and a special kind of crazy on top to make for a reliable partner in crime.
Talks-to-Dawgs on October 23, 2018 , · at 3:41 pm EST/EDT
The Establishment wants the Saudis to sell them their oil, then to recycle the money back into their economies. They'd prefer that they do this quietly, without any big fuss. They can get rich doing so, but they shouldn't disrupt the world. And this is the role that the Saudis have played mostly for the last 60-70 years.

Until MbS. So yes, it is conceivable that some other powerful people are getting a bit tired of him. The same powerful people who really don't want the disruption of the world that a Shiite-Sunni war over the oil fields would cause. The same powerful friends who are also worried about Trump upsetting apple carts. Perhaps these powerful people are moving against a war, which means against Trump on Iran, and against MbS if they feel he keeps stirring things up too much.

Anonymous on October 23, 2018 , · at 2:48 pm EST/EDT
One problem throughout this whole affair is that I don't believe the Turks. Erdogon shutdown or converted the independent media that they once had. And in a case like this, all information comes from the government anyways. The Sauds have been rightly attacked for changing their story. But the Turks have been too. I've gotten the feeling that the 'news' reports from Turkish leaks (supposedly) have simply been the plot lines of various Hollywood movies. The body was cut up (with a chainsaw? like in Texas?), the body was dissolved in acid, the killers watched on Skype (always good to get that hip tech tie-in to a story). It can't all be true.

To some extant, I get the feeling I'm watching Qatar money buying news stories to get back at the Sauds. If so, good for them.

Like The Salisbury Affair, The Case of the Disappearing Lover in Instanbul simply is going to have to be one to sit back and wait and see what if anything actually emerges as the truth.

JJ on October 23, 2018 , · at 5:44 pm EST/EDT
Could not be sulphuric acid the "traditional acid" for dissolving bodies you would need more than 25 litres the most dangerous lethal fumes and smell would have filled the whole building which would have been contaminated other people choking with deadly fumes. How to get acid in and out/disposed ..people in PPE hosing down etc etc
Katherine on October 23, 2018 , · at 6:41 pm EST/EDT
I actually thought the "local contact" who supposed disposed of the body took it rolled up in a rug and cremated it. Seems pretty clueless to drop the bits in a well. Maybe the "local contact" was actually the consul, suggesting: Hey, I have an idea! How about dropping the body parts down the well?

That is about the dumbest thing I have heard yet in the Story of K. Except, the idea of the body double. The people who thought up the body double idea must be the same Einsteins who figured the well in the consul's garden was a solution to disposal. Keystone Konsul.

Katherine

Anonymous on October 23, 2018 , · at 2:53 pm EST/EDT
Maybe I'm being sexist, but I imagine a discussion between the couple, with the future wife saying she wants to get married, while the future husband is saying "Ah, aren't things great now? Why change it? We can just live together." That bit of imagination leads to the idea that one of Khashoggi's last thoughts was "shit, I knew getting married again was a bad idea."
John Neal Spangler on October 23, 2018 , · at 3:01 pm EST/EDT
The interesting thing was watching the US media go crazy about this. I kept thinking how different was this from Obama ordering Anwar Al-Awaki executed by drone strike? Al-Awaki received no trial, or even some kind of demand. Obama and his team just had him executed. So MBS is a horrible monster for doing exactly what Obama did.
Katherine on October 23, 2018 , · at 6:42 pm EST/EDT
And not to forget Assange. Still fighting for his freedom and his life. Elephant in the newsroom.

Katherine

Paul on October 23, 2018 , · at 3:24 pm EST/EDT
Khashoggi seemed to be working to "end dictatorship" and spread "free speech," democracy, voting, opinion polls, feminism, gender theory, lgbt washrooms, all that. All the great stuff of democracy. Worked out great in Sweden, why not Saudi Arabia?

All I'm getting out of this article is a desire to see the house of Saud fall. Plus some dense little leaguer stuff about a marriage or something. Come on!

It was Khashoggi beating the Assad must go drum. The last Saudi represented on this site said Assad is harmless as long as he understands Saudi interests exist in Syria. Not ideal, but a better offer than London's. Further, the dead "journalist" believed Syria should be divided, and worse, that we should now act as if Assad is already gone – said the guy who got sawed up and buried under a flower bed.

Anonymous on October 23, 2018 , · at 3:32 pm EST/EDT
Seems to come down to him being lied to, conn'd or lured into the consulate and his death. Then we come to the whole other point of why on earth did the Saudis use their consulate as an assassination killing ground? Governments wanting to kill people is nothing new. That's what governments do. Governments killing people within their consulates is very rare. For reasons that are now very obvious, if they weren't before.

The pundits who say MBS wanted to send a message set off alarms in my brain. Because that is exactly the reason we are supposed to believe that Putin uses all sorts of bizarre assasination methods that are obviously traced back to him. He wants to send a message. Yeah, right. And that's why they brought a bleep-storm of trouble down on top of their heads. To send a message?

Email is cheaper. And if someone is dead from methods not traced back to you, then someone else goes and whispers the message into the few ears you want to hear it, that is a lot more effective than either Novachuk in a park or a bloody murder in a consulate.

Anonymous on October 23, 2018 , · at 4:15 pm EST/EDT
Israel/US/Saudi tried to pass Turkey off as the sole sponsor and creator of ISIS. It was an important player, certainly, largely because of its geographic location. So a bit of revenge?

As with all these events, there will be multiple facets from the various actors, some mutually exclusive.

The only thing that is certain so far is the west's concern for Saudi's alleged execution of a 'journalist' is rank hypocrisy.

pogohere on October 23, 2018 , · at 4:54 pm EST/EDT
I had some trouble with the syntax here:

"2. On the other hand, if Khashoggi indeed gave Saudi authorities vital information, so vital that it clearly is vehemently pro-Gülen, and as Gülen is no longer an American favourite, then upon his return to America he may have become a Saudi liability that can potentially muddy the Saudi-American waters that the Saudis desperately try to keep clear. In such an instance, it would be opportune for the Saudis to finish him off before he could return to America."

The SA gang would want to protect the "vital" . . . pro-Gulan" information obtained from K because that information would have given the SA gang an advantage in dealing with America because a K running free could expose SA sources and knowledge, so he had to be eliminated. (??)

Or, Erdogan knows via Cengiz that K believes he can facilitate a deal between Gulan and SA to the detriment of Turkey, in order that K can protect his family in SA. But SA already knows somehow that K is in effect an agent for SA's enemy Erdogan and is peddling polyester rugs, that K's story is donkey doo, so SA believes K is betraying SA with said donkey doo, so out comes the Popeil's Pocket Body Dismemberer. ??

". . . should not be taken for (without) a grain of salt." ??

As for the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and SA's Wahabbists, it strikes me that the custodianship of the two holy mosques in SA, or better said the moral leadership role that said literal custodianship confers could be in contention if Erdogan can demonstrate to his immense egoic neo-Ottoman satisfaction belongs to Turkey under his direction.

It seems no matter who "wins" every one of the players loses credibility any way this plays out.

Katherine on October 23, 2018 , · at 6:48 pm EST/EDT
"contention if Erdogan can demonstrate to his immense egoic neo-Ottoman satisfaction belongs to Turkey under his direction."

This was my main takeaway from Erd's address to Parliament. The bit about the Saudis as protectors of the holy cities. Like, maybe not. LIke, look at the mess they have made.

They are clearly incompetent and have no standing as protectors of holy sites. Hmm, so who would be a better "protector"? Could it be the one who arrogates to himself the authority to call out false 'protectors" by any chance?

Katherine

Katherine

Uncle Bob on October 23, 2018 , · at 5:47 pm EST/EDT
Probably this murder will end with nothing more than "The Saudis are really evil. Who didn't already know that". But lets look at what we do know about the killing (and what is rumored in news reports).

Before Khashoggi goes into for the meeting a team of 15 Saudi agents, several of them men close to MBS arrive from Saudi Arabia and go into the building. Including among them an autopsy expert with a "bonesaw". One of them is a body double for Khashoggi and carries with him a fake beard to make his resemblance to Khashoggi even stronger. An hour or so later that man leaves the building wearing Khashoggi's clothes and sunglasses. And the fake beard. So that the CCTV might record him as Khashoggi.

RT reports that minutes before the killing Khashoggi talks on the phone to MBS. Its thought that MSB wants Khashoggi to agree to return to Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi refuses. Right after that Khashoggi is killed and dismembered. The Turkish press is now reporting that parts of Khashoggi's remains have been found in a well at the Saudi Consuls official residence. I'd say with that kind of evidence anyone would have to be braindead (or just not willing to admit the truth for political reasons), to not conclude MBS is up to his beard in this conspiracy to commit murder.

One question being asked is why would MBS risk it. But I think the answer is simple. He believes he is untouchable and can do whatever he wants (the track record for that is pretty good for him until now, and maybe now as well). He took power in Saudi Arabia from his cousins, and got away with it. He starts and conducts a bloody war against Yemen, and isn't punished. He holds hostage dozens of the wealthiest Saudis and tortures them for large chunks of their wealth. And gets away with it. He kidnaps the Lebanese PM, and forces him to resign (at least for a while). And he gets no punishment even for that. He threatens Qatar with war, closes the border. And still no punishment. He funds terrorists all over the Middle East. And yet again no punishment. So why on earth would he pause at murdering a "pain in the a$$" Saudi dissident who dares to defy him. He may have gone a "bridge too far" this time. But his record points to his surviving this time too (hopefully not).

Katherine on October 23, 2018 , · at 7:49 pm EST/EDT
Has anyone commented of the features of this grisly murder that make it look like some kind of ritual murder? They could have just stabbed or strangled him or druged him. Bu why cut off fingers? Symbolism? Why deface facial features? Was he drawn and quartered like traitors in medieval Europe? Or was it renaissance Europe?
And, what happened to all the blood? How did they keep it off the clothing that the body double then donned?

Just wondering what kind of "message" K's murder was designed to send to him, as he died. Or, what kind of cultic weirdness was being provided for bin Salman to feel satisfaction at the manner of the death?

Katherine

[Oct 23, 2018] Bezos blog (Washington Post) does not love Saudi Arabia. Who knew?

It looks like CIA turned on MBS and want to replace him.
Oct 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"The Saudis say they are countering Iran, which backs the Houthis. But the Houthis are an indigenous group with legitimate grievances, and the war has only enhanced Iranian influence . As has been obvious for some time, the only solution is a negotiated settlement. But the Saudis have done their best to sabotage a U.N.-led peace process. Talks planned for Geneva in September failed when Saudi leaders would not grant safe travel guarantees to Houthi leaders." Bezos' editorial board at WaPo

---------------

Beneath the largely specious argument that Saudi Arabia has the US by the cojones economically lies the true factor that has caused the two countries to be glued together.

This factor is the Israeli success in convincing the US government, and more importantly, the American people, that Iran is a deadly enemy, a menace to the entire world, a reincarnation of Nazi Germany, and that Saudi Arabia, a country dedicated to medieval methods of operation, is an indispensable ally in a struggle to save the world from Iran. The successful effort to convince us of the reality of the Iranian menace reflects the previous successful campaign to convince us all that Iraq was also Nazi Germany come again.

The Iran information operation was probably conceived at the Moshe Dayan Center or some other Israeli think tank. and then passed on in the form of learned papers and conferences to the Foreign Ministry, the Mossad and the IDF. After adoption as government policy the Foreign ministry and Zionist organizations closely linked to media ownership in the US and Europe were tasked for dissemination of the propaganda themes involved. This has been a brilliantly executed plan. The obvious fact that Iran is not presently a threat to the US has had little effect in countering this propaganda achievement.

Last Saturday morning, the Philadelphia based commentator Michael Smerconish openly asked on his popular talk show why it is that US policy favors the Sunni Muslims over the Shia. i.e., Saudi Arabia over Iran. To hear that was for me a first. This was an obvious defiance of the received wisdom of the age. I can only hope that the man does not lose his show.

It is a great irony that the barbaric murder of a personally rather unpleasant but defiant exiled journalist has caused re-examination of the basis and wisdom of giving strategic protection to a family run dictatorship. pl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/this-is-the-first-step-to-recalibrating-us-saudi-relations/2018/10/22/fb9eb598-d61f-11e8-a10f-b51546b10756_story.html?utm_term=.f3a1169429e7

Posted at 09:32 AM in Current Affairs , Media , Middle East , Saudi Arabia | Permalink | 3 Comment

TTG , 3 hours ago

Erdogan called the Khashoggi murder brutal and premeditated, but did not reveal any damning audio or video evidence. Elijah Magnier surmises Erdogan extracted a heavy payment from both the Saudis and the Americans in exchange for his relative silence. We shall see if the economic pressure on Turkey dissipates in the coming days and weeks.

It appears the central pillar of the Borg creed, so eloquently and precisely described here by Colonel Lang, will survive this bout of heretical thinking. Will journalists and other members of the press be able to keep challenging the Borg? With Trump so thoroughly assimilated into the Borg, will the "resistance" keep the issue of Saudi perfidy alive? I have my doubts. The Israeli information operations machine is a juggernaut. Few have the stamina and will to resist it. But it is a fight worth fighting.

Onslaw , 5 hours ago
Too little, too late to derail this Zioconned merdias campaign. Soon enough kashoggi will be forgotten and the looney toons will be back in force...
jnewman , 6 hours ago
There are some interesting threads to chew on in this:
https://off-guardian.org/20...

[Oct 23, 2018] Russiagate 2.0 Now with more stupid

Notable quotes:
"... I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests, and have very little to do with elections and popular will. ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @The Liberal Moonbat ..."
"... , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges ..."
"... "There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have." ..."
Oct 23, 2018 | caucus99percent.com
gjohnsit
We can soon forget Russia's "meddling" in the 2016 election (or lack of meddling ), because the Justice Department is already throwing down indictments for meddling in the 2018 midterm elections.
Russians working for a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin are engaging in an elaborate campaign of "information warfare" to interfere with the American midterm elections next month, federal prosecutors said on Friday in unsealing charges against a woman whom they labeled the project's "chief accountant."

Information warfare? That sounds serious. So what exactly is her objectives?

But this time, prosecutors said the operatives appeared beholden to no particular candidate. Russia's trolls did not limit themselves to either a liberal or conservative position, according to the complaint. They often wrote from diverging viewpoints on the same issue.

Uh, that's called trolling, and if trolling is against the law then 4Chan should watch out.
It seems that trolling now equals fraud .

It isn't just Russia. China and Iran are meddling as well.

In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies , but that the campaigns have spread "disinformation" and "foreign propaganda."

"We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies," the statement said. "These activities also may seek to influence voter perceptions and decision making in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections."

So how exactly are they defrauding the American public? As for "undermine confidence in democratic institutions", we already know that we are an oligarchy , not a democracy. So I think the burden of evidence is on our government to prove otherwise, not on Russia.

I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests, and have very little to do with elections and popular will.

Leftists aren't cooperating on Russiagate

You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this.
But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.

Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?

Why the left needs to wise up to the growing Trump-Russia scandal

and of course TOP is fully onboard

The Voice In th... on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 4:28pm
So what specifically was illegal?

@gjohnsit
AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA.
Are foreign ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?

You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this.
But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.

Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?

Why the left needs to wise up to the growing Trump-Russia scandal

and of course TOP is fully onboard

gjohnsit on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 5:33pm
Consider Russia's "crimes" with RT

@The Voice In the Wilderness
This is supposed to be bad from the official report

RT aired a documentary about the OccupyWall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.

RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." After the 6 November US presidential election, RT aired a documentary called "Cultures of Protest," about active and often violent political resistance

RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use

RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US financial collapse

#1 AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA. Are foreign ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?

Linda Wood on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 11:19pm
Oh, come on.

@gjohnsit

alleged Wall Street greed

Alledged Wall Street greed?

leveymg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 5:49pm
This criminalizes a practice that is commonplace and legal

@The Voice In the Wilderness @The Voice In the Wilderness
when carried out by employees of thousands of foreign-owned companies from countries other than Russia.

Basically, this Russian woman is being indicted for doing the books for a Russian entity that incorporated a number of US businesses. These businesses had persons write and post under pen names a number of articles dealing with political subjects. That has been interpreted by the Special Counsel as a conspiracy to violate a federal campaign law that forbids contributions to US election campaigns. That's right, the indictment construes written opinion to be the same as money contributions.

The case would probably be thrown out -- nobody has been prosecuted for this before -- however the woman indicted will never be in court to defend herself, as the prosecutor and FBI know. Mueller is getting desperate to come up with indictments to fill in his jig saw puzzle.

enhydra lutris on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:27pm
The supremes, infamusly, ruled that miney is speech. Hence,

@leveymg
speech must be money, n'est ce pas?
/s

leveymg on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 1:09pm
SCOTUS also found in the same case that even foreign corporate

@enhydra lutris @enhydra lutris @enhydra lutris speech is constitutionally protected and can't be limited by campaign finance legislation. Mueller appears to have decided on his own to abrogate the Citizens United decision.

That would be okay, if he applied it to prosecute political mouthpieces such as AIPAC, along with corporate fronts owned by the Saudis, Chinese, British and 100 other countries who similiarly post anonymously.

It's now undeniable: Mueller is the prosecutorial weapon of a very selective political vendetta.

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:51pm
This is from your first link

@gjohnsit

But somewhere on the left, right around the fault line where Barack Obama is deemed to have been a bad president, opinion turns back again toward skepticism.

It gets worse from there. I'm betting that this was written by someone from the Atlantic Council or maybe Friedman's twin brother. This person sure went to a lot of work to deride anyone who doesn't believe in Russia Gate didn't he?

Facebook has almost admitted that they are censoring people and websites because of Russia's ads on it that they say affected the election. BTW. Didn't Obama also use Cambridge Analytics during his campaign and did the same things that Trump did? Pretty sure that he did. But I guess that was different because of reasons. Yep. That's why.

You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this. But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.

Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?

Why the left needs to wise up to the growing Trump-Russia scandal

and of course TOP is fully onboard

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 5:25pm
For gawd's sake!
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,

First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.

Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW. This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.

gjohnsit on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 6:00pm
Russiagate is useful for crushing dissent

@snoopydawg
Look at this hit piece on Jill Stein

Months before the 2016 election they were already calling Jill Stein a "Nader spoiler" ( here , here , and here )

Funny how 3rd parties are demonized in this "democracy"

We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,

First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.

Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW. This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 6:35pm
Ugh!

@gjohnsit

There is so much BS in that article it's hard to choose which one is the worst but I'm going with this one.

But Stein's willingness to praise Russian propaganda outlets and push Kremlin talking points didn't end in Moscow. Indeed, she challenged – and arguably surpassed – Trump in crafting the most Moscow-friendly campaign of 2016.

For instance, Stein made the strange claim multiple times that NATO had "surrounded" Russia with nuclear weapons. As she told The Intercept, "This is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, on steroids – in fact, on crack." (Less than 10 percent of Russia's land border touches any NATO member-states.) She also said last year that NATO is only fighting "enemies we invent to give the weapons industry a reason to sell more stuff."

This is what she actually said about NATO and Russia.

Stein: I think this is an issue where something does need to be said--but it's important to understand where they are coming from. The United States, under Bush 1, had an agreement when Germany joined NATO--Russia agreed with the understanding that NATO would not move one inch to the east. Since then NATO has pursued a policy of basically encircling Russia--including the threat of nukes and drones and so on.

Okay and this one too.

Likewise, Stein claimed that Ukraine's 2014 revolution was, in reality, a "coup" that the U.S. "helped foment." Only two other leaders have described Ukraine's toppling of former president Viktor Yanukovych as a "coup": Putin and Kazakhstani President Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose country remains a security ally of Russia. Stein even spent time last year saying that "Russia used to own Ukraine."

Pretty sure that during Obama's presidency the Ukraine government was overthrown by this country and now we're arming neo Nazis with some very bad weapons.

ThinkProgress says it's being targeted by ad networks for producing 'controversial political content'. I'm thinking it's more because they lie their asses off to people who read its website. This is the most blatant lying I've seen from a website. How many people believed every word written there?

divineorder on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:08pm
FWIW Jill Stein out campaigning for Greens

@gjohnsit

Join us on Sunday 10/28 to meet Jill Stein and Alameda/SF County Green candidates: Laura Wells, Saied Karamooz, Aidan Hill and Mike Murphy. to support our candidates. People,... https://t.co/EtWyo6fism

-- Santa Clara Greens (@SCCGreens) October 19, 2018

Deja on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:05pm
You left out the D establishment

@snoopydawg

First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.

I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment, aka the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially in election years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that gives you the shits until you're dead.

We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,

First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.

Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW. This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:24pm
Not for that comment

@Deja

The GOP has made it so that over 10% of the population can't vote this year. I think it's in Georgia where thousands are being kicked off the voting rolls almost every day by the dude that is in charge of it and he is also running for an office. They have been gerrymandering the country and other things. Of course the democrats don't seem to be doing much to make it easier for people to vote. But yeah, both parties are just as corrupt.

boriscleto on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 9:36pm
Georgia has purged 340,000

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg

Illinois purged 550,000...Indiana purged 20,000...etc...

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 10:16pm
Thanks for the numbers and the links

@boriscleto

Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is a huge conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are suing him for?

Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or Trump's voters though.

BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?

dervish on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 11:46pm
It's because they're sexist. n/t

@snoopydawg

#2.2.1.1

Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is a huge conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are suing him for?

Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or Trump's voters though.

BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?

lotlizard on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 2:03am
The Dems only kick people off voting rolls in *primaries*

@Deja
That makes it all okay for "lesser of two evils" voters.

#2

First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.

I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment, aka the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially in election years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that gives you the shits until you're dead.

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 5:34pm
From the ToP link
Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation. The charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral process.

Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply enough voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them after the election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste time and money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating, but he's really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.

Bisbonian on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 10:20am
No kidding

@snoopydawg , its like a nuclear submarine calling the teapot black.

Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation. The charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral process.

Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply enough voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them after the election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste time and money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating, but he's really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.

Bollox Ref on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 6:16pm
Remember all those wonderful presents

we were going to receive at Fitzmas? Hoping the Establishment is going to finally reveal its sausage-making, really is a flight of fancy. McSausage for the McResistance. The Public are to be seen at voting stations, and not heard.

divineorder on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 6:28pm
Great essay. Thanks!

Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.

In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies,

At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:

Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass

"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their lives being mocked and marginalized." #Mueller #TrumpRussia https://t.co/eN349xhjG3

-- Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) October 20, 2018

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:28pm
In case you missed it

@divineorder

We had Great discussion about Caitlin's article. Lots of good comments.

Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.

In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies,

At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:

Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass

"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their lives being mocked and marginalized." #Mueller #TrumpRussia https://t.co/eN349xhjG3

-- Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) October 20, 2018

MrWebster on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:04pm
We are looking at the terminus point of the Russian hysteria.

Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it. I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.

There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made, and those now are hard to make up.

As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All issues lead to Moscow.

The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan news".

divineorder on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 8:19pm
Aside from in your comment though, plenty wrong with Dems?

@MrWebster @snoopydawg

The long con that is #RussiaGate . https://t.co/HvTHam5Rlb pic.twitter.com/nxlRpYH26b

-- John "Squinty Forehead Man" Graziano (@jvgraz) October 18, 2018

Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it. I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.

There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made, and those now are hard to make up.

As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All issues lead to Moscow.

The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan news".

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 10:27pm
And the Vermont electrical grid that Russia hacked into the

@MrWebster

computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls, but the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda is so powerful. The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.

About those FB ads that swayed the election ...

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof

-- Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it. I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.

There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made, and those now are hard to make up.

As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All issues lead to Moscow.

The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan news".

Bisbonian on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 10:25am
by the way

@snoopydawg , there are only sixteen intelligence agencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

#6

computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls, but the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree that Russia interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda is so powerful. The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.

About those FB ads that swayed the election ...

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof

-- Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

The Liberal Moonbat on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 8:38pm
NOT FROM THE ONION - oh, wait, yes it is...wait, what?

Who's on first...?

https://www.theonion.com/mueller-ready-to-deliver-major-parts-of-finding...

Bisbonian on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 10:33am
I like the comment from the Lobster Murderer the best.

@The Liberal Moonbat

Who's on first...?

https://www.theonion.com/mueller-ready-to-deliver-major-parts-of-finding...

snoopydawg on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 11:06pm
Remember the Russian agencies that Mueller charged?

He still doesn't want to give their attorneys the evidence he has against them.

Judge Orders Mueller To Prove Russian Company Meddled In Election

A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims lodged against a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Bloomberg.

Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for election meddling , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges . Mueller's team tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served, however Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors 'well, they're here.'

* Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."

"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."

Concord is one of the corporations that Mueller said placed ads on FB to sway people's opinion on Trump and Hillary. The ads that most were placed after the election.

[Oct 23, 2018] Putin's Puppet Advances Nuclear Missile Escalations Against...Putin by Caitlin Johnstone

Oct 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Yesterday the news broke that Swamp Monster-In-Chief John Bolton has been pushing President Trump to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 1988 arms control agreement between the US and the Soviet Union eliminating all missiles of a specified range from the arsenals of the two nuclear superpowers. Today, Trump has announced that he will be doing exactly as Bolton instructed.

This would be the second missile treaty between the US and Russia that America has withdrawn from since it abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. John Bolton, an actual psychopath who Trump hired as his National Security Advisor in April, ran point on that move as well back when he was part of the increasingly indistinguishable Bush administration.

me title=

"This is why John Bolton shouldn't be allowed anywhere near US foreign policy," tweeted Senator Rand Paul in response to early forecasts of the official announcement.

"This would undo decades of bipartisan arms control dating from Reagan. We shouldn't do it. We should seek to fix any problems with this treaty and move forward."

"This is the most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s," Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, told The Guardian .

"If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear states for the first time since 1972."

"A disaster for Europe," tweeted Russia-based journalist Bryan MacDonald. "The treaty removed Cruise & Pershing missiles, and Soviet ss20's from the continent. Now, you will most likely see Russia launch a major build up in Kaliningrad & the US push into Poland. So you're back to 1980, but the dividing line is closer to Moscow."

"Russia has violated the agreement. They've been violating it for many years and I don't know why President Obama didn't negotiate or pull out," Trump told reporters in Nevada.

"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we're not allowed to. We're the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we've honored the agreement but Russia has not unfortunately honored the agreement so we're going to terminate the agreement, we're going to pull out."

What Trump did not mention is that the US has indeed been in violation of that agreement due to steps it began taking toward the development of a new ground-launched cruise missile last year. The US claims it began taking those steps due to Russian violations of the treaty with its own arsenal, while Russia claims the US has already been in violation of multiple arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements.

me title=

So, on the one front where cooler heads prevailing is quite literally the single most important thing in the world, the exact opposite is happening. Hotter, more impatient, more violent, more hawkish heads are prevailing over diplomacy and sensibility, potentially at the peril of the entire world should something unexpected go wrong as a result. This is of course coming after two years of Democratic Party loyalists attacking Trump on the basis that he has not been sufficiently hawkish toward Russia, and claiming that this is because he is Putin's puppet.

In response to this predictable escalation the path for which has been lubricated by McResistance pundits and their neoconservative allies, those very same pundits are now reacting with horror that Putin's puppet is now dangerously escalating tensions with Putin.

"BREAKING: Trump announces that the United States will pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that the US has been in for 31 years," exclaimed the popular Russiagater Brian Krassenstein in a tweet that as of this writing has over 5,000 shares. "Welcome back to the Cold War. This time it's scarier And no, It's not Obama, or Hillary or the Democrat's fault. It's ALL TRUMP!"

"Hilarious to listen to all this alarmed screaming about US withdrawal from INF Treaty emanating from those who for 2 years have been demanding that Trump get tough with Russia," tweeted George Szamuely of the Global Policy Institute. "Now that they've got their arms race I hope they are pleased with themselves."

"Are those who have spent the past two years warning of a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy & cheering confrontation w/ Russia ready to shut the fuck up yet?" asked Aaron Maté, who has been among the most consistently lucid critics of the Russiagate narrative in the US.

me title=

Are they ready to shut the fuck up? That would be great, but this is just the latest escalation in a steadily escalating new cold war, and these blithering idiots didn't shut the fuck up at any of the other steps toward nuclear holocaust.

They didn't shut the fuck up after Trump's capitulation to the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine against Russia.

They didn't shut the fuck up after Americans killed Russians in Syria as part of their regime change occupation of that country .

They didn't shut the fuck up when this administration adopted a Nuclear Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurred lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate.

They didn't shut the fuck up when Trump started sending war ships into the Black Sea "to counter Russia's increased presence there."

They didn't shut the fuck up when this administration forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents.

They didn't shut the fuck up when this administration helped expand NATO with the addition of Montenegro, at the assigning of Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, at the shutting down of a Russian consulate in San Francisco and throwing out Russian diplomats in August of last year, when Trump threw out dozens more diplomats in response to shaky claims about the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, or when he implemented aggressive sanctions on Russian oligarchs .

Why would they shut the fuck up now?

As signs point to Mueller's investigation wrapping up in the near future without turning up a single shred of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russian government, it's time for everyone who helped advance this toxic, suicidal anti-Russia narrative to ask themselves one question: was it worth it? Was it worth it to help mount political pressure on a sitting president to continually escalate tensions with a nuclear superpower and loudly screaming that he's a Putin puppet whenever he takes a step toward de-escalation? Was it worth it to help create an atmosphere where cooler heads don't prevail in the one area where it's absolutely essential for everyone's survival that they do? Or is it maybe time to shut the fuck up for a while and rethink your entire worldview?

* * *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

[Oct 23, 2018] The overplayed drama of Mr. Khashoggi assassination is going to be used by the American Oil Cartel to control the Saudis Oil output

Disaster capitalism in action ???
Notable quotes:
"... It's quite unusual to see such unanimous anti-Saudi reactions from the American political class for the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi – who was just a part-time journalist living in U.S – he was not even an American citizen ..."
"... Oil which is extracted by Fracking method that requires high Oil price above $70 to remain competitive in the global Oil market – by simultaneously sanctioning Iran, Venezuela, and the potential sanction of Saudi Arabia from exporting its Oil, the Trump Administration not only reduces the Global Oil supply which will certainly lead to the rise of Oil price, but also it lowers demand for the US Dollar-Greenback in the global oil market which could lead to subtle but steady devaluation of the US dollar. ..."
"... And perhaps that's what Trump Administration was really aiming for all along; a significant decline of the US Dollar Index and the rise of price of Oil which certainly pleases the American Oil Cartel, though at the expense of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela – all of which are under some form of U.S sanctions. ..."
"... However gruesome, Mr. Khashoggi's assassination is going to be used by the Trump Administration to help the American Oil Cartel by controlling the Saudi Oil output, hence, to raise the price of Oil and to lower demand for US dollar which is the currency of the global Oil trade. ..."
Oct 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Alistair , says: October 20, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT

The overplayed drama of Mr. Khashoggi assassination is going to be used by the American Oil Cartel to control the Saudis Oil output.

It's quite unusual to see such unanimous anti-Saudi reactions from the American political class for the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi – who was just a part-time journalist living in U.S – he was not even an American citizen , so, it's quite unusual because the same political class remained muted about the Saudis involvement with ISIS, the bombing and starvation of civilians in Yemen and destruction of Syria, and of course the Saudis involvement in 9/11 terrorist attack in which 3000 American citizens have perished in New York, in the heart of America.

So, we must be a bit skeptical about the motive of the American Political Class, as this again could be just about the OIL Business, but this time around the objective is to help the American Oil producers as opposed to Oil consumers – with 13.8% of the global daily Oil production, the US has lately become the world top producer of Crude Oil, albeit, an expensive Oil which is extracted by Fracking method that requires high Oil price above $70 to remain competitive in the global Oil market – by simultaneously sanctioning Iran, Venezuela, and the potential sanction of Saudi Arabia from exporting its Oil, the Trump Administration not only reduces the Global Oil supply which will certainly lead to the rise of Oil price, but also it lowers demand for the US Dollar-Greenback in the global oil market which could lead to subtle but steady devaluation of the US dollar.

And perhaps that's what Trump Administration was really aiming for all along; a significant decline of the US Dollar Index and the rise of price of Oil which certainly pleases the American Oil Cartel, though at the expense of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela – all of which are under some form of U.S sanctions.

However gruesome, Mr. Khashoggi's assassination is going to be used by the Trump Administration to help the American Oil Cartel by controlling the Saudi Oil output, hence, to raise the price of Oil and to lower demand for US dollar which is the currency of the global Oil trade.

jilles dykstra , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:39 am GMT
@Alistair History has its weird twists.
Early in WWII FDR was reported that USA oil would be depleted in thirty years time.
So FDR sent Harold L Ickes to Saudi Arabia,where at the end of 1944 the country was made the USA's main oil supplier.
FDR entertained the then Saud in early 1945 on the cruiser Quincy, laying in the Bitter Lakes near the Suez Canal.
This Saud and his entourage had never seen a ship before, in any case had never been on board such a ship.

In his last speech to Congress, seated, FDR did not follow what had been written for him, but remarked 'that ten minutes with Saud taught him more about zionism than hundreds of letters of USA rabbi's.
These words do not seem to be in the official record, but one of the speech writers, Sherwood, quotes them in his book.
Robert E. Sherwood, 'Roosevelt und Hopkins', 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948)
If FDR also said to Congress that he would limit jewish migration to Palestine, do not now remember, but the intention existed.
A few weeks later FDR died, Sherwood comments on on some curious aspects of FDR's death, such as that the body was cremated in or near Warm Springs, and that the USA people were never informed that the coffin going from Warm Springs to Washington just contained an urn with ashes.

At present the USA does not seem to need Saudi oil.
If this causes the asserted cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel ?

Alfred , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:53 am GMT
@Harris Chandler Now it has made alliances with Israel and between them the tail wags the dog

The Saudi Royal family and the governments of Israel have always been in cahoots. They both despise and fear secular governments that are not under their own control in the Middle East. Witness the fear and dread of both of them of president Nasser in the 1960′s, for example.

[Oct 22, 2018] Ben Norton on Pompeo

Oct 22, 2018 | friendsofsyria.wordpress.com

Ben Norton responded on Facebook post :

"Satire has lost all meaning: The former director of the CIA (which has for decades trained and armed far-right terrorist death squads), who is now US secretary of state, called Iran "the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world" while he was meeting with regime officials in Saudi Arabia, an extremist Wahhabi absolute monarchy that supported ISIS and al-Qaeda."

[Oct 22, 2018] Vladimir now realises what so many other unlucky business partners have.....help out the Don to achieve his greater goals and sooner than later you will be rewarded with a swift kick in the [very manly] groin.

Notable quotes:
"... The most distracting game player of all time, Donald Gump, is trying his darndest to weaken the dollar and force lower interest rates by doing everything in his power to destabilise global trade...which of course only serves to strengthen the dollar....because any hint of monetary instability for any reason will always be met with a "flight to safety." Whether the flight is in reality "safe" is beside the point. The flight itself is all that matters. The flight itself is the existential reality. ..."
"... China is onboard out of necessity. Their economy is doldrumic without the US market to sell into. The wealthy Chinese will continue to accept dollar debt notes forever, or so long as they can continue to sell trinkets to USAryans, whichever comes first; Gump's lacklustre trade maneuvres notwithstanding. And the US needs China to keep the consumer culture afloat. This is a pure balancing act but, again, no one of the .002, including those who are of Chinese and Russian descent, will risk any imbalance. ..."
Oct 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

donkeytale , Oct 21, 2018 10:15:13 AM | link

< "Money Sings and Bullshiite Clings (to the .998)">

In part one we discovered the global world is not what it appears to be, especially to those of us who believe we have it all figured out from wet nursing on the internets. That is, there is an interconnected globalist world for "them" and a multipolar, disconnected, discognitive nationalist world for the rest of "us." And "we" are further subdivided by race, gender, class, sociopolitical and religious biases as taught to us through "their" media.

The ones who control the information flow of the internets use this control to 1. facilitate world trade 2. create even greater wealth for "them" 3. evade taxation of that wealth 4. make even bigger fools out of the rest of "us" who remain year after livelong year stuck glumly online following our favourite "nation/states" as if they are World Cup contenders. When our favourite team wins, so the delusional daydreaming goes, the .998 win too. Rah-rah, go team!

We determined the reason the dollar's acceptance as the international currency is existential, as it has been since time immemorial. The world's financial oligarchs made that determination postwar and placed their bets....in fiat dollars during the 1970s. Changing the international currency system will require a complete re-wiring of that mindset. And for that to happen Hell will first freeze over. After all, currency is merely a medium of exchange and the controlling mindset belongs to those who control the wealth expressed in that medium. It isn't up for popular vote folks. And those .002 controlling are the most conservative people on earth. They exist in every nation on earth but they aren't playing some World Cup game. No, their game is entirely different from ours. Our game is team sports.

The most distracting game player of all time, Donald Gump, is trying his darndest to weaken the dollar and force lower interest rates by doing everything in his power to destabilise global trade...which of course only serves to strengthen the dollar....because any hint of monetary instability for any reason will always be met with a "flight to safety." Whether the flight is in reality "safe" is beside the point. The flight itself is all that matters. The flight itself is the existential reality.

China is onboard out of necessity. Their economy is doldrumic without the US market to sell into. The wealthy Chinese will continue to accept dollar debt notes forever, or so long as they can continue to sell trinkets to USAryans, whichever comes first; Gump's lacklustre trade maneuvres notwithstanding. And the US needs China to keep the consumer culture afloat. This is a pure balancing act but, again, no one of the .002, including those who are of Chinese and Russian descent, will risk any imbalance.

This is Gump's hole card in his silly game of pocket poker.

And whither Russia?

Vladimir now realises what so many other unlucky business partners have.....help out the Don to achieve his greater goals and sooner than later you will be rewarded with a swift kick in the [very manly] groin. Vlad surely thought Gump owed him, too. Lol.

We all owe them both is closer to the truth.

Jackrabbit , Oct 21, 2018 11:03:05 AM | link

donkeytale: Vladimir now realises what so many other unlucky business partners have

donkey continues to flaunt his foul pro-establishment 'tale' as he slyly asserts the Trump-Putin connection that Mueller has failed to prove.

Caitlin Johnston explains better than I can:

Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare to Kiss My Ass

"Putin's Puppet" Advances Nuclear Missile Escalations Against Putin .

[Oct 22, 2018] The United States Of Empire We're Getting Close To The End Now

Oct 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The United States Of Empire: "We're Getting Close To The End Now"

by Tyler Durden Sun, 10/21/2018 - 23:00 189 SHARES Authored by Jonathan via LesTraveledRoad.com,

We're getting close to the end now. Can you feel it? I do. It's in the news, on the streets, and in your face every day. You can't tune it out anymore, even if you wanted to.

Where once there was civil debate in the court of public opinion, we now have censorship , monopoly , screaming , insults , demonization , and, finally, the use of force to silence the opposition. There is no turning back now. The political extremes are going to war, and you will be dragged into it even if you consider yourself apolitical.

There are great pivot points in history, and we've arrived at one. The United States, ruptured by a thousand grievance groups , torn by shadowy agencies drunk on a gross excess of power , robbed blind by oligarchs and their treasonous henchmen and decimated by frivolous wars of choice, has finally come to a point where the end begins in earnest. The center isn't holding indeed, finding a center is no longer even conceivable. We are the schizophrenic nation, bound by no societal norms, constrained by no religion, with no shared sense of history, myth, language, art, philosophy, music, or culture, rushing toward an uncertain future fueled by nothing more than easy money, hubris, and sheer momentum.

There comes a time when hard choices must be made...when it is no longer possible to remain aloof or amused, because the barbarians have arrived at the gate. Indeed, they are here now, and they often look a whole lot like deracinated, conflicted, yet bellicose fellow Americans, certain of only one thing, and that is that they possess "rights", even though they could scarcely form an intelligible sentence explaining exactly what those rights secure or how they came into being. But that isn't necessary, from their point of view, you see. All they need is a "voice" and membership in an approved victim class to enrich themselves at someone else's expense . If you are thinking to yourself right now that this does not describe you, then guess what? The joke's on you, and you are going to be expected to pay the bill that "someone else" is you.

In reality, though, who can blame the minions, when the elites have their hand in the till as well? In fact, they are even more hostile to reasoned discourse than Black Lives Matter , Occupy Wall Street, or Antifa . Witness the complete meltdown of the privileged classes when President Trump mildly suggested that perhaps our "intelligence community" isn't to be trusted, which is after all a fairly sober assessment when one considers the track record of the CIA , FBI , NSA , BATF, and the other assorted Stasi agencies. Burning cop cars or bum-rushing the odd Trump supporter seems kind of tame in comparison to the weeping and gnashing of teeth when that hoary old MIC "intelligence" vampire was dragged screaming into the light. Yet Trump did not drive a stake into its heart, nor at this point likely can anyone... and that is exactly the point. We are now Thelma and Louise writ large. We are on cruise control, happily speeding towards the cliff, and few seem to notice that our not so distant future involves bankruptcy, totalitarianism, and/or nuclear annihilation. Even though most of us couldn't identify the band, we nonetheless surely live the lyrics of the Grass Roots : "Live for today, and don't worry about tomorrow."

The "Defense" Department, "Homeland" Security, big pharma, big oil, big education, civil rights groups, blacks, Indians, Jews, the Deep State, government workers, labor unions, Neocons, Populists, fundamentalist Christians, atheists, pro life and pro death advocates, environmentalists, lawyers, homosexuals, women, Millenials, Baby Boomers, blue collar/white collar, illegal aliens... the list goes on and on, but the point is that the conflicting agendas of these disparate groups have been irreconcilable for some time. The difference today is that we are de facto at war with each other, and whether it is a war of words or of actual combat doesn't matter at the moment. What matters is that we no longer communicate, and when that happens it is easy to demonize the other side. Violence is never far behind ignorance.

I am writing this from the bar at the Intercontinental Hotel in Vienna, Austria. I have seen with my own eyes the inundation of Europe with an influx of hostile aliens bent on the destruction of Old Christendom, yet I have some hope for the eastern European countries because they have finally recognized the threat and are working to neutralize it. Foreign malcontents can never be successfully integrated into a civilized society because they don't even intend to try; they intend to conquer their host instead. Yet even though our own discontents are domestic for the most part, we have a much harder row to hoe than Old Europe because our own "invaders" are well entrenched and have been for decades, all the way up to the highest levels of government. That there are signs Austria is finally waking up is a good thing, but it serves to illustrate the folly of expecting the hostile cultures within our own country to get along with each other without rupturing the republic. Indeed, that republic died long ago, and it has been replaced by a metastasizing mass of amorphous humanity called the American Empire, and it is at war with itself and consuming itself from within.

Long ago, we once knew that as American citizens each of us had a great responsibility. We were expected to work hard, play fair, do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and serve our country when called upon to do so. Today, we don't speak of duty, except in so much as a slogan to promote war, but we certainly do speak of benefits for ourselves and our "group" of entitled peeps. We will fail because of our greed and avarice. The United States of Empire has become quite simply too big, too diverse , and too "exceptional" to survive.

Batman11 , 47 minutes ago link

The US rolled out Mickey Mouse, neoclassical economics across the world and are paying the price themselves.

They haven't got a clue what they are doing and are trying to blame everyone else.

Neoliberalism and the missing equation.

Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)

They cut taxes, but let the cost of living soar.

The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food + other costs of living

Employees get their money from wages, so it is the employer that pays through wages, reducing profit and driving off shoring from the US.

Most of the trade deficit comes from US companies that have off-shored to China and Mexico, where they can pay lower wages and make higher profits.

The US doesn't understand the monetary system either.

This is the US (46.30 mins.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8XdDqZ-Jg

The US can have a big trade deficit as long as it has a big Government deficit to cover it.

Once they started worrying about the Government deficit, they could no longer have a big trade deficit.

They tried to do it and kept blowing the economy up by driving the private sector into debt.

Three terms sum to zero.

Get the Harvard PhDs on it.

You can't run the US economy on Mickey Mouse economics.

Batman11 , 46 minutes ago link

It gets worse.

The US belief in free markets isn't doing them any favours.

What goes wrong with free markets?

They found out in the 1930s, after believing in free markets in the 1920s.

Henry Simons was a firm believer in free markets, which is why he was at the University of Chicago in the 1930s.

Having experienced 1929 and the Great Depression, he knew that the only way market valuations would mean anything would be if the bankers couldn't inflate the markets by creating money through loans.

Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability to create money, so that free market valuations could have some meaning.

The real world and free market, neoclassical economics would then tie up.

https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-21-at-13.52.41.png

1929 – Inflating the US stock market with debt (margin lending)

2008 – Inflating the US real estate market with debt (mortgage lending)

Bankers inflating asset prices with the money they create from loans.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

Global property market correction due sometime soon as the bankers inflated global real estate markets with the money they create from loans.

Global stock market correction due sometime soon as the bankers inflated global stock markets with the money they create from loans.

This is what goes wrong with free markets.

The US is in line for its third real estate crash as they really don't have a clue.

1990s – S&L

2000s – 2008

2010s – Another real estate bust is due.

Scipio Africanuz , 1 hour ago link

The mandate to fight for the Republic ends in November, after that, it's optional. We'll keep our part of the bargain, after that, the USA is on her own. There are too many people who refuse to understand that the way to national health, goes through some rough valleys, from the President, through congress, the states, and down to the regular folks.

Many are not paying attention, those that understand, are busy looting what's left, those that'll pay, are wringing their hands in helplessness, or burying their heads like ostriches, hoping denial of reality, will protect them from reality.

The political class has made the determination that rather than acknowledge reality, and adjust accordingly, they'll instead implement a surveillance state, ensure comfortable positions for themselves, and oppress the plebs into compliance. The plebs on their part, have sacrificed their honor, integrity, and conscience, hoping the world can be looted, to keep their standard of living.

What the protagonists fail to understand, or understanding, refuse to acknowledge, is that ROW (Rest of World), is not amenable to looting anymore. Lootable generations are fading away, unlootabke generations replacing them.

It can be confidently asserted now, that the West, devoid of Europe, has cast the dice for the final gamble thus, intimidate the world into lootability, or threaten to take everyone down as well. The problem? Russia responded thus, game on! India responded thus, bring it on! Pakistan responded thus, up yours! Africa is responding thus, really? China is yet to respond clearly but we know where they stand thus, what?

Does that mean the end of America? No! It means the end of the American delusion masquerading as dream. You can't carry on this way, refusing to acknowledge reality, hoping to somehow do the impossible thus, overturn the laws of nature. You simply cannot game the rules, no matter how clever. It's analogous to inhaling, but refusing to exhale, it's unsustainable, impossible in fact!

You have to exhale, or explode, no third choice. You can exhale slowly, Powell's way, exhale in one breath, Gorbachev's way, or refuse to exhale, British way, with the attendant consequences, disorderly disintegration.

Trump is trying not to exhale, while still trying to inhale. It's schizophrenic because you neither get the benefit of fresh oxygen, nor rid yourself of unpleasant carbon dioxide. Every attempt to do both simultaneously, wastes the available oxygen, while the carbon dioxide builds up, turning you BLUE in the face, when what you really require, is a healthy red complexion.

It's a paradox really, that folks are running in reverse, and yet claim their destination is ahead, it doesn't make sense, it's basically self deception writ large. Well, November is practically here, and then, we'll be free of all obligations and can thus move on. We very much look forward to our liberty, very much indeed, this Republic restoration business, has not been profitable at all, we're cutting our losses...

Kyddyl , 1 hour ago link

Myriad, conflicting, "security" departments only further prove 9-11 was a coup d' etat. Plus it's all about oil (and now ethanol, think water next). Where the US once sent aid to places like Honduras we now use it as a mere drug distribution center.

waseda-anon , 3 hours ago link

"The center isn't holding indeed, finding a center is no longer even conceivable. We are the schizophrenic nation, bound by no societal norms,"

Free Speech. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are the core values of America. They are under attack, but still there. This is the single thread that binds our history, culture, and identity together.

It's the left-cultural Marxist faction that has forgotten it, twisted it and made it about 'diversity.' Sold out our country to Chi-coms and globalists.

Anyone who doesn't understand this can either learn fast or GTFO

Baron Samedi , 3 hours ago link

The best that can happen now - as many are jolted rudely out of their MSM-programmed sleep - is for people to ask themselves, friends, neighbors, and - the $lime that currently runs the place: how did we get to this nightmare the author describes? And sift the answers - mercilessly.

They will - imho - all need to take a deep breath, and look way up/out in $cale to see the structure and architects of the massive ponzi that has debilitated a whole planet via debt, and cancel/walk away from it. The fish is the last to discover water. Let the rentier universe implode. People need real money.

A lot of attention should be devoted to the techniques, authors and motives of the social engineering that facilitated this debilitation. People need real culture.

The populism/nationalism heading towards (hopefully massive) decentralization we are now starting to see (so reviled by all DS/NWO MSM, camp-followers/useful idiots) is the beginning. People need real, local, democratic politics ASAP.

August , 2 hours ago link

>>>People need real culture.

People need real pride in who they are, and what they do.

America's historic/legacy culture is on the ropes, and American-style religion is problematic, to say the least.

Space_Cowboy , 4 hours ago link

It was never truly an "American" empire, just as the British Empire was never truly "British".

It was ran and blown up by Luciferian-Hazarian globalist parasites that made untold profits on the way up, and down.

I would call it the Western Banking/Vatican/MIC Empire, with this empire of old being represented by London as the financial center, the Vatican/Rome as the Spiritual/Religous center, and Washington, D.C. as the Military center; and now the facade is cracking.

During the 20th century it successfully kicked off two world wars, spread its version of globalization (and communism) benefiting the banksters the most (Bretton-Woods), installed a debt-based fiat currency reserve system (globally), and more.

Now they're trying to do the same thing with China, all the while cut the US at it's knees, and inundate Western Europe with the Muslim hordes they purposely destablized with manufactured Middle Eastern wars. (China's trying to play both sides, btw)

Then kick off a possible WWIII, and the aftermath will have whomever's left begging for a "peaceful" NWO, on any condition.

The losers in this scenario have been, and will be the vast majority of humanity, regardless of nationality; unless a drastic change is made to the global financial/governance system as a whole; and it won't be pretty but it will be worth it. How that looks, I truly don't know.

I'm sure it gets more complex with various factions at the upper echelons, but that's my summary in a nutshell....

Betrayed , 5 hours ago link

Another of countless articles on the Hedge where all the symptoms are laid out in gruesome detail while conveniently not stating who's behind the disintegration of the country.

... ... ...

I am Groot , 4 hours ago link

Bankers. And the rest of the crowd on here will blame Joo bankers.

WeAreScrewed , 5 hours ago link

Will the U.S. Post Office's Forever Stamps hold their value?

star_guide , 5 hours ago link

Is the US Postwar Order Unraveling? https://goo.gl/taMFHS #astrology

Bill of Rights , 5 hours ago link

On this day in history... NY Slimes..

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CvNjgeuXYAAO8mB.jpg

J S Bach , 5 hours ago link

"We are the schizophrenic nation, bound by no societal norms, constrained by no religion, with no shared sense of history, myth, language, art, philosophy, music, or culture, rushing toward an uncertain future fueled by nothing more than easy money, hubris, and sheer momentum."

This is precisely what the (((nation wreckers))) have done throughout history. The miscegenation of races and cultures, the breaking down of morals & religion (replaced by a worship of money and Mammon), the erasure of the indigenous peoples' history and heritage, a bastardization of language and philosophy, and debasement of all art and music... These are but a few of the techniques employed by the parasitic entity. Once the cattle are adequately milked, only slaughter remains for them before the butchers move on to their next host.

America WAS once a great idea, founded on white Christian ethics. Our Founders had a "no foreign entanglements" mentality. No, it wasn't perfect, but it worked and our people prospered. The sickness began in earnest when the eternal contagion was allowed free access into our societal body in the 1880s. Like syphilis, its insidious influence has slowly eaten away at our bodies and souls to the present point of insanity.

J S Bach , 4 hours ago link

Bob... it's late and I must retire. However, I felt I owe you some sort of rebuttal.

I must admit, your vernacular leaves me somewhat puzzled and at a loss as to form any cohesive and concise reply.

My references to Christendom were generalities. One can always find exceptions to any definitive statement where weak humankind are concerned.

Suffice it to say that the European Christian peoples who inhabited this continent in the 18th & 19th Centuries were heartier and humbler folk than those alive today. "Generally" speaking... they were God-fearing... guided by an ethos of humility and respect... divorce was unheard of... children had a mother AND a father present... music and other communal entertainments were wholesome... they had a pride in the forebearers' accomplishments... they were taught a sound understanding of the 3 "R"'s... etc, etc...

"Generally" speaking... ALL of the above-mentioned attributes are absent today in a majority of our citizenry. Think about that. Before (((they))) poisoned our reputable wellspring, people were FAR better off.

So, yes... Christians had Inquisitions, Crusades, Wars, Conquests, etc... but, they also had a value system which served as the basis for far-greater deeds, art, architecture and civilization. Put on a scale, I'd say their philosophy has given the world far more "good" than "bad". Only my humble opinion.

Baron Samedi , 3 hours ago link

The social engineering - the cultural Marxism and other gambits used by the Parasite - merits much (very public) attention to its goals, authors and techniques.

Giant Meteor , 5 hours ago link

For the time being, the nation is involved in the uncivil war.

The geographical boundaries although somewhat still existing are not, nor ever will be, as before, so clearly defined. The writer himself made this point. A fractured nation of special interests with their various greviances sprinkled (forgive the pun) liberally throughout every state, city, town, village, Berg, family or more accurately what is left of the family .

Lies, corruption, distraction at every turn, and I would say a great majority are oblivious to the primary threats and the larger games afoot.

A population ripe for continued abuse and exploitation, as they are well fed , well entertained, and as Mr. Roberts is fond of pointing out, largely overcome by insouciance ... devil take the hindmost ..

No it will end or begin in with some cataclysmic event, an event so great, that not even the greatest liars and deceivers that the world has ever known will be able to cover up the event, thus all doubt shall be removed at once, and all former lofty considerations of party affiliation, social status, education , health care, corrupt government and money systems , shall seem like quaint and pleasant abstract discussions of the more innocent time.

[Oct 22, 2018] Is China Waiting Us Out The American Conservative

Obama was a neocon, Trump is a neocon. what's new ?
Chinese leaders appeared to be acting on the advice of the 6th century BC philosopher and general Sun Tzu, who wrote in The Art of War, "there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."
Oct 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Candidate Trump railed against the invasion of Iraq during his campaign, at one point blaming George W. Bush directly and saying, "we should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East." As president-elect, Trump continued to promise a very different foreign policy, one that would "stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with."

The election of Donald Trump gave the international community pause: Trump appeared unpredictable, eschewed tradition, and flouted convention. He might well have followed through on his promise to move the U.S. away from its long embrace of forever war. China's government in particular must have worried about such a move. If the U.S. focused on its internal problems and instead pursued a restrained foreign policy that was constructive rather than destructive, it might pose more of an impediment to China's rise to global power status.

But the Chinese need not have worried. With a continued troop presence in Afghanistan and Syria, a looming conflict with Iran, and even talk of an intervention in Venezuela, Trump is keeping the U.S. on its perpetual wartime footing.

This is good news for Beijing, whose own foreign policy could not be more different. Rather than embracing a reactive and short-sighted approach that all too often ignores second- and third-order consequences, the Chinese strategy appears cautious and long-ranging. Its policymakers and technocrats think and plan in terms of decades, not months. And those plans, for now, are focused more on building than bombing.

This is not to say that China's foreign policy is altruistic-it is certainly not. It is designed to cement China's role as a great power by ensnaring as many countries as possible in its economic web. China is playing the long game while Washington expends resources and global political capital on wars it cannot win. America's devotion to intervention is sowing the seeds of its own demise and China will be the chief beneficiary.

[Oct 22, 2018] Kushner Tells CNN What Advice He Shared With MbS After Khashoggi Killing

The US arms for oil scheme is the key in anaylizing this situation.
Oct 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

In excerpts from the interview released by CNN , Jones asked Kushner whether it is wise to trust MbS to oversee Saudi Arabia's investigation, given that he's also the prime suspect. Kushner, who, in the absence of a US ambassador to KSA, has been handling the kingdom's relationship with the Trump administration directly via his friendship with MbS, said the US will examine facts from "multiple places."

me title=

Jones: Do you trust the Saudis to investigate themselves?

Kushner: We're getting facts in from multiple places. Once those facts come in, the Secretary of State will work with our national security team to help us determine what we want to believe, and what we think is credible, and what we think is not credible.

Jones: Do you see anything that seems deceptive.

Kushner: I see things that seem deceptive every day I see them in the Middle East and in Washington. We have our eyes wide open. The president is looking out for America's strategic interests...the president is fully committed to doing that."

Given their close relationship, media reports have implied that Kushner has been acting as an unofficial liaison of sorts to MbS since the crisis began (it has also been reported that the Crown Prince initially didn't understand why the backlash to Khashoggi's murder had been so intense). In light of this, Jones asked Kushner what advice, if any, he has given the Saudi royal during their conversations (to be sure, MbS has also spoken with President Trump directly on the phone). In a story published over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that Trump has privately expressed doubts about MbS's story, and has also lamented his close ties with Kushner, fearing they could be a liability. But during a phone interview, the president was somewhat more sanguine, pointing out that both Kushner and MbS are relatively young for the amount of power they wield.

"They're two young guys. Jared doesn't know him well or anything. They are just two young people. They are the same age. They like each other, I believe," Trump said.

Kushner's interview followed reports published Sunday night that MbS tried to convince Khashoggi to return to Riyadh during a brief phone call with the journalist after he had been detained at the Saudi consulate Khashoggi refused, reportedly because he feared that he would be killed, and was subsequently killed anyway. Adding another macabre twist to the saga of Khashoggi's murder and dismemberment, Surveillance footage released Monday showed one of the Saudi operatives leaving the consulate wearing Khashoggi's clothes with the suspected intent of serving as a "decoy" to bolster the kingdom's claims that Khashoggi had left after receiving his papers. It was later reported that Turkish investigators had found an abandoned car that once belonged to the Saudi consulate.

We imagine we'll be hearing more about these strange developments on Tuesday, when Turkish President Erdogan is expected to deliver a report on the killings.

ludwigvmises , 2 hours ago link

Kushner is another boarding school educated snobbish little child of rich parents.

Yippie21 , 2 hours ago link

Why is "everyone" so ******* upset about the Muslim Brothernood, green-card holding journalist being offed? I mean, folks in the M.E. are murdered all the ******* time. Journalists are not immune. Especially ones that are actually agitators that write ****. This whole thing is ********. How do I know? Just look at the reactions. Media everywhere to level 11.. What about Stormy Daniels? The Playboy bunny? Ford? Scandal # 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 , etc??

Saudis murder folks . Turkey murders folks. Turkey crushed a coup a couple years ago and 60K folks disappeared. I don't remember the US media demanding Obama " do something" about Turkey immediately, do you? Seriously.

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

USA has killed over 30 million INNOCENT human beings around the globe since 1950.

headless blogger , 2 hours ago link

true. And I'm sure the CIA gets in on some very disgusting killings as well. Along with the Mossad and Mi6 (2 groups that get little attention but should).

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

Kushner to Ivanka,.

Your father is a **** for brains,wanker.

Ivanka, I know that but we are part of the chosen now,. and he soon will be dead.

We have chance to rule the USA, Jared,

Bibi told me ./

Byte Me , 2 hours ago link

" Jones: Do you trust the Saudis to investigate themselves?"

"Kushner: We're getting facts in from multiple places. Once those facts come in, the Secretary of State will work with our national security team to help us determine what we want to believe , and what we think is credible, and what we think is not credible."

Jones: Do you see anything that seems deceptive.

Kushner:

NO

I (bullshitbullshitbullshit) see things that seem deceptive every day I see them in the Middle East and in Washington. We have our eyes wide open (bullshitbullshitbullshit. The president is looking out for America's strategic interests...the president is fully committed to hanging me out to dry . After that - ho noze bubelah ."

(Can I sukie suckie now black master?

FIFT

All will be well when the head honcho sends this YidTwat to be Royal Commissioner in either Greenlnd or Antarctica.

johnnycanuck , 2 hours ago link

Have you heard the latest about the Peace Deal of All Times Kushner has been working on? And going to deliver any day now... soon...really soon.

After all this time what it comes down to is a leveraged buyout proposal. The buyout is cash for Palestinians to give in to what Israel's far right wants, give up their land and get the hell out of Dodge if they can't live with the remnants.. The leverage is Trump trying to starve them out and Kushner's friends in the IDF Palace Guard at the ready to pile drive anyone who resists.

" All this nonsense depends on the largesse of Saudi Arabia – whose bungling crown prince appears to be arguing with his kingly father, who does not want to abandon the original Saudi initiative for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital – "

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/palestine-jared-kushner-ultimate-plan-israel-donald-trump-jerusalem-right-to-return-a8420836.html

Some deal, some master planner.

NuYawkFrankie , 3 hours ago link

KUSHNER --->> LOCK HIM UP!!!

Jared Kushner was communicating with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) prior to and after the Saudis brutally murdered Washington-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/25361

Wayne Madsen - the author of the above - also reckons it was Kushner that supplied the Saudi Prince HIT LIST to MbS a few months back - to clear the deck for "closer co-operation" with ISISrael

Hope Copy , 3 hours ago link

Unfortunately, the only crime here is that the Turks have no decent respect for the consular as sovereign territory, thus they are revoking Saudi rights and are operating as an act of territorial aggression as the US has done to the Russians. Civility is braking down and one has to ask one's self, for who's benefit.. The Turks are not going to benefit. Khashoggi was going to die one way or another, so he made a show of it.. Spy vs. spy.

The USA has in the past just 'droned' them (as Hilterary was eager to reveal).

rlouis , 3 hours ago link

Questions I would like to hear:

Was Khashoggi a CIA agent?

Did he betray Mbs and Saudi family?

DjangoCat , 2 hours ago link

"Did he betray MBS and Saudi family.."

Perhaps you missed the regime change that happened last year, a globally significant event, by the way.

Khashoggi was on the wrong side of that, and has stayed away from SA ever since, sniping from the sidelines. MBS has lots of reasons not to like him.

However, his power base was removed when MBS hung his mates up by their heels in the Hilton Hotel. He was not worth bothering with. So why was he killed then?

Possibly, he was not killed, only used as a foil to bring down hell fire and damnation on MBS. He probably walked out the back, just as the SA said when this first came out. Now Marketwatch has a story saying a man dressed in Khashogggi's "still warm clothes" was photographed going into the Blue Mosque. Yeah, right:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turkish-official-decoy-wore-khashoggis-still-warm-clothes-after-murder-2018-10-22

The really interesting question is why have they walked that back and now admit he was killed? What is that about?

rlouis , 1 hour ago link

Yes! And tying it together with the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay-Harvest Festival shooting, and the video of the LV SWAT team escorting a person who looked like MBS through a casino suggests that there was a 'failed' assassination attempt.

And the fact that Prince Al Talweed, a co-owner of top floors of Manadaly Bay with Bill Gates, had tweeted his loathing of Trump...

It begins to tie a lot of loose ends together.

spqrusa , 3 hours ago link

The "Crown" (British or SA or many others) is inviolable. They take threats to sovereignty seriously unlike Americans who have outsourced Monetary Sovereignty to their Banks, Military and Economic Sovereignty to their Corporations.

farflungstar , 3 hours ago link

This kid's a ****. A real Chabad Lubavitch **** with a criminal father who I am going to hazard has never worked a hard day in his life. (Both father and son)

Remember Dan Aykroyd from "Trading Places"? Kushner is like that, only not funny. And jewish.

RubberJohnny , 3 hours ago link

Kushner was parachuted into the White House on the sole basis of his being the President's son-in-law.

He quickly ascended to the top rungs of power in our Nation even receiving Top Security Clearance and has been privy to our most tightly guarded secrets ever since.

This little ********** has turned out to be a tremendous thorn in our side facilitated by the President's pleasure.

Is everyone blind? This ******* nobody is practically running the whole show in the Middle East and with what credentials?

He's a power *** with vast connections, having been chosen to be the front man for the destruction of America as we know it.

GoingBig , 3 hours ago link

Exactly, plus his arrogance and stupidity has made the middle east even more fraught with problems.

Just like Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem; this has caused nothing but problems.

Going in with no background in the middle east, without knowing anything except what was told to him in Hebrew school is a recipe for disaster which is unfolding before our eyes.

olibur , 3 hours ago link

This Kushner guy doesn't look natural. Kind of like molded silicone ear plug.

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

Built in the same factory as Zuckerberg, but it's the Twink-Z-9000m Model

Albertarocks , 3 hours ago link

Skinny. Stiff. Plastic. Rather defiant, somewhat snotty. I have no reason to decide whether I like him or not but Kushner comes across to me as somebody I would not trust as far as I could throw him. Mind you that's quite a distance since I think he probably weighs about 109 lb.

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

with whom Kushner reportedly shares a "special relationship" (the prince reportedly once bragged about having Kushner "in his pocket")

well we know who the pitcher and who the catcher is in that "special friendship."

Straw Dog , 17 minutes ago link

The CNN interviewer is Van Jones.
This is the same Van Jones who was Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" and was forced to resign his position in 2009 because of his radical left wing background.

What the hell is Kushner doing in a position of power in the White House, what are his qualifications for whatever post he holds ?

Wild Bill Steamcock , 43 minutes ago link

Kushner- "Late into the night, I stroked him. He stroked me. All to completion"

ExpatNL , 1 hour ago link

Memo to **** Kushner

Hire some food tasters.

The world is sick of you KIKES.

ardent , 2 hours ago link

"The president is looking out for Israhell's strategic interests ...the president is fully committed to doing that."

There, fixed it.

headless blogger , 2 hours ago link

What the hell is anyone doing dealing with these animals who dress up in dresses? They behead people in public squares, mutilate people, oppress woman, kill homos, etc. Real crazy degenerates that got ahold of lots of money via their oil.

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

Saudis are actually KIKES in drag

headless blogger , 1 hour ago link

But they look Black.

boattrash , 31 minutes ago link

" They behead people in public squares, "

You say that like it's a bad thing...I can think of several cases where it would be justified and appropriate.

ludwigvmises , 2 hours ago link

Kushner is another boarding school educated snobbish little child of rich parents.

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

Cardinal Rule

Never, EVER trust a ****

If you think jews are nice people you're braindead.

Yippie21 , 2 hours ago link

Why is "everyone" so ******* upset about the Muslim Brothernood, green-card holding journalist being offed? I mean, folks in the M.E. are murdered all the ******* time. Journalists are not immune. Especially ones that are actually agitators that write ****. This whole thing is ********. How do I know? Just look at the reactions. Media everywhere to level 11.. What about Stormy Daniels? The Playboy bunny? Ford? Scandal # 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 , etc??

Saudis murder folks . Turkey murders folks. Turkey crushed a coup a couple years ago and 60K folks disappeared. I don't remember the US media demanding Obama " do something" about Turkey immediately, do you? Seriously.

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

USA has killed over 30 million INNOCENT human beings around the globe since 1950.

negan2 , 2 hours ago link

Innocent? You prefer Hitler and Stalin.

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

yes, innocent. I suppose killing 2 million Vietnamese are guilty? of what>? Not kissing your FAT Americunt ***?

surroundedbyijits , 2 hours ago link

He said since 1950. Hitler had been dead for 5 years and Stalin would be dead within 3 years so wtf are you referring to?

Venice Screech , 5 minutes ago link

**** education for some in America.

headless blogger , 2 hours ago link

true. And I'm sure the CIA gets in on some very disgusting killings as well. Along with the Mossad and Mi6 (2 groups that get little attention but should).

robertocarlos , 2 hours ago link

Marry a hot shiksa?

g3h , 2 hours ago link

Exactly what a brother would do for a brother.

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

Kushner to Ivanka,.

Your father is a **** for brains,wanker.

Ivanka, I know that but we are part of the chosen now,. and he soon will be dead.

We have chance to rule the USA, Jared,

Bibi told me ./

Byte Me , 2 hours ago link

" Jones: Do you trust the Saudis to investigate themselves?"

"Kushner: We're getting facts in from multiple places. Once those facts come in, the Secretary of State will work with our national security team to help us determine what we want to believe , and what we think is credible, and what we think is not credible."

Jones: Do you see anything that seems deceptive.

Kushner:

NO

I (bullshitbullshitbullshit) see things that seem deceptive every day I see them in the Middle East and in Washington. We have our eyes wide open (bullshitbullshitbullshit. The president is looking out for America's strategic interests...the president is fully committed to hanging me out to dry . After that - ho noze bubelah ."

(Can I sukie suckie now black master?

FIFT

All will be well when the head honcho sends this YidTwat to be Royal Commissioner in either Greenlnd or Antarctica.

johnnycanuck , 2 hours ago link

Have you heard the latest about the Peace Deal of All Times Kushner has been working on? And going to deliver any day now... soon...really soon.

After all this time what it comes down to is a leveraged buyout proposal. The buyout is cash for Palestinians to give in to what Israel's far right wants, give up their land and get the hell out of Dodge if they can't live with the remnants.. The leverage is Trump trying to starve them out and Kushner's friends in the IDF Palace Guard at the ready to pile drive anyone who resists.

" All this nonsense depends on the largesse of Saudi Arabia – whose bungling crown prince appears to be arguing with his kingly father, who does not want to abandon the original Saudi initiative for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital – "

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/palestine-jared-kushner-ultimate-plan-israel-donald-trump-jerusalem-right-to-return-a8420836.html

Some deal, some master planner.

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

Kikes always find a way to weasel their way into any administration of the USA/

Kikes are sneaky vermin and worthy of being shot (or gassed) where they sleep.

Oh and if you object you are an Anti-Semite.

KILL them ALL!!!

Long Live The Donald , 2 hours ago link

Looks like he weaseled his way right into Ivankers Vagina.

ardent , 2 hours ago link

Kushner Tells CNN What Advice He Shared With MbS After Khashoggi Killing

The same advice he shared with Satanyahoo of Apartheid Israhell: MORE BLOODSHED.

WARNING: Graphic Images

ExpatNL , 3 hours ago link

**** Kushner told Trump,. I got this, if you intervene I will have the Mossad do a JFK on your ***.

Savvy , 3 hours ago link

The illusive Kushner gave an interview to CNN.

I find that a little out of step with Trump.

ExpatNL , 3 hours ago link

What qualifications does this **** have?

Who voted for him?

Isn't nepotism illegal?

TabakLover , 3 hours ago link

What a joke. How do these people sit there and spew their pure ******** with a straight face? Oscar worthy performance.

NuYawkFrankie , 3 hours ago link

KUSHNER --->> LOCK HIM UP!!!

Jared Kushner was communicating with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) prior to and after the Saudis brutally murdered Washington-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/25361

Wayne Madsen - the author of the above - also reckons it was Kushner that supplied the Saudi Prince HIT LIST to MbS a few months back - to clear the deck for "closer co-operation" with ISISrael

Hope Copy , 3 hours ago link

Unfortunately, the only crime here is that the Turks have no decent respect for the consular as sovereign territory, thus they are revoking Saudi rights and are operating as an act of territorial aggression as the US has done to the Russians. Civility is braking down and one has to ask one's self, for who's benefit.. The Turks are not going to benefit. Khashoggi was going to die one way or another, so he made a show of it.. Spy vs. spy.

The USA has in the past just 'droned' them (as Hilterary was eager to reveal).

lose

G M T Detect languageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScots GaelicSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu AfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScots GaelicSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu Text-to-speech function is limited to 200 characters Options : History : Feedback : Donate Close
ExpatNL , 3 hours ago link

Hail President **** Kushner

ExpatNL , 3 hours ago link

Eyes wide open, brain completely closed.

RubberJohnny , 3 hours ago link

The only upside is that only 42 people watched this farce.

VladLenin , 3 hours ago link

WHO THE **** CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!

This who pile of **** is fake outrage by the ******* leftists hoping they can undermine Trump.

DonFromWyoming , 2 hours ago link

I care because I am hoping this assassination will destroy our 80 year old relationship with The House of Saud which is the epicenter of Wahhabism that brought us 9/11, the ISIS headchoppers and much more.

snow queen , 2 hours ago link

Agreed. The comments on this article are mostly very sick. Why the ugly antisemitism etc. etc.

Bob Lidd , 3 hours ago link

Freaking reptilian eyes......

rlouis , 3 hours ago link

Questions I would like to hear:

Was Khashoggi a CIA agent?

Did he betray Mbs and Saudi family?

DjangoCat , 2 hours ago link

"Did he betray MBS and Saudi family.."

Perhaps you missed the regime change that happened last year, a globally significant event, by the way.

Khashoggi was on the wrong side of that, and has stayed away from SA ever since, sniping from the sidelines. MBS has lots of reasons not to like him.

However, his power base was removed when MBS hung his mates up by their heels in the Hilton Hotel. He was not worth bothering with. So why was he killed then?

Possibly, he was not killed, only used as a foil to bring down hell fire and damnation on MBS. He probably walked out the back, just as the SA said when this first came out. Now Marketwatch has a story saying a man dressed in Khashogggi's "still warm clothes" was photographed going into the Blue Mosque. Yeah, right:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turkish-official-decoy-wore-khashoggis-still-warm-clothes-after-murder-2018-10-22

The really interesting question is why have they walked that back and now admit he was killed? What is that about?

rlouis , 1 hour ago link

Yes! And tying it together with the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay-Harvest Festival shooting, and the video of the LV SWAT team escorting a person who looked like MBS through a casino suggests that there was a 'failed' assassination attempt.

And the fact that Prince Al Talweed, a co-owner of top floors of Manadaly Bay with Bill Gates, had tweeted his loathing of Trump...

It begins to tie a lot of loose ends together.

Yen Cross , 3 hours ago link

Kushner = Nu-Male sans the neckbeard.

Son of Captain Nemo , 3 hours ago link

When you know you're an accessory to murder and can flaunt it!...

delta0ne , 3 hours ago link

All i see is all-out Kushner bashing going on. People forget that he is busy with bringing peace to the Middle East.

ExpatNL , 3 hours ago link

**** hate peace unless it benefits THEM

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

deltaOne hey **** lover., Jews don't want peace they want to control the M,E.

Nuke Tel Aviv

robertocarlos , 2 hours ago link

Whoosh. I hope.

kindasketchy , 1 hour ago link

Wow, look at the up/downvote ratio! I remember when people on this site got the ******* joke.

Pablo Enchilada , 3 hours ago link

Can someone wipe the smug smile off this prick?

kindasketchy , 3 hours ago link

Did he say he had his eyes wide open or his arse?

css1971 , 3 hours ago link

Solar panels & a Chevy Bolt.

YKIMS

Ikiru , 3 hours ago link

Better buy an extra set. Those damn solar panels wear out pretty quick. In fact, you may want to buy an extra Chevy Volt. Haha

spqrusa , 3 hours ago link

The "Crown" (British or SA or many others) is inviolable. They take threats to sovereignty seriously unlike Americans who have outsourced Monetary Sovereignty to their Banks, Military and Economic Sovereignty to their Corporations.

farflungstar , 3 hours ago link

This kid's a ****. A real Chabad Lubavitch **** with a criminal father who I am going to hazard has never worked a hard day in his life. (Both father and son)

Remember Dan Aykroyd from "Trading Places"? Kushner is like that, only not funny. And jewish.

Philo Beddoe , 3 hours ago link

Dan Aykroyd also bagged a hot chick in that flick. Jamie Lee had quite the rack when she was young.

richatstructure , 3 hours ago link

Very important insight ... thanks for trying out.

kindasketchy , 1 hour ago link

More Impressive - Aykroyd bagged the hot chick in "Spies Like Us" for real

RubberJohnny , 3 hours ago link

Kushner was parachuted into the White House on the sole basis of his being the President's son-in-law.

He quickly ascended to the top rungs of power in our Nation even receiving Top Security Clearance and has been privy to our most tightly guarded secrets ever since.

This little ********** has turned out to be a tremendous thorn in our side facilitated by the President's pleasure.

Is everyone blind? This ******* nobody is practically running the whole show in the Middle East and with what credentials?

He's a power *** with vast connections, having been chosen to be the front man for the destruction of America as we know it.

notfeelinthebern , 3 hours ago link

He's Rosa Luxembergs modern day doppelganger in drag.

GoingBig , 3 hours ago link

Exactly, plus his arrogance and stupidity has made the middle east even more fraught with problems.

Just like Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem; this has caused nothing but problems.

Going in with no background in the middle east, without knowing anything except what was told to him in Hebrew school is a recipe for disaster which is unfolding before our eyes.

DisorderlyConduct , 3 hours ago link

Trump didn't move the embassy - he simply obeyed existing law that said it was to be done. Law ignored since Clinton signed it.

lew1024 , 3 hours ago link

I do not think you can cite evidence to back up those assertions. Mere assertions.

debunker , 3 hours ago link

Jones: Is President Trump upset on how to play this so as not to offend all of his Saudi financial connections?

Jared: The Saudis are my portfolio, Mr. Jones, lest I remind you I'm bringing peace to the Middle East.

Jones: Oh yeah, I forgot. So how's that going anyhow?

Normal , 3 hours ago link

There have been so many attempts at selling advertising with this article the author says, "to deliver a report on the killings." I thought they only chopped up one cash-hoggi now they are trying to turn it into two. What does the author think it was cactus they killed?

carbonmutant , 3 hours ago link

Kushner did you ask him where the body was?

DjangoCat , 2 hours ago link

Damn good question. We know who the "perps" are. Why no body, or bloody bits?

No body, no crime. Show me the evidence.

I think Khashoggi is on on the play, all Kabuki to try to get the SA DS back in power, and give Trump a black eye to boot.

jose.six.pack , 3 hours ago link

Getting their facts from "Multiple pieces"...

:D

KrazyUncle , 3 hours ago link

How about SA being honest....and transparent?

Seasmoke , 3 hours ago link

The Game Show Host let his daughter became a *** for this guy. Unreal.

Fecund Stench , 3 hours ago link

#Kushner is a #Zionist #Traitor, whom #Trump despises.

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

whom #Trump despises.

Have you been psychic since birth, or is that a recent phenomenon?

Fecund Stench , 3 hours ago link

Trump is a Libertarian, and will prove it by beheading ten Kurds, officially joining #ISIS.

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

I'm the Pope. The Power of Christ compels you.

Fecund Stench , 3 hours ago link

Actually, Trump is in the middle of a fight between Rand Paul and the Koch brothers, who own Pompeo.

olibur , 3 hours ago link

This Kushner guy doesn't look natural. Kind of like molded silicone ear plug.

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

Built in the same factory as Zuckerberg, but it's the Twink-Z-9000m Model

Albertarocks , 3 hours ago link

Skinny. Stiff. Plastic. Rather defiant, somewhat snotty. I have no reason to decide whether I like him or not but Kushner comes across to me as somebody I would not trust as far as I could throw him. Mind you that's quite a distance since I think he probably weighs about 109 lb.

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

What character building experiences could he possibly have had to cause him to become a good/stable leader/decision maker?

ExpatNL , 2 hours ago link

Cardinal Rule

Never, EVER trust a ****

If you think jews are nice people you're braindead.

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

with whom Kushner reportedly shares a "special relationship" (the prince reportedly once bragged about having Kushner "in his pocket")

well we know who the pitcher and who the catcher is in that "special friendship."

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

dupe

DingleBarryObummer , 3 hours ago link

Jared Reportedly often walks with a limp and uses a hemorrhoid doughnut seat pillow

costa ludus , 3 hours ago link

Jud Süß

Philo Beddoe , 3 hours ago link

Damien speaks!

Dornier27 , 3 hours ago link

Kashoggi did return to Saudi Arabia....in bin bags.

Hope Copy , 3 hours ago link

ProbaBLY so..

G M T Detect languageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScots GaelicSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu AfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdishKyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScots GaelicSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu Text-to-speech function is limited to 200 characters Options : History : Feedback : Donate Close

hooligan2009 , 3 hours ago link

who voted for kushner to represent the US?

costa ludus , 3 hours ago link

Bibi- but it wasn't a vote

opport.knocks , 2 hours ago link

It was at least fifty million $1 votes from Israel laundered through Trump supporter and uber-Zionist Sheldon Adelson's casinos in Macau. Steve Wynn was likely in on that action too.

Until America wakes up and gets dirty money out of your "(s)elections" you will be hostage to foreign powers.

No one asked Kavanaugh if he thought "Citizens United" was settled law.

Venice Screech , 17 minutes ago link

I guess everyone who voted for Trump.

dot_bust , 3 hours ago link

If Kushner has current business dealings with the Saudis, he's not exactly credible with regard to MBS. Or, should I call him the Notorious MBS ?

The U.S. should stop coddling the murderous Saudi government. Stop selling them weapons.

cheech_wizard , 3 hours ago link

Actually they should sell them more weapons. As many as they are willing to buy. And the same with every other country in the region.

Standard Disclaimer: It's all about market share.

Erek , 3 hours ago link

Why the big deal over some A-rab?

Has everyone forgotten about (((The Libyan Job))), Seth Rich and all the others who have been Arkancided?

The .gov should be throwing more resoures at these crimes and the huge (((Pedogate))) crimes etc.

[Oct 22, 2018] NINE British, Chechen and Turkish experts and TWO members of the White Helmets were killed in the blast at a workshop used for making chemicals in the small town of Tarmanin in Northern Idlib

Oct 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Montreal , Oct 22, 2018 5:28:27 AM | link

From Craig Murray's site.

" Over the weekend, there was a huge explosion at a workshop used for making chemicals in the small town of Tarmanin in Northern Idlib. The workshop included a large volume of chemical, explosive materials and liquid chlorine barrels. NINE British, Chechen and Turkish experts and TWO members of the White Helmets were killed in the blast."

https://en.muraselon.com/2018/10/white-helmets-blast-chemical-syria/
https://en.reseauinternational.net/white-helmets-members-experts-killed-in-huge-blast-at-chemical-workshop-in-northwestern-syria/

[Oct 22, 2018] Trump's Fanatical Iran Rhetoric by Daniel Larison

Trump now looks like a clown. He is not real politician. He is a neocon's puppet.
Notable quotes:
"... Incredible. We've got two Middle East "allies" that spend a lot of time killing civilians, including children. One of them just murdered and chopped up a Washington Post journalist. The other possesses an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, shoots unarmed civilians, and meddles in US politics at something like 10X the level of Putin's Russia. But Trump thinks Iran is "as evil as it gets". ..."
"... The correction should be HIS economic ties. I have reiterated to the Hillary Russia tin foil hat goons that Russia is a harmful and stupid sideshow. It is a convenient way to rationalize the Hillary's out of touch campaign loss to a total moron with McCarthyism, infallible rationalizations for their pet conspiracy theories. Russia probably was conducting information operations but stupid Facebook memes did not make people vote for Trump. ..."
"... I think Trump's true financial/real estate conflicts of interests and the likes of Kushner's are the YUGE problem that needs to be investigated ..."
"... But Trump is not the first president to strike a Faustian bargain with worthless partners for perceived foreign policy objectives. They are just furthering neocon grand strategy while feeding the MIC that got accustomed to Iraq war levels of defense spending while continuing the US tradition of being subservient to Israel. Trump is not the first US president to be subservient to Israel considering Obama signed $30 billion US tax dollars to Israel to please AIPAC, Democrat donors of a certain demographic, feed the MIC, and conduct real world tests of various US weapons systems. ..."
Oct 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
interview with the Post that illustrates his use of selective outrage and moralizing rhetoric when it suits his purpose:

"I would love if [Mohammed bin Salman] wasn't responsible," he said of MBS. "I think it's a very important ally for us. Especially when you have Iran doing so many bad things in the world, it's a good counterbalance to the world. Iran, they're as evil as it gets. They're probably laughing at this situation as they see it. Iran is as evil as it gets. [bold mine-DL]"

It isn't news that Trump has an extremely simplistic and entirely negative view of Iran, but the striking thing here is that he chooses to say that Iran is the quintessence of evil in the world. This is the language of fanaticism, and I'm sure that Trump is being fed stuff like this by Bolton and the other hard-liners in his administration. In addition to that, he uses this warped view of Iran to justify maintaining a close relationship with an odious regime in Riyadh. The problem isn't just that it exaggerates Iranian wrongdoing while whitewashing Saudi wrongdoing, but also that it gives Trump and his officials an excuse to rationalize any crime, no matter how horrible, because they think it is necessary to oppose Iran.

The Iranian government is certainly guilty of many abuses and crimes, including and especially against the Iranian people, but to declare an entire country to be "as evil as it gets" is usually an attempt to dehumanize everyone there and to lay the groundwork for doing terrible things to the people that have been demonized. This is often what political leaders say about another country when they mean to attack it. Even if we assume that Trump was referring only to the government, this is reckless and irresponsible rhetoric that will strengthen Iranian hard-liners and stoke regional tensions. If Bush's destructive "axis of evil" rhetoric sabotaged the brief U.S.-Iranian thaw in 2002, Trump's claim that Iran is "as evil as it gets" is likely to poison relations even further.

We know Trump doesn't hold other states to the same standard he's applying to Ira.n Paul Pillar puts Trump's eagerness to cover for the Saudis in the context of his approach to the wider region:

Trump's approach has been part of his administration's tribalist approach to policy in the Middle East, in which Saudi Arabia serves as one of the supposed good guys on the U.S. side of the line and, on the other side of the line, its cross-gulf rival Iran is depicted as the source of all evil in the region.

Trump's hostility to Iran started out as the usual mix of threat inflation, arrogance, and moralizing rhetoric that warps our foreign policy debates, but it has mutated into an obsession that is poisoning and consuming U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East to the detriment of both U.S. interests and regional security.

Oleg Gark October 21, 2018 at 5:52 pm

What's the practical effect of demonizing Iran so thoroughly? Anything bad that Israel or Saudi Arabia do becomes small potatoes by comparison. If Saudi supports Jihadis, well, no biggie, at least they're not Iran. If Israel kills a couple thousand people in Gaza and the West Bank, well, we have to maintain a sense of proportion about it. There is literally nothing that Iran could do that would merit any praise from Trump. Their job is to be the bad guy.
New Port , says: October 21, 2018 at 6:07 pm

"Iran is as evil as it gets"

Incredible. We've got two Middle East "allies" that spend a lot of time killing civilians, including children. One of them just murdered and chopped up a Washington Post journalist. The other possesses an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, shoots unarmed civilians, and meddles in US politics at something like 10X the level of Putin's Russia. But Trump thinks Iran is "as evil as it gets".

This guy is really too stupid to be in the White House. He's listening to the Israel and Saudi Arabia flunkies he hired – by which I mean the Israel and Saudi Arabia flunkies that weren't already part of his own family. Except that he hired them too, didn't he?

No more presidents from New York, please. The stink is overpowering. We need an American in the White House.

JK , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:10 pm
From WaPo article:

"During the 20-minute interview, Trump repeatedly talked about the importance of the ECONOMIC ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia and Mohammed's role in that relationship"

The correction should be HIS economic ties. I have reiterated to the Hillary Russia tin foil hat goons that Russia is a harmful and stupid sideshow. It is a convenient way to rationalize the Hillary's out of touch campaign loss to a total moron with McCarthyism, infallible rationalizations for their pet conspiracy theories. Russia probably was conducting information operations but stupid Facebook memes did not make people vote for Trump.

I think Trump's true financial/real estate conflicts of interests and the likes of Kushner's are the YUGE problem that needs to be investigated .

But Trump is not the first president to strike a Faustian bargain with worthless partners for perceived foreign policy objectives. They are just furthering neocon grand strategy while feeding the MIC that got accustomed to Iraq war levels of defense spending while continuing the US tradition of being subservient to Israel. Trump is not the first US president to be subservient to Israel considering Obama signed $30 billion US tax dollars to Israel to please AIPAC, Democrat donors of a certain demographic, feed the MIC, and conduct real world tests of various US weapons systems.

Weapons deals have an implied foreign policy tax and implied moral support. We can't just sell the weapons and wipe our hands clean. We have to support our clients also and that is our problem which Trump did not invent but worsen or at least make it more obvious.

I do like to see these Never Trumpers squirm from all the cognitive dissonance that this murder has caused though. Their true colors will show and the Democrats will realize they are just carpet baggers.

JK , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Trump is talking and looking like 'Baghdad Bob', the infamous Iraqi Information Officer that said everything is great as the various government palaces were being leveled by Merican know-how.

All it will take is for Israel to get tired of KSA, Trump will turn on a dime nonetheless out of this mess and this worthless client state.

Here is the periodic reminder that 15/19 of 9-11 hijackers were not Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Russians, N. Koreans, or Chinese.

[Oct 22, 2018] Ben Norton on Pompeo

Oct 22, 2018 | friendsofsyria.wordpress.com

Ben Norton responded on Facebook post :

"Satire has lost all meaning: The former director of the CIA (which has for decades trained and armed far-right terrorist death squads), who is now US secretary of state, called Iran "the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world" while he was meeting with regime officials in Saudi Arabia, an extremist Wahhabi absolute monarchy that supported ISIS and al-Qaeda."

[Oct 22, 2018] The Empire splits the Orthodox world possible consequences by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... First, all Churches are equal, there is no Pope, no "historical see" granting any primacy just as all the Apostles of Christ and all Orthodox bishops are also equals; ..."
"... Second, crucial decisions, decisions which affect the entire Church, are only taken by a Council of the entire Church, not unilaterally by any one man or any one Church. ..."
"... These are really the basics of what could be called "traditional Christian ecclesiology 101" and the blatant violation of this key ecclesiological dogma by the Papacy in 1054 was as much a cause for the historical schism between East and West (really, between Rome and the rest of Christian world) as was the innovation of the filioque itself. ..."
"... His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch ..."
"... Some point out that the Patriarch of Constantinople is a Turkish civil servant. While technically true, this does not suggest that Erdogan is behind this move either: right now Erdogan badly needs Russia on so many levels that he gains nothing and risks losing a lot by alienating Moscow. ..."
"... No, the real initiator of this entire operation is the AngloZionist Empire and, of course, the Papacy (which has always tried to create an " Orthodoxerein Ukraine" from the "The Eastern Crusade" and "Northern Crusades" of Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX to the Nazi Ukraine of Bandera – see here for details). ..."
"... On a more cynical level, I would note that the Patriarch of Constantinople has now opened a real Pandora's box which now every separatist movement in an Orthodox country will be able to use to demand its own "autocephaly" which will threaten the unity of most Orthodox Churches out there. ..."
"... What the AngloZionist Empire has done is to force each Orthodox Christian and each Orthodox Church to chose between siding with Moscow or Constantinople. This choice will have obvious spiritual consequences, which the Empire couldn't give a damn about, but it will also profound political and social consequences which, I believe, the Empire entirely missed ..."
"... Make no mistake, what the Empire did in the Ukraine constitutes yet another profoundly evil and tragic blow against the long-suffering people of the Ukraine. In its ugliness and tragic consequences, it is quite comparable to the occupation of these lands by the Papacy via its Polish and Lithuanian agents. But God has the ability to turn even the worst horror into something which, in the end, will strengthen His Church. ..."
"... Another reason to hate the Catholic Church:The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon ..."
Oct 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

In previous articles about this topic I have tried to set the context and explain why most Orthodox Churches are still used as pawns in purely political machinations and how the most commentators who discuss these issues today are using words and concepts in a totally twisted, secular and non-Christian way (which is about as absurd as discussing medicine while using a vague, misunderstood and generally non-medical terminology). I have also written articles trying to explain how the concept of "Church" is completely misunderstood nowadays and how many Orthodox Churches today have lost their original patristic mindset . Finally, I have tried to show the ancient spiritual roots of modern russophobia and how the AngloZionist Empire might try to save the Ukronazi regime in Kiev by triggering a religious crisis in the Ukraine . It is my hope that these articles will provide a useful context to evaluate and discuss the current crisis between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate.

My intention today is to look at the unfolding crisis from a more "modern" point of view and try to evaluate only what the political and social consequences of the latest developments might be in the short and mid term. I will begin by a short summary.

The current context: a summary

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken the official decision to:

Declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to unilaterally grant autocephaly (full independence) to any other Church with no consultations with any the other Orthodox Churches. Cancel the decision by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysios IV in 1686 transferring the Kiev Metropolia (religious jurisdiction overseen by a Metropolite) to the Moscow Patriarchate (a decision which no Patriarch of Constantinople contested for three centuries!) Lift the anathema pronounced against the "Patriarch" Filaret Denisenko by the Moscow Patriarchate (in spite of the fact that the only authority which can lift an anathema is the one which pronounced it in the first place) Recognize as legitimate the so-called "Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate" which it previously had declared as illegitimate and schismatic. Grant actual grand full autocephaly to a future (and yet to be defined) "united Ukrainian Orthodox Church"

Most people naturally focus on this last element, but this might be a mistake, because while illegally granting autocephaly to a mix of nationalist pseudo-Churches is most definitely a bad decision, to act like some kind of "Orthodox Pope" and claim rights which only belong to the entire Church is truly a historical mistake. Not only that, but this mistake now forces every Orthodox Christian to either accept this as a fait accompli and submit to the megalomania of the wannabe Ortho-Pope of the Phanar, or to reject such unilateral and totally illegal action or to enter into open opposition. And this is not the first time such a situation has happened in the history of the Church. I will use an historical parallel to make this point.

The historical context:

The Church of Rome and the rest of the Christian world were already on a collision course for several centuries before the famous date of 1054 when Rome broke away from the Christian world. Whereas for centuries Rome had been the most steadfast bastion of resistance against innovations and heresies, the influence of the Franks in the Church of Rome eventually resulted (after numerous zig-zags on this topic) in a truly disastrous decision to add a single world ( filioque - "and the son" in Latin) to the Symbol of Faith (the Credo in Latin). What made that decision even worse was the fact that the Pope of Rome also declared that he had the right to impose that addition upon all the other Christian Churches, with no conciliar discussion or approval. It is often said that the issue of the filioque is "obscure" and largely irrelevant, but that is just a reflection of the theological illiteracy of those making such statements as, in reality, the addition of the filioque completely overthrows the most crucial and important Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of Christianity. But what *is* true is that the attempt to unilaterally impose this heresy on the rest of the Christian world was at least as offensive and, really, as sacrilegious as the filioque itself because it undermined the very nature of the Church. Indeed, the Symbol of Faith defines the Church as "catholic" (Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν") meaning not only "universal" but also "whole" or "all-inclusive". In ecclesiological terms this "universality" is manifested in two crucial ways:

First, all Churches are equal, there is no Pope, no "historical see" granting any primacy just as all the Apostles of Christ and all Orthodox bishops are also equals; the Head of the Church is Christ Himself, and the Church is His Theadric Body filled with the Holy Spirit. Oh I know, to say that the Holy Spirit fills the Church is considered absolutely ridiculous in our 21 st century post-Christian world, but check out these words from the Book of Acts: " For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us " (Acts 15:28) which clearly show that the members of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem clearly believed and proclaimed that their decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit. Anyone still believing that will immediately see why the Church needs no "vicar of Christ" or any "earthly representative" to act in Christ's name during His absence. In fact, Christ Himself clearly told us " lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen " (Matt 28:20). If a Church needs a "vicar" – then Christ and the Holy Spirit are clearly not present in that Church. QED.

Second, crucial decisions, decisions which affect the entire Church, are only taken by a Council of the entire Church, not unilaterally by any one man or any one Church.

These are really the basics of what could be called "traditional Christian ecclesiology 101" and the blatant violation of this key ecclesiological dogma by the Papacy in 1054 was as much a cause for the historical schism between East and West (really, between Rome and the rest of Christian world) as was the innovation of the filioque itself.

I hasten to add that while the Popes were the first ones to claim for themselves an authority only given to the full Church, they were not the only ones (by the way, this is a very good working definition of the term "Papacy": the attribution to one man of all the characteristics belonging solely to the entire Church). In the early 20 th century the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Albania, Alexandria, Antioch, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Romania got together and, under the direct influence of powerful Masonic lodges, decided to adopt the Gregorian Papal Calendar (named after the 16 th century Pope Gregory XIII). The year was 1923, when the entire Russian Orthodox Church was being literally crucified on the modern Golgotha of the Bolshevik regime, but that did not prevent these Churches from calling their meeting "pan Orthodox". Neither did the fact that the Russian, Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem Church and the Holy Mountain (aka " Mount Athos ") rejected this innovation stop them. As for the Papal Calendar itself, the innovators "piously" re-branded it as "improved Julian" and other such euphemism to conceal the real intention behind this.

Finally, even the fact that this decision also triggered a wave of divisions inside their own Churches was not cause for them to reconsider or, even less so, to repent. Professor C. Troitsky was absolutely correct when he wrote that " there is no doubt that future historians of the Orthodox Church will be forced to admit that the Congress of 1923 was the saddest event of Church life in the 20th century " (for more on this tragedy see here , here and here ). Here again, one man, Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis) tried to "play Pope" and his actions resulted in a massive upheaval which ripped through the entire Orthodox world.

More recently, the Patriarch of Constantinople tried, once again, to convene what he would want to be an Orthodox "Ecumenical Council" under his personal authority when in 2016 (yet another) "pan Orthodox" council was convened on the island of Crete which was attended by the Churches of Alexandria , Jerusalem , Serbia , Romania , Cyprus , Greece, Poland , Albania and of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Churches of Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia and the USA (OCA) refused to attend. Most observers agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate played a key role in undermining what was clearly to be a "robber" council which would have introduced major (and fully non-Orthodox) innovations. The Patriarch of Constantinople never forgave the Russians for torpedoing his planned "ecumenical" council.

Some might have noticed that a majority of local Churches did attend both the 1923 and the 2016 wannabe "pan Orthodox" councils. Such an observation might be very important in a Latin or Protestant context, but in the Orthodox context is is absolutely meaningless for the following reasons:

The theological context:

In the history of the Church there have been many "robber" councils (meaning illegitimate, false, councils) which were attended by a majority of bishops of the time, and even a majority of the Churches; in this article I mentioned the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor (which you can read in full here ) as a perfect example of how one single person (not even a priest!) can defend true Christianity against what could appear at the time as the overwhelming number of bishops representing the entire Church. But, as always, these false bishops were eventually denounced and the Truth of Orthodoxy prevailed.

Likewise, at the False Union of Florence, when all the Greek delegates signed the union with the Latin heretics, and only one bishop refused to to do (Saint Mark of Ephesus), the Latin Pope declared in despair " and so we have accomplished nothing! ". He was absolutely correct – that union was rejected by the "Body" of the Church and the names of those apostates who signed it will remain in infamy forever. I could multiply the examples, but what is crucial here is to understand that majorities, large numbers or, even more so, the support of secular authorities are absolutely meaningless in Christian theology and in the history of the Church and that, with time, all the lapsed bishops who attended robber councils are always eventually denounced and the Orthodox truth always proclaimed once again. It is especially important to keep this in mind during times of persecution or of brutal interference by secular authorities because even when they *appear* to have won, their victory is always short-lived.

I would add that the Russian Orthodox Church is not just "one of the many" local Orthodox Churches. Not only is the Russian Orthodox Church by far the biggest Orthodox Church out there, but Moscow used to be the so-called "Third Rome", something which gives the Moscow Patriarchate a lot of prestige and, therefore, influence. In secular terms of prestige and "street cred" the fact that the Russians did not participate in the 1923 and 2016 congresses is much bigger a blow to its organizers than if, say, the Romanians had boycotted it. This might not be important to God or for truly pious Christians, but I assure you that this is absolutely crucial for the wannabe "Eastern Pope" of the Phanar

Who is really behind this latest attack on the Church?

So let's begin by stating the obvious: for all his lofty titles (" His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch " no less!), the Patriarch of Constantinople (well, of the Phanar, really), is nothing but a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire. An ambitious and vain puppet for sure, but a puppet nonetheless. To imagine that the Uber-loser Poroshenko would convince him to pick a major fight with the Moscow Patriarchate is absolutely laughable and totally ridiculous. Some point out that the Patriarch of Constantinople is a Turkish civil servant. While technically true, this does not suggest that Erdogan is behind this move either: right now Erdogan badly needs Russia on so many levels that he gains nothing and risks losing a lot by alienating Moscow.

No, the real initiator of this entire operation is the AngloZionist Empire and, of course, the Papacy (which has always tried to create an " Orthodoxerein Ukraine" from the "The Eastern Crusade" and "Northern Crusades" of Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX to the Nazi Ukraine of Bandera – see here for details).

Why would the Empire push for such a move? Here we can find a mix of petty and larger geostrategic reasons. First, the petty ones: they range from the usual impotent knee-jerk reflex to do something, anything, to hurt Russia to pleasing of the Ukronazi emigrés in the USA and Canada. The geostrategic ones range from trying to save the highly unpopular Ukronazi regime in Kiev to breaking up the Orthodox world thereby weakening Russian soft-power and influence. This type of "logic" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Orthodox world today. Here is why:

The typical level of religious education of Orthodox Christians is probably well represented by the famous Bell Curve: some are truly completely ignorant, most know a little, and a few know a lot. As long as things were reasonably peaceful, all these Orthodox Christians could go about their daily lives and not worry too much about the big picture. This is also true of many Orthodox Churches and bishops. Most folks like beautiful rites (singing, golden cupolas, beautiful architecture and historical places) mixed in with a little good old superstition (place a candle before a business meeting or playing the lottery) – such is human nature and, alas, most Orthodox Christians are no different, even if their calling is to be "not of this world". But now this apparently peaceful picture has been severely disrupted by the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople whose actions are in such blatant and severe violation of all the basic canons and traditions of the Church that they literally force each Orthodox Christian, especially bishops, to break their silence and take a position: am I with Moscow or with Constantinople?

Oh sure, initially many (most?) Orthodox Christians, including many bishops, will either try to look away or limit themselves to vapid expressions of "regret" mixed in with calls for "unity". A good example of that kind of wishy washy lukewarm language can already be found here . But this kind of Pilate-like washing of hands ("ain't my business" in modern parlance) is unsustainable, and here is why: in Orthodox ecclesiology you cannot build "broken Eucharistic triangles". If A is not in communion with B, then C cannot be in communion with A and B at the same time. It's really an "either or" binary choice. At least in theory (in reality, such "broken triangles" have existed, most recently between the former ROCA/ROCOR, the Serbian Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, but they are unsustainable, as events of the 2000-2007 years confirmed for the ROCA/ROCOR). Still, no doubt that some (many?) will try to remain in communion with both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Constantinople Patriarchate, but this will become harder and harder with every passing month. In some specific cases, such a decision will be truly dramatic, I think of the monasteries on the Holy Mountain in particular.

On a more cynical level, I would note that the Patriarch of Constantinople has now opened a real Pandora's box which now every separatist movement in an Orthodox country will be able to use to demand its own "autocephaly" which will threaten the unity of most Orthodox Churches out there. If all it takes to become "autocephalous" is to trigger some kind of nationalist uprising, then just imagine how many "Churches" will demand the same autocephaly as the Ukronazis are today! The fact that ethno-phyetism is a condemned heresy will clearly stop none of them. After all, if it is good enough for the "Ecumenical" Patriarch, it sure is good enough for any and all pseudo-Orthodox nationalists!

What the AngloZionist Empire has done is to force each Orthodox Christian and each Orthodox Church to chose between siding with Moscow or Constantinople. This choice will have obvious spiritual consequences, which the Empire couldn't give a damn about, but it will also profound political and social consequences which, I believe, the Empire entirely missed .

The Moscow Patriarchate vs the Patriarchate of Constantinople – a sociological and political analysis

Let me be clear here that I am not going to compare and contrast the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (PC) from a spiritual, theological or even ecclesiological point of view here. Instead, I will compare and contrast them from a purely sociological and political point of view. The differences here are truly profound.

Moscow Patriarchate Patriarchate of Constantinople
Actual size Very big Small
Financial means Very big Small
Dependence on the support of the Empire and its various entities Limited Total
Relations with the Vatican Limited, mostly due to very strongly
anti-Papist sentiments in the people		 Mutual support
and de-facto alliance
Majority member's outlook Conservative Modernist
Majority member's level of support Strong Lukewarm
Majority member's concern with Church rules/cannons/traditions Medium and selective Low
Internal dissent Practically eliminated (ROCA) Strong (Holy Mountain, Old Calendarists)

From the above table you can immediately see that the sole comparative 'advantage' of the PC is that is has the full support of the AngloZionist Empire and the Vatican. On all the other measures of power, the MP vastly "out-guns" the PC.

Now, inside the Ukronazi occupied Ukraine, that support of the Empire and the Vatican (via their Uniats) does indeed give a huge advantage to the PC and its Ukronazi pseudo-Orthodox "Churches". And while Poroshenko has promised that no violence will be used against the MP parishes in the Ukraine, we all remember that he was the one who promised to stop the war against the Donbass, so why even pay attention to what he has to say.

US diplomats and analysts might be ignorant enough to believe Poroshenko's promises, but if that is the case then they are failing to realize that Poroshensko has very little control over the hardcore Nazi mobs like the one we saw last Sunday in Kiev . The reality is very different: Poroshenko's relationship to the hardcore Nazis in the Ukraine is roughly similar to the one the House of Saud has with the various al-Qaeda affiliates in Saudi Arabia: they try to both appease and control them, but they end up failing every time. The political agenda in the Ukraine is set by bona fide Nazis, just as it is set in the KSA by the various al-Qaeda types. Poroshenko and MBS are just impotent dwarfs trying to ride on the shoulders of much more powerful devils.

Sadly, and as always, the ones most at risk right now are the simple faithful who will resist any attempts by the Ukronazi death-squads to seize their churches and expel their priests. I don't expect a civil war to ensue, not in the usual sense of the world, but I do expect a lot of atrocities similar to what took place during the 2014 Odessa massacre when the Ukronazis burned people alive (and shot those trying to escape). Once these massacres begin, it will be very, very hard for the Empire to whitewash them or blame it all on "Russian interference". But most crucially, as the (admittedly controversial) Christian writer Tertullian noticed as far back as the 2 nd century " the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church ". You can be sure that the massacre of innocent Christians in the Ukraine will result in a strengthening of the Orthodox awareness, not only inside the Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world, especially among those who are currently "on the fence" so to speak, between the kind of conservative Orthodoxy proclaimed by the MP and the kind of lukewarm wishy washy "decaf" pseudo-Orthodoxy embodied by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. After all, it is one thing to change the Church Calendar or give hugs and kisses to Popes and quite another to bless Nazi death-squads to persecute Orthodox Christians.

To summarize I would say that by his actions, the Patriarch of Constantinople is now forcing the entire Orthodox world to make a choice between two very different kind of "Orthodoxies". As for the Empire, it is committing a major mistake by creating a situation which will further polarize strongly, an already volatile political situation in the Ukraine.

There is, at least potentially, one more possible consequence from these developments which is almost never discussed: its impact inside the Moscow Patriarchate.

Possible impact of these developments inside the Moscow Patriarchate

Without going into details, I will just say that the Moscow Patriarchate is a very diverse entity in which rather different "currents" coexist. In Russian politics I often speak of Atlantic Integrationists and Eurasian Sovereignists. There is something vaguely similar inside the MP, but I would use different terms. One camp is what I would call the "pro-Western Ecumenists" and the other camp the "anti-Western Conservatives". Ever since Putin came to power the pro-Western Ecumenists have been losing their influence, mostly due to the fact that the majority of the regular rank and file members of the MP are firmly behind the anti-Western Conservative movement (bishops, priests, theologians).

The rabid hatred and fear of everything Russian by the West combined with the total support for anything anti-Russian (including Takfiris and Nazis) has had it's impact here too, and very few people in Russia want the civilizational model of Conchita Wurst, John McCain or Pope Francis to influence the future of Russia. The word "ecumenism" has, like the word "democracy", become a four letter word in Russia with a meaning roughly similar to "sellout" or "prostitution". What is interesting is that many bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate who, in the past, were torn between the conservative pressure from their own flock and their own "ecumenical" and "democratic" inclinations (best embodied by the Patriarch of Constantinople) have now made a choice for the conservative model (beginning by Patriarch Kirill himself who, in the past, used to be quite favorable to the so-called "ecumenical dialog of love" with the Latins).

Now that the MP and the PC have broken the ties which previously united them, they are both free to pursue their natural inclinations, so to speak. The PC can become some kind of "Eastern Rite Papacy" and bask in an unhindered love fest with the Empire and the Vatican while the MP will now have almost no incentive whatsoever to pay attention to future offers of rapprochement by the Empire or the Vatican (these two always work hand in hand ). For Russia, this is a very good development.

Make no mistake, what the Empire did in the Ukraine constitutes yet another profoundly evil and tragic blow against the long-suffering people of the Ukraine. In its ugliness and tragic consequences, it is quite comparable to the occupation of these lands by the Papacy via its Polish and Lithuanian agents. But God has the ability to turn even the worst horror into something which, in the end, will strengthen His Church.

Russia in general, and the Moscow Patriarchate specifically, are very much in a transition phase on many levels and we cannot overestimate the impact which the West's hostility on all fronts, including spiritual ones, will have on the future consciousness of the Russian and Orthodox people. The 1990s were years of total confusion and ignorance, not only for Russia by the way, but the first decade of the new millennium has turned out to be a most painful, but also most needed, eye-opener for those who had naively trusted the notion that the West's enemy was only Communism, not Russia as a civilizational model.

In their infinite ignorance and stupidity, the leaders of the Empire have always acted only in the immediate short term and they never bothered to think about the mid to long term effects of their actions. This is as true for Russia as it is for Iraq or the Balkans. When things eventually, and inevitably, go very wrong, they will be sincerely baffled and wonder how and why it all went wrong. In the end, as always, they will blame the "other guy".

There is no doubt in my mind that the latest maneuver of the AngloZionist Empire in the Ukraine will yield some kind of feel-good and short term "victory" ("peremoga" in Ukrainian) which will be followed by a humiliating defeat ("zrada" in Ukrainian) which will have profound consequences for many decades to come and which will deeply reshape the current Orthodox world. In theory, these kinds of operations are supposed to implement the ancient principle of "divide and rule", but in the modern world what they really do is to further unite the Russian people against the Empire and, God willing, will unite the Orthodox people against pseudo-Orthodox bishops.

Conclusion:

In this analysis I have had to describe a lot of, shall we say, "less than inspiring" realities about the Orthodox Church and I don't want to give the impression that the Church of Christ is as clueless and impotent as all those denominations, which, over the centuries have fallen away from the Church. Yes, our times are difficult and tragic, but the Church has not lost her "salt". So what I want to do in lieu of a personal conclusion is to quote one of the most enlightened and distinguished theologians of our time, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos , who in his book "<A title="https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Orthodox-Church-Hierotheos/dp/9607070399/" onclick="trackOutboundLink('https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Orthodox-Church-Hierotheos/dp/9607070399/?tag=unco037-20');" href="https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Orthodox-Church-Hierotheos/dp/9607070399/?tag=unco037-20" '="">The Mind of the Orthodox Church" (which I consider one of the best books available in English about the Orthodox Church and a "must read" for anybody interested in Orthodox ecclesiology) wrote the following words:

Saint Maximos the Confessor says that, while Christians are divided into categories according to age and race, nationalities, languages, places and ways of life, studies and characteristics, and are "distinct from one another and vastly different, all being born into the Church and reborn and recreated through it in the Spirit" nevertheless "it bestows equally on all the gift of one divine form and designation, to be Christ's and to bear His Name. And Saint Basil the Great, referring to the unity of the Church says characteristically: "The Church of Christ is one, even tough He is called upon from different places". These passages, and especially the life of the Church, do away with every nationalistic tendency. It is not, of course, nations and homelands that are abolished, but nationalism, which is a heresy and a great danger to the Church of Christ.

Metropolitan Hierotheos is absolutely correct. Nationalism, which itself is a pure product of West European secularism, is one of the most dangerous threats facing the Church today. During the 20 th century it has already cost the lives of millions of pious and faithful Christians (having said that, this in no way implies that the kind of suicidal multiculturalism advocated by the degenerate leaders of the AngloZionist Empire today is any better!). And this is hardly a "Ukrainian" problem (the Moscow Patriarchate is also deeply infected by the deadly virus of nationalism). Nationalism and ethno-phyletism are hardly worse than such heresies as Iconoclasm or Monophysitism/Monothelitism were in the past and those were eventually defeated. Like all heresies, nationalism will never prevail against the " Church of the living God " which is the " the pillar and ground of the truth " (1 Tim 3:15) and while many may lapse, others never will.

In the meantime, the next couple of months will be absolutely crucial. Right now it appears to me that the majority of the Orthodox Churches will first try to remain neutral but will have to eventually side with the Moscow Patriarchate and against the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew. Ironically, the situation inside the USA will most likely be particularly chaotic as the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA have divided loyalties and are often split along conservative vs modernizing lines. The other place to keep a close eye on will be the monasteries on the Holy Mountain were I expect a major crisis and confrontation to erupt.

With the crisis in the Ukraine the heresy of nationalism has reached a new level of infamy and there will most certainly be a very strong reaction to it. The Empire clearly has no idea what kind of dynamic it has now set in motion.

Sai Baba Sufi , says: October 19, 2018 at 7:25 am GMT

Same problem with Muslim Ummah. Are we Persian Muslims/Turkish Muslims/Malay Muslims/Arab Muslims/Kazakh Muslims or just Muslims as One entity?

Accepting The "One" means dilution of the "Many" and accepting the "many" means dilution of the "one". Man can never escape dialectics or at least strike a right balance except by the grace of God.

Sergey Krieger , says: October 19, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT
Religion is opium for masses. Whom Sacker is kidding? Those попы care for nothing but power , influence and money. Church as a whole has nothing to do with highest power if that power is actually exist. They are mere humans who pull the wool in front of people's eyes. They are also anything but austere. Check Patriarch Kirill watches and cars. They do not need Empire to start bikering among themselves for said power and money.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website October 19, 2018 at 11:07 am GMT
Nationalism, which itself is a pure product of West European secularism, is one of the most dangerous threats facing the Church today

On the other hand, Christianity, a product of effete idealism, is one of the most dangerous threats to the survival of the West. Christianity works hand-in-glove with our stinking governments, providing the moral and spiritual authority for the mass immigration and Islamization which are destroying Western nations. Christianity could have allied itself with the people but it chose, instead, to betray us. It is the enemy of the white race. To the Church, nationalism is a threat. To whites, nationalism is our saviour.

Anonymous [346] Disclaimer , says: October 19, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
Ultimately the cause of this split of the Orthodox Church is Satan. And of course Satan's loyal servants running the AngloZionist Empire. Catholic writer E. Michael Jones does a great job explaining the real forces at play in the modern world (in his books and talks- see video below).

Btw, to all the pagan atheist commenters, take a bow. The oligarchs of the AngloZionist Empire applaud you. They need you useful idiots to further destroy and divide Christian civilization. You've swallowed their Darwinian atheistic bullshit hook, line & sinker. https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Fables-Darwinism-Materialism-other/dp/1980698627/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1539952267&sr=8-7&keywords=E+Michael+jones

Anonymous [346] Disclaimer , says: October 19, 2018 at 12:40 pm GMT
More E. Michael Jones. Good stuff.
War for Blair Mountain , says: October 19, 2018 at 12:51 pm GMT
The Catholic Pope is obviously a filthy, stinking, homosexual pig-as are his Cardinals. I was born and raised Irish Catholic. Catholic Schools all the way. The Protestant Churches no better. Deep South Evangelical Christianity is a Cargo Cult that worships a Jewish State.
Giuseppe , says: October 19, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT

As for the Papal Calendar itself, the innovators "piously" re-branded it as "improved Julian" and other such euphemism to conceal the real intention behind this.

Russia finally changed to use of the Julian calendar to be in line with the European practice (alas, too late) just as Europe was changing from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. If the ROC places such importance on the calendar, why won't it revert to following the calendar in use prior to Peter I's reforms of 1700, the year he forced the Julian calendar on Russia (with not even one full month's notice)?

War for Blair Mountain , says: October 19, 2018 at 2:18 pm GMT
Another reason to hate the Catholic Church:The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon .

Pompeo the Cockroach .as it .(Mike Pompeo is an it, as is that other well known BLATARIA .Hillary Clinton) .is known to the residents of Satan's filthy stinking reeking toilet bowl waaaaaaaaay down in putrid HELL!!!!!!!

Don't mind the split infinitive they are really quite alright .only a girly boy grammar NAZI!!! would shriek about it ..

nickels , says: October 19, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
Guitar masses in Cathedral of Christ the Saviour or bust.

On another note, while the historical claim to Ukraine by Moscow is not really at questions, the Ukrainians certainly had cause to turn to Germany in WWII, given that the alternative was the Reds. Their side of this tale is always painted as neo-facism, which their actions in 2014 certainly did not help, but I do have to wonder about their story in this tale, independent of their horrific and despicable Western backers.

fitzhamilton , says: October 19, 2018 at 5:06 pm GMT
@Johnny Rottenborough Yeah. It's amazing how the West has survived almost two millennia of Christian domination. How did those effete Christians manage to convert the heathen tribes, turn back the Muslims, then colonize and convert over half the world? How did modern science and technology arise and evolve to such heights in a Christian context? Christians are such pansies, it's odd that so many of them have so many children.. How do they manage to prosper and survive? Inexplicable.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website October 19, 2018 at 5:35 pm GMT
@fitzhamilton fitzhamilton -- Yesterday's achievements are undeniable. Equally, today's betrayal is undeniable. At some point during the last century, Christianity turned against the white race.
FB , says: October 19, 2018 at 7:13 pm GMT
Wow what an amazing article the detail that Saker brings to this subject is breathtaking. I had to scramble for the dictionary to find out that 'Phyletism' or 'ethnophyletism' [from the Greek ethnos 'nation' and phyletismos 'tribalism'] is the conflation between Church and nation [sounds bad...]

'Monophysitism' the apparently wrong belief among some that 'Christ' has a single [mono] nature as opposed to the 'correct' interpretation of his divine and human duality [again, very bad...]

So I heaved a sigh of relief when the author noted that these and other heresies [such as iconoclasm...ie the breaking of icons] were eventually 'defeated' [WHEW]

And who could forget the Battle of the Calendars

'In the early 20th century the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Albania, Alexandria, Antioch, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Romania got together and, under the direct influence of powerful Masonic lodges, decided to adopt the Gregorian Papal Calendar (named after the 16th century Pope Gregory XIII).

I'm sure the Saker will be relieved to know that despite this temporary setback, the Julian Calendar [after Julius Ceasar] did eventually prevail as well being today the universal calendar of astronomy, science, the military, and software coding heck even GPS uses it see the Julian Day

[Once again, the forces of the Redeemer prevail]

And then of course we have the centuries of intrigue and betrayals all those treacherous 'robber councils' etc it is perhaps worth mentioning also the original such apostolic act of denial, and eventually repentance that of St Peter

All's well that ends well

A. -H. , says: October 20, 2018 at 2:11 am GMT

First, the petty ones: they range from the usual impotent knee-jerk reflex to do something, anything, to hurt Russia to pleasing of the Ukronazi emigrés in the USA and Canada.

That is true.

Canada : Celebrating Nazis Is Wrong. Period.

"On Sunday, April 22, on the eve of the G7 Summit in Toronto, Freeland hosted a brunch in her private home. In attendance that day were all the Foreign Ministers from the G7 countries, with a plus one in the form of Pavlo Klimkin, Foreign Minister of Ukraine. No, Ukraine is definitely not a member of the G7, but Freeland wanted Klimkin front and center to make sure he put the ongoing crisis in Ukraine at the top of the G7 Summit agenda.

That's all well and good, as a lit powder keg such as Ukraine in the middle of Europe, polarized between NATO and nuclear-armed Russia is certainly a global concern. Freeland has also never denied the fact that she is proud of her Ukrainian-Canadian roots."

"Eduard Dolinsky, director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee told the Times of Israel that this Nazi parade was "a scandalous event that should not be allowed to happen in Ukraine in which murderers of Jews and others are glorified."

Andrew Srulevitch, director of European Affairs at the Anti-Defamation league wrote on Twitter, "Ukrainian leaders need to condemn such marches, where Ukrainian extremists celebrate Ukrainian Nazi SS divisions (1st Galician), giving Nazi salutes in uniform in the middle of a major Ukrainian city."

http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/celebrating-nazis-is-wrong-period

FB , says: October 20, 2018 at 4:39 am GMT
@MeMyselfandI You must be new here our Potatohead Pete is still trying to figure out what day it is
Anonymous [346] Disclaimer , says: October 20, 2018 at 5:20 am GMT
@RadicalCenter

"Little bitch for the devil" would seem to describe Catholic priests these days, not ol' WBM.

Haha, you're so adorable. Such a loyal hasbara of the Christ-hating oligarchs pushing the anti-Catholic bullshit narrative. Prof. Philip Jenkins/Baylor U./John Jay College/et al. have done all kind of studies and analysis and have shown that the rates of sexual predation/predators is proportionally lower among Catholic clergy than in public education and even among Protestant denominations. But since these entities are loyal to the oligarchs and the AngloZionist Empire you'll never see them targeted with this kind of bullshit propaganda. Not that that matters to you, RadicalCenter. Now go off and post shit about how Assad is a monster who gasses his own people and the U.S. is in Syria only to fight ISIS.

Felix Keverich , says: October 20, 2018 at 8:26 am GMT
I'm from Russia and here is my prediction: there will be no "religious conflict" in the Ukraine. Instead, churches belonging to ROC will be one by one expropriated by Ukrainian regime. The locals are powerless bydlo , and will do as they are told. They would embrace Satanic church, if this is what the authorities told them to. Authority in the Ukraine is derived from violence, not faith.
SeekerofthePresence , says: October 20, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT
Somebody(s) in the State Dept, CIA, MI6, Mossad got to Bartholomew. Ultimate object in splitting Ukraine Church is to divide the country and bring it or most of it into NATO. This scheme is so diabolical as to be the work of Antichrist. Natoization of Ukraine could easily result in WWIII. God have mercy on us all. Спаси и сохрани.
Sarah Toga , says: October 21, 2018 at 12:34 am GMT
Interesting article – vital information! Can anyone possibly imagine the MSM or even so-called conservative outlets giving any degree of clear discussion of what is happening in the Orthodox Church? Personally, I think the real issue among denominations is learning and understanding the Biblical languages, translating to the modern tongues. The over-use of Latin (instead of Greek, Hebrew) led the Bishops of Rome to some regrettable mis-steps.

For Western Christians who care about the Holy Word, this site is encouraging for Christians who are disgusted with the cucks and diversity cultists taking over their denominations (i.e., Russell Moore in the SBC, etc): Faith and Heritage dot com

Wally , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:26 am GMT
@A. -H. LOL
This is how lying Jews & their neo-Marxist shills try to win all arguments. said: "Eduard Dolinsky, director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee told the Times of Israel that this Nazi parade was "a scandalous event that should not be allowed to happen in Ukraine in which murderers of Jews and others are glorified." Andrew Srulevitch, director of European Affairs at the Anti-Defamation league wrote on Twitter, "Ukrainian leaders need to condemn such marches, where Ukrainian extremists celebrate Ukrainian Nazi SS divisions (1st Galician), giving Nazi salutes in uniform in the middle of a major Ukrainian city." "

... ... ...

jilles dykstra , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:47 am GMT
" most Orthodox Churches are still used as pawns in purely political machinations "

Who is the pawn of whom is open for discussion. When reading these words I remember seeing Putin in an orthodox church, in a ceremony showing his respect for the church, not looking very happy. Religions have tremendous impacts, as we saw in 1979, when the Islam was able to drive away the USA's puppet shah from Iran. The USA is still fighting the consequences.

jilles dykstra , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:53 am GMT
@fitzhamilton See the explanation in Felipe Fernández-Armesto, 'Civilisations', London, 2000 And no relation with christianity.
jilles dykstra , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:56 am GMT
@A. -H. " as a lit powder keg such as Ukraine in the middle of Europe, polarized between NATO and nuclear-armed Russia "
Deliberately created by the EU, with NATO support, I suppose. Redundant organizations seek new goals.
Jeff Stryker , says: October 21, 2018 at 10:47 am GMT
@jilles dykstra They rang Putin up and asked if he could please invade Ukraine to give them an excuse for tax payers. Weirdly enough, Ukraine was Clinton's obsession and not Trump's. She became particularly obsessed with Russians, for some reason, following the election.
Epigon , says: October 21, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
@byrresheim If Russians are to be blamed for Holodomor, who is to be blamed for Red Terror and 1921-1922 Russia famine, which was worse than Holodomor?
Anon [132] Disclaimer , says: October 21, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
@Seraphim Christianity is universalist/globalist according to the L' Internationale Jew who started it.

• Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . Matthew 28:19
• Proclaimed in his name to all nations . Luke 24:47
• For Jewgod so loved the whole universe [kosmos] that the universe [kosmos] might be saved through Jewgod. John 3:16-17

Tribalism is close-family nationalism. Natal, the root word of nation, means related by birth. If you're against people liking to associate politically their birth-related kin, you're bellyaching at the wrong website.

jacques sheete , says: October 21, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Those попы care for nothing but power , influence and money.

Funny how people get all bound up in arcana when that's really what's always going on.

Anonymous [365] Disclaimer , says: October 21, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain You ask, "Why does the Working Class Native Born White American population of the American South worship Israel and Jews in general?"

Because the book they're carrying into church today and pounding into their kids' heads states:

• John 4:22 " We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews ."
• Acts 3:25 "He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.'"
• Romans 1:16 "The Jew first."
• Romans 9:4 "The people of Israel, chosen."
• Romans 15:27 "For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings."
• Philippians 3:3 "For it is we [Christians] who are the Circumcision."
• Philippians 3:20 "But our citizenship is in Jewheaven." (which is the Israeli capital city Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2)

Yet some of these Jew-worhipers still have the chutzpah to allege that "there is no "Judeo-Christianity," apparently because the exact terminology judeo-christian isn't found in the Jew Testament. Believing that only a Jewish Rabbi can save a white man from being a bad, bad boy worthy of a roasting in hell by a Jewgod has consequences.

Jeff Stryker , says: October 21, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
@jacques sheete Islam would have spread to Europe if Christianity had not been around.
Robjil , says: October 21, 2018 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker Nuland is the one who rang up and asked if the US could please invade Ukraine with Banderite genocidal crazies. Nuland's taking of Ukraine with a few bags of cookies was the greatest bargain since the Native Americans sold Manhattan for trinkets, worth 24$, to Dutch. A few decades later, the Dutch themselves made a huge mistake by giving away New York to the British.

Here is the video of Ms. Nuland's call, that may lead to WIII. Is she a new Helen of Troy that launched a thousand ships. She also states the lovely phrase F ** k the EU at the end of the coup talk. Lovely century we live in. Where is the peace and love that we were promised in 1960s, 1970s?

Abdul Alhazred , says: October 21, 2018 at 5:53 pm GMT
Unfortunately Saker's attack upon the Filioque plays right into the hands of the oligarchy's drive to destroy mankind by denying man's abilities and potential as a being made in the image of God.

It is Lyndon LaRouche and associates who correctly identify the Filioque as essential in the flowering of the Renaissance and the rise of the Nation-State, of that Platonic Christian Republican revival based upon the dignity of humanity.

Here is a short on the Filioque Doctrine:

https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1990/eirv17n40-19901019/eirv17n40-19901019_032-the_filioque_doctrine.pdf

A book review on why the Eastern Churches deny the Filioque, to which the question might be asked- Is the Saker an adherent to the Moscow as the Third Rome prophecy?

https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1983/eirv10n36-19830920/eirv10n36-19830920_049-why_the_eastern_rites_reject_the.pdf

The following essay situates the Filioque as relevant to the defense of Christianity, of Western Civilization in struggles similar to what we are experiencing today, as basically the same operations are being run.

https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1990/eirv17n40-19901019/eirv17n40-19901019_030-black_legend_hides_the_truth_abo.pdf

Anon [132] Disclaimer , says: October 21, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT

Metropolitan Hierotheos is absolutely correct. Nationalism, which itself is a pure product of West European secularism,

Its not. Christianity is't even 2,000 year old, and has as its core a foreign mythology (hence its gravity toward anti-nationalism). Nationalism is as old as civilization.

is one of the most dangerous threats facing the Church today.

So? Who said that the Church takes precedent over civilization and tribe? Who says that is the greater good?

From where I sit, our nations are now moral and demographic hellholes and the Church played no small role in opening the door to that situation. Where is the Church's evidence of a net good outcome?

If the Church wanted to assure its survival, then it needed to facilitate holiness on Earth via promulgation of a morality that successfully defended that state of man.

At the moment, we have the opposite of that and that isn't because we didn't or don't have enough Church. The pre-Christians would have never allowed things to progress to this state out of spiritual pressure to be weak in the face of those who hate us and are incompatible with civilization.That path was the path of the Church.

During the 20th century it has already cost the lives of millions of pious and faithful Christians

Okay, Jew-commie apologist. Laying the results of the 20th century on those that rose to defend the world from who you cite below both insults the intelligence of your readers and reduces the integrity of your total argument.

(having said that, this in no way implies that the kind of suicidal multiculturalism advocated by the degenerate leaders of the AngloZionist Empire today is any better!).

You will have one or the other. No middle ground is possible. If you say its possible and reduce nationalism but fail to defend against the communists, then you are their tool. Also, I don't see any visible Anglo power. Only Jewish power.

And this is hardly a "Ukrainian" problem (the Moscow Patriarchate is also deeply infected by the deadly virus of nationalism).

You've yet to describe how nationalism is a deadly virus. In response to my claim, I suspect another round of vague logic and accusations that omit history.

Like all heresies, nationalism will never prevail against the "Church of the living God"

It seems misplaced for the Church to outlaw a specific political stance when it provides no defense against (and even facilitates) its antipode. If the church involves itself in life and death politics, then it must accept the consequences. Period. It would better serve God and the nations by remaining neutral. That it has not done that, an fights more zealously against nationalism, reveals its actual use.

Second, you have no idea what the words mean that you use. You put on the air of a knowledgeable armchair theologian, but have restricted yourself to Christian dogma and myth that has always used occluded language. You have no idea what the phrase "living God" means. You take florid sounding language and use it as a rhetorical device. What I know about the "living god" is that he dies as a matter of course. This occurs after his maturity. You will see this again, the unholy growth will stop, and holiness will return to the world.

which is the "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and while many may lapse, others never will.

"Never" isn't an oft used concept in Christianity. In fact, the Bible is a tale of cycles. While your current political ideology is moral and spiritual poison, perhaps you can be saved and so I'm kindly warning you to be prepared for them.

Cyrano , says: October 21, 2018 at 6:15 pm GMT
Whoever said that religion is opium for the masses was onto something. Although, the Ukrainians looked intoxicated even without this latest controversy over religion. They believe that the west is in love with them. Let me clear something for them: The west (its elites) are not in the business of love. They are in the business of using people. The western elites don't love even their own people, let alone the Ukrainians.

This is the current school of "thought" of the western elites: To love your own kind is racist. To pretend to love every other kind is pinnacle of humanism. Or as I like to call it – degeneracy.

The truth is, the western elites don't love anybody except themselves They are just too stupid to realize that they are unsustainable by themselves. If they destroy their base of people like them – they are done. All their money wouldn't be able to buy them a ticket on the newest Elon Musk rocket headed to another inhabitable planet and away from the wretched earth that they in their stupidity destroyed.

Anon [260] Disclaimer , says: October 21, 2018 at 9:38 pm GMT
@Art That's a flowery synopsis of Christianity that, while popular among Jew-worshipers, doesn't square with what the Jewsus character actually said.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

Ludgwig von Mises summed up Christianity much more accurately.

[Jesus] rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties . The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration and enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything may be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order . The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad.

(Socialism, p. 413)

Think Peace? You got Jesus wrong, and he explicitly stated so.


[Oct 21, 2018] Bolton is a certified retard if he thinks he will bankrupt Russia with an arms race

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill October 19, 2018 at 2:40 pm

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-19/bolton-pushes-trump-drop-1987-treaty-after-russia-unveils-advanced-nukes

Bolton pushes for the US to break out of the 1987 INF Treaty. Not surprising considering that all those ABM components they are deploying around Russia are dual use and violate the INF. The INF is also a joke (showing us what a comprador Gorby was) since it allows the US to deploy unlimited range nuclear missiles in its Naval assets. So Russia cannot have any land based intermediate range nukes, but the US can park its ships in EU harbours and deploy unlimited amounts of the "banned" class of missiles.

I say let the US break the INF. The INF helps the USA and its NATzO minions more than it helps Russia.

Patient Observer October 20, 2018 at 9:05 am
There may be several motivations for Bolton
– an attempt to force Russia into a ruinously expensive arms race;
– to create a regional Cold War to reverse the nascent rapprochement between Western Europe and Russia;
– an attempt to limit war to the European/Russian region as much as possible if a war against Russia is needed by the US.

Bolton is an idiot carrying out a moron's strategy. What could go wrong?

kirill October 20, 2018 at 2:46 pm
Bolton is a certified retard if he thinks he will bankrupt Russia with an arms race.

1) I find the theory that the USSR couldn't afford the 1970-80s arms race and went bankrupt to be of zero credibility. The USSR was a command economy and various estimates of how much it allegedly spent on the economy to be ridiculous western attempts to impose their capitalist accounting on a command economy.

The USSR collapsed due to internal political rot and not some "budget deficit" which was meaningless in command economics and never exiting in reality anyway. The only valid metrics of deficits in command economies if there are labour shortages in various industries.

The USSR had more than enough engineers, researchers, workers and material resources to keep up with the arms race.

This is why command economics is vastly superior to capitalist profiteering. Capitalism only triumphs because humans are genetically deficient to live optimally under a command economy since they need all sorts of superfluous incentives and feel-good junk.

2) Nuclear weapons are the cheapest option out of all military costs. Tanks, ships and armed troops are much more expensive. In the current rocket era, these expensive options are outdated and much less potent. Russia can neutralize any US move by deploying appropriately designed missiles and warheads.

[Oct 21, 2018] Let's play Global Thermonuclear War

See also Trump To Pull U.S. Out Of 1987 Nuclear Weapons Treaty With Russia ":
"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement," Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. "We're going to terminate the agreement."
Oct 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

gnjus , 3 hours ago link

War Games (1983)

- Shell me play a game ?

-- Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?

- Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?

-- Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

[Oct 21, 2018] Let's play Global Thermonuclear War

See also Trump To Pull U.S. Out Of 1987 Nuclear Weapons Treaty With Russia ":
"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement," Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. "We're going to terminate the agreement."
Oct 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

gnjus , 3 hours ago link

War Games (1983)

- Shell me play a game ?

-- Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?

- Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?

-- Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

[Oct 21, 2018] Live Putin attends Valdai Club plenary session

Oct 21, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends the 15th Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi on Thursday, October 18.

The Valdai Discussion Club, established in 2004, has become an internationally recognised platform for interaction between leading world experts and Russian scholars, politicians and government officials.

[Oct 21, 2018] Putin lays down the law to the Davos crowd at this year's Valdai conference: There is a limit to your provocations and attempts to undermine Russia. So don't cross that line

Notable quotes:
"... The Davos Crowd ..."
"... It's not that Putin's stance was any different than in the past. Russia will strike back at an aggressor under any circumstance where the future of Russia is at stake. It was his assurance that in doing so 1) it would be just and righteous "dying like martyrs" and 2) so swift and brutal the aggressors would "die like dogs" bereft of the chance to ask for salvation. ..."
"... Notice how there have been no attacks or even harsh language coming out of Israel or the U.S. in the past few weeks. The failure of the British/French/Israeli operation to sucker Trump into an invasion of Syria is now complete. ..."
"... Putin wasn't boasting or grandstanding about Russia's hypersonic weapons capability. He told everyone they are deployed. He did this to shut up the U.S. neoconservative chattering class who he rightly says whisper in President Trump's ear that they can win a nuclear conflict with Russia. ..."
"... They are insane. And you have to treat them that way. ..."
Oct 21, 2018 | www.sott.net

Every year Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the Valdai Economic Forum. And each year his talk is important. Putin isn't one to mince words on important issues.

With tensions between Russia and the West reaching Cold War levels, Valdai represented the first time we've heard Putin speak in a long-form discussion since Helsinki and the events thereafter - IL-20, Khashoggi, etc.

So, this talk is worth everyone's time. And when I say everyone's I mean every single person who could be affected by the breakdown of the U.S. political system and how that spills over onto Russia's shores.

In other words, pretty much everyone on the planet.

Because what Putin did at Valdai was to lay down the new rules of conduct in geopolitical affairs. He put the U.S. and European oligarchs I call The Davos Crowd on notice.

There is a limit to your provocations and attempts to undermine Russia. So don't cross that line.

Peace Through Strength

The big quote from his talk is the one everyone is focusing on, and rightly so, Russia's policy about using nuclear weapons.

It's not that Putin's stance was any different than in the past. Russia will strike back at an aggressor under any circumstance where the future of Russia is at stake. It was his assurance that in doing so 1) it would be just and righteous "dying like martyrs" and 2) so swift and brutal the aggressors would "die like dogs" bereft of the chance to ask for salvation.


Those are strong words. They are the words of a meek man. And the word meek, as Jordan Peterson reminds us, describes someone who has weapons, knows how to use them and keeps them sheathed until they have no other option.

The reaction from the audience (see video above) was nervous laughter, but I don't think Putin was having one over on anyone.

He was serious. This is the very definition of meek.

It is really no different than the attitude of Secretary of Defense James Mattis who said, "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f$*k with me, I'll kill you all."

Men like this are not to be tested too hard. And Putin's response to the shooting down of the IL-20 plane and its crew was to cross a bunch of diplomatic lines by handing out S-300s to Syria and erecting a de facto no-fly zone over Western Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Notice how there have been no attacks or even harsh language coming out of Israel or the U.S. in the past few weeks. The failure of the British/French/Israeli operation to sucker Trump into an invasion of Syria is now complete.

And I'm convinced that Nikki Haley paid the price.

All of this highlights the major theme that came out of Putin's comments.

Strength through resolve. Resolve comes as a consequence of defending culture.

Putin wasn't boasting or grandstanding about Russia's hypersonic weapons capability. He told everyone they are deployed. He did this to shut up the U.S. neoconservative chattering class who he rightly says whisper in President Trump's ear that they can win a nuclear conflict with Russia.

They are insane. And you have to treat them that way.

Culture First

Putin sees himself, quite rightly, as the custodian of the Russian people and, as such, the Russian state as the reflection of Russian culture. If you are going to have a state and someone is going to be the head of it, this is the attitude that you want from that person.

In his dialogue with an Orthodox priest Putin wholeheartedly agreed with the idea that "the state cannot dictate culture" but rather, at best, be the facilitator of it through its applications of law.

In a back and forth with a very enthusiastic Russian dairy farmer, who was quite proud of his cheese, Putin reminded the man that while he loved sanctions (from European competition) protecting his business today he should not get used to them. They will be removed at some point and the farmer would have to stand on his own wits to survive in the international market.

Putin understands that subsidies breed sloth. That was a message he made loud and clear.

It's why when the sanctions first went into effect in 2014 over the reunification of Crimea and during the Ruble crisis Putin shifted state subsidies away from the petroleum sector which had thrived and gotten soft during years of $100+/bbl oil and shifted that money to agriculture.

The fruits of that successful policy shift he confronted head on at Valdai. Russia's food production across all sectors is flourishing thanks to a cheap ruble, which the U.S. keeps beating down via sanctions, and the Russian state getting out of the way of investment.

At the time he incurred the wrath of Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin and Putin ignored him, much to everyone's surprise. The message was clear, we'll help you out of your current troubles but it's time to do business differently. Because it was Rosneft that needed the biggest bailouts in late 2014/early 2015 having tens of billions in dollar-denominated debt which couldn't be rolled over thanks to the sanctions.

The Limits of Empire

Ultimately, Putin looked resigned, if confused, to the insanity emanating from U.S. policy. But it's obvious to him that Russia cannot get caught up in the tit-for-tat nuisances put up to derail Russia's future.

He mentioned the Empire loses its way because it believed itself invulnerable or as my dad used to say about certain athletes, "He reads his own press clippings too much."

There is a solipsism that infects dominant societies which creates the kind of over-reactions we're witnessing today. Power is slipping away from the U.S. and Trump is both helping the process along while also trying to preserve the core of what's left.

And no interaction during Putin's talk was more indicative of his view of the U.S. empire than his interaction with a Japanese delegate who asked him about signing a peace treaty with Japan.

And Putin's answer was clear. It's Japan's pride and political entanglements that preclude this from happening. Signing the peace treaty is not necessary to solving ownership of the Kuril Islands. Russia and Japan are both diminished by having this obstacle in the way.

The issue can resolve itself after the peace treaty is signed. The current state of things is silly and anachronistic and keep the divide between Russians and Japanese from healing. Create trust through agreement then move forward.

That's what is happening between Russia and Egypt and that is why Putin is winning the diplomatic war.

And it's why Trump is losing the diplomatic war. Putin knows where Trump is. He was there himself seventeen years ago, except an order of magnitude worse. The problems Trump is facing are the same problems Putin faced, corruption, venality, treason all contributing to a collapse in societal and cultural institutions.

Putin knows the U.S. is at a crossroads, and he's made his peace with whatever comes next. The question is have we?

[Oct 21, 2018] The basic plans of nuclear war today are essentially the same as those developed in the 1960s, which is essentially a system of thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at Russian cities and military targets ready to be launched at a moment's notice. The US strategy has always been for a first strike

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star October 13, 2018 at 12:34 pm

"The basic plans of nuclear war today are essentially the same as those developed in the 1960s, which is essentially a system of thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at Russian cities and military targets ready to be launched at a moment's notice.
The US strategy has always been for a first strike: not necessarily a surprise attack but not an attack which came "second" in a nuclear war.
Every US president, all the way to Trump, has used the threat of nuclear war as deterrence to their adversaries.
The US threat of nuclear attack has precluded any "effective nonproliferation campaign" among other nation-states which have decided to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
US nuclear war plans, and the hypothetical and real scenarios under which they unfold, are far more extensive than the public can imagine. Ellsberg writes how the public perception of a "nuclear button" with one finger on it, presumably the President's, is a lie. In fact, there are many fingers on many buttons, to delegate authority to launch nuclear missiles in case the President and the leadership were incapacitated. These same systems exist in Russia, and probably other nuclear-armed powers as well.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was even more dangerous than previously thought, as demonstrated in a highly classified study in 1964 which was never made public until this book.
The strategic nuclear war systems are much more prone to "accidents" and false alarms than previously thought, risking the threat of unauthorized launchings.
The potential risk of nuclear war has been systematically covered up from the public, including the aforementioned graph showing hundreds of millions of deaths, a third of the planet at the time. Ellsberg notes that in 1961 when the document was made, it was two decades before the concept of nuclear winter and nuclear famine were accepted, which meant that in reality most humans would die along with most other large species after a nuclear war."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/doom-o13.html

[Oct 21, 2018] A non-nuclear war between Russia and USA/NATO waged in Western Europe is impossible

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star October 20, 2018 at 12:33 pm

Nuclear war between NATO/USA and Russia:
We are no longer in Kansas matter of fact there ain't any Kansas:
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/19/17873822/nuclear-war-weapons-bombs-how-kill

As for a non-nuclear war between Russia and USA/NATO waged in Western Europe.
@PO and Mark and other stooges

I don't see how one is possible. Unless Scotty et al with working teleporter equipment are able to teleport NATO armor and troops into Russia , their columns moving through Belarus ,Ukraine and Poland would be massacred. There wouldn't be much left by the time they got to the Russian frontier. where waiting Russian armor and artillery would have all routes of approach thoroughly zeroed in and sighted. Not to mention waves of Iskander and cruise missile strikes together with attacks from Russian aircraft . The NATO forces would almost certainly not have the crucial element of air superiority thanks to Russian S-400 systems.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-deadly-su-27-the-plane-terrifies-nato-buzzes-its-25642
"The Iskander is not a strategic weapon -- it's a tactical ballistic missile. During combat operations, it would be used to destroy both stationary and moving targets. Targets would range from surface-to-air missile batteries, enemy short-range missiles, airfields, ports, command and communication centers, factories and other hardened targets."
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-russias-iskander-missile-killer-26216

The Russians wouldn't have to actually DO anything on the offensive other than to show up at the signing of the surrender document by Stoltenberg, Merkel ,Morawiecki ,May and Bolton.
(France capitulated within 72 hours of the start of hostilities )
I just don't see a NATO conventional attack on Russia as even remotely feasible.
Just my opinion .

Mark Chapman October 20, 2018 at 12:47 pm
Well, the way it is supposed to work, you don't start at Day One with your forces deep inside enemy territory. You start on your own side, and one attacks the other and each tries to prevent penetration by the other (if you'll forgive such an image) while achieving penetration into enemy territory himself, usually only seizing territory which follow-up forces are available to hold, so as not to be encircled and wiped out. It is demonstrably quite possible for huge amounts of US forces and armor to be assembled in England and the Netherlands and France and so forth, because it has already been done once on that scale. Likewise, Russia would not start out with troops in any of those countries.

Missiles are dandy for wiping out enemy forces at the touch of a button, but you still have to seize that territory, once vacated, and prevent the enemy from simply flowing into the vacuum and re-taking it. That sort of doctrine is pretty much like the US vision of air superiority, where the USAF would simply fly over and bomb the shit out of everything, no troops required. That's how it was supposed to go in Iraq, except it didn't. Fortunately, I guess, because otherwise the phrase "Boots on the ground" might never have been coined, and then what would journalists say when they wanted to appear salty and battle-jaded?

A conventional attack on Russia is not preferred – let's just get that up front. But I don't see any other way for the west to have a war with Russia (and it has run out of ways short of war to assert its control) without it going nuclear. And Washington is not quite that crazy yet. It still wants Europe to be around afterward to be a consumer of American goods and services.

[Oct 21, 2018] Bolton is a certified retard if he thinks he will bankrupt Russia with an arms race

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill October 19, 2018 at 2:40 pm

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-19/bolton-pushes-trump-drop-1987-treaty-after-russia-unveils-advanced-nukes

Bolton pushes for the US to break out of the 1987 INF Treaty. Not surprising considering that all those ABM components they are deploying around Russia are dual use and violate the INF. The INF is also a joke (showing us what a comprador Gorby was) since it allows the US to deploy unlimited range nuclear missiles in its Naval assets. So Russia cannot have any land based intermediate range nukes, but the US can park its ships in EU harbours and deploy unlimited amounts of the "banned" class of missiles.

I say let the US break the INF. The INF helps the USA and its NATzO minions more than it helps Russia.

Patient Observer October 20, 2018 at 9:05 am
There may be several motivations for Bolton
– an attempt to force Russia into a ruinously expensive arms race;
– to create a regional Cold War to reverse the nascent rapprochement between Western Europe and Russia;
– an attempt to limit war to the European/Russian region as much as possible if a war against Russia is needed by the US.

Bolton is an idiot carrying out a moron's strategy. What could go wrong?

kirill October 20, 2018 at 2:46 pm
Bolton is a certified retard if he thinks he will bankrupt Russia with an arms race.

1) I find the theory that the USSR couldn't afford the 1970-80s arms race and went bankrupt to be of zero credibility. The USSR was a command economy and various estimates of how much it allegedly spent on the economy to be ridiculous western attempts to impose their capitalist accounting on a command economy.

The USSR collapsed due to internal political rot and not some "budget deficit" which was meaningless in command economics and never exiting in reality anyway. The only valid metrics of deficits in command economies if there are labour shortages in various industries.

The USSR had more than enough engineers, researchers, workers and material resources to keep up with the arms race.

This is why command economics is vastly superior to capitalist profiteering. Capitalism only triumphs because humans are genetically deficient to live optimally under a command economy since they need all sorts of superfluous incentives and feel-good junk.

2) Nuclear weapons are the cheapest option out of all military costs. Tanks, ships and armed troops are much more expensive. In the current rocket era, these expensive options are outdated and much less potent. Russia can neutralize any US move by deploying appropriately designed missiles and warheads.

[Oct 21, 2018] Jack Keane doesn t know that the Al as-Saud ARE the Wahhabis

Notable quotes:
"... citation needed ..."
"... citation needed ..."
"... wilayet al faqih ..."
Oct 19, 2018 | www.sott.net
"Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab had concluded a formal agreement in 1744: according to one source, Muhammad ibn Saud had declared when they first met,

"This oasis is yours, do not fear your enemies. By the name of God, if all Nejd was summoned to throw you out, we will never agree to expel you." Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab replied, "You are the settlement's chief and wise man. I want you to grant me an oath that you will struggle with me against the unbelievers. In return you will be imam, leader of the Muslim community and I will be leader in religious matters."[12]

Ibn Saud accordingly gave his oath.[12] The descendants of Muhammad ibn Saud, the Al Saud, continued to be the political leaders of the Saudi state in central Arabia through the 19th and into the 20th centuries, and eventually created the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.[9] The descendants of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, on the other hand, have historically led the ulema, the body of Islamic religious leaders and scholars,[13] and dominated the Saudi state's clerical institutions.[14]

The agreement between Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad ibn Saud of 1744 became a "mutual support pact" and power-sharing arrangement between the Al Saud and the Al ash-Sheikh, which has remained in place for nearly 300 years.[15][16][17][18] The pact between the two families, which continues to this day,[citation needed] is based on the Al Saud maintaining the Al ash-Sheikh's authority in religious matters and upholding and propagating the Wahhabi doctrine. In return, the Al ash-Sheikh support the Al Saud's political authority [19] thereby using its religious-moral authority to legitimize the royal family's rule.[20] In fact, each legitimizes the other.[citation needed]This alliance formed in the 18th century provided the ideological impetus to Saudi expansion and remains the basis of Saudi Arabian dynastic rule today. [21] wiki on Wahhabism

-------------

General (ret) Jack Keane Fox News' "Senior Strategic Analyst" said on the air yesterday that the Saudi government "needs to distance itself from the Wahhabis." this statement displayed a breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding of Saudi history and actual religiopolitics.

A few thoughts:

1. Islam as an idea system does not recognize the legitimacy of secular rule. Most majority Islamic countries have secular government of some sort. These governments are the result of exposure to Western political thought through colonial experiences or prolonged exposure to such thought by education in Europe or America. That admixture of ideas does not replace the ideal of theocracy in Salafi (purist) Islamic thought which continues to hold secular rule to be impious.

2. Islamic culture does not normally legitimize the concept of kingship. (malikiya) or rule by a sultan or shah (Iran). Islam as such seeks a worldwide Islamic community ruled by scholars and judges of the Islamic law (sharia). A sultan is someone who merely holds actual power to control land, population and territory. The term does not denote legitimacy from the Islamic point of view. Islamic history is dotted with individuals with title of secular rule who claimed Islamic legitimacy because they were also head of some dissident Islamic sect. An example would be the Sultan of Oman who protects the dissident and from the Sunni point of view heretical and apostate Ibadhi sect. The Jordanian and Moroccan kings are generally accepted as legitimate rulers only because they are believed to be Alids, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, and endowed with a special barakat (grace) from God. The Ottoman Sultan derived his supposed legitimacy from being both sultan and caliph (commanders of the faithful) The Ottomans created this dual status in the 16th Century CE precisely because they sought a plausible claim of Islamic legitimacy as head of the 'umma. The lack of a plausible claim to Islamic legitimacy was IMO the major weakness of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran This weakness made possible effective resistance to them that eventually resulted in the rule of the mullahs and wilayet al faqih (rule of the scholars).

3. The Al as-Saud (the Saudi royal family) have none of that. As stated in the text quoted above, their claim to Islamic legitimacy derives entirely from their 300 year old relationship with the Wahhabi cult. They and the Wahhabi 'ulema are locked in an embrace that has been until now utterly unbreakable because the general internal consent to their "kingship" is based altogether on the Al as-Saud's role as protectors of what has been seen among the Wahhabi masses as the only true form of Islam. They and the Al as-Sheikh family are a kind of moiety, a duopoly related by function and often marriage in the control of what became Saudi Arabia in the early 20th Century.

4. Saudi Arabia is a medieval state adorned with modern infrastructure. Their society never experienced anything like the Renaissance that brought Europe out of the medieval mindset. The Saudi rulers think the ideas of statehood that emerged following the Treaty of Westphalia to be a joke that the Europeans and Americans claim to believe in. They see the rest of the world, including non-Wahhabi Muslims as "the other," enemies to be thwarted, tricked ad exploited . The notion that they will be shamed by what Mister Bone Saw did is ludicrous.

5. IMO Trump, Pompeo et al are seeking a way to preserve the relationship of the US with this demoniacal relic of the medieval past. My WAG on this is that MBS and company will construct a suitable fall guy group from whom confessions will be extracted claiming them to be "rogues" and then the "conspirators will be executed, probably in public.

6. The Al as-Saud will then wait to see if the West is mollified. IMO they will not accept any form of punishment for what they see as just retribution visited upon Khashoggi. If threatened they will try to retaliate.

For those who would actually wish to understand all this I would recommend "The Social Structure of Islam" by Reuben Levy and "The Venture of Islam" 4 vols. by Marshall Hodgson. Both these works are concerned with the high culture of Islam.

pl

A.Trophimovsky -> TTG , 6 hours ago
Could not it be that this story was "performed" so as to provoke embarrassment on all those going to participate in the purchase of Aramco public offering, with the goal of capitalizing on their "non appearance", based on harsh criticism that would be provoked by public opinion, especially in Europe?

That way, those who have much lesser shame, or, simply, have never known it, could appropiate of a majority of shares...After all, are not these wars we witness since years ago mainly for oil resources?

Of course, at the same time, they achieve scaring their dissidents and critics to death....Two birds at one shot.....one would say....

Fred -> TTG , 16 hours ago
That cover story is unbelievably stupid. "So let it be written. So let it be done." It didn't work out too well for the Pharoh. We'll see Trump's principles in action soon; and sadly it looks like he'll go along with this pile from Prince m(ore)BS.
blue peacock , an hour ago
"IMO Trump, Pompeo et al are seeking a way to preserve the relationship of the US with this demoniacal relic of the medieval past."

Col. Lang, with Trump it seems he values the Saudi cash for business deals more than any moral stands. Of course business being primarily arms sales. He's talked about the $100 billion dollars of apparently forthcoming weapons sales. I suppose Bibi supporting his relationship with MbS makes it doubly simple and easy.

My question is would this have been any different if Hillary was POTUS or any of the crop of potential presidential candidates from Nikki Haley to Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and even Pocahontas?

George Bush did not take the al-Sauds to task for sending the majority of terrorists to attack us on 9/11. Neither did Obama when he had the opportunity. Nor Tony Blair, David Cameron or Theresa May. In fact Tony Blair is on the payroll of the Gulf Arabs to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually.

Patrick Armstrong , 8 hours ago
BTW what PL has said is hardly hermetic knowledge: anyone who opines on SA on the idiot box or idiot page should know it. Anyone who says Saud should move away from Wahhab has just disqualified himself. As PL says the Saud legitimacy that is not just bags of money is the alliance to restore Islam to its proper purity. Take that away and it's just Don Corleone without the kindness.

From the ur-source itself

"Muhammad bin Saud and Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab found they had interests in common, pre-eminently a desire to see all the Arabs of the Peninsula brought back to Islam in its simplest and purest form. In 1744, they therefore took an oath that they would work together to achieve this end. Muhammad bin Saud's son, Abdul Aziz, married the daughter of Imam Muhammad. Thus, with an oath and a marriage, the two leaders sealed a pact between their families which has lasted through the centuries to the present day."

http://saudinf.com/main/b22...

(in my last two years of employment I did a number of papers on the ideology of jihadism and that gets you pretty quickly to ibn Taymiyya, Qutb and Wahhab.) PS I have actually read Wahhab's book and you can too http://saudinf.com/main/b22...

FB Ali -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 hours ago
Islam in its "simplest and purest form" had no place in it for any royalty ruling over a subject population. The al Saud misused the Wahhabi movement to install themselves in power. The present Wahhabi creed is a travesty of the original Islam.

The Saudi royals' claim of being the "guardians of Islam and the Holy Places", and therefore deserving of a special place in the Muslim world, is only a cover for the real reason, their oil wealth (which they lavish on Muslim and other rulers, and use to spread their twisted Wahhabi creed).

Walrus , 14 hours ago
So for western consumption, the story is rogue element theatre. Erdogan is going to personally receive billions from KSA to suppress the tape and go along with it. Internally in KSA the story is "don't act up or you will get the same".

Privately the western diplomatic message is "don't do that again, we might act next time." .......and Kashoggi is forgotten in the next news cycle.

blue peacock -> Walrus , an hour ago
Privately the western diplomatic message is "don't get caught again." And please send us checks too!
Barbara Ann -> Walrus , 8 hours ago
Walrus

If it were not for the personality of Erdogan I would agree with you unconditionally. But I think there is still a chance that he could throw a hand grenade into the "let's all move on" narrative by releasing a tape. It comes down to whether he is, as you imply, simply another money-motivated political animal and/or whether he really does drink his own neo-Ottoman bath water. If he truly believes it is Turkey's manifest destiny to again lead the 'umma and to return custody of Mecca and Medina to its rightful place we could be in for a surprise. If it takes down Trump too, so much the better from his POV.

dilbert dogbet , 17 hours ago
In the long arc of history, the oil will run out. Also, in the long arc of technology Saudi oil may become better left in the ground. What then? What is going on in the Mid East is a mere blip on the screen of time. Yes in the long run we are all dead but not my grand children and their children.
PRC90 , 19 hours ago
Does Fightin' Jack Keane, General (ret) and Senior Strategic Analyst actually believe that gunk after his decades of service and countless briefings, or is he just making up stuff to say that fits in with what Fox wants to pay him to put on the screen.

After all, not reading the script never works:

Pat Lang Mod -> PRC90 , 19 hours ago
He is a dumbbell who was always good at sucking up.
piroozp , 19 hours ago
Outstanding cliff's notes on the Saudi regime and Arab modus operandi and approach to governance .
exSpec4Chuck , 21 hours ago
Assuming the the scenario you predict plays out, how will MBS & Co. mollify the families of the newly headless "rogues?"
Pat Lang Mod -> exSpec4Chuck , 21 hours ago
They will pay them off. My scenario is already playing out. See the arrest of the hideous 18.
Barbara Ann , a day ago
Sir, thank you for another very educational post. Doubtless you are correct that an attempt will be made to saddle 'rogue elements' of some sort with this. Will it work?

The dynamic is fascinating; Saudi arrogance and intransigence meets Art of the Deal plus a largely partisan media plus the Borg* happy to use anything to get at Trump. And in the middle Erdogan is holding the ace card close to his chest. No wonder Trump wants to hear/see the evidence they have. Until he does he cannot firmly back any concocted story in case the Turks later blow it out of the water by releasing evidence that it is phony.

By using personnel from his own bodyguard MbS has another dilemma. I doubt their sacrifice would go down well with their comrades - the very people keeping MbS safe. And the notion of Saudi retaliation is an extraordinary one. If Congress is split on the affair now I can see that changing very rapidly for the worse (from MbS POV) if they decide to get medieval on the US of A. Albeit, as you suggest, this may be the in-character response we can expect.

Most events are run of the mill and a very few have the capacity to define eras. This one more and more looks to be in the latter category to me.

* see my last comment on TTG's post.

Pat Lang Mod -> Barbara Ann , a day ago
The Borg is the foreign policy establishment, not the Deep State. Other than that ...
robt willmann , a day ago
The Saudi "family" might be having some internal discussions about how Mohammed bin Salman has been playing his cards--

http://www.lefigaro.fr/inte...

Perhaps Khalid bin Salman (a brother), who has been the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., is being considered as a "new face".

FB Ali -> robt willmann , 16 hours ago
I doubt very much that MbS will be replaced. He has made sure that his father, the Sultan, is sufficiently isolated from outside influence. In any case, the old man is quite far gone with dementia, and MbS is the ruler in all but name. He has left no rivals standing.
Philippe Truze -> robt willmann , 10 hours ago
Groupe Dassault owns Le Figaro. And Dassault is not totally neutral (euphemism) when Arab kingdoms are concerned.

[Oct 21, 2018] Russian Deputy FM Ludicrous 'meddling' charges an excuse for more sanctions and to play 'Russia card' ahead of midterm elections

Oct 21, 2018 | www.sott.net

Washington is concocting ludicrous charges against a Russian national for alleged election meddling merely to find reasons for new sanctions and to play the 'Russia card' ahead of the midterms, a top Kremlin official has warned.

The US is bringing up "ludicrous accusations" with a "laughable 'body of proof'" simply to slap Moscow with a new round of sanctions, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in a statement on Saturday. He added that "certain" US politicians hope to use charges against Russia to gain the upper hand in "interparty brawls" ahead of the midterm elections, slated for November 6.

Ryabkov made his remarks after the US Department of Justice officially leveled charges against Russian national Elena Khusyaynova, who allegedly served as the chief accountant for 'Project Lakhta.' The officials suspect her of handling the funds used to pay online trolls for posting comments to "sow discord in the US political system," and to "undermine faith" in US democracy. These alleged activities were part of what Washington calls Russian strategic efforts to meddle in the 2016 US presidential race and as well as the upcoming midterms.

... ... ...

Russian official Ryabkov dismissed the charges as "flagrant lies" and yet another element of the "shameful slanderous campaign" unleashed by Washington against Moscow.

"The US clearly overestimates its capabilities," the deputy foreign minister said.

"While exhibiting hostility towards Russia and looking down on the whole world, they will only meet tougher pushback."

[Oct 21, 2018] FBI Admits It Used Multiple Spies To Infiltrate Trump Campaign

So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
Notable quotes:
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
Oct 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller .

"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court papers submitted Friday.

Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of the documents. - Daily Caller

Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page.

The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."

Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could "suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's activities." - Daily Caller

Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election.

Stefan Halper

Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .

In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following bombshell reports in May that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.

Roger Stone

When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. - WaPo

The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything ." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.

After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.

" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big" money, Stone replied: "waste of time." - WaPo

In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.

Further down the rabbit hole

Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails.

Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums .

Alexander Downer

Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com )

Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.

That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.

It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10, 2016.

Also interesting via Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."

Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."

They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .

...

Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails. Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. - Daily Caller

Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.

Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.

...

Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.

It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. - Daily Caller

A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.

In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.

"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.

Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views on China.

"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " - WaPo

Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.

It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele and Downer notwithstanding.

[Oct 21, 2018] The Khashoggi Murder -- Worse Than a Crime, a Mistake by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... it's quite unusual to see such unanimous anti-Saudi reactions from the American political class for the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi – who was just a part-time journalist living in U.S – he was not even an American citizen ..."
"... So, it's quite unusual because the same political class remained muted about the Saudis involvement with ISIS, the bombing and starvation of civilians in Yemen and destruction of Syria, and of course the Saudis involvement in 9/11 terrorist attack in which 3000 American citizens have perished in New York, in the heart of America ..."
"... However gruesome, Mr. Khashoggi's assassination is going to be used by the Trump Administration to help the American Oil Cartel by controlling the Saudi Oil output, hence, to raise the price of Oil and to lower demand for US dollar which is the currency of the global Oil trade. ..."
"... The seemingly well-connected news outlet Voltairenet claims that there has been a plot against MbS and that Khashoggi was involved in it. ..."
"... It fares a atrocial war on Yemen, shits on international laws and regulations, just like Israel, Why would they not murder a juorno entering their land? Now this juorno was a man revealing in practices done by head choppers, so I will not cry much. It just shows these people are savages, all of them. What should be done ? You judge. ..."
"... I've read on Zerohedge that Khashoggi was on the verge of publishing an article about the Saudi's and CIA's involvement in 9/11, specifically about his former boss Turki al-Faisal, who ran Saudi intelligence for 23 years then abruptly resigned 10 days before 9/11 without giving any reason. ..."
"... Kashiggi's not a reformer. He's hard core Muslim Brotherhood ..."
Oct 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

Alistair , says: October 20, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT

The overplayed drama of Mr. Khashoggi assassination is going to be used by the American Oil Cartel to control the Saudis Oil output.

it's quite unusual to see such unanimous anti-Saudi reactions from the American political class for the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi – who was just a part-time journalist living in U.S – he was not even an American citizen.

So, it's quite unusual because the same political class remained muted about the Saudis involvement with ISIS, the bombing and starvation of civilians in Yemen and destruction of Syria, and of course the Saudis involvement in 9/11 terrorist attack in which 3000 American citizens have perished in New York, in the heart of America.

So, we must be a bit skeptical about the motive of the American Political Class, as this again could be just about the OIL Business, but this time around the objective is to help the American Oil producers as opposed to Oil consumers – with 13.8% of the global daily Oil production, the US has lately become the world top producer of Crude Oil, albeit, an expensive Oil which is extracted by Fracking method that requires high Oil price above $70 to remain competitive in the global Oil market – by simultaneously sanctioning Iran, Venezuela, and the potential sanction of Saudi Arabia from exporting its Oil, the Trump Administration not only reduces the Global Oil supply which will certainly lead to the rise of Oil price, but also it lowers demand for the US Dollar-Greenback in the global oil market which could lead to subtle but steady devaluation of the US dollar.

And perhaps that's what Trump Administration was really aiming for all along; a significant decline of the US Dollar Index and the rise of price of Oil which certainly pleases the American Oil Cartel, though at the expense of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela – all of which are under some form of US sanctions.

However gruesome, Mr. Khashoggi's assassination is going to be used by the Trump Administration to help the American Oil Cartel by controlling the Saudi Oil output, hence, to raise the price of Oil and to lower demand for US dollar which is the currency of the global Oil trade.

MrTuvok , says: October 20, 2018 at 8:06 pm GMT
The seemingly well-connected news outlet Voltairenet claims that there has been a plot against MbS and that Khashoggi was involved in it.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article203497.html

This seems to explain the motive to kill him. A few mildly critical articles by Khashoggi's pen scarcely seem to be sufficient for such a high-profile murder, even if we take into account that MbS appears to be impulsive and little capable of thinking ahead.

byrresheim , says: October 21, 2018 at 2:14 am GMT
It was not Talleyrand who said "pire qu'une crime " but rather Boulay de la Meurthe. But then the Queen never said "Let them eat cake" either.

Pardon my hint at historical accuracy, please.

FKA Max , says: October 21, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT
Very insightful video:

Duplicitous Khashoggi Picked the Wrong Prince

http://www.unz.com/video/therealnews_duplicitous-khashoggi-picked-the-wrong-prince/

Funny

Cato , says: October 21, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
First of all, when has the death of a journalist made any difference in the relations between countries? Why act like it should now?
Second, Khashoggi was not simply a journalist -- he was a member of the Saudi elite, an Intelligence officer, and an activist for the Muslim Brotherhood (the Die Welt article established that).

Third, the real question is how this story came out, and why it has come out as it has ("journalist murdered by police state agents"). Turkey pushed this story out into the open. Apparently a calculation that the crown prince is losing ground, and an effort (perhaps assisted by bribes) to align the AK party with the crown prince's enemies in Saudi.

Den Lille Abe , says: October 21, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
It fares a atrocial war on Yemen, shits on international laws and regulations, just like Israel, Why would they not murder a juorno entering their land? Now this juorno was a man revealing in practices done by head choppers, so I will not cry much. It just shows these people are savages, all of them. What should be done ? You judge.
anon [321] Disclaimer , says: October 21, 2018 at 4:35 am GMT
It seems quite curious why MBS would go through such trouble to waste a guy whose only crime was writing a few low key disparaging articles about him that nobody read. Maybe there's more to this story than meets the eye.

I've read on Zerohedge that Khashoggi was on the verge of publishing an article about the Saudi's and CIA's involvement in 9/11, specifically about his former boss Turki al-Faisal, who ran Saudi intelligence for 23 years then abruptly resigned 10 days before 9/11 without giving any reason. The rumor was he knew about the attack as did CIA, but Saudis and CIA decided not to do anything to use it as pretext to start the "war on terror" and bring down Saddam Hussein. Personally I find that a little far fetched but you never know when it comes to the CIA.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: October 21, 2018 at 4:55 am GMT
The murder of d'Enghien had no effect on the French Revolution, other countries reactions to the revolution and the subsequent revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. In fact, most of the liberal pro French Revolution historians consider the execution as necessary and moral as the execution of other anti revolutionaries

Koshoggi's murder won't make a bit of difference either once the blame Trump media blast blows over. The Turkish police appear to be doing a good job. They've arrested 18 people involved. At least the moralist pundits won't be punditing and pontificating about Kavanaugh for a few days. Kashiggi's not a reformer. He's hard core Muslim Brotherhood

johnson , says: October 21, 2018 at 6:04 am GMT

who likely cried, like England's King Henry II, 'will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?'

Yawn. This author is tediously hackneyed. And, it was 'turbulent priest.'

jilles dykstra , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:18 am GMT
That the Saudi regime commits murders does not surprise me, but getting caught not just with murder, but also with torture, indeed an unbelievable stupidity. Why torture the man ? But what also baffles me is that the journalist wrote for Washpost, a friend of Israel.

That Netanyahu and the Saudi regime cooperate to attack Iran, it is asserted by many, and it sems quite probable to me. A technical question, can indeed a smartwatch do what it is supposed to have done ? If so, then the torturers and murderers are even more stupid, I let the moral issue undiscussed, than one can imagine. Then there is the assertion, in cases like this one never knows what the facts are, that the journalist's girl friend waited outside. Did he expect trouble ? Did he ask her to record the trouble ? Did not the consulate security see her ? A final remark, what now is the difference in cruelty between IS and the USA's ally ?

jilles dykstra , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:39 am GMT
@Alistair History has its weird twists.

Early in WWII FDR was reported that USA oil would be depleted in thirty years time. So FDR sent Harold L Ickes to Saudi Arabia,where at the end of 1944 the country was made the USA's main oil supplier. FDR entertained the then Saud in early 1945 on the cruiser Quincy, laying in the Bitter Lakes near the Suez Canal. This Saud and his entourage had never seen a ship before, in any case had never been on board such a ship.

In his last speech to Congress, seated, FDR did not follow what had been written for him, but remarked 'that ten minutes with Saud taught him more about zionism than hundreds of letters of USA rabbi's. These words do not seem to be in the official record, but one of the speech writers, Sherwood, quotes them in his book. Robert E. Sherwood, 'Roosevelt und Hopkins', 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948) If FDR also said to Congress that he would limit jewish migration to Palestine, do not now remember, but the intention existed.

A few weeks later FDR died, Sherwood comments on on some curious aspects of FDR's death, such as that the body was cremated in or near Warm Springs, and that the USA people were never informed that the coffin going from Warm Springs to Washington just contained an urn with ashes. At present the USA does not seem to need Saudi oil. If this causes the asserted cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel ?

Proud_Srbin , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:45 am GMT
When was the last time evangelical party or any other "christian" spoke against apartheid of Israel in large and meaningful numbers?
Alfred , says: October 21, 2018 at 7:53 am GMT
@Harris Chandler Now it has made alliances with Israel and between them the tail wags the dog

The Saudi Royal family and the governments of Israel have always been in cahoots. They both despise and fear secular governments that are not under their own control in the Middle East. Witness the fear and dread of both of them of president Nasser in the 1960′s, for example.

Lin , says: October 21, 2018 at 8:15 am GMT
The US establishment, 'liberal' or not, just fake an outcry to soften the image of 100′s of 1000′s of yemenis, iraqis, libyan.. war casualties they are wholly or partly responsible for. Khashoggi's death is no more brutal than that of Gaddafi. What's the big deal ?

Whether Khashoggi is an islamist or not is very minor. (Sunni) Islam is basically a caravan of arab tribal or civilizational power and the house of Saud just rides this vehicle or caravan to siphon off the oil wealth. The house of Saud, said to be Jewish in origin, have the option to migrate en mass to Israel or French Riviera, with their swiss/US/caribbean offshore accounts during time of crisis or after new forms of energy resource displace oil

Art , says: October 21, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT

Equally important, the Saudis and Emiratis are now closely allied to Israel's far right government. Israel has been a door-opener for the Saudis and Gulf Emirates in Washington's political circles. The Israel lobby is riding to the Saudi's defense .

The Israelis are defending Old Saudi (pre MBS) -- not the New MBS/Kushner fix Palestine cabal. The last thing Israel wants is a defined Israeli border recognized by the world. The sycophant Israeli backing Senators in congress (Graham et al) are all backing Israel by condemning MBS and calling for his head.

Think Peace -- Art

Miro23 , says: October 21, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT
@FKA Max Thanks for the excellent Real News Network interview with someone I hadn't heard about (As'ad AbuKhalil) who has followed the career of Khashoggi for years.

http://www.unz.com/video/therealnews_duplicitous-khashoggi-picked-the-wrong-prince/

It seems that Khashoggi was lately different things to different people – one voice in English at the Washington Post following the Israeli line, and another in Arabic and the Arab media supporting the Palestinians and the Moslem Brotherhood.

Over the long term he was a propagandist for the rule of the Saudi princes, and his problem seemed to be his too close connection to the wrong ones, while they were overthrown by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS). There's the suggestion of a plot against MbS where he may have been involved.

So why are the Israelis, their MSM and their AIPAC congressmen making such a big thing out of it? Isn't MbS their friend? And why should they care about the assassination of a pro-Palestinian journalist?

Maybe they've a better knowledge of the forces at play in Saudi Arabia, and concluded that MbS was too much of a risk (too isolated and independent – e.g. talking with the Chinese about a Petro/Yuan). Maybe they decided to Regime Change MbS in a usual Israeli/US Deep State operation with Khashoggi at the centre (the duplicitous sort of character that they favor) – with the outrage at MbS unexpectedly striking back. It was in fact MbS' team of bodyguards who arrived in Istanbul. And it would account for the Deep State anger at having one of its chief conspirators murdered.

The back story has to be that the US/Israel want control of both Saudi and Iranian oil priced in US Dollars and they'll go with anyone who can give that outcome (currently not MbS). Or they invade Saudi Arabia Eastern Province on some pretext or other and just take the oil directly.

Greg Bacon , says: Website October 21, 2018 at 8:54 am GMT

I'm surprised that the Saudis didn't ask the Israelis, who are very good at assassination and kidnapping, to go after Khashoggi.

They probably did, but Israel is gearing up to invade Gaza AGAIN, and that takes time and resources that they couldn't afford to let go and do some free-lancing in the Murder Inc Department.

But Blessed are the War Mongers or something, as that oh-so devout Christian, Pat Robertson, is against holding KSA accountable:

Prominent evangelical leader on Khashoggi crisis: let's not risk "$100 billion worth of arms sales"

Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, appeared on its flagship television show The 700 Club on Monday to caution Americans against allowing the United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia to deteriorate over Khashoggi's death.

"For those who are screaming blood for the Saudis -- look, these people are key allies," Robertson said. While he called the faith of the Wahabists -- the hardline Islamist sect to which the Saudi Royal Family belongs -- "obnoxious," he urged viewers to remember that "we've got an arms deal that everybody wanted a piece of it'll be a lot of jobs, a lot of money come to our coffers. It's not something you want to blow up willy-nilly."

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/17/17990268/pat-robertson-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-trump-crisis

Did Robertson take all of that loot he made from smuggling blood diamonds out of Africa–using his charity as a front–and invest in the defense industry?

If Pat is headed to Heaven after he expires, then send me to the other place, as I have no desire to be stuck with hypocrites for all eternity.

Tyrion 2 , says: October 21, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT
@Harris Chandler Why would it be Trump's to avenge that man?
animalogic , says: October 21, 2018 at 9:44 am GMT
"Error" ? "Mistake" ? These people (the KSA) are fucking "stupid" . Now they're saying he died in a "fist fight" in the consulate ! A 13 year old street criminal would know that that excuse is an admission of guilt. These guys shouldn't be allowed to run a model railroad.
Brabantian , says: October 21, 2018 at 9:59 am GMT
On television in 1988, Donald Trump said he had bought a US $200 million 85-metre-long yacht ,'The Nabila', from billionaire arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, uncle of just-murdered-in-Istanbul journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The yacht was named after Adnan Khashoggi's daughter. Trump later sold the yacht to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Donald Trump talking about the boat and arms dealers like Khashoggi – "not the nicest guys in the world"

... ... ...

[Oct 21, 2018] Trump's Record of Failure in the Middle East

Notable quotes:
"... I agree that the United States has uses unnecessary force and is causing needless suffering. But it is because we are an insensitive people who only care about power and status. To us, our foreign policy is a success as long as we are making a difference in the world while not suffering the consequences. We want our enemies to fear us (or at least believe they do). ..."
"... Bombing Syria and forcing the world to destroy Iran's economy is a demonstration of our power. The suffering in Yemen, unfortunate but there is always a price to pay for the greater good. Who cares if the Yemeni, Syrian, and Iranian people hate us? The Saudis are still bribing us, the EU is still carrying our water, and we will always be well fed as long as we have a strong leader. ..."
"... Practically all Mideast foreign policy is failed or compromised because it is completely compromised away from its true purpose to serve the US and US interests toward the interests of supposed allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, etc. ..."
Oct 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Trump's Record of Failure in the Middle East By Daniel Larison • October 18, 2018, 11:29 PM

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F__Bz3h5RzMx.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df113c8b44fd3e05%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff1183597d77767d%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-record-of-failure-in-the-middle-east%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.9a52e80b2027b7ab835b0e968a612a25.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-record-of-failure-in-the-middle-east%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Trump%E2%80%99s%20Record%20of%20Failure%20in%20the%20Middle%20East%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1540132404008&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-record-of-failure-in-the-middle-east%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-record-of-failure-in-the-middle-east%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.sACikGxVaNw.O%2Fam%3DwQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPXNqxOXr-t7ya_gvjbNoR8yMQDDQ%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1540132403877&_gfid=I0_1540132403877&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=305679

Flickr Ten months ago, I responded to the claim that Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East had been "moderately successful" and argued that it was just the opposite:

When we judge these policies all together, they don't add up to being "moderately successful." On the contrary, these policies are almost all failed, costly, and unwise, and in many cases Trump has inherited bad situations and made them worse.

Since I wrote that, the Trump administration has reneged on the JCPOA, reimposed sanctions on Iran without justification, supported the dangerous Hodeidah offensive in Yemen, committed fully to an open-ended mission in Syria that risks war with Iran, indulged the Israeli government as it gunned down unarmed protesters week after week, relocated the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, starved Palestinian civilians of essential aid, and most recently joined in an effort to cover for the Saudi government's murder of a prominent critic. That is not an exhaustive list of their destructive behavior, but it gives us a picture of how much worse things have become in the last ten months.

In this same period of time, conditions in Yemen have deteriorated significantly. More than 8 million people were on the verge of starvation then, and now the U.N. is warning that as many as 13 million innocent Yemenis could die from hunger. The U.S.-backed bombing campaign has also contributed to the worsening conditions. There were multiple high-profile massacres committed by Saudi coalition forces over the summer, including the Aug. 9 school bus massacre. The administration has promoted the fiction that U.S. military assistance reduces the number of civilian casualties in Yemen, but in the last few months both the number of casualties and the frequency of attacks on civilian targets have increased. The Yemen Data Project's latest report shows the increase in attacks on non-military targets in the month of September:

me title=

There is obviously no improvement in Saudi coalition targeting, and there isn't going to be any. U.S. support for the war does not make the Saudi coalition less likely to kill civilians because they intentionally make a regular habit of attacking civilian targets. The Trump administration's determination to keep U.S. support for the coalition flowing despite ample evidence of deliberate attacks on civilians ensures that more Yemeni civilians will die. That is the cost of the administration's lies to Congress about Yemen.

After watching twenty months of Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East, we have to conclude that it has needlessly escalated conflicts, inflicted collective punishment on tens of millions of people for no good reason, damaged U.S. interests and our national reputation, and made our government complicit in numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity. One can call the administration's policies successful only in the sense that they are "successfully" inflicting unnecessary suffering and death on people in many different parts of the region. This awful record cries out for oversight and action from Congress and a strong rebuke from the public. Passage of H.Con.Res. 138 to force an end to U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen would be a good start.

Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Iran , Syria , Israel , Yemen , Saudi Arabia , Palestine , Donald Trump , JCPOA , Yemen Data Project , H.Con.Res. 138 .

Centralist October 19, 2018 at 7:08 am

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-03-16

Swap Wally for Saudi Arabia, and CEO for the USA.

Christian Chuba , says: October 19, 2018 at 7:48 am
I agree that the United States has uses unnecessary force and is causing needless suffering. But it is because we are an insensitive people who only care about power and status. To us, our foreign policy is a success as long as we are making a difference in the world while not suffering the consequences. We want our enemies to fear us (or at least believe they do).

Bombing Syria and forcing the world to destroy Iran's economy is a demonstration of our power. The suffering in Yemen, unfortunate but there is always a price to pay for the greater good. Who cares if the Yemeni, Syrian, and Iranian people hate us? The Saudis are still bribing us, the EU is still carrying our water, and we will always be well fed as long as we have a strong leader.

I believe this is despicable but see this as consistent with our national character until the day God takes away our power and our wealth or we squander it away.

Warrenton East , says: October 19, 2018 at 9:00 am
"There is obviously no improvement in Saudi coalition targeting, and there isn't going to be any. "

You're right. They've been going after civilians targets from the beginning and won't stop.

It seems obvious that our helping them go after civilian targets in Yemen contributed to the sense of impunity of those who planned the murder and dismemberment of the Washington Post journalist, Mr. Khashoggi.

They must be astonished at our hypocrisy. On the one hand we help them kill children in Yemen, even going so far as to have our Secretary of State commit a serious crime by lying to to the US Congress about it. On the other hand we become outraged over the murder of a single civilian dissident.

Will Woodwose , says: October 19, 2018 at 10:26 am
It is not about stasis but generating as much chaos as possible. The Empire of Chaos is doing just fine.
b. , says: October 19, 2018 at 1:00 pm
"Passage of H.Con.Res. 138 to force an end to U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen would be a good start."

Next month. Maybe. AUMF loophole aside.

We should not forget the opportunity cost – no renewal of New Start, doubling down on Obama's modernization of the Nuclear Triad, a Payne-written National Security Strategy of "winnable" war and tactical nukes, brinkmanship on the IRBM treaty, NATO expansion.

Instead of effectively countering the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria – e.g. by indisputably necessary attempts at arms control – we are now adding the "China!" counter-narrative. For a nation that has so many work so diligently to disenfranchise, manipulate and channel the vote and that has so much money control the primaries, it is not clear how much room for relevant foreign "meddling" there is in our compromised congressional-election-industrial complex.

Not to forget North Korea – Trump talked himself into a confrontation that led to a South-North runaway process that the US is attempting to derail at ever turn, while trying desperately not to overplay their diminishing hand.

Not to forget that the Iran sanctions, if they are at all effective, might well take enough oil out of the global market to eventually trigger the long-overdue Great Recession 2.0 and burst the Fed Bubble.

There will be blowback. It will take, as always, much longer than we expect, and then it will happen faster than we feared. Meanwhile, the fools reign.

Louism , says: October 20, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Practically all Mideast foreign policy is failed or compromised because it is completely compromised away from its true purpose to serve the US and US interests toward the interests of supposed allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, etc.

Trump is good but Trump there hasn't been a US President since Eisenhower that has said no to our Mideast allies.

Trump is the first US President since Eisenhower that has refused NATO and our European allies which is progress.

General Manager , says: October 20, 2018 at 9:20 pm
We call countries allies. What does that mean? Who showed up for Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq (did not support) etc. Whose side are we on in Syria? Why? Which countries want a free ride without paying? We should be more judicious about using the word "allies." Maybe an accurate synonym could be "leeches" for some.

[Oct 21, 2018] Poroshenko refused the Russian Orthodox Church any rights in Ukraine because of "the XVII century annexation".

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile October 14, 2018 at 1:17 am

11:05 6 931

Порошенко отказал РПЦ в правах на Украину из-за "аннексии XVII века"

Poroshenko refused the Russian Orthodox Church any rights in Ukraine because of "the XVII century annexation".
The President of Ukraine has announced to an audience believers in Kiev that a decision of the Ukraine Orthodox Church Ecumenical Patriarchate has confirmed the illegality of the "annexation" of the Keiv metropolis. The ROC has no rights in the Ukraine, he said


Poroshenko with his pet patriarch.

The Russian Orthodox Church has never had any Orthodox Church canonical rights in the Ukraine, said Petro Poroshenko. The President of the Ukraine stated this before thanksgiving prayers on St. Sophia Square in Kiev, informs "Interfax-Ukraine".

"The Ecumenical Patriarchate has at last declared Moscow's end of the XVII century annexation of the Keiv metropolis as illegal. They clearly and unequivocally stated that the Russian Orthodox Church has no canonical rights of the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine" said the Ukrainian leader. Poroshenko stressed that "the Ukraine has not been, is not and will not be canonical territory of the Russian Church".

The President of Ukraine reminded that Patriarch Kirill [of the ROC -- ME] prays for the Russian military at every service, which, Poroshenko said, " kills Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. And in the Ukraine, unfortunately, we have churches that still recognize Patriarch Kirill's authority How can churches in which prayers are said for a patriarch who prays for the Russian army be called Ukrainian?" he asked the believers.

Moscow Exile October 14, 2018 at 1:19 am
The church will be reunited after you have been strung up on a Maidan lampost, Valtsman!
Moscow Exile October 14, 2018 at 1:35 am
On October 11, a Synod meeting of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to "proceed to the granting of Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine." The Synod revoked a legally binding status of the 1686 letter, which empowered the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev. In addition, the Synod decided to re-establish the office of the Stavropegion of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Kiev, which means its head would be subordinate directly to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Moreover, the Synod lifted anathema from the heads of two non-canonical churches in Ukraine – Filaret of the Kiev Patriarchate, and Makary of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

The Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches view these decisions as hostile and illegitimate and warn they might trigger a split within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

See: Attempts to destroy canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine will fail -- Patriarch Kirill

[Oct 21, 2018] Naftogaz has now begun to help itself to money from Russia's gas-transit payments, arguing that it is owed money from the Stockholm Arbitration ruling which Gazprom has refused to pay

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 13, 2018 at 10:22 pm

Naftogaz has now begun to help itself to money from Russia's gas-transit payments, arguing that it is owed money from the Stockholm Arbitration ruling which Gazprom has refused to pay.

https://www.naturalgasworld.com/ukraine-takes-9mn-from-gazprom-penalty-payment-65062

Apparently Russia is still paying the old rate, from before the ruling (because to do otherwise would be to recognize the debt and accept responsibility for it), which results in an overpayment since it is higher than Naftogaz would charge, if I understand correctly. So Naftogaz has decided to confiscate it as owing.

This, obviously, sets the stage for another shutdown of European gas supplies, just as winter is coming on. Perhaps Ukraine has realized that nothing it can do or say is going to stop Nord Stream II from going ahead, and so it might as well recover what it can, and who cares if it results in a shutdown of Europe's gas, regardless where the blame ends up? Once again Ukraine's maneuvering puts Russia in a difficult spot – it can recognize the Stockholm award and pay Ukraine $2.6 Billion or whatever it was. Or it can accept that Ukraine will keep part of its transit payments against the debt until it can shut down gas transit across Ukraine altogether. Or it can shut off the gas now.

If it were up to me, I would take the middle option. Let Ukraine congratulate itself on one-upping me with its native cleverness (assuming here that I am Russia), and let them keep $9 or $10 million of the transit fees each month; that would probably be a lot cheaper than acknowledging the Stockholm award and paying Ukraine billions, in view of the fact that Ukraine never paid back the money it was lent by Russia; Stockholm neatly solved that for them, by awarding them huge damages, part of which was understood to be the amount Ukraine owed. Okay, that goes toward Ukraine's debt to Russia, and now you owe Ukraine $2.6 Billion more.

I would just focus on getting Nord Stream II completed. Then I would not only stop gas transit through Ukraine, I would tell them to kiss my ass if they wanted to buy gas for themselves. You were so pleased with yourselves for not buying any gas from Russia last year – obviously you can get along fine without it. But I sure hope Europe is going to keep giving you money to buy European gas forever.

[Oct 21, 2018] Trump To Pull U.S. Out Of 1987 Nuclear Weapons Treaty With Russia

Oct 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement," Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. "We're going to terminate the agreement." As Russia continues to outmaneuver the US by developing new ballistic missiles like the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile, as well as hypersonic weapons capable of carrying a nuclear payload, President Trump said Saturday that he plans to abandon a 1987 arms-control treaty that has (on paper, at least) prohibited the US and Russia from deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles as Russia has continued to "repeatedly violate" its terms according to the president, the Associated Press reports.

"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement," Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. "We're going to terminate the agreement."

In a report that undoubtedly further complicated John Bolton's weekend trip to Moscow, the Guardian revealed on Friday that the national security advisor - in what some described as an overreach of the position's typical role - had been pushing Trump to abandon the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The announcement comes after the U.S. had been warning Russia it could resort to strong countermeasures unless Moscow complies with international commitments to arms reduction under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a pact struck in the 1980s.

When first signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev following their historic 1986 meeting, the INF was touted as an important deescalation of tensions between the two superpowers. But it has since become a flashpoint in the increasingly strained relationship between the US and Russia, as both sides have accused the other of violating its terms.

But for the US, Russia is only part of the problem.

The New York Times reported that the pact has limited the US from deploying weapons to counter the burgeoning military threat posed by China in the Western Pacific, where the country has ignored claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea and transformed reefs into military bases. And since China was never a party to the treaty, Beijing can hardly cry foul when the US decides to withdrawal, especially because Russia is already openly using the treaty as toilet paper.

Speaking at a rally in Elko Nevada, President Trump accused Russia of violating the agreement and said he didn't want to leave the US in a position where Russia would be free to "go out and do weapons and we're not allowed to."

"Russia has violated the agreement. They have been violating it for many years," Trump said after a rally in Elko, Nevada. "And we're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we're not allowed to."

Therefore, unless both Russia and China - which isn't a party to the pact - agree to not develop these weapons, the US would be remiss to continue abiding by the terms of the agreement.

"We'll have to develop those weapons, unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say let's really get smart and let's none of us develop those weapons, but if Russia's doing it and if China's doing it, and we're adhering to the agreement, that's unacceptable," he said.

While the decision to abandon this treaty - which doesn't bode well for negotiations to extend the New START treaty after it expires in 2021 - carries serious weight, many Americans and Russians, having never lived through a war, might remain ignorant to the potential consequences, as one analyst opined.

"We are slowly slipping back to the situation of cold war as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, with quite similar consequences, but now it could be worse because (Russian President Vladimir) Putin belongs to a generation that had no war under its belt," said Dmitry Oreshkin, an independent Russian political analyst. "These people aren't as much fearful of a war as people of Brezhnev's epoch. They think if they threaten the West properly, it gets scared."

Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to try and get in front of the US's decision to leave this week when he declared that Russia would abide by a policy of nonaggression regarding its nuclear arsenal, agreeing only to use its nuclear weapons if it is attacked first.

Although some inside the Pentagon are reportedly wary of abandoning the treaty, Putin's word is hardly enough to reassure uberhawks like Bolton because the fact remains that if Russia did decide to use any of the array of nuclear arms that it is currently developing, there would be nothing stopping it. And with the US already behind in its push to manufacture advanced weapons like hypersonic missiles, any obstacles to deploying these types of weapons will only serve to weaken the US and strengthen its geopolitical adversaries.

Watch President Trump's remarks from the rally below:

DingleBarryObummer , 11 minutes ago link

(((orange man))) bad

blind_understanding , 22 minutes ago link

That makes 2 major international treaties Trump has welshed on, so far.

1) Iran nuke deal

2) Russia nuke deal

And he always blames the other side, with some unprovable allegation, to cover his ***.

Joe A , 28 minutes ago link

The cold war was fought by people who lived through the horrors of WWII. Both sides managed to control their respective neocons. That generation is no longer in power and people that think a first strike and a winnable nuclear war are possible are in control on both sides. Yes, we have two tribes.

pinkfloyd , 2 hours ago link

When I hear of democrats calling trump negative things, like racist or whatever...I just laugh at their ignorant fat asses..

But here on ZH, people actually make good points on both sides of trump being trojan horse for deep state, or trump fighting the deep state..

I personally do not see evidence enough to draw a conclusion, but I am hoping he is not deep state...in any case, its been watching the left squirm, MSM going downhill in temper tantrums, comey and others fired.. There is no proof that there is a supreme being or "God" that created the earth. I just believe it because I believe in His son...Maybe I will trust trump actually puts hillary in jail..I mean coe on guys, as you notice, I am careful about my decisions, but the crimes hillary has commited, and the evidence to back it up, is beyond a shadow of a doubt, and everyone here knows it...she needs to be in ******* gitmo

gatorengineer , 2 hours ago link

There is NO question right now that Trump is Deepstate. The only question is was he ever not deep state NeoCon.

curbjob , 3 hours ago link

It's the debt that will become radioactive.

With the US spending over 50% of the budget on defense, it won't take much longer for its infrastructure to collapse under the weight of neglect.

dirty fingernails , 2 hours ago link

McConnell just called to cut SS and Medicaid to balance the budget right after giving the Pentagram a raise.

rwe2late , 3 hours ago link

" unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say let's really get smart and let's none of us develop those weapons "

Does anybody believe Trump's offer is real?

Like the USA and Israel are going to give up their nuclear weapons and missiles?

Yeah, give up weaponizing space and the missile (first-strike) encirclement of Russia.

The MIC would not even allow the denuclearization of the Korean penisula, nor withdrawal from any of the invaded/occupied nations. The MIC wants to sell to the Saudis, re-arm Japan, and have Kiev join NATO.

Who can believe the MIC-owned Congress will ratify any disarmament treaties?

Will any Israeli-first president ever back a denuclearized Israel?

Karmageddon , 3 hours ago link

Treaty or not MAD is still in effect... hopefully this will steady the hand of the neocon scum who have hijacked the US government, but with the current crop of demons in the state department who knows?

MalteseFalcon , 4 hours ago link

So we had the end of the cold war and the end of the nuclear threat.

Now after 28 years of failed empire building we're back here again.

**** that.

Thordoom , 2 hours ago link

You can expect that Kaliningrad is going to be armed with all kinds of nuclear candies ready to blow Europe up as soo as they see the strike is coming. How is that goign to help Poland or Europe for that matter? I have no idea.

You can also expect that the Russian's Subs and Poseidon are going to be around US shores constantly ready for unleash Nuclear tsunamis with cobalt 60 in them.

The Chines are going to build military and naval base in Venezuela for sure with nukes and we could also see much more to come.

Like we didn't have a Spanish fighter jet missile accidently launched near Russian border just a couple of days ago.

Like we didn't see US Navy accidents crashing into tankers.

We do not really have a ******* adults running NATO nowadays. Its all tranny shitshow with no nerves of steal and thinking.

If you thought the old Cold War hawks back there who wanted to nuke Soviet Union and unleash Operation Northwood just to have a war were crazy than think how stupid and out of touch with reality this twats are.

That we haven't seen WW3 yet is becasue of Russians restrain but once you push it too far and they increasingly are pushing it too far, then they will murder our asses like beasts. Just look at what the pilot who got shot down last time did. He rather blew himself up with grenade killing as much terrorist as possible after he ran out of ammo than being captured.

That is who we are dealing here with ladies & gentleman.

Do we really needs this ? Do we want this?

herbivore , 3 hours ago link

Is Trump even aware that the U.S. broke its "iron-clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward?" If I lived in Russia, I would look nervously at the increasing military hardware near my border !

[Oct 21, 2018] Can't find the episode but I believe Homer Simpson had the briefcase that US Presidents use to control the US nuclear forces. It had three buttons

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com


Patient Observer October 14, 2018 at 5:10 pm

Can't find the episode but I believe Homer Simpson had the briefcase that US Presidents use to control the US nuclear forces. It had three buttons:
– First Strike
– Retaliation Strike
– "Accidental" Launch

[Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.

Highly recommended!
Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Kiza says: October 20, 2018 at 9:13 am GMT 200 Words

Although it is almost off topic, I did find one point in Putin's Valdai speech quite telling. It was his point about the Russian automated system for detection and tracking of missile launches. Putin tried to boost the credibility of the Russian nuclear deterant by advertising this system for detecting the First Strike launches.

Although I do not believe that this system is as reliable as advertised, I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely.

If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.

I just hope that the Russian office corps is as prepared as Putin is to be productive martyrs (no more Arkhipovs please).

[Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir

Highly recommended!
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.

Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.

There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was.

However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.

Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff to the enemy.

That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks, explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.

The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover. Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.

But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched. Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a formidable task.

There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent threats, this end of the world is quite possible.

utu , says: October 20, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT

Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions.

I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors.

jilles dykstra , says: October 20, 2018 at 7:25 am GMT
@utu " Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as inept and indolent.
Malaysian Truther , says: October 20, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it – which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc, etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay retired.

Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian perfidy.

Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.

Tom Welsh , says: October 20, 2018 at 9:38 am GMT
"Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors".

Maybe, if your taste runs to "Dr Who" or "Carry On Spying". That's about the level of the Skripal nonsense.

If it was meant for public consumption, the British government's opinion of the British people is much lower than mine.

jilles dykstra , says: October 20, 2018 at 10:33 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin " British or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "

On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.

Fatima Manoubia , says: October 20, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .

A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little" advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 20, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
All we like sheep , says: October 20, 2018 at 12:14 pm GMT

However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian jail.

If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.

Eagle Eye , says: October 20, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT

If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.

Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence" services.

The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.

The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.

Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.

macilrae , says: October 20, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the hotel was not then immediately quarantined.

And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR disaster.

The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in Photoshop.

CalDre , says: October 20, 2018 at 3:21 pm GMT
@utu

But now it is kind of late. So why it wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair?

It's still not being told – believe it or not, Israel Shamir is not Sergei Lavrov. I hypothesized to the same state of affairs in early September re: Skripals.

But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow, that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).

CalDre , says: October 20, 2018 at 3:24 pm GMT
@macilrae You are right, it could have been faked, anything can be faked today, even a video of Putin speaking (search for "deep fakes" and watch the video at https://www.wsj.com/articles/deepfake-videos-are-ruining-lives-is-democracy-next-1539595787 ).

But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.

wayfarer , says: October 20, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 Had some experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.

Here are a few examples.

There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of both.

There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S. military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.

There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers. The feds busted them.

As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their espionage work and methods.

I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read people, quite well. It's a natural gift.

Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing out their self-serving bullshit.

source: https://themindunleashed.com/2013/10/30-traits-of-empath.html

FB , says: October 20, 2018 at 4:13 pm GMT
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end

Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14

'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another Potemkin village production from the reality masters

Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion the elaborate hoax

Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added this

' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't try to kill anyone that's stupid

It's some sort of spy game

Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '

This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a dollar short

I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to show the Russians were in fact somehow involved

But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on their countermove

Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'

It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent poisoning

BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact same chemical compound organophosphates

It just so happens that organophsphate poisoning is 'one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide '

'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand deaths.'

That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like Salisbury

That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery

But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid Brits

So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very very far from over

As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months ago

PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material anyway

As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been employed why not ?

CalDre , says: October 20, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@FB How would a fake database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?

In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the very article to which you are responding started with:

It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean battle.

An acknowledgement you stubbornly ignore.

M Edward , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
None of this matters.

All governments are corrupt and have no interest in the welfare of the native populations.

All this he said she said crap is irrelevant, in the end we all will end up under a totalitarian police state run out of Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem.

Cyrano , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is that?

Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west. Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.

Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered protection from Mother Russia.

Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.

Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality, despite ditching socialism.

FB , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly' refuse to take at face value this silly statement

it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean battle.'

Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data' about Petrov and Boshirov that was put out by Bellingcat

Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle the most utterly stupid bipeds

A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's acknowledged partner here

If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their flight to the UK

Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear

In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and glorify the Bellingcat outfit

which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level

peterAUS , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.

Boils down to, from the comment below:

When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has a price..

and

Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little" advantage.

And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".

Incompetence vs blatant lying?
What a choice.

Kubarking , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian intelligence services"? Mais non.

CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.

For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide, in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.

So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.

The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state. They rule the USA.

[Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.

Highly recommended!
Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Kiza says: October 20, 2018 at 9:13 am GMT 200 Words

Although it is almost off topic, I did find one point in Putin's Valdai speech quite telling. It was his point about the Russian automated system for detection and tracking of missile launches. Putin tried to boost the credibility of the Russian nuclear deterant by advertising this system for detecting the First Strike launches.

Although I do not believe that this system is as reliable as advertised, I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely.

If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.

I just hope that the Russian office corps is as prepared as Putin is to be productive martyrs (no more Arkhipovs please).

[Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir

Highly recommended!
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.

Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.

There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was.

However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.

Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff to the enemy.

That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks, explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.

The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover. Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.

But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched. Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a formidable task.

There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent threats, this end of the world is quite possible.

utu , says: October 20, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT

Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions.

I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors.

jilles dykstra , says: October 20, 2018 at 7:25 am GMT
@utu " Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as inept and indolent.
Malaysian Truther , says: October 20, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it – which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc, etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay retired.

Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian perfidy.

Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.

Tom Welsh , says: October 20, 2018 at 9:38 am GMT
"Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors".

Maybe, if your taste runs to "Dr Who" or "Carry On Spying". That's about the level of the Skripal nonsense.

If it was meant for public consumption, the British government's opinion of the British people is much lower than mine.

jilles dykstra , says: October 20, 2018 at 10:33 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin " British or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "

On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.

Fatima Manoubia , says: October 20, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .

A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little" advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 20, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
All we like sheep , says: October 20, 2018 at 12:14 pm GMT

However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian jail.

If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.

Eagle Eye , says: October 20, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT

If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.

Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence" services.

The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.

The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.

Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.

macilrae , says: October 20, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the hotel was not then immediately quarantined.

And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR disaster.

The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in Photoshop.

CalDre , says: October 20, 2018 at 3:21 pm GMT
@utu

But now it is kind of late. So why it wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair?

It's still not being told – believe it or not, Israel Shamir is not Sergei Lavrov. I hypothesized to the same state of affairs in early September re: Skripals.

But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow, that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).

CalDre , says: October 20, 2018 at 3:24 pm GMT
@macilrae You are right, it could have been faked, anything can be faked today, even a video of Putin speaking (search for "deep fakes" and watch the video at https://www.wsj.com/articles/deepfake-videos-are-ruining-lives-is-democracy-next-1539595787 ).

But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.

wayfarer , says: October 20, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 Had some experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.

Here are a few examples.

There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of both.

There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S. military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.

There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers. The feds busted them.

As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their espionage work and methods.

I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read people, quite well. It's a natural gift.

Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing out their self-serving bullshit.

source: https://themindunleashed.com/2013/10/30-traits-of-empath.html

FB , says: October 20, 2018 at 4:13 pm GMT
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end

Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14

'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another Potemkin village production from the reality masters

Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion the elaborate hoax

Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added this

' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't try to kill anyone that's stupid

It's some sort of spy game

Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '

This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a dollar short

I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to show the Russians were in fact somehow involved

But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on their countermove

Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'

It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent poisoning

BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact same chemical compound organophosphates

It just so happens that organophsphate poisoning is 'one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide '

'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand deaths.'

That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like Salisbury

That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery

But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid Brits

So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very very far from over

As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months ago

PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material anyway

As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been employed why not ?

CalDre , says: October 20, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@FB How would a fake database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?

In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the very article to which you are responding started with:

It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean battle.

An acknowledgement you stubbornly ignore.

M Edward , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
None of this matters.

All governments are corrupt and have no interest in the welfare of the native populations.

All this he said she said crap is irrelevant, in the end we all will end up under a totalitarian police state run out of Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem.

Cyrano , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is that?

Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west. Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.

Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered protection from Mother Russia.

Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.

Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality, despite ditching socialism.

FB , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly' refuse to take at face value this silly statement

it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean battle.'

Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data' about Petrov and Boshirov that was put out by Bellingcat

Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle the most utterly stupid bipeds

A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's acknowledged partner here

If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their flight to the UK

Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear

In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and glorify the Bellingcat outfit

which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level

peterAUS , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.

Boils down to, from the comment below:

When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has a price..

and

Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little" advantage.

And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".

Incompetence vs blatant lying?
What a choice.

Kubarking , says: October 20, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian intelligence services"? Mais non.

CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.

For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide, in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.

So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.

The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state. They rule the USA.

[Oct 20, 2018] Russia has a lot of fundamentals going for it, but it is also possible that the mistakes of the past and the pathological hatreds Russia has engendered among the Western and other imperial crazies will strike again. It is big and tempting.

Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow says: October 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT 400 Words @Anon 2 You are right that Central Europe – or more precisely Eastern Central Europe that includes Austria and parts of Germany – has been blesses with a rare combination of good (great!) geography, enough resources, high quality demographics, good location and weather, fantastic infrastructure and a relatively normal history. Western countries have suffered from a combination of imperial overreach and the inevitable blowback. Westerners have also lost the due diligence habits that make civilizations last. They often seem lazy and unserious.

To the east the lawlessness of the open spaces, harsh weather, and the frequent exposures to the nihilistic Asiatic exotica, have delayed the development of a viable, stable and pleasant way of life. They might get there eventually and I wish them all the best. Russia has a lot of fundamentals going for it, but it is also possible that the mistakes of the past – and the pathological hatreds Russia has engendered among the Western and other imperial crazies – will strike again. It is big and tempting.

The endless attempts to slice the borders of Russia, to shrink it as Brzezinski openly dreamt about, are a foolish thing that might bury us all. A compulsion of obsessive map readers. Russia is at its most destabilising when it is weak. That's when the temptations become too much and some nutcase – or a 'council' of idiots – push and push. Unfortunately for the imperial builders in the West they missed their window of opportunity and they don't seem capable of admitting it. We get ' religious schisms ' just to make sure that no stone remains unturned. It will amount to nothing. They will have to wait for the next dip, there always seems to be one in the ennui filled steppes.

Central Europe (V4+) is about to take over as the most desirable place on the planet. That's why we are seeing the Western attacks on it about some very basic and sound ideas like having borders, homogeneous populations, freedom of speech and peace with neighbours, from the rapidly disintegrating Western world. West cannot stand to live with the mistakes they have made, they want to create a multi-racial, neo-liberal, war mongering cataclysm in order to hide the painful truth of they have done. The demographic suicide of the West is probably irreversible. Macron and Merkel can prance around and preach their silly slogans, but they cannot change the numbers of the ground.

They can still convince some elderly Greek in Istanbul to pour more oil on the fire. What that shows is desperation; if all West has left are these self-defeating intrigues, they don't have much.

[Oct 20, 2018] Trump is de facto neocon

Oct 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Oct 19, 2018 4:34:37 AM | link

@ Hoarsewhisper

I initially backed Trump, though with reservations on his attitude to Iran and his wanting to increase US military spending - build a stronger US military. Pulling out of the TPP was great. Au had sovereignty on paper if not in practice, but with the TPP, Australia would not have had sovereignty legally. His first attack on Syria was a flash bang exercise to disable his opponents. His second attack I thought initially was the same, but with everything I've read since, I believe Trump's US planned to destroy Syrian military but not wanting to go to war with Russia at that time, respected the Russian nyet on targets.

With Idlib it moved up a notch, Trump's US threatening attack on Syria including Russian personal stationed there, and Russia moving to asymmetrical moves rather than in your face nuclear amageddon, which is what a full on US attack on Syria would have amounted to..

[Oct 20, 2018] According to Global Wealth Report by the personal wealth of the population Ukraine is in the 123rd place (out of 140 countries ranked).

Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

AP says: October 18, 2018 at 9:58 pm GMT 100 Words @Gerard2

This months gas tariff for "Ukrainians" increases by 24%!!

The context is that Ukrainian consumers have the lowest gas rate in Europe. Moldovan households pay more for gas than do Ukrainian ones. Even with a 24% price increase Ukraine will still have the cheapest gas in Europe for its consumers:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Natural_gas_price_statistics

AP says: October 19, 2018 at 12:46 am GMT @Gerard2

The price increase will go past 40% in May

Which will make gas prices for Ukrainian consumers more or less tied with those in Moldova as the cheapest in Europe.

For whatever reason IMF wanted Ukrainian consumers not be subsidized as much as they have been.

AnonFromTN , says: October 19, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT

@Anon According to Global Wealth Report ( https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and-expertise/global-wealth-report-2018-us-and-china-in-the-lead-201810.html ), by the personal wealth of the population Ukraine is in the 123rd place (out of 140 countries ranked).
By this measure Ukraine is behind Nepal, Cameroon, Kenia, Bangladesh, and Lesotho, just ahead of Zambia. But there are 135 people in Ukraine with personal wealth greater than $50 million.

A huge line for free food at the charity kitchen in Kiev can be seen here: http://rusvesna.su/news/1539952343 (those who read Russian can find details in the accompanying news item).

I guess all of this is a great achievement of Maidan. Ukies, please comment.

[Oct 20, 2018] Neocon propaganda on Russia remind me of a Russian joke

Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN says: October 18, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT 100 Words @Mr. Hack

(at least according to him)

Reminds me of a Russian joke.
An old man comes to a doctor and says:
- Doctor, I am only 65, but can't have sex any more. My neighbor is 80, and he tells stories about having sex with young women. Can you help me?
- I don't see your problem: you can tell stories, too.

[Oct 20, 2018] Looks like we are living in Matrix environment

The power of propaganda is such that it is able to create the artificial reality in which Western citizen live. Right out of the Matrix ;-)
As jilles dykstra noted: "The MH17 show closely resembles the Sept 11 show."
Notable quotes:
"... Suspect Ukraine was part of those who investigated. This comedy, or tragedy, has reached its top in designating the Russian officer who did it, and the intention to ask him why he did it. Russia had no motive, the west and Ukraine had, the Netherlands most objected to more sanctions against Russia, we had a considerable export, the day after the disaster no more objections. ..."
"... The MH17 show closely resembles the Sept 11 show. Memorials, remembrances, etc. Nobody yet has dared to ask prime minister Rutte what was so secret in the afternoon of the disaster that he asked vice prime minister Asscher, then on vacation in the south of France, to call him back on a land line 'so that the Russians were unable to listen in'. My darkest suspicion, Rutte knew what was going to happen. ..."
Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Likewise, the Netherlands story of Russian hacking connected with the Dutch commission investigating the tragedy of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 sounds realistic. The commission refused Russians access to its findings; this unfair dealing would force any intelligence service in the world to try and learn what had been found.

Not that it was of any use. The Dutch commission indeed found out the numbers of the missile that destroyed the jet; the Russians went through their documents and proved that this particular missile had been delivered to the Ukraine (when it was a Soviet republic) and remained there. A scoop! Now we know what happened with the jet – it was destroyed by the Ukrainians, presumably by mistake, like they downed another Russian airliner . However, the Western media ignored this scoop altogether. They decided to blame the crash on the Russians, and so they did to the end. Even if Russian intelligence were to find and deliver to the Hague the Ukrainian soldiers who operated the missile launcher, the Dutch, as loyal NATO members, would look other way.

This already happened regarding Syrian chemical attacks – the Russians and the Syrians delivered the very kids who unwillingly participated in the White Helmets' staged and filmed 'attack, directly to the OPCW. It was of no use. These guys are not after truth, they are just repeating the narrative they learned by rote.

Still, Russian intelligence worth of its name would be expected to try and obtain maximum findings in order to help the government to clear Russia's name of unjust accusations. There revelations of Russian activity weren't particularly dangerous or vicious. But while this subject had been discussed, a very painful and distressing development had been revealed.

The Western intelligence services have achieved incredible knowledge of whatever happens in Russia. They have obtained extensive databases of Russian everyday life from traffic violations and fines to passport scans, from residence registration to taxi requests, from messenger chats to emails, allowing them to trace persons and events in Russia with uncanny precision.

Many databases had been stolen and sold by small-time crooks; Western intelligences had made a concentrated effort to buy whatever is available on the black market; some bases were stolen and sold for crypto-currencies on the deep internet.

The most valuable databases had been sold by the crooks and/or traitors, while the Information Security Centre of FSB (ЦИБ ФСБ) led by colonel Sergei Mikhailov who is now being tried for the high treason, did nothing to stop the leak.

jilles dykstra , says: October 20, 2018 at 7:23 am GMT

" Likewise, the Netherlands story of Russian hacking connected with the Dutch commission investigating the tragedy of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 sounds realistic. "

How ?

Suspect Ukraine was part of those who investigated. This comedy, or tragedy, has reached its top in designating the Russian officer who did it, and the intention to ask him why he did it. Russia had no motive, the west and Ukraine had, the Netherlands most objected to more sanctions against Russia, we had a considerable export, the day after the disaster no more objections.

If it was an accident, a very lucky one, hitting a plane coming from Amsterdam.

The MH17 show closely resembles the Sept 11 show. Memorials, remembrances, etc. Nobody yet has dared to ask prime minister Rutte what was so secret in the afternoon of the disaster that he asked vice prime minister Asscher, then on vacation in the south of France, to call him back on a land line 'so that the Russians were unable to listen in'. My darkest suspicion, Rutte knew what was going to happen.

[Oct 19, 2018] How to select a UN diplomat: any politicized US housewife qualifies, the least qualified candidate wins

Notable quotes:
"... 'When she was offered the UN role, Haley reportedly recalled, "I told [Trump], 'Honestly, I don't even know what the UN does,' " ..."
"... Baturally after saying she doesn't know what UN does Nikki got the job ..."
Oct 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

brian , Oct 18, 2018 5:06:15 PM | link

Nimratas tell all https://pagesix.com/2018/10/17/nikki-haley-dishes-on-her-time-in-trump-administration-in-private-talk-with-conservatives/

'When she was offered the UN role, Haley reportedly recalled, "I told [Trump], 'Honestly, I don't even know what the UN does,' " to which the crowd "erupted with sympathetic laughter and applause," Blumenthal writes.

Baturally after saying she doesn't know what UN does Nikki got the job

[Oct 19, 2018] Ukrainian religious shism as a part of color revolution

Attempt to split the church were pretty much predictable, as it increases the level of sovereignty of the Ukrainian state. So Poroshenko position is logical.
The problem here that there are not that many believers in eastern part of Ukraine. But there is substantial number of Uniate believers in Western part of Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... Could it be that the Vatican is the principal force behind the 2014 Maidan uprising in Kiev, the regime-change operation in Ukraine, as a part of its millennium-old war against Russian Orthodoxy? ..."
"... a very clear way the textbook activities of color revolution conducted by that most powerful and respectable institution of soft power, a religious university - the Ukrainian Catholic University - with its own media group, its own business academy, and funding and contacts with many "philanthropies" from the west. It's also headed by an American bishop, with a substantial provenance and respected standing in US elite circles. ..."
"... The Catholic Church is losing its hold over the masses, losing its power, and yet continues with its war against the Orthodox side of the schism, and doubles down on tools of domination, experimenting in Ukraine and some other eastern European countries with ways to control a society - a clear threat to western Europe if it could but see it. ..."
Oct 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved , Oct 19, 2018 12:08:14 AM | link

Could it be that the Vatican is the principal force behind the 2014 Maidan uprising in Kiev, the regime-change operation in Ukraine, as a part of its millennium-old war against Russian Orthodoxy?

The Saker is carrying a long article by Russian author Aleksandr Voznesensky, translated heroically by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard. It's cross-posted from StalkerZone, but there are some comments on Saker, and I know we can link there, so here goes:
How the Vatican Is Preparing to Launch a Religious War in Ukraine with the Help of the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Uniates

The article is a keeper - I recommend bookmarking it for reference if nothing else. It details the events leading up to and following the Maidan, and illustrates in a very clear way the textbook activities of color revolution conducted by that most powerful and respectable institution of soft power, a religious university - the Ukrainian Catholic University - with its own media group, its own business academy, and funding and contacts with many "philanthropies" from the west. It's also headed by an American bishop, with a substantial provenance and respected standing in US elite circles.

Although the article is long, it's very readable, and well translated.

Towards the end, it poses a view that I had never considered, but which resonates with the trajectory of the more secular US empire. The Catholic Church is losing its hold over the masses, losing its power, and yet continues with its war against the Orthodox side of the schism, and doubles down on tools of domination, experimenting in Ukraine and some other eastern European countries with ways to control a society - a clear threat to western Europe if it could but see it.

I don't understand much about the recent moves of the Church in Ukraine, but anyone can see how fraught are the faithful because of these lawless acts. I often forget the old battle by Rome against Constantinople, but I have every inclination to believe it completely. This article does a splendid job of detailing it and making it very visible.

[Oct 19, 2018] You'll learn a great many things you didn't know before from Putin and Lavrov interviews. I certainly did!

Oct 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ross , Oct 18, 2018 6:08:19 PM | link

@ben | Oct 18, 2018 5:09:50 PM | 40

If you are finding your way out of the dark forest of propaganda there are two speeches by Putin that I point people toward. First, at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Video here : Transcript here

Second, at the UN General Assembly September 2015, Video here : Transcript here .

I fail to see how any rational person could disagree with the sentiments he expresses. Warning! You may become a Putin-bot!

karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 8:40:07 PM | link

Lots of interviews: Putin, Medvedev, and Lavrov twice. The only two I haven't linked to are Lavrov's --done!

Putin's Valdai Club transcript isn't 100% complete yet, but the summary I linked to earlier @11 has the video. The Medvedev link's @21.

You'll learn a great many things you didn't know before from these interviews. I certainly did!

[Oct 19, 2018] Oh for the day when a western leader could speak with such intellectual rigour, such philosophical integrity and with such basic common sense. Russia has a giant, we have a bunch of pygmies

Notable quotes:
"... Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons. ..."
"... They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal, basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps. ..."
Oct 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 2:41:08 PM | link

CarlD@23--

One al-Masdar News item I tried to link was about Zionist jets testing the outer envelope of Syrian airspace earlier today. Clearly they think the Ukrainian S-300 they trained against differs little from the very upgraded versions employed in Syria, which are much closer to S-400 in most abilities other than missile performance. I wonder if the Zionist pilots will draw straws to see which one of them becomes the sacrificial lamb--perhaps it ought to fall to the top Zionist air force commander.

For all Aussie Barflies, Partisangirl posts an "Honest #australian government ad about anti-encryption laws," in which they are called "Ass Access." Excellent short vid that ought to catch fire before YouTube yanks it.

S , Oct 18, 2018 3:04:23 PM | link

RT has posted the full video of the annual Valdai Club meeting with Putin. This year they've ditched the traditional panel discussion in favor of Putin answering questions solo. For those MoA regulars who don't have the time to watch it, I've transcribed a few of Putin's answers that I found interesting.

Putin on Crimea school shooting

This is most likely a result of globalization, strange as that may sound. On social media, on the internet, we see entire communities created. It all started with the well-known tragic shootings in U.S. high schools, where young people who are mentally unstable create false idols, false heroes for themselves. And that means that all of us, not only in Russia, but globally, we don't react promptly to the changing realities around the Globe, we don't create content that would be helpful and interesting for young people, and so they have to grab this surrogate of heroic images, and that leads to tragedies like this one.

Putin on nuclear retaliation

In our concept of using nuclear weapons there is no such notion as a preventive strike. And I would like to request all those present here and all those who will be reporting on what I'm saying and analyzing every word I say or using what I say for their own narrative, please take note of this fact, that Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons.

Now, this is no secret, we have prepared an early warning system, we have created it and we keep improving it. This system analyzes globally, world-wide, where launches are being made, including oceanic surface, they identify where missiles are being launched from, secondly, their trajectory and the point of impact. All this is being identified and analyzed within seconds.

And so only if we identify through that system that missiles are being launched at us, only then will we deliver a retaliatory strike, a strike in response. Only when there are missiles airborne being launched at Russia.

Of course, that would lead to a global disaster, to a nuclear catastrophe, but Russia cannot become its instigator or initiator, because we don't have a preventive strike as part of our military doctrine. Of course, once someone has launched nuclear missiles at us, it would be maybe too late to stop them, but a potential aggressor should know that there would be a retaliation, and we will get to heaven as martyrs, and our enemies will simply simply die as dogs, because they won't even have time to redeem themselves (repent). (nervous laughter in the audience)

Putin on Ukraine

Currently, the Ukrainian regime is not merely deadlocking the situation. There're conducting an anti-state and anti-public policy, the same way it was done by Saakashvili in Georgia. They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal, basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps.

I hope that that would not be the case. But what has happened over the past time in social sphere, in economics? What's happening there? What we see is de-industrialization of the Ukrainian economy. There's basically no investments coming. They're just talking about investments, but nothing is taking place in reality. How can you work with economy that is always shaken by some kinds of shocks or undermined by domestic political crises? There is also war hysteria. All things have been destroyed. Where is that ship-building industry that Ukraine was proud of? Where's the aircraft-building industry, which was created by the whole Soviet Union throughout decades? What about spaceship-building? It has also been lost. And the same goes for every part of Ukrainian pride of the past. And what's happening is what I have been saying. I'm just saying it outloud here, but I wanted to ask you a rhetorical question. Why did our Western partners need that, especially the previous leadership of European Commission? Why did they have to insist on such a hard choice, hard engagement of Ukraine in the European Association? What did that give to Ukraine? The open market? So they're asking for Ukraine to bring out round timber. But it's not Siberia -- three or four years of work, and they're going to destroy all of the forests. And now Western partners are asking for GMO products in agriculture. Then we will have to close borders, because GMO is prohibited in our country. Now they're going to take the black earth soil out of Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that today's policy of Ukrainian authorities is aimed at what, what are they trading in? They're trading in Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments, there are no more goods there. And they're being forgiven for everything for that. Because the nightmare of our Western partners is that Russia and Ukraine are cooperating in any way, because they think there will be growing competition in the world as a result of such cooperation. But we don't a claim for that, we just wanted to have normal work. Why did they have to open up Ukrainian markets without giving anything in return? And demanding from the Ukrainian government, constantly, to raise the prices for (natural) gas. They understand that the purchasing power of the population is not so high, they used to gather just peanuts for the (natural) gas industry before (in utility payments), and now they're basically gathering nothing -- all benefits, all pensions are at zero. So we're gonna have to wait for the domestic political cycle to end, and I truly hope that with a new leadership of the country we'll be capable of building at least some kind of relations and agree on something. We are prepared for that and we want that.

Ross , Oct 18, 2018 3:19:17 PM | link
re Putin's comments @29

Oh for the day when a western leader could speak with such intellectual rigour, such philosophical integrity and with such basic common sense. Russia has a giant, we have a bunch of pygmies.

[Oct 19, 2018] Putin's remarks at Valdai Club

Oct 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 12:12:47 PM | link

Recap of Putin's remarks at Valdai Club provided by Sputnik covers lots of ground. I'll post a link to the full transcript when I find it. Yes, he does comment on Khashoggi affair, which I'll post onto that thread. Haven't seen a recap of Lavrov's remarks yet.

karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 1:35:43 PM | link

It appears that links to al-Masdar News are now being blocked by TypePad where they weren't previously.

Medvedev interview transcript with Euronews TV shows he's learned a few pointers from Putin on not being cowed. He'll represent Russia at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). This Summit, which few have probably heard about, is mainly a talk-shop not a deal-making venue like the G-20, but Medvedev sees it as a useful forum. No, he wasn't asked about Khashoggi, but was queried about Skripal affair.

karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 2:41:08 PM | link S , Oct 18, 2018 3:04:23 PM | link
RT has posted the full video of the annual Valdai Club meeting with Putin. This year they've ditched the traditional panel discussion in favor of Putin answering questions solo. For those MoA regulars who don't have the time to watch it, I've transcribed a few of Putin's answers that I found interesting.

Putin on Crimea school shooting

This is most likely a result of globalization, strange as that may sound. On social media, on the internet, we see entire communities created. It all started with the well-known tragic shootings in U.S. high schools, where young people who are mentally unstable create false idols, false heroes for themselves. And that means that all of us, not only in Russia, but globally, we don't react promptly to the changing realities around the Globe, we don't create content that would be helpful and interesting for young people, and so they have to grab this surrogate of heroic images, and that leads to tragedies like this one.

Putin on nuclear retaliation

In our concept of using nuclear weapons there is no such notion as a preventive strike. And I would like to request all those present here and all those who will be reporting on what I'm saying and analyzing every word I say or using what I say for their own narrative, please take note of this fact, that Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons. Now, this is no secret, we have prepared an early warning system, we have created it and we keep improving it. This system analyzes globally, world-wide, where launches are being made, including oceanic surface, they identify where missiles are being launched from, secondly, their trajectory and the point of impact. All this is being identified and analyzed within seconds. And so only if we identify through that system that missiles are being launched at us, only then will we deliver a retaliatory strike, a strike in response. Only when there are missiles airborne being launched at Russia. Of course, that would lead to a global disaster, to a nuclear catastrophe, but Russia cannot become its instigator or initiator, because we don't have a preventive strike as part of our military doctrine. Of course, once someone has launched nuclear missiles at us, it would be maybe too late to stop them, but a potential aggressor should know that there would be a retaliation, and we will get to heaven as martyrs, and our enemies will simply simply die as dogs, because they won't even have time to redeem themselves (repent). (nervous laughter in the audience)

Putin on Ukraine

Currently, the Ukrainian regime is not merely deadlocking the situation. There're conducting an anti-state and anti-public policy, the same way it was done by Saakashvili in Georgia. They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal, basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps. I hope that that would not be the case. But what has happened over the past time in social sphere, in economics? What's happening there? What we see is de-industrialization of the Ukrainian economy. There's basically no investments coming. They're just talking about investments, but nothing is taking place in reality. How can you work with economy that is always shaken by some kinds of shocks or undermined by domestic political crises? There is also war hysteria. All things have been destroyed. Where is that ship-building industry that Ukraine was proud of? Where's the aircraft-building industry, which was created by the whole Soviet Union throughout decades? What about spaceship-building? It has also been lost. And the same goes for every part of Ukrainian pride of the past. And what's happening is what I have been saying. I'm just saying it outloud here, but I wanted to ask you a rhetorical question. Why did our Western partners need that, especially the previous leadership of European Commission? Why did they have to insist on such a hard choice, hard engagement of Ukraine in the European Association? What did that give to Ukraine? The open market? So they're asking for Ukraine to bring out round timber. But it's not Siberia -- three or four years of work, and they're going to destroy all of the forests. And now Western partners are asking for GMO products in agriculture. Then we will have to close borders, because GMO is prohibited in our country. Now they're going to take the black earth soil out of Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that today's policy of Ukrainian authorities is aimed at what, what are they trading in? They're trading in Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments, there are no more goods there. And they're being forgiven for everything for that. Because the nightmare of our Western partners is that Russia and Ukraine are cooperating in any way, because they think there will be growing competition in the world as a result of such cooperation. But we don't a claim for that, we just wanted to have normal work. Why did they have to open up Ukrainian markets without giving anything in return? And demanding from the Ukrainian government, constantly, to raise the prices for (natural) gas. They understand that the purchasing power of the population is not so high, they used to gather just peanuts for the (natural) gas industry before (in utility payments), and now they're basically gathering nothing -- all benefits, all pensions are at zero. So we're gonna have to wait for the domestic political cycle to end, and I truly hope that with a new leadership of the country we'll be capable of building at least some kind of relations and agree on something. We are prepared for that and we want that.

karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 3:35:12 PM | link
S @29--

Thanks for doing that work! Transcript at Kremlin website's still incomplete, containing probably half of entire program. As usual, much of importance was stated. Putin's matter-of-fact delivery regarding use of nuclear weapons and the nature of those who would launch a first strike was sobering. The question today's reversed: Do Americans love their children too? Unfortunately, given what's happening here domestically, the answer provided by DC Duopoly policy makers is NO, they don't give a damn about their kids or anyone else's!

[Oct 19, 2018] For the $TRILLIONS hoovered up by Deep State and their war profiteering minions, we could have put every Afghan male of military age through Harvard Business School.

Oct 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

b , Oct 18, 2018 9:28:57 AM | link

The governor General Abdul Raziq, the police chief and the intelligence chief of Kandahar have all been killed today. Bodyguards turned their guns on them. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan was present but not hurt.

Raziq was a brut, thief, killer, drug baron and the CIA's man in Kandahar.

In 2011 Matthieu Atkins portrait him: Our Man in Kandahar
Abdul Raziq and his men have received millions of dollars' worth of U.S. training and equipment to help in the fight against the Taliban. But is our ally -- long alleged to be involved in corruption and drug smuggling -- also guilty of mass murder?

Anton Worter , Oct 18, 2018 10:05:07 AM | link

b

Been there. Done that. Kandahar is beautiful.

The United States, specifically Cheney and Petraeus and Rodham, imposed the Imperial Executor form of Federalist government upon a people who were a well-organized heirarchical society while William the Conqueror was still head chopping Anglo-Saxons in bear skins.

Cheny wrote the Afghan petroleum and strategic resources laws *in English* at the beginning of the 2001 invasion. The US imposed a new flag, a new pledge of allegiance, a new national song and even a new national currency on the Afghan people, then imposed the first imperial caesar, Karzai.

You break it, you own it!

For the $TRILLIONS hoovered up by Deep State and their war profiteering minions, we could have put every Afghan male of military age through Harvard Business School.

On to Tehran!! Lu,lu,lu,lu,lu!

Anton Worter , Oct 18, 2018 2:36:09 PM | link
12

Cheney, Petraeus and Rodham ALSO created the Federal Republican Guard ANA and ANP, goombahs, renegade hijackers and shakedown artists who, like those same ANA/ANP 'personal guards' mentioned in b's article, assassinated the governor and the others. And umm, yes, I've been on the muzzle end of those ANA/ANP thugs in an attempted kidnapping, so been there, done that.

AFA Russ' defense of William the Conqueror as some 'high point' of a Western Civilization of Red Haired Yettis, they were still head-chopping each other in England while Afghanistan ruled from East Persia to Western India, an advanced civilization far more ancient than Anglo-Saxon bearskin cave dwelling knuckle draggers, at the time.

Of course, now today we have the White Scientocratic Triumphal Exceptionalist Civilization and its Miracle of the Two Planes and Three Towers to prove it, even if Johnny and Jillian can't read, write or do their ciphers.

[Oct 19, 2018] This is about spreading our liberal values" (translation: the American people don't need to be informed about the region are changes are non-negotiable).

Oct 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kadath , Oct 18, 2018 5:49:18 PM | link

just watched the Atlantic council's Championing the Frontlines of Freedom: Erasing the "Grey Zone", only interesting thing to come out of the conference was Kurt Volker's (US Special Representative for Ukraine) comments;

  1. Escalating sanctions vs Russia every 1-2 months there will be new & expanded sanctions on Russia.
  2. Stable borders should not be a requirement to be a part of NATO, "Occupied" states can be taken into NATO and receive support from NATO to liberate themselves (he stressed that the US would not be escalate the conflict, but how the hell could anyone guarantee that).
  3. Opposition to Russia is now bipartisan, regardless of the Nov elections, US Senate & Congress are unified against Russia
  4. when asked how "We" (the Atlantic council) can make political elites care about Baltic states (plus Ukraine/Georgia), WITHOUT knowing the historical and political details of these states he, unsurprisingly answered "this is about spreading our liberal values" (translation: the American people don't need to be informed about the region are changes are non-negotiable). the long and the short of the 3 hour conference was the new cold war vs Russia will continue indefinitely, I would say this is the start of another generation conflict that will last 10-20 years at least

Mark2 , Oct 18, 2018 5:55:03 PM | link

Ok i'l stick my neck out !
It's over for America ! That's my assessment their day is d d d done ! Am basing my view on the worldwide picture politically, the mind set of the general public I talk to, the many sites I visit on the net left and right. Plus overall wisdom and overstanding (a Rasta thing) Empires fall, this one has more than had its day. If it was a buseness what does it produce ? And at what cost? It just robs other peoples hard earned resources and assets! For all it's wealth it treats it's own public like dirt milking them dry. It's intelligent public it curupt's. Nature abbor's greed, and wil correct that imbalance.

I think Putin understands this, and understands as I do 'desperate people do desperate things' hence his speech.
Censoring the truth on a massive network like the internet is truly impossible and plainly desperate !!!

[Oct 19, 2018] Merkel Coalition Gets Overdue Spanking in Bavaria but 5 years Too Late to Save Germany

Oct 19, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

In Bavaria's state elections, German voters sent a powerful message to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been harshly criticized for opening up Germany's borders to the free flow of migration. But strangely enough the pro-immigrant Green Party took a solid second place.

Merkel and her fragile coalition, comprised of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Social Democrats Party (SPD) and Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered staggering losses in Bavaria on Sunday, losses not experienced by the two powerhouse conservative parties for many decades.

The CSU won just 37.3 percent of the vote, down 12.1 percent from 2013, thus failing to secure an absolute majority. It marked the worst showing conservative Christian Bavaria, where the CSU has ruled practically unilaterally since 1957. But the political mood in Germany has changed, and Merkel's so-called sister party will now be forced to seek a coalition to cover its losses.

Meanwhile, the left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD), in an awkward alliance with their conservative allies, secured just 9.5 percent of the Bavarian vote, down almost 10.9 percent from its 2013 showing.

The dismal results were not altogether unexpected. CSU leader Horst Seehofer has regularly clashed with Angela Merkel over the question of her loose refugee policies, which saw 1.5 million migrants pour into Germany unmolested in 2015 alone. In January 2016, when the number of arrivals had peaked, Bavaria grabbed headlines as Peter Dreier, mayor of the district of Landshut, sent a busload of refugees to Berlin, saying his city could not handle any more new arrivals.

Yet, despite such expressions of frustration, and even anger, Germany, perhaps out of some fear of reverting back to atavistic nationalistic tendencies that forever lurks in the background of the German psyche, has not come out in full force against the migrant invasion, which seems to have been forced upon the nation without their approval. As with the young girl in the video below, however, some Germans have come forward to express their strong reservations with the trend.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uGfP8CyJAhg

In general, however, the German people, in direct contradiction to the stereotype of them being an orderly and logical people, do not seem overly concerned with the prospects of their tidy country being overrun by the chaos of undocumented and illegal migrants. This much seemed to be confirmed by the strong showing of the pro-immigration Green Party, which took second place with 18.3 percent of the votes, a 9 percent increase since the last elections.

Katharina Schulze, the 33-year old co-leader of the Bavarian Greens, told reporters "Bavaria needs a political party that solves the problems of the people and not create new ones over and over again."

However, a political platform that seems fine with open borders seems to contradict Schulze's claim to not creating new problems "over and over again." Today, thanks to Merkel's disastrous refugee non-plan, which the Greens applaud, every fifth person in Germany comes from immigration, a figure that will naturally increase over time, placing immense pressure on the country's already overloaded social welfare programs, not to mention disrupting the country's social cohesiveness.

Thus Schulze may find it an impossible challenge "solving the problems of the people," one of the vaguest campaign pledges I have ever heard, while embracing a staunchly refugee-friendly platform that seems doomed to ultimate disaster.

Indeed, Germany appears to be on a collision course between those who accept the idea of being the world's welcome center for refugees, and those who think Germany must not only close its borders, but perhaps even send back many refugees. After all, it has been proven that many of these new arrivals are in reality ' economic migrants' who arrived in Europe not due to any persecution back home, but rather from the hope of improving their lot in life. While it's certainly no crime to seek out economic opportunities, it becomes a real problem when it comes at the expense of the domestic population.

From an outsider's perspective, I cannot fathom how it is possible that Angela Merkel is still in power. Although there is no term limit on the chancellorship, people must still go to the polls and vote for this woman and the CDU, which the majority continues to do – despite everything.

In a search for answers, I found an explanation by one Arne Trautmann, a German lawyer from Munich.

"I think the answer lies in German psychology. We do not like instability. We had our experience with it (hyperinflation, wars and such) and it did not work very well. Angela Merkel offers such stability. Simply because she has been around for so long."

Still, that answer just drags up more questions that perhaps only the Germans can answer. After all, if the German people "do not like instability," then the specter of their borders being violated on a daily basis such be simply unacceptable to them. Perhaps I am missing something.

In any case, there was a consolation prize of sorts in the Bavarian elections, as the anti-immigrant AfD party took fourth place (behind the Free Voters) with 10.2 percent of the votes, an increase of 10 percent from their 2013 performance.

This will give the AfD parliamentary power in the state assembly for the first time, which should work to put the brakes on illegal migrants entering the country. For the future of Germany, it may be the last hope.

[Oct 19, 2018] I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.

Notable quotes:
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
Oct 19, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Seamus Padraig , , October 18, 2018 at 2:14 pm

I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.

She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.

So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!

[Oct 19, 2018] Women's March On The Pentagon Puts The 'Pro' Back In 'Protest' PopularResistance.Org by Cindy Sheehan

Jun 03, 2018 | popularresistance.org
| Resist! Women's March On The Pentagon Puts The 'Pro' Back In 'Protest' 2018-06-03 2018-06-03 https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/popres-shorter.png PopularResistance.Org https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/06/womens-march-on-the-pentagon-graphic.jpg 200px 200px

After eight years of the Obama regime expanding the Bush regime's wars from around two to around seven (with very little opposition from the so-called antiwar movement ), the Women 's March on the Pentagon is rebuilding a movement from practically scratch.

We are struggling to not get trapped in the antiwar old ways which never have been truly successful. If the anti-Vietnam war movement, its tactics, and energy were so awesome, then why is the US currently mired so deeply in at least seven wars for Empire with 1000 bases in over 130 countries around the world and continued support for the apartheid, colonial, illegal state of Israel?

We are planning to march on the Pentagon. The Pentagon is not a typical target because many activists are afraid of offending the military despite recognizing that the US military is the largest terrorist organization in the world. We are also having a rally on the 21st of October and are committed to "Occupying" the Pentagon until Veteran's Day, November 11th.

We are also reimagining new ways to state what the Women 's March on the Pentagon is doing.

Yes, we are against the US Empire's perpetual and devastating wars but being "anti" war was never enough. Being "pro" peace is also deficient because peace is just not an absence of war -- it is also the presence of social justice and social safety nets.

WMOP is putting the PRO back in PROtest but before we are PRO-peace, we feel we need to be each of the following. The list that follows is not exhaustive, but it is a good start.

PRO-woman: Every single woman on this planet, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, economic status or national origin, is entitled to the same quality of life as wealthy, white women in the USA -- including being free from military occupation (and all the horrors that brings, including rape and the murder of children) and other oppression.

PRO-equality: Every human is entitled to every good thing, including the right to PRO-test wrong things.

PRO-planet: The Pentagon's War Machine is responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount of pollution, waste, environmental degradation and use of fossil fuels. The Pentagon seriously needs to be reduced to a size where it can be drowned in a bucket before we can save human life from extinction on our only planet, our Mother Earth.

PRO-education: Education is a human right and the trillions of dollars spent on active wars and empire maintenance robs our communities and schools from money needed to give our children a high-quality and free education from Pre to University. In all levels, our children should feel safe to attend school without the horrors of mass-shootings and police state oppression.

PRO-gun control: As long as guns, ammunition, bombs and other weapons of murder are taken from the Pentagon and police forces first. Our mothers and grandmothers in occupied lands, inner cities, and other economically disadvantaged areas should not have to worry themselves sick when their young ones leave the home that they will be executed by a killer cop or drone-bombed by the USA. Our sisters in other countries should not have to bury their children, or flee their homes in fear for their lives, because of the US Empire.

PRO-health care: Women bear the burden of ill children and are likely the ones to miss work when a child is ill. Health care must be free and high-quality, but it must also serve families and communities with healthy food, water, air and opportunities for care for ill children (or elderly relatives) when the woman needs or wants to go to work. Health care must be comprehensive and include dental, mental, chiropractic and any other holistic treatment/prevention that is needed/wanted. Prescriptions must be free and no woman/family should have to choose between life-saving medication and/or food.

PRO-labor at a living wage and PRO-basic guaranteed income

PRO-housing/food: In a nation as wealthy as the US, not one person should exist without shelter or healthy and abundant food. Housing and food are human rights, not privileges. Most homeless people work hard, but cannot afford a place to live. 19% of the United States of American children (14 million) go to bed hungry every night in the land of plenty and plenty of waste. These statistics are shameful and abominable but can be changed after the commodification and privatization of everything for profit over people ends.

PRO-redistribution of resources: Ending the Pentagon, the billions of dollars of waste and more than a trillion dollar budget would go a long way to address the horrendous human rights' abuses and fundamental economic crises 2/3 of the people in the US face.

Once there is justice, environmental sustainability, economic equality and celebration of diversity, combined with the end of the US Military Empire, THEN, and only then, will we live in relative peace in our communities and families.

If one woman is living under military occupation, colonial rule, or otherwise oppressed, none of us are free!

Join the Women 's March on the Pentagon!

[Oct 18, 2018] Germany Clashes With The US Over Energy Geopolitics

Notable quotes:
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser and what we've accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending our reach . ..."
"... By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
"... As long as NATO exists, Washington will continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it benefited Germany's national interest. ..."
"... She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He is leaving the door open. ..."
"... What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018. ..."
"... Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to exchange ensuring business for many years to come. Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it). Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana. ..."
"... IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere. ..."
"... So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines. ..."
"... Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA. ..."
"... It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil (unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong? ..."
"... The United States should lead by example. Telling Germany not to import Russian gas is rich considering the U.S. also imports from Russia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/12/russia-was-a-top-10-supplier-of-u-s-oil-imports-in-2017/ ..."
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
Oct 18, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser and what we've accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending our reach .

Yves here. It's not hard to see that this tiff isn't just about Russia. The US wants Germany to buy high-priced US LNG.

By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm. Originally published at OilPrice

The United States and the European Union (EU) are at odds over more than just the Iran nuclear deal – tensions surrounding energy policy have also become a flashpoint for the two global powerhouses.

In energy policy, the U.S. has been opposing the Gazprom-led and highly controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline project , which will follow the existing Nord Stream natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. EU institutions and some EU members such as Poland and Lithuania are also against it, but one of the leaders of the EU and the end-point of the planned project -- Germany -- supports Nord Stream 2 and sees the project as a private commercial venture that will help it to meet rising natural gas demand.

While the U.S. has been hinting this year that it could sanction the project and the companies involved in it -- which include not only Gazprom but also major European firms Shell, Engie, OMV, Uniper, and Wintershall -- Germany has just said that Washington shouldn't interfere with Europe's energy choices and policies.

"I don't want European energy policy to be defined in Washington," Germany's Foreign Ministry State Secretary Andreas Michaelis said at a conference on trans-Atlantic ties in Berlin this week.

Germany has to consult with its European partners regarding the project, Michaelis said, and noted, as quoted by Reuters, that he was "certainly not willing to accept that Washington is deciding at the end of the day that we should not rely on Russian gas and that we should not complete this pipeline project."

In July this year, U.S. President Donald Trump said at a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that "Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply." Related: The Implications Of A Fractured U.S., Saudi Alliance

"Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline," President Trump said.

Germany continues to see Nord Stream 2 as a commercial venture, although it wants clarity on the future role of Ukraine as a transit route, German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer said last month.

Nord Stream 2 is designed to bypass Ukraine, and Ukraine fears it will lose transit fees and leverage over Russia as the transit route for its gas to western Europe.

Poland, one of the most outspoken opponents of Nord Stream 2, together with the United States, issued a joint statement last month during the visit of Polish President Andrzej Duda to Washington, in which the parties said , "We will continue to coordinate our efforts to counter energy projects that threaten our mutual security, such as Nord Stream 2."

The United States looks to sell more liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the European market, including to Germany , to help Europe diversify its energy supply, which is becoming increasingly dependent on Russian supplies. Related: High Prices Benefit Iran Despite Lost Oil Exports

The president of the Federation of German Industry (BDI), Dieter Kempf, however, told German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung last month, that he had "a big problem with a third country interfering in our energy policy," referring to the United States. German industry needs Nord Stream 2, and dropping the project to buy U.S. LNG instead wouldn't make any economic sense, he said. U.S. LNG currently is not competitive on the German market and would simply cost too much, according to Kempf.

The lower price of Russian pipeline gas to Europe is a key selling point -- and one that Gazprom uses often. Earlier this month Alexey Miller, Chairman of Gazprom's Management Committee, said at a gas forum in Russia that "Although much talk is going on about new plans for LNG deliveries, there is no doubt that pipeline gas supplies from Russia will always be more competitive than LNG deliveries from any other part of the world. It goes without saying."

The issue with Nord Stream 2 -- which is already being built in German waters -- is that it's not just a commercial project. Many in Europe and everyone in the United States see it as a Russian political tool and a means to further tighten Russia's grip on European gas supplies, of which it already holds more than a third. But Germany wants to discuss the future of this project within the European Union, without interference from the United States.

Alex V , October 18, 2018 at 4:43 am

Thankfully liquefying gas and then reconstituting it uses no additional energy, and transportation into major harbors is perfectly safe.

Capitalism inaction!

Quentin , October 18, 2018 at 6:23 am

Maybe the US thinks it will also have to go out of its way to accommodate Germany and the EU by offering to construct the necessary infrastructure in Europe for the import of LNG at exorbitant US prices. MAGA. How long would that take?

disillusionized , October 18, 2018 at 7:03 am

The question is, is it inevitable that the EU/US relationship goes sour?

Continentalism is on the rise generally, and specifically with brexit, couple this with the geographical gravity of the EU-Russia relationship makes a EU-Russia "alliance" make more sense than the EU-US relationship.

Ever since the death of the USSR and the accession of the eastern states to the EU, the balance of power in the EU-US relationship has moved in ways it seems clear that the US is uncomfortable with.

To all of this we must add the policy differences between the US and the EU – see the GDPR and the privacy shield for example.

I have said it before – the day Putin dies (metaphorically or literally) is a day when the post war order in Europe may die, and we see the repairing of the EU-Russia relationship (by which I mean the current regime in Russia will be replaced with a new generation far less steeped in cold war dogma and way more interested in the EU).

NotReallyHere , October 18, 2018 at 1:23 pm

"The post war order in Europe will doe and we see the repairing of the EU/Russian relationship "

I think you mean the German/Russian relationship and that repair has been under way for more than a decade. The post war order is very very frayed already and looks close to a break point.

This Nord Stream 2 story illustrates more than most Germany's attitudes to the EU and to the world at large. Germany used its heft within the EU to 1 ) get control of Russian gas supplies into Central Europe (Germany insisted that Poland could not invest in the project apparently and refused a landing point for the pipeline in Poland. Instead it offered a flow back valve from Germany into Poland that the Germans would control) 2) thumb its nose at the US while outwardly declaring friendship through the structures provided by EU and NATO membership.

Even Obama suspected the Germans of duplicity (the Merkel phone hacking debacle).

It's is this repairing relationship that will set the tone for Brexit, the Ukraine war, relations between Turkey and EU and eventually the survival of the EU and NATO. The point ? Germany doesn't give a hoot about the EU it served its purpose of keeping Germany anchored to the west and allowing German reunification to solidify while Russia was weak. Its usefulness is in the past now, however from a German point of view.

Seamus Padraig , October 18, 2018 at 2:01 pm

Putin dying isn't going to change Washington. As long as NATO exists, Washington will continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it benefited Germany's national interest.

Come to think of it, maybe Merkel dying off would improve German-Russian relations

NotReallyHere , October 18, 2018 at 4:49 pm

She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He is leaving the door open.

Germany won't lose if NATO and the EU break up. It would free itself from a range increasingly dis-functional entities that, in its mind, restrict its ability to engage in world affairs.

Susan the other , October 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm

I think you are right. Russia and Germany are coming together and there's nothing we can do about it because "private commercial venture." Poetic justice.

And the economic link will lead to political links and we will have to learn a little modesty. The ploy we are trying to use, selling Germany US LNG could not have been anything more than a stopgap supply line until NG from the ME came online but that has been our achilles heel.

It feels like even if we managed to kick the Saudis out and took over their oil and gas we still could no longer control geopolitics. The cat is out of the bag and neoliberalism has established the rules. And it's pointless because there is enough gas and oil and methane on this planet to kill the human race off but good.

NotReallyHere , October 18, 2018 at 5:00 pm

@Susan

That exactly right. and Gerhard Schroder has been developing those political relationships for more than a decade. The political/economic links already go very deep on both sides.

if the rapprochement is occurring, Brexit, the refugee crisis and Italy's approaching debt crisis are all just potential catalysts for an inevitable breakup. Germany likely views these as potential opportunities to direct European realignment rather than existential crises to be tackled.

JimL , October 18, 2018 at 7:08 am

What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018.

Ignacio , October 18, 2018 at 7:49 am

The US produces annually about 33,000,000 million cubic feet and consumes 27.000.000 million according to the EiA . So there is an excess to export indeed.

Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:23 pm

Leaving 6,000,000 million to be exported, until the shale gas no longer flows. How farsighted.

Ignacio , October 18, 2018 at 7:42 am

Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to exchange ensuring business for many years to come. Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it). Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana.

I don't know much about NG markets in Poland but according to Eurostat prices for non-household consumers are very similar in Poland, Germany, Lithuania or Spain.

PlutoniumKun , October 18, 2018 at 10:36 am

Gas contracts are usually linked to oil prices. A lot of LNG is traded as a fungible product like oil, but that contract seems different – most likely its constructed this way because of the huge capital cost of the LNG facilities, which make very little economic sense for a country like Poland which has pipelines criss-crossing it. I suspect the terminals have more capacity that the contract quantity – the surplus would be traded at market prices, which would no doubt be where the profit margin is for the supplier (I would be deeply sceptical that unsubsidised LNG could ever compete with Russia gas, the capital costs involved are just too high).

Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 8:26 am

IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere.

IMO, the folks responsible for this waste are as usual, ignoring the 'externalities', the costs to the environment of course, but also the cost of infrastructure and transport related to turning this situation to their advantage.

So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines.

This doesn't even take into account the possibility that the whole fracked gas supply may be a short-lived phenomenon, associated with what we've been describing here as basically a finance game.

Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA.

PlutoniumKun , October 18, 2018 at 10:39 am

Just to clarify, fracked gas is not usually a by-product of oil fracking – the geological beds are usually distinct (shale gas tends to occur at much deeper levels than tight oil). Gas can however be a byproduct of conventional oil production. 'wet' gas (propane, etc), can be a by-product of either.

Synapsid , October 18, 2018 at 11:14 am

PlutoniumKun,

It's common for oil wells both fracked and conventional to produce natural gas (NG) though not all do. The fracked wells in the Permian Basin are producing a great deal of it.

Natural gas does indeed form at higher temperatures than oil does and that means at greater depth but both oil and NG migrate upward. Exploration for petroleum is hunting for where it gets captured at depth, not for where it's formed. Those source rocks are used as indicators of where to look for petroleum trapped stratigraphically higher up.

Steve , October 18, 2018 at 8:53 am

It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil (unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong?

Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 9:02 am

What could go wrong?

I wonder what the secret industry studies say about the damage possible from an accident at a LNG port terminal involving catastrophic failure and combustion of the entire cargo of a transport while unloading high-pressure LNG.

They call a fuel-air bomb the size of a school bus 'The Mother of all bombs', what about one the size of a large ocean going tanker?

Anarcissie , October 18, 2018 at 10:46 am

Many years ago, someone was trying to build an LNG storage facility on the southwest shore of Staten Island 17 miles SW of Manhattan involving very large insulated tanks. In spite of great secrecy, there came to be much local opposition. At the time it was said that the amount of energy contained in the tanks would be comparable to a nuclear weapon. Various possible disaster scenarios were proposed, for example a tank could be compromised by accident (plane crashes into it) or terrorism, contents catch fire and explode, huge fireball emerges and drifts with the wind, possibly over New Jersey's chemical farms or even towards Manhattan. The local opponents miraculously won. As far as I know, the disused tanks are still there.

Wukchumni , October 18, 2018 at 10:55 am

This was a fuel-air bomb @ Burning Man about a dozen years ago, emanating from an oil derrick of sorts.

I was about 500 feet away when it went up, and afterwards thought maybe we were a bit too close to the action, as we got blasted with heat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyc6LTVxhJA

The Rev Kev , October 18, 2018 at 10:56 am

Does this page help Watt4Bob?

https://www.laohamutuk.org/Oil/LNG/app4.htm

Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 2:53 pm

That last one was a doozy as they say!

Nigeria 2005;

A 28-inch LNG underground pipeline exploded in Nigeria and the resulting fire engulfed an estimated 27 square kilometers.

Here's one from Cleveland;

On 20 October 1944, a liquefied natural gas storage tank in Cleveland, Ohio, split and leaked its contents, which spread, caught fire, and exploded. A half hour later, another tank exploded as well. The explosions destroyed 1 square mile (2.6 km2), killed 130, and left 600 homeless.

Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:54 pm

The locals in Nigeria drill hole in pipeline to get free fuel.

The Nigeria Government has been really wonderful about sharing the largess and riches of their large petroleum field in the Niger delta. Mostly with owners of expensive property around the world.

The Rev Kev , October 18, 2018 at 9:05 am

I am trying to think of what might be in it for the Germans to go along with this deal but cannot see any. The gas would be far more expensive that the Russian deliveries. A fleet of tankers and the port facilities would have to be built and who is going to pick up the tab for that? Then if the terminal is in Louisiana, what happens to deliveries whenever there is a hurricane?

I cannot see anything in it for the Germans at all. Trump's gratitude? That and 50 cents won't buy you a cup of coffee. In any case Trump would gloat about the stupidity of the Germans taking him up on the deal, not feel gratitude. The US wants Germany to stick with deliveries via the Ukraine as they have their thumb on that sorry country and can threaten Germany with that fact. Nord Stream 2 (and the eventual Nord Stream 3) threaten that hold.

The killer argument is this. In terms of business and remembering what international agreements Trump has broken the past two years, who is more reliable as a business partner for Germany – Putin's Russia or Trump's America?

Ignacio , October 18, 2018 at 10:20 am

Apart from cost issues, If American companies rely on shale gas to keep or increase production will they be able to honor 20 year supply contracts?

PlutoniumKun , October 18, 2018 at 10:37 am

I find it impossible to believe that a gas supplier would keep to an artificially low LNG contract if, say, a very cold winter in the US led to a shortage and extreme price spike. They'd come up with some excuse not to deliver.

The Rev Kev , October 18, 2018 at 10:40 am

Good question that. Poland has just signed a 20 year agreement with the US so I will be curious how that works out for them. Story at - https://www.rt.com/business/441494-poland-us-gas-lng/

jsn , October 18, 2018 at 12:16 pm

Trumps argument appears to be that Germany as a NATO member relies on US DOD for defense, to pay for that they must buy our LNG.

jefemt , October 18, 2018 at 9:25 am

My recollection was that there was a law that prohibited export-sales of domestic US hydrocarbons. That law was under attack, and went away in the last couple years?

LNG with your F35? said the transactional Orangeman

Duck1 , October 18, 2018 at 2:51 pm

The fracked crude is ultralight and unsuitable for the refineries in the quantities available, hence export, which caused congress to change the law. No expert, but understand that it is used a lot as a blender with heavier stocks of crude, quite a bit going to China.

oh , October 18, 2018 at 10:01 am

The petroleum industry has been bribing lobbying the administration for quite a while to get this policy in place, The so called surplus of NG today (if there is), won't last long. Exports will create a shortage and will result in higher prices to all.

vidimi , October 18, 2018 at 10:43 am

also, if Germany were to switch to American LNG, for how long would this be a reliable energy source? Fracking wells are short lived, so what happens once they are depleted? who foots the bill?

John k , October 18, 2018 at 12:48 pm

We do. Shortage here to honor export contracts, as has happened in Australia.

Big Tap , October 18, 2018 at 2:02 pm

The United States should lead by example. Telling Germany not to import Russian gas is rich considering the U.S. also imports from Russia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/12/russia-was-a-top-10-supplier-of-u-s-oil-imports-in-2017/

Seamus Padraig , October 18, 2018 at 2:14 pm

I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.

She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.

So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!

Unna , October 18, 2018 at 2:24 pm

Putting money aside for a moment, Trump, as well as the entire American establishment, doesn't want Russia "controlling" Germany's energy supplies. That's because they want America to control Germany's energy supplies via controlling LNG deliveries from America to Germany and by controlling gas supplies to Germany through Ukraine. This by maintaining America's control over Ukraine's totally dependent puppet government. The Germans know this so they want Nord Stream 2 & 3.

Ukraine is an unreliable energy corridor on a good day. It is run by clans of rapacious oligarchs who don't give one whit about Ukraine, the Ukrainian "people", or much of anything else except business. The 2019 presidential election may turn into a contest among President Poroshenko the Chocolate King, Yulia Tymoshenko the Gas Princess, as well as some others including neo Nazis that go downhill from there. What competent German government would want Germany's energy supplies to be dependent on that mess?

It has been said that America's worst geopolitical nightmare is an economic-political-military combination of Russia, Iran, and China in the Eurasian "heartland". Right up there, if not worse, is a close political-economic association between Germany and Russia; now especially so since such a relationship can quickly be hooked into China's New Silk Road, which America will do anything to subvert including tariffs, sanctions, confiscations of assets, promotion of political-ethnic-religious grievances where they may exist along the "Belt-Road", as well as armed insurrections, really maybe anything short of all out war with Russia and China.

Germany's trying to be polite about this saying, sure, how about a little bit of LNG along with Nord Stream 2 & 3? But the time may come, if America pushes enough, that Germany will have to make an existential choice between subservience to America, and pursuit of it's own legitimate self interest.

Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:33 pm

The Empire fights Back.

Study a map of the ME, and consider the silk road Terminii.

Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:30 pm

It's hard to make NG explode, as it is with all liquid hydrocarbons. It is refrigerated, and must change from liquid to gaseous for, and be mixed with air.

I've also worked on a Gas Tanker in the summer vacations. The gas was refrigerated, and kept liquid. They is a second method, used for NG, that is to allow evaporation from the cargo, and use it as fuel for the engine (singular because there is one propulsion engine on most large ships) on the tanker.

Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm

I dunno, there are other opinions .

[Oct 18, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon by Robert W. Merry

Highly recommended!
The truth is that Trump foreign policy was neocon from April 2017 -- first Tomahawk style in Syria. Trump is just yet another neocon, a huge disappointment for people who voted for him in a hope that he might change the US foreign policy and stop foreign wars.
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
Oct 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The president's equivocating remarks over the defense secretary show that Bolton and Pompeo are indeed winning.

President Trump with Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and National Security Advisor John Bolton Credit:NATO/Flickr In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."

Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors, reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60 Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired. It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.

But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as secretary of state."

The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.

Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.

The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to improve.

Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO apart."

Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.

And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs. He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it on the basis of little knowledge.

That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.

Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of Democrats than his own."

The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C. journalist and publishing executive, is a writer-at-large for The American Conservative . His latest book is President McKinley: Architect of the American Century .

[Oct 17, 2018] Did Saudis, CIA Fear Khashoggi 9-11 Bombshell-

Oct 17, 2018 | theduran.com

The macabre case of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi raises the question: did Saudi rulers fear him revealing highly damaging information on their secret dealings? In particular, possible involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks on New York in 2001.

Even more intriguing are US media reports now emerging that American intelligence had snooped on and were aware of Saudi officials making plans to capture Khashoggi prior to his apparent disappearance at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week. If the Americans knew the journalist's life was in danger, why didn't they tip him off to avoid his doom?

Jamal Khashoggi (59) had gone rogue, from the Saudi elite's point of view. Formerly a senior editor in Saudi state media and an advisor to the royal court, he was imminently connected and versed in House of Saud affairs. As one commentator cryptically put it: "He knew where all the bodies were buried."

For the past year, Khashoggi went into self-imposed exile, taking up residence in the US, where he began writing opinion columns for the Washington Post.

Khashoggi's articles appeared to be taking on increasingly critical tone against the heir to the Saudi throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The 33-year-old Crown Prince, or MbS as he's known, is de facto ruler of the oil-rich kingdom, in place of his aging father, King Salman.

While Western media and several leaders, such as Presidents Trump and Macron, have been indulging MbS as "a reformer", Khashoggi was spoiling this Saudi public relations effort by criticizing the war in Yemen, the blockade on Qatar and the crackdown on Saudi critics back home.

However, what may have caused the Saudi royals more concern was what Khashoggi knew about darker, dirtier matters. And not just the Saudis, but American deep state actors as as well.

He was formerly a media aide to Prince Turki al Faisal, who is an eminence gris figure in Saudi intelligence, with its systematic relations to American and British counterparts. Prince Turki's father, Faisal, was formerly the king of Saudi Arabia until his assassination in 1975 by a family rival. Faisal was a half-brother of the present king, Salman, and therefore Prince Turki is a cousin of the Crown Prince – albeit at 73 more than twice his age.

For nearly 23 years, from 1977 to 2001, Prince Turki was the director of the Mukhabarat, the Saudi state intelligence apparatus. He was instrumental in Saudi, American and British organization of the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to combat Soviet forces. Those militants in Afghanistan later evolved into the al Qaeda terror network, which has served as a cat's paw in various US proxy wars across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, including Russia's backyard in the Caucasus.

Ten days before the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City, in which some 3,000 Americans died, Prince Turki retired from his post as head of Saudi intelligence. It was an abrupt departure, well before his tenure was due to expire.

There has previously been speculation in US media that this senior Saudi figure knew in advance that something major was going down on 9/11. At least 15 of the 19 Arabs who allegedly hijacked three commercial airplanes that day were Saudi nationals.

Prince Turki has subsequently been named in a 2002 lawsuit mounted by families of 9/11 victims. There is little suggestion he was wittingly involved in organizing the terror plot. Later public comments indicated that Prince Turki was horrified by the atrocity. But the question is: did he know of the impending incident, and did he alert US intelligence, which then did not take appropriate action to prevent it?

Jamal Khashoggi had long served as a trusted media advisor to Prince Turki, before the latter resigned from public office in 2007. Following 9/11, Turki was the Saudi ambassador to both the US and Britain.

A tentative idea here is that Khashoggi, in his close dealings with Prince Turki over the years, may have gleaned highly sensitive inside information on what actually happened on 9/11. Were the Arab hijackers mere patsies used by the American CIA to facilitate an event which has since been used by American military planners to launch a global "war on terror" as a cover for illegal wars overseas? There is a huge body of evidence that the 9/11 attacks were indeed a "false flag" event orchestrated by the US deep state as a pretext for its imperialist rampages.

The apparent abduction and murder last week of Jamal Khashoggi seems such an astoundingly desperate move by the Saudi rulers. More evidence is emerging from Turkish sources that the journalist was indeed lured to the consulate in Istanbul where he was killed by a 15-member hit squad. Reports are saying that the alleged assassination was ordered at the highest level of the Saudi royal court, which implicates Crown Prince MbS.

Why would the Saudi rulers order such a heinous act, which would inevitably lead to acute political problems, as we are seeing in the fallout from governments and media coverage around the world?

Over the past year, the House of Saud had been appealing to Khashoggi to return to Riyadh and resume his services as a media advisor to the royal court. He declined, fearing that something more sinister was afoot. When Khashoggi turned up in Istanbul to collect a divorce document from the Saudi consulate on September 28, it appears that the House of Saud decided to nab him. He was told to return to the consulate on October 2. On that same day, the 15-member group arrived from Riyadh on two private Gulfstream jets for the mission to kill him.

Official Saudi claims stretch credulity. They say Khashoggi left the consulate building unharmed by a backdoor, although they won't provide CCTV images to prove that. The Turks say their own CCTV facilities monitoring the front and back of the Saudi consulate show that Khashoggi did not leave the premises. The Turks seem confident of their claim he was murdered inside the building, his remains dismembered and removed in diplomatic vehicles. The two private jets left the same day from Istanbul with the 15 Saudis onboard to return to Riyadh, via Cairo and Dubai.

To carry out such a reckless act, the Saudis must have been alarmed by Khashoggi's critical commentaries appearing in the Washington Post. The columns appeared to be delivering more and more damaging insights into the regime under Crown Prince MbS.

The Washington Post this week is reporting that US intelligence sources knew from telecom intercepts that the Saudis were planning to abduct Khashoggi. That implicates the House of Saud in a dastardly premeditated act of murder.

But furthermore this same disclosure could also, unwittingly, implicate US intelligence. If the latter knew of a malicious intent towards Khashoggi, why didn't US agents warn him about going to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul? Surely, he could have obtained the same personal documents from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, a country where he was residing and would have been safer.

Jamal Khashoggi may have known too many dark secrets about US and Saudi intel collusion, primarily related to the 9/11 terror incidents. And with his increasing volubility as a critical journalist in a prominent American news outlet, it may have been time to silence him. The Saudis as hitmen, the American CIA as facilitators.

[Oct 16, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon

Highly recommended!
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."

Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors, reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60 Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired. It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.

But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as secretary of state."

The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.

Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.

The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to improve.

Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO apart."

Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.

And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs. He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it on the basis of little knowledge.

That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.

Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of Democrats than his own."

The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C. journalist and publishing executive, is a writer-at-large for . His latest book is President McKinley: Architect of the American Century .

General Manager October 15, 2018 at 11:30 pm

Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
George Hoffman , says: October 16, 2018 at 5:27 am
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN. Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
jd , says: October 16, 2018 at 9:37 am
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
Kirt Higdon , says: October 16, 2018 at 10:23 am
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Patricus , says: October 16, 2018 at 10:35 am
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?

Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades.

TheSnark , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:05 am
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."

Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.

He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else.

swb , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:34 am
Hmm

And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.

Fixed:

And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.

This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another theory that contradicts this one.

BradleyD , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:40 am
@R Dodge

Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And, specially, what is he failing to do?

Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine as a joke, it is only half a joke.

Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and active marching in support.

Stephen J. , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:48 am
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:

"Arrest Them"

Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned

Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower

Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?

Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire

Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive

Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs

Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large

Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2015/09/arrest-them.html
-- --

https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-great-satan-and-his-satanic-gang-of.html
-- –
https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-satanic-savages-in-suits-and-dresses.html

FJR Atlanta , says: October 16, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Hillary was right when she called Trump a puppet. She just had the puppeteers wrong.
Doswell , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:04 pm
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "

Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.

Sid Finster , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated. That is obvious. What blows my mind is how many people refuse to admit this obvious fact.
b. , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:11 pm
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."

What did Judas Goat 43 say again?

"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."

I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results.

Cape Fear , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:13 pm
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to get us out of the Middle East.

His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).

One Guy , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:24 pm
"Now we know he didn't mean what he said "

No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying, but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.

Myron Hudson , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:56 pm
The only thing that surprises me is that anyone is surprised.

[Oct 16, 2018] CIA Whistleblower claims Nikki Haley will run for president in 2024

Oct 16, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.com

During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou, revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned from her position as US ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to run for president in 2024.

As Kiriakou said:

I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.

And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South Carolina.'

Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.

So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about foreign policy.

So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And then, she's gonna run for president in 2024. During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou, revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned from her position as US ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to run for president in 2024.

As Kiriakou said:

I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.

And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South Carolina.'

Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.

So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about foreign policy.

So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And then, she's gonna run for president in 2024.

https://youtu.be/ETgiMtZk92c

[Oct 16, 2018] Pompeo's North Korea Fantasy

Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM, October 16, 2018 at 12:17 pm

Pompeo puts on his Global Cop Gorilla suit again making absolute demands as a condition for even continuing negotiations.

However the big question is how much North and South Korea move ahead in spite of the ham-fisted United States. Then the revealed scenario will be much more stark. I.e., it's not what the Korea's want that matters, it's what the Gorilla wants.

The play then will be driven by China and Russia. They don't want North Korea with nuclear weapons either because it's bad for business. As they work with the Korea's toward a settlement, the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it alone does not define the outcome.

P.S. like with the Russia led Minsk agreement and the Astana talks in which the U.S. has been shut out, the U.S. cares little about attaining the fundamental peace objectives in Korea, only that it calls the tune in every regard.

SteveM , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:04 pm
Re: Correction:

the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it alone does not define the outcome?

Note that this lack of total control by the U.S. in Korea and other venues may eventually induce a pathologically dangerous response on several fronts when the Washington Nomenklatura becomes fully aware of its asymmetric weaknesses. I.e., When a War Machine hammer is all you got, everything else is a nail.

Sid Finster , says: October 16, 2018 at 3:51 pm
Pompeo's demands are intended to be something that no sovereign government can agree to, like Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in august 1914.

[Oct 16, 2018] Defeat in Bavaria delivers knockout punch to Merkel's tenure as Chancellor (Video)

Oct 16, 2018 | theduran.com

The stunning CSU defeat in Bavaria means that the coalition partner in Angela Merkel's government has lost an absolute majority in their worst election results in Bavaria since 1950.

In a preview analysis before the election, Deutsche Welle noted that a CSU collapse could lead to Seehofer's resignation from Merkel's government, and conceivably Söder's exit from the Bavarian state premiership, which would remove two of the chancellor's most outspoken critics from power , and give her room to govern in the calmer, crisis-free manner she is accustomed to.

On the other hand, a heavy loss and big resignations in the CSU might well push a desperate party in a more volatile, abrasive direction at the national level. That would further antagonize the SPD, the center-left junior partners in Merkel's coalition, themselves desperate for a new direction and already impatient with Seehofer's destabilizing antics, and precipitate a break-up of the age-old CDU/CSU alliance, and therefore a break-up of Merkel's grand coalition. In short: Anything could happen after Sunday, up to and including Merkel's fall.

The Financial Times reports that the campaign was dominated by the divisive issue of immigration, in a sign of how the shockwaves from Merkel's disastrous decision to let in more than a million refugees in 2015-16 are continuing to reverberate through German politics and to reshape the party landscape.

The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the stunning Bavarian election defeat of the CSU party, and the message voters sent to Angela Merkel, the last of the Obama 'rat pack' neo-liberal, globalist leaders whose tenure as German Chancellor appears to be coming to an end.

[Oct 16, 2018] Stormy Daniels Lawsuit Dismissed, Trump Entitled To Legal Fees

Oct 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

A statement from Trump's legal team reads:

United States District Judge S. James Otero issued an order and ruling today dismissing Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against President Trump. The ruling also states that the President is entitled to an award of his attorneys' fees against Stormy Daniels. A copy of the ruling is attached. No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels. The amount of the award for President Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date.

Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti responded to the dismissal, tweeting: "We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal," while stating that Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen "proceed unaffected."

Re Judge's limited ruling: Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.

We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.

-- Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) October 15, 2018

Last week Trump's legal team argued that it made no sense for them to keep fighting in court over a $130,000 hush payment received by Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, as she invalidated the non-disclosure agreement she signed with Trump's longtime fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen.

The lawsuit is moot because Trump has consented that the agreement, as she has claimed, was never formed because he didn't sign it and he has agreed not to try to enforce it, Trump said in his court filing. The company created by Cohen to facilitate the non-disclosure agreement, which initially said Clifford faced more than $20 million in damages for talking, said in September that it wouldn't sue to enforce the deal. - Yahoo

Michael Avenatti's terrible October

This month has not treated Stormy's attorney well. Michael Avenatti went from Democrat darling during his representation of Daniels, to scapegoat over Justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court after he introduced an 11th hour claim by a woman who said Kavanaugh orchestrated gang-rape parties in the early 1980s - an allegation thought by many to have derailed otherwise legitimate claims against the Judge.

Less than two weeks later Avenatti came under fire after he launched a now-deleted fundraising page for Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke.

In the fine print, O'Rourke supporters discovered that half the proceeds went to Avenatti's Fight PAC , which he formed a little over seven weeks ago .

Avenatti called the criticism "complete nonsense," noting that Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris "do the same thing." Perhaps sensing he'd made a huge mistake, Avenatti deleted the page - telling the Daily Beast in a text message: "It wasn't worth the nonsense that resulted from people that don't understand how common this is."

The question now is; after three strikes, is Avenatti out?

Read the full order here .

NiggaPleeze , 6 minutes ago link

The Creepy **** Lawyer gets to pay that.

Given his free $50 million in publicity, and the amount of GoFundMe he's gonna get or has gotten, I'd say "losing" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, lol.

Davidduke2000 , 47 minutes ago link

going after a sitting president was a stupid idea, now the entire money she raised will go to trump's lawyers.

bowie28 , 59 minutes ago link

Avenatti is the best thing that has happened to Trump.

It's almost like he is intentionally doing stupid and outrageous things to make the dems look even more unhinged than they are.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find he has been secretly working for Trump all along. Trump did run a reality show after all so that would be a great plot twist ;)

khakuda , 1 hour ago link

The best thing about Avenatti and the Clintons is that they won't stop until they bring the entire Democratic Party down. It reminds me of Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer, scumbags who keep coming back and discredit the entire party because of their own glorious egos.

[Oct 16, 2018] How Fascism Works by Jason Stanley

From the book How Fascism Works The Politics of Us and Them Jason Stanley Amazon.com Hardcover: 240 pages Publisher: Random House (September 4, 2018)
Fascism is always eclectic and its doctrine is composed of several sometimes contradicting each other ideas. "Ideologically speaking, [the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..." (Ideologically speaking, [the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..." )
Some ideas are "sound bite only" and never are implemented and are present only to attract sheeple (looks National Socialist Program ). he program championed the right to employment , and called for the institution of profit sharing , confiscation of war profits , prosecution of usurers and profiteers, nationalization of trusts , communalization of department stores, extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a national education program of all classes, prohibition of child labor , and an end to the dominance of investment capital "
There is also "bait and switch" element in any fascism movement. Original fascism was strongly anti-capitalist, militaristic and "national greatness and purity" movement ("Make Germany great again"). It was directed against financial oligarchy and anti-semantic element in it was strong partially because it associated Jews with bankers and financial industry in general. In a way "Jews" were codeword for investment bankers.
For example " Arbeit Macht Frei " can be viewed as a neoliberal slogan. Then does not mean that neoliberalism. with its cult of productivity, is equal to fascism, but that neoliberal doctrine does encompass elements of the fascist doctrine including strong state, "law and order" mentality and relentless propaganda.
The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so often that it lost its meaning. The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated as a working-class political party . This is not true about Trump whom many assume of having fascist leanings. His pro white working class rhetoric was a fig leaf used for duration or elections. After that he rules as a typical Republican president favoring big business. And as a typical neocon in foreign policy.
From this point of view Trump can't be viewed even as pro-fascist leader because first of all he does not have his own political movement, ideology and political program. And the second he does not strive for implementing uniparty state and abolishing the elections which is essential for fascism political platform, as fascist despise corrupt democracy and have a cult of strong leader.
All he can be called is neo-fascist s his some of his views do encompass ideas taken from fascist ideology (including "law and order"; which also is a cornerstone element of Republican ideology) as well as idealization and mystification of the US past. But with Bannon gone he also can't even pretend that he represents some coherent political movement like "economic nationalism" -- kind of enhanced mercantilism.
Of course, that does not mean that previous fascist leaders were bound by the fascism political program, but at least they had one. Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher writes that, "To [Hitler, the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation, for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory, against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents."
Notable quotes:
"... Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago. ..."
"... Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals, its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present, these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics. ..."
"... In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence. ..."
"... fascist myths distinguish themselves with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests and civilization-building achievements. ..."
"... The function of the mythic past, in fascist politics, is to harness the emotion of ­nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity, and struggle. ..."
Oct 16, 2018 | www.amazon.com

Chapter 1: The Mythic Past

It's in the name of tradition that the anti-Semites base their "point of view." It's in the name of tradition, the long, historical past and the blood ties with Pascal and Descartes, that the Jews are told, you will never belong here.

-- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (1952)

It is only natural to begin this book where fascist politics invariably claims to discover its genesis: in the past. Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago.

Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals, its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present, these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics.

In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence.

These myths are generally based on fantasies of a nonexistent past uniformity, which survives in the traditions of the small towns and countrysides that remain relatively unpolluted by the liberal decadence of the cities. This uniformity -- linguistic, religious, geographical, or ­ethnic -- ​can be perfectly ordinary in some nationalist movements, but fascist myths distinguish themselves with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests and civilization-building achievements. For example, in the fascist imagination, the past invariably involves traditional, patriarchal gender roles. The fascist mythic past has a particular structure, which supports its authoritarian, hierarchical ideology. That past societies were rarely as patriarchal -- or indeed as glorious -- as fascist ideology represents them as being is beside the point. This imagined history provides proof to support the imposition of hierarchy in the present, and it dictates how contemporary society should look and behave.

In a 1922 speech at the Fascist Congress in Naples, Benito Mussolini declared:

We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be a reality. . . . Our myth is the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation! And to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total reality, we subordinate everything.

The patriarchal family is one ideal that fascist politicians intend to create in society -- or return to, as they claim. The patriarchal family is always represented as a central part of the nation's traditions, diminished, even recently, by the advent of liberalism and cosmopolitanism. But why is patriarchy so strategically central to fascist politics?

In a fascist society, the leader of the nation is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family. The leader is the father of his nation, and his strength and power are the source of his legal authority, just as the strength and power of the father of the family in patri­archy are supposed to be the source of his ultimate moral authority over his children and wife. The leader provides for his nation, just as in the traditional family the father is the provider. The patriarchal father's authority derives from his strength, and strength is the chief authoritarian value. By representing the nation's past as one with a patriarchal family structure, fascist politics connects nostalgia to a central organizing hierarchal authoritarian structure, one that finds its purest representation in these norms.

Gregor Strasser was the National Socialist -- Nazi -- Reich propaganda chief in the 1920s, before the post was taken over by Joseph Goebbels. According to Strasser, "for a man, military service is the most profound and valuable form of participation -- for the woman it is motherhood!" Paula Siber, the acting head of the Association of German Women, in a 1933 document meant to reflect official National Socialist state policy on women, declares that "to be a woman means to be a mother, means affirming with the whole conscious force of one's soul the value of being a mother and making it a law of life . . . ​the highest calling of the National Socialist woman is not just to bear children, but consciously and out of total devotion to her role and duty as mother to raise children for her people." Richard Grunberger, a British historian of National Socialism, sums up "the kernel of Nazi thinking on the women's question" as "a dogma of inequality between the sexes as immutable as that between the races." The historian Charu Gupta, in her 1991 article "Politics of Gender: Women in Nazi Germany," goes as far as to argue that "oppression of women in Nazi Germany in fact furnishes the most extreme case of anti-feminism in the 20th century."

Here, Mussolini makes clear that the fascist mythic past is intentionally mythical. The function of the mythic past, in fascist politics, is to harness the emotion of ­nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity, and struggle.

With the creation of a mythic past, fascist politics creates a link between nostalgia and the realization of fascist ideals. German fascists also clearly and explicitly appreciated this point about the strategic use of a mythological past. The leading Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, editor of the prominent Nazi newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, writes in 1924, "the understanding of and the respect for our own mythological past and our own history will form the first condition for more firmly anchoring the coming generation in the soil of Europe's original homeland." The fascist mythic past exists to aid in changing the present.

Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. Before coming to Yale in 2013, he was Distinguished Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University. Stanley is the author of Know How; Languages in Context; More about Jason Stanley

5.0 out of 5 stars

July 17, 2018 Format: Hardcover Vine

Highly readable

w.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R36R5FWIWTP6F0/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0525511830">

By Joel E. Mitchell on September 13, 2018
Massive Partisan Bias

This could have been such a helpful, insightful book. The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so often that it has started to lose its meaning. I hoped that this book would provide a historical perspective on fascism by examining actual fascist governments and drawing some parallels to the more egregious / worrisome trends in US & European politics. The chapter titles in the table of contents were promising:

- The Mythic Past
- Propaganda
- Anti-Intellectual
- Unreality
- Hierarchy
- Victimhood
- Law & Order
- Sexual Anxiety
- Sodom & Gomorrah
- Arbeit Macht Frei

Ironically (given the book's subtitle) the author used his book divisively: to laud his left-wing political views and demonize virtually all distinctively right-wing views. He uses the term "liberal democracy" inconsistently throughout, disengenuously equivocating between the meaning of "representative democracy as opposed to autocratic or oligarchic government" (which most readers would agree is a good thing) and "American left-wing political views" (which he treats as equally self-evidently superior if you are a right-thinking person). Virtually all American right-wing political views are presented in straw-man form, defined in such a way that they fit his definition of fascist politics.

I was expecting there to be a pretty heavy smear-job on President Trump and his cronies (much of it richly deserved...the man's demagoguery and autocratic tendencies are frightening), but for this to turn into "let's find a way to define virtually everything the Republicans are and do as fascist politics" was massively disappointing. The absurdly biased portrayal of all things conservative and constant hymns of praise to all things and all people left-wing buried some good historical research and valid parallels under an avalanche of partisanism.

If you want a more historical, less partisan view of the rise of fascist politics, I would highly recommend Darkness Over Germany by E. Amy Buller (Review Here). It was written during World War II (based on interviews with Germans before WWII), so you will have to draw your own contemporary parallels...but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Oct 16, 2018] CIA Whistleblower claims Nikki Haley will run for president in 2024

Oct 16, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.com

During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou, revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned from her position as US ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to run for president in 2024.

As Kiriakou said:

I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.

And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South Carolina.'

Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.

So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about foreign policy.

So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And then, she's gonna run for president in 2024. During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou, revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned from her position as US ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to run for president in 2024.

As Kiriakou said:

I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.

And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South Carolina.'

Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.

So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about foreign policy.

So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And then, she's gonna run for president in 2024.

https://youtu.be/ETgiMtZk92c

[Oct 16, 2018] Pompeo's North Korea Fantasy

Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM, October 16, 2018 at 12:17 pm

Pompeo puts on his Global Cop Gorilla suit again making absolute demands as a condition for even continuing negotiations.

However the big question is how much North and South Korea move ahead in spite of the ham-fisted United States. Then the revealed scenario will be much more stark. I.e., it's not what the Korea's want that matters, it's what the Gorilla wants.

The play then will be driven by China and Russia. They don't want North Korea with nuclear weapons either because it's bad for business. As they work with the Korea's toward a settlement, the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it alone does not define the outcome.

P.S. like with the Russia led Minsk agreement and the Astana talks in which the U.S. has been shut out, the U.S. cares little about attaining the fundamental peace objectives in Korea, only that it calls the tune in every regard.

SteveM , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:04 pm
Re: Correction:

the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it alone does not define the outcome?

Note that this lack of total control by the U.S. in Korea and other venues may eventually induce a pathologically dangerous response on several fronts when the Washington Nomenklatura becomes fully aware of its asymmetric weaknesses. I.e., When a War Machine hammer is all you got, everything else is a nail.

Sid Finster , says: October 16, 2018 at 3:51 pm
Pompeo's demands are intended to be something that no sovereign government can agree to, like Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in august 1914.

[Oct 14, 2018] Empire Loyalists Grieve Resignation of Moderate Psychopath Nikki Haley

Notable quotes:
"... Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater". Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic version of fascism than she. ..."
"... But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. ..."
"... Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent approval rating with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is stupid. ..."
Oct 14, 2018 | medium.com

Empire Loyalists Grieve Resignation of Moderate Psychopath Nikki Haley "Describing Nikki Haley as a 'moderate Republican' is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as 'a moderate meat eater'" Caitlin Johnstone Thu, Oct 11, 2018 | 820 words 3,560 164

World War Three proponent and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has announced her resignation today, to the dismay of establishment bootlickers everywhere.

"Nikki Haley, ambassador to the United Nations, has resigned, leaving the administration with one less moderate Republican voice," tweeted the New York Times, without defining what specifically is "moderate" about relentlessly pushing for war and starvation sanctions at every opportunity and adamantly defending the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters with sniper fire.

"Too bad Nikki Haley has resigned," tweeted law professor turned deranged Russia conspiracy theorist Laurence Tribe. "She was one of the last members of Trumplandia with even a smidgen of decency."

"Thank you @nikkihaley for your remarkable service. We look forward to welcoming you back to public service as President of the United States," tweeted Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive of the neoconservative think tank/ covert Israeli war psyop firm Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Thank you @nikkihaley for your service in the @UN and unwavering support for Israel and the truth," tweeted the fucking IDF. "The soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces salute you!"

I'm not going to go over every single fawning, sycophantic tweet, but if you ever ingest poison and can't afford to go to the hospital because of America's disastrous healthcare system, you can always try going to Haley's Twitter page and looking at all the empire loyalists she's been retweeting who've been falling all over themselves to paint her as something other than the bloodthirsty psychopath that she is. If that doesn't empty your stomach contents all over your screen, you are made of stronger stuff than I.

Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater". Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic version of fascism than she.

Whether it's been blocking any condemnation of or UN investigation into the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters via sniper fire, calling for a coalition against Syria and its allies to prevent them from fighting western-backed terrorist factions, outright lying about Iran to advance this administration's regime change agenda in that nation, her attempts to blame Iran for Saudi Arabia's butchery of Yemeni civilians with the help of the US and UK, her calls for sanctions against Russia even beyond those this administration has been willing to implement, her warmongering against North Korea , and many, many examples from a list far too long to get into here, Haley has made death and destruction her life's mission every day of her gore-spattered tenure.

But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. While you still see Steve Bannon routinely decried as a monster despite his being absent from the Trump administration for over a year, far more dangerous and far more powerful ghouls are treated with respect and reverence because they know what to say in polite company and never smoked cigars with Milo Yiannopoulos. All it takes to be regarded as a decent person by establishment punditry is the willingness to avoid offending people; do that and you can murder as many children with explosives and butterfly bullets as your withered heart desires.

Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent approval rating with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is stupid. It is unknown who will replace her once she vacates her position (I've got my money on Reaper drone in a desk chair), but it's a safe bet that it will be someone who espouses the same neoconservative imperialist foreign policy that this administration has been elevating since the beginning. Whoever it is should be watched closely, as should the bipartisan beltway propagandists whose job it is to humanize them.

UPDATE: Had to include this gem from the New York Times editorial board:

Source: Medium.com

[Oct 14, 2018] Nobody in the adults world will miss Haley

Notable quotes:
"... They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most Iranians like America. I could never understand that. ..."
Oct 14, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Canosin • 3 days ago ,

what a poisonous snake.. .... nobody in the adults world will miss this piece of lying shit.....

Alberto Canosin • 2 days ago ,

Samantha Power was terrible too. Hard to say which is worse. They share the same discourse. No difference between democrats and Republicans. Both defend the Empire by resorting to invasions, conspiracies, and murder.

Seán Murphy Alberto • 2 days ago ,

Think Power had slightly more between her ears... but the same warmongering attitudes. What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them become warhawks? Think Power, Haley, Rice (both of them), Clinton, Albrighton, Thatcher, et al?
And them the feminists tell us that the world would be a more just and peaceful place if there were more of them in office!

Nassim7 Seán Murphy • 2 days ago ,

"What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them become warhawks?"

They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most Iranians like America. I could never understand that.

franz kafka Nassim7 • 2 hours ago ,

The US propaganda was effective. It worked in the USSR too... but only once.

Alberto Seán Murphy • 2 days ago ,

Because women in power want to imitate men's behavior. Don't want to differentiate themselves. Bad news for bad feminism. U.S. feminists adore people like Albright or H Clinton. They are not credible.

JIMI JAMES Alberto • 2 days ago ,

They all suffer severe complex mental deficiencies, this is why the people rejected likes of clintons, bush +co's

Kjell Hasthi Gonzogal • 3 days ago ,

US and its 100,000 Intelligence community working for "Monaco" makes as much sense as Hitler worked for Luxembourgh. With 22 new Capitol Hill size buildings in Washington DC for CIA since 2001, they could house whole Israeli state administration alone

Billo Kjell Hasthi • 2 days ago ,

I think maybe they do.

[Oct 14, 2018] James Comey And The Unending Bush Torture Scandal

Oct 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

James Comey And The Unending Bush Torture Scandal

by Tyler Durden Sun, 10/14/2018 - 21:40 13 SHARES Authored by James Bovard via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

The vast regime of torture created by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks continues to haunt America. The political class and most of the media have never dealt honestly with the profound constitutional corruption that such practices inflicted. Instead, torture enablers are permitted to pirouette as heroic figures on the flimsiest evidence.

Former FBI chief James Comey is the latest beneficiary of the media's "no fault" scoring on the torture scandal. In his media interviews for his new memoir, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership , Comey is portraying himself as a Boy Scout who sought only to do good things. But his record is far more damning than most Americans realize.

Comey continues to use memos from his earlier government gigs to whitewash all of the abuses he sanctified. "Here I stand; I can do no other," Comey told George W. Bush in 2004 when Bush pressured Comey, who was then Deputy Attorney General, to approve an unlawful anti-terrorist policy. Comey was quoting a line supposedly uttered by Martin Luther in 1521, when he told Emperor Charles V and an assembly of Church officials that he would not recant his sweeping criticisms of the Catholic Church.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations did excellent reports prior to Comey's becoming FBI chief that laid out his role in the torture scandal. Such hard facts, however, have long since vanished from the media radar screen. MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently declared, "James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He was a made man before Trump came along." Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, in a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers such as Comey, declared, "The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful. Comey believed they were not . So Comey pushed back as much as he could. "

Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the scandalous religious practices of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker, found a safer way to oppose the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values: he approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the optics.

Losing Sleep

Comey became deputy attorney general in late 2003 and "had oversight of the legal justification used to authorize" key Bush programs in the war on terror, as a Bloomberg News analysis noted. At that time, the Bush White House was pushing the Justice Department to again sign off on an array of extreme practices that had begun shortly after the 9/11 attacks. A 2002 Justice Department memo had leaked out that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct a military campaign." The same Justice Department policy spurred a secret 2003 Pentagon document on interrogation policies that openly encouraged contempt for the law: "Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law."

Photos had also leaked from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing the stacking of naked prisoners with bags over their heads, mock electrocution from a wire connected to a man's penis, guard dogs on the verge of ripping into naked men, and grinning U.S. male and female soldiers celebrating the sordid degradation. Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh published extracts in the New Yorker from a March 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba that catalogued other U.S. interrogation abuses: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."

The Bush administration responded to the revelations with a torrent of falsehoods, complemented by attacks on the character of critics. Bush declared, "Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country . The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being." Bush had the audacity to run for reelection as the anti-torture candidate, boasting that "for decades, Saddam tormented and tortured the people of Iraq. Because we acted, Iraq is free and a sovereign nation." He was hammering this theme despite a confidential CIA Inspector General report warning that post–9/11 CIA interrogation methods might violate the international Convention Against Torture.

James Comey had the opportunity to condemn the outrageous practices and pledge that the Justice Department would cease providing the color of law to medieval-era abuses. Instead, Comey merely repudiated the controversial 2002 memo. Speaking to the media in a not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004, he declared that the 2002 memo was "overbroad," "abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary." He helped oversee crafting a new memo with different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.

Comey twice gave explicit approval for waterboarding , which sought to break detainees with near-drowning. This practice had been recognized as a war crime by the U.S. government since the Spanish-American War. A practice that was notorious when inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition was adopted by the CIA with the Justice Department's blessing. (When Barack Obama nominated Comey to be FBI chief in 2013, he testified that he had belatedly recognized that waterboarding was actually torture.)

Comey wrote in his memoir that he was losing sleep over concern about Bush-administration torture polices. But losing sleep was not an option for detainees, because Comey approved sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique. Detainees could be forcibly kept awake for 180 hours until they confessed their crimes. How did that work? At Abu Ghraib, one FBI agent reported seeing a detainee "handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake." Numerous FBI agents protested the extreme interrogation methods they saw at Guantanamo and elsewhere, but their warnings were ignored.

Comey also approved "wall slamming" -- which, as law professor David Cole wrote, meant that detainees could be thrown against a wall up to 30 times. Comey also signed off on the CIA's using "interrogation" methods such as facial slaps, locking detainees in small boxes for 18 hours, and forced nudity. When the secret Comey memo approving those methods finally became public in 2009, many Americans were aghast -- and relieved that the Obama administration had repudiated Bush policies.

When it came to opposing torture, Comey's version of "Here I stand" had more loopholes than a reverse-mortgage contract. Though Comey in 2005 approved each of 13 controversial extreme interrogation methods, he objected to combining multiple methods on one detainee.

The Torture Guy

In his memoir, Comey relates that his wife told him, "Don't be the torture guy!" Comey apparently feels that he satisfied her dictate by writing memos that opposed combining multiple extreme interrogation methods. And since the vast majority of the American media agree with him, he must be right.

Comey's cheerleaders seem uninterested in the damning evidence that has surfaced since his time as a torture enabler in the Bush administration. In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a massive report on the CIA torture regime -- including death resulting from hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and dozens of cases where innocent people were pointlessly brutalized. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of prisoners. From the start, the program was protected by phalanxes of lying federal officials.

When he first campaigned for president, Barack Obama pledged to vigorously investigate the Bush torture regime for criminal violations. Instead, the Obama administration proffered one excuse after another to suppress the vast majority of the evidence, pardon all U.S. government torturers, and throttle all torture-related lawsuits. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture scandal was courageous whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou's fate illustrates that telling the truth is treated as the most unforgivable atrocity in Washington.

If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to abhor, he would deserve some of the praise he is now receiving. Instead, he remained in the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that "it was my job to protect the department and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted that Comey and two colleagues "have largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because they raised questions about interrogation and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to confer sainthood.

When Comey finally exited the Justice Department in August 2005 to become a lavishly paid senior vice president for Lockheed Martin, he proclaimed in a farewell speech that protecting the Justice Department's "reservoir" of "trust and credibility" requires "vigilance" and "an unerring commitment to truth." But he had perpetuated policies that shattered the moral credibility of both the Justice Department and the U.S. government. He failed to heed Martin Luther's admonition, "You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say."

Comey is likely to go to his grave without paying any price for his role in perpetuating appalling U.S. government abuses. It is far more important to recognize the profound danger that torture and the exoneration of torturers pose to the United States. "No free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of the law," is one of the mottoes chiseled into the façade of Justice Department headquarters. Unfortunately, politicians nowadays can choose which laws they obey and which laws they trample. And Americans are supposed to presume that we still have the rule of law as long as politicians and bureaucrats deny their crimes. Tags

Keyser , 22 minutes ago link

Comey was the hand-picked schlub that was placed in a position of power to be a firewall... Nothing more and he has been rewarded handsomely for playing this role... One can only hope that one day he becomes a liability to his handlers and that there is a pack of hungry, wild dogs that will rips him apart... Hopefully on PPV...

Mr Hankey , 10 minutes ago link

He is no shlub.

High ranking officer in the Clinton/Bush global crime cartel.

Banker,mic lawyer ,spy,secret police.

Like Stalin's Beria

Chupacabra-322 , 24 minutes ago link

Once the Torture was Irrefutable & Fact.

The Absolute, Complete, Open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness began.

Unabated. Like a malignant Cancer.

Growing to Gargantuan proportions.

Irrefutable proof of the absolute, complete, open Lawlessness by the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC., its CEO & Board of Directors.

1. Torture .
2. WMD lie to the American People.
3. Lying the American People into War.
4. Illegal Wars of Aggression.
5. Arming, funding & training of terror organizations by the State Dept. / CIA & members of CONgress.
6. BENGAZI
7. McCain meets with ISIS (Pics available).
8. Clapper lies to CONgress.
9. Brennan lies to CONgress & taps Congressional phones / computers.
10. Lynch meets Clinton on tarmac.
11. Fast & Furious deals with the Sinaloa Cartel.
12. Holder in Contempt of CONgress.
13. CIA drug / gun running / money laundering through the tax payer bailed out TBTFB.
14. Illegal NSA Spying on the American People.
15. DNC Federal Election Crime / Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
16. Hillary Clinton email Treason.
17. Clinton Foundation pay to play RICO.
18. Anthony Weiner 650,000 #PizzaGate Pedo Crimes.
19. Secret Iran deal.
20. Lynch takes the Fifth when asked about Iran deal
21. FBI murders LaVoy Finicum

At the current moment we're completely Lawless.

We have been for quite some time. In the past, their Criminality was "Hidden in plain view."

Now it's out in the open, in your face Criminality & Lawlessness. Complete debachary.

Thing is, the bar & precedent has been set so high among these Criminals I doubt we will ever see another person arrested in our lifetime.

dirty fingernails , 13 minutes ago link

It isn't true lawlessness, its 2-tier law like in a feudal society. The upper crust have no laws binding them and we serfs have many laws to bind us.

currency , 26 minutes ago link

Comey thinks he is above the law. He and his associates feel they are not bound by the rules and laws of the US, they are the ELITE. Comey should go to JAIL, HARD CORE not Country Club, along with his associates, Yates, Rosenstein, Brennan, McCabe, Stzrock, Paige and etc. Lock him up

[Oct 14, 2018] American politicians and media are becoming increasingly unhinged

Oct 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

jayc , Oct 13, 2018 5:44:07 PM | link

American politicians and media are becoming increasingly unhinged.

Threatening friends and allies with tariffs on automobiles, and using these threats to impose unilateral trade agreements which include language designed to upend future trade with China ("non-market economies") - as done recently with Mexico and Canada - will hasten the isolation of the U.S., particularly when it demands European countries follow this line. The opportunity to secure a gradual soft landing for the dissolution of its hegemonic moment exists for the Americans, but its arrogant and delusional establishment will not turn from its confrontational policy, ensuring a harsh reality lesson sooner than most might predict.

[Oct 14, 2018] Nobody in the adults world will miss Haley

Notable quotes:
"... They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most Iranians like America. I could never understand that. ..."
Oct 14, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Canosin • 3 days ago ,

what a poisonous snake.. .... nobody in the adults world will miss this piece of lying shit.....

Alberto Canosin • 2 days ago ,

Samantha Power was terrible too. Hard to say which is worse. They share the same discourse. No difference between democrats and Republicans. Both defend the Empire by resorting to invasions, conspiracies, and murder.

Seán Murphy Alberto • 2 days ago ,

Think Power had slightly more between her ears... but the same warmongering attitudes. What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them become warhawks? Think Power, Haley, Rice (both of them), Clinton, Albrighton, Thatcher, et al?
And them the feminists tell us that the world would be a more just and peaceful place if there were more of them in office!

Nassim7 Seán Murphy • 2 days ago ,

"What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them become warhawks?"

They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most Iranians like America. I could never understand that.

franz kafka Nassim7 • 2 hours ago ,

The US propaganda was effective. It worked in the USSR too... but only once.

Alberto Seán Murphy • 2 days ago ,

Because women in power want to imitate men's behavior. Don't want to differentiate themselves. Bad news for bad feminism. U.S. feminists adore people like Albright or H Clinton. They are not credible.

JIMI JAMES Alberto • 2 days ago ,

They all suffer severe complex mental deficiencies, this is why the people rejected likes of clintons, bush +co's

Kjell Hasthi Gonzogal • 3 days ago ,

US and its 100,000 Intelligence community working for "Monaco" makes as much sense as Hitler worked for Luxembourgh. With 22 new Capitol Hill size buildings in Washington DC for CIA since 2001, they could house whole Israeli state administration alone

Billo Kjell Hasthi • 2 days ago ,

I think maybe they do.

[Oct 14, 2018] Where Is Trump's Alleged Isolationism by Ted Galen Carpenter

Notable quotes:
"... American Conservative ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

It's nearly impossible to read major newspapers, magazines, or online publications in recent months without encountering a plethora of articles contending that the United States is turning inward and "going alone," "abandoning Washington's global leadership role" or "retreating from the world." These trends supposedly herald the arrival of a new "isolationism." The chief villain in all of these worrisome developments is, of course, Donald Trump. There is just one problem with such arguments; they are vastly overstated bordering on utterly absurd.

President Trump is not embracing his supposed inner isolationist. The policy changes that he has adopted regarding both security and international economic issues do not reflect a desire to decrease Washington's global hegemonic status. Instead, they point to a more unilateral and militaristic approach, but one that still envisions a hyper-activist U.S. role.

For instance, it's certainly not evident that the United States is abandoning its security commitments to dozens of allies and clients. Despite the speculation that erupted in response to Trump's negative comments about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other alliances during the 2016 election campaign (and occasionally since then), the substance of U.S. policy has remained largely unchanged. Indeed, NATO has continued to expand its membership with Trump's blessing -- adding Montenegro and planning to add Macedonia.

Indeed, Trump's principal complaint about NATO has always focused on European free-riding and the lack of burden-sharing, not about rethinking the wisdom of the security commitments to Europe that America undertook in the early days of the Cold War. In that respect, Trump's emphasis on greater burden-sharing within the Alliance is simply a less diplomatic version of the message that previous generations of U.S. officials have tried sending to the allies.

Moreover, Trump's insistence at the July NATO summit in Brussels that the European nations increase their military budgets and do more for transatlantic defense echoed the comments of President Obama's Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in 2014. Hagel warned his European counterparts that they must step up their commitment to the alliance or watch it become irrelevant. Declining European defense budgets, he emphasized, are "not sustainable. Our alliance can endure only as long as we are willing to fight for it, and invest in it." Rebalancing NATO's "burden-sharing and capabilities," Hagel stressed, "is mandatory -- not elective."

Additionally, U.S. military activities along NATO's eastern flank certainly have not diminished during the Trump administration. Washington has sent forces to participate in a growing number of exercises (war games) along Russia's western land border -- as well as in the Black Sea -- to demonstrate the U.S. determination to protect its alliance partners. Trump has even escalated America's "leadership role" by authorizing the sale of weapons to Ukraine -- a very sensitive step that President Obama carefully avoided.

Trump even seems receptive to establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Eastern Europe. During a state visit to Washington in mid-September, Poland's president, Andrzej Duda, promised to provide $2 billion toward construction costs if the United States built a military base in his country. Duda even offered to name the base "Fort Trump." Trump's reaction was revealing. Noting that Poland "is willing to make a very major contribution to the United States to come in and have a presence in Poland," Trump stated that the United States would take Duda's proposal "very seriously." American Conservative columnist Daniel Larison notes that while Trump often is accused of wanting to "retreat" from the world, "his willingness to entertain this proposal shows that he doesn't care about stationing U.S. forces abroad so long as someone else is footing most of the bill."

U.S. military activism does not seem to have diminished outside the NATO region either. Washington persists in its futile regime-change campaign in Syria, and it continues the shameful policy of assisting Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies pursue their atrocity-ridden war in Yemen. Both of those Obama-era ventures should have been prime candidates for a policy change if Trump had wished to decrease America's military activism.

There are no such indications in Europe, the Middle East, or anywhere else. The U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea have actually increased in size and frequency under Trump -- much to China's anger . Washington's diplomatic support for Taiwan also has quietly increased over the past year or so, and National Security Advisor John Bolton is on record suggesting that the United States move some of its troops stationed on Okinawa to Taiwan. The U.S. military presence in Sub-Saharan Africa is increasing, both in overall size and the number of host countries.

Those are all extremely strange actions for an administration supposedly flirting with a retreat from the world to be adopting. So, too, is Trump's push for increases in America's already bloated military budget, which now exceeds $700 billion -- with even higher spending levels on the horizon.

Accusations of a U.S. retreat from the world on non-military matters have only slightly greater validity. True, Trump has shown little patience for multilateral arrangements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris climate agreement, or the United Nations Human Rights Council that he concluded did not serve America's national interests. On those issues, the president's actions demonstrated that his invocation of "America First" was not just rhetoric. However, regarding such matters, as well as the trade disputes with China and North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement partners, the administration's emphasis is on securing a "better deal" for the United States, not abandoning the entire diplomatic process. One might question the wisdom or effectiveness of that approach, but it is a far cry from so-called isolationism.

Indeed, Americans would have been better off if Trump had been more serious about challenging the policy status quo, especially with respect to security issues. A reconsideration of Washington's overgrown and often obsolete security commitments to allies and clients around the world is long overdue. Abandoning the disastrous twin strategies of humanitarian military intervention and regime-change wars is a badly needed step. And waging a new cold war against Russia is the height of dangerous folly that needs to be reversed.

But contrary to Trump's shrill -- and sometimes hysterical -- critics, America has had no meaningful reconsideration of such misguided policies or a willingness to adopt a more focused, limited, and prudent U.S. role in the world. Notions that there has been a pell-mell U.S. retreat from global leadership -- i.e., Washington's hegemonic pretentions -- under Donald Trump are a myth. What Trump has adopted is merely a more unilateral and militarized version of a stale foreign policy that does not benefit the American people.

Source: The National Interest

[Oct 13, 2018] Haley's Poor Record at the U.N. The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Haley lied a lot, but maybe half the time at least probably had no idea she was lying. Don't give her too much credit. Remember "Binomo." ..."
Oct 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Harry Kazianis reviews Nikki Haley's record as ambassador to the U.N. and finds it very lacking:

That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the experience and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is not enough to be credible on the world's stage.

Kazianis is right that Haley was ill-prepared for the job, and I would add that she made a habit of making false claims , unreasonable demands, and unnecessary threats . Whether she was threatening military action over missile tests, telling lies about the nuclear deal with Iran , or warning that the U.S. would be "taking names" of the states that didn't fall in line, Haley proved herself to be a poor diplomat and an ineffective representative of the United States. Her time at the U.N. was marked by unwarranted, cruel actions to punish the Palestinian civilian population, a disgraceful defense of the massacre of protesters in Gaza, and a misguided decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Council. While the world's worst humanitarian crisis intensified in Yemen with U.S. support for the Saudi coalition, Haley was too busy trying to distract everyone's attention by shouting about Iran.

Haley didn't have a good grasp of substance, and instead relied on talking points to a fault. Kazianis quotes a Republican consultant's view of the ambassador:

"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."

It is a sign of how little many of her fellow hawks care about substantive knowledge that several of them greeted news of her resignation with dismay. Max Boot described her resignation as a "sad moment," and Bill Kristol began fantasizing about a primary challenge to Trump that will never happen. When these are the people touting Haley's record, it is a safe bet that the U.S. will be better off being represented by someone else at the U.N.

b. October 10, 2018 at 2:14 pm

"When these are the people touting Haley's record, it is a safe bet that the U.S. will be better off being represented by someone else at the U.N."

Sara Palin? She can see 2022 from here house, too.

b. , says: October 10, 2018 at 2:20 pm
Haley was just another Cargo Cult politician.

Following Reagan and Trump, the only reason we don't see actual actors hired for candidacies and campaigns is because the best Judas Goat for any election rodeo is one that believes its own BS.

Blimbax , says: October 10, 2018 at 4:26 pm
Thaomos says, "A diplomat is a person sent to lie on behalf of their country. Maybe Haley just got tired of doing it."

Haley lied a lot, but maybe half the time at least probably had no idea she was lying. Don't give her too much credit. Remember "Binomo."

Minnesota Mary , says: October 10, 2018 at 7:48 pm
Let's face it. Trump did not have an army of qualified people to fill government and administration posts. He had to fill positions from the Neocon pool of bureaucrats. Nikki Haley is a mind-numbed robot, drunk on Neocon Kool-Aid and Premillenial Dispensationalism. Really sad that Trump picked her for the UN slot. Even sadder is he will replace her with someone just as bad, but more clever at disguising a rotten foreign policy.

[Oct 13, 2018] New Documents Show State Department and USAID Working with Soros Group to Channel Money to 'Mercenary Army' of Far-Left Activists in Albania

Notable quotes:
"... Judicial Watch v. US Department of State and the US Agency for International Development ..."
"... Fair Use Excerpt. Read the rest here . ..."
Oct 12, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Judicial Watch today released 49 pages of new documents obtained from the US Department of State about US Agency for International Development (USAID) funding for George Soros's left-wing nonprofit organizations in Albania. The documents deal primarily with the activities of Soros' top operative in Albania, Andri Dobrushi, the director of Open Society Foundation-Albania, who was actively engaged in channeling funding to what Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban calls Soros' " mercenary army ." The documents show US grant money flowing through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that profess to promote "civil society," while in fact attacking traditional, pro-American groups, governments and policies.

Judicial Watch filed a May 26, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the US Department of State and USAID after they failed to respond to March 31, 2017, FOIA requests ( Judicial Watch v. US Department of State and the US Agency for International Development (No. 1:17-cv-01012)).

The records reveal that Soros operative Dobrushi was the first person on a list of invitees by then US Ambassador to Albania Donald Lu to attend an " election rollout event " held at the US Embassy on April 27, 2015. The event was intended to "launch US assistance for the June local elections," being held in Tirana, Albania. As Judicial Watch previously reported in an April 4, 2018, press release , Ambassador Lu has been closely associated with Soros and the socialist government in Albania, which he assisted by denying US visas to conservative jurists from the conservative party in Albania. Lu has since been nominated by the Trump administration to become US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan.

Additionally, a June 18, 2015, email from Ilva Cuko , a Program Specialist in the Public Affairs Office of the US Embassy in Tirana, invites several people, including Dobrushi , to a " Donors Grant Reviewing meeting " at the US Embassy, in which the participants would review applications for grants submitted by NGOs seeking US taxpayer grant money from the State Department. Cuko says she would "like to invite you in a discussion on these proposals. Your valuable input and comments will be used by the US Embassy's Democracy Commission, which has the ultimate authority in awarding the grants."

Cuko on August 28, 2015, also invited Dobrushi to attend another US Embassy Democracy Commission Small Grants Program " Grant Proposal Technical Review " meeting on September 3 at the US Embassy. At this meeting, Cuko said they would focus on applications dealing with "anticorruption." Ironically, under the leadership of Soros' close friend, socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama, who took power in 2013, corruption in Albania has soared, with cannabis trafficking in the country increasing 300 percent between 2016 and 2017.

In a February 22, 2016, email, Cuko again invites several people, including Dobrushi, to another " Donors Grant Reviewing Meeting " held at the US Embassy on February 26 where Dobrushi would be able to influence Embassy officials who have "the ultimate authority in awarding the grants."

Fair Use Excerpt. Read the rest here .


[Oct 13, 2018] Haley's Poor Record at the U.N. The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Haley lied a lot, but maybe half the time at least probably had no idea she was lying. Don't give her too much credit. Remember "Binomo." ..."
Oct 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Harry Kazianis reviews Nikki Haley's record as ambassador to the U.N. and finds it very lacking:

That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the experience and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is not enough to be credible on the world's stage.

Kazianis is right that Haley was ill-prepared for the job, and I would add that she made a habit of making false claims , unreasonable demands, and unnecessary threats . Whether she was threatening military action over missile tests, telling lies about the nuclear deal with Iran , or warning that the U.S. would be "taking names" of the states that didn't fall in line, Haley proved herself to be a poor diplomat and an ineffective representative of the United States. Her time at the U.N. was marked by unwarranted, cruel actions to punish the Palestinian civilian population, a disgraceful defense of the massacre of protesters in Gaza, and a misguided decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Council. While the world's worst humanitarian crisis intensified in Yemen with U.S. support for the Saudi coalition, Haley was too busy trying to distract everyone's attention by shouting about Iran.

Haley didn't have a good grasp of substance, and instead relied on talking points to a fault. Kazianis quotes a Republican consultant's view of the ambassador:

"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."

It is a sign of how little many of her fellow hawks care about substantive knowledge that several of them greeted news of her resignation with dismay. Max Boot described her resignation as a "sad moment," and Bill Kristol began fantasizing about a primary challenge to Trump that will never happen. When these are the people touting Haley's record, it is a safe bet that the U.S. will be better off being represented by someone else at the U.N.

b. October 10, 2018 at 2:14 pm

"When these are the people touting Haley's record, it is a safe bet that the U.S. will be better off being represented by someone else at the U.N."

Sara Palin? She can see 2022 from here house, too.

b. , says: October 10, 2018 at 2:20 pm
Haley was just another Cargo Cult politician.

Following Reagan and Trump, the only reason we don't see actual actors hired for candidacies and campaigns is because the best Judas Goat for any election rodeo is one that believes its own BS.

Blimbax , says: October 10, 2018 at 4:26 pm
Thaomos says, "A diplomat is a person sent to lie on behalf of their country. Maybe Haley just got tired of doing it."

Haley lied a lot, but maybe half the time at least probably had no idea she was lying. Don't give her too much credit. Remember "Binomo."

Minnesota Mary , says: October 10, 2018 at 7:48 pm
Let's face it. Trump did not have an army of qualified people to fill government and administration posts. He had to fill positions from the Neocon pool of bureaucrats. Nikki Haley is a mind-numbed robot, drunk on Neocon Kool-Aid and Premillenial Dispensationalism. Really sad that Trump picked her for the UN slot. Even sadder is he will replace her with someone just as bad, but more clever at disguising a rotten foreign policy.

[Oct 12, 2018] Why the U.S. Military is Woefully Unprepared for a Major Conventional Conflict

Oct 12, 2018 | southfront.org

Institutional Corruption

If one had to identify the main reason behind the utter failure of the U.S. political establishment and military leadership, both civilian and in uniform, to identify and prioritize weapons programs and procurement that was truly in line with the national defense needs of the country, it would be the institutional corruption of the U.S. military industrial complex. This is not a fault of one party, but is the inevitable outcome of a thoroughly corrupted system that both generates and wastes great wealth at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few.

Massive defense budgets do not lead to powerful military forces nor sound national defense strategy. The United States is the most glaring example of how a nation's treasure can be wasted, its citizens robbed for generations, and its political processes undermined by an industry bent on maximizing profitability by encouraging and exacerbating conflict. At this point it is questionable that the United States' could remain economically viable without war, so much of its GDP is connected in some way to the pursuit of conflict.

There is no doubt that the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in an Orwellian sleight of hand in 1947, just a few years after end of World War II. The military industrial complex grew into a monolith during the war, and the only way to justify the expansion of the complex, was by finding a new enemy to justify the new reality of a massive standing military, something that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. This unlawful state of affairs has persisted and expanded into a rotten, bloated edifice of waste. Wasted effort, wasted wealth and the wasted lives of millions of people spanning every corner of the planet. Tens of thousands of brave men and women in uniform, and millions of civilians of so many nations, have been tossed into the blades of this immoral meat grinder for generations.

President Donald Trump was very proud to announce the largest U.S. military budget in the nation's history last year. The United States spent (or more accurately, borrowed from generations yet to come) no less than $874.4 billion USD. The declared base budget for 2017 was $523.2 billion USD, yet there are also the Overseas Contingency Operations and Support budgets that have to be considered in determining the total cost. The total DOD annual costs have doubled from 2003 to the present. Yet, what has the DOD really accomplished with so much money and effort? Very little of benefit to the U.S. tax payer for sure, and paradoxically the exorbitant waste of the past fifteen years have left every branch of the U.S. military weaker.

The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of reigning in the military adventurism of the executive branch. They have the sole authority to declare war, but more importantly, the sole authority to approve the budget requests of the military. It is laughable to think that the U.S. Congress will do anything to reign in military spending. The Congress and the Senate are as equally guilty as the Executive in promoting and benefitting from the military industrial complex. Envisioned as a bulwark against executive power, the U.S. Congress has become an integral component of that complex. No Senator or Representative would dare to go against the industry that employs so many constituents within their state, or pass up on the benefits afforded them through the legalized insider-trading exclusive to them, or the lucrative jobs that await them in the defense industry and the many think tanks that promote continued prosecution of war.

[Oct 12, 2018] Trump's Trade War is part of the attempt to gain Full Spectrum Dominance:

Oct 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Oct 11, 2018 1:29:41 PM | link

Alastair Crooke shows Trump's Trade War is part of the attempt to gain Full Spectrum Dominance:

"... the radical, scorched-earth leverage now being pursued in Trump's companion foreign policy lunge is aimed, not just at returning the US to its status quo ante , but is aimed rather at forcing the capitulation of all resistance to US hegemony." [Emphasis original]

Crooke attempts to show Trump's put all his chips on Red: "But the crux of it is that when you put 'all' on one colour or the other in roulette, you either win big, or lose all."

Pepe Escobar on Brazil's election as an example of the "Future of Western Democracy" examined in an essay 3x the length of his asiatimes.com reports:

"Stripped to its essence, the Brazilian presidential elections represent a direct clash between democracy and an early 21st Century, neofascism, indeed between civilization and barbarism.

"Geopolitical and global economic reverberations will be immense. The Brazilian dilemma illuminates all the contradictions surrounding the Right populist offensive across the West, juxtaposed to the inexorable collapse of the Left. The stakes could not be higher ." [My emphasis]

Yes, the two issues are linked. Pepe's piece makes it easier to see the strategic reasoning behind the immigrant invasion unleashed by Turkey and EU response, but it was planned by Obama, not Bannon and Trump.

uncle tungsten , Oct 11, 2018 8:36:10 PM | link

@Greece 9
Nonsense, it sure was Obummer and his evil SOS 'genius'Hillary the Hun that sent wave after wave of refugees to the EU with a little help from Erdy the Turd.

Let us not mince words here Greece: you cannot whitewash Obummer and his warmongering ghouls and the same goes for dumping all responsibility on Trump and his warmongering ghouls.

Remember prophets and false prophets in your warmongering book are eloquently described and whitewashed too in recent times. The western ghouls all hide behind the Abrahamic texts that salaciously awaits the apocalypse. As do all warmongers who hide behind their precious divine scribbles.

I'm with karlof 1 here because no amount of propaganda will make me forget who are the perpetrators of evil.

ben , Oct 11, 2018 8:58:29 PM | link
ut @ 24 said;"Remember prophets and false prophets in your warmongering book are eloquently described and whitewashed too in recent times. The western ghouls all hide behind the Abrahamic texts that salaciously awaits the apocalypse. As do all warmongers who hide behind their precious divine scribbles.

Agreed, and well said...

[Oct 12, 2018] Kuwait and Bahrein might reevaluate relations with Syria, the UAE might slowly move out the Yemen war

Oct 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Virgile , Oct 12, 2018 10:40:45 AM | link

Qatar is jubilating! Turkey, too! Saudi Arabia will be criticized and isolated as most GCC countries would dissaprove and prefer to dissociate from such a crime. Dismembering the body of a dead moslem man is a very serious crime in Islam.

Kuwait and Bahrein are already cozyng up with Syria, the UAE is slowly moving out the Yemen war and reviewing ist relation with Syria.

Kashoogi's alleged martyr may save Yemenis lives and may have the Western world faced to the reality that in the region, the evil is not Iran but their best friend, Saudi Arabia and its smiling monster MBS.

Kashoogi may have succeeded unintentionally to destabilize MBS and probably trigger his removal. The USA will have no problem in sacrificing MBS for the sake of keeping the Saudi milking under control. The only problem will be that it will reflect on Kushner-MBS Grand Palestinian plan.

Maybe Kashoogi's love for fiancee made him take the risk to get a divorce paper from the Saudi Arabia consulate and be killed.

A sad ending to a love story.

dh , Oct 12, 2018 3:19:01 PM | link

@75 Why should Trump make a big issue about some dead Arab? Because he was a journalist? Trump hates journalists.

If bleeding heart progressives want to make a fuss so be it. He knows his base don't give a shit about the world outside the USA as long as they buy American arms.

[Oct 12, 2018] The US deep state want a ''middle easternization'' in South America.

Oct 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Nick , Oct 11, 2018 10:55:41 PM | link

I don't know what is happening in Brazil, but from what I have read from some Russians and some German geopolitical analysts it seems that the far right Jair Bolsonaro will be the key of a future American proxy war against Venezuela. The US deep state want a ''middle easternization'' in South America.

[Oct 12, 2018] CIA democrat Obama was 100% involved in unleashing Syria war

Oct 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Harry , Oct 12, 2018 10:05:33 AM | link

@ Schmoe | 27

I see references again and again (and then again), that Obama started the war in Syria. It is pretty well established that the CIA started this "uprising" in 2011, but the only credible article on Obama's involvement that I have read was a NYT article a year ago saying that Hillary and Nettanyahoo urged Obama to get involved in Syria in 2012, but he declined.

Actually US plans to overthrow Syria's government goes back in decades, and there were multiple attempts to do so. Active preparations for 2011 started in 2005 under Bush, when Assad refused to cut ties with Iran and Hezb.

We know he declined to get the US involved in lobbing missiles after the 2013 alleged chemical attack. Is there any link or article discussing Obama ordering the Syrian uprising

Obama was 100% involved he just didnt want to do expensive direct intervention and rather prefered cheap proxy war with expendable cannon fodder jihadis rather than spend trillions and see the return of US soldiers in body bags. It worked for them in Libya, and Obama thought it will work in Syria and Iraq (he publicly admited they used ISIS to oust Maliki).

[Oct 12, 2018] For years disinformation specialists have peddled a giant lie about the crash of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie

Oct 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Coldish , Oct 11, 2018 5:17:07 PM | link

That might sound far fetched or even crazy but we have been here before. When in December 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie it was quite obvious that it was a revenge act for the July 1988 murder of 290 people on board of Iran Air flight 655 by the U.S. navy. But the investigation was fudged and in the end it was politically most convenient to blame Libya's Ghaddafi for the Pan Am disaster even while he had nothing to do with either incident.

@8: For an objective discussion, with detailed analysis of the forensic evidence, of how and where the Lockerbie bomb was placed I recommend the book 'Adequately explained by stupidity?' by M.Kerr. The author (wisely in my view) does not speculate on who might have placed the bomb, although she makes it clear that it could not have been either of the Libyans tried for the crime. The book is not perfect, as it lacks an index, but you can't have everything!

mauisurfer , Oct 11, 2018 5:55:53 PM | link

re: Lockerbie

Read this
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Framing_of_al-Megrahi

originally published in 2009 here (but you must sign up):
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi

mauisurfer , Oct 11, 2018 6:07:33 PM | link
Re: Lockerbie
Here is a previous article from 2007 also from LRB:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/hugh-miles/inconvenient-truths
Ross , Oct 11, 2018 6:36:17 PM | link
@Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPropaganda | Oct 11, 2018 4:31:13 PM | 8

re Lockerbie

This is excellent: Lockerbie - The Flight From Justice Paul Foot - Private Eye Special Report

A dying ember of investigative journalism in the UK, written by a good man no longer with us.

Guerrero , Oct 11, 2018 10:21:47 PM | link
To Pan Am Flight 103: 4-5 years ago i watched a documentation about it, with the usual narrative. But some weeks ago i tried to learn some more pieces of the truth about it, and on Wikipedia is a MSM/propaganda article like so often these days. Has anyone some links to an unbiased account on the tragedy? Thanks in advance! Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPropaganda | Oct 11, 2018 4:31:13 PM | 8

"For years disinformation specialists have peddled a giant lie about the crash of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie. Time and time again the media has hysterically regurgitated the flawed and impossible legend that Maid of the Seas was brought to earth by a bomb triggered by a barometrically-activated timer, hidden in a radio in a samsonite suitcase. A barometric timer set for 10,000 feet altitude, which miraculously failed to activate when the Air Malta Flight it was allegedly planted on climbed through 10,000 feet after departing Valetta for Frankfurt, and again when the Pam Am feeder Boeing 727 to London climbed through 10,000 feet after departing Frankfurt." https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Bomb_Trigger_on_Pam_Am_103
Copyright Joe Vialls, May 2000
pogohere , Oct 12, 2018 1:20:42 AM | link
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda @8

In The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror , which bombing is a modern template for many false flags that follow, i.e. , a drill goes live, the author follows a myriad of threads, including the fact that CIA intelligence officers were on Pan Am 103 ("Inconvenient Truths" and "Lockerbie: The Flight From Justice" mention this was well). The contention is that they were returning to Langley to present evidence that a rogue CIA group was running drugs through Lebanon. It sez here the rogues managed to place a bomb on the plane in Germany.

lili , Oct 12, 2018 6:49:45 AM | link
@ 9

I looked into the Lockerbie thing several years ago and was astonished to find out that the only link to Lybia was a Swiss made timer supposedly used to detonate the bomb. It was found "by chance" although the plane debris were scattered over many square kilometers...

hestroy , Oct 12, 2018 8:42:20 AM | link

@9 Lockerbee ---> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6222677/How-world-sold-monstrous-lie-Lockerbie.html

Barbara Ann , Oct 12, 2018 2:26:43 PM | link
@9 For Pan Am 103 & much more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation needs a UK IP address
dh , Oct 12, 2018 3:19:01 PM | link Peter Brooke , Oct 12, 2018 3:45:01 PM | link
In response to DontBelieveEitherPropaganda, item 9 above, a good account of the Lockerbie affair by David Morrison can be found at http://www.peterbrooke.org.uk/p%26t/Lockerbie/index
Jen , Oct 12, 2018 3:55:04 PM | link
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda @ 9:

My understanding of the Lockerbie air tragedy is that it's a classic example of two birds being killed with one stone.

Where TPTB find a possibility that two problems or issues can be dealt with by the same solution, however violent, that possibility becomes reality.

The context to the Lockerbie shootdown is that at the time the CIA was running a heroin-trafficking racket in the Middle East with Lebanese partners. Investigators from the DIA (Defense Intelligency Agency, the Pentagon's own spy agency) discovered this scheme and collected evidence to expose it. The CIA became aware of what the DIA agents knew and wanted them out of the way. One of the CIA's Lebanese partners knew that the Iranian government, or people within it, wanted revenge on the US for the earlier shootdown of an Iranian passenger jet by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf.

The CIA's Lebanese partners knew of the Iranians' desire for revenge and may have arranged with the Iranians to substitute a bomb for cash or heroin packets in a suitcase taken on board the Pan Am jet. This case may have been part of the evidence the DIA was taking back to the US (but the DIA agents might not have known at the time they took the case on board).

I am not sure of all the details (details not being my strong suit) but that's my understanding in a nutshell.

FWIW, the Wikipedia article on alternate theories surrounding the Lockerbie air crash offers sources you may like to chase up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_theories#CIA_drug_smuggling

[Oct 12, 2018] I suspect The Netherlands are being targeted because among other things the International Court of Crimes and the International Court of Justice are based in The Hague. One of these bone-shakers is that The Netherlands is a major corporate tax haven and as such competes with Britain and the US.

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Jen October 4, 2018 at 2:49 pm

I suspect The Netherlands are being targeted because among other things the International Court of Crimes and the International Court of Justice are based in The Hague. There may be other reasons as well: the Dutch must have a fair few skeletons in their collective closet and the US could very well target one of these and bring the entire wardrobe crashing down and exposing all its sordid secrets.

One of these bone-shakers is that The Netherlands is a major corporate tax haven and as such competes with Britain and the US.

http://www.nomoretax.eu/netherlands-tax-haven/

kirill October 4, 2018 at 7:49 am
Pence is now accusing of China of hacking the US elections. I know China has been lobbying and making campaign finance contributions in the past, but the US accusations have a clear pattern. Recall how US blacks were tagged as rapists of fine white virgins. This reputation was then used to justify apartheid laws. The US is basically accusing Russia and China of violation of America's "dignity". And is trying to globally treat them as segregated blacks. The same tired shtick for the "exceptional" nation with a self-assigned "manifest destiny". The country that needs containment is the USA. It has clear, psychotic ambitions to rule the world.
Moscow Exile October 6, 2018 at 2:16 am
Coming from government ministers of the most powerful state on earth, do not all these accusations directed against all those other states that are populated by sad, lesser beings who are envious of the "Shining City on the Hill", the "Home of the Brave and Land of the Free", that epitome of human society, that place where "history has ended", not sound somwhat hysterical, a symptom of weakness, of self-doubt concerrning the hegemon's might and integrity?
kirill October 6, 2018 at 4:47 am
They need an excuse for their colonial racket. During the USSR era, they had the "threat of communism" to rally local elites in developing countries and also used this "threat" as an excuse to install death squad junta regimes. The death of the USSR deprived them of the "threat" fig leaf so they had to ramp up the humanitarian concern BS. Countries need to be controlled by demonizing their leaders for being tyrants and terrorist sponsors. For violating human rights by not letting Soros and NATzO funded 5th column operations called NGOs do their thing. It seems these transparent pretexts are still effective at convincing people around the world that America and its vassals are a collection of noble knights doing good deeds and not a pack of hyenas engaged in gang mutilation of countries that leads to millions of deaths of innocent civilians. What was the point of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and all the other regime change victims? There was no arrival of democracy and safety. There was only needless death and degradation.

[Oct 12, 2018] The west returns compulsively to the region because it thinks that this is where things might tear loose; independence movements in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan. Where, as the western regime-change impulse fondly returns time and again, issues of fundamentalist religion can be played upon to flare into conflict

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 6, 2018 at 10:19 am

The west returns compulsively to the region because it thinks that this is where things might tear loose; independence movements in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan. Where, as the western regime-change impulse fondly returns time and again, issues of fundamentalist religion can be played upon to flare into conflict – it has worked for the west all around the world, turning Shi'ite against Sunni and this one against that one. It often signals its interest with plaintive articles by pro-democracy think-tanks implore Vladimir Putin to let the Chechens be free, instead of imposing a succession of overlords upon them, bla, bla, you know the drill. How can Putin diss the mighty USA for supporting oppressors of choice around the world when he won't man up and let the Chechens have their own free state?

In fact, Putin has said in the past that the Chechens can be free and independent if that is what they really want. But implied in that is that Moscow will no longer underwrite the new state; that it will have to achieve economic viability itself.

Normally that is where the west comes in, singing siren songs of sovereignty-association and fabulous prosperity to be had in attaching oneself to the western orbit. But so far not enough people buy it – there are always the rebel darlings, the tearaways who bleat discontent and stir the imagination of the western press. But just as often they are religious nutters and suicide bombers who just want a dramatic death. Like that chap and his missus – Dagestan, I think it was, a few years back – who had their apartment shot to rubble with them in it after they repeatedly refused repeated offers to surrender and live, deigning only for a hi-lift crane bucket to come up to the balcony to give their daughter into the arms of her wailing granny. Martyrdom and progressive leadership almost never flourish in the same person, for some reason. Except maybe for Jeremy Corbyn.

Jen October 5, 2018 at 12:57 pm
Just looked up Ingushetia on Wikipedia and found it's a small federal republic whose population as of 2014 was less than 500,000.

I rather doubt then that thousands of people turned up in Magas to protest. If there are no aerial photographs of the protesters, then we have to treat the figures reported by Reuters and other news agencies outside Russia with suspicion.

The OC Media article at this link states hundreds turned up to protest and the photographs appear to back up that statement:
http://oc-media.org/protests-erupt-in-ingushetia-as-mps-say-chechnya-land-swap-vote-was-falsified/

There is dispute over the size of the area being transferred to Chechnya: the area officially being transferred amounts to less than 2,000 hectares but according to Ingushetian opposition group Mekhk Kkhel 58,000 hectares are being transferred. The difference between the figures seems suspicious and the upper figure is likely to be an exaggeration.

et Al October 6, 2018 at 6:06 am
Nice source Jen:

http://oc-media.org/about-us/about-oc-media/

We strive to shed light and offer a variety of per­spec­tives on ongoing social, economic and political devel­op­ments in the region, including in: human rights, ethnic and religious minori­ties, labour rights, gender and queer issues, devel­op­ment, as well as conflict dynamics in the region

OC Media was co-founded in January 2017 by Mari Nikuradze, Dominik K. Cagara, and Caroline Sutcliffe, initially under the auspices of Chai Khana NGO. It has received funding from the UK Government's Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, the European Endowment for Democracy, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung South Caucasus Office, Open Society Foun­da­tions, and the United Kingdom Foreign and Com­mon­wealth Office, with joint com­mis­sions with Inter­na­tion­al Alert (EPNK/European Union Ini­tia­tive), Civil.ge (COBERM), and Open Democracy Russia.

[Oct 12, 2018] Like the values and rules that led the NSA to eavesdrop on Chancellor Merkel's phone calls for years, and to use American Embassies as listening posts. Mutti Merkel was very understanding, considering they were only doing it to keep us all safe.

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 4, 2018 at 11:02 am

"the GRU's disregard for global values and rules that keep us all safe".

Like the values and rules that led the NSA to eavesdrop on Chancellor Merkel's phone calls for years, and to use American Embassies as listening posts. Mutti Merkel was very understanding, considering they were only doing it to keep us all safe.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-spied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html

The British and the Dutch – and doubtless all America's many 'allies' – have no real pride left. They just keep bending over further.

[Oct 12, 2018] 'Land of censorship home of the fake' Alternative voices on Facebook and Twitter's crackdown

Normal people do not browse Facebook, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... "misleading users." ..."
"... Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history." ..."
"... "a wider war on dissident narratives in online media." ..."
"... "eyes and ears" ..."
Oct 12, 2018 | www.rt.com

Alternative voices online are incensed after Facebook and Twitter closed down hundreds of political media pages ahead of November's crucial midterm elections. Facebook says they broke its spam rules, they say it's censorship. Some 800 pages spanning the political spectrum, from left-leaning organizations like The Anti Media, to flag-waving opinion sites like Right Wing News and Nation in Distress, were shut down. Other pages banned include those belonging to police brutality watchdog groups Filming Cops and Policing the Police.

Even RT America's Rachel Blevins found her own page banned for posts that were allegedly "misleading users."

Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history."

In America, Conservatives were the first to complain about unfair treatment by left-leaning Silicon Valley tech giants. However, leftist sites have increasingly become targets in what Blumenthal calls "a wider war on dissident narratives in online media." In identifying enemies in this "war," Facebook has partnered up with the Digital Forensics Lab, an offshoot of NATO-sponsored think tank the Atlantic Council. The DFL has promised to be Facebook's "eyes and ears" in the fight against disinformation (read: alternative viewpoints).

[Oct 12, 2018] Father Dani l in Syria 'Fake News is Imposed With Great Enthusiasm in the West, While Channels of Truth Are Closed' by Bahar Azizi

Notable quotes:
"... Hand in Hand voor Syrië, ..."
"... The most flagrant case is Syria where a war was orchestrated by "proxy groups" by Western powers and the Petro monarchies of the Gulf States. Before the war, Syria was a country that could support itself in terms of food and industrialization with a well-developed population that enjoyed a modern health system. The "strategy of the chaos" imported hoards of mercenaries of which the Syrian government can hardly get rid of after 8 years of war (2011-2018). The imperialist intervention, meant to fight this state that refused to obey, has driven 5 million people from their homes" ..."
"... L'intervention and Libye, la pire erreur de ce début de siecle ..."
"... Propaganda Blitz. How the Corporate Media Distort Reality ..."
"... For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities of this dark world ... ..."
Oct 11, 2018 | www.sott.net
Living in Syria in the sixth-century Mar Yakub monastery in the city of Qara, 90 kilometers north of the capital Damascus, Flemish Father Daniël Maes has been a witness to the invasion of western-backed terrorists since the very beginning. To this day, he and his friends continue to support the Syrian people by not only helping them directly, but also by spreading the truth about what is truly going on in the country.

Each week, a newsletter written by Father Daniël is published, in which he describes his experiences and thoughts on the situation in Syria. With the help of much needed donations and NGOs such as Hand in Hand voor Syrië, Father Daniël and others have been working tirelessly with the Syrian people liberated from (formerly) terrorist-held areas.

Below, you can read his latest newsletter , as published on September 28th, 2018, and as translated by Sott.net:

Dear friends,

It seems unlikely that the planned military escalation by Western forces to protect the terrorists in Idlib and to risk a last chance to subvert Syria, will continue. The Abou al-Dohour safe zone basically ensures that citizens can escape the terrorist-controlled Idlib. This was largely guaranteed by the agreement between Russia and Turkey. And Putin seems determined to impose a no-fly zone over all of Syria! Well done. Meanwhile, the Syrians continue to work very diligently on the restoration of their country and society. After the fantastic course of the 60th annual fair last Friday, a 'marathon of peace' was organized to support those who work for the end of the war and the restoration of peace. This marathon was held in Hama, Homs, Lattakia, Tartous and Sweida.

At the same time, a limited bicycle race was organized in Damascus for 200 cyclists from the Ommayade mosque through the city.

In Qara there was one crossroad that was full of rubble for years. It was the place where the hardest fighting took place in 2013. Well, the debris is finally cleared up. And between the monastery and the Ante-Lebanon Mountains people have been working hard lately. The so-called Qara 4 gas source is now operational. It delivers 120,000 cubic meters of gas and 100 condensed barrels every day. We pray and hope that there will be a definitive end to this war and the Syrian people can fully develop their identity.

Father Daniël then goes on to sharing news about the community, his reflection on the root causes of the refugee problem, and a warning with regard to the "official fake news":
Preparation

We want to have a quiet retreat in the community and some preparation has been made for this. On Monday, we visited Sadad and the Syrian Orthodox community with some sisters and a guest, with whom we now maintain a close contact. We visited the "martyress" of the village again, the old woman, who was all alone, was left behind by terrorists to die but recovered. She received a shed that is now being converted into a two-room house, which she proudly showed us.

We prayed together in the church and visited a number of villagers. The pastor abou Michaiel and the Christians count on us that we also continue to help them financially. It is mainly about the purchase of material for the reconstruction, they will do the work themselves. Tuesday and Wednesday were still preparation days to start with a real quiet retreat for the whole community on Thursday. Hopefully more about that next time. So, you won't be getting a message about the war around us this time, we are committing to the struggle in ourselves right now.

Ministerial visit

This week we were again visited by the Minister of Supply together with his wife. They were with us before. He practically has the function of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt during the famine. He asked mother Agnes-Mariam to help find the means to offer more people work in agriculture so that they can provide themselves with their own food. In Aleppo we have been able to help 5,000 families. He also asked in India (mother Agnes-Mariam will briefly give a retreat in India) to find out whether material and prostheses can be shipped from there for disabled people.

From our monastery MSJM (Saint Jacques le Mutilé) about 1,000 people are now employed as paid workers in relief efforts throughout Syria. In the beginning we received a lot of opposition and suspicion. Meanwhile, there is a strong and good spirit with five responsible people, with mother Agnes-Mariam assuming the final responsibility. Now, big organizations are coming to us to work with us. However, the first and foremost impulse always starts with simple, sincere people who give their contribution with generosity. That is why we would like to express our sincere thanks to all our benefactors.

Our wars, our refugees

The continuing flow of refugees from the Middle East and Africa to Europe is a humanitarian drama for these people themselves and is also a threat to the countries in which they seek refuge. In this regard, two attitudes are mainly present. Some respond from a humanitarian point of view and want these people who are in need to be helped and taken care of. The others want to defend the identity of their country to for example prevent a Christian country from being flooded with Muslims who do not want to adapt and who create their own areas where the authentic population can not even visit.

However, what is missing too often is the question about the actual cause and background of the problem. When you return home and you see that the water is flowing out the front door, do you first look for buckets and mops to remove the water from your house? No. You first search for the cause of this flooding. And then you see, for example, that you have left the faucet of the sink open while the stopper was in. So the very first thing you do is close the tap.

There can be many causes that trigger a flow of refugees, but almost always they involve rich Western countries who want to master the resources of other countries. Under the pretext of "freedom and democracy" these countries are being disrupted, a change of government is being worked on, and puppets are being appointed to ensure the interests of the West.

" The most flagrant case is Syria where a war was orchestrated by "proxy groups" by Western powers and the Petro monarchies of the Gulf States. Before the war, Syria was a country that could support itself in terms of food and industrialization with a well-developed population that enjoyed a modern health system. The "strategy of the chaos" imported hoards of mercenaries of which the Syrian government can hardly get rid of after 8 years of war (2011-2018). The imperialist intervention, meant to fight this state that refused to obey, has driven 5 million people from their homes" . (Bruno Guigue, 23 september 2018: Link )

The US and the Western powers proclaim that they no longer have colonial policies, that they only want to ensure freedom and democracy, defend human rights and, finally, defend their own national security and interests. Those who claim their sovereignty must also recognize the sovereignty and interests of other countries. And that is precisely not the case. The military intervention by Western countries is not the solution, but the problem itself. It is the French troops in Mali, Niger (rich in uranium), Chad, Central African Republic that ensure that the countries remain dependent and poor.

It is NATO that destroyed Libya with active participation from Belgium and France. After the Belgian "aid" to Libya, there was hardly a bomb left in Belgium. No "mea culpa" came from any country for this total devastation (Jean-François Kahn, L'intervention and Libye, la pire erreur de ce début de siecle , Le Soir, 25/9/18; about this well-known French journalist see: Link ). The invasions of Somalia (1992), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) destroyed these countries. The aggression of Saudi Arabia with active support from the West against Yemen has killed 10,000 people since March 2005, causing a deadly cholera epidemic and famine for 8 million people.

Certainly, there are several causes of the refugee flow. However, the most important remains the neo-colonial domination of Western powers who shamelessly and with military force appropriate the richness of other countries. Subsequently, there is often a corrupt elite of the country itself who have allowed themselves to be bribed to betray their own people. Finally, there are Mafia bosses who set up an extremely lucrative business to get the refugees across. Let's stop whining about the shortage of mops, pullers, buckets, and turn off the tap. These are our wars and our aggression against other countries that are making people flee. If we want to assert our sovereignty, we must also respect the sovereignty of other countries and their interests.

Ready for the battle for your mind!

The spreading of false, incorrect or misleading information, 'fake news', is a problem. The European Union is working diligently on a strategy to combat this ailment. The East StratCom Task Force was already set up for this purpose in 2015. Certain guidelines have been developed and at the end of this year we can expect more concrete actions.

However, there's a catch. Let's make it clear immediately. We are getting more and more into a situation where fake news is imposed with great enthusiasm by government leaders, politicians, official statements, authoritative media and acclaimed journalists, who conceal reality, while the channels of honest researchers who bring the truth, are closed expertly. The justification is then: We must defend European values. That free speech and the obligation to tell the truth are also values, is then forgotten. Or real news and truthful reporting are condemned as being a "conspiracy theory". Or, as we now experience with the announcement of the criminal behavior of the Dutch government, which smoothly helps with the slaughter of innocent Syrian people, says that it should not come to light because it is a "state secret".

The example we know best is of course Syria. A very harmonious, prosperous and particularly safe (albeit imperfect) society with a President who is supported by broad sections of the population is suddenly presented as a terrible dictatorship with a gruesome dictator. The CIA provided an abundance of false photos, films, reports, books, testimonies of inhuman torture (the American prisons remain an inexhaustible source for this) that were spread throughout the West. And everyone (including our "conflict journalist"!) "knew", almost one day after another, how that terrible Syrian president strangled people all day, tortured them to death and carried out chemical attacks.

Something like that makes the blood of every right-minded person boil and that makes a heavy-handed military intervention more than justified. When someone dared to say that there was no "popular uprising" in Syria and certainly no "civil war", that Syria had not committed any chemical attacks at all, he was dismissed as unreliable, fake news. And so the US, Israel, NATO and allies could continue to send their most fanatical terrorists to destroy the country and take away oil, gas and sovereignty. In our own Flemish press I never read one balanced article about the situation in Syria.

In the end it is about the loss of credible journalism. For England, this is now greatly described by David Edwards and David Cromwell, Propaganda Blitz. How the Corporate Media Distort Reality , Pluto Press, 2018, foreword by John Pilger. They show how the liberal media give half-truths and whole lies or sometimes represent reality in reverse, in the service of large interest groups. And the writers of this work are not even journalists but a former professor and an oceanographer. It will become increasingly difficult to discover reality, but it is not impossible. The Australian journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is now imprisoned at the Embassy of Venezuela in London but in reality deserves a monument to what he has made public. There are undoubtedly many more people than we suspect, who are aware of the prevalent lies.

Anyone who has any insight into the ever-recurring anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-China, anti-Brexit... hysteria on the one hand and on the other Western unlimited war propaganda, justified by the most unlikely pretext to dominate the rest of the world, will soon find more reliable sources. It is also necessary. " For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities of this dark world ... " (Ephesians 6, 12). And by our attitude, we are always either on the side of the murderers or on the side of the innocent victims. We are called to be people of peace and not silly servants of hatred and war, which we conveniently want to package in a message of peace.

Bahar Azizi

Bahar Azizi lives in Europe, holds an MA in psychology, is an instructor in Éiriú Eolas meditation , and is a keen animal lover. Bahar has been a contributing writer and editor at SOTT.net since 2012.

[Oct 12, 2018] Putin, the responsible adult, is doing the World a huge favor with his Syrian S300 therapy

Oct 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Barbara Ann , a day ago

Excellent roundup Patrick, thanks.

I believe that is a truly pivotal piece by Gideon Levy in Haaretz and I share his sentiment and cautious optimism. Israel behaves as a child. It has been spoilt by being allowed to do as it pleases for far too long and by an over protective parent who comes running every time it throws a tantrum. Putin, the responsible adult, is doing the World a huge favor with his Syrian S300 therapy. These 2 paragraphs are spot on:

"Russia, without meaning to, may yet turn out to be better for Israel than all the insane, corrupting support it receives from the current American administration, and from its predecessors, too.

Russia has outlined for the world the way to treat Israel, using the only language Israel understands. Let those who truly care for Israel's welfare, and for justice, learn how it's done: Only by force."

[Oct 12, 2018] The Shaky Case That Russia Manipulated Social Media to Tip the 2016 Election by Gareth Porter

Russians under each Facebook account
Oct 12, 2018 | original.antiwar.com
adopted false US personas online to get people to attend rallies and conduct other political activities. (An alternative explanation is that IRA is a purely commercial, and not political, operation.)

Whether those efforts even came close to swaying US voters in the 2016 presidential election, as Shane and Mazzetti claimed, is another matter.

Shane and Mazzetti might argue that they are merely citing figures published by the social media giants Facebook and Twitter, but they systematically failed to report the detailed explanations behind the gross figures used in each case, which falsified their significance.

Their most dramatic assertions came in reporting the alleged results of the IRA's efforts on Facebook. "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media," they wrote, "the reach of their effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook alone."

Then, to dramatize that "eventual audience" figure, they observed, "That was not far short of the 137 million people who would vote in the 2016 presidential elections."

But as impressive as these figures may appear at first glance, they don't really indicate an effective attack on the US election process at all. In fact, without deeper inquiry into their meaning, those figures were grossly misleading.

A Theoretical Possibility

What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch actually said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last October was quite different from what the Times reporters claimed. "Our best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served one of these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch said.

Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established accomplishment. Facebook was saying that it estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at least one story from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period but over 194 weeks during the two years 2015 through 2017. That, figure, in turn, was based on the estimate that 29 million people might have gotten at least one story in their Facebook feed over that same two-year period and on the assumption that they shared it with others at a particular rate.

The first problem with citing those figures as evidence of impact on the 2016 election is that Facebook did not claim that all or even most of those 80,000 IRA posts were election–related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million people was, in fact, election-related. But Stretch did testify that IRA content over that two–year period represented just four thousandths (.0004) of the total content of Facebook newsfeeds.

Thus each piece of IRA content in a twitter feed was engulfed in 23,000 pieces of non-IRA content.

That is an extremely important finding, because, as Facebook's Vice President for News Feed, Adam Moseri, acknowledged in 2016 , Facebook subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually read.

Facebook did conduct research on what it calls "civic engagement" during the election period, and the researchers concluded that the "reach" of the content shared by what they called "fake amplifiers" was "marginal compared to the volume of civic content shared during the US elections." That reach, they said, was "statistically very small" in relation to "overall engagement on political issues."

Shane and Mazzaetti thus failed to report any of the several significant caveats and disclaimers from Facebook itself that make their claim that Russian election propaganda "reached" 126 million Americans extremely misleading.

Tiny IRA Twitter Footprint

Shane and Mazzetti's treatment of the role of Twitter in the alleged Russian involvement in the election focuses on 3,814 Twitter accounts said to be associated with the IRA, which supposedly "interacted with 1.4 million Americans." Although that number looks impressive without any further explanation, more disaggregated data provide a different picture: more than 90 percent of the Tweets from the IRA had nothing to do with the election, and those that did were infinitesimally few in relation to the entire Twitter stream relating to the 2016 campaign.

Twitter's own figures show that those 3,814 IRA-linked accounts posted 175,993 Tweets during the ten weeks of the election campaign, but that only 8.4 percent of the total number of IRA-generated Tweets were election-related.

Twitter estimated that those 15,000 IRA-related tweets represented less than .00008 (eight one hundred thousandths) of the estimated total of 189 million tweets that Twitter identified as election-related during the ten-week election campaign. Twitter has offered no estimate of how many Tweets, on average were in the daily twitter stream of those people notified by Twitter and what percentage of them were election-related Tweets from the IRA. Any such notification would certainly show, however, that the percentage was extremely small and that very few would have been read.

Research by Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren of Clemson University on 2.9 million Tweets from those same 3,814 IRA accounts over a two year period has revealed that nearly a third of its Tweets had normal commercial content or were not in English; another third were straight local newsfeeds from US localities or mostly non-political "hashtag games", and the final third were on "right" or "left" populist themes in US society.

Furthermore, there were more IRA Tweets on political themes in 2017 than there had been during the election year. As a graph of those tweets over time shows, those "right" and "left" Tweets peaked not during the election but during the summer of 2017.

The Mysterious 50,000 'Russia-Linked' Accounts

Twitter also determined that another 50,258 automated Twitter accounts that tweeted about the election were associated with Russia and that they have generated a total to 2.1 million Tweets – about one percent of the total number election-related tweets of during the period.

But despite media coverage of those Tweets suggesting that they originated with the Russian government, the evidence doesn't indicate that at all. Twitter's Sean Edgett told the Senate Intelligence Committee last November that Twitter had used an "expansive approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account". Twitter considered an account to be "Russian" if any of the following was found: it was created in Russia or if the user registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email; the user's display name contains Cyrillic characters; the user frequently Tweets in Russian, or the user has logged in from any Russian IP address.

Edgett admitted in a statement in January, however, that there were limitations on its ability to determine the origins of the users of these accounts. And a past log-in from a Russian IP address does not mean the Russian government controls an account. Automated accounts have bought and sold for many years on a huge market, some of which is located in Russia. As Scott Shane reported in September 2017, a Russian website BuyAccs.com offers tens and even hundreds of thousands of Twitter accounts for bulk purchase.

Twitter also observed that "a high concentration of automated engagement and content originated from data centers and users accessing Twitter via Virtual Private Networks ("VPNs") and proxy servers," which served to mask the geographical origin of the tweet. And that practice was not limited to the 50,000 accounts in question. Twitter found that locations of nearly 12 percent of the Tweets generated during the election period were masked because of use of such networks and servers.

Twitter identified over half of the Tweets, coming from about half of the 50,000 accounts as being automated, and the data reported on activity on those 50,000 accounts in question indicates that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were using the automated accounts in question. The roughly 23,000 automated accounts were the source of 1.34 million Tweets, which represented .63 percent of the total election-related Tweets. But the entire 50,000 accounts produced about 1 percent of total election-related tweets.

Hillary Clinton got .55 percent of her total retweets from the 50,000 automated accounts Twitter calls "Russia-linked" and .62 percent of her "likes" from them. Those percentages are close to the percentage of total election-related Tweets generated by those same automated accounts. That suggests that her campaign had roughly the same proportion of automated accounts among the 50,000 accounts as it did in the rest of the accounts during the campaign.

Trump, on the other hand, got 1.8 percent of this total "likes" and 4.25 percent of his total Retweets for the whole election period from those accounts, indicating his campaign was more invested in the automated accounts that were the source of two-thirds of the Tweets in those 50,000 "Russia-linked" accounts.

The idea promoted by Shane and Mazzetti that the Russian government seriously threatened to determine the winner of the election does not hold up when the larger social media context is examined more closely. Contrary to what the Times' reporters and the corporate media in general would have us believe, the Russian private sector effort accounted for a minuscule proportion of the election-related output of social media. The threat to the US political system in general and its electoral system in particular is not Russian influence; it's in part a mainstream news media that has lost perspective on the truth.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] . Reprinted from Consortium News with the author's permission.

[Oct 12, 2018] If the gas pipeline project is indeed implemented, then Kiev will demand that a penalty against against Russia be awarded the Ukraine for the loss it will suffer because of the redundancy of its gas transport system.

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile October 5, 2018 at 12:58 am

... .. ...

Ukraine Naftogaz Commercial Director Yuriy Vitrenko, in an interview with "The Fifth Channel" has spoken of a plan that has been prepared in order to protect Naftogaz interests in the event of the launch of "Nord Stream-2".

According to him, if the gas pipeline project is indeed implemented, then Kiev will demand that a penalty against against Russia be awarded the Ukraine for the loss it will suffer because of the redundancy of its gas transport system.

The loss incured has been estimated by the Ukraine to be $12 billion. A lawsuit has already been filed by Naftogaz for international arbitration.

https://www.rbc.ru/politics/05/10/2018/5bb704ec9a7947bd43fa167c?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop

Right!

So for several years I have been shopping at a Pyatyorochka supermarket around the corner from our house. Now there's a new Billa supermarket around the other corner. It has a wider range of goods and is very competitive as regards its Pyatorocka prices, so I now do most of my shopping at Billa.

Does this mean Pyatyorachka can sue me for damages because of the loss of income it is suffering because of my choice to use another retail outlet?

I shall check with the Swedish court of arbitration.

Stay tuned!

Mark Chapman October 5, 2018 at 8:30 am
Perhaps they would get further by suing the US Department of State. I'm pretty sure that if it were not for them, Ukraine's gas transit system would still be in use. Ukraine could at least make a sensible case, which they cannot do against Russia. Mind you, a UK judge would probably rule in their favour, because simply wanting to get at Russia seems to be good enough these days – making a sensible case is not required.

[Oct 12, 2018] US senators demand Magnitsky Act probe, sanctions on Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi disappearance

Notable quotes:
"... What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach – extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders (according to her recent Amappaling interview). ..."
Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 11, 2018 at 2:22 am

RT.com: US senators demand Magnitsky Act probe, sanctions on Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi disappearance
https://www.rt.com/usa/440922-trump-letter-senators-khashoggi/

####

All kinds of delicious can proceed from this.

The whole Magnitsky Act thing was supposed to be a convenient tool of western foreign policy cloaked in Human Rights sugar to justify punished the usual suspects ad perpituitam, not for attacking allies. It looks like some US politicians actually think it is about human rights! They'll need to practice their best acting to explain why some are on the list and others aren't, along with compliant media and governments.

What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach – extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders (according to her recent Amappaling interview).

Trump is also promising a rapid USG reaction to India buying S-400s, so it really is time to stock up on the popcorn. I knew for sure that this year would certainly be more interesting than last year, but 2019 should be a corker. Woo.

[Oct 12, 2018] Link to an interesting article about declassified CIA documents on labour camps in the Soviet Union during the 1950s

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Jen October 10, 2018 at 6:21 pm

Link to an interesting article about declassified CIA documents on labour camps in the Soviet Union during the 1950s:
http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1539095708.html

I linked to the Lifeboat News paste because it may be easier for some people to read but if you want to read the original article, here it is:
https://stalinistkatyusha.wixsite.com/stalinist-katyusha/single-post/2018/10/04/The-Truth-about-the-Soviet-Gulag -- Surprisingly-Revealed-by-the-CIA

As we might have suspected already, the gulags were not nearly so horrible as Western news media outlets made them out to be in the past.

Evgeny October 10, 2018 at 11:39 pm
If you have read Solzhenitsyn's "In the First Circle" -- which is partially autobiographical -- the basic premise of the story is that he has voluntarily left the privileged camp (where he was supposed to do an engineering work) to a common camp where he would do physical labor. He did that so that he would be free to write. Not to write in a traditional sense -- he couldn't write a manuscript of course -- but he composed parts of his novels, memorized them and occasionally recited them to keep them fresh in his memory. From that anecdote we can see that at least the Gulag camps were supposed to be survivable.
yalensis October 11, 2018 at 2:17 am
Thanks for posting this interesting piece, Jen.

"During the period from 1921 to the present time for counterrevolutionary crimes were convicted 3,777,380 people, including to capital punishment – 642,980 people to the conent in the camps and prisons for a period of 25 years old and under – 2,369,220 into exile and expulsion – 765,190 people.

"Of the total number of convicts, approximately convicted: 2,900,000 people – College of OGPU, NKVD and triples Special meeting and 877,000 people – courts by military tribunals, and Spetskollegiev Military Collegium.

"It should be noted that established by Decree on November 3, 1934 Special Meeting of the NKVD which lasted until September 1, 1953 – 442,531 people were convicted, including to capital punishment – 10,101 people to prison – 360,921 people to exile and expulsion (within the country) – 57,539 people and other punishments (offset time in detention, deportation abroad, compulsory treatment) – 3,970 people "

I think these numbers prove a point that I have made numerous times, namely that the Stalinist repressions (putting aside the mixing of political prisoners with regular criminals, which muddies up the numbers) were mainly directed at Stalin's political rivals, and not at ordinary people.
And that shills like Solzhenitsyn were simply making a lot of shit up, to support the Westie narrative.
I have no tolerance for the Stalin adulators and Furries either (Stalin was a mean person and overall jerk), but the facts are more on their side, than on the other.

I took some criticism on my blog for calling the Stalin repressions "Office Politics on Steroids", but in essence that is what they were. Here, by the way, is another interesting article I saw recently on the repression and execution of Nikolai Bukharin, still another one of the Old Bolsheviks who got in Stalin's way:

http://www.aif.ru/society/history/smert_lyubimca_partii_kak_nikolay_buharin_stal_vragom_naroda

MoscowExile October 10, 2018 at 9:14 pm
Only yesterday I was working here at ExxonMobil, whose Moscow HQ is situated slap-bang next to the US embassy. Whilst waiting for my client to turn up, I started reading a well-made, luxuriously bound coffee-table volume, filled with glossy pages of wonderful photographs and published by that company about its Sakhalin venture.

The foreword was written by the ExxonMobil CEO. It started thus:

Sakhalin Island, where the tsar's labor camps were situated and which were so graphicaly described by Chekov

Welcome to Russia, arseholes!

yalensis October 11, 2018 at 2:06 am
Did they mean this book, by Anton ChekHov?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin_Island_(Chekhov)

Or maybe they were talking about that other book, written by Ensign Chekov of the Star Ship Enterprise. I heard that he also visited Sakhalin, on an earlier voyage, when his ship was docking there for some R&R.

[Oct 12, 2018] CIA Democrats on the upswing

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star October 5, 2018 at 12:41 pm

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/03/ciad-o03.html

Murican leaders:

"Jessica Morse, a former State Department and AID official in Iraq, running in the Fourth District of California, blasts the Trump administration for "giving away global leadership to powers like China and Russia. Our security and our economy will both suffer if those countries are left to re-write the international rules."

Former FBI agent Christopher Hunter, running in the 12th District of Florida, declares, "Russia is a clear and present danger to the United States. We emerged victorious over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. We must resolve anew to secure an uncompromising victory over Russia and its tyrannical regime."

Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA agent and Pentagon official running in Michigan's Eighth Congressional District, cites her 14 years of experience "working on some of our country's most critical national security matters, including U.S.-Russia relations, the counter-ISIS campaign, and the U.S. relationship with NATO." She argues that "the United States must make investments in its military, intelligence, and diplomatic power" in order to maintain "a unique and vital role in the world."

Max Rose, a combat commander in Afghanistan now running in New York's 11th Congressional District (Staten Island and Brooklyn), calls for "recognizing Russia as a hostile foreign power and holding the Kremlin accountable for its attempts to undermine the sovereignty and democratic values of other nations." Rose is still in the military reserves, and took two weeks off from his campaign in August to participate in small-unit drills.

Joseph Kopser, running in the 21st District of Texas, is another anti-Russian firebrand, writing on his website, "As a retired Army Ranger, I know first hand the importance of standing strong with your allies. Given Russia's march toward a totalitarian state showing aggression around the region, as well as their extensive cyber and information warfare campaign directed at the U.S., England, and others, our Article 5 [NATO] commitment to our European allies and partners is more important than ever." He concludes, "Since the mid-twentieth century, the United States has been a principal world leader -- a standard that should never be changed."

Four national-security candidates add North Korea and Iran to China and Russia as specific targets of American military and diplomatic attack.

Josh Welle, a former naval officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, now running in the Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey, writes, "We have to stand together in the face of threats from countries like North Korea and Iran. The human rights violations and nuclear capabilities of these countries pose a direct threat to the stability of this world and therefore need to be met with strong military presence and a robust defense program to protect ourselves."

Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state for human rights, running in New Jersey's Seventh District, calls for maintaining economic sanctions on Russia "until it stops its aggression in Ukraine and interference in our democracy," effusively endorses the state of Israel (whose government actually interferes in US elections more than any other), and calls for stepped up sanctions against North Korea.

Mikie Sherill, a former Navy pilot and Russian policy officer, running in New Jersey's 11th District, writes, "I have sat across the table from the Russians, and know that we need our government to take the threat they pose seriously." She adds to this a warning about "threats posed by North Korea and Iran," the two most immediate targets of military-diplomatic blackmail by the Trump administration. She concludes, referring to North Korea's nuclear program, "For that reason I support a robust military presence in the region and a comprehensive missile defense program to defend America, our allies, and our troops abroad."

Dan McCready, an Iraq war unit commander who claims to have been born again when he was baptized in water from the Euphrates River, calls for war to be waged only "with overwhelming firepower," not "sporadically, with no strategy or end in sight, while our enemies like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the terrorists outsmart and outlast us." He is running in North Carolina's Ninth Congressional District, adjacent to the huge military complex at Fort Bragg.

One military-intelligence candidate cites immigration as a national-security issue, echoing the position of the Trump administration, which constantly peddles scare stories that terrorists are infiltrating the United States disguised as immigrants and refugees. That is Richard Ojeda, running in the Third Congressional District of West Virginia, who publicly boasts of having voted for Trump in 2016, in the same election in which he won a seat in the West Virginia state senate running as a Democrat.

Ojeda writes on his web site, "We must also ensure that terrorists do not reach American soil by abusing our immigration process. We must keep an up to date terror watch list but provide better vetting for those that go onto the watch list."

A career Army Airborne officer, Ojeda voices the full-blown militarism of this social layer. "If there is one thing I am confident in, it is the ability of our nation's military," he declares. "The best way to keep Americans safe is to let our military do their job without muddying up their responsibilities with our political agendas."

He openly rejects control of the military by civilian policy-makers. "War is not a social experiment and I refuse to let politics play a role in my decision making when it comes to keeping you and your family safe," he continues. "I will not take my marching orders from anyone else concerning national security."

Only one of the 30 candidates, Ken Harbaugh, a retired Air Force pilot running in the Seventh Congressional District of Ohio, centered on the industrial city of Canton, acknowledges being part of this larger group. He notes, "In 2018, more vets are running for office than at any moment in my lifetime. Because of the growing inability of Washington to deal responsibly with the threats facing our nation, veterans from both sides of the aisle are stepping into the breach."

Referring to the mounting prospect of war, he writes, "Today, we face our gravest geopolitical challenge since 9/11. Our country remains at war in Afghanistan, we have troops engaged in North Africa, Iraq and Syria, and Russia continues to bully our allies. Meanwhile, North Korea has the ability to directly threaten the American mainland with nuclear missiles." He concludes, "we need leaders with the moral authority to speak on these issues, leaders who have themselves been on the front lines of these challenges."

These statements, taken cumulatively, present a picture of unbridled militarism and aggression as the program of the supposed "opposition" to the Trump administration's own saber-rattling and threats of "fire and fury like the world has never seen."

Perhaps even more remarkable is that the remaining 17 national-security candidates say nothing at all about foreign policy (in 11 cases) or limit themselves to anodyne observations about the necessity to provide adequate health care and other benefits to veterans (two cases), or vague generalities about the need to combine a strong military with diplomatic efforts (four cases). They give no specifics whatsoever.

In other words, while these candidates tout their own records as part of the national-security apparatus as their principal credential for election to Congress, they decline to tell the voters what they would do if they were in charge of American foreign policy.

Given that these 17 include intelligence agents (Abigail Spanberger and Gina Ortiz Jones), a National Security Council Iraq war planner (Andy Kim), and numerous other high-level State Department and military commanders, the silence can have only the most ominous interpretation.

These CIA Democrats don't want to tell voters about their plans for foreign policy and military intervention because they know these measures are deeply unpopular. They aim to gain office as stealth candidates, unveiling their program of militarism and war only after they take their seats, when they may very well exercise decisive influence in the next Congress."

[Oct 12, 2018] I don't see the republicans being the Nazis. Republican base has values closer in line with paleocons and not the neocons. The values of the Democraps are pure imperialist, exceptionalist and totalitarian in the name of PC

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill October 5, 2018 at 10:54 am

I don't see the republicans being the Nazis. The US war party is composed of both Democraps and Rethuglicans. The Republican base has values closer in line with paleocons and not the neocons.

The values of the Democraps are pure imperialist, exceptionalist and totalitarian in the name of PC. Obummer was neocon tool like W. Bush.

Thus it is the Democraps that are the proper heirs of the Nazis and their 4th Reich global domination project. Paleocons are isolationist nationalists that actually believe in the constitutional values that the USA claims to espouse. The Democraps are all about lust for power and dirty tricks to enable the seizing of power.

Obummer weaponized the FBI and CIA into partisan instruments giving us the Russia meddling inquisition. Truman was a foaming at the mouth racist cold warrior.

Eisenhower at least warned about the creeping influence of the MIC. Clinton was a slimeball that continued the Reich agenda in the Balkans. And so on.

[Oct 12, 2018] The Pantsir is a Lord-have mercy self-defense weapon once the Israelis have already decided to come over for another spot of target practice. The S-300 is to tell them in advance to stay the fuck away

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 6, 2018 at 12:32 pm

That might seem on the face of it like common sense, and in a way I suppose it is, but the Pantsir cannot enforce airspace sovereignty the way the S-300 can. The Pantsir is a Lord-have mercy self-defense weapon once the Israelis have already decided to come over for another spot of target practice. The S-300 is to tell them in advance to stay the fuck away.
Patient Observer October 6, 2018 at 3:34 pm
The Russians have shown excellent military planning to date and it would be reasonable to assume that they will continue to do so. If more Pantsirs are needed, they will be provided. I suspect that electronics warfare equipment may be of more significant in terms of defense from further attack.

I would like to see several F-35s shot down. That would do more than anything else to bring peace to the region.

Mark Chapman October 6, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Electronic warfare systems, or what is known as 'soft-kill' systems, enjoy a considerable probability-of-success advantage over 'hard-kill' weaponry such as guns and missiles.

[Oct 12, 2018] Russia's answer to this theory? "Let the Israelis test our system and we shall see the results"

Oct 09, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star October 9, 2018 at 11:31 am

Very cogent informed reaction to and analysis of the political and military aspects of this rapidly developing story:

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/israel-trains-to-counter-the-s-300-while-russia-expands-towards-lebanon/

"Informed sources said: "Tel Aviv and Moscow have never ceased their regular coordination to monitor and avoid air incidents over the Levant. The downing of the Russian IL-20 and the death of all its 15 crewmen forced Israel to communicate its belligerent intentions much ahead of time to Russia, to put its jets and personnel in safety. Indeed, it was the downing of the IL-20 that speeded up Russia's delivery of the long-awaited S-300 to Syria.

Although Russia possesses high-frequency VHF, tracking systems and radar capable of detecting the F-35 and making it visible, it is another matter to shoot it down with the S-300. Russia's answer to this theory? "Let the Israelis test our system and we shall see the results". (LOL!!!) BTW ..In consideration of certain Stooges-who know who they are- I will restrict my use of "LOL" !!!!!!

However, Israel can fly low, violating Lebanese airspace and avoiding Syrian radar so as to hit objectives in Syria from afar. To avoid this only too plausible scenario, Syria needs to establish a missile protected radar coverage on the eastern chain of mountains on its border with Lebanon, so as to be able to "see" all Israeli jets and the air movement above Lebanon and Israel at all times."

Jen October 9, 2018 at 1:10 pm
As Bernhard at Moon of Alabama notes, if Israeli warplanes were to fly low through Lebanese airspace to avoid Syrian radar, they become targets for Hezbollah's short-range air defense missiles.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/10/syria-sitrep-the-s-300-air-defense-arrives.html#more
Mark Chapman October 9, 2018 at 4:47 pm
Low-level coverage for the S-300 is 25 meters. I don't think you will find too many Israeli pilots willing to fly that low for a full intercept mission, and the attacking aircraft itself cannot see shit at that altitude. The most basic version of the missile can reach out and tap your ass at 47 km at that altitude, in flat terrain. http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/07/asd_08_06_2015_dossier.pdf

Although the Israelis' Popeye cruise missile can be launched from ground level and has a maximum range about equivalent to that of the basic SA-10, its range at that altitude is basically line-of-sight unless it is receiving external targeting data from an airborne platform which is at a much higher altitude and can see farther. Unfortunately, that re-introduces the original problem.

https://www.onwar.com/weapons/rocket/missiles/Popeye-missile.html

Additionally, this set of circumstances is tailor-made for a technique known as 'SAMbush', in which the S-300 radar goes active to make the attacking aircraft dive for cover taking them into the coverage of a different system (such as Pantsir) which is optimized for low-level detection and engagement, but whose location was unknown up to that moment. Jen alludes to something like this.

As someone mentioned elsewhere, the real test is for Israel to come on out and give it a try. You gotta ask yourself a question – do I feel lucky?

Well, DO ya, punks?

[Oct 12, 2018] Hysterical accusations were being levelled at the Syrian government, in an attempt to engineer immediate air strikes, on the basis of irrelevant evidence, at a time when the people doing this really ought to have known that relevant evidence tests on 'environmental' samples would shortly become available.

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Cortes October 10, 2018 at 11:59 am

Interesting take on the possible evolution of Hamish de Bee Gees ((c) M Chapman) from accidentally deluded to covering his errors with malice aforethought:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/10/habakkuk-on-the-roots-of-the-trans-atlantic-cabals.html#more

Mark Chapman October 10, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Delicious. A particularly tasty morsel:

So hysterical accusations were being levelled at the Syrian government, in an attempt to engineer immediate air strikes, on the basis of irrelevant evidence, at a time when the people doing this really ought to have known that relevant evidence – tests on 'environmental' samples – would shortly become available.

When however it was acknowledged that this evidence had become available, the only use to which it was put was to vindicate the – irrelevant – conclusion that sarin had been used: nothing was said about what it had established, or might establish, about who had used it.

Science? We don't need no steenking science.

[Oct 12, 2018] US says it cannot support some of EU's ideas for WTO reform

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/us-says-it-cannot-support-some-of-eus-ideas-for-wto-reform/

US Ambassador Dennis Shea told a packed audience at the WTO that the United States could not accept EU ideas for reforming the WTO's Appellate Body, effectively the supreme court of world trade, by giving the judges longer, single terms and giving the secretariat more funding.

Mark Chapman October 5, 2018 at 9:11 am

Shea has complained about the judges overstepping their authority, breaching their own procedures and meddling in US law.

Once again I see parallels with the just-concluded NAFTA replacement. The US uses every form of leverage at its disposal, no matter how repugnant, to get law on the books which gives America a clear advantage in business and policy. It likes best situations in which it has a veto over collective decision-making, so that all parties to the agreement must in effect ask US permission to do anything; then the US can rule always in its own interests, and perhaps throw the others a small bone once in awhile to create the appearance of fairness and impartiality.

The United States in its current existence is the worst trade partner you could ever wish to have. It insists on dismantling internal national distribution systems so that its trading partners must compete in the same circumstances as they do within the USA, where the only law is produce and produce and produce more until you either achieve a monopoly, or the world is flooded with the product.

Taking over other economies and bending them to its will is all that keeps the stock market roaring. And debt rising – but that's a problem for the little people.

[Oct 12, 2018] Dutch salivating using color revolution instruments to initiate the humanitarian bombing

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 6, 2018 at 6:19 am

The Dutch now take over from the Brits as the USA's aircraft carrier in the EU:

EUObserver: Dutch to host EU talks on human rights sanctions
https://euobserver.com/foreign/143040

The Netherlands has invited EU diplomats to discuss the creation of a new sanctions regime against human rights abusers worldwide.

Its idea is to target individuals, via EU visa bans and asset freezes, to discourage them and others from violations, potentially saving lives.

The project has roots in a Russian case, but the new measures are meant to target such individuals no matter where they come from
####

Uh-huh! There'll be lots of Saudis, Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, UAE etc. on the list then? The goal looks like permenant sanctions on Russia for being Russia and not an EU member state – when the EU itself refuses to even offer Russia the possibility! It's pretty dumb of the dutch if they expect to still do business in Russia. We all know how much they like their money, so they'd better be ready to actually pay for their words and actions. Retards.

Northern Star October 6, 2018 at 6:37 am
Well maybe they-the Dutch-could resume looking into this:

"Up to this day, there is no definitive conclusion about the causes and motives for the bombing. For a long time, the attack was presumed to have been an 'error', but it was not until 2006 that an investigation revealed that Nijmegen was a so-called target of opportunity for Allied bombers. In his 2009 study, history docent Joost Rosendaal of Radboud University Nijmegen classified it as an opportunistic bombing rather than an error. Rosendaal rejects the notion of an 'error', because the Americans were negligent in properly identifying which city to bomb. The Americans "intentionally bombed a target of opportunity, that however had not been unambiguously identified."[3]

Rosendaal added that the death toll was further increased by several disastrous circumstances. The switchboard operator, who normally directed emergency services, was killed during the raid, and without her communications went much slower. Many water pipes had been destroyed, making firefighting efforts much harder and more time-consuming. Dozens of people were still alive, but stuck under the rubble; many burnt to death when spreading flames reached them before they could be extinguished."

Mark Chapman October 6, 2018 at 10:58 am
Was there ever a more pithy and accurate quote than "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn at no other"? It seems the job, even the sworn duty, of politicians and administrators to foment and spread chaos, and prevent any sort of common human understanding or endeavor. And our entire lifetimes are going by in this same environment of loathing and fear, taught to us by our politicians and media. Leadership is dead.

[Oct 12, 2018] The Boy Who Cried "Bear!!": a Norwegian Folk Tale

Notable quotes:
"... Remember that back in 2002 it was discovered that the US bugged the 767 of then Chinese Premier Jian Xiao-Ping. ..."
Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 4, 2018 at 9:06 am

The OPCW, like the Council of Europe, the OSCE, WADA and others have become deeply partizan and anti-Russian organizations since the 1990s. A handful of members put out a 'report' on whatever and claim that they have 'evidence' which they should be trusted on rather than provide. The rest of them go along with it. The only reason that makes sense for the attempted 'hack' on the OPCW is that Russia is being denied access to information. The argument, like everything else bullshit from the West is ' You don't show the evidence to the arsonist ' , sic MH17 because it has already been judged and found guilty.

So far WADA had to row back because of the Schimdt Report (which the media of course did not report) and all the reinstated athletes, Russia has suspended payments and may well pull out of the CoE because is it sick and tired of being bombarded with bs at every meeting as if medieval Bear baiting has returned in a modern form (it has).

All these organizations are destroying themselves. If anything all this shows how weak the West's soft power has become that they need to throw everything including the kitchen sink at Russia. They don't like resistance, let alone pushback. They're more careful about China of course and as we saw recently in the South Pacific the Chinese simply won't be cowed or intimidated.

As for the allegations about China, we'll most of us have followed the Snowden revelations about the USA and its Five Eyes global surveillance and infiltration, so its no surprise that China has been running its own operations. It's what countries do, though apparently they're not supposed to. Remember that back in 2002 it was discovered that the US bugged the 767 of then Chinese Premier Jian Xiao-Ping. * I think that all this reporting is a sign of desperation by the powers that be because all else has failed so far and they need to keep the narrative going.

By wrapping it all up together with a pretty pink bow it is to make it ' undeniable ' in the eyes of people who should know better.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1382116/China-finds-spy-bugs-in-Jiangs-Boeing-jet.html

et Al October 4, 2018 at 9:13 am
The temptation by Russia will be to publicly burn western spies in Russia, but it is just another in a long line of provocations to get Russia to respond angrily and make a big mistake. I can imagine RT being banned and other measures if things start to spiral.

This whole G(R)U story was ready to go at an appropriate moment, and I suspect one of the factors was Putin's recent comments about Skripal that had captured the world media's ear. By piling their report on shortly afterwards, they hope to hijack and amplify their narrative.

But, it's words, not meaningful actions. Either they will try and use this to kick off a whole new level of sanctions that they haven't before (high value, sensitive stuff like aerospace, tech etc.). It is possible the timing of this is a last ditch effort to try and get U-rope on board to stop NordSteam II or anything they think they can squeeze through. It's weakness through desperation and also to divert from their failures elsewhere.

et Al October 5, 2018 at 6:26 am
Or burn western spies in other countries that are far less friendly

It is interesting that one of the groups doxxing Russian 'spies' claim to be volunteers and patriots. No-one believes that in the slightest apart from morons. Like BellEnd cat, the number of cut-outs/plausible denial groups has mushroomed and ebb and flow with need. The volunteer claim is no protection.

James lake October 4, 2018 at 7:45 am
This all seems to coordinated distractions from domestic politics in the UK and the USA

Why are th Dutch going along with this nonsense?

kirill October 4, 2018 at 7:51 am
How can you ask such a question. Holland is a US vassal and the US uses its vassals to give its actions legitimacy by claiming that there is an "international" reaction to "Russian aggression". This is why the US always attacks countries around the world as part of some BS coalition of its own vassals. It is claiming its aggression is actually justified international action.
et Al October 4, 2018 at 8:48 am
The Dutch recently signed a big order to have 28 of their AH-64D Apache's 'upgraded' to the 'E' model which is really a re-manufactue and upgrade (from sand and heavy use in helping the US bomb tribesmen far away), & their Patriots to be modernized too.
moscowexile October 4, 2018 at 8:33 am
Because the so called chemical weapons watchdog, which the British government has recently made judge, jury and exucationer as regards all incidences of alleged uses of chemical agents as a weapon, namely it can now accuse and condemn whom it thinks are perpetrators of such chemical attacks, is based in The Hague, where the wicked Russians have allegedly been hacking etc. and, in general, up to their vile and nefarious deeds, as is, of course, in their nature of doing things, because they are vile barbarians, subhuman even
Moscow Exile October 4, 2018 at 9:51 am
I forget where I picked the following up ( from some Russian blog, because it is a translation). I saved it but forget to put in the source:

September 14, 2018
THE DUBIOUS ROLE OF THE OPCW
(OPCW NEVER uses the word "Novichok")
Even those people who are skeptical about what the British government says (and rightly so) tend to accept the „Novichok"-Psyop after they read that "OPCW confirms Novichok nerve agent in Amesbury". But if you actually read what the (summary) of the OPCW says, you will find the following:

"The team requested and received vials of biomedical samples COLLECTED BY THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES for delivery to the OPCW laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW designated laboratories for purposes of comparison and in order to verify the analysis conducted by the United Kingdom. (S 1671, Paragraph 6.)

This VIOLATES THEIR OWN RULES about ensuring a forensic "chain of custody" because they did not take bio-samples THEMSELVES but accepted the (2nd-hand) material that the 'authorities" had given them.

Regarding the "Premier Jour" perfume-story the OPCW has this to say:

"During the second deployment [6 weeks after Sturgess fell ill] the team collected a sample of the contents of a small bottle that the police had seized as a suspect item from the house of Charles Rowley in Amesbury" (P. 9)

In paragraph 10 they confirm that the results of the subsequent analysis "show that the sample consists of a toxic chemical at a concentration of 97-98% therefore considered to be "of high purity". (If Charly had got this on his skin he would not have survived )

Again, the chain of custody is non-existent: The OPCW did NOT collect the glass-vial in Rowley's flat, and could not verify its condition at the end of June, but they accepted what "the authorities" had told them about it and examined a sample of its content. There was plenty of time to tamper with the bottle before the OPCW arrived in Salisbury (so malfeasance cannot be ruled out).

(BTW, Sometimes you don't see the wood for the trees: WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would transport a deadly nerve-agent in a GLASS-BOTTLE??????)

Again they accepted material from the British authorities (as if they were incapable of any deception )
What former (Iraq) weapons-inspector Scott Ritter wrote about the OPCW „fact-finding" mission in Syria is also to a certain extent relevant in the Skripal-Saga:

"The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such as the OPCW -- namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime -- is the concept of "chain of custody" of any samples that are being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples, the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means the integrity of the sample has been compromised -- in short, there is no sample."
(Article: Ex-weapons-inspector: Trump's Sarin Claims built on „Lie" by Scott Ritter)

Here, Ritter was referring the fact that the OPCW was not able to actually visit the (terrorist-controlled) "crime-scene" in Khan Sheikhoun but instead went to Turkey (!) where they accepted testimonies and material given to them by the White Helmets and other artificial "NGOs" ("highly likely" paid and organized by MI6, DGSE and the CIA). There they were able to observe autopsies of the 3 alleged victims of the poison-gas attack.

"An NGO had delivered the bodies to the hospitals, though OPCW will not publicly comment on the identity of the NGO. Samples from the bodies were provided to two separate laboratories, which independently confirmed indications of sarin or sarin-like substances.

In criminal proceedings, though, which are similar to the process followed by the UN in determining a war crime, it is a fundamental principle that ALL EVIDENCE be under the control of investigators AT ALL TIMES. That didn't happen in this case."

By the way, the OPCW-FFM in Syria (regarding the Douma-incident) was led by two BRITISH "experts":
The work of the fact finding mission [FFM] was criticized by the Russian Permanent Representative to the OPCW who complained on 14 April 2017 that:

"Under the mandate defined for [the FFM], its membership should be approved by the Syrian government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One [Team Bravo], led by Steven Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one [Team Alpha], headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the Syrian armed opposition. THIS LATTER GROUP IS WORKING COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENTLY. ITS MEMBERSHIP IS CLASSIFIED, AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT GOES OR HOW IT OPERATES. They are allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis' group, but they are clearly working mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip".

But the unspeakable "journalists" of the MSM (and RT is not much better the interview with the suspects is a joke ) do not bother with such complicated details. They just write "OPCW confirms use of Sarin" in Khan Sheikhoun (and "Novichok" in Salisbury) and ignore all contradicting evidence and the MOTIVE the UK gov has for demonizing Russia (spoiling their dirty game in Syria and "Sykes-Picot №2") so one can only agree with this comment:

"Professional journalism is now a wasteland. There is no public exposure of what we all know has happened and the threat it represents to us all . They have been disloyal to us, so we owe them no respect in return".

And finally – on the implied higher "morality" of UK politics:

The ECJ has just recently found that the UK's mass surveillance programmes, revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, did "not meet the 'quality of law' requirement" and were "incapable of limiting 'interference' to what is 'necessary in a democratic society'"'.(P.387 of the judgement: Case of Big Brother Watch & others vs .UK)

Mark Chapman October 4, 2018 at 11:51 am
The British evidently thought also about the lunacy of transporting a nerve agent in sufficient quantity to kill dozens if not hundreds in a glass bottle; that's why Hamish de Beegee chimed in with his article about how the FSB and the Kremlin had invested months of work and thousands of pounds developing a ceramic bottle which looked just like the real thing, but which you could stand a Volkswagen on top of. That's why I pointed out that they had already used the excuse that it broke to establish how Rowley was exposed.
Jen October 4, 2018 at 2:49 pm
I suspect The Netherlands are being targeted because among other things the International Court of Crimes and the International Court of Justice are based in The Hague. There may be other reasons as well: the Dutch must have a fair few skeletons in their collective closet and the US could very well target one of these and bring the entire wardrobe crashing down and exposing all its sordid secrets. One of these bone-shakers is that The Netherlands is a major corporate tax haven and as such competes with Britain and the US.
http://www.nomoretax.eu/netherlands-tax-haven/

[Oct 12, 2018] OPSW VIOLATES THEIR OWN RULES about ensuring a forensic "chain of custody" because they did not take bio-samples THEMSELVES but accepted the (2nd-hand) material that the 'authorities" had given them.

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile October 4, 2018 at 9:51 am

I forget where I picked the following up ( from some Russian blog, because it is a translation). I saved it but forget to put in the source:

September 14, 2018
THE DUBIOUS ROLE OF THE OPCW
(OPCW NEVER uses the word "Novichok")
Even those people who are skeptical about what the British government says (and rightly so) tend to accept the „Novichok"-Psyop after they read that "OPCW confirms Novichok nerve agent in Amesbury". But if you actually read what the (summary) of the OPCW says, you will find the following:

"The team requested and received vials of biomedical samples COLLECTED BY THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES for delivery to the OPCW laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW designated laboratories for purposes of comparison and in order to verify the analysis conducted by the United Kingdom. (S 1671, Paragraph 6.)

This VIOLATES THEIR OWN RULES about ensuring a forensic "chain of custody" because they did not take bio-samples THEMSELVES but accepted the (2nd-hand) material that the 'authorities" had given them.

Regarding the "Premier Jour" perfume-story the OPCW has this to say:

"During the second deployment [6 weeks after Sturgess fell ill] the team collected a sample of the contents of a small bottle that the police had seized as a suspect item from the house of Charles Rowley in Amesbury" (P. 9)

In paragraph 10 they confirm that the results of the subsequent analysis "show that the sample consists of a toxic chemical at a concentration of 97-98% therefore considered to be "of high purity". (If Charly had got this on his skin he would not have survived )

Again, the chain of custody is non-existent: The OPCW did NOT collect the glass-vial in Rowley's flat, and could not verify its condition at the end of June, but they accepted what "the authorities" had told them about it and examined a sample of its content. There was plenty of time to tamper with the bottle before the OPCW arrived in Salisbury (so malfeasance cannot be ruled out).

(BTW, Sometimes you don't see the wood for the trees: WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would transport a deadly nerve-agent in a GLASS-BOTTLE??????)

Again they accepted material from the British authorities (as if they were incapable of any deception )
What former (Iraq) weapons-inspector Scott Ritter wrote about the OPCW „fact-finding" mission in Syria is also to a certain extent relevant in the Skripal-Saga:

"The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such as the OPCW -- namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime -- is the concept of "chain of custody" of any samples that are being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples, the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means the integrity of the sample has been compromised -- in short, there is no sample."
(Article: Ex-weapons-inspector: Trump's Sarin Claims built on „Lie" by Scott Ritter)

Here, Ritter was referring the fact that the OPCW was not able to actually visit the (terrorist-controlled) "crime-scene" in Khan Sheikhoun but instead went to Turkey (!) where they accepted testimonies and material given to them by the White Helmets and other artificial "NGOs" ("highly likely" paid and organized by MI6, DGSE and the CIA). There they were able to observe autopsies of the 3 alleged victims of the poison-gas attack.

"An NGO had delivered the bodies to the hospitals, though OPCW will not publicly comment on the identity of the NGO. Samples from the bodies were provided to two separate laboratories, which independently confirmed indications of sarin or sarin-like substances.

In criminal proceedings, though, which are similar to the process followed by the UN in determining a war crime, it is a fundamental principle that ALL EVIDENCE be under the control of investigators AT ALL TIMES. That didn't happen in this case."

By the way, the OPCW-FFM in Syria (regarding the Douma-incident) was led by two BRITISH "experts":
The work of the fact finding mission [FFM] was criticized by the Russian Permanent Representative to the OPCW who complained on 14 April 2017 that:

"Under the mandate defined for [the FFM], its membership should be approved by the Syrian government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One [Team Bravo], led by Steven Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one [Team Alpha], headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the Syrian armed opposition. THIS LATTER GROUP IS WORKING COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENTLY. ITS MEMBERSHIP IS CLASSIFIED, AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT GOES OR HOW IT OPERATES. They are allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis' group, but they are clearly working mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip".

But the unspeakable "journalists" of the MSM (and RT is not much better the interview with the suspects is a joke ) do not bother with such complicated details. They just write "OPCW confirms use of Sarin" in Khan Sheikhoun (and "Novichok" in Salisbury) and ignore all contradicting evidence and the MOTIVE the UK gov has for demonizing Russia (spoiling their dirty game in Syria and "Sykes-Picot №2") so one can only agree with this comment:

"Professional journalism is now a wasteland. There is no public exposure of what we all know has happened and the threat it represents to us all . They have been disloyal to us, so we owe them no respect in return".

And finally – on the implied higher "morality" of UK politics:

The ECJ has just recently found that the UK's mass surveillance programmes, revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, did "not meet the 'quality of law' requirement" and were "incapable of limiting 'interference' to what is 'necessary in a democratic society'"'.(P.387 of the judgement: Case of Big Brother Watch & others vs .UK)

Mark Chapman October 4, 2018 at 11:51 am
The British evidently thought also about the lunacy of transporting a nerve agent in sufficient quantity to kill dozens if not hundreds in a glass bottle; that's why Hamish de Beegee chimed in with his article about how the FSB and the Kremlin had invested months of work and thousands of pounds developing a ceramic bottle which looked just like the real thing, but which you could stand a Volkswagen on top of. That's why I pointed out that they had already used the excuse that it broke to establish how Rowley was exposed.
Aule Valar October 4, 2018 at 10:55 am
US forces out head of OPCW: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/23/world/us-forces-out-head-of-chemical-arms-agency.html

That's an actual title in NYT, they are not even hiding.

Step 1: give OPCW expanded powers
Step 2: install a US-friendly head of agency
Step 3: we shall see.

Mark Chapman October 4, 2018 at 11:56 am
Explosive. Nobody but Americans can be trusted to run international institutions, especially when they are bought and paid for by the USA. Hey, that'd be a good job for Travis Tygart. He has been chafing lately about the limits of his power to get at Russia from USADA.

The pace of events seems to be taking on momentum, as if it is leading up to something, and there's that kind of stillness in the air, while sounds seem far away and tinny, like just before a big storm breaks.

et Al October 4, 2018 at 12:38 pm
They're going for broke. Trans: going until it is broken.
Aule Valar October 4, 2018 at 3:36 pm
I must apologize for not noticing that the article is from 2002. Sorry.

Still, it does show how much more pull US has in those supposedly indpendent agencies than everyone else.

Mark Chapman October 4, 2018 at 10:41 pm
I didn't notice either. It felt so current, considering the ongoing situation.

[Oct 12, 2018] Jeez, those NATo propagandists are tough!

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile October 10, 2018 at 5:59 am

Reporting it like it is

Alexander Mishkin, the second man accused of involvement in the Skripal assassination plot, was likely to have been sent on the mission because he was a trained doctor capable of providing an antidote in case the novichok attack went wrong, according to security sources.

Dr Mishkin, like the GRU colleague who travelled with him to Salisbury, was made a 'Hero of the Russian Federation' with Vladimir Putin personally presenting him with the award, according to the investigative website Bellingcat.

Second Skripal suspect likely sent to Salisbury to administer novichok antidote, security sources say
'We know that novichok exposure needs immediate antidote so it makes eminent sense to have a military doctor, who is also a trained GRU operative, who can play his part in the operation'

Mark Chapman October 10, 2018 at 8:36 am
The 'antidote' to nerve-agent exposure is atropine, which is broadly marketed to world defense forces in an auto-injector. Your medical expertise in dispensing it is to remove the protective cap, and strike it against your thigh in the muscle, point-first – the internal spring does the rest, right through your clothing. We used to practice it regularly in NBCD training, except the fluid in training injectors is just water. Some crybaby pointed out the needle might pick up a fragment of cloth on its way in, and cause an infection, so we stopped doing it with real needles, and now you just get a thump against your leg from the spring.

https://chemm.nlm.nih.gov/antidote_nerveagents.htm

Military forces are also trained to administer atropine to stricken comrades who were overcome before they could react. Just be sure to give him his own atropine and not yours, and push the needle through his pocket-flap afterward and then bend it over, so that anyone happening on the scene after you have left will know he has already been given atropine and not administer another dose. Atropine overdose causes its own set of problems.

I think it's pretty clear that it does not 'make eminent sense' to have a 'qualified military doctor along in case something went wrong with the Novichok', since anyone can administer Atropine and there is an enormous worldwide base of soldiers and ex-soldiers who could do it as well as anyone else. Horseshit piled on top of horseshit.

kirill October 10, 2018 at 8:23 pm
For some bizarre reason this UK fairy tale requires many Russians. One isn't enough to smear some alleged top secret nerve agent on a door knob (at least in one of the dozens of contradictory theories spewed by Scotland Yard). Wearing gloves (e.g. store bought nitrile ones which would stop this poison, unlike latex ones) is clearly considered too much intellectual effort for Russian untermenschen and they need a doctor to tag along. This fictional doctor claim is patently absurd. A doctor without hospital facilities is nothing but a paramedic and as you rightly describe no such person is needed to administer atropine.

The average media sap in the UK and NATzO apparently can't be bothered to do any thinking. The best assassination plot would involve only a single agent and not a handful. Even freaking video games have the lone assassin meme repeated. One agent could also have a well established cover story. A gang of assassins would essentially be evidence against itself. A whole specially designed bottle of nerve agent is ridiculous and unnecessary. And having it disposed of in a way that it can be found by some homeless junkies is simply not credible. Don't they have sewer grates in the UK?

[Oct 12, 2018] How The U.S. Runs Public Relations Campaigns Trump Style Against Russia And China

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 6, 2018 at 8:16 am

MoA has two interesting pieces of late:

How The U.S. Runs Public Relations Campaigns – Trump Style – Against Russia And China
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/10/how-the-us-runs-public-relations-campaigns-trump-style-against-russia-and-china.html

&

Scientists Raise Alarm Over U.S. Bio-Weapon Programs
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/10/scientists-raise-alarm-over-us-bio-weapon-programs.html

Mark Chapman October 6, 2018 at 12:28 pm
It's surprising how often western political rhetoric is unconsciously comic. I screamed aloud with laughter, for instance, at this:

"Sounding the alarm, Pence warned other nations to be wary of doing business with China, condemning the Asian country's "debt diplomacy" that allows it to draw developing nations into its orbit."

Debt diplomacy – now there's a phrase to conjure with. You might want to remember it, for the next time you see the IMF skipping through the forest, ladling out bushels of cash to this and that sides of the trail like Red Riding Hood, expecting (of course) no loyalty and implying no obligation. Just 'cause we-uns is friends.

[Oct 12, 2018] if Russia is so incompetent- why are they deemed a threat? Why is NATO beating the war drums about such a country?

Oct 12, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake October 5, 2018 at 4:07 am

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/05/string-of-own-goals-by-russian-gru-spies-reveals-new-trend-of-sloppiness

The secretive, daring GRU seems to have lost its way in the age of internet search

//if Russia is so incompetent- why are they deemed a threat?
//Why is NATO beating the war drums about such a country?

Moscow Exile October 5, 2018 at 4:15 am
Because it is dangerous in its incompetence?
yalensis October 5, 2018 at 1:48 pm
There is nothing more dangerous than a monkey armed with a hand grenade(?)
kirill October 5, 2018 at 6:02 am
As pointed out elsewhere there is no such agency called the GRU. Like there is no agency called the KGB. This in itself demonstrates that NATzO is spreading pure propaganda.
Mark Chapman October 5, 2018 at 9:14 am
It's probably not sloppiness, per se; it's more that Britain has reached a new level of dazzling investigative brilliance, so that normal GRU tradecraft can no longer withstand its piercing eye.

[Oct 11, 2018] Nikki Haley Just Screwed Conservatives Going Into Midterms: Bannon

Haley-Binomo was a liability not an asset.
Oct 11, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon slammed UN ambassador Nikki Haley's decision on Tuesday to announce her resignation, calling it "suspect" and "horrific," and that it overshadowed positive news that Trump and the Republicans need to build support going into midterms, according to Bloomberg .

The timing was exquisite from a bad point of view ," Bannon told Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait on Wednesday at the Bloomberg Invest London forum. " Everything she said yesterday and everything she said about stepping down could have been done on the evening of November 6. The timing could not have been worse. "

Haley's announcement, according to Bannon, took White House officials by surprise - and distracted attention from Brett Kavanaugh's first day as a justice on the Supreme Court, along with headlines over the lowest US unemployment rate in five decades. Haley's decision undermines Trump's message to Republican voters, said Bannon.

In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said Haley told him six months ago she wanted a break after spending two years in the post. She'll continue in her role until year-end. Haley said Tuesday that she was ready for a break after two terms as South Carolina's governor and two years at the United Nations. - Bloomberg

Bannon also says that he took Haley at her word that she has no political aspirations - particularly when it comes to running against Trump in 2020. She says that she looks forward to campaigning for Trump in two years. That said, Bannon calls Haley "ambitious" and "very talented," though he said so using a backhanded compliment.

"I think she is incredibly politically ambitious," Bannon added. " Ambitious as Lucifer but that is probably...I am probably taking Milton out of context."

Trump defended the timing of Haley's departure on Wednesday, saying "there's no good time" for her to have announced her resignation - and that if she'd waited until after midterms, it would have raised questions as to whether her motive was based on the results.

Yen Cross , 19 seconds ago link

Bannon is unhinged. Nikki Haley was horrible in her position! If Bannon payed attention to voter base of Trump, he'd see Haley was a thorn in the side of the Trump administration.

One of the best appointments Trump has made, is Mike Pompeo. I thought he'd be some crazed warmonger, but has turned out to be quite the opposite.

He's got this kind of easy going swagger and confidence about him. He's chubby, and his every day guy, sort of approach, is affable.

Grandad Grumps , 1 minute ago link

She is not human. Maybe she eats babies.

I am Groot , 1 minute ago link

Back to Binomo ! Don't let the door hit you in your *** on the way out Nimrata. And take your Obamacare curtains with you.

Prosource , 13 minutes ago link

Busted for the NYT memo ?

Whatever the cause, good riddance.

Bat-Shiite crazy with a dangerously big war mongering mouth.

Bannon is totally wrong on this one. Conservatives saw right through her.

The November vote won't be harmed, may even be bolstered.

Is Bannon's point that because she is a woman, it hurts Trump with women?

Regardless, the sooner these neo-con fake patriots are gone, the better

Albertarocks , 16 seconds ago link

Yes sir... her rhetoric is pure deep state war mongering of the most evil kind. She was told to stir up as much hatred and fear at the UN as possible and try to get the opposition to do something stupid in response to her remarks. That's not Trump talk for damned sure... that's deep state talk.

Yippie21 , 23 minutes ago link

He makes a GREAT point that occurred to me immediately. If you are resigning effective at the end of the year and everything is awesome, just time to move on.... why the hell are you publicly announcing it 3 weeks before a VERY contentious midterm election and only a day or so after a brutal SCOTUS nomination conclusion? Why? Why now? Very curious and a unforced error.

Vigilante , 44 minutes ago link

I never trusted Haley

The timing was no co-incidence for sure

She trashed Trump during the election season if you remember

[Oct 11, 2018] Can the replacement be worse than Haley?

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake October 9, 2018 at 6:59 am

Breaking!

Nikki Haley resigns as US ambassador to UN, reports say
Sources say Donald Trump has accepted Haley's resignation

I have no doubt the replacement will be worse than her.

I thought no one could be as bad as Samantha power until Nikki came along!!

Northern Star October 9, 2018 at 11:15 am
https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-resign-investigation-flights-free-private-jets-2018-10

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watchdog-demanded-investigation-into-nikki-haleys-private-flights-before-she-resigned

Pavlo Svolochenko October 10, 2018 at 7:41 am
If she was forced out for something that petty, Trump must have been looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
Mark Chapman October 10, 2018 at 7:55 am
Or those who hate him – and they are legion – wanted her out, because if Trump wanted her out her replacement would already have been announced. I saw on one of those 'sponsored content' trash teaser clickbait headlines that it was going to be Ivanka, but not even Trump would do that. Although you never know – it's not as if Haley brought any wealth of foreign-policy knowledge to the table, and she was mostly there to be a partisan spoiler of initiatives the USA did not want to pass. I suppose anyone could do that.
Mark Chapman October 9, 2018 at 4:13 pm
Maybe this loon is still available.

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/563fd2451400006f023ca344.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

[Oct 11, 2018] I still don't understand why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning.

Oct 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Pat Lang Mod , a day ago

OK, but I still don't understand why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning.
Ken Roberts -> Pat Lang , a day ago
My guess: DT had delegated to NH the management of UN interface. She flubbed, badly, DT being laughed at during his address. Out she goes!
confusedponderer -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "

Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire" until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very un-Trumpish) got the boot?

As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to "use megaphones over whispering".

That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and shut the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".

All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As for Harper's good riddance, indeed.

Kooshy -> confusedponderer , 14 hours ago
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave on a non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in Apprentice. Like Colonel suggest neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful idiot. IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was cause of his embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump doesn't give a second chance to anyone.
Walrus -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Because she believes they are big leakers like herself? Narcissists assume others have identical (rotten) behaviours as their own.
im cotton -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on from the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the news cycle moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
Tony -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Maybe because she didn't know?

[Oct 11, 2018] HARPER NIKKI FINDS THE DOOR

Oct 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Oct 11, 2018] Nikki Haley's Surprising Departure

Oct 11, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

Nikki Haley's resignation as President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations yesterday came as quite a surprise. Haley seemed pleased to play her imagined role as the world's procurator, as she used her UN perch to incessantly threaten and condemn all the global enemies of her fellow neoconservatives. She came to the job with no foreign policy experience and she will be leaving exactly as she arrived.

If Haley's departure came as a surprise, so too did her appointment in the first place. During the primaries, she was famously in the " anyone but Donald Trump " camp of neocons, saying that Trump was "everything a governor doesn't want in a president."

Trump soon returned the compliment, Tweeting that, "The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!"

Nevertheless, like many neocons who had been critical of Trump, she found herself rewarded with a top position in the Administration. From her position she had consistently gotten ahead of her boss, the President, in policy pronouncements and at almost every turn she appeared to be pushing a Haley foreign policy rather than a Trump foreign policy.

For example, just as President Trump was returning from his historic summit meeting in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where the US President spoke very optimistically about a new approach to US/Russian relations, Nikki Haley gave an interview in which she said, "we don't trust Russia, we don't trust Putin; we never will...they're never going to be our friend...that's a fact."

Last September she acted as if she, rather than Trump, were the commander-in-chief, Tweeting of North Korea, "we cut 90% of trade and 30% of oil. I have no problem kicking it to Gen. Mattis because I think he has plenty of options." The idea that she, and not her boss, would "kick it" to Defense Secretary Mattis was preposterous, but contradicting and countermanding Trump's disappointingly rare bobs toward diplomacy and disengagement over bluster and bombs was a chief characteristic of Haley's reign as UN chief finger-wagger.

President Trump had been extremely critical of Syria's Assad, particularly after he fell for two false-flag rebel gas attacks blamed on Assad, but he had been careful not to explicitly set US policy as "Assad must go," as had his predecessor. Nevertheless Nikki Haley again got out ahead of official US policy with her own policy, stating in September 2017 that, "we're not going to be satisfied until we see a solid and stable Syria, and that is not with Assad in place."

Nikki Haley had long been associated with neocon warhawk John Bolton and had also benefited from the largesse of GOP moneybags Sheldon Adelson, the Israel-obsessed casino magnate who bankrolled Haley's PAC to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars in 2016 alone. Haley was Adelson's kind of governor: While South Carolina's executive, she signed the nation's first law making it a criminal offense to support a boycott of Israel.

How did the mainstream media handle the surprise resignation of such an extreme warhawk? Someone one might consider on the far fringe of US political life? The New York Times mourned the departure of Ambassador Haley, Tweeting that it would be "leaving the administration with one less moderate Republican voice."

"Moderate" voice?

For such a pro-war extremist to be considered "moderate" by the newspaper of record may strike some as odd, but as Glenn Greenwald so accurately explained :

The reason NYT calls her "moderate" is because she affirms all of the standard pro-war, pro-imperial orthodoxies that are bipartisan consensus in Washington. That's why @ BillKristol reveres her. She was a Tea Party candidate, but "moderate" means: loves US wars & hegemony.
That's it in a nutshell. Because in Washington being extreme pro-interventionist and pro-war is the orthodoxy. The facade that there are real differences between the Republican and Democrat party is carefully crafted by the mainstream media to cover the fact that we do live in a one-party state. Pro-war, pro-intervention, pro-bombing, pro-overthrow, pro-meddling - these are moderate positions. For Washington and the mainstream media, the extremists are the ones who wish to abide by the admonitions of our Founding Fathers that we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

Well, it seems there are plenty of monsters closer to home.

So good riddance to Nikki Haley...but don't hold your breath that it means the end of Nikki Haley-ism, which is the foundation of US foreign policy. Clearly we have much work left to do.

Your tax deductible contributions to the Ron Paul Institute allow us to provide you with real analysis of breaking issues. Our continued ability to provide a counter-balance to the mainstream media's false narrative depends on your financial support . We thank you for standing with us.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

[Oct 11, 2018] Gleiwitz replay by British is planned

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile October 6, 2018 at 10:03 pm

Panic in Mordor!!!

Britain is ready to conduct a cyber attack against Russia -- The Sunday Times

The British military is ready to take this step in case of an "attack" by Russia against one of the Western countries

LONDON, 7 October 2018, 07:28 -- REGNUM The military command of Great Britain has announced its willingness to carry out a cyber attack against Moscow , writes the British newspaper "The Sunday Times" on 7 October,.

According to the publication, citing an unnamed source closely familiar with the situation , the British military is ready to take this step in case of an "attack" by Russia against a Western country. This measure will be possible when Britain has a shortage of conventional defence resources and will manifest itself by the fact that the capital of Russia will have its energy supplies cut off.

According to the "Sunday Times" source, variants of "Russian aggression", against which the British military is prepared to use cyber weapons, are said to be an invasion by Russian President Vladimir Putin of Libya in order to seize oil and to create a new crisis of migrants in Europe and an attempt to capture "small Islands belonging to Estonia". [Such action would be taken by the UK] so as to comply with a NATO clause, in which an attack against one member is considered to be an attack against the whole alliance.

We should note that recently the West has been constantly accusing Russia of cyber attacks against the West for economic sabotage and interference in local political life. However, tangible evidence of Russian guilt as regards such accusations has not once been provided.

My stress above.

Why should Russia, personified as the Dark Lord, wish to seize oil in Libya? Has Russia no oil of its own?

Sowing disarray in Libya? Now who, I wonder, might have done that before now?

An immigrant crisis in Europe created by the Empire of Evil?

And the present crisis? Created by whom?

Estonian Islands? What need has Russia of islands in the Baltic?

And of course, an unnamed source.

All in all, classic "projection: the West threatening to do what it has long planned and, furthermore, continuously accused Russia of doing , without providing any evidence whatsoever, so as to psych-up the sheeple for justified retaliation against the "Putin Regime".

Gleiwitz replay, anyone?

[Oct 11, 2018] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on October 7 in Belgrade that NATO conducted the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 with the aim of protecting the civilian population against the regime of President Slobodan Milosevic.

This guy smokes or drinks something really strong.
Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile October 7, 2018 at 10:39 am

In Belgrade today, Stoltenberg has explained to the Serbs why NATO bombed them:

Генсек НАТО объяснил сербам причины бомбардировок Югославии
7 октября 2018, 14:09

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on October 7 in Belgrade that NATO conducted the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 with the aim of protecting the civilian population against the regime of President Slobodan Milosevic.

"I said that we did this to protect the civilian population and prevent further actions of the Milosevic regime", said Stolberg.

He also stressed that his most important message was the need to"look to the future".

I am sure those Serbs appreciate the great concern NATO had for their well-being.

Mark Chapman October 7, 2018 at 11:16 am
Sound familiar? It's the old western elitist argument – Nobody could have foreseen this. This is no time for finger-pointing. We all have to work together to solve the problem.
Fern October 7, 2018 at 2:07 pm
That's really shameful – even for NATO. Stoltenberg knows perfectly well that NATO deliberately, contrary to various Geneva Conventions, targeted civilian infrastructure. Tony Blair is on record 'celebrating' this – he vigorously supported the bombing of the Serbian TV station which killed many civilians including such enemies of the civilised world as make-up ladies. It all began in Yugoslavia – the whole R2Protect nonsense. The West got away with it there and this facilitated the attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and, waiting in the wings, Iran.
kirill October 7, 2018 at 4:56 pm
NATzO "double tapped" the TV station with its Tomohawks. They sent another round 15 minutes later to kill the emergency responders. NATzO bombed a passenger train as it was crossing a bridge. It claimed the train was collateral damage and produced a sped-up video meant to convince the NATzO consumer sheeple that poor NATzO pilots didn't have time to react. The fuckers had no business bombing every civilian bridge in Serbia in the first place. It wasn't WWII but some illegal "policing" operation. NATzO also bombed Nis with cluster bombs. Human Rights Watch and the rest of the phony NATzO "human rights organizations" couldn't be bothered to complain. But they claimed use of cluster weapons as grotesque war crimes in 2008 in South Ossetia (no such weapons were used and the fuckers showed a spent Israeli casing as "proof", i.e. it was Georgian forces that used them).

But the main achievement of NATzO is to be the air force of the UCK terrorists and enabled the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo i Metohija of hundreds of thousands of Serbs. Before WWII, Albanians were 30% of the population of this province and have zero claim on it as some ancestral land. Albanians love to cite Roman sources as supposedly proving that they lived there for 2000+ years. This is BS and they migrated to the Balkans like basically every other ethic group there (the Dacians, now Romanians, and Greeks have been there the longest). Romans also recorded that the lands they observed occupied were empty at later times. The 1800th century concept of nation was totally alien even 1000 years ago.

Patient Observer October 7, 2018 at 5:46 pm
Tito allowed/induced Albanians to live in Kosovo as part of a concerted anti-Serb campaign. He was the West's greatest political success in post WW II (assuming Gorbachev was not an agent of the West).

Serbia gave the SU the break it needed to survive and eventually defeat the West in WW II. They gave Russia the break it needed to survive and to eventually defeat the West in the 21st century.

I hope that Russia will help Serbia to recover its history and its independence.

[Oct 11, 2018] Can the replacement be worse than Haley?

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake October 9, 2018 at 6:59 am

Breaking!

Nikki Haley resigns as US ambassador to UN, reports say
Sources say Donald Trump has accepted Haley's resignation

I have no doubt the replacement will be worse than her.

I thought no one could be as bad as Samantha power until Nikki came along!!

Northern Star October 9, 2018 at 11:15 am
https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-resign-investigation-flights-free-private-jets-2018-10

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watchdog-demanded-investigation-into-nikki-haleys-private-flights-before-she-resigned

Pavlo Svolochenko October 10, 2018 at 7:41 am
If she was forced out for something that petty, Trump must have been looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
Mark Chapman October 10, 2018 at 7:55 am
Or those who hate him – and they are legion – wanted her out, because if Trump wanted her out her replacement would already have been announced. I saw on one of those 'sponsored content' trash teaser clickbait headlines that it was going to be Ivanka, but not even Trump would do that. Although you never know – it's not as if Haley brought any wealth of foreign-policy knowledge to the table, and she was mostly there to be a partisan spoiler of initiatives the USA did not want to pass. I suppose anyone could do that.
Mark Chapman October 9, 2018 at 4:13 pm
Maybe this loon is still available.

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/563fd2451400006f023ca344.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

[Oct 11, 2018] Nikki Haley's Surprising Departure

Oct 11, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

Nikki Haley's resignation as President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations yesterday came as quite a surprise. Haley seemed pleased to play her imagined role as the world's procurator, as she used her UN perch to incessantly threaten and condemn all the global enemies of her fellow neoconservatives. She came to the job with no foreign policy experience and she will be leaving exactly as she arrived.

If Haley's departure came as a surprise, so too did her appointment in the first place. During the primaries, she was famously in the " anyone but Donald Trump " camp of neocons, saying that Trump was "everything a governor doesn't want in a president."

Trump soon returned the compliment, Tweeting that, "The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!"

Nevertheless, like many neocons who had been critical of Trump, she found herself rewarded with a top position in the Administration. From her position she had consistently gotten ahead of her boss, the President, in policy pronouncements and at almost every turn she appeared to be pushing a Haley foreign policy rather than a Trump foreign policy.

For example, just as President Trump was returning from his historic summit meeting in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where the US President spoke very optimistically about a new approach to US/Russian relations, Nikki Haley gave an interview in which she said, "we don't trust Russia, we don't trust Putin; we never will...they're never going to be our friend...that's a fact."

Last September she acted as if she, rather than Trump, were the commander-in-chief, Tweeting of North Korea, "we cut 90% of trade and 30% of oil. I have no problem kicking it to Gen. Mattis because I think he has plenty of options." The idea that she, and not her boss, would "kick it" to Defense Secretary Mattis was preposterous, but contradicting and countermanding Trump's disappointingly rare bobs toward diplomacy and disengagement over bluster and bombs was a chief characteristic of Haley's reign as UN chief finger-wagger.

President Trump had been extremely critical of Syria's Assad, particularly after he fell for two false-flag rebel gas attacks blamed on Assad, but he had been careful not to explicitly set US policy as "Assad must go," as had his predecessor. Nevertheless Nikki Haley again got out ahead of official US policy with her own policy, stating in September 2017 that, "we're not going to be satisfied until we see a solid and stable Syria, and that is not with Assad in place."

Nikki Haley had long been associated with neocon warhawk John Bolton and had also benefited from the largesse of GOP moneybags Sheldon Adelson, the Israel-obsessed casino magnate who bankrolled Haley's PAC to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars in 2016 alone. Haley was Adelson's kind of governor: While South Carolina's executive, she signed the nation's first law making it a criminal offense to support a boycott of Israel.

How did the mainstream media handle the surprise resignation of such an extreme warhawk? Someone one might consider on the far fringe of US political life? The New York Times mourned the departure of Ambassador Haley, Tweeting that it would be "leaving the administration with one less moderate Republican voice."

"Moderate" voice?

For such a pro-war extremist to be considered "moderate" by the newspaper of record may strike some as odd, but as Glenn Greenwald so accurately explained :

The reason NYT calls her "moderate" is because she affirms all of the standard pro-war, pro-imperial orthodoxies that are bipartisan consensus in Washington. That's why @ BillKristol reveres her. She was a Tea Party candidate, but "moderate" means: loves US wars & hegemony.
That's it in a nutshell. Because in Washington being extreme pro-interventionist and pro-war is the orthodoxy. The facade that there are real differences between the Republican and Democrat party is carefully crafted by the mainstream media to cover the fact that we do live in a one-party state. Pro-war, pro-intervention, pro-bombing, pro-overthrow, pro-meddling - these are moderate positions. For Washington and the mainstream media, the extremists are the ones who wish to abide by the admonitions of our Founding Fathers that we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

Well, it seems there are plenty of monsters closer to home.

So good riddance to Nikki Haley...but don't hold your breath that it means the end of Nikki Haley-ism, which is the foundation of US foreign policy. Clearly we have much work left to do.

Your tax deductible contributions to the Ron Paul Institute allow us to provide you with real analysis of breaking issues. Our continued ability to provide a counter-balance to the mainstream media's false narrative depends on your financial support . We thank you for standing with us.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

[Oct 11, 2018] I still don't understand why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning.

Oct 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Pat Lang Mod , a day ago

OK, but I still don't understand why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning.
Ken Roberts -> Pat Lang , a day ago
My guess: DT had delegated to NH the management of UN interface. She flubbed, badly, DT being laughed at during his address. Out she goes!
confusedponderer -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "

Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire" until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very un-Trumpish) got the boot?

As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to "use megaphones over whispering".

That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and shut the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".

All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As for Harper's good riddance, indeed.

Kooshy -> confusedponderer , 14 hours ago
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave on a non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in Apprentice. Like Colonel suggest neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful idiot. IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was cause of his embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump doesn't give a second chance to anyone.
Walrus -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Because she believes they are big leakers like herself? Narcissists assume others have identical (rotten) behaviours as their own.
im cotton -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on from the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the news cycle moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
Tony -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Maybe because she didn't know?

[Oct 11, 2018] HARPER NIKKI FINDS THE DOOR

Oct 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Oct 11, 2018] Nikki Haley Just Screwed Conservatives Going Into Midterms: Bannon

Haley-Binomo was a liability not an asset.
Oct 11, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon slammed UN ambassador Nikki Haley's decision on Tuesday to announce her resignation, calling it "suspect" and "horrific," and that it overshadowed positive news that Trump and the Republicans need to build support going into midterms, according to Bloomberg .

The timing was exquisite from a bad point of view ," Bannon told Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait on Wednesday at the Bloomberg Invest London forum. " Everything she said yesterday and everything she said about stepping down could have been done on the evening of November 6. The timing could not have been worse. "

Haley's announcement, according to Bannon, took White House officials by surprise - and distracted attention from Brett Kavanaugh's first day as a justice on the Supreme Court, along with headlines over the lowest US unemployment rate in five decades. Haley's decision undermines Trump's message to Republican voters, said Bannon.

In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said Haley told him six months ago she wanted a break after spending two years in the post. She'll continue in her role until year-end. Haley said Tuesday that she was ready for a break after two terms as South Carolina's governor and two years at the United Nations. - Bloomberg

Bannon also says that he took Haley at her word that she has no political aspirations - particularly when it comes to running against Trump in 2020. She says that she looks forward to campaigning for Trump in two years. That said, Bannon calls Haley "ambitious" and "very talented," though he said so using a backhanded compliment.

"I think she is incredibly politically ambitious," Bannon added. " Ambitious as Lucifer but that is probably...I am probably taking Milton out of context."

Trump defended the timing of Haley's departure on Wednesday, saying "there's no good time" for her to have announced her resignation - and that if she'd waited until after midterms, it would have raised questions as to whether her motive was based on the results.

Yen Cross , 19 seconds ago link

Bannon is unhinged. Nikki Haley was horrible in her position! If Bannon payed attention to voter base of Trump, he'd see Haley was a thorn in the side of the Trump administration.

One of the best appointments Trump has made, is Mike Pompeo. I thought he'd be some crazed warmonger, but has turned out to be quite the opposite.

He's got this kind of easy going swagger and confidence about him. He's chubby, and his every day guy, sort of approach, is affable.

Grandad Grumps , 1 minute ago link

She is not human. Maybe she eats babies.

I am Groot , 1 minute ago link

Back to Binomo ! Don't let the door hit you in your *** on the way out Nimrata. And take your Obamacare curtains with you.

Prosource , 13 minutes ago link

Busted for the NYT memo ?

Whatever the cause, good riddance.

Bat-Shiite crazy with a dangerously big war mongering mouth.

Bannon is totally wrong on this one. Conservatives saw right through her.

The November vote won't be harmed, may even be bolstered.

Is Bannon's point that because she is a woman, it hurts Trump with women?

Regardless, the sooner these neo-con fake patriots are gone, the better

Albertarocks , 16 seconds ago link

Yes sir... her rhetoric is pure deep state war mongering of the most evil kind. She was told to stir up as much hatred and fear at the UN as possible and try to get the opposition to do something stupid in response to her remarks. That's not Trump talk for damned sure... that's deep state talk.

Yippie21 , 23 minutes ago link

He makes a GREAT point that occurred to me immediately. If you are resigning effective at the end of the year and everything is awesome, just time to move on.... why the hell are you publicly announcing it 3 weeks before a VERY contentious midterm election and only a day or so after a brutal SCOTUS nomination conclusion? Why? Why now? Very curious and a unforced error.

Vigilante , 44 minutes ago link

I never trusted Haley

The timing was no co-incidence for sure

She trashed Trump during the election season if you remember

[Oct 11, 2018] Most American LNG cargoes thus far to Europe are promptly sold on to someplace else where the Europeans can get more for it.

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 8, 2018 at 5:46 pm

In another stellar example of simply making up an optimistic headline that makes readers feel good – those readers who only read headlines, for example – a French analyst is apparently willing to go out on a limb and say that Nord Stream II 'won't be built as planned'. That's already a little hedgy, but if you read the article itself, he doesn't say anything remotely like that. In fact, he says Russian gas is the cheapest option, and most American LNG cargoes thus far to Europe are promptly sold on to someplace else where the Europeans can get more for it.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/french-analyst-nord-stream-2-wont-be-built-as-planned/

The major issue is that US LNG may come if we have higher prices. But why would we need them? They are quite high already. If China is prepared to overbid us, we don't need the American gas. We can ask for more Russian gas

Mark Chapman October 8, 2018 at 6:50 pm
Russia's Energy Minister sees the potential to double Russian gas exports by 2035. Russia's gas exports are growing by 6-7%/yr while global gas demand growth is at 2.6%/yr until 2035.

https://www.naturalgasworld.com/russian-producers-eye-doubling-exports-64936?#signin

Probably not the greatest news for the environment, as most analysts agree we need to start immediately moving away from a petroleum-based energy policy. But getting rid of all use of coal would be a good start for the present; gas is relatively clean, although I don't know if that makes any real difference to greenhouse-gas emissions.

[Oct 11, 2018] Dutch push for a new sanctions regime for Human Rights abusers, apart from global sponsors of Islamic terrorism who also happen to have $$$

Oct 08, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Vis the Dutch push for a new sanctions regime for Human Rights abusers, apart from global sponsors of Islamic terrorism who also happen to have $$$, the obvious takeaway that only just occurred to me is that the push for a European Magnitsky Act must have failed.

This is exactly the same thing, they just dropped the name. The EU is not united and I don't see the Netherlands as having enough influence in the EU without the UK.

[Oct 11, 2018] New clues may help locate lost intelligence files from 1938 French-British-Nazi pact

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 8, 2018 at 7:38 am

IntelNews: New clues may help locate lost intelligence files from 1938 French-British-Nazi pact
https://intelnews.org/2018/10/01/01-2408/

October 1, 2018 by Joseph Fitsanakis

Nearly 2,000 missing British intelligence files relating to the so-called Munich Agreement, a failed attempt by Britain, France and Italy to appease Adolf Hitler in 1938, may not have been destroyed, according to historians
####

More at the link.

The UK government also claimed that they did not have the files relating to their backing of Kenyans who tortured and killed those taking part in the Mau Mau Rebellion. If I remember correctly, A dozen or so large files were discovered in a skip outside an MoD office that was being sold off.

Mark Chapman October 8, 2018 at 9:11 am
If so, it was a mistake to suggest the files may not have been destroyed before they were safely in non-partisan custody. The west has too much invested in preserving its Molotov-Ribbentrop indignation to allow for even the possibility of equivalency, and efforts to find any such files and destroy or discredit them will go into overdrive.
Cortes October 8, 2018 at 11:23 am
Nothing unusual there.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/542133.Haig_s_Command

is a fantastic book and central to it is the author's ingenious way to get round the systematic doctoring of official reports and first-hand accounts of WWI. One appendix has quite astonishing portraits of many of the leading players, one of which – that of the American Pershing – is almost comical in describing the disappearance of swathes of files bearing witness to his incompetence; so it's not just the Brits.

[Oct 11, 2018] After the Nazis and their Baltic allies lost the war, the Balts (like other Eastern Europeans) had to do some serious shucking and jiving to re-brand themselves as Jeffersonian Democrats. Hence, the phony "dual totalitarian" or "dual-genocide" theories, which their court philosophers and historians quickly pulled out of their collective asses.

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

yalensis October 5, 2018 at 3:25 am

On that topic of Baltic collaborationism, I just finished posting this 4-part series about the Salaspils concentration camp in Latvia.

When you think about it, it really doesn't take much rocket science to understand why a segment (possibly the majority) of Baltic populations supported the Nazis at the time:

(1) This segment of the public were politically right-wing anyhow, they liked the fascist ideas and they hated Communism;
(2) The Nazis regarded the Balts as racially superior to the Jews and Slavs, so Balts felt they could live quite comfortably under Nazi domination, and they were right about that;
(3) They disliked Jews and were not sad to see them go.

Basically, in the Baltic states, the majority (probably) were pro-Nazi, and the other segment were pro-Communist. I reckon there were very few people in between.

After the Nazis and their Baltic allies lost the war, the Balts (like other Eastern Europeans) had to do some serious shucking and jiving to re-brand themselves as Jeffersonian Democrats. Hence, the phony "dual totalitarian" or "dual-genocide" theories, which their court philosophers and historians quickly pulled out of their collective asses.

Mark Chapman October 5, 2018 at 8:54 am
And you can probably see why much of the west is quietly pro-Nazi now as well. The pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists espouse western values – get rid of immigrants and the retarded and those who don't pull their weight, and most of all the dirty Russians, and usher in a land of purity and decency and bustling commerce, and let's hear no more of 'tolerance'. The movers and shakers in the west support liberal policies because they must, and they are sometimes useful as leverage, but if you were to yell "America for Americans" in the House or Senate, most of the Republicans and probably a few Democrats would stand and salute before they could stop themselves.
kirill October 5, 2018 at 10:54 am
I don't see the republicans being the Nazis. The US war party is composed of both Democraps and Rethuglicans. The Republican base has values closer in line with paleocons and not the neocons. The values of the Democraps are pure imperialist, exceptionalist and totalitarian in the name of PC. Obummer was neocon tool like W. Bush. Thus it is the Democraps that are the proper heirs of the Nazis and their 4th Reich global domination project. Paleocons are isolationist nationalists that actually believe in the constitutional values that the USA claims to espouse. The Democraps are all about lust for power and dirty tricks to enable the seizing of power. Obummer weaponized the FBI and CIA into partisan instruments giving us the Russia meddling inquisition. Truman was a foaming at the mouth racist cold warrior. Eisenhower at least warned about the creeping influence of the MIC. Clinton was a slimeball that continued the Reich agenda in the Balkans. And so on.

[Oct 11, 2018] US military program could be seen as bioweapon: Using the US's own definitions that it has used to place sanctions on other countries, this is clearly a dual-use technology, i.e. civilian with military applications

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 5, 2018 at 4:18 am

crAP via Antiwar.com: Scientists: US military program could be seen as bioweapon
https://apnews.com/8ed74d87df524ab580d7fbd3b845d0c6/Scientists:-US-military-program-could-be-seen-as-bioweapon

A research arm of the U.S. military is exploring the possibility of deploying insects to make plants more resilient by altering their genes. Some experts say the work may be seen as a potential biological weapon.

In an opinion paper published Thursday in the journal Science, the authors say the U.S. needs to provide greater justification for the peace-time purpose of its Insect Allies project to avoid being perceived as hostile to other countries. Other experts expressed ethical and security concerns with the research, which seeks to transmit protective traits to crops already growing in the field .
####

The rest at the link.

Using the US's own definitions that it has used to place sanctions on other countries, this is clearly a dual-use technology, i.e. civilian with military applications (which is just about the same as any fancy satellited up in space etc.). Conclusion? The US must sanction itself!

kirill October 5, 2018 at 5:59 am
The US has been using insects as bioweapons for decades (including attacking Cuba and the USSR). The current development program is using this insect research as a cover. Its real function is to develop targeted genetic weapons designed to exterminate ethic groups. These weapons are beyond any "mass destruction" and are pure genocide devices. Anyone who thinks that this sort of research is unlikely is a retard without a clue. There is a reason why certain US companies were buying up Russian human bio-waste (e.g. amputated limbs, cadavers).

If anyone thinks that the US will care about collateral damage to neighbouring Slavic countries, then they are full on retarded as well. In 1990 Americans could not tell the difference between Ukrainians and Russians (and even Chechens). Now for purely political reasons they pretend to see every microscopic difference. The US has no love for Poland, Ukraine, or any other new Europe country. They are merely cannon fodder for its imperial ambitions. The hate that Poles and other Slavic states have for Russia is pathological. Poland is basically a German branch plant economy. Tell me why Poland should have more love for Germany than for Russia? And don't invoke communism since Russians were not privileged compared to Poles before 1991. It was, in fact, the other way around.

Mark Chapman October 5, 2018 at 9:22 am
The US is always asking to be trusted with some fearsome new capability, on the grounds that its values are a fail-safe – it is so innately good that it could never use such capabilities for evil. And it seems obsessed with modifications to achieve super-plants so that one potato will feed a family of eight, and suchlike – what's wrong with food the way nature intended it to be?

If you would decide whether a technology or process should be viewed as a threat, just imagine it was announced by Russia. The USA would scream its head off.

I can't help noticing as well that some of its changes seem geared toward not having to do anything about global warming, continuing to rely on a petroleum-dominated energy policy and so forth, by engineering a food supply that will flourish through as changing environment. If it is successful in that aim it is assured global domination, as the food supply of other countries could vanish if the country did not sign on to the US technology agenda. America would not have to threaten anyone's crops with secret-agent bugs. It could just go on as it is doing, and continue to contribute to global warming.

[Oct 11, 2018] I wonder what the American reaction would be if China sent all their HP laptops back?

Oct 09, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al October 9, 2018 at 9:45 am

ZeroHedge: New Evidence Of Chinese Spy Hardware Found By Ex-Mossad Investigators; Super Micro Shares Plunge
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-09/new-evidence-chinese-spy-hardware-found-ex-mossad-investigators-super-micro-shares

####

Ohh, looky here, Bloomturd fighting back. Weak sauce.

Mark Chapman October 9, 2018 at 4:19 pm
Oh, boo hoo hoo!!! Muh FREEDOM!!! Things like that never happen in a free country. I wonder what the American reaction would be if China sent all their HP laptops back?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/29/report-nsa-intercepting-laptops-ordered-online-installing-spyware/#310436d1413d

et Al October 10, 2018 at 12:47 am
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/09/bloomberg_super_micro_china_spy_chip_scandal/

The new story pointing to an Ethernet hack is clearly intended to act as support for the original story but since the details are so different, and given that the entire report is single-sourced, it has had the opposite effect among security experts who have started to doubt the credibility of the original story.

In addition, online sleuths have started digging into the reporters themselves and identifying previous errors in their reporting of security issues

[Oct 11, 2018] Politics has simply become another product, the consumption of which is regulated by advertising. Almost none of it is true, as if the product were really good, it would sell itself.

Oct 11, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman October 6, 2018 at 10:41 am

Politics has simply become another product, the consumption of which is regulated by advertising. Almost none of it is true, as if the product were really good, it would sell itself. And the world's great democracies wonder why voter turnout slips a little every year. Barring extraordinarily divisive elections like the last one in the United States, of course. Maybe there's something to that – elections must be made into spectacles, or the people don't give a fuck who gets in, because they're ultimately all the same face. That's pretty much where I am now, and have been for a decade or more. But making an election into a bile-driven hate-fest will really only work once. When one set of supporters gives it their all and then finds out their candidate is really no different than the rest of the political spectrum – like Obama – or that he/she is different but certifiable like Trump, it's enough to put you off ever voting again. Stick your democracy. Put your mother in, or your cat. I don't care.

[Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC ..."
"... This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war. ..."
"... As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Few, if any, believe what they hear and read from leaders and media publicists. Most people choose to ignore the cacophony of voices, vices and virtues.

This paper provides a set of theses which purports to lay-out the basis for a dialogue between and among those who choose to abstain from elections with the intent to engage them in political struggle.

Thesis 1

US empire builders of all colors and persuasion practice donkey tactics; waving the carrot and wielding the whip to move the target government on the chosen path.

In the same way, Washington offers dubious concessions and threatens reprisals, in order to move them into the imperial orbit.

Washington applied the tactic successfully in several recent encounters. In 2003 the US offered Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi a peaceful accommodation in exchange for disarmament, abandonment of nationalist allies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In 2011, the US with its European allies applied the whip – bombed Libya, financed and armed retrograde tribal and terrorist forces, destroyed the infrastructure, murdered Gaddafi and uprooted millions of Africans and Libyans. . . who fled to Europe. Washington recruited mercenaries for their subsequent war against Syria in order to destroy the nationalist Bashar Assad regime.

Washington succeeded in destroying an adversary but did not establish a puppet regime in the midst of perpetual conflict.

The empire's carrot weakened its adversary, but the stick failed to recolonize Libya ..Moreover its European allies are obligated to pay the multi-billion Euro cost of absorbing millions of uprooteded immigrants and the ensuing domestic political turmoil.

Thesis 2

Empire builders' proposal to reconfigure the economy in order to regain imperial supremacy provokes domestic and overseas enemies. President Trump launched a global trade war, replaced political accommodation with economic sanctions against Russia and a domestic protectionist agenda and sharply reduced corporate taxes. He provoked a two-front conflict. Overseas, he provoked opposition from European allies and China, while facing perpetual harassment from domestic free market globalists and Russo-phobic political elites and ideologues.

Two front conflicts are rarely successful. Most successful imperialist conquer adversaries in turn – first one and then the other.

Thesis 3

Leftists frequently reverse course: they are radicals out of office and reactionaries in government, eventually falling between both chairs. We witness the phenomenal collapse of the German Social Democratic Party, the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK), (and its new version Syriza) and the Workers Party in Brazil. Each attracted mass support, won elections, formed alliances with bankers and the business elite – and in the face of their first crises, are abandoned by the populace and the elite.

Shrewd but discredited elites frequently recognize the opportunism of the Left, and in time of distress, have no problem in temporarily putting up with Left rhetoric and reforms as long as their economic interests are not jeopardized. The elite know that the Left signal left and turn right.

Thesis 4

Elections, even ones won by progressives or leftists, frequently become springboards for imperial backed coups. Over the past decade newly elected presidents, who are not aligned with Washington, face congressional and/or judicial impeachment on spurious charges. The elections provide a veneer of legitimacy which a straight-out military-coup lacks.

In Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela, 'legislatures' under US tutelage attempted to ouster popular President. They succeeded in the former and failed in the latter.

When electoral machinery fails, the judicial system intervenes to impose restraints on progressives, based on tortuous and convoluted interpretation of the law. Opposition leftists in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador have been hounded by ruling party elites.

Thesis 5

Even crazy leaders speak truth to power. There is no question that President Trump suffers a serious mental disorder, with midnight outbursts and nuclear threats against, any and all, ranging from philanthropic world class sports figures (LeBron James) to NATO respecting EU allies.

Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post , the Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.

Thesis 6

When a bark turns into a bite, Trump proves the homely truth that fear invites aggression. Trump has implemented or threatened severe sanctions against the EU, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea and any country that fails to submit to his dictates. At first, it was bombast and bluster which secured concessions.

Concessions were interpreted as weakness and invited greater threats. Disunity of opponents encouraged imperial tacticians to divide and conquer. But by attacking all adversaries simultaneously he undermines that tactic. Threats everywhere limits choices to dangerous options at home and abroad.

Thesis 7

The master meddlers, of all times, into the politics of sovereign states are the Anglo-American empire builders. But what is most revealing is the current ploy of accusing the victims of the crimes that are committed against them.

After the overthrow of the Soviet regime, the US and its European acolytes 'meddled' on a world-historic scale, pillaging over two trillion dollars of Soviet wealth and reducing Russian living standards by two thirds and life expectancy to under sixty years – below the level of Bangladesh.

With Russia's revival under President Putin, Washington financed a large army of self-styled 'non-governmental organizations' (NGO) to organize electoral campaigns, recruited moguls in the mass media and directed ethnic uprisings. The Russians are retail meddlers compared to the wholesale multi-billion-dollar US operators.

Moreover, the Israelis have perfected meddling on a grand scale – they intervene successfully in Congress, the White House and the Pentagon. They set the Middle East agenda, budget and priorities, and secure the biggest military handouts on a per-capita basis in US history!

Apparently, some meddlers meddle by invitation and are paid to do it.

Thesis 8

Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.

ORDER IT NOW

In the US the buyers and brokers are called 'lobbyists' – everywhere else they are called fraudsters. Corruption (lobbying) grease the wheels of billion dollars military spending, technological subsidies, tax evading corporations and every facet of government – out in the open, all the time and place of the US regime.

Corruption as lobbying never evokes the least criticism from the mass media.

On the other hand, where corruption takes place under the table in Iran, China and Russia, the media denounce the political elite – even where in China over 2 million officials, high and the low are arrested and jailed.

When corruption is punished in China, the US media claim it is merely a 'political purge' even if it directly reduces elite conspicuous consumption.

In other words, imperial corruption defends democratic value; anti-corruption is a hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships.

Thesis 9

Bread and circuses are integral parts of empire building – especially in promoting urban street mobs to overthrow independent and elected governments.

Imperial financed mobs – provided the cover for CIA backed coups in Iran (1954), Ukraine (2014), Brazil (1964), Venezuela (2003, 2014 and 2017), Argentina (1956), Nicaragua (2018), Syria (2011) and Libya (2011) among other places and other times.

Masses for empire draw paid and voluntary street fighters who speak for democracy and serve the elite. The "mass cover" is especially effective in recruiting leftists who look to the street for opinion and ignore the suites which call the shots.

Thesis 10

The empire is like a three-legged stool it promotes genocide, to secure magnicide and to rule by homicide. Invasions kills millions, capture and kill rulers and then rule by homicide – police assassinating dissenting citizens.

The cases are readily available: Iraq and Libya come to mind. The US and its allies invaded, bombed and killed over a million Iraqis, captured and assassinated its leaders and installed a police state.

A similar pattern occurred in Libya: the US and EU bombed, killed and uprooted several million people, assassinated Ghadaffy and fomented a lawless terrorist war of clans, tribes and western puppets.

"Western values" reveal the inhumanity of empires built to murder "a la carte" – stripping the victim nations of their defenders, leaders and citizens.

Conclusion

The ten theses define the nature of 21 st century imperialism – its continuities and novelties.

The mass media systematically write and speak lies to power: their message is to disarm their adversaries and to arouse their patrons to continue to plunder the world.

Jeff Stryker , says: August 11, 2018 at 4:26 am GMT

When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country. Iraq? Libya? Americans, and I am one, can barely keep their own country from sinking into a pit of decay.

Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit in terms of infrastructure, crime and poverty.

RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker

When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country.

Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit

Because what a ZOG does with it's host nation has nothing to do with improving anything for the occupied peoples.

Think of it like the Communist Manifesto. They thump it around, preaching utopia and equality and all that sugar and honey. This is because they want you to buy what they are selling. But they don't have any intention of ever delivering. None whatsoever.

All they're really trying to do is whip up an army of useful idiots to be used as blunt instruments. And once these useful idiots are done fulfilling their role in the redistribution of wealth and power, they are discarded only to realize too little too late that they have been working against their own interests all along.

The same thing goes for exporting Democracy. It's never been about improving anyone's lives. In the West or any of their target nations. It's been about whipping useful idiots up into an army that can be used as a blunt instrument against the obstacles in the way of (((someone's))) geopolitical ambitions.

... ... ..

Malla , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:58 am GMT
This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war.

False Flag Events Behind the Six Major Wars

False flags to fool Americans into the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War and the War on terror.

jilles dykstra , says: August 11, 2018 at 7:28 am GMT
Interesting is that a USA textbook already describes USA imperialism, without using the word: Barbara Hinckley, Sheldon Goldman, 'American Politics and Government, Structure, Processes, Institutions and Policies', Glenview Ill., 1990
jilles dykstra , says: August 11, 2018 at 7:37 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker Ockam's Razor: the simplest theory that explains the facts is the best.

There is no effort to create livable countries, the objective is to destroy them.

Under Saddam's dictatorschip Iraq was a prosperous country, without liberty, true.

Under old Assad, I visited Syria in the mid eighties, the same, though less prosperous, at the time, as far as I know, no Syrian oil or gas.

Aleppo, a cosmolitan and lively city, the suq, now destroyed, a great thing to have seen, medieval, but with happy looking people.

... ... ...

Den Lille Abe , says: August 11, 2018 at 8:10 am GMT
Nation building? When did that happen? I must have been asleep for 60 years.
Jeff Stryker , says: August 11, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 Geopolitical ambitions?

Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in Australia. The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices were sky-high and the economy was dreadful. Who benefits. Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.

annamaria , says: August 11, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
A great comment with the proper name calling for the ZUSA in relation to the current situation in Turkey: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/08/how-turkeys-currency-crisis-came-to-pass.html#comments
Excerpts:
" The Dollar op indicates that the USA ( or rather those who pull the strings in the US ) finally admits that our Ally is responsible for almost all mischievous events which took place in Turkey.
The USA is not a country, but rather a useful contract killer on a larger scale compared to the PKK-FETO-ISIS etc.
The US is now stepping forward fearlessly because 'the arms of the octopus', as Erdogan put last week, has been severed in Turkey."

These two definitions do stick:
1. the US is manipulated by the puppeteers -- people (the US citizenry at large) have no saying in the US decisions (mostly immoral and often imbecile); the well-being of the US is not a factored in the decisions
2. the US has become a "contract killer" for the voracious puppeteers

JackOH , says: August 11, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
Prof. Petras, thanks. A while back I read something called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (?) in which the writer describes his efforts to put other nations into debt to American institutions and American-controlled or -influenced international institutions for the ulterior purpose of political control. Sounded plausible enough, and I saw the author speak on TV on his book tour.

How do any of us know we're living in a country gone massively wobbly? Can a German sipping wine in Koblenz in 1936 even imagine Hitler's Germany will be a staple of American cable shows eighty years hence, and not in a good way? Can a Russian in the same year imagine that the latest round of arrests won't be leading to a Communist utopia now, or ever?

FWIW-my guess is America's imperial adventures are heavily structural, being that foreign policy is strongly within the President's purview, and Congress can be counted on to rubber-stamp military expeditions. Plus, empire offers a good distraction from domestic politics, which are an intractable mess of rent-seeking, racial animus, and corporate interests.

I don't like it much having to live in a racketeerized America, but there's not a whole lot we can do.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: August 11, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
Professor Petras glasses are becoming little bit foggy, but his scalpel still cuts to the bone. But this article is lecture for beginner class, or the aliens visitors who just landed on Earth
jacques sheete , says: August 11, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT

Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of the mass media.

A damned good article, Sir! And bless you for calling bankster propaganda anything but "mainstream."

Ours is a problem in which deception has become organized and strong; where truth is poisoned at its source; one in which the skill of the shrewdest brains is devoted to misleading a bewildered people.

-Walter Lippman, A Preface to Politics ( 1913 ), quoted in The Essential Lippmann, pp. 516-517

Lippman was an Allied propagandist among many other things.

Anonymous [317] Disclaimer , says: August 11, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
The 10 theories that led Petras to conclude "{the message is "to disarm their adversaries and to arouse their patrons" to continue to plunder the world}" is an example, that the American people are clueless about how events documented by Petras research, led Petras to conclude the USA is about plunder of the world .

There is a distinct difference between USA governed Americans and the 527 persons that govern Americans.

Access by Americans to the USA 1) in person with one of its 527 members, 2) by communication or attempted communication via some type of expression or 3) by constitutionally allowed regime change at election time. None of these methods work very well for Americans , if at all; but they serve the entrenched members of the USA, massive in size corporations and upstream wealthy owners, quite well.

Secondly, IMO, Mr. Petras either does not understand democracy or has chosen to make a mockery of it? The constitution that produced the USA produced not a democracy, but a Republic. A republic which authorized a group ( an handful of people) to rule America by rules the USA group decides to impose. Since the group can control the meaning of the US Constitution as well as change it's words, the group has, unlimited power to rule, no matter the subject matter or method (possible exceptions might be said to be within the meaning of the bill of rights; but like all contract clauses, especially a contract of the type where one side can amend, ignore, change or replace or use its overwhelming military and police powers to enforce against the other side, leaving the other side no recourse, is not really a contract; it might better be called an instrument announcing the assumption of power which infringes inalienable human rights).

Therefore just because 527 members of the USA government might between themselves practice Democracy does not mean the governed enjoy the same freedoms.

So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation (Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war none-the-less (read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of the USA).

(Note: The AOC, was the American government that defeated the British Armies [1776-1783], the 1776 American AOC American Government was the government that surveyed all of the land taken from the British by the AOC after it defeated the entire British military and stopped the British aristocrat owed, privately held corporate Empires from their continuous raping of America and abuse of Americans. those who did the work.

The AOC was the very same American Government that hired G. Washington to defeat and chase the British Aristocratic Corporate Colonial Empires out of America. The 1776 American AOC Government was the very same government that granted freedom to its people (AOC really did practice democracy, and really did try to divide and distribute the vast American lands taken from the British Corporate Colonial Empire equally among the then living Americans. The AOC ceased to exist when the US Constitution installed the USA by a self proclaimed regime change process , called ratification). There were 11 presidents of the AOC, interestingly enough, few have heard of them.

Once again the practice of political self-determination democracy is limited to the 525 USA members who have seats in the halls of the Congress of the USA or who occupy the offices of the President of USA or the Vice-President of the USA. All persons in America, not among the 527 salaried, elected members of the USA, are governed by the USA.

jilles dykstra , says: August 11, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
@Heisendude Israel has no constitution, and therefore no borders. A constitution also describes borders. An Israeli jew one asked Ben Gurion why Israel has no defined borders, the answer was something like 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot expand'.
AnonFromTN , says: August 11, 2018 at 4:50 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker Why does Israel assist all sorts of bandits, including, but not limited to, ISIS, in Syria? Just recently Israel helped in extracting the White Helmets, a PR wing of Nusra (Syrian branch of Al Qaida) from South Syria. Please explain.
AnonFromTN , says: August 11, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Anonymous Those 527 are bought and paid for lackeys. We don't know how many real owners of the USA there are, don't know many of their names, but we do know that when those lackeys imagine that they are somebodies and try to govern, they are eliminated (John Kennedy is the most unambiguous example).
RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

Geopolitical ambitions?

You may have heard of it. Globalism, N(J)ew World Order. That which the (((internationalists))) are always working towards. A one world government with them at the top, the ruling class.

Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in Australia.

Australia is a white nation. All white nations are supposed to suffer and ultimately collapse upon the creation of their New World Order. Vietnam was a complete success for the one's who really wanted that war.

The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices were sky-high and the economy was dreadful.

Bush was a neocon, wars for Israel with that 'surplus' were the intention all along. As wars under Hillary would have been as well. And as they potentially could still be if Trump proves to be a lap dog for Israel as well. He campaigned on no pointless wars, but there's no saying for sure until he either brings all our troops home or capitulates and signs Americans up to be cash cows and cannon fodder for more Israeli geopolitical ambitions.

Who benefits.

Those same rootless cosmopolitans that always benefit from playing both sides of the field, seeding conflict and then cashing in on the warmongering, genocidal depopulation and population displacement in the name of their geopolitical ambitions.

Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.

Israel made that mess. Threatened their borders with war. Land theft. Y'know. Golan Heights. Genocide land theft and displacement are all Israel does. Their borders have expanded every year since their creation.

Everything that's happening in the Middle East is because of the Rothschild terror state of Israel and the Zionist Jews who reside in it .. as well as in our various western ZOGs.

Have you really never heard of the Oded Yinon Plan ? Their genocidal outline for waging wars of aggression for the purpose of expanding their borders and becoming the dominant regional superpower by balkanizing the surrounding Arab world.

The only nations of significance left on their check list are as follows : Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. And many will argue that the House of Saud has always been crypto, helping Israel behind the scenes. Their sudden post-coup cooperation with their former 'enemies' is little more than a sign that they are needed as a wartime ally more in the current phase of their Yinon Plan than as controlled opposition funding and arming ISIS while keeping the public eye off of Israel's role in their creation and direction. Sure enough, it seems there is a rather strong push for an alliance between KSA, Israel and the US for war with Iran.

Here you go:

https://archive.fo/U7XTH

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
Technological progress, particularly the progress in information technology is pushing mankind with accelerated speed toward final solution and final settlement.
renfro , says: August 11, 2018 at 8:34 pm GMT
Good article

Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.

Yep. I have been ranting for years calling for a Anti-Corruption Political Party Platform by some group.
The corruption of our politicians is the cause of all the problems everyone else is ranting about.

In some ways I think most people deserve what they are going to get eventually because they ignore the corruption of their heroes .whether it be Trump, Hillary or any other.

I tell you sheeple .if someone will cheat and lie to others they will do the same thing to you ..you are stone cold stupid if you think other wise.

Jim Bob Lassiter , says: August 12, 2018 at 1:09 am GMT
@Biff Jeff and Mikeat are both correct if my friend's account of his participation in a recent trade show there is true. My friend's wife is a ding bat Hillarybot and she got to yammering to me after returning about all the wonderful diversity she saw in the streets of Dubai, but I shut her down pretty quickly by pointing out that the diversity darlings in Dubai were paid help for the Sheikdom and weren't even second class temporary residents by US standards; that they can be (and are) summarily deported to some slave market in Yemen if they don't mind their Ps and Qs VERY carefully in that society. She's also a wino, but confessed that the Trader Joe's box grade merlot sold for about US$18 to $25 a goblet in a tourist zone food and beverage joint. (and that didn't slow her down one bit) Hubby had to watch her close, as obvious public drunkenness (even in the tourist zone) has high potential for extreme justice.

The New Economy plan being promoted there is the development of a sort of Disneyworld on steroids international vacation attraction, as the leaders seem to think that their oil is going to run out soon.

jilles dykstra , says: August 12, 2018 at 7:50 am GMT
@peterAUS CNN, Washpost and NYT since a very long time suffer from a serious mental disorder.
It reminds me of Orwell's The Country of the Blind.
When the man who could see was cured all was well.
Anon [317] Disclaimer , says: August 12, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX While the Fed is a focal point, it is not the central issue. If Americans, were actually in voting control of the central issue Americans could and probably would abolish the fed and destroy its income by removing the income tax laws, very early on.

But if the Fed and Income taxes are not the central issue, what is the central issue? Could it be majority will "control of the structure and staffing of that structure" that often people call government? Look back to the creation of the US Constitution! There the central issue for the old British Aristocracy accustomed to having their way, was: can Aristocrats stay in control (of the new American democracy) and if so, how should "such control" be established so that British corporate power, British Aristocratic wealth and British Class Privilege can all survive the American revolution? {PWP}.

The question was answered by developing a form of government that enabling the Oligarch few to make the rules [rule of law] that could control the masses and to produce a government that had a monopoly on the use of power, so that it could enforce the laws it makes, against against the masses and fend off all challenges. The constitution blocked the people's right to self determination; it empowered the privileged, it favored the wealthy, and most of all it protected and saved pre-war British owned PWP as post war PWP.

Today those who operate the government do so in near perfect secrecy (interrupted only occasionally by Snowden, Assange, and a few brave others). It spies on each person, records each human breath taken by the masses, relates relationships between the masses, because those in charge fear the power of the masses should the masses somehow find a way to impose their will on how things are to be. How can rules made by Aristocrats in secret, be considered to be outcomes established by self- determination of the masses who are to be governed?

Ratification is the process that abolished Democracy in America. The story of those who imposed ratification has not yet been told. Ratification was used to justify the overthrow of the Articles of the Confederation (AOC was America's government from 1776 to 1789). To defeat the British empire the AOC hired the most wealthy man it could find to organize an Army capable to defeat the British Military. The AOC warred on the British Armies with the intent to stop colonial corporate empires from continuing to rape American productivity and exploit the resources in America for the benefit of the British Corporate Empires [Read the Declaration of Independence].

You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time, wealth? I don't think tossing coins across the mile wide Potomac made him a dime? How did GW attain such wealth in British owned, corporately controlled Colonial America? Why was George Washington able to keep that British earned wealth after the British were chased out of America? More importantly many gave their all, life, liberty and property to help chase the British out, GW gave ..?

Title by land grants [Virginia and West Virginia] are traceable to GWs estate.

What the land grant landowners feared most was that the new American democracy, might allow the masses to revoke or deny titles to real estate in America, if such title derived from a foreign government (land grant). The Articles of Confederation government was talking about dividing up all of the lands in America, and parceling it out, in equal portions, to all living AOC governed America. Deeds from kings and queens of England, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to land in America would not be recognized in the chain of title? Such lands would belong to the new AOC government or to the states who were members of the AOC.

You might check out Article 6, (Para 1) of the US Constitution.. it says in part
" All Debts contracted and Engagements[land grants and British Corporate Charters] entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the confederation.

(meaning loans to British Banks would be repaid and land deals made with foreign nations and corporations including those that resulted in creating a land Baron in British Colonial America, were to be treated as valid land titles by US Constitution. Consider the plight of Ex British Land Grant Barron Aristocrat [EBLGBA] who finds himself in now independent democratic America? Real Americans might decide EBLGBAs were some kind of terrorist, or spies. Under such circumstances, the EBLGA might look at Americans as a threat to their Aristocracy, a threat to their PWP..

Example: A Spanish Land Grant property in America ( King of Spain gave 5 million acres of land in America to ZZ in 1720 (ZZ is a Spanish Corporation ZZ doing business in America), the land transaction was recognized as valid under British Colonial Law in America. But would Independent AOC America recognize a deed issued by a Spanish King, or British Queen to Real Estate in America?

After the Revolution, the question does a EBLGBA retain ownership in the American located land that is now part of Independent America? Ain't no dam deed from a Spanish government going to be valid in America. King of England cannot give a deed to land that is located in independent America.

So if, a corporation, incorporated under British Law, claims it owns 5 million acres of American land because the Queen of England deeded it the the corporation: does that mean the 5 million acres still belongs to British Corporation X, and of course to the person made Aristocrat by virtue of ownership of the British Corporation). Is a British Corporation now to be an American Corporation? British Landed Gentry (land grant owners) in independent post war America, were quick to lobby for the constitution because the constitution protected their ownership in land granted to them by a foreign king or queen in fact the constitution protected the PWP.

I agree with your Zionist communist observation. It is imperative for all persons interested in what is happening to study the takeover of Russia from the Tzar by Lenin and his Zionist Communist because what the Zionist did to the Christians in Russia in 1917 seems to be approaching for it to happen here in America and because that revolution was a part of the organized Zionist [1896, Hertzl] movement to take control of all of the oil in the world. Let us not forget, Lenin and crew exterminated 32 million White Russians nearly all of whom were educated Christians living in the Ukraine.

As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire.

jacques sheete , says: August 12, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
@Anonymous

So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation (Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war none-the-less (read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of the USA).

What a relief to find that there are a few (very few) others who have a clue. The "constitution" was effectively a coup d'etat. We proles, peasants and other pissants have been tax and debt slaves ever since, and the situation has continuously worsened. Lincoln's war against Southern independence, establishment of the Federal Reserve, Wilson's and especially FDR's wars, and infiltration of the US government and industry by Commies, Zionists and other Eastern European goon-mafiosi scum have completely perverted what this country is supposedly about.

I doubt the situation will ever begin to improve unless and until the mass of brainwashed dupes understand what you wrote.

jacques sheete , says: August 12, 2018 at 1:17 pm GMT
@Anon Please comment more often. Excellent info there.

You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time, wealth?

True. Especially since the guy was a third rate, (probably mostly incompetent), Brit military officer and terrorist who treated the men under his command like sh!t.

Reminds me of Ol Johnny Boy McCain and other such scum.

annamaria , says: August 12, 2018 at 8:53 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra "Ben Gurion: 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot expand'. -- Right. Hence the mass slaughter in the Middle East.
Hapless Canada is going to accept the "humanitarian" terrorists from While Helmets organization. The rescue is a joint Israel-Canada enterprise: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- -- -- -
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland (a committed banderist and admirer of Ukrainian neo-Nazis) and Robin Wettlaufer (Canada's representative to the Syrian Opposition and a harsh critic of Assad "regime") have been playing a key role in the evacuation of the White Helmets. But there are some questions to Robin: "Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. No vote in the Parliament, no public discussion. Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100 injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?" https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- Guess Robin Wettlaufer, due to her ethnic solidarity, would be fine with these injured Palestinian children being smothered by someone, but the well-financed White Helmets are the extremely valuable material for realizing Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel (see Ben Gurion answer).
Kratoklastes , says: August 17, 2018 at 12:20 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker

The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office

It turns out that 'budget surplus' does not mean what most people think it means. When your household has a budget surplus, its rate of debt accumulation reverses (i.e., the total value of household debt falls). Credit cards get paid down, mortgages get paid off, and eventually you end up with a large and growing positive net worth. That's what running a 'budget surplus' means , right?

Not so for governments : the US government could run perpetual budget 'surpluses' and still grow government debt without bound – because they do not account for things the way they insist that we serfs account for things there are a bunch of their expenditures that they simply don't count in their 'budget'.

It's a bit like if you were to only count the amount your household spent on groceries , and declare your entire budget to be in 'surplus' or 'deficit' based on whether or not there's change after you do your weekly shopping. Meanwhile, you're spending more than you earn overall, and accumulating debt at an expanding rate.

Runaway debt is what destroys – whether it's families or countries.

There has only been one year since 1960 in which the US Federal Debt has fallen : 1969 .

During the much-touted "Clinton Surpluses", the US Federal Debt rose by almost a quarter- trillion dollars . The first two Bush years had larger surpluses than either of the two Clinton surpluses – but still added $160 billion to the Federal debt.

I know those don't sound like big numbers anymore – much given that Bush added $602 billion per year on average, and Obama added twice Bush 's amount (1.19 trillion per year).

[Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC ..."
"... This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war. ..."
"... As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Few, if any, believe what they hear and read from leaders and media publicists. Most people choose to ignore the cacophony of voices, vices and virtues.

This paper provides a set of theses which purports to lay-out the basis for a dialogue between and among those who choose to abstain from elections with the intent to engage them in political struggle.

Thesis 1

US empire builders of all colors and persuasion practice donkey tactics; waving the carrot and wielding the whip to move the target government on the chosen path.

In the same way, Washington offers dubious concessions and threatens reprisals, in order to move them into the imperial orbit.

Washington applied the tactic successfully in several recent encounters. In 2003 the US offered Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi a peaceful accommodation in exchange for disarmament, abandonment of nationalist allies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In 2011, the US with its European allies applied the whip – bombed Libya, financed and armed retrograde tribal and terrorist forces, destroyed the infrastructure, murdered Gaddafi and uprooted millions of Africans and Libyans. . . who fled to Europe. Washington recruited mercenaries for their subsequent war against Syria in order to destroy the nationalist Bashar Assad regime.

Washington succeeded in destroying an adversary but did not establish a puppet regime in the midst of perpetual conflict.

The empire's carrot weakened its adversary, but the stick failed to recolonize Libya ..Moreover its European allies are obligated to pay the multi-billion Euro cost of absorbing millions of uprooteded immigrants and the ensuing domestic political turmoil.

Thesis 2

Empire builders' proposal to reconfigure the economy in order to regain imperial supremacy provokes domestic and overseas enemies. President Trump launched a global trade war, replaced political accommodation with economic sanctions against Russia and a domestic protectionist agenda and sharply reduced corporate taxes. He provoked a two-front conflict. Overseas, he provoked opposition from European allies and China, while facing perpetual harassment from domestic free market globalists and Russo-phobic political elites and ideologues.

Two front conflicts are rarely successful. Most successful imperialist conquer adversaries in turn – first one and then the other.

Thesis 3

Leftists frequently reverse course: they are radicals out of office and reactionaries in government, eventually falling between both chairs. We witness the phenomenal collapse of the German Social Democratic Party, the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK), (and its new version Syriza) and the Workers Party in Brazil. Each attracted mass support, won elections, formed alliances with bankers and the business elite – and in the face of their first crises, are abandoned by the populace and the elite.

Shrewd but discredited elites frequently recognize the opportunism of the Left, and in time of distress, have no problem in temporarily putting up with Left rhetoric and reforms as long as their economic interests are not jeopardized. The elite know that the Left signal left and turn right.

Thesis 4

Elections, even ones won by progressives or leftists, frequently become springboards for imperial backed coups. Over the past decade newly elected presidents, who are not aligned with Washington, face congressional and/or judicial impeachment on spurious charges. The elections provide a veneer of legitimacy which a straight-out military-coup lacks.

In Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela, 'legislatures' under US tutelage attempted to ouster popular President. They succeeded in the former and failed in the latter.

When electoral machinery fails, the judicial system intervenes to impose restraints on progressives, based on tortuous and convoluted interpretation of the law. Opposition leftists in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador have been hounded by ruling party elites.

Thesis 5

Even crazy leaders speak truth to power. There is no question that President Trump suffers a serious mental disorder, with midnight outbursts and nuclear threats against, any and all, ranging from philanthropic world class sports figures (LeBron James) to NATO respecting EU allies.

Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post , the Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.

Thesis 6

When a bark turns into a bite, Trump proves the homely truth that fear invites aggression. Trump has implemented or threatened severe sanctions against the EU, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea and any country that fails to submit to his dictates. At first, it was bombast and bluster which secured concessions.

Concessions were interpreted as weakness and invited greater threats. Disunity of opponents encouraged imperial tacticians to divide and conquer. But by attacking all adversaries simultaneously he undermines that tactic. Threats everywhere limits choices to dangerous options at home and abroad.

Thesis 7

The master meddlers, of all times, into the politics of sovereign states are the Anglo-American empire builders. But what is most revealing is the current ploy of accusing the victims of the crimes that are committed against them.

After the overthrow of the Soviet regime, the US and its European acolytes 'meddled' on a world-historic scale, pillaging over two trillion dollars of Soviet wealth and reducing Russian living standards by two thirds and life expectancy to under sixty years – below the level of Bangladesh.

With Russia's revival under President Putin, Washington financed a large army of self-styled 'non-governmental organizations' (NGO) to organize electoral campaigns, recruited moguls in the mass media and directed ethnic uprisings. The Russians are retail meddlers compared to the wholesale multi-billion-dollar US operators.

Moreover, the Israelis have perfected meddling on a grand scale – they intervene successfully in Congress, the White House and the Pentagon. They set the Middle East agenda, budget and priorities, and secure the biggest military handouts on a per-capita basis in US history!

Apparently, some meddlers meddle by invitation and are paid to do it.

Thesis 8

Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.

ORDER IT NOW

In the US the buyers and brokers are called 'lobbyists' – everywhere else they are called fraudsters. Corruption (lobbying) grease the wheels of billion dollars military spending, technological subsidies, tax evading corporations and every facet of government – out in the open, all the time and place of the US regime.

Corruption as lobbying never evokes the least criticism from the mass media.

On the other hand, where corruption takes place under the table in Iran, China and Russia, the media denounce the political elite – even where in China over 2 million officials, high and the low are arrested and jailed.

When corruption is punished in China, the US media claim it is merely a 'political purge' even if it directly reduces elite conspicuous consumption.

In other words, imperial corruption defends democratic value; anti-corruption is a hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships.

Thesis 9

Bread and circuses are integral parts of empire building – especially in promoting urban street mobs to overthrow independent and elected governments.

Imperial financed mobs – provided the cover for CIA backed coups in Iran (1954), Ukraine (2014), Brazil (1964), Venezuela (2003, 2014 and 2017), Argentina (1956), Nicaragua (2018), Syria (2011) and Libya (2011) among other places and other times.

Masses for empire draw paid and voluntary street fighters who speak for democracy and serve the elite. The "mass cover" is especially effective in recruiting leftists who look to the street for opinion and ignore the suites which call the shots.

Thesis 10

The empire is like a three-legged stool it promotes genocide, to secure magnicide and to rule by homicide. Invasions kills millions, capture and kill rulers and then rule by homicide – police assassinating dissenting citizens.

The cases are readily available: Iraq and Libya come to mind. The US and its allies invaded, bombed and killed over a million Iraqis, captured and assassinated its leaders and installed a police state.

A similar pattern occurred in Libya: the US and EU bombed, killed and uprooted several million people, assassinated Ghadaffy and fomented a lawless terrorist war of clans, tribes and western puppets.

"Western values" reveal the inhumanity of empires built to murder "a la carte" – stripping the victim nations of their defenders, leaders and citizens.

Conclusion

The ten theses define the nature of 21 st century imperialism – its continuities and novelties.

The mass media systematically write and speak lies to power: their message is to disarm their adversaries and to arouse their patrons to continue to plunder the world.

Jeff Stryker , says: August 11, 2018 at 4:26 am GMT

When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country. Iraq? Libya? Americans, and I am one, can barely keep their own country from sinking into a pit of decay.

Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit in terms of infrastructure, crime and poverty.

RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker

When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country.

Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit

Because what a ZOG does with it's host nation has nothing to do with improving anything for the occupied peoples.

Think of it like the Communist Manifesto. They thump it around, preaching utopia and equality and all that sugar and honey. This is because they want you to buy what they are selling. But they don't have any intention of ever delivering. None whatsoever.

All they're really trying to do is whip up an army of useful idiots to be used as blunt instruments. And once these useful idiots are done fulfilling their role in the redistribution of wealth and power, they are discarded only to realize too little too late that they have been working against their own interests all along.

The same thing goes for exporting Democracy. It's never been about improving anyone's lives. In the West or any of their target nations. It's been about whipping useful idiots up into an army that can be used as a blunt instrument against the obstacles in the way of (((someone's))) geopolitical ambitions.

... ... ..

Malla , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:58 am GMT
This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war.

False Flag Events Behind the Six Major Wars

False flags to fool Americans into the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War and the War on terror.

jilles dykstra , says: August 11, 2018 at 7:28 am GMT
Interesting is that a USA textbook already describes USA imperialism, without using the word: Barbara Hinckley, Sheldon Goldman, 'American Politics and Government, Structure, Processes, Institutions and Policies', Glenview Ill., 1990
jilles dykstra , says: August 11, 2018 at 7:37 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker Ockam's Razor: the simplest theory that explains the facts is the best.

There is no effort to create livable countries, the objective is to destroy them.

Under Saddam's dictatorschip Iraq was a prosperous country, without liberty, true.

Under old Assad, I visited Syria in the mid eighties, the same, though less prosperous, at the time, as far as I know, no Syrian oil or gas.

Aleppo, a cosmolitan and lively city, the suq, now destroyed, a great thing to have seen, medieval, but with happy looking people.

... ... ...

Den Lille Abe , says: August 11, 2018 at 8:10 am GMT
Nation building? When did that happen? I must have been asleep for 60 years.
Jeff Stryker , says: August 11, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 Geopolitical ambitions?

Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in Australia. The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices were sky-high and the economy was dreadful. Who benefits. Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.

annamaria , says: August 11, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
A great comment with the proper name calling for the ZUSA in relation to the current situation in Turkey: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/08/how-turkeys-currency-crisis-came-to-pass.html#comments
Excerpts:
" The Dollar op indicates that the USA ( or rather those who pull the strings in the US ) finally admits that our Ally is responsible for almost all mischievous events which took place in Turkey.
The USA is not a country, but rather a useful contract killer on a larger scale compared to the PKK-FETO-ISIS etc.
The US is now stepping forward fearlessly because 'the arms of the octopus', as Erdogan put last week, has been severed in Turkey."

These two definitions do stick:
1. the US is manipulated by the puppeteers -- people (the US citizenry at large) have no saying in the US decisions (mostly immoral and often imbecile); the well-being of the US is not a factored in the decisions
2. the US has become a "contract killer" for the voracious puppeteers

JackOH , says: August 11, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
Prof. Petras, thanks. A while back I read something called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (?) in which the writer describes his efforts to put other nations into debt to American institutions and American-controlled or -influenced international institutions for the ulterior purpose of political control. Sounded plausible enough, and I saw the author speak on TV on his book tour.

How do any of us know we're living in a country gone massively wobbly? Can a German sipping wine in Koblenz in 1936 even imagine Hitler's Germany will be a staple of American cable shows eighty years hence, and not in a good way? Can a Russian in the same year imagine that the latest round of arrests won't be leading to a Communist utopia now, or ever?

FWIW-my guess is America's imperial adventures are heavily structural, being that foreign policy is strongly within the President's purview, and Congress can be counted on to rubber-stamp military expeditions. Plus, empire offers a good distraction from domestic politics, which are an intractable mess of rent-seeking, racial animus, and corporate interests.

I don't like it much having to live in a racketeerized America, but there's not a whole lot we can do.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: August 11, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
Professor Petras glasses are becoming little bit foggy, but his scalpel still cuts to the bone. But this article is lecture for beginner class, or the aliens visitors who just landed on Earth
jacques sheete , says: August 11, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT

Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of the mass media.

A damned good article, Sir! And bless you for calling bankster propaganda anything but "mainstream."

Ours is a problem in which deception has become organized and strong; where truth is poisoned at its source; one in which the skill of the shrewdest brains is devoted to misleading a bewildered people.

-Walter Lippman, A Preface to Politics ( 1913 ), quoted in The Essential Lippmann, pp. 516-517

Lippman was an Allied propagandist among many other things.

Anonymous [317] Disclaimer , says: August 11, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
The 10 theories that led Petras to conclude "{the message is "to disarm their adversaries and to arouse their patrons" to continue to plunder the world}" is an example, that the American people are clueless about how events documented by Petras research, led Petras to conclude the USA is about plunder of the world .

There is a distinct difference between USA governed Americans and the 527 persons that govern Americans.

Access by Americans to the USA 1) in person with one of its 527 members, 2) by communication or attempted communication via some type of expression or 3) by constitutionally allowed regime change at election time. None of these methods work very well for Americans , if at all; but they serve the entrenched members of the USA, massive in size corporations and upstream wealthy owners, quite well.

Secondly, IMO, Mr. Petras either does not understand democracy or has chosen to make a mockery of it? The constitution that produced the USA produced not a democracy, but a Republic. A republic which authorized a group ( an handful of people) to rule America by rules the USA group decides to impose. Since the group can control the meaning of the US Constitution as well as change it's words, the group has, unlimited power to rule, no matter the subject matter or method (possible exceptions might be said to be within the meaning of the bill of rights; but like all contract clauses, especially a contract of the type where one side can amend, ignore, change or replace or use its overwhelming military and police powers to enforce against the other side, leaving the other side no recourse, is not really a contract; it might better be called an instrument announcing the assumption of power which infringes inalienable human rights).

Therefore just because 527 members of the USA government might between themselves practice Democracy does not mean the governed enjoy the same freedoms.

So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation (Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war none-the-less (read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of the USA).

(Note: The AOC, was the American government that defeated the British Armies [1776-1783], the 1776 American AOC American Government was the government that surveyed all of the land taken from the British by the AOC after it defeated the entire British military and stopped the British aristocrat owed, privately held corporate Empires from their continuous raping of America and abuse of Americans. those who did the work.

The AOC was the very same American Government that hired G. Washington to defeat and chase the British Aristocratic Corporate Colonial Empires out of America. The 1776 American AOC Government was the very same government that granted freedom to its people (AOC really did practice democracy, and really did try to divide and distribute the vast American lands taken from the British Corporate Colonial Empire equally among the then living Americans. The AOC ceased to exist when the US Constitution installed the USA by a self proclaimed regime change process , called ratification). There were 11 presidents of the AOC, interestingly enough, few have heard of them.

Once again the practice of political self-determination democracy is limited to the 525 USA members who have seats in the halls of the Congress of the USA or who occupy the offices of the President of USA or the Vice-President of the USA. All persons in America, not among the 527 salaried, elected members of the USA, are governed by the USA.

jilles dykstra , says: August 11, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
@Heisendude Israel has no constitution, and therefore no borders. A constitution also describes borders. An Israeli jew one asked Ben Gurion why Israel has no defined borders, the answer was something like 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot expand'.
AnonFromTN , says: August 11, 2018 at 4:50 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker Why does Israel assist all sorts of bandits, including, but not limited to, ISIS, in Syria? Just recently Israel helped in extracting the White Helmets, a PR wing of Nusra (Syrian branch of Al Qaida) from South Syria. Please explain.
AnonFromTN , says: August 11, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Anonymous Those 527 are bought and paid for lackeys. We don't know how many real owners of the USA there are, don't know many of their names, but we do know that when those lackeys imagine that they are somebodies and try to govern, they are eliminated (John Kennedy is the most unambiguous example).
RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

Geopolitical ambitions?

You may have heard of it. Globalism, N(J)ew World Order. That which the (((internationalists))) are always working towards. A one world government with them at the top, the ruling class.

Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in Australia.

Australia is a white nation. All white nations are supposed to suffer and ultimately collapse upon the creation of their New World Order. Vietnam was a complete success for the one's who really wanted that war.

The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices were sky-high and the economy was dreadful.

Bush was a neocon, wars for Israel with that 'surplus' were the intention all along. As wars under Hillary would have been as well. And as they potentially could still be if Trump proves to be a lap dog for Israel as well. He campaigned on no pointless wars, but there's no saying for sure until he either brings all our troops home or capitulates and signs Americans up to be cash cows and cannon fodder for more Israeli geopolitical ambitions.

Who benefits.

Those same rootless cosmopolitans that always benefit from playing both sides of the field, seeding conflict and then cashing in on the warmongering, genocidal depopulation and population displacement in the name of their geopolitical ambitions.

Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.

Israel made that mess. Threatened their borders with war. Land theft. Y'know. Golan Heights. Genocide land theft and displacement are all Israel does. Their borders have expanded every year since their creation.

Everything that's happening in the Middle East is because of the Rothschild terror state of Israel and the Zionist Jews who reside in it .. as well as in our various western ZOGs.

Have you really never heard of the Oded Yinon Plan ? Their genocidal outline for waging wars of aggression for the purpose of expanding their borders and becoming the dominant regional superpower by balkanizing the surrounding Arab world.

The only nations of significance left on their check list are as follows : Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. And many will argue that the House of Saud has always been crypto, helping Israel behind the scenes. Their sudden post-coup cooperation with their former 'enemies' is little more than a sign that they are needed as a wartime ally more in the current phase of their Yinon Plan than as controlled opposition funding and arming ISIS while keeping the public eye off of Israel's role in their creation and direction. Sure enough, it seems there is a rather strong push for an alliance between KSA, Israel and the US for war with Iran.

Here you go:

https://archive.fo/U7XTH

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: August 11, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
Technological progress, particularly the progress in information technology is pushing mankind with accelerated speed toward final solution and final settlement.
renfro , says: August 11, 2018 at 8:34 pm GMT
Good article

Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.

Yep. I have been ranting for years calling for a Anti-Corruption Political Party Platform by some group.
The corruption of our politicians is the cause of all the problems everyone else is ranting about.

In some ways I think most people deserve what they are going to get eventually because they ignore the corruption of their heroes .whether it be Trump, Hillary or any other.

I tell you sheeple .if someone will cheat and lie to others they will do the same thing to you ..you are stone cold stupid if you think other wise.

Jim Bob Lassiter , says: August 12, 2018 at 1:09 am GMT
@Biff Jeff and Mikeat are both correct if my friend's account of his participation in a recent trade show there is true. My friend's wife is a ding bat Hillarybot and she got to yammering to me after returning about all the wonderful diversity she saw in the streets of Dubai, but I shut her down pretty quickly by pointing out that the diversity darlings in Dubai were paid help for the Sheikdom and weren't even second class temporary residents by US standards; that they can be (and are) summarily deported to some slave market in Yemen if they don't mind their Ps and Qs VERY carefully in that society. She's also a wino, but confessed that the Trader Joe's box grade merlot sold for about US$18 to $25 a goblet in a tourist zone food and beverage joint. (and that didn't slow her down one bit) Hubby had to watch her close, as obvious public drunkenness (even in the tourist zone) has high potential for extreme justice.

The New Economy plan being promoted there is the development of a sort of Disneyworld on steroids international vacation attraction, as the leaders seem to think that their oil is going to run out soon.

jilles dykstra , says: August 12, 2018 at 7:50 am GMT
@peterAUS CNN, Washpost and NYT since a very long time suffer from a serious mental disorder.
It reminds me of Orwell's The Country of the Blind.
When the man who could see was cured all was well.
Anon [317] Disclaimer , says: August 12, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX While the Fed is a focal point, it is not the central issue. If Americans, were actually in voting control of the central issue Americans could and probably would abolish the fed and destroy its income by removing the income tax laws, very early on.

But if the Fed and Income taxes are not the central issue, what is the central issue? Could it be majority will "control of the structure and staffing of that structure" that often people call government? Look back to the creation of the US Constitution! There the central issue for the old British Aristocracy accustomed to having their way, was: can Aristocrats stay in control (of the new American democracy) and if so, how should "such control" be established so that British corporate power, British Aristocratic wealth and British Class Privilege can all survive the American revolution? {PWP}.

The question was answered by developing a form of government that enabling the Oligarch few to make the rules [rule of law] that could control the masses and to produce a government that had a monopoly on the use of power, so that it could enforce the laws it makes, against against the masses and fend off all challenges. The constitution blocked the people's right to self determination; it empowered the privileged, it favored the wealthy, and most of all it protected and saved pre-war British owned PWP as post war PWP.

Today those who operate the government do so in near perfect secrecy (interrupted only occasionally by Snowden, Assange, and a few brave others). It spies on each person, records each human breath taken by the masses, relates relationships between the masses, because those in charge fear the power of the masses should the masses somehow find a way to impose their will on how things are to be. How can rules made by Aristocrats in secret, be considered to be outcomes established by self- determination of the masses who are to be governed?

Ratification is the process that abolished Democracy in America. The story of those who imposed ratification has not yet been told. Ratification was used to justify the overthrow of the Articles of the Confederation (AOC was America's government from 1776 to 1789). To defeat the British empire the AOC hired the most wealthy man it could find to organize an Army capable to defeat the British Military. The AOC warred on the British Armies with the intent to stop colonial corporate empires from continuing to rape American productivity and exploit the resources in America for the benefit of the British Corporate Empires [Read the Declaration of Independence].

You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time, wealth? I don't think tossing coins across the mile wide Potomac made him a dime? How did GW attain such wealth in British owned, corporately controlled Colonial America? Why was George Washington able to keep that British earned wealth after the British were chased out of America? More importantly many gave their all, life, liberty and property to help chase the British out, GW gave ..?

Title by land grants [Virginia and West Virginia] are traceable to GWs estate.

What the land grant landowners feared most was that the new American democracy, might allow the masses to revoke or deny titles to real estate in America, if such title derived from a foreign government (land grant). The Articles of Confederation government was talking about dividing up all of the lands in America, and parceling it out, in equal portions, to all living AOC governed America. Deeds from kings and queens of England, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to land in America would not be recognized in the chain of title? Such lands would belong to the new AOC government or to the states who were members of the AOC.

You might check out Article 6, (Para 1) of the US Constitution.. it says in part
" All Debts contracted and Engagements[land grants and British Corporate Charters] entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the confederation.

(meaning loans to British Banks would be repaid and land deals made with foreign nations and corporations including those that resulted in creating a land Baron in British Colonial America, were to be treated as valid land titles by US Constitution. Consider the plight of Ex British Land Grant Barron Aristocrat [EBLGBA] who finds himself in now independent democratic America? Real Americans might decide EBLGBAs were some kind of terrorist, or spies. Under such circumstances, the EBLGA might look at Americans as a threat to their Aristocracy, a threat to their PWP..

Example: A Spanish Land Grant property in America ( King of Spain gave 5 million acres of land in America to ZZ in 1720 (ZZ is a Spanish Corporation ZZ doing business in America), the land transaction was recognized as valid under British Colonial Law in America. But would Independent AOC America recognize a deed issued by a Spanish King, or British Queen to Real Estate in America?

After the Revolution, the question does a EBLGBA retain ownership in the American located land that is now part of Independent America? Ain't no dam deed from a Spanish government going to be valid in America. King of England cannot give a deed to land that is located in independent America.

So if, a corporation, incorporated under British Law, claims it owns 5 million acres of American land because the Queen of England deeded it the the corporation: does that mean the 5 million acres still belongs to British Corporation X, and of course to the person made Aristocrat by virtue of ownership of the British Corporation). Is a British Corporation now to be an American Corporation? British Landed Gentry (land grant owners) in independent post war America, were quick to lobby for the constitution because the constitution protected their ownership in land granted to them by a foreign king or queen in fact the constitution protected the PWP.

I agree with your Zionist communist observation. It is imperative for all persons interested in what is happening to study the takeover of Russia from the Tzar by Lenin and his Zionist Communist because what the Zionist did to the Christians in Russia in 1917 seems to be approaching for it to happen here in America and because that revolution was a part of the organized Zionist [1896, Hertzl] movement to take control of all of the oil in the world. Let us not forget, Lenin and crew exterminated 32 million White Russians nearly all of whom were educated Christians living in the Ukraine.

As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire.

jacques sheete , says: August 12, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
@Anonymous

So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation (Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war none-the-less (read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of the USA).

What a relief to find that there are a few (very few) others who have a clue. The "constitution" was effectively a coup d'etat. We proles, peasants and other pissants have been tax and debt slaves ever since, and the situation has continuously worsened. Lincoln's war against Southern independence, establishment of the Federal Reserve, Wilson's and especially FDR's wars, and infiltration of the US government and industry by Commies, Zionists and other Eastern European goon-mafiosi scum have completely perverted what this country is supposedly about.

I doubt the situation will ever begin to improve unless and until the mass of brainwashed dupes understand what you wrote.

jacques sheete , says: August 12, 2018 at 1:17 pm GMT
@Anon Please comment more often. Excellent info there.

You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time, wealth?

True. Especially since the guy was a third rate, (probably mostly incompetent), Brit military officer and terrorist who treated the men under his command like sh!t.

Reminds me of Ol Johnny Boy McCain and other such scum.

annamaria , says: August 12, 2018 at 8:53 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra "Ben Gurion: 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot expand'. -- Right. Hence the mass slaughter in the Middle East.
Hapless Canada is going to accept the "humanitarian" terrorists from While Helmets organization. The rescue is a joint Israel-Canada enterprise: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- -- -- -
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland (a committed banderist and admirer of Ukrainian neo-Nazis) and Robin Wettlaufer (Canada's representative to the Syrian Opposition and a harsh critic of Assad "regime") have been playing a key role in the evacuation of the White Helmets. But there are some questions to Robin: "Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. No vote in the Parliament, no public discussion. Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100 injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?" https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- Guess Robin Wettlaufer, due to her ethnic solidarity, would be fine with these injured Palestinian children being smothered by someone, but the well-financed White Helmets are the extremely valuable material for realizing Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel (see Ben Gurion answer).
Kratoklastes , says: August 17, 2018 at 12:20 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker

The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office

It turns out that 'budget surplus' does not mean what most people think it means. When your household has a budget surplus, its rate of debt accumulation reverses (i.e., the total value of household debt falls). Credit cards get paid down, mortgages get paid off, and eventually you end up with a large and growing positive net worth. That's what running a 'budget surplus' means , right?

Not so for governments : the US government could run perpetual budget 'surpluses' and still grow government debt without bound – because they do not account for things the way they insist that we serfs account for things there are a bunch of their expenditures that they simply don't count in their 'budget'.

It's a bit like if you were to only count the amount your household spent on groceries , and declare your entire budget to be in 'surplus' or 'deficit' based on whether or not there's change after you do your weekly shopping. Meanwhile, you're spending more than you earn overall, and accumulating debt at an expanding rate.

Runaway debt is what destroys – whether it's families or countries.

There has only been one year since 1960 in which the US Federal Debt has fallen : 1969 .

During the much-touted "Clinton Surpluses", the US Federal Debt rose by almost a quarter- trillion dollars . The first two Bush years had larger surpluses than either of the two Clinton surpluses – but still added $160 billion to the Federal debt.

I know those don't sound like big numbers anymore – much given that Bush added $602 billion per year on average, and Obama added twice Bush 's amount (1.19 trillion per year).

[Oct 10, 2018] Nikki Haley's shock resignation prompts various theories

Oct 10, 2018 | www.rt.com

Immediately after she resigned, Twitter lit up with theories and opinions about the reason, with many suggesting Haley could be the Trump administration official behind a highly critical anonymous op-ed published by the New York Times last month.

[Oct 10, 2018] Freedom fighters of Binomo and other notable quotes

Notable quotes:
"... "It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to see, that I just started yelling at everybody " ..."
"... We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US. ..."
"... As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us. ..."
"... We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be our friend. That's just a fact. ..."
"... "They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is." ..."
"... "weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it." ..."
"... When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare. ..."
"... We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until [President Nicolas] Maduro is gone! ..."
"... If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them. ..."
"... Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just another instrument of international politics. ..."
"... "Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," ..."
"... We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.rt.com

'Mess with Israel – you'll mess with US'

Israel seems to be most upset by Haley's resignation from her UN job, since the envoy for Washington often ended up championing Israeli interests at the world body. Statements like this one perfectly explain Tel Aviv's grief:

"It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to see, that I just started yelling at everybody "

We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"I would like to thank Ambassador @nikkihaley , who led the uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice of our country. Best of luck!" pic.twitter.com/Lr6IvkM5U9

-- PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) October 9, 2018

The US envoy was also never shy to pressure the UN member states into voting the way Washington saw fit. The most notable example of such extortion was the vote on recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital last December.

As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us.

The threats did not work, however, as the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly rejected Washington's unilateral recognition of the disputed city as Israeli capital.

Russia is 'never going to be our friend'

When it came to relations with Moscow, the top US diplomat just wasn't very diplomatic on many occasions, instead choosing to amplify Russophobic rhetoric put forth by Trump's opposition.

We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be our friend. That's just a fact.

"They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is."

FILE PHOTO: Haley laughing with her Russian counterpart at the UN Vassily Nebenzia © Reuters/Lucas Jackson

Haley was fully on board with accusations that Moscow meddled in the 2016 US election, calling them aggression on Russia's part. Election meddling, she said, is Russia's "weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it."

When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare.

'Fight until they're gone'

The ambassador showed no sign of awareness that her comments about interference sounded ironic and hypocritical when placed next to some others she made – regarding places like Venezuela or Syria.

Last month, Haley joined Venezuelan protesters outside the UN headquarters in New York, shouting into the megaphone:

We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until [President Nicolas] Maduro is gone!

Haley takes part in Venezuelans' anti-Maduro protest in New York on September 27, 2018 © AFP/Jim Watson

The US envoy even showed hints of psychic powers, as she tried to downplay Russia's warnings that Western-backed terrorists were preparing a false flag chemical attack in Syria in order to set up Damascus. Gazing straight into the future, she appeared to point her finger at President Bashar Assad's government.

If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them.

In July, the US stunned the international community by withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, and the American ambassador had some strong words to back the move.

Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just another instrument of international politics.

"Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," Haley fumed.

Freedom fighters of Binomo

When dealing with other states, the US envoy tried her best to uphold an image of an expert on international affairs including on those nation that... well, didn't even exist.

In a scandalous YouTube recording made by two Russian pranksters, posing as a high-ranked Polish official, Haley was asked to comment on the aspirations of the nation of Binomo in the South China Sea.

We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea.

She also said that Russia "absolutely" meddled in the country's election as well – a truly extraordinary achievement, given that Binomo was entirely made up.

[Oct 10, 2018] Nikki Haley Trump's Baghdad Bob by Harry J. Kazianis

She should leave directly after Binomo hoax...
Notable quotes:
"... Her biggest problem as UN ambassador was simple: she was totally out of her depth. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Her biggest problem as UN ambassador was simple: she was totally out of her depth. "She was picked for UN Ambassador for one reason," explained a senior GOP political consultant to me, reacting to the news that Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, had just resigned from the Trump administration. "She was supposed to present a feminine, or supposedly softer version of Trump's America First message. Instead she became the administration's national security sledgehammer."

"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."

Perhaps I can come up with a better description of Nikki Haley. She was Donald Trump's very own "Baghdad Bob," the propaganda chief under Saddam Hussein who appeared on TV during the 2003 Iraq invasion and said anything the regime wanted, no matter how inflammatory or wrong. While Haley was never forced to claim anything so preposterous as that Saddam's Republican Guard was winning a war against a superpower, her ability to trump even Trump in crazy talk was a rare talent -- and not a welcome one.

That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the experience and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is not enough to be credible on the world's stage. It would be like asking me to become a plumber: sure, I could figure it out at some point, but I would leave behind quite a few clogged toilets and busted faucets along the way.

Haley left behind some busted faucets, that's for sure. If she did make any sort of major impression, it was thanks to her tough talk on North Korea and Iran. But it was her hard-hitting rhetoric leveled at the Kim regime that stuck out the most. In an almost comical attempt to parrot the words of President Trump, who in early September said at the UN that America "has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," Haley stated in November that "if war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed."

That's just for starters. There were also the clear missteps, when we could see her lack of expertise and preparation at work. In a primetime interview with Fox News nighttime anchor Martha MacCallum, Haley was asked about the 2018 Olympics and whether U.S. athletes would participate. North Korea experts knew this was the question that would have to be asked, and were keen to see what Haley would have to say.

She blew it, big time. The interview, conducted in January, at a time when some thought a war with the Kim regime was still very possible, drove headlines the world over, as Haley said she would not commit to U.S. citizens participating, stating, "there's an open question." MacCallum pounced on Twitter, and rightly so, writing that "Amb. Nikki Haley not certain we should send our athletes to the Olympics. Will depend on NK situation."

Now, to be fair to Haley, the remarks were more qualified than the press made them out to be. Still, they were confusing to say the least, and show that she was not ready for what was an obvious question. In fact, Haley seemed to stumble, adding, "I have not heard anything about that" and "I do know in the talks that we have -- whether it's Jerusalem or North Korea -- it's about, how do we protect the U.S. citizens in the area?"

Nikki Haley: The Bold Scold of the Trump Administration America Forfeits Its Influence at the UN

What? As another Republican put it to me just a day later: "She had no idea what the hell she was talking about."

Haley even scared some very senior diplomats, who wondered exactly what the administration was planning if Washington would not send its citizens or athletes to the Olympics. "Is America getting ready to attack North Korea? Is that where this is headed?" asked a senior diplomat here in Washington minutes after the interview was over.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. President Trump can do far better than Haley.

Harry J. Kazianis ( @grecianformula ) is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm The National Interest. Previously, he led the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage Foundation, and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The views expressed are his own.

[Oct 10, 2018] Report Nikki Haley Is Resigning by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model. ..."
"... Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so much mediocrity? ..."
"... BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice ..."
"... How did this woman move herself from the dignified, elected position of Governor to trump underling and Israeli bull horn? The things we do for greed! ..."
"... Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump. ..."
"... She leaves Turtle Bay with no achievements and the sound of jeering delegate laughter at the General Assembly still ringing in her ears. ..."
"... Out of her depth. Completely. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
NBC News reports that Nikki Haley will be resigning from her position as ambassador to the United Nations:

In an unexpected development, President Donald Trump's U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, plans to resign, NBC News has confirmed.

Haley informed her staff that she plans to resign. The news, first reported by Axios, comes ahead of an announcement she plans to make with President Donald Trump at the White House Tuesday morning.

Haley's tenure as U.N. ambassador was fairly brief and not very successful. The Security Council did approve additional North Korea sanctions during her time there. Otherwise, she was known mostly for ineffectively promoting the administration's Iran obsession , picking fights with most other states over Israel, and calling attention to how isolated the U.S. has become following the withdrawal from the JCPOA. Her last big effort at the U.N. was the Security Council session last month that was originally supposed to focus on criticizing Iran. The administration changed the subject of the meeting to nonproliferation, but that still allowed all of the other members to tout their support for the nuclear deal and criticize U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. If that was meant to be Haley's crowning achievement before she left, it didn't work out very well.

Trump's decision to appoint Haley to this position struck me as odd from the beginning. Haley had no diplomatic or foreign policy experience, and beyond the usual knee-jerk "pro-Israel" reactions she did not have any record of talking or thinking about foreign policy. It is taken for granted that she took the job to build up her credentials on foreign policy, but her stint as ambassador has been so short that I'm not sure that it will do her very much good in future political campaigns. When she was appointed, I said that "this may prove to be a rather fruitless detour for the next few years." Haley's resignation after less than two years in the job suggests that she concluded that there was no point in sticking around any longer.

gus October 9, 2018 at 11:09 am

The speculation I've seen, that after the election Trump fires Sessions, appoints Graham, and Haley gets appointed to Graham's Senate seat, makes a ton of sense. She'll be back, and she'll run for President someday, guaranteed.
G , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am
One theory I've heard is that Nikki Haley was thought to be the top contender for a potential primary challenge to Trump in 2020 (if things didn't go well for the Trump administration). As you previously noted, she was a vocal critic of Donald Trump in the primaries (the President doesn't easily forgive or forget criticism). So she was dumped into the UN as a way to keep her from going rogue. The President doesn't like to see figures in his administration outshining him, so as she began to make a name for herself as being exceptionally tough on Iran, Trump kicked the legs out from under that policy directive and sent her to haplessly defend "non-proliferation".

End result? Two years have passed and Nikki Haley has no real accomplishment to show for it (Sad!), while at the same time by virtue of working within the Trump Administration, she's been effectively silenced for two years in her once-vocal criticism. Trump: 1, Haley 0.

SteveM , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:43 am
The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model.

Of course when that Nitwit Hack transitions to the "private sector" she will be invited to sit on various BoD's to be a potted plant at Board meetings. And she will also live large from the remuneration for just showing up. And don't forget the honorary degrees Nikki will be awarded. It's like the Tin Man getting an honorary "Th.D", (Doctor of Thinkology) from the Wizard of Oz.

Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so much mediocrity?

BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice

rayray , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:52 am
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Although it's unclear to me that anyone associated with the Trump administration will walk away with a leg up to seek higher office.

By virtue of most folks disinterest in foreign policy or the UN Haley may have the advantage over the others in the Trump administration. Getting out early is smart.

As for her lack of competence and knee-jerk Israel supporting bent this may not hurt her in the long run either with a GOP that has proven itself to be on a path of less and less competence, less and less integrity, and (one can only hope) less and less relevance.

PAX , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:47 pm
Well said. She is more the ambassador for Isreal than for America. One can only hope that Trump realizes this and appoints a diplomat with skills and an even keel. Hope he does not have Jared Kushner in mind?
Ninth and Hennepin , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:51 pm
The odd thing about Trump's appointment of Haley was *not* that she had virtually no record of talking or thinking about foreign policy.

It was that, unlike most of Trump's cabinet, she had no record of working to sabotage the very department she was appointed to lead.

Janet , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:12 pm
Wherever she ends up, it'll have to be someplace she can exercise her big mouth and small brain, because that's all she did at the UN.
swb , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:49 pm
It appears that an ethics inquiry into free rides on corporate jets has been requested.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-resign-investigation-flights-free-private-jets-2018-10

Just another day in the Trump administration.

One Guy , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:02 pm
There are stories that she accepted gifts she wasn't supposed to accept (no, not curtains). I think she resigned to head those off, as well as to be available for other positions that might open up (Senator? President?).

Whatever, it's just the latest in an unprecedented amount of people leaving this administration. If Trump only hires the best people, why do those smart people keep leaving him?

Talltale , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:47 pm
How did this woman move herself from the dignified, elected position of Governor to trump underling and Israeli bull horn? The things we do for greed!
One Guy , says: October 9, 2018 at 4:55 pm
Trump claims he knew about her leaving six months ago, but he hasn't lined up a replacement.

Or maybe he can't get anyone to accept the position who isn't an outright joke. Ted Nugent? Sarah Palin? Rudy Giuliani?

Ken T , says: October 9, 2018 at 5:09 pm
With regard to her possible 2020 WH run:

1. Yes, she has the Trump stench on her. But by resigning now she has two years to try to wash it off.

2. To a certain segment of the GOP base, being completely ineffectual at the UN will be seen as a feature, not a bug.

3. She has one huge advantage over some other potential rivals (Flake, for example) in that by not being in the Senate this past week she played no part in the Kavanaugh fiasco. Since she never had to vote on it, she can still try to play it both ways.

Bog Man , says: October 9, 2018 at 5:45 pm
Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump.

Instead, she'll be bankrolled by some rich Zionist creeps, a la Rubio, and turn up again in 2020 or 2024 offering to keep us bogged down in Middle East wars another four years.

belleville , says: October 9, 2018 at 7:03 pm
She leaves Turtle Bay with no achievements and the sound of jeering delegate laughter at the General Assembly still ringing in her ears.

After a year and a few months of failure and eye-rolling from UN colleagues, she knew that all that lay ahead was more of the same.

Out of her depth. Completely.

[Oct 10, 2018] Casualty Lists From the Kavanaugh Battle by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website October 9, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT

Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down: The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right because she is a woman!

I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95 percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.

For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically corrupt politicians in the US.

Realist , says: October 9, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT

So where are we going now?

This country is on a shit slide to hell. No turning back ..to many god damn idiots in this country.

What people in this country better understand is Trump is part of the Deep State and he means harm to all non elites.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT
@utu You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.

I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other "foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's shepherding and fleecing of the people.

Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team Blue.

Puppet show.

Jon Baptist , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:38 pm GMT
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
36 ulster , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
@verylongaccountname

It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.

Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they have not.

prefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.

I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.

The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.

They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet, Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let this happen in America.

They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.

The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be.

Si1ver1ock , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT

@prefer anon I agree. These parties get hijacked by the worst sort. The Neocons are still riding high in the Republican party.
SolontoCroesus , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck

You wanted a fight? You are going to get one and just like the Nazis and confederates we will thrash you

Hold up a sec, pal.

Your lot has painted a target on Russia, claiming Russians collusioned with Trump. Right?

But it was Russians who "thrashed" the Nazis.

Goes without saying you hate the Nazis and extend that epithet to include Germans. Right?

But German mercenaries provided a great deal of the fighting force that "thrashed" the confederates.

Looks like you've made enemies of most of the fighting force you are counting on to thrash the GOP, pal.

Ooops.

Svigor , says: October 9, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
@Ludwig Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will continue.
Realist , says: October 9, 2018 at 7:09 pm GMT
@Jon Baptist

Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling.

Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity 'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either). Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia, China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.

prefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Si1ver1ock @S1ver1ock

They are in the Democrat party too. In fact, their only allegiance is to Israel. The

Neocons are anti-USA – same as the communists in antifa and the mobs of idiots in the Damnedcrat party.

Richard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT
@utu Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an over-estimation.).

This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less than 1% of the population we're talking about.

This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.

Richard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck

Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution that it is

This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and Obama is.

Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense. Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.

Hyperion , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:45 pm GMT
@Realist Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground economically or stayed static no improvement.
SamAdams , says: October 10, 2018 at 2:20 am GMT
@Jon Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left' circus will be We The People.

Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population. The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo jumbo.

Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.

[Oct 10, 2018] Nikki Haley Trump's Baghdad Bob by Harry J. Kazianis

She should leave directly after Binomo hoax...
Notable quotes:
"... Her biggest problem as UN ambassador was simple: she was totally out of her depth. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Her biggest problem as UN ambassador was simple: she was totally out of her depth. "She was picked for UN Ambassador for one reason," explained a senior GOP political consultant to me, reacting to the news that Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, had just resigned from the Trump administration. "She was supposed to present a feminine, or supposedly softer version of Trump's America First message. Instead she became the administration's national security sledgehammer."

"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."

Perhaps I can come up with a better description of Nikki Haley. She was Donald Trump's very own "Baghdad Bob," the propaganda chief under Saddam Hussein who appeared on TV during the 2003 Iraq invasion and said anything the regime wanted, no matter how inflammatory or wrong. While Haley was never forced to claim anything so preposterous as that Saddam's Republican Guard was winning a war against a superpower, her ability to trump even Trump in crazy talk was a rare talent -- and not a welcome one.

That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the experience and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is not enough to be credible on the world's stage. It would be like asking me to become a plumber: sure, I could figure it out at some point, but I would leave behind quite a few clogged toilets and busted faucets along the way.

Haley left behind some busted faucets, that's for sure. If she did make any sort of major impression, it was thanks to her tough talk on North Korea and Iran. But it was her hard-hitting rhetoric leveled at the Kim regime that stuck out the most. In an almost comical attempt to parrot the words of President Trump, who in early September said at the UN that America "has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," Haley stated in November that "if war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed."

That's just for starters. There were also the clear missteps, when we could see her lack of expertise and preparation at work. In a primetime interview with Fox News nighttime anchor Martha MacCallum, Haley was asked about the 2018 Olympics and whether U.S. athletes would participate. North Korea experts knew this was the question that would have to be asked, and were keen to see what Haley would have to say.

She blew it, big time. The interview, conducted in January, at a time when some thought a war with the Kim regime was still very possible, drove headlines the world over, as Haley said she would not commit to U.S. citizens participating, stating, "there's an open question." MacCallum pounced on Twitter, and rightly so, writing that "Amb. Nikki Haley not certain we should send our athletes to the Olympics. Will depend on NK situation."

Now, to be fair to Haley, the remarks were more qualified than the press made them out to be. Still, they were confusing to say the least, and show that she was not ready for what was an obvious question. In fact, Haley seemed to stumble, adding, "I have not heard anything about that" and "I do know in the talks that we have -- whether it's Jerusalem or North Korea -- it's about, how do we protect the U.S. citizens in the area?"

Nikki Haley: The Bold Scold of the Trump Administration America Forfeits Its Influence at the UN

What? As another Republican put it to me just a day later: "She had no idea what the hell she was talking about."

Haley even scared some very senior diplomats, who wondered exactly what the administration was planning if Washington would not send its citizens or athletes to the Olympics. "Is America getting ready to attack North Korea? Is that where this is headed?" asked a senior diplomat here in Washington minutes after the interview was over.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. President Trump can do far better than Haley.

Harry J. Kazianis ( @grecianformula ) is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm The National Interest. Previously, he led the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage Foundation, and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The views expressed are his own.

[Oct 10, 2018] Nikki Haley's shock resignation prompts various theories

Oct 10, 2018 | www.rt.com

Immediately after she resigned, Twitter lit up with theories and opinions about the reason, with many suggesting Haley could be the Trump administration official behind a highly critical anonymous op-ed published by the New York Times last month.

[Oct 10, 2018] Freedom fighters of Binomo and other notable quotes

Notable quotes:
"... "It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to see, that I just started yelling at everybody " ..."
"... We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US. ..."
"... As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us. ..."
"... We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be our friend. That's just a fact. ..."
"... "They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is." ..."
"... "weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it." ..."
"... When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare. ..."
"... We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until [President Nicolas] Maduro is gone! ..."
"... If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them. ..."
"... Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just another instrument of international politics. ..."
"... "Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," ..."
"... We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.rt.com

'Mess with Israel – you'll mess with US'

Israel seems to be most upset by Haley's resignation from her UN job, since the envoy for Washington often ended up championing Israeli interests at the world body. Statements like this one perfectly explain Tel Aviv's grief:

"It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to see, that I just started yelling at everybody "

We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"I would like to thank Ambassador @nikkihaley , who led the uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice of our country. Best of luck!" pic.twitter.com/Lr6IvkM5U9

-- PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) October 9, 2018

The US envoy was also never shy to pressure the UN member states into voting the way Washington saw fit. The most notable example of such extortion was the vote on recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital last December.

As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us.

The threats did not work, however, as the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly rejected Washington's unilateral recognition of the disputed city as Israeli capital.

Russia is 'never going to be our friend'

When it came to relations with Moscow, the top US diplomat just wasn't very diplomatic on many occasions, instead choosing to amplify Russophobic rhetoric put forth by Trump's opposition.

We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be our friend. That's just a fact.

"They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is."

FILE PHOTO: Haley laughing with her Russian counterpart at the UN Vassily Nebenzia © Reuters/Lucas Jackson

Haley was fully on board with accusations that Moscow meddled in the 2016 US election, calling them aggression on Russia's part. Election meddling, she said, is Russia's "weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it."

When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare.

'Fight until they're gone'

The ambassador showed no sign of awareness that her comments about interference sounded ironic and hypocritical when placed next to some others she made – regarding places like Venezuela or Syria.

Last month, Haley joined Venezuelan protesters outside the UN headquarters in New York, shouting into the megaphone:

We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until [President Nicolas] Maduro is gone!

Haley takes part in Venezuelans' anti-Maduro protest in New York on September 27, 2018 © AFP/Jim Watson

The US envoy even showed hints of psychic powers, as she tried to downplay Russia's warnings that Western-backed terrorists were preparing a false flag chemical attack in Syria in order to set up Damascus. Gazing straight into the future, she appeared to point her finger at President Bashar Assad's government.

If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them.

In July, the US stunned the international community by withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, and the American ambassador had some strong words to back the move.

Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just another instrument of international politics.

"Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," Haley fumed.

Freedom fighters of Binomo

When dealing with other states, the US envoy tried her best to uphold an image of an expert on international affairs including on those nation that... well, didn't even exist.

In a scandalous YouTube recording made by two Russian pranksters, posing as a high-ranked Polish official, Haley was asked to comment on the aspirations of the nation of Binomo in the South China Sea.

We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea.

She also said that Russia "absolutely" meddled in the country's election as well – a truly extraordinary achievement, given that Binomo was entirely made up.

[Oct 10, 2018] Report Nikki Haley Is Resigning by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model. ..."
"... Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so much mediocrity? ..."
"... BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice ..."
"... How did this woman move herself from the dignified, elected position of Governor to trump underling and Israeli bull horn? The things we do for greed! ..."
"... Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump. ..."
"... She leaves Turtle Bay with no achievements and the sound of jeering delegate laughter at the General Assembly still ringing in her ears. ..."
"... Out of her depth. Completely. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
NBC News reports that Nikki Haley will be resigning from her position as ambassador to the United Nations:

In an unexpected development, President Donald Trump's U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, plans to resign, NBC News has confirmed.

Haley informed her staff that she plans to resign. The news, first reported by Axios, comes ahead of an announcement she plans to make with President Donald Trump at the White House Tuesday morning.

Haley's tenure as U.N. ambassador was fairly brief and not very successful. The Security Council did approve additional North Korea sanctions during her time there. Otherwise, she was known mostly for ineffectively promoting the administration's Iran obsession , picking fights with most other states over Israel, and calling attention to how isolated the U.S. has become following the withdrawal from the JCPOA. Her last big effort at the U.N. was the Security Council session last month that was originally supposed to focus on criticizing Iran. The administration changed the subject of the meeting to nonproliferation, but that still allowed all of the other members to tout their support for the nuclear deal and criticize U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. If that was meant to be Haley's crowning achievement before she left, it didn't work out very well.

Trump's decision to appoint Haley to this position struck me as odd from the beginning. Haley had no diplomatic or foreign policy experience, and beyond the usual knee-jerk "pro-Israel" reactions she did not have any record of talking or thinking about foreign policy. It is taken for granted that she took the job to build up her credentials on foreign policy, but her stint as ambassador has been so short that I'm not sure that it will do her very much good in future political campaigns. When she was appointed, I said that "this may prove to be a rather fruitless detour for the next few years." Haley's resignation after less than two years in the job suggests that she concluded that there was no point in sticking around any longer.

gus October 9, 2018 at 11:09 am

The speculation I've seen, that after the election Trump fires Sessions, appoints Graham, and Haley gets appointed to Graham's Senate seat, makes a ton of sense. She'll be back, and she'll run for President someday, guaranteed.
G , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:26 am
One theory I've heard is that Nikki Haley was thought to be the top contender for a potential primary challenge to Trump in 2020 (if things didn't go well for the Trump administration). As you previously noted, she was a vocal critic of Donald Trump in the primaries (the President doesn't easily forgive or forget criticism). So she was dumped into the UN as a way to keep her from going rogue. The President doesn't like to see figures in his administration outshining him, so as she began to make a name for herself as being exceptionally tough on Iran, Trump kicked the legs out from under that policy directive and sent her to haplessly defend "non-proliferation".

End result? Two years have passed and Nikki Haley has no real accomplishment to show for it (Sad!), while at the same time by virtue of working within the Trump Administration, she's been effectively silenced for two years in her once-vocal criticism. Trump: 1, Haley 0.

SteveM , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:43 am
The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model.

Of course when that Nitwit Hack transitions to the "private sector" she will be invited to sit on various BoD's to be a potted plant at Board meetings. And she will also live large from the remuneration for just showing up. And don't forget the honorary degrees Nikki will be awarded. It's like the Tin Man getting an honorary "Th.D", (Doctor of Thinkology) from the Wizard of Oz.

Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so much mediocrity?

BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice

rayray , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:52 am
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Although it's unclear to me that anyone associated with the Trump administration will walk away with a leg up to seek higher office.

By virtue of most folks disinterest in foreign policy or the UN Haley may have the advantage over the others in the Trump administration. Getting out early is smart.

As for her lack of competence and knee-jerk Israel supporting bent this may not hurt her in the long run either with a GOP that has proven itself to be on a path of less and less competence, less and less integrity, and (one can only hope) less and less relevance.

PAX , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:47 pm
Well said. She is more the ambassador for Isreal than for America. One can only hope that Trump realizes this and appoints a diplomat with skills and an even keel. Hope he does not have Jared Kushner in mind?
Ninth and Hennepin , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:51 pm
The odd thing about Trump's appointment of Haley was *not* that she had virtually no record of talking or thinking about foreign policy.

It was that, unlike most of Trump's cabinet, she had no record of working to sabotage the very department she was appointed to lead.

Janet , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:12 pm
Wherever she ends up, it'll have to be someplace she can exercise her big mouth and small brain, because that's all she did at the UN.
swb , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:49 pm
It appears that an ethics inquiry into free rides on corporate jets has been requested.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-resign-investigation-flights-free-private-jets-2018-10

Just another day in the Trump administration.

One Guy , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:02 pm
There are stories that she accepted gifts she wasn't supposed to accept (no, not curtains). I think she resigned to head those off, as well as to be available for other positions that might open up (Senator? President?).

Whatever, it's just the latest in an unprecedented amount of people leaving this administration. If Trump only hires the best people, why do those smart people keep leaving him?

Talltale , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:47 pm
How did this woman move herself from the dignified, elected position of Governor to trump underling and Israeli bull horn? The things we do for greed!
One Guy , says: October 9, 2018 at 4:55 pm
Trump claims he knew about her leaving six months ago, but he hasn't lined up a replacement.

Or maybe he can't get anyone to accept the position who isn't an outright joke. Ted Nugent? Sarah Palin? Rudy Giuliani?

Ken T , says: October 9, 2018 at 5:09 pm
With regard to her possible 2020 WH run:

1. Yes, she has the Trump stench on her. But by resigning now she has two years to try to wash it off.

2. To a certain segment of the GOP base, being completely ineffectual at the UN will be seen as a feature, not a bug.

3. She has one huge advantage over some other potential rivals (Flake, for example) in that by not being in the Senate this past week she played no part in the Kavanaugh fiasco. Since she never had to vote on it, she can still try to play it both ways.

Bog Man , says: October 9, 2018 at 5:45 pm
Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump.

Instead, she'll be bankrolled by some rich Zionist creeps, a la Rubio, and turn up again in 2020 or 2024 offering to keep us bogged down in Middle East wars another four years.

belleville , says: October 9, 2018 at 7:03 pm
She leaves Turtle Bay with no achievements and the sound of jeering delegate laughter at the General Assembly still ringing in her ears.

After a year and a few months of failure and eye-rolling from UN colleagues, she knew that all that lay ahead was more of the same.

Out of her depth. Completely.

[Oct 10, 2018] The Lies of our (Financial) Times by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... The leading financial publications have misled their political and investor subscribers of emerging crises and military defeats which have precipitated catastrophic political and economic losses. ..."
"... Financial Times (FT) ..."
"... In this essay we will proceed by outlining the larger political context that sets the framework for the transformation of the FT ..."
"... The language of the FT ..."
"... The unanimity of the liberal and rightwing publications in support of western imperialism precluded any understanding of the enormous political and economic costs which ensued. ..."
"... When it became evident that US-NATO wars did not lead to happy endings but turned into prolonged insurgencies, or when western clients turned into corrupt tyrants, the FT ..."
"... The militarization of the FT ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
Oct 03, 2018 | www.unz.com
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

Introduction

The leading financial publications have misled their political and investor subscribers of emerging crises and military defeats which have precipitated catastrophic political and economic losses.

The most egregious example is the Financial Times (FT) a publication which is widely read by the business and financial elite.

In this essay we will proceed by outlining the larger political context that sets the framework for the transformation of the FT from a relatively objective purveyor of world news into a propagator of wars and failed economic policies.

In part two we will discuss several case studies which illustrate the dramatic shifts from a prudent business publication to a rabid military advocate, from a well-researched analyst of economic policies to an ideologue of the worst speculative investors.

The decay of the quality of its reportage is accompanied by the bastardization of language. Concepts are distorted; meanings are emptied of their cognitive sense; and vitriol covers crimes and misdemeanors.

We will conclude by discussing how and why the 'respectable' media have affected real world political and market outcomes for citizens and investors.

Political and Economic Context

The decay of the FT cannot be separated from the global political and economic transformations in which it publishes and circulates. The demise of the Soviet Union, the pillage of Russia's economy throughout the 1990's and the US declaration of a unipolar world were celebrated by the FT as great success stories for 'western values'. The US and EU annexation of Eastern Europe, the Balkan and Baltic states led to the deep corruption and decay of journalistic narratives.

The FT willing embraced every violation of the Gorbachev-Reagan agreements and NATO's march to the borders of Russia. The militarization of US foreign policy was accompanied by the FT conversion to a military interpreter of what it dubbed the 'transition to democratization'.

The language of the FT reportage combined democratic rhetoric with an embrace of military practices. This became the hallmark for all future coverage and editorializing. The FT military policies extended from Europe to the Middle East, the Caucasus, North Africa and the Gulf States.

The FT joined the yellow press in describing military power grabs, including the overthrow of political adversaries, as 'transitions to democracy' and the creation of 'open societies'.

The unanimity of the liberal and rightwing publications in support of western imperialism precluded any understanding of the enormous political and economic costs which ensued.

To protect itself from its most egregious ideological foibles, the FT included 'insurance clauses', to cover for catastrophic authoritarian outcomes. For example they advised western political leaders to promote military interventions and, by the way ,with 'democratic transitions'.

When it became evident that US-NATO wars did not lead to happy endings but turned into prolonged insurgencies, or when western clients turned into corrupt tyrants, the FT claimed that this was not what they meant by a 'democratic transition' – this was not their version of "free markets and free votes".

The Financial and Military Times (?)

The militarization of the FT led it to embrace a military definition of political reality. The human and especially the economic costs, the lost markets, investments and resources were subordinated to the military outcomes of 'wars against terrorism' and 'Russian authoritarianism'.

Each and every Financial Times report and editorial promoting western military interventions over the past two decades resulted in large scale, long-term economic losses.

The FT supported the US war against Iraq which led to the ending of important billion-dollar oil deals (oil for food) signed off with President Saddam Hussein. The subsequent US occupation precluded a subsequent revival of the oil industry. The US appointed client regime pillaged the multi-billion dollar reconstruction programs – costing US and EU taxpayers and depriving Iraqis of basic necessities.

Insurgent militias, including ISIS, gained control over half the country and precluded the entry of any new investment.

The US and FT backed western client regimes organized rigged election outcomes and looted the treasury of oil revenues, arousing the wrath of the population lacking electricity, potable water and other necessities.

The FT backed war, occupation and control of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster.

Similar outcomes resulted from the FT support for the invasions of Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

For example the FT propagated the story that the Taliban was providing sanctuary for bin Laden's planning the terror assault in the US (9/11).

In fact, the Afghan leaders offered to turn over the US suspect, if they were offered evidence. Washington rejected the offer, invaded Kabul and the FT joined the chorus backing the so-called 'war on terrorism which led to an unending, one trillion-dollar war.

Libya signed off to a disarmament and multi-billion-dollar oil agreement with the US in 2003. In 2011 the US and its western allies bombed Libya, murdered Gadhafi, totally destroyed civil society and undermined the US/EU oil agreements. The FT backed the war but decried the outcome. The FT followed a familiar ploy; promoting military invasions and then, after the fact, criticizing the economic disasters.

The FT led the media charge in favor of the western proxy war against Syria: savaging the legitimate government and praising the mercenary terrorists, which it dubbed 'rebels' and 'militants' – dubious terms for US and EU financed operatives.

Millions of refugees, resulting from western wars in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq fled to Europe seeking refuge. FT described the imperial holocaust – the 'dilemmas of Europe'. The FT bemoaned the rise of the anti-immigrant parties but never assumed responsibility for the wars which forced the millions to flee to the west.

The FT columnists prattle about 'western values' and criticize the 'far right' but abjured any sustained attack of Israel's daily massacre of Palestinians. Instead readers get a dose of weekly puff pieces concerning Israeli politics with nary a mention of Zionist power over US foreign policy.

FT: Sanctions, Plots and Crises: Russia, China and Iran

The FT like all the prestigious media propaganda sheets have taken a leading role in US conflicts with Russia, China and Iran.

For years the scribes in the FT stable have discovered (or invented) "crises" in China's economy- always claiming it was on the verge of an economic doomsday. Contrary to the FT, China has been growing at four times the rate of the US; ignoring the critics it built a global infrastructure system instead of the multi-wars backed by the journalist war mongers.

When China innovates, the FT harps on techno theft – ignoring US economic decline.

The FT boasts it writes "without fear and without favor" which translates into serving imperial powers voluntarily.

When the US sanctions China we are told by the FT that Washington is correcting China's abusive statist policies. Because China does not impose military outposts to match the eight hundred US military bases on five continents, the FT invents what it calls 'debt colonialism" apparently describing Beijing's financing large-scale productive infrastructure projects.

The perverse logic of the FT extends to Russia. To cover up for the US financed coup in the Ukraine it converted a separatist movement in Donbass into a Russian land grab. In the same way a free election in Crimea is described as Kremlin annexation.

The FT provides the language of the declining western imperial empires.

Independent, democratic Russia, free of western pillage and electoral meddling is labelled "authoritarian"; social welfare which serves to decrease inequality is denigrated as 'populism' -- linked to the far right. Without evidence or independent verification, the FT fabricates Putinesque poison plots in England and Bashar Assad poison gas conspiracies in Syria.

Conclusion

The FT has chosen to adopt a military line which has led to a long series of financially disastrous wars. The FT support of sanctions has cost oil companies billions of dollars, euros and pounds. The sanctions, it backed, have broken global networks.

The FT has adopted ideological postures that threaten supply chains between the West, China, Iran and Russia. The FT writes in many tongues but it has failed to inform its financial readers that it bears some responsibility for markets which are under siege.

There is unquestionably a need to overhaul the name and purpose of the FT. One journalist who was close to the editors suggests it should be called the "Military Times" – the voice of a declining empire.

Walter Duranty , says: October 5, 2018 at 6:03 pm GMT

War is a proven money maker. Obscene profits are to be made which outshine the death and destruction.
Carlton Meyer , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
I read the weekly British "Economist" for years, which is a well known international news magazine. It has good stories and insight, but they are always pro-war and pro-empire, and in recent years push open borders. I tired of supporting this propaganda and canceled by subscription four years ago.

Unz.com and Antiwar.com are better, and free!

dearieme , says: October 6, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT
We used to take the FT on a Saturday. We gave it up not on the grounds of its politics – we hardly glanced at that sort of pish anyway – but because of the decline in the standard of its Arts coverage. That was so sudden that I imagine that it corresponded to a change in the editor of the section.

Otherwise – well what do you expect? I no longer watch the TV news or listen to the radio. We haven't taken the local rag for years. We take a national morning paper during the week only on my wife's insistence. We've given up the magazines we've taken in the past, including the Economist. The last magazine we took – second-hand, as it happens – was Quadrant, an Aussie publication. It was rather good. We stopped it only because our supply dried up.

Craig Nelsen , says: Website October 7, 2018 at 1:57 am GMT
I know this is going to sound crazy, but that sounds just like the track record for the New York Times . Come to think of it, the Washington Post as well. Wow, what are the odds? Sounds like collusion.
kiers , says: October 7, 2018 at 3:30 am GMT
You can not
hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God!
the British Journalist,
but seeing what the man will do
Unbribed,
there's no reason to.
tiny Tim , says: October 7, 2018 at 10:13 am GMT
It would be of interest to see who owns FP and the Economist, I would expect Jewish.
lulu , says: October 7, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
@Walter Duranty

War is a proven money maker.

Spot on! Tha's why every entity (media, academia, mic, banks, etc. ) would bend over to money.

lulu , says: October 7, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@tiny Tim FT is now owned by Japanese media group Nikkei Inc. , which bought Financial Times from Pearson for £844m ($1.32 billion). Take a look of current Editor Lionel Barber cv:

Lionel Barber, 52, is the editor of the Financial Times. He has lived in Washington, Brussels, London and New York during his 20-year career at the publication, covering the end of the Cold War, the first Gulf War and several US presidential campaigns. He also briefed George W Bush ahead of his first visit to Europe as president.

He surely belongs to the insider club: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/lionel-barber-my-life-in-media-768671.html .

Econimst, according to wiki:

Peason PLC held a 50% shareholding via The Financial Times Limited until August 2015; at that time Pearson sold their share in the Economist. The Agnelli family's Exor paid £287m to raise their stake from 4.7% to 43.4% , while the Economist paid £182m for the balance of 5.04m shares which will be distributed to current shareholders. Aside from the Agnelli family, smaller shareholders in the company include Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Layton and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.

[Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies

Highly recommended!
Oct 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

It's been 24-48 hours since the 'deep state'-media lost their battle over Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation, so it makes sense that the narrative should quickly flip to something else to throw shade on President Trump. The New York Times stepped up to the plate with a story that had everything needed for the next news cycle - a Trump campaign staff member involved in collusion with a third party that is linked to a foreign government... oh and meeting at Trump Tower.

There's just one thing (well three): the 'colluding' nation is allegedly Israel (not Russia), the plans were not acted upon, and lawyers claim none of this actually happened.

The NYT Story begins with a great Deep State headline - Rick Gates Sought Online Manipulation Plans From Israeli Intelligence Firm for Trump Campaign

How can you not be intrigued?

The report is simple in its claims, as Daily Caller's Chuck Ross summarizes - a former aide to the Trump campaign, requested proposals from an Israeli intelligence firm to target Hillary Clinton and to use fake online personas to influence GOP delegates toward Donald Trump.

The New York Times reports that Rick Gates, the campaign's deputy chairman, met in March 2016 with an Israeli political operative who later contacted Psy-Group, an intelligence firm operated by former Israeli spies.

Mr. Gates first heard about Psy-Group's work during a March 2016 meeting at the Mandarin Oriental hotel along the Washington waterfront with George Birnbaum, a Republican consultant with close ties to current and former Israeli government officials.

According to Mr. Birnbaum, Mr. Gates expressed interest during that meeting in using social media influence and manipulation as a campaign tool , most immediately to try to sway Republican delegates toward Mr. Trump.

"He was interested in finding the technology to achieve what they were looking for," Mr. Birnbaum said in an interview. Through a lawyer, Mr. Gates declined to comment. A person familiar with Mr. Gates's account of the meeting said that Mr. Birnbaum first raised the topic of hiring an outside firm to conduct the social media campaign .

All of which seems a little different from the headline's claim that Gates "sought online manipulation plans," especially since later in the stroy, NYT admits that Birnbaum initiated the meeting...

Mr. Birnbaum appeared to initiate the contact with Mr. Gates, asking for his email address from Eckart Sager, a political consultant who had worked with both men, to pitch Mr. Gates on a technology that could be used by Mr. Gates's and Mr. Manafort's clients in Eastern Europe.

NYT then claims that the Trump campaign's interest in the work began as Russians were escalating their effort to aid Donald J. Trump, which is odd since there is no evidence that that took place at all (or did we miss something in Mr. Mueller's probe?)

Five paragraphs deep, NYT sheepishly admits that there is no evidence that the Trump campaign acted on the proposals, and Mr. Gates ultimately was uninterested in Psy-Group's work , a person with knowledge of the discussions said

In addition to that, twelve paragraphs in, NYT admits :

"It is unclear whether the Project Rome proposals describe work that would violate laws regulating foreign participation in American elections. "

However, to ensure there is more intrigue, NYT reports that, although it appears that Trump campaign officials declined to accept any of the proposals, Mr. Zamel pitched the company's services in at least general terms during a meeting on Aug. 3, 2016, at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr.

Which NYT then admits, Zamel's lawyer Marc Mukasey denies:

"Mr. Zamel never pitched, or otherwise discussed, any of Psy-Group's proposals relating to the U.S. elections with anyone related to the Trump campaign, including not with Donald Trump Jr., except for outlining the capabilities of some of his companies in general terms."

So... to summarize - an intermediary approached a Trump campaign staff member offering potential opposition research and social media strategy... the intermediary reached out to a company known for its ex-Mossad members who sent three proposals to Gates... who turned them all down...

[Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies

Highly recommended!
Oct 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

It's been 24-48 hours since the 'deep state'-media lost their battle over Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation, so it makes sense that the narrative should quickly flip to something else to throw shade on President Trump. The New York Times stepped up to the plate with a story that had everything needed for the next news cycle - a Trump campaign staff member involved in collusion with a third party that is linked to a foreign government... oh and meeting at Trump Tower.

There's just one thing (well three): the 'colluding' nation is allegedly Israel (not Russia), the plans were not acted upon, and lawyers claim none of this actually happened.

The NYT Story begins with a great Deep State headline - Rick Gates Sought Online Manipulation Plans From Israeli Intelligence Firm for Trump Campaign

How can you not be intrigued?

The report is simple in its claims, as Daily Caller's Chuck Ross summarizes - a former aide to the Trump campaign, requested proposals from an Israeli intelligence firm to target Hillary Clinton and to use fake online personas to influence GOP delegates toward Donald Trump.

The New York Times reports that Rick Gates, the campaign's deputy chairman, met in March 2016 with an Israeli political operative who later contacted Psy-Group, an intelligence firm operated by former Israeli spies.

Mr. Gates first heard about Psy-Group's work during a March 2016 meeting at the Mandarin Oriental hotel along the Washington waterfront with George Birnbaum, a Republican consultant with close ties to current and former Israeli government officials.

According to Mr. Birnbaum, Mr. Gates expressed interest during that meeting in using social media influence and manipulation as a campaign tool , most immediately to try to sway Republican delegates toward Mr. Trump.

"He was interested in finding the technology to achieve what they were looking for," Mr. Birnbaum said in an interview. Through a lawyer, Mr. Gates declined to comment. A person familiar with Mr. Gates's account of the meeting said that Mr. Birnbaum first raised the topic of hiring an outside firm to conduct the social media campaign .

All of which seems a little different from the headline's claim that Gates "sought online manipulation plans," especially since later in the stroy, NYT admits that Birnbaum initiated the meeting...

Mr. Birnbaum appeared to initiate the contact with Mr. Gates, asking for his email address from Eckart Sager, a political consultant who had worked with both men, to pitch Mr. Gates on a technology that could be used by Mr. Gates's and Mr. Manafort's clients in Eastern Europe.

NYT then claims that the Trump campaign's interest in the work began as Russians were escalating their effort to aid Donald J. Trump, which is odd since there is no evidence that that took place at all (or did we miss something in Mr. Mueller's probe?)

Five paragraphs deep, NYT sheepishly admits that there is no evidence that the Trump campaign acted on the proposals, and Mr. Gates ultimately was uninterested in Psy-Group's work , a person with knowledge of the discussions said

In addition to that, twelve paragraphs in, NYT admits :

"It is unclear whether the Project Rome proposals describe work that would violate laws regulating foreign participation in American elections. "

However, to ensure there is more intrigue, NYT reports that, although it appears that Trump campaign officials declined to accept any of the proposals, Mr. Zamel pitched the company's services in at least general terms during a meeting on Aug. 3, 2016, at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr.

Which NYT then admits, Zamel's lawyer Marc Mukasey denies:

"Mr. Zamel never pitched, or otherwise discussed, any of Psy-Group's proposals relating to the U.S. elections with anyone related to the Trump campaign, including not with Donald Trump Jr., except for outlining the capabilities of some of his companies in general terms."

So... to summarize - an intermediary approached a Trump campaign staff member offering potential opposition research and social media strategy... the intermediary reached out to a company known for its ex-Mossad members who sent three proposals to Gates... who turned them all down...

[Oct 09, 2018] US Russia Sanctions Are 'A Colossal Strategic Mistake', Putin Warns

Oct 09, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical" mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes that don't bow to its whims.

"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin said.

"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."

These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions and violate WTO rules.

... ... ...

With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.

In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter US tariffs and sanctions.

"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."

[Oct 09, 2018] Why the US empire now after several years of desprate pressure of oil prices down is now content with the possibility of dramatic increase in oil prices ?

Oct 09, 2018 | thesaker.is

Outlaw Historian on October 03, 2018 , · at 2:27 pm EST/EDT

You would have to wonder why Putin opened with the following remarks if you were ignorant of the global situation:

"You came here to hold an open and trust based discussion on the issues of the global energy agenda .

"We believe that progress in global energy, as well as the stable energy security of our entire planet, can only be achieved through global partnership, working in accordance with general rules that are the same for everyone, and, of course, through conducting transparent and constructive dialogue among market players which is not politically motivated but is based on pragmatic considerations and an understanding of shared responsibilities and mutual interests." [My Emphasis]

His characterization of Skripal came during the Q&A, and there are likely more gems to be had from that session.

Meanwhile, the Outlaw US Empire has unilaterally withdrawn from a 1955 Treaty with Iran in order to try and avoid today's judgement of the International Court of Justice, https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201810031068561238-us-missions-iraq-threat-iran-pompeo/ and from the optional protocol on disputes to the Vienna convention, https://sputniknews.com/world/201810031068565352-vienna-convention-option-protocol-us-withdrawal/

Waging Illegal Aggressive War, Illegal sanctions, Violations of UNSC Resolutions, Breaking of Contracts, and Ongoing violation of the UN Charter and US Constitution since 1945 are just a few of the reasons why it must be called the Outlaw US Empire as no other term properly describes it. 80 years ago, appeasement didn't work, and it's clear it doesn't work today either. Together the world's nations must bring the Outlaw US Empire to heel and make it obey the Rule of Law and abandon its unilateral Rule of the Gun.

Anonymous on October 03, 2018 , · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT
Ah, there it is. The reason behind this strange week, the dots that few will connect.

Putin speaking at a conference about "sustainable energy in a changing world."

Right there, two phrases that are certain to set off Exxon corp and their puppets in the political theater. Say "sustainable energy" around an oil giant and watch them shudder. The, mention "changing world" to any of that class and they have nightmares about their children having to learn Chinese. Put them all together in one title of a conference at which Putin himself is speaking and well, now we know why the Shakespearian chorus of Exxon's oil industry bit players like former Texas Governor Rich "the hair" Perry and former Texas Senator Hutchinson are suddenly frothing at the bit about the Park Rangers mounting a naval blockade of Russia (see Yogi Bear for how that's likely to turn out, hey booboo?) and nuclear first strikes on Russia.

Putin, Sustainable Energy, Changing world .. enough to send some senior executive geezers at Exxon grabbing for their nitro pills and speed dialing their cardiologists.

Dr. NG Maroudas on October 04, 2018 , · at 5:49 am EST/EDT
For those who like to call Russia "a gas station masquerading as a country" here is Putin's note on ecology:

"A separate ambitious task for the future is the development of renewable energy sources, especially in remote, difficult-to-access areas of this country, such as Eastern Siberia, and the Far East. This is opening a great opportunity for our vast country, the world's largest country with its diverse natural and climatic conditions.

Friends, in conclusion I would like to tell you the following: sustainable and steady development of the energy industry is a key condition for dynamic growth of the world economy, enhancing living standards and improving the wellbeing of all people on our planet.

Russia is open to cooperation in the energy industry in the interests of global energy security and for the benefit of the future generations. And we certainly rely on active dialogue on these subjects and cooperation.

Thank you for your attention". -- President Putin

milan on October 05, 2018 , · at 9:30 pm EST/EDT
Nothing is going to save us from our energy problems, nothing and especially not renewables.

Spend some time reading and studying Gail Tverberg's material and one will quickly see we are heading for a financial catastrophe because of affordability issues. On the one hand there isn't enough money to pay for extraction of oil and gas and on the other the consumer is strapped because of high pump prices etc. But like she herself says if only the wages of non elite workers could rise high enough to help pay for the increased costs then likely we wouldn't have a problem. That though is clearly not happening.

I am deeply afraid we are going to wake up to a world very different from the one we went to sleep in. Just this one article alone expresses the grave situation the world is in:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-15/truckers-asleep-at-the-wheel-as-diesel-price-shock-creeps-closer

Every time Chuck Paar makes the over 500-mile round trip from his home in Mt. Jewett, Pennsylvania, to Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, his 18-wheel tractor trailer carries 25 tons of sand or cement and burns about $265 of diesel in one day. That's up from as little as $166 for the same route two years ago, and the increased cost of fuel is squeezing already thin industry profit margins.

It's about to get worse.

[Oct 09, 2018] During the attack on Serbia, US flew more than 90% of NATO missions and it managed to destroy three missile batteries and one radar station (using HARM)

Notable quotes:
"... Thanks to media, to this day very few people in the West know that towards the end of the 78-day war, US and UK deliberately targeted several completely civilian facilities (bridges, hospitals and schools) and in just a few days of such targeting killed about 200 civilians. ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Kiza says: October 7, 2018 at 7:50 am GMT 500 Words @Quartermaster I am not going to insult you personally, but as a cheap paid troll you have absolutely no clue about the subject you are typing about for your Israeli masters. FB has not explained everything perfectly but what he wrote is correct. It is not true that an airforce would target radar installations only with HARM missiles, which all NATO countries and Israel have, but in practice HARM are the only missiles to reliably target mobile air defence. During the attack on Serbia, US flew more than 90% of NATO missions and it managed to destroy three missile batteries and one radar station (using HARM). But the mobility of the Serbian immobile air defences had two major effects:
1) Unlike Iraq, Serbia let NATO bomb targets without always switching on its air defences to be detected and destroyed; this grossly reduced NATOs air effectiveness because with every bomber they had to constantly send at least one support plane with jammers, HARMs etc. NATO tried to claim a virtue out of this by saying that they were soft on Serbia and will get tougher, but in reality their military attack was becoming difficult to manage, expensive and risky (the NATO unity was beginning to fray).
2) It was a running joke in Serbia how NATO planes would attack some completely empty hill (Serbia is a relatively hilly country), create literally free fireworks for the villagers, just because there was an air defense installation on the hill maybe 5-10 hours ago. A similar joke was how the Serbian military or even the local villagers would spread a strip of black builders plastic over a river and NATO planes flying at above 5 km to avoid manpads would blast this $2 bridge with $200,000 worth of bombs (adding mission cost to the cost of bombs).

Regarding US F117, it was more "stealth" than F35 and similar stealth to the smaller F22, but the Serbians used the Checkoslovakian TAMARA passive radar, using ionospheric scatter, and also launched multiple operator guided missiles at F117 without a proper engagement radar to be HARMed. Self-confident in stealth the pilots of F117 did not manoeuvre, thus it was easy to predict their path even without the targeting and engagement radar.

Forcing US to retire F117 was the second costliest damage the Serbians have done (Lockheed did not cry, through their lobbyists they turned the loss into an opportunity to sell more rubbish). But the biggest cost to US was that Milosevic sold several unexploded cruise missiles and all F117 parts to China and used the money to rebuild and repair all civilian buildings in Serbia destroyed by NATO. Later, UK and US did a colour revolution in Serbia, got their hands on Milosevic, who then died from a health "accident" in NATO jail.

Kiza , says: October 7, 2018 at 8:16 am GMT

@Cyrano You are spot-on. The Serbian military fought NATO to a draw, proven by the fact that the peace treaty signed in Kumanovo in FYRM, did not contain the Rambouye clauses and even left Kosovo under Serbian jurisdiction as per UNSC 1244.

Even this military draw was forced on Serbia by increased bombardment of civilian targets in Serbia combined with open threats of carpet bombing by US B57. Serbia is a fairly densely populated country, no jungles to hide in as in Vietnam. The civilian targets were bombed to show that they could do carpet bombing with impunity (with the help of MSM). Thanks to media, to this day very few people in the West know that towards the end of the 78-day war, US and UK deliberately targeted several completely civilian facilities (bridges, hospitals and schools) and in just a few days of such targeting killed about 200 civilians.

Naturally, any agreements with the West are totally pointless. After the Kumanovo agreement, US and UK organized a color revolution in Serbia, took Kosovo away and got their Serbian puppets to agree to all Rambouye demands. Serbia did not lose the war, but it lost the agreement peace with the West.

FB , says: October 8, 2018 at 5:03 pm GMT
@Kiza

' to my knowledge the Serbians did not use a radiating radar to shoot-down one/two F117. They used a passive radar, which does not emit at all, it only receives a rough and noisy location of the stealth plane '

This is complete nonsense once again you choose to pontificate on things in which you have no knowledge

In your earlier comment, you identified this 'passive radar' allegedly used by the Serbs as the Czech 'Tamara' system which the Serbs did not possess

Not only that but this kind of system is not used for guiding SAM shots, and is certainly not any kind of 'anti-stealth' weapon this category of device is known as an emitter locator system [ELS], and is used to listen in on radio emissions from hostile aircraft and to then track them, by means of a number of geometrically deployed antennas that can then triangulate the bearing and direction of the aircraft

However, the basic physics involved means that these emitter locators are effective at tracking signals OTHER THAN the aircraft's onboard radar this would include the IFF [identification friend or foe transponder signal] and other onboard radio emitters which are OMNIDIRECTIONAL emitters

An aircraft radar's narrow pencil beam could not reach multiple [at least 2] ELS antenna [which would be geographically dispersed] to provide the needed triangulation

Once again Dr Carlo Kopp provides an excellent technical overview of ELS systems here

' A topic which appears to crop up with monotonous regularity [is] Warsaw Pact equipment "capable of detecting stealth aircraft".

These claims invariably involve either the Czech designed and built Tesla-Pardubice KRTP-86 Tamara or ERA Vera Emitter Locating Systems, or the Ukrainian designed and built Topaz Kolchuga series of Emitter Locating Systems.

More than often this equipment is described as 'anti-stealth radar', 'radar' or 'passive radar', all of which are completely incorrect.

Much of everything else you have farted out here regarding the Serb takedown of the F117 is similar bullshit

The 3′rd battery of the 250′th Air Defense missile Brigade, commanded by then Lt Col Zoltan Dani killed both F117s [the second one made it back to Aviano, Italy but was scrapped, as USAF Col Riccioni confirms in his F22 report I linked to earlier] as well as the kill on the F16 of then 555′th squadron Commander, then Lt Col David Goldfein, who, since 2016 happens to be Gen Goldfein and the USAF Chief of Staff

Here is Goldfein's F16 canopy and tail feathers on display at the Belgrade Aviation Museum

Incidentally, Col Riccioni mentions in that same report that Goldfein was doing 'other than what he was supposed to be doing' when shot down I guess in today's USAF that means you have the 'right stuff' to become The Chief

Also incidentally, the Goldfein kill was overseen by Col Dani's Deputy Maj Bosko Dotlic, as Col Dani was off duty at the time

The point is that that one single S125 battery accounted for ALL the confirmed kills of the Serb IADS in 1999 [although there are many more 'probable' kills that either ditched in the Adriatic, or limped back but were scrapped]

This speaks to my earlier point about human competence and the 'hawks' and 'doves' just like a small fraction of fighter pilots rack up the overwhelming majority of kills the same goes for air defense commanders, submarine captains, tank commanders etc

You have spewed here a whole lot of garbage about 'secret' anti-stealth weapons and 'lucky shots' etc which is a complete insult to the historical record and the great work by Col Dani and his men and to the entire principle of working and training hard to achieve professional competence in a military skill

Here is a picture of the side of the 3′rd Battery Command Cabin, with Three kills stenciled in the F117 [black] on top a B2 [not confirmed] and Goldfein's F16 in white at bottom

The battery used the standard SNR125 'Low Blow' engagement radar [1960s vintage technology] which operates at 9 GHz, so it is NOT a low-frequency radar proving that low frequency is not necessary to take out 'stealth' aircraft

As per standard Russian air defense design doctrine, the S125 uses a separate acquisition and tracking radar which DOES operate at a lower frequency in this case the P15 'Flat Face' which operates in the decimetric wavelength band [which is similar to ATC radar frequency of about 1.2 to 1.4 GHz...ie L band]

As explained previously the acquisition radar serves to find and track the target at long range and cues the engagement radar to scan a precise sector where the acquisition radar has found the target the engagement radar's increased precision [due to its higher frequency and antenna size] then provides pinpoint accuracy to guide the missile

It is this combination of separate radars working together that allows the targeting of low observable aircraft and what the 3′rd Battery did was a textbook example of using the equipment to its full potential despite the fact that this old radar technology was in fact susceptible to jamming, which the Nato forces employed massively

Col Dani also trained his men hard to be able to disassemble their radar and launchers within 90 minutes and load everything up on trucks and move to another location he also exercised strict discipline with regard to emissions allowing the radar to be turned on only for very short bursts at a time about a minute or two at most

This is all textbook Soviet operating procedure and the difference was the exceptional work ethic and competence that Col Dani maintained in his unit

It should be noted here that the Serb air defense was in fact very successful overall war is a game of survival and attrition and what the Serbs accomplished was noted by air combat practitioners

'The air campaign over Kosovo severely affected the readiness rates of the United States Air Force's Air Combat Command during that period. Units in the United States were the most badly affected, as they were were stripped of their personnel and spare parts to support ACC (Air Combat Command) and AMC (Air Mobility Command) units involved in Operation Allied Force.

The Commander of the USAF's Air Combat Command, General Richard E Hawley, outlined this in a speech to reporters on 29 April, 1999.[10] Further, many aircraft will have to be replaced earlier than previously planned, as their planned fatigue life was prematurely expended.

PGM inventories needed to be re-stocked, the warstock of the AGM-86C Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile dropping to 100 or fewer rounds.[11] Of the more than 25,000 bombs and missiles expended, nearly 8,500 were PGMs, with the replacement cost estimated at $US1.3 billion.[12]

Thus the USAF suffered from virtual attrition of its air force without having scored a large number of kills in theatre. Even if the United States' best estimates of Serbian casualties are used, the Serbians left Kosovo with a large part of their armoured forces intact.

–Andrew Martin RAAF [retired]

Incidentally, several years ago the downed USAF pilot Col Dale Zelko, traveled to Serbia to visit the man who shot him down Col Dani a film The Second Meeting was made here is a trailer

PS I will have more to say later, as you have littered this thread with all kinds of technically incorrect crapola

Vojkan , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:25 am GMT
@Johnny Rico NATO failed to defeat the Yugoslav army so NATO targeted Serbian civilians. You have suffered far more losses than you acknowledge so you started killing women and children. You rained the main marked and the main hospital of my hometown with cluster bombs. That's why Serbia accepted UN resolution 1244 and the Kumanovo agreement. Given the ultimatum in Rambouillet, that's not what I would call a capitulation. The only reason Serbia signed was because you threatened to mass murder Serbian civilians. Why would you threaten to massacre civilians if you had so soundly defeated the Yugoslav army? Never have so many American military died during training exercises than during the aggression against Serbia. We consider you to be shit at war. Extremely armed fags who pee in their pants when they face opposition. But believe what you want.
Vojkan , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:44 am GMT
@Kiza The Russians failed to defend Serbia in 1999. That's the Serbian approach.
Why on Earth would Russians defend Serbs who only remember "Russian" brothers when they're in dire straits?
Why would the Russian "love" us more than we "love" them? What is their interest? Because Serbs love "Tolstoevsky"?
Don't blame the Russian for Serbian failures. In true love as in a true contract, you have to give in order to take. Russia has given us a lot with no expectance of return. If she expected anything, we have given her nothing. We aren't Russia's spoiled child.
peterAUS , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:55 am GMT
@Vojkan

NATO failed to defeat the Yugoslav army so NATO targeted Serbian civilians.

Actually, they started to target civilian infrastructure. The objective was to intimidate the regime in Belgrade into surrender by pushing the country towards stone age.

I guess you could be onto something here:

You have suffered far more losses than you acknowledge .

and

Never have so many American military died during training exercises than during the aggression against Serbia.

As for

That's why Serbia accepted UN resolution 1244 and the Kumanovo agreement.

there was a little matter of Russia guaranteeing something too, I guess. While the drunkard was in the Kremlin.

Perceptions aside (Argentinians still believe they sank Royal Navy aircraft carrier in '82, for example) NATO delivered what its political masters wanted at the time.
Serbs lost .BADLY.

That's all what matters, really.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:43 am GMT
@Vojkan Yes. It's pretty much standard American practice to bomb civilian infrastructure immediately, regardless of the degree of resistance put up by the opposing military.
Cyrano , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:48 am GMT
@Vojkan I don't mean to interfere in inter-Serbian squabble, but I'll volunteer an opinion anyway. I think you are exaggerating what Russia has done for Serbia for example. How so? As a proud Balkaneer ( I am exaggerating here a little bit myself – the proud part) I have to say that we in the Balkans have always benefited from the simple fact that usually Russia's enemies are our enemies too, so when Russia takes care of their enemies, they automatically take care of our enemies too.

But I don't think that the Russians would necessarily put their neck on the line for the Balkan Slavs to defend them against enemies that are not their enemies as well. So, unfortunately for Serbia, that equation didn't work for them in the 90's – simply put – Serbia's enemies were not automatically Russia's enemies too. Russia was still trying to be friends with the west. I forgot who it was, but some prominent Russian politician at the time said: "We are not going to start nuclear war with US over Serbia".

But it seems that Serbia is always the canary in the mine – whenever someone attacks Serbia – Russia is next. That's why that buffoon Yeltsin had to go. Friendship with the west was over the moment they attacked Yugoslavia (Serbia). Now the Russia didn't start a nuclear war over Serbia, but they still might have to – to defend themselves, and as always Serbia will benefit from this – if anything is left over from this world after things go nuclear.

Vojkan , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:54 am GMT
@peterAUS Serbs did lose badly. Albeit not on the battlefield. Though there never was a real battlefield.
I have no reason to doubt the accounts of my friends in the military who sought in the rare conversations I've had with them on the subject, to humble down their achievements.
I believe Russians capitalised on the Serb's defeat. I can't blame them for that. No one is responsible for what happened to Serbs, as it happened, but Serbs. They're so keen on making the wrong decisions for the sake of appearing glorious, you can't blame the devil for that. It's their informed choice
Vojkan , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:09 am GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty To be fair, they only did it after they realised that the Serb military were too smart to be depleted by aerial bombardment and that in order to defeat them, you'd have to fight them on the ground. That's why NATO bombarded civilians. On a man to man basis, Serbs and Russians are the best soldiers in the world. No navy seal, no marine, no SAS can match them. Fighting for their homes gives them the little bit of adrenaline needed to prevail.
Vojkan , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:40 am GMT
@Cyrano My point was never "Russians" are our brothers. My point is, whatever cultural, religious or blood affinity I have with the Russians, they have their interests and we have ours. I cannot expect of Russians to defend Serbia for "ses beaux yeaux". The same goes the other way around. To some people Russia has "betrayed" Serbia, to some other Serbia has "betrayed" Russia. Yet the West sees us as one whole, Russia and little "Russia". I didn't ask myself before but now I love Russia infinetely more than the West. Russia has asked me nothing, has given me nothing and is expecting nothing from me.
If we can have a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, great. We will never have that with the USA or the UK or Germany or France. They're guilty of the spoilation of Serbs' lives and private properties. Russians never spoiled Serbs of anything.

[Oct 09, 2018] The idea of 'stealth' aircraft is in fact mostly a gimmick designed to enrich the military contractors

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

FB , says: October 6, 2018 at 7:24 pm GMT

@Frederick V. Reed The idea of 'stealth' aircraft is in fact mostly a gimmick designed to enrich the military contractors it doesn't actually work very well at all, as proved in 1999 when the Serb air defense, using ancient Soviet surface to air missiles of 1950s vintage, shot down the USAF F117 aircraft and damaged another that was then written off, and therefore counts as a kill

–F117 canopy displayed at the Belgrade Aviation Museum

But let's look at the idea of 'low observable' aircraft technology in a little more detail, and how it may be countered by air defense

Let's start at the beginning the physics behind 'stealth' was developed by a Russian scientist named Petr Ufimtsev who is now known as the 'father of stealth'

Ufimtsev, working at the Moscow Institute of Radio Engineering, developed a coherent theory on the behavior of radio wave scattering off solid objects he published his seminal work Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction in 1962 the Soviet military saw no real value in this and allowed it to be published

In 1971, the USAF translated this work into English and a couple of engineers at Lockheed realized that Ufimtsev had provided the mathematical foundation to predict how radar waves deflect off an aircraft it was a lightbulb moment the main insight of Ufimtsev's work was that the size of a radar return was more a function of the edge geometry of the aircraft than its actual size

Retired USAF Lt Colonel William B O'Connor, who flew the F117 gives a good telling of the story here

The end result is that the F117 and B2 were developed by programming Ufimtsev's math into powerful computers in order to come up with aircraft shaping geometry that minimized radar reflection subsequent 'low observable' aircraft like the F22 and F35 all build on this basic physics

Now while the idea of reducing an aircraft's radar return sounds good in principle it has a lot of real-world drawbacks for instance the shaping can only be optimized for one particular aspect, such as a head-on if the aircraft turns into a bank for instance its radar return will increase by as much as 100 fold owing to the simple fact that a banking aircraft exposes its broad underbelly, which has no way to be optimized to also be 'stealthy' the shaping cannot accomplish the same result of scattering radio waves off in all directions, from all angles

There are other challenges the vertical tail surfaces will also bounce back radio waves this is why a tailless, flying wing design like the B2 is better suited to the task but this kind of configuration brings with it compromises in aircraft maneuverability and agility

Aside from the aircraft geometry, which is the main means of achieving 'low observability' there are also special coatings that are designed to 'absorb' radio waves although this is only of limited effectiveness and depends a lot on the thickness of the rubbery coating I had the opportunity to physically examine a piece of the wreckage of that F117 shot down in Serbia, and the thickness and weight of that coating was surprising it was about 1/16 inch thick in places along the vertical stabilizers and seemed to weigh more than the underlying composite honeycomb structure itself [typical of Lockheed lightweight structural design]

This additional weight is a major disadvantage of 'stealth' aircraft aircraft must be as light as possible to perform well that is just basic physics but these logical design considerations have seemingly been sidelined in what can only be explained as a money-making gimmick that only detracts from actual aircraft capability

Col Everest E Riccioni, one the USAF's most legendary test pilots and Air Force Academy instructors has probably done more than anyone to debunk the 'stealth' nonsense his 2005 report on the F22 is insightful reading and proved quite prescient about the failure of this aircraft to become anything more than a glorified hangar queen

The F35 is far worse of course but Col Riccioni passed away before he could fully train his guns on this very deficient aircraft

The fact of the matter is that the F117 was more 'stealthy' than the F22 or F35 this due to its faceted design wherein the airframe shape was defined largely by a series of flat plates [remember that the whole physics of radio reflection boils down to edge geometry...]

The current MIC propaganda is that the faceted shape is not necessary due to improved supercomputers that can calculate the math for curved surfaces well, the physical fact is that curved surfaces reflect in all directions and no amount of 'supercomputing' can change that Col Riccioni, who is no slouch in physics, having designed and taught the first graduate-level course in astronautics at the USAF Academy, confirms that the F117 was a more 'stealthy' design than the F22 and the F35 is considered not as stealthy as the F22

As for defending against 'low observable' aircraft with surface to air missiles [SAMs] let us review some of the pertinent factors that go into this equation a SAM system consists basically of powerful radars that spot and track enemy aircraft and guide a missile shot to the target the only way to kill a SAM system by means of an attacking aircraft is to target its radars with a special type of missile that homes in on radio signals known as anti-radiation missiles [HARMs] such as the US AGM88

The problem becomes one of reach how far can the SAM missiles reach and how far can the HARMs reach ?

A long range SAM like the S300/400 wins this contest easily the S300 can hit targets as far as 250 km away [400 km for S400] while the best Harms can reach about 150 km at most and that's if fired at high aircraft speed and altitude so it becomes a question of how do you get within the SAM missile kill zone to fire your Harm in the first place ?

In the 1999 bombing of Serbia, the US and 18 participating Nato allies mustered over 1,000 aircraft and fired a total of over 700 Harms at Serb air defenses, over the course of 78 days but managed to knock out only three 1970s era mobile SAM units the 2K12 'Kub'

A good account of that operation was published by Dr Benjamin Lambeth in 2002, in the USAF's flagship technical publication, Aerospace Power Journal

This campaign was truly a David vs Goliath match, yet the Serbs effectively fought the alliance to a draw

NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS [integrated air defense system], and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles -- envelopes that extended as high as 50,000 feet.

Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs.

Even during the operation's final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia's approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries.'

Lambeth notes that things could have been much different had the Serbs had the S300

'One SA-10/12 [early S300 variant] site in Belgrade and one in Pristina could have provided defensive coverage over all of Serbia and Kosovo. They also could have threatened Rivet Joint, Compass Call, and other key allied aircraft such as the airborne command and control center and the Navy's E-2C operating well outside enemy airspace.

Fortunately for NATO, the Serb IADS did not include the latest-generation SAM equipment currently available on the international arms market.'

Since 1999, the last major SEAD [suppression of enemy air defense] operation by Nato the Russian air defense capabilities have only become more lethal the radars employed on the S300/400 series are phased array types which are very difficult to jam and much more precise in guiding a missile to the target

Phased array means that instead of a parabolic dish, the antenna consists of several thousand individual antenna elements that are electronically steered in order to create a very precise radar beam [instead of a dish antenna being mechanically rotated and tilted]

When it comes to air defense it's really mostly about the radar Dr Carlo Kopp, an expert on Russian air defense systems notes that even the early iterations of the S300 engagement radar were a huge step forward in capability

'With electronic beam steering, very low sidelobes and a narrow pencil beam mainlobe, the 30N6 phased array is more difficult to detect and track by an aircraft's warning receiver when not directly painted by the radar, and vastly more difficult to jam.

While it may have detectable backlobes, these are likely to be hard to detect from the forward sector of the radar. As most anti-radiation missiles rely on sidelobes to home in, the choice of engagement geometry is critical in attempting to kill a Flap Lid.'

Shown is the latest generation 92N6 'Grave Stone' engagement radar used with S300/400 systems the engagement radar actually guides the missile shot, while separate early warning and acquisition and tracking radars first detect the target, then cue the engagement radar to point to the target and guide the missile shot

Another important point with the S300 transfer to Syria that is overlooked in this article is the option to hybridize the Syrian S200 missiles with the S300 radars

In this scenario the weakest link of the S200 is eliminated its obsolete parabolic dish type engagement radar the S200 missile is instead guided to the target by the formidable new S300/400 radars

'In this arrangement, an SA-20/21 system with its high power aperture and highly jam resistant acquisition and engagement radars prosecutes an engagement, but rather than launching its organic 48N6 series missile rounds, it uses the SA-5 Gammon round instead

The challenge which a hybrid SA-5/SA-20/SA-21 system presents is considerable. The SA-20/21 battery is highly mobile, and with modern digital frequency hopping radars, will be difficult to jam.

Soft kill and hard kill become problematic. In terms of defeating the SA-5 component of the hybrid, the only option is to jam the missile CW homing seeker, the effectiveness of which will depend entirely on the vintage of the 5G24N series seeker and the capabilities of the jamming equipment. If the customer opts for an upgrade to the seeker electronics, the seeker may be digital and very difficult to jam.'

This could be the most important part of the story, since the Syrians have a large number of S200 systems it is certain that a number of additional S300/400 radars have been delivered as part of that '49 pieces' reported in Russian media and these powerful and fully mobile radars [truck mounted] will be used to modernize the S200 network

It is worth noting also that SAM mobility is a key advance of the S300/400 systems the various radars and the missile launchers are all mounted on large trucks and are designed for five minute shoot and scoot this mobility proved key to the Nato difficulty with Serbian SAMs, even though those old systems were not designed for that, but the Serbs nonetheless would dismantle and move the fixed radars and launchers on a regular basis

In order to attack a SAM with an aircraft you first have to know where it is the only way to know is when it turns on its radar at which point it may be too late if it is pointed at you after taking the shot, the whole thing packs up and moves in five minutes flat [the Patriot takes 30 minutes by comparison]

It should be noted here that these mobile Russian search and acquisition radars are extremely powerful the 'Big Bird' series is in the same class as the Aegis radar mounted on USN missile cruisers and destroyers

'The 64N6E Big Bird is the key to much of the improved engagement capability, and ballistic missile intercept capability in the later S-300P variants.

This system operates in the 2 GHz band and is a phased array with a 30% larger aperture than the US Navy SPY-1 Aegis radar, even accounting for its slightly larger wavelength it amounts to a mobile land based Aegis class package. It has no direct equivalent in the West.'

The final piece of the puzzle when it comes to countering 'stealth' aircraft is a special category of radar designed specifically for that purpose these operate at much lower frequencies [ie longer wavelength] which renders the stealth shaping useless since the physics dictates that aircraft features shorter than the radar wavelength cannot produce the desired scattering effect as Col Riccioni notes

[The F22's] radar signature is admittedly small in the forward quarter but only to airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency ground based radars

it is physically impossible to design shapes and radar absorptive material to simultaneously defeat low power, high-frequency enemy fighter radars, and high power, low-frequency ground based radars.'

Kopp gives a good overview of the advanced Russian anti-stealth radars in this category

The system uses a series of radars of varying wavelength each mounted on a mobile chassis as with all the modern Russian SAM radars the long wavelength radar finds the 'stealth' target easily and then cues a shorter wavelength radar to further pinpoint the target, which, in turn, cues the engagement radar that guides the missile shot

Shown is such a deployment of three radars and a command vehicle in the background

All told, the upgrade of the Syrian air defenses now presents a very formidable system it should be noted that the S200 missile when used with these powerful radars could be an especially deadly combination this rocket was until 2009 the longest range SAM rocket in the world, with a maximum range of up to 375 km

Unlike modern SAM missiles that use solid propellant rocket motors [basically a bottle rocket] the S200 uses a real liquid fuel rocket engine it has a top speed of 2.5 km/s which is actually faster than the S400 rockets and the liquid engine means it can be throttled to decrease or increase its speed [minimum flying speed is 700 m/s] something that a solid rocket cannot do

In the right hands, this combination of advanced S300 radars and the superb kinematic performance of the S200 missile could be a deadly combination the fact that Syria has a lot of these S200 missiles means that adding those S300 radars makes it a whole new ballgame we already saw back in February when an S200 shot down an Israeli F16 in Israeli airspace there are unconfirmed reports that a second aircraft was hit and possibly destroyed

The question of Israeli F35s trying to attack these mobile S300 SAMs is not really a serious consideration for any air combat practitioner the F35 has terrible flight characteristics such as very high wing loading, which directly affects its turning ability [think of running with a 100 lb backpack and how that might affect your maneuverability]

The basic flight physics of this airplane are terrible, as many qualified experts have pointed out it would be difficult to envisage how it could play a role in mounting an attack against these Syrian S300s

The only realistic option to attack such an air defense zone would be to use the mountainous terrain along the Levant coast and fly a nap of the earth mission with highly maneuverable fighters like the F15 and F16 to try to hide from radar in the mountains and get close enough to deliver a Harm missile to an S300 radar

But this would be a very risky mission especially considering that the Russians are flying their AWACS planes over Syria, so even terrain following is not going to work in trying to hide

[Oct 09, 2018] How to Maliciously Smear Your Critics (and Not Get Away with It) by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Because that is precisely how the smear game works. The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him .

This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed against Corbyn , who unfortunately fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand.

No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.

Peasant , says: October 1, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT

@Justsaying The evidence is that before Cockburn died Counterpunch would routinely publish articles which were basically honest about Israel (ie not terribly flattering) and now does not (as it states in the article above viewpoints of the extreme left and right ie genuine critique will not be tolerated so only critique from inside established paradigms will be allowed-just like every other media outlet).

Counterpunch used to be outside of the Jewish paradigm (ie it was genuinely leftist) but now will be just another gelded publication. Cockburn did a good job of fending off criticism-Counterpunch was a rather niche publication so it flew under the radar of the Jews.

Counterpunch was routinely critical of the neocons and even pointed out their Jewishness but a lot of liberal Jews did not like the neocons. Israel was and is the real litmus test.

The Guardian always had Alan Rusbridger who I beleive was Jewish. It is not exactly funded by Jewish money- it mainly subsists off of government departments advertising public sector jobs. Before the rise of the internet and gumtree etc it was mainly funded by sales of autotrader a car trading magazine (lol at the nost po faced anti pollution newspaper being funded by the sales of cars).

What changed is that the Jews are no longer able to control the narrative- they used to feel they could afford semi-critical comments about Israel before but not any more. This has gone hand in hand with increased efforts to censor the internet. The Jews were able to infiltrate BDS and subvert it, they were able to use their explicit power to pass anti BDS laws but they were not able to really turn the tide of public opinion. They have resorted to outright censorship.

As you say it is not suprising that Counterpunch was taken over any publication/organisation that wants to work outside of established Jewish limits on intellectual discourse will eventually be subverted. Just look at the British Labour party. Corbyn is an old school lefists (ie he wants to give people options other than the new labour globalist neo liberalism) and a very principaled one. He stands up for the Palestinians (some people say he just does this because of his Muslim constituents but that is not the case-he has always stood up for them) and as a result has been smeared time and time again by the Jewish press.

There is a power struggle in the Labour party (Muslim ethnics weight of numbers vs Jewish money) and it looks like the Jews will win.

It's very sad and like I said I hope the new Counterpunch will fold leaving Cockburn's histroy of excellent journalism unsullied.

[Oct 09, 2018] Alt-right platform

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

War for Blair Mountain says: October 1, 2018 at 12:13 pm GMT 100 Words The ALT RIGHT point of view:

1)Bring the Troops back home .

2)massive defunding of the Pentagon .

3)Friendship with Christian Russia

4)0 economic and military aid to our friend Israel!!!

5)0 nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRANTS FOREVER!!! .

6)mass deportation of the various Nonwhite Fifth Columns in America .

7)restoration of THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN MAJORITY to a 90 percent racial majority within the borders of America .

8)make homo legal marriage illegal again ..

9)strip away the right of Corprati0ns to have the legal standing of a person in a Court of Law .

Allan , says: October 1, 2018 at 3:24 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Why

strip away the right of Corprati0ns to have the legal standing of a person in a Court of Law .

when we could just abolish the institution of incorporation without remorse? This would like treating a cause of widespread disease with an ounce of inexpensive prevention.

Buh-bye limited liability parasitism. Buh-bye rootless, world-wandering capital with scant interest in the hosts' long-term wellbeing.

I suppose that there would be a shrill outcry of protest from the many little fire teams, squads, and platoons of mind rapists (e.g. A. Cockburn) who have a career interest in complaining for a living. But so what? It would be fun to watch "social justice" factions twist and squirm as a chorus of abolitionists asks why the "Resistance" never resisted "corporatocracy" with abolitionism. The rapists will "spew" much sanctimonious b.s. defensively between artful meals in nice restaurants, but the chorus will know a real reason. Lefty humanist finds incorporation very useful for cultivating the intense concentration of wealth and power which he pretends to oppose.

Eventually the chorus will get around to asking lefty internationalist about his contemporary plans to merge every firm with government without looking like an old fashioned commie expropriationist. The chorus might ask the mind rapists still more embarassing questions:

Righteous Lefty, why would you establish incorporation now if it wasn't a feature of commerce already? Because you would not then have a little handful of company shares to trade in a stock exchange? Nor be planning to exploit a stock tip from an ally who is married to a corporate go-getter with C-level knowledge of plans?

Traditional labor unions, TOO, have been involved with the racketeering of incorporation. Take the UMWA, for example. Where in the eleven points of its constitution is there any hint that labor organizers and their Blair Mountain warriors were thinking about abolishing a pernicious institution which had done so much to slant market power in favor of neverlaboring mine operators?

It's been obvious for some time that the allegedly right wing "ALT RIGHT" is another faction with little interest in getting rid of the corporation. It is sympathetic, however, to old fashioned communist schemes like "Social Security" and communist health care finance. So what, um, pecuniary interest does its leading lights have in maintaining the incorporated status quo? Explain, please.

[Oct 09, 2018] The level of skills in Syria air defence in th past was low

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

FB says: October 7, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT 1,600 Words @Hanoodtroll 'Handtroll' issues this challenge

'Explain this'

The subject being 'Operation Mole Cricket' in 1982, when the Israeli air force mounted a successful SEAD operation [suppression of enemy air defenses] against Syria's Russian made SAMs

I will quote from the 1989 issue of Air Power Journal the USAF premier professional publication

'Syrian SAM operators also invited disaster upon themselves. Their Soviet equipment was generally regarded as quite good; Syrian handling of it was appalling.

As noted by Lt Gen Leonard Perroots, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, "The Syrians used mobile missiles in a fixed configuration; they put the radars in the valley instead of the hills because they didn't want to dig latrines -- seriously."

The Syrian practice of stationing mobile missiles in one place for several months allowed Israeli reconnaissance to determine the exact location of the missiles and their radars, giving the IAF a definite tactical advantage on the eve of battle.

Even so, the Syrians might have been able to avoid the complete destruction of their SAM complex had they effectively camouflaged their sites; instead, they used smoke to "hide" them, which actually made them easier to spot from the air.

It is ironic that the Syrians, who have been criticized for their strict adherence to Soviet doctrine, chose to ignore the viable doctrine that emphasizes the utility of maneuver and camouflage.

According to a 1981 article in Soviet Military Review, alternate firing positions, defensive ambushes, regular repositioning of mobile SAMs to confuse enemy intelligence, and the emplacement of dummy SAM sites are fundamental considerations for the effective deployment and survivability of ground-based air defenses.'

That excerpt from Air defense expert Dr Carlo Kopp

We note here also that the highly effective Serb air defense in 1999, which stymied a huge force of over 1,000 Nato aircraft for 78 days, did exactly those things that are mentioned here and which the Syrians failed to do

But of course there is more to the story much much more

You see, that wikipedia article that 'Handtroll' links to has a section called 'Background'

And that background is that in previous years the Israeli air force had been thoroughly pasted by the same Syrian and Egyptian air defenses Mole Cricket was Round 2 round 1 having been a much bigger win for the air defenses

As Kopp recounts

'It is widely acknowledged that the Israelis suffered heavy losses of aircraft during the fighting in 1973. Exactly how many were lost to SAMs, and to which type of SAM, has been less well documented. Israeli public claims are that 303 aircraft were lost in combat

The same wikipedia article that 'Handtroll' points to says this

'The losses suffered by Israel in the 1973 war were so high that it indirectly spawned the United States stealth aircraft program, Project HAVE BLUE.

The U.S. estimated that without a solution to the SAM problem, even the United States would suffer depletion of its Air Force within two weeks of a conflict erupting between the U.S. and Soviet Union. The Israelis had lost 109 aircraft in 18 days.'

The Kopp article Surface to Air Missile Effectiveness in Past Conflicts is a good historic breakdown that contrasts the very effective use of Soviet air defense in Vietnam, where the US lost 10,000 aircraft [including 31 B52 strategic bombers] and the various Middle East conflicts where the Arab air defense forces put up a generally spotty record, using the same equipment

The collapse of the extensive Iraqi air defense system in Desert Storm in 1991 is a textbook case although here it is worth noting that a significant factor was that the Iraqi integrated air defense system, KARI [Irak spelled backward] was designed and built by the French, integrating both Soviet and French SAMs into one central network

'Planning for this mission was helped when the CIA contacted the French engineer responsible for designing the Kari IADS and passed along information about its vulnerabilities and limitations.'

The main takeaway from a historical review of air defense versus attacking air power is that human competence is always the overriding factor on both sides just one year after the well-planned and executed Israeli Mole Cricket, the US decided to launch an air raid on Syrian SAMs, which ended in disaster

'Despite official statements, however, the first direct combat in Lebanon between the United States and Syria was both a military and political disaster.

Two of the U.S. planes were shot down either by anti-aircraft rounds and/or approximately forty SAMs; one pilot was killed, another was captured by Syrian forces, and another parachuted safely into the Mediterranean Sea. (The hostage pilot, Lieutenant Robert Goodman, Jr., was held and interrogated in a Syrian prison for thirty days until Reverend Jesse Jackson secured his release.)

Clearly the US raid was poorly planned and ill conceived and they got a beating for their efforts

So clearly the human factor always counts for the most statistics from the history of air combat show that 10 percent of pilots score 90 percent of the kills the 'hawks' while that other 90 percent end up as the victims

That is not to say that technological advance does not play a role clearly it does by the early 1980s a number of SEAD technologies matured that had a big impact in swinging the pendulum back in favor of air power these include standoff jamming pods carried by specialized SEAD aircraft and which targeted the SAM radars properly used, these could degrade radar performance enough to tilt the contest

Other significant advances occurred in anti-radiation missiles designed to home in on the radio emissions from SAM radars as well as airborne emitter locators that could pinpoint radar locations when those were switched on all of these tools, in the right hands, could make a big difference, as they did in Mole Cricket

But military technology is usually a game of leapfrogging the air attacker gains made by the 1980s with jammers and Harms were countered by the 1990s with fundamentally new and much more powerful radars known as 'phased array'

Instead of a parabolic 'dish' antenna, these radars use a flat surface containing numerous [up to thousands] of 'radiating elements' controlled by a computer that can do things that conventional radar cannot this includes much higher beam resolution the ability to track numerous targets at once the ability to efficiently eliminate ground clutter for low flying objects and most important the ability to defeat jamming by means of 'frequency hopping' and reducing radio emissions to the side and rear

At the same time, the US has NOT developed new generations of SEAD weapons the same AN/ALQ99 jamming pod used since the Vietnam war is the front line unit today a jammer is basically a radio emitter, using an antenna and electrical power to send radio waves at a target radar in an attempt to disrupt it by necessity, being carried aloft by an aircraft, the jamming pod is limited in terms of antenna size and available electrical power

Here we see an AN/AL99 pod under the wing of a Grumman EA6B 'Prowler' the small wind turbine at the front supplies electrical power and the transmit antenna inside is a simple small dish type against the big Russian SAM radars [even assuming the jamming aircraft could get close enough to actually do anything] it is like a mosquito versus an elephant

–A Russian phased array radar on an all terrain tracked chassis

The next generation US jammer is still in development and is not expected to come online for another three years even then it will probably be too little too late basic physics tells us that radio is all about electrical power and antenna size considering also the standoff capability of modern Russian SAMs [over 400 km] plus the fact that those ground assets are also protected by fighter aircraft, AWACS etc the advantage has definitely shifted in favor of air defense as Kopp notes in his article, Surviving the Modern Integrated Air Defense System

'The reality of evolving IADS technology and its global proliferation is that most of the US Air Force combat aircraft fleet, and all of the US Navy combat aircraft fleet, will be largely impotent against an IADS constructed from the technology available today from Russian and, increasingly so, Chinese manufacturers.

If flown against such an IADS, US legacy fighters from the F-15 through to the current production F/A-18E/F would suffer prohibitive combat losses attempting to penetrate, suppress or destroy such an IADS.

This is not news to military professionals retired USAF Gen Philip Breedlove former Nato commander for Europe notes

'Right now, we're almost completely dependent on air forces and aviation assets in order to attack the A2/AD problem

We need more long-range, survivable, precision strike capability from the ground We need dense capability -- like the dense A2/AD networks that we face.'

A2/AD meaning the 'anti-access/area denial' zones created by Russian air defense netorks

That pretty much sums it up the physical equation has tilted far in favor of the massive electronic power and firepower that those all terrain mobile SAMs can muster versus what an aircraft can take aloft what Breedlove is saying here is it's time to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new way air power alone is not going to cut it

Avery , says: October 7, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT

@imaginative {Still trying to learn if these 300s (whether new or old) solve the stated problem:}

S-300, like any other military equipment or hardware, is a tool: you need a good, reliable tool, but you also need a trained operator to properly use that tool. And sometimes it is impossible to train someone, if the material is not there.

SAA in general and Syrian soldiers individually have fought bravely against unbelievable odds.
To wit, the heroic defense of the Kuweires air base by SAA, which was completely cut-off by the terrorist invaders (and their patrons US, UK, France, Turkey, KSA, .). Yet it held out for 2-3 years until liberated recently.

But there is something missing from the overall picture to make SAA a truly competent military force able to defend itself and Syria independently against foreign aggressors. There is an article on the web with the title "Why Arabs lose wars" (not sure if it's the exact title) that examines the reasons. It is worth a read.

Also, poster [FB] discusses in detail in post #110 some of the differences between various nationalities using Soviet/Russian military equipment.

Even if Syria were to get the latest Russian anti-air systems (S-400, S-500, .), they'd have to be operated by Russians (or Serbs) to be truly effective against a competent, technologically savvy adversary like Israel. Syrians have their work cut out for them for sure.

Avery , says: October 7, 2018 at 8:36 pm GMT
@peterAUS This is the article I remember reading, not the book.

[Why Arabs Lose Wars
NORVELL B. DE ATKINE
Middle East Quarterly Volume 6: Number 4
SEPTEMBER 01, 1999]

https://www.meforum.org/articles/other/why-arabs-lose-wars

Anon [424] Disclaimer , says: October 7, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
@peterAUS The arabs lose wars .. just like the americans no war won since WWII ( thanks Russia )
annamaria , says: October 7, 2018 at 8:54 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich Let Syrians defend their sovereignty from the Israeli illegal aggression. This is a Syrian war.
George1 , says: October 7, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT
I am no expert in this area to be sure. However with the unit price of the F-35s, they are capitol assets. The loss of an F-35 for any reason in a combat zone would be a disaster. Yet Trump is sending more of them to Israel in response to the S-300s.

This tit for tat escalation is not doing anyone any good and is potentially dangerous beyond words. Syria had not been a threat to Israel in decades, yet Obama thought it was a good idea to try an take out Assad. I would just like to know why.

Kiza , says: October 7, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT
@jimmyriddle As far as I understand, the Russians have not turned on any other then the surveillance radar in the S400 complex. Of all the radars in the complex, this one is the least interesting to spy on. The real performance secrets of the system are in other radars. The Russians have not turned on other "action" radars because this would give an opportunity to be studied and because the US and Israeli planes have been declared "friendlies" by Putin.

The proximity of forces gives both sides opportunities to study procedures and technology and both sides are avoiding showing all their cards. But the shooting down of IL20 may have changed the game a little by giving the Russian military more freedom from the political constraints. If the Russian military does turn on its other radars in the S400 complex, then someone "stealthy" will find himself in the drink, in pieces.

In other words, the hope is that now the Russian military will be allowed to defend itself. Otherwise, the Russians will keep suffering more Putin-style accidents in Syria.

Avery , says: October 7, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT
@peterAUS {The only solution which would work on preventing further losses of Russian men and material there is, effectively, Russians taking over all that. All.
Impossible, of course.}

Only Kremlin knows what ' preventing further losses of Russian men ..' implies, but clearly Russia has taken losses from the day they went in and it does not seem to faze them one bit, judging by their responses over the years to various losses they have incurred: they didn't cut and run.

And I doubt Russia ever intended to fight Syrians' wars for them.
They can't make SAA into the Wehrmacht (or the Red Army of WW2 1942-1945) for sure.
But SAA has done quite well with Russian (and Hezbollah and IRG) help*.
It is an undeniable fact that before Russian AF came in and started cauterizing the cannibal infestation, SAA was on the verge of collapse, and with it the State of Syria. Today what remains of the terrorist invaders is holed up in Idlib: for how long?

And none of this – i.e. Russia's involvement, etc – would have been necessary if Syrians were left alone to sort out their own internal affairs. Russia would not be invited in by Syrian government if external forces intend on dismembering and erasing the State of Syria had not started this war. The blood of 100s of 1,000s of innocent Syrian civilians killed in this war is on their hands: US, UK, France, Turkey, KSA, Israel, various other Gulf states,

btw: what's with the quotation marks for "locals" ?
You don't consider Syrians local?
Syria is one of the oldest countries in the region.
Its composition of people has naturally changed some over the centuries, but Syrians are as local as it gets. And Syria's Alawites, in particular, have been there for millennia (genealogy-wise).

___________
* Only fair, given the massive support ISIS cannibals and assorted other mass-murdering invaders have gotten from outside.

[Oct 09, 2018] S-300s and other military hardware for Syria, by The Saker - The Unz Review

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Isabella , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:50 pm GMT

@TheJester Remember before you join with PCR in decrying the incredible degree of patience and restraint that Putin has shown, that should a situation escalate into a probably WWIII – which could happen within a few hours, Russia, population 145 million, would be facing America; Population 330 million, plus probably most of Europe; Population 300 million, plus the 5-eyes vassals; joint pop. almost 100 million.

IN which case, he would have no choice but to pre-emptively empty just about all his nuclear missiles all over America before it could do the same to Russia.

Do you want this?

AWM , says: October 5, 2018 at 11:21 pm GMT
Russia can move plenty of hardware into Syria, but that will not change the fact that Israel is the 800 pounder in the region with more strike options than everybody else combined.
And as far as Israel "illegally" interdicting missiles intended for use against their infrastructure, good luck with that, they certainly don't need anyone's approval.
Sure, some hi tech Russian weapon systems may take out a few Israeli aircraft, but at what cost?
If Putin wants to sell more of his shiny missile systems, he will not try to use them against Israeli forces.
War for Blair Mountain , says: October 6, 2018 at 12:33 am GMT
@AWM In other words, Israel is a psychotically evil nation that is willing to escalate the situation in Syria to the brink of nuclear war.
TheJester , says: October 6, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
@Isabella Isabella, I'm not understanding what you are saying or what you are presuming. I'm an avid fan of Putin. Indeed, I have imaged myself wearing a "Putin for President" shirt. I'm on his side in the free-for-all of international intrigue and politics.

Under Putin's leadership, one has to be impressed with a country (Russia) that the West has disparaged as an economic rival of Spain yet has developed a stable of advanced military weapons that are superior to anything the United States has in its arsenal. However, a side question: Is this the Russian strategic equivalent of the previous American "Star Wars" program albeit this time designed by Russia to bankrupt the United States? If the F-35 is an example of the US response, this will succeed.

The issue I raise is a real one. The West is paranoid that Russia and China will reach a political, economic, and military accord that will secure the Asian continent for Asians. The British Navy and then the American Navy have historically acted on the periphery to extract natural resources and control international trade. A Russian/Chinese political, economic, and military accord has the benefit of Asians acting on internal lines of communication and making the United States Navy obsolete.

The dilemmas are not unlike those presented to the Germans in the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Could the Germans secure effective internal lines of communication into Asia in time to make the navies of Britain and the United States irrelevant? The Germans failed. However, Russian weapons and the Chinese economy have the potential to finally pull this off.

Hence, the United States with pitifully ineffective support from the EU is desperate to prevent the concord between Russia and China that can materially and perhaps permanently change the power relationships in the world for the first time since the western Middle Ages. The US strategy: divide and conquer.

I imagine myself in Putin's shoes playing three-dimensional chess. (BTW: I can't play three-dimensional chess.) How does one deal with the last desperate throws of the dying American empire without getting involved in the "action-reactions" that led to WWI and WWII? Syria is the perfect scenario for that to happen.

If Putin is forced up against the wall in Syria, what will he do? If a confrontation with the West materializes and he backs down, he is over. The United States has called his bluff. The United States is then free to confront and try to humiliate China in the same way.

However, if Russia calls the US bluff, I'm afraid to imagine the consequences. The US is also over. The danger is that the United States will respond with mindless violence that leads to WWIII.

I wish Putin well. He is better equipped to play and win at three-dimensional chess than any of the current actors in the United States or the European Union in his quest for a multi-polar world.

As an American, I pray Putin succeeds. I want my country back; I want us to return to our origins as a constitutional republic. In the meantime, Putin lives in a deadly jungle created by the death throes of the American Empire. To paraphrase Dylan Thomas, The Empire of the United States,

Does not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the Light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night
[ At the close of Imperial Light ].

SeamusH , says: October 6, 2018 at 3:39 am GMT
@Isabella @Isabella

PCR doesn't "decry" Putin's patience and restraint, he admires it; but he points out that they may entail unforeseen consequences and may ential the irrational responses of the neocons and Israelis. Obviously the Russian military doesn't entirely agree with Putin's "partners" perspective.

SimplePseudonymicHandle , says: October 6, 2018 at 5:26 am GMT

the S-300s are certainly formidable air defense systems, they are not a Wunderwaffe

Most important statement. Repeat over, and over, and over again.

Israelis operate in Syria because of Iran/Hezbollah. Maybe they operate in Syria more than they have to, and they use Iran/Hezbollah as a casus belli , because they are secretly compensated by the Saudis who have it in for the Assad regime. That's conspiratorial, but seems at least as likely as the speculation that "Israelis simply think that they don't have to abide by any kind of norms of behavior." This conspiracy theory also doesn't implicate all Israelis or even the entire Israeli government, it may simply be limited to key individuals in extraordinary positions of power who may be on the offing for riches no one here can imagine in return for some old fashioned corruption.

To try and put a Saker hat on and see this from a Russian point of view, and to also care for Russian servicemen in Syria, and to be realistic about the extent and capabilities and quantity and quality of the assets at the disposal of those who seem determined to act with impunity against international law in Syria under the rubric of opposing Iran/Hezbollah, here's some more ideas:

1. Perhaps Russia should provide substantially more SAM systems than it has openly stated (and maybe it is planning this and wisely not announcing it) – in this vein the Pantsirs-S1/2 the Saker recommends and additional un-enumerated integrated S-300 deployments might satisfy no one should think this is invincible it is simply so far from it – I am sorry Russian tech fanboys, none of this is a Star Wars Nabooian Gungan shield – the tech can be defeated and you are wrong to think anything else but it plays the strongest hand, strongest, and can be part of a larger strategy

2. "Syrian finger on the trigger" is key – avoiding Russia/Israel or Russia/NATO engagement is paramount not least of all because it means Israel/NATO forces cannot rely on Russian restraint and that should have a deterring effect which will allay tensions

but with hands played as strong as they can be:

3. Strategically de-escalate – do this by cooperating with the Chinese and other non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to make as loud a fuss as possible to call for a demilitarization of Syria by both Iran/Hezbollah and Israel following 1980s norms meaning:

Turn the cards, turn the tables

a) under a UN Mandate (that China and Russia should dare the US, UK and France to veto) belligerents such as Russia, NATO, Israel all observe a cease-fire while b) a substantial force of UN Peacekeepers enters Syria does whatever is possible to expel Hezbollah or drive it underground to the point of effective neutering, and c) position themselves strategically so that Israeli strikes would result in hitting UN targets raise stakes further by working the UN in advance to presume Israel will strike a UN target and be ready with the most devastating economic and diplomatic counter-response possible as swiftly as possible – such a response should be calculated to hit the ordinary Israeli citizen/taxpayer and make him as likely as possible to vote in a new government.

The Saker is putting the best face on it he can, but a plain stating is that a military solution isn't in the offing. This is true for everyone. There's not Israeli military "solution", nor Iranian, nor US – there certainly isn't a Russian military solution.

But as far as I can tell the US has no interest in being a hero of a diplomatic solution even though if it was paying any attention, acting with any values, and not allowing the tail to wag the dog but leading with its own agency, it would be the one leveraging the UN exactly as I've described and without need of S300 deployments.
So go ahead Russia. This is the US's show to play, but it's not playing the part. Have at it Understudy!
Play the military cards well so that they arc towards a diplomatic break of tensions and no one should fault Russia for eating empire's Peacemaker lunch when empire is off at the war movies.

Someone needs to be thinking about a diplomatic endgame. It is simply unsafe, at a global level, to have the US, Russia and Israel packed in this small place testing each other this way.

A caution: one shouldn't underestimate Iranian squealing in the event of the success of such measures. The Iranian regime isn't popular and like other regimes relies on wars "over there" to promote stability at home. It must be nice too for the Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guards to be able to send volatile hotheads a few countries over to blow off steam and occasionally fail to return to the motherland. Genuine diplomatic success in Syria has the potential to be destabilizing in Iran. On the other hand, peace in Syria, leveraged well, can generate economic opportunity for Iran that could offset such concerns.

Alfa158 , says: October 6, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
There's one thing I'm surprised you didn't point out in this article. It isn't necessary for the Syrians and Russians to wipe the sky clean of NATO and Israeli aircraft. Western electorates are very leery about ongoing casualties. They expect John Wick action movie sagas of the enemy being exterminated like ants while the good guys collect the occasional photogenic bruise. Even a trickle of losses will erode the public support and political will to continue (well except for the Israelis). What does an F-35 go for, something like $350M a copy? Imagine losing even a few of those plus the file photos of the dead or captured pilots.
El Dato , says: October 6, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT
My Schwartz is bigger than your Schwartz now in progress. Prepare for affronts.

US to send Israel more F-35s after Moscow supplies S-300s to Syria – reports

The US will reportedly provide Israel with more F-35s after Russia supplied Syria with S-300 missile systems. Moscow's move came in response to the downing of a Russian military plane, which it partly blamed on Israel.

US President Donald Trump decided to lend a hand to America's most devoted ally following consultations at the "highest administration and military levels," DEBKAfile, a military intelligence news site, said to have ties with the Israeli security services, reported.

1) How many F-35 can the US spare?
2) Does it have to tune them to Mediterranean conditions?
3) What about support infrastructure?

and most importantly

4) Does that mean US pilots will be flying or do the Israeli have enough qualified pilots on standby?

jimmyriddle , says: October 7, 2018 at 7:55 pm GMT
One effect of this is to make Israel and the US deploy F35s over Syria. That gives the Russians a good opportunity to study its vulnerabilities.

Naturally, the same goes for whatever variant of S-300 they have deployed, but the F35 is a $1.4 trillion programme. If, like the F-117A, it is found to be fatally compromised by some new radar technology, it will be a total disaster for NATO.

renfro , says: October 7, 2018 at 8:09 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

precisely what the Israelis intended.

The only thing the Israelis have intended was luring the US to open a semi-military base in Israel so they could set up a false flag attack on it to get the USA to fight their wars for them.

[Oct 09, 2018] How the malicious smear game works

Notable quotes:
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Because that is precisely how the smear game works.

The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them.

If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed against Corbyn , who unfortunately fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand. No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.

Carroll Price says: October 1, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT @Dorian I agree. The me-too crown demanding Brett Kavanagh's head on a platter should have been shown the door rather than given a worldwide stage from which to spew their hateful venom.

[Oct 09, 2018] Who Doesn't Love Identity Politics by C.J. Hopkins

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

If there is one thing that still unites Americans across the ever more intellectually suffocating and bitterly polarized political spectrum our imaginations have been crammed into like rush hour commuters on the Tokyo Metro, it's our undying love of identity politics.

Who doesn't love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia everybody loves identity politics.

Why do we love identity politics? We love them for many different reasons.

The ruling classes love identity politics because they keep the working classes focused on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, and not on the fact that they (i.e., the working classes) are, essentially, glorified indentured servants, who will spend the majority of their sentient existences laboring to benefit a ruling elite that would gladly butcher their entire families and sell their livers to hepatitic Saudi princes if they could get away with it. Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity, and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused.

The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away with it. The political parties employ identity politics to maintain the simulation of democracy that prevents Americans (many of whom are armed) from coming together, forming a mob, dismantling this simulation of democracy, and then attempting to establish an actual democracy, of, by, and for the people, which is, basically, the ruling classes' worst nightmare. The best way to avoid this scenario is to keep the working classes ignorant and confused, and at each other's throats over things like pronouns, white privilege, gender appropriate bathrooms, and the complexion and genitalia of the virtually interchangeable puppets the ruling classes allow them to vote for.

The corporate media, academia, Hollywood, and the other components of the culture industry are similarly invested in keeping the vast majority of people ignorant and confused. The folks who populate this culture industry, in addition to predicating their sense of self-worth on their superiority to the unwashed masses, enjoy spending time with the ruling classes, and reaping the many benefits of serving them and, while most of them wouldn't personally disembowel your kids and sell their organs to some dope-addled Saudi trillionaire scion, they would look the other way while the ruling classes did, and then invent some sort of convoluted rationalization of why it was necessary, in order to preserve democracy and freedom (or was some sort of innocent but unfortunate "blunder," which will never, ever, happen again).

The fake Left loves identity politics because they allow them to pretend to be "revolutionary" and spout all manner of "militant" gibberish while posing absolutely zero threat to the ruling classes they claim to be fighting. Publishing fake Left "samizdats" (your donations to which are tax-deductible), sanctimoniously denouncing racism on Twitter, milking whatever identity politics scandal is making headlines that day, and otherwise sounding like a slightly edgier version of National Public Radio, are all popular elements of the fake Left repertoire.

Marching along permitted parade routes, assembling in designated "free speech areas," and listening to speeches by fake Left celebrities and assorted Democratic Party luminaries, are also well-loved fake Left activities. For those who feel the need to be even more militant, pressuring universities to cancel events where potentially "violent" and "oppressive" speech acts (or physical gestures) might occur, toppling offensive historical monuments, ratting out people to social media censors, or masking up and beating the crap out of "street Nazis" are among the available options. All of these activities, by herding potential troublemakers into fake Left ghettos and wasting their time, both on- and off-line, help to ensure that the ruling classes, their political puppets, the corporate media, Hollywood, and the rest of the culture industry can keep most people ignorant and confused.

Oh, and racists, hardcore white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other far-Right wing nuts my God, do they love identity politics! Identity politics are their entire worldview (or Weltanschauung, for you Nazi fetishists). Virtually every social, political, economic, and ontological phenomenon can be explained by reducing it to race, ethnicity, religion, or some other simplistic criterion, according to these "alt-Right" geniuses. And to render everything even more simplistic, each and every one of their simplistic theories can be subsumed into a meta-simplistic theory, which amounts to (did you guess it?) a conspiracy of Jews.

According to this meta-theory, this conspiracy of Jews (which is headquartered in Israel, but maintains offices in Los Angeles and New York, from which it controls the corporate media, Hollywood, and the entire financial sector) is responsible for well, anything they can think of. September 11 attacks? Conspiracy of Jews. Financial crisis? Jews, naturally. Black on Black crime? Jews again! Immigration? Globalization? Gun control laws? Abortion? Drugs? Media bias? Who else could be behind it all but Jews?!

See, the thing is, there is no essential difference between your identity politics-brainwashed liberal and your Swastika-tattooed white supremacist. Both are looking at the world through the lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or some other type of "identity." They are looking through this "identity" lens (whichever one it happens to be) because either they have been conditioned to do so (most likely from the time they were children) or they have made a conscious choice to do so (after recognizing, and affirming or rejecting, whatever conditioning they received as children).

Quantum physicists, Sufi fakirs, and certain other esoterics understand what most of us don't, namely, that there is no such thing as "the Truth," or "Reality," apart from our perception of it. The world, or "reality," or whatever you want to call it, is more than happy to transform itself into any imaginable shape and form, based on the lens you are looking at it through. It's like a trickster in that regard. Look at "reality" through a racist lens, and everything will make sense according to that logic. Look at it through a social justice lens, or a Judeo-Christian lens, or a Muslim lens, or a scientific or a Scientologist lens, or a historical materialist or capitalist lens (it really makes no difference at all) and abracadabra! A new world is born!

Sadly, most of us never reach the stage in our personal (spiritual?) development where we are able to make a conscious choice about which lens we want to view the world through. Mostly, we stick with the lens we were originally issued by our families and societies. Then we spend the rest of our fleeting lives desperately insisting that our perspective is "the Truth," and that other perspectives are either "lies" or "errors." The fact that we do this is unsurprising, as the ruling classes (of whatever society we happened to be born and socialized into) are intensely invested in issuing everyone a "Weltanschauung lens" that corresponds to whatever narrative they are telling themselves about why they deserve to be the ruling classes and we deserve to exist to serve them, fight their wars, pay interest on their loans, not to mention rent to live on the Earth, which they have claimed as their own and divided up amongst themselves to exploit and ruin, which they justify with "laws" they invented, which they enforce with armies, police, and prisons, which they teach us as children to believe is "just the way life is" but I digress.

So, who doesn't love identity politics? Well, I don't love identity politics. But then I tend to view political events in the context of enormous, complex systems operating beyond the level of the individuals and other entities such systems comprise. Thus I've kind of been keeping an eye on the restructuring of the planet by global capitalism that started in the early 1990s, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R., when global capitalism (not the U.S.A.) became the first globally hegemonic system in the history of aspiring hegemonic systems.

Now, this system (i.e., capitalism, not the U.S.A), being globally hegemonic, has no external enemies, so what it's been doing since it became hegemonic is aggressively destabilizing and restructuring the planet according to its systemic needs (most notably in the Middle East, but also throughout the rest of the world), both militarily and ideologically. Along the way, it has encountered some internal resistance, first, from the Islamic "terrorists," more recently, from the so-called "nationalists" and "populists," none of whom seem terribly thrilled about being destabilized, restructured, privatized, and debt-enslaved by global capitalism, not to mention relinquishing what remains of their national sovereignty, and their cultures, and so on.

I've been writing about this for over two years , so I am not going to rehash it all in detail here (this essay is already rather long). The short version is, what we are currently experiencing (i.e., Brexit, Trump, Italy, Hungary, et cetera, the whole "populist" or "nationalist" phenomenon) is resistance (an insurgency, if you will) to hegemonic global capitalism, which is, essentially, a values-decoding machine, which eliminates "traditional" (i.e., despotic) values (e.g., religious, cultural, familial, societal, aesthetic, and other such non-market values) and replaces them with a single value, exchange value, rendering everything a commodity.

The fact that I happen to be opposed to some of those "traditional" values (i.e., racism, anti-Semitism, oppression of women, homosexuals, and so on) does not change my perception of the historical moment, or the sociopolitical, sociocultural, and economic forces shaping that moment. God help me, I believe it might be more useful to attempt to understand those forces than to go around pointing and shrieking at anyone who doesn't conform to my personal views like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers .

But that's the lens I choose to look through. Maybe I've got it all assbackwards. Maybe what is really going on is that Russia "influenced" everyone into voting for Brexit and Donald Trump, and hypnotized them all with those Facebook ads into hating women, people of color, transsexuals, and the Jews, of course, and all that other "populist" stuff, because the Russians hate us for our freedom, and are hell-bent on destroying democracy and establishing some kind of neo-fascist, misogynist, pseudo-Atwoodian dystopia. Or, I don't know, maybe the other side is right, and it really is all a conspiracy of Jews transsexual, immigrant Jews of color, who want to force us all to have late-term abortions and circumcise our kids, or something.

I wish I could help you sort all that out, but I'm just a lowly political satirist, and not an expert on identity politics or anything. I'm afraid you'll have to pick a lens through which to interpret "reality" yourself. But then, you already have, haven't you or are you still looking through the one that was issued to you?

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[Oct 09, 2018] Make him deny it

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Tony Vodvarka says: October 1, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT LBJ, running for a seat in the Texas state legislature, told his campaign manager to spread the charge that his opponent had sex with pigs. Shocked, the manager replied, "He doesn't do that! "I know, I know" said Johnson, "but make him deny it."

[Oct 09, 2018] How to Maliciously Smear Your Critics (and Not Get Away with It) by C.J. Hopkins

Satirical but pretty precise description how racial and ethnic smears work
Notable quotes:
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him . This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible. ..."
"... It is difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won. ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

The life of a professional political satirist is many things, but it is certainly never boring. Last week, for example, was particularly not boring. OK, I wasn't called before a Senate committee to testify against a rapey nominee to the highest court in the United States, or smeared by the right-wing media for doing so, nothing that dramatic or consequential. No, while most Americans were parsing every "he said" and "she said" of the Kavanaugh hearings, I was embroiled in my own little sordid drama involving "going public," and smears, and my colleagues attempting to assassinate my character, and so on.

... ... ...

Because that is precisely how the smear game works. The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him . This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them.

If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed against Corbyn , who unfortunately fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand.

No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible.

It is difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.

T. Weed , says: October 1, 2018 at 3:12 am GMT

Hopkins is wise not to demean himself by arguing with the smearers that he is not (shudder!) an anti-Semite. Might as well be called a child-molester. No. We will never be free from these extortionists until we throw back at them: Who is a Semite? Is Netanyahu a Semite? If that genocidal murderer is a Semite, then I'm an anti-Semite and proud of it! (He isn't, he has no more Semitic genes than I have, he's pure East European, a Khazar). Are those rabbis in Israel who claim that a thousand Arabs aren't worth one Jewish fingernail, Semites? Then, hell yes, I'm an anti-Semite and proud of it!
Is Rabbi Rav Leor (another European Jew in Israel with no more "right" to the Holy Land than I have), who claimed in a speech in occupied Jerusalem that the halacha (Jewish law) "supports the annihilation of non-Jews in Israel" is this man a Semite? "Hashmadat goyem" (extermination of non-Jews) "is an established principle in Jewish theology", he assured his audience. He was not rebuked.
Until we assert our righteous indignation, we'll be at the mercy of these freaks forever.
Greg Bacon , says: Website October 1, 2018 at 5:56 am GMT
At the mere mention of the dreaded–and overused–"You're anti-Semitic," grown men have been known to wet their britches.

One can usually tell an article is going to be a hit piece on someone without even reading said article, just take a look at the picture of the article's subject at the top; if the pic is a kindly one, showing the person in a positive way, smiling and such, it will not be a hit piece.

On the other hand, if the pic shows the person in some kind of foul mood, grimacing or with a confused look on their mug, you can be assured it's going to be a smear of that person's integrity.

When a certain bunch of digital gangsters want to defame, mock, vilify and smear a person, they'll call them all sorts of vile stuff; make nasty inferences and make tenuous associations with neo-Nazis or some real anti-Semites, but rarely do they attack what the person has said or written, that is dangerous territory and too much work.

Biff , says: October 1, 2018 at 6:24 am GMT
@gsjackson

Well, aren't we Unz readers the deplorables? I used to read Counterpunch regularly. Then Cockburn died, and gradually the quality declined. I stopped looking in, and now apparently the writers I was most interested in -- PCR, Diane Johnstone, Mike Whitney -- are no longer published there. They are here. Moving from Counterpunch to Unz was simply a step forward in intellectual growth.

This pretty much nails it for me too. I still click on CP now and then, but I can't help but noticed the glaring intellectual holes some of those writers left behind.

Jake , says: October 1, 2018 at 1:19 pm GMT
I doubt I have gone to CounterPunch more than twice, to read anything or just to peruse, since the passing of Cockburn. I have no doubt that St. Clair means it, with a vengeance, when he asserts that he cares more for blacks and Jews than for whites. And that is what this is about.

The kulturkampf is about desire to inflict cultural genocide against the vestiges of Christendom. It must necessarily be anti-white Gentile because those are the people who founded and ran Christendom. It therefore also must favor all peoples who are not white Gentiles. You cannot separate the war against Christendom from the war against whites. Both the new white pagans and the racially bleeding heart white Christians will refuse to see the obvious, but facts is facts, and you ignore them to your own destruction.

CJ Hopkins dares not merely to see the vicious absurdities that define the Left as it moves into utter hysteria but to say what he sees. And for that, he will be ostracized and, if they are successful, destroyed. The Left does not brook any speech that flies against seeing the Left of the past and the present as The Good Guy that must not be questioned. More specific, Hopkins now has fully spotlighted the biggest hypocrisy that the left requires: seeing and preaching itself as being for the 'little guy,' the working class.

The Left is for the 'little guy' and the working class only when they support the Left in how it prefers to wage kulturkampf at the time. And that has always been true.

Yes, the Neocons (I use the term in its broader sense which encompasses all the WASP Country Club empire boys) are just like the Left: each is self-righteously imperialistic, on a global scale, and each absolutely despises the white working class and every traditional value and identity associated with them. Each expects, demands, the white working class to be complacent tax slaves and cannon fodder.

CJ Hopkins must be stopped because he might reveal the con game

Tony Vodvarka , says: October 1, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT
LBJ, running for a seat in the Texas state legislature, told his campaign manager to spread the charge that his opponent had sex with pigs. Shocked, the manager replied, "He doesn't do that! "I know, I know" said Johnson, "but make him deny it."
Agent76 , says: October 1, 2018 at 3:31 pm GMT
The Hegelian Dialectic- Problem, reaction, solution

The first step (thesis) is to create a problem. The second step (antithesis) is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic and hysteria). The third step (synthesis) is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one: A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.

Carroll Price , says: October 1, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
Well, let's face it. Any political writer or magazine acquiring a significant readership is eventually faced with the choice of either complying with orders from the Tribe as to what they can publish, or telling the Tribe to kiss-off and take a long hike.

[Oct 08, 2018] American Caesar Tucker Carlson's Conservative Revolution by Jake Bowyer

Notable quotes:
"... Ship of Fools is no apology for Trumpism. Indeed, Carlson calls Trump "vulgar and ignorant." But he rightly points out that Trump "didn't invade Iraq or bail out Wall Street. He didn't lower interest rates to zero, or open the borders, or sit silently by as the manufacturing sector collapsed and the middle class died." Basically, Donald J. Trump is not your average American politician. Thank God. ..."
"... Well, Ship of Fools excoriates finance capitalism and the class that has constantly reaped economic benefits out of the labor of American workers without contributing anything of substance to the American body politic. The Democrats used to be the party of populist rabble rousers like Huey Long and Al Smith. ..."
"... Explicit in this critique of America's Ruling Class is the fact that democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America, the elite do not attend to the population, cynical race-mongering is used to win votes at the cost of internal peace, and chicken hawks like Max Boot and William Kristol still receive adulation in the Main Stream Media despite their disastrous record of cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans. (To say nothing of their fanatical opposition to Trump -- despite the fact that he won the presidency when their catspaws McCain and Romney ignominiously failed). Ship of Fools correctly notes that this is what an empire looks like in its final days. ..."
"... Jake Bowyer [ Email him ] is the pseudonym of an American college student. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.unz.com
Jake Bowyer October 3, 2018

Since the late fall of 2016, Democrats and other Leftist types have been decrying President Donald J. Trump as "not normal" and a "threat to democracy." Of course, this is hogwash of the most rank sort. The same people lambasting Trump for his supposed " authoritarianism " are the same people who have created the modern American oligarchy. Tucker Carlson , the popular Fox News who wrote the single most brilliant and prescient Main Stream Media article on the Trump phenomenon: Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right | And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault, by Tucker Carlson, Politico, January 28, 2016.

That was written before, let it be noted, Trump's double-digit triumph in the New Hampshire primary -- has continued to speak verboten things . Now he takes aim at America's oligarchic class in his just-released book Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

For Carlson, moral and social rot in the United States starts at the very top -- the place where Democrats and Republicans https://vdare.com/posts/they-want-to-lose-gop-congress-sounds-retreat-on-border-wall-funds-democratic-priorities to maintain unpopular elite rule. Carlson compares this American elite to blind drunk captains steering a sinking ship. Making matters worse: the fact that, in keeping with Carlson's nautical parallel, "Anyone who points out the consequences of what they're [the elite] doing gets keelhauled." Gavin McInnes (banned from Twitter ) and Alex Jones (banned from everything ) would agree.

Ship of Fools is no apology for Trumpism. Indeed, Carlson calls Trump "vulgar and ignorant." But he rightly points out that Trump "didn't invade Iraq or bail out Wall Street. He didn't lower interest rates to zero, or open the borders, or sit silently by as the manufacturing sector collapsed and the middle class died." Basically, Donald J. Trump is not your average American politician. Thank God.

For much of Ship of Fools , Carlson comes off sounding like someone with his heart in the center-left. Some cheeky Twitter users might even dub Carlson's latest book National Bolshevism.

Why? Well, Ship of Fools excoriates finance capitalism and the class that has constantly reaped economic benefits out of the labor of American workers without contributing anything of substance to the American body politic. The Democrats used to be the party of populist rabble rousers like Huey Long and Al Smith.

But Carlson points out that "the Democratic Party is now the party of the rich." Rather than attacking mega-wealthy people like Amazon's Jeff Bezos or Apple's Tim Cook , the modern American Left is completely in thrall to money and corporate power. This hurts every American not in the upper income bracket.

Republicans are no better. They remain wedded to the idea of being the party of business, and as such many Republican elected officials support Open Borders because that would provide their donors with an endless supply of cheap labor. This support comes at the cost of angering a majority of Republican voters.

In sum, both parties have given up on the native-born American workers. And, beginning in 2016, American workers began pushing back at the ballot box.

Ship of Fools is a bleak book. It is also much better than the usual fluff penned (or signed) by Fox News pundits. Carlson tells uncomfortable truths and engages with topics that until very recently were only considered fit for the fringe Right (like VDARE.com ).

Take for instance the displacement of white Americans, especially white working-class Americans. America is a nation of 200 million white people. Native-born whites pay more in taxes, provide the majority of America's soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, and are the offspring of the people who built this country. For this hard work and loyalty, foreign-born editors at the New York Times tweet "#CancelWhitePeople." Hordes of Antifa types cheer on the displacement of native-born whites, while the political elite do nothing to combat rising drug overdose deaths and suicides in the Midwest, rural Northeast, and South. As Carlson warns, " White identity politics will be a response to a world in which identity politics is the only game there is."

And, as anti-white vitriol increases and whites are demoted from majority status, Carlson predicts that white interest groups will form and flex their muscles when they feel that their backs are up against the wall.

At several points in Ship of Fools , Carlson sincerely grieves for the lost Liberal-Left of his childhood. He misses the environmentalists who cared about littering, not about some abstract thing called climate change. He misses those Leftists who cried about injustice in the world rather than ranting and raving at the behest of the elite class. Without an honest Left, America could further descend into corporate anarcho-tyranny -- a place where businesses control free speech and only a small sliver of people enjoy the benefits of the modern and high-tech economy.

Ship of Fools ends with a warning: either practice democracy or be prepared for authoritarian rule.

"In order to survive, democracies must remain egalitarian," Carlson argues."When all the spoils seem to flow upward, the majority will revolt in protest."

Explicit in this critique of America's Ruling Class is the fact that democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America, the elite do not attend to the population, cynical race-mongering is used to win votes at the cost of internal peace, and chicken hawks like Max Boot and William Kristol still receive adulation in the Main Stream Media despite their disastrous record of cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans. (To say nothing of their fanatical opposition to Trump -- despite the fact that he won the presidency when their catspaws McCain and Romney ignominiously failed). Ship of Fools correctly notes that this is what an empire looks like in its final days.

In this sense the elites may be right to characterize President Trump as a populist. After all, Julius Caesar gave the common man order, security, and bread in the face of a cold and sterile system. By attempting to dismantle the elite consensus, Trump, Trumpism , and America First may just be the first entries in a new age of all-American Caesarism.

We should only be so lucky!

Jake Bowyer [ Email him ] is the pseudonym of an American college student.

KenG , says: October 7, 2018 at 6:36 am GMT

I enjoyed the book immensely even though I'm a socialist myself. Tucker's disdain for wars, technology companies, and the ruling class are a breath of fresh air. I also enjoy his show but I do wish he wouldn't talk over the guests he disagrees with.
AlreadyPublished , says: October 7, 2018 at 4:39 am GMT
There must be a reason why people like j g strijdom and curmudgeon, with their slimy unsubstantiated charges, despise Tucker Carlson. I suspect it is this:

[Oct 08, 2018] The US neoliberal society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear what can bring us back from it other then the collapse

New Tucker book condemns both neoliberalism and neocon foreign policy
Notable quotes:
"... Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions. They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population... Above all, they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm) ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

likbez

I think the US society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear what can bring us back from it other then the collapse, USSR-style. The USA slide into corporate socialism (which might be viewed as a flavor of neofascism) can't be disputed.

Looks like all democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America, the elite do not care about lower 80% of the population, and is over-engaged in cynical identity politics, race and gender-mongering. Anything to win votes.

MSM is still cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans, impoverish millions, and cost trillions. Congress looks even worse. Republican House leader Paul Ryan looks like 100% pure bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational corporations...

The scary thing for me is that the USA national problems are somewhat similar to the ones that the USSR experienced before the collapse. At least the level of degeneration of political elite of both parties (which in reality is a single party) is.

The only positive things is that there is viable alternative to neoliberalism on the horizon. But that does not mean that we can't experience 1930th on a new level again. Now several European countries such as Poland and Ukraine are already ruled by far right nationalist parties. Brazil is probably the next. So this or military rule in the USA is not out of question.

Ship of Fools is what the US empire and the US society looks like now. And that's not funny. Look at <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ship-Fools-Selfish-Bringing-Revolution-ebook/dp/B071FFRJ48">"Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution"</a> by Tucker Carlson hits the mark when he says that the career politicians and other elites in this country have put the USA on a path of self-destruction.

Some other factors are also in play: one is that a country with 320 million population can't be governed by the same methods as a country of 76 million (1900). End of cheap oil is near and probably will occur within the next 50 years or so. Which means the end of neoliberalism as we know it.

Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions. They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population... Above all, they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm)

Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it. They just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican leadership, along with the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate executives and Hollywood tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created the world as it was in the fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .

There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election night, they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer action movie: Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because Russian agents "hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces were mesmerized by his gold jet and shiny cuff links.

From a reader review:

The New [Neoliberal] Elite speaks: "The Middle Class are losers and they have made bad choices, they haven't worked as hard as the New Elite have, they haven't gone to SAT Prep or LSAT prep so they lose, we win. We are the Elite and we know better than you because we got high SAT scores.

Do we have experience? Uh....well...no, few of us have been in the military, pulled KP, shot an M-16.... because we are better than that. Like they say only the losers go in the military. We in the New Elite have little empirical knowledge but we can recognize patterns very quickly."

Just look at Haley behavior in the UN and Trump trade wars and many things became more clear. the bet is on destruction of existing international institutions in order to save the USA elite. A the same time Trump trade wars threaten the neoliberal order so this might well be a path to the USA self-destruction.

On Capital hill rancor, a lack of civility and derisive descriptions are everywhere. Respect has gone out the window. Left and right wings of a single neoliberal party (much like CPSU was in the USSR) behave like drunk schoolchildren. Level of pettiness is simply amazing.

[Oct 08, 2018] NATO Bombed You To Protect You Stoltenberg Explains 1999 Bombings During Visit To Serbia

Oct 08, 2018 | southfront.org

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg says that people having "poor" memories of NATO's 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia are wrong because the military bloc did this to protect civilians and save lives.

"I stressed that we did this to protect civilians and to stop the Milosevic regime," Stoltenberg stated during a meeting with the students of Belgrade University.

The NATO secretary stated further that the bloc supports a "dialogue" between Serbia and its breakaway region [now a self-proclaimed state] of Kosovo. According to him, Belgrade has to "look into the future" for furher cooperation between the two sides.

The attitude showed by Stoltenberg is a common example how the US-NATO propaganda works. Any actions, incluindg illegal military interventions, false flag provocations and mass civilian casualties, are being explained by the need to "defend democracy", "protect civilians" and "save lives".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2M42BAJAk84?feature=oembed

[Oct 08, 2018] The Final Truth of Russia-gate by Justin Raimondo

Notable quotes:
"... As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out ..."
"... This entire episode has Her Majesty's Secret Service's fingerprints all over it. Steele's key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate about his work – almost as if he'd have done it for free. And then there was the earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook Stefan Halper to Carter Page. And then there's the mysterious alleged "link" to Russian intelligence, Professor Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later claims it was a Russian covert operation. ..."
"... It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had planted percolated into plain view. Some "Russian agent"! ..."
"... Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations with at least one key ally. ..."
"... So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting a democratically-elected President by any means necessary. ..."
"... When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first? They can't allow it. ..."
"... The global Establishment has risen up against the People. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out

The conspiracy to overthrow a sitting US President extends far beyond our own "Deep State." As I've been saying in this space for quite some time, it's been an international team effort from the beginning. Setting aside the British origins of the obscene "dossier" compiled by "ex"-MI6 agent Christopher Steele, we now have further confirmation of foreign involvement in President Trump's decision to delay (perhaps indefinitely) the declassification of key Russia-gate documents. While US intelligence officials were expected to oppose the move, "Trump was also swayed by foreign allies, including Britain, in deciding to reverse course, these people said. It wasn't immediately clear what other governments may have raised concerns to the White House."

But of course the Washington Post knows perfectly well which other governments would have reason to raise "concerns" to the White House. It's clear from the public record that the following "allies" have rendered the "Resistance" essential assistance at one time or another:

This is part of the price we pay for our vaunted "empire," and the "liberal international order" the striped-pants set is so on about. As that grizzled old "isolationist" prophet, Garet Garrett, described the insignia of empire at the dawn of the cold war:

"There is yet another sign that defines itself gradually. When it is clearly defined it may be already too late to do anything about it. That is to say, a time comes when Empire finds itself –

"A prisoner of history.

"The history of a Republic is its own history . A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business., But the history of Empire is a world history, and belongs to many people."

A Republic may restrain itself, wrote Garrett, but "Empire must put forth its power" – on whose behalf? There are many claimants whose wealth, position, and prestige depend on the Imperial largesse. When that claim is threatened, the "satellites" turn against their protector. This is what the Russia-gate covert action -- carried out by coordinated action of our "allies" – is all about. We now have clear evidence of just how far our "client" states are willing go to ensure that the American gravy train of free goodies continues to flow.

Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations with at least one key ally.

So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting a democratically-elected President by any means necessary.

Here is the final irrefutable argument against America as the "world leader," designated champion of the "liberal international order" – we become, as Garrett noted, a prisoner of history. Indeed, we are no longer entitled to write our own history, but must endure the lobbying and aggressive interventions of our ungrateful and spiteful "allies," whose welfare states could not exist without generous US "defense" subsidies.

When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first? They can't allow it.

And that's really the essence of the fight, the issue that will determine the woof and warp of American politics in the new millennium. The global Establishment has risen up against the People. There's no telling what the outcome will be, but one thing I know for sure: I know what side I'm on. Do you?

[Oct 08, 2018] The idea of 'stealth' aircraft is in fact mostly a gimmick designed to enrich the military contractors

Oct 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

pogohere , Oct 7, 2018 7:50:12 PM | link

Greece @ 25

"Also do not forget that all invisible stuff that US army had during the Clinton/HRC era, were easily visible. F-117 in Serbia,"

See: Comment #43: (very detailed, links to open source US mil docs)

"The idea of 'stealth' aircraft is in fact mostly a gimmick designed to enrich the military contractors it doesn't actually work very well at all, as proved in 1999 when the Serb air defense, using ancient Soviet surface to air missiles of 1950s vintage, shot down the USAF F117 aircraft and damaged another that was then written off, and therefore counts as a kill "

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/s-300s-and-other-military-hardware-for-syria/#comment-2558132

Grieved , Oct 7, 2018 9:05:49 PM | link

@26 pogohere

Thanks for that link. That's an essay in itself, and I'm still reading it. Fascinating and valuable background on stealth.

First takeaway for me is that the Russians invented stealth but considered it impracticable at the time. The US designers took the Russian equations and ran with them, throwing out many other considerations of plane-worthiness in order to promote this dud of a magic bullet.

[Oct 08, 2018] Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity, and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused by C.J. Hopkins

Oct 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

If there is one thing that still unites Americans across the ever more intellectually suffocating and bitterly polarized political spectrum our imaginations have been crammed into like rush hour commuters on the Tokyo Metro, it's our undying love of identity politics.

Who doesn't love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia everybody loves identity politics.

Why do we love identity politics? We love them for many different reasons.

The ruling classes love identity politics because they keep the working classes focused on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, and not on the fact that they (i.e., the working classes) are, essentially, glorified indentured servants, who will spend the majority of their sentient existences laboring to benefit a ruling elite that would gladly butcher their entire families and sell their livers to hepatitic Saudi princes if they could get away with it. Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity, and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused.

The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away with it. The political parties employ identity politics to maintain the simulation of democracy that prevents Americans (many of whom are armed) from coming together, forming a mob, dismantling this simulation of democracy, and then attempting to establish an actual democracy, of

The corporate media, academia, Hollywood, and the other components of the culture industry are similarly invested in keeping the vast majority of people ignorant and confused. The folks who populate this culture industry, in addition to predicating their sense of self

Oh, and racists, hardcore white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other far-Right wing nuts my God, do they love identity politics! Identity politics are their entire worldview (or Weltanschauung, for you Nazi fetishists). Virtually every social, political, economic, and ontological phenomenon can be explained by reducing it to race, ethnicity, religion, or some other simplistic criterion, according to these "alt-Right" geniuses. And to render everything even more simplistic, each and every one of their simplistic theories can be subsumed into a meta-simplistic theory, which amounts to (did you guess it?) a conspiracy of Jews.

According to this meta-theory, this conspiracy of Jews (which is headquartered in Israel, but maintains offices in Los Angeles and New York, from which it controls the corporate media, Hollywood, and the entire financial sector) is responsible for well, anything they can think of. September 11 attacks? Conspiracy of Jews. Financial crisis? Jews, naturally. Black on Black crime? Jews again! Immigration? Globalization? Gun control laws? Abortion? Drugs? Media bias? Who else could be behind it all but Jews?!

[Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security ..."
"... "The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance. ..."
"... One thing that did ..."
"... US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point. ..."
"... My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection." ..."
"... All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. ..."
"... the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ] ..."
"... It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. ..."
"... it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools. ..."
"... My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese? ..."
"... The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations? ..."
"... That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors. ..."
"... There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all. ..."
"... So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget. ..."
"... What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes. ..."
"... Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same. ..."
Oct 07, 2018 | freethoughtblogs.com

Bob Moore asks me to comment on an article about propaganda and security/intelligence. [ article ] This is going to be a mixture of opinion and references to facts; I'll try to be clear which is which.

Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar against NATO's preferred enemy.

On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big motherland.

It is true that the US periodically makes a big push regarding "messaging" about hacking. Whether or not it constitutes a "propaganda campaign" depends on how we choose to interpret things and the labels we attach to them -- "propaganda campaign" has a lot of negative connotations and one person's "outreach effort" is an other's "propaganda." An ultra-nationalist or an authoritarian submissive who takes the government's word for anything would call it "outreach."

There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security (2004) [ wc ] claims such as that the Chinese had "40,000 highly trained hackers" are flat-out absurd and ignore the reality of hacking; that's four army corps. Hackers don't engage in "human wave" attacks.

"The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance.

One thing that did happen in 2010 around the same time as the nonexistent cyberwar was China and Russia proposed trilateral talks with the US to attempt to define appropriate limits on state-sponsored hacking. The US flatly rejected the proposal, but there was virtually no coverage of that in the US media at the time. The UN also called for a cyberwar treaty framework, and the effort was killed by the US. [ wired ] What's fascinating and incomprehensible to me is that, whenever the US feels that its ability to claim pre-emptive cyberwar is challenged, it responds with a wave of claims about Chinese (or Russian or North Korean) cyberwar aggression.

John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord.

US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point.

My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection."

The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly helped to exaggerate the claims: [ ]

The Netherland [sic] for its part released a flurry of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they, at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real spies are neither.

The U.S. Justice Department added to the onslaught by issuing new indictments (pdf) against alleged GRU agents dubiously connected to several alleged hacking incidents . As none of those Russians will ever stand in front of a U.S. court the broad allegations will never be tested.

There's a lot there, and I think the interpretation is a bit over-wrought, but it's mostly accurate. The US and the UK (and other NATO allies, as necessary) clearly coordinate when it comes to talking points. Claims of Chinese cyberwar in the US press will be followed by claims in the UK and Australian press, as well. My suspicion is that this is not the US Government and UK Government coordinating a story -- it's the intelligence agencies doing it. My opinion is that the intelligence services are fairly close to a "deep state" -- the CIA and NSA are completely out of control and the CIA has gone far toward building its own military, while the NSA has implemented completely unrestricted surveillance worldwide.

All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. While the attribution that "Fancy Bear is the GRU" has been made and is probably fairly solid, the attribution of NSA malware and CIA malware is rock solid; the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ]

It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. I tend to be extremely skeptical of US claims because: bomber gap, missile gap, gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD, Afghanistan, Libya and every other aggressive attack by the US which was blamed on its target. The reason I assume the US is the most aggressive actor in cyberspace is because the US has done a terrible job of protecting its tool-sets and operational security: it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools.

Meanwhile, where are the leaks of Russian and Chinese tools? They have been few and far between, if there have been any at all. Does this mean that the Russians and Chinese have amazingly superior tradecraft, if not tools? I don't know. My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese?

The article does not have great depth to its understanding of the situation, I'm afraid. So it comes off as a bit heavy on the recent news while ignoring the long-term trends. For example:

The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain manipulation goes back to 1982 :

A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas pipeline, it emerged yesterday.

I wrote a piece about the "Farewell Dossier" in 2004. [ mjr ] Re-reading it, it comes off as skeptical but waffly. I think that it's self-promotion by the CIA and exaggerates considerably ("look how clever we are!") at a time when the CIA was suffering an attention and credibility deficit after its shitshow performance under George Tenet. But the first known cases of computer related supply chain manipulation go back to the 70s and 80s -- the NSA even compromised Crypto AG's Hagelin M-209 system (a mechanical ciphering machine) in order to read global communications encrypted with that product. You can imagine Crypto AG's surprise when the Iranian secret police arrested one of their sales reps for selling backdoor'd crypto -- the NSA had never told them about the backdoor, naturally. The CIA was also on record for producing Xerox machines destined for the USSR, which had recorders built into them So, while the article is portraying the historical sweep of NSA dirty tricks, they're only looking at the recent ones. Remember: the NSA also weakened the elliptic curve crypto library in RSA's Bsafe implementation, paying RSADSI $13 million to accept their tweaked code.

Why haven't we been hearing about the Chinese and Russians doing that sort of thing? There are four options:

  1. The Russians and Chinese are doing it, they're just so darned good nobody has caught them until just recently.
  2. The Russians and Chinese simply resort to using existing tools developed by the hacking/cybercrime community and rely on great operational security rather than fancy tools.
  3. The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations?
  4. Something else.

That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors.

Was the Intel IME a "backdoor" or just "a bad idea"? Well, that's tricky. Let me put my tinfoil hat on: making a backdoor look like a sloppily developed product feature would be the competent way to write a backdoor. Making it as sneaky as the backdoor in the Via is unnecessary -- incompetence is eminently believable.

&

(kaspersky)

I believe all of these stories (including the Supermicro) are the tip of a great big, ugly iceberg. The intelligence community has long known that software-only solutions are too mutable, and are easy to decompile and figure out. They have wanted to be in the BIOS of systems -- on the motherboard -- for a long time. If you go back to 2014, we have disclosures about the NSA malware that hides in hard drive BIOS: [ vice ] [ vice ] That appears to have been in progress around 2000/2001.

Of note, the group recovered two modules belonging to EquationDrug and GrayFish that were used to reprogram hard drives to give the attackers persistent control over a target machine. These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market, including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward.

But Equation Group's malware platforms have other tricks, too. GrayFish, for example, also has the ability to install itself into computer's boot record -- software that loads even before the operating system itself -- and stores all of its data inside a portion of the operating system called the registry, where configuration data is normally stored.

EquationDrug was designed for use on older Windows operating systems, and "some of the plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME" -- versions of Windows so old that they offer a good indication of the Equation Group's age.

This is not a very good example of how to establish a "malware gap" since it just makes the NSA look like they are incapable of keeping a secret. If you want an idea how bad it is, Kaspersky labs' analysis of the NSA's toolchain is a good example of how to do attribution correctly. Unfortunately for the US agenda, that solid attribution points toward Fort Meade in Maryland. [kaspersky]

Let me be clear: I think we are fucked every which way from the start. With backdoors in the BIOS, backdoors on the CPU, and wireless cellular-spectrum backdoors, there are probably backdoors in the GPUs and the physical network controllers, as well. Maybe the backdoors in the GPU come from the GRU and maybe the backdoors in the hard drives come from NSA, but who cares? The upshot is that all of our systems are so heinously compromised that they can only be considered marginally reliable. It is, literally, not your computer: it's theirs. They'll let you use it so long as your information is interesting to them.

Do I believe the Chinese are capable of doing such a thing? Of course. Is the GRU? Probably. Mossad? Sure. NSA? Well-documented attribution points toward NSA. Your computer is a free-fire zone. It has been since the mid 1990s, when the NSA was told "no" on the Clipper chip and decided to come up with its own Plan B, C, D, and E. Then, the CIA came up with theirs. Etc. There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all.

From my 2012 RSA conference lecture "Cyberwar, you're doing it wrong."

The problem is that playing in this space is the purview of governments. Nobody in the cybercrime or hacking world need tools like these. The intelligence operatives have huge budgets, compared to a typical company's security budget, and it's unreasonable to expect any business to invest such a level of effort on defending itself. So what should companies do? They should do exactly what they are doing: expect the government to deal with it; that's what governments are for. The problem with that strategy is that their government isn't on their side, either! It's Hobbes' playground.

In case you think I am engaging in hyperbole, I assure you I am not. If you want another example of the lengths (and willingness to bypass the law) "they" are willing to go, consider 'stingrays' that are in operation in every major US city and outside of every interesting hotel and high tech park. Those devices are not passive -- they actively inject themselves into the call set-up between your phone and your carrier -- your data goes through the stingray, or it doesn't go at all. If there are multiple stingrays, then your latency goes through the roof. "They" don't care. Are the stingrays NSA, FBI, CIA, Mossad, GRU, or PLA? Probably a bit of all of the above depending on where and when.

Whenever the US gets caught with its pants down around its ankles, it blames the Chinese or the Russians because they have done a good job of building the idea that the most serious hackers on the planet at the Chinese. I don't believe that we're seeing complex propaganda campaigns that are tied to specific incidents -- I think we see ongoing organic propaganda campaigns that all serve the same end: protect the agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence.

So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget.

The government also engages in propaganda, and is influenced by the intelligence community's propaganda as well. And the propaganda campaigns work because everyone involved assumes, "well, given what the NSA has been able to do, I should assume the Chinese can do likewise." That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and I think it's probably true that the Chinese have capabilities. The situation is what Chuck Spinney calls "A self-licking ice cream cone" -- it's a justifying structure that makes participation in endless aggression seem like a sensible thing to do. And, when there's inevitably a disaster, it's going to be like a cyber-9/11 and will serve as a justification for even more unrestrained aggression.

Want to see what it looks like? A thousand thanks to Commentariat member [redacted] for this link. If you don't like video, there's an article here. [ toms ]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_eSAF_qT_FY

Is this an NSA backdoor, or normal incompetence? Is Intel Management Engine an NSA-inspired backdoor, or did some system engineers at Intel think that was a good idea? There are other scary indications of embedded compromise: the CIA's Vault7 archive included code that appeared to be intended to embed in the firmware of "smart" flatscreen TVs. That would make every LG flat panel in every hotel room, a listening device just waiting to be turned on.

We know the Chinese didn't do that particular bug but why wouldn't they do something similar, in something else? China is the world's oldest mature culture -- they literally wrote the book on strategy -- Americans acting as though it's a great surprise to learn that the Chinese are not stupid, it's just the parochialism of a 250 year-old culture looking at a 3,000 year-old culture and saying "wow, you guys haven't been asleep at the switch after all!"

WIRED on cyberspace treaties [ wired ]

Comments

  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    October 6, 2018 at 1:31 pm

    What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.

    Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same.

  2. Marcus Ranum says

    October 6, 2018 at 2:28 pm

    Pierce R. Butler@#1:
    What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.

    Yes. Since 2001, as far as most of us can tell, federal cybersecurity spend has been 80% offense, 20% defense. And a lot of the offensive spend has been aimed at We, The People.

  3. Cat Mara says

    October 6, 2018 at 5:20 pm

    Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running troll farms on social media). I mean, I've seen interviews with retired US intelligence people since the 90s complain that since the late 1980s, the intelligence agencies have been crippled by management in love with hi-tech "SIGINT" solutions to problems that never deliver and neglecting old-fashioned "HUMINT" intelligence-gathering.

    The thing is, Kevin Mitnick got away with a lot of what he did because people didn't take security seriously then, and still don't. On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.

  4. Marcus Ranum says

    October 6, 2018 at 9:20 pm

    Cat Mara@#3:
    Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running troll farms on social media).

    I think that's right, to a high degree. What if Edward Snowden was an agent provocateur instead of a well-meaning naive kid? A tremendous amount of damage could be done, as well as stealing the US' expensive toys. The Russians have been very good at doing exactly that sort of operation, since WWII. The Chinese are, if anything, more subtle than the Russians.

    The Chinese attitude, as expressed to me by someone who might be a credible source is, "why are you picking a fight with us? We don't care, you're too far away for us to threaten you, we both have loads of our own fish to fry. To them, the US is young, hyperactive, and stupid.

    The FBI is not competent, at all, against old-school humint intelligence-gathering. Compared to the US' cyber-toys, the old ways are probably more efficient and cost effective. China's intelligence community is also much more team-oriented than the CIA/NSA; they're actually a disciplined operation under the strategic control of policy-makers. That, by the way, is why Russians and Chinese stare in amazement when Americans ask things like "Do you think Putin knew about this?" What a stupid question! It's an autocracy; they don't have intelligence operatives just going an deciding "it's a nice day to go to England with some Novichok." The entire American attitude toward espionage lacks maturity.

    On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.

    That as an exciting time. We were downstream from University of Maryland, which got hit pretty badly. Pete Cottrel and Chris Torek from UMD were also in on Bostic's dissection. We were doing uucp over TCP for our email (that changed pretty soon after the worm) and our uucp queue blew up. I cured the worm with a reboot into single-user mode and a quick 'rm -f' in the uucp queue.

  5. Bob Moore says

    October 7, 2018 at 9:18 am

    Thanks. I appreciate your measured analysis and the making explicit of the bottom line: " agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence."

[Oct 07, 2018] There Was No Debate When We Needed One by Paul Craig Roberts

As b wrote in Moon of Alabama blog: "The anti-Kavanaugh strategy by the Democratic Party leadership was an utter failure. They could have emphasized his role in the Patriot Act, the Bush torture regime and his earlier lies to Congress to disqualify him. Instead they used the fake grievance culture against him which allowed Trump to do what he does best - wield victimhood (vid, recommended).
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party. ..."
"... Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine. ..."
"... A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered. ..."
Oct 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party.

Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine.

A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered.

There are important issues before the United States having to do with the very soul of the country. They involve constitutional and separation of powers constraints on executive branch powers and the protection of US civil liberty. Important books, such as Charlie Savage's Takeover have been written about the Cheney-Bush successful assault on the principle that the president is accountable under law. Can the executive branch torture despite domestic and international laws against torture? Can the executive branch spy on citizens without warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary? Can the executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Can the executive branch kill US citizens without due process of law, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law professor John Yoo say "yes the president can."

Instead of using the opportunity to find out if Kavanaugh stood for liberty or unbridled presidential power, feminist harpies indulged in an orgy of man-hate.

And it wasn't just the RadFem harpies. It was the entire liberal/progresive/left which has discredited itself even more than the crazed feminist Georgetown University professor, who, by the way, unlike what would have been required of a heterosexual male, did not have to apologize and was not fired as a male would have been.

There is now a "funding platform" endorsed by liberal/progressive/left websites that claims to have raised $3 million to unseat Senator Susan Collins for voting, after hearing all the scant evidence, to confirm Kavanaugh. Websites such as Commondreams, CounterPunch, OpEdNews are losing their credibility as they mire themselves in divisive Identity Politics in which everyone is innocent except the white heterosexual male. Precisely at the time when Trump's capture by the Zionist neoconservative warmongers needs protests and opposition as the US is being driven to war with Iran, Russia, and China, there is no opposition as the United States dissolves into the hatreds spawned by Identity Politics.

To see how absurd the RadFem/liberal/progressive/left is, let's assume that the vague, unsubstantiated accusation that is 30 to 40 years late against Kavanaugh is true. Let's assume that the encounter of bed tussling occurred. If rape was the intention, why wasn't she raped? I suggest a likely scenario. There is an unchaperoned house party. Alcohol is present. The accuser admits to drinking beer with boys in a house with access to bedrooms. The accused assumes, which would have been a normal assumption in the 1980s, that the girl is available. Otherwise, why is she there? So he tries her, and she is not. So he gives up and lets her go. How is this a serious sexual offense?

Even if the accused had persisted and raped his accuser, how does this crime compare to the enormous extraordinary horrific crimes against humanity resulting in the destruction in whole or part of eight countries and millions of human beings during the Clinton, Cheney-Bush, Obama, and Trump regimes?

There has been no accountability for these obvious and undeniable crimes. Why are not feminists and presidents of Catholic Universities such as Georgetown and Catholic University in Washington, and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US media, and the liberal/progressive/left websites concerned about real crimes instead of make-believe ones? What has happened to our country that nothing that really matters ever becomes part of public notice?

US administrations have not only murdered, maimed, orphaned, and dislocated millions of totally innocent human beings, but also the evil and corrupt US government, protected by the presstitute media, which is devoid of character and integrity, has tortured in violation of United States law hundreds of innocents sold to it under the US bounty system in Afghanistan, when the Cheney-Bush regime desperately needed "terrorists" to justify its war based on nothing but its lies.

All sorts of totally innocent people were tortured by sadistic US government personnel who delighted in making people under their power suffer. These were unprotected people picked up by war lords in response to Washington's offer of a bounty for "terrorists" and sold to the Americans. The victims included aid workers, traveling salesmen, unprotected visitors, and others who lacked protection from being misrepresented as "terrorists" in order to be sold for $5,000 so that Dick Cheney and the criminal Zionist neocons would have some "terrorists" to show to justify their war crime.

ORDER IT NOW

The utterly corrupt US media was very reticent about telling Americans that close to 100% of the "world's most dangerous terrorists," in the words of the criminal US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were released as innocent of all

[Oct 07, 2018] Everything Is A Hoax by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... Bush and Cheney: How They Runed America and the World ..."
Oct 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

An Israeli expert on terrorism and covert assassination procedures explains that the alleged Russian GRU attack on the Skripals with a supposedly deadly nerve agent is a completely obvious hoax to anyone who knows anything at all. https://russia-insider.com/en/skripals-are-mi6-hoax-not-worthy-ladies-detective-novels-israeli-expert-demolishes-uk-case/ri24912

The official story, says the expert, is "stupidity on stupidity."

I agree with him.

The question is: Why did the British government think that they could get away with such an obvious hoax? The answer is that the people in Western countries don't know anything about anything. They live in a world in which their reality is a product of the propaganda fed to them by "news organizations" and Hollywood movies. They only receive controlled explanations. Therefore, they know nothing about how anything really functions. Read the account by the Israeli expert to understand the vast difference between the British government's hoax and the reality of how an assassination is conducted.

The Israeli expert got me to wondering why the British government thought anyone would fall for such a transparently false story. Having just read David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth's new book, 9/11 Unmasked , and David Ray Griffin's 2017 book, Bush and Cheney: How They Runed America and the World , the answer became obvious. The British government had watched the idiot Western populations fall for the official 9/11 conspiracy story in which a few Saudi Arabians, who could not fly airplanes and without the support of any intelligence agency, caused the entire security apparatus ot the United States to fail utterly, and no one was held responsible for the total failure. The British government concluded that anyone who could possibly believe such an obviously false story would believe anything.

I remember coming to that conclusion years ago before the official conspiracy theory in the 9/11 Commission Report was blown to pieces by thousands of scientists, structural engineers, high-rise architects, military and civilian pilots, first responders on the scene, and a large number of former high government officials both in the US and abroad.

At first I did not connect the zionist neoconservatives' plot, outlined in their public writings (for example, Norman Podhorttz in Commentary ) to destroy 7 Middle Eastern countries in five years (also described by General Wesley Clark) and their statement that they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to implement their plan, with the attack on the World Trade Center. But as I watched the twin towers blow up floor by floor it was completely obvious that these were not builldings falling down due to asymetrical structural damage and limited, low temperature office fires that probably did not even warm the massive steel structure to the point of being warm to the touch. When you watch the videos you see buildings blowing up. It is as clear as day. You see each floor blow. You see steel beams and other debris fly out the sides as projectiles. It is amazing that any human is so completely stupid as to think what he is seeing with his own eyes are buildings falling down from structural damage. But it required many years before half of the American people realized that the official account was pure bullshit.

Today polls indicate that a majority of people do not believe the official 9/11 propaganda any more than they believe the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the alleged Gulf of Tonkin attack, or the report from Admiral McCain (father of John) erasing Israel's responsibility for the destruction of the USS Liberty and its crew during LBJ's administration, or that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or Iran had nukes, or the many lies about about Syria, Libya's Gaddafi, or Somalia, or Yemen, or the "Russian invasion of Georgia," the "Russian invasion of Ukraine." But at each time the idiot population, no matter how many times they had learned that the governments lied to them initially believed the next lie, thereby permitting the lie to become fact. Thus, the idiot Western populations created their own world of controlled explanations.

Only a deranged person could believe anything any Western government says. But the Western world has a huge number of deranged people. There are plenty of them to validate the next official lie. The ignorant fools make it possible for Western governments to continue their policy of lies that are driving the world to extinction in a war with Russia and China.

Perhaps I am being too hard on the insouciant Western populations. Ron Unz is no moron. Yet he accepted the transparently false 9/11 story until he started to pay attention. Once he paid attention, he realized it was false. http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/

Like myself, Ron Unz has noticed that the 9/11 Truth movement has succeeded in totally discrediting the official 9/11 story. But the unanswered question remains: Who did it?

Unz says it was Israel, not Bush & Cheney. This is also the position of Christopher Bollyn. It seems certain that Israel was involved. We have the fact of the Mossad agents caught celebrating as they filmed the collalpse of the WTC towers. Obviously, they knew in advance and were set up ready to film. Later they were shown on Israeli TV where they stated that they had been sent to film the destruction of the buildings.

We also have the fact of the large profits made by someone that the US government continues to protect on shorting the stock of the airlines, the planes of which were allegely hijacked.

In other words, the 9/11 attack was known in advance, as was the destruction of WTC building 7 as evidenced by the BBC reporter standing in front of the still standing building accouncing its destruction about a half hour before it occurred.

Unz and Bollyn's case against Israel is powerful. I agree with Unz that George W. Bush was not part of the plot. If he had been, he would have been on the scene directing America's heroic response to the first, and only, terrorist attack on America. lnstead, Bush was moved out of the way, and kept out of the way, while Cheney handled the situation.

I understand what Unz is doing by focusing attention on the main beneficiary of the hoax 9/11 story. However Cheney and his corporation, Halliburton, also benefitted. Halliburton received large municifient US government contracts for services in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cheney, as David Ray Griffen proves, achieved his aim of elevating the executive branch above the US Constitution and statutory US law.

Moreover, it was impossible for Mossad to pull off such an attack without high level support in the US government. Only a US official could have ordered the numerous simulations of the attack underway in order to confuse the air traffic controllers and the US Air Force.

I understand what Unz is doing by focusing attention on the main beneficiary of the hoax 9/11 story. However Cheney and his corporation, Halliburton, also benefitted. Halliburton received large municifient US government contracts for services in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cheney, as David Ray Griffen proves, achieved his aim of elevating the executive branch above the US Constitution and statutory US law.

Moreover, it was impossible for Mossad to pull off such an attack without high level support in the US government. Only a US official could have ordered the numerous simulations of the attack underway in order to confuse the air traffic controllers and the US Air Force.

The Israeli government could not have ordered the destruction of the crime scene, opposed by the New York fire marshall as a felony. This required US government authority. The steel beams, which showed all sorts of distortions that could only have been caused by nano-thermite were quickly sent to Asia for reprocessing. The intense fires and molten rubble in the buildings' remains six weeks after their collapse never received an official explanation. To this day, no one has explained how low-temperature, smothered office fires that burned for one hour or less melted or weakened massive steel beams and produced molten steel six weeks afterward.

Unz is correct that Israel made out like a bandit. Israel as a result of 9/11 got rid of half of the constraints on its expansion. Only Syria and Iran remain, and the Trump regime is pushing hard for Israel, even against Russia, a government that at its will can completely destroy the United States and Israel, something that much of the world wishes would happen.

Unz is correct that right now the totally evil and corrupt US and Israeli governments have the entire world on the path to extinction. However, he omits American responsibility, that of the evil Dick Cheney, the Zionist neconservatives who are Israel's Fifth Column in America, and the utter insouciance of the American people who do not show enough intelligence or awareness to warrant their survival.

[Oct 05, 2018] Mueller now need to obey the roles of pre-trial discovery

Notable quotes:
"... A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty. ..."
"... This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations. ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

chet380 , Oct 5, 2018 1:37:53 PM | link

A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty.

This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations.

As any reference to this case can't seem to be found, can anyone help with info as to the present status of the case?

[Oct 05, 2018] The real betrayal was Obama, the 'brother', and his 'Hope and Chains' screed who, together with that craven Neoliberal, Madame Rodham, was going to 'set the world alight' with freedom and brotherhood and equalite.

Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anton Worter , Oct 5, 2018 5:06:00 PM | link

@39

James, you know, Cheney and Rumsfeld and their Continuity of Government Deep Purple 'scheme' was a crime against humanity, they both became $100-millionaires and a couple million innocents died, for nothing more than Wall Street, Big Oil and the Pentagonal Satanists, ...but the real betrayal was Obama, the 'brother', and his 'Hope and Chains' screed who, together with that craven Neoliberal, Madame Rodham, was going to 'set the world alight' with freedom and brotherhood and equalite.

"YOU LIE!" At the time I thought that was rather rude, but over that next eight years, I came to understand Joe Wilson was a seer, a visionary. The real crime against humanity was laying the sins of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Lehman and Pentagon on the backs of the next seven generations of poodled paupered USAryans, and moreover the effect that betrayal would have on USArya's relation with the rest of the world.

Obama's and Rodham's lies, their moral decrepitude, that beowulfian 'We Came We Saw He Died caww, caww' Big Lie has pitched the False-Xtian (True Molochian) West against the Islamic world, a billion people against a billion people. And now Trump and Pompeo are attempting to add China to that rift, another billion people against a billion people. These are great crimes against humanity, far greater than any Nuremburg Tribunals crimes.

Still, many have offered this is the 'truth' of a final gasp of Empire. Bernhard quotes way back in 2005 that 'the Empire will fall in a few more years'. That was five crushed nation-states and -$24,000B in fiat debt ago.

What I'd like to see, during this next 30-days of controlled-dissent perpetual howling -- dog media hysteria ahead of the 'elections' (sic), would be a discussion on MoA, as the only venue where such discussion could take place: is there any end-state to USArya?

Watch Collapse of Argentina . Ponder the Exceptionalist Rabbinical-Evangelical USAryan-Global Banker, IL-KSA Axis of Evil aligned against the world, and then tell me. Will this end in a bucolic utopia, or finish with a billion refugees on a symbolic Sahel, throats parched for a drop of water?

2020 could well be Mike Pence for President against Joe Biden for President. True Evil arm-and-arm with True Evil. Kavanaugh will likely be elevated, then SCOTUS decisions will retrograde USA laws to an antediluvian Old Testament Rabbinical past and plunge USArya into a New Ayatollahian Post-Consumer 1000 Years of grinding ignorance, misogyny, war and poverty, most probably aligned with a Scientocratic Big Mother Catholic in the Cloud.

What do you think? Will the Fiat PetroDollar perpetual hyperbolic credit-debt hot-money apocalypse keep steam-rolling through New Byzantium, or will some unknowable dark swan David slay this Molochian Goliath? Watch that post-collapse Argentina YT, and then posit an alternative world-view.

[Oct 05, 2018] The recent history of the Supreme Court has been one of Justices playing the part of politicians in robes

Oct 05, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

CitizenOne , October 2, 2018 at 11:19 pm

The recent history of the Supreme Court has been one of Justices playing the part of politicians in robes. Perhaps no better example was the nullification of the recount in the Bush v Gore election with the "Brooks Brothers Riot" where paid operatives of the republicans stormed the election office in Florida and declared the recount over in an extra judicial action which was backed up by the members of the Supreme Court leading to their moniker "politicians in robes". The Supreme Court basically stole that election by upholding the use of violence as a tool to stop the recount instead of reacting on its own to denounce the use of such tactics.

The Supreme Court has become weaponized as a force for right wing agendas and it has taken a partisan position many times due to justices who have become radicalized to advance right wing views. This is part of a vast right wing well funded and well oiled political money machine. Little debut over the 10 million dollars spent by anonymous donors greasing the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. The $10 million effort to win federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation, funded by unknown donors to a conservative interest group called the Judicial Crisis Network, follows a successful $7 million effort last year to block President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. The group calls it "the most robust operation in the history of confirmation battles."

Billionaires are funding the selection and nomination of Supreme Court Justices for one reason. So that the Supreme Court is stacked by loyal conservatives who will side with big industrialist businesses on every case brought against big industrialists.

This is a long term strategy funded with hundreds of millions of dollars poured into efforts to create a three point strategy. Fund AstroTurf phony grass roots populist organizations which claim they are formed by housewives and farmers and middle class folk but who really serve the interests of the billionaire class. Fund politicians and judges who are begging to get the money to win elections by promising they will do everything to support the uber class and groveling at their feet for the cash to be had. Create laws to serve the interests of billionaires.

So far each effort has been a phenomenal success. Funded with hundreds of millions of dollars willing recipients of all the corporate cash have created the ostensible populist front defending wedge issues like abortion, gun control and anti immigration along with a health dose of anti establishment hatred of the government. Their real aim is to serve the corporate interests.

Donald Trump is perhaps the biggest benefactor of the money machine having won election based on this populist jargon while spending little of his own money but really serving the corporate interests most obviously by supporting the 1.9 Trillion dollar tax breaks for billionaires.

It is unlikely that the average American would get angry about health care or their own social security which is funded by workers not billionaires unless they were propagandized by every main stream media outlet with Fox News and other more extremely radical right wing media outlets and all the rightwing websites and right wing syndicated media pundits.

Average Americans have been suckered to believe that what is in their own interests is very bad for America and Freedom and Democracy etc. They have been hoodwinked into voting for politicians who want to strip them of healthcare, social security, financial security and basic rights to privacy and access to the judicial system with arbitration clauses attached to every product down to toothbrushes and sunglasses. They have come to believe that defending wedge issues means they will vote for republicans no matter how bad their economic future is compromised and their future put at risk by predatory businesses which offer paycheck loans, balloon mortgages, sky high interest and insurance rates, multiple bank accounts with lots of surcharges (Pinkerton Bank) and promise to end Medicare and Social Security because its Okay to give trillions to billionaires but not Okay to help average hard working people.

Donald Trump is the pinnacle of this usurpation of power capturing the Executive Branch funded by free advertising from the media and running on a fake AstroTurf populist campaign strategy while delivering all the money to the billionaires as he entertains guests for huge fees at his Florida Property against the Emoluments Clause which appears to be dead. No president should economically benefit from the position of the highest office in the land for personal enrichment yet the Tax Cuts seem to have been perfectly tailored for Trumps own enrichment via a little known clause which allows property investment owners to pass the profits gained via those holdings to other entities like his kids at greatly lower taxes. What a windfall for Trump who has investment pass through properties all over the place. It's a really nice deal" for Trump and pass-through owners like him, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

So much for the little guy as republicans now demand that the giant deficit created by their enormous tax cuts for the wealthy now be shrunk by eliminating all social welfare programs like Social Security which if funded by workers under the payroll deduction tax. Payroll taxes are taxes imposed on employers or employees, and are usually calculated as a percentage of the salaries that employers pay their staff. Payroll taxes generally fall into two categories: deductions from an employee's wages, and taxes paid by the employer based on the employee's wages. These taxes fund Social Security/ Workers earnings are garnished to pay for Social Security. The Government does not steal this money from rich people. They take it from every worker according to a schedule.

How stupid we are to willingly call this wasteful government spending and buy the BS of the republicans that it must end. What will they do with all the money once none of us is going to see a dime of what we donated under law? Why they will steal it of course.

Who has the authority to declare all social welfare programs unconstitutional? The Supreme Court. Who has the power to decline any case brought against and well monied entity including the President? The Supreme Court.

It is not so much about beer and drunkenness and abuse of women but about the continued abuse of us all by the republican party which is funded by the rich and operated by the rich for the rich and only for the rich.

[Oct 05, 2018] How the Russia Spin Got So Much Torque by Norman Solomon

Notable quotes:
"... Shattered ..."
"... Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post ..."
"... The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense ..."
"... One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C., promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States of America. ..."
"... Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said: "We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign, Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. ..."
A new book about Hillary Clinton's last campaign for president – Shattered , by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes – has gotten a lot of publicity since it appeared two weeks ago. But major media have ignored a revealing passage near the end of the book.

Soon after Clinton's defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant – with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright demagoguery.

A lavishly-funded example is the "Moscow Project," a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It's led by Neera Tanden, a self-described "loyal soldier" for Clinton who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center's board includes several billionaires.

The "Moscow Project" is expressly inclined to go over the top, aiming to help normalize ultra-partisan conjectures as supposedly factual. And so, the homepage of the "Moscow Project" prominently declares: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia's actions are a significant and ongoing cause for concern."

Let's freeze-frame how that sentence begins: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin." It's a jaw-dropping claim; a preposterous smear.

Echoes of such tactics can be heard from many Democrats in Congress and from allied media. Along the way, no outlet has been more in sync than MSNBC, and no one on the network has been more promotional of the Russia-runs-Trump meme than Rachel Maddow, tirelessly promoting the line and sometimes connecting dots in Glenn Beck fashion to the point of journalistic malpractice.

Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen – intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election ."

After Trump's election triumph, the top tier of Clinton strategists quickly moved to seize as much of the narrative as they could, surely mindful of what George Orwell observed: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." After all, they hardly wanted the public discourse to dwell on Clinton's lack of voter appeal because of her deep ties to Wall Street. Political recriminations would be much better focused on the Russian government.

In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post opinion article : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."

The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense.

Tone deaf hardly describes the severe political impairment of those who insist that denouncing Russia will be key to the Democratic Party's political fortunes in 2018 and 2020. But the top-down pressure for conformity among elected Democrats is enormous and effective.

One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C., promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States of America. "

Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said: "We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign, Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. "

You might think that Wall Street, big banks, hugely funded lobbyists, fat-check campaign contributors, the fossil fuel industry, insurance companies, military contractors and the like are calling the shots in Washington. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy . His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death .

[Oct 05, 2018] Opinion Russian Meddling Is a Symptom, Not the Disease - The New York Times

Oct 05, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Given the credible evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, it's only natural that Americans are concerned about the possibility of further foreign interference, especially as the midterms draw closer.

But I worry that we're focusing too much on the foreign part of the problem -- in which social media accounts and pages controlled by overseas "troll factories" post false and divisive material -- and not enough on how our own domestic political polarization feeds into the basic business model of companies like Facebook and YouTube.

It's this interaction -- both aspects of which are homegrown -- that fosters the dissemination of false and divisive material, and this will persist as a major problem even in the absence of concerted foreign efforts.

Consider some telling exchanges from this year's Senate hearings involving high-level executives from Facebook and Twitter. (Google, which owns YouTube, didn't bother sending a comparable representative.) In April, Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California, pressed Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, on how much money the company had made by ads placed by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll factory. Mr. Zuckerberg replied that it was about $100,000 -- a negligible amount of money for the company.

Advertisement

Last month, Ms. Harris further grilled Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, on this point, demanding to know how much inauthentic Russian content was on Facebook. Ms. Sandberg had her sound bite ready, saying that "any amount is too much," but she ultimately threw out an estimate of .004 percent, another negligible amount.

The exchange made for good viewing: a senator asking tough questions, chastised executives being forced to put exact numbers on the table. But the truth is that paid Russian content was almost certainly immaterial to Facebook's revenue -- and the .004 percent figure, though almost certainly rhetorical, does capture the relative insignificance of the paid Russian presence on Facebook.

Contrast this, however, with another question from Ms. Harris, in which she asked Ms. Sandberg how Facebook can "reconcile an incentive to create and increase your user engagement when the content that generates a lot of engagement is often inflammatory and hateful." That astute question Ms. Sandberg completely sidestepped, which was no surprise: No statistic can paper over the fact that this is a real problem.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have business models that thrive on the outrageous, the incendiary and the eye-catching, because such content generates "engagement" and captures our attention, which the platforms then sell to advertisers, paired with extensive data on users that allow advertisers (and propagandists) to "microtarget" us at an individual level.

Traditional media outlets, of course, are frequently also cynical manipulators of sensationalistic content, but social media is better able to weaponize it. Algorithms can measure what content best "engages" each user and can target him or her individually in a way that the sleaziest editor of a broadcast medium could only dream of.

... ... ...

It is understandable that legislators and the public are concerned about other countries meddling in our elections. But foreign meddling is to our politics what a fever is to tuberculosis: a mere symptom of a deeper problem. To heal, we need the correct diagnosis followed by action that treats the underlying diseases. The closer our legislators look at our own domestic politics as well as Silicon Valley's business model, the better the answers they will find.

Zeynep Tufekci (@zeynep) is an associate professor at the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina, the author of "Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest" and a contributing opinion writer.

[Oct 05, 2018] Wilderness of mirrors MI6, the Cold War, spies and traitors from Gordievsky to Skripal -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... What could possibly go wrong? ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.rt.com

Which brings me to the Skripal affair.

That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war – of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.

Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.

But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.

Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still fighting the Cold War against Russia now?

Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a former fireplace salesman – said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.

As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "

[Oct 05, 2018] White working class who voted for Trump have been duped so many times. First, when Trump promised us "America First!" Voters, apparently content to trust mere words, have ignored Trump's apparent definition of "America First!" as "America has the right to antagonize Iran and Russia, and launch pointless attacks upon Syria

Notable quotes:
"... Christine Ford is, quite frankly, a distraction from the real intrigue ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT

Want to talk about lost memory?

How about this lost memory?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-decision-nominate-brett-kavanaugh-kennedy-2018-7/

White people who voted for Trump for his Supreme Court list have been duped so many times. First, when Trump promised us "America First!" Voters, apparently content to trust mere words, have ignored Trump's apparent definition of "America First!" as "America has the right to antagonize Iran and Russia, and launch pointless attacks upon Syria." Second, when Trump added Kavanaugh's name to a list of judges after he had gotten into office. Third, when Trump negotiated with scum Anthony Kennedy, who obviously demanded a Kavanaugh nomination in exchange for his retirement.

Christine Ford is, quite frankly, a distraction from the real intrigue: how Donald Trump motivated his base to support a candidate from the elitist wing.

But good luck finding conservatives with the balls to publicly point out the truth: the President we elected has stabbed us in the back with an establishment nomination.

[Oct 05, 2018] I thought the Judge was too angry, whining, and evasive, when he could have been much more precise and pointed in his responses.

Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

alexander , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT

@anonymous I agree, it is a big circus.

Both sides seem to be interested in the truth , only in so far as it serves their respective political agenda's. Nothing more.

I was not particularly impressed with the testimony from either Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford.

I thought the Judge was too angry , whining, and evasive, when he could have been much more precise and pointed in his responses. I was not a big fan of the "calendar"story (true or not) nor his responses to an FBI investigation.

... ... ...

[Oct 05, 2018] Christine Blah-Blah Ford Her Hippocampus by Ilana Mercer

Notable quotes:
"... has been writing a ..."
"... paleolibertarian ..."
"... since 1999. She is the author of " ..."
"... (2011) & " ..."
"... (June, 2016) &. She's on ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.

Granted, we don't know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That's because, well, she must never be questioned.

Questioning the left's latest sacred cow is forbidden. Bovine Republicans blindly obey.

I happened to have covered and thoroughly researched the "recovered memory ruse," in 1999. Contrary to the trend, one of my own heroes is not Christine Blah-Blah Ford, but a leading world authority on memory, Elizabeth Loftus.

Professor Loftus, who straddles two professorships -- one in law, the other in psychology -- had come to Vancouver, British Columbia, to testify on behalf of a dedicated Richmond educator, a good man, who had endured three trials, the loss of a career and financial ruin because of the Crown's attempts to convict him of sexual assault based on memories recovered in therapy.

I attended. I was awed.

Over decades of research, Loftus has planted many a false memory in the minds of her research subjects, sometimes with the aid of nothing more than a conversation peppered with some suggestions.

"A tone of voice, a phrasing of a question, subtle non-verbal signals, and expressions of boredom, impatience or fascination" -- these are often all it takes to plant suggestions in the malleable human mind.

Loftus does not question the prevalence of the sexual abuse of children or the existence of traumatic memories. What she questions are memories commonly referred to as repressed: "Memories that did not exist until someone went looking for them."

Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.

Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory is without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies which rely on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.

Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?

Even in the absence of outside influence, memory deteriorates rapidly. "As time goes by," writes Loftus in her seminal book, "The Myth of Repressed Memories," "the weakened memories are increasingly vulnerable to post-event information."

What we see on TV, read and hear about events is incorporated into memory to create an unreliable amalgam of fact and fiction.

After an extensive investigation, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a ban prohibiting its members from using any method to recover memories of child abuse. Memory retrieval techniques, say the British guidelines, are dangerous methods of persuasion.

"Recovered memories," inveighed Alan Gold, then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers Association, "are joining electroshock, lobotomies and other psychiatric malpractice in the historical dustbin."

Not that you'd know it from the current climate of sexual hysteria, but the courts in the U.S. had responded as well by ruling to suppress the admission of all evidence remembered under therapy.

Altogether it seems as clear in 2018, as it was in 1999 : Memories that have been excavated during therapy have no place in a court of law. Or, for that matter, in a Senate Committee that shapes the very same justice system.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of " Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa " (2011) & " The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016) &. She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube

anon [107] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT

@Abel

It is idiotic to write a piece talking about recovered memories in this context.

Agree: Mercer's approach to Ford's hippocampus is idiotic.

Also appears to be neurologically off-base; there's a much stronger refutation to Perfesser Ford's dazzling psychological explanation: alcohol wreaks havoc on the hippocampus –

https://www.unz.com/freed/kavanaugh-gang-rapes-collie-in-satanic-ritual/#comment-2554935

She can't remember the house she was in or how she got there/got home because her hippocampus was suffering alcohol poisoning.

She did poorly in subsequent high school and in early years in college because her hippocampus was pickled.

Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").

. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.

-- -

Mercer's assessment seems to have been skewed in order to promote Mercer's 1999 work on the Loftus case...

Anonymous [348] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:30 am GMT
The whole hippocampus explanation made her sound like she's been talking to a therapist, but then she herself is a psychologist so she probably doesn't need a therapist to help her 'recover' that memory.

I think the key thing here are the witnesses. None recalled such a party ever taking place. Her best friend said not only did she not remember the party, but she had never met Kavanaugh. If she had been ditched by Ford that night and was left in a house with 2 potential rapists, don't you think she'd remember and talked it over with her the next day? That just made her story fall apart.

Bill H , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
Interesting photographic choice for such an article. Trial, whether in a court of law, or merely in terms of destroying someone's life in the media, cannot be about what someone believes, or can be made to believe, but must be about what the evidence can reveal to be true. Where, when and why did we ever lose sight of that?
Ronald Thomas West , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 7:20 am GMT
It is amazing to me how it is these constitution loving, immigrant pundits drop the ball and have no clue what all of the smokescreen is about:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/07/12/kavanaugh-the-royal-nonsuch/

The Dems (dims) wouldn't dare attack the criminal Kavanaugh on the actual facts because it would implicate their goddess Hillary. There are no clean hands at the worm farm at DC, that just doesn't happen.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 5, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@renfro Garbage! Who cares what you remember, or do not remember.
Main thing here is that she remembered to the rest of her life to be careful about the water.
And also Miss Ford (If she did not lie) must have noticed the house that she would not go into that house ever,
anarchyst , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:29 pm GMT
Let's not forget the "false memory" debacles of the 1990s with the McMartin preschool and Wenatchee Washington preschool cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes that they could not have possible committed.
In the McMartin case, the problem was overzealous parents who believed their childrens' fantasies, and got overzealous "child protective services" caseworkers involved. Questionable tactics to elicit "correct" responses from the children were used. Rewards, such as ice cream were used when the children gave the "correct" response. The children were badgered by these "professionals" until the proper answers were given. Many innocent peoples' lives were ruined as a result.
The Wenatchee debacle was fueled by a rogue detective, who saw child abuse under every rock and was determined to get convictions, the truth be damned.
The same tactics as in the McMartin case were used to elicit the correct responses from the children.
In both cases, the mantra that "children cannot lie" was used, along with tactics that would be unacceptable today (but are still being used).
anon [401] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:32 pm GMT
After a long conversation last night with drunken friends, me being the sober one of course, I had only one beer cuz I'm a good girl, but I can't recall what was said or how many of us were in the room. Wait, oh yeah.

We all decided that the seeming wussy response by Republicans was a strategy. Weren't they all also being accused? If Grassley hadn't bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and her increasingly violent democrat extremist enablers and all of their ethically challenged dumb followers, they would have appeared uncaring. They gave the Feinstein and Ford crowds serious consideration – no one can truthfully say otherwise.

There really isn't much one can say about a woman, or a man, who claimed they were assaulted or abused. Proper respect must be given and investigations must be made. We all know Ford is a liar now. Almost any real victim of sexual assault can recall the details of the assault.

I think Republicans played it right all along. If she was not deceptive, it would have come out.

The whole affair was the same as watching Justice Channel homicide detectives patiently wait for their prime suspect to speak until she slipped up and incriminated herself. No dna test for Ford though. In fact, no evidence at all. In the end, she proved herself incredible and all of her apoplectic supporters went off the rails and are making things worse for real victims of sexual abuse.

The little girl act made Ford look insane.

Now, the unfunniest comedian in the world, Amy Shumer, who, let's face it, only got fame due to her Uncle Chuck, is rallying the rest of the moonbats, reactionaries, and liars, aka Democrat nutcases to rally and resist. Resist. Bunch of clowns think they have something to resist rather than working to rebuild a party and find solutions to their problems. Hopefully the democrat party will splinter apart and crawl away like the worms they are.

Anyone on the fence about Trump has now almost definitely jump to one side or the other. Elections will show most people will deny democrats their ambition to destroy what's left of the Republic.

anonymous [333] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
The 'recovered memory' witch trials back then ruined many lives. The hysteria featured a wide cast of characters including reckless and totally irresponsible 'therapists' who, for whatever weird reason pushed gullible customers into believing these false induced illusions, the troubled women (all women?Why?) who went on to make false accusations and all the true believers in the form of prosecutors, police, judges and members of the public who accepted this lunacy. Loftus deserves credit for having been one of the few people willing to stand up and take the heat, going against this wave of hysteria. Seems like the US always has had these bubbles of hysteria and panic since the days of the Salem witch trials. This person Ford has been getting all this unwarranted fawning treatment, being continually called 'Doctor' and 'Professor' which, while true, isn't the usual treatment accorded to people who have a Phd in one of the social 'sciences' or have jobs as professors. Nobody I've ever met with those qualifications cared to be continually addressed by title. On the one hand this person is some empowered example to all women, an esteemed 'Doctor Professor' who jets around the world to surf the waves at exotic locales yet claims to have some fear of lying when called in and starts to cry when she recalls being laughed at almost four decades ago. Looking at it briefly she leaves the impression of being just plain screwy as well as being a person who lies a lot where lies and facts are interwoven so that one can't be sure what's what. What a circus this is.

[Oct 05, 2018] What I want and I am completely serious is that this nightmare about Russia's alleged interference with some election campaign in the United States ends. I want the United States, the American elite, the US elite to calm down and clear up their own mess and restore a certain balance of common sense and national interests, just like in the oil market

Oct 05, 2018 | en.kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin: What I want – and I am completely serious – is that this nightmare about Russia's alleged interference with some election campaign in the United States ends. I want the United States, the American elite, the US elite to calm down and clear up their own mess and restore a certain balance of common sense and national interests, just like in the oil market. I want the domestic political squabbles in the United States to stop ruining Russia-US relations and adversely affecting the situation in the world.

[Oct 05, 2018] Of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China what they themselves are guilty of

Notable quotes:
"... I think its far more likely that a friendly foreign intelligence agency or the US had something to do with it. ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Oct 5, 2018 3:44:18 PM | link

thanks b.. excellent information and insights as usual..

of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China what they themselves are guilty of.. the use of propaganda has gone into overdrive and is now an accepted policy of the west.. screw facts.. who needs facts when you have a war to pursue... and that is just what it looks like to me, as there is no end in sight to any of this western madness...

the financial sanctions have not worked.. that much is clear.. another approach via propaganda is to be the new regular feature.. claim all sorts of lies and supposition on russia, china, iran, north korea, venezuela or any country that dares to get out of line with the official ''coalition'' and you will be targeted with propaganda and or worse..

Pft , Oct 5, 2018 5:36:22 PM | link
UncleTungsten@42

Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization within their organization and party members head the mandatory unions in every company. Indeed some of the designers are no doubt party members. Significant pressure can be exerted on companies in China by the party, even foreign companies , especially with but not limited to Joint ventures.

In any other country your skepticism is warranted. Not China.

That said, given how little attention the Bloomberg story received yesterday by MSM web sites (havent checked today) beyond a denial story by msnbc I think its far more likely that a friendly foreign intelligence agency or the US had something to do with it. Blame China not Israel or CIA/NSA

But I doubt we will ever know

[Oct 05, 2018] How The U.S. Runs Public Relations Campaigns - Trump Style - Against Russia And China

Notable quotes:
"... I agree with Hoarsewhisperer that the elite are showing desperation but look at the sheer volume of BS they can spew out that is all over the map. ..."
"... The ... West is doubling down on Psychological Projection . Works like a charm with most peoples in the affected areas. ..."
"... A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty. ..."
"... This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations. ..."
"... Russia has tried to negotiate with the US to avoid cyberspace being turned into another area of conflict. The US has rebuffed these requests. Likely too much money to be made by the MIC in another theater of warfare with that extortion racket called NATO and too much promise of the NSA scooping up even more data and adding it to the data already collected by the 5 eyes. ..."
"... Didn't WikiLeaks disclosed the fact that NSA can disguise any hack to look like some other actor was the culprit? All this shouting that Russia and China did these terrible deeds is to hide the fact that the west does this all the time as disclosed by WikiLeaks? And the Germans complaining? I hope they have improved security for the Chancellor's phone. Russia is a member of OPWC. Why do they have to sit out in cars in the parking lot of OPCW headquarters to hack into OPCW? Why not from the comfort of their office in the building. What is of more importance to me is an upcoming vote in the OPCW about investigation reports laying blame in the future. That will be a game changer in the false flag chemical attack be it Syria or the UK. currently reports don't lay blame. ..."
"... Going by the squealing noises coming out of the US and loyal vassals, the yanks are probably just pissed that they can't get into Russia or China's secure communications. ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar against NATO's preferred enemy.

On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big motherland.

The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly helped to exaggerate the claims:

The Foreign Office attributed six specific attacks to GRU-backed hackers and identified 12 hacking group code names as fronts for the GRU – Fancy Bear, Voodoo Bear, APT28, Sofacy, Pawnstorm, Sednit, CyberCaliphate, Cyber Berku, BlackEnergy Actors, STRONTIUM, Tsar Team and Sandworm."

The "hacking group code names" the Guardian tries to sell to its readers do not refer to hacking groups but to certain cyberattack methods . Once such a method is known it can be used by any competent group and individual. Attributing such an attack is nearly impossible. Moreover Fancybear, ATP28, Pawn Storm, Sofacy Group, Sednit and Strontium are just different names for one and the same well known method . The other names listed refer to old groups and tools related to criminal hackers. Blackenergy has been used by cybercriminals since 2007. It is alleged that a pro-Russian group named Sandworm used it in Ukraine, but the evidence for that is dubious at best. To throw out such a list of code names without any differentiation reeks of a Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD) campaign designed to dis-inform and scare the public.

The Netherland for its part released a flurry of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they, at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real spies are neither.

The U.S. Justice Department added to the onslaught by issuing new indictments (pdf) against alleged GRU agents dubiously connected to several alleged hacking incidents . As none of those Russians will ever stand in front of a U.S. court the broad allegations will never be tested.

The anti-Russian campaign came just in time for yesterday's NATO Defense Minister meeting at which the U.S. 'offered' to use its malicious cyber tools under NATO disguise:

Katie Wheelbarger, the principal deputy assistant defense secretary for international security affairs, said the U.S. is committing to use offensive and defensive cyber operations for NATO allies, but America will maintain control over its own personnel and capabilities.

If the European NATO allies, under pressure of the propaganda onslaught, agree to that, the obvious results will be more U.S. control over its allies' networks and citizens as well as more threats against Russia:

NATO's chief vowed on Thursday to strengthen the alliance's defenses against attacks on computer networks that Britain said are directed by Russian military intelligence, also calling on Russia to stop its "reckless" behavior.

The allegations against Russia over nefarious spying operations and sockpuppet campaigns are highly hypocritical . The immense scale of U.S. and British spying revealed by Edward Snowden and through the Wikileaks Vault 7 leak of CIA hacking tools is well known. The Pentagon runs large social media manipulation campaigns. The British GHCQ hacked Belgium's largest telco network to spy on the data of the many international organizations in Brussels.

International organizations like the OPCW have long been the target of U.S. spies and operations. The U.S. National Security Service (NSA) regularly hacked the OPCW since at least September 2000 :

According to last week's Shadow Brokers leak, the NSA compromised a DNS server of the Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in September 2000, two years after the Iraq Liberation Act and Operation Desert Fox, but before the Bush election.

It was the U.S. which in 2002 forced out the head of the OPCW because he did not agree to propagandizing imaginary Iraqi chemical weapons:

José M. Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat who was unanimously re-elected last year as the director general of the 145-nation Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, was voted out of office today after refusing repeated demands by the United States that he step down because of his "management style." No successor has been selected.

The U.S. arranged the vote against Bustani by threatening to leave the OPCW. Day's earlier 'Yosemite Sam' John Bolton, now Trump's National Security Advisor, threatened to hurt José Bustani's children to press him to resign:

"I got a phone call from John Bolton – it was first time I had contact with him – and he said he had instructions to tell me that I have to resign from the organization, and I asked him why," Bustani told RT. "He said that [my] management style was not agreeable to Washington."
...
Bustani said he "owed nothing" to the US, pointing out that he was appointed by all OPCW member states. Striking a more sinister tone, Bolton said: "OK, so there will be retaliation. Prepare to accept the consequences. We know where your kids are. "

According to Bustani, two of his children were in New York at the time, and his daughter was in London.

Russia's government will need decades of hard work to reach the scale of U.S./UK hypocrisy, hacking and lying.


The propaganda rush against Russia came on the same day as a similar campaign was launched against China. A well timed Bloomberg story, which had been in the works for over a year, claimed that Chinese companies manipulated hardware they manufactured for the U.S. company SuperMicro. The hardware was then sold to Apple, Amazon and others for their cloud server businesses.

The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate U.S. Companies :

Nested on the servers' motherboards, the testers found a tiny microchip, not much bigger than a grain of rice, that wasn't part of the boards' original design.

Both Apple and Amazon denied the story with very strong statements . The Bloomberg tale has immense problems. It is for one completely based on anonymous sources, most of them U.S. government officials:

The companies' denials are countered by six current and former senior national security officials, who -- in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued under the Trump administration -- detailed the discovery of the chips and the government's investigation.

The way the alleged manipulation is described to function is theoretical possible , but not plausible . In my learned opinion one would need multiple manipulations, not just one tiny chip, to achieve the described results. Even reliably U.S. friendly cyberhawks are unconvinced of the story's veracity. It is especially curious that such server boards are still in use in security relevant U.S. government operations:

Assuming the Bloomberg story is accurate, that means that the US intelligence community, during a period spanning two administrations, saw a foreign threat and allowed that threat to infiltrate the US military. If the story is untrue, or incorrect on its technical merits, then it would make sense that Supermicro gear is being used by the US military.

There might be financial motives behind the story:

Bloomberg reporters receive bonuses based indirectly on how much they shift markets with their reporting. This story undoubtedly did that.

When the story came out SuperMicro's stock price crashed from $21.40 to below $9.00 per share. It now trades at $12.60:

The story might be a cover-up for a NSA hack that was accidentally detected. Most likely it is exaggerated half truth, based on an old event , to deter the 'western' industry from sourcing anything from producers in China.

This would be consistent with other such U.S. moves against China which coincidentally (not) happened on the same day the Bloomberg story was launched.

One is a very hawkish speech U.S. Vice President Pence held yesterday :

Vice President Mike Pence accused China on Thursday of trying to undermine President Donald Trump as the administration deploys tough new rhetoric over Chinese trade, economic and foreign policies.
...
Sounding the alarm, Pence warned other nations to be wary of doing business with China, condemning the Asian country's "debt diplomacy" that allows it to draw developing nations into its orbit.

Pence also warned American businesses to be vigilant against Chinese efforts to leverage access to their markets to modify corporate behavior to their liking.

Another move is a new Pentagon report warning against the purchase of Chinese equipment and launched via Reuters in support of the campaign:

China represents a "significant and growing risk" to the supply of materials vital to the U.S. military, according to a new Pentagon-led report that seeks to mend weaknesses in core U.S. industries vital to national security.

The nearly 150-page report, seen by Reuters on Thursday ahead of its formal release Friday, concluded there are nearly 300 vulnerabilities that could affect critical materials and components essential to the U.S. military.
...
"A key finding of this report is that China represents a significant and growing risk to the supply of materials and technologies deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national security," the report said.

The Bloomberg story, the Pence speech and the Pentagon report 'leak' on the same day seem designed to scare everyone away from using Chinese equipment or China manufactured parts within there supply chain.

The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain manipulation goes back to 1982 :

A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
...
Mr Reed writes that the software "was programmed to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds".

Wikileaks list 27 cases of U.S. supply chain manipulation of computer hardware and software. A search for "supply chain" in the Snowden archives shows 18 documents describing such 'projects'.


The U.S. government under Trump - and with John Bolton in a leading position - copied Trump's brutal campaign style and uses it as an instrument in its foreign policy. Trump's victory in the 2016 election proves that such campaigns are highly successful, even when the elements they are build of are dubious or untrue. In their scale and coordination the current campaigns are comparable to the 2002 run-up for the war on Iraq.

Then, as during the Trump election campaign and as now, the media are crucial to the public effect these campaigns have. Will they attempt to take the stories the campaigns are made of apart? Will they set them into the larger context of global U.S. spying and manipulation? Will they explain the real purpose of these campaigns?

Don't bet on it.

Posted by b on October 5, 2018 at 08:27 AM

Timothy Hagios , Oct 5, 2018 8:52:41 AM | link

IMO the US Government's propaganda is structured to along the lines of a fantasy novel. The propaganda is designed to convince the public of two inherently contradictory ideas:

1) that the country is surrounded on vast sides by vast hostile empires that threaten everything we hold dear and

2) despite these dire threats, the country cannot really be harmed because of "our freedoms."

Like with a fantasy novel, the reader gets all the thrills of an epic battle while being certain that the evil empires will never triumph. An attractive form of propaganda, to be certain.

Steve , Oct 5, 2018 12:09:45 PM | link
Well, so far the propaganda is having very minor effect on the ordinary people. If you read the comment section of most of the corporate media you will see that people are just not buying the BS.
Hausmeister , Oct 5, 2018 12:22:26 PM | link
Steve | Oct 5, 2018 12:09:45 PM | 16

Indifference of the ordinary people does not mean much. Just that there is such indifference. The arguments against that claimed Chinese hardware hack are meta-arguments.

Hoarsewhisperer , Oct 5, 2018 12:25:28 PM | link
...
Got to wonder what the end game is here. WW3? Or up they expecting the Russian people to come begging for an end to sanctions?
Posted by: dh | Oct 5, 2018 11:49:07 AM | 11

Good question.

It's not WWIII. Putin has already said that if WWIII goes Nuclear, survival will be a lottery. Imo the Christian Colonial West, hypnotised by 30 years of its own bs and busily patting itself on the back and performing Victory Laps on the world stage, has been caught napping (asleep at the wheel) and now needs time to ponder the downside.

Hoarsewhisperer , Oct 5, 2018 12:48:30 PM | link
Imo this latest drivel-fest stems from the fact that Russia is now/again militarily unassailable. That doesn't mean that Russia can't be attacked but it does mean that anyone who tries it will wish they hadn't.

And it's driving the defunct Masters Of The Universe insaner.

psychohistorian , Oct 5, 2018 1:08:44 PM | link
Excellent journalism b....thanks

I agree with Hoarsewhisperer that the elite are showing desperation but look at the sheer volume of BS they can spew out that is all over the map.

The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored.....the sex issue is marginalized and pop goes the weasel onto the Supreme Court to bring the US closer to feudalism.

notheonly1 , Oct 5, 2018 1:09:01 PM | link
The ... West is doubling down on Psychological Projection . Works like a charm with most peoples in the affected areas.

Although it is practically a symptom of a deeper sitting mental illness, it is still treated as some sort of cavalier's delinquency. Like it is to be expected that the rulers of said West resort to this kind of projection.

The only interesting part though - one that is next to never really understood by the gullible masses - is the Projection part of it. Because it means nothing else than the fact that the projector is the one who is perpetrating the crimes and malevolent activities it accuses the 'enemy'/opposing side of.

The West is mentally ill. Nothing new, the Eastern sages pointed to that a long time ago. Very much like the Native American Indians were flabbergasted by the moronity and cruelty the invaders displayed. The one that has adhered to my memory like fusion is: Only paleface would set a river on fire.

Last but not least, Nazi is as Nazi does. As can be verified perusing the story of this Nazi that never had to fear repercussions for his crimes against humanity. For the simple reason that the U.S. protected him to gain his knowledge about advanced biological and chemical warfare. The Nazi was Kurt Blome .

b , Oct 5, 2018 1:09:38 PM | link
@CE - There is no problem with the logo on the server side and with the clients I use. Suggestion: clear your cache.
AntiSpin , Oct 5, 2018 1:20:00 PM | link
And that's not all . . .

In early morning broadcasts yesterday, BBC and NPR accused China and Russia of projecting positive images of their countries, and of acting in accordance with their national interests.

I am so proud that my own country – USA – would never do either one of those things!

denk , Oct 5, 2018 1:33:47 PM | link
"On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big motherland."

Gen William Looney, first gulf war.... "If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to-air missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need. [1]"

------------------------------------------------------

Trump the anti establishment maverick...

We'r a rule based system, Here'r the rules. We decide..... who'r terrorists, who'r 'freedom fighters. Whats a fair election, whats a farce. Whats a genocide, whats legit police action. Whats R2p, whats unprovoked aggression. Who can do biz with whom. Who's the right man for your prez. We own you. MAGA.

[1]
I dont like to use wiki but that's the only place I could retrieve this quote, they'r wiping the net clean, even images, videos.

Better be mentally prep for the day you wake up in the morning and cant find MOA,

Anya , Oct 5, 2018 1:37:06 PM | link
Back to sanctioning Russian under the flimsy pretext of Skripals' poisoning. The US has been poisoning Georgians (some died) and this is well documented. Are the UK prudes ready to sanction the US for the crime?

http://dilyana.bg/us-diplomats-involved-in-trafficking-of-human-blood-and-pathogens-for-secret-military-program/

"The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo for a secret US military program. Pentagon scientists have been deployed to the Republic of Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly diseases and biting insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in Georgia's capital Tbilisi.

The Pentagon projects involving ticks coincided with an inexplicable outbreak of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) which is caused by infection through a tick-borne virus. In 2014 34 people became infected (amongst which a 4-year old child). A total of 60 cases with 9 fatalities have been registered in Georgia since 2009."

The above is an honest journalism and not some presstituting production by the eunuchs Luke Harding and George Monbiot. And don't forget Luke & George's comrade-in-arms, the "phenomenal expert" Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies underwear and college dropout) who has zero training in engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics, ballistics, foreign languages, biology, history and basically in any field of research. Zero. This is why Higgins is the best expert at the the ziocon Atlantic Council made of the scoundrels of the same caliber.

"This is a man who, with his agency Bellingcat, will absolutely always back the position of western governments, and powerful western organisations."

https://thetruthspeaker.co/2016/02/28/eliot-higgins-of-bellingcat-who-is-he-everything-you-need-to-know/

chet380 , Oct 5, 2018 1:37:53 PM | link
A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty.

This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations.

As any reference to this case can't seem to be found, can anyone help with info as to the present status of the case?

Fran , Oct 5, 2018 2:01:34 PM | link
Funny how lowkey this topic is handled. It appeard in The Times. As the Times article is behind a paywall. I am linking to the Irish Times: MI5 can authorise agents to commit crimes, tribunal told . Maybe the UK should be sanctioned.

Makes my fantasy go a little wild and wonder if there might be any connection to Skripal.

Noirette , Oct 5, 2018 2:11:45 PM | link
For those who missed May's latest Brexit speech (which had zero content), here she is jiving to Dancing Queen by Abba for her glorified entrance. No need to make caricatures, she does it herself. Free of charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbCDFNRA-Wo&frags=pl%2Cwn

The USA + GB have become totally unhinged. Seeking a 'safe' enemy *without* - as the Deplorables or Brexiteers *within* don't hit the spot, for many reasons - .. to explain and cover up Hillary's loss and the ugly Brexit mess with its clueless posturing pols, is one thing.

To continue to provoke Russia and China, particularly Russia, in this way is now skirting with danger beyond the .. ? Containable, ignorable, what ..?

Plus, the MSM, lousy as it is and was, has spinned off into even further mad realms, seemingly forced into a hyper, over-blown anti-Russian hysteria. Often far more strongly so than the pols. / others they seemingly quote.

This is all becoming seriously alarming. I'm getting very bad feelings.

karlof1 , Oct 5, 2018 2:22:25 PM | link
Seems like another episode of False Friday to bury all the crap made public during the week while pushing other news aside. Much of it's recycled crap from Obama's term and just as false.
Tent-A-Cles , Oct 5, 2018 3:03:03 PM | link
During the Cold War, the West contolled some 2/3 of the global economy.

If they again bring a "Free World" protective curtain down around themselves in defensive retrenchment, what percent would they control now? Which countries would be guaranteed to be inside the tent pissing out, and which would be outide the tent pissing in? And who would be non-aligned (with the exception of their military purchases.)

Pakistan, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Africa, etc. -- Where would the dominos fall? Is this what they are trying to accomplish? If you are not with us, you are against us, as the ever eloquent G. W. Shrub might have said. Any predictions?

james , Oct 5, 2018 3:44:18 PM | link
thanks b.. excellent information and insights as usual..

of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China what they themselves are guilty of.. the use of propaganda has gone into overdrive and is now an accepted policy of the west.. screw facts.. who needs facts when you have a war to pursue... and that is just what it looks like to me, as there is no end in sight to any of this western madness...

the financial sanctions have not worked.. that much is clear.. another approach via propaganda is to be the new regular feature.. claim all sorts of lies and supposition on russia, china, iran, north korea, venezuela or any country that dares to get out of line with the official ''coalition'' and you will be targeted with propaganda and or worse..

is there a way to create an alternative internet??

Peter AU 1 , Oct 5, 2018 4:05:02 PM | link
Looking around the MSM, MH17 also comes into it. Dutch are accusing Russia of trying to hack the MH17 sham investigation. This propaganda attack comes only a week or two after Russia tracked the missile parts numbers, supplied by JIT, through records which led to Ukraine.
Tom , Oct 5, 2018 4:19:51 PM | link
Russia has tried to negotiate with the US to avoid cyberspace being turned into another area of conflict. The US has rebuffed these requests. Likely too much money to be made by the MIC in another theater of warfare with that extortion racket called NATO and too much promise of the NSA scooping up even more data and adding it to the data already collected by the 5 eyes.

Canada is being pressured into not buying Chinese for its military civilian hardware. Scare the politicians into buying US goods that have a backdoor for the CIA to use. Canada shouldn't complain. The Canadian government hacked into the Brazilian government computers for the benefit of Canadian mining interests.

Didn't WikiLeaks disclosed the fact that NSA can disguise any hack to look like some other actor was the culprit? All this shouting that Russia and China did these terrible deeds is to hide the fact that the west does this all the time as disclosed by WikiLeaks? And the Germans complaining? I hope they have improved security for the Chancellor's phone. Russia is a member of OPWC. Why do they have to sit out in cars in the parking lot of OPCW headquarters to hack into OPCW? Why not from the comfort of their office in the building. What is of more importance to me is an upcoming vote in the OPCW about investigation reports laying blame in the future. That will be a game changer in the false flag chemical attack be it Syria or the UK. currently reports don't lay blame.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/10/03/us-responsible-cyberspace-becoming-war-domain-instead-of-area-cooperation.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-patrol-ships-chinese-content-1.4849562

Jen , Oct 5, 2018 5:14:15 PM | link
Timothy Hagios @ 1:

An element of the Skripal poisoning saga in Britain (the Novichok) was lifted from the TV series "Strikeback" screening in the country in November 2017 and February 2018. I have seen something on the Internet (but can't find the link) that said the subplot with the abandoned perfume bottle that contained poison was also taken from a TV show.

Prepare to be unsurprised then when the people who write propaganda for The Powers That Should Not Be turn out to be the same people who write scripts for Hollywood films and TV shows. A lot of these people also write novels or teach creative writing courses.

We really do seem to be living in a society where mythology and fantasy are becoming more prominent than facts and analysis in decision-making.

Virgile , Oct 5, 2018 5:16:34 PM | link
Wherever it is the Russian government responsible or not, the UK and the Nederlands are admitting that they are impotent in front of attacks in the cyberworld. That wifi can be sniffed so easily at international organizations show total irresponsibility. These cyberattacks are simply humiliating for these countries as it shows that despite their military power, they are highly vulnerable. To dispel the humiliation, they respond aggressively by accusing countries, not to individuals, and they accuse the current boogeyman, Russia.

Maybe NATO's budget should be cut down on murdering weapons and allocate to Cyber Defense as this seems to become the new way of war.
In view of the lack of proper cyber defense worldwidee, anybody, any country can hack and play around with others. I would be surprised if Israel, the USA and the UK China are not stiffing in other countries organizations. They have not been found because they are the 'good' sniffers while Russia, Iran, China are the "bad' sniffers

Cold war is on with new technology, It is time for countries to realize that.

Considering what the military war has cost in money, death toll and destruction, maybe cold war would be less costly in human toll.

Peter AU 1 , Oct 5, 2018 8:01:47 PM | link
China has set up quantum internet via optic fiber linking a number of government departments.

Going by the squealing noises coming out of the US and loyal vassals, the yanks are probably just pissed that they can't get into Russia or China's secure communications.

[Oct 05, 2018] The USA + GB have become totally unhinged.

Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Noirette , Oct 5, 2018 2:11:45 PM | link

For those who missed May's latest Brexit speech (which had zero content), here she is jiving to Dancing Queen by Abba for her glorified entrance. No need to make caricatures, she does it herself. Free of charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbCDFNRA-Wo&frags=pl%2Cwn

The USA + GB have become totally unhinged. Seeking a 'safe' enemy *without* - as the Deplorables or Brexiteers *within* don't hit the spot, for many reasons - .. to explain and cover up Hillary's loss and the ugly Brexit mess with its clueless posturing pols, is one thing.

To continue to provoke Russia and China, particularly Russia, in this way is now skirting with danger beyond the .. ? Containable, ignorable, what ..?

Plus, the MSM, lousy as it is and was, has spinned off into even further mad realms, seemingly forced into a hyper, over-blown anti-Russian hysteria. Often far more strongly so than the pols. / others they seemingly quote.

This is all becoming seriously alarming. I'm getting very bad feelings.

[Oct 05, 2018] Bret Kavanaugh is a Liar, a Perjurer and Belongs in Jail Instead of on the Supreme Court by David William Pear

Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
Brabantian says: October 4, 2018 at 9:23 pm GMT

How Brett Kavanaugh helped Hillary & Bill Clinton cover up evidence that Hillary's law partner Vince Foster had been murdered

'My sinister battle with Brett Kavanaugh over the truth', by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard :

lysias says: October 5, 2018 at 12:15 am GMT

I agree Kavanaugh is a warmonger and has probably committed perjury many times. The trouble is, if he is denied confirmation in the present circumstanes, it will amount to a victory for the feminists' witch hunt against men, and it will do nothing to defeat the war agenda. The next nominee will be just as much a warmonger.

SolontoCroesus says: October 5, 2018 at 3:09 am GMT

@David William Pear

1. The judgment of anyone who believes Christine Ford has to be questioned. Her senate performance was a series of holes held together with emotion. If she had been questioned as aggressively as Kavanaugh, she would have melted quicker than brie at a beach party.

2. That she is a fraud does not in any way mean that Kavanaugh was/is honest or that he is appropriate material for Supreme Court; I agree: he is not, he is deeply flawed. The pity and the tragedy is that his flaws are not being discussed on their merits: the fact that he made his living as a lawyer and a citizen by supporting the George Bush administration, which participated in war crimes, is enough to disqualify him.

3. But US government, from Supreme Court to presidency to the entire Congress, have been havens for liars who lied to the American people in order to wage war; they get monuments and institutes, not jail cells:

–> Woodrow Wilson was a notorious womanizer, and a weak toady. One of his liaison's threatened to release love letters unless he paid her $40,000. Zionist fanatic Samuel Untermeyer paid the sum, in exchange for the appointment of Louis Brandeis to Supreme Court.

Brandeis "lied" insofar as he used his elevated stature to promote the Zionist cause.
Wilson was manipulated into signing off on the Balfour Declaration, then drawing USA into WWI.

–> FDR (who was in the company of his lover when he died) lied to get USA into WWII.

–> George H W Bush sanctioned lies to involve USA in Persian Gulf war: "babies in incubators . ."

–> George W Bush had Condi Rice and Colin Powell to do his lying for him, to involve USA in war against Iraq.

–> Schumer pledged he would harry Trump "six ways 'til Sunday" -- to force him to wage war on Iran. Schumer and the Israel firsts don't give a tinker's dam about Kavanaugh OR Ford; their method is to keep Trump on a short leash and to make it impossible to rule other than in a way that achieve their goals, which are similar to Wilson and FDR: with them, the zionist goals were to destroy Germany and Palestinians for the sake of Zionists; wrt Trump, the goal is to complete the fragmentation of the ME and destroy Iran, for the sake of Israel.

[Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro

Highly recommended!
Oct 03, 2018 | www.chicagotribune.com

But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.

As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters in modern political history.

Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock, Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court

[Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro

Highly recommended!
Oct 03, 2018 | www.chicagotribune.com

But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.

As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters in modern political history.

Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock, Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court

[Oct 04, 2018] US Sanctions Against Russia Are A Colossal Strategic Mistake, Putin Warns

Oct 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

US Sanctions Against Russia Are "A Colossal Strategic Mistake", Putin Warns

by Tyler Durden Thu, 10/04/2018 - 07:20 3 SHARES

As Russia is preparing plans to wean its banking system off the dollar, advancing a trend of de-dollarization among the US's largest economic and geopolitical rivals, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical" mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes that don't bow to its whims.

"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin said.

"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."

These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions and violate WTO rules.

While Putin's criticisms are hardly new, these latest remarks happen to follow a report in the Financial Times, published Tuesday night, detailing Russia's efforts to wean its economy off of the dollar. The upshot is that while de-dollarization may be painful, it is, ultimately doable.

The US imposed another round of sanctions against Russia over the summer in response to the poisoning of former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, and the US Senate is considering measures that would effectively cut Russia's biggest banks off from the dollar and largely exclude Moscow from foreign debt markets.

With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.

In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter US tariffs and sanctions.

"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."

Still, there's no question that US sanctions have damaged Russia's currency and contributed to a rise in borrowing costs. And whether Russia - which relies heavily on energy exports - can convince buyers of its oil and natural gas to accept payment in rubles remains an open question. Increased trade with China and other Asian countries has helped reduce Russia's dependence on the dollar. But the greenback still accounted for 68% of Russia's payment inflow.

But, as Putin has repeatedly warned, that won't stop them from trying. The fact is that Russia is a major exporter, with a trade surplus of $115 billion last year. As the FT pointed out, Russia's metals, grain, oil and gas are consumed around the world - even in the west, despite the tensions surrounding Russia's alleged involvement in the Skripal poisoning and its annexation of Crimea.

To be sure, abandoning the dollar as the currency of choice for oil-related payments would be no easy feat. But China has already taken the first step and show that it can be done by launching a yuan-denominated futures contract that trades in Shanghai - striking the most significant blow to date against the petrodollar's previously unchallenged dominance.

That should embolden Putin to continue with his experiment - not that the US is leaving him much choice.

[Oct 04, 2018] Top FBI Lawyer Flips Russia Probe Was Handled In Abnormal Fashion And Rife With Political Bias

Notable quotes:
"... James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition. ..."
"... Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. ..."
"... According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." ..."
Oct 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition.

"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's extremely troubling."

Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left the bureau. - Fox News

Baker, who worked closely with former FBI Director James Comey, left the bureau earlier this year.

Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

"During the time that the FBI was putting -- that DOJ and FBI were putting together the FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election -- there was another source giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the FBI's Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators. - Fox News

According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."

As the FBI's top lawyer, baker helped secure the FISA warrant on Page, along with three subsequent renewals .

Rosenstein is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on October 11 for a closed-door interview, according to Republican House sources, "not a briefing to leadership," and comes on the heels of a New York Times report that said Rosenstein had discussed secretly recording President Trump and removing him from office using the 25th Amendment.

Rosenstein and Trump pushed off a scheduled meeting into limbo amid speculation of his impending firing.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting remains in limbo.

[Oct 04, 2018] In the Heart of a Dying Empire by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... After all, from National Security Advisor John Bolton (the invasion of Iraq ) and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (a longtime regime-change advocate) to CIA Director Gina Haspel ( black sites and torture ), Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis (former Marine general and CENTCOM commander ), and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly (former Marine general and a commander in Iraq), those adolts and so many like them remain deeply implicated in the path the country took in those years of geopolitical dreaming. They were especially responsible for the decision to invest in the U.S. military (and little else), as well as in endless wars , in the years before Donald Trump came to power. And worse yet, they seem to have learned absolutely nothing from the process. ..."
"... Fear: Trump in the White House ..."
"... And so Donald Trump became the latest surge president, authorizing, however grudgingly, the dispatching of yet more American troops and air power to Afghanistan (just as he recently authorized an "indefinite military effort" in Syria in the wake of what we can only imagine was another such exchange). Of Mattis himself, in response to reports that he might be on the way out after the midterm elections, the president recently responded , "He'll stay we're very happy with him, we're having a lot of victories, we're having victories that people don't even know about." ..."
"... They proved to be neither the empire builders of their dreams, nor even empire preservers, but a crew of potential empire burners. ..."
"... Occupation (ongoing) and forced partition of Germany. Operation "Gladio" – destroying not pro-American political parties across Europe, like in Italia. Murder of neutral politicians like Olaf Palme. Should we remember Chile and president Aliende? Installing DHS operative Norriega as Panama dictator, then removing him. Did USA even had allies that were not vassals? ..."
"... Exactly right. But he also failed to mention that the NATO nations, the Anglo-Saxon nations, Japan, etc., are completely subsevient to the empire, and seem to be so by choice. No rats are jumping off the sinking ship. Sweden was neutral and independent during WW2 and the Cold War. But now it seems that Swedish rats jump ONTO the sinking ship. ..."
"... Stalin said that a country's political system follows its military. When the shooting stopped in Europe in 1945 the US had its forces in countries (UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc.) that, with the exception of Austria became American "allies", just as the Soviet army occupied countries became Soviet "allies". ..."
"... You can't pin the inevitable decline on Trump: It started a couple decades ago with rise of the New World Order. ..."
"... Last night, I stumbled across The Saker's Vineyard. He once wrote a blog post discussing how he was blacklisted in his native Switzerland after speaking out against NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. I asked him how he could get himself censored in a "neutral" country that's supposedly independent from NATO or the EU, and since when Switzerland had become a lapdog of NATO. ..."
Oct 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Meet the Empire Burners

Donald Trump is in the White House exactly because, in these years, so many Americans felt instinctively that something was going off the tracks. (That shouldn't be a surprise, given the striking lack of investment in, or upkeep of, the infrastructure of the greatest of all powers.) He's there largely thanks to the crew that's now proudly referred to -- for supposedly keeping him in line -- as "the adults in the room." Let me suggest a small correction to that phrase to better reflect the 16 years in this not-so-new century before he entered the Oval Office. How about "the adolts in the room"?

After all, from National Security Advisor John Bolton (the invasion of Iraq ) and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (a longtime regime-change advocate) to CIA Director Gina Haspel ( black sites and torture ), Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis (former Marine general and CENTCOM commander ), and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly (former Marine general and a commander in Iraq), those adolts and so many like them remain deeply implicated in the path the country took in those years of geopolitical dreaming. They were especially responsible for the decision to invest in the U.S. military (and little else), as well as in endless wars , in the years before Donald Trump came to power. And worse yet, they seem to have learned absolutely nothing from the process.

Take a recent example we know something about -- Afghanistan -- thanks to Fear: Trump in the White House , Bob Woodward's bestselling new book. Only recently, an American sergeant major, an adviser to Afghan troops, was gunned down at a base near the Afghan capital, Kabul, in an "insider" or "green-on-blue" attack, a commonplace of that war. He was killed (and another American adviser wounded) by two allied Afghan police officers in the wake of an American air strike in the same area in which more than a dozen of their compatriots died. Forty-two years old and on the eve of retirement, the sergeant was on his seventh combat tour of duty of this century and, had he had an eighth, he might have served with an American born after the 9/11 attacks.

In his book, Woodward describes a National Security Council meeting in August 2017, in which the adolts in the room saved the president from his worst impulses. He describes how an impatient Donald Trump "exploded, most particularly at his generals. You guys have created this situation. It's been a disaster. You're the architects of this mess in Afghanistan You're smart guys, but I have to tell you, you're part of the problem. And you haven't been able to fix it, and you're making it worse I was against this from the beginning. He folded his arms. 'I want to get out and you're telling me the answer is to get deeper in.'"

And indeed almost 16 years later that is exactly what Pompeo, Mattis, former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and the rest of them were telling him. According to Woodward, Mattis, for instance, argued forcefully "that if they pulled out, they would create another ISIS-style upheaval What happened in Iraq under Obama with the emergence of ISIS will happen under you, Mattis told Trump, in one of his sharpest declarations."

The reported presidential response: "'You are all telling me that I have to do this,' Trump said grudgingly, 'and I guess that's fine and we'll do it, but I still think you're wrong. I don't know what this is for. It hasn't gotten us anything. We've spent trillions,' he exaggerated. 'We've lost all these lives.' Yet, he acknowledged, they probably could not cut and run and leave a vacuum for al-Qaeda, Iran, and other terrorists."

And so Donald Trump became the latest surge president, authorizing, however grudgingly, the dispatching of yet more American troops and air power to Afghanistan (just as he recently authorized an "indefinite military effort" in Syria in the wake of what we can only imagine was another such exchange). Of Mattis himself, in response to reports that he might be on the way out after the midterm elections, the president recently responded , "He'll stay we're very happy with him, we're having a lot of victories, we're having victories that people don't even know about."

Perhaps that should be considered definitional for the Trump presidency, which is likely to increasingly find itself in a world of "victories that people don't even know about." But don't for a second think that The Donald was the one who brought us to this state, though someday he will undoubtedly be seen as the personification of it and of the decline that swept him into power. And for all that, for the victories that people won't know about and the defeats that they will, he'll have the adolts in the room to thank. They proved to be neither the empire builders of their dreams, nor even empire preservers, but a crew of potential empire burners.

Believe me, folks, it's going to be anything but pretty. Welcome to that most unpredictable and dangerous of entities, a dying empire. Only 27 years after the bells of triumph tolled across Washington, it looks like those bells are now preparing to toll in mourning for it.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His sixth and latest book is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).

Cyrano , says: September 27, 2018 at 8:43 pm GMT

The main difference between US and the "lesser" empire USSR is how they got their "allies". The USSR won their "allies" by the force of their military. The US won their allies by the promise of economic prosperity.

When the "lesser" empire collapsed, US got delusional and decided to try their luck at winning new allies (or more accurately – expanding their influence) with the force of their military – who let's face it was never that impressive compared to other great empires in history.

Conclusion: US should have stuck with what they were good at – winning battles on the economic battlefield, not let the Cold War "victory" get to their heads making them delusional that they can win any "hot" wars of any significance.

Arioch , says: September 28, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
@Cyrano >

The US won their allies by the promise of economic prosperity.

Occupation (ongoing) and forced partition of Germany. Operation "Gladio" – destroying not pro-American political parties across Europe, like in Italia. Murder of neutral politicians like Olaf Palme. Should we remember Chile and president Aliende? Installing DHS operative Norriega as Panama dictator, then removing him. Did USA even had allies that were not vassals?

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: September 28, 2018 at 3:43 pm GMT
Almost brilliant and innovative look, except truth about 911.
Tulips , says: September 28, 2018 at 4:29 pm GMT
Exactly right. But he also failed to mention that the NATO nations, the Anglo-Saxon nations, Japan, etc., are completely subsevient to the empire, and seem to be so by choice. No rats are jumping off the sinking ship. Sweden was neutral and independent during WW2 and the Cold War. But now it seems that Swedish rats jump ONTO the sinking ship.
Josep , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:38 am GMT
@Tulips What about Switzerland? It's not a member of either NATO or the EU (unlike Sweden). It remained neutral and independent during WWII and the Cold War. Last time I checked, it doesn't even have any American bases.
Begemot , says: September 29, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
@Cyrano

"The USSR won their "allies" by the force of their military. The US won their allies by the promise of economic prosperity."

Stalin said that a country's political system follows its military. When the shooting stopped in Europe in 1945 the US had its forces in countries (UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc.) that, with the exception of Austria became American "allies", just as the Soviet army occupied countries became Soviet "allies".

In Asia US occupied Japan and South Korea became US "allies". In Eastern Europe the Soviets arranged the political situation to ensure that political opponents were removed from power.

In Italy and France in 1946 the democratically elected Communists in the French and Italian governments were removed from power, not by popular election.

There is enough symmetry here to suggest that your contention is dubious at best. When I was a member of the US Army in Germany back during the Cold War I came to the conclusion that I was there not so much to drive to the East German border to keep the Soviets out of West Germany and points west as to be ready to drive on Bonn to ensure the West Germans remained within the fold.

Cyrano , says: September 29, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT

There is enough symmetry here to suggest that your contention is dubious at best.

I kind of both agree and disagree with what you are saying . It's true that there are similarities in how both the US and USSR "won" their allies in Europe in WW2. The main difference is that USSR won their allies by the power of their military alone, while US "won" their allies by the power of their military while also being generously helped by the power of the USSR military too.

If this wasn't true, the US would have "won" their allies (or at least it would have start winning them) in 1990-91 instead of 1944-45 when the Germans were pretty much already beaten to a pulp by the Russians.

To prove my theory that the biggest draw to being US ally is economic prosperity, not being impressed by the power of their military and what they can offer in terms of protection, it's the fact that the former Warsaw pact countries joined NATO after USSR was gone and they didn't need any protection by anybody against anyone anymore. They joined NATO for purely economic reasons, because they didn't want to miss the opportunity to kiss American b*tts and in the process to profit from the pleasant gesture.

The Alarmist , says: October 2, 2018 at 12:39 am GMT
You can't pin the inevitable decline on Trump: It started a couple decades ago with rise of the New World Order. If anything, TPTB will deliberately crash the global system to get the NWO that Trump detailed back on the tracks.
Josep , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:01 am GMT
@Josep Come to think of it, now I can see why Tulips (#4) didn't mention Switzerland.

Last night, I stumbled across The Saker's Vineyard. He once wrote a blog post discussing how he was blacklisted in his native Switzerland after speaking out against NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. I asked him how he could get himself censored in a "neutral" country that's supposedly independent from NATO or the EU, and since when Switzerland had become a lapdog of NATO. The next morning, he said:

The sad truth is that Switzerland, which truly used to be a neutral country, completely caved in into NATO by the late 1980s. The visible first sign of that was when Switzerland allowed NATO to use her airspace to bomb Yugoslavia and when she caved in to the blackmail of international Jewish organizations and the Volcker Commission and paid over a billion dollar in ransom money. There was a lot of resistance to this kind of behavior from the common people and from some politicians (such as Christoph Blocher), but the globalists still won. I rather not discuss that in more details.
Kind regards,
The Saker

Biff , says: October 4, 2018 at 4:21 am GMT

On September 11, 2001, thanks to Osama bin Laden's precision air assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, they got their wish

I wish people would stop with this ridiculous nonsense.

[Oct 04, 2018] What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes? The Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump

Notable quotes:
"... It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later. ..."
"... Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role. ..."
"... I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig. ..."
"... As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge. ..."
"... Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did! ..."
"... What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis. ..."
"... Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious. ..."
"... you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more. ..."
"... Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Kratoklastes says: October 2, 2018 at 1:58 am GMT 600 Words Oh, and as to substantive matters

Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape (at least, not by Ford).

He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape.

In a prurient and shallow swamp of false-piety and sanctimony (i.e., US society and its political class in particular), that is thought to be germane to his fitness for the job (of which, more in a few sentences' time).

I don't have a dog in this fight: I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas -laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.

That has corollaries:

So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is nothing more than light entertainment.

It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later.

But here's the thing: this dude wants to be part of a life-tenured clique that arrogated to itself the right to call the shots on the final jurisprudential stage in the US system up to and including matters of constitutional import. As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn). The hubris involved in wanting to be on that court is an invitation to nemesis .

And to quote Brick Top (from the movie "Snatch"):

Do you know what 'Nemesis' means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent – personified in this case by a 'orrible cunt: me.

If this was going to play out Hellenically, this controversy will result in the nomination failing, and Kavanaugh will move on to catharsis and eventually metanoia ; but this being 21st century America, he will be confirmed and will go on to do his masters' bidding.

Now the question of actual fitness for purpose.

Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role.

However, since the SCOTUS-J role is just to be a lifetime lackey for the party what brung you to the dance he's exactly what his side of politics ordered.

[1] Like de la Rochfoucauld (especially Maxim 237), Stern and Shaftesbury, I have an extremely dim view of gravitas . As Shaftesbury said Gravitas is the very essence of imposture . ( Characteristics , p. 11, vol. I.)

Low Voltage says: October 2, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT

What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes? We must never be allowed to forget there is a government in our lives to the point where it starts to feel like a family member.
Biff , says: October 2, 2018 at 5:37 am GMT
There are two things I cant stand: Cockroaches, and prep school pricks that go on to be frat boy fucks, and then on to lawyers, who then become so self entitled that they honestly believe they are chosen by god to decide for others. Nasty creatures all of them.
Realist , says: October 2, 2018 at 9:03 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).

You left out.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Rurik , says: October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes This was a beauty of a comment.

Kudos, and muchas gracias

I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.

Very eloquently and succinctly stated!

  • anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
  • anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.

So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is nothing more than light entertainment.

agree

There is one aspect of this farce that does deserve some merit, from my perspective. And that is the part where we get to watch more of the unhinged, apoplectic, butt-hurt, aneurysm-popping hysterics of the progressive left. It's like more of those tears of existential angst from all those castrating Hillary supporters anticipating their big win, only to have it snatched away at the crucial moment by the big, blonde white guy who likes women and cruelly mocks their messiah.

Watching Hillary psychologically implode is still one of my most sublime pleasures, even today. It's the gift that keeps on giving

Carlton Meyer , says: Website October 2, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT
From my blog:

Oct 1, 2018 – The Kavanaugh Circus

This is a curious and confusing spectacle. I don't think he's a good pick since like all Supreme "Justices" he's a Deep State sponsored toady with little respect for the US Constitution. But the Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump, who they are tying to oust even though he does whatever they demand. Perhaps they worry that Trump may suddenly rebel.

One wonders why Republican Senate leaders allowed this circus to form. When allegations of drunken misconduct arose shortly before the vote, they should have dismissed the matter and moved on, noting there were no police reports or arrests involved, and all this occurred when he was a minor. Case closed! Most Americans consider groping and unwanted kisses by teenagers to be of poor taste remedied with a slap or kick in the shin. It is not "sexual assault."

Or perhaps they chose to allow the looney part of the Democratic Party to run wild knowing they would unwittingly hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. Or maybe this is a Deep State media diversion to keep the social justice warriors busy with an unimportant issue, so they don't protest Deep State wars, ever growing military spending, soaring budget deficits, or our dysfunctional health care system. Encourage them debate and protest what some guy did as a drunken teenager for the next few weeks and fill our "news" programs with related BS so real issues are avoided during the election campaigns.

ThreeCranes , says: October 2, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer "all this occurred when he was a minor"

Yeah. Liberals make much of the virtue of erasing a minor's record once they turn 18. "It's a clean slate. A chance to start over again with a reputation unblemished by youthful folly and mistakes. How can young Trey'Trayvontious grow up to become an aeronautical engineer if, upon entering adulthood, he is handicapped by the burden of felonious assault, burglary and attempted murder convictions?"

But when it comes to Kavanaugh??? No way. No forgetfulness, no forgiveness. What he did as a minor, he will wear as a badge of shame throughout his adult life.

Is it even legal to consider what he did as a minor as having any bearing on his fitness for this job? I'm seriously asking any parole officers or social workers out there who work with youth.

KenH , says: October 2, 2018 at 11:36 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes

As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).

Then you must be a leftist ideologue.

In the Dredd Scott case the naturalization act of 1790 only extended citizenship to "free white persons", so the court got it objectively right since they ruled in accordance with existing law and didn't strike down or make law from the bench as too many power mad federal judges do today.

Plessy v Ferguson is a closer call (because of the 14th amendment) but IMO the court got it objectively right because the court only upheld de jure segregation with the stipulation that public facilities must be equal in quality. And in doing so the court ruled that the desires and wishes of blacks don't automatically supersede those of whites like federal courts reflexively do today.

The great irony is that today blacks, not whites, are demanding racially segregated dormitories, student orientations, facilities, graduations, schools, clubs, etc. and leftists have no issue with that but will scream themselves hoarse about racism and white supremacy if whites do.

In Bush v Gore I'm not sure what pressing moral issue was at stake other than you didn't like the court's decision, hence it was "immoral." Was SCOTUS supposed to allow Florida to keep counting votes until Christmas?

Kratoklastes , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic

I'd rather it be a bourgeois white guy with social markers indicating that he, like me, has been a red-blooded American teenager rather than a foppish Bubble-boy nerd with no theory of mind or a bitter lesbian hag

It's not the teenage indiscretions that should concern people – it's the obvious temperament problem that manifested itself during his testimony.

Anyone who 'arcs up' the way Kavanaugh did, has no place in any judiciary, be he ne'er so white and red-blooded: it shows that he is a narcissist.

I don't think he actually uttered the words " How dare you !", but it would not surprise me if he had done so.

So I would prefer a non-narcissist lesbian hag or "Bubble-boy nerd" (as if Kavanaugh did not grow up in a protective bubble! He exudes contempt for anyone outside of his class nothing wrong with that, except if you're hearing death penalty appeals or adjudicating on reproductive or sexual rights).

By way of stark contrast, I have a very good example of a decidedly non-bourgeois person (who will be Chief Justice in my jurisdiction before he retires)

One of my close friends from university was made a judge of the Supreme Court (of Victoria, Australia) in 2013.

He was a first-rate advocate (specialising in criminal defence) – another contrast with Kavanaugh, who is a lifetime party/government apparatchik who has never tried a case.

Michael (for that is my old mate's name) was also a former logging truck driver who returned to study in his mid-30s (having already had a family). He went to government schools for his entire education – the first Supreme Court justice to have done so, a fact that the Chief Justice remarked upon at his inauguration.

Despite having no pedigree, no connections, no Old Boys' (or Masonic) connections, he was made QC at the earliest possible date (i.e., 10 years after he was called to the Bar).

He is also a witty bugger, and his default expression is a kind of half-smile, even now. He was (and is) talented enough that he does not have to rely on gravitas : on several instances he has cried in open court while recounting the facts of particularly tragic cases, even as he was sentencing the perpetrators to jail. This is not a display of weakness: it's a display of empathy – a weak man would be scared of the public reaction.

His robes sit heavy, but he still played "old-blokes' footy" after his elevation to the bench.

And although I think he has some leftish tendencies, I could not say with any certainty where his politics lie: when we were students together his economics was first-rate and "rationalist" (he and I both got Reserve Bank cadetships – only 4 of which were awarded Australia-wide in our year).

Now the reason I drop his name into the mix is that I can declare with absolute confidence that if he was involved in a hearing of this type, there would be no displays of righteous indignation, no partisan political commentary, no facial contortions, no spittle-flecked lips in short, no displays of behaviour that indicate that he thinks that he is above reproach simply by virtue of his background or his current station .

That 's the guy you want in your judiciary: you can't tell me that a nation of 300 million people – and a surfeit of lawyers – doesn't have a single lawyer like Michael Croucher.

OK, so that was a rhetorical trick on my part, because the US Supreme Court is only open to people who went to Harvard or Yale Law (although Ginsberg got her JD at Columbia, she was a transfer from Harvard).

And, of course, they must have a lifetime track record of opinions that align with the party in power at the time of their nomination.

The Anti-Gnostic , says: Website October 3, 2018 at 1:11 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Judges frequently "arc up" on the bench. And I couldn't care less about your friend.
Disclaimer , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:21 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

>>>>>>>>>>He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape. <<<<<<<<<<

She was two grades behind him and attended an all girl school in a different part of town. So how is she someone he went to school with? I went to an all girl school (Catholic) and can't recall any boys I went to school with. As a mother, I was interested in the distance of her home from the place of the party.

I gathered it was too far to walk to and walk home from, (especially at night). What did she tell her parents were she had been? Her parents did not care she ran around at night like that? At age 15. Not that Kavanaugh would be my choice.

Biff , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic Outliving the dinosaurs, and the upcoming nuclear war that deep state Kavanaugh butt buddies initiate does in fact stir my envy.
Sin City Milla , says: October 3, 2018 at 5:07 am GMT
Rape is a social construct. Some languages don't even have a word for it. Re Kavanaugh, who knew that he was a serial gang rapist whose coast to coast crime wave has kept the country secretly cowering in fear for the past 40 years? And thank goodness that we discovered just in time that he also possesses emotions n a point of view. We can't have that on the SCOTUS! I mean, where would we be if other Justices decided to have points of view n even did interviews? Thank goodness that never ever happens, n all the current justices keep their lips sealed n are completely neutral.
Liza , says: October 3, 2018 at 6:14 am GMT
@Anonymous We don't know that her parents "did not care she ran around at night like that at age 15″.

Teenagers and even younger children disobey their parents' instructions, orders and warnings all the time. Maybe Ms Ford was chronically disobedient, a difficult child from Day One, and maybe (just opining here) that's why she was sent to an all-girls private school. I sure know of such cases. Such attendance doesn't change the child's behavior or character, but it gets them away from their peers in public school, which makes the parents believe everything will now be alright with their naughty child.

Not everything is the parents' fault. Nurture can't always undo Nature. Indeed, it rarely does in any deep, permanent sense. Just threaten and/or punish your children enough and then they'll obey you – for the wrong reasons.

Dorian , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT
I Told You So: Ford Is Lying And Needs To Go To Prison

As I stated in a previous comment, Ford is just another hysterical man hating wobaby (woman baby), that has lied in her testimony and public shameful denunciation of Kavanaugh.

Her lies are now coming back to haunt her: Ford delusional story unravelling rapidly . Ford is now facing prison, not Kavanaugh.

As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge.

Some people like Nicephorus , took Ford's trauma to be some sort of psychological mental disorder or emotional distress. As I pointed out this was just hogwash, Regarding Nicephorus and Reality: Specifically the truth is much simpler: revenge .

Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did!

Once again, proof, facts and evidence, shows us all that you can't trust what people say, especially hysterical women! History is replete with examples of how hysteria, especially by women with a grudge, can destroy men lives. This nonsense, and it is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, by Ford and her followers is nothing more than a bunch of pathetic individuals who've nothing in their lives other than to be jealous and embittered of others all because they are all failing in their own miserable, misbegotten lives. This is not about social justice, it is just about people who can't accept their irrelevant position in society and need to destroy others whom are make something of themselves.

Christine Ford is that lowest thing of womanhood; a bitter, delusional, man-hating female. When in reality the only thing she really hates, is herself. Now she will get her well over due comeuppance.

And what of Senator Feinstein? That modern incarnation of Reverend Samuel Paris (alla Salem Witch Trials), what of her? She should be thrown out of the Senate, and allowed to wither in the backwaters of the Deep Swamp, where she belongs!

Senator Feinstein you are a disgrace to Justice, the Senate, to Women, and above all, to the Human Race! Go back to murky slimy depths of the swamp, where you belong!

Hans Vogel , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:03 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Wholeheartedly agree with all your comments and adstructions. However, it would seem to me that in 99% of cases, it really does not matter who gets elected or appointed to any office, in the US or whichever other country.

What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis.

Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious.

Wizard of Oz , says: October 3, 2018 at 8:05 am GMT
@Kratoklastes I don't know Michael Croucher J but I know and have a high regard for the conservative Attorney-General who appointed him (also, you may be interested to know the product only of radically unfashionable non-government schools). I Googled for Michael Croucher and was surprised to find how many of the items on the first page had him tearing up on the bench. I suspect that he fits pretty well with his appointer's pretty strong law and order approach though I don't remember what the attitude of the latter was to the introduction of victim impact statements, inevitably not subject to cross examination for obvious enough reasons. (Moi: I was never a fan for several reasons).

While internet anonymity frees us up to say more than we can know with arrogant confidence I am surprised that you don't make the distinction between US judges with a Bill of Rights to maximise the likelihood of value differences infecting their judgments (bolstered by life tenure) and Australian judiciary much of which still honours Dixon CJ's "strict and complete legalism" in the sense in which he meant it (in answer to complaints of "excessive legalism") and maybe Blackburn J's excellent 1970s article on Judicial Method.

But you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more.

steinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: October 3, 2018 at 9:32 am GMT
No evidence just accusations. IOW no substance just shit-throwing. In the past this Perjuring whore ( http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02/christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend-told-senate-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs/ ) would have been tossed in the gutter. But Feminism. I demand to be heard (Even though I lie).

... ... ...

animalogic , says: October 3, 2018 at 9:56 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Another excellent comment, Krat' !
Re: Kav' "arc'ing up" I wonder whether that may have not been a carefully contrived piece of theatre, directed at the so-called Trump "base" ? I don't know.
Re: the judge himself. I recall his public nomination. His intro by Trump, his evident pleasure at nomination etc. However, his acceptance quickly segued into a modern version of Mr Smith goes the Washington. He seriously emphasised what a great family man he is. His little jokes with his daughters, coaching their basket ball team etc. The performance was just so sincere, so real indeed, so slick & polished . What a great guy ! I thought. Then I woke up – I'd been played .We're not talking about a great guy, we're talking about a judicial job application for the highest court in the US.
Literally, a job for life.
The "sex" business, whether true or false has completely distracted US from the substantive issue of whether this Judge, qua Judge is suitable for this role.
Your references to his whole "silver spoon"
history is largely indicative of the sex aspect. It goes to "character" at the least. It should be considered but not as, in itself, determative.
Heros , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:29 am GMT
Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father.

This bitch just reeks of MKUltra. It not only would explain so much of her recent actions, it would also explain why she had 57 sex partners before starting college.

Most likely Ford was a MKUltra beta sex kitten, and that would also explain her current positions at Standford. Stanford was a major center for MKUltra research and programming, with Keasey and Owsley Stanley both being heavily involved in LSD research there as well as in the forming of the mind-control masters of the Grateful Dead.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:51 am GMT
I do not think that even Bill Cosby raped anybody. All he had to do is promise the girl role in next episode. And so by the time when Bill turned around and headed to liqueur cabinet there she was on the bed naked with the feet pointing to the Heavens. Basically the same story was with Weinstein. You know women do not use their pussy only as a payment for full, they also use pussy as a deposit.
White Refugee , says: October 3, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
I really hate Trump and this country. He said it's a scary time for young men in this country. I'm a young man and I've never met anyone in real life who was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. The prospect isn't even on anyone's mind. No normal woman would do that. Some politicians might get falsely accused, but that isn't something regular guys fear.

But I'll tell you who is under attack: white people, both men AND women. There were hardly any white girls at my high school. Hot white girls are a disappearing breed in many cities and towns all over this country because of mass immigration. And what has a fraud like Trump done about that? Absolutely nothing. His immigration failures are the real war on white women.

But the little manbabies of the right will continue their hysteria and petty squabbles with white women and even ally with non-white men against their own women. White people divide and conquer themselves. The enemy doesn't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy the show as whites fight each other instead of their own colonization and dispossession by the Third World.

Disclaimer , says: October 3, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic Said the pinko.

Envy as the Foundation of Capitalism

http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/business/envy-as-the-foundation-of-capitalism.html

Carroll Price , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
In the small high school I attended and from which graduated in 1960 were 4 girls who took-on the entire football team more than once. There's no reason for me to believe the school I attended was much different from any other public or private school. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The truth is that quite a few girls and women who are mentally disturbed will do practically anything to acquire attention from males. It's always been that way, and always will.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
I used to live in Communist country, where social scientist were pushing the idea that first organized tribal societies were matriarchal. Than that today society is patriarchal. Prevailing theories were that patriarchal society inevitably must revert back to matriarchal society. I did not pay too much attention to it, and did seem to me that it was something strange. Is this happening in US? I do not know!
George , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:10 pm GMT
Is Kavanaugh a true believer in the Bush II mission to save the world or was he just a water carrier?
chris , says: October 3, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT
Excellent article on the beautiful circus lifting the curtain on American politics. It's always been this way, we just got loge seats this time.

Regarding the "facts" being brought to bear, it seems that if you're a woman and want your 15min of fame, all you have to do is describe your wildest sexual fantasy as long as you end your statement with the seal of quality: "100% Kavanaugh."

And whether he lied about not being a lush and she about everything else the most pertinent question is: where can you finally see more adults lying through their teeth than in the US.gov? Indeed, the show must go on, and even Fred can't make this any funnier that it already is.

[Oct 04, 2018] As manufactured political theatrics and deliberate distractions keep Americans easily mesmerized, more than 115 people in the United States die each day, after overdosing on opioids.

Oct 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

wayfarer , says: October 3, 2018 at 4:24 am GMT

As manufactured political theatrics and deliberate distractions keep Americans easily mesmerized, more than 115 people in the United States die each day, after overdosing on opioids.

"Opioid Epidemic by Numbers"

https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/sites/default/files/2018-01/opioids-infographic.pdf

"U.S. Drug Overdose Deaths Continue to Rise; Fueled by Synthetic Opioids"

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html

"Staggering Statistics About America's Opioid Epidemic"

https://www.moveforwardpt.com/Resources/Detail/7-staggering-statistics-about-america-s-opioid-epi

"Secretive Family Making Billions of Dollars from Opioid Crisis"

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin/

"Family Trying to Escape Blame for Opioid Crisis"

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/04/sacklers-oxycontin-opioids/557525/

"Toxic Gifts. Coming to Terms with Sackler Family Philanthropy"

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2018/3/12/sackler-family-philanthropy-controversial-gifts

Sackler Faculty of Medicine (Tel Aviv University)

https://en-med.tau.ac.il/

Sackler School of Medicine (New York State/American Program of Tel Aviv University)

http://www.sacklerschool.org/

[Oct 03, 2018] False accusations of rape are not uncommon. A few gain national attention. Most do not.

Notable quotes:
"... The editor of a major paper once told me that he never allowed a woman into his office unless the door was open and a third person present. Why? If a disgruntled reporter says, "He groped me," it will go viral. (Joyful headline headline in competing paper: "Editor of Daily Blatt allegedly .") Months of furor will ensue. He will have large legal bills. The suspicion arising from that "allegedly" will never die. The paper's board may well decide that regardless of guilt he is having too serious an affect on the advertisers. He will be permitted to resign, never to get a similar job. The Daily Blatt will settle as quietly as possible for a quarter million. ..."
Oct 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

False accusations of rape are not uncommon. A few gain national attention. Most do not. A few: Tawana Brawley , a black woman, was gang-raped by four white (of course) men, except that she wasn't. Next there is the Duke Lacrosse case , Then at Rolling Stone a feminist writer and a magazine not greatly given to fact checking published the story of rape at the University of Virginia, also discredited. It cost them a libel settlement. And so on.

Again, if the accused men and boys had been guilty, long prison terms would have been a good idea. But they weren't. The presumption of guilt for men and innocence for women are convenient for those who want to prevent confirmation of a judge but do not reflect reality. People, assuredly to include women, use what power they have to get what they want.

The editor of a major paper once told me that he never allowed a woman into his office unless the door was open and a third person present. Why? If a disgruntled reporter says, "He groped me," it will go viral. (Joyful headline headline in competing paper: "Editor of Daily Blatt allegedly .") Months of furor will ensue. He will have large legal bills. The suspicion arising from that "allegedly" will never die. The paper's board may well decide that regardless of guilt he is having too serious an affect on the advertisers. He will be permitted to resign, never to get a similar job. The Daily Blatt will settle as quietly as possible for a quarter million.

Meanwhile, the Kavanaugh carnival is up and running. Now, Lord save us, we have USAToday trying to nail Kavanaugh for yes pedophilia. The evidence? Ain't none. None needed. Hey, we're talking the American media.

Nuff said. I predict the soon headline: "Berkeley sychotherapist recounts seeing Brett Kavanaugh leading the entire Marine Division in gang-raping thirteen-year-old autistic orphans."

[Oct 03, 2018] Kavanaugh Gang-Rapes Collie in Satanic Ritual by Fred Reed

Oct 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Oh God. Oh God. Is there no surcease? I know, silly question. Squalling protesters: Half of the country seems fifteen years younger than its chronological age. Staged ire. Sordid passion of the herd. Hysteria. Irrationality. Weird accusations. Savage feminists. As per custom, it is all about how horrible men are.

One of the sillier sillinesses of feminists regarding us men, of whom they seem to know little, is that we hate women, scorn them, want to abuse and hurt them and, most especially, gang-rape them. See, men view rape casually. It's just something to do in a moment of boredom. Like scratching, or wondering where we left our keys. It's because of our misogyny. The Sisterhood seems to love misogyny, pray for misogyny, invent misogyny because without it life would be bleak and devoid of meaning.

What is wrong with these baffled ditz-rabbits? Men hate women? By and large, our mothers have been women. Yes, check it out. Also our wives and girlfriends, grandmothers, granddaughters, daughters and–this will astonish the more ardent among feminists–even many of our friends. And, often, our collies.

As for regarding rape causally: If some dirtball raped anywoman close to me, I would favor subjecting him to a sex change with a propane torch, knee-capping him as a mobility-reduction measure, giving him a beating of the sort popular with dentists who want Porsches, and putting him in Leavenworth for thirty years. Sensitive readers will suggest that I am a psycho for proposing such effective and extremely meritorious measures. Admittedly they run counter to the trade winds of American jurisprudence. But a great many men will quietly say, "Right on, Fred."

But: Rape is a crime. The standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As well as I can see, the Kavanaugh charges do not even meet the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, since there seems to be little evidence to preponder. The accuser doesn't remember when it was, or where it was, or just who was there, and those she thinks were there don't remember the party.

[Oct 03, 2018] He didn't tell me beer had alcohol in it and I didn't know boys were interested in sex, I thought it was just us girls by Fred Reed

Oct 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Since I am actually in a mood for noting things, I will note that any girl in my high school class–King George High, class of 1964–could accuse me of raping her at a party, and do it with similar evidence: none. Equally with Kavanaugh, I would have no way to defend myself. How could I prove what I hadn't done at a party nobody remembered after 55 years? This would be no defense against the presumption of guilt. Girls I dated would report that I had no such inclinations. Surviving teachers would remember–well, perhaps imperfect behavior, but nothing lubricious. This would prove nothing.

However, this first accusation against Kavanaugh has the virtue that it could have happened, since there is no proof that it didn't happen. The same could be said of course of the charge that I raped whoever some girl might say that I had. Ah, but now we come to the gang-rape business. We have:

"Swetnick, who attended High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, swore under oath that she attended at least 10 parties where she says she witnessed Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys." She added that she has a "firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room,"

First, "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented." This displays a common theme among feminists, painting girls as helpless, easily manipulated victims, having no will of their own. Is this not truly insulting to girls? "He didn't tell me beer had alcohol in it and I didn't know boys were interested in sex, I thought it was just us girls ."

But, just as the problem with the first story is no witness, the problem with the gang rape is too many witnesses. "At least ten parties ." Since it is unlikely that a girl would come back to be gang-raped a second time, this implies at least ten victims. While it is true that a rape victim often will not come forward because of embarrassment, it is curious that not one of the violated multitude said anything, even though everyone at the party would have seen the line-up. None of the other girls at the party said anything either, even though this was a frequent occurrence. Is it not odd that the author of this story, seeing long lines of boys engaging in rape, at party after party after party, saw no particular reason for reporting it? That the many other girls witnessing this also said nothing? This is a song sounding mightily of fabrication. Which must be obvious to senators who, though morally challenged, are not stupid.

[Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

Highly recommended!
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [257] Disclaimer says: September 29, 2018 at 8:28 am GMT 400 Words

I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.

Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment

There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity. It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door and it's a small apartment.

Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely. But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.

So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped.

Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.

She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office.

I'm puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

[Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

Highly recommended!
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [257] Disclaimer says: September 29, 2018 at 8:28 am GMT 400 Words

I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.

Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment

There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity. It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door and it's a small apartment.

Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely. But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.

So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped.

Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.

She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office.

I'm puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

[Oct 02, 2018] Spinoza: a Man for Our Troubled Time by Sheldon Richman

Oct 02, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

In these interesting times, we all need someone to admire. I have found such a one in Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677), the 17th-century rationalist liberal philosopher who advocated freedom of thought and expression, toleration, and simple kindness.

Spinoza lived in what at the time was the most liberal place on earth, the Dutch Republic, his Jewish Portuguese family having moved there after Portugal expelled its Jewish population in 1497. He seems to have been a free thinker at an early age, and it apparently got him into trouble with the Jewish community of Amsterdam. In 1656, at the tender age 23, his synagogue banned him for life from the community for "abominable heresies and monstrous deeds." The excommunication decree -- the charem -- left no doubt about how the Jews of Amsterdam were to regard the young man:

By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day.

It ordered "that no one should communicate with him neither in writing nor accord him any favor nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits [six feet] in his vicinity; nor shall he read any treatise composed or written by him."

Spinoza was not upset with this development; he apparently thought his excommunication merely saved him the trouble of leaving the community on his own initiative. So he changed his name from the Hebrew word for blessed , Baruch, to the Latin equivalent, Benedictus. However, he lived in a time and place in which being unaffiliated with any community had its disadvantages.

What had he done to deserve this treatment? No one is really sure because he had not yet written a word, and he would not publish a book for several years. But he must have been talking to friends about the philosophy he was formulating. If so, we should have no problem understanding why Spinoza would have outraged the Jewish authorities, who feared anything that might jeopardize the community's relatively free status in the Protestant republic. His writings, published between those of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, would reject the immortality of the soul and the divine origin of the Bible, while arguing that God was nothing more than nature, or existence, itself without a consciousness or will with which to command, reward, punish, or listen to human beings. His famous phrase was Deus sive Natura , God or/as Nature. For Spinoza, nothing could be beyond nature and logic; thus, no supernatural being or realm existed.

When I (along with others) nominate Spinoza for hero status, I am thinking specifically of his political philosophy, which he expressed in his anonymously published A Theological-Political Treatise (1670), condemned as "a book forged in hell." The authorship of the book soon became an open secret, and all but his book on Descartes were banned in the Dutch Republic and elsewhere. Spinoza also lived in interesting times, which were no doubt on his mind as he formulated his political philosophy: the Thirty Years' War ended in 1648 and the English Civil War raged from 1642 to 1651.

As the libertarian philosopher Douglas Den Uyl notes in God, Man, and Well-Being: Spinoza's Modern Humanism , Spinoza was very much in the tradition of Greek philosophy, but he went the Greek thinkers one better by rejecting the state as a shaper of souls and promoter of virtue. What Spinoza called "blessedness" cannot be achieved through external forces but only through an internal process that individuals undertake. (Den Uyl's earlier book on Spinoza, a doctoral dissertation, is Power, State, and Freedom: An Interpretation of Spinoza's Political Philosophy .)

For Spinoza (alas, no anarchist, but see Daniel Garber's lecture at 44:00), the socially contracted democratic-republican state had one task: to produce security -- full stop. Security enables individuals to 1) live in safety, 2) pursue understanding, which is the key to activeness, power in the sense of efficacy, virtue, and excellence, and 3) enjoy the benefits of cooperation with others through the division of labor. But, properly, number two is neither the state's direct nor indirect goal. Against the claim that Spinoza looked to the state to promote virtue if only indirectly, Den Uyl refers to Spinoza's unfinished Political Treatise , where he writes, "The best way to organize a state is easily discovered by considering the purpose of civil order, which is nothing other than peace and security of life." Virtue is not even an indirect goal? No, because, Den Uyl points out, the failure of people to become more virtuous would not indicate a deficiency in the state. Virtue is a private internal matter.

As an aside, I note that for Spinoza, living actively according to reason (understanding), rather than passively according to appetites and (other) "external" forces, enables one to accomplish more than one's own flourishing directly; it also encourages others to live according to reason, which in turn further promotes one's own flourishing.

Another Spinoza scholar who finds this political philosophy especially worth studying today is Steven Nadler. In his 2016 Aeon article "Why Spinoza Still Matters" (from which many of the Spinoza quotes below are taken), Nadler writes:

At a time when Americans seem willing to bargain away their freedoms for security, when politicians talk of banning people of a certain faith from our shores, and when religious zealotry exercises greater influence on matters of law and public policy, Spinoza's philosophy – especially his defence of democracy, liberty, secularity and toleration – has never been more timely. In his distress over the deteriorating political situation in the Dutch Republic, and despite the personal danger he faced, Spinoza did not hesitate to boldly defend the radical Enlightenment values that he, along with many of his compatriots, held dear. In Spinoza we can find inspiration for resistance to oppressive authority and a role model for intellectual opposition to those who, through the encouragement of irrational beliefs and the maintenance of ignorance, try to get citizens to act contrary to their own best interests .

The political ideal that Spinoza promotes in the Theological-Political Treatise is a secular, democratic commonwealth, one that is free from meddling by ecclesiastics. Spinoza is one of history's most eloquent advocates for freedom and toleration.

In his treatise, Spinoza was quite clear: "The state can pursue no safer course than to regard piety and religion as consisting solely in the exercise of charity and just dealing, and that the right of the sovereign, both in religious and secular spheres, should be restricted to men's actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he will and to say what he thinks."

And: "Freedom to philosophise [on all things –SR] may not only be allowed without danger to piety and the stability of the republic, but that it cannot be refused without destroying the peace of the republic and piety itself."

Further: "A government that attempts to control men's minds is regarded as tyrannical, and a sovereign is thought to wrong his subjects and infringe their right when he seeks to prescribe for every man what he should accept as true and reject as false, and what are the beliefs that will inspire him with devotion to God. All these are matters belonging to individual right, which no man can surrender even if he should so wish."

Nadler elaborates: "No matter what laws are enacted against speech and other means of expression, citizens will continue to say what they believe, only now they will do so in secret. Any attempt to suppress freedom of expression will, once again, only weaken the bonds of loyalty that unite subjects to sovereign. In Spinoza's view, intolerant laws lead ultimately to anger, revenge and sedition."

For Spinoza, it was not enough to have the freedom to think any thoughts. "The more difficult case," Nadler writes, "concerns the liberty of citizens to express those beliefs, either in speech or in writing. And here Spinoza goes further than anyone else in the 17th century":

Utter failure will attend any attempt in a commonwealth to force men to speak only as prescribed by the sovereign despite their different and opposing opinions. The most tyrannical government will be one where the individual is denied the freedom to express and to communicate to others what he thinks, and a moderate government is one where this freedom is granted to every man.

Alas, Spinoza was not what we would call a modern libertarian, although (as Nadler emphasizes) he was a far better liberal than John Locke, whose Letter Concerning Toleration did not extend the courtesy to the beliefs , not to mention the public activities, of atheists and Catholics.

Spinoza thought one can be free "in any kind of state." How so? The free person is guided by reason, he wrote, and reason favors peace; therefore, the reasonable person obeys the state's laws because "peace cannot be attained unless the general laws of the state be respected. Therefore the more he is free, the more constantly will he respect the laws of his country, and obey the commands of the sovereign power to which he is subject." Now Spinoza might have been thinking of a commonwealth in which the laws are perfectly appropriate to rational persons -- except that he says we can be free in any kind of state . Does it follow that ignoring unjust statutes really risks general civil strife? I think Spinoza would reply, in a Hobbesian way, that "justice is dependent on the laws of the authorities." However, while civil strife is not conducive to the good life, neither are unjust statutes that prohibit or regulate peaceful conduct.

Spinoza drew a line between the expression of thoughts and actions. As Nadler points out (in this video ), Spinoza thought the secular authority had a right to dictate how religion was publicly practiced in order to safeguard the peace. Practitioners of alternative religions should be free to think and say what they please, but their public rites were to be permitted only within prescribed limits. As one can see, Spinoza is in some respects a Hobbesian though he was more liberal because Hobbes, unlike Spinoza, had the sovereign serving as the arbiter of right opinion in religious and other matters -- for the sake of civil peace, of course. The one time that Spinoza mentions Hobbes is in a note in his treatise: "Now reason (though Hobbes thinks otherwise) is always on the side of peace, which cannot be attained unless the general laws of the state be respected."

Spinoza wrote:

The rites of religion and the outward observances of piety should be in accordance with the public peace and well-being, and should therefore be determined by the sovereign power alone. I speak here only of the outward observances of piety and the external rites of religion, not of piety, itself, nor of the inward worship of God, nor the means by which the mind is inwardly led to do homage to God in singleness of heart.

Moreover, Nadler says, "Spinoza does not support the absolute freedom of speech. He explicitly states that the expression of seditious ideas is not to be tolerated by the sovereign. There's to be no protection for speech that advocates the overthrow of the government, disobedience to its laws, or harm to fellow citizens."

Citizens should be free to argue for repeal of laws, but that's about it; they may not rebel or even express ideas that implicitly call for rebellion because it would undermine the social contract and the peace. Nadler acknowledges that, despite Spinoza's definition of seditious beliefs , the vagueness of that phrase and his notion of implicitly inciting rebellion properly trouble civil libertarians.

Nevertheless, Spinoza ends his treatise on a high note: "The safest way for a state is to lay down the rule that religion is comprised solely in the exercise of charity and justice, and that the rights of rulers in sacred, no less than in secular matters, should merely have to do with actions, but that every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks." Not bad for 1670.

Spinoza knew he was not entirely politically safe in the world's freest state. (Friends had been persecuted by the state for their ideas.) Besides not putting his name on the book, which was written in Latin rather than the vernacular, he wrote in his final paragraph:

It remains only to call attention to the fact that I have written nothing which I do not most willingly submit to the examination and approval of my country's rulers; and that I am willing to retract anything which they shall decide to be repugnant to the laws, or prejudicial to the public good. I know that I am a man, and as a man liable to error, but against error I have taken scrupulous care, and have striven to keep in entire accordance with the laws of my country, with loyalty, and with morality.

Whatever his limits, we have much to learn from and admire about Spinoza, especially these days.

[Oct 02, 2018] War time propaganda serves for the USA elite as a tool to contain/constrain discontent of allies and citizenry as they attempt to damage or destroy the Russian and Chinese economies.

Notable quotes:
"... Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure" instead. ..."
"... Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world). ..."
"... we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War, which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation. ..."
"... the "real" US economy is only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy ..."
"... at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing war. ..."
"... Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution." ..."
"... The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now becoming exponentially worse ..."
"... If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is natural, and to be expected. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sally Snyder , Oct 2, 2018 12:26:42 PM | link

Here is a detailed look at what the United States is getting for its $700 billion defense budget:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/09/voting-for-war.html

It is rather surprising that the Democrats who have demonized Donald Trump at every turn have voted in favour of the this extremely bloated defense budget, putting even more military might into the hands of a President and Commander-in-Chief that they seem to despise and who they are demonizing because of his alleged collusion with Russia.

m , Oct 2, 2018 1:33:28 PM | link

Speaking of WWIII...
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/10/02/us-switching-ukraine-location-start-world-war-iii-against-russia.html
Mike Maloney , Oct 2, 2018 1:55:09 PM | link
We've been in WW3 for several years now. Bolton went "Full Monty" with his declaration that U.S. forces will stay in Syria until Iran vacates. The introduction of a Yemen War Powers Resolution in the House last week is a hopeful sign. A reason to root for a Blue Wave in November. Dem leadership, already on record backing the War Powers Resolution, would be obligated to block U.S. enabling genocide in Yemen.
Jackrabbit , Oct 2, 2018 2:25:59 PM | link
m @9

I disagree with Eric Zusse's belief that USA wants to start WWIII. I think they want to contain/constrain discontent of allies and citizenry as they attempt to destroy the Russian and Chinese economies. War is only a last resort. But heightened military tensions mean that the major protagonists have to divert resources to their military, causing a drag on the economies.

Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure" instead.

The big concern for me is that "maximum pressure" also means an elevated chance of mistakes and miscalculations that could inadvertently cause WWIII.

Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world).

PS IMO Trump election and the Kavanaugh and Gina Haspel nominations are key to the pursuit of global hegemony.

karlof1 , Oct 2, 2018 3:02:57 PM | link
Most warnings have centered on a financial meltdown, as this article reviews . As most know, IMO we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War, which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation.

As noted in my link to Escobar's latest, the EU has devised a retaliatory mechanism to shield itself and others from the next round of illegal sanctions Trump's promised to impose after Mid-term elections.

In an open thread post, I linked to Hudson's latest audio-cast; here's what he said on the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash: "So this crash of 2008 was not a crash of the banks. The banks were bailed out. The economy was left with all the junk mortgages in place, all the fraudulent debts."

Another article I linked to in a comment to james averred the "real" US economy is only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy . Hudson again: "Contrary to the idea that bailing out the banks helps the economy, the fact is that the economy today cannot recover without a bank failure ." [My emphasis]

Wh at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing war.

As Hudson's stated many times, the goal of the 1% is to reestablish Feudalism via debt-peonage. All the other happenings geopolitically serve to mask this Class War within the Outlaw US Empire. Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution." Many predict that this crisis will be timed to occur in 2020 constituting the biggest election meddling of all time.

The crisis will likely be blamed on China without any evidence for hacking Wall Street and causing the subsequent crash -- a Financial False Flag to serve the same purpose as 911.

karlof1 , Oct 2, 2018 3:44:26 PM | link
james @16--

Much can occur and be obscured during wartime. The radical changes to USA from 1938-1948 is very instructive--the commonfolk were on the threshold of gaining control over the federal government for the first time in US history only to have it blocked then reversed (forever?) by FDR and the 1% who tried to overthrow him in 1933.

Same with the current War OF Terror's use to curtail longstanding civil liberties and constitutional rights and much more. To accomplish what's being called "Bail-In" within the USA, Martial Law would need to be emplaced since most of the public is to be robbed of whatever cash they have, and World War would probably be the only way to get Martial Law instituted--and accepted by the military which would be its enforcer.

A precedent exists for stealing money from the people--their gold--via Executive Order 6102 , which used a law instituted during WW1 and still on the books.

mike k , Oct 2, 2018 3:51:45 PM | link
The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now becoming exponentially worse . Critical graphs are going off their charts. The end is near.

If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is natural, and to be expected.

Like individual humans, the human population as a whole can pursue activities that maintain it's health, or it can indulge in activities that create disease and hasten it's death. Humankind is deep in toxifying behaviors that signal it's demise in the near future.

[Oct 02, 2018] I myself think the USSR collapsed because of two main factors that are inteconnected with the world geopolitics of its time

Oct 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Oct 1, 2018 1:34:54 PM | link

@ Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Oct 1, 2018 1:25:43 AM | 73

The collapse of the USSR is a very complex issue, and we still don't have a consensus (among the people who study this seriously).

I myself think the USSR collapsed because of two main factors that are inteconnected with the world geopolitics of its time:

1) the USSR couldn't make the transition from the second to the third industrial revolution in the 70s (i.e. from fordism to toyotism/ohnism). Albeit it is true the USA never really embraced toyotism (just some pockets in the Silicon Valley and the financial sector), it is a fact the capitalist world, as a whole, did, because it worked out in Japan and South Korea -- many of these techonologies bleeding to the world market.

The USSR, since Stalin, adopted a method of "socialist primitive accumulation", where every techonological revolution depended on a forced (centralized) global collectivization: the old had to be entirely dismantled for the new to be built over the carcass of this old. This was a brutal (albeit quick and effective) method, so it was always risky and left the USSR exposed to the capitalists militarily.

Another problem with the USSR system was that toyotism was based on heavy investment in "human capital", i.e. investment on the workers' education and specialization. Forced collectivization, therefore, excluded the possibility of toyotism by design, so it was never truly an option for the post-Stalin Soviet leaders.

In a world only the USSR and the COMECON countries existed, it could've be stationed in the second industrial revolution forever: the USSR never had a recession (except in 1990 and 1991, when it was already de facto capitalist). It was stagnant, but not collapsing. But it didn't exist alone: on the other side of Berlin, there was the capitalist world, and, in this dual world, not transitioning to toyotism was not an option for the Soviet Union.

2) In a bipolar world, with the toyotism path closed, Soviet bureaucrats developed a class sentiment, which put pressure from the inside on the Soviet inherent egalitarian system. In other words, the USSR was a victim of its own success: the problem was that that success came too early, in a world where capitalism still existed.

In the 1980s, the USSR had already eradicated poverty and the most well-paid worker (a high bureaucrat) received four times the salary of the lowest-paid worker. The basic public services (transport, education and healthcare) already were free at the point of use and universal and of a very good quality.

The problem was that the USSR emphasized too much on the production of infrastructure and too little on consumption goods, which were already of a poor quality when compared to the Western ones. The high Soviet bureaucracy, in constant contact with the capitalist world, was then slowly, but surely, coopted by the delicacies of the West, and thus developed a urge of class distinction.

This "urge" can be illustrated by an anecdote. When Yeltsin was still the President of Soviet Russia, George H. W. Bush invited him to Houston. There, he was marvelled by Jack Daniel's whiskey and asked for some cases for the trip back. Therefore the joke he sold the Soviet Union for two cases of Jack Daniel's.

[Oct 02, 2018] In the Heart of a Dying Empire

Notable quotes:
"... Pax Republicana ..."
"... Fear: Trump in the White House ..."
"... Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the ..."
"... American Empire Project ..."
"... and the author of a history of the Cold War, ..."
"... . He is a fellow of the ..."
"... Nation Institute ..."
"... . His sixth and latest book is ..."
"... (Dispatch Books). ..."
"... [ Note: My special thanks go to two old friends, Jim Peck, author of ..."
"... , and Nancy Milton for their thoughts and contributions to this piece. ~ Tom] ..."
"... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Books, Beverly Gologorsky's novel ..."
"... and Tom Engelhardt's ..."
"... , as well as Alfred McCoy's ..."
"... , and John Feffer's dystopian novel ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Imagine! After so many centuries of rivalries between great powers and that final showdown between just two superpowers, it was all over (except for the bragging). Only one power, the – by definition – greatest of all, was left on a planet obviously there for the taking.

Yes, Russia still existed with its nuclear arsenal intact, but it was otherwise a husk of its former imperial self. (Vladimir Putin's sleight-of-hand brilliance has been to give what remains a rickety petro-state the look of a great power, as in MRGA, or Make Russia Great Again.) In 1991, China had only relatively recently emerged from the chaos of the Maoist era and was beginning its rise as a capitalist powerhouse overseen by a communist party – and, until that moment, who would have believed that either? Its military was modest and its leaders not faintly ready to challenge the U.S. It was far more intent on becoming a cog in the global economic machinery that would produce endless products for American store shelves.

In fact, the only obvious challenges that remained came from a set of states so unimpressive that no one would have thought to call them "great," no less "super" powers. They had already come to be known instead by the ragtag term "rogue states." Think theocratic Iran, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and Kim Il-sung's (soon to be Kim Jong-il's) North Korea, none then nuclear armed. A disparate crew – the Iraqis and Iranians had been at war for eight years in the 1980s – they looked like a pushover for well, you know who.

And the early results of American global preeminence couldn't have been more promising. Its corporate power initially seemed to " level " every playing field in sight, while conquering markets across the planet. Its thoroughly high-tech military crushed the armed forces of one rogue power, Iraq, in a 100-hour storm of a war in 1991. Amid a blizzard of ticker tape and briefly soaring approval ratings for President George H.W. Bush, this was seen by those in the know as a preview of the world that was to be.

So what a perfect time – I'm talking about January 2000 – for some of the greatest geopolitical dreamers of all, a crew that saw an " unprecedented strategic opportunity " in the new century to organize not half the planet, as in the Cold War, but the whole damn thing. They took power by a chad that year, already fearing that the process of creating the kind of military that could truly do their bidding might be a slow one without "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." On September 11, 2001, thanks to Osama bin Laden's precision air assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, they got their wish – what screaming newspaper headlines promptly called "a new day of infamy" or "the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century." Like their confreres in 1991, the top officials of George W. Bush's administration were initially stunned by the event, but soon found themselves swept up in a mood of soaring optimism about the future of both the Republican Party and American power. Their dream, as they launched what they called the Global War on Terror, would be nothing short of creating an eternal Pax Republicana in the U.S. and a similarly never-ending Pax Americana first in the Greater Middle East and then on a potentially planetary scale.

As their 2002 national security strategy put it, the U.S. was to "build and maintain" military power "beyond challenge" so that no country or even bloc of countries could ever again come close to matching it. For them, this was the functional definition of global dominance. It gave the phrase of that moment, "shock and awe," new meaning.

A Smash-Up on the Horizon?

Of course, you remember this history as well as I do, so it shouldn't be hard for you to jump into the future with me and land in September 2018, some 17 years later, when all those plans to create a truly American planet had come to fruition and the U.S. was dominant in a way no other country had ever been.

Whoops my mistake.

It is indeed 17 years later. Remarkably enough, though, the last superpower, the one with the military that was, as President George W. Bush put it, " the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known," is still fruitlessly fighting – and still losing ground – in the very first country it took on and supposedly "liberated": poor Afghanistan. The Taliban is again on the rise there. Elsewhere, al-Qaeda, stronger than ever , has franchised itself, multiplied, and in Iraq given birth to another terror outfit, ISIS, whose own franchises are now multiplying across parts of the planet. In no country in which the U.S. military intervened in this century or in which it simply supported allied forces in a conflict against seemingly weaker, less-well-armed enemies has there been an obvious, lasting victory of the kind that seemed so self-evidently an American right and legacy after 1991 and again 2001.

In fact, there may not be another example of a truly great power, seemingly at the height of its strength and glory, so unable to impose its will, no matter the brutality and destructive force employed. The United States had, of course, been able to do exactly that, often with striking success (at least for a while), from Guatemala to Iran in the Cold War years, but "alone" on the planet, it came up cold. Of those three rogue powers of the 1990s, for instance, Iran and North Korea are now stronger (one of them even nuclear-armed ) and neither, despite the desires and plans of so many American officials, has been toppled. Meanwhile, Iraq, after a U.S. invasion and occupation in 2003, has proven a never-ending disaster area.

Not that anyone's drawing lessons from any of this at the moment, perhaps because there's that orange-haired guy in the Oval Office taking up so much of our time and attention or because there's an understandable desire to duck the most obvious conclusion: that Planet Earth, however small, is evidently still too big for one power, however economically overwhelming or militarily dominant, to control. Think of the last 27 years of American history as a demo for that old idiom: biting off more than you can chew.

In 2016, in what came to be known as the "homeland," American voters responded to that reality in a visceral way. They elected as president a truly strange figure, a man who alone among the country's politicians was peddling the idea that the U.S. was no longer great but, like Putin's Russia, would have to be made great again. Donald Trump, as I wrote during that campaign season, was the first presidential candidate to promote the idea that the United States was in decline at a moment when politicians generally felt obliged to affirm that the U.S. was the greatest , most exceptional , most indispensable place on the planet. And, of course, he won.

Admittedly, despite a near collapse a decade earlier, the economy is seemingly soaring, while the stock market remains ebullient. In fact, it couldn't look sunnier, could it? I mean, put aside the usual Trumpian tweets and the rest of the Washington sideshow, including those Chinese (and Canadian) tariffs and the bluster and bombast of the leakiest administration this side of the Titanic, and, as the president so often says, things couldn't look rosier. The Dow Jones average has left past versions of the same in the dust . The unemployment rate is somewhere near the bottom of the barrel (if you don't count the actual unemployed). The economy is just booming along.

But tell me the truth: Can't you just feel it? Honestly, can't you?

You know as well as I do that there's something rotten in well, let's not blame Denmark but you know perfectly well that something's not right here. You know that it's the wallets and pocketbooks of the 1% that are really booming, expanding, exploding at the moment; that the rich have inherited , if not the Earth, then at least American politics ; that the wealth possessed by that 1% is now at levels not seen since the eve of the Great Depression of 1929. And, honestly, can you doubt that the next crash is somewhere just over the horizon?

Meet the Empire Burners

Donald Trump is in the White House exactly because, in these years, so many Americans felt instinctively that something was going off the tracks. (That shouldn't be a surprise, given the striking lack of investment in, or upkeep of, the infrastructure of the greatest of all powers.) He's there largely thanks to the crew that's now proudly referred to – for supposedly keeping him in line – as "the adults in the room." Let me suggest a small correction to that phrase to better reflect the 16 years in this not-so-new century before he entered the Oval Office. How about "the adolts in the room"?

After all, from National Security Advisor John Bolton (the invasion of Iraq ) and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (a longtime regime-change advocate) to CIA Director Gina Haspel ( black sites and torture ), Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis (former Marine general and CENTCOM commander ), and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly (former Marine general and a commander in Iraq), those adolts and so many like them remain deeply implicated in the path the country took in those years of geopolitical dreaming. They were especially responsible for the decision to invest in the U.S. military (and little else), as well as in endless wars , in the years before Donald Trump came to power. And worse yet, they seem to have learned absolutely nothing from the process.

Take a recent example we know something about – Afghanistan – thanks to Fear: Trump in the White House , Bob Woodward's bestselling new book. Only recently, an American sergeant major, an adviser to Afghan troops, was gunned down at a base near the Afghan capital, Kabul, in an "insider" or "green-on-blue" attack, a commonplace of that war. He was killed (and another American adviser wounded) by two allied Afghan police officers in the wake of an American air strike in the same area in which more than a dozen of their compatriots died. Forty-two years old and on the eve of retirement, the sergeant was on his seventh combat tour of duty of this century and, had he had an eighth, he might have served with an American born after the 9/11 attacks.

In his book, Woodward describes a National Security Council meeting in August 2017, in which the adolts in the room saved the president from his worst impulses. He describes how an impatient Donald Trump "exploded, most particularly at his generals. You guys have created this situation. It's been a disaster. You're the architects of this mess in Afghanistan You're smart guys, but I have to tell you, you're part of the problem. And you haven't been able to fix it, and you're making it worse I was against this from the beginning. He folded his arms. 'I want to get out and you're telling me the answer is to get deeper in.'"

And indeed almost 16 years later that is exactly what Pompeo, Mattis, former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and the rest of them were telling him. According to Woodward, Mattis, for instance, argued forcefully "that if they pulled out, they would create another ISIS-style upheaval What happened in Iraq under Obama with the emergence of ISIS will happen under you, Mattis told Trump, in one of his sharpest declarations."

The reported presidential response: "'You are all telling me that I have to do this,' Trump said grudgingly, 'and I guess that's fine and we'll do it, but I still think you're wrong. I don't know what this is for. It hasn't gotten us anything. We've spent trillions,' he exaggerated. 'We've lost all these lives.' Yet, he acknowledged, they probably could not cut and run and leave a vacuum for al-Qaeda, Iran, and other terrorists."

And so Donald Trump became the latest surge president, authorizing, however grudgingly, the dispatching of yet more American troops and air power to Afghanistan (just as he recently authorized an "indefinite military effort" in Syria in the wake of what we can only imagine was another such exchange). Of Mattis himself, in response to reports that he might be on the way out after the midterm elections, the president recently responded , "He'll stay we're very happy with him, we're having a lot of victories, we're having victories that people don't even know about."

Perhaps that should be considered definitional for the Trump presidency, which is likely to increasingly find itself in a world of "victories that people don't even know about." But don't for a second think that The Donald was the one who brought us to this state, though someday he will undoubtedly be seen as the personification of it and of the decline that swept him into power. And for all that, for the victories that people won't know about and the defeats that they will, he'll have the adolts in the room to thank. They proved to be neither the empire builders of their dreams, nor even empire preservers, but a crew of potential empire burners.

Believe me, folks, it's going to be anything but pretty. Welcome to that most unpredictable and dangerous of entities, a dying empire. Only 27 years after the bells of triumph tolled across Washington, it looks like those bells are now preparing to toll in mourning for it.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His sixth and latest book is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).

[ Note: My special thanks go to two old friends, Jim Peck, author of Ideal Illusions, How the U.S. Government Co-opted Human Rights , and Nancy Milton for their thoughts and contributions to this piece. ~ Tom]

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Books, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , and John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands .

Copyright 2018 Tom Engelhardt

[Oct 02, 2018] International law is now subject to the authority of the United States President.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

BM , Oct 1, 2018 11:07:09 AM | link

I checked on the dialogue on Austinian Sovereignty referred to by Karlof, the direct link is here (in the comments) .

The comment includes the following, quoted from a legal paper by Prof Ali Khan:

One might further argue that a new norm has been established in international jurisprudence. International law is now subject to the authority of the United States President. International law may still be learned and taught, using the metaphor of partnership. It may still contain elements of the law of contracts. But its fundamental nature has changed. The norms of international law are valid only if the President says so. And if the President says a norm of international law is binding on other nations, it is, even if the same norm is not binding on the United States.

It is interesting to consider the implications of the current status of Trump's presidency vis-a-vis putative Austinian Sovereignty, since Trump's powers are so curtailed he does not appear to have sovereignty over the US government. Would that imply that the US sovereignty would be extinguished? (Whilst I don't believe the US/US President is an Austinian Sovereign - rather it is a pretender to the throne - I think the argument still has a ring of truth in it).

[Oct 02, 2018] "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Or put another way, individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America's severely malfunctioning political system.

Wade says: September 24, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT 300 Words @Tyrion 2 Nice try. But to me this falls flat. First of all I don't think Ron has literally blamed Jews for all the world's evils any more than Southern Christians like me have been blamed for all the world's evils by Hollywood.

The issue is that Zionist leadership plays really dirty. And they are good at it. But having them in control of the West's media means that their negative impact on society goes unremarked upon while the positive things they do are trumpeted from the rooftops. We are allowed to notice Jewish power in relation to their main accomplishments, but we are referred to the nearest holocaust museum when we notice any negative impact that Jewish power has. It's one of the many wars on "noticing" the media is engaged in.

I don't see how all of this ends in mass pogroms, let alone a holocaust if you want my opinion. We're just hoping for a much overdue correction in perspective. Topics like Israel's founding and influence in US politics, The Holocaust, WWII and 911 are being desacralized so they can be discussed rationally, and that's good for everyone. Those who doubt Oswald was the lone assassin have been treated for decades with a smorgasbord of conspiracy theories about JFK ranging from Cuba and Castro, to anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, The Mafia, the KBG, the CIA all being cast as possible suspects, but not even once has Israel being fingered by anyone anywhere (except by the indefatigable Michael Collins Piper) as a possible suspect, even though they had as clear (or clearer) motives and opportunity than nearly anyone else. Why hasn't this possibility been more fully explored by JFK researchers? Everyone needs to know how much Israel has benefited from 911. Their role in this also needs to be explored much more by researchers and brought out into the open.

mark green , says: September 24, 2018 at 5:45 pm GMT

The Unz Review is a tremendous site. It attracts superior writers as well as commentators. And Ron Unz, fortunately, is untouchable. The ADL understands this. Better for them to remain silent. They want to keep you as obscure as possible. Thus, the silent treatment.

Thus, the MSM would rather talk about crude 'white power' sites than the perspicacious Unz Review. But you can bet, Ron, that they will pounce on you if given the opportunity.

Says Ron: "I do think [the ADL] may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what keeps them far, far away." That covers it. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the UNZ review grow in influence and readership.

John Lilburne , says: September 24, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT
The quote "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." comes from Tacitus The Life of Agricola
other nice quotes are-

"It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one thinks."
― Tacitus, Histories of Tacitus
"It is a principle of nature to hate those whom you have injured."
― Tacitus
"Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity." Annals

and finally
"They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."
― Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania

[Oct 02, 2018] I tried really hard, but ended up giving my notice on Wednesday.

You were in an impossible situation with really shit poor management.
Notable quotes:
"... If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to message the moderation team . ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.reddit.com

submitted 6 months ago by

chrisanzalone007 6 months ago * (38 children)

[deleted]
Mr_Mars 6 months ago (20 children)
Well, I don't know. My sister is an executive assistant. I thought I knew what that meant and you probably do too. But then one day I sat down with her and we actually talked about her job, and I quickly realized that not only was my understanding of her job so shallow as to be effectively meaningless, but it was so shallow that I didn't even understand how much I was missing. I'd just glanced at the title and said to myself "yep, executive assistant, assist executives, that's what she does" and at no point had it ever even occurred to me that there was anything past that. In fact, it was even worse than that, because half the stuff I imagined she might do wasn't part of her job at all (hint, if you think "executive assistant" and "secretary" are remotely similar you are just as far off track as I was).

I still don't understand what she does but at least now I know how little I know. If she came to me for career advice there's no chance I'd be able to offer her anything other than meaningless platitudes, because I don't even know enough right now to know if her current job is a good one or a bad one. If she'd asked me before I realized how much I don't know I'd be in the same boat, only probably rolling my eyes that she would get so worked up over x, y, or z when her job was so simple and straightforward that there's no possible way it could be that stressful.

Yeah.

All of this is to say that unless your friends are on a career path similar to yours they probably not only fail to understand your job, but they probably fail so bad that they don't even know how far off they are. That's not because your friends are stupid or because IT is so impenetrably complex that only the chosen few can grasp it; its just that most of us don't have a lot of expertise in careers outside of our own. Lacking context, we turn to pop culture for reference. Picture the stereotypical Hollywood "computer guy" (or, if you must, "hacker"). That's probably what your friends think your job is like. Now imagine that guy coming to you complaining about how hard and stressful his job is. How hard could it be anyway? I have a computer at home and don't have to do much to keep it running. These things all basically run themselves, don't they?

So, point is his friends aren't necessarily assholes or in denial. They probably just don't know enough to understand how little they know, as is true for all of us, and are trying to give well-intentioned advice; OP asked, after all, and they want to help their friend. But you can't give good advice if you don't have all the facts, and especially not if you don't even know how much you're missing.

Geminii27 6 months ago (13 children)
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things did she have to cover as an EA?
dmmagic 6 months ago (10 children)
The executive assistants I know (to VPs, presidents, CEOs) practically run the company. Not entirely, but a good chunk of it.

As to what they do, on the surface, it does look like secretary work. Schedule appointments. Schedule venues for meetings/conferences. Book travel. Make sure the exec is prepared for the appointments (knows what they need to know; has met with the right people in advance to get briefed; leaves on time to get to the appointment). Answer emails and phone calls.

But the level of knowledge they need to perform those tasks for an executive is much higher.

upward_bound 6 months ago (1 child)
There is a reason that executive assistants can make north of 100k a year. I know for a fact that the one at my last job made well north of it.
banksnld 6 months ago (1 child)
As someone who splits his time between working at home and commuting 142 miles round-trip for work, I'll take working from home anytime.
changee_of_ways 6 months ago (0 children)
Well, sure, that's an unfortunate commute. You're basically saying "I would take getting paid for X for y hours of work over getting paid (x - costs of transportation ) for y + 4.5 or more hours of work.
Left_of_Center2011 6 months ago (4 children)
Very interesting - reminds me of a chief of staff role in politics, a role that exercises a huge amount of power and responsibility.
fernibble 6 months ago (2 children)
Or perhaps the executive officer to the captain on a ship.
donjulioanejo 6 months ago (0 children)
Well, the XO on a ship is more like the COO.
roo-ster 6 months ago (0 children)
True, but with less blame if the ship collides with a freighter.
TheChance 6 months ago (0 children)
It's a decent jumping-off point for a middle management role of your own, if one opens up at the same company. You're playing a huge role in running your exec's department already, so you've got the lay of the land and you're clearly a competent wrangler of humans.
donjulioanejo 6 months ago (0 children)
So basically Donna from Suits.

Who promoted herself from Harvey's legal secretary to the COO in a span of two episodes, didn't skip a beat, and kept doing exactly what she was doing before.

Mr_Mars 6 months ago (0 children)
Well, seeing as my last post was a big long thing about how I don't fully understand what they do this is a limited view, but a short pithy summary would be that she handles all the stuff her boss should be doing but doesn't have time to actually do. That's everything from negotiating phone plans and insurance rates to making sure all the certifications and permits they need to function are taken care of to planning and booking meetings and seminars. It's very wide ranging and is a ton of responsibility. As noted elsewhere a good EA practically runs the company.
WinOSXBuntu 6 months ago (0 children)

EA

User experience. 😂

Polar_Ted 6 months ago (2 children)
I work from home 2 days a week. My wife thought I was nuts when I brought home a gaming headset and 2nd monitor for the PC I use at home.
She thought I was sitting at home playing minecraft all day.

The reality is I need lots of screen space to doy job and I have conference call meetings several times a day. I can actually hear and be heard with the headset.

I agree the downside is getting tagged for late day or after hours emergency work because I can respond quickly.

Mr_Mars 6 months ago (1 child)
I ended up buying an egpu so I could hook up a third monitor to my laptop. Currently trying to figure out how to arrange stuff on my desk to fit a fourth; may have to start mounting them on swivel arms. I want as much screen space as I can get when I doy job.

I also have an hdmi switch to change the monitors to my gaming machine when it's Minecraft time. Tax deductible 4k 27 " monitors are good for that too.

TheChance 6 months ago (0 children)

may have to start mounting them on swivel arms.

Got a stud above/behind your desk? The fourth one on the wall angled down can work pretty well, throw your notifications bar up there, calendar, anything you rarely glance at but should be able to see without moving another program or window.

br4n1m1r 6 months ago (1 child)
All of these makes sense, but I am just going to add the following: - Your friends should recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to being burned out. That is a clear indicator if you are at right job or not. - Your friends should also be able to help you figure out if you are appreciated and in a company with good culture

Good companies/management do everything they can to empower employees, provide adequate training, and set realistic expectations. All of that increases employees' morale and confidence. Without those two, company is bound to fail sooner or later.

harimau22 6 months ago (0 children)
  • Your friends should recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to being burned out. That is a clear indicator if you are at right job or not.
  • Your friends should also be able to help you figure out if you are appreciated and in a company with good culture

And, as your friend, you might want to listen to us if we point out these things more than a few times. There are one off vent sessions over a beer then there are long-term, consistent complaints.

Yes, sometimes you just want to vent, but if someone is pointing out the same thing constantly, they may have a point and it's up to you to start on a path to changing the situation.

VirtNinja 6 months ago (6 children)
This. Many resources out there clearly state that your friends either support your success or place negative labels on your success.

Go check out 7 habits of highly effective peeps. Will give you a completely new perspective. Not just about friends but yourself and how you interact with others.

Fen-Jai 6 months ago (5 children)
Have you got a link ?
rrrrea 6 months ago (0 children)
It's quite a famous book. https://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effective-People-Powerful/dp/0743269519
VA_Network_Nerd 6 months ago (2 children)
Sorry, it seems this comment or thread has violated a sub-reddit rule and has been removed by a moderator.

Community Members Shall Conduct Themselves With Professionalism.

If you wish to appeal this action please don't hesitate to message the moderation team .

Ginfly 6 months ago (1 child)
I wasn't really trying to troll but I can see it. Thanks for keeping the sub clean.
VA_Network_Nerd 6 months ago (0 children)
No permanent damage.
All is well.

Party On.

toomuchtodotoday 6 months ago (3 children)
This. OP needs new friends.
mjcov 6 months ago (2 children)
No, he just needs to understand that people give generic advice that they think sounds good but they really don't understand your job or have never been in your situation. And he does.

Being able to empathize with your friends concerns, to understand their feelings without understanding exactly what they're going through, is a talent that not everybody has. Neither is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead say "wow, that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck." But these are not the only attributes that make someone friend-worthy.

On the other hand, not everybody can tolerate having friends that lack empathy and understanding. So for some the answer "they need new friends" may be true, I just don't think OP necessarily does. In fact, I think it's the same kind of generic, bad advice that I'm talking about to say that he does.

slick8086 6 months ago (1 child)

Neither is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead say "wow, that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck."

When I'm in situations like this (I can't advise because I lack context or experience) I advise flipping a coin. Quit after finding a new job or stay and keep trying to change the place, heads or tails. After you've flipped the coin and seen the result, examine your feeling... disappointed or relieved? There's your answer regardless of the coin toss you know how you really feel, and should trust your gut.

WordBoxLLC 6 months ago (0 children)
And remember not to put that coin in your pocket where it will get mixed in and just become another coin.

E: Which it is.

dublea 6 months ago (0 children)
This! When my friend(s) complain about their current workplace/position/etc I always recommend they get their feelers out and start looking. It may take a while but you'll eventually find something.

It took me almost a year to find something comparable or better but didn't land the final interview this past year. But, my old job lost our largest client and I am now working for said client. Couldn't be happier!

JonnyLay 6 months ago (0 children)
Or they're in a worse paying job wishing ends would meet better...
darksim905 6 months ago (0 children)
You don't know what someone deals with & those people may want to bend over backward to help this person if they could. Don't automatically label them shitty friends. You don't even know them.
chrisanzalone007 6 months ago (0 children)
No. I trust them and usually come to them when I'm emotionally invested/upset and yelling about a situation at work. Making decisions in this mindset is always a bad idea. I was talked off a ledge long enough to make a smart, calculated decision.
djuniore29 6 months ago (0 children)
Shitty friends indeed. Or they're working for the company too.
Karyo_Ten 6 months ago (0 children)
Or maybe they don't work in IT and have poor job prospects.
lusid1 6 months ago (3 children)
You probably figured this out already, but the whole "go hire someone" thing was a ploy to keep you around a little longer. They gave you permission to recruit, not authority to hire. They were never going to green light the position.

You also facilitated management's bad behavior by putting too much effort into doing the right thing. You weren't valued or appreciated, you were just taken advantage of.

You made the right call in the end.

chrisanzalone007 6 months ago (0 children)
Spot on. I was given the illusion of great authority, but in the end - not on the things that matter. I borderline want to say the word 'budget' doesn't exist here.

Gun slingers!

scfd524 6 months ago (0 children)
This. Why would they hire someone when you're doing it all. IT employees have a much better stress level, work life balance, and career when they learn how to say no or "that's not my role". Unless you're trying to get into that area, never volunteer you do work that should be done by another area. It'll start becoming the norm and will never stop. Good luck on your next gig though!
mega_trex 6 months ago (0 children)
Yeah. I learned at my old job that the "what can we do to keep you?" question is bullshit. It's a way for them to determine what they can lie to your face about to string you along as far as possible. I asked for a team change, and they managed to string me along saying I was approved for almost 9 months, until suddenly I'm not approved anymore and there's not even a spot open for me.

Never again will I attempt to be honest with my manager. You can know that I'm thinking about leaving when I give you my 2 weeks notice.

CatherinCawood 6 months ago (15 children)
Thanks for the story, and the perspective. I'm the sole SA at a smallish entertainment-based development studio, didn't understand half the tech you reference and I do have a senior network architect I can (remotely) fall back on, but many days I'm totally overwhelmed. We had a major product success last year and we've been ramping up like crazy. More office rollout, more servers, more users, more developers (so like users but worse), more backup needs, more bandwidth, more "and can you get better teleconference speakers for the meeting rooms", more baroque software licensing to figure out, also do I have batteries? Mouse pads? Highlighters? Why are you asking me for highlighters? No I can't fix your chair. Etc etc. And I'm waiting for that one crucial system to break that I won't know how to fix.

I guess I'm just saying your post gave me some much-needed perspective. Cheers.

chrisanzalone007 6 months ago * (6 children)
The chair! Omg I burst out laughing. Yes. Desk assembly goes on IT. You just wait until the 'standing desks' are ordered.

I...kid...you...not. Literally yesterday this happened

"My desk is beeping at me and has an ALB error on the controller, what do I do?"

It's a motorized standing/sitting desk. I can't make this shit up.

Hang in there. Someone once told me. The best time to look for a job is when you don't need a job.

Geminii27 6 months ago (0 children)
Chairs, coffee machines, ancient VCRs, doors ... I was asked to fix someone's Tamagotchi once.
4br4c4d4br4 6 months ago (0 children)

The best time to look for a job is when you don't need a job

Hell yeah! I quit about 6 months ago and don't even look. I get sporadic emails from LinkedIn and other avenues and if things look good, I'll apply, otherwise the hell with it. I've had a few interviews but sadly most places look like they have issues with understaffing, overworked, etc.

Ah well, in the next few years I'm sure something good comes up.

Szeraax 6 months ago (0 children)
Had my jr get assigned 2 more standing desks this week (about 8 installed in the last 2 months and I guess we literally can't trust someone to unplug their 3 cables from the little NUC...). I wrote him an email discussing the core parts of his job and how no one cares about how many standing desks are or are not installed at any given time. Focus on doing your job well, please talk to me or CIO if you are getting stressed by any workload (we all know that sometimes it feels like the tickets just stream in and you make no headway no matter what you do). We'll do whatever is needed to either take care of em.
ericrobert 6 months ago (0 children)

ALB error on the controller,

Lower the desk all the way to the bottom. I had this happen a week ago and had to google it.

DamnDirtyHippie 6 months ago (0 children)
I have also done some stand up desk troubleshooting and installation, if it has a wire in it or on it, or even holds something with a sufficient number of wires people can claim it is confusing, it's your problem. 15 years of working in the IT/SA field and I'm unboxing a desk because 'my computer has all the wires and I'll probably just mess it up if I try to move everything myself'. Fortunately our users are very reasonable in general.
krislol22 6 months ago (3 children)
I had a request for a toaster oven come in today.
ITOUTLAW 6 months ago (0 children)
Microwave door release button broke in the break room last week. Guess who got to take apart the microwave to get someone's food out?
jfoughe 6 months ago (1 child)
How about one of those tiny space heaters? A user asked me if I could figure out why it wasn't working, and all I did was flip a big red switch marked "ON."
TwistedViking 6 months ago (0 children)
Everywhere I've ever been has us refer those space heaters to Facilities, who will immediately confiscate them.
madplayshd 6 months ago (0 children)
Start to say no. Do the hours in your contract and go home. When stuff doesn't get done tell them you need more people. Either they get more people or you search for a new job. But if they don't get more people you would search for a new job anyway. Just burned out.

Seems to me like a lot of horror stories here are because people either care too much or are deeply afraid of looking for a new job. These conditions exist because you let them.

banksnld 6 months ago (0 children)
When I worked help desk at a bank, I had a teller contact me about a dead squirrel in the pneumatic tubes.
Steve_78_OH 6 months ago (0 children)
Years ago a manager from a different department (non IT obviously) walked over to us to let us know a toilet was clogged. We all just looked at him and laughed. I was also yelled at once for not helping someone move a file cabinet during an office move, while we still had tons of PC's left to setup.

IT has always been the "well, we don't have above whose responsibility it is to take care of this, so IT can do it" field.

GraphiteBlue 6 months ago (0 children)

more developers (so like users but worse)

It's sad because it's true. :(

qnull 6 months ago (13 children)
I'm going through a similar situation to you OP but for a different reason.

I left a good MSP job (busy and at times frustrating) for a larger employer and the job I was expecting to have is not at all like the one I applied for it's very boring and quite slow with too much idle time sometimes which is weird since it's an operations roles for a billion dollar business but probably half of the "work" I'm doing now is "hey sorry to wake you but we got this alarm and we've raised an incicent can you take a look" when I used to design and manage environments end to end.

My job for some people would be the jackpot but for me it's awful and I'm considering leaving to go back to my way more stressful MSP job.

My problem is I have too many resources to call on (multiple teams to escalate to) and I'm just left watching the screens because of it.

quiterascible 6 months ago (0 children)
This is what I'm afraid of as well but I need more friggin money. The screen watchers actually make more because they exist in big companies with lots of money.
Szeraax 6 months ago (5 children)
Cue the daleks: Automate! Automate! Automate! :)
qnull 6 months ago (1 child)
We definantely do some automation but maybe not enough.

The alarms are mostly validation checks (is it actually p1? Is that event due to a change?) and anything that can be automated is and we don't get alerts for it.

Our alarm dashboard is an aggregator of a ton of systems that all send their alarms to it.

Unfortunately once the infrastructure and databases become self healing we're all out of a job.

Szeraax 6 months ago (0 children)
Same boat here. "is this really going to happen again before this system is decommed?" Should I spend a few hours making a good test that will determine if its really this problem again and fixing it + reporting the result of the fix? Or should I spend the 6 minutes it takes to fix this and move on with my life.

Re: Self healing - out of a job. Oh PLEASE! We're not out of a job when stuff is self healing; we're into a new one. I'm just a regular sys admin and even I am starting to think about how I can use machine learning to solve issues I face or to improve our business. It'll be QUITE some time before I actually start doing anthing with ML, let alone something useful. I'd LOVE to have more time to play with new stuff.

chrisanzalone007 6 months ago (2 children)
We use ansible for automation. I do love it but it's fairly time consuming to setup (half the stuff is in a txt doc waiting for a playbook to be built)
Szeraax 6 months ago (0 children)
Yes it is! Holy crap it is.
DeeBee1968 5 months ago (0 children)
What ?? You mean the Buggers didn't leave an easier way to do it ?
toomuchtodotoday 6 months ago (3 children)
Have you considered looking for another role in management with higher pay and more responsibility?
qnull 6 months ago (1 child)
Management jobs usually require some management experience and I have a little bit of team leading experience but not the sort of "manage this budget and this department" management experience I'm also torn between making that jump to management and getting "off the tools" or doing a deep dive into a specific set of technical tools.
TheBros35 6 months ago (0 children)
My dad was an engineer for various semiconductor factories for years. He hit that same point in his role - but there was a much bigger push to go to management, which he did. after about 5 years of that he quit - he was way to burnt out and hasn't returned to corporate life since. The money was good but the job wasn't worth it.

Hell, the only job he's had in years was as a general contractor putting in sinks and stuff making what I do as a help desk monkey.

chrisanzalone007 6 months ago (0 children)
I'm sort of going into a remote management position. Working for a MSP as problem escalation for 8 techs. Finding 'teachable moments' (probably all of them!) to train on troubleshooting process. In my spare time I'll be getting amazon aws certs and I'll eventually move into a different role. Sounds challenging enough not to be bored :)
SS324 6 months ago (1 child)
Spend your time learning or learning how to do the jobs of those you escalate to.
qnull 6 months ago * (0 children)
Oh I can do their jobs they're like "tier 3" while we're "tier 2" and we can do actual work (permissions allowing) our team holds the same level of certs they do (MCSA, MCSE etc) were just in at a different layer of the business which is changing.

I don't just watch for alarms and escalate it's just a small part of the role really but it's the most prominent part when you're on the graveyards which always makes me a bit resentful of my own choice to come here.

Dr_Legacy 6 months ago (0 children)
"I need more help, I have too many jobs."

"OK, here's another one: hire yourself some staff."

Totally disfunctional company. Obvs does not have an HR dept. worth a shit.

gabrielpereiraalves 6 months ago (1 child)

I talk to friends. Smart people I look up to and trust. The answer?

-the problem is you. Your expectations are too high

-no job is perfect. Be happy you have one and can support your family.

They clearly have NO IDEA what such a job really is.

-IoI- 6 months ago (0 children)
Seriously, the lack of gratification from these jobs can be crushing.
robertito42 6 months ago (0 children)
I got anxious just reading that

Glad you got out

tron_funkin_blow 6 months ago (0 children)
No, he said he had to sweep snow off a satellite dish because it's heater was broke. He said nothing about being on the roof. Sweeping dishes after a heavy snowfall is not uncommon. I had to do the same thing this morning while on-call.

I work in a small environment incredibly similar to OP's, Calix, Metaswitch, etc. We have a SME for each area; one for voice, one for IP/IT systems (me), one for video, and two outside plant guys. We cover/triage each others duties during on-call rotation. It works well enough for us, but sounds like OP is doing it all. It would be one thing if he had to only deal with the non-IT stuff on occasion, but if all those responsibilities are solely his, thats untenable.

DamnDirtyHippie 6 months ago (0 children)
If it's a small company everyone needs to chip in beyond their official responsibility to make things work, but they also need to be compensated at the rate of their top skills and not driven into the ground. IMO
Steev182 6 months ago (3 children)
So how did you find this remote role?
NotFakingRussian 6 months ago (0 children)
Asking the real questions, lol.
chrisanzalone007 6 months ago (1 child)
Indeed.com !

The KEY was expanding the distance of jobs. I live 200+ miles away from the office.

freythman 6 months ago (0 children)
There are tons of remote jobs out there. Just gotta find them.
Red5point1 6 months ago (2 children)
The problem here is that you kept the ship running, even though you told management you needed help, things were still getting done.
Management will not do anything about thing until they break, so while you bust your ass keeping things going they don't care how you did it. All they know is things are still running.
You either have to show them things breaking or put your foot down negotiate a commitment to hire a hand.
Just out of interest what was their reaction when you handed in your notice? Did they counter or they simply decided to hire a replacement. They must have been in a world of hurt if it was the latter and you were the only one doing that role.
chrisanzalone007 6 months ago (1 child)
I think the email went like this 'we want to keep you, would salary make a difference? Give us a number and I'll see what I can do'

I think my reply went something like 'I appreciate the offer but it's too late'

chalbersma 6 months ago (0 children)
Wait, put in Quadruple the number. If they match it bring in 2 contractors to do your job.

I've always wanted to see if this works.

xaijin 6 months ago (2 children)
$500 is a joke. I make that working 1 day a weekend. A lot of companies referral bonus range from $2000-7000.
Merakel 6 months ago (0 children)
It's not even a joke. It's an insult.
IAMA_Cucumber_AMA 6 months ago (0 children)
Yup plus it will get heavily taxed and end up being ~$300 when it hits your wallet
donjulioanejo 6 months ago (0 children)
Yep, a recruiter bringing someone in will cost 15-25k. Giving someone an internal referral for 7k is comparative peanuts, AND you get two happy employees because of that.
DemandsBattletoads 6 months ago (0 children)
At my company it's 2k.
dwerb 6 months ago (5 children)
Heya, I don't know how far into your career you are, but I'm 45, pretty senior level (I've been a c-level exec) and wanted to tell you:

Don't ever compromise. Ever.

I am in a similar situation at an MSP (I'm in a leadership role) and have the same kinds of conversations about resources and losing valuable workers because there's no help. The management above me isn't listening and we are going to lose a very fine employee (like yourself -- someone with skill who is trying to make it better but is not being heard -- and it's because management don't know how to run an ITIL-based shop and hire to that kind of skill set. I put toghether a framework to measure qualifications of our employees and they all measure up to Tier 1 analysts/engineers (in both experience and quals) and some of them are considered Tier 3 employees and they can't do something as simple as read and interpret a Wireshark packet capture. And I keep being told either "we have to make do with what we have" or "you're not seeing what good they can do". So clearly in my case there's a division in vision for leadership and I'm giving up and probably moving on. In your case, you tried, gave your input, and, if they're not gonna listen to you, move on. Your expectations are NOT too high. Their expectations aren't high enough. Move on to somewhere there's a fit. You can only help someone from burning their hand on the stove so many times before you give up and go watch TV.

Good luck in your career.

chalbersma 6 months ago (3 children)

"you're not seeing what good they can do". So clearly in my case there's a division in vision for leadership

Are you?

dwerb 6 months ago (0 children)
Yes. They all are 6 months to 1 year out of technical school. They are able to accomplish SOME tasks. They are unskilled at anything above Tier 1 despite someone saying "you know about X. Here, go do it."

For instance, a windows admin should be able to implement GPO and know what it's about. Maybe have an MS cert. but our main windows admin is working towards his CCNA and has been out of school for 6 months. Not exactly a right fit for that job.

dwerb 6 months ago (1 child)
Also, the "good they do" is things like change light bulbs and take out the trash.

Not exactly what they SHOULD be doing.

chalbersma 6 months ago (0 children)
So you have tier 3 employees who only change lightbulbs and take out trash? This seems unlikely.
Red5point1 6 months ago (0 children)
I've been in a similar situation, the problem is not necessarily an issue with vision. More than likely upper management have been given the mandate to keep costs down or at least same.
So they will come up with any excuse not to hire more people or if someone of good quality leaves they will only hire someone lower quality i.e. lower pay.
That is the problem with corporate culture everyone is there looking only after number one, as long as the job is getting done they don't care how much those doing it care about the company or that they are doing their jobs efficiently, cost effective or to a high standard.
All they care about is that the job is getting done.
jimothyjones 6 months ago (0 children)
Stories like this is why I gave up trying. Used to, I would change my plans to do a last minute cutover on the weekend because you changed the date 3 different times. These days, my response is always, "I have an opening 3 weeks from now".....because I don't let it fuck up my life anymore. Frankly, nothing has happened since I started giving those answers. What are they going to do anyways? Hire someone else? pffft.
4br4c4d4br4 6 months ago (0 children)
Christ, I felt bad for myself when I quit MY job but goddamn, you were in a shithole! Glad you found something better.

I still hear from people at my old job that nothing has changed. They hire someone else but never fix the problems. Overworked, understaffed, complaints are listened too with great concern and then ignored.

gilias 6 months ago (0 children)
It does sound very much like they're, perhaps unwittingly, taking advantage of you and you're right to want to leave a job that's damaging your life so terribly.

I mean, works sucks most of the time, but it doesn't have to suck ALL the time and there should be at least enough people to have the work ease off from time to time or you just go manic from the stress.

Everybody expects different things from their job and not all jobs are right for all people. IMO, life is too short to spend it doing a job you hate or working in a toxic environment. I applaud your efforts to try and improve things but ultimately you've got to draw a line where enough is enough and just move on. Do what's right by you, because your company is working every day to do what's right by them and not necessarily what's good for you.

moofishies 6 months ago (0 children)
You told them what you needed to stay, brought them the perfect candidate for it, and they didn't do it. Should have started looking right then.

Congrats on the new job though, hope you found somewhere more relaxed :)

djgizmo 6 months ago (2 children)
Something sounds off. You talked to the ceo about what they can do, and they have their own headend, but won't outsource the printers? That's always the first thing that needs to be sourced out because it's petty shit like toner or pain in ass like the fuser.

Sounds like they needed someone to streamline the processes, and have 2-3 more people on board. A senior network guy and two more minions eager to learn and take those 'patch cable broken' or port security tickets.

chrisanzalone007 6 months ago (1 child)
Let's just say things were done correctly when they got a large grant from the government 6 years ago.
djgizmo 6 months ago (0 children)
Weren't?
salgat 6 months ago (0 children)
You were used hard and long and have been fed bad advice. You should have left that place long ago and hopefully this lesson will stick with you forever.
nirach 6 months ago (0 children)
That sounds like a shitty environment, and some less than stellar friends.
12thetechguy 6 months ago (0 children)

Multicast not working in one segment of our network? Good luck! No one knows how it works.

truer words have never been spoken

kellyzdude 6 months ago (0 children)
The same two questions, every time, before you go looking. And then the third, when you have an offer on the table (sometimes it's one you went looking for, sometimes it's one that just appeared in your inbox).
  1. Are you happy? If not, why not?
  2. Will a different job make you happier?
  3. Will this opportunity make you happier?

Sometimes the problem is at home, and changing your work life might help (if it brings more money or a shorter commute), and sometimes it won't. Sometimes the problem is at work, and you can influence change either within the organization or within yourself (changing your expectations, adjusting your work schedule to be earlier or later, discussing with your management group about changes to your role, etc) in order to improve the situation. Or you improve your work situation by leaving it behind, if there is no way to improve it or the people who can help improve it are unwilling (or themselves unable) to do so.

Yes, sometimes the easy opportunities for change just aren't there, and you need to make harder decisions about the change your life needs. In those moments one should be grateful for what they have, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should accept that this is their lot in life. Maybe you need to move. Maybe you're looking for a remote position. Maybe you take the plunge and live off savings for a few months -- though unless you're on the verge of a breakdown, this can cause complications later; it's generally true that it is easier to find a job if you have a job. Not universally, but generally. Maybe you give up IT and become a Birthday Clown, because you enjoy making children happy more than you enjoy clicking buttons anymore.

Best of luck to you in your new place, hopefully it works out!

d00ber 6 months ago * (0 children)
Are your friends in IT in any way? I find that most people have no idea what IT means, or the individual fields. They expect the same person who helps them with spreadsheets also makes/updates the websites, sets up the phone system, maintains the network.. and may even think they plug in their power bar. Most people can't discern the difference between facilities, an electrician and someone in one of the many fields of IT in my experience.

Heck, at my company the executives have no idea what I do. They ask me to do things from investigate and roll out MDM.. to go to one of our communities and setup one of the resident's televisions. I've even been asked to install generator power outlets.. I've just learned to say "no" and explain to them who's responsibility it is. If they are unwilling to hire someone or even just bring the proper person from within the organization, the problem can stay a problem.

Your friends may not be crappy, they might just be clueless.

SideburnsOfDoom 6 months ago (0 children)

The CEO found out and we sat down ... He puts that responsibility on me.

I've seen my own managers do the same, and still am thinking through if, when and how it's a mistake. Managers are there to support and enable important things happening. If it's a small thing then all they need to do is give you permission to do it. But if it's a big thing then they need to mange it, e.g track it, ask how it's going, ask what you need, get other people involved, set priorities etc. Not just give a pep talk, say "it's on you now" and wash hands of it. That basically means, "cheer up, but I don't care". If I wanted someone to listen carefully and then do nothing about it I'd go to therapy, thanks.

r0ck0 6 months ago * (0 children)
Being that IT is generally a self-taught field, where we can play around with and test things before doing them in production...

I recommend sticking to jobs where you're doing commonly reproducible/testable software stuff. i.e. standard Windows/Linux servers + standard software. Basically things that can be completely learned and tested in virtual machines, without needing any special hardware at all.

I reckon all the proprietary "black box" / vendor specific devices etc you mentioned make working in "IT" much much more stressful. You basically have to learn a whole heap of different systems where what you learn is only applicable to one device. And you can't easily play around with them like you can with pure software and virtual machines etc. So you're often learning & testing in production, and even then, only once something has already failed. And you're likely not going to have spare parts, or even be able to get them easily. The same goes for network engineers dealing with lots of cisco routers etc to a certain degree. Basically anything that involves hardware except for standard PCs and servers running Windows or Linux.

I worked for a post-production company for a while, and yeah it was similar. I was busy as fuck with the regular standard everyday IT shit, yet still had the responsibly to figure out all there proprietary devices etc that I'd never even heard of before. And because they're not commonplace IT stuff, there's fuckall information on the internet to learn about them and troubleshoot etc. And of course learning about that shit doesn't translate into useful skills you can take elsewhere in other IT jobs.

So yeah these days, I'm 100% software. I actually do IT consulting part time, and even when my clients want to buy hardware, I just give them some recommendations and get them to order it directly from Dell or whoever. I don't want to be responsible for hardware failures, of which I have zero control over.

jsmith1300 6 months ago (0 children)
OP I'm in the same boat. COO found out that my medial issues I may jump ship. Had a chat and he said he would do everything to get people hired. My boss has had approval for hiring for weeks now and not one person has been interviewed. I have also been thinking about getting medicated because I'm in denial with work. I'm going to jump ship soon take time off and see what happens.
br4n1m1r 6 months ago (0 children)
That is what MSP is. MSP is the environment where self-driven, stoic people survive and other people crumble. MSP is especially tough in the role like yours as you have no one to rely on anymore, but everyone else is coming to you to fix a problem they can't figure out. I am there, been there for awhile. People think you are smarter than them, but all you are is more persistent and willing to sacrifice your sanity and your free time to figure out a problem by going to 10th page of google and performing advanced search queries on reddit.

I think MSP life after age of 35 is impossible to do unless you are crazy. :)

ryanknapper 6 months ago (0 children)
The good news is that after doing all that you should be a star employee somewhere else, able to handle catastrophes with calm grace and skill.
Ailbe 6 months ago (0 children)
You were in an impossible situation with really shit poor management. Don't waste a second thought. They'll either figure out why they can't keep people or they'll fail in spectacular fashion. The bottom line is you have to protect yourself and your interests, you owe that company nothing. The only time you owe a company that isn't your own is if the company makes significant investment in your and your career, which your former company clearly didn't. Good for you on recognizing that you had options. In many ways in that former situation you were the one with the power and its great that you exercised it.

Good luck with your new job!

liquidose 6 months ago (1 child)
I went through practically the same thing. Found a nice job down the street from my house I could just walk to. They had a full web team to handle all their websites and web problems, but their skills were about 20 years old. At first I didn't notice because I would handle IT / network problems all day.

Then eventually I started getting web site issues pushed to me, then web design issues. Eventually I was building all their web sites and running their entire web platform while everyone else on that team just sat around all day making emails. All this extra work never came with any pay increase and everyone would always say "You do everything here, if you leave we're screwed".

A day came when there was a landslide of issues combined with an HR nightmare and nobody seemed to wanted to handle anything. By the end of the day I realized I had wanted to leave the job for over a year and I was only staying to keep things together until I got everything to a stable point. Unfortunately this place could never reach a stable point because their management was an absolute shit show and never wanted to step up to face any big problems.

This seems really common after reading some stories here. A good amount of IT people probably feel obligated to keep things running even when they hate their job.

I also found a remote job with a ridiculous salary increase after going through so many interviews to the point of utter mental exhaustion. The grass definitely can be greener sometimes its just much harder to find than you would ever think.

[Oct 02, 2018] Trump is light fare compared to where the Neoliberal Democrats will go and has been, regarding women, sex, and all things crass

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Iberiano says: September 29, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT 300 Words Looking at that photo of the former primary contenders, reminded me of all the holier-than-though talk we got from the right-of-center, about how Trump was too gruff, and crass, about everything, including sexual topics, interactions with women, etc.

What these hearings demonstrated, that we already knew, was that the Puritan-Jew alliance is obsessed with all things sexual, perverted, distasteful theirs is a world of, as you point out, "preppy white boy" fantasies, where the bad guys look like the blond jock in Karate Kid, and drive around in their Dad's 1982 Buick Regal or their own '79 Camero, looking to "score" with virginal know-nothing, Red Riding Hoods, that happen to find themselves at 'gang rape parties' (?), out of nowhere. Who go on to have Leftist careers only to resurrect repressed memories 35 years later–projected in front of the world

It's a silly framework from which they obsess, but it's similar to Kinsey, Mead and others of the Left. Sex. Projection, doubling-down, and an absence of due process to punish people for the very things that actually occupy their minds. Even in her advanced age, you could tell, Feinstein was enjoying the open air discussions regarding sexual topics.

Let the Right / Never-Trumpers be on notice–Trump is light fare compared to where the Left will go and has been, regarding women, sex, and all things crass.

[Oct 02, 2018] WikiLeaks Calls QAnon A Likely 'Pied Piper' Operation

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

FKA Max says: September 25, 2018 at 1:34 am GMT

@John Gruskos

One of my comments appears to have vanished, here the information on QAnon I shared:

WikiLeaks Calls QAnon A Likely 'Pied Piper' Operation

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/wikileaks-calls-qanon-a-likely-pied-piper-operation-e5c4f4fac4a

Archived link : http://archive.is/3yTZl

The thread is worth reading in its entirety, easier done here in this thread reader due to its size. Dawson explains how QAnon uses standard psyop tactics, first establishing credibility and then implementing gamification and spirituality to suck followers into an energized, cultish mentality which leaves them susceptible to suggestion, manipulation and direction.

Thread here : https://archive.is/gS1PJ

[Oct 02, 2018] Christine Balsey Ford and her father are all CIA, check it out, he father Ralph G. Balsey Jr. and her brother are all CIA

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

DRA , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:33 pm GMT

@Rational It seems to me that the FBI investigation should include an investigation of who leaked the Ford information, over her stated objections.

On the other hand, the Dems were VERY interested in having the FBI do a further investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, the same FBI that got a FISA warrant to "wiretap" Trump under false pretenses. Can we really be sure that there aren't arrangements already in place to frame Kavanaugh?

The Alarmist , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
@Anon

"I'm puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?"

Because. Trump!

DESERT FOX , says: September 29, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX One more thing, Christine Balsey Ford and her father are all CIA, check it out, he father Ralph G. Balsey Jr. and her brother are all CIA.

[Oct 02, 2018] The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , says: August 11, 2017 at 2:43 am GMT

@Jaakko Raipala

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power -- some of them acting idealistically -- some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

Sergey Krieger , says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 am GMT
@AP You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
Sergey Krieger , says: August 11, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT
@melanf Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom Isn,' t it obvious by now?
Seamus Padraig , says: August 11, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist fro

AP , says: August 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Bolsheviks looted the country.

I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .

You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.

So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia

"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children.

Sergey Krieger , says: August 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT
@AP Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this
AP , says: August 11, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?

I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference – unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure – in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.

There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina

Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters – Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system – were "real Communists."

German_reader , says: August 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Hector_St_Clare Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars.

Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.

It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West.

Anatoly Karlin , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

Mr. Hack , says: August 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@AP Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.

http://tmora.org/

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me -- last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be?

AP , says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS.

AP , says: August 11, 2017 at 8:54 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".

Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sale_of_Hermitage_paintings

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise --

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.

Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
@AP

Yes, they did not run out

But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it -- you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s -- I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers" -- most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left" -- not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning -- nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev -- a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this -- by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example.

Hector_St_Clare , says: August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989″ numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf

Hector_St_Clare , says: August 11, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT
That being said, "(slightly) faster GDP growth rate than West Germany" isn't as impressive as it sounds since they were starting from a much lower base: an economy 40% as rich per capita as West Germany, with an industrial base and educated/skilled workforce, *should* be growing much faster, not slightly faster.
Anatoly Karlin , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov We've been through this .

The more -- indeed, only -- relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)

It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow.

iffen , says: August 11, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.)

utu , says: August 11, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
@iffen

So you are a socialist at heart?

No, I am economic realist, which is more mixed economy vector but for Russia specifically -- it could be called as "socialist".

Sergey Krieger

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

LOL, sure -- when Taiwan or Belgium will have a viable space programs (the list of cutting edge technologies which goes into this is colossal, not to mention educational and design schools) or will be able to produce something remotely comparable to MS-21 or SU-57, then we may talk. FYI, I work in aerospace industry so, let's put it this way -- I never heard superlatives about Belgian or Taiwanese Aerospace . The "other" one? A lot.

utu , says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT
@Hector_St_Clare Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970′s. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus.

Darin , says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT
@AP This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930′s certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington?

utu , says: August 11, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT
@AP "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:26 pm GMT
@utu

But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans

You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL!

Darin , says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT
@German_reader East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR.
German_reader , says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT
@utu There's a book by McMeekin about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

(no idea how good it is, haven't read it myself, and McMeekin seems to be somewhat controversial).

Darin , says: August 11, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT
@utu Sean McMeekin: History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/116/1/246/43921/Sean-McMeekin-History-s-Greatest-Heist-The-Looting

iffen , says: August 11, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT
@iffen

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law -- this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-)

iffen , says: August 12, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov ?
Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 12, 2017 at 12:45 am GMT
@iffen

?

OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore -- anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it -- I underscore it again, they all knew it -- among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism" -- it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement -- a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony -- being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it

Sergey Krieger

inertial , says:

[Oct 02, 2018] Johann Ricke

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

melanf , says: August 11, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

@Miro23

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2″) is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/

" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment -- 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below -- 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion -- 765 180 people".

[Oct 02, 2018] Rogue Nations, US, UK, France and Germany in Talks to Attack Warn-Torn, Heroic Syria Without Cause

Oct 02, 2018 | russia-insider.com

  • longfisher • 17 days ago ,

    My country is an utter disgrace in international affairs (US).

    The land of the free and the home of the brave doesn't live up to its billing by a very long shot.

    Under the guise of pursuing "national interests" it commits so many immoral crimes that I can't believe our leaders are even Americans, in the traditional, civics sense.

    JustBuzz longfisher • 17 days ago ,

    I agree longfisher. This is not the country I was raised to believe it is.

    longfisher Kjell Hasthi • 17 days ago ,

    "You have served in the military?"

    Yes. Ex-Marine infantry officer 1972 - 1979.

[Oct 02, 2018] Something about judge Kavanaugh personality and political views.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Deschutes says: September 29, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT 400 Words John Derbyshire – another shitty, adolescent article from the angry white conservative man child who blames everybody whose not white and male for his own failings and problems. The way you portray women in this article reveals a man child who never matured beyond 16 years of age. It is little wonder you portray women as nothing more than angry children's book characters who vomit if they don't get their way: a man child can't see it any other way. Not once in this diatribe do you mention abortion rights. It never occurred to you that losing abortion rights might piss off some women. If Kavanaugh is put on the court, abortion will be made illegal in USA. Debryshire, you remind me Jeff Sessions: you're a couple of bookends from the 1940s. Same racist mind set, same 'war on drugs' reactionary bullshit, same 'women belong in the kitchen' nonsense etc. What's more, anybody who actually likes Lindsey Graham is a total complete asshole. There is nothing to like in that self-righteous reactionary, war criminal piece of shit from the Old South. If you've enjoyed the last 17 years of wars without end and the wretched 'war on terror' and all that has come to pass since 9-11, then Lindsey Graham is your man. Like McCain, he never saw a war he didn't love starting. And watching Graham's temper tantrum meltdown in the congressional hearings the other day made for rather uncomfortable viewing, like watching a 5 year old in a toy store who didn't get his GI Joe doll. Since when is losing your temper, foaming at the mouth and screaming at the entire caucus because you are not getting your way acceptable behavior? It isn't. But it is a sure sign of a person who is a total, complete egotistical asshole. I always hated Scalia, and was really happy when he died. That Obama and the dems were too spineless to stick a replacement on the bench when they had the chance only reinforced my total lack of respect for the dems. The tragedy in waiting was that now we will have a reactionary conservative majority scotus headed by Kavanaugh, and abortion will be made illegal; more laws passed to favor giant corporations like Citizens United; more anti-worker legislation passed; more war and more police state measures domestically: that's your Trump/Kavanaugh/Lindsay Graham/John Derbyshire shit stain USA coming yer way!

[Oct 02, 2018] The way I see it, a woman over 50 years old goes on the stand, tries to put on the helpless cute little girl act complete with a six-year old's lisp, and pretends to have traumatic memories of something she claims happened over 35 years ago.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

seeing-thru , says: September 29, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT

@Deschutes Ah, ah, the main issue here is not where Kavanaugh will stand on abortion laws but whether the campaign of slander against him could have any possible truth.

The way I see it, a woman over 50 years old goes on the stand, tries to put on the helpless cute little girl act complete with a six-year old's lisp, and pretends to have traumatic memories of something she claims happened over 35 years ago. Well, where on earth was she all these years? She ended up with a Ph.D. in psychology so she could not have been ignorant of laws and remedies surrounding rape and attempted rape through her years in university. Where was her "great courage" all these years? A tad too much of a coincidence this, her finding her memories and courage right on the eve of Kavanaugh's proposed appointment. Kavanaugh may or may not be a good choice for the Supreme Court; opinions can differ legitimately. But putting him on a show-trial where he comes out looking unclean no matter what is a travesty of natural justice and a grave injury to common decency and common sense.

[Oct 02, 2018] The hysterical harpies were certainly pleased with themselves when they got the result they wanted.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

MEH 0910 , says: September 29, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT

Score one for hysterical harpies, score zero for the dignity of Senatorial process.

The hysterical harpies were certainly pleased with themselves when they got the result they wanted.

Ronald Thomas West , says: Website September 29, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@anon I know all of this woman-howling is covering up his role in the Vince Foster 'suicide' making him a George HW Bush CIA (Iran-Contra, cocaine trafficking) lap-dog. Oh, and he ruled the USA can kidnap American citizens abroad and hold them at black sites

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/07/12/kavanaugh-the-royal-nonsuch/

^ it's amazing what's still out there despite internet gatekeeping more and more everyday -

[Oct 02, 2018] Like professional wrestlers, Republicans pretend to fight-but a Flake or someone like him, always appears in the nick of time, to save the day for the left.

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sandy Berger's Socks , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT

Kavanaugh hearings are just another episode of bad political theater.

Like professional wrestlers, Republicans pretend to fight-but a Flake or someone like him, always appears in the nick of time, to save the day for the left.

No border wall.

No money even appropriated for border wall.

No repeal of Obama care.

No end to the mid east follies.

There should be an enthusiasm gap.

[Oct 02, 2018] GOP Betrayal The Cross Examination That Never Was by Ilana Mercer

Lindsey Graham erupts during Kavanaugh hearing
Why come forward with this after 35 years ?
Notable quotes:
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

anastasia says: September 28, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT 300 Words They were too afraid of the women's movement, and therefore could not bring themselves to challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the prosecutors questions which did not have the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by the democrats to the honoree.

But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later and expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips – all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to see.

She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently needed explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to explain her inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later politicized the confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her several go fund me sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.

She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to remain anonymous.

Ludwig Watzal says: Website September 28, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT 400 Words As a foreign observer, I watched the whole hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will do everything to prevent his confirmation. They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford, not to speak of the other two disgraceful women that prostituted themselves for base motives. Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which seemed to make a great impression on the CCN tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks of the hearing committee. It was a great TV-propaganda frame.

Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15, and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after the "incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as it is. Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American youths should not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of Penn for my M.A. degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great experience. Every weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed around like hell. Nobody made a big fuss out of it.

On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions and accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which only happens in totalitärian states.

Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth and humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in advance of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham with his outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.

animalogic , says: September 28, 2018 at 7:31 am GMT

@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence, men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
streamfortyseven , says: September 28, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable. Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM&#8221 ;

Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive, because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas – because that's what those people are."

and that's my opinion of this charade.

Jake , says: September 28, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.

... .. ...

mike k , says: September 28, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
QuasiQuasimodo , says: September 28, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person, but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement, wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
QuasiQuasimodo , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that mold, IMHO.

One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e., molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:06 pm GMT
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself. No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
Swan , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT
@anastasia I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate.
jleiland , says: September 28, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist. Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.

It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking bleak.

Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.

bj , says: September 28, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
APilgrim , says: September 28, 2018 at 3:02 pm GMT
Christine Ford is a PROVEN delusional, psychopathic liar.

Senate Democrats are OUTED, for the Machiavellian SHl1ts they are.

Trump WINS AGAIN!

pyrrhus , says: September 28, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
nickels , says: September 28, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.

https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI

[Oct 02, 2018] Trump has tried to turn his presidency into a personality cult rather than MAGA

Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

TheBoom , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:55 am GMT

Trump has tried to turn his presidency into a personality cult rather than MAGA. That is a mistake because Trump's campaign positions were more popular than Trump and it doesn't lift the entire party.

Every Hillary voter I meet, male or female, buys every one of the stupid narratives being pushed and are fired up to vote. The Bernie voters don't automatically buy every narrative but they despise Trump and want him out and Democrats to regain control.

I agree with Derb that the hearing may make up some of the enthusiasm gap. A lot of conservative men had to have been looking at that hearing and thinking how easy it would be for them to get similar treatment at work or school.I imagine a good number of conservative women don't want their husbands and sons to face similar inquisitions.

[Oct 01, 2018] It all started with 9/11. That was the pretext for Gen. Clark's "We're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

Oct 01, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pštrossova 6 , Sep 30, 2018 2:23:33 PM | link

Posted the following this morning on last week's Open Thread, so I'm reposting here

This comment will try to focus on the Big Picture while ignoring all the sideshows and distractions

The Big Picture has three parts: (1) 9/11 where it all started (2) Putin was a "good guy" when he was aligned with the "war on terror" (3) Putin became a bad guy the moment he figured out that ALL these wars were to destroy nations, not save them, and so he intervened in Syria


(1) the people who did 9/11 are the SAME people who are trying to menace Russia (as well as Syria and Iran) today

9/11 is where it all started .this event led us to where we are now .
There are posted videos of news outlets reporting on building seven collapsing – BEFORE it did. That would be impossible without ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE of the controlled demolition of that building. Something that Osama and his 19 henchmen would not have been able to accomplish even if they could have done the rest, which is beyond preposterous.


(2) And so right after 9/11, when the chimp looked into Putin's eyes, and saw a good guy, that was when Putin was aligned with the nascent "war on terror". Something Vlad was all too familiar with, and happy to help out the West with, in any way he could.


(3) But then Vladimir figured out, (what most have apparently been unable to figure out) – that ALL of these wars – (following the *OBVIOUSLY* lied about 9/11 false flag), are intended to destroy nations, not save them. Duh.


The people who did 9/11 (Zionists and their lackeys in the West, NATO, CIA, etc..) are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are trying to menace Russia today.

And yet many people haven't even bothered to look into this event. THE event that will be ultimately responsible for the clash of civilizations to come, when the Zionists demand Putin vacate Syria so they can steal the Golan Heights.

How can a someone ruminate over, write about, postulate and pontificate over a (((Western))) foreign policy that maligns and menaces Russia.. and yet fail to see the obvious?

For us to have NO curiousity about 9/11 would be like Bashar Assad believing the war he's been fighting was a home-grown event unaffected by foreign interests.

It all started with 9/11. That was the pretext for Gen. Clark's "We're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

Retired General Wesley Clark.

Have you ever seen the video?


Do you understand how that agenda might have effected the (((West's))) relations with Russia, once Putin put his foot down over Syria?


Or are all of these things completely independent of each other, and the war on Syria is actually being waged by disgruntled Syrian Muslims who want a less secular state, with help from NATO ONLY when Assad uses chemical weapons against his own civilians?


Why are otherwise smart people unable to comprehend, (or even contemplate) the big picture?

Peter AU 1 , Sep 30, 2018 2:55:35 PM | link

26

Use of wahhabi jihadists began in the late seventies in Afghanistan. From there they were shipped to the Russian Caucasus in the mid nineties to assist with the breakup of the Russian federation.
The petro dollar hegemony began with the discovery of oil at Prudhoe bay in the late sixties.
False flags are a proud American tradition virtually since its inception.

fast freddy , Sep 30, 2018 3:38:53 PM | link
It is interesting also that The US (and other Western Powers) allied with and used Muslims in Yugoslavia. These were posited as the good guy victims in need of Humanitarian Intervention by carpet bombing the Orthodox Christian Serbs. Of course the Muslims were financed and equipped as freedom fighters. TV, Radio stations and hospitals with workers in them, were destroyed in this humanitarian intervention.

Now it is a mishmash of small broken states with US Military bases located in them. One of the largest bases is Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. Named for Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipient United States Army Staff Sergeant James L. Bondsteel, the name reminds one of a character from Dr. Strangelove (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bob).

The once successful socialist nation was broken and partitioned and looted by Multinational Corps and Western Banks.

The destruction of that country took years in the making. Reagan admin instituted the first round of sanctions. It became ripe for the taking after Tito died and the USSR was in chaos.

While each successive admin piled on, Bill Clinton got to be the point man for the prolonged attacks. Interestingly, Hillary takes credit for urging Bill to bomb civilian population centers.

A precurser to "We Came, We saw, He died...HAHAHAHHAHA).

[Oct 01, 2018] US Navy Aircraft Carrier Deployments Fall as Financial Concerns Loom - Sputnik International

Oct 01, 2018 | sputniknews.com

After 9/11," said US Navy Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran, "our focus was supporting the ground fight, which meant we were operating that force a lot, and when you operate the force a lot it eats up a lot of your cash, it eats up a lot of your service life."

Operating a Nimitz-class carrier runs about $298 million per year, the Government Accountability Office estimated in a 1997 study. The current carrier fleet is made up entirely of Nimitz-class carriers, with the lone ship of the new Ford-class still undergoing sea trials.

"Add on to this the cost of the air wing, the combat power behind the aircraft carrier," a US Navy lieutenant commander wrote in thesis paper from 2012. "An average current air wing is composed of four fighter/attack squadrons of 10-12 aircraft each, an electronic warfare squadron of four aircraft, an airborne command and control squadron of four aircraft, two onboard delivery aircraft and a helicopter squadron of six aircraft."

The workhorse F/A-18 carrier aircraft, according to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller, costs about $10,507 to fly per hour. Brett Odom, former F/A-18 pilot and financial expert at Fighter Sweep, has disputed the Pentagon's cost accounting, however, on the grounds that it only covers marginal costs.

Odom estimated that the cost to pay pilots and support crews, conduct engine maintenance and fuel the aircraft for an hour was $11,140 -- approximately in line with DoD's estimate. But then there is the cost of the aircraft itself: an F/A-18 runs about $65 million. Odom refers to this figure as capital cost. Incorporating the average acquisition cost smoothed out over an expected life of 6,000 flight hours into the equation, the expert reached $22,000 in cost per flight hour.

"There are valid reasons to ignore capital costs and treat them as sunk costs in certain situations. However, by ignoring capital costs, the Department of Defense is implicitly stating that its fighter aircraft are free, or -- like the pyramids -- they can be expected to function forever," Odom wrote for Fighter Sweep in 2016.

"This has all been building up" for 17 years "through overuse of the carrier force and naval aviation," former Pentagon official Bob Work said in comments to USNI.

"When we kept two carriers in the Persian Gulf for a period of time, we kept telling the senior leadership that this was going to have a downstream effect, and it would really put a crimp maintenance-wise, and there would be gaps both in the Pacific as well as the Middle East. That is coming home to roost," Work said.

While the US Navy carrier fleet was taxed abroad, Washington's defense budgets continued to grow.

"It's fairly obvious that corporate interests for the defense industry like Raytheon and others have driven a lot of our spending in the last 20 years or so, especially given the War on Terror post-9/11," Daniel Sankey, a California-based financial policy analyst, said in an interview with Sputnik News.

"We've carried this huge, outsized expenditure," he noted. "Eventually the money supply starts going down. It's not infinite, even though the US pockets are pretty deep."

The carrier force is now facing the music of the Pentagon's "credit card wars" since 9/11, conflicts that have been paid for with mostly borrowed funds. Brown University's Institute for International and Public Affairs found that post-9/11 war expenses add up to about $5.6 trillion.

"You have a thoroughbred horse in the stable that you're running in a race every single day. You cannot do that. Something's going to happen eventually," Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer told reporters in August.

[Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | russia-insider.com

"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained."

If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.

If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out:

  1. The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
  2. The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.

I've been writing about the divided Deep State for a number of years, for example, The Conflict within the Deep State Just Broke into Open Warfare . The topic appears to be one of widespread interest, as this essay drew over 300,000 views.

It's impossible to understand the divided Deep State unless we situate it in the larger context of profound political disunity , a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose slim but insightful volume The Fall of the Roman Empire I have been recommending since 2009.

As I noted in my 2009 book Survival+ , this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse. The shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained.

A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.

But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic.

Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing , as Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.

As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.

The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.

What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically unstable. Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes (the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.

The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system because each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.

Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new book Ages of Discord .

If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. There is no other possible output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.

[Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
May 02, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?

Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington, "globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National Security Council on April 5.

Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what, on the campaign trail, he said he would do.

In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.

These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the " tribune of poor white people ," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:

"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]

After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.

The Betrayal

But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.

Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.

Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists.

The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.

But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential."

Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.

Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the populist promises he had given to his core constituents.

Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite.

Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction, has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?

One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911 work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .

Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably succumb to oligarchic control.

Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."

This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered servants of the masses:

"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part, are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."

But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest away from the "sovereign people":

"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.

Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union, or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."

Trumped by the Deep State

Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy. Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.

Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I predicted during the Republican primaries:

" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support."

No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.

On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric " and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:

"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing pleases the State more than war."

Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.

Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.

[Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | russia-insider.com

"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained."

If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.

If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out:

  1. The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
  2. The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.

I've been writing about the divided Deep State for a number of years, for example, The Conflict within the Deep State Just Broke into Open Warfare . The topic appears to be one of widespread interest, as this essay drew over 300,000 views.

It's impossible to understand the divided Deep State unless we situate it in the larger context of profound political disunity , a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose slim but insightful volume The Fall of the Roman Empire I have been recommending since 2009.

As I noted in my 2009 book Survival+ , this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse. The shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained.

A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.

But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic.

Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing , as Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.

As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.

The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.

What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically unstable. Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes (the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.

The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system because each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.

Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new book Ages of Discord .

If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. There is no other possible output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.

[Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
May 02, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?

Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington, "globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National Security Council on April 5.

Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what, on the campaign trail, he said he would do.

In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.

These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the " tribune of poor white people ," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:

"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]

After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.

The Betrayal

But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.

Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.

Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists.

The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.

But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential."

Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.

Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the populist promises he had given to his core constituents.

Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite.

Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction, has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?

One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911 work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .

Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably succumb to oligarchic control.

Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."

This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered servants of the masses:

"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part, are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."

But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest away from the "sovereign people":

"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.

Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union, or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."

Trumped by the Deep State

Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy. Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.

Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I predicted during the Republican primaries:

" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support."

No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.

On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric " and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:

"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing pleases the State more than war."

Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.

Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.

[Sep 29, 2018] A CIA lucky break How the death of the 'Smiling Pope' helped Washington win the Cold War -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... "The true treasures of the Church are the poor, the little ones to be helped not merely by occasional alms but in the way they can be promoted," ..."
"... "He talked particularly of his concern over 'Los Desaparecidos', people who had vanished off the face of Argentinian earth in their thousands. By the conclusion of the 15th minute audience the General began to wish that he had heeded the eleventh-hour attempts of Vatican officials to dissuade him coming to Rome," ..."
"... "His mind was as strong, as hard and as sharp as a diamond. That was where his real power was. He understood and had the ability to get to the centre of a problem. He could not be overwhelmed. When everyone was applauding the smiling Pope, I was waiting for him 'tirare fuori le unghie', to reveal his claws. He had tremendous power." ..."
"... But John Paul I never lived to exercise his "tremendous power." ..."
"... "The public speculation that this death was not natural grew by the minute. Men and women were heard shouting at the inert form: Who has done this to you? Who has murdered you?" ..."
"... David Yallop revealed that on the day of his death, the Pope had discussed a reshuffle of Vatican staff with Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who was also to be replaced. Yallop claimed that the Pope had a list of a number of clerics who belonged to the Freemasons, membership of which was strictly prohibited by the Church. The most sinister of these Masonic lodges was the fiercely anti-communist Propaganda Due (P2), which held great influence in Italy at this time, being referred to as a "state within a state." ..."
"... "Had he lived another week, the United States would have been looking at a half a dozen mini-Cubas in its back yard," ..."
"... "The single fact of John Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began Then the whole thing spread. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in the Philippines and Marcos was out," ..."
"... In 1985, Agca's confederate, Abdullah Catli, who was later killed in a car crash, testified that he had been approached by the West German BND spy organization, which promised him a large sum of money "if he implicated the Bulgarian secret service and the KGB in the attempt on the Pope's life." ..."
"... "ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed that his colleagues, under pressure from CIA higher-ups, skewed their reports to try to lend credence to the contention that the Soviets were involved. 'The CIA had no evidence linking the KGB to the plot,' Goodman told the Senate Intelligence Committee." ..."
"... In 2011, a new book entitled 'To Kill the Pope, the Truth about the Assassination Attempt on John Paul II', which was based on 20 years of research, concluded that the CIA had indeed tried to frame Bulgaria, in order to discredit communism. ..."
"... The great irony of course is that after the Berlin Wall came down, Pope John Paul II became a strong critic of the inhumane 'greed is good' model of capitalism which had replaced communism. In Latvia, he said capitalism was responsible for "grave social injustices" and acknowledged that Marxism contained "a kernel of truth." He said that "the ideology of the market" made solidarity between people "difficult at best." In Czechoslovakia, he warned against replacing communism with materialism and consumerism. ..."
"... Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66 ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.rt.com

The sudden death of Pope John Paul I, exactly 40 years ago today, stunned the world. The 'Smiling Pope' had only served for 33 days. His demise and replacement by John Paul II marked an important turning point in the old Cold War. The year 1978, as I argued in a previous op-ed, was the year today's world was made.

There was nothing inevitable about the ascendancy of Reagan and Thatcher, the rise of groups like Al-Qaeda and IS, and the downfall of the Soviet Union. The neoliberal, neoconservative world order and its associated violence came about because of key events and decisions which took place 40 years ago. The Vatican was at the heart of these events.

The drama which unfolded there in the summer of 1978 would have been rejected as being too far-fetched if sent in as a film script. In a space of two and a half months, we had three different Popes. There was no great surprise when, on August 6, the first of them, Pope Paul VI, died after suffering a massive heart attack. The Supreme Pontiff, who had served since 1963, was 80 and had been in declining health. But the death of his much younger successor, John Paul I, a radical reformer who wanted to build a genuine People's Church, has fuelled conspiracy theories to this day.

Read more Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski walk in Camp David 09 December 1978 © AFP 1978: The year today's world was made

Cardinal Albino Luciani, the working-class son of a bricklayer (and staunch socialist), from a small town in northern Italy, was a Pope like no other. He refused a coronation and detested being carried on the sedia gestatoria – the Papal chair. He hated pomp and circumstance and pretentiousness. His speeches were down to earth and full of homely observations, with regular references to popular fiction. He possessed a gentle humor and always had a twinkle in his eye. He was by all accounts an incredibly sweet man.

But there was steel there, too. Luciani was determined to root out corruption, and to investigate the complex financial affairs of the Vatican's own bank, and its connection to the scandal-hit Banco Ambrosiano.

While he had declared communism to be incompatible with Christianity, his father's egalitarian ethos stayed with him. "The true treasures of the Church are the poor, the little ones to be helped not merely by occasional alms but in the way they can be promoted," he once said. At a meeting with General Videla of Argentina, he made clear his abhorrence of fascism. "He talked particularly of his concern over 'Los Desaparecidos', people who had vanished off the face of Argentinian earth in their thousands. By the conclusion of the 15th minute audience the General began to wish that he had heeded the eleventh-hour attempts of Vatican officials to dissuade him coming to Rome," noted David Yallop in his book 'In God's Name'.

One cleric, Father Busa, wrote of John Paul I: "His mind was as strong, as hard and as sharp as a diamond. That was where his real power was. He understood and had the ability to get to the centre of a problem. He could not be overwhelmed. When everyone was applauding the smiling Pope, I was waiting for him 'tirare fuori le unghie', to reveal his claws. He had tremendous power."

But John Paul I never lived to exercise his "tremendous power." He was found dead in his bed on the morning of September 28, 1978. The official story was that the 'Smiling Pope' had died from a heart attack. But it wasn't long before questions were being asked. John Paul I was only 65 and had appeared to be in fine health.

The fact that there was no post-mortem only added to the suspicions. "The public speculation that this death was not natural grew by the minute. Men and women were heard shouting at the inert form: Who has done this to you? Who has murdered you?" wrote David Yallop.

Read more © Tony Gentile / Reuters 'Sex is a gift of God': Pope Francis shares benefits of 'passionate' love, slams pornography

David Yallop revealed that on the day of his death, the Pope had discussed a reshuffle of Vatican staff with Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who was also to be replaced. Yallop claimed that the Pope had a list of a number of clerics who belonged to the Freemasons, membership of which was strictly prohibited by the Church. The most sinister of these Masonic lodges was the fiercely anti-communist Propaganda Due (P2), which held great influence in Italy at this time, being referred to as a "state within a state." The murky world of P2, and its leaders' links with organized crime, the Mafia and the CIA is discussed in 'In God's Name'.

Another writer, Lucien Gregoire, author of 'Murder by the Grace of God', points the finger of blame squarely at the CIA. He notes a seemingly strange coincidence, namely that on September 3, 1978, just 25 days before the Pope himself died, Metropolitan Nikodim, the visiting leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, who was later revealed to have been a KGB agent, fell dead at John Paul's feet in the Vatican after sipping coffee. He was only 48.

Gregoire says that the CIA dubbed John Paul I 'the Bolshevik Pope' and was keen to eliminate him before he presided over a conference the Puebla Conference in Mexico. "Had he lived another week, the United States would have been looking at a half a dozen mini-Cubas in its back yard," he writes.

While there's no shortage of suspects if you believe that John Paul I was murdered, it needs to be stressed that despite the contradictory statements made about the circumstances of his death, and the strange coincidences, no evidence has yet been produced to show that his death was not a natural one. What we can say though is that there will have been quite a few powerful and influential people in Italy and beyond who were relieved that the 'Smiling Pope' had such a short time in office.

His successor, the Polish Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, who took the name 'John Paul II' as a homage to his predecessor, made it clear that investigating the Vatican's financial activities and uncovering Freemasons was not a priority. As a patriotic Pole, his appointment was manna from Heaven for anti-communist hawks in the US State Department. "The single fact of John Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began Then the whole thing spread. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in the Philippines and Marcos was out," said Joaquin Navarro-Valls, John Paul II's press secretary.

The way that Pope John Paul II spoke out against what he regarded as communist repression, not only in his native Poland but across Eastern Europe and beyond, saw him being toasted by the neocon faction. It might not have been just words either, which helped undermine communist rule. There was a rumor that 'God's Banker' Roberto Calvi, who in 1982 was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London, had sent $50mn to 'Solidarity' in Poland on behalf of the Pope.

Read more FILE PHOTO: At the invitation of the Constantinople Patriarch, heads of all Orthodox churches meet at the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul, on MArch 9, 2014. Murad Sezer Biggest rift in modern Orthodox history? Russian Church won't work w/ Constantinople-chaired bodies

In May 1981, John Paul II was shot and wounded by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca. Neocons in the US promoted the narrative that it was a communist plot (organized by Bulgaria), but Sofia denied involvement. In 1985, Agca's confederate, Abdullah Catli, who was later killed in a car crash, testified that he had been approached by the West German BND spy organization, which promised him a large sum of money "if he implicated the Bulgarian secret service and the KGB in the attempt on the Pope's life."

Martin Lee, writing in Consortium News, also notes that in 1990, "ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed that his colleagues, under pressure from CIA higher-ups, skewed their reports to try to lend credence to the contention that the Soviets were involved. 'The CIA had no evidence linking the KGB to the plot,' Goodman told the Senate Intelligence Committee."

In 2011, a new book entitled 'To Kill the Pope, the Truth about the Assassination Attempt on John Paul II', which was based on 20 years of research, concluded that the CIA had indeed tried to frame Bulgaria, in order to discredit communism.

The great irony of course is that after the Berlin Wall came down, Pope John Paul II became a strong critic of the inhumane 'greed is good' model of capitalism which had replaced communism. In Latvia, he said capitalism was responsible for "grave social injustices" and acknowledged that Marxism contained "a kernel of truth." He said that "the ideology of the market" made solidarity between people "difficult at best." In Czechoslovakia, he warned against replacing communism with materialism and consumerism.

Having enlisted the assistance of the Vatican in helping to bring down 'The Reds', the neo-liberals and neo-cons then turned on the Church. The Church survived communism, but it hasn't fared too well under consumerism. The Vatican is nowhere near as influential as it was in 1978. The US, meanwhile, unconstrained by a geopolitical counter-weight, threw its weight around the world after 1989, illegally invading and attacking a series of sovereign states.

One can only wonder how different things might have been if the 'Smiling Pope' had lived.

Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Sep 29, 2018] Washington's Sanctions Machine by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016 US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org
Perhaps it is Donald Trump's business background that leads him to believe that if you inflict enough economic pain on someone they will ultimately surrender and agree to do whatever you want. Though that approach might well work in New York real estate, it is not a certain path to success in international relations since countries are not as vulnerable to pressure as are individual investors or developers.

Washington's latest foray into the world of sanctions, directed against China, is astonishing even when considering the low bar that has been set by previous presidents going back to Bill Clinton. Beijing has already been pushing back over US sanctions imposed last week on its government-run Equipment Development Department of the Chinese Central Military Commission and its director Li Shangfu for "engaging in significant transactions" with a Russian weapons manufacturer that is on a list of US sanctioned companies. The transactions included purchases of Russian Su-35 combat aircraft as well as equipment related to the advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile system. The sanctions include a ban on the director entering the United States and blocks all of his property or bank accounts within the US as well as freezing all local assets of the Equipment Development Department.

More important, the sanctions also forbid conducting any transactions that go through the US financial system. It is the most powerful weapon Washington has at its disposal, but it is being challenged as numerous countries are working to find ways around it. Currently however, as most international transactions are conducted in dollars and pass through American banks that means that it will be impossible for the Chinese government to make weapons purchases from many foreign sources. If foreign banks attempt to collaborate with China to evade the restrictions, they too will be sanctioned.

So in summary, Beijing bought weapons from Moscow and is being sanctioned by the United States for doing so because Washington does not approve of the Russian government. The sanctions on China are referred to as secondary sanctions in that they are derivative from the primary sanction on the foreign company or individual that is actually being punished. Secondary sanctions can be extended ad infinitum as transgressors linked sequentially to the initial transaction multiply the number of potential targets.

Not surprisingly, the US Ambassador has been summoned and Beijing has canceled several bilateral meetings with American defense department officials. The Chinese government has expressed "outrage" and has demanded the US cancel the measure.

According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016 US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation.

Explaining the new sanctions, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert issued a statement elaborating that the initial sanctions on Russia were enacted "to further impose costs on the Russian government in response to its malign activities." She added that the US will "urge all countries to curtail relationships with Russia's defense and intelligence sectors, both of which are linked to malign activities worldwide."

As engaging in "malign activities" is a charge that should quite plausibly be leveled against Washington and its allies in the Middle East, it is not clear if anyone but the French and British poodles actually believes the rationalizations coming out of Washington to defend the indefensible. An act to "Counter America's Adversaries Through Sanctions" is, even as the title implies, ridiculous. Washington is on a sanctions spree. Russia has been sanctioned repeatedly since the passage of the fraudulent Magnitsky Act, with no regard for Moscow's legitimate protests that interfering in other countries' internal politics is unacceptable. China is currently arguing reasonably enough that arms sales between countries is perfect legal and in line with international law.

Iran has been sanctioned even through it complied with an international agreement on its nuclear program and new sanctions were even piled on top of the old sanctions. And in about five weeks the US will be sanctioning ANYONE who buys oil from Iran, reportedly with no exceptions allowed. Venezuela is under US sanctions to punish its government, NATO member Turkey because it bought weapons from Russia and the Western Hemisphere perennial bad boy Cuba has had various embargoes in place since 1960.

It should be noted that sanctions earn a lot of ill-will and generally accomplish nothing. Cuba would likely be a fairly normal country but for the US restrictions and other pressure that gave its government the excuse to maintain a firm grip on power. The same might even apply to North Korea. And sanctions are even bad for the United States. Someday, when the US begins to lose its grip on the world economy all of those places being sanctioned will line up to get their revenge and it won't be pretty.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

[Sep 29, 2018] Civil War II Coming by Kevin Barrett

Notable quotes:
"... The corporatist state naturally strives to perfect itself, imposing a "final solution" to the ASP (anti-social person) problem by mandating that henceforth no non-genetically-engineered babies may be born. The result is a very one-sided "race war" in which a few antisocial malcontents try to hold out against what amounts to a genocide against "uncorrected" humanity. The plot follows two of those ASP antiheroes as they throw rocks at the Israeli bulldozer of corporatist genocide. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

In El-Akkad's dystopian vision, the War on Muslims mutates into the War on Southerners -- but has nothing to do with race. Instead, the Yankee Terror State turns its savagery against the New Rebels of the Free Southern States because those good ole boys and girls (of all shades of skin pigmentation and sexual preference) refuse to give up fossil fuels, choosing instead to secede from the Union.

Al-Akkad's vision of blue vs. red global-warming-driven war run amok in a near-future America that has completely forgotten about the whole concept of race is surprisingly plausible, at least while you are reading it. (Civil War I, after all, was really about economics not race , so why shouldn't Civil War II also be over an economic issue?) The plot turns on the adventures of Sarat, a young Red State woman of mixed and meaningless (near-black Chicano and po' white trash) ancestry who awakens politically and goes after the Blue State occupiers in pretty much the same way the Iraqi resistance went after George W. Bush's storm troopers.

... ... ...

C.J. Hopkins offers a deeper, more accurate, vastly funnier, more genuinely subversive vision. His far-future America, which bears an uncanny resemblance to our nightmarish present, features drone-patrolled hyper-surveiled cities, each of which is divided by an Israeli-style Wall complete with Israeli-style checkpoints and incursions featuring Israeli-style killings of hapless untermenschen. But instead of Israelis vs. Palestinians, the divide here is between the Normals on one side of the wall and the Anti-Socials on the other. The Normals -- good corporate citizens who are submitting to pharmaceutical and genetic correction so they can work and consume and conform and live meaningless lives like everybody else without batting an eyelash -- are conditioned to fear and loathe the Antisocials, who retain enough humanity to rebel, in whatever pathetically insignificant way, against corporatist dystopia.

Zone 23 , like American War , imagines the future as post-racial: Hopkins' Normal vs. Antisocial divide isn't about race. But it is, nonetheless, very much about behavioral genetics. In this (not so) far future, the Hadley Corporation of Menomonie, Wisconsin has developed a variant-corrected version of the MAO-A gene. Inserted into embryos via germline genetic engineering, this patented DNA produces "clears": people who are intelligent but incurious, incapable of emotionally-driven fight-or-flight aggression (including the most common defensive variety), "easily trained, highly responsive to visual and verbal commands," and so on. In other words, perfect corporate citizens!

The corporatist state naturally strives to perfect itself, imposing a "final solution" to the ASP (anti-social person) problem by mandating that henceforth no non-genetically-engineered babies may be born. The result is a very one-sided "race war" in which a few antisocial malcontents try to hold out against what amounts to a genocide against "uncorrected" humanity. The plot follows two of those ASP antiheroes as they throw rocks at the Israeli bulldozer of corporatist genocide.

Hopkins' ferociously funny yarn is not just a satire on our ever-worsening techno-dystopia. In imagining a genetic basis to the difficulties many of us experience adjusting to hyperconformist "technologically-enhanced" lifestyles, and in portraying individuals struggling and flailing against the uber-civilization around them like flies caught a spider web, Zone 23 resonates with the great critiques of technological civilization .

[Sep 29, 2018] I am concerned about dysfunction and incivility in American culture and politics

Those are signs of political crisis, not the other way around
Notable quotes:
"... The historical parallel is American social and political polarization in the decades prior to the American Civil War. It is conceivable martial law and military power will resolve the conflict and contradictions not reconciled by rule of law and politics. ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

bj says: September 29, 2018 at 6:19 pm GMT

I am concerned about dysfunction and incivility in American culture and politics.

The historical parallel is American social and political polarization in the decades prior to the American Civil War. It is conceivable martial law and military power will resolve the conflict and contradictions not reconciled by rule of law and politics.

This topic was raised when Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the confirmation hearings.

See YouTube video: Senator Lindsey Graham Questions Brett Kavanaugh Military Law vs Criminal Law.


[Sep 29, 2018] The Airwaves Are Still Heaving With Spin Two Days After US Airstrikes Against by Sharmine Narwani

Notable quotes:
"... On the ground in Syria, dead civilians - some of them children killed by US bombs - muddied the perfect script. Confused Syrian rebels - many who had called for foreign intervention to help crush the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – demanded to know how these airstrikes were meant to help them. ..."
"... The Syrian armed forces have spent little time on the ISIL threat because their focus has traditionally been on protecting their interests in Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Hama – and the countryside in these areas – as well as towns and cities around the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. That changed when ISIL staged successful attacks on Mosul and created new geopolitical urgency for Assad"s allies – which triggered some major Syrian strikes against ISIL targets. ..."
"... Obama has managed to get the whole world singing from the same hymn sheet in just two months, including, and this is important, the three states - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey - most instrumental in financing, weaponizing and assisting ISIL and other extremist militias inside Syria. ..."
"... For three years, Washington has overlooked and even encouraged illegal and dangerous behaviors from its regional Sunni allies – all in service of defeating Assad. With all eyes on America and expectations that Obama will fail in his War on Terror just like his predecessors, the US is going to have to pull some impressive tricks from its sleeves. ..."
"... Ideally, these would include the shutting down of key border crossings (Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon); punishing financiers of terror and inhibiting the flow of funds and assistance from Washington"s regional allies; cutting off key revenue streams; tightening immigration policies to stem the flow of foreign fighters; disrupting communications networks of targeted terrorist groups; broader intelligence sharing with all regional players; and empowering existing armies and allied militias inside the "chaos zone" to lead and execute ground operations. ..."
"... If there is the slightest deviation from the "guarantees" provided by the US, this trio has plenty of room to maneuver. Iran, for one, has dallied with the Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan and they know how to cause some pain where it counts. The Russians, for that matter, have many playgrounds in which to thwart US ambitions – most urgently in Ukraine and in Afghanistan, from which the US hopes to withdraw billions of dollars" worth of military equipment by the end of 2014. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from RT . ..."
Sep 26, 2014 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Kerry Arab Saudi

Undoubtedly the attacks were timed to occur on the eve of the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations, so "Coalition" partners could cluster behind the decision to bomb a sovereign state, uninvited.

The irony, of course, is that they are doing so at the UN – the global political body that pledges to uphold international law, peace and stability, and the sanctity of the nation-state unit.

The goal this week will be to keep the "momentum" on a "narrative" until it sinks in.

On day one, heads of state from Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, the UK and France were paraded onto the podium to drum in the urgency of American strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Jabhat al-Nusra and other militant groups inside Syria.

Every American official – past and present - in the White House rolodex was hooked up to a microphone to deliver canned sound bites and drive home those "messages." In between, video-game-quality footage of US strikes hitting their targets was aired on the hour; clips of sleek fighter jets refueling midair and the lone Arab female fighter pilot were dropped calculatingly into social media networks.

The global crew of journalists that descends annually on the UN for this star-studded political event, enthused over US President Barak Obama"s ability to forge a coalition that included five Arab Sunni states – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain and the UAE.

Few mentioned that these partners are a mere fig leaf for Obama, providing his Syria campaign with Arab and Muslim legitimacy where he otherwise would have none. Not that any of these five monarchies enjoy "legitimacy" in their own kingdoms – kings and emirs aren"t elected after all – and two of these Wahhabi states are directly responsible for the growth and proliferation of the Wahhabi-style extremism targeted by US missiles.

Even fewer spent time dissecting the legality of US attacks on Syria or on details of the US "mission" – as in, "what next?"

But with a mission this crippled at the outset, it didn"t take long for an alternative view to peek through the thick media fog.

On the ground in Syria, dead civilians - some of them children killed by US bombs - muddied the perfect script. Confused Syrian rebels - many who had called for foreign intervention to help crush the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – demanded to know how these airstrikes were meant to help them.

Sunni Arabs would be radicalized by these strikes, they warned, as ideologically sympathetic citizens of the Arab coalition states took to their information channels and swore revenge for airstrikes against ISIL and al-Nusra.

The Syrian government, for the most part, remained mute – whether to save face or because they could "smell" the gains coming. Contrary to Washington"s prevailing narrative, privately the story was that the US had informed the Assad government of both the timing and targets of the attacks in advance.

Sources say that the US even provided "guarantees" that no Syrian military or government interests would be targeted. A Reuters exclusive claiming that the US went so far as to provide assurances to Iran, suggests this version is closer to the truth. When US airstrikes against Syria were on the table a year ago, the various parties went through a similar game of footsies. Last September, the Americans backed off – allegedly because of communications from their adversaries that even a single US missile would trigger a warfront against Israel. This time, Washington needed to know that scenario was not going to be activated, and this week they offered the necessary guarantees to ensure it.

Although the Russians and Iranians have publicly lashed out at the illegality of US strikes, they do not seem too worried. Both know – like the Syrian government – that these air attacks could be a net gain for their "Axis."

Firstly, the United States is now doing some useful heavy-lifting for Assad, at no real cost to him. The Syrian armed forces have spent little time on the ISIL threat because their focus has traditionally been on protecting their interests in Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Hama – and the countryside in these areas – as well as towns and cities around the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. That changed when ISIL staged successful attacks on Mosul and created new geopolitical urgency for Assad"s allies – which triggered some major Syrian strikes against ISIL targets.

But to continue along this path, the Syrians would have to divert energy and resources from key battles, and so the American strikes have provided a convenient solution for the time being.

Secondly, the Syrians have spent three years unsuccessfully pushing their narrative that the terrorism threat they face internally is going to become a regional and global problem. The US campaign is a Godsend in this respect – Obama has managed to get the whole world singing from the same hymn sheet in just two months, including, and this is important, the three states - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey - most instrumental in financing, weaponizing and assisting ISIL and other extremist militias inside Syria.

Syria, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and a host of like-minded emerging powers are pleased about this new laser focus on jihadi terror and for the accompanying resource shift to address the problem.

Thirdly, the US has now been placed in the hot seat and will be expected to match words with action. For three years, Washington has overlooked and even encouraged illegal and dangerous behaviors from its regional Sunni allies – all in service of defeating Assad. With all eyes on America and expectations that Obama will fail in his War on Terror just like his predecessors, the US is going to have to pull some impressive tricks from its sleeves.

Ideally, these would include the shutting down of key border crossings (Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon); punishing financiers of terror and inhibiting the flow of funds and assistance from Washington"s regional allies; cutting off key revenue streams; tightening immigration policies to stem the flow of foreign fighters; disrupting communications networks of targeted terrorist groups; broader intelligence sharing with all regional players; and empowering existing armies and allied militias inside the "chaos zone" to lead and execute ground operations.

Thus far, there are signs that some of these things are already happening, with possibly more to come.

Now for the fun part. The Syrians, Iranians and Russians do not fundamentally trust Washington or its intentions. The suspicion is that the US is on another one of its regime-change missions, displaying its usual rogue-state behavior by violating the territorial integrity of a sovereign state under false pretenses, and that it will shortly revert to targeting the Syrian government.

While they can see clear gains from the current level of US intervention – as distasteful as they find it - they are watching carefully as events unfold.

If there is the slightest deviation from the "guarantees" provided by the US, this trio has plenty of room to maneuver. Iran, for one, has dallied with the Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan and they know how to cause some pain where it counts. The Russians, for that matter, have many playgrounds in which to thwart US ambitions – most urgently in Ukraine and in Afghanistan, from which the US hopes to withdraw billions of dollars" worth of military equipment by the end of 2014.

All understand that Washington has just assumed a risky public posture and that many, many things can go wrong. The Sunni Arab fig leaf can disappear in a nano-second if domestic pressures mount or revenge attacks take place internally. Information could leak about continued assistance to terrorist militias from one or more of its coalition partners – a huge embarrassment for Washington and its wobbly Coalition. ISIL will almost certainly act against coalition partner soft-targets, like carrying out further kidnappings and executions. Continued airstrikes will almost definitely result in a growing civilian casualty count, turning those "hearts and minds" to stone. Syrian rebels could swiftly turn against the US intervention and radicalize further. Massive displacement caused by airstrikes could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.And as in all other past US military War-on-Terror adventures, terrorism could thrive and proliferate in quantum leaps.

As Moscow-based political analyst Vladimir Frolov noted to the Washington Post:

The United States has underestimated the complexity of the situation before, so let's just wait until they run into problems.
The idea that US military engagement could continue for the long-term is unlikely given the myriad things that can go wrong fast. Obama is going to be reluctant to have his last two years in office defined by the hazardous Syrian conflict – after all, he was to be the president who extracted America from unessential wars.

But the most compelling reason that this Coalition will not pass the first hurdle is that its key members have entirely different ambitions and strategic targets.

Over a decade ago, these US-engineered coalitions were wealthier, less-burdened and shared common goals. Today, many of the coalition members face domestic economic and political uncertainties – and several states are directly responsible for giving rise to ISIL. How can the Coalition fight ISIL and support it, all at once?

What"s missing is a formula, a strategy, a unified worldview that can be equally as determined as the ideological adversary it faces.

Down the road, we will discover that the only coalition able and willing to fight extremism does indeed come from inside the region, but importantly, from within the conflict zone itself: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. For starters, they are utterly vested in the outcome of their efforts – and would lead with political solutions alongside military ones. Those elusive boots-on-the-ground that everyone is seeking? They live it. Pit that group against Obama"s Coalition-of-the-Clueless any day and you know which side would win handily.

The question is, can this Coalition stomach a solution it is working so hard to avoid? Will it partner with vital regional players that were foes only a few months ago? It is doubtful. That would require a worldview shift that Washington is still too irrational to embrace.

Reprinted with permission from RT .

[Sep 29, 2018] New Book Argues US Foreign Policy is Doomed to Fail

Neoliberal hegemony provides the foreign policy elite with many attractive career opportunities, since dominating the whole globe is a very labor intensive enterprise. This is a classic example of parasitic rents under neoliberalism.
Also neocon elite that occupied the State Department and the US foreign policy in general brazenly thinks that it has know how for intervention into politics of other countries that produce the desired effect. The whole school of "color revolution: was created to this effect.
Notable quotes:
"... Read an excerpt from "The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities" here ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | news.wttw.com

After the end of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy officials prided themselves on bringing communism to an end. Decades earlier, they claimed victory over the defeat of fascism.

Both were viewed as part of the country's mission to spread liberal values – such as human rights and an open economy – to the rest of the world, in hopes that other nations would become replicas of the United States. But a local scholar argues that this kind of foreign policy, called "liberal hegemony," is doomed to fail, if it hasn't already.

"Liberal hegemony is basically where the U.S. tries to remake the world in its own image," said John J. Mearsheimer , author of the new book, " The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities ."

Mearsheimer, a political science professor and co-director of the University of Chicago's Program on International Security Policy, said liberal hegemony involves three tasks: spreading liberal democracy around the world; getting other nations "hooked" on capitalism by creating an open, international economy; and including countries in international institutions that the U.S. has played a key role in creating.

Ultimately, that kind of foreign policy will run up against nationalism and realism, Mearsheimer argues in his new book.

"With regards to nationalism, that's the most powerful ideology on the planet, and foreign countries do not like the United States occupying them and trying to arrange their politics to pursue American interests," he told Chicago Tonight, citing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.

"So as we begin to push towards Russia and China and think about regime change, which is what liberal hegemony is all about, you get a realist backlash from countries like Russia and China," Mearsheimer continued. "And that's when you get something like the Ukrainian crisis."

Mearsheimer joins us in discussion.

Read an excerpt from "The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities" here

[Sep 29, 2018] Barack Obama's Return Just Reminds Us How He Fueled the Distrust That Led to by James Bovard

Notable quotes:
"... "Democracy depends on transparency and accountability," Obama said, and "It shouldn't be Democratic or Republican to say that we don't threaten the freedom of the press because they say things or publish stories we don't like ." But, despite boasting of "the most transparent administration ever," Obama expanded federal secrecy and prosecuted more journalists and whistleblowers than any previous administration. ..."
"... "It should not be a partisan issue to say that we do not pressure the attorney general or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel ," the former president said. Trump's declarations about federal prosecutions are appalling. But while the FBI was investigating the legality of Hillary Clinton's private email server, Obama repeatedly publicly declared that she had committed no crime. ..."
"... The Inspector General report released in June revealed that, after a half-hearted probe, the FBI planned to absolve Clinton unless she openly confessed to wrongdoing when FBI agents finally talked to her. The stifled investigation of her email shenanigans helped assure her the Democratic Party presidential nomination and, indirectly, paved the way to a Trump presidency. ..."
"... James Bovard is author of " Attention Deficit Democracy ." Follow him on Twitter: @JimBovard . ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from USAToday . ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Former president Barack Obama is back. He kicked off a series of campaign appearances last week with a blistering attack on the Trump administration and said the Republican Party had "embraced a rising absolutism ." President Donald Trump deserves plenty of harsh criticism, but Obama's indictment is akin to the kid who killed his parents and then sought mercy from the judge because he was an orphan.

Obama declared that "the biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism ." He also called for "a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government ." But his eight years as president fueled the distrust of Washington that Obama now condemns.

How can Obama blame Americans for being cynical after repeating dozens of times his false promise that "If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor," despite the dozens of mandates in Obamacare? How can he blame Americans for being cynical after his 2015 assertion that "it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book"? How can he castigate cynics after he campaigned in 2008 on a peace platform and then proceeded to bomb seven nations ? How can he complain about distrust after he flip-flopped on illegal surveillance and unleashed the National Security Administration to target anyone "searching the web for suspicious stuff "?

Obama created the problems he lists

Obama declared Friday that Americans are "supposed to stand up to bullies , not follow them." But Trump won in 2016 in part because many Americans considered the federal government the biggest bully in the land. Obama relied on " bureaucratic bulldozing rather than legislative transparency," according to The New York Times, issuing 50% more "major regulations" than the George W. Bush administration.

"Most of you don't remember a time before 9/11, when you didn't have to take off your shoes at an airport," Obama told the students. Did they realize that the Transportation Security Administration became far more punitive and intrusive during Obama's presidency? Obama appointees brought in Whole Body scanners across the nation and entitled TSA agents to aggressively touch travelers' genitals and breasts . But despite all that additional power, TSA remained the poster boy for incompetence and TSA checkpoints still failed to detect 95% of smuggled guns and bombs .

"Democracy depends on transparency and accountability," Obama said, and "It shouldn't be Democratic or Republican to say that we don't threaten the freedom of the press because they say things or publish stories we don't like ." But, despite boasting of "the most transparent administration ever," Obama expanded federal secrecy and prosecuted more journalists and whistleblowers than any previous administration.

When Obama took office, the United States had the 20th-most-free press in the world, according to the Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index. By 2016, it had fallen to 41st -- worse than South Africa and barely ahead of Botswana. Obama appointees severely undermined the Freedom of Information Act .

"It should not be a partisan issue to say that we do not pressure the attorney general or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel ," the former president said. Trump's declarations about federal prosecutions are appalling. But while the FBI was investigating the legality of Hillary Clinton's private email server, Obama repeatedly publicly declared that she had committed no crime.

The Inspector General report released in June revealed that, after a half-hearted probe, the FBI planned to absolve Clinton unless she openly confessed to wrongdoing when FBI agents finally talked to her. The stifled investigation of her email shenanigans helped assure her the Democratic Party presidential nomination and, indirectly, paved the way to a Trump presidency.

Obama handed Trump a loaded weapon

Obama is correct that Americans should be on guard against any "absolutism" from the Trump administration. But don't forget that Obama administration lawyers asserted a right to kill US citizens who it labeled terrorist suspects without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked individuals to legally object. Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama , and he personally chose who would be killed at weekly " Terror Tuesday " White House meetings which featured PowerPoint parades of potential targets.

Americans should be alarmed at Trump's power grabs. But Obama helped establish an Impunity Democracy in which rulers pay no price for their misdeeds. As the New York Times noted after the 2016 election, the Obama administration fought in court to preserve the legality of defunct Bush administration practices such as torture and detaining Americans arrested at home as "enemy combatants." "Obama's failure to rein in George Bush's national security policies hands Donald Trump a fully loaded weapon ," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero lamented.

Who cares if an ex-president belatedly cheers for transparency and accountability? Obama has never admitted how his policies made the federal government more dangerous at home and abroad. Nothing that Trump can do or say should be permitted to expunge Obama's derelictions.

James Bovard is author of " Attention Deficit Democracy ." Follow him on Twitter: @JimBovard .

Reprinted with author's permission from USAToday .

[Sep 29, 2018] "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Or put another way, individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America's severely malfunctioning political system.

Wade , says: September 24, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT

@Tyrion 2 Nice try. But to me this falls flat. First of all I don't think Ron has literally blamed Jews for all the world's evils any more than Southern Christians like me have been blamed for all the world's evils by Hollywood.

The issue is that Zionist leadership plays really dirty. And they are good at it. But having them in control of the West's media means that their negative impact on society goes unremarked upon while the positive things they do are trumpeted from the rooftops. We are allowed to notice Jewish power in relation to their main accomplishments, but we are referred to the nearest holocaust museum when we notice any negative impact that Jewish power has. It's one of the many wars on "noticing" the media is engaged in.

I don't see how all of this ends in mass pogroms, let alone a holocaust if you want my opinion. We're just hoping for a much overdue correction in perspective. Topics like Israel's founding and influence in US politics, The Holocaust, WWII and 911 are being desacralized so they can be discussed rationally, and that's good for everyone. Those who doubt Oswald was the lone assassin have been treated for decades with a smorgasbord of conspiracy theories about JFK ranging from Cuba and Castro, to anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, The Mafia, the KBG, the CIA all being cast as possible suspects, but not even once has Israel being fingered by anyone anywhere (except by the indefatigable Michael Collins Piper) as a possible suspect, even though they had as clear (or clearer) motives and opportunity than nearly anyone else. Why hasn't this possibility been more fully explored by JFK researchers? Everyone needs to know how much Israel has benefited from 911. Their role in this also needs to be explored much more by researchers and brought out into the open.

mark green , says: September 24, 2018 at 5:45 pm GMT
The Unz Review is a tremendous site. It attracts superior writers as well as commentators. And Ron Unz, fortunately, is untouchable. The ADL understands this. Better for them to remain silent. They want to keep you as obscure as possible. Thus, the silent treatment.

Thus, the MSM would rather talk about crude 'white power' sites than the perspicacious Unz Review. But you can bet, Ron, that they will pounce on you if given the opportunity.

Says Ron: "I do think [the ADL] may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what keeps them far, far away." That covers it. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the UNZ review grow in influence and readership.

[Sep 29, 2018] Why don't you try undergoing the torture he's been going through for the past 2 weeks? . His children youngest 10 had to be escorted out of the first hearing by security because the liberals were attacking them

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT

@PANCHO PERICO Why don't you try undergoing the torture he's been going through for the past 2 weeks? . His children youngest 10 had to be escorted out of the first hearing by security because the liberals were attacking them.

Big macho man Kavanaugh has more balls than you'll ever have. The liberals are hoping he'll withdraw from the nomination that's why they are terrorizing him and his family

I went through the same thing on 2 jobs as liberals constant attacked me to force me to resign. They lie and lie and lie again. And when you prove yourself innocent they lie again.

You've no idea the depths of vicious evil liberals will do to a person.

Skeptikal , says: September 29, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT
The Ford thing is a bit over the top.

But IMO K's problem is not Ford.

Kav's problem is Kav.

He was on the wrong side regarding torture. He is a man-bot.

He still looks like a smirky fratboy with a shit-eating grin,

He doesn't have the experience nor the gravitas to be on the SCOTUS.

That is his problem. Especially the SEG.

FYI, an SEG is when someone is willing to smile while eating shit, that is, do anything and make like it's AOK with them.

[Sep 29, 2018] Most Christians are not aware that in the latter part of the 16th century, early Lutheran Reformers close colleagues and followers of Martin Luther set in motion an eight year contact and correspondence with the (then) Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremias II of Constantinople.

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Cagey Beast , says: Website August 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

Seeing Orthodoxy and Martin Luther mentioned in the same place reminded me of the amusing history of early Lutheran contacts with the eastern Church:

Most Christians are not aware that in the latter part of the 16th century, early Lutheran Reformers -- close colleagues and followers of Martin Luther -- set in motion an eight year contact and correspondence with the (then) Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremias II of Constantinople. The outcome might have changed the course of Christian history. Kevin Allen speaks with scholar Dr Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs about this fascinating and largely unknown chapter in post-Reformation history.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

From Wittenberg to Antioch
September 16, 2007 Length: 32:12

A fascinating interview with Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian priest in Western Michigan. Fr. Gregory was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and professor for 22 years before coming to Orthodoxy.
[...]

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

Long story short, the western reformers were too argumentative and lawyerly for the Patriarch of Constantinople to take. He essentially said "please stop writing to me".

[Sep 29, 2018] Always remember the equally lurid "recovered memories" of UFO abduction survivors

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

El Dato says: September 29, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT

@Nicephorus

Great writing.

Always remember the equally lurid "recovered memories" of UFO abduction survivors. It's the same mush pulled out and reinjected into the hippocampus only in a form that is even harder to swallow.

One would think Psychologist Ford, who apparently needs one herself (a shrink, that is) would have some self-awareness about. Apparently not.

Unless it's really all about renting out her bedroom illegally.

[Sep 29, 2018] Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" exemplifies very well how the hysteria of girls can be so dangerous that innocent men can be made to suffer terrible if not fatal consequences.

Notable quotes:
"... Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" exemplifies very well how the hysteria of girls can be so dangerous that innocent men can be made to suffer terrible if not fatal consequences. ..."
"... In fact, the only allegation we hear is of "witch" "he sexually abused me". ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Dorian says: September 29, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT 400 Words History Repeats Itself: The Salem Witch Trials alla 2018

Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" exemplifies very well how the hysteria of girls can be so dangerous that innocent men can be made to suffer terrible if not fatal consequences.

Three hundred years later, the modern version of Abigail Williams, Christine Ford, with no facts, no evidence, no corroborative support other than other hysterical girls, with one finger pointing to John Proctor's modern portrayal played by a hapless Brett Kavanaugh, is found at the whim of a delusional embittered girl.

Like Abigail Williams, Christine Ford, with self loathing and hatred for any man, has found cold support from self-serving political leaders whom have nothing other than their own personal grandiose agendas for public glorification and self apotheosis. Like Reverend Samuel Paris, the wicked Feinstein and hypocritical sycophants like Booker, with their sanctimonious disregard for the rule of law and procedure of fact finding and procedural evidence, just as during Salem's hysteria cast supreme judgement on hollow words of a clearly embittered, delusional rantings of a wobabies (i.e. woman babies) whom can't even remember where, when, and what actually was done to them and to herself, Christine Ford. But like Abigail Williams, she is sure it was John Proctor, excuse me I mean Brett Kavanaugh.

In fact, the only allegation we hear is of "witch" "he sexually abused me". Ah if Abigail was so fortunate, as no doubt Abigail would find Ford to have been, maybe there would have been no Salem Witch Trials, and John Proctor would have lived. Like wise, maybe the truth here is that Ford whom admits to not being raped, is really embittered just for that!

But how can we know? Especially when, after 35 or more years of Ford's meteoritic incapacity to remember even where the house this occurred in, when this "sexual thing" happened. Abigail Williams would have done so much better today!

It has been over three hundred years since those unfaithful days of Salem, and here we find ourselves again, having to face the same vacuous allegations of embittered girls whom don't remember anything but that evil that was done by John Proctor and Brett Kavanaugh.

I think it is time for a new and updated version of The Crucible. With Christine Ford now playing Abigail Williams, and a devastated Kavanaugh the new Proctor. As for Reverend Paris, Senator Feinstein will do that role with great aplomb.

Three hundred years, and the United States of America is once again en-ravaged by the rantings of embittered girls that have been unable to grow up and deal with their own emotional short-comings. No wonder Ford is a psychologist, she's certifiably nuts!

[Sep 29, 2018] False memory syndrome and witch hunts based on it

I liked Christine Ford hearing as a textbook example of what is called "identity wedge" (by the way she comes from a family of lawyers). Lying is a troublesome endeavor for the liar. I looked at some commentary on YouTube abd some people's take on her behavior is the she was lying and was uncomfortable doing this even with so much couching. For me it was pretty convincing delivery, althouth timing is hugely suspect. Looks like Dr. Christine Ford is very psychologically troubled female personality indeed. Such people can be very dangerous. Some questions
-- Do you think we will see in our lifetime a good physical fight and punches in the floor or the Senate and/or House of representatives ? Or the Senate members are way too old for a good physical fight?
-- The country club is approximately 7 miles from any village. How she can leave by herself at night, as she has no car ?
-- Why neither she not her female companion reported the incident to police (which was "aggravated assault" type as her parent could explain to her) ?
-- As a Stanford psychologist was she involved in the Bush era program to torture prisoners?
-- Does Dr Ford tone remind you a corporate Human Resources Director who is scolding people for not showing up at the Diversity and Inclusion seminar?
t timing and the personality of the second assures really fascinating part of the story ? She probably might shed some light on the first. She was accused by two man of sexual harassment and as her counter-allegation were proved baseless was forced to leave the company, which she managed to defraud pretending illness ;-) Is no
Notable quotes:
"... On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price for this bitter learning experience ..."
"... What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational, educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse – most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers, or others. ..."
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Nicephorus , says: September 29, 2018 at 7:58 am GMT

We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.

But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.

What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational, educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse – most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers, or others.

Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.

The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.

It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses.

It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course. Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life.

The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine.

The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.

This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities, and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof. Masson.

Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.

This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely eliminated.

But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such, I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon has been nearly entirely disproved.

Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.

Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.

Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory, however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.

PiltdownMan , says: September 29, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT
A recovered memory from more than five decades ago.

Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along, often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money.

William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend.

The second William book is online.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17125/17125-h/17125-h.htm

Coemgen , says: September 29, 2018 at 10:35 am GMT
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.

Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?

MarkinLA , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.

She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. We also have the infamous letter where we are repeately reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nonody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to puch up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.

We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfreind and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't replusive physically and he was a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first base at the party. From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.

This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.

Clyde , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
@Anon

Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment

Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.

El Dato , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
@Wally She reminded me of Samantha Power, the one suffering for us on TV as she uses her Responsibility To Protect subscription to lay waste on whatever is currently the Death Star.

[Sep 29, 2018] True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness.

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT

@iffen

Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."

True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are.

[Sep 29, 2018] US forced to evacuate consulate in Iraq

Sep 29, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

span y gjohnsit on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:16pm Last week the Trump Administration ranted against OPEC because the Iranian sanctions are driving up oil prices .
That's called blowback.
Today we see the next level of blowback.

The State Department says the U.S. consulate in the southern Iraqi city of Basra is being evacuated following attacks blamed on Iran-backed militias. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad will provide full consular services for Basra and the surrounding area, the State Department said.

What's most notable is the reaction by US secretary of state Mike Pompeo.

US secretary of state Mike Pompeo directly threatened retaliation against Iran on Friday, after accusing Iranian forces of repeatedly directing attacks against US diplomatic facilities in Iraq.

"Iran should understand that the United States will respond promptly and appropriately to any such attacks," Mr Pompeo said in a statement, adding both the US consulate general in Basrah and the US embassy in Baghdad had been targeted.

Recently, #Iran -supported militias in Iraq launched rocket attacks against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and our consulate in Basra. We'll hold #Iran 's regime accountable for any attack on our personnel or facilities, and respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives. pic.twitter.com/nqbmogbeCA

-- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 25, 2018

What is happening in Iraq could lead directly to a proxy war with Iran in Iraq.
The Pentagon says U.S. forces will stay in Iraq "as long as needed". There are about 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq, versus about 100,000 Shia militiamen.

Pompeo is working with Saudi Arabia to form an anti-Iran coalition known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance.
As recently as April, the U.S. was telling those Shia militias were welcome in Iraq.
Last month those Shia militias threatened to attack foreign troops in Iraq if they didn't leave.

span y Amanda Matthews on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:59pm
The irony! It burnzzzzz

" Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a good neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."

span y jim p on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 10:55pm
Paging Mr Orwell...

"Iran-backed militias." That would be Iraqis, no? Is the ultimate plan then to, um, eliminate Iraq's Shia? I expect to hear, soon, that Iraqi Shia test their chemical weapons on children.

span y snoopydawg on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 11:24pm
Hypocrisy at its finest
The UN Charter calls for nations to "live together in peace with one another as good neighbors." Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a good neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."

Why the leaders of the rest of the world didn't walk out on Trump when he threatened other countries is beyond my comprehension. How much longer will they waste their citizen's lives and their money just because we told them to jump?

Remember when Obama said that "no country should have to tolerate bombs dropping on them from outside their borders?

[Sep 29, 2018] EU, UK, Russia, China Join Together To Dodge US Sanctions On Iran

I think those measure have implicit blessing from Washington, which realized how dangerous withdrawal of Iraq oil from the market can be for the USA economy
Sep 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York is a place where world leaders are able to hold important meetings behind closed doors. Russia, China, the UK, Germany, France, and the EU seized that opportunity on Sept. 24 to achieve a real milestone.

The EU, Russia, China, and Iran will create a special purpose vehicle (SPV), a "financially independent sovereign channel," to bypass US sanctions against Tehran and breathe life into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) , which is in jeopardy. "Mindful of the urgency and the need for tangible results, the participants welcomed practical proposals to maintain and develop payment channels, notably the initiative to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate payments related to Iran's exports, including oil," they announced in a joint statement. The countries are still working out the technical details. If their plan succeeds, this will deliver a blow to the dollar and a boost to the euro.

The move is being made in order to save the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. According to Federica Mogherini , High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the SPV will facilitate payments for Iran's exports, such as oil, and imports so that companies can do business with Tehran as usual. The vehicle will be available not just to EU firms but to others as well. A round of US sanctions aimed at ending Iranian oil exports is to take effect on November 5. Iran is the world's seventh-largest oil producer. Its oil sector accounts for 70% of the country's exports. Tehran has warned the EU that it should find new ways of trading with Iran prior to that date, in order to preserve the JCPOA.

The SPV proposes to set up a multinational, European, state-backed financial intermediary to work with companies interested in trading with Iran. Payments will be made in currencies other than the dollar and remain outside the reach of those global money-transfer systems under US control. In August, the EU passed a blocking statute to guarantee the immunity of European companies from American punitive measures. It empowers EU firms to seek compensation from the United States Treasury for its attempts to impose extra-territorial sanctions. No doubt the move will further damage the already strained US-EU relationship. It might be helpful to create a special EU company for oil exports from Iran.

Just hours after the joint statement on the SPV, US President Trump defended his unilateral action against Iran in his UNGA address . US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned the EU initiative , stating:

"This is one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional global peace and security."

To wit, the EU, Russia, and China have banded together in open defiance against unilateral steps taken by the US. Moscow and Beijing are in talks on how to combine their efforts to fend off the negative impacts of US trade tariffs and sanctions. A planned Sept 24-25 visit by Chinese Vice-Premier Liu, who was coming to the United States for trade talks, was cancelled as a result of the discord and President Trump added more fuel to the fire on Sept. 24 by imposing 10% tariffs on almost half of all goods the US imports from China. "We have far more bullets," the president said before the Chinese official's planned visit. "We're going to go US$200 billion and 25 per cent Chinese made goods. And we will come back with more." The US has recently imposed sanctions on China to punish it for the purchase of Russian S-400 air-defense systems and combat planes. Beijing refused to back down. It is also adamant in its desire to continue buying Iran's oil.

It is true, the plan to skirt the sanctions might fall short of expectations. It could fail as US pressure mounts. A number of economic giants, including Total, Peugeot, Allianz, Renault, Siemens, Daimler, Volvo, and Vitol Group have already left Iran as its economy plummets, with the rial losing two-thirds of its value since the first American sanctions took effect in May. The Iranian currency dropped to a record low against the US dollar this September.

What really matters is the fact that the leading nations of the EU have joined the global heavyweights -- Russia and China -- in open defiance of the United States.

This is a milestone event.

It's hard to underestimate its importance. Certainly, it's too early to say that the UK and other EU member states are doing a sharp pivot toward the countries that oppose the US globally, but this is a start - a first step down that path. This would all have seemed unimaginable just a couple of years ago - the West and the East in the same boat, trying to stand up to the American bully!

[Sep 29, 2018] The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , says: August 11, 2017 at 2:43 am GMT

@Jaakko Raipala

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power -- some of them acting idealistically -- some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

Sergey Krieger , says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 am GMT
@AP You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
Sergey Krieger , says: August 11, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT
@melanf Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom Isn,' t it obvious by now?

[Sep 29, 2018] Johann Ricke

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

melanf , says: August 11, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

@Miro23

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2″) is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/

" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment -- 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below -- 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion -- 765 180 people".

[Sep 29, 2018] Hopefully the FBI will investigate this collusion between Soros and the Democrats and Ms. Katz to influence the results of the judicial nomination process.

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

wren , says: September 29, 2018 at 10:37 am GMT

It seems that Flake was not only emotionally abused by those ladies in the elevator, he was played as well.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/women-screaming-at-flake-in-elevator-were-soros-funded-astroturfed-activist-leaders-not-sex-abuse-victims/

Hopefully the FBI will investigate this collusion between Soros and the Democrats and Ms. Katz to influence the results of the judicial nomination process.

[Sep 29, 2018] Graham was chosen to publicly throw a fit ecaquse he's inside-the-Beltway safe. He can huff and puff and talk tough on this hearing, precisely because the Establishment knows he'll never really go against them on issues like immigration or foreign policy.

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Digital Samizdat , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:15 pm GMT

If you don't know all the local issues and controversies -- and I'll admit I don't -- it makes the mid-terms hard to call.

In general–about 80% of the time–midterms go against a sitting president. But in this case, I agree with the Derb: I think the Dims are in a rude awakening.

It's nice that our Israeli embassy has been moved to Jerusalem

Nice? Speak for yourself!

It's nice that Senator Graham has found his high dudgeon at last. Now that he's found it, though, how long will it be before he turns it against immigration patriots?

That's probably the only reason Graham was chosen to publicly throw a fit: he's inside-the-Beltway safe. He can huff and puff and talk tough on this hearing, precisely because the Establishment knows he'll never really go against them on issues like immigration or foreign policy. Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? Remember how Arlen Specter was the Republican standard-bearer back then? Nuff said.

anon [317] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
@ advancedatheist It is difficult in these trying times to find good entertainers.

I thought confirmation hearings,were to test for qualifications required to be a Supreme?

Such things as ability to write, understanding of the complexities of the constitution, beliefs and past rulings, convictions about the bill of rights, and things like that? The Constitution is supposed to create the structure of government, authorize payment of fat salaries to 527 elected entertainers and limit the scope of the personal financial activities while in office. I can't image a confirmation hearing that would review the judicial history of the past rulings and professional activities of a candidate. The audience would not be interested to hear what those who practice law and interact with the candidate had to say about him and his legal abilities. When and in which tent are those hearings to begin?

Where are the opinions by Judge Kavanaugh? Why have they not been produced for inspection in the hearings? What does this man think? Why did Trump select Judge Kavanaugh to be a supreme? At the moment it looks like the the hearings have been conducted to cover for the attacks by Israel on Russian Airplanes in Syria. I can think of no other reason for such a circus?

What I have seen, heard and read describe another propaganda guided privately owned media production with side shows by two of the best known acts in circus life ( shows by the Gods of poop and by the Democraps were featured).

I still don't know anything about Judge Kavanaugh do you?

Charles Pewitt , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
I hereby claim that Lindsey Graham and Larry Kudlow are horrible whores for the GOP Cheap Labor Faction. Both Lindsey Graham and Larry Kudlow push wage-reducing open borders mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.

I also strongly suggest that Larry Kudlow and Lindsey Graham were big backers of the Iraq War debacle.

Larry Kudlow and Lindsey Graham both push sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams.

Larry Kudlow has no memory whatsoever of any guest ever at his house. Is Larry Kudlow a ruling class louse?

Trump brought on board his ship of state all sorts of louts such as Larry Kudlow, Gary Cohn, Steve Mnuchin, Nikki Haley, John Bolton and many other no good bastards. Trump invited the swamp into the White House.

Tweets from 2015:

[Sep 29, 2018] Anti-White-Male Kavanaugh Hatefest May Close Midterm Enthusiasm Gap -- And Get GOP Senators On The Trump Train! by John Derbyshir

Notable quotes:
"... Christine Ford has taken the false allegations racket a bit too far. She is probably lying, as how come she did not call 911 or file a police report if this happened? She comes from a family of lawyers. She has an army of attorneys who would have rushed and filed police reports and filed civil suits if any man had dared touch her. ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

advancedatheist , says: September 29, 2018 at 3:35 am GMT

I don't know about anyone else, but I found Dr. Gidget, the aging surfer girl with the vocal fry and the uptalk, just ridiculous and annoying.
Rational , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:21 am GMT
FBI SHOULD CHARGE CHRISTINE FORD FOR PERJURY.

Christine Ford has taken the false allegations racket a bit too far. She is probably lying, as how come she did not call 911 or file a police report if this happened? She comes from a family of lawyers. She has an army of attorneys who would have rushed and filed police reports and filed civil suits if any man had dared touch her.

That did not happen for 3 decades for one reason -- nothing happened on the night in question.

The Democrats, who are a criminal party, must have coached her and offered her a few 100K under the table, disguised as speaking fees, or scholarship, for manufacturing this racket.

PANCHO PERICO , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:25 am GMT
Kavanaugh has proved himself unfit for the position of supreme court justice. Under heavy fire, he has shown that he is a spineless coward, a crying baby incapable of fighting back like a man. Moreover, he is a total idiot.

What did he expect, that the baby killers were going to accept even the possibility of a supreme court justice who may vote to overturn Wade VS Roe and the end of Planned Parenthood? He has shown that this totally expected attack took him by surprise. What a fool!

Courage under fire? Call the Marines, but not Kavanaugh.

anon [694] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 5:17 am GMT

The key word there is of course "gentlemanly." Could any concept be more at odds with the zeitgeist than gentlemanliness? It's hard not to think there's a demographic dimension to this. That older style of courtesy, forbearance, and compromise that used to inform our politics was a white-European thing, perhaps particularly an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic thing.

I agree that politics in the US is coarsening like our pop culture and increasingly looking like 3rd world politics. This is where America is headed as we become more culturally enriched:

The neocons and neolibs has always been the indignant, end justifies the means crowd. Since Trump's election they've completely gone off the rails....

You're right about Trump being a big disappointment so far in immigration. Caving here and calling for an FBI investigation makes him look as stupid as Flake. Fat chance FBI will close it in a week. This is the same agency that gave us Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Page, the Steele Dossier, owned by Deep State and corrupt to the core. These GOP fools are once again playing right into the hands of the (((Dems))) – Feinstein, Blumenthal, Schumer and Ford's lawyer Bromwich, already complaining about the 'artificial timeline'. No one can ever outcon the financial elite.

[Sep 29, 2018] Rogue Nations, US, UK, France and Germany in Talks to Attack Warn-Torn, Heroic Syria Without Cause

Sep 29, 2018 | russia-insider.com

  • longfisher • 17 days ago ,

    My country is an utter disgrace in international affairs (US).

    The land of the free and the home of the brave doesn't live up to its billing by a very long shot.

    Under the guise of pursuing "national interests" it commits so many immoral crimes that I can't believe our leaders are even Americans, in the traditional, civics sense.

    JustBuzz longfisher • 17 days ago ,

    I agree longfisher. This is not the country I was raised to believe it is.

[Sep 29, 2018] The entire process is cynical. 45 Dems were going to vote against him regardless, This is all about peeling off a handful of votes.

Notable quotes:
"... The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable. ..."
"... Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty. ..."
"... In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not for it. ..."
"... As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence. ..."
"... First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never saw him at any party? ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [112] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT

@Ron Unz Ron .Think harder. First the entire process is cynical. 45 Dems were going to vote against him regardless, This is all about peeling off a handful of votes.

Its about black balling a SC nominee because something might have happened. Of course those 45 Dems could care less why they vote against him.

The Polygraph, to the extent it means anything, can only test if she believes it happened, And it was administered as paid for by her Lawyers.

As far as drinking, it is a tactic to increase FUD. If he ever drank to the extent his memory was ever hazy, he 'could've done anything and not remember it.

Finally, she volunteered herself. Its not like she was was identified as someone that was in Kavanaugh's circle. She may never have met him.

Finally, why was it so traumatic? Because he laughed? It is not unlikely that someone that fought off a drunken groping would actually felt empowered.

Rape is now a social construct entirely defined by women. Its their right to enjoy BSDM like that promoted in 50 Shades of Gray but more extreme. Yet it is weaponized. Its like being a commie or homo in the 1950s. Now 1950s commies and homos are celebrated. Traditional definitions of rape were stranger rape and it was a potential capital crime. Its been conflated to include what would have been considered bad manners.

In the Court System, there are enough due process safeguards to have forced College officials to set up their alternative adjudication procedures.

niteranger , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@Ron Unz

Sorry Ron the only people who believe polygraphs work is the industry trying to sell them. Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer passed them. So did Aldrich Ames our own Russian Mole spy. If a person believes something then her vitals like Ford may be in a certain range not to make the examiner find anything out of the ordinary. The polygraph theoretically measures the autonomic system response. Any nervousness, stress, blood pressure etc. can change whether the person is telling the truth or not.. I believe there have been people that have passed the test that claim they were abducted by Aliens and UFOs.

Ford's memories have little validity because these therapies often produce false memories and fill in the blank episodes. The Repubs should have asked her if she was on any drug or had taken drugs in the past. How much does she still drink because all of these could influence memories. Instead they became a door mat for the sick Me Too movement. Her memories could also be a form of release for guilt of her drugged laden sexual past which now lets her not blame herself. It was all of those drunken white guys who did it not me I am not responsible. Now I feel better.

anon [322] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:27 pm GMT
@Nicephorus Freud is a perfect representation of the Jewish obsession with all manners of sexual perversion. The man was seriously F in the head, a total fraud who plied his patients with cocaine and morphine then faked his test results...
FLgeezer , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:32 pm GMT
Does anyone among us think that the FBI that has vetted Judge Kavanaugh six times already won't turn up something on their seventh attempt? After all, DJT has been at war with them nearly since Inauguration Day and Rosenstein is still riding high...
El Dato , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:33 pm GMT
@MarkinLA I agree with the 100% Hollywood top-level construction.
Rogue , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:38 pm GMT
@Ron Unz I haven't followed the proceedings myself – apart from anything else I'm not American – but one of the blogs I follow is the Irish Savant and he has a short, punchy article about this affair if you're interested. I find him generally quite reliable – even though he's obviously quite annoyed in this particular posting, as opposed to his usual more laid-back and witty self.

http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2018/09/some-random-thoughts-on-kavanaugh.html

From my own point of view, she-said, he-said unsubstantiated stuff from people now in their 50′s, talking about stuff that happened in their mid to late teens, is just plain bonkers. Totalitarian states demand that the accused prove their innocence – I was under the impression that Western jurisprudence found you innocent until proven guilty. So is a mere allegation now considered proof?

Not a road we'd want to go down, surely. And there's probably good reasons why polygraph tests aren't accepted in law courts, as a circa 80% reliability just isn't good enough.

Hypnotoad666 , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT
@Ron Unz Her polygraph exam was a joke. She and her lawyer drafted a vague, one-page statement that does not say "Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape me."

The test-giver then asked her exactly one question, in two different ways: (1) Is your statement true? and (2) Did you make it up?

The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable.

Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty.

In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not for it.

P.S. It's also entirely possible that she failed a prior (more rigorous) exam, and they just threw it away and tried again. Because it is attorney work product they wouldn't have had to disclose that.

P.P.S. I wish I knew how to grab and paste a link from my phone, but a copy of her polygraph report with the written statements and examination questions is easily findable online if anyone wants to see it.

anon [322] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Deschutes

I am pro-choice and anti-gun, Kavanaugh is not at all my ideal judge. But truth and fairness is much more important than my personal views on social issues.

I watched the trial with an open mind, and I came away thinking that the whole thing was a farce, an embarrassment not just to Ford and Kavanaugh, but to all of Congress and the entire country. This is a hearing that never should've been in public, it should've been in private between the two parties, but Democrats clearly manipulated the situation and wanted to use it to destroy an innocent man whose only crime is harboring certain political views that they disagree with. It is pure evil.

Ford probably had been groped or worse treated in her youth, partly thanks to her own hard partying lifestyle(according to her yearbook she was a popular cheerleader with a reputation for hard partying and chasing boys), but she's got the wrong man in Kavanaugh, and her accusations are at least partially politically motivated. All 3 people she named as witnesses, incl. her best friend, swore under oath that such a party never even took place. What she has is a bullshit case.

As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence.

The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for such foul play, they are an embarrassment to the whole country. Honor and integrity no longer matters to the left. They have lost all sense of decency in their quest to hold on to power. The end justifies the means. Flake the idiot needs to go ESAD.

anon [322] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@Dan Good

Most of us would probably be far more upset if we were wrongly accused by a bunch of crazy women whose only goal was to prevent us from getting that one job we worked our whole lives for.

I am a woman and I think Ford lied through her teeth while Kavanaugh told the truth, and I don't even like Kavanaugh's politics. Not a single witness she named corroborated her story. She came across as someone who had one too many drinks in her life.

anon [322] Disclaimer , says: September 29, 2018 at 9:13 pm GMT
@Ron Unz

First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never saw him at any party?

Second, even if this all did happen, which is a big IF, they were both underage. We're talking about a bunch of teenagers here. He groped but did not rape her. Who among us have not done stupid things we wish we hadn't done when we were young and stupid? Judge the man for who he is today, not who he was when he was a kid. There's a reason why we allow people to expunge their juvenile records when they reach 18.

This whole trial is a FARCE, an embarrassment to the whole country.

Ron Unz , says: September 29, 2018 at 9:14 pm GMT
Well, here's my impression of a possible "bare-bones" version of the incident

At an unsupervised suburban pool party, a couple of drunken teenage football players pulled a girl into a bedroom, pawed at her a little while they were laughing, then let her run away. Since they knew they hadn't had the slightest intent of gang-raping her, they didn't regard what happened as being a big deal. However, it's quite possible that the 15-year-old girl had actually been pretty scared, and she long remembered it.

Doesn't she claim she mentioned it to people years before Kavanaugh was nominated for the SC? Didn't Mike Judge write a whole book about how he had spent years in crude drunken misbehavior? Isn't he currently hiding so that he can't be called as a sworn witness?

Also, isn't Kavanaugh now claiming he remained a virgin all through HS and college or something like that? Given that he and his friend Judge were drunken jocks and his yearbook was filled with all sorts of crude sexual humor, is that really plausible?

I suspect that administering official polygraphs to Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge would soon clear up the facts. We're not talking about trained spies or anything. And three polygraphs would probably increase the likelihood of a solid result.

Since I haven't watched the hearings or paid much attention to the story, maybe some of the above material is just erroneous. But offhand, I think it's more plausible than claiming this is all part of a CIA plot.

Whether this is a good test of Supreme Court Justices is entirely a different story

[Sep 29, 2018] Ford already has a couple of GoFundMe accounts that have already racked up $ 700,000. Of course, the 6-7 figure book deal will follow.

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mr. Anon , says: September 29, 2018 at 5:47 pm GMT

@Rational

The Democrats, who are a criminal party, must have coached her and offered her a few 100K under the table, disguised as speaking fees, or scholarship, for manufacturing this racket.

It isn't under the table – it's over it. She has a couple of GoFundMe accounts that have already racked up $ 700,000. Of course, the 6-7 figure book deal will follow.

[Sep 29, 2018] And no I don't believe that preposterous [to think that] Blasey [is CIA] operative. She and her whole family work for the CIA.

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Cleaner says: September 29, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT

The FBI is about to investigate something that didn't happen somplace on some uncertain day in 1982 to see if someone did something that contradicts a large body of evidence that shows this would be totally out of character. This is considered rational thought in the public space!

I'm sorry you could not account for Graham's outburst. I thought it the only honest thing any of the Senators did. It makies me think less of you that you didn't see the outrage of the whole presumption that this could even be discussed.

And no I don't believe that preposterous [to think that] Blasey [is CIA] operative. She and her whole family work for the CIA.

longfisher , says: September 29, 2018 at 5:39 pm GMT

Jones is circulating what many may call a conspiracy theory that Ford's father is a previous CIA operative and a heavy-weight in arranging many avenues for the CIA to launder illicit money. He implies that this was a classic CIA op.

He doesn't say so directly in anything I've read, although I don't read everything he writes or listen to everything he says. But he clearly implies this.

Trump is at war with the IC. So, it's not unimaginable that such a thing is happening.

[Sep 29, 2018] "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Or put another way, individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America's severely malfunctioning political system.

[Sep 29, 2018] How the USA will look in 50 years from now?

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Dorian , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:57 pm

what will society be like 50 years from now? I posit:

- Man and women will now have to be chaperoned when they are together when they meet (hmm I do believe Islam has that covered).

- Man and women will not be allowed to be in the same room together (for you never know what could happen, right!) (Hmm I do believe that Islam has that covered too!)

- Men will no longer be able to look lustfully at a women, that could be construed as assault! (Hmmm women will have to dress less provocatively – wow – Islam has that covered too it appears there is a trend here!

[Sep 29, 2018] Why witch hunts occurred in New England not in the South of mid-Atlantic colonies

Notable quotes:
"... How come the guys in the Southern and mid-Atlantic colonies didn't feel the need to accuse raucous women of being witches in order to get them back to their senses? ..."
"... I can imagine Southern or mid-Atlantic colonial men would tell the misbehaving women to knock off the nonsense or they might tell the women to stop bothering them while they're drinking ale. ..."
Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Charles Pewitt , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT

@Iberiano

With more to come this is just the beginning (similar to the actual Salem witch accounts, which grew over time)

How come the guys in the Southern and mid-Atlantic colonies didn't feel the need to accuse raucous women of being witches in order to get them back to their senses?

Hackett Fischer readers might say the colonists and settlers came from different parts of England and different parts of England treated women differently.

I can imagine Southern or mid-Atlantic colonial men would tell the misbehaving women to knock off the nonsense or they might tell the women to stop bothering them while they're drinking ale.

You don't go overboard and accuse women of being witches just because the uproarious broads are getting on your nerves.

Hillary Clinton is too evil to be a witch, she is a demon sent from Hell to destroy us, men and women alike.

Iberiano , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Charles Pewitt I almost thought that was a rehearsal for one of those one-man plays, off broadway.

[Sep 29, 2018] Kavanagh apparently never saw a Stasi-style privacy invasion he didn't like

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ronald Thomas West , says: Website September 29, 2018 at 4:57 pm GMT

@Ronald Thomas West And this

https://www.sott.net/article/397145-MSM-uses-the-Kavanaugh-sex-scandal-to-distract-from-the-real-reason-he-shouldnt-be-appointed

Kavanagh apparently never saw a Stasi-style privacy invasion he didn't like

[Sep 29, 2018] Maybe somebody will explain to me why Senator Flake needed Kavanaugh's scalp.

Sep 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

EdwardM , says: September 29, 2018 at 3:23 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

Maybe somebody will explain to me why Flake needed Kavanaugh's scalp.

Two reasons:

(1) A nice f-u to Trump. This is inconsistent with the principles of any conservative for whom the Supreme Court is a paramount issue regardless of any personal feelings about the nominator or nominee, but of course that apparent contradiction answers itself.

(2) Tried-and-true grandstanding to obtain the admiration of the MSM. Of course this never works for very long, but Republicans keep trying. Flake has to prepare for his post-Congress career, possibly another run for office as an independent, or at least various sinecures that are available only to those in polite society. Maybe his "best friend" Sen. Coons even offered him something tangible in this regard.

Art Deco , says: September 29, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
@EdwardM Disagree. This is an F-U to the Republican base in Arizona. His fundraising campaign to fight a Republican primary in Arizona failed and (I'm reliably told) Republican voters were leaving scathing insults on the Facebook page he'd set up. He's in the soup because he hasn't the training or experience to practice law or work in business. One might also guess that he's ticked-off people on Capitol Hill as well, which damages his marketability to K Street. Gary Condit was trying to earn a living after 2002 running a Baskin & Robbins franchise. Flake may be in a rage that that's where he's headed
Mr. Anon , says: September 29, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

The way I get it Flake is retiring at the end of the year. So why not derail his party's Supreme Court Nominee on his way out?

Flake will probably go on to be a lobbyist – they all do. He will trade on his connection to his former collegues in the Senate, especially the Republican ones.

If the GOP were serious about smash-mouth politics, they could tell Flake this: You vote for Kavanaugh, you prick, or you and all your staffers – we've made a list – will be persona-non-grata in our offices for the rest of your natural life. Our doors will be closed to you. Your market value as a lobbyist will be quite a bit less than you thought it would be.

That's what the GOP would do if a.) they were smart, and b.) they weren't mostly a bunch of corrupt hacks. Of course, a.) they aren't, and b.) they are.

MarkinLA , says: September 29, 2018 at 6:08 pm GMT
@Art Deco I think his family has a lot of land in Arizona and is in farming or ranching or both. I vaguely remember in one of his stories to support illegal immigration him mentioning a boyhood illegal alien friend.

Of course, his wife may have gotten used to DC parties and she doesn't want to go back.

[Sep 28, 2018] What Russia could do to protect herself in this new era of potentially violent struggle for resources

Sep 28, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

steven t johnson , Sep 28, 2018 5:39:39 PM | 53 ">link

ashley albanese@26 says

Putin wrote about "what Russia could do to protect herself in this new era of potentially violent struggle for resources."

The violent struggle for resources will not be the impoverished rabble nations mobbing the rich nations: It will be the rich nations keeping their riches at the expense of the poorer nations. That is, it will be pretty much the US foreign policy where there is no hegemony but a glorious free-for-all of independent states supposedly protecting themselves. When Bangla Desh destabilizes because of sea level rise, it will be India attacking them. Putin is opposed to any international authority. He wants a world where the strong nations can exercise their leadership over weaker nations without interference from a hegemonic power. This is not the problem.

The problem is the US, the current hegemonic power, is the fortress of a decayed empire that can no longer move forward. It can only maintain itself by looting a series of weaker nations. The terror of destruction supports the US role in the world. The dollar is based on blood, not gold the declining economic power of the US cannot earn. But, Putin is not an enemy of this decadence. He is not even an enemy of the flagrant fascism of the Kyiv government!

[Sep 28, 2018] EU, Russia, and China Unveil New System to Bypass US Sanctions on Iran

Notable quotes:
"... This system has been in place for decades, for instance any company dealing with Cuba that is listed on the US stock exchange, or operates in America or trades with American companies can be sanctioned, moreover any financial institution will be sanctioned for dealing with a blacklisted country - if the trade is in Dollars and/or the Financial institution is active in the US. ..."
"... This system is pretty solid, it can only be broken by a combination of alternatives and active countermeasures, like sanctions and freezing assets. ..."
Sep 28, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Franklin Wisman • a day ago ,

Going off Petodollar and evading Iran sanctions is best. Only a multi-polar world works and the US proven crazed so it must be avoided first.

wilmers13 • a day ago ,

I hope it works. It reminds me of the bartering which the Soviet Union did in the 1960s. Many things can work if there is goodwill on all sides.

Franklin Wisman wilmers13 • a day ago ,

Hitler's economy boomed under commodity barter. Best to get out of and piss off the IMF and BIS.

P.S. To all - I just love how blocked users get pissed at my posts and am so glad not to see their inane Tallmudic-Satanic responses!

The Man Franklin Wisman • a day ago ,

I've blocked a few users and then unblocked them because I missed their "Talmudic-Satanic" responses (as you wisely put it)... in particular, that Jew-lackey troll, Tommy 'Tit' Jensen!

Mychal Arnold The Man • a day ago ,

Tommy is bought and has no original thoughts!

The Man Mychal Arnold • 15 hours ago ,

Absolutely... we haven't heard from the dirty Yankee Jew troll lackey in a long time. Maybe the Jooz are reprogramming the idiot because he's as effective as 'shite'!

Franklin Wisman The Man • a day ago ,

'Avoid the the devil' is a good motto. Here's some reference for ya re their Satanic intents.
https://www.henrymakow.com/...

Simulacra Franklin Wisman • a day ago ,

The German barter system is claimed by some to have contributed directly to the outbreak of WW2.

We tend to forget that Germany was being sanctioned and just like today noble reasons were used to justify these sanctions, but not all is what it seems to be if you dig a little deeper.

Germany challenged the Anglo-American financial system, just like today Russia and others are again challenging the Anglo-American financial system (with the emphasis moved from the former to the latter).

The US and its junior partner (who loves to stir up trouble as witnessed the UK's role in numerous little and big fires) won't give up with a fight though... maybe even the big one as both have to face existential threats to their regime and dominance.

Simulacra wilmers13 • a day ago ,

The world can no longer accept this rule by diktat from US Congress, it openly undermines national governments and is nothing less than economic blackmail and extortion of friend and foe alike.

If this independent clearinghouse is successful it will open the possibility to trade and do business again with Cuba and Venezuela as well.

That said, Washington will certainly target ANY company that is traded on the US stock exchange, operates on US soil or with US companies to comply with US law. Most internationally operating institutions will thus remain under "control" of US policy makers.

But at least it is a signal that even "friendly" Europe is losing its patience.

The Man wilmers13 • a day ago ,

Working against a common Satanic Zionist enemy, I hope it does work and the benefits of creating such a system will pave the way for the destruction of the US dollar and then the US.

Franklin Wisman The Man • 14 hours ago ,

The common, brainwashed people you forget. Think of me here - not common but not to the level of PCR either - but CONSTANTLY contacting all Reps. on the Hill, outing their lies and informing others. You would have me, an ally,destroyed along w/ignorant, manipulated creatures.

Simulacra • a day ago ,

Good signal, but as long as congress can punish international companies for doing business with sanctioned countries it will be of limited effect.

Any company listed on the US stock exchange, operating in the US or dealing with US companies or even citizens is target of sanctions.

This is a very effective straight jacket and Washington is fully aware of this as they apply their instruments of international blackmail and economic coercion. War by any other means.

Failure to comply can lead up to fines of BILLIONS of Dollars.

Only the largest multinationals - predominantly in the energy or weapons business - will defy the US as can be seen with Nordstream 2 - but that battle is far from being over.

So alternative clearing alone is not enough, to stop this abuse of economic and legaslative power, there must be a international mechanism to counter the fines given to international companies defying the US sanctions. If need be by counter fines or freezing US assets abroad.

richardstevenhack • a day ago ,

The EU is essentially reinventing the Arab hawala system. Nice. If other countries get the notion, US sanctions may be rendered useless worldwide. In other words, the US has shot itself in the foot again by over-using its sanctions policy.

tonylane • a day ago ,

it might be a Good Idea To Exercise caution Regarding the EU, Because the US Originally Created the EU so that they could push through Sanctions Against Russia Using the Unelected Bureaucrats Who are the Parasite's of the Union, because there maybe another way that they can cover the Demise of the Dirty Dollar,

General Sherman • a day ago ,

Mr. Peabody said I have a really, really big brain so I invented this time machine to take the world back to...... View Hide

Crypto • a day ago ,

The problem is not just the banks. Trump has vowed to sanction companies doing business in Iran directly. This means stopping them doing business with the US. Will Total and Airbus change their mind and go back into Iran when it means they will be shut out of the US market? I doubt it.

Simulacra Crypto • 19 hours ago ,

This system has been in place for decades, for instance any company dealing with Cuba that is listed on the US stock exchange, or operates in America or trades with American companies can be sanctioned, moreover any financial institution will be sanctioned for dealing with a blacklisted country - if the trade is in Dollars and/or the Financial institution is active in the US.

This system is pretty solid, it can only be broken by a combination of alternatives and active countermeasures, like sanctions and freezing assets.

The world cannot allow a single country to have such a stranglehold on international trade and relations, it is a textbook example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

Trump seems to embrace the concept of full spectrum dominance. America ueber alles.

Clarty Crypto • a day ago ,

why can't airbus sell their planes to another company(s) who then sells to Iran maybe rebadged

Andrew • 15 hours ago ,

Germany needs to kick Merkel out, the United States, and all of her friends from Africa, and the Middle East then establish an iron bond with Russia.

[Sep 28, 2018] GOP Betrayal The Cross Examination That Never Was by Ilana Mercer

Why come forward with this after 35 years ?
Notable quotes:
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
Sep 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

anastasia , says: September 28, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT

They were too afraid of the women's movement, and therefore could not bring themselves to challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the prosecutors questions which did not have the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by the democrats to the honoree.

But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later and expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips – all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to see.

She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently needed explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to explain her inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later politicized the confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her several go fund me sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.

She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to remain anonymous.

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website September 28, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
As a foreign observer, I watched the whole hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will do everything to prevent his confirmation. They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford, not to speak of the other two disgraceful women that prostituted themselves for base motives. Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which seemed to make a great impression on the CCN tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks of the hearing committee. It was a great TV-propaganda frame.

Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15, and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after the "incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as it is. Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American youths should not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of Penn for my M.A. degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great experience. Every weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed around like hell. Nobody made a big fuss out of it.

On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions and accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which only happens in totalitärian states.

Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth and humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in advance of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham with his outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.

animalogic , says: September 28, 2018 at 7:31 am GMT
@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence, men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
streamfortyseven , says: September 28, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable. Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM&#8221 ;

Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive, because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas – because that's what those people are."

and that's my opinion of this charade.

Jake , says: September 28, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.

... .. ...

mike k , says: September 28, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
QuasiQuasimodo , says: September 28, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person, but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement, wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
QuasiQuasimodo , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that mold, IMHO.

One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e., molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:06 pm GMT
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself. No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
Swan , says: September 28, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT
@anastasia I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate.
jleiland , says: September 28, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist. Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.

It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking bleak.

Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.

bj , says: September 28, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
APilgrim , says: September 28, 2018 at 3:02 pm GMT
Christine Ford is a PROVEN delusional, psychopathic liar.

Senate Democrats are OUTED, for the Machiavellian SHl1ts they are.

Trump WINS AGAIN!

pyrrhus , says: September 28, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
nickels , says: September 28, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.

https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI

[Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should believe.

We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt, while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.

If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.

This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest, at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are forms of power.

Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media, the political class, and the security services.

But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate.

Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth and success depend.

And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.

Narrative control

It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you.

It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.

It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon.

But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it.

Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see – structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.

The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination.

No questions about Skripals

One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.

I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury to kill the Skripals.

What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too.

That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider such as Craig Murray.

A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's pocket.

That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised – like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.

And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.

Ripples on a lake

Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.

It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals.

That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities – celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.

News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.

Up against the screen

If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system – neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth, the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.

Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.

But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.

These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.

In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.

Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind.

A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.

Assumptions of inevitability

Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.

Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.

David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being aware that they are conspiring in the system.

The first :

When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society – tend to respond to events in the same way.

The second :

Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.

The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive.

Our place in the pyramid

In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.

And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands.

All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms manufacturers.

And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist, dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin, pro-Assad, a Marxist.

None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.

In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back from the screen, and see the whole picture.

Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a decade ago?

Profit, not ethics

Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.

The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow.

And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group, any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.

If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed for us.

Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future you wish for your grand-children.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is http://www.jonathan-cook.net/

[Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

Highly recommended!
Sep 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
james , Sep 26, 2018 10:19:13 PM | link

Pft , Sep 26, 2018 9:58:02 PM | link

In my own words then. According to Cook the power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

Since they do not actually want change they find actors who pretend to represent change , which is in essence fake change. These then are their insurgent candidates

Trump serves the power elite , because while he appears as an insurgent against the power elite he does little to change anything

Trump promotes his fake insurgency on Twitter stage knowing the power elite will counter any of his promises that might threaten them

As an insurgent candidate Trump was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of Syria. He wanted good relations with Russia. He wanted to fix the health care system, rebuild infrastructure, scrap NAFTA and TTIPS, bring back good paying jobs, fight the establishment and Wall Street executives and drain the swamp. America First he said.

Trump the insurgent president , has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched US missiles at Syria, relations with Russia are at Cold War lows, infrastructure is still failing, the percentage of people working is now at an all time low in the post housewife era, he has passed tax cuts for the rich that will endanger medicare, medicaid and social security and prohibit infrastructure spending, relaxed regulations on Wall Street, enhanced NAFTA to include TTIPS provisions and make US automobiles more expensive, and the swamp has been refilled with the rich, neocons , Koch associates, and Goldman Sachs that make up the power elites and Deep State Americas rich and Israel First

@34 pft... regarding the 2 cook articles.. i found they overly wordy myself... however, for anyone paying attention - corbyn seems like the person to vote for given how relentless he is being attacked in the media... i am not so sure about trump, but felt cook summed it up well with these 2 lines.. "Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched US missiles at Syria." i get the impression corbyn is legit which is why the anti-semitism keeps on being mentioned... craig murrary is a good source for staying on top of uk dynamics..

Piotr Berman , Sep 26, 2018 10:23:41 PM | link

For Trump to be "insurgent" he should

(a) talk coherently
(b) have some kind of movement consisting of people that agree with what is says -- that necessitates (a)

Then he could staff his Administration with his supporters rather than a gamut of conventional plutocrats, neocons, and hacks from the Deep State (intelligence, FBI and crazies culled from Pentagon). As it is easy to see, I am describing an alternate reality. Who is a Trumpian member of the Administration? His son-in-law?

karlof1 , Sep 26, 2018 11:42:43 PM | link
Pft @34--

Yes. just like Obama before him--another snake in the swamp!

Pft , Sep 27, 2018 12:53:59 AM | link
Karlof1@39

The swamps been filled with all kinds of vile creatures since the Carter administration. This is when the US/UK went full steam ahead with neoliberal globalism with Israel directing the war on terror for the Trilateral Empire (following Bibis Jerusalem conference so as to fulfill the Yinon plan). 40 years of terror and financial mayhem following the coup that took place from 1963-1974. After Nixons ouster they were ready to go once TLC Carter/Zbig kicked off the Trilateral era. Reagan then ran promising to oust the TLC swamp but broke his promise, as every President has done since .

div>
">link
">link

[Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should believe.

We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt, while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.

If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.

This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest, at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are forms of power.

Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media, the political class, and the security services.

But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate.

Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth and success depend.

And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.

Narrative control

It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you.

It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.

It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon.

But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it.

Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see – structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.

The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination.

No questions about Skripals

One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.

I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury to kill the Skripals.

What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too.

That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider such as Craig Murray.

A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's pocket.

That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised – like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.

And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.

Ripples on a lake

Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.

It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals.

That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities – celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.

News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.

Up against the screen

If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system – neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth, the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.

Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.

But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.

These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.

In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.

Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind.

A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.

Assumptions of inevitability

Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.

Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.

David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being aware that they are conspiring in the system.

The first :

When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society – tend to respond to events in the same way.

The second :

Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.

The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive.

Our place in the pyramid

In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.

And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands.

All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms manufacturers.

And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist, dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin, pro-Assad, a Marxist.

None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.

In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back from the screen, and see the whole picture.

Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a decade ago?

Profit, not ethics

Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.

The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow.

And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group, any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.

If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed for us.

Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future you wish for your grand-children.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is http://www.jonathan-cook.net/

[Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

Highly recommended!
Sep 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
james , Sep 26, 2018 10:19:13 PM | link

Pft , Sep 26, 2018 9:58:02 PM | link

In my own words then. According to Cook the power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

Since they do not actually want change they find actors who pretend to represent change , which is in essence fake change. These then are their insurgent candidates

Trump serves the power elite , because while he appears as an insurgent against the power elite he does little to change anything

Trump promotes his fake insurgency on Twitter stage knowing the power elite will counter any of his promises that might threaten them

As an insurgent candidate Trump was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of Syria. He wanted good relations with Russia. He wanted to fix the health care system, rebuild infrastructure, scrap NAFTA and TTIPS, bring back good paying jobs, fight the establishment and Wall Street executives and drain the swamp. America First he said.

Trump the insurgent president , has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched US missiles at Syria, relations with Russia are at Cold War lows, infrastructure is still failing, the percentage of people working is now at an all time low in the post housewife era, he has passed tax cuts for the rich that will endanger medicare, medicaid and social security and prohibit infrastructure spending, relaxed regulations on Wall Street, enhanced NAFTA to include TTIPS provisions and make US automobiles more expensive, and the swamp has been refilled with the rich, neocons , Koch associates, and Goldman Sachs that make up the power elites and Deep State Americas rich and Israel First

@34 pft... regarding the 2 cook articles.. i found they overly wordy myself... however, for anyone paying attention - corbyn seems like the person to vote for given how relentless he is being attacked in the media... i am not so sure about trump, but felt cook summed it up well with these 2 lines.. "Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched US missiles at Syria." i get the impression corbyn is legit which is why the anti-semitism keeps on being mentioned... craig murrary is a good source for staying on top of uk dynamics..

Piotr Berman , Sep 26, 2018 10:23:41 PM | link

For Trump to be "insurgent" he should

(a) talk coherently
(b) have some kind of movement consisting of people that agree with what is says -- that necessitates (a)

Then he could staff his Administration with his supporters rather than a gamut of conventional plutocrats, neocons, and hacks from the Deep State (intelligence, FBI and crazies culled from Pentagon). As it is easy to see, I am describing an alternate reality. Who is a Trumpian member of the Administration? His son-in-law?

karlof1 , Sep 26, 2018 11:42:43 PM | link
Pft @34--

Yes. just like Obama before him--another snake in the swamp!

Pft , Sep 27, 2018 12:53:59 AM | link
Karlof1@39

The swamps been filled with all kinds of vile creatures since the Carter administration. This is when the US/UK went full steam ahead with neoliberal globalism with Israel directing the war on terror for the Trilateral Empire (following Bibis Jerusalem conference so as to fulfill the Yinon plan). 40 years of terror and financial mayhem following the coup that took place from 1963-1974. After Nixons ouster they were ready to go once TLC Carter/Zbig kicked off the Trilateral era. Reagan then ran promising to oust the TLC swamp but broke his promise, as every President has done since .

div>
">link
">link

[Sep 27, 2018] The Trap Failed - Rosenstein Neither Fired Nor Resigned

Notable quotes:
"... My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the media imho to also take heat off Mueller. ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
BM , Sep 26, 2018 12:04:25 PM | link

Last Friday the New York Times published a story that reflected negatively on the loyalty of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein towards President Trump. Rosenstein, the NYT claimed, suggested to wiretap Trump and to remove him by using the 25th amendment. Other news reports contradicted the claim and Rosenstein himself denied it.

The report was a trap to push Trump towards an impulsive firing of the number two in the Justice Department, a repeat of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre . The Democrats would have profited from such an ' October surprise ' in the November 6 midterm elections. A campaign to exploit such a scandal to get-out-the-votes was already well prepared .

The trap did not work. The only one who panicked was Rosenstein. He feared for his reputation should he get fired. To prevent such damage he offered to resign amicably. He tried this at least three times:

By Friday evening, concerned about testifying to Congress over the revelations that he discussed wearing a wire to the Oval Office and invoking the constitutional trigger to remove Mr. Trump from office, Mr. Rosenstein had become convinced that he should resign, according to people close to him. He offered during a late-day visit to the White House to quit, according to one person familiar with the encounter, but John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, demurred.
...
Also over the weekend, Mr. Rosenstein again told Mr. Kelly that he was considering resigning. On Sunday, Mr. Rosenstein repeated the assertion in a call with Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel. Mr. McGahn -- [...] -- asked Mr. Rosenstein to postpone their discussion until Monday.
...
By about 9 a.m. Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was in his office on the fourth floor of the Justice Department when reporters started calling. Was it true that Mr. Rosenstein was planning to resign, they asked.
...
At the White House the deputy attorney general slipped into a side entrance to the West Wing and headed to the White House counsel's office to meet with Mr. McGahn, who had by then been told by Mr. Kelly that Mr. Rosenstein was on his way and wanted to resign.

McGhan punted the issue back to Kelly and finally Rosenstein spoke with Trump. Trump did not fire him nor did he resign. It is now expected that he will stay until the end of the year or even longer :

President Trump told advisers he is open to keeping Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on the job, and allies of the No. 2 Justice Department official said Tuesday he has given them the impression he doesn't plan to quit.

The trap did not work. Neither did Trump panic nor did the White House allow the panicking Rod Rosenstein to pull the trigger. The people who set this up, by leaking some dubious FBI memo to the NYT , did not achieve their aims.

There are only six weeks left until the midterm elections. What other October surprises might be planned by either side?

Posted by b on September 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

This account gives an interesting twist, that Trump wants to keep Rosenstein as leverage.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/26/rosenstein-vs-mccabe/

BM , Sep 26, 2018 12:04:25 PM | link

Adrian E. , Sep 26, 2018 12:22:47 PM | link
I think it is not in the interest of Trump to do anything that could look like hampering the Mueller investigation. It might be in his interest to try to force Mueller to show what he has bevore the midterm elections, but that could also be seen as a form of hampering.

I think there are already lots of indications that the whole Russiagate collusion story was fabricated. The messages between Peter Strzok und Lisa Page point towards this direction, and it seems that different stories that were used for Russiagate were connected.

It seems that the Steele dossier played a crucial role for getting warrants for spying on the Trump campaign and for starting the media campaign about Trump-Russia "collusion". Obviously, the Steele dossier is a rather implausible conspiracy theory (allegedly, Russia made preparations for Trump's candidacy years earlier when hardly anyone thought Trump would have the slightest chance of being nominated by a major party), contains no evidence for the allegations, and the elements that can be verified are either banal and don't show collusion or they are false (e.g. Trump's lawyer going to Prague, it seems he has an alibi, and there are leaks that there was another person named Michael Cohen, without a connection to Trump, who flew to Prague, so Steele probably had access to flight data, but did not do further verifications).

A further strand of "Russiagate" is the story around Papadopoulos. First, it should be noted that it hardly shows foreknowledge of the DNC leaks when someone may have speculated that Russia may have e-mails from Hillary Clinton - at that time, the deleted mails from Clinton's private server were talked about a lot, and one of the concerns that was often mentioned was that Clinton's private server may have been hacked by Russia or China. None of the versions of what Papadopoulos was allegedly told by Mifsud and told Downer specifically mention DNC or Podesta e-mails. Second, the people involved had close connections to Western intelligence services. Mifsud had close ties with important EU institutions and was connected with educational institutions used by Western intelligence agencies (mainly Italian, British, FBI). If he really was a Russian spy, there would have been larger consequences, and the FBI would hardly have let him go after questioning him. According to a book by Roh and Pastor who have known Mifsud for a long time, he denies having told Papadopoulos anything about damaging material about Hillary Clinton (Mifsud also said that in an interview), and Mifsud suspects Papadopoulos of being a provocateur of Western intelligence services - Papadopoulos forcefully tried to create connections between the Trump campaign and Russians, but both sides were not willing to go along (a representative of a Russian think tank which Papadopoulos asked to invite Trump answered that the Trump campaign should send an official request, which never followed). Papadopoulos was in (probably frequent) contact with FBI informer Stefan Halper, and it may be that Papadopoulos was an unwitting provocateur because of events Stefan Halper arranged. The Australian diplomat Downer has connections to the Clinton foundation (he helped arranging large payments by Australia) and Western secret services. Third, what has exactly been said by whom is disputed. As mentioned, Mifsud denies mentioning anything about damaging material on Hillary Clinton to Papadopoulos (the only one who claims this is Papadopoulos), and Papadopoulos denies mentioning e-mails to Downer. It seems, Papadopoulos were only half-willing participants in the setup arranged by Stefan Halper whose goal was to have some background for the message that could be received from Downer. Papadopoulos' wife has shared a picture of Stefan Halper and Downer together, which also fits the idea that this story was set up by FBI informant Halper with Downer.

The visit of the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya was arranged by Fusion GPS, and she met with him before and after the meeting she met with Glen Simpson.

Of course, we are just in the beginning, there is certainly enough concrete material for starting an investigation (unlike with the alleged Trump-Russia collusion), but many details are still open. Those who presumably set up the collusion story went from offensive to defensive, even if that might not be clear if someone reads particularly biased media. Now, the time until the midterms certainly is not enough for conducting and concluding such an investigation. But it should be enough for unclassifying and publishing some documents that shed further light on these events.

The time for more decisive action against those who set up Russiagate may be after the midterm elections, and how easy that will be probably partly depends on the election result. Therefore, I suppose that Trump and other Republicans will strongly press for important documents being unclassified and published before the elections.

karlof1 , Sep 26, 2018 12:42:35 PM | link
Trump admin and GOP Congress are doing almost everything possible to alienate the majority of the public on a wide spectrum of issues that's also helped threaten the positions of Republicans masquerading as Democrats. The fallout from the 2016 Primary and subsequent disclosures about Clinton and DNC corruption and law breaking--meddling in elections and caucuses--has emboldened numerous people--particularly women--who were previously politically apathetic, not just to run for office, but also to work to get like-minded candidates elected. Sanders called for an insurrection--and yes, he's still sheep dogging--and it's emerged and isn't totally controlled by the DemParty despite its efforts: The cat's out of the bag.

Now I expect the usual attacks using the trite adage that voting doesn't matter. Well, guess what, Trump's election proves that adage to be 100% false. There's only one path to making America Great and that's by getting the neoliberals and neocons out of government; and the only way to do that is to run candidates with opposing positions and elect them--then--once in office, they need to oust the vermin from the bureaucracy--Drain the Swamp, as Trump put it. I know it can be done as it's been done before during two different epochs of US History. And the System was just as rigged against popular success than as it is now.

donkeytale , Sep 26, 2018 1:44:18 PM | link
Karlof1 I agree w you 100%. Voters can make a difference and change is still possible however unlikely and rare. The problem is voter complacency which is fed by cynicism. Ironically younger liberal voters tend to be the most complacent especially at the midterm elections. This year complacency doesn't appear to be an issue so we will probably see a Dem House in January if not also a Dem Senate.

My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the media imho to also take heat off Mueller.

uuu , Sep 26, 2018 2:39:10 PM | link
Trump could shock the world by being on his best behavior for a few weeks. (j/k don't hold your breath).

Just a little review:

In November, Dems are expected to take the House of Representatives by a modest margin. The House, not the Senate determines impeachment. Impeachment is like an indictment -- the Senate would then have a "trial" of sorts, and then to convict, you need 2/3 majority of Senators. Nobody expects that.

Nixon actually resigned out of shame after being impeached. Clinton didn't. Trump gives zero f**ks so this outcome isn't even worth discussing.

The Senate is more important. It is just barely within reach for Democrats if everything goes in their favor. If they win every single seat that is competitive, Democrats get 51/100 seats, plus 2 independents who side with them, but minus a couple of Democrats-in-name-only who regularly vote with Republicans (West Virginia's Manchin for example). Recall that the Vice President (Pence) is the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

More realistically, in a still optimistic scenario, Democrats will lose one or more of the competitive races, and end up with 49-50 votes in the Senate. (they are expected to win big in 2 years in 2020, due to many more Republicans facing re-election then).

karlof1 , Sep 26, 2018 3:15:48 PM | link Russ , Sep 26, 2018 3:26:10 PM | link
Only someone morbidly partisan within the Corporate One-Party would bother seeking the impeachment of a fungible geek like a US president. Indeed, those fixated on impeachment evidently have no rationale beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome. To replace Trump with Pence would be no improvement and most likely would make things worse. Trump and Pence share the corporate globalization ideology and goals, but Trump's more chaotic execution is more likely to lead to chaotic, perhaps system-destructive effects more quickly than a more disciplined execution. The same is true of any Democrat we could envision replacing Trump in 2020.

That's why it was a good thing that Trump won in 2016: He's more likely to bring about a faster collapse of the US empire and of the globalization system in general. Not because these are his goals, but because his indiscipline adds a much-needed wild card to the deck.

Needless to say, humanity and the Earth have nothing to lose, as we're slowly but surely being exterminated once and for all regardless.

div>

">link

">link

[Sep 27, 2018] Russia and the Taming of the Israelis by Israel Shamir

Notable quotes:
"... For otherwise, why did the Israelis do that? Were they just careless and brutal, as is their wont? They didn't give a damn about the Russians, and considered them a lesser breed, whose life is of little importance. This is a possible reading, quite consistent with their general attitude to strangers considered to be children of a lesser God ..."
"... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

There was a lull when the disaster of the downed plane completely disappeared from media, Russian or Western. It was not mentioned by the New York Times , it was not mentioned by the Russian newspapers. And after that, unexpectedly, the Russian Defence Minister Mr Shoygu made his announcement. Russia responded adequately, closing the sky over Syria, or at least over Western Syria, and activating its powerful GPS-jamming system off the Syrian coast. Israel has lost its right to bomb Syria at will.

The Russians said it will take them two weeks to deliver, install and make the system operative. I have heard that the system of up to eight S-300 had already been delivered by massive airlift a few days ago, with cargo planes landing in Syria every few minutes. Probably two weeks will be needed to install and activate the system.

Now in Israel the response was of two kinds. The hot heads said Israel is not worried by S-300; they know how to deal with it, and if necessary, Israeli commandos will come and sabotage the system just in time for a massive air attack by Israeli bombers. Sensible people said Israel should try to repair relations with the Russian military. The Russians did a lot of what the Israelis asked them for, including removal of Iranian forces from the vicinity of Israeli borders (rather, armistice lines). A thorough investigation of the air disaster may uncover the mistakes and convince the Russians that they aren't likely to occur again.

Netanyahu sounded like he was trying to minimise the strife with the Russians. After meeting with President Trump in New York, he said that he came with specific requests "and I received everything I wanted from him [Trump]. Our goal is to preserve the connection with Russia and on the other hand to defend Israel's security against these threats."

So, for good or bad, Israel is not going to break relations with Russia, and Russia is not going to go further, beyond sealing Syria's sky for Israeli raids. If Israeli leadership will keep its fingers away from Syria, things may cool down. Otherwise, the results will be quite unpredictable.

In Israel, there aren't many people at the top, apart of Netanyahu and Lieberman, who cherish their country's involvement with Russia. For Israelis, Putin is one of many unsavoury leaders from Idi Amin to Orban their country has to play ball with. Russia is not popular with ordinary Israelis who prefer America or Germany. A lot of Israelis will be pleased with breakup of this connection. Immediately after the Russian decision had been announced, Haaretz had made its feelings clear: "In recent years, Russia has been caught lying or spreading disinformation about its role in a number of incidents, the most recent being its involvement in the U.S. presidential elections, the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Britain, and the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So it's hard to believe that anyone but Syria and Iran will adopt the Russian version of last week's events." This is not a way one's partner is usually described.

More conspiratorially minded Israelis opined that beyond downing of the Il, there was an Air Force plot against Netanyahu and Lieberman who are unpopular within the top echelon of IDF. Others say it was an American Secret Service plot to undermine Russian-Israeli connection.

For otherwise, why did the Israelis do that? Were they just careless and brutal, as is their wont? They didn't give a damn about the Russians, and considered them a lesser breed, whose life is of little importance. This is a possible reading, quite consistent with their general attitude to strangers considered to be children of a lesser God .

On the other hand, it is possible that the whole Israeli raid had been staged to down the reconnaissance plane and to leave the Russians without its real-time intelligence data. In 1967, the Israelis bombed and sunk the USS Liberty , an electronic spy ship, the then equivalent of Il-20, for they did not want to have foreign eyes and ears in the area. But then, there was an ongoing full-scale war between Israel and Egypt, and the USS Liberty had been attacked just before the planned Israeli invasion of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Could it be that Israelis expected an attack by France, England and the US upon Syria on that night, an attack that did not materialise thanks to the Russian-Turkish agreement on Idlib? There was a British plane and a French frigate in the vicinity, and a whole lot of American ships.

The agreement on Idlib was a very important event, though Il-20 displaced it out of our collective memory. Putin and Erdogan reached a working compromise, thus avoiding almost unavoidable large scale hostilities. The White Helmets had already prepared a film with staged chemical attack upon Syrian children, but the agreement had made the attack improbable in the first place. It is possible that the American coalition assault had been postponed in the last moment, when the Russian plane had been already downed.

However, all is well that ends well. Russian decision to create practically a no-fly zone is a good decision, good for all. It is good for Russians as they learned that their Commander-in-Chief can make strong decisions. It is good for Syria, as they will suffer less of the Israeli bombardments. And it is really good for Israel, as this naughty child, a spoiled brat, a darling of America had to be forbidden to bother neighbouring children. The automatic missile defence system will provide a threat of spanking. The kid had been told that he is not allowed to kill neighbours. With its excessive aggressiveness multiplied by impunity, Israel has been spoiled, as anybody would. With this block, Israel can still become a mensch , and for this chance, thank you, Russia.

Will Tel-Aviv use this chance? The US will try to frustrate the Russian taming of Israel. John Bolton and Mike Pompeo already declared that no one may interfere with Israel's divine right to freely bomb Syria. Will the Israeli lobby in America be able to neutralise Moscow's decision and unhinge Israeli soul once again? Will they convince Putin to postpone his decision like they did in April, and a few years ago? I do not think so.

We can congratulate the leadership of Russia on the consistent, justified and well-balanced decision that may yet tame the Jewish shrew.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

[Sep 27, 2018] On anti-Semitism

Sep 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

conatus , says: September 24, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT

Anti-Semitism is the mistaken belief, held by non-Jewish people, that Jewish people can be criticized, like everybody else.

[Sep 27, 2018] It should be noted that Herbert Marcuse was employed by the the U.S.'s OWI (Office of War Information) and then Bill Donovan's OSS (precursor to the CIA) during WWII.

Notable quotes:
"... It should be noted that Herbert Marcuse was employed by the the U.S.'s OWI (Office of War Information) and then Bill Donovan's OSS (precursor to the CIA) during WWII. Though long dead, HM would be proud of today's Germany, probably the most guilt-inflicted, self-loathing community in the world. ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Stephen Paul Foster , says: Website September 24, 2018 at 12:10 pm GMT

"One hopes that Rensmann is a rare specimen of the epigenesis of brainwashing via post war psychological warfare against the German people and, more subtly, the American people."

Unfortunately, the only difference between Rensmann's embrace of the Frankfurt School "Gnosis" and that of the average German is that Rennsmann's job is to celebrate their genius. While most Germans probably don't have a clue as to who Marcuse, Adorno, etc. where and how they were employed, most Jurgens and Gretas in contemporary Deutschland are thoroughly "Frankfurted".

It should be noted that Herbert Marcuse was employed by the the U.S.'s OWI (Office of War Information) and then Bill Donovan's OSS (precursor to the CIA) during WWII. Though long dead, HM would be proud of today's Germany, probably the most guilt-inflicted, self-loathing community in the world.

[Sep 27, 2018] Any president who picks a person like John Bolton as his National Security Advisor doesn t care about bringing more accountability to our foreign policy

Notable quotes:
"... Trump not only wouldn't prosecute war criminals, but he also has no problem enabling foreign governments in their war crimes and proposing that U.S. forces commit them. Bessner calls for reducing America's military footprint abroad, and Trump entertains putting in a new, unnecessary permanent base in Poland. ..."
"... Trump is diametrically opposed to all of these agreements and institutions. Obviously his progressive critics share none of his objections to these things, and they regard his withdrawal from or hostility to them as major errors. ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

I submit to you that a president who picks John Bolton of all people as his National Security Advisor doesn't care about bringing more accountability to our foreign policy. Bessner goes further still and says the left "should demand that those who violated domestic or international law see justice, even if that means prosecuting them."

Trump not only wouldn't prosecute war criminals, but he also has no problem enabling foreign governments in their war crimes and proposing that U.S. forces commit them. Bessner calls for reducing America's military footprint abroad, and Trump entertains putting in a new, unnecessary permanent base in Poland.

Bessner calls for threat deflation, and meanwhile Trump is busy hyping threats from Iran, North Korea, and even Venezuela when it suits him. Perhaps the most obvious and glaring disagreement with Trump is in Bessner's section on internationalism. He writes:

America should engage with other countries through peaceful diplomacy. An important first step would be to embrace international treaties and institutions endorsed by most nations, like the Paris Agreement on climate change and the International Criminal Court. Moreover, policymakers should urge disarmament talks with all major powers and reinstate the Iran nuclear deal.

Trump is diametrically opposed to all of these agreements and institutions. Obviously his progressive critics share none of his objections to these things, and they regard his withdrawal from or hostility to them as major errors.

Brands' argument doesn't make sense in the abstract, and it doesn't hold up when we consider specifics. Like Kagan's whining about "isolationism" earlier this week, it mistakenly conflates a certain kind of hawkish meddling with internationalism itself. That is how Brands can describe someone openly endorsing internationalism as a critic of internationalism.

This argument does nothing to make the audience more informed about the foreign policy of the president or his progressive critics, but instead tries to mislead readers into thinking that the two sides are fundamentally in agreement when they have practically nothing in common.

To argue that progressives want to "out-Trump Trump" on foreign policy requires promoting unfounded caricatures of both. It is remarkably bad analysis, and it isn't even very convincing spin.

[Sep 27, 2018] Let Americans Visit North Korea Now by Doug Bandow

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. should help Kim pull his country back from seven decades of confrontation. Kim's apparent reasonableness may turn out to be fake, but it is in Washington's interest to create positive incentives for the North. If President Donald Trump can do it right -- imagine a White House signing ceremony for a peace treaty with Kim, China's Xi Jinping, and South Korea's Moon Jae-in -- a Nobel Peace Prize might just be within reach. ..."
"... The other half of the ban is almost entirely symbolic, intended mainly to demonstrate that the Muslim "travel ban" is, well, not a Muslim travel ban. Other than DPRK officials, the only North Koreans likely to hop on a plane to America are defectors. And they should be welcomed. ..."
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extended the prohibition another year on September 1, for no obvious reason other than the fact he could do so. It was an extraordinarily foolish step, given Kim's evident desire to improve trust. If the president believes that the supreme leader is prepared to disarm, he should listen to Kim's conditions and encourage expanded private ties. ..."
"... But Pyongyang does not just kidnap Americans. The 17 detained over the last couple decades all "did something," as the head of a U.S. NGO told me while I was visiting the North last year. That is, every one of them fell afoul of DPRK rules, several by evangelizing. Of course, what they did should not be crimes, but in that the North is not alone. Show up in, say, Pakistan and tell people what you think of the prophet Mohammed: the result might be deadly. ..."
"... And Washington should not stop there. Political relations should be made formal. It is time for diplomatic recognition. This step should be treated as communication rather than reward. Imagine the Cold War, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, without any reliable channels between the two governments. Or what if the U.S. and the People's Republic of China had been in contact as allied forces neared the Yalu in late 1950? Washington and Beijing might have found a modus vivendi to avoid war. ..."
Sep 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Let Americans Visit North Korea Now Kim has expressed his desire for contact with Americans. The Trump administration should give it to him.

North Korea is changing. That doesn't mean Kim Jong-un is mimicking Mikhail Gorbachev or even Deng Xiaoping, at least not yet. But it does increasingly appear that Kim intends to chart a more moderate course for his nation -- that is, make it less threatening, though not more democratic.

The U.S. should help Kim pull his country back from seven decades of confrontation. Kim's apparent reasonableness may turn out to be fake, but it is in Washington's interest to create positive incentives for the North. If President Donald Trump can do it right -- imagine a White House signing ceremony for a peace treaty with Kim, China's Xi Jinping, and South Korea's Moon Jae-in -- a Nobel Peace Prize might just be within reach.

Of course, good policy is critical. The supreme leader is a ruthless survivor who appears to have eliminated all serious domestic rivals. He is unlikely to turn over his nuclear weapons up front, sacrificing his leverage in the hope that Washington, where the president's national security advisor has counseled war, will join him in a Kumbaya songfest. And even if he does make other worthwhile concessions that reduce the risk of conflict in Northeast Asia, he may want to keep a few of his nukes.

But more diplomacy is necessary. Kim has expressed his desire for contact with Americans. The Trump administration should give it to him, starting with a repeal of the ban on travel to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Even before the Kim-Trump summit, the supreme leader was quoted by South Koreans as saying: "If we meet often and build trust with the United States, and if an end to the war and nonaggression are promised, why would we live in difficulty with nuclear weapons?" Moreover, the short summit communique was structured to reflect this perspective: the two governments would first "establish new U.S.-DPRK relations" reflecting a mutual desire "for peace and prosperity." Next they would "build a lasting and stable peace regime." Then they would work towards denuclearization, however defined.

Which makes sense. Assume that Kim is serious about improved ties with the U.S. and improving his standing worldwide. Further assume that he is open to the idea of at least curbing or even eliminating his nuclear ambitions. Then he has to trust that Washington won't follow its policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and pursue regime change. The case of Libya is particularly chastening. At the time of its civil war, the DPRK blamed the old fool Moammar Gaddafi for giving up his missiles and nukes, which allowed him to be driven from power the moment the U.S. and Europe had an opportunity.

If anything could generate both shared interest and trust, it would be creating a relationship characterized not just by official meetings, but even more human contacts. If Americans and other foreigners are visiting the North, investing in and trading with North Korean entities, staging cultural and sporting events, and more, U.S. bombers are less likely to pay a hostile visit to Pyongyang. The starting point for such an approach should be to eliminate the dual travel ban imposed on the DPRK.

Right now, North Koreans cannot come to America and Americans cannot go to North Korea. The latter matters most, having ended a tourist trade involving around 1,000 U.S. visitors annually, and hindering everyone else from aid workers to journalists seeking to go to the North. Exemptions for visiting the North are available, but representatives of NGOs with whom I've spoken indicate that the approval process remains both bureaucratic and uncertain.

Patience and a Powerful Military are the Keys to Success with North Korea Accepting a Nuclear North Korea to Contain China

The other half of the ban is almost entirely symbolic, intended mainly to demonstrate that the Muslim "travel ban" is, well, not a Muslim travel ban. Other than DPRK officials, the only North Koreans likely to hop on a plane to America are defectors. And they should be welcomed.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extended the prohibition another year on September 1, for no obvious reason other than the fact he could do so. It was an extraordinarily foolish step, given Kim's evident desire to improve trust. If the president believes that the supreme leader is prepared to disarm, he should listen to Kim's conditions and encourage expanded private ties.

Moreover, every American who visits the North helps pry open another door or window into the Hermit Kingdom. Indeed, that nickname no longer really applies to the DPRK. The country is more open, elites are enjoying greater prosperity, market incentives are present throughout the economy, threats of war have disappeared from the regime's lexicon, Kim has dramatically stepped out onto the international stage, and America no longer is the domestic demon du jour.

The excuse for last year's prohibition was the horrific plight of Virginia college student Otto Warmbier, who was in a comatose state when he was returned from North Korean custody -- he was taken off life support and died shortly after -- and conveniently forgotten this year when Trump shifted strategies. Warmbier did not deserve whatever happened to him, but the best evidence, attested to by his doctors and the coroner who examined his body, was that he was not beaten. In fact, it was in the North's interest to keep him alive. (There is still no official explanation for his brain damage, however.)

But Pyongyang does not just kidnap Americans. The 17 detained over the last couple decades all "did something," as the head of a U.S. NGO told me while I was visiting the North last year. That is, every one of them fell afoul of DPRK rules, several by evangelizing. Of course, what they did should not be crimes, but in that the North is not alone. Show up in, say, Pakistan and tell people what you think of the prophet Mohammed: the result might be deadly.

Anyway, given the North's strong push for respectability, no repeat is likely. Even more important than visitors are aid workers, journalists, businessmen and women, and others who can demonstrate the benefits of international contact. With Kim apparently interested in a more respectable foreign role, the Trump administration should enlist other Americans to set forth a vision of a well-connected and well-rewarded DPRK. Maybe Kim is not serious, but the U.S. should proceed on the assumption that he is. The cost of doing so is small while the benefits of success would be great.

And Washington should not stop there. Political relations should be made formal. It is time for diplomatic recognition. This step should be treated as communication rather than reward. Imagine the Cold War, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, without any reliable channels between the two governments. Or what if the U.S. and the People's Republic of China had been in contact as allied forces neared the Yalu in late 1950? Washington and Beijing might have found a modus vivendi to avoid war.

Washington could start small, with an offer of consular relations. The administration could insist that ensuing discussions be wide-ranging, including not only denuclearization but human rights. Such ties would also provide a channel for dealing with errant American tourists. In this way providing Pyongyang with something it values would enable the U.S. to push forward on topics uncomfortable for the Kim regime. Positive movement would justify fully normal ties. There is very little downside to treating the North like most other nations.

Establishing these kinds of relationships would lead naturally to the next step in the U.S.-DPRK summit statement: creating a peace regime. Most obvious would be a peace treaty to end what remains a formal state of war. One criticism is that such a pact would benefit the North, yet all parties should desire an end to hostilities. If Pyongyang is not serious, that will be obvious in its behavior. The fact that Washington and Moscow are formally at peace has not stopped the U.S. from conducting a quasi-containment/Cold War strategy against Russia.

The second complaint is that the South might respond to a peace treaty by evicting U.S. troops and ending the alliance. Yet Washington's defense commitment and troop deployment are means to an end, not ends themselves. The Republic of Korea enjoys overwhelming advantages compared to the DPRK and is capable of defending itself. America should take the lead in shifting defense responsibility to South Koreans. A peace treaty would help formalize such a step.

No one knows how the president's North Korean gambit will turn out. But he deserves credit for upending conventional wisdom and making peace at least seem possible. Much needs to be done. However, a good start would be for the administration to encourage contacts between peoples as well as governments. There is no guarantee of success. But having moved this far, the president should push the bilateral relationship to the next level.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.

[Sep 27, 2018] When Fake Countries Go to War by Doug Bandow

Notable quotes:
"... Instead of being countries, they resemble country clubs, in which a dominant few paying customers effectively make the rules and hire others to implement them. A large share of their populations are foreign and live in the shadows, with few rights and no opportunity to participate politically in the societies in which they live. ..."
"... "To survive, the Gulf governments need to look beyond simple questions of labor-force nationalization and economic austerity." ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Until recently, life in Qatar was quite pleasant. But then Saudi Arabia, backed by President Donald Trump, who has gone from critic to fan of the ruling royals there, led an effort to isolate its smaller neighbor. With supreme irony, Riyadh, whose people have done more to fund and man terrorist attacks on Americans than any other nation, accused Doha of backing terrorists.

It's impossible to predict the outcome of Saudi Arabia's hypocritical jihad. More moderate Kuwait has not joined Saudi Arabia, whose leaders, among the most licentious in the Muslim world, run a government that may also be the least tolerant. Despite President Trump's Saudi swoon, the Defense and State Departments have taken more measured positions. Turkey rushed to Qatar's defense, Iran airlifted food, and Russia, ever more active in the Mideast, called for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict.

The Gulf countries really cannot afford to be at odds. The half-dozen Gulf states share a critical characteristic: all are essentially fake countries. To be sure, they have governments, diplomats, and military. But they are monarchies, some of recent vintage, in a world that long ago abandoned primogeniture.

And all contract out the hardest work, from manual to professional, to foreigners. Instead of being countries, they resemble country clubs, in which a dominant few paying customers effectively make the rules and hire others to implement them. A large share of their populations are foreign and live in the shadows, with few rights and no opportunity to participate politically in the societies in which they live.

That Qatar could not operate without its foreign workers is evident when landing in Doha. Almost any practical job of importance is performed by a foreigner. It's the same in the other Gulf States.

It's not unusual for governments to contract out work. Western governments do so, though usually to their own citizens, and in order to save money. What makes the Gulf States unique is the scale of reliance on foreign labor and the reason for doing so: to ensure that their own citizens need not be bothered having to work, or at least work unduly hard.

The increased role of expatriates reflects oil wealth. In the early 1970s the number of foreigners in the Gulf was modest. But as oil prices rose, starting in 1973 the disposable income of these states rose dramatically -- as did demand for expatriate labor. The number trebled within a decade. And the numbers have continued to rise. At the same time the proportion of non-Arabs (and non-Muslims) rose.

Estimates of the share of expatriates are rough but striking. Up to 90 percent (some estimates are a bit lower) of the residents of the United Arab Emirates are foreigners. Roughly 85 percent of Qatar's population is foreign. Kuwait comes in at 70 percent. Bahrain's expat share is 55 percent. Both Oman, the least visible of the Gulf nations, and Saudi Arabia, the most populous of the six, fall in at 30 percent. In the latter even the smaller percentage means there are upwards of eight million foreigners in the Desert Kingdom. In sharp contrast are Iran, Iraq, and Yemen, which have followed a different path.

Money obviously can buy comfort, if not happiness. It seems to have worked for the Gulf States. But the fall in oil prices has put the Gulf model under severe stress. Once addicted to free spending, the countries are facing deficits and being forced to borrow to maintain current outlays. Yet even the latter is no longer easy. Bahrain and Oman have seen their credit ratings downgraded to junk status.

Kuwait, with a democratically elected National Assembly, has faced popular resistance to retrenchment, particularly reductions in social benefits and economic subsidies. Roughly half of the Assembly members elected last November formed an unofficial opposition. Even the most dictatorial of the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, feels the pressure. The deputy crown prince led efforts to trim expensive social benefits and subsidies as well as government salaries last fall, but the monarchy recently reversed those cuts. This will exacerbate the underlying economic problems.

Another austerity target is expat labor. For years governments have officially committed to labor force nationalization, without great effect. Some recently launched new efforts to reduce reliance on expats: taxes on hiring foreigners, requirements for domestic hiring for particular occupations, and employment quotas in some industries. A few have even rounded up and deported some expats. But an increased cash crunch may provide the most powerful incentive of all to change.

Nevertheless, moving toward a more normal balance in the labor force won't be easy. First is the sheer magnitude of expatriate hiring. A nation that brings in nine times as many foreigners as it has citizens cannot easily replace the former's labor. Although many of the jobs are nonessential, such as domestic servants, they remain popular.

Lack of adequate skills is another issue. Some jobs require specialized training or professional education, which takes time and commitment. Local interest in such occupations doesn't match demand. Even worse, many locals exhibit a minimal work ethic.

Equally problematic, the sense of entitlement runs deep. The number of nationals employed in private business has been increasing. But government remains the preferred type of employment. Even locals joke at the difference: Kuwaiti officials privately talk dismissively of the willingness of their fellow citizens to work. Many Gulf residents believe their national oil wealth entitles them to easy but remunerative employment.

More fundamentally, citizenship has a feeling of being transactional. Monarchs of dubious legitimacy get to rule so long as they share enough revenue with their citizens to provide lives of relative ease. In effect, foreign labor becomes part of the deal, essentially an entitlement of citizenship available only to a privileged few. Although the regimes usually retain control of security agencies, there are creative exceptions, such as Bahrain importing Sunni Muslims from Bangladesh and Pakistan as emergency service workers and policemen.

Plenty of Americans and Europeans like their welfare states and clamor for more benefits. Yet in all those nations the same people pay taxes and sometimes are required to perform military or other national service. Most see their political community as a larger whole and perceive citizenship as something beyond mutual transactions. The Gulf States feel differently.

While the Saudi-led attack on Qatar is dominating today's headlines, a more fundamental challenge faces the Gulf. Can artificial states dependent on buying the loyalty of their own citizens while farming out the toughest work to others survive forever?

Iran scares Riyadh and its neighbors because the former poses a moral rather than military threat. Islamist rule in Tehran is odious, but offers meaning to people who believe in more than money. Transactional rule is tenuous even in the best of times. It becomes more dubious as the cash flow slows.

To survive, the Gulf governments need to look beyond simple questions of labor-force nationalization and economic austerity. They must adopt political reforms that give their peoples a greater stake in their own societies. Ultimately the best way to defeat Iran is to offer a more convincing governing philosophy and a genuine sense of community -- characteristics now absent from the monarchies that are America's closest Arab allies in the region.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire. MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Poland Wants an American Garrison: Let Germany Do It! Angela Merkel, Teflon No Longer Hide 24 comments 24 Responses to When Fake Countries Go to War

Ken'ichi July 4, 2017 at 12:30 am

" Instead of being countries, they resemble country clubs, in which a dominant few paying customers effectively make the rules and hire others to implement them. A large share of their populations are foreign and live in the shadows, with few rights and no opportunity to participate politically in the societies in which they live. "

And how many actual citizens Athens had during the "Athenian democracy", versus the metics and slaves? What was ratio of the Spartiates to helots in Laconia?

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: July 4, 2017 at 8:03 am
I would not call Saudi Arabia even dictatorial. Deriving from Roman magistracy, a dictatorship must have at least a veneer of legality. Saudi Arabia doesn't have that. It's simply a tyranny.
skeptical , says: July 4, 2017 at 9:46 am
The Gulf is of interest because of oil, period. Whether the people who control the oil can be considered "real states" is immaterial, because we have to deal with whomever controls the oil. We don't war on behalf of these "fake states", any more than we warred in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent abuse of women and children; we war in the Middle East for continued access to the oil.
SteveM , says: July 4, 2017 at 9:58 am
Re: "To survive, the Gulf governments need to look beyond simple questions of labor-force nationalization and economic austerity."

The sclerotic Gulf state regimes already have an alternative plan in place. Their multi-BILLION dollar weapons deals with the American Merchants of Death are implicit protection money to the U.S. to guarantee their security. Trump's ridiculous sword dance with the odious Saudi princes was the icing on the cake of the warped compact.

One way or another, U.S. influence is now propagated at the point of a gun.

Steven , says: July 4, 2017 at 11:24 am
Having lived in the region for some years, I think Bandow's blanket description of relationships between government and people there as "transactional" is quite wide of the mark, even ignorant.

These countries are quite obviously not western democracies, but more like a tribal government where one family runs things for the whole tribe, and the tribe and clans have been able in the past to either tell the family to find a new leader or to transfer their allegiances to another family. It's not Jeffersonian democracy, but in once bitterly poor countries with very little education, it worked quite well, just like Liechtenstein.

An analogy that is not entirely wrong would be the relation Italian Mafia dons had with villages in the days before they got into drugs etc. He didn't keep a parliament, but if you had problems, you could go to him and expect him to help you find a solution.

I should also point out to Bandow that nobody forces these foreigners to work in the gulf states, nor do they complain that they found work there. So what is his problem with their arrangements?

habarigani , says: July 4, 2017 at 11:32 am
If Islamist rule in Iran "offers meaning to people who believe in more than money" why is it "odious"? After all it governs largely with the consent of people. Is it "odious" because it does not confirm to Western concept of government and democracy in other words "Western exceptionalism"? Iran is evolving alternate path to Islamic democracy and the Persian Gulf could take a lesson from them. Instead of demonizing Iran, we should encourage its neighbors to make peace with it and emulate it!
blimbax , says: July 4, 2017 at 12:41 pm
Islamist rule in Tehran is odious, but offers meaning to people who believe in more than money.

"Odious" compared to what? And who are we to say?

I get the feeling that even when writing articles like this one, that are critical of the regimes in the gulf, the authors feel some obligation to say something gratuitous and negative about Iran.

Howard , says: July 4, 2017 at 1:26 pm
The parallels with our own country are there, though strangely not mentioned alongside the differences. In the Gulf states, there is a shared religion and a shared ethnicity to bind the minority "citizens", but in the USA those bonds do not unite even citizens. How much is the "patriotism" of today really based on moral necessity -- particularly when the insistence to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" comes from a religion that is no longer encouraged -- rather than on threats or bribery? (And like the Gulf states, Uncle Sam is finding it harder to afford to pay the bribes.)
Iyad , says: July 4, 2017 at 1:51 pm
The Gulf will never ever be able to offer a more convincing governing philosophy and a genuine sense of community than Iran. When you hear Iranian people telling you: We are from Persia, or when every non-official Iranian I saw outside Iran in the West is Liberal you know there is something different than the Zoo called Gulf.
Im a Syrian-American Christian who lived 2 years in KSA. And yes what Trump did in the Gulf was wrong and nothing but wrong. We hoped for a new day. The only support Trump got before elections was from the Syrians: Syrian Vice President wrote an article defending him!
Cynthia McLean , says: July 4, 2017 at 2:28 pm
The people of Iran remain loyal to their country not due primarily to fealty to "Islamist rule," but because of 1000's of years of glorious Persian history –arts, philosophy and literature, heroic figures etc. What such roots have the Gulf States in contrast?
William Burns , says: July 4, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Primogeniture's got nothing to do with it. Saudi Arabia's a monarchy, but it certainly doesn't follow primogeniture.
David Smith , says: July 4, 2017 at 5:05 pm
A friend of mine who used to work in that area put it like this: "Saudi Arabia is not a country, it's a company."
Dennis Tuchler , says: July 4, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Why aren't more literate Americans complaining about our slavish support of Saudi Arabia? US demonize Iran, a somewhat repressive theocracy in which women have rights and other monotheistic religions can be practiced. Find me a church in Saudi.

What would happen to the United States if Iran became he hegemon of the middle east? Aside from US oil interests and American Israelis, how would Americans suffer if we just bugged out of the Middle East?

Oil is for sale on the international market. We can get if whether it comes from Iran, Saudi or somewhere in the Western Hemisphere.

bacon , says: July 4, 2017 at 6:38 pm
@skeptical is exactly right. Before oil became the most necessary commodity in the world the Middle East was unimportant and in 50 or so years when oil and natural gas are nearly gone the area will be a backwater again. The Suez Canal may remain a major trade route, Israel's hold on the world's attention and particularly its influence in the US will still be a factor, Iran will still be a potential global actor, but the days of US presidents visiting Saudi Arabia and figuratively kissing the king's ring will be over. That is not to say the oil sheikdoms won't be problems, perhaps at war with one another, but it will only be a problem for the US, Russia, or Europe if our leaders cannot control their need to interfere in every little thing, everywhere.
Winston , says: July 4, 2017 at 10:01 pm
@Steven, Yes the Gulf countries are basically run in an anachronistic way. Not much different from how this region was governed locally, except with British intervention, Ibn Saud managed to dominate others in his area, and the British also helped to form the others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucial_States

The only 2 with significant populations are the Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Seems to be needing to rely so heavily on foreigners is really an acknowledgement of incompetence, not because locals do not want to work.

Iran is actually the best run ME country. It has capable women and allows them space. A young girl designed a much lauded bridge in Tehran. Which other ME country has given females this latitude?

See:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/bridge-tehran-architect-iran-leila-araghian-tabiat-sanctions-iranian-designers
Take it to the bridge: the Tehran architect striking the right chord in Iran and beyond

And this is just one example pf the contributions female make to the country.

Omar , says: July 4, 2017 at 11:20 pm
"Ultimately the best way to defeat Iran is to offer a more convincing governing philosophy and a genuine sense of community -- characteristics now absent from the monarchies that are America's closest Arab allies in the region."

It is truly sad that these states are America's closest allies. What if the people of these states wanted political change? They would have to go up against Kings armed to the teeth by America. It is therefore America which stands in the way of real change as much as the Kings themselves. America is the great enabler of most if not all Arab Kingdoms.

BadZ , says: July 5, 2017 at 2:28 am
"Ultimately the best way to defeat Iran is to offer a more convincing governing philosophy and a genuine sense of community -- characteristics now absent from the monarchies that are America's closest Arab allies in the region."

I've yet to hear a good reason why it would be a good thing for anybody to 'defeat' Iran. After all, Iran is currently only in open military conflict with Al Qaeda and ISIS types, so who do we want to see defeated? Also, no matter how odious we may find the government, Iran is still a paradise of freedom and democracy when compared to Saudi Arabia (as was Syria, for that matter).

Michael Kenny , says: July 5, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Who gave Americans the right to decide that this or that state is "fake" or "artificial"? Or that they "must" adopt political reforms? Or that this or that other state is "moral" and "offers meaning to people who believe in more than money"? Mr Bandow certainly doesn't seem to beleive in "non-intervention"! Although (cynical me, you may say!), he might well make an exception in regard to Ukraine.
Frip , says: July 5, 2017 at 1:32 pm
The substance of this article could have been covered in 4 short paragraphs.
Nolan , says: July 5, 2017 at 3:56 pm
"Ultimately the best way to defeat Iran is to offer a more convincing "

Not until the last line, but is that what this article is about? Why must this author promulgate the obnoxious "Iran is evil" line – we can go and find all over MSM! I suspect you have little experience in these countries and find your words on Iran stale (and odious).

Cornel Lencar , says: July 5, 2017 at 9:51 pm
What one can expect from slaver states?
Mark M , says: July 5, 2017 at 10:24 pm
I'm one of the few Iranian-Americans that has extensive experience working in the Arab countries and also in visiting Iran and all I can say is just stay away from it. Most of these Arab countries are going to implode at some point whereas Iran I expect will moderate and mature. In the meantime, get off the oil.
RockMeAmadeus , says: July 7, 2017 at 4:20 am
The Islamic revolution and Islamic republic institutionalized constitutionalism, elections from the local level to the highest officials, mass literacy and education from primary to post-doc level, military power and mass healthcare and in Iran after 2,500 years of monarchy.

Nothing "odious" about that.

RockMeAmadeus , says: July 7, 2017 at 4:27 am
Instead of wanting to "defeat" Iran, the American REPUBLIC should ally itself with the Islamic REPUBLIC against the Gulf clowns and the apartheid state in Israel.

Somebody should check and see if Cato gets any Gulf money, hey who knows

[Sep 27, 2018] Misunderstanding Trump s Foreign Policy by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's worldview is dominated by a zero-sum view of international relations in which the U.S. is constantly being ripped off by everyone. ..."
"... Trump is a militarist by instinct and as a matter of policy, and his progressive critics repudiate that as well. ..."
"... Trump's critique of past U.S. foreign policy boils down to complaining that other countries don't pay us for protection and that the U.S. doesn't plunder resources from the countries it invades. This is not, to put it mildly, what progressives consider to be wrong with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... The key failing in Brands' column is that he buys into the falsehood that Trump is in favor of "global retreat," and so he worries that both parties will soon be led by candidates advocating for that. For one thing, there has been no "retreat" under Trump, and everything he has done since taking office has been to mire the U.S. more deeply in the multiple wars he inherited. ..."
"... Literally never heard a Democratic Socialist advocate for anything other than what you summarized – threat de-escalation, reduce US military footprint abroad, don't use the threat of military force as a "diplomatic tool", stop the drone war, end the war in Afghanistan, etc. ..."
"... Of course right now Dem Socialists are just as marginalized within the Democratic party as you are within the Trumpian Neocon hellscape of the current Republican leadership. Maybe one day the Senate will have more Rand Pauls and Chris Murphys but right now we've just got a bunch of Grahams and Schumers perfectly happy to let Trump continue down this dark path. ..."
Sep 26, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

According to Brands, "the ideas at the heart of Trump's critique of U.S. foreign policy are also the ideas at the heart of the progressive critique," but that's also simply not true. Trump's worldview is dominated by a zero-sum view of international relations in which the U.S. is constantly being ripped off by everyone.

The progressive critics he cites specifically reject that assumption and emphasize the importance of international institutions.

Trump is a militarist by instinct and as a matter of policy, and his progressive critics repudiate that as well.

Trump's critique of past U.S. foreign policy boils down to complaining that other countries don't pay us for protection and that the U.S. doesn't plunder resources from the countries it invades. This is not, to put it mildly, what progressives consider to be wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

The key failing in Brands' column is that he buys into the falsehood that Trump is in favor of "global retreat," and so he worries that both parties will soon be led by candidates advocating for that. For one thing, there has been no "retreat" under Trump, and everything he has done since taking office has been to mire the U.S. more deeply in the multiple wars he inherited.

For another, progressives aren't calling for a "retreat" from international engagement, either. They are opposed to certain aggressive and destructive policies, but they don't eschew engagement and cooperation with other states.

On the contrary, they are advocating for more of that while rejecting the militarism that Trump embraces. Indeed, Bessner anticipates Brands' silly criticism and explicitly says, "None of this means the United States should retreat from the world."

Anthony M says: September 26, 2018 at 5:30 pm

Literally never heard a Democratic Socialist advocate for anything other than what you summarized – threat de-escalation, reduce US military footprint abroad, don't use the threat of military force as a "diplomatic tool", stop the drone war, end the war in Afghanistan, etc.

Of course right now Dem Socialists are just as marginalized within the Democratic party as you are within the Trumpian Neocon hellscape of the current Republican leadership. Maybe one day the Senate will have more Rand Pauls and Chris Murphys but right now we've just got a bunch of Grahams and Schumers perfectly happy to let Trump continue down this dark path.

[Sep 26, 2018] The Huge Stakes of Thursday's Confrontations by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... Rosenstein's discussion of wearing a wire into the Oval Office lends credence to that charge, but there is much more to it. The story begins with the hiring by the Clinton campaign, though its law firm cutout, in June 2016, of the dirt-divers of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Fusion swiftly hired retired British spy and Trump hater Christopher Steele, who contacted his old sources in the Russian intel community for dirt to help sink a U.S. presidential candidate. ..."
"... Regrettably, Trump, at the request of two allies -- the Brits almost surely one of them -- has put a hold on his recent decision to declassify all relevant documents inside the Justice Department and FBI. ..."
Sep 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

The New York Times report that Rosenstein, sarcastically or seriously in May 2017, talked of wearing a wire into the Oval Office to entrap the president, suggests that his survival into the new year is improbable.

Whether Thursday is the day President Donald Trump drops the hammer is unknown.

But if he does, the recapture by Trump of a Justice Department he believes he lost as his term began may be at hand. Comparisons to President Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre may not be overdone.

The Times report that Rosenstein also talked of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump suggests that Sen. Lindsey Graham had more than a small point on "Fox News Sunday": "There's a bureaucratic coup going on at the Department of Justice and the FBI, and somebody needs to look at it."

Indeed, they do. And it is inexplicable that a special prosecutor has not been named. For while the matter assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller, to investigate any Trump collusion with Russia in hacking the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC, is serious, a far graver matter has gotten far less attention.

To wit, did an anti-Trump cabal inside the Department of Justice and the FBI conspire to block Trump's election, and having failed, plot to bring down his presidency in a "deep state" coup d'etat?

Rosenstein's discussion of wearing a wire into the Oval Office lends credence to that charge, but there is much more to it. The story begins with the hiring by the Clinton campaign, though its law firm cutout, in June 2016, of the dirt-divers of Fusion GPS.

Fusion swiftly hired retired British spy and Trump hater Christopher Steele, who contacted his old sources in the Russian intel community for dirt to help sink a U.S. presidential candidate.

What his Russian friends provided was passed on by Steele to his paymaster at GPS, his contact in the Justice Department, No. 3 man Bruce Ohr, and to the FBI, which was also paying the British spy.

The FBI then used the dirt Steele unearthed, much of it false, to persuade a FISA court to issue a warrant to wiretap Trump aide Carter Page. The warrant was renewed three times, the last with the approval of Trump's own deputy attorney general, Rosenstein.

Regrettably, Trump, at the request of two allies -- the Brits almost surely one of them -- has put a hold on his recent decision to declassify all relevant documents inside the Justice Department and FBI.

Yet, as The Wall Street Journal wrote Monday, "As for the allies, sometimes U.S. democratic accountability has to take precedence over the potential embarrassment of British intelligence."

F0337 , says: September 25, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT

Even a leader of unparalleled integrity and probity would likely be outmatched and outflanked by what we call "the Swamp" and alas, that's not Mr Trump to begin with. I do believe that Trump is patriotic and wants what's best for the country but 1) that's not enough–he also has colossal personal liabilities and issues of character and 2) our nation's capital is full of people who are neither patriotic nor do they want what's best for the country.

The Establishment doesn't take kindly to apostates, whatever their stripe.

[Sep 26, 2018] Hired to Drain the Swamp, Fired in Less Than a Year

Notable quotes:
"... @markperrydc . ..."
"... Well, we know where Mattis is going when he leaves the Pentagon. Nice work if you can get it. ..."
"... Seriously, anyone taking a knife to the Pentagon budget is putting a knife top their throat, unless they have support. ..."
"... Gen Mattis wants to save big money stop sending US forces to needless adventures. ..."
"... On top of the firing, I found the last three or four paragraphs all about insider trading as opposed to job performance, goals, budget cutting, not even budget accountability . . . Personalities over performance -- holy petolies. ..."
"... Given that the United States spends more money on defense than the next seven countries COMBINED including Russia and China it's not a question of how much you spend it's a question of how well. Until DOD passes that financial audit that all other agencies are obligated to do DOD should be get any increase in funding. ..."
"... When folks learn that the DOD is the swamp, then we can start having a conversation. ..."
"... "Lap Dog" Mattis. ..."
"... The Trump Administration is the most incompetent and corrupt since Warren G. Harding. There is no swamp draining going on. It is just a fight on who occupies it. ..."
Sep 26, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Hired to Drain the Swamp, Fired in Less Than a Year 'This is the Boeing mafia in all of its glory,' one DoD official said of John 'Jay' Gibson's mysterious demise. By Mark Perry • September 26, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2Fmp2v3DK3INU.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df14097aca6fa876%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff27ba8b2b6a00f4%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fhired-to-drain-the-swamp-fired-in-less-than-a-year%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.f6c7d667d236c62537eeaba62686136d.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fhired-to-drain-the-swamp-fired-in-less-than-a-year%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Hired%20to%20Drain%20the%20Swamp%2C%20Fired%20in%20Less%20Than%20a%20Year%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1537987939136&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fhired-to-drain-the-swamp-fired-in-less-than-a-year%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fhired-to-drain-the-swamp-fired-in-less-than-a-year%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.Xzp_pc7X6BE.O%2Fam%3DwQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCMdnecgyiLvmusdBtY9DsEeUYWPiA%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1537987938792&_gfid=I0_1537987938792&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=4199897

The Pentagon ( Frontpage / Shutterstock ) On April 4, 2003, Col. Joseph Dowdy -- whose 1st Marine Regiment was then fighting its way through a tangle of Iraqi villages south of Baghdad -- was called to the tent of Gen. James Mattis and told he was being relieved of his command. A career Marine, Dowdy was stunned: Mattis's action in the midst of a battlefield fight was nearly unprecedented and, as Dowdy knew, would mark the end of his military career. Adding to the humiliation, Mattis told Dowdy to remove his sidearm and hand it to him. "We're going to give you a rest," he said.

Dowdy had known that his job was in danger, the result of complaints from Mattis and his staff that he wasn't moving his regiment quickly enough. But it's not as if Dowdy was taking his time: his troopers had been involved in bitter firefights against tenacious "Saddam Fedayeen" killers every day for the previous two weeks. But Dowdy had no choice in the matter, so while he objected to Mattis's action he packed up his gear, called his wife, returned to the U.S. and retired from the Marine Corps.

That Mattis acts quickly and decisively is part of his lore -- it's what good Marines do. But while quick and decisive might work on the battlefield, they're not always a good fit for a secretary of defense. Mattis learned this earlier this month, after he fired John H. "Jay" Gibson II, the Pentagon's first-ever Chief Management Officer and its third highest ranking official. The reason for the firing, as The Wall Street Journal's Gordon Lubold reported on September 5, was for "lack of performance."

The firing was immediately controversial, spurring under-the-radar resentments among senior defense officials in the Pentagon's E-Ring where military and civilian managers huddle to run the world's largest bureaucracy. "This doesn't make any sense," a senior Pentagon official told TAC . "Jay was CMO for seven months; he hadn't even gotten his staff in place."

John H. 'Jay' Gibson II (U.S. Government)

Gibson came to Washington to oversee Mattis's attempt to cut waste from the Pentagon budget by identifying savings that would lessen the ballooning impact of the Trump administration's $670 billion defense spending proposal. Armed with an impressive resume (including a successful stint as an assistant secretary of the Air Force and deputy undersecretary of defense for management reform, where his efforts saved billions of dollars), Gibson was tasked with reforming Pentagon procedures in buying and developing weapons and in managing logistics and supply, technology systems, community services, human resources, and health care.

Gibson was given a broad mandate to "shake up the system," which the deputy defense secretary Patrick Shanahan (the department's number two official and Gibson's boss) admitted would cause "screaming and yelling" from the Pentagon bureaucracy.

Even so, Gibson was told he would have the Trump administration's support -- which is why he decided to give up his post as president of XCOR Aerospace, a Texas company that develops rocket engines and space launch systems. "Jay did this over his wife's objections," a friend of Gibson and a senior official at a major private sector financial institution told TAC in a wide-ranging interview, "because he thought he could make a difference. He is a cracker-jack administrator; he knows how to dig and dig. So he came into D.C., started digging into the Pentagon budget and was fired. In my world, when that happens it isn't because you're doing a lousy job, but because you're stepping on the wrong toes."

In fact, as the senior Pentagon official with whom I spoke says, the toes that Gibson stepped on belonged to Patrick Shanahan, the deputy secretary of defense and a former vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems, a major Pentagon contractor. Shanahan and Gibson had a falling out in August, according to the senior Pentagon official with whom I spoke, and Shanahan reported the difficulty to Mattis -- "who pulled a Dowdy." Put simply, this official adds, when the "screaming and yelling" from the Pentagon's senior bureaucracy reached a fever pitch at the end of the summer, Mattis and Shanahan decided that firing Gibson would be easier than defending him.

The Recruitment Problem the Military Doesn't Want to Talk About Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show

"I am not familiar with the details of what happened here and I wouldn't want to speculate," Todd Harrison, an official with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (and a well-known defense budget expert) says. "But I think that anyone in the new CMO position was signing on to the toughest job in Washington. It's one thing to identify waste, and another to actually get rid of it. The truth is that waste is built into the Pentagon budget; if you eliminate it, you eliminate jobs." A Pentagon official confirms this, but adds that "firing an official charged with making reforms for 'lack of performance' is laughable. Who are these guys trying to kid? The truth is that if Jay didn't perform, he'd still have his job."

The timing of Gibson's firing, just weeks after the death of Senate Armed Services Committee heavyweight John McCain, also raises uncomfortable questions. "The minute Gibson was fired, McCain would have had Mattis, Shanahan, and Gibson on the carpet in his office, asking them what the hell they were doing," a senior congressional staffer who monitors Pentagon personnel issues notes. "That's not going to happen now."

In fact, McCain had little love for Shanahan, telling aides that his appointment raised conflict of interest issues. McCain's worries were aired when he grilled Shanahan on answers the Boeing executive gave to written questions posed to him by the committee in June 2017. It was a classic McCain scorcher: "The answers that you gave to the questions," he told Shanahan, "whether intentionally or unintentionally, were almost condescending, and I'm not overjoyed that you came from one of the five corporations that receive 90 percent of taxpayers' dollars. I have to have confidence that the fox is not going to be put back into the henhouse." McCain was livid.

"Not a good beginning," McCain told Shanahan. "Do not do that again, Mr. Shanahan, or I will not take your name up for a vote before this committee. Am I perfectly clear?" Shanahan nodded his agreement. "Very clear," he said.

As it turns out, Shanahan's appointment resulted from a series of contentious negotiations between Trump transition official Mira Ricardel and retired Adm. Kevin Sweeney, Mattis's chief of staff. "There was no love loss between Mattis and Ricardel," the senior Pentagon civilian with whom TAC spoke says. "So the SecDef told Sweeney to deal with her. Sweeney is a tough guy and Mira has sharp elbows, so this got nasty."

The skirmishing got so bad that when Ricardel said she wanted to be the Pentagon's undersecretary for policy, Mattis killed the idea, with Ricardel sidelined as the undersecretary of commerce for export administration. But Ricardel got her revenge: she not only successfully slotted Shanahan as Mattis's number two, she was named as deputy to John Bolton, appointed by Trump to succeed H.R. McMaster as the administration's national security advisor. "It's the ultimate irony," the senior Pentagon official says. "Jim Mattis ignored H.R. and he ends up with Mira Ricardel. Incredible."

That Jay Gibson has been caught in the Mattis-Ricardel crossfire is an open secret at the Pentagon, where key officials speculate that Ricardel's promotion of Shanahan has less to do with his commitment to Pentagon budget reform than to the fact that the two were close colleagues at Boeing, where Ricardel served for nine years (from 2006 to 2015) as vice president of strategic missile and defense systems. That is to say, Jay Gibson's still unexplained firing has reinforced John McCain's worries that the fox would end up guarding the henhouse.

"This is the Boeing mafia in all of its glory," the senior Pentagon official says. "Anyone who comes in here [to the Pentagon] will always have Jay Gibson's experience as a marker. You think anyone who's willing to take on the bureaucracy is going to want that job? No way. Budget reform is dead, d-e-a-d dead. So much for draining the swamp."

Mark Perry is the author of The Most Dangerous Man in America and The Pentagon's Wars . Follow him on Twitter @markperrydc .

Whine Merchant September 26, 2018 at 12:05 am

Well, we know where Mattis is going when he leaves the Pentagon. Nice work if you can get it.
EliteCommInc. , , September 26, 2018 at 3:24 am
"Even so, Gibson was told he would have the Trump administration's support -- "

Look these are the issues in which the executive has to be made of sterner stuff. I suspect that the tag line after the articles title heading is more accurate and that has probably nothing to do with COS being quick on the draw.

Seriously, anyone taking a knife to the Pentagon budget is putting a knife top their throat, unless they have support.

Gen Mattis wants to save big money stop sending US forces to needless adventures.

On top of the firing, I found the last three or four paragraphs all about insider trading as opposed to job performance, goals, budget cutting, not even budget accountability . . . Personalities over performance -- holy petolies.

In this day and age there seems to be no other tune.

david , , September 26, 2018 at 5:49 am
All federal agencies are by congressional mandate obligated to pass financial audits EVERY year. DOD hasn't done one in over 10 years. Mattis supposedly was "working" on one for this year. Where is it?

We see endless stories of waste, fraud, and mismanagement in DOD. The littoral combat ship that more than doubled in price and clearly can't do what it was designed to do. So many others.

Given that the United States spends more money on defense than the next seven countries COMBINED including Russia and China it's not a question of how much you spend it's a question of how well. Until DOD passes that financial audit that all other agencies are obligated to do DOD should be get any increase in funding.

Kent , , September 26, 2018 at 6:39 am
When folks learn that the DOD is the swamp, then we can start having a conversation.
b. , , September 26, 2018 at 9:24 am
"Lap Dog" Mattis.
Scott , , September 26, 2018 at 10:27 am
The Trump Administration is the most incompetent and corrupt since Warren G. Harding. There is no swamp draining going on. It is just a fight on who occupies it.

The Trump Administration taking months to fill a position and then not having a support staff in place after 7 months is totally incompetent.

[Sep 25, 2018] Bolton Hates the Nuclear Deal Because It Proves Diplomacy Works

Notable quotes:
"... Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. ..."
"... An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could. ..."
"... UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the administration's goal as well. ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. One line from Bolton's speech stood out for being as delusional as it was representative of the Iran hawk worldview:

The Iran Deal was the worst diplomatic debacle in American history [bold mine-DL]. It did nothing to address the regime's destabilizing activities or its ballistic missile development and proliferation. Worst of all, the deal failed in its fundamental objective: permanently denying Iran all paths to a nuclear bomb.

Bolton loathes diplomacy. That is the key thing to understand about him, and it helps explain almost everything he has done in his career. He regards any successful diplomatic agreement as something of a debacle because it involves striking a compromise with another government, usually an adversary or rival, and because it means that the other side wasn't forced to give in to our every demand. When he denounces the JCPOA as "the worst diplomatic debacle in American history," he is simply expressing the intensity of his hatred for the government with which the agreement was made. His previous and ongoing support for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) shouldn't be forgotten when we try to make sense of this fanatical rhetoric.

If Bolton considers something to be the "worst diplomatic debacle" of our entire history, that tells us that the agreement required very little of the U.S., that it reinforced habits of multilateral cooperation, and that it successfully resolved an outstanding dispute that Bolton wished to resolve through regime change and war. An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could.

The venue for Bolton and Pompeo's speeches was no accident. It was an audience of hard-liners that detest Iran being addressed by like-minded speakers. UANI intensely opposed the nuclear deal and recited the usual false claims about it. Their vehement hostility to the most important and successful nonproliferation agreement of its kind is a testament to how little they care about actually restricting Iran's nuclear program. Like other Iran hawks, UANI is simply against Iran, and therefore they hate anything that might relieve international pressure on Iran. The group celebrates Trump administration sanctions and its members laugh about the deteriorating economic conditions inside Iran:

UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the administration's goal as well.

Whine Merchant September 25, 2018 at 6:44 pm

Well, more evidence that the three stooges still drink Bibi's kool-aid. Perhaps AIPAC has promised to arrange for the Pompeo-Haley GOP Ticket to succeed Trump, with Bolton as Sec of State and Defence all-in-one.

[Sep 25, 2018] Bolton Hates the Nuclear Deal Because It Proves Diplomacy Works

Notable quotes:
"... Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. ..."
"... An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could. ..."
"... UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the administration's goal as well. ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. One line from Bolton's speech stood out for being as delusional as it was representative of the Iran hawk worldview:

The Iran Deal was the worst diplomatic debacle in American history [bold mine-DL]. It did nothing to address the regime's destabilizing activities or its ballistic missile development and proliferation. Worst of all, the deal failed in its fundamental objective: permanently denying Iran all paths to a nuclear bomb.

Bolton loathes diplomacy. That is the key thing to understand about him, and it helps explain almost everything he has done in his career. He regards any successful diplomatic agreement as something of a debacle because it involves striking a compromise with another government, usually an adversary or rival, and because it means that the other side wasn't forced to give in to our every demand. When he denounces the JCPOA as "the worst diplomatic debacle in American history," he is simply expressing the intensity of his hatred for the government with which the agreement was made. His previous and ongoing support for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) shouldn't be forgotten when we try to make sense of this fanatical rhetoric.

If Bolton considers something to be the "worst diplomatic debacle" of our entire history, that tells us that the agreement required very little of the U.S., that it reinforced habits of multilateral cooperation, and that it successfully resolved an outstanding dispute that Bolton wished to resolve through regime change and war. An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could.

The venue for Bolton and Pompeo's speeches was no accident. It was an audience of hard-liners that detest Iran being addressed by like-minded speakers. UANI intensely opposed the nuclear deal and recited the usual false claims about it. Their vehement hostility to the most important and successful nonproliferation agreement of its kind is a testament to how little they care about actually restricting Iran's nuclear program. Like other Iran hawks, UANI is simply against Iran, and therefore they hate anything that might relieve international pressure on Iran. The group celebrates Trump administration sanctions and its members laugh about the deteriorating economic conditions inside Iran:

UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the administration's goal as well.

Whine Merchant September 25, 2018 at 6:44 pm

Well, more evidence that the three stooges still drink Bibi's kool-aid. Perhaps AIPAC has promised to arrange for the Pompeo-Haley GOP Ticket to succeed Trump, with Bolton as Sec of State and Defence all-in-one.

[Sep 25, 2018] Unfortunately, the Cheney/Greenspan/Kagan kind does not capitulate voluntarily.

Sep 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anya , Sep 25, 2018 9:13:56 AM | 158 ">link

psychohistorian | Sep 24, 2018 11:43:23 PM | 123 "I hope for capitulation by the private finance folk so society can evolve into some sort of meritocracy."

Unfortunately, the Cheney/Greenspan/Kagan kind does not capitulate voluntarily. They are the impulsive leeches and born traitors. The deficit of decency shows in their progeny as well -- see the disgusting youngsters from the Cheney, Bush, and Blair clans. All of them openly enjoy the ill-gotten wealth that is soaked in the blood of the innocent. All of them are subhuman deformities morality-wise.

[Sep 25, 2018] Why did the Il-20 was not protected by our fighters? by Victor Alksnis

Slightly edited Yandex translations
Notable quotes:
"... Remember downed in November 2015, the Turkish F-16 our su-24? After all, one of the main reasons for this is that no one warned the crew about the presence and possible attack by its Turkish fighter in the vicinity due to the lack of control of airspace in the area and due to this our bomber was not covered by fighters, when it needed such a protection. ..."
"... Why was there no control of airspace over the Mediterranean sea? Why Israeli fighter were not discovered, why the Fight control center did not issue the command to the crew of the Il-20 immediately go in the direction of the Cyprus and wit for then of Israeli attack? ..."
"... Yes, periodically A-50 appear in Syria. But only periodically. And because of this, our planes are shot down and pilots are killed. ..."
Sep 18, 2018 | vz.ru

For almost three years, I have been publicly asking the same questions: "Why is Syria still not created a continuous radar field? Where are our aircraft AWACS (long-range radar detection and control) type A-50 (a-50U), and even more so A-100? Why are they not" hanging " around the clock over the middle East region, as do the United States and Israel?

Why do our "sworn partners" have full information about the air situation over the middle East region, and we are fighting there with our eyes closed? Why are our bombers, transporters and reconnaissance planes not covered by our fighters?" After all, as a result we suffer losses.

Remember downed in November 2015, the Turkish F-16 our su-24? After all, one of the main reasons for this is that no one warned the crew about the presence and possible attack by its Turkish fighter in the vicinity due to the lack of control of airspace in the area and due to this our bomber was not covered by fighters, when it needed such a protection.

And yesterday's death of Il-20 and 14 people of his crew? Today, the Russian defense Ministry tells us tales that Israeli fighters hided in a radar footprint of Il-20, attacking Latakia, and so the Syrians shot down our plane. Why wasn't the Il-20 was not protected by our fighters?

Why was there no control of airspace over the Mediterranean sea? Why Israeli fighter were not discovered, why the Fight control center did not issue the command to the crew of the Il-20 immediately go in the direction of the Cyprus and wit for then of Israeli attack?

Yes, periodically A-50 appear in Syria. But only periodically. And because of this, our planes are shot down and pilots are killed.

Why today our "partners" are armed with weapons of the XXI century, and we are forced to look at it with envy and use the methods of detection of air targets used in 40-50th of the last century?

Who of our military leaders was responsible for the death of Oleg Peshkov in November 2015? Which of them will be responsible for yesterday's death of 14 Il-20 crew?

Unfortunately, apart from the next victorious speeches about the world's best weapons and the world's strongest army, about the victory over terrorism on the far borders, we are unlikely to hear anything.

Source: Victor Alksnis's Blog

[Sep 25, 2018] Why do i smell a false flag coming soon on CNN!

Sep 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

AG17 , Sep 25, 2018 1:35:35 AM | link

Why do i smell a false flag coming soon on CNN!

[Sep 25, 2018] USA/Israel/NATO would love for Russia to lash out against Israel for a provocation such as this Ilyushin 20 downing; but as the author suggests Russia knows it could not withstand the combined forces of NATO/Israel/USA in the Syrian theatre. Russia would not stand a chance.

Sep 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Uncle Sam

If Russia shot down Israeli aircraft or bombed the airbase from which they took off, or even obliterated Israel, America would do nothing but bitch and complain. The American military does not want a war with Russia, because they know they cannot win a conventional war with Russia. I would go so far as to say that even if Russia sank American warships including an aircraft carrier America would not go to war.

America does not go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the continental United States. That is why she would bend over backwards to prevent a war with countries like Russia, China or North Korea, and the reason these countries need not fear America. The prevention of nuclear war is the underlying premise of American foreign policy. It has been since the nuclear age began. America would only use its nuclear weapons if the American mainland is hit with nuclear weapons.

America would accept the loss of hundreds or even thousands of its servicemen rather than have the continental USA turned into a wasteland.

Deschutes , says: September 25, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT

Sorry, not so sure I'd agree. USA/Israel/NATO would love for Russia to lash out against Israel for a provocation such as this Ilyushin 20 downing; but as the author suggests Russia knows it could not withstand the combined forces of NATO/Israel/USA in the Syrian theatre. Russia would not stand a chance.

I would agree with you that the USA has historically only attacked much weaker foes: Viet Nam, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. But recently there has been a shift in US military I've read about, i.e. revisionist powers are now the main focus instead of 'war on terror'. With the stranglehold 'declare war!' sanctions USA will crush Iran with this November, it means that there will most definitely be ensuing hot war with Iran, probably early next year. What happened to Syria will next happen in Iran.

Once Iran is reduced to rubble with US/Israel trained and equipped ISIS proxy armies, the US and NATO will start destabilising actions along Russia's southern borders, i.e. Caspian Sea and Georgia. Their plan is to use the same Arab Islamist proxies and/or Chechen Arabs to start terror attacks in souther Russian provinces, i.e. Grozny, Derbent, Dagestan oblast. USA/NATO/Israel will try to chip away at Russia's southern provinces using same methods used in Syria, weaken and balkanize it. This is why Putin is trying so hard to stop them in Syria.

[Sep 25, 2018] Russia had rejected the request by Israel for the bombing raid near Latakia. Seems Netanyahou decided to ignore Russia and go ahead with the mission

Sep 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Brad allen , Sep 24, 2018 7:20:47 AM | link

What seems very significant, apart from this long late upgrade to Syrian air defenses, is news from the area that Russia had rejected the request by Israel for the bombing raid near Latakia. Seems Netanyahou decided to ignore Russia and go ahead with the mission. This could be very significant in changing rules of cooperation between them.

[Sep 25, 2018] The Path to World War III by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... "from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah." ..."
"... The Israelis for their part were using four F-16 fighter bombers to stage a surprise night attack on several sites near Latakia, close to the airbase being used by the Russians. They came in from the Mediterranean Sea and clearly were using the Russian plane to mask their approach as the Ilyushin 20 would have presented a much larger radar profile for the air defenses. The radar systems on the F-16s would also have clearly seen the Russian plane. ..."
"... There was also a back story. The Israelis and Russian military had established a hotline, similar to the one that is used with the U.S. command in Syria, precisely intended to avoid incidents like the Ilyushin shoot-down that might escalate into a more major conflict. Israel reportedly used the line but only one minute before the incident took place, leaving no time for the Russian plane to take evasive action. ..."
"... The Russian Ministry of Defense was irate. It saw the exploitation of the intelligence plane by the Israelis as a deliberate high-risk initiative. It warned "We consider these provocative actions by Israel as hostile. Fifteen Russian military service members have died because of the irresponsible actions of the Israeli military. This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership. We reserve the right for an adequate response." ..."
"... Aggressive war directed at a non-threatening country is the ultimate war crime as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunals that followed after the Second World War, yet the United States and its poodles Britain and France have not so much as squeaked when Israel kills civilians and soldiers in its surprise attacks against targets that it alone frequently claims to be linked to the Iranians. Washington would not be in much of a position to cast the first stone anyway, as it is in Syria illegally, bombs targets regularly, to include two major cruise missile strikes, and, on at least one occasion, set a trap that reportedly succeeded in killing a large number of Russian mercenaries fighting on the Syrian government side. ..."
"... There is, of course, an alternative explanation for the Israeli action. Netanyahu might have considered it all a win-win either way, with the Russian plane masking and enabling the Israeli attack without consequence for Israel or, perversely, producing an incident inviting retaliation from Moscow, which would likely lead to a shooting war with the United States after it inevitably steps in to support Israel's government. In either case, the chaos in Syria that Israel desires would continue and even worsen but there would also be the potential danger of a possible expansion of the war as a consequence, making it regional or even broader. ..."
"... It's the same old story. Israel does risky things like attacking its neighbors because it knows it will pay no price due to Washington's support. The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington. What Israel is really thinking when it seeks to create anarchy all around its borders is anyone's guess, but it is, to be sure, in no one's interest to allow the process to continue. It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East. ..."
"... Syria and Israel are still "officially" at war. No peace treaty has ever been signed between them after the 1973 war. ..."
"... Bolton and Pompeo have really excelled themselves over this. Been almost a blackout on reporting over this, at least after initial reporting of the incident. A major world leader slapping down Israel is not something the media wish people to see, might get the wrong idea. ..."
"... Not only that, but the IDF LIED to Russia, stating they were going to attack targets in N. Syria, not around Latakia. ..."
"... It appears that French frigate did fire on Syria, in the hopes that Russia would respond, then Macaroni would cry out to NATO for help under Article 5, which says, "An attack against one is an attack against all" and off we'd go to who knows where, maybe WWIII. ..."
"... How, I asked Fort Russ to explain, did the monsieurs on the French tin can know that Russia wouldn't shoot back and send them all to Davy Jones' Locker? Fort Russ' response? It deleted my comment rather than defend its claim. I'm through with Fort Russ. ..."
"... Trump's infamous campaign slogan of MAGA quickly mutated into MIGA which is the originally intended version anyways. ..."
"... France a real FUKUS country ( France -UK-US ) ..."
"... The French destroyed Libia https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/06/28/hillary-libya/ ..."
"... There are French colonial troops in 5 african countries https://www.businessinsider.com/frances-military-is-all-over-africa-2015-1?IR=T ..."
"... France steals about 400.000 million euros per year from African ex-colonies with their currency, the CFA franc ( Communnaute Francophone Africaine, currency ) https://africasacountry.com/2018/06/its-time-to-end-the-cfa-franc ..."
"... Never underestimate French colonialism ..."
"... One might as well ask, why were the French on the scene in the first place? In the scenario being discussed here, the French did not shoot for self defence, but because they were told to. Macron would be the perfect lapdog for the job. I agree Macron being the perfect lapdog for the job. I nevertheless find the scenario on Fort-Russ unlikely because of the relative positions of the actors, if they were their true positions, when the Russian plane was hit. ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Israel is, of course, claiming innocence , that it was the Syrians who shot down the Russian aircraft while the Israeli jets were legitimately targeting a Syrian army facility "from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah." Seeking to undo some of the damage caused, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express his condolences. He also sent his air force chief to Russia on Thursday to provide a detailed report on what had occurred from the Israeli perspective.

But that story, however it will be spun, is inevitably only part of the tale. The narrative of what occurred is by now well established. The Russian aircraft was returning to base after a mission over the Mediterranean off the Syrian coast monitoring the activities of a French warship and at least one British RAF plane. As a large and relatively slow propeller driven aircraft on a routine intelligence gathering mission, the Ilyushin 20 had no reason to conceal its presence. It was apparently preparing to land at its airbase at Khmeimim in Syria when the incident took place. It may or may not have had its transponder on, which would signal to the Syrian air defenses that it was a "friendly."

Syrian air defenses were on high alert because Israel had attacked targets near Damascus on the previous day. On that occasion a Boeing 747 on the ground that Israel claimed was transporting weapons was the target. One should note in passing that Israeli claims about what it is targeting in Syria are never independently verifiable.

The Israelis for their part were using four F-16 fighter bombers to stage a surprise night attack on several sites near Latakia, close to the airbase being used by the Russians. They came in from the Mediterranean Sea and clearly were using the Russian plane to mask their approach as the Ilyushin 20 would have presented a much larger radar profile for the air defenses. The radar systems on the F-16s would also have clearly seen the Russian plane.

The Israelis might have been expecting that the Syrians would not fire at all at the incoming planes knowing that one of them at least was being flown by their Russian allies. If that was the expectation, it proved wrong and it was indeed a Syrian S-200 ground to air missile directed by its guidance system to the larger target that brought down the plane and killed its fourteen crew members. The Israelis completed their bombing run and flew back home. There were also reports that the French frigate offshore fired several missiles during the exchange, but they have not been confirmed while the British plane was also reportedly circling out of range though within the general area.

There was also a back story. The Israelis and Russian military had established a hotline, similar to the one that is used with the U.S. command in Syria, precisely intended to avoid incidents like the Ilyushin shoot-down that might escalate into a more major conflict. Israel reportedly used the line but only one minute before the incident took place, leaving no time for the Russian plane to take evasive action.

The Russian Ministry of Defense was irate. It saw the exploitation of the intelligence plane by the Israelis as a deliberate high-risk initiative. It warned "We consider these provocative actions by Israel as hostile. Fifteen Russian military service members have died because of the irresponsible actions of the Israeli military. This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership. We reserve the right for an adequate response."

Russian President Vladimir Putin was more conciliatory , saying the incident was a "chain of tragic circumstances." He contrasted it with the Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane in 2015, which was planned and deliberate, noting that Israel had not actually attacked the Ilyushin. Though the Putin comments clearly recognize that his country's relationship with Israel is delicate to say the least, that does not mean that he will do nothing.

Many Israelis are emigres from Russia and there are close ties between the two countries, but their views on Syria diverge considerably. As much as Putin might like to strike back at Israel in a hard, substantive way, he will likely only upgrade and strengthen the air defenses around Russian troop concentrations and warn that another "surprise" attack will be resisted. Unfortunately, he knows that he is substantially outgunned locally by the U.S., France, Britain and Israel, not to mention Turkey, and a violent response that would escalate the conflict is not in his interest. He has similarly, in cooperation with his Syrian allies, delayed a major attempt to retake terrorist controlled Idlib province, as he works out a formula with Ankara to prevent heavy handed Turkish intervention.

But there is another dimension to the story that the international media has largely chosen to ignore. And that is that Israel is now carrying out almost daily air attacks on Syria, over 200 in the past 18 months, a country with which it is not at war and which has not attacked it or threatened it in any way. It justifies the attacks by claiming that they are directed against Iran or Hezbollah, not at Syria itself. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that any peace settlement in Syria include the complete removal of Iranians, a demand that has also been repeated by the United States, which is also calling for the end to the Bashar al-Assad government and its replacement by something more "democratic."

Aggressive war directed at a non-threatening country is the ultimate war crime as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunals that followed after the Second World War, yet the United States and its poodles Britain and France have not so much as squeaked when Israel kills civilians and soldiers in its surprise attacks against targets that it alone frequently claims to be linked to the Iranians. Washington would not be in much of a position to cast the first stone anyway, as it is in Syria illegally, bombs targets regularly, to include two major cruise missile strikes, and, on at least one occasion, set a trap that reportedly succeeded in killing a large number of Russian mercenaries fighting on the Syrian government side.

And then there is the other dimension of Israeli interference with its neighbors, the secret wars in which it supports the terrorist groups operating in Syria as well as in Iran. The Netanyahu government has armed the terrorists operating in Syria and even treated them in Israeli hospitals when they get wounded. On one occasion when ISIS accidentally fired into Israeli-held territory on the Golan Heights it subsequently apologized. So, if you ask who is supporting terrorism the answer first and foremost should be Israel, but Israel pays no price for doing so because of the protection afforded by Washington, which, by the way, is also protecting terrorists.

There is, of course, an alternative explanation for the Israeli action. Netanyahu might have considered it all a win-win either way, with the Russian plane masking and enabling the Israeli attack without consequence for Israel or, perversely, producing an incident inviting retaliation from Moscow, which would likely lead to a shooting war with the United States after it inevitably steps in to support Israel's government. In either case, the chaos in Syria that Israel desires would continue and even worsen but there would also be the potential danger of a possible expansion of the war as a consequence, making it regional or even broader.

It's the same old story. Israel does risky things like attacking its neighbors because it knows it will pay no price due to Washington's support. The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington. What Israel is really thinking when it seeks to create anarchy all around its borders is anyone's guess, but it is, to be sure, in no one's interest to allow the process to continue. It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

ValmMond , says: September 25, 2018 at 5:14 am GMT

"a country with which it is not at war"

Syria and Israel are still "officially" at war. No peace treaty has ever been signed between them after the 1973 war.

Harold Smith , says: September 25, 2018 at 5:32 am GMT
"It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East."

Orange Clown's a liar whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. Our presidential poseur obviously had no intention of following through on most of his pre-election intimations and campaign promises.

Anon , [629] Disclaimer says: September 25, 2018 at 5:47 am GMT
Syria refused "land for peace" initiative in 1967 where it would get back Golan in return for peace. They never established diplomatic relations and are technically in the state of war.
Ronald Thomas West , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT
"The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington"

I don't doubt Israeli contrivance but I expect there is possibly a wider contrivance involving Netanyahu's poodle Macron:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/

Wizard of Oz , says: September 25, 2018 at 6:34 am GMT
@Anon Syria refused "land for peace" initiative in 1967 where it would get back Golan in return for peace. They never established diplomatic relations and are technically in the state of war. Which raises a couple of questions. One is whether the deal is still open. Another is why a secular régime in Syria, like that of Assad, would not recognise Israel now in return for something substantial which might be money rather than territory.
Colin Wright , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 6:36 am GMT
@Anon

Syria refused "land for peace" initiative in 1967 where it would get back Golan in return for peace. They never established diplomatic relations and are technically in the state of war. 'Syria refused "land for peace" initiative in 1967 where it would get back Golan in return for peace '

Uh huh. Hey, look. The Zionist lied. I'll be. https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-israel-didnt-offer-to-trade-the-west-bank-for-peace-in-1967

jilles dykstra , says: September 25, 2018 at 7:53 am GMT
@Anon

Syria refused "land for peace" initiative in 1967 where it would get back Golan in return for peace.

They never established diplomatic relations and are technically in the state of war. Moshe Dayan, in an interview with an Israeli paper, stated that 95% of border incidents with Syria were deliberately provoked by Israel

jilles dykstra , says: September 25, 2018 at 7:55 am GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

"The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington"

I don't doubt Israeli contrivance but I expect there is possibly a wider contrivance involving Netanyahu's poodle Macron:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/

&

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/more-experts-confirm-that-france-took-down-il-20-identify-friend-foe-system-did-not-fail/

&

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/major-russia-defies-israel-to-now-supply-s-300-to-syria/

Thought provoking material from Joaquin Flores at Ft Russ News. Was it actually the French? Macron worked for Banque de Rothschild in Paris

Vojkan , says: September 25, 2018 at 8:13 am GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

"The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington"

I don't doubt Israeli contrivance but I expect there is possibly a wider contrivance involving Netanyahu's poodle Macron:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/

&

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/more-experts-confirm-that-france-took-down-il-20-identify-friend-foe-system-did-not-fail/

&

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/major-russia-defies-israel-to-now-supply-s-300-to-syria/

Thought provoking material from Joaquin Flores at Ft Russ News. Was it actually the French? The Auvergne frigate is an anti-submarine ship equipped with surface-to-air missiles for self-defence Aster 15, with a range of max 30 km. Unless the French have modified it in the mean time, which is unlikely since it was launched too recently for that in my opinion, in 2015, to turn it in an air-defence ship equipped with the more advanced Aster 30 missiles, with a range of 100-120 km, I doubt they were within striking distance of the IL-20 when it was hit. On the other hand, it is possible that they have participated in the Israeli attack against Syria, given that they're equipped with cruise missiles and that ships of the same class have participated in previous attacks against Syria.

Anyway, I don't think it is wise of Russia to play down French involvement for the sake of Russian-French relationship. France under Macron is a shit country but the French are too vain to admit that they have elected a complete moron as president. There is no comparison with Erdogan's Turkey. Erdogan has way more substance than the Rotschild puppet Macron.

LondonBob , says: September 25, 2018 at 8:18 am GMT
Bolton and Pompeo have really excelled themselves over this. Been almost a blackout on reporting over this, at least after initial reporting of the incident. A major world leader slapping down Israel is not something the media wish people to see, might get the wrong idea.
Ronald Thomas West , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 9:21 am GMT
@Vojkan

The Auvergne frigate is an anti-submarine ship equipped with surface-to-air missiles for self-defence Aster 15, with a range of max 30 km. Unless the French have modified it in the mean time, which is unlikely since it was launched too recently for that in my opinion, in 2015, to turn it in an air-defence ship equipped with the more advanced Aster 30 missiles, with a range of 100-120 km, I doubt they were within striking distance of the IL-20 when it was hit. On the other hand, it is possible that they have participated in the Israeli attack against Syria, given that they're equipped with cruise missiles and that ships of the same class have participated in previous attacks against Syria.

Anyway, I don't think it is wise of Russia to play down French involvement for the sake of Russian-French relationship. France under Macron is a shit country but the French are too vain to admit that they have elected a complete moron as president. There is no comparison with Erdogan's Turkey. Erdogan has way more substance than the Rotschild puppet Macron.

Erdogan is a paranoid criminal who has back-stabbed every player he's ever done business with not to mention his intelligence chief, Hakan Fidan, is an alumnus of the Turkish branch of al-Qaida. Head and shoulders above Macron? I suppose that's possible

animalogic , says: September 25, 2018 at 9:52 am GMT
@Uncle Sam

If Russia shot down Israeli aircraft or bombed the airbase from which they took off, or even obliterated Israel, America would do nothing but bitch and complain. The American military does not want a war with Russia, because they know they cannot win a conventional war with Russia. I would go so far as to say that even if Russia sank American warships including an aircraft carrier America would not go to war.

America does not go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the continental United States. That is why she would bend over backwards to prevent a war with countries like Russia, China or North Korea, and the reason these countries need not fear America. The prevention of nuclear war is the underlying premise of American foreign policy. It has been since the nuclear age began. America would only use its nuclear weapons if the American mainland is hit with nuclear weapons.

America would accept the loss of hundreds or even thousands of its servicemen rather than have the continental USA turned into a wasteland. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of US unwillingness to fight a nuclear power, but .I also can't forget that the US ruling elites are pathological. Psychotic with hubris, greed & egoism. The "exceptional", the "indispensable" nation .& worse, the wagging dog to the Israeli tail.

steinbergfeldwtizcohen , says: September 25, 2018 at 10:28 am GMT
Israel has Zero goodwill. They are a pariah nation. I'm sure that will be interesting to watch as U.S. power evaporates. It proves to me that hubris overwhelms strategy; the Jews are the architects of their own destruction.
Vojkan , says: September 25, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

My understanding is the Auvergne class frigate has Aster 30 capability from launch, depending on the configuration ... retrofit would only be necessary in case it had not been initially equipped - In the French denomination, the Auvergne is a FREMM, anti-submarine, not FREDA, air-defence. The French FREMM, if the French MoD doesn't lie, is equipped with 16 missiles Aster 15 for self-defence. The FREDAs are equipped with 16 more missiles Aster 30. Let's say that the Auvergne is in fact equipped with Aster 30 instead of Aster 15 missiles, I say instead because there would be little room left for its alleged main capabilities if equipped with both, the likelihood that the French would fire one at a Russian reconnaissance plane is still less than the plane being hit by mistake by Syrian air-defence.

Why would the French down a distant slow moving Russian reconnaissance plane? It would make sense if the plane was much closer to the Auvergne, in which case an Aster 15 would have done the job. The thing is that it seems that as much as the Il-20 was between the Syrians and the Israelis, Israelis were between the French and the Russian plane.

Unless the French and the Israeli hardware are fully integrated, you have to have a hell of a confidence in your stuff to fire a missile to down the Russian plane in such circumstances. Though the Aster 30 has vertical launch and anything is possible. I can be wrong but I just find it unlikely.

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 11:05 am GMT

The Israelis for their part were using four F-16 fighter bombers to stage a surprise night attack on several sites near Latakia, close to the airbase being used by the Russians.

Not only that, but the IDF LIED to Russia, stating they were going to attack targets in N. Syria, not around Latakia.

It appears that French frigate did fire on Syria, in the hopes that Russia would respond, then Macaroni would cry out to NATO for help under Article 5, which says, "An attack against one is an attack against all" and off we'd go to who knows where, maybe WWIII.

Israel needs to be dis-armed of its NBC arsenal; nukes, biological and chemical weapons, which they will deny having, but as usual, it's just another LIE coming from a nation filled with religious zealots who think some G-d they created will protect them from nuclear bursts and that they have the G-d given right to kill any Gentile they want, w/o repercussions.

Vojkan , says: September 25, 2018 at 11:09 am GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

Erdogan is a paranoid criminal who has back-stabbed every player he's ever done business with ... not to mention his intelligence chief, Hakan Fidan, is an alumnus of the Turkish branch of al-Qaida. Head and shoulders above Macron? I suppose that's possible...

And Macron is an egomaniac with and Oedipus complex who oftens makes non-sensical sentences that send his admirers into trance. The only plus of Macron compared to Erdogan is that he knows his masters. The down side is that he doesn't know his own country, while Erdogan does. So yes, it is possible.

Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

"The downing of the Russian plane through Israeli contrivance created a situation that could easily have escalated into a war involving Moscow and Washington"

I don't doubt Israeli contrivance but I expect there is possibly a wider contrivance involving Netanyahu's poodle Macron:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/

&

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/more-experts-confirm-that-france-took-down-il-20-identify-friend-foe-system-did-not-fail/

&

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/major-russia-defies-israel-to-now-supply-s-300-to-syria/

Thought provoking material from Joaquin Flores at Ft Russ News. Was it actually the French? I left a response on the Fort Russ article asking them to explain exactly why French naval personnel would wish to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of the gerontophiliac juvenile war criminal in Paris.

How, I asked Fort Russ to explain, did the monsieurs on the French tin can know that Russia wouldn't shoot back and send them all to Davy Jones' Locker? Fort Russ' response? It deleted my comment rather than defend its claim. I'm through with Fort Russ.

KenH , says: September 25, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
The Nuremberg standard was only set up to be used against goyim and goy nations who don't have Jewish occupation governments. Israel must be pretty stupid as if wider, regional war breaks out then Tel Aviv should be considered a legitimate target and in the event of a nuclear war no doubt Russia has nukes destined for Tel Aviv and rightly so.
Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
@Justsaying

Trump's infamous campaign slogan of MAGA quickly mutated into MIGA which is the originally intended version anyways. Obedience to Israel has become a norm in presidential election campaigns. Even the disenfranchised minority caucuses, including and especially the Black one is firmly in Israel's pockets now. The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop.

"The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop."

As a brown person in Asia I grew up inculcated with the idea that I must always be in solidarity with black people in America and they would be with me (it was the 1970s, Malcolm X was still a fresh memory, Muhammad Ali still strode the scene like a colossus, and Martin Luther King Jr was still thought of as a hero in most circles).

Today, black Americans are people so wallowing in self abnegation that they mass voted for the racist war criminal Killary Clinton, owing to whose actions black people in America were incarcerated in hitherto unknown numbers; due to whose crimes black people in Haiti were looted to destitution; because of whom black people in Libya are literally being sold as slaves. Black Americans parade around saying "black lives matter", but are more than happy voting for war criminals who loot Haitian blacks, enslave Libyan blacks, massacre Somali blacks, deprive Sudanese blacks of life saving drugs, and plot to imperialistically occupy Africa, a continent of black people. Forget about us brown people, to American blacks in 2018, black lives do *not* matter.

Only virtue signalling and tribal identity matters. Nothing else.

Malcolm X would spit on them.

Mike P , says: September 25, 2018 at 12:02 pm GMT
@Vojkan In the French denomination, the Auvergne is a FREMM, anti-submarine, not FREDA, air-defence. The French FREMM, if the French MoD doesn't lie, is equipped with 16 missiles Aster 15 for self-defence. The FREDAs are equipped with 16 more missiles Aster 30. Let's say that the Auvergne is in fact equipped with Aster 30 instead of Aster 15 missiles, I say instead because there would be little room left for its alleged main capabilities if equipped with both, the likelihood that the French would fire one at a Russian reconnaissance plane is still less than the plane being hit by mistake by Syrian air-defence. Why would the French down a distant slow moving Russian reconnaissance plane? It would make sense if the plane was much closer to the Auvergne, in which case an Aster 15 would have done the job. The thing is that it seems that as much as the Il-20 was between the Syrians and the Israelis, Israelis were between the French and the Russian plane. Unless the French and the Israeli hardware are fully integrated, you have to have a hell of a confidence in your stuff to fire a missile to down the Russian plane in such circumstances. Though the Aster 30 has vertical launch and anything is possible. I can be wrong but I just find it unlikely.

Why would the French down a distant slow moving Russian reconnaissance plane?

One might as well ask, why were the French on the scene in the first place?

In the scenario being discussed here, the French did not shoot for self defence, but because they were told to. Macron would be the perfect lapdog for the job.

Respect , says: September 25, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
@Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

I left a response on the Fort Russ article asking them to explain exactly why French naval personnel would wish to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of the gerontophiliac juvenile war criminal in Paris. How, I asked Fort Russ to explain, did the monsieurs on the French tin can know that Russia wouldn't shoot back and send them all to Davy Jones' Locker?

Fort Russ' response? It deleted my comment rather than defend its claim.

I'm through with Fort Russ.

Never underestimate colonialist France .

France a real FUKUS country ( France -UK-US )

Ronald Thomas West , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 1:02 pm GMT
@Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

I left a response on the Fort Russ article asking them to explain exactly why French naval personnel would wish to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of the gerontophiliac juvenile war criminal in Paris. How, I asked Fort Russ to explain, did the monsieurs on the French tin can know that Russia wouldn't shoot back and send them all to Davy Jones' Locker?

Fort Russ' response? It deleted my comment rather than defend its claim.

I'm through with Fort Russ. Well, Bill, Russia practices entirely too much self-restraint to my taste too, but I suspect you underestimate the ego-priapism of the French (you should see the exaggerated 'packages' on the statues of their military heroes), it's not like that culture plays with a full deck or level mentality. Bottom line: Russia doesn't want World War III and the priss Gauls are perfectly willing to take advantage of that in the negative, you might better understand the Western gang mentality. Insofar as assigning a modicum of 'normalcy' (rationality) to the French militarist idiots, it'd be a mistake, they might notice they'd backed-buttocks into the nuclear launch button if you separated them from on-ship lover with a pry-bar. Sort of like Dien Bien Phu and catastrophic political-military miscalculation.

Gerontophiliac? Rumor has it rather Macron is in love with his Muslim beating bodyguard. The 'elderly' woman seems to be great cover

ISmellBagels , says: September 25, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
The Israelis using the hotline just a minute before the shoot down is very similar to when the yid army gives notice to a Palestinian family just a minute before blowing up their house. They think it's all funny.
Respect , says: September 25, 2018 at 1:33 pm GMT
The French destroyed Libia https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/06/28/hillary-libya/

There are French colonial troops in 5 african countries https://www.businessinsider.com/frances-military-is-all-over-africa-2015-1?IR=T

France steals about 400.000 million euros per year from African ex-colonies with their currency, the CFA franc ( Communnaute Francophone Africaine, currency ) https://africasacountry.com/2018/06/its-time-to-end-the-cfa-franc

Never underestimate French colonialism .

annamaria , says: September 25, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

Well, Bill, Russia practices entirely too much self-restraint to my taste too, but I suspect you underestimate the ego-priapism of the French (you should see the exaggerated 'packages' on the statues of their military heroes), it's not like that culture plays with a full deck or level mentality. Bottom line: Russia doesn't want World War III and the priss Gauls are perfectly willing to take advantage of that in the negative, you might better understand the Western gang mentality. Insofar as assigning a modicum of 'normalcy' (rationality) to the French militarist idiots, it'd be a mistake, they might notice they'd backed-buttocks into the nuclear launch button if you separated them from on-ship lover with a pry-bar. Sort of like Dien Bien Phu and catastrophic political-military miscalculation.

Gerontophiliac? Rumor has it rather Macron is in love with his Muslim beating bodyguard. The 'elderly' woman seems to be great cover... It is highly implausible that "Micron" has any power. The same can be said about the imbecile UK Parliament that allowed Mr. Gavin Williamson (a trained salesperson knowledgeable in fireplaces) to become a Secretary of Defence. Gavin's only virtue is his superb sensitivity to the needs of mega-war profiteers and the Friends of Israel in the UK.

Here is an analysis of the 9/17 event in Syria by Thierry Meyssan: http://www.voltairenet.org/article203086.html

20 September 2018: "The Chief of Staff for the Israëli Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, arrives in a hurry to present his version of events. Once these proofs were checked and compared with other recordings, it transpired that Israël was lying straight-faced."

"On 17 September 2018, France, Israël and the United Kingdom carried out a joint operation against Syrian targets.

1. A British Torpedo took off from Cyprus to land in Iraq. During the flight, it violated Syrian air space in order to scan the Syrian defences and make the allied attack possible.

2. Less than an hour later, four Israëli F-16s and a French frigate, L'Auvergne, fired on targets in the Syrian governorate of Lattakia. The Syrian air defences protected their country by firing their S-200s against the French and Israëli missiles.

3. During the battle, an F-16 used a Russian Ilyushin Il-20 as a shield.

The cowardice of the British and French leaders led them to censor all information concerning their responsibility in this operation . London made no comment, and Paris denied the facts. Neither the BBC, nor France-Television dared to mention the subject. For these two countries, more than ever, t he reality of external politics is excluded from the democratic debate.

In case the White House should find an acceptable narrative of the facts for its electors, Russia could forbid the United Kingdom, France and Israël from making any intrusion into the maritime, terrestrial and aerial space of Syria without the authorisation of Damascus.
London and Paris would have to cease their threats of bombing under whatever pretext at all (false chemical weapons) and withdraw their special forces. This measure would be valid for all protagonists in general, except for the United States and, in Idlib, for Turkey."

-- Neither the United Kingdom nor France nor Israël has a head of state. These states are indeed headless.

Vojkan , says: September 25, 2018 at 1:50 pm GMT
@Mike P
Why would the French down a distant slow moving Russian reconnaissance plane?
One might as well ask, why were the French on the scene in the first place? In the scenario being discussed here, the French did not shoot for self defence, but because they were told to. Macron would be the perfect lapdog for the job. I agree Macron being the perfect lapdog for the job. I nevertheless find the scenario on Fort-Russ unlikely because of the relative positions of the actors, if they were their true positions, when the Russian plane was hit.
Jean de Peyrelongue , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 1:56 pm GMT
Russia's MOD story is clear: the IL-20 had been flying around Idlib and was coming back when 4 fighters from Israel bombed Latakia and having accomplished their mission and also noticed of the incoming IL-20, instead of running away, decided to stay around for another objective. One of the fighter came close to the IL-20 which was going to land, and he gave him the "Judas' kiss" calling for the Syrian DCA to shoot down the IL-20.

It was not an accident, it was a pre-planned murder: Note that the Syrian DCA became ready only 10′ after the bombing of Lattakia and that the israelis had plenty of time to run away.

It would be interesting to know if these fighters communicate with Israel before deciding to carry out this murder.

I am glad to see that Russia is not behaving like the US when the USS Liberty was attacked by Israel. By deciding to send the S300 to Syria , improved their communication system and jammed airplanes communication systems when attacking Syria, Russia is giving an appropriate answer which is going to improve drastically the defense capabilities of Syria and "cooled some aggressive hot heads".

[Sep 25, 2018] It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East: MAGA quickly mutated into MIGA

Sep 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , says: September 25, 2018 at 5:32 am GMT

"It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East."

Orange Clown's a liar whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. Our presidential poseur obviously had no intention of following through on most of his pre-election intimations and campaign promises.

Non Sum Qualis Eram , says: September 25, 2018 at 6:41 am GMT

Netanyahu might have considered it all a win-win either way, with the Russian plane masking and enabling the Israeli attack without consequence for Israel or, perversely, producing an incident inviting retaliation from Moscow, which would likely lead to a shooting war with the United States after it inevitably steps in to support Israel's government.

There we go! Glad someone gets it.

I had to read Saker's article suggesting that just maybe it could have been an actual accident on Israel's part through my fingers as I could not manage to lift my face from my palm the entire time.

It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East.

I'd love to see this happen, but let's be real. If we pulled out of Israel's terror wars, Mossad would stage a false flag to bring us right back in less than 12 months later. There's only one way to stop fighting wars for Israel and that's to end Israel. We've got to strike at the roots, not the branches.

animalogic , says: September 25, 2018 at 9:52 am GMT
@Uncle Sam

If Russia shot down Israeli aircraft or bombed the airbase from which they took off, or even obliterated Israel, America would do nothing but bitch and complain. The American military does not want a war with Russia, because they know they cannot win a conventional war with Russia. I would go so far as to say that even if Russia sank American warships including an aircraft carrier America would not go to war.

America does not go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the continental United States. That is why she would bend over backwards to prevent a war with countries like Russia, China or North Korea, and the reason these countries need not fear America. The prevention of nuclear war is the underlying premise of American foreign policy. It has been since the nuclear age began. America would only use its nuclear weapons if the American mainland is hit with nuclear weapons.

America would accept the loss of hundreds or even thousands of its servicemen rather than have the continental USA turned into a wasteland. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of US unwillingness to fight a nuclear power, but .I also can't forget that the US ruling elites are pathological. Psychotic with hubris, greed & egoism. The "exceptional", the "indispensable" nation .& worse, the wagging dog to the Israeli tail.

Justsaying , says: September 25, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT
@windwaves

Trump is owned by israel, I wish I was wrong, but there is no way around it. I mean, I expect him any day to convert to judaism.

No way around it. Trump's infamous campaign slogan of MAGA quickly mutated into MIGA which is the originally intended version anyways. Obedience to Israel has become a norm in presidential election campaigns. Even the disenfranchised minority caucuses, including and especially the Black one is firmly in Israel's pockets now. The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop.

Ian | Sep 25, 2018 11:00:14 AM | 172

Briefly listened to Trump's speech at the UN. He's gone full Zio. Midterms is going to be interesting.

Circe | Sep 25, 2018 11:01:00 AM | 173

Trump is presently at the U.N. repeating all the American foreign policy propaganda. The hubris he's delivering is off the charts. Disgusting doesn't begin to cover how deceptive and slimy his zionist-authored rhetoric is. He's a sad, pathetic mouthpiece for his masters in Israel.

[Sep 25, 2018] The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop

Sep 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website September 25, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT

@Justsaying Trump's infamous campaign slogan of MAGA quickly mutated into MIGA which is the originally intended version anyways. Obedience to Israel has become a norm in presidential election campaigns. Even the disenfranchised minority caucuses, including and especially the Black one is firmly in Israel's pockets now. The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop.

"The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop."

As a brown person in Asia I grew up inculcated with the idea that I must always be in solidarity with black people in America and they would be with me (it was the 1970s, Malcolm X was still a fresh memory, Muhammad Ali still strode the scene like a colossus, and Martin Luther King Jr was still thought of as a hero in most circles).

Today, black Americans are people so wallowing in self abnegation that they mass voted for the racist war criminal Killary Clinton, owing to whose actions black people in America were incarcerated in hitherto unknown numbers; due to whose crimes black people in Haiti were looted to destitution; because of whom black people in Libya are literally being sold as slaves. Black Americans parade around saying "black lives matter", but are more than happy voting for war criminals who loot Haitian blacks, enslave Libyan blacks, massacre Somali blacks, deprive Sudanese blacks of life saving drugs, and plot to imperialistically occupy Africa, a continent of black people. Forget about us brown people, to American blacks in 2018, black lives do *not* matter.

Only virtue signalling and tribal identity matters. Nothing else.

Malcolm X would spit on them.

[Sep 25, 2018] Instantaneous mutation of MAGA into MIGA after Trump election

Notable quotes:
"... I expect him any day to convert to judaism. ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , says: September 25, 2018 at 5:32 am GMT

"It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle East."

Orange Clown's a liar whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. Our presidential poseur obviously had no intention of following through on most of his pre-election intimations and campaign promises.

Justsaying , says: September 25, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT
@windwaves

...I mean, I expect him any day to convert to judaism.

[Sep 25, 2018] Consequences - TTG

Notable quotes:
"... VV Putin and S Shoigu have quickly and calmly moved to insure that another incident like the IL-20 shoot down does not occur again. After laying the blame for the incident squarely on Israel, both men announced Syria will receive a major upgrade to their air defense system. Russian will deliver S-300 systems to the Syrians within the next two weeks. ..."
"... In other developments, Russian Senator and former Air Force commander Viktor Bondarev announced the establishment of a no-fly zone in Latakia to prevent a repeat of the IL-20 aircraft tragedy. He added that "any unauthorized objects in the sky over Hmeimim Airport will definitely be eliminated." I'm sure that remark was meant for an Israeli audience. I'm also certain that VV Putin personally informed Netanyahu of this in one of their recent phone calls. ..."
"... In addition to the S-300s and no-fly zone, Russian radio electronic combat assets will suppress communications, radars and satellite navigation of any combat aircraft attacking targets in Syria. A Russian Su-35S has reportedly intercepted a US F-22 over Syria. Russian has also asked for permission to station fighters and bombers at the Nojeh Air Base in NW Iran. The bear is seriously pissed. ..."
"... We are unhappy because the Izzies are unhappy. ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VV Putin and S Shoigu have quickly and calmly moved to insure that another incident like the IL-20 shoot down does not occur again. After laying the blame for the incident squarely on Israel, both men announced Syria will receive a major upgrade to their air defense system. Russian will deliver S-300 systems to the Syrians within the next two weeks.

If Russia already has S-300 systems under their control in Syria, these systems will probably be turned over the Syrians and new Russian systems will be brought in. Otherwise, new systems will be flown in directly to the Syrians. I would think the former would be the most reasonable way to upgrade the Syrian air defense system within two weeks unless the Russian have already quietly flown them in. In either case, Russian technicians and trainer will surely work with their Syrian counterparts for well past the two weeks stated.

In other developments, Russian Senator and former Air Force commander Viktor Bondarev announced the establishment of a no-fly zone in Latakia to prevent a repeat of the IL-20 aircraft tragedy. He added that "any unauthorized objects in the sky over Hmeimim Airport will definitely be eliminated." I'm sure that remark was meant for an Israeli audience. I'm also certain that VV Putin personally informed Netanyahu of this in one of their recent phone calls.

In addition to the S-300s and no-fly zone, Russian radio electronic combat assets will suppress communications, radars and satellite navigation of any combat aircraft attacking targets in Syria. A Russian Su-35S has reportedly intercepted a US F-22 over Syria. Russian has also asked for permission to station fighters and bombers at the Nojeh Air Base in NW Iran. The bear is seriously pissed.

I guess we'll soon see if the Israelis are feeling froggy.

TTG

Laurent K , an hour ago

I don't know for the Israelians but US seems very unhappy with the decision:

https://www.washingtonpost....

Pat Lang Mod -> Laurent K , 11 minutes ago
We are unhappy because the Izzies are unhappy.

[Sep 25, 2018] Russia Beefs Up Syria's Air Defenses - Tells Hotheads To Cool Down

Notable quotes:
"... I think the second of your two proposals is much the most likely. ("They were waiting/hoping Russia/Syria would strike the French ship in which case they and the UK planes would attack, justifying a NATO full assault from the NATO ships in the Med and probably WW3.") ..."
"... The US had at least three Major destroyers, two nuclear subs and the "Truman" Aircraft carrier in the Med.The UK Tornados were airborne and so were (certainly) a bevy of US aircraft. ..."
"... I suspect the "scenario" was to have a Syrian missile "threaten" (fired at....) the French Frigate Auvergne, which would have been the excuse for a massive US/NATO/UK/Israeli attack on the Syrians. (but NOT necessarily the Russians, as this would have led to WWIII*** or IV). The French were sending up missiles for just this purpose. The Syrians had to be "seen" firing first at a NATO ship. The Russian Il-20 had to be eliminated as well as it might have picked up compromising proof of the NATO "plan". ..."
"... This is very close to the scenario several years ago, where the US force moved to the far end of the Med. and an Israeli plane fired two missile from behind them, towards Syria to provoke a Syrian response aimed at the US ships. The Russian Radars picked this up and loudly called the bluff. Israel then suddenly said that the missiles were "practice" and dropped them in the sea. ..."
"... What fascinates many analysts is the stubbornness and stupidity of US policy-makers. The more they try to prolong the US unipolar moment, the more incentive they give to other countries to jump on the multipolar bandwagon. ..."
"... Even countries that probably have deep ties with the United States on an oligarchic level will have no alternative other than to modify and redesign their strategic alliances over the next 30 years. The United States continues along the path of diplomatic arrogance and strategic stupidity, mired in a civil war among its elites, with no end in sight. ..."
"... Shoigu: "We're convinced that the implementation of these measures will cool down the hotheads and will prevent rash actions that might threaten our servicemen. If not, we'll be forced to react based on the evolving situation." ..."
"... I can't help thinking of that old US joke, only this time it's real: "The beatings will continue until morale improves." ..."
"... Bolton now says that the Outlaw US Empire will remain in Syria as long as Iranians are there. Well, numerous ethnic Iranians live within Syria. Given his attitude, you'd think he'd be clamoring for Iranians living within the Empire to be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Bolton reminds me of McCarthy: Big mouth and booze-boosted courage 100% devoid of a morality or ethical principals. ..."
"... It was I believe of the assumption (early analyses of the event) scenario: actually a cruise missile being fired from a a sub, unidentified sub. and was reported from a Cypriot source If i do remember right (that all were the initial hours of the event) that later (after days) morphed in to air to ground being fired from Israel jets? ( I believe it was close to Christmass) ..."
"... So, basically Russian MoD claims that Israel AirForce DID NOT alerted Russia about their operation, that culminated in the misfortunate downing of Il-20. ..."
"... Answering to another poster about the flightradar apps. I wouldn't trust what CIA or DoD could/would and should have been using for propaganda purposes to mess, with evidence or to try to build false leads in trying to promote their narratives. Western sources are in question, as of course Eastern too. For instance Iran banned the Telegram app. according to them there was a version that was been used as a spy tool disguised as civilian application software. ..."
"... Russia declared NO FLY ZONE over LATAKIA ! https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-russia-establishes-no-fly-zone-over-latakia-province-diplomat/ Russia are slow to react , but they run Fast :)! ..."
"... funny how bolton never mentioned anything about israels responsibility for making war on syria...bombing buildings and accidentally or otherwise being directly responsible for the downing of IL-20 where 15 russians died seems not to even cross his mind...that is a vacuous mind indeed.. the hypocrisy is regularly on display from the usa.. if it isn't bolton, it is haley, or some other doofus, talking head from the usa.. ..."
"... an alternative speculation on this is the IL-20 had a lot of valuable intel data with it that was removed from the theatre.. that would suggest the act here on israels part was intentional.. i suspect it was an unintended accident, but one that has big ramifications for israel... i continue to believe we are ramping up to a major war and moving more and more in this direction.. this is another step in the same direction.. i also believe that russia sees it coming and is doing what it feels is the best they can do in this environment.. ..."
"... Shoigu says there will now be "centralised control over all of Syria's air defence facilities and capabilities, the monitoring of airspace and prompt targeting". ..."
"... In other words, Russia will be able to control who gets targeted and shot at. That might be what Israel wants. Russia ensures its planes don't get shot down and in return Israel knows their friend Russia has assumed centralized control over air defenses and they no longer have to worry about independently controlled Syrian missiles ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

stonebird , Sep 24, 2018 2:52:46 PM | link

KarlofI@67--
Thanks
Frances @64

I think the second of your two proposals is much the most likely. ("They were waiting/hoping Russia/Syria would strike the French ship in which case they and the UK planes would attack, justifying a NATO full assault from the NATO ships in the Med and probably WW3.")

The US had at least three Major destroyers, two nuclear subs and the "Truman" Aircraft carrier in the Med.The UK Tornados were airborne and so were (certainly) a bevy of US aircraft.

I suspect the "scenario" was to have a Syrian missile "threaten" (fired at....) the French Frigate Auvergne, which would have been the excuse for a massive US/NATO/UK/Israeli attack on the Syrians. (but NOT necessarily the Russians, as this would have led to WWIII*** or IV). The French were sending up missiles for just this purpose. The Syrians had to be "seen" firing first at a NATO ship. The Russian Il-20 had to be eliminated as well as it might have picked up compromising proof of the NATO "plan".

This is very close to the scenario several years ago, where the US force moved to the far end of the Med. and an Israeli plane fired two missile from behind them, towards Syria to provoke a Syrian response aimed at the US ships. The Russian Radars picked this up and loudly called the bluff. Israel then suddenly said that the missiles were "practice" and dropped them in the sea.

*** I reckon we are IN WWIII as sanctions and asymetric warfare are ....warfare. So next is WWIV

karlof1 , Sep 24, 2018 2:54:18 PM | link

Federico Pieraccini provides an Autumnal Equinox update of the Big Picture situation, concluding:

"What fascinates many analysts is the stubbornness and stupidity of US policy-makers. The more they try to prolong the US unipolar moment, the more incentive they give to other countries to jump on the multipolar bandwagon.

"Even countries that probably have deep ties with the United States on an oligarchic level will have no alternative other than to modify and redesign their strategic alliances over the next 30 years. The United States continues along the path of diplomatic arrogance and strategic stupidity, mired in a civil war among its elites, with no end in sight."

It's UNGA time again, so we'll get to see the arrogance and stupidity play out in public.

Grieved , Sep 24, 2018 2:54:50 PM | link
Shoigu: "We're convinced that the implementation of these measures will cool down the hotheads and will prevent rash actions that might threaten our servicemen. If not, we'll be forced to react based on the evolving situation."

And it's a good time to remember that Russia always leads with its best terms. If forced to continue negotiating, the terms get increasingly tough.

~~

I can't help thinking of that old US joke, only this time it's real: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

;)

karlof1 , Sep 24, 2018 4:36:52 PM | link
juliania @39--

I suspect Zionist arrogance never allowed them to even consider consequences as they'd gotten away with similar attacks. IMO, the Zionist act differed little from their targeted killings of Palestinian protesters in Gaza. This cartoon I found on Twitter is close to being correct. I said it was Russia's USS Liberty moment, but Russia's reaction wasn't anything like the bent-over passivity displayed by LBJ.

Bolton now says that the Outlaw US Empire will remain in Syria as long as Iranians are there. Well, numerous ethnic Iranians live within Syria. Given his attitude, you'd think he'd be clamoring for Iranians living within the Empire to be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Bolton reminds me of McCarthy: Big mouth and booze-boosted courage 100% devoid of a morality or ethical principals.

Greece , Sep 24, 2018 4:37:38 PM | link
KarlofI@67--
Thanks
Frances @64
I think the second of your two proposals is much the most likely. ("They were waiting/hoping Russia/Syria would strike the French ship in which case they and the UK planes would attack, justifying a NATO full assault from the NATO ships in the Med and probably WW3.")

The US had at least three Major destroyers, two nuclear subs and the "Truman" Aircraft carrier in the Med.The UK Tornados were airborne and so were (certainly) a bevy of US aircraft.

I suspect the "scenario" was to have a Syrian missile "threaten" (fired at....) the French Frigate Auvergne, which would have been the excuse for a massive US/NATO/UK/Israeli attack on the Syrians. (but NOT necessarily the Russians, as this would have led to WWIII*** or IV). The French were sending up missiles for just this purpose. The Syrians had to be "seen" firing first at a NATO ship. The Russian Il-20 had to be eliminated as well as it might have picked up compromising proof of the NATO "plan".

This is very close to the scenario several years ago, where the US force moved to the far end of the Med. and an Israeli plane fired two missile from behind them, towards Syria to provoke a Syrian response aimed at the US ships. The Russian Radars picked this up and loudly called the bluff. Israel then suddenly said that the missiles were "practice" and dropped them in the sea.

*** I reckon we are IN WWIII as sanctions and asymetric warfare are ....warfare. So next is WWIV

Posted by: stonebird | Sep 24, 2018 2:52:46 PM | 72

Excellent find!

It was I believe of the assumption (early analyses of the event) scenario: actually a cruise missile being fired from a a sub, unidentified sub. and was reported from a Cypriot source If i do remember right (that all were the initial hours of the event) that later (after days) morphed in to air to ground being fired from Israel jets? ( I believe it was close to Christmass)

Also as a answer to what you mentioned above I also quote this post from another poster:

Russian MoD explicitly denies claims made earlier by Israeli MoD

"At 22:03 a Syrian anti-aircraft missile engaged a larger and closer target – Il-20 airplane. The commander reported on the fire on board and emergency descent. At 22:07 the Russian Il-20 survey airplane went off the radars. Meanwhile, the Israeli jets did not leave for their air space but stayed in the region and continued patrolling in the air till 22:40."

and "I would like to stress that during negotiations via the deconfliction channel, the representative of the Israeli Air Force Headquarters reported on the targets assigned to the Israeli aircraft in north Syria. The dialogue was held in Russian. The Russian Defence Ministry has a record of the talk.

.....

As you can see on the map, the Israeli jets delivered strikes not in the north of the Syrian Arab Republic but in Latakia region which is the western province of the country. Besides, the city of Latakia is located on the western coast."

So, basically Russian MoD claims that Israel AirForce DID NOT alerted Russia about their operation, that culminated in the misfortunate downing of Il-20.

Some other operation was announced, indeed. But not this one.

Now, that is quite a claim.

Posted by: Arioch | Sep 24, 2018 9:13:41 AM | 18

Ok, so now we have a clearer picture.

According to Russian MoD the IL20 since the first 7 or 10 minutes the Israeli group was "in the picture" it was already going down in flames hit by the S-200 at 22:07, which had already tracked the targets and fired upon at 22:03. Though the Israel group stayed "in the picture" at least until 22:40 , this time performing a second mission, of CAP, first one was probably a Strike mission to Syrian coasts. So this leads me to assume there were 4 MISSIONS in operation for the Israeli Air force or allies happening to be in the region. 1 Strike, 1 CAP, 1 a third party trying to remove evidence from the floating debri of the IL-20 (data modules/equipment etc) 4 another delivery mission to insert a sleeper package, right beneath Syrian defence noses and what would be (in a few minutes) the Russian SAR area in trying to acquire the parts of the downed plane.

The "sleeper" can always be something that can be activated at later dates. (IDF used to send artificial rocks that were hiding opto/aqustic equipment during Russian ships supply runs, during time Russians were trying to establish base at Latakia and israelis were trying to spy on the ships unloading stuff)

So in all I believe this was a calculated mission from Israel, not only to kill the IL20 but to establish other advantages during time of chos etc.
This is about the Israelis, do not trust them, even if they say the sun is shining outside you should go an check it out yourself.

Answering to another poster about the flightradar apps. I wouldn't trust what CIA or DoD could/would and should have been using for propaganda purposes to mess, with evidence or to try to build false leads in trying to promote their narratives. Western sources are in question, as of course Eastern too. For instance Iran banned the Telegram app. according to them there was a version that was been used as a spy tool disguised as civilian application software.

kemi , Sep 24, 2018 4:51:31 PM | link
Russia declared NO FLY ZONE over LATAKIA ! https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-russia-establishes-no-fly-zone-over-latakia-province-diplomat/ Russia are slow to react , but they run Fast :)!
james , Sep 24, 2018 6:24:20 PM | link
@80 juliania... you might be right and there was some direct connection to idlib, or the peace agreement turkey and russia reached just prior to this event.. i mostly think of it as a series of events where israel didn't foresee the end result... the term 'hothead' that i believe shoigu used in the past 24 hours as reason for deploying the s-300s, applies directly to israel as i see it..

meanwhile boltons comments.. "Russian plans to supply Syria with a S-300 missile system would be a "significant escalation" by Moscow, US National Security Advisor John Bolton said on Monday." https://www.rt.com/newsline/439235-us-bolton-russia-syria/

funny how bolton never mentioned anything about israels responsibility for making war on syria...bombing buildings and accidentally or otherwise being directly responsible for the downing of IL-20 where 15 russians died seems not to even cross his mind...that is a vacuous mind indeed.. the hypocrisy is regularly on display from the usa.. if it isn't bolton, it is haley, or some other doofus, talking head from the usa..

an alternative speculation on this is the IL-20 had a lot of valuable intel data with it that was removed from the theatre.. that would suggest the act here on israels part was intentional.. i suspect it was an unintended accident, but one that has big ramifications for israel... i continue to believe we are ramping up to a major war and moving more and more in this direction.. this is another step in the same direction.. i also believe that russia sees it coming and is doing what it feels is the best they can do in this environment..

@90 usa=isis..here is another article from smoothie today that you might want to read and consider...

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/09/fast-thoughts-on-issue-of-projection.html

uncle tungsten , Sep 24, 2018 7:08:59 PM | link
With one dopey, hubris driven blunder the israeli and yankee governments have lost the lot. Russia has grasped air dominance as a shield for Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, as well as Syria. The Russians have cemented the security of allies in the region. (Not that Turkey could see or appreciate that)

Now Iran has an advance proxy defence at the entire Syrian western border. Lebanon is no longer a permanent cringing victim and will find expansion and other changes in its public and political mind. Syria and Lebanon are no longer the captive of israeli predation as their airspace and seaspace are more secure.

The israelis and yankees will not stand for this as it has totally transformed the military theatre to their exclusion. Now Russia has visited on them the same medicine as they dish out on Russia's western border region. Watch for madness and histrionics and more blundering, stupidity.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 24, 2018 7:54:12 PM | link
S-400 to Syria, response to Turkey shooting down the SU-24.
S-300 to Tartus and upgrading and linking of Syrian systems to Russian command, response
to US attack threats at the time of the Aleppo offensive.
Now Russian spec S-300 spread throughout Syria as a response to latest US threats of attack and the Israeli downing of the IL-20.

Thinking about this, fast delivery of S-300 to Syria may have been decided on even before the downing of the IL-20. The short term deal with Erdogan giving time to get the extra S-300 systems in place before the main attack on Idlib occurs.

Pft , Sep 24, 2018 9:07:32 PM | link
Shoigu says there will now be "centralised control over all of Syria's air defence facilities and capabilities, the monitoring of airspace and prompt targeting".

In other words, Russia will be able to control who gets targeted and shot at. That might be what Israel wants. Russia ensures its planes don't get shot down and in return Israel knows their friend Russia has assumed centralized control over air defenses and they no longer have to worry about independently controlled Syrian missiles

That explains how quickly Russia was able to act and "suggests" perhaps a false flag forcing Syria to cede more control of its air defences to Russia ? It also explains why Russia is not worried about Israelis reponse to them giving Syria S300 since they will control targetting and can override Syrian operators.

Not married to this hypothesis , just throwing it out there

Yeah, Right , Sep 24, 2018 9:24:03 PM | link
@114 Frances. One possibility is that the Russians will ship in more S-400 for their own use, thereby allowing them to hand over existing S-300 installations to the Syrian Army.

That would allow for the "two week delivery" to the Syrians, since all they need to do is take the keys and drive the units out of the Russian base.

Note that if this is how the Russians do it then the Syrian S-300 will definitely be the non-export version.

frances , Sep 24, 2018 9:45:17 PM | link
reply to:

"That would allow for the "two week delivery" to the Syrians, since all they need to do is take the keys and drive the units out of the Russian base. Note that if this is how the Russians do it then the Syrian S-300 will definitely be the non-export version."

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Sep 24, 2018 9:24:03 PM | 116

You could be right re the systems, I do think the "two weeks" statement is the time frame in which the system will be live, not when they will be delivered.
Russia has no reason to trust Israel whatsoever, any time line would be misleading IMO.

[Sep 24, 2018] Why this Ukrainian revolution may be doomed, too

Blast from the past...
Notable quotes:
"... Kiev has become an accidental, burdensome ally to the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization only paid lip service to future Ukrainian membership, while the EU, which never had any intention of taking in Ukraine, pushed an association agreement out of bureaucratic habit more than strategic vision. ..."
"... The least charitably inclined claim that Poroshenko prosecuted the war in eastern Ukraine as a way of delaying reform. What's undeniable is that the shaky ceasefire leaves the Kiev government at the mercy of Putin and his proxies. Should anything start going right for Poroshenko, the fighting could flare back up at any moment. ..."
"... Everybody in Kiev understands that there's no way of reconquering lost territory by force. Ukrainian politicians publicly pledge to win back breakaway regions through reform and economic success. What they hope for is that sanctions will cause enough problems inside Russia that the Kremlin will run out of resources to sabotage Ukraine. Wishful thinking won't replace the painful reforms ahead. ..."
May 19, 2015 | http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/17/why-this-ukrainian-revolution-may-be-doomed-too/

At home, there is the possibility of more protests, a paralyzed government, and the rise of politicians seeking accommodation with Putin. "Slow and unsuccessful reforms are a bigger existential threat than the Russian aggression," said Oleksiy Melnyk, a security expert at Kiev's Razumkov Center. Even if Ukrainians don't return to the street, they'll get a chance to voice their discontent at the ballot box. Local elections are due in the fall - and the governing coalition between Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is so shaky that nobody can rule out an early parliamentary vote.

In its international relations, Ukraine is living on borrowed time - and money. A dispute over restructuring $23 billion in debt broke into the open last week with the Finance Ministry accusing foreign creditors of not negotiating in good faith ahead of a June deadline. An EU summit this week is likely to end in more disappointment, as Western European countries are reluctant to grant Ukrainians visa-free travel.

Kiev has become an accidental, burdensome ally to the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization only paid lip service to future Ukrainian membership, while the EU, which never had any intention of taking in Ukraine, pushed an association agreement out of bureaucratic habit more than strategic vision.

... ... ...

The least charitably inclined claim that Poroshenko prosecuted the war in eastern Ukraine as a way of delaying reform. What's undeniable is that the shaky ceasefire leaves the Kiev government at the mercy of Putin and his proxies. Should anything start going right for Poroshenko, the fighting could flare back up at any moment.

Ukrainian security officials say that the enemy forces gathering in the separatist regions are at their highest capability yet. The most alarming observation is that the once ragtag band of rebels - backed up by regular Russian troops in critical battles - is increasingly looking like a real army thanks to weapons and training provided by Russia.

... ... ...

Everybody in Kiev understands that there's no way of reconquering lost territory by force. Ukrainian politicians publicly pledge to win back breakaway regions through reform and economic success. What they hope for is that sanctions will cause enough problems inside Russia that the Kremlin will run out of resources to sabotage Ukraine. Wishful thinking won't replace the painful reforms ahead.

[Sep 24, 2018] The Perils of Our Liberal Hegemony

Notable quotes:
"... Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C. journalist and publishing executive, is a writer-at-large for ..."
"... . His latest book is ..."
Sep 24, 2018 | The American Conservative

That was mild, though, compared to the "bloodbath" (Kaplan's word) that ensued after Mearsheimer teamed up with Harvard's own iconoclastic realist, Stephen M. Walt, to produce a 2006 magazine article on the U.S.-Israel relationship, later expanded into a book entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy . The thesis was that pro-Israel groups in the United States had pushed the country into policy decisions favored by Israel but contrary to American interests. Johns Hopkins professor Eliot A. Cohen wasn't content merely to call it "inept, even kooky" and "a wretched piece of scholarship." He also accused the authors of antisemitism and impugning the patriotism of American Jews, including himself. Christopher Hitchens said it was "redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly." Other characterizations: "defiled by mendacity"; "piss-poor, monocausal social science"; "stunningly deceptive"; and "pernicious."

If Mearsheimer, whom I have known as a friendly acquaintance for a number of years, does indeed revel in the uproars he causes (and he certainly appears to), he's about to get a lot of enjoyment. His latest book, The Great Delusion: [neo]Liberal Dreams and International Realities , is a dagger pointed at the heart of America's governing philosophy, progressive [neo]liberalism. His central thesis is that this philosophy has distorted U.S. foreign policy since America's post-Cold War emergence as the world's only superpower. The core of the problem, writes Mearsheimer, was America's post-Cold War resolve to remake the world in its own image. The predictable result has been chaos, bloodshed, an intractable refugee crisis besetting the Middle East and Europe, increased tensions among major powers, curtailment of civil liberties at home, and generally an "abysmal record of failure."

And yet no level of failure seems to blunt the passion for [neo]liberal hegemony among the country's leaders, who cling to the policy and its underlying philosophy with the tenacity of true believers. "A crusader impulse is deeply wired into [neo]liberal democracies, especially their elites," writes Mearsheimer.

They can embrace that heady goal because of a rare historical development -- the emergence of America as a unipolar power. The country today enjoys the luxury of not having a single adversary capable of challenging its existence or global standing. Thus it can afford to indulge its relentless impulse to spread its own governing philosophy throughout the globe. But in the more normal circumstances of a multipolar world or particularly in a bipolar world, there would be no such luxury. The imperatives of survival would then come into play, as they always do except in a unipolar era, and [neo]liberal interventionism would be superseded by a foreign policy more attuned to interrelationships of power. Realism and nationalism would supplant today's crusader mentality.

Mearsheimer's exploration of realism here will be familiar to those who have read The Tragedy of Great Power Politics , a painstaking exposition of that particular "ism." That earlier book posits that fundamental realities guide nations in their relations with other nations. First, the world is "anarchic," meaning there is no central authority or night watchman to step in when a nation is threatened. Therefore, nations must rely upon themselves for protection from any hazard, immediate or prospective. Given that they can't know precisely the plans and ambitions of real or potential adversaries -- he calls this "the uncertainty of intentions" -- the imperatives of survival dictate that they do whatever they can to maximize their power based on what they can discern -- namely, the military capabilities of potential rivals. This is the "tragedy" of great power politics -- the never-ending quest among nations for protection through strength.

In other words, it's all about the hierarchy of power among nations. Stability comes through an equilibrium of power, and great nations should foster diplomatic actions designed to maintain a power balance in key strategic locations.

What's new in The Great Delusion is Mearsheimer's focus on nationalism and [neo]liberalism, as well as their relationship with realism. Exploring the three "isms" in tandem, he writes, led him to conclude that "this trichotomy provided an ideal template for explaining the failure of U.S. foreign policy since 1989." Mearsheimer is known for his spare, muscular, unemotional prose, as well as his ability to marshal sturdy arguments that are intricately intertwined. In this book, true to form, he constructs a fortress of syllogistic argumentation.

There's a paradox in his trichotomy: while progressive [neo]liberalism dominates American politics, including the country's foreign policy, realism and nationalism ultimately are more powerful ideas. Mearsheimer notes, for example, that while [neo]liberalism and nationalism can coexist in any polity, "when they clash, nationalism almost always wins." He adds that "[neo]liberalism is also no match for realism."

When Mearsheimer uses the word [neo]liberalism, he means the classic, Lockean adherence to individual rights, the rule of law, market economics, and the importance of private property. But he draws a distinction between what he calls modus vivendi [neo]liberalism and a progressive variety. Both promote the classical concept of individual rights, but modus vivendi [neo]liberals conceive of rights narrowly, in terms of individual freedoms (sometimes called negative rights). This means primarily the freedom to act without fear of government intrusion -- for example, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to hold property. Progressives, on the other hand, go beyond that to advocate positive rights -- equal opportunity, for example -- that require active governmental intervention.

Also, modus vivendi [neo]liberals are skeptical of the efficacy and potential success of governmental social engineering. Progressive [neo]liberals, by contrast, have great faith in governmental activism that not only promotes individual rights but also pursues expansive social engineering programs.

In terms of American history, progressive [neo]liberals are the political heirs of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and, more recently, of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Modus vivendi [neo]liberals trace their political lineage to Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and, more recently, Ronald Reagan.

There is no doubt, says Mearsheimer, that progressive [neo]liberalism has triumphed over modus vivendi [neo]liberalism. He writes: "The complexities and demands of life in the modern world leave states with no choice but to be deeply engaged in social engineering, including promoting positive rights." Hence political [neo]liberalism today is largely progressive (with the modus vivendi people reduced to doing what they can to blunt the force of the progressives). Mearsheimer is fine with that: "Within countries, I believe [neo]liberalism is a genuine force for good." But when it dominates a nation's international relations, he emphasizes, it inevitably breeds disaster.

This dichotomy poses an intriguing question: how can a philosophy be just right in guiding a powerful nation's domestic politics but utterly wrong and destructive when applied to that same nation's foreign policy? Can any philosophy be fundamentally flawed in the one realm while being totally apt in the other? Perhaps an answer can be discerned through Mearsheimer's own pointed and brilliant exploration of human nature as a fundamental factor in politics. Progressive [neo]liberals tend to discount human nature, viewing it as malleable and changeable through their cherished social engineering. Mearsheimer disagrees. "The more closely any ism accords with human nature," he writes, "the more relevance it will have in the real world." He makes clear he doesn't believe progressive [neo]liberalism accords with human nature much at all.

Mearsheimer posits what he calls "two simple assumptions" about human nature. The first is that man's ability to reason is limited, particularly when it comes to mastering the fundamental questions of existence. Enlightenment thinkers heralded man's ability to reason to ultimate answers as humans worked their way toward their own perfectibility. This is the so-called Idea of Progress, so powerful in Western thought following the 18th century era of the French philosophes. Mearsheimer rejects it. "Reason does not rule the world," he writes, adding that "people who believe their critical faculties can help them find moral truth are deluding themselves."

The second assumption, related to the first, is that "we are social animals at our core." Given that there can be no reasoning to core principles, there will always be disagreements on these fundamental and often emotional matters. That inevitably raises prospects for violence. For protection, mankind must divide itself into a great number of social groups, and the most fundamental of all human groups is the nation. "With the possible exception of the family," writes Mearsheimer, "allegiance to the nation usually overrides all other forms of an individual's identity."

And this leads to Mearsheimer's view of the essence of social groups -- and, most particularly, of nations. He identifies six fundamental features of nationhood:

1) a powerful sense of oneness and solidarity

2) a distinct culture, including such things as language, rituals, codes, music, as well as religion, basic political and social values, and a distinct understanding of history

3) a sense of superiority leading to national pride

4) a deep sense of its own history, which often leads to myths that supersede historical fact

5) sacred territory and a perceived imperative to protect lands believed to be a hallowed homeland

6) and a deep sense of sovereignty and a resolve to protect national decision-making from outside forces

These features are found in all nation-states, and nation-states are where nearly all peoples of the world live. Hence these human impulses cannot be ignored or circumvented. And yet [neo]liberalism (here and hereafter, in using the term we're talking about the country's prevailing progressive [neo]liberalism) has declared war on many of these fundamental features of nationalism, emanating in large measure from human nature. That's because [neo]liberalism has come to embrace two basic tenets of dubious provenance: first, humanity is an individualist species, made up of "atomistic actors" and not social animals; and, second, rights are inalienable and universal, belonging to everyone equally. Mearsheimer explains, "This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism -- everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights -- and this is what motivates [neo]liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies."

This universalist ideology has always been there, lurking in the [neo]liberal consciousness. Until recently it was seen most starkly in the humanitarian interventionism of Woodrow Wilson -- hence the universally understood term "Wilsonism." One of his biographers, August Heckscher, notes that he harbored a deep sense of national "honor" that he equated with America's commitment to the rights of all peoples everywhere. Heckscher writes that "it was a vague concept not necessarily identified with the basic interest of the [American] people." Indeed, while Wilson took delight in the idea of deploying American power in behalf of humanity, the idea of using it in behalf of U.S. interests left him cold. In taking America into World War I, he bragged, "What we demand in this war is nothing peculiar to ourselves."

♦♦♦

This Wilsonian impulse was kept in check through most of the 20th century by the imperatives of realism and the ideological force of nationalism. That ended with the conclusion of the Cold War, when America emerged as the unchallenged global hegemon. The inevitable result was the rise of [neo]liberal hegemony. What's interesting is how explosively it arrived on the scene, almost immediately gaining dominance over American foreign policy and positioning itself to stamp out any troublesome counterarguments. The universalist ideology presents a powerful allure, often leading to feelings among foreign policy [neo]liberals, per Wilson, that they are engaging in a monumental struggle of good and evil.

The result is that America has waged seven wars since the Cold War ended and has been at war continuously since the month after 9/11. As Mearsheimer writes, "Once unleashed on the world stage, a [neo]liberal unipole soon becomes addicted to war." It also becomes addicted to the concept of regime change because that often is perceived as the only way to save peoples from widespread rights violations.

Bill Clinton embraced [neo]liberal hegemony from the beginning of his presidency in 1993, and it led him to military actions in Bosnia and Serbia, motivated largely by the humanitarian impulse. George W. Bush took it to new levels after 9/11 with his invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and his rhetoric that "the freedom we prize is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind." Barack Obama suggested as he was leaving office that he understood that the "Washington playbook" was "deeply flawed," as Mearsheimer puts it, but he couldn't seem to break away from it. "He was ultimately no match for the foreign policy establishment," writes Mearsheimer.

The book is particularly devastating in its description of America's aggressive policies toward Russia. After outlining the conventional [neo]liberal view of Russian aggression against a threatened West, he writes, "This account is false." The United States and its European allies, he adds, "are mainly responsible for the crisis." He identifies the "taproot of the trouble" as NATO expansion, "the central element in a larger strategy to move all of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, out of Russia's orbit and integrate it into the West."

Can America pull its foreign policy away from [neo]liberalism and reclaim a realism-based approach? An end to today's unipolar world would quickly upend [neo]liberal hegemony. But the only likely prospect for that would be the threat of a rising China, which of course would have the downside of necessitating a dangerous confrontation with that country. If China were to falter economically and thus be forced to abandon its pursuit of Asian hegemony, argues Mearsheimer, there would be little prospect that America would embrace realism. The foreign policy establishment is too wedded to hegemony and too entrenched at the pinnacle of foreign policymaking.

Mearsheimer does believe Donald Trump's 2016 election demonstrated that [neo]liberal hegemony is "vulnerable." After all, the New York billionaire challenged almost every aspect of [neo]liberal interventionism, particularly the goal of spreading democracy around the world. But he predicts that the "foreign policy elites will tame him just as they tamed his predecessor." Trump's bellicose approach to Iran certainly suggests his campaign rhetoric won't guide his foreign policy with any particular consistency. Perhaps, concludes Mearsheimer, persistent failure will undermine the primacy of hegemon [neo]liberals.

In the meantime, a few thoughts might be in order on the dominance of American domestic politics by those same progressive elites who have given us persistent foreign policy failures. Many of the same [neo]liberal impulses that contributed to the hegemonic foreign policy that Mearsheimer decries have also undermined many of the foundations of America. And they can be traced to the same faulty thinking about the human experience.

Consider Mearsheimer's six features of nationalism. One is culture. "Culture," he writes, " is the glue that helps hold a society together." And yet the country's progressive [neo]liberals have been attacking the American culture for years. Many do so under the banner of "civic nationalism," which would supplant the country's cultural identity with nothing more than its [neo]liberal creed. Writes Mearsheimer, "Civic nationalism is not a useful concept . It is virtually impossible for a nation to function effectively without a multifaceted culture." And yet the assault by progressive [neo]liberals on the nation's culture has driven a wedge through the body politic.

Or consider Mearsheimer's emphasis on "a sacred territory." Today's progressive [neo]liberals, particularly among the elites, don't care a whit about the country's borders, as Mearsheimer notes. "In the [neo]liberal story," he writes, "state borders are soft and permeable, because rights transcend those boundaries." Then there's sovereignty. Mearsheimer writes that "[neo]liberalism undermines sovereignty." He's talking primarily about America's penchant for invading other countries in behalf of humanitarian goals, but progressive [neo]liberals don't care much about American sovereignty either, as reflected in their lax immigration attitude. The push for permeable borders doesn't suggest respect for American sovereignty. One could add to the list Mearsheimer's inclusion of a shared sense of history, also under relentless assault from progressive [neo]liberals bent on tearing down what once was considered a hallowed American story.

♦♦♦

These and other related issues are tearing America apart, and they have been introduced into the political cauldron by the same progressive [neo]liberals who have been pushing America's drive to spread [neo]liberal hegemony across the globe. Indeed, it is almost incontestable that these domestic and foreign policy issues, along with the progressive [neo]liberal push for free trade and supranational institutions that undermine American sovereignty, contributed significantly to Trump's presidential election.

Although Mearsheimer doesn't discuss the American elites in detail, he sprinkles into his argument several references to elite and establishment thinking as often being distinct from broader public impulses and sensibilities. "[I]t is important to note," he writes, "that [neo]liberal hegemony is largely an elite-driven policy." In another passage he notes that America's foreign policy elites tend to be "cosmopolitan," which isn't to say, he adds, that most of them are like Samuel Huntington's caricature of those Davos people "who have little need for national loyalty" and see "national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing." But, adds Mearsheimer, "some are not far off."

Yes, it's the progressive [neo]liberal elites who are driving America's push for humanitarian hegemony, and Mearsheimer's book calls them out brilliantly. But those same elites are also driving wedges through the American polity on powerful domestic issues, thus poisoning our politics and fostering an ongoing crisis on the definition and meaning of America. Mearsheimer's pungent critique of the elite's foreign policy recklessness could provide a sound foundation for a broader critique of its destructive folly in a host of other civic areas as well.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C. journalist and publishing executive, is a writer-at-large for The American Conservative . His latest book is President McKinley: Architect of the American Century .

[Sep 24, 2018] The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

Notable quotes:
"... The thesis was that pro-Israel groups in the United States had pushed the country into policy decisions favored by Israel but contrary to American interests. ..."
Sep 24, 2018 | amzn.to

That was mild, though, compared to the "bloodbath" (Kaplan's word) that ensued after Mearsheimer teamed up with Harvard's own iconoclastic realist, Stephen M. Walt, to produce a 2006 magazine article on the U.S.-Israel relationship, later expanded into a book entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy .

The thesis was that pro-Israel groups in the United States had pushed the country into policy decisions favored by Israel but contrary to American interests.

[Sep 24, 2018] Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns." If true, this strongly suggests a set-up and with NATO involvement

Notable quotes:
"... Exactly. It's obvious the Israelis intended for the French ship to be attacked, setting off god knows what chain of events. ..."
"... Israel is certainly responsible for precipitating the incident, but the accusations that Israel somehow purposely caused Syria to shoot down the airplane - as if the Syrians were helpless to prevent it - are without merit. ..."
"... Some salient facts: Syrian air defenses either knew the location of the Russian plane or they didn't. If they didn't know the plane was there, then that is a problem of coordination between Russian and Syrian military forces. Given that the Russian and Syrian AD networks are supposed to be integrated, I'd say this is the less likely option. If the Syrians did know the plane was there, then the Syrians are to blame for poor fire discipline and probably incompetence. Deliberately shooting at enemy aircraft when a friendly aircraft is in the line of fire is a big no no in air defense doctrine (and a big no no as a general rule for any use of force), especially with a weapon as unwieldy as an SA-5. ..."
"... The so-called integrated networks between the Russian and Syrian AD systems appears to have not been working. Or someone was asleep, or in panic, at one end. I vote for panic. Those Syrian missileers are under serious pressure by Assad to bring down an Israeli aircraft, which is probably affecting their nerves and their judgment. ..."
"... Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them to account to date. ..."
"... Putin was explicit in his conversation with Bibi that Israel not only violates Syria's airspace but violated previous agreements with Russia on matters of attacking Syrian/Iranian targets. ..."
"... There will be consequences and Putin also was explicit today when stated that, and I quote, "everyone will notice them". While it is a sad day for Russia and is agony for families of the crew, it is also clear (and thank God) that France and her ship had no hand in it whatsoever. ..."
"... It seems to me that Putin's response was too 'soft'. Unlike Shoigu's. Perhaps there is some divergence between Russian political and military policies with regard to Israel. What happens as a result of this tragedy will clarify matters. Putin cannot afford to alienate his military (and thus the Russian people) for the sake of Israel. ..."
"... Right. One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually taken Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have been under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama played out. ..."
"... The DMZ agreement prevents that, and now he takes this soft line over this bit of Israeli cleverness that cost Shoigu 14 men for no good reason, Curious. One might think he does not want to rock the boat before the mid term. ..."
"... Bingo! Plus a chance for Turkey to clean up her act a bit. It is a good old anecdote about two bulls (old and young) standing on the hill looking down at the cows' herd. ..."
"... IMO, the new deal between R+6 and Turkey on Idlib for time being is smart ..."
"... It's a salami slicing strategy VS. an open between R+6 and entire west while Turkey playing both sides and collect concessions. IMO R+6 can better afford buying time than the scarce resources while they all are under economic sanctions. ..."
"... A timeline of the Israeli F-16's actions that resulted in the downing of the IL-20 in Izvestia. It was completely intentional. The planes were within several hundred meters of each other. The Israeli's set up the IL-20 knowing beforehand it would be destroyed. https://iz.ru/790550/kirill... ..."
"... Yes. Anyone who wants to absolve the Israelis of guilt in this matter is just a sap. ..."
"... Perhaps in your time in Russia the Kremlin was a monolith. It doesn't seem so now, certainly as far as the expression of differing views are concerned (eg, Shoigu's vs Putin's). Such differing views, publicly expressed, do represent their institutions' views. I have no doubt that Russia's military is very unhappy with Israel's actions in this incident. And, would like to teach Israel a lesson. But they don't make policy (theirs is only one input), and they follow the policies ultimately decided by the state. ..."
"... I think there will be 'visible' changes to Russia's security posture in Syria, as Putin has unambiguously stated..and probably very quickly...the objective of those changes will be to minimize the potential of any such provocations succeeding going forward...the Israelis going forward will need to pull in their horns, and their media is already discussing this... ..."
"... There is a growing sentiment, that Russia is handling too softly the attacks on its armed forces. The lack of visible or spectacular retaliations, counteractions is making an impression of a very narrow set of choices in Russia's Syria policy. ..."
Sep 20, 2018 | disqus.com

John Gilberts • 2 days ago ,

In reporting the shoot-down of the Russian IL-20, Harretz reported that "Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns." If true, this strongly suggests a set-up and with NATO involvement.

Vicky SD John Gilberts • 2 days ago ,

Exactly. It's obvious the Israelis intended for the French ship to be attacked, setting off god knows what chain of events.

Andy • a day ago ,

Israel is certainly responsible for precipitating the incident, but the accusations that Israel somehow purposely caused Syria to shoot down the airplane - as if the Syrians were helpless to prevent it - are without merit.

Some salient facts: Syrian air defenses either knew the location of the Russian plane or they didn't. If they didn't know the plane was there, then that is a problem of coordination between Russian and Syrian military forces. Given that the Russian and Syrian AD networks are supposed to be integrated, I'd say this is the less likely option. If the Syrians did know the plane was there, then the Syrians are to blame for poor fire discipline and probably incompetence. Deliberately shooting at enemy aircraft when a friendly aircraft is in the line of fire is a big no no in air defense doctrine (and a big no no as a general rule for any use of force), especially with a weapon as unwieldy as an SA-5.

Eugene Owens Andy • a day ago ,

Andy - Regarding IFF: Smoothie down below claims the Syrians were never given Russian IFF technology and codes.

But the two Russian-manned S-400 systems certainly had them. The so-called integrated networks between the Russian and Syrian AD systems appears to have not been working. Or someone was asleep, or in panic, at one end. I vote for panic. Those Syrian missileers are under serious pressure by Assad to bring down an Israeli aircraft, which is probably affecting their nerves and their judgment.

smoothieX12 . blue peacock • 2 days ago ,

Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them to account to date.

Yes she does, otherwise CO of IAF wouldn't have been on his way to Moscow and Bibi urgently calling Putin. Once one gets more complete details of the event, such as teeny-weeny fact of Russia not providing Syrian AD (and with a good reason) with own IFF technology and codes--things become much more clearer. This was confirmed today.

Of course military counter-intelligence still has to do its due diligence but it increasingly begins to look more as FUBAR rather than some "special" operations.

Most likely, in fact highly likely, IAF F-16s were detected and tracked (and even possibly locked on) by Syrian S-200 and they "masked" (the oldest trick in the book) by descending IL-20.

Putin was explicit in his conversation with Bibi that Israel not only violates Syria's airspace but violated previous agreements with Russia on matters of attacking Syrian/Iranian targets.

There will be consequences and Putin also was explicit today when stated that, and I quote, "everyone will notice them". While it is a sad day for Russia and is agony for families of the crew, it is also clear (and thank God) that France and her ship had no hand in it whatsoever.

Is Putin between a rock and a hard place in Syria? He's committed significant capabilities to assist Assad in regaining control of Syrian territory, but FUKUS and Turkey are playing a spoilers game with the possibility that they could enter the Syrian conflict with an even larger force structure.

Actually, he didn't commit "significant" capabilities. They are very moderate by Russia standards. You want to see significant capabilities--Google Vostok 2018. That's significant. The appearance of new capabilities in Syria is long overdue, precisely for the reason that it is Russia who is keeping a barrel to Turkey's temple, not the other way around. They are needed their anyway just in case FUKUS decides to respond to absolutely unexpected and evil chemical weapons attacks by Assad.

FB Ali smoothieX12 . • 2 days ago ,

It seems to me that Putin's response was too 'soft'. Unlike Shoigu's. Perhaps there is some divergence between Russian political and military policies with regard to Israel. What happens as a result of this tragedy will clarify matters. Putin cannot afford to alienate his military (and thus the Russian people) for the sake of Israel.

Pat Lang Mod FB Ali • 2 days ago ,

Right. One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually taken Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have been under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama played out.

The DMZ agreement prevents that, and now he takes this soft line over this bit of Israeli cleverness that cost Shoigu 14 men for no good reason, Curious. One might think he does not want to rock the boat before the mid term.

smoothieX12 . Pat Lang • 2 days ago ,

Right. One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually taken Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have been under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama played out.

Bingo! Plus a chance for Turkey to clean up her act a bit. It is a good old anecdote about two bulls (old and young) standing on the hill looking down at the cows' herd.

Pat Lang Mod smoothieX12 . • 2 days ago ,

Yup "let's walk down and do them all ..."

Kooshy smoothieX12 . • a day ago ,

IMO, the new deal between R+6 and Turkey on Idlib for time being is smart, I think for R+6 is the right strategy for now. IMO the thinking behind it was, it's better to keep Turkey on this (Astana) side of the war rather than let her loose spoiler or worst to let her go back to the West/Arab/Israel alliance and allow re arming the jihadis. It's a salami slicing strategy VS. an open between R+6 and entire west while Turkey playing both sides and collect concessions. IMO R+6 can better afford buying time than the scarce resources while they all are under economic sanctions.

Bill Herschel Pat Lang • a day ago ,

A timeline of the Israeli F-16's actions that resulted in the downing of the IL-20 in Izvestia. It was completely intentional. The planes were within several hundred meters of each other. The Israeli's set up the IL-20 knowing beforehand it would be destroyed. https://iz.ru/790550/kirill...

Pat Lang Mod Bill Herschel • a day ago ,

Yes. Anyone who wants to absolve the Israelis of guilt in this matter is just a sap.

smoothieX12 . FB Ali • 2 days ago ,

Perhaps there is some divergence between Russian political and military policies with regard to Israel.

This divergence is mostly a fantasy of Western political class and media. They project their own view on how their own government operates (or rather does not) onto Kremlin and that is why they always wrong.

FB Ali smoothieX12 . • a day ago ,

Perhaps in your time in Russia the Kremlin was a monolith. It doesn't seem so now, certainly as far as the expression of differing views are concerned (eg, Shoigu's vs Putin's). Such differing views, publicly expressed, do represent their institutions' views. I have no doubt that Russia's military is very unhappy with Israel's actions in this incident. And, would like to teach Israel a lesson. But they don't make policy (theirs is only one input), and they follow the policies ultimately decided by the state.

Many other factors need to be taken into account in the finalization of the State's policies. The policies of the Russian state are expressed by its head (ie, Putin).

FB FB Ali • 2 days ago ,

I think there will be 'visible' changes to Russia's security posture in Syria, as Putin has unambiguously stated..and probably very quickly...the objective of those changes will be to minimize the potential of any such provocations succeeding going forward...the Israelis going forward will need to pull in their horns, and their media is already discussing this...

Again, I don't think we must necessarily assume that the goat is Israel here...yes they were involved in what was clearly a plot, but it is also very possible that the Russian plane was downed by the French or British...

Bálint Somkuti FB Ali • 2 days ago ,

There is a growing sentiment, that Russia is handling too softly the attacks on its armed forces. The lack of visible or spectacular retaliations, counteractions is making an impression of a very narrow set of choices in Russia's Syria policy.

smoothieX12 . Bálint Somkuti • 2 days ago ,

There is a growing sentiment, that Russia is handling too softly the attacks on its armed forces.

Growing among who? Armchair strategists? Granted, I am one myself.

[Sep 23, 2018] NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia ended Moscow's partnership with the West.

Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer September 21, 2018 at 12:08 pm

https://theduran.com/clinton-yeltsin-docs-shine-a-light-on-why-deep-state-hates-putin-video/?mc_cid=fc46ed9187&mc_eid=d04cb5a32d

Lots of interesting information regarding conversations between Bill Clinton and Yeltsin but allow me to focus on the NATO bombing of Serbia:

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow's enthusiastic partnership with the West.

"Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO," the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. "I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that."

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of "our relationship" and "peace in Europe."

The declassified White House Yeltsin files reveal the drama at the turning point in US-Russia relations, when Yeltsin pleaded, threatened and despaired trying to make Clinton call off the bombing of Yugoslavia.

"It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons," Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn't cede ground.

Clinton to Yeltsin on Milosevic: "It will be your decision if you decide to let this bully destroy the relationship we worked hard for over six and a half years to build up I'm sorry he is a Serb. I wish he were Irish or something else, but he is not."

"Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future," Clinton told Yeltsin.

It was much more than the all-out bombing campaign by NATO. Serbia resisted for more than 70 days by courage and intelligence including bagging at least one stealth aircraft and its army remaining virtually untouched and ready to take on a NATO land invasion.

et Al September 21, 2018 at 12:45 pm
If I remember correctly, Clinton or whomever threatened to carpet bomb Belgrade if Russia did not stop supporting Serbia.

[Sep 23, 2018] Attempt to blame Putin

Notable quotes:
"... "none of this would in any way exculpate the Israelis for the very simple reason that had the Israelis warned the Russians on time this entire tragedy might have been avoided even if the prime culprits are cowardly Israeli pilots, less than competent Syrian air defense crews or too trusting Russians. " ..."
"... No, none of this would have happened if Putin had refused to allow his bosom buddy Nazinyahu to bomb his ally, Syria, with impunity. ..."
"... It is definitely worth reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the inventors of shutzpah are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers. ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT

@J Since the Russians largely control the Syrian antiair defenses, one could also conclude that they share the responsibility in downing their own aircraft. Maybe the Israelis overestimated Russian readiness and response capabilities. In Tzahal, one minute is a lot of time. As Putin said, it was a tragic fuckup.

In Tzahal, one minute is a lot of time.

No, this can not be true!!! I always knew that Tzahal operates on millisecond increments. In fact, it can also travel back in time. You know, because they are that good.

Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT

"none of this would in any way exculpate the Israelis for the very simple reason that had the Israelis warned the Russians on time this entire tragedy might have been avoided even if the prime culprits are cowardly Israeli pilots, less than competent Syrian air defense crews or too trusting Russians. "

No, none of this would have happened if Putin had refused to allow his bosom buddy Nazinyahu to bomb his ally, Syria, with impunity. Russia is being treated with contempt by the zionazi pseudostate for the simple reason that the Zios were bombing a "target" right next to the Russian Hmeimim airbase.

Nor is the loss of the Il 20 something minor. It was a very expensive, highly capable system manned by extremely well trained, hard to replace, valuable crew, each of whom had many years of irreplaceable experience. Do *not* attempt to whitewash that.

The Saker needs to stop defending the zionazi stooge and capitalist roader Putin. His "restraint" is making Russia look like a pushover and emboldening its enemies. What is the Amerikastani aircraft carrier Harry Truman doing in the Mediterranean right now, a health cruise?

Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
There is absolutely nothing stopping Putin from ordering his bosom buddy Nazinyahu to immediately stop all bombing of Syria, on the pain of having his zionazi war criminals being shot out of the air. What exactly is preventing Putin from doing this, assuming that the S400 actually works as advertised? Can any of the professional Putinite propaganda purveyors, as despicable a breed as the Trumpets, Obamopologists, and Hillarybots, explain?
Kiza , says: September 21, 2018 at 2:03 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

First, let me start by a very simple and primitive question:

Why in the world has nobody considered that the Israelis might have truly screwed-up?

'Careless' is the word I would use. Israelis are being careless, because they never have to pay a price for their aggressions and their mistakes. Putin encourages this carelessness , when he refuses to impose costs on Israel. The lesson Israelis are learning from this incident is that Russia is weak, and Putin has "little choice", but allow Israelis free hand in Syria. This is what Israelis newspapers are saying, check this out:

https://twitter.com/DanielS22647562/status/1043070311355301889 It is definitely worth reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the inventors of shutzpah are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers. Just as they placed sofas to watch the destruction of Gaza. Thank you for the link Felix.

Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and Martyanov, at the level of the IDF delegations sent to Moscow, to ensure that the Russian military does not get any "reserved" ideas (reserve the right to huff & puff).

Here is my favorite piece from this Jewish BS machine above:

unconfirmed sources from Syria have reported that Russian military police abducted and are brutally interrogating officers and soldiers from the Syrian air-defense battery that fired the fateful missile

But, but I naively thought that the Russians discovered a secret link which proves that those now brutally interrogated Syrians did 911 , not the Iraqis accused before.

I do understand that Putin does not have any good option now and that his premature and dumb commentary about the "accident" was for his own ass-covering not to protect those Jews who made such a total ass of him. But whenever the Russians die, as when the SU-24 pilot died, he learned nothing and continues on making and trusting the deals with the sponsors of terrorism.

Finally, I do note that the smart people, such as Israel Shamir, keep their mouths shut for now, till the fog clears and the emotions blow-over. I am looking forward to his next article to understand the feelings in the Russian military regarding Putin.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 2:23 pm GMT
@Kiza It is definitely worth reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the inventors of shutzpah are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers. Just as they placed sofas to watch the destruction of Gaza. Thank you for the link Felix.

Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and Martyanov, at the level of the IDF delegations sent to Moscow, to ensure that the Russian military does not get any "reserved" ideas (reserve the right to ... huff & puff).

Here is my favorite piece from this Jewish BS machine above:


unconfirmed sources from Syria have reported that Russian military police abducted and are brutally interrogating officers and soldiers from the Syrian air-defense battery that fired the fateful missile
But, but I naively thought that the Russians discovered a secret link which proves that those now brutally interrogated Syrians did 911 , not the Iraqis accused before.

I do understand that Putin does not have any good option now and that his premature and dumb commentary about the "accident" was for his own ass-covering not to protect those Jews who made such a total ass of him. But whenever the Russians die, as when the SU-24 pilot died, he learned nothing and continues on making and trusting the deals with the sponsors of terrorism.

Finally, I do note that the smart people, such as Israel Shamir, keep their mouths shut for now, till the fog clears and the emotions blow-over. I am looking forward to his next article to understand the feelings in the Russian military regarding Putin.

Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and Martyanov

Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here hysterical non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar systems. I'll give you hint–it is reported to all military radar operating units (from ground to the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures) every single day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance, especially against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare who are real "armchair strategists" here.

Felix Keverich , says: September 21, 2018 at 2:59 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and Martyanov
Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here hysterical non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar systems. I'll give you hint--it is reported to all military radar operating units (from ground to the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures) every single day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance, especially against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare who are real "armchair strategists" here. This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo. Kiza was making a comment about political side of the issue:

Israelis have no respect for Russia and Putin. They feel emboldened by Putin's weak reaction.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 4:28 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo. Kiza was making a comment about political side of the issue:

Israelis have no respect for Russia and Putin. They feel emboldened by Putin's weak reaction.

This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo.

Well, then I am sure you will treat your future illnesses (God forbids you to become ill, stay healthy) at Voodoo doctors, since all this medical mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant. I heard Haiti Voodoo healthcare is great and very-very affordable.

Kiza was making a comment about political side of the issue:

Only few posts here are real comments, most of them is some hysterical weeping in an adrenaline deprived organisms upon understanding that Israel is not going to be destroyed immediately by Russians. Hence, your posts included, either hysterical reactions or trolling, mostly, sorry for being blunt, by people who have zero knowledge of Russia in general, and her military in particular. So, a wonderful unification of pseudo-patriots and all kinds of ignorant trolls happened. It is rather interesting to observe.

[Sep 23, 2018] I will be watching the Russian Mayday parades with photos of killed relatives in a totally different light from now on – those people in the photos are the victims of the Russian elite

As if in any other country this situation is different...
Putin priority was avoiding larger confrontation, which if spun out of control can lead to WWIII. And I think he was right trying to downplay the situation.
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Kiza , says: September 21, 2018 at 5:18 am GMT

This is terribly empty ramble and it is time to stop reading this rambler. But before I stop I will quote myself:

My critique of Putin is not that he did not kill back the Turks, the US military and the Israelis, it is that he keeps making agreements with the non-agreement capable sponsors of terrorism and then entrusts the lives of his soldiers to such agreements.

In other words, the four Israeli planes should have never been tagged "friendlies", which was obviously the Putin's standing order to the Russian military based on his agreement with these sponsors of terrorism. The rest in this tragic event for Russia is what usually happens in war – fear, huge and costly mistakes, and incompetence all around.

Saker, I hope you and Martyanov both, as a reward for your insightful writing about the panicking Israeli pilots, get to read your recent articles to the 10-year old daughter of one of the Russian officers killed.

You two are the Marshals of all the Armchair Generals that you laugh at. With "intellectuals" such as you, now I understand why the Russian always die in wars like cattle and win wars by sacrificing the most/only valuable human capital (why do they call such 'a Pyrrhic victory' when it should be called 'a Russian victory'). I will be watching the Russian Mayday parades with photos of killed relatives in a totally different light from now on – those people in the photos are the victims of the Russian "elite" and the self-declared Russian Armchair Marshals.

The unfortunate Syrians are the beggars, so they cannot be choosers who their "friends" are.

J , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
Since the Russians largely control the Syrian antiair defenses, one could also conclude that they share the responsibility in downing their own aircraft. Maybe the Israelis overestimated Russian readiness and response capabilities. In Tzahal, one minute is a lot of time. As Putin said, it was a tragic fuckup.
Harold Smith , says: September 21, 2018 at 7:18 am GMT
"I tried to post a short commentary suggesting that before we jump to conclusions about anything, we ought to wait for the fact to come out."

Well Putin didn't waste anytime jumping to the conclusion that it was an "accident," right? I blame him for being too quick to say that.

And I blame him for allowing the Israeli attacks to continue for so long. Something bad (for Russia) was bound to happen eventually. And they're war crimes, aren't they? It would've been okay with everybody if it was a Syrian plane that went down?

"So why is everybody assuming that the Israelis carefully planned the whole thing?"

King David Hotel, USS Liberty, 9/11, etc.

"First, let me start by a very simple and primitive question: Why in the world has nobody considered that the Israelis might have truly screwed-up?"

When someone "screws up" during the commission of a crime, a crime "evincing a depraved indifference to human life" and someone dies because of it, it's known in Western jurisprudence as a "depraved heart murder" not an "accident."

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DepravedHeartMurder.aspx

"At this point, I need to ask another question: what would the Israelis gain from shooting down the Il-20?"

You could also ask for example: what did they gain by running over Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer? And the answer would be the same IMO: They do what they do because they're evil.

hunor , says: September 21, 2018 at 7:46 am GMT
Mr. you are a very naïve person. One doesn't have to be a
Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity. In fact we the gojims are the ones
who is in our face is being hated, and planed to be destroyed. They declaring
a new world order. The very word of new implies a departure from what we
have today, a culture of nation states. The very word of order implies Dictatorial slavery.
According to Assange , we are the last generation of free people.
The western countries being overrun by primitives who are the biological
weapons of the elites, one economical crises and everybody is against everybody,
until only the well protected elites remain. The murder of a highly trained
Russian military persons were premeditated planed murder. In earlier
analysis of yours you called this form of warfare " leapfrogging " . And the
hollywooding of the Izraeli leadersip, is a part of deceiveing the gojim.
The did what they do best they draw blood of the gojim, and getting away
with it again with an explanation, playing on our fears of not to escalating further.
Putin calling it an accident, he remind me of an other historic figure
who's name was Marshall Emanuel Grouchy. He was Napoleon's trusted general
in 1815 at waterloo , when he heard the battle drums he started to march with his
units to the opposite direction away from the warzone, so the French army was slathered.
What does it count if they are the best and bravest and have a best missile systems,
if they are being mislead and betrayed? Try to analyzing that.
judeo-christian , says: September 21, 2018 at 8:23 am GMT
What's funny is that The Saker wants to stick to the "facts" but all he gives is, when you read his article closely is apologizing for the failure of Russian policy with regards to the Israelis, a mix of contradictions, Putin-ifallibility and the usual "Russia good, rest meh"
Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 1:21 pm GMT
@hunor Mr. you are a very naïve person. One doesn't have to be a
Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity. In fact we the gojims are the ones
who is in our face is being hated, and planed to be destroyed. They declaring
a new world order. The very word of new implies a departure from what we
have today, a culture of nation states. The very word of order implies Dictatorial slavery.
According to Assange , we are the last generation of free people.
The western countries being overrun by primitives who are the biological
weapons of the elites, one economical crises and everybody is against everybody,
until only the well protected elites remain. The murder of a highly trained
Russian military persons were premeditated planed murder. In earlier
analysis of yours you called this form of warfare " leapfrogging " . And the
hollywooding of the Izraeli leadersip, is a part of deceiveing the gojim.
The did what they do best they draw blood of the gojim, and getting away
with it again with an explanation, playing on our fears of not to escalating further.
Putin calling it an accident, he remind me of an other historic figure
who's name was Marshall Emanuel Grouchy. He was Napoleon's trusted general
in 1815 at waterloo , when he heard the battle drums he started to march with his
units to the opposite direction away from the warzone, so the French army was slathered.
What does it count if they are the best and bravest and have a best missile systems,
if they are being mislead and betrayed? Try to analyzing that.

One doesn't have to be a Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity

So, you do then, I assume, have now or had in the past Form 1A clearance to know how and what Tactical and Operational Manuals describe in terms of setting Air Defense systems, establishment of communications networks ah, never mind–I am sure "Jews The Almighty" bible of yours gives all necessary answers. Including describing issues of angular separation of targets, principles of development of command decisions from tactical to operational level and other irrelevant crap.

[Sep 23, 2018] More on Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: July 14, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT

Sic Semper Tyrannis has published a response to the Rosenstein fantastic "Indictment of Trolls" (Part II): "Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU," by Publius Tacitus http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com
"Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives today that, rather than confirming the case of "Russian meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the major oddities:
1. How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access to the servers/computers?
2. Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when, according to the indictment, they completely and utterly failed to stop the "hacks? "
3. Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator? Here is the bottomline–if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the DNC, why did it take US officials more than six months to stop the activity? The statement of "facts" contained in the indictment also raises another troubling issue–what is the source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?"
-- Why does the US national security hang on the opinions and concoctions of a visceral Russophobe Dm. Alperovitch (a ziocon) who is an "expert" (together with the badly uneducated Elliot Higgins) at the thoroughly corrupted and zionized Atlantic Council?
-- What kind of antisemite has been working hard to make the US Jewry at large suspected in a massive conspiracy and treason against the United States of America?
annamaria , says: July 14, 2018 at 5:06 pm GMT
Here is the context for the "Indictment of Trolls" (Paty II): https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/62c97j/the_awan_brothers_compromised_at_least_80/
"The Awan brothers compromised at least 80 congressional computers and got paid 5 million to do it. We may never know the extent of the breach.
After compromising the Congress' networks for 12 years they do a quick cleanup by breaking in to 20 congressional offices, store data in an off site server before running of to Pakistan and the D.C. Police are investigating. But wait there's more
Imran Awan has a longtime relationship with some members of Congress, including working for Meeks and Becerra starting in 2004 and joining Wasserman Schultz's office in 2005. The IT staffer position expanded to include more than 30 representatives, including work under congressional members who were members of top secret level congressional committees (DHS, Foreign affairs, Select intelligence committee).
Although personal office computers are not supposed to be used for Intelligence Committee business or classified material, accessing these computers is a high priority for foreign intelligence services because of the information they could glean about the committee's work from unclassified emails.
• The brothers are suspected of serious violations including accessing members' computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress, over billing congress for work and parts, transferring data to a remote server, and bypassing normal security protocols for IT staff. Their Democrat benefactors allowed the breech of policy for the sake of convenience.
• The Awans operated an external server, which is against all protocols concerning secured government information.
Further, there were instances where House information was discovered in an external "cloud" server. The contractors in question reportedly were sending and storing House-related information in that off-site server.
• The Awans had special access to the White House and for Visas.
• Multiple Democratic lawmakers have yet to cut ties with House staffers under criminal investigation for wide-ranging equipment and data theft."
– Hey, Mueller! Hey, Rosenstein! Do your job.

[Sep 23, 2018] Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF by Black Pigeon Speaks

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF Support BPS via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/blackpigeon ✅ Tip Jar: via PayPal to: [email protected] ✅2nd Channel- Navy Hato: ... Black Pigeon Speaks September 22, 2018 (8:02) 95,236 Views 1 Comment Reply Email This Page to Someone

Miro23 , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:19 am GMT

What a great video!!

The Democratic Socialists of America, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Britain's Jeremy Corbyn.

"I haven't abandoned the Left – the Left has abandoned me"

Mass immigration and citizenship to change the voter base.

The "victimhood" activists & their friends and sponsors – the cosmopolitan global elite.

The public desire to escape from this nightmare – with Eastern Europe following Victor Orban (who follows the wishes of Hungarian voters).

And, bad luck on the US public who wanted the same, but were tricked by the great conman Donald Trump.

[Sep 23, 2018] One can like or dislike Judge Kavanagh, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl while in high school is completely insane

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

But another running disaster is the feminists' attempt to derail nomination of Judge Kavanagh. One can like or dislike the judge, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl while in high school is completely insane. MeToo, Kavanagh, I also had affairs with girls so many (and more) years ago!

Even if all the complainant claimed was true (and Kavanagh denied it) I'd find him not guilty and vote for him to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, we speak of events that took (or not) place years ago. In those years, girls were expected to surrender only to some token force. "No means no" was a totally unheard-of idea.

[Sep 23, 2018] Darwin's Vigilantes, Reichard Sternberg, and Conventional Pseudoscience by Fred Reed

Notable quotes:
"... Nice chimp. Speaking of chimps here's some fun facts chimps and humans are, as their genes differ by just 1.6%, whereas chimps and gorillas differ by 2.3%. Also, chimps are known to be very territorial and violent. Ring a bell? ..."
"... How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer? i.e., Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer? ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

bossel , says: September 22, 2018 at 9:04 pm GMT

"Irreducible complexity" is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people it has to be concluded that you actually don't care about probabilities & facts. So, it's pretty useless trying to discuss with you.

Orgel's second rule applies.

Dana Thompson , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:14 am GMT
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." – this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said.

God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

Biff , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:25 am GMT
@Rurik
We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans.
how life got here in the first place is speculation. No one knows for sure, no one I know of pretends to.
Do we know of what those oceans consisted?
They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first 'indigenous' life form.

Can we categorically dismiss this theory as impossible? No, we can not.

But how life got here, is an entirely different conversation than whether or not evolution happens.

Clue: it does.

Simply consider the Neanderthal. We know he existed. We have his bones and caves.

But where is he today?

Exactly.

Survival of the fittest. When sleestacks one day return to Earth, and find that among the throngs of waddling bipedals that evolved from their original seed, there are no more of the pale versions left, that will be because their will to persevere could not prevail over the treacherous, near infinite venality of some of their members.

And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a 'scientist'.. to pretend to know how life got here..

..it's just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded - to presume to know that it was put here by ID.

We can't know how life got here, but that certainly doesn't mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful "intelligent design'. That's just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be 'scientists' as well.

Science can't 'know' anything that can't be put to the test or experiment. And since it's rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth's environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can't know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

The dodo bird is no more. Tigers and elephants and rhinos and thousands of other species are being whipped out in our lifetimes, to make more and more room for bipedal consumer units / tax slaves / cannon fodder. As those other species become extinct, it will be due to realities on the ground. Literally in most cases, as their habitats are taken over by a competing species.

This is all brutally obvious once you set aside your prejudices and vanity.

Often, the resistance to the idea of evolution, is a resistance to the idea that we are related to the lesser apes.

Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn't so, doesn't make it go away.

http://i.pbase.com/g3/32/803532/2/99237234.fDbi3ga9.jpg

Nice chimp. Speaking of chimps here's some fun facts chimps and humans are, as their genes differ by just 1.6%, whereas chimps and gorillas differ by 2.3%. Also, chimps are known to be very territorial and violent. Ring a bell?

Wizard of Oz , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT
Fred, after all these years thinking you were sane and smart as well as amusing I have to wonder because you keep on about some imagined Darwinism and avoid the key concept of natural selection whereby some variants of the living DNA bundles turn out to be more fertile than others in the given circumstances. That's as near as you can get to having a logically necessary explanation for something we observe.

Then you still want a place for a designer! Well make sense of that if you can.

What do his/her/its designs tell you about the designer except that he/she isn't any of the candidates yet invented? At least you could infer something about the Abrahamic chap, namely that YHWH didn't like the Hebrews very much even if he was sorry that he had created the other lot at all.

advancedatheist , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:31 am GMT
Ironically intelligent design theorists have conceded more to philosophical materialists than they realize. Philosophers since Descartes have argued that biology and machines operate according to the same principles. ID people just differ from Darwinian materialists about how biological machines came about; but they think about biology like materialists just the same.

I don't see what all this mental masturbation has to do with Christianity, however, because no Christian believes that machines have immaterial things in them which survive the machines' destruction and exist forever in another realm.

Logan , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:36 am GMT
@Dana Thompson

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said. God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

The Holmes quote is a fallacy. It assumes you have assembled all possibilities and that your analysis of their impossibility is without error.

In reality neither of these is usually the case.

jilles dykstra , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:26 am GMT
Hoyle's theory is that life is anywhere in the universe, that it begins in the universe, at the lowest possible temperature, under fierce ultraviolet radiation
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 'Life on Mars ?, The case for a Cosmic Heritage ?', Bristol 1997
Both chemical analysis done by Japanese on a comet, and by Philea, seem to support the theory, until now.
Then there is the phenomenon that genetic material stores experience.
Mice that had been trained to fear a certain smell transmitted this fear by sperm.
Fish accidentally getting into a mid African lake changed at a speed that flabbergasted biologists.
So, I'm inclined to think that life is anywhere in the universe, and that changes in species, the word evolution to me seems to be Darwin's concession to christian thought, homo sapiens as the highest, whatever that may be, are not random, but occur on purpose.
How this mechanism functions, if it exists, it will take some time before we find out.

Latin Americans nor were, nor are, stupid.
When Pizarro saw Mexico city, he was flabbergasted.
Nowhere in Europe at the time existed so large a city, so clean, and so well organised.
Medieval European cities at the time were dung heaps.
The ground level of the Dutch city of Dordrecht rose seven metres trough throwing all garbage in the streets.
Roman cities were well organised, sewers and clean water.
Christianity saw the body as evil, so washing was not important.
As a result epidemics.

A very interesting book is
Lynn White Jr., 'Medieval Technology and Social Change', Oxford 1962
The role of iron in history is hardly realised.
S America, Africa, and the Middle East hardly had any iron.
In England it was found galore, near coal, with easy transport over water.
Mines needed water pumps, a coal driven pump was the beginning of the steam engine, the industrial revolution could begin.

The Alarmist , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT
Some of y'all miss the point that Fred is not denying that evolution of species is at play, merely that the path back to the ur-origin is not readily explained by the theory. That is a fair statement.
j2 , says: September 23, 2018 at 8:15 am GMT
Fred, thanks for this article. You are again totally correct concerning Darwinism. People who have not though about it deep enough confuse darwinism with evolution. Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism as you call the present evolution theory, is a proposed explanation of evolution. Evolution happens, the given explanation does not need to be correct. There are indeed many serious gaps and problems in all forms of darwinism.

The birth of life from non-life is an open problem. I looked at a simpler problem, how new clearly different protein-coding parts of a gene (i.e., differs by many mutations) can be created by mutations and selection.

The problem was that a protein stops working after very few random mutations, so it must become duplicated and a duplicate becomes a pseudo-gene that accumulates many mutations, but as it is pseudo-gene it is not under selection pressure, so this mutation-selection mechanism cannot work. It can make new alleles, i.e., genes differing by a few mutations only, and screen the best by selection. In that case the mutated gene does not need to become pseudo-gene (=gene that does not work).

AlreadyPublished , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:23 am GMT
How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer?
i.e., Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer?

Did it evolve here on Earth, somewhere else, or arise spontaneously in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Does the concept of "information" have any meaning without the evolution of an analytical organism with an abstraction engine?

Do we even know what we think evolved? No

This question conflates knowledge with conjecture, hypothesis and/or theory, depending on what definition you choose for the word "think". But let me try to answer it anyway .
Yes – we do have some ideas about what first evolved , some backed with physical evidence.
The2nd law of thermodynamics defines an arrow of time for the universe in terms of entropy, which means that the past grows increasingly fuzzy the further we try to look backwards. This limitation on certainty is something we know and must accept. Human history is a tiny fragment of the Earth's history, but only a mote of that fragment can be reconstructed with much certainty, hence the difference between "pre-history" and "history".

So what kind of organism do we think (hypothesize) first evolved? The answer is .
gas-guzzling microbes:

Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life
(Published 10 June 2013)
Wolfgang Nitschke and Michael J. Russell
[...]
Abstract

Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws . Even if demands from both palaeogeochemistry and thermodynamics are respected, then a plethora of strongly differing models are still conceivable.
Although we have no guarantee that life at its origin necessarily resembled biology in extant organisms, we consider that the only empirical way to deduce how life may have emerged is by taking the stance of assuming continuity of biology from its inception to the present day . Building upon this conviction, we have assessed extant types of energy and carbon metabolism for their appropriateness to conditions probably pertaining in those settings of the Hadean planet that fulfill the thermodynamic requirements for life to come into being. Wood–Ljungdahl (WL) pathways leading to acetyl CoA formation are excellent candidates for such primordial metabolism.

Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life . The proposed model furthermore better fits basic thermodynamic demands and palaeogeochemical conditions suggested by recent results from extant alkaline hydrothermal seeps.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract

Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:

http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/

My crude idea is actually supported by oceans of living evidence. See for yourself.

utu , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:30 am GMT
The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.
m___ , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:34 am GMT
No, Neo-Darwinism does not allow for replication experiments. Thus one could suggest it is an abstract idea, a suggestion, no more.

That points to other thoughts, how does Neo-Darwinism scale as to the Bible, the Koran. Very well. How does Neo-Darwinism not allow for different suggestions to be judged only afterwards on their quality? It should allow for further suggestions at all means. Is intelligent design a better suggestion? Should scientists be discriminated upon being critical of Neo-Darwinism? Certainly not.

Meaningful article as to mainstream openness of mind elaboration.

Steve Hayes , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
Bringing up the origin of life on Earth is a logical fallacy and, as such, completely disingenuous. The theory of evolution does not say anything about how life arose. Its focus is on how species change over time, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.
DanFromCT , says: September 23, 2018 at 11:50 am GMT
@AlreadyPublished How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer?
i.e., Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer?
Did it evolve here on Earth, somewhere else, or arise spontaneously in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Does the concept of "information" have any meaning without the evolution of an analytical organism with an abstraction engine?

Do we even know what we think evolved? No
This question conflates knowledge with conjecture, hypothesis and/or theory, depending on what definition you choose for the word "think". But let me try to answer it anyway....
Yes - we do have some ideas about what first evolved , some backed with physical evidence.
The2nd law of thermodynamics defines an arrow of time for the universe in terms of entropy, which means that the past grows increasingly fuzzy the further we try to look backwards. This limitation on certainty is something we know and must accept. Human history is a tiny fragment of the Earth's history, but only a mote of that fragment can be reconstructed with much certainty, hence the difference between "pre-history" and "history".

So what kind of organism do we think (hypothesize) first evolved? The answer is....
gas-guzzling microbes:


Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life
(Published 10 June 2013)
Wolfgang Nitschke and Michael J. Russell
[...]
Abstract

Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws . Even if demands from both palaeogeochemistry and thermodynamics are respected, then a plethora of strongly differing models are still conceivable.
Although we have no guarantee that life at its origin necessarily resembled biology in extant organisms, we consider that the only empirical way to deduce how life may have emerged is by taking the stance of assuming continuity of biology from its inception to the present day . Building upon this conviction, we have assessed extant types of energy and carbon metabolism for their appropriateness to conditions probably pertaining in those settings of the Hadean planet that fulfill the thermodynamic requirements for life to come into being. Wood–Ljungdahl (WL) pathways leading to acetyl CoA formation are excellent candidates for such primordial metabolism.

Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life . The proposed model furthermore better fits basic thermodynamic demands and palaeogeochemical conditions suggested by recent results from extant alkaline hydrothermal seeps.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract

Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:
http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/
My crude idea is actually supported by oceans of living evidence. See for yourself. Compare with the talk by Rice University synthetic chemist James Tour, "Are Present Proposals on Chemical Evolutionary Mechanisms Accurately Pointing Toward First Life?" which utterly demolishes Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.

The irrelevant ad hominems are always the first sign we've won on the merits of our case. Beyond that what they're demanding in the name of "but this is science!" turns out to be methodological just so-ism, a form of quasi-religious anti-science in which literally everything confirms Darwinism on the grounds that Darwinism explains everything.

The irony about the bluster coming from these rabid Darwinians is that a quick check of their photos shows they're almost always angry, emasculated little men, who if there were any truth in Darwinism might be kept under lock and key to perform some useful work but othwrwise excluded from the affairs of real men. This much should be obvious, so the real question becomes who are behind the publishing and media platforms allowing these social misfits to abuse science for socio-political reasons.

After all, even if they're atheists as almost all are, they would concede that the notion of God is the culturally collective conscience of a people -- proving the hatred expressing itself in these scurrilous ad hominems exposes an embarrassing grandiosity characteristic of a paranoid hatred of their male betters in general and of Christian Americans in particular.

utu , says: September 23, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
@utu The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it. Jerry Fodor on evolutionary (just-so) stories in psychology, behavioral science and so on.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings

The years after Darwin witnessed a remarkable proliferation of other theories, each seeking to co-opt natural selection for purposes of its own. Evolutionary psychology is currently the salient instance, but examples have been legion. They're to be found in more or less all of the behavioural sciences, to say nothing of epistemology, semantics, theology, the philosophy of history, ethics, sociology, political theory, eugenics and even aesthetics. What they have in common is that they attempt to explain why we are so-and-so by reference to what being so-and-so buys for us, or what it would have bought for our ancestors.

'We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.'

'We don't approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.'

'We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)'.

'We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that's because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.'

'We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.'

'We don't all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).'

'We don't copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).'

I'm not making this up, by the way. Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that's the sort of creature we are. And perhaps it's unnecessary to remark that such explanations are inherently post hoc (Gould called them 'just so stories'); or that, except for the prestige they borrow from the theory of natural selection, there isn't much reason to believe that any of them is true.

Anyhow, for what it's worth, I really would be surprised to find out that I was meant to be a hunter-gatherer since I don't feel the slightest nostalgia for that sort of life. I loathe the very idea of hunting, and I'm not all that keen on gathering either. Nor can I believe that living like a hunter-gatherer would make me happier or better. In fact, it sounds to me like absolute hell. No opera. And no plumbing.

j2 , says: September 23, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
@utu

If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.
You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin. utu, you are completely right, I can tell it from personal experience, though not in Caltech, but it is the same in all respectable (thinking they are better) universities, I have been staff in two such.
AlreadyPublished , says: September 23, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@tom Fred
Quite correct. The essential darwinism and neo darwinism notions are based on a long time and incredible random mutations. A belief in a non-darwinistic view of how biological entites emerged suggests some type of teleology whether deistic or otherwise. This is absolutely unacceptable to darwinists. Modern evolutionary biology would rather believe in a random tooth fairy rather than teleology. They have the simplistic dualism that if you don't accept the darwinism nonsense you must be a creationist fruitcake. End of discussion. There are two ways to address a mystery: as a detective or as a mystic.

Darwinian evolution is the product of detective work, whereas teleology and religion are the products of mystics. Mystics don't want mysteries solved , because they make a living from promoting ignorance as something important and valuable, worthy of awe, amazement, and worship rituals (including endless streams of money to sustain the parasitic priestly caste)

Detectives want to solve mysteries because they want to understand causation.
If you understand how something works, you no longer have a mystery.

But a mystical life is contingent on the existence of a mystery. Mystics need mystery, and will preserve it at all costs. That's why they hate Darwinian evolution, opposing it since 1859, despite all the oceans, mountains and forests filled with convergent evidence in support of the 2nd most successful theory in science .

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
@DH

Irreducible complexity" is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people
Links please...

Links please

WTF? Are you in kindergarten? Just stupid? Just one who prefers ignorance and denial? "Irreducible complexity" has been quite adequately rebutted by competent scientists. If you don't know how to use the Internet, put some effort into learning. Do your own goddamn due diligence, asshole. Do you always require other people to do the work? And then you believe what you get back? Get the fuck to work, clown.

AaronB , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:31 pm GMT
Intelligent Design must be viewed with hostility by the scientific establishment.

Science is supposed to give humans control – if Intelligent Design is true, it would mean there are other forces at work in the universe, humans must share power, humans have less control than they thought.

That goes against the whole Point of Science.

Intelligent Design is a dead theory from the pov of science – if true, now what? How does that add to our power to shape our destiny? We just submit to a higher power?

Evolutionary Theory has resulted in an actual sense of increased power for us – we apply it in male/female relations, we apply it to population differences, we understand human behavior and motivation through its prism.

It hardly matters that all of this is false – that it cannot explain male/female relations or population differences. It hardly matters that it gives us a false sense of power.

Science must prefer it. Only another theory that offers more power than Evolution will be even remotely considered.

Intelligent Design cancels out science, neuters it, destroys it – it is not just another scientific theory.

How can Intelligent Design give us more power?

Mankind seems to need security more than anything. Our primary motivation seems to be fear.

Johnnie Walker Read , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Rurik

We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans.
how life got here in the first place is speculation. No one knows for sure, no one I know of pretends to.

Do we know of what those oceans consisted?
They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first 'indigenous' life form.

Can we categorically dismiss this theory as impossible? No, we can not.

But how life got here, is an entirely different conversation than whether or not evolution happens.

Clue: it does.

Simply consider the Neanderthal. We know he existed. We have his bones and caves.

But where is he today?

Exactly.

Survival of the fittest. When sleestacks one day return to Earth, and find that among the throngs of waddling bipedals that evolved from their original seed, there are no more of the pale versions left, that will be because their will to persevere could not prevail over the treacherous, near infinite venality of some of their members.

And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a 'scientist'.. to pretend to know how life got here..

..it's just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded - to presume to know that it was put here by ID.

We can't know how life got here, but that certainly doesn't mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful "intelligent design'. That's just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be 'scientists' as well.

Science can't 'know' anything that can't be put to the test or experiment. And since it's rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth's environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can't know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

The dodo bird is no more. Tigers and elephants and rhinos and thousands of other species are being whipped out in our lifetimes, to make more and more room for bipedal consumer units / tax slaves / cannon fodder. As those other species become extinct, it will be due to realities on the ground. Literally in most cases, as their habitats are taken over by a competing species.

This is all brutally obvious once you set aside your prejudices and vanity.

Often, the resistance to the idea of evolution, is a resistance to the idea that we are related to the lesser apes.

Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn't so, doesn't make it go away.

http://i.pbase.com/g3/32/803532/2/99237234.fDbi3ga9.jpg The best theory I have heard on the evolution of man. As Lloyd Pye points out, Darwin "was a blowed up peckerwood".

nsa , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
There is a fairly decent fossil record of human evolution. "The Fossil Trail" by Tattersall provides an overview of this fossil record. Note that fossils are not bones but rather mineralized bones, and can only form within a very narrow set of conditions. Actual bones rarely last a month or two in nature .let alone millions of years.
for-the-record , says: September 23, 2018 at 3:40 pm GMT
I think its fair to say that there are 3 essential, and largely independent, elements to "the" theory of evolution:

(1) the origin of life (out of primordial soup), which for some miraculous, unexplained reason happened exactly 1 time

(2) arrival of the fittest (i.e., how favorable mutations produce wonderful changes and entirely new species)

(3) survival of the fittest (natural selection, e.g., white moths becoming black during the industrial revolution)

For anyone with a strong feel for mathematics, the last (which most people seem to identify with "evolution") is entirely trivial; the first two, on the other hand are, as Fred points out, highly problematic.

Pasteur, after all, is heralded for having refuted the "traditional" theory of spontaneous generation, but it seems that in the primordial soup normal rules don't apply.

log , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
Dear Mr. Reed,

Darwinism begins with the twin assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. These are assumptions, and they cannot be proven by the nature of their claims. From these assumptions, Darwinism, or something functionally identical to it, must be true as a matter of logical deduction from observational reality. As one of its proponents put it, Darwinism "is the only game in town." This is so because of these two assumptions, which are not value neutral.

These two assumptions – naturalism (there exists nought but particles, forces, and the void) and uniformitarianism (the rules that we deduce govern the interaction of matter have been, are, and always shall be, the same everywhere) – are the philosophical foundation upon which all of scientific modernity is built. This philosophical foundation rules out any deity who might make a difference in observational reality.

Design theory (aka "Intelligent Design") is simply the consistent application of statistical rationality to claims. When applied to the claims of evolutionary biology, statistics concludes that "it most likely didn't happen the way it must have if naturalism and uniformitarianism are true." By its nature, however, statistics can't make absolute claims, but only comparative claims of likelihoods. Thus statistics cannot disprove the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It can only undermine it. And that undermining – the parting of mind and heart – creates madness for those whose philosophies are built upon the foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism. But also rejecting statistics is to depart from that foundation as well, which also is madness.

Therefore those who use statistics to test the claims of evolutionary biology against observational reality must be done away with, using the time-honored methods of ostracism, reviling, deplatforming, and so on. Their claims cannot be refuted without abandoning statistical rationality, which is self-defeating. So their claims must not be substantively addressed. Pointing fingers and mocking will suffice, for who wants to be mocked and scorned? Is the pursuit of truth worth the social cost it incurs?

But consider – if statistics does undermine confidence in Darwinism, and if Darwinism is entailed by the joint combination of naturalism, uniformitarianism, and observational reality – then what is really being undermined is the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. And if there might exist more than simply particles, forces, and the void, and if the rules governing the interactions of matter are not uniform across reality, then we have no grounds for saying the Bible presents a false view of reality. There may indeed be a God who does things we can observe, a God of miracles, and Jesus Christ may indeed be real. The prospect of living forever in their society cannot be rejected on first principles if we are statistically rational, and so that prospect might cause us to revise our cost estimate of the pursuit of truth – and a great many other things.

Jared Livesey

WorkingClass , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours. To a cockroach I am a vengeful god.
Intelligent Dasein , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
When reading the Origin of Species, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term "natural selection" differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another's way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the "fence-sitters" would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide de facto evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the "happiness" of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that cannot be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one's own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that -- for many people today and almost the entirety of the "educated" classes -- it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as "democracy" forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a "Darwin Award."

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

jilles dykstra , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now
BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:58 pm GMT
@The Alarmist It's no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

It's no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

It doesn't even get close to a Hail Mary. It is a desperate play from theist ignorance.

There is scientific method. There is logic. They provide many answers -- so many answers all well-founded, all verifiable, all directly observable through at least one method.

Intelligent Design is silliness. Life is a product of Intelligent Design, you say? What about water, essential to life? Intelligent Design created hydrogen and oxygen, and the water molecule, right? Else, Intelligent Design she no work for "life", yanno? Get to positing bullshit like "Intelligent Design", and you put yourself in an epistemological fix, all the way back to the presumed beginning of time. Intelligent Design provides all 47 elements crucial to human life -- hydrogen and oxygen being just a start on THAT issue. Intelligent Design provides an environment where life can survive and continue. Intelligent Design provides a planet just close enough to, and just far enough from good ol' Sol. And, damn, Intelligent Design provides that Sun, that moon, those stars, that galaxy, that Universe.

All to justify and substantiate bullshit claims as to the origin of life.

Enough nonsense. Bring forth a true modern age, and end superstition and ignorance.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
@WorkingClass Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours. To a cockroach I am a vengeful god.

Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours.

Don't be ridiculous. Intelligent Design requires the fiat power to create and perpetuate that which is Designed.

Proving the existence of that fiat-capable thing is a real bitch.

DH , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
@BamBam Rubble

Links please
WTF? Are you in kindergarten? Just stupid? Just one who prefers ignorance and denial? "Irreducible complexity" has been quite adequately rebutted by competent scientists. If you don't know how to use the Internet, put some effort into learning. Do your own goddamn due diligence, asshole. Do you always require other people to do the work? And then you believe what you get back? Get the fuck to work, clown. Links please
BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:17 pm GMT
@Colin Wright '...Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that's the sort of creature we are...'

This may be tangential to your point, but it's worth pointing out that it's often not so much a matter of some trait or practice being there because it serves a purpose but of it being there because there's no particular reason for it not to continue being there.

We have an appendix, not because we need it, but because not having it wouldn't confer any striking advantage. It doesn't usually turn poisonous, and if it does, likely as not we've already sired children anyway.

Things can be like the old trampoline in the basement. They're often there, not because they're needed, but because there's no compelling reason to get rid of them. If a society practices female clitorectomies, for example, it'll likely go on practising female clitorectomies even if no purpose is served -- just so long as female life expectancy and fertility isn't dramatically affected. If a dog has a tail, it's not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won't benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

If a dog has a tail, it's not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won't benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

It's because the tail does not prevent reproduction. The key to evolution is the survival of those fit to survive and reproduce. It is that simple.

Every May, 10 billion mayflies hatch. Most die. One million survive to lay 10 billion eggs, which hatch the following May. Survival and continued existence of mayflies is that simple.

"Fittest" was the wrong choice of word. "Fit" is correct.

"Good enough" works every time.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

Worse, much worse. If anything puts Xtians in a murderous mood, it's Creation Denial.

How come there's a gold stripe around your comment? Some kind of merit badge manifestation?

The Alarmist , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein When reading the Origin of Species, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term "natural selection" differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another's way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the "fence-sitters" would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide de facto evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the "happiness" of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that cannot be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one's own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that---for many people today and almost the entirety of the "educated" classes---it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as "democracy" forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a "Darwin Award."

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom. Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory. Like the telephone, the theory of evolution has many fathers.

prusmc , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker The Hispanics are actually driving blacks out of California along with the Oakies, the Irish-Catholics, the Koreans, the Jews...and everyone else.

No amount of territoriality helps if another race is willing to kill you.

The problem is that just like Miami, the blacks have nowhere else to go. They are not as inclined to move to Utah.

They are trapped and cannot learn Spanish. I really don't think the people of Utah want them. Of course this has not stopped the Fed's and the religion base-federally funded parasite organizations : Lutherin, Methodist, Episcopal, Jewish and Catholic chairities from moving Congolese into Wyoming, Somalians into Maine and various Muslim refugees into Burlington, Vermont. Bernie does not need their votes he has more than enough.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:29 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience? It is firmly based on no evidence.
Fred back to his evolution bollocks, a subject about which he knows nothing except what is not the case. For a corrective, may I suggest:

Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed, but chacun a son gout .

How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

Colin Wright , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
' No. Has a metabolizing, reproducing chemical complex been constructed in the laboratory, showing that it might be possible? No '

It's worth pointing out that this is just a variation on the reason God -- and gods -- were traditionally believed in.

Do we understand how thunder works? If you're an eighth century Viking, of course you don't. Ergo, there's a thunder god.

I'm not convinced that that we cannot explain a given datum is sufficient evidence to conclude God exists. My dog probably would have been at a loss to explain how a car worked -- most people would. It doesn't follow that there's a God and he made cars.

Intelligent Dasein , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@The Alarmist Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory. Like the telephone, the theory of evolution has many fathers.

Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution

I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I'm guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I've already said.

Agent76 , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:16 pm GMT
Aug 6, 2013 Evolution Vs. God

Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world's top universities.

• Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
• Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
• PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
• Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin's finches and Lenski's bacteria -- all under the microscope of the Scientific Method -- observable evidence from the minds of experts. Prepare to have your faith shaken.

Agent76 , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:22 pm GMT
This is another great video of conception and the processes in detail and more folk's need to view and know.

Nov 14, 2011 Conception to birth -- visualized

Image-maker Alexander Tsiaras shares a powerful medical visualization, showing human development from conception to birth and beyond.

AaronB , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:35 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution...
I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I'm guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I've already said.

That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I think this needs to be the key point.

At this late date, it hardly needs refuting anymore. We should try and understand what modern need it fills.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution...
I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I'm guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I've already said.

I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle.

LOL. Yeah, "refuted" via thundering declaration of phlogiston-stuff.

Or something analogous. You theists have pontificated BS for centuries. After all, what else could it be BUT Yahweh, right?

Lurker , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Bragadocious I've found that the most belligerent defenders of Evolution come from the UK. Not surprising since they're defending a British pseudo-scientist (Darwin was a theologian by training) whose main activity during his college education was collecting beetles. Also interesting: despite their aggressive defense of Evolution and primordial soup, the Brits also commonly believe in alien life. L. Ron Hubbard set up his world HQ in Britain for a reason. British taxi driver George King also created a UFO religion out of whole cloth that now has 58 branches worldwide, most in the UK. I don't know how you square On the Origin of Species with little green men from Mars, but the Brits have found a way. You have proof there is no alien life, why has this been kept secret?

Btw I'm in the UK, I've never heard of George King or his religion.

Just looked him up. Nope, doesn't ring a bell at all.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:54 pm GMT
@Thomm It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz singlehandedly tie up hundreds if not thousands of White Trashionalists at once.

Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little renumeration.
Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion.

It works and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew.

Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated here, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

Why?

It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron's plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring anything out (much less leaving this site).

I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing.

Some parts .not bad.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
@utu The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.

Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism.

Yup.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:03 pm GMT
@AaronB Intelligent Design must be viewed with hostility by the scientific establishment.

Science is supposed to give humans control - if Intelligent Design is true, it would mean there are other forces at work in the universe, humans must share power, humans have less control than they thought.

That goes against the whole Point of Science.

Intelligent Design is a dead theory from the pov of science - if true, now what? How does that add to our power to shape our destiny? We just submit to a higher power?

Evolutionary Theory has resulted in an actual sense of increased power for us - we apply it in male/female relations, we apply it to population differences, we understand human behavior and motivation through its prism.

It hardly matters that all of this is false - that it cannot explain male/female relations or population differences. It hardly matters that it gives us a false sense of power.

Science must prefer it. Only another theory that offers more power than Evolution will be even remotely considered.

Intelligent Design cancels out science, neuters it, destroys it - it is not just another scientific theory.

How can Intelligent Design give us more power?

Mankind seems to need security more than anything. Our primary motivation seems to be fear. Good post.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:09 pm GMT
@AaronB You make an interesting point.

There are two theories about what leads to maximum human flourishing and well being and security.

One is that we maximize our control of the environment we find ourselves in. The dream of science. This requires psychologically cutting ourselves off from nature, seeing ourselves as separate from it and in opposition to it, and trying to dominate it.

Supposedly we will turn discover the laws that lead to our maximum emotional, psychological, and physical well being. Security and well being depend on us maximizing our power and control.

The alternative, what you call mystic , suggests that human flourishing depends on relinquishing power and control , an utterly radical perspective from the pov of science. The mystic theory says that we flourish best by collaborating with other forces in the universe, cooperating and living in accordance with them, that our security and well being depends on our not cutting ourselves off from the larger whole in order to dominate it.

In the mystic system, not understanding some things is a necessary part of relinquishing control - simply because the faculty of discursive understanding is a limited tool that cuts us off from collaborating with the forces we need to be a part of in order to flourish. Mystery is thus a basic truth. Understanding is good, but limited.

The modern scientific approach seems to have failed to deliver on its promise of making us psychologically, emotionally, or physically flourish. By cutting ourselves off from the whole, our emotional and psychological life seems to have become stunted, narrow and empty, and mostly about conflict and strife. Anxiety is at record highs. And physically, we are less robust than ever, prey to a host of diseases our ancestors knew nothing about, and increasingly obese.

It seems seeing ourselves as independent fragments in opposition to the whole has not worked out. Have to say ..very good post.
Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

That science/mystic approach to life/existence ..thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein When reading the Origin of Species, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term "natural selection" differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another's way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the "fence-sitters" would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide de facto evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the "happiness" of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that cannot be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one's own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that---for many people today and almost the entirety of the "educated" classes---it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as "democracy" forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a "Darwin Award."

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom. Agree with

while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

and

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted

as for

.and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune.Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

not quite sure about "never" and "boredom".

Thomm , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:22 pm GMT
@utu Thomm, are you making progress in solving the toilet problem in your home country?

Even Ducks Don't Like Indians
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/raceethnicity/south-asians/east-indians/ While I am not Indian (only a preposterously stupid person would think I am), remember that your face was deemed as a suitable solution to this problem.

Everybody wins, especially you, since you receive what you crave.

Your face. Remember that, so that you don't have to pose the same question ten times (given your low IQ of 70).

Heh heh heh heh

Moi , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@utu

If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.
You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin. Challenging Netanyahoo is a bigger no-no and graver sin–also a heck of a lot more dangerous.
attilathehen , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:42 pm GMT
"America has some fifty-seven million residents of Latin-American descent, mostly citizens. Willy-nilly, they are part of America. Thinking that many Americans might want to know something about them, where they came from, what they do and have done,"

No Fred. We know approximately 22 million are illegals and will have to go back. The remaining 37 million will be divided along IQ/race and black Hispanics will have to go back. Puerto Rico has to be declared independent.

Just because you married a Mexican woman, does not entitle you to bring in Latin America to make her happy.

Rich , says: September 23, 2018 at 8:12 pm GMT
@utu

If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.
You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin. Funny thing is, Einstein didn't discover the Theory of Relativity. It was published 2 years earlier by an Italian scientist named Olento De Pretto. Whether Einstein stole the idea or arrived at it independently is disputed.
AaronB , says: September 23, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT
@peterAUS Have to say.....very good post.
Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

That science/mystic approach to...life/existence.....thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective. Thanks, I'm glad you found something to appreciate in it.

CanSpeccy , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 9:02 pm GMT
@BamBam Rubble

Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger
Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed, but chacun a son gout .

How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five? Re: Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed.

Thank you for your positive assessment. The reason for the particular mode of address is that it was written explicitly as a response to an earlier nonsensical effusion from Fred on the subject of evolution.

As for,

How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

Jim Bob Lassiter , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:16 pm GMT
@peterAUS Have to say.....very good post.
Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

That science/mystic approach to...life/existence.....thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective. Hear! Hear! Indeed.

Fred's really at his best when he tells us niggra stories.

Cyrano , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT
How do you call people that "believe" in evolution? – Evolutionaries. How do you call people that don't believe in evolution, who instead believe in one stupid religion or another? – Contra-evolutionaries.

I think that evolution makes a lot of sense. Evolution is basically competition and favoritism by mother nature – which wants only her good designs to succeed. To bash evolution because it can't accurately describe how life begun is ridiculous. No conta-evolutionary has ever been successful at providing meaningful explanation of how life started either, that hasn't stop anybody from believing in hundreds of useless religions.

Simply Simon , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:00 pm GMT
@Agent76 This is another great video of conception and the processes in detail and more folk's need to view and know.

Nov 14, 2011 Conception to birth -- visualized

Image-maker Alexander Tsiaras shares a powerful medical visualization, showing human development from conception to birth and beyond.

https://youtu.be/fKyljukBE70 Thanks, Agent 76 for posting this incredible video. Regardless what one thinks about abortion, the fact that millions of these complex structures called fetuses have been terminated before birth makes me feel that it would be infinitely better to prevent conception in the first place.

Anonymous , [428] Disclaimer says: September 23, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
The brainless boomer strikes again!
BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:41 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy Re: Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed.
Thank you for your positive assessment. The reason for the particular mode of address is that it was written explicitly as a response to an earlier nonsensical effusion from Fred on the subject of evolution.

As for,


How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?
Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

Sorry, poor word-choice on my part. How many commenters here are capable of accepting what you wrote?

KenH , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:50 pm GMT
@Rurik

We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans.
how life got here in the first place is speculation. No one knows for sure, no one I know of pretends to.

Do we know of what those oceans consisted?
They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first 'indigenous' life form.

Can we categorically dismiss this theory as impossible? No, we can not.

But how life got here, is an entirely different conversation than whether or not evolution happens.

Clue: it does.

Simply consider the Neanderthal. We know he existed. We have his bones and caves.

But where is he today?

Exactly.

Survival of the fittest. When sleestacks one day return to Earth, and find that among the throngs of waddling bipedals that evolved from their original seed, there are no more of the pale versions left, that will be because their will to persevere could not prevail over the treacherous, near infinite venality of some of their members.

And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a 'scientist'.. to pretend to know how life got here..

..it's just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded - to presume to know that it was put here by ID.

We can't know how life got here, but that certainly doesn't mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful "intelligent design'. That's just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be 'scientists' as well.

Science can't 'know' anything that can't be put to the test or experiment. And since it's rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth's environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can't know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

The dodo bird is no more. Tigers and elephants and rhinos and thousands of other species are being whipped out in our lifetimes, to make more and more room for bipedal consumer units / tax slaves / cannon fodder. As those other species become extinct, it will be due to realities on the ground. Literally in most cases, as their habitats are taken over by a competing species.

This is all brutally obvious once you set aside your prejudices and vanity.

Often, the resistance to the idea of evolution, is a resistance to the idea that we are related to the lesser apes.

Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn't so, doesn't make it go away.

http://i.pbase.com/g3/32/803532/2/99237234.fDbi3ga9.jpg The white race is becoming the contemporary dodo bird.

Major1 , says: September 23, 2018 at 11:16 pm GMT
Haha Fred, and those that link to him, sure know how to get the clicks, don't they?
Fred thinks that his "take no prisoners" style of writing frees him from the responsibility of making sense. If challenged on the stupid shit he says, he and his defenders hide behind the "That's just Fred bein' Fred" defense.
Anyone who posits that ID and the TOE are equivalent because neither has all the answers is scientifically illiterate, or just a diehard apologist for religious creation myths.
And anyone who uses the phrase "irreducible complexity" in a discussion of ID is at least 20 years behind everyone else. And is probably a recalcitrant pedant.
Same old thing. Creationists, because they don't know how science works, assail the TOE as faulty or untrue because every single gap in the evolutionary record hasn't yet been filled in, or the exact mechanism of every facet of evolution hasn't yet been elucidated. While offering zero proof of their own dogma. Where, exactly, are the state of the art laboratories where scientists are toiling to prove that ID is true and how it happened? Where are the landmark papers from these scientists? There is a difference between proposing, defending and proving your own theory and just unceasingly attacking someone else's. Especially with the same tired, shabby arguments. Actual scientists know this. Ken Ham and Michael Behe do not. Fred sure doesn't.
And can we stop calling it Intelligent Design? It's creationism with a different name. You can tie a pretty pink ribbon around a pig's neck but it's still a pig.

[Sep 23, 2018] Poroshenko has told Germans that the construction of "North Stream 2" makes no sense.

Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Reply

Moscow Exile September 23, 2018 at 7:59 am

Today at 02:24

Порошенко заявил немцам, что строительство "Северного потока – 2" не имеет никакого смысла Poroshenko has told Germans that the construction of "North Stream 2" makes no sense.
По его словам, российский газ европейцам гораздо выгоднее получать через Украину, а новый газопровод – лишь "инструмент давления" на Европу
According to him, it is much more profitable to send Russian gas to Europe through the Ukraine, and the new pipeline is just a "tool to pressurize" on Europe


Please help me get even more wealthier, I beg you!

The leader of "Independent" Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, has once again tried to convince Europeans that they do not need the "North Stream 2", pipeline, which is being constructed on the bed of the Baltic sea, bypassing the Ukraine

"This pipeline makes no sense from an economic point of view. This is a Russian attempt to weaken the Ukraine, which previously received about three billion dollars annually for transit", he said in an interview with German newspaper "Rheinische Post".

According to Poroshenko, "Why spend $20 billion on a pipeline", if his country "has more than sufficient logistical capacity for the delivery of Russian gas to Europe". He stressed that "the facts speak against" this project.

The President of the Ukraine has decided to warn his "European friends" that the gas pipeline "North Stream 2" is "a geopolitical instrument of pressure on Western Europe, and that the dependence of European countries on gas supplies from Russia is opening up a wide area for their blackmailing".

Recall, as reported by the website kp.ru previously, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, speaking at a joint press conference with the President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, and the Prime Ministers of the three Baltic State countries, stated the importance of the "North Stream 2" project for Germany, noting that the need of her contry for natural gas supplies will only grow.

kirill September 23, 2018 at 8:08 am
Put a sock in it, Banderatard. Nord Stream II makes sense merely because it removes the $3 billion per year of transit fees you parasites charge. The Banderatard thinks that everyone is an innumerate moron.
Mark Chapman September 23, 2018 at 11:24 am
I notice the estimated transit fees have gone up by almost a billion dollars. I wonder if they have budgeted in planned increases if they are successful at getting Nord Stream II shut down. Or were they just low-balling the figures before, like when they were joking about the planned pipeline and how it would make no difference to Ukraine?
Patient Observer September 23, 2018 at 9:02 am
Ignoring reality and focusing just on a comparison of a $3 billion recurring expense versus a $20 billion CAPEX, a ROI of less than 7 years is quite respectable for a major project.
kirill September 23, 2018 at 11:06 am
They charge 3 billion today but may well want 6 billion tomorrow. This Banderite mafioso is basically trying to sell his protection racket.

[Sep 23, 2018] What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Replies: @Logan

Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. , @anonymous The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Alden says: August 10, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT 200 Words Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.

I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it. Read More Replies: @Sowhat


I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.
Guilty as charged...As many immature, uneducated Whites in the sixties, I too was played like a fiddle. If I only knew then what I know now... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
5371 says: August 10, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

ineffectual intellectual
What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WHAT says: August 10, 2017 at 6:12 am GMT Egor certainly deserves much more publicity than he is getting right now. I wouldn`t agree on the other Egor being the most talented, but he did his own important thing, creating a first real media platform for the Russian nationalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 7:13 am GMT

conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? Read More Replies: @Logan A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. , @Joe Franklin


The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?
Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. , @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
jimmyriddle says: August 10, 2017 at 7:15 am GMT 200 Words "but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

Damore doesn't say that – he explicitly says the opposite:

" I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

https://diversitymemo.com/

The author of this piece has made the same error as much of the Anglo MSM.

Damore has been a victim of liberal arts people not being able to understand that he is talking about population averages, not individuals. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 8:25 am GMT

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. Read More Agree: Dieter Kief Replies: @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:57 am GMT 200 Words "Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

He said no such thing.

He said that as a group more women than men fit these stereotypes, percentages undetermined.

I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine, irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature.

That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue, or invalid. Outmoded.

Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth.

IOW, Google fired him for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT 300 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
animalogic says: August 10, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT 200 Words "and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant "Only to those too blind to see.

"The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent."
Excellent point. Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent".

"It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
jim jones says: August 10, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT Credit to Vox Day:

http://imgur.com/a/BTwz3 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Greg Bacon says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT 300 Words This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists–mostly rap–sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Read More Agree: Seamus Padraig , anarchyst , Rurik Replies: @Fidelios Automata Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
The Alarmist says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT 100 Words

"is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services."

Yep, we can discuss it in what the Libs consider to be our own little conspiracy-theory echo chamber. Sometimes you have to accept that there is evil and then decide what to do about it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniil Adamov says: August 10, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT 100 Words The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article. Read More Replies: @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. , @englishmike

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)
That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here - which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT @Anonymous


– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. I agree. (Button out of work) Read More Replies: @Anonymous This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT 200 Words Egor Kholmogorov is a very intersting new voice – – thanks – all – for your efforts.

(James Damore is no Martin Luther: Luther is the person in world history , that is written about the most. By putting Damore in such oversized boots, no wonder Kholmogorov after a while finds, that his subject doesn't walk properly. What Damore tries to do is not, to understand our times, or to reform modern society or some such: He simply takes a position in a debate over role models – and a debate about a pretty Marxist question, if you think about it: Just how many of our character traits have a material (=biological) basis. That task Damore solves clear and well, I think. But more, he doesn't, – – whereas Luther for example (or Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall & Melanchthon from Bretten) really tried – and (mostly) achieved)). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 10, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. Read More Replies: @iffen It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. , @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? , @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. , @dfordoom


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
Agreed. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Zogby says: August 10, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT 200 Words This is turning out to be the most incendiary firing since James Comey.
Damore's essay is an expression of his self-interest in retaining male dominance in software engineering and his anger that his employer is making moves of artificial reverse-discrimination in order to try and reverse the dominance. It is guised in intellectual terms but that's really all there is to it. His company's management supports the attempt to shift power from men to women – and are worried Damore or the likes of him will succeed in organizing a male rebellion – which would bring the company down because of its dependence on the male workforce. That's why they panicked and fired him. And to top it off, Google is run by a foreign feminized beta male – which – being a member of a minority – is unable himself to take on The Powers That Be in America. Because a being a Hindu he's presupposed to need reeducation himself to fit in American society. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 10, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT 400 Words Good article, Anatoly. Thanks for the translation.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice; on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so he may not be aware of this.

Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.

Prejudice is simply the layman's empiricism -- i.e., learning from experience. When you don't know the individual in question, you are always going to fall back on assumptions based on known patterns. That's why prejudice is impossible to get rid of: you would have to get rid of human nature.

This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career.

I agree with commenter #10 above that this is not a fair characterization of Damore's argument. Damore spoke of statistical averages. He never said "all men" or "all women".

However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society.

So true, and I wonder how you reacted to reading that, Anatoly. This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture , which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even being a civilization worth living in while it lasts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
bliss_porsena says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT Don't do any more translation. Leave the original in Russian where it belongs, and summarise. Parse the nuggets of gold into bullet points. Two or three should do it. Read More Disagree: Seamus Padraig Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT God help the Russians if this pedestrian essay was written by their best man. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Joe Franklin says: August 10, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT 200 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Carlo says: August 10, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT 100 Words "Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle."
In the long run, this is good. Natural selection will ensure that in a few decades Google and many other big Western corporations who follow these lines will fail due to incompetence of their managers and employees, and more pragmatic ones will appear and replace them, usually from more traditional and rational societies in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia) and East Asia (China, South Korea, Singapur). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT 100 Words Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion.

We still have peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes.

We know a lot about Martin Luther private life but we know less about James Damore. Is there also the issue of getting laid? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Read More Replies: @iffen As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joe Hide says: August 10, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT Anatoly,
Good read. Good examples to support an emotionally spirited article. Keep writing. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT 100 Words

Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.

That could be read as just the usual conservative "antiracism". Now admittedly there certainly should be moral and ethical limits regarding those issues, one should take care not to end up at the same conclusions and deeds as the Nazis but still, in the present intellectual climate of the West bashing "Conservative naturalism" would be very misguided imo. All this talk of Burkean conservatism, tradition, religion etc. will be totally ineffectual against the progressive juggernaut.
As for that Google memo is that really important? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
FD says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? Read More Replies: @Fluctuarius The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

Great! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic

That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. Read More Replies: @Anon That's not saying very much. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Ivan K. says: August 10, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT 200 Words Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Read More Replies: @iffen Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Michael Kenny says: August 10, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT 100 Words What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. Read More Disagree: JL Replies: @Anon


He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.
Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. , @Daniel Chieh This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. That's not saying very much. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT @Ivan K. Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WorkingClass says: August 10, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT 100 Words The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig


Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.
Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting.

He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.

Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT 100 Words @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
nickels says: August 10, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
There is little point arguing from a 'common sense' stance against the leftists.
This is war, not an argument.

Liberalism must be destroyed. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin


This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Cagey Beast says: Website August 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT 200 Words Seeing Orthodoxy and Martin Luther mentioned in the same place reminded me of the amusing history of early Lutheran contacts with the eastern Church:

Most Christians are not aware that in the latter part of the 16th century, early Lutheran Reformers – close colleagues and followers of Martin Luther – set in motion an eight year contact and correspondence with the (then) Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremias II of Constantinople. The outcome might have changed the course of Christian history. Kevin Allen speaks with scholar Dr Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs about this fascinating and largely unknown chapter in post-Reformation history.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

From Wittenberg to Antioch
September 16, 2007 Length: 32:12

A fascinating interview with Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian priest in Western Michigan. Fr. Gregory was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and professor for 22 years before coming to Orthodoxy.
[...]

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

Long story short, the western reformers were too argumentative and lawyerly for the Patriarch of Constantinople to take. He essentially said "please stop writing to me". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Wally says: August 10, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT Basically the Left is in denial of science DNA. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 10, 2017 at 6:25 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently

So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT 100 Words Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace -- Art Read More Replies: @utu STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ , @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
22pp22 says: August 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jaakko Raipala says: August 10, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT 300 Words @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them – they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. Read More Agree: Anatoly Karlin , Johann Ricke Replies: @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fluctuarius says: August 10, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT @FD Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
englishmike says: August 10, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT 200 Words @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)

That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here – which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT 100 Words @5371 He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party.

ineffectual intellectual

What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT 100 Words

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Ooookey Dookey! And how about other two fundamental signs of impending revolution? I agree with vanguard argument, after all school in Longjumeau was doing just that–preparing the vanguard. But what about economics of revolution? What about political crisis? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Darin says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Read More Replies: @Art


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace --- Art Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT 100 Words @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace -- Art Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT "Polity" should be "policy". "Diving" should be "dividing".

I stopped noticing after that.

Give the new Russian translator a break. Read his copy before posting it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Macumazahn says: August 11, 2017 at 1:15 am GMT 100 Words If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they bring to the table that men do not?
This same observation applies to all "diversity" hiring. If one denies the differences among groups, there can be no business justification for diversity – aside, that is, from Lefty boycotts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Miro23 says: August 11, 2017 at 2:43 am GMT 400 Words @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power – some of them acting idealistically – some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Read More Replies: @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jivilov says: August 11, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. Read More Agree: utu Replies: @Seamus Padraig I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
melanf says: August 11, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT 100 Words @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2″) is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/

" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom... Isn,' t it obvious by now? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
dfordoom says: Website August 11, 2017 at 5:09 am GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

Agreed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
JackOH says: August 11, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT 100 Words Anatoly, thanks for introducing some Russian writers. My experience of reading outsiders who write about America is that they sometimes offer startling viewpoints that are helpful to those of us "in-country" who are too close to the subject matter.

BTW- RT used to have, or maybe still has, an American-born presenter-opinionizer, a guy from Cleveland, Ohio. I think he's an ex-pat in Russia now, and he used to offer folksy, sharply worded critiques of life in the States. I couldn't find his name, but he might be worth looking up to see if he wants to contribute. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 am GMT 100 Words @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. , @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT 100 Words @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom Isn,' t it obvious by now? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT 100 Words @WorkingClass The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus.

Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.

Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT @Wally Basically the Left is in denial of science ... DNA. Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT @22pp22 I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT @Jivilov Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Read More Replies: @AP Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT 100 Words "He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks"

Dammit. I miss the "confiscate and divide" stuff.

How are the NatBolos doing these days? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

Bolsheviks looted the country.

I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .

You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.

So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia

"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Read More Agree: Mr. Hack Replies: @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? , @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this... , @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. , @utu "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig


You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? Read More Replies: @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT 200 Words @AP

Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this Read More Replies: @AP


You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?
I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference - unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure - in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.


There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina
Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters - Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system - were "real Communists." , @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Igor says: August 11, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT Google wants to be
Ein Land
Ein Volk
Ein Führer Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Read More Replies: @Mr. Hack Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.
http://tmora.org/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT 400 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?

I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference – unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure – in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.

There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina

Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters – Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system – were "real Communists." Read More Agree: Mr. Hack , utu Replies: @Sergey Krieger 1990 not the best time frankly. How is western middle class is doing now? Again, you ignored my points and continued pressing own agenda. Soviet people basically were free, provided with all things necessary for fullfilling, happy and protected life which cost them nothing, while western middle class producing outword looks of prosperity was actually I'll iving life of stress, uncertainty and unhappiness. Hence, how is western middle class doing now? Up to nostrils in debt to mantain illusion of prosperity with no room for mistake. Many are no longer middle class. 50 million in USA alone on food help. Drud and various psycho meds in use to just get sort of temporary relief. What price one would put on having what we had? I would say it is priceless. After 1985 fifth column took control of CPSU central commity and top media. What was after 1986 hardly can be called Soviet Union , same as providing lines in stores in 1991 is not representation of what we really had before government Gorbachov and his inner cycle destabilized and destroyed my country. Without Gorbachov there would be no Yeltsin who was nothing but opportunist of the worst kind. To be fair comparison should be made for Brezhnev period which was the most prosperous time Russia ever seen and things were going in right direction before unworthy people without abilities and merit took over the power. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Read More Replies: @German_reader Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. , @Anatoly Karlin This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120331_EUC844.png

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. , @utu Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970's. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT 200 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. Read More Replies: @Darin East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT 100 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. Read More Replies: @Hector_St_Clare Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989" numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT 200 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Read More Replies: @iffen unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." , @Andrei Martyanov


The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me--last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be? , @AP

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS. , @Andrei Martyanov

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.
Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yIpW5BAQdSg/V7-AEA1H8HI/AAAAAAAAAiE/djQ8BHM4Zss5P7vm81DeWZFjy6b7UENwACLcB/s1600/9th%2BGrade.jpg


The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.
Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. , @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.

http://tmora.org/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fidelios Automata says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Greg Bacon This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists--mostly rap--sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."
True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me–last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be? Read More Replies: @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sale_of_Hermitage_paintings

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT 100 Words @iffen unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."

Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."

True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 8:54 pm GMT 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov


The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me--last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be?

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".

Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sale_of_Hermitage_paintings

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise –

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. , @Darin This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930's certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.

Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin We've been through this . :)


The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.
Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT 200 Words @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sale_of_Hermitage_paintings

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery.

Yes, they did not run out

But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it–you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s–I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"–most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"–not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning–nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev–a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this–by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. Read More Replies: @iffen what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.) , @Anonymous So how much of a hold did Jews have over the Soviet Union? There's a lot of propaganda on the Net pushing the story that they were running the show entirely. Where should I look to find the truth? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT 300 Words @Anatoly Karlin This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120331_EUC844.png

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989″ numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT That being said, "(slightly) faster GDP growth rate than West Germany" isn't as impressive as it sounds since they were starting from a much lower base: an economy 40% as rich per capita as West Germany, with an industrial base and educated/skilled workforce, *should* be growing much faster, not slightly faster. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov


Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.
Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yIpW5BAQdSg/V7-AEA1H8HI/AAAAAAAAAiE/djQ8BHM4Zss5P7vm81DeWZFjy6b7UENwACLcB/s1600/9th%2BGrade.jpg


The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.
Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. We've been through this .

The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)

It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Read More Replies: @inertial Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.) Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


So you are a socialist at heart?
No, I am economic realist, which is more mixed economy vector but for Russia specifically--it could be called as "socialist". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Read More Replies: @German_reader There's a book by McMeekin about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

(no idea how good it is, haven't read it myself, and McMeekin seems to be somewhat controversial). , @Darin Sean McMeekin: History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/116/1/246/43921/Sean-McMeekin-History-s-Greatest-Heist-The-Looting , @Anatoly Karlin Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT @iffen what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.)

So you are a socialist at heart?

No, I am economic realist, which is more mixed economy vector but for Russia specifically–it could be called as "socialist". Read More Agree: Sergey Krieger Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT 100 Words

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

LOL, sure–when Taiwan or Belgium will have a viable space programs (the list of cutting edge technologies which goes into this is colossal, not to mention educational and design schools) or will be able to produce something remotely comparable to MS-21 or SU-57, then we may talk. FYI, I work in aerospace industry so, let's put it this way–I never heard superlatives about Belgian or Taiwanese Aerospace . The "other" one? A lot. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT 100 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970′s. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Read More Replies: @Hector_St_Clare Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sale_of_Hermitage_paintings

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930′s certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? Read More Replies: @DNC A country should be able to manufacture trains and tractors without the need to finance them through sales of priceless works of art. Only a completely bankrupt ideology would consider peddling Rembrandt for tractor parts as "reasonable and praiseworthy" Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans
You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! ;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:26 pm GMT @utu "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke.

But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans

You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! Read More Replies: @iffen I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT 100 Words @German_reader Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. There's a book by McMeekin about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

(no idea how good it is, haven't read it myself, and McMeekin seems to be somewhat controversial). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Sean McMeekin: History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/116/1/246/43921/Sean-McMeekin-History-s-Greatest-Heist-The-Looting Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans
You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! ;-) I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.
What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law--this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

https://youtu.be/Lrle0x_DHBM

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT 200 Words @iffen I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law–this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) Read More Replies: @iffen ? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.
What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law--this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

https://youtu.be/Lrle0x_DHBM

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) ? Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it Website August 12, 2017 at 12:45 am GMT 200 Words @iffen ?

?

OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore–anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it–I underscore it again, they all knew it–among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"–it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement–a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony–being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Read More LOL: Sergey Krieger Replies: @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.) , @Sergey Krieger Irony definition is very subtle. My heard hurts. I would definitely prefer to have some sense of humor to reading the said definitions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
inertial says: August 12, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin We've been through this . :)


The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.
Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


They are not that hard.
In Soviet NON-elite schools trigonometric identities were solved very often for fun and on speed among students. However, today's (and yesterday's) entrance exams problems in Math or Physics for such institutions like MGTU, MGU or MAI, among many others, may put some MIT undergraduate students in stupor. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov

?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.) Read More Replies: @German_reader


She was a big deal.
Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her...apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. , @Anon

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

Google her name

Google
You too belong in the Goolag. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 12, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT 100 Words @inertial Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard.

They are not that hard.

In Soviet NON-elite schools trigonometric identities were solved very often for fun and on speed among students. However, today's (and yesterday's) entrance exams problems in Math or Physics for such institutions like MGTU, MGU or MAI, among many others, may put some MIT undergraduate students in stupor. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 1:15 am GMT 100 Words @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.)

She was a big deal.

Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. Read More Replies: @iffen I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60's? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 1:23 am GMT @German_reader


She was a big deal.
Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her...apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60′s? Read More Replies: @German_reader I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT 100 Words @iffen I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60's? I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Read More Replies: @Darin Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 12, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT 100 Words @utu Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970's. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Read More Replies: @utu Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 12, 2017 at 2:17 am GMT @German_reader I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. Read More Replies: @German_reader That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause...which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 2:23 am GMT 100 Words @Darin Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. Read More Replies: @iffen But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion.

There was "authentic enthusiasm" for Davis and others like her in the US and the elite fear was authentic. She failed to bring her first love, communism, to the US, but seems happy enough toiling for the elite now. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 2:41 am GMT 200 Words @Hector_St_Clare Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. Read More Replies: @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
7.62mm says: August 12, 2017 at 2:49 am GMT A Goggle search of "No Such Agency" used to direct its first hit to: https://www.nsa.gov/

Your mileage may vary. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 6:06 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. So how much of a hold did Jews have over the Soviet Union? There's a lot of propaganda on the Net pushing the story that they were running the show entirely. Where should I look to find the truth? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.)

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

Google her name

Google

You too belong in the Goolag. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DNC says: August 12, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT @Darin This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930's certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? A country should be able to manufacture trains and tractors without the need to finance them through sales of priceless works of art. Only a completely bankrupt ideology would consider peddling Rembrandt for tractor parts as "reasonable and praiseworthy" Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 8:33 am GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Read More Replies: @utu Thanks. I will look it up.

Is this Игорь Бунич. Золото партии by Bunich any good? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
JL says: August 12, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT @utu Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Read More Replies: @Anon Novels are not history, certainly not military farces regarding the history of industrialization. , @utu Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn5vHIKSlAk Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT 200 Words Leaving aside the fact that I am apparently too dense to get AM's Angela Davis joke, I want to tell my own.

In the 60's the ruling elite feared Russia, communism, socialism and black rebellion and most of all they feared that Russia would catch the wave of those movements for a long and successful ride. Angela Davis was viewed as a mortal threat by the elite because of her ideology and politics and its promotion. Governor Ronald Reagan tried to get her fired from her academic position in California. During this time she scrapped along on fellowships, internships and academic positions secured for her by fellow travelers, not to mention contributions of leftist organizations partially or wholly funded by Russia. The ruling elite made sure that everyone, and I mean everyone, knew that Angela Davis was a real threat.

Today, like an aging rock star, she scrapes along on speaker fees.

Okay, now the punch line.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah. The ruling elite no longer fears socialism. They no longer fear black rebellion, in fact, that have co-opted black rebellion and manipulate it for their own benefit and purposes.

Yet, they are still deathly afraid of Russia. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin


She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah.
https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/896235475853357060 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT 100 Words @German_reader That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause...which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion.

There was "authentic enthusiasm" for Davis and others like her in the US and the elite fear was authentic. She failed to bring her first love, communism, to the US, but seems happy enough toiling for the elite now. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT @iffen Leaving aside the fact that I am apparently too dense to get AM's Angela Davis joke, I want to tell my own.

In the 60's the ruling elite feared Russia, communism, socialism and black rebellion and most of all they feared that Russia would catch the wave of those movements for a long and successful ride. Angela Davis was viewed as a mortal threat by the elite because of her ideology and politics and its promotion. Governor Ronald Reagan tried to get her fired from her academic position in California. During this time she scrapped along on fellowships, internships and academic positions secured for her by fellow travelers, not to mention contributions of leftist organizations partially or wholly funded by Russia. The ruling elite made sure that everyone, and I mean everyone, knew that Angela Davis was a real threat.

Today, like an aging rock star, she scrapes along on speaker fees.

Okay, now the punch line.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah. The ruling elite no longer fears socialism. They no longer fear black rebellion, in fact, that have co-opted black rebellion and manipulate it for their own benefit and purposes.

Yet, they are still deathly afraid of Russia.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah.

hey FASCISTS

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Novels are not history, certainly not military farces regarding the history of industrialization. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sowhat says: August 12, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT 100 Words @Alden Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it.

I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

Guilty as charged As many immature, uneducated Whites in the sixties, I too was played like a fiddle. If I only knew then what I know now Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT 100 Words @nickels This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
There is little point arguing from a 'common sense' stance against the leftists.
This is war, not an argument.

Liberalism must be destroyed.

This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.

I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.
Nor is he an "intellectual"--ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that--ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it--it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. , @ussr andy

He even denies the concept of race.
last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Thanks. I will look it up.

Is this Игорь Бунич. Золото партии by Bunich any good? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 12, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin


This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre.

I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.

Nor is he an "intellectual"–ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that–ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it–it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT 200 Words @AP


You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?
I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference - unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure - in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.


There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina
Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters - Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system - were "real Communists." 1990 not the best time frankly. How is western middle class is doing now? Again, you ignored my points and continued pressing own agenda. Soviet people basically were free, provided with all things necessary for fullfilling, happy and protected life which cost them nothing, while western middle class producing outword looks of prosperity was actually I'll iving life of stress, uncertainty and unhappiness. Hence, how is western middle class doing now? Up to nostrils in debt to mantain illusion of prosperity with no room for mistake. Many are no longer middle class. 50 million in USA alone on food help. Drud and various psycho meds in use to just get sort of temporary relief. What price one would put on having what we had? I would say it is priceless. After 1985 fifth column took control of CPSU central commity and top media. What was after 1986 hardly can be called Soviet Union , same as providing lines in stores in 1991 is not representation of what we really had before government Gorbachov and his inner cycle destabilized and destroyed my country. Without Gorbachov there would be no Yeltsin who was nothing but opportunist of the worst kind. To be fair comparison should be made for Brezhnev period which was the most prosperous time Russia ever seen and things were going in right direction before unworthy people without abilities and merit took over the power. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?

Read More Replies: @German_reader Interesting...I have a negative opinion of the BBC on the whole, but sometimes they produce surprisingly frank documentaries about WW2 issues. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT @utu Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn5vHIKSlAk Interesting I have a negative opinion of the BBC on the whole, but sometimes they produce surprisingly frank documentaries about WW2 issues. Read More Agree: Dan Hayes Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 12, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.
Nor is he an "intellectual"--ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that--ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it--it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Anatoly Karlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPlpRMg8TY Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Read More Replies: @Serge Krieger https://youtu.be/D1r3MDIhon8 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 12, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin

This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre.

He even denies the concept of race.

last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. Read More Agree: utu Replies: @Anatoly Karlin If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 13, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Irony definition is very subtle. My heard hurts. I would definitely prefer to have some sense of humor to reading the said definitions. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Serge Krieger says: August 13, 2017 at 1:20 am GMT @Anatoly Karlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPlpRMg8TY Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 13, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT @ussr andy


He even denies the concept of race.
last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. Read More Replies: @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.

I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.

I'm more interested in facts and reality.

ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. Read More Replies: @ussr andy


American hang-ups
I don't know why Dugin even went there. That'd be like an American taking a stand on Russo-Chukchi internal relations.

What about Russia needs the concept of race with all the attendant baggage, rather than, say, ethnicity? , @utu I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 13, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.


I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

American hang-ups

I don't know why Dugin even went there. That'd be like an American taking a stand on Russo-Chukchi internal relations.

What about Russia needs the concept of race with all the attendant baggage, rather than, say, ethnicity? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 14, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT 500 Words @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.


I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin Drivel. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 14, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT @utu I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Drivel. Read More Replies: @utu Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 15, 2017 at 5:37 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin Drivel. Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Read More Replies: @sinotibetan Interesting comments. I agree with your observation. Even though it is possible that the mean IQs of different ethnic groups may indeed be different, it is the external phenotype that is one of the main determinants of "ethnic identity". Then followed by 'cultural traits' like language, customs etc. A blond Pole who learns to speak impeccable 'Queen's English' , changes his name to sound 'English' may assimilate so well that his foreign origin would probably never be suspected but for a Chinese like me, my "East Asian phenotype" gives away my foreign origin. On the other hand, if I learn Japanese ways to perfection, I might fool native Japanese I am one of them, but never can the Polish man do that.
I think the problem with many native "Western" Europeans(or rather their ruling and political elites) is that they are beholden (or perhaps envious of?) to the success of the USA as the lone superpower and its economic and technological might. More so with native 'Western' Europeans than Asians or Africans(although every nation cannot escape the ubiquitous American influence) because in their mind it was mostly 'white Americans' , kinsmen of their forefathers , who 'made' America as it is now. I think ideas like the European Union ('United States of Europe') and multiculturalism and the demonization of nationalism in Europe by the ruling elites may partially be explained by their desire to usurp American hegemony(by emulating the USA). Perhaps they actually believe losing their native identities and becoming multiethnic ( eg being 'European' regardless of ethnic origin or country of origin, European nations being reduced politically to like states within the USA) will make them rulers of a new superpower.
There is no exceptionalism for any nation...including the USA. It is a young nation in the process of (multiple) ethnogeneses, so happened it became the lone superpower and most influential nation. In the process is perhaps the ethnogenesis of a new ethnic group called 'Americans'(the melting pot/assimilation of 'whites'/ Hispanics/blacks/'Asians' in varying proportions) ...or will there be civil wars and internal strife within this group and other 'non-assimilated 'groups in future or breaking up into multiple 'nations' after internal strife..who knows?
I think the ruling elites and literati who associate American success with multiethnic society and blurring of traditional concepts of ethnic identity are making mistaken associations. The success of America is not because it is multiethnic or plural. Perhaps the reasons for America's success can be a topic of discussion - if Anatoly is keen on writing on the subject.
I think the multiculturalism and immigration of different ethnic groups into America is a recipe for ultimate internal strife and civilizational collapse in that nation as it has been throughout human history. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
treefroggy says: August 23, 2017 at 1:31 am GMT Is the fox supposed to represent to alternative browser Firefox ? If so , Firefox is just as sickeningly PC as Google , just far less competent . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
sinotibetan says: August 29, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT 500 Words @utu Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Interesting comments. I agree with your observation. Even though it is possible that the mean IQs of different ethnic groups may indeed be different, it is the external phenotype that is one of the main determinants of "ethnic identity". Then followed by 'cultural traits' like language, customs etc. A blond Pole who learns to speak impeccable 'Queen's English' , changes his name to sound 'English' may assimilate so well that his foreign origin would probably never be suspected but for a Chinese like me, my "East Asian phenotype" gives away my foreign origin. On the other hand, if I learn Japanese ways to perfection, I might fool native Japanese I am one of them, but never can the Polish man do that.
I think the problem with many native "Western" Europeans(or rather their ruling and political elites) is that they are beholden (or perhaps envious of?) to the success of the USA as the lone superpower and its economic and technological might. More so with native 'Western' Europeans than Asians or Africans(although every nation cannot escape the ubiquitous American influence) because in their mind it was mostly 'white Americans' , kinsmen of their forefathers , who 'made' America as it is now. I think ideas like the European Union ('United States of Europe') and multiculturalism and the demonization of nationalism in Europe by the ruling elites may partially be explained by their desire to usurp American hegemony(by emulating the USA). Perhaps they actually believe losing their native identities and becoming multiethnic ( eg being 'European' regardless of ethnic origin or country of origin, European nations being reduced politically to like states within the USA) will make them rulers of a new superpower.
There is no exceptionalism for any nation including the USA. It is a young nation in the process of (multiple) ethnogeneses, so happened it became the lone superpower and most influential nation. In the process is perhaps the ethnogenesis of a new ethnic group called 'Americans'(the melting pot/assimilation of 'whites'/ Hispanics/blacks/'Asians' in varying proportions) or will there be civil wars and internal strife within this group and other 'non-assimilated 'groups in future or breaking up into multiple 'nations' after internal strife..who knows?
I think the ruling elites and literati who associate American success with multiethnic society and blurring of traditional concepts of ethnic identity are making mistaken associations. The success of America is not because it is multiethnic or plural. Perhaps the reasons for America's success can be a topic of discussion – if Anatoly is keen on writing on the subject.
I think the multiculturalism and immigration of different ethnic groups into America is a recipe for ultimate internal strife and civilizational collapse in that nation as it has been throughout human history.

[Sep 23, 2018] "White Helmets" is used in preference to the alternative, all too well associated in the popular imagination with the acme of American culture: the Western.

Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Cortes September 21, 2018 at 2:41 pm

"White Helmets" is used in preference to the alternative, all too well associated in the popular imagination with the acme of American culture: the Western.

And in the classic commercial way, it provides a twofer, since the white helmet first gained widespread popularity with the Village People, so it clicks with the whole LGBTQ touchy feely approach to world affairs we're always being told is essential. Real world hard hats tend to be in high-vis, almost painfully bright colours – orange, red, maybe blue.

White? In the Levant, where half or more of the buildings are white to reflect the sun?

Mark Chapman September 21, 2018 at 10:41 pm
Those are really bad. But I don't see much to link them to the White Helmets – just one guy with what I guess is their insignia on the back of his shirt, and nobody wearing the famous white helmets. It almost looks like someone deliberately making a fake which is full of holes, to implicate the White Helmets in making fake films. Just playing devil's advocate here. It would be very easy indeed for the White Helmets to disown these videos if they do not gain any traction.
Patient Observer September 22, 2018 at 2:20 pm
IIRC, the Russian government said a number of videos were shot with most being of low quality and would go straight to YouTube. Two were of sufficiently high cinematic quality to be released to Western media outlets.

However, with the recent agreement to stop military action in Idlib, it would seem that there is no longer an opportunity to use the videos as a justification for a Western military attack.

Indeed, the Idlib agreement has removed any pretext for Western attacks for the foreseeable future. That is big. The military phase of the war in Syria seems to be over.

[Sep 23, 2018] One minute warning was a part of Israeli plan

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

The scalpel , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 8:04 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

.It all sounds like a pure Syrian IFF fuck-up, not an Israeli conjob.
When Powers was shot down in his U-2 over USSR, the other downed aircraft was Soviet Aviation of PVO MiG-17 (or 19--don't remember from the top of my head). A classic case of "friendly fire". Andrei, I have never seen you blow so much smoke or work so hard to quell emotions I guess it may be justified in doing what one can to stop WWIII. Maybe there are other reasons.

You are usually very careful to make sure that, in your writing, 2+2 = 4. This time, perhaps for the above reasons, not so much. You claim that most posts on this thread are emotional rants or trolls, yet you have spent most of your efforts trying to calm emotions and not addressing more serious flaws in the official story.

Harold Smith rightly pointed out that the F16s did not end up behind the IL20 by mistake. This was not some joy ride by the F16s. It was a well planned intentional operation. The Israelis knew the habits and capabilities of the IL20 and made plans accordingly using cover from the IL20 as their method to penetrate within the envelope of the S200s. The 1 minute warning was a part of that plan. Any more warning would have exposed the F16s to much more danger.

The Israelis knew a one minute warning was inadequate but gave it just for its value of plausible deniability. They probably expected the S200s to hold their fire but they had no way of being sure of that. Instead, they made an intentional plan, using the IL20 as cover and intentionally putting the IL20 at risk of shoot down in order to protect their F16s. The one minute warning was good for plausible deniability, nothing more.

Then we see Netanyahu rushing to de-escalate. The only thing he can plausibly say to Putin is that this was intentional but done without his knowledge or permission. To claim it was a "tragic error" is a joke. Would Putin believe that? Not likely. Thus we have a whole delegation flying to Moscow to attempt to bolster that argument.

Not that the political players give a damn about it, but Israel's actions here are blatant violations of international law, probably war crimes, and well, just plain immoral. But it is only regular guys like me that care about stuff like that.

[Sep 23, 2018] Let's put it this way, once Russians and Americans begin to kill each-other, Israel goes immediately down. In fact, it will cease to exist as a state. But who wants to pay such a price? Bibi knows that.

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT

@VICB3 Please see VicB3 Comment above.

Thanks.

VicB3

-Israel has a history of false flag operations.

She does and this latest event could have been (with high degree of probability) precipitated by Russian-Turkey-Iranian arrangement on Idlib, because isolation of Israeli-friendly (or rather openly supported by her) most radical Islamic groups will happen and that means Israel losing one of her most important pieces of strategy of keeping ME destabilized. But then again–a good proof of effectiveness of Russia's actions in the area, isn't it? Good ol' classic cliche: the flak is heavy, that means we are over target.

-Israel has a fleet of quiet diesel-electric subs.

Yes, she does–German built.

-It has been shown that diesel electric subs have in the past easily come within striking distance of U.S. carriers.

True, even nukes (subs) have penetrated ASW "shield" and conducted lengthy trailing of CBGs many times.

-If Israel wanted to suck the United States into a shooting war in Syria, it would make sense to sink the Truman with one of it's subs, blaming in on Russia. The United States egged on by its NeoCon contingents and in a fit of emotionalism – think 9/11 – would almost certainly react before thinking.

Ahh, not quite. Recall what happened with Kursk, the first act of the United States was to have CIA Director be on the first flight to Moscow. No, it doesn't work like this and, I have suspicion that, however deplorable Israel's policies are, Israel proper intelligence and military people are on the order of magnitude smarter, however deviously, and calculating than American neocons most of whom are dumb as fvcks and good only in bribery and mass-media tantrums. Reaction of Israel in all this situation is the best proof.

-Of course, one something like this did happen, you'd have a war. And war is a wild thing that, once turned loose, does what it wants and is out of control.

Let's put it this way, once Russians and Americans begin to kill each-other, Israel goes immediately down. In fact, it will cease to exist as a state. But who wants to pay such a price? Bibi knows that.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 22, 2018 at 9:05 pm GMT
@Erebus

Let's put it this way, once Russians and Americans begin to kill each-other, Israel goes immediately down. In fact, it will cease to exist as a state.
Can you expand on that?

Unless you're simply pointing out that escalation to a large scale nuclear exchange means all states "will cease to exist', this is a non-trivial statement that begs explication.

Can you expand on that?

Israel is a known "owner" of nuclear weapons and is the nation which, depending on scenario, has the ability to attack pretty much anything in Europe. Possible counter-force scenario between Russia and US will involve "killing" of Israel's nuclear deterrent, as it will be with European NATO members (UK and France), but Israel is tiny and any nuclear strike there is, basically, a death sentence. This is in a nutshell–of course contingencies vary but I am sure Israel's nuclear sites are in the targeting data base of Russia's nuclear triad. That is until Israel gets the message and gets back to daddy (or mommy) and that is what is in play right now. It will take some time, though.

[Sep 23, 2018] 'Criminal negligence' or disregard to Russia-Israel ties MoD details chronology of Il-20 downing -- RT World News

Notable quotes:
"... "We believe that the blame for the Russian Il-20 aircraft tragedy lies entirely with the Israeli Air Force," ..."
"... "the military leadership of Israel either has no appreciation for the level of relations with Russia, or has no control over individual commands or commanding officers who understood that their actions would lead to tragedy." ..."
"... "a clear violation of the 2015 Russian-Israeli agreements." ..."
"... The misleading information provided by the Israeli officer about the area of strikes did not allow the Russian Il-20 airplane to move timely to a safe area. ..."
"... "preferred target" ..."
"... "The Israeli jets saw the Russian Ilyushin Il-20 and used it as a shield against the anti-aircraft missiles ..."
"... , while they carried on maneuvering in the region," ..."
"... The actions of the Israeli fighter pilots, which led to the loss of life of 15 Russian servicemen, either lacked professionalism or were an act of criminal negligence, to say the least. ..."
"... "This is an extremely ungrateful response to all that has been done by the Russian Federation for Israel and the Israeli people recently," ..."
"... "ensure there were no shelling attacks on Israeli territory" ..."
"... "a six-year hiatus." ..."
"... "safe distance for Israel," ..."
"... "A total of 1,050 personnel, 24 MLRSs and tactical missiles, as well as 145 pieces of other munitions and military equipment were withdrawn from the area," ..."
"... In view of the above, the hostile actions committed by the Israeli Air Force against the Russian Ilyushin Il-20 aircraft cross the line of civilized relations. ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.rt.com

Criminal negligence' or disregard to Russia-Israel ties: MoD details chronology of Il-20 downing Published time: 23 Sep, 2018 08:21 Edited time: 23 Sep, 2018 17:18 Get short URL © Russian Defense Ministry A minute-by-minute account of the Il-20 downing shows Israel's culpability and either its military bosses' lack of appreciation of relations with Moscow, or their control of commanding officers, the Russian defense ministry said. "We believe that the blame for the Russian Il-20 aircraft tragedy lies entirely with the Israeli Air Force," said spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov, before revealing a detailed account of events leading to the downing of the Russian Il-20 military aircraft on September 17. The plane was shot down by the Syrian air defense units as Israeli's F-16s effectively used it as a cover during the attack on its neighbor.

The report featured previously undisclosed radar data and details of communications between Russian and Israeli militaries, and concluded that "the military leadership of Israel either has no appreciation for the level of relations with Russia, or has no control over individual commands or commanding officers who understood that their actions would lead to tragedy."

Read more FILE PHOTO. Russian IL-20M. © Alexander KOPITAR / AFP 'You are to blame for downing of Il-20 and death of its crew,' Russia tells Israel Misinformation & 'criminal negligence'

On the evening of September 17, the Russian Ilyushin IL-20 with 15 crew on board was circling over the Idlib de-escalation zone on a special reconnaissance mission, when four Israeli F-16 fighter jets left their country's airspace and flew over the neutral Mediterranean waters towards the Syrian coast. The Israeli Air Force gave the Russian side less than a minute's warning before dropping the precision-guided glide bombs, leaving virtually no time for any safety maneuvers, Konashenkov said, calling such actions "a clear violation of the 2015 Russian-Israeli agreements."

Moreover, the Israeli military failed to provide the location of their jets or properly specify their targets, claiming they were going to attack several 'industrial facilities' in northern Syria, close to the Il-20's area of operation. The misinformation prompted the Russian Command to order the recon plane back to the Khmeimim air base. The Israeli jets, however, instead almost immediately attacked the western Syrian Latakia province.

The misleading information provided by the Israeli officer about the area of strikes did not allow the Russian Il-20 airplane to move timely to a safe area.

Once the Syrian air defenses responded to the initial strike, the Israeli jets switched on radar jamming and pulled back, apparently preparing for another attack. One of the Israeli jets then came closer to the Syrian coast and approached the Russian plane, which was preparing to land at that time.

An Israeli jet approaching the Russian plane at a time when the Syrian anti-air missile was launched © Russian Defense Ministry

The Israeli pilot must have been well aware of the fact that the Il-20 has a much larger radar cross-section than his F-16, and would become a "preferred target" for the Syrian air defense units, who use different friend-or-foe systems with the Russians, Konashenkov said. Thus, for the Syrians, the reconnaissance plane could appear as a group of Israeli jets.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qg9GliGS0RY

"The Israeli jets saw the Russian Ilyushin Il-20 and used it as a shield against the anti-aircraft missiles , while they carried on maneuvering in the region," Konashenkov said during the news briefing.

The actions of the Israeli fighter pilots, which led to the loss of life of 15 Russian servicemen, either lacked professionalism or were an act of criminal negligence, to say the least.

Finally, the Israeli jets carried out their maneuvers in the immediate vicinity of the Khmeimim air base, which is used both by military and civilian aircraft, including passenger planes, the ministry's spokesman emphasized, saying that the reckless actions of the Israeli pilots could also have posed a threat to any passenger or transport aircraft that may have happened to be there at that time.

Israel 'crossed the line of civilized relations' with 'ungrateful response'

Israel's negligent behavior amounts to a flagrant violation of the very spirit of cooperation between the countries, Konashenkov stated, noting that Russia has never broken its commitment to the deconfliction agreement – it has always informed Israel about their missions in advance and has never used its air defense capabilities against the Israelis, even though their airstrikes sometimes put the Russian servicemen in danger.

Read more FILE PHOTO An Israeli F-16 fighter jet during the Blue Flag drill November 25, 2013 © Amir Cohen Israeli army blames Damascus for Russia's Il-20 downing, mourns death of crew – statement

Russia has sent as many as 310 notifications to the Israeli Air Force Command, while the latter appeared to be reluctant to show the same level of commitment, notifying only 25 times even though its jets carried out more than 200 strikes against targets located in Syria over the past 18 months alone.

"This is an extremely ungrateful response to all that has been done by the Russian Federation for Israel and the Israeli people recently," Konashenkov said.

The Russian military supported the Syrian military operation in the Golan Heights to "ensure there were no shelling attacks on Israeli territory" anymore, thus allowing the UN peacekeeping mission to resume patrolling of the contested border between Syria and Israel after "a six-year hiatus."

Russia also managed to secure the withdrawal of all Iran-backed groups from the Golan Heights to a "safe distance for Israel," more than 140 kilometers to the east of Syria, the spokesperson said, adding that this was done at the request of Tel Aviv. "A total of 1,050 personnel, 24 MLRSs and tactical missiles, as well as 145 pieces of other munitions and military equipment were withdrawn from the area," Konashenkov told journalists.

The Russian Defense Ministry had provided assistance in preserving Jewish sacred places and graves in the city of Aleppo. Putting Russian Special Forces soldiers' lives in danger, it also organized the search for the remains of some Israeli servicemen that died during the past conflicts in an area where the Syrian forces were combating Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) terrorists at that time.

In view of the above, the hostile actions committed by the Israeli Air Force against the Russian Ilyushin Il-20 aircraft cross the line of civilized relations.

While Israel said that it mourned the deaths of Russian troops, the IDF statement following the incident shifted all the blame for the incident solely on Damascus, and its Iranian and Lebanese allies.

[Sep 23, 2018] Israel to Continue Military Op in Syria Despite Il-20 Downing Lieberman - Sputnik International

Sep 23, 2018 | sputniknews.com

Israel to Continue Military Op in Syria Despite Il-20 Downing – Lieberman © REUTERS / Baz Ratner Middle East 16:21 23.09.2018 (updated 17:58 23.09.2018) Get short URL Topic: Russian Il-20 Military Plane Shot Down Over Syria (29) 8 1 25 Russia blames Israel for the destruction of the Il-20, which cost the lives of 15 servicemen, after it emerged that around the time if its demise, Israeli fighter jets were in immediate proximity to the Russian plane. The Russian Ministry of Defense accused the Israeli Air Force of providing misleading information about the area where planned air strikes on Syrian targets were to take place, violating an agreement with Russia, and shortly afterwards Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated Israel won't ditch conducting operations in Syria to thwart Iran's military presence there, despite the tragic Il-20 incident. The Russian Defense Ministry released detailed information on Il-20 crash in Syria © Photo : Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation WATCH 3D Reconstruction of Il-20 Downing in Syria, Released by Russian MoD

"We have been operating prudently and responsibly and only in cases where we've had no other choice. So nothing has changed or will change. This is our policy," Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the local radio station Kan in an interview published Sunday morning.

"We won't let Syria be turned into a main Iranian military facility against the Israeli state. We continue to act and we have all the necessary means and opportunities to this end," he noted.

Flicker of Hope for Effective Dialogue

According to Lieberman, Israeli military servicemen continue to pin their hopes on good communication, which they established with Russian military units in Syria three years ago to avoid potential conflicts.

IL-20 © Photo: arms-expo.ru Israel Can't Get Away With Il-20 Downing in Syria – IR Scholars

"The whole incident is under examination and control. We have an ongoing dialogue. The general picture and facts are all clear, and I think the situation will be resolved," Lieberman said.

Israel has yet to admit guilt in the Il-20 downing. It disputes Moscow's statements over the issue, according to which, Israeli F-16 fighter aircraft used the Il-20 as a shield their latest air attack on Syria and essentially put it in the line of retaliating fire opened by the Syrian air defense.

Tel Aviv, meanwhile, claimed the anti-aircraft shooters fired "chaotically and haphazardly" having failed to make sure there were no Russian aircraft in the fire zone. According to information provided by the Israeli side, by the time the Il-20 was destroyed after being hit by a Syrian S-200 missile, the four F-16s were already well on their way home.

READ MORE: Intel Chief Boasted of IAF's 'Precision' Just Before Il-20 Shootdown -- Reports

Israel said it has been allegedly targeting Iranian military facilities in Syria, with Iran and Syria flatly denying the claims.

On September 17, a Il-20 military plane disappeared from the Russian radar screens, while on its way back to the Syrian airbase Hmeymim, which lies 35 kilometers away from the Mediterranean shore. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, at around the same time, four Israeli F-16 military jets attacked Syrian targets in Latakia, having informed the Russian side just one minute prior to the attack.

The ministry went on to state that by hiding behind the Russian jet, the Israeli pilots thereby subjected it to an attack by the Syrian air defense units, which left a total of 15 Russian military servicemen killed in the aircraft destruction.

[Sep 23, 2018] PUTIN DOESN'T BLINK AS ISRAEL TAKES DOWN RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT IN HUGE ATTACK ON SYRIA TO DERAIL PEACE IN IDLIB by Jonathan Azaziah

Notable quotes:
"... Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments on the matter were much more Measured. His detractors, in their usual hysterical cacophonies, called him "soft". As always with Putin though, one must read between the lines. Ever the defuser, ever the peace-maker, he called what took place a "chain of tragic and chance circumstances". But later on, he made it clear that it was a "serious incident" that "requires a response". ..."
"... And then said in no uncertain terms, "As for retaliatory measures, they will be aimed first and foremost at further ensuring the safety of our military personnel and facilities in Syria. And these will be steps that everyone will notice." ..."
"... Zionists played such an odious role in the Russian-Georgian War. ..."
"... massacred the crew of the USS Liberty with the goal of blaming Egypt and starting WW3 between–you guessed it–the US and the Soviet Union. We were only minutes away from a US nuclear strike on Cairo when the Americans realized it was an 'Israeli' attack. ..."
"... Gulf War was 'Israeli' terrorist Yitzhak Shamir threatening to drop an atom bomb on Baghdad ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.fort-russ.com
The 'Israelis' really done did it now, didn't they? Flirting with WW3 like never before. After spending billions of dollars over the last several weeks across the Zionist media, telling the world that Baby-Seal-Clubbing, Puppy-Eating Assad was about to gas totally-vegan-completely-democratic-pro-LGBTQIA Al-Qaeda terrorists in Idlib–with chemical arms he doesn't have, mind you–they were completely caught off-guard with a massive bombshell.

Vladimir Putin had negotiated a demilitarization agreement with Neo-Ottoman "sultan" Erdogan, thus, at least in theory, averting a potential bloodbath in the last Takfiri-occupied city in Syria. The prospect of the war on the hardened Syrian battlefields finally being over proved too much for the voracious colonizers in "Tel Aviv". They simply couldn't bear seeing all of their miserable efforts, arming, training, financing and giving medical treatment to these Wahhabi mercenaries for nearly 8 years now being OFFICIALLY kaput.

Panicking, they mobilized, and in a throwback to the 1956 Tripartite Aggression against Egypt, they enlisted the help of an old ally: the French ZOG. France launched missiles from the Mediterranean to throw off Syria-Russian radar trajectories while the 'Israelis' went forward with a huge aerial assault, bombing Lattakia, Tartous, Hama and Homs all at once. As of now, at least two Syrian soldiers have been martyred and about a dozen others have been wounded. The most copious number of casualties however came from the Russian side. An Ilyushin IL-20 electronic surveillance plane was downed in the carnage and 15 Russian servicemen were murdered. 'Israel' decided to play a game of Yahoudling Roulette and used stealth tech to shadow the Russian vessel so when Syrian air defenses responded, they'd hit the Ilyushin IL-20 , not the 'Israeli' occupation air force's murder-plane. And that's exactly what happened.

The Russian military, which laid out the anatomy of the aggression in full, was fuming, "We consider these provocative actions by 'Israel' as hostile. Fifteen Russian military service members have died because of the irresponsible actions of the 'Israeli' military." Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu phoned genocidal war criminal Avigdor Lieberman and is said to have screamed his head off at the 'Israeli' War Minister. He further revealed that 'Israel' called in its attack plans on the Russian-'Israeli' deconfliction line JUST ONE MINUTE before the attack–another blood-soaked confirmation that it wasn't an "accident" as the artificial "Tel Aviv" regime is claiming but a deliberate act of war. Shoigu also told Lieberman that Russia "reserves the right to use further countermeasures" in response to the slaughter of its men. That Lieberman has refrained from speaking on it and IOF itself is yet to apologize reveals the level of culpability at the highest levels of the Zionist occupation's "defense" establishment.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments on the matter were much more Measured. His detractors, in their usual hysterical cacophonies, called him "soft". As always with Putin though, one must read between the lines. Ever the defuser, ever the peace-maker, he called what took place a "chain of tragic and chance circumstances". But later on, he made it clear that it was a "serious incident" that "requires a response".

And then said in no uncertain terms, "As for retaliatory measures, they will be aimed first and foremost at further ensuring the safety of our military personnel and facilities in Syria. And these will be steps that everyone will notice." This could mean Russia finally stepping into the throes of the Resistance-Axis-'Israeli' battle and 86ing 'Israeli' aerial movements in Syria. It could mean heavier and more advanced weapons not just to the Syrian state but Iran too. Not that the Islamic Republic needs it of course, as its weapons industry is robust and brilliant, but extra hardware never hurts. We shall soon see.

The Halakhic-Talmudic entity is obviously acting out of desperation and Kabbalistic irrationality. Thus, why would Vladimir Putin, who is trying to END the war on Syria, give the 'Israelis' an excuse to EXPAND the war on Syria in a maddening scenario that will lead to more tragedies, more destruction and more death? It's just not in his ideological DNA. Art of War 101: Win without fighting. Putin gets that–more so than ever with Syria on the verge of total liberation from Takfiri terrorism.

Find Out More > 64,337

He doesn't need to subscribe to some cliched concept of machismo, puff out his chest and behave like a brute just to satisfy the bloodlust of armchair geopolitical "big shots" who don't know their feet from their earlobes, let alone how to confront the Dajjalic-Judaic NWO. The man's trying to avert a nuclear catastrophe–and with 'Israel' and its Samson Option in the mix, that's not hyperbole. Granted, Russia has every right to blast 'Israel' to Jahannam for this atrocity and truth be told, the payback's truly been coming ever since the Zionists played such an odious role in the Russian-Georgian War. But the 'Israelis' executed a warmongering trick And Russia found calm in the heat of the moment, managing not to fall for it. No need to blow the impending triumph now, so it once again boils down to what Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei calls Strategic Patience–derived from Imam Hassan (A.S.)

Indeed, the aim of 'Israel' here was as blatant as anti-Gentile racism in the Old Testament and the Talmud: The Zio-Tumor planned for Russia to respond on the spot to the aggression, taking out 'Israeli' aircraft and then drawing the US into a wider war Or In an even more cataclysmic calculation, Russia being enveloped in the chaos, mistakenly hitting France and triggering a full-blown NATO retaliation. Either way, the Jews' designs were to bring about a third world war, rendering the US, Russia and the Resistance Axis destroyed or bled out beyond repair, with nobody but 'Israel' left to pick up the pieces and claim global kingship. Lunatic behavior you say? Nutty Netty finally throwing out the Goy baby blood with the matzoh? You wouldn't be entirely wrong. But you wouldn't be entirely right either. For provocations of this nature–those that would lead to a nuclear conflict between two superpowers–are a time-tested Zionist tradition.

In 1954, Egyptian-Jewish Mossad agents carried out Operation Susannah aka the Lavon Affair, planting bombs in US targets to be blamed on the "Muslim" Brotherhood in hopes of getting Washington to attack Egypt and by extension, the Soviet Union. During the Naksa of 1967, 'Israeli' warplanes massacred the crew of the USS Liberty with the goal of blaming Egypt and starting WW3 between–you guessed it–the US and the Soviet Union. We were only minutes away from a US nuclear strike on Cairo when the Americans realized it was an 'Israeli' attack. Then in the Tishreen War, Golda Meir openly pondered about dropping a nuke on Damascus, which wouldn't have killed Syrians alone but Soviet military advisors, yet again setting the stage for Soviet-American conflict.

The reason for the monstrous Gulf War was 'Israeli' terrorist Yitzhak Shamir threatening to drop an atom bomb on Baghdad if the US didn't rein in Saddam Hussein after the maneuver against Kuwait. And how many times have you heard Zionists outright say they wanna see mushroom clouds over Tehran? From vile millennial commentator Jacob Wohl to neocon wacko John Bolton, Hebrew University orientalist Vladimir Mesamed to casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. This type of psychopathy is the lifeblood of World Zionism.

Ultimately, while Putin's coolness has temporarily staved off an escalation, what should be elucidated for him and the entire Russian establishment now more than ever is that 'Israel' has no respect for Russia's people inside Syria or anywhere else for that matter. "Deconfliction" and "partnership" are but illusions that 'Israel' flexes out of convenience and ignores when inconvenient. According to the Jewish supremacist thinking that guides the illegitimate 'Israeli' regime, a Gentile is a Gentile. Period.

And any Gentile helping out the enemies of "Eretz Yisrael" will be a dead Gentile. Especially when they're Orthodox Christian Russians assisting a unified bloc of Husseini Muslims and fighting as one unit to defeat Zio-Imperialism. Zion's next move depends entirely on Russia's retaliation. One thing's for sure: This was as brazen as brazen gets and "chosenite" arrogance aside, it is not a card that can be played again. In the mean time, we recite Al-Fatiha for the souls of the SAA and Ilyushin IL-20 Lattakia martyrs and pray that the Idlib demilitarization agreement holds. Syria and its allies have all suffered enough.

[Sep 23, 2018] RUSSIA'S IL-20 DOWNING RESPONSE - THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NEXT - Fort Russ

Sep 23, 2018 | www.fort-russ.com

VeeNarian (Yerevan) • 3 days ago ,

This RF position regarding Israel is utter rubbish and sadly brave Russian heroes have paid the ultimate price. When did Israel ever attack Al-Nusra and IS or the reverse? Israel and FUKUS are allies to these head-choppers in Syria.
Israel attacks the very forces that are at war with the head-choppers: Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.
How on Earth did the RF leadership get so confused?
I am not at all impressed.
All my respect to the lions of the Russian armed forces in Syria who are being lead by donkeys.

Boxwood tree • 3 days ago ,

I have this to say the IDF and the French frigate seemed to coordinate their attack to get the desired outcome. This means they would have had to have a schedule of the IL 20's flight plans. This Israeli attack was well planned. I wonder if the Russian government realizes this. I have read nothing to say that they did realize it. And the Israeli's must have well coordinated it with the French who are some of their best friends. Russia needs to break off relations with the French and especially the Israelis. Israel is a friend to no one.

[Sep 23, 2018] Urgent Britain, US, France plan to strike Russian base in Syria

Sep 23, 2018 | www.fort-russ.com

Britain has readied its troops on the island of Cyprus for a collective strike by Western countries on Syria.

The Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak states that, the blow will be inflicted by the troops of the United States, Britain and France within the next 24 hours.

According to sources, a total of 22 targets have been identified in Syria, which will be destroyed by Western aviation – these are facilities in Damascus, Homs, Tartus, Hama, Deir ez Zor, and Rakka. In particular, it is planned to strike the area of ​​the Russian military base in Tartus.

[Sep 23, 2018] Russia Capable of Closing Syrian Airspace for Israel - Senior Russian MP

Notable quotes:
"... The evidence released by the Russian Defense Ministry on the circumstances of the Il-20 downing left no doubt that the Israeli Air Force was to blame for the tragedy, the lawmaker stressed, adding that it was impossible to challenge this conclusion "based on an impartial minute-by-minute analysis of the facts." ..."
"... According to Klintsevich, the list of gross violations of mutual agreements committed by Israeli pilots occupies more than one page and the ministry pointed to each of them. ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | sputniknews.com

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia may take steps to prevent further incidents involving the Israeli Air Force jets and has all the capabilities to close the Syrian airspace for Israeli military aircraft if it becomes necessary, a member of the Russian parliament's upper house's defense committee, Frants Klintsevich, told Sputnik on Sunday.

"The essence and meaning of our response is to completely eliminate the possibility of such incidents in the future. We, for example, have all the necessary resources to completely close the Syrian airspace for Israel, and this is only one of the options," Klintsevich said.

WATCH 3D Reconstruction of Il-20 Downing in Syria, Released by Russian MoD The evidence released by the Russian Defense Ministry on the circumstances of the Il-20 downing left no doubt that the Israeli Air Force was to blame for the tragedy, the lawmaker stressed, adding that it was impossible to challenge this conclusion "based on an impartial minute-by-minute analysis of the facts."

According to Klintsevich, the list of gross violations of mutual agreements committed by Israeli pilots occupies more than one page and the ministry pointed to each of them.

"How will this tragedy affect Russia's relations with Israel? It is clear that it is up to the leadership [of Russia] how to address this issue, and I can only make assumptions. I think that the decision will be made taking into account the long-standing good relations between Russia and Israel, and therefore a sharp u-turn like the abolition of a visa-free regime, not to mention something more serious, is hardly possible here," he said.

READ MORE: Israel's Take on IL-20 Incident Undermines Tel-Aviv's Ties to Russia -- Scholar

In general, Klintsevich believes that much will depend on Israel's reaction to the conclusions of the Russian Defense Ministry.

"In connection with this, I consider the statement of Israeli Defense Minister [Avigdor Lieberman], who said today that the attacks on Syria would continue , to be counter-productive. This rhetoric can only aggravate the situation, I do not think that this development of events meets the interests of Israel," the Russian lawmaker concluded.

Russian Defense Ministry Says Israeli Air Force Responsible for Il-20 Downing (VIDEO) Earlier in the day, the Russian Defense Ministry reiterated, during a briefing on circumstances of the September 17 downing of a Russian Il-20 plane in Syria, that the Israeli Air Force was to blame for the incident. According to the ministry, the actions of the IAF pilots, which led to the death of 15 Russian servicemen, either lacked professionalism or were an act of criminal negligence.

[Sep 23, 2018] Report on Findings of Russian IL-20 Shot Down in Syria

Sep 22, 2018 | www.plenglish.com

Moscow, Sep 22 (Prensa Latina)

Military sources reported on Saturday the discovery of the remains of the Russian IL-20 aircraft shot down 27 kilometers west of the Syrian province of Latakia, and remains of 15 soldiers on board the aircraft.
Along with the Syrian town of Banias, ships of the Russian Navy are carrying out in the Mediterranean Sea a search operation for the lifeless bodies of the soldiers, whose plane was completely destroyed last September 17.

Moscow blamed Tel Aviv for the incident, considering that at least four F-16 fighters used the IL-20 as a parapet to evade the fire of the Syrian antiaircraft defense, which caused an S-200 battery to fire on the Russian aircraft.

[Sep 23, 2018] Putin, Israel and the downed Il-20 by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... both sides emphasized the importance of the states' interests and the continued implementation of the deconfliction system" ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Next, let's assume that this is simply the typical case of Israeli arrogance (not a myth!) and that they decided to inform the Russians as late as possible. Does that at all entail that the maneuver of the Israeli F-16s pilots to seek cover from the S-200 missile was something they had planned in advance? Does anybody bother to look at the actual (as opposed to Hollywood) record of the Israeli Air Force during past wars when they were actually challenged by a reasonably capable air defense? There is a detailed discussion (in Russian) about this here which can be summarized like this: as soon as the Israelis start losing aircraft their martial prowess rapidly vanishes. Now please recall this: the Israelis have had recent losses, some admitted, some denied, but there is no doubt that they are tense and very concerned. Bottom line: I would fully expect the Israeli pilots to freak out and seek cover as soon as they are told by their warning system that they are being painted by a radar in tracking mode (the S-200 has a semi-active radar homing guidance system). If that is the case, and I am not saying that this is the only possibility, then the fault is of the Israeli pilots, not of their commanders or the Israeli state as a hole. Yes, the command responsibility is the one of the state, but not the guilt for having engaged in such an evasive maneuver (besides, knowing the price placed by Israeli on goyim lives , this would be just so typical, would it not )

At this point, I need to ask another question: what would the Israelis gain from shooting down the Il-20? They sure ain't gonna frighten the Russians (Russian military don't scare easy) and the Il-20 will be replaced. Scaring the Iranians or Hezbollah? Forget it – not happening. Maybe there was a real lucrative target that they destroyed? Yes, maybe, be so far we don't know anything about this. So what would be the point?

Then the "sister question": what would the Israelis risk by deliberately shooting down a Russian EW aircraft? Well, in theory, they would risk having their aircraft shot down and their airbases engaged with Russian missiles. That is highly unlikely, I will admit, and the Israelis probably understand the Russians very well (many of them being from Russia). But could they be sure that the local commanders would not order an immediate retaliation (as their current rules of engagement do authorize them to!)? Let me remind everybody that this Spring, the USA was not so sure at all, and following the words of the Russian ambassador that " not only missiles but their launchers would be destroyed " the USN and Air Force decided to shoot as little as possible and from as far as possible. As for the British sub, its captain decided to cancel the planned missile strike entirely (they were being shadowed by two Russian subs). Seems to me that the potential risks of that kind of operation would be pretty high, while the potential rewards rather unclear.

Those who insist that this was a deliberate Israeli act need to come up with a halfway credible explanation not only for how this was done, but also why this was done.

Now, like many others, I despise the Israeli racist, genocidal rogue state with all my heart. But that does not prevent me from being capable of imagining a scenario in which the Israelis simply screwed-up. Believe it or not, but my disgust for Zionist ideology does not at all entail a boundless belief in some Israeli infallibility.

Finally, let look at this: today (Sept 20 th ) an IDF delegation led by Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Amikam Norkin is in Moscow. Also participating in the trip are the Head of the Foreign Relations Division, Brig.-Gen. Erez Meisel and other officers from the Intelligence, Air Force and Operations Divisions. Does anybody believe that all these officers went to Moscow just to thumb their noses at the Russians? Or maybe they all traveled to Moscow to present some totally non-credible excuses which will only infuriate the Russians further?

My guess is that they have something exculpatory (at least in part) to show.

If the Russians conclude that the Israelis did it deliberately, I will support a strike on Israeli air bases. If the Russians conclude that the Israelis cannot be trusted to abide by any agreements (which I think is indisputable), then I think that the Russians should declare an air exclusion zone over the Russian forces (a 100km radius or so). I also think that it is high time to keep a pair MiG-31BMs on 24/7 combat air patrol high over Syria (they can come quite close to replacing a much more expensive and vulnerable A-50U AWACS).

At this time (Sept 20 th 20:37 GMT) all they have announced is that " both sides emphasized the importance of the states' interests and the continued implementation of the deconfliction system" . If that is all that the Russians decide, then I will find it wholly inadequate and I will predict a further surge in frustration against not only the government, but against Putin himself. But, for the time being, we need to wait and see what the Russian investigation will reveal. Only then can we begin cheering Putin or calling him names.

There is also this possibility: the Russians would decide on an air exclusion zone and tell the Israelis, but both sides would decide to keep this secret in order for Israel to save face (because if the Russians declare an air exclusion zone, this will create a safe heaven for Hezbollah and all the other militias which would be a political disaster for Bibi Netanyahu). So we might never find out.

Finally, I want to add one more thing which is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

The S-200 is a pretty old air defense system. We also know that it does not have a Russian IFF. However, the Russians have declared several times that the Russian air defense network and the Syrian one were integrated. This is what best explains, at least in part, the very high number of US cruise missiles intercepted in April. The problem is that the way the S-200 (and most modern air defense systems) works is that the S-200 is fully integrated into a larger air defense network administered by automated air defense management systems which is operated by a higher echelon air defense command. This means that the Syrian air defense crew did not simply detect the incoming missiles and fire off one of their own. At the very least, this decision was taken by a higher echelon Syrian air defense command. Now we know that the time was extremely short and, hence, the Russian air defense personnel might not have had the time to take protective action, especially not when dealing with a large, slow and vulnerable moving EW aircraft (the fact that this aircraft flew un-escorted is definitely a Russian mistake!). Still, we know that the Russians have many early warning capabilities which the Syrians do not have (AWACS, space based, shipborne radars, over-the-horizon radars, etc.) and there is a pretty decent chance that somebody could have done something to prevent what happened. True, since the Israelis and Russians had an agreement, the Russians therefore classified the Israelis as "non-threat", but it does not take a genius to understand that four Israeli F-16 flying towards the Latakia Governorate are up to no good and that this warrants immediately going on full alert.

Bill65 , says: September 21, 2018 at 8:43 am GMT

Can The Saker tell us what right Israel has to bomb targets in Syria ? The Russians were invited in to save Syria as were the Iranians and Hezbollah but Israel is on the side of the attackers of Syria .
Proud_Srbin , says: September 21, 2018 at 9:21 am GMT
You are absolutely correct.
USA responded in similar fashion when Israel sunk "Liberty" with greater loss of american lives.
Most of Israeli population are God's chosen people and can do no wrong.
God placed them on Earth to watch over us and even gave us his son to civilize us.
Praise the Lord!
anon , [317] Disclaimer says: September 23, 2018 at 6:14 am GMT
@Bill65 Can The Saker tell us what right Israel has to bomb targets in Syria ? The Russians were invited in to save Syria as were the Iranians and Hezbollah but Israel is on the side of the attackers of Syria . One of the first courses in law school is intentional torts. The intent, an act expressing that intent, and damages are the only requirement in many torts. The tort of Battery; intent does not have to be an intent to cause the harm that actually occurred.. Merely expressing an intent in some kind of action satisfies the element of intent; it does not matter to assignment of liability if the actual harm was unintended.

In criminal law: A holds up a bank, five cops show up, B shoots his gun at the ceiling, the bullet bounces and kills one of the cops,and starts a fire in the bank A is probably guilty of murder, Arson and attempted robbery.

so if while intending to shoot target victim A, the shooter instead accidentally or otherwise shoots innocent non targeted victim B, the intent requirement for Battery is satisfied. Hence Israel, and each and every one of its leaders, might be liable. w/o regards to a showing that the intended target was unharmed, while a different innocent was unintentionally harmed. Its the harm caused by an expression of an intention that produces the liability. It does not matter that the harm happened to an unintended party.

Trespass to chattel, interference with a chattel which results in injury to the possessor or injury to a person or thing in which the possessor of the chattel has a legally protected interest(like life and assets) results in liability for trespass. If Israel without privilege touches a Indian Snake Charmers Snake, causing Snake Charmers Snake to bite a Russian bystander, Israel probably liable for the injury to the Russian bystander.
But there is more, the doctrine of transferred intent applies. Here the intent in four other torts (battery, assault, trespass to land or false imprisonment) can be substituted to satisfy the requisite intent for trespass to chattel. If Israel intends to destroy Syrian dams with weapons and missiles, and instead causes a Syrian response that kills Russian soldiers and planes, the tort would hold Israel liable for the damage to the plane and the deaths of the Russians. IANAL. There is a lot to this intent thing, but generally, I understand, when intent is established, especially if unlawful trespass or criminality is part of the expression of the intentional act, that Intent element in the tort would be satisfied.

The Tort of Extreme and Outrageous conduct; behavior "that reaches beyond all possible bounds of decency; atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community ( such as invading a sovereign nation; attacking its assets and killing its inhabitants). Here the expression of intent is in the outrageous behavior, the persons harmed might not even be known to the person who engaged in the Tort of Extreme and Outrageous conduct.

IANAL and I would appreciate it if a lawyer would make these point clear and clarify my understanding of these principles, especially as they might apply to the situation at hand.
My point here is the intent and transfer of intent principles suggest Israel intended unauthorized trespass, acts of aggression and war, and it is indifferent to liability for the crime or damages that conducting war against Russia was unintended.

Moreover, it seems to me unlikely that Israel would plan an attack, and not coordinate it with Russia, when such an attack was so close to Russian Assets and Russian Personnel. Israel had to know the risk of killing Russians and destroying Russian assets was likely (Scienter?), which suggest to me Israel intended to use Syrian technical limitations as a means to punish Russia for protecting Syria. [ Res ipsa Loquitur comes to mind]. Wonder how a Jewish court and Jewish judge would rule on this one?

[Sep 23, 2018] Russians reiterated the official position that " The blame for the downed Russian plane and for the death of the crew lies entirely on the Israeli side ". ENTIRELY.

Notable quotes:
"... Israel forces should never have entered the Syrian airspace to begin with. Syrians wouldn't then needed to defend themselves. ..."
"... Russians had precise data that showed Israel's F-16 set up the Russian plane to be shot by the S-200. ..."
"... Israelis only gave less than a minute warning. ..."
"... The Russian military man interviewed in the article clearly stated that the only thing that the Russians were waiting to hear from that meeting was Israel recognizing it was to blame. All the rest (data from investigation, blaming Syrians, etc) was useless. Russia had already made up its mind and had its own very detailed data. ..."
"... The interview ends with a question about what will the consequences/reaction be . The reply is ""We are military men. We have the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, we have the Minister of Defense. Whichever order from them we shall receive, such and we will execute". ..."
"... If the order from Shoigu is to deliver S300 anti-missile defence systems to Syria (as the Russian interviewers must surely be expecting), then the actions of the Israeli F-16 fighter pilots will have dealt a severe blow to Israel and Satanyahu's machinations over the years, kissing up to Moscow, will have come to nothing. And 15 Russian military personnel will not have perished in vain. ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Nat

September 21, 2018 at 10:20 am
Interesting interview of a member of the Russian delegation about how the meeting between the Russian and Israeli Air Force Commanders went: https://www.kp.ru/daily/26885.7/3928752/

Main points:
– Russians reiterated the official position that " The blame for the downed Russian plane and for the death of the crew lies entirely on the Israeli side ". ENTIRELY.

– Israelis blamed it on the Syrians/Assad.

– Russians rejected this argument, countering with the following points:

Israel forces should never have entered the Syrian airspace to begin with. Syrians wouldn't then needed to defend themselves. Russians had precise data that showed Israel's F-16 set up the Russian plane to be shot by the S-200. Israelis only gave less than a minute warning.

Then concluded with repeating the position "The blame lies entirely on the Israeli side ".

– Israeli said their data showed their F-16 didn't set up the Russian plane, and was in fact back in Israel by the time the plane was shot down.

– Russians flat out said their had contradictory data and relied on them and on the Syrian data.

– Israeli played ignorance about the one minute warning. Supposedly they weren't aware Russian planes were flying at that time and needed warning.

– Russians said they could not believe the F-16 radars did not see the Russian plane, and went back to their three points (Anyway F-16 had no right to be in Syria, Russian had data that showed F-16 set up their plane and rules of pre-warning were not followed).

– The Russian military man interviewed in the article clearly stated that the only thing that the Russians were waiting to hear from that meeting was Israel recognizing it was to blame. All the rest (data from investigation, blaming Syrians, etc) was useless. Russia had already made up its mind and had its own very detailed data.

The interview ends with a question about what will the consequences/reaction be . The reply is ""We are military men. We have the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, we have the Minister of Defense. Whichever order from them we shall receive, such and we will execute".

Jen September 21, 2018 at 1:51 pm

If the order from Shoigu is to deliver S300 anti-missile defence systems to Syria (as the Russian interviewers must surely be expecting), then the actions of the Israeli F-16 fighter pilots will have dealt a severe blow to Israel and Satanyahu's machinations over the years, kissing up to Moscow, will have come to nothing. And 15 Russian military personnel will not have perished in vain.

And FUKUS, who had been expecting a Russian attack on the French frigate the Auvergne so that Article 5 in the NATO treaty could be invoked, or new sanctions against Russia declared and passed, will be left with egg on their faces.

The Russian reaction to the whole incident seems very like its earlier reaction when the IOC banned Russia from sending its team to the Winter Olympics earlier this year: go along with the ban, do the opposite of what your enemies expect you to do (which is to react in the heat of the moment and do something in the short-term that you will later regret in the long-term) and put your enemies in positions where they not only have to justify their stance against you but fail spectacularly in doing so because their stance was based on lies and spite in the first place.

moscowexile September 21, 2018 at 9:21 pm
And yet on other sites (RI, Sputnik, RT) many are howling about "Vlad" the Coward.

I think many who hold such an opinion are, if not trolls, then 12-year-old American (USA) kids (mostly), who were weaned on computer video games such as "Modern Warfare" and who have been imbued with the notion that "might is right" and that "God is on our side" etc.

Patient Observer September 21, 2018 at 11:27 am
No climb down and I suspect the Russian military position was approved by the Big Guy.
Mark Chapman September 21, 2018 at 11:45 am
Nonsense – Russia is weak, and this amounts to an approval of Israeli attacks by Putin.

Those F-16's must be faster than any other version built, or else the S-200 has an ungodly long time of flight, if the Syrians fired it against an attack but the Israeli planes were already back over their home base by the time the missile reached their previous position. What does the Syrian radar history say?

Nat September 21, 2018 at 12:52 pm
According to the Russians, the Syrian radar history is different from the Israeli version. "- Израильтяне выворачивались: "Когда сирийская армия выпустила ракеты, попавшие в российский самолет, израильские самолеты ВВС уже находились на израильской территории". А с нашей стороны тут же прозвучало, что у нас есть другие данные. Другие документы. Есть они и у сирийского командования ПВО. Тут надо основательно сверить данные. Буквально по минутам и секундам.".

So Russia has the timeline of the events down to the second and all of it shows that the Israeli pilots set the IL-20 under the fire of the Syrian S-200. The Israeli also perfectly know what they did. It looks like Russia is letting the Israeli "investigate" as a way to give Israel a very small window of opportunity to recognize its guilt and take action itself.

Mark Chapman September 21, 2018 at 10:32 pm
I suspected as much; If the Syrian and Russian intercept records agree, then there is a good chance the Israelis faked their radar data and flight records. But then, they fancy themselves the masters of such clever fakes that they can make anyone do what they want them to do.
Nat September 21, 2018 at 1:25 pm
By the way Mark, the Russians had the same reaction you had to the Israeli claim: "Когда они это сказали, наши чуть со стульев не попадали" ("When they said that, our guys in the delegation almost fell off their chairs").
yalensis September 21, 2018 at 2:09 pm
Israelis are acting like some crooked lawyer trying to get their crooked client out on a technicality. "Oh, we didn't know We tried to warn them blah blah blah "
They can blow as much smoke as they like, but the bottom line is, their planes should not be flying over Syria. Period.
Oh, everybody knows the reason they are up there and dropping bombs: Trying to do some harm to Hezbollah. But Hezbollah are invited guests within Syrian space. Israelis are uninvited guests. And everybody knows what Alexander Nevsky had to say about uninvited guests!
Jen September 22, 2018 at 3:16 am
Well that's what you call chutzpah.

[Sep 23, 2018] The Syrian ceasefire proves how far Putin has come out on top by Patrick Cockburn

Notable quotes:
"... The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

There is a striking note of imperial self-confidence about the document in which all sides in the Syrian civil war are instructed to come to heel. This may not happen quite as intended because it is difficult to see why fighters of al-Qaeda-type groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham should voluntarily give up such military leverage as they still possess. The Syrian government has said that it will comply with the agreement but may calculate that, in the not so long term, it will be able to slice up Idlib bit by bit as it did with other rebel enclaves.

What is most interesting about the agreement is less its details than what it tells us about the balance of forces in Syria, the region and even the world as a whole. Fragile it may be, but then that is true of all treaties which general Charles de Gaulle famously compared to "young girls and roses – they last as long as they last". Implementation of the Putin-Erdogan agreement may be ragged and its benefits temporary, but it will serve a purpose if a few less Syrians in Idlib are blown apart.

The Syrian civil war long ago ceased to be a struggle fought out by local participants. Syria has become an arena where foreign states confront each other, fight proxy wars and put their strength and influence to the test.The most important international outcome of war so far is that it has enabled Russia to re-establish itself as a great power. Moscow helped Assad secure his rule after the popular uprising in 2011 and later ensured his ultimate victory by direct military intervention in 2015. A senior diplomat from an Arab country recalls that early on in the Syrian war, he asked a US general with a command in the region what was the difference between the crisis in Syria and the one that had just ended with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. The general responded with a single word: "Russia."

It is difficult to remember now, when Russia is being portrayed in the west as an aggressive predatory power threatening everybody, the extent which it was marginalised seven years ago when Nato was carrying out regime change in Libya.

Russia was in reality always stronger than it looked because it remained a nuclear superpower capable of destroying the world after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 just as it was before. It should be difficult to forget this gigantically important fact, but politicians and commentators continue to blithely recommend isolating Russia and pretend that it can be safely ignored.

The return of Russia as a great power was always inevitable but was accelerated by successful opportunism and crass errors by rival states. Assad in Syria was always stronger than he looked. Even at the nadir of his fortunes in July 2011, the British embassy in Damascus estimated that he had the backing of 30 to 40 per cent of the population according to The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East by Christopher Phillips, which should be essential reading for anybody interested in Syria. Expert opinion failed to dent the conviction among international statesmen that Assad was bound to go. When the French ambassador Eric Chevallier expressed similar doubts about the imminence of regime change he received a stern rebuke from officials in Paris who told him: "Your information does not interest us. Bashar al-Assad must fall and will fall."

[Sep 23, 2018] European Union (EU) leaders rebuffed Theresa May appeal to give at least conditional support to her Chequers proposal for a "soft Brexit."

Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star September 22, 2018 at 11:49 am

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/22/euro-s22.html

From the Super Schadenfreude Press:

"UK Prime Minister Theresa May suffered political humiliation in Salzburg, when European Union (EU) leaders rebuffed her appeal to give at least conditional support to her Chequers proposal for a "soft Brexit."

May was given only 10 minutes to address EU heads of state Wednesday, after dinner at the informal summit, during which she appealed to her audience, "You are participants in our debate, not just observers."

She said she had counted on at least supportive noises for her "serious and workable" plan, given that she was seeking to head off a potential challenge from the "hard-Brexit"/Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. She warned that the UK could be torn apart -- with respect to Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as by social tensions; that if her government fell, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party could win a general election; and cited the potential damage to the EU itself of lost trade, investment and military support from the UK.

Instead, her address was met with silence and her implied threats were stonewalled, as the main players within the EU combined the next day to declare her proposals to be "unworkable.

No matter how these conflicts play out, Britain and the whole of Europe face a worsening crisis that threatens to tear the EU apart. The growth of both inter-imperialist and social antagonisms found dramatic form in Brexit, which the dominant sections of the City of London, big business, all the major parties and Britain's allies in the US and Europe all opposed. Yet two years later, May is fighting a desperate struggle against her anti-EU "hard-Brexit" faction, the US is led by a president who has declared his support for the breakup of the EU, and numerous far-right governments have taken power in part by exploiting popular hostility to EU-dictated austerity."

"worsening crisis that threatens to tear the EU-(and hence NATO)- apart. " .

:O)

[Sep 23, 2018] A New Martin Luther by Anatoly Karlin

Aug 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Prosvirnin is the most talented writer. Limonov has by far the most colorful personality. Dugin has been the most effective at promoting himself in the West. Prokhanov probably has the most name recognition in Russia. Galkovsky created the most powerful memes. Krylov provided the esoteric flavoring.

And yet out of all of Russia's right-wing intellectuals , there is perhaps none so unique as Egor Kholmogorov.

This is ironic, because out of all of the above, he is the closest to the "golden mean" of the Russian nationalist memeplex.

He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks.

Instead of wasting his time on ideological rhetoric, he reads Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century and writes reviews about it on his website. And about 224 other books .

And this brings us to what makes Kholmogorov so unique: He is an extremely well-read autodidact.

This allows him to write informed and engaging articles on a very wide variety of different topics and breaking news.

In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the best modern Russian right-wing intellectual , period.

Unfortunately, he is almost entirely unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media outlets like Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very small part to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles ( Europe's Week of Human Sacrifice ; A Cruel French Lesson ). Still, there's only so much one blogger with many other things to write about can do.

Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating fellow in his own right – he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture – though his insistence on anonymity constrains what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's Galactus.

We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

In the meantime, I am privileged to present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.

***

A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective

Original: https://tsargrad.tv/articles/triumf-gendernyh-sharikovyh_79187

Translated by Fluctuarius Argenteus :

Google fires employee James Damore for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

A conversation just like or similar to this one recently took place in the office of one of modern information market monsters, the Google Corporation.

Illustration to the Google scandal. James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

Google knows almost everything about us, including the contents of our emails, our addresses, our voice samples ( OK Google ), our favorite stuff, and, sometimes, our sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the world with our own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine algorithms has been discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a central House of Cards plotline.

Conversely, we know next to nothing about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of corporate values and convictions that the company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and American worldview even more so. Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology, suffused with Leftist and aggressively feminist values.

The story goes this way. In early August, an anonymous manifesto titled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber was circulated through the local network of Google. The author lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of so-called diversity. This policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far as to appoint a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them fast-track promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based advantage.

The author argues that Leftism and "diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber" within the company, where a person only talks to those who share their opinions, and, through this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their beliefs are the only ones that matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines work efficiency, with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.

In contrast to Google's buzzwords of "vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed ideological blindfold and is stuck in a morass.

As Google employs intellectuals, argues the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist clique within the company. If the Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the Left declares all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.

The central Leftist idea is the class struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of struggle has been transposed onto gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White oppressors, oppressed women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently, the US presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing the "diversity" policy.

The critic argues that the witch-hunt of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to conceal their political alignment or resign from the job, is not the only effect of this Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes not to the best there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies, disincentivizes White men from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness, if not sabotage. Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle.

What is the proposed solution?

Stop diving people into "oppressors" and "the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.

The diversity of opinion must apply to everyone. The company must stop alienating Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that needs their rights to be protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only those deemed worthy by the politically correct America.

End diversity programs discriminatory towards White men and replace them with non-discriminatory ones.

Have an unbiased assessment of the costs and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not only expensive but also pit one part of the company's employees against the other.

Instead of gender and race differences, focus on psychological safety within the company. Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss facts. Instead of cultivating sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.

Admit that not all racial or gender differences are social constructs or products of oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.

The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.

The differences argued by the author are as follows:

Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects.

Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men.

Women are looking for a balance between work and private life, men are obsessed with status and

Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the long run).

It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.

We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore".

It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".

However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.

Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".

The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.

Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their efficient use.

The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.

However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions.

First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion. Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the "superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.

Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.

The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call them roles – the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent.

The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.

Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile relations, it's probably for the better.

[Sep 23, 2018] Skripals is a demonstration of established British elite method of of slandering the non-obedient Russians

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: July 14, 2018 at 3:49 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack I understand perfectly what I read, and even make a direct quotation:

Those in power in Kiev had several times already attempted to draw Moscow into the civil war, directly and through a NATO intervention
I then ridicule such mularkey for what it is, unsubstantiated ' gibberish '.

You want to defend this BS then go to it, otherwise put up or shut up! :-)

The same goes for Skeptikal. Here is a British 'method' of slandering the non-obedient Russians. In terms of dishonesty, it is about the same as the US/EU/Ukrainian version of the MH17 tragedy:
"The Holes in the Official Skripal Story," by Craig MURRAY:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/14/holes-in-official-skripal-story.html

"The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made, even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the "novichok" class of nerve agents, the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing facility in Uzbekistan in 2002."

[Sep 23, 2018] Toilet Wars by Israel Shamir

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

In Paris, a great piece of street furniture called pissoir had been invented in 19 th century, and it made city life easy. Men could pop in and pee for free and without bother. But the feminists objected to it, and the spirit of capitalism supported them. A free facility is already a beginning of hated socialism. Rapidly, the number of street urinals went down from 1200 to one. Instead, pay booths suitable for men and women came into existence. These structures demand money, take time and are complicated to use. The feminists were happy, money-charging descendants of Vespasian (the Emperor who said 'money doesn't smell' and introduced a toilet tax) were very happy, but men weren't so happy to pay for something they always had for free. So the men preferred to pee outside. And Paris stunk to high heaven.

Squeezed between malodorous streets and feminist fury, the Paris Town Hall created a new sort of urinal: open-air one, zero privacy, just pee and go away. Not much of a luxury, nothing for women to be envious about. And they weren't envious, – just furious. They assaulted the hated symbols of male patriarchy with concrete, pouring it down the drain, and quickly blocked them and made them unusable. I suppose the owners of pay-as-you-pee supported them, and probably even supplied them with concrete at slashed rate, but it is just my wild guess. Anyway, now Paris stinks again, and the feminists may use this reason to hate men.

And now this toilet war had been carried out to the outer space. There was a strange recent incident on the International Space Station (ISS). The pressure in the station had dropped. In the search of a possible leak, a small (2 mm) hole had been discovered in a wall of the Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to the station. The hole was located near the toilet and covered by decorative fabric.

The US astronauts demanded that their mission be aborted and they return to earth; the Russian cosmonauts just glued the hole with a bit of epoxy and the flight went on.

It was promptly established that it was not a result of a meteorite strike; the hole had been drilled. Dmitry Rogozin, head of Roscosm said that it was probably done by a homesick astronaut. This version was considered just too bizarre. It was dismissed by all and sundry as a new proof of Russian goofiness. The preferred version said that the hole was drilled by a Russian worker on the ground, immediately before take-off, as you would expect from inept Russians.

ORDER IT NOW

However, it is possible that Rogozin was right. I have heard from people in Korolyev (Russian Houston) a very unusual if unverified story that fits perfectly with the rest of American toilet gender disorder. The setup is as follows. The ISS has an American, a Russian and a common compartments, separated but interconnected. (The Russian segment is the docked spacecraft). There are four astronauts in the Western sector, and two cosmonauts in the Russian sector. Among the Westerners, there is one lady.

Though the astronauts are carefully checked, still in the space things could run into uncharted territory. The story from Korolyev says the lady objected to their toilet arrangements as demeaning for her as a woman, and tried to readjust the equipment to fit her requirements. The men did their own readjustment and complained about the feminist. In a short while, the delicate toilet in the Western sector had been broken beyond repair, for nothing is simple in the space, not even going to loo.

And the big grown men, ex-Navy and ex-Air Force captains and commanders, had been reduced to use diapers on the daily basis. It is not only unpleasant to use: the ISS has no storage for such a mass of used and stinking diapers. The Western sector began to stink like Paris streets or worse.

By that time, the astronauts became mightily upset by the lady's extravagant behaviour, and they complained: "Houston, we have a problem! Please take her home!" Houston, or NASA, had two objections to granting their wish. One, diversity and female equality had to be maintained at all costs. The second objection was money.

Now only the Russians have the means to take astronauts to the station and back home. Though the US had landed a man on the Moon many years ago, they still have no working shuttle to fly men to ISS. The inept Russians still have their spacecraft, though their best shuttle The Buran and their best space station Mir had been dumped during the pro-Western stage of Russia's political orientation at American insistence. The Americans have to pay a hefty sum to the Russians for each flight, and evacuation of the virago would punch a hole in NASA budget, bigger and more painful than the hole in the ISS hulk. That's why Houston replied breezily: "This is your problem, guys! Try to get along with her!"

The Russian toilet and shower worked fine, and the Americans at first tried to use it. But after a quarrel (and alas, people forced to live in close quarters are likely to quarrel), the Russians objected and barred the Western astronauts from their Soyuz. The lady's mental health deteriorated, and stench and floating excrement made her miserable and vicious; and eventually her companions decided to implement a smart plan. When the two Russians went out to space for scheduled work, the Americans made their way to the Russian module (there are no locks in the ICC) and drilled a hole, sealing it with a sealant and covering with decorative fabric.

It was a creative and working idea. The sealant held on for a while and didn't burst immediately. The pressure in the station is quite low, only one atmosphere, so the hole didn't present a mortal danger for the team. If and when the leak were found, it would be possible to insist on emergency evacuation of the crew, thus getting rid of the troublesome virago and extricating themselves from the stinky hell while blaming the goofy Russians for the failure. And the best part of it: the hole is in the section of the Soyuz capsule that is jettisoned during its return to Earth, thus eliminating all evidence of the foul game.

But the plan didn't work out. The Russians closed the hole with a better epoxy sealant and refused evacuation. Keep shitting in your diapers, gentlemen! The Western commander jerked into the Russian module, shouting "I, as a commander, will decide what to do about it", and he tore off the sealant. The Russians told him: "You are the station commander, but on board the Soyuz you're just a guest", and they bodily kicked him out and re-sealed the hole.

The cosmonauts reported to Korolyev (the Russian flight control centre), and Korolyev asked Houston to show them video records from the American module to check who went with the drill to the Russian module. The Russian sanitary block (and that is where the hole was drilled) isn't monitored for privacy reasons. Houston refused outright.

The situation on the ISS remains tense; the Russians apparently used force to evict the Americans who tried to drill more holes. The Americans are unhappy as they have to spend all their nights and days with the troublesome woman, and their toilet still does not work. Now they hope that the US will soon be able to send a new all-American commercial private shuttle to remove them, for NASA is adamant in their refusal to pay Russians for the evacuation, and the Russians do not want to do this job for free. The latest reports speak of "whodunit in space" and of Russian cosmonauts planning more examination of the outer walls.

Thus the feminist-induced gender disorder of the West had almost caused disaster, – if you believe this story.

[Sep 23, 2018] I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it

Aug 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Alden says: August 10, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT

Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.

I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it.

[Sep 23, 2018] We in the West, who would again be the cannon fodder for such insanity, once more owe a debt of gratitude to Putin's statesmanship and levelheadedness

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT

@Mike P We should focus more on the overall situation than on the technical details of this event. The calls for Russian retaliation against Israel, while emotionally relatable, ignore one crucial aspect - any direct Russian attack on Israel, whether retaliatory or not, will inevitably drag in FUKUS on Israel's side. Thus, if Putins wants to avoid this sort of conflagration, he can't fight with Israel. This is the reason for his deals with the devil (aka Satanyahoo) - give the Israelis free reign for going after Iran, as long as they abstain from engaging Russian troops directly. By and large, Israel has abided by this agreement - until now.

In this situation, what options does Putin have to punish Israel, while still abstaining from a direct hit? Suspend their right to go after Iran by setting up no-fly zones, ostensibly for "protecting Russian troops." I'm sure the Iranians will make the most of this opportunity to further strengthen Hezbollah and their own position in Syria.

Why are the Israelis acting this way? It is clear that they are very, very nervous about the way things have been going. Despite all their efforts, the Iranian military and Hezbollah are still there and only growing stronger. Apparently, they feel that time is working against them and that they cannot look on any longer. Therefore, they are trying now to escalate the conflict, while hiding behind FUKUS and their (other) terrorist stooges.

If Russian intelligence communications are to be believed, then the terrorist puppets in Idlib had been preparing for another staged gas attack in Idlib, or rather they had already staged and filmed it, and they were simply waiting for the most opportune time to publish their stunt. At the same time, the U.S. were proclaiming that a chemical attack was imminent, and that it would be considered a casus belli . The Russians did their best to defuse this situation first by leaking their intelligence about the staging of the attacks; and when that did not do the trick, by putting the entire Idlib operation on hold via the agreement with Turkey.

Having been foiled yet again and left without a pretext for stepping up the war, Israel then resorted to creating this hastily improvised IL20 incident. (It is noticeable, however, that a French war ship was also on the scene, indicating that this was indeed coordinated with other governments beforehand.)

Even though the provocation is severe, the strategic situation has not changed - Russia and Syria are winning, and the only way for Israel to change this is to escalate the war. It is clear that they want to provoke Russia into shooting from the hip and thus allow herself to be blamed for such an escalation. It is also clear that Israel again intends to fight the war to the last American (and European) soldier.

We in the West, who would again be the cannon fodder for such insanity, once more owe a debt of gratitude to Putin's statesmanship and levelheadedness. It is also noteworthy that Trump not only abstained from fanning the flames, but also soon after the event stated that the "Iraq and Afghanistan wars were the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country." THIS is the real Trump, and THIS is why the Zio-infested U.S. deep state is trying so hard to overthrow him. Putin and Trump are trying to preserve peace, while Israel is pushing for war - as is anyone who is calling for Putin to "man up" and shoot some Israeli planes out of the sky or similar. "We in the West, who would again be the cannon fodder for such insanity, once more owe a debt of gratitude to Putin's statesmanship and levelheadedness."

All that Vladimir Putin is doing is prolonging the inevitable, at a cost of increasing resentment among Syrian troops, his own military personnel and the Russian people, IMO. The enemy is not going to stop of their own volition; so the more he turns the other cheek the more he will be slapped. To quote Paul Craig Roberts (from his latest essay):

"The question before President Putin and the Russian people is whether Russia can be a sovereign country independent of Washington's control without going to war. My concern is that unless a hard Russian foot comes down quickly, the only alternatives are Russian surrender or nuclear war."

"It is also noteworthy that Trump not only abstained from fanning the flames, but also soon after the event stated that the "Iraq and Afghanistan wars were the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country." THIS is the real Trump, and THIS is why the Zio-infested U.S. deep state is trying so hard to overthrow him."

The real Trump is all talk. He's a liar and a complete fraud. The real Trump had a chance to get out of Afghanistan and Syria but chose to escalate instead. The real Trump is apparently a PNAC zionist warmonger who puts the Zionist agenda first and America last. And the deep state will never try to get rid of such a loyal puppet.

Putin and Trump are trying to preserve peace, while Israel is pushing for war – as is anyone who is calling for Putin to "man up" and shoot some Israeli planes out of the sky or similar.

[Sep 23, 2018] Despite noise in Russian blogosphere about "weak reaction" Russia need to thread very carefully this minefield: NATO is much stronger in this region

Notable quotes:
"... It has a cruise speed of about ~600 km/hr, which is 10 km/minute that's at its cruise altitude of 8,000 meters the MoD reported that the airplane was hit while flying at 5,000 m and on its descent to land at Hmeimim ..."
"... Russia has drawn a line in the sand and Israel must grow up (impossible, I know for the chosen people). Unless Russia stands firm and enforces that line in the sand (i.e. Obey. The. Deconfliction. Agreement.), it will not succeed in restoring Syria's sovereignty. Considering that Russia has stated its goal of restoring Syria's full sovereignty over all its territory, it is clear that Russia will do whatever is necessary to achieve this goal. ..."
"... The complicating factor is that IFUKUS is willing to risk a hot war to defeat Russia in its goal. I strongly suspect that Putin will play for as much time as needed to defeat IFUKUS economically to the point where IFUKUS is militarily incapable. Keep in mind, Russia has already determined that IFUKUS is 'agreement incapable.' ..."
"... The Russian Federation faces an enemy that does not recognize any international laws. The only way to stop the predator is by waging a hot war against the "deciders" in the D.C., London, and Tel Aviv. That would result in a massive loss of life in Europe, the Middle East, the US, and in the Russian Federation. The predator, ZUSA, is not able to contain its predatory urges. They high-placed scoundrels begging for being destroyed. But there are also innocent people that will die during the hot war. ..."
"... It is not illogical at all that the US/Israel/EU/UK have sided with radical Islamists (ISIS, Al Qaeda and such) and with banderites (neo-Nazi). The flooding of the EU with the desperate refugees (the victims of the ongoing Wars for Israel) and opportunistic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa (welcome, extraordinary low IQ!) is tearing apart the societal fabric of the EU and makes the war-mongers and war-profiteers even less accountable to vox populi. ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

in the middle , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

One doesn't have to be a Putin or Zionist hater to see with clarity
So, you do then, I assume, have now or had in the past Form 1A clearance to know how and what Tactical and Operational Manuals describe in terms of setting Air Defense systems, establishment of communications networks...ah, never mind -- I am sure "Jews The Almighty" bible of yours gives all necessary answers.

Including describing issues of angular separation of targets, principles of development of command decisions from tactical to operational level and other irrelevant crap.

FB , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:29 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and Martyanov
Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here hysterical non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar systems. I'll give you hint--it is reported to all military radar operating units (from ground to the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures) every single day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance, especially against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare who are real "armchair strategists" here.

'Do you want me to prove by me merely introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar systems against the background of old S-200 AD complex '

Yes Andrei..I will take you up on your offer to 'prove' to us the 'technical parameters' that ALLOW THE S200 AND IL20 TO DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

You see friends, Saker and especially Martyanov are full of crapola

It is IMPOSSIBLE for an S200 which flies at 2.5 kilometers per second and would cover 100 km in just 40 seconds to have hit an airplane that continued flying for another ~5 minutes after that close call with the flight of Israeli F16s

Here is the infographic map released by the Russian MoD

The flight path of the F16s is recorded with the dashed blue line the flight of the Ilyushin Il20 spy plane is recorded in the solid red line [that from the MoD]

I have circled the close encounter point in yellow, with a yellow arrow pointing to it that is the point where the F16s are supposed to have 'hidden' behind the radar reflection of the much bigger Ilyushin, and is the ONLY point at which this could possibly occur

But the Ilyushin somehow manages to fly north for another 40 km and even make a 90 degree east turn to come in to land at Hmeimim a total flight time of around FIVE MINUTES

BUT the S200 cannot fly for FIVE MINUTES it is one of the fastest SAM rockets in the world, with a flight speed of 2.5 kilometers per second and would cover 100 kilometers in JUST 40 SECONDS

Its maximum flight time is 150 SECONDS [2.5 MINUTES] IN WHICH TIME IT WOULD COVER ITS MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF 375 KM

PLEASE TELL US HOW THIS IS POSSIBLE ANDREI ?

The specs of the turboprop IL20 are here

It has a cruise speed of about ~600 km/hr, which is 10 km/minute that's at its cruise altitude of 8,000 meters the MoD reported that the airplane was hit while flying at 5,000 m and on its descent to land at Hmeimim

The MoD map clearly shows that the Ilyushin flew north for 40 km after that 'close encounter' with the F16s and then made another right 90 degree turn back toward the Syria coast on its final descent back into Hmeimim

Only after making that turn to final was the airplane hit

So we have the airplane flying for FIVE MINUTES AFTER THAT SUPPOSED 'RADAR MASKING' ?

And the S200 which can cover 300 km in TWO MINUTES FLAT was doing what exactly for those missing THREE MINUTES ?

It was maybe hovering in midair with its engine shut off just waiting for the Ilyushin to slowly make its way to the point 40 km from the 'radar masking'..before it decided to turn its engine back on and then come and hit the Ilyushin ?

It is a matter of simple flight physics the official story is IMPOSSIBLE

If an S200 was even launched, it would have been from a range of probably 100 km so it would have got to the Ilyushin in under a minute from that close encounter point

The Ilyushin in that one minute would have been able to fly for maybe 10 km AT MOST and would have come down where I have place the red arrow on the map

Now I have seen many commenters here ridiculing Saker and Martyanov and that is completely warranted Saker has no technical credentials whatsoever, in either physics or mathematics he has made that abundantly clear over the course of hundreds of thousands of words of fluff

Martyanov at least has a bona fide military education, but he also does not seem to think much about basic physics he has some explaining to do here as to why he is pushing the 'official' story

Folks the fact of the matter is that 'official' information is often a blatant lie we all know that for those who have some relevant expertise in technical matters such as flight physics, it is not so easy to pull the wool over our eyes

Remember when Turkey shot down that Russian Su24 ground attack jet in November 2015 ? there was a lot of discussion at the time as to the claim from the Turkish side about the Sukhoi flying through Turkish airspace for 17 seconds

At the time PCR picked up on the debate, it revolved around the physical possibility of the Sukhoi flying that slow as to remain in Turkish airspace for so long, while covering a very short distance the debate among the laypeople revolved around the aerodynamic 'stall' speed of the Sukhoi ie the minimum flying speed of the airplane

I mentioned to PCR that the debate was nonsensical and explained a couple of pertinent basics of the flight physics involved PCR encouraged me to expand that into an article, which he graciously published on his website

We have a similar situation here it is important to figure out what is and what is not physically possible

Martyyanov especially, and of course Saker, are trying to tell us here that it was all a mistake as Putin said that the 'old' S200 took down a state of the art electronic warfare airplane, with 15 very highly trained specialists on board a HUGE LOSS

Now I will say here that Putin has a good reason to take this action and not reveal what actually happened and I will get to that in a minute

But let us first consider some peripheral facts surrounding this entire incident it is probable that the downed 'Il20′ was in fact the latest, modernized iteration of this electronic intelligence aircraft, the Il22PP, which entered into service two years ago

This is in keeping with the MoD's stated practice of subjecting Russia's latest and most sophisticated weapons systems to actual combat conditions in Syria even Putin has said that much has been learned,both good and bad, in Syria, and that fixing these deficiencies is possible only due to the opportunity to deploy these systems in Syria

Now if we assume that this was in fact that state of the art Il22PP [we are speculating here, but it is a solid assumption] then one must ask how careful the entire Russian contingent in Syria would be with such a valuable asset ?

How is it possible that while this airplane is in the air that 'Syrian' air defense commanders are shooting willy-nilly at a chunk of airspace where at this very moment this extremely valuable aircraft is flying ?

How stupid does this sound on its face ?

Now we have already proved that the 'radar masking' story is physically impossible, due to the respective flight speeds of the Ilyushin turboprop and the S200 rocket

That means that the S200 would have to have been launched when THERE WAS NO RADAR MASKING ie the Ilyushin would have been very close to the point where it was shot down which is 40 km away from the 'close encounter' site

So now we are supposed to believe that the Syrian air defense crews, which somehow are acting independently while supposedly 'integrated' with the Russian air defense staff that they have now targeted the Ilyushin WHILE IT IS FLYING ALONE WITH NOTHING NEARBY ?

Again, I ask Martyanov here to explain this especially in light of his dismissive comment to others objecting here, and citing his vast knowledge of radar systems

How is it possible that this Ilyushin was targeted by an S200 when it was nowhere near those F16s at that moment as the laws of physics require ?

Of course I realize that he cannot rebut these questions in any way shape or form he is caught again with his pants down

Now let us consider some more relevant facts on that night the Russian MoD stated clearly two additional piece of information

1 the French frigate Auvergne was nearby the Ilyushin flight, as depicted on the map, and was in fact recorded firing missiles

2 British jets were also in the air, with their transponders turned on making it possible to track them even with civilian ATC radar

Now we also know that a number of Russian ships were in that area at the time, and still are and are in fact this entire week conducting live fire drills more on that in a moment

Those ships also have sophisticated radar and also infrared sensors which picked up the missile firing from the French ship

Besides that we have the Beriev A50U AWACS aircraft in Syria..and it is safe to assume that they would have been in the air at the time of the Ilyushin flight

At the same time, we also know that the US is flying the high altitude U2 spy plane out of Akrotiri

So there is a lot of cat and mouse going on between Nato and Russia in the area all the more reason to seriously doubt that a Syrian S200 would shoot down such an important flight as the Ilyushin we notice also the flight path of the Ilyushin it first flew a circuit over Idlib, then, instead of coming in to land directly at Hmeimim, the airplane continued out over the Med for about 40 km off the coast of Syria, well outside the Syrian territorial airspace why ?

Perhaps because the Ilyushin might have been gathering data and perhaps engaging in electronic interference of those Nato ships and aircraft in the area ?

We do not know but if it was doing something like that, the flight would have had the utmost security attached to it it would be unthinkable for a Syrian SAM to take a shot at that airplane

So why the ruse on the part of Putin and the Russians ?

Let's first examine who had the opportunity to down that Ilyushin the French ship firing missiles [what kind of missiles surface to air...?...the frigate is equipped with very capable Aster SAMs... ]

And also the British aircraft in the air at the time and flying out of Akrotiri there are 9 Eurofighter Typhoons there, equipped with long range air to air AIM120 radar guided missiles and also 10 Tornados equipped with shorter range heat seeking AIM9x

Now since we know already that the only way an S200 could have shot down the Ilyushin would be if it fired practically intentionally at a high value friendly aircraft flying with no enemy aircraft nearby it would seem at least as probable that the missile that brought down the Ilyushin could have been fired by a French ship or a British airplane

[The Israeli jets could not have fired at the Ilyushin, since they were flying in the opposite direction at the time the airplane was hit...and it is impossible to aim a missile at a target behind your airplane...]

At this point, having made some logical physical observations and built up a situational picture of what and who was there at the time, it seems much more likely that the French or British brought down the Ilyushin with the Israelis playing a supporting role to cause confusion and 'fog of war'

Now we examine another clue this one coming just 24 hours after the Ilyushin was shot down namely the massive Russian live fire naval exercises in the exact area of the Med where all the action took place here is a look at the NOTAM published by the Cyprus Civil Aviation Authority

Is this air exclusion zone the Russians have enacted in a semi-ring around the RAF Akrotiri air base a clue ?

I leave it to readers to make their own judgements

Now let us consider the question of why Putin is not saying anything about possible British or French involvement in the shooting down of the valuable Ilyushin electronic warfare aircraft

First what purpose would it serve to now come out and accuse two Nato countries of an act of war ?

Is not this kind of escalation exactly what Nato is looking to provoke in Syria ?

Is Putin supposed to now declare war on Nato ?

Or does it make more sense to blame Israel because Israel is the only party that can be proved to have been doing something illegal at the time ie bombing a sovereign country [an illegal act of aggression] and at the same time trampling all the protocol and agreements in place between Russia and Israel on the matter of Israeli operations against 'Iranian' forces in Syria ?

We must remember here that Putin is interested in only one thing in Syria that is to defeat the West's regime change project

The West on the other hand is trying to do everything possible to provoke Russia into a military response, that would then lead to escalation and a possible shooting war

Let us recall that the US twice launched cruise missile strikes against Syria in the last year in the last attack back in April, the French and British also participated no response came from Russia

In 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian jet so how much of a stretch is it to think that Britain and France [together with Israel playing a supporting role] decided to shoot down the Russian spy plane ?

Now Russia holding its fire makes perfect sense and is the smart thing to do, in spite of how bad these provocations look for one thing Russia even turning on its air defense systems to shoot down US and Nato or Israeli missiles would give the opponent valuable information about how the Russian AD systems operate this is very valuable tactical information

Russia is better served not firing its systems unnecessarily because when it does, the enemy will have little chance to calculate an escape

As things stand now no one can defend Israel's actions on that night Israel realizes that Russia is very angry and Israel must now alter its behavior as to bombing Syria Russia will also take steps to increase the security of all Russian assets in Syria there will not be a repeat performance of this carefully planned ambush of the Ilyushin

As for retribution for whoever it was that pulled the trigger on that Ilyushin I think Putin realizes that revenge is a dish best served cold two can play the game of 'accidents' happening

Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.

No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.

If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.

Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.

But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.

Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.

'An investigation is underway to establish what exactly happened when the Ilyushin IL-20 reconnaissance plane was shot down on Monday night, as it was coming into land at the Russian airbase at Hmeimim in northwest Syria. The plane was lost some 20 kms off the Syrian coast, with all 15 service onboard killed.

There appears to have been an accidental shoot-down by Syrian air defenses using an outdated Soviet-made S-200 system.'

So this semi-official organ of Russian media is not so sure as our two resident 'experts' here and any comments that question their 'authority' are unceremoniously dismissed

Looking forward to hearing back from Martyanov on this

Zogby , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
I'm not completely convinced about the Russian MoD's interpretation of events as one of the F16s hiding behind the I-20. I think they stretched that part up because of their anger and embarrassment. The bottom line is that Russia has itself to blame because
- Russia and Syria use different IFF systems "and Israel knows". It is reckless for them to have uncoordinated IFF with Syrian air-defense and even more reckless to have divulged this to Israel. If fact, even assuming Syria had its own S-400 instead of S-200, it would still be totally reckless for them not to coordinate IFF.
- Russia did not fire its S-400 to shoot down the F-16s. Even after they knew the I-20 was down, 20 minutes after -- they politely asked the F-16s to vacate, which they only did 13 minutes later.

This is a wake-up call that Russia is pursuing an untenable policy in Syria by trying to be friends with opposing sides of a war and having its armed forces in the middle, while prohibiting them from fully using their weapons to defend themselves. Just as they portray Israel as hiding behind Russian aircraft, Hezbullah can be portrayed as hiding behind the nearby Russian airbase so that Israel gets in trouble trying to attack there. If Russia declares a no-fly-zone around its base that's incentive for Iran and/or Hezbullah to put its bases there.

Russia needs to either get out of Syria or choose sides and stick with its allies.

Agent76 , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 6:34 pm GMT
Putin put a target on himself and his country with this very action.

Jun 8, 2018 Putin hints at end of dollar system

Direct Line 2018 Vladimir Putin has held his 16th Direct Line Q&A on June 7th.

J , says: Website Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@Bill65 Can The Saker tell us what right Israel has to bomb targets in Syria ? The Russians were invited in to save Syria as were the Iranians and Hezbollah but Israel is on the side of the attackers of Syria . What right? The right of self defense. The establishment of Iranian bases in Syria is a mortal danger for us, the secret Syrian nuclear reactor was a potential catastrophe for everybody. Technically we have been in war with Syria for the last seventy years.
Herald , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT
@OilcanFloyd The Soviets didn't go to war with the U.S. over Syria and Israel 50 years ago, and I don't think the Russians will now. Israel is pretty much confined to beating up on defenseless Palestinians and invading the mostly undefended airspace of its immediate neighbors. Russia seems to have the situation in Syria under control, and attacking Israel would be the quickest way to have a war with the U.S., which Putin says he doesn't want.

One aircraft and its crew is apparently a price the Russians are willing to pay in a proxy war with the U.S. What happened 50 years ago has little bearing on today.

Russia's blinkered present position in Syria makes little sense and is unsustainable. Basically it seems to be saying that it will fight Syria's enemies when they are the western/Israeli proxy armies but it will not defend Syrian airspace against attacks which emanate from the very same sources. This naked air aggression, it seems, is approved by agreements with Israel and perhaps also some others. We have now seen the results of this approach and it has meant the needless Russian deaths, both in the air and on the ground.

The defenders of the status quo tell us that Russia won't defend Syrian airspace, as this might lead to WW3. The same could be much more justifiably said about NATO/Israel and their attacks on Syria, but magically the aggressors have been absolved from this responsibility, as it is not their concern. Strangely, only Russia has the duty of preventing global war, so it must always turn the other cheek, no matter the provocation. If Russia continues on this path, it is finished and may as well surrender right now.

James Speaks , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Mr M. I do believe it was a deliberate attempt by Israel to get a Russian plane shot down.

The biggest problem Israel and the Zionist Socialist USA faces when it comes to destroying Syria for the sake of making Israel greater again, is Russia. So long as Russia is allied with Syria the western client states of Israel can't invade and destroy this hated enemy of Jews.

Likewise, Russia can't attack Israel for what it does in Syria, because that would bring down the whole western world in retaliation and start off WWIII before the time is right.

No, I think this was a poorly planned and clumsy attempt at creating a false flag attack in the form of luring Syria into shooting down a Russia plane in an attempt to cause a diplomatic crisis between Syria and Russia that would end with Russia leaving Syria to be destroyed the Israel and its client states of the US/UK and the rest of the bullied Nato states.

It most likely failed because someone did not get informed and that someone had the brain power required to grab the phone and tell the Russians at the last minute because they saw that chances of the plan backfiring was too great to even think about it.

I do believe it was a deliberate attempt by Israel to get a Russian plane shot down.

After reading the MoD briefing notes, it is more likely that it was another example of Israeli arrogance and immaturity that will have consequences Israel will find most unpleasant.

The biggest problem Israel and the Zionist Socialist USA faces when it comes to destroying Syria for the sake of making Israel greater again, is Russia. So long as Russia is allied with Syria the western client states of Israel can't invade and destroy this hated enemy of Jews.

The biggest problem Israel and the Neocons face is their own delusion that they have the right and the power to decide that they have any options regarding Syria. The world does not need Israel.

Likewise, Russia can't attack Israel for what it does in Syria, because that would bring down the whole western world in retaliation and start off WWIII before the time is right.

Russia can draw lines in the sand that represent Russian self-interest as well as the interests of other nations Russia deems important to the success of its Syria project. Russia can attack Israel when it crosses one of these lines. Allowing Iran to build a facility in Latakia was one of these lines, and Israel crossed it, stupidly I might add.

No, I think this was a poorly planned and clumsy attempt at creating a false flag attack in the form of luring Syria into shooting down a Russia plane in an attempt to cause a diplomatic crisis between Syria and Russia that would end with Russia leaving Syria to be destroyed the Israel and its client states of the US/UK and the rest of the bullied Nato states.

It merely another example of the sort of immature provocations Israel engages in on a daily basis. Remember, they are the chosen people and they can do whatever they want.

It most likely failed because someone did not get informed and that someone had the brain power required to grab the phone and tell the Russians at the last minute because they saw that chances of the plan backfiring was too great to even think about it.

What failed was not a false-flag attack, but rather a long-standing practice of treating Russia as a second class nation.

Sometimes you have to draw a clear boundary. After watching the MoD briefing (excerpts), it is clear that Russia has been extremely accommodating to Israel's quasi-legitimate interests. In return, an adult nation would honor Russia's decision to allow Iranians to build a factory near to its airport.

Think of the consequences. The key to winning this conflict means the foreign nationals must feel safe inside the borders of Syria. It is no excuse that Iran and Hezbollah have challenged Israel militarily. Israel has challenged these countries militarily, too. For Russia to allow any nation to dictate to Syria and Russia who may or may not have a presence inside Syria is to admit that Russia will not achieve the goal of full sovereignty for Syria over Syrian territory.

Russia has already announced plans to build an automobile factory in Syria. Recall my earlier assertion that Syria will be the western terminus of the New Silk Road; the key to Syria's full recovery will be China's investment. Can Russia allow Israel to decide that China is not allowed to build factories wherever Syria allows it to build? The answer is obviously NO.

Russia has drawn a line in the sand and Israel must grow up (impossible, I know for the chosen people). Unless Russia stands firm and enforces that line in the sand (i.e. Obey. The. Deconfliction. Agreement.), it will not succeed in restoring Syria's sovereignty. Considering that Russia has stated its goal of restoring Syria's full sovereignty over all its territory, it is clear that Russia will do whatever is necessary to achieve this goal.

The complicating factor is that IFUKUS is willing to risk a hot war to defeat Russia in its goal. I strongly suspect that Putin will play for as much time as needed to defeat IFUKUS economically to the point where IFUKUS is militarily incapable. Keep in mind, Russia has already determined that IFUKUS is 'agreement incapable.'

El Dato , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT

@FB

'Do you want me to prove...by me merely introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar systems...against the background of old S-200 AD complex...'
Yes...Andrei..I will take you up on your offer to 'prove' to us the 'technical parameters' that ALLOW THE S200 AND IL20 TO DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS...

You see friends, Saker and especially Martyanov are full of crapola...

It is IMPOSSIBLE for an S200 which flies at 2.5 kilometers per second and would cover 100 km in just 40 seconds... to have hit an airplane that continued flying for another ~5 minutes after that close call with the flight of Israeli F16s...

Here is the infographic map released by the Russian MoD...

https://i.postimg.cc/brYXb99c/IL20_Crash_markup.jpg

The flight path of the F16s is recorded with the dashed blue line...the flight of the Ilyushin Il20 spy plane is recorded in the solid red line...[that from the MoD]

I have circled the close encounter point in yellow, with a yellow arrow pointing to it...that is the point where the F16s are supposed to have 'hidden' behind the radar reflection of the much bigger Ilyushin, and is the ONLY point at which this could possibly occur...

But the Ilyushin somehow manages to fly north for another 40 km...and even make a 90 degree east turn to come in to land at Hmeimim...a total flight time of around FIVE MINUTES...

BUT the S200 cannot fly for FIVE MINUTES...it is one of the fastest SAM rockets in the world, with a flight speed of 2.5 kilometers per second and would cover 100 kilometers in JUST 40 SECONDS...

Its maximum flight time is 150 SECONDS [2.5 MINUTES]...IN WHICH TIME IT WOULD COVER ITS MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF 375 KM...

PLEASE TELL US HOW THIS IS POSSIBLE ANDREI...?

The specs of the turboprop IL20 are here...

It has a cruise speed of about ~600 km/hr, which is 10 km/minute...that's at its cruise altitude of 8,000 meters...the MoD reported that the airplane was hit while flying at 5,000 m and on its descent to land at Hmeimim...

The MoD map clearly shows that the Ilyushin flew north for 40 km after that 'close encounter' with the F16s...and then made another right 90 degree turn back toward the Syria coast on its final descent back into Hmeimim...

Only after making that turn to final was the airplane hit...

So we have the airplane flying for FIVE MINUTES AFTER THAT SUPPOSED 'RADAR MASKING'...?

And the S200 which can cover 300 km in TWO MINUTES FLAT was doing what exactly for those missing THREE MINUTES...?

It was maybe hovering in midair with its engine shut off...just waiting for the Ilyushin to slowly make its way to the point 40 km from the 'radar masking'..before it decided to turn its engine back on and then come and hit the Ilyushin...?

It is a matter of simple flight physics...the official story is IMPOSSIBLE...

If an s200 was even launched, it would have been from a range of probably 100 km... so it would have got to the Ilyushin in under a minute from that close encounter point...

The Ilyushin in that one minute would have been able to fly for maybe 10 km AT MOST...and would have come down where I have place the red arrow on the map...

Now I have seen many commenters here ridiculing Saker and Martyanov and that is completely warranted...Saker has no technical credentials whatsoever, in either physics or mathematics...he has made that abundantly clear over the course of hundreds of thousands of words of fluff...

Martyanov at least has a bona fide military education, but he also does not seem to think much about basic physics...he has some explaining to do here as to why he is pushing the 'official' story...

Folks...the fact of the matter is that 'official' information is often a blatant lie...we all know that...for those who have some relevant expertise in technical matters such as flight physics, it is not so easy to pull the wool over our eyes...

Remember when Turkey shot down that Russian Su24 ground attack jet in November 2015...?...there was a lot of discussion at the time as to the claim from the Turkish side about the Sukhoi flying through Turkish airspace for 17 seconds...

At the time PCR picked up on the debate, it revolved around the physical possibility of the Sukhoi flying that slow as to remain in Turkish airspace for so long, while covering a very short distance...the debate among the laypeople revolved around the aerodynamic 'stall' speed of the Sukhoi...ie the minimum flying speed of the airplane...

I mentioned to PCR that the debate was nonsensical and explained a couple of pertinent basics of the flight physics involved...PCR encouraged me to expand that into an article, which he graciously published on his website...

We have a similar situation here...it is important to figure out what is and what is not physically possible...

Martyyanov especially, and of course Saker, are trying to tell us here that it was all a mistake as Putin said...that the 'old' S200 took down a state of the art electronic warfare airplane, with 15 very highly trained specialists on board...a HUGE LOSS...

Now I will say here that Putin has a good reason to take this action and not reveal what actually happened...and I will get to that in a minute...

But let us first consider some peripheral facts surrounding this entire incident...it is probable that the downed 'Il20' was in fact the latest, modernized iteration of this electronic intelligence aircraft, the Il22PP, which entered into service two years ago...

This is in keeping with the MoD's stated practice of subjecting Russia's latest and most sophisticated weapons systems to actual combat conditions in Syria...even Putin has said that much has been learned,both good and bad, in Syria, and that fixing these deficiencies is possible only due to the opportunity to deploy these systems in Syria...

Now if we assume that this was in fact that state of the art Il22PP [we are speculating here, but it is a solid assumption]...then one must ask how careful the entire Russian contingent in Syria would be with such a valuable asset...?

How is it possible that while this airplane is in the air that 'Syrian' air defense commanders are shooting willy-nilly at a chunk of airspace where at this very moment this extremely valuable aircraft is flying...?

How stupid does this sound on its face...?

Now we have already proved that the 'radar masking' story is physically impossible, due to the respective flight speeds of the Ilyushin turboprop and the S200 rocket...

That means that the S200 would have to have been launched when THERE WAS NO RADAR MASKING...ie the Ilyushin would have been very close to the point where it was shot down...which is 40 km away from the 'close encounter' site...

So now we are supposed to believe that the Syrian air defense crews, which somehow are acting independently while supposedly 'integrated' with the Russian air defense staff...that they have now targeted the Ilyushin WHILE IT IS FLYING ALONE WITH NOTHING NEARBY...?

Again, I ask Martyanov here to explain this...especially in light of his dismissive comment to others objecting here, and citing his vast knowledge of radar systems...

How is it possible that this Ilyushin was targeted by an S200 when it was nowhere near those F16s at that moment...as the laws of physics require...?

Of course I realize that he cannot rebut these questions in any way shape or form...he is caught again with his pants down...

Now let us consider some more relevant facts on that night...the Russian MoD stated clearly two additional piece of information...

1...the French frigate Auvergne was nearby the Ilyushin flight, as depicted on the map, and was in fact recorded firing missiles...

2...British jets were also in the air, with their transponders turned on...making it possible to track them even with civilian ATC radar...

Now we also know that a number of Russian ships were in that area at the time, and still are...and are in fact this entire week conducting live fire drills...more on that in a moment...

Those ships also have sophisticated radar and also infrared sensors which picked up the missile firing from the French ship...

Besides that we have the Beriev A50U AWACS aircraft in Syria..and it is safe to assume that they would have been in the air at the time of the Ilyushin flight...

At the same time, we also know that the US is flying the high altitude U2 spy plane out of Akrotiri...

So there is a lot of cat and mouse going on between Nato and Russia in the area...all the more reason to seriously doubt that a Syrian S200 would shoot down such an important flight as the Ilyushin...we notice also the flight path of the Ilyushin...it first flew a circuit over Idlib, then, instead of coming in to land directly at Hmeimim, the airplane continued out over the Med for about 40 km off the coast of Syria, well outside the Syrian territorial airspace...why...?

Perhaps because the Ilyushin might have been gathering data and perhaps engaging in electronic interference of those Nato ships and aircraft in the area...?

We do not know...but if it was doing something like that, the flight would have had the utmost security attached to it...it would be unthinkable for a Syrian SAM to take a shot at that airplane...

So why the ruse on the part of Putin and the Russians...?

Let's first examine who had the opportunity to down that Ilyushin...the French ship firing missiles [what kind of missiles surface to air...?...the frigate is equipped with very capable Aster SAMs... ]

And also the British aircraft in the air at the time and flying out of Akrotiri...there are 9 Eurofighter Typhoons there, equipped with long range air to air AIM120 radar guided missiles... and also 10 Tornados equipped with shorter range heat seeking AIM9x...

Now since we know already that the only way an S200 could have shot down the Ilyushin would be if it fired practically intentionally at a high value friendly aircraft flying with no enemy aircraft nearby...it would seem at least as probable that the missile that brought down the Ilyushin could have been fired by a French ship or a British airplane...

[The Israeli jets could not have fired at the Ilyushin, since they were flying in the opposite direction at the time the airplane was hit...and it is impossible to aim a missile at a target behind your airplane...]

At this point, having made some logical physical observations and built up a situational picture of what and who was there at the time, it seems much more likely that the French or British brought down the Ilyushin...with the Israelis playing a supporting role to cause confusion and 'fog of war'...

Now we examine another clue...this one coming just 24 hours after the Ilyushin was shot down...namely the massive Russian live fire naval exercises in the exact area of the Med where all the action took place...here is a look at the NOTAM published by the Cyprus Civil Aviation Authority...

https://i.postimg.cc/k4pvCxXF/Cyprus_Notam_markup.jpg

Is this air exclusion zone the Russians have enacted in a semi-ring around the RAF Akrotiri air base a clue...?

I leave it to readers to make their own judgements...

Now let us consider the question of why Putin is not saying anything about possible British or French involvement in the shooting down of the valuable Ilyushin electronic warfare aircraft...

First...what purpose would it serve to now come out and accuse two Nato countries of an act of war...?

Is not this kind of escalation exactly what Nato is looking to provoke in Syria...?

Is Putin supposed to now declare war on Nato...?

Or does it make more sense to blame Israel because Israel is the only party that can be proved to have been doing something illegal at the time...ie bombing a sovereign country [an illegal act of aggression]...and at the same time trampling all the protocol and agreements in place between Russia and Israel on the matter of Israeli operations against 'Iranian' forces in Syria...?

We must remember here that Putin is interested in only one thing in Syria...that is to defeat the West's regime change project

The West on the other hand is trying to do everything possible to provoke Russia into a military response, that would then lead to escalation and a possible shooting war...

Let us recall that the US twice launched cruise missile strikes against Syria in the last year...in the last attack back in April, the French and British also participated...no response came from Russia...

In 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian jet...so how much of a stretch is it to think that Britain and France [together with Israel playing a supporting role] decided to shoot down the Russian spy plane...?

Now Russia holding its fire makes perfect sense and is the smart thing to do, in spite of how bad these provocations look...for one thing Russia even turning on its air defense systems to shoot down US and Nato or Israeli missiles would give the opponent valuable information about how the Russian AD systems operate...this is very valuable tactical information...

Russia is better served not firing its systems unnecessarily...because when it does, the enemy will have little chance to calculate an escape...

As things stand now...no one can defend Israel's actions on that night...Israel realizes that Russia is very angry and Israel must now alter its behavior as to bombing Syria...Russia will also take steps to increase the security of all Russian assets in Syria...there will not be a repeat performance of this carefully planned ambush of the Ilyushin...

As for retribution for whoever it was that pulled the trigger on that Ilyushin...I think Putin realizes that revenge is a dish best served cold...two can play the game of 'accidents' happening...


Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.

No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.

If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.

Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.

But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.

Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.


'An investigation is underway to establish what exactly happened when the Ilyushin IL-20 reconnaissance plane was shot down on Monday night, as it was coming into land at the Russian airbase at Hmeimim in northwest Syria. The plane was lost some 20 kms off the Syrian coast, with all 15 service onboard killed.

There appears to have been an accidental shoot-down by Syrian air defenses using an outdated Soviet-made S-200 system.'

So this semi-official organ of Russian media is not so sure as our two resident 'experts' here...and any comments that question their 'authority' are unceremoniously dismissed...

Looking forward to hearing back from Martyanov on this... A very interesting take indeed.

The french frigate seems to no longer be mentioned at all in official statements. Macron Control must have the full tapes, wonder whether these will appear at some point.

Uncle Sam , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
The Russian military has now conclusively established that the Israelis were responsible for this disaster. They made that conclusion based on the objective evidence. If that evidence showed something differently, they would have drawn a different conclusion. They have no convincing reason to lie about it.

The Russians should now declare a no-fly zone over all of Syria and its territorial waters, not only for Israel but for America and NATO as well. If the Israelis repeat this act, their planes should be shot down and the air base from which they took off should be bombed and destroyed. Israel would do nothing to retaliate. It risks total destruction if it does.

Nor would America do anything. In fact, the Russians could shoot down American aircraft and even sink American ships. The Americans will not be involved in a war with Russia. America does not get into wars with countries that have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the continental United States. The only time America would use its nuclear weapons is if its homeland is attacked with nuclear weapons. That is why countries like Russia, China and North Korea need not fear America and why America will not attack them militarily.

In other words the lives of American servicemen are not worth the destruction of the continental United States. The first principle of American foreign policy is the prevention of a nuclear war. That is what American foreign policy is based on.

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT

@pyrrhus The USA pretended that the Liberty attack didn't happen because LBJ wanted campaign money from (((you know who)))...and of course, LBJ and Admiral McCain, who did the coverup, were two of the worst criminals ever to occupy the upper ranks of the Deep State. "Putin and Trump are trying to preserve peace, while Israel is pushing for war -- as is anyone who is calling for Putin to "man up" and shoot some Israeli planes out of the sky or similar."
-- Agree. Israelis live by terrorism.
Bombercommand , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT
@FB

Thank you, sir, for your superb comment. I read and reread it several times, the only useful comment on the entire thread. I too noticed at the very beginning the Russian military announced it had detected a missile launch from the French warship, and I could not square this fact with the S200 shoot down story, but being merely a layman in military affairs I had to watch and wait for someone with knowledge and a brain to weigh in. Again, thank you.

Don't hold your breath waiting to hear from the two posers The Faker and Martyanov.

Aaron Hilel says: September 23, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT • 200 Words

@VICB3

Yes, well as you said a war is a dark room easily entered, but full of unknown danger. US does not need to lose an expensive carrier and thousands of sailors to start one.

Imo Israel will never, ever permit US to start an all-out war with Russia, as Israel is a very small country, with extremely fragile, tightly packed population – which in case of nuclear escalation would take 80%+ losses. Look at it this way – the core of jewish power is concentrated in big cities, especially NY and Londonistan – and Israel. Russia and US can absorb a more or less limited nuclear exchange – the Jews, as a people, cannot.

In the current idiotic and useless war on Syria the Russians will lose soldiers, pilots, planes – it has no bearing on the outcome. The Russians and more precisely VV Putin will win this war in time, and Israel will suffer a strategic defeat ranging from minor (negotiations with Assad and polite expulsion of Hezbollah) to cataclysmic (creation of Shia crescent and fall of Iraq into Iranian sphere).

If you prefer a comparison to WW 2 , look at it as summer 1943 – everyone with a pulse in German OKH knew that the war is lost and yet how many hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers had to die to arrive in Berlin?

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 23, 2018 at 9:42 pm GMT

@Hindsight I have great respect for Mr. Saker. But this analysis makes me wonder, what has made him to come up with such a forced explanation. It's more of an apology than an objective analysis.
I wish he could stay objective to remain relevant. " .a forced explanation. It's more of an apology than an objective analysis."

– What shall Saker tell you? -- That zionists have zero dignity? That mega war-profiteers among "deciders" want more wars? That the US has been drowning in debt and that the US/UK financial sector would not survive without a major war? These are well-known facts.

The Russian Federation faces an enemy that does not recognize any international laws. The only way to stop the predator is by waging a hot war against the "deciders" in the D.C., London, and Tel Aviv. That would result in a massive loss of life in Europe, the Middle East, the US, and in the Russian Federation. The predator, ZUSA, is not able to contain its predatory urges. They high-placed scoundrels begging for being destroyed. But there are also innocent people that will die during the hot war.

The European civilization has developed many important mechanisms for protecting both the individuals and the world peace. The ZUSA, the UK and the Jewish State have decided to end the European civilization and establish a New World Order.

It is not illogical at all that the US/Israel/EU/UK have sided with radical Islamists (ISIS, Al Qaeda and such) and with banderites (neo-Nazi). The flooding of the EU with the desperate refugees (the victims of the ongoing Wars for Israel) and opportunistic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa (welcome, extraordinary low IQ!) is tearing apart the societal fabric of the EU and makes the war-mongers and war-profiteers even less accountable to vox populi.

What should Russians do? The more time they buy, the better the outcome for the humanity at large.

hunor , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:54 pm GMT
The Russians are all alone against a pack of satanic wolfs, and clearly loosing badly in the war of " leapfrogging ".

[Sep 23, 2018] I don't know what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 except the suspicion the Malaysia was also a target(may be due to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal) and choice of Dutch was instrumental in the cover-up.

Official investigation looks more and more like 911 commission or JFK assassination commission. Powerful state via their intelligence agencies now have tremendous capabilities to hide even most egregious crimes and block any objective investigation for many years, if not forever.
After so many years the discussion of MH17 still revolves about establishing the basic facts. Especially facts that were ignored by official investigation. such as shelling the area by Ukrainian forces after the crash, or too quick launch of "highly likely" campaign by Western MSM (which now can be viewed as a strong suggestion that we deal with a false flag operation like was the case with Litvinenko poisoning and Skripal poisoning ). Why the flight path of MH17 was changes and differ from previous days also remain unclear (previous days they flue over Azov sea) . Why Ukrainian air defense units was deployed in the area and were active that day is also unclear. Rebels did not have any ir force. Visit of Brennan under fake name to Ukraine is another interesting part of the story. And there are many questions like that.
The question of "que bono" is also an interesting one. As is the question why false flag operation often happen when there are some maneuvers in the area like was the case with 811 and Skripal cases (and there were NATO maneuvers in Ukrainian airspace). As one commenter aptly observed " However, irrespective of the actual perpetrator, and whether it was an intentional act or an accident, there is no doubt about the West's intent to exploit the event to the maximum. "
Russia behaviour creates several questions as well: for example recent revelation of the serial number of the Buk rocket (which so far did not leave any trace in the air that we can refer too in pretty densely populated area). I saw horizontal trances of fragments that hit airliner, which suggests air-to-air attack. There were phone of the part of the wing with horizontal trace of the elements.
The stories about Ukraine Su-24 pilot who later committed suicide as well as about role of oligarch Kolomoychenko also do not fit into official version. None of them testifies before the commission, which signify the absence of the desire of the commission to gather facts that might contradict predefined outcome.
As the USA refused to provide any evidence and Ukrainian authorities hide their evidence we also have another "plausible" signs of a false flag operation directed on introduction of sanctions against Russia.
In any case the following discussion is pretty educational as it rehashes many argument for "Russian did not do it" point of view on this tragic accident.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem is that the convictions by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunals are little known and were never reported by the mainstream media. ..."
"... " However, irrespective of the actual perpetrator, and whether it was an intentional act or an accident, there is no doubt about the West's intent to exploit the event to the maximum. " ..."
"... One might also say 'follows the Sept 11 propaganda'. As a USA politician said 'MH17 is the Dutch Sept 11′. ..."
"... I did not read the article carefully, so I do not know if it mentions that the key suspect -- Ukraine -- is part of the investigation organisation, or that Ukraine spied on the investigation. ..."
"... Then at 29:00 minutes in the video Van der Pijl states that Ukraine must be seen as main suspect of the downing of MH17 although he does not know if they indeed did it. They had the means he adds. ..."
"... At 31:34 Van der Pijl states Ukraine immediately had an statement about the shotdown. "only these were three different explanations". "Poroshenko stated it was an accident. Later he stated it was a terror attack". "A minister for foreign affairs stated it was a missile from Russia handed over to the separatists and the leader of military in Ukraine Andriy Parubiy stated it was a missile launched from Russia". ..."
"... At 43:36 a conversation starts about Ukraine aircraft using civil aircraft as human shield. Radar recordings of both sides are missing. ..."
"... Van der Pijl then states civil aircraft were used as a shield. Civil aircraft were flying at 10 km, military are flying much lower. But when they fly at the same speed as civil aircraft and under it, the military jets cannot be detected by radar. ..."
"... At 47:45 Van der Pijl states that according his feeling MH17 was not downed by a BUK. A BUK would cause the aircraft to explode in the air. He mentions "benzine"(petrol) lines. (not knowing an aircraft has kerosene as fuel). He thinks MH17 was shot down by an aircraft. ..."
"... "In February 2016 that assertion had still been dismissed as unfit for evidence by the Dutch chief prosecutor on the JIT, Fred Westerbeke, in a letter to victims' relatives. How can it possibly have become the core component of the case for the prosecution two years and two months later?" ..."
"... As long ago as Plato's "Politeia" ("Republic"), a widely-held view was that "justice is the will of the stronger", as Thrasybulos argues in that dialogue. As far as I can see, that is still the most popular view, and it is certainly the one supported by Western governments. (The Skripal affair is another prominent case in point: the UK government declared who was guilty without the tedious formalities of investigation, indictment, and trial). ..."
"... The real object of the Western elites -- as embodied in the statements of their servants in government and the media -- is to control public opinion. In this endeavour, precise accuracy, consistency and objective truth are not only unnecessary hindrances -- they are positive handicaps. The purpose is to imprint on the dim public consciousness some desired certainties, such as that Russia is aggressive and barbarous, that Mr Putin is a wicked soulless murderer, and so on. ..."
"... That is not done by proving a case to courtroom standards. It is done by loudly repeating memorable and emotional slogans, over and over, until everyone vaguely internalizes them and anyone who dares to disagree is attacked for disloyalty. ..."
"... The Romans, the Anglo-Saxon legal system's based on theirs, argued that each and every crime investigation must begin with the key question 'cui bono'. It's the time tested pointer to the perpetrator of every crime ever committed, and rightly so. Someone has a motive, if successfully translated into a deed of evil, the motive furnishes an outcome that's beneficial to that someone, otherwise committing any act of wrongdoing would be only that of madness. ..."
"... Except that parts of the wreckage of MH17 were riddled with regularly sized bullet holes. MH17 was shot at (and probably downed) with the on-board guns of a fighter plane. ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

ALCvA , says: July 9, 2018 at 5:11 am GMT

I don't know what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 nor do I know what happed to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 on 8 March 2014. Except that my suspicion is aroused that there is a connection with these events and the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which was established to oversee and investigate complaints from victims of wars and armed conflict in relation to crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other like offences as recognized under International Law. In November 2011 the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq. In May 2012 after hearing testimony for a week from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counsellors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture. The tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague. In November 2013, the tribunal convicted State of Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people and convicted former Israeli general Amos Yaron for crimes against humanity and genocide for his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

Thus, my conspiratorial mind suspects that there is a connection between the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal's convictions and the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 and Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.

The problem is that the convictions by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunals are little known and were never reported by the mainstream media.

Kees van der Pijl , says: • Website July 9, 2018 at 6:35 am GMT
@ALCvA I don't know what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 nor do I know what happed to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 on 8 March 2014. Except that my suspicion is aroused that there is a connection with these events and the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which was established to oversee and investigate complaints from victims of wars and armed conflict in relation to crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other like offences as recognized under International Law.

Thus, my conspiratorial mind suspects that there is a connection between the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal's convictions and the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 and Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.

The problem is that the convictions by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunals are little known and were never reported by the mainstream media. I also have this in the book, with the same details, and after a discussion that also includes Malaysia's arms purchases in Russia, I write 'But we should be reminded that we are looking at a 'systems event', a conditional structure of great complexity, in which even factors that are highly unlikely to have been the cause (such as punishing Malaysia or killing Putin) may yet have played a role, at some point, in overcoming moral or other barriers.'

jilles dykstra , says: July 9, 2018 at 6:41 am GMT
" However, irrespective of the actual perpetrator, and whether it was an intentional act or an accident, there is no doubt about the West's intent to exploit the event to the maximum. "

The key sentence. Dutch vice first minister Asscher at the time of the disaster was on vacation in the south of France. This fool, in a Dutch tv show, explained the need for secrecy, in the afternoon of the day of the MH17 disaster prime minister Rutte called Asscher on his mobile, and asked him to call back on a land line 'so that the Russians could not listen in'.

Until now no Dutch people's representative dared to ask Rutte what was so secret then that the Russians had tobe prevented from listening in.
The only thing I can think of is that Rutte told Asscher 'we want the Russians to get the blame'.

It is interesting to see how the MH17 propaganda follows the example of the holocaust propaganda. Monuments, remembrances, accusations, but never any concrete facts. One might also say 'follows the Sept 11 propaganda'. As a USA politician said 'MH17 is the Dutch Sept 11′.

I did not read the article carefully, so I do not know if it mentions that the key suspect -- Ukraine -- is part of the investigation organisation, or that Ukraine spied on the investigation.

But the essential question remains, except for an accident, why would Russia shoot down a passenger plane ? Putin is not stupid, he does not do things that just harm him.

jilles dykstra , says: July 9, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Indeed, after noting the Marxistish approach I wondered how reliable he would be on key facts if tested. It wasn't encouraging to find him writing that the Dutch Safety Board's report could be "conveniently [sic] dismissed". As the critical account of a presentation by him that I shall post below notes he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Dutch Safety Board's technical investigation and report and the Joint Investigation Team's work on the criminal aspects of the case. That is pretty elementary and leaves him looking like someone who could only wave his hands when it is pointed out that the DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named.

He seems to be a retired professor keen to be noticed so his air fares will be paid and his book with a title which also mentions MH17 will sell.

Anyway here is a useful critique slightly truncated from http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/ showing pretty well what a BS artist the author is

What happened to flight MH17?

Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Posted on September 23, 2017 by admin in Uncategorized // 4 Comments

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Kees van der Pijl is a Dutch political scientist who is emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Sussex. At September 19, 2017 he delivered a presentation in Dutch language at Pletterij Debatcafe.

Van der Pijl 's ideas about what happened to MH17 are similar to those of MH17 truther Joost Niemoller and a guy called @HectorReban (not his real name). Both are extreme conspiracy thinkers who all only look at one side of the story. They all forget to mention the many Russian lies. And are to say the least not very good at telling facts.

Kees van der Pijl is one of the people who signed a letter addressed to Donald Trump requesting a new independant investigation. The letter was published at the website of Joost Niemoller.

Others who signed the letter are Karel van Wolferen. I wrote about the nonsense he talked about here. Also former pilot Peter Haisenko signed the letter. My comments on the nonsense by Haisenko here.

A Dutch politician named Thierry Baudet, who also signed the letter, was criticised early September 2017 by Dutch Minister for Foreign affairs Bert Koenders.

Graham Phillips (former RT) and Patrick Lancaster, both pro Russian freelance journalists signed the letter as well.

Van der Pijl was active in a Dutch communistic political party.

Van der Pijl talked about the history of Ukraine, NATO, BRIC countries and MH17.

Van der Pijl states in the beginning of his presentation "I have no idea who downed MH7 in contrary to authorities who state the do"

However during the presentation he mentions he believes Ukraine shot down MH17 with a military jet.

Van Der Pijl then states a crime also needs a motive. Well, in the first minute of his presentation Van der Pijl makes his first mistake. MH17 was likely a mistake. Mistakes happen. The motive is according Van der Pijl "an important factor"

Van der Pijl then relates the shotdown of MH17 to the BRIC countries. He talks about Ukraine which wanted to be closer to the West. And he talks about the extension of NATO. He explains the eastern and southern areas of former Russia were added to Ukraine in around 1922.

Then at 29:00 minutes in the video Van der Pijl states that Ukraine must be seen as main suspect of the downing of MH17 although he does not know if they indeed did it. They had the means he adds.

Van der Pijl then states Ukraine got a veto right in two investigations. That is nonsense. The Dutch Safety Board did not have any veto. And in the criminal investigation all JIT countries signed a none disclosure agreement. That is different than a veto right.

At 31:34 Van der Pijl states Ukraine immediately had an statement about the shotdown. "only these were three different explanations". "Poroshenko stated it was an accident. Later he stated it was a terror attack". "A minister for foreign affairs stated it was a missile from Russia handed over to the separatists and the leader of military in Ukraine Andriy Parubiy stated it was a missile launched from Russia".

I have not found anything on internet confirming these statements by Van der Pijl. In fact, Poroshenko at July 17, 2014 stated

"We are not calling it an accident, or a disaster, but an act of terrorism," Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko said. The Ukraine Foreign Ministry says the plane was shot down by a Russian Buk missile.

Around 33:00 questions by the audience are answered.

At 36:00 Van der Pijl says money of foreign companies which flow through the Netherlands for tax avoiding reasons is criminal. "Dutch Minister for Finance should be prosecuted"

At 39:00 he starts to talk about his appearance for the Tweede Kamer commissie for Foreign Affairs. Van der Pijl states himself that was not a very impressive presentation. At that time he missed facts and was intimidated by the members of Parliament. Afterwards he was approached by bloggers active on MH17 (likely Hector Reban). They gave him information and warned him for Russian propaganda.

He then talks about 'tanks with surface to air missile' on it. Even the words 'BUK TELAR' is not a single time used by Van der Pijl in his presentation. Indicating he does not know what he is talking about.

Van der Pijl then states a child aged 11 is able to make a fake video of a telephone call. Van der Pijl then talks about the presence of lithium batteries in the aircraft. Far more than mentioned in the DSB final report. He doubts this is the cause of the accident.

Van der Pijl then calls Joustra, head of DSB, a big mouth.

At 43:36 a conversation starts about Ukraine aircraft using civil aircraft as human shield. Radar recordings of both sides are missing.

Van der Pijl then states civil aircraft were used as a shield. Civil aircraft were flying at 10 km, military are flying much lower. But when they fly at the same speed as civil aircraft and under it, the military jets cannot be detected by radar. Elsevier described this.

This is another complete nonsense. Elsevier never published an article confirming aircraft can hide from radar. Radar is able to detect two different objects.

Van der Pijl states all states failed by not handing over radar data.

He then states that Russia always offered to hand over information but only if Russia would be involved in the investigation.This was refused.

Of course this was refused as Russia is the suspect in the criminal investigation by JIT. And Russia did not offer to hand over all radar data. Why at all should there be an offer? Russia should have handed over all radar data. Just like Ukraine had to do.

Russia was involved in DSB investigation for expertise on radar and BUK systems. Russia did not hand over the requested raw radar data of all radar stations to DSB.

At 47:45 Van der Pijl states that according his feeling MH17 was not downed by a BUK. A BUK would cause the aircraft to explode in the air. He mentions "benzine"(petrol) lines. (not knowing an aircraft has kerosene as fuel). He thinks MH17 was shot down by an aircraft.

Dear Kees. You talk nonsense. Even Russian MOD stated there were no other aircraft near MH17.

He then at around 50:00 states that in his book all shot downs of aircraft by a BUK missile are described. However there are no civil aircraft shot down by a BUK missile except MH17. Only a few cases of shot down of civil aircraft with surface to air missile are known. A Siberia Airlines Tu154 was shot down by a S-200. This post has an overview of damage observered by various weapons.

He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying. That happened to MH17 as well as it made a wierd curve.

He states the book by Joost Niemoller "de doofpot (real name de doofpot deal) is still standing as a house. The book is full of tunnelvision. Dutch review of the book here.

At 54:00 he states the animations by JIT in the september 2016 presentation are cartoons.

At 57:00 someone asks how it is possible media does not report the same findings as Van der Pijl.

Van der Pijl then responds that the official narrative is copied by media. Media cannot backtrack the story. A letter written by Van der Pijl was not published in NRC.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

4 Comments on Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17

Roman Shein // November 3, 2017 at 5:47 am // Reply

He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying.
-- This one is true actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:16 pm // Reply

Indeed Roman an aircraft can keep flying after being attacked and struck by an Air-to-Air missile. But that fact itself also demonstrates that MH17 was absolutely not attacked by another aircraft. An Air-to-Air missile would've been fired by an aircraft -- that aircraft would show up on radar. The missile would have struck an engine. Engines on commercial airliners are actually designed to break off and fall away in the event of an impact or detonation some way smaller than an Air-to-Air missiles 3kg warhead. If an engine had landed in Petropavlivka, the western edge of the debris field, it would be a little harder to rule out an air to air attack. But both engines are present at the Hrabove site. I've seen some suggest an Air-to-Air missile might've missed the engine and exploded or some combination of Air-to-Air missile and machine gun/canon fire which, besides being silly, remains exceptionally unlikely that such ordinance would detonate or impact at exactly the spot one would expect a large Surface-to-Air radar guided missile to strike -- AND produce the kind of damage you could expect to see from a 75Kg warhead such as the simultaneous, instantaneous end of both CVR and FDR. That the Russian MoD, being military people who'd know all this, would still raise and promote this hypothesis as feasible is what has had me convinced since Monday July 21st 2014 that they knew more about how that plane ended up a smouldering wreck in Ukraine than they were letting on.

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:23 pm // Reply

Apologies Marcel -- I actually called in to compliment you on a succinct deconstruction of Mr Van der Pijls nonsense. It is mindboggling that someone with such an illogical, unscientific and unacademic tendency to speculate rather than engage in evidence based enquiry could rise to a position of Professor.

Lena // May 26, 2018 at 5:34 am // Reply

"International relations" is not a science.

Leave a comment

Beantwoording brieven aan kabinet over MH17
Ukraine deputy minister "JIT evidence is enough to prosecute Russian military leaders for downing of MH17"
MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Kremlin lies on Syria are just as notorious as its lies on MH17

Roman Shein on MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Roman Shein on Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Басар on Eight issues with the "fake photo " claim of Max van der Werff
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
admin on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Archives
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018 " DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named. " A weird compelling case.

They say they know who did it, a Russian officer, name and photograph have been publicised here, but they've been unable to ask him why he did it. Any normal criminal investigation begins with motive, here at the end the motive still is lacking.

I am not in the least convinced. The motive, except when it was an accident, lies in the west, the Netherlands objected most to sanctions. About a possible accident, Ukraine seems to have misused overflying passenger planes as shield for its bombers.

But, the Ukrainian pilot said to have shot down MH17 committed suicide. If he did it, he did what a fighter pilot on a illegal mission would have done, target the cockpit from behind, no possibility of an emergency signal.

If it was a BUK, it did what a fighter pilot would have done. But a BUK flies vertical at a speed of 4500 kmh, a passenger plane at some 900.
Why did not the BUK hit from beneath ? All in all, indeed a very compelling case, as the murder of Kennedy, Sept 11, Diana, etc

Tom Welsh , says: July 9, 2018 at 11:55 am GMT
"In February 2016 that assertion had still been dismissed as unfit for evidence by the Dutch chief prosecutor on the JIT, Fred Westerbeke, in a letter to victims' relatives. How can it possibly have become the core component of the case for the prosecution two years and two months later?"

That is extremely puzzling -- indeed, inexplicable -- if you believe that the object of the exercise is to determine the truth and to see justice done. But it isn't.

As long ago as Plato's "Politeia" ("Republic"), a widely-held view was that "justice is the will of the stronger", as Thrasybulos argues in that dialogue. As far as I can see, that is still the most popular view, and it is certainly the one supported by Western governments. (The Skripal affair is another prominent case in point: the UK government declared who was guilty without the tedious formalities of investigation, indictment, and trial).

The real object of the Western elites -- as embodied in the statements of their servants in government and the media -- is to control public opinion. In this endeavour, precise accuracy, consistency and objective truth are not only unnecessary hindrances -- they are positive handicaps. The purpose is to imprint on the dim public consciousness some desired certainties, such as that Russia is aggressive and barbarous, that Mr Putin is a wicked soulless murderer, and so on.

That is not done by proving a case to courtroom standards. It is done by loudly repeating memorable and emotional slogans, over and over, until everyone vaguely internalizes them and anyone who dares to disagree is attacked for disloyalty.

Hence the change in value of the Bellingcat assertions referred to by the quoted passage is not only unsurprising -- it is exactly what we should expect. Yesterday's completely unproven allegation is today's generally known fact.

Baron , says: July 9, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
An excellent, thoroughly researched, well articulated narrative. A piece of journalistic investigation worthy of a George Orwell prize, Mr. Kees van der Pijl, thank you.

On the MH17:

Why don't people learn from what has always worked, never failed, in the past?

The Romans, the Anglo-Saxon legal system's based on theirs, argued that each and every crime investigation must begin with the key question 'cui bono'. It's the time tested pointer to the perpetrator of every crime ever committed, and rightly so. Someone has a motive, if successfully translated into a deed of evil, the motive furnishes an outcome that's beneficial to that someone, otherwise committing any act of wrongdoing would be only that of madness.

Unless one were to argue that Putin is indeed mad, there's nothing in this tragedy that would point a finger at the Russians. It's either some other player or players involved, or an accident, a mistake, an error of judgment on the part of the warring combatants rather than a deliberate act of murder.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: July 9, 2018 at 12:47 pm GMT
Still awaiting the contents of the black box, which of course are known to the Russians as well since the rebels recovered it. Revealing that this aspect of the event is still under wraps. And the Ukraine had no business being on any investigative commission here.
Mike P , says: July 9, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
@mcohen Shooting down a Malaysian passenger jet over the Ukraine with a Russian missile = bringing down a russisn passenger jet over the egyptian sinai.
THEREFORE : x=y

both are true.

Except that parts of the wreckage of MH17 were riddled with regularly sized bullet holes. MH17 was shot at (and probably downed) with the on-board guns of a fighter plane.
Mr. Hack , says: July 9, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@animalogic There is nothing "gibberish" about this article. The author's quite clearly states he will deal with the historical context surrounding the downing of MH 17: this he does, if in a somewhat abbreviated form.
If you have a problem with his history, then argue for it -- don't rely on insults like "little green men" The only thing 'insulting' is your attempt to try to cast aspersion on the objectively verifiable 'historic term' little green men':

On 17 April, President Putin admitted for the first time publicly that Russian special forces were involved in the events of Crimea, for the purposes of protecting local people and creating conditions for a referendum In April 2015, retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov (Игорь Касатонов (ru)) said that the "little green men" were members of Russian Spetsnaz special forces units. According to his information, Russian troop deployment in Crimea included six helicopter landings and three landings of Ilyushin Il-76 with 500 people.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Ukrainian_crisis)

I have a problem with the author's sentiments that Ukraine was interested in drawing Russia into the conflict directly. Where's his proof for such a ridiculous statement?

Wizard of Oz , says: July 9, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty Still awaiting the contents of the black box, which of course are known to the Russians as well since the rebels recovered it. Revealing that this aspect of the event is still under wraps. And the Ukraine had no business being on any investigative commission here. Why do people make positive statements about such important matters as the black boxes without checking readily available sources? Surprisingly both black boxes were handed over and sent by the Dutch Safety Board to British laboratories before the end of July 2014. OK my most vivid memory of the evidence is from a recent documentary but, as this version doesn't even try to make out that Russian backed rebels hid the black boxes, I am happy to accept it. It is interesting that there was apparently just enough difference in the timing of noises from the explosion reaching the four cockpit microphones for the inference to be made independently of physical evidence (like shrapnel in the captain!) that the explosion was above the nose of the plane and to the left of the cockpit.
AnonFromTN , says: July 9, 2018 at 4:03 pm GMT
@animalogic There is nothing "gibberish" about this article. The author's quite clearly states he will deal with the historical context surrounding the downing of MH 17: this he does, if in a somewhat abbreviated form.
If you have a problem with his history, then argue for it -- don't rely on insults like "little green men" Ukies do have a problem with history. Their predecessors, Bandera and Shukhevych, sided with Hitler, the loser of WWII. So, this problem cannot be solved for them, as they don't have time machine to change history. They can still spew venom, though, trying to compensate for their incurable inferiority complex.
Den Lille Abe , says: July 9, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
The qui bono aspect is always interesting. Ukraine would have something to gain. Rebels nothing. Rebel factions having taken one for loot and screwing up is definitely a possibility, if they possess Buk systems. But I do not buy, the option that Putin "ordered" the shoot down, Putin is not stupid.
Which can indeed be postulated about Poroschenko.
AnonFromTN , says: July 9, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
I am not sure that it makes sense to connect MH370 with MH17. Not because Western secret services are incapable of this kind of heinous crime, but simply because there would be too many people involved, and someone would be talking, unless secret services murdered them all. This is unlikely, as there would be dozens of unexplained deaths, too many to cover up. They still have trouble covering up the murder of Seth Rich, who gave the evidence of DNC criminal activity to Assange. BTW, that "investigation" already lasts for two years, with no end in sight. Quite natural when the fox "investigates" its own depredations in the hen house.

However, numerous well-known facts directly contradict the "official" narrative pushed by the State Department and its lackeys, including the scum posing as government in Kiev.

1. This "investigation" is being dragged on for four years, i.e., it is a lot longer than any investigation in airline history where the remains of the airplane were recovered. Judging by its length and meager results, this "investigation" is simply a cover-up, pretty clumsy at that.

2. If one discards the "evidence" from social media, which any self-respecting court of law would through away as hearsay, there is virtually nothing left. Besides, those who fund "Bellingcat" are surely involved in the crime and subsequent spin.

3. Exploding Buk missile generates thousands of metal fragments that produce very characteristic numerous holes in the fuselage. These were not found, and very few ostensibly Buk fragments presented by JIT are a ridiculous number, not to mention that legally necessary chain of custody was not observed.

4. Buk missile leaves long-lasting smoke trail in the sky visible for many miles. I am not talking about contrails, I am talking about a huge pillar of black smoke. Not a single witness reported seeing that. Why?

5. Curiously, Ukraine vehemently denied having any Buks (this is Soviet weapon), then displayed a few at the military parade. WTF?

6. Satellite pictures that Kerry promised even before the debris cooled down were never presented in four years. Why?

7. Nobody bothered to explain a round hole in pilot's cabin, visible on many photos, that looks exactly like a hole that would be left by the round from SU cannon. Also, the issue of the second plane, actually first raised by witnesses in BBC report, was completely ignored. BBC video was removed from their site. Why?

8. Malaysia did not subscribe to the obviously false politically motivated recent "conclusion" of JIT. Even Belgium decided not to disgrace itself by supporting this "conclusion". Curious, no?

Yet all international airlines made their conclusions long time ago: they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukrainian airspace, like the airspace of North Korea. They won't explain their actions, though, as they don't want to anger very influential forces pushing a different narrative.

To summarize, Roman dictum "cui bono" is the best clue we have. It clearly points at the perpetrators.

FB , says: July 9, 2018 at 5:20 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz I have seen what purported to be the Dutch Safety Board's exhibition of the reassembled parts and there was no way that the holes could be said to be bullet holes rather than those of shrapnel (of which some, allegedly characteristic of the BUK missile, was found in the cockpit and in the captain's body). So where does your version come from and how does it stack up against those who say a fighter fired cannon shells not bullets and the Russian version - admittedly supported by a badly faked satellite photo - of a fighter firing a missile at MH17?

Also, doesn't it strike you as very strange
(a) that nothing was said in the cockpit in any way reflecting the approach of a fighter or a missile fired by it, or its firing at the larger plane's cockpit?
(b) that someone could get a Ukrainian fighter pilot to shoot down a civilian aircraft, or that, if some psychopath or drug addicted pilot could have been found to do it, no one else would have known and talked? You're confusing things here

The claim of cannon fire markings on the cockpit section of the fuselage was made by retired German pilot Peter Haisenko who simply viewed photos of the wreckage found online and noticed the entry and exit holes that seemed to suggest cannon fire [incidentally the same kind of 'analysis' we have seen from amateur 'investigators' Bellingcat]

The REAL issue is the fact that the DSB, which concluded that it was a Buk missile that hit the plane, seems to have made a fatal error in terms of the missile and warhead type which do not match, according to the Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey

Specifically the DSB says the characteristic 'bowtie' shrapnel holes observed in the recovered fuselage wreckage are characteristic of the 9N314M warhead

They further conclude that this warhead can be fitted to both the older generation missile, type 9M38..AND the newer 9M38M1

Almaz Antey says this is not the case and that ONLY the M1 variant of the missile can be fitted with the 'bowtie' warhead

Here is the DSB final report of October 2015

On page 132 we have this

' it is noted that the shapes of the pre-formed fragments found in the wreckage and the bodies of the crew members in the cockpit, bow-tie and cubes, are only found in the 9N314M warhead (see figure 56). The 9N314M warhead can be fitted to the 9M38M1 missile '

There is the problem right there The DSB also states that the the 9N314M warhead is 'normally' fitted to the 9M38M1 missile but 'but is known to be also installed on the 9M38′

The left side shows the comments by Almaz Antey the right shows the response of the DSB which acknowledges in their report that they got their info from an interesting source page 132

' According to the Kyiv Institute for Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice, both the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles can carry the 9N314M warhead '

So we have here the situation that a Ukraine political source is telling the DSB information that contradicts what the weapons manufacturer claims and in this dilemma, the DSB takes the word of the Ukraine political source

And there is also the further possibility that the 9M38 missile which never came with the bowtie warhead from the factory, could in fact be retrofitted with such, for example by the Ukraine military industry

In any case, this does not look good for the DSB, which is unfortunate for an aviation agency that is supposed to be 'professional' as these agencies typically are

And we further note that that the highest sources from the Russian Federation have stated that the missile identified by the DSB has been out of service in the RF armed forces for years having been long ago replaced by updated versions

Respect , says: July 9, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
I would not trust neither the dutchies nor the ukrobanderisti in anything .
jilles dykstra , says: July 9, 2018 at 5:33 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz As I said: have you been drinking? You have confused MH17 with MH 370. Spare us your garbage. No confusion whatsoever.
MH17 made possible the sanctions, MH370 killed two groups of Chinese technicians on making planes invisible to radar;
MH17 was destroyed in mid air, why and how, we do not know, MH370 flew direction Antarctica until fuel ran out.
My theory on MH370, control of the plane was taken from the crew from outside, as has been possible with modern planes since a short time before Sept 11.
On Sept 11, why the, in my opinion original plan to use the four planes for attacks failed, I do not know, we never will know.
Whatever the case, any aircraft specialist can explain to you that it is not al all difficult to control a modern plane from outside.
jilles dykstra , says: July 9, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
@Tulips I had read that MH17 was ordered by Ukrainian air traffic control to divert from its original flight course, directing it to fly over the war zone. Is that true or not? If true, who ordered that change and what rational have they given? It was ordered to fly lower.
This may confirm the theory that Ukraine abused the plane as shield for a bomber, and it may confirm that an Ukrainian fighter jet shot it down.
Ukrainian fighters have difficulty in flying at the normal height of a passenger plane
As far as I know no explanation was ever given
FB , says: July 9, 2018 at 5:49 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz I have seen what purported to be the Dutch Safety Board's exhibition of the reassembled parts and there was no way that the holes could be said to be bullet holes rather than those of shrapnel (of which some, allegedly characteristic of the BUK missile, was found in the cockpit and in the captain's body). So where does your version come from and how does it stack up against those who say a fighter fired cannon shells not bullets and the Russian version - admittedly supported by a badly faked satellite photo - of a fighter firing a missile at MH17?

Also, doesn't it strike you as very strange
(a) that nothing was said in the cockpit in any way reflecting the approach of a fighter or a missile fired by it, or its firing at the larger plane's cockpit?
(b) that someone could get a Ukrainian fighter pilot to shoot down a civilian aircraft, or that, if some psychopath or drug addicted pilot could have been found to do it, no one else would have known and talked?

' the Russian version -- admittedly supported by a badly faked satellite photo -- of a fighter firing a missile at MH17?..'

Again you are garbling known facts there was never any Russian 'satellite photo' it was in fact Russian ATC radar that identified the second aircraft flying in the area at the time

The curious part here is that the Russians gave the radar data to the Dutch but curiously it was deemed 'not usable' due to 'formatting issues' apparently this has something to do with the supposed incompatibility of Russian radar data printouts to what is used in the West which, for someone well versed in these matters, frankly sounds preposterous

AnonFromTN , says: July 9, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra The same nonsense that too many would be implicated in Sept 11.
In this case, my estimate, twenty You may be right, for all I know. I am just looking for the simplest solution possible. As far as I can tell, this means a genuine MH17 flight and CIA-designed plot ham-handedly executed by habitually inept Ukies.
FB , says: July 9, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT
@edNels Well I for one am getting sick of so much intrigue about all these crazy events that are so gaddammed complicated and mysterious and nobody knows who dun it! never!

But, when you say this,


[ this kind of heinous crime, but simply because there would be too many people involved, and someone would be talking, unless secret services murdered them all. This is unlikely, as there would be dozens of unexplained deaths, too many to cover up.]
Are you sure?
__________________

It would be nice if somewhere in the field of concern or blogosphere or what ever, an upright knowledgeable individual would provide details about the differences between the projectiles that come from aircraft on board cannons, and those that would be used on missiles that explode in near proximity to their targets. (verses those that heat seek up into the exhaust pipes )

The holes might be different between these two or more different delivery systems.

Everybody has seen the photos of holes in the fuselage around the cabin area that suggest entry and exit, but it should be commonly enough known more precisely and what is the difference in the size, shape, etc. to extrapolate from the photos of holes in the fuselage if it is 50/or cal. or missile born shrapnel or what. It would be ok if stated that there isn't any appreciable difference discernible too.

It is out there hanging whether or not the holes are good evidence or not, because nobody has further developed that part of it far as I have seen. Ed there is nothing we can 'analyze' from a distance that would put us in the same category as the ridiculous 'Bellingcat'

The fact of the matter is that the fuselage wreckage was handed over by the Donbas rebels to the West which they probably should not have done considering that they end up getting blamed by use of that same evidence which was in their hands

The second issue is that there are TWO separate and very different investigations the first was the accident investigation by the DSB, which is done in accordance with ICAO rules and we would presume it is professional you will note that they did not try to establish who fired the shot [or shots]

That is what the ICAO rules state the point of these investigations is to find out WHAT happened and to make recommendations so that this does not happen in the future

The second JIT investigation is clearly a politicized joke actually citing Bellingcat social media 'pictures' and such as 'evidence'

There is nothing that can be done about that it is clearly a kangaroo court

However, the more one examines the DSB investigation, the more one is alarmed there too I have already mentioned here in some detail some of the discrepancies in all honesty, I would say that it is NOT in fact established to my satisfaction in that DSB report that the findings are whaat they say they are

But again, there is no point in trying to do an Eliott Higgins here to really find out what hit that plane we cannot go on pictures alone those actual pieces need to be expertly examined

AnonFromTN , says: July 9, 2018 at 7:28 pm GMT
@edNels Well I for one am getting sick of so much intrigue about all these crazy events that are so gaddammed complicated and mysterious and nobody knows who dun it! never!

But, when you say this,


[ this kind of heinous crime, but simply because there would be too many people involved, and someone would be talking, unless secret services murdered them all. This is unlikely, as there would be dozens of unexplained deaths, too many to cover up.]
Are you sure?
__________________

It would be nice if somewhere in the field of concern or blogosphere or what ever, an upright knowledgeable individual would provide details about the differences between the projectiles that come from aircraft on board cannons, and those that would be used on missiles that explode in near proximity to their targets. (verses those that heat seek up into the exhaust pipes )

The holes might be different between these two or more different delivery systems.

Everybody has seen the photos of holes in the fuselage around the cabin area that suggest entry and exit, but it should be commonly enough known more precisely and what is the difference in the size, shape, etc. to extrapolate from the photos of holes in the fuselage if it is 50/or cal. or missile born shrapnel or what. It would be ok if stated that there isn't any appreciable difference discernible too.

It is out there hanging whether or not the holes are good evidence or not, because nobody has further developed that part of it far as I have seen. I am not sure how many "accidental" deaths or "murders in the course of botched robbery" (alleged in the case of Seth Rich) can be covered up.

I am not a pro in missiles, either. All I know is that THREE allegedly Buk shrapnel pieces were found in the bodies of pilots, and none anywhere else. Exploding Buk 9N314M warhead (alleged by the Dutch investigators) disperses almost 8 thousand shrapnel pieces, so there should have been hundreds, if not thousands, found in the wreckage and the bodies of passengers. They were not. Buk manufacturer Almaz-Antei has stated several times in public that the 9N314M warhead cannot be operated from the 9M38 missile series: the two cannot be connected electronically. Then again, Almaz-Antei might be lying, just like JIT. I'd love to hear from a pro not paid by either side.

republic , says: July 9, 2018 at 8:43 pm GMT
In July 2014 the place that I would go to find interesting information on that Malaysian flight was Zero Hedge.

On July 17, 2014 the following article appeared in ZH with hundreds of comments.

Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

The article is still available on line, but Zero Hedge has purged all the comments. It also seems that all ZH articles older than a few months are purged of their comments.

I wonder why this purge is taking place?

Glad that UR does not follow a similar practice.

Respect , says: July 9, 2018 at 8:48 pm GMT
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/07/09/who-was-stepan-bandera/

Those guys blew up the plain , and are trying to blow up everything

FKA Max , says: • Website July 10, 2018 at 1:11 am GMT
@Anonymous Excellent article discussing geopolitics - especially the oil and gas aspects which the major media never does.

As far as the actual shooting down of MH17, I am of the opinion that a Russian military unit did it. However, it is more accurately described as a tragic accident that happened in a war zone, very similar to the US shooting down of Iranian Air 655 in 1988 killing all 290 on-board. Accidents happen.

However, it is more accurately described as a tragic accident that happened in a war zone ,

This is exactly my conclusion.

I blame the people who didn't close off or avoid that airspace earlier.

Many airlines have avoided Ukrainian airspace for months

British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific among those who have taken detours around area where MH17 was brought down

As air traffic control authorities banned all aircraft from flying through eastern Ukrainian airspace -- which is likely to increase flight costs and journey times -- it has emerged that several airlines had already chosen to avoid the area.

A spokesman for Qantas said the Australian flag carrier had not used the route for months. Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific said it had been taking a detour for "quite some time". British Airways, Korean Air Lines, Air Berlin, Asiana Airlines and Taiwan's China Airlines had also been avoiding the east Ukraine route -- which is the most commonly used between Europe and Asia -- for months. British Airways declined to comment on its previous flight routes.
[...]
She said airlines' costs dropped considerably when Nato forces secured Afghanistan, as they had previously taken big detours to avoid the area. "As missile systems develop, and the Chinese and Russians sell them around the world, this problem is not going to go away," Quintana said.

-- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/airlines-avoid-ukraine-airspace-mh17

FAA issues warning for U.S. planes to avoid flights over Ukraine

skrik , says: July 10, 2018 at 9:29 am GMT
@FKA Max

However, it is more accurately described as a tragic accident that happened in a war zone ,...
This is exactly my conclusion.

I blame the people who didn't close off or avoid that airspace earlier.

Many airlines have avoided Ukrainian airspace for months

British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific among those who have taken detours around area where MH17 was brought down


As air traffic control authorities banned all aircraft from flying through eastern Ukrainian airspace -- which is likely to increase flight costs and journey times -- it has emerged that several airlines had already chosen to avoid the area.

A spokesman for Qantas said the Australian flag carrier had not used the route for months. Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific said it had been taking a detour for "quite some time". British Airways, Korean Air Lines, Air Berlin, Asiana Airlines and Taiwan's China Airlines had also been avoiding the east Ukraine route - which is the most commonly used between Europe and Asia - for months. British Airways declined to comment on its previous flight routes.
[...]
She said airlines' costs dropped considerably when Nato forces secured Afghanistan, as they had previously taken big detours to avoid the area. "As missile systems develop, and the Chinese and Russians sell them around the world, this problem is not going to go away," Quintana said.

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/airlines-avoid-ukraine-airspace-mh17

FAA issues warning for U.S. planes to avoid flights over Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m9EWwNbSVE

This is the best video on the MH-17 incident, in my opinion. The Buk anti-aircraft missile system/launcher was brought into the area from Russia because Ukrainian planes had been bombing residential/civilian buildings in the area. The Ukrainian bombers had also used civilian airliners as cover and flown in their trails according to Russian separatists:

Return to the MH17 Crash Site: Russian Roulette (Dispatch 87)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYEH6Tfzouo

I don't know how credible and authentic the following footage is, but it seems very convincing to me, especially the last investigation from Australia:

Flight MH17: Ukraine releases video of 'Buk missile unit'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsbC8yDeGUw

BREAKING - MH17 Russian BUK launcher in Makiivka Ukraine video July 17 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sviL113eOU

MH17 was downed by Russian BUK. Special Investigation. Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9Axg4DaeY

I don't know how credible and authentic the following footage is, but it seems very convincing to me, especially the last investigation from Australia:

If you are at all amenable to suggestions, try this one: Get a grip. Putting any 'faith' in bellingcat/Aus-60mins rubbish is exactly the same as 'getting religion;' you are setting out to believe in scurrilous allegations based on zero [reputable, verifiable = substantiable] facts. IF the empire had such a reputable, verifiable = substantiable 'smoking gun' THEN we'd all have seen it and the silly, *criminal* MH17 kerfuffle would have been stopped by that smoking gun.

This all happened a long time ago now, and 'back then' it was well-examined in the 'alternative media' = blogs, try this from here :

PeterS
October 26, 2014 at 7:26 pm
The problem with any captured BUK is that it must be stolen even with the commander. Because the sharp/fire shot from BUK is unable, if there is not workoing part "Я Ñвой ÑамоÐ"ет" JSS, identification of friend -- enemy plane. Codes are changing every few days and only BUK, witch is going in combat operation get this codes (only commander knows the codes). The crew without codes (working identification part) can only scan and aim, but not shot.
Ukrainian air defense has disabled sharp/fire shooting since they shot down the Tupolev Tu 154M in 2001. The commander also on training shots is banned to issue codes. That was the question on the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment of the Ukrainian Air Force, if they accidentaly had not erred.
About BUK captured from any base, Ukrainians claimed that they have everything under control and on base remained only disfunction machines. I only saw pictures of separatists with charging vehicle, not with the vehicle TELAR.
Any claim about shooting needs also explanation about codes .

Note the bold bits in the quote: IF that commenter is correct THEN who provided the " shot " code? Note that the Q is applicable to any/all BUKs, either in or out of Ukie or 'rebel' control, and the next Q is: What Russian idiot would hand the empire the gun to be used to against him/herself? Cui bono requires a reasonable response.

As I say, get a grip. We -- those with properly functioning intellects -- know which components on the world stage are capable of such horrendous, wicked atrocities as the MH17 shoot-down, here is some alphabet-soup: FUKUSIL+Ukr; feel free to select any/all letters which fit. rgds

The Alarmist , says: July 10, 2018 at 10:15 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz Indeed, after noting the Marxistish approach I wondered how reliable he would be on key facts if tested. It wasn't encouraging to find him writing that the Dutch Safety Board's report could be "conveniently [sic] dismissed". As the critical account of a presentation by him that I shall post below notes he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Dutch Safety Board's technical investigation and report and the Joint Investigation Team's work on the criminal aspects of the case. That is pretty elementary and leaves him looking like someone who could only wave his hands when it is pointed out that the DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named.

He seems to be a retired professor keen to be noticed so his air fares will be paid and his book with a title which also mentions MH17 will sell.

Anyway here is a useful critique slightly truncated from
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/
showing pretty well what a BS artist the author is

What happened to flight MH17?

Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Posted on September 23, 2017 by admin in Uncategorized // 4 Comments

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Kees van der Pijl is a Dutch political scientist who is emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Sussex. At September 19, 2017 he delivered a presentation in Dutch language at Pletterij Debatcafe.

Van der Pijl 's ideas about what happened to MH17 are similar to those of MH17 truther Joost Niemoller and a guy called @HectorReban (not his real name). Both are extreme conspiracy thinkers who all only look at one side of the story. They all forget to mention the many Russian lies. And are to say the least not very good at telling facts.

Kees van der Pijl is one of the people who signed a letter addressed to Donald Trump requesting a new independant investigation. The letter was published at the website of Joost Niemoller.

Others who signed the letter are Karel van Wolferen. I wrote about the nonsense he talked about here. Also former pilot Peter Haisenko signed the letter. My comments on the nonsense by Haisenko here.

A Dutch politician named Thierry Baudet, who also signed the letter, was criticised early September 2017 by Dutch Minister for Foreign affairs Bert Koenders.

Graham Phillips (former RT) and Patrick Lancaster, both pro Russian freelance journalists signed the letter as well.

Van der Pijl was active in a Dutch communistic political party.

Van der Pijl talked about the history of Ukraine, NATO, BRIC countries and MH17.

Van der Pijl states in the beginning of his presentation "I have no idea who downed MH7 in contrary to authorities who state the do"

However during the presentation he mentions he believes Ukraine shot down MH17 with a military jet.

Van Der Pijl then states a crime also needs a motive. Well, in the first minute of his presentation Van der Pijl makes his first mistake. MH17 was likely a mistake. Mistakes happen. The motive is according Van der Pijl "an important factor"

Van der Pijl then relates the shotdown of MH17 to the BRIC countries. He talks about Ukraine which wanted to be closer to the West. And he talks about the extension of NATO. He explains the eastern and southern areas of former Russia were added to Ukraine in around 1922.

Then at 29:00 minutes in the video Van der Pijl states that Ukraine must be seen as main suspect of the downing of MH17 altough he does not know if they indeed did it. They had the means he adds.

Van der Pijl then states Ukraine got a veto right in two investigations. That is nonsense. The Dutch Safety Board did not have any veto. And in the criminal investigation all JIT countries signed a none disclosure agreement. That is different than a veto right.

At 31:34 Van der Pijl states Ukraine immediately had an statement about the shotdown. "only these were three different explanations".

"Poroshenko stated it was an accident. Later he stated it was a terror attack". "A minister for foreign affairs stated it was a missile from Russia handed over to the separatists and the leader of military in Ukraine Andriy Parubiy stated it was a missile launched from Russia".

I have not found anything on internet confirming these statements by Van der Pijl. In fact, Poroshenko at July 17, 2014 stated

"We are not calling it an accident, or a disaster, but an act of terrorism," Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko said. The Ukraine Foreign Ministry says the plane was shot down by a Russian Buk missile.

Around 33:00 questions by the audience are answered.

At 36:00 Van der Pijl says money of foreign companies which flow through the Netherlands for tax avoiding reasons is criminal. "Dutch Minister for Finance should be prosecuted"

At 39:00 he starts to talk about his appearance for the Tweede Kamer commissie for Foreign Affairs. Van der Pijl states himself that was not a very impressive presentation. At that time he missed facts and was intimidated by the members of Parliament. Afterwards he was approached by bloggers active on MH17 (likely Hector Reban). They gave him information and warned him for Russian propaganda.

He then talks about 'tanks with surface to air missile' on it. Even the words 'BUK TELAR' is not a single time used by Van der Pijl in his presentation. Indicating he does not know what he is talking about.

Van der Pijl then states a child aged 11 is able to make a fake video of a telephone call. Van der Pijl then talks about the presence of lithium batteries in the aircraft. Far more than mentioned in the DSB final report. He doubts this is the cause of the accident.

Van der Pijl then calls Joustra, head of DSB, a big mouth.

At 43:36 a conversation starts about Ukraine aircraft using civil aircraft as human shield. Radar recordings of both sides are missing.

Van der Pijl then states civil aircraft were used as a shield. Civil aircraft were flying at 10 km, military are flying much lower. But when they fly at the same speed as civil aircraft and under it, the military jets cannot be detected by radar. Elsevier described this.

This is another complete nonsense. Elsevier never published an article confirming aircraft can hide from radar. Radar is able to detect two different objects.

Van der Pijl states all states failed by not handing over radar data.

He then states that Russia always offered to hand over information but only if Russia would be involved in the investigation.This was refused.

Ofcourse this was refused as Russia is the suspect in the criminal investigation by JIT. And Russia did not offer to hand over all radar data. Why at all should there be an offer? Russia should have handed over all radar data. Just like Ukraine had to do.

Russia was involved in DSB investigation for expertise on radar and BUK systems. Russia did not hand over the requested raw radar data of all radar stations to DSB.

At 47:45 Van der Pijl states that according his feeling MH17 was not downed by a BUK. A BUK would cause the aircraft to explode in the air. He mentions "benzine"(petrol) lines. (not knowing an aircraft has kerosene as fuel). He thinks MH17 was shot down by an aircraft.

Dear Kees. You talk nonsense. Even Russian MOD stated there were no other aircraft near MH17.

He then at around 50:00 states that in his book all shot downs of aircraft by a BUK missile are described. However there are no civil aircraft shot down by a BUK missile except MH17. Only a few cases of shot down of civil aircraft with surface to air missile are known. A Siberia Airlines Tu154 was shot down by a S-200. This post has an overview of damage observered by various weapons.

He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying. That happened to MH17 as well as it made a wierd curve.

He states the book by Joost Niemoller "de doofpot (real name de doofpot deal) is still standing as a house. The book is full of tunnelvision. Dutch review of the book here.

At 54:00 he states the animations by JIT in the september 2016 presentation are cartoons.

At 57:00 someone asks how it is possible media does not report the same findings as Van der Pijl.

Van der Pijl then responds that the official narrative is copied by media. Media cannot backtrack the story. A letter written by Van der Pijl was not published in NRC.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
4 Comments on Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Roman Shein // November 3, 2017 at 5:47 am // Reply
He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying.
-- This one is true actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:16 pm // Reply
Indeed Roman an aircraft can keep flying after being attacked and struck by an Air-to-Air missile. But that fact itself also demonstrates that MH17 was absolutely not attacked by another aircraft. An Air-to-Air missile would've been fired by an aircraft -- that aircraft would show up on radar. The missile would have struck an engine. Engines on commercial airliners are actually designed to break off and fall away in the event of an impact or detonation some way smaller than an Air-to-Air missiles 3kg warhead. If an engine had landed in Petropavlivka, the western edge of the debris field, it would be a little harder to rule out an air to air attack. But both engines are present at the Hrabove site. I've seen some suggest an Air-to-Air missile might've missed the engine and exploded or some combination of Air-to-Air missile and machine gun/canon fire which, besides being silly, remains exceptionally unlikely that such ordinance would detonate or impact at exactly the spot one would expect a large Surface-to-Air radar guided missile to strike -- AND produce the kind of damage you could expect to see from a 75Kg warhead such as the simultaneous, instantaneous end of both CVR and FDR. That the Russian MoD, being military people who'd know all this, would still raise and promote this hypothesis as feasible is what has had me convinced since Monday July 21st 2014 that they knew more about how that plane ended up a smouldering wreck in Ukraine than they were letting on.

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:23 pm // Reply
Apologies Marcel -- I actually called in to compliment you on a succinct deconstruction of Mr Van der Pijls nonsense. It is mindboggling that someone with such an illogical, unscientific and unacademic tendency to speculate rather than engage in evidence based enquiry could rise to a position of Professor.

Lena // May 26, 2018 at 5:34 am // Reply
"International relations" is not a science.

Leave a comment

Beantwoording brieven aan kabinet over MH17
Ukraine deputy minister "JIT evidence is enough to prosecute Russian military leaders for downing of MH17"
MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Kremlin lies on Syria are just as notorious as its lies on MH17

Recent Comments
Roman Shein on MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Roman Shein on Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Басар on Eight issues with the "fake photo " claim of Max van der Werff
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
admin on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Archives
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018 I'm only going to pick on one of your comments:

"Radar is able to detect two different objects."

Depends on what type of radar you are talking about. ATC radar, which is essentially two-dimensional and heavily dependent on transponder data from the aircraft, particularly the altitude encoded in that signal, would paint the return signal and data of the transponder of MH-17, but a primary return from another aircraft at roughly the same spot on the map, if a primary return was received at all, would be lost in the clutter and no altitude data would be available.

I recall reading a comment that Kiev claimed that ATC radar was turned off at the time. I also recall a claim that ATC voice data recordings were sequestered and never made available to the public. If true, these claims would suggest guilty minds at work, either covering up a blunder or covering up a false flag.

I think the author's title is a bit disingenuous: He could have called this, "False Flag or Accident: Why Western Powers had the Means, Motive and Opportunity to Capitalise on the MH-17 Tragedy."

The Alarmist , says: July 10, 2018 at 10:15 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz Indeed, after noting the Marxistish approach I wondered how reliable he would be on key facts if tested. It wasn't encouraging to find him writing that the Dutch Safety Board's report could be "conveniently [sic] dismissed". As the critical account of a presentation by him that I shall post below notes he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Dutch Safety Board's technical investigation and report and the Joint Investigation Team's work on the criminal aspects of the case. That is pretty elementary and leaves him looking like someone who could only wave his hands when it is pointed out that the DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named.

He seems to be a retired professor keen to be noticed so his air fares will be paid and his book with a title which also mentions MH17 will sell.

Anyway here is a useful critique slightly truncated from
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/
showing pretty well what a BS artist the author is

What happened to flight MH17?

Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Posted on September 23, 2017 by admin in Uncategorized // 4 Comments

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Kees van der Pijl is a Dutch political scientist who is emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Sussex. At September 19, 2017 he delivered a presentation in Dutch language at Pletterij Debatcafe.

Van der Pijl 's ideas about what happened to MH17 are similar to those of MH17 truther Joost Niemoller and a guy called @HectorReban (not his real name). Both are extreme conspiracy thinkers who all only look at one side of the story. They all forget to mention the many Russian lies. And are to say the least not very good at telling facts.

Kees van der Pijl is one of the people who signed a letter addressed to Donald Trump requesting a new independant investigation. The letter was published at the website of Joost Niemoller.

Others who signed the letter are Karel van Wolferen. I wrote about the nonsense he talked about here. Also former pilot Peter Haisenko signed the letter. My comments on the nonsense by Haisenko here.

A Dutch politician named Thierry Baudet, who also signed the letter, was criticised early September 2017 by Dutch Minister for Foreign affairs Bert Koenders.

Graham Phillips (former RT) and Patrick Lancaster, both pro Russian freelance journalists signed the letter as well.

Van der Pijl was active in a Dutch communistic political party.

Van der Pijl talked about the history of Ukraine, NATO, BRIC countries and MH17.

Van der Pijl states in the beginning of his presentation "I have no idea who downed MH7 in contrary to authorities who state the do"

However during the presentation he mentions he believes Ukraine shot down MH17 with a military jet.

Van Der Pijl then states a crime also needs a motive. Well, in the first minute of his presentation Van der Pijl makes his first mistake. MH17 was likely a mistake. Mistakes happen. The motive is according Van der Pijl "an important factor"

Van der Pijl then relates the shotdown of MH17 to the BRIC countries. He talks about Ukraine which wanted to be closer to the West. And he talks about the extension of NATO. He explains the eastern and southern areas of former Russia were added to Ukraine in around 1922.

Then at 29:00 minutes in the video Van der Pijl states that Ukraine must be seen as main suspect of the downing of MH17 altough he does not know if they indeed did it. They had the means he adds.

Van der Pijl then states Ukraine got a veto right in two investigations. That is nonsense. The Dutch Safety Board did not have any veto. And in the criminal investigation all JIT countries signed a none disclosure agreement. That is different than a veto right.

At 31:34 Van der Pijl states Ukraine immediately had an statement about the shotdown. "only these were three different explanations".

"Poroshenko stated it was an accident. Later he stated it was a terror attack". "A minister for foreign affairs stated it was a missile from Russia handed over to the separatists and the leader of military in Ukraine Andriy Parubiy stated it was a missile launched from Russia".

I have not found anything on internet confirming these statements by Van der Pijl. In fact, Poroshenko at July 17, 2014 stated

"We are not calling it an accident, or a disaster, but an act of terrorism," Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko said. The Ukraine Foreign Ministry says the plane was shot down by a Russian Buk missile.

Around 33:00 questions by the audience are answered.

At 36:00 Van der Pijl says money of foreign companies which flow through the Netherlands for tax avoiding reasons is criminal. "Dutch Minister for Finance should be prosecuted"

At 39:00 he starts to talk about his appearance for the Tweede Kamer commissie for Foreign Affairs. Van der Pijl states himself that was not a very impressive presentation. At that time he missed facts and was intimidated by the members of Parliament. Afterwards he was approached by bloggers active on MH17 (likely Hector Reban). They gave him information and warned him for Russian propaganda.

He then talks about 'tanks with surface to air missile' on it. Even the words 'BUK TELAR' is not a single time used by Van der Pijl in his presentation. Indicating he does not know what he is talking about.

Van der Pijl then states a child aged 11 is able to make a fake video of a telephone call. Van der Pijl then talks about the presence of lithium batteries in the aircraft. Far more than mentioned in the DSB final report. He doubts this is the cause of the accident.

Van der Pijl then calls Joustra, head of DSB, a big mouth.

At 43:36 a conversation starts about Ukraine aircraft using civil aircraft as human shield. Radar recordings of both sides are missing.

Van der Pijl then states civil aircraft were used as a shield. Civil aircraft were flying at 10 km, military are flying much lower. But when they fly at the same speed as civil aircraft and under it, the military jets cannot be detected by radar. Elsevier described this.

This is another complete nonsense. Elsevier never published an article confirming aircraft can hide from radar. Radar is able to detect two different objects.

Van der Pijl states all states failed by not handing over radar data.

He then states that Russia always offered to hand over information but only if Russia would be involved in the investigation.This was refused.

Ofcourse this was refused as Russia is the suspect in the criminal investigation by JIT. And Russia did not offer to hand over all radar data. Why at all should there be an offer? Russia should have handed over all radar data. Just like Ukraine had to do.

Russia was involved in DSB investigation for expertise on radar and BUK systems. Russia did not hand over the requested raw radar data of all radar stations to DSB.

At 47:45 Van der Pijl states that according his feeling MH17 was not downed by a BUK. A BUK would cause the aircraft to explode in the air. He mentions "benzine"(petrol) lines. (not knowing an aircraft has kerosene as fuel). He thinks MH17 was shot down by an aircraft.

Dear Kees. You talk nonsense. Even Russian MOD stated there were no other aircraft near MH17.

He then at around 50:00 states that in his book all shot downs of aircraft by a BUK missile are described. However there are no civil aircraft shot down by a BUK missile except MH17. Only a few cases of shot down of civil aircraft with surface to air missile are known. A Siberia Airlines Tu154 was shot down by a S-200. This post has an overview of damage observered by various weapons.

He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying. That happened to MH17 as well as it made a wierd curve.

He states the book by Joost Niemoller "de doofpot (real name de doofpot deal) is still standing as a house. The book is full of tunnelvision. Dutch review of the book here.

At 54:00 he states the animations by JIT in the september 2016 presentation are cartoons.

At 57:00 someone asks how it is possible media does not report the same findings as Van der Pijl.

Van der Pijl then responds that the official narrative is copied by media. Media cannot backtrack the story. A letter written by Van der Pijl was not published in NRC.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
4 Comments on Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Roman Shein // November 3, 2017 at 5:47 am // Reply
He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying.
-- This one is true actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:16 pm // Reply
Indeed Roman an aircraft can keep flying after being attacked and struck by an Air-to-Air missile. But that fact itself also demonstrates that MH17 was absolutely not attacked by another aircraft. An Air-to-Air missile would've been fired by an aircraft -- that aircraft would show up on radar. The missile would have struck an engine. Engines on commercial airliners are actually designed to break off and fall away in the event of an impact or detonation some way smaller than an Air-to-Air missiles 3kg warhead. If an engine had landed in Petropavlivka, the western edge of the debris field, it would be a little harder to rule out an air to air attack. But both engines are present at the Hrabove site. I've seen some suggest an Air-to-Air missile might've missed the engine and exploded or some combination of Air-to-Air missile and machine gun/canon fire which, besides being silly, remains exceptionally unlikely that such ordinance would detonate or impact at exactly the spot one would expect a large Surface-to-Air radar guided missile to strike -- AND produce the kind of damage you could expect to see from a 75Kg warhead such as the simultaneous, instantaneous end of both CVR and FDR. That the Russian MoD, being military people who'd know all this, would still raise and promote this hypothesis as feasible is what has had me convinced since Monday July 21st 2014 that they knew more about how that plane ended up a smouldering wreck in Ukraine than they were letting on.

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:23 pm // Reply
Apologies Marcel -- I actually called in to compliment you on a succinct deconstruction of Mr Van der Pijls nonsense. It is mindboggling that someone with such an illogical, unscientific and unacademic tendency to speculate rather than engage in evidence based enquiry could rise to a position of Professor.

Lena // May 26, 2018 at 5:34 am // Reply
"International relations" is not a science.

Leave a comment

Beantwoording brieven aan kabinet over MH17
Ukraine deputy minister "JIT evidence is enough to prosecute Russian military leaders for downing of MH17"
MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Kremlin lies on Syria are just as notorious as its lies on MH17

Recent Comments
Roman Shein on MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Roman Shein on Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Басар on Eight issues with the "fake photo " claim of Max van der Werff
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
admin on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Archives
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018 I'm only going to pick on one of your comments:

"Radar is able to detect two different objects."

Depends on what type of radar you are talking about. ATC radar, which is essentially two-dimensional and heavily dependent on transponder data from the aircraft, particularly the altitude encoded in that signal, would paint the return signal and data of the transponder of MH-17, but a primary return from another aircraft at roughly the same spot on the map, if a primary return was received at all, would be lost in the clutter and no altitude data would be available.

I recall reading a comment that Kiev claimed that ATC radar was turned off at the time. I also recall a claim that ATC voice data recordings were sequestered and never made available to the public. If true, these claims would suggest guilty minds at work, either covering up a blunder or covering up a false flag.

I think the author's title is a bit disingenuous: He could have called this, "False Flag or Accident: Why Western Powers had the Means, Motive and Opportunity to Capitalise on the MH-17 Tragedy."

Vojkan , says: July 10, 2018 at 11:50 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz I too have worked on military projects but, unlike you, I don't expect to have my expertise accepted because I say I have learned things from the Internet that I can't even specify and lay open for critical appraisal. Oh really? Then you should know that a Buk doesn't strike at the cockpit but rather sprays the fuselage from above. You should also know that the holes in the cockpit don't match shrapnel made of beryllium, the holes are too big and thtt the distribution of the holes doesn't match either. You are just a pathetic ukranian or hasbara or polish troll with a pathological hatred for anything Russian. Wizard of bullshit.
skrik , says: July 10, 2018 at 11:56 am GMT
@jilles dykstra It was reported here that the plane was ordered to fly lower.

"MH17 filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000 feet throughout Ukrainian airspace. This is close to the 'optimum' altitude," the airline said.
"However, an aircraft's altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground. Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000 feet."

( https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/mh17-requested-higher-flight-altitude-from-ukranian-air-traffic-control-malaysia-airlines-30442304.html ] rgds

skrik , says: July 10, 2018 at 12:44 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz Nothing to do with radar. I'm sorry if you think I should be talking about something you want me to be talking about instead of what I was actually talking about.

It's past history but one of the Russian contributions early on to obfuscation was apparently to produce a really dumb fake photo which purported to show a fighter firing a missile at an airliner from in front. Nothing more perhaps than what dumb amateur enthusiasts might try to foist on to this UR site in aid of their team. And my point, which you don't seem to have noticed, was that at least this Russian version didn't have anything to do with canons or machine guns that some obfuscators have been throwing into the pot.

Let me take this opportunity to try our some simple propositions with at least some cumulative relevance.

1. The guilty, whether of crime or embarrassing error, are likely to lie

2. A quick defensive lie about an embarrassing accident after the US and EU have jumped down one's throat is more likely than an elaborate set of lies about a complicated false flag operation. OK not very weighty unless combined with

3. The likelihood of Russia providing a BUK to the rebels whose towns had been bombed is as likely as the US providing Kurds and other as anti-Assad forces in Syria with serious weapons - in short a virtual certainty with equal disregard to legality.

4. Just added in... It is clear from the widely separated plane parts that MH17 came apart with the cockpit coming away from the wings and fuselage as a result of the initial blast. Not consistent with canon or machine gun bullets is it?

So what's the problem about at least accepting that the simplest answer is the most probable?

I see that the word of the Russian designer of the BUK about what sort of missile could have been fired by this or that BUK model is for some reason taken as weighty. Unless he was cross-examined while living outside Russia that seems naive. A reference to a Kiev research institute as "political" is also naive too as disclosing partisanship. And it ignores the likelihood that the DSB was not just relying on such a body as authoritative but has been able to discuss its contribution in depth as was its duty.

FWIW I recall reading somewhere that the Russians had taken the trouble to ensure that the BUK missile launcher and missiles they provided were the same as those the Ukrainians had. I don't know whether that has any legs.

1. Der.

2. No; your projection. The ones perpetrating the outrage would most likely [premeditation] have their story 'straight;' in your own words, Russia probably went something like: 'OMG! What animals would do such a thing!'

3. No; Russia is not playing 'the great game' that FUKUSIL oh so obviously are.

4.

An interesting bit is the nicely circular, both entry and exit, 'wounds.' Of course, no 'chain of custody' exists, and the piece could have been physically 'post processed.' The task of evaluation belongs to an honest, properly constituted enquiry. Haw, again; have you not heard: Don't start an inquiry you can't control? Lesson learned, latest with Warren et al..

FWIW I recall reading somewhere that the Russians had taken the trouble to ensure that the BUK missile launcher and missiles they provided were the same as those the Ukrainians had. I don't know whether that has any legs.

Haw the last for now; were you paid for that, or just made it up out of 'whole cloth?'

Rurik , says: July 10, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
there is zero doubt that Ukraine shot the plane down, because there's *obvious* evidence of machine gun bullet holes aimed directly at the cockpit, not to mention tones of other evidence (or lack of, like the missing BUK missile trail)

what's amazing about all of this is the ability of the Fiend to cover all the evidence up, and include the main suspect: Ukraine -- in the "investigation" with veto authority over any conclusions.

When you control a country's central bank, and therefor its access to credit, you control the government (and media and institutions) in absolute terms.

The quislings in Kyiv are corrupt and treasonous agents of the Zio-Fiend and nothing more.

Ironic that they're a bunch of neo-Nazis taking orders from Jewish banksters.

republic , says: July 10, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke Not only lower but also further North

Eye witness were filmed immediately afterwards stating that there was a small warplane underneath MH17 just prior to it turning and then going down. I couldn't understand what they were saying (there were subtitles) but their non July 10, 2018 at 4:59 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz We may have crossed wires. I was referring to the alleged evidence from the cockpit voice recorder, no doubt confirmed from air traffic control recordings that the pilots made a request to be allowed to increase altitude while in flight but that it was denied. On any view the fact that there were about 160 other flights in the area for air traffic control to deal with doesn't leave much reason to treat air traffic control as being involved in something sinister. I am not surprised that anyone taking just a casual interest in MH17 should be ignorant of the busyness of traffic above 32,000 ft that day, but it is an important detail. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the destruction of MH17 in midair was something sinister.
No motive was ever give for either rebels or Russia.
But continuous vague accusations against Russia.
It may have been an accident, caused by Ukraine, using passenger planes as shield against BUK's aimed at Ukrainian bombers, it may be that an Ukrainian fighter pilot shot down the plane.
In both cases a lower flying altitude makes sense.
AnonFromTN , says: July 10, 2018 at 5:12 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Here in the Netherlands immediately Russia was blamed.
The day before th disaster we resisted sanctions, our export to Russia, the day after sanctions were allowed.
The question what interest Russia could have had in shooting down an airliner has never been asked, not even now.
As to an accident, very accidental that a plane from Schiphol with a few hundred Dutch was shot down. You said it. Bringing to heel the Netherlands and a few other reluctant allies was one of the points of this operation. From this even a monkey can figure out who designed this op. Unfortunately for the planners, it was executed by extremely inept lackeys, so that instead of unassailable false flag they got a mess lasting for four years already.
denk , says: July 10, 2018 at 5:41 pm GMT
How it all began .

2005, as per the Guardian
'Britain's chief diplomat in Malaysia stormed out of a human rights' conference today after the UK and US were condemned as "state terrorists" by the country's retired prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, '

2008
Mahathir accused Soros of attacking the Malaysian currencies.

2011
Tribunal in KL indicted fukus for committing genocides in Iraq.

2013
fukus backed opposition party failed to unseat PM Najib.

2013
Xi JIng Ping received red carpet welcome in KL,
meeting with both Najib and Mahathir.
The trio toasted to a 'new level of Malaysia./sino friendship.'
[This alone is punishable by death in the eyes of the cabal in Washington]

2014
Malaysian sky started raining airliners.

mh370 'disappeared',
mh17 'shot down',
AirAsia QZ8501 crashed,
mh148 engine on fire, near miss.
Helicopter with PM Najib's PA onboard exploded in mid air .

[tip of an iceberg]

From these facts alone,

Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees these are enemy actions.

As for who has the motive to screw
Malaysia/China/Russia all at once .
one stone killing three birds ?

Elementary, Watson !

FB , says: July 10, 2018 at 5:56 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz My internet problems spare you a longer reply. While you seem to have done a bit of homework I think you are trying too hard - not a good look if one doesn't want to appear as a partisan with a dodgy case to make**. For instance it is pretty rich to accuse me of writing of things U know nothing about when you proceed to make errors of both logic and fact on an important isssue.

Yes some airlines were already avoiding the airspace, even above 32,000 feet above Eastern Ukraine. So what? The point was that there were many that were not and that was a reason for not allowing MH17 to fly higher. (There's your logical error nailed in case I need to spell it out).

As to the numbers of airliners flying over that war zone on that day, doesn't the DSB report you cite give the figures? Here is one link where you will find the number for the day was 160!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28357880

If you want to check it also gives a link to the Planefinder site.

** I have no dog in the fight and no case to make because I want it to be true. Consider me as merely thinking up some of the questions counsel might put to his own expert witnesses to make sure they are not going to be shot down under cross examination. For fun :-)

' Consider me as merely thinking up some of the questions counsel might put to his own expert witnesses to make sure they are not going to be shot down under cross examination. For fun '

Sure thing, Perry Mason LOL btw I see you have turned this thread into the 'Wizard Spamfest' nice work

For the sake of the others here I will proceed to dismantle your hot air balloon

Here's what that BBC article you linked to says

' The airspace over eastern Ukraine was busy with commercial flights that day -- 160 planes flew over the region '

Now here is the rest of the story for those who are actually qualified commercial pilots, that sentence is meaningless yes 160 aircraft flew over the Dnipopetrovsk FIR that day a region more than half the size of Germany only a small fraction of which region is the actual conflict area

Here is a look at the airspace of Ukraine, showing the four FIRs that cover the country

Notice the geographic size of the Dnipro FIR [UKDV] comparable to the size of the entire neighboring country of Romania [230,000 square km and which incidentally has one single FIR covering its entire territory]

Notice also the UKDV FIR is subdivided into four sectors only the most eastern one being the area of Donbass, and even this chunk of airspace is much bigger than the Donbass itself here's another map showing the Dnipro FIR and the location of the city of Donetsk

Now here is a look at the Eurocontrol high altitude aeronautical chart for this area notice the dozens of airways criss-crossing it

The dashed green lines demarcate the Dnipro FIR boundary and the small black lines are the airways, which are the ATC 'highways' for aircraft traffic

Here is the area of interest on the same chart but zoomed to see the detail, including the airway designations

The yellow circle highlights the L980 airway designation on the chart, on which MH17 was flying the orange circle is the approximate spot where the aircraft came down here is the illustration from the DSB report, which omits the other airways for simplicity

So we can see that there are literally dozens of airways in use over the eastern Ukraine and this is indeed busy airspace for commercial transport so saying that 160 flights flew over eastern Ukraine that day tells us nothing about how many aircraft flow over this actual route ie airway L980 big difference

Another case of the MSM using selective information to bamboozle a non-technical layman audience and spin a narrative that has nothing to do with anything

Also noteworthy is that MH17 was a daily route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur and its normal route was not on L980, but 200 miles to the south

There are many more technical details here to discuss, including the altitude issue [the Ukrainians had closed the airspace in the region up to 32,000 ft] and I will be glad to explain the technicalities of what is in the DSB report for those that may be interested as this type of document is geared toward aviation professionals and may not be fully understandable to the layman

As for our friend Wizard may I suggest that he stop making a spectacle of himself here

AnonFromTN , says: July 10, 2018 at 6:04 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz "Simple(st) solution"!!! How about a truly simple solution. Russia had done - surely for certain - what America did in Syria and armed anti-government rebels plus supplies some volunteers/mercenaries/regulars on leave and an accident happened?

You seem to have brought a conspiratorial cast of mind to good old straightforward Tennessee. Life is simple. "Cui bono" is the key. The rest is hot air.

FB , says: July 10, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz I couldn't remember where I had seen it so I Googled for "debunked mh17 photo" and came up with a ot of sites including this one

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-this-photo-shows-a-ukraine-mig-29-shot-down-mh17.t5107/

which seems to reproduce what I remember, and

https://www.smh.com.au/world/sensational-russian-photo-of-mh17-being-shot-debunked-by-citizen-journalist-group-20141115-11nbqs.html So that's your 'evidence' to support your earlier statement ?

' the Russian version -- admittedly supported by a badly faked satellite photo -- of a fighter firing a missile at MH17 '

Turns out, from your own citation above that this was not anything that was handed over to the DSB by the Russian govt but the 'satellite photo' was something that ran in Russian media and was supposedly 'debunked' by self-styled expert Eliott Higgins [aka 'Brown Moses], an underwear salesman and blogger who has no technical credentials whatsoever

And just to put this in perspective the very same source you pointed to says the Russian news outlet that ran the story got the sat photo by email from an American individual, one 'George Bilt' not from Russian sats

So the fact of the matter is that the Russian govt never provided any satellite photo the whole thing was a media concoction of no interest to anyone so your representation of this on this thread is clearly false

As for Higgins and Bellingcat we may recall that 'Brown Moses' has called distinguished MIT professor and former scientific adviser to the chief of naval operations at the Pentagon an 'idiot'

also turning down a challenge to actually debate prof Postol

Hmm interesting that self-proclaimed 'expert' Higgins chickens out from an actual debate of course this nitwit knows full well that his BS only works on social media and that he would be dismantled like a cardboard box by a bona fide scientist like Prof Postol

FB , says: July 10, 2018 at 6:55 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz Indeed, after noting the Marxistish approach I wondered how reliable he would be on key facts if tested. It wasn't encouraging to find him writing that the Dutch Safety Board's report could be "conveniently [sic] dismissed". As the critical account of a presentation by him that I shall post below notes he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Dutch Safety Board's technical investigation and report and the Joint Investigation Team's work on the criminal aspects of the case. That is pretty elementary and leaves him looking like someone who could only wave his hands when it is pointed out that the DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named.

He seems to be a retired professor keen to be noticed so his air fares will be paid and his book with a title which also mentions MH17 will sell.

Anyway here is a useful critique slightly truncated from
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/
showing pretty well what a BS artist the author is

What happened to flight MH17?

Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Posted on September 23, 2017 by admin in Uncategorized // 4 Comments

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Kees van der Pijl is a Dutch political scientist who is emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Sussex. At September 19, 2017 he delivered a presentation in Dutch language at Pletterij Debatcafe.

Van der Pijl 's ideas about what happened to MH17 are similar to those of MH17 truther Joost Niemoller and a guy called @HectorReban (not his real name). Both are extreme conspiracy thinkers who all only look at one side of the story. They all forget to mention the many Russian lies. And are to say the least not very good at telling facts.

Kees van der Pijl is one of the people who signed a letter addressed to Donald Trump requesting a new independant investigation. The letter was published at the website of Joost Niemoller.

Others who signed the letter are Karel van Wolferen. I wrote about the nonsense he talked about here. Also former pilot Peter Haisenko signed the letter. My comments on the nonsense by Haisenko here.

A Dutch politician named Thierry Baudet, who also signed the letter, was criticised early September 2017 by Dutch Minister for Foreign affairs Bert Koenders.

Graham Phillips (former RT) and Patrick Lancaster, both pro Russian freelance journalists signed the letter as well.

Van der Pijl was active in a Dutch communistic political party.

Van der Pijl talked about the history of Ukraine, NATO, BRIC countries and MH17.

Van der Pijl states in the beginning of his presentation "I have no idea who downed MH7 in contrary to authorities who state the do"

However during the presentation he mentions he believes Ukraine shot down MH17 with a military jet.

Van Der Pijl then states a crime also needs a motive. Well, in the first minute of his presentation Van der Pijl makes his first mistake. MH17 was likely a mistake. Mistakes happen. The motive is according Van der Pijl "an important factor"

Van der Pijl then relates the shotdown of MH17 to the BRIC countries. He talks about Ukraine which wanted to be closer to the West. And he talks about the extension of NATO. He explains the eastern and southern areas of former Russia were added to Ukraine in around 1922.

Then at 29:00 minutes in the video Van der Pijl states that Ukraine must be seen as main suspect of the downing of MH17 altough he does not know if they indeed did it. They had the means he adds.

Van der Pijl then states Ukraine got a veto right in two investigations. That is nonsense. The Dutch Safety Board did not have any veto. And in the criminal investigation all JIT countries signed a none disclosure agreement. That is different than a veto right.

At 31:34 Van der Pijl states Ukraine immediately had an statement about the shotdown. "only these were three different explanations".

"Poroshenko stated it was an accident. Later he stated it was a terror attack". "A minister for foreign affairs stated it was a missile from Russia handed over to the separatists and the leader of military in Ukraine Andriy Parubiy stated it was a missile launched from Russia".

I have not found anything on internet confirming these statements by Van der Pijl. In fact, Poroshenko at July 17, 2014 stated

"We are not calling it an accident, or a disaster, but an act of terrorism," Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko said. The Ukraine Foreign Ministry says the plane was shot down by a Russian Buk missile.

Around 33:00 questions by the audience are answered.

At 36:00 Van der Pijl says money of foreign companies which flow through the Netherlands for tax avoiding reasons is criminal. "Dutch Minister for Finance should be prosecuted"

At 39:00 he starts to talk about his appearance for the Tweede Kamer commissie for Foreign Affairs. Van der Pijl states himself that was not a very impressive presentation. At that time he missed facts and was intimidated by the members of Parliament. Afterwards he was approached by bloggers active on MH17 (likely Hector Reban). They gave him information and warned him for Russian propaganda.

He then talks about 'tanks with surface to air missile' on it. Even the words 'BUK TELAR' is not a single time used by Van der Pijl in his presentation. Indicating he does not know what he is talking about.

Van der Pijl then states a child aged 11 is able to make a fake video of a telephone call. Van der Pijl then talks about the presence of lithium batteries in the aircraft. Far more than mentioned in the DSB final report. He doubts this is the cause of the accident.

Van der Pijl then calls Joustra, head of DSB, a big mouth.

At 43:36 a conversation starts about Ukraine aircraft using civil aircraft as human shield. Radar recordings of both sides are missing.

Van der Pijl then states civil aircraft were used as a shield. Civil aircraft were flying at 10 km, military are flying much lower. But when they fly at the same speed as civil aircraft and under it, the military jets cannot be detected by radar. Elsevier described this.

This is another complete nonsense. Elsevier never published an article confirming aircraft can hide from radar. Radar is able to detect two different objects.

Van der Pijl states all states failed by not handing over radar data.

He then states that Russia always offered to hand over information but only if Russia would be involved in the investigation.This was refused.

Ofcourse this was refused as Russia is the suspect in the criminal investigation by JIT. And Russia did not offer to hand over all radar data. Why at all should there be an offer? Russia should have handed over all radar data. Just like Ukraine had to do.

Russia was involved in DSB investigation for expertise on radar and BUK systems. Russia did not hand over the requested raw radar data of all radar stations to DSB.

At 47:45 Van der Pijl states that according his feeling MH17 was not downed by a BUK. A BUK would cause the aircraft to explode in the air. He mentions "benzine"(petrol) lines. (not knowing an aircraft has kerosene as fuel). He thinks MH17 was shot down by an aircraft.

Dear Kees. You talk nonsense. Even Russian MOD stated there were no other aircraft near MH17.

He then at around 50:00 states that in his book all shot downs of aircraft by a BUK missile are described. However there are no civil aircraft shot down by a BUK missile except MH17. Only a few cases of shot down of civil aircraft with surface to air missile are known. A Siberia Airlines Tu154 was shot down by a S-200. This post has an overview of damage observered by various weapons.

He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying. That happened to MH17 as well as it made a wierd curve.

He states the book by Joost Niemoller "de doofpot (real name de doofpot deal) is still standing as a house. The book is full of tunnelvision. Dutch review of the book here.

At 54:00 he states the animations by JIT in the september 2016 presentation are cartoons.

At 57:00 someone asks how it is possible media does not report the same findings as Van der Pijl.

Van der Pijl then responds that the official narrative is copied by media. Media cannot backtrack the story. A letter written by Van der Pijl was not published in NRC.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
4 Comments on Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Roman Shein // November 3, 2017 at 5:47 am // Reply
He states when an aircraft is shot down by an air to air missile aircraft can still be flying.
-- This one is true actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:16 pm // Reply
Indeed Roman an aircraft can keep flying after being attacked and struck by an Air-to-Air missile. But that fact itself also demonstrates that MH17 was absolutely not attacked by another aircraft. An Air-to-Air missile would've been fired by an aircraft -- that aircraft would show up on radar. The missile would have struck an engine. Engines on commercial airliners are actually designed to break off and fall away in the event of an impact or detonation some way smaller than an Air-to-Air missiles 3kg warhead. If an engine had landed in Petropavlivka, the western edge of the debris field, it would be a little harder to rule out an air to air attack. But both engines are present at the Hrabove site. I've seen some suggest an Air-to-Air missile might've missed the engine and exploded or some combination of Air-to-Air missile and machine gun/canon fire which, besides being silly, remains exceptionally unlikely that such ordinance would detonate or impact at exactly the spot one would expect a large Surface-to-Air radar guided missile to strike -- AND produce the kind of damage you could expect to see from a 75Kg warhead such as the simultaneous, instantaneous end of both CVR and FDR. That the Russian MoD, being military people who'd know all this, would still raise and promote this hypothesis as feasible is what has had me convinced since Monday July 21st 2014 that they knew more about how that plane ended up a smouldering wreck in Ukraine than they were letting on.

niall // November 7, 2017 at 11:23 pm // Reply
Apologies Marcel -- I actually called in to compliment you on a succinct deconstruction of Mr Van der Pijls nonsense. It is mindboggling that someone with such an illogical, unscientific and unacademic tendency to speculate rather than engage in evidence based enquiry could rise to a position of Professor.

Lena // May 26, 2018 at 5:34 am // Reply
"International relations" is not a science.

Leave a comment

Beantwoording brieven aan kabinet over MH17
Ukraine deputy minister "JIT evidence is enough to prosecute Russian military leaders for downing of MH17"
MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Kremlin lies on Syria are just as notorious as its lies on MH17

Recent Comments
Roman Shein on MH17 four years later. What do we know?
Roman Shein on Nederlandse MH17-missie bespioneerd door Oekraïne
Басар on Eight issues with the "fake photo " claim of Max van der Werff
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
vam on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Joerg Heinrich on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Slozhny on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
admin on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
sotilaspassi on Russian lies part 133: "we do not use BUK missiles produced in 1986".
Archives
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018 This is what 'Wizbang' says about the author of this article, who happens to be a respected professor from a respected university

' showing pretty well what a BS artist the author is

Reminds one of underwear salesman Eliott Higgins calling Prof Ted Postol an 'idiot' talk about chutzpah

Oh and 'Wizbang' says he doesn't have a 'dog in this fight' yet he is foaming at the mouth all over this thread pretty pathetic

annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@anon

As I said above, who did it and how remains obscure, although there are several pursued by people familiar with local circumstances, or revealed by insiders who know who which military assets were operating that day -- but all that remains inconclusive.
This article is supposed to be about why the airliner was shot down, and this confused garble is all the author has to say about the crucial event?

1. If the evidence supports the claim that the Russians did it, then that is important and the author should discuss that in detail.

2. If the evidence tends to show that Urkaine or the U.S. did it, then that is important and the author should discuss that in detail.

3. If the evidence is indeed inconclusive, then that is important and the author should discuss the evidence in detail to show that it is inconclusive.

The facts matter, but not to this writer. "If the evidence is indeed inconclusive, then that is important and the author should discuss the evidence in detail to show that it is inconclusive."
-- let's try to explain you, anon [115], the gist of the article.
The author wrote: "Since the F-16 that shot down the Russian jet was part of a pro-NATO unit based at Inçirlik airbase that took part in the coup attempt, the incident over Syria would appear to fit in a framework that may also have decided the fate of Flight MH17: a provocation to throw relations with Russia into disarray, but we don't know for sure."
The author gives the governments of the US, Denmark, Ukraine, Australia, and Belgium the benefits of doubt. This is despite the outrages lies by the US and EU, lies that have resulted in the mass slaughter in the Middle East, in the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, and in the flooding of the EU with the desperate refugees from the bombed-out Middle East and with opportunistic low-IQ migrants from sub-Saharan Africa.
To understand what is going on on the eastern front, you need to familiarize yourself with this article (here on Unz Review): http://www.unz.com/article/correctly-defining-modern-zionism/
'"All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths." -the Kol Nidrei.
This uncontestable quote provides the necessary context for the wild and vicious propaganda against the Russain Federation by the zionized criminals that have no dignity and no principles. The zionized US/EU has been following this approach -- "Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths" -- to international law and the judicial system at large.
The US/NATO have destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Serbia and more just during the last few decades. Ukraine is currently under a strain of disintegration.
The stupidity of the UK government with regard to Skripal affair illustrates the complete irrelevance of facts for the zionized deciders.
The Sec of State John Kerry claimed that the US had an irrefutable evidence (satellite imgaes) of Russian guilt. Where is the evidence?
Why Ukrainians are among the judges if some of the evidence points towards the possible criminal acts of Ukrainians?
Why has an expert in selling the ladies' underwear (E. Higgins of Bellingcat) become a principal judge and investigator re the MH17 tragedy as well as the events in Syria? The Atlantic Council and Department of War Studies at King's College London admire the ignoramus for his bold Russophobic statements, even if the highly-valued professionals and true experts have debunked the idiotic tales by Higgins.
If you want to learn more about the technical details of the tragedy, you should look for the report by the professionals on the web. Up to date, the US has been refusing to provide the satellite images over Ukraine obtained at the time of MH17 tragedy.
And please, pay attention to the important details mentioned in the article, " the F-16 that shot down the Russian jet was part of a pro-NATO unit based at Inçirlik airbase "

FB , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:15 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz Nothing to do with radar. I'm sorry if you think I should be talking about something you want me to be talking about instead of what I was actually talking about.

It's past history but one of the Russian contributions early on to obfuscation was apparently to produce a really dumb fake photo which purported to show a fighter firing a missile at an airliner from in front. Nothing more perhaps than what dumb amateur enthusiasts might try to foist on to this UR site in aid of their team. And my point, which you don't seem to have noticed, was that at least this Russian version didn't have anything to do with canons or machine guns that some obfuscators have been throwing into the pot.

Let me take this opportunity to try our some simple propositions with at least some cumulative relevance.

1. The guilty, whether of crime or embarrassing error, are likely to lie

2. A quick defensive lie about an embarrassing accident after the US and EU have jumped down one's throat is more likely than an elaborate set of lies about a complicated false flag operation. OK not very weighty unless combined with

3. The likelihood of Russia providing a BUK to the rebels whose towns had been bombed is as likely as the US providing Kurds and other as anti-Assad forces in Syria with serious weapons - in short a virtual certainty with equal disregard to legality.

4. Just added in... It is clear from the widely separated plane parts that MH17 came apart with the cockpit coming away from the wings and fuselage as a result of the initial blast. Not consistent with canon or machine gun bullets is it?

So what's the problem about at least accepting that the simplest answer is the most probable?

I see that the word of the Russian designer of the BUK about what sort of missile could have been fired by this or that BUK model is for some reason taken as weighty. Unless he was cross-examined while living outside Russia that seems naive. A reference to a Kiev research institute as "political" is also naive too as disclosing partisanship. And it ignores the likelihood that the DSB was not just relying on such a body as authoritative but has been able to discuss its contribution in depth as was its duty.

FWIW I recall reading somewhere that the Russians had taken the trouble to ensure that the BUK missile launcher and missiles they provided were the same as those the Ukrainians had. I don't know whether that has any legs.

' Nothing to do with radar '

Sorry kid like I said the ONLY official claim [ie from the Russian govt, not from any third parties] regarding a second plane in the sky at the time of the incident is the radar data I mentioned

This radar data was handed over to the Dutch, but has been declared by the JIT as 'not usable' due to formatting issues, exactly as I said here is a Dutch news report from 2017

And the google translation from the Dutch

' Kiev -- Radar records transmitted by Russia have not helped Dutch investigators investigate the launch of a Malaysian passenger plane over eastern Ukraine.

The data was delivered in October in a format that deviated from international standards, said a prosecutor spokesman on Saturday in Amsterdam.

"More information is needed to understand the importance of radar images," he says.

Russia had handed over the data -- shortly after the publication of a report in September 2016, in which Dutch Special Investigators had blamed Moscow for the downing of Malaysia Airlines' MH17 flight '

I think this pretty much drives home the last nail in your coffin of BS and obfuscation

annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT
@mcohen Shooting down a Malaysian passenger jet over the ukraine with a Russian missile = bringing down a russisn passenger jet over the egyptian sinai.
THEREFORE : x=y

both are true.

is this you, Mr. Elliot Higgins?
skrik , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz I couldn't remember where I had seen it so I Googled for "debunked mh17 photo" and came up with a ot of sites including this one

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-this-photo-shows-a-ukraine-mig-29-shot-down-mh17.t5107/

which seems to reproduce what I remember, and

https://www.smh.com.au/world/sensational-russian-photo-of-mh17-being-shot-debunked-by-citizen-journalist-group-20141115-11nbqs.html Do you really fancy your chances of raising your credibility above 0°K [= absolute zero] by citing smh citing bellingcat? For any who don't know, smh is a shonky 2nd-string Aus branch of the MSM-Lügenpresse, and belling cat is a rogue-regime empire psyop.

Haw. In fact, guffaw. What a disgrace.

annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:37 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack The only thing 'insulting' is your attempt to try to cast aspersion on the objectively verifiable 'historic term' little green men':

On 17 April, President Putin admitted for the first time publicly that Russian special forces were involved in the events of Crimea, for the purposes of protecting local people and creating conditions for a referendum...In April 2015, retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov (Игорь Касатонов (ru)) said that the "little green men" were members of Russian Spetsnaz special forces units. According to his information, Russian troop deployment in Crimea included six helicopter landings and three landings of Ilyushin Il-76 with 500 people.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Ukrainian_crisis)

I have a problem with the author's sentiments that Ukraine was interested in drawing Russia into the conflict directly. Where's his proof for such a ridiculous statement?

Playing a little boy? Could you imagine for a sec that the lease for Russia's Black Sea Fleet had stipulated the presence of Russian military personnel in Crimea? No?: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/ukraine-black-sea-fleet-russia
It is also terribly inconvenient for you that there were several referenda before the ziocon/banderite putsch in Kiev, which showed unequivocally that Crimeans wanted to have a greater independence from Kiev: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014
UNDP in Crimea conducted series of polls about possible referendum on joining Russia with a sample size of 1200:
Yes No Undecided
2009 67% 1 5% 18%
2010 66% 9% 25%
2011 66% 14 % 20%
Final results from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (2014)
Join the Russian Federation: 1,233,002
Restore the 1992 constitution and remain as a part of Ukraine: 31,997
annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Unless one were to argue that Putin is indeed mad, there's nothing in this tragedy that would point a finger at the Russians. It's either some other player or players involved, or an accident, a mistake, an error of judgement on the part of the warring combatants rather than a deliberate act of murder.
Nobody familiar with the situation thinks that Putin or anybody higher up ordered the tragic downing of the airliner. Neither did any Ukrainian higher ups. It is what it looked like originally. A misstep by some gung ho Russian backed separatists. There was even gloating by some of these unfortunate 'heroes' on internet social media taking credit for the downing of a Ukrainian transport plane. Sorry, but this author needs to rewrite this fantastical piece of pro-Russian false flag conspiracy mythology. Since when the Israeli citizen Kolomojsky is a" gung ho Russian backed separatist?"

http://redpilltimes.com/leaked-email-by-dutch-diplomat-on-mh17-says-separatists-do-not-have-ability-to-take-down-a-plane-kolomoisky-being-set-up-for-fall/

https://nodisinfo.com/hacked-emails-prove-zionist-ihor-kolomoiskly-mh17/

https://southfrontdutch.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/de-man-achter-mh17-ihor-kolomoyskyi/

annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz OMG I should have been saluting. You represent here "the highest sources from the Russian Federation".

I have answered this above. You mean, the facts are irrelevant because they are "ethnically impure" (came from a Russain manufacturer? This certainly settles the case.

annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 7:59 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz Nothing to do with radar. I'm sorry if you think I should be talking about something you want me to be talking about instead of what I was actually talking about.

It's past history but one of the Russian contributions early on to obfuscation was apparently to produce a really dumb fake photo which purported to show a fighter firing a missile at an airliner from in front. Nothing more perhaps than what dumb amateur enthusiasts might try to foist on to this UR site in aid of their team. And my point, which you don't seem to have noticed, was that at least this Russian version didn't have anything to do with canons or machine guns that some obfuscators have been throwing into the pot.

Let me take this opportunity to try our some simple propositions with at least some cumulative relevance.

1. The guilty, whether of crime or embarrassing error, are likely to lie

2. A quick defensive lie about an embarrassing accident after the US and EU have jumped down one's throat is more likely than an elaborate set of lies about a complicated false flag operation. OK not very weighty unless combined with

3. The likelihood of Russia providing a BUK to the rebels whose towns had been bombed is as likely as the US providing Kurds and other as anti-Assad forces in Syria with serious weapons - in short a virtual certainty with equal disregard to legality.

4. Just added in... It is clear from the widely separated plane parts that MH17 came apart with the cockpit coming away from the wings and fuselage as a result of the initial blast. Not consistent with canon or machine gun bullets is it?

So what's the problem about at least accepting that the simplest answer is the most probable?

I see that the word of the Russian designer of the BUK about what sort of missile could have been fired by this or that BUK model is for some reason taken as weighty. Unless he was cross-examined while living outside Russia that seems naive. A reference to a Kiev research institute as "political" is also naive too as disclosing partisanship. And it ignores the likelihood that the DSB was not just relying on such a body as authoritative but has been able to discuss its contribution in depth as was its duty.

FWIW I recall reading somewhere that the Russians had taken the trouble to ensure that the BUK missile launcher and missiles they provided were the same as those the Ukrainians had. I don't know whether that has any legs.

Amazing. The Unz review has a twin of Elliot Higgins among the discussants. Though the twin (WoO) is able to do a more nuanced propaganda than the hapless "expert" from Atlantic Council.
Rurik , says: July 10, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT

petitio principii fallacy?

hey lizard,

are you suggesting that Putin benefited by the MH17 ploy?

or,

are you suggesting that the ZUS putsch to install an overtly anti-Russian regime in Kyiv was a cynical act of the Fiend to punish Putin for meddling in their scheme to destroy seven nations in the greater Levant- that Israel considers inconvenient to its expansion?

And so once Putin set about restoring sanity to the region; MH17 and assorted lies about 'assassinated journalists' and persecuted Pussy riot girls and ethnic Russians in Donbas being murdered by the zio-quislings in Kyiv, etc., were all part of the Fiend throwing a temper tantrum.

Yes? No?

AnonFromTN , says: July 10, 2018 at 9:16 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz You seem to be clever enough when you try hard... Do you understand why I say your use of "cui bono" is an instance of the petitio principii fallacy? The US propaganda machine is remiss, it does not teach trolls posing as intelligent people proper Latin. The fallacy of petitio principii describes the position of the State Department and the US in general best: no investigation was necessary, the guilty were appointed even before the debris of MH17 cooled down. Try again.
FB , says: July 10, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz So you are a commercial pilot? Perhaps for you the formidable amount of technical expertise you have crammed in your brain has left too little room for elementary logic.

If the argument (to draw your attention back to it) is that there is something suspicious in air traffic control denying the pilots of MH17 the right to fly at 34 or35,000 feet instead of 33,000 then the presence of 160 aircraft on that day is clearly capable (unless Planefunder can give you precise data to allow disproof) of producing circumstances where at a particular time air traffic control found it imprudent to allow MH17 to fly at a more economically optimal level - or air traffic control might have been bloody minded or lazy. (How about trying to deter pilots from even asking? Imagine "I wish these greedy bastards would stop trying to chisel another bloody thousand feet out of us".Yep, imagination may be lacking as well as logic).

If the argument is just about flying over Eastern Ukraine at all then it is apparent that only about 6 or 7 airlines had stopped doing so - or is the commercial pilot going to tell us in detail how that is wrong?

' If the argument (to draw your attention back to it) is that there is something suspicious in air traffic control denying the pilots of MH17 the right to fly at 34 or 35,000 feet instead of 33,000 '

You have that completely backwards it was ATC that requested MH17 to climb to FL350 [35,000 ft] as per the flight plan filed by the MH17 crew before taking off

The ATC request was denied by the MH17 crew which chose to continue at FL330 the reason for this was discussed in the DSB report [sec 3.3.2]

The reason the crew chose to stay at this cruise altitude was explained to the DSB by Malaysian that 33,800 ft was the optimal altitude for the given conditions, per the Boeing performance handbook this is due to the fact that optimal altitude varies with atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure, winds aloft etc often the weather predictions at the time of filing the flight plan change by the time you get there

There is nothing unusual about any of this ATC was simply directing the crew to go to the altitude it had filed in its plan the crew chose to remain where they were and ATC did not deny that clearance, nor did it question it further so it has nothing to do with any possible traffic conflicts as you seem to allude

[hard to actually tell what it is you are saying, but you seem to imply that there was all kinds of traffic there and that this whole altitude business had to do with that...completely wrong]

Also the DSB interviewed 16 operators, eight of which stopped flying over eastern Ukraine not 'six or seven'

FKA Max , says: • Website July 10, 2018 at 9:49 pm GMT
@skrik

I don't know how credible and authentic the following footage is, but it seems very convincing to me, especially the last investigation from Australia:
If you are at all amenable to suggestions, try this one: Get a grip. Putting any 'faith' in bellingcat/Aus-60mins rubbish is exactly the same as 'getting religion;' you are setting out to believe in scurrilous allegations based on zero [reputable, verifiable = substantiable] facts. IF the empire had such a reputable, verifiable = substantiable 'smoking gun' THEN we'd all have seen it and the silly, *criminal* MH17 kerfuffle would have been stopped by that smoking gun.

This all happened a long time ago now, and 'back then' it was well-examined in the 'alternative media' = blogs, try this from here :


PeterS
October 26, 2014 at 7:26 pm
The problem with any captured BUK is that it must be stolen even with the commander. Because the sharp/fire shot from BUK is unable, if there is not workoing part "Я Ñвой ÑамоÐ"ет" JSS, identification of friend -- enemy plane. Codes are changing every few days and only BUK, witch is going in combat operation get this codes (only commander knows the codes). The crew without codes (working identification part) can only scan and aim, but not shot.
Ukrainian air defense has disabled sharp/fire shooting since they shot down the Tupolev Tu 154M in 2001. The commander also on training shots is banned to issue codes. That was the question on the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment of the Ukrainian Air Force, if they accidentaly had not erred.
About BUK captured from any base, Ukrainians claimed that they have everything under control and on base remained only disfunction machines. I only saw pictures of separatists with charging vehicle, not with the vehicle TELAR.
Any claim about shooting needs also explanation about codes .
Note the bold bits in the quote: IF that commenter is correct THEN who provided the " shot " code? Note that the Q is applicable to any/all BUKs, either in or out of Ukie or 'rebel' control, and the next Q is: What Russian idiot would hand the empire the gun to be used to against him/herself? Cui bono requires a reasonable response.

As I say, get a grip. We - those with properly functioning intellects - know which components on the world stage are capable of such horrendous, wicked atrocities as the MH17 shoot-down, here is some alphabet-soup: FUKUSIL+Ukr; feel free to select any/all letters which fit. rgds Fake news from the BND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Intelligence_Service_(Germany) , so your entire theory falls apart, in my opinion. I am pretty sure the BUK system/launcher came from Russia including commander, codes etc.:

Ukraine asks German agency for clarification on flight MH17 findings

Similarly, Ukraine's Ministry of Defense in an official statement posted on its website, October 20, has categorically denied claims that terrorists had seized the BUK-M1 (NATO code: SA-11 Gadfly) anti-aircraft missile system from a Ukrainian military unit.

"Certain media citing the German magazine Der Spiegel have been disseminating information that the Malaysian passenger plane, flight MH17 , flying over the Donetsk Oblast had been downed by a BUK anti-aircraft missile system seized by pro-Russian separatists from one of the Ukrainian military units. The Command of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine officially states that information on the seizure by terrorists of the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system from a military unit of the Air Force of Ukraine is not true ," the Ministry's statement said.
[...]
"At the time when the terrorist entered the territory of the military administration, there remained only old and unusable vehicles," the Defense Ministry stated.
[...]
Ukraine's position finds some backing in a report posted on the website of the Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence (CESI), October 22. According to the CESI report, the information presented by German Intelligence at the closed hearing differed markedly from information that was released publicly. Most notably, all information that the BUK-M1 (SA-11) system had crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border had been removed from the original document.

-- http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/22/ukraine-asks-german-agency-for-clarification-on-flight-mh17-findings/

I just wrote a comment on the reliability of Der Spiegel reporting, that might be of interest to you:

All this leads me to the conclusion and reinforces my previous perception that the Der Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html might not be entirely reliable due to its heavy reliance on anti-American, pro-Assad/Iran/Russia BB sources, which likely dis-/misinformed the Der Spiegel reporters about the true extent of Russian involvement and causalities in the incident
[...]
Der Spiegel is also a center-left publication https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/ which are in general less critical of Russia and most of the time even sympathetic towards it (not a bad thing, at all), and it also has had business connections to pro-Russian media in the past, and therefore might not be considered completely unbiased and objective when it comes to Russia reporting

-- http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2408166

annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 9:53 pm GMT
@Anon OMG. Who do you expect to read all that tendentious, highly contestable (if anyone bothered), partisan guff? "tendentious, highly contestable, partisan "
Well, anon [180], could you elaborate on what exactly was "highly contestable" and "partisan?"
1. Are you ready to refute that the US/NATO are guilty of the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East and the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine? -- Try!
2. What is "highly contestable" and "partisan" about this quote? -- "All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths." -the Kol Nidrei. The the Kol Nidrei "was not originally a prayer, but a declaration offered during Rosh Hashana, the start of the Jewish new year. In "modern" Judaism it is now being delivered as a prayer and has so grown in prominence during the last sixty years that it is now delivered at the commencement of Judaism's holiest yearly event of Passover."
3. Do you have some new information on the Skripal affair, which can explain the workings of the most deadly nerve agents within the time frame on which the UK government foolishly insists?
4. The Sec of State John Kerry claimed that the US had an irrefutable evidence (satellite images) of Russian guilt. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/21/kerry-pressed-for-mh-17-evidence/&#8211 ; What is "highly contestable" and "partisan" about the US refusal to provide the evidence?
5. What is "highly contestable" and "partisan" about naming Elliot Higgins an ignoramus and Russophobe? http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/06/medias-beloved-expert-higgins-wrong-again-and-again-and-again.html
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/02/06/a-to-guide-top-anti-russia-think-tanks-us-funds/ -- You are welcome to enlighten the reader.
JerseyJeffersonian , says: July 10, 2018 at 9:59 pm GMT
@Rurik there is zero doubt that Ukraine shot the plane down, because there's *obvious* evidence of machine gun bullet holes aimed directly at the cockpit, not to mention tones of other evidence (or lack of, like the missing BUK missile trail)

https://mh17scenario5.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/buk-launch.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms3iDoiWqy4

what's amazing about all of this is the ability of the Fiend to cover all the evidence up, and include the main suspect: Ukraine - in the "investigation" with veto authority over any conclusions.

When you control a country's central bank, and therefor its access to credit, you control the government (and media and institutions) in absolute terms.

The quislings in Kyiv are corrupt and treasonous agents of the Zio-Fiend and nothing more.

Ironic that they're a bunch of neo-Nazis taking orders from Jewish banksters.

I'll bet that those Jewish banksters get a real kick out of using a bunch of neo-Nazis as pawns to advance their plans. A special frisson.
JerseyJeffersonian , says: July 10, 2018 at 10:01 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty He's the intellectual equivalent of a colostomy bag. Heh.

But actually, I think the contents of the colostomy bag is in the running.

Rurik , says: July 10, 2018 at 10:22 pm GMT

Jewish banksters get a real kick out of using a bunch of neo-Nazis as pawns

no doubt

somewhere else here there was a discussion about how the Zionists are upset with the Germans for being too passive, (after generations of being demonized as congenitally militant).. but now they want the Germans to get riled to go kill Arabs for them.

Neo-Nazis killing Russians in Ukraine must certainly give them a 'special frisson' like no other.

now how to get American goyim to kill Arabs and Persians to kill American goyim and Germans to kill Arabs and Poles to kill Russians and English to kill Persians and Sunnis to kill Shias and Americans to kill Sunnis and Shias and

no wonder they were dancing and high-fiving each other on 9/11

Wizard of Oz , says: July 10, 2018 at 10:29 pm GMT
@FB

'...If the argument (to draw your attention back to it) is that there is something suspicious in air traffic control denying the pilots of MH17 the right to fly at 34 or 35,000 feet instead of 33,000...'
You have that completely backwards...it was ATC that requested MH17 to climb to FL350 [35,000 ft] as per the flight plan filed by the MH17 crew before taking off...

The ATC request was denied by the MH17 crew which chose to continue at FL330...the reason for this was discussed in the DSB report [sec 3.3.2]...

The reason the crew chose to stay at this cruise altitude was explained to the DSB by Malaysian... that 33,800 ft was the optimal altitude for the given conditions, per the Boeing performance handbook...this is due to the fact that optimal altitude varies with atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure, winds aloft etc...often the weather predictions at the time of filing the flight plan change by the time you get there...

There is nothing unusual about any of this...ATC was simply directing the crew to go to the altitude it had filed in its plan...the crew chose to remain where they were and ATC did not deny that clearance, nor did it question it further...so it has nothing to do with any possible traffic conflicts as you seem to allude...

[hard to actually tell what it is you are saying, but you seem to imply that there was all kinds of traffic there and that this whole altitude business had to do with that...completely wrong]...

Also the DSB interviewed 16 operators, eight of which stopped flying over eastern Ukraine...not 'six or seven'...

So you enjoy beating up a scrap over trivia with lots of words when there is no useful point to be advanced.
Wizard of Oz , says: July 10, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN The US propaganda machine is remiss, it does not teach trolls posing as intelligent people proper Latin. The fallacy of petitio principii describes the position of the State Department and the US in general best: no investigation was necessary, the guilty were appointed even before the debris of MH17 cooled down. Try again. You don't know the "intelligent people's" meaning of fallacy: res ipsa loquitur.
annamaria , says: July 10, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
@FKA Max Fake news from the BND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Intelligence_Service_(Germany) , so your entire theory falls apart, in my opinion. I am pretty sure the BUK system/launcher came from Russia including commander, codes etc.:

Ukraine asks German agency for clarification on flight MH17 findings

Similarly, Ukraine's Ministry of Defense in an official statement posted on its website, October 20, has categorically denied claims that terrorists had seized the BUK-M1 (NATO code: SA-11 Gadfly) anti-aircraft missile system from a Ukrainian military unit.

"Certain media citing the German magazine Der Spiegel have been disseminating information that the Malaysian passenger plane, flight MH17 , flying over the Donetsk Oblast had been downed by a BUK anti-aircraft missile system seized by pro-Russian separatists from one of the Ukrainian military units. The Command of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine officially states that information on the seizure by terrorists of the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system from a military unit of the Air Force of Ukraine is not true ," the Ministry's statement said.
[...]
"At the time when the terrorist entered the territory of the military administration, there remained only old and unusable vehicles," the Defense Ministry stated.
[...]
Ukraine's position finds some backing in a report posted on the website of the Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence (CESI), October 22. According to the CESI report, the information presented by German Intelligence at the closed hearing differed markedly from information that was released publicly. Most notably, all information that the BUK-M1 (SA-11) system had crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border had been removed from the original document.

- http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/22/ukraine-asks-german-agency-for-clarification-on-flight-mh17-findings/

I just wrote a comment on the reliability of Der Spiegel reporting, that might be of interest to you:


All this leads me to the conclusion and reinforces my previous perception that the Der Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html might not be entirely reliable due to its heavy reliance on anti-American, pro-Assad/Iran/Russia BB sources, which likely dis-/misinformed the Der Spiegel reporters about the true extent of Russian involvement and causalities in the incident
[...]
Der Spiegel is also a center-left publication https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/ which are in general less critical of Russia and most of the time even sympathetic towards it (not a bad thing, at all), and it also has had business connections to pro-Russian media in the past, and therefore might not be considered completely unbiased and objective when it comes to Russia reporting
- http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2408166 "I am pretty sure the BUK system/launcher came from Russia including commander, codes etc"
Sure. Mr. Higgins is also pretty sure that BUK system/launcher came from Russia including commander, codes etc. All because of his incomparable expertise.
Here is an opinion of the highly competent and highly principled Robert Perry: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bellingcat
"Bellingcat is an amateur run, supposedly independent, source of image analyses on controversial images. Its operator, Eliot Higgins has been praised by The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian. However, Robert Parry termed Bellingcat's analysis of satellite photos related to the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 an " amateurish [and] anti-Russian fraud ." Another commentator claimed that Higgins "has constantly been a source of dis/misinformation on Syria and Ukraine.
More for FKA Max: "Higgins had stumbled into a potentially profitable (in terms of media exposure and possibly pledged funding) publishing venture. His output has been nothing if not consistent, viz: Consistent with what one would expect from promoters of the Anglo-US-NATO Official Narratives of geo-politics and the War on Terror, but done in a slipshod and blatantly partisan fashion that those who quote him (the Commercially-controlled media) are wary of claiming their own "
Enjoy the company: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/06/medias-beloved-expert-higgins-wrong-again-and-again-and-again.html
"Higgins gave up his lucrative career as a payments officer at a women's underwear company to create Bellingcat, a celebrated internet blog that specializes in using open-source information to blame Russia for every crime against humanity -- real or imagined -- committed so far this century." https://www.sott.net/article/388086-NATO-stooge-and-vulgar-twat-Eliot-Higgins-has-go-to-message-for-critics-Suck-my-balls
denk , says: July 11, 2018 at 1:58 am GMT
Why was mh17 shot down ?

To demonise Russia.

Why was mh370 'disappeared' ?

Following the 'disappearance' of mh370, there were spades of kidnappings of Chinese tourists by the Abu Sayaff gang. [1]

PM Najib wondered out aloud .
' Somebody is out to drive a wedge between Malaysia/China'

That was my first thought when hearing a Malaysian airliner had 'disappeared' with 200+ Chinese nationals onboard .

Before mh370

After .

Malaysians go online to fight Chinese criticism over MH370

https://www.todayonline.com/world/malaysians-go-online-fight-chinese-criticism-over-mh370

Missing MH370: China, Malaysia Mistrust Becomes War of Words

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-mh370-china-malaysia-mistrust-becomes-war-words-n61481

Malaysia Airlines MH370: China's unusual anger and finger-pointing

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh370-china-s-unusual-anger-and-finger-pointing-1.2587969

minister-blames-chinese-media-for-mh370-families-anger

http://www.thatsmags.com/china/post/4057/malaysia-minister-blames-chinese-media-for-mh370-families-anger

In MH370, upset Malaysian officials see China ploy to divert anger

https://www.malaymail.com/s/646263/in-mh370-upset-malaysian-officials-see-china-ploy-to-divert-anger

MH 370: The deterioration of Malaysia/China relations

http://mole.my/mh-370-the-deterioration-of-malaysiachina-relations/

Tip of an iceberg.

cui bono ???

[1]
Long known to be CIA patsies

http://socialistworker.org/2002-1/388/388_04_Philipinnes.shtml

NoseytheDuke , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:35 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz I too have worked on military projects but, unlike you, I don't expect to have my expertise accepted because I say I have learned things from the Internet that I can't even specify and lay open for critical appraisal. No doubt you were called in on a military project that was attempting to bore people to death, but the project was later abandoned after the resulting deaths proved to be unduly slow and painful.
NoseytheDuke , says: July 11, 2018 at 3:03 am GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty Pot, meet kettle. Asshole. That's not really fair. FB quite clearly is very knowledgable on matters of aviation and aerospace and has written lengthy informative comments that have been praised by many readers whilst the Wiz is seen by most readers here as being on the same low level as Quartermaster, Michael Kenny and such like, having zero credibility and an obvious purpose here to confuse and obfuscate.
AnonFromTN , says: July 11, 2018 at 3:08 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz You don't know the "intelligent people's" meaning of fallacy: res ipsa loquitur. Arguing with a troll makes as much sense as a heart-to-heart conversation with a lamppost. Even discussing such an apolitical subject as Latin. Ciao.
Den Lille Abe , says: July 11, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
This site has a marvelous history publish even the insane comments, but credibly enough also many well founded and reasonable ones. The worst comments imo are those from revisionists, flat earthers and neo nazis.
On this article, I think it matters most to just ask: Qui bono; who benefited?
Major players on the world arena do stupid things, but there is always an agenda. And thing do not happen by chance, nothing ever did, history has proven that. Minor players have to be satisfied with the agenda presented to them by their overlords.
In this "peculiar incident" a airliner what downed in some way. Both Major players have been "peculiar" reluctant to pursue the case (In copmparison to their usual MO), Russian maybe a bit more openly rejecting the responsibility.
The minor vassal states hollering their masters script as usual. But who benefited ? Well the Ukrainians did initially benefit, but squandered everything away, a corrupt kleptocrat oligarchy as it is, so their final gains are worth nil, as neither IMF, NATO, EU and the US sees them as a "partner anymore, just as a basketcase of open thievery.
What is interesting are the Russian/US claims of satelite imagery, radio tapes, ect,ect that they have not published, any of them .. Hmmmmmmn They agreed to this , but why ?
Because one Dirty hand holds another, they are probably blackmailing each other, with stuff too sensitive to the public.
I have not got the fantasy, to think that the Russians did it or that they gave that kind of weaponry to a bunch of not adequately trained rebels. My fingers are pointed at Ukraine, I figure the reason the Russians dont pursue this line of thinking is that they do not wish, a total ciwil war on their borders (violent break up of Ukraine), nobody else wants it, and that is why we are going nowhere.
Den Lille Abe , says: July 11, 2018 at 12:17 pm GMT
And please, please! Anything Eliot Higgins has endorsed is false! Anything NATO funds is hardly non partisan or impartial, same goes Syrian watch thing in London cellar, who knows all!!
These guys have discredited citizen journalism incredibly, they are indeed tools of the Evil Empire.
annamaria , says: July 11, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT
@FKA Max

Higgins gave up his lucrative career as a payments officer at a women's underwear company to create Bellingcat
This seems to be highly important and relevant information to be aware of to be able to solve the MH-17 case ;-)

Signs of the Times (Sott.net) is an alternative news website, originally founded on March 26, 2002 by Laura Knight-Jadczyk.

- https://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Signs_of_the_Times

annamaria ,

Do you also believe this article from sott.net ?

Aliens Don't Like to Eat People That Smoke!

Signs of the Times


But still, we think that there is MORE to the relationship between anti-smoking campaigns and alleged "aliens" - something sinister. The reader may wish to read our page on Diet and Health Related Questions as well as the Wave series by Laura Knight-Jadczyk from which the following has been extracted
[...]
Now, ... did you notice that it says that "animals use similar substances [acetylcholine antagonists or ANTI-nicotine] to paralyze their prey? We have to wonder about the oft reported conditions of paralysis associated with "alien interactions" and the almost rabid attack on smoking in our society.
- http://www.sott.net/signs/anti-anti-smoking.htm Archived link : http://archive.is/c9JIX

Q&A with Laura Knight-Jadczyk -- Skepticism in Research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBiUjiyddY

Good information here: https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/mh17/

MH17 -- Russian GRU Commander 'Orion' Identified as Oleg Ivannikov

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/05/25/mh17-russian-gru-commander-orion-identified-oleg-ivannikov/

Thanks again, annamaria , for introducing me to all this new information and all these new sources and resources: http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2401541

I highly appreciate it, even if we don't agree on the narrative and conclusions, etc.

Never heard about FKA Max, but have a great respect for the late Robert Parry: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/30/the-berkeley-tribute-to-robert-parry/
"Bellingcat is an amateur run, supposedly independent, source of image analyses on controversial images. Its operator, Eliot Higgins has been praised by The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian. However, Robert Parry termed Bellingcat's analysis of satellite photos related to the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 an "amateurish [and] anti-Russian fraud." Another commentator claimed that Higgins "has constantly been a source of dis/misinformation on Syria and Ukraine." " https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bellingcat
I have a great respect for Unz Review and Consortiumnews but a zero respect for the thoroughly zionized Atlantic Council that employs Higgins as "expert" -- along with another "expert," the fraudster Dm. Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame: https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/crowdstrikes-alperovitch-is-a-vicious-fraud/

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/06/exposing-the-russian-hacking-fraud-by-publius-tacitus.html

FKA Max, stay with your beloved Belligcat and Atlantic Council -- the Unz Review forum is obviously too traumatic for you.

annamaria , says: July 11, 2018 at 12:38 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack This is ' probably' a bunch of junky Russian laced fake news:

These posts probably contain the correct scenario of what really happened.
:-) "Secret US 2006 Government Document Reveals Plan to Destabilize Syria by Using Extremists, Muslim Brotherhood, Elections:"

https://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-us-2006-government-document-reveals-plan-to-destabilize-syria-by-using-extremists-muslim-brotherhood-elections/5647017

"American officials say the U.S. government has had extensive contacts with a range of anti-Assad groups in Washington, Europe and inside Syria. To give momentum to that opposition, the U.S. is giving serious consideration to the election-monitoring scheme proposed in the document, according to several officials. The proposal has not yet been approved, in part because of questions over whether the Syrian elections will be delayed or even cancelled. But one U.S. official familiar with the proposal said: "You are forced to wonder whether we are now trying to destabilize the Syrian government."
Some critics in Congress and the Administration say that such a plan, meant to secretly influence a foreign government, should be legally deemed a "covert action," which by law would then require that the White House inform the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill. Some in Congress would undoubtedly raise objections to this secret use of publicly appropriated funds to promote democracy."
-- Who needs democracy in the US when the "only democracy in the ME" has a flaming desire to break the functioning Middle Eastern states?
"Neoconservative [ziocon] Think Tank Influence on US Policies:" http://historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_prominent_neoconservatives

annamaria , says: July 11, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack This is ' probably' a bunch of junky Russian laced fake news:

These posts probably contain the correct scenario of what really happened.
:-) If you insist, Mr. Hack, there are some Western reports on the collusion of ziocons with banderites (neonazis):
"The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/
Ziocons' tireless support for the revival of neo-nazism in Ukraine: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/14/fueling-more-bloodshed-in-ukraine/
"Is the U.S. Backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine?" https://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine
You are welcome to debunk these reports.
skrik , says: July 11, 2018 at 1:02 pm GMT
@FKA Max Fake news from the BND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Intelligence_Service_(Germany) , so your entire theory falls apart, in my opinion. I am pretty sure the BUK system/launcher came from Russia including commander, codes etc.:

Ukraine asks German agency for clarification on flight MH17 findings

Similarly, Ukraine's Ministry of Defense in an official statement posted on its website, October 20, has categorically denied claims that terrorists had seized the BUK-M1 (NATO code: SA-11 Gadfly) anti-aircraft missile system from a Ukrainian military unit.

"Certain media citing the German magazine Der Spiegel have been disseminating information that the Malaysian passenger plane, flight MH17 , flying over the Donetsk Oblast had been downed by a BUK anti-aircraft missile system seized by pro-Russian separatists from one of the Ukrainian military units. The Command of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine officially states that information on the seizure by terrorists of the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system from a military unit of the Air Force of Ukraine is not true ," the Ministry's statement said.
[...]
"At the time when the terrorist entered the territory of the military administration, there remained only old and unusable vehicles," the Defense Ministry stated.
[...]
Ukraine's position finds some backing in a report posted on the website of the Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence (CESI), October 22. According to the CESI report, the information presented by German Intelligence at the closed hearing differed markedly from information that was released publicly. Most notably, all information that the BUK-M1 (SA-11) system had crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border had been removed from the original document.

- http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/22/ukraine-asks-german-agency-for-clarification-on-flight-mh17-findings/

I just wrote a comment on the reliability of Der Spiegel reporting, that might be of interest to you:


All this leads me to the conclusion and reinforces my previous perception that the Der Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html might not be entirely reliable due to its heavy reliance on anti-American, pro-Assad/Iran/Russia BB sources, which likely dis-/misinformed the Der Spiegel reporters about the true extent of Russian involvement and causalities in the incident
[...]
Der Spiegel is also a center-left publication https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/ which are in general less critical of Russia and most of the time even sympathetic towards it (not a bad thing, at all), and it also has had business connections to pro-Russian media in the past, and therefore might not be considered completely unbiased and objective when it comes to Russia reporting
- http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2408166

I am pretty sure the BUK system/launcher came from Russia including commander, codes etc.

Dream on.

annamaria , says: July 11, 2018 at 1:26 pm GMT
Major Israeli Daily: Our Government Is "Arming Neo-Nazis In Ukraine": https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-10/major-israeli-daily-our-government-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine
Where are the main 52 American Jewish organization to condemn the revival of neo-nazism in Ukraine?
skrik , says: July 11, 2018 at 1:31 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz Another shonk. For your trivial point.....The SMH is, with The Age, a shadow of its former self but leftish and greenish and in no way plugged into US propaganda.

For your substantial deficiency.... Are you arguing that this photograph proves something? Or are you arguing that the Russian cheer squad never published it? You are not clearly doing more than making a vulgar noise.

More to the real point you fail to notice that my reference to the photo was to point out that the proponents of canon or machine gun fire from a fighter were maybe off message. Also, that, accepting the photo as genuine, the pilots would probably have seen something which would be reflected in what the voice recorder picked up.

The SMH is in no way plugged into US propaganda

Says you; do you lie on malignant purpose or out of sheer, utter ignorance?

Let smh speak for itself :

Yet this creates a dilemma for the West which for the last few years has seen Russia as a dour geo-political trouble maker hostile to democratic values

Me: Haw #1

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014

Me: Lie #1

and likely played a role in the shooting down of Malaysian airliner MH17

Me: Lie #2

the use allegedly by Russian agents on its territory of a toxic nerve agent which caused more damage this week

Me: A really stupid unsubstantiated allegation

The issue of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election is significant

Me: The next really stupid unsubstantiated allegation

Mr Putin must be enlisted to play a role building peace in the Syrian conflict

Me: Haw #2, Mr Putin is actively 'building peace in Syria' by successfully combating the FUKUSIL terrorist, war-criminal proxies like IS et al..

Fazit: The SMH is as far up the rogue-regime empire's propaganda rear fundamental orifice so as to see no daylight.

mendaci neque quum vera dicit, creditor

denk , says: July 11, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra I also have wondered if hurting Malaysia was a secundary goal.
Soros indeed is hated in Malaysia, they think that he permanently increased the cost of living by speculating against the Malaysian currency Cui bono ?

First the geopolitical angle, namely fukus decades long effort to stir up shit in SCS, setting Asean/jp against China

'Located on the geostrategic Malacca Strait, Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim oil-producing nation with a "Look East" policy allying itself with Japan and China. Last year the Malaysian and Chinese governments established an economic alliance, which includes Asian access to world oil reserves. In the eyes of Washington and its allies, these are sufficient grounds to treat Kuala Lumpur as an adversary .

Even though the Malaysian police force has cooperated closely with the US Embassy in the war on terror, which led to arrests of top-ranking Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, that is not good enough. The late Moammar Gaddhafi of Libya and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad also aided Washington in post-911 anti-terrorism, and look where it got them. It is not enough to be a friend of America. For a leader to survive, he must be a groveling yes-man, a political slave - and never mind America's long-forgotten principles of sovereignty or self-determination.' [1]

The main aim was to wreck KL/Beijing honeymoon, drove Malaysia into the anti Chinese posse.
KL/Beijing relation did go down a few notches post mh370

Meanwhile, fukus always try biggest bang for the buck and go for multi prong attacks.

The other objective could be to liquidate Chinese chip engineers.

'Among the 200-plus passengers bound for Beijing, the target group for the hijack is narrowing down to 20 tech employees working for Freescale Semiconductors, based in Austin, Texas. Among these programmers and systems designers are 12 Malaysians [ethnic Chinese ?] and 8 citizens of mainland China.' [2]

Then , Soros could be part of the caper, exacting his pound of fresh from Malayia. [3]

[1]

https://rense.com/general96/mh370.html

[2]

https://rense.com/general96/tinymicro.html

[3]

https://rense.com/general96/role.html

denk , says: July 11, 2018 at 5:59 pm GMT
@denk How it all began....

2005, as per the Guardian...
'Britain's chief diplomat in Malaysia stormed out of a human rights' conference today after the UK and US were condemned as "state terrorists" by the country's retired prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad,...'

2008
Mahathir accused Soros of attacking the Malaysian currencies.

2011
Tribunal in KL indicted fukus for committing genocides in Iraq.

2013
fukus backed opposition party failed to unseat PM Najib.

2013
Xi JIng Ping received red carpet welcome in KL,
meeting with both Najib and Mahathir.
The trio toasted to a 'new level of Malaysia./sino friendship.'
[This alone is punishable by death in the eyes of the cabal in Washington]

2014
Malaysian sky started raining airliners. ...

mh370 'disappeared',
mh17 'shot down',
AirAsia QZ8501 crashed,
mh148 engine on fire, near miss.
Helicopter with PM Najib's PA onboard exploded in mid air....

[tip of an iceberg]

From these facts alone,

Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees these are enemy actions.

As for who has the motive to screw
Malaysia/China/Russia all at once....
one stone killing three birds ?

Elementary, Watson ! Hmm

For Washington, surely this must be another one for Malaysia's chart sheet, another score to settle !

2004,
The SMH sneeringly opined

' Malaysia puts US in its place over offer to police busy sea lane

Malaysia has rejected a plan by the United States to deploy marines and special forces troops to counter potential terrorist attacks against international shipping in the Straits of Malacca, one of the world's busiest sea lanes.

The commander of US forces in the Asia-Pacific region, Admiral Thomas Fargo, last week revealed a plan to use troops aboard high speed vessels to police the straits, which run between peninsular Malaysia and the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

But in a rebuff, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, said at the weekend that control of the straits was the sovereign prerogative of Malaysia and Indonesia, and US military involvement was not welcome.

https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/05/1081017106683.html?from=storyrhs

Grrrr..
uncle must be straining at his leash over that one.

BUt then you cant keep a good man down for long, uncle sham is now coming into the Malacca Straits in a big way, FON and all that jazz.
where's Najib who gave uncle the finger ?

p.s.
SMH, The Age, The Australian, The conversation all declared me persona non grata.

annamaria , says: July 11, 2018 at 11:10 pm GMT
@Quartermaster Cui Bono? Russia. It was a Buk and it was a newer model that Ukraine does not have. There is footage of a group of "rebels" (actually Russian invaders) walking through the debris field saying, with surprise and regret, "we shot down an airliner."

If you want to believe nonsense, feel free, but publishing trash like the above is unconscionable.

The legacy of McCain: http://www.voltairenet.org/article201925.html -- A traitor, warmonger, and coward.
"John McCain is an elected US Senator, and is also president of one of the branches of the National Endowment for Democracy, one of the secret services of the " Five Eyes " (USA-UK-Australia-Canada-New Zealand). On 22 February [2011], he was in Lebanon, where he tasked the transport of weapons in Syria to the Haririst deputy Okab Sakr. He also journeyed to Ersal in order to establish a future rear base for the jihadists.
On Friday 18 March [2011], an Islamist demonstration was staged at the exit of the Al-Omari mosque. The crowd chanted " Allah, Syria, liberty " -- The term should be understood in the sense given by the Muslim Brotherhood, that of "the freedom to apply charia law". During this demonstration, shots were fired both against the police and also against the demonstrators, without anyone knowing where they were coming from. It is probable, as we have seen in Venezuela, Libya, and other countries [see Kievan pitch 2014], that the shooters were from a third force tasked with creating an atmosphere of civil war and preparing a foreign invasion .
Senator McCain admitted that he was in permanent contact with the heads of the jihadists (including the commanders of Daesh) Confronted with a recording of one of his telephone conversations, Okab Sakr admitted that he had supervised the transfers of weapons to Syria."
-- The "war on terra" has been very profitable for MIC; the war has produced conflicts in the Middle East, where the real terrorists became the best buddies of the CIA/McCain and Israeli.
In Ukraine, Brennan (the CIA), Kagans (ziocons), and McCain have become the main promoters and supporters of neo-Nazi. (Hey nazi-hunters, where are you?)
The energetic "Quartermaster" could continue, ad nauseum, to repeating the amazing discoveries made by Eliot Higgins about BUK in Ukraine and WMD in Syria (Higgins is a joy of the thoroughly zionized Atlantic Council), but these "discoveries" cannot obscure the facts of arms supply to both ISIS and neo-Nazis by the CIA, Israel, and by the obedient vassals from NATO.
In Ukraine, the banderites have made a pact with ziocons in a hope that by using the US influence, the banderites could establishing a banderite state. Dream on. Expect to be crushed by ziocons, and sooner than later.
Whereas the White Helmets' tales and Skripal affair' stupidities are hailed by MSM, the truth can be found on the alternative sites.

http://fact.international/2018/07/israel-is-arming-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/

annamaria , says: July 12, 2018 at 2:58 am GMT
@FKA Max Even RT reported that the BND report was never intended to be conclusive but mainly "evaluated multiple valid scenarios with regard to their plausibility and probability" and that the Der Spiegel and other media outlets' reporting about it was inaccurate and misleading:

https://www.rt.com/news/203995-germany-intelligence-report-mh17/ Archived link : https://web.archive.org/web/20170514120701/https://www.rt.com/news/203995-germany-intelligence-report-mh17/


The Russian embassy in Berlin received an official response to note #3693 from October 27 regarding Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND intelligence agency) President Gerhard Schindler's allegations that local militia in eastern Ukraine shot down the Malaysia Airlines flight in July.

" The media interpretation of the report of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) president delivered to the Bundestag Committee overseeing intelligence activities on October 8 is incomplete and arbitrarily taken out of context, " the note says.
[...]
German diplomats insisted that the BND's analysis and evaluation was based " on information obtained from intelligence and from open sources, " which included data from the interim report of the Dutch investigation commission conducting the inquiry. The report delivered by Schindler " evaluated multiple valid scenarios with regard to their plausibility and probability, " the note said.

The ministry stressed that according to the decision of the International Civil Aviation Association (ICAA), investigation of the MH17 flight crash was handed over to Dutch authorities, authorized to exclusively deliver all information on the issue.

RD Insight: Reason's for Putin's high approval rating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTKB4th1Rjg

Alexey Levinson, social research director at Levada Analytical Center talks about the reasons for Russian President Vladimir Putin's high approval rating.

"open sources" -- Eliot Higgins as the main provider? The scoundrel has zero scientific training, zero technical training, zero engineering training, and zero training in chemistry. Eliot Higgins was ridiculed by the experts in all of the above fields of knowledge. But the zionized Atlantic Council loves, loves, loves Higgins. Do you know why, "FKA Max?"
"The media interpretation" -- You mean, "interpretations" by MSM? Cannot stop polluting the Unz forum with the presstituting propaganda, "FKA Max?"

"Kerry Pressed for MH-17 Evidence" by By Robert Parry

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/21/kerry-pressed-for-mh-17-evidence/

"In a letter to Kerry dated Jan. 5, 2016, Thomas J. Schansman, Quinn's father, noted Kerry's remarks at a press conference on Aug. 12, 2014, when the Secretary of State said about the Buk anti-aircraft missile suspected of downing the plane: "We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this airplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.
"U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [the designation for a Russian-made anti-aircraft Buk missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems."
The analysts' uncertainty meshed somewhat with what I [Robert Parry] had been told by a source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts shortly after the shoot-down about what they had seen in high-resolution satellite photos , which they said showed what looked like Ukrainian military personnel manning the battery believed to have fired the missile.
The source who spoke to me several times after receiving additional briefings about advances in the investigation said that as the U.S. analysts gained more insights into the MH-17 shoot-down from technical and other sources, they came to believe the attack was carried out by a r ogue element of the Ukrainian military with ties to a hard-line Ukrainian oligarch. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts" and "The Danger of an MH-17 Cold Case."]
Do you know this oligarch, "FKA Max?" The Ukrainian/Israeli thug that has been a "pillar of Ukrainian Jewish community?"
Have you heard about Awan affair, the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity? There was certain Israel-firster involved in the crime (she was also instrumental in rigging the Dems nomination for POTUS). No persecution.
Have you heard about the Wiesenthal Center of Nazi-hunters? Not a peep from the Center with regard to the revival of Nazism in Ukraine. The revival has involved certain Kagans family, hence the absence of the "peeps."
So please, take your Higginsian revelations about Ukraine and Syria to some other place where they will be appreciated. You know, the zioconish NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Guardian, and likes.

denk , says: July 12, 2018 at 3:16 am GMT
Not OT,

mh370 and mh17 are part of the package deal , a pay back to KL 'insolence' , it has practically bankrupted the MAL,.

Is it possible for a Boeing 777 flying thru SCS, one of the most electronically monitored hot spots in the world, then 'disappeared' without trace ?

Dr Mahathir didnt think so,
'CIA withholding information on flight MH370′

Malaysia made a formal request to Oz for info about mh370.

Canberra .
'impossible, it concerns our national security'
 [ sic ]

Why Oz ?

cuz the CIA runs Pine Gap base operates some of the most powerful radars in the world.

How powerful ?

*It can pick up the type of airliners taking off from Changi airbase.

*It routinely monitored , intercept communications from the regions military commands .

*There was even a live broadcast of video conference bet the Malaysian high command in Aussie parliament, to impress on the capability of Pine Gap !

So the question remains,
What dark secrets are the Aussies hiding from the world ?

Den Lille Abe , says: July 12, 2018 at 5:22 am GMT
@Anonymous "Nothing ever happens by chance". On the face of it that looks absurd so let me try and tease out your meaning.

May I assume that you don't mean that everything in the human world happens because at least one human actually wanted it to and caused it to happen?

So let's try with whoever fired a BUK missile which brought down a civil airliner
(a) just accidentally firing when he or another was just using the nearest available plane to centre the aiming mechanism
(b) the intended target was one plane flying near another but, for technical reasons, the missile ended up destroying the wrong plane.
Etc.
Kindly explain your "nothing ever happens by chance" so your readers know what you mean by it. What I meant specifically is when you take events that we ponder in history, there alway seems to an unrlying story that explains the event. An instigation that is plausibly the trigger, causing the event to happen.
The murder in Sarajevo, it was not a lone Anarchist, it was a planned assassination, carried out by a nation state through proxy. But at the surface, it was just a nut job. But it was a thoroughly thought out terror plot, meant to increase tensions to the brink of war and it succeeded, albeit the outcome in the end, historically was dire.
Of course accidents happen and brash foolishness also plays a part, but often things are planned and often enough they backfire.

skrik , says: July 12, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT
@Anonymous Instead of just sniffing round like a flearidden mongrel and snapping at ankles why not occasionally put some effort into contributing to the substance and at least answer other commenters points.

Instead of just sniffing round like a flearidden mongrel and snapping at ankles at least answer other commenters points

1st of all, attacking a commenter is ad hominem [= fallacy when 'unjustified'], 2nd one cannot contest arguments based upon false premises -- like Wizard of Oz's risible "The SMH is in no way plugged into US propaganda" and FKA Max's extensive bellingcat spam, say.

3rd, a partial quote: " But it remained for the xxx, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, "

4th, lemma #1: At any crime-scene, one must consider means, motive and opportunity, but a more complete list includes premeditation, presence, any modus operandi and cui bono?

5th, lemma #2: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt.

Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory [like all non-native residents in the 'illegitimate entity,' say.]

Now, a definitive assertion: That the FUKUSIL rogue-regimes are 'black hats' capable of and actually perform depredations of the 'supreme international crime' class, any 'supporters' of same make themselves accessories and attract proportional guilt, as in lemma 2.

Declarative: My position is as a "bystander" as above, and since a) civil duty and b) silence = acquiescence, I *must* make my objections known, and choose to do so as emphatically as I can -- in my own 'style.'

Finally, 'right vs left' is a useless if not false dichotomy; 'aggressors vs defending victims' is apposite and the FUKUSIL rogue-regimes can be expanded to:

FUKUS-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption.

a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches

add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies

The subset CCC [= covert criminal cabal] plus their puppet politicians as 'rulers,' the handmaiden MSM+PFBCs [latter = publicly financed broadcasters] as Bernays-haze propagandists exactly fit as "xxx" in the top-quote and the accessory 'supporters' [i.e. trolls/hasbarats in here] constitute 'the enemy.'

Exactly because "All politicians lie!" [thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward] and the MSM+PFBCs ditto, we the world citizens are in a 'mushroom club' [= kept in the dark and fed on BS]; there is no complete factual base available to us, and so it becomes a ' *circumstantial* ' argument.

We, the 'white-hats' assert that the 'black-hats' as above caused MH17 to be shot down. The argument is that the preponderance of observable circumstantial evidence points that way. That the accessory supporters [= trolls/hasbarats] are 'protesting too much' [see Wizard of Oz's hysteria, say] can tell us something, namely that the white-hats' assertion hits too close to the black-hats' home. A 'tiny' [= $5bio] piece of proof: Mme Nuland's "F -- k the EU!" If the cap fits

annamaria , says: July 12, 2018 at 11:36 am GMT
@FKA Max Examining the Evidence of Russia's Involvement in a Malaysia Airlines Crash

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/files/styles/wv_small/public/buk-air-defense-mh17%20(1).png

The new imagery obtained by Stratfor does not prove that this particular Buk system fired a missile at the airliner. Nonetheless, it further substantiates the narrative being pieced together by the collective analysis of open-source information.

Source: https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/examining-evidence-russias-involvement-malaysia-airlines-crash Archived link : http://archive.is/1PsnK

MH17 -- The Open Source Investigation, Three Years Later

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/07/17/mh17-open-source-investigation-three-years-later/

https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mh17-3rd-anniversary-report.pdf

Comment in the comments section of that Bellingcat.com post on the Bild article following below:


DSA - May 25, 2018

You read it wrong, the article actually says Russia closed its airspace up to the level that could be targeted by BUK, suggesting they knew in advance a BUK was going to be there and possibly shoot at stuff and they wanted to protect Russian airliners.

- https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/07/17/mh17-open-source-investigation-three-years-later/comment-page-2/#comment-157929


Drei Jahre nach MH17-Abschuss Neuer Verdacht gegen Putin
​Russland sperrte Luftverkehrsstraßen Stunden vor dem Abschuss

http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/flug-mh-17/mh17-wusste-putin-etwas-52576256.bild.html


Am Ende des NOTAM fand sich jedoch eine weitere Angabe, nämlich die Anordnung der Schließung des Luftraums zwischen dem Boden bis Flughöhe „FL530". Dies entspricht etwa 16 100 Meter.

Die Regelung galt ab dem 17. Juli 2014 um Mitternacht (Moskauer-Zeit), also ab 17 Stunden vor dem Angriff auf MH17 in etwa 10 000 Meter Höhe.

Auffällig: Die Schließung des Luftraums mit Hinweis auf „die Kampfhandlungen auf dem Territorium der Ukraine nahe der Staatsgrenze zu Russland" ging bis 2100 Meter über die Dienstgipfelhöhe der Buk-Rakete (Typ 9M38), die MH17 abschoss.

Google Translate translation:

However, at the end of the NOTAM there was another indication, namely the order of closure of the airspace between the ground to flight level "FL530". This corresponds to about 16 100 meters.

The ruling was from 17 July 2014 at midnight (Moscow time) , ie from 17 hours before the attack on MH17 at about 10 000 meters altitude.

Conspicuous : The closure of the airspace with reference to "the fighting on the territory of Ukraine near the state border with Russia" went to 2100 meters above the service peak height of the Buk rocket (type 9M38), the MH17 shot down.

Los Angeles Times: "U.S. officials believe attack against Malaysian plane was mistake." http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80870402/
"U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [the designation for a Russian-made anti-aircraft Buk missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems."
-- Do you understand that the US has "high-resolution satellite photos" showing "what looked like Ukrainian military personnel manning the battery believed to have fired the missile?" https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/21/kerry-pressed-for-mh-17-evidence/
-- Again, FKA Max, who is that Ukrainian/Israeli oligarch whom you are so strenuously protecting? " the U.S. analysts came to believe the attack was carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military with ties to a hard-line Ukrainian oligarch." https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ihor+kolomoyskyi&view=detail&mid=7814F871DC8C94A863407814F871DC8C94A86340&FORM=VIRE
-- Cheerleading for ziocons, FKA Max, with all your Kol Nidrei enthusiasm?

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/05/corporate-medias-about-face-on-ukraines-neo-nazis/

annamaria , says: July 12, 2018 at 11:56 am GMT
@FKA Max Examining the Evidence of Russia's Involvement in a Malaysia Airlines Crash

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/files/styles/wv_small/public/buk-air-defense-mh17%20(1).png

The new imagery obtained by Stratfor does not prove that this particular Buk system fired a missile at the airliner. Nonetheless, it further substantiates the narrative being pieced together by the collective analysis of open-source information.

Source: https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/examining-evidence-russias-involvement-malaysia-airlines-crash Archived link : http://archive.is/1PsnK

MH17 -- The Open Source Investigation, Three Years Later

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/07/17/mh17-open-source-investigation-three-years-later/

https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mh17-3rd-anniversary-report.pdf

Comment in the comments section of that Bellingcat.com post on the Bild article following below:


DSA - May 25, 2018

You read it wrong, the article actually says Russia closed its airspace up to the level that could be targeted by BUK, suggesting they knew in advance a BUK was going to be there and possibly shoot at stuff and they wanted to protect Russian airliners.

- https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/07/17/mh17-open-source-investigation-three-years-later/comment-page-2/#comment-157929


Drei Jahre nach MH17-Abschuss Neuer Verdacht gegen Putin
​Russland sperrte Luftverkehrsstraßen Stunden vor dem Abschuss

http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/flug-mh-17/mh17-wusste-putin-etwas-52576256.bild.html


Am Ende des NOTAM fand sich jedoch eine weitere Angabe, nämlich die Anordnung der Schließung des Luftraums zwischen dem Boden bis Flughöhe „FL530". Dies entspricht etwa 16 100 Meter.

Die Regelung galt ab dem 17. Juli 2014 um Mitternacht (Moskauer-Zeit), also ab 17 Stunden vor dem Angriff auf MH17 in etwa 10 000 Meter Höhe.

Auffällig: Die Schließung des Luftraums mit Hinweis auf „die Kampfhandlungen auf dem Territorium der Ukraine nahe der Staatsgrenze zu Russland" ging bis 2100 Meter über die Dienstgipfelhöhe der Buk-Rakete (Typ 9M38), die MH17 abschoss.

Google Translate translation:

However, at the end of the NOTAM there was another indication, namely the order of closure of the airspace between the ground to flight level "FL530". This corresponds to about 16 100 meters.

The ruling was from 17 July 2014 at midnight (Moscow time) , ie from 17 hours before the attack on MH17 at about 10 000 meters altitude.

Conspicuous : The closure of the airspace with reference to "the fighting on the territory of Ukraine near the state border with Russia" went to 2100 meters above the service peak height of the Buk rocket (type 9M38), the MH17 shot down.

You also tried to pollute this site with your opinions on the Skripal Affair. Enjoy: https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2018/03/craig-murray-on-skripal-affair.html

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/04/01/skripal-fools/

annamaria , says: July 12, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT
@FKA Max Bellingcat.com et al. = hard photographic, video, etc. evidence

versus

Robert Parry et al. = mostly hearsay

e.g. "According to a source briefed on the tentative findings, the soldiers manning the battery appeared to be wearing Ukrainian uniforms and may have been drinking, since what looked like beer bottles were scattered around the site. But the source added that the information was still incomplete and the analysts did not rule out the possibility of rebel responsibility." - https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/19/airline-horror-spurs-new-rush-to-judgment/

Oh, and by the way the smoking gun in this entire investigation, so we don't forget... " Higgins gave up his lucrative career as a payments officer at a women's underwear company to create Bellingcat " http://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/#comment-2411311 ... Now think about that!

annamaria ,

what you term me "polluting" the site I consider not engaging in echo chamber discussions.

Just out of curiosity... You are a true believer in the information you share, correct?

Have you ever been wrong about something in your life, annamaria ?

Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect before?


In the field of psychology, the Dunning -- Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1] On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.
More Orthodox believe their culture to be superior than Catholic or especially Protestant ones. Poland here is perhaps especially surprising. - https://www.unz.com/akarlin/huge-pew-survey-of-eastern-europe/#p_1_14

https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/poll-east-europe-superior-culture.png

Are you an Orthodox Christian, annamaria ?

Interestingly, historically Protestant countries are the most highly educated and economically vibrant, and have been for centuries, but most of their population doesn't believe their culture(/or opinion) is superior (Latvia and Estonia in the above example). A very good real-life example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, in my opinion.:


The three very major upwards outliers -- more relatively literate than intelligent -- are the Finno-Ugric Baltic states: Finland, Estonia, and Latvia. This can't have been a non-Orthodox/Muslim thing: Both Poland (On-The-Vistula Governorate) and Lithuania (Kovno and Vilna) lie neatly on the correlation curve. Nor was it something Finno-Ugric; Karelia (then Olonets) is not an exception either. It must have been something specific just to them and the most obvious explanation is Protestantism. There is a lot of literature on the independent literacy-raising effects of Protestantism and I see no reasons why Estonia, Latvia, and Finland should have been exceptions to that.
- http://www.unz.com/akarlin/literacy-predicts-russian-iq/#p_1_16

Education as the Elixir of Growth II

https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/korotayev_lit1.jpg

Source: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/education-as-the-elixir-of-growth-ii/

Really makes you think, doesn't it, annamaria ?

Hey, FKA Max, you have been polluting this forum with the Atlantic Council stuff.
Higgins "investigative" journalism, including his hapless manipulation of photographs from Ukraine, has been debunked by the real experts. Google the debunking yourself.

Los Angeles Times: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80870402/
"U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [the designation for a Russian-made anti-aircraft Buk missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems." The US intelligence community has the "high-resolution satellite photos" showing "what looked like Ukrainian military personnel manning the battery believed to have fired the missile" https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/21/kerry-pressed-for-mh-17-evidence/
" the U.S. analysts came to believe the attack was carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military with ties to a hard-line Ukrainian oligarch." https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ihor+kolomoyskyi&view=detail&mid=7814F871DC8C94A863407814F871DC8C94A86340&FORM=VIRE

-- You have been shilling for ziocons, FKA Max. Whether you are upset with the banderites lack of success in the Kaganat of Nuland (former Ukraine) or you are just another unhappy aliya in Israel, your "research" shows desperation. Anyway, you are not taken seriously.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/05/corporate-medias-about-face-on-ukraines-neo-nazis/

annamaria , says: July 12, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
@FKA Max Bellingcat.com et al. = hard photographic, video, etc. evidence

versus

Robert Parry et al. = mostly hearsay

e.g. "According to a source briefed on the tentative findings, the soldiers manning the battery appeared to be wearing Ukrainian uniforms and may have been drinking, since what looked like beer bottles were scattered around the site. But the source added that the information was still incomplete and the analysts did not rule out the possibility of rebel responsibility." - https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/19/airline-horror-spurs-new-rush-to-judgment/

Oh, and by the way the smoking gun in this entire investigation, so we don't forget... " Higgins gave up his lucrative career as a payments officer at a women's underwear company to create Bellingcat " http://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/#comment-2411311 ... Now think about that!

annamaria ,

what you term me "polluting" the site I consider not engaging in echo chamber discussions.

Just out of curiosity... You are a true believer in the information you share, correct?

Have you ever been wrong about something in your life, annamaria ?

Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect before?


In the field of psychology, the Dunning -- Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1] On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.
More Orthodox believe their culture to be superior than Catholic or especially Protestant ones. Poland here is perhaps especially surprising. - https://www.unz.com/akarlin/huge-pew-survey-of-eastern-europe/#p_1_14

https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/poll-east-europe-superior-culture.png

Are you an Orthodox Christian, annamaria ?

Interestingly, historically Protestant countries are the most highly educated and economically vibrant, and have been for centuries, but most of their population doesn't believe their culture(/or opinion) is superior (Latvia and Estonia in the above example). A very good real-life example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, in my opinion.:


The three very major upwards outliers -- more relatively literate than intelligent -- are the Finno-Ugric Baltic states: Finland, Estonia, and Latvia. This can't have been a non-Orthodox/Muslim thing: Both Poland (On-The-Vistula Governorate) and Lithuania (Kovno and Vilna) lie neatly on the correlation curve. Nor was it something Finno-Ugric; Karelia (then Olonets) is not an exception either. It must have been something specific just to them and the most obvious explanation is Protestantism. There is a lot of literature on the independent literacy-raising effects of Protestantism and I see no reasons why Estonia, Latvia, and Finland should have been exceptions to that.
- http://www.unz.com/akarlin/literacy-predicts-russian-iq/#p_1_16

Education as the Elixir of Growth II

https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/korotayev_lit1.jpg

Source: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/education-as-the-elixir-of-growth-ii/

Really makes you think, doesn't it, annamaria ?

Your attempts at putting the courageous and principled Robert Parry on the same plane with the ziocon shill Higgins (an ignoramus and opportunist) is disgusting.

"In October 2015, Parry was awarded the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism, "for his career distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning, and reporting that has challenged mainstream media. Parry broke the story that the Central Intelligence Agency had provided an assassination manual to the Nicaraguan Contras (Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare). In mid-1985 he wrote the first article on Oliver North's involvement in the affair, and, together with Brian Barger, in late 1985 he broke the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)

-- To repeat for you, FKA Max:
Robert Parry's carrier was "distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning, and reporting that has challenged mainstream media."

-- Compare Robert Parry to your main and most valuable source Elliot Higgins:
"Higgins has no background or training in weapons, saying that "Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo." Higgins does not speak or read Arabic. Higgins partnered with the Atlantic Council to co-author the report Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins

" the Atlantic Council has a troubling history of taking money from foreign special interest groups and government agencies in return for pushing propaganda to support various initiatives around the globe. Atlantic Council had received funding from the Ploughshares Fund, which was a major player in efforts to sell the Iranian nuclear deal to the American public. The Ploughshares Fund is financed by George Soros' Open Society Foundation.
The Atlantic Council consistently promotes hostile, anti-Russian rhetoric. The organization has also promoted unsourced and unfounded claims that Russia was responsible for "hacking" the 2016 U.S. presidential elections despite the fact that this conspiracy theory has been resoundingly debunked by various authorities in the intelligence community and by multiple media sources. The Atlantic Council, unfazed by the evidence that their claims of hacking were false, have continued to promote these falsehoods in the aftermath of the election in what appeared to be a possible effort to undermine American democratic institutions." https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/02/george-soros-funded-think-tank-attacks-disobedient-media-over-eu-coverage/
-- To repeat for you, FKA Max: the Atlantic Council, and its loyal employee Higgins, are well-known promoters of falsehoods.

denk , says: July 12, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
@Biff First place I thought of when I first heard the news was Diego Garcia. It seems others had the same hunch. Is there evidence? Keep digging.

http://www.volusia.com/new-chilling-mh370-diego-garcia-links/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/mh370-missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-latest-new-evidence-development-conspiracy-theories-what-a7703531.html

https://www.disclose.tv/hijacked-flight-370-passenger-sent-photo-from-hidden-iphone-tracing-back-to-secret-us-military-base-310506

Evidence ?

Other than the fisherman in Maldives who saw a low flying airliner .

It there's any evidence at all it'd prolly reside in the Pine Gap log somewhere.
But what can we do if Oz says we cant have it ?

In civvy case, a court can order a building owner to hand out its cctv tapes to assist a murder investigation,.
On the international level, its entirely different matter cuz the 5lies are above any international law, never mind their constant bleating about a ' rule based international order'.
Its the law of jungle .backed by NATO.
Who's gonna issue a search warrant to NATO ?

Then again, in a civvy murder case, a beneficiary of the deceased would never be appointed as investigator.
BUt this is exactly what happened in the mh370 case where the Malaysian police was ' assisted' by CIA/FBI !
Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop !

Judge, prosecutor and executioner all in one.
No wonder the Malaysian police chief was driven to moan aloud ,
" I doubt this case will ever be solved' !

P.S.
I rarely if ever sit thru a video , preferring to read its transcript.
But I recommend this video if you'r interested in the mh370 case, its worth your time.

Interview with Mathias Chang, top aide to Dr Mahathir,

Skeptikal , says: July 12, 2018 at 7:33 pm GMT
" added elements such as humanitarian intervention "

There is an excellent discussion in the June 21, 2018, London Review of Books, "The Mask It Wears," by Pankaj Mishra, on the elevation and exploitation of the human rights argument to justify neoliberal incursions into sovereign nations worldwide.
It is dense, but clearly argued once the author gets past his longist background setup.

skrik , says: July 12, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
@annamaria Your attempts at putting the courageous and principled Robert Parry on the same plane with the ziocon shill Higgins (an ignoramus and opportunist) is disgusting.

"In October 2015, Parry was awarded the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism, "for his career distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning, and reporting that has challenged mainstream media. Parry broke the story that the Central Intelligence Agency had provided an assassination manual to the Nicaraguan Contras (Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare). In mid-1985 he wrote the first article on Oliver North's involvement in the affair, and, together with Brian Barger, in late 1985 he broke the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)

-- To repeat for you, FKA Max:
Robert Parry's carrier was "distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning, and reporting that has challenged mainstream media."

-- Compare Robert Parry to your main and most valuable source Elliot Higgins:
"Higgins has no background or training in weapons, saying that "Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo." Higgins does not speak or read Arabic. Higgins partnered with the Atlantic Council to co-author the report Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins

" the Atlantic Council has a troubling history of taking money from foreign special interest groups and government agencies in return for pushing propaganda to support various initiatives around the globe. Atlantic Council had received funding from the Ploughshares Fund, which was a major player in efforts to sell the Iranian nuclear deal to the American public. The Ploughshares Fund is financed by George Soros' Open Society Foundation.
The Atlantic Council consistently promotes hostile, anti-Russian rhetoric. The organization has also promoted unsourced and unfounded claims that Russia was responsible for "hacking" the 2016 U.S. presidential elections despite the fact that this conspiracy theory has been resoundingly debunked by various authorities in the intelligence community and by multiple media sources. The Atlantic Council, unfazed by the evidence that their claims of hacking were false, have continued to promote these falsehoods in the aftermath of the election in what appeared to be a possible effort to undermine American democratic institutions." https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/02/george-soros-funded-think-tank-attacks-disobedient-media-over-eu-coverage/
-- To repeat for you, FKA Max: the Atlantic Council, and its loyal employee Higgins, are well-known promoters of falsehoods.

Hey, FKA Max, you have been polluting this forum

Me: Yes. 'It' is known as a troll [ *it* is un-sexed; especially when trolls align with 'the great Satan' and therefore against all decency, they de-sex themselves, just as they de-humanise themselves.]

My recommendation: I ** 3 = Identify, inform, ignore. rgds

Skeptikal , says: July 12, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT
Great article!
Explains a lot.
Skeptikal , says: July 12, 2018 at 8:47 pm GMT
@anon

As I said above, who did it and how remains obscure, although there are several pursued by people familiar with local circumstances, or revealed by insiders who know who which military assets were operating that day -- but all that remains inconclusive.
This article is supposed to be about why the airliner was shot down, and this confused garble is all the author has to say about the crucial event?

1. If the evidence supports the claim that the Russians did it, then that is important and the author should discuss that in detail.

2. If the evidence tends to show that Urkaine or the U.S. did it, then that is important and the author should discuss that in detail.

3. If the evidence is indeed inconclusive, then that is important and the author should discuss the evidence in detail to show that it is inconclusive.

The facts matter, but not to this writer. The author clearly set forth the parameters of his article at the beginning of the article.

The article is not a "whodunnit." The article is an analysis of cui, in the end, bono.
How was the incident used to further an agenda.
That is what the author said he would do and that is what he did.
So your complaint is beside the point.

Skeptikal , says: July 12, 2018 at 8:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

. Those in power in Kiev had several times already attempted to draw Moscow into the civil war, directly and through a NATO intervention.
This analysis is so biased and inaccurate that it has no basis to hang together with a coherent conclusion. This quote is a good example of the author's inarticulate manner in presenting his own completely fantasized (but original) gibberish. Ukraine trying to draw Moscow into the civil war directly? Why not just further this line of nonsense and declare that Ukraine invited the 'little green men' into the Crimea to have it annexed by Russia too? :-) Troll alert!
No gibberish in this article.
Skeptikal , says: July 12, 2018 at 8:59 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Unless one were to argue that Putin is indeed mad, there's nothing in this tragedy that would point a finger at the Russians. It's either some other player or players involved, or an accident, a mistake, an error of judgement on the part of the warring combatants rather than a deliberate act of murder.
Nobody familiar with the situation thinks that Putin or anybody higher up ordered the tragic downing of the airliner. Neither did any Ukrainian higher ups. It is what it looked like originally. A misstep by some gung ho Russian backed separatists. There was even gloating by some of these unfortunate 'heroes' on internet social media taking credit for the downing of a Ukrainian transport plane. Sorry, but this author needs to rewrite this fantastical piece of pro-Russian false flag conspiracy mythology. "Sorry, but this author needs to rewrite this fantastical piece of pro-Russian false flag conspiracy mythology."

I don't think the author says anything about false flags.
He discusses the uses to which the incident could be put to use.
Read the article before commenting!

Beefcake the Mighty , says: July 12, 2018 at 9:02 pm GMT
@Skeptikal " added elements such as humanitarian intervention "

There is an excellent discussion in the June 21, 2018, London Review of Books, "The Mask It Wears," by Pankaj Mishra, on the elevation and exploitation of the human rights argument to justify neoliberal incursions into sovereign nations worldwide.
It is dense, but clearly argued once the author gets past his longist background setup. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n12/pankaj-mishra/the-mask-it-wears

Neoliberalism is indeed a scourge.

FB , says: July 12, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT
@annamaria You have been identified as a polluter of Atlantic Council (zioconish) persuasion.
FKA Max, a representative of Elliot Higgins on Unz forum. Speaking of little poofter Eliot Higgins

Here is a bit of info most people probably don't know the website bellingcat use for photo 'analysis' Fotoforensics.com well the founder of that website Dr Neal Krawetz, has slammed the group for misusing the software

He's not the only image analysis professional who debunks the bellingcat BS Jens Kriese is a professional image analyst in Hamburg, Germany and the founder of the IRISPIX photo archive in an interview with respected German media outlet Der Spiegel, he debunked the supposed bellingcat 'debunking' of Russian sat imagery

' SPIEGEL ONLINE: What's your personal conclusion about the satellite images?

Kriese: The first thing to die in war is the truth. Each side likes to throw random smoke bombs. There is no way of knowing if the images show what Moscow is claiming.

What one can say, however, is that this "analysis" has achieved nothing besides raising awareness of Bellingcat. '

Notice the quotation marks Kriese places around the word 'analysis' so an actual professional dismantles underwear salesman Higgins big surprise there same as Prof Postol dismantles his BS about chem weapons in Syria

Incidentally Spiegel subsequently ran an apology for taking the Higgins poofter BS at face value

Skeptikal , says: July 12, 2018 at 11:21 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra No confusion whatsoever.
MH17 made possible the sanctions, MH370 killed two groups of Chinese technicians on making planes invisible to radar;
MH17 was destroyed in mid air, why and how, we do not know, MH370 flew direction Antarctica until fuel ran out.
My theory on MH370, control of the plane was taken from the crew from outside, as has been possible with modern planes since a short time before Sept 11.
On Sept 11, why the, in my opinion original plan to use the four planes for attacks failed, I do not know, we never will know.
Whatever the case, any aircraft specialist can explain to you that it is not al all difficult to control a modern plane from outside. "Whatever the case, any aircraft specialist can explain to you that it is not al all difficult to control a modern plane from outside."

Apparently Boeing has the relevant patents on this . . .

Greg S. , says: July 13, 2018 at 3:32 am GMT
I personally like the following conspiracy theory: Putin's airplane was known to be transiting back to Russia from Europe that day. Russian plane colors: white with red, white, and blue striping. "Someone" whispers this information into the ear of a Ukranian pilot. A few other small and subtle gestures are done to ensure that this pilot and MH17 are in the same place at the same time. MH17 plane colors: white, with red, white, and blue striping.

All "Buk" business simply comes from the fact that the Novorussians (aka "Russians" to the media) did not have an airforce and only had old Buk missiles at their disposal.

denk , says: July 13, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT
@Skeptikal Unfortunately I cannot make out what Chang is saying about "global tsunami." 58:00. He swallows his words at that point and the most important info is garbled. He repeats what he said, but once again it is not intelligible. The interviewer does not help. What is Chang saying about "214"? What kind of "global tsunami" will cause things to "spill out"? In fact, quite a lot of what follows is unclear. Thanks for the JFK film.

I recommended Chang principally cuz he's the first one who pointed out there's a massive air sea war game going on and mh370 was flying right into that 'eye of storm'.

Was it possible that the AWACS, spy planes, spy ships, etc didnt detect the airliner ?

In fact there was also an air exercise going on when mh17 was shot down . ! [2]

really makes one wonder if these 'war games' accompanying 911, mh17, mh370 and terror drills on the days of Sandy Hook, London 7/7, Boston marathon were there to cover up a crime, a drill that turned live ? [3]

Ian Fleming's law of probability applies.

Here's a Chang video with better sound track but I'd have to re- watch it to see whether I can answer any of your questions. [watched it some years back]

[2]

http://themillenniumreport.com/2014/07/mh-17-and-nato-excercise-breeze-2014%E2%80%B3/

[3]

http://whale.to/c/terror_drills.html

p.s.
having problem accessing UNZ lately.

FB , says: July 13, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT
@FKA Max So, you are basically claiming that the Tungstène software is lying.

I have to give it to you, you are uniquely and expertly brazen.

Photo Expert: 'A Manipulated Image Is Not Necessarily a Lie'


In the age of digital photography, it's become increasingly easy to modify, process or manipulate the content of an image, and increasingly harder to sort truth from fiction.

In 2009, under the impulsion of the French Ministry of Defense, the computer science technologies company eXo maKina developed Tungstene, a program that can reveal changes made to a digital file. Just a few weeks after World Press Photo, the world's leading photojournalism competition, was forced to disqualify 20% of final entries because of excessive manipulation, Roger Cozien, the man behind Tungstene, discusses the relevance of truth in photography in an interview first published in French in OAI13 and republished here for the first time in English.

- http://time.com/3897858/photo-expert-a-manipulated-image-is-not-necessarily-a-lie/

https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F05%2Ftungstene-north-korea-2.jpg

In this photograph of North Korean troops engaging in a tr[ai]ning exercise, eXo maKina was able to detect that parts of the image had been duplicated and enhanced.

You are currently between the "Name-calling" and "Ad Hominem" level of "Graham's hierarchy of disagreement". Without the insults, bad manners and bad temper you are currently displaying, you could actually make it to the "Contradiction" or even "Counterargument" level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham%27s_hierarchy_of_disagreement

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg/400px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg.png Holy mother of jesus another friggin spam storm from retardo boy

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension, aside from obvious mental retardation ?

What part of this did you not understand ?

SO YOU NEED THE ACTUAL RAW DATA NOT A PICTURE DOWNLOADED OFF THE RUSSIAN MOD WEBSITE STUPID

Also being the shit eating dog you are, you don't understand the very definition of 'ad hominem' you posted

'Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument'

I addressed your pinhead argument [such as it is] by pointing out the fact that NO IMAGE ANALYSIS CAN BE DONE FROM A WEBSITE PHOTO

Again that flies over your retarded head what does it take to make a retard understand basic English ?

Pointing out that you are obviously retarded AFTER REFUTING YOUR ARGUMENT does not an ad hominem make moron

Anon , [168] • Disclaimer says: July 13, 2018 at 7:31 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke Not only lower but also further North, by a few hundred kilometres. A Spanish ATC working at Kiev, named Carlos, went public immediately saying Ukraine did it.

Eye witness were filmed immediately afterwards stating that there was a small warplane underneath MH17 just prior to it turning and then going down. I couldn't understand what they were saying (there were subtitles) but their non-verbal cues suggested that they were being entirely truthful.

Don't tantalize us. Do give a link to the report of the Spanish (!) air traffic controller's statement. sounds odd. Pay in Ukraine would be much lower than in Spain though I suppose he could have married a rich Ukrainia
n's daughter or ex .

Also, while waiting, I'll guess that someone sacked for being drunk on the job decided to sell a story to TV.

Much more important how do you deal with the DSB's 250+ page report which, from memory, rejects all theories involving other aircraft in the near vicinty of MH17 based on both Ukrainan and Russian radar which showed MH17 but no other planes?

Anon , [168] • Disclaimer says: July 13, 2018 at 7:44 am GMT
@Skeptikal "Whatever the case, any aircraft specialist can explain to you that it is not al all difficult to control a modern plane from outside."

Apparently Boeing has the relevant patents on this . . . Have you done a patent search? It's usually not difficult if you want to supplement hearsay.

Anon , [168] • Disclaimer says: July 13, 2018 at 7:55 am GMT
@Gerard Quote : "Most importantly they had the motive". Agreed this is the most important question of all. After the first report I wrote to the Dutch DIB in The Hague asking as to whether the board had considered the motive and also what motive the East Ukranian separatists could have prompted them to hand over in good faith the flight recorders. Of course I did not receive a reply and did not expect a reply. Hitherto I have never received a honest and coherent answer to those two questions. Personally I have no answer to the question what motive Russia could have to shoot down a passenger liner in broad daylight.
I am still awaiting serious answers to those two questions.
(Sorry I couldn't read all comments) I think you are seriously missing the point that the default hypothesis is the best answer, namely that no one had a motive to shoot down MH17. If, instead of writing to what you call the "Dutch DIB" you had read the Dutch Safety Board's report you would have spared being treated as an irritating gadfly. The DSB's job was technical explanation not analysis of political or military motives. Moreover it might have occurred to you that a very good reason for handing over the black boxes was to avoid the inferences which would naturally be drawn by refusal to hand them over. Indeed it makes sense that Russia instructed its protegés to avoid doing something silly like hiding the black boxes.
Anon , [168] • Disclaimer says: July 13, 2018 at 8:14 am GMT
@FB Holy mother of jesus...another friggin spam storm from retardo boy...

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension, aside from obvious mental retardation...?

What part of this did you not understand...?


SO YOU NEED THE ACTUAL RAW DATA NOT A PICTURE DOWNLOADED OFF THE RUSSIAN MOD WEBSITE STUPID
Also being the shit eating dog you are, you don't understand the very definition of 'ad hominem' you posted...

'Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument'
I addressed your pinhead argument [such as it is] by pointing out the fact that NO IMAGE ANALYSIS CAN BE DONE FROM A WEBSITE PHOTO...

Again that flies over your retarded head...what does it take to make a retard understand basic English...?

Pointing out that you are obviously retarded AFTER REFUTING YOUR ARGUMENT...does not an ad hominem make...moron...

https://s20.postimg.cc/c4x34w5m5/1813173110-107094776db804c07c492fdb0bb559f4.jpg Have you read the DSB report? Given the amount of time you are putting into whatever cause it is you support its 250 or so pages shouldn't deter you. Interesting in particular how many online comments on MH17 it shows to irresponsible or trollish blathering. The holes are obviously more like shrapnel than bullet holes. There were hundreds of metal fragments in the pilots' bodies. There were no other aircraft nearby etc etc. So .

If you have read what must now be the starting point for discussion what do you say is wrong with the report, and on what evidence and reasoning?

Can you at least be one of those who is ear headed enough to see that the DSB report goes nowhere near saying that anyone, let alone Russians, deliberately shot down MH17?

Anon , [168] • Disclaimer says: July 13, 2018 at 8:20 am GMT
@Greg S. I personally like the following conspiracy theory: Putin's airplane was known to be transiting back to Russia from Europe that day. Russian plane colors: white with red, white, and blue striping. "Someone" whispers this information into the ear of a Ukranian pilot. A few other small and subtle gestures are done to ensure that this pilot and MH17 are in the same place at the same time. MH17 plane colors: white, with red, white, and blue striping.

All "Buk" business simply comes from the fact that the Novorussians (aka "Russians" to the media) did not have an airforce and only had old Buk missiles at their disposal. And why do you like that conspiracy theory? A lifelong taste for fairy stories?

skrik , says: July 13, 2018 at 9:09 am GMT
@FB Holy mother of jesus...another friggin spam storm from retardo boy...

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension, aside from obvious mental retardation...?

What part of this did you not understand...?


SO YOU NEED THE ACTUAL RAW DATA NOT A PICTURE DOWNLOADED OFF THE RUSSIAN MOD WEBSITE STUPID
Also being the shit eating dog you are, you don't understand the very definition of 'ad hominem' you posted...

'Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument'
I addressed your pinhead argument [such as it is] by pointing out the fact that NO IMAGE ANALYSIS CAN BE DONE FROM A WEBSITE PHOTO...

Again that flies over your retarded head...what does it take to make a retard understand basic English...?

Pointing out that you are obviously retarded AFTER REFUTING YOUR ARGUMENT...does not an ad hominem make...moron...

https://s20.postimg.cc/c4x34w5m5/1813173110-107094776db804c07c492fdb0bb559f4.jpg Err, not exactly OT, but consider my 'it' characterisation may be close to the mark -- if FKA Max is a robot = AI experiment [going wrong!] Consider this month alone it's posted 74 times so far, with a 'nom-life-time' average of over 320 words per post, noting a lot of cut'n paste included = getting towards 2k text per day, with a non-trivial number of incoherent sections. An erring robot for the FUKUSIL empire! rgds

AnonFromTN , says: July 13, 2018 at 5:41 pm GMT
@Anon I don't see you having tagged Wizard of Oz comments with Troll so are your readers to infer that your definition of a troll is someone whose questions you can't answer or whose nitpicking pedantry (as perhaps you see it) has got under your skin?

But you do say something of general interest. You allege that there are lies in a post which was nearly all relaying what the Dutch Safety Board said so it is a bit hard to see what you meant by "lies". Would you care to elucidate - unless of course your "lies" too, like "troll" was a Humpty Dumpty word. I did not mark that personage as Troll because somehow the site does not allow me to do that.
Now, as to lies, here is an incomplete list:

1. None of the pieces of material evidence satisfied chain of custody rules required by the law in most countries, including the Netherlands.

2. Alleged missile fragments "from the site" were provided by one of the suspects, Ukraine. Their provenance was not (and could not be) ascertained.

3. Shrapnel pieces. I quote DSB findings "The numerous injuries resulting from perforation of the pre-formed fragments after detonation of the warhead immediately killed the three crew members in the cockpit. There were no pre-formed fragments found in the bodies of the other occupants."

4. Site access: in contrast to WoO, DSB does not complain about site access (item 2.12.1 of the report, 1st paragraph). The second paragraph talks about security situation. If fact, Ukie military shelled the area of the wreckage for weeks (mentioned in DSB report on p. 54, without specifying who was shelling the area, which is a giveaway). WoO does not acknowledge that, blaming Donetsk People's Republic instead.

5. Most foreign objects found in passenger remains were identified as personal belongings, parts of the plane, and stones/coal particles from the ground (pp. 84, 86, 95).

6. A number of metal fragments were found and analyzed. Some could have been high-energy pieces from whatever downed the plane (items 2.15.2 and 2.16.2).

7. Traces of several explosives were found: RDX, TNT, and PETN (p. 93). Only one explosive is used in Buk missiles.

8. There were two (not one) peaks of sound from cockpit recorder before the crash (pp. 11-112).

9. Item 3.8.4 is recapitulation of the Ukrainian study conducted by the Kyiv Research institute. The data from one of the possible suspects had no legal grounds to be included.

One can continue, but what's the point? The other issues (items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), as well as the fact that international airlines fly through the Russian airspace, but avoid Ukrainian, which I raised in my post (#45) are studiously avoided by that "WoO" personage and other trolls from the same side. Sapenti sat.

FB , says: July 14, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra I am Dutch, and of course the disaster starled us.
Hardly anyone in our country has no personal connection with someone who died, or someone who lost a relative or friend.
A friend of one of my children lost three relatives.

However, it was striking how already on the evening of the disaster military 'experts' knew it was a Russian BUK.
That on the afternoon of the disaster prime minister Rutte made a phone call to vice prime minister Asscher, so secret that Asscher, on vacation in the south of France, had to call Rutte on a land line so that, as Asscher stated 'the Russians could not listen in'.
On the day of the disaster the Netherlands blocked sanctions against Russia, the next morning sanctions were possible.

Since then the accusation, without much proof, as far as I can see, and without any motive 'that Russia did it' has been repeated over and over again.
Memorials were erected, remembrances all over the place.
So to be honest, I do not believe one word of the accusation.
The only possibility of Russian implication is an accident, Ukraine abusing overflying passenger planes as shield for its bombers, in the expectation that nu BUK would be fired.

The possibility of shooting down MH17 deliberately, in the tradition of Sept 11 and Pearl Harbour, quite probable, in my opinion.
These investigations, read the Warren report on the Kennedy murder, not worth the paper they're written on.
In the Warren case, Whitewash wiped the floor with Warren.
If something similar will be published on the Dutch report, I would not be surprised. Jilles I just found this excellent blog thanks to a shit-eating troll here who pointed me to it

From a Dutch guy named Max van der Werff who is taking on the poofter Eliot Higgins at his own game ie so-called citizen 'journalism' here he talks about how the Dutch authorities and JIT asked him to submit material he has compiled and collected

' Fact: it is the Dutch police/prosecution who asked me to submit the data I collected during +2,000 hours of research. During a four hour interview two JIT officials and I discussed many issues.

They patiently listened to my explanations why, in my opinion, the official investigation is fundamentally flawed.

The article MH17 -- 1000 Days gives a good impression about how detailed the Q & A was '

A terrific blog with many good articles by a clearly intelligent young man who is smart enough to not buy the bologna on offer

jilles dykstra , says: July 15, 2018 at 11:05 am GMT
@AnonFromTN The organizers of the crime knew exactly what is going to happen and how they intended to spin the event. What else is new? There is even a suspicion that Dutch authorities knew before the disaster knew what was going to happen.
Just a few days after the disaster an impressive show was staged, hundreds of hearses picking up the coffins with the remains of the bodies, driving along a closed highway from Eindhoven airport to somewhere in the middle of the Netherlands.
Someone with experience in organising big events was of the opinion that in the few days between the disaster and the show it would have been impossible to organise the show.
The coffins of course were nonsense, each coffin contained body parts of a number of different persons.
Forgot how much time it took to sort out what part was of whom.
One is reminded of Lockerby, it has never been explained why some VIP's were taken from the plane at London airport.
As Sept 11, in my opinion, Lockerby was bungled.
The explosion should have been over sea
jilles dykstra , says: July 15, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT
@FB Jilles...I just found this excellent blog thanks to a shit-eating troll here who pointed me to it...

From a Dutch guy named Max van der Werff who is taking on the poofter Eliot Higgins at his own game...ie so-called citizen 'journalism'... here he talks about how the Dutch authorities and JIT asked him to submit material he has compiled and collected...


'... Fact: it is the Dutch police/prosecution who asked me to submit the data I collected during +2,000 hours of research. During a four hour interview two JIT officials and I discussed many issues.

They patiently listened to my explanations why, in my opinion, the official investigation is fundamentally flawed.

The article MH17 -- 1000 Days gives a good impression about how detailed the Q & A was...'

A terrific blog with many good articles by a clearly intelligent young man who is smart enough to not buy the bologna on offer... The fact that I'm Dutch and follow Dutch 'news', plus that I've never heard of this Max van der Werff, tells a lot, I suppose.
But, as with Sept 11, I'm no longer interested in detailed discussions about events.
They just muddy the waters.
Neither the rebels, nor Russia had any interest in shooting down a commerial airliner, while the west had.
Naming the criminal who is supposed to have done it, a Russian army officer, can also not convince me, as the investigation club intends to ask him why he did it.
AnonFromTN , says: July 15, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra There is even a suspicion that Dutch authorities knew before the disaster knew what was going to happen.
Just a few days after the disaster an impressive show was staged, hundreds of hearses picking up the coffins with the remains of the bodies, driving along a closed highway from Eindhoven airport to somewhere in the middle of the Netherlands.
Someone with experience in organising big events was of the opinion that in the few days between the disaster and the show it would have been impossible to organise the show.
The coffins of course were nonsense, each coffin contained body parts of a number of different persons.
Forgot how much time it took to sort out what part was of whom.
One is reminded of Lockerby, it has never been explained why some VIP's were taken from the plane at London airport.
As Sept 11, in my opinion, Lockerby was bungled.
The explosion should have been over sea There are many indications who organized this provocation: only the organizers could have responded with the speed the US authorities did. I would not be surprised if the Dutch government was in on the game ahead of time, too. After all, what are vassals for? As we know, the king is played by its courtiers.
Robjil , says: July 15, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Your tribe cannot have it both ways. Either the Holocaust reparations and museums and incomparable sufferings and nazi-hunting, or the pro-banderite (pro-neo-Nazi) activities of Mrs. Nuland-Kagan and Mr. Carl Gerschman, the violation of the US constitution for the benefit of Israel, and the suppression of research in the European history (whether the documented history of the Jews in Russia or the numbers related to the victims of WWII).
I don't know about that. So far, according to your own observations, 'my tribe' (and what a foolish attempt to try and pigeonhole me into your simplistic black and white worldview), the ziocons (a codeword for Jews) are both supporting the evil and wicked Ukro-Nazis in Ukraine, and yet also suffering the greatest indignities from the very same junta that they're supporting? Why address your worn out ideas and dilemmas to me? I'm neither a Banderite nor a Jew. You're barking up the wrong tree, and you'll have to find your answers somewhere else. "Your tribe cannot have it both ways. Either the Holocaust reparations and museums and incomparable sufferings and nazi-hunting, or the pro-banderite (pro-neo-Nazi) activities of Mrs. Nuland-Kagan and Mr. Carl Gerschman, the violation of the US constitution for the benefit of Israel, and the suppression of research in the European history (whether the documented history of the Jews in Russia or the numbers related to the victims of WWII). "

Annamaria goes straight to heart of the hypocrisy of the Zwest. It does not make sense if the big H is the center of the universe, as our MSM promotes it to be over and over again endlessly. Why would the US/Israel work together to revive a form of Nazism to take over a large country in Europe in the 21st century? This woke me up in 2014. Now I question everything our MSM spouts. The game is up.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: July 15, 2018 at 9:49 pm GMT
@Robjil "Your tribe cannot have it both ways. Either the Holocaust reparations and museums and incomparable sufferings and nazi-hunting, or the pro-banderite (pro-neo-Nazi) activities of Mrs. Nuland-Kagan and Mr. Carl Gerschman, the violation of the US constitution for the benefit of Israel, and the suppression of research in the European history (whether the documented history of the Jews in Russia or the numbers related to the victims of WWII). "

Annamaria goes straight to heart of the hypocrisy of the Zwest. It does not make sense if the big H is the center of the universe, as our MSM promotes it to be over and over again endlessly. Why would the US/Israel work together to revive a form of Nazism to take over a large country in Europe in the 21st century? This woke me up in 2014. Now I question everything our MSM spouts. The game is up. These far right Ukrainian groups are either hired muscle who are too dumb to know that they'll be disposed of once they've outlived their usefulness, or directly bankrolled as front operations by the Jewish oligarchs running the Ukraine, as a diversionary tactic. Probably some combination of both, even Putin fails to ask the right questions about them.

annamaria , says: July 15, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Your tribe cannot have it both ways. Either the Holocaust reparations and museums and incomparable sufferings and nazi-hunting, or the pro-banderite (pro-neo-Nazi) activities of Mrs. Nuland-Kagan and Mr. Carl Gerschman, the violation of the US constitution for the benefit of Israel, and the suppression of research in the European history (whether the documented history of the Jews in Russia or the numbers related to the victims of WWII).
I don't know about that. So far, according to your own observations, 'my tribe' (and what a foolish attempt to try and pigeonhole me into your simplistic black and white worldview), the ziocons (a codeword for Jews) are both supporting the evil and wicked Ukro-Nazis in Ukraine, and yet also suffering the greatest indignities from the very same junta that they're supporting? Why address your worn out ideas and dilemmas to me? I'm neither a Banderite nor a Jew. You're barking up the wrong tree, and you'll have to find your answers somewhere else. " the ziocons (a codeword for Jews) are both supporting the evil and wicked Ukro-Nazis in Ukraine, and yet also suffering the greatest indignities from the very same junta that they're supporting?"
-- You imply that the revival of neo-Nazism, with the considerable and decisive help from ziocons, and the resultant sufferings of Ukrainian Jews are self-excluding. They are not.
-- And where have you found, in my posts, a conflation of all Jews with zionists/ziocons? It is like saying that the US citizenry is made up of Cheneys and Kristols. This is not true. Speak for yourself.
AnonFromTN , says: July 16, 2018 at 12:35 am GMT
@FKA Max

I really don't understand this phenomena either and am at a loss to try and explain it. I would think that a true-blue Ukrainian nationalist would find it sufficient to display the perennial Ukrainian trident as a personal adornment and not the German SS insignia?
You might be on to something:

The Straight-Edge Neo-Nazi Group that Attacked a Ukrainian Roma Camp


" We really understand that Russia could be behind it, but I can't say it with 100% certainty, because it wouldn't be a correct thing to do, " Hrytsak said at a joint press-conference with Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Hrytsak stated that "a namesake organization was registered in Russia in 2014," although it's not clear if he meant if it was formalized in Russia or popped up on the radar there. If he was referring to the large VK group, Hrytsak is mistaken, as Popovich is and was Ukrainian. While the Kremlin has directly funded and supported numerous far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Europe and Russia, most notably through the proxy of billionaire Konstantin Malofeyev http://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/#comment-2415623 , there are no apparent links between the Sober and Angry Youth and the Kremlin other than typical links of pan-Slavism present in many far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the region.

Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs also claims that, regarding the lethal attack on Roma, Russia has an interest in presenting Ukraine as "a certain radical reality that doesn't adhere to human rights."
[...]
Many Ukrainian far-right groups have a fervent anti-Russian position in relation to the war in the Donbas, including the formation of armed battalions , as seen with Right Sector's "Volunteer Ukrainian Corps," Azov Battalion, the St. Mary's Battalion, and so on. In contrast to these groups, the Sober and Angry Youth groups across Ukraine rarely express strong feelings one way or another in relation to the war, instead focusing on issues related to white supremacy, driving out migrants from Ukraine, and outing and attacking LGBT individuals. Ragozin summarized their position succinctly in a recent tweet, saying that the concerns of the Sober and Angry Youth "transcends borders and national loyalties," with their battle for white supremacy in the region overriding the war between Ukraine and Russia in the country's east.

- https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/06/26/straight-edge-neo-nazi-group-attacked-ukrainian-roma-camp/ Bellingcat is the source? Too late, everyone with half a brain knows that bellingcat is a fraud and a liar.

Ukrainian authorities and especially "activists" blame everything that damages Ukraine on Russia. I've even read that they blamed Maidan on Russia. They might have a point there: nothing damaged Ukraine more than Maidan and its post-Maidan "government" selected by Nuland (famous for her "F..k the EU" phrase).

NoseytheDuke , says: July 16, 2018 at 8:26 am GMT
The Big Lie lives! And you'll hear it again, and again.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/16/russia-must-account-for-role-in-shooting-down-mh17-says-g7

Anon , [130] • Disclaimer says: July 16, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
@skrik

Instead of just sniffing round like a flearidden mongrel and snapping at ankles ... at least answer other commenters points
1st of all, attacking a commenter is ad hominem [= fallacy when 'unjustified'], 2nd one cannot contest arguments based upon false premises - like Wizard of Oz's risible "The SMH is in no way plugged into US propaganda" and FKA Max's extensive bellingcat spam, say.

3rd, a partial quote: " But it remained for the xxx, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, ... "

4th, lemma #1: At any crime-scene, one must consider means, motive and opportunity, but a more complete list includes premeditation, presence, any modus operandi and cui bono?

5th, lemma #2: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt.

Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory [like all non-native residents in the 'illegitimate entity,' say.]

Now, a definitive assertion: That the FUKUSIL rogue-regimes are 'black hats' capable of and actually perform depredations of the 'supreme international crime' class, any 'supporters' of same make themselves accessories and attract proportional guilt, as in lemma 2.

Declarative: My position is as a "bystander" as above, and since a) civil duty and b) silence = acquiescence, I *must* make my objections known, and choose to do so as emphatically as I can - in my own 'style.'

Finally, 'right vs left' is a useless if not false dichotomy; 'aggressors vs defending victims' is apposite and the FUKUSIL rogue-regimes can be expanded to:

FUKUS-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption.

a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches

add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies

The subset CCC [= covert criminal cabal] plus their puppet politicians as 'rulers,' the handmaiden MSM+PFBCs [latter = publicly financed broadcasters] as Bernays-haze propagandists exactly fit as "xxx" in the top-quote and the accessory 'supporters' [i.e. trolls/hasbarats in here] constitute 'the enemy.'

Exactly because "All politicians lie!" [thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward] and the MSM+PFBCs ditto, we the world citizens are in a 'mushroom club' [= kept in the dark and fed on BS]; there is no complete factual base available to us, and so it becomes a '*circumstantial*' argument.

We, the 'white-hats' assert that the 'black-hats' as above caused MH17 to be shot down. The argument is that the preponderance of observable circumstantial evidence points that way. That the accessory supporters [= trolls/hasbarats] are 'protesting too much' [see Wizard of Oz's hysteria, say] can tell us something, namely that the white-hats' assertion hits too close to the black-hats' home. A 'tiny' [= $5bio] piece of proof: Mme Nuland's "F--k the EU!" If the cap fits ... Only one of the hermit like outsiders on this thread could try and make anything even once of V. Nuland's "F ** k the EU", let alone trotting it out for the five hundredth time. Try and get to know some real people in the real world.

NoseytheDuke , says: July 16, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMT
@Anon Only one of the hermit like outsiders on this thread could try and make anything even once of V. Nuland's "F**k the EU", let alone trotting it out for the five hundredth time. Try and get to know some real people in the real world. Haw haw! That has to be one of the weakest attempts to discredit another commenter that I can recall. Congratulations on receipt of the Wet Noodle Award.

FYI, the real people in the world understand that V. Nuland was exposed as having squandered 5 billion dollars of US taxpayer's money to underwrite the most blatant coup in history which has bought nothing but death, destruction and instability and your weak attempt to mask that smacks of pathetic desperation. It seems that the weakest commenters usually go with the username "Anon" and with good reason.

annamaria , says: July 16, 2018 at 6:52 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN Bellingcat is the source? Too late, everyone with half a brain knows that bellingcat is a fraud and a liar.

Ukrainian authorities and especially "activists" blame everything that damages Ukraine on Russia. I've even read that they blamed Maidan on Russia. They might have a point there: nothing damaged Ukraine more than Maidan and its post-Maidan "government" selected by Nuland (famous for her "F..k the EU" phrase). Please, don't feed the automated troll. This is an algorithm concocted to use the themes and sources that are the most anti-Unz-forum in spirit. The algorithm' selection is so stupid that it cannot be offered by a (normal) person. Nothing but pollution. The best is to ban "it."

AnonFromTN , says: July 16, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
@annamaria Please, don't feed the automated troll. This is an algorithm concocted to use the themes and sources that are the most anti-Unz-forum in spirit. The algorithm' selection is so stupid that it cannot be offered by a (normal) person. Nothing but pollution. The best is to ban "it." Judging by the amount of spam it posts and by total lack of intelligence or selection, you are probably right. Will ignore that thing from now on. Then again, a Ukie troll, even though biologically human, could be at the same level of intelligence (meaning lack thereof). After all, Ukies have medically certified retard as a speaker of their parliament. Still, whether a computer script or a Ukie, that thing should be ignored.
skrik , says: July 17, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke Haw haw! That has to be one of the weakest attempts to discredit another commenter that I can recall. Congratulations on receipt of the Wet Noodle Award.

FYI, the real people in the world understand that V. Nuland was exposed as having squandered 5 billion dollars of US taxpayer's money to underwrite the most blatant coup in history which has bought nothing but death, destruction and instability and your weak attempt to mask that smacks of pathetic desperation. It seems that the weakest commenters usually go with the username "Anon" and with good reason. thnx; I see two grounds for the hasbarats'/trolls' hysteria, 1) they perceive FUKUSIL credibility approaching zero [a significant majority of aware proles don't believe "the Russians did it!" meme] and 2) the "they're killing their own people!" meme is has boomeranged back to smack 'the West' in the chops. As usual, we examine modus operandi and cui bono ; Q: Who benefited from the JFK murder? A: Number one = LBJ, Q: Who ordered the recall of the USS Liberty relief planes? A: Also LBJ, who is alleged to have been a crypto J Then, Q: Who benefited from the 9/11 inside job/false flag? A: Number one = the ZioCons' PNAC [extension of Yinon Plan ],

testing;preview works but publish disappears

skrik , says: July 17, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
@skrik thnx; I see two grounds for the hasbarats'/trolls' hysteria, 1) they perceive FUKUSIL credibility approaching zero [a significant majority of aware proles don't believe "the Russians did it!" meme] and 2) the "they're killing their own people!" meme is has boomeranged back to smack 'the West' in the chops. As usual, we examine modus operandi and cui bono ; Q: Who benefited from the JFK murder? A: Number one = LBJ, Q: Who ordered the recall of the USS Liberty relief planes? A: Also LBJ, who is alleged to have been a crypto J... Then, Q: Who benefited from the 9/11 inside job/false flag? A: Number one = the ZioCons' PNAC [extension of Yinon Plan ],

testing;preview works but publish disappears

[1st attempt was 'marked as spam' but later published; the rest:]

, Q: Who benefited from the maidan inside job/false flag? A: Number one = the ZioCons' "the bad Russians!" campaign, one sees the modus operandi trend and cui bono whodunnit. MH17 fits to the FUKUSIL pattern, *not* to the Russians. Then see Sherlock Holmes, eliminate the impossible and WYSIWYG = the hasbarats'/trolls' hysteria. They just can't help themselves; they *must* try to resist the irresistible but their very own actions only dig the criminal FUKUSIL deeper into their hole. rgds

NoseytheDuke , says: July 18, 2018 at 12:58 am GMT
https://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324
NoseytheDuke , says: July 19, 2018 at 1:31 am GMT
@MattBoi This article is a perfect example of how dishonest the so-called "alternative" media is. Rather than admit to Russia's lies about MH17, evident by its multiple, contradictory conspiracy theories, we hear some words about the "context" surrounding MH17. The meaning is clear: the author wants to claim that the West was responsible for shooting down MH17, as a "false flag." But there's just one problem: he has no evidence. So he uses the "context" surrounding the shootdown to imply that it was the U.S., using the good ol' proof-by-implication trick, leading questions, and more fallacies than a singe day's worth of Fox News.

What happened is simple: the rebels accidentally shot down MH17 with a BUK, thinking it was a fighter jet. Russia was too embarrassed to that its allies could do such a thing, so it launched the biggest disinformation campaign since the Cold War-era Operation INFEKTION.

Many "independent" thinkers here ask "who benefits"?, once again implying that it was the U.S. But this is fallacious thinking: if I drop a glass of water on my foot and start bleeding, can I point my finger to my enemy, claiming it was he who did it, because why would I crack my foot on purpose?? Of course not, because it was an accident! It was unintentional.

More to the point, all of Russia's lies have been debunked. We even found Carlos, the guy claiming to be a Spanish Air Traffic Controller working in Ukraine, who "overheard" evidence that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet shot down MH17. The story was suspicious from the start. It took 4 years, but the good folks over at REF/RL finally tracked him down, where he admitted to having lied. RT Spanish was the first to introduce this fraudster to the world, blurring his face to add legitimacy to their hoax.

There are many other lies spread by Russia, as well as leading questions aiming to sow doubt, e.g. "Why did MH17's flight route 'mysteriously' deviate that day?."

But if the gullible useful idi*ts still do not believe the truth, then they never will. They will continue to fall for the lies, including the highly dishonest author of this trash piece. Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the MSM? Shrapnel from a BUK is highly unlikely to create nice round holes and certainly not groups of them.

Speaking of lies, if it was simply an accident, please explain how it came to pass that a audio recording was fabricated (by editing and splicing genuine transmissions) in a crude and easily disproven attempt to implicate the "Rebel" Donbass defenders and that this was done prior to the downing of MH17?

p.s. Approval from Peter Arse the 'Tard is hardly a commendation of your comment.

MattBoi , says: July 19, 2018 at 2:09 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the MSM? Shrapnel from a BUK is highly unlikely to create nice round holes and certainly not groups of them.

Speaking of lies, if it was simply an accident, please explain how it came to pass that a audio recording was fabricated (by editing and splicing genuine transmissions) in a crude and easily disproven attempt to implicate the "Rebel" Donbass defenders and that this was done prior to the downing of MH17?

p.s. Approval from Peter Arse the 'Tard is hardly a commendation of your comment.

This is a common claim, but has a benign explanation: shrapnel holes from a BUK will never be the exact shape as the pellets themselves, due to the high speed and heat deforming the holes. We do not live in a cartoon world, where the character breaks through a wall and the resultant hole is the same shape as the character's body.

Regarding that audio recording, I know which one you mean, and this claim has been repeated by Dugin too. But this, as with the above, has an explanation: at the time, certain videos uploaded to YouTube suffered from a bug, in which their timestamps were incorrect, due to timezone logic issues. I am trying to find the original bug report in Google's system, but it's been too long and I'm having trouble. Search it up and you'll probably find it.

In another comment, you mentioned Carlos. It's a shame, because the story was suspicious from the start, and yet, it took 4 years for the excellent investigative journalists over at RFE/RL to debunk it by hunting down the hoax actor:

https://www.rferl.org/a/catch-carlos-if-you-can-mh17-russia-ukraine/29065244.html

And this is why the Kremlin has won the information war: no matter how honest one is and how much effort is spent debunking lies, there's no point if no one reads the anti-propaganda in the end.

NoseytheDuke , says: July 19, 2018 at 5:04 am GMT
@MattBoi This is a common claim, but has a benign explanation: shrapnel holes from a BUK will never be the exact shape as the pellets themselves, due to the high speed and heat deforming the holes. We do not live in a cartoon world, where the character breaks through a wall and the resultant hole is the same shape as the character's body.

Regarding that audio recording, I know which one you mean, and this claim has been repeated by Dugin too. But this, as with the above, has an explanation: at the time, certain videos uploaded to YouTube suffered from a bug, in which their timestamps were incorrect, due to timezone logic issues. I am trying to find the original bug report in Google's system, but it's been too long and I'm having trouble. Search it up and you'll probably find it.

In another comment, you mentioned Carlos. It's a shame, because the story was suspicious from the start, and yet, it took 4 years for the excellent investigative journalists over at RFE/RL to debunk it by hunting down the hoax actor:

https://www.rferl.org/a/catch-carlos-if-you-can-mh17-russia-ukraine/29065244.html

And this is why the Kremlin has won the information war: no matter how honest one is and how much effort is spent debunking lies, there's no point if no one reads the anti-propaganda in the end. A commendable attempt by you but a total fail nonetheless. If you've seen the shape of BUK shrapnel you'd realise what a massive stretch it is to even suggest that those sharp edged pieces hitting thin metal sheeting at high velocity would result in making round holes has a "benign explanation". By definition, they are designed to shred their target. That those holes would reveal both an entry and exit direction of that shrapnel while coming from the same source would require "magic shrapnel" with magical properties along the lines of the "magic bullet" of JFK fame.

The clear giveaway for me was the rush to judgement by both politicians and media, worldwide. The near instant removal of contradictory testimonials, such as the BBC broadcast of the eye-witnesses, the unconventional investigation which included one potential (and the more likely) culprit, Ukraine. The select language used by media throughout this saga has been a giveaway too, as is you providing a link to a source that was originally set up by the CIA and is now funded by Congressional whores in the USA.

I notice these are your first attempts at commenting here. A weak effort to be sure but with practice you may yet rise to the level of Quartermaster so don't be discouraged.

skrik , says: July 19, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
@MattBoi This article is a perfect example of how dishonest the so-called "alternative" media is. Rather than admit to Russia's lies about MH17, evident by its multiple, contradictory conspiracy theories, we hear some words about the "context" surrounding MH17. The meaning is clear: the author wants to claim that the West was responsible for shooting down MH17, as a "false flag." But there's just one problem: he has no evidence. So he uses the "context" surrounding the shootdown to imply that it was the U.S., using the good ol' proof-by-implication trick, leading questions, and more fallacies than a singe day's worth of Fox News.

What happened is simple: the rebels accidentally shot down MH17 with a BUK, thinking it was a fighter jet. Russia was too embarrassed to that its allies could do such a thing, so it launched the biggest disinformation campaign since the Cold War-era Operation INFEKTION.

Many "independent" thinkers here ask "who benefits"?, once again implying that it was the U.S. But this is fallacious thinking: if I drop a glass of water on my foot and start bleeding, can I point my finger to my enemy, claiming it was he who did it, because why would I crack my foot on purpose?? Of course not, because it was an accident! It was unintentional.

More to the point, all of Russia's lies have been debunked. We even found Carlos, the guy claiming to be a Spanish Air Traffic Controller working in Ukraine, who "overheard" evidence that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet shot down MH17. The story was suspicious from the start. It took 4 years, but the good folks over at REF/RL finally tracked him down, where he admitted to having lied. RT Spanish was the first to introduce this fraudster to the world, blurring his face to add legitimacy to their hoax.

There are many other lies spread by Russia, as well as leading questions aiming to sow doubt, e.g. "Why did MH17's flight route 'mysteriously' deviate that day?."

But if the gullible useful idi*ts still do not believe the truth, then they never will. They will continue to fall for the lies, including the highly dishonest author of this trash piece.

Of course not, because it was an accident!

OK; a sad and sorry, feeble attempt, but let's see. A BUK [from somewhere, anywhere] arrives at a launch-spot, is fired by some crew [who is obviously way 'under-qualified'] and hitting 'by accident' MH17, which just happened to have been put on that specific, far from normal track = anomalously, deliberately by Ukrie air-traffic-control, 'best feeble guess' = presumably the crew thinking that they are shooting down an Ukrie warplane [only Ukries have warplanes in that area].

Perhaps the BUK was captured by 'rebels' [recall Reagan-sponsored rebels were his 'patriots'], or perhaps, as bellingcat asserts, Russia actually sent in the BUK with crew, who were also so incompetent that they perpetrate this 'accident.'

Q: You really believe that? Who could accept that as an explanation with anywhere near maximum probability? It's simply too complicated; contradicting KISS = keep it simple stupid!

A: As I've already said above at lemma #1: At any crime-scene, one must consider means, motive and opportunity, but a more complete list includes premeditation, presence, any modus operandi and cui bono?

Premeditation could be a) getting an *UKrie* BUK pre-positioned, then b) *UKries* putting MH17 into the death-zone. Der, it's simply 1 + 1 = 2; pre-position BUK, divert MH17 and BLAM! All Ukries' own work. Modus operandi [= false-flag atrocity psyops] and cui bono [PNAC/Yinon/Nuland-$5bio Plan], are SOP for FUKUSIL. Then, there are the precisely circular entry/exit holes which *cannot* be dismissed by any amount of hand-waving.

Note that this purported 'accident' as asserted/supported by FKA Max, MattBoi, peterAUS & Wizard of Oz et al. as the typical pro-FUKUSIL vigilante posse, is precisely the same situation as a little boy finding a gun and shooting his sister dead, then blaming the little boy. Look for the gun provider/trigger-pull commanders: FUKUSIL by a country 1.609km. Suck on that, sickos.

kgbgb , says: July 19, 2018 at 7:20 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke Not only lower but also further North, by a few hundred kilometres. A Spanish ATC working at Kiev, named Carlos, went public immediately saying Ukraine did it.

Eye witness were filmed immediately afterwards stating that there was a small warplane underneath MH17 just prior to it turning and then going down. I couldn't understand what they were saying (there were subtitles) but their non-verbal cues suggested that they were being entirely truthful.

In the days immediately after the incident, the commercial flight-tracking websites showed MH17′s path as having crossed the Donbass only on that day, but as being over the Sea of Azov on all previous days, going back for something like 10 to 14 days. (Looking further back required membership).

This was discussed below the line on relevant Guardian articles at the time. I mentioned one website, I think FlightAware; others mentioned another. People agreed that this was circumstantial evidence that if the shoot-down was a deliberate plot, then that plot was Ukrainian, as they could decide the route. Unfortunately, when we returned to the websites a few days later, they had been 'corrected' to show the plane following the Donbass route every day. It was quite shocking to see The Ministry of Truth working in real time.

I am no longer a Guardian reader. On returning recently, I found it impossible to link to the discussion, as the comment system has been changed. Perhaps there is a way, but I couldn't find it.

kgbgb , says: July 19, 2018 at 8:59 pm GMT
@republic In July 2014 the place that I would go to find interesting information on that Malaysian flight was Zero Hedge.

On July 17, 2014 the following article appeared in ZH with hundreds of comments.

Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

The article is still available on line, but Zero Hedge has purged all the comments. It also seems that all ZH articles older than a few months are purged of their comments.

I wonder why this purge is taking place?

Glad that UR does not follow a similar practice. Zero Hedge changed their servers and/or software at the beginning of this year. If I recall correctly, all comments before that time were lost. Before then, you could go right back to the founding of the site.

I've just checked, and now comments are available back to part way through 1st of June 2017, so maybe they are gradually working backwards restoring them -- but I don't expect it to be a high priority for them. It's a pity, as the missing comments were often the main attraction of the site, full of intelligent analysis and useful links. The quality of the ZH commentariat declined noticeably at the time of the 2016 election, so we are missing the really good stuff.

NoseytheDuke , says: July 20, 2018 at 1:15 am GMT
@kgbgb In the days immediately after the incident, the commercial flight-tracking websites showed MH17's path as having crossed the Donbass only on that day, but as being over the Sea of Azov on all previous days, going back for something like 10 to 14 days. (Looking further back required membership).

This was discussed below the line on relevant Guardian articles at the time. I mentioned one website, I think FlightAware; others mentioned another. People agreed that this was circumstantial evidence that if the shoot-down was a deliberate plot, then that plot was Ukrainian, as they could decide the route. Unfortunately, when we returned to the websites a few days later, they had been 'corrected' to show the plane following the Donbass route every day. It was quite shocking to see The Ministry of Truth working in real time.

I am no longer a Guardian reader. On returning recently, I found it impossible to link to the discussion, as the comment system has been changed. Perhaps there is a way, but I couldn't find it.

Thank you for your comment. I do read The Guardian but mainly to see just how pungent is the crap of the day that they're peddling. Another thing about MH17 is the video that was supposed to show the BUK being transported across the border from Russia, until it was pointed out that a billboard for a car dealer some 400kms away was seen in the video. Car dealers advertise locally so the video was a blatant fraud and I wonder why anyone would go to that trouble if not to attempt to cover the tracks of a pre-planned false-flag event. Australia's Channel 9 did a 60 minutes program full of nonsense worthy of Elliot Higgins where they also tried to establish "facts" that implicated Russia. Only fools swallowed it but sadly, there is no shortage of wilful fools. Cheers
Rurik , says: July 22, 2018 at 7:48 pm GMT
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-suppressed-evidence-machine-gun-like-holes-malaysian-airlines-mh17-was-not-brought-down-by-a-buk-missile/5648099
NoseytheDuke , says: July 23, 2018 at 1:23 am GMT
@FKA Max John Kerry responsed by a letter dated March 7 2016. The letter is here.

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/response-kerry.jpg

Source: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/john-kerry-does-not-answer-questions-of-mh17-next-of-kin/

Americans Have The Right To Be Stupid -- John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5twSqDZRdiA


Case 3 : The minority view is false and the received view is true. For example, suppose a scholar were to write a book defending the thesis that slavery never happened in the United States. Why should we even tolerate such an outlandish view?

1. Even though the scholar's claims are false, again this forces us to revisit and perhaps rediscover much of the evidence we have documenting the history of slavery. This in turn informs both the way we do history, the way we accept truth claims, and the way we view the present.

2. The falseness of the scholar's claims actually strengthens many of our commonly received views about not just the fact of slavery, but it's legacy also.

- https://www.unz.com/article/americas-cultural-revolution-the-obsession-with-self-esteem/#comment-2294657 Thank you! I hadn't realised that John Kerry had written a letter. Why didn't you post it at the beginning of the thread so everybody could have been convinced by this truth and everybody would know of Russia's guilt in the matter? Of course lots of people have questioned this in the above thread, convincingly too, but no doubt most were unaware that John Kerry wrote a letter that constitutes proof of Ukraine's innocence and Russia's guilt. Also this means that the MSM can be believed and perhaps they were right about Saddam having WMDs too. Thanks again for your commitment to informing people everywhere on the truth.
Balderdash , says: July 31, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
@anon

As I said above, who did it and how remains obscure, although there are several pursued by people familiar with local circumstances, or revealed by insiders who know who which military assets were operating that day -- but all that remains inconclusive.
This article is supposed to be about why the airliner was shot down, and this confused garble is all the author has to say about the crucial event?

1. If the evidence supports the claim that the Russians did it, then that is important and the author should discuss that in detail.

2. If the evidence tends to show that Urkaine or the U.S. did it, then that is important and the author should discuss that in detail.

3. If the evidence is indeed inconclusive, then that is important and the author should discuss the evidence in detail to show that it is inconclusive.

The facts matter, but not to this writer. The facts are as described. The investigatory body has determined that 'Dissident forces' in the Donbass obtained one part of a Buk missile system, for the day, and used it with the result that a commercial aircraft was downed. that unit as traced by Bellingcat entered the Donbass region unobserved drove around including through areas that were nominally under government control , downed MH17 and was evacuated -- again largely unobserved -- back into Russia. While nobody actually saw the Unit in situ, or firing, Bellingcat has used his social media skills to locate the Russian unit to which he claims the unit was attached and has named Russian personnel who he claims may have been involved. The investigatory body included much of Bellingcat's evidence in their most recent report. They also asked for further corroboration of their theory from knowledgeable sources, presumably in Russia.
A salient (IMO) piece of evidence is a statement made by the US secretary of State, John Kerry, within two days of the incident saying that he "had seen satellite imagery" indicating that the missile was fired by dissident forces. That imagery has never been made available to the investigation. Not have they requested it.

NoseytheDuke , says: August 1, 2018 at 2:31 am GMT
@Balderdash The facts are as described. The investigatory body has determined that 'Dissident forces' in the Donbass obtained one part of a Buk missile system, for the day, and used it with the result that a commercial aircraft was downed. that unit as traced by Bellingcat entered the Donbass region unobserved drove around including through areas that were nominally under government control , downed MH17 and was evacuated - again largely unobserved - back into Russia. While nobody actually saw the Unit in situ, or firing, Bellingcat has used his social media skills to locate the Russian unit to which he claims the unit was attached and has named Russian personnel who he claims may have been involved. The investigatory body included much of Bellingcat's evidence in their most recent report. They also asked for further corroboration of their theory from knowledgeable sources, presumably in Russia.
A salient (IMO) piece of evidence is a statement made by the US secretary of State, John Kerry, within two days of the incident saying that he "had seen satellite imagery" indicating that the missile was fired by dissident forces. That imagery has never been made available to the investigation. Not have they requested it. One part of a Buk cannot be used independently to bring down a plane flying at high altitude without the other components. This is why it is usually referred to as a Buk system. Bellingcat is just a disinformation project and a pathetic one at that though it's been quite effective against the weak minded.

[Sep 23, 2018] September 21, 2018 at 2:41 pm

Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

And in the classic commercial way, it provides a twofer, since the white helmet first gained widespread popularity with the Village People, so it clicks with the whole LGBTQ touchy feely approach to world affairs we're always being told is essential. Real world hard hats tend to be in high-vis, almost painfully bright colours – orange, red, maybe blue.

White? In the Levant, where half or more of the buildings are white to reflect the sun?

Like Like Reply

Mark Chapman September 21, 2018 at 10:41 pm

Those are really bad. But I don't see much to link them to the White Helmets – just one guy with what I guess is their insignia on the back of his shirt, and nobody wearing the famous white helmets. It almost looks like someone deliberately making a fake which is full of holes, to implicate the White Helmets in making fake films. Just playing devil's advocate here. It would be very easy indeed for the White Helmets to disown these videos if they do not gain any traction.
Patient Observer September 22, 2018 at 2:20 pm
IIRC, the Russian government said a number of videos were shot with most being of low quality and would go straight to YouTube. Two were of sufficiently high cinematic quality to be released to Western media outlets.

However, with the recent agreement to stop military action in Idlib, it would seem that there is no longer an opportunity to use the videos as a justification for a Western military attack.

Indeed, the Idlib agreement has removed any pretext for Western attacks for the foreseeable future. That is big. The military phase of the war in Syria seems to be over.

[Sep 23, 2018] The USA now looks like new Bizantium with complex palace intrigues as "modus operandi"

Sep 23, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer September 23, 2018 at 10:43 am

https://theduran.com/was-nyt-story-about-rosenstein-coup-attempt-a-setup/?mc_cid=e1c20dc25a&mc_eid=d04cb5a32d

Games within games, schemes to no end:

Is the FBI trying to goad President Trump into firing the man in charge of supervising the Mueller probe? That's what Sean Hannity and a handful of Trump's Congressional allies think.

According to a report in Politico, Republicans in Congress are approaching a story about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein attempting to organize a palace coup with extreme caution, despite having twice nearly gathered the votes to remove him in the recent past.

Meanwhile, Trump allies including Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz are saying that the story should be treated with suspicion. Jordan and Freedom Caucus leader Mark Meadows once filed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. But now, both Meadows and Jordan intend to proceed with caution, telling Politico that he would like to see the memos that the story was based on.

Sean Hannity took this latter theory a step further during his show on Friday evening, where he urged Trump not to fire Rosie and instead insisted that the story could have been a "trap". He added that he had been told by "multiple sources" that the story was planted by unspecified "enemies of Trump."

"I have a message for the president tonight," Hannity said Friday night. "Under zero circumstances should the president fire anybody the president needs to know it is all a setup."

The NYT would anything to destroy Trump so, on general principles, the set up story has plausibility.

[Sep 22, 2018] Transphobic Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

Looks like Lysenkoism got a second life in the West...
Sep 22, 2018 | theduran.com

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are "biologically founded" Published

1 day ago

on

September 21, 2018 By

Tyler Durden 1,539 Views ,

[Sep 22, 2018] How Russian Sanctions Are Helping Putin Achieve His Most Desired Goal

Sep 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

dirty fingernails , 47 seconds ago

Russia now awaits possible new sanctions as a result of its involvement in the United States election and as a result of the potential nerve agent attack in England.

Who the **** writes this ****? Who believes those baldfaced lies?

Hass C. , 49 minutes ago

A little glimpse into how much influence Putin has on his own economy. Which is not much. He is trying hard to remove Russia's testicles from the vice of US control but this is a slow process as the economy and capital market are totally open, except for military production which is under his own control and pretty much protected from the whims of markets.

The steady increase of sanctions has the objective of forcing Putin's hand into lashing out and trying a dirigistic neo-stalinist approach, but this would cut Russia from foreign technology and capital, make the best work force fly abroad, resulting in final implosion.

Whether Russia survives as an industrial economy till US and the dollar loses its power over it is anybody's guess. The more Russia is weakened at that time, the more likely China will flood it with its love.

Ms No , 51 minutes ago

The thing with Putin is that he is a great leader and Patriot. He wishes us no harm and would like to be our friends (the western population); however, Putin isn't motivated by saving the world, your nation or you personally. His loyalty is to his people and their future.

All actions that Putin has taken that ended up saving your *** were simply a benefit gained by the happenstance of what benefits us benefitting him.

Putin will save his own (hopefully) but you have to save yourself. Remember that.

LaugherNYC , 8 minutes ago

If Putin wants to be friends with the West, then why did he reverse the course of openness to the EU and NATO, the trend towards normalization, and turn hard right into an ultra-nationalist despot, starting to spout the diseased philosophy of Ilyin, becoming a xenophobic tin pot kleptocrat, like some African warlord, funneling funds and assets offshore through shell companies and his buddies?

It will be interesting to see what happens when/if there is a real global investigation of Putin's offshored assets, and an expose of how he has plundered his country. He will be the very last to repatriate - nor should we want him to be forced into it. If you close his escape hatch, Vlad will be forced to live up to his rhetoric, which is very Rapture-esque, very nuclear nightmare, very Judgement Day Armageddon

Anonymous IX , 1 hour ago

Where's Billy Browder? What's next on his agenda? Billy, btw, the next time you allow anyone to film you, have your handlers minimize the obvious drug and/or electronic mind control over you a little earlier. You seem to "wake up" an awful lot...you know...where your head snaps up like you didn't realize something...or you're "waking up" from something. Just a helpful hint. You did so chronically throughout the Magnitsky film. Here's what a mind looks like on "mind control." Don't look for eggs in a frying pan.

Ms No , 50 minutes ago

So mind control looks something like sleep apnea?

Savvy , 1 hour ago

the desire to keep assets out of the reach of the United States Treasury

Can you say 'capital flight'? I knew you could. Not a country in the world is going to trust the US with a grain of salt.

Well done Trump and your $864billon/month deficit spending.

Ms No , 49 minutes ago

We really should stop referring to it as the US treasury. Its something else.

opport.knocks , 3 minutes ago

Lendery?

Cashlaudratomat?

Ponzi-prefecture?

The US Usury?

hooligan2009 , 1 hour ago

according to polls aired by tv station "euro news", putin's ratings are down 10% because he wants to raise the retirement ages of men to 65 from 60 (male life expectancy is 66) and womens retirement age from 55 to 60 (womens life expectancy is 71).

i guess this is proof that sanctions are working. putin has to raise the retirement age and russians die 12-15 years earlier than those in the west.

oh, the humanity!

sanctions work: they hurt the bottom 50%, not those better off.

Balance-Sheet , 58 minutes ago

Good to note this and it appears to be correct. Male life expectancy is 65/66 on average so many will die reaching for their first tiny pension check. I do not know why Putin simply does not seek to save money by ordering people to be shot at 65 as a humane measure. Russia has shot 10s of millions over the past 100 years so this will maintain a tradition.

I am interested in your remark on Putin's popularity- he appears to be slipping into megalomania also typical of Russian leaders so perhaps he will be removed. Raising the retirement age in Russia is recklessly stupid from a political perspective in an impoverished country established as Earth's largest resource treasure house.

Ms No , 44 minutes ago

War and sanctions are expensive. Through this evil the world is impoverished. Zionist fiat currency is also crushingly expensive. We would be exceedingly wealthy without all of this. A whole different world could exist.

That probably wont happen until the next age (a golden age) though because people now are inherently stupid and lack any connection. Sticking their appendenges in everything and sinking completely in dense materialism is more important.

Hass C. , 39 minutes ago

Can you specify why you say he "appears to be slipping into megalomania"? Been observing him for years and his megalomania index seems stable to me.

Also, Russian demography makes raising the retirement age necessary, they say. Their birth rate is increasing but so does life expectancy.

opport.knocks , 1 minute ago

He will not be able to run for re-election so now is the time to implement necessary but unpopular reforms.

Shemp 4 Victory , 38 minutes ago

according to polls aired by tv station "euro news"

Well, if "euro news" said, then so it is. Free European press can't lie.

hooligan2009 , 28 minutes ago

haha.. yes.. i watched it for ten minutes, so the same four headlines scrolled through in a cycle three times in those ten minutes. pope, a survivor underneath a boat after two days in lake victoria, blunt brexit and putins popularity.

nothing approcahing any quality whatsoever. i was just making sure the other side of the house hadn't got past "stupid"!!!

123dobryden , 1 hour ago

Rossia. Davaj

notfeelinthebern , 1 hour ago

Yeah, he's giving the west the proverbial finger. Instead of creating a bridge to trade and friendship, the west is doing nothing but trying to destroy an imaginary enemy.

Matteo S. , 1 hour ago

It is not imaginary from the anglo-saxon empire's point of view.

The anglo-saxon empire has been playing this game for more than 3 centuries.

It first constantly attacked France until it definitely emasculated it with Napoleon's downfall.

Then it immediately went to the jugular of Russia. And on this occasion was formulated Mackinder's gropolitics principles.

Then it went for Germany.

Then in again against USSR/Russia.

This is not due to imagination. This is a deliberate and structural way to interact with the rest of the world. The anglo-saxon empire hates competition and tries to destroy any potential competitor instead of agreeing to cooperate with peers.

Ms No , 42 minutes ago

The Anglo Saxon empire was occupied by Zionist money lending. They controlled the British empire. A lot of those blueblood royal were theirs to begin with also. They were also the bankers of Rome.

Matteo S. , 27 minutes ago

Forget your fantasies about the Catholic Church and the pope.

It is Protestants who have always dominated the anglo-saxon empire. Protestants from Britain but also from Netherlands, Germany, France, who allied with the English and Scot Protestants to build their mammonite empire.

And for one Rothschild family, you had the Astors, Vanderbilt's, Rockefellers, Carnegie's, Morgans, Fords, ... etc, none of which were jewish.

The Zionists are just the tail of the anglo-saxon dog.

justdues , 1 hour ago

"Russia now awaits possible new sanctions as a result of it,s ALLEGED involvement in the United States election and as a result of the ALLEGED nerve agent attack in England . FIFTylers

hooligan2009 , 1 hour ago

quite right. no trial, no evidence and harsh sentences/convictions via trade embargoes.

russia offered reciprocation so it could try Browder. the west said no, invented crimes culminating in a Magnitsy act.

if individuals in Europe, the UK or the US were convicted and imprisoned without trial governments in those places would be thrown out on their ear.

as it is, western governments can bring the entire planet to the brink of war, based on their political opinions - with no evidence, no trial and no opportunity to argue a case for a defence of charges.

JibjeResearch , 1 hour ago

lolz ahaha.... a bad choice..., any fiat is a bad choice...

Go phy.gold or cryptos (BTC, ETH, XTZ), phy.silver is good too...

An Shrubbery , 40 minutes ago

Cryptosporidiosis are no different than fiat, maybe even a little worse. They are NOT anonymous, and are becoming less and less so and eventually will be co-opted by deep state operatives such as googoyle, facefuck, Twatter, amazog, etc. for the deep state. There is an absolute record of your every transaction in the blockchain.

It's just a matter of time. There will be a crypto that we're all forced to use in the near future, and big brother will have absolute control of it.

my new username , 1 hour ago

This has zero impact on working class Americans. It only affects liberals and rich people.

DEDA CVETKO , 1 hour ago

Everything has impact on everything else. We are all, in some bizarre ways, interconnected. Deripaska (pictured above) has a virtual global monopoly on aluminum trade. Guess who uses aluminum? You guessed it: people like you and I. The airplane industry. Consumer industry. The military. Medical equipment industry. Construction industry. Food industry. Everyone!

There is no such thing as isolationism anymore. It wasn't possible even during Warren Harding's presidency, let alone now. This deranged notion that Donald Trump will somehow insulate us all from the effects of his aggressive overseas posturing is deranged beyond description.

[Sep 22, 2018] Once the rape of Russia by the west, including many American businessmen, that Yeltsin allowed was stopped (mostly by Putin), life has gradually gotten better for the average Russian

Notable quotes:
"... It is interesting that all the "draconian" election, etc. laws recently put into practice in Russia have to do with foreigners attempted misusing and lying about Russia's elections for "western" advantage. By now we should all know how the Western media will lie in every way to make it appear that their traitorous lackeys being used to destroy some other nation are the true "patriots" of that nation, even when they are not even citizens of it. ..."
Sep 22, 2018 | www.henrymakow.com

John G said (January 4, 2013):

At the time that Putin was in the KGB, had it not become a de facto ethnic Russian organization? Would not Putin's origins have been established prior to his joining?

You ask when Putin has stood up to the 'West'. It was Medvedev as President who was duped over Libya through the UN, not having been aware of the subtle shift in US policy from sabre-rattling and shock-and-awe to more discretely aiding 'rebels' to overthrow 'tyrants' under the guise of promoting the protection of civilians through no-fly zones etc. (Same policy, different tactics).

The response over Russia to Georgia's attack on S. Ossetia was entirely unequivocal and it remains to be seen how Putin, now back in the Presidential driving seat plays Syria and Iran.

Tony B said (January 4, 2013):

Of course, I can't know for certain but this article to me has the now familiar odor of disinformation to a very high degree. Putin is treated as a God by the majority of the Russian people but he is daily demonized by the "West." The suffering of the Russian people after the collapse of the USSR was due to the weakling and drunk Yeltsin. Once the rape of Russia by the west, including many American "businessmen," that Yeltsin allowed was stopped (mostly by Putin), life has gradually gotten better for the average Russian.

It is interesting that all the "draconian" election, etc. laws recently put into practice in Russia have to do with foreigners attempted misusing and lying about Russia's elections for "western" advantage. By now we should all know how the Western media will lie in every way to make it appear that their traitorous lackeys being used to destroy some other nation are the true "patriots" of that nation, even when they are not even citizens of it.

In my lifetime no one on earth, other than Putin, has stood up to the Rothschild empire, more or less telling them that if they really think they own Russia's oil business to try and get it. Would that American presidents would be such "Jews!"

[Sep 22, 2018] Has Russia given up on the West? In a word -- Yes, Yes and Yes.

Russia is too weak to standup to collective West which is hell-bent on its partitioning. It need deft maneuvers to gain some economic strength.
Sep 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Isabella , says: September 21, 2018 at 10:52 am GMT

Has Russia given up on the West? In a word -- Yes, Yes and Yes.

You can find this from a few sources. The Editor -- in -- Chief of RT and Sputnik News, Marguerite Simonyan, wrote an article not that long ago, addressed directly to you. To The "West". To the Anglo Fascist Empire. To America. "We came to you in friendship and admiration" she said, in effect, "and you have done nothing but abuse us, mock us, spit on us Well, to hell with you. We used to admire you. Now we dont. We used to want to be like you. Now, we dont".

In a speech also, although I'm sorry I cannot remember which one, President Putin also said, in effect "we made every effort to be friends. We thought the Cold War 1 was due to ideology -- to Communism. When that was dismantled and dropped by Russia, we thought you would accept our outstretched hand of friendship. To quote a Russian poem , we believed you "would to us the sword present" But you didn't. You abused our country, destroyed our industries, our pride, even, for a short while, our sovereignty. [During the 1990's "Shock and Awe" economic destruction of Russia].

We were prepared to forgive this and still try and work with you, but you have done nothing but tell lies about us, abuse us, pile on sanctions, and steal our properties. Now, we have done. We have made our minds up, and there is no going back. We will do what we need to make our country grow, to be strong and happy. You can do what you want. Frankly, we dont care any more".

Once a few years back, in a small Russian town, an enterprising garage sold door mats with the American flag on them, for people to wipe their feet. They sold out in hours. However, it was a momentary rage and Russians are very decent, kindly people. I think they have not repeated that moment of anger.

But if you watch Vesti English -- excerpts are on YouTube -- watch "60 minutes", watch Vecher "or Evening" excerpts, watch Kislyak, the popular presenters. See how they talk to Russia in that critical hour after workers get home and have diner and watch an evening hour of current affairs.

They show every lie, every manipulation, every example of American aggression, and they laugh at every American stupidity.

They are nice people, and if you go there as an American citizen, they will be kind to you. But when it comes to nations, and international trust -- they've had it with you. They've turned their back. And you brought it on yourselves. As the Russian saying goes "as you return my hand extended to you, so will I return your action"

Sally Snyder , says: September 21, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
As shown in this article, there is a little-discussed unintended consequence of the anti-Russia sanctions that could significantly impact some U.S. consumers:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/another-unintended-consequence-of.html

As is typical in Washington, there are a wide range of unanticipated consequences directly connected to its geopolitical maneuvering.

Sir Launcelot Canning , says: September 21, 2018 at 12:17 pm GMT
It appears that Putin is impotent to stand up to the Brussels -- Washington D.C. -- Jerusalem -- Berlin Axis of Evil. Could that be construed as evidence that the Axis is such a formidable iron fortress that even a tough guy like Putin can't put a dent in it?

If Russia and China don't collaborate soon, then the Axis will have complete, heavy handed global domination, replete with policies and infrastructure to make certain it is perpetually unchallenged.

Seems to me that I read something about this in the Bible.

anonymous , [340] Disclaimer says: September 21, 2018 at 12:25 pm GMT

@Isabella Has Russia given up on the West? In a word - Yes, Yes and Yes.

You can find this from a few sources. The Editor - in - Chief of RT and Sputnik News, Marguerite Simonyan, wrote an article not that long ago, addressed directly to you. To The "West". To the Anglo Fascist Empire. To America. "We came to you in friendship and admiration" she said, in effect, "and you have done nothing but abuse us, mock us, spit on us Well, to hell with you. We used to admire you. Now we dont. We used to want to be like you. Now, we dont".

In a speech also, although I'm sorry I cannot remember which one, President Putin also said, in effect "we made every effort to be friends. We thought the Cold War 1 was due to ideology - to Communism. When that was dismantled and dropped by Russia, we thought you would accept our outstretched hand of friendship. To quote a Russian poem , we believed you "would to us the sword present" But you didn't. You abused our country, destroyed our industries, our pride, even, for a short while, our sovereignty. [During the 1990's "Shock and Awe" economic destruction of Russia].

We were prepared to forgive this and still try and work with you, but you have done nothing but tell lies about us, abuse us, pile on sanctions, and steal our properties. Now, we have done. We have made our minds up, and there is no going back. We will do what we need to make our country grow, to be strong and happy. You can do what you want. Frankly, we dont care any more".

Once a few years back, in a small Russian town, an enterprising garage sold door mats with the American flag on them, for people to wipe their feet. They sold out in hours. However, it was a momentary rage and Russians are very decent, kindly people. I think they have not repeated that moment of anger.
But if you watch Vesti English - excerpts are on YouTube - watch "60 minutes", watch Vecher "or Evening" excerpts, watch Kislyak, the popular presenters. See how they talk to Russia in that critical hour after workers get home and have diner and watch an evening hour of current affairs. They show every lie, every manipulation, every example of American aggression, and they laugh at every American stupidity.
They are nice people, and if you go there as an American citizen, they will be kind to you. But when it comes to nations, and international trust - they've had it with you. They've turned their back. And you brought it on yourselves. As the Russian saying goes "as you return my hand extended to you, so will I return your action" "They are nice people, and if you go there as an American citizen, they will be kind to you."

If what you're saying about the Russian people is true -- and I've no reason to dispute it -- then it may have something to do with their years under Communist rule. The corruption, the lies, the suppression of dissidence, and all the other harm done to them by their rulers ingrained a healthy distrust of government and an insight that the subjects of such a system can still be good people.

Americans aren't there yet. Most of us still find it not only acceptable for the neighbor kid to die serving Uncle Sam, but something to celebrate as his name goes up on another green sign along a potholed bridge. This national inclination to identify with one's rulers, a Washington Syndrome, is pumped into our eyes and ears from birth. Even on this relatively dissident website, many become invested in the Red v Blue, whose Beltway members when offstage attend each other's weddings and hold each other up above the rule of law.

Pundits like Mr. Buchanan (especially when writing about international affairs) are Beltloops who help to keep the bleating within acceptable channels. Read this column again, and note every "we/us/our" that references Washington. Is pronoun propaganda like that as prevalent in Russia or, for that matter, anywhere else outside "USA!"?

HallParvey , says: September 21, 2018 at 4:01 pm GMT
@KenH Putin is like a battered wife who keeps making excuses for the abuser. Putin's great at going through the motions with military parades and boasts about new weapons systems then turns the other cheek and endlessly whines about violations of international law after every deliberate provocation.

I'm beginning to think Putin is the wrong man to lead Russia because his policy of deference, good will and steadfast refusal to retaliate in the face of endless insults and acts of aggression by (((America))) and Israel is making matters worse, not better, for Russia. I don't know what more he needs to prove that America is only playing him for a fool, doesn't respect him and is only teasing him with the prospect of a partnership so he remains tentative.

It's one thing to exercise restraint but it's quite another to be so suicidal in your delusions of eventual Western acceptance that it's irreparably harming Russian interests.

There needs to be a countervailing power to check Zio-American-Israeli aggression but Putin is not up to the task. I never thought I'd wax nostalgic for the old Soviet Union, but here I am. So Putin must react to every provocation, immediately.
No.
He should wait and accept the provocations, just as he has, and at the same time plan his own provocations.
If you're the prey in a relationship, you react to stimulus. If you're the predator, you create the stimulus. Better to be the predator.
The MSM should be ignored since they will blame Putin, no matter what. And, what difference does that make in Russia.

HallParvey , says: September 21, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@Sir Launcelot Canning It appears that Putin is impotent to stand up to the Brussels - Washington D.C. - Jerusalem - Berlin Axis of Evil. Could that be construed as evidence that the Axis is such a formidable iron fortress that even a tough guy like Putin can't put a dent in it?

If Russia and China don't collaborate soon, then the Axis will have complete, heavy handed global domination, replete with policies and infrastructure to make certain it is perpetually unchallenged.

Seems to me that I read something about this in the Bible.

It appears that Putin is impotent to stand up to the Brussels – Washington D.C. – Jerusalem – Berlin Axis of Evil. Could that be construed as evidence that the Axis is such a formidable iron fortress that even a tough guy like Putin can't put a dent in it?

Appearances can be deceiving.

Remember the Wizard of Oz was just a flim flam man behind a curtain.
Axis control is actually in London. Has been for several hundred years.

seeing-thru , says: September 21, 2018 at 5:42 pm GMT
No, Russia and Russians have not given up on USA and perhaps never will. Don't underestimate American soft power – the power of McDonalds, Hollywood, music, fashion, Ivy League prestige, etc. 90% of East Europeans will give an arm and a leg to get to America and so will perhaps 30% of Russians. Remember, they dismantled a world power state that they had primarily to become a part of the "West", to be like America and Americans. Where do their rich send their sons and daughters to study? Where do they stash their wealth? What language do they wish to learn and acquire? And when they accomplish something, whether a sports medal or a new scientific breakthrough or a new weapon, whose respect and admiration do they desperately seek? Read their media (RT and Sputnik) carefully and you will find plenty of desperation there, from silly chest-thumping to get Western attention to well-argued pleas for friendship. Their whole media is full of "Look Ma, we can do it too, just like the Yanks".

And don't underestimate American hard power as well. Behind Putin's perpetual references to "Our American partners, our Western partners" lies a realistic understanding of military realities. His fans may talk of his strategic geopolitical skills, the skills of a chess grandmaster. The man himself never boasts as the complicated and powerful American geopolitical maneuvers keep the man perpetually puzzled. The man may be clever, but he is heading an economically and politically weak state. Yes, Russian nationalism is very much alive; so is Russia's desire to be a part of the West, even as a junior partner.

Cyrano , says: September 21, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
The US policy towards Russia can be summed up by paraphrasing that famous line from Cool Hand Luke: What we have here is failure to capitulate. US thought that Russia is going to stay down. It took them what – less than 10 years under that buffoon Yeltsin to realize with whom they are dealing in the west and that it's time to get up and fight again.

It cracks me up when they say that the cold war was about the clash of ideologies. Maybe communism can still qualify as an ideology, but how does creatively ripping off someone out of their money qualify as an "ideology"?

There is always going to be a rivalry between US and Russia – regardless of the "ideologies". It never was about communism, it was about eliminating competition and then inventing a new one – China, because they just didn't see it coming. That's how clueless they are. They though that China is going to be just a giant Sri Lanka – source of cheap labor, a sweat shop for the smart folks in the west. Because, let's face it – who has ever gotten rich by labor alone – right?

seeing-thru , says: September 22, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
@Sir Launcelot Canning And you know all of this how? Maybe because you wish it were so? You sound so sure of yourself, you must live in downtown Moscow. And I play short stop for the White Sox. Nope, I don't know the future, but I do know present reality and facts. Russia's GDP is 6.78% America's – check it out for yourself. Eastern Europeans line-up, hats in hand, to get immigration to the US – check out the US immigration statistics. Russia desire to be "partners" with the west is right out of Putin and Lavrov speeches, not my imagination. Check out their speeches on RT and Sputnik, which are Russian media BTW.

Putin may be a clever fellow, but he is leading a very weak state. And it shows in several ways. In his perpetual dithering; in his constant pleas and entreaties to the west to please show us some respect and kindness; and in his desperate boasts about non-existent weapons.

American policy, especially now under Trump, is diabolically clever and powerful in a Machiavellian way. Trump is tightening his grip over both China and Russia – and winning IMHO. See China caving in under sanctions? If you don't, you need to read the news a little more carefully. Analyze the items and tariff rates that the two sides have imposed on each other, they tell their own story.

Should we like the way the world is heading? Of course not. Should we support one side or the other? Of course not. They are all a bunch of power-mad, ruthless tyrants and other things besides, which I hesitate to say out of a sense of politeness. Should we think more, research more, and analyze more? Of course, we must. The last flicker of hope is that people come to understand the world a little better and try to nudge it towards kinder, more ethical and more moral directions. Now that is a pipe dream for you and me!

byrresheim , says: September 22, 2018 at 3:26 am GMT
@Peter Akuleyev Russia's ancient frontiers

Right, ancient frontiers that go all the way back to the 17th century, or in some cases (like Crimea or the Baltics ) the 18th. Russians are masters at getting foreign dupes to believe the propaganda. China has ancient frontiers, Iran has ancient frontiers, even France has ancient frontiers. Russia as a state is about two centuries older than the United States. It is an upstart country masquerading as an ancient civilization. True.
Unfortunately, most of our present-day conflicts are a lot more transparent to people with a minimum of historical knowledge, and, equally unfortunately, even that minimum is sorrowfully rare.

[Sep 22, 2018] Insubordination is a fireable offense.

Sep 22, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

blue peacock -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

The letter from the Democrats on the Gang of 8 to Coats, Rosenstein and Wray is something. Asking them to be insubordinate by refusing the order of the President to release unredacted documents & communications. What were the verbal assurances these apparatchiks gave the Democrats? Did they agree to withhold information from their boss?

As Col. Lang has stated numerous times the President is the ultimate classification authority except for atomic secrets. Coats, Rosenstein & Wray I'm sure know that. If they disagree with his declassification order they can always resign. Insubordination is a fireable offense.

[Sep 22, 2018] Look at what he has done and who he has surrounded himself with. Looks like he like Obama is apuppet of the Depp State

If Trump is a Deep State puppet, then why Deep stat fight it with such intensity. Why "Steele dossier", w3hy Mueller, why "Mistressgate"
But it is true that Trump essentially conduct typical Republican President policy, like Obama betraying his electorate.
Notable quotes:
"... So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has surrounded himself with. Lol ..."
"... offshore money coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the next housing market collapse. ..."
Sep 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pft , Sep 22, 2018 4:54:26 PM | 20 ">link

Stormy Daniels supposedly said she was surprised to hear Trump was running for President because he had said to her he didnt want to be be President. After all, why would he? Rich guy with maybe 5 years left to live. Who needs it?

So why did he run. He had no choice. Look at the ease in which government can bring dawn anyone with tax and money laundering charges and look at his partners and a number of his dodgy financial dealings not to mention the ongoing audit firing his campaign. His buddy Felix Sater cut a deal and so didn't Trump. Run and serve and keep your wealth and stay out of jail, and make a few billion with insider deals while you are at it.

So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has surrounded himself with. Lol

So what is the endgame for this Russiagate and this phony Deep State vs Trump nonsense? Why Trump?

Not sure I know for sure. Polarizing and dividing the US with perhaps a civil war when Trump gets impeached and resigns, or at least imposition of permanent martial law. Get support for massive censorship which all authoritarian regimes need. And of course as the US goes down this path its puppet states in EU, UK and elsewhere will follow. I guess we will have to wait and see.

In the meantime, Trump will feed the beast (tax cuts for rich, tarrifs for middle class, higher Military spending, cuts to Medicare/Medicaid/social security, higher insurance premiums/HC costs, phony economic figures to mask deteriorating economic conditions for the median (remember when Trump said the same of Hillary using the same bogus figures)

Fewer people are working in the US under Trump as more people are disappeared from the work force. GDP growth per MH is due to higher extraction of wealth from middle class by the rentier class, and stock market growth is due to central bank purchases, offshore money coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the next housing market collapse.

[Sep 22, 2018] Downing of Russian Jet Israel Fears Putin Will Clip Its Wings in Syria

Sep 22, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

The Russian plane downing incident is not yet settled between Moscow and Jerusalem, despite President Vladimir Putin's relatively forgiving statement and despite Israel's sending its air force commander to Russia on Thursday morning.

... ... ...

Asked Thursday morning whether shooting down the Russian aircraft would affect the Israeli air force's freedom of action over Syria, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman performed more evasion maneuvers than the Russian Ilyushin pilots did on Monday night. Lieberman, who was interviewed on Army Radio's program "Dekel-Segal," failed to provide a real response. No doubt the party mainly responsible for the incident is Syria, whose air defense operated "unprofessionally and irresponsibly," as Lieberman described it. But Moscow does not appear inclined to forgive – and will likely try to extract practical advantages from Israel's embarrassment.

Israel is convinced it has good explanations for what happened. The air force's inquiry showed that the Syrians launched massive anti-aircraft fire when the Israeli planes were already back in Israel's sky. The warning to the Russians, Israel says, was given in keeping with the time frame agreed upon between the two states since they set up the mechanism to prevent friction between Israeli and Russian aircraft in September 2015.

The Russian plane was shot down mainly because of a communication failure – between Israel and Russia, between the Russian aerial control system or between the Syrians and their Russian patrons. Israel denies the first possibility – and this is probably what the air force chief Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin told his hosts. Moscow must direct its complaints toward the Syrians. If there's truth in the reports that arrests were carried out in Syria's aerial defense ranks, it appears Russia has been doing that as well. Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz said on Thursday that Putin refused to answer a call from Syrian President Bashar Assad right after the incident.

Israel hopes the Russians will make do with closing the aerial space for a week, and not impose further restrictions – such as banning Israel from flying near their bases in the north of Syria, in a way that could limit the Israeli presence in Syria's air space to Damascus and south of it. According to foreign media, some of the Israeli air strikes were carried out from a great distance outside Syria's territory. However, such a Russian restriction could spur the Iranians, the Assad regime and Hezbollah to establish an attack-safe space in the north of Syria. In the long run, it could also enable Iran to continue to strengthen its military hold in this region and expand the weapon smuggling operations to Lebanon.

[Sep 22, 2018] An Analysis of the Downing of Russia's Il20 with 15 Onboard - Veterans Today News - Military Foreign Affairs Policy

Sep 22, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

https://us-u.openx.net/w/1.0/pd?plm=6&ph=2857f3e0-a998-4d70-b5c1-b19a3d6766a1&gdpr=0

  1. Peter Johnson September 22, 2018 at 3:36 pm It seems to me that the safest place for a small single engine light plane to position itself, once picked up by enemy radar, would be on the far side of a large Soviet-Era 4-engined kerosene-guzzler. A basic heat-seeking Soviet missile like what Syria is probably operating would simply home in on the only heat source it can see -- the big hot target covering the light little jets. Log in to leave a comment
  2. Yaridanjo September 22, 2018 at 1:54 pm This scenario means that the Israelis teamed with the French in an attempt to get the Russians to attack the French frigate. Since France is a NATO. ally, the USA would have to attack the Russians which is what Israel wanted to happen. Again, Edgar Cayce was right about Russia being the 'hope of the world' as Putin did not fall for this trap. Log in to leave a comment
  3. Yaridanjo September 22, 2018 at 1:49 pm Kind of makes sense to me:
    http://82.221.129.208/pages/.yz0.html
    Uh-oh: Analysis indicates France shot down Russian plane ON PURPOSE.
    "That Russia noted French missile launches but didn't say what or who they hit. And before the Russians said anything about the attack the French denied they had any involvement in the attack.
    Instead, Russia went along with the story the U.S. et.al. prepared in advance, which doesn't fit what facts we know about the situation, that Syrian Air Defenses shot down the IL-20 by mistake.
    Both the French denial and the U.S. statements about Syrian air defenses being the culprit came before anything official came from the Russians.
    My comment: This quote is from a caption in the main report, which is not very long and has all the details. I suggest this as a definite read. Key: the Russians confirmed that supplementary friend/foe targeting systems did not fail, even though the S-200 did not have them embedded within the system. The supplemental systems prevented the Syrians from doing the shoot down despite the missile system not having them itself. The supplemental systems confirmed it was not the Syrians that shot it down." Log in to leave a comment

[Sep 22, 2018] Russia has begun stepping up operations off the coast of Syria following the downing of a military aircraft

Sep 22, 2018 | badrepublic.wordpress.com

From Haaretz :

Russia has begun stepping up operations off the coast of Syria following the downing of a military aircraft, media outlets in Cyprus reported on Thursday. Russia reportedly decided to close areas near Cyprus to air, land and sea movement from Thursday until next Wednesday for the sake of military operations. Sources in Israel confirmed the report

An Israel Defense Forces delegation headed by the commander of the air force, Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin departed Thursday to Moscow to present the findings of its inquiry into the incident.

[Sep 22, 2018] We came within a whisker of WW3, and are probably lucky we can still type

Sep 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

peter , Sep 20, 2018 5:51:10 AM | link

< The best explanation I've heard yet is that Israel and the US (who had full knowledge and okayed the raid) expected the Russians to sink the French frigate that was blasting away. Kind of cynical but c'est la vie. Article V would be immediately be invoked and the US and Nato would have their casus bellum to smash Syria and send the Russians packing.>

If it's true then Putin handled things brilliantly. The Israelis have pissed away any existing trust between them and Russia with their one minute warning and did exactly that thing that everybody's going on about, namely hiding behind the IL20 to draw the S200. It's unlikely they'll enjoy the freedom in the future to target Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria at their leisure.

Because the false flag was was exposed and then their threat of attack if there was any violence in Idlib was stymied by Putin and Erdo's agreement the US is left with few options. The most obvious one would be a full-on unprovoked attack against Syria. I don't think the American people would be happy about that. They are getting really tired of all the bullshit in the ME.

Please don't give Trump a pass because the boogeyman deep state made him do it. He's the fucking president and they don't get no passes.

cdvision , Sep 20, 2018 11:41:28 AM | link

Peter @71. That's my reading as well. We came within a whisker of WW3, and are probably lucky we can still type. Once the Israelis are put in their place then Putin needs to have a strong word with Trump. And of course the frogs will get payback.

[Sep 22, 2018] Putin Keeps Cool And Averts WWIII As Israeli-French Gamble In Syria Backfires Spectacularly

Sep 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.

On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.

What happened next is already well established : a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued.

Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia's Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn't make much sense when the consequence of such "protective measures" could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III. That would have been an unacceptable price to achieve such a limited objective, which could have been better accomplished with the assistance of Russia, as opposed to NATO-member France, for example. In any case, there is a so-called "de-confliction system" in place between Israel and Russia designed to prevent exactly this sort of episode from occurring.

And then there is the matter of the timing of the French-Israeli incursion.

Just hours before Israeli jets pounded the suspect Syrian ammunition storehouse, Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan were in Sochi hammering out the details on a plan to reduce civilian casualties as Russian and Syrian forces plan to retake Idlib province, the last remaining terrorist stronghold in the country. The plan envisioned the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone between government and rebel forces, with observatory units to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is designed to prevent exactly what Western observers have been fretting about, and that is unnecessary 'collateral damage.'

So what do France and Israel do after a relative peace is declared, and an effective measure for reducing casualties? The cynically attack Syria, thus exposing those same Syrian civilians to the dangers of military conflict that Western capitals proclaim to be worried about.

Israel moves to 'damage control'

Although Israel has taken the rare move of acknowledging its involvement in the Syrian attack, even expressing "sorrow" for the loss of Russian life, it insists that Damascus should be held responsible for the tragedy. That is a highly debatable argument.

By virtue of the fact that the French and Israeli forces were teaming up to attack the territory of a sovereign nation, thus forcing Syria to respond in self-defense, it is rather obvious where ultimate blame for the downed Russian plane lies.

"The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side," Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said.

"The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond."

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, took admirable efforts to prevent the blame game from reaching the boiling point, telling reporters that the downing of the Russian aircraft was the result of "a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn't shoot down our jet."

Nevertheless, following this extremely tempered and reserved remark, Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be "the steps that everyone will notice."

Now there is much consternation in Israel that the IDF will soon find its freedom to conduct operations against targets in Syria greatly impaired. That's because Russia, having just suffered a 'friendly-fire' incident from its own antiquated S-200 system, may now be more open to the idea of providing Syria with the more advanced S-300 air-defense system.

Earlier this year, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement that prevented those advanced defensive weapons from being employed in the Syrian theater. That deal is now in serious jeopardy. In addition to other defensive measures, Russia could effectively create the conditions for a veritable no-fly zone across Western Syria in that it would simply become too risky for foreign aircraft to venture into the zone.

The entire situation, which certainly did not go off as planned, has forced Israel into damage control as they attempt to prevent their Russian counterparts from effectively shutting down Syria's western border.

On Thursday, Israeli Major-General Amikam Norkin and Brigadier General Erez Maisel, as well as officers of the Intelligence and Operations directorates of the Israeli air force will pay an official visit to Moscow where they are expected to repeat their concerns of "continuous Iranian attempts to transfer strategic weapons to the Hezbollah terror organization and to establish an Iranian military presence in Syria."

Moscow will certainly be asking their Israeli partners if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests. It remains to be seen if the two sides can find, through the fog of war, an honest method for bringing an end to the Syria conflict, which would go far at relieving Israel's concerns of Iranian influence in the region.

CoCosAB , 1 minute ago

The TERRORISTS keep doing the same **** all the time... And ***** PUTIN keeps cool!

Fecund Stench , 2 minutes ago

'There will, however, be some form of no-fly zone and as Vladimir Putin stated Russia will take "the steps that everyone will notice."'

http://thesaker.is/some-fast-thoughts-on-il-20-andrei-martyanov/

Failure to notice bespeaks complicity in the Ziomedia.

toady , 12 minutes ago

"...if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests."

Surely a few dozen Russians isn't comparable to all the Jews that died in the holocaust.

Just as all the Jews that died in the holocaust aren't comparable to all the the Russians that died in wwII.

isn't religion and the victim mentality a fun game to play?

JoeTurner , 13 minutes ago

Israel must have its lebensraum.....

bh2 , 45 minutes ago

Putin is not going to initiate WWIII over Syria or any military action within it. The outcome in Syria affects Russian national interests. But unlike Crimea, it does not affect any of Russia's vital national interests.

rejected , 35 minutes ago

If Syria was to shoot down one (1) American jet with one (1) pilot the US would respond like it was Pearl Harbor and Syria for sure isn't vital to America's national interests unless one considers results like Libya a national interest.

rejected , 1 hour ago

I seriously doubt Putin will allow the S-300 to Syria. Like the US, Russia is controlled by the 5th column Jews inside Russia itself except the control is not as complete as in the US. The Russian plane is Russia's USS Liberty.... and it is possible, and IMO that it was France that shot down the plane. The fact that they fired missiles at the same time and that has disappeared down the memory hole is very suspicious.

The West is out of control They talk International law but consider them selves above it. Israel, France, UK, US have no 'right' to attack Syria. They have no right to be within Syrian borders. They are now all allied with the terrorists and provide them with weapons. Israel actually provides for their wounds at Israeli hospitals.

By the old definition of terrorist, it is the West that fits the description.

As for Mr. Putin,,, He has done what was unthinkable a short time ago. He has allowed the murder of Russians. Not once,,, not twice,,, but now three times with only a whimper. He actually defended the aggressors this time. This will only serve to make them double down. If any more Russians are murdered it will be he who is guilty by lack of action. Even Somalia fought back when the US tried an attack.

The author here defends Putin as acting with a cool head as the author, like so many cowards thee days, dismisses those fifteen lives. He will also be responsible when the next batch of Russians are sacrificed for world peace as the Western marauders, the US especially, murders their way to world domination like Germany's Hitler and France's Napoleon.

It was Russia that saved the world from those two dictators and is why Russia stands proud today. It is Russia's history to savagely defend Russians and Russia. Today with thousands of Russians killed by Ukrainian Nazis supported and armed by the West (MAGA) and now Russians killed in Syria by the West with little to no response from Russia other than "Its against international law" and authors like this that nonchalantly discard Russian lives as necessary for world peace.

Mr. Putin just needs to hand over the keys to Russia,,, for world peace of course.

[Sep 22, 2018] The nest of neocons in State Department still exists and influence the USA forign policy

To say nothing about Pompeo and Haley.
Sep 22, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Fred -> sbnat1ve , 3 days ago

We dodged a bullet when the voters rejected Hilary. Trump can fire almost anyone he wants to fire. He should probably have left Tillerson at State a bit longer so he could have reformed it enough to have gotten rid of some more of the "resistance". It's almost like these people have no real job so they use their position and access for grinding personal axes.
https://www.projectveritas....
ISL -> Fred , 3 days ago
Fred, Tillerson was one of his better cabinet choices and did a good job. Sadly, State (soft power) has little influence these days compared to the military (hard power, compare budgets). However, appointment of swamp creatures like Bolton and Mnuchin suggest it was not a plan.

I recall the story of the emperor has no clothes. Trump seems not to understand that he is president (Grima worm tongue whispering in his ear). Or that there are forces that oppose him in his own organization. He has had plenty of time to clear house, he is the bloody president, so why hasnt he?

My grandma suffered and eventually died of Alzheimers. I see similarities to the early stages.

7.62x54r -> ISL , 16 hours ago
Rex Tillerson turned the Boy Scouts into a g a y playpen during his tenure as director in 2010-11.

[Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

A new article from the Wall Street Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion dollars for war profiteers.

This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are now eating leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war plutocrats.

If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.

It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And they won't.

The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.

The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump because, as Julian Assange once said , they are Trump.

In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition.

In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.

The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression.

If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie factory, we can wake the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.

Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com .

Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal

[Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

A new article from the Wall Street Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion dollars for war profiteers.

This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are now eating leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war plutocrats.

If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.

It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And they won't.

The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.

The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump because, as Julian Assange once said , they are Trump.

In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition.

In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.

The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression.

If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie factory, we can wake the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.

Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com .

Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal

[Sep 21, 2018] Moscow TIMES AWARDS ITSELF THE BO PEEP PRIZE by John Helmer

Notable quotes:
"... In April of 1992, the Congress had overwhelmingly rejected then President Boris Yeltsin's attempt to take emergency powers. It had also approved the draft new Russian constitution prepared by the Constitutional Commission led by the very young lawyer, Oleg Rumyantsev. By September, Rumyantsev's draft for a parliamentary republic of roughly the French type, was headed for enactment if and when the Congress was reconvened. That should have been in October, as had been planned. ..."
"... That session was also certain to reject the economic policy programme ("reform" in Bortin's list of approbative nouns) delivered to the Kremlin by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), through Yegor Gaidar, then half-way through his six months as acting prime minister. Detested throughout the country, Gaidar was another of Bortin's approbative nouns. ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | johnhelmer.net

Journalists arranging tuxedo events to give themselves prizes are even sillier than Hollywood actors at the Oscar ceremony. There are also no comedians to tell jokes to neutralize the gastroenteric reflex that is always brought on in audiences by a surfeit of brown-nosing. For the British children in the audience who don't know what that term means, the Private Eye term is the more onomatopoetic -- arslikhan.

Meg Bortin, the second editor of the Moscow Times and one of the shortest termers, has been rolled out for today's celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Times. The true anniversary actually fell in March, eight months ago. But if that was the point from which to hang the anniversary celebration, Bortin couldn't call herself the "founding editor in chief".

She's also awarded herself the job of rewriting Russia's past and future, and demonstrate how brown her nose still is. "The question for the next 20 years, " she opines in today's edition , "is whether the paper can retain this independence -- a willingness to look at the news in Moscow and Russia and tell the truth, even if that truth is sometimes displeasing to the authorities."

This is mock-bravery. The authorities Bortin recognized in Moscow at the time – the ones in residence at Spaso House – were the only ones she dared not, never thought of displeasing. She also ran an editorial policy that dared not controvert their policy. Bortin reserved special venom – the adjective "pro-communist" – for the Congress of People's Deputies, elected two years earlier; its Speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov; and the executive chamber then known as the Supreme Soviet. Bortin knew none of them; had no sources in the factions or the party leaders' offices; and detested them all, insisting that the reporting of the Times should depict them and their debates as anti-democratic, communistic, anti-American, etc., etc.

In April of 1992, the Congress had overwhelmingly rejected then President Boris Yeltsin's attempt to take emergency powers. It had also approved the draft new Russian constitution prepared by the Constitutional Commission led by the very young lawyer, Oleg Rumyantsev. By September, Rumyantsev's draft for a parliamentary republic of roughly the French type, was headed for enactment if and when the Congress was reconvened. That should have been in October, as had been planned.

That session was also certain to reject the economic policy programme ("reform" in Bortin's list of approbative nouns) delivered to the Kremlin by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), through Yegor Gaidar, then half-way through his six months as acting prime minister. Detested throughout the country, Gaidar was another of Bortin's approbative nouns.

The showdown between Bortin and I came on September 1, 1992, after I had filed a 12-paragraph news story, entitled "Khasbulatov postpones People's Congress session." Read the original despatch here . My sources were from Speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov's office; from the Congress factions; from staff in Gaidar's office; and from the Kremlin. The big news was that Khasbulatov had decided not to allow the Congress to resume its session in October. The significance was that he was postponing the conflict of powers between the executive and the legislature. Khasbulatov thought, the story reported, that he was buying time to give Yeltsin more rope to hang himself; the president was polling 30% or less approval in Moscow at the time. Khasbulatov thought the showdown would come eventually, but he wanted to appear to be keeping himself above the fray, and mobilize a cross-party consensus behind the new constitution. If the time came to drive Yeltsin from power, Khasbulatov thought it could, and should be done constitutionally. In retrospect, Khasbulatov's misjudgement was colossal. In time he has admitted it.

Bortin, though, didn't understand then, has never understood what was happening. But she wouldn't allow my little news story to run. She would also brook no direct-source reporting from the congress, the constitutional commission, or the parties then in opposition to the president. That led to that showdown of all showdowns in newsrooms the world over – the showdown over the truth. It also led to a brief but noisy episode of clinical hysteria from Bortin, and a confession from Bortin's publisher, Derk Sauer, one of the Dutch co-owners of the Times.

Bortin had been an embarrassment to Sauer, which he apologized for, telling me that an American national was necessary to secure the funding on which the Moscow Times depended. I was polite enough not to enquire what funding he was talking about; I already knew. The occasion was that I – now the only (American) reporter from the original team under the first editor, Michael Hester, still at work in and on Russia – had refused to attach the required derogatory adjectives to the parliamentary opposition to Yeltsin, and refused to report the IMF programme with the required noun, "reform". Not even my sources at the IMF Moscow office, including the French protégé of IMF Director Michel Camdessus, accepted that guff from Gaidar. But Bortin did, so she fired me on September 3, 1992. Sauer then rehired me with an increased salary to be paid each month on condition I didn't report what had happened, and didn't join the competition .

In 1994, after two years at the Moscow Times, Bortin went off to a sanatorium in Paris. She reports in her blog that she is writing a memoir called Desperate to be a Housewife and a manual called The Everyday French Chef. It's been a case of – if you can't stand the heat, go to the kitchen.

After her exit, Sauer's US money began to dwindle, so he applied to Mikhail Khodorkovsky to keep the Times's press rolling. Khodorkovsky's money was followed by other oligarchs, and some especially Russophobic Finns, until now Sauer himself is reported to be contemplating enrolment in the ranks of Mikhail Prokhorov, in a unit as elite as Muammar Qaddafi's female battalion once was, if not quite as handsome.

Bortin missed out. It takes chutzpah to claim that "when the first issue of Russia's first independent English-language daily came out the next morning -- on Friday, Oct. 2, 1992 -- no one could have imagined the impact The Moscow Times would have in the months and years ahead." The only accurate term in that account is "daily"; the Moscow Tribune was in English, and had been coming out independently, but weekly, for more than two years earlier. As for the future conditional about noone imagining what impact the Moscow Times would have, the only word Bortin got right there is "noone". That's because the Times has been wrong on every major position it has taken over the past twenty years. It hasn't been independent; it hasn't had any impact. It is neither as cleverly comic, nor as linguistically memorable as The Exile, whose editors, Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi, have been erased from Bortin's 20-year anniversary roll.

For all these years then the Moscow Times has been to Russia as ersatz coffee was to Germans during World War II. You might say that if you start a war and lose it, you deserve to have ersatz coffee instead of the real thing. Those who think the Moscow Times is the real thing have lost their war, but can't be weaned off their taste for their ersatz. From nose to mouth in twenty years – not far, no taste.

[Sep 21, 2018] HARPER BIBI'S COVERT WAR ON AMERICA

Sep 21, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

A little-known unit in the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is conducting a covert surveillance, espionage and blackmail campaign against American citizens on a large scale. Not since the arrest of Jonathan Jay Pollard and the 1992 expose of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith's espionage against civil rights activists has the Israeli government been so actively involved in clandestine influence and espionage against American targets.

The unit is Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, headed by director general Sima Vaknin-Gil. Vaknin-Gil reports personally to PM Netanyahu. Vaskin-Gil is a former Brigadier General in the IDF, who once was the Chief Israeli Military Censor. Her Ministry has spawned a "private" security firm, Israel Cyber Shield, headed by former Ministry official and Israeli National Police officer Eran Vasker. According to Haaretz, ICS is part of the spy network gathering dossiers on anti-Israel activists from the BDS movement in the United States.

The existence and mission of the Ministry first came to prominence in a four-part documentary produced by Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based international news organization. In 2016, Al Jazeera successfully infiltrated the American Zionist apparatus via James Anthony Kleinfeld, a British Jew who graduated from Oxford, spoke six languages and was well-versed in Middle East affairs. Kleinfeld infiltrated The Israel Project and other pro-Israel US organizations to such an extent that the leadership welcomed him with open arms and let down their guard about their collusion with the Israeli government, in targeting pro-Palestine organizations and other Israel critics.

Armed with a hidden video recorder, Kleinfeld obtained large amounts of material on the inner workings of TIP, AIPAC, the Israeli-American Council, the Maccabee Task Force and the Zionist Organization of America. He got "straight from the horse's mouth" that the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is a spy agency working as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government. One TIP official confided to Kleinfeld that they had to be very careful, because they were "a different government working on foreign soil."

Earlier this year, Al Jazeera was scheduled to air four 50-minute documentary segments on Kleinfeld's findings. But, Al Jazeera was required to first inform the organizations that were to be featured in the documentary about the pending airing of the series. At that point, the full weight of the US Zionist apparatus along with the Israeli government came down on the Qatar government to press for censorship of the documentary. Suddenly, the US Zionist lobby, which had allied with Saudi Arabia and the UAE in denouncing Qatar as a terrorist state, backing Hamas and other jihadist organizations, reversed positions and gave their support to Qatar. The documentary has never aired.

But bootleg copies of the devastating documentary are clearly circulating around. Alain Gresh wrote a lengthy summary for The Nation on August 31, based on his having viewed the entire four-part series, courtesy of a friend in the Middle East. Sooner or later, the entire series will surface, despite the Qatar censorship decision. Excerpts have already been posted on some websites.

I like to think this is a story that is too big to bury for long.

[Sep 21, 2018] FBI Had Two Sets Of Records On Trump Investigation; Comey, McCabe Implicated Carter

Sep 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Journalist Sara Carter told Sean Hannity during his Wednesday radio show that the FBI has two sets of records in the Russia investigation, and that "certain people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page" were aware of it - implicating former FBI Director James Comey and his #2, Andrew McCabe.

Hannity : Sara, I'm hearing it gets worse than this–that there is potentially out there–if you will, two sets of record among the upper echelon of the FBI–one that was real one that was made for appearances . Is there any truth to this?

Carter : Absolutely, Sean . With the number of sources that I have been speaking with as well as some others that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate sets of books.

I will not name names until all of the evidence is out there, but there were certain people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page that were aware of this . I also believe that there are people within the FBI that have actually turned on their former employers and are possibly even testifying and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the Inspector General and possibly even a Grand Jury.

Listen:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7GGy0touNxk

( h/t Cristina Laila @ Gateway Pundit ) Tags Entertainment Culture

[Sep 21, 2018] That agency is and always has been in the business of subverting or toppling other governments.

Notable quotes:
"... "....cunning, ambitious,and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.....". ..."
"... JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

blues , Sep 20, 2018 11:45:07 AM | link

The CIA is not really in the business of collecting "intelligence." That "agency" is and always has been in the business of subverting or toppling other governments.

So they have finally gotten around to subverting the USSA government. Why am I not surprised.

Jose Garcia , Sep 20, 2018 11:49:31 AM | link
What came to my mind when I read this good article, MB, is words from George Washington's Farewell Address. He may have written to explain about the dangers of political parties, but it resonates exactly about what is occurring in this present state of American governance.

"....cunning, ambitious,and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.....".

Posted by: financial matters | Sep 20, 2018 12:00:01 PM | 11

blues@6 I wouldn't say finally.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass and

David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government

[Sep 21, 2018] NYT is now is regular deep state stooge

As Mark Twain said, its easier to fool somebody than to convince them they have been fooled, its even easier (former) and tougher (latter) when you control the narrative and news, not to mention education.
Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
jrkrideau , Sep 20, 2018 5:46:02 PM | link

That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!

Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.

Susan Sunflower , Sep 20, 2018 5:47:11 PM | link

The timing is interesting. Hillary Clinton was one-on-one wiht Maddow "for the hour" last night (I didn't watch) and has/had an "important" broadside againt TRump in the Atlantic (covered extensively also in the Guardian) .... trying to claw her way back into the limelight or just promoting the **newly released** paperback edition of "What Happened" with and extensive "caboose" or adendum (caboose being irrc HRC's term).

I suspect some of the powerful are realizing what an impending disaster and "anti-climax" Mueller's investigation appears increasingly likely to be. It was !!! Breaking News !!! a few nights ago that Mueller was ready to sentence Flynn (guilty plea ages ago) for the single count of lying to the FBI ... don't hold your breath because it's -- OMG -- happening in December 2018. As far as I could tell, the significance (OMG) seems to be that Mueller feels Flynn's cooperation has been completed. (Flynn may be reassured, given given Papadopoulos' sentence).

People may have said unwise things and acted in unwise fashion, proving conspiracy to commit an actual crime (which is a crime even in the absence of a crime occurring) may be prove unconvincing.

psychohistorian , Sep 20, 2018 6:32:01 PM | link
Thanks for the great journalism b pointing out that what touts itself as journalism is nothing more than propaganda lies.

Unfortunately the Mark Twain quote about it being easier to fool folks than convince them they have or are being fooled is too true.

Kiza , Sep 20, 2018 8:10:35 PM | link
The role of the media is pure and simple BS generation and dissemination , nothing else. The BS has several clearly discernible patterns:
1) the one b mentions - the title and the first few paragraphs say one thing, after >90% of the text is passed the truth is mentioned - perfectly matched to the readers attention curve (b you could have mentioned the psych research); the purpose - claim objectivity,
2) the first bits reported about some important event are usually the most truthful because the BS generation machine has a turn-on lag; the morning news 7 am about what happened last night are the most truthful because the masters of narratives do not wake up at 6 am to BS, they come to work comfortably at 9 am; the BS portion increases during the day, for the most watched 8pm and/or 10pm news to become pure unadulterated BS.

And so on, I have more patters but for another discussion.

[Sep 21, 2018] Larry Wilkerson on Neocons in Trump Administration

Notable quotes:
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com . ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | scotthorton.org

by Scott | Sep 14, 2018 | Interviews | 0 comments Larry Wilkerson, former army Colonel and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is interviewed on his new article at LobeLog " The Neoconservative Comeback " on the growing influence of neoconservatism in the Trump Administration. Trump's Syria and Afghanistan policy are discussed, as well as the old axiom, personnel is policy.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com .

Check out Scott's Patreon page.

[Sep 21, 2018] Another brilliant article by Alain Gresh in Le Monde Diplomatique: The truths that wont be heard

Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Sep 21, 2018 2:18:32 AM | link

Well, well, well, spying in the USA and subverting both its citizens and congress critters. Another brilliant article by Alain Gresh in Le Monde Diplomatique: The truths that wont be heard.

https://mondediplo.com/2018/09/02israel-lobby

I guess there is no point expecting a reveal all for the documentary but it sure makes fools of the DOJ and FBI and all the Russia haters.

[Sep 21, 2018] But what's categorically worse than having a childish buffoon as a sitting president? A deep state cabal of neocons and neolibs

Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Wiscacho , Sep 20, 2018 11:25:52 AM | link

I don't support many of Trump's policies (making peace with Russia, drawing down our wars not withstanding) and the man, to me, is a childish buffoon. But what's categorically worse than having a childish buffoon as a sitting president? A deep state cabal of neocons and neolibs cheered on by the left and MSM so emboldened by the success of their usurpation that they brag about it on the pages of the leading newspapers in the country. As much as pains me to say, it's the behavior of the left in America that is truly sickening in the whole sordid affair.

Fernando Arauxo , Sep 20, 2018 11:43:44 AM | link

It's his own fault. He should've and could've fired everyone from DAY ONE. He kept hold overs from all the previous administrations and now he's stuck with them. Trump PHUCKED up big time by not bringing in ALL of his supporters to fight for him and those that do are FIRED. So go suck on it Trumpy.

[Sep 21, 2018] Tinker, traitor, lawyer, lie NY Times claims DAG Rosenstein suggested secretly recording Trump

None of the Times' sources are named - except one: Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, or rather his memos about the meetings with Rosenstein and other officials.
Sep 21, 2018 | www.rt.com
The number two official at the Justice Department wanted to secretly record President Donald Trump so as to impeach him, claims the New York Times. Spoiler Alert: Rod Rosenstein denies the claim, but does it matter in the swamp?

"Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment" the Times blared in a breaking news headline on Friday afternoon, adding that the deputy attorney general also discussed recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the constitutional provision for removing Trump from office.

The Times would have its readers believe that Rosenstein was surprised when Trump used his memo to justify the firing of FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, and sought to enlist AG Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly –now the White House chief of staff– to support him in ousting Trump.

[Sep 21, 2018] Rosenstein Proposed Secretly Recording Trump, Invoking 25th Amendment

Hard to know the truthfulness of anything coming from the NYT. Rosenstein denies the story and says there is no basis for invoking the 25th amendment against Trump. The story might be disinformation to provoke a response from Trump.
Still Rosenstein has been slow walking the release of FISA related documents, and it's hard to trust him. This Russia investigation is a witcvh hunt , and Rosenstein has been right at the center of it. If Rosenstein was fair minded he would have shut this yard sale down a long time ago. In the meantime, Trump is looking more and more like a victim. I'd probably wait for the documents to come out and let the pressure build on Sessions and Rosenstein.
Sep 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

If this latest revelation from the New York Times doesn't drive President Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, or convince Congress to impeach him, then we can't imagine what would.

In a shocking report citing a bevy of anonymous DOJ officials, the NYT recounted on Friday an aborted mutiny attempt organized by Rosenstein, who allegedly tried to organize members of Trump's cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to oust Trump from office. In an attempt to persuade the clearly reluctant members of Trump's cabinet, Rosenstein suggested that he or other officials should secretly tape Trump "to expose the chaos" he said was engulfing the West Wing. According to NYT, the sources were either briefed on Rosenstein's plans, or learned about it from the files of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired after being disgraced by an inspector general investigation. ABC News, which also reported the story, cited sources familiar with McCabe's files. A grand jury is also weighing whether to press charges against McCabe for allegedly misleading the inspector general.

Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein's actions and comments.

None of Mr. Rosenstein's proposals apparently came to fruition. It is not clear how determined he was about seeing them through, though he did tell Mr. McCabe that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.

According to the NYT, this all happened during the spring of 2017, shortly after Trump cited a letter that Rosenstein had penned criticizing former FBI Director James Comey's handling of the Clinton probe as justification to fire Comey. Rosenstein reportedly felt he had been "used" by the president as an excuse to fire Comey. Rosenstein soon began telling colleagues that he would ultimately be "vindicated" for his role in Comey's firing. Around the same time, he began to express his displeasure with Trump's handling of the hiring process for Comey's replacement.

The president's reliance on his memo caught Mr. Rosenstein by surprise, and he became angry at Mr. Trump, according to people who spoke to Mr. Rosenstein at the time. He grew concerned that his reputation had suffered harm and wondered whether Mr. Trump had motives beyond Mr. Comey's treatment of Mrs. Clinton for ousting him, the people said.

A determined Mr. Rosenstein began telling associates that he would ultimately be "vindicated" for his role in the matter. One week after the firing, Mr. Rosenstein met with Mr. McCabe and at least four other senior Justice Department officials, in part to explain his role in the situation.

During their discussion, Mr. Rosenstein expressed frustration at how Mr. Trump had conducted the search for a new F.B.I. director, saying the president was failing to take the candidate interviews seriously. A handful of politicians and law enforcement officials, including Mr. McCabe, were under consideration.

Rosenstein also tried to recruit some of his would-be co-conspirators to surreptitiously record Trump in the Oval Office.

Mr. Rosenstein then raised the idea of wearing a recording device or "wire," as he put it, to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether Mr. Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was.

However, although Rosenstein "appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional" during what can only be described as a coup attempt against a sitting president, even the paper admit that his conduct in attempting to solicit the illicit wiretapping of a sitting president was extremely reckless and unwarranted, and that, if uncovered, it could be used as grounds to fire Rosenstein.

If not him, then Mr. McCabe or other F.B.I. officials interviewing with Mr. Trump for the job could perhaps wear a wire or otherwise record the president, Mr. Rosenstein offered. White House officials never checked his phone when he arrived for meetings there, Mr. Rosenstein added, implying it would be easy to secretly record Mr. Trump.

The suggestion itself was remarkable. While informants or undercover agents regularly use concealed listening devices to surreptitiously gather evidence for federal investigators, they are typically targeting drug kingpins and Mafia bosses in criminal investigations, not a president viewed as ineffectively conducting his duties.

In the end, the idea went nowhere, the officials said. But they called Mr. Rosenstein's comments an example of how erratically he was behaving while he was taking part in the interviews for a replacement F.B.I. director, considering the appointment of a special counsel and otherwise running the day-to-day operations of the more than 100,000 people at the Justice Department.

The Times and ABC reported that Rosenstein told McCabe that he believed Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly would go along with the plan. Another source said they believed Rosenstein was being sarcastic when he made the comment about recording Trump

One source who was in the meeting confirmed that Rosenstein did make a remark about recording Trump with the use of a wire. But the source insists: "The statement was sarcastic and was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the president."

Rosenstein has decried the story as "factually incorrect" and said that "based on my personal dealings" with the president, that there isn't any basis to invoke the 25th amendment. This, of course, is tantamount to a deep state insider admitting that there is no factual basis to impeach Trump.

Mr. Rosenstein disputed this account.

"The New York Times's story is inaccurate and factually incorrect," he said in a statement. "I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment."

A lawyer representing McCabe told CNN and the Times that his client had documented his conversations in Rosenstein in a series of memos, which he later turned over to Mueller more than a year ago. However, a set of those memos was left at the FBI when McCabe departed.

McCabe's lawyer, Michael Bromwich, said in a statement to CNN that his client "drafted memos to memorialize significant discussions he had with high level officials and preserved them so he would have an accurate, contemporaneous record of those discussions."

"When he was interviewed by the special counsel more than a year ago, he gave all of his memos - classified and unclassified - to the special counsel's office. A set of those memos remained at the FBI at the time of his departure in late January 2018. He has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos," Bromwich added.

The Washington Post reported that FBI lawyer Lisa Page (the former lover of disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok) was also at the meeting where wiretapping was discussed. WaPo also said that McCabe had pushed for the DOJ to open an investigation into the president, to which Rosenstein replied, "what do you want to do Andy, wire the president?"

While Rosenstein and Trump clearly never saw eye to eye, the level of resentment that Rosenstein harbored toward the president was not previously known. Unsurprisingly, the story has already fired up speculation that Rosenstein may have been the anonymous administration official who penned a critical op-ed that was published earlier this month in the New York Times. Underscoring the seriousness of these allegations, CNN reported that the McCabe memos that were described to ABC and the Times have been turned over to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

iinthesky , 13 minutes ago

Try to remember this is the New York Times. This is suspect and there is a motive in publishing this now.. they want Trump to fire Rosenshmuck before the elections.

Debt Slave , 12 minutes ago

Recall Strzok's behavior during his testimony. It couldn't be more obvious if they took out a full page ad in the New York Times.

LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago

This is coming from McCabe.

Trying to get a deal. Remember what he screamed when he heard that he was under investigation: "If they **** with my pension I will burn this place to the ground!!"

Well, he's got the gas and the matches. He doesn't want to go to prison where Hillary's people can shank him. He's letting some tidbits out now to convince Huber he will do more damage from outside than inside.

I say **** HIM. Let him burn it down. Sessions is recused - not his fault.

McCabe needs to do 3-5 in a FedPen for his lies and cover-ups. Tried to quash the Weiner laptop and impede a Federal investigation. Repeatedly leaked information to misdirect and interfere with a Federal investigation.

A top, trained intel officer. Lock him the hell up. This is the kind of "patriot" who comes up through the Deep State system to run the alphabet agencies that work day and night to protect America from the sunlight its intel community so desperately needs on those who sell out the rank-and-file, hardworking true patriots for their own boundless ambition. Strzok and Page come next.

Burn out the poison vipers' nests.

1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago

Read the article and you better understand why the NYT is throwing Rosenstein under the bus.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/21/devin-nunes-discusses-declassification-directive-potus-reverses-course/

NoPension , 1 hour ago

Holy shite. I'm getting a feeling that this is ready to EXPLODE on the world stage. And implicate Britain and Australia as in on the scam. I'm getting the sense, the Brits called Trump and begged him not to let this come completely to light. Trump has ALL these motherfuckers by the balls now. I just hope and pray that ******* arrogant poser Obama is sweating bullets right now.

I cant even imagine how this all plays out. These arrogant ******* Nee World Order pieces of ****,especially both Clinton's, Obama and most if not ALL of his senior administration just felt entitled to do whatever the **** they wanted, the ends justify the means, the Constitution and the people be damned. These people really to need to endure a special type of hell. If this charade doesn't warrant it, what does? To Big To Fail comes to mind, though. This might be SO big, Trump actually has to manage the shitshow...or the train goes off the rails.

1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/23/gchq-chief-robert-hannigan-quits

This guy quit the week before The Don took the keys to the white house.....Imagine that. As you might recall Judge Nap at Fox stated that the Obama Cabal used the brits to spy on Trump and then was place in timeout for 2 weeks. He returned and double downed on his statement.

KimAsa , 16 minutes ago

The swamp turning on each other. Love it.

dems will lose 5 senate incumbent seats at midterms and offset one. The dems will not win over the Senate.

the dem running in AZ has a bit of a past that is catching up to her now.

The dems will lose the House handily.

Keyser , 25 minutes ago

Enough is enough... Time to drag rat-faced Rosenstein out of the FBI in chains, then put him on an airplane to Gitmo and charge him with sedition... This scum sucking ****** needs a refresher course in the LAW, military law that is...

iinthesky , 23 minutes ago

Not now.. after november

pelican , 13 minutes ago

**** it

iinthesky , 13 minutes ago

Try to remember this is the New York Times. This is suspect and there is a motive in publishing this now.. they want Trump to fire Rosenshmuck before the elections.

bigrooster , 14 minutes ago

Hmm the last name seems like a Tribe member. I am sure that there is no connection. But Trump's daughter and granddaughter are now members of the Tribe. I would die before taking that mark. I guess we now know what the Number of The Beast is...join the Tribe or die/starve in the near future. Good thing we of faith know who wins in the end.

SunRise , 15 minutes ago

"Fired", That's all? No jail? They're attempting to frame the conversation, so a low penalty for High Treason seems normal in the minds of the Public.

Goldennutz , 16 minutes ago

HAHAHAHAHA!!

NOTHING will happen to ANYONE!!!

Ohhh...they might get someone to fall on the sword for a few mill in a Swiss account but that's about it!

All these career uncivil serpents will walk away with a fat goobermint pension with free lifetime bennies courtesy of us suckas , get a fat self-serving book deal and a cushy million dollar job with some firm.

Meantime us ZH-ers will still be here typing away and blubbering about how unfair this all is.

BWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

inosent , 28 minutes ago

"public servant"? puhleeez, give it a rest!

Shelby cobra , 28 minutes ago

The news just keeps getting worse each day for these swamp monsters ,but there is a better chance of hell freezing over than any of them going to jail!

Is-Be , 38 minutes ago

From an outsiders perspective, this is not a Jewish problem. It is a monotheist problem.

How can anyone blame the Jews and worship his God?

Are we all Semites now?All Jews? With you-know-who in charge being the font of all our troubles.

Soon we will all be one.

Soon each will know his place.

Indeed, Dr. Jacobs.

All is clear to Odin. But what of Thor?

No wonder Mrvl comix is keen to abuse our Gods and Goddesses. It's what they do.

Of cause they'll let loose their Muslims upon us as enforcers if we stray from their plan.

Secrecy, dear Goy. No light please.

It was not for nothing that Odin hung for 9 days on Yggdsdril, the tree of life.

And the squirrel runs up and down the Sacred tree, telling tales.

romanmoment , 35 minutes ago

Rosenstein needs to be fired, right now.

Debt Slave , 33 minutes ago

You can't trust one of them. The truth may be inconvenient and unacceptable in our current, political climate, but you can not trust a god damned one of them.

If it is a bad thing to recognize the facts of life, then proceed at your own peril.

The Swamp Got Trump , 35 minutes ago

Please fire this **********.

debtserf , 23 minutes ago

He will only fire him if he doesnt do exactly as he is told from now till November.

Hass C. , 52 minutes ago

Putin must be getting irritable bowel from too much popcorn.

Aerows , 49 minutes ago

What a big flaming bag of dog **** on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Except this isn't a prank, it affects our government at the highest of levels.

Harvey's-Rabbi , 49 minutes ago

I made up mind that today my posted comments will contain as much relevant materiel as possible, other than that which may implicate legendary destroyers of their host culture. I have kept this in mind while commenting on this guy and what he as attempted to do, even trying to enlist other sectors of the nation's leadership.....


Thank you for reading.

Debt Slave , 25 minutes ago

I think you are doing a fine job of it.

History and the study of pathological behavior are .the greatest of endeavors. Only then can a man recognize the reality of his world without any artificially induced delusions.

It really is an exercise of maturity.

divingengineer , 56 minutes ago

Yeah, they knew enough about Trump this early in his term to justify spying and impeachment/removal?

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

apocalypticbrother , 1 hour ago

Rod Rodentstein is a dirty rat.

Debt Slave , 22 minutes ago

He certainly does resemble one.

EscondidoSurfer , 55 minutes ago

NYT wanted to get ahead of Trump before he released this and other sensitive information, sources and procedures.

Hass C. , 1 hour ago

Are they setting Trump up for some sort of confrontation? After all, the NYT is not exactly a Friend of Trump these days.

Vigilante , 1 hour ago

High time the evil kikester gets the boot. Isn't he who also hired Mueller to start his bogus investigation?

Debt Slave , 21 minutes ago

I believe he did, yes. Odd that Trump can't seem to get rid of him.

Victory_Garden , 1 hour ago

Of course this is a firable evil deed.

Like, phuck! This evil ziobot phuckin phaggot phucker pile of shat should have been phuchin french fried and thrown out the phucking building shiteter years ago. Phuckin-A, PERIOD!

Question is, will the Sir Pres fire this cikesucxker?

Take a look at the commie news networks view of this and be darn sure to keep this bfore they erase it. This will make good eatin for this costa crow and wolfie bafaronizer and all the, they suck hitlery cunthags big plastic kak purple hippie tie wareing dweebs of drool. Phuckin phaggots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXngm1nr2yo

Speaking of isreall. What the phuck are those phuckin crazy arsehole woarmongers up to now?

chinese censorship SUCKS!

.

GoingBig , 1 hour ago

The drivel that you people post is hilarious!

1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago

You should file a complaint.....try door FU2....closed at 5 PM...

Walking Turtle , 54 minutes ago

You should file a complaint.....try door FU2....closed at 5 PM...

Ah but even after hours, there is STILL the Secret Access Complaint Department. That office is open 18/7/365\6, right there behind that selfsame door (FU2 iirc) with generous seating and several magazines to share. Just buzz the buzzer for admittance.

But there is a secret, which shall herein be disclosed forthwith. To wit, the Secret Password. Because without it one will never be admitted. Turns out, the Secret Password is (and always was) the Office Manager's name. Know that name and you can expect satisfaction in due full course!

Her name is Helen Waite. Those with After-Hours Complaints such as this one really should go to Helen Waite, now shouldn't they? "Always there for YOU !" is the Standing Motto. Servicing that nasty complaint and smiling while doing so...

Just stay seated and don't lose your Number. Remember Herself's Name. And that is all. 0{;-)o[

GoingBig , 20 minutes ago

LMAO!

Ranger7676 , 1 hour ago

Trump did not go to Princeton, Harvard or Yale and rape children and drink their blood like Hillary, Obama and the Bush's, so you know the deep state is out to get him. Drain the swamp and expose these assholes Mr. President.

Buck Shot , 1 hour ago

Worried about his reputation? Is he afraid the other cheerleaders will say he is a slut? What a ******* *****. I bet he has never been in a fistfight in his life.

novictim , 1 hour ago

Wow. I may have reached a peak now. I don't think I could be anymore cynical about the FBI and DOJ at this point.

GoingBig , 1 hour ago

lmao, I think most people would gasp in horror if they actually heard Trump go on one of his famous Trumptantrums, which happens every 3-4 minutes. This is freaking hilarious.

NoPension , 1 hour ago

Haha!

You're right...you're hilarious.

Hass C. , 58 minutes ago

More wishful thinking from you.

1970SSNova396 , 57 minutes ago

The best part of you ran down your mothers leg

GoingBig , 19 minutes ago

That's a ******* new one! LMFO. What are you 100 years old! FLMAO

cheech_wizard , 41 minutes ago

Here, have another soy latte.

vintage512 , 1 hour ago

lmao... this is outrageous....this generation should be in the streets.. they get into the streets to wait in line for the new iphone but not for their civil liberties...priorities...a nation of pathetic eunuchs

DingleBarryObummer , 1 hour ago

like the liberty of having sound money... which we don't have?

Ranger7676 , 1 hour ago

I have several young 30's friends who went from liberal to Trump supporters. They see whats going on with the Deep State and don't like it.

Is-Be , 56 minutes ago

iPhones and eunuchs go together like hookers and blow.

Keep them away from your gonads if you are worth breeding from.

Megaton Jim , 1 hour ago

Get rid of the ******* kikes in government, Wall St and the media. Jooz are Satanic vermin!

DingleBarryObummer , 1 hour ago

Trump's going to be mighty lonely in his white house.

moman , 1 hour ago

'Get rid of the ******* kikes in government,' ....get rid of the DUMB-*** Goyim that alow this ****!

GoingBig , 1 hour ago

somebody needs some milk and cookies....

Hass C. , 54 minutes ago

Actually, you have a point, moman. To hell with the whole pack. But who's going to send them there?

Victory_Garden , 1 hour ago

Oh my, he said, ****!

So, has the ships Tyler lifted the chinese censorship?

Curious crew member wanna know and if indeed this be the truth, then let the good rants roll!

Testing: ****! Holy...****!

So OK, back to the farkin grind.

All hands forward for leave.

Ding...ding...ding.

+

True Historian , 1 hour ago

Sessions and Trump are together, a team. Session's recusal will be rescinded after the 2018 election. Then the real "deep state" removal process will begin. Trump has played them all; and is in the process of destroying them.

Sessions-Trump secret deal is that Sessions will take the verbal assaults until the Mueller investigation goes down in flames.

Notice that Mueller has gone quiet. He knows he is through; he is cutting a deal with Trump so that he doesn't go to jail over the "Uranium One" deal.

The Kav anaugh hearings with Feinstein are just to incite all anti-democrats to vote.

1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago

If not for LBJ's great slacking society the dems would never win another election. Blacks will do what they always do and vote for dems. They fuq up everything they touch.

Nunny , 55 minutes ago

I hate the LBJ ********, and we all see what he did there. I talk to mill working blacks everyday that have got 'woke'....and not in the stupid snowflake way.

Hass C. , 48 minutes ago

A man on the cusp of winning such a chess game is not having tweet tantrums every morning. Those pathetic tweets are a sign of powerlessness, not the opposite.

When this is said, i wish you were right.

JoeTurner , 1 hour ago

In diverse, multicultrual America competency will soon be a crime

https://nypost.com/2018/09/21/diversity-plan-mayhem-arts-school-cant-audition-applicants-anymore/

alamac , 1 hour ago

Seems pretty clear by now that the reason Trump doesn't fire these 5th-columnists is because he can't . The rot in the system is far more deeply entrenched than most imagined: We are seeing a system openly and contemptuously ignore the wishes of the elected Chief Executive, and he seems to have no power to do anything but launch a few acerbic tweets at his tormenters.

So why isn't Hillary Clinton in jail? Because the Clinton cabal is still in control, that's why. Which explains all sorts of things, including Rosenstein's display of arrogance before the Congress: He knows well who runs things and it ain't Congress or the President. He knows that it's a matter of time before Trump is either completely broken, or run out of town, or both, and isn't a bit concerned about showing what he thinks of the "deplorables" who dared question his divine right to do what the corporations goddamn please.

And I don't even have much hope for these grand jury hearings on worms like McCabe and Comey, either. A prosecutor has pretty unlimited control over a grand jury in the real world, and they almost always do what the prosecutor wants. I have not heard anything that tells me that the government agents in charge of these grand jury investigations aren't just more Clintonites. In which case, look for no-bills for the Clintonist criminals. It's the classic way corrupt prosecutors get rid of cases without fading the heat: "We presented the cases, but the grand jury no-billed, nothing we can do. Next case..."

Corrupt to the bone. Wish I were wrong, but sure doesn't look like it.

debtserf , 1 hour ago

Trump is the big dog. He looks for leverage. Why fire Slippery Rod if he has all the leverage over him to secure his own insurance policy against impeachment - and crush the Dems in the midterms. If Rod doesnt do this and pronto, then Bubba will be telling him to "get on ma body".

Looks like Big T has this one covered.

Debt Slave , 12 minutes ago

Recall Strzok's behavior during his testimony. It couldn't be more obvious if they took out a full page ad in the New York Times.

debtor of last resort , 1 hour ago

They have put the left on the altar to make the right start the war.

LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago

This is coming from McCabe.

Trying to get a deal. Remember what he screamed when he heard that he was under investigation: "If they **** with my pension I will burn this place to the ground!!"

Well, he's got the gas and the matches. He doesn't want to go to prison where Hillary's people can shank him. He's letting some tidbits out now to convince Huber he will do more damage from outside than inside.

I say **** HIM. Let him burn it down. Sessions is recused - not his fault.

McCabe needs to do 3-5 in a FedPen for his lies and cover-ups. Tried to quash the Weiner laptop and impede a Federal investigation. Repeatedly leaked information to misdirect and interfere with a Federal investigation.

A top, trained intel officer. Lock him the hell up. This is the kind of "patriot" who comes up through the Deep State system to run the alphabet agencies that work day and night to protect America from the sunlight its intel community so desperately needs on those who sell out the rank-and-file, hardworking true patriots for their own boundless ambition. Strzok and Page come next.

Burn out the poison vipers' nests.

NoPension , 1 hour ago

All these ******* vipers are go to start eating other. As I think about it...Mr.Trump should just stay out of their way...and poke the hornets nest every so often, get them all stirred up!

McCabe...muh Pension. Haha! All those years...carrying scumbag water...and he gets to end up in the graybar hotel, while they skate? I do not think sooooo......

Man, this is going to make a great movie some day.

debtserf , 1 hour ago

Sopranos meets Veep.

NoPension , 1 hour ago

House of Cards is going to look like Sesame Street when this thing winds up....

debtserf , 54 minutes ago

It's a perpetual Muppet Show.

Nunny , 50 minutes ago

I was thinking the same thing. Why watch 'fiction' when you can watch it in real time. I told my husband, if Trump gets in, one thing I know, it will be ENTERTAINING. And BTW, hubby had never registered to vote in all his 60+ years....but he did just to vote for Trump. THAT is how much we hate the status quo of a government that hates it's own citizens.

And as a side bar....we also did it to throw a big fat middle finger to the press, the 'celebrities' the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Cobra Commander , 1 hour ago

NYT and "anonymous sources;" sounds like the Left is trying to goad President Trump, or at least sow more discord in the White House.

That said, how is it that President Obama gets a self-described "wingman" for an attorney general (Holder), and President Trump gets bird feces for his?

Cobra!

Theremustbeanotherway , 1 hour ago

Has Rosenstein been moonlighting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAzP1nbgKUA

Probably best if he gives up the day job at the JD as the comedy production isn't going too well....rumour has it there are too many clowns there!

Son of Nephilim , 1 hour ago

Any country that allows jews to operate freely, is a nation headed toward communism and chaos.

Theremustbeanotherway , 1 hour ago

I've never seen a tapeworm... I certainly haven't seen one wear glasses before!

1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago

Read the article and you better understand why the NYT is throwing Rosenstein under the bus.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/21/devin-nunes-discusses-declassification-directive-potus-reverses-course/

beaker , 1 hour ago

Great link. Thank you.

NoPension , 1 hour ago

Holy shite. I'm getting a feeling that this is ready to EXPLODE on the world stage. And implicate Britain and Australia as in on the scam. I'm getting the sense, the Brits called Trump and begged him not to let this come completely to light. Trump has ALL these motherfuckers by the balls now. I just hope and pray that ******* arrogant poser Obama is sweating bullets right now.

I cant even imagine how this all plays out. These arrogant ******* Nee World Order pieces of ****,especially both Clinton's, Obama and most if not ALL of his senior administration just felt entitled to do whatever the **** they wanted, the ends justify the means, the Constitution and the people be damned. These people really to need to endure a special type of hell. If this charade doesn't warrant it, what does? To Big To Fail comes to mind, though. This might be SO big, Trump actually has to manage the shitshow...or the train goes off the rails.

1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/23/gchq-chief-robert-hannigan-quits

This guy quit the week before The Don took the keys to the white house.....Imagine that. As you might recall Judge Nap at Fox stated that the Obama Cabal used the brits to spy on Trump and then was place in timeout for 2 weeks. He returned and double downed on his statement.

ardent , 1 hour ago

Funny to think that ***-lover Trump, with a JEWISH AGENDA ,

might be brought down by so many Jews turning on him. Priceless.

Artist's IMPRESSION of Satanyahoo RIDING Trump

Ranger7676 , 1 hour ago

You cannot trust them, I lived in S Florida and hated all the NY Jews so bad I had to leave before I went Charles Manson on them.

cheoll , 1 hour ago

Fire rosencrap.

RictaviousPorkchop , 2 hours ago

We're all living in Amerika!

https://youtu.be/Rr8ljRgcJNM

megadeadbeat , 2 hours ago

fire that worthless deep stater

TheRideNeverEnds , 1 hour ago

I for one am shocked that's a *** would try to subvert America's political system.

ObiterDictum , 2 hours ago

Watch how the media puts this story into its magic hat and poof!, it disappears. Meanwhile those two investigative journalistic corpses known as Woodward and Bernstein, heroes of J schools everywhere, will shake off their mothballs of irrelevance and swill cocktails with their fellow elitist nitwits and talk about Watergate and Trump while this open corruption accelerates. The truth does not matter anymore - just repeat a lie over and over again and the moronic media reports it as a "competing fact." Or, just call up WaPo and say, "I will speak to you as an anon. government official" and THEY PRINT IT with a line that they asked you for a comment and you declined. The media becomes the publicist/lap dog of the corrupted politicians. The majority of people reading the comment thinks, " hey, it must be true if they are afraid to be named. I am sure the paper verified it." The lack of an independent media has killed Truth. Truth is now a concept. And, then the media blame Trump for the fact that 50% of the population does not trust them. A bit like the old story of the person who kills his parent and says, ' oh, feel sorry for me, I am an orphan ."

Endgame Napoleon , 1 hour ago

Back in the Watergate days, the American people cared about the 4th Amendment, which is why an audible gasp was heard in the congressional hearings, when it was revealed that Nixon taped people in the WH.

Today, the American people have ceded their 4th Amendment rights in many ways, including when agreeing to be taped and filmed in the maze of paperwork signed in any $10-to-$12-per-hour office job that will not even cover the cost of rent for those with no spousal income and no womb-productivity-based welfare and progressive tax-code welfare.

'We've come a long way, baby.'

High-ranking, highly paid people in the WH, too, are already being taped, hence the Flynn incident.

https://dailyreckoning.com/flynns-gone-theyre-still-gunning-donald/

True Blue , 2 hours ago

There is a word for it when you try to wiretap a head of State... now what was that? Oh, yes. Espionage , and pieces of **** like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg fried in the electric chair for it. Why should this particular dual citizen be any different? Fry his *** extra crispy -just like a chicken.

RictaviousPorkchop , 2 hours ago

Rosenberg...Rosenstein.....Hmmmmmm

Jackprong , 2 hours ago

Rosenstein orchestrated a COUP ATTEMPT! Rosenstein needs to pay for this Banana Republic move on his part. Before he pays, he should spill his guts about his relationships with Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton.

blindfaith , 2 hours ago

Is the New York Times and ABC beginning to see the light? Are they awakening to the deception? Will they become actual news reporters?

So many questions.....

RictaviousPorkchop , 2 hours ago

No. The media is merely cashing in on the chaos, AND in hopes that Trump will fire the Jewish Lad.

[Sep 21, 2018] Obama played both sides against the middle telling folks to vote for him and 'hope and change' bullshit and to shake his fist at Wall Street -- all the while enabling them to make more money than they thought existed.

Sep 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anthony Aaron , says: September 21, 2018 at 4:46 am GMT

@nsa

Actually, it was b h o who opened the Fed borrowing window to the Wall Street investment crowd who were able to borrow at 1/4 % interest so that they could play the markets with impunity.

b h o played both sides against the middle telling folks to vote for him and 'hope and change' bullshit and to shake his fist at Wall Street -- all the while enabling them to make more money than they thought existed.

Like so many of his predecessors in the White House, Trump has surrounded himself with Zionists in almost every important position imaginable and they're more than willing to screw us into the ground -- just because they can.

[Sep 21, 2018] One must ask why Putin is acting this way.

Sep 21, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Sep 21, 2018] Israeli F-16s Scrambled to Cover Behind the Russian Il-20 Because They Had Been Painted by Syrian Air Defense Radars

Sep 21, 2018 | russia-insider.com

And so it starts. Russia must attack Israel, no -- she must obliterate it, Putin is "soft", the world is coming to an end, Zionists are in control of Kremlin, Russia turns another cheek. And on, and on, and on. The chorus of noble warriors with the evils of Zionism is getting louder with each day. Behind this hysteria surrounding the tragedy of Russian VKS' IL-20 somehow crucial and widely publicized news have been ignored completely. It is no surprise they were ignored by all kinds of "specialists" in strategy, politics, and armchair strategists (I am one myself). The news are pretty simple. Lt. General Alexander Ionov, former Deputy Chief of Main Staff of Russian Air Force from 1991 through 2001, stated to popular Russian media Zvezda that it is guaranteed that Syrian Air Defense forces were not provided with compatible IFF equipment and codes .

For those who don't know what IFF (Interrogator Friend-Foe) is -- it is electronic system which provides both a defense against friendly fire and easy radar identification of friendly forces. On older radar friendly forces would usually be marked with arches (below or above) radar marks of the targets and that is how one knows how not to shoot at them. The IFF technology is extremely sensitive as are the "codes" on which it runs. It wasn't provided, and for a good reason, to Syrian Forces. So, the question, in this case which will be asked by laymen is: but what about "full integration" of Russian and Syrian Air Defenses. It is a legitimate question.

... ... ...

Reaction of Israel following the events is telling -- she went into the full damage control mode with Netanyahu urgently calling Vladimir Putin. He offered the Commander of Israeli Air Force to be immediately on his way to Moscow, all diplomatic, informational, government channels between Israel and Russia got immediately engaged.

This was a very telling sign of a real panic and confusion on the Israeli side which also immediately offered condolences. This is not an act of war, as many would love it to be, some out of often justified hatred of Israel hoping for Russia to dispose of this "evil", others purely out of adrenalin rush in anticipation of TV picture of people killing each other.

But the issue of interaction between Russia and Syrian forces is real and it is not easily addressed for a number of purely military and cultural reasons. But some conclusions can already be made:

1. There will be no "annihilation" of Israel, nor will there be any shooting war between Russia and Jewish State as many would love and lust it to be;

2. There will, however, be some form of no-fly zone and as Vladimir Putin stated Russia will take " the steps that everyone will notice ." Obviously this important statement by the head of Russian State got drowned in the ocean of rage and speculations, and confusion I may add, but this has become a familiar pattern by now.

3. Issue of ROE and interaction -- the most important one. Specialists must review protocols and tactical procedures. Engagement caveats must be strictly enforced.

... ... ....

In the end, this tragedy, should serve as a real serious lesson and, in a military sense a warning that one better stick to the agreements or things may spiral out of control very fast . Israel decided that it is allowed to break agreements. Israel should ask Turkey what happens when one does Russia wrong -- Turkish Air Force knows it too well after shooting down Russian SU-24. It got grounded. Now Turkey is a situational ally of Iran and Russia in the region. As per larger geopolitical sense -- just wait and see. But I made myself explicit on that matter not for once. I might as well repeat myself -- dogs bark, but caravan passes on .

[Sep 21, 2018] Setting up the Russian Il-20 to Be Shot Down Is a Win-Win for Israel by Marko Marjanović

This story looks more and more strange: Il-20 was a military plane. why russina interceptors were not in the air immediately after Israeli planes approached Il-20? Were everybody drunk in the command center?
Sep 18, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Russia has no good options here. Russian military retaliation brings the absurdly pro-Israeli American public opinion and Washington establishment into play. Doing nothing signals weakness and invites more provocations

It's technically possible the Russian Il-20 surveillance plane was downed only as a result of stupidity and incompetence on the Israeli and Syrian side, and without a devious Israeli plan to set it up. Militaries almost always are among the stupidest and incompetent of all government bureaucracies so it's in the realm of possibility.

Nonetheless, the fact that Israel this time failed to give adequate warning to Russia is a strong indicator the IDF at the very least wanted to use the Russian plane there to cover their fighters, which it must have known would put it at a certain amount of risk. If so then I think Israel may have done it in safety of knowing that if a Russian plane is blown out of the sky by Syrians -- even if the IDF is ultimately responsible -- it's a win-win for Israel.

Think about it. Just hours after calling off the Idlib offensive in a massive concession to Erdogan and indirectly to the West, Putin is repaid by a Russian military plane being shot down as result of an Israeli attack on Syria. Talk about egg on face. When Turkey ambushed and shot down a Russian Su-24 on the Syrian-Turkish border in November 2015, Moscow limited its response to economic sanctions. This eventually helped moderate the extent of Turkish ambition in Syria. End to tomato imports however won't do much to impress Israel.

If Putin sticks to economic and diplomatic means of retaliation alone Russia will look comparatively weak. This will embolden the hawks in Washington who will have an easier time selling the idea pushing Russia around in Syria and hitting Assad does not actually risk WW3 – thus increasing the chances of what Israel really wants in Syria; more chaos and for the war to never end.

At the same time, if Russia retaliates militarily instead, this – thanks to the unparalleled amount of sympathy Israel enjoys in the US – also boosts the likelihood of what Israel wants. Imagine for example that Russia declares its forces in Syria will from now on under certain conditions actively participate in the defense of host country against Israeli airstrikes and actually fired against them the next time. What effect would that have? A likely result would be a war fever in the US. Wacky Protestant Evangelicals, Russia-hating Liberals and Trumpian Israel-Firsters could all unite under the banner of protecting tiny, pluck, democratic Israel from the menacing Russian bear. It would be like the narrative on the 2008 Georgian-Russian war (in which Georgia attacked the even tinnier South Ossetia along with Russian peacekeepers) except it would resonate far more so because it's sainted Israel.

For Russia its US relations would deteriorate even more, more US financial would be a certainty (it already is, but the pace would be ramped up), and the chance of US muscle stretching in Syria and the associated dangers of a US-Russian clash in the region would go up. Meanwhile for Israel the result would be a flurry of popular and diplomatic support from the Americans with a possible bump in military aid. Not a bad deal at all huh?

Inevitably whatever happens some will end up criticizing Putin for not doing enough to restore Russia's military honor. Other will question the wisdom of setting up shop in Syria in 2015 when Israelis and the Americans were already deeply involved in the conflict militarily and involving Russia in this dangerous mess in the first place. Both will be correct.

Correct also will be those who will note that Russia's intervention (any innocent civilians it killed or maimed aside) in Syria did a lot of good, but that neither Russia's nor Syria's position is all-powerful and that sometimes it's wiser to swallow your pride and keep your eyes on the finish line.

Of course, others will say that with Idlib offensive postponed and potentially called off for good, Putin may already be showing signs he may be happy, or may think it wiser, to leave things only half-finished.

[Sep 21, 2018] Alksnis question: "and the death of Il-20 and its crew? The defense Ministry tells us stories that Israeli fighters were hiding behind the Il-20, attacking Latakia, and so the Syrians shot down our plane. Why wasn't the Il-20 covered by our fighters?

Sep 21, 2018 | www.kp.md

Israeli F-16 really " hid " behind our Il-20. Not a fairy tale. We and the Syrians have documents of objective control. But "why Il-20 is not covered by our fighters" - this is now the leadership of the Ministry of defense and understands... It is a reasonable question.

On the one hand, we clearly stepped on the same rake.

And on the other Il-20 worked in the area of reach of our base in Hamim and his defense was enough of the modern s-400.

But the fact of the matter is that no one attacked him.

This is a tragic coincidence, multiplied by the provocation of the Israelis. I think conclusions will be drawn. And, in the near future.

[Sep 21, 2018] Great Interview on the Il-20 Shootdown With a Russian Air Defense Colonel by Viktor Baranets

A better translation of KP article
This story looks more and more strange: Il-20 was a military plane. Why Russian interceptors were not in the air immediately after Israeli planes approached Il-20? Were everybody drunk in the command center? Or have orders to stand down like in 9-11.
Notable quotes:
"... - What in your opinion, as a professional, could be the cause of the error of the Syrian air defense that brought down our IL-20? ..."
"... - By the way, does our Il have a system warning of a missile attack from the ground or from the air? ..."
"... - Why then did our Il not make an anti-missile maneuver, at least? ..."
"... - And how do you picture it? ..."
"... "But they say that we had such a deal with the Israelis as well?" ..."
"... - What kind of plane is it, IL-20? ..."
"... - What tasks could our Il-20 solve in the eastern part of the city, where he died? ..."
"... - Information has already leaked that the IL-20 allegedly tried to minimize the effectiveness of Israeli missile attacks on Latakia. Where are our military facilities? ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | russia-insider.com
- What in your opinion, as a professional, could be the cause of the error of the Syrian air defense that brought down our IL-20?

- There is in aviation such a tricky reception - "air camouflage". It seems that the Israelites used it. They gathered over our huge IL-20 on top of a sort of "stack", because of which the marks from both our reconnaissance aircraft and the Israeli F-16 merged. And the Syrian S-200 could not strike at them at that moment, since the "own-alien" identification system, sewn into the brains of anti-aircraft missile systems, did not allow it. But this system is only set up to prevent the rocket from launching on its own, but when it is already released, it can not be re-targeted.

However, the rocket itself is so arranged that its homing head catches a stronger signal. And the IL-20 reflecting the surface is much larger than that of the fighter. Naturally, the missile grabs the most powerful target and goes to it .

And then when the Israeli fighters changed course, on the screen of the C-200 there were marks of "stranger". And the Syrian air defense opened fire. Here, I am sure, our plane and ran into a "friendly" missile.

In addition, do not forget that the S-200 is an old weapon. And the training of Syrian air defense specialists, to put it mildly, often leaves much to be desired ...

- By the way, does our Il have a system warning of a missile attack from the ground or from the air?

- Of course have.

- Why then did our Il not make an anti-missile maneuver, at least?

- And how do you imagine such a maneuver of a huge airy machine? In which the area of ​​only one wing is 14 square meters! This is not a fighter that can tinker away and escape from the enemy's rocket ...

In any case, the perpetrators of the tragedy are the Israelis. They provoked her. And they must bear responsibility for this.

- And how do you picture it?

- Simply ritual statements, of course, will be too little. Our loyalty was dismissed by the Israelis! In a day they freely invade the airspace of sovereign Syria . And when we are asked, why our air defense in Syria allowed this, we somehow answer that we cover only our bases Khmeimim, Tartous and our own naval group in the Mediterranean.

After this tragedy, it would be logical to declare that we close the sky of Syria from uninvited guests and we will knock them down as enemy planes. In this case, of course, to close the space over Syria we would need a three times denser concentration of air defense systems.

Well, as for the armies and their allies, we allowed them to fly only in strictly defined zones and they do not yet poke their nose into other areas.

"But they say that we had such a deal with the Israelis as well?"

- Yes there is. Israelis bypass our facilities. They mainly "hammer" their enemy - "Hezbollah", but at the same time they strike not only military but also civilian Syrian targets. There are already a lot of sacrifices. It is time to put them in their place.

- What kind of plane is it, IL-20?

"Oh, I can tell you about it all day!" Both in the school, and in the academy passed the exams. Yes, and in Syria in the "womb" climbed ... But briefly, it is a plane of electronic intelligence and electronic warfare.

It is equipped with an infrared scanner, optical sensors. There is also a lateral radar.

There is a station of detailed electronic intelligence "Kvadrat-2" and radio intercept equipment "Cherry". At our VKS such planes of pieces 20. And all of them have passed a deep modernization. Our "Ilyusha" have well proven themselves in Syria, coordinating the attacks of the Russian Air Force on terrorists.

He also has another unique "chip" - he can correct the flight of the cruise missiles "Caliber" when they approach the target ... Do you remember the launch of our missiles from the water area of ​​the Caspian Sea? Their attacks would be less accurate, if not for the high-class work of the IL-20 operators. I will say more. Our ground-attack planes and bombers are precisely reaching the target, also with the help of IL-20 equipment. But enemy locators do not see them at this time, its anti-aircraft missile systems simply do not observe anything on their screens, thanks to the operation of the radio-electronic countermeasure equipment installed on our reconnaissance aircraft ...

What else? Still, the IL-20 has four powerful engines. They can provide the aircraft with a speed of up to 700 kilometers per hour. Empty it weighs somewhere under 34 tons. Can climb to a height of 10 kilometers ...

- What tasks could our Il-20 solve in the eastern part of the city, where he died?

- Such a universal machine is capable of solving many problems - from opening the air situation to jamming ...

- Information has already leaked that the IL-20 allegedly tried to minimize the effectiveness of Israeli missile attacks on Latakia. Where are our military facilities?

- I do not exclude that it had such a task.

[Sep 21, 2018] "The-French-frigate-shot-it-down" is yet another blatant diversion/dilution/dispersion narrative from the Masters of Narrative and their minions elsewhere and here, who know better than the Russian MoD

Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

stonebird , Sep 20, 2018 9:42:35 AM | link

Peter @70
Here is the link to the Luongo article where he explains the idea that it was the French Frigate (L'Auvergne) which fired missiles, (Where? Were they the ones that shot down the Russian plane?) and who was to be the bait for a missile riposte by the Syrians. In order to provoke a NATO article 5 attack.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/09/19/israel-failed-attempt-start-wwiii-beginning-end-syria.html

I have seen one tweet (unconfirmed) that says that Putin has closed air and Sea space off Syrian coastline. Logical, if they are looking for the remains of their plane with highly sensitive electronics on board. Also I suspect that this "exclusion zone" may become permanent.
------
General note; The above article is also on Zero hedge BUT; comments don't come up. I hope you are all aware that comments can be silenced at anytime and not necessarily by the web site itself. Happened to me about two months ago (FT). On contacting them, it "appears" it was due to something in my computer ad blocker. For various reasons this is probably not the reason. See also what happened to Paveway - I think censorship is far more prevalent than we assume. (Paveway; my sympathy, I found it was the frustration of not being able to post - that was difficult to support !)
-----
@85
It is also possible that the French were suckered in, easy enough probably to send a message saying "all systems go for an attack on Syria", by whoever wanted them to fire. ie Israel or US.

(@83. I had written the post above before your post "surfaced" and I saw it.)

John Gilberts , Sep 20, 2018 9:44:24 AM | link

Gift to the Sultan - Text of Russia-Turkey Agreement of September 17, 2018, Establishing Turkish Protectorate of Idlib

http://johnhelmer.net/gift-to-the-sultan-text-of-russia-turkey-agreement-of-september-17-2018-establishing-turkish-protectorate-of-idlib/#more-19788

Kiza , Sep 20, 2018 10:05:16 AM | link
"The-French-frigate-shot-it-down" is yet another blatant diversion/dilution/dispersion narrative from the Masters of Narrative and their minions elsewhere and here, who know better than the Russian MoD. Far from a binary choice in the movie, for each red pill the pill-pushers push hundreds of blue ones.
stonebird , Sep 20, 2018 10:12:38 AM | link
The comment on Putin closing Syrian air and Sea space comes from Haaretz, not an anonymous tweet - sorry.
Russ , Sep 20, 2018 10:34:43 AM | link
Posted by: xLemming | Sep 20, 2018 7:22:07 AM | 78

Zionism has NOTHING to do with Judaism!

Yes, Zionism started out an atheist movement with a Dawkinsesque contempt for Judaism. The Zionists only glommed onto Judaism in 1967 when they saw how a religious angle could enhance their war propaganda.

Sunny Runny Burger , Sep 20, 2018 10:57:50 AM | link
Everyone (including me) assumes way too much but I can't help interpret some recent stuff I read elsewhere (not here) as to imply that everyone is encouraged to object to a white lie so as to possibly encourage others to also consider it to be a white lie in the best interests of the entire world. So I'll do just that.

Spudski & Tony Cartalucci and then also pogohere, viking3, and Kondor speaks sense, at least from this perspective.

I feel no obligation to believe we know the truth about what happened nor do I believe the Russians truly expect anyone with critical thinking skills to necessarily believe that the fake jews (by any name or entity) managed to do anything but send some missiles into Syria. How close or far from the truth such an official line is doesn't seem all that important if what was at stake was a provocation and escalation into a much bigger war. Russia obviously and sanely does not want a bigger war because they know it will easily be the biggest and last war.

If the "dragging missiles" story is what it takes to do so then so be it. The story seems to require that:
- the missile IFF is locked on launch rather than actively reassessed until impact
- there is no destruction mechanism from missile control
- the missile doesn't distinguish between a fighter jet at some speed and a slow plane
- the missile potentially (depending on whether those jets buzzed the EW plane closely) didn't distinguish between chasing something far away and something suddenly being right in front of it
- the EW plane was powerless against an old-ish or at least export version of a missile produced by themselves
- the EW plane does not have a range of flares and evasive procedures
- the EW plane couldn't EW it out of existence
- the EW plane wasn't aware of the situation
- the EW plane wasn't aware of being locked on by the missile at any point
- the EW plane wasn't aware of the possibility of such
- the Russian (not Syrian) control of the integrated systems (both Russian and Syrian) as well as the superior Russian situational awareness in the region's airspace just sat idly by and didn't do anything between the launch and the missile coming anywhere close to the vicinity of the EW plane

To me it's a fucking tall order to believe all those things when instead it could be -- as examples -- :
- the fake jews shot it down
- the boiling frogs shot it down (figuratively run by a fake jew)
- the fake americans shot it down (figuratively run by a fake jew)
- the poor brits shot it down (figuratively run by a fake jewess)
- someone else did something
- something entirely different happened

At this point I would like to point out that even some fake jews are very nice people, in fact superbly awesomely nice people much nicer than me, but at the same time some other fake jews (like those "leaders" alluded to) obviously aren't anywhere close to nice, or sane, or intelligent, or even have a shred of a sense of actual self-preservation never mind a thought for the rest of us all.

So no I don't believe the Russians believe that anyone believes they actually want anyone to believe that story :D

Instead I think they want people like me and at least some others here to believe that they do know we won't believe it and that we'll instead believe it is whatever was required for Russia to salvage whatever they could from whatever actually happened. To make thing better from a bad situation rather than worse.

And then also that they want to encourage us to believe that and tell others we believe that by claiming they don't want us to do so...

And that is what I'll believe, but I might of course be utterly wrong :D

[Sep 21, 2018] MAGA is dead, people; say hello to MIGA.

Sep 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

nsa , says: September 21, 2018 at 4:18 am GMT

Trumpenstein delivers magnificently for his constituency. Cheap fiat money for the jooie banking usurers and wall street scammers. Continued destruction of the ME making the bloodthirsty izzies and domestic jooies deliriously happy.

And for the MAGA white trash deplorables .a miniscule tax cut so they can afford a new blue tarp to cover the trailer roof leak and maybe a new mumu for the 250 lb wife.

[Sep 21, 2018] Fact free propaganda

Notable quotes:
"... I still love the theater though. The meaningless political theater that last occurred when Clinton was President. What's most amusing this time is that it's only the hyper-partisans (many of whom are not self-aware enough to realize it) who identify (again, consciously or subconsciously) that even care. The rest of us simply get to see each party's idiotic followers on the "left" and the "right" get sucked into the media's chosen narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the bombings and interventions can continue, Gitmo can remain open (btw, anyone else notice that unlike hurricanes that hit the mainland, nobody ever cares whether Gitmo will be evacuated?), the massive bank bailout can be relegated deeper and deeper into the memory hole and the two parties (including Trump's cabinet) continue to grow closer and closer together where the subjects of domestic surveillance and neocon warmongering are concerned. ..."
"... I love it. I laugh openly at anyone who mentions Russia to me from either angle. "No collusion!" is as entertaining as "Putin got Trump elected!" - Idiots. ..."
"... i do believe the proxy wars are really all about this same salient fact - the usa and us$ can not be challenged.. any challenge will be met with war, covert, or overt.. ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

bevin , Sep 20, 2018 3:43:13 PM | link

The whole nonsense about Russian interference, which was obviously nonsense from Day One and has never, for a moment looked like anything but nonsense, seems to indicate that we have entered a post political era in which policy discussions and debates are forgotten and smears and false accusations take their place.
Currently in the US the Kavanaugh nomination which ought to be about the meaning of the law and the consequences of having a Supreme Court which will make Judge Taney look like Solomon at his most impressive. Instead it is about an alleged teenage incident in which the nominee is said to have caressed a girls breasts at a drunken party when all involved were at High School. Before that we had a Senatorial election in Alabama in which the Republican candidate was charged with having shown a sexual interest in teenage girls- whether this was a 'first' in Alabama is unknown but it is believed to have happened elsewhere, in the unenlightened past.
Then we have the matter of whether Jeremy Corbyn is such a danger to Jews that they will all leave the country if he is ever elected to power. This long campaign, completely devoid of evidence, like 'Russiagate' has the potential of going on forever, simply because there being no evidence it cannot be refuted.
Which is also the case with the Skripal affair, because of which even as we speak, massive trade and financial sanctions are being imposed against Russia and its enormous, innocent and plundered population.
In none of these cases has any real evidence, of the minimal quality that might justify the hanging of a dog, ever advanced. But that doesn't matter, the important thing is to choose a side and if it is Hillary Clinton's to believe or to pretend to believe and to convince others to believe (as Marcy at Emptywheel has been doing for close to three years now) in the incredible.
Who says that we no longer live in a Christian society in which faith is everything?

Alan Reid , Sep 20, 2018 3:44:44 PM | link

I wonder how many time i will see this, See everyone using the meme they want you to use, For example 'Election collusion' or 'Russian collusion' Etc.

A huge smoke screen allowing the main fleet to escape. The tide of votes going as it did sure did bring out the liars. From the first moment that the results showed that the huge behemoth of their interference blew flat and failed, they went all out to cast the loss as some sort of interference from what ever source, Fact is the entire process is constantly under attack from within by forces that it's ends in their sights and the loss of control of that process forced them into damage control, Today we are seeing the lofty heights they will stack the dung up to direct your attentions away from the FIRST and real interference in the election process.

Well folks say the Hillary creature as she is, What she was a token place marker for, The forces looting North America, The forces driving the 'Order out of Chaos' operation. This operation has been a monkey on the backs of the public outside the halls of modern powers and their use.

The process, even a rigged process FAILED. What ever the dirt they have on the eventual choice you made about your course, they will not allow you to subvert their plans even if you all come together and move the levers of power, I saw the photo that soon came out of Trump rather depressed looking, You say that photo, You knew exactly what it meant, From that picture to today everythng is back on THEIR track not YOURS.

The entire process is under their control as long as the many remain in their comfy places built for them. Fix is a dangerous and frightening path for a very good reason. The eventual outcome of their process is going to be a very hard place to live. Overcoming their control and domination is not going to be allowed, History is coming for the evil of this world and the fix is going to be a very devastating event.

When you have so many heads following your evil ways, It's hard not to have the response to evil fall on your actions and deal with your ways.

We live in a very interesting times. If you thought 9/11 was bad... You ain't seen nothing yet.

The Path towards evil demands BLOOD.

worldblee , Sep 20, 2018 4:04:02 PM | link
If you substitute "witches" or "the bogeyman" for "Russia" in most US and European news articles, you get a better sense for how ridiculous and unfounded they are. But as we witnessed in Salem, it's not hard to get mass hysteria going with a complete lack of evidence.

Once people are on the "Trump is a Russian tool" bandwagon it's extremely hard to get them off, as the absence of evidence is harder to prove--while people find the repeated assertion of imaginary evidence entirely convincing.

Sid2 , Sep 20, 2018 4:20:46 PM | link

@karlof1 #6: The narrative that has been promoted grows thinner all the time, with the emphasis switching from collusion to corruption and with that fading in the news on to his being deranged. Now we have resistance from Rosenstein to the House Investigative Committee and Trump to release the classified memos showing the shenanigans of Strzok, Comey, et al, plus emerging voices from inside. I do believe the collusion narrative is withering; more important "deplorables" don't give a damn anyway.

karlof1 , Sep 20, 2018 4:24:45 PM | link
John Zelnicker @8--

Well, it's a proven fact that millions of recycled US taxpayer's dollars were used by Zionists to influence the 2016 and most every previous election going back to 1968, if not further. Massive documentation of collusion exists between Zionists and US politicos at all levels of government. Furthermore, there's much publicly available evidence sufficient to indict and convict Hillary Clinton of numerous felonies along with several high officials within the DNC for election interference. Why not rant and rail against these very easily proven crimes?!

Mike , Sep 20, 2018 4:24:54 PM | link
Obviously. I still love the theater though. The meaningless political theater that last occurred when Clinton was President. What's most amusing this time is that it's only the hyper-partisans (many of whom are not self-aware enough to realize it) who identify (again, consciously or subconsciously) that even care. The rest of us simply get to see each party's idiotic followers on the "left" and the "right" get sucked into the media's chosen narrative.

Meanwhile, the bombings and interventions can continue, Gitmo can remain open (btw, anyone else notice that unlike hurricanes that hit the mainland, nobody ever cares whether Gitmo will be evacuated?), the massive bank bailout can be relegated deeper and deeper into the memory hole and the two parties (including Trump's cabinet) continue to grow closer and closer together where the subjects of domestic surveillance and neocon warmongering are concerned. We'll never see the PATRIOT ACT re-debated and the military budget will increase beyond all imagination while the hand wringing about "deficit spending" on the right stops so long as there's an "R" after the name of whomever sits in the White House.

I love it. I laugh openly at anyone who mentions Russia to me from either angle. "No collusion!" is as entertaining as "Putin got Trump elected!" - Idiots.

james , Sep 20, 2018 4:35:37 PM | link
@11 karlof1.. that also gets me... if one is looking for corruption in the political class, it is not hard to find! why start and stop only with russia? i think the answer is fairly obvious.. there has been an ongoing attempt to maintain the unipolar world with us$ and russia and china potentially interfere with this ongoing status... thus we are back to psychohistorians ongoing issue over finances - private verses public, and what we wish to see as a world hopefully moving forward here..

i do believe the proxy wars are really all about this same salient fact - the usa and us$ can not be challenged.. any challenge will be met with war, covert, or overt..

[Sep 21, 2018] Michael Hart's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE UNITED STATES by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... The Rise And Fall Of The United States ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ..

Dr. Hart's book is invaluable because it highlights some of the basic truths about America that modern-day histories simply conceal. For example, he writes: "America is much younger than most European nations . It did not exist at all prior to 1600 AD but was created in the ' colonial era .'"

This alone is a shot across the bow of Politically Correct histories that regard "America" simply as a geographic location. As Dr. Hart knows, "America" did not exist in any meaningful sense before the English settlement that created it -- our eponymous Virginia Dare's Roanoke Colony being the prototype. English settlers didn't "invade" a country that belonged to " Native Americans ," English settlers created one where none existed.

Dr. Hart provides a basic history of America's development, including highlighting specific incidents that ultimately proved critical to the future of the polity. One of the more interesting was the Zenger trial, a colonial case in which a journalist criticized the local governor and was charged with libel. A grand jury refused to indict Zenger, accepting his defense that the things he printed were true. Thanks to this case, Americans can claim truth as an absolute defense in libel cases, something our British cousins lack .

A highlight of Dr. Hart's history is his careful attention to demographic issues. For example, he scoffs at the claim sometimes heard within the dimmer quarters of the American Conservative Movement that the Constitution was a "miracle." Instead, Dr. Hart shows that the authors of America's governing document shared linguistic, cultural, racial, and experiential factors that allowed them to work together. (Contemporary American statesmen possess no such unanimity.) Dr. Hart is also not blind to the Constitution's faults, especially its failure to designate how and who has the power to interpret it -- specifically, not necessarily the Kritarchs on the Supreme Court.

Dr. Hart is also clearsighted regarding immigration. He does not accept the now de rigueur analysis that immigration from widely disparate regions was always a feature of American life. "Before 1849, immigrants to the Untied States came mostly from the Protestant regions of northwest Europe, including Holland , Sweden, Norway , Germany and Great Britain," he observes. He also provides an honest assessment of the difficulties Irish immigration presented for 19 th century America and argues that despite speaking English, "they assimilated very slowly."

Dr. Hart argues the "Golden Age" of the United States extended from 1865 to 1991. "During that interval the United States stood out for its wealth, for its military might, and for its unprecedented set of practical inventions and scientific discoveries," he argues. Indeed, one of the best parts of the book is when Dr. Hart recounts the numerous inventions and scientific advances America has given to the world.

However, Dr. Hart's most invaluable contribution is in detailing what he sees as the symptoms of America's decline after the Cold War. America's indebtedness, relatively poor military performance , loss of Constitutional liberties, and collapse of artistic standards are all covered. Two other issues highly relevant to immigration patriots are what Dr. Hart calls "political problems" and "loss of confidence and national pride."

Dr. Hart details how Democratic politicians have diligently opposed any efforts to implement common-sense voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Media bias is another major political problem, one an increasing number of Americans are awakening to. Finally, Dr. Hart identifies the "increase in racial hostilities" as both a symptom and a cause of America's increasing political problems. "Black hostility towards whites is constantly being stirred up by 'race hustlers' such as Al Sharpton , who deny any good faith on the part of whites," he writes. "Many people deny that any progress has been made in the status and treatment of black Americans -- a blatant untruth which increases black suspicions and hostilities."

Similarly, the decline in national pride is partially a product of how the charge of "racism" has delegitimized our entire national history. "According to many of these critics, our Constitution was produced by a group of 'Dead White European Males' (DWEMs, for short) who do not deserve any respect," he writes. As a result of internalizing this poisonous attack on America's heritage, some advocate Open Borders as a kind of historical reparations of punishment for a "racist" country.

Dr. Hart writes:

One result of these attitudes is that many Americans find it unreasonable for the United States to defend its borders. (After all, since we stole the country from the Indians, we have no real claim on our land.) Sometimes these views lead to people suggesting that non-citizens should be permitted to vote in American elections. In any disagreement or conflict between the United States and a foreign group, many of these critics tend to blame America first. Many of these critics do not even pretend to be patriotic.

Dr. Hart identifies a host of causes to explain the emergence of these symptoms. Though they are too many to cover here, two very much worth mentioning are

Dr. Hart points out that for all the talk about white racism, the vast majority of interracial crime is committed by blacks against whites. Hatred of whites is not only mainstream but cultivated by the Main Stream Media, the education system, and even some Democratic politicians -- a coalition that Dr. Hart judges is too powerful to break.

Similarly, Dr. Hart details the disastrous consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act and explicitly calls for its repeal, but he is pessimistic about the prospects for doing so.

The most explosive part of the book is its concluding chapter, in which Dr. Hart discusses the various scenarios by which the United States could "fall," either by breaking up, being extinguished, or losing its political independence and being subsumed into a larger polity. All of these terrible scenarios have vastly increased in likelihood because of the destabilizing and destructive effects of mass immigration.

The "fall" of the United States may even occur without most people even noticing it at the time. "Without any foreign conquest, and without any sharp break, the USA might be transformed into a multinational state without any loyalty to our English origin," he writes. "In fact, such a process may already be in process."

During his discussion of causes for American decline, Dr. Hart identifies the most important "by far" as the "loss of pride and confidence." He blames this on the relentless hate campaign waged against "our ancestors" by educators and the Main Stream Media, leading to a situation in which Americans feel "ashamed of their country." In other words, Dr. Hart is really talking about a loss of identity.

With his history of the United States, and his frank discussion of the issues endangering its existence, Dr. Hart has performed a valuable service for Americans seeking to reclaim their national identity. For anyone curious about their country's past and concerned about its future, The Rise And Fall Of The United States (full disclosure: A VDARE book -- who else would publish it?) is well worth purchasing.

anonymous , [469] Disclaimer says: September 8, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT

No mention of white slavery in Plantation America?
mark green , says: September 8, 2018 at 9:20 pm GMT
If/when America does break apart, it will not be a result of conventional war. The attack/upheaval will come from within.

Ironically, the trillions spent by Washington on our global MIC will not, in the end, protect the American people from what is now our greatest threat: internal treason against Historic America and its core people.

Ironically, instead of returning home to protect US borders when the cold war ended, American troops were dispersed around the world to fight phantom threats and protect non-essential foreign entities and extra-national interests.

This ongoing waste of US resources abroad continues to serve the interests of globalists, militarists, and Zionists. Meanwhile, our domestic security, our Main Street economy, and the continuity of white, European-derived culture and people inside America gets short shrift. This glaring disconnect may be our nation's undoing.

The 'proposition nation' concept was a fraud from the start since it ignores the vital significance of race, culture, language, and IQ.

The engine for America's coming implosion is demographic: uninterrupted, illegal, non-white immigration by Third World refugees. Hostile elites who now dominate America are also key. They refuse to acknowledge the perils of 'diversity'. Many want America changed, irreversibly so.

Meanwhile, white identity and white cohesion have been demonized in our schools as well as by our dominant mass media. This campaign has undermined white identity, white cohesion and white interests in general.

Numerous, politically-correct expressions of anti-white hatred are now in wide circulation. These hate-terms are, ironically, protected from criticism even though they are applied selectively to target whites. Those few who contest these double-standards (including Pres. Trump) are routinely defamed by comparisons to 'Hitler' or references to the KKK. The basic translation comes down to this: Shut up.

This unhealthy and insidious paradigm is here by design. It is used to not only justify anti-white animus, but to legitimize anti-white violence whenever and wherever whites try to assemble and express their grievances and/or aspirations. This very sinister double-standard has taken deep root. It is nurtured by biased reporting and coverage. It has spawned 'antifa'.

Modern speech rules and penalties favor privileged 'minorities' just as they cleary disfavor and penalize white advocacy.

Among the popular terms that lend support to anti-white bigotry are: 'racist', 'nativist', 'white supremacy', 'Islamophobia', and 'anti-Semitism'.

These shame-inducing memes have 1) contaminated the American mind and 2) empowered our race-conscious adversaries. They must be deconstructed and deligimized if we are to protect our interests and preserve America's demographic core.

Resistance, cohesion and self-defense are not fascistic sentiments. They are legitimate expressions of democratic self-determination.

[Sep 20, 2018] The real target of Russiagate isn't Trump, it's you

Sep 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Sep 19, 2018 3:02:55 PM | link

Caitlin Johnstone on Russiagate : "The real target of Russiagate isn't Trump, it's you." If you haven't read her essay about controlling the narrative, you can find it here.

[Sep 20, 2018] AFP published a denial by France that it launched any missiles

Sep 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Sep 19, 2018 3:40:51 PM | link

Peter AU 1 @10--

AFP published a denial by France that it launched any missiles. Since Russia doesn't make false accusations like the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals, the French are likely lying. Viewing all the radar telemetry as specialists do would detail the entire attack--and there were numerous sea and land based Russian radars in action that evening. A question I've asked and not provided an answer as yet is related to many saying the flight plan of the IL-20 was known in advance so the attack could be prepared in advance: Was the IL-20 flight plan public knowledge? I know there're websites dedicated to tracking airplane flights, but do they include military aircraft (I looked at Plane Flight Tracker and Flight Radar24, which only seem to track civilian craft)?

Does knowing there was a deception plan involving the IL-20 made ahead with NATO collusion make any real difference in either the short or long term? Perhaps for the long term as the faulty policy's already been modified by establishing the no fly zone.

[Sep 20, 2018] If the military deconfliction agreement is similar to or the same as that with the US, then Israel should have given advance notice through that deconfliction channel. Going by statements by the Russian military and Putin, Israel has abused this agreement as did the US in their attack on Dier Ezzor.

Sep 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 4:18:54 PM | link

karlof1 16
From what I have read recently, Russia has a military deconfliction hotline with Israel the same as they do with US. With the US, this has involved giving each other advanced notice of flight plans and targets within Syria. The Israeli planes were in international airspace at the time, but was the IL in Syrian airspace when the attack took place. Russia may well have been giving Israel notice of Russian flight plans within Syria as part of the deconfliction agreement.
If the military deconfliction agreement is similar to or the same as that with the US, then Israel should have given advance notice through that deconfliction channel. Going by statements by the Russian military and Putin, Israel has abused this agreement as did the US in their attack on Dier Ezzor.

karlof1 , Sep 19, 2018 5:37:28 PM | link

Peter @22--

Info being disseminated/obtained through that channel was one of my unwritten possibilities, and it's quite likely that the IL-20 did a routine patrol along a similar route daily thus very predictable. Not much remaining to speculate on now. The policy's been drastically modified and announced for all to see as promised. I doubt if it will deter Zionist attacks against Syria from Jordanian airspace, but we'll need to just wait and see about that. If the French did indeed lie about their involvement, I'd expect their ambassador to Russia being called to the Kremlin to explain, but I haven't read any notice of that. IMO, this horse's now beaten to a pulp. At least we learned how many refused to see that Shoigu and Putin were on the same page thus revealing their previously hidden biases.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 6:38:00 PM | link
karlof1 30

The response by some of the regulars was disapointing... same happened in the leadup to the southwest offensive when many believed Putin had 'sold out' to Netanyahu.
I researched Putin in the months after MH17. He now has a long track record and never changes. The only thing predictable about Putin in a situation like this is he will pull off what nobody predicts.

oldenyoung , Sep 19, 2018 6:38:34 PM | link
finally got to the bottom of what i wanted to know...a ranking colonel in Russian military(2nd in command at AD system in HMeimim) gave a briefing(pain to translate)...

The s200 in syria does have a rudementary IFF system...but once it has locked a foe target and is launched, it cannot be retargeted...it chases its foe...the IDF pilots ran behind the IL20 and matched speed once they had been launched on...the s200 followed them and detonated on the largest piece in its target area, the IL20...just like a decoy...
so...the IDF provoked an s200 launch by attacking syria SAA positions and a government production facility, and then pulled in behind the IL20 to save their own asses...intentionally destroying it...
that is an outright blatant act of war...no wonder Ru military is MAD...they know what happened

regards

OY

spudski , Sep 19, 2018 7:26:10 PM | link
FWIW, Tony Cartalucci posted an article yesterday on NEO re the latest developments in Syria.

He concludes with the following:

"It is not to Russia's advantage to sink French frigates or expose the full capabilities of its air defense systems to shoot down a handful of Israeli warplanes to satisfy public desires for immediate revenge or to protect nonexistent notions of Russian invincibility.

Instead, it is to Russia's advantage to simply win the proxy war in Syria. Just as in 2015 when calls for immediate revenge were made regarding a Turkish-downed Russian warplane, Syria, Russia, and Iran will continue moving forward – slowly and methodically – to secure Syrian territory from foreign proxies seeking to divide and destroy the country, springboard into Iran, and eventually work their way into southern Russia.

Avenging serial provocations is infinitesimally less important than overall victory in Syria. The fate of Syria as a nation, Iran's security and stability as a result, and even Russia's own self-preservation is on the line. The awesome responsibility of those who have planned and executed Syria's incremental victory over proxy forces backed by the largest, most powerful economies and military forces on Earth could greatly benefit from a public able to understand the difference between short-term gratification and long-term success and how the former almost certainly and recklessly endangers the latter."

The greatest possible "revenge" to exact upon those who inflicted this war upon the Syrian people, is their absolute and total defeat.
https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/18/syrian-russian-victory-only-way-to-avenge-israeli-french-strikes/

oldenyoung , Sep 19, 2018 7:31:28 PM | link
smoothie on his blog has 2 links to the briefing by the 2nd in command of the AD battalion...i have trouble posting html links that i have had to translate...
regards

OY

oldenyoung , Sep 19, 2018 7:36:21 PM | link
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/09/some-fast-thoughts-on-il-20.html

but here is the link to smoothies

regards

OY

[Sep 20, 2018] Decoding Putin's Response To Attack In Syria by Tom Luongo

Russia needs to be very careful as NATO has huge military advantage int he area.
Sep 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Luongo,

The fog of war and geopolitics makes initial responses to the attack on Russian and Syrian forces recently difficult to assess.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's response seemed timid and was at odds with statements from his Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and more recent statements from Russia's Foreign Ministry.

Putin backed off on explicitly blaming Israel for the downing of the IL-20 ELINT aircraft which killed 15 Russian servicemen, but made it clear he holds them responsible for the attack as a whole.

My thoughts on what the goals of the attack were are the focus of my latest article at Strategic Culture Foundation.

It was obvious to me that this attack was designed as a provocation to start World War III in Syria and blame the Russians for attacking a NATO member without proper cause , since the Syrian air defense forces were the ones responsible for shooting down the plane.

Lying us into war is a time-honored American political tradition, whether we're talking Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor or the Gulf of Tonkin. All of these incidents were avoidable by Presidents intent on getting into a conflict while simultaneously playing the victim card by getting the other side to shoot first.

I'm sorry if that is a controversial statement but the historical record on them is very, very clear.

From Strategic Culture:

The setup is pretty clear. Israel and France coordinated an attack on multiple targets within Syria without US involvement but with absolute US knowledge of the operation to provoke Russia into going off half-cocked by attacking the inconsequential French frigate which assisted Israel's air attack.

Any denunciation of sinister intent by Israeli Defense Forces is hollow because if they had not intended to provoke a wider conflict they would have given Russia more than one minute to clear their planes from the area .

That would constitute an attack on a NATO member state and require a response from NATO, thereby getting the exact escalation needed to continue the war in Syria indefinitely and touch off WWIII.

This neatly bypasses any objections to a wider conflict by President Trump who would have to respond militarily to a Russian attack on a NATO ally. It also would reassert NATO's necessity in the public dialogue, further marginalizing Trump's attacks on it and any perceived drive of his for peace.

Now take that basic, honestly off-the-cuff, analysis of what happened and mix it with a skillful bit of decoding of Russia's statements on the attacks by Fort Russ News and you have, I think, a pretty clear picture of what the intent was and why P utin seemed to downplay the event calling it a " chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn't shoot down our jet."

My hat is off to Joachin Flores for his analysis here. It is long and involved and worth your time to read. I will summarize it here. His thesis? Putin is trying to save Russian/French relations by not naming France as the culprit for the lost plane and the 15 men.

That Russia noted French missile launches but didn't say what or who they hit. And before the Russians said anything about the attack the French denied they had any involvement in the attack.

Instead, Russia went along with the story the U.S. et.al. prepared in advance, which doesn't fit what facts we know about the situation, that Syrian Air Defenses shot down the IL-20 by mistake.

Both the French denial and the U.S. statements about Syrian air defenses being the culprit came before anything official came from the Russians.

This is a classic "preparing the narrative" technique used by the West all the time. Seize the story, plant seeds of doubt and put your opponent into a rhetorical box they can't wiggle out of with the truth.

MH-17, Skripal, Crimea, chemical weapons attacks in Ghouta, Douma etc. These operations are scripted.

And Flores is exactly right that this script was going off as planned with one small problem.

The Russians went along with it.

Russia, and Putin, did the one thing that makes this whole thing look like a frame job, it accepted the narrative of Israeli malfeasance in the interest of stopping a wider conflict by accusing and/or attacking a NATO member, France.

Flores makes the salient point that the S-200 friendly fire scenario is highly unlikely. That, in fact, France shot down the plane, was prepared to accept blame (which it did by preemptively denying it was involved) and destroy what was left of Russian/French relations.

Now Russia can use the excuse of Israeli betrayal as justification for upgrading Syria's air defenses. Citing the very thing that caused the tragic death of their soldiers, antiquated air defense systems which didn't properly identify friend from foe.

It may be a lie, but since when did that matter in geopolitics?

And as I point out in my other article

This is Israel's worst nightmare. A situation where any aerial assault on targets within Syria would be suicide missions, puncturing the myth of the Israeli air force's superiority and shifting the delicate balance of power in Syria decidedly against them.

This is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worked Putin so hard over the last two years. But, this incident wipes that slate clean. This was a cynical betrayal of Putin's trust and patience. And Israel will now pay the price for their miscalculation.

Giving Syria S-300's does not avenge the fifteen dead Russian soldiers. Putin will have to respond to that in a more concrete way to appease the hardliners in his government and at home. His patience and seeming passivity are being pushed to their limit politically. This is, after all, a side benefit to all of this for the neoconservative and globalist hawks in D.C., Europe and Tel Aviv.

But, the real loss here for Israel will be Russia instituting a no-fly zone over western Syria. Any less response from Putin will be seized upon by and the situation will escalate from here. So, Putin has to deploy S-300's here. And once that happens, the real solution to Syria begins in earnest.

And it means that if the FUKUS alliance -- France, the U.K. and the U.S. -- want an invasion of Syria they will have to do so openly without a casus belli. And this is something we have avoided for five years now.

Because lying us into war is how we maintain the illusion of fighting wars of conquest under the rubric of Christian Just War Theory which supports our national spirit of manifest destiny.

* * *

Join my Patreon because you don't like war-mongers.

turkey george palmer , 15 hours ago

Ok, what of the assets mixed in with the idlib bunch. The FUKUS has pretty valuable people in that group and maybe some information the west dos not want made available to Russia. I think Putin can get some of those people and use them.

There's some other things the US has over there that they don't want anyone to be able to show on TV

africoman , 18 hours ago

With the downing of the IL-20 ELINT aircraft which killed 15 Russian servicemen, by the aggressions of Israhell

  • 1st violating sovereign Syrian territory,
  • 2nd attacking Syrian forces in multiple fronts and
  • 3rd deliberately shielding themselves in the nearby Russian aircraft informing Russia just 1 min about their illegal engagement, causing to be hit by Syrian S-200

Putin's response seemed timid/weak and was at odds with strong statements from his Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu who put the blame directly on Israhell condemning and more recent statements from Russia's Foreign Ministry.

Putin backed off on explicitly blaming Israel, saying it was chain of reaction that caused the situation etc instead of pining it to that parasite

Yes, i observed the tondown by Putin, maybe we don't know the big boys like Putin knew what is at stake than 15 Russian service men,RIP

It seems to me Putin/Russia is in the game for greater good than such provocation by the middle finger and are paying dearly.

Russia didn't stick her nake for nothing as i said above,geopolitics and long term national interest etc

The attack by Israhell came just after the "Idlib liberation deconfliction zone" deal reached with Russia/Putin & Turkey/Erdogan after many hours of talk

That was something, not seen/wanted by the enemy of Syria.

So it was expected, provokation?

Maybe Putin's answer/response not verbally, it would gonna come practically, by ratcheting up the defensive shield of Russian position and eventually upgrading Syrian air defense, as both are now targeted if they pursue liberating Idlib from the filthy jihadist infestations, including Iran.

The USA/UK warned Russia/Syria/Iran if they dare touch their 'rebel boys' then we will respond UNSC dramatic talk on which what i found it interesting was that

the Syrian ambassador to UN,Dr.Bashar Jaafari exposed their hypocrisy asking the absurdity that if they will let say 15,000 'rebels' aka terrorist in manchester city doing terrorism and they will let Russia wanted to do same.

So i see toning down of Vlad is good in avoiding another provocation by Israhell/USA

One can see, Israhell blamed Syria right, then if Syria increased her ability of defense then that will be seen as danger/aggression by Israhell

that is the statu quo there, criminals

OverTheHedge , 20 hours ago

There is another interpretation, over at MoonOfAlabama, which seems to be more sensible than the doom-laden war-mongering rhetoric in this article.

As explained at this blog: http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/09/some-fast-thoughts-on-il-20.html

1. Israel and Russia have a deconfliction agreement, so Russia would have notified Israel about its IL-20 flight plans.

2. Israel would have agreed not to have fighter aircraft in that area, as part of the agreement.

3. Israeli fighter planes used the IL-20 to mask their run in, which is a breach of the agreement, and just rude, frankly. Israel appears to believe that agreements don't apply.

4. The Syrian air defence saw the Israeli planes, targeted and locked on. Panic in the cockpit.

5. The Israeli pilot(s) used the bulk of the IL-20 to mask their radar reflection, and the S-200 missile, being old and dim, went for the biggest radar cross-section. In other words, the Israeli pilot saved his life by sacrificing the russian plane. Note that the missile itself doesn't do IFF, and can't be recalled or retargeted once it is in the air. It has a brain that an Atari 200 would be embarrassed by.

Whether this was in the plan, or just a brown trouser moment, is another question. If there happened to be a civilian airliner in the vacinity, would the Israeli pilot have done the same?

So, Israel is at fault for ignoring the agreement with Russia, and attacking despite russian presence in a restricted area. It all went wrong. Lots of Israeli damage control with Russia - offers to send the Israeli air force commander to Moscow to grovel in person, etc. You can conspiracy theory as much as you like, and the French missile is not included in the above, but I like ****-up over conspiracy, and idiot commanders not considering the consequences more likely than vast overarching 200 move secret plans to rule the universe by Thursday.

NB - the above is not my work, just in case you thought I was clever (unlikely, I know).

rita , 21 hours ago

Putin as usual is brilliant, unlike the others who are continually trigger happy trying desperately to inflate the situation in Syria!

RG_Canuck , 21 hours ago

Agreed, but I would like to see Putin grab that little frog by the te$ticle$ until he gets on the ground and begs for mercy.

Posa , 22 hours ago

I totally agree with this interpretation. The tide is running with Russia-friendly right-wing European parties who eventually will depose the Macron- Merkel axis, thanks to the Social Dems accepting a flood of refugees from Bush-Clinton-Obama Regime Change War Crimes. The writing is on the wall and Putin does not want to disrupt the inevitable flow of events by being suckered into firing the first shots.

Loss of personnel and aircraft is accepted as war-time casualties... BUT I also agree that retaliation will be more subtle, coming in the form of upgrades to defense of Syrian air space defense. Of course, if Putin really wants to stick it to France- Israel he can also complete the deal with Iran to sell the S series upgrades to Iran.

BrownCoat , 22 hours ago

Some of the interpretation is accurate. Some is Russian spin. The part I liked best was:

"whether we're talking Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor or the Gulf of Tonkin."

Darn right accurate! I would have added WMD's in Iraq to the list.

indus creed , 12 hours ago

According to Joel Skousen, Russia and China are not yet militarily ready to take on West. Then again, Skousen used to be a CIA asset. Whom to believe these days?

Joiningupthedots , 23 hours ago

It changes nothing.

Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah won the war.

The West is desperately trying to turn Syria into another Libya and is desperately failing.

ZeroLounger , 23 hours ago

A video on one of the links describes large quantities of captagon were seized, along with motorcycles and weapons, near Palmyra.

So a war fueled by meth, basically.

thisandthat , 11 hours ago

Always was, at least since ww2

Is-Be , 23 hours ago

Because lying us into war is how we maintain the illusion of fighting wars of conquest under the rubric of Christian Just War Theory which supports our national spirit of manifest destiny

I'm getting the distinct impression that monotheism is a very bad idea.

A curse upon Charlemagne the Butcher and Oathbreaker!

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 1 day ago

The fog of war and geopolitics makes initial responses to the attack on Russian and Syrian forces recently difficult to assess.

That would have been excellent one-line article. But no. We have to expand on it.

Yellow_Snow , 12 hours ago

Just heard that Russia is indeed setting up a 'No Fly Zone' and will be doing Naval training/testing in zones around Syria... between 0 and 19000 altitude

IsaHell has attacked Syria by air 200 times while the world has stood by...

S-400 needs to get deployed - now is the time - what's the point of having these SAM's and never using them...

Needs to stop

DEMIZEN , 1 day ago

the Russian heads will stay cool. militarily, it is too early to move in and go full ****** with air defences the Jews are too close and will study their gear and structure.

Russian voter is beginning to rise eyebrows i assume, and Putins reputation is taking a hit. i bet there will some tough Putin videos following this mess to restore his image in public. Russian public wants Jewish blood, but i cant see a good immediate response.Revenge is best served cold.

this mess will be followed up with more gear and more training for SAA, you cant blame Syrian Army for any of this, they sacrifice two dozens of soldiers on a good day. most of Syria SAM crews were executed in the first months of the war.

ships will keep coming. SAA will keep growing, Russians will likely focus on Ukraine and EU diplomacy now. Assad and Kurds need to sit down and look at the option. Opposition in idlib will disarm or die.Guerillas w/o insignia will keep hitting SDF. US will leave AL Tanf. Its going to be a slow winter.

BrownCoat , 22 hours ago

Putin's reputation is not taking a hit!

What did Israel achieve in this attack? No one is reporting. Maybe Israel wanted to hit Iranian militia units that were concentrating for the attack on Idlib before the units were redeployed. We don't know.
Israel did not claim any success, just an attack without the loss of any F-16s.

In the eyes of Russians, Putin stood up to the "evil empire" once again. The cost was 15 soldiers. Russian's mothers are very vocal about sons coming home in body bags. That causes social unrest. Support for Putin does not waver however. The deaths are the price Russia pays to protect the mother land.

The author is correct that Putin's restraint shows skill and courage. Putin's weakness was assigning blame for the 15 soldiers. Assigning blame was probably the work of some sycophantic underlings.

turkey george palmer , 15 hours ago

Ok, what of the assets mixed in with the idlib bunch. The FUKUS has pretty valuable people in that group and maybe some information the west dos not want made available to Russia. I think Putin can get some of those people and use them.

There's some other things the US has over there that they don't want anyone to be able to show on TV

africoman , 18 hours ago

With the downing of the IL-20 ELINT aircraft which killed 15 Russian servicemen, by the aggressions of Israhell

  • 1st violating sovereign Syrian territory,
  • 2nd attacking Syrian forces in multiple fronts and
  • 3rd deliberately shielding themselves in the nearby Russian aircraft informing Russia just 1 min about their illegal engagement, causing to be hit by Syrian S-200

Putin's response seemed timid/weak and was at odds with strong statements from his Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu who put the blame directly on Israhell condemning and more recent statements from Russia's Foreign Ministry.

Putin backed off on explicitly blaming Israel, saying it was chain of reaction that caused the situation etc instead of pining it to that parasite

Yes, i observed the tondown by Putin, maybe we don't know the big boys like Putin knew what is at stake than 15 Russian service men,RIP

It seems to me Putin/Russia is in the game for greater good than such provocation by the middle finger and are paying dearly.

Russia didn't stick her nake for nothing as i said above,geopolitics and long term national interest etc

The attack by Israhell came just after the "Idlib liberation deconfliction zone" deal reached with Russia/Putin & Turkey/Erdogan after many hours of talk

That was something, not seen/wanted by the enemy of Syria.

So it was expected, provokation?

Maybe Putin's answer/response not verbally, it would gonna come practically, by ratcheting up the defensive shield of Russian position and eventually upgrading Syrian air defense, as both are now targeted if they pursue liberating Idlib from the filthy jihadist infestations, including Iran.

The USA/UK warned Russia/Syria/Iran if they dare touch their 'rebel boyes' then we will respond UNSC dramatic talk on which what i found it interesting was that

the Syrian ambassador to UN,Dr.Bashar Jaafari exposed their hypocrisy asking the absurdity that if they will let say 15,000 'rebels' aka terrorist in manchester city doing terrorism and they will let Russia wanted to do same.

So i see toning down of Vlad is good in avoiding another provocation by Israhell/USA

One can see, Israhell blamed Syria right, then if Syria increased her ability of defense then that will be seen as danger/aggression by Israhell

that is the statu quo there, criminals

pluto the dog , 19 hours ago

To paraphrase Jean-Marie le Pen- Putin has described the Jewish takeover of Russia in 1917 and the slaughter of 62

million Christian Slavs that followed as "an incident of history" - and best forgotten.

Putin is so deep in bed with Jewish oligarchs - and Bibi - it aint funny. LOL

Pleas note - the figure of 62 million dead is the most accurate yet. Was deduced by researchers who had access to Kremlin archives for short period of time after the Soviet Union imploded. So round that down to approx. 60 million and you will be safely in the ball park.

Mustahattu , 20 hours ago

FUKUS alliance? More like FUCKUS alliance.

OverTheHedge , 20 hours ago

There is another interpretation, over at MoonOfAlabama, which seems to be more sensible than the doom-laden war-mongering rhetoric in this article.

As explained at this blog: http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/09/some-fast-thoughts-on-il-20.html

1. Israel and Russia have a deconfliction agreement, so Russia would have notified Israel about its IL-20 flight plans.

2. Israel would have agreed not to have fighter aircraft in that area, as part of the agreement.

3. Israeli fighter planes used the IL-20 to mask their run in, which is a breach of the agreement, and just rude, frankly. Israel appears to believe that agreements don't apply.

4. The Syrian air defence saw the Israeli planes, targeted and locked on. Panic in the cockpit.

5. The Israeli pilot(s) used the bulk of the IL-20 to mask their radar reflection, and the S-200 missile, being old and dim, went for the biggest radar cross-section. In other words, the Israeli pilot saved his life by sacrificing the russian plane. Note that the missile itself doesn't do IFF, and can't be recalled or retargeted once it is in the air. It has a brain that an Atari 200 would be embarrassed by.

Whether this was in the plan, or just a brown trouser moment, is another question. If there happened to be a civilian airliner in the vacinity, would the Israeli pilot have done the same?

So, Israel is at fault for ignoring the agreement with Russia, and attacking despite russian presence in a restricted area. It all went wrong. Lots of Israeli damage control with Russia - offers to send the Israeli air force commander to Moscow to grovel in person, etc. You can conspiracy theory as much as you like, and the French missile is not included in the above, but I like ****-up over conspiracy, and idiot commanders not considering the consequences more likely than vast overarching 200 move secret plans to rule the universe by Thursday.

NB - the above is not my work, just in case you thought I was clever (unlikely, I know).

not-me---it-was-the-dog , 20 hours ago

" If there happened to be a civilian airliner in the vacinity, would the Israeli pilot have done the same? "

only civilian airliners over syria......as far as i can tell, are from iran. so, answer would be yes.

Southerly Buster , 18 hours ago

Have you not just described the 'official' story, a " chain of tragic circumstances."

Nothing 'alternative' or 'clever' with the MoA's interpretation.

not-me---it-was-the-dog , 21 hours ago

no-fly zone over western syria? no.

no-fly zone over lebanon.

.........you read it here first.

rita , 21 hours ago

Putin as usual is brilliant, unlike the others who are continually trigger happy trying desperately to inflate the situation in Syria!

RG_Canuck , 21 hours ago

Agreed, but I would like to see Putin grab that little frog by the te$ticle$ until he gets on the ground and begs for mercy.

Posa , 22 hours ago

I totally agree with this interpretation. The tide is running with Russia-friendly right-wing European parties who eventually will depose the Macron- Merkel axis, thanks to the Social Dems accepting a flood of refugees from Bush-Clinton-Obama Regime Change War Crimes. The writing is on the wall and Putin does not want to disrupt the inevitable flow of events by being suckered into firing the first shots.

Loss of personnel and aircraft is accepted as war-time casualties... BUT I also agree that retaliation will be more subtle, coming in the form of upgrades to defense of Syrian air space defense. Of course, if Putin really wants to stick it to France- Israel he can also complete the deal with Iran to sell the S series upgrades to Iran.

BrownCoat , 22 hours ago

Some of the interpretation is accurate. Some is Russian spin. The part I liked best was:

"whether we're talking Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor or the Gulf of Tonkin."

Darn right accurate! I would have added WMD's in Iraq to the list.

indus creed , 12 hours ago

According to Joel Skousen, Russia and China are not yet militarily ready to take on West. Then again, Skousen used to be a CIA asset. Whom to believe these days?

Joiningupthedots , 23 hours ago

It changes nothing.

Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah won the war.

The West is desperately trying to turn Syria into another Libya and is desperately failing.

ZeroLounger , 23 hours ago

A video on one of the links describes large quantities of captagon were seized, along with motorcycles and weapons, near Palmyra.

So a war fueled by meth, basically.

thisandthat , 11 hours ago

Always was, at least since ww2

Is-Be , 23 hours ago

Because lying us into war is how we maintain the illusion of fighting wars of conquest under the rubric of Christian Just War Theory which supports our national spirit of manifest destiny

I'm getting the distinct impression that monotheism is a very bad idea.

A curse upon Charlemagne the Butcher and Oathbreaker!

Baron Samedi , 23 hours ago

Had my champagne and a bottle of potassium iodide in my pocket ...

dibiase , 23 hours ago

" Join my Patreon because you don't like war-mongers."

nice touch. 181 people pay 1500 a month a for few articles like this a month...

gdpetti , 23 hours ago

Israel is a kill zone anyway, no smart 'Jews' live there, only psychos and the downtroddened Palestinians and other 'jews'... christians, moslem etc.

Russia has to deal with its own "Jews" and Western friendlies remember: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=176526

Like China, Putin is thinking the long game... not a quick score before the next commercial timeout... and he's a chess player, so thinking ahead to the next set of moves is the norm.... when this is lost, so is life.. think of Caesar as an example of those that don't know when to say when... when to stop and smell the roses... when to consolidate operations before the next set are begun.

What will the West do when their plans do go as planned? Sit around in the Med Sea for how long? The Kurds will get played as the fools they are, same as always... this is the basic script of all of our lives here in 'Purgatory'.. a school in self conscious awareness.. and this is how we learn.... how many times does a lesson need to repeat before we learn? THink of the example of Neo in that film 'The Matrix'.... "You've been done that street before Neo..."

15 lives lost.... but no excuse yet given to start WW3 and lose many, many more... the idiot puppets in the Western capitals get frustrated and lose their sanity.. as their OWO puppet show is steered over the cliff by their own puppet masters in the SG... 'out with the OWO, in with the NWO'... the best puppets are those that never even think they could be one.... and so it goes.

pluto the dog , 23 hours ago

Putins in bed with Bibi just like Trump is. And Putins daughter is married to a ******* ****. Does that sound familiar?

Yous are gonna be waitin a long time for WW3 to start

Blankone , 22 hours ago

What? Is Putin's daughter really married to a ***.

Holy ---, Just like all of Trump's kids who have married.

Damn

pluto the dog , 20 hours ago

Putins daughter now divorced from his buddy Nikolai Shamalovs son Kirill

no one in Russia is allowed to talk about this stuff

below link takes you to photo of Nikolai Shamalov. Please examine photo - looks very ashkenazi to me LOL

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1136705/

Blankone , 6 hours ago

The links of the stormfront article lay things out well.

I have the bad feeling again. I knew Putin's background was Russian mafia/corruption in taking over from Yeltsin and that Putin was catering to the jews, but this was a surprise.

Damn

Jung , 20 hours ago

She is married to a Dutchman and many were angry with them about MH17, so they left the Netherlands. Don't worry about what he is, Putin knows his Grand Chessboard and has to avoid problems with his fifth column in Russia (a group of Jewish people with a lot of clout.

One of these is not like the others.. , 23 hours ago

12$ a month!

Who do you think I am, Rothschild??

(I looked at the patreon link).

Is-Be , 23 hours ago

Here's a novel idea, France.

How about protecting France? It is, after all, called a Defence Force.

Or do tired eyes deceive me?

RG_Canuck , 21 hours ago

Defence Farce, more like it.

ZeroLounger , 23 hours ago

It appears that Armageddon is underway before our very eyes.

Buy stawks.

Is-Be , 23 hours ago

You have Armageddon, we have Ragnarok.

The difference is, we don't lust after Ragnarok.

Odin fears Ragnarok, for his doom is fortold.

Only Ask and Embla survive Ragnarok.

eyesofpelosi , 20 hours ago

Yes, the three (***/christian/islam) "*** cults" really WANT the end for all things. Sickening, childish, and...evil. I'm a follower of Hela for the most part, yet I do not "rush what is inevitable" either, lol.

terrific , 23 hours ago

The FUKUS alliance. Who thought that one up? It's hilarious.

FreeEarCandy , 23 hours ago

A false flag attack on any Christian historical site within Israel is all Israel needs to do to drag the west into starting WW3. Historically, we know Israel has special place in their heart for Christians.

besnook , 1 day ago

putin will respond in a way to get the most roi. he played this masterfully. concede on issues when you have a lot to gain and nothing to lose.

tel aviv has a red dot on it's forehead now.

Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 1 day ago

The fog of war and geopolitics makes initial responses to the attack on Russian and Syrian forces recently difficult to assess.

That would have been excellent one-line article. But no. We have to expand on it.

Yellow_Snow , 1 day ago

Russia should use Syria as a testing ground for the S-400 and the new S-500 systems... A No fly Zone and 'hot' testing site

BrownCoat , 22 hours ago

It would be nice for the West, but...

1. Creating a No Fly Zone would force Russia to respond to any infraction. That reduces Putin's options and diverts effort from Russia's objectives in Syria.

2. Installing S-400 or S-500 or S-999 would only show Israel and the US the capabilities of these advanced weapon systems. According to the author, the S-300 is sufficient to keep Israeli planes in check.

Yellow_Snow , 12 hours ago

Just heard that Russia is indeed setting up a 'No Fly Zone' and will be doing Naval training/testing in zones around Syria... between 0 and 19000 altitude

IsaHell has attacked Syria by air 200 times while the world has stood by...

S-400 needs to get deployed - now is the time - what's the point of having these SAM's and never using them...

Needs to stop

caconhma , 1 day ago

Prostitutin is a CIA asset and a total POS.

Shemp 4 Victory , 23 hours ago

Yeah, you're the adequacy, of course.

Your reactions are worthy of Pavlov's dog. You, I suppose, were trained with the same methods.

Victor999 , 21 hours ago

Throw him a treat.

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

Putin is a Ziomist

Brazen Heist II , 1 day ago

Rooting for the collapse of FUKUS and Pissraeli imperialism.

But evil takes time to weaken because evil still has much more power than it deserves.

Putin is playing the long game, he knows these devils don't value anything they preach, and they are sore losers about Syria, and he is neutering their scumbag behaviour, which may seem like acquiesence to some, but it is merely realpolitik because he knows the FUKUS + Pissrael can overpower Russia if they are united, esp when Russia is seen to strike back with force directly.

They were united in Syria until their ragtag army of headchoppers fell apart, thanks to Russian and Iranian realpolitik. So Russia, like China and Iran, is biding its time and deflecting some big hits, taking a few blows, but they are in it for the victory in the long run which means weakening the FUKUS + Pissraeli imperialist alliance through attrition and clever maneuvering.

ThanksChump , 1 day ago

This analysis is compelling. It would be nice to have corroborating evidence that it was the French vessel that shot down the IL-20, but even without that evidence, this story satisfies the Occam's Razor test. This was a major gamble against a better player.

So, is Assad going to get new S-300 or new S-400 systems? The Iranians might feel slighted if Assad gets S-400s.

DEMIZEN , 1 day ago

the Russian heads will stay cool. militarily, it is too early to move in and go full ****** with air defences the Jews are too close and will study their gear and structure.

Russian voter is beginning to rise eyebrows i assume, and Putins reputation is taking a hit. i bet there will some tough Putin videos following this mess to restore his image in public. Russian public wants Jewish blood, but i cant see a good immediate response.Revenge is best served cold.

this mess will be followed up with more gear and more training for SAA, you cant blame Syrian Army for any of this, they sacrifice two dozens of soldiers on a good day. most of Syria SAM crews were executed in the first months of the war.

ships will keep coming. SAA will keep growing, Russians will likely focus on Ukraine and EU diplomacy now. Assad and Kurds need to sit down and look at the option. Opposition in idlib will disarm or die.Guerillas w/o insignia will keep hitting SDF. US will leave AL Tanf. Its going to be a slow winter.

nowhereman , 1 day ago

OOOH Nastradamus

DEMIZEN , 1 day ago

i actually knew your were going to comment.

BrownCoat , 22 hours ago

Putin's reputation is not taking a hit!

What did Israel achieve in this attack? No one is reporting. Maybe Israel wanted to hit Iranian militia units that were concentrating for the attack on Idlib before the units were redeployed. We don't know.
Israel did not claim any success, just an attack without the loss of any F-16s.

In the eyes of Russians, Putin stood up to the "evil empire" once again. The cost was 15 soldiers. Russian's mothers are very vocal about sons coming home in body bags. That causes social unrest. Support for Putin does not waver however. The deaths are the price Russia pays to protect the mother land.

The author is correct that Putin's restraint shows skill and courage. Putin's weakness was assigning blame for the 15 soldiers. Assigning blame was probably the work of some sycophantic underlings.

sevensixtwo , 1 day ago

Who's going to say, "The Israelis attacked behind the Russian plane because they knew it would mess up the radar on the S-200?"

BrownCoat , 22 hours ago

We don't know what caused the IL-20 destruction. Was it a French rocket? Was it a Syrian or Russian working the missile defense system? My hunch is "friendly fire," but I wasn't there.

Hindsight, the pilot should have disobeyed his flight plan and left the theater when the SHTF. The plane could have landed in Cyprus. The pilot would have gotten grief (and probably a demotion), but he would have saved the plane and its crew.

Mister Ponzi , 15 hours ago

You're making the mistake to let your emotions dominate your analysis. First, Russia does not owe Syria (or any other Arab country for that matter) anything. As The Saker some time ago rightly pointed out: Where was the Arab support for Russia in Chechenya or Georgia? Which Arab country does recognize the indepence of Abkhasia, South Ossetia or Transnistria? What was their reaction to Western sanctions against Russia? And how do they support Russia in the case of Donbass or Crimea? Russia is in Syria only for her own interest and will do the things that help her most. This will support the Assad government only in those areas where the interest is aligned. If it were in Russian interest (which it isn't) they wouldn't hesitate to get rid of Assad. Second, of course they give their S400s to Turkey because Turkey is the big prize out there strategically. Sure, Erdogan is a despicable politicians whose actions evoke memories of the darkest periods of the Ottoman Empire. But Russian foreign policy is not driven by the hysterical human rights howling the West usually displays (but only against governments that are not pro-Western) but by Realpolitik. You may welcome it or reject it you must always analyze Russian foreign policy through this lens. Would Russia tear Turkey out of the NATO phalanx if they could? Of course! Turkey would be a tremendous loss for NATO strategically. This explains Russia's attitude towards Erdogan including the chatter that it was Putin who warned Erdogan of the coup that was underway. Third, the claim that Russia is too passive has been discussed so extensively that anyone who wanted to understand the arguments of both sides and to weigh the pros and cons could have done so, therefore, I'm not going to repeat the discussion here. For those who do not support warmongering or cry "*****" all the time you can find a more balanced analysis of the Russian position here:

http://thesaker.is/reply-to-paul-craig-roberts-crucial-question/

zoghead , 1 day ago

Obviously a well planned operation and huge assault. No one is talking of the missiles fired on Homs, Tartus and Latakia.

"One minute notice" by Israel, is patently unfair.

And the innocent US who took no part, but had a few nuclear subs and half a dozen warships loaded and ready . . waiting for high noon!

Putin needs to get serious, or this will repeat in short time.

FBaggins , 1 day ago

Putin in dealing with three sociopath governments of three sociapathetic nations (Isreal, the UK and the US) whose people are unable to elect leaders independent of the the sociopath unelected puppet masters. He is not going to take the death of 15 servicemen lightly and the sociopaths know this, but he is also not going to start WWIII over the incident. Sociopaths like Netanyahu who want to escalate conflict in the area for the growth of Israel are unpredictable.

Putin's job is to drive out the terrorist and stabilize the nation which is exactly the opposite of what Israel, the UK and the US set out to do, but those nations continue to support and even pay the terrorist insurgents they initially sent into Syria. They are sociopaths because they do not give a rap about all of the killing and destruction they have directly caused with their destabilization and regime change efforts to serve their own designs. The entire world is aware of their crimes and increasingly will turn away from any reliance on these nations or on their money.

The Ram , 1 day ago

FUKUS - forgot the 'I'. Should be written - I FUK US The 'I' being the real leader of the pack.

Posa , 22 hours ago

Wrong. Getting into a shooting war at precisely the time when the US poodles in the EU are ripe to be deposed would be a huge strategic mistake WHICH THE Anglo-Americans ARE TRYING to provoke... not taking the bait is a smart move... in contrast to the USSR in Afghanistan, for example, which became their Vietnam.

justdues , 1 day ago

Here is the oh so predictable Blankbrain with his usual demands that Putin act like a punch drunk street thug and lash out at every provocation . Putin is way smarter than you CIA/Mossad boy and those of us that aint in a hurry to see our loved ones vaporised thank God for that.

[Sep 20, 2018] Every time one of these incidents happens, a flood of "chicken-hawks" come out of the woodwork demanding that Russia should "release the S700s" and "shoot everything down," etc.

Notable quotes:
"... Russia has a clear mission in Syria: that is to re-establish control of Syria for the Assad government and prevent radical Islamic groups from taking over and using Syria as a home (and a launching pad for exporting their twisted views back into Russia). Once that happens, if they are smart, they will go home. Avoiding entanglements with countries like Turkey and Israel are part of that goal. To get themselves embroiled into the vipers nest (like the Americans have done) would be pure stupidity. ..."
"... So yes, Russia will likely do nothing about this, except perhaps change their own tactics to make it less likely to happen again. ..."
"... But this incident does do one very important thing: it exposes the complete and utter fraud and moral bankruptcy of the zionist controlled west and their corporate media who will not report this story and will decline to comment on why exactly Israel gets to bomb Syria at will. ..."
"... NoseytheDuke , says: September 19, 2018 at 7:12 am GMT ..."
"... I have to say that this comment reveals you to be the adult in the comments 'room' so far Greg. ..."
"... Kiza , says: September 19, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT ..."
"... Here is an excellent summary in English from the Russian state cominiques: http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17934#more-17934 . ..."
"... The only totally wrong thing in this article is the discussion whether the IFF of the Russian S200 system should have prevented the shoot-down of a friendly plane (both made in the same country). Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) is a system which prevents the launching of a missile against your own plane in a complex air battle environment. Now the Jewish 5th column in Russia is muddying the water (they are good at this) saying that it is a Russian screw up being blamed on Israel and John Helmer appears to have picked this up as fact. ..."
"... But, the truth is that IFF works to prevent a launch against a friendly target. It also prevents the missile from hitting a friendly plane under the standard mode of operation of targeting radars called CW. But CW mode is also a major vulnerability of targeting radars, because it can be jammed or spoofed to protect a foe, most Western planes are equipped with good CW counter measures. This is why the S200 system has been designed for semi-automous operation of its missiles. In the last part of the missile's trajectory, the missile can hone in on a target in the absence of a CW signal illuminating its intended target. When the Israeli small fighter jets took cover "behind" a big IL20, the missile honed in on it because the missile's own radar and logic selected the largest target as the most lucrative. ..."
"... Therefore, there was never a Russian screw up of any kind in this. ..."
"... Please keep in mind that Israelis are the World's experts in Russian radar systems because many Jews were involved in their design and some have immigrated to Israel. A few years ago, Israel even hired a Cyprian older and export model of S300 to train its pilots against them. Knowing how much plannng goes into bombing missions, knowing that IL20 because it was EW was a constant cruising presence in the air, and that Israelis attacked targets right next to the biggest Russian airbase in Latakia (where there was potential for the Russian involvement), it is really hard to believe that this outcome was not deliberate. ..."
"... Ultimately, the Israelis are happy with Putin's statements and unhappy with Shoygu's. Please observe the photo of Putin with Nutty Yahoo in Helmer's article, Putin's face is so self-happy. Makes you wish someone would slam a rifle butt into the moron's mug. ..."
"... The final irony is the one several people mentioned online – if the Syrians were operating an S300VM, the most modern version of the targeting radar, quite resistant to CW counter measures, the IL20 shootdown almost certainly would not have happened. Furthermore, if the Russian S400 was permitted to engage Israeli planes, it would have been the four Israeli F16s bathing in the Mediterranean Sea and body parts of Israeli pilots being collected instead of the Russian. On both options, Shoygu said yes and Putin said no. So who is to blame? Perhaps Putin is the Jewish 5th column in Russia. ..."
"... In my next comment I intend to outline what I think the Russians should have been and should be doing, how to deal with the Coalition of the Lovers of Terrorism. ..."
"... Harold Smith , says: September 19, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT ..."
"... "Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a bombing mission against targets near the Russian facilities in Khmeimim and Tartus (which, by itself, is both stupid and irresponsible). " ..."
"... I see it differently: ..."
"... Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a mission to (indirectly) bring down a Russian plane, under the pretense of bombing Syrian targets. The object being to exploit Putin's apparent weakness and use it to trash his political popularity (and perhaps damage the morale of the Russian military). ..."
Sep 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Greg S. , says: September 19, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT

Every time one of these incidents happens, a flood of "chicken-hawks" come out of the woodwork demanding that Russia should "release the S700s" and "shoot everything down," etc.

These people are idiots and should be ignored. The Saker is coming dangerously close to being one of these idiots himself.

Russia has a clear mission in Syria: that is to re-establish control of Syria for the Assad government and prevent radical Islamic groups from taking over and using Syria as a home (and a launching pad for exporting their twisted views back into Russia). Once that happens, if they are smart, they will go home. Avoiding entanglements with countries like Turkey and Israel are part of that goal. To get themselves embroiled into the vipers nest (like the Americans have done) would be pure stupidity.

So yes, Russia will likely do nothing about this, except perhaps change their own tactics to make it less likely to happen again.

But this incident does do one very important thing: it exposes the complete and utter fraud and moral bankruptcy of the zionist controlled west and their corporate media who will not report this story and will decline to comment on why exactly Israel gets to bomb Syria at will.

NoseytheDuke , says: September 19, 2018 at 7:12 am GMT
I have to say that this comment reveals you to be the adult in the comments 'room' so far Greg.
Kiza , says: September 19, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT
Here is an excellent summary in English from the Russian state cominiques: http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17934#more-17934 .

The only totally wrong thing in this article is the discussion whether the IFF of the Russian S200 system should have prevented the shoot-down of a friendly plane (both made in the same country). Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) is a system which prevents the launching of a missile against your own plane in a complex air battle environment. Now the Jewish 5th column in Russia is muddying the water (they are good at this) saying that it is a Russian screw up being blamed on Israel and John Helmer appears to have picked this up as fact.

But, the truth is that IFF works to prevent a launch against a friendly target. It also prevents the missile from hitting a friendly plane under the standard mode of operation of targeting radars called CW. But CW mode is also a major vulnerability of targeting radars, because it can be jammed or spoofed to protect a foe, most Western planes are equipped with good CW counter measures. This is why the S200 system has been designed for semi-automous operation of its missiles. In the last part of the missile's trajectory, the missile can hone in on a target in the absence of a CW signal illuminating its intended target. When the Israeli small fighter jets took cover "behind" a big IL20, the missile honed in on it because the missile's own radar and logic selected the largest target as the most lucrative.

Therefore, there was never a Russian screw up of any kind in this.

Please keep in mind that Israelis are the World's experts in Russian radar systems because many Jews were involved in their design and some have immigrated to Israel. A few years ago, Israel even hired a Cyprian older and export model of S300 to train its pilots against them. Knowing how much plannng goes into bombing missions, knowing that IL20 because it was EW was a constant cruising presence in the air, and that Israelis attacked targets right next to the biggest Russian airbase in Latakia (where there was potential for the Russian involvement), it is really hard to believe that this outcome was not deliberate.

Ultimately, the Israelis are happy with Putin's statements and unhappy with Shoygu's. Please observe the photo of Putin with Nutty Yahoo in Helmer's article, Putin's face is so self-happy. Makes you wish someone would slam a rifle butt into the moron's mug.

The final irony is the one several people mentioned online – if the Syrians were operating an S300VM, the most modern version of the targeting radar, quite resistant to CW counter measures, the IL20 shootdown almost certainly would not have happened. Furthermore, if the Russian S400 was permitted to engage Israeli planes, it would have been the four Israeli F16s bathing in the Mediterranean Sea and body parts of Israeli pilots being collected instead of the Russian. On both options, Shoygu said yes and Putin said no. So who is to blame? Perhaps Putin is the Jewish 5th column in Russia.

In my next comment I intend to outline what I think the Russians should have been and should be doing, how to deal with the Coalition of the Lovers of Terrorism.

Harold Smith , says: September 19, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
"Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a bombing mission against targets near the Russian facilities in Khmeimim and Tartus (which, by itself, is both stupid and irresponsible). "

I see it differently:

Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a mission to (indirectly) bring down a Russian plane, under the pretense of bombing Syrian targets. The object being to exploit Putin's apparent weakness and use it to trash his political popularity (and perhaps damage the morale of the Russian military).

And I think Putin calling this calculated act of mass murder an "accident" was a serious blunder which made the mission a smashing success.

anon , [228] Disclaimer says: September 19, 2018 at 5:42 pm GMT
The Israeli air force had warned the Russian forces in Syria only one minute before the strike. A Russian IL-20 electronic warfare airplane (red line) was preparing to land at the Russian airport near Latakia just as the Israeli attack (blue) happened
moonofalabama

Israeli claims that its plane had returned by the time Russian was hit
They also claimed they warned Russia

So in one minute the warned, tried to bomb and then safely returned to Israel

Erebus , says: September 20, 2018 at 8:14 am GMT
Joaquin Flores has the most interesting analysis I've seen to date. It's just far enough out there to be true.
In a nutshell, he says it was the French (who pleaded innocence before anyone accused them), in an attempt to destroy the prospect of good relations between the EU & Russia. That, and to disrupt the deal made with Turkey regarding Idlib. The latter having made irrelevant NATO's plans to go live in Syria.
Putin/Shoigu did an end run by blaming the Israelis for the scenario. That opens possibilities, including a no-fly zone.

What is most important is that Russia avoided being lured into a PR and diplomatic catastrophe with France, which is what Atlanticists hoped for and tried to execute.

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/

Pat Kittle , says: September 20, 2018 at 9:37 am GMT
Putin surely knows Israel did 9-11, specifically to get the US to fight wars for terrorist Jews.

A superb response to this latest (((outrage))) would be for Putin to make a top priority of exposing the war crimes of terrorist Jews. But he hasn't yet, so that possibility is unlikely.

Sadly ironic that the greatest enemy of Russia and the US is none other than the Terrorist Theocracy of Eretz Ysrael.

Harold Smith , says: September 20, 2018 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Erebus Joaquin Flores has the most interesting analysis I've seen to date. It's just far enough out there to be true.
In a nutshell, he says it was the French (who pleaded innocence before anyone accused them), in an attempt to destroy the prospect of good relations between the EU & Russia. That, and to disrupt the deal made with Turkey regarding Idlib. The latter having made irrelevant NATO's plans to go live in Syria.
Putin/Shoigu did an end run by blaming the Israelis for the scenario. That opens possibilities, including a no-fly zone.

What is most important is that Russia avoided being lured into a PR and diplomatic catastrophe with France, which is what Atlanticists hoped for and tried to execute.
https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/ Flores has an interesting view, but I have a few questions:

He says the French "early denial" doesn't make sense because the French weren't accused of anything at the time they denied involvement, but IIRC didn't the Russians mention early on that they detected missile launches from the French ship? So maybe the French were responding to what they took as an implicit accusation?

Also, if it was not a Syrian S-200 SAM that brought the IL-20 down, how does Flores explain the conspiuous inability of the Syrian S-200 system to take down any of the Israeli planes?

Finally, do the French have the guts to shoot down a Russian plane, murdering everyone on board in cold blood in an unprovoked attack? Granted Putin's not trigger happy, but the Russians have previously indicated that they would attack launch platforms if any of their personnel or assets were threatened. In light of that I don't think I would want to be on a ship whose mission is to test Russian resolve.

nsa , says: September 21, 2018 at 1:30 am GMT
@Johnny Rico

It reminds me of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty
How so? Aside from the fact that Israel was involved in both incidents. Ricostein is correct ..there is a major difference between Il-20 and the USS Liberty. This time the jooies didn't strafe the lifeboats ..

[Sep 20, 2018] A hoped-for goal of this FUKUS stunt.may have been Russia's retaliation in order to launch Libya style operation against Syria

Sep 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Mark Logan , 18 hours ago

I wonder if Putin is down playing this because he wants to get it over with so Russia can go home. A hoped-for goal of this FUKUS(IZ?) stunt.may have been retaliation. Wouldn't put it past them.
Pat Lang Mod -> Mark Logan , 17 hours ago
I earlier made this remark to FB Ali " One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually taken
Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have been
under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama played
out. The DMZ agreement prevents that, and now he takes this soft line
over this bit of Israeli cleverness that cost Shoigu 14 men for no good
reason, Curious. One might think he does not want to rock the boat
before the mid term."
SteveC -> Pat Lang , 13 hours ago
Saving their own skins may, to the Israeli pilots, seem like a good reason. Many would reasonably dispute this of course, especially the Russians
cofer , 21 hours ago
www.pravdareport.com/amp/ne...
FB Ali -> cofer , 20 hours ago
One must remember that Pravda is now an 'opposition' newspaper.

This playing down of Putin's reaction to the shooting down of the IL-20 appears to be part of a Western media 'op'. One gets no such impression from the Tass reports, eg, http://tass.com/politics/10... .

cofer -> FB Ali , 18 hours ago
The question is, are the quotes attributed to Putin accurate and what does it mean?
www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/...
FB Ali -> cofer , 15 hours ago
That is not the right question. To get the full import of what was said one must have not only accurate quotes but complete ones.

I don't think the NYT headline, or the tilt of its report, represent correctly Putin's reaction to this incident.

[Sep 19, 2018] As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot

Notable quotes:
"... As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel. ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 19, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT

There is an ongoing coup against not only Trump, but the entire nation, as this video by "Project Veritas" proves. This State Department subversive claims to be a Democratic Socialist, which are just Antifa terrorists in suits. Antifa was too radical for SANE Americans so they re-branded their putrid form of Communism to call it DSA. They're traitors & saboteurs and should be treated as such .

As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel.

Many Americans labor under the delusion that we're an independent democratic republic, with a USG that honors the cherished Constitution and serves We the People. But that is a fiction, created by a motley assortment of gangsters, think tanks, the MSM and their mighty Wurlitzer organ, Hollywood.

The USA is under Israeli occupation, with our American neoCON & Zionist Jew Overseers still cracking that whip on our backs, but a digital one, not leather. The NWO Plantation owner is Israel, aided and abetted by the money power of those Rothschild central banks, like the FED, which is the biggest counterfeiting outfit on the planet.

 The only way to fix this sordid mess would be a repeat of what happened back in 1776. Either that, or resign ourselves–and offspring–to a life of misery, poverty, endless wars and terror .

[Sep 19, 2018] Guardian journos are proclaiming themselves the bastion of free speech, when in reality they are the enemies of it.

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

I gave up on the Guardian's comment site myself, 10 years ago, as the censorship on there made it pointless. Has something changed?

There was one prolific commenter there, MrPikeBishop, who was so popular, he was even commissioned to write articles above the line. Then one day, bam, he is banned, and his entire posting history gone. That did it for me; little emperors not fit to clean his boots, just rubbed him out. I spat on the site that day and never went back. Proclaiming themselves the bastion of free speech, when they actually the enemies of it.

Actually, I was caught out here in the UK, by the demise of the old five pound note, and then the ten pound note, because I stopped reading and watching MSM years ago. It's worth it, to get their irritating buzzing out of my head.

Back to the linked Guardian article; this is indeed interesting – these questions asked by the journalist:

– Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France and/or Israel attack?
– Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate?
– Do they even understand how close we're coming to global war, whenever a NATO country operates in Syria?
– How long can we rely on Russian common sense to avoid WWIII?

[Sep 19, 2018] First containership goes north of Russia from Asia to Europe

Sep 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al September 17, 2018 at 9:30 am

EUObserver: First containership goes north of Russia from Asia to Europe
https://euobserver.com/news/142837

A brand new ice-strengthened containership is heading straight into the annals of maritime history. As the first containership ever Venta Maersk is on its way through the still ice-plagued North East passage north of Russia from Asia to Europe.

Venta Maersk belongs to Seago Line, a shipping company owned by Denmark's A.P. Moller Maersk A/S, the world's largest container-shipping agency

The first stop in Europe, in Bremerhaven, Germany, is expected to take place in late September before Venta Maersk continues to St Petersburg, Russia.

Venta Maersk is one of seven ice-strengthened containerships that Maersk is currently having built in China.

The ships are 200 metres long, 35.2 metres wide and capable of shipping 3,600 containers, six metres long, through one metre of ice. ..

[Sep 19, 2018] Whet crew of Il-20 was doing when Israeli jets approach it and fly above and form a bookshelf formation?

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

parrhesiastes on September 19, 2018 , · at 8:23 pm EST/EDT

Maybe the landing approach thesis works – experts in Russ aviation would know if Russ equivalent to(US/UK) AN/APS-13 aft approach radar, used since 1942 in a series of versions, was/is fitted to Il20 in question.

Seems that anybody smart enough to build radar would fit tailradar in combat zone, and leave it on. Note actual radar may have been superseded by an infra red detector a question for experts. Has been long time since 1942, technical methods improve. And the search radars?

Ok, pilot, engineer, copilot are doing approach and busy and everybody else just being inattentive? F 16 were not tracked the entire time? Again, maybe. Radar works at 6000 feet and horizon still 152 km away F16 can't sneak up unseen fast but not that fast

I always maintain situational awareness in war zones, helps to live longer.

software of S200 can not target friendlies, system was is integrated.

[Sep 19, 2018] Destroying Syria is primary for US Hegemony and Israeli dominance

Notable quotes:
"... Exactly. The zionazis want Syria. They are activating all their options and working overtime to keep their proxies employed against Syria. If the zionazis cant take Syria, it means they don't get to have Lebanon either. It also means their attempt to wreck Iran and reduce it to a failed state is a non starter. ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

vot tak on September 19, 2018 , · at 1:00 pm EST/EDT

"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and Russia has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have organized their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"

Exactly. The zionazis want Syria. They are activating all their options and working overtime to keep their proxies employed against Syria. If the zionazis cant take Syria, it means they don't get to have Lebanon either. It also means their attempt to wreck Iran and reduce it to a failed state is a non starter.

Larchmonter445 on September 19, 2018 , · at 1:21 pm EST/EDT
Syria is the keystone. The geography is a primary target for the destruction of ME. It has cultural and economic ties that bind most of the region. Destroying Syria is primary for US Hegemony and Israeli dominance.

But Turkey, Iran, Iraq and now Russia stand in the way. With Hezbollah, Lebanon is joined to the alliance against the US-Israeli aggression. And strategically, Jordan will facilitate what it can to stabilize the region.

This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel, the US, UK and France will long be remembered across the Motherland. Syria now more than ever is a land of sacrificed sons of Russia. The stakes are now eternal.

Anonius on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:06 pm EST/EDT
This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half of Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate people at home.
Katherine on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:50 pm EST/EDT
The two preceding comments seem to be mutually exclusive, i .e., in direct contradiction:

1. "This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel,"

2. "This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half of Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate people at home."

But, "the point" in (1) seems, actually, to be the exact opposite.
So, has the incident alienated Russians from Israel? Or, can Russia not "afford" to be alienated from Israel because there are too many Russian Israelis?

Or is it the other way around? That Russian Israelis will not stand for their government's treatment of Russia? Somehow I suspect that Russian/ex-Soviet Israelis won't give a flying eff about their govt's treatment of Russia, and the same goes for their relatives inside Russia. They hated the USSR and couldn't wait to get away. Why does Putin have to cater to the views of these emigres to Israel, Russian Israelis, or to their families back in Russia? How do the latter differ from Zionists in the USA who have dual loyaties?

BTW, it is my understanding that the USA paid for the resettlement of Soviet Jews in Israel in the eighties, not the USSR .

Katherine

[Sep 19, 2018] Russia does not have a fifth column in Israel, it is probably the other way round.

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:00 pm EST/EDT

1.3 million Russians in Israel, are Russian jews, and are likely identify primarily as jewish.

Their aims and concerns, are jewish ones. Their likely only concerns regarding Russia, are that Russia does not obstruct Israeli ambitions, and that the network of jewish influence in Russia does not diminish, but thrives. Their interest is for Russia to be another of Israel's golems, like the USA is.

I moot that true Russian interests, conflict with their own, and they will absolutely follow their own. Same as AIPAC in the USA, and equivalents everywhere else.

Their ancestral home country might be Russia, but I moot there is nothing Russian about them.

All my humble opinion. I stand to be corrected. Russia does not have a fifth column in Israel, it is the other way round.

[Sep 19, 2018] E>e are now faced with the imminent threat of either an Anglo/Zionist victory in Syria or WW3

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

Bob on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:31 pm EST/EDT

Look, I'm not a military expert, but I have followed the events in the Middle East fairly closely for over 30 years. I, and many others, have stated repeatedly that Russia's clearly demonstrated unwillingness to use its military forces to protect Syria from Western and US strikes can only lead to disaster.

The entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the region by the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from intervening directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that could go nuclear).

Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.

How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no longer have any credibility in Syria.

My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike the SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria to ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will have a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that they will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over Syria?

You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3.

Christian W on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:23 pm EST/EDT
The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated. There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite psychotic.

The Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end. It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt with.

This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of course.

Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:25 pm EST/EDT
@ Bob,

I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I sincerely hope that I am.

That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else they need to find a new weak spot to poke.

Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'

Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.

Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia (and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the ever unreliable Turkey..

Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the world.

That's worth waiting for.

[Sep 19, 2018] You probably can call shooting down IL-20 a NATO attack

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

Littlejohn on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:02 pm EST/EDT

I have to agree up to a point that this attack was a "full test of the EW capabilties of the western & Israel armies". This was not just an Israeli attack. Israel just supplied four attack jets. The French were (as Russia observed) firing missiles. British aircraft were high overhead providing surveillance and attack data. U.S. surveillance aircraft similar to the IL-20 are more or less full-time orbiting off the Lebanon/Syria coasts gathering data, probing electronic systems and providing aerial data link relays for the planes and ships below. We should all stop calling this an "Israeli attack". It was basically a NATO attack on Syria.

It's evident that the Russian and Syrian forces were not prepared for such a combined attack as this.

NATO "won" overwhelmingly.

And this was just a "warmup" for the next, bigger attack to come. Russia must up it's game drastically or it's going to face a crushing defeat in the next attack.

[Sep 19, 2018] "Israeli military delegation led by air force commander to travel to Moscow to share information on Il-20 plane crash.

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

JJ on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:48 pm EST/EDT

"Israeli military delegation led by air force commander to travel to Moscow to share information on Il-20 plane crash.

The Israeli military delegation led by Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin will travel to Moscow on September 20 with information about the crash of a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft off the Syrian coast that killed 15 military personnel, the IDF press service said Wednesday."

Will be interesting to see how or maybe if it correlates with Russian intelligence?

[Sep 19, 2018] on September 19, 2018 at 3:31 pm EST/EDT

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

The entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the region by
the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from intervening
directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that could go nuclear).

Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.

How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no longer have any credibility in Syria.

My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike the SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria to ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will have a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that they will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over Syria? You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3. Reply

Christian W on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:23 pm EST/EDT

The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated. There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite psychotic.

The Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end. It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt with.

This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of course.

Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:25 pm EST/EDT
@ Bob,

I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I sincerely hope that I am.

That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else they need to find a new weak spot to poke.

Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'

Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.

Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia (and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the ever unreliable Turkey..

Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the world.

That's worth waiting for.

[Sep 19, 2018] Russia options are limited

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

Woogs on September 19, 2018 , · at 1:39 pm EST/EDT

Which is why the provocations won't stop. Honestly, I don't see how Putin can think he can shrug them off and continue with the job at hand in Syria. He will try but Zion will continue to double-down.

I believe the West has seen enough of their schemes foiled by Putin and his playing the long game. The strategy now is to take the long game from him. The advantage in this goes to the West as they can be as provocative as they want while Russia has to be careful not to be seen as an aggressor lest it wreck Nord Stream, Turk Stream and the thaw in relations with Germany.

Putin has sounded conciliatory, maybe even weak in some eyes. He did, however, note that Russia's attitude towards this incident is expressed in the MoD statement, which is noticeably less conciliatory.

Perhaps that, along with some concrete actions (I favor a limited no-fly zone), will deter outside interference while the essential work at Idlib can continue. We can only hope.

[Sep 19, 2018] It is a promise or threat being honored. For months we have we have been hearing high ranking American officials openly advocating that their goal in Syria was to make as many as possible Russian military return home in body bags

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

Stanley Laham on September 19, 2018 , · at 5:24 pm EST/EDT

May I remind you Saker that this incident was not just a provocation. It is a promise or threat being honored. For months we have we have been hearing high ranking American officials openly advocating that their goal in Syria was to make as many as possible Russian military return home in body bags. From Senators to directors of intelligence have unabashedly and unapologetically said so openly on American TVs. And they are doing it whenever possible.
So the question for Mr. Putin is whether he's gonna let them continue with impunity. I don't know how old most commentators on this site are, but for those who remember the denouement of the Vietnam war you will remember that the only war the US ever lost was when the American people had enough of hundreds of their soldiers returning home every week in body bags.
Kampfbeobachter on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:49 pm EST/EDT
remember the Tu 20 was used a RADAR shield for the 4 Israeli F-16. These are obviously aircraft and operate from an Israeli military base.The Russians know the geographical coordinates of these bases to the accuracy of a few meters. The Russian SSBM can stay in the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea Flotilla can repeat their Deir ez Zoor feat again testing the Iron Dome an Davids Sling in the process.
This potential threat will cause the Israeli military planers some sleepless nights.
I have read that the fire works capabilities of Hezbollah have somewhat improved in recent years. The possible components of a "no fly zone" over Israel and western Syria. Not that it will happen but making the protection racket in Washington foam at their Snouts is worth something too. IMHO
bored muslim on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:49 pm EST/EDT
Lets not forget China has people (Special Forces, Logistics people, medics etc) on the ground in Syria. Some brigades of the special forces are embedded with the Syrian Arab Armies Tiger Division and 4th Armored Division. The spearheads of most campaigns.

China has major plans foe the Levant, as far as connectivity with the OBR Silk Roads. They already have plans to rebuild Syria.

With cheap Chinese weapons, and a large volume of such, the Arabs, Assyrians of Syria will achieve their ultimate victory. The same applies to Iraq, where the U.S. , British and French position looks more and more precarious.

By 2030, the U.S., Britain and France will have been expelled from the MENA/Central Asian regions, only to have China fill the vacuum. Russia or not, China is coming, its rising fast.

­
Rob from Canada on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:34 pm EST/EDT
I agree with you 100% that there is no hope for the Western globalist elite. That's because they're incompetent, psychopathic, loser scum who are only a few bricks short of a load and their ponzi scam is only a few moves from mate.

https://www.traditionalright.com/the-deep-state-speaks/

cstahnke on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:59 pm EST/EDT
I wouldn't say that at all. They are still in positions of power with enormous economic and military sources. They are in decline but not that far down the road. Russia won't act strongly because the US/NATO/Israel/Saudi alliance is waaaaay more powerful and still very united in the Imperial project. Only a very tight China-Russia-Iran alliance would cause the Empire to hesitate to play their current game of continual micro-aggressions against Russia/Syria/Iran. Putin will not respond because he does not have as close an alliance with the Chinese as the US has with their "allies (vassals)." Washington can no longer dictate terms in world affairs but is more influential than Russia/China/Iran and any other minor players.
B.F. on September 19, 2018 , · at 2:25 pm EST/EDT
Kfeto
You need to do your homework before posting comments. Erdogan had nothing to do with with the shooting of that Russian SU-24. This was done behind his back, with pro-US elements in Turkey hoping to create a rift between Russia and Turkey. It was a provocation. The pilot of that Turkish F-16 was a Turk of Albanian origin, who was subsequently placed under arrest. When the US instigated that coup d'etat against Erdogan, it was the Russians who both warned him and saved his life, as his plane was targeted by Turkish F-16's flown by conspirators, who backed off, having Russian Sukhois behind them and Russian missiles in Syria pointing at them.

The shooting of that Russian reconnaissance plane in Syria was another provocation, Israel hoping to provoke Putin to retaliate and starting a mass war in Syria, bearing in mind that NATO brought additional ships to the Syrian coast. It did not work, as Putin stayed cool. However, Russian and Syrian AA missile systems have now become integrated. When it comes to this latest provocation, it could have been greater than it appeared. Commentators have pointed to that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of missile was that ? An AA missile, or a cruise missile ? Did the French shoot that Russian plane down ? If so, then we were facing a very real threat of wider war, because had the Russians retaliated, then NATO would have had an excuse to attack Syria, now that it's little false flag plan has been exposed, another chemical "attack" by Assad, as if Assad was foolish enough to do such a thing.

The point is that Putin does not fall for provocations. He has proved it again.

bored muslim on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:38 pm EST/EDT
I concur. Israel is a rogue state, and this was a provocation.

A firm response is required. The world is watching. Anything short of a firm response would negate Vostok 2018.

Does Putin stand with, and behind his own Minister of Defense, who layed the blame firmly on Israel.

Russia needs to secure Syrian and Lebanese airspace to Israeli provocations. AS a starting point. And Russia should make a lot of noise at the U.N., giving them a headache there, as well as points against the U.S..

Israeli arrogance should not be let go by superpower Russia.

[Sep 19, 2018] NATO ships are still off the Syrian coast. Why ? For what purpose ? Just keeping them at sea must cost millions of dollars. Are they waiting for something ?

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

B.F. on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:19 pm EST/EDT

amarynth
You are correct. I am wondering what really happened. Officially that Russian plane was mistakenly shot down by Syrians, who were targeting Israeli F-16's that were hiding behind the Russian plane. Both the Syrian radar operators and their Russian advisors must have known about that Russian reconnaissance plane, making such a mistake improbable, but not impossible. Then we have reports of that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of missile was that ? An AA missile, or a cruise missile ? No additional data has been provided. I wonder why.

NATO ships are still off the Syrian coast. Why ? For what purpose ? Just keeping them at sea must cost millions of dollars. Are they waiting for something ?

That false flag chemical "attack" which the US planned, hoping to frame Assad, has been exposed. Putin and Erdogan make a deal on Idlib. After that we have that Israeli attack, with the French giving a helping hand. Was NATO provoking Putin to make a retaliatory attack, either against Israel or against that French frigate ? Time will tell. However, as The Saker has stated, Russians have patience.

Stanley on September 19, 2018 , · at 5:48 pm EST/EDT
Patience is not always a virtue. Stalin paid dearly for his patience with Hitler even though his plans for Lebensraum and expansion eastward were not hidden. Careful Mr. Putin that you not pay dearly for your patience with the American Empire when it's plan "Project for a New American Century" has been clearly spelled out.
Veritas on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:32 pm EST/EDT
Yes Saker as you say let's wait and see what the Russian response will be.

Over the years – this always is the knee jerk reaction of the armchair warriors and anti-Putin/Russia trolls – whenever Russia is attacked in Syria or elsewhere. Some still don't learn that Russia is slow to saddle and quick to ride. The MOD statements have already set down who is to blame and a reply to this disgusting provocation will be answered in their own way and in their own time. Putin also agreed with the MOD statements and hinted himself to watch this space.

"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and Russia has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have organized their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"

This was a very important point, I also noted. I also read that the II-20 plane was returning from reconnaissance over Idlib and was just coming into land .take from that what you will ..

[Sep 19, 2018] I think a basic question here is whether the Israelis were deliberately trying to down the II-20.

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

Edward on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:26 pm EST/EDT

I think a basic question here is whether the Israelis were deliberately trying to down the II-20. Is it a coincidence that the Israeli attack took place precisely when that plane was landing? The Israelis have done worse. I think they had foreknowledge of 9-11, for example, and were unwilling to help their American "friends".

Given that 15 Russians were killed Russia probably does need to respond. The challenge will probably be to avoid actions that restrict Russian choices, especially given that Trump & Co. are willing to play nuclear chicken. The Russians want to avoid being forced into a sequence of actions that lead to WWIII or other bad outcomes. They want to make the choices, not others.

The Israelis have a history of trying to provoke others. For example, before they invaded Lebanon they tried to provoke a PLO military response to some attacks so that they could claim their invasion was self-defense against PLO "aggression". The PLO didn't take the bait but the Israelis invaded Lebanon anyway.

darkmoon on September 19, 2018 , · at 5:21 pm EST/EDT
I haveto challenge your cleverly hidden piece of misinformation. The WTC was brought down by controlled demoliton and the sheer scope of the operation (3 sites, NORAD exercise) clearly points to the involvment of state actors. So about what should the the Israelis warn their US comrades?
Edward on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:13 pm EST/EDT
Its true building #7 appears to have been destroyed by a controlled demolition but we don't know for sure at this point who was responsible, although Israel is high on my list of suspects. (Incidentally, there is evidence that the 1993 WTC bombing was an Israeli black op. too.) However, we do know that an Israeli spy ring followed the 9-11 hijackers for months and a group of these spies cheered during the 9-11 attack. This convinces me that while the plot was carried out by Al Queda, the Israelis were in the background making sure they succeeded. It also convinces me that the Israelis are perfectly capable of deliberately downing the II-20 or worse.
parrhesiastes on September 19, 2018 , · at 8:35 pm EST/EDT
We know who said this: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

That's who did it, no?

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696-faq-10-did-wtc-7-owner-larry-silverstein-admit-to-ordering-the-controlled-demolition-of-the-building-.html

[Sep 19, 2018] Occupying foreign nations and killing foreign people in order to pay for college and to pay the mortgage and set up an retirement plan is weakness, not strength. "Thank you for your service", indeed. Too many Americans still worship at the altar of the Pentagon.

Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is

Christian W on September 19, 2018 , · at 7:15 pm EST/EDT

@ Occassional Poster

I know the US is in the grip of AIPAC, the Neocon's and their Billionaire masters etc (including Trump). But it's time for the American people to accept responsibility for their part in what is happening. It is not OK to accept medals and money for military service overseas to support the Empire. Occupying foreign nations and killing foreign people in order to pay for college and to pay the mortgage and set up an retirement plan is weakness, not strength. "Thank you for your service", indeed. Too many Americans still worship at the altar of the Pentagon.

It's time for Americans to kick the MIC to the curb, give up the Petrodollar and corruption that comes with it, and come up with a saner national business model and way of life. I know that many, many American soldiers have paid a heavy price for their "service" or even "servitude", but not more so than the nations they have ruined during their service. It's time for the American people to come together and accept that "War" cannot be the solution to every problem facing America in it's foreign or domestic policies. It is time to Down Tools and clean up the corruption in DC and on Wall Street and in the US establishment in general.

I believe these sentiments are not shocking to most Americans, but this also means the sense of desperation in the US/Zio elites wedded to War is growing, another reason they push so hard and so frantically. They know time is running out for them. On this front and many others.

Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT

@ Christian,

I have Serbian roots, and US & its NATO poodles bombed and finished their decade long job of destroying my country in 1999. That nightmare just doesn't end.

But my definition of evil is worth noting. Evil can put a bullet in your head, but where is the fun in that? Put the gun in the hand of a good person, deceive them, and get them to do it. THAT's true evil, and there in a nutshell is what has been done to the US.

I struggled to understand as a child, why lying was as great a crime in Christianity as murder and stuff, but I later understood; deceit is the greatest evil, it turns good people into monsters. There is no anger like righteous anger.

All that evil needs to thrive, is ignorance. The American people as a whole, are grossly ignorant, but they are not evil; they are simply deceived, just like Brits actualy. A good number of yanks on Zerohedge wish Putin was their own president, so some are awake. Overall, the US citizenry actually can't give a hoot about Russiagate. There is no mass ill will towards Russia.

So those are just my thoughts. I just want the American, and European people to wake out of their trance.

[Sep 19, 2018] As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot

Notable quotes:
"... As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel. ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 19, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT

There is an ongoing coup against not only Trump, but the entire nation, as this video by "Project Veritas" proves. This State Department subversive claims to be a Democratic Socialist, which are just Antifa terrorists in suits. Antifa was too radical for SANE Americans so they re-branded their putrid form of Communism to call it DSA. They're traitors & saboteurs and should be treated as such .

As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel.

Many Americans labor under the delusion that we're an independent democratic republic, with a USG that honors the cherished Constitution and serves We the People. But that is a fiction, created by a motley assortment of gangsters, think tanks, the MSM and their mighty Wurlitzer organ, Hollywood.

The USA is under Israeli occupation, with our American neoCON & Zionist Jew Overseers still cracking that whip on our backs, but a digital one, not leather. The NWO Plantation owner is Israel, aided and abetted by the money power of those Rothschild central banks, like the FED, which is the biggest counterfeiting outfit on the planet.

 The only way to fix this sordid mess would be a repeat of what happened back in 1776. Either that, or resign ourselves–and offspring–to a life of misery, poverty, endless wars and terror .

[Sep 19, 2018] Trump Says FBI Is A Cancer In Our Country

That's a bold statement but cancerous growth is typical of any intelligence agency, especially CIA: all of them want more and more budget money and try to influence both domestic and foreign policy. That's signs of cancel.
FBI actually has dual mandate: suppressing political dissent (STASI functions) and fight with criminals and organized crime.
The fact the President does not control his own administration, especially State Department isclearly visible now. He is more like a ceremonial figura that is allowed to rant on Twitter, but can't change any thing of substance in forign policy. and Is a typucal Repiblican in domenstic policy, betraying the electorate like Obama did
Notable quotes:
"... Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based bureaucratic bias and corruption. ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Shifting from Sessions to the much-maligned FBI, Trump said the agency was "a cancer" and that uncovering deep-seated corruption in the FBI may be remembered as the "crowning achievement" of his administration, per the Hill .

"What we've done is a great service to the country, really," Trump said in a 45-minute, wide-ranging interview in the Oval Office.

"I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to ... expose something that is truly a cancer in our country."

Moreover, Trump insisted that he never trusted former FBI Director James Comey, and that he had initially planned to fire Comey shortly after the inauguration, but had been talked out of it by his aides.

Trump also said he regretted not firing former FBI Director James Comey immediately instead of waiting until May 2017, confirming an account his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, gave Hill.TV earlier in the day that Trump was dismayed in 2016 by the way Comey handled the Hillary Clinton email case and began discussing firing him well before he became president.

"If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries," Trump said. "I should have fired him right after the convention, say I don't want that guy. Or at least fired him the first day on the job. ... I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don't want him there when I get there."

The FISA Court judges who approved the initial requests allowing the FBI to surveil employees of the Trump Campaign also came in for some criticism, with Trump claiming they used "poor Carter Page, who nobody even knew, and who I feel very badly for...as a foil...to surveil a candidate or the presidency of the United States." Trump added that he felt the judges had been "misled" by the FBI.

He criticizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court's approval of the warrant that authorized surveillance of Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign aide, toward the end of the 2016 election, suggesting the FBI misled the court.

"They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used Carter Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he's been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States."

As for the judges on the secret intelligence court: "It looks to me just based on your reporting, that they have been misled," the president said, citing a series of columns in The Hill newspaper identifying shortcomings in the FBI investigation. "I mean I don't think we have to go much further than to say that they've been misled."

"One of the things I'm disappointed in is that the judges in FISA didn't, don't seem to have done anything about it. I'm very disappointed in that Now, I may be wrong because, maybe as we sit here and talk, maybe they're well into it. We just don't know that because I purposely have not chosen to get involved," Trump said.

Trump continued the assault on Sessions during a brief conference with reporters Wednesday morning. When asked whether he was planning to fire Sessions, Trump replied that "we're looking into lots of different things."

To be sure, Sessions has managed to hang on thus far. And if he can somehow manage to survive past Nov. 6, his fate will perversely rest on the Democrats' success. Basically, if they wrest back control of the Senate (which, to be sure, is unlikely), Sessions chances of staying on would rise dramatically. But then again, how much abuse can a man realistically endure before he decides that the costs of staying outweigh the benefits of leaving?

DingleBarryObummer , 19 minutes ago

Sessions works for Trump, because Trump is running the uniparty russia-gate stormy-gate anti-trump show. Sessions was intentionally placed there to stonewall and make sure the kabuki goes on. Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. This **** garners sympathy for him as the persecuted underdog, rallies his base; and distracts from the obvious zio-bankster influence over his admin and his many unfulfilled campaign promises. He's deceiving you. Why do you think Giuliani acts like such a buffoon? It's because that's what he was hired for. All distractions and bullshit. He will not get impeached, Hillary is not going to jail, nothing will happen. The zio-Banksters will continue to stay at the top of the pyramid, because that's who trump works for, NOT you and me.

"While Trump's fascination with the White House still burned within him [re: 2011], he also had The Apprentice to deal with--and it wasn't as easy as you might think. He loved doing the show and was reluctant to give it up. At one point, he was actually thinking of hosting it from the oval office if he made it all the way to the White House. He even discussed it with Stephen Burke, the CEO at NBCUniversal, telling Burke he would reconsider running if the network was concerned about his candidacy." -Roger Stone

"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past. They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people, for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They utilize strategies that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These types, for example, will often display their weakness and lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very effective strategy, subtle and deceptive, in the game of power." -Robert Greene

Sparkey , 31 minutes ago

This is why the 'little' people love President 'The Donald' Trump, he says the things they would like to say, but have no platform to speak from, Mushroom man The Donald has no fear he has got Mushroom power, and he has my support in what ever he does!

Secret Weapon , 43 minutes ago

Is Sessions a Deep State firewall? Starting to look that way.

TrustbutVerify , 48 minutes ago

Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based bureaucratic bias and corruption.

I suspect Sessions will last until after the mid-term elections. Then Trump will fire him and bring someone like Gowdy in to head the DOJ and to bring about investigations.

And, my gosh, there seems to be so much to investigate. And to my mind prosecute.

loop, 49 minutes ago

"I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (Israel). It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.

Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

- U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer

mendigo, 59 minutes ago

Cool stuff. But really the cancer goes much deeper. That is the scary part. Trump is now largely controlled by the Borg.

Government employees and elected officials have a choice: can either play along and become wealthy and powerful or have their careers destroyed, or worse.

[Sep 19, 2018] Russia is in a very difficult position. It has absolutely treacherous enemies quite apart from supposed allies on all sides. The U.S.A. is even trying to destroy Orthodox Christianity to further isolate Russia. I have no doubt that there has been some very intense diplomacy behind the scenes. Remember, vengeance is a dish served cold, the western attitude for immediate gratification

Notable quotes:
"... The fact that Israel attacked today in Latakia in a temper tantrum proves this was a good deal to make for Syria. If the militants don't cooperate, they get hammered anyway. Nothing to lose. A very smart move by Putin again as well as Erdogan. I am sure China is helping financially by helping Turkey out with USSA Israeli sanctions and to get out from under the IMF. ..."
"... The hairy-chested Americans here are calling Putin weak, but he can't afford to make any over-reaching mistakes, and all decent, responsible human beings are glad of that. Do you want to have WW3 just to show how much "balls" you've got?" ..."
"... "STRONG IS NOT WHO FIGHTS WARS, STRONG IS WHO AVOIDS WAR." ..."
"... Defence minister Sergei Shoigu's statement on the shootdown at Russian military website here. https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12196031@egNews ..."
"... Putin makes it quite clear the statement by the Russian military that Israel is responsible is Russia's official position. ..."
"... You are probably right. Hindsight is 50-50 and this hasn't fully played out. My point larger point is just that if Putin had been more distrustful of Erdogan, then maybe he would've done things differently. If Erdogan doesn't keep his part of the bargain that has just been struck and never relinquishes Idlib, then Putin will have lost his Turkish gamble. It's already looking pretty dicey. ..."
"... The downing of the Russian plane was premeditated. Most likely, the holo-biz 'survivors' used electronic rerouting, which the Russians should have done long time ago against the nest of the bloody Bolshevik progeny and supremacists madmen like Miliekovski (Bibi) and the former night-club bouncer Avi Lieberman. ..."
"... Russia is in a very difficult position. It has absolutely treacherous enemies quite apart from supposed allies on all sides. The U.S.A. is even trying to destroy Orthodox Christianity to further isolate Russia. I have no doubt that there has been some very intense diplomacy behind the scenes. Remember, vengeance is a dish served cold, the western attitude for immediate gratification, e.g. ..."
"... So what are the chances that s-200 "...missile was aimed at the F-16 its seeker likely mistook the larger radar reflection of IL-20 for the intended target." as is stated in an article?Of course a possibilities are endless, in theoretical domain. But it would require sloppy operators ..."
"... At the same time, Israel is constantly working to prevent our enemies from arming themselves with advanced weaponry. Our red lines are as sharp as ever and our determination to enforce them is stronger than ever. ..."
"... This week we will mark, in synagogues and cemeteries, Yom Kippur, the holiest day of our people, and the day on which, 45 years ago, we absorbed a bloody attack that cost us thousands of victims. ..."
"... " thought Syria's goal was to redeem its territory." From whom? Syrians? With 5 million refugees outside of Syria? From a nation of 22 million. With 3 million refugees in Turkey alone. ..."
"... The reaction guided by the initial emotional state is almost always the incorrect one. This case is no different. ..."
"... That does not mean Russia must sit back and take it. It means its responses must be carefully thought out and deliberate. Not an emotional knee jerk. ..."
"... Russia looks weak because they are in a weak position. It appears the Anglo American Zionists want to demolish Syria completely. They have been goading Russia into firing back and and starting the war with NATO. The Russians have not because they know it will be all out demolition time. ..."
"... From Jose Garcia comment above: "War is for warmongers who never experience the hell they so desire." ..."
"... Serious followers of MoA understand that we are at a watershed time and reactive measures are never effective when downing a delusional foe in the throes of death. ..."
"... For all the Putin bashing going on, he appears to be the one riding the tiger. Taking on the entirety of the NATO-zionist alliance without support from China at the very least would undoubtedly be apocalyptic. Let the rooks and bishops set the trap. ..."
"... The cards that the MOD drew, meanwhile, call Israel's act "hostile" and point out that the Israeli pilots could not have missed seeing the Russian plane, and thus deliberately hid behind it. Although b linked to the Sputnik report of this, it may help for a visceral understanding of Russia's take to watch Konashenkov deliver his statement. A two minute clip from Vesti News: ..."
"... According to the Times of Isreal there are 250,000 Jews living in Moscow. With a population over 11 million that's about 2.5%. Elsewhere the numbers are lower. About 1/3 of the Jewish population in Moscow have Israeli citizenship (83000). Of the 200 richest people in Russia, 25% are Jewish according to some reports. So their power is perhaps greater than their numbers as is seen elsewhere . This is neither good or bad of course unless the power is used to support Israel over their country of residence/citizenship ..."
"... As for all the idiotic (IQ < 25) losers trolling here, as Clausewitz said, "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means" (not "by other means"), so war is all about politics. As Iraq and Afghanistan have shown recently, you can have the allegedly "most powerful military" in the world but if you don't understand the politics, you will lose, lose and keep on fucking losing. FUKUS have wanted regime change in Damascus for the last several years but it hasn't happened so FUKUS are the fucking losers so far and Putin will now ensure they go on losing. ..."
"... Putin is the master of cool understatement, and his comment about what a complex chain of accidents were required to lead to this tragedy I took to be dripping with venom. Especially since the Israelis know perfectly well this was intentional, and they know Putin knows. I would say they are extremely nervous right now. ..."
"... A major provocation was inevitable. The false flag chemical attack was disrupted with apparently magnificent intel. I heard a lot of scoffing when Russia presented evidence to the UNSC, but it must have been unusually damning and conclusive of direct Western collision with the terrorists. Did you notice there were none of the now customary Western leaks mocking the Russian presentation? Not a peep. Suddenly Hailey and the shills just changed their tune, that in fact a chemical attack wasn't necessary for them to act, that any attack at all upon terrorists in Idleb would be sufficient. Belatedly they started mentioning their overwhelming concern for the safety of the citizens, but then Russia and Turkey reached an understanding which would (at least in theory) address that. The neocons and zionists were apoplectic. Something had to be done! ..."
"... It is hardly debatable that this was a very carefully orchestrated and coordinated NATO+I operation. The West no doubt knew the Russian aircraft's patrol area and customary length of mission so this could be timed for when it was low on fuel and returning to base, its movements most predictable. ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
frances , Sep 18, 2018 1:18:23 PM

I read an excellent post on SouthFront that I think is worth posting here:

John Brown • 2 hours ago

This deal with Erdogan is better than I thought, as the Russian army will enter Idlib in large numbers escorted by the Turkish army without even having ot fight any battles at all.

This is why Israel downed the Russian military transport plane to try to wreck this deal which is huge victory for Syria.

The S-200 was fired at the F-16 earlier which drew the missile out towards the IL-20, then the F-16 kept the IL-20 in a line-of-sight between it and the missile, probably till the missile was out of range of identifying friend or foe, and used the heat signature to kill the nearest thing..

The deal also helps Russia and Syria by Erdogan is giving them a shield to free the rural areas of Latakia Idlib and Homs which they would have to do first any way. The Oct 15 deadline gives the Russians plenty of time to bomb the crap out of the militants. The buffer zone will also be territory Syria won't have to fight for as the Israeli terrorists will have to pull back and Russia has more time to greatly strengthen Syrian air defenses.

The fact that Israel attacked today in Latakia in a temper tantrum proves this was a good deal to make for Syria. If the militants don't cooperate, they get hammered anyway. Nothing to lose. A very smart move by Putin again as well as Erdogan. I am sure China is helping financially by helping Turkey out with USSA Israeli sanctions and to get out from under the IMF.

karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 1:24:01 PM | link
i agree with these posts below..

"I don't believe this attack had anything to do with the Idlib agreement. Just another Israeli attack on Syria."
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 18, 2018 8:42:21 AM | 31

"Russia has its own S-400 systems defending Latakia, so it can defend itself and doesn't need Syria's S-200s.

They would have been watching the Israeli F-16s on radar, and then they get a phone call saying an attack is happening in one minute. Russia must have said "OK", because they didn't blow the F-16s out of the sky. All they have to say to Israel is "Next time it will NOT be OK." and Israel will have to stop it's invasions.

The hairy-chested Americans here are calling Putin weak, but he can't afford to make any over-reaching mistakes, and all decent, responsible human beings are glad of that. Do you want to have WW3 just to show how much "balls" you've got?"

Palloy | Sep 18, 2018 10:09:01 AM | 54

"STRONG IS NOT WHO FIGHTS WARS, STRONG IS WHO AVOIDS WAR."
Posted by: venice12 | Sep 18, 2018 10:09:18 AM | 55

It seems that most agree with my assessment that Russian policy is primarily at fault as I wrote @81. There's really no avoiding that fact, especially for Russians, which is likely to act like a stick stuck in the throat. The Zionists offer help with an "investigation" of the event, which is pure BS as the event's already been investigated, the facts revealed, and the responsible party and its criminal motive named. I'm sure numerous members of Syria's General Staff are privately--perhaps--saying "we told you so" regarding Russia's non-engagement policy. Maybe even Assad too.

Need to see Russian language media and Duma member reactions as Putin will need to address them. I wonder if the Kremlin Security Council discussed how they'd respond to such an event as another shootdown was very likely to occur.

On the question: Would having the S-300 system made any difference? Only if it had previously been used successfully to down Zionist aircraft and thus become seen as a credible deterrent to such attacks. But I doubt in this situation if its targeting system would have been able to differentiate between the larger and smaller targets.

Daniel , Sep 18, 2018 1:31:23 PM | link
This is perplexing. While Putin evidently whitewashes the Israeli act of war, he also dictates a firm message to Israel via MOD Shoigu. Russia used to be more consistent and firm when it was part of the the socialist USSR. Today everything is about capitalist profit and "win-win."

However, the U.S. population believes it is entitled to the world's resources by divine right, like Israel, and has indeed viewed itself as the New Israel. Nevertheless, much of the blame also goes to Iran for exaggerating its influence in Syria and Iraq and thus playing into Israeli propaganda.

Iran has also refused to defend its own assets in Syria and has deferred to Russia and/or Syria for protection.

Hezbollah likes to boast about its victories but is ineffectual (or more probably unwilling to retaliate) against Israeli use of Lebanese airspace to attack Syria.

Russia is infested with the Zionist lobby and a fifth column of Christian Zionists who work with George Soros on the left to pass superstitious anti-gay laws and then attack Russia for foreign-financed "human rights violations," leading to CIA-backed extremism on the left (Pussy Riot) and right (anti-immigrant white supremacy).

The FSB seems content to facilitate the destruction of its own country; one cannot blame institutional treason and/or spinelessness on one man (Putin). The bottom line is that "World War III or bust" has always been the NATO/Israel endgame and is a natural outgrowth of deep-seated, centuries-long tendencies in Western civilisation. Citizens of the West are guilty for passively voicing useless resistance against a ruthless oligarchy that only respects force.

If Westerners and their victims are unwilling to take up arms against the oligarchy (not that I would advocate that), then they shouldn't complain about the ceaseless wars and corruptions. They should just accept their status as slaves unto death without the faux protesting.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 1:40:17 PM | link

Defence minister Sergei Shoigu's statement on the shootdown at Russian military website here. https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12196031@egNews

Putin's public comment on the shootdown, which was in answer to a journalists quest is at the President of Russian Federation website here.
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12196031@egNews

Thread seems to be full of troll and couch potatoes spewing crap. Putin makes it quite clear the statement by the Russian military that Israel is responsible is Russia's official position.

Guerrero , Sep 18, 2018 1:46:51 PM | link
In any complex chess position, one does well to maintain the possibility of the other side to make a blunder.
Daniel , Sep 18, 2018 1:50:37 PM | link
@ 107

There also seems to be a concerted propaganda effort by the MSM to claim that Russia supports Israel's attacks on alleged Iranian infrastructure in Syria, including Lebanese Hezbollah. The New York Times is asserting that Russian restraint has facilitated hundreds of Israeli airstrikes on Syria over the past year, and goes on to aver that Israel and Russia closely coordinate activities to limit Iranian influence in Syria.

The MSM clearly hope to drive a wedge between Russia and its regional partners, even though equal or greater blame should go to Iran for its own hesitancy to confront Israel. Hezbollah could have easily used its ever-growing post-2006 expertise to target Israeli electronic and air assets over Lebanon but has not done so, though Israel always utilises Lebanese (or Jordanian) airspace to attack Syria. Everyone likes to blame Putin but lets Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Russian military/diplomatic establishment off the proverbial hook.

Besides, Hezbollah has not done itself any favours by promoting anti-Semitic "Jews-control-the-world" canards on its al-Manar TV channel, which only discredits the otherwise worthy cause of anti-Zionism and only plays into hard-right Zionist hands.

Bashar al-Assad, for his part, made numerous flawed efforts to appease Israel and the West in the years prior to the 2011 intervention.

He privatised certain sectors of the economy; allowed Syria's arch-enemy, the pro-Zionist Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas), to set up offices; and in general tried to compensate for his inferiority and lack of experience.

When his father Hafez died in 2000, even the MSM paid grudging respect, something they have not done to Bashar. Bashar, like Gaddafi, Khrushchev, and other revisionists, was always trying to abandon the pan-Arab, anti-Zionist, socialist agenda of his father and seek "peaceful coexistence" with the West.

Yet everyone blames Putin. Sigh...

james , Sep 18, 2018 1:52:02 PM | link
@P36 jackrabbit... i have a few problems with the quote from you below.. first off, it suggests that the path syria-russia-iran has taken to regain syria could have been done differently and more effectively.. that is a 64,000 question that ignores a number of events that could or might have happened along the way to change everything at the place syria is now.. so, i disagree with you on this and think banding all the 'moderate headchoppers' and families in idlib was a smart move and one that is still being worked out.. pat lang was wrong on this from day one and doen't look at more right at this point as i see it..

"Pat Lang said that R+6 should have moved to take Idlib after Aleppo. He has now been proven right."

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 2:18:10 PM | link
Segy Shoigu - "The head of the Russian defense Ministry reported that it had informed the defense Minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman that Russia will not leave unanswered actions of the Israeli air force in Syria, which killed Russian soldiers."

Putin - "Our attitude towards this tragedy is set forth in a statement by our Defence Ministry, and has been fully coordinated with me."

partizan 112 it you that is fake, not the news.

Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 2:20:26 PM | link
james @111

You are probably right. Hindsight is 50-50 and this hasn't fully played out. My point larger point is just that if Putin had been more distrustful of Erdogan, then maybe he would've done things differently. If Erdogan doesn't keep his part of the bargain that has just been struck and never relinquishes Idlib, then Putin will have lost his Turkish gamble. It's already looking pretty dicey.

Some counter this view by saying that Putin is "playing the long game". I disagree. The Empire has awoken and is defending its hegemonic vision. This is a 'race' (at times a game of chicken) that neither side can afford to lose.

Anya , Sep 18, 2018 2:21:57 PM | link
The downing of the Russian plane was premeditated. Most likely, the holo-biz 'survivors' used electronic rerouting, which the Russians should have done long time ago against the nest of the bloody Bolshevik progeny and supremacists madmen like Miliekovski (Bibi) and the former night-club bouncer Avi Lieberman.

The Jewish Fifth Column in Russia should feel the heat. Their Israeli relatives and best friends are guilty of the premeditated murder of Russians.

The Jewish Power in action: https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/nato-warships-amassed-by-syria-just-before-attack-on-lattakia/

"Combat vessels from the Second Standing NATO Maritime Group (NATO Maritime Group 2) moved closer to Syria's borders on the 16th of September, according to monitoring data from Western naval forces. In retrospect, we can see this sudden buildup as related to the French/US/Israeli strike on Lattakia and the downing of the Russian il-20 aircraft carrying 14 Russian soldiers

In particular, the eastern Mediterranean is now being patrolled by the Canadian Navy frigate HMCS Ville de Quebeс, by the Greek navy ship Elli and by the Dutch Navy frigate HNLMS De Ruyter, the latter being the group's flagship.

In addition to the aforementioned vessels, three American destroyers (USS Carney, USS Ross and USS Winston S. Churchill) are already in the region, as well as the USS 6th Fleet Admiral USS Mount Whitney.

The waters are also being patrolled by at least three Los Angeles-class US nuclear submarines. According to Western observers, the armament of the current US naval group in the Mediterranean includes more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles."

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-anne-frank-test/

dh-mtl , Sep 18, 2018 2:22:53 PM | link
The agreement on Idlib reminds me of the Minsk agreements, of 2015. When the Minsk agreement was signed, many people called Putin a traitor and a weakling for abandoning the Lugansk and Donetsk republics. However looking back over the last 3 1/2 years we can see the true sense of the Minsk agreement.

1. Legitimization of the republics.
2. Commitment of Ukraine to federalization, which Ukraine had no intention of carrying out.
3. Tying the hands of the West because of 'The Minsk Agreement'.

Since then the conflict has been frozen. And every day Ukraine gets weaker and its Western owners throw away more money and credibility on a lost cause.

The Idlib agreement looks similar. What are likely results of this agreement?

1. Consolidating the exclusion of the U.S. from western Syria.
2. Positioning Turkey as the actor with responsibility to fight the U.S. coalition's Jihadis in Idlib. When combined with the situation with the Kurds, it consolidate's Turkey's position as a Russian ally and American foe.
3. Opening up transportation routes linking Damascus with Aleppo.
4. Freezing the conflict while a diplomatic solution is achieved, without the participation of the U.S. coalition.

It looks like a good deal for Syria and Russia. No wonder Israel was so furious.

Regarding Putin's reaction to the Il-20 downing, it looks like vintage Putin to me. He will not make a show of it, but will address the issue firmly, with action, not words, but on the terms and timing of his choice.

All of the commentators on this blog who denigrate Putin do not properly appreciate recent history.

Beibdnn. , Sep 18, 2018 2:25:13 PM | link
@T and all the experts. Russia is in a very difficult position. It has absolutely treacherous enemies quite apart from supposed allies on all sides. The U.S.A. is even trying to destroy Orthodox Christianity to further isolate Russia. I have no doubt that there has been some very intense diplomacy behind the scenes. Remember, vengeance is a dish served cold, the western attitude for immediate gratification, e.g.

Russia taking immediate and probably recklessly stupid retaliatory action won't serve either their or Syria's agendas, doesn't mean that action won't be taken. Putin is only human, we all make mistakes, if the situations were reversed, the U.S.A. Wouldn't even make it to 3rd world level.............

partizan , Sep 18, 2018 2:35:46 PM | link
"SARH (semi-active radar homing seeker) missiles require tracking radar to acquire the target, and a more narrowly focused illuminator radar to "light up" the target in order for the missile to lock on to the radar return reflected off target. The target must remain illuminated for the entire duration of the missile's flight ."

So what are the chances that s-200 "...missile was aimed at the F-16 its seeker likely mistook the larger radar reflection of IL-20 for the intended target." as is stated in an article?Of course a possibilities are endless, in theoretical domain. But it would require sloppy operators (unlikely that would be a Syrians in this case) to mistook the airplane loaded with all kind of electronics for an interceptor.

kral , Sep 18, 2018 2:47:37 PM | link
How can the Russians provide AD to Syria without incorporating automatic friend-or-foe recognition that allows only hostile aircraft to be targeted?

Was the relevant transponder in the IL-25 not working for some reason? Was it a software glitch? Was the Syrian equipment so old that it could not provide this safety measure without further modification? Or did the Syrians turn off this feature deliberately because they did not understand how to use it?

The answers will probably never be publicly known but the Israelis have shot themselves in the foot here by violating their de-confliction agreement with Russia.

laguerre , Sep 18, 2018 2:49:19 PM | link
yet more Israeli trolls, eg 131
Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 2:57:45 PM | link
karlof1 earlier in the thread linked to some pieces on the shootdown by Korybko
https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/09/18/initial-reaction-to-the-russian-israeli-crisis/
https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/09/18/russian-israeli-tensions-are-in-the-interests-of-the-us-and-iran/
https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/09/18/the-russian-israeli-crisis-climb-down-in-progress/

His take on the blogosphere is spot on but also his theory that and american Israeli faction in Israel engineered the situation to move deliberately put Israel on bad terms with Russia might have something.

Israel has never joined the US sanctions against Russia and Netanyahu told Trump to stand down in southwest Syria after Russia had worked its diplomacy.
I believe there is also a large voting block of ethnic Russians in Israel that may be a little pissed off about the shootdown.

partizan , Sep 18, 2018 2:58:43 PM | link
kral | Sep 18, 2018 2:47:37 PM | 134

i doubt that the Syrians handle this given the type of aircraft involved. IL-25 is allegedly shot down just off the Syrian coast where Russian have state of the art radars. In addition bunch of naval ships similarly equipped.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 3:09:42 PM | link
forgot to check for typos before posting my last comment.

kral 134 From what I read some time ago the S-200 warhead has a kill range of 150 meters and is armed with a proximity fuse. If that is right, the missile would only need to pass with 150 meters of the Russian plane while tracking the Israeli planes or missiles to take it out.

m , Sep 18, 2018 3:11:52 PM | link
There is more to this than meets the eye. Putin not only has to look after his troops, but he has to play politics, too, and in Russia there is a very strong 5th column of liberals and Jewish commentators who are now falling all over themselves trying to explain away Israeli actions to the Russian public. From The Saker:

"I am watching the Russian media and I have to report that Zionist propagandists (Russian liberals and Jewish commentators) look absolutely *terrible*: they are desperately trying to blame everybody (the Syrians, Hezbollah, and even the Russians) except for Israel. This will not sit well with the Russian public."

Without the public firmly behind him, taking actions that could quickly escalate will not go down well in Russia. Let people laugh and talk trash. I remember the shootdown of the Russian jet by Turkey, and everyone was screaming for Turkish blood. The Sultan eventually came back with hat in hand. It's a very tricky situation for Putin regarding Israel. This will take time to play out. The Russians will probably have the last laugh. https://thesaker.is/russia-blames-israel-for-the-shooting-down-of-her-ew-aircraft/

WJ , Sep 18, 2018 3:12:37 PM | link
@100,

Indeed. The brilliance of the Israeli strategy of provocation is that it will make the domestic political scene in Russia increasingly difficult for Putin to navigate in Syria. The more often Russian troops are killed or injured, the more quickly one half of the Russian populace demands action or withdrawal; the more they demand it, the harder it will be for Putin to maintain their support. For Israel and others are betting that he will never actually retaliate. They are creating a situation which is designed to make Russia's presence in Syria an impossible political situation for Putin himself.

Zico , Sep 18, 2018 3:24:20 PM | link
Another interesting point to note. Russia, Iran and Turkey recently had a meeting on the situation in Syria. The agreed to get rid of the rats in Idlib. Suddenly Putin turns around and makes a deal with ONLY Turkiye.

It's becoming clear that Turkey , Russia and (behind the scenes) Israel, are on the same side when it comes to Iran's presence in Syria. Syrians themselves don't have a say in their own country anymore.

The Syrian army now needs permission from a foriegn power to liberate their own land. Turning the other cheek only invites more slaps.

At this rate, Syria may well forget about Idlib. Turkey won't leave. The US won't leave either. Welcome to bulkinazation 101.

Red Ryder , Sep 18, 2018 3:38:42 PM | link
@138, Grieved,

With wisdom again . . .

I concur.

Israel broke the bond of trust. They will see in many ways and means that they bought the S-300 for Syria and eventually, a NO FLY over Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq and Turkey. The S-400s will be linked and all anyone in a military aircraft has to do is call and ask for permission from Moscow/MOD/VVP. It's coming. Russia is in Syria to stay for 50+ years. And thus, it and its neighbors will be under the Russian missile defenses, integrated as a whole network.

In this Levant neighborhood, all the leaders want peace. Only Israel wants war.

The ME is wider and includes the psychos and sociopaths of Israel and Saudi Arabia and UAE. They want proxy war and US Centcom wars. But Russia has taken Turkey away and soon Iraq will be removed from US hegemony, also.

The Chinese are finishing an exercise as "ally" of Russia in Vostok 2018. They are seeing and feeling how Russia fights wars. This may give them the confidence to militarily join anchoring the ME for OBOR Silk Road development. They have much at stake in securing a peace. And just may join with a stout presence of the PLA. They should and now they might finally come.

The Chinese will be operating the port at Haifa, so it means they hold stakes in Syria and Iraq as well as Israel. In their own commercial interests and in President Xi's dream of BRI they have to invest a military presence. The time is perfect.

They intend to invest billions in reconstructing Syria. They should build their own military infrastructure base in Syria.

Their work with Russia in Vostok 2018 will make their presence inside Syria feel very comfortable.

michaelj72 , Sep 18, 2018 3:40:03 PM | link
well you go and let israel attack 'iranian' targets inside Syria some 200 times in two years or so, and ya don't expect any of your forces to ever get caught in the cross-fire?.....Well, russia, ya finally got caught.

more info here
http://news.trust.org/item/20180918140009-ol11r

"....But the ministry said it held Israel responsible because, at the time of the incident, Israeli jets were attacking Syrian targets and had only given Moscow one minute's warning, putting the Russian aircraft in danger of being caught in cross-fire..."

Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 3:58:50 PM | link
"Putin showed weakness" is silly. He can't talk about secret accommodation for Israel - but he can end it .

<> <> <> <> <> <>

The 'accomodation' stemmed from Putin's view that Russia had no interest in getting involved in the Israel-Iran conflict. A wise choice because drawing Russia into that fray could lead to WWIII. Who is directly responsible for the downing of the plane is irrelevant. Israel clearly fucked with Russia by not giving them adequate warning.

Pft , Sep 18, 2018 4:32:20 PM | link
Israel controls Russia as much as it does the USA. Putin is a philo-semite. The Chief Rabbi of Russia is known as Putins Rabbi , he is from Brooklyn, a rabbi of the same orthodox sect as Kushner, Felix Sater and a couple of Putins biggest oligarch suporters . Many of Russias top oligarchs also have Israeli passports. Putins already met Bibi 3 times this year and trade and tourism between the 2 countries is booming with more than 60 flights from Israel to Moscow daily. A Russian academic is being tried for holocaust denial for daring to question some of the numbers. The media in Russia is just as pro-Israel as in US. The powerful Israeli lobby is global.


Bottom line, IMO there will be no revenge taken other than a token response to appease Russias military. Putting aside his pro Israeli stance, Putin knows an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on the Israeli controlled US . Not going to risk that for Syria, not for 14 soldiers. Thats just being smart. Weak, but smart.

Oui , Sep 18, 2018 5:01:05 PM | link
So it appears to be true Bibi Netanahau send a Yom Kippur warning to Israel's foes in Syria with "accomplices" Russia, Turkey and Iran.
At the same time, Israel is constantly working to prevent our enemies from arming themselves with advanced weaponry. Our red lines are as sharp as ever and our determination to enforce them is stronger than ever.

This week we will mark, in synagogues and cemeteries, Yom Kippur, the holiest day of our people, and the day on which, 45 years ago, we absorbed a bloody attack that cost us thousands of victims.

somebody , Sep 18, 2018 5:02:48 PM | link
Posted by: Russ | Sep 18, 2018 12:12:18 PM | 84

" thought Syria's goal was to redeem its territory." From whom? Syrians? With 5 million refugees outside of Syria? From a nation of 22 million. With 3 million refugees in Turkey alone.

Zachary F Goldberg , Sep 18, 2018 5:06:53 PM | link
If Israel did not attack Syria without any legal pretext, none of this would have happened. Why do the USA and its NATO allies stand by and watch as Israel commits so many acts of naked aggression?

Because USA and NATO are wholly owned subsidiaries of Israel. Besides, the USA does not sit idly by - it actively supports Israel.

juliania , Sep 18, 2018 5:09:44 PM | link
Thanks to karlof1 for the 3 links, to PeterAU1 for the two links to Russian response to the mishap, also to Grieved for reminding us how seriously Russia will be assessing a response, and b, of course, for bringing the matter before us in his always competent posting.

Here is a translation of part of what Putin had to say:

"...First of all, I would like to express condolences to the families of the dead.

As for your comparison with the downing of our plane by a Turkish fighter, this was a different situation. The Turkish fighter deliberately shot down our aircraft.

In this case, it is more a chain of tragic circumstances because an Israeli fighter did not down our aircraft. It goes without saying that we must get to the bottom of this. Our attitude towards this tragedy is set forth in a statement by our Defence Ministry, and has been fully coordinated with me.

As for reciprocal action, this will be primarily aimed at ensuring additional security for our military and our facilities in the Syrian Arab Republic. These steps will be seen by everyone..."

Because of the phrasing Putin has carefully used, I would place considerable emphasis on the fact that only one minute warning was given by the Israelis of this dangerous situation occurring in the region of a busy Syrian airport such as Latakia has to be. Israel certainly knows that Russian planes are using that airfield. Why only a one minute warning? would be my question. And from the answer to that would flow measures taken to avoid the occurrence which would detract considerably from Israel's freedom to operate in that manner in that region in future. Whether that will be Russia's only response is at the moment a matter of speculation. We shall have to wait and see.

Lets have some patience, and in the interim it wouldn't hurt to pray for peace. And also for the families of those airmen.

Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 5:10:57 PM | link
somebody

From whom? Have you missed that Idlib is occupied from the Syrian state?

U.N. Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said there was a high concentration of foreign fighters in Idlib, including an estimated 10,000 fighters designated by the U.N. as terrorists, who he said belonged to the al-Nusra Front and al Qaeda.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-un/un-fears-chemical-weapons-in-syria-battle-with-10000-terrorists-idUSKCN1LF157
Lochearn , Sep 18, 2018 5:13:05 PM | link
@ 138 Grieved

I have no idea where that comment came from. Thanks for letting me know and for seeing it was not the sort of thing I would write. I wrote a while ago that I had been hacked.

Yes, those of us who have been here a long time now are not suddenly going to dismiss Mr Putin for one remark. I think it's his style to understate, to row back a bit from strong language, but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences for this action. I looked at Saker's blog and he is very critical as he has been for some time now - hence the link with Paul Craig Roberts. Fort Russ, which is run by Joaquin Flores took issue with Saker. I find Joaquin an interesting intellect. I thought his analysis of Turkeys plans for Idlib quite brave in the sense of forecasting (please Google fort russ this is how Syria will seize Idlib).

I think Israel was furious its hopes for a confrontation of the Syrian alliance with Turkey in Idlib had been dashed by an agreement the contents of which we are still not quite sure.

catnip , Sep 18, 2018 5:18:21 PM | link
The Agreement to protect and save the terrorist from destruction between Erdogan and Putin, Putin's in-action after the attack yesterday in Syria suggest the problems in Syria do not add up to a war between nation states. Clearly Putin is not defending humanity or justice, instead it seems he is engaged in a conflict between Oligarchs, especially the Oligarchs entrenched in London. USA, RUSSIA, France, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. If so, the outcome will determine which group of Oligarch owned corporations will own the output of the masses and which will plunder the resources in Syria.

If Assad wins, the masses will be able to retain their right to self determination, at least in Syria. If the rest of the world looses in Syria, everyone worldwide will be slave to the Oligarchs, no government will ever be allowed to be for the people, every government will instead be a tool of the Oligarchs, if the Oligarchs loose in Syria, they will likely nuke the world. Clearly, humanity has a problem. .

If the leadership of our nations are oligarch puppets, then why a war at all? This question suggest Putin-Erdogan agreement, Putin's failure to act and Putin's failure to allow Syria to have S-400s to defend itself, imply that Assad and even Syria are not really in the game, Syria is just the Stadium and Assad one of the players on the field, a player that can be fired at any time.. . Seems Assad stands alone against the Oligarchs as did Qaddafi and before him Saddam, and before him... on and on and on..

pogohere , Sep 18, 2018 5:28:07 PM | link
oldenyoung @3

J. Flores @ FortRuss agrees with you in an article to be posted after the site he edits recovers from an attack:

Written within the context of the disinfo wars the author analyses more fully in the yet to be posted article:

Excerpted:

"Secondly, readers will take note of the inclusion of the French denial. This French denial is bizarre and entirely out of place, since no one accused France.

. . .

The French 'early denial' when no accusation was made, means that the West had planned for France to be blamed, the French authorities were prepared to carry out their script and deny the accusations that the Russians were 'obviously' going to make.

Then something happened, and Russia didn't make that accusation. But there were the French authorities, going forward with the script, and in an incoherent way which really exposes what they were up to, and tells us all quite clearly what was planned, and yet all the while Russia doesn't at all blame France. Ridiculous, brilliant, absurd.

. . .

The aim of the Atlanticists is to have France do it, have France be blamed, and to cause a massive public relations problem, that Putin would have to respond to, by naming, blaming, the French, and seeking to hold them accountable. How will the French and Russian publics, respectively, take this? Not well, and it doesn't work well for the Eurasia project either. Macron will eventually be out, and it's politically near-impossible to hold the leader of a country, although temporary, responsible without blaming a whole people for something. Once you throw in the work of French media spin-doctors, they will absolutely succeed in twisting it not as a Macron problem but a problem that Russia has with blaming France and all the French by extension.

. . .

The IFF system, and the situation in Syria, is not at all like the situation in the Georgian war ten years ago, when at the time there were some official Russian reports of there being difficulties separating Georgian from Russian aircraft. This is because MiGs are identical to MiGs. IFF systems at the time are not the same as today, with integrated transponders which make auto-locking impossible from the start. The Syrian Army at Lattakia does not, in reality, operate as a separate army. There, they have what is known as an integrated command, at least insofar as these issues are concerned. So the SAA couldn't have attacked or locked onto a Russian plane, because the transponder data in real time that is part of newer IFF systems actually would mean there would have to be an intentional manual override over the computerated 'no-lock possible' response the S-200's computer system would have automatically generated for a Russian plane of any kind.

The S-200 has an extremely high accuracy, not more than a bit different from the S-400 for a single target, and specifically a target of this size and speed, it would have had to 'miss' the Israeli plane in question, which only has a 10-15% chance of doing, but then proceed to then actually hit the Russian plane. But not only hit the Russian plane, but critically so. This is all we can ascertain once we realize that auto-locking without manual override onto the Russian plane with the IFF transponder in direct connection with the SAA (Russian joint command) at Lattakia, is practically impossible unless we say there was an American asset working at the controls of the SAA's Lattakia computer.

. . .

The Putin-Erdogan deal reached yesterday indeed offers the strong probability for Syria to win without engaging in a needless conflict, and the promises of FUKUS attacks to be realized. Still, though they were anyhow, for no discernible reason given. Israel and France simply attacked in response to Turkey's cunning move. So time is on Russia's side.

That the aim of yesterday's surprise attack is punishment for the Turkish 'about face', which FRN stated as a very likely possible outcome, (for the record), is evident in that stories from RT and Sputnik reporting on the event had official statements, and not randomly so, saying that these attacks will not deter or reverse the Turkish-Russian agreement on the final resolution of Idlib.

What's needed now for the Atlanticists of FUKUS is to damage these relations as much as possible, Turkey vs. Russia, and Russia vs. France, and to cause Russia to blame France instead of blaming Israel.

This was a calculation, that Russia would not blame Israel due to the successful media hologram that Russia created that Israel has an inviolable special relationship (they do not, to this extent), and that instead that Russia will blame France. They did not expect Russia to accept the Western MSM Atlanticist narrative that the SAA had shot down the Russian plane either.

Between blaming France or Israel, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or France, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or Israel, the US expected Israel to be blamed.

They did not expect this hybrid of 'somewhat' blaming Israel for doing 'tricky stuff' in the air, the motives being hard to prove or qualify.

If Russia was to avoid an MH-17 situation in reverse, they had to think with agility. Russia has the physical evidence, the flight data, and the missile launch data. If they were going to blame France, which was mostly expected, it would have been a UNSC charade, a General Assembly charade, and a media charade with 'Putin blaming France' and Russia being accused of having possession of the evidence from which their case is made, and therefore the evidence being dodgy or even manufactured entirely.

The crash remains of the IL-20 are going to absolutely show that it was hit with a missile, any fragments etc. required to establish that, will show that's an Aster missile, or similar, like the missiles used in the S-200's. But they aren't going to show that the impact is consistent with a small missile carried by Israeli planes, or by gun strafing from an attack plane.

This is why Russia could not blame Israel,

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 6:18:19 PM | link
Looking at the flightpaths of the Israeli aircraft and missiles, it seems likely the Russian plane would not have been in the target radar when the S-200 missiles were launched. The targets have the flown across behind the Russian aircraft causing it to be illuminated by the targeting radar after the missiles were launched. According to wikipedia the S-200 travel at 2.5km per second. At 35km offshore that is a minimum of 14 seconds from launch, most likely longer depending how far the S200 batteries are from the coast. Plenty of time to pull the targeting radar across so it also illuminates the Russian plane after missile launch.
karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 6:27:04 PM | link
Aha! Finally found a partial copy of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at in Sochi , which only shows the first 6 points thus its partialness. As noted in previous comment, the terrorists have already rejected abiding by it, so points 5&6 will not be undertaken, meaning the SAA's free to begin Idlib Dawn. Any barflies think Turks will convince terrorists to alter their stance?
Harry , Sep 18, 2018 6:32:54 PM | link
@ Jose Garcia | 85
Some here express that Putin should do this or why he didn't do that. It's easy to express those opinions from the comforts of home. Never having bullets fly over their heads, or having to pick up the remains of their comrades, blown to bits right in front of them. And to confront the families of those killed and explain to them why they will never return.

Lets ignore for a second keyboard warriors. However always turning second cheek doesn't work in geopolitics and wars. If not overtly, then covertly Russia should have said to Israel: Niet! And either MADE SURE that Israel never attacks Syria again (and put Russian soldiers in harms way), OR provide the means to Syria to defend itself.

Russia hasn't done either. End result? There will be MORE dead Russian soldiers in the future. Why Israel thinks it can bomb Syria 200x in last few years and get away with it? Because Russia doesnt allow Syria to defend themselves. Why Israel doesnt bomb Lebanon since 2006? Because they KNOW they would be in the World of hurt if they do. Russia should have done the same in Syria, but they overplayed "but Israel are our best buds!" hand and got screwed in the process. If Russia doesnt stop Israel even now, guess what happens next? Exactly, more dead Russians (and Syrians, Iranians, etc).

karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 6:43:19 PM | link
Harry @177--

Yes, we agree; it's Russian policy that must change.

OT--Korean Summit--

Southfront provides this report about what's happening North of the DMZ, and provides a glimpse at what the US-driven propaganda line is as published within RoK. FYI, Moon and wife just completed a tour of RoK children's hospitals prior to heading North. Please note that Moon and Kim are on the same page when it comes to dealing with Outlaw US Empire.

Enrico Malatesta , Sep 18, 2018 6:52:38 PM | link
One possibility of revenge is to kill FUKUS/Israeli spooks in Idlib, I'm sure that Russia knows where they are & that there can't be a big MSM splash when a few Kalibr's are fired into Idlib.
John Gilberts , Sep 18, 2018 6:55:01 PM | link
"Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns..."

Like AG17 /#32 I am particularly interested in further information or confirmation of French, British RAF or other NATO involvement in this ambush. If anyone spots anything further to the above quote from Haaretz used in b's piece, please post.

karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 6:56:07 PM | link
Finian Cunningham pushes all the right buttons , but the tree he's trying to bark up instead is an unclimbable greased pole. So, despite his finely worded argument, nothing of substance will change--the UN will remain mute over Outlaw US Empire illegalities and serial Zionist aggression. But, I'll admit his words needed to be published, despite his being a lone voice in the wilderness known as Truth.
lysander , Sep 18, 2018 7:00:01 PM | link
The reaction guided by the initial emotional state is almost always the incorrect one. This case is no different.

Every regular reader of this blog would love the emotioanlly satisfaction of watching an immediate display of Russian firepower. But Elijah Magnier is correct in his most recent essay. Russia, Syria and Iran must keep their eyes on the prize, which is a reunified Syria. Notice how despite numerous provocations over the last e years, Syria is closer to that goal than ever. Russia should never be goaded into a war against the entire NATO alliance, which is exactly what could happen here.

That does not mean Russia must sit back and take it. It means its responses must be carefully thought out and deliberate. Not an emotional knee jerk.

karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 7:49:02 PM | link
According to Magnier's latest , sources within Russia's Syrian command don't agree with Russian policy:

"'Russia has paid a heavy price for its unwillingness to exploit its superpower position in Syria, and for its failure to prevent any external force (US, EU or Israel) from bombing its allies in a theatre under its own control and dominance. In order to protect a perimeter where its forces were deployed, the US attacked and killed hundreds of Syrians in the al Tharda mountains under Obama, and hundreds more in Deir-Ezzour and al-Badiya. By contrast Israeli missiles flew over the Hmaymeen Russian-Syrian airport and the US Tomahawks which hit the Shuay'rat airport travelled over the heads of Russian forces', said the source which is part of the Russian command in Syria." [My emphasis]

Magnier thinks Russia will be able to wring a concession from the Zionists, but like the Outlaw US Empire, I don't see Zionists as "agreement capable" anymore than their Neocon cousins. There's more in his essay, but I'll allow others to discover those items.

The Idlib agreement and following Zionist crime seems to close another chapter in the ongoing Syrian Saga so a new one can begin tomorrow. One thing I believe to be certain: Never will the Zionist Abomination and Syria have normal relations; one or the other will eventually vanish from the pages of time. It remains extremely ironic that they worship the same God.

james , Sep 18, 2018 7:52:36 PM | link
@188 karlof1... israel has already displayed a complete disregard for the agreement it had with Russia, in giving russia notice.. 1 minute notice, when you are using the Russian surveillance plane as a decoy to boot, doesn't suffice.. i do believe Russia has to address this by giving Israel something in return, and more then a warning..

actually there are a number of good posts from many thoughtful posters today.. grom in particular asks good questions and expresses my thoughts as well.. i don't have answers to those questions..

james , Sep 18, 2018 8:06:02 PM | link
@190 karlof1.. i think it was a given the jihadis were going to veto the russia-turkey agreement.. it doesn't change the pressure on turkey and the jihadis to go to step 2 here with the oct 15th, or 10th deadline.. actually the jihadis were always far game as i understand it, just that turkey is trying to get them to convert to good moderate jihadi opposition to assad, lol..
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jihadist-groups-allegedly-reject-idlib-agreement/

smoothie has a good article up on the topic of last nights israel raid... the comments are also informative..
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/09/russia-loses-recce-il-20-in-syria.html

dltravers , Sep 18, 2018 8:26:50 PM | link
Russia looks weak because they are in a weak position. It appears the Anglo American Zionists want to demolish Syria completely. They have been goading Russia into firing back and and starting the war with NATO. The Russians have not because they know it will be all out demolition time.

The Russians can hit back but NATO, Israel, and Turkey have the overwhelming force and all want a piece of Syria in partition. Israel and Turkey are talking about restoring diplomatic relations over the last few days. The Kurd's in a joint alliance with Israel and NATO may get a piece of the action as well. Israel wants the old kingdom back and will never settle for Iran on its borders in force. NATO wants to kill of all of Russia's ally's and Turkey wants to be the old Ottoman Turks again. What a toxic mess.

Unless the Chinese come in with a very large contingent the Russians do not have much of a chance in the long run. Lets hope this is not the flashpoint to WW III.

They have backed a bear into a corner with her cubs and are poking it with a stick. This will not end well.

Chas , Sep 18, 2018 8:31:17 PM | link
If Russia wanted to make an asymmetrical attack on Israel how about doing something for the Palestinians?
Ike , Sep 18, 2018 8:50:58 PM | link
Anyone know what the French frigate was firing at?
Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 8:54:44 PM | link
Ike

I don't think anyone knows right now but some think that the French may have fired defensively because missiles were coming in their direction.

psychohistorian , Sep 18, 2018 9:06:35 PM | link
From Jose Garcia comment above: "War is for warmongers who never experience the hell they so desire."

Serious followers of MoA understand that we are at a watershed time and reactive measures are never effective when downing a delusional foe in the throes of death.

Putin knows that this is a proxy fight over ongoing global power and control which empire is losing, not by being beat, but by being seen clearly as a social cancer that is metastasizing.

Yes, we all should offer condolences for the Russians that have died in this incident. I expect that if truth be known that more military than those number of Russians have died in the past 24 hours. Should any of those deaths be a reason to start a nuclear war?

I have said this before and some seem to not understand. The social organization of the West is an aggressive one that thrives on conflict. They cannot continue to exist without war and that is what Putin is denying them.

The West needs to die of its own internal contradictions and it seems to be doing so quite nicely as Russia and China let it flail as harmlessly as possible on the way down.......no nukes......yes, more unfortunate deaths as the beast is hemmed in further and further.

Stumpy , Sep 18, 2018 9:07:06 PM | link
Just to reinforce the notion that a retaliatory display of force by Russia might bring about the R2P response the FUKUS is angling for. If the Israeli F-16s really pulled off the feint that caused an onside goal by the SAA, well, quite the maneuver, be it luck or sheer gall.

For all the Putin bashing going on, he appears to be the one riding the tiger. Taking on the entirety of the NATO-zionist alliance without support from China at the very least would undoubtedly be apocalyptic. Let the rooks and bishops set the trap.

james , Sep 18, 2018 10:06:50 PM | link
@205 oldenyoung.. check smoothies article, and in particular the comments also in the comment section..

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/09/russia-loses-recce-il-20-in-syria.html

Grieved , Sep 18, 2018 10:07:42 PM | link
Concerning Russia's next moves. It seems to me that between Putin and Shoigu, Russia immediately moved to present zero reason to react, and a total range of options to react, both at the same time. Russia has drawn a full hand of cards for whatever it chooses to do. Everyone can now wait, and nothing they do can change whatever Russia does. And everyone knows this.

I do admire what one commenter here said, that Putin does Diplomacy while Shoigu does Trouble.

As b reported, Putin has said the MOD's statement reflects the position of Russia and that it is fully coordinated with him. Putin himself has absolved Israel of an act of war, and removed any tension for that kind of response. Therefore the relationship between Israel and Russia can continue, and it will thus be up to Israel to maintain the smile as Russia upgrades its control of the airspace. The immediate response, as Putin says, will be to reinforce the protection of Russians in Syria - this can only mean by air.

The cards that the MOD drew, meanwhile, call Israel's act "hostile" and point out that the Israeli pilots could not have missed seeing the Russian plane, and thus deliberately hid behind it. Although b linked to the Sputnik report of this, it may help for a visceral understanding of Russia's take to watch Konashenkov deliver his statement. A two minute clip from Vesti News:

Official Statement from MoD on Downing Russian Il-20 Aircraft

The military will move to protect its soldiers from Israel. That's the next visible move. Whatever that takes, and in whatever form is effective. Nothing else is changed. France or the US don't seem to figure in the surface statements anywhere. Israel however is in the sights, and has disqualified itself from having any standing to protest at whatever restrictions Russia places on it.

alaric , Sep 18, 2018 10:08:28 PM | link
No one is talking about the Russian claim that they detected launches from a French frigate. The Russian gov later said the Israeli F-16s used the french frigate for cover.

This is sort of a big deal. If the Israelis launched missiles from nearby the French frigate (FS Auvergne) then this was an attempt by Israel to get Russia or Syria to hit a NATO vessel which is sick but certainly within the realm of possibilities when you are dealing with Israel. If that is the case (i don't know maybe, maybe not) then Israel just failed spectacularly and Russia and France would know what Israel tried.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 10:27:55 PM | link
Smoothies last update on the shootdown is a link to a Russian news site where an ex Ru airforce type says the Syrian air defences that are integrated with the Russian air defences , don't have friend or foe recognition.

Syrian air defences have been responding to US and Israeli missile attacks for some time now. When the missiles are coming in they don't sit down and have a smoke and wait for all Russian aircraft to land. They respond instantly and there has never been a recognition problem. Russians fully upgraded Syrian air defences and don't allow them to recognize Russian aircraft... bullshit. The US and Israeli's engineered the takedown of the Russian aircraft.
Stumpy's take "riding the tiger" seems apt.

psychohistorian , Sep 18, 2018 10:46:36 PM | link
@ Grieved with the link to the Russian military response...thanks

I agree with you that despite the loss of life, this further closes the container within which Israel can act. I expect Russia/Syria to further restrict the airspace and force Israel to attempt even riskier attacks.

The moments of truth will come when/if Israel starts losing its jets to failed attacks Will they go nuclear to avoid losing face over their self inflicted demise?

I guess the good part about this situation is that change like this provides opportunity for growth where none existed before. The yet to see part is whether humanity takes the opportunity to evolve or stay mired it the evolutionary dead end it is in.

jsb , Sep 18, 2018 11:11:38 PM | link
Interview posted today from Syria by Vanessa Beeley:

https://youtu.be/UA651DWgDi8

Hoarsewhisperer , Sep 18, 2018 11:49:35 PM | link
I very much doubt that the Russian leadership will somehow seriously answer Israel. The spinelessness of Russian politics sometimes simply amaze (it's worth recalling, for example, the epic with the seizure of Russian diplomatic property by the US authorities - there was no intelligible answer from Russia, and still(!) there's no answer).
...
Posted by: alaff | Sep 18, 2018 5:37:06 PM | 173

No answer is necessary. Seizing a foreign embassy was an (unforgettable) violation of International Law and long-standing, unanimously-respected principles of Diplomacy.
It was a public display of ultra-infantile Yankee Dumbfuckery.

psychohistorian , Sep 19, 2018 12:06:52 AM | link
I hadn't seen this quote from Putin but I could have missed it with the troll volume this has brought to MoA

"MOSCOW, Sept. 18 (Xinhua) -- Operations of the Israeli air force are undertaken in violation of Syria's sovereignty, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone on Tuesday."

It goes on to say that he intends on protecting Russian forces. I read this to say that he intends on insuring that Syria has the ability to defend its sovereignty....including airspace.

Will Israel try more incursions before that capability is in place? Stupid is as stupid does applies to all humans and no ethnicity is excluded.

When does the world get to deal with the base issue of private/public finance? Any alien watching our world turn would laugh at our inability to observe, let alone self manage out of our parasitic social organization.

Pft , Sep 19, 2018 12:11:30 AM | link
Julian@206

Yes. According to the Times of Isreal there are 250,000 Jews living in Moscow. With a population over 11 million that's about 2.5%. Elsewhere the numbers are lower. About 1/3 of the Jewish population in Moscow have Israeli citizenship (83000). Of the 200 richest people in Russia, 25% are Jewish according to some reports. So their power is perhaps greater than their numbers as is seen elsewhere . This is neither good or bad of course unless the power is used to support Israel over their country of residence/citizenship

J Swift , Sep 19, 2018 12:31:02 AM | link
I do love Putin's style...almost poetic, certainly high drama. When he says this seems to have been a most unfortunate string of events leading to this tragedy--when the Israelis know good and goddamn well it wasn't, and they goddamn well know he knows it wasn't--I can hardly imagine anything more blood curdling to those treacherous bastards. What dread they must feel!

That this was a carefully crafted provocation is hard to dispute. Actually, I was fearing something serious ever since Russia made it's presentation of false flag preparations to the UNSC a week or two ago. There was plenty of ridicule, to the effect that what did Russia hope to gain, and how could it possibly prove iFUKUS was directly involved with the terrorists, and look how the warned attack wasn't materializing. Well I have a suspicion the evidence was damning indeed, and extremely thorough. Did you notice that there were none of the usual mocking leaks by the West about Russia's presentation? And lo and behold, a few days later the Hailey and the rest of the US officialdom suddenly declared that a chemical attack wasn't necessary after all for iFUKUS to spring into action and flatten Syria. ANY ATTACK ON IDLIB AT ALL would be enough to merit an attack by the West. Almost as an afterthought they started talking about their deep concern for the long-suffering civilians and lovable terrorists. And then I'll be damned if Russia and Turkey weren't able to work out an understanding on Idlib that would help protect civilians!! (Well...)

It was clear from all this that a significant provocation would have to be supplied, and pretty quickly. Now we know what it was. We don't know exactly what was SUPPOSED to happen...that French frigate firing at precisely that time and location is very interesting, and perhaps the hope was that Russian defenses would have immediately launched an ASM at the frigate, and away we go! The war would have escalated so sideways so fast only curious historians would have ever looked back at the Israeli F-16s and strange failures-to-warn and said "hmmm." No, it was a NATO+ operation of considerable planning and coordination. And while what others have commented about this placing additional domestic pressure on Putin will undoubtedly prove true, for 20+ years he has proven up to the task. So with no immediate response, it is the Israelis who are left holding the bag and now attempt to slink away with a weak non-apology, and it is they who they know will feel the heat that is to come--who knows what and from who knows where, but it will come. At the very least Russia will no doubt greatly increase their and Syria's AA defenses, and I could see it being a very extensive no-fly zone. But I'm pretty sure that won't be the only price Israel pays...and it couldn't happen to a more deserving pack of weasels.

james , Sep 19, 2018 1:03:32 AM | link
i apologize if it has already been posted, but it is worth the read ..elijah j. magnier.. Russia, USA, Israel, Iran and Syria: a continuous struggle to trigger or avoid war
Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 1:08:12 AM | link
@james, bullshit to the piece smoothie has linked to which he has taken the information from. Russia are operating aircraft constantly in Syria. Syrian air defence must have and does have the capability to react instantly to an attack. Russia have fully upgraded the systems and integrated them with their own.
Under these circumstances, do find you it conceivable that the Russian upgrade would not allow the Syrian radars to determine friend (Russian, Syrian aircraft) or foe. From my understanding it is the radar or control system that determines friend or foe, not the missile.
KarlAnderson , Sep 19, 2018 1:16:05 AM | link
Governments don't care about people, period. Russia is no different. Putin has to think long term. A handful of soldiers and a plane or two is not a big loss. Turkey is a big price to have on team Russia. Think about gas pipelines to EU, black sea and Ukraine, not just Syria. It's a balancing act with many goals and they of course diverge from what Damascus wants. But like one commenter said, Putin is inching closer and closer to all the goals while FUKUS and Israel throws tantrums and monkey wrenches in desperation.
Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 1:22:26 AM | link
How wide is the beam of the targeting radar.
Senario - going by the Russian mod map the Israeli planes come in behind and to one side of the Russian plane and launches missiles. Syrian targeting radar locks onto the missiles and launch SAMs. The Israeli missiles heading towards the coast further north cross behind the Russian aircraft which is also briefly illuminated by the targeting radar. If by that time the Syrian SMS are in close proximity, a second or so of illumination as the radar is tracking the missiles is all it would take
Grieved , Sep 19, 2018 1:24:07 AM | link
@213 psychohistorian - who wonders how long Israel can act as a fool (while the whole world continues to ignore the "base issue of private/public finance?")

I think it's really important to remember how thin the slices of escalation are. We have continually been schooled in this by Russia. Russia doesn't operate on the Hollywood scale of proportion of "one dumb white-hat punch versus one equally dumb black-hat punch". This is the unreality in which we in the west have previously been schooled.

Instead, Russia acts as if everything were very real and very serious. She acts in the slow movement of cats, or samurai warriors, when they face each other. Somewhere in the choreography is the killing blow, but where will it strike? Where will it land? Neither cats nor samurai fighters know. So they slice each movement very thin.

There is no straight line from where we are today to where we might wish to be tomorrow. There will be innumerable slices of escalation and play and counter-play as the dialog of violence talks itself through its many paces.

We should not wish to hurry the day when everyone in the world agrees that Russia has won a supreme victory that marks a turning point in the story of the human race. We should instead - if I may offer the suggestion - relish the small certainties of each day along this measured path.

And this is just as regards Syria. But you could extend it to your overarching point too.

~~

As to this other, I suspect the answer to your unending advocacy for human finance will sprout unnoticed from the ground, far away from the battlefields, as an authentic alternative that first they will ignore, then laugh at, then fight against, and then yield to as it wins.

Please never stop advocating for this. You're right that it underlies everything. The reminder is important. Sometimes you have to overturn a paradigm by hand-cranking the wheel.

Jen , Sep 19, 2018 1:25:40 AM | link
Perhaps what the Russians ought to do is open an investigation into the incident in which the Ilyushin transport plane was shot down and require all parties involved to attend as witnesses.

It would be in Israel's best interests then to surrender its fighter jet pilots who sheltered in the transport plane's radar shadow into Russian custody to give their point of view and explain their motives and behaviour. After all, the investigation would be as much to clear Israel of any blame if the pilots were to admit that they were not acting on orders.

If Israel were to refuse to surrender the pilots, then that reaction could be read by the Russians to mean that Israel bears guilt for the transport plane's shootdown.

Incidentally did anyone notice that what the fighter pilots did was exactly the same as what Ukrainian fighter jets were doing to civilian passenger jets during the Donbass war in 2014?

cdvision , Sep 19, 2018 1:31:42 AM | link
At this point, and in the absence of any evidence, I'm inclined to think the French frigate was unwittingly used by the Israeli's as cover, with the intention to draw fire on the frigate. How do those French sailors feel about being only a flick of a switch from incineration?

The only lingering question is what was the French frigate doing their in the first place?

Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 1:36:25 AM | link
Grieved "Russia doesn't operate on the Hollywood scale of proportion of "one dumb white-hat punch versus one equally dumb black-hat punch". This is the unreality in which we in the west have previously been schooled."

That is what I am seeing here and on other comment threads. A majority expecting Russia to be a Hollywood white hat and booing them if they don't measure up to Hollywood.

The rest of your post equally as good as that line.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 1:54:13 AM | link
Debsisdead

Putin's statement to the press
"First of all, I would like to express condolences to the families of the dead.

As for your comparison with the downing of our plane by a Turkish fighter, this was a different situation. The Turkish fighter deliberately shot down our aircraft.

In this case, it is more a chain of tragic circumstances because an Israeli fighter did not down our aircraft. It goes without saying that we must get to the bottom of this. Our attitude towards this tragedy is set forth in a statement by our Defence Ministry, and has been fully coordinated with me.

As for reciprocal action, this will be primarily aimed at ensuring additional security for our military and our facilities in the Syrian Arab Republic. These steps will be seen by everyone."
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58586

Note "Our attitude towards this tragedy is set forth in a statement by our Defence Ministry, and has been fully coordinated with me."

Plenty of links to the statement by the spokesman for the ministry of defence in this thread, also Shoigu's phone call to Lieberman.

Nutty's phone call to Putin..
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58589
The Israeli Prime Minister expressed his condolences over the death of the 15 servicemen aboard the Il-20 aircraft shot down in Syria on September 17. With respect to a thorough investigation, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to provide detailed information on the activities of the Israeli Air Force over Syrian territory on that day, which will be delivered soon to Moscow by the Israeli Air Force commander.

Vladimir Putin noted that operations of this nature by the Israeli Air Force are in violation of Syria's sovereignty. In this particular case, Russian-Israeli agreements on preventing dangerous incidents had not been observed either, and that resulted in the Russian aircraft coming under Syrian air defence fire. The Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future.

Pft , Sep 19, 2018 2:49:55 AM | link
Paul Craig Roberts who is one of Putins biggest supporters is displeased in his latest article. Its been brewing for awhile.

Regardless of where you stand on him, at some point we should be wondering if Israel/US has Kompromat on him. I have speculated on a few occasions that Putin might be controlled and this Cold War II is just a mutually beneficial fiction to feed the respective MIC and maintain/increase power.

Recently read that Russia is planning to criminalize fake news. Obviously empowered by peoples concern of western influence but as we all know such powers can be abused .

snedly arkus , Sep 19, 2018 3:02:25 AM | link
The Russian military is a defensive one to guard the homeland. Outside of Russia their military is at a disadvantage against the US, NATO, and Israel and they know it. With the US and it's bootlickers using every excuse in the book to sanction and destroy the Russian economy thus the nation Putin has to walk a fine line between all parties and can only spare a small force, which has done excellent work, in Syria. Putin knows full well the Israelis and the US are just begging for an excuse to wipe out the Russian force in Syria thus Putin has to take the punches and use his wits unlike the exceptional American keyboard warriors from the one indispensable nation on the planet who's answer to everything is brute force. One only has to see the results in Syria since the Russians have arrived and agree they have done a remarkable job even with the US backing and supplying the rebels. Russia is in Syria looking out for it's interests and it has no obligation to defend anyone as there is no country on the planet save China that would go to bat for Russia. Most any other country would have buckled and destroyed itself from within with the stuff the US and it's bootlickers have thrown at it but Russia is continuing to thrive thanks to Putin's focus on his country and people and countering those that wish to destroy Russia using his brains against stupid US brawn. As one commentor has said the world should be thankful for Putin's restraint as it's kept WW3 at bay.
somebody , Sep 19, 2018 3:11:36 AM | link
add to 237

Official statement on the telephone conversation between Putin and Netanyahu .

Vladimir Putin noted that operations of this nature by the Israeli Air Force are in violation of Syria's sovereignty. In this particular case, Russian-Israeli agreements on preventing dangerous incidents had not been observed either, and that resulted in the Russian aircraft coming under Syrian air defence fire. The Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future.

And - How Russia can respond to Israel following Ilyushin Il20 shootdown

partizan , Sep 19, 2018 3:26:54 AM | link
"Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-18/norway-officials-admit-they-knew-nothing-about-libya-joined-regime-change-efforts

Top Norwegian officials have now admitted they "had very limited knowledge" of events unfolding in Libya during 2010 and 2011, prior to NATO's military intervention on behalf of anti-Gaddafi rebels -- a war that resulted in regime change and a failed state ruled by competing governments and extremist militias to this day. Norway enthusiastically joined the US, UK, and French led bombing of the country initiated in March 2011 even knowing full well its military knew next to nothing of what was unfolding on the ground.

But what did decision-makers have to go on? Consider this absurd admission from the official report: "In such situations, decision-makers often rely on information from media and other countries," the report reads.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 3:28:09 AM | link
Russia is on reasonable terms with Israel and recognizes the state of Israel. Russia is on good terms with both Iran and Syria and recognizes their legitimate governments and is insuring that the Syrian state is not destroyed by Israel US. Neither Syria nor Iran recognize the state of Israel. Russia does not interfere in Iran Syrian actions against Israel nor does it interfere in Israel direct actions against Syria Iran - till now. Russia has been the mediator.

Until now Israel has not risked burning its bridges with Russia. Now Nutty sends his airforce chief running off to Moscow with an olive branch in his mouth and another stuck in his arse for good measure.

Is Nutty trying to pull a swiftly or are US zionists trying to burn Nutty's bridge with Moscow...

partizan , Sep 19, 2018 3:31:28 AM | link
NATO's name for the operation was the US code name 'Operation Odyssey Dawn,' and Norway flew 596 strike missions during the first five months of the NATO intervention, dropping 588 bombs on Libyan targets, according to the report. Norway had provided six F-16 fighter jets and its pilots were reported to have conducted 10 percent of all coalition strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces.
partizan , Sep 19, 2018 3:36:21 AM | link
love these Scandinavian freedom and human right people and their naivety.
Norwegian , Sep 19, 2018 3:58:43 AM | link
@partizan 242,245,246

You are indeed correct to point his out. Remember, the word Quisling was invented here. As for our former PM Stoltenberg, now NATO chief, he is the ultimate hypocrite. His best 'defense' is that most likely they have something on him. The happenings of 22. July 2011 was a turning point. The victims within his party were advocating boycott of Israel the day before on that very island.

John Gilberts , Sep 19, 2018 4:35:38 AM | link
Putin's Forfeit - From Strategic Mistake to Strategic Defeat in 24 Hours

http://johnhelmer.net/putins-forfeit-from-strategic-mistake-to-strategic-defeat-in-24-hours/

Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 4:44:24 AM | link
Harry
Public admission on right or wrong is no problems. S-300 - much depends on how low Israel is willing to crawl. The more subservient to Russia Israel becomes, the less chance that Russia will supply an S-300 to Syria.

After Turkey shot down the Russian plane then kowtowed, Russia has signed a deal for the S-400 with Turkey. The Israeli attack it seems was due to Turkey reaching an agreement with Russia on Idlib. How about using future Israeli attacks in SAA territory as a gauge.

Jeremy , Sep 19, 2018 5:17:35 AM | link
Brendan O'Connell has been harping on the theme that Putin and Bibi are best buddies. According to him, Israel 'acquires' US tech and sells it to the Russians and the Chinese. He says that Russians living in Israel dominate the high tech sector in Israel and reverse engineer American high tech received by Israel. He is quite insistent that this is the big issue that still goes unrecognized. At the very least, his claims, which may be exaggerated or simply mistaken, should be critically examined. They would go a long way to explaining Putin's passivity. They point to material and financial considerations -- as opposed to ideological or political -- as having the uppermost importance, i.e., follow the money. O'Connell suggests that all of these leaders are in bed together and are just playing a game with us rubes. He's quite the cynic, but also quite entertaining.
Ghost Ship , Sep 19, 2018 5:21:15 AM | link
The main foreign policy issue of concern to Netanyahu is removing Iranian forces (how ever insignificant they are) from Syria. Netanyahu has been able to rely on some support from Putin for this up until now. How much longer?

As for all the idiotic (IQ < 25) losers trolling here, as Clausewitz said, "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means" (not "by other means"), so war is all about politics. As Iraq and Afghanistan have shown recently, you can have the allegedly "most powerful military" in the world but if you don't understand the politics, you will lose, lose and keep on fucking losing. FUKUS have wanted regime change in Damascus for the last several years but it hasn't happened so FUKUS are the fucking losers so far and Putin will now ensure they go on losing.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 5:40:56 AM | link
Harry, how long would Syria last if Russia handed them the Keys to an S-300 system and walked away. Not long. Russia has inserted themselves into Syria to prevent the destruction of Syria by foreign and proxy forces.
A better gauge than an S-300 is required.
somebody , Sep 19, 2018 5:45:20 AM | link
Russian interest in the Middle East

- make sure there are no alternative gas pipelines to Europe
- make sure there is no ethnic/religious independence threat to Caucasus region
- sale of arms

Iranian interest in the Middle East
- make sure there is no ethnic/religious independence threat to Iran

Saudi problem with Iran
- ethnic/religious indepence threat of their oil rich region
- the Strait of Hormuz

Israeli problem
- feeling delegitimized and threatened by everybody

So if Middle Easterners could dial down on the threat level ...

Present US interests in the Middle East
- a Christian Zionist electorate
- Saudi money
- sale of arms

Chinese interest in the Middle East
- oil, lots of oil

As long as Saudi Arabia and Iran cannot solve their problem, this rift will be exploited by other powers for their own ends

I probably missed some stuff. But Russian interests are best served by selling to all countries.

Charles Wood , Sep 19, 2018 5:46:11 AM | link
IFF is an add-on pack to the command vehicle in the S200 battery. It is used to inform the battery commander of targets, or targets to avoid, prior to launch.

Once a missile is launched IFF is no longer used.

It is possible that either the SAA S200 battery saw IFF of the IL20 and thought it was spoofed (not unreasonable), or the Israeli aircraft suppressed the IFF response received by the SAA battery.

What is also likely is that the SAA / RuAF integration in air defence is less than optimal.

Ghost Ship , Sep 19, 2018 5:49:05 AM | link
Meanwhile back in the real world, the trap that Putin has set for the jihadist losers with the latest agreement is pretty fucking obvious except perhaps to the fuckwit trolls that have infected this site recently.

The Russians have given the jihadists until 15th October, 2018 to leave the demilitarised zone but the jihadists have rejected the agreement on Idlib so they're not going to move . In a month or so the SAA/Russia can slice 15-20km off Idlib any time they like after that with nothing more than a rant from Nikki Haley and some CIF crap. The first 20 km gives the SAA Khan Shaykhoun and Jisr ash-Shugur. Another month and the SAA can quite "legally"*** take the whole southern Idlib. Looks to me like Putin is relying yet again on the complete lack of strategic understand demonstrated by the fuckwits, whoever they might be, backing the jihadists.
Even if the jihadists do pull back, which I doubt, they are stupid enough to breach the ceasefire within a month or so because their imbecilic patrons pay to see "action".

*** - of course, the SAA can legally take Syrian territory any time it likes but FUKUS would disagree and might take illegal actions to prevent it. With the jihadists breaking the Idlib agreement, it would be harder for FUKUS to become involved not that it would necessarily stop them but do they really want a World War in defence of Al Qaeda?.

somebody , Sep 19, 2018 5:52:46 AM | link
add to 257
I forgot the price of oil
Iran OPEC chief: 'Saudi and Russia are taking oil market hostage'
and
Russia tells Washington to Leave Iran Alone
In a plot fit for an award-winning drama series, last week U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry traveled to Moscow to discuss energy topics with Novak. Although no details concerning oil markets were disclosed, these were bound to have been discussed: Perry praised Russia for its readiness to keep oil supply stable just as he warned Moscow to "stop using energy as a weapon."

In a no less charming puzzle of mixed signals, earlier this week Iran's OPEC governor accused its friend Russia and foe Saudi Arabia of stealing its market share and enjoying higher oil revenues at Tehran's expense. A day later, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Quasemi dismissed "media reports" containing these accusations, saying, "We do not agree with some reports of media."

Everyone involved in this geopolitical dance seems to be walking a thin line between its interests and those of other stakeholders that are at odds with its own.

pB , Sep 19, 2018 7:48:31 AM | link
@ ike 199 "so the Israel's are killing their own".

unthinkable! https://www.wrmea.org/2018-august-september/the-dark-secret-of-israels-stolen-babies.html

J Swift , Sep 19, 2018 7:58:54 AM | link
Putin is the master of cool understatement, and his comment about what a complex chain of accidents were required to lead to this tragedy I took to be dripping with venom. Especially since the Israelis know perfectly well this was intentional, and they know Putin knows. I would say they are extremely nervous right now.

A major provocation was inevitable. The false flag chemical attack was disrupted with apparently magnificent intel. I heard a lot of scoffing when Russia presented evidence to the UNSC, but it must have been unusually damning and conclusive of direct Western collision with the terrorists. Did you notice there were none of the now customary Western leaks mocking the Russian presentation? Not a peep. Suddenly Hailey and the shills just changed their tune, that in fact a chemical attack wasn't necessary for them to act, that any attack at all upon terrorists in Idleb would be sufficient. Belatedly they started mentioning their overwhelming concern for the safety of the citizens, but then Russia and Turkey reached an understanding which would (at least in theory) address that. The neocons and zionists were apoplectic. Something had to be done!

It is hardly debatable that this was a very carefully orchestrated and coordinated NATO+I operation. The West no doubt knew the Russian aircraft's patrol area and customary length of mission so this could be timed for when it was low on fuel and returning to base, its movements most predictable.

The French frigate was just where it needed to be to provide cover and fire missiles. We can only guess as to how the operation was supposed to conclude...probably with the hopes that the Russians would assume the French had shot down their plane and fire off an ASM or two (those Brit planes were probably lurking in the background to provide additional cover for the frigate to beat a hasty retreat and provide quick escalatory counter-attack).

It was a quite sophisticated neocon war plan. The only thing that failed was the immediate response by Russia. Now Israel is left holding the bag and no doubt extremely nervous about kicking the hornet's nest. We don't know all the ways Russia will respond, but life will become much more difficult for Israeli pilots, and at the very least Russia will "for the good of everyone and to prevent such accidents in the future" more or less close at least a large hunk of Syrian airspace...but I bet there will be all sorts of "accidents" involving Israeli and other Western operatives. Russia has already demonstrated its intel is frightening, I'd say they will use it.

somebody , Sep 19, 2018 7:59:33 AM | link
add to 266

This is what it is about - pressuring Syria to drop the alliance with Iran .

A Russian-Iranian-Turkish - by extension Syrian - alliance is what they do not want.

Pft , Sep 19, 2018 8:10:38 AM | link
Jeremy@254

Thanks for the tip on Brendan O'Connell. Do you have a link as I have been thinking along the same lines, which probably make us one of a dozen out of 7 billion 99% ers, or have I understated this? A quick search shows he was jailed for critizing Israel in AU and his blog was shut down. I dont do twitter

CarlD , Sep 19, 2018 8:50:19 AM | link
One thing puzzles me:

The IL 20 must have been squawking their assigned transponder code that would tell Russian Radars that this aircraft is a friend.

Not to long ago, Israeli planes squawked US transponders IDs so the Russians did not fire at them and they were able to drop their missiles
and return safely home.

In the same vein, if the SAA AD is linked to the Russian radars, how can a missile guided by this radar go after an aircraft displaying friendly numbers?

What kind of EW were the F-16 using if they got the Russian radars to allow shooting at an identified Friend?

Then, on approach to a runway, all aircraft will be squawking assigned transponder codes. Therefore there is something fishy in the narrative
that it was an S200 salvo that downed the IL 20.

Brian , Sep 19, 2018 9:26:49 AM | link
Perer AU 1 @ 108 I wholly agree with Peter. I find the comments on this thread totally out of character with the informed and balanced comments usually found on this site. Russia doesn't do knee-jerk. They analyse, prepare and if necessary act in their best interests (and those of the whole planet) to prevent a wider war. Don't confuse comment for response.

Jackrabbit @ 198 above. For an interesting analysis of this event and the French involvement in it have a look at this: https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/ Makes a lot of sense on many levels.

Ghost Ship , Sep 19, 2018 9:41:16 AM | link
For all the noise about the Skripals and chemical weapons in Syria, the last thing the British government wants is a war with anyone because unless the government goes straight to thermonuclear weapons, it is fucked if it starts a conventional war with any country other than San Marino*** or Sark. Eight years of austerity and overpriced hardware has gutted the British military until it's little more than a glorified militia which would be locked up by the police if it went with a coup. Back in the 1980s, there was much talk of a military coup in the UK if the Labour Party under Michael Foot won an election. The reduction in the size of the UK military and events in Iraq now mean that anyone suggesting that a military coup might take place in the UK if the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn win the next election would be given a one-way ticket to the funny farm along with Boris Johnson.

As for the rest of NATO, including all the Netherland's tank divisions, it's also pretty well fucked and most likely incapable of organising a piss up in a brewey. NATO can't even do a decent black propaganda operation. Anything more complex, such as a "very carefully orchestrated and coordinated NATO+I operation", forget it

Guerrero , Sep 19, 2018 9:42:21 AM | link
Brian at 273: analysis of the French involvement in it; have a look at this: https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/ Makes a lot of sense on many levels.

I agree. Flores may have nailed it.

Zanon , Sep 19, 2018 10:06:00 AM | link
somebody

Israel hit:

In a series of tweets the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) explained that its jets were targeting a Syrian facility "from which systems to manufacture accurate and lethal weapons were about to be transferred on behalf of Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon." It claimed that the weapons were "meant to attack Israel."
https://www.rt.com/news/438712-idf-statement-il20-downing/
An hour-long attack on Latakia began around 10pm local time, and targeted a power station as well as two facilities belonging to the Syrian military. Syrian officials said the attack was "foreign" and came "from the sea," but could not initially confirm rumors that Israel was behind it. Seven people were injured in the attack, according to Syrian officials.
https://www.rt.com/news/438673-russian-il20-disappears-radars/

Some witness: 'Rockets falling, explosions over sea': Witnesses recall moment of Israeli raid in Latakia (VIDEO) https://www.rt.com/news/438774-israel-raid-syria-witnesses/

Veritas X- , Sep 19, 2018 10:13:35 AM | link
I just read the following HERE: https://syrianperspective.com/2018/09/stunning-double-ambush-by-af-intel-in-homs-reveals-american-criminal-conduct-attack-on-latakia-still-muddled.html

Whether it's true or false, I can't confirm now.
However, *Igor Bundy* is someone who I believe to be a highly credible source.
Please mind the 'paste job'.
Most Important is YOU see what's been posted the past hour.
>>>>>>>>>>
Igor Bundy

Russia declares no fly zone over Israel coast and northern Israel..

Syrian radar data shows it is not responsible for shooting down the Russian IL20..

comment image

Based on NOTAMs issued by #Russia|n Navy, if an #Israel|i fighter jet wants to fly out of #Israel & even attack #Syria, it must fly above 19,000ft. If flies below, it will be shot-down by Russian S-300F. But flying above 19,000ft will cause their shot-down by #Syria|n S-200s!

#Russia|n Navy "Marshal Ustinov" (055) Slava-class guided missile cruiser which has 64 S-300F surface to air missiles is now sailing in #MediterraneanSea waters NW. of #Israel. However it has blocked airspace over NW of Israel till FL190 but its S-300s are dangerous till FL900!
3 Reply
39 minutes ago
Igor Bundy
Guest
Level 8 - Legatus Legionis
Igor Bundy

#Russia not received data from #Israel on situation with IL-20 in #Syria – Peskov https://sptnkne.ws/j9ce

-#Russia launched an S-400 missile/s against the Israeli jets which were dropping bombs 100Km away, so we're kept in the dark for now.

-#Russia responded immediately to the attack before the il-20M was lost Because the S-200 missiles were launched 20 min after the first wave.

-The attack lasted about 50 min, so only 4 F-16 doing the bombing is unlikely
0 Reply
28 minutes ago
Igor Bundy
Guest
Level 8 - Legatus Legionis
Igor Bundy

Missing from the Russian map are the two British Air Force planes reported in Israel to have taken off from the Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus, and to have maintained a holding pattern above the flight path of the Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers as they moved into their firing positions.

Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles protect the Khmeimim airbase; their radar and strike ranges are at least 400 kilometres. On Monday evening this meant that Russian air defence crews and the Khmeimim base command tracked the Israeli aircraft from their takeoff positions out into the Mediterranean, and then as they turned north on their attack run. The S-400 crews were also tracking the British aircraft as they took off from Cyprus. When the French frigate Auvergne fired missiles, the S-400 crews at Khmeimim tracked their flight paths.

Subsequent Russian press reports and Defence Ministry releases say the timing of the IDF firing at Latakia, the French missile launches, and the destruction of the Il-20 occurred within seconds of one another.

http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17934
0 Reply
4 minutes ago

Guerrero , Sep 19, 2018 10:18:52 AM | link
Grieved at 225:We should not wish to hurry the day when everyone in the world agrees that Russia has won a supreme victory that marks a turning point in the story of the human race. We should instead - if I may offer the suggestion - relish the small certainties of each day along this measured path.

Likewise in a chess match, an objective assessment of position rarely admits checkmate.

THE GENIUS

W. Shakespeare

No limit, no space, no horizon;
And leave him drawing from his flight
The gigantic curve in the void.
March on your mission, march; heaven
Does not have the measure
From his wings of fire; the spaces
They shudder at the breath of their life.
Marching is your mission, to go without respite
Of the infinite arcane
Through the dark and eternal path,
Riding, sovereign rider,
On the tame steed of destiny.

partizan , Sep 19, 2018 10:23:18 AM | link
More fake news, from the Russian journalist. Interesting comments though.

"Source: #Syrian counterespionage arrested entire 44th air defense battalion, whose S-200 reportedly shot down Russian Il-20"

https://twitter.com/SyriaWarReports/status/1042335555130937346

Arioch , Sep 19, 2018 11:22:17 AM | link
@Grom #149

> Il-20s don't grow on trees!!!

True, but it is most probably not the last Il-20 that Russia has. It is a huge loss, but it is not a devastating loss yet. Same about the SIGINT professionals perished with the plane.

> Why did they allow the Israelis to get *so dangerously close* to their prized asset - the Il-20

They commanded Il-20 to go landing - a bit too late as it turned out. I also think that Israel jets are barraging in Israeli and international air around Syria pretty regular. Should Russians down all their planes when Israeli jets are in air? That would be a de facto Israel's no fly zone over Syria.

In a hindsight Il-20 should had better be ordered to land on some faraway airfield instead.... Well, hindsight is cheap.

> What about the Russian EW-systems?

I do not think they were ready to deflect Syrian missiles, even if that could be technically possible. However the question how can Russian aircrafts be better protected from the event of SAA AD friendly fire is very important.

> Why was the Il-20 not escorted?

What would it change? Would the said escort bomb out al lthe Syrian S-200 stations in the firing range around?

> 4) What about Russian-Syrian coordination??? We know that the S-200s operated by the Syrians had been upgraded/serviced - this *must* have included the surveillance/tracking radars, as well as the IFF systems. So how could the Syrian SAM crews even fire the missile? Even if the Israelis claim that they informed the Russians just short of a minute or so before the strike, the Russians *must have seen - AND - tracked* the flight of the F-16s well in advance and even from their take-off, so they *should have informed* the Syrians.

very good set of questions, but I think most of it would be military secrets.

Few thoughts about though:

4.a) other states than Russia should not get Russian military IFF systems. Or they would end up in USA/Israel hands. For example Iran could not save their lead nuclear physics scientists from assassination. Israeli agents are in numbers all through middle east. Also Israel has a number of Soviet tanks taken form Arab states in 1960-s and 1970-s.

All Soviet military secrets that could had been in those tanks - fallen into Israeli/NATO hands then. So, no. Russia would not want USA strategic bombers raining nukes over Russian cities using cloned Russian-Syrian IFF units to disable all Russian AD missiles, period.

4.b) as the infamous video about Pantsir-S1 destruction suggests, Syrian AD crew are not very well educated and disciplined. Of course SAA should not fire old dumb S-200 missile when big ally aircraft was within the range. If anything that was exactly how Ukraine downed civilian aircraft over Black Sea in 2001 and they used exactly the S-200 missile. Frankly, I am not very much concerned about Israel behavior, they are not Russian allies and they are officially at war with Syria. So blaming Israeli on failing to secure Russian personnel is futile. But the [mis]performance of SAA AD crew - if the story reported by Russian MoD is true - is saddening and alarming.

> What about Israeli EW-capabilities? Are Israeli F-16s now equipped with systems that allow them to fool Russian & Syrian radars and EW systems to the point where they can fly and approach a highly hostile area literally *undisturbed*,

If so, then they "showed their hand" prematurely for a questionable limited reward.
They spoiled their top secret then, if that was so.

> Shouldn't Russia lodge an official complaint and demand explanations from Paris?

Maybe. But there would be no point in reading Paris's explanation. If it will even come. Remind me, did Paris answered to Russian enquiry about Skripals affair misinvestigation?

jason , Sep 19, 2018 11:28:25 AM | link
no one has mentioned the domestic audience in israel.

the few friends in israel that i talked to and their military "happiness" level is on par with some of the US military folks morale back home. near suicidal sadly. the truth is the more the media and these trolls spin it as some kind of "smart" move by upvoting and jerking themselves off mutually like homos...really has not gained an ounce of approval in their own citizen's hearts, who are tired of war.

this is asides from the traitors within israel themselves drowning from the innocent blood they spill justifying it as some kind of revenge for the yom kippur and early state wars that they know is irrelevant. these little cunts sound like some nerds giggling about murder. their excuse like the nazi's will be "it was just orders"........ ironic. a lot of my jewish friends are great friends to me so i prefer not to paint the entire country with a broad stroke of stereotype.

the younger generation constantly booze themselves and drug themselves to erase the faked reality of being told they are doing good for their countrymen. it is a battle of the subconscious for their own souls and spirit and they are losing it daily. they are preparing for the big war with hezbollah (secretly in their hearts) which they know will not be as easily done as what their media paints it to be. pray for these innocents. from hearing about their grandfathers actually fighting off the entire neighborhood into patrolling the entire neighborhood to their own detriment. they are even losing faith in their God because of these traitors.

some would sell you this as a smart move to force putin to show his cards, but again putin is too sharp to overreact. the more insults the more certain putin is that he made the right move. he has russia's interests in his mind. and making such impulsive moves will destabilize the progress the economy of Russia has going for itself. it must be frustrating, i am sure these nerds are hoping that Putin grows too old quickly.

[Sep 19, 2018] Washington's goal is to reduce Russia's gas market share in Eastern Europe by 20% by 2020

Sep 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com


Subscribe to Vesti News

Russia and the West are facing the worst crisis since the Cold War. According to US Special Envoy Amos Hochstein, Washington's goal is to reduce Russia's gas market share in Eastern Europe by 20% by 2020.

Russia cannot be allowed to build a gas pipeline that would bypass Ukraine, as it would pose a threat to Europe's energy security

kirill September 16, 2018 at 4:43 am

Pipeline bypassing Ukraine = threat to Europe's energy security

That is a total non sequitur. Also, Russia is part of Europe. The EU is not the whole of "Europe". In fact, the EU is not even the EU as evidenced by Hungary and Italy.

Mark Chapman September 16, 2018 at 11:17 am
And Washington can have Eastern Europe. Go ahead – take them as customers, and sell them expensive LNG they can't afford. Russia would probably be glad to be shut of Poland and the Baltics. And having to pay way more for their gas would teach them a lesson. Win/win.
kirill September 16, 2018 at 4:43 am
Pipeline bypassing Ukraine = threat to Europe's energy security

That is a total non sequitur. Also, Russia is part of Europe. The EU is not the whole of "Europe". In fact, the EU is not even the EU as evidenced by Hungary and Italy.

Mark Chapman September 16, 2018 at 11:17 am
And Washington can have Eastern Europe. Go ahead – take them as customers, and sell them expensive LNG they can't afford. Russia would probably be glad to be shut of Poland and the Baltics. And having to pay way more for their gas would teach them a lesson. Win/win.
et Al September 17, 2018 at 4:57 am
Doesn't the pipeline via the lo-land of Po-land go via Belarus? Warsaw buying gas from elsewhere would starve Minsk of transit fees, no? Maybe the idea is similarly to undermine Belarus and thus impose further costs/indirect sanctions on Russia?

[Sep 19, 2018] There is no spare capacity from Iran

Sep 19, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Guym x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 7:44 pm

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Iran-There-Is-No-Spare-Oil-Capacity.html

There is no spare capacity from Iran.

Boomer II x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 8:07 pm
So what does Trump do before the midterms? Live with higher prices? Quietly drop the sanctions ? Find a way to get Iranian oil on the market while pretending there are sanctions? Accept the high prices and blame Obama?
Hightrekker x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 9:03 pm
Well, he is not the brightest porch light on the block -- -
Survivalist x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 11:04 pm
I had read a couple months ago that Trump was nattering about tapping the SPR around the time of the mid terms.
Guym x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 4:49 pm
Oil price can rise some, now. It's only a month and a half to go. Gasoline stocks are high, so it will take some trickle down time. Raiding the SPR is overkill.
Dennis coyne x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 8:39 am
Boomer,

Trump will blame Saudis for not increasing output, Saudis will then raise output in Sept to tamp prices down before midterms.

Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 9:30 am
I'm betting they don't. Saudi production in September is more likely to be down than up. But if it is up it will only by a tiny amount, not near enough to affect prices. Saudi Arabis is just not interested in increasing production by any significant amount. They would like to keep production steady .if possible.
Dennis coyne x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 1:00 pm
Ron,

You may be right, but Trump may try to get Saudis to raise output and he may slow down aggressive action on Iranian sanctions until after midterms.

Hightrekker x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 1:25 pm
Seems Iran always has the trump cards.
Now if they could just get rid of religious oppression, and have a better functioning government–
Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 2:19 pm
Trump already tried that. Here is his tweet.

Trump asks Saudi Arabia to increase oil production

"Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference Prices to high! He has agreed!" the tweet read.

And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going to do any of that shit." The Saudis, just like Trump's staff, know he is an idiot.

TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 1:54 am
"And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going to do any of that shit."

I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm. My guess is that Trump has turned up the heat on Iran because of requests from KSA & Israel.

The USA has been helping MbS with is Yemen war, as well as proxy war in Syria. If KSA want the US to economically crush Iran, than KSA will need to help but increasing its Oil exports. Perhaps KSA as some oil stashed in storage that it could release for a short period. My guess KSA would delay using its storage reserves until there is a price spike that might force the US to back off on Iran.

Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 3:54 am
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm.

You doubt what happened? The quote was a tweet directly from the President. He sent it out to the world, you don't need an inside contact to the White House. Trump's tweets go out to the public.

Yes, it did happen. Of course, the part about what the King did afterward was just speculation on my part. But he did not increase oil production as Trump requested. That much we do know.

TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 2:54 pm
Hi Ron,

Not arguing the tweet Trumpet made, but your reasoning that the MbS will ignore the request.

I am reasonably sure MbS wants the USA to go after Iran, and thus has a motive to try to comply with Trumpet's request for more Oil. That said, I very much doubt KSA can increase production, but they may have 50 to 150 mmbl in storage they could release if Oil prices spike.

FYI:
"Why The U.S. Is Suddenly Buying A Lot More Saudi Oil"

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Why-The-US-Is-Suddenly-Buying-A-Lot-More-Saudi-Oil.html

" the Saudis are responding to the demands of their staunch ally U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly slammed OPEC for the high gasoline prices, urging the cartel in early July to "REDUCE PRICING NOW!""

"Saudi Arabia Boosts Oil Supply To Asia As Iran Sanctions Return"
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Boosts-Oil-Supply-To-Asia-As-Iran-Sanctions-Return.html

"Saudi Arabia cut last week its official selling price (OSP) for its flagship Arab Light grade for October to Asia by US$0.10 a barrel to US$1.10 a barrel premium to the Dubai/Oman average"

So it appears that KSA is trying to comply with Trumpet's request. At least by trying to lower the oil prices via selling their oil at a discount.

** Note: Not trying to be a PITA, just providing an alternative viewpoint. I do value what you post. Hope you understand.

[Sep 19, 2018] Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them to account to date.

Sep 19, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

smoothieX12 . -> blue peacock , 14 hours ago

Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them
to account to date.

Yes she does, otherwise CO of IAF wouldn't have been on his way to Moscow and Bibi urgently calling Putin. Once one gets more complete details of the event, such as teeny-weeny fact of Russia not providing Syrian AD (and with a good reason) with own IFF technology and codes--things become much more clearer. This was confirmed today. Of course military counter-intelligence still has to do its due diligence but it increasingly begins to look more as FUBAR rather than some "special" operations. Most likely, in fact highly likely, IAF F-16s were detected and tracked (and even possibly locked on) by Syrian S-200 and they "masked" (the oldest trick in the book) by descending IL-20. Putin was explicit in his conversation with Bibi that Israel not only violates Syria's airspace but violated previous agreements with Russia on matters of attacking Syrian/Iranian targets. There will be consequences and Putin also was explicit today when stated that, and I quote, "everyone will notice them". While it is a sad day for Russia and is agony for families of the crew, it is also clear (and thank God) that France and her ship had no hand in it whatsoever.

Is Putin between a rock and a hard place in Syria? He's committed significant capabilities to assist Assad in regaining control of Syrian territory, but FUKUS and Turkey are playing a spoilers game with the possibility that they could enter the Syrian conflict with an even larger force structure.

Actually, he didn't commit "significant" capabilities. They are very moderate by Russia standards. You want to see significant capabilities--Google Vostok 2018. That's significant. The appearance of new capabilities in Syria is long overdue, precisely for the reason that it is Russia who is keeping a barrel to Turkey's temple, not the other way around. They are needed their anyway just in case FUKUS decides to respond to absolutely unexpected and evil chemical weapons attacks by Assad.

FB Ali -> smoothieX12 . , 11 hours ago
It seems to me that Putin's response was too 'soft'. Unlike Shoigu's.

Perhaps there is some divergence between Russian political and military policies with regard to Israel. What happens as a result of this tragedy will clarify matters. Putin cannot afford to alienate his military (and thus the Russian people) for the sake of Israel.

Pat Lang Mod -> FB Ali , 9 hours ago
Right. One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually taken Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have been under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama played out. The DMZ agreement prevents that, and now he takes this soft line over this bit of Israeli cleverness that cost Shoigu 14 men for no good reason, Curious. One might think he does not want to rock the boat before the mid term.
smoothieX12 . -> Pat Lang , an hour ago
Right. One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually
taken Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have
been under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama
played out.

Bingo! Plus a chance for Turkey to clean up her act a bit. It is a good old anecdote about two bulls (old and young) standing on the hill looking down at the cows' herd.

Pat Lang Mod -> smoothieX12 . , 15 minutes ago
Yup "let's walk down and do them all ..."
smoothieX12 . -> FB Ali , an hour ago
Perhaps there is some divergence between Russian political and military policies with regard to Israel.

This divergence is mostly a fantasy of Western political class and media. They project their own view on how their own government operates (or rather does not) onto Kremlin and that is why they always wrong.

Bálint Somkuti -> FB Ali , 5 hours ago
There is a growing sentiment, that Russia is handling too softly the attacks on its armed forces. The lack of visible or spectacular retaliations, counteractions is making an impression of a very narrow set of choices in Russia's Syria policy.
smoothieX12 . -> Bálint Somkuti , an hour ago
There is a growing sentiment, that Russia is handling too softly the attacks on its armed forces.

Growing among who? Armchair strategists? Granted, I am one myself.

uncle tungsten -> smoothieX12 . , 9 hours ago
Hahahahha good try smoothie but with due respect I take it you meant a "white helmets chemical weapons attack". It is ok now to drop the myth and speak truth to the war criminals hiding within the white helmets.

The Israeli government delights in taking sniper shots and seeing innocents accidentally killed. In this case they were attacking Stria to sabotage their fight against UN declared terrorists. Disgraceful and an abandonment of all that is held high in civil society.

smoothieX12 . -> uncle tungsten , an hour ago
Hahahahha good try smoothie

Yeah, I am not evidently very good in conveying sarcasm.

David Habakkuk , 7 minutes ago
All, re the Joaquin Flores piece.

I would normally totally discount this as the wrong kind of 'conspiracy theory', and I think that is still very highly likely to be the most appropriate response. It would be surprising if the French were prepared to leave a 'smoking gun' on the deliberate shooting down of a Russian aircraft, and the explanation Flores gives of this does seem tortuous.

However, there do seem to be some puzzles about the French – and British – roles which need sorting out.

At the outset, the Russians were clearly pointing to the French.

What may have survived, when that story was replaced by the far more plausible one of a 'friendly fire' incident provoked by the Israelis, is the suggestion that the French frigate was firing missiles.

So in 'Haaretz' this morning, we found Anshel Pfeffer writing that 'France denied any involvement in the downing of the Russian Ilyushin Il-20, but, interestingly, did not deny launching missiles.'

(See https://www.haaretz.com/mid... .)

Moreover, he goes on to write that:

'Something was obviously going on Monday night. Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns – most likely to avoid being somehow involved in the exchange of fire over Latakia. The Ilyushin Il-20 was not so fortunate.'

It would not seem inherently so terribly surprising if indeed the French vessel did fire missiles. However, I am curious as to what kinds of explanations of this seem most plausible.

Likewise, the RAF switching on transponders is not so very odd. However, it would seem to make the one minutes's notice given to the Russians stand out even more than it did already.

Obviously, this could easily be explained by 'cock-up' – Israeli fighters seeking safety by hiding behind the Russian plane, and the 'deconfliction' not working according to plan.

It could also, however, be explained by conspiracy. And if there was an Israeli conspiracy, then questions might at least arise as to whether there was prior knowledge on the part of others, which raises the possibility of either tacit, or active, encouragement..

Albano Pina , 3 hours ago
Joaquín Flores has an interesting, however unconfirmable, reading of the facts.
See here: https://www.fort-russ.com/2...
Anyway, after what happened in the last 60 hours, if FUKUS still wants to take an early military iniciative, it must do it bluntly, without justifications, by means of grossly evident provocation or direct attack. The white helmets/gas attacks mantra became, somehow, a bit awkward.
Pat Lang Mod -> Albano Pina , an hour ago
Joaquin Flores? I don't read other blogs or similar sources. Too busy with DC sources.
Walrus , 4 hours ago
Putins measured diplomacy and apparent charitable responses to deliberate provocations have two downsides' Russian public opinion of /Putin as "weak" and the emboldening of American neocons. At some point Putin, goaded or not, is going to have to respond with force.
william mcdonald -> Walrus , an hour ago
I believe when it happens, they will see some real "shock and awe."
PRC90 , 10 hours ago
The question of a passive homing SAM navigating it's way to the largest radar cross section within it's arc, and not to the smaller returns from alleged nearby strike aircraft was raised in relation to MH17. If this occurred here then IAF casual reliance on a misplaced belief in the competence of the SAA air defences may be a tenuous way to blame Israel.
However, Russian EW data hoovered up during the attack may show another story.

Another obvious question is the 'one minute' warning time given by IAF. The Russians would have been aware of the ingressing F16's and probably their actual takeoff's but did not clear their own IL-20 aircraft out of the airspace ahead of them, possibly indicating that an IAF presence was a regular and normal event not necessarily resulting in strikes. What is on IAF / US EW data as intercepted Russian voice and data link material may show the details of that - not that anything but the cherry picks will ever be released.

Lauren Johnson , 11 hours ago
FWIW Joaquin Flores at Fort Russ argues the French did it and Russians have a disinfo campaign going for diplomatic reasons:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2...

Snow Flake -> Lauren Johnson , 2 hours ago
elegantly argued narrative.
luke8929 , 15 hours ago
Is the hotline between the Russians and the Israeli's still in place because if it is then the Russians are giving tacit approval for future strikes, its not as if the Russians are going to get the call and say no we don't approve of this one and the IAF is going to turn around and go home. This isn't the same as the hotline between the Russians and the US as they both have a common enemy, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc. The US isn't intentionally targeting the Syrians and Iranians, the Israeli's are specifically targeting them and they are supposed to be Russian allies. I don't see how the Russians get a pass on this until they completely stop all IAF activity directed at Syria.

[Sep 19, 2018] Russia Not Received Data From Israel on Situation With IL - 20 in Syria - Peskov

Sep 19, 2018 | sputniknews.com

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia has not yet received data from Israel on the situation with the IL-20 aircraft crash in Syria, experts will examine it in due time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday.

[Sep 19, 2018] Putins measured diplomacy and apparent charitable responses to deliberate provocations have two downsides' Russian public opinion of /Putin as "weak" and the emboldening of American neocons.

Sep 19, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Walrus , 11 hours ago

Putins measured diplomacy and apparent charitable responses to deliberate provocations have two downsides' Russian public opinion of /Putin as "weak" and the emboldening of American neocons. At some point Putin, goaded or not, is going to have to respond with force.
william mcdonald -> Walrus , 9 hours ago
I believe when it happens, they will see some real "shock and awe."
Eugene Owens -> william mcdonald , 5 hours ago
I believe Putin's response will be more subtle. Something by the GRU rather than by force. What? I have no clue. Some type of blackmail? I would bet they have plenty of dirt on the Israeli Defense Minister, Mad Dog Avigdor. Or perhaps giving more of a greenlight to IRGC/Hez? Not that they need one but he has reportedly in the past discouraged them, and kept them away from the Golan. Speedily completing the Syrian S-300 build-up. Funding Hamas? Exposure of Israeli meddling in the Ukraine? Assisting the IRGC in an attack or two on Israeli interests in Europe or Latin America or ...? All of the above? Plenty of other indirect non-kinetic options are available to them.
marc b. -> Eugene Owens , 4 hours ago
not sure the MOD or the man on the street will be placated with a subtle but brilliant chess move. they are likely looking for more of a kick in the balls. what is this, the 3rd strike what with the turks and americans already?

[Sep 19, 2018] Another obvious question is why only the 'one minute' warning time was given by IAF.

Sep 19, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

PRC90 , 18 hours ago

The question of a [edited !] semi-active homing SAM navigating it's way to the largest radar cross section within it's arc, and not to the smaller returns from alleged nearby strike aircraft was raised in relation to MH17.

If this occurred here then IAF casual reliance on a misplaced belief in the competence of the SAA air defences may be a tenuous way to blame Israel. However, Russian EW data hoovered up during the attack may show another story.

Another obvious question is the 'one minute' warning time given by IAF.

The Russians would have been aware of the ingressing F16's and probably their actual takeoff's but did not clear their own IL-20 aircraft out of the airspace ahead of them, possibly indicating that an IAF presence was a regular and normal event not necessarily resulting in strikes.

What is on IAF / US EW data as intercepted Russian voice and data link material may

[Sep 19, 2018] Open Thread Russian Plane Brought Down in Syria

Sep 19, 2018 | off-guardian.org

The questions raised: Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France and/or Israel attack? If France are attacking Russia/Syria what prompted this? What do they have to gain? Is it possible for Syria to "accidentally" bring down an allied plane? Don't they have IFFs? Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate? Will Russia retaliate against Israel? They have claimed that right already. What will they expect to extract as a quid pro quo on this issue? How will the media report this? Will they call it a "near miss"? That's surely what it was. Do they even understand how close we're coming to global war, whenever a NATO country operates in Syria? How long can we rely on Russian common sense to avoid WWIII?

Admin says September 19, 2018

What do you think Putin should have done?

Your reply needs to acknowledge the following:

1) the neocon hardline and Israel are currently trying to manufacture an excuse for a massive attack on Syria, aimed at widening the war.

2) the Israeli action was aimed at provoking a military response from Russia/Syria that could be used as such an excuse.

3) a widened war would play into western hands and destroy Russia's current ascendancy

What action should Russia take that would punish Israel but avoid giving the neocon hardliners exactly what they wanted?

Admin says September 19, 2018
Try to remain calm.

I notice you don't advocate that Russia should have immediately retaliated militarily. All the things you do advocate (well, most) – quite rationally – would not have shown any results as yet, so we don't know they haven't been done, do we?

But, to repeat, you don't defeat a man who is trying to lure you into a fight by punching him in the face. Intelligence is underrated by the non-intelligent. Subtlety is unappreciated by the crass. The Russian govt's actions tend to be both subtle and intelligent – whether you approve of them or not, and so can go unappreciated by many on all sides of the debate.

As to ascendancy – Syria was intended to be a new Libya by now. That this has been avoided, that the various terrorists are in retreat, that the country remains largely functional, and all without direct confrontation between east and west (so far), is an achievement anyone with any intelligence should recognise, and which the Russia government has every right to be proud of.

Forgive me, but people have been saying variants of "if Putin doesn't DO SOMETHING HUGE right now he's going to burn" for at least the last four years, and they are still saying it, despite the fact he hasn't burned (and neither have we), and, if their sage advice had been followed, we might all be cinders on a dead and cindered planet right now.

ragheadthefiendlyterrorist says September 19, 2018
The only reason it hasn't come to that yet is that the ground was not prepared fully before. Russia is slowly being pushed back to the ropes, the average Western citizen is being conditioned to racially hate Russians (did you read Nikki Haley's comment today that Russians are culturally conditioned to lie and cheat?) and the consent is being steadily manufactured. As I said in my original comment, by showing "restraint" and not that he has teeth, Putin is encouraging his country's enemies. Personally, I don't give a damn about what he does about people he doesn't like, but he's not a private citizen; he is in control of Russia, for good or ill. Most of my Russian friends, all of the far left variety, despise him, incidentally, but that's neither here nor there. The simple fact is that if Russia is to avoid a big war it has to actively deter one, not act like someone attempting to disarm an armed drunk by logical words and sweet reason. That is not going to work.
Paul X says September 19, 2018
If the Russians got a cruise missile down the funnel of the French frigate Auvegne (assuming there is a funnel) what do you think NATO would do? Would they shrug and say it serves Macron right or would they take off the safety locks and blast Russia from every direction in order to protect their partner who had been so 'wrongly' attacked? Haven't they been waiting for the chance for years? Aren't they already loaded up expecting the 'chemical weapons' shout to go up this very week? It would be vey foolish of Russia to take the bait of these provocations and it makes for uneasy reading when Westerners, sitting comfortably in safety, complain that Russians aren't prepared to die for us in large enough numbers to keep them safe. You first guy!
Paul X says September 19, 2018
When provoked so blatantly you need to look to see what the guy is hiding behind his back. In this case the West had built up their forces for a full scale attack on Syria as soon as the White Helmets released their video of choking children filmed a week or so ago. Putin disappointed them by coming to an agreement with Turkey that means the jihadis are further isolated and pushed into possible conflict with radicals.

The time scales of the agreement are vague/unknown but it's unlikely we will see a Jihadi Caliphate set up under Turkish protection.

Like the Syrians it's the crazy foreign fighters that alarm the Turks, the Chinese especially of whom there are 6000 heavily armed in the South. Turkey is keen to see the extremists pushed South making it difficult for them to enter Turkey. Putin's reaction is far more sensible than firing the gun for a major conflict which Russia is most unlikely to win.

Russia is still on track to squeeze the jihadis into smaller and smaller areas where they might be eliminated. It might make liberals happy to see Russia sacrifice herself a la 1941 but it's not going to help anybody except their enemies.

You can't help thinking Putin knows exactly what he's doing.

Admin says September 19, 2018
There can never be a non-nuclear war between the US and Russia. Every strategist worth anything knows this. It's the belief – created by the PNAC neocons – that this isn't true that drives the hardcore nuts in Washington and London and elsewhere.

This is the problem. They are delusional and believe they can fight a limited war with Russia. Those who know they are wrong, and that any such war would go nuclear very very fast are stuck in a profound dilemma. – How to defend oneself and one's interests while avoiding the conflict the lunatics want, which will destroy life on earth?

Answers on a post card please for anyone who thinks they can do better than the current Russian govt is doing.

白矛 says September 19, 2018
It's a complex web.. one has to bear this in mind.. the inter-relationships.. the connections.. Putin for example has to tread the razor edge and fight with one hand tied behind his back due to the Zionist influence atop the Russian hierarchy .
Matt says September 19, 2018
S-200 uses the SAHR guidance system. The radar signal is fairly wide, and if multiple objects fall within the signal, the one with the largest cross-section will be targeted. The Russian IL is much larger than the American F-16. Larger missiles like the 200's 5V21 also tend to hit from above (they come down in a parabolic arc after the motors burned out). So if the F-16's stayed a little behind and below the IL they'd basically guarantee the IL get's killed.

As "Partisangirl" claims, but does not properly understand, Russia integrated Syrian AD into their network some time ago. The purpose of such a integration was to avoid similar accidents.

One problem: That was only for the newer stuff.

A Pantsir, for example, can be told where targets are and what to shoot at by a larger system (they work in a pyramid hierarchy). S-200s are older than h*ll though. It's basically a dumb system from the 60's. (even dumber than a BUK)
What it'll do is spot a target, fire the missile and then when the missile "thinks" it's in the right area (the kill box), it's seeker head goes active (it's a semi active seeker). It starts looking for radar 'reflections' and then homes in on the biggest one it can see. It doesn't actually know what it's looking at and doesn't care. Just goes for the shiniest thing it can detect.

My favourite part is how all these lies are held up as if they merit discussion and as if they deserve to be given equal treatment with what actually happened. It's like holding a "discussion" as to whether or not Aliens rule the Earth.

grandstand says September 19, 2018
I tend to agree with you, on the whole, Mulga, about issues to do with Israel, though perhaps not so stridently. But on this occasion I think Matt is honestly telling things how he sees it.

On the other hand, one should ask why Israel is arbitrarily attacking targets in a sovereign country that is not threatening it. Of course, the answer is that this is what Israel does with impunity – witness USS Liberty among many others. On this occasion, it appears, from what I have read, that Israel was targeting the delivery of Iranian S300 copies to Syria – that is weapons to defend from this kind of attack in future. In reality, far from attacking Israel, Syria has even done nothing about recovering territory lost to Israel in 1967, though in international law Israel – that Israel signed up to – it should be given back to Syria. A few days ago, Israel attacked Damascus airport during an international fair with many visitors and potential for massive loss of life. It seems clear that Israel is trying (probably with US approval) to provoke a response.

Putin always keeps his eye on the long term view but it is time for him to put a stop to this activity if he is to maintain credibility with his allies and his voters. This attack will serve to weaken Putin's hitherto Israel friendly stance unless he wants to lose support in Russia. Putin is the best friend Israel has in Russia. It seems that Russian military is saying that there will be a response – much stronger than Putin.

grandstand says September 19, 2018
On the other hand – re my previous comment, Matt, IAF was clearly using the Russian ELINT plane as cover. It is tantamount to using civilians as human shields. Though the crew were Russian military, they were not involved in the action, apparently, and Israel had agreed not to target Russian assets in Syria. One cannot absolve Israel on this and the Russian military know it. They will be looking to Putin to permit a response.
Jen says September 19, 2018
Then you surely would not object if Russia were to ask Israel to hand over the pilots involved so they can explain in a Russian military court or a similar setting their actions and the thinking and expectations that motivated them to hide their jets in the Ilyushin transport plane's radar shadow.
Yarkob says September 19, 2018
israel is breaking international law (again) its pilots, and their commanders and any FAO they use, are criminals. plain and simple
Guest Columnist says September 19, 2018
Yes, there is a large element of theatre at play in this conflict. What many people don't want to accept is that they have no way of knowing what the entire truth is. All the information about situations and events comes from partisan organizations with vested interests. Expecting the side one personally favours to present objective truths is wishful thinking at best, downright delusional at worst.

The post-truth era means everybody walks around believing they have 'figured out' the truth, no hard evidence required, but they can't all be right can they?

It's neoliberal individualism gone mad.

Harry Law says September 18, 2018
Not so long ago Netanyahu was pleading with Putin [successfully] not to supply the S300 anti aircraft system [defensive] to Syria, at the same time Israel was the first country to get a fleet of F35's [offensive] from the US. Putin defers far to much to the US/Israel, we now see the results. Incidentally how come Saudi Arabia can buy the S400 system, when they were one of the instigators of Syrian regime change. Russia's "partners" want Syria destroyed, the warmonger McCain always said the US should take on Syria and that Russia would 'do nothing', was he right?
Admin says September 18, 2018
Let's recall the realities here and not succumb to hysteria. One of the reasons these provocations are happening is that Russia is winning in Syria, militarily and politically. Loading...
Big B says September 18, 2018
What are the realities: we are not being told?

Harry has touched on an important point: that Russia and Israel are becoming closer and closer strategic Russophone partners. Russia was the first country in the world to recognise W Jerusalem as Israel's capital (before even Trump). There was only one foreign dignitary at the May 9th Victory Parade their growing economic, military and cultural ties (Customs Union negotiations and visa free travel for instance) cannot be ignored.

The IDF's 200 strikes in 18 months must lead to serious consideration of tacit Russian approval because they could be quite quickly stopped without it? But that would escalate the situation. Where does Iran stand in this, because VVP made quite clear to Netanyahu that Iran was Russia's principle strategic partner in the region. Is that set to change?

Netanyahu has met VVP what, three times this year, behind closed doors. What was said, and what agreements were made? It is also reputed that they have a direct one-to-one encrypted comms network (though I can't confirm it was activated). But that they are in regular contact is undoubted.

There is a lot more going on beneath the surface than first meets the eye. VVP's relations with Netanyahu blurs the boundaries and greys the narrative. The fact that VVP is saying it "looks accidental" doesn't ring true it looks anything other than accidental to me. Was there a communication breakdown as VVP is in Hungary?

I do not know, and based on what we have been told, neither does anyone else. The FS Auvergne fired missiles just as the Il-20 HQ went off screen. They weren't firing at the IDF, I wouldn't be too sure they were "window dressing" for them either. Whatever went on, we are being kept in the dark. Not precipitating WW3 is a good thing. Other than that, Russia's foreign policy and ME relations are a 3D chess game that we know little of the motivation behind: but I can infer that Russia's strategic needs are primary. At what point can that be labelled imperialist?

Frankly Speaking says September 18, 2018
"What are the realities: we are not being told?"

Are you expecting to be spoon fed? And by the biased BBC, Guardian, etc!

It's pretty clear that Assad has won with Putin's support. China is on side too as evidenced by recent military manoeuvres. What is happening now is the US, UK, France, Israel, Turkey, Saudi just saving face and been allowed the odd small success or two.

However, Israel royally fucked up last night and Netanyahu will lose a plane or three if he tries it again.

Big B says September 18, 2018
You didn't really read my comment: this "odd small success " has happened 200 times in the last 18 months with the downing of how many IDF planes 1? Russia providing S-300s, or S-400s, or upgrading the 1960's SAM 2s would secure Syrian airspace. But these supplies are not forthcoming. Because Israel will not allow them.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liberman-to-russian-media-israel-did-not-join-western-action-against-moscow/

The situation is a lot more complex: and no, I don't want to be spoonfed by the BBC. The Saker posits a "Zionist 5th Column" in Russia that VVP has to accommodate. You seem to want a simplistic ZioNATO v Russia narrative, all I am saying it is a lot more nuanced than that. And I didn't get that from the Graun!

Big B says September 19, 2018
200 IDF strikes in 18 months, that could be stopped by turning on their S-400s, would be an instance.. Israel has lobbied successfully to prevent Syria from securing its own airspace. The majority of these attacks are to prevent Assad acquiring what Haaretz terms "lethal weaponry" a euphemism for Iranian supplied air defences that could secure Syrian airspace. As could a Russian declared NFZ (though the IDF would just standoff over Lebanon or the Med, and not penetrate Syrian airspace). Or Russian supplied S-300s.

So my answer is yes and no. The Russophone alliance of Russia and Israel seems to be ascendant over Syrian sovereignty. Or it was, until Monday. There appears to have been a breakdown in the de-confliction agreement, or a deliberate misuse and provocation by Israel. The jury is out on that one for the moment. If the attacks are stopped, I would tend to agree with you.

There is the small matter of the international silence surrounding the FS Auvergne firing missiles concurrent with the downing of the Il-20 HQ. These either hit the Il-20 or Latakia. Has anyone considered the Il-20 WAS the target? That there was no accident, but a deliberate targeting? Did the IDF or French take out the Russian early warning system and electronic warfare capability to leave Latakia vulnerable? I don't know, and Rothschild Macron said no! It is worth considering though, I feel.

Integrated into the systems view of militaristic, imperialistic, and sub-imperialistic, and extractivist proliferation: it hardly matters who did what when. They are not giving us an insight into their collective insanity and power games, where the stakes are humanities very survivability. Russia only seemed to remember on Monday that the serial numbers on the MH-17 BUK, means it was made in 1986. What else have they forgotten? What else do they not know?

Humanity has no strategic allies within the global neoliberal ruling class. Arming the world is a "pro-conflict policy", wouldn't you agree? Where militaristic proliferation can't facilitate peace: the only possible de-confliction becomes system change? There are good and bad actors within the current globally hegemonic cultural system: VVP is possibly the best, so it would be unfair to heap the woes of an essentially evil system upon him especially in isolation. So it must fall to those outside the transnational globally integrated system to call out where this insanity will lead. That's you and me?

What I am suggesting is rather than the inevitably favourable comparison of VVP, and well, just about anyone else let's look at the bigger picture. International World Capitalism, as Guattari termed it, has faced us with the choice of three suicides. Without a radical transformation of the oppressed consciousness (a la Guattari, Deleuze, Freire, Bookchin, Naess, but better still the secular Buddha) there will soon enough come the day that does not dawn Monday night was a foreshadowing of that very day?

Admin says September 19, 2018
The idea a head of state can function as a moral paragon is naive of course. Putin pursues Russia's interests, not world peace and brotherhood. But at the same time we can't ignore the fact he does so while adhering to the requirements of international law far more than the west does. In that sense, he has some claim to respect from those who value ethical conduct. Whatever his motives may be this fact deserves to be stated and made clear.
manfromatlan says September 18, 2018
Ronald Reagan and the US were complicit in the downing of KAL Flight 007. Similar moves afoot again to build up military race between Russia and US and bog Russia in Syria https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1985/09/26/the-fate-of-ke007-an-exchange/
vexarb says September 18, 2018
BTL SyrPer, vot tak on September 18, 2018 · at 12:22 pm EST/EDT

Interesting take from an israeli.

Israel Unlikely to Fly Freely Over Syria After Il-20 Incident – Ex-Official

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201809181068132500-israel-syria-il-20-incident-airspace/

"Israel is unlikely to freely use Syrian airspace in the wake of the crash of a Russian Il-20 military aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Yakov Kedmi, a former high-ranking Israeli intelligence official, told Sputnik.

"There was an agreement between Israel and Russia that the actions of Israel in Syria's airspace would not endanger lives of Russian troops. Israel breached this commitment What happens next will depend on the position of Israel. Most likely, Israel will no longer be able to enjoy the same freedom in the sky of Syria as it did before the incident," Kedmi said.

"Israel's attack in itself, regardless of the consequences, was an irresponsible step, because there is not a single facility on the territory of Syria that might have been used by Iran and whose destruction would have justified an attack on it, which could endanger the Russian troops," Kedmi said."

Mulga Mumblebrain says September 19, 2018
The idea that Israel would honour ANY 'agreement' made with anyone is quite mirth-inducing.
archie1954 says September 18, 2018
The US must be the worst nation on the face of the Earth. Everywhere it goes, death and destruction follow. To top it all off, the blatant hypocrisy is too much to handle. America is treacherous and duplicitous in the extreme. It has supported terrorists of all stripes in the Middle East and elsewhere for its own selfish geopolitical reasons. It is an entity not to be trusted, ever!
Cassandra says September 18, 2018
admin you might find some answers to your questions here:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article202998.html

Regarding (the long tradition of ) British-French-Israeli collusion

"Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns – most likely to avoid being somehow involved in the exchange of fire over Latakia." (source: Haaretz)

we should remember Sykes-Picot and "Operation Revised" (the 1956 Suez-deception)

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Protocol%20of%20Sevres%201956%20Anatomy%20of%20a%20War%20Plot.html

"The documentary evidence does not leave any room for doubt that at Sèvres, during the three days in late October 1956, an elaborate war plot was hatched against Egypt by the representatives of France, Britain and Israel. The Protocol of Sèvres is the most conclusive piece of evidence for it lays out in precise detail and with a precise time-table how the joint war against Egypt was intended to proceed and shows foreknowledge of each other's intentions .

The central aim of the plot was the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser. This aim is not explicitly stated in the protocol but it emerges clearly and unambiguously from all the records of the discussions surrounding it. Yet each of the three partners had a very different perspective on this war plot, and it was not at all clear how even the agreed aim was to be achieved.
The French were the most straight-forward, unwavering and unabashed advocates of military force. As far as they were concerned, Colonel Nasser supported the Algerian rebels and that, along with his nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, was enough to justify a war to overthrow him. For their part, the French did not need any further pretext for taking military action. It was the British, unwilling to incur Arab hostility by appearing as ally of Israel, who needed a pretext and Israel was able and willing to provide it but only at a price. Israel also required the elimination of Nasser's air force, for which task Britain alone had the heavy bomber bases sufficiently near at hand."

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp1_p2.html (Col.Fletcher Prouty's insights into the engineered "Suez Crisis")

MI6, the CIA the long history of covert ops in Syria

https://www.youtube.com/embed/511W2O-fPrY?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

John Gilberts says September 19, 2018
I was also struck by the Haaretz report that "Something strange was definitely in the air over Syria on Monday night with British and French forces reportedly present." I hope this open thread may bring more information on this alleged NATO involvement. I am beginning to think this incident may have rather more actors than we've been told. Loading...
grandstand says September 19, 2018
Yes – agreed. FUKUS ships have moved closer to the Syrian coast in the last few days, presumably in anticipation of an attack (chemical or otherwise) that they could justify a response to. The Russians have been doing a great job in the (non-Western) media of predicting potential chemical fake attacks and thereby defusing them. The one minute warning from Israel suggests the possibility (no more than that) that the Israelis saw the ELINT plane approaching the airfield and quickly decided to use it as cover for whatever reason.

As I've said in other posts, the Israelis have narrowed Putin's options. Of FUKUS +I they are the easiest to pick off.

A very different and is some ways attractive theory is presented here:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/

I am not totally convinced – Matt's view on the capability of the Syrian SAMs seems more convincing and it is not clear that Russian fighters could have scrambled in time, especially as the Israelis had agreed not to target Russian assets, but if true it perhaps is a clever – nay Machiavellian – way of opening up options for Putin vis-a-vis his Israeli/Russian Jewish oligarchs and hanging the Israelis out to dry.

Paul X says September 19, 2018
Is there any information about whether the Auvergne did or didn't fire missiles? The Syrians (and Russians?) said they had witnessed the firing of missiles which seemed to be aimed at the same government buildings as that being attacked by Israel which suggests collusion. Loading...
Admin says September 19, 2018
Apparently France is denying it
Philpot says September 18, 2018
The US and NATO's compliant poodles are clearly willing to risk WWIII as they think Russia will simply back down when they instigate open warfare and regime change in Syria. My own belief is that poor honest broker Russia has been left to decide the fate of world peace. Personally, for all our futures, I believe Russia must declare a no fly zone over Syria – anyone entering to bomb will be at mercy of S400. Otherwise this will continue and if the US gets Syria it will be Iran next and WWIII – that is, armageddon.
Gary Weglarz says September 18, 2018
The entire of the West has now become simply a huge collective criminal enterprise operating completely outside the bounds of international law and threatening to bring about armageddon in the process. Of course one would never know this by reading or watching Western media where our clueless psychopathic leaders are portrayed as gallantly fighting for "human rights" and "democracy" through "regime change" and endless slaughter.
vexarb says September 18, 2018
BTL SyrPer Auslander on September 18, 2018 · at 7:54 am EST/EDT

Israeli plane apparently passed just in front of the plane, SAA got a lock, Israeli doglegged left, missile lost lock and chose the biggest target ..our plane. Israel violated protocol, called one minute before the attack, not enough time for our bird to get out of the way. The french frigate was window dressing.

It was a setup.

europeannewright says September 18, 2018
Interesting that both Trump and Macron involved both stooges is the Israel military trying to trigger the third European War ? Loading...
Rigged Democracy says September 18, 2018
Here are a couple of quotes that show how far the system has been rigged/corrupted:

"one of the things we need to do is give young Jewish people the confidence to be proud of their identity – as British, Jewish and Zionist too .. There is no contradiction between these identities and we must never let anyone try to suggest that there should be ..
"You can also count on my commitment to Israel's security .. I am clear that we will always support Israel's right to defend itself."
– UK Prime Minister Theresa May, at the United Jewish Israel Appeal

"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them (Israel). It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
– U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer

Paul X says September 18, 2018
The BBC report no longer mentions the French frigate. Vanished!
0use4msm says September 18, 2018
The significance of direct military involvement by Israel and France is that the facade of a "civil war" (albeit by proxy) can no longer be maintained. The only thing that prevents it from being a regular war between nations is the omission of a declaration.
SO. says September 18, 2018

Is it possible for Syria to "accidentally" bring down an allied plane? Don't they have IFFs?

Yup, and kinda. It's perfectly possible to do it and IFF doesn't really work the way a lot of people think. (IFF transponder beacon works by transmitting a signal to the ground station or launcher).

If the ground station recognises the beacon it labels the aircraft as friendly and either denies launch permission or warns the operator beforehand.

However with a system like the S-200 that will not actually matter. The SA-5 (S-200) is an old system from the 60's which uses a semi active radar homing missile and how it works is quite simple.

When the ground system detects a target it illuminates the target with it's radar like a torch and launches the missile.

The missile then follows the radar reflection from the target until it gets close enough to detonate, goes bang, shoots plane down.

However the beam from the radar 'torch' can be quite wide (miles wide), F-16's are quite small, IL-20's quite big.. and the missile itself is pretty dumb.

As such by hiding in behind the larger aircraft the smaller aircraft can almost guarantee an incoming missile will prioritise the large aircraft reflection and kill that instead. It doesn't actually matter if the missile was launched against the smaller target in the first instance or if IFF came into play. The missile itself is too dumb to care. It just goes for the largest thing it can see.

BigB says September 18, 2018
Thanks for clearing that up: but it raises the question that the Il-20 was on a pre-planned flight path known in advance to both Russian and Syrian air traffic control (whom I believe are sitting next to each other?) Knowing what you have just posted (which I do not doubt) it can hardly be termed "accidental"?

I suspect the FS Auvergne fired its Aster missiles, but I'm not expecting a clarification of that. The situation is greyed by the burgeoning Russian-Israeli Russophone alliance. A simple narrative will not be forthcoming, I suspect.

SO. says September 18, 2018
The IL-20's been on station flying figure 8's on constant rotation for months so it's flight and landing path would be known to everyone with half assed radar or even functional eyeballs.
Paul X says September 18, 2018
Putin can't afford to get it wrong – for everybody's sake. His power is limited. He has done an excellent job in defeating the West in Syria but how could he react to missiles from the French frigate without triggering a massive NATO attack not just on Syria but Russia? In the current climate and the West's readiness it could happen in hours. He has always emphasised he puts Russian interests first – and those included eliminating thousands of Russian Jihadis before they returned home to create mayhem. He has never said he'll take on the World. So the French missiles were a mirage and the plane an accident? Well that's better than an even bigger war maybe?
vexarb says September 19, 2018
@BigB. Igor Bundy ABTL SyrPer supplies additonal info plus timeline, concludes that attack from only 4 planes is not lkely.

Russia not received data from #Israel on situation with IL-20 in #Syria – Peskov
https://sptnkne.ws/j9ce

-#Russia launched an S-400 missile/s against the Israeli jets which were dropping bombs 100Km away, so we're kept in the dark for now.

-#Russia responded immediately to the attack before the il-20M was lost Because the S-200 missiles were launched 20 min after the first wave.

-The attack lasted about 50 min, so only 4 F-16 doing the bombing is unlikely

Paul X says September 18, 2018
If the French and Israeli's attacked at the same time then they must have liased with each other. Or conspired is another way of putting it. Shades of 1956? But nowadays there wouldn't be the slightest outrage at such a collusion; it's oar for the course. And where is the missing partner, the UK? "No longer up to it" the French would say. "Too busy" say the Brits. NB which bit of Syria are the French after this time? Or do they see it descending into the chaos of a Libya, their last successful destabilisation.
Jo says September 18, 2018
Note Russian and IDF planes in direct line from s-200 being fired ..with French frigate ..looks like deliberate coordination to provide cover for each .but if frigate attacked then IDF planes available to directly attack Bashir in Damascus .and frigate to provide a source of provocation for excuse for Nato forces to launch their massive attack they desparately wish to do .especially as Putin agreed no military attack in Idlib ..and Russian MoD presentation yesterday it was a Ukraine BUK .in fact it is tempting to say Nato did this to get back at Russian MoD and punish them for this and expose in any way Russia's belief in trust and agreements and hotlines as a laughing stock ..and they have succeeded .a Russian plane shot down by an outdated Russian missile launched by Syria and Russia failing to supply s-300 but Turkey and everyone else can have s-400 which might ? have not ended up like this.
And did not Russia promise to deal with the "launch source" of any more missiles against Syria since the previous lot? Surely their are Russians in Latakia
Paul X says September 18, 2018
But you seem to be expecting or encouraging Russia to take on the World when in fact it's resources are limited
Jo says September 19, 2018
The elephant in the room is Iran .no responses from them yet even though Israel uses excuses to say it is defending itself from them and continues to attack what tjey call Iranian assets or anything they might vaguely claim have any connections to Iran ..does Iran follow Putins example to keep calm and carry on .thinking their"partnership" is being put to the test as of course it is in order to provoke it to invite a response by usa and associates .does it say to Putin enough is enough we are going to do our thing as you have said Russia is only in Syria to protect its own interests so cannot we do the same ..what options covert or overt does Iran have one wonders ..
David Macilwain says September 18, 2018
One question you didn't ask is whether this act, which appears to be an Israeli provocation assisted by the French, is related to the Sochi talks/agreement? Seems that supporters of the Syrian Opposition, of which France is right behind Turkey, might not like the agreement, partly because it stalls the plans for a "Syrian gas attack" by removing the pretext.
However I think the wider question is why and how has France been involved in this, described on SBS as "Israeli and French forces conducting aerial attacks on Syrian State assets"? Israel is a law unto itself, but France's intervention without any pretext whatsoever is a blatant war crime and escalation. The whole thing looks like a provocation, and one wonders when Russia will break. If Putin was unhappy having to make a peace agreement with the psycho Erdogan, he will be more unhappy now.
Paul X says September 18, 2018
If Russia was 'obliged' to retaliate to Israeli or French attacks its inherent weaknesses would be exposed. It remains a relatively poor country and Putin must be well aware it can't take on the US, Israel, the KSA and the other Gulf Emirs as well as France and the UK. It's done a fantastic job saving Syria but it can't take on The Rest of the World. If it has accepted Syrian missile defences brought it down that may well be the way out of a bigger war – this time.
manfromatlan says September 18, 2018
Putin's main interest is preserving Russian interests. Here, turning the other cheek likely is the best course. Loading...
writerroddis says September 18, 2018
I agree, Paul X. These are not only perilous waters, but untested to boot. In fact not one of the military powers you cite has had its strength tested against a non third world adversary. I know there are infantile tendencies crying "bring it on!" – as though speaking of a long awaited prize fight involving their heavyweight boxer of choice – but saner voices can only express alarm and profound dismay at what Western rulers seem bent on dragging us into. I say enough of this macho nonsense about who would prevail. I do take some comfort in the possibility – https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/- that US military power is overstated, but it is comfort of the bleakest possible kind. Loading...
archie1954 says September 18, 2018
The point is this, Russia can take on the whole World if it had to, but it would be a pyrrhic victory, because to do so would require nuclear weapons which no nation could survive. However, Russia has many allies, the largest of which is China, so it probably would only be taking on one major opponent, the US and a few of its erstwhile allies (France, Britain etc.), not by any stretch of the imagination, the whole World!
Paul X says September 18, 2018
China is even weaker than Russia and not long ago said it was 10 years behind the US in military terms and it's hard to see they'd welcome a bit of sacrifice to pull Putin's chestnuts out of the fire. That Alliance is for the future. Right now a full blooded NATO response would be quite enough. Many in America would be delighted if Russia used a nuke; total annihaltion of Russia would follow, something they've been dying to do for 75 years. And of course they might go for the First Strike.

[Sep 19, 2018] 13 British hypothesis about Skripal poisoning

Sep 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:14 pm

The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster: "Lies and obfuscation!"

Interesting accusation off HM government is that!

Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:

  1. Yulia Skripal brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.
  2. The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.
  3. The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery. T
  4. he Skripals were poisoned with an UAV drone.
  5. The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.
  6. The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.
  7. The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis (aka "Gordon") group, consisting of 6 killers.
  8. The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door handle.
  9. The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.
  10. The Skripals were poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still liquid).
  11. The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a public toilet.
  12. The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.
  13. The Skripals were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.

"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.

*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [ Главное разведывательное управление -- Glavnoye razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or ″GU″ [Главное управление Генерального штаба Вооружённых Сил Российской Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].

The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different, often contradictory, unproven scenarios.

Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened, which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government allegations are.

The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.

The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.

Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on many of Karl Marx's precepts.

yalensis September 14, 2018 at 2:13 am
Exactly! For Simonjan this unexpected interview was the scoop of the century.
The Russian press is going wild with this story.
One blogger wrote that some of the utterances of the 2 gopniki are rapidly becoming "winged phrases" compared only to snippets from Griboedov's "Woe from Wit".

Best example: "We returned to Salisbury to complete this business."
Simonjan (suspiciously): "What business?"
Gopnik: "To see the cathedral

[Sep 19, 2018] The Russian Defense Ministry has presented an audio recording proving Ukraine's complicity in the MH17 disaster in 2014, the Defense Ministry's spokesman Igor Konashenkov told the media

Sep 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 17, 2018 at 4:39 am

Russia presents audio recording proving Ukraine's complicity in MH17 tragedy
September 17, 12:56 UTC+3
The Russian Defense Ministry has presented an audio recording proving Ukraine's complicity in the MH17 disaster in 2014, the Defense Ministry's spokesman Igor Konashenkov told the media

The Russian Defense Ministry has ascertained that the videos showing the movement of a Buk missile system from Russia to Ukraine, presented by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine, were fabricated, ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov told reporters

The Defense Ministry also presented an audio recording proving Ukraine's complicity in the MH17 disaster in 2014, Major General Igor Konashenkov, spokesman for the ministry, told the media

General Konashenkov said the audio recording of a conversation between Ukrainian military servicemen was made back in 2016 in the Odessa Region during the Rubezh-2016 exercise and published in the Ukrainian mass media.

"If so, we'll [a synonym of the verb 'shoot down' – TASS] another Malaysian Boeing," one of the Ukrainian military servicemen said in the conversation

.The "Bloody Pastor" in Kiev replies "Fake!"

Киев назвал "фейком" выводы Минобороны России о сбившей Boeing ракете‍
Ведомости 14:35

Kiev has called the conclusions of the Russian Ministry of Defence concerning the missile that shot down the Boeing a "fake"

Заявление Российской Федерации о якобы украинском следе ракеты, которая сбила МН17 -- это очередной неудачный фейк Кремля для того, чтобы прикрыть свое преступление, которое уже доказано как официальным следствием, так и независимыми экспертными группами.

The statement of the Russian Federation about the alleged Ukrainian origin of the missile that hit the MH17 is another unsuccessful Kremlin fake, made in order to cover up its crime, which has already been proven both by an official investigation and by independent expert groups.

One of the investigating parties being the Ukraine, of course.

Moscow Exile September 17, 2018 at 5:01 am
As a press conference is still underway at the Russian MoD, Sputnik live updates on tht MH17 story here
Moscow Exile September 17, 2018 at 5:04 am
Latest update:

"The JIT has taken note of the information that has been publicly presented by the authorities of the Russian Federation for the first time today The JIT will meticulously study the materials presented today as soon as the Russian Federation makes the relevant documents available to the JIT as requested in May 2018 and required by UNSC resolution 2166," the statement of the Joint Investigation Team read.

However, one member of the JIT has already made its own conclusion concerning the evidence presented by the Russian MoD, without even finding it necessary to analyze any documents presented by those evil Moskali.

Mark Chapman September 17, 2018 at 11:20 am
And who else would be allowed to get away with that? A necessary suspect, by virtue of the incident having occurred there and having motive, means and opportunity aplenty, nonetheless allowed a seat on the investigation, unrestricted access to the evidence (much of which has by now likely disappeared, never mind the opportunities to doctor it before anyone else saw it) and a veto over the publication of the findings? The dice have been loaded ridiculously in Ukraine's favour, and the wise monkeys still can't come up with a convincing story among themselves. But Ukraine is a fledgling democracy, and it's just so cute, you have to believe it.

When the west finally abandons the Ukraine Project, it is going to have to conclude that Ukraine and Russia were secretly working together the whole time, to trick and defraud and rob western institutions that tried their best to help – there you go, boys; there's your cover story. Far better to be thought a cabbagehead than a co-conspirator.

I still don't like it, and you know why – fragments of the engine and nozzle, never mind one big enough to reveal the entire serial number, should not be in the wreckage. Nothing should have impacted the plane except shrapnel from the warhead, as the missile explodes by proximity fuse without ever touching the plane. Any debris from the missile should have fallen close to where the plane was hit, which was miles away from the crash site. I'm surprised Russia didn't bring that up already when the Ukies were hollering about finding Buk missile parts in the wreckage.

Russia never needed to smuggle in a single launcher to implicate Ukraine – if it had wanted to do that, it could have used a more advanced and longer-range missile to down it as soon as it entered Ukrainian airspace, without ever having to leave Russia.

Jen September 17, 2018 at 4:46 pm
I'm sure the JIT will study the materials so meticulously that this will be the eventual result:

Mark Chapman September 17, 2018 at 5:07 pm
The JIT, led by Ukraine, will study the materials meticulously for any way in the world that they could have been faked or doctored, and then build a case that this is precisely what was done. Russia will once again be taken to task and scolded for lying and trying to frame Ukraine, because the alternative – that Russia was telling the truth all along, in the face of deliberate and determined western efforts to bury the truth and shield Ukraine – is unacceptable.
kirill September 17, 2018 at 1:53 pm
Bellingcrap doctored videos of the alleged Russian Buk system in the Donbass.

Incompetent Ukr forces have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft by accident. MH17 was another victim of their incompetence. Too bad NATzO needs to turn this into "Putler did it" propaganda. I guess NATzO can't take Russia on without dirty tricks. Sore, pathetic losers.

Moscow Exile September 17, 2018 at 12:34 pm
Bum link -AGAIN!

Russia presents audio recording proving Ukraine's complicity in MH17 tragedy

[Sep 19, 2018] Russia accused Israel earlier of a hostile provocation in striking the Syrian port city of Latakia, which led to the downing of a Russian military plane with 15 servicemen on board

Notable quotes:
"... Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu informed his Israeli counterpart, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, that Moscow holds Israel wholly to blame for the shooting down of a Russian military plane near Syria. ..."
"... The Russian Defense Ministry said a recovery operation in the Mediterranean Sea is underway and that it has already located the wreckage in the sea and has retrieved some bodies and some fragments of the plane. ..."
"... "At the same time Russian air control radar systems detected rocket launches from the French frigate Auvergne which was located in that region." ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | www.haaretz.com

Haaretz

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Israel was not responsible for the downing of a Russian military aircraft during a strike on Syria Monday night. "It looks like a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn't shoot down our jet," he said.

Putin's comments were a shift in tone after Russia accused Israel earlier of a "hostile provocation" in striking the Syrian port city of Latakia, which led to the downing of a Russian military plane with 15 servicemen on board.

When asked about comparisons to Turkey's downing of a Russian aircraft in 2015, Putin said: "This is a different situation. The Turkish fighter jet knowingly downed our plane."

The Russian president noted that the Defense Ministry's statement, vowing a retaliatory response, was "fully coordinated" with him. "The retaliatory measures will be directed above all to boosting the security of military men and installations in Syria," he said. "These will be measures everyone will see."

Infographic of Monday night's alleged attack and incident

Infographic of Monday night's alleged attack and incident Russian Defense Ministry

In the call with Putin, Netanyahu stressed the importance of continuing the security coordination with Russia, which he said has saved many lives on both sides over the past three years. He offered to send Russia all necessary details in order to investigate the incident, including dispatching the Israel Air Force chief to Moscow.

Shortly later, the Kremlin said Putin told Netanyahu that agreements reached between Russia and Israel regarding the prevention of dangerous incidents "were not observed." The statement added that Putin asked Netanyahu to avoid such situations in the future.

The Kremlin's statement came after Russia's Foreign Ministry said Moscow told Israel it will take all necessary measures to protect its military personnel in Syria.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also responded to the downing of the aircraft, expressing sorrow for the deaths of Russian aircrew members. Pompeo said that the incident "reminds us of the need to find permanent, peaceful and political resolutions to the many overlapping conflicts in the region." He added that the incident brings to light "the danger of tragic miscalculations in Syria's crowded theater of operations."

Pompeo did not mention Israel in his statement, but he did say that the downing of the aircraft "underlines the urgent need to resolve the Syrian conflict and to end Iran's provocative transit of dangerous weapon systems through Syria, which are a threat to the region."

'Irresponsible actions'

Earlier on Tuesday, Russia's Defense Ministry accused Israeli military planes of creating a "dangerous" situation in Latakia, near where the aircraft was downed by Syrian air defense systems, as it claimed Israel warned Moscow about the planned operation one minute beforehand, adding that it was not enough time to get the the plane to safety.

The Defense Ministry said 15 Russian military service people died because of Israel's "irresponsible actions," adding that it reserves the right to take appropriate measures after Israel's hostile actions.

According to the ministry, the Israeli F-16 jets carrying out the airstrikes used the Russian plane as a cover to allow them to approach their targets on the ground without being hit by Syrian anti-aircraft fire.

"Hiding behind the Russian aircraft, the Israeli pilots put it in the line of fire of Syrian anti-aircraft systems. As a result the Il-20 ... was shot down by the (Syrian) S-200 missile system," Konashenkov said.

He said the Israeli pilots "could not have failed to see the Russian aircraft, as it was coming in to land from a height of 5 km (three miles). Nevertheless, they deliberately carried out this provocation," Konashenkov said.

Israeli army spokesperson Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis said in a statement that Israel "expresses sorrow for the death of the aircrew members of the Russian plane that was downed tonight due to Syrian anti-aircraft fire," adding that Israel holds the Assad regime fully responsible for the incident.

"Israel also holds Iran and the Hezbollah terror organization" for the event, said the statement. "Overnight, Israel Defense Forces fighter jets targeted a facility from which systems to manufacture accurate and lethal weapons were about to be transferred on behalf of Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon."

Manelis said Israel and Russia have a deconfliction system that has proven itself effective many times in recent years, and that "this system was in use tonight as well."

An initial inquiry by IDF top brass and the prime minister's bureau, Manelis said, showed that extensive and inaccurate anti-aircraft fire by Syrian forces downed the Il-20.

"When the Syrian Army launched the missiles that hit the Russian plane, IAF jets were already within Israeli airspace," said the statement, adding the Ilyushin was not present in the area of the operation during the Israeli airstrike.

It also said Syrian anti-aircraft batteries fired indiscriminately, "and from what we understand, did not bother to ensure that no Russian planes were in the air."

The statement concluded by saying Israel will share all the relevant information with the Russian government as to confirm the facts of the inquiry. An Israeli political official later echoed these comments as well, adding that Putin and Netanyahu are expected to speak soon.

Israeli Ambassador to Russia Gary Koren was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry following the incident, according to Russian media, though the Israeli Foreign Ministry declined to comment.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu informed his Israeli counterpart, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, that Moscow holds Israel wholly to blame for the shooting down of a Russian military plane near Syria.

The Kremlin was extremely concerned by the incident and Putin expressed his condolences for those who were killed, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

The Russian Defense Ministry said a recovery operation in the Mediterranean Sea is underway and that it has already located the wreckage in the sea and has retrieved some bodies and some fragments of the plane.

A U.S. official earlier said Washington believed the aircraft, which is an Il-20 turbo-prop plane used for electronic reconnaissance, was inadvertently shot down by anti-aircraft artillery operated by Moscow's ally, the Syrian government.

Around the time the plane disappeared, the Syrian coastal city of Latakia, near a Russian airbase to which the Il-20 was returning, came under attack from "enemy missiles" and missile defence batteries responded, Syrian state media reported.

The defense ministry in Moscow said the aircraft was returning to the Russian-run Hmeymim airbase in Latakia province when, at about 11 P.M. Moscow time (20:00 GMT), it disappeared from radar screens.

The plane was over the Mediterranean Sea about 35 km (20 miles) from the Syrian coastline, Russia's TASS news agency quoted the ministry as saying in a statement.

"The trace of the Il-20 on flight control radars disappeared during an attack by four Israeli F-16 jets on Syrian facilities in Latakia province," the statement was quoted as saying.

"At the same time Russian air control radar systems detected rocket launches from the French frigate Auvergne which was located in that region."

The fate of the 14 people on board the missing plane is unknown, and a rescue operation has been organized out of the Hmeymim base, the ministry said.

The Israeli military had no reaction, saying it does not comment on "foreign reports." French military spokesman Colonel Patrik Steiger told Reuters. "We deny any involvement."

A series of unusual airstrikes on Syria were attributed to Israel on Monday night. The official SANA news agency reported that ten people were injured in the attack, eight of whom were shortly discharged after being admitted to a nearby hospital.

According to Syrian media, missiles were fired toward military targets close to three large cities in the north of Syria: Lattakia, Homs and Hama.

In recent weeks there has been a significant uptick in the amount of reports attributing attacks to Israel. Previous attacks, according to foreign media, mostly targeted the area of the Damascus International Airport .

[Sep 19, 2018] Sergei Shoigu stated that the blame for the downed Russian aircraft and the death of the crew lies entirely on the Israeli side

Sep 19, 2018 | iz.ru

According to several sources of "Izvestia" familiar with the situation, despite the bad weather, on that day (thunderstorm, clouds, light rain, air temperature was 21 degrees) Israeli fighters had to visually observe the Il-20. At that time, the visibility was about 6 thousand meters, and the plane came to land with the lights on.

-- It is preliminary possible to say that the Israeli air force attacked a group on a single target, -- said the former commander of the 4th air army, air force and air defense Lieutenant-General Valery Gorbenko. - Went in a dense system at a distance of about 30-100 m from each other. Apparently, they approached the Il-20 at a distance of about 300-400 m and lined up in almost one line with respect to the shooting C-200. After the launches, the fighters performed an anti-missile maneuver with maximum overloads. The missile lost its target and re-aimed at our plane.

-- Group F-16 flew as close to the Russian aircraft, -- said the expert. - On the radar of air defense systems, all aircraft merged into one major goal. When the Syrian S-200 opened fire, the fighters received a warning about the missile attack and crumbled, and on the line of fire there was only less maneuverable and more noticeable Il-20.

The Russian Navy started search and rescue operation

As told "Izvestia" several informed sources in the Russian military Department, the first to the crash site Il-20 arrived boat "Raptor" with combat swimmers PDSS. These forces are part of the naval base in Tartus and are engaged in its protection against possible sabotage and terrorist acts. Earlier, the soldiers of the PDSS and the crews of the Raptors were also the first to find the wreckage of the su-30CM Syrian aerospace forces, which crashed in may this year.

[Sep 19, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis

Notable quotes:
"... Times of Israel ..."
"... Times of Israel ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

All of the facts have yet to be known but the Russian Defense Ministry has little doubt: the Israelis created the conditions by which Syrian air defenses took down a Russian Il-20 electronic intelligence aircraft in the midst of an Israeli air strike on a Syrian Arab Army facility in Latakia between 10 PM and 11 PM local time Monday night.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told reporters, this morning, that four Israeli F-16's used the Il-20 as cover to protect themselves from Syrian air defenses. "By using the Russian plane as a cover the Israeli air pilots made it vulnerable to Syrian air defense fire. As a result, the Ilyushin-20, its reflective surface being far greater than that of F-16, was downed by a missile launched with the S-200 system," Konashenkov said. The Israeli planes deliberately created a dangerous situation for surface ships and aircraft in that area, he stated. "The bombing raid was near the French frigate The Auvergne and in close proximity to the Ilyushin-20 plane of Russia's Aerospace Force that was about to land," Konashenkov said. The Russians had initially said that they had detected missiles fired from the Auvergne, but by daybreak had stopped saying that, and the French have denied involvement.

After Konashenkov's press briefing Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu issued a very strong statement vowing a Russian response. "We have informed today our Israeli colleagues, and I have also informed personally the Israeli Defense Minister [Avigdor Lieberman], that such actions will not be left unanswered by us," Shoigu said . "Our reconnaissance airplane Il-20 with 15 crew members on board" which had been collecting intelligence on jihadi drone operations in Idlib, "was in the strike zone, strictly speaking between Israel's aircraft - four F-16 planes - and Syrian territory," he said. "The Israeli side didn't issue a notification or, to be more precise, they warned us a minute before conducting the strike," he said. "They told us they were about to attack facilities on the Syrian territory, and they did it." Putin later said during a joint press conference with the prime minister of Hungary that he signed off on Shoigu's statement. "No doubt we should seriously look into this," he said .

The IDF then took the unusual step of issuing a statement, at mid-day, admitting that they were responsible for the air strike and expressing sorrow for the loss of the 15 crew members aboard the Il-20. However, they blamed Damascus, Hezbollah and Iran for the shoot down, reports the Times of Israel . According to the IDF, the target of the Monday night strike was a Syrian military facility that manufactured "accurate and lethal weapons," which were "about to be transferred, on behalf of Iran, to Hezbollah in Lebanon." The military said its initial investigation found that "the Syrian anti-air batteries fired indiscriminately and, from what we understand, did not bother to ensure that no Russian planes were in the air." the Russians will know whether or not any of this is true by their own radar data and their close working relationship with the Syrian air defense units.

In any case, it doesn't appear that Vladimir Putin was convinced b y the Israeli explanation though he did make a point, during his press conference, of differentiating this incident from the shoot down of a Russian Su-24 bomber by Turkish F-16's in November of 2016. According to the Kremlin readout of a phone conversation that Putin had with Netanyahu the Israeli prime minister promised to provide detailed information on the activities of the Israeli Air Force over Syrian territory on that day, which will be delivered soon to Moscow by the Israeli Air Force commander. Putin, in turn, "noted that operations of this nature by the Israeli Air Force are in violation of Syria's sovereignty. In this particular case, Russian-Israeli agreements on preventing dangerous incidents had not been observed either, and that resulted in the Russian aircraft coming under Syrian air defence fire. The Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future."

Israeli commentary on this incident takes note that the deaths of Russian service members in the context of an Israeli attack on the Syrian military has jacked up tensions between Tel Aviv and Moscow. "Israel has warned that Iranian forces must leave Syria. At the same time Jerusalem has good relations with Russia and Moscow has indicated it respects Israel's concerns about Iranian involvement in Syria," wrote Seth Frantzman at the conclusion of a conclusion in the Jerusalem Post . "This delicate balance now is at risk of changing after Latakia. The death of Russian servicemen cannot be ignored by Moscow and Russia shows that it doesn't want to accept that this was a terrible mistake, but rather seeing the airstrikes as endangering Russian lives." Avi Issacharoff, writing in the Times of Israel , also notes that the Israeli strike occurred in an area that had more or less heretofore off limits to the Israeli military, primarily because of the large presence of the Russian military in the area. Russia's Hmeimim air base lies only 18 km to the south of Latakia city. Russia's Tartous naval base is further down the coast, about 65 km, but the Russian navy also uses the port of Latakia as a secondary base. Israeli air strikes in this area clearly increase the risk to Russian service members deployed to these locations and this is not tolerable to the Russians.

Posted at 06:17 PM in Israel , Russia , Syria , Willy B | Permalink | 14 Comments

  • Vicky SD , 9 hours ago

    The amount of distrust that is inherent in a 1 minute warning, when you have a plane in the theater is all Russians need to know. A simple "apology not accepted" is what the Israelis need to hear, followed up by a declaration in conjunction with Syria that there will be a strict no-fly zone imposed on the area of Russian operations.
    PRC90 , 4 hours ago
    The question of a passive homing SAM navigating it's way to the largest radar cross section within it's arc, and not to the smaller returns from alleged nearby strike aircraft was raised in relation to MH17. If this occurred here then IAF casual reliance on a misplaced belief in the competence of the SAA air defences may be a tenuous way to blame Israel.
    However, Russian EW data hoovered up during the attack may show another story.

    Another obvious question is the 'one minute' warning time given by IAF. The Russians would have been aware of the ingressing F16's and probably their actual takeoff's but did not clear their own IL-20 aircraft out of the airspace ahead of them, possibly indicating that an IAF presence was a regular and normal event not necessarily resulting in strikes. What is on IAF / US EW data as intercepted Russian voice and data link material may show the details of that - not that anything but the cherry picks will ever be released.

    Lauren Johnson , 5 hours ago
    FWIW Joaquin Flores at Fort Russ argues the French did it and Russians have a disinfo campaign going for diplomatic reasons:

    https://www.fort-russ.com/2...

    John Gilberts , 8 hours ago
    In reporting the shoot-down of the Russian IL-20, Harretz reported that "Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns." If true, this strongly suggests a set-up and with NATO involvement.
    Vicky SD -> John Gilberts , 5 hours ago
    Exactly. It's obvious the Israelis intended for the French ship to be attacked, setting off god knows what chain of events.
    luke8929 , 9 hours ago
    Is the hotline between the Russians and the Israeli's still in place because if it is then the Russians are giving tacit approval for future strikes, its not as if the Russians are going to get the call and say no we don't approve of this one and the IAF is going to turn around and go home. This isn't the same as the hotline between the Russians and the US as they both have a common enemy, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc. The US isn't intentionally targeting the Syrians and Iranians, the Israeli's are specifically targeting them and they are supposed to be Russian allies. I don't see how the Russians get a pass on this until they completely stop all IAF activity directed at Syria.
    Pat Lang Mod , 9 hours ago
    http://tass.com/defense/102...
    Pat Lang Mod -> Pat Lang , 9 hours ago
    View Hide
    dougdiggler , 9 hours ago
    I get the distinct impression that that Il-20 was an airborne early warning system or sigint platform- a good way for the Is/FUKUS powers to take out Russia's eyes before a big offensive? Anyhow, sad to see that Turkey and Israel can kick Russia around, let alone the corrupt and incompetent NATO bullyboys. How can Russia retaliate? Is it stands, it seems clear that Israel was willing to gamble with the lives of the crews of the NATO ships offshore. I can only think that Israel got clearance on this from the highest levels- and just days after the IAF bombed Damascus International Airport during Syria's trade show!
    blue peacock , 9 hours ago
    "....the Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future."

    Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them to account to date.

    Is Putin between a rock and a hard place in Syria? He's committed significant capabilities to assist Assad in regaining control of Syrian territory, but FUKUS and Turkey are playing a spoilers game with the possibility that they could enter the Syrian conflict with an even larger force structure.

    smoothieX12 . -> blue peacock , 8 hours ago
    Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor
    Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them
    to account to date.

    Yes she does, otherwise CO of IAF wouldn't have been on his way to Moscow and Bibi urgently calling Putin. Once one gets more complete details of the event, such as teeny-weeny fact of Russia not providing Syrian AD (and with a good reason) with own IFF technology and codes--things become much more clearer. This was confirmed today. Of course military counter-intelligence still has to do its due diligence but it increasingly begins to look more as FUBAR rather than some "special" operations. Most likely, in fact highly likely, IAF F-16s were detected and tracked (and even possibly locked on) by Syrian S-200 and they "masked" (the oldest trick in the book) by descending IL-20. Putin was explicit in his conversation with Bibi that Israel not only violates Syria's airspace but violated previous agreements with Russia on matters of attacking Syrian/Iranian targets. There will be consequences and Putin also was explicit today when stated that, and I quote, "everyone will notice them". While it is a sad day for Russia and is agony for families of the crew, it is also clear (and thank God) that France and her ship had no hand in it whatsoever.

    Is Putin between a rock and a hard place in Syria? He's committed
    significant capabilities to assist Assad in regaining control of Syrian
    territory, but FUKUS and Turkey are playing a spoilers game with the
    possibility that they could enter the Syrian conflict with an even
    larger force structure.

    Actually, he didn't commit "significant" capabilities. They are very moderate by Russia standards. You want to see significant capabilities--Google Vostok 2018. That's significant. The appearance of new capabilities in Syria is long overdue, precisely for the reason that it is Russia who is keeping a barrel to Turkey's temple, not the other way around. They are needed their anyway just in case FUKUS decides to respond to absolutely unexpected and evil chemical weapons attacks by Assad.

    FB Ali -> smoothieX12 . , 5 hours ago
    It seems to me that Putin's response was too 'soft'. Unlike Shoigu's.

    Perhaps there is some divergence between Russian political and military policies with regard to Israel. What happens as a result of this tragedy will clarify matters. Putin cannot afford to alienate his military (and thus the Russian people) for the sake of Israel.

    Pat Lang Mod -> FB Ali , 3 hours ago
    Right. One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually taken Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have been under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama played out. The DMZ agreement prevents that, and now he takes this soft line over this bit of Israeli cleverness that cost Shoigu 14 men, Curious. One might think he does not want to rock the boat before the mid term.
    uncle tungsten -> smoothieX12 . , 3 hours ago
    Hahahahha good try smoothie but with due respect I take it you meant a "white helmets chemical weapons attack". It is ok now to drop the myth and speak truth to the war criminals hiding within the white helmets.

    The Israeli government delights in taking sniper shots and seeing innocents accidentally killed. In this case they were attacking Stria to sabotage their fight against UN declared terrorists. Disgraceful and an abandonment of all that is held high in civil society.

[Sep 19, 2018] Russia blames Israel after Syria kills 15 in Il-20 plane in air battle

Sep 19, 2018 | www.businessinsider.com

Russia said its Il-20 went down about 35 kilometers from the Syrian coast at about 11 p.m. local time, during the heat of the battle.

Russian media said that four Israeli F-16s carried out the attack and that Israel gave just one minute's warning to Russia, which maintains large military bases in the region.

"The Israeli pilots used the Russian plane as cover and set it up to be targeted by the Syrian air-defense forces," Russian media reported the Russian Defense Ministry as saying. "As a consequence, the Il-20, which has radar cross section much larger than the F-16, was shot down by an S-200 system missile."

"As a result of the irresponsible actions of the Israeli military, 15 Russian service personnel perished. This absolutely does not correspond to the spirit of Russian-Israeli partnership," the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told Russian state media, Reuters noted.

[Sep 19, 2018] The Shoot Down of the Russian IL-20 Who's Responsible

Notable quotes:
"... Times of Israel ..."
"... Times of Israel ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

All of the facts have yet to be known but the Russian Defense Ministry has little doubt: the Israelis created the conditions by which Syrian air defenses took down a Russian Il-20 electronic intelligence aircraft in the midst of an Israeli air strike on a Syrian Arab Army facility in Latakia between 10 PM and 11 PM local time Monday night.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told reporters, this morning, that four Israeli F-16's used the Il-20 as cover to protect themselves from Syrian air defenses. "By using the Russian plane as a cover the Israeli air pilots made it vulnerable to Syrian air defense fire. As a result, the Ilyushin-20, its reflective surface being far greater than that of F-16, was downed by a missile launched with the S-200 system," Konashenkov said. The Israeli planes deliberately created a dangerous situation for surface ships and aircraft in that area, he stated. "The bombing raid was near the French frigate The Auvergne and in close proximity to the Ilyushin-20 plane of Russia's Aerospace Force that was about to land," Konashenkov said. The Russians had initially said that they had detected missiles fired from the Auvergne, but by daybreak had stopped saying that, and the French have denied involvement.

After Konashenkov's press briefing Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu issued a very strong statement vowing a Russian response. "We have informed today our Israeli colleagues, and I have also informed personally the Israeli Defense Minister [Avigdor Lieberman], that such actions will not be left unanswered by us," Shoigu said . "Our reconnaissance airplane Il-20 with 15 crew members on board" which had been collecting intelligence on jihadi drone operations in Idlib, "was in the strike zone, strictly speaking between Israel's aircraft - four F-16 planes - and Syrian territory," he said. "The Israeli side didn't issue a notification or, to be more precise, they warned us a minute before conducting the strike," he said. "They told us they were about to attack facilities on the Syrian territory, and they did it." Putin later said during a joint press conference with the prime minister of Hungary that he signed off on Shoigu's statement. "No doubt we should seriously look into this," he said .

The IDF then took the unusual step of issuing a statement, at mid-day, admitting that they were responsible for the air strike and expressing sorrow for the loss of the 15 crew members aboard the Il-20. However, they blamed Damascus, Hezbollah and Iran for the shoot down, reports the Times of Israel . According to the IDF, the target of the Monday night strike was a Syrian military facility that manufactured "accurate and lethal weapons," which were "about to be transferred, on behalf of Iran, to Hezbollah in Lebanon." The military said its initial investigation found that "the Syrian anti-air batteries fired indiscriminately and, from what we understand, did not bother to ensure that no Russian planes were in the air." the Russians will know whether or not any of this is true by their own radar data and their close working relationship with the Syrian air defense units.

In any case, it doesn't appear that Vladimir Putin was convinced b y the Israeli explanation though he did make a point, during his press conference, of differentiating this incident from the shoot down of a Russian Su-24 bomber by Turkish F-16's in November of 2016. According to the Kremlin readout of a phone conversation that Putin had with Netanyahu the Israeli prime minister promised to provide detailed information on the activities of the Israeli Air Force over Syrian territory on that day, which will be delivered soon to Moscow by the Israeli Air Force commander. Putin, in turn, "noted that operations of this nature by the Israeli Air Force are in violation of Syria's sovereignty. In this particular case, Russian-Israeli agreements on preventing dangerous incidents had not been observed either, and that resulted in the Russian aircraft coming under Syrian air defence fire. The Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future."

Israeli commentary on this incident takes note that the deaths of Russian service members in the context of an Israeli attack on the Syrian military has jacked up tensions between Tel Aviv and Moscow. "Israel has warned that Iranian forces must leave Syria. At the same time Jerusalem has good relations with Russia and Moscow has indicated it respects Israel's concerns about Iranian involvement in Syria," wrote Seth Frantzman at the conclusion of a conclusion in the Jerusalem Post . "This delicate balance now is at risk of changing after Latakia. The death of Russian servicemen cannot be ignored by Moscow and Russia shows that it doesn't want to accept that this was a terrible mistake, but rather seeing the airstrikes as endangering Russian lives." Avi Issacharoff, writing in the Times of Israel , also notes that the Israeli strike occurred in an area that had more or less heretofore off limits to the Israeli military, primarily because of the large presence of the Russian military in the area. Russia's Hmeimim air base lies only 18 km to the south of Latakia city. Russia's Tartous naval base is further down the coast, about 65 km, but the Russian navy also uses the port of Latakia as a secondary base. Israeli air strikes in this area clearly increase the risk to Russian service members deployed to these locations and this is not tolerable to the Russians.

Posted at 06:17 PM in Israel , Russia , Syria , Willy B | Permalink | 14 Comments

  • Vicky SD , 9 hours ago

    The amount of distrust that is inherent in a 1 minute warning, when you have a plane in the theater is all Russians need to know. A simple "apology not accepted" is what the Israelis need to hear, followed up by a declaration in conjunction with Syria that there will be a strict no-fly zone imposed on the area of Russian operations.
    PRC90 , 4 hours ago
    The question of a passive homing SAM navigating it's way to the largest radar cross section within it's arc, and not to the smaller returns from alleged nearby strike aircraft was raised in relation to MH17. If this occurred here then IAF casual reliance on a misplaced belief in the competence of the SAA air defences may be a tenuous way to blame Israel.
    However, Russian EW data hoovered up during the attack may show another story.

    Another obvious question is the 'one minute' warning time given by IAF. The Russians would have been aware of the ingressing F16's and probably their actual takeoff's but did not clear their own IL-20 aircraft out of the airspace ahead of them, possibly indicating that an IAF presence was a regular and normal event not necessarily resulting in strikes. What is on IAF / US EW data as intercepted Russian voice and data link material may show the details of that - not that anything but the cherry picks will ever be released.

    Lauren Johnson , 5 hours ago
    FWIW Joaquin Flores at Fort Russ argues the French did it and Russians have a disinfo campaign going for diplomatic reasons:

    https://www.fort-russ.com/2...

    John Gilberts , 8 hours ago
    In reporting the shoot-down of the Russian IL-20, Harretz reported that "Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns." If true, this strongly suggests a set-up and with NATO involvement.
    Vicky SD -> John Gilberts , 5 hours ago
    Exactly. It's obvious the Israelis intended for the French ship to be attacked, setting off god knows what chain of events.
    luke8929 , 9 hours ago
    Is the hotline between the Russians and the Israeli's still in place because if it is then the Russians are giving tacit approval for future strikes, its not as if the Russians are going to get the call and say no we don't approve of this one and the IAF is going to turn around and go home. This isn't the same as the hotline between the Russians and the US as they both have a common enemy, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc. The US isn't intentionally targeting the Syrians and Iranians, the Israeli's are specifically targeting them and they are supposed to be Russian allies. I don't see how the Russians get a pass on this until they completely stop all IAF activity directed at Syria.
    Pat Lang Mod , 9 hours ago
    http://tass.com/defense/102...
    Pat Lang Mod -> Pat Lang , 9 hours ago
    View Hide
    dougdiggler , 9 hours ago
    I get the distinct impression that that Il-20 was an airborne early warning system or sigint platform- a good way for the Is/FUKUS powers to take out Russia's eyes before a big offensive? Anyhow, sad to see that Turkey and Israel can kick Russia around, let alone the corrupt and incompetent NATO bullyboys. How can Russia retaliate? Is it stands, it seems clear that Israel was willing to gamble with the lives of the crews of the NATO ships offshore. I can only think that Israel got clearance on this from the highest levels- and just days after the IAF bombed Damascus International Airport during Syria's trade show!
    blue peacock , 9 hours ago
    "....the Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future."

    Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them to account to date.

    Is Putin between a rock and a hard place in Syria? He's committed significant capabilities to assist Assad in regaining control of Syrian territory, but FUKUS and Turkey are playing a spoilers game with the possibility that they could enter the Syrian conflict with an even larger force structure.

    smoothieX12 . -> blue peacock , 8 hours ago
    Does Israel really care? It seems that Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor
    Lieberman believe they can act with impunity since no one has held them
    to account to date.

    Yes she does, otherwise CO of IAF wouldn't have been on his way to Moscow and Bibi urgently calling Putin. Once one gets more complete details of the event, such as teeny-weeny fact of Russia not providing Syrian AD (and with a good reason) with own IFF technology and codes--things become much more clearer. This was confirmed today. Of course military counter-intelligence still has to do its due diligence but it increasingly begins to look more as FUBAR rather than some "special" operations. Most likely, in fact highly likely, IAF F-16s were detected and tracked (and even possibly locked on) by Syrian S-200 and they "masked" (the oldest trick in the book) by descending IL-20. Putin was explicit in his conversation with Bibi that Israel not only violates Syria's airspace but violated previous agreements with Russia on matters of attacking Syrian/Iranian targets. There will be consequences and Putin also was explicit today when stated that, and I quote, "everyone will notice them". While it is a sad day for Russia and is agony for families of the crew, it is also clear (and thank God) that France and her ship had no hand in it whatsoever.

    Is Putin between a rock and a hard place in Syria? He's committed
    significant capabilities to assist Assad in regaining control of Syrian
    territory, but FUKUS and Turkey are playing a spoilers game with the
    possibility that they could enter the Syrian conflict with an even
    larger force structure.

    Actually, he didn't commit "significant" capabilities. They are very moderate by Russia standards. You want to see significant capabilities--Google Vostok 2018. That's significant. The appearance of new capabilities in Syria is long overdue, precisely for the reason that it is Russia who is keeping a barrel to Turkey's temple, not the other way around. They are needed their anyway just in case FUKUS decides to respond to absolutely unexpected and evil chemical weapons attacks by Assad.

    FB Ali -> smoothieX12 . , 5 hours ago
    It seems to me that Putin's response was too 'soft'. Unlike Shoigu's.

    Perhaps there is some divergence between Russian political and military policies with regard to Israel. What happens as a result of this tragedy will clarify matters. Putin cannot afford to alienate his military (and thus the Russian people) for the sake of Israel.

    Pat Lang Mod -> FB Ali , 3 hours ago
    Right. One must ask why Putin is acting this way. He has actually taken Trump off the hook. If the offensive had gone in Trump would have been under a lot of pressure to take military action when the WH drama played out. The DMZ agreement prevents that, and now he takes this soft line over this bit of Israeli cleverness that cost Shoigu 14 men, Curious. One might think he does not want to rock the boat before the mid term.
    uncle tungsten -> smoothieX12 . , 3 hours ago
    Hahahahha good try smoothie but with due respect I take it you meant a "white helmets chemical weapons attack". It is ok now to drop the myth and speak truth to the war criminals hiding within the white helmets.

    The Israeli government delights in taking sniper shots and seeing innocents accidentally killed. In this case they were attacking Stria to sabotage their fight against UN declared terrorists. Disgraceful and an abandonment of all that is held high in civil society.

[Sep 19, 2018] Putin Absolves Israel Over Syria Strike, but Crisis With Moscow Reaches All the Way to Tehran

Sep 19, 2018 | www.haaretz.com

Monday's incident near Latakia, in which 15 Russian soldiers were killed in a downed plane, might see Russia toughen its stance toward Israel and curtail the air force's freedom of action in Syria

Sep 19, 2018 11:28 AM "You always have to remember the first lesson in military history: Don't mess with the Russians," a senior officer in the Israel Defense Forces said on Monday – without realizing how prophetic his words were.

[Sep 19, 2018] Israeli actions leading to destruction on Il-20 look preplanned opration

Sep 19, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bill Herschel -> Pat Lang , an hour ago

And one might be right. On the other hand, there is a timeline of the Israeli F-16's actions that resulted in the downing of the IL-20 in Izvestia. It was completely intentional. Premeditated murder. The planes were within several hundred meters of each other. The Israeli's set up the IL-20 knowing beforehand it would be destroyed.

I would not want to be the pilot of the next Israeli plane that attacks Lebanon. Avoiding being hit by Syrian air defense by murdering Russian servicemen is heavy baggage to carry.

Oh, and the Israeli Army? Well, they have nothing to fear, because they will never see combat again. Strictly joint maneuvers with the KSA.

And Trump? Emasculated internationally. Unless you count Fort Trump in Poland. Oh, wait...

https://iz.ru/790550/kirill...

FB , 3 hours ago
There is a lot that doesn't make sense about the downing of this Russian spy plane...some have pointed to the presence of the French frigate and the fact that Russian sensors detected it firing missiles...the Israeli F16s as the author notes happened to be sailing missiles right over the Russians' heads in Latakia, which previously has not happened...the area being considered off-limits due to the Russian flag there...

All of this happens at precisely the moment in time when Putin and Erdogan produce a very significant agreement on Idlib, that de-militarized zone of 15 to 20 km along the entire periphery of Idlib...looking at a map that amounts to easily half the territory of the province...taking half of Idlib without firing a shot is actually a pretty big win...

One can see how various elements of the global borg would be quite unhappy about that...they had been using Erdog as a cat's paw on Idlib up to now, but he finally realized that he can't keep dancing on the head of a pin forever...he needs Russian gas, nuclear power and military hardware...and he needs Chinese investment and financial help...both China and Russia are 100 percent resolved that those thousands of Russian and Chinese headchoppers in Idlib have to go...

PRC90 , 13 hours ago
The question of a passive homing SAM navigating it's way to the largest radar cross section within it's arc, and not to the smaller returns from alleged nearby strike aircraft was raised in relation to MH17. If this occurred here then IAF casual reliance on a misplaced belief in the competence of the SAA air defences may be a tenuous way to blame Israel.

However, Russian EW data hoovered up during the attack may show another story.

Another obvious question is the 'one minute' warning time given by IAF. The Russians would have been aware of the ingressing F16's and probably their actual takeoff's but did not clear their own IL-20 aircraft out of the airspace ahead of them, possibly indicating that an IAF presence was a regular and normal event not necessarily resulting in strikes. What is on IAF / US EW data as intercepted Russian voice and data link material may show the details of that - not that anything but the cherry picks will ever be released.

[Sep 19, 2018] The recon plane was lost due to gross incompetence or sabotage by the commanders overseeing the Syria operation. For sure, they knew that Israeli jets were activated. Proper procedure requires defenseless assets to be protected. So orders should have been given to scramble Russian jets from Khmeimim.

Sep 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Kirill, September 19, 2018 at 5:30 am

All the yammering about Putin by the resident Finn is moronic. The recon plane was lost due to gross incompetence or sabotage by the commanders overseeing the Syria operation. For sure, they knew that Israeli jets were activated. Proper procedure requires defenseless assets to be protected. So orders should have been given to scramble Russian jets from Khmeimim. This would have prevented the Israeli ploy and all the discussion about why friendly fire happened would not be taking place.

The real test for Putin is if he can fire the Russian clowns responsible for this fiasco and even have them charged with criminal negligence if not treason.

Moscow Exile September 19, 2018 at 5:42 am

There's a criminal investigation into the incident that is now under way at the MoD.

I saw a report earlier today about this. Lost the source since.

[Sep 19, 2018] I'd like to see Russia take a harder line

Notable quotes:
"... n this particular case, Russian-Israeli agreements on preventing dangerous incidents had not been observed either, and that resulted in the Russian aircraft coming under Syrian air defence fire. The Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future. ..."
"... But before you get too admiring of the heavy hand of America and its reputation for taking no shit from nobody, review the USS LIBERTY incident. Israel continued to pour everything it had into sinking the LIBERTY with all hands and without a trace, right up until a radio call from a nearby Carrier Task Group announced it was sending aid, at which point Israeli forces broke off the attack, announced it had been a terrible mistake, and tried to offer assistance, which was angrily refused. ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake September 18, 2018 at 10:13 pm

Netanyahu phone call to Putin..

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58589
The Israeli Prime Minister expressed his condolences over the death of the 15 servicemen aboard the Il-20 aircraft shot down in Syria on September 17. With respect to a thorough investigation, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to provide detailed information on the activities of the Israeli Air Force over Syrian territory on that day, which will be delivered soon to Moscow by the Israeli Air Force commander.

Vladimir Putin noted that operations of this nature by the Israeli Air Force are in violation of Syria's sovereignty. In this particular case, Russian-Israeli agreements on preventing dangerous incidents had not been observed either, and that resulted in the Russian aircraft coming under Syrian air defence fire. The Russian President called on the Israeli side to prevent such incidents in the future.

In other words Israel don't do it again. My prediction that nothing would be done is proved correct.

Didn't take long for excuses to be made for Israel – after what they did to your own people.

Mark Chapman September 19, 2018 at 9:06 am
Maybe they should just shoot the Israeli Air Force Commander as soon as he steps off the plane. Or better still, shoot down his plane with him on it as soon as he enters Russian airspace!

You're not wrong, and I'd like to see Russia take a harder line with those Israeli yobbos, since continuing to do things the civilized way merely assures them they are the masters of dirty tricks and innocent faces.

But before you get too admiring of the heavy hand of America and its reputation for taking no shit from nobody, review the USS LIBERTY incident. Israel continued to pour everything it had into sinking the LIBERTY with all hands and without a trace, right up until a radio call from a nearby Carrier Task Group announced it was sending aid, at which point Israeli forces broke off the attack, announced it had been a terrible mistake, and tried to offer assistance, which was angrily refused.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html

Israel murdered 34 American servicemen that day, and would have killed everyone on board and in all probability blamed the disappearance on the Arabs, except for the surprising durability of the ship despite tremendous damage. And the American government's verdict, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, was that Israel had simply made a mistake. It's notable here that Israel's excuse was it had mistaken LIBERTY for a decommissioned Egyptian horse-carrier. Even if that were true, would it have been worth the combined might of the Israeli navy and air force to sink an Egyptian horse-carrier? What would be the tactical triumph in that?

[Sep 19, 2018] The Lehman 10th Anniversary spin as a Teachable Moment by Michael Hudson

Notable quotes:
"... A basic principle should be the starting point of any macro analysis: The volume of interest-bearing debt tends to outstrip the economy's ability to pay. This tendency is inherent in the "magic of compound interest." The exponential growth of debt expands by its own purely mathematical momentum, independently of the economy's ability to pay – and faster than the non-financial economy grows. ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Wall Street did not let the Lehman Brothers crisis go to waste. The banks that have paid the largest fines for financial fraud are now much bigger and more profitable. The victims of their junk mortgage loans are poorer, and the economy is facing debt deflation.

Was it worth it? What was not saved was the economy.

[Sep 19, 2018] In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

Notable quotes:
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics." ..."
Sep 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous , [340] Disclaimer says: September 16, 2018 at 7:34 am GMT

None of this should have come as a surprise.

"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."

Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016

The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show, another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah.

peterAUS , says: September 19, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT
@Diversity Heretic I applied through the GreatAgain website and never received the courtesy of a reply despite having conributed to the Trump campaign before Iowa, nine years working on Capitol Hill (for Republicans) and seven years in a regulatory commission (working for a Republicaén commissioner), a JD and an MBA. So I'm not surprised to hear that applications through the website were not even considered and jobs filled with Washington insiders. (The first inclination that I had that something was seriously wrong in the staffing area was when Calista Gingrich was named as ambassador to the Vatican.) Trump has the classic problem of the outsider: no institutional mechanism to staff an administration. (Jesse Ventura had a similar problem when he was elected as governor of Minnesota as an independent). He compounds that problem by making poor choices that involve his personal judgment and consideration (e.g., John Bolton and Nikki Haley?!).

Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think we're in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.

Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think we're in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.

Pretty much.
"Rough ride" in particular.

Biff , says: September 19, 2018 at 7:57 am GMT
@Haxo Angmark before June 2015,

when he put on a populist mask to run for Prez

and fool the White people in flyover country, Trump

was a life-long (((NY))) lib democrat

and (((Wall Street))) Zionist stooge.

all the rest is dog-and-pony show.

suckers

and (((Wall Street))) Zionist stooge.

If you go over to the comment section at USAToday, they call him an anti-Semite.

Proud_Srbin , says: September 19, 2018 at 9:47 am GMT
It is astonishing that after all the fraudsters and con masters masquerading as politicians there are huge numbers who claim to believe in the system where humans have voluntarily given away their freedoms.
Hope and Change, replaced by MAGA.
Do you honestly believe that your Founding Fathers would rebel against King's Tyranny if it were possible to change it by peaceful means?
DanFromCT , says: September 19, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
@anonymous None of this should have come as a surprise.

"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."

Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016

The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show, another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah. Voting in our national elections has become another example of evil paraded before us as a moral duty. It ironically results in disenfranchisement by perpetually legitimizing a federal government as much at war with its own citizens as with every other people who oppose the new American Proposition -- the antithesis of a fulfilling human culture wherever it's found, and which today amounts to claiming that freedom and democracy equate to owning stuff and vicariously participating in unbridled avarice, sexual depravity, war, torture, and mass murder. Either party and all that horror is a constant.

So, instead of girding middle America mentally, spiritually, and physically to fight to the death for what's worth living for, and while there's still some chance to save ourselves and our nation, we get the Republican leadership, Fox News, and Conservatism Inc blowing smoke in our eyes, temporizing on behalf of the Deep State by pretending these veiled and overt calls for white genocide are just in bad taste or that curtesy and cowardice are an effective policy toward a wildly homicidal left.

[Sep 18, 2018] The Anne Frank Test by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Phoenix New Times ..."
"... McCain would have passed the Anne Frank test" ..."
"... "The senator spent decades demonstrating his willingness to fight powerful men who abused powerless people." ..."
Sep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

The week leading up to the funeral of Senator John McCain produced some of the most bizarre media effusions seen in this country since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. McCain, who never saw a war or regime change that he didn't like, was apparently in reality a friend of democracy and freedom worldwide, a judgment that somehow ignores the hundreds of thousands of presumed foreign devils who have died as a consequence of the policies he enthusiastically promoted in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

McCain, who supported assassination of US citizens abroad and detention of them by military commissions back at home, was hardly the upright warrior for justice eulogized in much of the mainstream media. He was in fact for most of his life a corrupt cheerleader for the Establishment and Military Industrial Complex. McCain was one of five Senators who, in return for campaign contributions, improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles Keating, Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently did not follow through with proposed action against Lincoln.

Lincoln Savings and Loan finally did collapse in 1989, at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government, which had insured the accounts, while an estimated 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded, many losing their life savings. When the Keating story broke in 1989, the Phoenix New Times newspaper called McCain the worst senator from any state in American history.

There was plenty of pushback on the McCain legacy coming from the alternative media, though nothing in the mainstream where politicians and pundits from both the left and the right of the political spectrum united in their songs of praise. Amidst all the eulogies one article did, however, strike me as particularly bizarre. It was written by Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor in Chief of The Atlantic , and is entitled " McCain would have passed the Anne Frank test" with the sub-heading "The senator spent decades demonstrating his willingness to fight powerful men who abused powerless people."

Goldberg, a leading neoconservative, casually reveals that he has had multiple discussions with McCain, including some in "war zones" like Iraq. He quotes the Senator as saying "I hated Saddam. He ruled through murder. Didn't we learn from Hitler that we can't let that happen?" Goldberg notes that McCain's hatred "for all dictators burned hot" before hitting on a number of other themes, including that, per the senator, it was Donald Rumsfeld's "arrogance and incompetence that helped discredit the American invasion" of Iraq. Goldberg quotes McCain as saying "He [Rumsfeld] was the worst."

Jeffrey Goldberg also claims a conversation with McCain in which he asserted that, even though an Iraq war supporter, he had become frustrated with the effort to "renovate a despotic Middle Eastern country." As he put it, "theory of the American case was no match for the heartbreaking Middle East reality," which is yet another defense of U.S. interventionism with the caveat that the Arabs might not be ready to make good use of the largesse. Elsewhere Goldberg, echoing McCain, has attributed the disaster in Iraq to the "incompetence of the Bush Administration," not to the policy of regime change itself, presumably because the Pentagon was unsuccessful at killing enough Arabs quickly enough to suit the neoconservatives. McCain's reported response to Goldberg's equivocation about Saddam Hussein's Iraq was "But genocide! Genocide!"

... ... ...

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

Carlton Meyer , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 4:43 am GMT

A final tribute to McCain, from my blog:

Sep 2, 2018 – John McCain Will Not Be Missed

As a follow-up to my Aug 27th blog, I ask people to name McCain's most important accomplishment during his long political career. They can think of none, but the TV tells them McCain was great because he was a neocon. Senator Paul Laxalt saw more combat than McCain and had an equally long and distinguished career. He was not a crazed neocon so our media barely reported his death last month.

Here are two examples of McCain's bad character just this past year. McCain had always opposed Obamacare and campaigned against it. The Republicans had tried to repeal it for years. The election of President Trump also brought in more Republican congressmen. The House easily repealed it, and the Senate finally had a majority to vote for a partial repeal. This would be a big victory for the Republicans led by President Trump. When the vote was held, McCain shocked everyone and voted against it, thus abandoning his principles and backstabbing his party! This was applauded by the Democrats and the insurance companies who profit from Obamacare. They praised McCain as a "maverick", although everyone knows this was done just to thwart a Trump victory.

On his deathbed, McCain directed his staff not to invite his Presidential running mate Sarah Palin to his funeral. She campaigned for him as a loyal teammate and never said a bad word about McCain during the campaign or after their loss. McCain blamed her for his loss and expressed this in a childish manner. Allow me to summarize his life. John McCain was as selfish, spoiled brat who had no sense of decency.

Cloak And Dagger , says: September 18, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT
As I have stated before it is with great sorrow that I note the passing of McCain. A more just god would have prolonged the agony of cancer for may years to come so he could live in misery, anguish, and pain, as penance for the lives he has destroyed here and abroad. I fear that several such lifetimes in such suffering would be grossly inadequate recompense for what he has wrought.

Small wonder that I have no belief in such an inordinately cruel and unjust god who allows men like McCain to live and thrive and then vanish into the ether with his debts unpaid, while the crew of USS Liberty live their lives in the knowledge of their betrayal by McCain's father, and later McCain himself.

An orphaned child weeps in Iraq while America lauds this beast among men while he lived, and sings his praises on his death. A curse on all his enablers.

mark green , says: September 18, 2018 at 7:16 am GMT
This was a stirring editorial, Philip, and an much-needed rejection of John McCain's artificial status as a 'great American'.

Indeed, the fact that such a murderous sycophant as McCain would receive extended, bi-partisan honors by establishment 'liberals' and 'conservatives' alike, demonstrates what a staged and loathsome cesspool of corruption has become Imperial Washington, not to mention our vaunted Fourth Estate. I haven't felt this estranged from my own country since the last time Bibi Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress.

... ... ...

jilles dykstra , says: September 18, 2018 at 7:30 am GMT
What on earth is the Anne Frank test ?
The Anne Frank story simply is of jews in hiding in the Netherlands in WWII, discovered in 1944, deported, where Anne Frank died in early 1945 died of typhoid, while others who stayed in the same Amsterdam canal achterhuis, literally 'behind house', built later in the garden, survived.
Before I continue, there is not a shred of doubt that the hiding place and the way they were in hiding is not true.
However, if a fourteen year old wrote the diary, there are doubts.
Except for the text itself, how at the end of 1944 a ball point pen arrived in occupied Netherlands, the last part is written by ballpoint, no explanation whatsoever.
Jews were in hiding all over the Netherlands, my mother told me how after the Canadians had driven out the Germans, snow white people appeared in her small village, that she had known nothing about, they had been inside for several, maybe five, years.
The effort to get food to them must not be underestimated, food was rationed strictly.
anonymous , [337] Disclaimer says:
EliteCommInc. , says: September 18, 2018 at 8:01 am GMT
I will keep my fence. His policies regarding Carte Blanche' support for Israel, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, , interventions in Libya, Syria the Ukraine and pressing the matter on Iran -- the Russia baiting and Russia conspiracies –

were and remain horrible policies for the US.

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 8:11 am GMT
From reading these uppity remarks by Mr. Giraldi, it's obvious he didn't get the text commanding all good Americans to get on their knees and worship the dead mass-murderer psychopath McCain.

"He said that, in the post holocaust world, all civilized people, and the governments of all civilized nations, should be intolerant of leaders who commit verified acts of genocide "

"Verified?" John Boy using legalese to slither away from his participation in numerous acts of genocide, both directly by dropping Napalm on Vietnamese civilians or as one of the US Senate's most rabid war mongers, demanding that this nation or that country be bombed, invaded and smashed, because McCain had set himself up as judge, jury and executioner? No facts needed, verdict already in, GUILTY as usual, off with their heads.

If the ICC was actually functional and not just a tool of NATO, EU, Israel and its US colony, McCain–along with a slew of other US and Israeli war criminals–would of been dancing on air a long time ago.

David Martin , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 10:11 am GMT
On top of it all, the notion of such an "Anne Frank test" is also founded on a lie. http://www.dcdave.com/article5/150811.htm
JackOH , says: September 18, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
Phil, thanks.

I served among fighter jocks back in the 1970s. They're great guys, cut a good public figure, they're patriotic, true believers in air power, and they enjoy the prestige of their military occupation. They are also straight-line-only thinkers. They'd bristle at the idea that they've been "handled" by anyone.

We had a retired Navy captain here who was elected county commissioner. Bristling with energy and ideas, he had the security of his good government pension. So he thought. Bought by a local zillionaire, he served prison time.

Fighter jocks simply won't "get" that the job of our political masters is to cripple and puppetize nominally representative institutions by bribery, blackmail, extortion, and the like, for the purpose of providing rhetorical cover for what they want to do.

Z-man , says: September 18, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
You should and you should try to get others even more influential than yourself (I'm thinking Pat Buchanan), to browbeat CBS to disclose that this Jeffrey Goldberg is an Israeli citizen. He's on 'Face The Nation' almost as much as the lovely Margaret Brennan.
Stephen Paul Foster , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 10:26 am GMT
"That McCain enthusiastically became Goldberg's patsy is at least one good reason that we should all be grateful that he never was elected president."

Yes, McCain did not appear to be particularly bright, but he was highly energized by the "dueling banjos" of ambition and avarice (dumping his sick first wife for a younger, much richer one), and hence a perfect mark for the wily Zionist manipulators.

[Sep 18, 2018] Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria-Idlib DMZ

Sep 18, 2018 | theduran.com

As I recommended in a post on September 10th , Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th, "We've agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20km wide," which compares to the Korean DMZ's 4-km width . I had had in mind the Korean experience, but obviously Putin and Erdogan are much better-informed about the situation than I am, and they have chosen a DMZ that's four to five times wider. In any case, the consequences of such a decision will be momentous, unless U.S. President Donald Trump is so determined for there to be World War III as to stop at nothing in order to force it to happen no matter what Russia does or doesn't do.

What the Putin-Erdogan DMZ decision means is that the 50,000 Turkish troops who now are occupying Idlib province of Syria will take control over that land, and will thus have the responsibility over the largest concentration of jihadists anywhere on the planet: Idlib. It contains the surviving Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters, including all of the ones throughout Syria who surrendered to the Syrian Army rather than be shot dead on the spot by Government forces.

For its part, the U.S. Government, backed by its allies and supported in this by high officials of the United Nations, had repeatedly threatened that if there occurs any chemical-weapons attack, or even any claimed chemical-weapons attack, inside Idlib, the U.S. and its allies will instantaneously blame the Syrian Government and bomb Syria, and will shoot down the planes of Syria and of Russia that oppose this bombing-campaign to conquer or 'liberate' Syria from its Government. The U.S. has announced its determination to protect what one high U.S. official -- who is endorsing what Trump is doing there -- "the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11." He admits it, but he wants to protect them from being bombed by Syria and by Russia.

During recent weeks, the U.S. military has increasingly said that even if the jihadists they've been assisting to assemble the materials for a chemical-weapons attack fail to carry it out or to stage one, any attempt by Syrian and Russian forces to destroy the jihadists (which the U.S. side calls 'rebels') in Idlib will be met with overwhelming U.S.-and-allied firepower. That would spark WW III, because whichever side -- Russia or U.S. -- loses in the Syrian battlefield will nuclear-blitz-attack the other side so as to have the lesser damage from the nuclear war and thus (in military terms) 'win' WW III, because the blitz-attack will destroy many of the opposite side's retaliatory weapons. In a nuclear war, the first side to attack will have a considerable advantage -- reducing the number of weapons the other side can launch.

If, on the other hand, the DMZ-plan works, then Turkey's forces will be responsible for vetting any of Idlib's residents who try to leave, in order to prohibit jihadists and their supporters from leaving. Once that task (filtering out the non-dangerous inhabitants and retaining in Idlib only the jihadists and their supporters) is done, the entire world might be consulted on whether to exterminate the remaining residents or to set them free to return to the countries from which they came or to other countries. Presumably, no country would want those 'refugees'. That would answer the question.

America's Arab allies, the oil monarchies such as the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia and the Thanis who own Qatar, and which have funded Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, would then be put on a spot, because if they say "Exterminate them!" then their clergy who have provided the moral imprimatur upon those families' ownership of those nations, will either be in rebellion or else will themselves become overthrown either by their own followers or else by their monarch -- overthrown from below or from above.

Alternatively, after Turkey's forces in Idlib will have allowed release from Idlib of all who will be allowed out, Syria's and Russia's bombers will simply go in and slaughter the then-surrounded jihadists and take upon themselves the responsibility for that, regardless of what the leaders of the U.S. and its allied governments might say.

On the night of September 17th in Syria, there were missile-attacks "from the sea" against several Syrian cities; and those attacks could have come from either Israel's or America's ships, or from other U.S.-allied ships. Russian Television bannered, "Russian plane disappears from radars during Israeli attack on Syria's Latakia – MoD" and reported:

A Russian military Il-20 aircraft with 14 service members on board went off the radars during an attack by four Israeli jets on Syria's Latakia province, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
Air traffic controllers at the Khmeimim Air Base "lost contact" with the aircraft on Wednesday evening, during the attack of Israeli F-16 fighters on Latakia, said the MOD.Russian radars also registered the launch of missiles from a French frigate in the Mediterranean on the evening of September 17.
The attack on Latakia came just hours after Russia and Turkey negotiated a partial demilitarization of the Idlib province

If the missiles were authorized by President Trump, then WW III has already begun in its pre-nuclear stage. However, if the attacks were launched by Israel's Netanyahu, and/or by France's Macron, without U.S. authorization, then the U.S. President might respond to them by siding against that aggressor(s) (and also against what he used to call "Radical Islamic Terrorists"), so as to prevent a nuclear war.

Late on September 17th, Al Masdar News bannered "NATO warships move towards Syrian coast" and reported "The NATO flotilla cruising off the Syrian coast reportedly consists of a Dutch frigate, the De Ruyter, a Canadian frigate, the Ville de Quebec, and a Greek cruiser, the Elli." Al Qaeda and ISIS have influential protectors.

Ultimately, the decision will be U.S. President Trump's as to whether he is willing to subject the planet to WW III and to its following nuclear winter and consequent die-off of agriculture and of everyone, in order to 'win' a nuclear war, such as America's aristocracy has especially championed since the year 2006. The nuclear-victory concept is called "Nuclear Primacy" -- the use of nuclear weapons so as to win a nuclear war against Russia, instead of to prevent a nuclear war. That concept's predecessor, the "Mutually Assured Destruction" or "M.A.D." meta-strategy, predominated even in the U.S. until 2006. Trump will have to decide whether the purpose of America's nuclear-weapons stockpiles is to prevent WW III, or is to win WW III.

In Russia, the purpose has always been to have nuclear weapons in order to prevent WW III. But America's President will be the person who will make the ultimate decision on this. And Idlib might be the spark. Netanyahu or Macron might be wanting to drag the U.S. into war even against Russia, but the final decision will be Trump's.

The ultimate question is: How far will the U.S. go in order to continue the U.S. dollar as being the overwhelmingly dominant global currency?

-- -- -- -- --

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

[Sep 18, 2018] Censored film reveals The Israel Project's secret Facebook campaign

Sep 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Afkaysit , Sep 17, 2018 5:01:05 AM | link

< >

The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret influence campaign on Facebook

Censored film reveals The Israel Project's secret Facebook campaign

The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret influence campaign on Facebook.

This is revealed in The Lobby – USA, an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that has never been broadcast due to censorship by Qatar following pressure from pro-Israel organizations.

In the newest clips, David Hazony, the managing director of The Israel Project, is heard telling Al Jazeera's undercover reporter: "There are also things that we do that are completely off the radar. We work together with a lot of other organizations."

https://electronicintifada.net/content/censored-film-reveals-israel-projects-secret-facebook-campaign/25486

[Sep 18, 2018] Israel did not warn the command of the Russian troops in Syria about the planned operation

Notable quotes:
"... At the same time as the Israeli air force attacked, a Russian frigate (red) near the coast detected missile launches from the French Frigate Auvergne (blue) nearby. The French frigate carries air, ship and land attack missiles. France denied "any involvement in the incident." But it seems that this only referred to the IL-20 incident and did not deny launching missiles. ..."
"... Israel (and France?) are deliberately provoking the Syrian and Russian forces. It hopes for a response that allows it play the victim and to call on U.S. President Trump for help and protection. The help would come in the form of a U.S., British and French attack on the Syrian government and Syrian military targets. ..."
"... something stinks...The Syrian and russian AD systems are linked together for the express purpose of not shooting themselves...The IL20 should have been a big friendly target, and not targetable by syrian AD... ..."
"... At the same time, Israel is constantly working to prevent our enemies from arming themselves with advanced weaponry. Our red lines are as sharp as ever and our determination to enforce them is stronger than ever. ..."
"... This week we will mark, in synagogues and cemeteries, Yom Kippur, the holiest day of our people, and the day on which, 45 years ago, we absorbed a bloody attack that cost us thousands of victims. ..."
"... If Israel did not attack Syria without any legal pretext, none of this would have happened. Why do the USA and its NATO allies stand by and watch as Israel commits so many acts of naked aggression? ..."
"... Because USA and NATO are wholly owned subsidiaries of Israel. Besides, the USA does not sit idly by - it actively supports Israel. ..."
Sep 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dan , Sep 18, 2018 6:36:35 AM | link

<). This agreement takes away the chance of an imminent wider war in which the U.S. and some of its allies would use a fake 'chemical attack' as a pretext to launch missiles against a large number of Syrian government targets and military positions.>

A peaceful solution of the Idleb situation is unsatisfying for Israel. The successful Syrian defeat of the Jihadi enemy inside the country would allow Syria and its allies to concentrate their forces against Israel. Israel wants the Syrian government destroyed and the country in chaos.

On Sunday September 16 Israel tried to hit an Iranian Boeing 747 freight plane at Damascus airport. The plane allegedly carried an Iranian copy of the Russian S-300 long range air defense System for the Syrian army.

On Monday around 10:00pm local time 4 F-16 jets of the Israeli airforce, coming from the sea, launched missiles against at least three targets on Syria's coast. The strike came only hours after Israel released satellite images of what it called "strategic targets" in Syria. The integrated Syrian and Russian air-defenses responded.

The Israeli air force had warned the Russian forces in Syria only one minute before the strike. A Russian IL-20 electronic warfare airplane (red line) was preparing to land at the Russian airport near Latakia just as the Israeli attack (blue) happened.


Source: Russian defense Ministry - bigger

The IL-20 was hit 35 kilometers off the coast by a S-200 air-defense missile fired by the Syrian military towards the Israeli attack. There were 15 Russian soldiers on board of the plane which were likely all killed. Russian ships search for survivors. Some wreckage of the plane was found at sea 27 kilometers west of the village of Banias.


IL-20 electronic warfare version - bigger

The Israeli attack came out of the same direction as the Russian IL-20. The large 4 propeller plane creates a much bigger radar reflection than the small F-16s fighter jets. The S-200 missiles have a semi-active radar homing seeker . These are passive detectors of a radar signal which is provided by an external source, in this case the Syrian and Russian radars on the ground. While the missile was aimed at the F-16 its seeker likely mistook the larger radar reflection of IL-20 for the intended target.

At the same time as the Israeli air force attacked, a Russian frigate (red) near the coast detected missile launches from the French Frigate Auvergne (blue) nearby. The French frigate carries air, ship and land attack missiles. France denied "any involvement in the incident." But it seems that this only referred to the IL-20 incident and did not deny launching missiles.

Even more was going on says Haaretz :

Not only Russian and (allegedly) Israeli and French aircraft and missiles were in the air. Civilian radar also tracked British Royal Air Force aircraft, which, unusually, had switched on their transponders and gone into holding patterns – most likely to avoid being somehow involved in the exchange of fire over Latakia.

The Russian Defense Ministry accuses the Israeli government of a deliberate set up:

"Israel did not warn the command of the Russian troops in Syria about the planned operation. We received a notification via a hotline less than a minute before the strike, which did not allow the Russian aircraft to be directed to a safe zone," Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

After the Israeli attack the Syrian state TV showed the headquarters of the Technical Industries Agency near Latakia on fire. Other targets were near Jableh, south of Latakia, and Homs. At least ten people were wounded due to these attacks.

The Russian military spokesman also accused Israel of "hostile action" against Russian forces:

"We see these provocative actions of Israel as hostile," Konashenkov said, adding that 15 Russian servicemen were killed as a result of the "irresponsible actions" of Israel's Defense Forces, which violated "the spirit of the Israeli-Russian partnership."
According to the spokesman, the Russian Defense Ministry reserves the right to an "adequate response" following the Israeli attack.

Israel (and France?) are deliberately provoking the Syrian and Russian forces. It hopes for a response that allows it play the victim and to call on U.S. President Trump for help and protection. The help would come in the form of a U.S., British and French attack on the Syrian government and Syrian military targets.

Russia will certainly take revenge for the Israeli provocation, but will likely do so in the political arena. On Netanyahoo's personal request Russia had stopped the delivery of original Russian S-300 long range air-defense missiles to the Syrian military. These would have been less likely to veer off towards the wrong target. In consequence an Iranian 747 was damaged and 15 Russian soldiers were killed. Netanyahoo can forget about any further such 'favors' from Moscow.

Posted by b on September 18, 2018 at 06:09 AM | Permalink

Comments next page " I am not sure. Give it more time to play out. Everyone is scurrying about trying to figure out the next move right now. Yom Kippur is just around the corner, the Israelis are quiet...

Arioch , Sep 18, 2018 6:41:32 AM | link

If that interpretation holds water I can see two variants.

Remember, recently Russia told they upgraded all electronics within old Soviet S-125 and S-200 missiles in Syria. Russia also allegedly retrained Syrian Arab Army personnel and plugged their stations into Russian AD network.

Option 1: Israeli indeed were hiding behind IL-20. They did not intended harm to it, they merely were shielding themselves from Syrian AD, effectively disabling the station. They did not expect Syrians to actually fire in anger with such a complicated dynamic geometry.

Option 2: Israeli just demonstrated that despite all the fanfares about Russian upgrading and drilling Syrian Arab Army air defensed, SAA is still only SAA.

Afterall back then in Egypt IAF successfully challenged Soviet air force. So they probably still are highly skilled in both technological and psychological aspects of air warfare.

oldenyoung , Sep 18, 2018 6:43:51 AM | link
something stinks...The Syrian and russian AD systems are linked together for the express purpose of not shooting themselves...The IL20 should have been a big friendly target, and not targetable by syrian AD...

regards

OY

timbers , Sep 18, 2018 6:46:50 AM | link
Umm....didn't some say Syrian didn't need S300. How's that werk'in out fer yah????

And why does't Iran have S400 but Saudi Arabia and Turkey do? How's that gonna werk out fer yah?

Harry , Sep 18, 2018 6:49:33 AM | link
I don't get why Israel would backstab friendly superpower, which kept SAA and Iran off its back and allowed to bomb Syria without any consequences. Even refused S-300 delivery to SAA (what to speak of S-400, which is offered to countries like Turkey and Saudis). Israel might be panicking, but I only see negative outcome out of this mess.

Russia was always way too lenient in such situations in the past, therefore I don't expect much in response. There wont be military reaction, and after some Israel's concessions (IMHO Israel will offer something in one shape or another) there might even not be overt political response. I still doubt Russia will hand over S-300 to SAA, at the most Russia might threaten with it but wont follow through.

If Iranian Bavar 373 was really destroyed in Damascus international airport as Magnier suspects, it would be a damn shame. That's what Syria really needs now.

Realistic , Sep 18, 2018 6:51:07 AM | link
In all honesty, the reality of Russia's weakness is there if you want to see it. There will be no delivery of S-300s to Syria, there will be no retaliation by Russia towards Israel.

"Political" retaliation is tantamount to "imaginary" retaliation, much like many declare Putin having won in Syria even as the war has not even ended.

Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 6:54:05 AM | link
On Netanyahoo's personal request Russia had stopped the delivery of original Russian S-300 long range air-defense missiles to the Syrian military. In consequence a Iranian 747 was damaged and 15 Russian soldiers were killed. .

Exactly, only way forward now is to give Syria S300 otherwise this killing will occur again - if Putin do not do this he is way more dumb than we can imagine apparently.

Tom Welsh , Sep 18, 2018 6:54:28 AM | link
What cannot be denied by anyone is that all this harm was deliberately caused by Israel. It openly boasts of having bombed Syria hundreds of times "to attack Iranian targets". But that is no excuse at all! International law, the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles forbid any nation to attack another nation that has not declared war on it, unless by order of the UNSC.

If Israel did not attack Syria without any legal pretext, none of this would have happened. Why do the USA and its NATO allies stand by and watch as Israel commits so many acts of naked aggression?

It is perfectly obvious that all American and NATO talk of the "rules-based international order" are self-serving hypocritical lies. The only rule that they recognize is "We are always right, and we may do whatever we wish".

It is time for Russia (and, if possible, China and other nations) really to hurt Israel and its co-conspirators by any means they can.

Nils , Sep 18, 2018 6:57:36 AM | link
How do you know all this?

Aranian Boeing hit? Is there any photographic evidence?

Russian airplane shot down as the missile mistook the target? Who told you this?

As we have seen with the fake US, France and Uk attack on Barzeh, Damascus, on a science institute that was already demolished, not a single rocket was launched then, we must be very careful to check all information.

somebody , Sep 18, 2018 7:00:06 AM | link
Attacking Latakia from the Mediterranean is a huge provocation in itself never mind what happened to the Russian plane.

Israel would have needed US backing if not incitement for this and it surely had.

The significance I suppose is that Israel has clearly taken sides now there is no longer trying to balance policy towards Russia.

Either the US forced them or the Russian deal with Turkey was too much.
I don't see how this can end well.

Response will be neither political nor military. It will be asymmetric.

Mina , Sep 18, 2018 7:05:26 AM | link
Le Monde manages to make no reference to Israel in its online title frontpage
https://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2018/09/18/avion-russe-abattu-en-syrie-confusion-dans-la-region-de-lattaquie_5356629_3218.html

The BBC is for once a little bit more honest
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45556290

Realistic , Sep 18, 2018 7:05:47 AM | link
@10 There will be no response. Russia will move in more assets and hope it will scare Israel off, but it won't.
Arioch , Sep 18, 2018 7:06:08 AM | link
@Nils #9

> Russian airplane shot down as the missile mistook the target? Who told you this?

a wide number of online media said it, attributing to Russian MoD

sadly, MoD's site itself is very rarely updated about Syria


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now that gets interesting.

RusMoD announces publishing extra information on #MH17 Boeing downed over Ukraine
https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1041679984287522816
ENG: https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1041680008018894848

Coincidence theory says it is unrelated, but who knows....

Antares , Sep 18, 2018 7:13:28 AM | link
"Israel wants the Syrian government destroyed and the country in chaos."
Combining the fact that the war is almost lost for the Anglosaxion axis and the stubborn moves pushing for more war could mean that Israel is only after the Golan Heights and not (yet) after Syria or Iran. They don't care about other's losses.
Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 7:15:25 AM | link
As few of us here have tried to point out so many times months ago here - Russia is weak and have nothing against US/Nato/Israel.
Whats worse is that Russia have appeased the same states so many times and now we see what this appeasement leads to.

Will it lead to anything, any return by Russia? No and that is why this will end with the bombing of Assad, there is no other way around this.

Sad day for Syria and humiliating for Russia being played by Israel/France, rather ridiculous.

pB , Sep 18, 2018 7:17:25 AM | link
every time russia shows itself to be a rational diplomatic actor, they get a kick in the teeth. the future is bleak.
craigsummers , Sep 18, 2018 7:38:50 AM | link
"........This agreement takes away the chance of an imminent wider war in which the U.S. and some of its allies would use a fake 'chemical attack' as a pretext to launch missiles against a large number of Syrian government targets and military positions......."

The Russian government is still stuck on inventing false theories on the downing of MH17 so their supposed intel about Britsh intelligence working with the "terrorists" to create a false flag chemical attack in Idlib is nothing more than propaganda i.e., more Russian lies. Most recently, the Russian government lied when they denied there was a chemical attack in Douma. According to the Russian MOD, this was all staged by the White Helmets.

To prove this point, the state-owned journalists at Channel 1 "staged" the staging of the chemical attack - and showed it on Russian television according to the Moscow Times ("Russian TV Uses Film Stills as Proof Syria Chemical Attack Was Staged": https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-tv-uses-film-stills-as-proof-syria-chemical-attack-was-staged-61249). Other lies have been exposed concerning the Douma chemical attack including that a child (used for pro Russian propaganda to prove the staging of the attack) was (secretly) interviewed at a Russian military complex in Damascus (Russian TV interview with Syrian boy was secretly conducted at army facility https://interc.pt/2K8gEd2 by @RobertMackey).

I agree that the downing of the Russian military plane is potentially a serious breech of the Russian-Israeli agreement. Israel was able to conduct airstrikes against Iranian military targets in Syria mostly unopposed by Russia. This certainly is in danger of changing. Russia could arm Syria with the S-300 missile defense system which would force Israel to change their tactics.

Mina , Sep 18, 2018 7:44:04 AM | link
Why can't Russia recall its ambassador and cut diplomatic relations? KSA/Qatar, KSA/Canada did, so it is the new normal, no?
Out of Istanbul , Sep 18, 2018 7:44:52 AM | link
With sufficient jamming and electronic counter measures (ECMs) in use, the semi-active seeker could have been tricked into a space close enough to the Il-20 that a detonation would damage/destroy it. It doesn't mean the system was garbage, or that the system even actively targeted the Russian plane, just that it was close enough that a detonation would destroy it. Using the radar section of the larger plane was an aggressive tactic, the interaction between the use of ECM and the S-200 might not have been understood to cause the destruction of the Russian plane although most certainly the risks were known and the attack wasn't called off.

This was certainly a well wrapped up provocation. Few people here seem to know that any Russian attack on NATO assets in the Mediterranean is grounds for invoking Article 5. I don't think NATO would care whether it was an accident or not, they seem to fabricate false flags at their leisure. Israel isn't in NATO so the mediterranean sea will be a less reliable battle space for them, unfortunately they can continue to violate Lebanese airspace at will.

As for improving the air defense system in Syria, S-200/300/400, aren't especially useful at suppressing these types of Israeli aggressions as many of them can be carried out without entering Syrian airspace or by using cruise missiles. For those types of attacks, Tor/Pantsir are the best you can do. But remember, even if the interception rate is 90%, if Israeli launches a 500 glide bombs, cruise missiles, or air to ground missiles, 50 would still get through to damage Syrian infrastructure. All in all, such use rates of weapons just feeds the MIC in the US...

A political or asymmetrical response is best. There will also be a repositioning of Russian assets in the region, not necessarily to deter future Israeli aggression but to strengthen the Russian negotiating position. The Russians might also be willing to ignore the loss of life for a technological transfer or two...

Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 7:45:50 AM | link
craigsummers

Actually you are lying/spreading propaganda. Nothing of what you just said refute that rebels in Douma might create false flag attacks as they have earlier before western attacks.

H , Sep 18, 2018 8:03:32 AM | link
The Syrians would have known about which Russian planes were in the area so it's hard to see how they could have shot one down unless they're just incompetent.
Robert McMaster , Sep 18, 2018 8:10:00 AM | link
The politics of this is very bad for Russia. Toadying Isreal and getting kicked for it. Failing to arm Syria is noted by other states, partners. This is where you will wind up with the ever-weak Russians. This incident emboldens Isreal, the U.S, UK. Take strong action and Russia (and China) will just whine and fold. Disheartens all those who have been counting on Russia.

You can hardly count the damage this bad behaviour by Russia is and will cause.

EtTuBrute , Sep 18, 2018 8:15:09 AM | link
Here is what an appropriate response with balls would look like:

"Israel has bombed Syria over 200 times in the past 18 months.

Syrian attacks on Israel: Zero

Syria is an Ally of the Russian Federation. Israel's latest aggression has costs 15 Russian lives.

Any further attack on Syria by Israel (or anyone else) will be met with the full force of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, including its nuclear arsenal, if deemed appropriate.

We understand an attack on Israel (or other western US ally) could be met with retaliation on Russian interests in Syria or on Russian soil.

To be clear, any attack on Russian interests will be met with the destruction of the attack's source, be it sea, air or land based. Any attack on Russian soil will be met with a devastating full scale Nuclear attack on American soil, leading to possible MAD.

It appears therefore that the future of the world now depends on Israel's desire to pursue its aggression towards Syria, a country that has never attacked Israel, or any of the other nations waging war against it since 2012 now, covertly or not.

We strongly encourage our western partners to work with Israel to maintain peace and strategic balance in the world, and with Russia in its efforts to reinstate Syrian sovereignty over its own territory.

We trust it is in everyone's interest to avoid any further unnecessary and potentially catastrophic escalation."

but yeah, we will get some ban on israeli dates, nuts and hummus imports to russia and maybe they will offer to pay for the funerals as well. until next time, the russian bear is patiently turning into a nice furry rug for the west to walk on again. for now..

laserlurk , Sep 18, 2018 8:18:43 AM | link
It is hard to tell really what is the background of this incident. Question is what french ship was doing there and did it really fire missiles?

Russia is carefully balancing in this triade between Turkey, Israel and Iran and had surely anticipated some sort of suchlike provocations. Israel could have just entraped itself with this attack way across the russian red line - that is for sure. So I doubt that we will see more of such adventures in the days to come, unless of course Russia's retaliation renders Israel to comply with agreed rules of engagement and Israel refuses to understand those. Then we will see wider kinetic events over the Med theater and I am sure it will not end up well for opponents of Syria and its allies.

Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 8:25:58 AM | link
Robert McMaster

I wonder what they are up to overall, Idlib deal with Turkey for example, just days before an assualt, what did they expect? How would that deal end anything by letting rebels/terrorists a way out?
THe russians doesnt seems to have a general plan for why they are in Syria anymore.

donkeytale , Sep 18, 2018 8:27:52 AM | link
This seems plausible and also fitting with both the US statement about the attack as well as my belief Israel, not the US, is obviously the most interested anti-Assad party on the ground (and in the air). I don't doubt Russia will manage to extract some measure of revenge in time and agree it will by necessity be diplomatic in nature.

b, your even handed assessments continue to impress. Your journalism gains credibility in time. I know many here are surprised and bitterly disappointed the attack on Idleb has not already commenced and will be delayed indefinitely at least beyond the US midterm elections.

Russ , Sep 18, 2018 8:29:55 AM | link
I can't argue with any of these criticisms of the Russians. For all the attempts to depict the Turkey deal as some kind of masterstroke, the fact remains that Putin planned to attack in Idleb and then caved in to extortion (the false flag threat) in a way that never works and only emboldens the extortionist. With these Zionist attacks we're already seeing the result.
Ian , Sep 18, 2018 8:34:27 AM | link
I predict the Russian response would be to deny the airspace around large Russian air assets such as the IL-20. The IDF would find it difficult to use this tactic again.
Robert Browning , Sep 18, 2018 8:36:40 AM | link
Why the French battleship?? Is Trump hostile to Jew trouble making?
somebody , Sep 18, 2018 8:40:03 AM | link
Posted by: Realistic | Sep 18, 2018 7:05:47 AM | 12

Russia can begin sharing more information with Hezbollah. They can give protection to Hezbollah.

Lots of possibilities.

Russia is restricted by a lot of its citizens living in Israel. But that applies to Netanyahu, too.

Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 8:42:21 AM | link
I don't believe this attack had anything to do with the Idlib agreement.

Just another Israeli attack on Syria.

AG17 , Sep 18, 2018 8:48:48 AM | link
What was France doing there.. why no one asking about the British military aircraft on the radar in that area
imo , Sep 18, 2018 8:49:51 AM | link
@23 [EtTuBrute | Sep 18, 2018 8:15:09 AM] -- "Syria is an Ally of the Russian Federation. Israel's latest aggression has costs 15 Russian lives."

Interesting deep core values issue here, imo.

Whether 15 Russian lives, or 25m (+/-) in WW2 -- what does it matter in the (western) public perception business?

Very little perhaps: either (a) they (Russians) are just grunt stupid comrade-cogs in a communist machine and don't matter all that much (the value of a Palestinian vs an Israeli etc); and/or (b) even they themselves (Russians) don't give a f_ck about an individual's identity representing a nation's pride and sovereignty -- something that the USA (and others) at least claim (when it suits them).

Hard to read but basically it's well past 'who gives a toss' what Russia thinks and feels -- it's what they do (or don't do) that counts ... and they don't do much these days except for patience. Where's the need for 'respect' in that?

Tel Aviv; Paris; London; and Washington are just rolling around on the floor laughing, imo.

SlapHappy , Sep 18, 2018 8:55:46 AM | link
The Russians should sink a couple of Israel's Dolphin submarines; that would send the appropriate message.
Oui , Sep 18, 2018 9:07:39 AM | link
Yep!

Fucking Israelis Stirring Up Big Trouble

Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 9:08:02 AM | link
Russ @27:
Putin planned to attack in Idleb and then caved in to extortion

No. This erroneous belief shows the true danger in the view that 'Erdogan has turned east'.

Putin wasn't scared off. He simply failed to plan for Erdogan's mischief: he was played by Erdogan.

Here's what happened:

1) Erdogan needed cover for his full occupation of Idlib.

2) USA threats underscored Erdogan's humanitarian cover story.

3) A war against Turkey would simply be too costly. So a Turkish occupation will not be contested.


<> <> <> <> <> <>

Putin gambled on Turkey. But Erdogan has been playing both sides. And Erdogan's Islamist orientation means that his sympathies lie with the Jihadi's.

Pat Lang said that R+6 should have moved to take Idlib after Aleppo. He has now been proven right.

Oui , Sep 18, 2018 9:09:05 AM | link
@b

Tongue twister .. typo Idelb should read Idleb ;)

Mina , Sep 18, 2018 9:09:36 AM | link
In his press conference with Orban just now, Putin recalled that a Turkish jet had voluntarily downed a Russian plane (meaning Ergo knew yesterday what was coming? thus his grim?) and that in this case it was not voluntarily that the Russian plane had been put down but that very visible measures would be taken to step up the Russian presence on Syrian ground...
partizan , Sep 18, 2018 9:09:59 AM | link
i believe in none of this shit.
sarz , Sep 18, 2018 9:18:29 AM | link
https://www.rt.com/news/438728-putin-israel-syria-plane/

Putin says it was a tragic set of circumstances.

somebody , Sep 18, 2018 9:20:43 AM | link
Posted by: Russ | Sep 18, 2018 8:29:55 AM | 27

No. This was a Russian "win", as they got Turkey to cooperate. Turkey can now find out which Syrian "rebels" it does indeed control and eliminate the rest with Russia. Both, Turkey and Russia, granting the Syrian army it will not get attackes.

It was clear in the run up that "the West" threatened to attack in case the Syrian army and Russia attacked Idlib. Cooperation with Turkey means Syria reached its goals without the attack.

Putin has now called the downing of the Russian plane "looks like a chain of tragic circumstances". This will have cost Netanyahu.

b , Sep 18, 2018 9:22:37 AM | link
@craigsummers

The U.S. alleged that Sarin and Chlorine was used in Douma, based on the propaganda group White Helmets and other militants.

The Syrian observatory did not report a gas attack. It said that several people suffocate from dust after their shelter collapsed.

The OPCW, which took samples and analyzed them, found no trace of Sarin or similar and found no evidence for the use of Chlorine gas.

Several 'western' journalist went to Douma and talked to witnesses. All, including the medical personal in the nearby clinic, denied that any such a thing happened.

You can read all of that in detail here: Syria - OPCW Issues First Report Of 'Chemical Weapon Attack' in Douma

The claimed Douma attack was obviously fake.

Julian , Sep 18, 2018 9:23:51 AM | link
Re: Posted by: H | Sep 18, 2018 8:03:32 AM | 21
The Syrians would have known about which Russian planes were in the area so it's hard to see how they could have shot one down unless they're just incompetent .

Or the Syrians are just extremely frustrated with the Russians 'slow-playing' the whole situation and wanted an ' 'excuse' to 'accidentally' shoot down the wrong plane.

Oops.

Sorry Vlad, bet this wouldn't have happened if we had a more up-to-date air defense system. S-300, or S-400 say.

Pity we haven't been able to get one of those to defend ourselves........

astabada , Sep 18, 2018 9:25:55 AM | link
@Arioch 13

The revelations about MH17 were already happening before the incident. For example the Russians disclosed that they used the serial number of the missile (published by the JIT) to identify the manufacturing plant, the production date as well as the ownership.

Julian , Sep 18, 2018 9:27:53 AM | link
Re: Posted by: donkeytale | Sep 18, 2018 8:27:52 AM | 26

Re - an attack on Idlib being delayed beyond the US Mid-Terms.

What about TurkStream? When is that online? 2020?

Yeah, the attack on Idlib might be delayed a whole lot longer than a few months.

How long has the attack on the Golan been delayed since the Golan Heights was stolen?

radiator , Sep 18, 2018 9:40:42 AM | link

Posted by: sarz | Sep 18, 2018 9:18:29 AM | 40
Putin says it was a tragic set of circumstances

I would expect this. No use in official blaming (MOD statements will be sufficient to make it clear that they know who's behind this), just make sure that such a thing won't happen again. Iirc he finished the press conference stating that russia must improve the coordination and communication of their defense and that would take place and will be noticed by everyone.
After all there's still a possibility that this particular incident was an accident after all.

paul , Sep 18, 2018 9:49:57 AM | link
What a lovely day yesterday for sadomasochist Putin. In the morning he got
Kalen , Sep 18, 2018 9:50:35 AM | link
Do you really believe those explanations? S400 could shut down F15 over Tel-Aviv, what they hell happened. I know for the fact that Syrian SAA have liaisons/instructors in very unit, shooting down Russian Spy airplane is impossible with this technology especially near Russian base with S400 that suppose to track all the Israeli Air Force bases and telling us that they were notified by Israel minutes before attack is a lie , they were not notified at all, as it takes minutes to Israeli jets to get into position to fire which Russian knew as soon as F15s took off.

It is charade people, the only reasonable explanation is that Putin was nice not to illuminate with combat radar Israeli F15 as long as they were outside of Syrian territory. Israel rarely did
it, did not have to.

.

somebody , Sep 18, 2018 9:50:37 AM | link
46
RT has a slightly different translation.

"Russia will investigate the incident, Putin said, adding that Moscow will boost security of Russian troops in Syria following the incident. He said that these will be "the steps that everyone will notice.""

paul , Sep 18, 2018 9:53:49 AM | link
in the morning he got to kiss his Master Erdogan's ring. In the evening Israel and Nato (France) gave a blazing demonstration of their TOTAL disrespect for Russia and Putin. This morning Putin gets to humiliate his military people, who FINALLY spoke some strong words vs Israel, only to be submarined by Putin who blithely forgave Israel entirely. Putin can't stoop and bow enough to Russia's and the world's enemies.

As I've said before, I suspect the military hierarchy, or part of it, is increasingly frustrated with the impossible and dishonorable situations Putin puts them in.

Red Corvair , Sep 18, 2018 9:56:33 AM | link
@Dan
I'm not so sure the Israelis are so "quiet":
"Earlier this month, an Israeli military official said the Jewish state has struck over 200 Iranian targets in Syria over the past 18 months."
US News, AP, September 17, 2018.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-09-17/syrian-tv-reports-suspected-israeli-strikes-on-state-company

According to the "Israeli official", that gives an average of about 11 Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in Syria PER MONTH for the last 18 months...
Your definition of "quiet" Israelis ??

Mina , Sep 18, 2018 9:59:24 AM | link
People here forget that it is the EU who is 100% backing Ergo (and giving him extra ideas?) because they don't want 1 single extra refugee to cross either the Syrian or the Turkish borders into Europe.
radiator , Sep 18, 2018 10:02:07 AM | link
@49 yes i wasn't trying to be literally accurate ;). Imho "everyone will notice" is a strong statement, that's what I was trying to point at.
Palloy , Sep 18, 2018 10:09:01 AM | link
Russia has its own S-400 systems defending Latakia, so it can defend itself and doesn't need Syria's S-200s.
They would have been watching the Israeli F-16s on radar, and then they get a phone call saying an attack is happening in one minute. Russia must have said "OK", because they didn't blow the F-16s out of the sky. All they have to say to Israel is "Next time it will NOT be OK." and Israel will have to stop it's invasions.

The hairy-chested Americans here are calling Putin weak, but he can't afford to make any over-reaching mistakes, and all decent, responsible human beings are glad of that. Do you want to have WW3 just to show how much "balls" you've got?

venice12 , Sep 18, 2018 10:09:18 AM | link
@6

STRONG IS NOT WHO FIGHTS WARS, STRONG IS WHO AVOIDS WAR.

pantaraxia , Sep 18, 2018 10:11:35 AM | link
Putin says it was a tragic set of circumstances.


Could there be a more passive response. Sounds like it came straight from the U.S. State Dept.. The only thing missing was some twisted version of how Israel has every right to protect itself even when using a Russian airliner as cover for an illegal missile strike against a Russian ally.

No mention of agency or responsibility for initiating this "tragic set of circumstances".

The reality is the jews have every western government AND Russia under their thumb and they can do whatever the f*ck they want with no fear of actual reprecussions other than some tepid verbal wet noodle lashing at worst.

Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 10:13:10 AM | link
Putin keep humiliating himself:

Israeli army blames Damascus for Russia's Il-20 downing, mourns death of crew – statement
https://www.rt.com/news/438712-idf-statement-il20-downing/

Putin on Israel's role in Il-20 downing: 'Looks accidental, like chain of tragic circumstances'
https://www.rt.com/news/438728-putin-israel-syria-plane/

Russian weird weak attitude begin to scare me.

Laguerre , Sep 18, 2018 10:19:40 AM | link
Quite an infestation of pro-Israeli trolls today, much more than usual. I guess they're trying to put over a point.
Arioch , Sep 18, 2018 10:19:50 AM | link
@astabada #44

> The revelations about MH17 were already happening before the incident

So just like many voices here claim Russia MUST immediately hurt Israel in a painful way, someone could had decided that Russian MoD should be punished painful way within few hours from their transgression.

Or it could be about "dominating news cycle" - when hot headlines are about Russian Military craft downed, who would lok into other information about Russian MoD right now? thus the new statements on MH17 are getting flushed into the memory hole.

bevin , Sep 18, 2018 10:30:53 AM | link
What appears to have happened is that an Israeli pilot used an old pilot's trick on the air defence system. Perhaps the French frigate was in on game, too.
The obvious next move is for the pilot to be court-martialled and a report/whitewash issued to establish that he was acting on his own initiative.
One of the less recognised problems with this situation is that, in the stand-off between the Deep State and the Presidency, local military commanders are able to make their own policy choices. In some cases, of course, these will reflect the dual loyalties which are increasingly to be found among military men who are unsure who they are fighting for but understand that nobody ever lost promotion by taking Israel's side.
mickey , Sep 18, 2018 10:30:58 AM | link
Arioch suggest Russian plane down in Syria to be a direct response to Russia's recent proof that the MH17 Boeing over Ukraine was shot down by Kiev using missiles produced in Ukraine by the government at Kiev.
Nil says the downed Russian airplane in Syria was intentional?
Somebody says somebody (USA, Saudia Arabia, or CIA, Mossad, or M16) forced
the war b/c/e Russian deal with Turkey was too much

Harry says he d/n understand why Israel would backstab friendly superpower, which kept SAA and Iran off its back and allowed to bomb Syria without any consequences. Even refused S-300 delivery to SAA (what to speak of S-400, which is offered to countries like Turkey and Saudis). Julian blames Russia for failing to give S-400 to Syria ( I agree, but the fact that Putin refuses to arm Syria with s-400 is very revealing indeed)

Welsh says It is time for Russia (and, if possible, China and other nations) really to hurt Israel and its co-conspirators by any means they can.8 Slaphappy thinks sinking Israeli Dophin Subs is the solution. Out of Istanbul reminds that any Russian attack on NATO assets in the Mediterranean is grounds for [NATO to invoke} Article 5. EtTuBrute wants total war,

R. Browning asks Why the French battleship? (B/b French owned Syria after WWI?

Realistic says no Russian Response, b/c Russia lacks the depth in-might to respond

I agree with Partizan, none of this shit explains the situation. Something else is behind this and most likely its oil and gas.

Arioch , Sep 18, 2018 10:38:44 AM | link
Reportedly, Israeli MoD issued an official statement, that

1. They express condolences.
2. They lay the responsibility with Assad, Hisbollah and Iran. Israeli jets were bombing Assad's plants producing W.M.D. that Hisbollah threatened Israel with.

3. When IAF jets were attacking Syria the IL-20 was not yet in AD's fire range.
4. When SAA AD started shooting missiles IAF jets were already back in Israeli air space after the attack was completed. SAA AD allegedly were shooting in panic everywhere without getting situational awareness

5. Israel allegedly would supply Russia with all the relevant documents and facts to investigate the accident.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1,2 - usual diplomatic bla-bla.
3,4 - if true (and Russian radars should have enough coverage to check it), shows both incompetence of SAA AD personnel and lack of AD integration (S-200 station only started reacting to the attack after the attack, they were not alerted in advance about IAF jets approaching, despite Russian AVACS in air)
5 - now that seems to be some rather strong language. Israel seems either heavily bluffing or freaked out. Or both.

Arioch , Sep 18, 2018 10:44:19 AM | link
@Tom Welsh #8

> International law, the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles forbid any nation to attack another nation that has not declared war on it, unless by order of the UNSC.

Arent's Syria and Israel at war for many decades? Same way like USA and DPRK?

Cassandra , Sep 18, 2018 10:46:26 AM | link
It seems that ME "colonial" history is repeating itself ...
(Anglo-French-Israeli deception 2.0.. with the US "kicking-ass" or was it "leading?" from behind)

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp1_p2.html

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Protocol%20of%20Sevres%201956%20Anatomy%20of%20a%20War%20Plot.html


The documentary evidence does not leave any room for doubt that at Sèvres, during the three days in late October 1956, an elaborate war plot was hatched against Egypt by the representatives of France, Britain and Israel.

The Protocol of Sèvres is the most conclusive piece of evidence for it lays out in precise detail and with a precise time-table how the joint war against Egypt was intended to proceed and shows foreknowledge of each other's intentions. The central aim of the plot was the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser (F: his support for Algerian „rebels", UK: his nationalisation of Suez Canal) This aim is not explicitly stated in the protocol but it emerges clearly and unambiguously from all the records of the discussions surrounding it.

For him [Ben Gurion] the protocol was not something to be ashamed of but a major achievement. It represented a military pact with two great powers against a common enemy, albeit a secret and awkward pact. Britain's persistent cold-shouldering of Israel was disappointing and disconcerting. But Ben-Gurion felt that the protocol at least gave him a guarantee against betrayal by Perfidious Albion.


...An even more intriguing conversation took place at the end of this one. It concerned French assistance to Israel in developing nuclear technology. Details of this second conversation only emerged in 1995 when Shimon Peres published his memoirs. The relevant passage reads as follows:
Before the final signing, I asked Ben-Gurion for a brief adjournment, during which I met Mollet and Bourgés-Maunoury alone. It was here that I finalized with these two leaders an agreement for the building of a nuclear reactor at Dimona, in southern Israel... and the supply of natural uranium to fuel it. I put forward a series of detailed proposals and, after discussion, they accepted them.[40]... A year later, in September 1957, when Bourgès-Maunoury was prime minister, France delivered to Israel a nuclear reactor which was twice the capacity previously promised.[41]
...it shows that the French were determined to go to war at almost any price and for their own reasons, not, as Abel Thomas later claimed, in order to save Israel. Secondly, it reveals the full extent of the incentives that the French were prepared to give Israel in order to induce her to play the part assigned to her in the war plot against Egypt. Thirdly, it confirms the impression that Israel did not face any serious threat of Egyptian attack at that time but colluded with the European powers to attack Egypt for other reasons. Taken together, the two private conversations at Sèvres thus drive a coach and horses through the official version which says that Israel only went to war because if faced an imminent danger of attack from Egypt.

(Source: The Protocol of Sèvres,1956: Anatomy of a War Plot by Avi Shlaim)


How could Putin ever think he could trust Netanyahu or the IDF???

craigsummers , Sep 18, 2018 10:46:49 AM | link
@42

According to the July 6 interim report (INTERIM REPORT OF THE OPCW FACT-FINDING MISSION IN SYRIA REGARDING THE INCIDENT OF ALLEGED USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS AS A WEAPON IN DOUMA, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, ON 7 APRIL 2018 - 2.6):

"..........The FFM team visited Locations 2 and 4, where it observed the presence of an industrial gas cylinder on a top floor patio at Location 2, and the presence of a similar cylinder lying on the bed of a top floor apartment at Location 4. Close to the location of each cylinder there were crater-like openings in the respective reinforced concrete roofs. Work is ongoing to assess the association of these cylinders with the incident, the relative damage to the cylinders and the roofs, and how the cylinders arrived at their respective locations ........."

At the very least, the OPCW has not made a final determination. According to a recent UN report (Jerusalem Post: U.N: "Assad regime guilty of more chemical weapons attacks this year" https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/UN-Assad-regime-guilty-of-more-chemical-weapons-attacks-this-year-567026):

".......These incidents bring to 39 the total known Syrian chemical attacks, a UN official said. BY REUTERS SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 13:35

GENEVA - Syrian government forces fired chlorine, a banned chemical weapon, on a rebel-held Damascus suburb and on Idlib province this year, in attacks that constitute war crimes, United Nations human rights investigators said on Wednesday. The three incidents bring to 39 the number of chemical attacks which the Commission of Inquiry on Syria has documented since 2013, including 33 attributed to the government, a UN official told Reuters. ........"To recapture eastern Ghouta in April, government forces launched numerous indiscriminate attacks in densely populated civilian areas, which included the use of chemical weapons," it said, referring to incidents on Jan. 22 and Feb. 1 in a residential area of Douma, eastern Ghouta, outside the capital ........A surface-to-surface, improvised rocket-assisted munition had been used in the two Douma incidents, it said. "Specifically the munitions documented were built around industrially-produced Iranian artillery rockets known to have been supplied to forces commanded by the (Syrian) government," the report added. In the northwest province of Idlib - where the United Nations fears a major imminent assault by Syrian and Russian forces against the last rebel-held stronghold - chlorine was also used on February 4, the UN report said."Government helicopters dropped at least two barrels carrying chlorine payloads in the Taleel area of Saraqeb," it said, adding that at least 11 men were injured. "Documentary and material evidence analyzed by the Commission confirmed the presence of helicopters in the area and the use of two yellow gas cylinders" ........"

This only confirms what Bellingcat determined months ago( https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/04/29/pieces-matter-syrias-chlorine-bombs-douma-chemical-attack/). In addition, Assad has ALREADY used chemical weapons in Idlib according to the UN report! Again, the OPCW has yet to publish a final determination on the gas cylinders at Douma.

Ace Hanlon , Sep 18, 2018 10:47:57 AM | link
Putin pathetic. The least he should have done is to DEMAND that Israel stop attacking Russia ally Syria.
Alaric , Sep 18, 2018 10:48:00 AM | link
Russians are now saying Israeli warplane(s) launched missiles from near the French frigate so they don't believe the French launched anything.

If true, Israel just tried to start WW3.

Trisha Driscoll , Sep 18, 2018 10:48:21 AM | link
Sadly, those 15 Russian aircrew were just pawns in a bigger game. True of any lower ranks serving in the military.

Having pulled this trick once, I doubt the Israelis will be able to do it again. It was a clever stunt, but with essentially minor military impact. And I doubt the Israelis anticipated the destruction of the IL-20 by a Syrian SAM.

Lastly, I think it takes much more strength to resist the impulse to respond in kind to such provocations, which could easily lead to uncontrollable escalation. What's important is the end game, not these pin-pricks.

xLemming , Sep 18, 2018 10:53:35 AM | link
@64 cs

Nice hasbara you got there... jpost? bellingcat? Really?!
Why not quote Nikki Haley while you're at it...

Bandit , Sep 18, 2018 10:53:36 AM | link
@craigsummers

I am sorry to see others waste their precious time refuting your obvious bullshit propaganda with which you tainted this site. Considering you are a paid troll, you have nothing better to do with your time, whereas many worthy commentators on this site have actual jobs and, for the most part, credible, non-biased information to share. I hope that in the future, when one such as you comes to dump on this site, you will immediately be called out as a troll and left to mire in your own bs.

Mina , Sep 18, 2018 10:53:36 AM | link
"Putin says it was a tragic set of circumstances."
Coming after 3 weeks of European MSM explaining every day with the help of "experts" that the Russians and their bloodthirsty Syrian allies are going to slaughter 3 million innocent civilians in Idlib, it might not be such a bad move.
Hoarsewhisperer , Sep 18, 2018 10:56:35 AM | link
...
After all there's still a possibility that this particular incident was an accident after all.
Posted by: radiator | Sep 18, 2018 9:40:42 AM | 46

Yes - an "accident" CAUSED by "Israel" using the IL-20 as cover for a sneak attack. The Russian plane was preparing to land so its flight path was predictable and anticipated.
The altitude of the F-16s relative to the IL-20, at the time the F-16s were targeted by Syrian AD, will be the significant factor in apportioning blame.
One wonders how Chutzpah-ish Bibi is feeling right now?

Les , Sep 18, 2018 11:01:46 AM | link
It was already covered in the early days of the Ukrainian conflict that rebels overran a Ukrainian air defense base and acquired the launcher and missiles. It's not a new theory or propaganda. It still doesn't change US intelligence analysts' estimation that the civilian aircraft was downed by mistake. Over a period of a month, the rebels shot down 3 aircraft while 900 passenger jets safely passed through the airspace.

summers' stuff is late stage propaganda. It is rehashing old material that has already been settled.

Yonatan , Sep 18, 2018 11:03:18 AM | link
Harry @5

"I dont get why Israel would backstab friendly superpower, which kept SAA and Iran off its back and allowed to bomb Syria without any consequences."

Because they don't give a fsck. The official Israeli response to the incident is that it was all Assad's fault, or Hezbollah, or Iran, certainly not poor innocent israel.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/4464659.html

The Israeli attack was also coordinated with a zero-notice missle launch from a French ship. It all ties in with former CIA director Mike Morrell's statement that Russia should pay a price by having Russians killed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp40QzZYCUw

Mina , Sep 18, 2018 11:20:22 AM | link
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-war-aleppo-murder-isis-middle-east-robert-fisk-not-over-yet-a8535866.html
Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 11:34:43 AM | link
Ace Hanlon

Yes Putin is "pathetic" and I am sure thats the conclusion the military throughout european nations today recognize.
He could have said and done alot after this attack, instead he conceades that it was a "mistake" that Israel apparently bomb Syria like this causing these deaths.

Vladimir Poostain , Sep 18, 2018 11:36:19 AM | link
Russia can choke on a dick. What do they call 15 dead Russians? A start.
Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 11:36:38 AM | link
Netanyahu tells Putin he expresses regret at loss of Russian lives
"Netanyahu stressed the importance of continuing coordination in the security area between Israel and Russia, which prevented many losses on the both sides over the past three years," the press service said on Tuesday, after Putin and the Israeli PM spoke by telephone.
https://www.rt.com/news/438743-netanyahu-putin-regret-lives/

Too bad the chinese dont sell these weapons needed to Syria, they need all the help they could get now.

John Gilberts , Sep 18, 2018 11:37:24 AM | link
"Putin directly contradicts his own Defense Minister. Putin: 'tragic chain of circumstances' Russian MoD: 'Israeli F-16s carrying otu the air strikes used the Russian plane as cover to allow them to approach their targets on the ground w/out being hit by Syrian anti-aircraft fire."

https://twitter.com/MarkSleboda1/status/1042070177209307139

To Israel all things are permitted.

Piotr Berman , Sep 18, 2018 11:51:22 AM | link
"..........The FFM team visited Locations 2 and 4, where it observed the presence of an industrial gas cylinder on a top floor patio at Location 2, and the presence of a similar cylinder lying on the bed of a top floor apartment at Location 4. Close to the location of each cylinder there were crater-like openings in the respective reinforced concrete roofs. Work is ongoing to assess the association of these cylinders with the incident, the relative damage to the cylinders and the roofs, and how the cylinders arrived at their respective locations........." cited by craigsummers

This does not look like an aerial chemical attacks, but biased investigators tend to obfuscate the obvious by delaying conclusions. I heard that a gas cylinder with faulty valve can make a "decent missile" and pierce a few ceilings, but this happened when it is propelled by the pressured gas, and "crater like opening suggests a bomb with explosives. It was reported that dust raised by the shockwave led to suffocation, so those two different reports match. An industrial cylinder would neet to be propelled in some way that is not known to me, or used in some combination with explosive bomb, suggesting a very sophisticated guidance system, basically, a hitherto unknown weapon system. By the way of contrast, bringing the cylinder to the location and breaking it with a small explosive does not require any unknown technologies.

CarlD , Sep 18, 2018 11:53:37 AM | link
Somebody at the Russian MOD will be sacked for differing from Putin's opinion of
the downing being due to a "tragic set of circumstances."

Shoigu reserves the "right to retaliate" while Putin is all in favor of forgetting the
incident...

Bodes ill for Shoigu's permanence at this post. No doubt he will be put
in retirement shortly due to "ill health". Unless, of course, he resigns from his
functions in retaliation for Putin's indifference to the fate of the rank and file Russian
servicemen.

Time will tell.

karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 12:00:32 PM | link
The Zionist Abomination's 100% responsible for the shootdown. Yes, it was tragic as Putin said, but his defense officials are correct in their assessment and Putin knows that. Russia's response depends quite a bit on Russian public opinion about the Zionist Abomination and how it responds. I'd call this Russia's USS Liberty Moment. Given Zionist's murder Palestinians daily, whatever moral conscious they might retain won't feel much sorrow or remorse, an attitude likely not understood by Russians, although Russian media informs its public about Zionist atrocities.

Syrians will also have feelings about this too. I imagine some will wonder why their stalwart ally seems so feckless with the Zionists, not understanding just how Evil they are. And I'm certain SAA will be livid at Zionists--and the Outlaw US Empire--for causing this "mistake."

Ultimately, however, Russia's policy of not attacking Zionist aircraft engaging Syrian targets has reaped what it sowed. If Russia had used its air defenses against Zionist planes when they first had opportunities to do so, this "mistake" would never have occurred.

Pnyx , Sep 18, 2018 12:12:01 PM | link
I really hope that Russia will not only denying favors to Israels rotten government. The MSM now use the IL-20 incident to avoid speaking about the reckless attack itself which is a blatant violation of international law and carries unimaginable dangers. A Third World War could start anytime soon. It's an unbearable gamble with the life of Millions.
Russ , Sep 18, 2018 12:12:18 PM | link
Posted by: somebody | Sep 18, 2018 9:20:43 AM | 41

Cooperation with Turkey means Syria reached its goals without the attack.

I thought Syria's goal was to redeem its territory.

Jose Garcia , Sep 18, 2018 12:16:27 PM | link
Some here express that Putin should do this or why he didn't do that. It's easy to express those opinions from the comforts of home. Never having bullets fly over their heads, or having to pick up the remains of their comrades, blown to bits right in front of them. And to confront the families of those killed and explain to them why they will never return. Yes Putin will never go through those things. But if he should act in such a cavalier manner, he is finished in all intent and purposes. And from what I can see, Putin doesn't want an all out war. War is for warmongers who never experience the hell they so desire.
Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 12:18:37 PM | link
Putin - "Most certainly, we have to sort the case out most seriously. And our attitude to the tragedy is outlined in the Russian Defense Ministry's statement," he stressed.
https://sputniknews.com/world/201809181068137705-russian-plane-shot-syria-putin-chain-events/
karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 12:18:42 PM | link
EuraisaFuture is back online and Korybko has 3 short pieces on the incident, which can be accessed from this latest of the 3, which provides news of a communication by the Zionists expressing condolences of a sort. More will certainly develop over the rest of the day and week.
Mataman , Sep 18, 2018 12:30:35 PM | link
@84 It isn't cavalier to publicly call out Israel for what they did--violate international law by attacking a sovereign nation without provocation, killing Russian soldiers. Stating this FACT, instead of calling a sequence of unfortunate circumstances, would be the appropriate action. Then you don't look like a dog with it's tail between it's legs. And then you force the Israelis to publicly make more and more absurd claims to get out of their predicament. Then you also publicly announce that you will give Syria all the air defenses it needs to prevent any further Israeli intrusions into it's airspace. None of this is cavalier. Make the Israelis stomp their feet and have tantrums and cry about Iran all they want. But Syria will be closed to them. There is a way to diplomatically, but firmly call out bad behavior and enforce consequences for it. Putin acting like he's been spanked by Netanyahu was not the way to do it. It was disgraceful. And unless he turns course rapidly and decisively he is finished for all intents and purposes. If I were a Russian soldier, I wouldn't risk my life in the Syrian theater when my commander in chief told the world that I'm worth less than an Israeli life.
ken , Sep 18, 2018 12:41:17 PM | link
15 Russian soldiers killed by the actions of Israel and the French. Mr. Putin calls this a Tragic Chain of Events.

Yes,,, the events are allowing the Israeli's to bomb Syria at will,,, over 200 times. The events are not allowing Syria a decent air defense system that can determine Friend or Foe.

My question is how much longer are the families of killed Russians and other Russians going to allow appeasement after appeasement. Exactly what good are all the new weapons Russia purports and the 25 ships they have in the Med. The West bragged about killing the 50 or so Russian Mercs,,,soon they'll be bragging about the 15 dead Russian active duty soldiers.

I can sympathize with Mr. Putin not wanting to start a greater war but resolve is just as important as hardware. He may want to get his forces ready for a larger fight. BUT only if he intends to fight.

Appeasement never ever in world history worked.

adamski , Sep 18, 2018 12:43:04 PM | link
Tricky times...
Thanks, B for the sober summary.
So many unknown unknowns.
Maybe Israeli attacks on Syria will cease altogether now as in the Golan?
How many strikes then out?
ken , Sep 18, 2018 12:51:36 PM | link
To #84

Then Russia might as well surrender and get it over with because bullies never quit bullying until stopped.

Timothy Hagios , Sep 18, 2018 12:54:03 PM | link
There are several things to consider:

1) There was a substantial amount of time between the incident and the time official statements were made. Undoubtedly there was a bunch of negotiation and deliberation. We have no way of knowing what was agreed upon and for whose benefit the agreements were made.

2) If they truly wanted to appease Israel, why admit to the incident at all? Militaries cover up unflattering incidents all the time.

3) What is the statute of limitations for retaliation? If an Israeli plane mysteriously goes down a week from now, would that be a better or worse response than launching an attack today?

Steve , Sep 18, 2018 12:55:49 PM | link
This is the only time I cannot share b's optimism about Russia's action. For some reason, it seems that the Apartheid Israel is not only controlling the USA and Europe but also Russia. It is such a shame that the Russian government is giving so much latitude to Israel. To be frank, I think the punishment of Israel would come from some Asian nation or the Middle East itself. This state of affair cannot continue any longer, sooner than later some capable force would realize that Russia, like Europe and the USA, is nothing but the Zionist playground.
Bart Hansen , Sep 18, 2018 12:56:59 PM | link
84 - Jose is correct, and there is too much premature armchair saber rattling here.

Putin's job is to protect the RF from another war, improve the lives of his people, sell gas and wheat to the rubes of the EU and keep Syria from being savaged like was done to Iraq and Libya.

Harry Law , Sep 18, 2018 12:57:41 PM | link
Russia losing all those citizens in WW2 looks 1ike an accident and unfortunate chain of events [Putin on loss of IL-20 aircraft] because Hitler invaded Poland.
ALAN , Sep 18, 2018 12:59:08 PM | link
Tom Welsh | Sep 18, 2018 6:54:28 AM | 8
Has Turkey taken military occupation of Canton Afrin as a result of its understandings with Russia on the sight of the world? Were not you silent about the legal ground for such a criminal act by Putin / Erdogan?
Yul , Sep 18, 2018 1:02:16 PM | link
@ Laguerre #58

They are being paid by the Israeli government.
Schools and Unis have just started - some need the cash

Hoarsewhisperer , Sep 18, 2018 1:12:28 PM | link
Somebody at the Russian MOD will be sacked for differing from Putin's opinion of the downing being due to a "tragic set of circumstances."
Shoigu reserves the "right to retaliate" while Putin is all in favor of forgetting the incident...
Bodes ill for Shoigu's permanence at this post. No doubt he will be put in blah blah blah...
Time will tell.
Posted by: CarlD | Sep 18, 2018 11:53:37 AM | 80

Don't hold your breath waiting for Putin to 'correct' Shoigu.
Putin does diplomacy. Shoigu does Trouble (with a capital T).

xLemming , Sep 18, 2018 1:13:44 PM | link
@81 k & 87 m

I reluctantly admit this event & Putin's reaction are ominous

I have been waiting with bated breath for the other shoe to drop regarding Russia/China's involvement in the NWO, and sadly this event just might be it

Until now the whole 3D chess thing worked as an excuse to be patient

But this is indeed Russia's USS Liberty moment, and he is sounding a lot like LBJ in his handling of it

He could have said nothing, and let the MoD statements stand, and let Netanyahoo & Israel squirm while the incident is thoroughly investigated. It would have cost Putin nothing to do so IMHO, and would have had a sobering influence on the guilty party(s). But his statement excuses everyone, and let's them off the hook, free to offend again, which detracts from the where the spotlight should be: Israel's repeated, flagrant, unprovoked attacks on Syria

Say it ain't so Vlad - say it ain't so!

Yul , Sep 18, 2018 1:14:00 PM | link
To all those who can't understand the fact that Putin is so agreeable to Israel;
Guess who are the oligarchs supporting him - Jewish Russians as well the Jewish electorate.
On the other other side of the coin - how many Russian Jews live and vote in Israel.Those who did vote plumped largely for President Vladimir Putin.It take two to tango.

FWIW: Some 12,000 Russian citizens living in Israel voted at 14 polling stations across the country -- out of 120,000 Israelis who were eligible to vote in the Russian election.

T , Sep 18, 2018 1:14:27 PM | link
Will MOA change the Headline: Russia has now backed down saying Israel did not shoot down the Russian plane

(cause "it was all an accident")

b - be honest, and change the headline please.

"In less than 24 hours Moscow has gone from accusing Israel of the shootdown of a Russian jet in a "deliberate provocation," to striking a far more conciliatory tone with Russian president Vladimir Putin calling the incident the "result of a chain of tragic circumstances."

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/271144/russia-backs-off-blaming-israel-for-downed-jet

Putin: Downing of Russian plane appears to be accident, not deliberate

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/252169

And where are all the cucks praising Russian-Israeli cooperation?

Guys, people all over forums are laughing at Russia. I wonder what's next? Israel or the US "mistakingly" bombing a russian base and killing soldiers there? And then the cucks crying how "tragic" the "mistake" it was?

ALAN , Sep 18, 2018 1:15:07 PM | link
CarlD | Sep 18, 2018 11:53:37 AM | 80
Right!
Putin does not gamble his relations with Israel. Hor him Israel is a much & more important than the surrounding all Arab countries, because its networks represents the world's financial, political, military, scientific and intelligence depth. In addition, there are 1. 5 million Israeli russian speaking citizens.
xLemming , Sep 18, 2018 1:17:39 PM | link
And furthermore, this might be a WTF moment for those in the Russian military (as others have noted), as well as those in SAA, IRGC & Hzb...

Not looking good Vladimir...

frances , Sep 18, 2018 1:18:23 PM | link
I read an excellent post on SouthFront that I think is worth posting here:
" John Brown • 2 hours ago

This deal with Erdogan is better than I thought, as the Russian army will enter Idlib in large numbers escorted by the Turkish army without even having ot fight any battles at all.

This is why Israel downed the Russian military transport plane to try to wreck this deal which is huge victory for Syria.

The S-200 was fired at the F-16 earlier which drew the missile out towards the IL-20, then the F-16 kept the IL-20 in a line-of-sight between it and the missile, probably till the missile was out of range of identifying friend or foe, and used the heat signature to kill the nearest thing..

The deal also helps Russia and Syria by Erdogan is giving them a shield to free the rural areas of Latakia Idlib and Homs which they would have to do first any way. The Oct 15 deadline gives the Russians plenty of time to bomb the crap out of the militants. The buffer zone will also be territory Syria won't have to fight for as the Israeli terrorists will have to pull back and Russia has more time to greatly strengthen Syrian air defenses.

The fact that Israel attacked today in Latakia in a temper tantrum proves this was a good deal to make for Syria. If the militants don't cooperate, they get hammered anyway. Nothing to lose. A very smart move by Putin again as well as Erdogan. I am sure China is helping financially by helping Turkey out with USSA Israeli sanctions and to get out from under the IMF."

james , Sep 18, 2018 1:21:40 PM | link
i agree with these posts below..

"I don't believe this attack had anything to do with the Idlib agreement. Just another Israeli attack on Syria."
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 18, 2018 8:42:21 AM | 31

"Russia has its own S-400 systems defending Latakia, so it can defend itself and doesn't need Syria's S-200s.
They would have been watching the Israeli F-16s on radar, and then they get a phone call saying an attack is happening in one minute. Russia must have said "OK", because they didn't blow the F-16s out of the sky. All they have to say to Israel is "Next time it will NOT be OK." and Israel will have to stop it's invasions.

The hairy-chested Americans here are calling Putin weak, but he can't afford to make any over-reaching mistakes, and all decent, responsible human beings are glad of that. Do you want to have WW3 just to show how much "balls" you've got?"
Posted by: Palloy | Sep 18, 2018 10:09:01 AM | 54

"STRONG IS NOT WHO FIGHTS WARS, STRONG IS WHO AVOIDS WAR."
Posted by: venice12 | Sep 18, 2018 10:09:18 AM | 55

"Quite an infestation of pro-Israeli trolls today, much more than usual. I guess they're trying to put over a point."
Posted by: Laguerre | Sep 18, 2018 10:19:40 AM | 58


@80 carld... i don't share your view on that!


karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 1:24:01 PM | link
It seems that most agree with my assessment that Russian policy is primarily at fault as I wrote @81. There's really no avoiding that fact, especially for Russians, which is likely to act like a stick stuck in the throat. The Zionists offer help with an "investigation" of the event, which is pure BS as the event's already been investigated, the facts revealed, and the responsible party and its criminal motive named. I'm sure numerous members of Syria's General Staff are privately--perhaps--saying "we told you so" regarding Russia's non-engagement policy. Maybe even Assad too.

Need to see Russian language media and Duma member reactions as Putin will need to address them. I wonder if the Kremlin Security Council discussed how they'd respond to such an event as another shootdown was very likely to occur.

On the question: Would having the S-300 system made any difference? Only if it had previously been used successfully to down Zionist aircraft and thus become seen as a credible deterrent to such attacks. But I doubt in this situation if its targeting system would have been able to differentiate between the larger and smaller targets.

Daniel , Sep 18, 2018 1:31:23 PM | link
This is perplexing. While Putin evidently whitewashes the Israeli act of war, he also dictates a firm message to Israel via MOD Shoigu. Russia used to be more consistent and firm when it was part of the the socialist USSR. Today everything is about capitalist profit and "win-win." However, the U.S. population believes it is entitled to the world's resources by divine right, like Israel, and has indeed viewed itself as the New Israel. Nevertheless, much of the blame also goes to Iran for exaggerating its influence in Syria and Iraq and thus playing into Israeli propaganda. Iran has also refused to defend its own assets in Syria and has deferred to Russia and/or Syria for protection. Hezbollah likes to boast about its victories but is ineffectual (or more probably unwilling to retaliate) against Israeli use of Lebanese airspace to attack Syria. Russia is infested with the Zionist lobby and a fifth column of Christian Zionists who work with George Soros on the left to pass superstitious anti-gay laws and then attack Russia for foreign-financed "human rights violations," leading to CIA-backed extremism on the left (Pussy Riot) and right (anti-immigrant white supremacy). The FSB seems content to facilitate the destruction of its own country; one cannot blame institutional treason and/or spinelessness on one man (Putin). The bottom line is that "World War III or bust" has always been the NATO/Israel endgame and is a natural outgrowth of deep-seated, centuries-long tendencies in Western civilisation. Citizens of the West are guilty for passively voicing useless resistance against a ruthless oligarchy that only respects force. If Westerners and their victims are unwilling to take up arms against the oligarchy (not that I would advocate that), then they shouldn't complain about the ceaseless wars and corruptions. They should just accept their status as slaves unto death without the faux protesting.
Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 1:40:17 PM | link
Defence minister Sergei Shoigu's statement on the shootdown at Russian military website here.
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12196031@egNews

Putin's public comment on the shootdown, which was in answer to a journalists quest is at the Presedent of Russian Federation website here.
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12196031@egNews


Thread seems to be full of troll and couch potatoes spewing crap. Putin makes it quite clear the statement by the Russian military that Israel is responsible is Russia's official position.

james , Sep 18, 2018 1:45:21 PM | link
@105 karlof1... did you see what @54 palloy wrote? here it is again that i would like to emphasize..

"Russia has its own S-400 systems defending Latakia, so it can defend itself and doesn't need Syria's S-200s.
They would have been watching the Israeli F-16s on radar, and then they get a phone call saying an attack is happening in one minute. Russia must have said "OK", because they didn't blow the F-16s out of the sky. All they have to say to Israel is "Next time it will NOT be OK." and Israel will have to stop it's invasions."

@107 peter au... fully agree.. israel is responsible for this.. anything else is obfuscation!

Lochearn , Sep 18, 2018 1:46:24 PM | link
What seemed like a big mistake by Israel has, in the space of a few hours, been turned into a victory for Israel and a humiliation for Russia courtesy of the Russian president. I don't think Putin is going to live this down. He looks weak and hesitant. Netanyahu just punched him in the mouth and he's slunk off to a corner, his reputation as a tough guy shot to pieces. While he has done a great job redeveloping Russia clearly his time has come. I don't believe this is about the Israeli 5th column. It's more about how Israel manages to bend all politicians to its will. All except Kennedy of course who had been well schooled in such matters by his father. And which is why he and his brother had to be taken out. Nixon was a borderline case which is why he only got Watergated.
Guerrero , Sep 18, 2018 1:46:51 PM | link
In any complex chess position, one does well to maintain the possibility of the other side to make a blunder.
Daniel , Sep 18, 2018 1:50:37 PM | link
@ 107

There also seems to be a concerted propaganda effort by the MSM to claim that Russia supports Israel's attacks on alleged Iranian infrastructure in Syria, including Lebanese Hezbollah. The New York Times is asserting that Russian restraint has facilitated hundreds of Israeli airstrikes on Syria over the past year, and goes on to aver that Israel and Russia closely coordinate activities to limit Iranian influence in Syria. The MSM clearly hope to drive a wedge between Russia and its regional partners, even though equal or greater blame should go to Iran for its own hesitancy to confront Israel. Hezbollah could have easily used its ever-growing post-2006 expertise to target Israeli electronic and air assets over Lebanon but has not done so, though Israel always utilises Lebanese (or Jordanian) airspace to attack Syria. Everyone likes to blame Putin but lets Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Russian military/diplomatic establishment off the proverbial hook. Besides, Hezbollah has not done itself any favours by promoting anti-Semitic "Jews-control-the-world" canards on its al-Manar TV channel, which only discredits the otherwise worthy cause of anti-Zionism and only plays into hard-right Zionist hands. Bashar al-Assad, for his part, made numerous flawed efforts to appease Israel and the West in the years prior to the 2011 intervention. He privatised certain sectors of the economy; allowed Syria's arch-enemy, the pro-Zionist Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas), to set up offices; and in general tried to compensate for his inferiority and lack of experience. When his father Hafez died in 2000, even the MSM paid grudging respect, something they have not done to Bashar. Bashar, like Gaddafi, Khrushchev, and other revisionists, was always trying to abandon the pan-Arab, anti-Zionist, socialist agenda of his father and seek "peaceful coexistence" with the West. Yet everyone blames Putin. Sigh...

james , Sep 18, 2018 1:52:02 PM | link
@P36 jackrabbit... i have a few problems with the quote from you below.. first off, it suggests that the path syria-russia-iran has taken to regain syria could have been done differently and more effectively.. that is a 64,000 question that ignores a number of events that could or might have happened along the way to change everything at the place syria is now.. so, i disagree with you on this and think banding all the 'moderate headchoppers' and families in idlib was a smart move and one that is still being worked out.. pat lang was wrong on this from day one and doen't look at more right at this point as i see it..

"Pat Lang said that R+6 should have moved to take Idlib after Aleppo. He has now been proven right."

partizan , Sep 18, 2018 1:58:54 PM | link
"Syria - Israel's Provocation Kills Russian Soldiers - Moscow Will Take Political Revenge"

FAKE NEWS

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 2:05:33 PM | link
@ james it was the same in the leadup to the southwest offensive - trolls swamping the threads saying Russia had sold out Syrian ect and many of the regulars joining the troll chorus.
truthcrusades , Sep 18, 2018 2:13:45 PM | link
Vladimir Putin calls it a "tragic mistake". This was a deliberate provocation that made fools out of the Russian side for allowing the Israeli attacks on Syria. Russian servicemen die and Putin stands with the Israeli provocateurs, ridiculous.
Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 2:18:10 PM | link
Segy Shoigu - "The head of the Russian defense Ministry reported that it had informed the defense Minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman that Russia will not leave unanswered actions of the Israeli air force in Syria, which killed Russian soldiers."

Putin - "Our attitude towards this tragedy is set forth in a statement by our Defence Ministry, and has been fully coordinated with me."

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12196031@egNews
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58586

partizan 112 it you that is fake, not the news.

Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 2:20:26 PM | link
james @111

You are probably right. Hindsight is 50-50 and this hasn't fully played out.

My point larger point is just that if Putin had been more distrustful of Erdogan, then maybe he would've done things differently. If Erdogan doesn't keep his part of the bargain that has just been struck and never relinquishes Idlib, then Putin will have lost his Turkish gamble. It's already looking pretty dicey.

Some counter this view by saying that Putin is "playing the long game". I disagree. The Empire has awoken and is defending its hegemonic vision. This is a 'race' (at times a game of chicken) that neither side can afford to lose.

Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 2:20:30 PM | link
truthcrusades

Yes, what the cause of this attitude is is hard to say, some post above mention israel lobby in Russia.
Bullies shouldnt be met with acceptance, if you are a leader of big power like Russia and someone cause the deaths of 20 people from your army, you cant just say, it was a mistake.

Anya , Sep 18, 2018 2:21:57 PM | link
The downing of the Russian plane was premeditated.

Most likely, the holo-biz 'survivors' used electronic rerouting, which the Russians should have done long time ago against the nest of the bloody Bolshevik progeny and supremacists madmen like Miliekovski (Bibi) and the former night-club bouncer Avi Lieberman.

The Jewish Fifth Column in Russia should feel the heat. Their Israeli relatives and best friends are guilty of the premeditated murder of Russians.

The Jewish Power in action: https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/nato-warships-amassed-by-syria-just-before-attack-on-lattakia/
"Combat vessels from the Second Standing NATO Maritime Group (NATO Maritime Group 2) moved closer to Syria's borders on the 16th of September, according to monitoring data from Western naval forces. In retrospect, we can see this sudden buildup as related to the French/US/Israeli strike on Lattakia and the downing of the Russian il-20 aircraft carrying 14 Russian soldiers
In particular, the eastern Mediterranean is now being patrolled by the Canadian Navy frigate HMCS Ville de Quebeс, by the Greek navy ship Elli and by the Dutch Navy frigate HNLMS De Ruyter, the latter being the group's flagship.
In addition to the aforementioned vessels, three American destroyers (USS Carney, USS Ross and USS Winston S. Churchill) are already in the region, as well as the USS 6th Fleet Admiral USS Mount Whitney. The waters are also being patrolled by at least three Los Angeles-class US nuclear submarines. According to Western observers, the armament of the current US naval group in the Mediterranean includes more than 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles."

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-anne-frank-test/

Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 2:22:44 PM | link
correction @118

I disagree ... with the notion that Putin has the luxury of time.

dh-mtl , Sep 18, 2018 2:22:53 PM | link
The agreement on Idlib reminds me of the Minsk agreements, of 2015.

When the Minsk agreement was signed, many people called Putin a traitor and a weakling for abandoning the Lugansk and Donetsk republics. However looking back over the last 3 1/2 years we can see the true sense of the Minsk agreement.

1. Legitimization of the republics.
2. Commitment of Ukraine to federalization, which Ukraine had no intention of carrying out.
3. Tying the hands of the West because of 'The Minsk Agreement'.

Since then the conflict has been frozen. And every day Ukraine gets weaker and its Western owners throw away more money and credibility on a lost cause.

The Idlib agreement looks similar. What are likely results of this agreement?
1. Consolidating the exclusion of the U.S. from western Syria.
2. Positioning Turkey as the actor with responsibility to fight the U.S. coalition's Jihadis in Idlib. When combined with the situation with the Kurds, it consolidate's Turkey's position as a Russian ally and American foe.
3. Opening up transportation routes linking Damascus with Aleppo.
4. Freezing the conflict while a diplomatic solution is achieved, without the participation of the U.S. coalition.

It looks like a good deal for Syria and Russia. No wonder Israel was so furious.

Regarding Putin's reaction to the Il-20 downing, it looks like vintage Putin to me. He will not make a show of it, but will address the issue firmly, with action, not words, but on the terms and timing of his choice.
All of the commentators on this blog who denigrate Putin do not properly appreciate recent history.

Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 2:25:05 PM | link
Correction @121

I disagree ... with the notion that SCO has the luxury of time.

Beibdnn. , Sep 18, 2018 2:25:13 PM | link
@T and all the experts. Russia is in a very difficult position. It has absolutely treacharous enemies quite apart from supposed allies on all sides. The U.S.A. is even trying to destroy Orthodox Christianity to further isolate Russia. I have no doubt that there has been some very intense diplomacy behind the scenes. Remember, vengence is a dish served cold, the western attitude for immediate gratification, e.g. Russia taking immediate and probably recklessly stupid retalitatory action won't serve either their or Syria's agendas, doesn't mean that action won't be taken. Putin is only human, we all make mistakes, if the situations were reversed, the U.S.A. Wouldn't even make it to 3rd world level.............
xLemming , Sep 18, 2018 2:27:55 PM | link
@107 & 113 p

I understand what you and other like-minded individuals are saying...

There are some in the blogosphere, like Brandon Smith, who have been quite accurate regarding how current geopolitical events have unfolded, although admittedly I had trouble with his viewpoint on Russia/China being part of the charade

And then there are others, like Jim Stone, God bless him, who has blinders on regarding Trump, in whom I believe his faith is misguided

I try to listen to and read many sources, draw conclusions from that and mete out my trust accordingly & sparingly, as I try to navigate my own place in this crazy world

I gave Putin the benefit of the doubt for the longest time, biting my tongue on many occasions & to be happily proven wrong, and I wish to be proven wrong here again...

*IF* Putin indeed said, "it was only an accident", then the optics of such are not good, as they excuse evil, and undermine the good and those who are in harms way.

Other than that, totally enjoy your comments & those of others... as they say, "iron sharpens iron"

Greece , Sep 18, 2018 2:31:12 PM | link
I studied the incident of the downed ILYUSHIN in LATAKIA, SYRIA, and after confirming the location of the ISRAELI JETS, when they fired their missiles, from multiple journalist sources, South East of Cyprus with a direct line of sight with the AKROTIRI BRITISH NAVAL SPY BASE, it seems that the Israeli Air Force has the following technology which according to my oppinion was responsible for the downing of the Russian airlane: FUEL ADDITIVES WITH ELEMENTS THAT CAN LATCH ON TO METALIC OR OTHER SURFACES UPON BEING SPRAYED IN THE ATMOSPHERE, ACTING AS FALSE TARGET/FALSE SIGNAL IDENTIFIER. If the Russian plane flew through the wake/plumes the Israeli jets left behind with deliberate manuevers, in order for the plume to be intercepted by Russian flight path, then you can have some type of technology to make use of this extra signal/return multiplier to confuse S-200 Syrian air defense not programmed to counter such a threat, therefore electronically "painting" the Russian plane as an "Israeli jet". I believe that other enablers were used, the type of weather control/microwave for the creation of and or handling metalic additive plume particles as a standing wavethat can later could be moved around or dispersed in patterns for a brief amount of time in order to create a "curtain" of nano material that could latch on to surfaces in order to "paint" them as targets regardless of what kind of material it is.
Al-Haza , Sep 18, 2018 2:32:26 PM | link
@karlof1

That's about the same assessments I've made. At this moment I don't blame the Zionists in Israel and why should anyone blame them. Putin has allowed freehand to the Zionists and Nato to attack Syria and Iran often forestalling the progress of his troops and that of his allies made. Why did Putin and his policy makers think that the Zionist regime attacks was going to be confined to targets of SAA/Iran/Hezbolah? If he's not going to protect his troops and that his allies, Putin should quit/withdraw from the Syrian arena and leave the country to it's fate.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 2:33:13 PM | link
125 "*IF* Putin indeed said,"

if if if... why not read the official fucking transcript of what Putin said and then "if" is no longer needed along with the other gossip.

james , Sep 18, 2018 2:34:20 PM | link
@115 peter au.. indeed!

@118 / 123 jackrabbit.. thanks.. i agree with your last line @118.. hard to know what putin is thinking here, but i am sure he sees the inevitability of what is going on.. their is no stop to this as i see it.. the whole world is going to be brought into this conflict..

in the past it was saddam had weapons of mass destruction.. it is now assad has chemical weapons and is going to gas his people.. basically it is the same pitch and many will go along with it, for all sorts of different reasons..

international law as practiced by the west is now a complete joke.. for israel to not be held accountable for it's actions yesterday is to continue with this joke/facade about international law..

@122 dh-mtl - i agree.. i think the deal is good.. however, no amount of good deals is going to stop the warmonger nations from pursuing their ambitions in syria as witnessed yesterday.. israel continues to get a pass for whatever it does, so that it can claim the golan heights or whatever whacked in the head thing it is thinking here..

partizan , Sep 18, 2018 2:35:46 PM | link
"SARH (semi-active radar homing seeker) missiles require tracking radar to acquire the target, and a more narrowly focused illuminator radar to "light up" the target in order for the missile to lock on to the radar return reflected off target. The target must remain illuminated for the entire duration of the missile's flight ."

So what are the chances that s-200 "...missile was aimed at the F-16 its seeker likely mistook the larger radar reflection of IL-20 for the intended target." as is stated in an article?

Of course a possibilities are endless, in theoretical domain. But it would require sloppy operators (unlikely that would be a Syrians in this case) to mistook the airplane loaded with all kind of electronics for an interceptor.

Deschutes , Sep 18, 2018 2:36:39 PM | link
"Netanyahoo can forget about any further such 'favors' from Moscow." and "Russia will certainly take revenge for the Israeli provocation, but will likely do so in the political arena." Nonsense. The Israelis as usual have the upper hand and will play Russia as their little bitch. Putin is no match for Netanyahu and the IDF. The Russians always come across as a slow-witted giant who nobody really likes or respects. The Israelis always have better strategy and better connections. Look at the USS Liberty attack. Or look at 9-11 which was a Mossad operation, and how that 'terror attack' played so very well for the Zionists (at America's expense!). The Israelis are masters at false flag attacks to frame another target, be it playing Palestinian terrorist to justify more attacks on them; dressing up as Arab ISIS terrorists to further paint Muslims as evildoers who must be crushed; or in this instance getting Syria to shoot down the Russian plane then blame it all on the Syrians. Israel can pretty much do as it pleases over Syria, and nobody can stop them: they fly wherever they want, blowing up buildings, airports, military outposts etc and nobody so much as lifts a finger to stop them. When will somebody grow some balls and seriously kick some Israeli ass? Maybe never? Holy crap.
Zico , Sep 18, 2018 2:42:24 PM | link
Putin won't lift a finger against his moneymen in Tel Aviv. Most of Russia's moneymen have homes in Tel Avi. He has a soft spot for them.

For starters, the whole deal between the Russian military and the IDF was a BS one. I'm surprised the Syrian military command didn't make noise about it. Basically, the two militaries agreed for Russia to turn a blind eye on any Israeli military agression on Syria. With friends like this, who needs enemies.

I sometimes think Syria/Russia's alliance restricts Syria's ability to deal decisively against the IDF. I hope now this incident changes that. But I won't hold my breathe.

Bibi will fly over to Moscow and moan about some Iranian presencc in Syria(which Russia doesn't like, btw) and all will be forgotten.


Syria seriosuly NEEDS to look elsewhere for her air defence needs. Heck, even Turkey's getting S-400 but Syrian can't have it because....reasons.

Greece , Sep 18, 2018 2:47:04 PM | link
I think the real target of israel was not Ilyushn but Putin, considering all the weird posts that flooded the internets, blaming Putin for everythink.
Iranians calimed that israeluses heavy weather control on them, the other day, I DIDN'T SEE ANYONE EVEN REPOSTING THAT STUFF.Such hypocrisy in this world...
kral , Sep 18, 2018 2:47:37 PM | link
How can the Russians provide AD to Syria without incorporating automatic friend-or-foe recognition that allows only hostile aircraft to be targeted?

Was the relevant transponder in the IL-25 not working for some reason? Was it a software glitch? Was the Syrian equipment so old that it could not provide this safety measure without further modification? Or did the Syrians turn off this feature deliberately because they did not understand how to use it?

The answers will probably never be publicly known but the Israelis have shot themselves in the foot here by violating their de-confliction agreement with Russia.

laguerre , Sep 18, 2018 2:49:19 PM | link
yet more Israeli trolls, eg 131
Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 2:57:45 PM | link
karlof1 earlier in the thread linked to some pieces on the shootdown by Korybko
https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/09/18/initial-reaction-to-the-russian-israeli-crisis/
https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/09/18/russian-israeli-tensions-are-in-the-interests-of-the-us-and-iran/
https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/09/18/the-russian-israeli-crisis-climb-down-in-progress/

His take on the blogosphere is spot on but also his theory that and american Israeli faction in Israel engineered the situation to move deliberately put Israel on bad terms with Russia might have something.
Israel has never joined the US sanctions against Russia and Netanyahu told Trump to stand down in southwest Syria after Russia had worked its diplomacy.
I believe there is also a large voting block of ethnic Russians in Israel that may be a little pissed off about the shootdown.

partizan , Sep 18, 2018 2:58:43 PM | link
kral | Sep 18, 2018 2:47:37 PM | 134

i doubt that the Syrians handle this given the type of aircraft involved. IL-25 is allegedly shot down just off the Syrian coast where Russian have state of the art radars. In addition bunch of naval ships similarly equipped.

Grieved , Sep 18, 2018 3:07:53 PM | link
Well, with 136 comments as I write, this thread took remarkably little time to scan, but it did involve seeing who was the poster before reading. You can always tell when military actions are the topic because the troll budget goes up. When it's Israel to blame, there's no limit to the lies.

I do wish people would follow the Internet's earliest learned lesson - do not feed trolls, because they make more points when you engage, and all they want is to fill the quota. Learn to ignore.

Good to see some of the regular and proven commenters coming in now. Lochearn at #110, is that really you, or an impostor?

Israel has crossed a line. Russia had every reason to trust that line, the same as we don't check our alarms every 10 minutes but simply wait for them to go off.

Anyone who believes that Russia will forget or forgive the deliberate death of 15 Russians has no idea who they're dealing with.

The responses (there will be more than one) will be whatever Russia decides is best for its interests.

I shall wait.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 3:09:42 PM | link
forgot to check for typos before posting my last comment.

kral 134 From what I read some time ago the S-200 warhead has a kill range of 150 meters and is armed with a proximity fuse. If that is right, the missile would only need to pass with 150 meters of the Russian plane while tracking the Israeli planes or missiles to take it out.

WJ , Sep 18, 2018 3:12:37 PM | link
@100,

Indeed. The brilliance of the Israeli strategy of provocation is that it will make the domestic political scene in Russia increasingly difficult for Putin to navigate in Syria. The more often Russian troops are killed or injured, the more quickly one half of the Russian populace demands action or withdrawal; the more they demand it, the harder it will be for Putin to maintain their support. For Israel and others are betting that he will never actually retaliate. They are creating a situation which is designed to make Russia's presence in Syria an impossible political situation for Putin himself.

Deschutes , Sep 18, 2018 3:18:42 PM | link
@140 - very insightful post. Kudos!
et Al , Sep 18, 2018 3:19:11 PM | link
Doesn't Putin operate a 'three day rule'?
WJ , Sep 18, 2018 3:24:14 PM | link
@142,

Putin's not Jesus.

Zico , Sep 18, 2018 3:24:20 PM | link
Another interesting point to note. Russia, Iran and Turkey recently had a meeting on the situation in Syria. The agreed to get rid of the rats in Idlib. Suddenly Putin turns around and makes a deal with ONLY Turkiye.


It's becoming clear that Turkiye , Russia and (behind the scenes)Israel, are on the same side when it comes to Iran's presence in Syria. Syrians themselve don't have a say in their own country anymore.

The Syrian army now needs permission from a foriegn power to liberate their own land. Turning the other cheek only invites more slaps.

At this rate, Syria may well forget about Idlib. Turkey won't leave. The US won't leave either. Welcome to bulkinazation 101.

Lozion , Sep 18, 2018 3:24:39 PM | link
@138 MoAites in the know adhere to our own BDS movement, so to speak..
SlapHappy , Sep 18, 2018 3:26:52 PM | link
Attention Zionist trolls: please go sell your bullshit someplace else, everyone here knows you're the problem on this planet.
xLemming , Sep 18, 2018 3:34:53 PM | link
@128 p

My statement was based on that "if", which was rhetorical

But as Caitlin Johnstone aptly put it recently, unless we can embrace something with one of our 5 senses, we have no choice but to trust, or not, as we all engage in a "shared, consensual narrative". The trick is discerning the correct narrative, and that, in part, is why I am here

BTW no need for vulgarities - it undermines your argument

CarlD , Sep 18, 2018 3:36:31 PM | link
It is very unfortunate that Putin said what HE said because not saying anything
would have been way better than what he said.

I was very unhappy when Pres Putin dismissed the killing of Russian Mercs by
the US by saying that they were "unauthorized individuals", if I am not mistaken.
But lets face it, these were Russians! Working for the good side, at that. Wasn't
their unnecessary deaths worth some solidarity?

Why should Putin be more sensitive to the "plight" of Russian Israelis than to that
of these Russian citizens that became soldiers of fortune through necessity?

I do admire Putin, but I have to grasp the reality that his compass shows a different
North than ours who would like to see the Beast reined in.

What will Zhirinowsky say or think when he hears Putin's statement? What will the
rank and file servicemen think? How will the Douma react?

Truly, there Putin is on his own. Either he doesn't realize how much his words are
hurting him, or he is a man that can swim against the current and demonstrate
great courage.

Some say Netanyahu and Putin are friends. It must have come about recently
because on Victory day Parade. Putin did distance himself from Benyamin.
He was definitely rude to Netanyahu.

This deconfliction line between Israel and Russia's militaries point to the fact
that Israel has been bombarding Syria with the blessings of the Kremlin all
these times.

Iranians are obviously not well seen by the Kremlin and should not count on
the Russians as allies. If Russia knows every time an Israeli attack is going
to occur on Syria and looks the other way so as not to hinder Israel destructive
work, how much of an ally are they to Bashar el Assad?

Their presence is therefore limited to fighting the Takfiris and other potential
threats to the Russian Motherland. Thinking that it is better to fight them
away from home.

Jordan, Israel, Turkey, the US, France, England, Saudi Arabia, Qatar et tutti quanti
may abuse Syria ad libitum and ad nauseam. This is of no concern to the Russians.

Seen with these glasses, then all Putin's actions and omissions become predictable.

Russia will retaliate only if it is directly and unequivocally attacked. Not as a collateral
casualty but as a primary target.

This may hurt our feelings as we see it as treason to the cause. But we must remember
that Russia has it's priorities and aims.

Grom , Sep 18, 2018 3:37:06 PM | link
Dear all, guys & girls, дамы и господа,
first of all let me express my deepest condolences for the tragic loss of the 15 Russian SPECIALISTS who perished as the result of the Il-20 shootdown. I want to stress that I'm deeply surprised, shocked, and disturbed, not only by this horrendous provocation, but also by the incredibly *inaccurate* and *dismissive* description of what happened and of the ultimate victims of this whole tragedy.
Why are these 15 Russian casualties summarily described just as "servicemen" or "crewmen"?
These were not "simple" прапорщики or privates - what we are all forgetting is that these 15 servicemen were:

1) Highly experienced engineers and technicians
2) Electronic Warfare specialists
3) SIGINT Experts

It literally takes *decades* in order to induct, train, and build the skills and experience of such highly prized military personnel. Merely calling them "crewmen" or "servicemen" is highly inappropriate and inaccurate - let's therefore pay due respect to these fallen - as these were not "ordinary soldiers"!

Next - the loss of the Il-20 is nothing short of *devastating* for both the Russians and the Syrians. That plane was a specialized electronic warfare asset regularly patrolling (and securing) the surrounding airspace - and...Il-20s don't grow on trees!!! Let me underscore this - the loss of this aircraft is an absolutely *devastating* loss that will cost the Russians and the Syrians dearly - notwithstanding the fact that Israel certainly won't offer any compensation for this human and material loss.

Final points and hard questions (and I haven't seen many questions being raised about this so far....happy to hear/read your take on this!):

1) The Russians saw the Israeli F-16 way before they got so close to Latakia and to the Il-20. Why did they allow the Israelis to get *so dangerously close* to their prized asset - the Il-20 - and the the Khmeimim airbase?

2) What about the Russian EW-systems? While it is understandable that the Il-20 was on a landing approach and maybe not actively using its EW/radar systems - what about the other defensive assets deployed in the area? What about the Khmeimim-based EW systems like the Krasukha? What about the array of surveillance/tracking radar systems that Russia operates?

3) Why was the Il-20 not escorted??? I thought that after the downing of the Su-24 by Turkey, the Russians had decided to mandatorily escort major air assets such as bombers, tankers, surveillance planes etc? How come the flight of 4x F-16s could approach the Il-20 unimpeded with no interception/shadowing taking place beforehand?

4) What about Russian-Syrian coordination??? We know that the S-200s operated by the Syrians had been upgraded/serviced - this *must* have included the surveillance/tracking radars, as well as the IFF systems. So how could the Syrian SAM crews even fire the missile? Even if the Israelis claim that they informed the Russians just short of a minute or so before the strike, the Russians *must have seen - AND - tracked* the flight of the F-16s well in advance and even from their take-off, so they *should have informed* the Syrians.

5) What about Israeli EW-capabilities? Are Israeli F-16s now equipped with systems that allow them to fool Russian & Syrian radars and EW systems to the point where they can fly and approach a highly hostile area literally *undisturbed*, and be so confident that missiles fired at them will miss the target and hit the "friendlies" instead???

6) What about the role of the French here? What about the "Auvergne" frigate? Did it fire any munitions as indicated by the Russians? If yes, then why and at which target? Shouldn't Russia lodge an official complaint and demand explanations from Paris? Did the Israelis coordinate the strike in any form or way with the French?

Food for thought folks...we all need to get to the bottom of this - too many questions - and too few answers...
My message to the Russian (political) leadership: LISTEN to the Konashenkovs, to the Shoigus, to the Gerasimovs...and do whatever is necessary to STOP THIS.
'Nuff said.....

Grom

Red Ryder , Sep 18, 2018 3:38:42 PM | link
@138, Grieved,

With wisdom again . . .

I concur.

Israel broke the bond of trust. They will see in many ways and means that they bought the S-300 for Syria and eventually, a NO FLY over Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq and Turkey. The S-400s will be linked and all anyone in a military aircraft has to do is call and ask for permission from Moscow/MOD/VVP. It's coming. Russia is in Syria to stay for 50+ years. And thus, it and its neighbors will be under the Russian missile defenses, integrated as a whole network.

In this Levant neighborhood, all the leaders want peace. Only Israel wants war.

The ME is wider and includes the psychos and sociopaths of Israel and Saudi Arabia and UAE. They want proxy war and US Centcom wars. But Russia has taken Turkey away and soon Iraq will be removed from US hegemony, also.

The Chinese are finishing an exercise as "ally" of Russia in Vostok 2018. They are seeing and feeling how Russia fights wars. This may give them the confidence to militarily join anchoring the ME for OBOR Silk Road development. They have much at stake in securing a peace. And just may join with a stout presence of the PLA. They should and now they might finally come.

The Chinese will be operating the port at Haifa, so it means they hold stakes in Syria and Iraq as well as Israel. In their own commercial interests and in President Xi's dream of BRI they have to invest a military presence. The time is perfect.

They intend to invest billions in reconstructing Syria. They should build their own military infrastructure base in Syria.

Their work with Russia in Vostok 2018 will make their presence inside Syria feel very comfortable.

michaelj72 , Sep 18, 2018 3:40:03 PM | link
well you go and let israel attack 'iranian' targets inside Syria some 200 times in two years or so, and ya don't expect any of your forces to ever get caught in the cross-fire?.....Well, russia, ya finally got caught.

more info here
http://news.trust.org/item/20180918140009-ol11r

"....But the ministry said it held Israel responsible because, at the time of the incident, Israeli jets were attacking Syrian targets and had only given Moscow one minute's warning, putting the Russian aircraft in danger of being caught in cross-fire..."

rcentros , Sep 18, 2018 3:50:29 PM | link
Free ride for Israel again. NutYahoo plays the fiddle and Putin dances to the lively tune.
et Al , Sep 18, 2018 3:57:42 PM | link
#138 Grieved.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Pete , Sep 18, 2018 3:58:00 PM | link
Perhaps Israel deflected the SAMs and shot the Russian aircraft down themselves?
Jackrabbit , Sep 18, 2018 3:58:50 PM | link
"Putin showed weakness" is silly.

He can't talk about secret accommodation for Israel - but he can end it .

<> <> <> <> <> <>

The 'accomodation' stemmed from Putin's view that Russia had no interest in getting involved in the Israel-Iran conflict. A wise choice because drawing Russia into that fray could lead to WWIII.

Who is directly responsible for the downing of the plane is irrelevant. Israel clearly fucked with Russia by not giving them adequate warning.

xLemming , Sep 18, 2018 3:59:46 PM | link

@ 135 L

How is Deschutes an Israeli troll? He despises Zionists.

Now c.summers is an Israeli troll, as he excuses and/or ignores their evils

rcentros , Sep 18, 2018 4:25:27 PM | link
Now Moon Over Alabama is censoring ... so I'll repeat the deleted post ...

Free ride for Israel again. NutYahoo plays the fiddle and Putin dances to the lively tune.

Ragheb , Sep 18, 2018 4:26:19 PM | link
would be nice to see Syrian and Russian forces attack Israel launching sites. AA defenses not nearly sufficient. Especially when most targets are cheap cruise missiles and not expensive aircraft.
rcentros , Sep 18, 2018 4:27:15 PM | link
My apologies. Moon Over Alabama did not delete my post -- it was on the second page. I guess my emotions are running high. If I could delete the 2nd post I would.
Pft , Sep 18, 2018 4:32:20 PM | link
Israel controls Russia as much as it does the USA. Putin is a philo-semite. The Chief Rabbi of Russia is known as Putins Rabbi , he is from Brooklyn, a rabbi of the same orthodox sect as Kushner, Felix Sater and a couple of Putins biggest oligarch suporters . Many of Russias top oligarchs also have Israeli passports. Putins already met Bibi 3 times this year and trade and tourism between the 2 countries is booming with more than 60 flights from Israel to Moscow daily. A Russian academic is being tried for holocaust denial for daring to question some of the numbers. The media in Russia is just as pro-Israel as in US. The powerful Israeli lobby is global.


Bottom line, IMO there will be no revenge taken other than a token response to appease Russias military. Putting aside his pro Israeli stance, Putin knows an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on the Israeli controlled US . Not going to risk that for Syria, not for 14 soldiers. Thats just being smart. Weak, but smart.

Fernando Arauxo , Sep 18, 2018 4:41:44 PM | link
Only thing Russian should do is place snipers all over the place and enable the Arabs to kill 15 Israeli soldiers. Once that is done, no more bullets. Blood demands blood. Russia has to punish the Jews somehow, if not the bear is WEAK.
Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 4:41:53 PM | link
Pft

Indeed no response will be given - this is probably already buried in Russia.
Putin admitted that there as only a "mistake", only problem Putin will run into these "mistakes" unless he take pre cautions (i.e. S300) to defend SAA/Russian army, or how many will die next time? Could he afford it?

Oui , Sep 18, 2018 5:01:05 PM | link
So it appears to be true Bibi Netanahau send a Yom Kippur warning to Israel's foes in Syria with "accomplices" Russia, Turkey and Iran.
At the same time, Israel is constantly working to prevent our enemies from arming themselves with advanced weaponry. Our red lines are as sharp as ever and our determination to enforce them is stronger than ever.

This week we will mark, in synagogues and cemeteries, Yom Kippur, the holiest day of our people, and the day on which, 45 years ago, we absorbed a bloody attack that cost us thousands of victims.

somebody , Sep 18, 2018 5:02:48 PM | link
Posted by: Russ | Sep 18, 2018 12:12:18 PM | 84

I thought Syria's goal was to redeem its territory.

From whom? Syrians? With 5 million refugees outside of Syria?
From a nation of 22 million. With 3 million refugees in Turkey alone.

Zachary F Goldberg , Sep 18, 2018 5:06:53 PM | link
If Israel did not attack Syria without any legal pretext, none of this would have happened. Why do the USA and its NATO allies stand by and watch as Israel commits so many acts of naked aggression?

Because USA and NATO are wholly owned subsidiaries of Israel. Besides, the USA does not sit idly by - it actively supports Israel.

juliania , Sep 18, 2018 5:09:44 PM | link
Thanks to karlof1 for the 3 links, to PeterAU1 for the two links to Russian response to the mishap, also to Grieved for reminding us how seriously Russia will be assessing a response, and b, of course, for bringing the matter before us in his always competent posting.

Here is a translation of part of what Putin had to say:

"...First of all, I would like to express condolences to the families of the dead.

As for your comparison with the downing of our plane by a Turkish fighter, this was a different situation. The Turkish fighter deliberately shot down our aircraft.

In this case, it is more a chain of tragic circumstances because an Israeli fighter did not down our aircraft. It goes without saying that we must get to the bottom of this. Our attitude towards this tragedy is set forth in a statement by our Defence Ministry, and has been fully coordinated with me.

As for reciprocal action, this will be primarily aimed at ensuring additional security for our military and our facilities in the Syrian Arab Republic. These steps will be seen by everyone..."

Because of the phrasing Putin has carefully used, I would place considerable emphasis on the fact that only one minute warning was given by the Israelis of this dangerous situation occurring in the region of a busy Syrian airport such as Latakia has to be. Israel certainly knows that Russian planes are using that airfield. Why only a one minute warning? would be my question. And from the answer to that would flow measures taken to avoid the occurrence which would detract considerably from Israel's freedom to operate in that manner in that region in future. Whether that will be Russia's only response is at the moment a matter of speculation. We shall have to wait and see.

Lets have some patience, and in the interim it wouldn't hurt to pray for peace. And also for the families of those airmen.

Zanon , Sep 18, 2018 5:10:57 PM | link
somebody

From whom?
Have you missed that Idlib is occupied from the Syrian state?

U.N. Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said there was a high concentration of foreign fighters in Idlib, including an estimated 10,000 fighters designated by the U.N. as terrorists, who he said belonged to the al-Nusra Front and al Qaeda.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-un/un-fears-chemical-weapons-in-syria-battle-with-10000-terrorists-idUSKCN1LF157
karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 5:11:14 PM | link
Grom @149--

Must agree with you about the loss of such invaluable specialists. You asked excellent questions. Presumably the Zionist jets were over international waters and may have been their often in the past without incident. The lack of escort presence is important, but we don't know current RuAF SOP. Did Russian air defense assets open fire? Some locals say yes; some say no. Only Russia knows for certain; I don't recall them saying so in their briefing. Some of your questions I've already addressed in previous postings, so won't comment on them again.

However, I will reiterate that besides Zionist aggression ultimately being at fault, Russian policies share some of the blame. For example, what legal difference is there really between a Zionist air raid and a terrorist rocket barrage? Both are illegal, terror attacks on the Syrian populace. Russia stated its reason for intervening was/is to stamp out terrorists and their ism. Zionism is one of those isms as it's based on the application of terror; a look into Zionist history proves that--even Zionists admit they're terrorists!!! This thus begs the question: Why the double standards--something Putin and Russians have stated they abhor on numerous occasions--in response to Islamic Terrorism and Zionist Terrorism? That's my question for Mr Putin. If I could, I'd ask him directly.

Lochearn , Sep 18, 2018 5:13:05 PM | link
@ 138 Grieved

I have no idea where that comment came from. Thanks for letting me know and for seeing it was not the sort of thing I would write. I wrote a while ago that I had been hacked.

Yes, those of us who have been here a long time now are not suddenly going to dismiss Mr Putin for one remark. I think it's his style to understate, to row back a bit from strong language, but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences for this action. I looked at Saker's blog and he is very critical as he has been for some time now - hence the link with Paul Craig Roberts. Fort Russ, which is run by Joaquin Flores took issue with Saker. I find Joaquin an interesting intellect. I thought his analysis of Turkeys plans for Idlib quite brave in the sense of forecasting (please Google fort russ this is how Syria will seize Idlib).

I think Israel was furious its hopes for a confrontation of the Syrian alliance with Turkey in Idlib had been dashed by an agreement the contents of which we are still not quite sure.

pogohere , Sep 18, 2018 5:28:07 PM | link
oldenyoung @3

J. Flores @ FortRuss agrees with you in an article to be posted after the site he edits recovers from an attack:

Written within the context of the disinfo wars the author analyses more fully in the yet to be posted article:

Excerpted:

"Secondly, readers will take note of the inclusion of the French denial. This French denial is bizarre and entirely out of place, since no one accused France.

. . .

The French 'early denial' when no accusation was made, means that the West had planned for France to be blamed, the French authorities were prepared to carry out their script and deny the accusations that the Russians were 'obviously' going to make.

Then something happened, and Russia didn't make that accusation. But there were the French authorities, going forward with the script, and in an incoherent way which really exposes what they were up to, and tells us all quite clearly what was planned, and yet all the while Russia doesn't at all blame France. Ridiculous, brilliant, absurd.

. . .

The aim of the Atlanticists is to have France do it, have France be blamed, and to cause a massive public relations problem, that Putin would have to respond to, by naming, blaming, the French, and seeking to hold them accountable. How will the French and Russian publics, respectively, take this? Not well, and it doesn't work well for the Eurasia project either. Macron will eventually be out, and it's politically near-impossible to hold the leader of a country, although temporary, responsible without blaming a whole people for something. Once you throw in the work of French media spin-doctors, they will absolutely succeed in twisting it not as a Macron problem but a problem that Russia has with blaming France and all the French by extension.

. . .

The IFF system, and the situation in Syria, is not at all like the situation in the Georgian war ten years ago, when at the time there were some official Russian reports of there being difficulties separating Georgian from Russian aircraft. This is because MiGs are identical to MiGs. IFF systems at the time are not the same as today, with integrated transponders which make auto-locking impossible from the start. The Syrian Army at Lattakia does not, in reality, operate as a separate army. There, they have what is known as an integrated command, at least insofar as these issues are concerned. So the SAA couldn't have attacked or locked onto a Russian plane, because the transponder data in real time that is part of newer IFF systems actually would mean there would have to be an intentional manual override over the computerated 'no-lock possible' response the S-200's computer system would have automatically generated for a Russian plane of any kind.

The S-200 has an extremely high accuracy, not more than a bit different from the S-400 for a single target, and specifically a target of this size and speed, it would have had to 'miss' the Israeli plane in question, which only has a 10-15% chance of doing, but then proceed to then actually hit the Russian plane. But not only hit the Russian plane, but critically so. This is all we can ascertain once we realize that auto-locking without manual override onto the Russian plane with the IFF transponder in direct connection with the SAA (Russian joint command) at Lattakia, is practically impossible unless we say there was an American asset working at the controls of the SAA's Lattakia computer.

. . .

The Putin-Erdogan deal reached yesterday indeed offers the strong probability for Syria to win without engaging in a needless conflict, and the promises of FUKUS attacks to be realized. Still, though they were anyhow, for no discernible reason given. Israel and France simply attacked in response to Turkey's cunning move. So time is on Russia's side.

That the aim of yesterday's surprise attack is punishment for the Turkish 'about face', which FRN stated as a very likely possible outcome, (for the record), is evident in that stories from RT and Sputnik reporting on the event had official statements, and not randomly so, saying that these attacks will not deter or reverse the Turkish-Russian agreement on the final resolution of Idlib.

What's needed now for the Atlanticists of FUKUS is to damage these relations as much as possible, Turkey vs. Russia, and Russia vs. France, and to cause Russia to blame France instead of blaming Israel.

This was a calculation, that Russia would not blame Israel due to the successful media hologram that Russia created that Israel has an inviolable special relationship (they do not, to this extent), and that instead that Russia will blame France. They did not expect Russia to accept the Western MSM Atlanticist narrative that the SAA had shot down the Russian plane either.

Between blaming France or Israel, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or France, the US expected Russia to blame France. Between blaming Syria or Israel, the US expected Israel to be blamed.

They did not expect this hybrid of 'somewhat' blaming Israel for doing 'tricky stuff' in the air, the motives being hard to prove or qualify.

If Russia was to avoid an MH-17 situation in reverse, they had to think with agility. Russia has the physical evidence, the flight data, and the missile launch data. If they were going to blame France, which was mostly expected, it would have been a UNSC charade, a General Assembly charade, and a media charade with 'Putin blaming France' and Russia being accused of having possession of the evidence from which their case is made, and therefore the evidence being dodgy or even manufactured entirely.

The crash remains of the IL-20 are going to absolutely show that it was hit with a missile, any fragments etc. required to establish that, will show that's an Aster missile, or similar, like the missiles used in the S-200's. But they aren't going to show that the impact is consistent with a small missile carried by Israeli planes, or by gun strafing from an attack plane.

This is why Russia could not blame Israel,

Lochearn , Sep 18, 2018 5:32:28 PM | link
Apologies: Flores' article - this is how Turkey will seize Idlib. I was overcome by the intelligence of the hack, copying and pasting things I had said in different contexts.
karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 5:36:07 PM | link
Meanwhile, some initial results of the Idlib deal : "Al-Nusra Front, Jaish al-Izza, Islamic Turkistan Party and Hourras Addin refused the Russian-Turkish deal." That implies they will not withdraw as they're supposed to as agreement stipulates. So, it appears that unless the Turks can get them to change their mind, that come Oct 10, they'll be attacked. Oh, as I noted on yesterday's thread on this topic, related Syrian offensives in the region will continue--the war on the Outlaw US Empire's terrorists hasn't stopped. Indeed, the intensity of ongoing operations is likely to escalate. I haven't yet watched Almassian's video linked at the above tweet.
alaff , Sep 18, 2018 5:37:06 PM | link
I very much doubt that the Russian leadership will somehow seriously answer Israel. The spinelessness of Russian politics sometimes simply amaze (it's worth recalling, for example, the epic with the seizure of Russian diplomatic property by the US authorities - there was no intelligible answer from Russia, and still(!) there's no answer).

Well, maybe Israel will make some statement that everything that happened is a "pure accident". Maybe Netanyahu will fly to Putin to talk "like friends". But not more.

Certainly, there will not be a disruption of diplomatic relations with Israel (now many in Russia call for it), no retaliatory attacks on Israeli forces, nor the withdrawal of Russian military police from the Golan Heights (who provide there security for the Israeli "zone of interests"). S-300 ADS complexes will still not be delivered to Syria.

By the way, many "link" this incident with 17 September breakthrough agreements between Putin and Erdogan. I don't know, maybe there is some sense in this. But I would pay attention to the other. Against the backdrop of this tragic incident, everyone somehow "suddenly forgot" the recent extremely important event - the media briefing of the Russian Defense Ministry in connection with the establishment of the belonging of the missile which shot down Boeing MH17 in 2014. Russian Ministry of Defense provided more facts, unconditionally determining the fault of Ukraine for the downed Boeing. Western curators of the Ukrainian regime were shyly silent, MSM "did not notice" this important news. Look at the first pages of CNN, BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The New York Times etc... There's not even a word about the new findings that indicate the direct fault of Ukraine. The tragedy with the downed Russian plane somehow "very successfully" and "in time" diverted the attention of the "world community" away from the sensational data provided by the Russian Defense Ministry.

Just an observation...

Peter AU 1 , Sep 18, 2018 6:18:19 PM | link
Looking at the flightpaths of the Israeli aircraft and missiles, it seems likely the Russian plane would not have been in the target radar when the S-200 missiles were launched. The targets have the flown across behind the Russian aircraft causing it to be illuminated by the targeting radar after the missiles were launched. According to wikipedia the S-200 travel aT 2.5km per second. At 35km offshore that is a minimum of 14 seconds from launch, most likely longer depending how far the S200 batteries are from the coast. Plenty of time to pull the targeting radar across so it also illuminates the Russian plane after missile launch.
karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 6:27:04 PM | link
Aha! Finally found a partial copy of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at in Sochi , which only shows the first 6 points thus its partialness. As noted in previous comment, the terrorists have already rejected abiding by it, so points 5&6 will not be undertaken, meaning the SAA's free to begin Idlib Dawn. Any barflies think Turks will convince terrorists to alter their stance?
Ian , Sep 18, 2018 6:31:56 PM | link
Red Ryder @150:

China isn't coming to the shit storm without a UN resolution. Far too many chefs in the kitchen. Besides, the OBOR can always be adjusted to the situation.

Harry , Sep 18, 2018 6:32:54 PM | link
@ Jose Garcia | 85
Some here express that Putin should do this or why he didn't do that. It's easy to express those opinions from the comforts of home. Never having bullets fly over their heads, or having to pick up the remains of their comrades, blown to bits right in front of them. And to confront the families of those killed and explain to them why they will never return.

Lets ignore for a second keyboard warriors. However always turning second cheek doesnt work in geopolitics and wars. If not overtly, then covertly Russia should have said to Israel: Niet! And either MADE SURE that Israel never attacks Syria again (and put Russian soldiers in harms way), OR provide the means to Syria to defend itself.

Russia hasnt done either. End result? There will be MORE dead Russian soldiers in the future. Why Israel thinks it can bomb Syria 200x in last few years and get away with it? Because Russia doesnt allow Syria to defend themselves. Why Israel doesnt bomb Lebanon since 2006? Because they KNOW they would be in the World of hurt if they do. Russia should have done the same in Syria, but they overplayed "but Israel are our best buds!" hand and got screwed in the process. If Russia doesnt stop Israel even now, guess what happens next? Exactly, more dead Russians (and Syrians, Iranians, etc).

karlof1 , Sep 18, 2018 6:43:19 PM | link
Harry @177--

Yes, we agree; it's Russian policy that must change.

OT--Korean Summit--

Southfront provides this report about what's happening North of the DMZ, and provides a glimpse at what the US-driven propaganda line is as published within RoK. FYI, Moon and wife just completed a tour of RoK children's hospitals prior to heading North. Please note that Moon and Kim are on the same page when it comes to dealing with Outlaw US Empire.

[Sep 18, 2018] Russia blames Israel for the shooting down of her EW aircraft

Israeli actions in Syria were reckless and dangerous. As well as their support of headchoppers. Revenge is a dish better served cold. also the question is why Syria air forces fire a rocket in the vicinity of the Russian plane. Are they so stupid that they did not understand possible consciences?
Notable quotes:
"... Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a bombing mission against targets near the Russian facilities in Khmeimim and Tartus (which, by itself, is both stupid and irresponsible). The Israelis *deliberately* did not warn the Russians until less than a minute before the attack took place ..."
"... Typical Israeli "cleverness". ..."
"... the Israeli jet didn't down our aircraft ..."
"... tragic circumstances ..."
"... Perhaps Russian defense systems will now operate in conjunction with Syrian ones as it appears that nothing defended Latakia from IDF and French Nato frigate clearly bent on illegal hostile intent ..."
"... I don't believe in the power of "Fifth column" because Putin could rally the people. But it's wrong to lie and say: "When people are dying – especially under such circumstances – it is always a tragedy," President Putin said during a joint press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Moscow on Tuesday. ..."
"... Correct Assessment that there are powerful 5th column(s) in Russia. Would be a huge surprise if Russia does anything. I kind of think that this could be partly a punishment for Russia to cut a deal with Turkey in Idlib, by one of the oligarchic powers. Syria is defacto divided in three as we speak. ..."
"... I think there are more than meets the eye or what official statements are saying. Could be another provocation, as with no military operation in Idlib, the fake gas attack is out of the door at this moment. Definitely not a minor event or an innocent mistake. Could also be forcing Putin to choose sides in between competing oligarchic powers. Need to wait more and see further developments. ..."
"... Yes, Israeli F-16's used the four engine reconnaissance aircraft to hide from Syrian radar, and old trick, used before. The Syrians therefore shot down the Russian plane by mistake, as images of the smaller Israeli planes were obscured by the larger image of the Russian plane on Syrian radar. ..."
"... This was an Israeli provocation, instigated after Putin met with Erdogan. Yes, some sort of deal was reached regarding Idlib, but I don't see this deal lasting too long. It suits neither the US nor Israel, especially when both, in conjunction with others, were preparing a new false flag attack against Assad. In fact this deal suites nobody. ..."
"... "The Israelis have been very clever". In what way ? By informing Russia less than one minute that they were going to attack ? When did Russia agree that Israel could use Russian reconnaissance aircraft as a cover to launch attacks against Syria ? ..."
"... I am a devout fan of Putin and his wisdom/strategy, but I'm starting to reconsider and frankly tired of seeing Russia taking so many punches from sanctions, Israeli incursions and direct military threats and not sending a strong message to the aggressors. ..."
"... If the lifes of 15 Russian military are not important enough for Putin or Shoigu to act and take active measures to secure airspace around Syria or a direct retaliation to honor their lifes, I'm afraid even the most loyal Putin supporters are going to have a difficult time stomaching these events or his lack of decisive and swift action in the matter. ..."
"... What Israel did was a provocation, provoking Russia into taking aggressive action against it. It did not work. However, Israel better not pull this trick again. ..."
"... I just checked some MSM near me. Not a line about this tragedy! My guess: they are not mentioning this "incident" and then they will start the oy vey! when the Russians will strike back. ..."
"... Yes, they are all hoping Russia will strike back and be pronounced the "aggressor". After that the MSM will apply full thrust, with more anti-Russian propaganda, this time accusing Russia of attacking little Israel. Putin will not fall for such cheap provocations. ..."
"... This doesn't make sense. The Russians along with their allies, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are fighting the takfiris in Syria. The Israelis are supporting some of the takfiris by providing them with war material, medical support and air cover including bombing Russian allies. ..."
"... Basically, the Russians should declare the any future Israeli illegal aggression will be considered an act of war, and will be met with force against the Israeli source of that aggression, be it based on land, sea or in the air. ..."
"... "There was an agreement between Israel and Russia that the actions of Israel in Syria's airspace would not endanger lives of Russian troops. Israel breached this commitment What happens next will depend on the position of Israel. Most likely, Israel will no longer be able to enjoy the same freedom in the sky of Syria as it did before the incident," Kedmi said. ..."
"... The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) earlier in the day that Israel would share all information on the incident with Moscow. The IDF expressed regret over the deaths of the Russian troops and put the blame on Damascus and Tehran. ..."
"... "Israel's attack in itself, regardless of the consequences, was an irresponsible step, because there is not a single facility on the territory of Syria that might have been used by Iran and whose destruction would have justified an attack on it, which could endanger the Russian troops," Kedmi said." ..."
"... In other words, this conflict between Russia and Israel will be managed "sub rosa" and not be allowed to disturb the "cordial" relations between the two countries. Sometimes military matters have to be subordinate to diplomatic relations. ..."
"... It just goes to show how prophetic PCR's words are. He warned that the provocations and pressure would continue and get worse until Russia either capitulated or hit back. What I do not understand is what did Putin expect after Russia pulled Assad's chestnuts out the fire. APPEASEMENT never has and never will work. ..."
"... Yup. A Russian made missile shot down a Russian plane killing Russians fired by Syria and Russian fleet and Latakian forces appears to have done nothing in defense of illegal hostile intent by IDF and France. ..."
"... The large scale political consequences of this incident are beyond measure and represent a great set back for Russia. The weak, almost apologetic response of the Russians disheartens its allies and supporters. ..."
"... Wasn't the Il-20 supposed to see the Israelis coming? If so, why didn't react? This was not a passenger plane. Something is fishy here! ..."
"... What is the statute of limitations for retaliation? If an Israeli plane mysteriously goes down a week from now, would that be a better or worse response than launching an attack today? ..."
Sep 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

­ Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a bombing mission against targets near the Russian facilities in Khmeimim and Tartus (which, by itself, is both stupid and irresponsible). The Israelis *deliberately* did not warn the Russians until less than a minute before the attack took place, thus the Russians did not have the time to tell the crew of the Il-20 electronic warfare aircraft, which was on approach for a landing, to take evasive action. When the Syrian S-200 fired their missiles to intercept the incoming missiles, the Israelis F-16 used the Il-20, which has a much bigger radar cross section, to hide themselves resulting in the loss of 15 lives and one aircraft.

Typical Israeli "cleverness".

The Russian MoD placed the full blame on the Israelis and declared that this attack was "dastardly", the Israeli actions as "hostile" and said that Russia "reserves the right" to respond with "adequate counter-actions".

This is one of these rare opportunities when there is, I believe, a viable and logical option to respond: tell the Israelis that from now on any of their aircraft approaching anywhere near the Russian forces will be shot down.

Will the Russians do that?

I doubt it. Why? Because of the very powerful pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia.

I am pretty sure that the Russian military would love to take such an measure but, unfortunately, they are limited in their actions by the 5th columnists in the Russian government.

We shall see. If Russia does nothing, it will be interesting to see how those who deny the existence of a pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia will explain this.

The Saker

PS: the only positive effect from this tragedy is that this will go a long way to trash the image of Israel in the Russian public opinion (which is constantly subjected to pro-Zionist propaganda in much of the Russian media).

UPDATE1 : there we go: Putin is already "downgrading" the gravity of what happened. He has just declared that " the Israeli jet didn't down our aircraft " and spoke of " tragic circumstances ". True, he did add that the Russians will take measures that "everyone will notice" but I am personally dubious about these "steps". I hope that I am wrong. We will find out soon.

UPDATE2 : I am watching the Russian media and I have to report that Zionist propagandists (Russian liberals and Jewish commentators) look absolutely *terrible*: they are desperately trying to blame everybody (the Syrians, Hezbollah, and even the Russians) except for Israel. This will not sit well with the Russian public.

Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:22 am EST/EDT

Defense chief vows response to Israel's actions that caused fatal crash of Il-20 aircraft

Military & Defense September 18, 17:06

"MOSCOW, September 18. /TASS/. Russia will respond to actions on behalf of the Israeli Air Force that led to a fatal crash of Russia's Il-20 aircraft on Monday late night in Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday."

"We have informed today our Israeli colleagues, and I have also informed personally the Israeli Defense Minister [Avigdor Lieberman], that such actions will not be left unanswered by us," Shoigu said.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1022123

Can Russia "Ends" the "Partnership" with "Colleagues" like Israel?

Time will tell.

JJ on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:27 am EST/EDT
"According to the IDF, the Israeli jets were targeting a facility in Syria which contained "systems to manufacture accurate and lethal weapons" that could be sent "on behalf of Iran" to Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. Israel, as well as many other states, considers the movement a terrorist organization."..

Yeah ..just like Mossad targeting for assassination the missile scientist trying to protect Syria no more invitations to Moscow parades ..perhaps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/world/middleeast/syrian-rocket-scientist-mossad-assassination.html

Perhaps Russian defense systems will now operate in conjunction with Syrian ones as it appears that nothing defended Latakia from IDF and French Nato frigate clearly bent on illegal hostile intent. SAA alone defending by sending missiles over the sea to IDF jets themselves which seems to me to be further than before and rather than the missiles they sent. I wonder if French Ambassador will be asked to attend MFA ..

American Patriot on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:28 am EST/EDT
I don't believe in the power of "Fifth column" because Putin could rally the people. But it's wrong to lie and say: "When people are dying – especially under such circumstances – it is always a tragedy," President Putin said during a joint press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Moscow on Tuesday.

Responding to a reporter's question as to whether the incident in Latakia could be compared to the downing of the Russian Su-24 by Turkey in 2015, Putin said the two situations were "different." Ankara "deliberately downed" the Russian jet, he explained, while the Il-20 incident "looks like a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn't shoot down our jet."

That's complete bullshit. We all know it. He contradicts Soigu and his own M.O.D.

  • Speculation: he will put pressure on Bibi.
  • Speculation: he will do anything to avoid direct conflict.
  • Speculation: Israel will grow more arrogant. Further strikes in time.

However, Russia will improve defenses. If he doesn't implement a no fly zone for Israel, his behavior is suspect.

Matthiew on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:31 am EST/EDT
Correct Assessment that there are powerful 5th column(s) in Russia. Would be a huge surprise if Russia does anything. I kind of think that this could be partly a punishment for Russia to cut a deal with Turkey in Idlib, by one of the oligarchic powers. Syria is defacto divided in three as we speak.

This agreement made sure that Turkey and Russia owns Idlib (north of Syria), while US-Israel owns east of Euphrates. There are rumors that France was sending some missiles in that direction (from Russian MoD). France is City of London and they are not particularly happy with what is going on in Syria after Obama.

I think there are more than meets the eye or what official statements are saying. Could be another provocation, as with no military operation in Idlib, the fake gas attack is out of the door at this moment. Definitely not a minor event or an innocent mistake. Could also be forcing Putin to choose sides in between competing oligarchic powers. Need to wait more and see further developments.

B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:45 am EST/EDT
Yes, Israeli F-16's used the four engine reconnaissance aircraft to hide from Syrian radar, and old trick, used before. The Syrians therefore shot down the Russian plane by mistake, as images of the smaller Israeli planes were obscured by the larger image of the Russian plane on Syrian radar.

I have to disagree with The Saker that Russia will not respond against Israel because of the "powerful" pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia. Is it really that powerful, bearing in mind Russians cannot forget the Yeltsin years ? And what can this Zionist 5th column do overtly in Russia, if it wanted to do anything ?

This was an Israeli provocation, instigated after Putin met with Erdogan. Yes, some sort of deal was reached regarding Idlib, but I don't see this deal lasting too long. It suits neither the US nor Israel, especially when both, in conjunction with others, were preparing a new false flag attack against Assad. In fact this deal suites nobody.

Yes, Russia will respond, but in a subtle way. Israel would just love Russia to respond "aggressively", so that it could then scream for American help, and thus setting up Russia against the US. It is in the US that Israel has it's Zionist Occupation Government, not in Russia. If it did have such a government in Russia, then Russia would never have recovered as it did during Putin's years.

jiri on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:15 pm EST/EDT
The Israelis have been very clever. They have kept to the letter of their agreement with the Russians even though the Russians argue that they have not kept to its spirit.
B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:51 pm EST/EDT
jiri

"The Israelis have been very clever". In what way ? By informing Russia less than one minute that they were going to attack ? When did Russia agree that Israel could use Russian reconnaissance aircraft as a cover to launch attacks against Syria ?

Andre on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:48 am EST/EDT
I am a devout fan of Putin and his wisdom/strategy, but I'm starting to reconsider and frankly tired of seeing Russia taking so many punches from sanctions, Israeli incursions and direct military threats and not sending a strong message to the aggressors.

If the lifes of 15 Russian military are not important enough for Putin or Shoigu to act and take active measures to secure airspace around Syria or a direct retaliation to honor their lifes, I'm afraid even the most loyal Putin supporters are going to have a difficult time stomaching these events or his lack of decisive and swift action in the matter.

B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:07 pm EST/EDT
Andre

You are mistaken in your reasoning. How many provocations has Putin endured so far ? He responded in a wise, subtle way. Yes, sanctions were introduced against Russia. For Russia this was the best thing that could have happened to it, as It concentrated on rebuilding it's infrastructure, industry and agriculture and producing record harvests.

Putin is making patient and intelligent chess moves of the chess board. He will not fall for cheap provocations, which have caused both Israel and the US immense political and media damage.

What Israel did was a provocation, provoking Russia into taking aggressive action against it. It did not work. However, Israel better not pull this trick again.

Occasional Poster on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:32 pm EST/EDT
I usually like your posts BF, but 'Israel better not pull this trick again,' is really going to stop them laughing their butts off, and slapping each other on the back in Tel Aviv.

And the converse in the Russian military; I can't think of a better way to crush their morale than to let this pass. They will be angry, and wonder for whom they are actually putting their lives on the line, and why.

B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:47 pm EST/EDT
Occasional Poster

You have a point. The Russian military are going to be very angry about this incident. They would love a response. So would Israel. After that Israel would scream for US help, backed by it's huge lobby in the US. However, as I have already written, Putin will not fall for such provocations.

Littlejohn on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:23 pm EST/EDT
I agree with you 110 percent. Everybody who has ever been beaten up by a playground bully knows that the bullying never stops and in fact keeps getting worse until the bully is punched in the face. My love and condolences to the families of the lost Russian servicemen.
Wind of Siberia on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:30 pm EST/EDT
Putin will not put at risk the project of ensuring Russia's new place in the world. Not even for 15 lives.

The overall project and maintaining course takes priority. This is why Putin has to play the game of trying to avoid direct war with the Americans and their vassal states – regardless of the provocations.

Occasional Poster on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:50 pm EST/EDT
@ Wind of Siberia,

'regardless the provocations.' How many Russian lives is that then? 100? 1000? Half of Donbass?

The ZATO gargoyles that Russia has to deal with, are masters of brinkmanship, and ultimately, safe behind their own nuclear shield. They will keep pushing till they encounter something that actually changes the game.

Waly on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:49 am EST/EDT
I just checked some MSM near me. Not a line about this tragedy! My guess: they are not mentioning this "incident" and then they will start the oy vey! when the Russians will strike back.
B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:15 pm EST/EDT
Waly

Yes, they are all hoping Russia will strike back and be pronounced the "aggressor". After that the MSM will apply full thrust, with more anti-Russian propaganda, this time accusing Russia of attacking little Israel. Putin will not fall for such cheap provocations.

However, what will happen will be a subtle response. Next time Israel attacks Syria over Syrian territory, it's planes will start falling over Syrian territory, something it will need to explain. So far it has attacked Syria either firing missiles from Israel, or from Lebanon, using both to protect it's aircraft. Occasionally it has gone in depth over Syrian territory. I have a feeling that rules of engagement are now going to be changed.

jiri on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:52 am EST/EDT
This doesn't make sense. The Russians along with their allies, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are fighting the takfiris in Syria. The Israelis are supporting some of the takfiris by providing them with war material, medical support and air cover including bombing Russian allies.

The Russians have an agreement with the Israelis that it is OK for them to bomb Russian allies as long as Russians men and material are not hit. The Israelis will just have to inform the Russians so that the Russians can get out of the way, and presumably not tell the Syrians or Hezbollah or Iranians that they are going to be hit by the Israelis.

The Russians tell the Syrians (and the Iranians and Hezbollah??) that it is OK for them to retaliate against Israel by shooting at their planes or missiles with an air defense system that is integrated with the Russian air defense system. This only makes sense if the Russians want the Syrians to fire at the Israelis but not hit them.

With such an arrangement is it any surprise that the Russians lost a plane? I would say it was only a matter of time before it happened.

hardlooker on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:53 am EST/EDT
As RT reports, President Putin has characterized this event as resulting from "tragic circumstances".

1) Would not such a view appear to contradict that expressed within the MoD representations?
2) If 1 is true, will there not arise a deleterious effect on the credibility of the President, the military, or both?
3) If 2 is true, for hostile media purposes, is there not apparent incoherence, or at least inconsistency, within the overall "Russian" position (which would be a novel, highly exploitable weakness)?
4) If 3 is true (asking of those who understand the Russian people), what might be the effect on "civilian" Russian thinking, feeling, and attitudes?

Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:03 pm EST/EDT
To answer your last question, I can speak only for myself: if Putin can't do anything with regards to this latests slap in his face by his 'partner' (who was there on 9th May to celebrate my ancestors victory), I withdraw all support for him. Why do we have to put up with everything that's thrown out way, if we can't win, or now most likely not willing to win anyway?!
B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:19 pm EST/EDT
Anonymous

And what would you like Putin to do ? Attack Israel, which would then scream for US help ? When you fight a war, the intention is to win the war, not battles. Strategy comes first in importance, tactics come second.

Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:50 pm EST/EDT
BF
Not talking about attacking Israel here.

To start – Deliver S300, S400 to Syria asap. This should minimise potential repeat of last nights events.

Enforce no-fly zone and aid Syrian forces to get better in what they doing, potentially operating defences together to start with.
But if the response is what I heard today, then submit to Zionism, and let us adapt to the realities and find our way within. Because he clearly doesn't want to do anything or simply can't. Why do I have to be subjected to humiliation all the time for being Russian? Why my nephew (soon approaching military service age) would have to take part in this madness? What for? So that Putin can keep on turning the other cheek?! Thanks, but no thanks! Not worth it.

What's astonishing is how many 'supporters' he has among Saker community abroad, most of the Westerners commenting and discussing what Putin and Russians should do from the comfort of the Zionist protectorates, and no one is fighting it, no one! But Russians are expected to?!

StealthRaptor on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:59 am EST/EDT
I do not understand why we even warn the Russians if we are going to bomb them? Makes no sense, We should bomb the s-400 sites and the airfields they have. We could rearm the idlib rebels and send them on an attack on Latakia while Israel, US, France, and UK all strike Russian AD. We should get these guys out of this region. We should help Ukraine as well, their economy doing well with US dollars and also cleanse the Donbass of them. Then do the good ol regime change on em. We toppled all their allies at this point, Turks stronger but they still in Nato so we are doing a pretty good job and managing and organizing global governance I think.
Blue on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:46 pm EST/EDT
"We should bomb the S-400 sites and the airfields they have." Now there is a death wish for you. Let's overtly trigger WW3. The US and Israel and do everything they can to suck Russia into committing an obvious act of aggression against them, so they can be blamed for starting the fireworks, and this time with clear evidence that it is so.

The US and Israel are committing their aggression in such a way that they can plausibly deny that they intended it – it was an accident, they say. They will continue to there provocations until they draw the desired response from Russia, or Syria.

Basically, the Russians should declare the any future Israeli illegal aggression will be considered an act of war, and will be met with force against the Israeli source of that aggression, be it based on land, sea or in the air.

Then proceed accordingly. No more free aggression for Israel.

Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:04 pm EST/EDT
A real shame:

Putin to Powers Attacking Syria: Please Keep Getting my Soldiers Killed, I Won't Do Anything About It

Putin declines to even just chastise Israel for the loss of the Russian Il-20 and 15 crew in the midst of IDFs wholly illegal and unprovoked attack on sovereign Syria. Unlike the military the Russian president blames it all on "a chain of tragic accidents"

https://russia-insider.com/en/putin-powers-attacking-syria-please-keep-getting-my-soldiers-killed-i-wont-do-anything-about-it#.W6EJJXxP1e8.facebook

vot tak on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:22 pm EST/EDT
Interesting take from an israeli. Israel Unlikely to Fly Freely Over Syria After Il-20 Incident – Ex-Official

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201809181068132500-israel-syria-il-20-incident-airspace/

"Israel is unlikely to freely use Syrian airspace in the wake of the crash of a Russian Il-20 military aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Yakov Kedmi, a former high-ranking Israeli intelligence official, told Sputnik.

"There was an agreement between Israel and Russia that the actions of Israel in Syria's airspace would not endanger lives of Russian troops. Israel breached this commitment What happens next will depend on the position of Israel. Most likely, Israel will no longer be able to enjoy the same freedom in the sky of Syria as it did before the incident," Kedmi said.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) earlier in the day that Israel would share all information on the incident with Moscow. The IDF expressed regret over the deaths of the Russian troops and put the blame on Damascus and Tehran.

"Israel's attack in itself, regardless of the consequences, was an irresponsible step, because there is not a single facility on the territory of Syria that might have been used by Iran and whose destruction would have justified an attack on it, which could endanger the Russian troops," Kedmi said."

Richard Steven Hack on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:23 pm EST/EDT
More likely what will happen is that the next Israeli attack will be met by the Syrian military with a barrage of missiles coordinated by the Russians, resulting in the shootdown of one or more Israeli aircraft. The Israelis will know who was behind it and will be forced to reconsider their attacks on "Iranians" in Syria.

Russia can do this because it has surveillance aircraft up – this one will be replaced and escorted by fighters next time – and it will know when Israel launches all its aircraft. Israel doesn't have to "inform Russia" because Russia already knows when and where Israeli aircraft are in the vicinity – unless Israel can somehow "cloak" their approach.

In other words, this conflict between Russia and Israel will be managed "sub rosa" and not be allowed to disturb the "cordial" relations between the two countries. Sometimes military matters have to be subordinate to diplomatic relations.

Johnnie Q on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:26 pm EST/EDT
It just goes to show how prophetic PCR's words are. He warned that the provocations and pressure would continue and get worse until Russia either capitulated or hit back. What I do not understand is what did Putin expect after Russia pulled Assad's chestnuts out the fire. APPEASEMENT never has and never will work.

I understand both Martynov's and Saker's points on this but, again, PCR is correct. This will get to a point were Russia either lays down the law with concrete actions or has to surrender. I see no other options in the long term, though short term Putin could keep trying to play the game, as the Neo-Con West will keep doubling down.

JJ on September 18, 2018 , · at 1:02 pm EST/EDT
Yup. A Russian made missile shot down a Russian plane killing Russians fired by Syria and Russian fleet and Latakian forces appears to have done nothing in defense of illegal hostile intent by IDF and France. I do not think Iran is going to be to happy with this. Did they hint they might assist Syria in regaining Golan heights? Because Iran is still being targeted. With Russia "aware" of this ..but doing what for or with Iran ?
JJ on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:41 pm EST/EDT
" On Netanyahu's personal request Russia had stopped the delivery of original Russian S-300 long range air-defense missiles to the Syrian military. These would have been less likely to veer off towards the wrong target. In consequence an Iranian 747 was damaged and 15 Russian soldiers were killed. Netanyahu can forget about any further such "favors" from Moscow.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/september/18/israel-provocation-kills-russian-soldiers-moscow-will-take-political-revenge

Robert McMaster on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:41 pm EST/EDT
The large scale political consequences of this incident are beyond measure and represent a great set back for Russia. The weak, almost apologetic response of the Russians disheartens its allies and supporters. Russia has todied after Isreal – to its shame – and now appears powerless against the results. Failing to arm the Syrians tells other partners what they can expect. And just plain military incompetence on the field inspires doubt that the Russia military are really any good.

Its hard to imagine how the fall out could be any worse. If that was an American or British plane, those nations would have acted decisively and firmly. But Russia is an empty bag of wind.

Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:48 pm EST/EDT
Wasn't the Il-20 supposed to see the Israelis coming? If so, why didn't react? This was not a passenger plane. Something is fishy here!
Timothy Hagious on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:56 pm EST/EDT
I can think of several things to consider:

1) There was a substantial amount of time between the incident and the time official statements were made. Undoubtedly there was a bunch of negotiation and deliberation. We have no way of knowing what was agreed upon and for whose benefit the agreements were made.

2) If they truly wanted to appease Israel, why admit to the incident at all? Militaries cover up unflattering incidents all the time. Remember how the witnesses of the bin Laden raid died a month later in a different country? Or the Pentagon's claim back in April about how all the missiles hit their targets, despite clear video evidence to the contrary.

3) What is the statute of limitations for retaliation? If an Israeli plane mysteriously goes down a week from now, would that be a better or worse response than launching an attack today?

[Sep 18, 2018] The radical Israeli zionists are convinced, it seems, that a peaceful, secular, stable Syria will seek to invade and destroy Israel. That's delusional

Sep 18, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star September 18, 2018 at 2:19 pm

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/18/syri-s18.html

"Saint Jimmy (Russian American) • 7 hours ago

Poor Zionist Israel and sad little has been France. It was over for them in Syria, anyway. However, the Russian/Turkish deal about Idlib was too much, as it settled the fates of Idlib, ISIS, and Syria in a mostly peaceful way. That was too much for the little hate filled Nazis in Israel and the silly, puffed up pervert Macron. They had to create an incident and desperately attempt to provoke Syria and Russia into a violent response to draw the US into a shooting war again in Syria. As could have been predicted, it failed.

Israel looks like a spoiled, dangerous, psychotically paranoid state to me, right now. The radical Israeli zionists are convinced, it seems, that a peaceful, secular, stable Syria will seek to invade and destroy Israel. That's delusional. I suspect that Israel is also aware of its rapidly declining support among all Americans – rich, middle class, poor, Christian, Muslim, AND Jewish and is desperate to reverse the trend. Their problem is that the harder they try to reverse their declining popularity, the faster it declines."

"Kalen • 4 hours ago
In 2015 while ISIS controlled half of Syria, while Al-Qeada another quarter preparing to oust Assad , US flew only 8 sorties over Syria per day , with less than one combat sortie per day.

In October Russians landed 50 combat aircraft and with direct support from strategic bombers from Russian bases in RF flew at peak 200 combat missions a day.

Putin could have closed Syria airspace but he did not, and that would have ended US, and Israelis illegal aggression but instead Putin via his decisions encouraged it.

Putin however , stated that he is in Syria to fight terrorists and not to to support Assad. That was a logical absurd that revealed entire charade of Putin involvement which was characterized with excellent relations with Israeli aggressor all these years.

Why Putin insists on losing all the credibility is beyond me, especially that his suppose stupidity and gullibility costed many Russian military lives but most of all unnecessary Syrian lives as this war could have been ended long time ago.

Russia apparently joined others who thrive on misery of Syrian war."

Apparently 14 Russian personnel were murdered by the Zionist vermin who are playing with nuclear fire as we all know but I suspect some of you are being a bit like the ostrich myth in your acknowledgment of this hard fact. Kalen is spot on.

Remember the '56 Suez crisis? Russia did not fuck around with Eden in the UK or whoever was running France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Soviet_threats
The difference now and Suez then is that the USA has is now allied withIsrael and two played-out has been former world powers-UK and France. So the USA ,France,Israel and the UK need to be hard bitch slapped by Putin just as Khrushchev would have done.

"Nikita Khrushchev's much publicized threat expressed through letters written by Nikolai Bulganin to begin rocket attacks on 5 November on Britain, France, and Israel if they did not withdraw from Egypt was widely believed at the time to have forced a ceasefire.[349] Accordingly, it enhanced the prestige of the Soviet Union in Egypt, the Arab world, and the Third World, who believed the USSR was prepared to launch a nuclear attack on Britain, France, and Israel for the sake of Egypt.[349] Though Nasser in private admitted that it was American economic pressure that had saved him, it was Khrushchev, not Eisenhower, whom Nasser publicly thanked as Egypt's saviour and special friend.[349] Khrushchev later boasted in his memoirs:

The terrorist Zionist bastards STFU and eventually withdrew in the usual tradition of the IDF:

"The Israelis refused to host any UN force on Israeli controlled territory and left the Sinai in March 1957. Before the withdrawal the Israeli forces systematically destroyed infrastructure in Sinai peninsula, such as roads, railroads and telephone lines, and all houses in the villages of Abu Ageila and El Quseima. Before the railway was destroyed, Israel Railways captured Egyptian National Railways equipment including six locomotives[341] and a 30-ton breakdown crane."

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/09/syria-israel-provocation-kills-russian-soldiers-russia-will-take-political-revenge.html#more

Northern Star September 18, 2018 at 2:31 pm
https://syria360.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/russian-ministry-of-defense-warns-israel-there-will-be-consequences-for-actions-that-caused-the-fatal-crash-of-il-20/

[Sep 18, 2018] The document alleges that a senior Israeli government official conspired with Manafort in 2012 to defame then-Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of maintaining ties with anti-Semitic groups.

Sep 18, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al September 17, 2018 at 5:59 am

Haaretz via Antiwar.com:
Israel's defense chief calls for probe into identity of top official embroiled in Manafort case

Special counsel Robert Mueller's office tells Haaretz that it cannot reveal more details regarding individuals who were not accused in the case
Noa Landau, Amir Tibon | Sep. 17, 2018 | 2:45 AM

The document alleges that a senior Israeli government official conspired with Manafort in 2012 to defame then-Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of maintaining ties with anti-Semitic groups. Manafort said that, as a result, American Jews would pressure the Obama administration not to support Yulia Tymoshenko, whose opponent was a client of Manafort's, the indictment says .

Cortes September 17, 2018 at 6:53 am
Reading JH Kunstler's take on the Manafort plea throwing up the Podesta involvement plus questions about how the Maidan developed

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/monsters-all-the-way-down/

leads me to wonder

Are Russiagate fans gonna need a bigger bag of popcorn?

[Sep 18, 2018] if Tymoshenko is elected, it will guarantee X more years of the same kind of oligarchic grab-the-cash leadership

Sep 18, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Cortes September 17, 2018 at 5:07 am

YES! We are all bananas! We are all bananas todaaay!

http://thesaker.is/the-yalta-european-strategy-three-years-on-since-putins-geopolitical-checkmate/

Try to keep a straight face as Carl Bildt and other giants of global statesmanship emote at the Yalta European Strategy summit held in, er, Kiev.

Mark Chapman September 17, 2018 at 11:44 am
That's amazingly good stuff; Richardson is a captivating writer. I think the upcoming elections in Ukraine will be a watershed moment; if Tymoshenko is elected, it will guarantee X more years of the same kind of oligarchic grab-the-cash leadership. However, Ukraine probably will not last that long – but there don't seem to be any credible candidates running who would stand a chance of uniting the country, leading change and walking the tightrope to prosperity.

An opinion columnist for my local paper, Jack Knox (quite a funny guy in his own right) recently came out with a template-style aid for spotting candidates for office, by type, and what their platforms really mean. The election concerned here is a very minor one, just for city council, but it fits well for any size and type of election except most slates are nowhere near as large.

[Sep 18, 2018] Neoliberal EU faces the same crisis as the USA -- rejection of globalization by the majority of population

Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 60 tries to crush dissenters.
Sep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

the obligatory four freedoms of the EU are free movement of goods, services, persons and capital throughout the Union. Open borders. That is the essence of the European Union, the dogma of the Free Market.

The problem with the Open Border doctrine is that it doesn't know where to stop. Or it doesn't stop anywhere. When Angela Merkel announced that hundreds of thousands of refugees were welcome in Germany, the announcement was interpreted as an open invitation by immigrants of all sorts, who began to stream into Europe. This unilateral German decision automatically applied to the whole of the EU, with its lack of internal borders. Given German clout, Open Borders became the essential "European common value", and welcoming immigrants the essence of human rights.

Very contrasting ideological and practical considerations contribute to the idealization of Open Borders. To name a few:

This combination of contrasting, even opposing motivations does not add up to a majority in every country. Notably not in Hungary.

It should be noted that Hungary is a small Central European country of less than ten million inhabitants, which never had a colonial empire and thus has no historic relationship with peoples in Africa and Asia as do Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. As one of the losers in World War I, Hungary lost a large amount of territory to its neighbors, notably to Romania. The rare and difficult Hungarian language would be seriously challenged by mass immigration. It is probably safe to say that the majority of people in Hungary tend to be attached to their national identity and feel it would be threatened by massive immigration from radically different cultures. It may not be nice of them, and like everyone they can change. But for now, that is how they vote.

In particular, they recently voted massively to re

Like the Soviet Union, the European Union is not merely an undemocratic institutional framework promoting a specific economic system; it is also the vehicle of an ideology and a planetary project. Both are based on a dogma as to what is good for the world: communism for the first, "openness" for the second. Both in varying ways demand of people virtues they may not share: a forced equality, a forced generosity. All this can sound good, but such ideals become methods of manipulation. Forcing ideals on people eventually runs up against stubborn resistance.

There are differing reasons to be against immigration just as to be for it. The idea of democracy was to sort out and choose between ideals and practical interests by free discussion and in the end a show of hands: an informed vote. The liberal Authoritarian Center represented by Verhofstadt seeks to impose its values, aspirations, even its version of the facts on citizens who are denounced as "populists" if they disagree. Under communism, dissidents were called "enemies of the people". For the liberal globalists, they are "populists" – that is, the people. If people are told constantly that the choice is between a left that advocates mass immigration and a right that rejects it, the swing to the right is unstoppable.

Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 17, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT

Orban's reputation in the West as dictator is unquestionably linked to his intense conflict with Hungarian-born financier George Soros

And not only Soros, of course:

'I know that this battle is difficult for everyone. I understand if some of us are also afraid. This is understandable, because we must fight against an opponent which is different from us. Their faces are not visible, but are hidden from view; they do not fight directly, but by stealth; they are not honourable, but unprincipled; they are not national, but international; they do not believe in work, but speculate with money; they have no homeland, but feel that the whole world is theirs.' -- Viktor Orbán

Carlton Meyer , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 4:30 am GMT
Watch the great Hungarian foreign minister repel attacks by the BBCs arrogant open borders propagandist, rudely treating him like an ignorant child and calling him a racist for defending his nation.
Anonymous , [224] Disclaimer says: September 18, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT

Economic liberals maintain that because Europe is aging, it needs young immigrant workers to pay for the pensions of retired workers.

Not gonna happen. Their 80 IQ skills are uncompetitive and useless in Europe even before Automation erases those low-skilled positions in the coming decade or two. Meanwhile, (real) European youth unemployment rate is 20%. Young Europeans are not making babies because they don't have a stable future. This can only get worse as the hostile invaders get preferential, Affirmative Action treatment, in schools and workplaces. None of this is accidental.

... ... ...

jilles dykstra , says: September 18, 2018 at 7:19 am GMT
There are, in my opinion, two reasons for letting the mass immigration happen:
- the Brussels belief, expressed in a 2009 official document, not secret, that the EU needs 60 million immigrants.
- a Merkel belief dat the Germans are bad, they caused two world wars and perpetrated the holocaust, so the German people must be changed through mass immigration.

The Brussels belief seems to be based mainly on the increasing average age in the EU.
It is incomprehensible to me, at the same time fear that robots slowly will do all simple jobs.

The Merkel belief, on the other side of the Atlantic, where few understand German, and cannot or do not watch German tv, I wonder how many understand that the 20th century propaganda of the victors still is decisive in German daily life and politics.
The danger of neonazi's and fascism is everywhere.
Nationalism, the equivalent of building gas chambers.

The EU also is based on the 20th century fairy tales, only the EU prevented wars in Europe after WWII.
The idea that Germans were victims in two world wars, and, until Hitler became power in 1933, also between the world wars, in unthinkable.
The idea that Endlösung meant deportation to Madagaskar, even more unthinkable.

That jews, as one Rothschild wrote to another around 1890, have and had but one enemy, themselves, the world unthinkable is too weak.
Yet
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
explains it, things as 'close economic cooperation, intermarriage, ostentious behaviour'.
In this respect
'Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry', Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York University press
also is a very interesting book, after jews in the thirties had been banned from many intellectual professions not a single Hungarian newspaper could be published any more.

Soros trying to force Muslim immigrants on deeply catholic Hungary, he was born in Hungary, experienced anti semitism, revenge ?

John Siman , says: September 18, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It is the most beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration projects, almost non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those of Paris, and a very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA) population. I would like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of the country. Viszlát! -- John
Felix-Culpa , says: September 18, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
When the fort of folly that Globalism is finally falls, Diana Johnstone's article will be cited as exemplary in exposing its hidden grammar. That fall cannot be far off now given that psy-ops can only work if people are ignorant of the manipulation afoot.

Great opening, Diana. For forty years the presstitude media have leaned on the use of implication as argument to have the ninety-nine percent buy what they are selling. What was not pointed out very well until now, is that their implications are all false. Now, only a dummy among the dumbed-down cannot see it.

Buzz Mohawk , says: September 18, 2018 at 11:46 am GMT
For those who have the patience to read the English subtitles, here is an excellent speech given by Orbán in July. Here he outlines his thinking on the issues facing Hungary and the world.

Viktor Orbán is a very intelligent leader, and he has the vast majority of the Hungarian people behind him. History has taught those people many things, and they have had enough. They are not fools. Look to them as an example for all of us.

https://youtu.be/RfU-SVsGpsc

Hans Vogel , says: September 18, 2018 at 12:36 pm GMT
@John Siman I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It is the most beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration projects, almost non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those of Paris, and a very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA) population. I would like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of the country. Viszlát! -- John Wherever US influence is not yet overwhelming (and such places are becoming fewer every day, unfortunately), you will still find "old-fashioned" ways of interaction, few fatties, and decent food and drink.

People may become fat for many reasons, but most fatties these days in the Anglosphere belong to the underclass. These wretches get fat from eating expensive trash at McDonald's and other fast food outlets, and drinking Coca Cola and similar sugar-saturated garbage. Their behavior may seem strange because their brains have largely withered away through endless TV watching (mainly US or US-inspired visual trash), their hearing impaired by ear- and mind numbing noise passing for music.

I am afraid the way out of that prison is long and tortuous for all victims of US neoliberalism.

Michael Kenny , says: September 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at least a dozen years, although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to claiming to be a far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out! However, she points out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is between the EU and Putin's tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the ethnic Russians acted as colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have for Slavs, choosing the latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader. Thus, Orban is stuck with the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are stuck with Orban whether they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual claims need to be corrected. The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its political rights. The (according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does something attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked for the European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions, as always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least 14 years!).
Hans Vogel , says: September 18, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at least a dozen years, although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to claiming to be a far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out! However, she points out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is between the EU and Putin's tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the ethnic Russians acted as colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have for Slavs, choosing the latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader. Thus, Orban is stuck with the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are stuck with Orban whether they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual claims need to be corrected. The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its political rights. The (according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does something attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked for the European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions, as always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least 14 years!). Judging by your name, you are not a European, but an Englishman, or from somewhere else in the Anglosphere. It is a good thing for England and especially the English to be leaving the EuSSR, which is more of a prison than commonly realized. Ruled by a greedy class of corrupt and, to make it worse, utterly mediocre, politicians, incompetent and stupid bureaucrats (yes, I know this is an oxymoron) in the exclusive interest of ruthless big corporations, human rights do not exist in the EuSSR.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe has seen a wave of privatizations on a scale only comparable to what happened in the former USSR. Nevertheless, taxation has increased to a point where today, the average EuSSR "citizen" pays between 75% and 80% taxes on every Euro he earns. The middle class is on its way to extinction. The judiciary is a joke, education has been dismantled or stupidified, health care is a disaster, save in Southern Europe where many doctors and nurses still have a sense of humanity.

The piece by Mrs. Johnstone may not be flawless, but it says what needs to be said.

anonymous , [739] Disclaimer says: September 18, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
Lots of important things switch sides.

70 years ago the Democrat party in the American South was the party of regular working class White Southerners and promoted Southern heritage and Southern history including Confederate history.

Then things change.

Now the national Democrat party and the Democrat party in the South hates Whites Southerners, hates Southern heritage and Southern history and are promoting the desecration of Confederate monuments and confederate graves.

60 years ago Hungarian was under Soviet Communist domination and Hungarian patriots looked to the West – especially American and Great Britain to help them achieve some personal freedom from Communism.

Now things have completely changed. It's the Wester (EU) UK BBC, American mass media that restricts freedom and National Christianity in Hungary and pretty much everywhere else. Russia is once again a health European Christian nation. Nobody in Hungary, Eastern Europe or Russia wants to allow their countries to be invaded by millions of 3rd world Muslim rapists.

So I living in Chicago IL (Obama was my neighbor) look to Hungary, Poland, Russia and Eastern Europe for any small dose of freedom.

Things change.

[Sep 18, 2018] Russia supported north in the USA Civil war

Sep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Michael7 , says: September 17, 2018 at 2:08 pm GMT

@Linh Dinh

Unz also exhumes Jacob Schiff to show how this Wall Street banker jump started the Bolshevik Revolution, so it was really a deep hatred of Russia, and not any idealism, that triggered the bloodiest chapter in human history. Though only 4% of Russia's population, Jews made up 80-85% of the early Soviet government, Unz points out, and they dominated the Gulag administration and the terrifying NKVD.

Back during the US Civil War, which was largely the result of Rothschild meddling and financing of both sides, Abraham Lincoln anticipated a surprise attack by the British and French. So he requested assistance from Tsar Alexander II who in turn mobilized the Russian fleet and docked at both New York and San Francisco. Rothschild never forgave this 'insult' by the Russians, hence Jacob Schiff and his cohorts helping to fund and orchestrate the Bolshevik Revolution which was, essentially, an act of revenge.

By the way, it would be remiss not to mention the hard fact that it was Jewish individuals who owned almost every slave ship during the Transatlantic Slave Trade and also dominated the Triangle Trade (molasses/rum/slaves). True history has been deliberately twisted so as to portray whites as though being the sole culprits of African slavery in the West. As another point of fact, it was white Christians who fought to end slavery. Ironically, after slavery had ended, Jews such as Rabbi Stephen Wise began to finance and form various 'civil rights' groups such as the NAACP, in a naked attempt to establish themselves as championing freedom and equality, whereas this was most obviously not the case prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Reason being, they could use blacks and other "oppressed minorities" as a fifth column of sorts to exploit racial frictions from within and thus serve as a convenient distraction from the more negative activities befallen all of Western civilization which, shamefully, continues to the present day.

[Sep 18, 2018] The Israeli pilots used the Russian plane as cover and set it up to be targeted by the Syrian air defense forces.

Sep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

bj , says: September 18, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT

Update–"The Israeli pilots used the Russian plane as cover and set it up to be targeted by the Syrian air defense forces. As a consequence, the Il-20, which has radar cross-section much larger than the F-16, was shot down by an S-200 system missile," the statement said.

http://theduran.com/russian-mod-il-20-downed-by-syrian-missile-after-attacking-israels-f-16s-used-it-as-cover/

[Sep 17, 2018] The Dirty Dozen: 12 lies they tell you to anaesthetise you for the upcoming bombing of Syria by Peter Ford

Notable quotes:
"... There are more babies than jihadis in Idlib ..."
"... The reports [of the imminent chemical weapons 'attack'] must be truebecause Asad has done it before. ..."
"... The OPCW report on Douma was flawed because the Russians and ..."
"... Syrians caused delay ..."
"... Asad uses chemical weapons because they frighten large numbers of people into fleeing ..."
"... The OPCW won't be able to investigate because it won't ..."
"... The upcoming strikes are not aimed at regime change. ..."
"... It's all Russian disinformation ..."
"... There won't be enough time for parliamentary debate. ..."
"... MPs can't be told what is planned because it would ..."
"... eopardise the safety of service personnel. ..."
"... There are going to be massacres/a bloodbath/genocide. ..."
"... People have nowhere to go ..."
"... We can't tell you which armed groups we support because it would make them targets for Asad ..."
Sep 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The propaganda mills of the British and American governments - spokespersons, media, think tanks - are working overtime churning out 'talking points' to justify the upcoming large scale bombing of Syria on the pretext of use of prohibited weapons.

Here is a guide from a former insider to the top dozen of these lies.

  1. There are more babies than jihadis in Idlib . As it happens this gem of moral blackmail is untrue. There are twice as many jihadis (about 100,000) as babies (0-1 year) (55,000). What is this factoid meant to say anyway? Don't try to free an area of jihadis because you might harm a lot of children? The Western coalition scarcely heeded that consideration in razing Mosul and Raqqa in order to crush ISIS. They are still pulling babies out of the rubble in Raqqa.
  2. The reports [of the imminent chemical weapons 'attack'] must be truebecause Asad has done it before. False. Since 2013 when Asad gave up chemical weapons under supervision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) the OPCW have not visited the sites of alleged attacks in jihadi-controlled areas but have accepted at face value 'reports' from pro-jihadi organisations like the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society, along with 'evidence' from hostile intelligence agencies. In the case of the one site the OPCW did visit, Douma, their report said they found no evidence of sarin, no untoward traces in any of the blood samples taken from 'alleged victims' (their term), no bodies and only ambiguous evidence of use of chlorine.

3. The OPCW report on Douma was flawed because the Russians and Syrians caused delay . False. As documented in the OPCW report delay was caused by UN bureaucracy and jihadi snipers. The inspectors do not say their findings were to any significant degree invalidated by the delay.

  1. Asad uses chemical weapons because they frighten large numbers of people into fleeing . False. They don't. This desperate argument is trotted out to counter the fact that Asad would have to be stupid to use chemical weapons knowing what the result would be and that he would derive minimal military benefit. To date not one of the alleged chemical attacks has precipitated an exodus any greater than flight caused by the legendary 'barrel bombs'. The inhabitants of Douma by their own testimonies given to Western journalists were even unaware there might have been an attack until they heard about it in the media.
  2. The OPCW won't be able to investigate because it won't b e safe . A feeble excuse to preempt calls for establishing facts before bombing. The Turks escort Western journalists into Idlib. They have hundreds of troops there and the jihadis kowtow to them because they control all logistics. The Turks could escort OPCW. And wouldn't the jihadis be keener than anybody for the inspectors to visit if their claims were true?
  3. The upcoming strikes are not aimed at regime change. False. The plan is to decapitate the Syrian state with attacks on the presidency. Failing that the aim is to make Idlib a quagmire for the Russians. Anything to deprive Asad and Putin of victory, regardless of whether it prolongs the war.
  4. It's all Russian disinformation . Yeah, like the arms inspectors before the Iraq war who said no WMD in Iraq. Reality: the Russians have got great intelligence on what Western powers with their jihadi clients are up to and are calling out the phoney moves.
  5. There won't be enough time for parliamentary debate. Pull the other one. Reality: the government are terrified of a rerun of 2013 when Labour and 30 brave Tory MPs voted against bombing, causing Cameron and then Obama to back off.
  6. MPs can't be told what is planned because it would j eopardise the safety of service personnel. How low can you stoop? Feigning concern for flyers when it's really just about keeping the people in ignorance of how big the strikes are going to be.
  7. There are going to be massacres/a bloodbath/genocide. False. We heard all this hysteria before Aleppo, before Eastern Ghouta and before the campaign in the South. All vastly exaggerated. The Syrian Arab Army has not been responsible for a single massacre, while the jihadis have been responsible for many (source: quarterly reports of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria).
  8. People have nowhere to go . False. The Russians have opened safe corridors but the jihadis are not allowing people to leave. They can still leave for the northern border strip which Turkey controls, where there are camps, and many (including jihadi fighters) will be able to cross temporarily into Turkey.
  9. We can't tell you which armed groups we support because it would make them targets for Asad . Really? You think he doesn't know? Isn't it because you are terrified it will come out that we have been supporting some real head-choppers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ford_(diplomat)

[Sep 17, 2018] The Bluffer's Guide to Bombing Syria By Peter Ford

Notable quotes:
"... or, The Dirty Dozen: 12 lies they tell you to anaesthetise you for the upcoming bombing of Syria ..."
"... There are more babies than jihadis in Idlib ..."
"... The reports [of the imminent chemical weapons 'attack'] must be truebecause Asad has done it before. ..."
"... The OPCW report on Douma was flawed because the Russians and ..."
"... Syrians caused delay ..."
"... Asad uses chemical weapons because they frighten large numbers of people into fleeing ..."
"... The OPCW won't be able to investigate because it won't ..."
"... The upcoming strikes are not aimed at regime change. ..."
"... It's all Russian disinformation ..."
"... There won't be enough time for parliamentary debate. ..."
"... MPs can't be told what is planned because it would ..."
"... eopardise the safety of service personnel. ..."
"... There are going to be massacres/a bloodbath/genocide. ..."
"... People have nowhere to go ..."
"... We can't tell you which armed groups we support because it would make them targets for Asad ..."
Sep 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

or, The Dirty Dozen: 12 lies they tell you to anaesthetise you for the upcoming bombing of Syria

The propaganda mills of the British and American governments - spokespersons, media, think tanks - are working overtime churning out 'talking points' to justify the upcoming large scale bombing of Syria on the pretext of use of prohibited weapons.

Here is a guide from a former insider to the top dozen of these lies.

  1. There are more babies than jihadis in Idlib . As it happens this gem of moral blackmail is untrue. There are twice as many jihadis (about 100,000) as babies (0-1 year) (55,000). What is this factoid meant to say anyway? Don't try to free an area of jihadis because you might harm a lot of children? The Western coalition scarcely heeded that consideration in razing Mosul and Raqqa in order to crush ISIS. They are still pulling babies out of the rubble in Raqqa.
  2. The reports [of the imminent chemical weapons 'attack'] must be truebecause Asad has done it before. False. Since 2013 when Asad gave up chemical weapons under supervision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) the OPCW have not visited the sites of alleged attacks in jihadi-controlled areas but have accepted at face value 'reports' from pro-jihadi organisations like the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society, along with 'evidence' from hostile intelligence agencies. In the case of the one site the OPCW did visit, Douma, their report said they found no evidence of sarin, no untoward traces in any of the blood samples taken from 'alleged victims' (their term), no bodies and only ambiguous evidence of use of chlorine.

3. The OPCW report on Douma was flawed because the Russians and Syrians caused delay . False. As documented in the OPCW report delay was caused by UN bureaucracy and jihadi snipers. The inspectors do not say their findings were to any significant degree invalidated by the delay.

  1. Asad uses chemical weapons because they frighten large numbers of people into fleeing . False. They don't. This desperate argument is trotted out to counter the fact that Asad would have to be stupid to use chemical weapons knowing what the result would be and that he would derive minimal military benefit. To date not one of the alleged chemical attacks has precipitated an exodus any greater than flight caused by the legendary 'barrel bombs'. The inhabitants of Douma by their own testimonies given to Western journalists were even unaware there might have been an attack until they heard about it in the media.
  2. The OPCW won't be able to investigate because it won't b e safe . A feeble excuse to preempt calls for establishing facts before bombing. The Turks escort Western journalists into Idlib. They have hundreds of troops there and the jihadis kowtow to them because they control all logistics. The Turks could escort OPCW. And wouldn't the jihadis be keener than anybody for the inspectors to visit if their claims were true?
  3. The upcoming strikes are not aimed at regime change. False. The plan is to decapitate the Syrian state with attacks on the presidency. Failing that the aim is to make Idlib a quagmire for the Russians. Anything to deprive Asad and Putin of victory, regardless of whether it prolongs the war.
  4. It's all Russian disinformation . Yeah, like the arms inspectors before the Iraq war who said no WMD in Iraq. Reality: the Russians have got great intelligence on what Western powers with their jihadi clients are up to and are calling out the phoney moves.
  5. There won't be enough time for parliamentary debate. Pull the other one. Reality: the government are terrified of a rerun of 2013 when Labour and 30 brave Tory MPs voted against bombing, causing Cameron and then Obama to back off.
  6. MPs can't be told what is planned because it would j eopardise the safety of service personnel. How low can you stoop? Feigning concern for flyers when it's really just about keeping the people in ignorance of how big the strikes are going to be.
  7. There are going to be massacres/a bloodbath/genocide. False. We heard all this hysteria before Aleppo, before Eastern Ghouta and before the campaign in the South. All vastly exaggerated. The Syrian Arab Army has not been responsible for a single massacre, while the jihadis have been responsible for many (source: quarterly reports of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria).
  8. People have nowhere to go . False. The Russians have opened safe corridors but the jihadis are not allowing people to leave. They can still leave for the northern border strip which Turkey controls, where there are camps, and many (including jihadi fighters) will be able to cross temporarily into Turkey.
  9. We can't tell you which armed groups we support because it would make them targets for Asad . Really? You think he doesn't know? Isn't it because you are terrified it will come out that we have been supporting some real head-choppers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ford_(diplomat)

[Sep 17, 2018] Lawrence Wilkerson on the Neocons Plan: War in Syria, Then Iran by Adam Dick

Notable quotes:
"... he has seen "no proof" that Assad "ever used chemical weapons" and disparages the reputability of the White Helmets organization whose claims have been used to build support for US military actions in Syria. ..."
"... Wilkerson states: "My serious concern is about the way [US National Security Advisor John Bolton] and others in their positions of power now are orchestrating a scenario whereby Donald Trump, for political reasons or whatever, can use force in a significant way against Assad and ultimately Iran, because Iran's forces are there, and ultimately against Russia, because their forces are there in Syria, and this is most disquieting." ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | www.antiwar.com

Interviewed Tuesday by host Sharmini Peries at The Real News , Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor and former chief of staff for United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, warned that "the neoconservative agenda" for an escalated United States war on Syria followed by war on Iran has had a "resurrection" in President Donald Trump's administration.

Regarding talk about the US taking military action in Syria in response to potential allegations of the use of chemical weapons – false flag or otherwise – in the country, Wilkerson comments that the war advocates are "looking for every excuse, any excuse, all excuses, to reopen US operations, major U.S. operations, against [President Bashar al-Assad] in Syria, always realizing that the ultimate target is Tehran." Tehran is the capital of Iran.

Addressing previous allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syria government that were used to justify US military actions in the country, Wilkerson, who is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, states that he has seen "no proof" that Assad "ever used chemical weapons" and disparages the reputability of the White Helmets organization whose claims have been used to build support for US military actions in Syria.

Wilkerson further warns that the neoconservative agenda regarding war on Syria and Iran also threatens both conflict between the US and Russia and the long-term bogging down of US military forces in major conflict.

Wilkerson states: "My serious concern is about the way [US National Security Advisor John Bolton] and others in their positions of power now are orchestrating a scenario whereby Donald Trump, for political reasons or whatever, can use force in a significant way against Assad and ultimately Iran, because Iran's forces are there, and ultimately against Russia, because their forces are there in Syria, and this is most disquieting."

The neoconservatives' military plan, argues Wilkerson, is "a recipe for" the US military being in the region for "the next generation" with significant force "mired even deeper in this morass" and with the "day after day" attrition of dollars and lives.

Watch Wilkerson's complete interview here: https://www.youtube.com/embed/6mtpeouo_X8

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity .

Herb Fitzell • 2 days ago ,

While it is good to hear a voice in opposition to the warmongering among U.S. profiteers, it is unfortunate Wilkerson is "unaware" of any documented uses of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. The U.N. documentation can be found here.
https://pulsemedia.org/2018...

But a just solution for the use of chemical weapons by one regime can't be implemented by another regime which itself has so recently used them.
https://www.washingtonpost....

It is inconceivable that Wilkerson would be unaware of the use of such weapons and the war crimes committed by U.S. forces, especially on the tail end of Bolton's cowardly retreat from the ICC. Wilkerson almost certainly knows; but if he doesn't know, that simple bit of ignorance by a war "professional" underscores the fact that those who make war their business are themselves the real threat the whole world over -- no matter their organization. We've had far more than enough of their expertise and protection. Indeed, we would be immensely better off without any of it.
Wilkerson is no doubt trying to make amends for the crimes of his former boss, Colin Powell. But, once again, shouldn't Powell himself be one of the main witnesses and defendants bearing testimony before the ICC, and perhaps even Wilkerson himself?

Thanks, but no thanks. I, for one, have had far more than enough of all the protection and expertise of all the heroes, experts and profiteers who claim to be protecting us. We would all be better off if all of them would sit down, throw all their weapons and arms industries away, accept a greatly reduced bank account, and quietly fade into the sunset.

George Herb Fitzell • 2 days ago ,

Good piece well written & concise. The craziest aspect of stiring up the morass of danger these shallow hawks are crafting is the vast danger to their own heartland that these reckless actons could ignite.
Are they in possession of some secret weapon which would bar America from effects of the inevitable thermonuclear pushback????? The last reports I have seen don't show anything better than 1 in 3 intercepts of of ICMS in the best of setup test circumstances. 66% of the Russian answer would certainly end much of the good life we enjoy. The smouldering cities would be an unbearable albatross of shame for longer than decades, more like centuries. All those responsible would end up not much better than the worst of the victims still alive on the losing side. They would find no safe quarter with the entire world as the avengers!!!!!

Herb Fitzell George • 2 days ago ,

Thanks George. Your points are excellent. It's almost as if well-reasoned points don't matter anymore, and that's the most worrisome aspect of our modern political life in the U.S. Our current president was the leading birther and many millions more are at least as ignorant. Add to that the apocalyptic yearning for the end times by heretical Christians in the USA and we have political dynamic as insane as anything ISIS dreamed up. The Prince of Peace would climb down from His cross to turn Ted Cruz's congressional table over before Raytheon could count the profits of the cruise missiles Ted would use to carpet bomb Mideast civilians. But Ted - due to his selfless love of America - would certainly insist Jesus climb back up on His cross just before casting the final vote for congressional approval to unleash the bombs he would drop on Him. The Christian Taliban was a far greater threat than the one in Afghanistan. It wasn't clear to many when Jesus was whispering in W's ear, but it should be clear after the consequences of our wars.

Luchorpan Herb Fitzell • a day ago ,

You're too partisan. Plenty of Christians are against these stupid wars. The "Christian Zionists" are heretics. They believe things that simply are not Christian, ergo not really Christians.

It's just a new cult, as Wicca is a cult, as many crazed ideologues are cult-like, especially those seeking secular paradise by following secular prophets like Marx.

Herb Fitzell Luchorpan • a day ago ,

What's the basis for saying I'm too partisan? I did not say plenty of Christians are not against these wars. I realize the vast majority of the world's Christians do oppose U.S. wars. In fact, I am a Christian myself. But I do live in the USA and heretical Christian ideologues on the Right have been calling the shots. This has increasingly been the case ever since Falwell and Robertson supported the Guatemalan genocide in the 80s. Right-wing Christian heresy in the USA is a real genocidal threat.

Luchorpan Herb Fitzell • 20 hours ago ,

I appreciate that you see them as heretics also. Too many Americans, including "smart" Americans, are pulled along by media orgs, not thinking for themselves, and the Christian Zionists really help in providing a dedicated pressure group, directing sentiment. I pray I can help counter them; I'm quite motivated myself.

Dems also like the warring and meddling though. It's just a different group. GOP was fairly critical of Serbian War under Clinton. Then the US was nuked in 2000 with the election of Dubya.

Herb Fitzell Luchorpan • 14 hours ago ,

Well said. I wish you much success.

Luchorpan George • a day ago ,

Greenland might survive.

O rly Herb Fitzell • 6 hours ago ,

"What we see in Syria is not a "civil war", but a war on civilians."

what a garbage article.

Dennis Boylon Herb Fitzell • an hour ago ,

You are wrong. There was no proof of any chemical attacks. In fact Sy Hersh reported on that event. Your own link shows a so called "white helmet" in staged action. lol. That report has no credibility.

Dennis Boylon • an hour ago ,

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n...

Herb is posting US propaganda.

Dennis Boylon • an hour ago ,

http://www.moonofalabama.or...

[Sep 17, 2018] https://electronicintifada.net/content/censored-film-reveals-israel-projects-secret-facebook-campaign/25486

Sep 17, 2018 | electronicintifada.net

Posted by: Afkaysit | Sep 17, 2018 5:01:05 AM | 72

[Sep 17, 2018] Attacking an international airport in close proximity to an event hosting thousands of civilians from around the world has a degree of hideousness about it that recalls the terrorism waged by Begin and his gang prior to Israel being carved out of Palestine.

Sep 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Karlof1 , Sep 16, 2018 5:23:28 PM | link

I reported this yesterday . All war crimes are serious, but attacking an international airport in close proximity to an event hosting thousands of civilians from around the world has a degree of hideousness about it that recalls the terrorism waged by Begin and his gang prior to Israel being carved out of Palestine. The Zionist attack must be called what it is -- an act of terrorism.

[Sep 17, 2018] The Syria Deception: Al Qaeda Goes To Hollywood

Sep 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Sep 16, 2018 6:09:47 PM | link

The Grayzone Project , unfortunately edited by Max Blumenthal, has released a video: The Syria Deception: Al Qaeda Goes To Hollywood . I've yet to watch, but it's been viewed by a few people I respect like those at ElectronicIntifada; so, despite Blumenthal's affiliation, I posted the link.
George Lane , Sep 16, 2018 6:14:01 PM | link
@karlof1, I know Max Blumenthal is not liked at this website for understandable reasons, but his recent work particularly on Nicaragua which cut against the grain of corporate media narrative deserves to be lauded.

[Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

Highly recommended!
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was. ..."
"... And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims. ..."
"... But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts. ..."
"... It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger. ..."
"... It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM. ..."
"... My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides. ..."
"... There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win. ..."
"... The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. ..."
"... Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. ..."
"... You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. ..."
"... Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ. ..."
"... In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo ..."
"... There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. ..."
"... At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom. ..."
"... I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time. ..."
"... I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop? ..."
"... I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers. ..."
"... I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class. ..."
"... I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing. ..."
"... In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. ..."
"... It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse. ..."
"... 'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.' ..."
"... And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities. ..."
"... So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin. ..."
"... All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele. ..."
"... Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017. ..."
"... That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins. ..."
"... To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. ..."
"... I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue. ..."
"... The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice. ..."
"... No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes. ..."
"... In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.' ..."
"... Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .) ..."
"... Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' ..."
"... I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global. ..."
"... I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that. ..."
"... Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket? ..."
"... It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate? ..."
"... Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents. ..."
"... The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6. ..."
"... An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core. ..."
"... It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.' ..."
"... That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries. ..."
"... In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read. ..."
"... Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it. ..."
"... At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public. ..."
"... Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins. ..."
"... My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it. ..."
"... So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him. ..."
"... 'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.' ..."
"... This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.' ..."
"... In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia. ..."
"... Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified. ..."
"... Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption. ..."
"... The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.' ..."
"... One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy. ..."
"... I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined. ..."
"... Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election ..."
"... Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate. ..."
"... Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him ..."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications. ..."
"... This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames. ..."
"... I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS. ..."
"... I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms. ..."
"... If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury. ..."
Aug 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

My strong impression is that nobody on the British side vetted the dossier for publication. A striking feature of the early news coverage is that there appeared to be total confusion, with some of the reporting suggesting that the sources quoted wanted to hang him out to dry, others that they wanted to defend him.

An interesting aspect is that not only were anonymous sources linked to MI6 quoted on both sides of the argument -- which could have been explained by disagreements within the organisation: in different stories, not however far apart in date, its head, Sir Alex Younger, was portrayed as holding radically different views.

When CNN publicised the existence of the dossier on 10 January 2017, the same day that it was published by 'BuzzFeed', it suggested that the author was British. The following day, the WSJ named Steele.

On 13 January, Martin Robinson, UK Chief Reporter for 'Mail Online', published a report whose headlines seem worth quoting in full:

'I introduced him to my wife as James Bond': Former spy Chris Steele's friends describe a "show-off" 007 figure but MI6 bosses brand him "an idiot" for an "appalling lack of judgement" over the Trump "dirty dossier": Intelligence expert Nigel West says friend is like Ian Fleming's famous character; He said: "He's James Bond. I actually introduced him to my wife as James Bond'; Mr West says Steele dislikes Putin and Kremlin for ignoring rules of espionage; Angry spy source calls him 'idiot' and blasts decision to take on the Trump work; Current MI6 boss Sir Alex Younger is said to be livid about reputation damage.'

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/... . )

On 15 January, however, Kim Sengupta, Defence Editor of the 'Independent', produced a report headlined: 'Head of MI6 used information from Trump dossier in first public speech; Warnings on cyberattacks show ex-spy's work is respected.'

(See https://www.independent.co.... .)

A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was.

This leads me on to another puzzle about the dossier to which I have been having a difficulty finding a solution. Long years ago I was reasonably familiar with libel law in relation to journalism. Anyone who 'served indentures', as very many of us did in those days, had to study it. Later, I got involved in a protracted libel suit -- successfully, I hasten to add -- in relation to a programme I made, and had the sobering experience of having a top-class libel barrister requiring me to justify every assertion I had made.

In the jargon then, a crucial question when an article, or programme, was being 'vetted' before publication was whether it represented a 'fair business risk.' This involved both the technical legal issues, and also judgements as to whether people were likely to sue, and how if they did the case would be likely to pan out.

On the face of things, one would not have expected that people at 'BuzzFeed' would have gone ahead and make the dossier public, without having it 'vetted' by competent lawyers. And I have difficulty seeing how, if they did, the advice could have been to publish what they published.

I have some difficulty seeing how the advice could have been to include the memorandum with the claims about the Alfa Group oligarchs, unless either these could be seriously defended or it was assumed that contesting them effectively would involve revealing more 'dirty linen' than these wanted to see aired in public.

And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims.

Trying to make sense of why such an obvious precaution was not taken, I find myself wondering whether, in fact, the reason may have been that the people responsible for the dossier may have actually believed this part of it at least.

If that is so, however, the most plausible explanation I can see is that while other claims in the dossier may well be total fabrication, either by the people at Fusion and Steele or by some of their questionable contacts, this information at least did come from what Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr et al thought were reliable Russian government sources.

But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts.

I think that the cases involving Karim Baratov and Dmitri Dokuchaev and his colleagues may be much more complex than is apparent from what looks to me like patent disinformation put out both on the Western and Russian sides.

It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger.

It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM.

If you want to get a clear picture of quite how low-grade the latter figure is, incidentally, it is worth looking at the speech to which Kim Sengupta refers.

(See https://www.sis.gov.uk/medi... .)

A favourite line of mine comes in Younger's discussion of the -- actually largely mythical -- notion of 'hybrid warfare': 'In this arena, our opponents are often states whose very survival owes to the strength of their security capabilities; the work is complex and risky, often with the full weight of the State seeking to root us out.'

Leaving aside the fact that this is borderline illiterate, what it amazing is Younger's apparent blindness to clearly unintended implications of what he writes. If indeed, the 'very survival' of the Russian state 'owes to the strength of [its] security capabilities', the conclusions, seen from a Russian point of view, would seem rather obvious: vote Putin, and give medals to Patrushev and Bortnikov.

My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides.

Posted at 01:19 PM in Habakkuk , Intelligence | Permalink

Jack , 4 days ago

David

There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win.

The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ.

Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. They even have discussions about Deripaska and about his visa application to visit the US. Bruce is a conduit to Strzok at FBI. Glenn Simpson also is part of these discussions with Steele and the Ohrs.

Simpson also arranges for Steele to brief "reporters" like David Corn and others at the NY Times, WaPo, WSJ, Politico and others. Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. They are communicating with Carter Page and Papadopolous, who in turn is drinking and yapping with Aussie ambassador Downer.

You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. There's Sen. Harry Reid passing on the Steele "dossier" to Comey.

Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ.

Oh, there is also Nellie Ohr setting up ham radio to avoid detection in her communications with Steele. Then we have everyone leaking and spinning to their "cohorts" in the premier media like the NY Times, CNN and WaPo.

Comey even has his buddy a professor and ostensibly his legal counsel on the payroll of the FBI as a contractor with access to all the sensitive databases leaking to the media.

Andy McCabe has his legal counsel Lisa Page spin stories around his wife's huge campaign contributions from Clinton consigliere McAuliffe.

In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo.

As if all this was not enough there's AG Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac ostensibly to discuss their grandkids. Not to forget there were these "unmaskings" of surveillance information by Susan Rice, Samantha Power.

There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. Then there are the FISC judges who never believed their mandate required them to verify the evidence before issuing sweeping surveillance warrants. Now all this is what I as an old farmer and winemaker have read. Those more in tune would easily add to these convoluted machinations.

I don't know how to make sense of all this. All I see is the extent of effort to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and after he won from governing. The most obvious observation is that the leadership in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are so busy politicking spinning and leaking they have neither the time or the inclination let alone competence to do their real job for which they get paid a handsome wage and sterling benefits.

At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom.

If you have any speculative theories that connects some of the dots it would be my great pleasure to read.

Patrick Armstrong -> Jack , 3 days ago

I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time.

Confident that their horse is going to win the race and that the media will cover it all up and nobody will ever hear anything about anything. Now that the unexpected happened, they're just spinning and denying faster hoping the Dems win in Nov and stop all the investigations. And, they're getting nervous wondering who's going to sell out whom next. Up and down, around and around. Gerbils -- there really isn't anything very consistent, planned or thought-out.

In this respect, this piece attempts to make sense (on a very large scale) of their panic. https://www.strategic-cultu...

English Outsider -> Patrick Armstrong , a day ago

"I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time."

I believe your summary of what's happening is more accurate than Alastair Crooke's as set out in the article linked to.

But bright or not, what are these people in the IC doing being "highly politicised"? Does that not render them considerably less efficient?

I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop?

Patrick Armstrong -> English Outsider , 5 hours ago

I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers.

https://russia-insider.com/...

Jack -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Patrick

Usually the incumbent party loses the mid-term election. The Democrats lost big in Obama's first mid-term. The Republicans won the House and gained six senators. While the punditry claims a Blue Wave and Nate Silver is giving the Dems the odds. I'm not so sure. I think the GOP will increase their majority in the Senate putting any conviction of Trump out of question.

I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class.

Patrick Armstrong -> Jack , 2 days ago

Yeah. My bet is that the Repubs hold onto both. 1) the economy is getting better 2) what do the Dems have to offer other than this crazy Trump/Russia thing?

Rob -> Patrick Armstrong , a day ago

Economy will slow down sharply in 2019 but there should be enough momentum to help with the mid-terms. Trump needs to stop with the endless sanction stuff. The House does look like a close one.

Pat Lang Mod -> Rob , a day ago

what is the evidence for a slowdown in 2019?

Rob -> Pat Lang , a day ago

With all the caveats that apply to financial forecasting copper, monetary indicators and equity markets are all flagging a slowdown is upon us.

David Habakkuk -> Jack , 3 days ago

Jack,

At a very general level, a 'speculative theory' which I have been mulling over for some time was rather well set out in a commentary in 'The Hill' on 9 August by Sharyl Attkisson, which opens:

'Let's begin in the realm of the fanciful.

'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.

'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'

And Attkisson goes on to outline precisely the developments that appear to have happened.

(See http://thehill.com/opinion/... .)

I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing.

In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. And in turn, according to a familiar skeptical view, antinomianism can easily end up in in straightforward rascality.

On the rascality – to which Attkisson is pointing – I am working on how parts of the picture can be fleshed out. A few preliminary points raised by your remarks.

As you note, 'There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele.' So, we know that Ohr and Steele were conspiring together to ensure that the latter could continue to be intimately involved in the Mueller investigation, despite the FBI termination,

It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse.

If, as seems to me likely, although not certain, the second possibility is closer to the truth than the former, then before Ohr testifies on 28 August before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he will have to consider whether he is prepared to 'take the rap' for his superiors, or 'sing sweetly.'

The fact that in a report in 'The Hill', I think on the same day as the Attkisson piece, John Solomon was quoting from Ohr's handwritten notes of a meeting with Glenn Simpson in December 2016 makes me wonder whether he may not already have made a decision. A key paragraph from the report:

'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.'

(See http://thehill.com/hilltv/r... .)

There is I think a need for caution here. There is no guarantee that Simpson was telling the literal truth to Ohr, or indeed the latter reproducing with absolute accuracy with he was told (handwritten notes can be disposed of easily, but they can also be rewritten.)

One is I think on firmer ground in relation to what it suggests was not the case – that there is any substance whatsoever in the ludicrous story of someone running a private security company in London sending out hired employees who then gain access to top Kremlin insiders, with these, of course, telling them precisely what they actually think.

And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities.

So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin.

All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko.

That said, I continue to think it possible that both the second and final memoranda may incorporate some 'glitter', as well as 'chickenfeed' fed from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts, to hark back to George Smiley says to the Minister, quite possibly included in the hope that the BS involved would be reproduced in contexts where it could provoke legal action.

All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.

It could then be that Steele has been, in effect, hoist with his own petard, in that he is having to sustain the fiction that he had some kind of grounds for making the claims about Aleksej Gubarev and XBT. How far this matters, at least in relation to the action bought against 'BuzzFeed' in Florida, remains moot at the moment.

Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017.

That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins.

fanto -> David Habakkuk , 2 days ago

Mr Habakkuk, you mention "ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin" - I am not sure if you meant Akhmetov.

I am surprised and curious about you mentioning him - if you meant Akhmetov - because that is one name among all the oligarchs which has so far not been prominent. Thank you for your posts, these posts and the SST comments could and should serve as help to the congressional investigations and hearings.

blue peacock -> Jack , 4 days ago

Jack

To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.

I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue.

The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice.

No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes.

Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Younger isn't the brightest bulb in the box, is he?

"If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Assad's discredited regime, will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy is heart-breaking"

David Habakkuk -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Patrick,

Those were indeed some of the most inane comments in an inane piece.

But then, if you read an interview given to Jay Elwes of 'Prospect' magazine in May last year by Younger's predecessor Sir Richard Dearlove, who looks to have been a significant background presence in what has been going on, you will find that, although he is much more coherent than than his successor, it is almost as inane.

(See https://www.prospectmagazin... . )

As it happens, Dearlove was one of the signatories of the 'Statement of Principles' of something called the 'Henry Jackson Society.'

This was founded in 2005, in Cambridge, by a group in whom acolytes of an historian called Maurice Cowling were prominent – Dearlove is himself a graduate in history from that university.

In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.'

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... .)

Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .)

Among other things, he harked back to the way that, in 1648, a century and a half of bloody ideological strife in Europe had been ended with a recognition that the legitimacy of different state forms had to be accepted, if a kind of 'war of all against all' was to be avoided.

And Lieven went on to reflect on the way that, at what was then widely seen as the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of universalisitic pretensions by Russia and China was interpreted as justifying an embrace of these by the the West.

This, he went on to argue, had actually had the paradoxical effect of relegitimising 'régimes' which do not conform to Western 'democratic' models, concluding by noting what appears to our new, quasi-Soviet, preference for not letting experience interfere with ideological dogma:

'Finally – even after the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya – there is almost no awareness among US policymakers of the fact that US attempts to change the regimes of other countries are likely to be seen not only by the elites of those countries but also by their populations as leading to – and intended to lead to – the destruction of the state itself, leading to disaster for its society and population. When the Communist regime in the USSR collapsed (though only in part under Western pressure), it took the Soviet state with it. The Russian state came close to following suit in the years that followed, Russia was reduced to impotence on the world stage, and large parts of the Russian and other populations suffered economic and social disaster. Remembering their own past experiences with state collapse, warlordism, famine and foreign invasion, Chinese people looked at this awful spectacle and huddled closer to the Chinese state – one that they may dislike in many ways, but which they certainly trust more than anything America has to offer – especially given the apparent decay of democracy throughout the West.'

( https://nationalinterest.or... .)

I read with interest your piece back in June entitled 'Putin Once Dreamed the American Dream', reprinting Charles Heberle's account of the 'Transforming Subjects Into Citizens' project, and the attitude of some people close to Putin to it.

(See https://patrickarmstrong.ca... .)

One of the things which struck me was that the question why the American Revolution succeeded, and so many others failed, which was concerning the intellectuals to whom Heberle talked, is one of the central questions of modern political thought, from Tocqueville on.

(Indeed, the question of the preconditions for what might be called 'constitutional' government, has been central to 'republican' thought, ever since it was revived by Italian thinkers, including prominently Machiavelli, when the 'Renaissance' made them reactivate and rework debates from ancient Rome and Greece.)

However, to hark back to the anxieties expressed by Lieven, nothing in the analysis of the great French thinker necessary guarantees that the success of 'Democracy in America' is stable and permanent, or indeed that the relatively civilised order of the post-war 'Pax Americana' is necessarily durable in Western Europe.

Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' A paragraph that struck me:

'Russian society should by no means abdicate from its mostly European culture. But it should certainly stop being afraid, let alone feel ashamed, of its Asianism. It should be remembered that from the standpoint of prevailing social mentality and society's attitude to the authorities Russia, just as China and many other Asian states, are offspring of Chengiss Khan's Empire. This is no reason for throwing up hands in despair or for beginning to despise one's own people, contrary to what many members of intelligencia sometimes do. It should be accepted as a fact of life and used as a strength. The more so, since amid the harsh competitive environment of the modern world the authoritarian type of government – in the context of a market economy and equitable military potentials – is certainly far more effective than modern democracy. This is what our Western partners find so worrisome. Of course, we should bear in mind that authoritarianism – just like democracy – may lead to stagnation and degradation. Russia is certainly confronted with such a risk.'

Unlike you, I cannot claim serious expertise on Russia. But, as a reasonably alert generalist television current affairs producer, I took note of the indications which were emerging in the course of 1987 that the Gorbachev 'new thinking' was underpinned by a realisation that Soviet institutions and ideas had become fundamentally dysfunctional, to which you have referred repeatedly over the years.

And, after long tedious months trying interest the powers that were in British broadcasting in what was happening, I ended up producing a couple of programmes for BBC Radio in February/March 1989 in which we interviewed some of the leading 'new thinkers', among them Karaganov's then immediate superior at the Institute of Europe, Vitaly Zhurkin.

At the Institute for the USA and Canada, by contrast, we did not interview its head, Georgiy Arbatov, but his deputy, Andrei Kokoshin, and one of the latter's mentors on military matters and collaborators General-Mayor Valentin Larionov, who I later realised had earlier been one of the foremost Soviet nuclear strategists. (At the Institute for World Economy and International Relations, we interviewed Arbatov's son, Alexei.)

Talking to these people we got a sense, although it had to be fleshed out later, of the scale of the disillusion with Soviet models, and indeed – which began to frighten me not long after – of the way many of them were romanticising the West.

What Karaganov now writes is I think a hardly very surprising reaction to the way that the Western powers responded to the 'new thinking.' Moreover, it seems to me that the disillusionment involved is in no sense particular Russian, but rather global.

If one regards 'democracy' as though it were quoted on the stock exchange, before 1914 there were very many buyers, including among the Russian élite. By 1931, in very many places, including large sections of the 'intelligentsia' in Western countries, it was a sellers' market, to put it mildly.

After 1945, a kind of long 'bull market' in 'democracy' started: for very good reasons.

The – largely but very far from entirely – peaceful retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to a very significant extent the product of this. The subsequent behaviour of Western élites has generated a vicious 'bear market', a fact they appear unable to understand.

I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global.

Patrick Armstrong -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that.

PS, in light of the Henry Jackson society and all Younger's references to "values" this one rather stands out "A vital lesson I take from the Chilcot Report is the danger of group think."

Yeah. Group think, the very opposite of what I mean by pluralism.

Jack -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

David,

Sharyl Atkinson describes well the conspiracy. When one steps back and look at all the machinations we know now, it seems incredible.

Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket?

It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate?

There's no doubt a political thriller movie could be made.

FB -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Thanks for the quote...LOL

I guess the comedy part is that there actually exist people with medically functioning brains, who are somehow able to contort such a worldview...Aleppo as peaceful 'desert' indeed...who knew that having bearded fanatics in charge is somehow 'better'...[and not 'heart-breaking']...

Michael Regan , 2 days ago

Some here may find blogpost from March of this year interesting as it speaks to the production of the Steele dossier. I have not seen it mentioned here before and a site search produced no results. https://apelbaum.wordpress.... Some sections seem to have gotten David Cay Johnston's hackles up.

David Habakkuk -> Michael Regan , a day ago

Michael Regan,

I had seen Yaacov Apelbaum's piece referred to by Clarice Feldman in a post on the 'American Thinker' site a few days back, but not looked at it properly.

It is indeed fascinating, and clearly repays a closer study than I have so far had time to give it. I was however relieved to find that what Apelbaum writes 'meshes' quite well with my own views of the likely authorship of the dossier.

A question I have is whether the monumental amount of labour involved in producing it can really be the work of a single IT person – however wide-ranging his abilities and interests. My suspicion is that there may be input from Russian intelligence.

This is not said in order to discredit Apelbaum's work. In matters where I have had occasion critically to examine claims from official Russian sources, I have found several unsurprising, but recurring, patterns. Sometimes, the information provided can be shown to be essentially accurate, and it is reasonably clear how it has been obtained.

At other times, claims are made which information from other sources suggests either are, or may well be, true, but the 'sources and methods' involved are deliberately obscured, making evaluation more difficult.

And then, there are many occasions when what one gets is quite patently a mixture of accurate information and disinformation. Analysing these can be very productive, if one can both sift out the accurate information, and attempt to see what the disinformation is designed to obscure.

One thing of which I am absolutely certain is that the networks which are outlined by Apelbaum are precisely those which Russian intelligence will have spent a great deal of time and ingenuity penetrating.

This will have been attempted by 'SIGINT' and surveillance methods, and also through infiltrating agents and turning people. (There are often grounds to suspect that some of those most vociferously denouncing Putin are colluding with Russian intelligence.)

Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents.

Some of these were used back in April 2016 in a 'Vesti Nedeli' edition presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, who manages Russia's informational programming resources, and an accompanying documentary on the 'Pervyi Kanal' station.

The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6.

There is a good discussion of this, which highlights some of the problems with the documents, by Gilbert Doctorow, and Sokolov appears to have been involved in some murky activities since.

(See https://russia-insider.com/... ; https://en.crimerussia.com/... .)

But whatever the credibility or lack of it of the material, its appearance illustrates a general pattern, where the political disintegration of the London-based opposition to Putin has meant that more and more people involved in it have been supplying information to the Russians.

If, as I strongly suspect, there is fire beneath the smoke in those Russian television programmes, and if a great part of a series of projects of a related kind orchestrated in conjunction by elements in American and British intelligence were actually large run from this side, this will be creating headaches for people in Washington, as well as London.

An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core.

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... ; http://powerbase.info/index... .)

It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.'

That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries.

If this is the case, then questions are raised about how much of the apparently compelling forensic evidence is forged – and close examination suggests that key parts of it are.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.... .)

In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read.

Likewise, also in January 2016, I sent the key relevant evidence on this crucial matter to Harding and senior figures at the 'Guardian', and have reason to believe it was read.

Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it.

At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public.

Given the central role which Steele has now assumed in what looks like one of the biggest political scandals in American history, and the fact that in his book 'Collusion' Harding was again coming out in support of him, it would be of the greatest possible interest if indeed the latter had combined being a senior 'Guardian' correspondent with being paid by both Orbis and – even more important – Hakluyt.

And, particularly given the peculiar ambiguities of the role both of Fusion GPS and Baumgartner in the 'Trump Tower' meeting, it would be of great interest if the latter could be tied not only to Fusion, but to Orbis and – again even more important – Hakluyt.

This in turn might be relevant in trying to make sense of whether the fact that he and Simpson appear to have been working against Trump and Browder at the same time was or was not part of an elaborate ploy to give credibility to 'information operations' against the former.

There are accordingly two possibilities. It may be that, while much else in the Apelbaum material can be shown to be accurate, such accurate information is being used to give credibility to disinformation.

Alternatively, he is being used as a conduit for accurate and really explosive information about the British end of 'Russiagate', which he is unlikely to have unearthed all by himself, and the actual sources of which are – for very understandable reasons – being obscured.

Michael Regan -> David Habakkuk , a day ago

Mr Habakkuk-

Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond in such a comprehensive manner, and that you have provided me and others here with some really compelling information and notions.

In particular, the issue of sources and methods you note seems spot on. The author(s)'s information gathering methodologies and expertise are certainly not those of the laiety. In fact in the comments below his post YA mentions intelligence work.

Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins.

One thing that did catch my eye was a response he made to David Cay Johnston's pissy request for a retraction about Jacoby involvement. YA included a quote in Latin from Cicero's accusations against Cataline. Here is the English: What is there that you did last night, what the night before -- where is it that you were -- who was there that you summoned to meet you -- what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?

While this sort of riposte isn't exactly hyper-erudite, it ain't chopped liver either. What I mean to say is that exceptional cyber skills, algorithm coding (I'm guessing crawlers) are not commonly coupled with that sort of classical formation. His recourse to various biblical quotes suggests an unusual level of education as well. And no way is he younger than 38 or so.

At any rate, thank you for the article and your kind and informative reply.

David Habakkuk -> Michael Regan , a day ago

Michael Regan,

Thanks. I have now read both a good few of Apelbaum's earlier posts, and also the comments on his discussion of the dossier. Given the importance of his analysis of that document closer study is clearly needed of all this material, but I have some preliminary reactions.

My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it.

In a July 2010 post, he explained that: 'In my previous life, I was a civil engineer. I worked for a large power marine construction company doing structural design and field engineering.' According to the account he gave then, he subsequently shifted to software development.

(See https://apelbaum.wordpress.... .)

What he now tells us is that: 'As far as how I first started, I do have an intelligence background and have been developing OSINT/cyber/intelligence platforms for many years.'

That makes sense in terms of the analysis, which – whatever other inputs there may or may not have been – looks to me like the work of someone who has a serious background in these kinds of methodology, and moreover, is clearly not any kind of 'Fachidiot.'

So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him.

Even if he is not, questions would obviously rise about present connections arising from past work. This is in addition to the possibility that the logic of events may have provoked him to collaborate with those who might earlier have been his adversaries.

Reading Apelbaum's work, I am reminded of another interesting intervention in an embittered argument relating to the Middle East and the post-Soviet space, from what turned out to be an unexpected source.

In the period following the 'false flag' sarin attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 an incisive demolition of the conventional wisdom was provided in the 'crowdsourced' investigation masterminded by one 'sasa wawa' on a site entitled 'Who Attacked Ghouta?'

(See http://whoghouta.blogspot.com .)

And then, in December 2016, an Israeli high technology entrepreneur called Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200, that country's equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, who had subsequently made a great deal of money when he and his partner sold their company to Paypal, co-founded a site called 'Rootclaim.'

(See https://www.rootclaim.com .)

The site, it was explained, was dedicated to applying Bayesian statistics to 'current affairs' problems. This is a methodology, whose modern form owes much to work done at Bletchley Park in the war, which is invaluable in 'SIGINT' analysis and also combating online fraud.

At the outset, 'Rootclaim' posted a recycled version of some of the key material from the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' investigation. So, it seems likely, if not absolutely certain, that Saar Wilf and 'sasa wawa' are one and the same.

Following the Salisbury incident on 4 March, a blogger using the name 'sushi' produced a series of eleven posts under the title 'A Curious Incident' on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog.

(See https://thesaker.is/tag/sushi/ .)

Again, there are some very clear resemblances to 'sasa wawa' and Saar Wilf, which made me wonder whether the same person may be reappearing under yet another 'moniker.'

While the 'flavour' of Apelbaum seems to be different, the combination of what looks like serious technical expertise in IT techniques relating to intelligence with broad general intellectual interests looks to me similar.

I was amused by the combination of his quotation of the words from John 8:32 etched into the wall of the original CIA headquarters – 'And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free' – and the following remarks:

'The June 2016 start date of Steele's contract with Fusion GPS is the start of the "billable" activity, not the beginning of the research. Steele and Simpson/Jacoby have been collaborating on Trump/Russia going back to 2009.

'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.'

As it happens, I think that many of the collaborations involved may have started significantly earlier than this. In his response to David Cay Johnston, Apelbaum links to an April 2007' WSJ' article by Simpon and Jacoby which, among other things, deals with Semyon Mogilevich.

This is behind a paywall, but, fortunately, the fact that Ukrainian nationalists have had an obvious interest in treating it as a source of reliable information has meant that it is easily accessible.

(See www.madcowprod.com/wp-conte... )

It should I think be clear from my January 2016 post why I find this particularly interesting, in that it has to be interpreted in the context of a crucial 'key' to the mystery of the death of Alexander Litvinenko.

This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.'

So, I then come back to the question of whether this notion of a 'large Haluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US', playing the role of Sauron with Brennan, perhaps, as the 'Witch-king of Angmar', does or does not have substance.

If it does, there would be very good reasons for a variety of people, with a range of different attitudes to events in the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, to think that they had an interest in collaborating with Russian intelligence against a common enemy.

If it does not, then there is a real possibility that Apelbaum may be involved in using accurate intelligence to disseminate inaccurate. (It seems to me that he is much too intelligent to be a plausible candidate for the role of 'useful idiot.')

One further point that may, or may not, be relevant. Many of the most influential American and British Jews, for reasons which I find somewhat hard to understand, seem to have decided that the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom are nice and cuddly.

So, for example, Chrystia Freeland, the unrepentant granddaughter of the notorious Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak, has been able to end up as Canadian Foreign Minister because made a successful journalistic career on the London 'Financial Times', a paper with a strong Jewish presence.

That the editorial staff of such a paper thought it appropriate to have someone like Freeland as their Moscow correspondent gives you a good insight into how moronic British élites have become. This may well be relevant, in trying to evaluate claims about Hakluyt and other matters.

In relation to Apelbaum, it may be quite beside the point that other Jews from a Russian/East European background, both in Russia, Israel, and the United States, have very different views on Ukraine, Russia, and the dangers posed – not least to Israel – by jihadists. It is however a fact which needs to be born in mind, when one comes across people whose views cut across conventional dividing lines in the United States and Britain.

Beside the point in relation to Apelbaum, I am confident, but also needing to be kept in mind, is the possibility that elements in the United States 'intelligence community', seeing the 'writing on the wall', may think it appropriate to shift from trying to pass the buck by blaming the Russians to doing so by blaming the Brits.

Michael Regan -> David Habakkuk , a day ago

It seems apparent that Putin's reordering of the Russian economy after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Republic Bank's difficulites and the death of Edmund Safra left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped to exercise rentier rights over the Russian economy and resources. Why so much US resources and energy have been committed to recovering a contested deed is a real conundrum.

I was unaware of Freeland's grandfather and his lamentable CV. Thank you. It's funny that you mentioned both the Ghouta post and the Vineyard of the Saker. I recall reading those and thinking- this is not like common fare on the intertubes.

Your last points about failings in the quality of elite decision-making is extremely important. This dynamic of the dumb (US, UK, EU) at the wheel is, for me, the most frightening feature of the current state of play. In the worst moments I fear we are all on a bus driven by a drunk monkey, careening through the Andes. It's going to hurt all the way to the bottom.

Again, I am very grateful for your replies and all the great information and thought.

David Habakkuk -> Michael Regan , 2 hours ago

Michael Regan,

I think the question of why large elements in both American and British élites got so heavily invested, in essence, in supporting the oligarchs who refused Putin's terms in what turned into a kind of 'bare knuckles' struggle they were always likely to lose is a very interesting one.

It has long seemed to me that, even if one looked at matters from the most self-interested and cynical point of view, this represented a quite spectacular error of judgement. And, viewing the way in which 'international relations' are rearranging themselves, I am reasonably confident that this was one matter on which I got things right.

A central reason for this, I have come to think, is that Berezovsky and the 'information operations' people round him – Litvinenko is important, but the pivotal figure, the 'mastermind', if you will, was clearly Alex Goldfarb, and Yuri Shvets and Yuri Felshtinsky both played and still play important supporting roles – were telling people in the West what these wanted to hear.

It is a truth if not quite 'universally acknowledged', at least widely recognised by those who have acquired some 'worldly wisdom', that intellectually arrogant people, with limited experience of the world and a narrow education, can commonly be 'led by the nose' by figures who have more of the relevant kinds of intelligence and experience, and few scruples.

This rather basic fact is central to understanding the press conference on 31 May 2007 where the figure whom the Berezovsky group and Christopher Steele had framed in relation to the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, responded to the Crown Prosecution Service request for his extradition.

In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia.

(For the RT translation, see https://www.rt.com/news/and... .)

Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified.

What moreover became very evident, when Glenn Simpson testified to the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees, was that he was once again recycling the Berezovsky's group's version of Putin 'sistema' as the 'return of Karla.'

Given what has been emerging on the ways in which Fusion GPS and Steele were both integrated into networks involving top-level people in the FBI, DOJ, State Department and CIA, it seems clear that the 'retards'/'idiots' label is as applicable to people on your side as to people on ours.

Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky.

But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption.

As to what happened next, a recent item on 'Russian Insider', providing a link to and transcript of a more recent piece presented by Dmitry Kiselyov on 'Vesti Nedeli is a good illustration of where accurate information and disinformation can be mixed in material from Russian sources.

(See https://russia-insider.com/... .)

The piece, which appeared in July, discusses, and quotes from, an interview given the previous month to Dmitry Gordon, who runs a Ukrainian nationalist site, by Berezovsky's daughter Elizaveta. Among other things, this deals with Berezovsky's death.

(See https://gordonua.com/public... . A little manipulation will get you a reasonably serviceable English translation, although it becomes comic because Berezovsky is referred to as 'pope'.)

The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.'

As it happens, this is a patently tendentious reading of what she says. However, interesting features of the actual text of the interview are 1. that it does provide what to my mind is compelling evidence that her father was murdered, and 2. while she clearly suggests that this was covered up by the British, she is not suggesting that they were responsible – but also not making Putin 'prime suspect.'

Whether the suggestion by his daughter that her father might have been murdered by people who knew that by so doing they might get control of assets he might otherwise recoup has any merit I cannot say: I doubt it but cannot simply rule the possibility out.

What remains the case is that at that point there were very many people, including but in no way limited to elements in Western intelligence agencies, who had strong interests in avoiding a return by Berezovsky to Russia.

And the same people had the strongest possible interest in avoiding his being treated at the Inquest into Litvinenko's death by a competent barrister representing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the way he had been treated by Lord Sumption.

Ironically, it may have been partly because Lugovoi had made a dramatic announcement that he was withdrawing from the proceedings less than a fortnight before Berezovsky's death that before this happened a lot of people were staring at an absolutely worst-case scenario.

Time and again, in Owen's report, one finds matters where he recycles patent disinformation, which a well-briefed barrister acting for the ICRF could have easily ripped to shreds. At the same time, in this situation, the Russians could most probably have made a reasonable fist of coping with the multiple contradictions in claims made on their own side.

And, crucially, their patent weak suit – the need to obscure the actual role of Russian intelligence in the smuggling of the polonium into London, which had nothing to do with any murder plot – could have been reasonably well 'covered.'

Precisely because of these facts, the one scenario which can very easily be completely ruled out is that which is basic to the 'information operations' now coming out of London and Washington. In this, Berezovsky's death is portrayed as a key element in a systematic attempt by the Putin 'sistema' to eradicate the supposedly heroic opposition, much of it located in London.

That sustaining this fable is critical to defending the credibility of Steele, and therefore of the whole 'Russiagate' narrative, is quite evident from the 'From Russia With Blood' materials published by 'BuzzFeed' in July last year.

(See https://www.buzzfeed.com/he... .)

This, however, leads on to a paradox, which is highlighted by a piece posted by James George Jatras on the 'Strategic Culture Foundation' site on 18 August, entitled 'Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?'

(See https://www.strategic-cultu... .)

Among the points Jatras – who I think is an Orthodox Christian – makes is that the logic of contesting the 'Russiagate' narrative has had some strange consequences. Among these, there is one on which the actual history of the activities of Berezovsky and his 'information operations' people bears directly:

'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative: Among the President's defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors, Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) "interfered in our elections" in order to "undermine our democracy." Mitt Romney was right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that's the variable. The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher Steele dossier is full of "Russian dirt" – though there's literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing to Britain's MI6 and GCHQ.'

(See https://www.strategic-cultu... .)

For reasons I have already discussed, I think what while Jatras is substantially right, 'zero evidence' is only partially correct: It seems to me that disinformation supplied by elements in Russian intelligence could quite possibly have found its way into the second and final memoranda.

That said, Jatras has pointed to a fundamental feature of the current situation, which involves multiple ironies.

The total destruction of Steele's credibility could easily be achieved by anyone who was interested in looking at the evidence about the life and death of the late Alexander Litvinenko seriously. However, because a central tactic of most of those who are attacking the 'Russiagate' narrative has generally been 'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative', they are like people who ought to be able to see Steele's 'Achilles' heel', but in practice, often end up attacking him where his armour is, without being, not at its weakest.

Meanwhile, as I have already stressed, the ability of the Russian authorities to undermine the 'narrative' produced by the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky, of whom the most important are Alex Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets, is compromised by their fear of having to 'own up to' their actual role in the smuggling of the polonium into London in October-November 2007.

The person who had a strong interest in blowing this structure of illusion to pieces was actually Lugovoi. But it seems to me at least possible that there has been a kind of disguised covert conspiracy by elements in Western and Russian intelligence to ensure there was no risk of him doing so.

Steve Smith , 3 days ago

One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy.

I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined.

Paul M , 3 days ago

Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election

Saying he was reopening the HC email investigation.

Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate.

Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him

richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.)

Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that report? I can't. Literally everyone from the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD to know that report exists - and covered it up.

That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down.

And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration knew?

That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even more people are likely to end up in jail.

Pat Lang Mod -> richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

What is the link for Hersh saying that?

richardstevenhack -> Pat Lang , 3 days ago

You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on discussing it. He's since obfuscated what he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot of Democrats and Trump-bashers claim he has.

Here's one source on Youtube:

Seymour Hersh discussing Wikileaks DNC leaks Seth Rich & FBI report

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FgYzB96_EK7s%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DgYzB96_EK7s&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FgYzB96_EK7s%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Pat Lang Mod -> richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape" was made without his permission or knowledge when he was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.

richardstevenhack -> Pat Lang , 3 days ago

I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was "aimless speculation." My apologies if I missed that response.

Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to what he said on the tape.

What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds like "aimless speculation".

When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it as far more likely that everything he said was true.

1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line of work.

2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts wary about talking to him in the future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his contacts.

3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form journalism" article published - a problem he already has had in the past.

4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years, which might well make him a target of retaliation in some way.

If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for his "long form journalism" report to explain it. So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he said on the tape, but merely waved his hands about it.

Pat Lang Mod -> richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that there was more than a possibility that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked him to do so for no good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an argumentative nuisance.

Aukuu Makule -> Pat Lang , 3 days ago

I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks.
But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is interesting speculation:
quote:
55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."

56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C. police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were unable to access it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to access the computer. At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed FBI report, the Washington D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early summer [2016], [Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money."
. . .
"I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
. . .
The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is heard telling Butowsky that he had a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to his death, which is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio recording and his statement to NPR cannot both be true.
endquote
https://medium.com/@caityjo...

blue peacock , 3 days ago

All

An interview of Rep. John Ratcliffe who will lead the questioning of Bruce Ohr.

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2Fqn23H0vMCsM%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dqn23H0vMCsM&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fqn23H0vMCsM%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Rob , 3 days ago

I suspect Buzzfeed were in the grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and perhaps you overestimate their professionalism.

David Habakkuk -> Rob , 3 days ago

Rob,

You may very well be right. There may be a large element of 'amateur night out' about this.

But then I come back to the question of who decided that the dossier be published, and who, if anyone, was consulted before the decision was made. For the reasons I gave, I am reasonably confident that those on this side who had been in one way or another complicit in its production and covert dissemination were taken aback by the publication.

It is not clear to me whether anything significant can be inferred from the publicly available evidence about whether those on your side who had been complicit were involved in the decision to publish without taking even elementary precautions, or whether the 'Buzzfeed' people just had a rush of blood to the head.

blue peacock -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

David

I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications.

This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames.

Cynthia Anne , 4 days ago

And now they are turning on one another. Hayden just slammed Clapper for making too much of losing the security clearance the he abuse for political reasons.

Pat Lang Mod -> Cynthia Anne , 4 days ago

Looks like both Clapper and Haydon made the same comment about Brennan. they said "his rhetoric was becoming a problem. Ah, the USAF intel rats are swimming for the shore. Lets see how many others (not all USAF) decide to try to save themselves.

blue peacock -> Pat Lang , 4 days ago

Col. Lang

I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS.

I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms.

IMO, everyone on the list that Sarah Sanders noted, should not just lose their clearance but should be testifying to a grand jury.

MP98 -> blue peacock , 3 days ago

Not really incredulous. Just expected behavior from swamp creatures whose self-assumed importance and "rights" (that the rest of us peasants don't have) are coming under threat.

David Habakkuk -> blue peacock , 3 days ago

blue peacock

It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central role in all this.

One question. It seems to me that if what seems likely to be true does prove true, a range of these people must have committed very serious offences indeed.

However, I am too ignorant to know what precisely those offences might be. If you, or anyone else, had a clear understanding, I would be interested.

English Outsider -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

"It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central role in all this."

That says it all. We got the more discreditable side of the affair outsourced to us. Ugh. Is that all we're fit for now in the UK? White helmets and Khan Sheikhoun and Steele, all the scrubby stuff? Is that what the famous "Special Relationship" now consists of? We get to do the scrubby stuff because it's what we're fit for and we can be relied upon to keep it quiet?

Because at least on the American side there are people concerned about the political/PR involvement of parts of their own Intelligence Community, and seeking to have it looked into. Here - am I right? - it's dead silence.

I've been permitted to say before on SST that I don't think the Americans are going to resolve this affair satisfactorily until more light is cast on the UK side. But I also think that, for our own sakes, we should be looking at what exactly our IC does, and in particular, how much UK political involvement there was in what is now clear was a direct PR attack on an American President.

Pat Lang Mod -> English Outsider , 3 days ago

I strongly suspect that Steele has a future as a novelist.

blue peacock -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

David

I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with the federal criminal statutes. Having said that I suspect that the following could be considered crimes:

  • intentionally misleading FISC
  • perjury
  • leaking classified information
  • launching investigations on the basis of known false information
  • surveillance of US citizens on the basis of false information
  • conspiracy to subvert the constitution
  • sedition/treason

There may also be certain professional agreements with the government that may have been violated. The only way any of these people will face a grand jury is if Donald Trump chooses to take action. Left to the natural devices of the law enforcement institutions nothing will happen and they will sweep everything under the rug. The intensity of Trump's tweets and the accusations therein are rising. If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury.

Considering what has been uncovered by Congressional investigators and the DOJ IG, I am truly surprised that Sessions has resisted the appointment of a special counsel. But of course that could go the way of the Owens inquiry in your country.

[Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
Aug 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming.

That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.

With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).

It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.

However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.

Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of the Russian state.

For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.

That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.

But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain in remission forever. The need for them was too great.

In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.

The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.

This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the story.

However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.

When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However, unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.

Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol – of this aspiration.

And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed over a quarter century ago.

***

As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections looming, they are at it again.

This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.

But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that all that luck will hold.

Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations.

Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.

How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!

Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016 election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself, is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their media flacks don't seem to mind that either.

They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.

Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.

Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege.

Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.

Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees fit.

When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is merciless towards nations that rebel.

With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky – especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of "democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan "socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted, homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.

This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could actually win.

Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.

Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east.

But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.

Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.

The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.

Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders of international law.

Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States. This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations shamelessly.

Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.

The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II.

However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world."

George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in Vietnam.

That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued.

The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."

However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.

Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.

It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.

However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done; and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.

From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.

However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for meddling, but for meddling stupidly.

No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That problem's name is Donald Trump.

Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe.

Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.

For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia.

It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.

If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too.

Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.

Andrew Levine is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin. ..."
"... The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views. ..."
Sep 16, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Thomas Beale 09.13.18 at 9:58 am ( 16 )

I'd suggest that the two strains of 'conservatism' that matter are:

a) maintaining oppression/rule over subordinate classes to prevent them up-ending the status quo (the Robin view) and

b) maintaining philosophical +/- cultural values fundamental to a civilised society, typically so-called enlightenment values, freedom of mind, body and property etc. These are understood in a wide spectrum of concrete interpretations, from free-market purists to social democrats, and don't therefore correspond to one kind of on-the-ground politics.

Progressives tend attack a) (a non-philosophical form of conservatism – it's just about preserving a power structure), and usually claim that b) (the one that matters) doesn't exist or isn't 'conservative', or else ignore it.

We have the basic problem of same term, variable referents

Lobsterman 09.13.18 at 10:27 pm ( 40 )

(b) doesn't exist. Conservatives are, as a group, in eager favor of concentration camps for toddlers, the drug war, unrestrained surveillance, American empire, civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, extrajudicial police execution, etc. etc. They have internal disagreements on how much to do those things, but the consensus is for all of them without meaningful constraint. And they are always justified in terms of (a).

ph 09.14.18 at 11:50 am ( 58 )

@40

Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin.

The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views.

Conservative as a political category post 1750 works and the basic argument of the OP holds. The comments not so much.

[Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

Highly recommended!
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was. ..."
"... And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims. ..."
"... But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts. ..."
"... It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger. ..."
"... It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM. ..."
"... My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides. ..."
"... There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win. ..."
"... The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. ..."
"... Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. ..."
"... You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. ..."
"... Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ. ..."
"... In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo ..."
"... There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. ..."
"... At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom. ..."
"... I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time. ..."
"... I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop? ..."
"... I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers. ..."
"... I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class. ..."
"... I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing. ..."
"... In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. ..."
"... It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse. ..."
"... 'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.' ..."
"... And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities. ..."
"... So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin. ..."
"... All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele. ..."
"... Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017. ..."
"... That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins. ..."
"... To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. ..."
"... I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue. ..."
"... The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice. ..."
"... No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes. ..."
"... In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.' ..."
"... Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .) ..."
"... Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' ..."
"... I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global. ..."
"... I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that. ..."
"... Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket? ..."
"... It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate? ..."
"... Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents. ..."
"... The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6. ..."
"... An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core. ..."
"... It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.' ..."
"... That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries. ..."
"... In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read. ..."
"... Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it. ..."
"... At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public. ..."
"... Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins. ..."
"... My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it. ..."
"... So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him. ..."
"... 'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.' ..."
"... This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.' ..."
"... In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia. ..."
"... Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified. ..."
"... Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption. ..."
"... The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.' ..."
"... One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy. ..."
"... I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined. ..."
"... Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election ..."
"... Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate. ..."
"... Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him ..."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications. ..."
"... This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames. ..."
"... I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS. ..."
"... I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms. ..."
"... If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury. ..."
Aug 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

My strong impression is that nobody on the British side vetted the dossier for publication. A striking feature of the early news coverage is that there appeared to be total confusion, with some of the reporting suggesting that the sources quoted wanted to hang him out to dry, others that they wanted to defend him.

An interesting aspect is that not only were anonymous sources linked to MI6 quoted on both sides of the argument -- which could have been explained by disagreements within the organisation: in different stories, not however far apart in date, its head, Sir Alex Younger, was portrayed as holding radically different views.

When CNN publicised the existence of the dossier on 10 January 2017, the same day that it was published by 'BuzzFeed', it suggested that the author was British. The following day, the WSJ named Steele.

On 13 January, Martin Robinson, UK Chief Reporter for 'Mail Online', published a report whose headlines seem worth quoting in full:

'I introduced him to my wife as James Bond': Former spy Chris Steele's friends describe a "show-off" 007 figure but MI6 bosses brand him "an idiot" for an "appalling lack of judgement" over the Trump "dirty dossier": Intelligence expert Nigel West says friend is like Ian Fleming's famous character; He said: "He's James Bond. I actually introduced him to my wife as James Bond'; Mr West says Steele dislikes Putin and Kremlin for ignoring rules of espionage; Angry spy source calls him 'idiot' and blasts decision to take on the Trump work; Current MI6 boss Sir Alex Younger is said to be livid about reputation damage.'

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/... . )

On 15 January, however, Kim Sengupta, Defence Editor of the 'Independent', produced a report headlined: 'Head of MI6 used information from Trump dossier in first public speech; Warnings on cyberattacks show ex-spy's work is respected.'

(See https://www.independent.co.... .)

A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was.

This leads me on to another puzzle about the dossier to which I have been having a difficulty finding a solution. Long years ago I was reasonably familiar with libel law in relation to journalism. Anyone who 'served indentures', as very many of us did in those days, had to study it. Later, I got involved in a protracted libel suit -- successfully, I hasten to add -- in relation to a programme I made, and had the sobering experience of having a top-class libel barrister requiring me to justify every assertion I had made.

In the jargon then, a crucial question when an article, or programme, was being 'vetted' before publication was whether it represented a 'fair business risk.' This involved both the technical legal issues, and also judgements as to whether people were likely to sue, and how if they did the case would be likely to pan out.

On the face of things, one would not have expected that people at 'BuzzFeed' would have gone ahead and make the dossier public, without having it 'vetted' by competent lawyers. And I have difficulty seeing how, if they did, the advice could have been to publish what they published.

I have some difficulty seeing how the advice could have been to include the memorandum with the claims about the Alfa Group oligarchs, unless either these could be seriously defended or it was assumed that contesting them effectively would involve revealing more 'dirty linen' than these wanted to see aired in public.

And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims.

Trying to make sense of why such an obvious precaution was not taken, I find myself wondering whether, in fact, the reason may have been that the people responsible for the dossier may have actually believed this part of it at least.

If that is so, however, the most plausible explanation I can see is that while other claims in the dossier may well be total fabrication, either by the people at Fusion and Steele or by some of their questionable contacts, this information at least did come from what Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr et al thought were reliable Russian government sources.

But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts.

I think that the cases involving Karim Baratov and Dmitri Dokuchaev and his colleagues may be much more complex than is apparent from what looks to me like patent disinformation put out both on the Western and Russian sides.

It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger.

It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM.

If you want to get a clear picture of quite how low-grade the latter figure is, incidentally, it is worth looking at the speech to which Kim Sengupta refers.

(See https://www.sis.gov.uk/medi... .)

A favourite line of mine comes in Younger's discussion of the -- actually largely mythical -- notion of 'hybrid warfare': 'In this arena, our opponents are often states whose very survival owes to the strength of their security capabilities; the work is complex and risky, often with the full weight of the State seeking to root us out.'

Leaving aside the fact that this is borderline illiterate, what it amazing is Younger's apparent blindness to clearly unintended implications of what he writes. If indeed, the 'very survival' of the Russian state 'owes to the strength of [its] security capabilities', the conclusions, seen from a Russian point of view, would seem rather obvious: vote Putin, and give medals to Patrushev and Bortnikov.

My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides.

Posted at 01:19 PM in Habakkuk , Intelligence | Permalink

Jack , 4 days ago

David

There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win.

The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ.

Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. They even have discussions about Deripaska and about his visa application to visit the US. Bruce is a conduit to Strzok at FBI. Glenn Simpson also is part of these discussions with Steele and the Ohrs.

Simpson also arranges for Steele to brief "reporters" like David Corn and others at the NY Times, WaPo, WSJ, Politico and others. Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. They are communicating with Carter Page and Papadopolous, who in turn is drinking and yapping with Aussie ambassador Downer.

You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. There's Sen. Harry Reid passing on the Steele "dossier" to Comey.

Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ.

Oh, there is also Nellie Ohr setting up ham radio to avoid detection in her communications with Steele. Then we have everyone leaking and spinning to their "cohorts" in the premier media like the NY Times, CNN and WaPo.

Comey even has his buddy a professor and ostensibly his legal counsel on the payroll of the FBI as a contractor with access to all the sensitive databases leaking to the media.

Andy McCabe has his legal counsel Lisa Page spin stories around his wife's huge campaign contributions from Clinton consigliere McAuliffe.

In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo.

As if all this was not enough there's AG Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac ostensibly to discuss their grandkids. Not to forget there were these "unmaskings" of surveillance information by Susan Rice, Samantha Power.

There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. Then there are the FISC judges who never believed their mandate required them to verify the evidence before issuing sweeping surveillance warrants. Now all this is what I as an old farmer and winemaker have read. Those more in tune would easily add to these convoluted machinations.

I don't know how to make sense of all this. All I see is the extent of effort to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and after he won from governing. The most obvious observation is that the leadership in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are so busy politicking spinning and leaking they have neither the time or the inclination let alone competence to do their real job for which they get paid a handsome wage and sterling benefits.

At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom.

If you have any speculative theories that connects some of the dots it would be my great pleasure to read.

Patrick Armstrong -> Jack , 3 days ago

I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time.

Confident that their horse is going to win the race and that the media will cover it all up and nobody will ever hear anything about anything. Now that the unexpected happened, they're just spinning and denying faster hoping the Dems win in Nov and stop all the investigations. And, they're getting nervous wondering who's going to sell out whom next. Up and down, around and around. Gerbils -- there really isn't anything very consistent, planned or thought-out.

In this respect, this piece attempts to make sense (on a very large scale) of their panic. https://www.strategic-cultu...

English Outsider -> Patrick Armstrong , a day ago

"I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time."

I believe your summary of what's happening is more accurate than Alastair Crooke's as set out in the article linked to.

But bright or not, what are these people in the IC doing being "highly politicised"? Does that not render them considerably less efficient?

I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop?

Patrick Armstrong -> English Outsider , 5 hours ago

I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers.

https://russia-insider.com/...

Jack -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Patrick

Usually the incumbent party loses the mid-term election. The Democrats lost big in Obama's first mid-term. The Republicans won the House and gained six senators. While the punditry claims a Blue Wave and Nate Silver is giving the Dems the odds. I'm not so sure. I think the GOP will increase their majority in the Senate putting any conviction of Trump out of question.

I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class.

Patrick Armstrong -> Jack , 2 days ago

Yeah. My bet is that the Repubs hold onto both. 1) the economy is getting better 2) what do the Dems have to offer other than this crazy Trump/Russia thing?

Rob -> Patrick Armstrong , a day ago

Economy will slow down sharply in 2019 but there should be enough momentum to help with the mid-terms. Trump needs to stop with the endless sanction stuff. The House does look like a close one.

Pat Lang Mod -> Rob , a day ago

what is the evidence for a slowdown in 2019?

Rob -> Pat Lang , a day ago

With all the caveats that apply to financial forecasting copper, monetary indicators and equity markets are all flagging a slowdown is upon us.

David Habakkuk -> Jack , 3 days ago

Jack,

At a very general level, a 'speculative theory' which I have been mulling over for some time was rather well set out in a commentary in 'The Hill' on 9 August by Sharyl Attkisson, which opens:

'Let's begin in the realm of the fanciful.

'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.

'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'

And Attkisson goes on to outline precisely the developments that appear to have happened.

(See http://thehill.com/opinion/... .)

I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing.

In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. And in turn, according to a familiar skeptical view, antinomianism can easily end up in in straightforward rascality.

On the rascality – to which Attkisson is pointing – I am working on how parts of the picture can be fleshed out. A few preliminary points raised by your remarks.

As you note, 'There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele.' So, we know that Ohr and Steele were conspiring together to ensure that the latter could continue to be intimately involved in the Mueller investigation, despite the FBI termination,

It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse.

If, as seems to me likely, although not certain, the second possibility is closer to the truth than the former, then before Ohr testifies on 28 August before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he will have to consider whether he is prepared to 'take the rap' for his superiors, or 'sing sweetly.'

The fact that in a report in 'The Hill', I think on the same day as the Attkisson piece, John Solomon was quoting from Ohr's handwritten notes of a meeting with Glenn Simpson in December 2016 makes me wonder whether he may not already have made a decision. A key paragraph from the report:

'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.'

(See http://thehill.com/hilltv/r... .)

There is I think a need for caution here. There is no guarantee that Simpson was telling the literal truth to Ohr, or indeed the latter reproducing with absolute accuracy with he was told (handwritten notes can be disposed of easily, but they can also be rewritten.)

One is I think on firmer ground in relation to what it suggests was not the case – that there is any substance whatsoever in the ludicrous story of someone running a private security company in London sending out hired employees who then gain access to top Kremlin insiders, with these, of course, telling them precisely what they actually think.

And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities.

So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin.

All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko.

That said, I continue to think it possible that both the second and final memoranda may incorporate some 'glitter', as well as 'chickenfeed' fed from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts, to hark back to George Smiley says to the Minister, quite possibly included in the hope that the BS involved would be reproduced in contexts where it could provoke legal action.

All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.

It could then be that Steele has been, in effect, hoist with his own petard, in that he is having to sustain the fiction that he had some kind of grounds for making the claims about Aleksej Gubarev and XBT. How far this matters, at least in relation to the action bought against 'BuzzFeed' in Florida, remains moot at the moment.

Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017.

That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins.

fanto -> David Habakkuk , 2 days ago

Mr Habakkuk, you mention "ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin" - I am not sure if you meant Akhmetov.

I am surprised and curious about you mentioning him - if you meant Akhmetov - because that is one name among all the oligarchs which has so far not been prominent. Thank you for your posts, these posts and the SST comments could and should serve as help to the congressional investigations and hearings.

blue peacock -> Jack , 4 days ago

Jack

To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.

I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue.

The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice.

No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes.

Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Younger isn't the brightest bulb in the box, is he?

"If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Assad's discredited regime, will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy is heart-breaking"

David Habakkuk -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Patrick,

Those were indeed some of the most inane comments in an inane piece.

But then, if you read an interview given to Jay Elwes of 'Prospect' magazine in May last year by Younger's predecessor Sir Richard Dearlove, who looks to have been a significant background presence in what has been going on, you will find that, although he is much more coherent than than his successor, it is almost as inane.

(See https://www.prospectmagazin... . )

As it happens, Dearlove was one of the signatories of the 'Statement of Principles' of something called the 'Henry Jackson Society.'

This was founded in 2005, in Cambridge, by a group in whom acolytes of an historian called Maurice Cowling were prominent – Dearlove is himself a graduate in history from that university.

In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.'

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... .)

Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .)

Among other things, he harked back to the way that, in 1648, a century and a half of bloody ideological strife in Europe had been ended with a recognition that the legitimacy of different state forms had to be accepted, if a kind of 'war of all against all' was to be avoided.

And Lieven went on to reflect on the way that, at what was then widely seen as the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of universalisitic pretensions by Russia and China was interpreted as justifying an embrace of these by the the West.

This, he went on to argue, had actually had the paradoxical effect of relegitimising 'régimes' which do not conform to Western 'democratic' models, concluding by noting what appears to our new, quasi-Soviet, preference for not letting experience interfere with ideological dogma:

'Finally – even after the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya – there is almost no awareness among US policymakers of the fact that US attempts to change the regimes of other countries are likely to be seen not only by the elites of those countries but also by their populations as leading to – and intended to lead to – the destruction of the state itself, leading to disaster for its society and population. When the Communist regime in the USSR collapsed (though only in part under Western pressure), it took the Soviet state with it. The Russian state came close to following suit in the years that followed, Russia was reduced to impotence on the world stage, and large parts of the Russian and other populations suffered economic and social disaster. Remembering their own past experiences with state collapse, warlordism, famine and foreign invasion, Chinese people looked at this awful spectacle and huddled closer to the Chinese state – one that they may dislike in many ways, but which they certainly trust more than anything America has to offer – especially given the apparent decay of democracy throughout the West.'

( https://nationalinterest.or... .)

I read with interest your piece back in June entitled 'Putin Once Dreamed the American Dream', reprinting Charles Heberle's account of the 'Transforming Subjects Into Citizens' project, and the attitude of some people close to Putin to it.

(See https://patrickarmstrong.ca... .)

One of the things which struck me was that the question why the American Revolution succeeded, and so many others failed, which was concerning the intellectuals to whom Heberle talked, is one of the central questions of modern political thought, from Tocqueville on.

(Indeed, the question of the preconditions for what might be called 'constitutional' government, has been central to 'republican' thought, ever since it was revived by Italian thinkers, including prominently Machiavelli, when the 'Renaissance' made them reactivate and rework debates from ancient Rome and Greece.)

However, to hark back to the anxieties expressed by Lieven, nothing in the analysis of the great French thinker necessary guarantees that the success of 'Democracy in America' is stable and permanent, or indeed that the relatively civilised order of the post-war 'Pax Americana' is necessarily durable in Western Europe.

Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' A paragraph that struck me:

'Russian society should by no means abdicate from its mostly European culture. But it should certainly stop being afraid, let alone feel ashamed, of its Asianism. It should be remembered that from the standpoint of prevailing social mentality and society's attitude to the authorities Russia, just as China and many other Asian states, are offspring of Chengiss Khan's Empire. This is no reason for throwing up hands in despair or for beginning to despise one's own people, contrary to what many members of intelligencia sometimes do. It should be accepted as a fact of life and used as a strength. The more so, since amid the harsh competitive environment of the modern world the authoritarian type of government – in the context of a market economy and equitable military potentials – is certainly far more effective than modern democracy. This is what our Western partners find so worrisome. Of course, we should bear in mind that authoritarianism – just like democracy – may lead to stagnation and degradation. Russia is certainly confronted with such a risk.'

Unlike you, I cannot claim serious expertise on Russia. But, as a reasonably alert generalist television current affairs producer, I took note of the indications which were emerging in the course of 1987 that the Gorbachev 'new thinking' was underpinned by a realisation that Soviet institutions and ideas had become fundamentally dysfunctional, to which you have referred repeatedly over the years.

And, after long tedious months trying interest the powers that were in British broadcasting in what was happening, I ended up producing a couple of programmes for BBC Radio in February/March 1989 in which we interviewed some of the leading 'new thinkers', among them Karaganov's then immediate superior at the Institute of Europe, Vitaly Zhurkin.

At the Institute for the USA and Canada, by contrast, we did not interview its head, Georgiy Arbatov, but his deputy, Andrei Kokoshin, and one of the latter's mentors on military matters and collaborators General-Mayor Valentin Larionov, who I later realised had earlier been one of the foremost Soviet nuclear strategists. (At the Institute for World Economy and International Relations, we interviewed Arbatov's son, Alexei.)

Talking to these people we got a sense, although it had to be fleshed out later, of the scale of the disillusion with Soviet models, and indeed – which began to frighten me not long after – of the way many of them were romanticising the West.

What Karaganov now writes is I think a hardly very surprising reaction to the way that the Western powers responded to the 'new thinking.' Moreover, it seems to me that the disillusionment involved is in no sense particular Russian, but rather global.

If one regards 'democracy' as though it were quoted on the stock exchange, before 1914 there were very many buyers, including among the Russian élite. By 1931, in very many places, including large sections of the 'intelligentsia' in Western countries, it was a sellers' market, to put it mildly.

After 1945, a kind of long 'bull market' in 'democracy' started: for very good reasons.

The – largely but very far from entirely – peaceful retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to a very significant extent the product of this. The subsequent behaviour of Western élites has generated a vicious 'bear market', a fact they appear unable to understand.

I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global.

Patrick Armstrong -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that.

PS, in light of the Henry Jackson society and all Younger's references to "values" this one rather stands out "A vital lesson I take from the Chilcot Report is the danger of group think."

Yeah. Group think, the very opposite of what I mean by pluralism.

Jack -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

David,

Sharyl Atkinson describes well the conspiracy. When one steps back and look at all the machinations we know now, it seems incredible.

Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket?

It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate?

There's no doubt a political thriller movie could be made.

FB -> Patrick Armstrong , 3 days ago

Thanks for the quote...LOL

I guess the comedy part is that there actually exist people with medically functioning brains, who are somehow able to contort such a worldview...Aleppo as peaceful 'desert' indeed...who knew that having bearded fanatics in charge is somehow 'better'...[and not 'heart-breaking']...

Michael Regan , 2 days ago

Some here may find blogpost from March of this year interesting as it speaks to the production of the Steele dossier. I have not seen it mentioned here before and a site search produced no results. https://apelbaum.wordpress.... Some sections seem to have gotten David Cay Johnston's hackles up.

David Habakkuk -> Michael Regan , a day ago

Michael Regan,

I had seen Yaacov Apelbaum's piece referred to by Clarice Feldman in a post on the 'American Thinker' site a few days back, but not looked at it properly.

It is indeed fascinating, and clearly repays a closer study than I have so far had time to give it. I was however relieved to find that what Apelbaum writes 'meshes' quite well with my own views of the likely authorship of the dossier.

A question I have is whether the monumental amount of labour involved in producing it can really be the work of a single IT person – however wide-ranging his abilities and interests. My suspicion is that there may be input from Russian intelligence.

This is not said in order to discredit Apelbaum's work. In matters where I have had occasion critically to examine claims from official Russian sources, I have found several unsurprising, but recurring, patterns. Sometimes, the information provided can be shown to be essentially accurate, and it is reasonably clear how it has been obtained.

At other times, claims are made which information from other sources suggests either are, or may well be, true, but the 'sources and methods' involved are deliberately obscured, making evaluation more difficult.

And then, there are many occasions when what one gets is quite patently a mixture of accurate information and disinformation. Analysing these can be very productive, if one can both sift out the accurate information, and attempt to see what the disinformation is designed to obscure.

One thing of which I am absolutely certain is that the networks which are outlined by Apelbaum are precisely those which Russian intelligence will have spent a great deal of time and ingenuity penetrating.

This will have been attempted by 'SIGINT' and surveillance methods, and also through infiltrating agents and turning people. (There are often grounds to suspect that some of those most vociferously denouncing Putin are colluding with Russian intelligence.)

Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents.

Some of these were used back in April 2016 in a 'Vesti Nedeli' edition presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, who manages Russia's informational programming resources, and an accompanying documentary on the 'Pervyi Kanal' station.

The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6.

There is a good discussion of this, which highlights some of the problems with the documents, by Gilbert Doctorow, and Sokolov appears to have been involved in some murky activities since.

(See https://russia-insider.com/... ; https://en.crimerussia.com/... .)

But whatever the credibility or lack of it of the material, its appearance illustrates a general pattern, where the political disintegration of the London-based opposition to Putin has meant that more and more people involved in it have been supplying information to the Russians.

If, as I strongly suspect, there is fire beneath the smoke in those Russian television programmes, and if a great part of a series of projects of a related kind orchestrated in conjunction by elements in American and British intelligence were actually large run from this side, this will be creating headaches for people in Washington, as well as London.

An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core.

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... ; http://powerbase.info/index... .)

It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.'

That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries.

If this is the case, then questions are raised about how much of the apparently compelling forensic evidence is forged – and close examination suggests that key parts of it are.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.... .)

In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read.

Likewise, also in January 2016, I sent the key relevant evidence on this crucial matter to Harding and senior figures at the 'Guardian', and have reason to believe it was read.

Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it.

At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public.

Given the central role which Steele has now assumed in what looks like one of the biggest political scandals in American history, and the fact that in his book 'Collusion' Harding was again coming out in support of him, it would be of the greatest possible interest if indeed the latter had combined being a senior 'Guardian' correspondent with being paid by both Orbis and – even more important – Hakluyt.

And, particularly given the peculiar ambiguities of the role both of Fusion GPS and Baumgartner in the 'Trump Tower' meeting, it would be of great interest if the latter could be tied not only to Fusion, but to Orbis and – again even more important – Hakluyt.

This in turn might be relevant in trying to make sense of whether the fact that he and Simpson appear to have been working against Trump and Browder at the same time was or was not part of an elaborate ploy to give credibility to 'information operations' against the former.

There are accordingly two possibilities. It may be that, while much else in the Apelbaum material can be shown to be accurate, such accurate information is being used to give credibility to disinformation.

Alternatively, he is being used as a conduit for accurate and really explosive information about the British end of 'Russiagate', which he is unlikely to have unearthed all by himself, and the actual sources of which are – for very understandable reasons – being obscured.

Michael Regan -> David Habakkuk , a day ago

Mr Habakkuk-

Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond in such a comprehensive manner, and that you have provided me and others here with some really compelling information and notions.

In particular, the issue of sources and methods you note seems spot on. The author(s)'s information gathering methodologies and expertise are certainly not those of the laiety. In fact in the comments below his post YA mentions intelligence work.

Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins.

One thing that did catch my eye was a response he made to David Cay Johnston's pissy request for a retraction about Jacoby involvement. YA included a quote in Latin from Cicero's accusations against Cataline. Here is the English: What is there that you did last night, what the night before -- where is it that you were -- who was there that you summoned to meet you -- what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?

While this sort of riposte isn't exactly hyper-erudite, it ain't chopped liver either. What I mean to say is that exceptional cyber skills, algorithm coding (I'm guessing crawlers) are not commonly coupled with that sort of classical formation. His recourse to various biblical quotes suggests an unusual level of education as well. And no way is he younger than 38 or so.

At any rate, thank you for the article and your kind and informative reply.

David Habakkuk -> Michael Regan , a day ago

Michael Regan,

Thanks. I have now read both a good few of Apelbaum's earlier posts, and also the comments on his discussion of the dossier. Given the importance of his analysis of that document closer study is clearly needed of all this material, but I have some preliminary reactions.

My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it.

In a July 2010 post, he explained that: 'In my previous life, I was a civil engineer. I worked for a large power marine construction company doing structural design and field engineering.' According to the account he gave then, he subsequently shifted to software development.

(See https://apelbaum.wordpress.... .)

What he now tells us is that: 'As far as how I first started, I do have an intelligence background and have been developing OSINT/cyber/intelligence platforms for many years.'

That makes sense in terms of the analysis, which – whatever other inputs there may or may not have been – looks to me like the work of someone who has a serious background in these kinds of methodology, and moreover, is clearly not any kind of 'Fachidiot.'

So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him.

Even if he is not, questions would obviously rise about present connections arising from past work. This is in addition to the possibility that the logic of events may have provoked him to collaborate with those who might earlier have been his adversaries.

Reading Apelbaum's work, I am reminded of another interesting intervention in an embittered argument relating to the Middle East and the post-Soviet space, from what turned out to be an unexpected source.

In the period following the 'false flag' sarin attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 an incisive demolition of the conventional wisdom was provided in the 'crowdsourced' investigation masterminded by one 'sasa wawa' on a site entitled 'Who Attacked Ghouta?'

(See http://whoghouta.blogspot.com .)

And then, in December 2016, an Israeli high technology entrepreneur called Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200, that country's equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, who had subsequently made a great deal of money when he and his partner sold their company to Paypal, co-founded a site called 'Rootclaim.'

(See https://www.rootclaim.com .)

The site, it was explained, was dedicated to applying Bayesian statistics to 'current affairs' problems. This is a methodology, whose modern form owes much to work done at Bletchley Park in the war, which is invaluable in 'SIGINT' analysis and also combating online fraud.

At the outset, 'Rootclaim' posted a recycled version of some of the key material from the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' investigation. So, it seems likely, if not absolutely certain, that Saar Wilf and 'sasa wawa' are one and the same.

Following the Salisbury incident on 4 March, a blogger using the name 'sushi' produced a series of eleven posts under the title 'A Curious Incident' on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog.

(See https://thesaker.is/tag/sushi/ .)

Again, there are some very clear resemblances to 'sasa wawa' and Saar Wilf, which made me wonder whether the same person may be reappearing under yet another 'moniker.'

While the 'flavour' of Apelbaum seems to be different, the combination of what looks like serious technical expertise in IT techniques relating to intelligence with broad general intellectual interests looks to me similar.

I was amused by the combination of his quotation of the words from John 8:32 etched into the wall of the original CIA headquarters – 'And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free' – and the following remarks:

'The June 2016 start date of Steele's contract with Fusion GPS is the start of the "billable" activity, not the beginning of the research. Steele and Simpson/Jacoby have been collaborating on Trump/Russia going back to 2009.

'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.'

As it happens, I think that many of the collaborations involved may have started significantly earlier than this. In his response to David Cay Johnston, Apelbaum links to an April 2007' WSJ' article by Simpon and Jacoby which, among other things, deals with Semyon Mogilevich.

This is behind a paywall, but, fortunately, the fact that Ukrainian nationalists have had an obvious interest in treating it as a source of reliable information has meant that it is easily accessible.

(See www.madcowprod.com/wp-conte... )

It should I think be clear from my January 2016 post why I find this particularly interesting, in that it has to be interpreted in the context of a crucial 'key' to the mystery of the death of Alexander Litvinenko.

This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.'

So, I then come back to the question of whether this notion of a 'large Haluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US', playing the role of Sauron with Brennan, perhaps, as the 'Witch-king of Angmar', does or does not have substance.

If it does, there would be very good reasons for a variety of people, with a range of different attitudes to events in the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, to think that they had an interest in collaborating with Russian intelligence against a common enemy.

If it does not, then there is a real possibility that Apelbaum may be involved in using accurate intelligence to disseminate inaccurate. (It seems to me that he is much too intelligent to be a plausible candidate for the role of 'useful idiot.')

One further point that may, or may not, be relevant. Many of the most influential American and British Jews, for reasons which I find somewhat hard to understand, seem to have decided that the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom are nice and cuddly.

So, for example, Chrystia Freeland, the unrepentant granddaughter of the notorious Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak, has been able to end up as Canadian Foreign Minister because made a successful journalistic career on the London 'Financial Times', a paper with a strong Jewish presence.

That the editorial staff of such a paper thought it appropriate to have someone like Freeland as their Moscow correspondent gives you a good insight into how moronic British élites have become. This may well be relevant, in trying to evaluate claims about Hakluyt and other matters.

In relation to Apelbaum, it may be quite beside the point that other Jews from a Russian/East European background, both in Russia, Israel, and the United States, have very different views on Ukraine, Russia, and the dangers posed – not least to Israel – by jihadists. It is however a fact which needs to be born in mind, when one comes across people whose views cut across conventional dividing lines in the United States and Britain.

Beside the point in relation to Apelbaum, I am confident, but also needing to be kept in mind, is the possibility that elements in the United States 'intelligence community', seeing the 'writing on the wall', may think it appropriate to shift from trying to pass the buck by blaming the Russians to doing so by blaming the Brits.

Michael Regan -> David Habakkuk , a day ago

It seems apparent that Putin's reordering of the Russian economy after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Republic Bank's difficulites and the death of Edmund Safra left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped to exercise rentier rights over the Russian economy and resources. Why so much US resources and energy have been committed to recovering a contested deed is a real conundrum.

I was unaware of Freeland's grandfather and his lamentable CV. Thank you. It's funny that you mentioned both the Ghouta post and the Vineyard of the Saker. I recall reading those and thinking- this is not like common fare on the intertubes.

Your last points about failings in the quality of elite decision-making is extremely important. This dynamic of the dumb (US, UK, EU) at the wheel is, for me, the most frightening feature of the current state of play. In the worst moments I fear we are all on a bus driven by a drunk monkey, careening through the Andes. It's going to hurt all the way to the bottom.

Again, I am very grateful for your replies and all the great information and thought.

David Habakkuk -> Michael Regan , 2 hours ago

Michael Regan,

I think the question of why large elements in both American and British élites got so heavily invested, in essence, in supporting the oligarchs who refused Putin's terms in what turned into a kind of 'bare knuckles' struggle they were always likely to lose is a very interesting one.

It has long seemed to me that, even if one looked at matters from the most self-interested and cynical point of view, this represented a quite spectacular error of judgement. And, viewing the way in which 'international relations' are rearranging themselves, I am reasonably confident that this was one matter on which I got things right.

A central reason for this, I have come to think, is that Berezovsky and the 'information operations' people round him – Litvinenko is important, but the pivotal figure, the 'mastermind', if you will, was clearly Alex Goldfarb, and Yuri Shvets and Yuri Felshtinsky both played and still play important supporting roles – were telling people in the West what these wanted to hear.

It is a truth if not quite 'universally acknowledged', at least widely recognised by those who have acquired some 'worldly wisdom', that intellectually arrogant people, with limited experience of the world and a narrow education, can commonly be 'led by the nose' by figures who have more of the relevant kinds of intelligence and experience, and few scruples.

This rather basic fact is central to understanding the press conference on 31 May 2007 where the figure whom the Berezovsky group and Christopher Steele had framed in relation to the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, responded to the Crown Prosecution Service request for his extradition.

In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia.

(For the RT translation, see https://www.rt.com/news/and... .)

Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified.

What moreover became very evident, when Glenn Simpson testified to the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees, was that he was once again recycling the Berezovsky's group's version of Putin 'sistema' as the 'return of Karla.'

Given what has been emerging on the ways in which Fusion GPS and Steele were both integrated into networks involving top-level people in the FBI, DOJ, State Department and CIA, it seems clear that the 'retards'/'idiots' label is as applicable to people on your side as to people on ours.

Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky.

But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption.

As to what happened next, a recent item on 'Russian Insider', providing a link to and transcript of a more recent piece presented by Dmitry Kiselyov on 'Vesti Nedeli is a good illustration of where accurate information and disinformation can be mixed in material from Russian sources.

(See https://russia-insider.com/... .)

The piece, which appeared in July, discusses, and quotes from, an interview given the previous month to Dmitry Gordon, who runs a Ukrainian nationalist site, by Berezovsky's daughter Elizaveta. Among other things, this deals with Berezovsky's death.

(See https://gordonua.com/public... . A little manipulation will get you a reasonably serviceable English translation, although it becomes comic because Berezovsky is referred to as 'pope'.)

The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.'

As it happens, this is a patently tendentious reading of what she says. However, interesting features of the actual text of the interview are 1. that it does provide what to my mind is compelling evidence that her father was murdered, and 2. while she clearly suggests that this was covered up by the British, she is not suggesting that they were responsible – but also not making Putin 'prime suspect.'

Whether the suggestion by his daughter that her father might have been murdered by people who knew that by so doing they might get control of assets he might otherwise recoup has any merit I cannot say: I doubt it but cannot simply rule the possibility out.

What remains the case is that at that point there were very many people, including but in no way limited to elements in Western intelligence agencies, who had strong interests in avoiding a return by Berezovsky to Russia.

And the same people had the strongest possible interest in avoiding his being treated at the Inquest into Litvinenko's death by a competent barrister representing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the way he had been treated by Lord Sumption.

Ironically, it may have been partly because Lugovoi had made a dramatic announcement that he was withdrawing from the proceedings less than a fortnight before Berezovsky's death that before this happened a lot of people were staring at an absolutely worst-case scenario.

Time and again, in Owen's report, one finds matters where he recycles patent disinformation, which a well-briefed barrister acting for the ICRF could have easily ripped to shreds. At the same time, in this situation, the Russians could most probably have made a reasonable fist of coping with the multiple contradictions in claims made on their own side.

And, crucially, their patent weak suit – the need to obscure the actual role of Russian intelligence in the smuggling of the polonium into London, which had nothing to do with any murder plot – could have been reasonably well 'covered.'

Precisely because of these facts, the one scenario which can very easily be completely ruled out is that which is basic to the 'information operations' now coming out of London and Washington. In this, Berezovsky's death is portrayed as a key element in a systematic attempt by the Putin 'sistema' to eradicate the supposedly heroic opposition, much of it located in London.

That sustaining this fable is critical to defending the credibility of Steele, and therefore of the whole 'Russiagate' narrative, is quite evident from the 'From Russia With Blood' materials published by 'BuzzFeed' in July last year.

(See https://www.buzzfeed.com/he... .)

This, however, leads on to a paradox, which is highlighted by a piece posted by James George Jatras on the 'Strategic Culture Foundation' site on 18 August, entitled 'Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?'

(See https://www.strategic-cultu... .)

Among the points Jatras – who I think is an Orthodox Christian – makes is that the logic of contesting the 'Russiagate' narrative has had some strange consequences. Among these, there is one on which the actual history of the activities of Berezovsky and his 'information operations' people bears directly:

'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative: Among the President's defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors, Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) "interfered in our elections" in order to "undermine our democracy." Mitt Romney was right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that's the variable. The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher Steele dossier is full of "Russian dirt" – though there's literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing to Britain's MI6 and GCHQ.'

(See https://www.strategic-cultu... .)

For reasons I have already discussed, I think what while Jatras is substantially right, 'zero evidence' is only partially correct: It seems to me that disinformation supplied by elements in Russian intelligence could quite possibly have found its way into the second and final memoranda.

That said, Jatras has pointed to a fundamental feature of the current situation, which involves multiple ironies.

The total destruction of Steele's credibility could easily be achieved by anyone who was interested in looking at the evidence about the life and death of the late Alexander Litvinenko seriously. However, because a central tactic of most of those who are attacking the 'Russiagate' narrative has generally been 'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative', they are like people who ought to be able to see Steele's 'Achilles' heel', but in practice, often end up attacking him where his armour is, without being, not at its weakest.

Meanwhile, as I have already stressed, the ability of the Russian authorities to undermine the 'narrative' produced by the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky, of whom the most important are Alex Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets, is compromised by their fear of having to 'own up to' their actual role in the smuggling of the polonium into London in October-November 2007.

The person who had a strong interest in blowing this structure of illusion to pieces was actually Lugovoi. But it seems to me at least possible that there has been a kind of disguised covert conspiracy by elements in Western and Russian intelligence to ensure there was no risk of him doing so.

Steve Smith , 3 days ago

One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy.

I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined.

Paul M , 3 days ago

Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election

Saying he was reopening the HC email investigation.

Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate.

Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him

richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.)

Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that report? I can't. Literally everyone from the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD to know that report exists - and covered it up.

That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down.

And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration knew?

That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even more people are likely to end up in jail.

Pat Lang Mod -> richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

What is the link for Hersh saying that?

richardstevenhack -> Pat Lang , 3 days ago

You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on discussing it. He's since obfuscated what he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot of Democrats and Trump-bashers claim he has.

Here's one source on Youtube:

Seymour Hersh discussing Wikileaks DNC leaks Seth Rich & FBI report

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FgYzB96_EK7s%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DgYzB96_EK7s&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FgYzB96_EK7s%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Pat Lang Mod -> richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape" was made without his permission or knowledge when he was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.

richardstevenhack -> Pat Lang , 3 days ago

I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was "aimless speculation." My apologies if I missed that response.

Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to what he said on the tape.

What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds like "aimless speculation".

When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it as far more likely that everything he said was true.

1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line of work.

2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts wary about talking to him in the future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his contacts.

3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form journalism" article published - a problem he already has had in the past.

4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years, which might well make him a target of retaliation in some way.

If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for his "long form journalism" report to explain it. So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he said on the tape, but merely waved his hands about it.

Pat Lang Mod -> richardstevenhack , 3 days ago

Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that there was more than a possibility that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked him to do so for no good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an argumentative nuisance.

Aukuu Makule -> Pat Lang , 3 days ago

I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks.
But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is interesting speculation:
quote:
55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."

56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C. police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were unable to access it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to access the computer. At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed FBI report, the Washington D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early summer [2016], [Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money."
. . .
"I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
. . .
The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is heard telling Butowsky that he had a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to his death, which is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio recording and his statement to NPR cannot both be true.
endquote
https://medium.com/@caityjo...

blue peacock , 3 days ago

All

An interview of Rep. John Ratcliffe who will lead the questioning of Bruce Ohr.

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2Fqn23H0vMCsM%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dqn23H0vMCsM&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fqn23H0vMCsM%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Rob , 3 days ago

I suspect Buzzfeed were in the grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and perhaps you overestimate their professionalism.

David Habakkuk -> Rob , 3 days ago

Rob,

You may very well be right. There may be a large element of 'amateur night out' about this.

But then I come back to the question of who decided that the dossier be published, and who, if anyone, was consulted before the decision was made. For the reasons I gave, I am reasonably confident that those on this side who had been in one way or another complicit in its production and covert dissemination were taken aback by the publication.

It is not clear to me whether anything significant can be inferred from the publicly available evidence about whether those on your side who had been complicit were involved in the decision to publish without taking even elementary precautions, or whether the 'Buzzfeed' people just had a rush of blood to the head.

blue peacock -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

David

I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications.

This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames.

Cynthia Anne , 4 days ago

And now they are turning on one another. Hayden just slammed Clapper for making too much of losing the security clearance the he abuse for political reasons.

Pat Lang Mod -> Cynthia Anne , 4 days ago

Looks like both Clapper and Haydon made the same comment about Brennan. they said "his rhetoric was becoming a problem. Ah, the USAF intel rats are swimming for the shore. Lets see how many others (not all USAF) decide to try to save themselves.

blue peacock -> Pat Lang , 4 days ago

Col. Lang

I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS.

I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms.

IMO, everyone on the list that Sarah Sanders noted, should not just lose their clearance but should be testifying to a grand jury.

MP98 -> blue peacock , 3 days ago

Not really incredulous. Just expected behavior from swamp creatures whose self-assumed importance and "rights" (that the rest of us peasants don't have) are coming under threat.

David Habakkuk -> blue peacock , 3 days ago

blue peacock

It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central role in all this.

One question. It seems to me that if what seems likely to be true does prove true, a range of these people must have committed very serious offences indeed.

However, I am too ignorant to know what precisely those offences might be. If you, or anyone else, had a clear understanding, I would be interested.

English Outsider -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

"It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central role in all this."

That says it all. We got the more discreditable side of the affair outsourced to us. Ugh. Is that all we're fit for now in the UK? White helmets and Khan Sheikhoun and Steele, all the scrubby stuff? Is that what the famous "Special Relationship" now consists of? We get to do the scrubby stuff because it's what we're fit for and we can be relied upon to keep it quiet?

Because at least on the American side there are people concerned about the political/PR involvement of parts of their own Intelligence Community, and seeking to have it looked into. Here - am I right? - it's dead silence.

I've been permitted to say before on SST that I don't think the Americans are going to resolve this affair satisfactorily until more light is cast on the UK side. But I also think that, for our own sakes, we should be looking at what exactly our IC does, and in particular, how much UK political involvement there was in what is now clear was a direct PR attack on an American President.

Pat Lang Mod -> English Outsider , 3 days ago

I strongly suspect that Steele has a future as a novelist.

blue peacock -> David Habakkuk , 3 days ago

David

I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with the federal criminal statutes. Having said that I suspect that the following could be considered crimes:

  • intentionally misleading FISC
  • perjury
  • leaking classified information
  • launching investigations on the basis of known false information
  • surveillance of US citizens on the basis of false information
  • conspiracy to subvert the constitution
  • sedition/treason

There may also be certain professional agreements with the government that may have been violated. The only way any of these people will face a grand jury is if Donald Trump chooses to take action. Left to the natural devices of the law enforcement institutions nothing will happen and they will sweep everything under the rug. The intensity of Trump's tweets and the accusations therein are rising. If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury.

Considering what has been uncovered by Congressional investigators and the DOJ IG, I am truly surprised that Sessions has resisted the appointment of a special counsel. But of course that could go the way of the Owens inquiry in your country.

[Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
Aug 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming.

That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.

With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).

It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.

However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.

Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of the Russian state.

For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.

That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.

But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain in remission forever. The need for them was too great.

In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.

The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.

This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the story.

However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.

When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However, unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.

Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol – of this aspiration.

And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed over a quarter century ago.

***

As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections looming, they are at it again.

This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.

But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that all that luck will hold.

Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations.

Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.

How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!

Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016 election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself, is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their media flacks don't seem to mind that either.

They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.

Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.

Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege.

Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.

Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees fit.

When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is merciless towards nations that rebel.

With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky – especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of "democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan "socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted, homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.

This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could actually win.

Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.

Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east.

But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.

Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.

The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.

Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders of international law.

Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States. This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations shamelessly.

Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.

The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II.

However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world."

George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in Vietnam.

That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued.

The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."

However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.

Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.

It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.

However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done; and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.

From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.

However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for meddling, but for meddling stupidly.

No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That problem's name is Donald Trump.

Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe.

Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.

For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia.

It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.

If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too.

Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.

Andrew Levine is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin. ..."
"... The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views. ..."
Sep 16, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Thomas Beale 09.13.18 at 9:58 am ( 16 )

I'd suggest that the two strains of 'conservatism' that matter are:

a) maintaining oppression/rule over subordinate classes to prevent them up-ending the status quo (the Robin view) and

b) maintaining philosophical +/- cultural values fundamental to a civilised society, typically so-called enlightenment values, freedom of mind, body and property etc. These are understood in a wide spectrum of concrete interpretations, from free-market purists to social democrats, and don't therefore correspond to one kind of on-the-ground politics.

Progressives tend attack a) (a non-philosophical form of conservatism – it's just about preserving a power structure), and usually claim that b) (the one that matters) doesn't exist or isn't 'conservative', or else ignore it.

We have the basic problem of same term, variable referents

Lobsterman 09.13.18 at 10:27 pm ( 40 )

(b) doesn't exist. Conservatives are, as a group, in eager favor of concentration camps for toddlers, the drug war, unrestrained surveillance, American empire, civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, extrajudicial police execution, etc. etc. They have internal disagreements on how much to do those things, but the consensus is for all of them without meaningful constraint. And they are always justified in terms of (a).

ph 09.14.18 at 11:50 am ( 58 )

@40

Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin.

The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views.

Conservative as a political category post 1750 works and the basic argument of the OP holds. The comments not so much.

[Sep 16, 2018] How Israel Spies on US Citizens by Alain Gresh

Notable quotes:
"... He won their trust and they opened up to him, abandoning doublespeak and official lines. How, he asked, did they go about influencing the US Congress? "Congressmen don't do anything unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money." ..."
"... His qualifications were genuine, but he was of course an undercover reporter, sent by Al Jazeera to investigate the pro-Israel lobby. He filmed conversations using a hidden camera and later, as part of an Al Jazeera investigations team led by executive producer Phil Rees, put together a spectacular documentary. ..."
"... There was all the more excitement over its impending broadcast, because a 2017 Al Jazeera report on the pro-Israel lobby in the UK had revealed Israel's interference in Britain's internal affairs, and its attempts to bring down the deputy foreign secretary, Alan Duncan, whom it considered too pro-Palestinian. ..."
"... This had led to the Israeli ambassador in London making a public apology and a high-ranking diplomat being recalled to Tel Aviv. The documentary was expected to be a media sensation, bringing outraged denials and intense controversy. But then the broadcast was postponed, with no official explanation ..."
"... The Electronic Intifada ..."
Sep 16, 2018 | www.thenation.com

A never-shown Al Jazeera documentary on the pro-Israel lobby in the United States reveals possibly illegal Israeli spying on American citizens, and the lobby's fear of a changing political mood.

A n investigative documentary by Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera scheduled for broadcast earlier this year was expected to cause a sensation. Its four 50-minute episodes centered on the young and personable James Anthony Kleinfeld, British, Jewish, an Oxford graduate who speaks six languages, including Dutch and Yiddish, and is well-informed about Middle East conflicts -- seemingly a natural fit for a Western foreign ministry or a major think thank.

Translated by Charles Goulden. This essay continues our exclusive collaboration with Le Monde Diplomatique, monthly publishing jointly commissioned and shared articles, both in print and online. To subscribe to LMD, go to mondediplo.com/subscribe .

The documentary showed Kleinfeld being enthusiastically recruited for his skills by The Israel Project (TIP), which defends Israel's image in the media, and associating with senior members of organizations that support Israel unconditionally, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the powerful US lobbying group. For five months, he mixed with them at cocktail parties, congresses, and conventions, and on training courses.

He won their trust and they opened up to him, abandoning doublespeak and official lines. How, he asked, did they go about influencing the US Congress? "Congressmen don't do anything unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money." How did they counter Palestinian-rights activists on university campuses? "With the anti-Israel people, what's most effective, what we found at least in the last year, is you do the opposition research, put up some anonymous website, and then put up targeted Facebook ads."

Kleinfeld's contacts told him they were spying on US citizens with the help of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, founded in 2006, which reports directly to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One official said: "We are a different government working on foreign soil, [so] we have to be very, very cautious." And indeed some of the things they do could be subject to prosecution under US law. At the end of Kleinfeld's time at TIP, his boss there, Eric Gallagher, was so happy with his performance that he wanted to hire "Tony" on a permanent basis: "I would love it if you came to work for me. I need someone who's a team player, hardworking, excited, passionate, curious, well-rounded, well-spoken, well-read. You're all of those things." Kleinfeld turned down the job.

His qualifications were genuine, but he was of course an undercover reporter, sent by Al Jazeera to investigate the pro-Israel lobby. He filmed conversations using a hidden camera and later, as part of an Al Jazeera investigations team led by executive producer Phil Rees, put together a spectacular documentary.

There was all the more excitement over its impending broadcast, because a 2017 Al Jazeera report on the pro-Israel lobby in the UK had revealed Israel's interference in Britain's internal affairs, and its attempts to bring down the deputy foreign secretary, Alan Duncan, whom it considered too pro-Palestinian.

This had led to the Israeli ambassador in London making a public apology and a high-ranking diplomat being recalled to Tel Aviv. The documentary was expected to be a media sensation, bringing outraged denials and intense controversy. But then the broadcast was postponed, with no official explanation.

Eventually, articles in the US Jewish media revealed that it would never be shown. Clayton Swisher, Al Jazeera's director of investigative journalism, expressed regret at the decision in a published article, and announced he was taking sabbatical leave. The documentary had been sacrificed to the fierce battle between Qatar on one side and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the other for US support in the feud that began in June 2017. What better way to do this than by winning the favour of the pro-Israel lobby, known for its influence on US policy in the Middle East?

BURYING THE PROJECT

To tip the balance in its favor, Qatar "postponed" the broadcast, winning a halt to the campaign against Doha by a section of the right wing of an already right-wing lobby. Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and a close friend of Donald Trump's former adviser Steve Bannon, flew to Doha and said he was delighted to see the documentary buried. That groups such as the ZOA, which had not long ago been accusing Qatar of funding Hamas and terrorism, should change sides in return for the documentary's suppression says a lot about its explosive revelations.

But burying over a year's work caused turmoil at Al Jazeera. Some were keen for the revelations not to sink into the quicksand of geopolitical compromise, which is why, thanks to a friend in the Gulf, I was able to watch all four episodes in their near-final version.

What was striking to see was the feverish mood of the pro-Israel lobby over the last few years due to a blind fear of losing its influence. How can that be, when support for Israel is massive in the United States, and both Republicans and Democrats unfailingly back it, no matter what its ventures? And when, since Trump's election, Washington no longer wishes to act as "unfair" broker in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and has sided with Israel's most right-wing government ever? Despite this apparently favorable climate, a specter haunts the lobby: the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS).

BDS, launched in 2005, aims to use the nonviolent methods that proved effective in South Africa under apartheid. It is growing in popularity on US campuses, but David Brog, director of strategic affairs of Christians United for Israel and executive director of the Maccabee Task Force, a group fighting against BDS, questioned whether it is really a cause for alarm. He said: "Israel's booming. It's the start-up nation. More venture capital is going into Israel today than at any other time in history. So why don't we just calm down, realise that BDS is worthless, it's losing, and ignore it? I don't think BDS was ever supposed to be about getting colleges to take their money out of Israel. So if we focus on the dollars we can feel really good about ourselves. If we focus on the fact that an effort is being made to distance us, those who love Israel, from the rising generation, I think we need to worry. When you get to millennials and students, it's a bad situation. And it's getting to the point now where the majority is more favorable towards the Palestinians than the Israelis." Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, a group of organizations that fights BDS in universities, is also worried: "The one thing every member of Congress and president and ambassador and newspaper editors has in common is, by and large, they spent a little bit of time on campus and probably those were formative years."

There's another worry for the lobby: Support for Israel has traditionally transcended the Republican-Democrat divide, and a few months before the end of his presidency, Barack Obama unconditionally approved $38 billion of aid to Israel over 10 years, though his relations with Netanyahu were terrible. But the political landscape is changing, and the lobby's unconditional support for Trump is narrowing its base to the Republican Party and the evangelical right.

"THE BIGGER PROBLEM"

David Hazony, founding editor of The Tower magazine and an influential member of TIP, said in the documentary: "The specific potential of an immediate boycott, that's not a problem. What's a bigger problem is the Democratic Party, the Bernie Sanders people, bringing all the anti-Israel people into the Democratic Party. Then being pro-Israel becomes less a bipartisan issue, and then every time the White House changes, the policies towards Israel change. That becomes a dangerous thing for Israel. There is actually an important battle being fought on the campuses." John Mearsheimer, co-author of a well-known book on the lobby, confirmed this in his frequent comments in the documentary. He said that support for Israel is now growing among Republicans and falling among Democrats: "There is a substantial difference in support for Israel in the two parties."

"The lobby's research operation is very high-tech. When I got here a few years ago the budget was $3,000. Today it's like a million and a half, or more." -- Jacob Baime

How to halt this trend? It would be hard to do it through political debate. Since the failure of the 1993 Oslo accords, Israel has been led by far-right parties that reject any diplomatic solution. There is no question of any discussion of the fate of the Palestinians, the future of the settlements, or the tragedy in Gaza. And the lobby's support for Netanyahu and Trump is unlikely to generate much enthusiasm among US students. Journalist Max Blumenthal points out that the lobby took a similar approach to the documentary, refusing discussion and likening investigative journalism to espionage; discrediting Al Jazeera by dismissing it as a puppet of Qatar; and insisting that the documentary's subject was "the Jewish lobby" not support for Israel (Twitter, February 15, 2018). It could thus avoid any discussion of the details of the documentary's revelations.

Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, said to a gathering of pro-Israel students: "You discredit the messenger as a way of discrediting the message. When you talk about BDS, you talk about them as a hate group, as a movement that absolutely endorses violence against civilians aka terrorism" -- and of course as anti-Semitic. Pollak called Jewish Voice for Peace (a US left-wing organization focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) "Jewish Voice for Hamas." He told Kleinfeld: "The majority of Americans are pro-Israel. Whereas if you take a poll of Israel in the UK, it's just pure hatred of Israel. Your country basically let half of fucking Pakistan move in. So you have a different problem than we do here."

To discredit the messenger, as the documentary reveals, the pro-Israel lobby has built up a spy network over the last few years to gather information on opponents' private lives, careers, and political convictions. Baime said: "The research operation is very high-tech. When I got here a few years ago the budget was $3,000. Today it's like a million and a half, or more. Probably it's 2 million at this point. I don't even know, it's huge. It's a massive budget." He and his colleagues are keen to stay invisible: "We do it securely and anonymously. That's the key."

"IF YOU'RE A RACIST, THE WORLD SHOULD KNOW"

One of the groups most feared by Palestinian-rights activists is Canary Mission, whose funding, members, and methods are shrouded in secrecy. A journalist with close links to the lobby said: "People who hate it, the people who are being targeted by it, call it a blacklist. You have names here that show up on this database. Students and professors, faculty, speakers, organizations that have ties to terrorism, outright ties to terrorism, or terrorists who have called for the destruction of the Jewish state." Canary Mission's website describes its aim as being to "ensure that today's radicals are not tomorrow's employees." Above the biography of each victim is the slogan, "If you're a racist, the world should know."

Kleinfeld managed to talk to Canary Mission's founder and financial backer, Adam Milstein, chairman of the Israeli-American Council (IAC). Milstein was jailed briefly for tax fraud in 2009, but that didn't prevent him from carrying on his activities from prison. He explained his philosophy to Kleinfeld: "First of all, investigate who they [the pro-Palestine activists] are. What's their agenda? They're picking on the Jews because it's easy, because it's popular. We need to expose what they really are. And we need to expose the fact that they are anti everything we believe in. And we need to put them on the run. We're doing it by exposing who they are, what they are, the fact that they are racist, the fact that they are bigots, [that] they're anti-democracy."

Students recounted in the documentary exactly what they faced. Summer Awad, who took part in a campaign for Palestinian rights in Knoxville, Tennessee, was harassed on Twitter, and information about her, some of it dating back a decade, was posted online: "They are digging and digging. Somebody contacted my employer and asked for me to be fired. If they continue to employ me they will be denounced as anti-Semitic." Denunciation can end careers or make it hard for students to find a job after graduation. To get their names off the blacklist, some victims write messages of "repentance," which Canary Mission posts on its site. These anonymous confessions, whose writers explain that they were "deceived," are much like those of suspected communist sympathizers under McCarthyism in the United States in the 1950s, or victims of authoritarian regimes today. Baime said: "It's psychological warfare. It drives them crazy. They either shut down, or they spend time investigating [the accusations against them] instead of attacking Israel. It's extremely effective." Another person told Kleinfeld: "I think anti-Semitism as a smear is not what it used to be."

These campaigns, based on personal information gathered about US citizens, would not be possible without the resources of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Its director general, Sima Vaknin-Gil, said in a talk at the IAC annual conference shown in the documentary: "The fact that the Israeli government decided to be a key player means a lot because we can bring things that NGOs or civilian entities involved in this thing [don't have]. We've got the budget. We can bring things to the table that are quite different. Everybody out there who has anything to do with BDS should ask himself twice: Should I be on this side or do I want to be on the other side?"

"A DESTABILIZING FORCE"

Vaknin-Gil admitted that to gather information, "we have FDD. We have others working on this." The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is a conservative think tank that has played an important role in the recent rapprochement between the UAE and Israel. It took part in the 2017 campaign against Qatar and Al Jazeera, which was accused of being a destabilizing force in the region. Under US law, organizations and individuals working for foreign governments must register with the Department of Justice. Would the DOJ dare take the FDD to court for failing to register?

As Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the website The Electronic Intifada , says, "if you had on tape a statement of a senior Russian or Iranian or even Canadian official saying that they were running covert operations, to spy on Americans, and using an organization like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies as a front it would be a bombshell." This kind of cooperation is not limited to the FDD, and many of the people Kleinfeld talked to, including Baime, told him so in confidence, though they didn't want to elaborate on such as sensitive subject.

[Sep 16, 2018] US goal was to take Ukraine into the future that it deserves. Now with grivna devaluation of over 300% we see what they meant

Notable quotes
... "What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that."
... From article: He [Clegg] also argued that the country should lose the right to host the 2018 World Cup after Russian troops allegedly downed the civilian airliner Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine last July. Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned.
..."I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate media -- who seem to have a daily axe to grind against the Russian state, but who say nothing about the warmongering actions of the US. I imagine I would have the same opinion of you if I was to uncritically swallow such toxic rubbish."
..."The only way to effectively block people from other regions (blanket censor them, in other words) would be to positively identify the source. All that you would likely achieve is blocking actual individual commentators and letting through the government astroturfers.
Why you would want to resort to such tactics is worth asking. The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer. Repeated debunked claims in our media are also going to be far more damaging than anything similar in Russia. The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting.
Notable quotes:
"... But it's very suspect when you say things like "Putin's created a criminal war in East Ukraine" when it was Kiev which started the violence in reaction to the Russian Ukrainians voting for Federalization in response to the coup in Kiev. It means that everything else you write has to be treated as suspect. ..."
"... alpamysh ... you've merely regurgitated the standard NeoCon list of justifications for why a democratically-elected leader needed to be overthrown ..."
"... The article isn't worth the headline really. The new cold war is on and obviously they'll be barring each other. ..."
"... On the other hand the EU has also put an entry ban on leading Russian politicians, among which are the chairman of the Federation council, politicians from the state Duma and also close advisors to the Russian president Vladimir Putin. It is not anticipated that either side will lift the entry bans in the near future. (Excerpt and rough translation from German) ..."
"... "In December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant into the West's orbit and away from Russia's. ..."
"... But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine's economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych's decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country's western and more pro-European region. ..."
"... By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government. ..."
"... "Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister - and who was committed to harsh austerity. ..."
"... Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned. ..."
"... "Putin wants sanctions" ... what a bunch of silly conjecture. As for "Putin style rule" and "Tzar" .. you presumably know that Russia held democratic elections which Putin won. ..."
"... let me guess, The list probably contains politicians whose real loyalty maybe is with the US? Judge from the 2 names mentioned, Malcolm Riffkind is Co-Vice Chair of the Global Panel Foundation – America – with Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, the former U.S Under-Secretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Armed Forces. ..."
"... your constant anti-Russia/Putin comments mark you as a shill/troll ..."
"... What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that. ..."
"... I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate media - ..."
"... We're the global overlords, and so second-rate nations aren't allowed to reciprocate our petulant actions. When they do so it causes some people to question the assumed status of the 'Western' hegemony (and our claimed system of morally superior 'values'). We can't allow that sort of thing, Popeyes. ..."
"... The Guardian has a clear pro-EU/USA position on the new cold war against Russia. ..."
"... The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer. ..."
"... The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting. ..."
May 31, 2015 | The Guardian

JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 12:26

"Look at the Moscow apartment bombings"... look at any number of CIA false flag operations. As for "most of the national T.V is Putin press." ... Murdoch has a controlling interest in printed press and a large share of TV news in Australia and the UK. Maybe you are one of the CIA-employed agitators against Russia, or maybe you have a chip on your shoulder about a failed relationship with a Russia bride. I can't be sure from your comments.

But it's very suspect when you say things like "Putin's created a criminal war in East Ukraine" when it was Kiev which started the violence in reaction to the Russian Ukrainians voting for Federalization in response to the coup in Kiev. It means that everything else you write has to be treated as suspect.

Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 12:24

I don't see a big issue with that list. If some people from that list travel anywhere, it will be considered wasting tax payer money anyways. They aren't even embraced by a majority in their own countries, some of them belonging to totally irrelevant weird initiative, shouting and crying about this and that.

For others on that list, being linked to military organisations, the should be banned naturally. As for vacation, I don't think Russia was on those guys list either

JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 12:14

alpamysh ... you've merely regurgitated the standard NeoCon list of justifications for why a democratically-elected leader needed to be overthrown (e.g. Egypt's Morsi). If we take your "Hitler was elected" argument, we can apply that one to any election outcome. If you won your high school "class monitor" election ... we'll Hitler won an election too. It's nothing more than a lazy smear by association. If we take your "rigs the right of the opposition" argument, well there goes Israel's claims to democracy. They arrest/ban viable Arab opposition figures to prevent them standing in elections. Also, we have to eliminate Ukraine, who have assassinated about 12 of Yanukovich's inner circle since the coup.

uzzername 31 May 2015 12:09

The article isn't worth the headline really. The new cold war is on and obviously they'll be barring each other.

Russia, along with the rest of BRICS is an emerging economy. While in the developed economies big corporations scramble for every penny they rip off off the consumers, the BRICS are a goldmine for adventurous capitalists as you can score quite a bit of dope in one scoop if you invest enough in it.

That's why some of them suits on the list are pissed off. Obvs not because their summer holiday in Siberia has gone into smithereens.

umweltAT2100 31 May 2015 12:04

According to a report in ARD (German state media) the entry ban is a reaction / retaliation in response to the entry ban imposed on Russians in connection with the Crimea annexation. Approximately 200 people are on the Russian black list. The largest number are from the USA, with the Republican John McCain declared "persona non grata", followed by Canadian politicians.

On the other hand the EU has also put an entry ban on leading Russian politicians, among which are the chairman of the Federation council, politicians from the state Duma and also close advisors to the Russian president Vladimir Putin. It is not anticipated that either side will lift the entry bans in the near future. (Excerpt and rough translation from German)

Russian entry ban for dozens of politicians – Moscow's black list is out. (Hermann Krause, ARD Radio studio, Moscow, 30.05.2015)

Russische Einreiseverbote für Dutzende Politiker Moskaus "schwarze Liste" ist raus. Von Hermann Krause, ARD-Hörfunkstudio Moskau, 30.05.2015

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/russland-einreiseverbot-103.html

Danish5666 -> dralion 31 May 2015 12:03

Victoria Nuland and the neocons to be more precise,

"In December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant into the West's orbit and away from Russia's.

But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine's economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych's decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country's western and more pro-European region.

Nuland was soon at work planning for "regime change," encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn't seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev's Maidan square had hoisted a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.

By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government.

"Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister - and who was committed to harsh austerity.

As Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. McCain cheered the demonstrators on, the street protests turned violent. Police clashed with neo-Nazi bands, the ideological descendants of Bandera's anti-Russian Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazi SS during World War II.

With the crisis escalating and scores of people killed in the street fighting, Yanukovych agreed to a E.U.-brokered deal that called for moving up scheduled elections and having the police stand down. The neo-Nazi storm troopers then seized the opening to occupy government buildings and force Yanukovych and many of his aides to flee for their lives."
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/

JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 11:53

What proof do you have that the Russian elections were phony ? The results were in line with independent opinion polls. Which referendums was phony ? The first Iraqi election after Sadam was toppled was certainly phony. The US military whisked away the ballot boxes for a week after voting was completed before announcing that the Shia (60% of Iraqis) had failed to get a majority (despite the 20% Bathist Sunni boycotting the election so only the 20% Kurds voted against the 60% Shia).

geedeesee -> SnarkyGrumpkin 31 May 2015 11:50

From article: He [Clegg] also argued that the country should lose the right to host the 2018 World Cup after Russian troops allegedly downed the civilian airliner Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine last July.

Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned.

JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 11:45

"Putin wants sanctions" ... what a bunch of silly conjecture. As for "Putin style rule" and "Tzar" .. you presumably know that Russia held democratic elections which Putin won. That's more than many of the US/UK allies can say (take your pick of the Gulf state leaders). Don't buy into the mindless anti-Russian propaganda doing the rounds. I suspect that it's intended to soften public opnion for anti-Russian attrocities committed in our name to come.

Huo Fu Yan -> David Port 31 May 2015 11:36

It's true, 1/3 the list are politicians and military leader from Poland and baltics with no intend to enter Russia anyways. The rest are merely people engaged in military organisations (should be banned naturally) or weird political groups and initiatives.

Furthermore, there are a few irrelevant politicians on the list for whatever reason. To be frank, a few people from that list you wouldt want in your own country either.

meewaan 31 May 2015 11:07

let me guess, The list probably contains politicians whose real loyalty maybe is with the US? Judge from the 2 names mentioned, Malcolm Riffkind is Co-Vice Chair of the Global Panel Foundation – America – with Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, the former U.S Under-Secretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Armed Forces.

Not sure about banning Nick Clegg, - has his wife remunerated by her work for companies linked to the US? Take, for example, Mrs Clegg's firm's advertisement (again, on its website) of the fact it makes considerable sums from helping rich people avoid inheritance tax, saying that it offers 'personal estate planning advice and financial and tax-planning services to high net worth individuals'.

'We combine sophisticated estate planning skills with international resources . . . We help U.S. and non-U.S. trustees and beneficiaries transfer wealth efficiently through lifetime and testamentary trusts designed to minimise tax exposure.'

SuchindranathAiyer 31 May 2015 10:35

It required a "Tit for Tat" to establish that sanctions are working? Here is the geo-political back drop:

Reigan and Gorby arrived at certain agreements and understandings which Clinton (the husband) violated. He pulled Poland and others into NATO and bombed Russian ally Belgrade, violating international law, while a helpless Russia fumed, for 84 days to given Islam its first ethnically cleansed enclaves (Bosnia and Kosovo) after 1489.

Bush (the son), declared the "Star Wars" missile shield in direct violation of the Regan-Gorbachev agreements while Russia continued to fume, but began to re arm and prepare itself for war. Apart from, of course, violating International Law and invading Russian ally Iraq to distract anger over 9/11 from Saudi Arabia and its Nuclear-Terrorist sword arm Pakistan and threw thriving communities of Jews, Christians, Yazidis, discos and bars that the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis resented into the maws of Islam.

Russia fumed and continued to rearm and began to rally around Putin's nationalism. The US commenced "regime change" operations in Russian (and Iraqi) Secular ally Syria, throwing even more Jews, Christians, Yazidis and Kurds into the maws of Islam. US was to weakened by Iraq to wage war unilaterally in Syria. China and Russia blocked the US at the UN. Putin wrote an open letter to Obama on Syria in the NY Times which gained traction with the American Citizens, bending Obama's nose and driving the US regime change operation in Syria further under ground (covert). Prince Bandar (what an appropriate name!) head of Saudi intelligence went ot Moscow to bribe Putin to back the putsch in Syria. Putin refused and told Bandar that if Islam tried a Beslan at Sochi, he would bomb the Q'aba. This bent the Saudi nose. So the US commenced operation regime change in Ukraine. This sparked the secession of Crime to Russia. The US fumed and fretted because its more develoed and intelligent NATO allies (France and Germany) would not back the US backed fascist regime in Ukraine. The US shot down MH-17 in a false flag operation and started a canard against Russia to revive NATO. There is a NATO now imposing US-Saudi conceived sanctions on Russia. We are now in the Second Cold War so NATO won't go away. Russia and China will ally because, Clinton to Obama, the US has demonstrated the dangers of a unipolar world, particularly as Islamic Petro Dollars own the decision and opinion makers of the West and have used the US military to further the Islamic agenda as much as carry on with the old anti-Communist prejudices. (While Russia is not Totalitarian, China is. India is really the last Soviet franchise in the World with its "Animal Farm" totalitarian Constitution and thinking which is why the US is an ally of Pakistan and as hostile to India as to Russia. Consider that as recently as 2012, the man who lolls in Lutyen's drawing room today moved "retrospective" legislation in the same Parliament that nationalized 20% of private (non minority) education and removed the truth from Govt approved History text books, in the highest traditions of Nehru, Ambedkar and Indira Gandhi.)

wilpost37 -> AbsolutelyFapulous 31 May 2015 10:33

Absolutely/Goman

Almost all the tourists of Crimea were Ukrainians before 2014. They stopped coming, and likely are spending their vacation elsewhere.

Crimea is rebuilding its infrastructures (Kiev had neglected them for 22 years), and its tourist base.

It expects to have over 4 million visitors in 2015 and 5 million in 2016, because many Russians are no longer going to EU countries, and are going to Crimea, Sochi, etc., instead. It will take time, but Crimea is a beautiful area.

Crimea became part of the Russian Empire by conquest over the Tartars in 1793.

The Tartars had been kidnapping nearby people (several million over many decades) and selling them to the Turks. Catherine the Great put an end to that.

Khrushev was stupid to give it to Ukraine in 1954.

After the CIA/FBI-assisted coup of Kiev, the Crimean people, 67% Russian, feared for their future, as did the Donbas people.

SHappens 31 May 2015 10:24

"Just one thing remains unclear: did our European co-workers want these lists to minimise inconveniences for potential 'denied persons' or to stage a political show?"

It is pretty clear that it turned out to be another media circus.

Socraticus -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 10:12

Lesson 1 - everyone on this site is a guest, you included
Lesson 2 - the majority of posters herein are actually westerners, not 'Russian trolls'
Lesson 3 - all politicians lie to advance their own social/economic/political agendas
Lesson 4 - all MSM distort/suppress the truth to support governmental narratives
Lesson 5 - many of us westerners actually bother to investigate the true facts
Lesson 6 - if a leader's being demonized its because they won't capitulate to the US
Lesson 7 - every illicit invasion is preceded by demonization of a leader/country
Lesson 8 - your constant anti-Russia/Putin comments mark you as a shill/troll
Lesson 9 - you can educate yourself or remain blind to facts - your choice
Lesson 10 - you will learn the consequences of your choices

UnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 10:12

You realise that Russia is one the most important members of the BRICS and that they group has recently established a development bank? That's hardly the sign that the other BRICS nations are not reading from the same hymn sheet as Russia...

http://www.scmp.com/comment/article/1580523/brics-development-bank-should-challenge-washington-consensus

Russia has also joined China's Asian Infrastructure Bank. Another clear sign that it is strengthening its relations with other BRICS members.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/29/russia-joins-chinas-asian-infrastructure-bank-but-doubts-its-power-against-imf/

44theorderofknights 31 May 2015 09:57

What did anyone expect flowers from russia from the unfair treatment it's getting. The west paying for Ukraine part nazi government and creating a coup in a democratically ekected president last february. Then sanctioning the Russian people expecting them to turn in yheir president. The west should be ashamed of what they accomplished that being fronting a proxy war against Russia.

Vijay Raghavan -> Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 09:54

Developing all-round military-to-military relations. China's armed forces will further their exchanges and cooperation with the Russian military within the framework of the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between China and Russia, and foster a comprehensive, diverse and sustainable framework to promote military relations in more fields and at more levels

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Database/WhitePapers/2015-05/26/content_4586715.htm

They made that statement in their white paper issued last week.Offcourse Guardian or BBC will not keep up with such "Breaking News".

UnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 09:49

1) Yes, the BRICS countries are very much behind Russia.

2) Russia, unlike the US, has tabled a resolution to condemn Nazism and Nazi movements in the highest forum possible (the UN). The US, along with Canada, and its puppet government in Ukraine, voted against it (in defiance of most of the world's nations).

[1] http://russia-insider.com/en/de-dollarization-du-jour-russia-backs-brics-alternative-swift/ri7566
[2] http://rt.com/news/207899-un-anti-nazism-resolution/

UnsleepingMind -> Tom20000 31 May 2015 09:43

You would think, with all the technology at the disposal of the US security state, that it might (just might) be able to provide us with real, irrefutable evidence of a ground invasion. You know, perhaps some high resolution satellite imagery, the odd photo of a modern Russian tank moving over the Ukrainian border, some chatter from the wires between embassy officials and security personnel, etc., etc.

But of course we have nothing of the sort. What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that.

UnsleepingMind -> ponott 31 May 2015 09:34

I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate media -- who seem to have a daily axe to grind against the Russian state, but who say nothing about the warmongering actions of the US. I imagine I would have the same opinion of you if I was to uncritically swallow such toxic rubbish.

UnsleepingMind -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 09:30

'Because we have the right to ban people who invade other countries'.

That's why we've recently arrested George Bush (who, with the help of Tony Blair invaded Iraq and Afghanistan), Barack Obama (who bombed Libya, engineered coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and is now funding Islamic extremists in Syria)...

We reserve the right to ban, but we use that 'right' to ban official enemies (i.e. anyone daring to follow a geopolitical game plan that is distinctly at odds with our own).

Also, your suggestion that Putin's Russia has invaded 'other countries' is preposterous. The western media has been spewing this nonsense for months now and yet there is not a shred of real evidence (including hi-res satellite imagery) to back it up. And if you are referring to Crimea, let me say this: Russia troops have been staged in Crimea for many, many years; moreover, the people of Crimea voted to break with Ukraine in a recent referendum (not that that squares with your hectoring rhetoric).

PyrrhicVictory 31 May 2015 09:27

The doors of the gravy train for politicians like Clegg are fast closing. When we exit the EU, then the Brussels gravy train will also be beyond him. He might, just might, having to start behaving like an honest politician for once and earn a decent wage based on truth not lies.

johnsmith44 -> NegativeCamber 31 May 2015 09:25

Why dont you go spread democracy to some oil-producing Third World country, together with your poodles the brits? And make sure you do it properly, so that monstrosities like ISIS are guaranteed?

more democracy exporting: http://multipletext.com/2011/images/3-22-US-democracy.jpg

and more: https://syrianfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/we-will-help-the-syrian-people-to-achieve-democracy-20140603.jpg

and more: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/76/31/c0/7631c0787ae47cfc74cd8488390cc5d5.jpg

johnsmith44 -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 09:21

1) Google for "Operation Northwoods", that is, CIA's proposal to Kennedy to shoot down a passenger jet over Cuba.

2) Read here: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/29/obama-should-release-ukraine-evidence/

ex-CIA personnel openly describing their involvement in the dowining of Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983 and I believe it becomes apparent who downed MH-17.

Jerome Fryer -> Popeyes 31 May 2015 09:11

We're the global overlords, and so second-rate nations aren't allowed to reciprocate our petulant actions. When they do so it causes some people to question the assumed status of the 'Western' hegemony (and our claimed system of morally superior 'values'). We can't allow that sort of thing, Popeyes.

davidncldl 31 May 2015 09:10

The Guardian has a clear pro-EU/USA position on the new cold war against Russia. Mr Putin is their democratically elected leader and he is enormously popular. Only an imbecile would be surprised or indignant about Russia retaliating for unjust EU/US sanctions. What do the globalisers and bankers' friends at the Guardian expect? I imagine you think that the ruination of the Venezuelan and Russian economies by the manipulation of the oil price is just "free market" activity.

Hass Castorp 31 May 2015 09:07

"More than 6,200 people have been killed in fighting between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists."

This is a language of propaganda, Guardian. Last i checked Guardian advertised to be a newspaper, not a bulletin of The Ministry of Truth.

My reformulation; "More than 6200 (in some estimates up to 50.000) have been killed and up to 1 million civilians displaced (who mostly fled to Russia) by Ukrainian government troops and private terrorist kommandos of Ukrainian oligarchs."

Jerome Fryer -> henry919 31 May 2015 09:03

The only way to effectively block people from other regions (blanket censor them, in other words) would be to positively identify the source. All that you would likely achieve is blocking actual individual commentators and letting through the government astroturfers.

Why you would want to resort to such tactics is worth asking. The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer.

Repeated debunked claims in our media are also going to be far more damaging than anything similar in Russia. The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting.

(If your argument must be protected against criticism then it is a weak argument.)

[Sep 16, 2018] The Enigma of Orwellian Donald Trump -- How Does He Get Away with It So Easily by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "

Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018)

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)

" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)

" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin ( 1706 – 1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of the Founding Fathers', 2012).

***

In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.

The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether or not he has declared a war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.

1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump

There are four groups of one-issue voters to whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:

  • Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
  • Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
  • The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
  • The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.

With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above lobbies.

Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.

There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record, according to the Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his inauguration.)

Is Trump a New Kind of Fascist?
  • The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form of entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is OK to lie and to ask his assistants to lie . In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of post-democracy .

  • The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks ' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly, on a daily basis, 24/7.

    That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of " Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.

    In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a pet project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the coming weeks.

    That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear case for impeachment .

  • Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some 'alternative' truths and facts.

    Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the mass conglomeration of local broadcasting in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well financed, and they have essentially become powerful political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative facts as the truth.

    In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.

2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment

Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk."

Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.

3- Trump VS the media and the journalists

Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.

The ABC News network has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration. The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, -- an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year, he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!

The media in general, (and not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which are often devoid of any thought and logic.

Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning for the long run.

Conclusion

All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own Cabinet , whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself. If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?

The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones.

*

This article was originally published on the author's blog site: rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com .

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book " The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles ", and of "The New American Empire" . Please visit Dr. Tremblay's sites : http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/ and http://rodriguetremblay.blogspot.com/

[Sep 16, 2018] The US and the UK, unlike most Western democracies, permit anonymous ownership of real estate which facilitates money laundering of roughly $ 300 billion per year in the United States alone, most of it from Russia

There might be criminal connection to Russian oligarchs, but it was for Trump organization which might play a role in Russian oligarchs money laundering via real estate
Notable quotes:
"... The US and the UK, unlike most Western democracies, permit anonymous ownership of real estate which facilitates money laundering of roughly $300 billion per year in the United States alone, most of it from Russia. As a result, luxury real estate has provided a haven for Russian oligarchs ..."
"... According to a BuzzFeed investigation by Thomas Frank, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold in the US since the eighties, were sold "in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities." The BuzzFeed article added that the total value of these condo sales -- sales that match the US Treasury's criteria for possible money laundering -- was about $ 1.5 billion, a figure that actually may understate the amount of dirty money in play. ..."
"... Starting in 2006, Donald Jr., executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization, made about half a dozen trips to Russia over the course of a year and a half. "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, ....We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." ..."
"... After a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies, and $4 billion in debt, Trump rose from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor ..."
"... Another Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal, oligarch Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the Ukranian billionare commodities trader who was tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's Russian mafias gang in Brighton Beach. ..."
"... Mueller has had over a year to investigate. No doubt he can call on vast resources of US govt too. For all that effort, Mueller has not shown direct Russian govt influence (yet). ..."
"... JR, ben was right on that point. I would put it this way: Trump is owned by Zionist Russian Oligarchs with dual citizenship. Haaretz has an article Know your oligarch: A guide to the Jewish billionaires in the Trump Russia probe. ..."
"... Let's just say there's a huge incentive to sell the Trump illusion and push the Trump juice around here. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Pft | Aug 30, 2018 9:59:52 PM | 58

Jackrabbit@35

what russian oligarchs?

House of Trump, House of Putin has some interesting stuff.

The US and the UK, unlike most Western democracies, permit anonymous ownership of real estate which facilitates money laundering of roughly $300 billion per year in the United States alone, most of it from Russia. As a result, luxury real estate has provided a haven for Russian oligarchs

According to a BuzzFeed investigation by Thomas Frank, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold in the US since the eighties, were sold "in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities." The BuzzFeed article added that the total value of these condo sales -- sales that match the US Treasury's criteria for possible money laundering -- was about $ 1.5 billion, a figure that actually may understate the amount of dirty money in play.

Starting in 2006, Donald Jr., executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization, made about half a dozen trips to Russia over the course of a year and a half. "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, ....We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

After a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies, and $4 billion in debt, Trump rose from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor

Another Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal, oligarch Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the Ukranian billionare commodities trader who was tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's Russian mafias gang in Brighton Beach.

Trumps man Giuliani appointed Kislin to be a member of the New York City Economic Development Corporation

Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of Israili-Russian oligarch Leviev's company, Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.

Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which has also been linked to Russian money laundering,

The Trumps Taj Mahal had become a favorite destination for the Russian mob because Trump made a point of giving high rollers "comps" for up to $100,000 a visit, an amenity that casinos often offered big-time gamblers. Later, two other Trump casinos, the Trump Castle Hotel and Casino, and the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, agreed to pay fines for "willfully failing to report" currency transactions over $10,000 and failing to comply with laws designed to prevent money laundering.

There is not a major Russian organized crime figure who we are tracking who does not also carry an Israeli passport," said Jonathan Winer, the former money-laundering czar in the Clinton State Department.

Trump World Tower, one-third of the units on the tower's highest and priciest floors, floors seventy-six to eighty-three,* had been snatched up, either by individual buyers from the former Soviet Union, or by limited liability companies connected to Russia or countries that had been part of the Soviet Union. "We had big buyers from Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan," sales agent Debra Stotts told Bloomberg Businessweek. Ukrainian billionaire Semyon "Sam" Kislin assisted the sales effort by issuing mortgages to buyers of Trump's latest luxury condos.

Trump Tower in Toronto. When it came to financing the skyscraper, Shnaider, a billionaire of Russian extraction, turned to Raiffeisen Bank International AG in Vienna, a bank whose affiliate has been called "a front to provide legitimacy to the gas company [US-indicted Russian crime boss Semion Mogilevich] controls, RosUkrEnergo," according to Scott F. Kilner, deputy chief of mission for the US embassy in Austria. So it followed that it was likely that funds from the Mogilevich-Firtash money pipeline were behind the Trump project in Toronto.

Then there is the Chabad connection of the Kushners and Putin backed Russian oligarchs, but no time for that

Jackrabbit | Aug 30, 2018 11:04:20 PM | 63

Pft

Clarifying: it's good info about the suspicions of Trump-Russian connections. I appreciate you're being helpful in providing that.

Mueller has had over a year to investigate. No doubt he can call on vast resources of US govt too. For all that effort, Mueller has not shown direct Russian govt influence (yet).

Circe , Aug 30, 2018 11:18:23 PM | 64

@57

JR, ben was right on that point. I would put it this way: Trump is owned by Zionist Russian Oligarchs with dual citizenship. Haaretz has an article Know your oligarch: A guide to the Jewish billionaires in the Trump Russia probe.

It would be great if the Mueller probe exposes how minor Russia collusion is compared to Zionist collusion. Ergo the big prizes for Israel and status quo for Russia under Trump.

I suspect that most still pushing the Trump illusion here are Zionists who care squat about party and American democracy but are really pleased with what Trump is doing for Israel i.e. MIGA and the Zionist American collusion that is growing exponentially with each successive American President.

Trump is their man and he's being well-supported by Zionists even here disguised as Russia lovers, populists and Hillary haters. Let's not forget how many Russians are Zionists: over one million in Israel, not to mention Soviet Jews from former Soviet territory. So the numbers are much greater. An army of hasbara on the web.

Let's just say there's a huge incentive to sell the Trump illusion and push the Trump juice around here. It's concealed hasbara masquerading as Trumpism, plain and simple! Shameless pretense and very transparent.

[Sep 16, 2018] A typical White helmet rescues always had a small diesel fire and usually some white smoke, a bunch of rescuers who ran into the building while the commenter gave a speech, and then rescuers ran the rescued infants past the camera while the narrator gave a 'moral' speech.

Sep 16, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Charles Wood , Sep 16, 2018 2:19:48 AM | link

The White Helmets as a brand had their website first registered by Ali Weiner of Purpose Inc (Brooklyn advertising agency) on 2014-08-11T19:50:31Z

I had noticed their activity shortly after that date but it wasn't labelled White Helmets as such. I recall a series of setpiece rescues with someone who looked like Hadi Alabdullah giving a running comment and speeches denouncing Assad.

The setpiece rescues always had a small diesel fire and usually some white smoke, a bunch of rescuers who ran into the building while the commenter gave a speech, and then rescuers ran the rescued infants past the camera while the narrator gave a 'moral' speech.

guidoamm , Sep 16, 2018 1:07:32 AM | link

Peter Au 1 @ 10

Regarding snuff videos, I always wondered whether or not this operation overlapped:

US Gov Spent $500M For Al Qaeda Propaganda Videos

[Sep 16, 2018] It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its neocons with it.

Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , says: September 16, 2018 at 6:17 am GMT

There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and persecuted in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe. It was a longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually morph into a dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).

In this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or anyone who got in the way.

Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,

the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress, (Wikipedia).

It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors with it.

[Sep 16, 2018] Exaggerated claims about Jews power (Jewocracy) do more harm then good and give a perfect weapon for Zionists to censor critique of Israel

Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Michael Hoffman , says: Website September 15, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT

Dear KenH

Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."

A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."

I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."

On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").

What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .

The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.

When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.

The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.

If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.

There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .

A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).

Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods

Tyrion 2 , says: September 16, 2018 at 6:52 am GMT
@Michael Hoffman Dear KenH

Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."

A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."

I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."

On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").

What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .

The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.

When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.

The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.

If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.

There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .

A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).

Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I don't buy your cloying and passive aggressive pretense of not hating Jews but being merely interested in their salvation.

I even struggle to imagine anyone who'd be stupid enough to do so.

(Does it help you sell books or is it merely a prop against horrific self-realisation?)

Regardless, it is a shame that even your "scholarship" may be unbooked. Painfully dumb arguments have value. They provide it by contrast.

I am not even particularly interested in that here though. Inevitably there's lots of weird stuff in a milennia old wikipedia and bozos, sorry "revisionists", will read into it what they feel like.

The issue though is very simple. Were any of these effluent theories that take causation to run from Judaism to globalism to actually be true then we would see that the more Orthodox the Jew, the more globalist they would be.

Yet the facts sit precisely opposite.

The very worst Jews, on politics, that I've met or read have never heard of the Talmud. Indeed, the Ultra-Orthodox wouldn't even consider them (or me) actual Jews at all.

That you can't even get this most basic of observations right totally discredits you.

Still, I hope your books get reinstated. I don't care what people who hate me choose to waste their money on and, to be honest, it makes my meagre qualities look good by comparison.

Miro23 , says: September 16, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT
@Miro23 There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and persecuted in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe. It was a longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually morph into a dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).

In this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or anyone who got in the way.


Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,

the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress, (Wikipedia).

It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors with it. Also the Jewish attempt to develop "Holocaustianity" with themselves as the leading martyrs is failing, since Judaism doesn't have the mass appeal of Christianity: 1) it lacks the ethical content 2) it isn't universalist (accepting all races).

Bolshevism (class guilt) was an earlier attempt to found a religion with Saint Trotsky and themselves as the leading martyrs, which did actually (for a while) connect with the public, since they harnessed the rising tide of Socialism/Communism with its fantasy of an egalitarian "workers paradise" (themselves in the leadership role).

Unfortunately Jewish leftism (not to be confused National Democratic leftism) still survives in the West in its bizarre SJW LGBT form, with Jews yet again trying to present themselves as victims – this time of fabricated "White Oppression" – never mind that white America gave them a generous refuge and a home after they were chased out of Central Europe.

However, the search for power through SJWism (race guilt) is being rejected in the West, so realistically Jews can only maintain their ethnic group power through a straightforward coup at the centre (United States) – which they seem to be working on a the moment, with some kind of fabricated Emergency involving Russia/Syria/Iran designed to give them a dictatorship.

And if they get it, it won't be benevolent judging by the mass murdering precedents in Russia and Hungary.

Frankie P , says: September 16, 2018 at 9:54 am GMT
@Michael Hoffman Dear KenH

Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."

A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."

I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."

On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").

What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .

The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.

When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.

The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.

If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.

There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .

A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).

Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I thank you for that comment. Beautifully put, logically reasoned. Now I want to propose an idea for you to consider. The Orthodox Talmudic instruction that you mention above has morphed well beyond the limitations of the Orthodox rabbinate. You yourself just mentioned Judaics that want to "seek a way out of Talmudism and / or Zionism". Zionism certainly isn't Talmudism; it is blood and soil nationalism of a land that belongs to other people. Couching this original Talmudic instruction as merely a method of keeping Jews in "the rabbinic fold" is inaccurate. The unifiying of Jews through this belief that all goyim are Jew-haters and vilification of those Judaics who break out has grown well beyond the rabbinic fold, and it is present in every manifestation of Judaism, from the secular atheist to the most Orthodox. Indeed, it seems to be the common thread that holds all Jews together.

I thank you again for your ideas, Michael Hoffman. I will visit your website and try to purchase your books, even though I am not a wealthy man.

[Sep 16, 2018] While some countries may be trying to get off the sinking ship called "Assad must go", Israel is doing what Israel does best, flout international law and launch another attack on Syria

Sep 16, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tom , Sep 16, 2018 2:02:48 AM | link

While some countries may be trying to get off the sinking ship called ""Assad must go", Israel is doing what Israel does best, flout international law and launch another attack on Syria. What makes this attack particularly dangerous is that it attacked Damascus International airport and environs. Currently the 63rd Damascus International Fair is taking place near the airport. A total disregard for civilians. A shot over the bow of those nations that wish to invest in Syria. Some Syrian civilians don't count for much, especially in the eyes of FUKUS. They just need to be liberated from the baby killer Assad to share in all the freedoms available in Idlib. Not to worry, Nikki Haley will rise to the occasion in defence of that other indispensable nation.

#31 The Germans called the Canadian Corp Stormtroopers. My grandfathers brother fought at Passchendaele and was gassed by the Germans. He suffered from that for the rest of his life until he died in 1972.

[Sep 16, 2018] Are We Becoming What We Once Hated by Eric Margolis

Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

In the late 1980's, an old friend of mine based in Moscow was calling her husband in the USA late one night. She said it was a "typical dumb husband/wife call," mostly about a broken garage door.

Around midnight, a gruff voice broke into the call. "This is your KGB listener. This is the most boring, stupid call I've ever listened to. Shut up and go to bed!"

Ah, those innocent Cold War days. Today, Big Brother listens to your calls, reads your email, and follows your internet searches on silent cat's feet.

China's Taoists warned, "you become what you hate." They are right: the September 2001 attacks on the US, as John Le Carré wrote, producing a period of temporary psychosis. America was knocked back to the ugly days of Sen. McCarthy's Red Scare of the 1950's. The big difference was that today the bogeymen of "terrorists" have replaced menacing Marxists. And today, terrorists were everywhere.

[Sep 16, 2018] British society is under the imminent threat of Putin-Nazi Novichok perfume assassin hit squads

Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Meanwhile, the British society is under the imminent threat of Putin-Nazi Novichok perfume assassin hit squads , which Putin could send at any moment directly from Moscow to Gatwick Airport.

To incompetently attempt to murder their targets by spraying the deadliest nerve agent in existence onto the doorknobs of their suburban homes and then stroll around getting filmed by every CCTV camera in Britain.

As far as I know, the British tabloids haven't yet published surveillance photos of Corbyn welcoming the Skripal assassins at Gatwick with a wreath, or a bottle of Stoli (and wearing his Russian-stooge hat , of course), but I won't be terribly shocked when they do.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[Sep 16, 2018] This story about Hoffman's getting censored and removed from Amazon's Kindle books is a fine example of why libertarianism is idealistic nonsense.

Notable quotes:
"... Needless to say, it is Amazon which has crushed and eliminated the local community bookshop that was once a beloved social commons, in every town and city across the land. ..."
"... Unfortunately, now that Amazon has a total monopoly on book publishing, it can decide who will or will not be published. But really, isn't Amazon the end result of libertarianism, neo-liberal, no regulation capitalism as we now have? ..."
"... This is a total nightmare situation: a gigantic behemoth corporation, unanswerable to anybody. Doesn't even need to have clearly worded guidelines, deliberately vague so they can censor whomever they want, at their whim. There is zero accountability with this libertarian arrangement. ..."
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Deschutes , says: September 16, 2018 at 9:51 am GMT

I hate Amazon through and through: from that greedy little rat Bezos who has become the world's richest man on the backs of his workers which he treats like slaves, like dogs–paying them so little they have to apply for foodstamps, to the horrible working conditions at Amazon's giant fullfillment warehouses (no lunchbreak; penalizing workers for going to the bathroom for too long; deliberately firing workers when they become legally entitled to full time regular employment (Amazon deliberately uses temp/contract workers to avoid paying healthcare, maternity leave, pension, vacation, etc). In short, Amazon is a total, complete asshole corporation which has now become a global publishing monopoly by deliberate design.

Needless to say, it is Amazon which has crushed and eliminated the local community bookshop that was once a beloved social commons, in every town and city across the land.

This story about Hoffman's getting censored and removed from Amazon's Kindle books is a fine example of why libertarianism is idealistic nonsense. Libertarians argue that no government is necessary? No laws needed? That government regulation is an unnecessary interference in a pure person to person marketplace? What a load of bollocks. If there were robust anti-monopoly regulations in place that were actually enforced, there would be no Amazon monopoly like we suffer under today; it would be one of many smaller sized retailers. We would have choice! Hoffman could go and sell through a different bookseller.

Unfortunately, now that Amazon has a total monopoly on book publishing, it can decide who will or will not be published. But really, isn't Amazon the end result of libertarianism, neo-liberal, no regulation capitalism as we now have?

Bezos: "It's my company and I'll do what I please, censor whatever I want!" Yes–this is pure neo-liberal libertarianism with no government regulation. No way to redress grievances.

This is a total nightmare situation: a gigantic behemoth corporation, unanswerable to anybody. Doesn't even need to have clearly worded guidelines, deliberately vague so they can censor whomever they want, at their whim. There is zero accountability with this libertarian arrangement.

It would be much better if there were laws on the books, enforced, which

a) stopped such abusive monopolies from happening in the first place;

b) laws on the books–enforced–protecting author's publication rights, to prevent censorship as is now happening.

You don't have this in USA today, so authors get screwed over, censored and disappeared. Anyways, much for libertarianism.

ATTN: if you still have an Amazon membership and buy stuff from them -- do your civic duty and stop it! Delete your account and tell them why!

Anonymous , [159] Disclaimer says: September 16, 2018 at 10:02 am GMT

To be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry's authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn't exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn't exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.

Exactly. And this kind of global monopoly power can't be diminished in time with naive, "free market – just go somewhere else", Libertarian sound-bites. People who believe in that fairytale are beyond naive. Amazon, YouTube, Reddit and Twitter are untouchable in an environment where their competitors can barely offer a fraction of a fraction of the Worldwide audience to their "content creators" and very few content creators to the audience. This built-in inertia is self-reinforcing and tremendously inert. It's also the reason why the Globalists have spared no expense to own those platforms.

Free speech will have to be enforced and saved politically. Waiting for Zuckenberg to un-fuck it is a fool's errand.

[Sep 16, 2018] On the censorship of Michael Hoffman's books by Amazon by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... What you expect Amazon to do when it's owned by CIA now. ..."
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

To be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry's authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn't exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn't exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.

There is a problem here for Amazon as well. The more Amazon excludes books that embody facts and ideas that constitute radical dissent, the more it becomes a narrow censor's aperture rather than a reliable bridge to the entire range of the Republic of Letters.

Apologists for censorship of radicals and authentic conservatives often claim that no First Amendment rights are violated when Amazon bans books, therefore it is not a civil rights issue, merely an inconvenience of the capitalist system. In the 1950s however, when the privately-owned movie studios banned certain directors, actors and screen-writers judged to be Leftists or Communists, that action on the part of private enterprise was inscribed in the rolls of the culture wars as the infamous "Blacklist," and we are still reading and weeping over it sixty-five years later. So it depends on whose ox is being gored.

My Judaica studies are free of "Jew hate," as anyone who peruses the sections in both books titled "To the Judaic Reader" knows. There we state that the books are dedicated to pidyon shevyuim (redemption of the captive), i.e. rescuing those Judaic persons who are in bondage to the Talmud and the Kabbalah.

Our enemies easily turn to their advantage books containing hatred of "The Jews." What they absolutely have no credible answer to is a critique predicated, as our books are, on a sincere foundation of true Christian love. Boundary-breaking scholarship united to compassionate concern for the welfare of Judaic people is almost unprecedented in this field. This approach makes my studies of Judaism among the most powerful and effective because they are free of the "hate speech" which is the pivot upon which turns the machinery of liberal-approved censorship. For that reason, making Judaism's Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded, and Judaism Discovered available on the Kindle undercut decades of hatred and libel. Therefore those volumes had to be suppressed.

Mario964 , says: September 13, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT

Suppressing ideas is the prerequisite for the dictatorship of lies, which is now institutionalized and widely accepted by the subdued gullible masses.

With reference to this already firmly established and dominant trend in present days, it comes to mind that ubiquitous all-pervasive dictatorship of lies stands out among Muhammad's prophecies about the signs forewarning the approach of the last day, when disappearance of trustworthiness will rise to such a point that one would only be able to say: " I know a trustworthy person in such-and-such town. "

NightThinker Rebel , says: September 14, 2018 at 3:25 am GMT
What you expect Amazon to do when it's owned by CIA now.
exiled off mainstreet , says: September 14, 2018 at 6:24 am GMT
A website needs to list all of the books banned by Amazon and provide a means for their dissemination. Much like the Catholic Church's banned index, it should become a badge of honour to be banned by this organization. Such private arbiters have become much too powerful in this technological age, and, in the end, the technology may end up being a net negative. Memory holes seem to be the order of the day.
Michael Hoffman , says: Website September 14, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
" the censors demand for their own media -- Mr. Bezos owns the Washington Post newspaper -- freedom of expression for the writers they employ and the speech of which they approve."

As if on cue, here's a report today about Bezos protesting against writers being demonized by Trump:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/406665-bezos-rips-trump-for-dangerous-attacks-on-the-media

He neglected to mention the writers demonized by himself.

[Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence

Highly recommended!
The root of the current aggressive policy is the desire to preserve global neoliberal empire the US role as the metropolia with the rest of the world as vassals.
Notable quotes:
"... The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins. ..."
"... It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end ..."
"... There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. ..."
"... The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world. ..."
"... Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008 financial crash followed. I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one. ..."
"... Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions. ..."
"... The NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live with daily ..."
"... The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime. ..."
"... In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as Russia and the West. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on which the government now in power still depends. ..."
"... If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument -- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around him, as he acknowledged in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they are determined to preserve them. ..."
"... If you valued this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies, a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved. ..."
"... How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few. ..."
"... Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40 percent of the public who opposed the war. ..."
"... "Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington." ..."
"... I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals. Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations of the World! ..."
"... That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's figure out how to begin. ..."
"... A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the neofeudal/futile system. ..."
"... When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? ..."
"... To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination: "Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the countries it invaded to be "Just like us." ..."
"... Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed, it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual "progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the history of the country squarely. ..."
"... Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski: ..."
"... "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970 ..."
"... Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion, they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any mainstream cause or social movement. ..."
"... What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual benefit." ..."
"... Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a "peace dividend" following the end of WWII. ..."
"... To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/ . ..."
"... The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the "Statement of A. Wess Mitchell Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21 this year. The transcript is at : https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/082118_Mitchell_Testimony.pdf ..."
"... Quote the esteemed gentleman (inter alia): "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American power. " ..."
"... Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0. In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum between 1990 and 2010. ..."
"... Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between "Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the geopolitical war between the two. ..."
"... Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus, what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948. Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing. ..."
"... There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail. ..."
"... Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off. ..."
"... I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know. ..."
"... +1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. ..."
"... And note (2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks ..."
"... Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy. ..."
"... Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro: "I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration." ..."
"... Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose, he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate. ..."
"... Many of the people involved in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance. ..."
"... Remember when "Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the world than have to share. ..."
"... Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal. Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/ ..."
"... "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence." ..."
Sep 15, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

... ... ..

The bitter reality is that U.S. foreign policy has no definable objective other than blocking the initiatives of others because they stand in the way of the further expansion of U.S. global interests. This impoverished strategy reflects Washington's refusal to accept the passing of its relatively brief post–Cold War moment of unipolar power.

There is an error all too common in American public opinion. Personalizing Washington's regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of deeper understanding. This mistake was made during the steady attack on civil liberties after the Sept. 11 tragedies and then during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: namely that it was all George W. Bush's fault. It was not so simple then and is not now.

The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins.

Let us bring some history to this question of America as spoiler. What is the origin of this undignified and isolating approach to global affairs?

  • It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end. What ensued had various names. There was the "end of history" thesis. American liberalism was humanity's highest achievement, and nothing would supersede it.
  • There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. The consensus never extended far beyond the Potomac, but this sort of detail mattered little at the time.

The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world.

Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008 financial crash followed. I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one.

The orthodoxy today remains what it was when it formed in the 1990s: The neoliberal crusade must proceed. Our market-driven, "rules-based" order is still advanced as the only way out of our planet's impasses.

A Strategic and Military Turn

Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions.

The NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live with daily.

The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime.

Spoilage as a poor excuse for a foreign policy had made its first appearances.

I count 2013 to 2015 as key years. At the start of this period, China began developing what it now calls its Belt and Road Initiative -- its hugely ambitious plan to stitch together the Eurasian landmass, Shanghai to Lisbon. Moscow favored this undertaking, not least because of the key role Russia had to play and because it fit well with President Vladimir Putin's Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), launched in 2014.

In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as Russia and the West.

Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on which the government now in power still depends.

That is how we got the U.S.-as-spoiler foreign policy we now have.

If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument -- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around him, as he acknowledged in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic toward the end of his second term. From that "Anonymous" opinion piece published in The New York Times on Sept. 5, we know Trump is too, to a greater extent than Obama may have feared in his worst moments.

The crucial question is why. Why do U.S. policy cliques find themselves bereft of imaginative thinking in the face of an evolving world order? Why has there been not a single original policy initiative since the years I single out, with the exception of the now-abandoned 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs? "Right now, our job is to create quagmires until we get what we want," an administration official told The Washington Post 's David Ignatius in August.

Can you think of a blunter confession of intellectual bankruptcy? I can't.

Global 'Equals' Like Us?

There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony, the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques.

As I have argued numerous times elsewhere, parity between East and West is a 21st century imperative. From Woodrow Wilson to the post-World War II settlement, an equality among all nations was in theory what the U.S. considered essential to global order.

Now that this is upon us, however, Washington cannot accept it. It did not count on non-Western nations achieving a measure of prosperity and influence until they were "just like us," as the once famous phrase had it. And it has not turned out that way.

Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they are determined to preserve them.

They signify the shape of the world to come -- a post-Western world in which the Atlantic alliance must coexist with rising powers outside its orbit. Together, then, they signify precisely what the U.S. cannot countenance. And if there is one attribute of neoliberal and neoconservative ideology that stands out among all others, it is its complete inability to accept difference or deviation if it threatens its interests.

This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .

If you valued this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

bevin , September 14, 2018 at 6:32 pm

This really is an excellent analysis. I would highlight the following point:
"There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony, the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques "

Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington.

Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 6:03 pm

You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies, a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved.

This focus on war has its roots in the Christian bible and in a sense of manifest destiny that has occupied Americans since before they were Americans, and the real Americans had to be exterminated. It certainly (as stated) can't be blamed on certain individuals, it's predominate and nearly universal. How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few.

Homer Jay , September 14, 2018 at 10:09 pm

"How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few."

Are you kidding me? Here is a list of polls of the American public regarding the Iraq War 2003-2007;

https://www.politifact.com/iraq-war-polls/

Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40 percent of the public who opposed the war. You clearly are not American or you would remember the vocal minority which filled the streets of big cities across this country. And again the consent was as Chomsky says "manufactured." And it took only 1 year of the war for the majority of the public to be against it. By 2007 60-70% of the public opposed the war.

Judging from your name you come from a country whose government was part of that coalition of the willing. So should we assume that "very few" of your fellow country men and women were against that absolute horror show that is the Iraq war?

Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 11:05 pm

You failed to address my major point, and instead picked on something you're wrong on.

Iraq war poll –Pew Research: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/publications/770-1.gif

PS: bevin made approximately the same point later (w/o the financial factor).

"Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington."

Archie1954 , September 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm

I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals. Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations of the World!

Bob Van Noy , September 14, 2018 at 9:54 pm

Archie 1954, because 911 was never adequately investigated, our government was inappropriately allowed to act in the so-called public interest in completely inappropriate ways; so that in order for the Country to set things right, those decisions which were made quietly, with little public discussion, would have to be exposed and the illegalities addressed. But, as I'm sure you know, there are myriad other big government failures also left unexamined, so where to begin?

That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's figure out how to begin.

So,"Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else?", certainly not The People

Jessika , September 14, 2018 at 1:36 pm

A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the neofeudal/futile system.

When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? The Pentagon consistently calls the shots, yet we consistently hear about unaccounted expenditures by the Pentagon, losing amounts in the trillions, and never do they get audited.

nondimenticare , September 14, 2018 at 12:18 pm

I certainly agree that the policy is bereft, but not for all of the same reasons. There is the positing of a turnaround as a basis for the current spoiler role: "What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions."

To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination: "Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the countries it invaded to be "Just like us."

Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed, it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual "progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the history of the country squarely.

That is the blindness of intent that has led to the spoiler role.

Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 11:15 am

Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970

"Make no mistake, what we are seeing in geopolitics today is indeed a magic show. The false East/West paradigm is as powerful if not more powerful than the false Left/Right paradigm. For some reason, the human mind is more comfortable believing in the ideas of division and chaos, and it often turns its nose up indignantly at the notion of "conspiracy." But conspiracies and conspirators can be demonstrated as a fact of history. Organization among elitists is predictable.

Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion, they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any mainstream cause or social movement.

What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual benefit."

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3504-in-the-new-qmultipolar-worldq-the-globalists-still-control-all-the-players

Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 1:43 pm

"In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the differences are going to be very slight." ~ Noam Chomsky

Giants: The Global Power Elite – A talk by Peter Phillips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6td-wzDYQ

The Elite World Order in Jitters Review of Peter Phillips' book Giants: The Global Power Elite: https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/09/the-elite-world-order-in-jitters/

backwardsevolution , September 14, 2018 at 5:14 pm

Unfettered Fire – good posts. Thank you. Peter Phillips is definitely worth listening to.

Jon Dhoe , September 14, 2018 at 11:02 am

Israel, Israel, Israel. When are we going to start facing facts?

Daniel Good , September 14, 2018 at 9:59 am

Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a "peace dividend" following the end of WWII.

To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/ .

We live in a country of military socialism, in which military citizens have all types of benefits, on condition they join the military-industrial-complex. This being so, there is no need for real "intelligence", there is no need to "understand" what goes on is foreign countries, there no need to be right about what might happen or worry about consequences. What is important is stimulate the economy by spending on arms. From Korean war, when the US dropped more bombs than it had on Nazi Germany, through Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc etc the US policy was a winning one not for those who got bombed (and could not fight back) but for the weapons industry and military contractors. Is the NYTimes ever going to discuss this aspect? Or any one in the MSM?

Walter , September 14, 2018 at 9:26 am

The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the "Statement of A. Wess Mitchell Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21 this year. The transcript is at : https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/082118_Mitchell_Testimony.pdf

Quote the esteemed gentleman (inter alia): "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American power. "

Tellingly the "official" State Department copy is changed and omits the true spoken words

See yourself: https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2018/285247.htm

This is the essence of MacKinder's Thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History and was the underlying reason for both world wars in the 20th century.

An essay on this observed truth https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/11/behind-the-anglo-american-war-on-russia/

A deeper essay on the same subject https://www.silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/Monographs/1006Rethinking-4.pdf

I would propose that the Zionism aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward Operating Base Israel" look it a map, Comrade The ISIS?Saudi?Zionist games divides the New Silk Road and the Eurasian land mass and exists to throttle said pathways.

Interestingly the latter essay is attributed to Eldar Ismailov and Vladimir Papava

Brother Comrade Putin knows the game. The US has to maintain the fiction for the public that it does not know the game, and is consequently obliged to maintain a vast public delusion, hence "fake news" and all the rest.

OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 1:49 pm

"I would propose that the Zionism aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade"

Some have an attraction to book-ends. Once upon a time the Eurasian book-ends were Germany and Japan, and the Western Asian book-ends Israel and Saudi Arabia. This "strategy" is based upon the notion that bookend-ness is a state of inertia which in any interactive system is impossible except apparently to those embedded in "we the people hold these truths to be self-evident".

Consequently some have an attraction to book-ends.

Dennis Etler , September 13, 2018 at 9:05 pm

Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0. In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum between 1990 and 2010.

Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between "Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the geopolitical war between the two.

Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus, what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948. Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing.

Rob Roy , September 15, 2018 at 12:16 am

Mr. Etler,

I think you are mostly right except in the first Cold War, the Soviets and US Americans were both involved in this "war." What you call Cold War 2.0 is in the minds and policies of only the US. Russian is not in any way currently like the Soviet Union, yet the US acts in all aspects of foreign attitude and policy as though that (very unpleasant period in today's Russians' minds) still exists. It does not. You says there was "merely a 20 year interregnum" and things have picked up and continued as a Cold War. Only in the idiocy of the USA, certainly not in the minds of Russian leadership, particularly Putin's who now can be distinguished as the most logical, realistic and competent leader in the world.

Thanks to H. Clinton being unable to become president, we have a full blown Russiagate which the MSM propaganda continues to spread.

There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail.

Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm

"This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."

Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off.

Walter , September 13, 2018 at 1:30 pm

US is attempting to stop a process, to prevent Change see https://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/v-golstein-end-of-cold-war-and/

Conjuring up Heraclitus..Time is a River, constantly changing. And we face downstream, unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past.

The attempt has an effect, many effects, but it cannot stop Time.

The Russian and the Chinese have clinched the unification of the Earth Island, "Heartland" This ended the ability to control global commerce by means of navies – the methods of the Sea Peoples over the last 500 years are now failed. The US has no way of even seeing this fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante .

Thus World War, as we see

Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US

Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2018 at 1:29 pm

I guess I missed this one, Patrick. Great overview but let me put it in a slightly different context. You start with the end of the cold war but I don't. I could go all the way back to the early days of the country and our proclamation of manifest destiny. The US has long thought that it was the one ring to rule them all. But for most of that time the strength of individual members of the rest of the world constrained the US from running amok. That constraint began to be lifted after the ruling clique in Europe committed seppuku in WWI. It was completely lifted after WWII. But that was 75 years ago. This is now and most of the world has recovered from the world wide destruction of human and physical capital known as WWII. The US is going to have to learn how to live with constraints again but it will take a shock. The US is going to have to lose at something big time. Europe cancelling the sanctions? The sanctions on Russia don't mean squat to the US but it's costing Europe billions. This highlights the reality that the "Western Alliance" (read NATO) is not really an alliance of shared goals and objectives. It's an alliance of those terrified by fascism and what it can do. They all decided that they needed a "great father" to prevent their excesses again. One wonders if either the world or Europe would really like the US to come riding in like the cavalry to places like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Blindly following Washington's directions can be remarkably expensive for Europe and they get nothing but refugees they can't afford. Something will ultimately have to give.

The one thing I was surprised you didn't mention was the US's financial weakness. It's been a long time since the US was a creditor nation. We've been a debtor nation since at least the 80s. The world doesn't need debtor nations and the only reason they need us is the primacy of the US dollar. And there are numerous people hammering away at that.

Gerald Wadsworth , September 13, 2018 at 12:59 pm

Why are we trying to hem in China, Russia and Iran? Petro-dollar hegemony, pure and simple. From our initial deal with Saudi Arabia to buy and sell oil in dollars only, to the chaos we have inflicted globally to retain the dollar's rule and role in energy trading, we are finding ourselves threatened – actually the position of the dollar as the sole trading medium is what is threatened – and we are determined to retain that global power over oil at all costs. With China and Russia making deals to buy and sell oil in their own currencies, we have turned both those counties into our enemies du jour, inventing every excuse to blame them for every "bad thing" that has and will happen, globally. Throw in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a host of other countries who want to get out from under our thumb, to those who tried and paid the price. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and more. Our failed foreign policy is dictated by controlling, as Donald Rumsfeld once opined, "our oil under their sand." Oil. Pure and simple.

Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 2:18 pm

I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.

Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 3:33 pm

I agree, Gerald. Along with ensuring access to "our" off-shore oil fields, enforcing the petro-dollar system is equally significant, and seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If this system were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases which make the world safe for democracy? Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.

Anonymous Coward , September 13, 2018 at 10:40 pm

+1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. Also note that anyone trying to retain control of their currency and not letting "The Market" (private banks) totally control them is a Great Devil we need to fight, e.g. Libya and China.

And note (2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks

MichaelWme , September 13, 2018 at 12:18 pm

It's called the Thucydides trap. NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) have said they will force regime change in Syria. Russia says it will not allow regime change in Syria. Fortunately, as a Frenchman and an Austrian explained many years ago, and NATO experts say is true today, regime change in Russia is a simple matter, about the same as Libya or Panamá. I forget the details, but I assume things worked out well for the Frenchman and the Austrian, and will work out about the same for NATO.

Anastasia , September 13, 2018 at 12:04 pm

Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy.

Truer words were never spoken, and it is the reason why I know, at least, that Russia did not interfere in the US elections. What would be the point, from his viewpoint, and it is not only just his opinion. You cannot help but see at this point that that he said is obviously true.

TJ , September 13, 2018 at 1:47 pm

What an excellent point. Why bother influencing the elections when it doesn't matter who is elected -- the same policies will continue.

Bart Hansen , September 13, 2018 at 3:43 pm

Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro: "I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration."

rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 8:02 am

Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose, he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate.

James , September 13, 2018 at 9:24 am

Great to see Patrick Lawrence writing for Consortium News.

He ends his article with: "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability. "

Speaking of consequences, how about the human toll this foreign policy has taken on so many people in this world. To me, the gravest sin of all.

Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 8:46 am

I agree with Patric Lawrence when he states "Personalizing Washington's regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of deeper understanding." and I also agree that 'Seven decades of global hegemony have left the State Department, Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension.' But I seriously disagree when he declares that: "The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins.'' Certainly the missteps are true, but I would argue that the "personalities" are crucial to America's crisis of Foreign Policy. After all it was likely that JFK's American University address was the public declaration of his intention to lead America in the direction of better understanding of Sovereign Rights that likely got him killed. It is precisely those "personalities" that we must understand and identify before we can move on

Skip Scott , September 13, 2018 at 9:35 am

Bob-

I see what you're saying, but I believe Patrick is also right.

Many of the people involved in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance.

Remember when "Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the world than have to share.

Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 2:42 pm

You're completely right Skip, that's what we all must recognize and ultimately react to, and against.
Thank you.

JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm

I would add that human beings are the key components in this system. The system is built and shaped by them. Some are greedy, lying predators and some are honest and egalitarian. Bob Parry was one of the latter, thankfully.

JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:30 pm

Skip, very good points. For those interested further, here's an excellent talk on the bankers behind the manufacutured wars, including the role of the Council on Foreign Relations as a front organization and control mechanism.
"The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6124&v=wHa1r4nIaug

Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 9:42 am

Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.

Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war industries they protected?

The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency, as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too much war means your country is doing something wrong.

Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 2:51 pm

Many thanks Joe, I admire your persistence. Clearly Bob Woodward has been part of the problem rather than the solution. The swamp is deep and murky

JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:36 pm

Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal. Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/

O Society , September 13, 2018 at 6:21 pm

The document Gary Cohen removed off Trump's desk – which you can read here – states an intent to end a free trade agreement with South Korea.

"White House aides feared if Trump sent the letter, it could jeopardize a top-secret US program that can detect North Korean missile launches within seven seconds."

Sounds like Trump wanted to play the "I am such a great deal maker, the GREATEST deal maker of all times!" game with the South Koreans. Letter doesn't say anything about withdrawing troops or missiles.

Funny how ***TOP-SECRET US PROGRAMS*** find their way into books and newspapers these days, plentiful as acorns falling out of trees.

O Society , September 14, 2018 at 1:38 pm

You're welcome, Joe. These things get confusing. Who knows anymore what is real and what isn't?

Trump did indeed say something about ending military exercises and pulling troops out of South Korea. His staff did indeed contradict him on this. It just wasn't in relation to the letter Cohn "misplaced," AFAIK.

Nobody asked me, but if they did, I'd say the US interfered enough in Korean affairs by killing a whole bunch of 'em in the Korean War. Leave'em alone. Let North and South try to work it out. Tired of hearing about "regime change.'

Republicans buck Trump on Korea troop pullout talk

Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24 pm

Here's what I wrote:

Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.

Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war industries they protected?

The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency, as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too much war means your country is doing something wrong.

Kiwiantz , September 13, 2018 at 8:20 am

Spoiler Nation of America! You got that dead right! China builds infrastructure in other Countries & doesn't interfere with the citizens & their Sovereignty. Contrast that with the United Spoiler States of America, they run roughshod over overs & just bomb the hell out of Countries & leaves devastation & death wherever they go! And there is something seriously wrong & demented with the US mindset concerning, the attacks on 9/11? In Syria the US has ended up arming & supporting the very same organisation of Al QaedaTerrorists, morphed into ISIS, that hijacked planes & flew them into American targets! During 2017 & now in 2018, it defies belief how warped this US mentality is when ISIS can so easily & on demand, fake a chemical attack to suck in the stupid American Military & it's Airforce & get them to attack Syria, like lackeys taking orders from Terrorist's! The US Airforce is the airforce of Al Qaeda & ISIS! Why? Because the US can't stomach Russia, Syria & Iran winning & defeating Terrorism thus ending this Proxy War they started! Russia can't be allowed to win at any cost because the humiliation & loss of prestige that the US would suffer as a Unipolar Empire would signal the decline & end of this Hegemonic Empire so they must continue to act as a spoiler to put off that inevitable decline! America can't face reality that it's time in the sun as the last Empire, is over!

Sally Snyder , September 13, 2018 at 7:57 am

Here is what Americans really think about the rabid anti-Russia hysteria coming from Washington:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/americans-on-russia-will-of-people.html

Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes.

Waynes World , September 13, 2018 at 7:37 am

Finally some words of truth about how we want our way not really democracy. A proper way to look at the world is what you said toward the end a desire to make people's lives better.

mike k , September 13, 2018 at 7:14 am

Simply put – the US is the world's biggest bully. This needs to stop. Fortunately the bully's intended victims are joining together to defeat it's crazy full spectrum dominance fantasies. Led by Russia and China, we can only hope for the success of the resistance to US aggression.

This political, economic, military struggle is not the only problem the world is facing now, but is has some priority due to the danger of nuclear war. Global pollution, climate disaster, ecological collapse and species extinction must also be urgently dealt with if we are to have a sustainable existence on Earth.

OlyaPola , September 13, 2018 at 4:39 am

Alpha : "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence."

Omega: "Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."

Framing is always a limiter of perception.

Among the consequences of the lateral trajectories from Alpha to Omega referenced above, is the "unintended consequence" of the increase of the principal opponents, their resolve and opportunities to facilitate the transcendence of arrangements based on coercion by arrangements based on co-operation.

Opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to deny lateral process.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , September 13, 2018 at 4:32 am

Yes, I certainly agree with author's view.

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/31/john-chuckman-comment-empire-corrupts-all-the-principles-of-economics-as-well-as-principles-of-ethics-and-good-government-there-is-nothing-good-to-say-about-empire-and-the-american-one-is-no-excep/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

HomoSapiensWannaBe , September 13, 2018 at 8:23 am

John Chuckman,

Wow. Thanks! I have just begun reading your commentaries this week and I am impressed with how clearly you analyze and summarize key points about many topics.

Thank you so much for writing what are often the equivalent of books, but condensed into easy to read and digest summaries.

I have ordered your book and look forward to reading that.

Cheers from Southeast USA!

[Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence

Highly recommended!
The root of the current aggressive policy is the desire to preserve global neoliberal empire the US role as the metropolia with the rest of the world as vassals.
Notable quotes:
"... The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins. ..."
"... It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end ..."
"... There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. ..."
"... The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world. ..."
"... Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008 financial crash followed. I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one. ..."
"... Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions. ..."
"... The NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live with daily ..."
"... The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime. ..."
"... In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as Russia and the West. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on which the government now in power still depends. ..."
"... If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument -- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around him, as he acknowledged in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they are determined to preserve them. ..."
"... If you valued this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies, a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved. ..."
"... How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few. ..."
"... Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40 percent of the public who opposed the war. ..."
"... "Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington." ..."
"... I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals. Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations of the World! ..."
"... That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's figure out how to begin. ..."
"... A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the neofeudal/futile system. ..."
"... When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? ..."
"... To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination: "Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the countries it invaded to be "Just like us." ..."
"... Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed, it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual "progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the history of the country squarely. ..."
"... Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski: ..."
"... "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970 ..."
"... Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion, they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any mainstream cause or social movement. ..."
"... What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual benefit." ..."
"... Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a "peace dividend" following the end of WWII. ..."
"... To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/ . ..."
"... The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the "Statement of A. Wess Mitchell Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21 this year. The transcript is at : https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/082118_Mitchell_Testimony.pdf ..."
"... Quote the esteemed gentleman (inter alia): "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American power. " ..."
"... Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0. In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum between 1990 and 2010. ..."
"... Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between "Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the geopolitical war between the two. ..."
"... Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus, what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948. Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing. ..."
"... There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail. ..."
"... Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off. ..."
"... I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know. ..."
"... +1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. ..."
"... And note (2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks ..."
"... Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy. ..."
"... Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro: "I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration." ..."
"... Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose, he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate. ..."
"... Many of the people involved in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance. ..."
"... Remember when "Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the world than have to share. ..."
"... Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal. Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/ ..."
"... "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence." ..."
Sep 15, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

... ... ..

The bitter reality is that U.S. foreign policy has no definable objective other than blocking the initiatives of others because they stand in the way of the further expansion of U.S. global interests. This impoverished strategy reflects Washington's refusal to accept the passing of its relatively brief post–Cold War moment of unipolar power.

There is an error all too common in American public opinion. Personalizing Washington's regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of deeper understanding. This mistake was made during the steady attack on civil liberties after the Sept. 11 tragedies and then during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: namely that it was all George W. Bush's fault. It was not so simple then and is not now.

The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins.

Let us bring some history to this question of America as spoiler. What is the origin of this undignified and isolating approach to global affairs?

  • It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end. What ensued had various names. There was the "end of history" thesis. American liberalism was humanity's highest achievement, and nothing would supersede it.
  • There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. The consensus never extended far beyond the Potomac, but this sort of detail mattered little at the time.

The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world.

Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008 financial crash followed. I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one.

The orthodoxy today remains what it was when it formed in the 1990s: The neoliberal crusade must proceed. Our market-driven, "rules-based" order is still advanced as the only way out of our planet's impasses.

A Strategic and Military Turn

Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions.

The NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live with daily.

The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime.

Spoilage as a poor excuse for a foreign policy had made its first appearances.

I count 2013 to 2015 as key years. At the start of this period, China began developing what it now calls its Belt and Road Initiative -- its hugely ambitious plan to stitch together the Eurasian landmass, Shanghai to Lisbon. Moscow favored this undertaking, not least because of the key role Russia had to play and because it fit well with President Vladimir Putin's Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), launched in 2014.

In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as Russia and the West.

Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on which the government now in power still depends.

That is how we got the U.S.-as-spoiler foreign policy we now have.

If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument -- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around him, as he acknowledged in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic toward the end of his second term. From that "Anonymous" opinion piece published in The New York Times on Sept. 5, we know Trump is too, to a greater extent than Obama may have feared in his worst moments.

The crucial question is why. Why do U.S. policy cliques find themselves bereft of imaginative thinking in the face of an evolving world order? Why has there been not a single original policy initiative since the years I single out, with the exception of the now-abandoned 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs? "Right now, our job is to create quagmires until we get what we want," an administration official told The Washington Post 's David Ignatius in August.

Can you think of a blunter confession of intellectual bankruptcy? I can't.

Global 'Equals' Like Us?

There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony, the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques.

As I have argued numerous times elsewhere, parity between East and West is a 21st century imperative. From Woodrow Wilson to the post-World War II settlement, an equality among all nations was in theory what the U.S. considered essential to global order.

Now that this is upon us, however, Washington cannot accept it. It did not count on non-Western nations achieving a measure of prosperity and influence until they were "just like us," as the once famous phrase had it. And it has not turned out that way.

Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they are determined to preserve them.

They signify the shape of the world to come -- a post-Western world in which the Atlantic alliance must coexist with rising powers outside its orbit. Together, then, they signify precisely what the U.S. cannot countenance. And if there is one attribute of neoliberal and neoconservative ideology that stands out among all others, it is its complete inability to accept difference or deviation if it threatens its interests.

This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .

If you valued this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

bevin , September 14, 2018 at 6:32 pm

This really is an excellent analysis. I would highlight the following point:
"There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony, the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques "

Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington.

Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 6:03 pm

You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies, a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved.

This focus on war has its roots in the Christian bible and in a sense of manifest destiny that has occupied Americans since before they were Americans, and the real Americans had to be exterminated. It certainly (as stated) can't be blamed on certain individuals, it's predominate and nearly universal. How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few.

Homer Jay , September 14, 2018 at 10:09 pm

"How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few."

Are you kidding me? Here is a list of polls of the American public regarding the Iraq War 2003-2007;

https://www.politifact.com/iraq-war-polls/

Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40 percent of the public who opposed the war. You clearly are not American or you would remember the vocal minority which filled the streets of big cities across this country. And again the consent was as Chomsky says "manufactured." And it took only 1 year of the war for the majority of the public to be against it. By 2007 60-70% of the public opposed the war.

Judging from your name you come from a country whose government was part of that coalition of the willing. So should we assume that "very few" of your fellow country men and women were against that absolute horror show that is the Iraq war?

Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 11:05 pm

You failed to address my major point, and instead picked on something you're wrong on.

Iraq war poll –Pew Research: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/publications/770-1.gif

PS: bevin made approximately the same point later (w/o the financial factor).

"Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington."

Archie1954 , September 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm

I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals. Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations of the World!

Bob Van Noy , September 14, 2018 at 9:54 pm

Archie 1954, because 911 was never adequately investigated, our government was inappropriately allowed to act in the so-called public interest in completely inappropriate ways; so that in order for the Country to set things right, those decisions which were made quietly, with little public discussion, would have to be exposed and the illegalities addressed. But, as I'm sure you know, there are myriad other big government failures also left unexamined, so where to begin?

That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's figure out how to begin.

So,"Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else?", certainly not The People

Jessika , September 14, 2018 at 1:36 pm

A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the neofeudal/futile system.

When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? The Pentagon consistently calls the shots, yet we consistently hear about unaccounted expenditures by the Pentagon, losing amounts in the trillions, and never do they get audited.

nondimenticare , September 14, 2018 at 12:18 pm

I certainly agree that the policy is bereft, but not for all of the same reasons. There is the positing of a turnaround as a basis for the current spoiler role: "What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions."

To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination: "Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the countries it invaded to be "Just like us."

Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed, it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual "progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the history of the country squarely.

That is the blindness of intent that has led to the spoiler role.

Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 11:15 am

Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970

"Make no mistake, what we are seeing in geopolitics today is indeed a magic show. The false East/West paradigm is as powerful if not more powerful than the false Left/Right paradigm. For some reason, the human mind is more comfortable believing in the ideas of division and chaos, and it often turns its nose up indignantly at the notion of "conspiracy." But conspiracies and conspirators can be demonstrated as a fact of history. Organization among elitists is predictable.

Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion, they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any mainstream cause or social movement.

What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual benefit."

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3504-in-the-new-qmultipolar-worldq-the-globalists-still-control-all-the-players

Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 1:43 pm

"In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the differences are going to be very slight." ~ Noam Chomsky

Giants: The Global Power Elite – A talk by Peter Phillips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6td-wzDYQ

The Elite World Order in Jitters Review of Peter Phillips' book Giants: The Global Power Elite: https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/09/the-elite-world-order-in-jitters/

backwardsevolution , September 14, 2018 at 5:14 pm

Unfettered Fire – good posts. Thank you. Peter Phillips is definitely worth listening to.

Jon Dhoe , September 14, 2018 at 11:02 am

Israel, Israel, Israel. When are we going to start facing facts?

Daniel Good , September 14, 2018 at 9:59 am

Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a "peace dividend" following the end of WWII.

To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/ .

We live in a country of military socialism, in which military citizens have all types of benefits, on condition they join the military-industrial-complex. This being so, there is no need for real "intelligence", there is no need to "understand" what goes on is foreign countries, there no need to be right about what might happen or worry about consequences. What is important is stimulate the economy by spending on arms. From Korean war, when the US dropped more bombs than it had on Nazi Germany, through Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc etc the US policy was a winning one not for those who got bombed (and could not fight back) but for the weapons industry and military contractors. Is the NYTimes ever going to discuss this aspect? Or any one in the MSM?

Walter , September 14, 2018 at 9:26 am

The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the "Statement of A. Wess Mitchell Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21 this year. The transcript is at : https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/082118_Mitchell_Testimony.pdf

Quote the esteemed gentleman (inter alia): "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American power. "

Tellingly the "official" State Department copy is changed and omits the true spoken words

See yourself: https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2018/285247.htm

This is the essence of MacKinder's Thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History and was the underlying reason for both world wars in the 20th century.

An essay on this observed truth https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/11/behind-the-anglo-american-war-on-russia/

A deeper essay on the same subject https://www.silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/Monographs/1006Rethinking-4.pdf

I would propose that the Zionism aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward Operating Base Israel" look it a map, Comrade The ISIS?Saudi?Zionist games divides the New Silk Road and the Eurasian land mass and exists to throttle said pathways.

Interestingly the latter essay is attributed to Eldar Ismailov and Vladimir Papava

Brother Comrade Putin knows the game. The US has to maintain the fiction for the public that it does not know the game, and is consequently obliged to maintain a vast public delusion, hence "fake news" and all the rest.

OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 1:49 pm

"I would propose that the Zionism aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade"

Some have an attraction to book-ends. Once upon a time the Eurasian book-ends were Germany and Japan, and the Western Asian book-ends Israel and Saudi Arabia. This "strategy" is based upon the notion that bookend-ness is a state of inertia which in any interactive system is impossible except apparently to those embedded in "we the people hold these truths to be self-evident".

Consequently some have an attraction to book-ends.

Dennis Etler , September 13, 2018 at 9:05 pm

Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0. In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum between 1990 and 2010.

Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between "Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the geopolitical war between the two.

Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus, what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948. Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing.

Rob Roy , September 15, 2018 at 12:16 am

Mr. Etler,

I think you are mostly right except in the first Cold War, the Soviets and US Americans were both involved in this "war." What you call Cold War 2.0 is in the minds and policies of only the US. Russian is not in any way currently like the Soviet Union, yet the US acts in all aspects of foreign attitude and policy as though that (very unpleasant period in today's Russians' minds) still exists. It does not. You says there was "merely a 20 year interregnum" and things have picked up and continued as a Cold War. Only in the idiocy of the USA, certainly not in the minds of Russian leadership, particularly Putin's who now can be distinguished as the most logical, realistic and competent leader in the world.

Thanks to H. Clinton being unable to become president, we have a full blown Russiagate which the MSM propaganda continues to spread.

There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail.

Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm

"This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."

Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off.

Walter , September 13, 2018 at 1:30 pm

US is attempting to stop a process, to prevent Change see https://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/v-golstein-end-of-cold-war-and/

Conjuring up Heraclitus..Time is a River, constantly changing. And we face downstream, unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past.

The attempt has an effect, many effects, but it cannot stop Time.

The Russian and the Chinese have clinched the unification of the Earth Island, "Heartland" This ended the ability to control global commerce by means of navies – the methods of the Sea Peoples over the last 500 years are now failed. The US has no way of even seeing this fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante .

Thus World War, as we see

Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US

Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2018 at 1:29 pm

I guess I missed this one, Patrick. Great overview but let me put it in a slightly different context. You start with the end of the cold war but I don't. I could go all the way back to the early days of the country and our proclamation of manifest destiny. The US has long thought that it was the one ring to rule them all. But for most of that time the strength of individual members of the rest of the world constrained the US from running amok. That constraint began to be lifted after the ruling clique in Europe committed seppuku in WWI. It was completely lifted after WWII. But that was 75 years ago. This is now and most of the world has recovered from the world wide destruction of human and physical capital known as WWII. The US is going to have to learn how to live with constraints again but it will take a shock. The US is going to have to lose at something big time. Europe cancelling the sanctions? The sanctions on Russia don't mean squat to the US but it's costing Europe billions. This highlights the reality that the "Western Alliance" (read NATO) is not really an alliance of shared goals and objectives. It's an alliance of those terrified by fascism and what it can do. They all decided that they needed a "great father" to prevent their excesses again. One wonders if either the world or Europe would really like the US to come riding in like the cavalry to places like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Blindly following Washington's directions can be remarkably expensive for Europe and they get nothing but refugees they can't afford. Something will ultimately have to give.

The one thing I was surprised you didn't mention was the US's financial weakness. It's been a long time since the US was a creditor nation. We've been a debtor nation since at least the 80s. The world doesn't need debtor nations and the only reason they need us is the primacy of the US dollar. And there are numerous people hammering away at that.

Gerald Wadsworth , September 13, 2018 at 12:59 pm

Why are we trying to hem in China, Russia and Iran? Petro-dollar hegemony, pure and simple. From our initial deal with Saudi Arabia to buy and sell oil in dollars only, to the chaos we have inflicted globally to retain the dollar's rule and role in energy trading, we are finding ourselves threatened – actually the position of the dollar as the sole trading medium is what is threatened – and we are determined to retain that global power over oil at all costs. With China and Russia making deals to buy and sell oil in their own currencies, we have turned both those counties into our enemies du jour, inventing every excuse to blame them for every "bad thing" that has and will happen, globally. Throw in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a host of other countries who want to get out from under our thumb, to those who tried and paid the price. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and more. Our failed foreign policy is dictated by controlling, as Donald Rumsfeld once opined, "our oil under their sand." Oil. Pure and simple.

Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 2:18 pm

I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.

Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 3:33 pm

I agree, Gerald. Along with ensuring access to "our" off-shore oil fields, enforcing the petro-dollar system is equally significant, and seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If this system were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases which make the world safe for democracy? Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.

Anonymous Coward , September 13, 2018 at 10:40 pm

+1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. Also note that anyone trying to retain control of their currency and not letting "The Market" (private banks) totally control them is a Great Devil we need to fight, e.g. Libya and China.

And note (2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks

MichaelWme , September 13, 2018 at 12:18 pm

It's called the Thucydides trap. NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) have said they will force regime change in Syria. Russia says it will not allow regime change in Syria. Fortunately, as a Frenchman and an Austrian explained many years ago, and NATO experts say is true today, regime change in Russia is a simple matter, about the same as Libya or Panamá. I forget the details, but I assume things worked out well for the Frenchman and the Austrian, and will work out about the same for NATO.

Anastasia , September 13, 2018 at 12:04 pm

Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy.

Truer words were never spoken, and it is the reason why I know, at least, that Russia did not interfere in the US elections. What would be the point, from his viewpoint, and it is not only just his opinion. You cannot help but see at this point that that he said is obviously true.

TJ , September 13, 2018 at 1:47 pm

What an excellent point. Why bother influencing the elections when it doesn't matter who is elected -- the same policies will continue.

Bart Hansen , September 13, 2018 at 3:43 pm

Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro: "I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration."

rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 8:02 am

Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose, he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate.

James , September 13, 2018 at 9:24 am

Great to see Patrick Lawrence writing for Consortium News.

He ends his article with: "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability. "

Speaking of consequences, how about the human toll this foreign policy has taken on so many people in this world. To me, the gravest sin of all.

Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 8:46 am

I agree with Patric Lawrence when he states "Personalizing Washington's regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of deeper understanding." and I also agree that 'Seven decades of global hegemony have left the State Department, Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension.' But I seriously disagree when he declares that: "The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins.'' Certainly the missteps are true, but I would argue that the "personalities" are crucial to America's crisis of Foreign Policy. After all it was likely that JFK's American University address was the public declaration of his intention to lead America in the direction of better understanding of Sovereign Rights that likely got him killed. It is precisely those "personalities" that we must understand and identify before we can move on

Skip Scott , September 13, 2018 at 9:35 am

Bob-

I see what you're saying, but I believe Patrick is also right.

Many of the people involved in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance.

Remember when "Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the world than have to share.

Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 2:42 pm

You're completely right Skip, that's what we all must recognize and ultimately react to, and against.
Thank you.

JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm

I would add that human beings are the key components in this system. The system is built and shaped by them. Some are greedy, lying predators and some are honest and egalitarian. Bob Parry was one of the latter, thankfully.

JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:30 pm

Skip, very good points. For those interested further, here's an excellent talk on the bankers behind the manufacutured wars, including the role of the Council on Foreign Relations as a front organization and control mechanism.
"The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6124&v=wHa1r4nIaug

Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 9:42 am

Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.

Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war industries they protected?

The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency, as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too much war means your country is doing something wrong.

Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 2:51 pm

Many thanks Joe, I admire your persistence. Clearly Bob Woodward has been part of the problem rather than the solution. The swamp is deep and murky

JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:36 pm

Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal. Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/

O Society , September 13, 2018 at 6:21 pm

The document Gary Cohen removed off Trump's desk – which you can read here – states an intent to end a free trade agreement with South Korea.

"White House aides feared if Trump sent the letter, it could jeopardize a top-secret US program that can detect North Korean missile launches within seven seconds."

Sounds like Trump wanted to play the "I am such a great deal maker, the GREATEST deal maker of all times!" game with the South Koreans. Letter doesn't say anything about withdrawing troops or missiles.

Funny how ***TOP-SECRET US PROGRAMS*** find their way into books and newspapers these days, plentiful as acorns falling out of trees.

O Society , September 14, 2018 at 1:38 pm

You're welcome, Joe. These things get confusing. Who knows anymore what is real and what isn't?

Trump did indeed say something about ending military exercises and pulling troops out of South Korea. His staff did indeed contradict him on this. It just wasn't in relation to the letter Cohn "misplaced," AFAIK.

Nobody asked me, but if they did, I'd say the US interfered enough in Korean affairs by killing a whole bunch of 'em in the Korean War. Leave'em alone. Let North and South try to work it out. Tired of hearing about "regime change.'

Republicans buck Trump on Korea troop pullout talk

Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24 pm

Here's what I wrote:

Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.

Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war industries they protected?

The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency, as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too much war means your country is doing something wrong.

Kiwiantz , September 13, 2018 at 8:20 am

Spoiler Nation of America! You got that dead right! China builds infrastructure in other Countries & doesn't interfere with the citizens & their Sovereignty. Contrast that with the United Spoiler States of America, they run roughshod over overs & just bomb the hell out of Countries & leaves devastation & death wherever they go! And there is something seriously wrong & demented with the US mindset concerning, the attacks on 9/11? In Syria the US has ended up arming & supporting the very same organisation of Al QaedaTerrorists, morphed into ISIS, that hijacked planes & flew them into American targets! During 2017 & now in 2018, it defies belief how warped this US mentality is when ISIS can so easily & on demand, fake a chemical attack to suck in the stupid American Military & it's Airforce & get them to attack Syria, like lackeys taking orders from Terrorist's! The US Airforce is the airforce of Al Qaeda & ISIS! Why? Because the US can't stomach Russia, Syria & Iran winning & defeating Terrorism thus ending this Proxy War they started! Russia can't be allowed to win at any cost because the humiliation & loss of prestige that the US would suffer as a Unipolar Empire would signal the decline & end of this Hegemonic Empire so they must continue to act as a spoiler to put off that inevitable decline! America can't face reality that it's time in the sun as the last Empire, is over!

Sally Snyder , September 13, 2018 at 7:57 am

Here is what Americans really think about the rabid anti-Russia hysteria coming from Washington:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/americans-on-russia-will-of-people.html

Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes.

Waynes World , September 13, 2018 at 7:37 am

Finally some words of truth about how we want our way not really democracy. A proper way to look at the world is what you said toward the end a desire to make people's lives better.

mike k , September 13, 2018 at 7:14 am

Simply put – the US is the world's biggest bully. This needs to stop. Fortunately the bully's intended victims are joining together to defeat it's crazy full spectrum dominance fantasies. Led by Russia and China, we can only hope for the success of the resistance to US aggression.

This political, economic, military struggle is not the only problem the world is facing now, but is has some priority due to the danger of nuclear war. Global pollution, climate disaster, ecological collapse and species extinction must also be urgently dealt with if we are to have a sustainable existence on Earth.

OlyaPola , September 13, 2018 at 4:39 am

Alpha : "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence."

Omega: "Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."

Framing is always a limiter of perception.

Among the consequences of the lateral trajectories from Alpha to Omega referenced above, is the "unintended consequence" of the increase of the principal opponents, their resolve and opportunities to facilitate the transcendence of arrangements based on coercion by arrangements based on co-operation.

Opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to deny lateral process.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , September 13, 2018 at 4:32 am

Yes, I certainly agree with author's view.

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/31/john-chuckman-comment-empire-corrupts-all-the-principles-of-economics-as-well-as-principles-of-ethics-and-good-government-there-is-nothing-good-to-say-about-empire-and-the-american-one-is-no-excep/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

HomoSapiensWannaBe , September 13, 2018 at 8:23 am

John Chuckman,

Wow. Thanks! I have just begun reading your commentaries this week and I am impressed with how clearly you analyze and summarize key points about many topics.

Thank you so much for writing what are often the equivalent of books, but condensed into easy to read and digest summaries.

I have ordered your book and look forward to reading that.

Cheers from Southeast USA!

[Sep 15, 2018] Fred to Take Wheel of Ship of State: Will Implement Thoughtful and Reasonable Measures by Fred Reed

Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or President in American parlance.

Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with John Bolton in it?"

You see.

I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your fervor.

One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back. Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.

Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.

We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you think?

Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:

"OK, on the plane. Now ."

If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want, except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the nearest street corner, or ask your kids.

Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours alone.

Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire country.

Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in Seattle.

Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for? China?

A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my campaign.

Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel have, the less trouble it can cause.

Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?

Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the American way.

Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.

Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life. Smallish population, low military budget.

Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our problem.

Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have backhoes.

Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of martial life without the murder.

Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has 68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?

Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?

Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to localities without exception.

Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems to be.

Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of illiberalism in this meritorious list.

Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism, any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.

Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a helicopter.

In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can do this. See you at the polls.

... ... ...

Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.

FoxTwo , says: September 15, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT

In today's world of political insanity, a healthy dose of sarcasm may be considered as a good antidote. Love your columns Fred; keep them up!

[Sep 15, 2018] WADA committee recommends reinstating the "non-compliant" Russian anti-doping agency, RUSADA

Sep 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ort , Sep 15, 2018 3:58:24 PM | link

Well, this is a nice little ray of sunshine!

Perhaps it will inspire Dutch authorities to collectively "examine their conscience", and admit to cooking up the bogus MH-17 report that framed Russia or "pro-Russian" forces as the culprits who shot down the aircraft.

There's no connection, but somehow this resonates with the mildly surprising news that a WADA committee recommends reinstating the "non-compliant" Russian anti-doping agency, RUSADA. It's not a done deal yet, since apparently WADA insists that RUSADA officials validate WADA's show trial by confessing to its alleged crimes despite RUSADA's claims of innocence -- but it's promising news.

Is this the first stirrings of an "EU Spring?" ;)

[Sep 15, 2018] How To Think About Conservatism

Sep 15, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

likbez 69

I think it is impossible to discuss modern conservatism, especially its neocon variety without discussing neoliberalism. Too many people here concentrate on superficial traits, while the defining feature of modern conservatives is the unconditional support of "hard neoliberalism." There is also a Vichy party which supports "soft neoliberalism" ...

See Monbiot at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative." But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Kabaservice Contra Corey -- Thoughts About How To Think About Conservatism -- Crooked Timber Chile -- one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied -- "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining mean the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

The other important area is the attitude to the existence and maintenance of the global US empire and the level of indoctrination into "American exceptionalism" which I view as a flavor of far-right nationalism. But here we need to talk not about conservatism but neofascism.

In a way, the current crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (one of the features of which was de-legitimization of the neoliberal elite which led to the election of Trump) develops with strange similarities with the events of 1920-1935 in Europe.

[Sep 15, 2018] So now CNN is complicit in illegal leaking, disinformation laundering

Sep 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
  • Uncovered text messages reveal that FBI agent Peter Strzok wanted to use CNN's "bombshell" report about the infamous "Steele Dossier" to interview witnesses in the Trump-Russia probe
  • CNN used leaked knowledge that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier as a trigger to publish
  • The FBI knew of CNN's plans to publish, confirming a dialogue between the FBI and CNN
  • This is particularly damning in light of revelations of FBI-MSM collusion against the Trump campaign

Newly revealed text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page reveal that Strzok wanted to use CNN's report on the infamous "Steele Dossier" to justify interviewing people in the Trump-Russia investigation, reports CNN .

911bodysnatchers322 ,

So now CNN is complicit in illegal leaking, (dis)information laundering, citizen targetting, conspiracy against rights, subversion, sedition and treason?

No wonder it's a nonstop Trump hate fest. They aren't just trying to get Trump impeached in the court of public opinion, they're desperate to get rid of him before he 100% destroys him

Well it's too late. Impeach away. But we'll still hold CNN for treason. The two things aren't related. You can't steal from a store just because Trump set the one next to it on fire

BGO ,

Fatigue is setting in with this charade. Soon the (((pundits))) will respond with the obligatory ***yawn*** troll to all future allegations.

If Trump cannot or is unable to respond to this non-sense in the harshest terms possible, he should not be president. It's amazing no one in this drama has met their maker Hitlery style. If that cunt was in charge and dealing with this shit, bodies would have already hit the floor.

J Mahoney ,

This whole situation has to piss off anyone that is even 10% objective. How could any elected representative or senator still spew shit like "Leave Mueller Alone"

BOTTOM LINE -- If we do not get to work quickly to elect non establishment republicans in the midterms NOTHING will EVER be done and Trump may be forced out if Dems make gains

apocalypticbrother ,

All old news. No one in jail except Manafort. It really seems like Trump is powerless against agencys. He must hate being a powerless president.

squid ,

If, and I do mean IF, the GOP holds onto both houses of congress.....

Everyone of these fucks has to be indited with sedition, PERIOD.

its slam dunk. And, if the elected houses ever wants to get hold of the CIA, FBI and NSA and gain some control over those rogue agencies 20-50 agents from each will have to go down to spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth.

These uncollected asshats have tried to change the government of the United States.

The only person on the left that appears to understand this is Glen Greenwald.

Squid

Save_America1st ,

the problem is that in my opinion the majority of the GOP is also so fucking corrupt that I don't think most of them actually want to hold control of the House. They never even wanted Trump to win in the first place. On top of that, I would say many of those treasonous scumbags probably actually wanted Hitlery to win the fucking thing even if Trump wasn't going to be her opponent!

Look at all the resignations. Never seen before in history. Why? Two reasons...Trump is using the evidence to push many of them out or they end up in Guantanamo for life. And others in the beginning were quitting in order to give up part of the majority in order to flip the House to the even more evil, treasonous Demoscums so that it would restrict Trump's full majority.

Just look how "No Name" McStain acted when voting down against repealing O-Fuck-You-Care, right???

He was a traitor, plain and fucking simple. We all know it. Fuck their bullshit funeral. That was a cathedral full of traitors to this country. Psychopaths and sociopaths. Except for General Kelly and General Mattis keeping a close eye on that room full of demons.

... ... ...

[Sep 15, 2018] I don't know why so many people are having trouble realizing that the United States intends to make the rules, not follow them, and to be the ultimate arbiter of its own behaviour. And at its very core, this is an intent that recognizes no equal

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 11, 2018 at 2:03 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NWB6IUE0hJU

Whither then the endless cries from libtards to send Putin to this court?

Mark Chapman September 11, 2018 at 10:47 am
I don't know why so many people are having trouble realizing that the United States intends to make the rules, not follow them, and to be the ultimate arbiter of its own behaviour. And at its very core, this is an intent that recognizes no equal. Allies are great, America loves to have them so that it can employ them as it sees fit, but does not recognize their authority to hold Americans to any standard of conduct. Certainly this does not hold true at the administrative levels – no American is going to get away with speeding on the autobahn by saying indignantly, "Of course I wasn't speeding – I'm an AMERICAN!" But speeding by an individual is hardly a national embarrassment. In any international context, allies and enemies alike are going to have to just accept that no international rules supersede American self-regulation, and you'll just have to be good with the concept that America is scrupulously fair in meting out justice to its own subjects.

Oddly enough, American military members and contractors who are accused of various crimes – which it stands to reason they committed, since Americans as a society are no better and no worse than any other social group on the planet – their government elevates their motivation to patriotism, the defending of home and family values. Presumably these transcendent laws protect Americans who blast Iraqi civilians off of balconies for the hell of it, as they did at Nisour Square in 2007. Please note that although eventually four Blackwater employees were tried and convicted in US Federal Court, (a) it was 7 years after the fact, (b) only one employee was found guilty of murder, while the remainder pleaded down to manslaughter and lesser firearms charges which implied they were careless rather than vicious, (c) 14 of 17 Iraqis killed were agreed by the USA to have been entirely without cause, and (d) the original conviction was overturned by a US District Judge on the grounds that all charges against Blackwater had been improperly built on testimony given in exchange for immunity. The entire process weighed heavily in favour of Iraq just giving up in disgust, and had it not persevered, there is every reason to believe Blackwater would have escaped any prosecution. No doubt they were characterized throughout the process as American patriots who were simply protecting their families and their nation and safeguarding American values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre

One of the first moves in a humanitarian or policing mission involving the USA will be the establishment of a status-of-forces agreement in which American soldiers accused of any crime must be tried by a US court or under American authority. When American citizens are killed in such scenarios, such as the four Blackwater contractors killed and whose burnt bodies were hung from a bridge in Fallujah, Iraq, a disproportionate vengeance is enacted which punishes the whole population.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/highrisk.html

You all remember what happened to Fallujah; the American-led coalition invaded it twice, and razed it to the ground in a display of violence that made even US allies nervous.

American contractors in Iraq were earning about $600.00 a day. It is pretty hard to imagine they were all motivated by patriotism and family values.

et Al September 12, 2018 at 2:54 am

[Sep 15, 2018] The cutting off of water supplies to the Crimea

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:54 pm

Further to the criminal act perpetrated by the Ukrainian government, namely the cutting off of water supplies to the Crimea, one has to admit that as regards this matter the foreign minister of the Ukraine, Pavel Klmkin, is one obnoxious little twat:

Це не Україна відрізала Крим від води, це зробила Росія, силою відрізавши Крим від України. Сама по собі окупація Криму є страхітливим порушенням міжнародного права і людських прав усіх кримчан.

It is not the Ukraine that has cut off the Crimea from water: Russia did it, by its cutting off of the Crimea from the Ukraine by force. In its own right, the occupation of the Crimea is a terrible violation of international law and the rights of all Crimeans.

James lake September 14, 2018 at 2:32 am
Do the Crimeans have water?

If they do – then it's not such a great victory for Ukraine

Moscow Exile September 14, 2018 at 4:08 am
Yes, and they have desalination plants. The water from the canal that runs from Kherson is chiefly for irrigation. When they first closed the sluice in the Ukraine, the Crimea harvest suffered. No doubt Crimea-Tatar farmers were very pleased about this.

Water Resources of the Crimea

Crimean water resources are limited, failing to fully meet the drinking and economic needs of the region. Over 50 years, the problems of water resources in Crimea were solved by using Dnieper water supplied through North-Crimean Canal; however, after the integration of Crimea into Russia, Ukraine suspended water supply. At the aggravation of political situation between Russia and Ukraine, the situation in the water-management sphere in the Republic of Crimea looks very complicated. The water-management problems of Crimea should be solved based on its own potential. Groundwater resources are the leading factor of sustainable development of Crimean Region at the present stage.

Jen September 14, 2018 at 4:36 am
My understanding is that in 2015, Russian geologists discovered three aquifers in Crimean territory so pipelines have been built to connect the aquifers to the North Crimean Canal and to supply water to people living in eastern Crimea near Kerch.
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201504041020474871/#ixzz3WNLsZ6sG
Mark Chapman September 14, 2018 at 8:57 am
Right. Indulging the will of the very great majority of Crimeans is a terrible violation of international law, and that same population consequently deserves to be without water even though the supply they depended upon comes from Ukraine. Pull the other one, Pavlo. Not even a day-one civil-rights lawyer would buy that argument. The west has never contested that the decision of Crimeans to sever their ties to Ukraine was that of the majority – not really, It has danced around with that voting-at-the-point-of-a-Kalashnikov bullshit, but the vote was not even close. If there were a do-over with the strictest supervision of western officials, and Kuh-yiv itself got to write the referendum question, Crimea would still vote to secede, and the west knows it. If it was such a loyal part of Ukraine before, why was it the autonomous republic of Crimea?

The Ukraine-Crimea affair should stand as a textbook example of how the country that lost territory did absolutely everything wrong in its attempts to get it back.

[Sep 15, 2018] The Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia was precipitated by the U.S. bombings

Sep 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mike P , says: September 14, 2018 at 9:51 pm GMT

@anarchyst I see stuff written about the Vietnam war and it never fails they don't talk at all about the whole picture. The Vietnam war was a war to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. In that aspect it won some and lost some. Vietnam had nothing to do with oil or Colonialism. Any look at a map would show it's vast strategic location for the Communist. It has one the best ports in Asia. They talk about Tet defeating us. Nothing could be further from the truth. It ended forever the Viet Cong in the South. From then on all the attacks were from the North. The next big attack...

And in Viet Nam the North sent 150,000 men south with as much armor as the Wehrmacht had in many WW II engagements. That was in 1973, and of that 150,000 fewer than 50,000 men and no armor returned to the North, at a cost of under 1,000 American casualties. Most would count that an outstanding victory.

(Alas, in 1975 North Viet Nam had another army of over 100,000 and sent it South; the Democratic Congress voted our South Vietnamese 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per man, but refused naval and air support; Saigon predictably became Ho Chi Minh city as we pushed helicopters off the decks of out carriers in our frantic evacuation; but that is hardly the fault of the US military).

The South lost when they ran out of ammunition. During the time we were fighting in Vietnam all the other Asian countries with their own Commies attacking them were fighting also. Many of them won. The ones that fell like Cambodia paid a harsh price. By all measurement of what we went to Vietnam for we didn't lose. It did stop the spread of Communism to all Asia. Rarely in any wars do you get all you want.

The Democrat party has been saying that the Vets fought a losing war when in actuality the Democrats directly are responsible for the loss of South Vietnam. There are only a few highways leading South and they were packed with tanks and troop transport in 75. It would have been a complete turkey shoot like the war in Kuwait. We even had battleships at that time that could have pounded them from the coast. If we would have attacked it would have probably caused them such a defeat that they would have never attacked again maybe even the government of the North would have been overthrown by the people for such incompetence. Unfortunately the Nixon was gone and Ford was directly told if he helped the Vietnamese with air power he would be impeached.

The idea that the Vietnam vets died for nothing is a huge psyops by the Democrats. The South had defeated all the guerillas. All they needed was support to hold off the North and the Democrats sold them out. If the South Vietnamese had not fell it's very likely that the Cambodian Genocide would have never happened.
The Democrats had said the war was lost so many times that they had to prove it so by actually losing it.

we were fighting in Vietnam all the other Asian countries with their own Commies attacking them were fighting also. Many of them won. The ones that fell like Cambodia paid a harsh price.

On the other hand, the Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia was precipitated by the U.S. bombings:

Estimates vary widely on the number of civilian casualites inflicted by the campaign; however,as many as 500,000 people died as a direct result of the bombings while perhaps hundreds of thousands more died from the effects of displacement, disease or starvation during this period.

The Khmer Rouge, previously a marginalized guerrilla group, propagandized the bombing campaign to great effect; by the CIA's own intelligence estimates, the US bombing campaign was a key factor in the increase in popular support for the Khmer Rouge rebels. After their victory in 1975, the Khmer Rouge oversaw a period in which another one-to-two million Cambodians died from execution, hunger and forced labour.

(from http://rabble.ca/toolkit/on-this-day/us-secret-bombing-cambodia )

The U.S. also utterly devastated Laos, killed millions of Vietnamese ultimately all for nothing, or rather worse than nothing.

[Sep 15, 2018] No US Interests Are Served by Trump s Endless, Illegal War in Syria by Daniel Larison

This just demonstrates the level of capture of the USA by Israeli lobby. But there is also some geopolitical play for the USA in this region and in this sense Syria is just a continuation of Iraq and Libya.
The goal of dominance over middle East (which correlates with Israel goals) and its oil is probably one of the driving force of those wars.
Notable quotes:
"... The issue is not only whether U.S. interests are affected but whether they are affected enough to justify the participation of the U.S. military in a foreign war -- which should entail a higher standard. ..."
"... The Trump administration's Syria policy is just one of many parts of its foreign policy that make a mockery of the idea that Trump puts American interests first. ..."
"... A continued U.S. military presence in Syria has nothing to do with protecting Americans or the citizens of our treaty allies, and so it has nothing to do with self-defense or the defense of allies. There is no international mandate for a U.S. military mission in Syria, and our forces are in Syrian territory in defiance of the Syrian government's wishes. ..."
"... Congress has not voted for any of this, and the public is probably only vaguely aware that there are U.S. forces in Syria. Americans did not vote for any of this, they haven't consented to it, their representatives have never debated or authorized any of it. I doubt that most Americans would support it once they were made aware of it, but the point is that the question has never been put before the voters or their representatives. ..."
Sep 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

No U.S. Interests Are Served by Trump's Endless, Illegal War in Syria

Paul Pillar objects to the Trump administration's policy of committing the U.S. to oppose Iran's military presence in Syria, and he observes that this decision has been made without any debate or Congressional authorization:

That shift warrants much more scrutiny and debate than it is getting. U.S. service members are being dispatched to a foreign war for the purpose of somehow getting one Middle Eastern state that has had a longstanding security relationship with another Middle Eastern state to remove its personnel from that second state [bold mine-DL].

Exactly how are U.S. interests supposedly affected by whether those personnel stay or go? The only Americans who might be harmed under one scenario but not the other are the very soldiers who are being dispatched.

The Syrian-Iranian alliance has existed for decades, going back to when the two states shared an adversary in the form of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

The issue is not only whether U.S. interests are affected but whether they are affected enough to justify the participation of the U.S. military in a foreign war -- which should entail a higher standard.

Pillar's description of the administration's policy shows us how absurd it is. It makes no difference to U.S. vital interests if Iran keeps some military personnel in Syria, and it certainly isn't something that we should be risking the lives of American soldiers to change. If Syria's hostile neighbors don't like that, it is not the responsibility of our government to fix it for them. The Trump administration's Syria policy is just one of many parts of its foreign policy that make a mockery of the idea that Trump puts American interests first.

No U.S. interests are served by an endless, illegal war in Syria , and by risking a larger conflict with the Syrian government and its patrons this policy poses a threat to U.S. and international security.

A continued U.S. military presence in Syria has nothing to do with protecting Americans or the citizens of our treaty allies, and so it has nothing to do with self-defense or the defense of allies. There is no international mandate for a U.S. military mission in Syria, and our forces are in Syrian territory in defiance of the Syrian government's wishes.

Our forces have no legitimate reason to be there, and there is no legal basis for keeping them there. The Trump administration is risking war with as many as three governments in order to occupy part of someone else's country indefinitely for the sake of an unachievable goal that has no connection to U.S. security in the first place.

Congress has not voted for any of this, and the public is probably only vaguely aware that there are U.S. forces in Syria. Americans did not vote for any of this, they haven't consented to it, their representatives have never debated or authorized any of it. I doubt that most Americans would support it once they were made aware of it, but the point is that the question has never been put before the voters or their representatives.

Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Russia , Iran , Syria , Paul Pillar , Donald Trump .

[Sep 15, 2018] Fred to Take Wheel of Ship of State: Will Implement Thoughtful and Reasonable Measures by Fred Reed

Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or President in American parlance.

Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with John Bolton in it?"

You see.

I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your fervor.

One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back. Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.

Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.

We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you think?

Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:

"OK, on the plane. Now ."

If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want, except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the nearest street corner, or ask your kids.

Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours alone.

Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire country.

Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in Seattle.

Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for? China?

A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my campaign.

Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel have, the less trouble it can cause.

Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?

Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the American way.

Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.

Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life. Smallish population, low military budget.

Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our problem.

Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have backhoes.

Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of martial life without the murder.

Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has 68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?

Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?

Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to localities without exception.

Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems to be.

Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of illiberalism in this meritorious list.

Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism, any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.

Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a helicopter.

In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can do this. See you at the polls.

... ... ...

Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.

FoxTwo , says: September 15, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT

In today's world of political insanity, a healthy dose of sarcasm may be considered as a good antidote. Love your columns Fred; keep them up!

[Sep 15, 2018] FUKUS Turkey are now al-qa ida s allies. (editorial)

Notable quotes:
"... FUKUS equals France, the UK and the US. It appears that the policy of this tri-partite re-birth of the Entente Cordiale has changed with regard to Syria since the middle of August. Before that change FUKUS seemed to have acknowledged and conceded the inevitability of an R+6 offensive that would re-capture all of Idlib Province in NW Syria. ..."
"... That seems changed. The province is now occupied and dominated by the jihadi fighters of hayat tahrir al-sham ..."
"... These jihadis are quite different from the ISIS (daesh) fighters of the Islamic State. The US, Syria, Iraq, France and the UK have successfully fought ISIS all over Syria and Iraq when FUKUS was not busy Accidental-Bombing (neologism) the Syrian Army. ..."
"... FUKUS and the Lord of the White House (LOTWH) have traditionally made a clear distinction between ISIS and the other jihadi groups like HTS. Over the years of the Syrian Civil War FUKUS has insisted, and still does, that HTS is somehow a "freedom fighter" group along with the rag-tag Free Syrian Army unicorns. ..."
"... jisr al-shughur ..."
"... My Fearless Forecast - In the end, the Russians and Syrians will say to hell with this and launch the offensive ..."
"... I suspect the Whitehouse has decided to "think big" and intends to put Russia in her place by destroying the attacking formations of the SAA and any Russian assets that attempt to intervene. ..."
"... To help the impeachment of such a guy is outside of the national interests of Russia. We can't now overstep the mark in Syria. Trump has to leave the line of fire as a fine fellow, but not as a fool and a loser. ..."
"... At least the US probably doesn't want the terrorists from Russia and China etc to be killed. Good reasons in their minds to try to stop any attack on Idlib. ..."
"... It clear that the US, UK and France have not yet given up on the partition of Syria at the bequest of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... This mother of all poker games has to end. The stakes are high for all, but for Russia they are sky high. Accepting a permanent Jihadistan right next to its strategic assets in Syria would be an invitation to the Borg to turn Idlib into an endless sink for Russian resources. ..."
"... I did consider whether Russia may agree to Turkey's offer to jointly police the region. But again, the Borg would surely use every opportunity to foment unrest and force Russia to pour ever more peacekeeping troops in. Besides, any territory still under rebel control is an excuse for the shadow Syrian government to retain legitimacy, so a future 'spontaneous' Arab spring can bring them to power. That can't be permitted. ..."
"... As for the Sultan, he deserves everything he gets. Next time he gets wind of an imminent coup in Ankara, Putin will doubtless have something more urgent to do than call up his buddy there. Erdogan talks of Turkey being "constrained to Anatolia" and blames Ataturk for 'betrayal' of the National Pact. Well we can all wish events 100 years ago went differently, but guess what, what's why they call it history. I think this reality is about to smack him in the face big time. ..."
"... Does Trump have any core beliefs? Or will he tack without care to the wind of his new "friends?" It depends on that. ..."
"... He went on to say that "the fact that they are just people who have settled in Idlib, like in a fortress, and want a truce – it's not true. From there they actively carry out military operations, using the support they somehow receive from abroad. ..."
"... If the false flag happens anyway then f*ck FUKUS and go all in. Until then maintain extreme pressure on the perimeter. Jihadist are unable to rule and the province will collapse on its own in due time. Time is on the side of R+6. ..."
turcopolier.typepad.com

FUKUS equals France, the UK and the US. It appears that the policy of this tri-partite re-birth of the Entente Cordiale has changed with regard to Syria since the middle of August. Before that change FUKUS seemed to have acknowledged and conceded the inevitability of an R+6 offensive that would re-capture all of Idlib Province in NW Syria.

That seems changed. The province is now occupied and dominated by the jihadi fighters of hayat tahrir al-sham (HTS). This is the cover name of al-qa'ida in Syria. You may probably remember them as the folks who attacked the US on 9/11. If you do, that would be a correct memory.

These jihadis are quite different from the ISIS (daesh) fighters of the Islamic State. The US, Syria, Iraq, France and the UK have successfully fought ISIS all over Syria and Iraq when FUKUS was not busy Accidental-Bombing (neologism) the Syrian Army.

FUKUS and the Lord of the White House (LOTWH) have traditionally made a clear distinction between ISIS and the other jihadi groups like HTS. Over the years of the Syrian Civil War FUKUS has insisted, and still does, that HTS is somehow a "freedom fighter" group along with the rag-tag Free Syrian Army unicorns.

That was certainly the view of the late Saint John of Arizona. In the aftermath of his passing and the subsequent media hysteria, the LOTWH seems to have accepted the wisdom of St. John in perceiving the "true" nature of HTS. In other words the US seems now to be fully "on board" as the protector of HTS's redoubt in Idlib Province.

The French, still deep in the embrace of Macronisme and the Brits with their desire to continue to be "players" are also "on board" In pursuit of these newly adopted neocon policy ambitions for al-qa'ida in Syria, Ambassadors Jeffrey and Haley have threatened Syria, Iran and Russia with hellfire and damnation if they dare to try to Make Syria Whole Again (MSWA - need a vowel in there somehow) by launching the offensive so fully prepared at this date. Meanwhile the Sultan Tayyip and his crew at the summit of Turkworld are doing their best to outplay everyone in an effort to effectively annex as much of NW Syria as possible.

To that end Tayyip has warned the Syrians against trying to re-capture these lands of the Fertile Crescent, hoping perhaps to see Turkish taught there as the mandatory medium of communication in the manner of German in Alsace-Lorraine from 1871-1918.

Turkey is reinforcing its "Observation Posts" all around the perimeter of Idlib Province whilst the White Helmets Film Troupe (WHFT) have a number of possible new Oscar winner "documentaries" in production at their FUKUS sponsored jisr al-shughur facility.

My Fearless Forecast - In the end, the Russians and Syrians will say to hell with this and launch the offensive. pl

Posted at 12:05 PM in As The Borg Turns , France , government , Iran , Israel , Middle East , Russia , Syria , Turkey | Permalink | 42 Comments

TTG , a day ago

I also have no doubt the R+6 will launch the Idlib offensive. The Tiger Force began carrying out limited offensive operations along the Hama-Idlib axis, clearing out some jihadi forward entrenchments. SouthFront reports the elimination of a senior jihadi commander by SAA artillery strikes.

The artillery was called in by a deep reconnaissance patrol. SouthFront called this a special operation. Sounds more like standard infantry operations to me. We'll see a lot more of this while the R+6 continues talks with the Turks.

Michael -> TTG , a day ago
I fully agree with you and the editorial of our guest. Surely The Sultan was to be reluctant to give back Idilib and even more Afrin, the problem of his balancing acts is that he can not conceive surviving by aligning again with the USA and/or the jihadists.

And might not survive at all if he does not pretend to defend them. I will let President Putin explain to him that he can not burn all bridges and all ships, for that effect a meeting is scheduled in Sotchi.

Foot note: It seems there was some PR operation by the HTS (MofA today)

Michael -> Pat Lang , a day ago
I am aware of that Sir,

I just thought it was an elegant way of showing appreciation for your nice evaluation of this situation developments.

Indeed the stage is set, the situation can drag a little more, as a preliminary Erdogan must have some face saving, the SAA will slowly start the crescendo and hopefully the USA and the Russian will avoid bringing the whole house down.

But I confess being an optimist.

Walrus , 19 hours ago
I am concerned by Two thoughts.

(1) I suspect the Whitehouse has decided to "think big" and intends to put Russia in her place by destroying the attacking formations of the SAA and any Russian assets that attempt to intervene. To NOT do so opens the door to the possibility that Russia "wins " out of an engagement in Idlib and the. one thing Trump hates is being seen as a loser. If we engage, we will "go big".

(2) I am extremely worried about the naval dimension. Submarines are presently active on both sides and are naturally regarded as "prey" by surface ships and vice versa "even in peacetime " (my emphasis) there is therefore a non zero probability of a fatal incident right effing now.

Neither Putin nor Trump can afford to back away if an engagement starts

FB -> Walrus , 7 hours ago
I agree with this in principle...a similar take is developed here in quite some detail on the Saker blog, translated from the Russian...
'Russia has a difficult task in Idlib now. It consists not of repelling an American attack, but of not repelling it too strongly. Trump opts for an attack not because he wants to win against the Russians in Syria, but because he wants to win against the globalists back home in America, and to do this on the eve of congressional elections. I.e., the reasons for America's attack against Syria are purely internal.

If Russia hits Trump in Syria too strongly, it risks drowning him instead of somehow supporting his menacing image and helping him to win [in elections – ed]. Simply because Trump is favorable to Russia – he breaks too well everything that the American power of the last few decades has been based on.

To help the impeachment of such a guy is outside of the national interests of Russia. We can't now overstep the mark in Syria. Trump has to leave the line of fire as a fine fellow, but not as a fool and a loser.

John Waddell , 20 hours ago
As they don't believe that the Russians and Syrians will kill them all. Turkey and the Europeans really don't want their terrorists fleeing over the border escaping an onslaught and heading home.

At least the US probably doesn't want the terrorists from Russia and China etc to be killed. Good reasons in their minds to try to stop any attack on Idlib.

VietnamVet , a day ago
Colonel,

It clear that the US, UK and France have not yet given up on the partition of Syria at the bequest of Israel and Saudi Arabia. This all may be the art of the bluff by the Supremo Ugly American; but, keeping an unwinnable war going for 17 years is crazy. It worked once before. I think NATO cannot give up on the strategic strategy of using Jihadists to take down the Kremlin.

Al Qaeda is concentrated in Idlib Province. They are a real threat to the Russian Federation.

Doubtful but perhaps, Russia will be content to take small bites and bits of the province in a policy of containment and the Sultan keeps a Turkish token?

But even with this accommodation, the risks of a shooting war between nuclear powers remains extreme. If they weren't insane, the power elite would recognize that the use of proxy forces against Russia, Iran and China is against the best interests of American citizens.

Barbara Ann , a day ago
This mother of all poker games has to end. The stakes are high for all, but for Russia they are sky high. Accepting a permanent Jihadistan right next to its strategic assets in Syria would be an invitation to the Borg to turn Idlib into an endless sink for Russian resources.

I did consider whether Russia may agree to Turkey's offer to jointly police the region. But again, the Borg would surely use every opportunity to foment unrest and force Russia to pour ever more peacekeeping troops in. Besides, any territory still under rebel control is an excuse for the shadow Syrian government to retain legitimacy, so a future 'spontaneous' Arab spring can bring them to power. That can't be permitted.

As for the Sultan, he deserves everything he gets. Next time he gets wind of an imminent coup in Ankara, Putin will doubtless have something more urgent to do than call up his buddy there. Erdogan talks of Turkey being "constrained to Anatolia" and blames Ataturk for 'betrayal' of the National Pact. Well we can all wish events 100 years ago went differently, but guess what, what's why they call it history. I think this reality is about to smack him in the face big time.

If Russia caves in here the Borg will just push it to the limit elsewhere (Ukraine?) and assume she will do likewise. No, it is time to call it & find out who is bluffing. FUKUS - well that is the most apt acronym of all - we sure asked for it. I concur Colonel and pray that what Tidewater said here recently is right; that a short, sharp conventional war is what results.

Araminta Smade , a day ago
My Fearless Forecast - In the end, the Russians and Syrians will say to hell with this and launch the offensive. Pl

Though it's not directly linked I think that Putins putting forward of his 2 GRU guys is a FU signal to the Brits in particular and the West in general. He's had enough of backing off. We are coming to one of those moments in history where the talking stops and the fighting begins.

We will be at war with Russia within six months!

FB -> Araminta Smade , a day ago
Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they...I would say they are probably GRU or something similar...but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals...that's total kabuki theater...another Potemkin village production from the reality masters...

Something is afoot here though...perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself...or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion the elaborate hoax...

But for professional assasins to come direct from Moscow and back...and use gas of all things...guys like this can snuff you out with a paper bag and not leave a trace...

Mark Logan -> Araminta Smade , a day ago
War with Russia?

My fearless forecast is the neocon FUKUSes have allowed themselves to be fooled by the LOTWH's habit of telling whoever happens to be in front of him whatever it is the LOTWH thinks they wish to hear.

If shove should come to push...the LOTWH will at most bomb another empty airfield and declare victory.

Michael , 2 hours ago
Can we discern the SAA chipping at the Idlib province by small installments ? completing its isolation except from turkey ?
corroding slowly defense and logistic infrastructures in Idlib while keeping the Russian air show on the remnants of ISIS ?
When the unseen 90 % of the iceberg melt the whole goes belly-up, formidable and spectacular "dentelle" of ice.

From an other perspective: communication, the attention of the public is not used to focus for a too long time on the same topic. Smoking Lavrov talk now of containment, our Turkish partner, more palavers.
One must remember the Chinese 15 billions fiancial aid to Turquey. Promised or delivered ? more to come ?

Delays surely up to the mid-terms, no , not related.
First votes results are difficult to guess, except of course if Russians are really the master of interfering and getting theirs (many) favorites elected, but seriously who can say what the winner Party, Presidential side or opposition will do ?

aleksandar , 2 hours ago
1- There is NO NATO involvement in Syria. And a lot of Nato members will like to see these djihadists vaporized ( Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so )
2- I tend to agree will Bill Herschel, 53 days to wait, Idlib is surrounded,
R+6 have plenty of time to cure this abscess.
This battle has already begun, skirmishes every days to test
djihadist lines of defence and attrition (air power.+ Arty.) This
phase can go on days and days,
3 - The question about what turkey will do is nonsense.
The only question is what turkey can do militarily.
It's clear that they have no enough manpower to stop SAA.
Take also a look at a syrian map, East , along M5, distance between Turkish observation posts is about 15 miles ( 25 km ).
The average attack front for a regiment is 0.7 miles with 3 coys front and 1 rear.
SAA can engage a whole division there.
That why I think that M5 is the main objective and East front the only where SAA can be engaged in full strenght and speed.
Eugene Owens , 3 hours ago
An attack by ground forces will probably not start until sometime after the Erdogan/Putin meeting at Sochi on this coming Monday.

And as was claimed by an unnamed Damascus source in Al-Masdar News yesterday, the attack will have limited objectives: Al-Ghaab Plain (SW Idlib), Jisr Al-Shughour (SW Idlib), and Abu Dhuhour area (SE Idlib). Although there are still SAA/Russian discussions regarding a thrust towards Saraqib.

If the AMN article is true, Idlib is going to be nibbled one bite at a time. After Jisr Al-Shughour and Abu Dhuhour areas are stabilized there will be another bite. Perhaps the next offensive will be for Maarat al-Nu'man or perhaps to clear the area west of Aleppo City, or wherever. Eventually retaking all of the M5 highway, and after that all of Idlib (next year?). Makes sense to me.

But there is also a danger of an alleged Turkish threat to Tal Rifa'at north of Aleppo. Does that threat come from Ankara? Or does it come from a low level TSK commander on the scene?

GreenZoneCafe , 11 hours ago
Does Trump have any core beliefs? Or will he tack without care to the wind of his new "friends?" It depends on that. View Hide
Bill Herschel , 18 hours ago
Words from a man deserving of respect... who should stop smoking:

"BEIRUT, LEBANON (8:30 P.M.) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that reports of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) ramping up for an offensive in Idlib with the support of Russian troops is an "unscrupulous representation of facts." He made the statement during a plenary meeting alongside top German and Russian officials in Berlin on Friday.

"What is being passed for an offensive by the Syrian Arab Army with the support of Russian troops is an unscrupulous representation of the facts," Lavrov said.

According to the Russian foreign minister, the Syrian and Russian troops "only react to the forays coming from the Idlib area."

He went on to say that "the fact that they are just people who have settled in Idlib, like in a fortress, and want a truce – it's not true. From there they actively carry out military operations, using the support they somehow receive from abroad."

53 days.

Harlan Easley , 21 hours ago
Russia and the SAA need to hold off. Too many variables that could go disastrously wrong and fast. I for one second do not doubt the FUKUS intention of staging a false flag. After this Trump will order an attack that must dwarf the other 2 because of all the reasons we know.

Also you must take Turkey's position into account. So far Iran, Russia, and Turkey seem to be negotiating in good faith. Erdogan's position must be taken into account. He still has a large army nearby not to mention the straights of Bosporus. The heat of this festering wound must be slowly relieved. The 3 nations Iran, Turkey, and Russia are the only ones who can resolve this in my opinion. Erdogan must be allowed to save face.

If the false flag happens anyway then f*ck FUKUS and go all in. Until then maintain extreme pressure on the perimeter. Jihadist are unable to rule and the province will collapse on its own in due time. Time is on the side of R+6.

Barbara Ann -> Harlan Easley , 17 hours ago
Disagree. The enemy will always find a casus belli if he wants to fight, backing down just leads him to believe you are weak. The time has come for Russia to show the exact opposite. If they were not willing to go all the way they had no business joining the Syrian game.

Putin has already blinked, further delay will allow Turkey to consolidate its position diplomatically and militarily. Astana gave Erdogan his Golden Bridge and after failing to do anything (at best) about AQ in Idlib for a year, he is now bringing tanks and heavy artillery into Syria.

Let FUKUS go all in and let's see what their voters think when they see their countries at war with a first rate military power.

Bill Herschel , a day ago
LOTWH as well as his party see catastrophe looming on November 6, 53 days from now. And they have very few arrows in their quiver to prevent it. Riding St. John of Arizona's shroud into war in Syria is probably the only way to help their cause here in the U.S. After all, Schumer, Biden, Obama, and probably even Sanders would be on board.

Can Russia wait 53 days before attacking? Well, it depends on what you mean by attacking. They're already attacking. They have been at war in Syria since September 30th (and undoubtedly before) 2015. They certainly can "appear to wait" at the very least.

Does Russia give up a military advantage by waiting. Only if NATO will immediately come to Turkey's aid when Russia starts annihilating their troops. That of course is what Erdogan is counting on. He wouldn't be flexing his muscles if he thought he was facing Russia alone.

But perhaps a related question is, "Has Russia given up a military advantage by not invading Ukraine? By instead permitting a smoldering war to go on and on?" I say they have not.

Russia/SAA will wait at least 53 days.

Barbara Ann -> Bill Herschel , 17 hours ago
Idlib will be well on its way to being part of the Turkish Republic of Northern Syria in 53 days unless they act now.
jnewman , a day ago
So FUKUS = allies-Qaida's?
Pat Lang Mod -> jnewman , a day ago
allies + HTS
alaric , a day ago
I'm quite confident that Erdogan is trying to annex Idlib.

That said, Erdogan cannot simply acquiesce to the Iranian/Russian plan, thus appearing like their agent either. There are by some estimates nearly 50K jihadists in Idlib. Where will they go when the Russian's and Syrians start attacking in earnest? Some will die fighting but many will try to escape to Turkey. Openly cooperating with Russia and Iran is not going benefit US, Turkish relations either. Erdogan survived one coup attempt but that doesn't exclude another attempt or severe economic warfare on Turkey.

There may be a few skirmishes with between Turkish troops and Syrian aligned groups but i suspect Erdogan will leave in the end with only limited damages because Erdogan really has no allies now and Turkey is in a bit of economic and other trouble. I'm sure he'll bring some of the Turkish aligned troops that he can control with him or at least he'll set them loose on the Kurds somewhere in Syria but he will gradually surrender Idlib, privately at least.

Remember the US expulsion is the main issue after Idlib is liberated. The borg will try to keep Idlib occupied as long as possible.

Kooshy -> alaric , a day ago
IMO Turkey is in no position to piss off the Russian and Iranians, in a totally breaking way. Turkey gets 70% of her gas from Russian and Iranians as well as some of her oil.
In no way she can replace that with LNG from Qatar or Algiers. In many odd ways, Turkey is a aliened F*ed country. European and American put pressure on her with devaluing her currency and finances. Russian and Iranians can stop her growth by limiting her energy draw. It's a tough zigzag environment to survive in a changing world order. Iran has many centuries of experiencing how to balance powers in her favor. Turks and Arabs don't, that's why Iranians were able to survived the European colonialism as well as this last 40 years, and Turks and Arabs couldn't.

[Sep 15, 2018] Kerry Trashes Trump Amidst Iran Row 8-Year Old Boy With The Insecurity Of A Teenage Girl

It's really difficult rationally explain Trump obsession with Iran. may be Israeli lobby influence would be the most appropriate instead of "The Insecurity Of A Teenage Girl"
Sep 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

At the end of a week in which former Secretary of State John Kerry's unauthorized meetings with top Iranian officials have taken center stage, and in which both President Trump and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have publicly thrashed Kerry's "unheard of" and "illegal meetings" with Iran that "undercut" the White House, Kerry has gone on his own anti-Trump rant .

Appearing on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night, Kerry slammed the president as having "the maturity of an 8-year-old boy with the insecurity of a teenage girl" in remarks that are sure to continue the ongoing war of words. Previously in the week upon news of John Kerry's Wednesday Hugh Hewitt Show radio interview in which he admitted meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif "three or four times" since Donald Trump took office, President Trump slammed the "illegal meetings" as serving to "undercut" White House diplomatic dealings with Iran .

Trump further hinted that Kerry violated the Logan Act by rhetorically asking whether Kerry is officially registered as a foreign agent .

The president tweeted: John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people. He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!

When asked about the White House's potential threats of legal inquiry into the meetings, Kerry dismissed: "There's nothing unusual about it. The conversation he really ought to be worrying about is Paul Manafort with Mueller."

"Unfortunately, we have a president, literally, for whom the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is three different things, and you don't even know what they are," Kerry added.

We can only imagine how Trump is going to respond, whether on Twitter, or perhaps by announcing a legal inquiry over Kerry possibly breaking the Logan Act and failing to register as a foreign agent, as Trump's Thursday evening tweet suggested.

[Sep 15, 2018] A shyster attorney that I had the unfortunate experience in working with, did tell the truth once when he said that there is no such thing as a justice system but there is a legal industry.

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer September 14, 2018 at 9:16 am

If not always fair or flexible, it seems efficient – attorneys collecting large fees in a justice system designed to enrich attorneys.

A shyster attorney that I had the unfortunate experience in working with, did tell the truth once when he said that there is no such thing as a justice system but there is a legal industry.

[Sep 15, 2018] The problem there is that the USA cannot sell LNG at a competitive price against pipeline gas and still make money

Another problem is how much gas for sale the USA actually has? Or they want to resell gas they buy for Russia Sakhalin? They already did a couple of times.
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman September 10, 2018 at 4:31 pm

Oh, please, God, let the USA impose sanctions on European companies in an attempt to stop the building of Nord Stream II (which, incidentally, has begun and is already underwater).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/09/10/trumps-energy-secretary-heading-to-moscow-to-discuss-more-energy-sanctions/#2ea293071b80

I can't think of anything more likely to incite European fury against America, and while we're on the subject, under what authority would the USA fine European companies for not obeying sanctions imposed by the USA? I can see how they could get away with further penalizing Russia – they are piggybacking on the Skripal affair, that's why they pretend so fervently to believe Britain's accusations even though it has offered no proof at all, just more accusations. The legal instrument it is using is a national-security clause (big surprise) meant to stop the spread of chemical-warfare threats. But how is it going to justify imposing a big fine on BASF-Wintershall, for example, and what would it do if the latter simply said, "Cram it up your chuff!" and refused to pay?

Anyway, the calling-out of Britain's 'evidence' in front of the UN is going to be extra-special, in that light. Because the Skripal thing is the USA's whole basis for further sanctions. Without it – if the case is demolished, and I frankly can't see how the UK government could sensibly respond to all the discrepancies picked up at sites like Slane's 'Blogmire' – they've got nothing; no grounds for further sanctions.

James lake September 10, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Russia invited American energy secretary to Moscow to discuss the USA sanctions on Russian energy markets.

They say hope dies last!

Patient Observer September 11, 2018 at 3:49 pm
Is that your interpretation? Defeat, doom?
James lake September 12, 2018 at 11:30 pm
The Americans thinking they can talk or bully Russia into Submitting by sanctions.

The USA energy policy needed a cheap product, Infrastructure across Europe, and of course investment to make this all happen beginning years ago.

Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 8:20 am
And that was perfectly possible, had it been started years ago, and had the USA come to Europe with a business plan which answered the question, "What's in it for me?" Everybody in business likes to make money; it's kind of what keeps business going. And if the USA could still sell to Europe under those circumstances – because it has a lot of a product it can sell at a competitive price and still make money – it would still be possible to do it. The problem there is that the USA cannot sell LNG at a competitive price against pipeline gas and still make money. A further problem is that in business dynamics, the guy who has control in a business relationship is the guy who supplies you with a product you can't get anywhere else at the same or a lower price.

The USA wants the profits realized by selling gas to Europe, and right away, that's not going to work, because shipborne LNG cannot compete with pipeline gas for price. The USA would have to sell it for a lot less than it takes to recover and ship it, and it's not willing to do that because it is contrary to every principle of business. But that's a big problem, because the profit is actually secondary. What Washington really wants is the power conveyed by being Europe's main supplier – then it can play energy politics like it constantly accuses Russia of doing, although actual evidence of Russia threatening to cut off Europe's gas if it does not, let's say, drop sanctions against Russia, is zip, Nada. No evidence. But Washington would do it, and you know they would, and so does Brussels. So it is trying to muscle Europe's main supplier out of the market by coercion, because it can't do it simply by offering a better price.

Which leaves it in the ridiculous position of arguing, "We should be your supplier instead of Russia, because ain't we the bestest of friends and allies?", at the same time it is conducting a trade war for American business advantage and threatening to impose sanctions against European companies who participate in the pipeline project as investors.

[Sep 15, 2018] Ukraine attacks Russia on legal field and score points against Gasprom

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman September 14, 2018 at 10:24 am

Here we go again with reliable pot-stirrer the UK, in the form of a ruling by the UK Court of Appeals that Ukraine does have a valid case, after all, of grieving the ordered repayment of $3 Billion it was lent by Moscow after Yanukovych decided to reject the European Association Agreement, and petitioned Russia for assistance.

Some facts that should be recalled here; Ukraine has to the very best of my knowledge never paid this debt, although the IMF grudgingly backed Russia's claim that it was a bilateral loan . Then Ukraine imposed a moratorium on further payments, trying to squeeze Russia into accepting a 'restructuring' of the debt, a colourful euphemism for 'write off some of it and give us until forever to pay the rest', allowing Ukraine to simply roll over its outstanding debt each year and put off payment until the promised western flood of incredible prosperity finally arrives.

The ever-helpful IMF then rewrote its own laws so that it could continue lending to Ukraine although it exhibited all the classic symptoms of a bad debtor. Most of us said it would all end in tears for the IMF, and where is it now, again? How much of that $17 Billion aid package has been disbursed?

Georgetown University Professor Anna Gelpern offered Ukraine an out , stating that in her legal opinion, the obligation amounted to 'odious debt', which consequently did not have to be repaid. Longtime kook Anders Aslund enthusiastically embraced that view, bleating that really Russia should be repaying Ukraine, for invading and plundering it.

Let me give you my not-legal opinion; Ukraine does not have a hope of winning this case. The UK is just trying to help it kick the can a little further down the road, and put off repayment for another year or two while the courts wrangle the issue out all over again, and lawyers pocket hefty fees. It also serves the British hobby of sticking its thumb in Russia's eye every chance it gets to do it. The money is probably not a big issue to Russia; it's the principle, and it would probably suit the Kremlin to duke it out in court again just on the probability that Ukraine will suffer another humiliating defeat, although that will make no difference at all to its willingness to pay. I propose, though, another option; one to be exercised immediately, and one down the road a bit. First, communicate to Kuh-yiv that if it goes ahead with this, Russia will pull out all foreign investment in Ukraine, immediately and finally. I personally do not think the economy could sustain that kind of hit, since it is on life support now. Second, Russia should communicate to Britain that once Brexit becomes operative, the UK will have to negotiate with Europe for energy supplies and pay their asking price, since there will be no direct transfers of energy to the UK. That might have been the case anyway, since to the best of my knowledge no systems serve the UK directly from Russia except LNG cargoes. But it would not hurt to remind them.

It occurs to me that the west has only itself to blame for Ukraine's current and ongoing dysfunction and 'cutie-pie' criminality, since the west keeps encouraging it to greater heights of irresponsibility, covering for it and then rewriting its own rules so that behaviour previously illegal is magically permissible.

Moscow Exile September 14, 2018 at 10:41 am
THE COURT OF SWEDEN HAS OVERTURNED A DECISION BLOCKING THE COLLECTION OF "NAFTOGAZ" ASSETS OF "GAZPROM"
September 13, 2018

Ukraine's Naftogaz to proceed with Gazprom asset seizures after court ruling
14 Sep 2018 |

Court overturns order to freeze Gazprom assets in England, Wales
14.09.2018

Funny how these things seem to happen all at once, innit?

Moscow Exile September 14, 2018 at 11:16 am
Russia to challenge decision of English Court of Appeal on Ukraine's debt
September 14, 18:48 UTC+3

Russia bought Ukrainian Eurobonds worth $3 bln in December 2013

and now, in line with the "Western Values" that they have embraced, the Yukie toe-rags do not want to pay up.

Mark Chapman September 14, 2018 at 11:41 am
The London High Court is not going to like being reversed; such reversals often do not look good for the judges, although there certainly cannot be any murmuring of 'political motivation' here, since the court was most decidedly motivated to rule for Ukraine in the original judgment if it could. As I said, this is just kicking the can down the road a piece, and buying time for Kuh-yiv. And that might be a valid strategy, if a burgeoning economy was about to break free in Ukraine. Is that the case? I'm afraid I don't think so. In fact, Ukraine is broke and living on handouts, its reserves down to record lows; it doesn't have the money, so the UK is trying to rig the judgment so as to head off its having to pay, at least temporarily. More short-term thinking, such as is characteristic of crisis management.

The Appeals Court is likely ruling on a technicality because it believes (or has been encouraged to believe) it deserves further examination. But, again, I have to believe that in such a politically-charged case, the court which rendered the original verdict would have carefully picked over every argument which might have worked in Ukraine's favour, since the UK was highly motivated to support Ukraine if there were any way it could legally do so. The efficacy, reliability and non-volatility of Eurobonds is at stake here, and a ruling now for Ukraine is likely to provoke a drawback from Eurobonds and European financial instruments by every nation that perceives it is or might one day be perceived as a foe of a Europe still in thrall to the United States. Russia chose such an instrument precisely because of the high risk of a Ukrainian default even if Yanukovych had remained in power, and that was a wise decision to the extent that the west has had to completely rewrite the book in order to challenge the stratagem. That, too, will play to its great disadvantage down the road, as every debtor nation has the right of precedent to exercise such options.

The funny thing is that if Europe simply laid out the situation bluntly to Moscow, as an equal and a respected partner to the deal, and asked for mercy for Ukraine, there is every chance Moscow would find a way to accommodate, provided it was given due credit for its magnanimity. Instead, as usual, Europe has gone with a strategy of creating the appearance that Moscow fucked Ukraine, breaking the law in the process. It will be interesting to see what Alexander Mercouris has to say about this, and I am sure he will offer an opinion, but I'm afraid I haven't time now as I have to get ready for work. But I should like to once more point out that all the advantage lies with Russia here, if it only remains patient and keeps its temper; it is Russia which is keeping Ukraine alive now, through transit fees and significant FDI. It can choose to withdraw one at any time it pleases, and the other as soon as Nord Stream II is completed. The west's attempts to change the beloved 'facts on the ground' amount to no more than scrabbling at the noose that is tightening around Ukraine's throat.

[Sep 15, 2018] "Drain the Swamp" and "MAGA" were skillfully crafted psyops, most likely from the inner sanctum of the most pernicious lobbying outfit on Capitol Hill, AIPAC.

Sep 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 14, 2018 at 11:26 am GMT

Mostly reflexively, not always consciously, The Powers That Be seek to retain and enlarge their sphere of influence. Nothing, not even the venerated vote, is allowed to alter that "balance."

That's why the 'Deep State' or whatever one wants to call that malignant organism that has taken over DC–and much of the West–needs professional toadies like Woody, who will dutifully report whatever smelly lump of fertilizer the PTB are trying to sell. Bet Woody's the best paid stenographer in the world, doing a good job of confusing Americans, keeping them anxious of the unknown, so the PTB can keep herding us towards the NWO slaughterhouse.

The washed-out journalist then blurted out this in disbelief: "Trump said the 'World Trade Organization is the worst organization in the world.'"

Another bit of propaganda, as those central banks–like the toxic FED–keep the world under their thumb by controlling the money flow, printing currencies out of thin air, then getting paid outrageous sums of interest each year–around 500 Billion in the US–for their counterfeiting scheme.

That kind of power can and does crash stock markets and wreck economies, as the FED has been doing since it was spawned in 1913. They and their buddies then buy homes, businesses, MSM outlets and costly toys for pennies on the dollar, while us 'deplorables' wonder if they're going to be able to keep making their mortgage payments if they lose their job.

To repeat, this was promised on the campaign trail and in Trump position papers. We now know who stole those promises from the American people.

"We know?" Some do, but many don't, as they rally around Tubby the Grifter to protect their savior from those nasty Democrats.

"Drain the Swamp" and "MAGA" were skillfully crafted psyops, most likely from the inner sanctum of the most pernicious lobbying outfit on Capitol Hill, AIPAC. RT, a news outlet, got mugged by a sold-out Congress and forced to register as a lobbying outfit, but not AIPAC. No Sir, why that would be anti-Semitic and only foul, Jew hating Neo-Nazis would even think about making AIPAC follow the law.
What AIPAC has and continues to do needs to be kept hidden from the American public, lest they engage in the dangerous behavior of actually wondering if Israel is an ally or a well-disguised enemy.

Trump was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and 2016 was when the bill came due. He was 'Chosen,' not be We the People, but AIPAC and Israel as the best POTUS to do their bidding, since Hillary carried way too much baggage.

Trump has been the best POTUS for Israel since the traitorous liar LBJ.

[Sep 15, 2018] since September 9, the White Helmets have been staging rehearsals of an alleged chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Russian officials say in the same statement, claiming that the rehearsals feature up to 30 civilians, including a dozen children aged 8-12.

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer September 12, 2018 at 8:21 am

Russia has infiltrated the While Helmets:

https://www.rt.com/news/438282-white-helmets-film-chemical-attacks/

The Russian military details that on September 11, the White Helmets and terrorists from Tahrir al-Sham (commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Syria) held a meeting following the filming process, in which they selected two out of nine videos for future transfer to the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The remaining videos are to be used for propaganda on social media networks due to the poor quality, the military claims.

At the same time, since September 9, the White Helmets have been staging rehearsals of an alleged chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Russian officials say in the same statement, claiming that the rehearsals feature up to 30 civilians, including a dozen children aged 8-12.

Further claims by the Russian military indicate the White Helmets, along with the terrorists, are preparing an "actual use of poisonous chorine-based substances" on the people participating in the filming of the fake videos.

On-the-scene preparations of places for explosions of toxic substances is carried out by members of Hurras al-Din terrorist group (or the Guardians of Religion Organization, which is affiliated with Al-Qaeda), the statement claims.

The militants have selected 22 children and their parents from several villages in the Aleppo governorate who will play parts in staging fake chemical weapon attacks.

Another group of children is comprised of orphans kidnapped from refugee camps, who are meant to be used for the footage of death scenes. It is currently kept in one of the buildings of the Ikab prison controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group.

Signs of activities to prepare staged chemical weapon attacks were reported in Kafir-Zait, the military claims, also naming two villages where toxic chemicals have been delivered to stage provocations.

Some nice outtakes would be helpful – forcing the kids to line up next to chlorine canister, "disciplining" unruly kids who go off script. etc. Every goddamned MSM reported, producer and executive who knew or should have known of this children's snuff film should be arrested, charged, tried and found guilty of murder for hire. The death penalty would be too lenient. Involved politicians and their masters would be next. As for the perpetrators, let Syria deal with them.

[Sep 15, 2018] "The United States does not seek to fight the Russians" a Pentagon spokesman said. "However, the United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend US, coalition or partner forces

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star September 12, 2018 at 2:51 pm

All Stooges should read this wsws article and the accompanying comments

Why?

Bcuz I-NS-say so !!!!!

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/12/pers-s12.html

"The Pentagon made clear that US forces are fully prepared to engage Russian troops. "The United States does not seek to fight the Russians" a Pentagon spokesman said. "However, the United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend US, coalition or partner forces."

Really?? What psychopaths in the pentagon think this to be the case

Americans need to understand that complete psycho ccksckers like Groeteschele are as real in 2018 as they were in 1964 .

http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/429672/Fail-Safe-Movie-Clip-Convicts-And-File-Clerks.html

Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 12:18 pm
Don't you get it?? You have no right at all to be in Syria, forming 'partnerships' with 'rebels' or anyone else!! Get the fuck out!! Your presence is a violation of sovereignty, as you were not invited by the elected government!

[Sep 15, 2018] Bob Woodward's book completely discredit the "Russiagate" story

Notable quotes:
"... What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. ..."
"... Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal -- he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires. ..."
"... Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object. ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Adrian E. , says: September 14, 2018 at 10:57 am GMT

What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many anti-Trumpers seem to celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents were to be believed, it would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been the main line of attack against Donald Trump.

As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals with issues of style -- it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment strongly dislike Trump's style -- and about people in important positions in Trump's surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him -- that is hardly something new, either.

The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So, not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but -- if it is to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.

I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book -- I doubt it because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump for any conceivable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this to some degree -- after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of Trump haters -- this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.

What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I think that once more demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump Resistance" (not, of course, of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who invented Russiagate, they just exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).

Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal -- he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires.

Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object.

Mike P , says: September 14, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT

@Adrian E. What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many anti-Trumpers seem to celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents were to be believed, it would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been the main line of attack against Donald Trump.

As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals with issues of style - it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment strongly dislike Trump's style - and about people in important positions in Trump's surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him - that is hardly something new, either.

The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So, not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but - if it is to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.

I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book - I doubt it because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump for any conceiveable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this to some degree - after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of his haters - this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.

What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I think that once more demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump Resistance" (not, of course, of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who invented Russiagate, they just exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).

Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal - he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" - Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed - something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object. Very good observations. Maybe the "kill Assad" ploy is not intended for domestic consumption but rather to further undermine Trump's working relationship with Putin – just as with the of the phoney Russian agent indictment which wast timed precisely to disrupt the Helsinki summit.

Agent76 , says: September 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
History is very clear who runs the media for those who are in the know.

9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony

Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee, on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance, and opening of mail.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?408953-1/tom-charles-huston-testimony-church-committee

Agent76 , says: September 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
September 1, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis.

https://www.intellihub.com/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know-2/

Buckwheat , says: September 14, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.
jilles dykstra , says: September 14, 2018 at 3:19 pm GMT
Historians know that very few people understand great historical events when they happen.
My idea is that this now is the case.
Never before in history did the leader of an empire understand that that empire could not survive, and act accordingly.

The British empire was already not sustainable, financially, before 1914. Britain had to give up the two fleet standard, the situation where the British fleet was superior to the next two biggest fleets. Obama had to give up the two war standard, the USA went to one and a half war. What a half war accomplishes one can see in Syria.

The British empire fell apart through WWII, Churchill the undertaker. For this reason, I suspect, are the peace proposals that Rudolf Hess brought to Scotland in May 1941 still secret. France got a generous peace, logical to assume that Hitler would propose the same to Great Britain, the empire he admired.

The British example makes two things clear: what should have been clear prior to 1914 was not clear, or was ignored, and the price of unwilling, or not capable of understanding history at the moment it happens becomes clear. Britain did not have a Deep State, one might say, on the other hand, one can be of the opinion that the British Deep State did exist. A conflict as now in the USA never existed in Great Britain.

What would have happened if say Chamberlain would have acted as Trump does know, anybody's guess. Chamberlain did not want war, but he also did not want to end British imagined power, he belonged to the Thirtyniners, those with the illusion that Great Britain was ready for war in 1939.
As in 1917, the USA had to rescue Britain, but this time the price was high: opening the empire to foreign competition, on top of that, FDR's lofty statements, the Atlantic Charter, in fact the end of all colonial European empires.

Anonymous , [306] Disclaimer says: September 14, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
@Buckwheat President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.

President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.

The media controls the minds of the mob, and presents itself as vox populi . Corruption has been exposed, and the media admits to it, endorses it, and encourages more.

So, whaddya figure? 20 years to total economic collapse? Who's gonna feed the messicans? Oh! The humanity! Oh, Rome, do not burn!

"Shining city on a hill" and all that bullshit. Turn out the lights.

Windwaves , says: September 14, 2018 at 4:01 pm GMT
Yep, finally someone who gets it.

Trump 180 degree turn on his promises to get out of israel's wars is clear proof that he is just another zionist.

jilles dykstra , says: September 14, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Deschutes I didn't like Clinton, but I think Trump is as bad, probably worse. Look at the EPA under Trump, it's a fucking joke with fossil fuel shills like Pruitt gutting much needed laws to protect environment and people. Look at Education secretary DeVoss: it does NOT get any worse: a billionaire christian fundamentalist wacko billionaire who bought her way into that post funding the GOP/Trump ticket!? She's the epitome of what the 'Trump voters' ostensibly hate: a billionaire class aka 'Rome on the Potomac' as this author calls it, the plutocracy who own and run the show while the proletariat slave away at their office temp jobs, or worse yet amazon.com sweatshop, etc. DeVoss is privatizing education so that christian fundies can have their kids taught 'gawd made the world in 7 days' instead of Darwin's evolution. Look at Trumps Atty General Sessions: he's a reactionary fossil from the 1950s who wants to illegalize weed? Roll back sensible drug policy? He's a fucking disaster. And look at what Trump is doing for Israel!? Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and Kishner sucking up to Netanyahoo, doing his bidding like an Israel firster? This is all good? This is what the disenfranchised Trump supporter voted for and had in mind??

Trump is a fucking awful trainwreck. ' Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, '
If this makes Netanyahu happy for some time, at negligible cost to the USA, smart move.
At the same time, Trump can claim 'see how I love Israel'.
For me the same as the fake attacks on Syria.
Show.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: September 14, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz You seem to be using language like Alice's Humpty Dumpty. "Zionism" is at least a little bit constrained in meaning by its being a movement to restore the Jewish people as currently understood to the land of Israel (Judea and Samaria principally which creates special difficulties...) with Jerusalem as it's capital, and, I suppose to maintain them there. You are absolutely correct.
But it also includes protection of Israel.
And what is the best protection of Israel?
..
To control the most powerful country in the world ergo USA
..
And what is even better protection of Israel?
To to rule the world.
..
What is wrong or evil in this plan?
Nothing! it is good plan.
..
So where is the snag?
..
Complications in executing this plan.
Enver Masud , says: Website Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
Bob Woodward needs to answer for not following up on what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. My letter the Washington Post at http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/1206-Ombudsman.pdf

In part, I wrote:

According to the Washington Post, Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice on September 11, 2001 in the final minutes of Flight 77. Her last words to him were, "What do I tell the pilot to do?"

"She called from the plane while it was being hijacked," said Theodore Olson -- 42nd Solicitor General of the United States. "I wish it wasn't so, but it is."

However, prosecution exhibit P200054 (attached) in United States v.
Zacarias Moussaoui -- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/ exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html -- shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone call -- it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds!

Both accounts of Barbara Olson's phone calls -- the Solicitor General's and the prosecution's in United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui -- cannot be correct.

anarchyst , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 6:50 pm GMT
Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were "journalists" (I use that term loosely). The difference today, is that "professional journalism" is now blatantly showing its liberal communistic bias.
From "Remember the Maine" in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty's extolling the "virtues" of communism while one of the greatest artificially-engineered (by communists)famines in the Ukraine was taking place, in order to force the "collectivization" of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite outright lying about the American military's effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam "Tet offensive" (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a "nasty craft". In cronkite's case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite's lies about the supposed American "defeat" were publicized. Cronkite's lies gave the North Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American "news media" on their side. There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the so-called "mainstream media". All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over Cuba's Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist "paradise".
Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their "profession" for what it really is with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why the same "mainstream media" is calling for the "licensing" of journalists–something that would have been unheard of (and treasonous) in previous decades
Professional journalism is its own worst enemy
crimson2 , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 7:20 pm GMT
@Rational WHAT A FOO BELIEVES........HE SEES; OR WHY JUDAISTS ARE GOING BERSERK.

Thanks for the excellent article, Madam.

You forgot to mention that the NYT and Woodward are Judaists.

Jewish paranoid delusions have become severe since Trump took office.

Obviously the NYT op ed is fake. It is a forgery. Per PCR, it is by the NYT itself. Childish pranks.

Bob Woodward's "sources" are fake. He made things up himself.

Every Sabbath, Judaists like these read the Torah, including Deuteronomy 20:16:

"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

And their plan to destroy and exterminate the white goyim is facing hiccups, so the Judaists have gone berserk.

Jewish paranoid delusions

Maybe the dumbasses who think the Jews are behind every bad thing that ever happens to them are the paranoid delusional ones.

The Alarmist , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
We're surprised the tools of the Oligarch Class remain loyal to their paymasters? Comey and Müller both received very lucrative board-seat assignments for looking the other way when appropriate, or digging a little deeper when asked.
Agent76 , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMT
Public Intelligence

"In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For, without an informed and free press, there cannot be an enlightened people."

http://publicintelligence.net

[Sep 15, 2018] Zakharova in extravagant dress claims on Russian talk show that US and UK are trying to "Iraq" Russia

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill,

https://www.youtube.com/embed/zRNPVOAdQqk

Nice interview with Zakharova over the Skripal frame job. The good part is at around 14 minutes where the loud yapping chihuahua, the UK, is put in its place.

It is not a global player by any measure and has nothing useful to contribute aside from riding Uncle Scumbag's coat-tails to bomb civilians in Syria.

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 2:08 am

Here's Zakharova in a less extravagant rig out:

https://youtu.be/8MNKqJxPcHg

Repeatedly referred to as an "Old Hag" by a noisome visitor to the previous Stooge site.

Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 8:30 am

That's an unfortunate outfit; I prefer the business-dominatrix look for her.
Jen September 13, 2018 at 10:30 pm
Here's Zakharova striding along in her red power dress and her power shoes:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-moscow-russia-17th-aug-2017-russian-foreign-ministry-spokesperson-154195435.html
Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:17 pm
She is not displaying her thighs almost up to her crotch, though, as is Nauert often wont to do!
Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 11:42 pm
And I'm okay with that.
Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:58 pm
Get thee gone to a monastery, preferably a Russian Orthodox one, to purge thyself of thy wicked thoughts and deeds!

[Sep 15, 2018] Moscow is aware of who the people named as suspects in the Skripal case are, President Vladimir Putin said, adding that these people are civilians

Notable quotes:
"... The obvious thing for the British side to do would be to request Moscow to detain the two men so they could be interviewed as persons of interest. If this doesn't happen, it smacks of problems holding the official narrative together and I really can't see how the MSM could spin it away. Plus the surviving alleged victims or their families could have a case against the police for failing to investigate properly. ..."
"... They're already spinning it away by saying publicly that the responses they are getting from Russia are 'lies and obfuscation'. ..."
"... It will not make the slightest bit of difference in Britain; the British government will quickly announce, following any presentation of evidence by Russia, that it is all cleverly faked up, and remind people that these are professional intelligence agents, that's what they do, of course it looks convincing. All the more proof that they are what Britain says they are. ..."
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Warren September 12, 2018 at 12:41 pm

https://youtu.be/Rv7baKtUFAA

Fern September 12, 2018 at 3:44 pm

Moscow to London: Your move. This is an interesting development.

The obvious thing for the British side to do would be to request Moscow to detain the two men so they could be interviewed as persons of interest. If this doesn't happen, it smacks of problems holding the official narrative together and I really can't see how the MSM could spin it away. Plus the surviving alleged victims or their families could have a case against the police for failing to investigate properly.

Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 12:19 pm
They're already spinning it away by saying publicly that the responses they are getting from Russia are 'lies and obfuscation'.
Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 9:06 am
It will not make the slightest bit of difference in Britain; the British government will quickly announce, following any presentation of evidence by Russia, that it is all cleverly faked up, and remind people that these are professional intelligence agents, that's what they do, of course it looks convincing. All the more proof that they are what Britain says they are.

[Sep 15, 2018] On the meaning of the word "clearly"

Notable quotes:
"... 'Clearly' is an English term which is subject to national interpretations. In Canada – mostly English-speaking – it traditionally means, "supported by verifiable and compelling evidence", although I hasten to add that Canada cheerfully booted out 'Russian spies' to support its ally, Britain. ..."
"... But in England, 'clearly' might mean 'as required to serve in the cause of political necessity'. In this instance, if the passports/visas/whatever travel documents of the men concerned do not read "GRU Assassin Traveling on Business", then clearly there was an attempt to circumvent British checks. ..."
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 12, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Salisbury novichok attack: Russian spies smuggled chemical weapons through airport baggage checks, UK security minister admits

Two alleged Russian spies who launched the Salisbury attack smuggled novichok into the UK through Gatwick Airport, the security minister has confirmed.

I see! So now the disciplined and highly trained GRU assassins were spies as well.

Proper jack-of-all-trades!

Ben Wallace, who is currently Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, " told the House of Commons there was 'clearly some form of attempt to create a legend to make sure that they circumvented our checks'.

'No doubt at the other end of that aeroplane journey [in Russia] there was some, I should think, the baggage checks weren't probably as good as they might be,' he added " -- because the Russians are all blithering incompetents stands ter reason, dunnit!

" Mr Wallace said requests for Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury had been met with 'obfuscation and lies', saying their response merely 'reinforces their guilt'. "

Of course it does! Why don't they just confess to what everyone knows they have done?

Jen September 12, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Were there no baggage checks by British customs officials at Gatwick International then?
Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 12:05 pm
'Clearly' is an English term which is subject to national interpretations. In Canada – mostly English-speaking – it traditionally means, "supported by verifiable and compelling evidence", although I hasten to add that Canada cheerfully booted out 'Russian spies' to support its ally, Britain.

But in England, 'clearly' might mean 'as required to serve in the cause of political necessity'. In this instance, if the passports/visas/whatever travel documents of the men concerned do not read "GRU Assassin Traveling on Business", then clearly there was an attempt to circumvent British checks.

[Sep 15, 2018] RT editor-in-chief's exclusive interview with Skripal case suspects Petrov Boshirov (TRANSCRIPT)

Notable quotes:
"... And the mockery from the Russophobes immediately kicks off in the British press! Travel all the way from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge? What nonesense! Who are they trying to kid? That's because such a trip is barely imaginable for uncultured morons. ..."
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 5:11 am

RT editor-in-chief's exclusive interview with Skripal case suspects Petrov & Boshirov (TRANSCRIPT)
Published time: 13 Sep, 2018 11:32
Edited time: 13 Sep, 2018 12:29
James lake September 13, 2018 at 5:39 am
What a scoop! They don't look like the passport/ visa pictures which look like they were taken in bad light giving them a sinister air.

Scotland Yard should come over to interview them – they did say they were still investigating.

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 6:16 am
And the mockery from the Russophobes immediately kicks off in the British press! Travel all the way from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge? What nonesense! Who are they trying to kid? That's because such a trip is barely imaginable for uncultured morons.

When I last had the great misfortune to be in England with my family, and, to make matters worse, in London, my elder children begged and begged that we take a trip to Stonehenge. You see, they were fascinated by all that they had learnt about the place in their Russian schools.

We went on an excursion there, calling first at Windsor, then Salisbury, Stonehenge, and, finally, Bath for afternoon tea before heading off back to London.

Witness the moronity of some of my fellow countrymen in this comment published in today's Independent:

Well you can say a lot about our Russian friends: semi-educated, semi-civilised, pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian, crypto-fascist, mocked and despised the world over, but one thing we must concede is that they have a wonderful sense of humour.

So this delightful, oh-so intelligent looking couple flew all the way to Salisbury to have a look at the Cathedral clock, but the nasty inclement British weather (unlike tropical Moscow, of course) forced them to return with undue haste from whence they came.

May I suggest better acting classes and a credible script in future?

Doubtless the Indie's resident Putinite Mary Dejevsky, Comrade Corbyn and the brainless Prigozhin trolls infesting this site will try and sell it – because they are paid to, but anyone with an IQ higher than a daisy, ie. the rest of the sentient world, will shake their heads in disbelief at the knuckle-headed absurdity of this story.

Well, as regards the weather, moron, – for Russians, English snow is "inclement"', as it is wet shite. They were complaining of being wet to the knees. At the same time, in Russia it was minus 15C and there was plenty of deep, dry snow, which really would make Little Englanders like you whine.

Oh, and the person who owns that rag to which you wrote the above shite is owned by one of those "semi-educated, semi-civilised, pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian, crypto-fascist" Russians whom you so despise.

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 6:29 am
Russians "semi-educated"?

In the years that I worked in England, in an English coal mine, I worked with quite a few fellow countrymen who were barely literate. I particularily remember one who often boasted that he had never read a book since he left school.

Fact :

Russia: The country with the highest literacy rate in Russia with almost 53% of the population has tertiary education. It is estimated that 95% of adults in Russia have higher secondary education and the country spends some 4.9% of GDP on education. 2.Jan 16, 2014

According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.Jul 7, 2017

Adult Litercy UK :
Around 15 per cent, or 5.1 million adults in England, can be described as 'functionally illiterate.' They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old. They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems.

Many adults are reluctant to admit to their literacy difficulties and ask for help. One of the most important aspects of supporting adults with low literacy levels is to increase their self-esteem and persuade them of the benefits of improving their reading and writing.

Cortes September 13, 2018 at 7:51 am
(Awaits gnashing of teeth and rending of garments)
Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 7:01 am
And the British Foreign Office has replied as follows:

"The government is clear these men are officers of the Russian military intelligence service – the GRU – who used a devastatingly toxic, illegal chemical weapon on the streets of our country."

"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March. Today – just as we have seen throughout – they have responded with obfuscation and lies."

No obfuscation and lies from the FO, though!

Anything but a confession of guilt is "obfuscation and lies", it seems.

"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March

I tell you what happened: nothing that the Russian state had anything to do with!

I suggest you ask your Yukie nazi pals for an account of what happened there, and your pals in Tel-Aviv as well.

From the MP for Salisbury:

James lake September 13, 2018 at 8:26 am
What's the next move going to be in this saga.

The UK say they used fake names

The two guys say that this is not true – they used there true passports

They gave a reason for being in Salisbury.

can the uk police show CCTV of those places ?

Where are the Skripals

Fern September 13, 2018 at 4:33 pm
Russia, cleverly, has thrown down the gauntlet. If the FCO claims that the story of Petrov and Boshirov is simply 'obfuscation and lies', then why not ask Russia to help make these guys available for interview and send a couple of detectives plus interpreter on the next flight to Moscow?

No matter how the FCO and British government huffs, puffs and tries to blow houses down, ultimately they will be unable to explain why they haven't sought to question these guys.

yalensis September 14, 2018 at 2:31 am
Agreed, Fern. This was a very clever move on the chess board. Odd as these 2 characters are, the latest gambit serves to take this whole matter out of the Harry Potter world of geo-political magick, and put down to the mundane world of a detective story and criminal procedures. It pushes the politicians aside to make room for the gumshoes. From this point onward, the story is a police procedural.

[Sep 15, 2018] In a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements, for resale in Russia).

Notable quotes:
"... In a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements, for resale in Russia). ..."
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

yalensis September 13, 2018 at 11:42 am

Krutikov has an interesting take on these guys. I think I will probably do this story tomorrow, in my blog, as a "breaking news".

In a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements, for resale in Russia).

While in Salisbury they decided to have a look at the sights; that part rings true; might as well see some sights.

The semi-legal nature of their "business" accounts for their nervousness; while their status in the Russian criminal underworld accounts for their horror at Simonyan's assuming them to be gay. An allegation which they rejected more vehemently than the accusations of being poisoners!

Krutikov also points attention to another instance of Vladimir Putin's subtle humor. Recall that when Putin announced the existence of these guys to the world, a couple of days ago, he used a strange phrase: "There is nothing particularly criminal there."
As usual, Putin is one step ahead of everybody in this ludicrous chess game.

yalensis September 13, 2018 at 11:46 am
P.S. "никакого особого криминала" was the phrase used by Putin. At the time nobody paid much attention and it was translated as "There is nothing criminal there," but the actual phrase is "There is nothing particularly criminal there."
yalensis September 13, 2018 at 1:37 pm
Okay, I have to make a factual correction, Krutikov wass wrong about Putin's quote, and one of his commenters who questioned it, turned out to be correct. (Which is sort of sad for Krutikov, because he built his blogpost around the humor of Putin's supposedly implication that the duo are petty thieves.)

So, I found the actual vid of Putin making this utterance, it can be seen on this link:

https://iz.ru/788502/video/delo-skripalei-deviat-mostov-i-dziudo-vtoroi-den-vladimira-putina-na-vef
at around 1:48 minutes in. What Putin actually says is:

ничего там особенного и криминального нет which translates as:
"There is nothing extraordinary there, nor criminal."

Sort of different slant, no?

yalensis September 13, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Update: The currently reigning theory in the Russian blogosphere is that Petrov and Boshirov earn their living buying and selling anabolic steroids on the grey market. Simonjan herself noted that Petrov has the build of a body-builder.

The theory that they are a "gay pair" is also highly plausible. When Simonjan asked them about their relationship, they spazzed out and refused to answer. Blog commenters point out that this would be the moment when a man would indignantly mention that he had a wife and kids, or a girlfriend; but nothing like that ensued.

Other commenters have noted that Salisbury is well-known in the gay subculture for having a large number of rather excellent gay bars. Something that might have also drawn this couple there, in addition to seeing the cathedral spire!

In general, Russian press and blogosphere are having a field day with this story.

James lake September 13, 2018 at 1:30 pm
This is rather nasty – accused by the British of being assassins – then subjected to all this negative intrusion into their private life.

The RT media behave like the gutter tabloids in the UK.

They don't deserve this nasty speculation.

yalensis September 14, 2018 at 2:27 am
Agree with James on that one point, namely that the Russian press is becoming too tabloid-y and going after the sensationalism.
I feel sorry for this duo in that, if they are indeed gay and have now been outed due to what they call a "horrendous coincidence", then their lives in Russia will be miserable from this point onward.

Russian society is simply not accepting of two grown men living together in a relationship.

To add insult to injury, the gutter-commenters on the Russian blogs continue to call them "pedophiles". Even though (duh!) they are both grown men.

Not sure if they live in Moscow or not. If in Moscow, they might still be able to survive, as the city is so Western now. But if they live out there in the sticks -- forget it.

Meanwhile, I just thought of something else. If these guys were sophisticated enough to play the Westie system, then they could adopt a tone of utter outrage, that the British government is harassing them for being gay. The Brits would have to cave on that one and issue a humble apology.

Fern September 13, 2018 at 4:22 pm
I've been thinking along similar lines – that their apparent shiftiness and caginess about the nature of their work suggests they could be involved in something that's semi-legal or which walks a fine line between the legal and the not.

We've seen lots of CCTV footage of Petrov and Boshirov in Salisbury but nothing has been said of their movements in London; what they did there is probably the reason why they flew to the UK. Either that or the GRU is deficient in training its would-be assassins on the reliability (non-existent) of British rail services in bad weather.

Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 11:36 pm
Once again, Britain is stiff with CCTV. We know from previous discussions that there is CCTV coverage of the Skripals' street and even their house. Where is the CCTV video of the two GRU assassins on Skripal's street, or near his house? The British say they have this evidence and are happily building timelines around it, but where is the proof? If they have it, why don't they show it? It would shut Russian defenses right down. All we've seen is evidence of the two being in Salisbury. Apparently being Russian In Salisbury is now like Driving While Black. Both automatically presuppose you are a criminal.
kirill September 13, 2018 at 5:06 pm
If they are gay, then the UK is going to have really bad optics with its setup. Gay GRU agents? According the UK MSM Russian gays are all being arrested and thrown in jail.

[Sep 15, 2018] Excellent review of the interview by Craig Murray, Well worth reading

Notable quotes:
"... The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different, often contradictory, unproven scenarios. ..."
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake September 13, 2018 at 1:44 pm

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-strange-russian-alibi/

Excellent review of the interview by Craig Murray, Well worth reading

I agree with his assessment that RT did a very poor interview.

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 10:18 pm
" Even more strange is the idea that it is wildly improbable for Russian visitors to wish to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge. Salisbury Cathedral is one of the most breathtaking achievements of Norman architecture, one of the great cathedrals of Europe. It attracts a great many foreign visitors. Stonehenge is world famous and a world heritage site. I went on holiday this year and visited Wurzburg to see the Bishop's Palace, and then the winery cooperative at Sommerach. Because somebody does not choose to spend their leisure time on a beach in Benidorm does not make them a killer. Lots of people go to Salisbury Cathedral. "

I had exactly the same thoughts! Holidays for most British moronic Tweeters means Benidorm and boooze in "British Pubs" that arte emblazoned with "Fish & Chips" signs.

I mentioned above that before setting off for London in June, 2016, my two eldest insisted that we include Stonehenge in our itinerary.

We were only in London for 3 days, though, before we set off for England, heading north to the English lakeland national park.

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 10:23 pm
And saying that the RT interview was "poor" has now become a meme.

The interview was a scoop and not given the usual razzamatazz shite presention so beloved by the Western news media, such as FOX TV.

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:14 pm
The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster: "Lies and obfuscation!"

Interesting accusation off HM government is that!

Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:

Yulia Skripal brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.

The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.

The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery.

The Skripals were poisoned with an UAV drone.

The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.

The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.

The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis (aka "Gordon") group, consisting of 6 killers.

The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door handle.

The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.

The Skripals were poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still liquid).

The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a public toilet.

The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.

The Skripals were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.

"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.

*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [ Главное разведывательное управление -- Glavnoye razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or ″GU″ [Главное управление Генерального штаба Вооружённых Сил Российской Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].

The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different, often contradictory, unproven scenarios.

Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened, which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government allegations are.

The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.

The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.

Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on many of Karl Marx's precepts.

[Sep 15, 2018] Two mutually exclusive actions at once

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake September 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm

On Tuesday, In the USA they will be commemorating the 11th September/ twin towers attack by Al queada.

At the same time they are smearing Assad about chemical weapons use , and preparing a false flag, to bomb Assad to save Alqueada in Idlib.

[Sep 15, 2018] Meanwhile, back in the "Mother of Parliaments"

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 1:55 am

Meanwhiled, back in the "Mother of Parliaments"

[Sep 15, 2018] Tulsi Gabbard points out Trump betrayal of his electorate

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer September 14, 2018 at 10:01 am

Speaking on the House floor on September 13, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard accused the Trump administration of protecting al-Qaeda terrorists in Idlib. According to the congresswoman, this amounts to the betrayal of the American people and victims of al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks in the US.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) called out President Donald Trump and Vice President Pence for allegedly protecting al-Qaeda* in Idlib, Syria, while speaking in the House on September 13.

"Two days ago, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, talking about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda's attack on our country. But, they are now standing up to protect the 20,000 to 40,000 al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria, and threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists," the congresswoman stressed.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201809141068043412-trump-pence-alqaeda-idlib/

[Sep 14, 2018] Obama's Imperial Presidency by Carl Boggs

Notable quotes:
"... Obama, it turns out, was among the most militaristic White House occupants in American history, taking the imperial presidency to new heights. It has been said that Obama was the only president whose administration was enmeshed in multiple wars from beginning to end. His imperial ventures spanned many countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia along with proxy interventions in Yemen and Pakistan. ..."
"... Obama engineered two of the most brazen regime-change operations of the postwar era, in Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014), leaving both nations reduced to a state of ongoing civil war and economic ruin. ..."
"... United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric recently decried this violence, noting the indiscriminate shelling by armed groups killing civilians, including children. Not to be outdone, the U.S. (joined by a few European states) issued a statement condemning the violence in Libya, reading in part: "We urge armed groups to immediately cease all military actions and warn those who tamper with security in Tripoli or elsewhere in Libya that they will be held accountable for any such actions." How thoughtful of those very military actors who, with U.N. blessing, brought nothing but endless death and destruction to the Libyan people. ..."
"... In Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin was being demonized as the "new Hitler", real fascists (or at least neo-fascists) were installed in power through the well-planned and generously-funded conspiracy of Obama's neocon functionaries, led by Victoria Nuland and cheered on by such visiting notables as John McCain, Joe Biden, and John Brennan -- all scheming to bring the Kiev regime into the NATO/European Union orbit. The puppet Poroshenko regime has since 2014 been given enough American economic and military largesse to finance its warfare against separatists in the Russian-speaking Donbass region, resulting in more than 10,000 deaths, with no end in sight. Following the gruesome pattern of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Ukrainian society descends into deepening chaos and violence with no end in sight. ..."
"... It is easy to forget that it was the Obama administration that planned and carried out the first phases of the Mosul operation (begun in October 2016) which produced hundreds of thousands of casualties (with at least 40,000 dead), left a city of two million in Dresden-like state of rubble, and drove nearly a million civilians into exile. The same fate, on smaller scale, was brought to other Sunni-majority cities in Iraq, including Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah (already destroyed by U.S. forces in 2004). Whatever the official goal, and however many secondary collaborators were involved, these were monstrous war crimes by any reckoning. ..."
"... In the months before Obama departed the White House he laid the groundwork for a new, more dangerous, Cold War with Russia. This agenda, negating earlier plans for a "reset" with the Putin government, would be multi-faceted – expanded NATO forces along Russian borders, renewed support for the oligarch Poroshenko in Ukraine, new and harsher economic sanctions, expulsion of diplomats, accelerated cyberwarfare, charges of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Not only has this strategy, eagerly advanced by the Clintonites and their media allies, brought new levels of insanity to American politics, it has left the two nuclear powers menacingly closer to armed confrontation than even at the peak of the Cold War. ..."
"... Obama's contributions to a more robust imperial presidency went further. Collaborating with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he stoked the Syrian civil war by lending "rebel" fighters crucial material, logistical, and military aid for what Clinton – anticipating electoral victory – believed would bring yet another cheerful episode of regime change, this one leaving the U.S. face-to-face with the Russians. During his tenure in office, moreover, Obama would deploy more special-ops troops around the globe (to more than 70 countries) than any predecessor. ..."
"... The Obama Syndrome , ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

... ... ...

Obama, it turns out, was among the most militaristic White House occupants in American history, taking the imperial presidency to new heights. It has been said that Obama was the only president whose administration was enmeshed in multiple wars from beginning to end. His imperial ventures spanned many countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia along with proxy interventions in Yemen and Pakistan. He ordered nearly 100,000 bombs and missiles delivered against defenseless targets, a total greater than that of the more widely-recognized warmonger George W. Bush's total of 70,000 against five countries. Iraq alone – where U.S. forces were supposed to have been withdrawn – was recipient of 41,000 bombs and missiles along with untold amounts of smaller ordnance. Meanwhile, throughout his presidency Obama conducted hundreds of drone attacks in the Middle East, more than doubling Bush's total, all run jointly (and covertly) by the CIA and Air Force.

Obama engineered two of the most brazen regime-change operations of the postwar era, in Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014), leaving both nations reduced to a state of ongoing civil war and economic ruin. For the past seven years Libya has been overrun by an assortment of militias, jihadic groups, and local strongmen – predictable result of the U.S./NATO bombing offensive to destroy the secular nationalist (and modernizing) Kadafi regime. This was purportedly Secretary of State Clinton's biggest moment of glory, her imperialist gloating on full display following Kadafi's assassination. As this is written conditions in Libya worsen by the day, reports surfacing of hundreds of people killed during violent clashes in the suburbs of Tripoli as rival militias fight for control of the capital. Militias now exercise control over ports, airfields, and much of the oil infrastructure. More tens of thousands of Libyans are being forced from their homes, a development greeted with silence at CNN and kindred media outlets.

United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric recently decried this violence, noting the indiscriminate shelling by armed groups killing civilians, including children. Not to be outdone, the U.S. (joined by a few European states) issued a statement condemning the violence in Libya, reading in part: "We urge armed groups to immediately cease all military actions and warn those who tamper with security in Tripoli or elsewhere in Libya that they will be held accountable for any such actions." How thoughtful of those very military actors who, with U.N. blessing, brought nothing but endless death and destruction to the Libyan people.

In Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin was being demonized as the "new Hitler", real fascists (or at least neo-fascists) were installed in power through the well-planned and generously-funded conspiracy of Obama's neocon functionaries, led by Victoria Nuland and cheered on by such visiting notables as John McCain, Joe Biden, and John Brennan -- all scheming to bring the Kiev regime into the NATO/European Union orbit. The puppet Poroshenko regime has since 2014 been given enough American economic and military largesse to finance its warfare against separatists in the Russian-speaking Donbass region, resulting in more than 10,000 deaths, with no end in sight. Following the gruesome pattern of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Ukrainian society descends into deepening chaos and violence with no end in sight.

It is easy to forget that it was the Obama administration that planned and carried out the first phases of the Mosul operation (begun in October 2016) which produced hundreds of thousands of casualties (with at least 40,000 dead), left a city of two million in Dresden-like state of rubble, and drove nearly a million civilians into exile. The same fate, on smaller scale, was brought to other Sunni-majority cities in Iraq, including Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah (already destroyed by U.S. forces in 2004). Whatever the official goal, and however many secondary collaborators were involved, these were monstrous war crimes by any reckoning.

After calling for a nuclear-free world (and receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for that promise), Obama reversed course and embarked on the most ambitious U.S. nuclear upgrading since the early 1950s – the same project inherited by Trump. Speaking in Prague in 2009, the president called for total abolition of nukes, saying "the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those [nuclear] weapons have not . . . Our efforts to contain these dangers [must be] centered on a global non-proliferation regime." A laudable objective to be sure. But for a price tag of one trillion dollars (over two decades), Obama decided to create new missile delivery systems, expand the arsenal of tactical warheads, and fund a new cycle of bombers and submarines – all with little political or media notice. These initiatives violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty prohibiting such moves, while essentially blocking any genuine efforts toward nuclear reduction and nonproliferation.

In the months before Obama departed the White House he laid the groundwork for a new, more dangerous, Cold War with Russia. This agenda, negating earlier plans for a "reset" with the Putin government, would be multi-faceted – expanded NATO forces along Russian borders, renewed support for the oligarch Poroshenko in Ukraine, new and harsher economic sanctions, expulsion of diplomats, accelerated cyberwarfare, charges of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Not only has this strategy, eagerly advanced by the Clintonites and their media allies, brought new levels of insanity to American politics, it has left the two nuclear powers menacingly closer to armed confrontation than even at the peak of the Cold War.

Obama's contributions to a more robust imperial presidency went further. Collaborating with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he stoked the Syrian civil war by lending "rebel" fighters crucial material, logistical, and military aid for what Clinton – anticipating electoral victory – believed would bring yet another cheerful episode of regime change, this one leaving the U.S. face-to-face with the Russians. During his tenure in office, moreover, Obama would deploy more special-ops troops around the globe (to more than 70 countries) than any predecessor.

Many liberals and more than a few progressives – not to mention large sectors of the media intelligentsia -- will find it difficult to reconcile the picture of an aggressively imperialist Obama with the more familiar image of a thoughtful, articulate politician who laced his talks with references to peace, arms control, and human rights. But this very dualism best corresponds to the historical reality. In his book The Obama Syndrome , Tariq Ali writes: "From Palestine through Iraq, Obama has acted as just another steward of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with more emollient rhetoric." He adds: "Historically, the model for the current variant of imperial presidency is Woodrow Wilson, no less pious a Christian, whose every second word was peace, democracy, or self-determination, while his armies invaded Mexico, occupied Haiti, and attacked Russia [yes, Russia!], and his treaties handed one colony after another to his partners in war. Obama is a hand-me-down version of the same, without even Fourteen Points to betray."

As the 2018 midterm elections approach, Obama has chosen to depart from historical norm and go on the attack against a Trump presidency viewed as signifying all that is evil. A Democratic victory would reject Trump's "dark vision of the the nation and restore honesty, decency, and lawfulness to the American government". In his first speech Obama said that orchestrated public fear has created conditions "ripe for exploitation by politicians who have no compunction and no shame about tapping into America's dark history of racial and ethnic and religious division." Does Obama need to be reminded that such "dark history" also includes militarism and imperialism?

Whatever one's view of the Trump phenomenon in its totality, the amount of death and destruction he has brought to the world does not (yet) come close to Obama's record of warfare, drone strikes, regime changes, military provocations, and global deployments. If neocon interests have come to shape U.S. foreign policy, those interests have so far been more fully embraced by Obama and the Clintonites than by Trump, despite the scary presence of Trump's hawkish circle of lieutenants. Unfortunately, Obama's eight years of imperial aggression elicited strikingly few liberal or progressive voices of dissent across the political and media terrain. He enjoyed nearly complete immunity from protest at a time when even the smallest vestiges of a once-vigorous American antiwar movement had disappeared from the scene.

CARL BOGGS is the author of several recent books, including Fascism Old and New (2018), Origins of the Warfare State (2016), and Drugs, Power, and Politics (2015). He can be reached at [email protected].

[Sep 14, 2018] British Are In Flight Forward, Frantic to Save the Empire

Sep 06, 2018 | larouchepac.com
Prime Minister Teresa May took to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared, were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world," she intoned.

At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a military atrocity by the US and the UK.

Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump -- all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims "total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is a product of someone's rich imagination."

Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral, unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the 25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."

And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word -- repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan rather than Beijing).

All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015, and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to 2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in 2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial masters, has finally been realized.

But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had taken place.

Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the recognition of the People's Republic of China.

Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire, that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special relationship" is to be no more.

This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a shared vision of universal development.

Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger is great, and the time is short.

[Sep 14, 2018] No wonder the Russians came finally to understand that US is non-agreement capable

Notable quotes:
"... In the normal legal world, if one party breaches an agreement, the other party is not bound by this agreement any more. ..."
"... No wonder the Russians came finally to understand that US is non-agreement capable: sign an agreement, immediately start breaching the agreement, unleash an army of presstitutes and trolls who will keep accusing the other party of the breach of agreement. ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kiza , Sep 13, 2018 12:17:37 PM | 25

@cs17 This is an old point of information abuse by the Western government trolls. I cannot count how many times I have disputed one-sided claims such as yours.

The truth is relatively simple - yes, the Budapest Memorandum specifies the inviolability of the Ukrainian border including Crimea, but it also specifically addresses the non-interference into Ukrainian affairs (I used to quote the sections of the Memorandum, but I will skip here). Then the small matter of a coup against a dully elected and recognized government using the $5B by the usual US regime changers represents the original breach of the signed Budapest Memorandum. Unless, of course, the signatory is an exceptional nation for who the international laws and signed agreements do not apply. In the normal legal world, if one party breaches an agreement, the other party is not bound by this agreement any more.

No wonder the Russians came finally to understand that US is non-agreement capable: sign an agreement, immediately start breaching the agreement, unleash an army of presstitutes and trolls who will keep accusing the other party of the breach of agreement.

[Sep 14, 2018] This Memorial Day, remember the 116,516 Americans President Wilson killed in that senseless war.

Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Steve Naidamast , says: June 13, 2018 at 7:14 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer My recent tribute to World War I:

May 28, 2018 - A Memorial to the Great War Disaster

Books about World War I are not popular in the USA because they are depressing. The world's great European powers destroyed a generation of men in pointless bloody battles. Few Americans realize that World War I was America's worst foreign policy blunder that killed millions and set the stage for World War II.

When the "Great War" began in 1914, royals and generals hoped for swift victories. However, advances in technology, mostly machine guns and rapid fire artillery, allowed concentrated firepower to annihilate attacking formations. The war in France bogged down into a bloody stalemate and the construction of fortified positions ensured that any offensive would grind to a stop. The king of England and Germany were first cousins who grew up together, so a peaceful resolution was likely in 1916.

The problem was that British bankers had loaned its government lots of money and most could not be repaid. They wanted to win the war so they could loot Germany by requiring Germans to pay reparations so the British government could repay them. If they could lure the powerful USA to join the war, victory was assured. They blocked peace efforts and used their agents of influence to manipulate the USA into joining the war. Soon after President Wilson was elected with the promise to stay out the war, he worked with Congress to declare war.

As a result, the war dragged on for two more bloody years before enough American men and material arrived in France to turn the tide. The war was unpopular back home, leading Wilson to censor the US mail by blocking anti-war newsletters and magazines. He threw thousands of political opponents in jail, implemented a draft to fill out the Army, and sent these reluctant Americans into battle with little training and poor equipment. The Americans fought bravely, but the Germans had three years of combat experience and chewed up American units foolishly thrown into frontal attacks that had little chance of success. After four years of war, the Germans had no more manpower to replace losses, and surrendered based on a just peace promised by President Wilson. That never happened and Germany was looted and humiliated, which led to the rise of the Nazis and World War II.

So this Memorial Day, remember the 116,516 Americans President Wilson killed in that senseless war. Moreover, the American intervention extended the war and resulted in World War II. American GIs slaughter Germans so British bankers could collect debts, with interest! I was inspired to write this blog post after reading the brilliant David Stockman's recent essay about America's disastrous intervention in World War I.

https://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2018/05/16/why-the-empire-never-sleeps-the-indispensable-nation-folly-part-2/ I have to agree with much of what stated in his reply. But I would like to also add my own in-depth notes

I tend to concentrate my military studies on World War I (in addition to the "War for Southern Independence" and the inter-war years (1919-1939)). And as everyone here has concluded, World War I was an abomination of an atrocity.

Professor Bacevich, a man I have great respect for, did however make some minor but critical errors in this piece.

Kaiser Wilhelm had no desire to enter into a world conflagration. When he realized that events were spinning out of control, he did everything in his power to contact his cousin, the Russian Czar, to request that Russian Mobilization be halted, the actual cause of the start of the conflict. Due to the fact that diplomacy, unlike the military (which had adopted wireless and wired communications), was still using traditional methods of face-to-face discussion or formal letters for diplomacy, the Kaiser was unable to get through to his cousin in time to stop what the Czar most likely could not halt in any event. Mobilization of forces at the time had taken on a life of their own due to the technologies of modernized train transport.

In 1915 or 1916, the German high command attempted to offer to negotiate peace with Britain and France but Britain, with the war being run basically by Churchill (a warmonger of the first order) refused to talk to the Germans, since he loathed them for whatever reasons.

The war was won by Germany in the winter of 1917 at which point the megalomaniacal Woodrow Wilson pushed the US into the conflict with his god-like notion that he could create peace on Earth. The man was truly clinically insane (but functional) as much recent documentation has attested to (see the late Thomas Fleming's, "Illusion of Victory" for a thrill ride through Wilson's addled thinking).

Had the US not entered the war, there would have been an amenable peace developed in 1917 among the European belligerents. And probably as a result, no World War II.

England was the cause of the war indirectly with her centuries old "balance of power" politics applied to continental Europe. In this vein, fearful of the loss of her dominance on the high seas as a result of the Kaiser's excellent buildup of the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy), which in turn would threaten her empire, the British military started to collude with the French military, I believe as early as 1906, to develop joint operational plans in case of war with Germany. This latter of course, the British were very much hoping would happen. And with Churchill being one of the most influential cabinet members on the matter, there was little doubt that Britain would need very little pretext to enter a conflict.

However, it was France's alliance with Russia that was directly responsible for the initiation of the entire conflagration. This alliance was centered upon loans to Russia from France for Russian domestic development and French fears that if Germany attacked her she would be left on her own to defend herself. Russia agreed in principal to ally herself with France but used the French loans instead to rebuild her military (though it did her little good against superior German arms).

Germany, bound in alliance with Austro-Hungary, did in fact support Austria's punitive strike into Serbia and provided what some have called a "blank check", which provided for military and financial support as a result of the alliance. Austria's military, one which had a very spotty historical record of being on and off again as far as quality was concerned, was definitively off in 1914 and was summarily defeated by superior Serbian Forces.

Franz-Josef of Austria had no expectation of a world war when he committed Austria to such an incursion into Serbian territory and by that time no else did either as a result of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand since royal assassinations had become pretty common place in Europe from 1880 onward. However, on the Austrian side we have general Conrad von Hotzendorf to thank for this strike at Serbia. He hated Serbia probably as much as Churchill hated the Germans but Conrad had good reason to since the Balkan nation was always causing all sorts of problems on the Austro-Hungarian borders. Unfortunately, Conrad was not all that good a military man and cost Austrian hundreds of thousands of combatant deaths during the conflict.

As a result, this assassination, a real non-event, has been touted to school children ever since as the cause of World War I. In reality, it was simply window dressing for idiots in the US educational system to latch onto.

The reaction of Russia to the attack on Serbia was to fully mobilize her military, which up through World War II has always been seen as an imminent sign of war.

This automatically dragged France into war, which in turn dragged England as a result of the secret military partnership. Austria then was forced to follow suit and formally declare war, which brought the final player into the conflict, Germany, who with the exception of some in the German high command really had questions about engaging in such a widening war, which was supposed to be a localized conflict.

Seeing that there was no hope to ending the conflict on amenable terms, the Kaiser abdicated in 1918 and fled for the Royal Netherlands where he was taken in and granted political asylum. However, by this time General Ludendorf had become a de-facto military dictator of Germany. And though both he and his senior military aide. Max Hoffman, , who did the majority of the planning, developed superior battlefield strategy, Ludendorf's political decisions caused untold problems for the German social infrastructure, some of which was a reaction to the new pressures that US Forces were finally bringing to bare on German arms.

The original number of deaths for World War I began at around ten million but had been upgraded over the years to around twenty million. However, this does not take into account the highly damaging effects of what would become known as the Spanish Flu in 1918. Recent research into this aspect of the war is now postulating of up to sixty million deaths all told.

The Spanish Flu was actually a very mild flu; not the devastating epidemic that again idiot educators and historians have touted over the years. What made this particular strain of Flu so devastating was not the virus itself but the need for adequate health-care and recovery. However, within the field armies that were facing each other, the deprivations that the war had brought to continental Europe, and the very poorly developed 33 US training camps in the States, affected personnel and civilian populace did not have the proper facilities and health-care required to allow them to recover quickly and properly from this disease. The result was that patients lingered in terrible conditions making recovery impossible and allowing death to ensue.

Finally, it was not just British bankers who wanted their loans paid back but the US banks desired it as well for their own loans; a first in the annals of military history between allies. However, the Wilson Administration never considered the US an ally to Britain or France. It instead viewed itself as an "associated nation", whatever that meant. However, Wilson was famously known for his ridiculous vagueness and slogans ("saving the world for democracy", which even at the time no one could quite figure out the meaning of). As a result, the US would not sign a peace agreement until 1922.

Talk about stupid

[Sep 14, 2018] The current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.

Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

MarkinPNW , says: June 13, 2018 at 5:49 am GMT

The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human, and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.

Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.

But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.

Tom Welsh , says: June 13, 2018 at 10:05 am GMT
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception'.

- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)

Z-man , says: June 13, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT

Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence. And given our reliance on a professional military, shooting citizen-soldiers who want to opt out of the fight is no longer required.

Yep, I was looking for a quote like this. We have a mercenary military now so the ruling elite can send them anywhere they want with little agitation from the general public. That's why I advised my son not to join, not that he was leaning in that direction anyway. (Grin)

Mike P , says: June 13, 2018 at 12:26 pm GMT
Ludendorff's book is available on archive.org , an amazing resource.
AnonFromTN , says: June 13, 2018 at 3:19 pm GMT
I posted this in another thread, but here it is more appropriate:
That's what happens when hubris replaces strategy. In the US today only MIC has a strategy: produce any fakes necessary to keep the gravy train rolling. The leadership of the country is wholly owned by MIC and allied forces (AIPAC is one of those) and mostly resembles biblical blind lead by the blind
renfro , says: June 13, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT

Andrew J. Bacevich is hard at work writing a book about how we got Donald J. Trump.

Buying his book would be a waste of money I can tell you for free.

Trump was elected out of the sheer desperation of a large number of Americans fed up to death with a corrupt government and noxious [neo]liberalism. period.

Unfortunately he was a fraud ..but the most desperate are still clinging, hoping against hope.

[Sep 14, 2018] The US are not interested in winning and leaving they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia.

Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mike P , says: June 8, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT

No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.

I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public, always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what is wrong with the U.S. today.

As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving – they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia. Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.

TG , says: June 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
An interesting and thoughtful piece.

I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence."

This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.

So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't like the status quo.

After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.

No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are simply being ignored.

Left Gatekeeper Dispatch , says: June 8, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap? You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/tribute-to-the-last-honorable-us-senator-the-story-of-paul-wellstones-suspected-assassination-2/5643200

Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge. CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison CIA SIS or GTFO.

smellyoilandgas , says: June 13, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@TG An interesting and thoughtful piece.

I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence."

This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.

So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't like the status quo.

After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises - and he was quickly beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.

No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are simply being ignored. While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.

Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.

I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and Pharaohs because they are global.

[Sep 14, 2018] Infinite War: The Gravy Train Rolls by Andrew J. Bacevich

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Erster General-Quartiermeister ..."
Jun 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

" The United States of Amnesia ." That's what Gore Vidal once called us. We remember what we find it convenient to remember and forget everything else. That forgetfulness especially applies to the history of others. How could their past, way back when, have any meaning for us today? Well, it just might. Take the European conflagration of 1914-1918, for example.

You may not have noticed. There's no reason why you should have, fixated as we all are on the daily torrent of presidential tweets and the flood of mindless rejoinders they elicit. But let me note for the record that the centenary of the conflict once known as The Great War is well underway and before the present year ends will have concluded.

Indeed, a hundred years ago this month, the 1918 German Spring Offensive -- codenamed Operation Michael -- was sputtering to an unsuccessful conclusion. A last desperate German gamble, aimed at shattering Allied defenses and gaining a decisive victory, had fallen short. In early August of that year, with large numbers of our own doughboys now on the front lines, a massive Allied counteroffensive was to commence, continuing until the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, when an armistice finally took effect and the guns fell silent.

In the years that followed, Americans demoted The Great War. It became World War I, vaguely related to but overshadowed by the debacle next in line, known as World War II. Today, the average citizen knows little about that earlier conflict other than that it preceded and somehow paved the way for an even more brutal bloodletting. Also, on both occasions, the bad guys spoke German.

So, among Americans, the war of 1914-1918 became a neglected stepsister of sorts, perhaps in part because the United States only got around to suiting up for that conflict about halfway through the fourth quarter. With the war of 1939-1945 having been sacralized as the moment when the Greatest Generation saved humankind, the war-formerly-known-as-The-Great-War collects dust in the bottom drawer of American collective consciousness.

From time to time, some politician or newspaper columnist will resurrect the file labeled "August 1914," the grim opening weeks of that war, and sound off about the dangers of sleepwalking into a devastating conflict that nobody wants or understands. Indeed, with Washington today having become a carnival of buncombe so sublimely preposterous that even that great journalistic iconoclast H.L. Mencken might have been struck dumb, ours is perhaps an apt moment for just such a reminder.

Yet a different aspect of World War I may possess even greater relevance to the American present. I'm thinking of its duration: the longer it lasted, the less sense it made. But on it went, impervious to human control like the sequence of Biblical plagues that God had inflicted on the ancient Egyptians.

So the relevant question for our present American moment is this: once it becomes apparent that a war is a mistake, why would those in power insist on its perpetuation, regardless of costs and consequences? In short, when getting in turns out to have been a bad idea, why is getting out so difficult, even (or especially) for powerful nations that presumably should be capable of exercising choice on such matters? Or more bluntly, how did the people in charge during The Great War get away with inflicting such extraordinary damage on the nations and peoples for which they were responsible?

For those countries that endured World War I from start to finish -- especially Great Britain, France, and Germany -- specific circumstances provided their leaders with an excuse for suppressing second thoughts about the cataclysm they had touched off.

Among them were:

mostly compliant civilian populations deeply loyal to some version of King and Country, further kept in line by unremitting propaganda that minimized dissent; draconian discipline -- deserters and malingerers faced firing squads -- that maintained order in the ranks (most of the time) despite the unprecedented scope of the slaughter; the comprehensive industrialization of war, which ensured a seemingly endless supply of the weaponry, munitions, and other equipment necessary for outfitting mass conscript armies and replenishing losses as they occurred.

Economists would no doubt add sunk costs to the mix. With so much treasure already squandered and so many lives already lost, the urge to press on a bit longer in hopes of salvaging at least some meager benefit in return for what (and who) had been done in was difficult to resist.

Even so, none of these, nor any combination of them, can adequately explain why, in the midst of an unspeakable orgy of self-destruction, with staggering losses and nations in ruin, not one monarch or president or premier had the wit or gumption to declare: Enough! Stop this madness!

Instead, the politicians sat on their hands while actual authority devolved onto the likes of British Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, French Marshals Ferdinand Foch and Philippe Petain, and German commanders Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. In other words, to solve a conundrum they themselves had created, the politicians of the warring states all deferred to their warrior chieftains. For their part, the opposing warriors jointly subscribed to a perverted inversion of strategy best summarized by Ludendorff as "punch a hole [in the front] and let the rest follow." And so the conflict dragged on and on.

The Forfeiture of Policy

Put simply, in Europe, a hundred years ago, war had become politically purposeless. Yet the leaders of the world's principal powers -- including

Allow me to suggest that the United States should consider taking a page out of Lenin's playbook. Granted, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, such a suggestion might have smacked of treason. Today, however, in the midst of our never-ending efforts to expunge terrorism, we might look to Lenin for guidance on how to get our priorities straight.

As was the case with Great Britain, France, and Germany a century ago, the United States now finds itself mired in a senseless war. Back then, political leaders in London, Paris, and Berlin had abrogated control of basic policy to warrior chieftains. Today, ostensibly responsible political leaders in Washington have done likewise. Some of those latter-day American warrior chieftains who gather in the White House or testify on Capitol Hill may wear suits rather than uniforms, but all remain enamored with the twenty-first-century equivalent of Ludendorff's notorious dictum.

Of course, our post-9/11 military enterprise -- the undertaking once known as the Global War on Terrorism -- differs from The Great War in myriad ways. The ongoing hostilities in which U.S. forces are involved in various parts of the Islamic world do not qualify, even metaphorically, as "great." Nor will there be anything great about an armed conflict with Iran , should members of the current administration get their apparent wish to provoke one.

Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence. And given our reliance on a professional military, shooting citizen-soldiers who want to opt out of the fight is no longer required.

There are also obvious differences in scale, particularly when it comes to the total number of casualties involved. Cumulative deaths from the various U.S. interventions, large and small, undertaken since 9/11, number in the hundreds of thousands . The precise tally of those lost during the European debacle of 1914-1918 will never be known, but the total probably surpassed 13 million .

Even so, similarities between the Great War as it unspooled and our own not-in-the-least-great war(s) deserve consideration. Today, as then, strategy -- that is, the principled use of power to achieve the larger interests of the state -- has ceased to exist. Indeed, war has become an excuse for ignoring the absence of strategy.

For years now, U.S. military officers and at least some national security aficionados have referred to ongoing military hostilities as " the Long War ." To describe our conglomeration of spreading conflicts as "long" obviates any need to suggest when or under what circumstances (if any) they might actually end. It's like the meteorologist forecasting a "long winter" or the betrothed telling his or her beloved that theirs will be a "long engagement." The implicit vagueness is not especially encouraging.

Some high-ranking officers of late have offered a more forthright explanation of what "long" may really mean. In the Washington Post , the journalist Greg Jaffe recently reported that "winning for much of the U.S. military's top brass has come to be synonymous with staying put." Winning, according to Air Force General Mike Holmes, is simply "not losing. It's staying in the game."

Not so long ago, America's armed forces adhered to a concept called victory , which implied conclusive, expeditious, and economical mission accomplished. No more. Victory , it turns out, is too tough to achieve, too restrictive, or, in the words of Army Lieutenant General Michael Lundy, "too absolute." The United States military now grades itself instead on a curve. As Lundy puts it, "winning is more of a continuum," an approach that allows you to claim mission accomplishment without, you know, actually accomplishing anything.

It's like soccer for six-year-olds. Everyone tries hard so everyone gets a trophy. Regardless of outcomes, no one goes home feeling bad. In the U.S. military's case, every general gets a medal (or, more likely, a chest full of them).

"These days," in the Pentagon, Jaffe writes, "senior officers talk about 'infinite war.'"

I would like to believe that Jaffe is pulling our leg. But given that he's a conscientious reporter with excellent sources, I fear he knows what he's talking about. If he's right, as far as the top brass are concerned, the Long War has now officially gone beyond long. It has been deemed endless and is accepted as such by those who preside over its conduct.

Strategic Abomination

In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term, but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.

Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called defense contractors, and the " emergency men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits, promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course, that's part of the problem.

Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this: in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation, they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and departing after a couple years to make way for someone else to give it a try.

It tells us something about our prevailing standards of generalship that, by resurrecting an old idea -- counterinsurgency -- and applying it with temporary success to one particular theater of war, General David Petraeus acquired a reputation as a military genius. If Petraeus is a military genius, so, too, is General George McClellan. After winning the Battle of Rich Mountain in 1861, newspapers dubbed McClellan "the Napoleon of the Present War." But the action at Rich Mountain decided nothing and McClellan didn't win the Civil War any more than Petraeus won the Iraq War.

No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders. Of course, under the heading of politician, we quickly come to our current commander-in-chief. Yet it would be manifestly unfair to blame President Trump for the mess he inherited, even if he is presently engaged in making matters worse .

The failure is a collective one, to which several presidents and both political parties have contributed over the years. Although the carnage may not be as horrific today as it was on the European battlefields on the Western and Eastern Fronts, members of our political class are failing us as strikingly and repeatedly as the political leaders of Great Britain, France, and Germany failed their peoples back then. They have abdicated responsibility for policy to our own homegrown equivalents of Haig, Foch, Petain, Hindenburg, and Ludendorff. Their failure is unforgivable.

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.

Until that

[Sep 14, 2018] The official government investigation of the WTC Building 7 collapse is dead wrong

Sep 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

S | Sep 13, 2018 2:15:10 AM@Den Lille Abe:

You might want to check this out: "WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire" - Dr. Leroy Hulsey, UAF, Sept. 6, 2017 . Dr. Hulsey is a real Professor of Structural Engineering and a Department Chair at the University of Alaska Fairbanks -- not some kooky guy with a fake diploma. His conclusion: the official government investigation of the WTC Building 7 collapse is dead wrong. The main problem is that the building model used in the official investigation entirely omitted an important structural element that prevented lateral movement of the girders. I highly recommend watching the presentation.

[Sep 14, 2018] Trump, the American bully, is attempting to threaten and intimidate every government of the world to bow to the interests of Wall Street and the US-based transnational corporations

Actions talk louder then words. Trump is a neocon in his foreign policy toward Russia, Iran and several other states.
Notable quotes:
"... The past month has seen not only the sanctions that have sunk the Turkish lira, but the imposition of new sanctions against Iran, following the unilateral US abrogation of the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal with the P5+1 -- the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany -- that have led to severe strains on the Iranian economy. Far more punishing sanctions on Iranian energy exports and banking are set to kick in in November. ..."
"... Similarly, sanctions are being imposed on Russia over the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury. The Russian government of President Vladimir Putin has denied any involvement in the affair, and no substantive evidence has been presented to prove otherwise. As in Iran's case, Russia faces the prospect of more sanctions being rolled out later this year. ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star August 15, 2018 at 3:39 pm

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/15/pers-a15.html

"Trump, the American bully, is attempting to threaten and intimidate every government of the world to bow to the interests of Wall Street and the US-based transnational corporations.

The past month has seen not only the sanctions that have sunk the Turkish lira, but the imposition of new sanctions against Iran, following the unilateral US abrogation of the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal with the P5+1 -- the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany -- that have led to severe strains on the Iranian economy. Far more punishing sanctions on Iranian energy exports and banking are set to kick in in November.

Similarly, sanctions are being imposed on Russia over the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury. The Russian government of President Vladimir Putin has denied any involvement in the affair, and no substantive evidence has been presented to prove otherwise. As in Iran's case, Russia faces the prospect of more sanctions being rolled out later this year.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned last Friday that proposed measures to bar Russian banking operations would "amount to a declaration of economic war" and would merit "a response with economic means, political means and, if necessary, other means."

The attack on Turkey is bound up with the increasingly aggressive US measures being taken against Russia and Iran. The Erdogan government's foreign policy has cut across US geostrategic aims in the Middle East and more broadly in Eurasia.

In Syria, Ankara has reached an accommodation with both Russia and Iran, allowing it to pursue its interests on its southern border. At the same time, Turkey has come to the verge of military confrontation with the US, which is utilizing as its main proxy ground force the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, an affiliate of the Turkish Kurdish PKK against which Ankara has waged a protracted and bloody counterinsurgency campaign. (CHECK)

Meanwhile, the Turkish government has unveiled plans to purchase the advanced S-400 missile defense system from Russia that is supposed to be delivered next year and is incompatible with NATO antimissile systems. (CHECK)

Finally, Ankara has signaled that it has no intention of abiding by the unilateral sanctions being imposed by Washington against Iran, which is a principal source of Turkey's energy imports. And, as Trump signaled in a recent tweet, "Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States." (DOUBLE CHECK)

(CHECK) .LOL!!!!!

Hmmm As Turkey and Russia grow into successively closer degrees of strategic alliance ,
How will NATO warships of Operation Provocation manage to navigate the Bosporous into the Black Sea????

[Sep 13, 2018] After Trump: The Donald in the Rearview Mirror by Andrew J. Bacevich

Trump did implement some measures in internal policy that are against neoliberal dogma. Also in foreign policy he introduced tariffs which is anathema for neoliberal globalization. where he completely folded is foreign policy and wars for neoliberal empire expansion (with some conducted for the main benefit of Israel). he generally conducts a neocon foreign policy.
But Bacevich is right in a sense that Trump does not control his own cabinet./ Behaviour of Haley and Pompeo are clear indications of that.
Notable quotes:
"... almost nothing of substance has changed. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich, a ..."
"... , is the author of ..."
"... which will be published this fall. ..."
Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th U.S. president may last another few weeks, another year, or another 16 months. However unsettling the prospect, the leaky vessel that is the S.S. Trump might even manage to stay afloat for a second term. Nonetheless, recent headline-making revelations suggest that, like some derelict ship that's gone aground, the Trump presidency may already have effectively run its course. What, then, does this bizarre episode in American history signify?

Let me state my own view bluntly: forget the atmospherics. Despite the lies, insults, name calling, and dog whistles, almost nothing of substance has changed. Nor will it.

To a far greater extent than Trump's perpetually hyperventilating critics are willing to acknowledge, the United States remains on a trajectory that does not differ appreciably from what it was prior to POTUS #45 taking office. Post-Trump America, just now beginning to come into view, is shaping up to look remarkably like pre-Trump America.

I understand that His Weirdness remains in the White House. Yet for all practical purposes, Trump has ceased to govern. True, he continues to rant and issue bizarre directives, which his subordinates implement, amend, or simply disregard as they see fit.

Except in a ceremonial sense, the office of the presidency presently lies vacant. Call it an abdication-in-place. It's as if British King Edward VIII, having abandoned his throne for "the woman I love," continued to hang around Buckingham Palace fuming about the lack of respect given Wallis and releasing occasional bulletins affirming his admiration for Adolf Hitler.

In Trump's case, it's unlikely he ever had a more serious interest in governing than Edward had in performing duties more arduous than those he was eventually assigned as Duke of Windsor. Nonetheless, the 60-plus million Americans who voted for Trump did so with at least the expectation that he was going to shake things up.

And bigly . Remember, he was going to "lock her up." He would "drain the swamp" and "build a wall" with Mexico volunteering to foot the bill. Without further ado, he would end "this American carnage." Meanwhile, "America First" would form the basis for U.S. foreign policy. Once Trump took charge, things were going to be different, as he and he alone would "make America great again."

Yet the cataclysm that Trump's ascendency was said to signify has yet to occur. Barring a nuclear war, it won't.

If you spend your days watching CNN or MSNBC or reading columnists employed by the New York Times and the Washington Post , you might conclude otherwise. But those are among the institutions that, on November 8, 2016, suffered a nervous breakdown from which they have yet to recover. Nor, it now seems clear, do they wish to recover as long as Donald Trump remains president. To live in a perpetual state of high dudgeon, denouncing his latest inanity and predicting the onset of fascism, is to enjoy the equivalent of a protracted psychic orgasm, one induced by mutual masturbation.

Yet if you look beyond the present to the fairly recent past, it becomes apparent that change on the scale that Trump was promising had actually occurred, even if well before he himself showed up on the scene. The consequences of that Big Change are going to persist long after he is gone. It's those consequences that now demand our attention, not the ongoing Gong Show jointly orchestrated by the White House and journalists fancying themselves valiant defenders of Truth.

Trump himself is no more than a pimple on the face of this nation's history. It's time to step back from the mirror and examine the face in full. Pretty it's not.

The Way We Were

Compare the America that welcomed young Donald Trump into the world in 1946 with the country that, some 70 years later, elected him president. As the post-World War II era was beginning, three large facts -- so immense that they were simply taken for granted -- defined America.

First, the United States made everything and made more of it than anyone else. In postwar America, wealth derived in large measure from the manufacture of stuff: steel, automobiles, refrigerators, shoes, socks, blouses, baseballs, you name it. "Made in the USA" was more than just a slogan. With so much of the industrialized world in ruins, the American economy dominated and defined everyday economic reality globally.

Second, back then while the mighty engine of industrial capitalism was generating impressive riches, it was also distributing the benefits on a relatively equitable basis . Postwar America was the emblematic middle-class country, the closest approximation to a genuinely classless and democratic society the world had ever seen.

Third, having had their fill of fighting from 1941 to 1945, Americans had a genuine aversion to war. They may not have been a peace-loving people, but they knew enough about war to see it as a great evil. Avoiding its further occurrence, if at all possible, was a priority, although one not fully shared by the new national security establishment just then beginning to flex its muscles in Washington.

Now without even pretending to distribute the benefits equitably. Politicians still routinely paid tribute to the Great American Middle Class. Yet the hallmarks of postwar middle-class life -- a steady job, a paycheck adequate to support a family, the prospect of a pension -- were rapidly disappearing. While Americans still enjoyed freedom of a sort, many of them lacked security.

By 2016, Americans had also come to accept war as normal . Here was "global leadership" made manifest. So U.S. troops were now always out there somewhere fighting, however obscure the purpose of their exertions and however dim their prospects of achieving anything approximating victory . The 99% of Americans who were not soldiers learned to tune out those wars, content merely to "support the troops," an obligation fulfilled by offering periodic expressions of reverence on public occasions. Thank you for your service!

The Way We Are

But note: Donald Trump played no role in creating this America or consigning the America of 1946 to oblivion. As a modern equivalent of P.T. Barnum, he did demonstrate considerable skill in exploiting the opportunities on offer as the strictures of postwar America gave way. Indeed, he parlayed those opportunities into fortune, celebrity, lots of golf , plenty of sex, and eventually the highest office in the land. Only in America, as we used to say.

In 1946, it goes without saying, he would never have been taken seriously as a would-be presidential candidate. By 2016, his narcissism, bombast, vulgarity, and talent for self-promotion nicely expressed the underside of the prevailing zeitgeist. His candidacy was simultaneously preposterous, yet strangely fitting.

By the twenty-first century, the values that Trump embodies had become as thoroughly and authentically American as any of those specified in the oracular pronouncements of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin Roosevelt. Trump's critics may see him as an abomination. But he is also one of us.

And here's the real news: the essential traits that define America today -- those things that make this country so different from what it seemed to be in 1946 -- will surely survive the Trump presidency. If anything, he and his cronies deserve at least some credit for sustaining just those traits.

Candidate Trump essentially promised Americans a version of 1946 redux . He would revive manufacturing and create millions of well-paying jobs for working stiffs. By cutting taxes, he would put more money in the average Joe or Jill's pocket. He would eliminate the trade deficit and balance the federal budget. He would end our endless wars and bring the troops home where they belong. He would oblige America's allies, portrayed as a crew of freeloaders, to shoulder their share of the burden. He would end illegal immigration. He would make the United States once more the God-fearing Christian country it was meant to be.

How seriously Trump expected any of those promises to be taken is anyone's guess. But this much is for sure: they remain almost entirely unfulfilled.

True, domestic manufacturing has experienced a slight uptick , but globalization remains an implacable reality. Unless you've got a STEM degree, good jobs are still hard to come by. Ours is increasingly a "gig" economy, which might be cool enough when you're 25, but less so when you're in your sixties and wondering if you'll ever be able to retire.

While Trump and a Republican Congress delivered on their promise of tax "reform," its chief beneficiaries will be the rich, further confirmation, if it were needed, that the American economy is indeed rigged in favor of a growing class of plutocrats. Trade deficit? It's headed for a 10-year high . Balanced budget? You've got to be joking. The estimated federal deficit next year will exceed a trillion dollars , boosting the national debt past $21 trillion . (Trump had promised to eliminate that debt entirely.)

And, of course, the wars haven't ended. Here is Trump, just last month, doing his best George McGovern imitation: "I'm constantly reviewing Afghanistan and the whole Middle East," he asserted . "We never should have been in the Middle East. It was the single greatest mistake in the history of our country." Yet Trump has perpetuated and, in some instances, expanded America's military misadventures in the Greater Middle East, while essentially insulating himself from personal responsibility for their continuation.

As commander-in-chief, he's a distinctly hands-off kind of guy. Despite being unable to walk, President Franklin Roosevelt visited GIs serving in combat zones more often than Trump has. If you want to know why we are in Afghanistan and how long U.S. forces will stay there, ask Defense Secretary James Mattis or some general, but don't, whatever you do, ask the president.

On Not Turning America's Back on the World

And then there is the matter of Trump's "isolationism." Recall that when he became president, foreign policy experts across Washington warned that the United States would now turn its back on the world and abandon its self-assigned role as keeper of order and defender of democracy. Now, nearing the mid-point of Trump's first (and hopefully last) term, the United States remains formally committed to defending the territorial integrity of each and every NATO member state, numbering 29 in all. Add to that an obligation to defend nations as varied as Japan, South Korea, and, under the terms of the Rio Pact of 1947, most of Latin America. Less formally but no less substantively, the U.S. ensures the security of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and various other Persian Gulf countries.

As for obliging those allies to pony up more for the security we have long claimed to provide, that's clearly not going to happen any time soon. Our European allies have pocketed both Trump's insults and his assurances that the United States will continue to defend them, offering in return the vaguest of promises that, sometime in the future, they might consider investing more in defense.

By-the-by, U.S. forces under Donald Trump's ostensible command are today present in more than 150 countries worldwide. Urged on by the president, Congress has passed a bill that boosts the Pentagon budget to $717 billion , an $82 billion increase over the prior year. Needless to say, no adversary or plausible combination of adversaries comes anywhere close to matching that figure.

To call this isolationism is comparable to calling Trump svelte.

As for the promised barrier, that " big, fat, beautiful wall ," to seal the southern border, it has advanced no further than the display of several possible prototypes. No evidence exists to suggest that Mexico will, as Trump insisted, pay for its construction, nor that Congress will appropriate the necessary funds, estimated at somewhere north of $20 billion , even with Republicans still controlling both houses of Congress. And in truth, whether it is built or not, the U.S.-Mexico border will remain what it has been for decades: heavily patrolled but porous, a conduit for desperate people seeking safety and opportunity, but also for criminal elements trafficking in drugs or human beings.

The point of this informal midterm report card is not to argue that Donald Trump has somehow failed. It is rather to highlight his essential irrelevance.

Trump is not the disruptive force that anti-Trumpers accuse him of being. He is merely a noxious, venal, and ineffectual blowhard, who has assembled a team of associates who are themselves, with few exceptions, noxious, venal, or ineffectual.

So here's the upshot of it all: if you were basically okay with where America was headed prior to November 2016, just take a deep breath and think of Donald Trump as the political equivalent of a kidney stone -- not fun, but sooner or later, it will pass. And when it does, normalcy will return. Soon enough you'll forget it ever happened.

If, on the other hand, you were not okay with where America was headed in 2016, it's past time to give up the illusion that Donald Trump is going to make things right. Eventually a pimple dries up and disappears, often without leaving a trace. Such is the eventual destiny of Donald Trump as president.

In the meantime, of course, there are any number of things about Trump to raise our ire. Climate change offers a good example. And yet climate change may be the best illustration of Trump's insignificance.

Under President Obama, the United States showed signs of mounting a belated effort to address global warming. The Trump administration wasted little time in reversing course, reverting to the science-denying position to which Republicans adhered long before Trump himself showed up.

No doubt future generations will find fault with Trump's inaction in the face of this crisis. Yet when Miami is underwater and California wildfires rage throughout the year, Trump himself won't be the only -- or even the principal – culprit charged with culpable neglect.

The nation's too-little, too-late response to climate change for which a succession of presidents share responsibility illustrates the great and abiding defect of contemporary American politics. When all is said and done, presidents don't shape the country; the country shapes the presidency -- or at least it defines the parameters within which presidents operate. Over the course of the last few decades, those parameters have become increasingly at odds with the collective wellbeing of the American people, not to mention of the planet as a whole.

Yet Americans have been obdurate in refusing to acknowledge that fact.

Americans today are deeply divided. There exists no greater symbol of that division than Trump himself -- the wild enthusiasm he generates in some quarters and the antipathy verging on hatred he elicits in others.

The urgent need of the day is to close that divide, which is as broad as it is deep, touching on culture, the political economy, America's role in the world, and the definition of the common good. I submit that these matters lie beyond any president's purview, but especially this one's.

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps -- or someone worse -- to come.

Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author of Twilight of the American Century , which will be published this fall.

beb , says: September 11, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT

A cultural war has been ignited. The United States in 6 more years will be a different country. For good or evil, I do not know. Whichever side wins will take all.
CornCod1 , says: September 11, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMT
I dunno, if Trump had some backing from his own party and had a true political movement behind him he would have done better.
RVBlake , says: September 11, 2018 at 9:52 pm GMT
There is no more an American people. Trump's election has revealed a cultural divide which has existed for the past 50 years or more. He didn't cause it, he has unconsciously uncovered it.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 11, 2018 at 11:25 pm GMT
Trump did at least have the courage publicly to describe the enemy within, which makes him all but unique among Western politicians: 'Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.'

[Sep 12, 2018] "Staged Filming of False Flag 'Chemical Attacks' Has Begun in Idlib

Notable quotes:
"... It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests. ..."
"... Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russia's alleged interference in America's political system while looking the other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , September 11, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT

@Tyrion 2
Target Syria

Will a new war be the October Surprise

No. Don't you get bored of being wrong? Have any of your predictions come true? America and allies are quite at peace with how Syria is unfolding. If you don't get that, you don't get anything. "Staged Filming of False Flag 'Chemical Attacks' Has Begun in Idlib:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/russian-defense-ministry-says-filming-mock-chemical-attack-has-begun-idlib

From the comment section:

1. "The only way for Syria and Iran and Russia to defend Syria is to clearly tell Washington, London, Paris (the main ZOGs) and Israel that attacks on Syria will be responded to by attacks on Israeli military and intel sites. The introduction of any nuclear device of any size will result in a full-scale nuclear response.

That is the only play otherwise Syria simply bleeds to death as t he Jews get their puppets to keep fomenting terror and dropping bombs on SAA efforts to fight those terrorists . We come to the moment when Russia either defends Syria by hitting Israel or it decides to accept the Long Death of Anglo-Zionist megalomania."

2. "I really do wish Russia would just instantly bomb Israel. That would be the best way to separate us from that satanic rope around our necks."

3. "I call everyone in the military to disobey orders for attacking anything in Syria except Isis. Need to spread this on social media. Don't be mercenaries of Israel ."

-- Your "most victimized" have squandered all and any sympathy for your "incomparable sufferings" by promoting the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. The Jewish State and its subordinate zionized US have become the gravest danger to humanity.

reiner Tor , September 11, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
This whole issue is so surrealistic. The last time the OPCW didn't confirm their accusations, but now they know who is going to commit a chemical attack right now, and they don't even wait for the actual events to be cocksure about it. Apparently they want a nuclear Mexican standoff. This is the problem that last time maybe Russia wasn't convincingly committed to a nuclear war, and so they are trying to explore this perceived weakness. It will get to a point where the US will call Russia's "bluff" which will turn out not to have been a bluff.

annamaria , September 12, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT

@APilgrim

Jews undermined and destroyed their own society, as routinely as they undermine Western Civilization. The OT reveals the historic pattern of Hebraic self-destruction, and depravity; which was repeated in the 1st Century, and chronicled by Josephus.

Jews are not as problematic, as the Muhammadans.

So, 1st things 1st. The ziocon-supported "rebels" of A Qaeda (see Washington Post editorial written by Israel firsters) are preparing a children sacrifice for the glory of the the mythical Eretz Israel: https://www.rt.com/news/438282-white-helmets-film-chemical-attacks/

"The militants have selected 22 children and their parents from several villages in the Aleppo governorate who will play parts in staging fake chemical weapon attacks.

Another group of children is comprised of orphans kidnapped from refugee camps, who are meant to be used for the footage of death scenes. It is currently kept in one of the buildings of the Ikab prison controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group.

Signs of activities to prepare staged chemical weapon attacks were reported in Kafir-Zait, the military claims, also naming two villages where toxic chemicals have been delivered to stage provocations."

-- Not a peep from the "humanitarian" Jewish State that has been waiting impatiently a resumption of the slaughter of civilians in the sovereign State of Syria. Nothing pleases the Jewish State more than the death of kids in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Iran. This is your tribeswoman:

" Paul Joseph Watson reported that at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups are pledging allegiance to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate group responsible for killing American troops in Iraq.

"Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners," Watson wrote.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even admitted to BBC that these Syrian rebels on the same side as the U.S. in Syria are terrorist groups President Obama has been openly supporting the Syrian rebels "

Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University told the MSNBC panel: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-10/how-explain-causes-syrian-war-2-minutes

"We know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster. Eventually, it brought in both ISIS as a splinter group to the jihadists that went in, it also brought in Russia.

So we have been digging deeper and deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out, and not continue to throw missiles, not have a confrontation with Russia."

Why? -- Because of the pressure from the Jewish Power: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49245.htm

"Syria is only part of a much larger problem. It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests.

Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russia's alleged interference in America's political system while looking the other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. Netanyahu and his crew of unsavory cutthroats are hardly ever cited for their malignant influence over America's political class and media. Bomb Syria? Sure. After all, it's good for Israel."

-- The bloody, murderous, perfidious Jewish Power is guilty of the rivers of blood and mounds of human flesh in Syria. Close your holo-biz museums already.

[Sep 12, 2018] Henry A. Wallace on amrican fascism

Sep 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Moribundus ,
The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.

Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

~quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944

Henry A. Wallace

[Sep 12, 2018] Since we've rarely been in such situations as Trump created in Syria, we don't really know what the margin of error is, nor what could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

reiner Tor , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT

@Anonymous

Absolutely. Trump is being led by the nose into WW3. It's only a matter of time, unfortunately. The issue is that, while most likely there will be no ww3 after this newest crisis, just as there was no nuclear war after the April crisis, we never know exactly how close we are to a nuclear war, because previously both parties tried to stay clear of such situations. How many times can the US illegally strike at Syrian targets without it leading to some Russian response which would in turn lead to some US response and so on, until we'll face some kind of situation where the sweating, nervous and sleep-deprived leadership of one of these nuclear superpowers will in an underground bunker rightly or wrongly contemplate the possibility that if they don't use their nukes in 20 minutes, they'll lose most of them..? Since we've rarely been in such situations, we don't really know what the margin of error is, nor what could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. We have no idea.

Tom Welsh , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
"It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with Russia, which would be unpredictable "

Quite wrong, and very dangerous. In fact an "open conflict" (or, as we say in English, a war) against Russia would – very predictably indeed – have one of two possible outcomes:

1. A catastrophic and decisive defeat for the USA;

or

2. The destruction of all human life.

[Sep 12, 2018] Real reason for western elite hatred of Russia is that it has destroyed neo con dreams of full spectrum dominance in military affairs.

Sep 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ragheb , Sep 12, 2018 3:25:02 PM | link

Real reason for western elite hatred of Russia is that it has destroyed neo con dreams of full spectrum dominance in military affairs. Doubt US would have invaded Iraq in 2003 if Russian military was as strong then as it us today.

bm , Sep 12, 2018 3:40:36 PM | link

In all areas held by jihadis the most difficult issue was how to blow them up and not the civilians they were holding hostage. The Syrian and Russian strategy has been from the start to let the jihadis do their thing, wait, never escalate but negotiate, so as to avoid civilian casualties. This strategy has worked to win the war, and seems to be the same one they're following in Idlib. In contrast to previous hawkish threats by FUKUS and Nato, the propaganda mills are churning out much milder fare than previously. The Israelis have started admitting they were supporting '12' terror groups in Syria, and French ex foreign minister of defense, now 'minister for Europe and foreign affairs' Jean-Yves Le Drian, has declared that Nato has lost the war, but Assad has not 'won the peace'. Assad and Putin have learnt the lesson long ago, that they cannot negotiate with terrorists like Le Drian, and are better off negotiating with Erdogan, AlQaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Sep 12, 2018] Trump is a pawn of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less.

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous , [251] Disclaimer says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:28 pm GMT

All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war withRussia. That would leave him with no staff.

But Trump is not fooling me. You do not make a campaign promise to cooperate with Russia, and then hire all these people who want to go to war with Russia.
It tells me that Trump was lying during his campaign.

He told us Iraq was the wrong decision, and now he has bombed Syria twice and is ready to bomb them again; he told us that he wants out of the mid-east; he told us he wanted to cooperate with Russia.

So I voted for him, but he was lying. I already found out he is a brazen liar. He took those Clinton women to his debate to humiliate Hillary and Bill Clinton, when all the while he was doing the same thing with women. That is what I call a brazen liar.

He is a pawn of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less. They probably told him to hire Bolton and all the other war-mongers around him. He's not surrounded by the enemy. He is surrounded by his friends.

Admiral Assbar , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:46 pm GMT
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them, instead of putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas of agreement with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign policy promise he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences: backing out of the Iran deal.

I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul, Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials.

Tom Welsh , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT
@Admiral Assbar The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them, instead of putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas of agreement with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign policy promise he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences: backing out of the Iran deal.

I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul, Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials. "The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them "

It seems fairly clear that, whenever a new President is sworn in, he immediately receives a "pep talk" in which he is informed what he will and will not say and do, and what will happen to him, his family, their pets, and everyone they have ever spoken to if he disobeys. Probably this "offer that he can't refuse" is concluded by words along the lines of: " and if you want to get what the Kennedys got, just try stepping out of line".

J. Edgar Hoover used to do something of the kind when he was head of the FBI, but that was relatively benign – just a threat of blackmail accompanied by kindly advice never to fight the FBI.

ChuckOrloski , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 10:13 pm GMT
@AlbionRevisited I was referring to the campaign, of course we're in a different situation now. It's amazing the way in which they were able to co-oped his administration. AlbionRevisted wrote: "It's amazing the way in which they (Neoconservatives) were able to co-oped his (Trump)
administration."
Greetings AlbionRevisited!
Many were disappointed with Trump and that might even include a percentage of the voting bloc known as "Deplorables."
Nonetheless, after honing into candidate Donald Trump's awful 2017 homage to AIPAC, it becomes dramatically less amazing how Neoconservatives crept into the White House.
Recall how rabid leftist Neoconservatives wanted Hillary, and how suddenly the naysayer, Extra-Octane Neoconservative, John Bolton, stuck with the phoney populist, "America First-After-Israeli-Interests," talkin' Donald J. Trump?
The essence of American presidential campaigns/elections boil down to powerful international Jewry needs & timing, and disemboweled citizens must take-it or leave-it. Uh, support the immoral wars and pay the bill!
Thanks, AlbionRevisted.

Herald says: September 12, 2018 at 10:53 am GMT • 100 Words

@Tom Welsh

I am not convinced that Trump started out with good intentions but quickly bowed to threats. Trump was never a principled person and it seems much more likely that he was always a stooge for the Israel lobby and the MIC.

I used to think that things would have been worse under Hillary but these days I'm even beginning to have doubts on that score.

jacques sheete, September 12, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT • 100 Words

@Admiral Assbar

The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them

No mystery at all. It was all campaign rhetoric like the Shrub's promises of "a humble foreign policy" and "compassionate conservatism," O-bomba-'s "hope and change"and Woody 'n Frankies promises to keep the US out of war.

KenH, September 12, 2018 at 12:20 pm GMT

Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man.

[Sep 12, 2018] Behind the Anglo American War on Russia by F. William Engdahl

Notable quotes:
"... F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" ..."
Sep 11, 2018 | www.williamengdahl.com

Perhaps they had a chance back during the Obama days when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed her amusing "Reset" in USA-Russia relations to the new Medvedew Presidency following Putin's rotation to the seat of Prime Minister in March 2009. Had Washington been a bit more perceptive and offered serious alternatives, it is conceivable that Washington would today have a geopolitical isolation of their second major problem on the Eurasian Continent, namely, the Peoples' Republic of China. Recently the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, Wess Mitchell, testified to the Senate where he candidly revealed the true reasons for current Washington and London campaigns and sanctions against Russia. It has nothing to do with faked allegations of US election interference; it has nothing to do with poorly-staged false flag poisoning of the Russian Skripals. It's far more fundamental and takes us back to the era before the First World War more than a century ago.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 21 August, Wess Mitchell, the successor to Victoria Nuland, gave an extraordinarily honest statement of real US geopolitical strategy towards Russia. It revealed a bit more honesty apparently than the US State Department wanted, because they quickly sanitized their published version on the department website.

Censored!

In his opening remarks to the Senate committee members Mitchell stated:

"The starting point of the National Security Strategy is the recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition, and that past US policies have neither sufficiently grasped the scope of this emerging trend nor adequately equipped our nation to succeed in it.

Then he continues with the following extraordinary admission:

"Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power."

In the State Department's later sanitized version, the original text, "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers." And the sentence, "The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power," mysteriously were deleted. Because it was formal testimony presented to the Senate, however, the Senate version remains true to his original text, at least of 7 September, 2018. The State Department has been caught in a huge blunder.

If we pause to reflect on the meaning behind the words of Wess Mitchell, it's pretty crude and wholly illegal in terms of the UN Charter, though Washington today seems to have forgotten that solemn document. Mitchell says US national security priority is to, " prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers." He clearly means powers hostile to efforts of Washington and NATO to dominate Eurasia, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than a quarter century ago.

But, wait. Mitchell earlier cites the two dominant powers who combined, he says, are the current prime foe of US global control. Mitchell states explicitly, "Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership." But US control of Eurasia then means US control of Russia, China and environs. Eurasia is their land space. The Wess Mitchell Senate declaration is a kind of obscene global rollout of the 19th Century USA Monroe Doctrine: Eurasia is ours and "hostile powers" such as China or Russia who try to interfere in their own sovereign space, become de facto "enemy." Then the formulation "building up the material and ideological wherewithal " What's that supposed to mean as justification for Washington policy to prepare a military response? Both nations are energetically moving, despite repeated Western economic warfare, to build their economic infrastructure independent of NATO control. That is understandable. But Mitchell admits it is for Washington Casus Belli.

To realize what a strategic blunder the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs made with that one careless sentence and why the State Department rushed to delete his remarks, a brief excursion into basic Anglo-American geopolitical doctrine is useful. Here, discussion of the worldview of the godfather of geopolitics, British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder is essential. In 1904 in a speech before the Royal Geographical Society in London, Mackinder, a firm advocate of Empire, presented what is arguably one of the most influential documents in world foreign policy of the past two hundred years since the Battle of Waterloo. His short speech was titled "The Geographical Pivot of History."

Russia and Eurasian Pivot

Mackinder divided the world into two primary geographical powers: Sea power versus Land power. On the dominant side was what he termed the "ring of bases" linking sea powers Britain, USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and Japan in domination of the world seas and of commerce power. This ring of dominant sea-powers was inaccessible to any threat from land powers of Eurasia or Euro-Asia as he termed the vast continent. Mackinder further noted that were the Russian Empire able to expand over the lands of Euro-Asia and gain access to the vast resources there to build a naval fleet, "the empire of the world might then be in sight." Mackinder added, "This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia."

What the world has experienced since that prophetic 1904 London speech of Mackinder is two world wars, primarily aimed at breaking the German nation and its geopolitical threat to Anglo-American global domination, and to destroy the prospect of a peaceful emergence of a German-Russian Eurasia that, as Mackinder and British geopolitical strategists saw it, would put the "empire of the world" in sight.

Those two world wars in effect sabotaged the "covering of all Eurasia with railways." Until, that is, in 2013 when China first proposed covering all Eurasia with a network of high-speed railways and infrastructure including energy pipelines and deep-water ports and Russia agreed to join the effort.

The Washington-orchestrated coup d'etat in Ukraine in February, 2014 was explicitly aimed at driving a bloody and deep wedge between Russia and Germany. At the time, Ukraine was the prime energy pipeline link feeding the German industry with Russian gas. German exports of everything from machine tools to cars to high-speed locomotives to build the rapidly-recovering Russian economy was transforming the geopolitical balance of power in favor of an emerging German-Russian-centered Eurasia to the detriment of Washington.

In an interview in January, 2015 following what he called "the most blatant coup in history", the USA coup in Ukraine, Stratfor founder George Friedman, a student of Mackinder, stated, " the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources."

Desperate Measures

At this point Washington is becoming more than a little desperate to bring the genie back in the bottle that their clumsy 2014 Coup d'etat in Ukraine caused to get out. That coup forced Russia to take more seriously its potential strategic alliances in Eurasia and catalyzed present Russia-China cooperation as well as the Russian engagement with key Eurasian neighbor states in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Wess Mitchell's predecessor, Victoria Nuland, with her cocky hubris in Ukraine, when she was caught telling her Kiev Ambassador, "F**k the EU," was noted across Eurasia. She gave the Washington game away. It's not about principled diplomatic partnership. It's about power and empire.

Now Wess Mitchell's admission that the US strategic policy is to "prevent domination of Eurasia by hostile powers" tells Russia and tells China, had they had any doubts, that the war is about a fundamental geopolitical contest to the end over who will dominate Eurasia -- it's legitimate inhabitants, centered around China and Russia, or an imperial Anglo-American axis that has been behind two world wars in the past century. Because Washington mismanaged the Russian "Reset" that was meant to draw Russia into the NATO web, Washington today is forced to wage a war on two fronts -- China and Russia -- war it is not prepared to win.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook"

[Sep 12, 2018] Amazing that the Veterans' letter was sent on the 9/11 in protest to the US government support for Al Qaeda.

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT

@RVBlake Cheney stated he had "other things to do" during the Vietnam War. Bolton stated he had no intention of dying in a war that was already lost. Ironic, given the eagerness with which both chickenhawks send young Americans to their bloody end in desert wars. Yes, the American veterans, who put their lives on the line for the US, are urging POTUS to think carefully over the situation in Syria: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/intel-veterans-urge-president-trump-step-back-brink-syria , whereas the chickenhawks (the majority of them in the zionists' pockets) and the Israel-firsters cannot wait to see more slaughter in Syria.

An excerpt from the letter by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
"The Israelis, Saudis, and others who want unrest to endure are egging on the insurgents, assuring them that you, Mr. President, will use US forces to protect the insurgents in Idlib, and perhaps also rain hell down on Damascus. We believe that your senior advisers are encouraging the insurgents to think in those terms, and that your most senior aides are taking credit for your recent policy shift from troop withdrawal from Syria to indefinite war."
-- It is obvious that the "senior advisers" and "senior aides" are opportunists and traitors whose children (with their elders) should be sent to Idlib ASAP to get a shot of reality.

Amazing that the Veterans' letter was sent on the 9/11 in protest to the US government support for Al Qaeda.

[Sep 12, 2018] Neocons typically are chickenhawks and draft dodgers

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT

@annamaria ..."the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."

Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent.

The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs

Cheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power in 1990s on.

Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history. Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation.

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 7:54 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs
Cheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power in 1990s on.

https://youtu.be/SdJiJ53TexI

Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history. Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation. "Their war-mongering is a way of compensation.."

There are too many "compensators" in the DC: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/buchanan-trump-going-neocon-syria

"In an editorial Friday, the [Washngton] Post goaded Trump, calling his response to Assad's ruthless [?] recapture of his country "pathetically weak." To stand by and let the Syrian army annihilate the rebels in Idlib, said the Post, would be "another damaging abdication of U.S. leadership."

– Very clear. The WP is heavily zionized. The Al Qaeda (euphemistically called by the WP "compensators" the "rebels in Idlib") is a great asset for the dreamers about Eretz Israel. The authors of the editorial are cowards of zionist persuasion, who would never ever stand for the US interests and for such western values as the freedom of information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQbYCY9Cr7o

– Here is the presstituting Martin Baron, Executive Editor at The Washington Post. "Baron was born to a Jewish family. His parents immigrated from Israel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Baron -- And Israel is a place where Martin Baron's heart belongs to. It would be great if his body and his whole family also belong to the Land of Dancing Israelis, instead of using the resources of the US citizenry in propping the warmongering and supremacist Jewish State.

RVBlake , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@annamaria ..."the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."

Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent. Cheney stated he had "other things to do" during the Vietnam War. Bolton stated he had no intention of dying in a war that was already lost. Ironic, given the eagerness with which both chickenhawks send young Americans to their bloody end in desert wars.

Anonymous , [299] Disclaimer says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 9:36 pm GMT
@reiner Tor The issue is that, while most likely there will be no ww3 after this newest crisis, just as there was no nuclear war after the April crisis, we never know exactly how close we are to a nuclear war, because previously both parties tried to stay clear of such situations. How many times can the US illegally strike at Syrian targets without it leading to some Russian response which would in turn lead to some US response and so on, until we'll face some kind of situation where the sweating, nervous and sleep-deprived leadership of one of these nuclear superpowers will in an underground bunker rightly or wrongly contemplate the possibility that if they don't use their nukes in 20 minutes, they'll lose most of them..? Since we've rarely been in such situations, we don't really know what the margin of error is, nor what could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. We have no idea. The biggest tragedy here is that the (((people))) in control of the US/UK/France want a war against Iran/Russia/China. Their speciality is goyim-on-goyim slaughter and the WW3 is actually necessary for their messianic ambitions. Their plan is to watch it from underground bunkers and rule over whatever is left afterwards.

That's why I said "it's only a matter of time". They will never stop on their own.

[Sep 12, 2018] The Rise and Continued Influence of the Neocons. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

Notable quotes:
"... Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin). ..."
"... Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Robert Kagan. William Kristol. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. John Bolton. Elliott Abrams. Gary Schmitt. These are a few of the names generally associated with a strain of far-right political thought called neoconservatism. [1][2]

Politically, the neocons favour a world in which the United States adopts a much more aggressive military posture, and utilizes its military might to not only contain terrorist and related threats to its security, but force regime change in regions like the Middle East. They further take on the task of 'nation-building' all in the name of creating a safer world for 'democracy.' It was the neocons who promoted the stratagem of pre-emptive military action. [3]

The neocons enjoyed a robust period of influence under the Bush-Cheney administration. The 9/11 attacks and the triggering of a 'war on terrorism' enabled a series of foreign policy choices, most notably the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, which aligned with the aims and aspirations of the group once referred to by President George Bush Sr. as the 'crazies in the basement.'[4]

The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in the documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9kHHR_yy9CE

In part one of a special two part interview by Global Research News Hour guest contributor Scott Price , Martin describes the inspiration behind making the film, the post 9/11 atmosphere in which the neocons flourished, and the neocons' role in fostering the new Cold War mentality which contributed to the smearing of his better-known sister, former RT host Abby Martin .

This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State, including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year.

Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin).

Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/480629106&color=%23ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with Robbie Martin, July 2018

Global Research: Through the late 20th and early 21st century, the neoconservatives loomed large in American foreign policy the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the Bush administration. In 2018, it may seem that their power and influence has waned, but in fact, many of these neoconservatives still hold influence, and their legacy has had a much larger impact on politics and society.

In this Global Research News Hour special, we talk with journalist, filmmaker, and musician Robbie Martin on his 3-part documentary, A Very heavy Agenda. This film series covers the rise and continued influence of the neoconservatives. In Part 1, Robbie talks about the artistic and political influence for A Very Heavy Agenda and some of the early history of the war on terror.

Talking more broadly about the documentary, what was.. sort of the genesis of the idea for A Very Heavy Agenda? The documentary has a very distinct style and you don't do a lot of editorializing. So what was the inspiration for all that? And why did you choose the kind of this topic and the kind of technique that you were using for this documentary film?

Robbie Martin: I think I probably should give a shout out to filmmaker Adam Curtis right off the top, because I don't give him enough credit when I talk about the inspiration for this film. As you may know, or if you're not familiar with it but he made a film series called The Power of Nightmares during the Bush administration that was sort of charting the neoconservative influence in the Bush administration and before, and how they've sort of mirrored the Wahhabist, Islamic, you know, fundamentalists and Al Qaeda figures by using what Adam Curtis described as the Power of Nightmares, that by concocting these nightmare fantasy scenarios, you could gain power, and people like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were able to do that by spinning these hysterical fear-mongering tales about, oh, what would happen if a bio-terrorist attack happened? You know what would happen if terrorists attacked the World Trade Centers?

That was a big inspiration for me during the Bush administration. It sort of helped me become more politically aware. It made me question a lot of things after 9/11 and having to do with the Iraq war. But over time, i just became sort of just, oh the neocons, they're the people who were mainly behind the Iraq war. They're sort of an evil class of foreign policy makers in DC who really want war at every opportunity. And that's just how I thought of them throughout the years.

It wasn't until my sister, Abby Martin, and for those listening who aren't aware of this, my sister actually had a show on the Russian-owned television channel, Russia Today America out of DC from the years around 2012 to, I think, early 2015.

So she had a show on RT for about three years, and while she was there, I remember having a conversation with her very early on saying, you know, we have to be ready for when the U . S . g overnment decides that they're going to get mad at what this channel's doing. because when she started working there in 2012, it didn't seem like there was any attention whatsoever to RT, this idea of Russian meddling, this idea of Russian propaganda, no one cared about it.

In fact, U.S. officials at the time marginalized it and even one of my characters in my film, Victoria Nuland, says it has a very tiny audience. She actually marginalized it during a Brookings panel in DC. Now, that was the attitude back when my sister first started working there, but over time, we started seeing early signs of what appeared to be an information war being waged against the Russian government by shady actors inside the United States.

And that may sound a little bit ironic, considering the way that we see everything through this lens now of Russian meddling, that everyone in the U.S. would describe RT as a form of information war now. You know , that's how everybody would describe it now, but back then it was such a small channel it barely anybody watched it, I mean that was kind of more true what they were saying back then, U.S. officials marginalizing it that was more of the true narrative. It was a small channel and had very little influence.

But yet maybe just a year or two into her working there, maybe a year and a half, we really started to notice something strange happening in the United States where there was all this focus starting to accumulate towards Putin and Russia and why Russia was so bad. And it started more subtly, kind of in the background. The Sochi Olympics , however, was sort of when we noticed -- it was almost like all these coordinated narratives started to really flood out of U.S. media channels, and all this awareness all of a sudden about the Russian gay law, which as someone who's very adamantly pro gay rights, I was bothered by it as well, but I mean even at the time I remember thinking, now this is an odd amount of focus towards the Russian gay law when yet Saudi Arabia actually executes gays still, and there's hardly any talk about that in the U.S. media. W hat's actually happening here?

So there was some early signs and sort of like what me just sort of my gut reaction and my sister's gut reaction to that climate at the time wondering what was going on. And of course, right after the Sochi O lympics, is when the Euromaidan protest in Ukraine, it kind of boiled over to the point where there were, you know, walls of flaming tires all over Euromaidan – basically a war zone. And of course the Ukrainian government fell due to a coup which many believe, including myself, was partially U.S. sponsored by the U.S. S tate D epartment.

And then things from there, Scott, just started to spiral out of control , and from the period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media, and when I made my film series, I didn't I made it before the election, s o I didn't realize how hysterical it was going to get after the election, and frankly, I had no idea it was going to get this bad, to the point that it's got now.

i know that doesn't quite answer your question about my inspiration, but it 's kind of a long answer to your question is my film itself is essentially.. was tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints to the I raq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality.

Neocon 101: What do neoconservatives believe?.

And how it only took . you know . certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we are. T hey essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall of communism and the Berlin wa ll and the Soviet Union. So that's I don't know if that was too long of an answer for your question , but that's what was sort of my inspiration for how I made it. My sister was also kind of a part of the story because some of these neocons actually tried to smear her while she was working for RT.

GR: Right yeah

RM: And that's maybe a more literal answer to your question is – that was the key inspiration for me like, oh, wait these n eocons are still around, they're waging some kind of cutting edge information war against Russia at the Obama a dministration doesn't seem to care about, and they're out there trying to ruin my sister. So all those factors combined, sort of coalesced at once, and I'm like , I have to do something about this because no one else is talking about this push, what I saw as a propaganda push to try to push us into kind of a war-footing with Russia. Whether you want to call it World War III or an ideological confrontation.

GR: Right, yeah, and I mean , some of the more, the details of some of these things we'll get into. I mean, I don't want to get too far into it, because I want people to to to watch your.. the documentary, because I think it's so great. And especially I'm 31 so I kind of, the 9/11 thing really shaped myself and my generation in so many ways. But even in watching this, there's so many things that I forgot about or didn't even know about? You know like we kind of form these narratives and we don't really think about it or you know who's controlling this stuff and for what purposes. But I think you give a good summation of that.

But one of the things too about the film itself is you use a lot of footage of these people if it's one of the K agans or Bill Kristol or whomever I mean, obviously this was a conscious decision to use their own words, so could you talk a little bit about why you decided to do it that way? Because I think in watching the how many hours it is over the three parts, you get, you kind of see the same themes coming up again, but it's from these people themselves that are saying this stuff. Could you talk about the power of that and why you decided to do that?

RM: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think at first, I was really fascinated by the psychology of these key neoconservatives. I was watching, at first I didn't even know I was going to make a film. I was kind of in this weird place mentally, my sister had just been put through the wringer, she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her.

So I was watching videos from this think tank, they were called the Foreign Policy Initiative, and I quickly learned maybe over 48 hour period, oh, the Foreign Policy Initiative is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. Once I realized that, then I just then I was obsessed with watching these videos. I watched probably every single video on their YouTube channel, and the majority of them were incredibly boring, very dry. And I was already in a depressed place, so, you know, it was kind of just putting me into this weird state where I was watching nothing but these dry foreign policy think tank videos for weeks on end.

Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the Obama era. Once I saw this, I became fascinated with his psychology. And I was already sort of fascinated with Bill Kristol's psychology, you know , going back to when I was a young man when I would watch Fox News you know during the Iraq War, I would watch Bill Kristol, and I found him fascinating back then because he seemed on a different level than most other, you know, war hawks that would go on Fox News.

But it was really Robert Kagan though that made me think, you know, his own words are so fascinating and so candid and so revealing without adding any editorial content that I wonder if this will work, if I present it just simply in his own words.

And then the other reason, if I'm being completely honest, I didn't feel confident at the time to actually add any of my own editorial narration. I kind of cringe sometimes at movies that do that too much, especially political documentaries. Without naming names or crapping on anyone, let's just say I watched a political documentary that had the word wars in the title. And I felt that the filmmaker himself was made himself the main character, and while the content of the film was great, he talked about Yemen, Somalia all these how do I say it without revealing the film maker? All these wars, hidden wars, happening in all these other countries, the filmmaker made himself the main character, and I cringe so much at that I kind of was in this position where I was like, I don't even know how to enter my own editorial point of view into this other than my editing and the way I'm presenting all this footage.

So when I made P art 1, it was out of necessity, mostly because I didn't know how to do that yet, and I didn't feel confident enough to do it, but then also the footage I was grabbing was so compelling to me on its own, I felt that maybe this could work just on its own. Like I wasn't When I was originally making it it didn't even cross my mind to add narration. It was only until later when I was like, I need to release this and show people that I actually decided to add narration. But as you're saying Part 1, I think you're mostly talking about Part 1, has no narration whatsoever. And it's just It's mostly just a collage of footage of these neoconservatives talking, and conversing and revealing sort of how they truly think.

GR: Yeah, so in talking about it like how they, the neocons , think and what their worldview really is I think a lot of listeners of CKUW and the Global Research News Hour would be familiar when you say neocons and Project for a New American Century, but I think the overriding perception is that they're a thing of the past. They were kind of, they had their time with the Bush and through the 2000 s and then they're gone. So why should people still be paying attention to the neocons in 2018?

RM: Great question . I mean a nd you're right to say that. The general perception is that they kind of got shamed out of existence based on the failure "the failure" of the Iraq War and the amount of public pressure against that, and how most people have come to the belief that it was a disaster. And the neocons are largely associated with that military invasion and frankly, that massacre that was done completely for no logical reason whatsoever unless we're talking about imperialistic games. The WMDs argument is complete BS and everyone knows that now.

So their names were largely associated with the worst lies of the Bush a dministration , and that was my perception of it too until I started working on this documentary film, is that they had gone away and they weren't really a problem anymore. And even when I started to see some of the same faces pop up talking about Russia and how evil Putin was back in like 2014, I didn't personally think it was that big of a deal because I thought, well these people are super marginalized. Who's really listening to them anymore? Obama is clearly not listening to them. But that actually turned out not to be true. The Obama part He actually was listening to them as described in my film.

But I think one way to describe why they're so important and they're still so influential is because they managed to, a very small handful of them, maybe less than a dozen figures, managed to convince the rest of, what people describe as the DC blob, the sort of foreign policy consensus in DC overall, the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran.

That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say, hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe.

So yes, it's true that there are not that many actual literal neocons, but a lot of people now who are sort of anti-war, do work in anti-war or do foreign policy critique, they don't see much of a difference any more between sort of the neoliberal foreign policy group in DC, which is most of it, and the actual neocons anymore. Because they have essentially merged in a non-partisan fashion, and it's been very surreal to watch, especially after the 2016 election when you actually saw neocons saying well you should vote for Hillary. For the first time ever they all said that you shouldn't vote for a R epublican.

That's so I don't know that fully answers your question, but I think to su m it up it's because the neocons have influenced everybody. So now that they've been able to do that you don't really need that many of them around you know making that much trouble because everybody is carrying out their agenda essentially. In this DC foreign policy think-tank.

GR: Yeah I think the way you kind of describe it in maybe it's I don't know if you personally describe it, but I wrote it down in my notes about how neoconservatism is almost like a species and it kind of evolved over the last 20 years in a way? So I think what you're talking about how there's a shift to Hillary, and, but I mean that shift is more that the neoconservative line really became the mainstream line, whereas, you know, maybe in the early 2000s, like, there was a larger perception, yes, they were in the White House, but these people are also crazy, whereas now is kind of like the mainstream, which is quite scary. Which is something I think we'll talk about in a little bit. But kind of what I was talking about a bit before what I referenced was that I was a teenager when 9/11 happened, and it really shaped my generation and the world that I'm living in now

But as I was watching the 3-part documentary, there were several things that I was like kind of blown away by how these things kind of just went down the memory hole, and I want to talk about those things because several of these things I vaguely kind of remember now but for some odd reason I had totally forgotten about them, and they're not really within the wider narrative of 9/11 and the war on terror.

So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you think the effect of that was?

RM: You just opened up a really big can of worms with that question. Well, to fully answer that it would require a totally separate interview, but I'll do my best to answer it in this short time that we have. What you're describing is, what I would say, is the neocons flipping up and revealing too much of an early iteration of their script, than the rest of the consensus was ready to reveal or get on board with. And perhaps, even, they jumped ahead with something that the rest of the neocons already decided, we can't go there. Because, and this is important to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.

Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so relatively obscure They're not household names.

So to hear both of them saying that we need to clean out Palestine with the U.S. Delta Force raids and the full panoply of U.S. military tools and arsenal, it's a very shocking thing to hear. Even though I've long believed that neocons are some of the most evil people on the planet, that was even surprising for me to hear. That they went ahead and openly said that the U.S. military should do that, and actually, in their broadcast they make it clear that they don't even care who's behind 9/11. Which is strange. They say that if we run around tracing the actual perpetrators, we're just going to be wasting our time and we won't get anywhere. So what they are saying is that we should just go attack all these countries anyways because even if they're behind it or not, they hate us and want to kill us.

And Palestine was one of their primary targets to retaliate against in response to 9/11. Now that's very strange when you look at the day of 9/11, and I've actually done a podcast on this, I call it the Palestinian Frame-up, on 9/11, there were four separate incidences that were run throughout U.S. media throughout the day of 9/11 that were attempting to blame Palestinians for the attacks before Bin Laden became the primary culprit that the U.S. media latched on to. So I find that very strange.

And I'm not going to try to explain it here during this interview, but you can look into that. It's all documented. The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S. media was doing.

So it's very interesting for me to see neocons actually piggy-backing on that and saying we should attack Palestine. And that's a rare thing, I think, to find neocons slipping up that badly. And I guess I find that clip particularly fascinating because it's really one of the only ones like that out there, and to my knowledge, I'm the first one to find it by combing through all these archives. I've never heard of it before, never even heard of any neocon s saying that before on record.

And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane?

GR: Right. Yeah.

RM: And on October 5, weaponized anthrax was sent through the U.S. mail. While the Bush Administration was already inoculated with Cipro. the antibiotic taken to prevent Anthrax infection. So there's a lot of interesting and very scary questions that are raised just by that single clip. and I'm to this day it's still a mystery to me.

GR: That was Part 1 of the Global Research News Hour special with Robbie Martin on his documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda that explores the rise and continued influence of the neoconservatives. Part 2 will air next week where we will explore the anthrax attacks, the role of Vice in spreading U.S. propaganda. You can buy or stream A Very Heavy Agenda at averyheavyagenda.com. Music for this special provided by Fluorescent Grey, AKA Robbie Martin. For the Global Research N ews H our, I'm Scott Price.

-end of transcript-

Global Research News Hour Summer 2018 Series Part 5

[Sep 12, 2018] The Moral Conceit of Our Post-9-11 Politics

This is a complete misunderstanding of 911 events: it was a deliberate plot by neocons to convert the USA into a national security state.
Notable quotes:
"... This moral conceit is now the driver of an incredibly destructive and counterproductive foreign policy agenda. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In the foreign policy realm, this would all eventually give way to paranoia, compromises of values, and overreactions that drastically changed how America projected itself in global affairs. What was once simply a fatal conceit that the United States could shape the world to its benefit mutated into a moral conceit that privileged counterterrorism measures above all else. This moral conceit is now the driver of an incredibly destructive and counterproductive foreign policy agenda.

[Sep 12, 2018] 9-11 anniversary special! Psychology of 9-11 truth denial -- and our bravest survivor speaks out

[Podcast]
Notable quotes:
"... "There is precedent for this kind of legislation such as the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the Church Committee . For example, Finding 1C of the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated, ' The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.' As a result of this truth coming out of an investigation by a select committee many people are aware that such a process is available." ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com
HERE

First hour: Charles Ewing Smith writes: "I am proud to present the full length version of my Award winning documentary ' The Demolition of Truth -- Psychologists Examine 9/11 ' for free on Youtube."

(Portions of the film were included in Smith's earlier film 9/11 Explosive Evidence-Experts Speak Out with Richard Gage.)

Those interested in the psychology of 9/11 truth denial should also read Fran Shure's multi-part series " Why Do Good People Become Silent -- or Worse -- About 9/11? "

Second hour: 9/11 survivor Bob McIlvaine joins us to discuss the Bobby McIlvaine Act . Named after his son Bobby, who was killed by an explosion in the North Tower before the first plane hit, the bill would establish a new, independent investigation of the crime of the century.

https://www.ae911truth.org/get-involved/bobby-mcilvaine-act

As 9/11 TAP explains:

"There is precedent for this kind of legislation such as the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the Church Committee . For example, Finding 1C of the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated, ' The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.' As a result of this truth coming out of an investigation by a select committee many people are aware that such a process is available."

Dbooger September 12, 2018 at 9:20 am
I've been in the engineering and construction business for over 50 years. According to local codes and international building codes, the buildings were designed to take a hit from more than one airplane. It's obvious the buildings were brought down by pre-planted explosive devices. Instead of arguing how they were demolished, go after the who and why and the evil perpetrators controlled by the Zio-Khazar Rothschilds!
Kareem Salessi September 11, 2018 at 12:45 am
Here are a few more 9/11-truther-victims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suQitX2GmTU Mysterious Deaths of 9 11 Witnesses (MUST SEE)

Rudy Guiliani (Jooliany) made 2,000,000 tons of evidentiary-debris disappear (all the way to China) in record time, with hauling equipment standing by, since the day before 9/11/01 (September 10)!

... ... ...

mb. September 11, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Planes or not something else made the towers turn into dust.

[Sep 12, 2018] Is there any credence to the conspiracy theories about 9/11, in particular about Building 7's collapse when no aircraft hit it?

Notable quotes:
"... Was 9/11 the catalyst that changed our foreign policy makers or the accelerant that made our foreign policy makers double-down? ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

blue peacock , 9 hours ago

Was 9/11 the catalyst that changed our foreign policy makers or the accelerant that made our foreign policy makers double-down? Why have the Saudis whose citizens constituted 15 out of the 19 attackers never been held to account?

Is there any credence to the conspiracy theories about 9/11, in particular about Building 7's collapse when no aircraft hit it?

Michael Regan -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
I find that Samit's testimony in the Moussaoui case is informative: https://famous-trials.com/m...

Samit's difficulty in obtaining a search warrant seems inexplicable.

The name of one of the individuals in DC who stymied the multiple and desperate requests out of Minneapolis seems to being evading search algorithms quite nimbly. Whatever the truth may be, the Bush Admin/PNAC was effective in short-circuiting the rational and engaging the emotional (limbic). Classique, n'est pas, mon colonel?

Britam -> Pat Lang , 7 hours ago
Sir;
I will keep my manipulator appendages depressed and suggest that there is a big difference between sponsoring something like 9/11, and sitting idle while credible evidence warns about something coming up. To sponsor some act like 9/11 is treason. To sit by as it happens is something worse, indifference.
Pat Lang Mod -> Britam , 7 hours ago
Nah. Incompetent careerists.
sbnat1ve -> Pat Lang , 7 hours ago
Weren't the careerists raising the alarm and the electives and appointees doing the pooh-poohing?
FarNorthSolitude -> sbnat1ve , 4 hours ago
For more detail on Mr. Lang's comment about suppression of the working level read up on Agent Rowley and how FBI HQ squashed investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002...

Pat Lang Mod -> sbnat1ve , 6 hours ago
More twisted than that. The appointees combined with SESs to suppress the working level because neither the Obama nor the Bush people wanted to hear it. Too disruptive. Pl

[Sep 12, 2018] Those who planned and caused to happen 9/11 clearly were not American patriots. The attack was physically and psychically and politically against the people of the United States, including the American military.

Notable quotes:
"... But ultimately, the tide can turn. The lies take so much energy to maintain; the chutzpah not enlivening but demeaning; the maintenance of the lies so desperately necessary. ..."
"... 9/11 thus presents an ongoing 'Achilles heel', a potentially terminal 'Pyrrhic victory' for the vile scum that pulled off 9/11. The scum's rise to the top enhances its visibility and vulnerability. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Canuck , says: September 10, 2018 at 3:32 pm GMT

Those who planned and caused to happen 9/11 clearly were not American patriots. The attack was physically and psychically and politically against the people of the United States, including the American military.

A large number of key perpetrators and participants were citizens of Israel, or had primary loyalty to Israel.

Neither the FBI nor the CIA nor military intelligence prevented the attack, and after the attack, these agencies did not pursue the guilty. They betrayed their country.

The former 'traditional' US mass media has either almost entirely participated in the cover-up, or refused to tell the truth. They have betrayed their country.

The political system of the United States has remained mute or supported the cover-up. They have betrayed their country.

Other countries have largely remained silently complicit or supported the cover-up. As a direct result of 9/11, Iraq and Libya have suffered terrible destruction and loss of life via wars of aggression, Syria has suffered great harm, and Afghanistan has been attacked and occupied with large loss of life.

9/11 then is a kind of litmus test for vast social pathology and dysfunction: that so many people would fall so easily for the bs; that so few people in positions of influence and power would have sufficient backbone and integrity to speak truth.

But ultimately, the tide can turn. The lies take so much energy to maintain; the chutzpah not enlivening but demeaning; the maintenance of the lies so desperately necessary.

9/11 thus presents an ongoing 'Achilles heel', a potentially terminal 'Pyrrhic victory' for the vile scum that pulled off 9/11. The scum's rise to the top enhances its visibility and vulnerability.

jilles dykstra , says: September 10, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@Patricus The plotters moved explosive charges into he three buildings and there had to be thousands of these weighing a great amount. It was then necessary to install the explosive equipment. No one ever noticed?

Does anyone question that the aircraft actually struck the buildings?

The conspirators had to precisely coordinate the controlled explosions with the moment the jets hit the buildings. Why didn't they just demolish the buildings with explosives then take credit as some Islamic terror group? Why make a plot so complicated? This requires close cooperation between Muslim terrorists and Israelis who are not often best friends.

If Israel engineered all this to get Americans active in the Middle East could anyone call the end results a success? I can't see how Israel's position has improved. The security of the towers was done by a firm owned by a brother of Bush jr.
No problem in installing the explosives.
Precisely coordinate, any terrorist explodes a bom with a mobile phone.
You really think that those who perpetrated Sept 11 were unable to begin a series of explosions, resembling destruction by gravity ?
Alas, they miscalculated.
It went too fast.
The planes, far more propaganda effect than just demolition.
Israel's position not improved ?
Is not Saddam out of the way, and is not Iraq destroyed ?

CanSpeccy , says: Website September 10, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMT

9/11 Was an Israeli Job

Rubbish. It was the job of Ron's NeoCon friends.

Israelis played an important role, not as instigators, but as agents of the US (deep state) Government.

dearieme , says: September 10, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Vojkan What you say is not consistent with what I see in those videos:

www.google.fr/search?as_q=tower+collapse+9%2F11+video&as_epq=&as_oq=north+south

Not saying that it wasn't a false flag, not saying who did or didn't do it, just saying what I see. The South tower destruction goes from impact to bottom, from top to impact isn't visible due to dust and smoke. The North tower destruction goes from impact to top and from impact to bottom, at least that's what I see in the videos. As I wrote in another comment, that's one heck of an engineering feat if it was planned that way. The WTC 7 seems to fall on its bottom, which, at the difference of the fall of the twin towers, is consistent with all the videos of controlled demolition that can be found around the web. Then, I think the collapse of the twin towers represent enormous mass falling at high speed to the ground, and I tend to think that such mass is not unlikely to shake the ground on which it falls and send a shock wave that can in turn shake the foundations of buildings in the vicinity, for instance WTC 7. In fact, I don't know and neither do truthers. They assume parametres for their calculations that they can't be sure of.
Then again, even if the assumptions about 'how' are false, it doesn't mean that assumptions about 'who' are too, and vice-versa. The thing is only those who did it know and we hardly ever will.
The point is that whoever however did it, the war against Iraq was a crime against peace as the very same Americans co-defined it in the Nuremberg Statute. "the war against Iraq was a crime against peace"

It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.

Anonymous , [426] Disclaimer says: September 10, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
9/11 = Israel + Saudi Arabia + US neocons

A blending of Zionists and oil interests.

Surprise surprise that this is the axis of power in the Middle East that was against Iraq and now Syria and Iran.

Chris Mallory , says: September 10, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@Patricus The plotters moved explosive charges into he three buildings and there had to be thousands of these weighing a great amount. It was then necessary to install the explosive equipment. No one ever noticed?

Does anyone question that the aircraft actually struck the buildings?

The conspirators had to precisely coordinate the controlled explosions with the moment the jets hit the buildings. Why didn't they just demolish the buildings with explosives then take credit as some Islamic terror group? Why make a plot so complicated? This requires close cooperation between Muslim terrorists and Israelis who are not often best friends.

If Israel engineered all this to get Americans active in the Middle East could anyone call the end results a success? I can't see how Israel's position has improved.

I can't see how Israel's position has improved.

The opium poppies are growing again. Iraq is destroyed. Libya was disarmed and destroyed. Syria has been neutralized for the past few years and is still struggling to recover from the US/Saudi/Israeli supported ISIS. The Palestinians and Iran are both targets of American conservatards. Welfare payments to Israel have been increased and a tripwire consisting of a handful of American troops has been placed in Israel.

Israel isn't any better off?

[Sep 12, 2018] Haley Threatens 'Dire Consequences' for Iran, Russia Over Syria Offensive by Jason Ditz

Notable quotes:
"... Haley went on to say that Iran and Russia are "cowards interested in a bloody military conquest" and that the US continues to intend to respond militarily if any chemical weapons are used. ..."
"... Haley was unclear what the "dire consequences" would actually be. Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia reiterated that there was no reason to think Syria would use chemical weapons in Idlib, and said the presence of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Idlib obliges Syria to move against them. ..."
Sep 11, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Declares Russian and Iranian officials to be 'cowards'

Speaking at the UN during the latest session on Syria's Idlib Province, US Ambassador Nikki Haley warned Russia and Iran would face "dire consequences" if they continue to back a Syrian military offensive against Islamist rebels in the province.

Idlib is the last major rebel-held territory in Syria, and taking it is seen by Syria and its allies as effectively ending the Syrian War. The US has insisted they oppose any moves into Idlib.

Haley went on to say that Iran and Russia are "cowards interested in a bloody military conquest" and that the US continues to intend to respond militarily if any chemical weapons are used. President Trump has also suggested that a military response could happen if he believes the offensive is a "slaughter."

Haley was unclear what the "dire consequences" would actually be. Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia reiterated that there was no reason to think Syria would use chemical weapons in Idlib, and said the presence of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Idlib obliges Syria to move against them.

[Sep 12, 2018] John Bolton vs. the International Criminal Court A Simple Solution by Thomas Knapp

Sep 12, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

In a September 10 speech to the Federalist Society, National Security Advisor John Bolton offered "a major announcement on US policy toward the International Criminal Court." The US government, per Bolton, considers the court "fundamentally illegitimate. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC."

Bolton threatened sanctions against the court and those who resort to it or cooperate with it in investigations of war crimes involving the United States or Israel. He also announced the first such sanction, closure of a Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington in retaliation for the state of Palestine's referral of charges against Israel for actions in the West Bank and Gaza.

What's with this sudden interest in the court and its jurisdiction?

Why is Bolton suddenly so concerned with protecting notions of "sovereignty" (he uses the word nine times) that the US government itself routinely ignores at its convenience, claiming global jurisdiction over individuals and organizations outside its own borders in matters ranging from the 17-year "war on terror" to its financial regulation and sanctions schemes?

The answer, in a word: Afghanistan. The regime installed by the US after its 2001 invasion of that country, and maintained in power by the US since then, ratified the Rome Statute in 2003. Crimes committed in Afghanistan since then, regardless of the perpetrators' nationalities, therefore fall under the ICC's jurisdiction.

Bolton finds it unconscionable that an American – in particular an American soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or politician – accused of crimes committed in Afghanistan might be tried in a court Afghanistan's government has duly accepted the authority of. So much for "sovereignty."

Bolton wants it both ways. On one hand, the long arm of US law must reach everywhere, be it to a bank in Switzerland, to a hacker's keyboard in the United Kingdom, or to a battlefield in the Middle East. On the other hand, no foreign arm of law must ever reach a US citizen, regardless of the alleged crime or where it was committed.

Pretty messed up, but there's a simple solution. All the US government has to do is close its embassies and consulates in, withdraw its troops from, and advise its citizens not to travel to, any of the 120-odd countries which recognize the International Criminal Court as their judicial authority for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

Starting with Afghanistan.

Problem solved.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

[Sep 12, 2018] Trump Sanctions on Iran May Already Be Backfiring as Tehran's Oil Revenues Soar by Whitney Webb

Notable quotes:
"... Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.mintpressnews.com

Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation. September 12th, 2018

Despite the Trump administration's " maximum pressure " campaign targeting the Iranian economy, Iran's crude oil and oil product revenues jumped a surprising 60 percent from March 21 to July 23. In addition, figures provided by Iran's Central Bank show that Iran's revenues from oil sales soared by 84.2 percent over that same period, setting a new record.

The increased revenues seem to have resulted from a jump in oil prices this year as well as Iran's high oil export volume during part of that period. Notably, the increased revenues were reported despite the United States' announcement in May that it would sanction those purchasing Iranian oil starting in early November, with the ultimate goal of reducing Iranian oil sales to zero in order to place pressure on the Iranian government.

The U.S.' efforts have had some noticeable effects on Iranian oil exports, as the country's exports for the month of August were significantly lower than those of July. However, the drop has only seen exports fall to near March 2016 levels , when the U.S. was not pursuing a sanctions policy against Iran and the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was in effect.

Further dashing U.S. hopes of crushing Iranian oil exports have been recent announcements from Iran's top two customers, China and India , that they would continue to import Iranian crude despite the looming threat of U.S. sanctions. India, along with some other countries, has sought " waivers " from Washington that would allow them to continue to import Iranian oil and avoid retaliation from the U.S. for a certain period of time.

In addition, the European Union, which had previously joined the U.S. in targeting Iranian oil exports in 2012, has shown its unwillingness to follow Washington's lead this time around, openly vowing to rebel against the U.S. sanctions regimen and increasing the likelihood that Europe will continue to buy some Iranian oil despite U.S. threats.

Risks for U.S. and global economies

Another indication that efforts to curb Iranian oil exports are backfiring for the Trump administration is the jump in oil prices that has resulted from concerns about the U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil exports. The increase in oil prices is likely to be felt domestically in the U.S., the world's largest consumer of oil, potentially posing a political risk to Trump and his fellow Republicans ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. In addition, further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation.

Such concerns have prompted U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to meet his Saudi and Russian counterparts in an effort to convince those two countries to keep oil output high in order to offset a reduction in future Iranian oil exports. While Saudi Arabia has already stated it would increase output, Russia is unlikely to comply, given its relationship with Iran and Washington's threat to impose new sanctions on Moscow. The U.S., Saudi Arabia and Russia are currently the world's three largest oil producers, accounting for about a third of global crude oil output.

While the Trump administration may have assumed that U.S. oil producers – and the U.S. economy in general -- would benefit from the elimination of Iranian oil exports, the growing rejection of the impending U.S. sanctions by other countries shows that these nations are unwilling to pay for more expensive American oil or even Saudi oil, preferring less expensive Iranian oil despite potential future consequences. Furthermore, efforts to increase U.S. crude production have fallen short of government expectations, further complicating the U.S.' efforts to offset an increase in oil prices resulting from Iranian oil sanctions.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann's Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

[Sep 12, 2018] Did Sanders' people challenge 'the Russians did it' propaganda line, demand the DNC servers be examined by forensic specialists and investigate Crowdstrike? No.

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 12, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT

@KenH Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man. More on patriotism and loyalty. -- To what country?
https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/the-plot-against-trump-to-capture-the-white-house-netanyahus-design-part-iii/ by Ronald Thomas West.

"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you" – Chuck Schumer. maybe Schumer's protective scare-mongering goes to a deeper matter; the matter of the most powerful intelligence agency operating in the USA is MOSSAD, an entity which has penetrated every aspect of American governance.
AIPAC is one of MOSSAD's favorite playgrounds

Did Sanders' people challenge 'the Russians did it' propaganda line, demand the DNC servers be examined by forensic specialists and investigate Crowdstrike? No.
no U.S. intelligence agency has performed its own forensic analysis on the [Clinton's] hacked servers. Instead, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike [Dm. Alperovitch, of the CrowdStrike fame, is a vicious Russophobe and loyal zionist fed and cared for by the ziocon Atlantic Council.] In actuality we know it was the assassinated Seth Rich took the DNC emails with a thumbdrive.

Vladimir Putin, the man standing in the way of Syria's breakup and working to keep the Iran agreement intact and avert a war, must be demonized to realize Bibi Netanyahu's goals. In fact, Israel's intelligence services focus has historically prioritized Russia, first, and the USA second "

– The Jewish Bolsheviks are in arms against Russia and the US because this is what the Jewish Bolsheviks are best for -- at the destruction of functioning human societies.

[Sep 12, 2018] Colin Wright

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: Website Next New Comment September 12, 2018 at 5:52 am GMT 200 Words @Tyrion 2 I get it. You're Palestinian. You're aggrieved. Every single year for 70 years your guys have refused to come to a deal and every single year your hand has gotten weaker. That must be hugely frustrating.

But best for you that you live in the real world. 3 random comments from you on an interesting but minor and consistently prognosticatarily incorrect site is not the real world.

Israel doesn't want Iran in Syria long-term. Everyone else but hardline elements of the Iranian state agree, so they have now been pushed.

That is the end of the matter, along with some reasonable autonomy for the Kurds. It'd be lovely for them to have a proper sovereign country over all of the areas they'd like to lay claim to, but the Kurds appreciate their position and play with the hand they are dealt.

Also, making up phrases and putting them in quotes as if I have ever said them is strikingly dishonest. ' Israel doesn't want Iran in Syria long-term '

If so, then we have another example of the Israelis figuring out how to cleverly screw themselves.

Of course secular dictator Assad would never have invited Islamic Republic of Iran troops into Syria -- not in a month of sundays.

not until Israel engineered the transformation of the 'Arab Spring' in Syria into a prolonged and bloody civil war in which a desperate Assad would take whatever help he could get -- like Islamic Republic of Iran troops.

Now Israel's got Iranians in Syria. And of course they made a bitter enemy out of Iran in the first place with their campaign of assassinations and terrorist bombings in Iran.

This is even better than Israel's creation of Hezbollah and sponsorship of Hamas. It would appear that all we have to do is sit back and let the Zionists scheme themselves into total defeat. I wonder what their next stroke of genius is going to be?

[Sep 12, 2018] US Again Cries 'Chemical Warfare' in Syria by Scott Ritter

Sep 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Author's Update 9/12/18: The Syrian government, backed by Russian airpower and Iranian advisors, is preparing to undertake a major offensive designed to retake the province of Idlib from opposition forces. The newly appointed State Department Special Representative for Syria, Jim Jeffreys, claims that there is "Lots of evidence" that Syria is preparing to use chemical weapons, specifically chlorine gas, in support of the Idlib operation.

For its part, Russia claims to have specific intelligence that al Qaeda affiliates, working in conjunction with the White Helmet organization, is preparing to stage a chlorine gas attack designed to look like it was done by the Syrian government. The U.S. has warned that it would launch a major military strike against not only the Syrian government, but also Russian and Iranian targets in Syria, if chemical weapons were used in Idlib.

The issue of provenance is as relevant today as when this article was originally written, with the OPCW still assessing information to determine how the chlorine canisters discovered at Douma got there, and who was responsible for their use. The Douma incident stands as a case study against the rush to judgment when it comes to the attribution of blame, and is even more relevant today, when the mere allegation of chemical weapons use in Syria could lead to a major escalation in the fighting:

This summer the international monitoring organization tasked with investigating an alleged chemical weapons incident in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7 quietly published an interim report listing its preliminary findings.

Interestingly, the report, issued by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Nobel Peace Prize-winning agency mandated to implement the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, noted that "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected" on the scene -- more simply put, there was no evidence of Sarin nerve agent present at the incident site, despite wide speculation otherwise at the time of the incident.

In fact, this speculation, for which the Trump administration insisted it had evidence, was used as an excuse for the U.S., France, and the UK to launch a coordinated bombing campaign against the Syrian government on April 12.

The report also notes that "various chlorinated organic chemicals" were detected, along with traces of high explosives. The "chlorinated organic chemicals" listed by the OPCW are commonly found in residential environments; several are by-products of chlorinated drinking water. The OPCW report does not provide any information about the concentrations of these chemicals, nor their physical location in relation to the victims alleged to have been killed or injured in the incident. The OPCW is continuing to assess these findings for their significance before reaching any conclusion about their relevance and meaning.

These interim findings are a far cry from the statements made by various American officials in the aftermath of the Douma incident, for which they blamed the Syrian government. On April 13, 2018, Secretary of Defense James Mattis briefed the press following the strike on Syria. In attacking Douma, Mattis said, the Syrian government "decided to again defy the norms of civilized people, showing callous disregard for international law by using chemical weapons to murder women, children and other innocents." Mattis later added that "we have the intelligence level of confidence that we needed to conduct the attack," noting, "we're very confident that chlorine was used. We are not ruling out sarin right now."

Trump's Rush to Judgment on Syria Chemical Attack No U.S. Interests Are Served by Trump's Endless, Illegal War in Syria

In the same briefing, Mattis was joined by General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who elaborated on the nature of the targets struck, noting that they were "specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons program," including one that "was the primary location of Syrian sarin and precursor production equipment."

The specificity of language used by Secretary Mattis and General Dunford, declaring Syria to have a chemical weapons program with a storage facility containing sarin nerve agent precursor production equipment, and that target modeling was conducted that took into account chemical-specific information in order to mitigate collateral damage, implied a degree of certainty backed by intelligence information that the OPCW findings simply do not support.

While the military attack on Syria in the aftermath of the Douma allegations represents the ultimate manifestation of poor intelligence, the genesis of the Douma intelligence failure did not begin with the Pentagon, but at the Headquarters of the OPCW in The Hague, Netherlands. There, the OPCW maintains an information cell within a situation center tasked with, among other things, collecting all-source information relating to the use of chemical weapons, providing initial assessments of all information with respect to its credibility, and then drafting reports based upon this analysis for use by the OPCW.

According to the OPCW interim report, the information cell monitored media reports about an alleged chemical weapons incident in Douma on April 7 and initiated a search of open-source information to assess the credibility of that allegation. The major sources of information used by the information cell in this task included news media, blogs, and the websites of various non-governmental organizations. The information cell assessed the credibility of the allegation as "high," and as such the director-general of the OPCW ordered an investigation.

The OPCW has not detailed the methodology used by the information cell regarding its assessed findings. The sources of the images and initial information coming out of Douma, however, were known to be closely affiliated with the Jihadist group Jaish al-Islam, which controlled Douma during the time of the alleged chemical attacks. The "media association" run by Jaish al-Islam, claims that "media is a soft power through which social pressure is practiced," a statement that should have guided the analysis of any product derived from sources affiliated with that entity. Jaish al-Islam was, at the time of the alleged chemical weapons attack, on the verge of being annihilated by the Syrian Army (indeed, the very next day, April 8, Jaish al-Islam agreed to a ceasefire arrangement which led to the evacuation of thousands of its supporters and their families from Douma.)

Another important factor is the medical findings published by the NGO Syrian-American Medical Society, or SAMS. On April 8, SAMS, in association with Syrian Civil Defense (better known as the "White Helmets"), released a press statement reporting that the day before, "more than 500 cases -- the majority of whom are women and children -- were brought to local medical centers with symptoms indicative of exposure to a chemical agent. Patients have shown signs of respiratory distress, central cyanosis, excessive oral foaming, corneal burns, and the emission of chlorine-like odor."

The SAMS/White Helmet press release went on to note that, "During clinical examination, medical staff observed bradycardia, wheezing and coarse bronchial sounds," adding that, "The reported symptoms indicate that the victims suffocated from the exposure to toxic chemicals, most likely an organophosphate element."

"Organophosphate" is a buzzword for sarin nerve agent. And the SAMS report makes clear that its evaluation of the clinical symptoms present among the Douma victims are also linked to chlorine exposure. The problem with the SAMS/White Helmet narrative is that sarin and chlorine don't mix, a fact known to chemical warfare experts and duly documented in a U.S. Army study. In short, chlorine serves as a catalyst that promotes the decomposition of sarin nerve agent, meaning that if both substances were either combined or released together, the sarin would rapidly decompose.

Moreover, there seems to have been no effort on the part of the OPCW information cell to postulate alternative explanations about what could have caused the casualties that were depicted in the Douma videos. French intelligence, relying on an analysis of the same open-source information used by the OPCW information cell, noted that the symptoms observed in the images and videos "are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid."

Two observations emerge from that statement. First is that the French have sustained the flawed predicate that chlorine and sarin were used together ("choking agents and organophosphorus agents"), which is an impossibility due to the inherent incompatibility of the substances. Second, the French had assessed that the symptoms observed were characteristic of exposure to hydrocyanic acid, a solution of hydrogen cyanide in water. Hydrogen cyanide is not associated with either chlorine or sarin nerve agent. It is, however, commonly linked to smoke emanating from structure fires. Eyewitness accounts from Douma indicated that there had been dozens of victims from the aerial bombardment that was ongoing, including many who died of asphyxiation in basements filled with smoke from fires ignited by the bombing.

That the OPCW information cell did not at least consider the possibility of a structure fire as the source of the victims observed in the images is indicative of a myopic approach toward analysis when it comes to the issue of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria.

This narrow-mindedness is in large part derived from the history of the OPCW in Syria, and the close operational bonds that organization has developed with anti-regime organizations such as SAMS and the White Helmets. The OPCW's investigation of an alleged use of sarin nerve agent in the village of Khan Shaykhun in April 2017 revealed that it had provided training to the White Helmets on chemical sampling. It had also developed a working relationship with SAMS and the White Helmets concerning the identification of alleged victims of chemical weapons incidents, and the collection of medical samples used in investigating alleged chemical weapons events.

The front-loading of analytical conclusions by the OPCW information cell in the Douma case infected everything that followed. The State Department issued a statement on April 8 noting that "The Duma victims' symptoms, reported by credible medical professionals and visible in social media photos and video, are consistent with an asphyxiation agent and of a nerve agent of some type." While the statement is ostensibly sourced to SAMS, the White Helmets, and Douma Revolution, had the OPCW not endorsed these conclusions, but instead provided a more balanced assessment derived from logic (i.e., chlorine and sarin don't mix) and the consideration of other possibilities (structure fires), perhaps the State Department would have been more measured in its own assessment.

Instead, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, drawing upon the same imagery used by the OPCW, made an emotional case that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government in Douma. "I could hold up pictures of survivors," she told the Security Council on April 9. "Children with burning eyes. Choking for breath. I could hold up pictures of first responders. Washing the chemicals off of the victims. Putting separate respirators on the children. Families lying motionless with babies still in the arms of their mothers and fathers.

"I can hold up pictures of all of this killing and suffering for the council to see. But what would be the point?" she added. "The monster who was responsible for these attacks has no conscience. Not even to be shocked by pictures of dead children."

Haley's melodrama was matched by President Donald Trump, who tweeted "Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria." Five days later, the U.S.-French-British bombing commenced.

That the U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communities allowed themselves to be manipulated in such a fashion should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with their respective records regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or Iranian nuclear weapons. At the end of the day, however, the decision to use military force should be based on something more than intelligence "assessments" driven by incomplete and possibly misleading information -- there should be a concerted effort to ascertain the truth before acting.

In the case of Douma, "truth" (i.e., a factual determination as to whether chemical agent was used) was the domain of the OPCW, and in particular the inspectors of the Fact-Finding Mission organized and mandated to carry out inspections of alleged chemical weapons usage inside Syria. The assessments conducted by the OPCW information cell, however flawed, resulted in the director-general ordering an investigation to be conducted into the Douma allegation. Rather than supporting the OPCW's efforts in this regard, however, the United States began to attack the credibility of any findings that might accrue from such an investigation by pushing a narrative that held that the Syrian government and their Russian allies were deliberately delaying the access of OPCW inspectors to the Douma site in order to allow evidence of their guilt to degrade.

"Syrian regime forces and their allies are denying international monitors access" to the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, the State Department proclaimed on April 8. President Trump ran with this, declaring in a tweet that the "area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world." Interestingly, these announcements pre-dated the initial request of the OPCW to send inspectors to Syria by two days -- a request which was made at the same time both Syria and Russia were formally requesting the OPCW to come to Syria to investigate the Douma allegations.

However, the OPCW report clearly shows that both the Syrian and Russian governments fully cooperated with the OPCW to provide secure access to Douma, and that any delays that occurred were due to legitimate security issues impacting inspector safety.

Now it looks like the reason the Americans and others accused Russia and Syria of delaying the work of the OPCW inspectors is that they suspected -- no matter how much argued to the contrary -- conclusive evidence wasn't there to justify the April 12 military strikes. The United States laid out a military campaign predicated in large part by the notion that Syria continued to possess stocks of deadly sarin nerve agent and was using them against its own people. If one accepted at face value that sarin nerve agent was, in fact, used against Douma, then it automatically followed that there could be sarin-affiliated targets inside Syria worthy of attack.

But if the underlying assumption that sarin nerve agent was used has been proven false, then what does that say about the quality of the intelligence information and associated analysis used to justify American military action? Was the intelligence assessment regarding sarin precursor production equipment based on intelligence independent of the allegations of sarin use put forward by SAMS and the White Helmets, or colored by that erroneous conclusion?

American intelligence is currently being used to bolster charges of malfeasance in North Korea and Iran, and to sustain the potential use of military force if either situation deteriorates further. In a world where the memory of the WMD fiasco in Iraq is still fresh, one would hope that the U.S. intelligence community would attempt to avoid the mistakes of the past, where intelligence was shaped to conform to a political decision developed independent of facts. Given what the OPCW report has revealed, it appears that in the case of Douma, this lesson was forgotten or ignored. Going forward, it is essential that this not be the case, if for no other reason that a war with either North Korea or Iran will be far more consequential than a one-time missile attack against Syria.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

[Sep 12, 2018] US Says Assad Has Approved Gas Attack In Syria's Idlib

Sep 12, 2018 | www.mintpressnews.com

The incredibly alarming report continues :

During the debate this year over how to respond to the second attack, Mr. Trump's national-security team weighed the idea of hitting Russian or Iranian targets in Syria , people familiar with the discussions said. But the Pentagon pushed for a more measured response, U.S. officials said, and the idea was eventually rejected as too risky.

A third U.S. strike likely would be more expansive than the first two, and Mr. Trump would again have to consider whether or not to hit targets like Russian air defenses in an effort to deliver a more punishing blow to Mr. Assad's military.

Last week the French ambassador, whose country also vowed to strike Syria if what it deems credible chemical allegations emerge, said during a U.N. Security Council meeting on Idlib : "Syria is once again at the edge of an abyss."

With Russia and Iran now in the West's cross hairs over Idlib, indeed the entire world is again at the edge of the abyss.

[Sep 12, 2018] Op-ed is particularly telling describing how the White House staff has succeeded in "[calling out] countries like Russia for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly" in spite of the president's desire for d tente was definitely written by neocon faction of NYT (and.or WH)

Notable quotes:
"... The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

And there is always Iran just waiting to get kicked around, when all else fails. Haley, always blissfully ignorant but never quiet, commented while preparing to take over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council last Friday, that Russia and Syria "want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes" before launching into a tirade about Iran, saying that "President Trump is very adamant that we have to start making sure that Iran is falling in line with international order. If you continue to look at the spread Iran has had in supporting terrorism, if you continue to look at the ballistic missile testing that they are doing, if you continue to look at the sales of weapons we see with the Huthis in Yemen -- these are all violations of security council resolution. These are all threats to the region, and these are all things that the international community needs to talk about."

And there is the usual hypocrisy over long term objectives. President Donald Trump said in April that "it's time" to bring American troops home from Syria -- once the jihadists of Islamic State have been definitively defeated. But now that that objective is in sight, there has to be some question about who is actually determining the policies that come out of the White House, which is reported to be in more than usual disarray due to the appearance last week of the New York Times anonymous op-ed describing a "resistance" movement within the West Wing that has been deliberately undermining and sometimes ignoring the president to further Establishment/Deep State friendly policies. The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today.

The book and op-ed mesh nicely in describing how Donald Trump is a walking disaster who is deliberately circumvented by his staff. One section of the op-ed is particularly telling and suggestive of neocon foreign policy, describing how the White House staff has succeeded in "[calling out] countries like Russia for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly" in spite of the president's desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and Trump, describing how " the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken to hold Moscow accountable."

If the op-ed and Woodward book are in any way accurate, one has to ask "Whose policy? An elected president or a cabal of disgruntled staffers who might well identify as neoconservatives?" Be that as it may, the White House is desperately pushing back while at the same time searching for the traitor, which suggests to many in Washington that it will right the sinking ship prior to November elections by the time honored and approved method used by politicians worldwide, which means starting a war to rally the nation behind the government.

As North Korea is nuclear armed, the obvious targets for a new or upgraded war would be Iran and Syria. As Iran might actually fight back effectively and the Pentagon always prefers an enemy that is easy to defeat, one suspects that some kind of expansion of the current effort in Syria would be preferable. It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with Russia, which would be unpredictable, but an attack on Syrian government forces that would produce a quick result which could plausibly be described as a victory would certainly be worth considering.

By all appearances, the preparation of the public for an attack on Syria is already well underway. The mainstream media has been deluged with descriptions of tyrant Bashar al-Assad, who allegedly has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The rhetoric coming out of the usual government sources is remarkable for its truculence, particularly when one considers that Damascus is trying to regain control over what is indisputably its own sovereign territory from groups that everyone agrees are at least in large part terrorists.

Last week, the Trump White House approved the new U.S. plan for Syria, which, unlike the old plan of withdrawal, envisions something like a permanent presence in the country. It includes a continued occupation of the country's northeast, which is the Kurdish region; forcing Iran plus its proxies including Hezbollah to leave the country completely; and continued pressure on Damascus to bring about regime change.

Washington has also shifted its perception of who is trapped in Idlib, with newly appointed U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey arguing that ". . . they're not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator." Jeffrey, it should be noted, was pulled out of retirement where he was a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spin off. On his recent trip to the Middle East he stopped off in Israel nine days ago to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The change in policy, which is totally in line with Israeli demands, would suggest that Jeffrey received his instructions during the visit.

Israel is indeed upping its involvement in Syria. It has bombed the country 200 times in the past 18 months and is now threatening to extend the war by attacking Iranians in neighboring Iraq. It has also been providing arms to the terrorist groups operating inside Syria .

[Sep 12, 2018] Twenty American military veterans commit suicide on average every day, according to a recent report from the US Department of Veteran Affairs

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Taras77 , says: Next New Comment September 12, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

Orwell's 1984 featured perpetual wars and changes of fronts aided by memory holes. While Stalinism, itself went by the boards, as Orwell sort of predicted, the same tactics became characteristic of Oceania, his name for the anglophone world in the novel. Now we have a threatened possible nuclear war to defend the same raghead elements credited with the 9/11 attacks. In seventeen years we have gone from perpetual war against the raghead element to perpetual war, up to and including extinction, to be engaged in on behalf of the same barbarous elements. If we survive this, historians, or at least those independent of the international "Oceania" deep state structure, will marvel that we came so close to extinction by fighting for the same barbarians which were the rationale of starting perpetual war in the first place. Endless wars-zio cons' handiwork:

Twenty American military veterans commit suicide on average every day, according to a recent report from the US Department of Veteran Affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide

Just saying.

[Sep 12, 2018] There is a tendency to think Trump is unique. He is not Several other Presidents resorted to open militarism before as a wya to avoid domestic problems

Notable quotes:
"... The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire . ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

There is a tendency to think Trump is unique. Just as there had been a tendency among liberals to think George W. Bush was unique. And not even the Christian zealotry that is present in the Trump cabinet is unique. The United States has always draped its avaricious tendencies in the language of devotion and prayer. Or, in Reagan's case, with the addition of astrology.

"In a ravenous fifty-five-day spasm during the summer of 1898, the United States asserted control over five far-flung lands with a total of 11 million inhabitants: Guam, Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Never in history has a nation leaped so suddenly to overseas empire."

– Stephen Kinzer. ( The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire . )

[Sep 12, 2018] Unravelling

Notable quotes:
"... The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire . ..."
"... The True Flag, NYRBs 2018 ..."
"... The Policy of Imperialism ..."
"... Swedish Democrats ..."
"... John Steppling is an original founding member of the Padua Hills Playwrights Festival, a two-time NEA recipient, Rockefeller Fellow in theatre, and PEN-West winner for playwriting. Plays produced in LA, NYC, SF, Louisville, and at universities across the US, as well in Warsaw, Lodz, Paris, London and Krakow. Taught screenwriting and curated the cinematheque for five years at the Polish National Film School in Lodz, Poland. A collection of plays, Sea of Cortez & Other Plays was published in 1999, and his book on aesthetics, Aesthetic Resistance and Dis-Interest was published this year by Mimesis International. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

"This country is going so far to the right you won't recognize it "

– John Mitchell (1969)

"Manliness and mastery required regeneration through violence, and by the 1890s, { Theodore} Roosevelt was spoiling for a fight: "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one," he wrote. Any opponent would do, but "the most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages."

– Jackson Lears ("How the US Began Its Empire," NYRB 2018)

"There is this myth of happiness: black-magic slogans warn you to be happy at once; films that "end well" show a life of rosy ease to the exhausted crowds; the language is charged with optimistic and unrestrained expressions-"have a good time," "life is fun," and the like. But there are also these people, who, though conventionally happy, suffer from an obscure malaise to which no name can be given, who are tragic through fear of being so, through that total absence of the tragic in them and around them."

– Jean Paul Sartre ("Americans and Their Myths," 1947)

The long overdue death of John McCain will be remembered not because of McCain himself or anything he did, but because of its timing. McCain's death happened under a particularly rabid spike in anti-Trump madness. And so, like all useful deaths, especially of public figures, and more especially of *warriors*, the moment was seized upon by the information apparatus of the state and turned into a platform for renewing the symbols and message of American virtue as well as for reinforcing the basic ideological tenants of U.S. militarism. And for pointing out that Donald Trump was to be found wanting in all categories and measurements of manliness and imperial vision. In a sense, McCain is now enshrined as the 21st century Teddy Roosevelt. Both were racist, both xenophobes, and both arch Imperialists whose personal insecurities were projected outward in displays of overt and cartoon masculinity.

There has been a lot written of late about the year 1968. It's the 50th anniversary of *68*, which is now being viewed as a kind of talismanic watershed in U.S. social and political history. Perhaps it is, but I think that is a bit too simplistic. Still, publications love to pin their stories on such ideas, so one has not seen the last of this meme. I was in high school in 68, in Hollywood California and I was to graduate the following year. I had to think seriously about how to dodge the draft. I remember meeting with counselors, in the various anti-war groups that abounded in So Cal during that time. The feeling in those places was warm, comraderly, and genuinely concerned. Many were women's groups including the one that most helped me. But in general people helped one another. There was no cynicism. No hustle. It's hard to remember that, today. The war was bad, and we all knew that. The military was bad, and everyone knew that. When you compare attitudes today you can see just how successful the propaganda arm of the U.S. military has been.

And just how damaged the western psyche is. Now, with the environmental crises accelerating and, as one writer put it, "we are not studying global warming now, we are living it," you might think people would naturally gravitate toward anti-war positions. After all something like 45% of global pollution is caused by the militaries of the world, and the U.S. military is ten times larger than anyone's else, and it is far more active than anyone else in that top ten list. You would think that, and you would be wrong.

There is a tendency to think Trump is unique. Just as there had been a tendency among liberals to think George W. Bush was unique. And not even the Christian zealotry that is present in the Trump cabinet is unique. The United States has always draped its avaricious tendencies in the language of devotion and prayer. Or, in Reagan's case, with the addition of astrology.

"In a ravenous fifty-five-day spasm during the summer of 1898, the United States asserted control over five far-flung lands with a total of 11 million inhabitants: Guam, Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Never in history has a nation leaped so suddenly to overseas empire."

– Stephen Kinzer. ( The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire . )

Kinzer's book is a useful guide to a seminal period in the construction of not just American overseas colonizing, but to the cementing of a mythology of individualism and violent conquest that is still operative. And its fitting that Teddy Roosevelt should be enshrined as a heroic figure and among the post popular presidents. Roosevelt shares a lot of similarities with Winston Churchill, in fact. Aristocratic backgrounds, racism, ambition, and a desire for Empire. And Roosevelt was, like Churchill, skilled as manufacturing his own mythology and crafting his public persona. And that persona was at its foundation one tied to war. When the Kurds rebelled Churchill said "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [It] would spread a lively terror." Churchill, Roosevelt, and McCain. Uncivilized tribes, savages, and gooks.

And all three are among the popular political figures in English speaking nations. When various groups call for a ranking of presidents, Roosevelt is almost always in the top three or four. Americans simply don't like even the whiff of intellectualism. Adlai Stevenson was never going to be president. It is surprising, in a way, that McCain never made it. But when one looks at the mythology of the U.S., it is not hard to see the through line of this exaggerated hyper masculinity and how it is now in the ascendent again.

"The exceptionalist double standard was reinforced by racial hierarchies and intensified by preoccupations with gender. Filipinos and Cubans, despite their desires for independence, were alleged to be unready for self-government -- a racist argument that has survived in muted form down to the present. Another long-standing exceptionalist theme has been the virtue of reinvigorated masculinity in imperial discourse. These enduring preoccupations in American foreign affairs stem at least in part from educated men's desire to vindicate their manhood in a society suspicious of thought, from Theodore Roosevelt's Strenuous Life to John Kennedy's New Frontier to George W. Bush's Mission Accomplished."

Jackson Lears (Review of Kinzer's The True Flag, NYRBs 2018 )

Across Europe today quasi fascist anti-immigration parties are gaining power and rising in popularity. In Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria, Holland, and Sweden. Even in Denmark, where the Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen oversaw " legislation that will require children from the age of one living in areas defined as "ghettos" by the state to be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap times. This new policy carries echoes of, and is a small but significant step towards the discredited and inhumane practices of tearing indigenous children away from their families, such as occurred with Australia's "lost generations" of Aboriginals or Canada's so-called Scoop generations." (The New Arab, July 2018).

Rasmussen is, unsurpisingly, an enthusiastic supporter of NATO and U.S. militarism. While still the opposition leader in 2015, Rasmussen rode the wave of anti-immigration sentiment claiming one must take a 'tough' look the realities of immigrants already in Denmark. He noted half are on public assistance. One does sort of wonder how that is the fault of the immigrants. But Rasmussen has also suggested increasing penalties for crimes committed within the designated *ghetto areas* of his country. In the small city of Randers (with a relatively tiny Muslim population) a measure was passed that pork MUST be served (not could, but must) in all public buildings. As Fergus O'Sullivan notes, " such official drives to repress minority culture have many European precedents. In the 1950s, efforts to assimilate Dutch Indonesians in the Netherlands went as far as regular home visits to ensure they were eating potatoes, not rice. Until 1973, Switzerland pursued a policy of removing children from itinerant Yenish families and placing them in poor conditions in orphanages, mental asylums, and prisons so as to dilute their differences from what was perceived as a mainstream Swiss identity." ( New Lab , 2018).

Europe has a long history of protecting themselves from the threat of *savages*.

"In 1909 in Sweden, for example, the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene was founded, followed in 1910 by the Mendel Society, the first Swedish genetics association. Even before World War I, leading doctors including Herman Lundborg, a prominent figure in racial biology, saw eugenics as a means to counter the problem of immigration, and there was a widely held opinion that the racial unity of the Swedish people was threatened. (4) Just as under the Nazis, the welfare state in Sweden had to be protected from ''unproductive anti-socials'' and so it became a ''eugenic welfare state of the fittest." – Sara Salem (Discover Society, 2018)

You know who were huge supporters of eugenics ? Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt. Well, and Adolph Hitler.

It is important to recognize the shameful role that Hollywood plays in all this. The apologetics from media and celebrities who seem indifferent to the actual history of America is stunning. And in particular to the continued reproduction of the violent hero, the man of action (and not thought). And, as I've noted before, it's not the issue of violence per se, for drama has always dwelt on that, but the ideological frame in which this occurs (I mean watch the new series Jack Ryan for an example that, clearly, CIA advisors are in the story meetings for all networks these days). There are very few stories of early America in which the audience is made aware that twelve presidents were slave owners. In fact the real horror of slavery is still not told.

John Wayne, Dirty Harry, and Rambo.

"The Philippine War was as unnecessary as it is unjust -- a wanton, wicked, and abominable war and what is the answer? "No useless parley! More soldiers! More guns! More blood! More devastation! Kill, kill, kill! And when we have killed enough, so that further resistance is stopped, then we shall see." Translated from smooth phrase into plain English, this is the program. In the vocabulary of our imperialists, "order" means above all submission to their will. Any other kind of order, be it ever so peaceful and safe, must be suppressed by a bloody hand."

– Carl Schurz, ( The Policy of Imperialism , 1899)

As an interesting note, water boarding was the favorite technique for American marines in the Philippines. And McKinley, then President, claimed he heard the voice of God as he paced the halls of the White House, undecided about invasion. But then God spoke to him. And God wanted America to go to war (and apparently to waterboard the savages).

The deeply embedded racism of America is still being denied. And its important to see the ways in which this denial is expressed. For they relate directly to the rugged tough guy machismo of much of white america. And not just America, for the *tough* talk is couched as *realistic* and this is what one hears in Lars Rasmussen and Victor Orban, in Salvini and the leader of the Swedish Democrats Jimmie Åkesson. It is what one hears from Trump and McCain, too. The implication is that the left is weak, and worse, effeminate. Many female politicians bend over backwards to appear 'one of the guys' (see Hillary Clinton). And the more insecure the white male, the tougher the talk. Roosevelt was an asthmatic child who was never naturally athletic or physically gifted.

"The first state to enact a sterilization law was Indiana in 1907, quickly followed by California and 28 other states by 1931 (Lombardo n.d.). These laws resulted in the forced sterilization of over 64,000 people in the United States (Lombardo n.d.). At first, sterilization efforts focused on the disabled but later grew to include people whose only "crime" was poverty. These sterilization programs found legal support in the Supreme Court. In Buck v. Bell (1927), the state of Virginia sought to sterilize Carrie Buck for promiscuity as evidenced by her giving birth to a baby out of wedlock (some suggest she was raped). In ruling against Buck, Supreme Court Justice Wendell Holmes opined, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind .Three generations of imbeciles is enough" (Black 2003). This decision legitimized the various sterilization laws in the United States. In particular, California's program was so robust that the Nazi's turned to California for advice in perfecting their own efforts. Hitler proudly admitted to following the laws of several American states that allowed for the prevention of reproduction of the "unfit" (Black 2003)."

– Laura Rivard (Sictable, 2014)

"In 1937, a Gallup poll in the USA found that 45 per cent of supported euthanasia for "defective infants". A year later, in a speech at Harvard, WG Lennox argued that preserving disabled lives placed a strain on society and urged doctors to recognize "the privilege of death for the congenitally mindless and for the incurable sick". An article published in the journal of the American Psychiatric Association in 1942 called for the killing of all "retarded" children over five years old."

– Victoria Brignell, (New Statesman, 2010)

The U.S. and Europe both are seeing a return of the most virulent xenophobic bigotry imaginable. A revanchist fascist sensibility has found a startling legitimacy in the public and in the media. And no amount of argument seems to sway white liberals today that the FBI and CIA and Pentagon are anything but virtuous and honourable institutions. And hating Donald Trump is all the justification needed to allow the thinly buried racism and privilege of most white americans to come to the surface.

None of this has ever gone away. Forced sterilizations took place as recently as 1963 in California (the leader by a wide margin in carrying out eugenics policies) and reasons included being an orphan, sexual indulgence (slut), alcoholism and foreignness. In fact post WW2 saw little retreat in eugenics policy making in the U.S.

"Today in Western North Carolina, a nonprofit group offers drug addicts money to be "voluntarily" sterilized. It is dubious whether one could honestly consider this program to be voluntary or ethical, since many people suffering from drug addictions will do nearly anything for money -- and that money will likely go to scoring their next fix."

– Keven Bigos ("The American Eugenics Movement After WW2," Indy Week 2011)

In the 60s and 70s forced sterilizations took place among gay and lesbian people, Cheyenne, Sioux , and Navajo women, and poor whites in Georgia and Alabama. The Weather Underground bombed a federal building in San Francisco to protest sterilizations in 1974. It is worth noting a few additional details about who was financing this stuff after the war. Kevin Bigos' award-winning article is worth a read in its entirety. But leading advocates included "Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton, and California eugenicists Paul Popenoe and C.M. Goethe. ( ) Hooton had worked on the "Committee of the Negro" during the 1920s as part of an effort to prove that the black race was inferior, and Goethe had openly praised Nazi eugenics programs." And then there was the biggest force for Eugenics probably in U.S. history, Dr Clarence Gamble (of Proctor & Gamble). And it should be noted that the idea of coercive sterilization was hugely popular. It was not some crazy fringe flat earth society belief -- it found support among the most prestigious Universities and Medical Institutions in the country.

The University of North Carolina throughout the 1950s handed out pro eugenics literature to students. And women were largely the target and *sex delinquency* was the primary reason given for sterilization. Criminals were also targeted. Anyone with a felony conviction was deemed unfit to reproduce. This is the 1950s remember.

Hitler praised California for its eugenics thinking. American Exceptionalism at its finest.

There is no way to over-emphasize the toxicity of U.S. (and European) history. There simply isn't. But I think somehow the deeper question is how the public has returned to an adoration of the most violent, aggressive and xenophobic figures in public life. No president is criticized for going to war, so, given all the other encouragements for war its an easy call. They will continue to find enemies to fear and reasons to increase defense spending. They will find poor nations, without defense capabilities, and send in troops to save them. Just as the Philippines were saved and civilized over a hundred years ago. And just as Africa is, again, a target for the civilizing mission of the Christian West. Of course the extraction of natural resources is the engine behind this. Profit is always the most powerful justification. But it is also more than that. It is the fear out there today in the bourgeois West -- and the crushing heat waves of this last year seem not to have even dented the belief in humanitarian intervention. Obama is literally a figure of adoration. For liberals he is something close to a deity, in fact. His actual record is of no interest. To bring it up is to just be a buzz-kill. Fear runs throughout the populace. But it is far too simple to say that because it is a complex of *fears*. And it is a strange return of core American mythology, Manifest Destiny, Indian killers, gunfighters, and land barons. The current hit TV series Yellowstone (created and written by Taylor Sheridan and starring Kevin Costner) is a prime example. Watching the show (and Sheridan is actually a better than average writer) I could never quite decide if the show was tongue in cheek or sincere. I fear the latter. Costner plays the owner of the largest ranch in the United States. At one point a visiting Japanese (!) tourist says 'this is too much land for one man to own'. Costner barks back 'this is america, we dont share land'.

Im still not sure if this was meant to be a desirable statement or not. But I suspect it was. Even if only unconsciously. And there are things, believe it or not, to applaud in this show. But the overriding love affair with power eclipses all else. America will always see conquest as individual achievement. Power as a sign of virtue. Oh and Costner occasionally looks heavenward and asks for God's help -- but in manly one syllable words.

White supremacism is a foundational feature of American society. One only has to examine the statistics for mass incarceration to prove this. Blacks are incarcerated 5 times the rate of whites, and in some states that ratio is ten times. In twelve states blacks make up more than half the prison population. Latinos are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of whites. White supremacism and american exceptionalism. And that belief in an innate superiority is core America.

And as cultural globalism increases, with all its inequalities, the white west is increasingly frightened. And it is psychically circling the wagons. The nauseating outpouring of ersatz grief for McCain has, as I say, not much to do with McCain. It has everything to do with revalidating white virtue, and white superiority. The token superficiality of multiculturalism in arts and entertainment is only another symptom. Praising identity based garbage is really just white parternalism applied to aesthetics. But its not just dark skinned people, not just inner city black kids or Muslims or the Chinese; it is the poor, too. The "othering" of almost everyone not white, or not prosperous and western, is in overdrive. And the constant demonizing and slurs against Communists never slows down. It happens on the flaccid quasi left, too. It is just white fear. And it is radioactive. The terrified bourgeoisie of the West are in meltdown. Everywhere I go ..even to places I love such as Copenhagen or Gothenburg I sense an uptick in martial vibes. Especially among younger men. No jobs, no pride, no place for courage or honour. There is only the numbing monotony of iPads or smart phones or social media. And a debilitating projection of this fear onto immigrants and foreigners in general. In the U.S. it is worse. For in the U.S. the cultural realm has never been so denuded and dead. It is the province of the bureaucratic technicians of banality and the trivial. And it is now a country of all encompassing anger.

That McCain was given (or gave himself, who knows) the moniker "maverick" says it all. Its a nostalgia for a counterfeit past. For an invented history wiped clean of atrocity. And it provides ever less even momentary relief from the dire future everyone knows is coming. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: John Steppling

John Steppling is an original founding member of the Padua Hills Playwrights Festival, a two-time NEA recipient, Rockefeller Fellow in theatre, and PEN-West winner for playwriting. Plays produced in LA, NYC, SF, Louisville, and at universities across the US, as well in Warsaw, Lodz, Paris, London and Krakow. Taught screenwriting and curated the cinematheque for five years at the Polish National Film School in Lodz, Poland. A collection of plays, Sea of Cortez & Other Plays was published in 1999, and his book on aesthetics, Aesthetic Resistance and Dis-Interest was published this year by Mimesis International.

[Sep 12, 2018] Explosive Skripal allegations may blow up in Syria by George Galloway

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:51 pm GMT

@annamaria

... ... ...

Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are 'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.

The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/438157-skripal-syria-allegations-russia/

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 6:09 pm GMT
@tac

FSB arrests ISIS member 'who planned murder of a Donbass leader on behalf of Ukraine'

The Russian security service, the FSB, says it has arrested an Islamic State operative who was planning to murder one of the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) on behalf of the Ukrainian authorities.
The suspected terrorist was identified as Mejid Magomedov, who was born in 1988 in Russia's southern Dagestan republic. He was arrested on Sunday in Russia's Smolensk region in the west of the country.
https://www.rt.com/news/438028-fsb-isis-member-ukraine/


Explosive Skripal allegations may blow up in Syria - George Galloway

Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are 'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.

The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/438157-skripal-syria-allegations-russia/

"the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury "

Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent.

[Sep 12, 2018] How Trump can get rid of the author of NYT op-ed

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous , [251] Disclaimer says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:28 pm GMT

All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war with Russia.

[Sep 12, 2018] Haley: if there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them.

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

c matt , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT

If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them.

Finally, Haley the Whore speaks some truth! We will know because we will be the ones who use them!

mr meener , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
Nimrata Randhawa alias Niki Haley says she has intelligence that Putin and Assad were seen in wal mart with a shopping cart full of Clorox bleach which indicates a chemical attack for sure. she also said when the US bombed Syria because of the last chemical attack Putins passport was found in the rubble

[Sep 11, 2018] Is Donald Trump Going to Do the Syria Backflip by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
Such an unexpected metamorphose ? Or was it unexpected. See Amazon.com The Truth About Trump eBook Michael D'Antonio
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's new saber rattling against Syria, Russia and Iran goes beyond pure irony and will certainly fuel rumors embraced by critics that he is becoming senile. When Trump was running for the Presidency, he sang a radically different tune: ..."
"... If Vladimir Putin wants to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that's no problem for Donald Trump, who said Wednesday that he believes Russia's military moves in Syria are targeting ISIS and that the United States shouldn't interfere. ( https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/donald-trump-syria-don-lemon/index.html ) 1 October 2015 ..."
"... However, Trump did note the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, pointing out in reference to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that Putin "is an Assad person" and "the United States doesn't like Assad". He went on to condemn the Obama administration for "backing people who they don't know who they are", and to warn that rebels backed by the United States "could be Isis" ..."
"... President Donald Trump warned Syria and its allies Russia and Iran on Monday against attacking the last major rebel stronghold of Idlib province in the country's northwest. "President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province," Trump wrote on Twitter. "The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don't let that happen!" ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/trump-syria-tweet-assad-rebel-idlib/index.html ) 4 September 2018 ..."
"... In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists. ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-syria-plans-gas-attack-in-rebel-stronghold-1536535853?mod=mktw ) 9 September 2018 ..."
Sep 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Trump's new saber rattling against Syria, Russia and Iran goes beyond pure irony and will certainly fuel rumors embraced by critics that he is becoming senile. When Trump was running for the Presidency, he sang a radically different tune:

Donald Trump accused his Republican presidential rivals on Friday night of wanting to "start World War III over Syria," and suggested that the United States should instead let Russia deal with the problem. ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/25/donald-trump-let-russia-fight-the-islamic-state-in-syria/?utm_term=.a3579167cd97 ) 25 September 2015

If Vladimir Putin wants to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that's no problem for Donald Trump, who said Wednesday that he believes Russia's military moves in Syria are targeting ISIS and that the United States shouldn't interfere. ( https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/donald-trump-syria-don-lemon/index.html ) 1 October 2015

Addressing Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict, which has so far disproportionately targeted rebel-held areas with no Isis presence, Trump expressed confidence that Vladimir Putin would eventually target the Islamic State. "He's going to want to bomb Isis because he doesn't want Isis going into Russia and so he's going to want to bomb Isis," Trump said of the Russian president. "Vladimir Putin is going to want to really go after Isis, and if he doesn't it'll be a big shock to everybody."

However, Trump did note the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, pointing out in reference to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that Putin "is an Assad person" and "the United States doesn't like Assad". He went on to condemn the Obama administration for "backing people who they don't know who they are", and to warn that rebels backed by the United States "could be Isis". ( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/13/donald-trump-foreign-policy-doctrine-nation-building ) 13 October 2015.

That was then. Now Trump is chest thumping and trash talking Syria and Russia like the recently deceased John McCain. He now appears ready to lead the NeoCon Conga line into an escalation of the war in Syria:

President Donald Trump warned Syria and its allies Russia and Iran on Monday against attacking the last major rebel stronghold of Idlib province in the country's northwest. "President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province," Trump wrote on Twitter. "The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don't let that happen!" ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/trump-syria-tweet-assad-rebel-idlib/index.html ) 4 September 2018

In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists. ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-syria-plans-gas-attack-in-rebel-stronghold-1536535853?mod=mktw ) 9 September 2018

The Beaver , 5 hours ago

PT,

The flip-flopper Erdogan is at it again :

In an Op-Ed in WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/article...
"Moderate rebels played a key role in Turkey's fight against terrorists in Northern #Syria; their assistance and guidance will be crucial in Idlib as well"

Yep wonder where all those moderate rebels aka foreign jihadis came through after landing in IST.
Putin told him off in Tehran and now he is back on the fence or on the FUKUS side.
Guess Qatar must be pushing him to play nice by flooding him with billions .

WSJ is really hoping to get the war going . This is a second article /op-ed two days in a row.

David Optional Guyatt , 8 hours ago
Fisk is an old school journalist who doesn't sport a parting in his tongue. I've found him to be very reliable in his reporting. His latest report reveals that despite considerable searching over a 2 day period, he could find no massed Syrian troops around Idlib ready for the looming ground battle.

It's not like you can miss 100,000 men and all the supporting equipment; armoured vehicles,, kitchens, field hospitals, tent cities etc. No Hezbollah, no Russians.

Which raises the question: are we being played here?

https://www.independent.co....

Don Bacon , 13 hours ago
The US has no more authority to interfere in Syria domestic affairs than Syria has to interfere in US domestic affairs.
>Syrian President Bashar Assad has authorized his forces to use chlorine gas in the assault on the last significant rebel redoubt in the country, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. Who can doubt the Wall Street Journal?
>The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts.
> The Protocol was Signed at Geneva June 17, 1925, and Entered into force February 8, 1928, and the convention were ratified by President Ford on January 22, 1975.
>Chlorine itself is not a chemical weapon. It's a toxic industrial chemical that is very useful to purify water. It's really very important to have clean water to avoid water borne diseases. But chlorine is a chemical agent that effects the eyes and the ability to breath. When mixed with water it produces hydrochloride acid. It's not a very efficient chemical weapon because we can sense it when it's not very toxic yet. So you can run away. Using chlorine gas is not prohibited as such, but using chlorine gas as a weapon is prohibited in international armed conflicts.
blue peacock -> Don Bacon , 10 hours ago
"The US has no more authority to interfere in Syria domestic affairs than Syria has to interfere in US domestic affairs."

When has this prevented the US from intervening as it pleases over the last 100 years?

Jack , 14 hours ago
PT,

We can be certain that the jihadi White Helmets will stage an "outrage" event, since Bolton and Nikki have already stated what the US response would be. The media I'm sure have their playbook already figured out and ready to create the necessary media hysteria.

The last two times Trump fired a few missiles and called it a day. Woodward however claims that his "anonymous" sources say that Trump wanted to assassinate Assad and Mattis walked it back to token missile strikes. Woodward also claims that the #Resistance in the White House are doing whatever they want and Trump is for all intents and purposes rather clueless about what they're up to. If this has any credence would it be possible that Bolton and Nikki and the other ziocons in the White House orchestrate a provocation by the jihadis that will then be setup to "we need a muscular response to show who's boss". You know the all too familiar argument that the US needs to act to retain credibility.

All this is coming just before the mid-terms which is a pivotal election for Trump. If he loses the House then he's up shit creek with Dems running all kinds of investigations and Mueller emboldened. How does he calculate the political implications of a deeper military engagement in Syria? IMO, many who supported him in the last election will not be very happy and their enthusiasm may waver which could be the difference in close races. OTOH, there is a perception that his economic team and policies are making a positive difference and that is benefiting the Deplorables.

Obama lost big time in his first mid-terms and did very poorly for the Democrats in both federal and state elections during his term as president. Yet the Democrat establishment has continued to back him. That may not happen with Trump as the GOP establishment will find the opportunity to go back to their traditional ways if Trump can't hold the House.

Biggee Mikeee , 14 hours ago
He told us here, we just didn't listen: Play Hide

[Sep 11, 2018] HARPER ON THE 17TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 9-11 ATTACKS

Sep 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The story of September 11, 2001 is still being written. This will remain the case so long as the government keeps hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the public. A small number of Representatives and Senators conducted a three-year battle to force the declassification (with heavy redactions) of the 28-page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry report from December 2002 (not to be confused with the later 9/11 Commission Report). That chapter revealed significant Saudi government support to the 9/11 hijackers, extending up to the Ministry of Defense and Aviation and the Saudi Ambassador to the United States at the time, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan. In September 2016, two months after the 28 pages were released to the public after a 14 year gap, both Houses of Congress overrode a President Obama veto to pass the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which removed sovereign immunity in cases where agents of a foreign government aided and abetted a terrorist attack on US soil.

In early 2018, a Federal Judge in New York rejected a Saudi motion to be dismissed from a civil law suit by survivors of the 9/11 attacks and family members of the 3,000 people killed. The Judge not only ruled that the Saudis were not exempted under sovereign immunity due to JASTA. He ordered discovery for the plaintiffs against two Saudi government officials who clearly were in direct contact and aided the original two hijackers to arrive in the United States, Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi.

On August 21, 2018, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced Senate Resolution 610, calling for the declassification of all the remaining investigative files on 9/11. The Senate resolution was the exact wording of a House resolution introduced in the spring by Representatives Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch and Thomas Massie. Those three House members led the fight for the declassification of the 28 pages. The Senators calling for the release of the 9/11 files are formidable: Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, Senator Richard Blumenthal (the lead sponsor), Senator Kirstin Gillebrand and Senator Robert Menendez. The House and Senate resolutions called for the "documents to be declassified to the greatest extent possible," because "the survivors, families and the people of the United States deserve answers."

Theories about the 9/11 attacks run in the extreme; however, it is clear from the official investigations that the US intelligence community--particularly the CIA and the FBI--hid evidence before and after the fact and have a great deal of accounting for their horribly poor performance. Robert Mueller, who came in as FBI Director weeks before 9/11, went out of his way to conceal evidence from the Congressional inquiry. He argued for the burying of the 28 pages. Protecting the FBI from embarrassing disclosures took precedent over getting at the truth about the 9/11 attacks. The fruits of that perfidy have carried forward in ways that were clearly not imagined at the time of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent coverup.

For the past several years, a Federal Judge in Florida has been reviewing 80,000 pages of FBI files that were withheld from Congressional investigators. Those documents showed that a prominent Saudi businessman, with very close ties to the Royal Family, hosted three of the hijackers at his home in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida. Similar files from FBI investigations in Paterson, New Jersey; Herndon, Virginia; and Boston, Massachusetts have never been released, so there continue to be sizeable gaps in what the public knows.

It may take years or even decades before the full story of the 9/11 attacks is unraveled. But it would be a grave disservice to the 3,000 people who died, the survivors, and the families of those killed and injured, to stop the quest now. Each year, the anniversary of 9/11 serves as a reminder.

Posted at 02:42 PM | Permalink

Reblog (0)

https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&f=sic-semper-tyrannis&t_i=6a00d8341c72e153ef022ad3909874200d&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fturcopolier.typepad.com%2Fsic_semper_tyrannis%2F2018%2F09%2Fharper-on-the-17th-anniversary-of-the-911-attacks.html&t_d=Sic%20Semper%20Tyrannis%20%3A%20HARPER%3A%20ON%20THE%2017TH%20ANNIVERSARY%20OF%20THE%209%2F11%20ATTACKS&t_t=Sic%20Semper%20Tyrannis%20%3A%20HARPER%3A%20ON%20THE%2017TH%20ANNIVERSARY%20OF%20THE%209%2F11%20ATTACKS&s_o=default#version=e7fe02698bddde52c3bc420198c95fb5

me name=

me name=

[Sep 11, 2018] Greg Bacon

Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: Website Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 7:13 am GMT 200 Words

The United States, which has trained and armed some of the trapped gunmen and even as recently as a year ago described the province as "al-Qaeda's largest safe haven since 9/11

Since we've been told a gazillion times al Qaeda did 9/11 and now, the Pentagon is using it's resources to fund, equip, train and protect al Qaeda and their CIA-created spin-off groups, the White House needs to answer this question:

Since the US is now supporting the terrorist outfit we've been told did 9/11, that means that either al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 and we've been lied to ever since or the USG is now officially a terrorist regime, since we support–in endless ways–the group that you said attacked the US on 9/11, al Qaeda.

They can only choose one answer.

Did Ynet make a mistake and accidentally release the pre-written PR too early?

BREAKING NEWS
Report: Chlorine gas attacks in Idlib
Ynet|Published: 09.10.18 , 10:36

Syrian president Bashar Assad used chlorine gas in his attacks on the rebels last stronghold in Idlib, reported an American source to the Wall Street Journal.

It has further been reported that US president Donald Trump threatened "a massive attack" against Assad's regime if he commits a massacre in Idlib.

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5346705,00.html

/n

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT

@Greg Bacon

The United States, which has trained and armed some of the trapped gunmen and even as recently as a year ago described the province as "al-Qaeda's largest safe haven since 9/11
Since we've been told a gazillion times al Qaeda did 9/11 and now, the Pentagon is using it's resources to fund, equip, train and protect al Qaeda and their CIA-created spin-off groups, the White House needs to answer this question:

Since the US is now supporting the terrorist outfit we've been told did 9/11, that means that either al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 and we've been lied to ever since or the USG is now officially a terrorist regime, since we support--in endless ways--the group that you said attacked the US on 9/11, al Qaeda.

They can only choose one answer.

Did Ynet make a mistake and accidentally release the pre-written PR too early?


BREAKING NEWS
Report: Chlorine gas attacks in Idlib
Ynet|Published: 09.10.18 , 10:36

Syrian president Bashar Assad used chlorine gas in his attacks on the rebels last stronghold in Idlib, reported an American source to the Wall Street Journal.

It has further been reported that US president Donald Trump threatened "a massive attack" against Assad's regime if he commits a massacre in Idlib.

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5346705,00.html

"Since the US is now supporting the terrorist outfit we've been told did 9/11, that means that either al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 and we've been lied to ever since or the US Government is now officially a terrorist regime, since we support the group that you said attacked the US on 9/11, al Qaeda."
-- This is an excellent Q for the ADL, AIPAC, White House, State Department, satanic Pompeo, "patriotic" Cheney (the greatest traitor to the USA citizenry), and the richly decorated US brass serving the Jewish Power, financiers, and mega war-profiteers.

2017: " 20 veterans a day commit suicide. The numbers come from the largest study undertaken of veterans' records by the VA " https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-among-veterans-higher-states/

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Target Syria
Will a new war be the October Surprise
No. Don't you get bored of being wrong? Have any of your predictions come true? America and allies are quite at peace with how Syria is unfolding. If you don't get that, you don't get anything. "Staged Filming of False Flag 'Chemical Attacks' Has Begun in Idlib:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/russian-defense-ministry-says-filming-mock-chemical-attack-has-begun-idlib

From the comment section:

1. "The only way for Syria and Iran and Russia to defend Syria is to clearly tell Washington, London, Paris (the main ZOGs) and Israel that attacks on Syria will be responded to by attacks on Israeli military and intel sites. The introduction of any nuclear device of any size will result in a full-scale nuclear response.
That is the only play otherwise Syria simply bleeds to death as t he Jews get their puppets to keep fomenting terror and dropping bombs on SAA efforts to fight those terrorists . We come to the moment when Russia either defends Syria by hitting Israel or it decides to accept the Long Death of Anglo-Zionist megalomania."

2. "I really do wish Russia would just instantly bomb Israel. That would be the best way to separate us from that satanic rope around our necks."

3. "I call everyone in the military to disobey orders for attacking anything in Syria except Isis. Need to spread this on social media. Don't be mercenaries of Israel ."

-- Your "most victimized" have squandered all and any sympathy for your "incomparable sufferings" by promoting the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. The Jewish State and its subordinate zionized US have become the gravest danger to humanity.

[Sep 11, 2018] Why I Don't Speak of the Fake News of "9-11" Anymore by Edward Curtin

Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Over the next few days, as the government and the media accused Osama bin Laden and 19 Arabs of being responsible for the attacks, I told a friend that what I was hearing wasn't believable; the official story was full of holes. I am a born and bred New Yorker with a long family history rooted in the NYC Fire and Police Departments, one grandfather having been the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department, the highest ranking uniformed firefighter, and the other a NYPD cop; a niece and her husband were NYPD detectives deeply involved in the response to that day's attacks. Hearing the absurd official explanations and the deaths of so many innocent people, including many hundreds of firefighters, cops, and emergency workers, I felt a suspicious rage. It was a reaction that I couldn't fully explain, but it set me on a search for the truth. I proceeded in fits and starts, but by the fall of 2004, with the help of the extraordinary work of David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, and other early skeptics, I could articulate the reasons for my initial intuition. I set about creating and teaching a college course on what had come to be called 9/11.

But I no longer refer to the events of that day by those numbers. Let me explain why.

By 2004 I had enough solid evidence to convince me that the U.S. government's claims (and The 9/11 Commission Report ) were fictitious. They seemed so blatantly false that I concluded the attacks were a deep-state intelligence operation whose purpose was to initiate a national state of emergency to justify wars of aggression, known euphemistically as "the war on terror." The sophistication of the attacks, and the lack of any proffered evidence for the government's claims, suggested that a great deal of planning had been involved.

Yet I was chagrined and amazed by so many people's insouciant lack of interest in questioning and researching the most important world event since the assassination of President Kennedy. I understood the various psychological dimensions of this denial, the fear, cognitive dissonance, etc., but I sensed something else as well. For so many people their minds seemed to have been "made up" from the start. I found that many young people were the exceptions, while most of their elders dared not question the official narrative. These included many prominent leftist critics of American foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Alexander Cockburn, and others, whose defenses of the official government and media explanations (when they even made such defenses; often they just trashed skeptics as "9/11 conspiracy nuts," to quote Cockburn) totally lacked any scientific or logical rigor or even knowledge of the facts. Now that seventeen years have elapsed, this seems truer than ever. There is a long list of leftists who refuse to examine matter to this very day. And most interestingly, they also do the same with the assassination of JFK, the other key seminal event of recent American history.

I kept thinking of the ongoing language and logic used to describe what had happened that terrible day in 2001 and in the weeks to follow. It all seemed so clichéd and surreal, as if set phrases had it been extracted from some secret manual, phrases that rung with an historical resonance that cast a spell on the public, as if mass hypnosis were involved. People seemed mesmerized as they spoke of the events in the official language that had been presented to them.

So with the promptings of people like Graeme MacQueen, Lance deHaven-Smith, T.H. Meyer, et al., and much study and research, I have concluded that my initial intuitive skepticism was correct and that a process of linguistic mind-control was in place before, during, and after the attacks. As with all good propaganda, the language had to be insinuated over time and introduced through intermediaries. It had to seem "natural" and to flow out of events, not to precede them. And it had to be repeated over and over again.

In summary form, I will list the language I believe "made up the minds" of those who have refused to examine the government's claims about the September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks.

Pearl Harbor . As pointed out by David Ray Griffin and others, this term was used in September 2000 in The Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (p.51). Its neo-con authors argued that the U.S. wouldn't be able to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. "absent some catastrophic event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Then on January 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "Space Commission" warned that the U.S. could face a "space Pearl Harbor" if it weren't careful and didn't increase space security. Rumsfeld urged support for the proposed U.S. national missile defense system opposed by Russia and China and massive funding for the increased weaponization of space. At the same time he went around handing out and recommending Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (1962) by Roberta Wohlstetter, who had spent almost two decades working for The Rand Corporation and who claimed that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that shocked U.S. leaders. Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor – those words and images dominated public consciousness for many months before 11 September 2001, and of course after. The film Pearl Harbor , made with Pentagon assistance and a massive budget, was released on May 25, 2001 and was a box office hit. It was in the theatres throughout the summer. The thought of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not a surprise to the U.S. government, but presented as such) was in the news all summer despite the fact that the 60 th anniversary of that attack was not until December 7, 2001, a more likely release date. So why was it released so early? Once the September 11 attacks occurred, the Pearl Harbor analogy was "plucked out" of the social atmosphere and used constantly, beginning immediately. Another "Day of Infamy," another surprise attack blared the media and government officials. A New Pearl Harbor! George W. Bush was widely reported to have had the time that night, after a busy day of flying hither and yon to avoid the terrorists who for some reason had forgotten he was in a classroom in Florida, to allegedly use it in his diary, writing that "the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century took place today. We think it is Osama bin Laden." Shortly after the 50 th anniversary of Pearl Harbor on December 7 th , Bush then formerly announced, referencing the attacks of September 11, that the U. S. would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The examples of this Pearl Harbor/ September 11 analogy are manifold, but I am summarizing, so I will skip giving them. Any casual researcher can confirm this. Homeland . This strange un-American term, another WW II word associated with another enemy – Nazi Germany – was also used many times by the neo-con authors of "Rebuilding America's Defenses." I doubt any average American referred to this country by that term before. Of course it became the moniker for The Department of Homeland Security, marrying home with security to form a comforting name that simultaneously and unconsciously suggests a defense against Hitler-like evil coming from the outside. Not coincidentally, Hitler introduced it into the Nazi propaganda vernacular at the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Both usages conjured up images of a home besieged by alien forces intent on its destruction; thus preemptive action was in order. Now the Department of Homeland Security with its massive budget is lodged permanently in popular consciousness. Ground Zero . This is a third WWII ("the Good War") term first used at 11:55 A.M. on September 11 by Mark Walsh (aka "the Harley Guy" because he was wearing a Harley-Davidson tee shirt) in an interview on the street by a Fox News reporter, Rick Leventhal. Identified as a Fox free-lancer, Walsh also explained the Twin Towers collapse in a precise, well-rehearsed manner that would be the same illogical and anti-scientific explanation later given by the government: "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense." Ground zero – a nuclear bomb term first used by U.S. scientists to refer to the spot where they exploded the first nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945 – became another meme adopted by the media that suggested a nuclear attack had occurred or might in the future if the U.S. didn't act. The nuclear scare was raised again and again by George W. Bush and U.S. officials in the days and months following the attacks, although nuclear weapons were beside the point in terms of the 11 September attacks, but surely not as a scare tactic and as part of the plan to withdraw from the ABM treaty that would be announced in December. But the conjoining of "nuclear" with "ground zero" served to raise the fear factor dramatically. Ironically, the project to develop the nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project and was headquartered at 270 Broadway, NYC, a few short blocks north of the World Trade Center. The Unthinkable . This is another nuclear term whose usage as linguistic mind control and propaganda is brilliantly analyzed by Graeme MacQueen in the penultimate chapter of his very important book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception . He notes the patterned use of this term before and after September 11, while saying "the pattern may not signify a grand plan . It deserves investigation and contemplation." He then presents a convincing case that the use of this term couldn't be accidental. He notes how George W. Bush, in a major foreign policy speech on May 1, 2001, "gave informal public notice that the United States intended to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty"; Bush said the U.S. must be willing to "rethink the unthinkable." This was necessary because of terrorism and rogue states with "weapons of mass destruction." PNAC also argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty. A signatory to the treaty could only withdraw after giving six months notice and because of "extraordinary events" that "jeopardized its supreme interests." Once the September 11 attacks occurred, Bush rethought the unthinkable and officially gave formal notice on December 13 to withdraw the U.S. from the ABM Treaty, as previously noted. MacQueen specifies the many times different media used the term "unthinkable" in October 2001 in reference to the anthrax attacks. He explicates its usage in one of the anthrax letters – "The Unthinkabel" [sic]. He explains how the media that used the term so often were at the time unaware of its usage in the anthrax letter since that letter's content had not yet been revealed, and how the letter writer had mailed the letter before the media started using the word. He makes a rock solid case showing the U.S. government's complicity in the anthrax attacks and therefore in the Sept 11 attacks. While calling the use of the term "unthinkable" in all its iterations "problematic," he writes, "The truth is that the employment of 'the unthinkable' in this letter, when weight is given both to the meaning of this term in U.S. strategic circles and to the other relevant uses of the term in 2001, points us in the direction of the U.S. military and intelligence communities." I am reminded of Orwell's point in 1984: "a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words." Thus the government and media's use of "unthinkable" becomes a classic case of "doublethink." The unthinkable is unthinkable. 9/11 . This is the key usage that has reverberated down the years around which the others revolve. It is an anomalous numerical designation applied to an historical event, and obviously also the emergency telephone number. Try to think of another numerical appellation for an important event in American history. It's impossible. But if you have a good historical sense, you will remember that the cornerstone for the Pentagon was lain on September 11, 1941, three months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the CIA engineered a coup against the Allende government in Chile on Sept 11, 1973. Just strange coincidences? The future editor of The New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced the emergency phone connection on the morning of September 12th in a NY Times op-ed piece, "America's Emergency Line: 911." The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists. His first sentence reads: "An Israeli response to America's aptly dated wake-up call might well be, 'Now you know.'" By referring to September 11 as 9/11, an endless national emergency fear became wedded to an endless war on terror aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another ground zero or holocaust. Mentioning Israel ("America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world," George W. Bush would tell the Israeli Knesset) so many times, Keller was not very subtly performing an act of legerdemain with multiple meanings. By comparing the victims of the 11 September attacks to Israeli "victims," he was implying, among other things, that the Israelis are innocent victims who are not involved in terrorism, but are terrorized by Palestinians, as Americans are terrorized by fanatical Muslims. Palestinians/Al-Qaeda. Israel/U.S. Explicit and implicit parallels of the guilty and the innocent. Keller tells us who the real killers are. His use of the term 9/11 is a term that pushes all the right buttons, evoking unending social fear and anxiety. It is language as sorcery. It is propaganda at its best. Even well-respected critics of the U.S. government's explanation use the term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition. As George W. Bush would later put it, as he connected Saddam Hussein to "9/11" and pushed for the Iraq war, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended.

I have concluded – and this is impossible to prove definitively because of the nature of such propagandistic techniques – that the use of all these words/numbers is part of a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign waged to create a narrative that has lodged in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and is very hard to dislodge.

It is why I don't speak of "9/11" any more. I refer to those events as the attacks of September 11, 2001, which is a mouth-full and not easily digested in the age of Twitter and texting. But I am not sure how to be more succinct or how to undo the damage, except by writing what I have written here.

Lance deHaven-Smith puts it well in Conspiracy Theory in America .

The rapidity with which the new language of the war on terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms and their mutual connections to WW II nomenclatures; and above all the connections between many terms and the emergency motif of "9/11" and "9-1-1" – any one of these factors alone, but certainly all of them together – raise the possibility that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11 .It turns out that elite political crime, even treason, may actually be official policy.

Needless to say, his use of the words "possibility" and "may" are in order when one sticks to strict empiricism. However, when one reads his full text, it is apparent to me that he considers these "coincidences" part of a conspiracy. I have also reached that conclusion. As Thoreau put in his underappreciated humorous way, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."

The evidence for linguistic mind control, while the subject of this essay, does not stand alone, of course. It underpins the actual attacks of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks that are linked. The official explanations for these events by themselves do not stand up to elementary logic and are patently false, as proven by thousands of well-respected professional researchers from all walks of life – i.e. engineers, pilots, scientists, architects, and scholars from many disciplines (see the upcoming 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, to be released September 11, 2018). To paraphrase the prescient Vince Salandria, who said it long ago concerning the government's assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks of 2001 are "a false mystery concealing state crimes." If one objectively studies the 2001 attacks together with the language adopted to explain and preserve them in social memory, the "mystery" emerges from the realm of the unthinkable and becomes utterable. "There is no mystery." The truth becomes obvious.

How to communicate this when the corporate mainstream media serve the function of the government's mockingbird (as in Operation Mockingbird), repeating and repeating and repeating the same narrative in the same language; that is the difficult task we are faced with, but there are signs today that breakthroughs are occurring, as growing numbers of international academic scholars are pushing to incorporate the analysis of the official propaganda surrounding 11 September 2001 into their work within the academy, a turnabout from years of general silence. And more and more people are coming to realize that the official lies about 11 September are the biggest example of fake news in this century. Fake news used to justify endless wars and the slaughter of so many innocents around the world.

Words have a power to enchant and mesmerize. Linguistic mind-control, especially when linked to traumatic events such as the September 11 and the anthrax attacks, can strike people dumb and blind. It often makes some subjects "unthinkable" and "unspeakable" (to quote Jim Douglass quoting Thomas Merton in JFK and the Unspeakable : the unspeakable "is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said.").

We need a new vocabulary to speak of these terrible things. Let us learn, as Chief Joseph said, to speak with a straight tongue, and in language that doesn't do the enemies work of mind control, but snaps the world awake to the truth of the mass murders of September 11, 2001 that have been used to massacre millions across the world.

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/

[Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed

Highly recommended!
It is really becoming unlearn why the Deep State hates Trump so much and tries to depose him. He became a typical neocon, Republican Obama, another "bait and switch" artist with slogan "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) as equivalent to Obama's fake "Change we can believe in".
May be Deep State has so many skeletons in the closet (811 is one) that he can only allow CIA controlled puppets as Presidents (looks like Clinton, Bush and Obama were such puppets).
Notable quotes:
"... If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp? Trump and his sidekick Jared K inhabit the murkiest depths of that Swamp. But people will say Tubby's being forced into a corner and just has to appoint neoCON psychopaths like Bolton. Then explain Trump appointing Nutty Nikki to the UN, at the start of his presidency? Israeli PM wanted Nutty in that job and after watching her unhinged performances in the UNGA, I see why; she's a Shabbos Goy, more than willing to do anything Israel asks, and BTW, keep me in mind for that POTUS opening, OK guys? ..."
"... MAGA was Trump's 'Hope and Change' mantra that many bought. ..."
"... Trump made and lost four multi-billion dollar fortunes while using NYC as his home base. Then made another multi-billion dollar fortune. One doesn't do that in NYC unless you're in bed with the same gangsters that have been looting this nation for decades, those TBTF Wall Street banks that us peasants are forced to bail-out every 10 or so years. ..."
"... Trump was bought and paid for a long time ago, now he's paying off his helpers by doing their dirty work around the word while the 'marks,' us Americans, get our pockets picked. ..."
Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Realist, September 11, 2018 at 11:37 am GMT

@AlbionRevisited

Another great article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the government, who possibly can?

In liberals derangement over Trump, and willingness to support anything that challenges his 2016 America First (anti-interventionist) campaign, they're willing to support the old order for fear of an "isolationist," or realist one, taking its place. If there's a large scale intervention, it'll be interesting to see what kind of left-liberal/dissident-right anti-war movement emerges, and if that furthers the deformation of the normative "liberal" "conservative" divide.

Another great article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the government, who possibly can?

If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.

Greg Bacon ( Website), September 11, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT

@Realist

If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.

Agreed.

Drain the Swamp? Trump and his sidekick Jared K inhabit the murkiest depths of that Swamp. But people will say Tubby's being forced into a corner and just has to appoint neoCON psychopaths like Bolton. Then explain Trump appointing Nutty Nikki to the UN, at the start of his presidency? Israeli PM wanted Nutty in that job and after watching her unhinged performances in the UNGA, I see why; she's a Shabbos Goy, more than willing to do anything Israel asks, and BTW, keep me in mind for that POTUS opening, OK guys?

MAGA was Trump's 'Hope and Change' mantra that many bought.

Trump made and lost four multi-billion dollar fortunes while using NYC as his home base. Then made another multi-billion dollar fortune. One doesn't do that in NYC unless you're in bed with the same gangsters that have been looting this nation for decades, those TBTF Wall Street banks that us peasants are forced to bail-out every 10 or so years.

Trump was bought and paid for a long time ago, now he's paying off his helpers by doing their dirty work around the word while the 'marks,' us Americans, get our pockets picked.

[Sep 10, 2018] Francesco Cossiga, formerly President of Italy, flat-out said that the major governments in Europe all privately recognise that 9-11 was run by the USA Israel

Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Brabantian , says: Website September 10, 2018 at 8:03 am GMT

Above, Laurent Guyénot mentions the 'Israeli art students' who had been working in the NYC towers a few weeks before the 9-11 event, these 'students' covered by the New York Times, which showed in photos a stack of cardboard boxes alongside the 'art students', the factory code markings on the boxes later traced as referencing components of bomb detonators

Francesco Cossiga, formerly President of Italy, flat-out said that the major governments in Europe all privately recognise that 9-11 was run by the USA & Israel Cossiga speaking to Italy's largest newspaper, the Corriere della Serra:

[Sep 10, 2018] What was the role of Izrailies in 911?

One problem with this hypothesis is that too many people were involved... And in any case the real conspiracy should reside in Washington and have support of CIA and FBI.
The idea of covering planned demolition with fake terrorist attack is more plausible...
Notable quotes:
"... This "Mossad job" thesis has been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled "Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake" , where he voiced his conviction that September 11 th was "a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation." ..."
"... ...Indeed suspicion of Israel's role should be natural to anyone aware of the reputation of the Mossad as: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act," in the words of a report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times , September 10 th , 2001 -- the day before the attacks. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Extracted from: 9-11 Was an Israeli Job by Laurent Guyénot

This "Mossad job" thesis has been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled "Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake" , where he voiced his conviction that September 11 th was "a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation."

...Indeed suspicion of Israel's role should be natural to anyone aware of the reputation of the Mossad as: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act," in the words of a report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times , September 10 th , 2001 -- the day before the attacks.

... ... ...

The dancing Israelis

Researchers who believe Israel orchestrated 9/11 cite the behavior of a group of individuals who have come to be known as the "dancing Israelis" since their arrest, though their aim was to pass as "dancing Arabs." Dressed in ostensibly "Middle Eastern" attire, they were seen by various witnesses standing on the roof of a van parked in Jersey City, cheering and taking photos of each other with the WTC in the background, at the very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. The suspects then moved their van to another parking spot in Jersey City, where other witnesses saw them deliver the same ostentatious celebrations.

One anonymous call to the police in Jersey City, reported the same day by NBC News, mentioned "a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there. They look like Palestinians and going around a building. [ ] I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniforms. [ ] He's dressed like an Arab." The police soon issued the following BOLO alert (be-on-the-look-out) for a "Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion."

By chance, the van was intercepted around 4 pm, with five young men inside: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari. Before any question was asked, the driver, Sivan Kurzberg, burst out: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem".The Kurzberg brothers were formally identified as Mossad agents. All five officially worked for a moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving Systems, whose owner, Dominik Otto Suter, fled the country for Tel Aviv on September 14. [4] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, pp. 278–280.

ORDER IT NOW

This event was first reported the day after the attacks by journalist Paulo Lima in the New Jersey newspaper The Bergen Record , based on "sources close to the investigation" who were convinced of the suspects' foreknowledge of the morning's attacks: "It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park".The 579-page FBI report on the investigation that followed (partially declassified in 2005) reveals several important facts. First, once developed, the photos taken by the suspects while watching the North Tower on fire confirm their attitudes of celebration: "They smiled, they hugged each other and they appeared to 'high five' one another". To explain their contentment, the suspects said they were simply happy that, thanks to these terrorist attacks, "the United States will take steps to stop terrorism in the world". Yet at this point, before the second tower was hit, most Americans believed the crash was an accident. The five Israelis were found connected to another company called Classic International Movers, which employed five other Israelis arrested for their contacts with the nineteen presumed suicide hijackers. In addition, one of the five suspects had called "an individual in South America with authentic ties to Islamic militants in the middle east". Finally, the FBI report states that the "The vehicle was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a positive result for the presence of explosive traces".

After all this incriminating evidence comes the most puzzling passage of the report: its conclusion that "the FBI no longer has any investigative interests in the detainees and they should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings". In fact, a letter addressed to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, dated September 25, 2001, proves that, less than two weeks after the events, the FBI federal headquarter had already decided to close the investigation, asking that "The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings". The five "dancing Israelis", also known as "the high fivers" , were detained 71 days in a Brooklyn prison, where they first refused, then failed, lie detector tests. Finally, they were quietly returned to Israel under the minimal charge of "visa violation." Three of them were then invited on an Israeli TV talk show in November 2001, where one of them ingenuously declared: "Our purpose was simply to document the event."

... ... ...

On March 14 th , 2002, an article in French newspaper Le Monde signed by Sylvain Cypel also referred to the report, shortly before the French magazine Intelligence Online made it fully accessible on the Internet . [5] It is quoted here from Bollyn's book and from Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection , iUniverse, 2003. It said that 140 Israeli spies, aged between 20 and 30, had been arrested since March 2001, while 60 more were arrested after September 11. Generally posing as art students, they visited at least "36 sensitive sites of the Department of Defense." "A majority of those questioned have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot mission unit." Another, Peer Segalovitz, officer in the 605 Battalion of the Golan Heights, "acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed to." [6] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 159.

Of special interest is the mention that "the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for these individuals." [7] Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection , iUniverse, 2003, p. 3. More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before 9/11 lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And this city also happens to be the place where fifteen of the nineteen alleged 9/11 Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the vicinity), including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight AA11. What was the relationship between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? We were told by mainstream news that the former were monitoring the latter, but failed to report suspicious activities of these terrorists to American authorities. From such a presentation, Israel comes out clean, since a spy agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is spying in. At worst, the Israeli Intelligence can be accused of "letting it happen" -- a guarantee of impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were certainly not just monitoring the future "hijackers," but financing and manipulating them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan Serfaty, who rented two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least $100,000 in three months. And we also learned from the New York Times on February 19, 2009 , that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah.

Israeli agents apparently appreciate operating under the cover of artists. Shortly before September 11, a group of fourteen Jewish "artists" under the name of Gelatin installed themselves on the ninety-first floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. There, as a work of "street art," they removed a window and extended a wooden balcony. To understand what role this piece of scaffolding may have played, it must be remembered that the explosion supposedly resulting from the impact of the Boeing AA11 on the North Tower took place between the ninety-second and the ninety-eighth floors. With the only film of the impact on the North Tower being that of the Naudet brothers, who are under suspicion for numerous reasons, many researchers are convinced that no aircraft hit this tower, and that the explosion simulating the impact was provoked by pre-planted explosives inside the tower.

... ... ...

Another chief of the cover-up was Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 presidential Commission established in November 2002. Zelikow is a self-styled specialist in the art of making "public myths" by "'searing' or 'molding' events [that] take on 'transcendent' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene" ( Wikipedia ). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism," in which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force." This is the man who controlled the governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who nominally led the commission, revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006), that the commission "was set up to fail" from the beginning.

Zelikow, they claim, had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report before the first meeting. He controlled all the working groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them as sole mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to "tell the story of Al-Qaeda's most successful operation -- the 9/11 attacks."

A tight control of mainstream media is perhaps the most delicate aspect of the whole operation. I will not delve into that aspect, for we all know what to expect from the MSM. For a groundbreaking argument on the extent to which 9/11 was psy-op orchestrated by MSM, I recommend Ace Baker's 2012 documentary 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera , chapters 6, 7 and 8.

[Sep 10, 2018] American Pravda 9-11 Conspiracy Theories by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... Hartford Courant ..."
"... . Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites. ..."
"... Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause. ..."
"... Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell. ..."
"... As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002, I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Lenin in Zurich ..."
"... The Terror Enigma ..."
"... 9/11: The Big Lie ..."
"... Popular Mechanics ..."
"... Red Ice Radio ..."
"... Fahrenheit 9/11 ..."
"... Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power ..."
"... This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses . ..."
"... Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV ..."
"... Guns & Butter ..."
"... The late Alan Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11 attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview . ..."
"... JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State ..."
"... But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel. ..."
"... One month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Although immigration and Hispanic crime were perennial topics in that HBD group, for a few years after the 9/11 attacks the latter issue was almost entirely displaced by feverish exchanges on Muslim terrorism and the accompanying Clash of Civilizations. Once again, I was invariably on the short end of a 99-to-1 divide, with nearly all the others in the group claiming that destruction of the World Trade Center conclusively proved that we needed to close our borders to foreign immigrants. I pointed out that since the Arab hijackers involved hadn't been immigrants, but had generally entered our country on tourist visas, maybe the "War on Terrorism" should be renamed the "War on Tourism," and we should protect America by completely closing our borders to the horrifying risks of the latter. Yet everyone ignored my sage advice.

The 9/11 attacks themselves had astonished me as much as everyone else on the HBD list, but aside from carefully reading the developing story in the New York Times and my other morning newspapers, I was too busy with my work to otherwise follow the topic. At first, everyone seemed certain that there would soon be a wave of follow-up attacks by the dozens or perhaps even hundreds of other Islamic terrorists remaining in our country, but nothing like that ever happened. After a few weeks had gone by without any further explosions, even small ones, I told the other HBD listmembers that I now strongly suspected every last Al Qaeda terrorist in America had probably died in the suicide attacks of September 11th, and there wasn't a single remaining operative left behind to commit further mayhem. Many of the others disagreed with me, but as the months and eventually the years went by, my surprising hypothesis turned out to be correct.

There was one important exception to this pattern, but it actually served to confirm the rule. As I wrote a few years ago in my original "American Pravda" article:

Consider the almost forgotten anthrax mailing attacks in the weeks after 9/11, which terrified our dominant East Coast elites and spurred passage of the unprecedented Patriot Act, thereby eliminating many traditional civil-libertarian protections. Every morning during that period the New York Times and other leading newspapers carried articles describing the mysterious nature of the deadly attacks and the complete bafflement of the FBI investigators. But evenings on the Internet I would read stories by perfectly respectable journalists such as Salon 's Laura Rozen or the staff of the Hartford Courant providing a wealth of additional detail and pointing to a likely suspect and motive.

Although the letters carrying the anthrax were purportedly written by an Arab terrorist, the FBI quickly determined that the language and style indicated a non-Arab author, while tests pointed to the bioweapons research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md., as the probable source of the material. But just prior to the arrival of those deadly mailings, military police at Quantico, Va., had also received an anonymous letter warning that a former Ft. Detrick employee, Egyptian-born Dr. Ayaad Assaad, might be planning to launch a national campaign of bioterrorism. Investigators quickly cleared Dr. Assaad, but the very detailed nature of the accusations revealed inside knowledge of his employment history and the Ft. Detrick facilities. Given the near-simultaneous posting of anthrax envelopes and false bioterrorism accusations, the mailings almost certainly came from the same source, and solving the latter case would be the easiest means of catching the anthrax killer.

Who would have attempted to frame Dr. Assaad for bioterrorism? A few years earlier he had been involved in a bitter personal feud with a couple of his Ft. Detrick coworkers, including charges of racism, official reprimands, and angry recriminations all around. When an FBI official shared a copy of the accusatory letter with a noted language-forensics expert and allowed him to compare the text with the writings of 40 biowarfare lab employees, he found a perfect match with one of those individuals. For years I told my friends that anyone who spent 30 minutes with Google could probably determine the name and motive of the likely anthrax killer, and most of them successfully met my challenge.

This powerful evidence received almost no attention in the major national media, nor is there any indication that the FBI ever followed up on any of these clues or interrogated the named suspects. Instead, investigators attempted to pin the attacks on a Dr. Steven Hatfill based on negligible evidence, after which he was completely exonerated and won a $5.6 million settlement from the government for its years of severe harassment. Later, similar hounding of researcher Bruce Ivins and his family led to his suicide, after which the FBI declared the case closed, even though former colleagues of Dr. Ivins demonstrated that he had had no motive, means, or opportunity. In 2008, I commissioned a major 3,000-word cover story in my magazine summarizing all of this crucial evidence, and once again almost no one in the mainstream media paid the slightest attention.

Unlike the 9/11 attacks themselves, I had closely followed the Anthrax terrorism, and was shocked by the strange silence of the government investigators and our leading newspapers. At the time, I generally assumed that the attacks were totally unconnected with 9/11 and merely opportunistic, but I simply couldn't understand how a few minutes a day of reading Salon and the Hartford Courant on the web could seemingly solve the front-page whodunit that was baffling everyone at the FBI and the New York Times . It was around that point when I started to wonder whether the elite media publications I had always relied upon were merely "Our American Pravda" under a different name . Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites.

In theoretical physics, new scientific breakthroughs often occur when known objects are found to behave in inexplicable ways, thereby suggesting the existence of previously unsuspected forces or particles. In evolutionary biology, when a biological organism appears to be acting against its own genetic interests, we may safely assume that it has probably fallen under the control of a different organism, typically a parasite, which has hijacked the host and is directing its activities toward different ends. While I couldn't be entirely sure what was happening to the politics and media of my own country, something very odd and disturbing was certainly taking place.

Things soon became even much worse. Since the 9/11 attacks had apparently been organized by Osama bin Laden and he was based in Afghanistan under Taliban protection, our attack on that country at least seemed rational. But suddenly there also soon appeared talk of attacking Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

At first I couldn't believe what was taking place, simply awed by the breathtaking power and dishonesty of "our American Pravda," with the establishment media so easily transforming black into white and night into day. Once again, quoting from my original article of that title:

The circumstances surrounding our Iraq War demonstrate this, certainly ranking it among the strangest military conflicts of modern times. The 2001 attacks in America were quickly ascribed to the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, whose bitterest enemy in the Middle East had always been Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime in Iraq. Yet through misleading public statements, false press leaks, and even forged evidence such as the "yellowcake" documents, the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies utilized the compliant American media to persuade our citizens that Iraq's nonexistent WMDs posed a deadly national threat and required elimination by war and invasion. Indeed, for several years national polls showed that a large majority of conservatives and Republicans actually believed that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq War was being fought as retribution. Consider how bizarre the history of the 1940s would seem if America had attacked China in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

True facts were easily available to anyone paying attention in the years after 2001, but most Americans do not bother and simply draw their understanding of the world from what they are told by the major media, which overwhelmingly -- almost uniformly -- backed the case for war with Iraq; the talking heads on TV created our reality. Prominent journalists across the liberal and conservative spectrum eagerly published the most ridiculous lies and distortions passed on to them by anonymous sources, and stampeded Congress down the path to war.

The result was what my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom rightly called the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history." American forces suffered tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries, while our country took a huge step toward national bankruptcy. Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause.

But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.

Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell.

As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002, I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare .

Throughout the 1990s and even afterward, I'd been on very friendly terms with the Neocons in NYC and DC, working closely with them on issues relating to immigration and assimilation. Indeed, my December 1999 article "California and the End of White America" had not only appeared as one of the longest cover stories ever published in Commentary , their intellectual flagship, but had even been cited as the centerpiece of its annual fund-raising letter.

I and my other DC friends were well aware of the fanatical views most Neocons held on Israel and Middle Eastern policy. Indeed, their foreign policy obsessions had been a regular staple of our jokes and ridicule, but since it seemed unimaginable that they would ever be given any authority in that sphere, their beliefs had seemed a relatively harmless eccentricity. After all, could anyone possibly imagine fanatical libertarians being placed in total control of the Pentagon, allowing them to immediately disband the American armed forces as a "statist institution"?

Moreover, the complete ideological triumph of the Neocons after the 9/11 attacks was all the more shocking given their recent political missteps. During the 2000 presidential campaign, nearly all of the Neocons had aligned themselves with Sen. John McCain, whose battle with Bush for the Republican nomination had eventually turned quite bitter, and as a consequence, they had been almost totally been frozen out of high-level appointments. Both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were then widely regarded as Bush Republicans, lacking any significant Neocon ties, and the same was true for all the other top administration figures such as Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, and Paul O'Neil. Indeed, the only Neoconservative figure offered a Cabinet spot was Linda Chavez, and not only was the Labor Department always regarded as something of a boobie prize in a GOP Administration, but she was ultimately forced to withdraw her nomination due to her "nanny problems." The highest-ranking Neocon serving under Bush was Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, whose seemingly inconsequential appointment had been almost totally ignored by everyone.

ORDER IT NOW

Most of the Neocons themselves certainly seemed to recognize the catastrophic defeat they had suffered in the 2000 election. Back in those days, I was on very friendly terms with Bill Kristol, and when I stopped by his office at the Weekly Standard for a chat in the spring of 2001, he seemed in a remarkably depressed state of mind. I remember that at one point, he took his head in his hands and wondered whether it was time for him to just abandon the political battle, resigning his editorship and taking up a quiet post at a DC thinktank. Yet just eight or ten months later, he and his close allies were on their way to gaining overwhelming influence in our government, an eirie parallel to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Lenin in Zurich . The totally fortuitous 9/11 attacks and the outbreak of war had suddenly allowed a small but committed ideological faction to seize control of a gigantic country.

A thorough account of the Neocons and their takeover of the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11 is provided by Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski in his 2008 book The Transparent Cabal, conveniently available on this website:

The Transparent Cabal The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel Stephen J. Sniegoski • 2008 • 178,000 Words

Oddly enough, for many years after 9/11, I paid very little attention to the details of the attacks themselves. I was entirely preoccupied with building my content-archiving software system , and with the little time I could spend on public policy matters, I was totally focused to the ongoing Iraq War disaster, as well as my terrible fears that Bush might at any moment suddenly extend the conflict to Iran. Despite Neocon lies, shamelessly echoed by our corrupt media, neither Iraq nor Iran had had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, so those events gradually faded in my consciousness, and I suspect the same was true for most other Americans. Al Qaeda had largely disappeared, with Bin Laden perhaps hiding in a cave somewhere. Despite endless Homeland Security "threat alerts," there had been absolutely no further Islamic terrorism on American soil, and relatively little anywhere else outside the Iraq charnel house. So the precise details of the 9/11 plots had become almost irrelevant to me.

Others I knew seemed to feel the same way. Virtually all the exchanges I had with my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had concerned the Iraq War and risk it might spread to Iran, as well as the bitter anger he felt toward Bush's perversion of his beloved NSA into an extra-constitutional tool of domestic espionage. When the New York Times broke the story of the massive extent of domestic NSA spying, Gen. Odom declared that President Bush should be impeached and NSA Director Michael Hayden court-martialed. But in all the years prior to his untimely passing in 2008 , I don't recall the 9/11 attacks themselves even once coming up as a topic in our discussions.

During those same years, I'd also grown quite friendly with Alexander Cockburn , whose Counterpunch webzine seemed a very rare center of significant opposition to our disastrous foreign policy towards Iraq and Iran. I do recall that he once complained to me in 2006 about the "conspiracy nuts" of the 9/11 Truth movement who were endlessly harassing his publication, and I extended my sympathies. Each of us move in different political circles, and that brief reference may have been the first and only time I heard of the 9/11 Truthers during that period, causing me to regard them more like an eccentric UFO cult than anything else.

Admittedly, I'd occasionally heard of some considerable oddities regarding the 9/11 attacks here and there, and these certainly raised some suspicions. Most days I would glance at the Antiwar.com front page, and it seemed that some Israeli Mossad agents had been caught while filming that plane attacks in NYC, while a much larger Mossad "art student" spy operation around the country had also been broken up around the same time. Apparently, FoxNews had even broadcast a multi-part series on the latter subject before that expose was scuttled and "disappeared" under ADL pressure.

ORDER IT NOW

But I wasn't sure about the credibility of those claims, though it did seem plausible that Mossad had known of the attacks in advance and allowed them to proceed, recognizing the huge benefits that Israel would derive from the anti-Arab backlash. I think I was vaguely aware that Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo had published The Terror Enigma , a very short book about some of these strange facts, bearing the provocative subtitle "9/11 and the Israeli Connection," but I never considered reading it. In 2007, Counterpunch itself published a fascinating follow-up story about that arrest of that group of Israeli Mossad agents in NYC, who were caught filming and apparently celebrating the plane attacks on that fateful day, which turned out to be a much broader operation than I had previously realized. But all these details remained a little fuzzy in my mind next to my overriding concerns about wars in Iraq and Iran.

However

Moreover, around that same time I'd stumbled across an astonishing detail of the 9/11 attacks that demonstrated the remarkable depths of my own ignorance. In a Counterpunch article, I'd discovered that immediately following the attacks, their supposed terrorist mastermind

, even declaring that no good Muslim would have committed such a deed.

Once I checked around a little and fully confirmed that fact , I was flabbergasted. 9/11 was not only the most successful terrorist attack in the history of the world, but may have been greater in its physical magnitude than all such previous terrorist operations combined. The entire purpose of terrorism is to allow a small organization to show the world that it can inflict serious losses upon a powerful state, and I had never previously heard of any terrorist leader denying his role in a successful operation, let alone the greatest in history. Something seemed extremely wrong in the media-generated narrative that I had previously accepted. I began to wonder if I had been as deluded as the tens of millions of Americans in 2003 and 2004 who naively believed that Saddam had been the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. We live in a world of illusions generated by our media, and I suddenly felt that I had noticed a tear in the paper-mache mountains displayed in the background of a Hollywood sound-stage. If Osama was probably not the author of 9/11, what other huge falsehoods had I blindly accepted?

A couple of years later, I came across a very interesting column by Eric Margolis, a prominent Canadian foreign policy journalist purged from the broadcast media for his strong opposition to the Iraq War. He had long published a weekly column in the Toronto Sun and when that tenure ended, he used his closing appearance to run a double-length piece expressing his very strong doubts about the official 9/11 story .

ORDER IT NOW

In addition, an old friend of mine with strong connections to elite French circles at some point shared what he regarded as an amusing anecdote. He mentioned that at a private dinner party in Paris attended by influential political and media figures, France's former Defense Minister had told the other disbelieving guests that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile rather than a civilian jetliner. My friend explained that the minister in question was widely regarded as extremely intelligent and level-headed, thereby proving that even the most highly reputable individuals may sometimes believe in utterly crazy things.

But I interpreted those same facts very differently. France probably possessed one of the four or five best intelligence service in the world, and surely a French Defense Minister would be privy to better information about true events than a typical media pundit. In fact, one of the earliest books sharply questioning the official 9/11 narrative was 9/11: The Big Lie by French journalist Thierry Meyssan, which appeared in 2002 and similarly argued that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile, perhaps suggesting that it may have been partly influenced by leaks coming from French Intelligence.

I eventually shared that account of the French minister's private opinions with a very well-connected American individual, someone in our elite Establishment with whom I'd become a little friendly. His reaction made it clear that he held the same highly unorthodox views about the 9/11 attacks, although he had never publicly voiced them lest he risk losing his elite Establishment membership card.

Over the years, all these discordant claims had gradually raised my suspicions about the official 9/11 story to extremely strong levels, but it was only very recently that I finally found the time to begin to seriously investigate the subject and read eight or ten of the main 9/11 Truther books, mostly those by Prof. David Ray Griffin, the widely acknowledged leader in that field. And his books, together with the writings of his numerous colleagues and allies, revealed all sorts of very telling details, most of which had previously remained unknown to me. I was also greatly impressed by the sheer number of seemingly reputable individuals of no apparent ideological bent who had become adherents of the 911 Truth movement over the years.

ORDER IT NOW

I certainly attempted to locate contrary books supporting the official 9/11 story, but the only one widely discussed was a rather short volume published by Popular Mechanics magazine, whose lead researcher turned out to be the cousin of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. None of the writers appeared to have any serious academic credentials, and they seemed to generally ignore or deflect some of the strongest pieces of evidence provided by the numerous scholars and experts involved in the 9/11 Truth movement. Hence, I hardly found their analysis persuasive, and half-wondered whether Homeland Security had quietly arranged the publication, which might help explain the extremely odd nepotistic coincidence. Popular magazines simply do not carry the scientific weight of research professors at major universities. Perhaps the holes in the official 9/11 narrative were so numerous and large that no serious scholar could be found to defend it.

ORDER IT NOW

When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively refuted, reasonable conclusions seem to point in an obvious direction. Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number of separate near-fatal anomalies in the official 9/11 story has now grown enormously long, probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the narrative that so many of us have believed for so long. The numerous Griffin books, beginning with his important 2004 volume had spent 29 years at the CIA , rising to become of its senior figures as Director of its Office of Regional and Political Analysis, with 200 research analysts serving under him. In August 2006, he published a remarkable 2,700 word article explaining why he no longer believed the official 9/11 story and felt sure that the 9/11 Commission Report constituted a cover-up, with the truth being quite different. The following year, he provided a forceful endorsement to many other highly-regarded former US intelligence officers .

We might expect that if a former intelligence officer of Christison's rank were to denounce the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it nearly a decade later.

Even nearly all of our supposed "alternative" media outlets were nearly as silent. Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been regular contributors to Counterpunch , publishing many dozens of articles there and certainly were its most highly-credentialed writers on intelligence and national security matters. But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison's views to current Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a "9/11 Truther." When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, widespread ignorance becomes unavoidable.

For those so interested, Christison's 2006 article mentioned the strong evidence he found in a C-Span broadcast of a two-hour panel discussion on the September 11th terrorist attacks , and especially cited the documentary Loose Change as an excellent summary of many of the flaws in the official 9/11 case. The full "Final Cut" version of that film is conveniently available on YouTube:

With so many gaping holes in the official story of the events seventeen years ago, each of us is free to choose to focus on those we personally consider most extreme and obvious. Danish Chemistry professor Niels Harrit was one of the scientists who analyzed the debris of the destroyed buildings and detected the residual presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade explosive compound, and I found him quite credible during his hour long interview on Red Ice Radio . The notion that an undamaged hijacker passport was found in an NYC street after the massive, fiery destruction of the skyscrapers is totally absurd, as was the highly incriminating contents of the hijacker luggage recovered in a lost airline bag. And the testimonies of the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions just before the collapse of the buildings seems totally inexplicable under the official story. The sudden total collapse of Building Seven, never hit by any jetliners is also extremely implausible.

Let us now suppose that the overwhelming weight of evidence is correct, and concur with high-ranking former CIA intelligence analysts, distinguished academics, and experienced professionals that the 9/11 attacks were not what they appeared to be. We recognize the extreme implausibility that three huge skyscrapers in New York City suddenly collapsed at free-fall velocity into their own footprints after just two of them were hit by airplanes, and also that a large civilian jetliner probably did not strike the Pentagon leaving absolutely no wreckage and only a small hole. What actually did happen, and more importantly, who was behind it?

The first question is obviously impossible to answer without an honest and thorough official investigation of the evidence. In the absence of that, numerous, somewhat conflicting hypotheses have been advanced and debated within the confines of the 9/11 Truth community. But the second question is probably the more important and relevant one, and I think it has always represented a source of extreme vulnerability to 9/11 Truthers.

The most typical approach, as generally followed in the numerous Griffin books, is to avoid the issue entirely and focus solely on the gaping flaws in the official narrative. This is a perfectly acceptable position but leaves all sorts of serious doubts. What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world's sole superpower? And how were they then able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the American government itself?

The much smaller slice of 9/11 Truthers who choose to address this "whodunit" question seem to be overwhelmingly concentrated among rank-and-file grassroots activists rather than the prestigious experts, and they usually answer "inside job!" Their widespread belief seems to be that the top political leadership of the Bush Administration, probably including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had organized the terrorist attacks, either with or without the knowledge of their nominal but ignorant superior, President George W. Bush. The suggested motives included justification for military attacks against various countries, supporting the financial interests of the powerful oil industry and military-industrial complex, and enabling the destruction of traditional American civil liberties. Since the vast majority of politically-active Truthers seem to come from the far left of the ideological spectrum, these sorts of notions seem logical and almost self-evident.

Although not explicitly endorsing those Truther conspiracies, filmmaker Michael Moore's leftist box office hit Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to raise such similar suspicions. His small budget documentary earned an astonishing $220 million by suggesting that the very close business ties between the Bush family, Cheney, the oil companies, and the Saudis were responsible for the Iraq War aftermath of the terrorist attacks, with the domestic crackdown on civil liberties being part-and-parcel of the right-wing Republican agenda.

ORDER IT NOW

Unfortunately, this apparently plausible picture seems to have almost no basis in reality. During the drive to the Iraq War, I read Times articles interviewing numerous top oil men in Texas who expressed total puzzlement at why America was planning the attack, saying that they could only assume that President Bush knew something that they themselves did not. Saudi Arabian leaders were adamantly opposed to an American attack on Iraq, and made every effort to prevent it. Prior to his joining the Bush Administration, Cheney had served as CEO of Halliburton, an oil services giant, and his firm had heavily lobbied for the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq. Prof. James Petras, a scholar of strong Marxist leanings, published an excellent 2008 book entitled Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power in which he conclusively demonstrated that Zionist interests rather than those of the oil industry had dominated the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

As for Michael Moore's film, I remember at the time sharing a laugh with a (Jewish) friend of mine, both of us finding it ridiculous that a government so overwhelmingly permeated by fanatically pro-Israel Neocons was being portrayed as in thrall to the Saudis. Not only did the plot of Moore's film indicate the fearsome power of Jewish Hollywood, but its huge success demonstrated that most of the American public had apparently never heard of the Neocons.

Bush critics properly ridiculed the president for his tongue-tied statement that the 9/11 terrorists had attacked America "for its freedoms" and Truthers have reasonably branded as implausible the claims that the massive attacks were organized by a cave-dwelling Islamic preacher. But the suggestion that that they were led and organized by the top figures of the Bush Administration seems even more preposterous.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had both spent decades as stalwarts of the moderate pro-business wing of the Republican Party, each serving in top government positions and also CEOs of major corporations. The notion that they capped their careers by joining a new Republican administration in early 2001 and immediately began organizing a gigantic false-flag terrorist attack upon the proudest towers of our largest city together with our own national military headquarters, hoping to kill many thousands of Americans in the process, is too ridiculous to even be part of a leftist political satire.

Let's step back a bit. In the entire history of the world, I can think of no documented case in which the top political leadership of a country launched a major false-flag attack upon its own centers of power and finance and tried to kill large numbers of its own people. The America of 2001 was a peaceful and prosperous country run by relatively bland political leaders focused upon the traditional Republican goals of enacting tax-cuts for the rich and reducing environmental regulations. Too many Truther activists have apparently drawn their understanding of the world from the caricatures of leftist comic-books in which corporate Republicans are all diabolical Dr. Evils, seeking to kill Americans out of sheer malevolence, and Cockburn was absolutely correct to ridicule them at least on that particular score.

Consider also the simple practicalities of the situation. The gigantic nature of the 9/11 attacks as postulated by the Truth movement would have clearly required enormous planning and probably involved the work of many dozens or even hundreds of skilled agents. Directing CIA operatives or special military units to organize secret attacks against civilian targets in Venezuela or Yemen is one thing, but ordering them to mount attacks against the Pentagon and the heart of New York City would be fraught with stupendous risk.

Bush had lost the popular vote in November 2000 and had only reached the White House because of a few dangling chads in Florida and the controversial decision of a deeply divided Supreme Court, so most of the American media regarded his new administration with considerable hostility for those reasons. If the first act of such a newly-sworn presidential team had been directing the CIA or the military to prepare attacks against New York City and the Pentagon, surely those orders would have been regarded as issued by a group of lunatics, and immediately leaked to the hostile national press.

The whole scenario of top American leaders being the masterminds behind 9/11 is beyond ridiculous, and those 9/11 Truthers who make or imply such claims -- doing so without a single shred of solid evidence -- have unfortunately played a major role in discrediting their entire movement. In fact, the common meaning of the "inside job" scenario is so patently absurd and self-defeating that one might even suspect that the claim was encouraged by those seeking to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement as a consequence.

On the other hand, it does seem entirely plausible that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other top Bush leaders may have been manipulated into taking certain actions that inadvertently furthered the 9/11 plot, while a few lower-level Bush appointees might have been more directly involved, perhaps even as outright conspirators. But that is not the normal meaning of the "inside job" accusation.

So where do we now stand? It seems very likely that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an organization far more powerful and professionally-skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen random Arabs armed with box-cutters, but also the attacks were clearly not the work of the American government itself. So who actually attacked our country on that fateful day seventeen years ago, killing thousands of our fellow citizens?

Effective intelligence operations are concealed in a hall of mirrors, often extremely difficult for outsiders to discern, and false-flag terrorist attacks certainly fall into this category. But applying a different metaphor, the complexities of such events may be seen as a Gordian Knot, almost impossible to disentangle, but which may sometimes easily be cut by asking the simple question "Who benefited?"

America and most of the world certainly did not, and the disastrous legacy of that fateful day have transformed our own society and much of the entire world. The endless American wars soon unleashed have already cost us many trillions of dollars and set our nation on the road to bankruptcy, while killing or displacing many millions of innocent Middle Easterners. Most recently, that flood of desperate refugees has begun engulfing Europe, and the peace and prosperity of that ancient continent is now under severe threat.

Our traditional civil liberties and constitutional protections have been drastically eroded, and our society placed on the road to becoming an outright police state, with American citizens now passively accepting unimaginable infringements on their personal freedoms, all originally begun under the guise of preventing terrorism.

I find it difficult to think of any country in the world that clearly gained as a result of the 9/11 attacks and America's military reaction, with one single, solitary exception.

During 2000 and most of 2001, America was a peaceful prosperous country, but a certain small Middle Eastern nation had found itself in an increasingly desperate situation. Israel then seemed to be fighting for its life against the massive waves of domestic terrorism that constituted much of the Second Intifada.

According to many analysts, Ariel Sharon had deliberately provoked that Palestinian uprising in September 2000 by marching to the Temple Mount backed by a thousand armed police, and the resulting violence and polarization of Israeli society had successfully installed him as Prime Minister in early 2001. But once in office, his notoriously harsh measures failed to prevent a wave of continuing attacks, increasingly made by from suicide-bombers, and there was a widespread opinion that the violence would soon trigger a huge outflow of Israeli citizens, perhaps producing a death-spiral for the Jewish state. Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other major Muslim powers were supporting the Palestinians with money, rhetoric, and sometimes even weapons, and it appeared that Israeli society was beginning to crumble. I remember hearing from some of my DC friends that numerous Israeli policy experts were suddenly seeking berths at Neocon thinktanks so that they could relocate to America.

Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of being willing to undertake strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, and having finally obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.

The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world's sole superpower was fully mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the Middle East. Sharon's close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an opportunity to seize control of America's foreign policy and national security apparatus, with an NSA staffer later reporting that Israeli generals freely roamed the halls of the Pentagon without any security controls. Meanwhile, the excuse of preventing domestic terrorism was used to implement newly centralized American police controls that were employed to harass or even shut down various anti-Zionist political organizations. One of the Israeli Mossad agents arrested by the police in New York City as he and his fellows were celebrating the 9/11 attacks and producing a souvenir film of the burning World Trade Center towers told the officers that "Terrorism is now America's problem." And so it immediately became.

General Wesley Clark reported that soon after the 9/11 attacks he was informed that a secret military plan had somehow come into being under which America would attack and destroy seven major Muslim countries over the next few years, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, which coincidentally were all of Israel's strongest regional adversaries and the leading supporters of the Palestinians. As America began to expend enormous oceans of blood and treasure attacking all of Israel's enemies after 9/11, Israel itself no longer had as much need to do so, and partly as a consequence, almost no other nation in the world has so enormously improved its strategic and economic situation during the last seventeen years, even while a large fraction of the American population has become completely impoverished during that same period and our country burdened with an insurmountable national debt. A parasite can often grow fat even as its host suffers and declines.

As I have emphasized, for many years after the 9/11 attacks I paid little attention to its details and had only the vaguest notion that there existed an organized 9/11 Truth movement. But if someone had ever told me that the terrorist attacks had been false-flag events and someone other than Osama had been responsible, my immediate guess would have been Israel and its Mossad.

Certainly no other nation in the world can remotely match Israel's track-record of remarkably bold high-level assassinations and false-flag attacks, terrorist and otherwise, against other countries, certainly including America and its military. Furthermore, the enormous dominance of Jewish and pro-Israel elements in the American establishment media and increasingly that of many other major countries in the West has long ensured that even when the solid evidence of such attacks were discovered, very few ordinary Americans would ever hear of them.

The pattern of behavior is really quite remarkable. During the 1940s, even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, the various Zionist factions assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, and made unsuccessful attempts to kill President Harry S. Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin , while even discussing the possible assassination of Prime Minister Winston Churchill . There seems considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad subsequently played a central role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because of the enormous pressure he was applying to persuade Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons plans. Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky warned the American government that Israel was planning to assassinate President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s due to the bitter conflict over financial aid, and apparently those warnings were taken seriously . As recently as 2012, the editor of the main Jewish newspaper in Atlanta publicly called for the assassination of President Barack Obam a over his policy differences with Israel.

The history of military and terrorist attacks is even more striking. One of history's largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954 , Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending to have them blamed on anti-Western Arab groups. In 1950, there are strong claims that Israeli Mossad agents launched a wave of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq's large thousand-year Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea attack against the U.S.S. Liberty , intending to leave no survivors, and ultimately killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack got out and it was called off.

The enormous extent of pro-Israel influence in world political and media circles meant that none of these brutal attacks ever drew serious retaliation, and in nearly all cases, they were quickly thrown down the memory hole, so that today probably no more than one in a hundred Americans is aware of them. Most of these secret attacks against American and other Western targets came to light due to chance circumstances, so we may easily suspect that many other attacks of a similar nature have never become part of the historical record.

Once we accept that the 9/11 attacks were probably a false-flag operation, an absolutely central clue to the likely perpetrators has been their extraordinary success in ensuring that such a gigantic wealth of enormously suspicious evidence has been totally ignored by virtually the entire American media, whether liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing.

The only other such extreme cases that come to my mind almost invariably involve either Jewish issues or Israel. For example, virtually no Americans are today aware of the close Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s that was a crucial factor in the creation of the State of Israel. Similarly, although our Western media has enshrined it as one of the central events of the twentieth century, there seems a good likelihood that the Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War is either substantially or almost entirely fraudulent . Even highly successful false-flag terrorist operations will tend to leave behind many individual clues, and possessing the media power to cause this evidence to vanish from perceived reality is an extraordinarily useful tool for such situations.

Meanwhile, in the particular case at hand, the considerable number of zealously pro-Israel Neocons situated just beneath the public surface of the Bush Administration in 2001 would have greatly facilitated both the successful organization of the attacks and their effective cover-up and concealment, with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle merely among the most obvious names. Whether such individuals were knowing conspirators or merely had personal ties allowing them to be persuaded to take steps furthering the plot is entirely unclear.

Most of this information must surely be obvious within knowledgeable circles, and I strongly suspect that many individuals who had paid much greater attention than myself to the details of the 9/11 attacks may have quickly formed a tentative conclusion along these same times. But for obvious social and political reasons, there is an enormous reluctance to publicly point the finger of blame towards Israel on a matter of such enormous magnitude, so except for a few fringe activists here and there, they kept their suspicions to themselves and simply remained silent.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement probably feared they would be destroyed by media accusations of deranged anti-Semitism if they did expressed a whisper of such suspicions. This political strategy may have been necessary, but by failing to name any plausible culprit, they created a vacuum that was soon filled by "useful idiots" of the "inside job" persuasion, who pointed an accusing finger at Cheney and Rumfeld, and thereby did so much to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses .

Obviously, such explosive charges never reached the pages of my morning Times , but they did receive considerable transitory coverage in elements of the alternative media, and I remember seeing the links very prominently featured at Antiwar.com and widely discussed elsewhere. I had never previously heard of Sabrosky, so I consulted my archiving system and immediately discovered that he had a perfectly respectable record of publication on military affairs in mainstream foreign policy periodicals and had also held a series of academic appointments at prestigious institutions. Reading one or two of his articles on 9/11, I felt he made a rather persuasive case for Mossad involvement, with some of his information already known to me but much of it not.

Since I was very busy with my software work and had never spent any time investigating 9/11 or reading any of the books on the topic, my belief in his claims back then was obviously quite tentative. But now that I have finally looked into the topic in much greater detail and done a great deal of reading, I think it seems quite likely that his 2009 analysis was entirely correct.

I would particularly recommend his long 2011 interview on Iranian Press TV, which I first watched just a couple of days ago. He came across as highly credible and forthright in his claims: Here's a highly controversial clip from a much longer radio interview he did in 2010:

Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV and widely discussed on the Internet.

And by a very strange coincidence, just three days after Jowenko's broadcast video interview had received such heavy attention, he had the misfortune to die in a frontal collision with a tree in Holland . I'd suspect that the community of professional demolition experts is a small one, and Jowenko's surviving industry colleagues may have quickly concluded that bad luck might come to those who rendered controversial future opinions on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers.

Meanwhile, the ADL soon mounted a huge and largely successful effort to have Press TV banned in the West for promoting "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories," even persuading YouTube to entirely eliminate its huge video archive of its past shows.

Most recently, Dr. Sabrosky provided an hour-long presentation at this June's Deep Truth video panel conference , during which he expressed considerable pessimism about America's political predicament, and suggested that the Zionist control over our politics and media had grown even stronger over the last decade.

His discussion was soon rebroadcast by Guns & Butter , a prominent progressive radio program, which as a consequence was soon purged from its home station after seventeen years of great national popularity and strong listener support.

The late Alan Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11 attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview .

One of the first writers to explore this topic was journalist Christopher Bollyn, and the details contained in his long series of newspaper articles are often quoted by other researchers. In 2012, he gathered together this material and published it in the form of a book entitled Solving 9-11 , thereby making his information on the possible role of the Israeli Mossad in the attacks available to a wider audience. However, his volume severely suffers from the typical lack of resources available to the writers on the political fringe, with very poor organization and frequent repetition of the same points due to its origins in a set of individual articles. So those who purchase it should be forewarned about these severe stylistic weaknesses.

Probably a much better compendium of the very extensive evidence pointing to the probable Israeli hand behind the 9/11 attacks has been more recently provided by French journalist Laurent Guyénot, both in his 2017 book JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State and also his 8,500 word article "9/11 was an Israeli Job" that is being published as a companion piece to this one. His background in 9/11 Truth issues vastly exceeds my own very limited investigation of the subject and he provides a far greater wealth of detail than I could possibly include in this simple summary. While I wouldn't necessarily agree with all his claims and analysis, the overall account is certainly consistent with my own.

I think I might as well add a couple of nuggets of my own in support of the Israeli Mossad Hypothesis.

We would normally expect that terrorist attacks resulting in the complete destruction of three gigantic office buildings in New York City and an aerial assault on the Pentagon would be an operation of enormous size and scale, involving very considerable organizational infrastructure and manpower. Yet in the aftermath of the attacks, the US government undertook great efforts to locate and arrest the surviving Islamic conspirators, but scarcely managed to find a single one. Apparently, they had all died in the attacks themselves or otherwise simply vanished into thin air.

But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel.

There is also another fascinating tidbit that I have very rarely seen mentioned. One month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. I remember first encountering this extremely suspicious incident in the early 2000s on an fringe Hispanic-activist website , and the scanned front pages of the Mexican newspapers reporting the dramatic events were once available elsewhere on the Internet, but after all these years I can no longer easily locate them. The details of this incident are obviously rather fragmentary and perhaps garbled, but certainly quite intriguing.

One might speculate that if Islamic terrorists had followed up their 9/11 attacks by also destroying the Mexican parliament building a month later, Latin American support for America's military invasions in the Middle East would have been enormously greater. Furthermore, any scenes of such massive destruction in the Mexican capital by Arab terrorists would surely have been broadcast non-stop on Univision, America's dominant Spanish-language network, fully solidifying Hispanic support for President Bush's military endeavors.

I doubt that I've spent more than just a few weeks of my total time reading and researching that complex topic, most of that only very recently. I am sure that numerous readers far more knowledgeable than myself will notice various serious errors in my discussion and generously assist in correcting those. Furthermore, my preparation of this analysis was unfortunately cut short by the approach of an particular anniversary date, so that under different circumstances my presentation would have been far more complete and more polished. But I felt there would be some benefits in making this material immediately available to others, even though many might already be familiar with most or all of this information.

Readers should therefore regard this as a preliminary version of my article, which I may render into a more polished form within the next couple of days, a practice that I have never previously followed.

Related Reading:

9/11 was an Israeli Job by Laurent Guyénot 9/11 Contradictions by David Ray Griffin

American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II -- Who Did It?

American Pravda: Holocaust Denial Our American Pravda

[Sep 10, 2018] Washington Quietly Increases Lethal Weapons to Ukraine

Continuation of this civil war is important tool for Washington in destabilizing Russia.
Sep 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledges that U.S. instructors are training Ukrainian military units at a base in western Ukraine. Washington also has approved two important arms sales to Kiev's ground forces in just the past nine months. The first transaction in December 2017 was limited to small arms that at least could be portrayed as purely defensive weapons. That agreement included the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories, a sale valued at $41.5 million.

A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger ($47 million) , it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles -- the kind of weapons that Barack Obama's administration had declined to give Kiev.

Needless to say, the Kremlin was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019. Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of Obama's administration, but the White House blocked implementation. The Trump administration cleared that obstacle out of the way in December 2017 at the same time that it approved the initial small-weapons sale. The passage of the May 2018 legislation means that the path is now open for a dramatic escalation of U.S. military backing for Kiev.

On September 1, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker disclosed during an interview with The Guardian that Washington's future military aid to Kiev would likely involve weapons sales to Ukraine's air force and navy as well as the army. "The Javelins are mainly symbolic and it's not clear if they would ever be used," Aric Toler, a research scholar at the Atlantic Council, asserted . One could well dispute his sanguine conclusion, but even Toler conceded: "Support for the Ukrainian navy and air defence would be a big deal. That would be far more significant."

Volker's cavalier attitude about U.S. arms sales to a government locked in a crisis with Russia epitomizes the arrogance and tone-deaf nature of the views that too many U.S. foreign policy officials exhibit regarding the sensitive Ukraine issue. "We can have a conversation with Ukraine like we would with any other country about what do they need. I think that there's going to be some discussion about naval capability because as you know their navy was basically taken by Russia [when the Soviet Union dissolved]. And so they need to rebuild a navy and they have very limited air capability as well. I think we'll have to look at air defence."

One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to America's borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in Canada's internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government, and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S. relations with Ukraine.

The Much Diminished Russian Bear Let's See Who's Bluffing in the Criminal Case Against the Russians

Moreover, although Kiev's cheerleaders in the Western (especially U.S.) media like to portray Ukraine as a beleaguered democracy that plays the role of David to Russia's evil Goliath, the reality is far murkier. Putin's government overstates matters when it alleges that Ukraine's 2014 Maidan revolution was a U.S.-orchestrated coup that brought outright fascists to power in Kiev. Nevertheless, that version contains more than a little truth. Prominent, powerful U.S. figures, most notably the late Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, openly sided with demonstrators seeking to unseat Ukraine's elected government. Indeed, Nuland was caught on tape with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt scheming about the desired composition of a new government in Kiev.

It is unfair to portray Ukraine's current administration led by President Petro Poroshenko as a neo-fascist regime. Post-revolution elections appear to have been reasonably free and fair, and there are major factions that are committed to genuine democratic values. But Ukraine also is hardly a model of Western-style democracy. Not only is it afflicted with extensive graft and corruption, but some extreme nationalist and even neo-Nazi groups play a significant role in the "new" Ukraine. The notoriously fascist Azov Battalion, for example, continues to occupy a prominent position in Kiev's efforts to defeat separatists in Ukraine's eastern Donbass region. Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic in the pro-Russia rebel-occupied city of Donetsk, was assassinated on September 1 and officials there and in Russia are blaming Kiev. The Ukrainian government has denied involvement.

Other ultranationalist factions act as domestic militias that attempt to intimidate more moderate Ukrainians. Even the Poroshenko government itself has adopted troubling censorship measures and other autocratic policies. Officials in both the Obama and Trump administration have taken a much too casual attitude toward U.S. cooperation with extremist elements and a deeply flawed Ukrainian government.

Both the danger of stoking tensions with Moscow and becoming too close to a regime in Kiev that exhibits disturbing features should caution the Trump administration against boosting military aid to Ukraine. It is an unwise policy on strategic as well as moral grounds. Trump administration officials should refuse to be intimidated or stampeded into forging a risky and unsavory alliance with Kiev out of fear of being portrayed as excessively "soft" toward Russia. Instead, the president and his advisers need to spurn efforts to increase U.S. support for Ukraine. A good place to start would be to restore the Obama administration's refusal to approve arms sales to Kiev. Washington must not pour gasoline on a geo-strategic fire that could lead to a full-blown crisis between the United States and Russia.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at TAC , is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs .

[Sep 10, 2018] Trump was able to harness and give voice to some very important forces working against classic neoliberalism

Notable quotes:
"... Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security, infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes of Trump's campaign that were of value. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

EarlyBird September 7, 2018 at 7:12 pm

Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security, infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes of Trump's campaign that were of value.

Trump was able to harness and give voice to some very important energies. But being Trump, he's poisoned these issues for a couple of generations. No serious leader will be able to touch these things.

Add this to all the institutional and political ruin he has created.

[Sep 10, 2018] The power of Deep State

Notable quotes:
"... General Eisenhower told us to our faces all about the fiction, and yet we as a culture/civilization pretend the president is solely in charge. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

arze September 8, 2018 at 12:24 pm

What's truly remarkable .

What's truly remarkable is Gen. Eisenhower told us upon leaving presidency all about who competes with our elected president on what happens.

Those presidents that toe the "military industrial complex" line most closely are seen as the most in charge.

President Kennedy did not, was murdered. President Johnson did, it eventually sickened him, he did not seek reelection. President Nixon was removed from office. President Carter was humiliated. President Reagan's dream of a nuclear free world was vetoed by guess who. President Bush was defeated by the mother of all sycophants to that force. President Clinton was their man. Vice President Cheney was even more so. President Obama tried to hide the fact he was not. President Trump has not tried to hide that fact.

Reporting on the Trump phenomena would benefit by more imagination.

Is it not a public service, irrespective of one's opinions on him, that it should now be clear to all, now via the Trump Phenomena, that what was plainly told us all in the 1950s from a General, is the way it is?

Yet a "criticism" of Trump is his "sin" of taking off the mask.

General Eisenhower told us to our faces all about the fiction, and yet we as a culture/civilization pretend the president is solely in charge.

What is remarkable is the amount of reporting on the current president that lacks imagination, insight, logic, rationality, reason, common sense, and insight.

However, that is not remarkable given that most of the reporters lived all their lives in a culture/civilization that fails to educate us in a meaningful way. Their and our professors, mentors, supervisors, and family, and friends and significant others, also so socialized; however, the road to progress is in front of us if we are curious enough.

Were the goal of contemporary American Politics first and foremost a search for the truth, that would be one thing.

The Shining Star of American Politics, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren perfectly epitomizes that it is not, as she knows better, was seduced by power, and all that that implies. The ends justify the means for the entire lot of them.

Whatever that evil perspective engender, progress is and never shall be one of them.

[Sep 10, 2018] I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux populist front man

The negligence with which he selected his cabinet is pretty telling
Notable quotes:
"... I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux populist front man. ..."
"... Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'. ..."
"... Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of democracy. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Sep 9, 2018 4:21:51 PM | 21

Pat Lang starts to wake up:

At some point even the most ardent Trump acolyte will have to admit this [Syria] is now Trump's policy. It is not something done by the neocons, the deep state, the anonymous resister or the ghost of John McCain without Trump's acquiescence. [And] He is not ... clueless, oblivious ...
Pat is half right.

I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux populist front man.

Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'.

There are two other fallacies that keep cropping up to confuse things:

1) Triumph of Democracy. While some may recognize that USA is no longer a democracy, others continue to insist that "Trump won" and are incline to suspect Russian interference (even while acknowledging the flaws in that theory). Few care to delve much deeper (i.e. engage brain cells).

2) President's Constitutional power. You see this mistake made as Pat Lang declares that Trump 'owns' the Syrian mess now. The President has great power in the US Constitutional system and (sadly) that is why it is so important to the establishment that it be controlled. Trump was SELECTED, not ELECTED.

Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of democracy.

[Sep 10, 2018] It's amazing that so much crisp, instantly-recognizable footage exists of the hit men, almost as if they were laying out an easily-reconstructable route for observers

Notable quotes:
"... In fact, the quality of British evidence seems to go up markedly as soon as the preceding exhibits are the object of public derision. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile September 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm

Two Russian GRU hit men who apparently spent a considerable amount of their small amount of time whilst on a mission of death in Merry England mugging in front of CCTV cameras.

And they only killed one person, and not their intended target at that: a junky, drug pushing bum's alcoholic womanfriend, who unfortunatly was accidently contaminated with the deadliest nerve poison known to man.

As a Scotland counter-terrorist chief plod said, these were trained professionals in the killing trade, and as Prime Minister May said, they belong to a tightly disciplined organization whose orders come directly from the top, meaning the Dark Lord no less.

Simply sickening and despicable!

Good job Russians are a bunch of dickheads, otherwise the whole population of Salisbury might have been poisoned – or the South of England, even.

Who knows what these vile Russians will do next?.

Mark Chapman September 10, 2018 at 2:42 am
It's amazing that so much crisp, instantly-recognizable footage exists of the hit men, almost as if they were laying out an easily-reconstructable route for observers; at least, as contrasted with the blurry and ambiguous photo evidence of the Skripals, which seems to rely on happy snaps by friends as much as government resources. Until they get Yulia on camera to make her post-Novichok debut, of course – then, it's theatre-quality. In fact, the quality of British evidence seems to go up markedly as soon as the preceding exhibits are the object of public derision.
Moscow Exile September 10, 2018 at 4:06 am
This laying of a trail directly back to the Kremlin is a regular feature of Russian incompetents!

Harding, in his account of the Litvinenko poisoning , wrote:

The poison was polonium-210, a rare radioactive isotope, tiny, invisible, undetectable. Ingested, it was fatal. The polonium had originated at a nuclear reactor in the Urals and a production line in the Russian town of Sarov. A secret FSB laboratory, the agency's "research institute", then converted it into a dinkily portable weapon.

Lugovoi and Kovtun, however, were rubbish assassins. The quality of Moscow's hired killers had slipped since the glory days of the KGB.

It's because they're idiots, see!

Although Russians are a direct to Western civilization and against whom we must be ever on guard, they are also all congenital dickheads, doomed to failure -- always.

All of them!

Warren September 9, 2018 at 12:54 pm

[Sep 10, 2018] Merkel want to illegally bomb Syria like her puppetmaster Trump

Sep 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zanon , Sep 9, 2018 4:32:39 PM | link

Germany May Join Possible Western Airstrikes on Syria - Reports
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201809091067884784-germany-may-join-western-airstrikes-damascus/

[Sep 10, 2018] The only way that FUKUS can prevent R+6 from taking Idlib is to convince Turkey to enter Idlib for humanitarian reasons.

Notable quotes:
"... SAA and Russia can defeat 50-70,000 jihadis but they can't take Idlib if Turkey (backed by FUKUSI) opposes them. Would Russia start WWIII over Idlib? FUKUSI/NATO might well bet that Putin will not. ..."
"... The scariest game of chicken since the Cuban missile crisis is developing. Yet Westerners are mostly in the dark and pro-Russia "analysts" just believe in the magic of Putin and the inevitable defeat of AZW Empire. LOL. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Sep 9, 2018 10:57:13 PM | link

james, Alaric

I think you got the wrong impression. I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the reporting. That's why I gave the additional info that it was from an unnamed official BUT from a major MSM outfit.

I replied specifically to james @8 because the report (if true) would fit his astral timeline (even though I'm not a believer in astrology LOL).

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Whether you believe it or not (I have some reservations also), the report is consistent with warnings USA has made and with Russia's military build-up (they seem to have not dismissed USA as a paper tiger like some at MoA).

Here's my logic, FWIW:

1) FUKUS has committed themselves to taking some sort of action is there is a CW attack of any kind. As a result, the jihadis will almost certainly conduct one.

2) If Idlib is liberated, FUKUS has much less justification for remaining in Syria. And direct confrontation with R+6 is possible.

3) The only way that FUKUS can prevent R+6 from taking Idlib is to convince Turkey to enter Idlib for humanitarian reasons.

4) The price for Erdogan to enter Idlib is high and INCLUDES demonstrable military support from FUKUS - that means a willingness by FUKUS to take military action.

5) FUKUS proves their commitment to support Erdogan's movement into Idlib with a strong response to any CW 'incident'.

SAA and Russia can defeat 50-70,000 jihadis but they can't take Idlib if Turkey (backed by FUKUSI) opposes them. Would Russia start WWIII over Idlib? FUKUSI/NATO might well bet that Putin will not.

The scariest game of chicken since the Cuban missile crisis is developing. Yet Westerners are mostly in the dark and pro-Russia "analysts" just believe in the magic of Putin and the inevitable defeat of AZW Empire. LOL.

Alaric , Sep 9, 2018 11:26:55 PM | link
Jackrabbit @51

I concur. This is a very dangerous situation but a late Sunday anonymous threat is suspect.

Either

A) Someone is trying to make a threat without actually doing so (bluffing)

or

B) Donald dumb didn't make that threat, a neocon did perhaps to make the Don look crazy or because neocons are out of viable options.

It's possible the source provided legit info I guess but recall Donald dumb had the Secretary of State call the Russians to get them out of harms way before his first strike so I'm skeptical.

[Sep 10, 2018] US Says Assad Has Approved Gas Attack In Idlib, Setting Stage For Major Military Conflict

Sep 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
At this point there's not even so much as feigning surprise or suspense in the now sadly all-too-familiar Syria script out of Washington.

The Wall Street Journal has just published a bombshell on Sunday evening as Russian and Syrian warplanes continue bombing raids over al-Qaeda held Idlib, citing unnamed US officials who claim " President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has approved the use of chlorine gas in an offensive against the country's last major rebel stronghold."

And perhaps more alarming is that the report details that Trump is undecided over whether new retaliatory strikes could entail expanding the attack to hit Assad allies Russia and Iran this time around .

That's right, unnamed US officials are now claiming to be in possession of intelligence which they say shows Assad has already given the order in an absolutely unprecedented level of "pre-crime" telegraphing of events on the battlefield .

And supposedly these officials have even identified the type of chemical weapon to be used: chlorine gas .

The anonymous officials told the WSJ of "new U.S. intelligence" in what appears an eerily familiar repeat of precisely how the 2003 invasion of Iraq was sold to the American public (namely, "anonymous officials" and vague assurances of unseen intelligence) -- albeit posturing over Idlib is now unfolding at an intensely more rapid pace :

Fears of a massacre have been fueled by new U.S. intelligence indicating Mr. Assad has cleared the way for the military to use chlorine gas in any offensive, U.S. officials said . It wasn't clear from the latest intelligence if Mr. Assad also had given the military permission to use sarin gas , the deadly nerve agent used several times in previous regime attacks on rebel-held areas. It is banned under international law.

It appears Washington is now saying an American attack on Syrian government forces and locations is all but inevitable .

And according to the report, President Trump may actually give the order to attack even if there's no claim of a chemical attack, per the WSJ:

In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib , the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 opposition fighters that the regime considers to be terrorists.

And further :

The Pentagon is crafting military options , but Mr. Trump hasn't decided what exactly would trigger a military response or whether the U.S. would target Russian or Iranian military forces aiding Mr. Assad in Syria , U.S. officials said.

Crucially, this is the first such indication of the possibility that White House and defense officials are mulling over hitting "Russian or Iranian military forces" in what would be a monumental escalation that would take the world to the brink of World War 3.

me title=

The WSJ report cites White House discussions of a third strike -- in reference to US attacks on Syria during the last two Aprils after chemical allegations were made against Damascus -- while indicating it would "likely would be more expansive than the first two" and could include targeting Russia and Iran .

The incredibly alarming report continues :

During the debate this year over how to respond to the second attack, Mr. Trump's national-security team weighed the idea of hitting Russian or Iranian targets in Syria , people familiar with the discussions said. But the Pentagon pushed for a more measured response, U.S. officials said, and the idea was eventually rejected as too risky.

A third U.S. strike likely would be more expansive than the first two, and Mr. Trump would again have to consider whether or not to hit targets like Russian air defenses in an effort to deliver a more punishing blow to Mr. Assad's military.

Last week the French ambassador, whose country also vowed to strike Syria if what it deems credible chemical allegations emerge, said during a U.N. Security Council meeting on Idlib : "Syria is once again at the edge of an abyss."

With Russia and Iran now in the West's cross hairs over Idlib, indeed the entire world is again at the edge of the abyss.

developing...

Jack Oliver ,

You must read this - Bolton is definitely FUCKING insane !

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/usa/438023-icc-dead-war-crimes-bolton/amp/

Zero Point ,

LOL Wall Street Journal citing unnamed sources again. Anyone that gives this more than 0.0003 seconds worth of attention is a barely functional retard. Haha, looking at the comments below, we have a bunch of Charley Brown's running up to kick a football held by Lucy. Fuckin moron cunts.

Bokkenrijder ,

Trump has already written and signed the order for the attack, the only thing that needs to be added is the appropriate date for when Israel gives the green light

Wake up Trumptards!

Citium ,

Ok after all those thumbs down when I called Trump part of the swamp? You guys still agree that he wants to help the American people?

Get a grip. Y'all are getting Hoodwinked like Obama's first term. Increasing debt, increasing military expansion to police the globe, stimulus in he form of tax cuts to corporations who barely pay taxes, his inability to control Jeff sessions, his increase in deficits, expanded the surveillance state and takes credit for the Federal reserve all time high fake market.

Are you guys fucking delusional? Q is mossad, Alex Jones is mossad. Wake up. Both parties hate you and this is all Kabuki theater.

[Sep 10, 2018] Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords.

Notable quotes:
"... We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as a loan shark's leg-breaker. ..."
Apr 20, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Vermithrax , 13 Apr 2018 15:39

Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.

It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.

He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid, uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.

Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.

Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets. Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved. Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences. At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.

No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations. Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as a loan shark's leg-breaker.

It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly duplicitous.

thousandautumns -> balancedman , 13 Apr 2018 15:39
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the country into chaos.
Brianto , 13 Apr 2018 15:39
What is Porton Down manufacturing?
oldeborr , 13 Apr 2018 15:38
The UK and France bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a better place for its citizens, and whilst its true political dissent was not allowed, people could live their lives and go about their business in safety.

[Sep 09, 2018] A country where an immigrant Sikh girl can become a neocon ambassador

Notable quotes:
"... We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows. ..."
"... Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon? ..."
"... Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co... ..."
"... Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. ..."
"... it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... . ..."
"... Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/... ..."
"... We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others." ..."
"... In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine? ..."
"... Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter. ..."
"... Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive. ..."
"... Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation. ..."
Sep 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"In her statement during the UN Security Council briefing, Haley said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its "enablers," Russia and Iran have a playbook for the war in Syria. First, they surround a civilian area. Next, they make the "preposterous claim that everyone in the area is a terrorist," thus making all civilians targets. That is followed by a "starve and surrender" campaign, during which Syrian security forces keep attacking until the people no longer have food, clean water, or shelter. "It's a playbook of death. The Assad regime has spent the last seven years refining it with Russia and Iran's help."

According to her it has happened many times before, in July 2018 it happened in Dara'a and the southwest of Syria, where Syrian forces "trapped and besieged civilians." In February 2018, it was Ghouta. In 2017 it was Aleppo, and prior to that places like Madaya and Hama.

According to her, Assad's government has left the country in ruins. "The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain on history and a black mark for this Council -- which was blocked over and over by Russia from taking action to help," Nikki Haley said." SF

------------

Well, strictly speaking, her parents were immigrants, not she. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, a little town in the Piedmont that is majority Black. Her parents were professional people at Amritsar in the Punjab. Haley is the surname of her husband. Nikki is a nickname by which she has long been known. As governor, she was in favor of flying the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds before the Charleston massacre of Black Christians at a Bible study session. They were killed by an unstable white teen aged misfit whom they had invited to join their worship. After that Nikki discovered that the Confederate flag was a bad and disruptive symbol. It was a popular position across the country and Nikki became an instant "hit," the flavor of the month so to speak.

I suppose that she was supposed to be an interesting and decorative figure as UN ambassador. She is quite pretty and the South Carolina accent adds to the effect.

The positions she has taken at the UN with regard to the ME are similar to those expressed by her boss, President Trump. They are largely reflections of images projected by the popular and mass media operating as Zionist propaganda machines. I don't believe that the State Department's INR analytic bureau believes the crapola that she spouts with such hysteric fervor. I don't believe that my former friend David Satterfield believes the crapola. So, where does she get ideas like the ones quoted above? IMO she is trying to out-Trump Trump. DJT is a remarkably ignorant man concerning the geo-politics of just about everything in the ME. He appears to have once seen the film, "Exodus" and to have decided on the basis of Paul Newman's performance as Begin that the situation was and is quite simple - Israel good! Everyone else bad! Nikki's depth of knowledge appears to be just about the same.

She also appears to me to be in receipt of a stream of opinion from various Zionist and anti-Muslim groups probably related to the anti-Muslim ravings of Maronite and other Christian ME extremists.

These groups cannot seem to understand that alliances shift as does policy. They don't seem to understand that Israel's policy in Syria is no longer regime change. They never seem to have understood that the Syrian government is the protector of the religious minorities against Sunni jihadi fanatics.

They don't seem to understand that the Syrian government has no choice but to recover Idlib Province, a piece of Syria's heartland. pl

https://southfront.org/us-ambassador-to-un-goes-wild-claims-russia-syria-iran-seek-to-kill-civilians-destroy-schools-and-hospitals-in-idlib/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley

Posted at 10:31 AM in As The Borg Turns , government , Iran , Middle East , Politics , Russia , Syria , Turkey | Permalink | 2 Comments

Don Bacon , 19 hours ago

Haley's "playbook" is used by the US but not by Russia & Iran as she claims, with all civilians being targeted. Instead, Russia & Iran have taken warfare to a higher and better level, allowing the armed factions to surrender their arms and get on a bus or be killed, and many of them took the bus to preserve their lives until the final offensive. A third option, which many of them took, was to join the SAA and fight against their former comrades. All of this statecraft was revolutionary, and was not at all as Haley described, including the crocodile tears over Syrian lives which has never been honest especially considering the level of support Assad has within Syria.
Jaime -> Don Bacon , 16 hours ago
I agree it is revolutionary, at least in modern times in the western world. I wonder if it will set a "trend": a more humane way to wage war. I am sure it will be studied in war colleges.
Jonathan A. Goff , a day ago
Pat,

One observation I had while thinking about the Ambassador Haley quote you provided (which I think supports the point you were making in your post):

When the US was in a somewhat similar situation during the occupation of Iraq, where Sunni militants were in open rebellion and controlling towns like Fallujah, our response wasn't wildly different to the Syrian government's response. The US gov't at the time typically labeled any armed resistance "terrorists", and while they might acknowledge that there were civilians in those territories in addition to terrorists, they were just "human shields" and "regrettable collateral damage". Did the US try a little harder, and have a bit better of technology, training, etc, and do a little bit better of trying to limit damage to civilians when crushing those uprisings? Yes. But we're mostly talking modest quantitative differences in response, not fundamentally morally superior qualitative differences. I bet you if you took pictures of towns like Fallujah, Sadr City, etc, after US counter-insurgency operations, and mixed them in with pictures of trashed Syrian towns that had just been liberated from rebel groups, and showed them to Nikki Haley, or frankly any neocon, they'd have a hard time telling the difference.

~Jon

Biggee Mikeee -> Jonathan A. Goff , 21 hours ago
As I was reading this topic Raqqa and Fallujah came to mind. In the case of Fallujah I don't recall if the civilians were given an opportunity to evacuate. They were not in ISIS controlled Raqqa. In any event Haley's blather at the UN is for the consumption of the rubes.
O rly -> Biggee Mikeee , 18 hours ago
as far as i recall in the battle for fallujah, only women and children were permitted to leave during the siege.and during the siege of Mosul they were dropping leaflets telling people not to try and leave.
Jonathan A. Goff -> Biggee Mikeee , 19 hours ago
And giving civilians a chance to evacuate doesn't help as much as one would think if the insurgents/rebels really do want to use them as human shields.

~Jon

stevenwithavee -> Jonathan A. Goff , 16 hours ago
Speaking to young marines in the aftermath of the second assault on Fallujah I learned that although women and children were allowed to pass the checkpoints but men of fighting age (also known as the father, brother or husband who was driving the families out of the city) were sent back into the city.
jdledell , 16 hours ago
In talking with people here in the U.S. about Syria there is the total lack of understanding of Assad's Alawite government. There are a couple million Christians in Syria and it is Assad's government that protects them from the Saudi sponsored Sunni headchoppers who would like to eliminate Christians, Jews, and Shia from the Middle East. Perhaps, the Alawites being an offshoot of Shia makes them sensitive to minority religions. However, mentioning Assad evokes strong negative reaction among U.S. Christians, similar to Trumps "lets kill them all". On my one visit to Damascus, traveling on my U.S. Passport rather than my Israeli one, The Christians I met were uniformly positive about Assad and the need for Assad to control the ENTIRE country.
blue peacock -> jdledell , 15 hours ago
Thank you for providing your direct experience of the views of Christian Syrians you met there.

Unfortunately none of those views ever make it to either to our print or broadcast media. We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows.

Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon?

Bag Man , 17 hours ago
Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co...
Pat Lang Mod , 20 hours ago
Somebody said that Nikki's nonsense is for "the rubes." Nah, you town people are just as gullible.
ex-PFC Chuck , 17 hours ago
There's a disturbing piece up today at WaPo by Karen De Young asserting the USA is doubling down in Syria. From the piece, emphasis by ex-PFC Chuck:
"We've started using new language," [James] Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons. Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period." "Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refu­gee flows or attack innocent civilians," and "the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we'll have to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians."

Jeffrey is said to be Pompeo's point person on Syria. Do any of you with ears closer to the ground than those of us in flyover land know anything about this change of tune?

Biggee Mikeee , 19 hours ago
.Iraq PM urged to quit as key ally deserts him over unrest.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi faced calls to resign yesterday as his alliance with a populist cleric who won May elections crumbled over deadly unrest shaking the country's south. The two leading groups in parliament called on Abadi to step down, after lawmakers held an emergency meeting on the public anger boiling over in the southern city of Basra.,...

The Conquest Alliance of pro-Iranian former paramilitary fighters was "on the same wavelength" as Sadr's Marching Towards Reform list and they would work together to form a new government, Assadi said. Abadi, whose grouping came third in the May polls, defended his record in parliament, describig the unrest as "political sabotage" and saying the crisis over public services was being exploited for political ends. http://news.kuwaittimes.net...

Has McGurk been outmaneuvered by the Iranians?

The Beaver -> Biggee Mikeee , 18 hours ago
According to Elijah Magnier :
Soleimani 1- Brett McGurk 0
Matina Zia , 20 hours ago
Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. According to J. D Cunningham, author of 'History of the Sikhs (Appendix XX)' included among the injunctions ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, 'a Khalsa (true Sikh) proves himself if he mounts a warhorse; is always waging war; kills a Khan (Muslim) and slays the Turks (Muslims).'

Aside from this, it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001
under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... .

Pat Lang Mod -> Matina Zia , 20 hours ago
I really doubt your numbers. What is your stake in this discussion?
Fred -> Matina Zia , 12 hours ago
Your good professor sounds like a great piece of work. "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" Perhaps we should have stopped all that foreign aid in the '50s.
stevenwithavee -> Matina Zia , 15 hours ago
The under five mortality figures from Afghanistan (1 in 5) are a problem that preceded our involvement by many years. However, the failure of the international community to make any significant progress over the last 17 years would be a legitimate criticism.
Jack , 20 hours ago
Sir

Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...

Pat Lang Mod -> Jack , 19 hours ago
We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others."
Jack -> Pat Lang , 19 hours ago
Thank you, Sir. It makes perfect sense with the End if History and all those beliefs.

In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine?

Barbara Ann -> Jack , 4 hours ago
Jack

You may be interested in a recent article in Unz by SST's own 'smoothieX12' in response to Paul Craig Roberts asking how long Russia should continue to turn the other cheek: http://www.unz.com/article/...

Biggee Mikeee -> Jack , 19 hours ago
Earlier today, the two leading groups in Parliament called on Abadi to step down. http://news.kuwaittimes.net...
Don Bacon , 21 hours ago
Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter.

A new PM was at the top of H.Clinton's to-do list as Secretary of State. My favorite Assad replacement candidate was Ghassan Hitto from Murphy Texas, but he only lasted a couple months. here

GreenZoneCafe , 21 hours ago
I don't trust converts except for the adjustment from Protestant to Catholic or vice versa. I suppose shifts from one madhab to another, or between Buddhist schools are also ok.

Sad that in a moment of crisis,so many of the rising political stars of both parties are so hollow to the point of dangerousness.

blue peacock , 21 hours ago
Col. Lang

Has anything really changed much with our policies in the ME in the past 50+ years? Haven't we been deeply influenced/controlled by Israeli interests in this period, maybe even beyond if the attacks on USS Liberty are taken into account? Is the Trump administration just following in the traditions of Reagan, Bush Père et fils, Clinton and Obama, or is there a qualitative difference?

Pat Lang Mod -> blue peacock , 21 hours ago
Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive.
GreenZoneCafe -> Pat Lang , 20 hours ago
Trump talks tough but has an aversion to military action. Is that real aggression, or just bullshit for the Bubbas?

North Korea, Syria are examples. He's left the door open to talking to Iran.

Trump won the Republican primaries calling out the Iraq war as a mistake!

Relative to others, dovishness is a Trump virtue. The Tucker Carlson line.

Contrast with Obama, who bombed Libya and pumped weapons into Syria. We'd probably be at war with Russia in Syria and Ukraine if Hillary had won.

blue peacock -> GreenZoneCafe , 19 hours ago
Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation.

https://www.zerohedge.com/n...

Maybe this is all just "positioning" and "messaging" but maybe not. With Bibi, Nikki, Bolton and Pompeo as THE advisors, does anyone have a clue what Trump decides, when, not if, the jihadi White Helmets stage their chemical event in Idlib?

GreenZoneCafe -> blue peacock , 17 hours ago
We'll see. The most I expect is another cruise missile attack to the same empty coordinate.
Pat Lang Mod -> GreenZoneCafe , 17 hours ago
That will be true if trump sees Nikki and her real bosses for what they are.
Biggee Mikeee , a day ago
I think they understand. I think they view this as a temporary setback.

[Sep 09, 2018] Intelligence community as Jesuits of MIC

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is just the mouthpiece of, and strong-armed by the Media Military Industrial Intelligence Complex (MMIIC). ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

bjd | Sep 7, 2018 12:30:12 PM | link

@Bob (3)

That has been my take on affairs sine some time: Trump is just the mouthpiece of, and strong-armed by the Media Military Industrial Intelligence Complex (MMIIC).

Full disclosure: I despise Trump for a great number of reasons.

Even fuller disclosure: I despise with a vengeance the Intel community, which has taken over the media and the DNC and are the Jesuits of the MIC.

[Sep 09, 2018] Sharon s famous statement we control America is not the only one

Notable quotes:
"... "The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel." -- Ann Lewis, speaking for Hillary Clinton, at the meeting for Jewish Leadership sponsored by the United Jewish Communities on March 18, 2008 ( Jewess Ann Lewis, is sister to Homo Congressman Barney Frank). ..."
"... "The US shouldn't give high clearances to Jews, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of our country, Israel." -- Jew Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980's. ..."
"... "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own ." -- Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in an essay reprinted (from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz) in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times. ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Them Guys , says: September 6, 2018 at 5:29 am GMT

@jilles dykstra Two remarks, Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were jews.

"The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel." -- Ann Lewis, speaking for Hillary Clinton, at the meeting for Jewish Leadership sponsored by the United Jewish Communities on March 18, 2008 ( Jewess Ann Lewis, is sister to Homo Congressman Barney Frank).

"[Shimon] Peres warned [Ariel] Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and 'turn the US against us.' At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying 'every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.'"
-- Kol Yisrael (Israel Radio), 3 October, 2001 (IAP)

"My opinion of Christian Zionists? They're scum. But don't tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now "

"I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction."
-- Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Bibi just happened to be in New York City on 9/11 and London during the 7/7 subway bombings.

"The US shouldn't give high clearances to Jews, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of our country, Israel." -- Jew Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980's.

"The U.S. has no longer a government of goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels. Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term 'government of goyim' should be re-examined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S." -- The major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, "The Jews Who Run Clinton's Court" on September 2, 1994.

"We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own ." -- Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in an essay reprinted (from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz) in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times.

"The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-White or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about a half century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever." -- Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy (offshoot of the ADL), Jewish Bulletin, Feb. 19, 1993

"We Jews have spoiled the blood of all the races of Europe. Taken as a whole, everything is Jewdified. Our ideas animate everything. Our spirit reigns over the world. We are the Lords." -- Dr. Kurt Munzer, "The Way to Zion."

"The Roosevelt Administration has selected more Jews to fill influential positions than any previous administration." -- Brooklyn Jewish Examiner, October 20, 1933.

"The Revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism." -- Max Horkheimer, Marxist Jew of the Frankfurt School

"The Jewish Question is being discussed by statesmen in a way more acute and compelling than ever before in the history of the world. They can do whatever they want, but the nations of the earth well never be able to get away from this question. The Jewish serpent will show its hydra's heads everywhere, blocking the way to a relaxation of international tensions. We Jews will not allow peace in the world, however hard statesmen and peace advocates try to bring it about." -- London Jewish Chronicle, March 3, 1939

Under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." -- 1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3 (the writer is obliquely referring to the true history of the Eastern European Ashkenazim, or Khazars).

"The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people." -- Le Peuple Juif, February 8, 1919.

"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism (Communism) itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." -- The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1919.

"The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a NEW ORDER IN THE WORLD. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, became a reality all over the world." -- The American Hebrew Magazine – September 10, 1920. Sometimes misquoted to say "New World Order."

"Jewish history has been tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. Our major vice of old as of today is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labor and good fortune of the rest of the world." -- Samuel Roth, "Jews Must Live," page 18.

"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting." -- Nahum Goldmann "The Jewish Paradox" 1978

Real, Factual, Honest, TRUTH'S Straight from the Mouth's & Pen's of .wait for it! .JEWS!

And, yet Still, the stupid, delusional, Naysayers, Jew Defenders, and all who remain in Deep Denial of such factual Truths Will continue to be and act as such. They simply cannot ever admit they have been so totally wrong, all those year's now, eh.

What does their Judaic Zionist Talmud, Holiest of Holy Book's teach Jews, such as Trumps SIL Kushner? ..This for one example ..Religious teaching and belief of Talmudic Jewry.

"To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly." -- The Talmud: Libbre David 37

[Sep 09, 2018] In Britain Israel uses the same tactics as in in the USA

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

El Dato , says: September 9, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT

Rubin revealed that Ryan was in almost daily contact with Shai Masot, an Israeli embassy staffer in London, caught on camera plotting to "take down" MPs perceived as hostile to Israel. Masot is also filmed discussing with leading figures in Conservative Friends of Israel, including Maria Strizzolo, a senior aide to Education Minister Robert Halfon and a former political director of CFI, about whether Strizzoli could help "take down" Foreign Office deputy, Sir Alan Duncan. The affair now looks like a practice run for the operation mounted against Corbyn.

No doubt about that. Are these people in prison yet?

No?

Oh well.

[Sep 09, 2018] Israel s Fifth Column: Exercising control from inside the government by Philip Giraldi

Looks like Zionists and Jews serve as scapegoats for neocons and neoliberalism induced problems ;-)
We probably should also talk about financial capital fifth column, which intersects with Zionist fifth column and is more powerful. I do not think that without the power of financial fifth column Zionist fifth column would achieve such a prominence.
But in any case a better organized minority often dominates often disorganized majority: this is the essence of the iron law of oligarchy.
We also can view Israel as yet another US state as the destiny of Israel is so closely lined to the the USA.
Too many people mix Zionists and neocons ("Full Spectrum Dominance" religious cult). As well as Zionists and neoliberals.
Notable quotes:
"... Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List ( ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
"... Two remarks, Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were zionists. ..."
Sep 04, 2018 | www.unz.com
1,800 Words 431 Comments Reply

Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer said "I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the American intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was operating in international waters and was displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had identified the vessel as American, even strafed the life rafts to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It was the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the crew deservedly received the most medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one hell of a story of courage under fire, but don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make a movie out of it.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel. Then came the cover-up from inside the U.S. government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry headed by Admiral John McCain, father of the senator, deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the attack as well as crewmen from Navy ships that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado in Malta before being threatened and sworn to secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress, the White House and the Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures from the Liberty survivors.

The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act against its own interests has been around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted in a lopsided trade agreement that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year on the top of direct grants from the U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.

If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation vis-à-vis Israeli power is much worse now than it was in 1983. He would be very interested in reading a remarkable bit of research recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and its friends work from inside the system to corrupt our political process and make the American government work in support of Jewish state interests. He describes in some detail how the Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement community to protect and promote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.

A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George W. Bush's 2004 signing off on the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. The group's website proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but it has from its founding been really all about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how "the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons complex."

The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated secretly within the Treasury itself while also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli government as well as with pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel on the taxpayer's dime, as did his three successors in office.

Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen. It was reported then and subsequently that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who were both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey tradition of resisting any transparency regarding what the office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he refused to answer reporter questions "about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and whether sanctioning Iran, a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian nuclear program was an example of endemic double standards at OTFI."

Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal Pearl Mandelker, a former and possibly current Israeli citizen . All of the heads of OTFI have therefore been Jewish and Zionist. All work closely with the Israeli government, all travel to Israel frequently on "official business" and they all are in close liaison with the Jewish groups most often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has been that many of the victims of OTFI have been generally enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's Jewish lobbyists. OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List ( SDN ), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers . And once placed on the SDN there is no transparent way to be removed, even if the entry was clearly in error.

Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut down and individuals exercising their right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish state have been imprisoned. If the Israel Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making its way through congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the land when it comes to curtailing free speech whenever Israel is involved.

The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews closely attached to Israel being promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.

Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan Administration and they and their heirs in government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were major players in the catastrophic war with Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow, described in 2004 as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with Iran.

American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel. He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government talking points and has tried to change the wording of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word "occupied" when describing Israel's control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli shooting thousands of unarmed Gazan protesters and the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.

Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. Apparently when opportunity knocked he changed his mind about his new boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a Jewish advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement and also worked to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He is reportedly still connected financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a conflict of interest. As the Senior Adviser to Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of living allowance and a 10% hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.

So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything, it wants, apparently. Sink a U.S. warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a minute and we'll draft some legislation that will give you even more money. Create a treasury department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to punish critics of the Jewish state? No brainer. Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and top aide overseas to represent the interests of the foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just happens to be Israel. Will it ever end?

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 8:23 am GMT

billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.

Do a little research on these and you'll find nearly 4,500 of them in the USA alone

Directory of Charities and Nonprofit Organizations: Jewish (Displaying 1 – 100 of 4,421 )

https://www.guidestar.org/nonprofit-directory/religion/jewish/1.aspx

Since these groups are tax-free entities, gathering in at least 26 billion a year-not including money to synagogues–that's close to 30 billion a year Americans have to make up for out of their wallets on April 15 of each year.

26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered

The Forward's investigation has uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a Fortune 500 company and focuses the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.

This analysis doesn't include synagogues and other groups that avoid revealing their financial information by claiming a religious exemption.

https://forward.com/news/israel/194978/26-billion-bucks-the-jewish-charity-industry-unco/

The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has been run by either American or Israeli Jews since its inception. Similar to the US Treasury, where five out of the last eight Treasury heads were American Jews. One of the GOYIM appointed, Hank Paulson, was installed to put an American face on the 2008 MBS generated economic crash, which enriched Wall Street before AND after, but devastated Main Street.

After Israel realized it could attack the USS Liberty and not only not be held accountable, but the USG would help them protect their lies, that gave them the incentive to start planning their biggest attack on the USA to date: the 9/11 False Flag. And like the Liberty incident, the USG is protecting Israel by helping with the lies that keep the Big Lie alive, that Bin Laden and his posse were the attackers, so Israel could use it's MSM buddies to generate an army of lies about Iraq; Libya, Syria and Iran, three of which we've already destroyed with Iran in the cross-hairs of unhinged psychos like Bolton and Nutty Nikki.

Drain the Swamp? Hell, Trump and his minions like Shadow President Kushner come from the murkiest depths of that Swamp.

Bottom line? Either we WTFU and realize that our nation has been taken over by Israel, which is using our military might, wealth and blood to do their dirty work in the ME, invading and busting up nations Israel wants destroyed, or we resign ourselves and condemn our offspring to a lifetime of poverty, misery, tyranny and endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel.

jilles dykstra , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:13 am GMT
Two remarks, Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were zionists.
RVBlake , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT
I wonder at the reference for the claim that LBJ stated his preference that the LIBERTY sink rather than embarass Israel. I am mindful of LBJ's apparent indifference to the violent deaths of thousands of US servicemen in another part of the world at that time.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 10:47 am GMT
An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:

'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'

Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'

hobo , says: September 4, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
The bastards have the whole system wired. Their tenures at the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) provided a springboard to critical posititions within the architecture of 'the system'.

From Wikipedia:

In January 2012, Levey joined HSBC as the bank's Chief Legal Officer.

(trivia : In 2014 HSBC closed North London Central Mosque's account and some Muslim clients' and groups' accounts. Several sources report that HSBC closed them because they donated their money to Palestine during the recent conflict)

and

In 2015 Cohen was appointed Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency . At the time of his appointment, some speculated that Cohen's selection was due to the Obama administration's reluctance in picking someone with ties to past incidences of CIA torture and extraordinary rendition. The post of deputy director has traditionally been filled by military officers or intelligence community veterans.

(note the whitewashing of Cohen's appointment. No mention of the jewish/zionist angle.)

And that folks is how they roll.

JoaoAlfaiate , says: September 4, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@rafael martorell thank you for your articles but is time for you to explain how and why we get to such ridiculous,caricaturesque level of control,that cant be explain even if the case we are inferiors to them. Everything is for sale in the USA, including our foreign policy and the lives of our soldiers.
APilgrim , says: September 4, 2018 at 12:59 pm GMT
British immigrants are required to RENOUNCE UK Citizenship, to become US Citizens.

This is entirely proper.

Mexicans & Jews retain dual citizenship, without any problem. This is so wrong. Jews routinely serve in IDF & Mossad, but seldom in the US Military. This is a GLARING form of disloyalty. Such 'citizenship' should be revoked, and the holders deported. IMHPO.

I suspect that Jews & Mexicans on SCOTUS, are at the bottom of this.

T. Weed , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:08 pm GMT
Will it ever end? Mr. Giraldi asks (rhetorically). Trump got something right when he said that Media was the enemy, but he didn't say who owned Media. "Masters of Discourse" Israel Shamir calls Jews who control what we see and hear. Since Media lies to us 24/7, and since Congress is scared to death of AIPAC's power and money (Netanyahu's 29 standing ovations before that group of pathetic whores), nothing will change until Media changes ownership and Congress is subjected to campaign finance reform. No more "campaign contributions" (bribes).
Eighthman , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
TheOldOne , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:31 pm GMT
How about this: NO DUAL CITIZENSHIP!

Don't want to give up your Israeli citizenship (or any other, for that matter)?–then leave the USA and go to your hole!

lysias , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
When LBJ ordered the recall of the fighters that were flying to the rescue of the Liberty, he said that he didn't want to embarrass his ally. This was at a time when the sailors on the Liberty had not yet identified the nationality of the attackers. People in the White House knew it was Israel before the sailors on the Liberty knew. Think about the implications of that.
Uncle Sam , says: September 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Any time a political system can be hijacked by a foreign power and forced to do the bidding of that foreign power that political system has to be replaced.

The American political system based on republican and constitutional government has collapsed, largely because the Jewish people have made a total, complete and utter mockery out of that system. The so-called American "democracy" is a code word for plutocracy. Wherever you have a "democracy" what you have in practice is a plutocracy.

The Jews love plutocracies because with their money they can literally buy politicians. Furthermore, the non-Jewish populations cannot defend themselves from the Jewish power in these so-called "democracies".

It will take the proverbial man on the white horse to remedy this situation, i.e., a Caesar, Napoleon, Mussolini or Hitler. If any of you reading this think that this collapsed political system can be resurrected, well then you are living in la-la land.

Sam Shama , says: September 4, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT

OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers .

OTFI SDN features names only, of those individuals/businesses/organisations which are engaged in illegal activities against the United States and her interests.

Your well-known bias clouds your vision.

Went through the list cursorily and looked for names I knew to be criminally engaged and thus under U.S. surveillance and sanctions. Names with a Jewish ethnicity, that is. Lo behold, they are indeed there:

Mikhail Abramov
Valerii Abramov
Nicolai Shusanshvili a.k.a Moshe Israel
Arkadevic Rotenberg
Roman Rotenberg

I am sure there are more.

Don't suppose any clarification, let alone a retraction, of your demonstrated hatred of Jews and the resulting bias would be forthcoming

AaronB , says: September 4, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
Let me explain to you stupid goyim why the Jews dominate you.

Take 2 groups of people of roughly equal ability –

Group A – divides its time between making money and quality of life activities. Has aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B – devotes 98 percent if it's time to making money. No aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B will swiftly dominate and concentrate all wealth in its hands, even if it is no more talented than group A, and vastly outnumbered by group A, and will reshape society to fit its agenda of money uber alles.

That's all there is to it. There is no mystery.

Now there are literally only 2 ways, and only 2 ways, to fight this –

1) Group A must learn to devote 98 percent of its time to making money and have no moral or aesthetic limits.

2) Group A must practice collective action to preserve its leisured way of life and exclude group B from too much power.

This is why individualism was the greatest gift to people who care only about money.

There is no use complaining about Jews. They are what they are. Money to Jews are "God points" – the more you have the closer you are to God. Puritans had the same idea later.

The problem transcends Jews.

Lets say 80 percent of Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives to money, but only 20 percent of gentiles are. Even in a country with no Jews, that 20 percent of gentiles will dominate and shape the county to fit its joyless agenda and oppress everyone else.

That's why in England the powerful classes acted as horrifically as Jews with things like the Land Enclosures and the rape of the monasteries and the like.

People who care only for money will always dominate people who have other interests in life – it is a law of nature, easy to understand, not at all mysterious. Unless the majority who care less for money are willing to band together to put a check on the joyless minority.

When individualism was accepted, the dominance if the joyless minority was assured.

Z-man , says: September 4, 2018 at 3:20 pm GMT
@Johnny Rottenborough An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:

'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'

Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.' What ever happened to Rick Sanchez? LOL!!!

On September 30, 2010, Sanchez was interviewed on Sirius XM's radio show Stand Up With Pete Dominick. Sanchez's interview occurred on the final day of his show in the 8 p.m. time slot, and he was reportedly angry about being replaced by CNN's new Parker Spitzer talk show[11][12] as well as the occasional jokes made at his expense on The Daily Show:
It's not just the Right that does this. 'Cause I've known a lot of, you know, elite Northeast establishment liberals that may not use this as a business model, but deep down when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier and not the top tier . I had a guy who works here at CNN who's a top brass come to me one day and say, 'You know what, I don't want you anchoring anymore. I really don't see you as an anchor. I see you more as a reporter. I see you more as a John Quiñones .' Did he not realize that he was telling me, 'When I see you, I think of Hispanic reporters'? 'Cause in his mind, I can't be an anchor. An anchor's what you give the high-profile White guys, you know? So he knocks me down to that and compares me to that, and it happens all the time. I think to a certain extent Jon Stewart and Colbert are the same way. I think Jon Stewart's a bigot.[11]
After Dominick questioned him, Sanchez retracted the term, "bigot," and referred to Stewart as "prejudicial" and "uninformed,"[13] but he defended feeling discriminated, saying, "He's upset that someone of my ilk is almost at his level" and that Stewart is "not just a comedian. He can make and break careers."[14] When queried on the issue of whether Stewart likewise belonged to a minority group on account of his Jewish faith, Sanchez responded:
Yeah, very powerless people. [laughs] He's such a minority. I mean, you know, please. What -- are you kidding? I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?[11][12]
A day after his remarks,[15] CNN announced that Sanchez was no longer employed with the company.[11]
Despite his firing, upon leaving CNN, Sanchez said, "I want to go on record to say that I have nothing but the highest regard for CNN and for my six wonderful years with them. I appreciate every opportunity that they have given me, and it has been a wonderful experience working for them."[20]
Apology for comments
In the days after the incident, Sanchez apologized several times. In an appearance on Good Morning America, Sanchez told George Stephanopoulos, "I said some things I shouldn't have said. They were wrong. Not only were they wrong, they were offensive." He added, "I apologize and it was wrong for me to be so careless and so inartful. But it happened and I can't take it back and, you know what, now I have to stand up and be responsible."[21]
Sanchez also called and personally apologized to Stewart. He released a statement expressing regret for his "inartful" comments, adding "I am very much opposed to hate and intolerance, in any form, and I have frequently spoken out against prejudice."[20][22] On October 20, 2010, Jon Stewart told Larry King that Sanchez should not have been fired for what Sanchez said in the radio interview; Stewart called the firing "absolute insanity",[23] and stating that he was not "personally hurt".[24]
In a letter to Abraham Foxman -- the head of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) -- Sanchez apologized once again, writing, "[T]here are no words strong enough for me to express my regret and sorrow over what I said. It was offensive, and I deeply, sincerely and unequivocally apologize for the hurt that I have caused. I tell my children that when they make a mistake, they should take responsibility, atone and work to repair whatever they have done. I cannot undo the offense or controversy I caused; all I can do is to try and learn from this experience and strive to become a better person."
Following a meeting with Foxman, Foxman said Sanchez can now "put the matter to rest", adding that he hoped Sanchez can now move on with his life and work.

After his groveling (appology tour) to Big Joo Sanchez was able to resuscitate his journalistic career to some extent but at a much lower level.
Beware the POWER of the CABAL

Z-man , says: September 4, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
Trumps comments that 'he would meet with the Iranians', even though his Treasury Department is destroying their country, is, I believe, a dog whistle to American Nationalists like me, that he is not completely controlled by the evil Cabal. I certainly hope so but we shall see.

That comment that Trump 'would meet with the Iranians' must have gotten the Cabal's underwear all in knots but some like Alan 'Douche-a-witz' still stayed on the Trump support team vs. the Deep State. Interestink times. (Grin)

Anonymouse2 , says: September 4, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
As a Zionist jew I had no idea we were so powerful. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling all over. We're said to be super smart too. What's not to like?
Rev. Spooner , says: September 4, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke Good thinking Philip Giraldi, it really is time for a movie to be made about the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty and the wilful killing of so many US sailors. It should be done without any Hollywood backing and distribution along the lines of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. (Hey Mel, do you read The Unz Review? You should).

It could easily be crowdfunded if necessary, with survivors of the incident serving as consultants. There are loads of 60s era military surplus items available on the cheap, including aircraft and I would imagine a massive response to a call for actors and extras. It certainly would help kick open the door to awareness of where the real threat to America lies. Its not just about the jews, its about the american elites too. The commoners, the fatties, the crackers, the trailer thrash, the single mums, the idiots awaiting the second coming will be the last to know what is now becoming common knowledge the world over.
I'm no genius or economist but reading online, I understood it well. The common minimum wage burger slinger will support the empire, the jews and the dollar when he understands what uncle sam is doing and so will you if you happen to be american.

Take a gander-

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/ajay-srivastav/the-real-reason-behind-trumps-trade-war/article24856757.ece/amp/

And they say "there's no such thing as a free lunch" Duh!

AB , says: September 4, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@AaronB Let me explain to you stupid goyim why the Jews dominate you.

Take 2 groups of people of roughly equal ability -

Group A - divides its time between making money and quality of life activities. Has aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B - devotes 98 percent if it's time to making money. No aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B will swiftly dominate and concentrate all wealth in its hands, even if it is no more talented than group A, and vastly outnumbered by group A, and will reshape society to fit its agenda of money uber alles.

That's all there is to it. There is no mystery.

Now there are literally only 2 ways, and only 2 ways, to fight this -

1) Group A must learn to devote 98 percent of its time to making money and have no moral or aesthetic limits.

2) Group A must practice collective action to preserve its leisured way of life and exclude group B from too much power.

This is why individualism was the greatest gift to people who care only about money.

There is no use complaining about Jews. They are what they are. Money to Jews are "God points" - the more you have the closer you are to God. Puritans had the same idea later.

The problem transcends Jews.

Lets say 80 percent of Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives to money, but only 20 percent of gentiles are. Even in a country with no Jews, that 20 percent of gentiles will dominate and shape the county to fit its joyless agenda and oppress everyone else.

That's why in England the powerful classes acted as horrifically as Jews with things like the Land Enclosures and the rape of the monasteries and the like.

People who care only for money will always dominate people who have other interests in life - it is a law of nature, easy to understand, not at all mysterious. Unless the majority who care less for money are willing to band together to put a check on the joyless minority.

When individualism was accepted, the dominance if the joyless minority was assured. Spot on.

Put it another way: people who are dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous will always win over people who are honest, trusting and law abiding, and make them look like fools, i.e. the impure at heart will always win over the pure at heart.

This doesn't just apply to Jews, it applies to basically all non-WASPs. That's why groups like Indians and Chinese are also doing well in the US, they are almost equally as dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous as the Jews, the only difference is, the Chinese are not nearly as power hungry as the Jews or the Indians.

The only truly honest people in the world are Germans and Scandinavians. That's why they did not colonize the 3rd world or engaged in the slave trade like the rest of Europe. The British aristocracy has been too deeply infiltrated by Jews for too long, they've long lost their sense of honor and honesty. America became a Jew run country since LBJ came to power, it's basically Israel x 100. It is no longer a benevolent superpower, not since the CIA was formed. It is now the military wing of Israel, Inc.

Iris , says: September 4, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski Hi RVBlake,
... Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D. AIPAC-approved/RI) now opines upon how the Zionist Chief Justice Roberts' Supreme Court was prejudiced against N.W.O.'s "constructed" & subsequent approval of downsized worker "Unions."
(zzZigh)
... Selah, a remake of the ole cowboy song, "Home, home on The Homeland range..., where, selah, the cloud-cover is sunny all day!"
Thanks, RVBlake. Censored Al-Jazeera documentary shows how the Israel lobby spies and blackmail US citizens on US soil in violation of the law.

Information about the censored documentary was posted by Geokat62 on the precedent P. Giraldi's article: French journalist Alain Gresh was given a private screening and wrote a headline article in "Le Monde Diplomatique".

The Israel lobby deploys a web of systematic, anonymous and secure spying techniques on US citizens who oppose Zionist policies, such as BDS activists. It gathers personal and confidential information on these individuals, then puts this information on line to ruin their lives.
It also digs up any political activity or comments that could be twisted and misinterpreted, and blackmails employers with anti-Semitism accusations, should they not sack the targeted individuals.

This is just institutionalised blackmail on US soil, for the benefit of a foreign power, in total impunity.
Full article in English version:

https://mondediplo.com/2018/09/02israel-lobby

KG , says: September 4, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT
New book on attack on USS Liberty as a coordinated Isaeli/U.S. false flag.
Blood in The Water

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1633884643/ref=cm_sw_r_em_tai_c_R1QJBb4S0ZA5S

AaronB , says: September 4, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
@AB Spot on.

Put it another way: people who are dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous will always win over people who are honest, trusting and law abiding, and make them look like fools, i.e. the impure at heart will always win over the pure at heart.

This doesn't just apply to Jews, it applies to basically all non-WASPs. That's why groups like Indians and Chinese are also doing well in the US, they are almost equally as dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous as the Jews, the only difference is, the Chinese are not nearly as power hungry as the Jews or the Indians.

The only truly honest people in the world are Germans and Scandinavians. That's why they did not colonize the 3rd world or engaged in the slave trade like the rest of Europe. The British aristocracy has been too deeply infiltrated by Jews for too long, they've long lost their sense of honor and honesty. America became a Jew run country since LBJ came to power, it's basically Israel x 100. It is no longer a benevolent superpower, not since the CIA was formed. It is now the military wing of Israel, Inc. There are no innocent groups. Different groups are innocent at different times.

j2 , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:19 pm GMT
@AaronB But the monarchs and the nobility themselves turn rapacious - Henry 8 couldn't control his greed and raped the monasteries. Later, British nobility stole everyone's land and impoverished and starved millions out of greed.

Plus, the nobility themselves employed Jews as ruthless tax farmers and moneylenders! The Jews were the proxies of the nobility so the anger of the people would be deflected.

Examples across the world are legion.

People who care only about money always win against relaxed people who enjoy life - it's utterly un-mysterious and easily understandable.

There is no political system that can corrall greed. Religion controls it for a time then becomes a vehicle for greed and oppression.

It's a cycle. Greed rises, rises, then makes everything go to shit and collapse, then there is breathing room and life becomes relatively enjoyable again (a period that greedy people generally call the Dark Ages, or the Middle Ages). "It's a cycle. Greed rises, rises, then makes everything go to shit and collapse, then there is breathing room and life becomes relatively enjoyable again (a period that greedy people generally call the Dark Ages, or the Middle Ages)."

You are too pessimistic. For the majority of the time humans have existed there was no such problem: a big man had to give a party and spend his wealth. These are problems of later times. It took humans 8000 years to get rid of slavery. Earlier there was no slavery as there was no work where to put slaves, today slaves are not needed as there are machines, but for a long time they were needed. There will be a time when collecting wealth by doing anything will be impossible, but this time will have to wait until development can be stopped. There are theoretical systems where these problems do not appear. No finance, no investment, no interest, no accumulation of money, only maintaining technical infra. It is not yet, but how long lasted the dominance of agriculture, and it is no more. But I think the problem is different, it is not some people thinking only of money. I think it is old capital and acting as a group against all others. Genetic admixture would break the group and old capital can be destroyed. Has been done before.

Realist , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT

President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.

In addition to the above mentioned transgression, he signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, he promoted federal funding for education, he promoted the war on poverty, he promoted gun control and many other Great Society horse shit programs.
LBJ was an evil, corrupt son of a bitch. He killed over 58,000 Americans in the god damn useless Vietnam 'war'.

To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.

This situation can be directly blamed on Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Will it ever end?

Not through electoral means.

Mike P , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:32 pm GMT
@Realist

President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.
In addition to the above mentioned transgression, he signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, he promoted federal funding for education, he promoted the war on poverty, he promoted gun control and many other Great Society horse shit programs.
LBJ was an evil, corrupt son of a bitch. He killed over 58,000 Americans in the god damn useless Vietnam 'war'.

To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
This situation can be directly blamed on Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Will it ever end?
Not through electoral means.

Will it ever end?

Not through electoral means.

A key problem of our Western so-called democracies is that they are "representative." This might have been conducive to getting stuff done in the age of horse and carriage, but nowadays it is no longer necessary; it is perfectly possible to let the people vote on the latest raise for the Pentagon, if they bring a motion. In Switzerland this is done routinely; for example, a while ago the people threw out the government's decision to buy the F-35 for the Swiss air force.

A purely representative democracy is designed to withhold power from the public and hand it over to the rich and their lobbies. Direct democracy would be a powerful weapon against corruption – no lobby can bribe the whole of the population. Of course, it does not immediately solve problems like control of mass media etc.; but nevertheless it is plain that Switzerland, the world's most democratic country, is also prosperous, well-governed, with sound finances and without brain-dead foreign policy adventures.

Direct democracy has to potential to provide greatly improved governance, and it is a cause people on the left and the right can all agree on.

Peter Maya , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 10:46 pm GMT
I keep wishing that Mr. Giraldi would write a series of articles (book) about the COSTS (specially economic/human) of USA blind support for Israli Zio establishment. Often times the world praises Israeli making the "dessert bloom" well any nation could do so if that nation enjoyed secure perpetual markets, subsidies (US agricultural Dept) in the US. and Europe, which Palestinians are often denied. Under ZIO banking threats ,Global Airlines must stop in Israeli Airport eventhought it adds heavy economic burdens to their rolls$$. While Israel pushes America to enforce Trade/Arms/Finance sanctions and embargos against other nations it seem that Israel is readily available to trade, sell weapons, and finance that very nations that AIPAC black listed!!! in fact US embargoes are an economic boom for Israeli Defense Military industries. While Tel Aviv emerges a major technological powerhouse (Talpiot) at the expense of American Tech Industries that usually powerless to stop Israeli theft, fraud, spying and outright robberies of corporate/Pentagon/Secret tech many US cities plunge into chaos, Bankruptcy, industrial, manufacturing dilapidation such as Detroit, Chicago, Flynn, etc. Perhaps it would help Americans understand the consequences of uncritical support for Israel once they realize that their Children are paying for trillions in debt enslavement, worthless currency, shrinking middle class, expanding poverty, decaying: infrastructure, schools, medical services, education etc. and of course the endless dying and bleeding of many young Americans in endless wars that do NOT benefit their country at all only Israel profits from them. Couple with the political costs for USA alienation, and hatred for America, and the constant of terrorist attacks targeting major urban cities in the Western World, spreading death and destruction all over the world which may bring a global confrontation between Muslims/Christians countries that only Israel can benefit. It remains to consider how long can USA sustain economically/politically/culturally such support for Jewish-Zio-Israeli interests while ignoring its own internal/external well being (population/geographic) and national cohesiveness.
Greg Bacon , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 11:56 pm GMT
@FKA Max

Now however, when through the malice of fate a large part of these Jews whom we fought against are alive, I must concede that fate must have wanted it so. I always claimed that we were fighting against a foe who through thousands of years of learning and development had become superior to us.

I no longer remember exactly when, but it was even before Rome itself had been founded that the Jews could already write. It is very depressing for me to think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written history. But it tells me that they must be a people of the first magnitude, for lawgivers have always been great.

- http://archive.is/wl8On#selection-785.5-789.335

Life Magazine, November 28, 1960 – Carroll Baker

Table of Contents

Eichmann's story
World War, 1939-1945 (War criminals), Holocaust, Jewish (1939-1945) [p.] 20

– https://www.oldlifemagazines.com/november-28-1960-life-magazine.html

- https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2497112

Life Magazine, December 5, 1960 – Pro football kickoff

Table of Contents

Eichmann and the duty of man
Adolf Eichmann; 1906-1962, World War, 1939-1945 (War criminals), Holocaust, Jewish (1939-1945) [p.] 46

– https://www.oldlifemagazines.com/december-05-1960-life-magazine.html

- https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2497165

" think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written history."

Wow, thanks for that history lesson. Always thought that the Code of Hammurabi was one of the first times laws were put into written form, that the Law of Moses came later?

The Code of Hammurabi was one of the only sets of laws in the ancient Near East and also one of the first forms of law . The code of laws was arranged in orderly groups, so that all who read the laws would know what was required of them.[10] Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi#Laws_of_Hammurabi's_Code

Thanks for the correction of history that archeologists must have overlooked!
Probably nasty anti-Semites, eh?

NoseytheDuke , says: September 5, 2018 at 1:08 am GMT
@Eighthman It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.

Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.

Israel will abandon the US like a used condom WHEN the US fails economically.

I fixed that for you. It will be by design too but the military power will be exploited first.

Deschutes , says: September 5, 2018 at 9:09 am GMT
Yes, it's a disgraceful situation that the US government (Pentagon, Treasury, Congress, etc) has been co-opted Israel-firsters. Indeed, these pro-Israel Zionists are morally and ethically bankrupt and have no qualms with taking over and dictating US foreign policy for Israel's gain.

And while articles like this certainly have merit, the 'blame game' can only go so far before it becomes sore loser whining. Don't like the situation as it stands? Then do something about it besides whingeing.

There is a need for reflection: how did this sad state of affairs come to pass? Why didn't government and military leadership stop this silent Jewish-Zionist-Israeli coup from happening? In a way, it is the fault of gentile, or goy Americans for not being able to recognize and to have stopped it dead in its tracks.

The Jews in general are much more closely knit than goys are. This is why they beat you: they work as a very loyal, tight-knit team; whereas gentiles, WASPS etc are largely atomized. This is the goy's main failing: it's 'everybody's on his/her own'; there is no community, no teamwork, no 'we're in this together' organization that the Jews have.

Even on the family level, Jewish families are much more close-knit. They look out for each other, help each other get jobs, very good networking. Whites just don't do this, so many dysfunctional, fucked up families, broken families .families that only see each other at Christmas–and beyond that 'don't bother me!'. Hard to face, but quite true. Goys are atomized. This is why they lost.

Or look at how a synagogue works compared to a roman catholic church. In a synagogue, they are talking about what is really happening now, who needs a job, who is starting a new business and go and be a customer there; or a special event everybody must go to, etc. It is alive, a thriving central hub for the local Jewish community that has real relevance. On the other hand a roman catholic church is a bore! Some old fart reading passages from the bible .people in the pews nodding off .nobody really gives a shit. The only thing on their mind is when this raging bore of a church service will end so they can leave–and pronto! You know it's true. That's why numbers of attendees to churches in USA are in a tailspin.

So my main point is this: the Jews beat you because they are so much better organized and integrated. Because of this they hijacked the government for their own gain.

Sam Shama , says: September 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
@geokat62

Geo, once again I am glad to observe that you are amongst the precious few on UR perfectly capable of being objective whilst engaging in debate.
Appreciate the compliment, Sam.

But, speaking of objectivity:


Moreover, I shall be happier still, when he takes the trouble to distinguish between the vast majority of innocent Jewish citizens of America and "America's Jews are Driving America's ".
would this modest revision satisfy your thirst for objectivity:

"America's Organized Jews (who are generally supported by the Jewish Community, at large) are Driving America's Wars."
If it does, consider it implied, as the latter wouldn't do as snappy title, would it? "America's Leaders are Driving America's Wars"

By all means, name all the leaders: top, middle and lower in the article. By all means, observe that a significant group of middle leadership were Jewish. But don't paint the rest of American Jewry with the same brush. They have nothing to do with it. As you know I've looked into the financial contributions coming to the lobbies. The contributions from about the top 0.1% account for 99.99% of the total. And that is no distortion of facts. Why would you hold the ordinary Jewish dentist or professor responsible for the actions of an Adelson anymore than you would the actions of the ordinary gentile professor or engineer for the actions of a Koch or Walton?

[Sep 09, 2018] A legal argument against Mueller legitimacy

Sep 09, 2018 | thehill.com

Barry Forster WebTraveler • 3 hours ago

Professor Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School, who is a lawyer's lawyer accurately pointed out that Mueller and his Democrat Lawyers are really acting illegally.

Mueller is a principal officer of the DoJ not a subordinate officer and according to the Appointments Clause in the Constitution must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate. He is neither. His activities are supposed to be supervised only by the AG Sessions as a principal officer. AG Sessions has recused himself from the so called Russian Collusion investigation only. Rosenstein is only a Deputy AG and was not appointed or confirmed as the Acting AG so Mueller is also unsupervised. Mueller appointment and his activities are constitutionally illegal.

No one has ever offered a smidgen of concrete evidence whatsoever that there was ever any collusion of interference in the election by the Russians and certainly none by the Trump Campaign.Former CIA head Brennan at the CIA has never offered under oath any proof of any cyber attacks by the Russians. Obama and Brennan never even pursued the Chinese hacks that were physically confirmed by server and IP addresses from China under Obama. The Democrats claim that their DNC server was hacked by the Russians. This has never been confirmed as the DNC refused to allow it to be taken and examined by the FBI or any other agency. The DNC also had a lot to hide on it. After all, their foreign IT guy ran off to Pakistan with all the server data on flash drives. Blackmail? The DNC servers were subpoenaed a year by the House Judiciary Committee, Somehow they have all disappeared! Felony obstruction of justice.

So here we are a over a year and a half later and still not a single smidgen of proof of any Russian interference. Not a single one of Mueller's American indictments have had anything whatsoever to do with the fake Russian collusion claim or anything that occurred in the campaign period or the transition to office.

This is an obvious attempt at a soft coup to effect the mid terms in favor of the Democrats. And it is obvious to even a casual observer that Alan Dershowitz exposed

[Sep 09, 2018] The "controversial" Al Jazeera Documentary on THE LOBBY in the USA: What it is about, and why it cannot and may never be shown to the world.

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

GoodEvil , says: Website September 5, 2018 at 5:29 am GMT

The "controversial" Al Jazeera Documentary on THE LOBBY in the USA: What it is about, and why it cannot and may never be shown to the world.

https://orientxxi.info/magazine/how-israel-spies-on-us-citizens,2598

A never-shown Al Jazeera documentary on the pro-Israel lobby in the US reveals possibly illegal Israeli spying on US citizens, and the lobby's fear of a changing political mood. (This article has been published in French in Le Monde diplomatique, and translated by Le Monde diplomatique, English edition.)

[Sep 09, 2018] Neocons attempt to replay Iraq "success" in Iran

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon , [228] Disclaimer says: September 4, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT

@Moi Problem, Akbar, is that most Americans are ignorant and greedy--and the Jews fully understand that.

Salaam Alaikum "(FDD) Senior Advisor Richard Goldberg and FDD Visiting Fellow Jacob Nagel. Goldberg and Nagel argue that the Trump administration should use its sanctions authorities to target foreign governments, as well as their agencies and officials, engaged in activities authorized under the JCPOA." "Moreover, Goldberg and Nagel argue that those parties establishing research or business ties with U.S.-designated entities -- which, come November, will include the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran -- should be subject to U.S. secondary sanctions " not allow – "international collaboration, including in the form of scientific joint partnerships, [would] be established in agreed areas of research," "Goldberg and Nagel further argue that the Trump administration should threaten to cut funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the agency continues to provide technical assistance to Iran and to host seminars and conferences in Iran. " "Iran would have little choice but to kick the IAEA out of the country and withdraw entirely from the agency's oversight. The world would thus lose the unprecedented oversight of Iran's nuclear program that the JCPOA had provided.

That may be a feature, rather than a bug, of Goldberg and Nagel's proposal"

https://lobelog.com/creating-the-conditions-for-war/

Yes the number 5 is the replay of the neocons success in getting UN out of Iraq which was then used by the stupid Bush to justify the attack on Iraq.

FDD has in 2004 printed article documenting the high pitched neocons fevers and the lies they engaged in to get US attack Iraq.
That might or might not have them made look like pragmatic nationalist patriotic pro-American . But these bastards are nothing but pro-Israel They just change the spot and denounce the previous spot.

[Sep 09, 2018] 9-11 Suspects Philip Zelikow The Corbett Report

Notable quotes:
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.corbettreport.com

Zelikow denied interviews and documents to staffers investigating the Saudi connection to the attacks, eventually firing one of them and removing the text of their investigation from the final report. He personally rewrote a commission staff statement to suggest a systematic link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before 9/11, outraging the authors of the original statement. He worked behind his own staffer's back to stop them from serving the Pentagon a subpoena to answer about information NORAD was withholding from the commission. He sat on a proposal to open a criminal investigation into FAA and military officials who lied to the commission for months, and then forwarded that proposal not to the Justice Department, who could have brought criminal charges, but to the Inspector General, who could not. And he covered up information on Able Danger, a military intelligence team that had identified several of the alleged 9/11 hijackers in the country before 9/11.

... ... ...

But perhaps more remarkable than the fact that "the fix was in" from the moment he took over the commission and began working on the predictive outline of the final report, is that he had in fact written about 9/11 and its eventual aftermath in 1998, three years before September 11th.

In an article entitled " Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger ," written for the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs in November 1998, Zelikow and co-authors Ashton Carter and John Deutsche ask readers to imagine a catastrophic act of terrorism like the destruction of the World Trade Center. "Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."

Zelikow's amazing prediction becomes somewhat less remarkable when we learn his own self-described expertise in the creation and management of "public myth." In a separate 1998 article on public myths, Zelikow identifies "generational" myths that are "formed by those pivotal events that become etched in the minds of those who have lived through them," before noting that the current set of public myths, formed during the New Deal in 1933, are currently fading.

Convenient for Zelikow, then, that the "Pearl Harbor" event that would define the next "generational" myth, known as the "War on Terror," would arrive just three years later, and that he would be in charge of the commission tasked with creating and managing the public perception of that myth.

Indeed, given his central role in the cover up of 9/11 and deflecting concern away from legitimate 9/11 suspects, any true investigation into the events of September 11th would involve a thorough interrogation of Philip D. Zelikow.

Mohawk Man says: 09/08/2016 at 12:21 am

Explosive reporting this week James. No pun intended. This is Pulitzer Prize stuff–again, no insult intended. I had no words for yesterdays EPA report. I was left speechless. John Stossell has lung cancer. I wonder where he was on 9/11. A non-smoker I believe but I would assume maybe a dope smoker but I am just surmising. Joined BF, finally.

Be careful and stay well. My best to your family including the little ones. Thank you for sharing your gifted work with the world. I hope I live to see a massive Crimes Against Humanity trial for most of these characters.

The Mohawk

Log in to Reply HomeRemedySupply says: 09/08/2016 at 2:20 am

Powerful

Log in to Reply nosoapradio says: 09/08/2016 at 3:53 am

"Catastrophic Terrorism" and "Management of Public Myth" indeed

You always go a step or two further than expected, than the known facts, offering the REAL ZINGERS! A real peek behind the curtain

Your work, the approach, the outstanding research, the synthesis, the structure

like that Peter Dale Scott interview

wow .Management of Public Myth !!

??

now, how can you possibly do better than this???

Torben Bo Hansen says: 09/08/2016 at 3:57 am

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, "Israel did 9/11" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0v7_O53J0k
Christopher Bollyn, "Solving 9/11" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHstSrC1CQ

Log in to Reply PeasLuvandNRK says: 09/08/2016 at 8:04 am

Great segments this week, James.

I guess the answer may be self-evident but are we saying that Zelikow knows the whole real truth of 9/11? Like, is he "in on it"? What about Giuliani as well?

Log in to Reply PeasLuvandNRK says: 09/08/2016 at 8:20 am

Oh and, this is the person who has previously posted as totemynote.. I changed my screen name and will post with PeasLuvandNRK from now on. It's not just a whim, I have a reason for changing it.

Log in to Reply punchy1 says: 09/08/2016 at 9:17 am

Excellence once again James. The anticipation of the countdown to 11 Sep connected to the slow release of the crooks is killing me! Wonderful timing for maximum effect. I will be sharing the final playlist.

Log in to Reply Cu Chulainn says: 09/08/2016 at 11:03 am

Richard Clarke @6:25 was Mega. astute move for the Israeli agent to accuse Zelikow of being a fixer.

Log in to Reply sales2 says: 09/08/2016 at 11:06 am

YOU ARE RULING IT JAMES. THANK YOU.

Log in to Reply sunaj says: 09/08/2016 at 12:13 pm

Thanx James for another solid report-every citizen should read this,
btw if I want to make copies of a Corbett Report to pass out to fellow citizens, do I need any special permission? people need to see this material
sunaj

Log in to Reply Corbett says: 09/08/2016 at 8:29 pm

You are free to share and spread any of this info however you see fit. Thank you for helping to spread the word and raise awareness.

Log in to Reply m.clare says: 09/08/2016 at 9:39 pm

Top 10 Hoaxes of all time:

– 911
– JFK Assassination
– Global Warming
– Religion (all of them)
– Federal Reserve Act
– ISIS
– Left / Right divide and conquer tribal scapegoat distraction
– Pearl Harbour
– Gulf of Tonkin resolution
– Main Stream Media

Anybody have a different list of what they consider the most significant hoaxes of all time?

(Corbett's list of the 911 guilty is brilliant .imitation is the highest form of flattery)

– Rothschild takeover of bank of england

Log in to Reply m.clare says: 09/08/2016 at 10:01 pm

– 1974 Trudeau and pals borrow from BIS rather than the public's Bank of Canada. National debt has since ballooned to $1.3 trillion dollars. It's all Greek to me.

Log in to Reply nosoapradio says: 09/08/2016 at 11:25 pm

good one! X-))

Log in to Reply ccuthbert2001 says: 09/11/2016 at 10:05 am

In no particular order

-Da Ozone Ho'
-All of "Green" energy, esp ethanol in our cars
-Darwinian evolution
-Big Bang, Black Holes and anything from Hawking
-germ theory of disease
-cancer can't be cured
-cholesterol is bad, take statins and get Alzheimer's
-AIDS, SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola, Zika, vaccines and all of Big Pharma
-Round Up is biodegradable
-GMOs will end starvation
-Nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
-German war guilt
-selling houses to each other will make us all rich
-paradox of savings
-inflation is good, deflation is bad, and all of "modern" economics
-Moon Landing
-Mars Mission, lemmings and all
-Elon Musk, SpaceX and we're going to Mars
-Rape Culture
-Rad Feminism, no diff between girls and boys ya know

I could go on and on. 😉

Log in to Reply tgmolitor says: 09/09/2016 at 1:46 am

Edward Bernays, father of public relations, writing in his book Propaganda:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."

Like many, I was not aware of Philip Zelikow. Thanks for transforming "unaware" to "aware," James!

Log in to Reply PeasLuvandNRK says: 09/09/2016 at 5:19 am

QFC and/or question for fellow subscribers

Is it at all possible that people tasked with managing the 9/11 meme, like especially Zelikow, Giuliani, Bernard Kerik but also NIST, Popular Mechanics and so forth, given compartmentalized information to work with? Like, only just enough information to play their part? To me they all seem to be sort of accessories after the fact.

So, is the answer to this self-evident and I'm not seeing it? If not, is there a consensus and if so what?

Log in to Reply m.clare says: 09/09/2016 at 12:39 pm

Zelikow began writing the legend of 911 before it happened. He's as guilty as sin. I hear what you're saying. There likely WERE many involved that had just enough information to perform some small task without seeing the big picture. The names Corbett is dropping in this series are not those who got mixed up with something by accident. They are the string pullers. As far as NIST and Popular Mechanics go, they are a disgrace. Their behaviour is, at BEST, fraudulent.

Log in to Reply peace.froggs says: 09/09/2016 at 9:45 am

Zelikow was to the 9/11 commission what Arlen Specter was to the Warren Commission.

[Sep 09, 2018] Never Forget What the Deep State Wants You to Remember About 9-11

Notable quotes:
"... Are you tired of forgetting what it is you're supposed to remember not to forget about 9/11? Never fear! In this week's edition of ..."
"... , James will teach you the lessons that the 9/11 government terrorists and their corporate media lackeys want you to take away from that tragic day. For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member . ..."
"... For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE . ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.corbettreport.com

"Never forget."

This is the mantra. The mantra that is repeated in the wake of every major false flag, every psychologically traumatizing incident that the deep state wishes to become a rallying cry for their next agenda item.

And so it is completely unsurprising that this mantra has been invoked to remind the public of that foundational event of the age of terror, 9/11.

"Never forget," we are told by the mockingbirds of the establishment press every year come September. And when I say "every year" I mean every / single / year / without / fail . (Well, sometimes it's a fail , but you get what I mean).

But never forget what , exactly? That is the question.

Are you tired of forgetting what it is you're supposed to remember not to forget about 9/11? Never fear! In this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber , James will teach you the lessons that the 9/11 government terrorists and their corporate media lackeys want you to take away from that tragic day. For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member .

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE .

[Sep 09, 2018] New-"The Demolition of Truth-Psychologists Examine 9/11" Directors cut

Why the debate became a taboo? May be it became religious taboo. Religion deal with maters of ultimate concern.
Also as George Bernard Shaw said ""Patriotism.is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." and 911 became symbol of US patriotism, symbol of nationalist faith, your devotion to "Americanism".
That create cognitive dissonance about official story of 911 as soon as you start to suspect that it might be a false flag operation
Zelikow, along with long-time associate and commission consultant Ernest May, co-wrote a complete outline of the final report just three month into commission work
Sep 09, 2018 | www.youtube.com

15 years have passed.. There is substantial NEW evidence that the Government didn't address in their 9/1 I reports ...and hasn't even acknowledged since.

[Sep 09, 2018] I think it very likely we'll see Daesh's resurrection within Iraq as that's the Outlaw US Empire's main tool to keep the chaos ongoing--the empire doesn't fight against Daesh; rather, it uses Daesh to fight against its stated enemies everywhere

Sep 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Sep 7, 2018 1:02:25 PM | link

Looks like my comment made on the previous Syria thread was a waste of my time. Oh Well!

The Iraqi situation has clearly turned in the favor of the Outlaw US Empire as it craves chaos. It seems more likely than ever that Sadr's been turned given his behavior. The situation will give comfort to Neocons who want to "consolidate gains" within Syraq and continue building their military presence.

I very much welcomed the Russian statement on the al-Tanf terrorist base; its liquidation will hopefully come swiftly. It's instructive to compare the political stability of Syria with Iraq's political chaos. I think it very likely we'll see Daesh's resurrection within Iraq as that's the Outlaw US Empire's main tool to keep the chaos ongoing--the empire doesn't fight against Daesh; rather, it uses Daesh to fight against its stated enemies everywhere.

Anunnaki , Sep 7, 2018 1:03:55 PM | link
This is such amazing insights. Like a game of Risk for real. Thanks for the truth and not the presstitute bullshit: aka sympathy for Al Qaeda

Laguerre , Sep 7, 2018 1:19:39 PM | link

karloff
The Iraqi situation has clearly turned in the favor of the Outlaw US Empire as it craves chaos.
I don't agree with that, for the obvious reason that it will be impossible to support the US position in al-Tanf. And indeed in Syrian Kurdistan. What the US wants is a US-agreed PM in Iraq, and moderate stability.

Posted by: Laguerre | Sep 7, 2018 1:19:39 PM | link

BM , Sep 7, 2018 2:01:44 PM | link
@Laguerre | Sep 7, 2018 12:59:59 PM | 10

You'll find a much more trustworthy analysis of the Iraqi protest movement in Basra from Elijah Magnier:

The USA oblivious to the rise of a resistance movement in response to its interference in Iraqi elections

Tannenhouser , Sep 7, 2018 2:22:43 PM | link
B, the suntzu meme is awesome:)

Elijah J. Magnier has a new post in regards to Real politik in Iraq.

https://ejmagnier.com/2018/09/05/the-usa-oblivious-to-the-rise-of-a-resistance-movement-in-response-to-its-interference-in-iraqi-elections/(SP) has a post up about the real politik of Iraq,

[Sep 09, 2018] Obama speech escalates factional warfare against Trump by Barry Grey

The neocon crowd wants a revenge. Badly. "Full Spectrum Dominance" is a a religion for them. And they uses all dirty tricks intelligence agencies are know for.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
Sep 08, 2018 | www.wsws.org

In a speech Friday at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, former President Barack Obama publicly joined the escalating offensive against President Trump being mounted by sections of the ruling class and the state. The speech, directed at channeling both popular and ruling class opposition to the Trump administration behind the Democrats in the fall midterm elections, marked Obama's first direct attack on his successor.

Obama's speech came as the culmination of a series of extraordinary events over the past two weeks that have brought the acute political crisis in the US to a new and explosive level of intensity.

First came the week-long spectacle of bipartisan hypocrisy and political reaction occasioned by the death of Republican Senator John McCain, one of the most ferocious war-mongers in the US political establishment. Democrats sought to outdo the Republicans in eulogizing McCain as an "American hero" and model statesman. Within two days of McCain's burial, the media was ablaze with revelations from the forthcoming book on the Trump White House by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward. Woodward, citing anonymous interviews with high-ranking Trump officials, paints a picture of turmoil and dysfunction in which figures such as Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly call Trump an idiot. Woodward recounts incidents of Trump administration officials countermanding orders from the president, a situation Woodward characterizes as an "administrative coup d'état."

This was followed by the New York Times ' publication of an op-ed piece by an anonymous "senior official" in the Trump administration describing the activities of an internal "resistance" to Trump within the White House. The piece cited discussions among Trump aides about seeking his removal on the grounds of mental incompetence, as stipulated in the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. It made clear that the "resistance," promoted by the Times and the Democrats, supports Trump's tax cuts for the rich, removal of corporate regulations and increase in military spending. It attacks Trump for his "softness" toward Russia and North Korea and his overall impulsiveness, unpredictability and recklessness.

Obama's speech was along similar lines. He presented an absurdly potted history of American progress on the basis of the "free market," with, he acknowledged, some imperfections -- such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq (which killed millions of people). His administration was supposedly part of this march of progress.

... ... ...

The reality, of course, is that Obama presided over the funneling of trillions of dollars to Wall Street to rescue the financial oligarchy, carrying out the greatest redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top in history. This was paid for by wage cuts and the destruction of decent-paying jobs, replaced by poverty-wage, part-time and temporary employment, the gutting of health benefits for millions of workers under "Obamacare," pension cuts, the closure of thousands of public schools and layoff of tens of thousands of teachers, and a general lowering of the living standards of the working class.

Trump's attacks on democratic rights were prepared by Obama's brutal policy of deportations, his continuation of indefinite detention and the Guantanamo torture camp, his support for mass domestic spying and his program of drone assassinations, including of US citizens. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were continued and new wars were launched in Libya and Syria.

[Sep 09, 2018] The McCain Death Extravaganza

Notable quotes:
"... McCain was a protégé of neo-Conservative founder Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a crazy servant of the British imperial agenda who constantly sought military confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... The British were so enamored of Jackson's views that they have dedicated an entire society of British intelligence spooks to him, the Henry Jackson Society. The former incarnation of this group was the Committee on Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century in the United States. ..."
"... Leading members of both groups hastily retreated to British mother ship after they led the mobilization for the failed and disastrous Iraq War here in the U.S. Sir Richard Dearlove, who has shepherded Christopher Steele and other British aspects of the coup against Donald Trump, is a leading member of this group. ..."
"... He was uniquely ruthless when it comes to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally recruit far right fanatics as American proxies ..."
"... He backed the installation of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to govern Egypt, another failed and insane project. More than $5.6 trillion was spent chasing John McCain's idyll of democracy in Southwest Asia. Six thousand seven hundred Americans died, more than 50,000 were wounded, entire countries were reduced to rubble with accompanying genocide against their populations, the largest mass human migration ever was sent into Europe resembling something akin to the desperate mass flights of the Middle Ages. ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | larouchepac.com

John McCain died and deserved a decent funeral based on his war record and his long, if destructive, public service. McCain and others in Washington's arrogant and narcissistic elite decided before his death, however, to use McCain's demise to advance the coup against the President, and to make claims about the late Senator and themselves which are totally and utterly false and delusional. The funeral was a national media extravaganza achieving a status normally only enjoyed by former Presidents. It was, according to New Yorker Magazine , also the "biggest resistance meeting yet." President Donald Trump was not invited so that the cowards in the funeral crowd, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, could freely take potshots at the President. McCain picked these leaders of the country's descent into hell deliberately, to romanticize his death, and to trash talk the current President, albeit, in eloquent and lofty language and knowing allusions. In effect, they wrapped the murderous crimes of empire in the American flag.

McCain was a protégé of neo-Conservative founder Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a crazy servant of the British imperial agenda who constantly sought military confrontation with Russia.

The British were so enamored of Jackson's views that they have dedicated an entire society of British intelligence spooks to him, the Henry Jackson Society. The former incarnation of this group was the Committee on Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century in the United States.

Leading members of both groups hastily retreated to British mother ship after they led the mobilization for the failed and disastrous Iraq War here in the U.S. Sir Richard Dearlove, who has shepherded Christopher Steele and other British aspects of the coup against Donald Trump, is a leading member of this group.

Funding for McCain's political adventures came from his second wife, whose brewing company fortune was completely mixed up in Arizona mob and mob funding during its earlier years.

With respect to McCain's activities, Max Blumenthal characterized them accurately in the August 27th Consortium News:

"McCain did not simply thunder for every major intervention in the post-Cold War era from the Senate floor. . .

He was uniquely ruthless when it comes to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally recruit far right fanatics as American proxies . . .

In Libya and Syria, he cultivated affiliates of Al-Qaeda as allies, and in Ukraine, McCain recruited actual sig-heiling neo-Nazis. . .

Following the NATO orchestrated murder of Libya's leader, McCain tweeted: "Qaddafi on his way out, Bashar Al Assad is next."

He backed the installation of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to govern Egypt, another failed and insane project. More than $5.6 trillion was spent chasing John McCain's idyll of democracy in Southwest Asia. Six thousand seven hundred Americans died, more than 50,000 were wounded, entire countries were reduced to rubble with accompanying genocide against their populations, the largest mass human migration ever was sent into Europe resembling something akin to the desperate mass flights of the Middle Ages.

It is these horrific actions by McCain, not the myth peddled at his funeral, which is the source of the conflict between Trump and John McCain, and between Trump and George Bush and Barack Obama. Trump promised to end the imperial policy of endless religious and population wars and Wall Street bailouts, and the voters responded resoundingly by electing him President.

[Sep 09, 2018] The Yinon Plan, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority stipulates reconfiguration of its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: September 6, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT

@Sam Shama Bibi is a showman, that much is clear. You seem to be making equivalencies, not in evidence.

If you believe that the captain of the flight group was an insider to some alleged conspiracy, then it must have been unique, one which ran down from the ranks of the top brass all the way to the active operation captains. A tall order to believe. It would also require you to believe that in the many friendly fire incidents, involved personnel never commit errors judging the size of a vessel etc. Again, not the case. Indeed, Bibi is a shoah-man.
Meanwhile, the Jewish Al Qaeda has been on the march in Syria: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-05/israels-military-censor-removed-news-report-detailing-idf-support-syrian-armed
Comment section: " The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as the Yinon Plan, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
"Greater Israel" consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates"
– In short, the genocidal wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria are the result of the Jewish aspiration for "greatness." Another Bolshevik plan that is causing the enormous tragedy for the innocent civilian populations, thanks to Jewish supremacist ideology and sadism.

" the Syrian Army had routinely recovered weapons and supplies [for Al Qaeda] with Hebrew inscriptions from insurgent positions were in reality accurate even though widely dismissed at the time in international media. -- And who owns the MSM? http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/2016/10/six-jewish-companies-control-96-worlds-media/

"Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years:"

The success of Oded Yinon plan, in pictures:
Lybia:
Iraq:
Syria:

[Sep 09, 2018] Sharon s famous statement we control America is not the only one

Notable quotes:
"... "The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel." -- Ann Lewis, speaking for Hillary Clinton, at the meeting for Jewish Leadership sponsored by the United Jewish Communities on March 18, 2008 ( Jewess Ann Lewis, is sister to Homo Congressman Barney Frank). ..."
"... "The US shouldn't give high clearances to Jews, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of our country, Israel." -- Jew Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980's. ..."
"... "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own ." -- Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in an essay reprinted (from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz) in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times. ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Them Guys , says: September 6, 2018 at 5:29 am GMT

@jilles dykstra Two remarks, Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were jews.

"The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel." -- Ann Lewis, speaking for Hillary Clinton, at the meeting for Jewish Leadership sponsored by the United Jewish Communities on March 18, 2008 ( Jewess Ann Lewis, is sister to Homo Congressman Barney Frank).

"[Shimon] Peres warned [Ariel] Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and 'turn the US against us.' At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying 'every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.'"
-- Kol Yisrael (Israel Radio), 3 October, 2001 (IAP)

"My opinion of Christian Zionists? They're scum. But don't tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now "

"I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction."
-- Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Bibi just happened to be in New York City on 9/11 and London during the 7/7 subway bombings.

"The US shouldn't give high clearances to Jews, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of our country, Israel." -- Jew Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980's.

"The U.S. has no longer a government of goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the decision making at all levels. Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term 'government of goyim' should be re-examined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S." -- The major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, "The Jews Who Run Clinton's Court" on September 2, 1994.

"We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own ." -- Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in an essay reprinted (from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz) in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times.

"The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-White or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about a half century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever." -- Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy (offshoot of the ADL), Jewish Bulletin, Feb. 19, 1993

"We Jews have spoiled the blood of all the races of Europe. Taken as a whole, everything is Jewdified. Our ideas animate everything. Our spirit reigns over the world. We are the Lords." -- Dr. Kurt Munzer, "The Way to Zion."

"The Roosevelt Administration has selected more Jews to fill influential positions than any previous administration." -- Brooklyn Jewish Examiner, October 20, 1933.

"The Revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism." -- Max Horkheimer, Marxist Jew of the Frankfurt School

"The Jewish Question is being discussed by statesmen in a way more acute and compelling than ever before in the history of the world. They can do whatever they want, but the nations of the earth well never be able to get away from this question. The Jewish serpent will show its hydra's heads everywhere, blocking the way to a relaxation of international tensions. We Jews will not allow peace in the world, however hard statesmen and peace advocates try to bring it about." -- London Jewish Chronicle, March 3, 1939

Under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." -- 1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3 (the writer is obliquely referring to the true history of the Eastern European Ashkenazim, or Khazars).

"The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people." -- Le Peuple Juif, February 8, 1919.

"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism (Communism) itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." -- The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1919.

"The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a NEW ORDER IN THE WORLD. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, became a reality all over the world." -- The American Hebrew Magazine – September 10, 1920. Sometimes misquoted to say "New World Order."

"Jewish history has been tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. Our major vice of old as of today is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labor and good fortune of the rest of the world." -- Samuel Roth, "Jews Must Live," page 18.

"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting." -- Nahum Goldmann "The Jewish Paradox" 1978

Real, Factual, Honest, TRUTH'S Straight from the Mouth's & Pen's of .wait for it! .JEWS!

And, yet Still, the stupid, delusional, Naysayers, Jew Defenders, and all who remain in Deep Denial of such factual Truths Will continue to be and act as such. They simply cannot ever admit they have been so totally wrong, all those year's now, eh.

What does their Judaic Zionist Talmud, Holiest of Holy Book's teach Jews, such as Trumps SIL Kushner? ..This for one example ..Religious teaching and belief of Talmudic Jewry.

"To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly." -- The Talmud: Libbre David 37

[Sep 09, 2018] Israel s Fifth Column: Exercising control from inside the government by Philip Giraldi

Looks like Zionists and Jews serve as scapegoats for neocons and neoliberalism induced problems ;-)
We probably should also talk about financial capital fifth column, which intersects with Zionist fifth column and is more powerful. I do not think that without the power of financial fifth column Zionist fifth column would achieve such a prominence.
But in any case a better organized minority often dominates often disorganized majority: this is the essence of the iron law of oligarchy.
We also can view Israel as yet another US state as the destiny of Israel is so closely lined to the the USA.
Too many people mix Zionists and neocons ("Full Spectrum Dominance" religious cult). As well as Zionists and neoliberals.
Notable quotes:
"... Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List ( ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
"... Two remarks, Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were zionists. ..."
Sep 04, 2018 | www.unz.com
1,800 Words 431 Comments Reply

Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer said "I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the American intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was operating in international waters and was displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had identified the vessel as American, even strafed the life rafts to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It was the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the crew deservedly received the most medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one hell of a story of courage under fire, but don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make a movie out of it.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel. Then came the cover-up from inside the U.S. government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry headed by Admiral John McCain, father of the senator, deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the attack as well as crewmen from Navy ships that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado in Malta before being threatened and sworn to secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress, the White House and the Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures from the Liberty survivors.

The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act against its own interests has been around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted in a lopsided trade agreement that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year on the top of direct grants from the U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.

If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation vis-à-vis Israeli power is much worse now than it was in 1983. He would be very interested in reading a remarkable bit of research recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and its friends work from inside the system to corrupt our political process and make the American government work in support of Jewish state interests. He describes in some detail how the Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement community to protect and promote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.

A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George W. Bush's 2004 signing off on the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. The group's website proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but it has from its founding been really all about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how "the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons complex."

The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated secretly within the Treasury itself while also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli government as well as with pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel on the taxpayer's dime, as did his three successors in office.

Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen. It was reported then and subsequently that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who were both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey tradition of resisting any transparency regarding what the office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he refused to answer reporter questions "about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and whether sanctioning Iran, a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian nuclear program was an example of endemic double standards at OTFI."

Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal Pearl Mandelker, a former and possibly current Israeli citizen . All of the heads of OTFI have therefore been Jewish and Zionist. All work closely with the Israeli government, all travel to Israel frequently on "official business" and they all are in close liaison with the Jewish groups most often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has been that many of the victims of OTFI have been generally enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's Jewish lobbyists. OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List ( SDN ), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers . And once placed on the SDN there is no transparent way to be removed, even if the entry was clearly in error.

Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut down and individuals exercising their right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish state have been imprisoned. If the Israel Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making its way through congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the land when it comes to curtailing free speech whenever Israel is involved.

The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews closely attached to Israel being promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.

Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan Administration and they and their heirs in government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were major players in the catastrophic war with Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow, described in 2004 as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with Iran.

American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel. He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government talking points and has tried to change the wording of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word "occupied" when describing Israel's control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli shooting thousands of unarmed Gazan protesters and the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.

Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. Apparently when opportunity knocked he changed his mind about his new boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a Jewish advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement and also worked to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He is reportedly still connected financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a conflict of interest. As the Senior Adviser to Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of living allowance and a 10% hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.

So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything, it wants, apparently. Sink a U.S. warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a minute and we'll draft some legislation that will give you even more money. Create a treasury department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to punish critics of the Jewish state? No brainer. Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and top aide overseas to represent the interests of the foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just happens to be Israel. Will it ever end?

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 8:23 am GMT

billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.

Do a little research on these and you'll find nearly 4,500 of them in the USA alone

Directory of Charities and Nonprofit Organizations: Jewish (Displaying 1 – 100 of 4,421 )

https://www.guidestar.org/nonprofit-directory/religion/jewish/1.aspx

Since these groups are tax-free entities, gathering in at least 26 billion a year-not including money to synagogues–that's close to 30 billion a year Americans have to make up for out of their wallets on April 15 of each year.

26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered

The Forward's investigation has uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a Fortune 500 company and focuses the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.

This analysis doesn't include synagogues and other groups that avoid revealing their financial information by claiming a religious exemption.

https://forward.com/news/israel/194978/26-billion-bucks-the-jewish-charity-industry-unco/

The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has been run by either American or Israeli Jews since its inception. Similar to the US Treasury, where five out of the last eight Treasury heads were American Jews. One of the GOYIM appointed, Hank Paulson, was installed to put an American face on the 2008 MBS generated economic crash, which enriched Wall Street before AND after, but devastated Main Street.

After Israel realized it could attack the USS Liberty and not only not be held accountable, but the USG would help them protect their lies, that gave them the incentive to start planning their biggest attack on the USA to date: the 9/11 False Flag. And like the Liberty incident, the USG is protecting Israel by helping with the lies that keep the Big Lie alive, that Bin Laden and his posse were the attackers, so Israel could use it's MSM buddies to generate an army of lies about Iraq; Libya, Syria and Iran, three of which we've already destroyed with Iran in the cross-hairs of unhinged psychos like Bolton and Nutty Nikki.

Drain the Swamp? Hell, Trump and his minions like Shadow President Kushner come from the murkiest depths of that Swamp.

Bottom line? Either we WTFU and realize that our nation has been taken over by Israel, which is using our military might, wealth and blood to do their dirty work in the ME, invading and busting up nations Israel wants destroyed, or we resign ourselves and condemn our offspring to a lifetime of poverty, misery, tyranny and endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel.

jilles dykstra , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:13 am GMT
Two remarks, Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were zionists.
RVBlake , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT
I wonder at the reference for the claim that LBJ stated his preference that the LIBERTY sink rather than embarass Israel. I am mindful of LBJ's apparent indifference to the violent deaths of thousands of US servicemen in another part of the world at that time.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 10:47 am GMT
An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:

'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'

Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'

hobo , says: September 4, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
The bastards have the whole system wired. Their tenures at the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) provided a springboard to critical posititions within the architecture of 'the system'.

From Wikipedia:

In January 2012, Levey joined HSBC as the bank's Chief Legal Officer.

(trivia : In 2014 HSBC closed North London Central Mosque's account and some Muslim clients' and groups' accounts. Several sources report that HSBC closed them because they donated their money to Palestine during the recent conflict)

and

In 2015 Cohen was appointed Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency . At the time of his appointment, some speculated that Cohen's selection was due to the Obama administration's reluctance in picking someone with ties to past incidences of CIA torture and extraordinary rendition. The post of deputy director has traditionally been filled by military officers or intelligence community veterans.

(note the whitewashing of Cohen's appointment. No mention of the jewish/zionist angle.)

And that folks is how they roll.

JoaoAlfaiate , says: September 4, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@rafael martorell thank you for your articles but is time for you to explain how and why we get to such ridiculous,caricaturesque level of control,that cant be explain even if the case we are inferiors to them. Everything is for sale in the USA, including our foreign policy and the lives of our soldiers.
APilgrim , says: September 4, 2018 at 12:59 pm GMT
British immigrants are required to RENOUNCE UK Citizenship, to become US Citizens.

This is entirely proper.

Mexicans & Jews retain dual citizenship, without any problem. This is so wrong. Jews routinely serve in IDF & Mossad, but seldom in the US Military. This is a GLARING form of disloyalty. Such 'citizenship' should be revoked, and the holders deported. IMHPO.

I suspect that Jews & Mexicans on SCOTUS, are at the bottom of this.

T. Weed , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:08 pm GMT
Will it ever end? Mr. Giraldi asks (rhetorically). Trump got something right when he said that Media was the enemy, but he didn't say who owned Media. "Masters of Discourse" Israel Shamir calls Jews who control what we see and hear. Since Media lies to us 24/7, and since Congress is scared to death of AIPAC's power and money (Netanyahu's 29 standing ovations before that group of pathetic whores), nothing will change until Media changes ownership and Congress is subjected to campaign finance reform. No more "campaign contributions" (bribes).
Eighthman , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
TheOldOne , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:31 pm GMT
How about this: NO DUAL CITIZENSHIP!

Don't want to give up your Israeli citizenship (or any other, for that matter)?–then leave the USA and go to your hole!

lysias , says: September 4, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
When LBJ ordered the recall of the fighters that were flying to the rescue of the Liberty, he said that he didn't want to embarrass his ally. This was at a time when the sailors on the Liberty had not yet identified the nationality of the attackers. People in the White House knew it was Israel before the sailors on the Liberty knew. Think about the implications of that.
Uncle Sam , says: September 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Any time a political system can be hijacked by a foreign power and forced to do the bidding of that foreign power that political system has to be replaced.

The American political system based on republican and constitutional government has collapsed, largely because the Jewish people have made a total, complete and utter mockery out of that system. The so-called American "democracy" is a code word for plutocracy. Wherever you have a "democracy" what you have in practice is a plutocracy.

The Jews love plutocracies because with their money they can literally buy politicians. Furthermore, the non-Jewish populations cannot defend themselves from the Jewish power in these so-called "democracies".

It will take the proverbial man on the white horse to remedy this situation, i.e., a Caesar, Napoleon, Mussolini or Hitler. If any of you reading this think that this collapsed political system can be resurrected, well then you are living in la-la land.

Sam Shama , says: September 4, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT

OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers .

OTFI SDN features names only, of those individuals/businesses/organisations which are engaged in illegal activities against the United States and her interests.

Your well-known bias clouds your vision.

Went through the list cursorily and looked for names I knew to be criminally engaged and thus under U.S. surveillance and sanctions. Names with a Jewish ethnicity, that is. Lo behold, they are indeed there:

Mikhail Abramov
Valerii Abramov
Nicolai Shusanshvili a.k.a Moshe Israel
Arkadevic Rotenberg
Roman Rotenberg

I am sure there are more.

Don't suppose any clarification, let alone a retraction, of your demonstrated hatred of Jews and the resulting bias would be forthcoming

AaronB , says: September 4, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
Let me explain to you stupid goyim why the Jews dominate you.

Take 2 groups of people of roughly equal ability –

Group A – divides its time between making money and quality of life activities. Has aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B – devotes 98 percent if it's time to making money. No aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B will swiftly dominate and concentrate all wealth in its hands, even if it is no more talented than group A, and vastly outnumbered by group A, and will reshape society to fit its agenda of money uber alles.

That's all there is to it. There is no mystery.

Now there are literally only 2 ways, and only 2 ways, to fight this –

1) Group A must learn to devote 98 percent of its time to making money and have no moral or aesthetic limits.

2) Group A must practice collective action to preserve its leisured way of life and exclude group B from too much power.

This is why individualism was the greatest gift to people who care only about money.

There is no use complaining about Jews. They are what they are. Money to Jews are "God points" – the more you have the closer you are to God. Puritans had the same idea later.

The problem transcends Jews.

Lets say 80 percent of Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives to money, but only 20 percent of gentiles are. Even in a country with no Jews, that 20 percent of gentiles will dominate and shape the county to fit its joyless agenda and oppress everyone else.

That's why in England the powerful classes acted as horrifically as Jews with things like the Land Enclosures and the rape of the monasteries and the like.

People who care only for money will always dominate people who have other interests in life – it is a law of nature, easy to understand, not at all mysterious. Unless the majority who care less for money are willing to band together to put a check on the joyless minority.

When individualism was accepted, the dominance if the joyless minority was assured.

Z-man , says: September 4, 2018 at 3:20 pm GMT
@Johnny Rottenborough An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:

'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'

Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.' What ever happened to Rick Sanchez? LOL!!!

On September 30, 2010, Sanchez was interviewed on Sirius XM's radio show Stand Up With Pete Dominick. Sanchez's interview occurred on the final day of his show in the 8 p.m. time slot, and he was reportedly angry about being replaced by CNN's new Parker Spitzer talk show[11][12] as well as the occasional jokes made at his expense on The Daily Show:
It's not just the Right that does this. 'Cause I've known a lot of, you know, elite Northeast establishment liberals that may not use this as a business model, but deep down when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier and not the top tier . I had a guy who works here at CNN who's a top brass come to me one day and say, 'You know what, I don't want you anchoring anymore. I really don't see you as an anchor. I see you more as a reporter. I see you more as a John Quiñones .' Did he not realize that he was telling me, 'When I see you, I think of Hispanic reporters'? 'Cause in his mind, I can't be an anchor. An anchor's what you give the high-profile White guys, you know? So he knocks me down to that and compares me to that, and it happens all the time. I think to a certain extent Jon Stewart and Colbert are the same way. I think Jon Stewart's a bigot.[11]
After Dominick questioned him, Sanchez retracted the term, "bigot," and referred to Stewart as "prejudicial" and "uninformed,"[13] but he defended feeling discriminated, saying, "He's upset that someone of my ilk is almost at his level" and that Stewart is "not just a comedian. He can make and break careers."[14] When queried on the issue of whether Stewart likewise belonged to a minority group on account of his Jewish faith, Sanchez responded:
Yeah, very powerless people. [laughs] He's such a minority. I mean, you know, please. What -- are you kidding? I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?[11][12]
A day after his remarks,[15] CNN announced that Sanchez was no longer employed with the company.[11]
Despite his firing, upon leaving CNN, Sanchez said, "I want to go on record to say that I have nothing but the highest regard for CNN and for my six wonderful years with them. I appreciate every opportunity that they have given me, and it has been a wonderful experience working for them."[20]
Apology for comments
In the days after the incident, Sanchez apologized several times. In an appearance on Good Morning America, Sanchez told George Stephanopoulos, "I said some things I shouldn't have said. They were wrong. Not only were they wrong, they were offensive." He added, "I apologize and it was wrong for me to be so careless and so inartful. But it happened and I can't take it back and, you know what, now I have to stand up and be responsible."[21]
Sanchez also called and personally apologized to Stewart. He released a statement expressing regret for his "inartful" comments, adding "I am very much opposed to hate and intolerance, in any form, and I have frequently spoken out against prejudice."[20][22] On October 20, 2010, Jon Stewart told Larry King that Sanchez should not have been fired for what Sanchez said in the radio interview; Stewart called the firing "absolute insanity",[23] and stating that he was not "personally hurt".[24]
In a letter to Abraham Foxman -- the head of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) -- Sanchez apologized once again, writing, "[T]here are no words strong enough for me to express my regret and sorrow over what I said. It was offensive, and I deeply, sincerely and unequivocally apologize for the hurt that I have caused. I tell my children that when they make a mistake, they should take responsibility, atone and work to repair whatever they have done. I cannot undo the offense or controversy I caused; all I can do is to try and learn from this experience and strive to become a better person."
Following a meeting with Foxman, Foxman said Sanchez can now "put the matter to rest", adding that he hoped Sanchez can now move on with his life and work.

After his groveling (appology tour) to Big Joo Sanchez was able to resuscitate his journalistic career to some extent but at a much lower level.
Beware the POWER of the CABAL

Z-man , says: September 4, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
Trumps comments that 'he would meet with the Iranians', even though his Treasury Department is destroying their country, is, I believe, a dog whistle to American Nationalists like me, that he is not completely controlled by the evil Cabal. I certainly hope so but we shall see.

That comment that Trump 'would meet with the Iranians' must have gotten the Cabal's underwear all in knots but some like Alan 'Douche-a-witz' still stayed on the Trump support team vs. the Deep State. Interestink times. (Grin)

Anonymouse2 , says: September 4, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
As a Zionist jew I had no idea we were so powerful. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling all over. We're said to be super smart too. What's not to like?
Rev. Spooner , says: September 4, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke Good thinking Philip Giraldi, it really is time for a movie to be made about the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty and the wilful killing of so many US sailors. It should be done without any Hollywood backing and distribution along the lines of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. (Hey Mel, do you read The Unz Review? You should).

It could easily be crowdfunded if necessary, with survivors of the incident serving as consultants. There are loads of 60s era military surplus items available on the cheap, including aircraft and I would imagine a massive response to a call for actors and extras. It certainly would help kick open the door to awareness of where the real threat to America lies. Its not just about the jews, its about the american elites too. The commoners, the fatties, the crackers, the trailer thrash, the single mums, the idiots awaiting the second coming will be the last to know what is now becoming common knowledge the world over.
I'm no genius or economist but reading online, I understood it well. The common minimum wage burger slinger will support the empire, the jews and the dollar when he understands what uncle sam is doing and so will you if you happen to be american.

Take a gander-

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/ajay-srivastav/the-real-reason-behind-trumps-trade-war/article24856757.ece/amp/

And they say "there's no such thing as a free lunch" Duh!

AB , says: September 4, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@AaronB Let me explain to you stupid goyim why the Jews dominate you.

Take 2 groups of people of roughly equal ability -

Group A - divides its time between making money and quality of life activities. Has aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B - devotes 98 percent if it's time to making money. No aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make money.

Group B will swiftly dominate and concentrate all wealth in its hands, even if it is no more talented than group A, and vastly outnumbered by group A, and will reshape society to fit its agenda of money uber alles.

That's all there is to it. There is no mystery.

Now there are literally only 2 ways, and only 2 ways, to fight this -

1) Group A must learn to devote 98 percent of its time to making money and have no moral or aesthetic limits.

2) Group A must practice collective action to preserve its leisured way of life and exclude group B from too much power.

This is why individualism was the greatest gift to people who care only about money.

There is no use complaining about Jews. They are what they are. Money to Jews are "God points" - the more you have the closer you are to God. Puritans had the same idea later.

The problem transcends Jews.

Lets say 80 percent of Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives to money, but only 20 percent of gentiles are. Even in a country with no Jews, that 20 percent of gentiles will dominate and shape the county to fit its joyless agenda and oppress everyone else.

That's why in England the powerful classes acted as horrifically as Jews with things like the Land Enclosures and the rape of the monasteries and the like.

People who care only for money will always dominate people who have other interests in life - it is a law of nature, easy to understand, not at all mysterious. Unless the majority who care less for money are willing to band together to put a check on the joyless minority.

When individualism was accepted, the dominance if the joyless minority was assured. Spot on.

Put it another way: people who are dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous will always win over people who are honest, trusting and law abiding, and make them look like fools, i.e. the impure at heart will always win over the pure at heart.

This doesn't just apply to Jews, it applies to basically all non-WASPs. That's why groups like Indians and Chinese are also doing well in the US, they are almost equally as dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous as the Jews, the only difference is, the Chinese are not nearly as power hungry as the Jews or the Indians.

The only truly honest people in the world are Germans and Scandinavians. That's why they did not colonize the 3rd world or engaged in the slave trade like the rest of Europe. The British aristocracy has been too deeply infiltrated by Jews for too long, they've long lost their sense of honor and honesty. America became a Jew run country since LBJ came to power, it's basically Israel x 100. It is no longer a benevolent superpower, not since the CIA was formed. It is now the military wing of Israel, Inc.

Iris , says: September 4, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski Hi RVBlake,
... Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D. AIPAC-approved/RI) now opines upon how the Zionist Chief Justice Roberts' Supreme Court was prejudiced against N.W.O.'s "constructed" & subsequent approval of downsized worker "Unions."
(zzZigh)
... Selah, a remake of the ole cowboy song, "Home, home on The Homeland range..., where, selah, the cloud-cover is sunny all day!"
Thanks, RVBlake. Censored Al-Jazeera documentary shows how the Israel lobby spies and blackmail US citizens on US soil in violation of the law.

Information about the censored documentary was posted by Geokat62 on the precedent P. Giraldi's article: French journalist Alain Gresh was given a private screening and wrote a headline article in "Le Monde Diplomatique".

The Israel lobby deploys a web of systematic, anonymous and secure spying techniques on US citizens who oppose Zionist policies, such as BDS activists. It gathers personal and confidential information on these individuals, then puts this information on line to ruin their lives.
It also digs up any political activity or comments that could be twisted and misinterpreted, and blackmails employers with anti-Semitism accusations, should they not sack the targeted individuals.

This is just institutionalised blackmail on US soil, for the benefit of a foreign power, in total impunity.
Full article in English version:

https://mondediplo.com/2018/09/02israel-lobby

KG , says: September 4, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT
New book on attack on USS Liberty as a coordinated Isaeli/U.S. false flag.
Blood in The Water

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1633884643/ref=cm_sw_r_em_tai_c_R1QJBb4S0ZA5S

AaronB , says: September 4, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
@AB Spot on.

Put it another way: people who are dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous will always win over people who are honest, trusting and law abiding, and make them look like fools, i.e. the impure at heart will always win over the pure at heart.

This doesn't just apply to Jews, it applies to basically all non-WASPs. That's why groups like Indians and Chinese are also doing well in the US, they are almost equally as dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous as the Jews, the only difference is, the Chinese are not nearly as power hungry as the Jews or the Indians.

The only truly honest people in the world are Germans and Scandinavians. That's why they did not colonize the 3rd world or engaged in the slave trade like the rest of Europe. The British aristocracy has been too deeply infiltrated by Jews for too long, they've long lost their sense of honor and honesty. America became a Jew run country since LBJ came to power, it's basically Israel x 100. It is no longer a benevolent superpower, not since the CIA was formed. It is now the military wing of Israel, Inc. There are no innocent groups. Different groups are innocent at different times.

j2 , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:19 pm GMT
@AaronB But the monarchs and the nobility themselves turn rapacious - Henry 8 couldn't control his greed and raped the monasteries. Later, British nobility stole everyone's land and impoverished and starved millions out of greed.

Plus, the nobility themselves employed Jews as ruthless tax farmers and moneylenders! The Jews were the proxies of the nobility so the anger of the people would be deflected.

Examples across the world are legion.

People who care only about money always win against relaxed people who enjoy life - it's utterly un-mysterious and easily understandable.

There is no political system that can corrall greed. Religion controls it for a time then becomes a vehicle for greed and oppression.

It's a cycle. Greed rises, rises, then makes everything go to shit and collapse, then there is breathing room and life becomes relatively enjoyable again (a period that greedy people generally call the Dark Ages, or the Middle Ages). "It's a cycle. Greed rises, rises, then makes everything go to shit and collapse, then there is breathing room and life becomes relatively enjoyable again (a period that greedy people generally call the Dark Ages, or the Middle Ages)."

You are too pessimistic. For the majority of the time humans have existed there was no such problem: a big man had to give a party and spend his wealth. These are problems of later times. It took humans 8000 years to get rid of slavery. Earlier there was no slavery as there was no work where to put slaves, today slaves are not needed as there are machines, but for a long time they were needed. There will be a time when collecting wealth by doing anything will be impossible, but this time will have to wait until development can be stopped. There are theoretical systems where these problems do not appear. No finance, no investment, no interest, no accumulation of money, only maintaining technical infra. It is not yet, but how long lasted the dominance of agriculture, and it is no more. But I think the problem is different, it is not some people thinking only of money. I think it is old capital and acting as a group against all others. Genetic admixture would break the group and old capital can be destroyed. Has been done before.

Realist , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT

President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.

In addition to the above mentioned transgression, he signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, he promoted federal funding for education, he promoted the war on poverty, he promoted gun control and many other Great Society horse shit programs.
LBJ was an evil, corrupt son of a bitch. He killed over 58,000 Americans in the god damn useless Vietnam 'war'.

To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.

This situation can be directly blamed on Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Will it ever end?

Not through electoral means.

Mike P , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:32 pm GMT
@Realist

President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.
In addition to the above mentioned transgression, he signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, he promoted federal funding for education, he promoted the war on poverty, he promoted gun control and many other Great Society horse shit programs.
LBJ was an evil, corrupt son of a bitch. He killed over 58,000 Americans in the god damn useless Vietnam 'war'.

To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
This situation can be directly blamed on Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Will it ever end?
Not through electoral means.

Will it ever end?

Not through electoral means.

A key problem of our Western so-called democracies is that they are "representative." This might have been conducive to getting stuff done in the age of horse and carriage, but nowadays it is no longer necessary; it is perfectly possible to let the people vote on the latest raise for the Pentagon, if they bring a motion. In Switzerland this is done routinely; for example, a while ago the people threw out the government's decision to buy the F-35 for the Swiss air force.

A purely representative democracy is designed to withhold power from the public and hand it over to the rich and their lobbies. Direct democracy would be a powerful weapon against corruption – no lobby can bribe the whole of the population. Of course, it does not immediately solve problems like control of mass media etc.; but nevertheless it is plain that Switzerland, the world's most democratic country, is also prosperous, well-governed, with sound finances and without brain-dead foreign policy adventures.

Direct democracy has to potential to provide greatly improved governance, and it is a cause people on the left and the right can all agree on.

Peter Maya , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 10:46 pm GMT
I keep wishing that Mr. Giraldi would write a series of articles (book) about the COSTS (specially economic/human) of USA blind support for Israli Zio establishment. Often times the world praises Israeli making the "dessert bloom" well any nation could do so if that nation enjoyed secure perpetual markets, subsidies (US agricultural Dept) in the US. and Europe, which Palestinians are often denied. Under ZIO banking threats ,Global Airlines must stop in Israeli Airport eventhought it adds heavy economic burdens to their rolls$$. While Israel pushes America to enforce Trade/Arms/Finance sanctions and embargos against other nations it seem that Israel is readily available to trade, sell weapons, and finance that very nations that AIPAC black listed!!! in fact US embargoes are an economic boom for Israeli Defense Military industries. While Tel Aviv emerges a major technological powerhouse (Talpiot) at the expense of American Tech Industries that usually powerless to stop Israeli theft, fraud, spying and outright robberies of corporate/Pentagon/Secret tech many US cities plunge into chaos, Bankruptcy, industrial, manufacturing dilapidation such as Detroit, Chicago, Flynn, etc. Perhaps it would help Americans understand the consequences of uncritical support for Israel once they realize that their Children are paying for trillions in debt enslavement, worthless currency, shrinking middle class, expanding poverty, decaying: infrastructure, schools, medical services, education etc. and of course the endless dying and bleeding of many young Americans in endless wars that do NOT benefit their country at all only Israel profits from them. Couple with the political costs for USA alienation, and hatred for America, and the constant of terrorist attacks targeting major urban cities in the Western World, spreading death and destruction all over the world which may bring a global confrontation between Muslims/Christians countries that only Israel can benefit. It remains to consider how long can USA sustain economically/politically/culturally such support for Jewish-Zio-Israeli interests while ignoring its own internal/external well being (population/geographic) and national cohesiveness.
Greg Bacon , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 11:56 pm GMT
@FKA Max

Now however, when through the malice of fate a large part of these Jews whom we fought against are alive, I must concede that fate must have wanted it so. I always claimed that we were fighting against a foe who through thousands of years of learning and development had become superior to us.

I no longer remember exactly when, but it was even before Rome itself had been founded that the Jews could already write. It is very depressing for me to think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written history. But it tells me that they must be a people of the first magnitude, for lawgivers have always been great.

- http://archive.is/wl8On#selection-785.5-789.335

Life Magazine, November 28, 1960 – Carroll Baker

Table of Contents

Eichmann's story
World War, 1939-1945 (War criminals), Holocaust, Jewish (1939-1945) [p.] 20

– https://www.oldlifemagazines.com/november-28-1960-life-magazine.html

- https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2497112

Life Magazine, December 5, 1960 – Pro football kickoff

Table of Contents

Eichmann and the duty of man
Adolf Eichmann; 1906-1962, World War, 1939-1945 (War criminals), Holocaust, Jewish (1939-1945) [p.] 46

– https://www.oldlifemagazines.com/december-05-1960-life-magazine.html

- https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2497165

" think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written history."

Wow, thanks for that history lesson. Always thought that the Code of Hammurabi was one of the first times laws were put into written form, that the Law of Moses came later?

The Code of Hammurabi was one of the only sets of laws in the ancient Near East and also one of the first forms of law . The code of laws was arranged in orderly groups, so that all who read the laws would know what was required of them.[10] Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi#Laws_of_Hammurabi's_Code

Thanks for the correction of history that archeologists must have overlooked!
Probably nasty anti-Semites, eh?

NoseytheDuke , says: September 5, 2018 at 1:08 am GMT
@Eighthman It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.

Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.

Israel will abandon the US like a used condom WHEN the US fails economically.

I fixed that for you. It will be by design too but the military power will be exploited first.

Deschutes , says: September 5, 2018 at 9:09 am GMT
Yes, it's a disgraceful situation that the US government (Pentagon, Treasury, Congress, etc) has been co-opted Israel-firsters. Indeed, these pro-Israel Zionists are morally and ethically bankrupt and have no qualms with taking over and dictating US foreign policy for Israel's gain.

And while articles like this certainly have merit, the 'blame game' can only go so far before it becomes sore loser whining. Don't like the situation as it stands? Then do something about it besides whingeing.

There is a need for reflection: how did this sad state of affairs come to pass? Why didn't government and military leadership stop this silent Jewish-Zionist-Israeli coup from happening? In a way, it is the fault of gentile, or goy Americans for not being able to recognize and to have stopped it dead in its tracks.

The Jews in general are much more closely knit than goys are. This is why they beat you: they work as a very loyal, tight-knit team; whereas gentiles, WASPS etc are largely atomized. This is the goy's main failing: it's 'everybody's on his/her own'; there is no community, no teamwork, no 'we're in this together' organization that the Jews have.

Even on the family level, Jewish families are much more close-knit. They look out for each other, help each other get jobs, very good networking. Whites just don't do this, so many dysfunctional, fucked up families, broken families .families that only see each other at Christmas–and beyond that 'don't bother me!'. Hard to face, but quite true. Goys are atomized. This is why they lost.

Or look at how a synagogue works compared to a roman catholic church. In a synagogue, they are talking about what is really happening now, who needs a job, who is starting a new business and go and be a customer there; or a special event everybody must go to, etc. It is alive, a thriving central hub for the local Jewish community that has real relevance. On the other hand a roman catholic church is a bore! Some old fart reading passages from the bible .people in the pews nodding off .nobody really gives a shit. The only thing on their mind is when this raging bore of a church service will end so they can leave–and pronto! You know it's true. That's why numbers of attendees to churches in USA are in a tailspin.

So my main point is this: the Jews beat you because they are so much better organized and integrated. Because of this they hijacked the government for their own gain.

Sam Shama , says: September 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
@geokat62

Geo, once again I am glad to observe that you are amongst the precious few on UR perfectly capable of being objective whilst engaging in debate.
Appreciate the compliment, Sam.

But, speaking of objectivity:


Moreover, I shall be happier still, when he takes the trouble to distinguish between the vast majority of innocent Jewish citizens of America and "America's Jews are Driving America's ".
would this modest revision satisfy your thirst for objectivity:

"America's Organized Jews (who are generally supported by the Jewish Community, at large) are Driving America's Wars."
If it does, consider it implied, as the latter wouldn't do as snappy title, would it? "America's Leaders are Driving America's Wars"

By all means, name all the leaders: top, middle and lower in the article. By all means, observe that a significant group of middle leadership were Jewish. But don't paint the rest of American Jewry with the same brush. They have nothing to do with it. As you know I've looked into the financial contributions coming to the lobbies. The contributions from about the top 0.1% account for 99.99% of the total. And that is no distortion of facts. Why would you hold the ordinary Jewish dentist or professor responsible for the actions of an Adelson anymore than you would the actions of the ordinary gentile professor or engineer for the actions of a Koch or Walton?

[Sep 09, 2018] In Britain Israel uses the same tactics as in in the USA

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

El Dato , says: September 9, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT

Rubin revealed that Ryan was in almost daily contact with Shai Masot, an Israeli embassy staffer in London, caught on camera plotting to "take down" MPs perceived as hostile to Israel. Masot is also filmed discussing with leading figures in Conservative Friends of Israel, including Maria Strizzolo, a senior aide to Education Minister Robert Halfon and a former political director of CFI, about whether Strizzoli could help "take down" Foreign Office deputy, Sir Alan Duncan. The affair now looks like a practice run for the operation mounted against Corbyn.

No doubt about that. Are these people in prison yet?

No?

Oh well.

[Sep 09, 2018] If the SAA and allies wait more than a week they may lose their initiative as surely something spectacular is being devised, they need to keep moving fast right through the chemical stunt and what ever the reaction is.

Notable quotes:
"... The desperate panic of the US shows very clearly that there are many US special forces in Idlib embedded with the terrorists, who are in danger of capture (hence interrogation - the US would be less worried about their lives than releasing information about ther support for the terrorist chemical weapon attacks). ..."
"... On Turkey, the US are obviously trying to blackmail Turkey, and subject massive pressure to turn them. But it seems all the more implausible that Turkey would go back to the US side when the US is apparently planning to consolidate the Kurdish state ..."
"... No doubt the US is planning to use their ISIS proxy massively during Idlib. ..."
"... IMO, Erdogan doth protest too much as he created the terrorist occupation of Northern Syria and Idlib Province, had lots of time to get his terrorists separated from the more extreme (or perhaps they're all extreme which is why they can't/won't be separated), and deserved to be in a cell at The Hague instead of negotiating in Tehran. Turks deserve better leadership than that provided by Erdogan, but unfortunately both Turks and the world are stuck for the moment with Erdogan. ..."
"... Quite what the Turks are up to seems to me not clear. Obviously they have to defend (politically) their conquest of Afrin, which was anti-Kurd, but executed by Sunni Jihadis. Will they defend the jihadis in Idlib? That seems to me less evident. They may do nothing. ..."
"... According to Russian sources, Erdogan has said the ceasefire would not apply to designated terrorists, so in that sense, the long-established de-escalation / reconciliation process would apply to Syrians (only) in Idlib who renounce violence and support a peaceful political process. ..."
"... There have been reports that HTS has executed a Syrian doctor, Dr. Hussein Aydin (sp ?) in Idlib city for refusing to cooperate with the forthcoming WH false flag. ..."
"... As suspected, the Israeli rescue operation for 800 WH in southern Syria was intended to allow them to extract a number of their operatives. That was only possible because Israel had control of the border. ..."
"... The same won't be true of any UK operatives still in Idlib, especially if Turkey does clamp down hard (can always hope). No wonder the UK is playing the Skripal card for all its worth. ..."
"... I have been listening to the UNSC meeting, and both France and Kuwait were quite insistent that the poor civilians in Idlib are in dire need of increased humanitarian aid, which they insist should be delivered by Turkey. I smell a rat. ..."
"... The "underpants" plan was most likely concocted by Israel-firsters. The context: The Jewish State has been arming the Al Qaeda in Syria with Israel-made weaponry: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/11/how-the-us-and-israel-support-al-qaeda-in-south-syria.html ..."
"... At the same time, the Jewish State has been arming the neo-Nazi in Ukraine with Israel-made rifles: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-10/major-israeli-daily-our-government-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine ..."
"... There is a bit of self-contradiction in the US govt statements. They admit it's a civil war. That implies there is more than one side. But then the goal is stated that there is to be one leader to be approved by ALL Syrians. That is not possible. It's not even possible in the US. ..."
"... The administration spokesperson called for "a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community, unlike our own situation here in the United States" Apparently his full quote was cropped before going out to the stenos. ..."
"... I find this observation apt: "A senior #Russia/n diplomat in a private talk following #TehranSummit: "There's no "moderate opposition" in #Idlib left. All the folks who wanted to reconcile w/ #Assad, make deals w/ #Moscow already did so in other regions. What's moved to Idlib are die-hard radicals" ..."
"... After Khamenei's meeting with Erdogan , he met with Putin and then the rest of the team. His narrative's bold yet measured as with this example: "One of the cases on which #Iran and #Russia can cooperate is harnessing the United States; because the United States is a threat to the humanity and it is possible to harness it." More of the meeting is available in English on Khamenei's own website , the existence of which I just discovered. Enlightening reading to be sure! ..."
"... While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Scripals and the subsequent sanctions are designed to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels. ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Sep 7, 2018 12:31:49 PM | link

It's a good morning in my corner of the planet, and thanks for all the feedback, particularly Pft @50!

So far, no False Flag attack has occurred in concert with the Tehran Summit or UNSC meeting as many anticipated, which is very positive. Statements coming out of Tehran are very diplomatic. The comment I made at Sputnik 's report centered on Erdogan's having created his Idlib dilemma himself and what he could do to atone for his moral failings for the entire Syria debacle he helped to cause. A Joint Statement was published, of which point #2 was aimed directly at the Outlaw US Empire and the UN:

"2. Emphasized their strong and continued commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and highlighted that they should be respected by all. They reiterated that no actions, no matter by whom they were undertaken, should undermine these principles. They rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighboring countries."

What I'm missing is a transcript of the joint news conference as the snippets offered by TASS only cover specific, yet important, points, this one being most important as Putin calls for terrorists to "... wisen up, stop putting up resistance and lay down their arms."

So far, I've seen nothing from the UNSC meeting, but it's only just after noon there.

Anunnaki , Sep 7, 2018 1:03:55 PM | link
This is such amazing insights. Like a game of Risk for real. Thanks for the truth and not the presstitute bullshit: aka sympathy for Al Qaeda
Jason , Sep 7, 2018 2:21:09 PM | link
If the SAA and allies wait more than a week they may lose their initiative as surely something spectacular is being devised, they need to keep moving fast right through the chemical stunt and what ever the reaction is. PMUs should bring a force to the border and publicly demand to be unmolested in an assault on ISIS around Al Tanf. Any supposed guerrilla assault by Arabs in the NE should begin at the onset of the Idleb offensive. If there were a cost for the SDF/US occupation at the same time as the US population is told we must defend Al Qeada in Idleb the whole narrative maybe harder to explain to the US. Also where is China? If they aren't going to commit special forces or advisors as they hinted, than a strong statement about the need and right of the Syrian people to eliminate these jihadi forces on the world stage would help the whole situation quite a bit.
BM , Sep 7, 2018 2:24:06 PM | link
The desperate panic of the US shows very clearly that there are many US special forces in Idlib embedded with the terrorists, who are in danger of capture (hence interrogation - the US would be less worried about their lives than releasing information about ther support for the terrorist chemical weapon attacks). I hope Russia will not allow any of them to escape. They should try to jam their communications.

On Turkey, the US are obviously trying to blackmail Turkey, and subject massive pressure to turn them. But it seems all the more implausible that Turkey would go back to the US side when the US is apparently planning to consolidate the Kurdish state, which is an existential threat to Turkey far greater than anything (else) the US can threaten them. Is it possible that Erdogan is bluffing in his resistance to the Idlib battle, as Kabuki theatre for Washington? (And also as Kabuki for the terrorists, whose turning against Turkey he fears).

BM , Sep 7, 2018 2:37:03 PM | link
PMUs should bring a force to the border and publicly demand to be unmolested in an assault on ISIS around Al Tanf. ... Also where is China?
Posted by: Jason | Sep 7, 2018 2:21:09 PM | 21

That's a good point about the Iraqi PMU's bringing a force to the border near al Tanf. Otherwise any ISIS forces pursued by Russia could take refuge on the Iraqi side which Russia is not allowed to bomb. No doubt the US is planning to use their ISIS proxy massively during Idlib.

I am surprised the Chinese are not bringing in their new drones for testing in Idlib.

karlof1 , Sep 7, 2018 2:42:33 PM | link
Not every portion of the Turkish Wall with Syria's watched/defended as this photo attests . The Russian commentary reads: "Likely supporters of the militants of the "moderate opposition" flee to Turkey, in connection with the approach of the beginning of the Syrian army operation in Idlib province."

IMO, Erdogan doth protest too much as he created the terrorist occupation of Northern Syria and Idlib Province, had lots of time to get his terrorists separated from the more extreme (or perhaps they're all extreme which is why they can't/won't be separated), and deserved to be in a cell at The Hague instead of negotiating in Tehran. Turks deserve better leadership than that provided by Erdogan, but unfortunately both Turks and the world are stuck for the moment with Erdogan.

Laguerre , Sep 7, 2018 3:03:21 PM | link
Quite what the Turks are up to seems to me not clear. Obviously they have to defend (politically) their conquest of Afrin, which was anti-Kurd, but executed by Sunni Jihadis. Will they defend the jihadis in Idlib? That seems to me less evident. They may do nothing.
Yonatan , Sep 7, 2018 3:08:39 PM | link
According to Russian sources, Erdogan has said the ceasefire would not apply to designated terrorists, so in that sense, the long-established de-escalation / reconciliation process would apply to Syrians (only) in Idlib who renounce violence and support a peaceful political process. In this context, the Russians offer their support.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/rusvesna.su/news/1536328450

There have been reports that HTS has executed a Syrian doctor, Dr. Hussein Aydin (sp ?) in Idlib city for refusing to cooperate with the forthcoming WH false flag.

Irrespective of the weak, venal Erdogan's inability to commit, the 'mealy-mouthed outcome' is just words. Idlib is going to be cleared by the SAA, Iran, Hezbollah, RuAF and others. Turkey will have no alternative but to seal its border to stop the terrorists streaming through or face their wrath if they do. Maybe the opposition position that Erdgan should deal with Assad over this is a result of them seeing this potential outcome.

As suspected, the Israeli rescue operation for 800 WH in southern Syria was intended to allow them to extract a number of their operatives. That was only possible because Israel had control of the border.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/four-rebel-commanders-flee-to-israel-as-syrian-army-takes-over-quneitra/

The same won't be true of any UK operatives still in Idlib, especially if Turkey does clamp down hard (can always hope). No wonder the UK is playing the Skripal card for all its worth.

wagelaborer , Sep 7, 2018 4:15:43 PM | link
I have been listening to the UNSC meeting, and both France and Kuwait were quite insistent that the poor civilians in Idlib are in dire need of increased humanitarian aid, which they insist should be delivered by Turkey. I smell a rat.
Anya , Sep 7, 2018 5:43:21 PM | link
The "underpants" plan was most likely concocted by Israel-firsters. The context: The Jewish State has been arming the Al Qaeda in Syria with Israel-made weaponry: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/11/how-the-us-and-israel-support-al-qaeda-in-south-syria.html

At the same time, the Jewish State has been arming the neo-Nazi in Ukraine with Israel-made rifles: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-10/major-israeli-daily-our-government-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine

This looks like a final stage of the unraveling of the Holocaust business.

Jackrabbit , Sep 7, 2018 5:45:02 PM | link
FYI I'm not advocating an attack on Idlib. I'm not saying that Putin is 'soft' or anything like that. Russia, Syria, and Iran gambled on bringing Turkey into their coalition. Maybe that was a gamble worth taking. But now they pay the price. Turkey has a veto on Idlib attack. I'm sure game plans will be properly adjusted.
Curtis , Sep 7, 2018 6:01:43 PM | link
There is a bit of self-contradiction in the US govt statements. They admit it's a civil war. That implies there is more than one side. But then the goal is stated that there is to be one leader to be approved by ALL Syrians. That is not possible. It's not even possible in the US. And no lesson was learned from the latest forgotten war - Libya - which now has 3 governments amid anarchy caused by US/NATO/Qatar/S-A actions. Maybe Assad should invoke the memory of Lincoln who was faced with a rebellion and ask what business is it of the US to interfere.
karlof1 , Sep 7, 2018 6:01:58 PM | link
Comic Relief at UNSC as Haley had to sit and endure Syria's Bashar Al-Jaafari's presentation--she usually leaves the hall!
Curtis , Sep 7, 2018 6:04:45 PM | link
DW just had a segment on the meeting in Tehran of Putin, Erdogan, and Rouhani. They claimed a desire to separate the "moderate" from HYAT but admitted that while Erdogan did not want any refugees, Turkey had supported the terrorists in the past. Ha ha. That's tough, Erdogan. You must reap what you have sown.
Bart Hansen , Sep 7, 2018 6:16:09 PM | link
The administration spokesperson called for "a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community, unlike our own situation here in the United States" Apparently his full quote was cropped before going out to the stenos.
karlof1 , Sep 7, 2018 6:35:58 PM | link
I find this observation apt: "A senior #Russia/n diplomat in a private talk following #TehranSummit: "There's no "moderate opposition" in #Idlib left. All the folks who wanted to reconcile w/ #Assad, make deals w/ #Moscow already did so in other regions. What's moved to Idlib are die-hard radicals"

I don't know from what source came the idea that the Liberation of Idlib's been postponed. Putin specifically said there'll be no ceasefire on live TV so all the Turks back home would learn the hard truth.

After Khamenei's meeting with Erdogan , he met with Putin and then the rest of the team. His narrative's bold yet measured as with this example: "One of the cases on which #Iran and #Russia can cooperate is harnessing the United States; because the United States is a threat to the humanity and it is possible to harness it." More of the meeting is available in English on Khamenei's own website , the existence of which I just discovered. Enlightening reading to be sure!

jmichael72 , Sep 8, 2018 1:41:28 AM | link
@59 redrooster

Until the Vostok-2018 joint military exercises with China are over (Sept 17), I don't believe Russia will give the go-ahead on a full-scale assault of Idlib. If a chemical weapons attack is faked, things could get hot real fast, and Russia will need all the involved military assets in place.

There is no immediate risk of Syria losing the initiative, the offensive need not be rushed. Plenty of intelligence to gather in the meantime, probing and softening of positions, feints designed to fix the enemy in place and reveal supply lines...and diplomacy, the Russians seem to take diplomacy pretty seriously.

I don't see what Turkey gets playing for time.

pogohere , Sep 8, 2018 3:00:08 AM | link
Karlofi@39
Jackrabbit@44
James@51

See: Russia's asymmetric response is very painful.

https://cont.ws/@alex-haldey/1054552

machine translated from the original Russian; excerpted:

The fact is that Russia pursues its policy without regard to their provocations. She defeated the Wahhabis trained by the West in the Caucasus, snatched Crimea from under the nose. The US scenario in Ukraine broke. Restores the EAEC. In Syria, Russia completely threw the Anglo-Saxon West off the pedestal, which he held there all the post-war 50 years. That is, with its bombing of Igilov barmaleyov, Russia has broken the main ribs of the rigidity of the geopolitical world contour built by the Americans. This is a disaster, which the Anglo-Saxon world has nothing to answer nuclear to Russia.

While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Scripals and the subsequent sanctions are designed to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels.

But worst of all, the actions in Idlib demonstrate the US weakness. Trump is completely zamordovan - not their rivals, and Russia. Exactly. Russia has revealed the preparations for the provocation of the Khimatki in Idlib, which the United Nations has declared throughout the world. And all this was heard. With all the details, includes the number of barrels and their color, as well as a description of the ways of delivering chlorine from Idlib and places of their secret storage. All the trumps of Americans are shone. There is absolutely no sense in the operation.

But the operation will be. The match will take place in any weather. The United States has already outlined the places on which they will strike rocket-bomb strikes. The assault will be more decisive than the previous time. Preparation is as if the US is confident - the chlorine attack will take place. Then, when they decide in the US. Not in Damascus, but in Washington. That is, in general, all masks are dropped and the States openly prepare for aggression with provocation in a sovereign country where they are open in the status of an occupier. And even if there is no chemotherapy at all, the American blow will take place. Too much Russian was battered by bombs of American protégés. They are too close to defeat, for which the reason for finding Americans in Syria will disappear. How can this be allowed? The impact of prestige is necessary and it will be, even if the Sun falls to the ground and the Mississippi will flow backwards. Only prestige is not visible.

States are increasingly falling from the strategy to tactics. The attack on Syria is necessary for Americans not because they will decide something in the outcome of the campaign. He will not decide anything, because the US needs to introduce its ground forces to change the course of the war, with all the ensuing consequences - the death of the military and the clash with Iran, Syria and Russia. And even with Turkey. With China silently standing behind them. This is a guaranteed defeat, the global consequences of which are unpredictable. The first thing that can be seen is the collapse of NATO. The second Vietnam will crush not only the American president, but the US itself. Therefore, the Americans will score a goal of prestige and leave the lost match. They will strike at Syria, where again Russian intelligence will reveal in advance the alleged targets of the strike, withdraw the Syrian leadership from there, and then again a lot of exploding Tomahawks seeps from the fields of Idlib,

Russia in Idlib is now a difficult task. It does not consist in repelling an American attack, but in not getting it off TOO MUCH. Trump goes to the attack not because he wants to defeat the Russians in Syria, but because he wants to defeat the globalists in America. And do it on the eve of the congressional elections. That is, the reasons for the American attack on Syria are purely internal. If Russia gives too much in Syria to Trump on snot, she risks drowning him, instead of somehow supporting his formidable image and helping to win. Simply because Trump is beneficial to Russia - it's too cool he breaks everything on what the American power of the past decades was based. Turning such a guy into an idiot and helping his impeachment is beyond the national interests of Russia. We can not now overstep the stick in Syria. Trump must come out of the shelling with a good man,

That is, the fate of the United States is now in Russia's hands. And Russia is leading America according to its plan, lowering it slowly and controllably - although the US remains the world hegemon and very much at the same time beating Russia with sanctions. But Russia does not loose her teeth on the throat of the States. At the same time, Berlin, supported by Moscow's cheap gas, is on the brink of London in Europe.

It's very painful to understand this to the British and Americans. It is so painful that no collapse of the ruble and Hochma in Salisbury with the filing letters of local clerks from the OPCW, who were intimidated by British special services, can not satisfy this pain. Russia responds asymmetrically - by continuing to do what has become the cause of such insane and ineffective actions by London and Washington. After the United States has fired back from Damascus, Russia and Syria will continue to squeeze Idlib and squeeze him. And after that they will build a "big Chinese wall" around Deir-ez-Zor and not a single mouse will slip out of there, especially with oil. We have already shown by the example of Erdogan how easily caravans with oil are bombed, Russia does not want to allow its exports from Syria. And the US will have to withdraw from there. And the subject of negotiations with Russia will be the preservation of the US face in this history of their next defeat. In the meantime, Russia needs to try very hard not to let Trump get missiles to where they do not need to, and yet not expose him as a weakling and a symbol of American disgrace. Russia should give Trump the opportunity to finish his important business. The second such president the United States will not have, as Russia will not have a second Gorbachev.

[Sep 09, 2018] Financial interests dominate politics at least since 1902

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

alley cat , says: September 9, 2018 at 2:48 pm GMT

These great businesses -- banking, brokering, bill discounting, loan floating, company promoting -- form the central ganglion of international capitalism. United by the strongest bonds of organization, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every state, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, chiefly by men of a single and peculiar race , who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to manipulate the policy of nations. No great quick direction of capital is possible save by their consent and through their agency. Does anyone seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European state, or a great state loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it? . There is not a war, a revolution, an anarchist assassination, or any other public shock, which is not gainful to these men; they are harpies who suck their gains from every new forced expenditure and every sudden disturbance of public credit . These men are the only certain gainers from the [Boer] war, and most of their gains are made out of the public losses of their adopted country or the private losses of their fellow-countrymen.

Prescient words written by J.A. Hobson in his classic study of imperialism in 1902. In over a century, little has changed. If anything, the power of these harpies has grown. They are currently orchestrating a concerted attack on democracy itself in both Britain and the U.S. The assault is being spearheaded not by the IDF, but by a captured, weaponized, news media and corrupt politicians. If the Zionists are successful in their campaign to criminalize the truth, who will heed their cries for help if ever the tables are turned?

[Sep 09, 2018] It should be noted that the NYT oped cruise missile happened to be exactly timed with the big splash of the Bob Woodward 'book' that trumpets the same meme ie the Trump administration is dysfunctional and in a state of mutiny

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

FB , says: Next New Comment September 8, 2018 at 2:34 pm GMT

Very astute piece by Ms Johnstone

It should be noted that the NYT oped cruise missile happened to be exactly timed with the big splash of the Bob Woodward 'book' that trumpets the same meme ie the Trump administration is dysfunctional and in a state of mutiny

We note here that Woodward, himself a CIA plant since Day One has proved to be the biggest scumbag to ever pose as a 'journalist' an excellent take on this was dished up yesterday by Finian Cunningham

'There is credible evidence that the American Deep State of the military-intelligence apparatus used the Watergate scandal as a way to get rid of Nixon whose febrile mental state was becoming a concern to them. Woodward, who had a background in Navy intelligence was suspiciously a prodigy journalist who rapidly rose to cover what became the scandal that ended Nixon's presidency.'

I would disagree only about Nixon's 'febrile mental state' as the reason for the deep state wanting him gone the real reason was in fact that Nixon moved against neoliberalism and expelled Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School' from the white house he in fact turned toward socialism on the economy

'Nixon's purge of Friedman from his administration was not merely symbolic. Facing a serious economic downturn, Nixon utilized huge amounts of government spending, spending $25.2 billion to stimulate the economy in 1972.

Nixon went as far to openly propose a plan to provide a universal basic income of $1,600 (the equivalent of $10,000 present day) to every American family of four.'

This was a step too far for the Rockefellers and the plutocracy that runs the United States as Caleb Maupin explained presciently back in May in his superb historical parallel between the war on Trump and the Nixon offing

Now we see that the deep state 'journalist' Woodward is here attempting to reprise his Watergate role in bringing down a sitting POTUS the claims in the Woodward book about an 'administrative coup' in the Trump white house, and this 'oped' are so obviously part of the same ploy that it is way beyond coincidence

Now it is interesting to note that we have on record THREE very astute commentators saying the same thing about the provenance of the 'anonymous' hit piece that it is a creation of the NYT itself PCR was first out of the blocks, yesterday Mr Cunningham, one of the few honest and capable writers on the REAL left and now Ms Johnstone

And here's where things get curioser yet even the neoliberal standard bearer, the New Yorker magazine ran a scathing piece by none other than Putin [and Trump] hater Masha Gessen condemning the 'media corruption' embodied in the NYT oped

'But having this state of affairs described in print further establishes that an unelected body, or bodies, are overruling and actively undermining the elected leader

An anonymous person or persons cannot govern for the people, because the people do not know who is governing.'

Clearly there is a civil war going on behind the scenes inside the executive branch of the United States government what the results will be nobody can know but we must realize that when even one link in the chain of command is broken, the whole thing falls apart

I predicted right after the Singapore Trump-Kim summit and the fierce media backlash that resulted that the media and their deep state partners in crime would overplay their hand and shoot themselves in the foot

They have now done exactly that we will see how the people react, but I suspect that even those who might not otherwise support Trump will in fact rally round the embattled president by firing this cannonade now the treasonous media have nailed their on coffin tightly shut

[Sep 09, 2018] No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power territory

For the "Full Spectrum Dominance " crows even neutered and bitten down Trump is unacceptable. They want him out.
Notable quotes:
"... I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . . ..."
"... They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern, his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four. ..."
"... This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative" (another common scam) to attacking Trump. ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

PhilipSanders , says: Next New Comment September 8, 2018 at 11:41 am GMT

Please note there is a typo in the sentence "No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power territory. "

It should read: No trick is too low for (((those))) who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power territory.

EliteCommInc. , says: Next New Comment September 8, 2018 at 1:23 pm GMT
This comes as no news. The NYT has been after part of the "get the president" for anything and everything camp since the nomination.

I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . .

just does not have the weight to make much headway with me. It's like the supposedly wonderful kobe beef from Japan I had today -- spoiled and sour.

The NYT reputation was tainted long before the current president took office. I think that the compromise made by the president to adopt in full the intel report has serious repercussions. The issue here is not whether the Russians engage in espionage or influence, i take it for granted that they do. But thus far the evidence has been mighty thin that they actually have done so and did so to any effect.

Something rather nasty has been seeping out of US polity and if Trump is anything he represents that polity with all its veneer of integrity swept aside.

Not all of the members he chose for his staff are self seeking aggrandizers, making the US safe for democracy is but a disguise. Some are honorable men and women who simply should not have been selected because they openly rejected the current executive for political, policy and personal reasons. I think that was a managerial mistake.

EliteCommInc. , says: Next New Comment September 8, 2018 at 1:26 pm GMT
They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern, his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four.

This article about who, wrote or said what is just a side show.

Da Wei , says: Next New Comment September 8, 2018 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Rational DEAR JUDAISTS -- PLEASE STOP LYING AND SCAMMING, PLEASE. BECOME CIVILIZED PLEASE.

Thanks for the excellent article, Sir. Great points!

This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative" (another common scam) to attacking Trump.

Anonymous sources -- fabricated conversations that cannot be verified, because the source is non-existent. It is all fabricated.

... ... ... You're being Rational again: "please stop these childish scams. This is juvenile." You're appealing to hardened criminals.

I commend you for moderation and compassion, but if these people were to be redeemed it would have happened before the FED, the Great Depression (read Wayne Jett), the assassination of JFK and RFK, Tonkin, 911, 2008 and God know what more.

... ... ...

[Sep 09, 2018] Regime Change -- American Style by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.unz.com
900 Words 27 Comments Reply

The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high gear this week.

Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.

Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals and admirals to list.

Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy:

"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It's a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear."

Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new determination: From here on out, confrontation!

Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.

Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, "What we've heard is the noise of democracy."

But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a semblance of order.

Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book, attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president's intelligence, character and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a "crazytown" led by a fifth- or sixth-grader.

Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.

Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous "senior official" claiming to be a member of the "resistance working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his (Trump's) agenda."

A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her president.

The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.

While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and "Anonymous," once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this portends is not good.

For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.

The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.

Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.

ORDER IT NOW

No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.

So, where are we headed?

If November's elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be able to manage.

There is the Mueller investigation into "Russiagate" that began before Trump was inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump Foundation by New York State.

There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of these investigations.

Then, if media coverage can drive Trump's polls low enough, will come the impeachment investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.

If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats' septuagenarian caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi.

2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Rational , says: September 7, 2018 at 4:54 am GMT

BOB WOODWARD AND NYT: FOR THE JUDAISTS, LYING IS JOB 1.

The fake writer of the NYT piece might be the NYT himself (as per PCR).

It is a forgery.

Sally Snyder , says: September 7, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
As shown in this article, over the past decade and a half, Washington's viewpoint on Russia has been completely inconsistent:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/washingtons-ever-evolving-viewpoint-on.html

This is, in large part, because the United States and its military-industrial-intelligence network always needs an enemy.

Patrick in SC , says: September 7, 2018 at 1:54 pm GMT
Just for the record -- not that we're keeping one -- I strongly suspect that that NYT Op Ed by an "insider" is almost entirely fraudulent. OK, there might be an assistant to the assistant undersecretary in charge of cutting the grass at the White House who will be willing to put her name at the bottom of this thing, thereby giving the Times an "out" in terms of committing outright journalistic perjury.

But who's going to call these people on it? The Times themselves? CNN? The Washington Post? The Huffington Post?

What consequences will they suffer? Will the rabid dog leftists who read the aforementioned periodicals suddenly do an about-face and abandon their leftist religion because of journalistic fraud?

Of course not.

They'll just move on to the next "scandal" (almost certainly based on anonymous sources or triple hearsay).

MEexpert , says: September 7, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
I think Trump is his own worst enemy. It is his incompetence that is fueling all these calls for impeachment. He should have fired Mueller long time ago. The screaming could not have been any worse. I don't think he comprehends the seriousness of the current situation. He doesn't realize that he is the president. He has fallen into the trap of anti-Russian rhetoric while I know he does not believe any of it.

He should never have hired John Bolton or Pompeo. For God's sakes; he appointed all these heads of Departments, CIA, FBI, DNI, etc. and none of them can control his own department. He is letting others control his agenda and his foreign policy. If it weren't for Pence, I would prefer impeachment at this time because he is making the US a laughing stalk of the world. But Pence scares me even more.

Acts 3:25 "He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.'"

By the way, God's covenant with Abraham included Ishmael, who was also his offspring. The Jews have altered the bible to make the covenant with Isaac only, as they have done with the sacrifice of the "only son."

AB , says: September 7, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT
So far the only 2 senior officials who have not come out to deny writing the op-ed are John Kelly and Nikki Haley, both are highly suspect at this point. John Kelly gave all those disparaging accounts of the president to Bob Woodward then tried to deny it. Nikki Haley's been running her own dog and pony show at the UN for two years, clashing with Trump more than once for wanting to take out Assad. She takes her orders directly from the Prime Minister of Israel, Trump who?

This NYTimes hit piece shows clearly the existence of a Deep State that is actively working to subvert and overthrow a democratically elected POTUS. The Deep State must be defeated for America to survive, but the only way to defeat the Deep State is through a functioning DOJ. Jeff Sessions must now be considered part of the Deep State, along with Pence and all the people Pence brought into Trump's cabinet when he was in charged of setting up the interim government, from John Kelly to Mattis, Haley, Bolton, Kirstjen Nielsen, Christopher Wray, Mike Pompeo, and above all Rod Rosenstein -- all are neocon Deep State stooges and big time swamp creatures.

[Sep 09, 2018] It seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi in Ukraine.

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: September 7, 2018 at 8:46 pm GMT

@Iris "Marshall Sam Shama, boasted here at U.R. about his being a Nazi Hunter and having collared a few."

Well, that's extraordinary, because in his comment 201 above, Sam Shama said:

"How do the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds, whoever they are, depend on everyday Jews?"

As you know, French-Israeli Serge Klarsfeld and his German wife Beate are the most famous "Nazi hunters" in Europe. They formed an association which located and brought to "justice" some of the most famous names involved in Nazi occupation (Bousquet, Barbie, Papon, Touvier,...).

How come Sam Shama doesn't know these most famous comrades? Split personality? Schizophrenia? Pseudonym swapping? :-) :-)

https://images.sudouest.fr/2014/12/03/57ebc98866a4bd6726a8263e/widescreen/1000x500/serge-et-beate-klarsfeld-au-memorial-de-la-shoah.jpg The famous comrades, and specifically the Simon Weisenthal Center of Nazi-hunters, suddenly gone AWOL as soon as the US zionists began their mutually beneficial cooperation with neo-Nazi in Ukraine.

Moreover, it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi in Ukraine.

The miserable Anti-Defamation League (of the anti-democratic methods) is now on a spot for doing nothing with regard to the murderous activities (including the openly anti-Jewish activities) of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine (the Kaganat of Nuland is a de facto protectorate of the US). It seems that for the ADL, there are certain precious neo-Nazi (the Israel-supported neo-Nazis in Ukraine) and the "bad" Nazis whose image has been helping the ADL and the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds to demonstrate their allegiance to Jewish "principles," while making good gesheft (reparation-extortion) on the tragedy of the WWII for holo-biz.

There is more for the oh-so-sensitive crowd of holocaustians: The prime minister of Ukraine (where the Nazism has been enjoying its very visible renaissance since 2014) is a Jewish man Volodymyr Groysman who was miraculously "elected" by Ukrainians in 2016. It is well known that Ukrainians en masse are not terribly predisposed towards the Jews: https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/

To recap: The Jewish State and the US/EU zionists have been cultivating the close relationships and collaboration with neo-Nazi leaders in Ukraine. Take note that none of the Jewish Nazi collaborators has been punished for the material and political support of the neo-Nazi movement in Eastern Europe. Why the EU puts people in jail for making an honest research in the WWII but allows the zionists to support the neo-Nazi is not easy to understand, considering the influence of the thoroughly dishonest and unprincipled Jewish Lobby.

annamaria , says: September 7, 2018 at 9:01 pm GMT
@Sam Shama On the contrary. You haven't responded to the substantial issues from my first post, where I showed that the CDN list did contain many Jewish names; your mealy-mouthed, code-worded, phrasing notwithstanding.

Speaking of giving it a rest, I would think it is you who should consider it. Antisemitism is a serious matter, Phillip. "Antisemitism is a serious matter, Phillip."
– Tell it to Bibi and the Kagans clan: https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/ "FEARS OF ANTI-SEMITISM SPREAD IN UKRAINE"

The Israel-firsters have single-handedly revived the neo-Nazism in Ukraine: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/08/19/zionist-media-neo-nazis-are-bad-in-america-but-neo-nazis-are-good-in-ukraine/ " Zionist Media: Neo-Nazis are bad in America, but Neo-Nazis are good in Ukraine"

"U.S. House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine:" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/12/u-s-house-admits-nazi-role-in-ukraine/

"Israel is arming neo-Nazi in Ukraine:" https://countercurrents.org/2018/07/05/israel-is-arming-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/
– Should we take this Jewish / neo-Nazi collaboration as a monument in memory of the Jews killed in WWII?

annamaria , says: September 7, 2018 at 9:06 pm GMT
@Sam Shama I don't usually like taking retirees to task, but you are a special case. You actually threaten Jews with harm every so often in idiotic, thinly veiled language. You should contemplate that. "You actually threaten Jews with harm "
– Don't project. Your Jewish State and your zionist stink-tanks in the US/UK are the greatest danger to the decent Jews.
"Israel is arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine:" https://countercurrents.org/2018/07/05/israel-is-arming-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/
One of the main financiers of the neo-Nazi formation "Azov" an Israeli citizen Kolomojsky: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-47564dbc32c28a68f9407fd689f6b3c8-c
annamaria , says: September 7, 2018 at 9:12 pm GMT
@Sam Shama Anti-Semitism is not an insult, but a particular set of beliefs and prejudices held by a person. Do you understand?

Why "Even I ......" ? Are you deficient in some faculty or eyesight? A curious construction. "Anti-Semitism is not an insult, but a particular set of beliefs and prejudices "
-- Go lecture to your Bibi and his thuggish retinue: https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201507091024397190/
The Jewish State has been actively involved in the revival of neo-Nazism in Europe:
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/news/middle-east/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/

annamaria , says: September 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm GMT
@Sam Shama

I keep telling you Sam that you aren't too smart everything you say just reinforces everything that is criticized about your tribe ..and you just keep right on giving us more proof.
First, I have no tribe. Merely logging and attempting to introduce a modicum of balance in these flagrant displays of hatred.

Second, I don't claim any particular advantage in the department of smarts; only doing my bit for the advancement of the various causes of humanity. In that, I am sure you claim primacy, but do you know who said the following: "It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish." Google's your friend. " flagrant displays of hatred "
– Listen to your Moldovan thug Avi Lieberman and your no less thuggish justice minister Ayelet Shaked to get the real "flagrant displays of hatred:" http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/new-israeli-justice-minister-called-for-genocide-of-palestinians/article/432659
"Shaked made international headlines when she posted a highly controversial unpublished article by the late Uri Elitzur, a close Netanyahu ally and an early leader of the movement by Jewish settlers to colonize occupied Palestinian territories The post asserted that "the entire Palestinian people is the enemy" and advocated genocide against the entire nation, "including its elderly women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure." Some excerpts: " They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers they should follow their sons [to hell], nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."
– Don't you like the facts of the Jewish State's financial, logistical, and military support for ISIS / Al Qaeda ? https://www.sott.net/article/386618-US-and-Israel-will-not-allow-the-elimination-of-Al-Qaeda-and-ISIS-in-southern-Syria-The-solution-is-Syrian-resistance

Iris , says: September 7, 2018 at 10:56 pm GMT
@annamaria The famous comrades, and specifically the Simon Weisenthal Center of Nazi-hunters, suddenly gone AWOL as soon as the US zionists began their mutually beneficial cooperation with neo-Nazi in Ukraine.
Moreover, it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi in Ukraine.
The miserable Anti-Defamation League (of the anti-democratic methods) is now on a spot for doing nothing with regard to the murderous activities (including the openly anti-Jewish activities) of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine (the Kaganat of Nuland is a de facto protectorate of the US). It seems that for the ADL, there are certain precious neo-Nazi (the Israel-supported neo-Nazis in Ukraine) and the "bad" Nazis whose image has been helping the ADL and the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds to demonstrate their allegiance to Jewish "principles," while making good gesheft (reparation-extortion) on the tragedy of the WWII for holo-biz.
There is more for the oh-so-sensitive crowd of holocaustians: The prime minister of Ukraine (where the Nazism has been enjoying its very visible renaissance since 2014) is a Jewish man Volodymyr Groysman who was miraculously "elected" by Ukrainians in 2016. It is well known that Ukrainians en masse are not terribly predisposed towards the Jews: https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/
To recap: The Jewish State and the US/EU zionists have been cultivating the close relationships and collaboration with neo-Nazi leaders in Ukraine. Take note that none of the Jewish Nazi collaborators has been punished for the material and political support of the neo-Nazi movement in Eastern Europe. Why the EU puts people in jail for making an honest research in the WWII but allows the zionists to support the neo-Nazi is not easy to understand, considering the influence of the thoroughly dishonest and unprincipled Jewish Lobby. " it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi in Ukraine."

- 1- Indeed. The Klarsfelds don't open their big lecturing gob neither when Jewish French citizens, born and brought up in France, with no links to Palestine, volunteer and join the IDF to murder Palestinians. They are the higher share of IDF volunteers, ahead of Jewish US citizens.

A war crime in broad daylight: French-Israeli IDF soldier coldly shooting in the head wounded 21-year old Palestinian Abd Al Fatah Al Sharif.

- 2- Simon Wiesenthal, as you know, was an utter fraud and one of the biggest conmen of the century. Among his many lies is his so-called incarceration at Auschwitz. Former members of the German Army even stated that he was a collaborator.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310725/Why-I-believe-king-Nazi-hunters-Simon-Wiesenthal-fraud.html

- 3- I'll finish on a cheerful note , and a very good illustration of MSM's double standards. Unreported by the press, unlike Corbyn's elusive anti-semitism, Ukraine's Parliament Speaker has just declared that "Hitler was the biggest democrat". One can't make this up.

https://www.rt.com/news/437747-hitler-democrat-parubiy-criticism/

redmudhooch , says: September 8, 2018 at 1:50 am GMT
Heres a video I ran across on Youtube, old Soviet KGB film on Zionist activities in Russia. Worth watching.

Secret and Explicit: Goals and Deeds of the Zionists. 1973 BANNED KGB documentary exposing NWO #GDL

[Sep 09, 2018] Talking of neoliberal globalists 5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK and Skripal's affair is thier work

Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Iris , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:12 pm GMT

Talking of 5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.

Deep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.

http://www.crawleynews24.co.uk/shock-as-police-reveal-novichok-suspects-passed-through-gatwick/

Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents, and pointing the finger at President Putin.

Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.

The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the Ukraine.

Iris , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Iris Talking of 5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.

Deep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.

http://www.crawleynews24.co.uk/shock-as-police-reveal-novichok-suspects-passed-through-gatwick/

Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents, and pointing the finger at President Putin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VqSJCa7RA

Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.

The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the Ukraine. Novichock poisoning false flag (Continued).

A possible explanation of the Novichok story being spun at the moment in the UK is that a Western/Israeli military attack on Syria is in preparation to stop the Arab Syrian Army from entering Idlib, the last terrorist stronghold.

Such Western intervention requires the pretext of a chemical attack, that will be staged in the field by the proxy White Helmets, while UK public opinion will be subdued with terrorising stories of weapons of mass destruction.

This same pretext was used for the April 2018 Western bombing of Syria. This bombing was aimed at hitting key Syrian targets, but its scale was finally limited by the intervention of General Mattis, who dreaded reciprocated actions against the 3000 US servicemen present in Syria.

"The White Helmets (and an alleged chemical attack) are the last hope for regime change in Syria"

Very interesting interview of former UK Ambassador Ford by SyrianGirl:

Iris , says: September 6, 2018 at 11:00 pm GMT
One day after Theresa May's Novichok show at the British Parliament , France's Chief of Military Staff Francois Lecointre has declared that France is ready to strike Syria should she dare a "chemical attack" on Idlib.

https://www.lopinion.fr/edition/international/france-prete-a-frapper-en-syrie-en-cas-d-usage-d-arme-chimique-161248

Both poodles each side of the Channel are barking in synchronism; Israel is pulling on the leashes and something bad is in preparation.

Here is Francois Lecointre in his brown uniform. Unknown to us stupid plebeians, France must be surrounded by steppes and deserts for brown to have been chosen as camouflage colour.

[Sep 08, 2018] The untold truth about Obama's former CIA director, John Brennan

Was Brennan Saudi protégé from the very beginning of his career, promoted by the power of foreign interests?
Sep 08, 2018 | theduran.com

Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before, Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a junior analyst.

At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence agency given his communist background.

Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.

Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated from junior analyst to the prestigious position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent a few years.

Its said he was appointed purely for 'political' reasons, alleged to have been at the direct request of Bill Clinton and other Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from within the Agency.

Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly 'their man' so to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated, even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to ingratiate himself with the Saudis.

Important to read is an NBC news article entitled 'Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John Brennan for Spying Comments' by Ken Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.

The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the feelings of many in the CIA who felt that Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

(This is the link to the above referenced article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/ us-news/brennan-joking-when- he-says-cia-spies-doesn-t- steal-n529426 . )

A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan's near four year departure from the CIA into the commercial world, having been 'left out in the cold' from the CIA, from November 2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called 'The Analysis Corporation'.

So why was he then reinstated into the CIA, to the surprise of CIA's senior management, by newly elected President Obama, to head the CIA? No answer is available as to why he left the CIA in 2005.

(An important link that gives background to his experience in the commercial world can be read here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/ cia-slammed-brennans- disingenuous-contract-bid- wikileaks-show)

Lastly let's not forget Brennan's many failures as CIA head in recent years, one most notable is the Benghazi debacle and the death of a US Ambassador and others there. Something else to ponder.

Back to the present an the issue of security clearances.

In early August, on the well known American TV Rachel Maddow Show, Brennan back tracked on his Trump traitor claim by saying "I didn't mean he (Trump) committed treason. I meant what he has done is nothing short of treasonous." Rachel Maddow responded correctly "If we diagram the sentence, 'nothing short of treason' means it's treasonous?"

A simple question follows. Since he is no longer in the CIA, why does he need a security clearance other than to commercially exploit it?

Tucker Carlson explains succinctly here:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_THfnlO-KrQ?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Last month what can be described as 200+ 'friends of Brennan', former CIA officials of varying rank, responded against the removal of former CIA Director Brennan's security clearances, in support of him.

These men and women too most likely will have their clearances revoked.

And why not?

Since the only purpose they retain it is to make money as civilians?

A potentially more serious issue than 'the Brennan controversies' is that the US intelligence community has around 5 million people with security clearances as a whole includes approximately 1.4m people holding top secret clearances. It is patently a ridiculously high number and makes a mockery of the word secret.

Former CIA veteran Sam Faddis is one of the few people brave enough and with the integrity required, that has stood up and told some of the real truths about Brennan in an 'Open Letter', yet this letter's contents have hardly at all been reported in the media.

Generally by nature, CIA Officers sense of service and honour to their Country, their professionalism and humility, and disdain for publicity has dissuaded most of them to enter the current very public Brennan controversy; but for how much longer?

As stated earlier, former CIA professional Sam Faddis explains what's wrong with Brennan in his revealing letter, abbreviated for space below. A link to the complete letter is: http://thepoliticsforums.com/ threads/107849-Scathing-Open- Letter-to-Mr-Brennan-by-Retired-CIA-Case-Officer:

Dear Mr. Brennan,

I implore you to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the public media as some sort of impartial critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever.

None of this is true.

You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad. You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm's way. You have never heard a shot fired in anger.

You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to produce finished intelligence based on information provided to you by others. The work of intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered this trade either.

In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior officer, you were designated to brief the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period.

While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton. End of story.

Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.

All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is no more impartial analysis then would be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney. You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces hostile to this president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the networks most vocally opposed to President Trump and his agenda.

There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober judgment of what is best for this nation. They are based exclusively on what you believe to be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied yourself.

It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.

Ever since this President was elected, there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize him and destabilize him led by you. This has been an unprecedented; to undermine the stability of the republic and the office of the Presidency, for solely partisan political reasons. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.

You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a political hack. Say so.

Sam Faddis

[Sep 08, 2018] Ayatollah Khamenei: Iran, Russia can cooperate to contain US-Trump

Sep 08, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the developments in Syria and the US defeat in the Arab country show that Washington can be contained.

The Leader made the remarks in a Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who traveled to Tehran to participate in a key trilateral summit on Syria, hosted by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and also attended by Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

"Cooperation between Iran and Russia on the Syrian issue is a prominent example and a very good experience of bilateral cooperation," the Leader said.

Ayatollah Khamenei added that the two countries can expand cooperation on global issues, saying, "One of the cases that the two sides can cooperate with each other is to contain the US, because it is a danger to humanity and it is possible to contain it."

The Leader stated that the Americans suffered a real defeat in Syria and failed to achieve their goals.

Ayatollah Khamenei also said sanctions imposed by the US on Iran, Russia and Turkey are a very strong common ground for strengthening cooperation, and urged Tehran and Moscow to develop political and economic relations and follow up on the agreements of the summit in Tehran.

The Leader stressed the importance of pursuing non-dollar transactions in trade.

Europeans did not fulfill JCPOA commitments: Ayatollah Khamenei

Elsewhere in his remarks, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran has so far remained committed to a multilateral nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), reached between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries in 2015.

"But the Europeans did not carry out their duties, and it is not acceptable that we completely fulfill our commitments within the JCPOA while they don't," the Leader pointed out.

The Leader praised the Russian president's approach to the nuclear deal, adding that the Islamic Republic would adopt a stance on the JCPOA which would meet its national interests.

Although the US now raises Iran's missile program and regional developments, their problem with the Islamic Republic relates to issues beyond them, Ayatollah Khamenei said.

The Leader added that the US has been seeking to topple the Islamic Republic over the past 40 years, but Iran has managed to make substantial advancements during this period.

"The resistance of the Islamic Republic and its advances are another successful example that the US can be contained," Ayatollah Khamenei said.

The Leader also pointed to the deplorable situation of the Yemeni people and their killing at the hands of Saudi Arabia, adding, "The Saudis will definitely fail to achieve a result in Yemen and will not be able to bring the resilient Yemeni people to their knees."

During the meeting, which was also attended by Iranian First Vice President Es'haq Jahangiri, the Russian president said he held very fruitful and good negotiations with President Rouhani on mutual issues of interest, including the situation in Syria.

Iran and Russia discussed the expansion of relations in all fields, particularly in the economic and trade sectors, Putin added.

He said the US is putting obstacles, including banking restrictions, in the way of the development of Tehran-Moscow relations, and added that Washington is making a strategic mistake by limiting financial transactions.

The Russian president expressed regret that the remaining sides to the JCPOA failed to fulfill their commitments under the deal after the US withdrawal.

He said although the Europeans announce that they are seeking ways to keep the nuclear accord alive, they are following the US due to their dependence on Washington.

[Sep 08, 2018] The West must acknowledge its responsibility in the making of the original crisis in Kiev, which equals if not exceeds that of Moscow's in deepening the crisis in Crimea and Donbass by Gordon M. Hahn

Notable quotes:
"... The crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of the two policies of NATO expansion and EU enlargement, which led NATO to declare Ukraine (and Georgia) will be NATO members at numerous NATO summits and in other fora, led the EU to push too hard and too early for an association agreement with the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych government, and led the West, especially Washington, to lend opposition-promotion assistance to revolutionaries and endorse a clearly illegal oligarch-ultranationalist revolt in February 2014 despite an agreement that essentially ensured Yanukovych's departure from the presidency in ten months. In Syria, Putin's Russia has won. Regime change is over. ..."
Sep 08, 2018 | gordonhahn.com

Rather than dealing with secondary issues, those which are easiest to resolve, or those in which we have common interests, contacts must address the core problems in the inter-state US-Russian or larger Western-Russian relationship. Those issues are NATO expansion, EU expansion, U.S. missile defense, Ukraine, Syria, and interference in each other's domestic politics.

Rather, than expanding Western institutions in complete disregard of Russian interests, the West must work closely with Moscow. The West must acknowledge its responsibility in the making of the original crisis in Kiev, which equals if not exceeds that of Moscow's in deepening the crisis in Crimea and Donbass.

The crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of the two policies of NATO expansion and EU enlargement, which led NATO to declare Ukraine (and Georgia) will be NATO members at numerous NATO summits and in other fora, led the EU to push too hard and too early for an association agreement with the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych government, and led the West, especially Washington, to lend opposition-promotion assistance to revolutionaries and endorse a clearly illegal oligarch-ultranationalist revolt in February 2014 despite an agreement that essentially ensured Yanukovych's departure from the presidency in ten months. In Syria, Putin's Russia has won. Regime change is over.

The U.S. in its hubris miscalculated in going a bridge too far. Ambition led to supply weapons either intentionally or accidentally -- and in denial of the obvious -- to Islamists and jihadists. This was a direct consequence of US President Barak Obama's haste to carry forth his gravely misguided Muslim Brotherhood-based regime change strategy in the Islamic world. Syria's longstanding ties to Moscow and the presence of North Caucasus-based mujahedin within the ranks first of the Al Qa`ida-affiliated 'Jabhat al-Nusra' jihadi group and then of the Islamic State or ISIS prompted Putin's limited and strategically successful intervention.

More globally, the West has been and remains the 'champion' when it comes to interference in the politics of other states. For financial reasons alone, Russia cannot hold a candle to US efforts in this regard, no less those of the entire West. Rather than seeking to dominate or willfully 'transforming' Eurasia in the Western image, the West should more gently propose democratization and work on strengthening its own democratic order to serve as a model for non- and less democratic states to emulate.

Those living in non- or less democratic states who want change have access to all the information they need on the Internet, except in the most authoritarian countries. Even in the latter, access is possible if more difficult. The native population and opposition leaders understand the intricacies of their nation's culture far better than outsiders do and can therefore better fashion a peaceful, stable regime transformation. If this is not what they want, then they are unlikely to establish a democratic order when they seize power.

Change the Goal and Strategy

The core problem in Western-Russian relations has been Western, especially, NATO expansion. NATO expansion, carried forth on the back of EU expansion, effectively 'militarized' Western democracy-promotion and EU expansion, insulting Russian 'honor' and trust in the West in the wake of Cold War-ending Western promises that NATO would not expand beyond reunified Germany and turning Russia away from democracy. Washington and Brussels must discard, therefore, its basic goal of expanding the community of democracies in brinksmanship-like fashion–everywhere and immediately, regardless of those expansions' effects on the Russian and Chinese geostrategic calculation. This means abandoning the strategy of achieving that goal: NATO and EU expansion. These two prongs of the main strategy, especially NATO expansion, have added greater cost of driving Russia into China's increasingly powerful arms, as I predicted a quarter of a century ago.

New Goal and Strategy

Regarding security, the West should seek to integrate Europe and Eurasia first in the area of negotiating ongoing conflicts and preventing new conflicts by reinvigorating the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as the main multilateral forum for Western-Eurasian relations. It should also become the locus of negotiations between NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on building a new European security architecture (NESA). During the life of the NESA negotiations, the West should institute an openly declared moratorium on NATO expansion. After such the NESA is in place negotiations might begin with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) on a Eurasia-wide security architecture. Similarly, the European Union should learn from its misbegotten unilateral expansionism and 'Eastern Partnership' and seek to negotiate a gradual integration of the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).

... ... ...

There is very likely to be some agreement towards extending the START nuclear arms treaty by executive order as well as negotiating a replacement treaty to be signed at the end of the first or beginning of a second Trump term.

For the Ukrainian crisis, Trump might propose the creation of a US-Russian working group to assist the Minsk process. Should Trump be convinced that only US involvement can resolve the issue, perhaps the group could be incorporated into the Minsk process. He might also hint that in return for some Moscow concessions on Ukraine, such as backing a more expanded version of the proposed peacekeeping mission beyond the line of contact, he might be willing to put pressure on Kiev to finally fulfill its Minsk agreement obligation to engage a dialogue with the Donbass rebel regions' representatives:

(1) on the modalities related to conducting elections in the Donbass,

(2) on a Ukrainian law to be adopted according to Minsk-2 'On the temporary order of local government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions,' or

(3) 'with respect to the future operation of these areas on the basis of the Law,' or, for that matter,

(4) on any other subject related to the crisis. Washington pressure on Kiev to talk directly with the rebels may be possible now that four years too late some of the Washington institutions that supported the Maidan revolt and illegal overthrow of Yanukovych such as the Atlantic Council and Freedom House, are waking up to the neofascist threat on the edges of the Maidan regime and in society.

About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group, San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .

Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books: Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014).He has published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony to the U.S. government.

Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Lyttenburgh, July 7, 2018 at 6:25 am

"and agreed to meet in neighboring Sweden"

Finland.

"This suggests the level of distrust Putin has towards Washington, his low expectations for a successful summit, and the high price he is likely to demand for concessions on his part."

It suggests nothing of the sort. You are too dramatic.

"[T]he approach of dealing with issues that are easiest to resolve or where we have common interests alone is insufficient and a non-starter as far as putting the relationship where it should be. By definition, an approach that seeks to avoid areas where there are disagreements will not resolve a deeply troubled relationship that is putting international security and peace at risk. Only addressing the core differences complicating relations can a qualitatively new relationship be forged."

Finally someone is willing to admit that! You can't willy-nilly go and ask your neighbor to borrow some sugar after you wrecked his fence and expect him to "cooperate" on such small issue out of sheer goodness.

"It also means abandoning the approach of designing policies from hubris rooted in the sense that Western democracy is morally superior to authoritarianism. Although the latter is true"

In what way? I (and quite a lot of people) see particular Western "democracy" as morally bankrupt compared to what it seemingly randomly calls "authoritarianism"

"In Syria, Putin's Russia has won."

And that writes a man who detest the term, devoting so much ink and time to show to the ignorant that, no – it's Russia's Putin. Why not say Russia, or Moscow, or even "Pro-Assad coalition"?

"Rather than seeking to dominate or willfully 'transforming' Eurasia in the Western image, the West should more gently propose democratization and work on strengthening its own democratic order to serve as a model for non- and less democratic states to emulate."

What, you forgot the immortal words of Paul Wolfowitz so soon? For, you see, "We Are An Empire Now". Crawling back in the shell won't help to solve the domestic very partisan issues – finding a common enemy does that. Your tactics are good for a neutered housecat of a nation – not for the mighty Great Again (And Forever) lion which both the elite and the commoners of the West consider their Republic.

" and turning Russia away from democracy."

Wrong. It turned Russia away from liberalism – not democracy. You know the difference, right? Because your following analysis suggests otherwise:

"Washington and Brussels must discard, therefore, its basic goal of expanding the community of democracies"

"Putin's Russia" is democracy. As well as Poland under PiS, Hungary under Orban and Turkey under Erdogan. Hell, even Ukraine is democracy! Democracy is just a mode of rule.

"driving Russia into China's increasingly powerful arms"

Yeah, that's bad for the US. For the rest – not so.

"During the life of the NESA negotiations, the West should institute an openly declared moratorium on NATO expansion."

Absolutely meaningless and easily revertible promise that runs directly against the West self-identification as the only Empire on the planet.

The list of topics of your Grand Design that follows is too far fetch, unrealistic and abstract that they are basically the equivalent of "charming" Russian naïve natives with the glass beads. As for your fanatical support of the free trade – it's era has gone. Again. If you fail to grasp that it was precisely Russian objections of EU version of free trade coming to the Ukraine which lead to 2013-14 conflict on Maidan – well, nothing can help you.

"Non-Western partners must also be willing to sacrifice some of their present interests for the sake of the benefits of stability and cooperation that will accrue in future. "

Like I said – land for the glass beads.

"In Ukraine, the U.S. must get more involved in the Minsk 2 negotiating process."

No, they shouldn't.

"Without a clear signal from Trump that Washington is not interested in expanding NATO to Ukraine or using the crisis to isolate Moscow through sanctions and the like and intends to lead the search for a solution, Moscow is unlikely to make any meaningful concessions."

You don't see it, do you? It's Kiev for whom the conflict is more beneficial. It allows all sort of, yes, authoritarian things and policies without fear of the "real war". You can silence all your critics with – "but Putin might attack us!" or "are you a secret separ?!". Kiev has no other viable strategy but to commit an ethnic cleansing of DNR or LNR should they be returned to it. Simple as that.

BTW – have you read Minsk II accords? How about Kiev fulfils its part first?

"Washington could be able to convince Moscow to abandon its support for the elements of the Iran presence in Syria and Lebanon that arrived in the context of the Syrian civil war."

Nothing of the sort will happen. Sowing division among potential USA rivals is a viable tactic – but don't take everyone for an idiot.

"There is very likely to be some agreement towards extending the START nuclear arms treaty"

Wanna bet, that there won't be? Also – nothing of the Ukraine, nothing on NATO. A little something on Syria (officially) with, maybe, an unofficial concession of the defeat of the West-backed "unicorns".

Tl;dr. This is not about coming Trump-Putin summit. You are just venting off your fantasy about Bright Future. You present solely pro-US perspective of the summit, enumerating things that Trump must "ask", nay, "demand" either for free or some minor concessions on his part. Have you ever tried to think what Russia might want of the summit instead?

Salsibury Watchdog, July 11, 2018 at 2:19 am

"It also means abandoning the approach of designing policies from hubris rooted in the sense that Western democracy is morally superior to authoritarianism. Although the latter is true"

Mr. Khan, if what Western elites are doing to other sovereign nations is 'a democracy' why is it done so covertly: through murky slash funds, secrets coups and illegal bombings?

I've never seen a referendum asking people in the US whether they wanted to fund another war. Had they been asked, people would've chosen affordable healthcare, housing and access to education instead, and you know it as well I do.

Yet you're still talking about 'Western democracy'?

Get real.

[Sep 08, 2018] In the ruins of the caliphate, ISIS rears its ugly head by Joseph Hope

Notable quotes:
"... "What is quietly happening across parts of Iraq is less of a resurgence, and more a resurfacing, of the Islamic State. Many of these fighters never actually left, but merely scattered temporarily, having melted away into the population only to return. " ..."
Sep 08, 2018 | www.atimes.com

How is ISIS resurfacing in Iraq? The short answer is that it never really left. Despite US President Donald Trump's orders to " annihilate ISIS ," members of the organization have continued to exist in Iraq and Syria and carry out attacks. The caliphate has fallen and the group no longer holds the vast territory and population it once controlled. However, supporters, organizers and fighters have not simply disappeared. Instead, the aspiring proto-state has reverted back to its roots as a terrorist insurgency. The US-based Soufan Center assessed the environment as such:

"What is quietly happening across parts of Iraq is less of a resurgence, and more a resurfacing, of the Islamic State. Many of these fighters never actually left, but merely scattered temporarily, having melted away into the population only to return. "

The US and the UN agree that there may be as many as 30,000 ISIS members still present in Iraq and Syria. Jason Warner and Charlotte Hulme writing for the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (CTC) also recently estimated that an additional 6,000 fighters are spread across Africa , with the Islamic State West-Africa Province (Boko Haram) contributing more than half of the total. ISIS continues to wield influence further abroad with IS-Khorasan in Afghanistan as well as supporters in the Philippines , Indonesia , and throughout the Indo-Pacific.

These members and supporters received encouragement and direction from their highest leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in an audio message released last month. The message promoted patience and perseverance, claiming that the time will come again for a resurgence. In Iraq, this may be a functional strategy.

Little change

ISIS's Iraqi presence began as al-Qaeda in Iraq, an al-Qaeda affiliate led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi . The group found footholds in Iraq in the chaos caused by the US invasion in 2003, and then re-branded itself as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) following its founder's death in 2006. While pressured by the Anbar Awakening and the US troop surge in 2007, ISI managed to survive and wait for conditions to become more favorable.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki , a Shia politician, would contribute to these conditions by giving preferential treatment and status to Shiite Iraqis. As a result, many of Iraq's Sunnis were disillusioned and alienated from the Iraqi state and were at least indifferent to ISIS, if not supportive. Renad Mansour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in 2016 that a lack of options for Sunni political engagement combined with "intra-Sunni conflict" drove the power development of ISI. Following the withdrawal of US troops in 2011, the Iraqi security forces were left mostly alone to fight the extremist group, and quickly buckled under the task.

Research published by the CTC earlier this year sought to analyze the opinions of young men in Mosul , ISIS"s Iraqi capital. While largely characterized as "corrupt, brutal, and hypocritical," 93% reported that ISIS had positive effects during the beginning of their authority. Even now that they have lost that authority, most respondents were confident that ISIS will not disappear anytime soon. The Sunni community in general was characterized by the men as divided and both spiritually and physically weak.

Embed from Getty Images

Following the collapse of the caliphate, Iraq began judicial proceedings for thousands of accused ISIS members. While trials are a necessary and positive element in resolving the conflict, Iraq's courts have been quickly overwhelmed, resulting in trials lasting for as little as 10 minutes . Innocent Sunnis are at risk of being swept up in these trials, and joining the many who have already been sentenced to death as a result of these proceedings.

Shia militias also continue to act with impunity as an element of Iraq's security forces , reinforcing the power disparity between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. With Sunni estrangement, internal conflict and disunity, and a perception of weakness continuing, it falls on the government to enforce security and suppress violence.

Political inclusion

Perhaps the largest result of the Iraqi election this year was the ascension of Muqtada al-Sadr , a Shia cleric, as the leader of the winning parliamentary block. Al-Sadr promoted Iraqi unity and the abandonment of political divisiveness in his campaign; however, his group has also been accused of past aggression against Sunnis . How al-Sadr and the new Parliament will lead Iraq, enforce security, and form relationships with Sunni communities remains to be seen.

Embed from Getty Images

The Sunni community apparently remains internally conflicted and continues to face challenges at the hands of the Iraqi state. Renad Mansour believes that greater power-sharing at high levels and greater autonomy at low levels is key to relieving the pressure on Sunni communities and reengaging them with the state while also accounting for the lack of unity within the Sunni community. Without political engagement, and facing institutionalized challenges, many Sunnis may continue to support or be indifferent to extremist groups like ISIS. Although the group itself has lost its attractiveness among most of Iraq's Sunnis, the conditions which fueled its earlier growth are still present.

Doubtless, members of the group have gone into hiding and will continue to launch attacks for the foreseeable future. ISIS will likely never return to the high point it experienced several years ago, but it has defied expectations before. With smart re-branding and a strategy made to appeal more to the local population, combined with a messy government unable to provide security, ISIS may manage regain some of the power it has lost.

[Sep 08, 2018] Any of Trump's opponents in the 2016 primaries would have followed the same policies

Notable quotes:
"... he has brought North Korea away from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier, and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the 2016 primaries would have followed the same policies. ..."
Sep 08, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Caleb Melamed says: September 8, 2018 at 5:39 pm

Trump is not crazy at all. He is the proponent of a particular philosophy, Trumpism, which he follows very clearly and consistently.

As president, he has had significant successes. Notably, he has brought North Korea away from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia.

On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier, and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the 2016 primaries would have followed the same policies.

Trumpism is undeniably a form of near-fascism. Trump has followed viciously anti-immigrant tendencies, and this, along with his ties to out-and-out racists, is the worst part of his presidency. But these horrible aspects do not at all show that he is crazy. He has used them coldly and calculatedly to gain power.

And while his schtick and bluster are indeed bizarre, he has used them very consistently to keep a 40%-plus approval rating in the face of an Establishment opposition the like of which has used against a president at least in our lifetimes.

As I have commented here before, except for Trump's disgusting anti-immigration policies, George W. Bush was on balance a far worse president.

[Sep 08, 2018] The Clinton Administration intervened in Serbia's war with Kosovar separatists on behalf of the latter, doing so in violation of international law in lacking a UN mandate by Gordon M. Hahn

Sep 08, 2018 | gordonhahn.com

As the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO engaged in its first out-of-area operation with the Gulf War against Sadaam Hussein in response to the latter's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Moscow supported this effort, but the West then turned its attentions to Russia's traditional ally Serbia. In a war where all sides were to blame for its outbreak and then proceeded to commit war crimes, the West intervened, defeated and singled out for prosecution in the Hague Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevicz and his minions. The Clinton Administration intervened in Serbia's war with Kosovar separatists on behalf of the latter, doing so in violation of international law in lacking a UN mandate. Then, by recognizing Kosovo's independence in 2008, the West violated UN resolution, which it sponsored requiring the preservation of Serbia's territorial integrity.

The West then backed anti-Russian color revolutionaries in traditionally Russian-allied countries Serbia (Bulldozer revolution in 2000), Georgia (Rose Revolution, 2004), Ukraine (Orange revolution, 2004), and Ukraine again (Maidan Revolution, 2014), among others. This was part of the political intervention that supported NATO expansion and necessitated at times military intervention. With Rose revolution leader and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's intervention in South Ossetiya on 7 August 2008, Russia imitated the Western protege's interventionist method, sending forces through the Roki Tunnel to rout Saakashvili's invasion. Russia then imitated the West's recognition of Kosovar independence by recognizing South Ossetiya's and Abkhaziya's independence. It is important to note that Abkhaziyan and South Ossetyan support for independence from Georgia was no less robust that Kosovar support for its own independence.

[Sep 08, 2018] Trump was warned repeatedly about the neocons et al, but has chosen to staff up with the same swamp creatures he ostensibly meant to expurgate.

Notable quotes:
"... "Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace" to regions such as the Mideast. ..."
"... It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace" (despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior). ..."
"... With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster, repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one around him. You must believe us!" ..."
"... There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the obvious ..."
Sep 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Si1ver1ock , says: Next New Comment September 8, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT

We gave Trump the presidency, what he does with it is his responsibility. He was warned repeatedly about the neocons et al, but has chosen to staff up with the same swamp creatures he ostensibly meant to expurgate.

We are left to wonder how much of this "reality" TV?

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/09/06/we-are-being-played/

see , says: Next New Comment September 8, 2018 at 11:41 am GMT
Quoth Diana:

"Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace" to regions such as the Mideast.

It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace" (despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior).

With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster, repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one around him. You must believe us!"

There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the obvious.

Not to worry, Trump has a condo just for you .

[Sep 08, 2018] Turkey, Russia seek Idlib consensus in Tehran

Sep 08, 2018 | www.atimes.com

The leaders of Turkey and Russia met Friday with their Iranian counterpart to reach a consensus on Syria's last opposition-held province.

Ankara and Moscow back opposing sides in the northwest province of Idlib – the former the armed opposition, and the latter the government troops poised for an offensive to retake the province.

Hossein Jaberi Ansari, a senior aide to Iran's foreign minister, told state TV on Thursday the final statement for the summit had already been "finalized" by senior representatives of the three countries. If approved by the three presidents, it will be issued after the meeting, Mehr News Agency reported.

The Tehran meeting comes against the backdrop of US sanctions against all three participating countries. While Idlib is expected to top the agenda, the trio are also expected to discuss mechanisms for minimizing the impact of US financial pressure.

"Turkey has limited options but to concede to Russia on Idlib given the diplomatic row with Washington and the recent US decision to solidify Kurdish control of northern Syria," said Joe Macaron, a fellow at the Washington-based Arab Center.

"Turkey will have to decide in this summit whether to join the battle and influence it, or stay put and let the Russians and Iranians lead it. There is a lot at stake in what could arguably be the last territorial battle of the Syrian civil war," he told Asia Times.

Syria's prime minister Imad Khamis, in a Thursday speech in Damascus, vowed the opposition-held province "will soon return to the embrace of the homeland."

The International Committee of the Red Cross, in anticipation of a destructive offensive, has called on all parties to protect civilians in Idlib – many of whom fled government offensives in other parts of the country and have scarce means to sustain their families through another displacement.

"Intensified fighting in the vast Idlib area will put tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people on the move," Fabrizzio Carboni, regional director for the Near and Middle East, said in a statement.

Residents in southern Idlib told Asia Times they witnessed multiple air strikes Friday, which they believed to be Russian. A ground incursion has yet to begin.

Al-Ais crossing, the gateway for trade between government-held southern Aleppo province and opposition-held territory bordering Idlib, remained open as of Friday morning, locals said.

[Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.

A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage. The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?

But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad – bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.

The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.

The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's "amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the trust of one's superior.

This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.

The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea.

Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)

The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President.

The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.

That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).

This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray.

The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.

Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined.

No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among others) eagerly rushed in, asking:

"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write the letter."

Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?

The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and "instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.

The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources.

And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.

[Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.

A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage. The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?

But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad – bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.

The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.

The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's "amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the trust of one's superior.

This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.

The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea.

Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)

The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President.

The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.

That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).

This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray.

The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.

Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined.

No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among others) eagerly rushed in, asking:

"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write the letter."

Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?

The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and "instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.

The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources.

And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.

[Sep 07, 2018] But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its interference in the elections. That tells us something about the US congress by Kononenko

Slightly edited Google translation
Notable quotes:
"... I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians. ..."
"... The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ? ..."
"... Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values. ..."
"... But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? ..."
"... Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich. ..."
"... why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | kononenkome.livejournal.com

According to popular belief, the cold war ended with the victory of the United States of America. And, accordingly, the demice of the Soviet Union. However, what exactly represent such a victory is not that easy to understand. Instead of one conservative, and therefore predictable player, the United States received a half dozen countries, of which only three or four are loyal, with other living by "the laws of jungles" (sorry free market). The number of aimed at American cities Intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads remained approximately the same as before the infamous "victory." And strategic atomic submarines remained, and strategic bombers. There are less of them, for sure, but they are more modern and more dngerous with more sophisticated weaponry. In any ccase remaining are still enough to make the winner to feel like a loser after b=neclear apolaipsys. And the idfea of victory is that the victor is the master (in this case the master of the plant). Am I missing something ?

Of course, another inquisitive observer will tell us about the controlled chaos, about the growing influence and plans for the establishing of the world neoliberal government. I was impressed by the recent revelation of Senator John Tester, who said that Putin is promoting communism in America. As the idea that this senator is a complete idiot who does not understand the Russia rejected communism as a dead-born system is pretty absurd. I would venture to assume that it might be that Russia did something that can with some stretch be qualifies as an attempt to influence the USA election, but, alas, Putin has no strategic plan, not the intention. First of all this would be pretty idiotic idea as two candidates were equally bad for Russia and it was completely unclear who is worse.

But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its "interference in the elections." That tells us something about the US congress. I do not want to write about the lack of evidence and absurdity of the arguments again. I've already written a lot about it. No, let's stop talking about the past and try to look into the future.

The US President's national security adviser John Bolton (who theoretically should be a sanest person in the administration) recently said that the US is concerned about the potential for interference in the midterm elections to the Congress of four countries. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. "I will not go into details of what I saw or didn't see, but I tell you that in the 2018 elections, these four countries raise the greatest fears," proclaim this highly placed Presidential adviser.

Theoretically it make some sense. Any man with a knife has a potential to kill. Any country with nuclear weapons has the potential to strike at the US. Any country with developed IT has a potential opportunity to interfere in elections with the help of cyber attacks. For example, Israel. But it is not a good idea to scare the American voter with Israel. No, he/she should be confused, and he/she should be afraid of potential menace. And this external enemy should unite fragmented by neoliberal excesses country (for this purpose those good-for nothing people grazing in State Department and Spaso House (The US embassy in Moscow) should constantly accuse the Russian authorities of all sorts nefarious activities. So there is nothing new here: Great Britain uses similar dirty tricks against Russia for centuries. I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians.

What do we want? Let's say we want the midterms to be won by the Republicans. Then explain to me why Republican John Bolton fears this. If there's anything John Bolton should be afraid of, it's that Russia will intervene in the midterms in order to win the Democrats. But The Washington Post writes that "the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States fear the potential interference of Russia and start to increase its presence in anticipation of the interim election cycle on such platforms as Facebook and Twitter." President Trump writes on Twitter that Russia will" make a lot of effort " to intervene in the midterm elections on the side of the Democrats. Microsoft claims that Russian hackers created fake websites of Republican organizations in order to collect information about Republicans. The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ?

Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values.

But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? If the net result for us anyway will be the same: more sanctions? Here we should go back to the idea of "controlled chaos" and world government. Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich.

Again the question arise, why we should interfere in he USA elections. Only if we are out for revenge, "eye for eye" principle as they interfered in ours. There's no other reasonable answer. But even in this case, why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity.

And before we get the answer to this fundamental question "Why?" there can be no further questions. None. Moreover, no other questions are needed. So let them just explain to us why we should interfere and how we can benefit from such an interference, and we will try our best. Before that, let's just watch.

And when they explain this to us, we can communicate the answer to China, Iran and North Korea free of charge.

[Sep 07, 2018] Elizabeth Warren Calls For Use Of 25th Amendment To Remove Trump by Lydia O'Connor

This Senator supported Hillary Clinton...
Sep 07, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

Trump officials need to do more than "take documents off his desk, write anonymous op-eds," the senator told CNN.

It's time we invoke the Constitution to remove President Donald Trump from office, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday.

[Sep 07, 2018] Is Trump Truly 'Insane'

Notable quotes:
"... No doctor that has examined him says he is insane. All that's presented are third-party anonymous accusations of incompetence shot through with gossip. A book written by a Hollywood trash reporter is otherwise held up as critical evidence of the inner workings of the president's mind. ..."
"... We might instead look at the actual decisions Trump has made, and those of his predecessors. One president used nuclear weapons to decimate two cities' worth of innocents , and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of American lives washing Vietnam with blood. Ronald Reagan was famously caught on an open mic saying he was going to start bombing the Soviet Union in the next few minutes. Another president spread false information about WMDs to launch an invasion of Iraq and mocked North Korea's leader as a pygmy. Obama said he "will not hesitate to use our military might" against the North, knowing that meant Armageddon. Historical psychiatrists say half of our past presidents may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. If Trump is dangerous as president, he would seem to have company. ..."
"... In the minds of the "Trump is Insane" crowd what matters most is that never-used fourth subsection, the incapacitation clause. People claim because Trump is insane he is unable to carry out his duties, and so Mike Pence, et al, must step in and transfer power away from him. Trump would legally exist in the same status as Grandpa Simpson in the nursing home, and Pence would take over. Among other problems, this imagines that the 25th Amendment's legally specific term "unable" means the same thing as "unfit." An unconscious man is unable to drive. A man who forgot his glasses is unfit, but still able, to drive. The 25th Amendment only refers to the first case. ..."
Jan 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The media chatterati seems to be of one mind: Donald Trump is mentally incompetent and may have to be removed from office before he blows us all to hell.

They say so on Vox , the New York Review of Books , CNN , The Intercept , CNBC , The Nation , Bill Moyers , Salon , and the New York Times . A new book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President , concludes that "Trump's mental state presents a clear and present danger to our nation and individual well-being."

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3OfV-VXyQdo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

The solution, to their minds, lies in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which creates a mechanism outside of impeachment to remove an "incapacitated" president. Trump's mental state, some believe, qualifies him. Is there a case?

Dr. Bandy Lee , one of the editors of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump , says yes. Her evidence includes tweets that Trump sent threatening Kim Jong-un. She really has no other ammunition: no doctor who says Trump is insane, including Lee, has examined him. No doctor that has examined him says he is insane. All that's presented are third-party anonymous accusations of incompetence shot through with gossip. A book written by a Hollywood trash reporter is otherwise held up as critical evidence of the inner workings of the president's mind.

So is there a case without the tweets? Not really. Lee adds that while Trump has not committed violent acts against himself or others, his "verbal aggressiveness, history of boasting about sexual assault, history of inciting violence at his rallies, and history of endorsing violence in his key public speeches are the best predictors of future violence," and thus concludes he will destroy the world. Lee also weakly points to Trump "being drawn to violent videos." Oh my.

We might instead look at the actual decisions Trump has made, and those of his predecessors. One president used nuclear weapons to decimate two cities' worth of innocents , and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of American lives washing Vietnam with blood. Ronald Reagan was famously caught on an open mic saying he was going to start bombing the Soviet Union in the next few minutes. Another president spread false information about WMDs to launch an invasion of Iraq and mocked North Korea's leader as a pygmy. Obama said he "will not hesitate to use our military might" against the North, knowing that meant Armageddon. Historical psychiatrists say half of our past presidents may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. If Trump is dangerous as president, he would seem to have company.

But how can we know? Trump will never voluntarily undergo a mental competency exam, though courts can order people to submit. But even Lee, who met with congressional representatives to press the case that Trump is insane, admits this is unlikely to happen. "Many lawyer groups have actually volunteered to file for a court paper to ensure that the security staff will cooperate with us," Lee said . "But we have declined, since this will really look like a coup, and while we are trying to prevent violence, we don't wish to incite it through, say, an insurrection."

Still, those arguing Trump is insane and must be removed from office will point to the 25th Amendment as just what the doctor ordered.

The framers did not originally include rules for what happens if a president dies or becomes incapacitated. It was just assumed the vice president would serve as "Acting President." The 25th Amendment, passed after the Kennedy assassination , created the first set of protocols for this sort of situation.

The amendment has four short subsections. If the presidency goes vacant (for example, after a fatal heart attack), the vice president becomes president. If the vice presidency goes vacant, the president chooses a new VP. If the president knows he'll be incapacitated (due to scheduled surgery, for example), he can voluntarily and temporarily assign his duties to the vice president. If the president is truly incapacitated (unconscious after an assassination attempt) and can't voluntarily assign away his duties, the VP and cabinet can do it for him, with a two-thirds majority confirming vote of the House and Senate.

In the minds of the "Trump is Insane" crowd what matters most is that never-used fourth subsection, the incapacitation clause. People claim because Trump is insane he is unable to carry out his duties, and so Mike Pence, et al, must step in and transfer power away from him. Trump would legally exist in the same status as Grandpa Simpson in the nursing home, and Pence would take over. Among other problems, this imagines that the 25th Amendment's legally specific term "unable" means the same thing as "unfit." An unconscious man is unable to drive. A man who forgot his glasses is unfit, but still able, to drive. The 25th Amendment only refers to the first case.

The use of the 25th Amendment to dethrone Trump is the kind of thing non-experts with too much Google time can convince themselves is true. But unlike much of the Constitution, where understanding original intent requires the Supreme Court and a close reading of the Federalist Papers, the 25th Amendment is modern legislation. We know the drafters' intent was an administrative procedure, not a political thunderbolt. The 25th Amendment premises that the president will almost always invoke succession himself, either by dying in office or by anticipating that he will be unable to discharge his duties, as in 2007 when George W. Bush went under anesthesia for his annual colonoscopy and signed things over to his vice president for a few hours.

The reason the 25th Amendment is not intended to be used adversarially is the Constitution already specifies impeachment as the way to force an unfit president out against his will, his unfitness specifically a result of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The people who wrote the 25th Amendment did not intend it to be an alternate method of impeachment or a do-over for an election.

The Constitution at its core grants ultimate power to the people to decide, deliberately, not in panic, every four years, who is president. Anything otherwise would mean the drafters of the 25th Amendment wrote a backdoor into the Constitution that would allow a group of government officials, many of whom in the Cabinet were elected by nobody, to overthrow an elected president who they simply think has turned out to be bad at his job.

Accusations of mental illness are subjective, unprovable in this case, and alarmist -- perfect fodder to displace the grinding technicalities of Russiagate. Denouncing one's political opponents as crazy was a tried-and-true Soviet and Maoist tactic, and a movie trope where the youngsters try to get the patriarch shut away to grab his fortune. We fear the mentally ill, and psychiatric name calling against Trump invokes that fear . "The 25th Amendment would require, for mental incapacity, a major psychotic break," said one former Harvard Law School professor. "This is hope over reality. If we don't like someone's politics we rail against him, we campaign against him, we don't use the psychiatric system against him. That's just dangerous."

Trump's time in office is finite, but what happens around him will outlast his tenure. It is dangerous to mess with the very fundamentals of our democracy, where the people choose the president and then replace him with a cabal called into session by pop psychologists. This is an attack on the process at its roots: you yokels voted for the wrong guy so somebody smarter has to clean up.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell.

Brunchify January 25, 2018 at 10:47 pm

Yes, the concerns about Trump are all political, nothing at all do with concerns about his mental state as he said himself he is a Very Stable Genius.

Very Stable Genius

Very Stable Genius

Very Stable Genius

Very Stable Genius

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: January 26, 2018 at 12:15 am
Brunchify,

Judging by the fact that he's still the only president after the end of the Cold War who hasn't yet dragged the country into any new costly and unnecessary war, it indeed must be that either he's a genius or his predecessors are mentally challenged. Your choice.

EliteCommInc. , says: January 26, 2018 at 12:20 am
" . . . and a set of presidents squandered hundreds of thousands of American lives washing Vietnam with blood."

Total US losses in the Vietnam War/conflict: 58,300

It is sad that plans were made to remove the Pres. even before he was elected. It has been the use of a special prosecutor has certainly been a factor
in damaging our republics democracy.

b , says: January 26, 2018 at 2:32 am
I remember hearing a reporter comment upon Obama and Bush meeting on inauguration day that the "Peaceful transition of power is what makes our Democracy great." Now 8 years later those same people are saying we need to oust the Democratically elected candidate. The danger here is not against the offices of our government but against the press itself. As the media continues down this path they paint themselves as lunatics, hypocrites and partisans. I think our institutions will survive this and much worse. But I don't think the media as we know it will. Trust is at an all time low in most all of the media outlets. The question that needs to be asked is will our Democracy survive the death of the press and what if anything will replace what used to be called investigative and informative journalism?
Fran Macadam , says: January 26, 2018 at 4:14 am
There's a NeverTrump and Resistance checklist that's being worked through, and this was the next gambit if Russiagate failed, which was the gambit if the Electoral College revolt didn't work The next in line will be something along the arc of a politicized MeToo They're making a list, and they're checking it twice
Fran Macadam , says: January 26, 2018 at 4:15 am
There's a NeverTrump and Resistance checklist that's predictably being worked through, and this was the next gambit if Russiagate failed, which was the gambit if the Electoral College revolt didn't work The next in line will be something along the arc of a politicized MeToo They're making a list, and they're checking it twice
connecticut farmer , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:04 am
Reading this only serves as a reminder that the ones whom we really need to fear are the masses of the great Unwashed Elite (Vox, CNN, etc.), not Trump.
Elizabeth , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:44 am
Slightly off topic, but "the youngsters try to get the patriarch shut away to grab his fortune" is, sadly, no movie trope; my family is living it right now. Trying to right this outrageous wrong on behalf of the forcibly shut-away patriarch is costing us non-grabby siblings tens of thousands of dollars in legal and court fees. Justice has a crippling price in modern America and those who can't pay don't get much justice.
John Gruskos , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:49 am
In East Germany, Stasi leader Markus Wolfe took things a step further with the "zersetzung" tactic.

The idea was to *induce* a "personal crisis" through clandestine harassment, including at the hands of acquaintances secretly recruited by the Stasi.

In other words, while the Frankfort School was content to merely *label* their opponents mentally ill ("Authoritarian Personality", "Paranoid Style", etc.), Markus Wolfe was actively trying to cause *real* mental illness by relentlessly gaslighting selected individual dissidents until they cracked.

How many centuries will it take for the reputation of the mental health profession to recover from their association with various repressive left-wing regimes and pseudo-scientists such as the Freudians and the Frankfurt School?

Dan Green , says: January 26, 2018 at 10:00 am
HRC warned us of all the dumb white male deplorable's , as being a major threat. Wonder where the pop psychologist have these Americans slotted, possibly not allowed to vote ?
Allen , says: January 26, 2018 at 10:42 am
What's insane is that a married FBI agent and an FBI lawyer hooked up and conspired to bring down a President, yet both still work for the FBI! That's really insane.

Trump? He's just grumpy.

mrscracker , says: January 26, 2018 at 11:17 am
It's just silliness re. Mr Trump. He's perfectly sane.
We had a former governor- whom I actually admire- but his behavior was authentically erratic. If Pres. Trump ever acts even half this way, then we should take a serious look at his mental health 🙂 :

" Long spent ninety minutes ranting and lashing out against his opponents. Spotting Rainach in the crowd, Long launched into the salacious details of the murder of Rainach's uncle, killed by a black man who had caught him in bed with the man's wife. In one of Long's most famous remarks, he told the crowd, "After all this is over [Rainach will] probably go up there to Summerfield, get up on his front porch, take off his shoes, wash his feet, look at the moon, and get close to God." Pointing and shouting at Rainach, he continued, "And when you do, you got to recognize that n**gers is human beings!" When he concluded his tirade, Earl was rushed to the governor's mansion and locked in a bedroom where he grew violent. At one point, he stood in the smashed bedroom window shouting, "Murder!"

Concerned about his mental health, Long's family had him institutionalized in Texas before transferring him to the Louisiana State Hospital in Mandeville. With the assistance of his subordinates, however, Long won release from the asylum, firing the director in the process, and proceeded on an interstate buying spree trailed by national press agents. Many have speculated on the cause of Long's apparent breakdown, with at least one biographer convinced the politician suffered from bipolar disorder. Others speculate that Long's all-night escapades in New Orleans, including dalliances with dancer Blaze Starr, coupled with the regular ingestion of large amounts of alcohol and the powerful stimulants Dexedrine undermined Long's perception of reality. Regardless of the cause, it was clear to many, including the national press, that Long needed an extended vacation."

http://www.knowlouisiana.org/entry/earl-long-2

BobS , says: January 26, 2018 at 12:07 pm
Trrump's as sane as any other 71 year old man-baby.
Nelson , says: January 26, 2018 at 1:49 pm
If one day Trump wakes up and decides it's a good day to launch nuclear missiles at some country because their leader said disparaging remarks against him, then the 25th should be invoked. But not before then.
JK , says: January 26, 2018 at 4:14 pm
One of the hallmarks of mental illness is that a person's personality or behavior change and people close to them that love them are most alarmed by it and want them to get treated. None of this holds in Trump's case. His behavior is the same as it's always been, which is what people voted on. And the ones trying to use it are his enemies which don't care about treatment, but simply as a machination to depose him.
Susan Dawkins , says: January 26, 2018 at 4:44 pm
The author has made several errors. He assumes that discussing the possibility of a psychiatric disorder making Trump unfit means proving insanity. In reality, the most likely disorder does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but does make a person incapable of competently or faithfully performing the duties of office.

The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver ignores the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed behavior, history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the individual shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a face-to-face interview may be virtually useless.

The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
 Dishonesty and fraudulence
 Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
 Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
 Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
 Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
 Lack of concern for one's limitations
 Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
 Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
 Disregard for -- and failure to honor­–financial and other obligations or commitments

No one imagined that someone with this possible disorder would ever make it to the White House, however, the 25th Amendment provides an avenue for him to temporarily be removed from power while he can undergo proper evaluation by military psychiatrists and neurologists. This is all mental health professionals are requesting. These individuals can do tremendous damage when give power over others.

karsten , says: January 26, 2018 at 8:56 pm
"The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
 Dishonesty and fraudulence
 Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
 Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
 Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
 Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
 Lack of concern for one's limitations
 Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
 Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
 Disregard for -- and failure to honor­–financial and other obligations or commitments "

An Orwellian comment like the above just proves the point of the article, and then some. As if there isn't anyone in the world who couldn't be shoehorned to fit such a diagnoses, with a crafty narrative reconfiguring of their actions.

If there are indeed any witch doctors (excuse me, "psychiatrists") pathologizing people on the basis of a laughable list like the above, then I consider them to be far more undeserving of the power they have, and far more toxic to society, than Trump in any of the actions or utterances that he has made.

Peter Van Buren , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:04 pm
Susan Dawkins, who claims my article has mistakes, didn't read it. Her amateur diagnosis that Trump has "Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features" does not make him UNABLE to be president, which is what the 25th Amendment is for.

She claims he is UNFIT. Fitness is judged primarily by the people, who elected him. If a president somehow becomes unfit while in office it must be because of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's the only reason the Constitution provides for. And impeachment is the only answer.

Sorry kiddies, the 25th is a not-over for an election Rachael Maddow doesn't like.

karsten , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:07 pm
This is all mental health professionals are requesting."

"All"? That's rich.

Indeed, is that all that they're requesting? My goodness -- what a modest request! -- a request merely to have complete veto power over America's entire citizenry, in terms of who is allowed to be President; a request merely to be able to remove any President who is not to their liking.

In short, a mere request to be able to legally perform a coup d'etat at will, to overturn any election that does not yield their desired result.

How gratified we all should be that their request for power is such a small one. Imagine if they asked for something just a bit more ambitious. "Omnipotence" comes to mind.

Dale , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Trump is the one who messes with the very fundamentals of our democracy. Remember his voting commission and the crap they wanted? Force states to provide all the 2016 voter information to his CosaNostra buddies. And remember when they wanted all Americans to fill out a registration form similar to the one used when purchasing a gun? They said they wanted to make sure only those qualified were on the voter registration lists.
Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: January 26, 2018 at 10:31 pm
Bob S,

Trrump's as sane as any other 71 year old man-baby.

Obviously saner and infinitely more mature than a 70 year old woman-baby, who wrecked a havoc all over the Middle East, was laughing like a bloodthirsty child when watching an old man's violent death in the hands of a barbaric crowd as one of the results of that havoc and then, out of a sheer infantile negligence, caused an American ambassadors similarly violent death in the hands of likely the same crowd as another result of the same havoc.

***

Susan Dawkins,

So, you claim that something that something that doesn't meet the legal definition of insanity is somehow a basis to invoke a legal mechanism that would require someone to be legally defined as insane ? How pathetic. Do you know that this mere writing of yours can be a sign of at least three mental disorders, assuming it was written in good faith and not as an umpteenth attempt of a comically maladroit political hackery? Note that I have certain knowledge in psychiatry and can highlight the signs of these disorders step by step, not by hysterical shrilling "I'm an MD, you philistines", which can be a sign of yet another mental disorder.

Though the most comical part of your hackery is that every point of your list meant to "describe" Trump perfectly fits Hillary Clinton. You should try better. Seriously. You have just shown that your knowledge of psychiatry is abysmal, no matter the degrees you might have.

Furor , says: January 27, 2018 at 5:39 am
Ultimately to the leftists everybody is mentally ill because they don't understand the necessities of history and they don't possess "secret" knowledge.
B , says: January 27, 2018 at 11:36 am
Susan Dawkins, that list of symptoms reminds me of most all of the people that run for political office or spend a majority of their lives up on the hill. I immediately thought of several people on both the left and the right. Let's see how HIllary does:

1&2: embellished/lied in saying she was personally shot at by a sniper in Bosnia? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html . Might I add that she said this while other Americans were on battlefields half a world away actually getting shot at.
3&4: Calling American Citizens deplorable 5&6&8: Voted for Iraq, pushed for action in Libya.
Hmm, I guess there is a reason voters didn't pick her.

Sid_finster , says: January 27, 2018 at 2:27 pm
Lordy, how naive.

What matters in this narrative is not law, not ethics or sanity, not anything else but power.

If those who want Trump removed will have the power to do so, they will do so. Whatever law is invoked will merely be an excuse, a cover story, if you will.

cylindrical crown , says: January 27, 2018 at 2:29 pm
Question: How many anti-Trump psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Only one. But the psychiatrist will take a very long time, and believes the light bulb has to want to change.

Mia , says: January 27, 2018 at 3:51 pm
"The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver ignores the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed behavior, history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the individual shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a face-to-face interview may be virtually useless."

So what happens when the third parties or the psychiatrist in question are pathological liars? Would a face-to-face interview help in that case?

[Sep 07, 2018] But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its interference in the elections. That tells us something about the US congress by Kononenko

Slightly edited Google translation
Notable quotes:
"... I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians. ..."
"... The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ? ..."
"... Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values. ..."
"... But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? ..."
"... Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich. ..."
"... why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | kononenkome.livejournal.com

According to popular belief, the cold war ended with the victory of the United States of America. And, accordingly, the demice of the Soviet Union. However, what exactly represent such a victory is not that easy to understand. Instead of one conservative, and therefore predictable player, the United States received a half dozen countries, of which only three or four are loyal, with other living by "the laws of jungles" (sorry free market). The number of aimed at American cities Intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads remained approximately the same as before the infamous "victory." And strategic atomic submarines remained, and strategic bombers. There are less of them, for sure, but they are more modern and more dngerous with more sophisticated weaponry. In any ccase remaining are still enough to make the winner to feel like a loser after b=neclear apolaipsys. And the idfea of victory is that the victor is the master (in this case the master of the plant). Am I missing something ?

Of course, another inquisitive observer will tell us about the controlled chaos, about the growing influence and plans for the establishing of the world neoliberal government. I was impressed by the recent revelation of Senator John Tester, who said that Putin is promoting communism in America. As the idea that this senator is a complete idiot who does not understand the Russia rejected communism as a dead-born system is pretty absurd. I would venture to assume that it might be that Russia did something that can with some stretch be qualifies as an attempt to influence the USA election, but, alas, Putin has no strategic plan, not the intention. First of all this would be pretty idiotic idea as two candidates were equally bad for Russia and it was completely unclear who is worse.

But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its "interference in the elections." That tells us something about the US congress. I do not want to write about the lack of evidence and absurdity of the arguments again. I've already written a lot about it. No, let's stop talking about the past and try to look into the future.

The US President's national security adviser John Bolton (who theoretically should be a sanest person in the administration) recently said that the US is concerned about the potential for interference in the midterm elections to the Congress of four countries. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. "I will not go into details of what I saw or didn't see, but I tell you that in the 2018 elections, these four countries raise the greatest fears," proclaim this highly placed Presidential adviser.

Theoretically it make some sense. Any man with a knife has a potential to kill. Any country with nuclear weapons has the potential to strike at the US. Any country with developed IT has a potential opportunity to interfere in elections with the help of cyber attacks. For example, Israel. But it is not a good idea to scare the American voter with Israel. No, he/she should be confused, and he/she should be afraid of potential menace. And this external enemy should unite fragmented by neoliberal excesses country (for this purpose those good-for nothing people grazing in State Department and Spaso House (The US embassy in Moscow) should constantly accuse the Russian authorities of all sorts nefarious activities. So there is nothing new here: Great Britain uses similar dirty tricks against Russia for centuries. I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians.

What do we want? Let's say we want the midterms to be won by the Republicans. Then explain to me why Republican John Bolton fears this. If there's anything John Bolton should be afraid of, it's that Russia will intervene in the midterms in order to win the Democrats. But The Washington Post writes that "the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States fear the potential interference of Russia and start to increase its presence in anticipation of the interim election cycle on such platforms as Facebook and Twitter." President Trump writes on Twitter that Russia will" make a lot of effort " to intervene in the midterm elections on the side of the Democrats. Microsoft claims that Russian hackers created fake websites of Republican organizations in order to collect information about Republicans. The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ?

Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values.

But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? If the net result for us anyway will be the same: more sanctions? Here we should go back to the idea of "controlled chaos" and world government. Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich.

Again the question arise, why we should interfere in he USA elections. Only if we are out for revenge, "eye for eye" principle as they interfered in ours. There's no other reasonable answer. But even in this case, why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity.

And before we get the answer to this fundamental question "Why?" there can be no further questions. None. Moreover, no other questions are needed. So let them just explain to us why we should interfere and how we can benefit from such an interference, and we will try our best. Before that, let's just watch.

And when they explain this to us, we can communicate the answer to China, Iran and North Korea free of charge.

[Sep 07, 2018] Facts That Disprove the Official 9-11 White House "Conspiracy Theory" Why Are Good Americans Silent by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

Notable quotes:
"... Over the past 17 years since 9/11/01, the title question has plagued the tens of thousands of committed groups of highly intelligent and thorough truth-seeking scientists, physicists, architects, engineers, pilots, ex-military officers, ex-intelligence agents, firefighters, demolition experts, psychologists, medical professionals, etc, etc who have absolute proof that the official Cheney/Bush White House story about what happened on 9/11/01 was a "Big Lie", that was so easily perpetrated on a fearful, gullible and mainstream media-saturated public that was very willing to suspend their critical thinking skills and throw their trust onto authority figures that would tell them what they were supposed to believe, even if it was contrary to what they actually saw with their own eyes. Unfortunately, those pseudo-authority figures that have the power to dominate the media, also have a long history of being serial liars – and they have hidden ulterior motives and a willing mainstream media machine on which to perpetuate the lies. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls Global Research, September 07, 2018 Region: Europe , USA Theme: Crimes against Humanity , History , Law and Justice , Media Disinformation , Terrorism

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Over the past 17 years since 9/11/01, the title question has plagued the tens of thousands of committed groups of highly intelligent and thorough truth-seeking scientists, physicists, architects, engineers, pilots, ex-military officers, ex-intelligence agents, firefighters, demolition experts, psychologists, medical professionals, etc, etc who have absolute proof that the official Cheney/Bush White House story about what happened on 9/11/01 was a "Big Lie", that was so easily perpetrated on a fearful, gullible and mainstream media-saturated public that was very willing to suspend their critical thinking skills and throw their trust onto authority figures that would tell them what they were supposed to believe, even if it was contrary to what they actually saw with their own eyes. Unfortunately, those pseudo-authority figures that have the power to dominate the media, also have a long history of being serial liars – and they have hidden ulterior motives and a willing mainstream media machine on which to perpetuate the lies.

Millions of clear-headed people all over the world have gradually begun to disbelieve the Big Lies about 9/11 and have started to pay attention to the evidence that disproves the lies, even though they are big ones. The truth has a way of getting out – albeit usually too slowly – and thus these truth-seekers have seen through the propaganda that launched and perpetuated the lies. These clear-headed folks, with the unassailably truthful facts on their sides – all easily provable in a court of law – are naturally wondering what is going on with the perpetuation of the White House 9/11 Myths, and why has the truth been forbidden to be spoken of in average newspapers and media outlets like the ones in my home town?

Billions have seen the suffering, despair and slaughter of innocent Muslim women, children and old men that have been driven from their homes by US soldiers and their lethal high-tech weaponry.

Observers with open eyes and open hearts have seen the rape, pillage, plunder, deaths and decapitations (documented following US drone strikes and mortar attacks) of innocents, families, tribes, cultures, societies, religious sects and infrastructure, predictably provoking violent reprisals (including retaliatory beheadings) from justifiably angry victim-members of the invaded homeland who naturally desire revenge and retaliation against the homicidal "christian" invaders and occupiers that drew "first blood".

Qui Bono (Who Benefitted)?

Many observers know the names of the military, economic, corporate and political entities that were the beneficiaries from the post-9/11 wars. Those wars lavishly enriched them all, but it was at the expense of the doomed, deceived and psychologically deadened boots on the ground that did the dirty work for the perpetrators, all of whom were safely back in America orchestrating the chaos.

Many of us know the names of the war-profiteering oil cartels, weapons manufacturers, gun runners, the rent-a-mercenary corporations and all the other multinational and American corporations that enjoyed huge stock market gains back then – not just from the wars but also from the rumors of war – again at the expense of the soldiers and the deceived and pseudo-patriotic citizens watching the exciting carnage on TV.

The American Empire, the Pentagon, Full Spectrum Domination, "The New Pearl Harbor" and "Corporate Personhood"

A few observers also saw the connections between the pro-corporate, proto-fascist think tanks of the past few decades that include this short list of easily recognizable NeoConservative groups: Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, American Legislative Exchange Council, American Family Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Christian Coalition of America, Club for Growth, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, National Taxpayers Union, the various pro-Israel lobby groups, among about 800 others. And, of course, neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party are innocent in the active participation in the post-9/11 war-mongering activities.

Full Spectrum Domination for the US, Facilitated by a "New Pearl Harbor"

The leaders of the think tanks represented by the above short list seem to be peopled largely by draft-dodging Chicken Hawk insiders from the Cheney/Bush administration – that are consistently pushing for American military and economic hegemony abroad. The type of hegemony in secretly called "Full Spectrum Domination", which seems to be the operating principle that every Pentagon subsidiary endorses and which is pushed by every talking head retired general on Fox TV that has undeclared financial ties to the weapons industry that will automatically prosper in any perpetual war or "rumor of war" scenario.

Many of the Cheney-Bush insiders that gained tremendous political power after the stolen election in 2000 were members or had close connections to the nefarious Project for the New American Century – PNAC – that published in its manifesto "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" exactly one year prior to 9/11/01. The following indicting sentence from their manifesto reveals its intent: "the process of transformation (i.e., achieving full spectrum planetary dominance by the US military), even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". It doesn't take a genius to decide what group should be at the top of the list when the international war crimes tribunal starts to subpoena people to testify.

Interested in knowing who are the folks from PNAC? Immediately below, Pilots for 911 Truth has provided us with a list of the operatives that deserve to have their day in court to clear their names. They will have some pretty tough explaining to do. Check this out for much more. Here is the short list:

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Dov Zakheim, Gary Bauer, William Kristol, William Bennett, Norman Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Robert Bork's daughter Ellen, Charles Krauthammer, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Rudy Boschwitz and Vin Weber. No progressives were members of this NeoConservative think tank. (You can see the rest of the list of Republican members here ).

Fair-minded readers will agree that it is extremely important that voting Americans be mindful that every future election will be targeted by the NeoConservative 9/11 planners (including the old members of the PNAC noted above) that continue to actively work to achieve and maintain not only foreign, but also domestic full spectrum domination in the White House, the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House of Representatives as well as in all the state legislatures.

[Sep 07, 2018] The Coup Against Trump by CURT MILLS

Notable quotes:
"... Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss. ..."
"... The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing about it." ..."
"... A report of mine in the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell , founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration." ..."
"... "We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic . "How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy . ..."
"... There's more than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week. ..."
"... But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente . Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya -- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of voters." ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Coup Against Trump One of his advisors tells TAC a plot is afoot. How far will the president go to ensure his political survival?

... ... ...

Donald Trump rose from pariah to president through politics, and now may be on the brink of being returned by the same means, the result of Bob Woodward's searing testimonial in Fear and a scathing New York Times op-ed from someone in his own ranks.

Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss.

A former senior administration official tells me that Wednesday's op-ed in the New York Times , by an anonymous senior administration official, is nothing short of an attempt at a "coup" against Trump himself. A veteran conservative activist who is close to the White House says the story here is one insiders have been identifying since the early days of the Trump administration (and that I've reported on ad nauseum ): personnel.

The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing about it."

Something tantamount to a national game of "Clue" is underway. It was Mike Pence, with an email to the Times , in the Naval Observatory. It was Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Jr., with the phone, in the bathroom of his Moscow apartment. This reporter is loathe to delve into conjecture, but the author of the op-ed seems clearly to be, first, interested in national security, and second, a traditional conservative. A preponderance of my sources argue that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. "[National Security Advisor John] Bolton would shock me," a State Department veteran says.

The op-ed author writes: "This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state." He (or she) maligns the president as "amoral" and devoid of "first principles." A veteran watcher of Secretary of Defense James Mattis tells me that "'steady' is a favorite Mattis word. I think the McCain funeral hit Mattis hard." Yet even if the president suspected his defense chief, he would be loathe to quickly dispatch him -- and anyway Mattis may leave on his own after the midterms.

♦♦♦

A case of seismic duplicity -- or needed patriotism, depending on who you talk to -- is, of course, only half the story.

The other half is one that has been recurrent throughout this administration: the president and his apparatchiks expended little initial capital on staffing the White House with genuine loyalists, or true believers. They appointed neither longtime personal friends of the president nor policy hands faithful to anything resembling a populist-nationalist agenda. News reports abound of the president's surprising and depressing paucity of genuine friends.

As I relayed last week in TAC : "A former senior Department of Defense official [being considered] for top administration positions recalls meeting Jeff Sessions after the election. After hitting it off, the future AG asked the candidate: ' Where have you been? '"

A report of mine in the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell , founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration."

Donald Trump is Not the Manchurian Candidate 'Far From the Endgame' on Donald Trump's NAFTA Overhaul

The president suggested that the op-ed was perhaps "TREASON?" He routinely conflates national interest and personal interest, and thus now demands that the Times betray its source. In doing so, he denigrates a founding ideal of the republic, prepared to erode civic support for the First Amendment to dull the pain of an atrocious but largely self-inflicted news cycle.

The personal nature of the president's complaint convulses the persuasive authority of the arguments against his opposition. Since the publishing of the op-ed, there has been a steady trickle of concern, particularly among left-liberal writers, about the precedent being set. "We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic . "How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy . There's more than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week.

And indeed there are parts of the op-ed that are cause for genuine concern:

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior.

Treating Russia as the adversarial power that it is and proportionately punishing its malign behavior smacks of sound policy. But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente . Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya -- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of voters."

Beyond the substantive criticisms from both sides, of Trump and of his critics, is the diagnostic nature of the conspiracy -- and it is a conspiracy -- against the president. First and foremost, Trump, they say, is unwell or unfit. The case for invocation of the 25th Amendment is being made plainly in the pages of the United States' most-read newspapers.

What's truly remarkable is that, to a certain extent, the U.S. is already functioning as though the 25th Amendment has been invoked -- at least if the reporting of Bob Woodward, the premier journalist of his generation, is to be believed. In spring of 2017, after Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad reportedly murdered citizens in rebel-held territory with chemical weapons, Trump, according to Woodward, told Defense Secretary Mattis: "Let's f**ing kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them." Mattis replied, "We're not going to do any of that." (Mattis denies Woodward's accounts.) As the author of the op-ed gloats, this is "is a two-track presidency. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly."

The debate, then, isn't about policy. It isn't as though Trump is trying to decimate the civil service, or staff the State Department with "realists" on Russia, or halve legal immigration. If he leaves office, his legacy will be tax cuts and (likely) two conservative Supreme Court justices; on policy, it's unlikely that a President Cruz or Rubio would have done much differently. But the paranoid style that Trump has mainstreamed is, of course, a separate matter and not a small one. Neither is the fealty, or at least feigned fidelity, to a populist-nationalism that is now likely a prerequisite to becoming the Republican presidential nominee for the foreseeable future. That's even though, at their core, the president's protestations of "treason" and a "deep state" are about personal survival, not the implementation of a nationalist revolution.

For his supporters, Trump's continued occupancy of the White House is more about cultural grievance -- a middle finger to a failed establishment -- than about a knock-down, drag-out fight over real political change.

As Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard after his ouster last year: "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over."

Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at The National Interest, where he covers the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency.

[Sep 07, 2018] Making Russia 'The Enemy' – Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... It is the country where school children put on monthly plays and begin to recite poetry in first grade. ..."
"... Russia did not hack German voting machines so that Angela Merkel's total percentage would be less than projected. ..."
"... Oh by the way Craig Murray was relieved of his British post. Not quite sure why. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Making Russia 'The Enemy' December 15, 2016 • 156 Comments

Save

Exclusive: Despite conflicting accounts about who leaked the Democratic emails, the frenzy over an alleged Russian role is driving the U.S. deeper into a costly and dangerous New Cold War, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The rising hysteria about Russia is best understood as fulfilling two needs for Official Washington: the Military Industrial Complex's transitioning from the "war on terror" to a more lucrative "new cold war" – and blunting the threat that a President Trump poses to the neoconservative/liberal-interventionist foreign-policy establishment.

By hyping the Russian "threat," the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks, who include much of the mainstream U.S. news media, can guarantee bigger military budgets from Congress. The hype also sets in motion a blocking maneuver to impinge on any significant change in direction for U.S. foreign policy under Trump.

Wintery scene at Red Square in Moscow, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)

Some Democrats even hope to stop Trump from ascending to the White House by having the Central Intelligence Agency, in effect, lobby the electors in the Electoral College with scary tales about Russia trying to fix the election for Trump.

The electors meet on Dec. 19 when they will formally cast their votes, supposedly reflecting the judgments of each state's voters, but conceivably individual electors could switch their ballots from Trump to Hillary Clinton or someone else.

On Thursday, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. joined the call for electors to flip, writing : "The question is whether Trump, Vladimir Putin and, perhaps, Clinton's popular-vote advantage give you sufficient reason to blow up the system."

That Democrats would want the CIA, which is forbidden to operate domestically in part because of its historic role in influencing elections in other countries, to play a similar role in the United States shows how desperate the Democratic Party has become.

And, even though The New York Times and other big news outlets are reporting as flat fact that Russia hacked the Democratic email accounts and gave the information to WikiLeaks, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told the London Daily Mail that he personally received the email data from a "disgusted" Democrat.

Murray said he flew from London to Washington for a clandestine handoff from one of the email sources in September, receiving the package in a wooded area near American University.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray

"Neither of [the leaks, from the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] came from the Russians," Murray said, adding: "the source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks."

Murray said the insider felt "disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders." Murray added that his meeting was with an intermediary for the Democratic leaker, not the leaker directly.

[ Update: Murray subsequently said his contact with the intermediary at American University was not for the purpose of obtaining a batch of the purloined emails, as the Daily Mail reported, since WikiLeaks already had them. He said the Mail simply added that detail to the story, but Murray declined to explain why he had the meeting at A.U. with the whistleblower or an associate.]

If Murray's story is true, it raises several alternative scenarios: that the U.S. intelligence community's claims about a Russian hack are false; that Russians hacked the Democrats' emails for their own intelligence gathering without giving the material to WikiLeaks; or that Murray was deceived about the identity of the original leaker.

But the uncertainty creates the possibility that the Democrats are using a dubious CIA assessment to reverse the outcome of an American presidential election, in effect, making the CIA party to a preemptive domestic "regime change."

Delayed Autopsy

All of this maneuvering also is delaying the Democratic Party's self-examination into why it lost so many white working-class voters in normally Democratic strongholds, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Rather than national party leaders taking the blame for pre-selecting a very flawed candidate and ignoring all the warning signs about the public's resistance to this establishment choice, Democrats have pointed fingers at almost everyone else – from FBI Director James Comey for briefly reviving Clinton's email investigation, to third-party candidates who siphoned off votes, to the archaic Electoral College which negates the fact that Clinton did win the national popular vote – and now to the Russians.

FBI Director James Comey

While there may be some validity to these various complaints, the excessive frenzy that has surrounded the still-unproven claims that the Russian government surreptitiously tilted the election in Trump's favor creates an especially dangerous dynamic.

On one level, it has led Democrats to support Orwellian/ McCarthyistic concepts, such as establishing "black lists" for Internet sites that question Official Washington's "conventional wisdom" and thus are deemed purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news."

On another level, it cements the Democratic Party as America's preeminent "war party," favoring an escalating New Cold War with Russia by ratcheting up economic sanctions against Moscow, and even seeking military challenges to Russia in conflict zones such as Syria and Ukraine.

One of the most dangerous aspects of a prospective Hillary Clinton presidency was that she would have appointed neocons, such as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and her husband, Project for the New American Century co-founder Robert Kagan, to high-level foreign policy positions.

Though that risk may have passed assuming Clinton's Electoral College defeat on Monday, Democrats now are excitedly joining the bash-Russia movement, making it harder to envision how the party can transition back into its more recent role as the "peace party" (at least relative to the extremely hawkish Republicans).

Trading Places

The potential trading places of the two parties in that regard – with Trump favoring geopolitical détente and the Democrats beating the drums for more military confrontations – augurs poorly for the Democrats regaining their political footing anytime soon.

Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right, on Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)

If Democratic leaders press ahead, in alliance with neoconservative Republicans, on demands for escalating the New Cold War with Russia, they could precipitate a party split between Democratic hawks and doves, a schism that likely would have occurred if Clinton had been elected but now may happen anyway, albeit without the benefit of the party holding the White House.

The first test of this emerging Democratic-neocon alliance may come over Trump's choice for Secretary of State, Exxon-Mobil's chief executive Rex Tillerson, who doesn't exhibit the visceral hatred of Russian President Vladimir Putin that Democrats are encouraging.

As an international business executive, Tillerson appears to share Trump's real-politik take on the world, the idea that doing business with rivals makes more sense than conspiring to force "regime change" after "regime change."

Over the past several decades, the "regime change" approach has been embraced by both neocons and liberal interventionists and has been implemented by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Sometimes, it's done through war and other times through "color revolutions" – always under the idealistic guise of "democracy promotion" or "protecting human rights."

But the problem with this neo-imperialist strategy has been that it has failed miserably to improve the lives of the people living in the "regime-changed" countries. Instead, it has spread chaos across wide swaths of the globe and has now even destabilized Europe.

Yet, the solution, as envisioned by the neocons and their liberal-hawk understudies, is simply to force more "regime change" medicine down the throats of the world's population. The new "great" idea is to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia by making its economy scream and by funding as many anti-Putin elements as possible to create the nucleus for a "color revolution" in Moscow.

To justify that risky scheme, there has been a broad expansion of anti-Russian propaganda now being funded with tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money as well as being pushed by government officials giving off-the-record briefings to mainstream media outlets.

However, as with earlier "regime change" plans, the neocons and liberal hawks never think through the scenario to the end. They always assume that everything is going to work out fine and some well-dressed "opposition leader" who has been to their think-tank conferences will simply ascend to the top job.

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Remember, in Iraq, it was going to be Ahmed Chalabi who was beloved in Official Washington but broadly rejected by the Iraqi people. In Libya, there has been a parade of U.S.-approved "unity" leaders who have failed to pull that country together.

In Ukraine, Nuland's choice – Arseniy "Yats is the guy" Yatsenyuk – resigned amid broad public disapproval earlier this year after pushing through harsh cuts in social programs, even as the U.S.-backed regime officials in Kiev continued to plunder Ukraine's treasury and misappropriate Western economic aid.

Nuclear-Armed Destabilization

But the notion of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia is even more hare-brained than those other fiascos. The neocon/liberal-hawk assumption is that Russians – pushed to the brink of starvation by crippling Western sanctions – will overthrow Putin and install a new version of Boris Yeltsin who would then let U.S. financial advisers return with their neoliberal "shock therapy" of the 1990s and again exploit Russia's vast resources.

Indeed, it was the Yeltsin era and its Western-beloved "shock therapy" that created the desperate conditions before the rise of Putin with his autocratic nationalism, which, for all its faults, has dramatically improved the lives of most Russians.

Bright lights on Red Square, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)

So, the more likely result from the neocon/liberal-hawk "regime change" plans for Moscow would be the emergence of someone even more nationalistic – and likely far less stable – than Putin, who is regarded even by his critics as cold and calculating.

The prospect of an extreme Russian nationalist getting his or her hands on the Kremlin's nuclear codes should send chills up and down the spines of every American, indeed every human being on the planet. But it is the course that key national Democrats appear to be on with their increasingly hysterical comments about Russia.

The Democratic National Committee issued a statement on Wednesday accusing Trump of giving Russia "an early holiday gift that smells like a payoff. It's rather easy to connect the dots. Russia meddled in the U.S. election in order to benefit Trump and now he's repaying Vladimir Putin by nominating Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state."

Besides delaying a desperately needed autopsy on why Democrats did so badly in an election against the also-widely-disliked Donald Trump, the new blame-Russia gambit threatens to hurt the Democrats and their preferred policies in another way.

If Democrats vote in bloc against Tillerson or other Trump foreign-policy nominees – demanding that he appoint people acceptable to the neocons and the liberal hawks – Trump might well be pushed deeper into the arms of right-wing Republicans, giving them more on domestic issues to solidify their support on his foreign-policy goals.

That could end up redounding against the Democrats as they watch important social programs gutted in exchange for their own dubious Democratic alliance with the neocons.

Since the presidency of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have courted factions of the neocons, apparently thinking they are influential because they dominate many mainstream op-ed pages and Washington think tanks. In 1993, as a thank-you gift to the neocon editors of The New Republic for endorsing him, Clinton appointed neocon ideologue James Woolsey as head of the CIA, one of Clinton's more disastrous personnel decisions.

But the truth appears to be that the neocons have much less influence across the U.S. electoral map than the Clintons think. Arguably, their pandering to a clique of Washington insiders who are viewed as warmongers by many peace-oriented Democrats may even represent a net negative when it comes to winning votes.

I've communicated with a number of traditional Democrats who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because they feared she would pursue a dangerous neocon foreign policy . Obviously, that's not a scientific survey, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that Clinton's neocon connections could have been another drag on her campaign.

Assessing Russia

I also undertook a limited personal test regarding whether Russia is the police state that U.S. propaganda depicts, a country yearning to break free from the harsh grip of Vladimir Putin (although he registers 80 or so percent approval in polls).

Couple walking along the Kremlin wall, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)

During my trip last week to Europe, which included stops in Brussels and Copenhagen, I decided to take a side trip to Moscow, which I had never visited before. What I encountered was an impressive, surprisingly (to me at least) Westernized city with plenty of American and European franchises, including the ubiquitous McDonald's and Starbucks. (Russians serve the Starbucks gingerbread latte with a small ginger cookie.)

Though senior Russian officials proved unwilling to meet with me, an American reporter, at this time of tensions, Russia had little appearance of a harshly repressive society. In my years covering U.S. policies in El Salvador in the 1980s and Haiti in the 1990s, I have experienced what police states look and feel like, where death squads dump bodies in the streets. That was not what I sensed in Moscow, just a modern city with people bustling about their business under early December snowfalls.

The police presence in Red Square near the Kremlin was not even as heavy-handed as it is near the government buildings of Washington. Instead, there was a pre-Christmas festive air to the brightly lit Red Square, featuring a large skating rink surrounded by small stands selling hot chocolate, toys, warm clothing and other goods.

Granted, my time and contact with Russians were limited – since I don't speak Russian and most of them don't speak English – but I was struck by the contrast between the grim images created by Western media and the Russia that I saw.

It reminded me of how President Ronald Reagan depicted Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a "totalitarian dungeon" with a militarized state ready to march on Texas, but what I found when I traveled to Managua was a third-world country still recovering from an earthquake and with a weak security structure despite the Contra war that Reagan had unleashed against Nicaragua.

In other words, " perception management " remains the guiding principle of how the U.S. government deals with the American people, scaring us with exaggerated tales of foreign threats and then manipulating our fears and our misperceptions.

As dangerous as that can be when we're talking about Nicaragua or Iraq or Libya, the risks are exponentially higher regarding Russia. If the American people are stampeded into a New Cold War based more on myths than reality, the minimal cost could be the trillions of dollars diverted from domestic needs into the Military Industrial Complex. The far-greater cost could be some miscalculation by either side that could end life on the planet.

So, as the Democrats chart their future, they need to decide if they want to leapfrog the Republicans as America's "war party" or whether they want to pull back from the escalation of tensions with Russia and start addressing the pressing needs of the American people.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Ray Western , December 20, 2016 at 12:11 pm

When I think about what the Neocons have done to the Mid East with their goal to change regimes that we do not approve of it makes me shudder. I wonder why there are not protesters in the streets like there was in Vietnam Nam. Why isn't there more news agencies protesting our actions? Why isn't George Bush being tried for war crimes by world or US courts? Trump talks about building up our military. I hope this will not lead to more conflicts and an increase in our national debt. Why can't there be a larger effort to print the truth about Putin and Russia? Keep up your efforts to spread the truth. Thank God that Hillary was not elected.

FREDERIC PALAY , December 19, 2016 at 10:04 am

Refreshing article among all the post Trump election hysterical propaganda. Particularly telling for me because I have been one of those lured in thinking that a regime change in Irak could not be worse than what was happening, Kurdes being gased by the hundred of thousand, Israel being attacked with incentives given by Saddam to terrorists, and soon the French giving him access to their nuclear program, plus naturally the WMDs . I know now that it was wrong, and that we have enough domestic problems to fix before trying to interfere into foreign complex cultural grounds.
Yet I think that the biggest element that can explain Clinton's defeat is the massive demographic miscalculation the Democrats have been making for decades. They came up with this crazy strategy of dividing the American People into more and more competing minorities, prying electorally on real and invented specialty oppressions, pretending that only them could champion the oppressed in exchange for their votes. Doing so, they did not see that they were collaterally creating a class of oppressors, who they would depict, on and on, as bigots, uneducated, bigots and the soon-to-be-electorally-irrelevant white class.
This strategy backlashed, in a revolt of these "whites", and more importantly showed that what they wanted to consider as a separate voting class, the "hispanics" voted like "whites" Because they feel and are white!
I was not surprised by this brutal correction of what was only a narrative supporting a populist electoral strategy. I live in Florida, immersed in these "hispanics", but overall because I am European, I saw from there beginning the artificiality of the stratagem. Try in Europe to call the Spanish and Portuguese people "hispanic, or to enroll the Greeks, the Corsican, the Italian in a non white minority, Not only people would laugh, but they would call you a racist.

Joe L. , December 18, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Oh and here is a link to the article in the Daily Mail UK that Ex-British ambassador, who is now a WikiLeaks operative, claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Emanuel E Garcia , December 18, 2016 at 5:17 am

Excellent article, Mr. Parry.

I was in Russia not so long ago, and I had some observations to make in this brief essay, "The Russians Are Coming Again?"

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/18968

What worries me so tremendously is the simplistic barbarism of these attacks on Russia: pure jaded propaganda, which, sadly and unbelievably enough, too many people are too eager to swallow.

Rob , December 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm

The surest sign that the NYT and the rest of the MSM are in the bag with regard to the "blame Russia" campaign is their failure even to mention (at least to my knowledge) Craig Murray's claim that he received the DNC info from a leaker inside the organization. This claim may or not be true, but it is at least worth reporting and considering as a possible explanation for how Wikileaks came to possess the material. That said, the manner in which Wikileaks released the information so as to maximize damage to the Clinton campaign makes me wonder about the mental health of Julian Assange. Four years of confinement to a room can mess with your mind.

Robert Keith , December 18, 2016 at 12:11 am

Not only the story Craig Murray but how about the story of Podesta having willingly surrendered his password to a (the) hacker. If the contents of a hack are true, what's the hullabaloo all about.

Professor T , December 17, 2016 at 11:30 am

Thanks for this article. I never believed this crap about the Russians hacking the election. The U.S. Election process is a sham which disenfranchises voters across the board. I believe that both parties have their hands in these elections right down to the Board of Elections and electoral colleges in each of these states. When Bernie Sanders ran in NY, I believe the Demorcratic Party and the Board of Elections especially in NYC made it hard for him to get elected. All of a sudden in Brooklyn registered voters were not found, like 125,000 voters . Really? NY was a state also named with Southern states in the 60's as a state that disenfranchised voters. I am not surprised. I am not a fan of Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton. They definitely have not improved the lives of African Americans or any other Americans. Only the lives of those within their inner circle. They are exploiters to the highest degree. She lost because Americans rejected her and her ideals. They said enough. We don't need another Clinton in the White House to do Part 2 of how to disenfranchise and destabilize American people. I am not a Trump fan either, but if he won the election fair and scare I can't argue with that. The Democratic and Republican parties are not in touch with the American people. The election process needs to be reformed where if you don't have money, you don' t have influence. They are corrupt on both sides. It is pay for play and I am sure that is not how the forefathers intended this to be or maybe it was .. Time to clean house and that is on both sides. Whether they are White, Black, or any other persuasion, they are corrupt. Rome is Burning!!

R. Rivera , December 16, 2016 at 6:09 pm

Russia may have tried to influence the election, it might be a frame job, or it might be a collaborator in this election. It does not matter. I suspect the election really was rigged ( the fbi's comey did his part ) but it was rigged in favor of trump

When I see someone pointing and yelling "crook!" as trump did, I always suspect the yeller (trump) is the one causing the problem. Remember gingrich complaining about clinton's morality and pointing the finger with disgust? He should have resigned since he was cheating on mrs. gingrich AND kept it a secret while on his moral crusade. I have not been wrong yet when I see this behavior.

The cia with a suspected history of interring with other nations is complaining about russia's interference? We must be in trouble.

This was not an election. It was a coup to elect the new puppet president trump. We need to expose the puppeteers.

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Obama today: basically all the messes, conflicts, disputes, wars and so on that he has created in the world, and the reason Hillary wasn't given "her turn," are OUR fault because we can't accept the lies he promulgates on the mainstream media and we insist on going to alternate sources. And, of course, extrapolating that logic will justify commiting an act of war against Russia, which he promises to do.

https://news.grabien.com/story-obama-blames-talk-radio-domestic-propagandists-rise-state-sp

How can we get this guy outta there before he blows up the planet? Trump must take to the airwaves to defend himself against the accusations or possibly be removed in a coup being orchestrated by this sullen hater. This is spiraling downhill fast and, from the comments on internet forums, war fever is in the air, proving Obama is more dangerous than any "fake news" outlet.

Michael K. , December 16, 2016 at 4:29 pm

There is an uncomfortable truth about those who led the Old Bolsheviks and their b;loody terrors, who looted Russia under Yeltsin, and who leads the neoconservative core of the anti-Russia pundits:

http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Pseudoscience/harvard_mafia.shtml

They were and are disproportionately Jewish, but we are not supposed to note it, lest this curious FACT "offend" someone who is offended by . the truth.

So, we can't talk about a major [though not necessarily predominant] element of who is leading the anti-Russian rhetoric in DC and media so let's pretend it isn't playing a role here.

Robert Keith , December 16, 2016 at 6:12 pm

Why are we so concerned (as per Pres. Obama's press conference this morning) about the unproved possibility of a foreign power's (like Russia, for example) influence (if true, it was positive) on our election, when Israel, through AIPAC and the American Jewish Communuty, etal., ALREADY HAS a far greater influence (especially being negative) on our elections. Another example of an egregious double-standard being applied to Israel. In fact, Israel is just sort of a co-partner here in the U.S.. Why is a foreign-born, Israeli dual-national, former Governor of the Bank of Israel, Stanley Fisher, the 2nd man at the Federal Reserve?Why were we pretending that Jonathon Pollard was a spy? What is the average percentage of votes in the Congress on legislation relating to Israel? To which country do we give more Foreign Aid than any other country even though "Aid" denotes, not connotes, that the country is "needy". To which country did we just sign a $38 billion (10-year) Charity package, which purports to be Military, but is highly fungible, meaning that can be used for the financing of settlements or whatever the f**k they want to use it for, like, haredim welfare. Bottom line:President Obama and all the Neo-Con Russia bashers are first class hypocrites, trying to exorcize (or exercise) an historic grudge against the Russian Tsars. Why is this country being pushed into wars that do not concern us, but rather a country with a wall around it that wishes to expand its borders, because our Congressmen and President are owned by them?

John Hope , December 16, 2016 at 3:25 pm

Brilliant article and some brilliant comments. We live now in a very small world and if you can't see your connection to your neighbour wherever and whoever that may be you are not awake. I drive a car so I have to think about that and notwithstanding the necessity of that I have to think about the bigger picture and maybe next year it should be an electric car , or no car . This whole fabrication about the Russians simply isn't washing with us common people, so the perception management of not just the Democrats , but politicians in general is so wide of the mark after Trump and Brexit they just don't know what to do. They thought they had it all wrapped up and then along came the Internet ..

sanford sklansky , December 16, 2016 at 3:15 pm

A good article and maybe demonizing Russia for the wrong reasons. But lets not forget that Putin is running a kleptocracy. There is no freedom of speech. Certainly no paper that can speak out against him or the Russian government. The anti gay laws are terrible. You were only in Russia for a short time. I don't know if you can gauge much just from walking around Red Square. And while there didn't appear to be a big police presence I am guessing it was there and you were unaware. I am assuming that your passport says you are a reporter. No doubt some one was probably watching where you were going and who you might be talking to.

James lake , December 17, 2016 at 3:25 pm

Wow this is the arrogant way of thinking that is at the root of world problems
What has their form of govt got to do with you.???
The Russian people have shown over the years that they don't take any nonsense and if the feel their govt is not working for them they will make themselves heard.

K. Geebee , December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm

Is this article a joke? So this guys walks around Moscow for a day speaking no Russian and is able to 'deduce' that Russia is like any Western democracy, with Putin its misunderstood, magnanimous ruler. And this allows him to claim to know better than Russian dissenters or Western journalists who actually speak Russian and understand its propaganda. No wonder this site was listed as a Russian stooge. And all the commenters praising his acumen (he went to a Russian starbucks, wow!) is even funnier

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 4:00 pm

You assholes from Langley here taking names or something? Go tell your sycophantic acting boss Michael Morell that he's not funny, he's psychotic.

Josh Laudermilk , December 17, 2016 at 4:18 am

@Realist,

Michael Morell was another shadowy figure that was insistent that Hillary Clinton deserves to be anointed POTUS and leader of "the Free World" (only the USA is free, not Finland, Sweden, Netherlands or anywhere else knows what 'democracy' really is). Did you know that Mike Morell actually said we should be killing Russians in Ukraine? He openly said that. When I heard him say that, as opposed to something I would have said, like "I want Russia to join NATO. I want to have joint military operations with Russia. I want to have a joint counter-terrorist command. We can and should be fighting Wahhabi terrorists together."

Mr. Morell openly approves of murdering Russians wholesale, whenever they are found outside the borders of their country (which Mike Morell wishes would recede even further, to shrink Russia as much as possible). There were no consequences for his genocidal and violent hate speech, which I would expect from a Salafist minister, not a former Acting Director of the nation's premier 'intelligence' agency. The word intelligence being used in the loosest manner as all possible.

Realist, whoever you are, why should I or anyone trust the CIA about this past election? Seriously, the CIA is the master at electoral rigging, psychological warfare, deception, counter-operations, and murder. For decades, the CIA rigged the elections of Japan so that the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP being the CIA approved polity in Japan) would win ever single time. And the LDP has ruled the county almost uninterruptedly, with an exception when, for a short time, the opposition party (the Democratic Party) had a majority before being brought down by corruption scandals.

Or what about all the election rigging that the CIA performed in Italy during the 1950ies? I could go on, but the CIA has a long history of "hacking" elections and controlling the polity of other nations, through rigging, murder and coups.

Realist , December 17, 2016 at 4:22 pm

That's why I mentioned Morell rather than Brennan. You caught my drift. Good.

Jerry Falkenstein , December 16, 2016 at 1:29 pm

Just wondering, Is the world better off now or changed for the better since the a-holes started the war with Iraq?

Drew Hunkins , December 16, 2016 at 12:47 pm

It's just so bananas, it's hard to put into words how so much of the mainstream press is lapping up and disseminating the drivel that "Putin/Russian gov't hacked the election to tilt it to Trump!" The hysteria is strikingly similar to what went on in 2003 during the run-up to the Iraq war debacle. Repetition is hardening into orthodoxy in some quarters and smart liberals should know better than to give these insane charges the veneer of credibility.

It's crucial to note that what's been going on over the last month or so is that there's a serious battle being waged amongst our ruling class behind the scenes (sometimes referred to as the "Deep State"). From what I can make of it, on one side sits Trump, Big Oil and elements of the FBI versus virtually all of the establishment mass media and press, DNC insiders, much of the CIA, and elements of the Zionist power configuration and Saudi terror network who want war on Iran – not market driven empire building with Iran which is what Tillerson's likely to propose. Of course another element of the Zionist power configuration is quite pleased that Trump's appointing Palestinian land grabbers too.

This internecine battle being waged between our elites is incredibly fascinating to witness. Of course that it has the potential to spiral out of control is undoubtedly worrisome and means true progressives and lefties have their work cut out for them over the coming months and years.

Josh Stern , December 16, 2016 at 2:22 pm

Deep State is true – two sides in the Deep State is not true. Is the FBI really opposite to the CIA – no, the FBI is the CIA security force. It has never prosecuted any CIA related "crime" except for whistleblower leaks. Why doesn't Trump "side" make the point that the news story in the leaks was a fraudulent – and probably criminal – sabotaging of Sanders' campaign, which the DNC is hoping its members will forget about? That is very damaging to the DNC why are all the Republicans so quiet about it?

War/security state money benefits from war or heightened readiness for war. It is constantly looking for boogeyman threats to justify more spending on the security state. No matter that US produces over 95% of the world's weapons. No matter that US defense budget is greater than next 7 states combined. We need more of that $$$ security. Lot of threats don't you know. Russia – it is alleged without proof – might sneak in and tell us about how corrupt our 2 political parties are. Can't have that.

Robert Keith , December 16, 2016 at 12:05 pm

President Obama is just caving in all over the place like a blob of jello (no excuses for mixing metaphors here when the issue is so egregious)-too many instances to even itemize here, let alone comment on. One incident, though, I remember seems to symbolize his lamentable state of mind: when he pulled up to the welcoming (some welcome) stand in Beijing several months ago. Surprise: no red carpet like the other Heads of State. A deliberate slight? Absolutely. How did he react. Like a President of the United States? Absolutely not! He dropped the stairs that AF One carries in its nose for just such occasions and sortied as if nothing had happened. In fact, what had happened is that he had sloughed off the insult like a Black man because he couldn't do anything about it, when he should have sat tight until a red carper appeared, or left, and the United States had suffered a huge hit to its prestige. Childish? I don't think so. If he had stayed put, that red carpet would have appeared. So the problem is that Barack Obama does not represent the people he purports to, because he cannot identify with them. Bottom line: this country cannot have another President from a minority group. let alone a disadvantaged one. We have now had our Black president, just like we had our Black mayor of NYC. It won't happen again, but it's good that it happened once to show why it won't work, and hopefully will put a brake on the multicultural hype. We would wager that the Jews would never be so stupid as to allow one of theirs to be our President.

Daniel Foley , December 16, 2016 at 12:58 pm

I would like to know many posters on this site support this racist rant. If you do support it please post your support of it along with any other minorities you hate.

Daniel Foley , December 16, 2016 at 1:10 pm

The posting should read: "I would like to know how many posters . . . . Sorry for the typo

JOHN CHUCKMAN , December 16, 2016 at 11:43 am

I'm not sure I agree about motives.

Consider this recent statement by Obama concerning "hacking": 'We need to take action and we will at a time and place of our choosing'

It just does not come more completely brainless than this.

And, given his powerful position, more irresponsible.

Take revenge?

For what?

For someone's assertion, unsupported by a scrap of proof?

An assertion by one political appointee at CIA who is not supported by any of the sister intelligence agencies or any physical evidence whatsoever? Even the otherwise pathetic John Kerry has backed off confirming this rubbish.

An assertion whose obvious motive is to get back at the winning candidate, someone you don't like?

This sick man, Obama – a failure in virtually everything he has attempted as President from domestic policy to foreign relations, and a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad, too – is also trying to get back at the government which thwarted his bad intentions in Syria and in Ukraine.

That government embarrassed him before the entire world in his pursuit of ill-considered policies.

Of course, he is trying to get back at Trump because Obama knows Trump is going to quickly extinguish most of what he has done, his sad little pile of stuff, his so-called legacy.

Well, here's Obama's real legacy, making threats and calling names, threatening innocent people with an abuse of power. Of course, I think we can all agree that while profoundly stupid, this behavior of Obama seems almost elevated compared to his construction and oversight of an entire machinery for extrajudicial killing in many lands.

I am beginning to think Obama has gone mad, just adding to all the other deficiencies of his character and personality. Can he not see how ridiculous he is making charges and threats like this? Apparently not, which is a strong indicator of irrationality.

Here is a 2016 version of drunken old Senator Joe McCarthy waving handfuls of blank papers he calls lists and threatening what he calls traitors in the American government. Only the 2016 version sits in the Oval Office, and he has access to the nuclear launch codes.

This is deeply concerning behavior from a man in such a position.

And if the mainline press were not totally biased towards the war party of the neocons and its defeated candidate, the most corrupt and vicious person ever to run for President, it would be saying so, not giving credibility to blubbering insanity by covering it as though it were sound speech.

Dan Kuhn , December 16, 2016 at 10:55 am

The latest breathlessly broadcast news from CNN, BBC and all over print media this morning and without one shred of proof presented I might add) is that Putin himself signed off on the interference in the American Presidential election.

This was to be expected following the defeat of the CIA funded, trained and armed Terrorists in Syria. to attempt to lay the blame on anything else is to attribute the ability of the American Government and it´s multitude of intelligence agencies with an attention span that is longer than a single news cycle. Every setback must be met immediately with a deluge of hysterical propaganda against someone in a foreign country, the current enemy du jour being President Putin.

In short, the !/10 of 1% Elites in the US did not get the coronation of the President they wanted. Now they are more than willing to take the country to the very brink of nuclear war to make sure that the electorate gets back in line and marches to the Elite´s tune. For sure they will not risk the Hamptons in a nuclear war, but will push the envelope right to it´s breaking point. The great unwashed in the USA has risen and now must be pushed back into their former prostate position, and begging for handouts from their criminal Elite. For the Elites, their worse fear has been realized.

Drew Hunkins , December 16, 2016 at 11:41 am

Mr. Kuhn, you make incredibly astute points.
I can't believe this wave of propaganda we're witnessing. And millions of my fellow American citizens will lap all this up.

Robert Keith , December 16, 2016 at 10:50 am

Thank you, Vladimir Putin for having helped defeat Hillary Clinton and installed Donald Trump in the White House, and, by the way, congratulations, for having had the effrontery to protect your own national security and taken back Crimea from the Neo-Con State Department-backed coup-plotters. We support you, our Christian brothers. Please continue with your sensible policies.

The Real American People

AG , December 16, 2016 at 10:44 am

Thank you, Robert and Consortium News. As a Russian born, now Russian-American citizen, I am left aghast by the self-serving incitement of the media. Your reporting is a an island of reason and reassurance for me, as I watch New York Times, NPR and the rest tie up my homeland to the whipping post.

I return to Russia nearly every other year to both my rural hometown and metropolitan Moscow. Moscow is the only place in the world where I was served a $9 cup of coffee. Russia is and has been flourishing for decades. For a long time, Russians were interested in the United States and appreciated the western model of capitalism. Various civil groups have been organizing exchanges between the two countries with great fervor. From ballet schools in New York City to forestry crews on Lake Baikal, Russians were eager for a warmer and open relationship with the United States.

There is a Russia beyond Putin that few dare to speak of. It is the country I know. It is the country where school children put on monthly plays and begin to recite poetry in first grade. It is the country where women receive generous government sponsored child-rearing subsidies to stay home longer. It is a country where those mothers then mourn, and have been mourning, the tens of millions of soldiers who never came home during the World Wars as well the modern, bloody political games with neighboring Chechnya, Ukraine and now, Syria.

Russians are, too, spoon-fed typical nationalist propaganda. Many, including myself, are now wondering about the US and its intentions. Many didn't like the impact of sanctions on the price of groceries and gas. Russians don't understand why America all of a sudden hates them so much. Many mothers are scared. They don't want another world war.

Is this all in the name of democracy and human rights? As someone who works with homeless youth and adults in rural New England, I've got a lot to say about that.

Thanks again, Robert.

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 11:15 am

I can see how you would be confused by the actions of your new country against your native land. It was unconscionable how Obama's state department set Ukrainians against Russians in a coup meant to expand NATO and the EU, to snatch the naval base at Sevastopol away from Russia, and to station missiles pointed at Moscow only a few hundred miles away. The deadly putsch, the fire bombings of Odessa and the rocket attacks on the Donbass from Kiev were all totally uncalled for simply because Yanukovich decided that Putin had offered a better financial deal than did the EU and the IMF. But America is very proficient at demonizing any leader or government they want out of the way. I'm surprised you haven't come to hate America for persecuting your people. I know that I hate what we do to numerous other countries, and I hate heartless bastards like Obama and Clinton who make it all happen without the slightest compunctions. America owes Russia a big apology for what we have been doing to that country, but, knowing Americans, never expect one. We are the most self-righteous, "persecuted," paranoid, entitled, loud-mouthed, arrogant people on the planet but far from exceptional. The people who are exceptional are those whom we tread on and yet prevail.

Bill Bodden , December 16, 2016 at 1:45 pm

It is the country where school children put on monthly plays and begin to recite poetry in first grade.

How about the teachers? Do they carry guns to school so they can have a shootout with some crackpot having easy access to guns? Or, is this another area where Russia lags blissfully behind the US?

Josh Laudermilk , December 16, 2016 at 9:55 am

To my fellow Americans,

I am begging you, ALL of you, whatever your political stripe, whatever your social status, whoever you are: Female, Black, Native American, Jewish, Gay, Transsexual/Transgender (and fuck yeah, I support all minorities and all peoples, including race, sex and gender). Whoever the fuck you are; DO NOT fall for this Russophobic, Anti-Russian bullshit. I beg of you. This is a concerted effort by the West to demonize Russia and paint Vlad Putin as a James Bond-esque villain. They want you to swallow this shit up whole, so you will be distracted from the fact that your overseers (the Powers That Be, the political and financial elite) continue to blight your lives as they exploit you and you languish in suffering.

Russia is not to blame. Vlad Putin, whatever one makes of him, is not to blame. And look, I don't like Putin for a variety of reasons. He has continued the Corporatocracy set up by Boris Yeltsin and 'the Family'. He continues to support a particularly cruel form of capitalism. He also supports what could be called Eastern Orthodox fundamentalism. He conflates homosexuality with pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia. But we should not go to war with Russia or make an enemy out of Russia. Vlad Putin is not to blame for Western aggression.

Don't allow our leaders to sell this message. Tell them, we aren't buying and we are not going to creep into a New Cold War, let alone support sending the sons and daughters of other people to their deaths in a hypothetical war with Russia.

President Barack Obama is a fucking failure, the failure of all failures, as are his cohorts including Hillary Clinton. President Barack Obama's legacy is not reforming healthcare, assassinating Osama bin Laden, trade deals or ending the occupation of the Republic of Iraq. No, that's not what his legacy will be, regardless of how many Nobel Prizes he nets during and after his presidency. Nope, his legacy will be the eternal expansion of drone warfare. Barack Obama's legacy is drones. Creating a narrative about Russia (and specifically Vlad Putin) is a distraction, a real red herring, to draw attention away from President Obama's truly (and epically) sinister legacy. It also draws attention away from the fact that 51% of our country is in poverty, and the global situation is even more grim.

The West has gone absolutely batshit over the impulses of change, blaming everything on Russia. It is an understatement to say that Russia (and Vlad Putin, specifically) are the scapegoat of the West. If I slip on a banana peel, I can blame it on Putin and the political elites, the Powers That Be, will reinforce my accusation and applaud me for saying it.

Russia has been blamed for Hillary Clinton's loss of the US election, Russia is blamed for the Brexit vote, Russia is blamed for the German election. The German authorities are saying that the reason Angela Merkel had a less than stellar performance in the recent federal elections is because of Russia. Do you have a toothache? If you do, it's Russia. Vlad Putin, we are told, has control over the "free elections" of the world.

This is hysteria, it's mental illness on a global scale. When rulers and their ruling parties or factions suffer any loss, in the polls or in popularity, it's Vlad Putin's fault, so we are told. They are hammering this universal "it's Russia's fault" meme as the new State sponsored ideology. Anyone who even doubts it in the least aspect is considered treasonous.

I shouldn't have to tell you, Russia did not hack the US election for Donald Trump. Russia did not hack the UK election for Brexit. Russia did not hack German voting machines so that Angela Merkel's total percentage would be less than projected.

The truth is much less like a Cold War dream fever dream. Yet our society controllers are trying to create the "justification" for a New Cold War and the latest Red Scare. All this nonsense about Russians rigging the election, from the very people who scoffed at and heavily criticized Herr Trump for suggesting an election could be rigged, something the Democrats said was "impossible", including El Presidente Barack Obama. The anti-Russian craze is truly terrifying to me.

Remember what President Barack Obama said around the time that Jill Stein began working feverishly to throw the election for Hillary Clinton (someone she pretended to despise)? He said there was no evidence of election tampering and that he had confidence in the integrity of the election results.

A few weeks later, because he's a lying son of a bitch, he completely contradicts himself and reinforces the idea of Russian interference and hacking in the election.

Obama is a LIAR!

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 10:20 am

Another piece of news (to me, at any rate): Obama just allowed the continuation of economic sanctions against Iran recently passed overwhelmingly in both houses of congress to become law. Ending the sanctions was supposed to be our part of the treaty with Iran for their promise never to develop nuclear weapons. This obviously reneges on that agreement and proves to Iran that America's word is worth shit. Yes, the congress had plenty of votes to over ride any veto that Obama may have placed upon the bill, but the craven snake should have at least gone through the motions to show Iran that HIS personal word was sincere, even if his country was duplicitous. Instead he walked away from partners in a deal that took years to craft because of some mindless spiteful pressure from congress at the very end of his term. The man will fight with no one except Putin and Russia (who are easy targets in Russophobic America) because he has no principles and no courage. The sooner he slinks off into the shadows the better. Get out of the people's house, you rat. This makes me as angry as the revenge he has just vowed against Russia for purportedly "hacking the election," in spite of zero evidence.

Josh Laudermilk , December 16, 2016 at 1:01 pm

@Realist,

Thanks for letting me know about this. It doesn't surprise me at all. The situation is taking a turn for the worst. Have you seen the news of President Barack Obama promising to take "action" against Russia? It hurts me that the United States is so unbelievably hostile and belligerent. We should be allies with Russia, it's a great country and a great people. If I were POTUS, I would actively be courting the Russian people (not just their administration or President), reaching out and appealing to them. I would even love to have Russia join NATO. I see Russia as a friend and I'm speaking as an American citizen. I cannot understand why so many Americans are obsessed with casting Russia as the eternal villain. I can only surmise that it is a core tenant of 'neoconservatism' that an enemy must always exist to explain away the costly and ever growing military-industrial complex.

https://www.rt.com/usa/370507-obama-russia-hack-action/

@everyone,

This is surreal.
Report: Hillary Clinton Says Putin Grudge Caused Russia Hack
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2199450-report-hillary-clinton-says-putin-grudge-caused-russia-hack/

There was no Russian hack. Hillary Clinton will blame everyone but herself for losing Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. She is so corrupt. President Barack Obama is so corrupt. They claim Vladimir Putin and his cabinet are corrupt, they claim that Russia is a "mafia state" and Putin is "the Godfather" of this "mafia state". Those saying this, at the highest levels, are the most corrupt in all the world. I think the Democratic Party is one of the most corrupt parties in the world today, perhaps even in all of history.

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 4:27 pm

Yes, Josh, as I reported from Antiwar.com last night, Obama is planning a strike, a cyberattack, literally an act of war against Russia based on unfounded allegations.

"U.S. intelligence officials believe that Putin *may* (emphasis mine) have directly ordered the hack, according to NBC. On Thursday, NBC reported that government sources said that the Obama administration decided against responding to Russia before the election for fear of a cyber-war. The White House also did not want to appear to be intervening in the election and believed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would win."

This is just so much BS. He kills people as part of his routine and he didn't want to "appear to be intervening in the election" because he though Hillary would win. In other words, he didn't think something that *may* not have happened at all was worth starting a world war over. Since Hillary lost (without proof that it was due to ANY hackers, let alone "Putin's" hackers) now it's suddenly okay to threaten an act of war.

I hope that Russia does not underestimate the treachery of this street punk and have their finger on their own button to retaliate against yet more naked American aggression. This is a straightforward threat of major violence, the least that Russia should be doing is taking the case to the United Nations. If Obama does this, you can kiss the amenities of civilisation goodbye, including electricity and the internet if he does something insanely rash like crashing Russia's power grid, which will be avenged, maybe via an EMP over the entire East Coast.

eric , December 19, 2016 at 4:53 am

Russia want to kick our terrorist out of Kosovo twenty years ago now Russia kicked our terrorists out Aelopo . You can't blame our president for being mad he wanted our head choppers to win . They didn't and we can't do anything about it .

Dan Kuhn , December 16, 2016 at 11:10 am

Thanks for that. It needed saying.

Bill Bodden , December 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm

Russia did not hack German voting machines so that Angela Merkel's total percentage would be less than projected.

But the US National Security Agency tapped into her personal phone, one of countless similar incidents completely ignored by the talking heads and print hacks demonizing Putin and Russia.

Paul Fretheim , December 16, 2016 at 9:52 am

I wanted to add a few more things about bring in Russia last year. The young man who was my guide in Moscow was openly gay and lives with his partner in an apartment they share in one of the famous Stalinscraper buildings in central Moscow. He found the idea that there was oppression of gays completely inaccurate. He said their may be discrimination in remote rural areas, but certainly not in the cities. We talked openly about this in a cafe not far from the Russian History Museum on Red Square, which is the gailly illuminated building in one of the photos you shared.

I was in St. Petersburg for one week. My hotel was just two blocks from Palace Square on Nevsky Prospect. I did not see a single homeless person the entire time I was there. I saw police only a time or two, and I walked around a lot. The police walk in pairs. They do not have guns, but each just has one small walkie talkie on their belt, in strict contrast to American cops who look like they just walked out of a Star Wars movie.

I did see one older woman on Nevsky selling mittens she had knitted from a cardboard box.

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2016 at 11:03 am

Hillary could lose a lot of support if the truth about Russian gays ever came out here is a link to a report that gives statistics and talks about the gay situation in Russia.

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/february2014/white_paper.pdf

eric , December 19, 2016 at 4:36 am

Russia does not sell marriage liciense to gay couples So the U.S says that oppression . I think we voted marriage was between one man and one women but that was oppression
here and made illegal Even California voted the same way Russia has it Really no human rights in Russia . Sounds pretty bad no human rights just terrrible

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 9:46 am

Obama has totally lost his mind. I just read this on the Antiwar.com site. Speaking on NPR, he blamed Putin personally and totally for "hacking the American election" and vows a "retaliatory strike," which the article claimed may be a complete knock-out of Russia's electrical grid.

Excerpt from story: "Irrespective of the lack of evidence and despite nebulous motives, however, President Obama did vow that the US would carry out some form of retaliatory move against Russia, saying he would do so 'at a time and place of our own choosing.' "

This hateful maniac is threatening to start World War 3, while at the same time trying to prevent the president-elect from taking office using baseless allegations of hacking to fuel a coup. What mechanism does the constitution provide for stopping a madman? The coup to slip Hillary into office is bad enough, but this threat of an attack on a sovereign nuclear power without extensive justification beyond his personal animus towards Putin, including irrefutable public documentation of all charges, is simply beyond all reason, it is naked barbarism. This man needs to be medicated and put in restraints while crazy Joe Biden serves out the last month of his term, and if Biden persists in the madness, we move on to Paul Ryan.

Here's the link: http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/15/obama-vows-revenge-against-russia-for-election-hacks/

Jerry Falkenstein , December 16, 2016 at 1:01 pm

Remember when Obama and the whore went off by themselves for a day or two? Did you wonder what they were plotting? Now you know!

Bill Bodden , December 16, 2016 at 1:30 pm

I caught something a little while ago when I was half-listening to CNN. Apparently, Putin or some Russian official told Obama to put up some evidence or shut up. A little dose of straight talk in a program otherwise devoted to speculation and insinuation.

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 8:46 pm

Here's one report of the very real, rather annoyed response.

http://russia-insider.com/en/kremlin-lashes-out-white-house-put-or-shut-hack-evidence/ri18231

Apparently, many high level officials in the Russian government are speaking out publicly on the matter, including Putin's Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Russian Foreign Ministery spokesperson Maria Zakharova, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. All call it an outrageous accusation and put up or shut up with regard to the non-existent evidence.

It's amazing what Obama thinks he can slip past world observers. The American people? They're used to being lied to and never seem to catch on, which is what Obama and Clinton hope results in an overturned election–regardless of the motives they profess (just wanting to know the truth, yeah sure!). Based on comments dropped all over the internet, it looks like Obama's lies are gaining wide currency (except here), even on comic strip forums. Just gratuitous Russian bashing all over the place. How dare they steal our election!!! Never the more pertinent, "just how did they expect that longshot to succeed?" Or, "I'll believe it when I see the evidence, not just a proclamation."

RedApple , December 16, 2016 at 7:27 am

I am of a Eastern European background who has grown up in the west. I saw the country I was born in destroyed by the US and my nephews nearly killed b bombs outside the areas CNN reported. I have lived with the lies the west spinned about the Balkans for 20 years. It broke my father and he never really go over it. In all the years that followed I never hated and thought my daughter not to hate. Now I see the same being to done to Russia. The people of eastern europe have not forgotten and this time its is really far worse. The hatred that has been festering in eastern Europe against the EU and the US is dangerous. Has the US become so blind. This could easily become very dangerous and I hope articles such as this one will help the people of America understand why this Russia bashing has to stop..

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 10:38 am

Yes, it was Hillary's husband who bombed your homeland as he took NATO out for a test spin after converting what was meant to be solely a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union (which no longer existed) into a useful new tool of American military aggression all over the globe. Maybe he thought that Serbo-Croatian sounded or was spelled a lot like Russian. Dubya totally confused Afghanistan and Iraq with the extinct Soviet Union, and Obomber (with Hillary riding shotgun) must have thought that Libya, Syria and Yemen were surely populated by Soviets. I think the great peace-maker (Nobel Prize and all that) droned Pakistan and Somalia without the help of NATO but, you know, if the godfather asks a favor, those countries had better do what they are told. It's how we role: I think the Cosa Nostra is our model.

Bill Bodden , December 16, 2016 at 1:24 pm

During that time NATO came close to triggering a war with Russia. Russian forces moved into an area to protect some Slavs. US General Wesley Clark ordered British General Sir Michael Jackson to oppose the Russians. Jackson refused saying he was not about to start a war with Russia.

Bankrupt Greek , December 16, 2016 at 7:00 am

The Clinton family is by far the most hated US politician family in the Balkan Region. (with the Bush one coming close second)

Clintons completely destabilized the South East Mediterranean creating a whole vacuum of Islamic extremism, failed states and botched bilateral relations. Bill Clinton completely destroyed the Greek Foreign policy by putting pro-Israel governments in the Greek leadership and evaporating 40 years of excellent relations with the Arab Countries which were receiving a lot of our exports in exchange for oil deals and shipping benefits (Egypt letting Greek ships pass through Suez without customs).

I sincerely hope something changes cause atm US has completely lost the trust of the world imho .

Josh Stern , December 16, 2016 at 6:46 am

"If Murray's story is true, it raises several alternative scenarios: that the U.S. intelligence community's claims about a Russian hack are false; that Russians hacked the Democrats' emails for their own intelligence gathering without giving the material to WikiLeaks; or that Murray was deceived about the identity of the original leaker."

A 4th possible scenario is that it benefits Putin to play the Iron Sheik character alongside the CIA's Hulk Hogan In other words, promoting conflict and raising the statist security profile benefits Putin in Russia for the same reasons you notice that it benefits the CIA & Pentagon in the US, so they play along together .."Oh that is great fun game we having with phony American wrestlers". I mean, why exactly are the US & Russia both supporting the incendiary destruction of Syria? In 2010+ it is no longer strategic to begin with & there will be nothing left of it by the time they both get through. But lots of arms makers/contractors/etc. moved product,. and political foes were sidelined. In the Ukraine, the CIA staged a coup in 2013-14 and Putin got a little piece too. Iran got money and nuclear fuel, and Putin got some biz there too. It looks like a thriving partnership.

Michael Morrissey , December 16, 2016 at 6:00 am

Question for all of you lawyers and (ex?) insiders: Is not what the CIA has done here not only reprehensible (etc.) but illegal? I hope the first swamp Trump drains is Langley, and all its tributaries like the NYT and WaPo.

Akech , December 16, 2016 at 5:18 am

How come these super intelligent findings on Russians hacking DNC and John Podesta e-mails were not applicable to Hillary's private server ?

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 3:44 am

I never fail to be amazed by the treachery of Hillary Clinton. Being a merciful person, a few days ago I was relieved when Donald Trump admitted that his threats to prosecute Hillary for numerous crimes were just so much campaign rhetoric. Nobody likes to see an infirm old lady locked up for the rest of her life. But the way her supporters from both parties have been going after Trump's hide by making very serious but baseless allegations against Putin and then conflating them with Trump is truly vicious and the epitome of attempted self-aggrandizement at the expense of the country's well-being. Assuming Trump is allowed to take the oath of office in the aftermath of these broad spectrum attacks through elected politicians, federal appointees and the media, I would suggest he change his plans for Hillary, Bill and whomever else (John McCain, John Brennen and Michael Morrel, for starters) has been involved in this attempted coup. Seriously, they are attacking the next head of state, if not to remove him then to emasculate him as a leader. Isn't it the old saying that if you attack the king you must kill him or forfeit your own life? Hillary is apparently going for broke. She deserves the gallows.

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2016 at 10:57 am

If ever there was a way to measure bad Hillary just flew past Richard Nixon at supersonic speed.

Winston , December 16, 2016 at 1:00 am

Murray more reliable and a real truth teller. He's not a careerist. He has ethics.

Tells it like it is:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk

The envoy who said too much
One minute he was Our Man in Tashkent, the next he was a major embarrassment for the Foreign Office. Craig Murray, ambassador to Uzbekistan, talks to Nick Paton Walsh about his turbulent year

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445896/How-I-know-Blair-faked-Iran-map.html

How I know Blair faked Iran map
By CRAIG MURRAY, Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Head of the Foreign Office's Maritime Section

Winston , December 16, 2016 at 12:59 am

Murray more reliable and a real truth teller,. He's not a careerist, he has ethics.

Tells like it is:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk

The envoy who said too much
One minute he was Our Man in Tashkent, the next he was a major embarrassment for the Foreign Office. Craig Murray, ambassador to Uzbekistan, talks to Nick Paton Walsh about his turbulent year

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445896/How-I-know-Blair-faked-Iran-map.html

How I know Blair faked Iran map
By CRAIG MURRAY, Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Head of the Foreign Office's Maritime Section

falcemartello , December 16, 2016 at 12:50 am

Mr Perry don't fall for the establishment diatribe. "putin autocratic style and all its faults" . Follow up ur statements with verifiable facts . Or else u r just part of the modern journalistic problem of western fake news. Still i concur with the majority of ur article. The Russian federation is run just like the west. It is a federated state and is a capitalist economy. Has a federal bank has democratically elected officials at the DUMA . Putin resuscitated Russia, and has brought some needed law and order . Post USSR russia resembled the US during the mob years of the 20 and 30's. Now their is a citizenry who take pride and responsibility of their civic duty, crime has been reduced and graft and corruption being hit on from all levels of russian society.

Realist , December 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm

Exceptionally well written exposé of the madness permeating most of the factions wielding clout in this country by a professional journalist par excellence. An equally perceptive addendum from businessman Gary Hare. If more people were aware of the described realities, perhaps we'd stop digging our own graves, or at least slow down to question our actions.

Paul Fretheim , December 15, 2016 at 11:49 pm

Robert I visited Moscow and St. Petersburg about one year ago. You should visit St. Petersbug. While Moscow is nice and drastically changed from when I was there 30 years ago, St. Petersburg, where Putin spent years as deputy mayor, is even nicer. My guide and chauffer could not understand why the US wanted to try and hurt them with sanctions. They agreed that they liked and respected President Putin and that they could never be influenced by the "silly" sanctions that "might raise the price if tomatoes ten kopecks."

Kalen , December 15, 2016 at 11:21 pm

Rare but needed voice of sanity in this world of McCarthyite hysteria. Will electors hear this voice and understand that by "flipping" their votes they a liable for participating in a form coup d'etat i.e. letting rough government security agency, CIA and their secret unsupported by facts accusations to change the outcome of the however undemocratic and flawed electoral system we have, a system that gave us Trump inadvertently or not, with huge contribution from Hillary's unquenched hubris and disregard for American economic reality.

Mahatma , December 15, 2016 at 10:20 pm

Placing nuclear weapons on the border of Russia is not "the new cold war" get over it and stop with this misleading, at best, phrase. This is not 1955. The circumstances are different now, this is about US demand for Global Full Spectrum Domination – Project 2020. There is nothing cold about it except the cold calculations of nuclear war. The Pentagon talks of low yield half ton nuclear weapons being "usable".

If the hawks gain control, war with Russia and China are inevitable in the coming decade. The Imperial US will not stop I doubt Trump can stop them.

David F , December 16, 2016 at 11:21 am

"If the hawks gain control, war with Russia and China are inevitable in the coming decade. The Imperial US will not stop I doubt Trump can stop them."

I believe that there are certainly people who want this, and who also believe that it could be won. a

I also believe that there are enough rational (I use that term loosely) senior members of the military who realize that it could not be won, and therefore, likely it wont happen.

maricia , December 15, 2016 at 10:04 pm

Look up Eva Bartlett [Canadian journalist] -- she spoke[12/9/16]. at the UN Press conference concerning Syria-Sovereignty and Peace.There also were 3 other speakers there -- all were very interesting to listen to. TRUTH WAS SPOKEN about Allepo. The corporate news media, bombards you with nothing but lies on a daily basis, just like they did about WMDs

Taras77 , December 15, 2016 at 11:24 pm

Ms Bartlett is one savvy and brave lady!

b.grand , December 16, 2016 at 4:24 am

Mainstream Media lies about Syria exposed by Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueyWGyddepw
EVA BARTLETT, INDEPENDENT CANADIAN JOURNALIST
Press Conference at the United Nations
Dec. 9th 2016

Arby , December 16, 2016 at 9:01 am

See the outstanding Off Guardian website for an article about BuzzFeed's attempted smear job of her.

lizzie , December 16, 2016 at 1:55 pm

Also this woman in the linked video below -- incredibly brave, actual witness to the fall of takfiri and mercenary forces' occupation of E. Aleppo. SAA and Russian helpers are humanitarian heroes -- but listen to the MSM line spewing from the guy from The Hill -- and the UNdiplomat, Samantha Power, should be drawn and quartered for her totally irrational spewing of hate and lies at the UN the other day.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46050.htm

One reason the MSM has come to literally hate Trump is his determination to talk around them using Tweets and other "social media" mongering. He knows that becoming President might render him a captive of enemies and is, no doubt, taking steps to prevent that. Interesting that he is not moving his wife and young son into the White House.

Looks like the 6 majors no longer control all the messaging anymore, and many of their "talking heads" really do take it personally -- you can tell it in their voices as they spew out their daily "talking points." Nora O'Donnell (CBS) was literally spewing lies and hate (from both her mouth and her eyes) for Dr. Assad this very morning!

Stephen , December 15, 2016 at 10:02 pm

I believe this is going to end badly. The corrupt establishment are terrified that Donald Trump will "drain the swamp" and expose years of malfeasance. That is why the propaganda pushers in the corporate media are in a raging frenzy against Trump. I will be surprised if he is allowed to become President. The war criminals have opened the gates of hell around the world. Nuclear war could be perpetrated by the present lunatics running the corrupt system. Read more at link below:
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-war-criminals-that-opened-gates-of.html

Taras77 , December 15, 2016 at 9:53 pm

Remarkable comments for a remarkable article-thanks, Mr Parry.

To state the obvious, a coup clearly is underway, led by Brennan at CIA. However, some are finding some optimism, such as Larry Johnson at:
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79469/john-brennans-failed-soft-coup/ .

Johnson is former CIA and rails at Brennan for taking down the reputation if that were possible.

On the plus side, we have the lack of support from Clapper. We have the failure to show up to brief congressional committee on the "hack." We have the Intelligence Professionals (of which Johnson is one) completely shredding any assertion that the information was hacked. We have Craig Murray stating that he knows who did the leak, and Wikileaks denying any input from the Russians. I am waiting for more info to come out from disaffected CIA or former CIA. The FBI and Comey are deadfast set against any evidence of a hack.

But on the other hand, we have the brain dead MSM and neo con handlers ready to continue to do the bidding of the elite, deep state, establishment or whatever. And we have the profile in courage sitting in the white house equally ready to the bidding of the elite and the bidding of the neo cons.

I see the justified concern in the comments above. To cap this rambling comment, I do not know nor does anyone else how this will come out but at a minimum, trump will have a difficult 4 years. To me, it absolutely criminal the mis-characterization of Russia and even more criminal, not allowing anyone to take that first major step in restoring a working relationship with Russia.

If trump is able to accomplish just one thing, for me it would be a major plus: stop the neo cons and stand up to their continuing attempts at infestation of major govt positions, think tanks, political sychophants,

Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Excellent link Taras77. Thanks

Evangelista , December 15, 2016 at 9:42 pm

Sometimes things backfire; sometimes badly, sometimes hilariously

It is reported that some 40 electoral electors have signed on to demand official (hoped to be reliable) information about the allegations of "Russian", "Russian!", 'Russian', Russian, and now "Vladimir Putin's Personal!" "hacking" of, no longer computers, but "The U.S. Election!". The number might be still rising.

Of the known ones, who signed on a letter, most are Democratic electors.

Outraged Neo-Cons and an at least "fellow-traveler" Harvard Attorney have been pushing a "Hamiltonian Interpretation", claiming that this interpretations makes it 'OK' for electors to violate the contract of their agreements with their states and state-party's to vote for the candidate winning the presidential race in their state [Presidents, as the electoral college system indicates, are elected by the states of the United States (or the majority of the states' electors) to be 'President of the United States', rather than 'President of the People of the United States'].

I find myself, from these given facts and analysis of them and the situation, perceiving that there seem to be more Democratic Electors listening to, and hearing, the Siren voices of the "Hamiltonian Interpretation Loreleis, and suspecting that there may be more Democratic electors giving consideration to switching their votes than Republican electors.

Imagine a "landslide" for Trump in the Electoral College. Imagine the potential effects:

Imagine the already hyperventilating going into overdrive Imagine the Hilaryatti, already prostrate and in counseling, having to deal with No, I am getting into the impossible, beyond the unlikely

Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2016 at 9:36 pm

The Electoral College should nominate Bernie Sanders for President. He leads in all the polls and would be the best thing for The United States of America.

Jessejean , December 15, 2016 at 11:52 pm

O Pablo–that is totally Diablo! And I completely agree. Go Bern.

John , December 15, 2016 at 8:54 pm

The drama triangle is the oldest play in the book .Google "drama triangle" .The question is who are the money players .who would benefit from a world wide socialist system I know we have the jewish scumbag George Soros betting against anything that makes him more wealthy. I will travel 1000 miles to piss on his grave His time is up very soon !! The question remains unanswered who would have benefited monetarily under the hag Hillary .Follow that money line to the mother load or continue to use fake news (another Zionist tactic) toward OZ .Do you people have a strategy for your own salvation ??? I'm thinking no

Clyates , December 15, 2016 at 8:12 pm

Parry, Are you the only real journalist left in this country? Thank you for always telling the truth. I'm donating immediately.

Em , December 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm

I think many are missing the real underpinning of the Fake News propaganda assault and the Russia hysteria. The rhetoric is all coming from the Clinton media support system otherwise known as the MSM. The rhetoric coming from the Trump transition is anything but cold war. I think what the progressive media are failing to recognise or perhaps just don't want to talk about, is that the MIC is in the middle of it's own civil war. I think it's fairly certain, reading between the lines in the articles a few weeks ago, that General Rogers at best deliberately ignored the DNC hack, and almost certainly had a direct hand in Comey's decision to drop the metaphorical grenade on the Clinton campaign in the final week, which many, including myself believe really cost her the election in the end. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think, as Steve Pieczenik stated (and who knows what side that guy is on if you read his bio) there really was a counter coup. My guess is that apart from Rogers, Kelly, Flynn, Mattis and maybe McChrystal were the larger part of it.

What's really interesting is that all of these guys (apart from McChrystal) made their way up the ranks from the bottom; their daddies weren't admirals or senators; they all saw front line action and have continued to join their troops at the front. I've listened to their interviews, NOT the Fox News soundbites, but extended interviews on YouTube and none of them are bloodthirsty hotheads. Mattis is particularly impressive in terms of his breadth of knowledge with a number of talks to right wing think tanks online. I would highly recommend Flynn's long interviews on Al Jazeera and RT. I think it's interesting Flynn is under fire today for undermining the CIA especially having listened to his interviews, which are surprisingly candid. Flynn expressly warned against those in Washington who advocate continuous war. He also showed contempt for drone warfare, like many in the military, probably because the CIA are calling the shots, literally, whilst the military leaders have to take the fall for their mess ups, just like in the military prisons. These generals have all made statements against torture, and talk (at least) impressively about women's rights and the scourge of trafficking, including human trafficking; and while they use typically measured language, it seems apparent they are under no illusions as to Administration's collusion in what most people would categorize Organized Crime.

When you actually listen to them, it is clear these old-school generals want an "end game", specifically the end for them is the fall of theocracy, a goal which Putin would undoubtedly share. Russia only supports Iran for geostrategic, not ideological reasons, especially since everyone is aware Iran is still playing the same old despicable duplicitous games with the CIA that started under Reagan. I think they're counting on if Iran falls, all the Sunni theocracies who essentially hold the rest of the Islamic world will fall into line and secularize. So if the generals remain in power I think that's where they're going. Their other aim is to split Russia from China, which probably won't be difficult because China wont share their technology with anyone, and they are leaping way ahead of the rest of the world with alternative energy, and Russia has never trusted China historically, and vice versa. Russia has a lot more in common with the US than anyone cares to admit openly. Russia for these guys makes far more sense as a first line frenemy than Europe or China, Europe being far too social democratic, and China being too autocratic. These generals aren't infected with the generations old Slavophobia that seethes out of Westminster and their American aristocousins.

This policy shift would drive CIA/MI6 "business interests" (their raison d'etre) into the ground, especially since Rogers seems to be breaking up the NSA and who knows what that means for the lucrative privatized end of the cyberwar community. Jobs for Russian hackers? You laugh but Dulles was happy to bring in the Nazis after the war. That, in my opinion is what's behind the current media meltdown. It's obvious that the CIA/MI6 are blatantly weaponizing the MSM and using Russia to attack the Trump transition at a level never seen before because the CIA heads are seriously under threat for the first time since the 60s. Rumours abound that Trump is going to be deemed unfit for office before the inauguration, in which case, bunker down. Don't get me wrong however: I don't think Trump's generals are nice guys, and I'm not advocating for them. Although they have all expressed a desire to move to alternative energy, they want to ramp up domestic fossil fuels in the "short-term" as a way to bury the power of the Saudis, and undoubtedly they will start a war with Iran, two reasons to be scared as hell, because that means either conscription or "tactical" "mini" nukes. The alternative is CIA continuous proxy wars and "Global Initiative" organized crime/trafficking, weapons of mass migration, and no difference over climate change, except the utter insanity of Brennan's geoengineering strategy (see his C-SPAN CFR speech) which makes the new CIA chief look reasonable by comparison. That's how fucked-up things are – Pompeo is the preferable choice.

"We the people" therefore continue to be between a rock and a hard place, i.e. we're screwed either way. But those regular folk seeking to topple Trump should be careful what they wish for, and people need to wake up to what's going on. If the CIA is intent on another coup before January, there really would be a massive crackdown in this country. No commission could cover it up, so it would mean the end of free speech and the Internet as we know it. The last nail in the coffin.

Realist , December 16, 2016 at 12:14 am

Hmmm. Hope you're wrong about most of that stuff in your last two paragraphs. The rest hangs together like it might be plausible.

When do they count those damned electoral votes that are cast four days from now? That might be the last day of our republic as we have known it for 228 years. If there's a coup, there will be blood.

lizzie , December 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm

Here is the schedule as published in the Federal Register:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

David F , December 16, 2016 at 11:13 am

It seems to me that Russia and China have finally understood that they are either going to stand together against America or fall separately.

Your premise implies that 1) Americans can be trusted, which is demonstrably false, and 2) the Russians are stupid enough to believe #1 is true.

No way Russia abandons its allies to make friends with us. For to do so would be suicidal.

eric , December 19, 2016 at 3:36 am

your wrong Russia and China are together We shot a missile into the Chinese Embassy and killed a few Chinese in Yugoslavia Bill Clinton apologized and said this was a accident . However when George Tenet testified before congress that we picked out the Chinese Embassy for a target China knew Bill Clinton had lied to them
Yeltsin had promised Milosevic that Russian troops will come in with NATO forces and protect the Orthodox Christians in Kosovo . So Milosevic agreed to end the war and bring his troops home . But when Russian troops landed U.S. general Wesley Clark issued orders to shoot the Russian soldiers The British troops refused the order but the Russians were unable to protect the Christians This failure in
Yugoslavia brought down the whole Yeltsin government in Russia and Solzhenitsyn install Putin to lead Russia . This is the kind of mistakes a stupid super makes Both Russia and China were unable to save the only non NATO European country that they felt treated them on a friendly bases With the enemies Russia and China learned they have they decided they better stick a lot closer together . Since this time Russia has tried to strengthen China any way they can . And I don't know but I think China will reciprocate and act the same way towards their friend Russia . China told us only a few years ago they have not forgotten or forgiven what happened to them in Yugoslavia .You are right Russia should be a natural friend with the United States the two most Christian countries in the world .But these are the kind of mistakes it is impossible to forgive and forget . I don't think it is possible for the United States or any NATO country to get between Russia and China . They both know what happened to Yugoslavia . And they don't intend for that to happen to them ..

AriusArmenian , December 15, 2016 at 7:47 pm

Amazing.
We have the choice of a 50/50 chance of bigger war with Trump, or a near 100% bigger war with Hillary and US elites want the latter.
They are using the CIA to attempt a coup to overthrow a US national election.
The US looks like the biggest banana republic in history.
With the MSM carrying water for the elites I feel like the future in the US is hopeless.
While the US will keep killing more millions.
My last hope is that the Eurasian powers will stop the US cold.

Jerry Falkenstein , December 16, 2016 at 12:20 pm

"They are using the CIA to attempt a coup to overthrow a US national election."
"The US looks like the biggest banana republic in history."
"With the MSM carrying water for the elites I feel like the future in the US is hopeless."

Really like these three sentences.

Arby , December 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm

The Democratic Party (and those who are connected to the establishment) may desperately need to do an autopsy on their election loss but the people are desperate to rid themselves of these two wings (Republican and Democratic) of the same vile bird of prey (Upton Sinclair).

Brendan , December 15, 2016 at 6:44 pm

Achtung, all Aryan women! Beware of Russian-backed Arab rape-gangs!

Gustav Gressel from the George Soros-funded European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) warns of the possibility that Russia might encourage refugees to carry out sex attacks in Germany in order to influence the federal election there next year.

"What would happen, for example, if a similar event to [the mass sex attacks on New Year's Eve] in Cologne were repeated at a summer festival before the election? How would Merkel stand then? What would be the consequence for the Bundestag election? Of course, this is an extreme example, but it is within the range of possibility," he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/13/think-tank-warns-russia-sex-mobs-germans/

Gressel refers to the attacks in Cologne on New Year's Eve last year as an example of what the Russians might organise. However, it turns out that there was a lot of misreporting of those attacks. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/05/hamb-n05.html

Brendan , December 15, 2016 at 6:46 pm

Originally reported in the Bild, Germany's biggest tabloid newspaper.
(in German) http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/wladimir-putin/propaganda-putin2sexmobs-49205588.bild.html

Also in the Daily Mail and the Sun in the UK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4032432/Pro-EU-think-tank-says-Russia-Syria-orchestrating-migrant-sex-attacks-swing-upcoming-German-elections.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2400317/russia-may-organise-migrant-sex-attacks-in-europe-to-make-angela-merkel-lose-german-elections-eu-experts-claim/

Jean Ranc , December 15, 2016 at 6:32 pm

AWESOME! Robert. Write on!

Zachary Smith , December 15, 2016 at 6:26 pm

Making Russia 'The Enemy'

It's not just Russia they're tackling.

US admiral pledges to confront China in South China Sea

Admiral Harry Harris, commander of US Pacific Command, used a speech in Sydney yesterday to warn that the United States was ready to confront China over its activities in the South China Sea. Under the Obama administration, the South China Sea has been transformed into a volatile flashpoint for war between China and the US. Harris's remarks make clear that those dangers will only rise under a Trump administration.

Harris has been one of the most strident advocates of aggressively challenging China in the South China Sea. In March last year, he claimed that China's land reclamation activities in the Spratly Islands were "creating a great wall of sand" for military purposes. His comments were the opening shot of an escalating US campaign to demand Beijing cease those activities and to justify the US military build-up in the region.

This Admiral Harris has been making the news lately. At a speech at Pearl Harbor he took the opportunity to dump on Colin Kaepernick, and the Pentagon gleefully touted this until somebody remembered that the US Navy had a dreadful race record during WW2. When I checked into this hyper-heroic Admiral, I learned he was one of the commanders at Guantánamo. When three of his victims "died suddenly and violently" this gold-dripping jackass declared that the dead people had engaged in "an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us".

There is no telling what Trump is going to do, but if he encourages this crap, all his election promises about not getting into needless wars will be for nothing.

Daniel Foley , December 16, 2016 at 9:36 am

Your posts are always good and reflect good thinking skills. It never hurts to look at both sides of a situation. A lot of the posters on this site haven't examined what this country is in for with a Trump presidency. Hope SS isn't their only means of retirement. I hope they all have a good health plan. We have to cut taxes for a lot of the war mongers. What was it that Pogo said? "We have met the enemy and he is us.

F. G. Sanford , December 15, 2016 at 6:24 pm

Could the election hysteria get any weirder, or the "deep state" any more desperate? Probably. But, what would it take? How about a fake alien invasion? If pale cadaverish white men with crew-cuts, black suits and homberg hats start showing up in your neighborhood wearing horn-rim Ray-Bans, don't automatically assume they're really the "Men in Black". They might correspond to Carl Schmitt's "different and alien", but take my advice. Look for dandruff. It's a dead giveaway for fake aliens.

Great article, Mr. Parry!

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2016 at 2:17 am

"pale cadaverish white men with crew-cuts, black suits and homberg hats start showing up in your neighborhood wearing horn-rim Ray-Bans, don't automatically assume they're really the "Men in Black"

I'll tell right now if these guys show up at my house I'm inviting them in, setting up my drums, (I hope they brought a sax and keyboard) and we are jamming .if everything goes down the way I hope, me and my Men in Black will have a soon to be released hit album for sale on iTunes.

Abe , December 16, 2016 at 12:42 pm

I'm expecting Putin to show up at my house with zombie Hitler riding a T-Rex.

John Kerry did visit Antarctica during the presidential election.

Das ist das Ende.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmilvm3KIgw

art , December 15, 2016 at 6:19 pm

If we count all the illegal aliens that voted for hillary then yes, she did win the popular vote. The " recount " has exposed massive fraud that benefited hillary in Michigan and other places . The e-mails were leaked not hacked. RIP Seth Rich. All one has to do is look at Trump rallys vs hillary rallys. There is no way hillary won the popular vote.
By calling the Electoral College archaic is simply wrong. It avoids mob rule by giving equal voice to all the country not just LA, DC,Chicago, San Fran, Seattle , NYC and Miami and south Texas.

Ol' Hippy , December 15, 2016 at 6:01 pm

As I've said before Russia is not really an enemy of the US unless provoked into hostilities be inept government officials. The one main thing about Trump is his softer stance of Russia and Putin. Hopefully this will hold up as I'm sick and tired of hostilities created by the neocon establishment and all their warmongering actions. It's kind of like the anti-war movement during the 'Nam; give peace a chance. I just hope Trump can stand up to all the hawks in Washington, we'll see. However the anti-Russian propaganda may be tough to over come and end up escalating into a cold or even a hot war which we'll lose because Putin is well ready for an attack. I wish for peace which has always been my stance. I just hope reason and sanity rules out over provoked hostilities. But the odds are probably against this dream of mine and others for sure.

Bill Bodden , December 15, 2016 at 5:54 pm

For some reason this mendacity-laced Russia bashing brings to mind the yellow journalism promoting the war against Spain after the sinking of the USS Maine.

The chaos that is currently evolving should come as no surprise when we consider the sizable number of people who considered that the two candidates representing the Democratic and Republican parties for president were equally atrocious if for different reasons. That is one of the consequences of voting the perceived lesser evil from two corrupt parties. The evils became progressively more so with each quadrennial charade. The American people are responsible in part for this ominous predicament which may mean an enlightened resolution to this conflict is highly unlikely.

Daniel Foley , December 15, 2016 at 5:43 pm

Just wondering why doesn't Craig Murray release the name of the "Dem" leaker. Wouldn't that settle the Russian hacking story and stop the guessing. All other leakers usually reveal their name.

backwardsevolution , December 16, 2016 at 12:49 am

Daniel – I believe Craig Murray said that he was given the documents by an intermediary, on behalf of someone else. One leaker was probably Seth Rich, the murdered DNC staffer. Julian Assange offered a $20,000.00 reward for information re Seth Rich's death. Why would Assange do this if Seth Rich hadn't had something to do with the leaks?

"Re supposed Russian hacking, Karl Denninger (who does know his Internet technology), has a post entitled "So It WAS NOT Hacking". Karl quotes the Daily Mail in U.K. and Craig Murray's involvement:

"Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails.
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources.
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

And then Karl says:

"The source gave it to him.

There was no hacking. There was instead a disguntled Democrat operative who had access to the data, dumped it, and turned it over.

This is a guy who (1) claims to have met the actual source, (2) received the actual data and (3) got the data because the person who took it was*****ed off that the Democrats stole the nomination from Sanders.

The "Russian" claim just went up in smoke."

Then Karl (who is not a fellow who is into conspiracy theories at all) says:

"PPS: Was his name "Seth Rich"? Because if so then every single person supporting the "hack" narrative, repeating it or cheering it on is in fact cheering on murder and it is my sincere wish to each of you, collectively and individually, that you burn eternally in Hell for your open and outrageous support of both corruption and murder."

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231717

Daniel Foley , December 16, 2016 at 9:18 am

If it was Seth Rich why isn't Assange giving the $20,000 to Craig Murray? I am sure you remember Vince Foster. Who was the person that had him Killed? Oh by the way Craig Murray was relieved of his British post. Not quite sure why.

Bill Bodden , December 16, 2016 at 1:13 pm

Oh by the way Craig Murray was relieved of his British post. Not quite sure why.

Briefly, he was outspoken in criticizing torture in Uzbekistan. Do an internet search for "ambassador craig murray uzbekistan" for more information.

backwardsevolution , December 16, 2016 at 1:20 pm

Daniel Foley – I believe the $20,000.00 reward was for information on who was responsible for Seth Rich's murder, you know, hopefully to catch the killer. Craig Murray is a pretty credible person. Google him.

exiled off mainstreet , December 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm

Knowing the nature of the yankee legal and political system, it would be death or imprisonment for the leaker. That is why the intermediary was necessary, and, knowing these facts, that is why the democrats are cynically blaming Russia and revealing their true nature as having evolved into gangster-fascism since the DLC-Clinton hostile takeover of 1990 or so.

Marblex , December 16, 2016 at 2:45 pm

Assange has since stated that only he and a select few (not including Murray) https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/809366908470525952

It is possible the Murray stuff is disinfo intended to discredit Wikileaks which as you may know, has a perfect record of accuracy. I would stick only with what Assange says, for now.

Assange has maintained since the emails went public, that they were leaked to WL and not the result of "Russian" or anyone else's hacking. https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/809722357430398976 . He also hinted very strongly in a Dutch TV interview that Seth Rich was the source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

vollin , December 15, 2016 at 5:37 pm

With Israel Russia relations now quite good, have to wonder why Israel first US neo cons hate Putin and Russia so much.

Brad Owen , December 16, 2016 at 1:11 pm

The Israel First US neocons hate Putin and Russia so much because they are just puppets in an Imperial Play. The string-holders are much higher up in the pyramidal hierarchy of World Dominion. The entire Zion Project is the creation of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group in the late 19th century. It, along with SME (Synarchist Movement for Empire) intends to secure World Empire for "Eurogarchs", ancient Imperial families (some with old Roman roots, many with Holy Roman Empire roots) and their Managerial Elite in the banks and corporations (this is the essence of fascism; simply the modern version of old ancient Empire, which, like war, is also a racket, with imperialists being highly-polished racketeers). The RoundTable Group had as its' primary goal the re-capture of its' "Rogue Colony" USA through its' Wall Street asset (mission accomplished), gradually defeating all tendencies towards a Constitutional Republic (lethal ideas for racketeering Empires). The primary relationship to be blocked at all costs is friendship with Russia ("the big one that got away"). India got to share colonial status with the same Imperial Masters as do we (City-of-London). China had opium wars foisted upon them by the same Imperial Masters (C-of-L), AND haven't yet wised up to the booby trap that is Hong Kong (C-of-L's eastern asset like Wall Street is its' western asset. Ahh but there lies Russia, always befriending and defending revolutionary/republican USA since the days of Catherine the Great (ever wonder WHY Russia sold us Alaska?). The day that Russia and USA become firm friends and allies is the day that Empire dies and THAT is why Israel First (C-of-L), US (C-of-L-via-Wall Street asset) neocons hate Putin and Russia so much they simply must, to keep Empire alive.
P.S. Israel-Russia relations are so good BECAUSE they know which way the "geopolitical winds" are blowing.

eric , December 19, 2016 at 1:58 am

Well that day is going to officially take place in about thirty days or so you should be very happy ps unless some thing big happens in the next thirty days or so

Gary Hare , December 15, 2016 at 5:18 pm

I have had seventeen years working at local executive level for two large US Corporations – IBM and Raytheon. I was CEO of a small start-up living in the US for two years. So I have had plenty of opportunity to observe the US psyche close up.

It has been my experience that too many US citizens exist under this "perception management" syndrome that the USA is exceptional, is always right and good, and is the only model for how a society should function. I have always been able to work with people who are ignorant. You merely have to educate them properly. I can work with people who are arrogant. You only have to put into their minds concepts that they mistakenly think they originated. But I have always found it impossible to work with people who are both ignorant, and arrogant.

The "perception management" tool you highlight produces business and political elites who are both alarmingly ignorant (of other viewpoints) and extremely arrogant (I am a US citizen – ergo, I must be right). How else could it be possible for a voter to be given the choice between two such flawed characters to lead their country, and sadly to exercise so much influence over the rest of the world? And does this not reveal the gross shortcomings of the field they beat to contend for this top job? And the party apparatus that put them forward?

Trump is clearly arrogant. I can only hope he is also not ignorant. The flaws in US policies are so easy to see, that he does not need "insider briefings" to appreciate them. But who among the elites are sufficiently impervious to "perception management" to be able to implement sensible policies, even if Trump is able to articulate them?

It seems to me that the US is on the verge of dying from the virus of believing its own propaganda.

Like you, I recently spent nearly two weeks in Russia, but only in Moscow and St. Petersburg. So admittedly, my experience is skewed. I was surprised by the number of young people who spoke English, and who admired Putin for the simple reason that Putin can explain to them the rationale for his policies, and can demonstrate success in most of them. He typifies leadership. The US tendency to want to vilify Putin is counter-productive, slanderous, transparently unfounded and obviously childish. Sensible people do not take it seriously. But who in the US political elite is sensible?

Stephen Sivonda , December 15, 2016 at 11:46 pm

Gary Hare . well spoken and a real joy to read. When I look at a web site that has comments, after reading what the article is about I usually start to read comments . There are such a variety of comments for almost any subject, but more often then not the comments devolve into worthless drivel Once that happens I leave although if I read say 20 comments that would be a lot. There is much to be learned by reading intelligent comments , and the followers of Consortium News make it a place to learn.

Enels , December 16, 2016 at 3:56 am

Seldom in history/herstory, could there be a place so self deluded. (whatever that means ) But no, it isn't funny, The BS about the Russians hacking to skew the election promoted by the loosers/Democrats, (I was one once), is awful.

Americans are in a strange place now. If Trump goes hard against SS, and medicare, and unions, oh boy!

eric , December 19, 2016 at 1:50 am

I don't expect Trump to go against social security and medicare although I have heard a lot of republicans claim they have too because the money will be gone .. I sure don't like to hear this coming from republicans Reagan a great republican increased the social security contribution so he could cut the top income tax rate . there by shifting the burden from the wealthy people to the poorer people This made him a great republican . I think Trump realizes he was elected by the working people and will work for us . But he a republican and that scares me a little . I'am expecting medi care for everybody and this time the republicans will vote for it I just hope the democrats vote for it too . . This is the program Hillary wanted for many years . I don't think Trump is a typical republican . I can not think of anything that controls costs better than medicare for everyone . The healthcare industry will fight medicare for every one but bogus billing has no place in healthcare .. When I say medicare for everyone I mean everyone I mean congress and all government employees every one .

Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2016 at 5:18 pm

It's truly maddening having ones perception managed. Thank you Robert Parry for helping us resist such management with the only weapons we have and that is our experience and ability to decipher what we read. These are frustrating times because powerful special interest forces are at war with each other and it becomes nearly impossible to discern fact from fiction. Fortunately we have your reputation for reporting factually to guide us through this unbelievably dishonest period of our democratic experience.

There is a good exchange between Professor Stephen Cohen and Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch on Democracy Now at the following link. I would encourage those not familiar with these observers to look up their history and judge their statements for yourselves

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stephen_cohen_the_new_york_times_is_enabling_a_new_20161215

Randy Torres , December 15, 2016 at 5:07 pm

I spent 3 weeks in Russia and was amazed by what I saw. Sanctions are a joke. Russians have just simply replaced Western goods with their own, which in many cases are of better quality. The only shortages I noticed were of American crap. Two things stood out about Moscow and St. Petersburg vs. New York City where I live: 1) everything was so clean and spotless, hardly any graffiti; and 2) how clean and efficient (and cheap) their subway system was relative to NYC. Some of their stations look like museums, spotless and no rats. Also, trains that run on time and no delays due to "sick passengers" or "train traffic ahead" and free wifi everywhere including trains and not just on select stations. Russia isn't perfect of course, but it is far far far from being the dungeon depicted in the US media. On the contrary Moscow and St. Petersburg are in many ways better places to live than New York.

Geoffrey de Galles , December 16, 2016 at 5:48 am

Hear, hear -- I, for one, know exactly what you mean. My wife and I are western Europeans (Germany / UK) who, beginning in the early 1970s, ended up spending half our lives in the very heart of Manhattan. That was great, as far as it went. But then in 2002, upon returning home from almost a month spent in Russia with my elderly father (who, as a UK Russophile, had visited the USSR + Russia by then well over a score of times, beginning as a seaman during WWII), I felt compelled to admit to my dear Frau that, had things only been a lot different back in the '60s & 70s (viz., the Cold War!), we'd have done much better for ourselves to have headed east, rather than to have ever gone west. After all, Russia has true culture and -- in its own unique way -- just the kind of fine taste that one encounters in, say, Italy, France, or Spain. Moreover, the common folk are so very much more 'honest-to-goodness' and 'for real' than, typically, one finds in the west. -- – Those who have never visited Russia and are consequently clueless about its current cultural ambience might do well to go check out on YouTube the some two dozen postings of the Moscow girlie-trio, YOUNG ADULTS. A few of their videos indicate their (understandable enough) roots in and devotion to Russian musical traditions; but, for the most part, their repertoire attests to their pro-active reverence for modern western (US + UK) music (featuring their astonishing covers of recent classics from the likes of, e.g., the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pharrell Williams, the Black Eyed Peas, Beyonce, and Amy Whitehouse). Improbably and extraordinarily, almost always the YOUNG ADULTS manage to exhume and tease out the real music buried and entombed in the often raucous and vulgar renditions of the chosen songs' originators (!!!); but, in any case, the tender-loving-musical-care that they invest in everything they do attests to their respect and reverence for western music, and even the very culture that has begotten it. -- – Oh that the United States and Europe would similarly partake of, share in, regenerate and propagate that essential magnanimity of the great Russian people. -- And thanks again Randy for your post.

hyperbola , December 15, 2016 at 5:06 pm

Deconstructing Russophobia
https://off-guardian.org/2016/06/16/deconstructing-russophobia/

Imagine that Vladimir Putin were not a murderous autocrat and kleptocrat who has spent his fourteen years in power living up to his KGB past and dragging Russia ever back towards Communist autocracy, illiberalism, and expansionism. Imagine that instead he were one of the greatest leaders that Russia has had, whose policies have helped produce a massive rise in living standards and life expectancy, recuperation of national pride, and enforcement of the rule of law, who has tackled kleptocrats and gangsters wisely and well, whose foreign policy has on balance been realistic, diplomatic, and conducive to peace, who has presided over a country of which the human rights record is considerably better than that of the United States and in which civil rights are improving, and who richly deserves the steady support of 65% – currently at a Ukraine-related high of 83% – of the population that he possesses. It is my understanding that the reality is closer to the second scenario than the first – and I may note that I say this as someone with no ethnic, financial, professional or political ties to Russia whatsoever. It follows that I am not a Russian expert – but nor am I, on the other hand, parti pris. I am a friendly, distanced observer of the country.

Let me start by explaining the history of my connection to the country. .

Michael Morrissey , December 16, 2016 at 5:52 am

Thank you, hyperbola, for this link. Didn't know about Off-Guardian. Every major newspaper needs a dedicated "Off" site. The NYT used to have "Lies of Our Times" but it folded after a couple of years and was never big enough to keep up with the propaganda pouring out of the Giant Wurlitzer. Times are different now, with the internet. I would love to see at least one Off site for every "news" outlet, and even though it would be impossible to do that for tv and radio, having the "paper record" consistently deconstructed would be a huge step forward.

Jerry Falkenstein , December 16, 2016 at 11:41 am

"Imagine that Vladimir Putin were not a murderous autocrat and kleptocrat who has spent his fourteen years in power living up to his KGB past and dragging Russia ever back towards Communist autocracy, illiberalism, and expansionism."
Who said that? I never thought that. Did the neocons say that? I was thinking lately that probably Stalin wasn't really as bad as I was brought up to believe. In fact I hardly believe anything our government says anymore.

Abe , December 17, 2016 at 6:41 pm

"Deconstructing Russophobia" is a superb account from British academic Catherine Brown. As always, thanks to OffGuardian.

Highly recommended:

Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett cuts through the war propaganda on Syria
https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/16/eva-bartlett-on-syria-responding-to-buzzfeed/

eric , December 19, 2016 at 1:13 am

You seem like a smart man but Putin was not the ruler for 6 of those 14 years . Medvedev was and he also was a good leader like you described Putin might be . It was Medvedev that said No when Georgia attack south Ossettia . It was Medvedev that showed the world the bear was back . Ever since we attacked Yugoslavia and fired a missile into the Chinese Embassy accidently on purpose than issued orders for NATO to shoot Russian soldiers because they will try to protect Christians . Ever since these stupid power mistakes Russia and China have had our number . They are together and looking for chance to get even . Humiliate us like we did them , They have been working together for 17 years with this goal in mind . Now they are in Syria with their new weapons doing what they want to and humiliating us . I say good they are finishing the war we started and are doing what we should have done congradulations Russia and Putin and thank you very much

The Artist formerly known as young man , December 15, 2016 at 4:49 pm

Apparently Churchill once said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it". The American version of this quote? – History will be kind to us, for we intend to repeat it.

That pretty much sums up the current drive for starting Cold War 2 by the Americans (They were responsible for starting the first one too, by the way). Their way of thinking is – Cold War 1 took care of the Soviet Union, so hopefully Cold War 2 will take care of Russia. Not so fast amigos.

Americans repeat history not because they didn't learn something from it, but because they draw wrong conclusions from it. Just because they "won" the Cold War 1, it doesn't mean that they should expect to "win" a second one too. The stakes are much different now. It's much easier to give up on ideology than it is to give up on the place where you live.

Or maybe the Americans decided to tweak a little bit another saying: "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". I actually think that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results is equally insane. Circumstances change, you know, the world is not an isolated laboratory where you can eliminate external factors. The experiment might fail this time. But don't listen to me, go about your business.

Dwight , December 15, 2016 at 4:48 pm

The Union for Concerned Scientists has joined in this hysteria in a press release about Trump's appointment of Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State. UCS President Ken Kimmell states: "This position calls for someone able to put national security and the well-being of Americans first and foremost. But Tillerson's close ties to President Putin and Russian oligarchs call into question his ability to deal firmly with Russia, which attempted to disrupt U.S. elections according to U.S. intelligence agencies."

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/secretary-of-state-pick-cements-governance-by-oil

The main concern Kimmell raises in the press release is climate change, and I can certainly understand an environmental group being concerned about an oil exec as Secretary of State with climate negotiations in his portfolio. However, a new Cold War is the last thing we need if we want reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and détente with Russia could enable cooperation on climate change. Decades of inaction ago, Robert Redford called this "Greenhouse Glasnost" in his book of that name with articles by U.S. and Soviet climate scientists.

UCS also works on risks of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, which are related concerns on which we international cooperation not a new arms race and more proxy wars.

I learned about the UCS press release in an email from a local environment group which repeated the gratuitous attack on Russia in seeking donations. It is sad to see this meme spreading among people that should be thinking deeper about the implications of détente versus cold war.

Rob , December 17, 2016 at 1:30 pm

Human caused warming of the climate is the ultimate danger facing the planet, and it is entirely appropriate for those who recognize this fact to be alarmed that our next Secretary of State will be a person whose entire career has been devoted to extracting fossil fuels from the earth and burning them. Moreover, there is strong evidence that Tillerson and Exxon were well aware of the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases, even as they were minimizing those risks to the public. This is the basis for the "Exxon knew" campaign, which is getting little attention in the press (unsurprisingly.)

Which raises the obvious question: Could Donald Trump not have found someone other than a climate change denying, fossil fuel extracting corporate titan to run the State Department and lower tensions with Russia? Of course he could have, but he didn't, because Trump himself does not accept the reality of global warming. Thus we should not be surprised by his appointment of Tillerson to State or oil industry tool Greg Pruitt to the EPA. Trump's motto might as well be "screw the planet."

eric , December 19, 2016 at 12:38 am

No Trumps motto is screw the liars

BccList , December 15, 2016 at 4:43 pm

This article was so over needed. While the content within won't make it to any MSM report (until, perhaps, months/years down the road), I was sure -- as an adamant progressive with cyber security background -- to post it to every social media outlet I use and send to email chains where it's me vs a bunch of "liberal-hawk" friends.

I can understand/deal with one absurd, hawkish and out of touch/reality party. But, to have both in the same boat, is really, REALLY scary stuff. The stuff that makes a Trump presidency alone seem like a walk in the park.

James lake , December 15, 2016 at 4:38 pm

Interesting article. Clinton, and her echo chamber in the media with all this Russia bashing really are tone deaf.
She misjudged the voter and showed no sense of their concerns.
They were thinking about jobs and health and other concerns, her only policy was more war.

If Trump can stop the neo cons that in itself will be a great achievement for America and the world.

Jessejean , December 15, 2016 at 11:00 pm

But first Rachel Mddow has to destroy her credibility by hysterically pushing the 3rd way, corporate dem, neoliberal Cold War, CIA driven excuses for losing power to a discredited Rethuglican party over the last 16years.

eric , December 19, 2016 at 12:31 am

Trump did stop the establishment of both political parties and that was the neocons too Than he tripped the pope when we learned the Vatican had a wall around it too . Now his only trouble is the FBI and the CIA and they heading for the dust bin of political history unless they can shoot him first .

Patricia Guerrero , December 15, 2016 at 4:13 pm

Thank you for this. Its difficult to sort out sometimes the twists and turns of politics. as a dem/dove who is appalled at what our foreign policies have been, although I don't like trump, I thought an easing of cold war hostilities with Russia was a good thing. Now I know why. I only voted for Clinton because I thought it was the only way to help further Sanders agenda. I cannot forget that she grinned as she stood behind her husband when he signed the bill that killed Glass Steagal or her support for the first Iraqi invasion and continuing hawkishness. I don't despise her like some do but I could never really warm up to her. Sanders is very authentic; when asked about human rights for Palestine he was the only politician that at least said they were entitled; all Clinton could repeat was "precautions must be taken". With HRC she came across as espousing policies to win votes, not that she was passionate or even honest about them.

Stephen Sivonda , December 15, 2016 at 11:00 pm

Patricia Guerrero It's good to read that someone is beginning to develop an awareness of what passes for our Govt. today. It is somewhat complicated as there are many layers of that are only interested in their wallets and how far up the power food chain they can go. I've tried in vain to describe to several friends some of the reasons why certain events happen and use the analogy of a "Big Puzzle" . It's my version of critical thinking. Once one starts to look at past and current events (those being pieces of the puzzle) , then things begin to connect and take shape .as similar to filling in the voids in the puzzle. Your mentioning of HRC standing behind Bill Clinton and grinning jumped out at me .as a person who is on track to seeing what a morass of evil we have for Govt. and the political machinations by the DC insiders. God save the Republic.

exiled off mainstreet , December 16, 2016 at 12:39 pm

Unfortunately Sanders has jumped the shark supporting this effort aimed at demonizing Russia to overturn the election results. It proves he was either weak, a fraud, or both, unfortunately. This will damage the democratic brand long-term, although if Tulsi Gabbard becomes a candidate it may be a way out of the trap.

Zachary Smith , December 15, 2016 at 4:08 pm

The Moon of Alabama site has a new post about the motives of this latest "stuff".

The "Elite" Coup Of 2016

My only quibble with it is that he neglected to mention other people who would prefer President Hillary or President Pence.

Abe , December 15, 2016 at 3:47 pm

German political theorist Carl Schmitt defined the content of politics as opposition to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one's own interests. The "other" or the "stranger" is defined as an "enemy"

For Schmitt, the political is not an autonomous domain equivalent to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the "existential" basis that would determine any other domain should it reach the point of politics.

Schmitt defined the enemy as whoever is "in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible."

For Schmitt, such an "existential" enemy need not even be based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything.

Leo Strauss, a follower of political Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, had a position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932 and summarized Schmitt's political theology thus: "[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against – against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men – the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state"

With a letter of recommendation from Schmitt, Strauss received a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation to begin work, in France, on a study of Hobbes. Schmitt went on to become an influential figure in the new Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.

In the late 1930s, as Hitler's Reich was expanding in Europe, Schmitt developed his concept of "Grossraum", literally "great-space". The term has a sense of a "sphere" of influence, and "geopolitical space" may be closer to the meaning.

Schmitt intended the Grossraum concept to grasp an area or region that goes beyond a single state (that is, a specific territory), to comprehend much larger scale spatial orderings, complexes or arrangements.

After World War II, Schmitt considered the United States to be the only political entity capable of resolving what he regarded as the crisis of global order.

Indirectly influenced by Schmitt's concept of the political, twenty-first century American Superpower "exceptionalism" has no space in its Grossraum concept for a "Eurasia".

The very enunciation of a "Eurasian" political sphere by Russia and China is regarded by American Superpower as a "terrorist" act. All those associated with such "lunacy" are viewed as geopolitical "enemies" to be annihilated by any means possible.

For more on Schmitt see:

Reading Schmitt geopolitically: Nomos, territory and Grossraum
By Stuart Elden
https://progressivegeographies.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/reading-schmitt-geopolitically.pdf

CitizenOne , December 15, 2016 at 10:13 pm

You said, "In the late 1930s, as Hitler's Reich was expanding in Europe, Schmitt developed his concept of "Grossraum", literally "great-space". The term has a sense of a "sphere" of influence, and "geopolitical space" may be closer to the meaning."
This is the story of America. From the Revolution to Expansionism and then on to Manifest Destiny and our winning position in both World Wars, America has always been about creating geographic space, political space and recently even in Outer Space.

The Star Wars or Space Defense Initiative proposed by Reagan was an attempt to create Space Superiority in Outer Space. They even have a branch of the Air force called Space Command. http://www.afspc.af.mil/ . The Mission statement for Space Command defines Space Superiority as the freedom of the United States to defend itself from attack in Outer Space as well as the freedom to attack any target from Outer Space. The targets might be other orbital craft in Outer Space such as satellites or any land based target. Space Superiority is perhaps the ultimate vision of domination. The freedom from attack in Outer Space and the freedom to attack from Outer Space on any land or space based target will mean an escalation of space based weapons which are banned by international treaties like international treaties on Antarctica which declare Antarctica to be free of politically motivated land grabs by any Nation.

I can only imagine what will happen when they find oil under the ice covered Continent once all the ice melts.

What we need is a rational government that is concerned with this inevitable clash of capitalistic goals and the environment.

I think our military is actually concerned about these inevitable outcomes if we continue to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses. The Navy and the Air force have been actively seeking alternatives to a fossil fueled military but they have been blocked at every turn.

What we really need is a revolutionary fuel source like Fusion to save the day. It might be right around the corner. The military is investing heavily in it. They see the destabilization of the economic and geographic regions of the World due to climactic change as threats to our National Security.

Fission is also realistically possible as an alternative. But political intransigence has stifled progress on that front. Watch "Pandora's Promise" which is a documentary by ex-antinuclear activists. I'll sum it up in an epitaph for humanity which reads "They were most afraid of what could have saved them and they were unafraid of what killed them".

One fact is clear. The future stability of World governments and their populations depends on abundant energy. There is no other single driver of prosperity and stability than affordable abundant energy. It was the driver for the rural electrification program under FDR. Back then they understood this equation and mounted massive public spending to make it happen. The recent rise of southern state populations can be attributed to the development of Air Conditioning which made these regions habitable in the Summer months. Thus was born an economic expansion which drove our former Cotton Belt into a new industrial giant.

Some visionaries have laid plans for a solar based economy which would utilize massive banks of lithium batteries to break the old myth that electricity cannot be stored. Elon Musk is one of those visionaries. Entire cities could be powered at night by batteries.

The global crisis in energy supply is being driven by the same folks who imposed unfair tariffs on goods before the Revolution. They would like none other than to hold us hostage in an oil economy which very well might kill us all.

Modern developments in photo-voltaic cells have resulted in a continuous manufacturing process which utilizes plasma deposition of a multi layered dielectric film onto a substrate such as rolls of steel sheet which results in and amorphous coating capable of rivaling monocrystalline cells. The result is a process which resembles the revolution Gutenberg started with his "printing press". Instead of growing Silicon Crystals and doping them with rare elements, the plasma deposition process uses a continuous sheet of a substrate passed through an interlock chamber into a high vacuum chamber where various materials are deposited as a plasma onto the substrate in a continuous fashion to produce a finished product which can be cut up into tiles for low cost and installed on roofs to generate electricity. The difference in this technology is akin to a scribe hand copying books verses a Xerox machine doing the same thing. It is the same difference between the time Bibles were the property of the Church and to be caught in possession of one was a capital offense and modern times where paperboys deliver newspapers for cents on the dollar.

Whether it is a Fusion or Fission or Solar or even a tidal based form of unlimited energy, one thing is clear. These technologies are real. They exist. To the extent that we drive our planet into a mass extinction by burning fossil fuels or we transition to clean energy which is abundant and practically free will determine whether we end up holed up in a cave with our guns ready to shoot anyone crossing our sights or whether we transition into an economy where energy is essentially free.

The new administration is increasingly looking like it wants to live in the cage. A cage determined by a global economy based on oil and fossil fuels.

If Donald Trump really wants to create jobs he would be well advised to divest himself from fossil fuels and take a turn toward the future as envisioned by leaders like Elon Musk. The Army did not make their move lightly on the Dakota Access pipeline. They have a duty to defend us from security threats. They take that responsibility seriously. We would be wise to listen to them.

I know that all of the corporate people interested in preserving their economic investments in fossil fuels have to take a deep breath and submerge themselves into the unknown waters of a non-oil based business model. But they need to see the vision. They need to know that their future success depends on it. They need to act quickly and pour their profits int the many available means to provide an energy rich future where many things are possible and opportunity abounds.

There are two kinds of people or for that matter two kinds of corporations or governments. There are those that hold onto old business plans and defend them at all costs believing their old business models will save them and there are those who see opportunity where others see only risk. It is those individuals, companies or governments which see the opportunities for continued growth utilizing new technology who will succeed. Those who are paralyzed by old business models and old paradigms will fall to the wayside.

We don't want the USA to be one of the losers. If Donald Trump wants to be the "more jobs" president he will embrace new technology and not appoint members of the old guard as the stewards of America's future.

It is not a matter for debate. The fields of technology will continue to open up potentials for a more stable and economically rich future. These things are real and they are up for grabs. Whoever grabs them first will be the winner. Whoever refuses to grab them will be the loser.

This is an ask. Donald Trump can do it. He is an outsider and not involved in the business of government. Many of his ideas are fresh and hold great promise. Some of his appointment show he might be being blindsided. He should council himself with the members of our National Security Team who want to see a secure future and distance himself from those who want to preserve the old guard.

David F , December 16, 2016 at 11:04 am

This sort of advocacy for some technological fix that allows us to go on living in the same, or greater, fashion than we are now, is part of the problem.

We live in a finite space, with finite resources, time to start acting like it.

Abe , December 16, 2016 at 6:41 pm

CitizenOne, your comment is right on topic if the topic is fake news.

"Pandora's Promise" is a pro-nuclear industry propaganda film. The new pro-nuke missionaries are promoting nuclear material as some kind of savior of the global environment when it is precisely the opposite.

Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and their oligarch chums can blast off to go colonize Mars with Trump, Clinton, and all their wannabe cabinet appointees.

We'll keep our money and finally build a grid that fully integrates clean energy from abundant renewable resources like solar and wind.

Joe Levantine , December 17, 2016 at 3:57 am

@ Citizen One
Your comments are very insightful since you commented on the most important issue that is at the core of international conflict.
However, if history is any guide, your hopes will unfortunately be nothing more than wishful thinking. The case for my pessimism is none other than the great Nicholas Tesla. Tesla, who by Einstein's reckoning is the greatest scientific mind that has ever been was wasted by the powers that be because he was on the verge of discovering free and clean energy. He did emulate thunder in his lab. His quest was to harness the electricity in the ionosphere and channel it for human use through a central tower. His research on plasma was way ahead of his time. His reward was an assassination attempt by the energy cabal who were hell bent on keeping their monopoly power through the fossil fuel business. When Tesla's lab went on fire, it was U.S. Government agents who stormed into his lab and confiscated all of his files, thereby putting a sad end to history's greatest mind. The silence of history books about Tesla speaks volumes about the matrix controllers' animosity to this unique man.
To expect from Donald Trump to be a selfless hero is stretching reality over the limit. His presidency did save the world another round of in the White House for the Clinton ghouls. Yet, his potential for reforms is very much restrained since his ascendancy to power came through the ballot box and not through a real revolution.

Leibniz16 , December 18, 2016 at 1:00 am

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was conceived by Lyndon LaRouche and his associates was conceived as a strategic flank to prevent those in both the American and Soviet spheres, of launching a "First Strike" thermonuclear attack which was the increasing danger at the time, to which with Obama is a threat as great as ever. Furthermore it was a strategy of helping both the U.S and Soviets out of the economic collapse, which is still occurring, through what would be a cooperative "Science Driver" approach, that would be working on areas of plasma physics and other areas of concerns relevant to a entire revolution of energy production.

It was LaRouche and associates that published a magazine called Fusion, working on advanced nuclear technologies to help
revolutionize mankind's potential, and break out from the control of the financial oligarchy.

Presently we at the verge of a complete energy revolution through the discoveries of Randy Mills and his Brilliant Light Power Company that has a verified demonstration of a novel understanding of the hydrogen atom, whereby the electron orbit is dropped to a lower spin state, releasing vast amounts of energy.

Brad Owen , December 18, 2016 at 10:46 am

Well said, citizen one. It all really does boil down to abundant energy, and energy flux density, as Lyndon Larouche says. We wil advance onward through denser energy flux production. It's what people DO, as naturally as lions hunt and birds fly; technological advancements is what people do, from chipped flint stone tools to fusion-powered space flight to Mars in a weeks time, and beyond that stage too. In this NEXT round of technological advancement, China, India, and Russia will be leading the way, as it is THEY who are now the World leaders. I'm confident we'll break free of the Imperial Straitjacket that has been affixed upon us by other powers in opposition to our Constitution and republican principles (i.e. Patriots, NOT the Tory-Loyalists-to-Empire-and-"Crowns", that still infest our nation, doing the bidding of ancient Imperial family lines, seeking to "capture" us and make us their simple-minded beasts-of-burden).

CitizenOne , December 18, 2016 at 11:42 pm

In reply to to Abe. France is not Fake News. They generate 80% of their electricity from Nuclear Fission. Modern reactor designs are safe. There is a word for it, failsafe. Westinghouse invented the spring to close air to open brake and we were all not afraid of runaway trains anymore. Technological advances and really any technological problem is usually a very simple solution like the air brake but now in modern times simple solutions to problems are drowned by politics. That is the thing that makes technology fail fail. The technological solutions are usually sound but where we need them we need to put off the politics live with the occasional unintended consequences and let the inventors course correct rather than condemning failure and halting all progress. Where would we be if, after the first Mercury Rocket blew up, we threw water on space adventure calling it a doomed technology? Luckily that did not happen.

In response to David F:

I suppose then we should all be living in a cave painting the walls with mystical creatures since technological solutions are doomed to failure. Are you living in a cave? I don't think so. Perhaps you are or should be since you eschew any form of technology, live in a finite fixed environment and are prepared to be a victim of circumstance. That is some kind of crazy world view.

In response to Brad Owen:

I completely agree. Abundant energy is the key to our future growth. Indeed it is what people DO. I also agree that that it is unfortunately what other nations are doing way ahead of us. If we do not get on the bandwagon and decide that the future is all about abundant energy then we will become the losers in the technology front. As I laid it out, the technological means to transform our world into whatever we want it to be are already here. They have been developed and even more are being developed which have the potential to power a bright future like the invention of electric power grids which power industry, economies and enable commerce.

It is time for science and technology to be applied to the problems we face developing new means of energy production that are all around us from solar to battery technology to fusion, biofuels, nuclear fission using safe technology, wind, tidal and even really challenging technologies but if we are not investing in it, then it means we are not investing in any new energy sources.

The history of past inventions was not made by those that said the technology was a fools errand. The inventions were made by visionaries who had the stamina to endure all of those folks who poo pooed the new technology and eventually prevailed.

It is really not a matter of if but when we will enter a new age of abundant energy. Energy drives everything and it also is the most important factor for peace. Abundant energy establishes the wealth of nations more than money. Without it, money is worthless since it cannot be used to purchase the motive driver for creation of goods and services.

The history of the Industrial revolution was driven by energy. Abundant energy.

The Sun fuses ten million tons of hydrogen every second and it will last for ten billion years. How is that for a clue that life on Earth depends on abundant energy. If we were able to fuse even just one ton of hydrogen every second in the production of electricity we would power the entire planet. If we could just convert one percent of the solar energy impinging on our tiny dot of a planet circling around the huge nuclear furnace of the Sun we would power the entire global electricity requirements for a long time to come.

These are the visions we need to be occupied by. Not visions of impending doom or hopelessness.

What we need now is an energy race. An energy race to create a new economy which is driven by safe energy. Photosynthetic cells which are like photovoltaic cells consume atmospheric Carbon Dioxide using solar energy to produce Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen. The CO can be used as a feed stock to produce hydrocarbons which can be synthesized into synthetic fuels which create a carbon cycle which is entirely atmospheric. If we want to reduce atmospheric CO2 we can just pump the fuels back into the ground or use them to produce durable products like cement which can be used for construction.

I know that this might seem like a pipe dream and perhaps it is. It will not be a pipe dream when we feel the full effects of global warming. Then there will be a market for these products.

The politics will reverse as people seek products that enable them to survive. It is what people do. It is what life does. It seeks to preserve itself. Technology will offer appealing alternatives which are even more economical than current energy platforms. It will make economic sense to adopt them.

It made economical sense to adopt our current energy platform and the new energy platforms will make just as much economic sense.

We are already seeing this transition from Coal to Natural Gas driven by the technology of fracking which is cleaner than coal and is now more economically advantageous. Coal is not dying because of government regulations. It is dying because there are cheaper alternatives. Win Win for the environment and the consumers of energy and the producers of it.

But the fracking revolution is just the first wave in new technologies to harvest ever more abundant and cleaner safer forms of energy.

This is not wishful thinking. It has happened with fracking and it will continue to happen with other forms of energy over and over.

Those that see the potential opportunities will become the future energy barons.

I would ask only that we would see the movements by other nations as a shot across the bow that we better get to work. We don't want to be left behind in the energy bonanza just around the corner.

It is a gold mine out there for the companies that develop the next generation of massive abundant energy sources. They will gain great wealth. They will be viewed like Edison or Fermi. Prometheus unchained.

Do not listen to the hysterical mob. Instead listen to the visionaries who will all get very wealthy with new technological inventions.

It is the way it has always been and so it will be in the future. We never go back. We never force a halt to the current way we do things. We just invent better ways of doing it that make more economic sense and make the old ways obsolete.

Perhaps some might advocate we all return to the caves where we hid from the cold of winter in our elk skin coats huddling over a campfire and drawing pictures of the food we wanted to eat but did not have as we sucked the marrow out of dry bones but I think that is not a future I want to see.

I would rather offer to sell the cavemen guns and ammunition and snowmobiles and portable propane heaters with sofas and furniture for their caves instead. And you know what? They would be lined up around the cave entrance to buy them.

Think about it.

Abe , December 21, 2016 at 3:25 pm

Citizen One, your news about nuclear power in France is fake.

Power generation is down and wholesale power prices are rising due to numerous safety and integrity issues that plague Électricité de France SA's (EDF's) nuclear reactor fleet. Carbon segregation in critical nuclear plant components like the steel pressure vessel can weaken the vessel's structure and breach safety regulations, potentially leading to catastrophic events.

http://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/

eric , December 19, 2016 at 12:12 am

Nobody is stopping free energy development I 'am from Missouri Free energy will come from free enterprise not government subsidies .. We will have new development and new and better ideas but show me don't tell me . Scams are scams wether the come from crooks or the government and they often are the same thing .

Ragnar Ragnarsson , December 15, 2016 at 3:25 pm

Thank you for being the voice of reason and truth teller that you are Mr. Parry. I sincerely hope the domestic coup in progress fails miserably and that Trump is able to pursue peace. I am so sick of Neo-cons and what they've done to the world.

Howard Mettee , December 15, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Thank you Mr. Parry for shining the spotlight on the vitally important topics that you do to keep us informed in depth. As one who tries to see the world through the lens of parity between nation states, I wonder what you (or other qualified folks) could tell us about the efforts we Americans have made and are currently making to influence influence, and very likely undermine, the stability of Russia and President Putin. My guess is we are not without serious complicity in doing the same things as we now accuse the Russians of doing to us, but of course much of this would be classified. I suspect the more holier than thou we are, the more committed we are to destabilizing the so-called "enemy" of Russia (despite our measured provocations to precipitate their alleged aggression(s). Thank you again, have a great holiday season.

Robert Keith , December 16, 2016 at 1:00 pm

Speaking of our "holier-than-thou" attitude, let me relate a personal story that relieved me of this attitude a long time ago. Re cently , I have been vindicated as regards any doubts that I might have had about that change of attitude.

During the relatively early years of the Cold War (1956-59), you know, just before the Chinese split with the Soviets in 1960, the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, and Gary Powers was shot down, igniting the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it was my job as a Naval Pilot to fly up and down the Far Eastern coastline (12-mile limit) of the Soviet Union (you know, Kamchatka Peninsula) looking for trouble. Didn't find much, except the frequent Mig-17 flying my wingtips, who might have been wondering what we were doing there BUZZING THEIR SHIPS. No problem, they didn't shoot me down, for which I am grateful. But I did wonder what WE would have done if THEY had been flying so closely up and down OUR California coast.The American public never heard about these "intrusions" in the Russian "space". Nor did the Russians publicize them for the obvious reason (embarrassment?).

Come 2016 and OUR ships are cruising around in the Baltic not far from the suburbs of St. Petersburg, when Russian jets come looking for trouble(?) buzzing OUR ships.. And there erupted a hypocritical hue and cry from the DOD, etal. to match the usual black pot and black kettle stories that we hear so often from our powers that be. Not only are we doing the same to them (buzzing their ships once, or we would have heard about them the other times) that we have been doing to them for 70 year, though not on our California or New York coastline, but in their back yard. This is hypocrisy on steroids. This is deeply embarrassing to me.personally. Are we that desperate? Who really are these people who are stirring the pot so vigorously?

EyesWideOpen , December 16, 2016 at 4:50 pm

"Who really are these people who are stirring the pot so vigorously?"
I assume yours is a rhetorical question.

Robert Keith , December 16, 2016 at 5:14 pm

For: EyesWideOpen

The pot I am referring to is the context in which everything bad is blamed on Russia. In this case, we can buzz, they can't. If they do it, it's publicized. If we do it, it's not.

Yes, I guess that it was a rhetorical question with the implication that the answer should be obvious. All you have to do is read the papers, and it should be obvious who wants to litigate (gossip) this issue to death.

Minnesota Mary , December 18, 2016 at 4:31 pm

Thank you for your testimony! America's government is so hypocritical. Our news media is so dishonest in what it filters and chooses to tell the American people. Lies abound, and it is nearly impossible for most people to sort through them.

Robert Keith , December 16, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Correction to my reply: "Not only have WE been doing the same to THEM for almost 70 years right off THEIR coastline, NOT OURS, but WE have complained when THEY did this ONCE to us IN THEIR BACKYARD."

eric , December 18, 2016 at 10:50 pm

I guess we funded many ngos to destabilize Russia . So many that Russia has forced many U.S.aid groups to move out of Russia by the end of this year . We funded the Pussy riot girls that did things in the Churches in Russia that would have brought the girls to the insane asylum if they did these deeds in Churches in the USA In Russia the girls got prison sentences So our journalists could write stories about how oppressive Russia .is to people loving freedom . Russia does not allow gay marriage another terrible oppression and black mark on freedom in Russia .. Russia has built more Christian churches than any other country in Europe under Putin's kGB leadership . Putin is not Satan . The Russian people are proud with him as their leader it is only us that wants to get rid of him .

Adele Roof , December 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm

Thank you for this thoughtful, well-informed post. You are right -- many Democrats, and I was one, did not vote for Clinton because she was a war monger. I also felt, that as a woman, she would have to go out of her way to prove that she was as tough as any male.

She obviously learned nothing from her disastrous vote for the war in Iraq, because she influenced Obama to take out Qaddafi. If it were not for her lust for war, I probably would have held my nose and voted for her. And while I did not vote for Trump, I actually breathed a sigh of relief when he won, thinking that he wouldn't take us into war with Russia.

To date, there's no proof that the Russians were involved in hacking/leaking this information. But if this is causing such a stir as to have some want to overturn the results of the presidential election, then, by rights, to be morally consistent, they should also push for going back to the Democratic primaries and redoing them as well. Clearly this hacked/leaked information shows that the Democrats interfered with the election of Sanders. That would be most fair, don't you think?

exiled off mainstreet , December 16, 2016 at 12:36 pm

Parry's article is again excellent. The lamestream democrats are jumping the fascist shark and putting our future at risk. I also am a lifelong democrat who couldn't support the harpy because of her obvious hawkishness and status as a war criminal based on her architecture of the Libya destruction. I also think her need to prove herself as tough as any man colors her dangerous political views. I also agree that the fact it was proven that she is a proven war criminal and they gamed the primaries against Sanders should eliminate any support for overturning the election on any basis absent the fact that any success in this endeavour would lead to civil unrest and that what they are demanding, confrontation with Russia, is a threat to our future. Hopefully former peace types still taken in by the klinton koolaid will wake up and restore the Democratic party away from its present incarnation as a fascist militarist threat to our survival.

Jon Olsen , December 18, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Good idea Adele, New election, given all the crap Jill Stein found in the very limited recount effort she was allowed to conduct. The election process is putrid rotten! Let er and Gary Johnson into the debates this time around as well.

eric , December 18, 2016 at 11:05 pm

yes but I'am hoping you made a wise choice . Trump may not be a old fashion vote no on every thing republican I'am expecting good reasonable priced healthcare covering everybody and not costing employers so much they won't hire any one . That alone might bring back a lot of jobs . I voted with you and now I think we have a better future . Of course we could be friends with Russia . Russia is not communist anymore . They are the most Christian country in Europe and we are the most Christian country in the world . We should be natural friends

Jerry Falkenstein , December 16, 2016 at 11:11 am

2 comments
Dmitry Orlov cluborlov.blogspot.com

Dmitri Orlov cluborlov.blogspot.com

With all the compost being forwarded in cyber space it's refreshing to occasionally read something that's spot on the money. An article that actually contains real value or what one might call nourishment for the brain. Every so often I'll read a post that's near perfection and I just did. It's by Dmitry Orlov and titled "The Power of "Nyet". My expressed thanks go out for Dmitrys permission to repost this exceptional piece of commentary.

The Power of "Nyet" Author Dmitry Orlov, Club Orlov Blogpost
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Kerry Putin lavrov The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.

In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet." The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign, from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant! Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because, you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.

eric , December 18, 2016 at 11:44 pm

You have got the whole story down right .accept China is standing along side of Russia . They have been ever since we humiliated both of them in Yugoslavia . Now both of them have developed a lot of new weapons and Russia is in Syria with their new planes and missiles 300 and 400 . Putin has told us we can talk about changes that we could maybe make . But the NWO has already decided everything they don't want to consider any changes . Not for us , Not for Christians , not for Jews , not for Muslims , not for Russians and not for any Chinamen either . They have already made all the orders and rules . Russia said Nyet in Georgia and now Russia is saying Nyet in Syria too . The Russian people are totally behind their government and proud of Putin .The American people have finally caught on they are not proud of what the NWO has been doing they have discarded their NWO government And have selected a new government that is going take power in thirty days . Trump has said he will deal with Russia and China on a equal basis .We are facing a very dangerous thirty days the NWO may do anything during this period to stay in power and implement all the orders they already decided .

JoAnn Witt , December 16, 2016 at 3:57 pm

"Ditto" to that and Mr. Parry, thank you for the pictures!

Fran Macadam , December 17, 2016 at 5:58 am

Robert Parry, a voice of sanity amidst the McCarthyist hysteria. How ironic this time around the most extreme purveyors of the paranoid style in politics are once-liberal Democrats.

Andy , December 19, 2016 at 1:28 am

Great article. I'm glad I found this site since it has become clear that I can't trust the MSM. Even 60 Minutes has become a tool of Washington.

Andy , December 19, 2016 at 1:40 am

In Obama's news/press conference on Friday, he said some very unprofessional things about Russia: "they don't produce anything besides oil and gas " and "they aren't innovative". (By not innovative does he mean they don't make fake stories like how the Russians hacked the DNC?) This isn't the kind of thing our President should be saying about foreign countries, especially large ones like Russia. Where does he got off saying this at a news conference? I'm losing respect for Obama by the day. I voted for him and after suffering 8 years of Bush he was the savior at the time. But his shine has tarnished.

[Sep 07, 2018] Left, Right, and Dead Center by Andrew Levine

Notable quotes:
"... When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day. ..."
"... The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus they have become imperiled. ..."
"... It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July. ..."
"... In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any, liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political forces have played such a negligible role. ..."
"... s was evident in the Clinton campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down radical dissent. ..."
"... Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level. This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work – pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and districts, is to occupy the (relational) center. ..."
"... That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living. What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days! ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day.

Thus it is mainly in situations in which the regime itself is undergoing fundamental transformations that the center is depleted of its former occupants. In time, though, a new mainstream is constituted, and its center again becomes the point on the left/right continuum where the majority of positions and policies in play at the time cluster.

***

To everyone living through it, it feels as if the Trump presidency has turned the political scene topsy-turvy. This is what happens when there is an imbecilic president whose governing style is a low-grade imitation of a mob boss's.

The fact is, though, that the Trump presidency, destructive as it has been, has changed a good deal less than meets the eye. The foundations of the regime remain the same as before; fundamental neoliberal economic structures remain intact, and the perpetual war regime that went into overdrive after 9/11 continues to flourish.

The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus they have become imperiled.

What is disturbingly clear is that for all but the filthy rich, and especially for anyone not white as the driven snow, life in Trump's America has taken a turn for the worse.

Trump has been a godsend for "white nationalists," the current euphemism for nativists and racists. He has legitimated them and their views to an extent that no one would have imagined just a few years ago.

Also, to the detriment of the health and well being of the vast majority of Americans, Trump and his minions have done serious harm to America's feeble welfare state institutions.

And even this is not the main reason why there will be hell to pay when the next economic downturn happens, as it inevitably will, more likely sooner than later. By giving Wall Street free rein again, and by cutting taxes for the rich, depleting the treasury of financial resources that could be put to use in a crisis, Trump has all but guaranteed that most Americans will soon find themselves in straits as bad or worse than ten years ago.

Worst of all, by watering down or setting aside the weak but nevertheless indispensible environmental regulations in place before their arrival on the scene, Trump has hastened the day when the world will be hit with, and perhaps be undone by, grave, possibly irreparable, ecological catastrophes.

There are many other lesser harms for which, directly or indirectly, Trump is responsible. This is all serious stuff, but while they make life worse for many people and shift the political spectrum to the right, they do not shake the foundations of the regime in a way that puts the center in jeopardy -- at least not yet.

In short, what we are living through is not a Trumpian "revolution," not even in the "Reagan Revolution" sense, but a degeneration of much of what is worth preserving in the old regime. Trump didn't start the process, but he has come to dominate it, and his mindless and mean spirited antics accelerate it.

***

If "left," "right," and "center" are understood in relational terms, American politics plainly does have a left, right, and center. These designations overlay the deeply entrenched, semi-established duopoly party system that structures the American political scene.

It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July.

Understood notionally, where "left," "right," and "center" designate positions on an historically evolving, widely understood, ideal political spectrum, the situation is much the same, but with a major difference: there is hardly any left at all.

There have always been plenty of (notional) leftists in the United States, but there has never been much of an intersection between the left of the political spectrum, understood relationally, and anything resembling a notional Left.

In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any, liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political forces have played such a negligible role.

This unfortunate state of affairs has become worse in recent decades under the aegis of (notionally) center-right Democrats like the Clintons and their co-thinkers. Thanks to them, the Democratic Party today is a (notionally) centrist party through and through.

They succeeded as well as they did partly because our party system stifles progressive politics more effectively than it is stifled in other ways in other liberal democracies.

The duopoly is still going strong, but, even so, times change. Largely thanks to Trump, there are now inklings of a notional Left in formation that stands a chance of avoiding marginalization.

Thus Democrats all along the (relational) spectrum now consider themselves embattled, challenged from the Left by anti-Trump militants. Many of the challengers come from under-represented, Democratic-leaning constituencies – the young, women, and "persons of color" – with traditionally low levels of political participation. In view of the abundant, well meaning but generally toothless "diversity" blather for which Democrats are notorious, this is delightfully ironic.

The challengers include African Americans, of course, but also people drawn from sectors of the population that Trump has targeted and demeaned with particular malice -- Hispanics and Muslims especially.

The Democratic Party has been actively courting – and colonizing – African American and other subaltern constituencies for a long time. A s was evident in the Clinton campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down radical dissent.

But because race and ethnicity intersect with age and gender – and because, in the final analysis, "it's the politics, stupid" -- many of the African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims and others now being drawn into the electoral fold will likely not be as amenable to being coopted by Democratic Party grandees as persons who "look like them" have been in the past. The danger of cooptation remains formidable, but it is almost certainly surmountable if the will to resist the pressure is strong.

Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level. This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work – pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and districts, is to occupy the (relational) center.

In this context, "red," of course, doesn't mean red; it means almost the opposite, Republican. Only in America!

... ... ...

What passes for a "resistance" in liberal or "democratic socialist" circles nowadays is a pale approximation of the genuine article. This is not just because the spirit of rebellion has been bred out of us or because of any failure of imagination; it is because in the circumstances that currently obtain, resistance, like "revolution," even in the anodyne "Our Revolution" sense, just isn't on the agenda.

But there is something now that can and should be resisted by any and all appropriate means – the illusion that the way to defeat Trump and Trumpism and, more generally, to advance progressive causes, is to tack to the relational center.

That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living. What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days!

How pathetic! The whole country's, not just the Democratic Party's, left, right, and center – minus Donald Trump, of course -- heaping praise on a Navy pilot who, heeding McCain family traditions and the call of Lyndon Johnson, killed a lot of Vietnamese peasants for no defensible reason, before becoming a "hero" after the Vietnamese shot his plane down, and who, after repatriation, embarked on a legislative career in which, despite a few "maverick" exceptions, he promoted every retrograde Republican cause that arose, war mongered vociferously at every opportunity, and did all he could, even before Hillary Clinton took a notion, to get the Cold War revved up again.

They were all there, every rotten one of them -- from Barack Obama and Joe Biden and, their brother-in-arms, George W. Bush, the man who, but for Trump, could now boast of being the worst president in modern times, all the way to the decrepit Henry Kissinger, the never to be indicted war criminal whom liberals have learned to stop loathing and to call upon for advice instead.

Even that malevolent airhead couple Jarvanka showed up, invited, it seems, by Senator Lindsey Graham, McCain's hapless sidekick. This was no popular front. It was a festival of the dead Center, a blight on the political landscape, and, with Trump sucking up all the air, a harbinger of things to come.

Resist that!

[Sep 07, 2018] Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism" by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Notable quotes:
"... Foreign Affairs, ..."
"... According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. ..."
"... We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. ..."
"... What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

The alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders".(Hugh Davies, "`Informers' point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers." The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998).

In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:

"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad." (Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999).

This project of the US intelligence apparatus was conducted with the active support of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which was entrusted in channelling covert military aid to the Islamic brigades and financing, in liason with the CIA, the madrassahs and Mujahideen training camps.

U.S. government support to the Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a "necessary response" to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.

The CIA's military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan, which consisted in creating the "Islamic brigades", was launched prior rather than in response to the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. In fact, Washington's intent was to deliberately trigger a civil war, which has lasted for more than 25 years. (photo: CIA and ISI agents)

The CIA's role in laying the foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter:

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question:When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? ( "The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser", Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html , 5 October 2001, italics added.)

Consistent with Brzezinski's account, a "Militant Islamic Network" was created by the CIA.

The "Islamic Jihad" (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA's intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 [which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)

[Sep 07, 2018] Neoliberal Totalitarianism And The Social Contract Countercurrents

Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberal Totalitarianism and the Social Contract ..."
"... Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy ..."
"... Historical Introduction ..."
"... The Social Contract ..."
"... "Man is born free, but everywhere in chains." ..."
"... Discourse on Inequality, ..."
"... "association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all." ..."
"... "The Social Contract Theory in a Global Context" ..."
"... The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism ..."
"... The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto ..."
"... "Uneven Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality" ..."
"... "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social contract might be." ..."
"... New America Foundation's ..."
"... The Social Contract in Africa ..."
"... "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The Guardian ..."
"... Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly? ..."
"... "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" ..."
"... Monthly Review ..."
"... A Short History ofNeoliberalism ..."
"... Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract ..."
"... "I think not having the ..."
"... recognizes the people that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies." ..."
"... "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly competitive and unequal world." ..."
"... "Pessimism of Intelligence, Optimism of Will" ..."
"... Perspectives on Gramsci ..."
"... Social vs. Corporate Welfare ..."
"... "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a globalized dialectic of ruling classes." ..."
"... The End of Ideology ..."
"... : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx." ..."
"... The End of History ..."
"... Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology ..."
"... "Limiting Dissent: The Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA" Social Movement Studies," ..."
"... The Great Transformation ..."
"... "To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ..."
"... "The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers. Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or telecommunications. ..."
"... "Democracy or Neoliberalism?" ..."
"... "When Exclusion Replaces Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism" ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Fascism ..."
"... The role of the state ..."
"... "The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly, there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure. The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion, that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here." ..."
"... Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality ..."
"... Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America ..."
"... everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. ..."
"... "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian Capitalism," ..."
"... is seen as an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues. ..."
"... The state exists ..."
"... as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded around a transcendent principle ..."
"... The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus." ..."
"... The Politics of Free Markets ..."
"... "The new dual sate is alive and well: Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a few." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchalnd ..."
"... Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty ..."
"... Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology. ..."
"... The Fascist Nature of Neoliberalism ..."
"... "La Dottrina del Fascismo" ..."
"... "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," ..."
"... "inverted totalitarianism" ..."
"... Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical Engagements ..."
"... Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society ..."
"... Sociology of Imperialism ..."
"... "The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader, as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state and state interests that are different from its own." ..."
"... Democratic elections have become the means for installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and pinnacle of achievement." ..."
"... http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-3/issue-3/political-economy-neoliberalism-and-illiberal-democracy ..."
"... "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma." ..."
"... "Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy." ..."
"... Lectures on Fascism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it. ..."
"... "In some parts of Europe, and in the United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It is becoming part of normal daily discourse." ..."
"... The Global Rise of Populism ..."
"... The risk democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign. ..."
"... Can the World be Wrong ..."
"... "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and humanity's future. ..."
"... Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13% reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party. Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French presidential race. ..."
"... "Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract ..."
"... "a property of institutions or systems in which the "rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another" ..."
"... The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere ..."
"... The Trickle Down Delusion ..."
"... "Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2 percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and 2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from 2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire 1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the productivity–pay divergence. ..."
"... "Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why It's Real" ..."
"... "The fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against Man ..."
"... Neoliberal Hegemony ..."
"... Toward a 21st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "A 21 st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "The nature of work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs." ..."
"... " Turning the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One Night" ..."
"... 'knowledge based economy' ..."
"... "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network." ..."
"... https://weeklybolshevik.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/imperialism-and-the-concentration-of-capital/ ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?" ..."
"... Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism ..."
"... "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... "Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize) the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth, intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the juncture at which we have arrived." ..."
"... lumpenproletariat ..."
"... "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies ..."
"... The Denationalization of Money ..."
"... Austerity: The Lived Experience ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the Normalization of Violence ..."
"... "Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily. It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance, neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the categories of both winners and losers." ..."
"... https://www.tni.org/en/article/short-history-neoliberalism ..."
"... "When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to 59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. ..."
"... Exploitation; What is it and why it is Wrong ..."
"... Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power ..."
"... Publics around the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems. Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions. Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%). ..."
"... Communication and the Globalization of Culture ..."
"... Class Politics and the Radical Right ..."
"... In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States. Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality, the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been resolved." ..."
"... Popper, Hayek and the Open Society ..."
"... Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Social Exclusion ..."
"... London Labour and the London Poor ..."
"... The German Ideology ..."
"... "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st Century" ..."
"... "The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest." ..."
"... Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US and Europe, ..."
"... "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review ..."
"... The Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing' ..."
"... European Network and Debt and Development ..."
"... "Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60 – 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling inflation and new debt." ..."
"... Makers and Takers: How Wall Street Destroyed Main Street ..."
"... "The Politics of Public Debt: Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", ..."
"... "Why should the new oligarchs be interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some privately owned island? ..."
"... http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/02/the-politics-of-public-debt/ ..."
"... "The Worldwide Class Struggle" ..."
"... Neoliberalism and the Making of the Subprime Borrower ..."
"... The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition ..."
"... Debt: the First 5000 Years ..."
"... "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" ..."
"... "Germany's chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat or ..."
"... . These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchland ..."
"... Grassroots Resistance to Neoliberalism ..."
"... Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers' Movement), ..."
"... (Abahlali baseMjondolo, Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, Landless Peoples' Movement), ..."
"... (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), ..."
"... (Fanmi Lavalas) ..."
"... (Narmada Bachao Andolan). ..."
"... "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" ..."
"... "100 countries have undergone grave economic decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes 20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993." ..."
"... http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html ..."
"... Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, ..."
"... Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" ..."
"... The BRICS: Challenges to the Global Status Quo" ..."
"... Landless Workers Movement ..."
"... Partido dos Trabalhadores ..."
"... The Drug War in Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ..."
"... Justice in El Barrio ..."
"... Black Lives Matter ..."
"... Occupy Wall Street ..."
"... 'De-democratization' under Neoliberalism ..."
"... Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution ..."
"... "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. ..."
"... "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" ..."
"... "undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any hierarchy in value or belief systems." ..."
"... "Neoliberalism as Political Theology of Chance: the politics of divination." ..."
"... Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" ..."
"... Virtue and Economy ..."
"... The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in Decline, ..."
"... The Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... "Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption." ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements ..."
"... The Politics of Thatcherism ..."
"... "The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" ..."
"... "A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers." ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | countercurrents.org

Neoliberal Totalitarianism And The Social Contract in World -- by Jon Kofas -- January 11, 2018

capitalism

Neoliberal Totalitarianism and the Social Contract

Abstract

Analyzing aspects of the rightwing populist tide arising largely in reaction to the pluralistic-diversity model of neoliberalism, this essay examines the evolving social contract that normalizes systemic exploitation and repression in the name of capitalist growth. Amid incessant indoctrination by the media representing big capital, people try to make sense of whether their interests are best served under the pluralist-diversity model of globalist neoliberalism with a shrinking social welfare safety net, or an authoritarian-economic nationalist model promising salvation through the use of an iron hand against domestic and foreign enemies.

Socioeconomic polarization under the neoliberal social contract has laid the groundwork for political polarization clearly evident not just in President Donald Trump's America and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's India representing a rightwing populist neoliberal ideology, but France's President Emmanuel Macron's La République En Marche that espouses a pluralist–diversity-environmentalist model aiming at the same neoliberal goals as the populists. Whether under the pluralist or the authoritarian model, neoliberalism represents what Barrington Moore described in Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966) a capitalist reactionary route that Italy, Japan, and Germany followed under totalitarian regimes in the interwar era to protect the capitalist class after the crisis that wars of imperialism (1870-1914) and WWI had created in core capitalist countries.

Although the world is much more thoroughly integrated under capitalism today than it was a century ago, the same marked absence of a revolutionary trend as there was in the interwar era is evident in our era. This accounts for the neoliberal revolution from above culminatingin variations of authoritarian regimes throughout the world. This does not only signal a crisis in capitalism but social discontinuity that will precipitate sociopolitical instability as contradictions within the political economy foster polarization across all sectors of society.

Historical Introduction

Most people today have no reason to be familiar with the term "social contract" any more than they are familiar with neoliberalism that inordinately influences public policy on a world scale. For many analysts contemplating the relationship of the individual to organized society, the social contract is about the degree to which government advances a set of social and economic policies articulated by an ideology designed to benefit certain institutions and social groups, while safeguarding sovereignty in the name of the governed. The problem arises when the governed no longer view the social contract as legitimate, a point that John Locke addressed as this was a key issue in 17 th century England right before the Glorious Revolution.

The social contract has its origins in the transition from subsistence agriculture of the feudal-manorial economy to commercial agriculture and long-distance trade under capitalism in the 15 th and 16 th century. With the advent of the Scientific Revolution in the 17 th century and the Enlightenment in the 18 th century coinciding with England's first industrial revolution accounted for more rapid evolution of the division of labor, European intellectuals challenged the old social order based on birth-right privilege of the aristocracy representing the agrarian-based economy of the past. Changes taking place in the economy and social structure gave rise to bourgeois social contract theories that articulated a core role in the state for the merchant-banking class, especially in northwest Europe where mercantile capitalism consolidated.

As the ideological force of the English Glorious Revolution (1689), John Locke, the father of Western Liberalism, argued for a regime that reflected the emerging bourgeoisie inclusion into the political mainstream to reflect the commensurate role in the economy. Interestingly, Locke provided a philosophical justification for overthrowing the government when it acted against the interests of its citizens, thus influencing both the American War of Independence and the French Revolution. Building on Locke's liberal philosophy and views on the tyranny of absolutism, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract (1762) that: "Man is born free, but everywhere in chains." This statement reflected the views of many bourgeois thinkers who believed that modernization of society is not possible in the absence of a social contract that takes into account natural rights, an approach to government that would mirror a merit based criteria.

Departing from Locke's liberalism that had property ownership and individualism at the core of his political thought, in the Discourse on Inequality, (1754) Rousseau argued that property appropriation rests at the root of institutionalized inequality and oppression of individuals against the community. The role of the state plays a catalytic role for it as an "association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all." The basis of social contract theory accounts for the sovereign power's legitimacy and justice, thus resulting in public acceptance. (Jason Neidleman, "The Social Contract Theory in a Global Context" http://www.e-ir.info/2012/10/09/the-social-contract-theory-in-a-global-context/ ; C. B. Macpherson. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism , 1962)

Rooted in the ascendancy of the European bourgeoisie, social contract theory has evolved in the last three centuries, especially after the Revolutions of 1848 and the rise of the working class as a sociopolitical force demanding inclusion rather than marginalization and exploitation legalized through public policy that the representatives of capitalism legislated. The cooptation of the working class into bourgeois political parties as a popular base in the age of mass politics from the mid-19 th century until the present has obfuscated the reality that social contract under varieties of parliamentary regimes continued to represent capital.

The creation of large enterprises gave rise not only to an organized labor movement, but to a larger bureaucratic regulatory state with agencies intended to help stabilize and grow capitalism while keeping the working class loyal to the social contract. Crisis in public confidence resulted not only from economic recessions and depressions built into the economy, but the contradictions capitalism was fostering in society as the benefits in advances in industry, science and technology accrued to the wealthy while the social structure remained hierarchical.

Ever since 1947 when the ideological father of neoliberalism Friedrich von Hayek called a conference in Mont Pelerin to address how the new ideology would replace Keynesianism, neoliberals have been promising to address these contradictions, insisting that eliminating the social welfare state and allowing complete market dominationthat would result in society's modernization and would filter down to all social classes and nations both developed and developing. Such thinking is rooted in the modernization theory that emerged after WWII when the US took advantage of its preeminent global power to impose a transformation model on much of the non-Communist world. Cold War liberal economist Walt Rostow articulated the modernization model of development in his work entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto , 1960. By the 1970s, neoliberals adapted Rostow's modernization theory as their bible and the core of the social contract. (Evans Rubara, "Uneven Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality"

https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/uneven-development-understanding-roots-inequality

The challenge for the political class has always been and remains to mobilize a popular base that would afford legitimacy to the social contract. The issue for mainstream political parties is not whether there is a systemic problem with the social contract intended to serve the capitalist class, but the degree to which the masses can be co-opted through various methods to support the status quo. "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social contract might be."

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-past-and-future-of-americas-social-contract/282511/

Considering that Keynesianism and neoliberalism operate under the same social structure and differ only on how best to achieve capital formation while retaining sociopolitical conformity, the article above published in The Atlantic illustrates how analysts/commentators easily misinterpret nuances within a social contract for the covenant's macro goals. A similar view as that expressed in The Atlantic is also reflected in the New America Foundation's publications, identifying specific aspects of Arthur Schlesinger's Cold War militarist policies enmeshed with social welfare Keynesianism as parts of the evolving social contract.

https://www.newamerica.org/economic-growth/policy-papers/the-american-public-and-the-next-social-contract/

Identifying the social contract with a specific set of policies under different administrations evolving to reflect the nuances of political class and economic elites,some analysts contend that there is a European Union-wide social contract to which nationally-based social contracts must subordinate their sovereignty. This model has evolved to accommodate neoliberal globalism through regional trade blocs on the basis of a 'patron-client'integration relationship between core and periphery countries.

A European export and integral part of cultural hegemony in the non-Western world, the liberal-bourgeois social contract for the vast majority of Africans has failed to deliver on the promise of socioeconomic development, social justice and national sovereignty since independence from colonial rule. Just as in Africa, the Asian view of the social contract is that it entails a liberal model of government operating within the capitalist system rather than taking into account social justice above all else. Embracing pluralism and diversity while shedding aspects of authoritarian capitalism associated with cronyism and the clientist state, the view of the Asian social contract is to subordinate society to neoliberal global integration and work within the framework of Western-established institutions. In each country, traditions governing social and political relationships underlie the neoliberal model. (Sanya Osha, The Social Contract in Africa , 2014;

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2013/html/sp130302.en.html ; http://www.mei.edu/content/map/myanmar-transition-social-control-social-contract )

Despite far reaching implications for society and despite the political and business class keen awareness of neoliberalism, most people around the world are almost as perplexed by the term neoliberalism as they are with social contract theory that is outside the public debate confined to the domain of political philosophy. Many associate neoliberalism withRonald Reagan supporter Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School', rarely mentioning the political dimension of the economic philosophy and its far-reaching implications for all segments of society. In an article entitled "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The Guardian columnist George Monbiot raised a few basic questions about the degree to which the public is misinformed when it comes to the neoliberal social contract under which society operates.

" Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Advocates of neoliberalism, both from the pluralist-social welfare wing and the rightwing populist camp, have succeeded in institutionalizing the new social contract which has transformed the historically classical notion of individual freedombased on the Enlightenment concept of natural rights into freedom of capitalist hegemony over the state and society. Whether operating under the political/ideological umbrella of pluralism-environmentalism in Western nations, combined with some version of a Keynesian social welfare pluralist model, with rightwing populism or authoritarianism in one-party state, political and corporate elites advancing the neoliberal model share the same goal with regard to capital formation and mainstream institutions.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0896920516668386 ; https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/culture-of-cruelty-the-age-of-neoliberal-authoritarianism/ ; http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0896920516668386

Weakening the social welfare corporatist state model by reaching political consensus among mainstream political parties by the late 1980s-early 1990s, whether operating under a centrist-pluralist or conservative party, neoliberals have been using the combination of massive deregulation with the state providing a bailout mechanism when crisis hits; fiscal policy that transfers income from workers and the middle class – raising the public debt to transfer wealth from the bottom 90% to the wealthiest 10% -; providing corporate subsidies and bailouts; and privatizing public projects and services at an immense cost to the declining living standards for the middle class and workers.

As much in the US as in other developed nations beginning in the 1980s, the neoliberal state has become status quo by intentionally weakening the social welfare state and redefining the social contract throughout the world. Working with large banks and multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank that use loans as leverage to impose neoliberal policies around the world in debtor nations desperate to raise capital for the state and attract direct foreign investment, the advanced capitalist countries impose the neoliberal social contract on the world.

As reflected in the integrated global economy, the neoliberal model was imbedded in IMF stabilization and World Bank development loans since the late 1940s. After the energy crisis of the mid-1970s and the revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua in 1979, international developments that took place amid US concerns about the economy under strain from rising balance payments deficits that could not accommodate both 'military Keynesianism' (deficit spending on defense as a means of boosting the economy) and the social welfare system, neoliberalism under the corporate welfare state emerged as the best means to continue strengthening capitalism. (J. M. Cypher, "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" , Monthly Review Vol. 59, No. 2, 2007; Jason Hickel, A Short History ofNeoliberalism ,

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/a_short_history_of_neoliberalism_and_how_we_can_fix_it

Everything from government agencies whose role is strengthening capital, to public schools and hospitals emulating the market-based management model and treating patients and students as customers, the neoliberal goal is comprehensive market domination of society. Advocates of the neoliberal social contract no longer conceal their goals behind rhetoric about liberal-democratic ideals of individual freedom and the state as an arbiter to harmonize the interests of social classes. The market unequivocally imposes its hegemony not just over the state but on all institutions, subordinating peoples' lives to market forces and equating those forces with democracy and national sovereignty. In pursuit of consolidating the neoliberal model on a world scale, the advocates of this ideology subordinate popular sovereignty and popular consent from which legitimacy of the state emanates to capital. http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/introren.htm

As an integral part of the social environment and hegemonic culture reflecting the hierarchical class structure and values based on marginalization, the neoliberal social contract has become institutionalized in varying degrees reflecting the more integrative nature of capitalism after the fall of the Communist bloc coinciding with China's increased global economic integration. Emboldened that there was no competing ideology from any government challenging capitalism, neoliberals aggressively pursued globalization under the deregulation-corporate welfare anti-labor model.

Some countries opted for mixed policies with a dose of quasi-statist policies as in the case of China. Others retained many aspects of the social welfare state as in the case of EU members, while some pursue authoritarian capitalism within a pluralistic model. Still other nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia where pluralism and multi-party traditions are not very strong, neoliberal policies are tailored to clientist politics and crony capitalism. In all cases, 'market omnipotence theory' is the catalyst under the umbrella of the neoliberal social contract.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/11/12/the-mother-of-all-experiments-in-authoritarian-capitalism-is-about-to-begin/

Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract

Just as religion was universally intertwined with identity, projection of self-image in the community and the value system in the Age of Faith (500-1500), secular ideology in the modern world fulfills somewhat a similar goal. Although neoliberalism has been criticized as a secular religion precisely because of its dogmatism regarding market fundamentalism, especially after 2013 when Pope Francis dismissed it as idolatry of money that attempts to gloss over abject socioeconomic inequality on a world scale, capitalistsand the political class around the world have embraced some aspects if not wholeheartedly neoliberal ideology. https://economicsociology.org/2014/12/25/pope-francis-against-neoliberalism-finance-capitalism-consumerism-and-inequality/

In the early 21 st century arguments equating the rich with societal progress and vilifying the poor as social stigma indicative of individual failure are no different than arguments raised by apologists of capitalism in the early 19 th century when the British Parliament was debating how to punish the masses of poor that the industrial revolution had created. In defending tax cuts to the wealthy, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley stated: "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/grassley-estate-taxes-booze-women_us_5a247d89e4b03c44072e5a04 ; The US senator's argument could easily be heard in early 19 th century England. Blaming the poor for structural poverty which capitalism causes has become widespreadsince the early 1980s. This is because of government efforts to dismantle the welfare state as a social safety net and transfer resources for tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals. https://www.globalresearch.ca/blaming-the-poor-for-poverty/535675

Rooted in classical liberal ideology, neoliberalism rests on laissez-faire and social Darwinist principles that affirm societal progress as defined by materialist self-interest. Because private financial gain is the sole measure of success and virtue, neoliberals demand that the state and international organizations must remove impediments to capital accumulationnationally and internationally no matter the consequences to the non-propertied classes. Aiming for more than mere mechanical compliance, the goal of the ideology is to create the illusion of the neoliberal self that lives, breathes, and actualizes neoliberal myths in every aspect of life from a person as a worker to consumer and citizen.

Jim Mcguigan argues that "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly competitive and unequal world." (Jim McGuigan: 'The Neoliberal Self',Culture Unbound, Volume 6, 2014; http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v6/a13/cu14v6a13.pdf

By offering the illusion of integration to those that the social structure has marginalized while trying to indoctrinate the masses that the corporate state is salvation and the welfare state is the enemy to default all of society's problems, the neoliberal ideology has captured the imagination of many in the middle class and even some in the working class not just in the West but around the world and especially in former Communist bloc countries where people entertained an idealized version of bourgeois liberal society. (S. Gill, "Pessimism of Intelligence, Optimism of Will" in Perspectives on Gramsci , ed. by Joseph Francene 2009)

Similar to liberalism in so far as it offers something for which to hope, neoliberalism is a departure when it decries the state as an obstacle to capitalist growth not only because of regulatory mechanisms and as an arbiter in society that must placate the masses with social programs, but even as a centralized entity determining monetary and fiscal policy. Proponents of neoliberalism demand turning back the clock to the ideology that prevailed among capitalists and their political supporters at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution when there were no state mechanisms to regulate labor conditions, mining operations and the environment, food and drugs, etc. From a dogmatic market fundamentalist perspective, the market transcends national borders and supersedes the state, thus the principal form of governance revolves around furthering capital accumulation.

Not only is there an absence of a social conscience not so different than what prevailed in the nascent phase of industrial capitalism, but there is disdain of social responsibility on the part of capital beyond the realm of tax-deductible charity donations and voluntarism. More significant, neoliberals believe that capital is entitled to appropriate whatever possible from society because the underlying assumption of corporate welfare entitlement is built into the neoliberal ideology that identifies the national interest with capital and labor as the enemy of capital accumulation. (K. Farnsworth, Social vs. Corporate Welfare , 2012)

The irony in all of this is that in 2008 the world experienced the largest and deepest recession since the 1930s precisely because of neoliberal policies. However, its advocates insisted that the recession was causedwe did not have enough deregulation, privatization, corporate welfare and low taxes on capital rather than going too far with such an extreme ideology whose legal and illegal practices that led to the global recession. Even more ironic neoliberal ideology blames the state – central banks, legislative branch and regulatory agencies – rather than the economic system for the cyclical crisis. https://cgd.leeds.ac.uk/events/2008-global-financial-crisis-in-a-long-term-perspective-the-failure-of-neo-liberalism-and-the-future-of-capitalism-2/

Because the state puts the interests of a tiny percentage of the population above the rest of society, it is a necessary structure only in so far as it limits its role to promoting capital formation by using any means to achieve the goal. Whether under a pluralistic-diversity political model or an authoritarian one, neoliberalism is anti-democratic because as Riad Azar points out, "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a globalized dialectic of ruling classes."

http://newpol.org/content/neoliberalism-austerity-and-authoritarianism

From conservative and liberal to self-described Socialist, political parties around the world have moved ideologically farther to the right in order to accommodate neoliberalism as part of their platform. The challenge of the political class is to keep people loyal to the neoliberal ideology; a challenge that necessarily forces political parties to be eclectic in choosing aspects of other ideological camps that appeal to voters. While embracing corporate welfare, decrying social welfare is among the most glaring neoliberal contradiction of an ideology that ostensibly celebrates non-state intervention in the private sector. This contradiction alone forces neoliberal politicians of all stripes and the media to engage in mass distraction and to use everything from identity politics ideologies to cult of personality,and culture wars and 'clash of civilization' theories. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/How-the-Democrats-Became-The-Party-of-Neoliberalism-20141031-0002.html ; https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/paul-emery/why-on-earth-would-socialists-support-neoliberal-undemocratic-eu

To justify why self-proclaimed socialist and democratic parties have embraced neoliberalism, many academics have provided a wide range of theories which have in fact helped solidify the neoliberal ideology into the political mainstream. Among the countless people swept up by the enthusiasm of the Communist bloc's fall and China's integration into the world capitalist economy, Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (2000), argued that the world returned to old religious and ethnic conflicts around which ideologies of the new century were molded.

Encouraged by China's integration into the global capitalist system, in September 2006 Bell wrote : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx." https://prezi.com/kha1ketnfjtd/ideology-in-everyday-life/

Such hasty pronouncements and others in works like Francis Fukuyama's The End of History expressed the Western bourgeois sense of relief of an integrated world under the Western-dominated neoliberal ideology that would somehow magically solve problems the Cold War had created. While Bell, Fukuyama and others celebrated the triumphant era of neoliberal ideology, they hardly dealt with the realities that ideology in peoples' lives emanates from mainstream institutions manifesting irreconcilable contradictions. A product molded by the hegemonic political culture, neoliberal ideology has been a factor in keeping the majority in conformity while a small minority is constantly seeking outlets of social resistance, some within the neoliberal rightwing political mold. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/21/bring-back-ideology-fukuyama-end-history-25-years-on

As catalyst to mobilize the masses, nationalism remains a strong aspect of ideological indoctrination that rightwing populist neoliberals have used blaming immigrants, Muslims, women, gays, environmentalists, and minorities for structural problems society confronts resulting from the political economy. Although there are different political approaches about how best to achieve neoliberal goals, ideological indoctrination has always played an essential role in keeping people loyal to the social contract. However, the contradiction in neoliberal ideology is the need for a borderless world and the triumph of capital over the nation-state while state policies harmonize disparate capitalist interests within the nation-state and beyond it. If neoliberal ideology tosses aside nationalism then it deprives itself of a mechanism to mobilize the masses behind it. https://left-flank.org/2011/01/16/the-curious-marriage-of-neoliberalism-and-nationalism/

Arguing that the 'Ideological State Apparatuses' (ISA) such as religious and educational institutions among others in the private sector perpetuate the ideology of the status quo, Louis Pierre Althusser captured the essence of state mechanisms to mobilize the masses. However, ideology is by no means the sole driving force in keeping people loyal to the social contract. While peoples' material concerns often dictate their ideological orientation, it would be hasty to dismiss the role of the media along with hegemonic cultural influences deeply ingrained into society shaping peoples' worldview and keeping them docile.

Building on Althusser's theory of how the state maintains the status quo, Goran Therborn ( Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology , 1999) argues that the neoliberal state uses ideological domination as a mechanism to keep people compliant. Combined with the state's repressive mechanisms – police and armed forces – the ideological apparatus engenders conformity wherein exploitation and repression operate within the boundaries that the state defines as 'legal', thus 'normal' for society. A desirable goal of regimes ranging from parliamentary to Mussolini's Fascist Italy (1922-1943) and clerical Fascism under Antonio de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal (1932-1968), legalized repressive mechanisms have become an integral part of neoliberal ideological domination.

( http://notevenpast.org/louis-althusser-on-interpellation-and-the-ideological-state apparatus/ ; https://isreview.org/issue/99/althussers-theory-ideology ; Jules Boykoff, "Limiting Dissent: The Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA" Social Movement Studies," Vo. 6, No 3, 2007)

It is part of the neoliberal ideology that markets dictate the lives of people in every respect from cradle to grave where self and identity are inexorably intertwined. Striving to determine public policy in all its phases of the individual\s life, of localities, nationally and internationally, the market has no other means to retain hegemony in society and pursue capital formation with the fewest possible obstacles. Neoliberals justify such an ideology on the basis that modernization of society transcends not just social justice but societal collective welfare when measured against private gain. https://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/good_riddance_gig_economy_uber_ayn_rand_and_the_awesome_collapse_of_silicon_valleys_dream_of_destroying_your_job/ ; https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/neoliberalism-has-eviscerated-the-fabric-of-social-life/

The unchecked role of neoliberal capitalism in every aspect of the social fabric runs the risk of at the very least creating massive social, economic and political upheaval as was the case with the great recession of 2008 preceded by two decades of neoliberal capitalism taking precedence over the welfare regulatory state whose role is to secure and/or retain equilibrium in global markets. In The Great Transformation , (1944)", Karl Polanyi argued that: "To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society."

Because Polanyi lived through the Great Depression era of the New Deal and the rise and fall of the Axis Powers, he was optimistic that a return to the 1920s would not take root after WWII. Polanyi accepted Hegel's view of the social contract that the state preserves society by safeguarding general or universal interests against particular ones. However, we have been witnessing the kind of demolition of society Polanyi feared because of unchecked market forces. This is in part because the demise of the Communist bloc and the rise of China as a major economic power emboldened advocates of neoliberal ideology.

With the realization of US long road to decline at the end of the Vietnam War, neoliberal elites prevailed that the crisis of American leadership could be met with the elimination of Keynesian ideology and the adoption of neoliberalism as tested by the Chicago School in Chile under the US-backed dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990. That the neoliberal ideology became an experiment tested in a US-backed military dictatorship in South America is itself revealing about what the nature of the social contract once implemented even in pluralistic societies where there was popular and political support for Keynesianism. Characteristic of a developing nation like Chile was external dependence and a weak state structure, thus easily manipulated by domestic and foreign capital interested in deregulation and further weakening of the public sector as the core of the social contract.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-economic-freedoms-awful-toll/ ; https://www.salon.com/2010/03/02/chicago_boys_and_the_chilean_earthquake/

"The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers. Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or telecommunications. (Atilio A. Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism?" http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html

Advocating the systematic dismantling of the social welfare state in the name of upholding the virtues of individualism while strengthening of corporate welfare capitalism in the name of economic growth on global scale, advocates of neoliberal ideology were emboldened by the absence of a competing ideology after the fall of the Soviet bloc and China's capitalist integration. As the income gap widened and globalization resulted in surplus labor force amid downward pressure on wages, a segment of the social and political elites embraced a rightwing populist ideology as a means of achieving the neoliberal goals in cases where the pluralist ideological model was not working. The failure of neoliberal policies led some political and business elites to embrace rightwing populism in order to save neoliberalism that had lost support among a segment of society because of its association with centrist and reformist cultural-diversity pluralist neoliberals. This trend continues to gain momentum exposing the similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism. (David Zamora, "When Exclusion Replaces Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism" http://nonsite.org/feature/when-exclusion-replaces-exploitation .

Neoliberalism and Fascism

  1. The role of the state

Unprecedented for a former president, on 10 December 2017 Barak Obama warned Americans not to follow a Nazi path. A clear reference to president Trump and the Republican Party leading America in that direction with rhetoric and policies that encourage 'culture war' ( kulturkampf – struggle between varieties of rightwingers from evangelicals to neo-Nazis against secular liberals), Obama made reference to socioeconomic polarization at the root of political polarization.

"The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly, there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure. The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion, that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-warns-americans-against-following-in-the-path-of-nazi germany_us_5a2c032ce4b0a290f0512487

Warning about the road to Nazism, Obama drew distinctions between the Democratic Party's brand of pluralist neoliberalism and Trump's rightwing populist model. Naturally, Obama did not mention that both models seek the same goals, or that policies for which he and his predecessor Bill Clinton pursued drove a segment of the population toward the authoritarian neoliberal model that offers the illusion of realizing the American Dream. Distancing themselves from neo-Fascists, mainstream European political leaders embracing the pluralist model under neoliberalism have been as condemnatory as Obama of rightwing populism's pursuit of 'culture war' as a precursor to Fascism.

Accusing Trump of emboldening varieties of neo-Fascists not just in the US and EU but around the globe, European neoliberal pluralists ignored both the deep roots of Fascism in Europe and their own policies contributing to the rise of neo-Fascism. Just as with Obama and his fellow Democrats, European neoliberal pluralists draw a very sharp distinction between their version of neoliberalism and rightwing populism that either Trump or Hungary's Viktor Orban pursue. Neoliberal pluralists argue that rightwing populists undercut globalist integration principles by stressing economic nationalism although it was right nationalists Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan that engaged in wholesale implantation of neoliberal policies. https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/02/28/the-myths-of-far-right-populism-orbans-fence-and-trumps-wall/

Rightwing populism under Ronald Reagan as the first president to implement neoliberal policies emerged as a reaction to the prospect that the Western-basedcore of capitalism was weakening as a result of a multi-polar world economy. Whereas in the middle of the 20 th century the US enjoyed balance of payments surpluses and was a net creditor with the dollar as the world's strongest reserve currency and the world's strongest manufacturing sector, in 2017 the US is among the earth's largest debtor nations with chronic balance of payments deficits, a weak dollar with a bleak future and an economy based more on parasitic financial speculation and massive defense-related spending and less on productive sectors that are far more profitable in Asia and developing nations with low labor costs. (Jon Kofas, Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality , 2005, 40-54)

Exerting enormous influence by exporting its neoliberal ideological, political, economic and cultural influence throughout the world, the US-imposed transformation model has resulted in economic hardships and political and social instability in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Institutionalizing neoliberalism under rightwing populism and using Trump as the pretext to do so, the US is leading nations around the world to move closer to neo-Fascism, thus exposing neoliberalism as totalitarian.The recognition by the political class and business class that over-accumulation is only possible by continued downward wage pressure has been a key reason that a segment of the population not just in the US but across EU has supported populist rightwing and/or neo-fascists.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/01/24/exporting-fascism-us-imperialism-in-latin-america/ ; https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/03/americanism-us-writers-imagine-fascist-future-fiction ; http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Corporatism/neofascism.shtml ; Bertram Gross, Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America , 1999.

Rejecting the claim of any similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism, neoliberal apologists take pride that their apparent goal is to weaken the state, by which they mean the Keynesian welfare state, not the 'military Keynesian' and corporate welfare state. By contrast, Fascists advocated a powerful state – everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. American neoliberals of both the pluralist and rightwing camps have created a societal model not just in one nation like Mussolini and Hitler but globally with the result of: "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism.

Neoliberal totalitarianism finds different expression in the US than in India, in Hungary than in Israel. In " Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian Capitalism," Shankar Gopalakrishnan observed that exclusive Hindu nationalism has been the catalyst for rightwing neoliberalism to mobilize popular support. "Hindutva [ a term coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 to assert exclusive Hindu dominance] is seen as an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues. The state exists only as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded around a transcendent principle : The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus."

https://mronline.org/2008/11/14/neoliberalism-and-hindutva-fascism-free-markets-and-the-restructuring-of-indian-capitalism/

Whereas under Ronald Reagan's neoliberal populist policies (Reaganism) under a rightwing political umbrella the state structure was strengthened in the US, in the process of implementing neoliberal policies state bureaucratic functions have been outsourced to private companies thus keeping with the spirit of corporate-welfare goals. Other countries followed a path similar to the one of the US. Contrary to the claims of many neoliberal scholars, politicians and commentators, neoliberalism has not weakened the state simply because the ideology lays claims to a hegemonic private sector and weak state. It is true that the Keynesian-welfare state structure has been weakened while the corporate-welfare-militarist-police-state structure has been strengthened. However, in the less developed capitalist countries the public sector has weakened as a result of the US and EU imposing the neoliberal model which drains the public sector of any leverage in stimulating economic and social development investment because of the transfer of public assets and public services to the private sector.( http://jgu.edu.in/article/indias-neoliberal-path-perdition ; Monica Prasad, The Politics of Free Markets , 2006)

Gaspar Miklos Tamas, a Romanian political philosopher of the George Lukacs-inspired Budapest School, argues that global division of labor in the neoliberal era has not only resulted in wealth transfer from the bottom up but it has diminished national sovereignty and citizenship for those in less developed (periphery) nations. "The new dual sate is alive and well: Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a few." https://www.opendemocracy.net/people-newright/article_306.jsp

If the normative state is the domain of the very few with the rest under the illusion of inclusion, Miklos Tamas concludes that we are living in a global post-fascist era which is not the same as the interwar totalitarian model based on a mass movement of Fascism. Instead, neoliberal totalirarianism categorically rejects the Enlightenment tradition of citizenship which is the very essence of the bourgeois social contract. While the normative state in advanced countries is becoming more authoritarian with police-state characteristics, the state in the periphery whether Eastern Europe, Latin America or Africa is swept along by neoliberal policies that drive it toward authoritarianism as much as the state in Trump's America as in parts of Europe to the degree that in January 2018 Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) faced the prospect either of new elections or entering into a coalition with the neo-Nazi Alternative fur Deutchalnd (AfD). https://www.prosper.org.au/2010/05/25/the-counter-enlightenment/

The rightwing course of the Western World spreading into the rest of the world is not only because of IMF austerity used as leverage to impose neoliberalism in developing nations. Considering that countries have been scrambling to attract foreign investment which carries neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatization, weak trade unions and low taxes as a precondition, the entire world economic system is the driving force toward a form of totalitarianism. As Miklos Tamas argues, this has diluted national sovereignty of weaker countries, allowing national capitalists and especially multinational corporations to play a determining role in society against the background of a weak state structure. Along with weakened national sovereignty, national citizenship in turn finds expression in extreme rightwing groups to compensate for loss of independence as the bourgeois social contract presumably guarantees. (Aihwa Ong, Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty , 2006; http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/22/globalization-does-not-entail-the-weakening-of-the-liberal-state/

It is undeniable that there is a qualitative difference in Berlin and Rome under neoliberal regimes today than it was under Fascism. It would be a mistake to lump a contemporary neoliberal society together with the Third Reich and Fascist Italy, a dreadful and costly mistake that Stalinists made in the 1930s. Interwar totalitarianism existed under one-party state with a popular base operating as a police state. Although many countries under varieties of neoliberal regimes have an electoral system of at least two parties alternating power, the ruling parties pursue neoliberal policies with variations on social and cultural issues (identity politics), thus operating within the same policy framework impacting peoples' living standards.

Not just leftist academic critics, but even the progressive democratic Salon magazine recognized during the US election of 2016 that the neoliberal state would prevail regardless of whether Trump or Clinton won the presidential contest. " Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology.

https://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/this_is_our_neoliberal_nightmare_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_and_why_the_market_and_the_wealthy_win_every_time/

In neoliberal society either of the pluralist-diversity or of the authoritarian political camp there are elements of polizeistaat though not nearly full blown as in the Third Reich. While conformity to the status quo and self-censorship is the only way to survive, modern means of communication and multiple dissident outlets attacking the status quo from the right, which is far more pervasive and socio-politically acceptable than doing so from the left, has actually facilitated the evolution of the new totalitarian state. http://www.thegreatregression.eu/progressive-neoliberalism-versus-reactionary-populism-a-hobsons-choice/

Whereas big business collaborated closely with Fascist dictators from the very beginning to secure the preeminence of the existing social order threatened by the crisis of democracy created by capitalism, big business under the neoliberal social contract has the same goal, despite disagreement on the means of forging political consensus. Partly because neoliberalism carries the legacy of late 19 th century liberalism and operates in most countries within the parliamentary system, and partly because of fear of grassroots social revolution, a segment of the capitalist class wants to preserve the democratic façade of the neoliberal social contract by perpetuating identity politics. In either case, 'economic fascism' as the essence of neoliberalism, or post-fascism as Miklos Tamas calls it, is an inescapable reality. (Andrea Micocci and Flavia Di Mario, The Fascist Nature of Neoliberalism , 2017).

In distinguishing the composition and goals of theparliamentary state vs. the Fascist one-party state, Italian Fascism's theoretician Giovanni Gentile characterizedit as 'totalitario'; a term also applied to Germany's Third Reich the latter which had the added dimension of anti-Semitism as policy. Arguing that ideology in the Fascist totalitarian state had a ubiquitous role in every aspect of life and power over people, Gentile and Mussolini viewed such state as the catalyst to a powerful nation-state that subordinates all institutions and the lives of citizens to its mold. In "La Dottrina del Fascismo" (Gentile and Mussolini, 1932), Musolini made famous the statement: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," although Hitler's polizeistaat was more totalitarian because it had the means to achieve policy goals stated in Mein Kampf .

The convergence of neoliberalism and Fascism is hardly surprising when one considers that both aim at a totalitarian society of different sorts, one of state-driven ideology and the other market-driven with the corporate welfare state behind it. In some respects, Sheldon Wolin's the "inverted totalitarianism" theory places this issue into another perspective, arguing that despite the absence of a dictator the corporate state behind the façade of 'electoral democracy' is an instrument of totalitarianism. Considering the increased role of security-intelligence-surveillance agencies in a presumably open society, it is not difficult to see that society has more illiberal than classic liberal traits. Sheldon Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, 2008)

More powerful than the Axis Powers combined, American "Inverted totalitarianism" was internationalized during the Cold War and became more blatant during the war on terror, in large measure used as a pretext to impose neoliberalism in the name of national security. As the police-state gradually became institutionalized in every respect from illegal surveillance of citizens to suppressing dissent to the counterterrorism-neoliberal regime, it was becoming clearer to many scholars that a version of fascism was emerging in the US which also sprang up around the world. (Charlotte Heath-Kelly et al. eds., Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical Engagements , 2016; https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15074-Chris-Hedges-The-Great-Unraveling-USA-on-the-brink-of-neo-fascist-police-state#.WifwyLBrzIU

Almost a century after the era of Fascist totalitarianism that led to WWII, the transition of capitalism's global structure with a shifting core from the US and northwest Europe to East Asia has entailed intense global competition for capital accumulation to the degree that the advanced countries have been pushing living standards downward to compete with low-wage global markets. The process of draining greater surplus value from labor especially from the periphery countries where IMF-style austerity policies have resulted in massive capital transfer to the core countries has taken place under the neoliberal social contract that has striking similarities with Fascism.

Backed by the state in the advanced capitalist countries, international organizations among them the IMF have been promoting economic fascism under the label of 'neoliberal reforms', thus molding state structures accordingly. Neoliberal totalitarianism is far more organized and ubiquitous than interwar Fascism not only because of the strong national state structure of core countries and modern technology and communications networks that enables surveillance and impose subtle forms of indoctrination, but also because the international agencies established by the US under the Bretton Woods system help to impose policies and institutions globally.

  1. Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society

The genesis of illiberal politics can be traced back to the end of WWI when Europeans witnessed the unraveling of the rationalist order of the Enlightenment rooted in Lockean liberalism. Influenced by the wars of imperialism that led the First World War at the end of which Vladimir Lenin led the Bolsheviks to a revolutionary victory over Czarist Russia, Joseph Schumpeter like many European scholars was trying to make sense of how capitalism's forcible geographic expansion (imperialism) led to such global disasters that undermined the rationalist assumptions of the Enlightenment about society and its institutions. In his Sociology of Imperialism (1919), he wrote the following about the relationship of the bourgeoisie with the state.

"The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader, as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state and state interests that are different from its own."

The strong state structure of the imperial state that the bourgeoisie supported as a vehicle of expanding their interests globally while maintaining the social order at the national level held true only for the advanced capitalist countries eagerly trying to secure international markets at any cost including armed conflict. While essential for capital integration and expansion, the strong state structure was and remains an anathema to the bourgeoisie, if its role is to make political, economic and social concessions to the laboring and middle classes which are the popular base for bourgeois political parties. While classical liberal theory expresses the interests of capitalism its role is not to serve in furtherance of political equality for the simple reason that capitalism cannot exist under such a regime. Both John Locke and John Stuart Mill rejected political egalitarianism, while Schumpeter viewed democratic society with egalitarianism as an integral part of democracy. Rejecting Locke's and Mill's abstract receptiveness to egalitarianism, neoliberals of either the pluralist or authoritarian camp are blatantly adopt illiberal policies that exacerbate elitism, regardless of the rhetoric they employ to secure mass popular support.

Characterized by elitism, class, gender, racial and ethnic inequality, limits on freedom of expression, on human rights and civil rights, illiberal politics thrives on submission of the masses to the status quo. In his essay The Political Economy of Neoliberalism and Illiberal Democracy, Garry Jacobs, an academic/consultant who still believes in classical liberal economics operating in a pluralistic and preferably non-militaristic society, warns that world-wide democracy is under siege. " Democratic elections have become the means for installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and pinnacle of achievement."

http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-3/issue-3/political-economy-neoliberalism-and-illiberal-democracy

While neoliberals in the populist rightwing wholeheartedly share and promote such views, those who embrace the pluralist-identity politics camp are just as supportive of many aspects of the corporate welfare-police-counterterrorism state as a means to engender domestic sociopolitical conformity and to achieve closer global economic integration. The question is not so much what each political camp under the larger neoliberal umbrella pursues as a strategy to mobilize a popular base but whether the economic-social policies intertwined with a corporate-welfare-police-counterterrorism state is the driving force toward a Fascist model of government. In both the pluralist model with some aspects of the social safety net, and the rightwing populist version neoliberalism's goal is rapid capital accumulation on a world scale, institutional submission of the individual and molding the citizen's subjective reality around the neoliberal ideology.

Illiberal politics in our time is partly both symptomatic of and a reaction to neoliberal globalism and culture wars that serve to distract from the intensified class struggle boiling beneath the surface. Rhetorically denouncing globalist neoliberalism, populist rightwing politicians assert the importance of national capitalism but always within the perimeters of neoliberal policies. Hence they co-opt the socio-cultural positions of nationalist extremists as a political strategy to mobilize the masses. Scholars, journalists and politicians have speculated whether the rising tide of rightwing populism pursuing neoliberalism under authoritarian models not just in the Western World, but Eastern Europe, South Asia and Africa reflects the rejection of liberal democracy and the triumph of illiberal politics that best reflects and serves the political economy. Unquestionably, there is a direct correlation between the internationalization of the Western neoliberal transformation model imposed on the world in the post-Soviet era and the rise of rightwing populism reacting to the gap between the promises of what capitalism was supposed to deliver and the reality of downward pressures on living standards. http://www.counterfire.org/interview/18068-india-s-nightmare-the-extremism-of-narendra-modi ; http://ac.upd.edu.ph/index.php/news-announcements/1201-southeast-asian-democracy-neoliberalism-populism-vedi-hadiz ; http://balticworlds.com/breaking-out-of-the-deadlock-of-neoliberalism-vs-rightwing-populism/

Not just the US, but Europe has been flirting with 'illiberal democracy' characterized by strong authoritarian-style elected officials as Garry Jacobs has observed. Amid elections in Bosnia in 1996, US diplomat Richard Holbrooke wondered about the rightwing path of former Yugoslav republics. "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma." Twenty years after what Holbrooke dreaded election outcomes in Yugoslavia, the US elected a rightwing neoliberal populist leading the Republican Party and making culture wars a central theme to distract from the undercurrent class struggle in the country. A structural issue that transcends personalities, this reality in America is symptomatic of the link between neoliberalism and the rise of illiberal democracy in a number of countries around the world. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy

Some political observers analyzing the rightist orientation of neoliberal policies have concluded that neoliberalism and Fascism have more in common than people realize. In 2016, Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates Union of Belgium, wrote a brief article arguing that Neoliberalism is indeed a form of Fascism; a position people seem to be willing to debate after the election of Donald Trump pursuing neoliberal policies with a rightwing populist ideological and cultural platform to keep a popular base loyal to the Republican Party. "Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy." http://www.defenddemocracy.press/president-belgian-magistrates-neoliberalism-form-fascism/

It is ironic that neoliberal society is 'a species of fascism', but there no widespread popular opposition from leftist groups to counter it. People remain submissive to the neoliberal state that has in fact eroded much of what many in the pluralist camp hail as liberal democratic institutions. Most adapt to the status quo because to do otherwise means difficulty surviving today just as it was difficult to survive under Fascism for those in opposition; as Palmiro Togliatti noted ( Lectures on Fascism, 1935) when he cautioned about castigating workers who joined the party simply because they placed survival of their family above any progressive ideology. Because evidence of systemic exploitation ingrained into society passes as the 'norm', and partly because repression targets minority groups, migrants, and the working class, especially those backing trade unions and progressive political parties, people support the neoliberal state that they see as the constitutional entity and the only means for survival.

The media, government and mainstream institutions denounce anyone crying out for social justice, human rights and systemic change. Such people are 'trendy rebels', as though social justice is a passing fad like a clothing line, misguided idealists or treasonous criminals. Considering that the corporate-owned and state media validates the legitimacy of the neoliberal social contract, the political class and social elites enjoy the freedom to shape the state's goals in the direction toward a surveillance police-state. All of this goes without notice in the age when it is almost expected because it is defaulted to technology making easy to detect foreign and domestic enemies while using the same technology to shape the citizen's subjective reality.

Partly because of the communications revolution in the digital age, neoliberalism has the ability to mold the citizen beyond loyalty to the social contract not just into mechanical observance but total submission to its institutions by reshaping the person's values and identity. In this respect, neoliberalism is not so different from Fascism whose goal was to mold the citizen. " Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it.

https://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/this_is_our_neoliberal_nightmare_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_and_why_the_market_and_the_wealthy_win_every_time/

Although people go about their daily lives focused on their interests, they operate against the background of neoliberal institutions that determine their lives in every respect from chatting on their cell phones to how they live despite their illusions of free will. As the world witnessed a segment of the population openly embracing fascism from movement to legitimate political party in interwar Europe, a corresponding rise in racism and ethnocentrism under the umbrella of rightwing neoliberal populism has taken place in the first two decades of the 21 st century.

Representing the UN Human Rights agency, Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad al-Hussein stated that 2016 was disastrous for human rights, as the 'clash of civilizations' construct has become ingrained into the political mainstream in Western countries. "In some parts of Europe, and in the United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It is becoming part of normal daily discourse." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/united-nations-chilling-warning-rise-fascism-human-rights-prince-zeid-a7464861.html

Because neoliberalism has pushed all mainstream bourgeois political parties to the right, the far right no longer seems nearly as extreme today as it did during the Vietnam War's protest generation who still had hope for a socially just society even if that meant strengthening the social welfare system. The last two generations were raised knowing no alternative to neoliberalism; the panacea for all that ails society is less social welfare and privatization of public services within the framework of a state structure buttressing corporate welfare. The idea that nothing must be tolerated outside the hegemonic market and all institutions must mirror the neoliberal model reflects a neo-totalitarian society where sociopolitical conformity follows because survival outside the system is not viable.

Although Western neoconservatives have employed the term 'neo-totalitarian' to describe Vladimir Putin's Russia, the term applies even more accurately to the US and someEuropean nations operating under neoliberal-military-police state structures with as much power than the Russian bureaucratic state has at its disposal.The contradiction of neoliberalism rests in the system's goal of integrating everyone into the neo-totalitarian mold. Because of the system's inherent hierarchical structure, excluding most from the institutional mainstream and limiting popular sovereignty to the elites exposes the exploitation and repression goals that account for the totalitarian nature of the system masquerading as democratic where popular sovereignty is diffused. The seemingly puzzling aspect of the rise in rightwing populism across the globe that rests in marginalization of a segment of the population and the support for it not just from certain wealthy individuals financing extremist movements, but from a segment of the middle class and even working class lining up behind it because they see their salvation with the diminution of weaker social groups. This pattern was also evident in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and pro-Nazi authoritarian regimes of the interwar era. https://www.demdigest.org/neo-totalitarian-russia-potent-existential-threat-west/ ; Benjamin Moffitt, The Global Rise of Populism (2017.

Because of contradictions in bourgeois liberal democracy where capital accumulation at any social cost is the goal, the system produced the current global wave of rightwing populism just as capitalism in the interwar era gave rise to Fascism. As one analyst put it, " The risk democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign. http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/41987-neoliberalism-fascism-and-sovereignty /

Public opinion surveys of a number of countries around the world, including those in the US, indicated that most people do not favor the existing social contract rooted in neoliberal policies that impact everything from living standards and labor policy to the judicial system and foreign affairs. Instead of driving workers toward a leftwing revolutionary path, many support rightwing populism that has resulted in the rise of even greater oppression and exploitation. Besides nationalism identified with the powerful elites as guardians of the national interest, many among the masses believe that somehow the same social contract responsible for existing problems will provide salvation they seek. While widespread disillusionment with neoliberal globalization seems to be at the core in the rise of rightwing populism, the common denominator is downward social mobility. (Doug Miller, Can the World be Wrong ? 2015)

As Garry Jacobs argues, "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and humanity's future. http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-3/issue-3/political-economy-neoliberalism-and-illiberal-democracy

Just as in the interwar era when many Europeans lost confidence in the rationalism of the Enlightenment and lapsed into amorality and alienation that allowed for even greater public manipulation by the hegemonic culture, in the early 21 st the neoliberal social contract with a complex matrix of communications at its disposal is able to indoctrinate on a mass scale more easily than ever. Considering the low level of public trust in the mainstream media that most people regardless of political/ideological position view as propaganda rather than informational, cynicism about national and international institutions prevails. As the fierce struggle for power among mainstream political parties competing to manage the state on behalf of capital undercuts the credibility of the political class, rightwing elements enter the arena as 'outsider' messiahs above politics (Bonapartism in the 21 st century) to save the nation, while safeguarding the neoliberal social contract. This is as evident in France where the pluralist political model of neoliberalism has strengthened the neo-Fascist one that Marine Le Pen represents, as in Trump's America where the Democratic Party's neoliberal policies helped give rise to rightwing populism.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/macronism-neoliberal-triumph-or-next-stage-in-frances-political-crisis/5596722 ; https://socialistworker.org/2016/12/05/the-18th-brumaire-of-trump

As the following article in The Economist points out, widespread disillusionment with globalist neoliberal policies drove people to the right for an enemy to blame for all the calamities that befall society. " Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13% reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party. Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French presidential race. https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-12

Similar to deep-rooted cultural and ideological traits of Nazism in German society, there are similar traits in contemporary US, India and other countries where rightwing populism has found a receptive public. Although there are varieties of populism from Lepenism (Marine Le Pen's National Front) to Trumpism (US Republican Donald Trump) to Modism (India's Narendra Modi), they share common characteristics, including cult of personality as a popular rallying catalyst, promoting hatred and marginalization of minority groups, and promising to deliver a panacea to "society" when in fact their policies are designed to strengthen big capital.

Rightwing populist politicians who pursue neoliberal policies are opportunistically pushing the political popular base toward consolidation of a Fascist movement and often refer to themselves as movement rather than a party. Just as there were liberals who refused to accept the imminent rise of Fascism amid the parliamentary system's collapse in the 1920s, there are neoliberals today who refuse to accept that the global trend of populism is a symptom of failed neoliberalism that has many common characteristics with Fascism. In an article entitled "Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" by Sheri Berman, the neoliberal journal Foreign Affairs , acknowledged that liberal bourgeois democracy is losing its luster around the world. However, the author would not go as far as to examine the structural causes for this phenomenon because to do so would be to attack the social contract within which it operates. Treating rightwing populism as though it is a marginal outgrowth of mainstream conservatism and an aberration rather than the outgrowth of the system's core is merely a thinly veiled attempt to defend the status quo of which rightwing populism is an integral part.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-10-17/populism-not-fascism

Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract

Structural exploitation – "a property of institutions or systems in which the "rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/ – has been an incontrovertible reality of all class-based societiesfrom the establishment of the earliest city-states in Mesopotamia until the present.Usually but not always intertwined with social oppression, structural exploitation entails a relationship of social dominance of an elite group over the rest of society subordinated for the purpose of economic, social, political, and cultural exploitation. Legitimized by the social contract, justifications for institutional exploitation include safety and security of country, eliminating impediments to progress, and emulating nature's competitive forces that exist in the animal kingdom and reflect human nature.

From Solon's laws in 6 th century BC Athens until our contemporary neoliberal era, social contract theory presumes that the state is the catalyst for social harmony if not fairness and not for a privileged social class to exploit the rest of society. No legal system has ever been codified that explicitly states its goal is to use of the state as an instrument of exploitation and oppression. In reality however, from ancient Babylon when King Hammurabi codified the first laws in 1780 B.C. until the present when multinational corporations and wealthy individuals directly or through lobbyists exert preponderate influence in public policy the theoretical assumption is one of fairness and justice for all people as a goal for the social contract.

In the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – biotechnology, nanotechnology, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence – presumably to serve mankind as part of the social contract rather than to exploit more thoroughly and marginalize a large segment of humanity, the persistence of structural exploitation and oppression challenges those with a social conscience and morality rooted in humanist values to question what constitutes societal progress and public interest. Liberal and Christian-Libertarian arguments about free will notwithstanding, it has always been the case that mainstream institutions and the dominant culture indoctrinate people into believing that ending exploitation by changing the social contract is a utopian dream; a domain relegated to poets, philosophers and song writers lacking proper grounding in the reality of mainstream politics largely in the service of the dominant socioeconomic class. The paradox in neoliberal ideology is its emphasis on free choice, while the larger goal is to mold the subjective reality within the neoliberal institutional structure and way of life. The irreconcilable aspects of neoliberalism represent the contradictory goals of the desire to project democratic mask that would allow for popular sovereignty while pursuing capital accumulation under totalitarian methods. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_contractarianism.html ' http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/05/15/indoctrination-and-free-will/

Social cooperation becomes dysfunctional when distortions and contradictions within the system create large-scale social marginalization exposing the divergence between the promise of the neoliberal social contract and the reality in peoples' lives. To manage the dysfunction by mobilizing popular support, the political elites of both the pluralist and the authoritarian-populist wing operating under the neoliberal political umbrella compete for power by projecting the image of an open democratic society. Intra-class power struggles within the elite social and political classes vying for power distracts from social exploitation because the masses line behind competing elites convinced such competition is the essence of democracy. As long as the majority in society passively acquiesces to the legitimacy of the social contract, even if in practice society is socially unjust, the status quo remains secure until systemic contradictions in the political economy make it unsustainable. https://mises.org/library/profound-significance-social-harmony

In the last three centuries, social revolutions, upheavals and grassroots movements have demonstrated that people want a social contract that includes workers, women, and marginalized groups into the mainstream and elevates their status economically and politically. In the early 21 st century, there are many voices crying out for a new social contract based on social justice and equality against neoliberal tyranny. However, those faint voices are drowned against the preponderate neoliberal public policy impacting every sector while shaping the individual's worldview and subjective reality. The triumph of neoliberal orthodoxy has deviated from classical liberalism to the degree that dogmatism 'single-thought' process dominates not just economics, not just the social contract, but the very fabric of our humanity. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21598282.2013.761449?journalCode=rict20 ; https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world

Under neoliberalism, "Uberization" as a way of life is becoming the norm not just in the 'financialization' neoliberal economy resting on speculation rather than productivity but in society as well. The neoliberal ideology has indoctrinated the last two generations that grew up under this system and know no other reality thus taking for granted the neoliberal way of life as natural as the air they breathe. Often working two jobs, working overtime without compensation or taking work home just to keep the job has become part of chasing the dream of merely catching up with higher costs of living. People have accepted perpetual work enmeshed with the capitalist ideology of perpetual economic growth perversely intertwined with progress of civilization. The corporate ideology of "grow or die" at any cost is in reality economic growth confined to the capitalist class, while fewer and fewer people enjoy its fruits and communities, cities, entire countries under neoliberal austerity suffer.

Carl Boggs, The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere , 2000; https://monthlyreview.org/2007/04/01/the-financialization-of-capitalism/ ; https://permaculturenews.org/2012/06/15/myth-of-perpetual-growth-is-killing-america/

The incentive for conformity is predicated on the belief that the benefits of civilization would be fairly distributed if not in the present then at some point in the future for one's children or grandchildren; analogous to living a virtuous life in order to enjoy the rewards after death. As proof that the system works for the benefit of society and not just the capitalist class, neoliberal apologists point to stock market gains and surprisingly there is a psychological impact – the wealth effect – on the mass consumer who feels optimistic and borrows to raise consumption. Besides the fact that only a very small percentage of people on the planet own the vast majority of securities, even in the US there is no correlation between stock market performance and living standards. (John Seip and Dee Wood Harper, The Trickle Down Delusion , 2016)
If we equate the stock market with the 'wealth of the nation', then in 1982 when the S & P index stood at 117 rising to 2675 in December 2017, the logical conclusion is that living standards across the US rose accordingly. However, this is the period when real incomes for workers and the middle class actually declined despite sharp rise in productivity and immense profits reflected in the incomes gap reflected in the bottom 90% vs. the top 10%. This is also the period when we see the striking divergence between wealth accumulation for the top 1% and a relative decline for the bottom 90%. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/upshot/income-inequality-united-states.html ; https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/

A research study compiled by the pro-organized labor non-profit think tank 'Economic Policy Institute' stresses the divergence between productivity and real wages. While the top 0.01% of America's experienced 386% income growth between 1980 and 1914, the bottom 90% suffered 3% real income drop. Whereas in 1980 income share for the bottom 90% stood at 65% and for the top 1% it stood at 10%, by 2014 the bottom 90% held just half of the income, while the top 1% owned 21%. This dramatic income divergence, which has been shown in hundreds of studies and not even neoliberal billionaires deny their validity, took place under the shift toward the full implementation of the neoliberal social contract. It is significant to note that such income concentration resulting from fiscal policy, corporate subsidy policy, privatization and deregulation has indeed resulted in higher productivity exactly as neoliberal apologists have argued. However, higher worker productivity and higher profits has been made possible precisely because of income transfer from labor to capitalist. http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ ; https://aneconomicsense.org/2015/07/13/the-highly-skewed-growth-of-incomes-since-1980-only-the-top-0-5-have-done-better-than-before/

"Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2 percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and 2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from 2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire 1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the productivity–pay divergence. " (Josh Bivens and Lawrence Mishel, "Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why It's Real" in Economic Policy Institute, 2015, http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/

The average corporate tax rate in the world has been cut in half in the last two decades from about 40% to 22%, with the effective rate actually paid lower than the official rate. This represents a massive transfer of wealth to the highest income brackets drained from the working class. More than half-a-century ago, American anthropologist Jules Henry wrote that: "The fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against Man (1963). The myth that the neoliberal policies in the information age lead toward a society richer for all people is readily refuted by the reality of huge wealth distribution gaps resulting from 'informational capitalism' backed by the corporate welfare state.

Capital accumulation not just in the US but on a world scale without a ceiling has resulted in more thorough exploitation of workers and in a less socially just society today than in the early 1960s when Jules Henry was writing and it is headed increasingly toward authoritarian models of government behind the very thin veneer of meaningless elections. Against this background of unfettered neoliberalism, social responsibility is relegated to issues ranging from corporate-supported sustainable development in which large businesses have a vested interest as part of future designs on capital accumulation, to respecting lifestyle and cultural and religious freedoms within the existing social contract. (Dieter Plehwe et al. eds., Neoliberal Hegemony , 2006; Carl Ferenbach and Chris Pinney, " Toward a 21st Century Social Contract" Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 24, No 2, 2012; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00372.x/abstract

At its Annual conference in 2017 where representatives from the 'Fortune 500', academia, think tanks, NGOs, and government, business consultancy group BSR provided the following vision under the heading "A 21 st Century Social Contract" : "The nature of work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs." https://bsr17.org/agenda/sessions/the-21st-century-social-contract

Representing multinational corporate members and proud sponsors of sustainable development solutions within the neoliberal model, BSR applauded the aspirations and expectations of today's business people that expect to concentrate even more capital as the economy becomes more 'UBERized' and reliant on the new digital technology. Despite fear and anxiety about a bleak techno-science future as another mechanism to keep wages as close to subsistence if not below that level as possible, peoples' survival instinct forces them to adjust their lives around the neoliberal social contract. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531726/technology-and-inequality/

Reflecting the status quo, the media indoctrinate people to behave as though systemic exploitation, oppression, division, and marginalization are natural while equality and the welfare of the community represent an anathema to bourgeois civilization. What passes as the 'social norm', largely reflects the interests of the socioeconomic elites propagating the 'legitimacy' of their values while their advocates vilify values that place priority on the community aspiring to achieve equality and social justice. (Robert E. Watkins, " Turning the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One Night" , 2016).

The neoliberal myth that the digital technological revolution and the 'knowledge based economy' (KBE) of endless innovation is the catalyst not only to economic growth but to the preservation of civilization and welfare of society has proved hollow in the last four decades. Despite massive innovation in the domain of the digital and biotech domains, socioeconomic polarization and environmental degradation persist at much higher rates today than in the 1970s. Whether in the US, the European Union or developing nations, the neoliberal promise of 'prospering together' has been a farce. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tsq.12106/full ; http://www.ricerchestoriche.org/?p=749

Neoliberal myths about upward linear progress across all segments of society and throughout the world notwithstanding, economic expansion and contraction only result in greater capital concentration. "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network." https://weeklybolshevik.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/imperialism-and-the-concentration-of-capital/ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf .

With each passing recessionary cycle of the past four decades working class living standards have retreated and never recovered. Although the techno-science panacea has proved a necessary myth and a distraction from the reality of capital concentration, considering that innovation and technology are integral parts of the neoliberal system, the media, politicians, business elites, corporate-funded think tanks and academics continue to promote the illusive 'modernist dream' that only a small segment of society enjoys while the rest take pride living through it vicariously. ( Laurence Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski, "Neoliberalism and technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?"

https://www.academia.edu/1937914/Neoliberalism_and_technology

Rooted in militarism and police-state policies, the culture of fear is one of the major ways that the neoliberal regime perpetually distracts people from structural exploitation and oppression in a neoliberal society that places dogmatic focus on atomism. Despite the atomistic value system as an integral part of neoliberalism, neoliberals strongly advocate a corporate state welfare system. Whether supporting pluralism and diversity or rightwing populists, neoliberals agree that without the state buttressing the private sector, the latter will collapse. Author of Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism (2007) David Ciepley argues in "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" that the system's contradictions have led to the authoritarian political model as its only option moving forward.

"Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize) the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth, intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the juncture at which we have arrived." https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/corporate-contradictions-neoliberalism/

Adhering to a tough law-and-order policy, neoliberals have legalized large-scale criminal activity perpetrated by capitalists against society while penalizing small-scale crimes carried out mostly by people in the working class and the marginalized lumpenproletariat . Regardless of approaches within the neoliberal social contract, neoliberal politicians agree on a lengthy prison sentences for street gangs selling narcotics while there is no comparable punishment when it comes to banks laundering billions including from narcotics trafficking, as Deutsche Bank among other mega banks in the US and EU; fixing rates as Barclays among others thus defrauding customers of billions; or creating fake accounts as Wells Fargo , to say nothing of banks legally appropriating billions of dollars from employees and customers and receiving state (taxpayer) funding in times of 'banking crises'. Although it seems enigmatic that there is acquiescence for large scale crimes with the institutional cover of 'legitimacy' by the state and the hegemonic culture, the media has conditioned the public to shrug off structural exploitation as an integral part of the social contract. http://theweek.com/articles/729052/brief-history-crime-corruption-malfeasance-american-banks ; https://www.globalresearch.ca/corruption-in-the-european-union-scandals-in-banking-fraud-and-secretive-ttip-negotiations/5543935

Neoliberalism's reach does not stop with the de-criminalization of white-collar crime or the transfer of economic policy from the public sector to corporations in order to reverse social welfare policies. Transferring sweeping policy powers from the public to the corporate sector, neoliberalism's tentacles impact everything from labor and environment to health, education and foreign policy into the hands of the state-supported corporate sector in an effort to realize even greater capital concentration at an even greater pace. This has far reaching implications in peoples' lives around the world in everything from their work and health to institutions totalitarian at their core but projecting an image of liberal democracy on the surface. (Noam Chomsky and R. W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order , 2011; Pauline Johnson, "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" European Journal of Social Theory , 2014

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368431014534354?journalCode=esta

Comprehensive to the degree that it aims to diminish the state's role by having many of its functions privatized, neoliberalism's impact has reached into monetary policy trying to supplant it with rogue market forces that test the limits of the law and hard currencies. The creation of cryptocurrencies among them BITCOIN that represents the utopian dream of anarcho-libertarians interested in influencing if not dreaming of ultimately supplanting central banks' role in monetary policy is an important dimension of neoliberal ideology. Techno-utopians envisioning the digital citizen in a neoliberal society favor a 'gypsy economy' operating on a digital currency outside the purview of the state's regulatory reach where it is possible to transfer and hide money while engaging in the ultimate game of speculation. ( https://btctheory.com ; Samuel Valasco and Leonardo Medina, The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies , 2013)

Credited as the neoliberal prophet whose work and affiliate organizations multinational corporations funded, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek favored market forces to determine monetary policy rather than having government in that role working behind central banks. Aside from the fact that central banks cater to capital and respond to markets and no other constituency, Hayek's proposal ( The Denationalization of Money , 1976) was intended to permit the law of the 'free market' (monetary speculation) determine policy that would impact peoples' living standards. Hence capital accumulation would not be constrained by government regulatory measures and the coordination of monetary policy between central banks. In short, the law of unfettered banking regulation would theoretically result in greater economic growth, no matter the consequences owing to the absence of banking regulatory measures that exacerbate contracting economic cycles such as in 2008. www.voltaire.org/article30058.html )

In December 2017, the UK and EU warned that cryptocurrencies are used in criminal enterprises, including money laundering and tax evasion. Nevertheless, crypto-currency reflects both the ideology and goals of capital accumulation of neoliberals gaining popularity among speculators in the US and other countries. Crypto-currencyfulfills the neoliberal speculator's dream by circumventing the IMF basket of reserved currencies on which others trade while evading regulatory constraints and all mechanisms of legal accountability for the transfer of money and tax liability.

Although a tiny fraction of the global monetary system, computer networks make crypto-currency a reality for speculators, tax evaders, those engaged in illegal activities and even governments like Venezuela under Nocolas Maduro trying to pump liquidity into the oil-dependent economy suffering from hyperinflation and economic stagnation If the crypto-currency system can operate outside the purview of the state, then the neoliberal ideology of trusting the speculator rather than the government would be proved valid about the superfluous role of central banks and monetary centralization, a process that capitalism itself created for the harmonious operation of capitalism. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/bitcoin-uk-eu-plan-cryptocurrency-price-traders-anonymity ; http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2099017-venezuela-inflacion-nicolas-maduro-crisis-precios

Indicative of the success of the neoliberal ideology's far reaching impact in economic life cryptocurrencies' existencealso reflects the crisis of capitalism amid massive assaults on middle class and working class living standards in the quest for greater capital concentration. In an ironic twist, the very neoliberal forces that promote cryptocurrencies decry their use by anti-Western nations – Iran, Venezuela, and Russia among others.The criticism of anti-Western governments resorting to cryptocurrenciesis based on their use as a means of circumventing the leverage that reserve currencies like the dollar and euro afford to the West over non-Western nations. This is only one of a few contradictions that neoliberalism creates and undermines the system it strives to build just as it continues to foster its ideology as the only plausible one to pursue globally. Another contradiction is the animosity toward crypto-currencies from mainstream financial institutions that want to maintain a monopoly on government-issued currency which is where they make their profits. As the world's largest institutional promoter of neoliberalism, the IMF has cautioned not to dismiss cryptocurrencies because they could have a future, or they may actually 'be the future'. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-unlimited-potential-lies-in-apolitical-core/ ; http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/bitcoin-ethereum-cryptocurrency-imf-christine-lagarde/

After the "Washington Consensus" of 1989, IMF austerity policies are leverage to impose neoliberal policies globally have weakened national institutions from health to education and trade unions that once formed a social bond for workers aspiring to an integrative socially inclusive covenant in society rather than marginalization. The IMF uses austerity policies for debt relief as leverage to have the government provide more favorable investment conditions and further curtail the rights of labor with everything from ending collective bargaining to introducing variations of "right-to-work" laws" that prohibit trade unions from forcing collective strikes, collecting dues or signing the collective contract. Justified in the name of 'capitalist efficiency', weakening organized labor and its power of collective bargaining has been an integral part of the neoliberal social contract as much in the US and UK as across the rest of the world, invariably justified by pointing to labor markets where workers earn the lowest wages. (B. M. Evans and S. McBride, Austerity: The Lived Experience , 2017; Vicente Berdayes, John W. Murphy, eds. Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the Normalization of Violence , 2016).

Although many in the mainstream media took notice of the dangers of neoliberalism leading toward authoritarianism after Trump's election, a few faint voices have been warning about this inevitability since the early 1990s. Susan George, president of the Transnational Institute, has argued that neoliberalism is contrary to democracy, it is rooted in Social Darwinism, it undermines the liberal social contract under which that people assume society operates, but it is the system that governments and international organization like the IMF have been promoting.

"Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily. It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance, neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the categories of both winners and losers."

https://www.tni.org/en/article/short-history-neoliberalism

Those on the receiving end of neoliberalism's Social Darwinist orientation are well aware of public policy's negative impact on their lives but they feel helpless to confront the social contract. According to opinion polls, people around the world realize there is a huge gap between what political and business leaders, and international organizations claim about institutions designed to benefit all people and the reality of marginalization. The result is loss of public confidence in the social contract theoretically rooted in consent and democracy. "When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to 59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. (Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism", http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html )

Not just in developing nations operating under authoritarian capitalist model to impose neoliberal policies, but in advanced countries people recognize that the bourgeois freedom, democracy and justice are predicated on income. Regardless of whether the regime operates under a pluralistic neoliberal regime or rightwing populist one, the former much more tolerant of diversity than the latter, the social contract goals are the same. In peoples' lives around the world social exploitation has risen under neoliberal policies whether imposed the nation-state, a larger entity such as the EU, or international organizations such as the IMF. Especially for the European and US middle class, but also for Latin American and African nations statistics show that the neoliberal social contract has widened the poor-rich gap.

In a world where the eight wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the bottom 50% or 3.6 billion people, social exploitation and oppression has become normal because the mainstream institutions present it in such light to the world and castigate anyone critical of institutionalized exploitation and oppression. Rightwing populist demagogues use nationalism, cultural conservatism and vacuous rhetoric about the dangers of big capital and 'liberal elites' to keep the masses loyal to the social contract by faulting the pluralist-liberal politicians rather than the neoliberal social contract. As the neoliberal political economy has resulted in a steady rising income gap and downward social mobility in the past three decades, it is hardly surprising that a segment of the masses lines behind rightwing populist demagogues walking a thin line between bourgeois democracy and Fascism.

(Alan Wertheimer, Exploitation , 1999; Ruth J. Sample, Exploitation; What is it and why it is Wrong , 2003; http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/31/investing/wells-fargo-fake-accounts/index.html ; https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/14/1662227/-Was-suicide-of-Deutsche-Bank-executive-linked-to-Trump-and-Russia-money-laundering

Seizing power from sovereign states, multinational corporation are pursuing neoliberal policy objectives on a world scale, prompting resistance to the neoliberal social contract which rarely class-based and invariably identity-group oriented manifested through environmental, gender, race, ethnicity, gay, religious and minority groups of different sorts. Regardless of the relentless media campaign to suppress class consciousness, workers are aware that they have common interests and public opinion studies reveal as much. (Susan George, Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power , 2015)

According to the Pew Research center, the world average for satisfaction with their governments are at 46%, the exact percentage as in the US that ranks about the same as South Africa and much lower than neighboring Canada at 70% and Sweden at 79%. " Publics around the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems. Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions. Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%).

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/many-unhappy-with-current-political-system/

As confounding as it appears that elements of the disillusioned middle class and working class opt either for the exploitation of pluralist neoliberalism or the exploitation and oppression of rightwing populism expressed somewhat differently in each country, it is not difficult to appreciate the immediacy of a person's concerns for survival like all other species above all else. The assumption of rational behavior in the pursuit of social justice is a bit too much to expect considering that people make irrational choices detrimental to their best interests and to society precisely because the dominant culture has thoroughly indoctrinated them. It seems absurd that indirectly people choose exploitation and oppression for themselves and others in society, but they always have as the dominant culture secular and religious indoctrinates them into accepting exploitation and oppression. (Shaheed Nick Mohammed, Communication and the Globalization of Culture , 2011)

Throughout Western and Eastern Europe rightwing political parties are experiencing a resurgence not seen since the interwar era, largely because the traditional conservatives moved so far to the right. Even the self-baptized Socialist parties are nothing more than staunch advocates of the same neoliberal status quo as the traditional conservatives. The US has also moved to the right long before the election of Donald Trump who openly espouses suppression of certain fundamental freedoms as an integral part of a pluralistic society. As much as in the US and Europe as in the rest of the world, analysts wonder how could any working class person champion demagogic political leaders whose vacuous populist rhetoric promises 'strong nation" for all but their policies benefit the same socioeconomic elites as the neoliberal politicians.(J. Rydgren (Ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right , 2012)

Rooted onclassical liberal values of the Enlightenment, the political and social elites present a social contract that is theoretically all-inclusive and progressive, above all 'fair' because it permits freedom to compete, when in reality the social structure under which capitalism operates necessarily entails exploitation and oppression that makes marginalization very clear even to its staunchest advocates who then endeavor to justify it by advancing theories about individual human traits.

In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States. Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality, the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been resolved." http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/01/15/public-attitudes-toward-the-next-social-contract/

The neoliberal model of capitalism spewing forth from core countries to the periphery and embraced by capitalists throughout the world has resulted in greater social inequality, exploitation and oppression, despite proclamations that by pluralist-diversity neoliberals presenting themselves as remaining true to 'democracy'. The tilt to the right endorsed at the ballot box by voters seeking solutions to systemic problems and a more hopeful future indicates that some people demand exclusion and/or punishment of minority social groups in society, as though the exploitation and oppression of 'the other' would vicariously elevate the rest of humanity to a higher plane. Although this marks a dangerous course toward authoritarianism and away from liberal capitalism and Karl Popper's 'Open Society' thesis operating in a pluralistic world against totalitarianism, it brings to surface the essence of neoliberalism which is totalitarian, the very enemy Popper and his neoconservative followers were allegedly trying to prevent. (Calvin Hayes, Popper, Hayek and the Open Society , 2009)

Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism

Social Exclusion

Every sector of society from the criminal justice system to elderly care has been impacted by neoliberal social marginalization. More significant than any other aspect of neoliberalism, the creation of a chronic debtor classwithout any assets is floating a step above the structurally unemployed and underemployed.The Industrial revolution exacerbated social exclusion producing an underclass left to its own fate by a state that remained faithful to the social contract's laissez philosophy. Composed of vagrants, criminals, chronically unemployed, and people of the streets that British social researcher Henry Mayhew described in London Labour and the London Poor , a work published three years after the revolutions of 1848 that shattered the liberal foundations of Europe, the lumpenproletariat caught the attention of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ( The German Ideology ) interested in the industrial working class movement as the vanguard of the revolution.

Lacking a class consciousness thus easily exploited by the elites the lumpenproletariat were a product of industrial capitalism's surplus labor that kept wages at or just above subsistence levels, long before European and American trade union struggles were able to secure a living wage.In the last four decades neoliberal policies have created a chronic debtor working class operating under the illusion of integration into the mainstream when in fact their debtor status not only entails social exclusion but relegated to perpetual servitude dependence and never climbing out of it. The neoliberal state is the catalyst to the creation of this new class. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/a-164-year-old-idea-helps-explain-the-huge-changes-sweeping-the-world-s-workforce

In an essay entitled "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st Century"

Portuguese social scientists Elísio Estanque and Hermes Augusto Costa argue that the manner that neoliberalism has impacted Europe's social structure in both core and periphery countries has given rise to the new precarious working class, often college-degreed, overqualified, and struggling to secure steady employment especially amid recessionary cycles that last longer and run deeper.

"The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest." http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34149/InTech-Labour_relations_and_social_movements_in_the_21st_century.pdf

'Proletarization' of the declining middle class and downward income pressure for the working class and middle classhas been accompanied by the creation of a growing chronic debtor class in the Western World. Symptomatic of the neoliberal globalist world order, the creation of the debtor class and more broadly social exclusion transcends national borders, ethnicity, gender, culture, etc. Not just at the central government level, but at the regional and local levels, public policy faithfully mimics the neoliberal model resulting in greater social exclusion while there is an effort to convince people that there is no other path to progress although people were free to search; a dogma similar to clerical intercession as the path to spiritual salvation. http://www.isreview.org/issues/58/feat-economy.shtml

The neoliberal path to salvation has resulted in a staggering 40% of young adults living with relatives out of financial necessity. The number has never been greater at any time in modern US history since the Great Depression, and the situation is not very different for Europe. Burdened with debt, about half of the unemployed youth are unable to find work and most that work do so outside the field of their academic training. According to the OECD, youth unemployment in the US is not confined only to high school dropouts but includes college graduates. Not just across southern Europe and northern Africa, but in most countries the neoliberal economy of massive capital concentration has created a new lumpenproletariat that has no assets and carries debt. Owing to neoliberal policies, personal bankruptcies have risen sharply in the last four decades across the Western World reflecting the downward social mobility and deep impact on the chronically indebted during recessionary cycles. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/ ; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-young-americans-living-with-their-parents-is-now-the-norm/ ; Iain Ramsay, Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US and Europe, 2017)

Historically, the safe assumption has been that higher education is the key to upward social mobility and financial security, regardless of cyclical economic trends. However, the laws of overproduction apply not only to commodities but to the labor force, especially as the information revolution continues to chip away at human labor. College education is hardly a guarantee to upward social mobility, but often a catalyst to descent into the debtor unemployed class,or minimum wage/seasonalpart time job or several such jobs. The fate of the college-educated falling into the chronic debtor class is part of a much larger framework, namely the 'financialization' of the economy that is at the core of neoliberalism. ( Vik Loveday, "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review , September 2014) Beyond the simplisticsuggestion of 'more training' to keep up with tech changes, the root cause of social exclusion and the chronic debtor class revolves around the 'financialization' of the neoliberal globalist economy around which central banks make monetary policy. Since the beginning of the Thatcher-Reagan era, advanced capitalist countries led by the US conducted policy to promote the centrality of financial markets as the core of the economy. This entails resting more on showing quarterly profit even at the expense of taking on debt, lower productivity and long-term sustainability, or even breaking a company apart and dismissing workers because it would add shareholder value. Therefore, the short-term financial motives and projection of market performance carry far more weight than any other consideration.

Symptomatic of a combination of deregulation and the evolution of capitalism especially in core countries from productive to speculative, financialization has transformed the world economy. Enterprises from insurance companies to brokerage firms and banks like Goldman Sachs involved in legal and quasi-legal practices, everything from the derivatives market to helping convert a country's sovereign debt into a surplus while making hefty profits has been part of the financialization economy that speeds up capital concentration and creates a wider rich-poor gap. Housing, health, pension systems, health care and personal consumption are all impacted by financialization that concentrates capital through speculation rather than producing anything from capital goods to consumer products and services. (Costas Lapavitsas, The Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing' http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13604813.2013.853865

Billionaire speculator George Soros has observed that market speculation not only drives prices higher, especially of commodities on a world scale, but the inevitability of built-in booms and busts are disruptive simply because a small group of people have secured a legal means for capital accumulation. At the outbreak of the US stock market collapse followed by the 'great recession' of 2008, the European Network and Debt and Development (EURODAD) published an article critical of financialization and its impact on world hunger.

"Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60 – 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling inflation and new debt." http://eurodad.org/uploadedfiles/whats_new/news/food%20speculation%202%20pager%20final.pdf

Someone has to pay for the speculative nature of financialization, and the labor force in all countries is the first to do so through higher indirect taxes, cuts in social programs and jobs and wages for the sake of stock performance. Stock markets around which public policy is conducted have eroded the real economy while molding a culture of financialization of the last two generations a large percentage of which has been swimming in personal debt reflecting the debt-ridden financialization economy. Contrary to claims by politicians, business leaders and the media that the neoliberal system of financialization is all about creating jobs and helping to diffuse income to the middle class and workers, the only goal of financialization is wealth concentration while a larger debtor class and social marginalization are the inevitable results. It is hardly surprising that people world-wide believe the political economy is rigged by the privileged class to maintain its status and the political class is the facilitator. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41359-financialization-has-turned-the-global-economy-into-a-house-of-cards-an-interview-with-gerald-epstein ; Costas Lapavitsa, Financialization in Crisis, 2013; Rona Foroohar, Makers and Takers: How Wall Street Destroyed Main Street , 2016)

Despite efforts by pluralist and populist neoliberals throughout the world to use 'culture wars' and identity politics as distractionwhile deemphasizing the role of the state as the catalyst in the neoliberal social contract, the contradictions that the political economy exposes the truth about the socially unjustsociety that marginalizes the uneducated poor and college-educated indebted alike.Not to deemphasize the significance of global power distribution based on the Westphalian nation-state model and regional blocs such as the European Union, but neoliberals are the ones who insist on the obsolete nation-state that the international market transcends, thus acknowledging the preeminence of capitalism in the social contract and the subordination of national sovereignty to international capital and financialization of the economy. After all, the multinational corporation operating in different countries is accountable only to its stockholders, not to the nation-state whose role is to advance corporate interests.

No matter how rightwing populists try to distract people from the real cause of social exclusion and marginalization by focusing onnationalist rhetoric, marginalized social groups and Muslim or Mexican legal or illegal immigrantshave no voice in public policy but financialization speculators do. In an article entitled "The Politics of Public Debt: Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", Wolfgang Streeck concludes that neoliberalism's systemic rewards provide a disincentive for capitalists to abandon financialization in favor of productivity. "Why should the new oligarchs be interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some privately owned island?

http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/02/the-politics-of-public-debt/

An important difference between pluralists and rightwing populists in their approach to the state's role is that the former advocate for a strong legislative branch and weaker executive, while rightwing populists want a strong executive and weak legislative. However, both political camps agree about advancing market hegemony nationally and internationally and both support policies that benefit international and domestic capital, thus facilitating the convergence of capitalist class interests across national borders with the symptomatic results of social exclusion. ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718508000924 ; Vicente Navarro, "The Worldwide Class Struggle" https://monthlyreview.org/2006/09/01/the-worldwide-class-struggle/

Regardless of vacuous rhetoric about a weak state resulting from neoliberal policies, the state in core countries where financialization prevailshas been and remains the catalyst for class hegemony as has been the case since the nascent stage of capitalism. Both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan strengthened the corporate welfare state while openly declaring war against trade unions and by extension on the working class that neoliberals demonize as the enemy of economic progress. As statistics below illustrate, the debtor class expanded rapidly after 1980 when the financialization economy took off, reaching its highest point after the subprime-induced great recession in 2008. Under neoliberal globalist policies, governments around the world followed theReagan-Thatcher model to facilitate over-accumulation of capital in the name of competition. (Montgomerie Johnna, Neoliberalism and the Making of the Subprime Borrower , 2010)

Whether the state is promoting neoliberal policies under a pluralist or authoritarian models, the neoliberal culture has designated labor as the unspoken enemy, especially organized labor regardless of whether the ruling parties have co-opted trade unions. In the struggle for capital accumulation under parasitic financialization policies, the state's view of labor as the enemy makes social conflict inevitable despite the obvious contradiction that the 'enemy-worker' is both the mass consumer on whom the economy depends for expansion and development. Despite this contradiction, neoliberals from firms such as Goldman Sachs has many of its former executives not just in top positions of the US government but world-wide, no matter who is in power. Neoliberal policy resulting in social exclusion starts with international finance capitalism hiding behind the pluralist and rightwing populist masks of politicians desperately vying for power to conduct public policy.

https://www.investopedia.com/news/26-goldman-sachs-alumni-who-run-world-gs/

Just as the serfs were aware in the Middle Ages that Lords and Bishops determined the fate of all down here on earth before God in Heaven had the last word, people today realize the ubiquitous power of capitalists operating behind the scenes, and in some case as with Trump in the forefront of public-policy that results in social exclusion and rising inequality in the name of market fundamentalism promising to deliver the benefits to all people. Neoliberalism has created a chronicdebtor class that became larger after the 2008 recession and will continue growing with each economic contracting cycle in decades to come. Despite its efforts to keep one step ahead of bankruptcy, the identity of the new chronic debtor class rests with the neoliberal status quo, often with the rightwing populist camp that makes rhetorical overtures to the frustrated working classthat realize financialization benefits a small percentage of wealthy individuals.

Personal debt has skyrocketed, reaching $12.58 trillion in the US in 2016, or 80% of GDP. The irony is that the personal debt level is 2016 was the highest since the great recession of 2008 and it is expected to continue much higher, despite the economic recovery and low unemployment. Wage stagnation and higher costs of health, housing and education combined with higher direct and indirect taxes to keep public debt at manageable levels will continue to drive more people into the debtor class. Although some European countries such as Germany and France have lower household debt relative to GDP, all advanced and many developing nations have experienced a sharp rise in personal debt because of deregulation, privatization, and lower taxes on the wealthy with the burden falling on the mass consumer. Hence the creation of a permanent debtor class whose fortunes rest on maintaining steady employment and/or additional part-time employment to meet loan obligations and keep one step ahead of declaring bankruptcy. Austerity policies imposed either by the government through tight credit in advanced capitalist countries or IMF loan conditionality in developing and semi-developed nations the result in either case is lower living standards and a rising debtor class. http://fortune.com/2017/02/19/america-debt-financial-crisis-bubble/

Maurizio Lazzarato's The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition argues that neoliberalism has created a debtor-creditorrelationship which has supplanted the worker-capitalist dichotomy, an argument that others focusing on the financialization of the economy have made as well. Although in Keynesian economics public and private debt was a stimulant for capitalist growth amid the contracting cycle of the economy, the neoliberal era created the permanent chronic debtor class that finds it difficult to extricate itself from that status. Evident after the deep recession of the subprime-financialization-induced recession in 2008, this issue attracted the attention of some politicians and political observers who realized theconvergence of the widening debtor class with the corresponding widening of the rich-poor income gap.

By making both private and public debt, an integral part of the means of production, the neoliberal system has reshaped social life and social relationships because the entire world economy is debt-based. Servicing loans entails lower living standards for the working class in advanced capitalist countries, and even lower in the rest of the world, but it also means integrating the debtor into the system more closely than at any time in history. While it is true that throughout the history of civilization human beings from China and India to Europe have used various systems of credit to transact business (David Graeber, Debt: the First 5000 Years , 2014), no one would suggest reverting back to debt-slavery as part of the social structure. Yet, neoliberalism has created the 'indebted man' as part of a policythat has resulted in social asymmetrical power,aiming to speed up capital accumulation and maintain market hegemony in society while generating greater social exclusion. https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/87E0

Ever since the British Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, followed by a number of other European governments in the early 1800s, there was an assumption that slave labor is inconsistent with free labor markets as well as with the liberal social contract rooted in individual freedom. Nevertheless, at the core of neoliberal capitalismUS consumer debt as of October 2017 stood at $3.8 trillion in a 419 trillion economy. Debt-to-personal income ratio is at 160%; college student debt runs at approximately $1.5 trillion, with most of that since 2000; mortgage debt has tripled since 1955, with an alarming 8 million people delinquent on their payments and the foreclosure rate hovering at 4.5% or three times higher than postwar average; consumer debt has risen 1,700 since 1971 to above $1 trillion, and roughly half of Americans are carrying monthly credit debt with an average rate of 14%. The debt problem is hardly better for Europe where a number of countries have a much higher personal debt per capita than the US.In addition to personal debt, public debt has become a burden on the working class in so far as neoliberal politicians and the IMF are using as a pretext to impose austerity conditions, cut entitlements and social programs amid diminished purchasing power because of inflationary asset values and higher taxes. https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-debt-statistics-causes-and-impact-3305704 ; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/business/dealbook/household-debt-united-states.html

While personal debt is often but not always a reflection of a consumerist society, personal debt encompasses everything from education to health care costs in times when the digital/artificial intelligence economy is creating a surplus labor force that results in work instability and asymmetrical social relations. Technology-automation-induced unemployment driving down living standards creates debtor-workers chasing the technology to keep up with debt payments in order to survive until the next payment is due. Considering the financial system backed by a legal framework is established to favor creditors, especially given the safeguards and protections accorded to creditors in the past four decades, there are many blatant and overt ways that the state uses to criminalize poverty and debt. In 2015, for example, Montana became the first state not to take the driver's license of those delinquent on their student debt, thus decriminalizing debt in this one aspect, though hardly addressing the larger issue of the underlying causes of debt and social exclusion. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:4b8gtht779 ; https://lumpenproletariat.org/tag/neoliberalism/

In an article entitled "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" , Thomas Klikauer stressed that the weakening of the social welfare state took place under the Social Democratic Party (SPD)-Green Party coalition (1998-2005) government pursuing pluralist neoliberal policies. Although historically the SPD had forged a compromise that would permit for the social inclusion of labor into the institutional mainstream, by the 1990s, theSPD once rooted in socialism had fully embraced neoliberalism just as the British Labour Party and all socialist partiers of Europe pursuing social exclusion. Klilauer writes: "Germany's chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat or precariate . These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s." https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/torturing-the-poor-german-style/

No different than working class people in other countries need more than one job to keep up with debt and living expenses, so do three million Germans (rising from 150,000 in 2003) that have the privilege of living in Europe's richest nation. Just as the number of the working poor has been rising in Germany, so have they across the Western World. Social exclusion and the expansion of the debtor class in Germany manifested itself in the national elections of 2017 where for the first time since the interwar era a political party carrying the legacy of Nazism, the Alternative fur Deutchland (AfD), founded by elite ultra-conservatives, captured 13% of the vote to become third-largest party and giving a voice of neo-Nazis who default society's neoliberal ills to Muslims and immigrants. Rejecting the link between market fundamentalism that both the SPD and German conservatives pursued in the last three decades, neoliberal apologists insist that the AfD merely reflects a Western-wide anti-Muslim trend unrelated to social exclusion and the policies that have led to Germany's new lumpenproletariat and working poor. https://crimethinc.com/2017/10/01/the-rise-of-neo-fascism-in-germany-alternative-fur-deutschland-enters-the-parliament ; https://www.jku.at/icae/content/e319783/e319785/e328125/wp59_ger.pdf

Interestingly, US neoliberal policies also go hand-in-hand with Islamophobia and the war on terror under both Democrat and Republican administrations, although the pluralist-diversity neoliberals have been more careful to maintain a politically-correct rhetoric. Just as in Germany and the rest of Europe, there is a direct correlation in the US between the rise in social exclusion ofMuslim and non-Muslim immigrants and minorities and the growing trend of rightwing populism. There is no empirical foundationto arguments that rightwing populism whether in Germany or the US has no historical roots and it is unconnected both to domestic and foreign policies. Although the neoliberal framework in which rightwing populism operates and which creates social exclusion and the new chronic debtor class clashes with neoliberal pluralism that presents itself as democratic, structural exploitation is built into the social contract thus generating grassroots opposition.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/neoliberal-policies-go-hand-in-hand-with-social-exclusion/

Grassroots Resistance to Neoliberalism

Even before the great recession of 2008, there were a number of grassrootsgroups against neoliberal globalism both in advanced and developing nations. Some found expression in social media, others at the local level focused on the impact of neoliberal policies in the local community, and still others attempted to alter public policy through cooperation with state entities and/or international organizations. The most important anti-neoliberal grassroots organizations have been in Brazil ( Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers' Movement), South Africa (Abahlali baseMjondolo, Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, Landless Peoples' Movement), Mexico (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), Haiti (Fanmi Lavalas) and India (Narmada Bachao Andolan).

The vast majority of organizations claiming to be fighting against neoliberal policies are appendages either of the pluralist or the rightwing populist political camp both whose goal is to co-opt the masses as part of their popular base. The anti-globalization movement and by implication anti-neoliberal includes elements from the entire political spectrum from left to ultra-right. From India, to Bangladesh, from South Africa to Brazil, and from the US, France, and the UK, working class resistance to neoliberal globalism has been directly or indirectly co-opted and often de-politicized by corporate-funded or government-funded NGOs and by 'reformist' local and international organizations.

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/a_neoliberal_takeover_of_social_entrepreneurship ; http://anticsr.com/ngos-csr/

By promoting measures invariably in the lifestyle domain but also some social welfare and civil rights issues such as women's rights, renter's rights, etc, the goals of organizations operating within the neoliberal structure is not social inclusion by altering the social contract, but sustaining the status quo by eliminating popular opposition through co-optation. It is hardly a coincidence that the rise of the thousands of NGOs coincided with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1990s, most operating under the guise of aiding the poor, protecting human rights and the environment, and safeguarding individualism. Well-funded by corporations, corporate foundations and governments, NGOs are the equivalent of the 19 th century missionaries, using their position as ideological preparatory work for Western-imposed neoliberal policies. http://socialistreview.org.uk/310/friends-poor-or-neo-liberalism ; https://zeroanthropology.net/2014/08/28/civil-society-ngos-and-saving-the-needy-imperial-neoliberalism/

On the receiving end of corporate and/or government-funded NGOs promoting the neoliberal agenda globally, some leading grassroots movements that advocate changing the neoliberal status quo contend that it is better to 'win' on a single issue such as gay rights, abortion, higher minimum wage, etc. at the cost of co-optation into neoliberal system than to have nothing at all looking in from the outside. Their assumption is that social exclusion can be mitigated one issue at a time through reform from within the neoliberal institutional structure that grassroots organizations deem as the enemy. This is exactly what the pluralist neoliberals are promoting as well to co-opt grassroots opposition groups.

https://ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=34958&EventID=96

Partly because governmental and non-governmental organizations posing as reformist have successfully co-opted grassroots movements often incorporating them into the neoliberal popular base, popular resistance has not been successful despite social media and cell phones that permit instant communication. This was certainly the case with the Arab Spring uprisings across North Africa-Middle East where genuine popular opposition to neoliberal policies of privatization, deregulation impacting everything from health care toliberalizing rent controls led to the uprising. In collaboration with the indigenous capitalists, political and military elites, Western governments directly and through NGOs were able to subvert and then revert to neoliberal policies once post-Arab Spring regimes took power in the name of 'reform' invariably equated with neoliberal policies. https://rs21.org.uk/2014/10/06/adam-hanieh-on-the-gulf-states-neoliberalism-and-liberation-in-the-middle-east/

In "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" Jim Yong Kim ed., 2000) contributing authors illustrate in case studies of several countries how the neoliberal status quo has diminished the welfare of billions of people in developing nations for the sake of growth that simply translates into even greater wealth concentration and misery for the world's poor. According to the study: "100 countries have undergone grave economic decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes 20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993." http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html

Anti-neoliberal groups assume different forms, depending on the nation's history, social and political elites, the nature of institutions and the degree it has been impacted by neoliberal policies that deregulate and eliminate as much of the social safety net as workers will tolerate. Even the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) that experienced rapid growth from the early 1990s until the great recession of 2008 have not escaped mass opposition to neoliberalism precisely because the impact on workers and peasants has been largely negative. https://www.cpim.org/views/quarter-century-neo-liberal-economic-policies-unending-distress-and-peasant-resistance ; Juan Pablo Ferrero, Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, 2014; Mimi Abramovitz and Jennifer Zelnick, " Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" , http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/HS.40.1.f

Grassroots organizations opposed to policies that further integrate their countries into the world economy and marginalize the working class have been especially persistent in South Africa, Brazil, and India. To assuage if not co-opt the masses the BRICS followed a policy mix that combines neoliberalism, aspects of social welfare and statism. Combined with geopolitical opposition to US-NATO militarism and interventionism, the BRICS policies were an attempt to keep not just the national bourgeois loyal but the broader masses by projecting a commitment to national sovereignty.

In Brazil, India and South Africa internal and external corporate pressure along with US, EU, and IMF-World Bank pressures have been especially evident to embrace neoliberal policies and confront grassroots opposition rather than co-opt it at the cost of making concessions to labor. Considering that the development policies of the BRICS in the last three decades of neoliberal globalism accommodated domestic and foreign capital and were not geared to advance living standards for the broader working class and peasantry, grassroots opposition especially in Brazil, India and South Africa where the state structure is not nearly as powerful as in Russia and China manifested itself in various organizations.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12129 ; Walden Bello, The BRICS: Challenges to the Global Status Quo" , in https://www.thenation.com/article/brics-challengers-global-status-quo/

One of the grassroots organizations managing to keep its autonomy is Brazil's Landless Workers Movement (MST)skillfully remaining independent of both former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff. Although the MST supported some policies of theformer presidents who presented themselves as champions of labor rather than capital, both Lula and Rousseff made substantial policy compromises with the neoliberal camp and were eventually implicated in corruption scandals revealing opportunism behind policy-making. While the record of their policies on the poor speaks for itself, the Lula-Rousseff era of Partido dos Trabalhadores was an improvement over previous neoliberal president Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2003). https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/the-brazilian-crisis/

The MST persisted with the struggle against neoliberal policies that have contributed to rising GDP heavily concentrated among the national and comprador bourgeoisie and foreign corporations. Other Latin American grassroots movements have had mixed results not much better than those in Brazil. Ecuador under president Rafael Correa tried to co-opt the leftby yielding on some policy issues as did Lula and Rousseff, while pursuing a neoliberal development model as much as his Brazilian counterparts. With its economy thoroughly integrated into the US economy, Mexico is a rather unique case where grassroots movements against neoliberalism are intertwined with the struggle against official corruption and the narco-trade resulting in the assassination of anti-neoliberal, anti-drug activists. (William Aviles, The Drug War in Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231966134_Grassroots_Movements_and_Political_Activism_in_Latin_America_A_Critical_Comparison_of_Chile_and_Brazil ;

Anti-neoliberal resistance in the advanced countries has not manifested itself as it has in the developing nations through leftist movements such as South Africa's Abahlali baseMjondolo or Latin American trade unions that stress a working class philosophy of needs rather than the one of rights linked to middle class property and identity politics. https://roarmag.org/essays/south-africa-marikana-anc-poor/ Popular resistance to neoliberalism in the US has been part of the anti-globalization movement that includes various groups from environmentalists to anti-IMF-World Bank and anti-militarism groups.

Although there are some locally based groups like East Harlem-based Justice in El Barrio representing immigrants and low-income people, there is no national anti-neoliberal movement. Perhaps because of the war on terror, various anti-establishment pro-social justice groups assumed the form of bourgeois identity politics of both the Democratic Party and the Republican where some of the leaders use rightwing populism as an ideological means to push through neoliberal policies while containing grassroots anger resulting from social exclusion and institutional exploitation. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/the-legacy-of-anti-globalization

Black Lives Matter revolving around the systemic racism issue and Occupy Wall Street anti-capitalist group fell within the left orbit of the Democratic Party (Senator Bernie Sanders) who is an advocate of the pluralist-diversity model, opposes market fundamentalism,and proposes maintaining some vestiges of the Keynesian welfare state. With the exception of isolated voices by a handful of academics and some criticsusing social media as a platform, there is no anti-neoliberal grassroots movement that Democrats or Republicans has not successfully co-opted. Those refusing to be co-opted are invariably dismissed as everything from idealists to obstructionists. Certainlythere is nothing in the US like the anti-neoliberal groups in Brazil, India, Mexico, or South Africa operating autonomously and resisting co-optation by political parties. The absence of such movements in the US is a testament to the strong state structure andthe institutional power of the elites in comparison with many developing nations and even some parts of Europe. https://www.salon.com/2015/08/15/black_lives_matter_joins_a_long_line_of_protest_movements_that_have_shifted_public_opinion_most_recently_occupy_wall_street/

As an integrated economic bloc, Europe follows uniform neoliberal policies using as leverage monetary and trade policy but also the considerable EU budget at its disposal for subsidies and development. A number of European trade unions and leftist popular groups fell into the trap of following either Socialist or centrist parties which are pluralist neoliberal and defend some remnants of Keynesianism. Those disillusioned with mainstream Socialist Parties pursue the same neoliberal policies of social exclusion as the conservatives fell in line behind newly formed non-Communist reformist parties (PODEMOS in Spain, SYRIZA in Greece, for example) with a Keynesian platform and socialist rhetoric.

As the government of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras proved once in power in 2015, self-baptized 'leftist' parties areleftist in rhetoric only. When it comes to policy they are as neoliberal as the opposition they criticize; even more dangerous because they have deceived people to support them as the alternative to neoliberal conservatives. Because grassroots movements andthe popular base of political parties that promise 'reform' to benefit the masses are co-opted by centrists, center-left or rightwing political parties, social exclusion becomes exacerbated leading to disillusionment.

Consequently,people hoping for meaningful change become apathetic or they become angry and more radicalized often turning to rightwing political parties. Although there is a long-standing history of mainstream political parties co-opting grassroots movements, under neoliberalism the goal is to shape them intoan identity politics mold under the pluralist or rightwing populist camp. Behind the illusion of choice and layers of bourgeois issues ranging from property rights and individual rights rests a totalitarian system whose goal is popular compliance. https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/eliane-glaser/elites-right-wing-populism-and-left ;

http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol11/vol11_no1_Left_mythology_and_neoliberal_globalization_Syriza_and_Podemos.html

'De-democratization' under Neoliberalism

More subtly and stealthily interwoven into the institutional structure than totalitarian regimes of the interwar era, neoliberal totalitarianism has succeeded not because of the rightwing populist political camp but because of the pluralist one that supports both militarism in foreign affairs and police-state methods at home as a means of maintaining the social order while projecting the façade of democracy. Whereas the neoliberal surveillance state retains vestiges of pluralism and the façade of electoral choice, the police state in interwar Germany and Italy pursued blatant persecution of declared ideological dogmatism targeting 'enemies of the state' and demanding complete subjugation of citizens to theregime. Just as people were manipulated in interwar Europeinto accepting the totalitarian state as desirable and natural, so are many in our time misguided into supporting neoliberal totalitarianism.

In her book entitled Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (2015), Wendy Brown argues that not just in the public sector, but in every sector of society neoliberal ideology of 'de-democratization' prevails. Extensions of a hierarchical economic system rather than citizens with civil and human rights guaranteed by a social contract aimed at the welfare of the collective, human beings are more commoditized today than they were in the nascent phase of industrial capitalism. The kind of ubiquitous transformation of the individual's identity with the superstructure and the 'de-democratization' of society operating under massively concentrated wealth institutionally intertwined with political power in our contemporary erawas evident in totalitarian countries during the interwar era.

Whereas protest and resistance, freedom of expression and assembly were not permitted by totalitarian regimes in interwar Europe, they are permitted in our time. However, they are so marginalized and/or demonized when analyzing critically mainstream institutions and the social contract under which they operate that they are the stigmatizedas illegitimate opposition. Permitting freedom of speech and assembly, along with due process and electoral politicsbest servesneoliberal socioeconomic totalitarianism because its apologists can claim the system operates in an 'open society'; a term that Karl Popper the ideological father of neo-conservatism coined to differentiate the West from the former Communist bloc closed societies.

As Italian journalist Claudio Hallo put it: "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/171240-global-totalitarianism-change-neoliberalism/

Post-modern consumerist culture has inculcated into peoples' minds that they have never been so free yet they have never felt so helpless, as Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman has commented. Freedom is quantitatively measured based on materialist criteria at the individual rather than collective level and at a cost not just to the rest of society but to one's humanity and any sense of social responsibility sacrificed in the quest for atomistic pursuit.Not only the media, but government at all levels, educational institutions and the private sector incessantly reinforce the illusion of individual freedom within the context of the neoliberal totalitarian institutional structure. This is a sacred value above all others, including knowledge, creativity, and the welfare of society as a whole (public interest supplanted by private profit), as though each individual lives alone on her/his planet. https://thehumanist.com/magazine/march-april-2015/arts_entertainment/what-about-me-the-struggle-for-identity-in-a-market-based-society ; https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/american-nightmare-the-depravity-of-neoliberalism/ ; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic ; https://www.academia.edu/28509196/Neoliberal_Illusions_of_Freedom

In an essay entitled "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" , Hans van Zon argues that as the Western World'sdominant ideologies since the 1980s, "undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any hierarchy in value or belief systems." http://www.imavo.be/vmt/13214-van%20Zon%20postmodernism.pdf . Beyond undermining society's immune system and the open society under capitalism, asHans van Zon contends, the convergence of these ideologies have contributed to the 'de-democratization' of society,the creation of illiberal institutions and collective consciousness of conformity to neoliberal totalitarianism. The success of neoliberalism inculcated into the collective consciousness is partly because of the long-standing East-West confrontation followed by the manufactured war on terror. However, it is also true that neoliberal apologists of both the pluralist and rightwing camp present the social contract as transcending politics because markets are above states, above society as 'objective' thus they can best determine the social good on the basis of commoditized value. (Joshua Ramsay, "Neoliberalism as Political Theology of Chance: the politics of divination." https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201539

An evolutionary course, the 'de-democratization' of society started in postwar US that imposed transformation policy on the world with the goal of maintaining its economic, political, military and cultural superpower hegemony justified in the name of anti-Communism. Transformation policy was at the root of the diffusion of the de-democratization process under neoliberalism, despite the European origin of the ideology. As it gradually regained its status in the core of the world economy after the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, northwest Europe followed in the path of the US. http://www.eurstrat.eu/the-european-neoliberal-union/

Ten years before the Treaty of Rome that created the EEC,Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek gathered a number of scholars in Mont Pelerin where they founded the neoliberal society named after the Swiss village. They discussed strategies of influencing public policy intended to efface the Keynesian model on which many societies were reorganized to survive the Great Depression. Financed by some of Europe's wealthiest families, the Mont Pelerin Society grew of immense importance after its first meeting which coincided with the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, the Truman Doctrine formalizing the institutionalization of the Cold War, and the Marshall Plan intended to reintegrate Europe and its colonies and spheres of influence under the aegis of the US. Helped along by the IMF, World Bank, and the International Agreement on Tariffs and Trade established in 1947, US transformation policy was designed to shape the world to its own geopolitical and economic advantage based on a neo-classical macroeconomic and financial theoretical model on which neoliberal ideology rested. http://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/

Considering that millionaires and billionaires providefunding for the Mont Pelerin Society and affiliates, this prototype neoliberal think tank became the intellectual pillar of both the pluralist and rightwing neoliberal camps by working with 460 think tanks that have organizations in 96 countries where they influence both centrist and rightwing political parties. Whether Hillary Clinton's and Emmanuel Macron's pluralist neoliberal globalist version or Donald Trump's and Narendra Modi's rightwing populist one, the Mont Pelerin Society and others sharing its ideology and goals exercise preeminent policy influence not on the merit of its ideas for the welfare of society but because the richest people from rightwing Czech billionaire Andrej Babisto liberal pluralist billionaireseither support its principles and benefit from their implementation into policy. (J. Peterson, Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle , 1999; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate

If the neoliberal social contract is the answer to peoples' prayers world-wide as Hayek's followers insist, why is there a need on the part of the state, international organizations including UN agencies, billionaire and millionaire-funded think tanks, educational institutions and the corporate and state-owned media to convince the public that there is nothing better for society than massive capital concentration and social exclusion, and social conditions that in some respects resemble servitude in Medieval Europe? Why do ultra-rightwing Koch brothers and the Mercer family, among other billionaires and millionaires fromNorth America, Europe, India, South Korea and Latin America spend so much money to inculcate the neoliberal ideology into the collective consciousness andto persuade the public to elect neoliberal politicians either of the pluralist camp or the authoritarian one?

http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-bloomberg-forbes-rupert-murdoch-billionaires-2011-3 ; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/no-one-knows-what-the-powerful-mercers-really-want/514529/

Seventy years after Hayek formed the Mont Leperin Societyto promotea future without totalitarianism, there are elected neoliberal politicians from both the pluralist and authoritarian camps with ties to big capital and organized crime amid the blurring lines between legal and illegal economic activities that encompasses everything from crypto-currency and insider trading to offshore 'shell corporations' and banks laundering money for drug lords and wealthy tax evaders. Surrender of popular sovereignty through the social contract now entails surrender to a class of people who are criminals, not only based on a social justice criteria but on existing law if it were only applied to them as it does to petty thieves. In the amoral Machiavellian world of legalized "criminal virtue" in which we live these are the leaders of society.Indicative of the perversion of values now rooted in atomism and greed, the media reports with glowingly admiring terms that in 2017 the world's 500 richest people became richer by $1 trillion, a rise that represents one-third of Africa's GDP and just under one-fifth of Latin America's. Rather than condemning mal-distribution ofincome considering what it entails for society, the media and many in the business of propagating for neoliberalism applaud appropriation within the legal framework of the social contract as a virtue. http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/500-richest-people-became-1-trillion-richer-in-2017-mukesh-ambani-tops-indian-list/story-JcNXhH9cCp2pzRopkoFdfL.html ; Bob Brecher, "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" in Virtue and Economy . ed. Andrius Bielskis and Kelvin Knight, 2015)

Neoliberalism has led to the greater legitimization of activities that would otherwise be illegal to the degree that the lines between the legitimate economy and organized criminal activity are blurred reflecting the flexible lines between legally-financed millionaire-backed elected officials and those with links to organized crime or to illegal campaign contributions always carrying an illegal quid-pro-quo legalized through public policy. Beyond the usual tax-haven suspects Panama, Cyprus, Bermuda, Malta, Luxemburg, among othersincluding states such as Nevada and Wyoming, leaders from former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to President Donald Trump with reputed ties to organized criminal networks have benefited from the neoliberal regime that they served. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254953831_Economic_Crime_and_Neoliberal_Modes_of_Government_The_Example_of_the_Mediterranean )

Self-righteous pluralist neoliberals castigate rightwing billionaires for funding rightwing politicians. However, there is silence when it comes to the millions amassed by pluralist neoliberals as the infamous "Panama Papers" revealed in 2016. Despite the institutionalized kleptocracy, the mediahas indoctrinated the public to accept as 'normal' the converging interests of the capitalist class and ruling political class just as it has indoctrinated the public to accept social exclusion, social inequality, and poverty as natural and democratic; all part of the social contract.( http://revistes.uab.cat/tdevorado/article/view/v2-n1-armao ; Jose Manuel Sanchez Bermudez, The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in Decline, 2012; https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalisms-world-of-corruption-money-laundering-corporate-lobbying-drug-money/5519907

The Future of Neoliberalism

After the great recession of 2008, the future of neoliberalism became the subject of debate among politicians, journalists and academics. One school of thought was that the great recession had exposed the flaws in neoliberalism thus marking the beginning of its demise. The years since 2008 proved that in a twist of irony, the quasi-statist policies of China with its phenomenal growth have actually been responsible for sustaining neoliberalism globally and not just because China has been financing US public debt by buying treasuries while the US buys products made in China. This view holds that neoliberalism will continue to thrive so as long as China continues its global ascendancy, thus the warm reception to Beijing as the new globalist hegemonic power after Trump's noise about pursuing economic nationalism within the neoliberal model. (Barry Eichengreen, Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History , 2016; http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/23/has-the-global-financial-crisis-challenged-us-power-in-international-finance/ )

China is not pursuing the kind of neoliberal model that exists in the US or the EU, but its economy is well integrated with the global neoliberal system and operates within those perimeters despite quasi-statist policies also found in other countries to a lesser degree. Adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), China's current share of world GDP stands at 16% and at annual growth above 6% it is expected to reach 20%, by 2020. This in comparison with only 1.9% in 1979 and it explains why its currency is now among the IMF-recognized reserved currencies. With about half-a-million foreign companies in China and an average of 12,000 new companies entering every day, capitalists from all over the world are betting heavily on China's future as the world's preeminent capitalist core country in the 21 st century. China will play a determining role in the course of global neoliberalism, and it is politically willing to accept the US as the military hegemon while Beijing strives for economic preeminence. Interested in extracting greater profits from China while tempering its race to number one, Western businesses and governmentshave been pressuring Beijing to become more immersed in neoliberal policies and eliminate all elements of statism. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-09/22/content_15775312.htm ; https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/china/foreign-investment

Although the US that has 450,000 troops in 800 foreign military bases in more than 150 countries and uses its military muscle along with 'soft-power' policies including sanctions as leverage for economic power, many governments and multinational corporations consider Beijing not Washington as a source of global stability and growth. With China breathing new life into neoliberalism on the promise of geographic and social convergence, it is fantasy to speculate that neoliberalism is in decline when in fact it is becoming more forcefully ubiquitous. However, China like the West that had promised geographic and social convergence in the last four decades of neoliberalism will not be any more successful in delivering on such promises. The resultof such policies will continue to be greater polarization and social exclusion and greater uneven development, with China and multinationals investing in its enterprises becoming richer while the US will continue to use militarism as leverage to retain global economic hegemony rapidly eroding from its grip. ( http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-deployments-may-2017-5 ; http://www.zapruderworld.org/welfare-state-decline-and-rise-neoliberalism-1980s-some-approaches-between-latin-americas-core-and ; Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization , 2012)

Between China and the US, the world can expect neoliberal globalization to continue under the pluralist and populist rightwing models in different countries with the two converging and reflecting the totalitarian essence of the system at its core.Characterized by rapid development and sluggish growth in Japan and Western core countries, neoliberal globalization has entailed lack of income convergence between the developed and developing world where uneven export-oriented growth based on the primary sector keeps developingnations perpetually dependent and poor. Interestingly, the trend of falling incomes characteristic of the developing nations from 1980 to 2000 was just as true in Western countries. It was during these two decades of ascendant neoliberalism that rightwing populist movements began to challenge the pluralist neoliberal political camp and offering nationally-based neoliberal solutions, further adding to the system's existing contradictions. (Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization , 2012)

The debate whether the rise of populism or perhaps the faint voices of anti-capitalism will finally bring about the end of neoliberalism often centers on the digital-biotech revolution often blamed for exacerbating rather than solving social problems owing to uneven benefits accruing across social classes. It is somewhat surprising that IMF economists have questioned the wisdom of pursuing unfettered neoliberalism where there is a trade-off between economic growth andsocial exclusion owing to growing income inequality. Naturally, the IMF refrains from self-criticism and it would never suggest that neoliberal globalization that the Fund has been promoting is responsible for the rise of rightwing populism around the world.

Within the neoliberal camp, pluralist-diversity advocatesare satisfied they have done their part in the 'fight for democracy' when in fact their stealthy brand of the neoliberal social contract isin some respects more dangerous than the populist camp which is unapologetically candid about its pro-big business, pro-monopoly, pro-deregulation anti-social welfare platform. Shortly after Trump won the presidential election with the help of rightwing billionaires and disillusioned workers who actually believed that he represented them rather than the billionaires, an article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor is typical of how pluralist neoliberals view the global tide of rightwing populism.

"Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption." https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Breakthroughs-Voices/2016/1206/Opposing-neoliberalism-without-right-wing-populism-A-Latin-American-guide

Without analyzing the deeper causes of the global tide of rightwing populism promoting neoliberalism under an authoritarian political platform, pluralist-diversity neoliberals continue to promote socioeconomic policies that lead to social exclusion, inequality, and uneven development as long as they satisfy the cultural-lifestyle and corporate-based sustainable-development aspects of the social contract.Tolend legitimacy and public acceptance among those expecting a commitment to pluralism, the neoliberal pluralists embrace the superficialities and distraction of diversity and political correctness. Ironically, the political correctness trend started during theReagan administration's second term and served as a substitute for social justice that the government and the private sector were rapidly eroding along with the social welfare state and trade union rights. As long as there is'politically correctness', in public at least so that people feel they are part of a 'civilized' society, then public policy can continue on the barbaric path of social exclusion, police-state methods, and greater economic inequality.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/fighting-trump-right-wing-populism-vs-neoliberalism/ ; http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305117733226

The future of neoliberalism includes the inevitability that social exclusion will lead to social uprisings especially as even some billionaires readily acknowledge the social contract favors them to the detriment of society. As the voices against systemic exploitation become louder,the likelihood will increase for authoritarian-police state policies if not regimes reflecting the neoliberal social contract's ubiquitous stranglehold on society. Although resistance to neoliberalism will continue to grow, the prospects for a social revolution in this century overturning the neoliberal order in advanced capitalist countries is highly unlikely. Twentieth century revolutions succeeded where the state structure was weak and people recognized that the hierarchical social order was the root cause of the chasm between the country's vast social exclusion coupled with stagnation vs. its potential for a more inclusive society where greater social equality and social justice would bean integral part of the social contract. (Donna L. Chollett, Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements , 2013)

Despite everything pointing to the dynamics of a continued neoliberal social contract, diehard pluralists like British academic Martin Jacques and American economist Joseph Stiglitz insist there is hope for reformist change. In The Politics of Thatcherism (1983) Jacques applauded neoliberalism, but during the US presidential election in 2016 he had changed his mind, predicting neoliberalism's demise. He felt encouraged that other pluralist neoliberals like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz were voicing their concerns signaling an interest in the debate about social inequality. In an article entitled "The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" , he wrote: "A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics

Along with Krugman, Stiglitz and others in the pluralist camp favoring a policy mix that includes Keynesianism,Martin Jacques, Thomas Picketty and others like them around the world doenjoy some small influence with the pluralist-diversity camp. However, the demise of neoliberalism will not result from intellectual critiques regardless of the merits. On the contrary, the neoliberal social contract is solidifying not evolving toward dissolution. This is largely because the dynamics of the social order continue to favor it and the opposition is split between ultra-right nationalists, pluralists of varying sorts resting on hope of restoring Keynesian rationalism in the capitalist system, and the very weak and divided leftists in just about every country and especially the core ones. https://theconversation.com/if-we-are-reaching-neoliberal-capitalisms-end-days-what-comes-next-72366

Neoliberalism's inherent contradictions will result in its demise andthe transition into a new phase of capitalism. Among the most obvious and glaring contradictions is that the ideology promotes freedom and emancipation when in practice it is a totalitarian system aimed to mold society and the individual into conformity of its dogmatic market fundamentalism.Another contradiction is the emphasis of a borderless global market, while capitalists operate within national borders and are impacted by national policies that often collide at the international level as the competition intensifies for market share just as was the case in the four decades before the outbreak of WWI. Adding to the list of contradictions that finds expression the debate between neoliberal rightwingers and pluralists is the issue of "value-free" market fundamentalism while at the same time neoliberals conduct policy that has very strong moral consequences in peoples' lives precisely because of extremely uneven income distribution.

The enigma in neoliberalism's futureis the role of grassroots movements that are in a position to impact change but have failed thus far to make much impact. Most people embrace the neoliberal political parties serving the same capitalist class, operating under the illusion of a messiah politician delivering the promise of salvation either from the pluralist or authoritarian wing of neoliberalism. The turning point for systemic change emanates from within the system that fails to serve the vast majority of the people as it is riddled with contradictions that become more evident and the elites become increasingly contentious about how to divide the economic pie and how to mobilize popular support behind mainstream political parties so they can maintain the social order under an unsustainable political economy. At that juncture, the neoliberal social contract suffersan irrevocable crisis of public confidence on a mass scale. Regardless under which political regime neoliberalism operates, people will eventually reject hegemonic cultural indoctrination. A critical mass in society has not reached this juncture. Nevertheless, social discontinuity is an evolutionary process and the contradictions in neoliberalism will continue to cause political disruption, economic disequilibrium and social upheaval.

Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the World Bank and IMF in the world.

Share this: Related May Day in a Neoliberal Society May Day in a Neoliberal Society

April 30, 2018

In "World" Trumpist-Populism, Neo-Liberalism And Anti-Semitism Trumpist-Populism, Neo-Liberalism And Anti-Semitism

May 17, 2017

In "World" The The "New Normal" In Cyclical Recessions

January 22, 2018

In "World" Tags: Economy , Neoliberalism 2 Comments

  1. David Anderson January 11, 2018 at 3:21 pm

    Excellent essay.

    Neo-Liberalism in America is an underlying political philosophy based on belief in the sanctity of personal "freedom" with the conviction that this freedom is expressed through self-determination. It extends back to the early settlement and then the writing of transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) who popularized the expression "self-reliance." In the recent American election it underlay the Donald Trump code words: "what makes America great again." Ronald Reagan took advantage of it with his derisive use of the term "welfare queens." It undergirds the foundation of today's Republican Party.

    It will bring an end to the American experiment.

  2. sundar January 13, 2018 at 3:28 pm

    Very well explained and educative. Attempts to present alternatives to present neoliberal econamics. But needs several readings to digest.

[Sep 07, 2018] Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?

Sep 07, 2018 | politics.slashdot.org

ebonum ( 830686 ) , Friday September 07, 2018 @10:50AM ( #57269044 )

Clinton Meddling ( Score: 3 , Insightful)

Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?

fibonacci8 ( 260615 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Yes, but it was George Clinton. P-Funk was behind it all along.

DogDude ( 805747 ) , Friday September 07, 2018 @11:06AM ( #57269140 )
Re:Clinton Meddling ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Why would that matter one way or the other?

avandesande ( 143899 ) , Friday September 07, 2018 @11:16AM ( #57269216 ) Journal
Re:Clinton Meddling ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

Does the concept of 'blowback' matter, ie that the USA might actually be responsible for some of the bad things that happen to it? Would Hillary have been a stronger candidate if she had not taken part in globalist 'nation-building' activities?

thegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

No it doesn't. Not across borders. Nations reserve the right to internally bitch and moan about what happened to them regardless if it is blowback or not. That is how things work on two different sides of a fence. It just happens to work better when you're fully in control of the media too.

DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) , Friday September 07, 2018 @11:19AM ( #57269238 ) Homepage
Re:Clinton Meddling ( Score: 2 , Informative)

Because when you fuck with people, they often have the desire to fuck with you right back. Preferably in the exact same way you did to them. This is typically known as "the cycle of violence".

For example, did you know the US meddled in the 1996 Russian election to get Yeltsin re-elected? It's absolutely true, a lot of people were proud of it at the time and it wasn't a secret. [i.redd.it] He was in fifth place with ratings in the single digits before the Americans got involved. This was disastrous for Russia, as the oligarchs and Western neo-liberal economists made a mess of things. This started the chain of events that led directly to Putin seizing power four years later. Action, reaction.

KalvinB ( 205500 ) , Friday September 07, 2018 @11:30AM ( #57269334 ) Homepage
Re:Clinton Meddling ( Score: 4 , Informative)

https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]

Yes, she did.

[Sep 07, 2018] I followed that assault on Fallujah very closely at the time

Sep 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ross , Sep 6, 2018 4:46:49 PM | link

@fastfreddy 11, james 19

I followed that assault on Fallujah very closely at the time. Remember that the US Marines had tried to take over the town some months before but met with very fierce resistance and were chased out of town. Therefore there was an element of revenge and also punishment about this second assault. First they occupied the civilian hospital on the outskirts of Fallujah (a war crime). They then systemically bombed and destroyed the power station, the water pumping station and the sewage works (all war crimes).
Then as you point out they used white phosphorous munitions (a war crime), but there was something peculiar in the immediate aftermath. Having eventually successfully subdued the town, US troops went around the central area and systematically shot out, and thus drained, all the water towers (these were numerous as many houses had them). Then military bulldozers moved in and removed all the topsoil from a couple of square kilometres. This led to speculation that some form of illegal chemical weapons had been deployed.
Mad Dog indeed.

[Sep 07, 2018] >An Uber-Hawk Flies High Again in Trump's Washington

Notable quotes:
"... Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at ..."
"... where he covers the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Professional Islamophobe to some, truthsayer to others, Frank Gaffney's found a new perch among the old gang. By CURT MILLS • August 3, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F0P3pVtbsZok.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df3f1f39c9781f4c%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff200842bc95ce4%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fuber-hawk-frank-gaffney-flying-high-again%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.32d6c6b4cb1ed84df04e7f9705a90c47.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fuber-hawk-frank-gaffney-flying-high-again%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=An%20Uber-Hawk%20Flies%20High%20Again%20in%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Washington%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1536315905756&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fuber-hawk-frank-gaffney-flying-high-again%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fuber-hawk-frank-gaffney-flying-high-again%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.-a_v-ZIF5mk.O%2Fam%3DwQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPmJF2k9cu4m8usXjYAmA3C6C9X1g%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1536315905377&_gfid=I0_1536315905377&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=39832784

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

The spring of 2016 in Washington, D.C. was unusually warm, as I remember, perhaps foreshadowing the raucous year yet to come. One night a group of journalists and policy hands gathered at the Dupont Circle bar Rebellion to commiserate. No one knew it yet but it was the closing moment in Act One of the Trump revolution; our 21st-century P.T. Barnum was well on his way from presidential impossibility to presumptive nominee. Yet no one was talking about Trump. That evening, perhaps bespeaking of both the sleeplessness and sexlessness of those gathered, the conversation focused on a new addition to Senator Ted Cruz's national security team: Frank Gaffney, the former Reagan hand and uber-foreign policy hawk.

Back in 2016, Cruz -- capable, erudite, and reviled -- was positioning himself as the last great hope of movement conservatism. The only candidate who could still plausibly defeat Trump, or individually force a convention brawl, Cruz wanted to convert his early primary brand -- a kind of diluted libertarianism mixed with cultural evangelicalism -- into something more conventionally Republican. Gone was the poaching of the platforms of Rand Paul and Ben Carson, and in was Lindsey Graham who had previously called the junior Texas senator "demonic."

"This is what we're supposed to oppose Trump with? The paragon of reason, Frank Gaffney?" intoned one policy veteran sympathetic to a restrained foreign policy and, correspondingly, to Paul, who had only recently dropped out of the race. In truth, Cruz was simply trying to replicate a trick mastered by Trump -- a sort of Heisenberg Uncertainty machination of modern conservative politics -- occupying, at the same time, the least and most hawkish spaces on the political field. For every enthrallingly refreshing "Iraq was a big fat mistake" from candidate Trump, there was "we're going to bomb the s**t out of ISIS" and promises to restart the torture program of the Bush years.

Gaffney's recent career, now re-ascendent in Trump's orbit, is perhaps most emblematic of that conflict of vision.

When you talk to Gaffney, as I did in his Washington offices at the Center for Security Policy in August of 2017, you get the sense that he and his allies think that the September 11 attacks are now almost a distraction. For the hardcore -- and this includes some principals at more mainstream outfits such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) -- the true, largely unencumbered villain in America's war on terror is either -- pick your poison -- the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah. For Gaffney, and his life's work stands as testament to this, it's decidedly the former. Anxieties about the alleged power of the the Muslim Brotherhood are rife in the publications put out by his Center for Security Policy. This often lapses into matters more sinister and conspiratorial: the enemy within, and the enemy itself. His center's books -- and he readily gave me more than 10 -- have titles such as Star Spangled Sharia and Bridge-Building to Nowhere: The Catholic Church's Case Study in Interfaith Delusion . The texts allege elaborate financial and political influence maneuvers by Muslim agents, most concerningly the Brotherhood. Gaffney even intimated to me, before backtracking, that Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, could be a Brother, or at least compromised by the Brotherhood.

"The assertion that the dangers that we're facing, most obviously post-9/11, have nothing to do with Islam and [that] the people who are fighting us with terrorism or in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere, are actually hijacking a great Abrahamic faith and a religion of peace and all of that, is simply uninformed," Gaffney told me. "What the authorities of Islam call sharia , has, at its core, our destruction." He added that adherents to sharia "are obliged to engage in jihad, of one kind or another, to impose it on everybody else."

Yet Gaffney, in the seventh month of the presidency of the man who once told CNN "I think Islam hates us," seemed lukewarm at best over Donald Trump.

The week I met with him came just after the largest bloodletting of the administration: the rapid-fire ousters of key figures who had been with Trump during the campaign -- Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, Anthony Scaramucci, and Stephen K. Bannon. From where Gaffney was sitting, the White House inner circle was now a mishmash of the kind of conventional Republicans -- James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly -- who, as Peter Beinart reported in The Atlantic , had long "treated Gaffney as a pariah." The so-called axis of adults was unlikely to prioritize fighting for the embattled travel ban in the courts, or pursuing regime change in Iran or Qatar -- "the ATM of the Muslim Brotherhood," as Jonathan Schanzer of FDD put it in a phone conversation with me.

John Bolton's History of Tirades and Dirty Tricks Iran Hawks and Trump's Contempt for the Iranian People

Since that discussion, however, Gaffneyism has experienced a clear uptick in fortunes.

Gaffney's relevance stems from his relationship with Trump's national security advisor, John Bolton, as well as the chief of staff of Bolton's National Security Council, Fred Fleitz. Fleitz has worked as chief for both men. As I detailed in the Spectator USA , Bolton was eventually able to leverage his media appearances into one of the most senior positions in the government. (Gaffney is also a fellow, though not parallel, traveler of Bannon's.)

Both the genius and the secret of the modern anti-establishment right is, like Trump, its ability to occupy two places at once. Bannon's former outlet Breitbart News , where Gaffney is a regular radio guest (as was Bolton previously), is proof positive. Breitbart has staunchly defended most actions of the Netanyahu government in Israel while condemning the Pentagon for its support of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. On foreign policy, the Trump coalition is a tenuous alliance between some of the GOP's least interventionist voices, Rand Paul as well as Bannon on most issues, and some of its most interventionist voices, like Gaffney and Bolton.

But there is one area where the hawks in this arrangement have prevailed: cutting Iran down to size.

In fact, it hasn't been much of a fight: Trump leaving the Iran nuclear deal in some fashion was never really in doubt. As I reported last fall, at one point, the fight inside Trump circles was essentially between two plans to exit the deal as written during the Obama years: Bolton, Bannon, and Gaffney's plan versus the more restrained architecture favored by the FDD.

Gaffney didn't get full sway over that decision, but he didn't have to.

His biggest victory was the president's selection of Bolton. While Bolton himself campaigned to get the job at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), it was Gaffney who was most direct: "You know, everybody says it's great to be back at CPAC, but nobody means it like I do," he said, declaring, "The president of the United States must fire H.R. McMaster and hire John Bolton!" Years back, Gaffney had denounced CPAC's organizing body, the American Conservative Union (ACU), for its support of Suhail Khan, a Muslim former Bush administration official he accused of being an agent of the Brotherhood. The dispute had played out prominently in the national news.

And that's really the handle: going forward, will Gaffney's very real policy influence be sundered by what some see as a penchant for wacky prejudice? He isn't without real influence, and as Peter Beinart argued earlier this year, Bolton has helped rehabilitate him even further on the right. "The man has one of the best minds in D.C.," said Raheem Kassam, who was raised Muslim and is the former editor of Breitbart London. He added, however: "Genius doesn't come without eccentricity."

One example is that, in conducting research for this article, two sources familiar with the matter told me of Gaffney's history of compiling opposition research dossiers on those who fall out of his favor. One recent case involved a former member of Gaffney's circle (a clique that includes Ginny Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas) who became romantically involved with a Muslim -- apparently a bridge too far. And Gaffney's flare-ups with Grover Norquist, the conservative tax policy kingmaker who married a Muslim woman in 2004, are well documented. A dossier put out by CSP and its allies on the subject reads: "The Islamists' -- and their Enablers' -- Assault on the Right: The Case Against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan."

Cracks on policy have shown. In addition to holding views on Islam that are emphatically outside the mainstream, Gaffney, doctrinaire hawkish in a way that the president is not, recently joined in on the criticism of Trump's Helsinki summit, while his center has repeatedly urged regime change as the best course in North Korea. After Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin, Gaffney said Trump could be making President Obama look strong by comparison. In a published statement, he intoned: "President Trump needs now to clarify -- and walk back -- any mandates for institutionalizing Moscow's agenda in ways that would make the appalling Obama-Clinton 'reset' with Russia seem robust."

That's the real question for Bolton's NSC and this Republican Party: as Trump continues to remake American conservatism in his image, at what point, if any, does Gaffney go from lodestar to liability?

Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at The National Interest, where he covers the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency. MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

'Far From the Endgame' on Donald Trump's NAFTA Overhaul
Corey Lewandowski: The Chief of Staff Trump Wants
Recommended by Hide 13 comments 13 Responses to An Uber-Hawk Flies High Again in Trump's Washington

H.D. August 2, 2018 at 10:02 pm

The unholy alliance of Zionist puppet masters and the crazy-eyed white conspiracists

Seven Iron , says: August 3, 2018 at 5:11 am

Gaffney's a crank. This kind of attention only encourages him.

He and other neoconservatives didn't get the good hard boot in the face they so richly deserved after the Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen disasters they caused. Happily for Christendom, it seems that omission will be remedied in the not too distant future.

SteveM , says: August 3, 2018 at 9:58 am

Note that at the February CPAC conference in which Gaffney endorsed Bolton for Trump's NSA, he also called for "regime change" in China.

Amazing. Gaffney sees the Super-Power U.S. as a giant hegemonic anaconda that can swallow anything no matter how big.

Note too that Gaffney's Center for Security Policy took in over $7,000,000 in 2016, (last posted IRS Form 990). Where does that money come from? Especially given that Gaffney is a supposed "crank". He obviously has benefactors who want to leverage his fear-monger schtick for their own purposes.

And OBTW, Gaffney pays himself over $350 Grand via a crony Board of Directors who authorize that kind of mad money. Not bad scratch for just showing up and gas-bagging.

In the end, Gaffney is the quintessential parasitic Beltway Hack, i.e., paid large for mind dumps scripted for his benefactors.

LM , says: August 3, 2018 at 2:53 pm

HD Id agree with the Zionist puppet masters (which I normally think of as neoconservatives and neoliberals).

I have to wonder whether Trumps embrace of hawks and warmongerers is to placate and passify them so they don't join the ranks of never Trumpers, Russian colluders and other manufactured and fictional stories to undermine the Trump Administration.

So far he has embraced them with a military buildup, tough talk with North Korea, withdrawing from the JCPOA, chastising NATO, waging trade wars and sending US ships into the South China Sea (to the consternation of China) and sending US troops to African to fight Islamic radicalism (there is more than one place in the world where Islamic wars are being fought).

But at the same time, Trump has not fallen into the trap of GBushII in being their lapdog following their dictates nor has he opposed them withdrawn and starved the military like Obama.

Trump has used hawks to appear strong and strengthen his defenses but he has not created any new military confrontations which gives me confidence that Trump knows how to handle powerful constituencies. Lets hope he continues to do so.

The Dean , says: August 3, 2018 at 2:59 pm

Interesting article. There is a lot to digest but does the writer have evidence to the contrary of what Mr. Gaffney is saying in his reports.

I read Robert Spencer's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" years ago and it made quite an impression on me.

Sometimes these so called fringe people are right on track but so far ahead of popular thought that no one wants to believe what they are saying until it is too late.

Fayez Abedaziz , says: August 4, 2018 at 12:52 am

This is one of many really disgusting people that the media has been having on for years.
How about asking this question:
how come they never have a critic of these neo-con policy guys?
How come no critics of what these guys who peddle hate against a whole religion and nationalities are ever on?
But these neo-cons are on all the time.
And, let's not keep kidding ourselves and each other-every 'think tank' that has an 'expert' on foreign affairs is in that neo-con group and the hosts on any network, cable and otherwise, don't even tell the viewers what the hell the think tank/s is about!
They are one of the top, if not the number one reason why the American public knows either nothing about what the Middle-East situations are, or they have a stupid slanted view and it is always against anything Arabic, Palestinian and such
you know it and I know it
can you dig it
thanks, this is,
dear Fayez

Stitch In Time , says: August 5, 2018 at 12:45 am

"Sometimes these so called fringe people are right on track but so far ahead of popular thought that no one wants to believe what they are saying until it is too late."

like the fruit-cakes out in Idaho jabbering about "ZOG" back in the 1980s and 90s. We knew better didn't we? No danger of excessive Israeli influence on US politicians or policy, and even if there were, what possible negative consequences could there be? It's not like the Muslims would get all riled up and knock down the World Trade Center or something. Right? Ha ha ha ha! Only paranoids and anti-semites believe that sort of nonsense.

M. Orban , says: August 5, 2018 at 1:36 pm

@The Dean, Stitch In Time
I think it isn't too hard to recognize Gaffney & Co what they are: pro Israeli, pro-Likud propagandists. I am cool with that. A number of folks on the right fast becoming Russophiles for a variety of reasons, that isn't illegal either.
In our history we went through times when various groups advocated in the interest of country A or B and we are still here.
So Gaffney and the likes can spew nonsense as long as we recognize what he is up to.

No need for rank antisemitism, using phrases like ZOG sending out happy merchant memes, because that instantly eliminates you from any sort of reasonable discussion.

Kurt Gayle , says: August 5, 2018 at 9:01 pm

During the Reagan administration Gaffney was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under neocon Richard Perle (aka "Prince of Darkness"). In April 1987, Gaffney was nominated to the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Unfortunately for Gaffney–but fortunately for America–he served in that position for only seven months during which time he was deliberately and systematically excluded by senior Reagan administration officials from the then-ongoing arms control talks with the Soviet Union. In Nov, 1987 Gaffney was forced out of the Pentagon and immediately began a campaign criticizing President Reagan for his efforts to bring about an arms control agreement with the USSR.

"In a 1997 column for The Washington Times, Gaffney alleged that a seismic incident in Russia was actually a nuclear detonation at that nation's Novaya Zemlya test site, indicating Russia was violating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB). (Subsequent scientific analysis of Novaya Zemlya confirmed the event was a routine earthquake.) Reporting on the allegation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists observed that, following its publication, 'fax machines around Washington, D.C. and across the country poured out pages detailing Russian duplicity. They came from Frank Gaffney'." (Wikipedia)

It probably won't add anything to this discussion for me to say that Gaffney is a dangerous whack-job, so I'm not going to call Gaffney a dangerous whack-job.

Down Home , says: August 6, 2018 at 4:17 am

"I think it isn't too hard to recognize Gaffney & Co what they are: pro Israeli, pro-Likud propagandists. I am cool with that."

I'm not. Trillions of dollars. Thousands of American dead. Tens of thousands of American with ruined brain, amputated limbs, grievous wounds that haven't healed.

That's a big price to pay for Gaffney and Co. and their sick foreign policy prescriptions.

Too big.

It's past time they were shut up and expelled from American public life. It's not anymore about mere differences of opinion, matters over which decent people can disagree. There's real evil here. And real damage to America.

So Gaffney and the likes can spew nonsense as long as we recognize what he is up to."

Not good enough.

PAX , says: August 7, 2018 at 10:14 am

The opportunity cost of allowing the neocons to impregnate our national and international life is too high. Iraq will forever be a blotch on our national soul. Their embedded power must never be underestimated. It must be understood in the context of what they really want. Which country do they actually support? It is difficult to include the U.S. as a beneficiary in their neverending lust for more wars. Now, as folks like TAC, seek a reason as to why the main front will be an attack on free speech. Ask yourself -why? Who fears free speech?

Joe Schmo , says: August 7, 2018 at 6:18 pm

Frank Gaffney is an ironic figure. Today he leads the Center for Security Policy which purports to expose Muslim Brotherhood influence operations in the US. 20 years ago he was part of American Committee for Peace in Chechnya which wrote apologia for Chechen militants who worked closely with Al Qaeda. The leader of the Chechen rebels was a Saudi born man personally dispatched by Osama bin Laden so this connection was not a secret. ACPC didn't just have Gaffney, but also Bill Kristol, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and James Woolsey to name a few. It also recieved funding from the FDD and NED so it wasn't a rogue operation by any means. Considering this Frank Gaffney's commitment to combating Islamic extremism seems dubious at best. He warrants a closer look if anyone does.

Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Committee_for_Peace_in_Chechnya

One of their papers explaining that suicide bombing was a response to Russian repression.
http://www.radicalparty.org/content/american-committee-peace-chechnya-chechnya%E2%80%99s-suicide-bombers-desperate-devout-or-deceived-jo

Shannon , says: August 13, 2018 at 6:02 pm

In my opinion the Centre for Security Policy is NOT into just "spewing hate." Listen to their podcasts and read their policy position papers. Look down the lists of their guest speakers and interviewees: they are mostly the old school realist (not neocon) conservative national security apparatus. Their attitude is there are three tremendous national security threats that in each case have elements THAT IN THE EXPERIENCE OF TOP MILITARY INTELLIGENCE agents have proved themselves time & time again simply NOT WORTHY OF BEING TRUSTED and that if the USA gives them a "trust blank cheque" they would surely lose a major conflict, just as much as France "trusted" that its vaunted Maginot Line was sufficient to keep a "cowed" Prussian-led German Army & the Germans would never be so foolish to attempt another invasion of France. THe most talked about danger at the moment by Gaffney and its informative Centre is the danger of an EMP attack, which is surely neither "hate" nor "wackiness."

[Sep 07, 2018] Are We Being Played by Caitlin Johnstone

Looks like this Iago-style false flag operation by NYT: the anonymous author does not exists and the the plot is to saw discord and mutual suspicion
Notable quotes:
"... The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. ..."
"... If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects' continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism. ..."
"... As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart his agendas of peace and harmony. ..."
"... Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it? I'm going to say probably. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

If any evidence existed to be found that Donald Trump had illegally colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016 presidential election, that evidence would have been picked up by the sprawling surveillance networks of the US and its allies and leaked to the Washington Post before Obama left office.

Russiagate is like a mirage. From a distance it looks like a solid, tangible thing, but when you actually move in to examine it critically you find nothing but gaping plot holes, insinuation, innuendo, conflicting narratives, bizarre mental contortions to avoid acknowledging contradictory information, a few arrests for corruption and process crimes, and a lot of hot air. The whole thing has been held together by nothing but the confident-sounding assertions of pundits and politicians and sheer, mindless repetition. And, as we approach the two year mark since this president's election, we have not seen one iota of movement toward removing him from office. The whole thing's a lie, and the smart movers and shakers behind it are aware that it is a lie.

And yet they keep beating on it. Day after day after day after day it's been Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. Instead of attacking this president for his many, many real problems in a way that will do actual damage, they attack this fake blow-up doll standing next to him in a way that never goes anywhere and never will, like a pro wrestler theatrically stomping on the canvass next to his downed foe.

What's up with that?

... ... ....

As you doubtless already know by now, the New York Times has made the wildly controversial decision to publish an anonymous op-ed reportedly authored by "a senior official in the Trump administration." The op-ed's author claims to be part of a secret coalition of patriots who dislike Trump and are "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." These "worst inclinations" according to the author include trying to make peace with Moscow and Pyongyang, being rude to longtime US allies, saying mean things about the media, being "anti-trade", and being "erratic". The possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment is briefly mentioned but dismissed. The final paragraphs are spent gushing about John McCain for no apparent reason.

I strongly encourage you to read the piece in its entirety, because for all the talk and drama it's generating, it doesn't actually make any sense. While you are reading it, I encourage you to keep the following question in mind: what could anyone possibly gain by authoring this and giving it to the New York Times ?

Seriously, what could be gained? The op-ed says essentially nothing, other than to tell readers to relax and trust in anonymous administration insiders who are working against the bad guys on behalf of the people (which is interestingly the exact same message of the right-wing 8chan conspiracy phenomenon QAnon, just with the white hats and black hats reversed). Why would any senior official risk everything to publish something so utterly pointless? Why risk getting fired (or risk losing all political currency in the party if NYTAnon is Mike Pence, as has been theorized ) just to communicate something to the public that doesn't change or accomplish anything? Why publicly announce your undercover conspiracy to undermine the president in a major news outlet at all?

What are the results of this viral op-ed everyone's talking about? So far it's a bunch of Democratic partisans making a lot of excited whooping noises, and Trump loyalists feeling completely vindicated in the belief that all of their conspiracy theories have been proven correct. Many rank-and-file Trump haters are feeling a little more relaxed and complacent knowing that there are a bunch of McCain-loving "adults in the room" taking care of everything, and many rank-and-file Trump supporters are more convinced than ever that Donald Trump is a brave populist hero leading a covert 4-D chess insurgency against the Deep State. In other words, everyone's been herded into their respective partisan stables and trusting the narratives that they are being fed there.

And, well, I just think that's odd.

Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame ? He was inducted in 2013, and he's been enthusiastically involved in pro wrestling for many years, both as a fan and as a performer . He's made more of a study on how to draw a crowd in to the theatrics of a choreographed fight scene than anyone this side of the McMahon family (a member of whom happens to be part of the Trump administration currently).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZBl6cL9GYs0

You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the possibility that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators on all sides routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack Trump but secretly loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their eyes even part way open already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense hatred for one another while working together to pace their respective bases into accepting more and more neoliberal exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl and shake their fists at each other, then cuddle up and share candy when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this administration be any different?

I believe that a senior Trump administration official probably did write that anonymous op-ed. I do not believe that they were moved to write it out of compassion for the poor Americans who are feeling emotionally stressed about the president. I believe it was written and published for the same reason many other things are written and published in mainstream media: because we are all being played.

The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If you can separate the masses into two groups based on extremely broad ideological characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined "us vs them" narratives into each of the two stables, with the white hats and black hats reversed in each case. Now you've got Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats cheering for the CIA, for the FBI, and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be operating on the inside of Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of the US power establishment or another.

Whom does this dynamic serve? Not you.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yw0qkvvSE7s

If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects' continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism.

As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart his agendas of peace and harmony. Meanwhile those who see Trump as a heel won't experience any cognitive dissonance if any of the establishment agendas they support are carried out, because they can give the credit to the secret hero squad in the White House.

Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it? I'm going to say probably.

* * *

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

[Sep 07, 2018] The way to please the Walll Street Obama prevented the prosecution of bankers

Sep 07, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Victor Sciamarelli says: September 6, 2018 at 11:06 am

I have yet to experience the emotional catharsis knowing that Trump might soon be gone due to his recent tweet. Still, is it not an important concern that we have much to do to get our own house in order?
We could have said the same about Obama that, "The way to please the boss is preventing the prosecution of bankers." We can't dismiss Obama as a private citizen because he is active in the DP while he makes millions in speeches.
On September 18, 2017, a Bloomberg articled titled "Obama Goes From White House to Wall Street in Less Than One Year" Max Abelson wrote, "Obama is coming to Wall Street less than a year after leaving the White House, following a path that's well trod and well paid." He stated, "The ex-president has been busy. Obama has picked private equity, hedge fund, venture capital and banking veterans to oversee his foundation, and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs to advise him on investments."
However, according to Jeff Hauser, who studies political corruption as head of the Revolving Door Project in Washington, "Obama should play by the same rules as other politicians because of his ongoing work with the Democratic Party." "He's continuing to exercise the authority, citing Obama's support for the party's redistricting committee and the push he gave Tom Perez in the race to head the Democratic National Committee."
Obama played a role in the mortgage crisis which cost millions their homes so that investors could be paid in full, protected bankers from prosecution, provided bailouts, and is now cashing in on his presidency. Is this not a problem?
Moreover, a HuffPost article on July 11, 2018, "Former Obama Officials Are Riding Out The Trump Years By Cashing In -- The revolving door takes a spin" by Zach Carter and Paul Blumenthal, they stated, "Today, many are lending the prestige of their White House resumes to scandal-fraught organizations in return for large sums of money. Some are even doing business with the Trump administration."
Particularly noteworthy, "Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, meanwhile, is now president of the private equity firm Warburg Pincus, which owns Mariner Finance, an installment lender that targets poor families with high-interest loans."
The authors continue, "And elite Washington is comfortable with what it calls 'the revolving door.'" "But much of what passes for normal in Washington is considered grotesque in the rest of the country."
In addition they state, "Sanders and fellow Senator Elizabeth Warren have tried to pry the Democratic Party away from its coziness with Wall Street. If Obama is hoping the party will be a big tent with room for corporate giants, they may stand in his way."
Nevertheless, if somehow the people get behind impeachment and it proves successful, expect the RP and corporate dems to take the credit. Instead, if it all goes south they will certainly put the blame on the left. We should be more focused on the near future and putting our own house in order.

Francis Louis Szot says: September 6, 2018 at 12:40 pm

There is only ONE political party in the USA; the Crony "Capitalist" Party, which consists of two factions, the Democrat Wing and the Republiklan Wing. Urkel Obama played his roll, and its payoff time.

Who but a naif is surprised?

The CCP Party is NOT a believer in any traditional type of capitalism at all, as it's primary concerns are the fortunes of Oligarchy. We are CURRENTLY ruled by a Party of corporate socialists; socialism conducted for the benefit of corporations and their owners.

The new Leftist surge from Democrat voters must educate all of the the citizens about the numerous and varied socialist techniques that have been extended for the benefit of crony capitalism, and not allow the CCP (Crony "Capitalist" Party) to continue their lying history of claiming to be anything otherwise.

Socialism works for the welfare of those who are the intended beneficiaries. Just ask the bankers, hedge funds, speculators, and credit agencies who were bailed-out by government gifts during the last "Great Recession".

After that experience, the old lies about the USA economy being based on "capitalism" cannot be seriously rehabilitated; far too many socialist stakes remain in its fictional corpse.

A few more simple examples :
> Tax refunds and credits to pay for corporate flight to offshore locations,

> "Cost Plus" guaranteed contracts are the norm for billion dollar government contracts (which guarantee profits),

> Military invasions and occupations in hundreds of locations are leveraged to control and extract foreign assets and raw materials which accrue exclusively to private wealth accounts,

> Billions spent on government research and development (the results always gifted to private corporation to exploit for private profit (electronics, drugs, medical devices, aviation, satellites, space research, computers, etc.)

> Public Interstate highways, public schools & subsidized private schools, which are primarily required to provide an educated work force for private enterprise;

The list of government activities whose overwhelming purpose is to provide the infrastructure for "private enterprise" is endless.

It is a question of what political and moral philosophy is appropriate to provide the infrastructure and engine of a modern culture and economy.

Will private, unelected, and unaccountable oligarchs continue to act as economic royalty, renting the political system and amassing the vast majority of the Nation's potential into their private bank vaults? While allowing the rest of the purposefully excluded proles to battle over the remaining slag?

Or will the majority of citizens finally decide that the deliberately planned, current re-distribution of national income amounts to an obvious criminal enterprise?

Because when a fraction of one percent of the population grabs ninety-seven percent of the yearly economic pie, without fail, it is FAR past time to change the proportions of that distribution.

Such a message MUST be a large part the clearly stated purpose of the Leftist revival. Otherwise, the oligarchy will use the word "socialism" as a scare tactic, instead of being forced to acknowledge that it has been a very successful model for promoting a fake version of "Capitalism", especially since the middle of the 20th Century here in the USA.

[Sep 07, 2018] The Great Tribes of Libya begin to cleanse Tripoli of terrorist militias by JoanneM

Notable quotes:
"... 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court ..."
"... The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The Toilet"). ..."
"... So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | www.sott.net

Libyan War The Truth
The Great Tribes of Libya have begun their cleansing of the terrorists brought into their country illegally by NATO in their 2011 invasion of Libya.

These terrorists include groups such as Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Ansar Al Sharia, ISIS, Salafists, Wahabists and other assorted small criminal mercenary militia gangs. All of these militia gangs have been controlling Tripoli since 2011, ILLEGALLY. These terrorists are working with the UN puppet government, appointed by the UN (headed by the criminal Serraj) without any authority or vote of the Libyan people. These terrorist gangs answer to no laws or rules. They roam the streets armed and attack or steal at will. The Libyan people have suffered under these gangs ever since NATO, Obama, Clinton, McCain and others invaded their country with NATO using a false flag lie of a revolution to justify their war crimes.

Today, many of the largest tribes in Libya joined the Tarhouna tribe near Tripoli to support them in the cleansing of the rubbish controlling the city of Tripoli. The people of Libya who are all members of tribes and represented by the tribes, have had enough. Recently, as I reported earlier, 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court made up of criminal militias. These young men had broken no laws, their only crime was being members of the Libyan army fighting against NATO invaders in 2011. This was just one more criminal act that pushed the Libyan people (tribes) over the edge. Even though the tribes have no support from outside like the militias who receive weapons and money from the US (via Turkey), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Sudan; the Great Tribes of Libya have joined together to take back their sovereignty no matter what.

The terrorist gangs (militias) fearing the loss of their "golden goose" have called their brother terrorists from all over Libya to support them in their battle. These terrorists (Salafists and Wahabists, et. al) are being flown into the Mitiga Airport in Tripoli. The Mitiga airport, the old Wheelus Air Base , is being controlled by the terrorists.

So, as the world watches, the Great Tribes of Libya, standing alone with all their Libyan brothers and sisters, take on the New World order and their proxy army of terrorists.

We ask the people of the world to stand with their Libyan brothers and sisters as they fight the Zionist New World Order, Khazarian mafia cabal. The Cabal has taken their country by illegal means and placed their criminals on the ground to keep the Libyan people from their security and sovereignty.

The Great tribes of Libya are showing the world how to fight, they deserve your support and your respect. God bless them all as they fight against the evil that is permeating the entire world today.
Comment: More from Sputnik:

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on the conflicting parties in Libya to immediately cease fire and sit down at the negotiating table, his spokesman said in a statement on Saturday.

"The Secretary-General calls on all parties to immediately cease hostilities and abide by the ceasefire agreement brokered by the United Nations and the Reconciliation Committees," the secretary-general's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement.

Guterres condemned the continued hostilities in and near Tripoli, in particular, the indiscriminate shelling, which killed and injured civilians, including children. He offered his deepest condolences to the victims' relatives.

"He urges all parties to grant humanitarian relief for those in need, particularly those who are trapped by the fighting," the spokesman added.

Ghassan Salame, a special representative of the UN secretary-general and the head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), will continue to work and cooperate with all parties to achieve a long-term political agreement acceptable to all, he concluded.

[F]ighting erupted on August 26 reportedly between local militias and Kani tribal fighters from Tarhouna, southeast of Tripoli.

According to the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) NGO, heavy shelling in residential areas resulted in an unspecified number of casualties and approximately 8,000 refugees and asylum seekers remaining trapped in closed detention centers in dire humanitarian conditions.

See Also: Russia demands OSCE action over Ukraine's treatment of journalist in custody An Alastair Crooke observation on 'Suez' Event Dangerously delusional: France "ready to strike" if it hallucinates another chemical weapons attack in Syria Login -- Register to add your comments!
Reader Comments

Yossarian · 3 days ago

The writer of this article seems to clearly understand the nature of the real enemy of the Libyan people.
jordifs · about 14 hours ago
Yossarian I am not sure. But it could be: JoAnne Moriarty. I remember the interview in Sott Radio see at:
Rowan Cocoan · 3 days ago
The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The Toilet").

So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class.

But that's their plan - as enacted further daily - here in the West, too.

R.C.

[Sep 07, 2018] Guardian cheerleading of the NYT "resistance" op-ed by Richard Wolffe

What is interesting is that Wolffe links the op-ed and publishing Bob Woodward's latest book: "Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they prevented World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers off his desk."
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story. Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort. ..."
"... Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation, ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and resigning publicly. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

The madness is pouring out of the White House now, for all to see Richard Wolffe

... ... ...

If you really believe your boss is a threat to the constitution which you've taken an oath to protect, perhaps you should consider quitting or going public. As in: going on Capitol Hill to hold a press conference to urge impeachment.

In this regard, and only in this regard, our anonymous whistleblower has handed the crazy boss a degree of righteous indignation.

"If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist," tweeted the madman in the attic, "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

Donald, we feel your pain, albeit briefly. Your internal enemies are indeed gutless, and if you feel better putting that in ALL CAPS, that's fine. Let it out.

But that bit about turning people over to you for national security reasons is kind of the point here. If you'll allow us to summarize the GUTLESS person's arguments: you are fundamentally a threat to democracy and national security yourself. You are indeed, as your lawyers have pointed out repeatedly, your own worst witness.

This much we know from this week's other bombshell in the shape of Bob Woodward's latest book. Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they prevented World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers off his desk.

... ... ...

Mr or Ms GUTLESS describes Trump's decisions as "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless", while chief of staff John Kelly says Trump is "an idiot" living in a place called "Crazytown". This revelation led to the priceless statement from Kelly where he had to deny calling the president an idiot.

Somewhere in Texas, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson is swirling a glass of bourbon muttering that he lost his job for calling Trump a moron.

Second, Trump's staffers are enabling the very horrors they claim to hate, while grandiosely pretending to be doing the opposite.

Mr or Ms GUTLESS says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment" in what he imagines is a clear sign they can distinguish reality from reality TV.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Trump cabinet: please know that you will not be accepted into the next edition of Profiles in Courage for your early whispers. If you truly believe the president is incapacitated, you should perhaps consider raising your voice to at least conversational level, if you're not inclined to bellow from the mountaintops. Library rules are inoperative at this point.

Given the weight of evidence, even the most diehard Trump defenders are now conceding the obvious, by signing up to the GUTLESS gang's self-promotion. Brit Hume, a Fox News veteran, let the cat out of the bag when he tweeted that it was a "good thing" they were restraining Trump "from his most reckless impulses".

This is how the pirate ship Trump eventually sinks to the ocean's floor. You can fool some of Fox News's viewers all of the time, and you can fool all of them some of the time.

But no fool wants to drown with the captain we all know is plain crazy.

Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist

MoonlightTiger -> MoonlightTiger , 6 Sep 2018 10:02

It's someone high up that makes policy decisions, brags about everything they have done to help America despite Cheetos interfering. Why now? Pence wants it known that he is running the government not useless trump whom has passed nothing. Pence will come out as the author when Don is removed from office. Which could be nearing since this OPED is likely to expose him. Maybe he planned it that way.

Brutus is close now.

Carl123 -> MuttPretty , 6 Sep 2018 10:00

What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's White House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each other.

Clearly a massive conspiracy. And one which Trump is helpfully participating in by constantly saying and doing stuff which accords with the pictures they're all painting.

MuttPretty , 6 Sep 2018 09:58
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's White House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each other. All these sources come together to display a rather coherent image of a chaotic White House led by a man who's not bright enough to realize he's in over his head.
Alun Jones , 6 Sep 2018 09:53
The New York Times attack piece was anonymous. It is therefore completely unverifiable and could have been written by anyone, including any of the politically biased NYT editorial team, or by Bob Woodward to publicize his new book. It's junk news.
OrangeLagoon -> JozzaBoy , 6 Sep 2018 09:49
I'm firmly convinced that when it's all said and done we'll be able to represent his presidency as an MMO boss fight. This is the bit where everyone concentrates fire on the glowy spot until the enrage mechanic kicks in. In fact it looks like the mad flailing has started and now everyone will try not to stand in the AoE as they DPS him down.
moranet , 6 Sep 2018 09:43
Mussolini was in power for twenty years before his functionaries deposed him to keep the regime intact while removing its newly-a-liability head. Mussolini was the legal (if abhorrent) premier of a coalition government in a liberal-democratic (both words with a pinch of salt) regime for his first two years, until winning a parliamentary majority of his own; indeed, after the leader of the Socialist Party was killed by his supporters, his coalition partners almost pulled out of government: that's not a totalitarian dictatorship, but what was then called "pre-fascism", and today we'd call it an 'illiberal democracy'. The dictatorship was informal (result of a supportive majority) until the constitional reform of 1928 - five years into his government.

Thinking that all will turn out fine because American democracy is under strain but generally intact, is a dangerous complacency. All interwar autocrats went through a transition of first governing under the old constitution, slowly undermining opposition, then installing a new organic law. Perhaps all will turn out well in the US, and Trump will leave office with the old 'rules of the game' untouched - but that can't be assumed, and we won't know until after he is gone.

Carl123 -> Finisterre , 6 Sep 2018 09:40

Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back - we have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.

Truckloads of "anonymous bollocks" reported by credible, highly respected journalists with excellent reasons to protect their sources.

"Anonymous" bollocks" which syncs perfectly with events and pronouncements by the president himself - including numerous firings of so many of the "best people" he hired.

"Anonymous bollocks" confirmed in evidence/testimony presented publicly and under oath in court.

Otherwise, great point.

JozzaBoy , 6 Sep 2018 09:40
this is desperate stuff. Is this the thing that is finally going to bring down Trump?

The media cycle wrt Trump;

1. Trump is Crazy
2. Trump is Hitler
3. Trump is Losing
4. Go To Line 1.

babyboomer63 , 6 Sep 2018 09:38
Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story. Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort.
imperious -> BLACKCAT66 , 6 Sep 2018 09:36
There is a segment of this country that is willfully ignorant because a con man told them to be. We really need to ignore this shrinking number of fuck-nuts and just out vote them.
We live in a democracy. If you choose to use facebook as your only source of news about the world, it is not because a con man told you to, it is because you are just too plain stupid to go looking elsewhere.
Cascais99 , 6 Sep 2018 09:36
I'm surprised that no one has compared the author of the anonymous article in the New York Times with "Deep Throat", who anonymously met Bernstein and Woodward in an underground parking garage in Washington to spill the beans about Watergate. Deep Throat turned out to be Mark Felt, a high-ranking official in the FBI who kept working against Nixon under cover and whose name was revealed only a few years ago.
FeliciorAugusto , 6 Sep 2018 09:31
Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation, ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and resigning publicly.

Screw whoever it is, they are obviously no hero to the American people.

James Steel , 6 Sep 2018 09:31
Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo have denied writing the op-ed -- but that's exacta guilty person would say :)

[Sep 07, 2018] Now we Know 'The Resistance' is The Establishment by Brendan O'Neill

Notable quotes:
"... bête noire ..."
Sep 03, 2018 | www.sott.net

So now we know what 'the resistance' really is. It's the establishment. It's the old political order. It's that late 20th-century political set, those out-of-touch managerial elites, who still cannot believe the electorate rejected them. That is the take-home message of the bizarre political spectacle that was the burial of John McCain, where this neocon in life has been transformed into a resistance leader in death: that while the anti-Trump movement might doll itself up as rebellious, and even borrow its name from those who resisted fascism in Europe in the mid 20th-century, in truth it is primarily about restoring the apparently cool, expert-driven rule of the old elites over what is viewed as the chaos of the populist Trump / Brexit era.

The response to McCain's death has bordered on the surreal. The strangest aspect has been the self-conscious rebranding of McCain as a searing rebel. In death, this key establishment figure in the Republican Party, this military officer, senator, presidential candidate and enthusiastic backer of the exercise of US military power overseas, has been reimagined as a plucky battler for all that is good against a wicked, overbearing political machine. 'John McCain's funeral was the biggest resistance meeting yet', said a headline in the New Yorker , alongside a photo of George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and soldiers from the US Army, the most powerful military machine on Earth. This is 'the resistance' now: the former holders of extraordinary power, the invaders of foreign nations, the Washington establishment.

The New Yorker piece, like so much of the McCain commentary, praises to the heavens the anti-Trump theme of McCain's funeral. McCain famously said Trump couldn't attend his funeral. And that in itself was enough to win him the posthumous love of a liberal commentariat that now views everything through the binary moral framework of pro-Trump (evil, ill-informed, occasionally fascistic) and anti-Trump (decent, moral, on a par with the warriors against Nazism). Even better, though, was the fact that orators at the funeral, including McCain's daughter Meghan and both Bush and Obama, used the church service to slam Trumpism, without explicitly mentioning it, and in the process to big-up what came before Trumpism, which of course was their rule, their politics, their establishment. The Washington political and media set might seem bitterly bipartisan, said the New Yorker writer, but it is also 'more united' in one important sense - 'in its hatred of Donald Trump'.

Hatred of Trump has become the moral glue of the bruised elites who have been either pushed aside or at least dramatically called into question by the populist surge taking hold in the West. And so motored are these people by the shallow moralism of Anti-Trumpism that they are happy to marshal even a life as complex and interesting and flawed as McCain's to the service of hurting Trump. A former Al Gore adviser, Carter Eskew, wrote in the Washington Post: 'In death, John McCain is about to exact revenge on Donald Trump.' Unwittingly revealing the Old Testament streak to the new elite religion of Hating Trump, Eskew said that as 'McCain ascends to heaven on an updraft of praise, Trump's political hell on Earth will burn hotter'. On why it suddenly started to rain when McCain's coffin was brought into the Capitol, a CNN journalist said: 'The angels were crying.' What century is this?

The religious allusions, the talk of vengeance against Trump, the misremembering of McCain's life so that it becomes a moral exemplar against the alleged crimes of Trumpism, exposes the infantile moralism of the so-called resistance. Albert Burneko, assessing some of the madder McCain commentary, says there is now a 'condition' that he calls 'Resistance Brain', where people display an 'urge to grab and cling on to anything that seems, even a little bit, like it might be the thing that Finally Defeats Donald Trump'. Even if the thing they're grabbing on to is actually a bad thing. Like a seemingly endless FBI investigation into the elected presidency. Or George W Bush, whose moral rehabilitation on the back of Anti-Trumpism has been extraordinary. Or neoconservatism: this was the scourge of liberal activists a decade ago, yet now its architects are praised because they subscribe to the religion of Anti-Trumpism. Being against Trump washes away all sins.

Some on the left have criticised the moral rehabilitation of McCain. 'Let's not forget that he wanted war with Iran and lots of other places too!', they cry. Yet the truth is they paved the way for his posthumous rebranding as one of the great Americans of the late 20th century. Since 2016 they have talked about Trump as a uniquely wicked president, a shocking aberration, the closest thing to Hitler since the 1930s. Their anti-Trump hyperbole, driven by their own political disorientation and increasing sense of distance from the electorate, has allowed any politician who is not Trump to mend their reputations and gloss over their own destructive behaviour. The transformation of Trump into the bête noire of all right-minded people, a pillar of unrivalled wickedness that we all have a duty to protest against in our pussy hats and orange wigs, has been a boon to the wounded pre-Trump political class keen both to whitewash its own crimes and to prepare for its return to the position of power it enjoyed before the electorate was corrupted by 'post-truth' hysteria.

'The resistance' is the fightback of the establishment against the people. As it is in Britain, too, where the rich and influential people fuelling the war on Brexit - the largest act of democracy in British history - like to refer to themselves as 'insurgents'. It is the height of Orwellianism for these acts of elitist reaction against democratic dissent to dress themselves up as forms of resistance. But it is not surprising. From the get-go, the so-called resistance has been more a pining for the old establishment, for Hillary's rule and for the continued domination of Britain by the EU, than it has been any kind of daring strike for a new politics. Look closely at the funereal elitism of McCain's burial and you will see one of the saddest and most striking political developments of our time: how self-styled radicals preferred to throw their lot in with the old establishment under the umbrella of 'the resistance' rather than heed ordinary people who were saying: 'Let's tear up the old order.'

Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked. Find him on Instagram: @burntoakboy

[Sep 07, 2018] "Fake it till you make it" is the slogan they clutch tight to their heart the consequences however are far far reaching. My only hope is that should any of them leave here - they will get found out in a week.

Sep 07, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Red1729 -> mattblack81 , 6 Sep 2018 09:16

Nice post and well put.
I am currently sitting in an office where 30% are blaggers of the highest order. They talk and kiss ass - but ultimately - deep down - know they cannot do they do not know the job. The responsibiltiy they have will make you shudder. I have told friends and they are visibly shaken that this can happen. But I think it is the way of the world at the moment. They dare not argue with me for full knowledge they will be sent packing, they already have been but on "minor" non work related items.

"Fake it til you make it" is the slogan they clutch tight to their heart the consequences however are far far reaching. My only hope is that should any of them leave here - they will get found out in a week.

Yes the likes of Trump are a reflection of just that.

The mad thing is - I now am of the belief that I could do that job ie President of the US. That is madness.

MonsieurPumpernickel -> teppictoo , 6 Sep 2018 09:16

to foil the wishes of the elected members of government.

No. Just one member. And that one member isn't a supreme leader. You need to look elsewhere for those types of leaders - they're usually standing next to Trump while he fawns over them.

Personally I'm grateful for a bureaucracy that frustrates bad ideas - wherever they come
from. That's part of their role.

HiramsMaxim -> SolentBound , 6 Sep 2018 09:16
"If the author of the Op-Ed piece is telling the truth,"

Ay, there's the rub. But, still no existential threat.

HiramsMaxim -> aussieinjapan , 6 Sep 2018 09:15
Yes, I do read The Guardian, and I never watch Fox (cut the cable years ago)
Gojettgo , 6 Sep 2018 09:15
Everything, with the exception of Steve Bannon in Michael Wolf's book, has been anonymous. These people write things, attribute them to, say, John Kelly, then Kelly says I NEVER SAID THAT and we're left to believe whom?

If there is genuine resistance inside the White House to Trump- If it is at all like anybody says- then I would imagine that a genuine top level appointee would go on camera, throw themselves on their sword, and speak to the American people. Until such a time I question what is Woodward's agenda? Do I trust Omarosa? Is Michael Wolf credible? What are their goals? I'm not blind but I want to see more than anonymous. And until then... I don't believe it.

Daniel Ferris -> bonhiver , 6 Sep 2018 09:15
When the crowd screams, just join them. It's tremendous fun!
MoonlightTiger , 6 Sep 2018 09:15
Its Pence and trump can't fire him
imperious -> Nialler , 6 Sep 2018 09:15
I'm not going to attempt to defend Trump.

I agree, I'd hate to defend him either, but you can't help thinking he has a point by calling this person gutless. Either stand up in public and say it or, if s/he really is working in the background to save us from Trump's excesses, then surely you're better off (and the country as a whole) staying there and not alerting him?

CaptainHogwash , 6 Sep 2018 09:14
In any functioning household the adults would have sent Trump to his (preferably padded) room
KevinFinn -> Nepochtitelnikov , 6 Sep 2018 09:14
"Maybe electing a big stupid toddler as president was a bad idea after all you guys"

Still better than the alternative!!

Take a look at how the donations to the Clinton Foundation have dried up since they no longer have any influence to peddle.

AbFalsoQuodLibet -> John Edwin , 6 Sep 2018 09:13
It's the New York Times, and no, they certainly haven't been against Trump since his election.

Their lead White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, still writes extremely understanding pieces of Trump. And she's been covering the man for almost 15 years, so one would think she had the measure of the man long ago.

More importantly, the NYT threw the election for Trump by first exonerating Trump of any Russian collusion - which was false - and by covering the last-minute Comey statements on the Clinton emails in the worst negative light possible for the Democratic candidate. The NYT turned out to be wrong, but the damage was done.

The NYT even tried to put new faces on their opinion staff with close connections to actual American neo-Nazis (!) and only failed when old tweets came to light.

I'm not quite sure what the NYT is playing at - I guess it's easy to play the devil's advocate in artsy-fartsy, liberal New York - but they most certainly have not been against Trump from January 2017 at all.

charlieblue -> John Edwin , 6 Sep 2018 09:13
Does that tinfoil hat pinch?

Trump is not a freedom fighter, he is not your Great White Messiah, he's not an advocate for blue collar American citizens. Trump is a stupid, vulgar, greedy old fat racist who conned his way into the White House. There has been a lot of talk in all mediums about his unsuitability for the office, and his obvious ties to the Kremlin, but there has been no organized effort to remove him from office, no matter what you might have read on Qanon.

Daniel Ferris -> bonhiver , 6 Sep 2018 09:13
His deregulation tendencies clinch it. No one could deregulate like Hitler!
Sixp__ -> teppictoo , 6 Sep 2018 09:12
Garbage.

Treason is defined as "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies".

Mueller should be considering indicting Trump for treason.

cacaMBa -> ctdahle , 6 Sep 2018 09:12
You think the entire population is incapable of thinking about serious issues because there's some tittle-tattle on twitter? When did that happen? No-one would work because there's always fluffy kittens on YouTube.
Pushk1n , 6 Sep 2018 09:12
Its Probably Donald himself, he has form on spoofing , pretending to be someone else.

The giveaway is the bit where it says a lot of good stuff has been done.

It could also be Giuliano creating a myth that Donald is such a muddle head he could not possibly have conspired with anyone about anything .

PaulBowyer -> Graeme48 , 6 Sep 2018 09:12
But not when Russia (who back Assad) retaliated.

And Putin has the nuts on Trump.

[Sep 07, 2018] Israel Armed, Funded 12 Different Syrian Rebel Groups

Sep 07, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Israel Armed, Funded 12 Different Syrian Rebel Groups Rebels assumed Israel would save them during southern offensive

Jason Ditz Posted on September 6, 2018 Categories News Tags Israel , Syria

New reports on Israel's arming and funding of Syrian rebel groups reveals that no less than 12 rebel factions, all in southern Syria, were on the receiving end of Israeli aid. This included weapons, ammunition, money, and even some armored vehicles .

The story about arming Syrian rebels actually broke Wednesday with the Jerusalem Post, though Israeli military censors shut this down quickly. Once the foreign-based Foreign Policy came out with its own version Thursday, Israeli media were quick to follow, suggesting the censors gave up on trying to keep this secret.

Foreign Policy interviewed rebels from the Syrian groups, and suggested that they "feel betrayed" because they had assumed Israel would intervene militarily to save them from the Syrian offensive, and that never happened.

This sense of abandonment has been common among rebels getting foreign subsidies, as they've often assumed there was a deep commitment to the rebellion, as opposed to just a brief alliance of convenience. Several Syrian rebel groups have similarly lashed the US for "betrayal" during the war.

One rebel was quoted saying "This i a lesson we will not forget about Israel. It does not care about the people. It does not care about humanity. All it cares about is its own interests." Israel confirmed it ended funding for rebels in July, when the last rebels in the south lost.

It's unsurprising that Israel didn't commit militarily to southern Syria during the offensive, since Russia was backing the attack on the rebels, and almost certainly would've moved against Israel if they had.

[Sep 07, 2018] Syria war - US has seen evidence chemical weapons being prepared

Sep 07, 2018 | bbc.co.uk

The new US envoy for Syria has said there is "lots of evidence" that Syrian government forces are preparing to use chemical weapons in Idlib.

Jim Jeffrey said an anticipated offensive against the last major rebel-held area would be a "reckless escalation", Reuters reported.

The Syrian government has repeatedly denied ever using chemical weapons.

Russian planes have bombed rebel areas in the north-western region as troops mass for the expected offensive.

It comes as a summit is due to take place in Iran on Friday between the leaders of Russia and Iran, which both support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Turkey, which has backed some rebel factions.

The UN has warned of a humanitarian catastrophe if an all-out assault takes place and Turkey fears a new influx of refugees across its border.

[Sep 07, 2018] Danny Sjursen on Terror Wars and Becoming Antiwar - The Scott Horton Show

Notable quotes:
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash , The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; LibertyStickers.com ; TheBumperSticker.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott . ..."
Aug 22, 2018 | scotthorton.org

Danny Sjursen is interviewed on his service in the Terror Wars, how he became antiwar, and how he wants his service and the service of others to be honored.

Sjursen is a major in the U.S. army and former history instructor at West Point. He writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and he's the author of " Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge ." Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash , The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; LibertyStickers.com ; TheBumperSticker.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott .
Check out Scott's Patreon page.

[Sep 07, 2018] At some point you start to notice how DemoRats and neocons flood social media and every forum with their trash propaganda

Sep 07, 2018 | politics.slashdot.org
Anonymous Coward , Friday September 07, 2018 @11:46AM ( #57269458 )
Fake News ( Score: 1 )

Russians want a weak and divided US. Putin couldn't care less about who is running the nation.

Did they interfere with our election? Maybe.

Did illegals criminally vote in our elections after Obama asked them to? Did the Clintons and the DNC pay millions for the so-called research that led to Russia dossier? Yes. Did Clinton have her billionaire foreign friends funding her campaign? Yes.

But I guess direct foreign interference doesn't count if the Democrats were behind it. I think Democrats need to understand that people are starting to notice all the BS they are preaching.

You can't have it both ways....unless your a Democrat. People got tired of that and elected a clown over a corrupt political cult of blatant liars and criminals. Normal people don't like SJW types, hypocrites and habitually outraged race baiters.

At some point you start to notice how they flood social media and every forum with their trash propaganda. Even slashdot seems to get hit constantly.

[Sep 07, 2018] Mattis lies. Jihadists will> try to divert responsibility for their own crimes onto Syrians who just want peace in all of Syria with no more cowardly attacks on Syrians going about their own business

Sep 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 5:17:08 PM | link

CarlD @43--

I'm on record saying we're already in the midst of a Hybrid Third World War that began on 11 Sept 2001 when the Outlaw US Empire attacked itself, although some will argue it began with Clinton's illegal siege of Serbia. True, it hadn't gone global yet in either instance, but neither did WW2 become global when Japan invaded China in 1931.

Much depends on how desperate Neocons are to obtain their Full Spectrum Dominance policy goal as they've declared both Russia and China to be hostile powers interfering with the Empire's God-given right to control Eurasia.

ger , Sep 6, 2018 5:21:38 PM | link
Why does Mattis lie about chemical weapons among his terrorist pals? Well ... liars lie and Mattis admits he has 'zero intelligence'. US foreign policy in a nut shell. MoronsR/US.

Bobby , Sep 6, 2018 7:21:28 PM | link

Mattis lies as always like when they did attack Syria the last time with France and GB.

They are nations of war criminals , no respect for the international laws , use force to get their agenda and keep colonizing the poor countries who do not have the ways to defend themselves , that where the Russian should get in with stern warning of possible war with west and the Zionist state which along with their Zionist friends in the USA rule the policy of western civilization if their was one.

They are not civilized but wolves in sheeps Coates.

Shame on the western Christianity, in the name of God they will go and kill whom do not bow to our needs.

Posted by: Bobby | Sep 6, 2018 7:21:28 PM | link

Pft , Sep 6, 2018 7:24:18 PM | link

Karlof1@47

Since the US was recovered by Cecil Rhodes and Rothschild on behalf of the money power in the City of London the US has been in a permanent world war against lesser nations starting from 1898.

Since then we have invaded /occupied 65 countries with special forces deployed in over 130 countries at present. In the period 1950-2005 there have been 82 million avoidable deaths from deprivation (avoidable mortality, excess deaths, excess mortality , deaths that did not have to happen) associated with countries occupied or invaded by the US in the post-1945 era. Another 24 million by our little master Israel.

I dont have figures from 2006-2018 but between Israel, Us and Nato it could be as high as 15 million in Syria,, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Palestine, Pakistan. Total since 1950 approaches 120 million in avoidable deaths.

Debsisdead , Sep 6, 2018 8:15:36 PM | link
None of the American bluster matters a toss. There is nothing they can do. Sure maybe they will ruffle a few feathers on the periphery and that p's me off - not as much as the innocents they will kill & maim will be p1ssed - it won't change anything.

This day has been coming for Idlib since the day about 3 years ago when Syria , Iran and Russia agreed to use it as a dumping ground for the credulous morons who follow the 'jihadis' around like flies on dogsh1t.

If there ever was such a thing as a moderate armed fighter, they should never have agreed to share a country retreat with al Qaeda and Daesh since this endgame was plain to see from the get go.

If the 'moderates' had shot thru to somewhere else, they and their families would have no worries now.

Instead they bunked up with arseholes, either because the moneymen in Turkey KSA & UAE said to or because they were too weak willed to stand up for themselves.

Whichever it was, nothing will go for the better as long as they try and divert responsibility for their own foolishness onto Syrians who just want peace in all of Syria with no more cowardly attacks on Syrians going about their own business.

[Sep 07, 2018] A good news! Kim is willing to sign a Declaration of Peace with Moon prior to the Outlaw US Empire removing its troops, while also taking note of other related developments

Notable quotes:
"... "[W]e should value all these successes which the north and the south made hand in hand and keep advancing without deviation the north-south ties that have definitely entered the new orbit of peace, the orbit of reconciliation and cooperation." ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | sputniknews.com

karlof1 | Sep 6, 2018 5:05:28 PM | 46

A RoK delegation returning from yesterday's meeting with DPRK officials and accompanying news reports say Kim is willing to sign a Declaration of Peace with Moon prior to the Outlaw US Empire removing its troops, while also taking note of other related developments:

"Chung Eui-yong, Moon's national security adviser, told reporters Thursday that Kim said he would be willing to sign the end-of-war declaration that Seoul and Pyongyang have been pursuing since the spring without concomitantly demanding the withdrawal of the 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea or an end to the alliance between the US and South Korea."

Kim said the following and more:

"[W]e should value all these successes which the north and the south made hand in hand and keep advancing without deviation the north-south ties that have definitely entered the new orbit of peace, the orbit of reconciliation and cooperation."

Here's the DPRK's Rodong Sinmun 's statement on the event.

The next Moon/Kim Summit will be in Pyongyang September 18-20. Imagine the pressure on the Outlaw US Empire should Kim and Moon sign such a Declaration! I bet Trump would sign it just to pressure the warmongering Senate to vote for a Peace Treaty. Imagine the global uproar if they declined to ratify!

[Sep 07, 2018] The New York Times op-ed and the 13 people who might be the author

This is a provocation/false flag operation completely in style of Steele dossier. So MI6 links might exist. Among "candidates" They missed late Senator McCain, who was involved with Steele dossier. They also included two definitely bogus candidates (Jarvanka and Melania)
BTW in 2008, the world's richest man, Carlos Slim, saved the Times from bankruptcy. "When that guy saves your company, you dance to his tune." -- Carlos Slim- The New York Times' Sugar Daddy
Sep 07, 2018 | www.cnn.com
Don McGahn We know the White House counsel is a short-timer -- planning to leave in the fall. We also know that McGahn has clashed with Trump repeatedly in the past -- refusing Trump's order to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. And McGahn has already shown a willingness to look out for the broader public good, sitting down for more than 30 hours with special counsel Robert Mueller's team to aid their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Dan Coats The Director of National Intelligence is very much a part of the long-term Washington establishment, having spent not one but two stints in the nation's capital as a senator from Indiana. Coats has also shown a tendency to veer from the Trump songbook. Informed of Trump's plans to invite Russian president Vladimir Putin for a summit in the United States this fall, Coats said "That is going to be special" -- a line that drew the ire of the President. Kellyanne Conway Conway, a White House counselor, is someone who has survived for a very long time in the political game. And not by being dumb or not understanding which way the wind blows. Plus, there is the X-factor of her husband -- George -- whose Twitter feed regularly trolls Trump . John Kelly The chief of staff has clashed repeatedly with the President and seems to be on borrowed time . Kelly sees his time in the job as serving his country in the only way left to him. Might he view exposing Trump in this way as a last way to be of service? Kirstjen Nielsen The head of the Department of Homeland Security is a close ally of Kelly, who we know has a very fraught relationship with Trump. And she has reasons of her own: Trump scolded her in a Cabinet meeting over the number of undocumented immigrants entering the country. Nielsen reportedly drafted a resignation letter but backed away. Jeff Sessions Sessions sticks out as a possibility for a simple reason: He's got motive . No one has been more publicly maligned by Trump than his attorney general. Trump has repeatedly urged Sessions to use the Justice Department for his own pet political concerns. And this week, Sessions found out that Trump has referred to him as "mentally retarded" and mocked his southern accent, according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. Sessions is also someone who spent two decades in the Senate prior to being named attorney general by Trump after the 2016 election. LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING?

Check out the latest analysis from The Point with Chris Cillizza :

James Mattis The defense secretary has been Trump's favorite Cabinet member. But the quotes attributed to Mattis in Woodward's book are VERY rough on Trump, though Mattis quickly denied that he ever said them. And if anyone has less to lose than Mattis -- he is a decorated military man serving his country again -- it's hard to figure out who that would be. Plus, Mattis is an ally of John Kelly (see above) and Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state that Trump ran out on a rail. Fiona Hill Hill, a Russian expert who joined the Trump administration from the Brookings Institution, a DC think tank, might have reason to so publicly clash with Trump. She is far more skeptical about Russia's motives than Trump -- and was notably left out when Trump and Putin huddled on the sides of the G20 meeting in Germany in 2017. She was a close adviser to national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who was removed from the White House . And, she was also reportedly mistaken for a clerk by Trump in one of her earliest meetings with him on Russia. Mike Pence The vice president is all smiles, nods and quiet, deferential loyalty in public. Which of course means that he has the perfect cover to write something like this in The New York Times. Pence is also ambitious -- and there's no question he wants to be president. But would taking such a risk as writing this scathing op-ed be a better path to the White House than just waiting Trump out? Pence's deputy chief of staff and communications director Jarrod Agen denied Thursday that Pence or anyone from their office authored the op-ed.

Jarrod Agen ✔ @VPComDir

The Vice President puts his name on his Op-Eds. The @ nytimes should be ashamed and so should the person who wrote the false, illogical, and gutless op-ed. Our office is above such amateur acts.

7:01 AM - Sep 6, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy Nikki Haley The United Nations ambassador is, like Pence, one of Trump's favorites. She is also, however, someone deeply engaged on the world stage and a voice of concern when it comes to how the President views Russia and Putin. Haley, again like Pence, is ambitious and has her eye on national office. Would this service that goal?

... ... ...

[Sep 07, 2018] Trump did not, in his 8th decade, suddenly develop a desire to serve the American people at his own expense. He is in the White House doing exactly what he has always done, he is pursuing whatever makes him happiest in the moment with no regard to consequences, morality or even common sense.

Sep 07, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com
charlieblue , 6 Sep 2018 09:20
Fascinating to see the tinfoil hat brigade turn out in such numbers to rant and rave about the "Deep State!" and poor, honest Donald Trump as a freedom fighter who is daily sacrificing himself for the good people of America.

Why do bullies always pretend to be victims?

As with science, human nature can usually boiled down to the most likely answer, the simple observable truth. Such as; Donald Trump's entire life is a story of greed, vulgarity and self promotion to the exclusion of all else. He did not, in his 8th decade, suddenly develop a desire to serve the American people at his own expense. He is in the White House doing exactly what he has always done, he is pursuing whatever makes him happiest in the moment with no regard to consequences, morality or even common sense.

[Sep 06, 2018] How Obama and Netanyahu Overplayed Their Hand in The Arab Spring

Notable quotes:
"... While Syria's long serving President Hafez al-Assad was criticised by Iraq for his apparent eagerness to enter into an armistice with Israel in 1974 and while Hafez appeared to be on the verge of recognising Israel in the mid-1990s, recent revelations brought to the world's attention by former US Secretary of State John Kerry indicate that his son and current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad drafted a letter to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking to enter into discussions regarding Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for Syria entering into a Jordanian style peace agreement with Tel Aviv. ..."
"... A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, ..."
"... As such, Russia looks to balance the ambitious of each of these players against one another in order to attain a regional equilibrium in which Moscow plays the role of both benign power broker and economic partner. ..."
"... the so-called Arab Spring was supposed to pave the way for a future Greater Israel, that too is now dead as Russia would not let Tel Aviv threaten the long term territorial integrity of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or any other Middle East state. ..."
"... When viewed with the benefit of hindsight, the gamble that Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu took in 2011 to forfeit good relations with politically stagnant, diplomatically compromised and generally malleable Arab Nationalist leaders in order to attempt and fracture the political structures and territorial unity of multiple Arab states has backfired in extraordinary fashion. ..."
"... While in 2010 Russia was scarcely a major factor in the region and while Iran did not have much influence in the Arab world outside of southern Iraq and parts of southern Lebanon, today the opposite is very much the case. As a result, while a combination of Israeli-US pressure and internal pettiness helped render many once proud Arab Nationalist states impotent, the omnipresence of Russia as the only regional power with a desire and ability to balance Iranian, Turkish, Arab and Israeli interests means that while Israel's existence is now guaranteed, its expansionist aims are permanently dead. In this sense, the Arab Spring was in reality, an Israeli winter. ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.eurasiafuture.com

At the beginning of 2011 while Iraq was still on its knees following the illegal 2003 US/UK invasion, the rest of the Arab world was generally calm, domestic politics was predictable and most importantly from the American and Israeli perspective, the revolutionary fervour that underpinned the Arab Nationalist revolutions of the mid-20th century had largely given way to pragmatic and at times self-effacing secular Arab regimes that posed no serious military or diplomatic challenge to America's desired pro-Israel status quo in the region. At the beginning of 2011, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak looked and acted unsinkable. Crucially, this included his unsinkable loyalty to the United States and Israel. The same was true in Jordan's monarchy while in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had given up on the Arab Nationalist cause in order to pursue what he believed was a more tangible and potentially more rewarding Pan-African cause. Crucially, not long after trading Arab Nationalism for Pan-Africanism, Gaddafi established normal relations with the United States and its traditional partners in 2003.

While Syria's long serving President Hafez al-Assad was criticised by Iraq for his apparent eagerness to enter into an armistice with Israel in 1974 and while Hafez appeared to be on the verge of recognising Israel in the mid-1990s, recent revelations brought to the world's attention by former US Secretary of State John Kerry indicate that his son and current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad drafted a letter to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking to enter into discussions regarding Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for Syria entering into a Jordanian style peace agreement with Tel Aviv.

In a rational environment, Netanyahu and Obama should have been utterly contented with the fact that an Arab world which was once united behind the cause of Palestinian justice had gradually capitulated while even Arab Nationalist hold out Syria was on the verge of doing much the same. But rather than being content with getting concessions from the Arab world that as comparatively recently as the mid-1970s would have sounded fantastical, Washington with Israel's clear consent and cooperation instead decided to light a fuse beneath the Arab world.

The so-called Arab Spring began with "protests" in Tunisia in December of 2011. But the real coming out party for America and Israel's new policy of 'lead from behind regime change' in the Arab world was in Egypt. It was in Cairo on the 25th of January that a combination of genuine demonstrators, paid agitators and terrorists took to Tahrir Square to protest government policies. The protests eventually lead to the downfall of President Mubarak who had governed the country since 1981.

Mubarak had many genuine home grown opponents to be sure and this is before one accounts for opposition from proscribed terror groups including and especially the Muslim Brotherhood. And yet it was only when the United States officially withdrew support for Mubarak that a full regime change came to pass which itself paved the way for a highly unstable Muslim Brotherhood regime led by Muhammad Morsi.

Unable to facilitate the kinds of lead from behind protests in Libya that were rather easy to foment in an Egyptian society where a great deal of genuine discontent served to cover the true intentions of the Obama administration in the Arab world, the US decided to accuse Libya's government of crimes against the Libyan people including an accusation of mass rape committed by soldiers that turned out to be as fake as the 2002 allegation that Iraq maintained stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. While most Libyans were too busy enjoying the benefits of Africa's most generous welfare state to protest, the US began preparing for a full scale military attack on Libya while France and Britain became the public face of America's biggest war on an Arab state since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It was around the same time in early 2011 that provocations against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad were staged near the Jordanian border in the city of Daraa. Unlike in Libya there was a measure of discontent in Syria due to a five year long drought which severely impacted domestic agriculture. Likewise, in spite of modest economic reforms, the economy was largely stagnant. Be that as it may, genuine discontent in Syria was not only less than in Libya but less than in Egypt. From the US perspective this became all the more reason to fan the flames of long latent sectarian divisions and likewise it became the private excuse for offering arms and funds to individuals who later formed anti-government militias and terror groups.

The results of this so-called Arab Spring have led to instability in Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood rule which itself led to the politically and economically stagnant government of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. In LIbya what was once Africa's most stable and prosperous nation, a failed state peppered with terrorist training camps and slave auctions has developed which itself has led to the worst migrant crisis in the modern history of Afro-European relations. In Syria, the war which began in 2011 is still being fought and while an end is in sight, Syria is still a long way away from peace.

The mutual desire of the United States and Israel to weaken Arab Nationalist governments and retard the advancement of progressive Arab unity long predates the tragic events of 2011. But while 1996 saw arch-neocon Richard Perle draft A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a radical anti-Arab foreign policy paper presented to Benjamin Netanyahu as a kind of gift, by 2010, many of the goals contained in A Clean Break had already been achieved through co-opting Arab states into a policy of submission which supplanted the radicalism of previous decades.

What had not been achieved by 2010 however was the realisation of anything approximating the Yinon Plan , a controversial policy proposal advocating for the creation of a so-called "greater Israel" that was first published in 1982 in the Israel journal Kivunim. The Yinon Plan called for the aggressive expansion of Israeli territory into Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

While the Yinon Plan was based partly on modern far-right notions of political expansionism and in other parts based on the most extreme interpretations of Zionist mythology, the idea of intentionally weakening once powerful Arab Nationalist states in the region was clearly an attempt to begin the early stages of what could have become expanded political influence and territorial domination throughout the Middle East for Israel.

Today however, it would appear that the plan has backfired for two largely unrelated reasons. First of all, the agitations of Iraq's Shi'a majority population in Iraq combined with the phenomenon of a Shi'a Islamic Resistance spreading to Syria as a means of countering extremist Sunni Takfiri groups including Daesh, along with the increased influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon has made a once isolated Islamic Republic of Iran a major player in much of the northern half of the Arab world. Thus, as Arab Nationalist states and political movements in the northern half of the Arab world have weakened a militarily resurgent Iran has only become stronger and as such is something of a bulwark against Yinon's map of a Greater Israel.

But the rise of Iran has also led to another major development, the long term importance of which is still being overlooked as much in the Arab world as in the west. Russia has returned to the Middle East as a major player only unlike during the Cold War, Russia is now on exceptionally good terms with every major player in the region including multiple rivalling Arab states, Turkey, Iran and crucially both Palestine and Israel.

As such, Russia looks to balance the ambitious of each of these players against one another in order to attain a regional equilibrium in which Moscow plays the role of both benign power broker and economic partner. As a result, the old Arab Nationalist dream of liberating Palestine is virtually dead as Russia views the importance of safeguarding Israel's territory as on-par with that of all of its neighbors. That being said, while the so-called Arab Spring was supposed to pave the way for a future Greater Israel, that too is now dead as Russia would not let Tel Aviv threaten the long term territorial integrity of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or any other Middle East state.

When viewed with the benefit of hindsight, the gamble that Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu took in 2011 to forfeit good relations with politically stagnant, diplomatically compromised and generally malleable Arab Nationalist leaders in order to attempt and fracture the political structures and territorial unity of multiple Arab states has backfired in extraordinary fashion.

While in 2010 Russia was scarcely a major factor in the region and while Iran did not have much influence in the Arab world outside of southern Iraq and parts of southern Lebanon, today the opposite is very much the case. As a result, while a combination of Israeli-US pressure and internal pettiness helped render many once proud Arab Nationalist states impotent, the omnipresence of Russia as the only regional power with a desire and ability to balance Iranian, Turkish, Arab and Israeli interests means that while Israel's existence is now guaranteed, its expansionist aims are permanently dead. In this sense, the Arab Spring was in reality, an Israeli winter.

[Sep 06, 2018] 9/11 - The Footage They Didn't Let You See Twice

Sep 06, 2018 | www.youtube.com

(9/11 2001 Documentary) | 12 Sept 2017 | June 2001

CIA and NORAD use drones (remotely-controlled aircraft) to practice hijackings of airliners flown into buildings... Minutes before the first demolition, explosions in the lobby filled it with white smoke. (Forty minutes after impact.) Pre-weakening is essential in demolitions.

That smoke is much more visible seconds before demolition, as seen here...

Loud cutter-charge explosion sounds heard near WTC 7. (Video)

[Sep 06, 2018] A combined army of Libyan tribes fight UN-backed terrorist militias in Tripoli by JoanneM

Notable quotes:
"... so there will not be a truce. ..."
Sep 04, 2018 | www.sott.net

Libyan War The Truth
Tue, 04 Sep 2018 05:00 UTC Message Libyan Tribes © Libyan War The Truth Save BREAKING News direct from the great Tribes of Libya

Stated Emphatically by the Libyan Tribes:

DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT IS BEING PUT OUT IN THE WESTERN MEDIA. THE MEDIA AND ZIONIST NEW WORLD ORDER CABAL IS ATTEMPTING TO FABRICATE THE SAME PROBLEM AS IN 2011 BY PRINTING LIES.

THERE IS NO CEASEFIRE, THERE IS NO TRUCE.

THE FIGHT IN TRIPOLI IS BETWEEN THE LIBYAN PEOPLE (TRIBAL ARMY) AND THE TERRORIST GANGS CALLED MILITIAS.

These are the facts on the ground today in Tripoli:

1. The combined army of the Great Tribes of Libya is fighting against the terrorists and mercenaries in Tripoli. These terrorists call themselves militias, but they are nothing more than hired thugs, thieves, murderers and criminals made up of Muslim Brotherhood, LIFG, Ansar Al Sharia, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. These terrorists were brought into Libya by the illegal NATO war against the sovereign country of Libya. They are supported by the US (via Turkey), Qatar, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, they work with the UN puppet government in Tripoli. As long as they roam the streets of Tripoli with their weapons there is no security, no peace and no life for the innocent Libyans.

2. All Tribes of Libya support this army.

3. All legitimate Libyan people in Tripoli and throughout Libya support the tribes and are against these terrorist militias

4. The Great Tribes of Libya will not stop until all terrorists are dead or gone outside of Libya. The terms of any truce with the tribal army would mean the end of the criminal puppet UN government and the end of the terrorist militias, so there will not be a truce.

On September 2, 2018 Reuters reported that 400 prisoners escaped from the Ain Zara prison in Tripoli. The truth is that the army of the Libyan tribes attacked the prison and effected the freedom of 400 Libyan soldiers about 5pm on September 2. Amongst those 400 were the 45 young men to be assassinated as condemned last week by the kangaroo militia court in Tripoli. In 2011, when NATO invaded they opened all the prisons in Libya and let out all the criminals to help attack the Libyan people. Most if not all of the people imprisoned in Libya now were people who were fighting against NATO or were against the NATO take over (working in the government).

I am fully aware as are the honorable leaders of the tribes in Libya that all of our conversations are monitored as we are the only true source of information of the activities of the Libyan tribes and their struggle to regain their sovereignty. Having stated that, I want to editorialize by saying that the illegal activities of the US mercenaries in Libya concerning their Kangaroo court and their decision to assassinate 45 mostly dark skinned Libyan soldiers, was the straw that broke the camels back. This left the legitimate Libyan people with no option except to go into the streets and wrest control of their country from these paid mercenaries.

One of the tribal spies inside these criminal militias told us 2 weeks ago that all the criminal militias have been frightened by the impending death of John McCain, they consider him their brother, founder, funder and protector. McCain had protected them from all scrutiny and allowed their barbarianism. The death of McCain would mean all their sins would be exposed. They wanted to kill all the prisoners, but their UN handlers said the militias must have the appearance of legitimacy. Consequently, the kangaroo court was set in motion.

The great tribes of Libya have taken on the battle to free their country of the terrorists and puppets placed there by the New World Order Zionists who in effect own NATO. This is a serious battle for their sovereignty. They take this on with no outside help, unlike Syria who has had the aid of Russia, Iran and China, the Libyan people are alone in this battle. They are battling the same criminals as are the Syrian army. They know this is a battle of life or death for them, they are not a large population, they have already lost over one million people, they are now only 5.5 million. As the world watches Syria, please let it not forget the fight for freedom happening now in Libya.

About the Author:

James and Joanne Moriarty were appointed official spokespersons of the Tribes of Libya by their Supreme Leader in 2012. For their story and mission to get the message out and help the Libyan people, go here.

[Sep 06, 2018] The US Military is Winning. No, Really, It Is! by Nick Turse

Notable quotes:
"... Nick Turse is the managing editor of ..."
"... a fellow at the Nation Institute, and a contributing writer for the ..."
"... His latest book is ..."
"... . He is also the author of the award-winning ..."
"... His website is NickTurse.com. ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Taliban says that in order to end "this long war" the "lone option is to end the occupation of Afghanistan and nothing more."

In June, the 17th American nominated to take command of the war, Lieutenant General Scott Miller, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee where Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled him on what he would do differently in order to bring the conflict to a conclusion. "I cannot guarantee you a timeline or an end date," was Miller's confident reply .

Did the senators then send him packing? Hardly. He was, in fact, easily confirmed and starts work this month. Nor is there any chance Congress will use its power of the purse to end the war. The 2019 budget request for U.S. operations in Afghanistan -- topping out at $46.3 billion -- will certainly be approved.

#Winning

All of this seeming futility brings us back to the Vietnam War, Kissinger, and that magic number, 4,000,000,029,057 -- as well as the question of what an American military victory would look like today. It might surprise you, but it turns out that winning wars is still possible and, perhaps even more surprising, the U.S. military seems to be doing just that.

Let me explain.

In Vietnam, that military aimed to " out-guerrilla the guerrilla ." It never did and the United States suffered a crushing defeat. Henry Kissinger -- who presided over the last years of that conflict as national security advisor and then secretary of state -- provided his own concise take on one of the core tenets of asymmetric warfare: "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose." Perhaps because that eternally well-regarded but hapless statesman articulated it, that formula was bound -- like so much else he touched -- to crash and burn .

In this century, the United States has found a way to turn Kissinger's martial maxim on its head and so rewrite the axioms of armed conflict. This redefinition can be proved by a simple equation:

0 + 1,000,000,000,000 + 17 +17 + 23,744 + 3,000,000,000,000 + 5 + 5,200 + 74 = 4,000,000,029,057

Expressed differently, the United States has not won a major conflict since 1945; has a trillion-dollar national security budget; has had 17 military commanders in the last 17 years in Afghanistan, a country plagued by 23,744 " security incidents " (the most ever recorded) in 2017 alone; has spent around $3 trillion , primarily on that war and the rest of the war on terror, including the ongoing conflict in Iraq, which then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld swore , in 2002, would be over in only "five days or five weeks or five months," but where approximately 5,000 U.S. troops remain today; and yet 74% of the American people still express high confidence in the U.S. military.

Let the math and the implications wash over you for a moment. Such a calculus definitively disproves the notion that "the conventional army loses if it does not win." It also helps answer the question of victory in the war on terror. It turns out that the U.S. military, whose budget and influence in Washington have only grown in these years, now wins simply by not losing -- a multi-trillion-dollar conventional army held to the standards of success once applied only to under-armed, under-funded guerilla groups.

Unlike in the Vietnam War years, three presidents and the Pentagon, unbothered by fiscal constraints, substantive congressional opposition, or a significant antiwar movement, have been effectively pursuing this strategy, which requires nothing more than a steady supply of troops, contractors, and other assorted camp followers; an endless parade of Senate-sanctioned commanders; and an annual outlay of hundreds of billions of dollars. By these standards, Donald Trump's open-ended, timetable-free "Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia" may prove to be the winningest war plan ever. As he described it:

"From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge."

Think about that for a moment. Victory's definition begins with "attacking our enemies" and ends with the prevention of possible terror attacks. Let me reiterate: "victory" is defined as "attacking our enemies." Under President Trump's strategy, it seems, every time the U.S. bombs or shells or shoots at a member of one of those 20-plus terror groups in Afghanistan, the U.S. is winning or, perhaps, has won. And this strategy is not specifically Afghan-centric. It can easily be applied to American warzones in the Middle East and Africa -- anywhere, really.

Decades after the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. military has finally solved the conundrum of how to "out-guerrilla the guerrilla." And it couldn't have been simpler. You just adopt the same definition of victory. As a result, a conventional army -- at least the U.S. military -- now loses only if it stops fighting. So long as unaccountable commanders wage benchmark-free wars without congressional constraint, the United States simply cannot lose. You can't argue with the math. Call it the rule of 4,000,000,029,057.

That calculus and that sum also prove, quite clearly, that America's beleaguered commander-in-chief has gotten a raw deal on his victory parade. With apologies to the American Legion, the U.S. military is now -- under the new rules of warfare -- triumphant and deserves the type of celebration proposed by President Trump. After almost two decades of warfare, the armed forces have lowered the bar for victory to the level of their enemy, the Taliban. What was once the mark of failure for a conventional army is now the benchmark for success. It's a remarkable feat and deserving, at the very least, of furious flag-waving, ticker tape , and all the age-old trappings of victory.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch , a fellow at the Nation Institute, and a contributing writer for the Intercept. His latest book is Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan . He is also the author of the award-winning Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam . His website is NickTurse.com.

Sin City Milla , says: September 6, 2018 at 5:23 am GMT

Military conquests are the most ephemeral. Colonisation lasts longer. A mere century or two in the case of Europeans. But even 900 years was not sufficient for Greeks to remove the military n cultural threat posed by the Semites n Iranians of Southwest Asia, from Alexander's conquest in 323 BC till the Muslim "reconquista" of 632 AD. Only demographic "conquest" works in the end. If your women are not out-reproducing their women, then your military will fail spectacularly n quickly, as what had once been your population transforms into theirs. At that point, far from victory parades, you get to see statues to your former heros torn down, n the highest "patriotism" becomes enthusiastically opening the gates to what had once been your people's deadliest enemies.
Haxo Angmark , says: Website September 6, 2018 at 6:41 am GMT
the GWOT has 3 components:

1. keep Israhell on the map.
2. keep oil-producers taking dollars and only dollars for their oil
3. keep the CIA's poppy fields in Afghanistan in full production

on 1: ongoing victory, Israhell is still there
on2: Iraq and Libya back on the petrodollar, Iran pending
on3: ongoing victory, CIA drug ops proceeding normally

in ZOG-ruled 'Murka, every day is a day of new victories.

Anonymous , [317] Disclaimer says: September 6, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
Mr. Turse is a comic. What a beautiful summary of the situation.
See a group, Imagine a possible threat, if both occur, bingo group =converts to =>terrorist
and each member converts to a subliminal threat. Imagine the psychology that can be applied to that bit of information to produce next day propaganda. Let us not forget the real media that displays the propaganda is owned by just 6 entities; global access to knowledge and real truth is gated and directed by search engine magic these two facts are IMO a real global threat to humanity.

Win by not losing/ In such a scenario increasing numbers in a terror group or increasing numbers of, or broadening the global distribution of terror groups produces more terror fodder. The competent imagination derives its threats from terror fodder ( fodder fits any size imagination).

When ever it is needed, proof of any non self-inflicted terrorism can be conjured from the imagination. As Mr Turse says proof of terrorism can be found in the definition, proof of victory can be found in the attack (as Mr. Turse so adequately expressed), and both are recorded in the history of terrorism, which can be found in the daily media presentations and the MSM annual report "Dollars Spent Chasing Terrorist from the Imagination". a joint publication of the Internationally linked intelligence services and the global college of paranoia producing propaganda.

victory is found in the attack because dollars start to flow; the more dollars the greater the victory.

But how much of this would be possible if the reserve currency were no longer the dollar? What will happen when Russia, China, Iran and others produce a new reserve currency or displace existing reserve currencies by assigning exchange value to the currency of each nation? The issuer of reserve currency measures its money supply by the checks he writes [their checks never bounce], everyone else measures their currency by the amount of the reserve currency they are able to keep in the bank ( to prevent their checks from bouncing].

Justsaying , says: September 6, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
@Sean Because although Health and Education Keynesianisn would work as well as the Military variant, it also leads to an organised population mobilising for social change. And while wars do end eventually, social spending seems to increase over time without limit. I was almost sold on that explanation to my honest question, until the phrase

wars do end eventually

Would wars "ending eventually", not render the MIC obsolete? Is it not the MIC that thrives on perpetual wars with seemingly endless supplies of cash to fund their wars? Even in periods of relative calm (if ever, since WWII that is), is it not the constant threat of war that keeps the military monstrosity grinding away?

RVBlake , says: September 6, 2018 at 11:45 am GMT
74% of Americans express high confidence in their military? I wonder if 74% of Americans are even aware that we're at war. I read somewhere that U.S. generals now define victory as getting the Taliban to the bargaining table.
Tom Walsh , says: September 6, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
"out-guerrilla the guerrilla." was coined by Col. David Hackworth as out "G" ing the G and was shown to work in the Delta. Read his book "About Face" or "Steel my soldiers hearts"
Kjell Holmsten , says: September 6, 2018 at 1:39 pm GMT
Elites, read Bolsheviks or Freemasons win no war, they do not win over diseases, crime, idiot bla, bla. They are making money on them and they always turn to both sides. To the criminal gangsters, to the associations of the sick, to the losers in war, they can win in 20 years, etc. etc. This article is foam, foam. The Elites are trying to do everything and nobody understands anything, so the elite wins – the banker always has his blood money.
Carroll Price , says: September 6, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT

the United States has not won a major conflict since 1945; has a trillion-dollar national security budget; has had 17 military commanders in the last 17 years in Afghanistan, a country plagued by 23,744 "security incidents" (the most ever recorded) in 2017 alone; has spent around $3 trillion, primarily on that war and the rest of the war on terror, including the ongoing conflict in Iraq, which then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld swore, in 2002, would be over in only "five days or five weeks or five months," but where approximately 5,000 U.S. troops remain today; and yet 74% of the American people still express high confidence in the U.S. military.

Let me correct that 1st sentence for you: the United States has not REPEATED THE MISTAKE OF WINNING a major conflict since 1945.

Why? Because as they quickly discovered, WW2 was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy, and that lots more money is made fighting wars than winning one, as proven by the above quoted figures.

Agent76 , says: September 6, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
September 17, 2014 US Pursues *134** Wars Around the World

The US is now involved in *134* wars or none, depending on your definition of war.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35654/US-Pursues-134-Wars-Around-the-World/

December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The US Military has bases in *63* countries. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

ChuckOrloski , says: September 6, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT
Hi Nick Turse,
Given OBL and Afghanistan Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 terror attacks, it appears likely that the W. Bush regime launched war upon the Taliban exclusively for geopolitical interests, minerals, i.e., lithium, and construction of natural gas pipelines directed southeast to the subcontinent, India.
Fyi, approximately seven years ago, I saw a U.S. Veterans informational map which identified the Neo-"Grunts" military bases as within close proximity to pipeline construction.
Consequently, for me, I see US military's incessant stay in "the graveyard of Empires" as a stilted profit & loss (P&L) "'victory," but of course there's no (!) dividend for dumb goyim American citizens, but voila, oodles for global energy companies, untouchable Military-Industrial-$ecurity Complex, & killing "Poppy Fields," including Moneychanger pharmaceutical-opioid trade!
In short, the incredible cost for U.S. military's GWOT & advanced targeting of Russia is diabolically placed upon future generations of American taxpayers who, at the moment-of-their birth, are in debt, & the Mom and Pop' "victory" is incarnate in a 'guvmint CHIP card.
ZUSA wars "victory" is in the pockets of P&L-benefactors, and on Sunday afternoons, one can feel the "bern" when fighter jets flyover NFL stadiums!
Thanks for the education, Mr. Turse!
onusians , says: September 6, 2018 at 3:48 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra It did not in the civilised societies of north and western Europe. The nordic " model " is dead , and it has been a bad example to the world . Sweden has 10 million people , Norway 4 , Danmark 6 . These little countries can not be a valid model for anyone .

Like Toynbee said nordics are kind of a failed egoistic subcivilization of the germans , english of russians , with which they never had the courage to integrate . They seem to be happy in their autistic cold world , pretending to be a showroom for the UN perverts .

Thim , says: September 6, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
As to Vietnam the author is just clueless. Where was the so called crushing defeat? When we Americans pulled out in 1971 to 1972 the NVA was still stymied and impotent. Our so called allies hated us totally and the feeling was mutual. We actually had no allies in Vietnam except the savage yard tribes. But yes after we pulled out the South collapsed fast as we knew they would. They got exactly what they deserved. But it was a South Vietnamese defeat. By 1975 our armies were long gone. Repeat, there were no American divisions, battallions or platoons to lose. We were gone.

We still do not know exactly what Kissinger got from the Chinese at Paris in 1971-2, but he and Nixon seemed happy enough, and we pulled out and ceded Vietnam. We do know this was the exact time China began to cooperate with us in the Cold War against the Bolsheviks. Specifically, we know the Chinese allowed our B-52′s, loaded with nukes, to overfly, all along the Soviet border, and this continued to 1987, when the game was already up.

[Sep 06, 2018] A question of attitude by PaulR

Notable quotes:
"... Autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine. ..."
"... Transformation of the rebel state and military structures into political parties . ..."
"... Comprehensive and unconditional amnesty for everyone involved in the war. ..."
"... No elections in Donbass for two to three years. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | irrussianality.wordpress.com

A couple of Ukraine-related items caught my attention this week.

The first is a report by Baylor University professor Serhiy Kudelia which discusses how to bring peace to Donbass. Kudelia starts by saying that Western states have regarded the resolution of the war in Donbass as being dependent on changing Russian behaviour. This is insufficient, he says, for 'the successful reintegration of Donbas into Ukraine rests on designing a new institutional framework that can provide long-term guarantees to civilians and separatist insurgents.' Kudelia says that academic literature on conflict resolution would suggest four elements to such a framework:

  1. Autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine. Such autonomy would come with risks, by entrenching local rulers with patronage networks outside of central control and with the means to challenge central authority. To reduce these risks, Kudelia suggests giving autonomy not just to the territories currently controlled by the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DPR & LPR), but to the whole of Donbass, thereby bringing within the autonomous region some more pro-Ukrainian elements of the population as well as groups not connected to the DPR/LPR power structures. He also suggests devolution of power within the autonomous region to weaken the potentially disruptive consequences of hostile elements controlling the region's government.
  2. Transformation of the rebel state and military structures into political parties. Experience in other countries suggests that when this happens, the prospects of a successful transition increase substantially.
  3. Comprehensive and unconditional amnesty for everyone involved in the war. For obvious reasons, rebel leaders won't agree to the first two proposals without an amnesty. Past experience speaks to the necessity of this measure.
  4. No elections in Donbass for two to three years. Kudelia notes that, 'Holding elections in a volatile post-conflict environment creates ample opportunities for voter intimidation, electoral fraud, and disinformation campaigns that could build on conflict-related divisions.' Kudelia doesn't say who would rule Donbass in the meantime. I would have to assume that it would mean that the existing authorities would remain in place. That could be problematic.

With the exception of that last point, these are sensible suggestions. But when boiled down to their essentials, they don't differ significantly from what is demanded in the Minsk agreements -- i.e. special status for Donbass and an amnesty. As such, while I don't think that the leadership of the DPR and LPR would like these proposals, my instincts tell me that they would be quite acceptable to the Russian government, which would probably be able to coax the DPR and LPR into agreeing to them. If implemented, the results would be something Moscow could portray as a success of sorts.

And there's the rub. For that very reason, I can't see Kiev agreeing to any of this. Kudelia's argument is founded on the idea that there's more going on in Donbass than Russian aggression. Accepting that something has to be done to 'provide long-term guarantees to civilians and separatist insurgents' means accepting that there are civilians and insurgents who need reassuring, not just Russian troops and mercenaries. And that means changing the entire narrative which Kiev has adopted about the war. So while Kudelia's proposals make sense (after all, what's the alternative? How could Donbass be reintegrated into Ukraine without autonomy and an amnesty?), what's lacking is any sense of how to get there.

A large part of the problem, it seems, is the attitude in Kiev. This becomes very clear in the second item which caught my attention -- an article on the website Coda entitled 'Now Healthcare is a Weapon of War in Ukraine.' The article describes how the DPR and LPR are encouraging Ukrainians to come to rebel territory to receive free medical treatment, and then using this as propaganda to win support for their cause. This is despite the fact, as the article shows, that the medical facilities in the two rebel republics are in a very poor state. Author Lily Hyde isn't able to confirm how many Ukrainians have taken up the rebel offer of free medical aid, but does repeat a claim by the rebel authorities that 1,200 people have done so.

What interests me here is not the sensationalist headlines about healthcare being weaponized, but the question of why Ukrainians might feel it necessary to go to the effort of crossing the front lines to get treatment. And the article provides an answer, namely that parts of Donbass 'are trapped in a precarious limbo, still under Ukrainian government control but cut off from key services like healthcare.' The war destroyed much of the healthcare system in Donbass, but 'Ukraine provides no financial or other incentives for medics to work in frontline areas', and has done little to repair shattered infrastructure. Healthcare seems to be a lower priority than fighting 'terrorism'.

While the DPR and LPR use healthcare as a 'weapon' by providing it to people, Kiev has 'weaponized' health in another way -- by depriving people of it. As the article reports:

Kiev has not outlawed receiving medical treatment in occupied Donetsk or Luhnaks. But collaborating with the separatists -- or supporting their propaganda efforts -- is illegal. How exactly such charges are defined is not clear, but past experience has taught both individuals and organizations to be wary of such accusations. The Ukrainian authorities have investigated non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Ukraine who have provided foreign-funded medicines and other supplies to occupied Donetsk and Luhansk. NGOs working there have been banned by the de fact authorities [of the DPR and LPR] on similar charges. Doctors have found themselves placed on blacklists by both Ukrainian officials and the separatists, accused of being 'terrorist collaborators' by one side, or of being spies by the other.

Hyde contrasts the Ukrainian government's policies towards the DPR and LPR with that of Georgia, where:

The government offers free healthcare for people from Abkhazia, a breakaway territory it still claims which is now under de facto Russian occupation. The government is building a modern hospital in the nearest town to the boundary line, aimed at people from Abkhazia.

Essentially, says Hyde, it's 'a question of attitude'. She cites Georgy Tuka, Ukraine's Deputy Minister for Temporarily Occupied Territories -- '"There's a wish to punish people," Tuka acknowledged.'

That's quite an admission from a government minister.

Even if the details need fleshing out, the institutional framework required to reintegrate Donbass into Ukraine has been pretty obvious for a long time now. The problem has been getting people to accept it. It is indeed, therefore, 'a question of attitude'. Sadly, the prevailing attitude stands firmly in the way of the institutional changes required for peace. The desire seems to be to punish people, not to reach agreement with them in order to promote reintegration and reconciliation. The issue, then, is whether this attitude can be changed (and if so, how) or whether it is now so firmly entrenched that there is nothing which can be done. Sadly, I fear that it may be the latter.

Guest says: August 25, 2018 at 1:14 pm
It's too late for the reintegration of Donbas into Ukraine, there will be no implementation of any agreement.

-- Ukraine have gone full neo-Nazi
-- language law is offensive to all minorities not just Russian speakers
-- Russophobia is rampant
-- attacks on the orthodox church

Why would anyone in DPR/LPR want to be part of this.

Aslangeo says: August 26, 2018 at 4:20 am
I agree with the other commentators integration of the Donbass into an aggressive nationalist Ukraine which is not capable of respecting minority rights is not possible. A more sensible option would be for Ukraine to divide into a nationalist part and a rusdophone part, this may be in a confederation like Belgium. As you say the Kiev government wants complete victory rather than a peace based on reconciliation the conflict will continue at low level if the Kiev regime believes that they cannot win but will ignite into another major war if they believe that they can. What should Russia do ? In my opinion provide suitable aid to the people of the Donbass to ensure their survival and build institutions, a stable and peaceful Pridnistrovye type situation is the best that can be achieved in the foreseeable future
Guest says: August 31, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Sad news from Donbas

Zakharchenko was killed by a bomb in a cafe

The article is called a question of attitude – We see the attitude of the Kiev regime in this action of killing one of the signatories of Minsk 2.

Lyttenburgh says: September 1, 2018 at 2:58 am
Just a direct quote from prof. S Kudelia "Peace plan" linked above:

" Rebel Disarmament, Demobilization, and Conversion

Reaching an agreement on power-sharing is one precondition for beginning to disarm and demobilize combatants in civil wars. Another component is the inclusion of former rebels in the competitive political process through "rebel-to-party transformations Integration of the party tied to former rebel groups can eliminate potential spoilers, develop stakeholding in the new system, provide non-violent means of conflict resolution, make them more accountable to their constituency, and increase legitimacy of the election process and new authority structures. However, some of the positive effects from rebel conversion depend on the prior organizational structure of separatist groups and their political wings. Groups with a highly integrated political and military structure are the least likely to undergo a successful transformation into an exclusively political force . This points to major challenges in achieving rebel conversion in Donbas.

The leaders of the armed groups in Donbas have already established their own political organizations, which participate in separatist-administered elections, control local councils throughout the conflict region, and engage with residents. They have turned into what a security analyst Benedetta Berti calls "hybrid politico-military organizations" tightly linking political activities and armed struggle. In both "republics" military and political wings are subordinated to a single leader

However, an integrated political-military structure also presents three important challenges for successful transition into the political arena. First, in contrast to political wings of rebel forces in other countries, these organizations emerged as key tools for separatist governance in DPR and LPR. Their ideological program promotes independence for these regions and would be incompatible with participation in Ukraine's institutional politics. Their reintegration would require a major revision of their principles and goals with an emphasis on accommodation with the Ukrainian state and acceptance of its jurisdiction over the entire region . Otherwise, their inclusion in the political process risks deepening the war-based dividing lines and hampering reconciliation. Second, the centrality of the leaders of these groups in organizing an armed struggle against Ukrainian forces and their direct involvement in the fighting delegitimizes them in Ukrainian public opinion and with the central government . The recently adopted law on "temporarily occupied areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts" describes the ruling structure of the "republics" as an "occupational administration of the Russian Federation." This further complicates their post-conflict acceptance as legitimate regional representatives. Hence, leadership turnover in separatist groups is a crucial precondition for the beginning of their direct talks with the Ukrainian authorities . Finally, the current control that DPR/LPR leaders exercise over the separatist military apparatus means that even following disarmament and demobilization they would maintain some influence over local law enforcement. This, in turn, would allow these leaders to rely on an informal personal militia after demobilization or revive the military component of their organizations if they sensed a threat to their power status.

The conversion of rebel groups into recognized political organizations could be one of the most complex and contested elements of the transition."

Full stop. Now, ask yourself – Qui bono?

[Sep 06, 2018] Breaking!! Trump Treated as Mental Patient, Staff Steals-Hides Papers "Out of Patriotism"

Notable quotes:
"... WARNING: This story contains graphic language. ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

Even "Bad Dog" Mattis says he's nutzo

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor - September 4, 2018 25 2633

By Jeremy Herb , Jamie Gangel and Dan Merica , CNN

"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."

(CNN) WARNING: This story contains graphic language.

President Donald Trump 's closest aides have taken extraordinary measures in the White House to try to stop what they saw as his most dangerous impulses, going so far as to swipe and hide papers from his desk so he wouldn't sign them, according to a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward.

Woodward's 448-page book, " Fear: Trump in the White House, " provides an unprecedented inside-the-room look through the eyes of the President's inner circle. From the Oval Office to the Situation Room to the White House residence, Woodward uses confidential background interviews to illustrate how some of the President's top advisers view him as a danger to national security and have sought to circumvent the commander in chief.

Many of the feuds and daily clashes have been well documented, but the picture painted by Trump's confidants, senior staff and Cabinet officials reveal that many of them see an even more alarming situation -- worse than previously known or understood. Woodward offers a devastating portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides -- both current and former Trump administration officials -- grew exasperated with the President and increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.

Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" and "unhinged," Woodward reports. Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth grader." And Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a fucking liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special counsel Robert Mueller.

[Sep 06, 2018] Sounds like a palace coup to me: first, news of the forthcoming Woodward book (and excepts); then-coincidentally-today's "anonymous" and 'Gutless' article in the Times

NYT practices digital lynching...
Sep 06, 2018 | theguardian.com

Michronics42, 6 Sep 2018 06:46

Sounds like a palace coup to me: first, news of the forthcoming Woodward book (and excepts); then-coincidentally-today's "anonymous" and 'Gutless' article in the Times.

As far as I'm concerned, this entire hellish administration is sheer "madness" and a very clear indication that this country is in its agonizing twilight.

Each and every senior official in this administration is an enabler of this "shithole" human being and current president, so there is no such thing as bravery here, just covering one's tail if a coup were to occur.

Not once, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, has this 'Gutless' wonder decried the immorality of family separation, employing white racists as policy makers, shredding the social safety net for millions of this nation's most vulnerable; an outlandish Pentagon budget and etcetera.

What is solidly on display in this unfolding miasma is a firmly entrenched kleptocracy, enabled and supported by U.S. corporations and the death of democracy.

TheChillZone , 6 Sep 2018 06:36
The Woodward book seems to me just more kiss and tell stories of the Michael Wolff ilk (remember him?). The juiciest quotes - Trump being called an idiot by Kelly - is denied by Kelly himself and most of the others are ex-employees.

A better - more objective - book would get past the unconventional, apparent chaos of the Whitehouse and perhaps investigate whether Trumps methods have or will bear fruit.

That perhaps, as David Lynch said, traditional politicians can't take the country or the world forward - they can't get things done anymore because they are afraid of political consequences or media backlash. Trump and his ego doesn't seem to care about that - is that a good thing or a bad thing? Trump has turned everything on it's head and liberals find themselves allying with establishment politicians and business groups. It is a fascinating period of political change and time - and better journalism - will eventually judge Trump more objectively.

SolentBound -> uncleike , 6 Sep 2018 08:26
"The point of the op-ed is to continue to build popular support for removal of Trump by confirming the more detailed account of Woodward."

It was submitted to the Times before info on Woodward's book came out.

TezB -> HippoMan , 6 Sep 2018 08:22

'Pence... not a dangerous, mentally ill megalomaniac'

Pence is more dangerous – make that outright terrifying – than Trump. Yes. Trump is a senile vulgarian oaf – but he doesn't really believe in anything and is motivated only by his greed and pathological need for self-aggrandizement. He's mentally incompetent in a very obvious way, which renders him laughably inept at trying to bring his more odious policy objectives to fruition (in fact, inept at everything, pretty much).

Pence is far more sinister, because he's a dementedly fanatical believer in a fundamentalist and authoritarian mutation of religion – a crazed zealot. While sometimes able to imitate the superficial demeanour of a person of sound mind, he is in truth utterly deranged.

While Trump lies and denies obvious specific facts almost as a reflex, he doesn't really sustain his warped world view consistently or with conviction that lasts longer than it takes to play his next round of golf.

Pence vehemently espouses a whole alternative reality based upon his religious fantasies, and believes he has a mission to impose his delusional ideas in a punitive and repressive manner on his country's entire population, permanently. He may have the cunning to be chillingly effective at realising his most ghastly ambitions.

Trump represents a temporary aberration; a collective brain fart. Pence could be the instigator of a new dark age for the USA

Meerkatz , 6 Sep 2018 08:17
Having seen this type of character assassination visited on Bill and Hillary Clinton, character assassination before any reported crimes have been proven against them or for that matter any sexual misdemeanors as president are proven, what exactly is going on here?

I totally disagree with this type of thing even if the person is someone I don't understand much. The world has come to a dangerous place where digital lynching without reference to law seems to be the prevailing modus operandi.

Jessp , 6 Sep 2018 08:13
A little word of warning. Be careful what you wish for. If Don can be removed prior to the next election, (and I don't believe that would happen), then Mike Pence takes the reins. He has just as many crazy notions as his current boss, but is an experienced politician who knows the ins and outs of Congress. He may get more of the programme through than little Don can. And that would not be good.
BritinNormandy -> NameIcallme , 6 Sep 2018 08:12
He's done it before. Lots of times. Example: one of his posts back in April: "Trump is a genius. Nobody can take him down, the man is a fighter, you punch him and he'll punch you back 10 times harder. The FBI, Democrats and MSM have tried to take him down since he decided to run for president, yet he's standing tall and with a 50% approval rating."

There's no point in engaging in discussion with folks like that ...

malibudebumbum , 6 Sep 2018 08:09
Welcome to postmodernist politics folks. It will continue to degenerate until, in despair, people turn toward an orderly system of politics; the Chinese system, the Russian system or even a coherent religious system. Counsellors will be on hand for those who feel hurt or upset by the return to authoritarianism -- they will be able to get great treatment in re-education centres. Just a matter of time before our current system just crumbles from within.
sl0thp0pe -> littlepump , 6 Sep 2018 08:08
Yeah they're sucking it direct from Ayn Rand's teat. Bunch of sociopaths. And I think most political scientists are well aware that citizens united was the death of American democracy as a representative political system. The illusion of functionality has collapsed under the weight of corruption. Trump is really just a symptom of that. A giant orange enema of the state.
ID3866144 -> stuart255 , 6 Sep 2018 07:51
LOL. The west is about to collapse. There is no more money to finance the Ponzy Scheme of the everlasting growth you seem to think is natural. while everyone is distracted in this dualistic BS, the planet is slowly shutting down her ressources.

The Russia after years of sanctions have developed an economy that make them less dependant on other countries. So They will probably less affected by what is coming.

Unless you live in you own bubble, maybe you noticed that Occidental countries have become empty shells...gutted from their skills at making stuff. It is all virtual production now...all banking stuff, numbers insurance...most skilled stuff are either in Germany or in Asia...what is going on?

stuart255 -> HippoMan , 6 Sep 2018 07:47
Trump is a megalomaniac I agree, but he is not dangerous and is not mentally ill. Mental illness is a real thing and you shouldn't casually trivialize it in this way.

Finally anyone who runs for office as President of the USA is by very definition a pretty extreme megalomaniac. So you have two points that are not real and/or could be considered erroneous discrimination and one point that is a prerequisite for any POTUS candidate.

Looking for a reason to impeach him is a ridiculous back to front thing to do and is itself proof that any impeachment will fail. To impeach someone you must first start with a very obvious reason.

It's simply not possible to impeach a president because you don't like their politics or their personality. This whole searching for a reason to impeach is itself evidence that any impeachment is politically motivated and the very optics of this serve only to strengthen Trump's own political support in direct opposition.

Trump is President because the DNC was captured by very stupid and deeply corrupt people.

[Sep 06, 2018] Use of rather uncommon "lodestart" trace can be a false flag operation similar to Russian traces in DNC hack

I think people attributing the letter to Pence are confused as for which side the rogue CIA operatives are on :-)
Sep 06, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

j. von Hettlingen , 6 Sep 2018 07:16

Many say Mike Pence could have been the one behind the op-ed, because the unidentified author singled out the late John McCain as "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue." The word isn't that commonly used. But Pence has used the word with some regularity. Yet the word could have been a ploy to divert attention from the real author, who claimed to support many of the GOP policies – "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."
No doubt the current crisis works for Pence: "Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president." Of course he and the GOP didn't want to "precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over." But they don't want Trump to finish his term and hope that he'll soon be gone.
Finisterre -> Carl123 , 6 Sep 2018 06:53
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back - we have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.

This op-ed is going to absolutely confirm, in the eyes of Trump supporters, all his whines about being thwarted by the Deep State. It's going to increase his support among the crazies, and it's also useful for the Republicans who want to ditch him in favour of Mike Pence.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and for the Democrats or the 'resistance' to see it as some kind of bonus is insane. Even if you take it at face value it's a disgusting piece of authoritarian, we-know-best hypocrisy. If you look at its actual effects, the net result is not likely to benefit the forces of sanity in any way.

The media's complacency about all of this, and their failure to actually report on the Republican trajectory and the bigger picture, is criminal. Instead we get YET ANOTHER bit of 'oh look the wheels are just about to come off the bus!', and all the while the Republicans are gerrymandering and purging voter rolls like crazt before the midterms, and of course refusing to change their unaccountable electronic voting machines and - did you read THIS one in the news? - blocking a bill which would have audited the election results.

Tl;dr: The US, and by extension the planet via environmental destruction and possibly war on top, is utterly fucked.

CharlieApples -> solarights , 6 Sep 2018 06:48
I think you've confused whose side the CIA are on :-)

[Sep 06, 2018] What is wrong with you American people ? Why such level of jingoism and fake national security concerns is possible ?

Notable quotes:
"... Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times .. four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even before the US military became .. robust?.. ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Blenheim , 6 Sep 2018 06:10

Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times .. four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even before the US military became .. robust?..

What is wrong with you people .. national security?.. Laughable .. when is your security ever, ever, ever threatened! And yet people starve, people don't have clean water to drink ..
Perhaps were the US to help lift the basic burdens of millions who have bugger all, then there wouldn't be so many suposed 'enemies'. I do believe film maker Michael Moore has voiced this very same thing .. but then, what purpose all those shiny new expensive killing machines?..
Something is seriously wrong in America .. and it ain't just Trump!

CosmoCrawley , 6 Sep 2018 05:56
This is a very poor op-ed piece. Simply calling the President "a crazy loon " isn't political analysis, or at least not the sort of political analysis I would be willing to pay for. Nor do I think the thesis that certain members of the administration are busy trying to shore up their reputations in the face of a sinking presidency holds water. Firstly, unless the current investigations provide incontrovertible evidence that the President was engaged in criminal activity I don't think there is any change that he will be impeached. Secondly, if you wanted to protect your reputation surely the thing to do would be to resign and maintain a dignified silence while you are writing your memoirs. Or if you really were part of a secret clique protecting the American constitution against a reckless President you would keep quiet and get on with your important business. It seems to me that this anonymous piece was either a clumsy attempt to further damage the President or a sophisticated attempt to galvanise his support base by "proving" that the President is being undermined by unelected traitors. Or something else completely might be going on. That's why I would like to read a thoughtful opinion piece by an informed observer.
StGeorge , 6 Sep 2018 05:51
Sounds like there's a treasonous public servant there, doing their best to subvert the will of the people. And of course loudly supported by the squealing hard left guardian mob. Looking at the type of far left fascists crawling‭ out of the woodwork, I would say Trump is provoking utter derangement in all the right people.
Densher -> kent_rules , 6 Sep 2018 05:45
"the corrupt metropolitan elites have swindled them again"
-Who appointed these 'corrupt metropolitan elites' if it was not Trump himself? Who are these people-Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin- quite apart from Jeff Sessions and the now disgraced Michael Flynn? Trump appointed them, they weren't forced on him by the "corrupt metropolitan elites". Is Trump to be given a free pass for his own mistakes?
Throwawaythekey , 6 Sep 2018 05:44
What many commentators here seem to fail to recognise, because of their political bias I suppose, is that there is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with the political consensus that has seen the working class and lower middle class disenfranchised or at least their perceived interests ignored. As a result, populist ideologies, as espoused by Steven Bannon, and others, and exemplified by leaders like Donald Trump have thrown away the rule book with all its aims to support the extremely wealthy and have reached out to those that want jobs before green policies, law and order before gender diversity programs and so on.
I doubt that many of the readers here will receive the message but we are witnessing a revolution that I see as significant as the rise of the sans-culottes in the early part of the French Revolution. That didn't end well for the sans-culottes or their aims but we can hardly blame them for trying. Today the retrenched car worker in the US can hardly be blamed for being unhappy that the CEO of a car company receives a huge pay rise and bail outs from the government and similar stories in other areas.
Vive la revolution.
Stone Jones , 6 Sep 2018 05:43
Some of this stuff is clearly nonsense. Example: the insider claimed Trump is an admirer of dictators:

"In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet the forthcoming Bob Woodward book claims Trump told his defence secretary he wanted to kill Assad:

Donald Trump ordered his defence secretary to assassinate Syria's president Bashar al-Assad and "kill the f****** lot of them" in the leader's regime, in the wake of a chemical attack against civilians, according to a new book.

Defence secretary James Mattis is said to have told the president during a phone call he would "get right on it" before hanging up the phone and instead telling an aide: "We're not going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured." In the wake of the chemical attack in April 2017, the president's national security team developed options that included the more conventional airstrike that Mr Trump eventually ordered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anti-Trump lot can't have it both ways. He can't be a fan of dictators but also want to kill them! It's clear there is lying or exaggeration on both sides. The people out to impeach Trump (or sell books!) will lie too.

[Sep 06, 2018] Was John McCain The Senior Official in The Trump Administration Who Wrote The Infamous Letter by Adam Garrie

This is plausible as McCain was involved in Steele dossier saga
Notable quotes:
"... In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John McCain. ..."
"... The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at the infamously anti-Trump New York Times. ..."
"... It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this without a doubt is a strange era in American political life. ..."
Jan 01, 2018 | www.eurasiafuture.com
Not only was John McCain never in the Trump administration but at the time when the infamous anonymous New York Times op-ed from a reportedly disgruntled senior Trump White House official was published, John McCain had been dead for eleven days. Therefore to suggest that McCain wrote the letter isn't to suggest a belief in time travel or the supernatural. Instead it is to suggest a calculated scheme from beyond the grave by a man who famously choreographed every detail of his own funeral during his final weeks or possibly months of life.

Whoever wrote the letter was clever enough to include in the text a red herring designed to convince the public and possibly Donald Trump himself that the letter's author was none other than Vice President Mike Pence. But as Andrew Kroybko rightly illustrates in his piece on the subject in Eurasia Future, Pence would never be so foolish as to include in the letter the word "lodestar" as the highly obscure word is frequently used by Pence while not being a part of the daily vocabulary of most English speakers anywhere in world. Such an obvious giveaway could have only been planted by design considering that whoever did write the letter most likely penned the most important epistle in his or her life.

Making matters more curious, the word "lodestar" appears in the ed-op in the paragraph where the author negatively compares Trump with John McCain. This itself is an indication that McCain and his much anticipated death were clear sources of inspiration for the content of the letter and the timing of its publication. The paragraph in question reads as follows:

"We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them".

In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John McCain.

While not casting judgment on the reality that John McCain was indeed a surviving prisoner of war, it is factually true that unlike many prisoners of war, McCain tended to publicly revel in his status as a survivor and even used the fame derived from his harrowing experience to launch a long political career. Because of this, it is not by any means unreasonable to think that the kind of egotism one associates with McCain might have led him to devise such a 'parting shot' at his powerful and more politically successful rival. This was after all the man who flew to all corners of the earth even in old age to rally various armed rebellions of one sort or another from Georgia and Ukraine to Syria and Iraq. It is also instructive to realise that McCain is the man who without a second thought handed the hoax Steele dossier to then FBI Director James Comey and later said the following about his actions:

"I discharged that obligation, and I would do it again. Anyone who doesn't like it can go to hell".

The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at the infamously anti-Trump New York Times.

While Donald Trump has suggested that he will use legal pressure to force the New York Times to divulge the source of the letter, such a matter could take years of back and forth in the courts, by which time the relevance of the letter would have been greatly reduced by the passage of time. In any case, as the drafting of the letter may well be a seditious or treasonous act, unlike an actual member of the Trump White House staff, McCain is currently in a place where no judge, jury or executioner can reach him.

It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this without a doubt is a strange era in American political life.

[Sep 06, 2018] The "Deep State" Planted A Red Herring To Set Up A Showdown Between Trump Pence

Notable quotes:
"... The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.eurasiafuture.com

The Mainstream Media's latest reports that internet sleuths think that Vice President Pence probably wrote yesterday's "Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times because of the anonymous writer's use of the word "lodestar" is nothing more than a red herring by the "deep state" to provoke a showdown between Trump & Pence ahead of this November's midterms and possibly even push the President to trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him.

Everyone in the world is wondering which high-level official in the Trump Administration penned yesterday's "Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times, but the Mainstream Media is running with the story that internet sleuths think that it's Vice President Pence because of the anonymous writer's use of the word "lodestar", which he's publicly used on at least five separate occasions before. He probably wasn't behind the piece, however, but his idiosyncratic use of a relatively uncommon word was likely picked up by the "deep state" well in advance and deliberately inserted into the preplanned infowar provocation that was just published in order to pin the blame on him as part of a larger scheme to sow discord in the White House.

The "deep state" wants to provoke Trump to unleash one of his famously scathing and unscripted tweets against Pence, which would irreparably ruin their professional relationship but also throw the President into a constitutional conundrum because he can't legally fire his Vice President no matter how much the two might come to hate each other as a result of this devious psy-op. Running with this scenario for a moment, whether Trump tries to fire a publicly insulted Pence or seethes with rage because he can't, the resultant turmoil that would play out in the Mainstream Media would be enough to seemingly confirm all of the accusations of chaos that Bob Woodward alleged in his upcoming book, therefore potentially tipping the midterm electoral scales to the Democrats' favor.

Reviewing the fast-moving developments of the past couple of days, it's inarguable that The Establishment planned for all of this to happen far in advance as part of their plot to undermine Trump ahead of the midterms, with the phased escalation of their infowar campaign so far moving from Woodward's book to the anonymous "Resistance" op-ed and finally to the claims that Pence is somehow involved because the unknown author cleverly inserted a very uncommon word that he's known to occasionally use. While Trump will probably display more common sense that he's regularly given credit for and likely won't fall for the trap of jumping the gun and publicly condemning Pence, he's in a dilemma when it comes to identifying who's behind the scandalous op-ed.

Trump has no choice but to order an immediate investigation on national security grounds after it was revealed that a high-ranking official in his administration is supposedly conspiring with others to sabotage the policies of the democratically elected and legitimate President of the United States, but this is predictably being framed by the Mainstream Media as a "witch hunt" that they'll soon try to compare to a "Stalinist purge" (if they haven't done so already). Actually, they seem to secretly hope that Trump becomes paranoid to the point of overreacting and punishes or publicly embarrasses innocent members of his staff in order to counterproductively create an internal "Resistance" where there might not have even really been one to begin with.

Whatever ends up happening, and the latest "deep state" coup attempt against Trump has only just begun, this much is certain, and it's that the inclusion of the word "lodestar" was a red herring designed to manipulate the President's mind after he finds out that the Mainstream Media is promoting internet sleuths who apparently "discovered" that Pence used this uncommon word on several occasions. The whole point at this stage is to provoke Trump, who they mistakenly believe to be an unhinged maniac incapable of controlling his actions and prone to lashing out at whoever and whenever at the slightest hint of an affront, to publicly attack Pence and then trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him, all of which would be taking place in front of the entire nation ahead of the upcoming midterms.

Trump's much too clever to fall for this trap, and the fact that something so blatantly obvious has been attempted speaks to just how much his opponents underestimate him, but he nevertheless needs to be careful that he doesn't take action against any innocent members of his administration who might get caught up in the current investigation to find the traitor and their ilk, if they even exist. This means that he has to trust whoever it is that he's dispatched to dig up evidence on this issue and won't doubt the findings that they present to him, after which he'll have to determine whether they're also being set up just like Pence is or if they're actually guilty as charged. Trump's toughest tests are therefore ahead of him and could make or break his presidency in the coming days.

DISCLAIMER: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution.

[Sep 06, 2018] Is there is anything to admire in Trump record?

Sep 06, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

pretzelattack -> Densher , 6 Sep 2018 05:38

he reversed the war in afghanistan? drones? did he prosecute bankers? does he favor increasing offshore drilling? now it looks like he's renegotiating clinton's nafta and pushing for some version of obama's trade treaties. trump is the invading python, and the democrats and establishment republicans are the alligators; whichever wins, the small furry animals get eaten. i just hope they don't start world war 3 while they're settling things--trump looks to be doubling down on obama's syria policy too, and support of the current ukrainian government.
Bazster -> ImMovedToAdd , 6 Sep 2018 05:33
'Fraid so. Every new generation of neocons regurgitates the same discredited lies from the previous generation, and suckers believe them all over again. Even the title "neocon" or "neoliberal" is a lie: there's nothing new about them.
Densher -> simonsaint , 6 Sep 2018 05:25
Trump was not only openly attacked during the nomination process, the Republican Party nominee who was selected to fight Obama in 2012 -Mitt Romney- delivered a savage attack in which he described Trump as a con-man and a chronic liar -yet the same people who could, there and then have told Trump to get lost backed him. Trump has been attacked from the start and every time and all of the time said to his attackers: so what? I dare you to remove me from the nomination, I dare you to remove me from the Office of President. This is a man who is challenging the governance of the US in a manner no other President has done before, and so far, he is still winning. That is the scary part.
Freedom4UK2019 -> Jessie Welsh , 6 Sep 2018 05:24
Well of course you could list other benefits in addition to some I listed like. "transform the economy, get people back in work.

Peace on the Korean peninsula, end of US involvement in SYRIA etc...

" You could get a nice big house like Obama got. Or $500K for doing speeches for Russian companies like Bill Clinton did.

RichWoods -> raindancer68 , 6 Sep 2018 05:24
Trump is threatening Deep State corruption by placing his own family members in positions of power and profiting from charging the nation for his and his staff's repeated use of Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That's a bizarre way of draining the swamp.
ID6314850 -> raindancer68 , 6 Sep 2018 05:19
The US political system has many flaws, not least that the President can be elected on an apparent electoral college landslide while losing the popular vote. But then again no country's political system is perfect, human nature being what it is.
However, Trump is clearly not up to the job. Not by intellect, understanding of world affairs, honesty, temperament, respect for the law, nor constitution. The list goes on frankly.
The system has gone bad. Trump hasn't "drained the swamp", he's made it far deeper. That said, "the system" such as it is should work in the hands of honest men and women of integrity. The trouble is they're few and far between in the GOP as it wilfully ignores issues in which they would be clamouring for a Democrat president to be impeached.
I sincerely hope the GOP get a thrashing in the mid-terms which may, just may, give them pause for thought. A Democrat Congress might also actually hold Trump to account. The only danger there is that he lashes out with even less self control.
Dangerous times.

[Sep 06, 2018] I Know Who the "Senior Official" Is Who Wrote the NY Times Op-Ed by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it. ..."
"... When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely attributed to a "senior Trump official." ..."
"... Anonymous dissent has no credibility. ..."
"... A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent. ..."
"... thwart his and his fellow co-conspirators' plot by revealing it! ..."
"... This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot function. ..."
"... Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? ..."
"... removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it.

When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely attributed to a "senior Trump official."

I know who wrote the anonymous "senior Trump official" op-ed in the New York Times. The New York Times wrote it.

The op-ed ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50194.htm ) is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no senior official would express disageeement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent.

The New York Times' claim to have vetted the writer also lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New York Times about anything.

Consider also whether a member of a conspiracy working "diligently" inside the administration with "many of the senior officials" to "preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting" Trump's "worst inclinations" would thwart his and his fellow co-conspirators' plot by revealing it!

This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot function.

The fake op-ed serves to validate from within the Trump administration the false reporting by the New York Times that serves the interests of the military/security complex to hold on to enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace. For example, the alleged "senior official" misrepresents, as does the New York Times, President Trump's efforts to reduce dangerous tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump's "preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un" over America's "allied, like-minded nations." This is the same non-sequitur that the New York Times has expressed endlessly. Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? The New York Times has never explained, and neither does the "senior official."

How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever received, is a dictator? Putin stepped down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators step down and sit out for 6 years?

The "senior official" also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a "deadly Russian nerve agent," an event for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has anyone explained why the "deadly nerve agent" wasn't deadly. The entire Skripal event rests only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it was: to box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.

If the "senior official" is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who attacked the Skripals with a deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the "senior official" is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior official in any administration. These are the New York Times' beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York Times does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex's budget from any reduction in the "enemy threat."

Do you remember when Condoleezza Rice prepared the way for the US illegal invasion of Iraq with her imagery of "a mushroom cloud going up over an American city"? Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and everyone in the government knew it. There was no prospect of such an event. However, there is a very real prospect of mushroom clouds going up over many American and European cities if the crazed Russiaphobia of the New York Times and the other presstitutes along with the Democratic Party and the security elements of the deep state continue to pile lie after lie, provocation after provocation on Russia's patience. At some point, the only logical conclusion that the Russian government can reach is that Washington is preparing Americans and Europeans for an attack on Russia. Propaganda vilifying and demonizing the enemy precedes military attacks.

The New York Times' other attack on President Trump -- that he is unstable and unfit for office -- is reproduced in the fake op-ed: "Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president," writes the invented and non-existent "senior official."

Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a senior official would write that the members of President Trump's cabinet have considered removing him from office? What is this statement other than a deliberate effort to produce a constitutional crisis -- the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC, and the New York Times. A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all about.

The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history. Have any of these conspirators given a moment's thought to the consequences of removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? The next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of "coddling the Russian dictator and putting America at risk."

The reason that America is at risk is that the CIA and the presstitute media have put America -- and Europe -- at risk by frustrating President Trump's intention to reduce the dangerous level of tensions between the two major nuclear powers. Professor Steven Cohen, America's premier Russian expert, says that never during the Cold War were tensions as high as they are at this present time. As a former member of The Committee on the Present Danger, I myself am a former Cold Warrior, and I know for a fact that Professor Cohen is correct.

In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the liberal-progressive-left's blind hatred of Donald Trump, together with the self-interested power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the Democratic Party, are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out their hate and further their own nest.

This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and peoples of the world act now to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us all.

[Sep 06, 2018] If NYT made up fake news pretending to be a senior white house official, OR, there really is somebody in his inner circle anonymously stabbing POTUS in the back, it is very bad news and there should be serious hell to pay

This is a classic color revolutions trick, usually called "Diplomats letter". Used many times in many color revolutions worldwide. In EuroMaydan it preceded "sniper massacre".
Notable quotes:
"... I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels for a change. No doubt, this is hardball. ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Lumberjack -> chunga Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:31 Permalink

History repeats. Be ready.

nmewn -> Lumberjack Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:54 Permalink

Yeah I was thinking the same thing as chunga.

Now that ridiculously juvenile NYT's "op-ed" starts to make sense...they were given a heads up on the GJ proceedings against this "stellar public servant" and wanted to knock it off the front page.

UmbilicalMosqu -> nmewn Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:03 Permalink

..."stellar public serpent"

chunga -> nmewn Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:28 Permalink

What's in my head is declassifying a bunch of nasty shit.

Either way, if NYT made up fake news pretending to be a senior white house official, OR, there really is somebody in his inner circle anonymously stabbing POTUS in the back, it is very bad news and there should be serious hell to pay. I do not like nor trust a single one of his appointees so I'm guessing it's somebody. It would be suicide for NYT getting caught making this all up, that would be risky business IMO.

This isn't a complicated timeline of he said, she said over this piss dossier that glosses people's eyes over. This is very simple stuff people can understand and Trump could make a very rational case that the swamp is so damn deep he can't even put together a staff without it being infiltrated and say "here look" and declassify shit that would encompass ALL the recent scandals and ensnare the fake news experts colluding to make this happen.

That would light a big fire in DC that would be very hard to put out.

nmewn -> chunga Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:45 Permalink

Well personally I don't believe for one second that the "op-ed" was anything other than Fake Nuuuz.

As far as ordering the release/declassification of everything the DoJ & FBI has on the Hillary Dossier I believe it's getting close but it's a hardball kind of swamp, it would be before the midterms for maximum effect I would think.

chunga -> nmewn Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:51 Permalink

I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels for a change. No doubt, this is hardball.

[Sep 06, 2018] An Army Of #Resisters Dozens Of White House Staffers Say Wish We Had Written NYT Op-Ed

Sep 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As was no doubt their intent, the mainstream media has succeeded in overshadowing the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing with a flurry of stories about a mutiny allegedly brewing inside the West Wing that has set more than a few tongues wagging about the possibility of Trump's cabinet invoking the 25th amendment (an eventuality that was once reportedly discussed by former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon ). But while White House officials have already vehemently denied the quotes gathered by Bob Woodward in the strategically leaked (to his own newspaper) excerpts from the Watergate reporter's upcoming book, speculation is shifting to who might be the mystery author of a scathing NYT op-ed reportedly penned by a "senior administration official" that portrays Trump as unfit for office.

Fortunately for Trump, several voices of moderation have come forward to condemn the attacks (amid speculation that the Times' "senior" source may not be so senior after all). But this incipient backlash didn't deter Axios (a media org that, like the Times, is notoriously critical of Trump) from piling on with a story about President Trump's intensifying distrust of those in his inner circle. Trump, Axios claims, is "deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees" from federal agency grunts all the way up to those privileged few with unfettered access to the Oval Office. The piece even goes so far as to quote yet another anonymous "senior administration official" as saying that "a lot of us are wishing we'd been the writer."

"I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating - that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we'd been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows - maybe he does? - that there are dozens and dozens of us."

And in case you couldn't figure out why this is important, allow Axios to elaborate:

Why it matters: Several senior White House officials have described their roles to us as saving America and the world from this president.

A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.

But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies -- and particularly in the foreign policy arena.

In what was perhaps the most bombastic claim included in the piece, Trump reportedly once carried around with him a list of suspected leakers. "The snakes are everywhere but we're getting rid of them," he reportedly told Axios.

For some time last year, Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.

"He would basically be like, 'We've gotta get rid of them. The snakes are everywhere but we're getting rid of them,'" said a source close to Trump.

Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted. He often asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left not knowing who to believe.

And just in case you haven't read enough about Trump's purported obsession with "snakes" - here's some more.

"When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in the White House," said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the president.

"Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings, he would sit down at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind him."

"One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to leak. I don't know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."

All of this reinforces the idea that Trump truly believes that there is an organized "deep state" conspiracy to take him down. Of course, what Axios neglects to say, is that he's not wrong.

Adolfsteinbergovitch Thu, 09/06/2018 - 11:55 Permalink

Idiots giving the stick to get beaten.

Epic Darwin moment.

Now is an excellent time to re-watch the Caine mutiny. Very inspiring.

css1971 -> Adolfsteinbergovitch Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

Free to quit at any time.

ardent -> css1971 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

Snakes or Patriots?

That is the question .

IridiumRebel -> ardent Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:18 Permalink

Sedition

toady -> IridiumRebel Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:18 Permalink

They say it publicly? Mass firings dead ahead!

Otherwise, they're a bunch of backstabbing cowards.

Hopefully this is a major step in the "drain the swamp" meme. Gotta make sure to include a "never work in/for the government again" clause.

wee-weed up -> toady Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:23 Permalink

"Wish We Had Written NYT Op-Ed"

Brave talk whilst hiding behind anonymity...

But none have the balls to tell that to Trump to his face!

cheoll -> wee-weed up Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:31 Permalink

"Trump flopped as an owner of a professional football team, effectively killing not only his own franchise but the league as a whole... He bankrupted his casinos five times over the course of nearly 20 years. His eponymous airline existed for less than three years and ended up almost a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. And he has slapped his surname on a practically never-ending sequence of duds and scams (Trump Ice bottled water, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump University -- for which he settled a class-action fraud lawsuit earlier this year for $25 million)."

And Kruse didn't even mention The Donald's sixth bankruptcy, the one he filed for the debt-ridden Plaza Hotel in 1992.

So, people, what do you think Trump, the bankrupter-in-chief, is gonna do to the good old US of A?

Shitonya Serfs -> cheoll Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:36 Permalink

If he bankrupts us out of the debt we owe to the (((FED))), I would accept that.

toady -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:41 Permalink

That's one of my major hopes for this presidency. That Trump can get us through the coming bankruptcy without a large scale war/depression breaking out.

He has the experience after all....

JimmyJones -> toady Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:43 Permalink

So more anonymous sources....

"one senior official said"... oh really, why should I believe that? When something is obvious BS, repeating it just makes you look foolish, it doesn't make it true, Hitlers propaganda play book is dated and no longer functions in the age of the internet. At least we know that Operation Mocking Bird is alive and well.

HopefulCynical -> JimmyJones Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:46 Permalink

It wasn't his playbook.

It was his description of the playbook of those seeking to destroy Germany.

The same ones currently seeking to destroy (what's left of) America.

Slaytheist -> HopefulCynical Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:24 Permalink

^Underrated post^

Stan522 -> Slaytheist Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:43 Permalink

This just shows us how they keep recycling the same shit bureaucrat's over and over again and they become an animal that lives within and outside of whomever is POTUS.

Perhaps it's time to burn the whole thing down and start over again.....

Oldwood -> Stan522 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:49 Permalink

They love and expouse democracy until it yields the incorrect result. Like everything else, just another useful tool

King of Ruperts Land -> Oldwood Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:04 Permalink

Mutiny is a hanging offence.

swmnguy -> King of Ruperts Land Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:57 Permalink

On a Navy ship at sea, sure. But flipping off your boss; not so much. Even going upside your boss's head with a 2"x4" is just assault.

We don't live in a Monarchy.

King of Ruperts Land -> swmnguy Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:13 Permalink

We the People are not so schooled in the finer points. We have rope and can see treason with our own eyes, and figure to do our part, be civic minded for the greater good and all.

Not Goldman Sachs -> King of Ruperts Land Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:42 Permalink

Same swamp, different snakes.

dirty fingernails -> Oldwood Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:27 Permalink

That is our gov in a nutshell!

wadolt -> dirty fingernails Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:53 Permalink

SPAMMER IN CONVERSATION WITH HIMSELF

Cheoli / King Rupert

Adolfsteinbergovitch/ HopefulCynical

>>> VIRUS ALERT - VIRUS ALERT <<<

(above) Biblicism SPAMMER (above)

==ardent -- LOOP -- bobcatz ==

=== inosent ===

>>> VIRUS ALERT - VIRUS ALERT <<<

!!! !!! --Do Not CLICK on his LINKS-- !!! !!!

JRobby -> JimmyJones Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:48 Permalink

Long pink paper

Get rid of all of them

Raymond K Hessel -> JRobby Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:04 Permalink

A senior Clinton official has reported to me that he likey to sticky his wicky where it don't belicky often.

MrSteve -> JRobby Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:16 Permalink

Can't do that , who would be serving the butterscotch pudding in the cafeteria???

chunga -> JRobby Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:53 Permalink

If he has the power to do it, the time is right to declassify some major bombs on the swamp.

It sounds sensational but it's also a step in the right direction to move the capital out of DC. It really is the nerve center of raunch, deceit, fraud and an irredeemable shit hole.

dirty fingernails -> chunga Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:10 Permalink

Agreed, but moving won't help. The problem is the concentration of money and power. You could move the capitol every day and the swamp would follow like remoras follow a shark

Albertarocks -> JRobby Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:10 Permalink

Long 'rope'.

Get rid of all of them properly .

spqrusa -> JimmyJones Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

Trump knew from the get-go that firing everyone in the Deep State (they knew most of the players) would not accomplish his long-term objective.

The Dopes needed to stay in office so all their traffic could be lawfully monitored. The take down is getting close.

Not Goldman Sachs -> spqrusa Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:45 Permalink

Apologist.

Nuttin gonna happen. Dick Tater too busy twattering.

Kayman -> toady Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:25 Permalink

The only way to deal with the Debt, is to grow the economy and shrink it on a relative basis. So much of the past debt was incurred on non-productive expenditures that yield no returns.

Trump knows that. Amazing what he gets done with all the snipers outside and all the cockroaches inside. A lesser man would have said fuck it a long time ago.

Creative_Destruct -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:43 Permalink

"Trump, Axios claims, is 'deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees' "

And that's supposed to be a criticism?

JimmyJones -> Creative_Destruct Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:46 Permalink

Its as if they think the people actually support the Deep State Establishment and don't loath them. Please tell me how I should really love John McCain again now that he's dead.

Never One Roach -> JimmyJones Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:55 Permalink

When Trump picked Sessons and Wray, he had to be aware they were anti-Trumpsters.

So part of this is his own fault.

He should have fired Comey on Day#1 for example.

He should never have met with all those journalists in an attempt top "be nice" or "make peace."

They are all toxic slime balls who need to be fired and/or arrested.

hardmedicine -> Never One Roach Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:46 Permalink

"Trump, Axios claims, is 'deeply suspicious of much of the government he oversees' "

Again, if people believed the corporate media Trump wouldn't be president right now, HIllary would be, so that fight is pretty much over.

Also, just because you are paranoid and think they are all out to get you doesn't mean it isn't true!. Of course the deep state hates Trump. It's all just a circus and a show until it's not. I really don't know what Trump is waiting for. Call Bill Binney in and get your heads together and take down all the deep state.

PUT THEM ALL IN PRISON.

Yes, it will wipe out the whole government as we know it.... but that is why Trump was elected in the first place.

just the tip -> Never One Roach Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:06 Permalink

So part of this is his own fault.

a very big part. rub is, i don't think he knew. i think wray came in on a "if you don't appoint him, the FIB is going to be without a director" sort of threat. i think sessions totally ass raped trump.

as for the remainder of his administration, if you turn the white house into goldman south, what exactly do you expect for an economic plan.

as for the pre-election dumbfucks saying trump is an executive, he will appoint good people, and let them do their jobs. i haven't seen one good appointment yet out of trump. out of all of his appointments, scott pruitt was the best and trump should have backed him up, but didn't. he was sacrificed to the environmentalists.

holee shit!!!!!

have i got an off topic comment to make.

i clicked on the globalintelhub link at the top of the page about the possible source of the op-ed.

what i found about one fourth of the way into the article stopped me dead in my tracks. this is the comment that did it:

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf.

you see it? do you see it? MARIE HARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

does that name ring a bell? it damn well should. she was a long time spokeshole in the HNIC state department. she is the one who uttered the phrase:

We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's a lack of opportunity for jobs,

jobs for jihadists!!!! and this whore still has a job in gov't? as a CIA spokeshole? RUFKM

my fucking gawd get rid of these fucking people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dirty fingernails -> just the tip Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:14 Permalink

So if they go 25th Amendment on him will Trump supporters chimp out or wait for the proof to be presented and evaluate if his staff have a vaild point?

Edit: I mostly agree with your post and thats why I have been so critical. What I saw early on, and since, has been one big clusterfuck of "you keep making decisions that in no way reflect a person who is as awesome as you promised."

Kayman -> JimmyJones Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:27 Permalink

Mob funeral. Watching Huma hug Lynnsey Graham was a sight to behold.

east of eden -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:54 Permalink

Figures. When you are blocked from pillaging foreign nations, you of course turn to the idea of bankruptcy. You people just don't seem to understand that you are not kings and queens, but common folk and you should pay your debts, and tighten your belts. It would be relatively short term pain for long term gain.

That, more than anything else, speaks to the absence of any character in the American make up.

By the way, hate your fucking handle, prick.

847328_3527 -> east of eden Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:11 Permalink

I'll not believe it until Woof Shitzer and/or Rachel Madcow confirm these rumors.

Radical Left Plagiarist Farheed Diarrhea has evidently been preoccupied by being dumped by his wife after 21 years of hardship so we won't be hearing his inane comments bashing Trump for awhile.

Zakaria was suspended for a week in August 2012 while Time and CNN investigated an allegation of plagiarism [46] involving an August 20 column on gun control with similarities to a New Yorker article by Jill Lepore . In a statement Zakaria apologized, saying that he had made "a terrible mistake."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria

Wife of CNN 'GPS' host Fareed Zakaria suing for divorce; dumps him after 21 years of marriage

https://heightline.com/paula-throckmorton-family-bio-facts/

DaiRR -> 847328_3527 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:30 Permalink

What do you expect when 80+ percent of the D.C. area federal workers are DemoRats ?

spqrusa -> 847328_3527 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

"Paula Throckmorton is of white descent". WOW - White isn't a Race - morons.

just the tip -> east of eden Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:08 Permalink

go fuck yourself you dickheaded motherfucker.

you wouldn't know character if it ass raped you everyday.

and as a canadian, you would enjoy it.

thank you sir may i have another?

thank you sir may i have another?

Kayman -> east of eden Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:42 Permalink

Go back to Chinese Tire and buy some "made in Canada" crap. Tell me again how the "Canadians" co-opted the British in 1812 . Watch some more Franz Kafka on the CBC, the Chinese Broadcasting Corporation and explain to the CAW in southern Ontario how Justine Twinklesocks traded auto worker jobs for the Quebec Milk Quota.

There are Canadians with character, but you ain't one of them.

QuantumEasing -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:04 Permalink

The US went into receivership in 1933, so I guess "make it bankruptier?"

I have no problem with this, since it's going to be interesting to see how the debtors (The US and its employees) are going to pay the creditors (that would be the Citizens) back for the $17 trillion they owe us.

Going to have to be one helluva bake sale.

But my guess is they will just throw another woar and kill off another generation of Creditors like they have done for the past century. (And collect the insurance premiums, since Social Security Insurance pays out to the primary beneficiary first..and that would be...The US GOv).

What? You thought Social Security was for YOUR benefit?! Hahah, silly wabbits.

LadyAtZero -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:58 Permalink

These are (probably) all federal employees.

If they are so miserable working in the Trump administration, why don't they simply apply for transfers into a farther corner of the government?

How difficult can this really be?

hooligan2009 -> cheoll Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:42 Permalink

now now diddums - you lost because of the incompetence and corruption of clinton and her supporters, that are just like you.

so, "suck it up, pussy".

we know that you just want someone to say "Trump is gonna fuck people up like you".

so, when you eat shit, before you die, know it's from a deplorable's bowels.

Calvertsbio -> hooligan2009 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 13:58 Permalink

LOL @ Trumpturds.... Never ends, I actually love watching the weak and feeble cover for the weak and feeble..

Juggernaut x2 -> Calvertsbio Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:08 Permalink

Trumptards in denial.

847328_3527 -> Juggernaut x2 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 14:12 Permalink

Dems don't like him 'cause he's not a pedophile or rapist.

youshallnotkill -> 847328_3527 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 15:49 Permalink

Actually, he is right up there with his former golf buddy Clinton.

Kayman -> Juggernaut x2 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 16:46 Permalink

D-tards, so bright they get a participation ribbon for polishing Hillary's turds.

[Sep 06, 2018] Opinion I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

The author clearly supports a neocon foreign policy. just look at his stance about Russia. Can this me MI6 false flag designed to paralyze Trump administration by sowing suspicion among the top officials.? British clearly resent Trump attempt to shrink the US led global neoliberal empire created by his predecessors.
See The British Are In Flight Forward, Frantic to Save the Empire LaRouchePAC
The idea to remove the President via 25 amendment was floated before. It probably will not work.
Sep 06, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the "enemy of the people," President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don't get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite -- not because of -- the president's leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

"There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next," a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he'd made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter . All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.

[Sep 06, 2018] What better way of stirring up the base ahead of the mid-terms than talk of undemocratic factions within the administration and fifth columnists to be rooted out for the cause.

Sep 06, 2018 | profile.theguardian.com

charlieblue -> Johnstu9876 6 Sep 2018 09:08

I assumed it was an effort at creating some sort of record of resistance. Does anybody really believe Paul Ryan is retiring from the 3rd most powerful position in the US Government to "spend more time with family"? The rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Even if Trump serves out a full four years, anybody too closely tied to this stupid shit-storm of an Administration will be tarred in public eyes. But, American voters are notoriously forgetful, and getting out before the ship goes down will probably work.
charlieblue -> John Edwin , 6 Sep 2018 09:00
Funny shit. "the mole" wrote an Op/Ed piece, that contains no information of a sensitive nature. S/he wrote of their own personal observations working in the White House. There is nothing illegal in that.

I get that you might not have any functional understanding of US law, but it is deeply disturbing that the President of the United States is calling for the arrest of a citizen exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Jonathan Bailey , 6 Sep 2018 08:54
The op-ed piece being anonymous makes me wonder if Mr Trump himself put someone up to do it. What better way of stirring up the base ahead of the mid-terms than talk of undemocratic factions within the administration and fifth columnists to be rooted out for the cause. It also offers the president another cudgel against the press that will appeal to his core constituencies.

Even if Mr Trump isn't capable of coming up with such a scheme, there are certainly those around him who are.

crossedseven , 6 Sep 2018 08:27
The statements in the opinion piece are horribly anti-pluralist anti-democratic in themselves. The writer's nationalist appeal to 'American' unity at the end is based on everyone uniting around US Republican principles of neo-liberalism, inequality and militarism. S/he would use a false unity against Trump to impose the worst kind of conservative fundamentalism and eliminate anything more progressive from the political spectrum.

Maybe this is mainstream neo-liberal thinking but it's the end of a plural, democratic state. There would be no more room to discuss inequality, climate change, race or gender discrimination or new welfare provisions. Just an offer of false unity around hard neoliberal principles. I guess it's a very similar game to Brexit, which is a choice between life-threatening asset striping of the UK or May's 'hard right soft Brexit' super Thatcherism.

[Sep 06, 2018] One Word Has People Convinced That Mike Pence Is Mystery Author Of Scathing NYT Op-Ed

Sep 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Is Vice President Mike Pence trying to pull off a "House of Cards"-style scheme to undermine Trump and increase his own chances of assuming the presidency?

Apparently, more than a few journalists believe that might be the case. According to the Huffington Post, some believe that the use of a single word - "lodestar" - is a crucial tell pointing toward Pence as the op-ed's author. During the op-ed's final paragraphs the mystery author refers to John McCain as "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue."

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example - a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

Pence has, of course, categorically denied these allegations and affirmed his loyalty to the president.

me title=

Still, one video circulating on twitter shows Pence using the word in eight different speeches dating back to 2001, when he was a Congressman from Indiana.

me title=

me title=

Others pointed out that the op-ed's praise for McCain would rule out Trump hardliners like Stephen Miller as the author.

me title=

At the very least, there's some evidence to suggest that the author is a man. As Bloomberg's Jennifer Jacobs pointed out yesterday, the Times' official Twitter feed may have inadvertently revealed their gender.

me title=

Though Jacobs also reported that several officials have told her that they suspect the author's "seniority" isn't as ironclad as the Times implied.

me title=

For those who aren't familiar with the word, Merriam-Webster defines "lodestar" as "a star that leads or guides" or a person who "serves as an inspiration, model, or guide."

To be sure, the Pence theory isn't without its holes. Trump staffers have said previously that they pay attention to the idioms employed by others as a defense mechanism when speaking to the press under the guise of anonymity.

"To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers' idioms and use that in my background quotes. That throws the scent off me," one White House official told Axios .

But online betting markets have put Pence at the top of the list of suspects, with MyBookie currently reflecting 2-to-3 odds on Pence as the culprit, per the New York Post . The favorite right now, at 1-3 odds, is "the field" - i.e. someone not listed among the 18 most likely senior admin officials, according to the Costa-Rica-based betting operation.

Still, at first brush, the theory makes a degree of sense: As first in line for the throne, Pence undoubtedly has the most to gain from the collapse of the Trump presidency. But it's equally likely that a more junior official could've intentionally included these cues to sow discord in the ranks.

As the Trump administration has proved time and time again, anything is possible in the West Wing.

Took Red Pill -> thereasonablei Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:30 Permalink

Based on one word? Someone else could have used that word to throw them off to think it was Pence or someone who works for Pence.

Pandelis -> Took Red Pill Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:31 Permalink

one thing is for sure ... pency has been groomed for this job ... a small minded person who follows instructions ... carefully selected

Cognitive Dissonance -> Pandelis Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:32 Permalink

One must admire, or at least respect the power of, such a brilliant divide and conquer psyops.

Almost as good as 'QAnon'.

Pandelis -> Cognitive Dissonance Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:34 Permalink

not sure pence is entirely a team member ... he has been told to wait for more ... being around the trump tower, you can see why pence would believe it besides the fact that he must have been talking to real players that he knows they are real players ...

having said all that, 100% this is coordinated ... it is no coincidence it comes out at the same time with Bob Woodwards book, Theresa May verdict on assailant of the failed attempt to kill in salisbury soil, big offensive in Idlib (where trimp is doing a 180 degrees and being a team member again ... to name just a few ... it is the end of the line ... that economist magazine "prediction" from 1988 on 30 years later comes to mind ... time for the US to come down hard i suppose ...

Delving Eye -> pods Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:22 Permalink

No way is the op-ed writer VP Pence. It doesn't have his boring Midwestern tone. It seems much more likely that the letterbomb was written by a group -- not in the administration. Rather, a group of Deep State crybabies who aren't getting their way and have devised this lame, transparent effort akin to Valley girls passing notes in homeroom ... "like, I mean, um, whatever" ... because they're too dumb to do anything else. And the NYTimes ate it up.

PrivetHedge -> The First Rule Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:13 Permalink

But he's not a Moron

But he IS a moron. All the war mongering pharisees are morons.

Pence is a pro war psychopath who is very much disconnected from his tortured soul and is a simple biological robot devoid of higher levels of thought.

Pence is literally a moron. Only humans have souls and access to imagination, inspiration, intuition, empathy: pharisees DO NOT. They are all robotic machines: morons.

Grandad Grumps -> The First Rule Thu, 09/06/2018 - 10:10 Permalink

Circuses for the masses.

GeezerGeek -> Pandelis Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:52 Permalink

There being so many convoluted theories floating around, here's mine. Trump, Pence and friends arranged this whole editorial/reaction incident. As you point out, many other stories were suddenly demoted to by-the-way status. This gives Trump another reason to urge his supporters to be enraged. It also could provide courage for purges within the administration, someqthing it has long needed. Diverse elements of the MSM are even attacking each other. Ultimately, ask yourselves: cui bono? Who benefits?

It is all too confusing. I'm getting a headache. Back to munching on dark chocolate and watching cat videos.

Solomonpal -> Cognitive Dissonance Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:38 Permalink

Deep state

nmewn -> Solomonpal Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:42 Permalink

lol...what a "lode" of horseshit...now they're trying to take out Pence based on what very well be a completely fabricated op-ed run in the NYT's.

#Desperation ;-)

Future Jim -> nmewn Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:43 Permalink

Millions were beginning to think that that Trump wasn't really leading the charge against the NWO and that he was really part of the NWO himself --just like the NYT and the person who wrote the op-ed, but by attacking Trump, these NWO stooges proved Trump is leading the charge against the NWO, and proved (after the Sarah Jeong scandal ) to just as many others that the NYT really is the most trustworthy institution in America ... just when both the NYT and Trump needed some street cred the most ... and there's no way we are getting played ... and there's no way this could be just theater ... or a psyop ... oh wait ...

divingengineer -> Took Red Pill Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:41 Permalink

Wasn't there a ZH article a few weeks ago about an algorithm that could predict the author of a text, to a very high 90's percentile, based on speech patterns?

I say we try it out and root out this "saboteur".

However, I think we'd find that they are a fake.

Something about it feels contrived, why would a deep spate functionary expose the apparatus that controls power regardless of who is elected? What is the first rule of Fight Club?

I have a suspicion it is a plant, in an effort to convince the masses that the deep state does exist. They are preaching to the choir here at ZH, but 98% of the country has absolutely no idea what the fuck Deep State even means. This makes it real for the common man, In that respect, I guess it's a good thing. It just feels fake though.

LaugherNYC -> thereasonablei Thu, 09/06/2018 - 10:26 Permalink

This whole year is playing out like the script from "House of Cards." Now the MSM is calling for Trump to be removed as "unfit to hold office." Liberals have hated Donald Trump since he first appeared on the scene oil the 1970s as a loudmouth trust fund developer. They fought every project he undertook and mocked him. Famously, "Spy" Magazine belittled him as a "short-fingered vulgarian and Queens-born casino operator" every time they mentioned his name, which was often. The magazine's editor, Graydon Carter, despised Trump. Trump predicted the magazine would fail within a year. So Carter put a calendar in the back of the magazine, tearing off the days to prove Trump wrong. Alas, Trump was right, and Spy shuttered before the year was out. It was a shame, because the magazine was terrific and funny, but it had that typical liberal New York Ivy League snottiness and superiority.

As embarrassing as Trump may be, and he is certainly that, he is not insane, nor unable to do the job. You may hate the job he is doing, but this country has laws. If Mueller proves Trump committed real crimes that mandate his indictment and removal, then so be it. But until then, just because he runs a chaotic ship doesn't mean he can simply be taken out.

rgraf -> Adolfsteinbergovitch Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:59 Permalink

Trump is just another bankster stooge. Like Pence, Shillary, McCain, Sessions, Obama, etc. Grow up.

[Sep 06, 2018] Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo deny writing explosive op-ed attacking Trump by Ben Jacobs

Sep 06, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

The op-ed represents a shocking critique of Trump and is without precedent in modern American history. Former CIA Director John Brennan , who has sparred fiercely with the president, called the op-ed "active insubordination born out of loyalty to the country, not to Donald Trump".

"This is not sustainable to have an executive branch where individuals are not following the orders of the chief executive," Brennan told NBC's "Today" show. "I do think things will get worse before they get better. I don't know how Donald Trump is going to react to this. A wounded lion is a very dangerous animal, and I think Donald Trump is wounded."

In it, the anonymous author describes Trump as amoral, "anti-trade and anti-democratic" and prone to making "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions".

The writer claims aides had explored the possibility of removing Trump from office via the 25th amendment , a complex constitutional mechanism to allow for the replacement of a president who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but had decided against it.

[Sep 06, 2018] Trump Saboteur Op-Ed Backfires LA Times Calls A Coward; Greenwald Unelected Cabal

Sep 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Trump Saboteur Op-Ed Backfires: LA Times Calls "A Coward"; Greenwald: "Unelected Cabal"

by Tyler Durden Thu, 09/06/2018 - 07:45 672 SHARES

An op-ed written in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official in the Trump administration" has drawn harsh rebuke from both sides of the aisle and beyond - after everyone from President Trump to Glenn Greenwald to the Los Angeles Times chimed in with various criticisms.

The author, who claims to be actively working against Trump in collusion with other senior officials in what they call a "resistance inside the Trump administration," has now been labeled everything from a coward, to treasonous, to nonexistent.

Trump, as expected, lashed out at the "failing" New York Times - before questioning whether the the mystery official really exists, and that if they do, the New York Times should reveal the author's identity as a matter of national security.

Trump supporters, also as expected, slammed the op-ed as either pure fiction or treason - a suggestion Trump made earlier Wednesday.

What we don't imagine the anonymous author or the Times saw coming was the onslaught of criticism coming from the center and left - those who stand to benefit the most from Trump's fall from grace, or at least probably wouldn't mind it.

In an op-ed which appeared hours after the NYT piece, Jessica Roy of the Los Angeles Times writes: " No, anonymous Trump official, you're not 'part of the resistance.' You're a coward " for not going far enough to stop Trump and in fact enabling him.

If they really believe there's a need to subvert the president to protect the country, they should be getting this person out of the White House. But they're too cowardly and afraid of the possible implications . They hand-wave the notion thusly:

"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis."

How is it that utilizing the 25th Amendment of the Constitution would cause a crisis, but admitting to subverting a democratically elected leader wouldn't?

...

If you're reading this, senior White House official, know this: You are not resisting Donald Trump. You are enabling him for your own benefit. That doesn't make you an unsung hero. It makes you a coward. - LA Times

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald - the Pulitzer Prize Winning co-founder of The Intercept, also called the author of the op-ed a "coward" whose ideological issues "voters didn't ratify."

Greenwald continues; "The irony in the op-ed from the NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and massive: s/he accuses Trump of being "anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency. "

So who is the "coward" in the White House?

While the author remains anonymous, there are a couple of clues in the case. For starters, Bloomberg White House reporter Jennifer Jacobs points out that the New York Times revealed that a man wrote the op-ed, which rules out Kellyanne Conway, Nikki Haley, Ivanka and Melania (the latter two being CNN's suggestions ).

me title=

A second clue comes from the language used in the op-ed, and in particular " Lodestar " - a rare word used by Mike Pence in at least one speech. Then again, someone trying to make one think it's pence would also use that word (which was oddly Merriam-Webster's word of the day last Tuesday).

A pence-theory hashtag has already emerged to support this theory; #VeepThroat

Given the Op-Ed's praise of the late Senator John McCain, never-Trumper and Iraq War sabre-rattler Bill Kristol tweeted that it was Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Of course, Kristol and whoever wrote the op-ed are ideologically aligned, so one might question why he would voluntarily work against this person.

So while we don't know who wrote the op-ed, it appears to be backfiring spectacularly on its author(s) amid wild theories and harsh rebuke from all sides of the aisle.

We're sure Carlos Slim - the largest owner of the New York Times and once the richest man on earth, is having a good laugh at Trump's expense either way... for now.

Perhaps Trump can push the "fabrication" angle longer than NYT can retain the moral high ground - especially after they hired, then refused to fire, Sarah Jeong - a new addition to the NYT editorial board who was revealed in old tweets to be an openly bigoted, with a particularly deep hatred of "old white men."

The New York Times stood by Jeong - claiming she was simply responding to people harassing her for being an Asian lesbian - only to have their absurd theory shredded within hours . Jeong in fact has a multi-year history of unprovoked and random comments expressing hatred towards white men.

And now she's right on the front lines of perhaps the greatest attempt to smear Trump yet. Not exactly a good look for the Times at a time when MSM credibility has already taken a hit. How many broke bread with the Clinton campaign leading up to the 2016 election? Vote up! 158 Vote down! 2

mtl4 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 07:47 Permalink

Coup d'etat, in every sense of the word.......Constitution? What's that? Roaches aren't even scurrying when you turn the lights on anymore. Trying to overthrow an elected standing government is the very definition of treason.

RAT005 -> Keyser Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:12 Permalink

My vote/guess is the author is nonexistent.

Super Sleuth -> RAT005 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:21 Permalink

Headlines across Alt Media now look like this:

TREASON : The New York Times Conspires with Deep State to Galvanize the Coup Against Trump

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=103270

This seditious op-ed by the NYT is really great news as it will produce all sorts of unintended consequences.

It's now official: "The Gray Lady commits T R E A S O N in broad daylight!"

Super Sleuth -> RAT005 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:21 Permalink

Headlines across Alt Media now look like this:

TREASON : The New York Times Conspires with Deep State to Galvanize the Coup Against Trump

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=103270

This seditious op-ed by the NYT is really great news as it will produce all sorts of unintended consequences.

It's now official: "The Gray Lady commits T R E A S O N in broad daylight!"

Cursive -> Freeze These Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:17 Permalink

Ever heard the term "Teflon Don"? Honestly, the take on this should be that the Trump team leaked it to the dumbasses at the NYT. Sun Tzu is laughing.

Ha. Ha. I see IridiumRebel has heard the term.

Government nee -> Cursive Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:48 Permalink

That is an interesting angle. . . Trump creating his own narratives by using agents to leak to the blatently bias NYT. Jeebus, but the trouble that strategy could cause. Millions out there are wound tight across Amerika. Wouldnt take much of a spark to get a good fire going. .

Squid-puppets -> Government nee Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:03 Permalink

either Trump himself or the Q anon team setting the NYT up for entrapment to show how easily they fall for & promote fake news

Raymond K Hessel -> Squid-puppets Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:23 Permalink

Bush did a similar thing with WMDs and the WSJ

BennyBoy -> Government nee Thu, 09/06/2018 - 10:03 Permalink

Treason?: What state secrets did the asshole writer reveal. What lives endangered? What enemies were helped, besides dems?

seryanhoj -> Cursive Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:41 Permalink

Hard to see Trump doing something clandestine and subtle like that.

shemite -> Freeze These Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:20 Permalink

These are all staged irrelevances designed to distract people...the few remaining people who are not addicted to their screens. Remember - all media, all members of both parties, all white house employees and especially Trump work for the same cabal. No one can step out of line and stay alive. The cabal knows everything.

pods -> shemite Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:39 Permalink

If people yell loud and often enough, many will actually forget that they are now knee deep in ice-cold saltwater.

#Titanic

Let's focus on the important things, like a scripted reality show fight, versus, idk, the fact that we are again on the precipice of yet another meltdown, only this time the Fed is fucked cause nobody can borrow anymore $$, interest rates are still way too low, and we are on our way to a Maunder Minimum.

I could go on and on with REAL issues, but it seems we just don't talk about them anymore. No need to see how medical is bankrupting us, pensions are fucked, "students" are quickly on their way to being skullfucked with no way out.

We are setup for a calamity that will be 10x worse than 2008, and the only thing I hear is the ever increasing volume of "Everything is Awesome."

Cloud9.5 -> Freeze These Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:37 Permalink

My dear, you don't really quite realize what you have given the Trump Administration. What the Times have done is assured their readers that there is a counter coup currently underway to bring down this sitting President. Back up and let that reality marinate. Understand that now any failings or short comings that come out of this administration can be laid at the feet of the saboteurs working to bring down the government. So if the economy rolls over and dies, it's the saboteur's fault. If gas prices spike, it's the senator's fault. If a nuke goes off in an American city, it's the saboteur's fault. If the President is impeached, it is the saboteur's fault. Any opposition to this President from this point on is the result of a concerted effort on the part of a gang of saboteurs to bring down the government.

Merry Christmas, you have just added the raison d'eter for a purge of all Obama appointees in every executive agency.

Pollygotacracker -> FireBrander Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:47 Permalink

President Trump thought that he could 'go along to get along'. He is a slow learner. Taking credit for a ginormous stock market bubble created by cheap credit and buybacks, no real effort to build a wall, massive tax cuts to millionaires/billionaires, kissing Israel's ass, the list goes on and on. The man hasn't done much of anything to really help the middle class. And, he hasn't done enough to even protect himself. The op-ed is a hit piece. So what. But, Trump better get up to speed sooner rather than later.

rgraf -> Cloud9.5 Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:50 Permalink

Are you really this stupid? The Trump administration is owned by the banksters, every bit as much as the 'saboteur'. You really don't understand the game at all.

Killtruck -> BaBaBouy Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:12 Permalink

No "anonymous" source.

CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and sow division in the cabinet shortly before midterms.

If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down hunting for the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!" If he doesn't react or address it, it hangs out there, continuing to make everyone believe he's an unstable bumbling moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable genius".

Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted CIA plot that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done THAT before) and will continue to backfire. People are so sick of the virtue signalling horseshit (Nike and Kuntpaernik come to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire when you try to do it.

Cloud9.5 -> FireBrander Thu, 09/06/2018 - 10:21 Permalink

Imagine for a moment that you win the lottery and are appointed the director of the CIA. Do you have any idea what the CIA does? Do you have any inkling beyond what you have read in the media and the alternate media of what agendas are afoot? Do you have any idea of what's at stake? Do you have a clue about who you can trust? Are the lower echelons for you or against you? Who do you talk to just to find out what is going on? Once you are informed can you trust the information? Are the options you are offered real options or are the serving someone's private agenda?

Now imagine that you are President of the United States and half the electorate wants to remove you from office. Who do you tap on the shoulder to initiate the purge? How do you know they won't purge you?

Governing is easy out here in the peanut gallery.

Cloud9.5 -> rgraf Thu, 09/06/2018 - 10:36 Permalink

I never said I was smart but I worked for one of the most corrupt bureaucracies in the world for about a decade, and I learned a few things about political tools and how to manipulate the narrative. What the Times has done is publicly assert that there are saboteurs working in the Trump administration who are actively attempting to bring down this President. The Resistance i.e. the Democratic Party through its mouth piece has openly stated that they are participating in an ongoing coup to bring down the government. Do you not realize what kind of club that has just been handed to Trump to beat down his opposition? Any opposition is now aiding and abetting the attempted coup.

As for government, the banks lent the money to purchase it in 1913. The banks running the show is old news.

Killtruck -> BaBaBouy Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:12 Permalink

No "anonymous" source.

CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and sow division in the cabinet shortly before midterms.

If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down hunting for the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!" If he doesn't react or address it, it hangs out there, continuing to make everyone believe he's an unstable bumbling moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable genius".

Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted CIA plot that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done THAT before) and will continue to backfire. People are so sick of the virtue signalling horseshit (Nike and Kuntpaernik come to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire when you try to do it.

just the tip -> BabaLooey Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:37 Permalink

syria had a legitimately elected government too, and look what's gone on for the last seven years there.

you think these fuckers at CIA see any difference between what they are able to do there and here in the US?

over there they drop pallets of weapons from the sky. over here they drop what passes for information from their mockingbird operations. same difference.

most america haters here at ZH are laughing because they think this is the US getting their comeuppance. the comeuppance we are getting is for challenging those who have been doing this to others for all these years. it's not other nations turning around and doing this to the US. it is those who have done this to others, are now doing it to the citizens of the US. those america haters better hope we citizens win, if not, that hell trump said would be unleashed on iran, will be unleashed on the world. and all the hyperweapons invented or dreamed of will not be able to stop it.

upvoted you for calling it what it is. sedition.

seryanhoj -> just the tip Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:52 Permalink

Government , its representatives and its agencies are unscrupulous and immoral beyond the imagination of a normal person.

Northwoods, Iraq WMD, Vietnam chemical weapon campaign, The Lusitania, Grenada, Tonkin, kennedy assassinations.

The amazing thing is how people swallow all that and trot off to the polls and never ask for any murderous corrupt bastard to be held to account.

Meanwhile we lost the free press so now no lone voice questions the moves of the real powers. The waste their voice on partisan bickering over people who are only puppets leaving real power to play its global killing games un remarked.

thereasonablei -> cankles' server Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:01 Permalink

TREASON!

http://www.invtots.com

blindfaith -> thereasonablei Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:11 Permalink

The New York Times is OWNED BY A MEXICAN. Carlos Simms, big bed buddy with Hillery.

Chupacabra-322 -> blindfaith Thu, 09/06/2018 - 08:27 Permalink

Thus, Operation Presstitute Mocking Bird.

Koba the Dread -> blindfaith Thu, 09/06/2018 - 09:27 Permalink

No, it's owned by Jewish Zionist interests. Carlos Slim just has an interest in it.

[Sep 06, 2018] 'Trump will go nuclear' Pundits respond to anonymous 'coup' published by NYT

Notable quotes:
"... "In other countries... they sometimes call this a coup," ..."
"... "unelected aides have staged a slo-mo coup." ..."
"... "frenzy, mutiny and rumors" ..."
"... "swamp sewer creature who can't stand that there is a new sheriff in town." ..."
"... "repudiated our whole constitutional process." ..."
"... "When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make themselves bigger than the entire American system," ..."
"... "extremely self-indulgent." ..."
"... "You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," ..."
"... "If you are this person, you really should resign tonight." ..."
"... "just made things worse," ..."
"... "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have far more impact." ..."
"... "The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is 'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and daring Trump to get worse," ..."
"... "Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far harder," ..."
"... "What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?" ..."
"... "We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because they think that's true," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.rt.com

Press Pundits are lining up to weigh in on a salacious New York Times op-ed allegedly penned by an anonymous #Resister in the Trump administration, with some experts on television calling the piece an all-out coup against the president. The opinion piece in question, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration," has spawned a level of frenetic punditry not seen since George W. Bush was spotted sneaking Michelle Obama a cough drop. Only this time the stakes are allegedly much higher.

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace said on Wednesday the stunning claims made in the anonymous op-ed – for example, that there is a group of "adults" in the White House who believe Trump is unfit to hold office and are trying to shape policy behind the president's back – are akin to "a coup."

READ MORE: 'Wasn't me!': White House officials deny involvement in New York Times 'resistance' piece

"In other countries... they sometimes call this a coup," Wallace said on MSNBC's Deadline: White House, referring to the article's assertion that there is a "resistance" made up of administration officials which aims to protect the republic from Trump's "amorality."

Another MSNBC talking head, Howard Fineman, said that he was troubled by the fact that the op-ed appears to describe how "unelected aides have staged a slo-mo coup." Impeachment – not "frenzy, mutiny and rumors" – is the antidote to Trump's criminal unfitness for public service, he added.

The @nytimes essay is troubling. Why? 1. The dangerous, ignorant volatility of @realDonaldTrump . 2. The claim by UNELECTED aides to have staged a slo-mo coup. 3. The NYT letting the accuser hide. #Trump 's unfit, but caution: impeachment -- not frenzy, mutiny and rumor -- is the answer.

-- Howard Fineman (@howardfineman) 6 сентября 2018 г.

But others were even less impressed by the anonymous scoop-provider. Fox News host Sean Hannity called the author of the op-ed a "swamp sewer creature who can't stand that there is a new sheriff in town."

Hannity calls the senior Trump administration official who wrote the NYT op-ed a "swamp sewer creature."

So, yeah.

-- Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) September 6, 2018

Speaking with Hannity on his program, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that the anonymous author had "repudiated our whole constitutional process."

Read more © Leah Millis 'Treason or fake news?' Trump urges NYT to reveal its White House 'resistance' insider

"When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make themselves bigger than the entire American system," Gingrich said .

Dana Perino, the former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, called the mysterious author of the op-ed "extremely self-indulgent."

"You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," she said .

"If you are this person, you really should resign tonight."

Almost all of the nation's sharpest political minds were in agreement on one point, however: This mystery senior government official should reveal him/herself, in order to save America from fascism, or hokey #Resistance claptrap, depending on whom you ask.

The op-ed "just made things worse," conservative commentator and National Review senior fellow David French said. "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have far more impact."

1) The guy is real (no way the NYT puts forth a fake source);

2) His story is likely largely true (perhaps exaggerated at the margins);

3) He's just made things worse.

4) Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have far more impact

-- David French (@DavidAFrench) September 6, 2018

"If you are the author of this and you truly want to effectuate change... you want to do something in service to the nation, you have to come forward and sign your name to this.. Come forward. You could change the fate of the country..."- @DavidJollyFL w/ @NicolleDWallace pic.twitter.com/d9l7PMnzkj

-- Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) September 5, 2018

"The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is 'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and daring Trump to get worse," veteran journalist Dan Froomkin said. He added that he thought it was wrong of the Times not to identify the piece's author.

The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is "principled," as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and daring Trump to get worse. They shouldna granted anonymity.

-- Dan Froomkin (@froomkin) September 6, 2018

Much has also been discussed about Trump's reaction to the article.

"Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far harder," predicted Washington Post contributor Carlos Lozada‏. "What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?"

Gut reaction to NYT oped:
1) Feeds/confirms Trump's worst fears about the deep state plots
2) Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this "internal resistance" far harder
3) What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?

-- Carlos Lozada (@CarlosLozadaWP) September 5, 2018

Not everyone is calling for the anonymous author to come forward, however: At least one pundit claims to already know who penned the troubling opinion piece.

"We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because they think that's true," Ben Shapiro tweeted.

We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because they think that's true.

-- Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 6, 2018

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Sep 06, 2018] The Strange Anonymous 'Resistance' Op-Ed by Daniel Larison

This really smells with coup d'état. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert coup to impose these policies. The op ed suggests the existence of anti-Trump 'sleeper cells' within the government"
The author also claimed that the administration's achievements had included some "bright spots" such as "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more".
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... is required by their own oath ..."
"... If Anonymous=Deep State, then Trump brought this Deep State with him. These are his appointees ..."
Sep 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
By Daniel Larison • September 5, 2018, 6:30 PM

The New York Times published a strange op-ed purportedly written by a "senior official" in the Trump administration:

The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

The author of the op-ed flatters himself by claiming to be acting in the best interests of the country, but there is something very wrong with having self-appointed guardians assuming that they have the right to sabotage certain policies of the elected president. For one, they have no authority to do what they're doing, and no one voted for them. It is one thing to argue that professionals should be willing to serve a bad president in the interests of public service, and it is quite another to argue that the officials working for the president are entitled to disregard and override the president's decisions because the president happens to be an ignorant buffoon. The "two-track presidency" that the official boasts about is an affront to our system of government. It is not reassuring that U.S. foreign policy continues as if on autopilot no matter what the electorate votes for.

Perversely, the more that Trump administration officials "frustrate parts of his agenda," the more likely it is that Trump remains in power longer than he otherwise would. The official says that the core of the problem is the president's "amorality." That raises the obvious question: how can someone acknowledge that the president has no principles or scruples of any kind and still in good conscience try to help him succeed? These officials are not only enabling a president whose behavior they consider to be "detrimental to the health of our republic," but they are helping to make sure that he stays in office instead of hastening his defeat. They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking.

There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but the anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory article. If this official feels so strongly that the president endangers the health and well-being of the country, he should put his name on a statement to that effect when he announces his resignation.

Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged The New York Times , Donald Trump . MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR Missing The Point Entirely The Week's Most Interesting Reads Hide 24 comments 24 Responses to The Strange Anonymous 'Resistance' Op-Ed

Donald September 5, 2018 at 6:45 pm

This anonymous official just confirmed there is a Deep State of some sort.
carcin , says: September 5, 2018 at 7:03 pm
Who knew the Deep State (tm?) included Trump's political appointees? (see Times guidelines on who that attribute as "senior administration officials" )
Irony Abounds , says: September 5, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Donald: Yes, but that Deep State was brought in by Trump and is trying to keep their jobs. I agree with Daniel's analysis, but I am not at all confident that our Constitution is equipped to deal with a sociopath as President when you also have a legislative branch that knows it but refuses to do it's constitutional duty.
G , says: September 5, 2018 at 8:04 pm
It is my understanding from carefully listening to Trump Supporters (I am not one) that this is exactly the reason why he was elected. There is a feeling (particularly strongly felt among Trump supporters, but a lot of Bernie supporters felt a version of it too) that although we continue to have elections in this country, that we are ceasing to be a democracy because decision-making is increasingly being taken away from or being delegated away from elected officials.

Supporters of a very powerful Executive Branch might argue "hey, it's not exactly the way that our Founder Fathers envisioned our Federal System to work, but if the Executive takes decision-making power away from unelected bureaucrats, lifetime-appointed judges, and a deadlocked Congress, then at least we get to vote every 4 years on kicking the bum out of the White House or not".

A White House that has decision-making taken power away from the person of the Executive, thus devolving power back to unelected officials, is a true crisis for democracy. Impeachment or the 25th Amendment are Constitutional remedies for a corrupt or incapacitated Executive because they take power away from an elected official and invest them in a new official subject to election. White House officials secretly undermining the President doesn't pass Constitutional muster, no matter how bad the President is.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." – H. L. Mencken

Ray Woodcock , says: September 5, 2018 at 9:45 pm
It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. Similar words, written in response to a popular president, would hopefully trigger an investigation leading to conviction and imprisonment of those involved.

Every indication is that the writer is correct: Trump is a disaster. But if the writer wants to live up to his/her claim of putting country first, s/he and the other cafeteria Republicans (i.e., selective co-conspirators) should stop trying to have it both ways, keeping their salaries and their positions of power in the name of the Trump administration while simultaneously reserving the right to undermine it. Instead, they should find the courage to step forward en masse.

An independent investigator could help them to find that courage. The process of exploring and publicizing what has gone on, in that White House, may help to push the nation toward a serious discussion of an appropriate replacement for its present corrupted and dysfunctional form of democracy.

Janek , says: September 5, 2018 at 9:53 pm
I have some reservations about this so called 'Resistance' Op-Ed in the NYT. This whole 'resistance' affair sounds hollow and not very authentic to me. I also have reservation about the new book 'Fear' by Bob Woodward. The book as such probably is needed, but naming who said what is counterproductive, to put it mildly. I do not think B. Woodward got permission to assign names to who said what because if he had permission the people to whom some statements are assigned would not deny them. I suspect that B. Woodward in reality conscientiously works for D. Trump. Why I do think so: because I can not imagine that he in his book could not anticipate what D. Trump will do next with those named. The book by B. Woodward will only help to purge the rest of the moderate people from trump administration and put in their place his favorites so he will have free hand to do whatever he wants probably until 2024.
Ken T , says: September 5, 2018 at 9:57 pm
I suspect this op-ed is nothing more than someone trying to establish their own personal defense for when the whole thing comes crashing down. "No no no – don't blame me! I wasn't really part of it. In fact I was really trying to stop it the whole time." If what this person is writing is true, then there is a constitutional remedy that he or she is required by their own oath to implement. Failing to do that, and just trying to undermine Trump secretly is making them just as guilty. I despise Trump as much as anyone, but this is not the way to deal with him.
David Prejean , says: September 5, 2018 at 9:58 pm
I agree up to a point. If Trump got up one morning and decided he was tired of arguing with North Korea and ordered a first nuclear strike, I'd hope that there'd be people around him who would stop him, as that would, no doubt, be in the best interest of the country. To assume that they'd have time to go through the constitutional removal procedure in time to stop the needless deaths of millions of people is absurd.

Now, I'm not saying what they are doing is preventing nuclear war. I'm just making the point that there are limits to your principled position.

a spencer , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Not much of a "deep state" if it can't produce his tax returns.
DC Reader , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:13 pm
"They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking. "

Yes. Creepy. Especially in light of Trump's about-turn on foreign policy, in which this administration has used our money and military power to serve Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests instead of America's.

Now we know where the "America First" policy of the campaign went. It went down the Deep State rabbit hole. We're still mired in the Middle East, still doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia. Things didn't get better. They got far worse.

Lenny , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Anonymous is doing what Congress refuses to do

Next, the Generals will take over, unless we elect a Congress willing to perform its constitutional duty

Stephen J. , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:26 pm
Hiding behind anonymity I believe shows a lack of courage and conviction. I am surprised a genuine "newspaper" would even publish the article. How can anyone be believed when they don;t have the courage to sign their name?
Mercy Seat , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:26 pm
This basically confirms what many have suspected and feared. Neocon Establishment types worked their way into the White House and have been pursuing their own foreign policy agenda, exploiting the President's ignorance, stupidity, and impulsiveness.
muad'dib , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:30 pm

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" – H. L. Mencken

And that day arrived in November 2016

lamplighter , says: September 5, 2018 at 11:03 pm
Some at TAC have suggested for quite a while that Trump was "hijacked" by his staff at some point. While most of what he's done is clearly down to Trump himself, those who have suggested that he has been manipulated and controlled by advisors just got whopping corroboration from the Woodward book and NYT op/ed.

Under the circumstances, there's obviously concern that foreign countries have been exploiting the situation. FBI counterespionage agents, a small army of them, should be checking and re-checking the foreign connections of his current staff, to the extent that isn't already being done by Mueller.

And it isn't just Russia. China, Israel and Saudi Arabia are obvious suspects, if for no other reason that they spy on and attempt to influence us with at least the same intensity as Russia. The investigators should look where Trump has been spending his time in the foreign policy arena. He has been threatening and pressuring some countries, but he is also doing favors for others. For what countries has he been doing favors? And in threatening certain countries is he doing the will of others?

The spies and traitors will be at that nexus.

E Kent , says: September 6, 2018 at 12:08 am
Reminds me of the story of the last days of the Nixon White House, when the pressure was driving him to drunken wanderings punctuated by near unhinged rants. Senior officials became so worried that they contacted the pentagon and told them to ignore nuclear launch orders unless confirmed by someone else.

In all seriousness though, this is less some kind of "deep state" and more of what you get when you run the White House the way Trump apparently has. He's packed his administration with people of dubious ability for the most part, with the highest qualification apparently being how he perceives their loyalty to him. Then he sets them all at odds against each other, fighting for the scraps of his attention to get their own agendas enacted.

In that kind of environment it's inevitable that someone will believe that One, the emperor has no clothes, and Two, the agenda they are fighting so hard to shepherd through this administration is more important than the administration itself. So why not just do an end run around the moron and do whatever they want.

Stephen , says: September 6, 2018 at 12:40 am
Ray Woodcock: " It appears to be a confession of treason. "

Only if you regard the US president as a monarch to whom his minions owe a duty of personal allegiance. Because that is the way treason is typically defined in monarchies. (For example, in the UK.) In the United States treason has a very different definition. You can find it in section 3 of article 3 of the Constitution. There allegiance is not to any one person but to the United States as a whole, and more specifically to the Constitution.

In other words, in the US it isn't treason to betray a president, although I will grant you many Americans do treat treason as if that WERE the case. But then just how many of them have even read their nation's Constitution?

The Archivist Next Door , says: September 6, 2018 at 2:29 am
Re treason : "There allegiance is not to any one person but to the United States as a whole, and more specifically to the Constitution."

Yes. There may be treason if a foreign country has infiltrated Trump's staff with operatives who persuaded Trump to do things against the national security interests of the United States – actions on behalf of a foreign country that imperil American persons or property, civilian or military.

Mark Barsotti , says: September 6, 2018 at 3:03 am
"Mr. President, we've traced the call. The Deep State is in the White House!"
Jon Rale , says: September 6, 2018 at 4:36 am
The idea that the ethical problem at the White House is not Pr. Trump is pretty odd.

Pr. Trump says GOP legislators shouldn't be prosecuted by DOJ, voting is rigged, FBI is corrupt, 3 million Mexicans voted, orders economic deal with S. Korea to end, apparently forgets about it, and etc, and somehow Mr. Larison, David Frum, and David Graham think a bureaucrat ratting on the President and other bureaucrats frustrating the President's desires is a constitutional crisis?

When members of the President's own cabinet are taking the same actions as these bureaucrats, because they think the President is immature, not stable, or immoral?

They work with the President. They would know.

Apparently no one wants to work for Pr. Trump. Why can't he find people who agree with him and respect him?

Go after Pr. Trump's cabinet members for a deep state, not petty bureaucrats who could be fired and replaced any time.

Ask yourself why the President can't find good people to work for him.

The answer is tweeting at you every day and the finger should be pointing back at him.

Jon Rale

Naval Observatory , says: September 6, 2018 at 6:27 am
"It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. "

But Trump has been spectacularly disloyal to the people who work for him. Is there anyone other than family members who he hasn't belittled and attacked? Hell, he's even betrayed those who voted for him (see long list of broken promises).

Given his own treacherous nature, how much loyalty can he reasonably expect? He must have already fired half of those he hired, so it's not too surprising that many are now writing books or telling tales to the NYT or WaPo.

That said, there are probably some real traitors in there. I'd guess most of the real traitors are spies working for foreign countries, taking advantage of the chaos to get things done for their foreign masters. That's a real cause for concern.

Christian Chuba , says: September 6, 2018 at 7:35 am
Clearly this is an admission of a Deep State. Many of you might agree with the politics of the Deep State operative below but keep in mind he is phrasing the issue in the most political way possible but that's the point. We don't resolve political disagreements by using the power if the bureaucracy to tie the President up in say, 'collusion investigations' in combination with what entrenched agencies want. If we did so we would still be enemies of Great Britain. Those rogues burned down the White House and armed the Confederates.

The Deep State is trying to get us into battle against the Russians in Syria to create Iraq 2.0 and is cheering on his mania against Iran for Iraq 3.0.

"Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable"

Liam , says: September 6, 2018 at 9:07 am
If Anonymous=Deep State, then Trump brought this Deep State with him. These are his appointees .
Jon , says: September 6, 2018 at 9:28 am
All of this is well and good as the expression goes. The anonymous author of the Op Ed piece should come forward and cease serving in an administration which is at odds with his or her sensibilities except for one thing that above all else must be considered in this respect: The Chief Executive has his finger on the button.

The case made by Mr. Larison is correct except for this one major consideration. One individual can launch a nuclear strike and that individual no matter who it has been and no matter who it is today and will be tomorrow has that power. Perhaps the time is past due to reconsider granting one individual with this capacity to act which with one directive sent directly to our nuclear warhead tipped missile silos may bring the end to our species on this planet.

[Sep 06, 2018] Glenn Greenwald view on "resistance" op-ed in NYT

Sep 06, 2018 | mobile.twitter.com

Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald, 2:19 PM - 5 Sep 2018

Many of the complaints from the NYT's anonymous WH coward - not all, but many - are ideological: that Trump deviates from GOP orthodoxy, an ideology he didn't campaign on & that voters didn't ratify. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert coup to impose these policies. pic.twitter.com/4Qf54JJHN9

Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald, Sep 5

Replying to @ggreenwald The irony in the op-ed from the NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and massive: s/he accuses Trump of being "anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency

View conversation

[Sep 06, 2018] Syria - Mattis Lacks State Department's Intelligence ... On Al-Qaeda's Chemical Capabilities

Notable quotes:
"... Clear psyop going on in western msm with quotes from Nikki Haley: Psychic Haley knows 'exactly' who's responsible for the next chemical attack in Syria https://www.rt.com/usa/437737-haley-idlib-chemical-attack/ ..."
"... With the start of the long awaited Syrian liberation of Idlib, the UZA are clearly trying to reinforce the propagander ie-- Russia, Syria are the bad guys. There doing this right now so that they can then paint eny sucsess Syria may have as a negative and not a posative ! ..."
"... The moral of the story is--- when you start to lie you have to keep lying to cover it up, slowly digging ya self deeper and deeper. Ending in insanity ! Pretty much where us uk are now. They'l be gauging public apathy/gullibility to decide there next move plus seeing which other county's will or will not support US UK aggression. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive !!! ..."
"... Of course the US Defense Secretary lacks the intelligence that the US State Department has. Foggy Bottom has always been a law unto itself. Remember when Victoria Nuland jetted over to Ukraine to offer the Maidanauts her very own home-baked cookies? Did she have any authorisation from the White House (or even from the US State Secretary at the time) to do that? Or to commit US$5 billion to regime change in that forsaken country? ..."
"... Mattis is about the only force protecting DJT from blackops/CIA/Deep State and if the president has any sense, he knows that. I use the word force intentionally. ..."
"... Freudian slip: Psychic Haley knows 'exactly' who's responsible for the next chemical attack in Syria ..."
"... The French have been waking up for 2 weeks with the mention of Idlib on the news bulletin... Nazi propaganda methods are probably taught in journalists and marketing schools today. ..."
"... Mattis who was responsible for the murder of countless innocent people in fallujah thanks to the use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium, is not willing to acknowledge his own murderous past, or the murderous agenda of his countries regime change game here... he and the usa/uk/ksa/israel and etc, are quite happy to let their sicko moderate headchoppers use chemical weapons to run the false flag up the pole as many times as needed.. they are one sick group and mattis is no different... these are the types who have come to represent the usa armed forces... sorry pat lang - but the shit has to stop.. the usa has it's head up it's ass and no amount of honouring the flag or your troops changes any of it.. ..."
Sep 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Maracatu , Sep 6, 2018 6:38:15 AM | link

The U.S. Secretary of Defense seems to lack the intelligence the Un and the U.S. Department of State obviously have.

U.S.'s Mattis says 'zero intelligence' that rebels in Syria's Idlib have chemical weapons capability

New Delhi (Reuters) - There was "zero intelligence" of chemical weapons capabilities possessed by groups opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the province of Idlib, U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said, adding that the facts did not back Russian assertions.
...
" We have zero intelligence that shows the opposition has any chemical capability ," Mattis told reporters traveling with him to the Indian capital of New Delhi.
...
"We have made very clear that by putting out innuendo that somehow any chemical weapon use coming up in the future could be ascribed to the opposition, well, we want to see the data," Mattis said. " We cannot see anything that indicates the opposition has that capability. "

On October 18 2017 the U.S. State Department issued a travel warning for Syria :

bigger

It says in the third paragraph ( pic ):

Terrorist and other violent extremist groups including ISIS and al-Qa'ida-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (dominated by al-Qa'ida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusrah, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization), operate in Syria. In July 2017, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham consolidated power in Idlib province after it clashed with other armed actors. [...] Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham , and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons. ...

The UN also knows of and is similar concerned about Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's chemical weapon capabilities. During a press conference on August 30 the UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, explicitly discussed these :

So, the issue of avoiding the potential use of chemical weapons is indeed crucial and would be totally unacceptable. We all are aware that both the government and al-Nusra have the capability to produce weaponised chlorine , that's the one people are talking about, not sarin. Hence an increased concern by all of us, and everyone else, and alert.

There is no doubt that HTS and other such groups have chemical capabilities. They do.

Why is Mattis lying about it?

Posted by b on September 6, 2018 at 06:25 AM | Permalink

Comments "US President Donald Trump has denied assertions by prominent journalist Bob Woodward in his new book that he ordered the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad." BBC .

Joseph Moroco , Sep 6, 2018 6:43:59 AM | link

It is all part of the precrime effort. If we plan to bomb the Syrians, there has to be some plausible deniability even if it's not plausible.
Zanon , Sep 6, 2018 6:46:04 AM | link
Clear psyop going on in western msm with quotes from Nikki Haley: Psychic Haley knows 'exactly' who's responsible for the next chemical attack in Syria https://www.rt.com/usa/437737-haley-idlib-chemical-attack/
Clueless Joe , Sep 6, 2018 6:53:33 AM | link
Or we can interpret this as Mattis thinking chlorine shouldn't be considered a major chemical weapon and shouldn't be included into WMDs that deserve punishment - it's so easily made and has a limited efficiency. Granted, I'm optimistic here.
Perimetr , Sep 6, 2018 6:57:39 AM | link
"We have zero intelligence that shows the opposition has any chemical capability."

Just take this statement literally and it is easy to understand; They have zero intelligence. And that shows the opposition has any chemical capability. See? It's easy.

Mark2 , Sep 6, 2018 7:11:18 AM | link
With the start of the long awaited Syrian liberation of Idlib, the UZA are clearly trying to reinforce the propagander ie-- Russia, Syria are the bad guys. There doing this right now so that they can then paint eny sucsess Syria may have as a negative and not a posative !

The moral of the story is--- when you start to lie you have to keep lying to cover it up, slowly digging ya self deeper and deeper. Ending in insanity ! Pretty much where us uk are now. They'l be gauging public apathy/gullibility to decide there next move plus seeing which other county's will or will not support US UK aggression. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive !!!

Jen , Sep 6, 2018 7:20:26 AM | link
Of course the US Defense Secretary lacks the intelligence that the US State Department has. Foggy Bottom has always been a law unto itself. Remember when Victoria Nuland jetted over to Ukraine to offer the Maidanauts her very own home-baked cookies? Did she have any authorisation from the White House (or even from the US State Secretary at the time) to do that? Or to commit US$5 billion to regime change in that forsaken country?

The US government and its various departments are a hydra whose heads are at ... well, loggerheads with one another.

And surely the Pentagon has its own intel agency (the DIA) to tell Mad Dog Mattis what he needs to know.

Yul , Sep 6, 2018 7:40:07 AM | link
@ b
Why is Mattis lying about it?

because Abu Yacub al-Israeli does not want to be found living amongst HTS. or Netanyahu has not divulged to Trump how his spies have managed to infiltrate the "rebels' in Idlib.

Just kidding but will sell well inside the beltway and amongst the MSM and talking heads in NYC/DC :-) UNGA is coming soon and Bibi will need another Red Line on his KABOOM nuclear board during his 15 mins presentation

AG17 , Sep 6, 2018 7:54:35 AM | link
Is Mattis next to get fired?
Tom Welsh , Sep 6, 2018 8:09:20 AM | link
"Why is Mattis lying about it?"

Presumably to keep in practice.

It would be worthy of comment if someone in Washington inadvertently told the truth.

fastfreddy , Sep 6, 2018 8:33:45 AM | link
Mad Dog Mattis murdered Falujah with chemicals. White phosphorus is permitted for warfare for purposes of "illumination" only. They use that giant loophole to burn people to death or disfigurement - civilians - including women and children, of course.
jo6pac , Sep 6, 2018 8:41:52 AM | link
At lest one Amerikan isn't listening.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/president-assad-meets-virginia-state-senator-richard-black-in-damascus/

menechem golani , Sep 6, 2018 8:47:27 AM | link
it seems the french are with us and today stated that assad will be bombed by the french if he uses his weapons of terror.

he mystery is simple.

all these story are connected and part of a bigger russian syrian iranian conspiracy destabilise team uk and usa wrong foot them .in country within the homelands and out. putin new hitler and animal assad are out of control in idlib out of control in this england.
these chemiculls

are a a defense of the realm matter.

i agree with the many gchq,mi chaps westminster chaps here hare here. israel must not be pushed into the sea by animal assad and new hitler putin we must stop the idlib.

and the russians need to feel the wrath of cia mi6 british french norway polish armies. we can prevail it is all about belief.

would dunkirk have been v for victory without churchills beliefs and indefatigability. oded yinon can only move forward with the french behind us we can with macron may and trumped react to the next chemical assad horror coming soon to bbc murdoch and cnn.
anderson coopers is ready are you. join the army and lets sort this out once and for all times

Arioch , Sep 6, 2018 8:59:08 AM | link
He does not lye. He reports. He reports that he successfully destroyed all the evidence he could reach and now has zero left.
Piotr Berman , Sep 6, 2018 9:29:27 AM | link
Were they legal, chemical weapons would be useful in some battle scenarios, but not a single report on chemical weapon use in Syria involves such a scenario. For example, fighting in urban enclaves was hindered by extensive tunnel networks. Although if you want to kill people in a tunnel, you can detonate thermobaric explosive and rely on shock waves. Chemical weapons were effective in WWI against opponents in deep trenches, but modern conventional weapons hit trenches (extensively used in Syria) much more accurately and damagingly. Even as a "demoralizing weapon", CW is not more terrifying than, say, heavy thermobaric bombs. There are used purely for political distraction.

It is similar in the murky assassination case in Wiltshire. Regular weapons, knives, darts, firearms, martial arts etc. can kill people very reliably, take as a recent example the killing of a Palestinian professor in Malaysia that was indubitably work of Israel, two guys on a motorcycle shooting the victims many times and riding away. If you want to be less flashy, say, in bucolic Wiltshire, you could use a quieter way, e.g. knock politely on the door and sink a dagger in the throat. And if you want to use chemicals, there are dozens of proven formulations and methods, and smearing stuff on door handles is not one of them.

morongobill , Sep 6, 2018 9:39:51 AM | link

Mattis is about the only force protecting DJT from blackops/CIA/Deep State and if the president has any sense, he knows that. I use the word force intentionally. Mattis isn't one of the perfumed princes, he smashes things and he's damned good at it. Trump needs this man now more than ever. Fire Mattis or have the troops thinking he was treated in less than an honorable fashion, and there goes one of the legs of support for the president.

Posted by: morongobill | Sep 6, 2018 9:39:51 AM | link

vk , Sep 6, 2018 10:13:56 AM | link
Freudian slip: Psychic Haley knows 'exactly' who's responsible for the next chemical attack in Syria
Mina , Sep 6, 2018 11:28:58 AM | link
The French have been waking up for 2 weeks with the mention of Idlib on the news bulletin... Nazi propaganda methods are probably taught in journalists and marketing schools today.
james , Sep 6, 2018 12:23:26 PM | link
i am with fastfreddy @11...

Mattis who was responsible for the murder of countless innocent people in fallujah thanks to the use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium, is not willing to acknowledge his own murderous past, or the murderous agenda of his countries regime change game here... he and the usa/uk/ksa/israel and etc, are quite happy to let their sicko moderate headchoppers use chemical weapons to run the false flag up the pole as many times as needed.. they are one sick group and mattis is no different... these are the types who have come to represent the usa armed forces... sorry pat lang - but the shit has to stop.. the usa has it's head up it's ass and no amount of honouring the flag or your troops changes any of it..

karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 12:32:40 PM | link
Mattis has zero credibility, particularly after reading his National Defense Strategy . Please give careful consideration to the multiple prevarications within this paragraph he either authored or approved:

"China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea. Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors. As well, North Korea's outlaw actions and reckless rhetoric continue despite United Nation's censure and sanctions. Iran continues to sow violence and remains the most significant challenge to Middle East stability. Despite the defeat of ISIS's physical caliphate, threats to stability remain as terrorist groups with long reach continue to murder the innocent and threaten peace more broadly."

Why chemical weapons? I refer you to the initial narrative raising the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction which was immediately announced upon the declaration of The New World Order, as it was to be used as leverage to overthrow governments and generate Genocidal Sanctions--remember dual-use was used to deny Iraqi importation of chlorine to purify its water after the Outlaw US Empire's War Crime that deliberately destroyed the civilian water treatment system. BigLie Media's been very compliant by neglecting mention that Syria verifiably--and signed off also by Outlaw US Empire--had its chemical weapons stocks destroyed, which ought to be added as a caveat to every statement by Haley et al on the subject but isn't for obvious reasons.

worldblee , Sep 6, 2018 12:43:44 PM | link
Fortunately for Mattis, it really doesn't matter anymore in the US if you tell the truth or not unless you're caught on camera using bad language or groping someone. For that, your career will be over. But murdering people with white phosphorus, invading other countries, those are all fiiiine.
Mark2 , Sep 6, 2018 12:46:40 PM | link
So the big question is will they or won't they ?
Engage with Putin and Assad ! What would be the tipping points ? They say chemicals, but really come on ! Like last time, why would Syria do that ? He does'nt need to. Nothing to gain by that at all. So as we know UZA would do it ! They All ready did (track record)
Back to the question --- if us want to engage they would be the ones to use Chem. One angle is financial, the war /killing machine industry (out of control) . Empire building following the Hitler script. Domestic gains, us politics are a shambles (uk to) give the public an outside enemy---Russia !
My conclusion ? Fear the worst !!!
imo , Sep 6, 2018 1:22:35 PM | link
Looks like it might be a bit of a race to see who can use the looming "9th September, 2018" opportunity as a symbolic "9/11 3.0" niche for global communications and control by way of resonating metaphor. My guess is the Russians on the Plains (Planes) of Syria in about 5 days (+/-2).
CarlD , Sep 6, 2018 1:37:37 PM | link
YES,
The fact is established:

May's declarations as far as poisoning is concerned has been met by the
approval of France and the USA that second the motion, whose logical
conclusion is a renewal of sanctions against Russia, undermining its
position in the UNSC and ,-the outcome seems inevitable- WAR!

Russia would be well advised to lob a few at England, and France and
the US if it wants to survive.

Blasting London would certainly be a blow to the banksters cartel
holed up there.

karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 1:43:40 PM | link
Previous fake chemical attacks have coincided with important events related to Syrian conflict. Tomorrow there're two--the UNSC meeting and the Summit in Tehran between Russia, Turkey and Iran both occur, albeit quite a few hours apart. Meanwhile, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem reminded those listening that the threats to attack Syria by FUKUS are illegal because contrary to UN Charter.

With all the pics and videos being shown made by Syrian intel behind terrorist lines in Idlib, it would seem that more than enough are present to thwart the false flag event if it's tried. Such a move would be a spectacular coup particularly if it was documented by video while negating terrorist's effort so it could be shoved in the face of the primary Terrorist--the Outlaw US Empire.

karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 2:04:07 PM | link
Today Khamenei held a session of The Assembly of Experts . Please note the opulence of their meeting chamber! The topic was the West's BigLie propaganda campaign. The viciousness of some of the replies on the Twitter thread certainly violate the terms of agreement, so I wonder if Twitter will immediately cease their services as its done to others for lesser affronts? His words are carefully chosen as usual and are meant to bolster Iranian morale, but I wonder what average Iranians think when they hear him?
GM , Sep 6, 2018 2:14:05 PM | link
Impressive example of adversarial journalism there Reuters
karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 2:22:51 PM | link
What the battle maps don't show is the local terrain in detail. Here we are provided such a look at the hills surrounding the key town of Jisr Al-Shughour prior to them being fortified. Fortunately, Idlib is mostly plains/steepe. The terrain reminds me of Korea.
CarlD , Sep 6, 2018 2:46:23 PM | link
Karlofi 26

You must be being ironic:

"The opulence of their chambers"

this is the strictest and barest chamber one can contrive.

Mark2 , Sep 6, 2018 2:54:31 PM | link
Karlofi @ 28
Good info links their thanks. Something tells me we're going to need detailed knowledge like that very soon !
At this stage a word comes to mind !--- what we have here is ' Brinkmanship ' bit like the Cuban missile crises, but hopefully with out threat of nukes, (long may that last)
Make no mistake I'm on Putin/ Assad side ! A while ago he stated Russia is like a powerful Spring ! If you keep pushing it, at some stage it will fly back and hit you full in the face.
Den Lille Abe , Sep 6, 2018 2:56:34 PM | link
The jihadist mongrels are getting ready, they know its do or die. Lets hope common sense persevere in the US. We dont want the se jihadist scum to survive, we want them to die. I am to old to go fighting, and I did my lot in Angola, but that was another war at another time.
Europe has taken in a massive amount of refugees, mostly good people in of a place not to be shot at. I personally know about 22 in Malmoe where I live.
Good people, I hope they stay , Syrians and Libyans, well educated and secular, with a broader knowledge of the world than most Swedes. I hope they stay here, we need bright young people. Our own young people are mostly ignorant and the rest are plain stupid. Cousin-cousin marriages.
But the Alliance needs to break the back of the demon, better now than sooner, the world will only heal when the US is Vernichtet.
Wollem wir der totaler krig gegen kapitalismus und seiner freunde! Ja!
Der vernichtung der heime die kapitalismus, USA, sind einer globale befreiung!
I have to use German more often , it has got such power.
And before you are up in arms , I am a card bearing socialist, so FO. I am no blairite but from the school of Albin and palme.
JohninMK , Sep 6, 2018 2:59:11 PM | link
The reason Mattis said it is very simple in my mind.

If the US MI says that the 'rebels' don't have any chemical weapons ability then if any is used it has to be by the Syrian Government. So its all clear to attack without waiting to check the evidence.

ben , Sep 6, 2018 3:16:27 PM | link
worldblee @ 21 said in part:"it really doesn't matter anymore in the US if you tell the truth or not unless you're caught on camera using bad language or groping someone. For that, your career will be over."

Unless, of course you're the POTU$..

Occidentosis , Sep 6, 2018 3:18:11 PM | link
#that or he is simply blind.

If he is even asking about iranian moral shows that he doesnt get how iranians work

Mark2 , Sep 6, 2018 3:18:32 PM | link
Hey den Lille Abe @ 31
All good stuff there ! Could you shed eny light on a German word for me it's --- Rechtsstaat ' is this the magic cure i'v been searching for to cure the worlds extreme right wing ill's !!! And if so what does it meen. !!!
Occidentosis , Sep 6, 2018 3:19:14 PM | link
The previous comment was about karlofi's comment
Shon , Sep 6, 2018 3:29:28 PM | link
Karlofi @ 25

"With all the pics and videos being shown made by Syrian intel behind terrorist lines in Idlib, it would seem that more than enough are present to thwart the false flag event if it's tried. Such a move would be a spectacular coup particularly if it was documented by video while negating terrorist's effort so it could be shoved in the face of the primary Terrorist--the Outlaw US Empire."


karlof1 I consider you one of the better posters here on MoA - high content posts without unnecessary blather.

However, I think your comment above is absurdly naive.

The last faked 'chemical attack' staged by Al-Qaeda/White Helmets was nothing more than men running into a hospital shouting 'chemical attack' and running around spraying water into patients faces with someone using a cellphone to record.

One of the boys who was from the faked video was tracked down and shown to be fine and said there was no chemical attack along with interviews with local residents who all claimed there was no attack.

Absolutely silence in the legacy mainstream media. And universally they still refer to this sickeningly fake event as 'previous Assad chemical attacks' in their stories.

If Russia or Syria arrested the UK operatives along with their Al-Qaeda/White Helmets along with surveillance film of them planning or carrying out another fake chemical attack the legacy mainstream media would completely and utterly ignore. Zero coverage.

For the legacy mainstream media to report on a faked chemical attack would mean they would have to walk back on the entire seven year narrative lie they have been responsible for. That is not going to happen ever.

karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 3:30:47 PM | link
CarlD @29--

Yes, guilty as charged. But that's as it ought to be given Islam's essence as an attempt at leveling social strata. In stark contrast, I bet the Saudi version shares features similar to a Kremlin ballroom. I'm sure you noted Khamenei's reference to The Revolution in his exhortation as it's now considered an ongoing, living/breathing entity within Iranian culture. The reason for the containment of Iran is essentially the same as for the strangulation of Vietnam's War for Independence--the threat of a Good Example.

CarlD , Sep 6, 2018 3:40:57 PM | link
Karlofi 38

Speaking about the opulence of the Kremlin, when Putin goes up these
long stairways and gilded walls, I wonder what is underneath these stairs?
is it just filler?

Anyway, you are right about the Kremlin. However it has to be said
that even the Metro is utterly magnificent.

karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 4:00:07 PM | link
Shon @37--

Thanks for your compliments! Actually, the last false flag was caught on camera and quick, excellent analysis proved it to be what it was, and rapidly spread worldwide via social media and internet. No, it didn't prevent the war crime attack, but it greatly degraded the credibility of all who backed White Helmet terrorists, particularly BigLie Media.

If one looks at the global credibility of Trump, May and Macron, it's very close to zero except for their raving base. To be caught in the act of causing the False Flag on video then uploaded and disseminated globally before or simultaneously with the video released by the terrorists would further destroy the credibility of anyone supporting the terrorists while provided powerful evidence as to the criminality of any reprisal attack done by FUKUS. My point is not that BigLie Media can be silenced; rather, that it can be further proven to be what it is--BigLie Media--while further degrading what little credibility remains for terrorist supporters.

Of course, the entire scenario is somewhat of a pipe dream. I'm sure Syria, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Turkey have decided what they'll do in response to any False Flag and any subsequent illegal attack. What remains unknown of course is the robustness of their response--hopefully, we'll never find out. Unfortunately, I think Assad may no longer have any patience/restraint remaining in attacking the Outlaw US Empire's terrorist occupation forces as in Three Strikes, You're Out! IMO, the situation's becoming more dangerous as we near the end of the conflict.

Again, thanks for your comment!

Eddie , Sep 6, 2018 4:12:51 PM | link
Key phrase: "We have zero intelligence . . . ."
Ross , Sep 6, 2018 4:46:49 PM | link
@fastfreddy 11, james 19

I followed that assault on Fallujah very closely at the time. Remember that the US Marines had tried to take over the town some months before but met with very fierce resistance and were chased out of town. Therefore there was an element of revenge and also punishment about this second assault. First they occupied the civilian hospital on the outskirts of Fallujah (a war crime). They then systemically bombed and destroyed the power station, the water pumping station and the sewage works (all war crimes).
Then as you point out they used white phosphorous munitions (a war crime), but there was something peculiar in the immediate aftermath. Having eventually successfully subdued the town, US troops went around the central area and systematically shot out, and thus drained, all the water towers (these were numerous as many houses had them). Then military bulldozers moved in and removed all the topsoil from a couple of square kilometres. This led to speculation that some form of illegal chemical weapons had been deployed.
Mad Dog indeed.

CarlD , Sep 6, 2018 4:54:09 PM | link
Psychohistorian,
Karlofi,
b,
James,

I believe WW3 starts before the first week-end of October 2018.

What is your take?

Mark2 , Sep 6, 2018 4:54:37 PM | link
Just a reminder as to which side has the moral high-ground here !
The battle to liberate Idlib clearly is starting now, within that province there will be hundreds of thousands of inocent terrified men,women and children, obviously they would leave if they could! but are being held as an horrific human shield by the us rebels /terrorist's armed fed and payed a wage by the UZA UK. There are reports of these hostages being prevented from leaving with people being made example of gallows ect ect. The us could stop this.it does not. The US UK have no morals. If they wanted to protect the people from Chem attack let them go !!!
Mark2 , Sep 6, 2018 5:03:26 PM | link
World war 3 is half way through been raging for years.It's just that our city is'nt rubble yet, our family's body parts are'nt scattered yet. Q who 's going to empathys with us ? Refugees enyone ?
karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 5:05:28 PM | link
OT, but good news!

A RoK delegation returning from yesterday's meeting with DPRK officials and accompanying news reports say Kim is willing to sign a Declaration of Peace with Moon prior to the Outlaw US Empire removing its troops, while also taking note of other related developments:

"Chung Eui-yong, Moon's national security adviser, told reporters Thursday that Kim said he would be willing to sign the end-of-war declaration that Seoul and Pyongyang have been pursuing since the spring without concomitantly demanding the withdrawal of the 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea or an end to the alliance between the US and South Korea."

Kim said the following and more:

"[W]e should value all these successes which the north and the south made hand in hand and keep advancing without deviation the north-south ties that have definitely entered the new orbit of peace, the orbit of reconciliation and cooperation."

Here's the DPRK's Rodong Sinmun 's statement on the event.

The next Moon/Kim Summit will be in Pyongyang September 18-20. Imagine the pressure on the Outlaw US Empire should Kim and Moon sign such a Declaration! I bet Trump would sign it just to pressure the warmongering Senate to vote for a Peace Treaty. Imagine the global uproar if they declined to ratify!

karlof1 , Sep 6, 2018 5:17:08 PM | link
CarlD @43--

I'm on record saying we're already in the midst of a Hybrid Third World War that began on 11 Sept 2001 when the Outlaw US Empire attacked itself, although some will argue it began with Clinton's illegal siege of Serbia. True, it hadn't gone global yet in either instance, but neither did WW2 become global when Japan invaded China in 1931.

Much depends on how desperate Neocons are to obtain their Full Spectrum Dominance policy goal as they've declared both Russia and China to be hostile powers interfering with the Empire's God-given right to control Eurasia.

ger , Sep 6, 2018 5:21:38 PM | link
Why does Mattis lie about chemical weapons among his terrorist pals? Well ... liars lie and Mattis admits he has 'zero intelligence'. US foreign policy in a nut shell. MoronsR/US.
Bobby , Sep 6, 2018 7:21:28 PM | link
Mattis lies as always like when they did attack Syria the last time with France and GB.
They are nations of war criminals , no respect for the international laws , use force to get their agenda and keep colonizing the poor countries who do not have the ways to defend themselves , that where the Russian should get in with stern warning of possible war with west and the Zionist state which along with their Zionist friends in the USA rule the policy of western civilization if their was one.
They are not civilized but wolves in sheeps Coates.
Shame on the western Christianity, in the name of God they will go and kill whom do not bow to our needs.
Pft , Sep 6, 2018 7:24:18 PM | link
Karlof1@47

Since the US was recovered by Cecil Rhodes and Rothschild on behalf of the money power in the City of London the US has been in a permanent world war against lesser nations starting from 1898. Since then we have invaded /occupied 65 countries with special forces deployed in over 130 countries at present. In the period 1950-2005 there have been 82 million avoidable deaths from deprivation (avoidable mortality, excess deaths, excess mortality , deaths that did not have to happen) associated with countries occupied or invaded by the US in the post-1945 era. Another 24 million by our little master Israel. I dont have figures from 2006-2018 but between Israel, Us and Nato it could be as high as 15 million in Syria,, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Palestine, Pakistan. Total since 1950 approaches 120 million in avoidable deaths.

Debsisdead , Sep 6, 2018 8:15:36 PM | link
None of the amerikan bluster matters a toss. There is nothing they can do. Sure maybe they will ruffle a few feathers on the periphery and that p's me off - not as much as the innocents they will kill & maim will be p1ssed - it won't change anything.

This day has been coming for Idlib since the day about 3 years ago when Syria , Iran and Russia agreed to use it as a dumping ground for the credulous morons who follow the 'jihadis' around like flies on dogsh1t. If there ever was such a thing as a moderate armed fighter, they should never have agreed to share a country retreat with al Qaeda and Daesh since this endgame was plain to see from the get go. If the 'moderates' had shot thru to somewhere else, they and their families would have no worries now. Instead they bunked up with arseholes, either because the moneymen in Turkey KSA & UAE said to or because they were too weak willed to stand up for themselves. Whichever it was, nothing will go for the better as long as they try and divert responsibility for their own foolishness onto Syrians who just want peace in all of Syria with no more cowardly attacks on Syrians going about their own business.

james , Sep 6, 2018 8:50:26 PM | link
@32 johnmk.. simple enough answer and a good one too..

@37 shon.. that is how i basically see it too..

@40 karlof1.. the usa has had plenty of info on the chemical attacks.. it just doesn't fit their prearranged agenda, so they have to discard it all.. their bombing / fireworks campaign was based on not letting the osce get into ghouta before them to give them data that didn't go with their regime change..they had to spend however many million to keep the arms industry humming.. destroy any evidence seems to be the operating principle of the usa at this point... they turned libya into a hellhole and have been hoping for a repeat in syria.. russia isn't allowing it, so we must prepare for ww3 from the same sickos running the usa.. you know all this, so i am mostly preaching to the choir!~ cheers..

@49 bobby and @50 pft.. well said and worth repeating.. thanks..


@42 ross.. it is quite sickening really and to think the usa has this mattis guy in some position of power, as opposed to rotting in a jail where he ought to be.. but, that summarizes the usa system at present... rotten to the core.. more americans seem to be speaking out now, but i fear it might be too little, too late..

Schmoe , Sep 6, 2018 10:49:25 PM | link
I anxiously await to see how this is spun to fit into "trump is fighting the deep state narrative"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-06/syrian-regime-change-table-trump-does-180-shift-syria-wapo-sources

NemesisCalling , Sep 6, 2018 11:22:59 PM | link
@53 schmoe

GTFO with your worthless WAPO referenced article. Total fake news and adds nothing to the conversation. Just more partisan Trump-bashing from our fly-by-night guests.

Syria is done. The good guys won and even Trump knows this. No amount of wishful thinking from the likes of WAPO and the like will get us back in the game.

[Sep 05, 2018] Melting Arctic Creates New Opportunities For LNG

Sep 05, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al September 2, 2018 at 11:36 pm

OilPrice.com : Melting Arctic Creates New Opportunities For LNG
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Melting-Arctic-Creates-New-Opportunities-For-LNG.html

According to Balmasov, while the number of voyages via the Northern Sea Route so far this year has been roughly the same as last year, the main difference compared to 2017 is LNG traffic out of the port of Sabetta, the port that Russia's gas producer Novatek uses to ship the Yamal LNG cargoes to Europe and to Asia.

Arctic Logistics data compiled by Bloomberg shows that by early July, a total of 34 tankers made the voyage from Sabetta to Europe, and one to the east. Since early July, another two LNG tankers have shipped the fuel to Asia

In mid-July, Novatek said that it had shipped its first LNG cargoes from Yamal LNG to China via the Northern Sea Route, with the voyage from Sabetta completed in 19 days, compared to 35 days for the traditional eastern route via the Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca
####

Tut tut! Cannot have LNG going via Russia's northern passage (fnar! fnar!).

Vis ship pollution, why simply hold LNG carriers up to much higher environmental standards? After all most of them are much newer and are specialist vessels. Or are they already? Indeed they are, the use of duel-fuel engines that can make use of boil-off:

https://www.brighthubengineering.com/naval-architecture/111619-propulsion-methods-for-modern-lng-tankers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier

As of 2005, a total of 203 vessels had been built, of which 193 were still in service. At the end of 2016, the global LNG shipping fleet consisted of 439 vessels.[3] In 2017, an estimated 170 vessels are in use at any one time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier#Reliquefaction_and_boil-off
According to WGI, on a typical voyage an estimated 0.1–0.25% of the cargo converts to gas each day, depending on the efficiency of the insulation and the roughness of the voyage.[16] In a typical 20-day voyage, anywhere from 2–6% of the total volume of LNG originally loaded may be lost.[16]

Normally an LNG tanker is powered by steam turbines with boilers. These boilers are dual fuel and can run on either methane or oil or a combination of both. ..

Mark Chapman September 3, 2018 at 10:16 am

I love how an eventuality we were all raised to dread – the melting of the polar ice caps – is now spun as a net positive. Make hay while the sun shines! When life hands you lemons, make lemonade! Pick your metaphor. We are destroying the planet we live on, inch by irrecoverable inch, but the merchants of Stay-Positive maintain it is AWESOME.

I don't know if you heard – probably not, since it was never much of an international story – but the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals, in a surprise decision, overturned the government's commitment to the Trans-Mountain pipeline.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/08/trans-mountain-court-quashes-approval-contentious-pipeline-180830180555077.html

Alberta's Rachel Notley reportedly bent spoons with her teeth, since she had just jubilantly reported that the court challenge by the city of Burnaby (British Columbia) was defeated. "To date, Alberta has won every case brought against Trans Mountain. Your Alberta government will not back down until this pipeline is built and the national interest is secured", she crowed on Twitter; the modern equivalent of a legislature, I guess, since all politicians who are anybody turn first to Twitter to get their message out.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977566130351960064

That one, of course, was "a victory for all Canadians". Except for British Columbia's crybabies, of course, who did not want to play host to Alberta's tanker armada, considering Alberta has no seacoast. So you would think she would quietly accept this later decision by the legal system she purports to revere. Not a bit of it. She immediately withdrew Alberta from the national climate-change plan, and restarted her rhetoric about cutting off BC's gas supply.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/ready-and-prepared-to-turn-off-the-taps-notley-issues-stark-warning-to-b-c-as-pipeline-fight-escalates/wcm/59f845c2-b13e-46f5-bb08-15e0fb37ec84

Get it? When the court rules in Alberta's favour, it is just – the solemn power of the law makes you want to weep with awe. When it rules against Alberta, it is a clown show of unevolved primates. That's modern politics.

All this theatre when the completion of the pipeline is inevitable – the very day, almost to the hour that the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the shareholders of Kinder-Morgan Canada voted 99% in favour of selling the pipeline to the government of Canada. So now the government owns it, and although it may be delayed a couple of years, it's down but not out. Now the government has to re-do its consultations with all the native bands, this time selling the impression that it is actually listening and the consultative process is real, and it has to conduct a review of the environmental impact of increased tanker traffic (which it formerly declaimed as outside its purview). I'd say if there is agreement on changing some routes and perhaps permissible speed until well offshore, it will almost certainly pass next time.

[Sep 05, 2018] Trump s Pointless UN Stunt by DANIEL LARISON

Notable quotes:
"... The Trump administration has made a habit of "calling out" adversaries and putting them "on notice" for the last year and a half, but it has had no effect on their behavior and it hasn't harmed their relations with most other states. ..."
"... Despite all this, the Trump administration has managed to achieve the near-impossible feat of making itself more and more of an international pariah at the same time that its economic warfare against Iran wins them sympathy and support from other states. ..."
"... The other member states might be inclined to pay a lot more attention to American complaints about Iran if the U.S. weren't the one flagrantly violating UNSCR 2231 and the JCPOA, but as it is the U.S. is the one in clear violation of its obligations while Iran remains in compliance. ..."
Sep 04, 2018 | theamericanconservative.com

The latest reports on Trump's Security Council stunt confirm that it is going to be a complete waste of time:

Ms. Haley, who will serve as president of the Security Council for the month of September, said she did not expect an official council statement or resolution to come out of Mr. Trump's session on Iran. Rather, she said, the point is simply to call Iran out [bold mine-DL].

"We want to make sure that they understand the world is watching," she said.

The Trump administration has made a habit of "calling out" adversaries and putting them "on notice" for the last year and a half, but it has had no effect on their behavior and it hasn't harmed their relations with most other states. Haley says that the administration thinks that Iran has "been ignored and given a pass for too long." This is laughable when you consider that Iran has been under heavier international sanctions than almost every other country on the planet for many years and still has to abide by restrictions on its nuclear program that no other state has ever had to accept. If this amounts to getting a pass, what would intense scrutiny and pressure look like?

Despite all this, the Trump administration has managed to achieve the near-impossible feat of making itself more and more of an international pariah at the same time that its economic warfare against Iran wins them sympathy and support from other states.

The other member states might be inclined to pay a lot more attention to American complaints about Iran if the U.S. weren't the one flagrantly violating UNSCR 2231 and the JCPOA, but as it is the U.S. is the one in clear violation of its obligations while Iran remains in compliance. If Trump had not made the irrational, destructive decision to renege on the nuclear deal, the U.S. would be in a much stronger position to criticize Iran on other issues, but that ship has sailed.

One of many other problems with Trump's planned stunt is that the U.S. has violated international law quite a few times over just the last fifteen years, and it has aided and abetted its clients in their own violations as well. If one wanted to find someone to deliver a rebuke to Iran, one could scarcely ask for a worse, less credible messenger than Trump. Not only is Trump especially contemptuous of international law and institutions even by American standards, but as president he has continued the illegal U.S. military presence in Syria, he has increased support for the Saudi coalition's horrific war on Yemen despite extensive evidence of their war crimes, and he has ordered attacks on the Syrian government in clear violation of the U.N. Charter. On top of all that, he has repeatedly made obnoxious threats to destroy entire countries. Most other governments don't recognize the legitimacy of the U.S. effort to strangle Iran's economy, and many major powers are doing what they can to evade U.S. sanctions. That is what eventually happens when the U.S. consistently abuses its power and singles out certain states for punishment no matter what they do: U.S. influence wanes and respect for U.S. concerns vanishes.

[Sep 04, 2018] The White House, the Senate, and much of the American media are in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own

Notable quotes:
"... "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "' ..."
"... Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.' ..."
"... It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically. ..."
Sep 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Johnny Rottenborough , Website September 4, 2018 at 10:47 am GMT

An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:

'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April.

"We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'

Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here.

Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'

Eighthman , September 4, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT

It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.

[Sep 04, 2018] Parts of Censored Al Jazeera Documentary on DC Israel Lobby Leaked

Notable quotes:
"... The documentary, which was produced by an undercover reporter who infiltrated pro-Israel groups in the U.S. in 2016, has been censored by the Qatari government – the owner of Al Jazeera – as part of an attempt by Qatar to win the support of major Jewish American organizations. ..."
"... New details about the contents of the censored documentary appeared this week in the French monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, and video excerpts from it were published by Max Blumenthal and on the website Electronic Intifada. ..."
Sep 04, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Parts of Censored Al Jazeera Documentary on D.C. Israel Lobby Leaked 03/09/2018

Leaked clips from film, pulled by Qatar in bid to appease U.S. Jewish community, show 'astroturfing' by college students involved with right-wing think tank, claim to reveal top U.S. donor of BDS blacklist

By Amir Tibon
August 30, 2018

Video excerpts and new details from the censored Al Jazeera documentary about the Israeli lobby in the United States have been leaked to select media outlets in recent days.

The documentary, which was produced by an undercover reporter who infiltrated pro-Israel groups in the U.S. in 2016, has been censored by the Qatari government – the owner of Al Jazeera – as part of an attempt by Qatar to win the support of major Jewish American organizations.

New details about the contents of the censored documentary appeared this week in the French monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, and video excerpts from it were published by Max Blumenthal and on the website Electronic Intifada.

Read more at https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-parts-of-censored-al-jazeera-documentary-on-pro-israeli-lobby-leaked-1.6432835

[Sep 04, 2018] I think that the US strategy is very sound and its aims are obvious. Since they can't win any "hot" war of any significance, they decided to lure Russia into Cold war 2. And we all know who "won" Cold war 1.

Notable quotes:
"... So the strategy is obvious: Scare Russia with how big your defense budget is, even if you have nothing to show for it. And if 1 trillion can't do the trick, I don't see why 2 trillion shouldn't be able to accomplish the task – winning Cold war 2. ..."
"... The US are perfectly capable by themselves alone in finding a new source of pride in the fact how much they can (ill) afford to spend on the military, thus they want to ensure that on their way to oblivion, history will marvel at what a powerful country they used to be – spending amounts of money on the military that no one else was able to match. ..."
"... Yes, Putin managed to change the world quietly, to the helpless chagrin of the Empire. The fact that the Empire is now using the lowliest scum, like jihadi head choppers and "svidomie" Nazis, shows that it is reduced to hysterics and tantrums. ..."
"... So, if in Cold War 2.0 Putin is using the strategy the US used in Cold War 1.0, he is outsmarting his adversaries admirably. ..."
"... It might be even worse for the Empire and its lackeys. The US and other NATO armies would be totally incapacitated by the absence of bathroom tissue. ..."
"... You need to start with the premise that the US Zioglob wants to destroy Syria and Iran – and you have to take them seriously since much of the Middle East has already been targeted, and is lying in ruins ..."
"... Russia's part in this is that it gets in the way. Without Russian support, Assad and the Iranians would probably already be gone, and Syria would be some kind of ISIS run hellhole ..."
"... But overall, it's unreal that this is happening. If the US attacks Russian warships off the Syrian coast, then things could get completely out of control. ..."
"... Israel would not let America do anything that might start a nuclear war. ..."
"... FSB operational group is in Donetsk now and is dealing with this murder. This is the start of the official recognition of the LDNR–initially as independent entities and, eventually, rejoining Russia. It is especially remarkable after even Kiev admitting a demographic and labor catastrophe, which also feed-backs and drives the whole country into the oblivion even faster. That, plus US military "advisers" are already in place in Ukraine. 2019 is not far away and US wants to "sell" own toxic asset as high as possible. ..."
"... Is the outbreak of nuclear war possible? Of course it is possible, it always is–the main measure of it is how probable this outbreak is. This is way above my pay-grade level, but I will reiterate–Russia is aware of the US and where it stands on the order (if not two) of magnitude more than it is the other way around. Russians actually study the US and I saw a vast improvement of Russian Americanistika in the last 10 years. Dramatic really. On the other end well ..."
"... As far as Israel is concerned, you don't need to target anything in particular: one 500 kiloton device (or a few smaller ones) would wipe the whole Israel off the map (Arabs need not rejoice: that puny territory won't be usable for any mammals for a few thousand years). One can only hope that Israelis and the US neocons don't have a death wish and won't let things to go that far. ..."
"... The US strategy is to make Russia bleed internally with aggressive and violent Military occupations directly as in Syria and by proxy in the Ukraine ..Could this not lead to a coup in Russia? ..."
"... Dempsey and Michael Flynn (while he was head of the DIA) sabotaging the CIA and State department policy on overthrowing Assad the Idiot (he put up the price of basic necessities while the Arab spring was going on) was the origin of Russia gate, the CIA hated Flynn. ..."
"... The US "strategy" on Russia is written by dated "products" of the US "humanities" field, by amateurs and by ignoramuses – that is why US "strategy" on Russia is easily identifiable as one huge tantrum and is exhibit A of how not TO conduct military and foreign policies. In fact, I expect at some point of time many a Ph.D theses written on that–a fascinating topic of a country ran by people with maturity level of teenagers. As per coup–wanna see one? Open any US MSM newspaper or watch any MSM news. ..."
"... I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with leaders speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country with a generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers. ..."
"... While it may be the case that there are serious people who seriously understand the situation, the default assumption among Regime players is that USG is on top, and this will continue for ever . ..."
"... The other is geopolitical: I strongly suspect that Putin wants to use Donbass as a lever to push Ukraine to a sensible position of neutrality internationally and federation internally. If so, good luck to him: that would make Ukraine viable. ..."
"... I don't know about goats, but naturally radiation-resistant rodents and insects would have been grateful to neocons, if they knew who to thank for gifting them the whole Earth as a kingdom. ..."
"... I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with leaders speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country with a generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers. ..."
"... Yes, it's definitely a tricky situation living in a large country run by criminals and madmen. ..."
"... If not for nuclear weapons, things would be much simpler, and once they eventually got a bloody military nose, there might be a popular uprising, probably leading to the wholesale massacre of all our ruling political, financial, and intellectual elites. This would definitely serve them right and also provide excellent business to Chinese guillotine-manufacturers. But with nukes in the hands of madmen, a positive outcome is much more doubtful, so I guess there's not all that much we can do except sit around and worry. ..."
Sep 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Originally from: Russia As a Cat by Andrei Martyanov

Cyrano , says: September 4, 2018 at 5:19 pm GMT

I am sorry Andrei, but I am going to have to disagree with your assessment of the current situation. I think that the US strategy is very sound and its aims are obvious. Since they can't win any "hot" war of any significance, they decided to lure Russia into Cold war 2. And we all know who "won" Cold war 1.

Basically the strategy is: Focus on the "wars" that you can "win", instead on the ones that you can't. And the way they intend to "win" Cold war 2 is the same like they "won" Cold war 1 – outspend Russia on defense.

For a few years now, the Americans are bragging that their yearly increases in the military budget are bigger than the total Russian military budget. US now spend around 1 trillion on defense, while Russia is what – in the 50-60 billion range?

So the strategy is obvious: Scare Russia with how big your defense budget is, even if you have nothing to show for it. And if 1 trillion can't do the trick, I don't see why 2 trillion shouldn't be able to accomplish the task – winning Cold war 2.

The only difference between Cold war 1 and 2 is that USSR tried to match the spending of US in Cold war 1 -that's what bankrupted them. This time around, the Russians don't even have to pretend that they are trying to match US military budget.

The US are perfectly capable by themselves alone in finding a new source of pride in the fact how much they can (ill) afford to spend on the military, thus they want to ensure that on their way to oblivion, history will marvel at what a powerful country they used to be – spending amounts of money on the military that no one else was able to match.

Thulean Friend , says: September 4, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Your argument is nonsensical and uninformed. Russia has recently slashed their defence spending by a significant margin. If the plan was to lure Russia to spend more via defence then it has already completely failed.

Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 7:27 pm GMT

A Tweet by Nick Griffin, former leader of the British National Party, on whether decades of mass immigration and Cultural Marxism have increased or decreased the West's chances of surviving World War III:

'Here's the bottom line: Even if Nato destroyed the entire military & half the cities of Russia, she would survive. If the USA & UK lose their militaries & their electricity supply, their cities will be destroyed by their own citizens. The West has lost #WW3 before it starts!'

AnonFromTN , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:03 pm GMT

Yes, Putin managed to change the world quietly, to the helpless chagrin of the Empire. The fact that the Empire is now using the lowliest scum, like jihadi head choppers and "svidomie" Nazis, shows that it is reduced to hysterics and tantrums.

Sometimes I wish Putin to act more decisively, like after the murder of Zakharchenko in Donetsk by cowardly terrorist jackals. But I also feel that he must know more than I do. His strategy seems to be "when you see your enemy committing suicide, do not interfere". So far it is working. If anything, Russia, without spending too much, prompts the US to spend itself into financial insolvency.

So, if in Cold War 2.0 Putin is using the strategy the US used in Cold War 1.0, he is outsmarting his adversaries admirably.

AnonFromTN , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Johnny Rottenborough

It might be even worse for the Empire and its lackeys. The US and other NATO armies would be totally incapacitated by the absence of bathroom tissue. And I mean real soldiers, not trannies.

AnonFromTN , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT
@Macon Richardson

Both of you are way off. The reality trumps race, real or imagined. That's where Russia wins. Particularly because it includes people of different nationalities, races, religions (or lack thereof), etc.

Miro23 , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT

You need to start with the premise that the US Zioglob wants to destroy Syria and Iran – and you have to take them seriously since much of the Middle East has already been targeted, and is lying in ruins.

Russia's part in this is that it gets in the way. Without Russian support, Assad and the Iranians would probably already be gone, and Syria would be some kind of ISIS run hellhole.

Also, the cook in the fable does monologues when angry, but the Neocons have been described as "Crazies" and act like crazies, so it's a bit risky to only expect "loud talk and nothing more". Crazies can start throwing things around, and they're not known for balanced responses, so I find Martyanov's view too complacent.

I would guess that Putin & his generals have a more realistic assessment , and interestingly they seem to have decided to stick with Assad (which seems to imply that they're ready to go all the way with the US). Trump & Mattis need to appreciate this and moderate the Ziocons.

But overall, it's unreal that this is happening. If the US attacks Russian warships off the Syrian coast, then things could get completely out of control.

Sean , says: September 4, 2018 at 8:27 pm GMT
@Johnny Rottenborough

Rural Russians do not have electricity, indoor plumbing and running water in many cases. It is like Eire in the 1920′s except worse because the distances are vastly greater. Anyway, if Russia got to a point where it was in a full nuclear strategic exchange with the US, the last act of the Russian leadership would be to order that their missiles hit every other nuclear power: Britain, France, China and Israel too . Russia would take everyone else down with them. For that reason Israel would not let America do anything that might start a nuclear war.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 9:02 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

like after the murder of Zakharchenko in Donetsk

FSB operational group is in Donetsk now and is dealing with this murder. This is the start of the official recognition of the LDNR–initially as independent entities and, eventually, rejoining Russia. It is especially remarkable after even Kiev admitting a demographic and labor catastrophe, which also feed-backs and drives the whole country into the oblivion even faster. That, plus US military "advisers" are already in place in Ukraine. 2019 is not far away and US wants to "sell" own toxic asset as high as possible.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 9:12 pm GMT
@Miro23

Also, the cook in the fable does monologues when angry, but the Neocons have been described as "Crazies" and act like crazies, so it's a bit risky to only expect "loud talk and nothing more". Crazies can start throwing things around, and they're not known for balanced responses, so I find Martyanov's view too complacent.

Evidently you missed Ralph Peters' (and he is really bat shit crazy one and passes as "military experts" among neocon cabal) "performance" and writings when he called on the war against Russia ONLY inside Syria. And even then with some caveats.

http://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/

Even if such a psycho as Peters understands limitations–and that was a year ago, since then things changed in Syria dramatically, such as Syrian and Russian Air Defense among other things–then I would say that my position is not really "complacent". Russia has a revolver and it is held to the temple.

Is the outbreak of nuclear war possible? Of course it is possible, it always is–the main measure of it is how probable this outbreak is. This is way above my pay-grade level, but I will reiterate–Russia is aware of the US and where it stands on the order (if not two) of magnitude more than it is the other way around. Russians actually study the US and I saw a vast improvement of Russian Americanistika in the last 10 years. Dramatic really. On the other end well

AnonFromTN , says: September 4, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
@Sean

You are a bit under-informed. Practically all Russian villages have electricity now, although many don't have natural gas, indoor plumbing, and live w/o running water in homes (some have it in the streets, others rely on wells; most use old-fashioned latrines).

In the worst-case scenario of nuclear war between Russia and the US, Russia won't need to target nuclear power plants (or anything else) in China. Russian strategy would be to make sure some people survive, same as Chinese strategy in that case. They might, although I am not sure that the survivors won't envy the dead after a full-blown nuclear war. The US vassals will be hit, but given what the world will become, one can consider that an act of mercy.

As far as Israel is concerned, you don't need to target anything in particular: one 500 kiloton device (or a few smaller ones) would wipe the whole Israel off the map (Arabs need not rejoice: that puny territory won't be usable for any mammals for a few thousand years). One can only hope that Israelis and the US neocons don't have a death wish and won't let things to go that far.

War for Blair Mountain , says: September 4, 2018 at 9:27 pm GMT

Krylov .didn't he come up with the idea of Krylov subspaces? .Was the poet also the late great Russian Naval Engineer-Mathematician Krylov?

War for Blair Mountain , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:10 pm GMT

I'm worried about two things:

1) the Russian Military and the US Military are separated physically by a very thin line in Syria and other places ..accidental bumping into each other=Big nuclear accident!!!

2)The US strategy is to make Russia bleed internally with aggressive and violent Military occupations directly as in Syria and by proxy in the Ukraine ..Could this not lead to a coup in Russia? Noam Chomsky makes a compelling case that the US actually won the Vietnam War .Vietnam had it's military victory .but the war turned Vietnam into a dependent basket case .44 years of being a dependent basket case.

Per/Norway , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:26 pm GMT

https://archive.org/details/cu31924026691612

If there exists any other people than me that got curious about Ivan Krylov and want to read his stories i found a book on archive.org

"Kriloff's original fables translated by Henry Harrison published in 1883."
I found it easier to read the letters in that one than in the link in the article tbh.

Sean , says: September 4, 2018 at 10:57 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Watergate was really about the US losing the war, so I think the Vietnamese won the war, but the US left benefited . To get rid of Putin and his system the US would have to impose a clear defeat on Russia, something the US cannot do in Ukraine without Russia escalating, and did not care to try in Syria. The American and Russian military would not let the politicians start a war.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/11/mccain_gen_dempsey_most_disappointing_chairman_of_the_joint_chiefs_that_i_have_ever_seen.html

McCAIN: General Dempsey is the most disappointing chairman of the joint chiefs that I have seen, and I have seen many of them

He says he may request that. He has supported the plan to completely withdraw from Afghanistan. And he has basically been the echo chamber for the president. And one of the reasons we are in the situation that we're in in the world today – and particularly in the Middle East – is because the lack of his either knowledge or candor about the situation in the Middle East. And it has done great damage, and so all I can say is he only has eight more months.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4621738/dunford-tells-wicker-controlling-airspace-syria-means-war-russia-mccain-throws-tantrum-dunford

In the above video Dunford tells Wicker controlling airspace in Syria means war with Russia. McCain throws a tantrum, then Dunford refines answer. However, it is perfectly obvious that the current head of the Joint Chiefs is no more keen than Martin Dempsey was on aggressive action against Assad.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

Dempsey and Michael Flynn (while he was head of the DIA) sabotaging the CIA and State department policy on overthrowing Assad the Idiot (he put up the price of basic necessities while the Arab spring was going on) was the origin of Russia gate, the CIA hated Flynn.

Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 11:05 pm GMT
@Sean

Sean -- I hope you are right about Israel. I have seen it argued, though, that Jews would welcome a nuclear conflagration because, as God's chosen, they would be the only ones certain to be left standing when the dust had settled. It would be the realization of the Judaic belief that Heaven and Earth were created solely for the Jews; see Shahak and Mezvinsky's Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel , page 60.

Per/Norway , says: September 4, 2018 at 11:06 pm GMT
@Sean

of course they are, now go back to bed grandpa. you should not let your self get so agitated either, your heart is weak. it is a long time ago now that "you" beat the nazis and taught those pesky commies a lesson.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 4, 2018 at 11:18 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Noam Chomsky makes a compelling case that the US actually won the Vietnam War

Noam Chomsky could be many things, military historian and scholar of a warfare he surely is not. I believe Carl Von Clausewitz makes much more compelling case about the war than Chomsky ever did or will.

The US strategy is to make Russia bleed internally with aggressive and violent Military occupations directly as in Syria and by proxy in the Ukraine ..Could this not lead to a coup in Russia?

The US "strategy" on Russia is written by dated "products" of the US "humanities" field, by amateurs and by ignoramuses – that is why US "strategy" on Russia is easily identifiable as one huge tantrum and is exhibit A of how not TO conduct military and foreign policies. In fact, I expect at some point of time many a Ph.D theses written on that–a fascinating topic of a country ran by people with maturity level of teenagers. As per coup–wanna see one? Open any US MSM newspaper or watch any MSM news.

War for Blair Mountain , says: September 4, 2018 at 11:55 pm GMT

Andrie

Your last paragraph .and I thought: Kenneth Adleman Jean Kirkpatrick ..Condelezza Rice(and this one is too stupid to know she is stupid ), Susan Rice( very inflated opinion of herself and a dunce ) now this is a real confederacy of dunces

tyrone , says: September 5, 2018 at 12:25 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

Putin will go down as one of the great men of the 21st century if anyone is still keeping tally then.

joun , says: September 5, 2018 at 1:44 am GMT

A very interesting response.

I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with leaders speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country with a generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers.

They will burn the world if they can't have it.

Additionally, I interact (drink) with policy types in DC and elsewhere and to them the suggestion that USG would not be able to ruin Russia, or China, and not suffer a catastrophe at home, is laughable. They will actually laugh. While it may be the case that there are serious people who seriously understand the situation, the default assumption among Regime players is that USG is on top, and this will continue for ever .

seeing-thru , says: September 5, 2018 at 2:20 am GMT

Much reasoned and passionate debate this: should Russia do or not do? Not possessing military background at the level of many luminaries here, all I can do is lay out an analogy built around game theory and poker.

You (Russia) are playing poker with a guy (Uncle Sam) known to hide cards up his sleeves. You do not call for a show of hands because you fear the loser and his servants will rather blow up the gaming room than lose. And the blowing up the room is not a certainty, only a probability not subject to quantification.

So the initiative rests with the other guy – and he keeps doubling the stakes every move. Now what to do you do? Every time the stakes are doubled the probability of the loser blowing up the gaming room increases should he be called out. Should you have called for a show of hands when the stakes were lower? Or should you let the game go on and on, thereby avoiding a big blow up?

The other probem is that not only is the other guy crooked, he is also slightly crazy and blind. Has he really seen his own hand of cards correctly? You don't know for sure. It does look like safety might lie in letting the game go on at the other guy's initiative.

What if it drags on endlessly? Who has the bigger pile of chips? Who will go bust first? What if piles of chips are ignored as a constraint on both sides? Well, then how will the game end? All games must have an end point.
I have no answers.

AnonFromTN , says: September 5, 2018 at 2:27 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Having grown up in Donbass, I would like to share your hope.

However, there are several reasons for Russia's reluctance to let Donbass join. One is purely economic: Donbass is a lot more populous than Crimea, so bringing the living standards there from Ukrainian to Russian level would cost lots of money. Russia is hardly in a position to take on an additional huge burden right now.

The other is geopolitical: I strongly suspect that Putin wants to use Donbass as a lever to push Ukraine to a sensible position of neutrality internationally and federation internally. If so, good luck to him: that would make Ukraine viable.

AnonFromTN , says: September 5, 2018 at 2:35 am GMT
@Sean

If WWIII starts in earnest, having someone left intact would be the least of Russia's (or anyone else's) worries.

I don't know about goats, but naturally radiation-resistant rodents and insects would have been grateful to neocons, if they knew who to thank for gifting them the whole Earth as a kingdom.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: September 5, 2018 at 4:34 am GMT

If you want your soul to soar above the clouds, read what is the true jewel of Russian literature, works by Saltikov-Shchedrin.

Ron Unz , says: September 5, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT
@joun

I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with leaders speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country with a generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers.

They will burn the world if they can't have it.

Yes, it's definitely a tricky situation living in a large country run by criminals and madmen.

If not for nuclear weapons, things would be much simpler, and once they eventually got a bloody military nose, there might be a popular uprising, probably leading to the wholesale massacre of all our ruling political, financial, and intellectual elites. This would definitely serve them right and also provide excellent business to Chinese guillotine-manufacturers. But with nukes in the hands of madmen, a positive outcome is much more doubtful, so I guess there's not all that much we can do except sit around and worry.

[Sep 04, 2018] What If the Mueller Investigation Pushed Trump to Attack Iran by Paul R. Pillar

Sep 04, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

It would be the ultimate diversionary tactic.

Michael Cohen's guilty plea directly implicating President Trump in the commission of a crime has stimulated new talk about possible impeachment. Given how the case involves sexual liaisons, it also has stimulated comparisons with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Most such comparisons focus on the domestic politics of each episode, and on such questions as whether Democrats who downplayed the significance of Clinton's dalliance with a White House intern would be inconsistent if they now went after Trump -- although Clinton's behavior did not involve an election and violation of campaign finance law -- whereas Cohen's allegation about Trump does.

Those more interested in foreign and security policy might focus instead on another dimension of how Clinton's caper with Monica Lewinsky was discussed at the time. When Clinton, following al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam twenty years ago this month, ordered cruise missile attacks against facilities associated with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan, some of his political opponents accused him of using the strikes to boost domestic support that was sagging amid the Lewinsky affair. The accusation was stimulated partly by the timing of the missile strikes, which occurred just three days after Clinton admitted in a televised address that he had misled the public about his relationship with Lewinsky.

[Sep 03, 2018] www.informationclearinghouse.info/50168.htm In Memoriam by Paul Edwards

Highly recommended!
Sep 03, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The commedia dell'arte mourning of McCain is in full bloom. In a vulgar orgy of pompous, bathetic praise from Congress and the media, he is being piously canonized. To counter this shameless obsequy by attacking him for what he actually was would be an exercise in futility, just as the endless ad hominem hatchet jobs on Trump accomplish nothing.

It's more useful to examine the grisly American disease of which he was a champion and cynosure. The son and grandson of Admirals, a bred-in-the-bone military man, he flew a fighter in Vietnam. Shot down -- and amazingly not summarily executed -- he was held as a POW, and became a lifelong advocate of unlimited use of military force for American world domination.

Nothing unusual in that. It is and has been the baseline political credo of all American politicians since Monroe, at least, up to and including Trump, Hillary, Sanders, and Warren. The surest way to the graveyard for political hopefuls is to be seen or slimed as "soft on defense".

The fact that actual defense of the country has not been necessary since the War of 1812, and is not now, and that the hoax only exists to suck our national wealth into the War Machine has not been effectively articulated. The idea, false to its core, that America must spend astronomic sums to "defend" its polity and its people has taken on the character of revealed religion in a country where multitudes believe in angels and Endtimes.

This appropriation of the wealth of the people by the corporate forces of imperial murder has not come suddenly. Oceans of innocent blood have drenched the world from our military violence since Quincy Adams said of America that "she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy".

World War II proved to Eisenhower's Military/Industrial/Congressio nal Complex the obscene profit to be had from annihilating people, cities, and countries. Schumpeter defined the War Machine far better than Ike did: "Created by the wars that required it, it now creates the wars it requires."

Since 1945, America, by then firmly in its grasp, has relentlessly scoured the world behind the gross and cynical lie of defense of freedom, to foment, ignite, and expand the brutal, devastating, shock-and-awe gorefests the War Machine has to have. That Korea, Vietnam, and the catalog of Middle Eastern horrors the US perpetrated were failures on a cosmic scale except as cash cows for the War Machine has been of little concern to the most somnolent, propagandized, passive public since that of the Third Reich. These national mass murder atrocities were sold to Americans as defense of our indispensable "homeland" from barbarian, sub-human "others". Some, such as Al Qaida were, absurdly, our Deep State's own creations.

It is commonly said and believed that the American public is not at fault for its profound, intractable moral cowardice since War Machine swag has kept them in a combination insane asylum, crack house, and human zoo. How else could they have lived with the intolerably bitter truth that their country is the serial violator and exterminator, the voracious destroyer, of so many millions of simple, guiltless, victim peoples?

This is where John McCain and his ilk comes in. Exploiting his bogus and accidental credentials, he became a pitch man for the massive con of American purity and idealism as a front for imperialist greed, and made a career promoting and lionizing the War Machine as it raped the peoples of earth and robbed Americans blind in pursuit of its cancerous enrichment.

Still, McCain was only a cracked and bent tool. He was always an effect, a symptom; never a cause. The real driver of the War Machine is heartless, soulless, predatory Capitalism. Its credo is exploitation of everything to maximize profit. In a closed system, competing capital conflicts, collides. Greed eclipses reason and war results. The greatest capital concentration requires the most terrible military, in which violence displaces conscience. There never has been, and never can be, Capitalism without war.

Indoctrinated, baffled, saddled with a cesspool Congress and the deeply stupid, vulgarian Trump, centrist Americans, desperate for refuge, rush mindlessly to the new War Party, Democrats eager to use McCain's $700 billion dollar hogwallow "defense" bill, to insult and provoke China and Russia, and to attack Iran. Hubris, false bravado, and panic rule; nowhere is there self knowledge and with it, long overdue, sorrow, regret, and shame.

Karmic retribution--the pitiless hand of Nemesis--is all America deserves.

Paul Edwards is a writer and film-maker in Montana. He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Sep 03, 2018] The First Attempted Assassination of President Truman

Sep 03, 2018 | ariwatch.com

The Attempted Assassination of President Truman

The year is 1947, the place the White House. But before we visit that venerable edifice we need some background about the British Empire. At this time numbered among Britain's possessions is an area in the Middle East called Palestine, about the size of New Jersey. The British have ruled Palestine since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.

The British still administer Palestine pursuant to a "declaration" in a letter dated November 2, 1917 from James Balfour of the British Foreign Office to, in effect, the British Zionist Federation. Nominally the letter was addressed to Walter Rothschild, the liaison between the Foreign Office and the Zionist Federation. At the time – during World War I – Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire which was on the Axis side in the war. The letter gave Rothschild a "declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations" that had been approved by the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Balfour concluded the letter by asking Rothchild to bring this declaration to the attention of the Zionist Federation.

We won't address why the British did this, [1] suffice it to say that they kept the declaration's promise to the Zionists. The Balfour Declaration, as it came to be known, was later incorporated into the Allies' peace treaty with Turkey (head of the soon to be defunct Ottoman empire) and into the League of Nations' "Mandate for Palestine" which placed Palestine under British rule in 1923.

It wasn't long before the Zionists, led mostly by Jews from Eastern Europe, began to chaff under the British protectorate. What irked them most was "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ... ." The Zionists' goal was total control of Palestine, massive Jewish immigration beyond what the British had already allowed and the expulsion of all existing non-Jews. By the 1930s the Zionists, crying "Independence!", were trying to drive the British out of Palestine to accomplish this.

Though the Zionists engaged in open battles against British troops their principle method of operation was terrorism, first in Palestine, later to include England and, as we shall see, elsewhere. The militant group Irgun Zva'i Le'ummi began operations in 1931. An even more violent offshoot, Lehi ( Lohamei Herut Yisrael ), better known as the Stern Gang after its founder Avraham Stern, split from the Irgun in 1940. Avraham Stern declared that his group's goal was to establish a Jewish state based on "nationalist and totalitarian principles ... ." [2] After Stern's death in 1942 the group was commanded jointly by three men, and by 1943 Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. In 1944 Menachem Begin assumed leadership of the Irgun. Under cover of World War II and its aftermath the attacks by the Irgun and Stern Gang increased in frequency and violence.

Some planned attacks were never carried out, for example sending agents to London to assassinate Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. Some attacks didn't come off, for example on April 15, 1947 a Stern Gang agent planted a twenty-four stick bomb at the Colonial Office of Whitehall, the seat of British government, which failed to explode because of a faulty timer. Some attacks were thwarted, for example when the Stern Gang mailed booby-trapped letters – letter bombs, designed to maim and kill – eventually totaling 21 in number, to various officials in England, including (in 1947) Ernest Bevin and his predecessor Anthony Eden. All but one, which injured two employees at a London post office, were intercepted in time. Other terrorist attacks succeeded only too well. The Stern Gang murdered Walter Guinness (Lord Moyne), the British Minister in State for the Middle East, in Cairo on November 6, 1944 (they also killed his driver, Arthur Fuller). The Irgun planted a huge seven piece time bomb in the King David Hotel, in Palestine, on July 22, 1946 killing 91 people and injuring 46, most of whom were not British officials. [3] On October 31, 1946 the Irgun bombed the British Embassy in Rome, injuring three people. By 1947 the British are ready to give up on Palestine. [4]

Which brings us to President Harry Truman. By 1947 his ambivalent, at times even hostile, attitude toward the promoters of a "Jewish state" has become well known. A few quotes, three taken from an article by David Martin, will give some indication of that attitude. [5] The first is from a letter Truman wrote to Edward Pauley dated October 22, 1946. [6] Speaking of the situation in Palestine:

That situation is insoluble in my opinion. I have spent a year and a month trying to get some concrete action on it. Not only are the British highly successful in muddling the situation as completely as it could possibly be muddled, but the Jews themselves are making it almost impossible to do anything for them. They seem to have the same attitude toward the "underdog" when they are on top as they have been treated as "underdogs" themselves.
From Truman's Memoirs : [7]
My efforts to persuade the British to relax immigration restrictions in Palestine might have fallen on more receptive ears if it had not been for the increasing acts of terrorism that were being committed in Palestine. There were armed groups of extremists who were guilty of numerous outrages. On June 16 eight bridges were blown up near the Trans-Jordan border, and two other explosions were set off in Haifa. The following day there was a pitched battle between Jews and British troops in Haifa, after explosions had started a fire and caused great damage in the rail yards there. British officers were kidnapped. Others were shot at from passing automobiles. Explosions took place in ever-increasing numbers, and the British uncovered a plot by one extremist group to kidnap the British commander in chief in Palestine.

The Zionist faction in the U.S., though not numerous, is vocal and persistent, and pressures Truman to help their cause of increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. Though Truman is on their side he becomes annoyed with their methods. A Truman biographer describes [8] "the irritation with which he reacted to excessive Jewish lobbying":

In June of 1946 he at first refused to see a delegation of all the New York Congressmen, and finally received them only with obvious impatience. He was no better when the two Senators from the state ... brought a former member of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry (into Palestine) to see him. "I am not a New Yorker," Truman is alleged to have told them. "All these people are pleading for a special interest. I am an American."
Another Truman biographer, [9] referring to Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, co-chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council:
Truman despised Rabbi Silver. [In 1947] he was to write to [his aide David] Niles: "... Terror and Silver are the contributing causes of some , if not all, of our troubles." ...
...
At a cabinet meeting July 30, 1946, [Commerce Secretary Henry] Wallace warned Truman that the Morrison-Grady Plan was "loaded with political dynamite." Feeling harassed, Truman was angry at the Jews -- "put out" with them, as Wallace recalled his words. According to Wallace, Truman snapped, "Jesus Christ couldn't please them when he was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?"

By 1947 Truman's bad attitude has likely come to the attention of the worst of the Zionists. Seen from a Zionist fanatic's eyes there is good reason to punish him, as much reason as there had been to punish Ernest Bevin and Anthony Eden in England.

What happens next is told by Ira Smith, a White House staff mail reader under nine successive presidents, in his autobiographical book Dear Mr. President: The Story of Fifty Years in the White House Mail Room , p. 229:

... in the summer of 1947 I was summoned back to Washington from my vacation because controversy over important issues, including the Palestine question, had greatly increased the volume of mail to the President. I was rather surprised that the volume should be more than could be handled routinely by the office but when I got back I found that not all the difficulty was due to volume. Some of the letters received had obviously been intended to kill.

There had been a flurry in England in June of that summer because eight or more government officials and political personages had received terrorist letters in which explosives were cleverly concealed. Among those who got such letters were Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones, President of the Board of Trade Sir Stafford Cripps, and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. Cripps's secretary noticed that the letter he received was hot (police said later it was apparently about ready to explode) and he stuck it in water. Eden carried his letter unopened in his briefcase for twenty-four hours before a secretary, tipped off by police, found it. There were two envelopes, the outer one about eight by six inches and cream-colored. The inner envelope was marked "Private and Confidential," presumably in an effort to see that it was opened by the man to whom it was addressed. Inside the second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery, and a detonator arranged to explode when the envelope was opened. Police exploded one experimentally and said that it was powerful enough to kill a man. The so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists later claimed responsibility for having sent the letters from its "branch in Europe." The letters were postmarked from Italy.

The same kind of terrorist letters had been found in the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters with great care, thus slowing up the routine. So far as I know none of those received in this country resulted in an explosion, which may have been due to the excellent system introduced for handling the White House mail during the war.

This craven act of terror against Truman and his staff is confirmed by his daughter, Margaret, in her biography Harry S. Truman . The following starts on page 489 (Avon Books hardback edition). Note that by "Palestine terrorists" she means Jewish terrorists in Palestine. [10]

In the summer of 1947, the so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists tried to assassinate Dad by mail. A number of cream-colored envelopes about eight by six inches, arrived in the White House, addressed to the President and various members of the staff. Inside them was a smaller envelope marked "Private and Confidential." Inside that second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery and a detonator rigged to explode the gelignite when the envelope was opened. Fortunately, the White House mail room was alert to the possibility that such letters might arrive. The previous June at least eight were sent to British government officials, including Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. The British police exploded one of these experimentally and said it could kill, or at the very least maim, anyone unlucky enough to open it. The mail room turned the letters over to the Secret Service and they were defused by their bomb experts.

For whatever reason, on May 14, 1948 President Truman, representing the U.S., recognizes the state of Israel.

The Israelis honor the terrorists as heroes, eventually making them leaders of their country. They elect some of them to the Knesset, Israel's Congress, in the first year. In 1977 they elect the Irgun's former leader, Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel. When he retires in 1983 one of the Stern Gang's former leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, takes over for the remainder of his term. The Israelis elect him Prime Minister again in 1986.

The Ayn Rand Institute says: "Israel is our ally in the Middle East."

This is our ally?

1 The Balfour Declaration was Britain's promise to pay the Zionists for their help in getting America into the Great War.

Britain wanted the U.S. to enter the war in order to defeat Germany unconditionally. However President Woodrow Wilson had won reelection on the slogan "He kept us out of war." The Zionists would try to get the U.S. into the war in return for the British giving them Palestine afterwards – which the British had as much right to do as give Mexico to China, but that was the bargain. The British were lobbied by Chaim Weizman on behalf of the Zionist Federation. Wilson was influenced through his advisors Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, who were ardent Zionists. Using the sinking of the RMS Lusitania as a pretext, in April 1917 Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany to, in his words, "make the world safe for democracy." It was a complete disaster for freedom. See the Links page on this website under "World War I."

In addition there was Russia, which had abandoned the war after the October Revolution. The British may have thought that the Bolshevik leaders, being almost all Jewish, would be sympathetic to Zionism and resume fighting with the Allies if the Allies supported the Zionists. However, Russia remained out of the war.

For what England did to itself during World War I see John A. Hobson's satire 1920: Dips into the Near Future .

For more on the Balfour Declaration see "Balfour and Palestine, a legacy of deceit" by Anthony Nutting, a review of the book The Palestine Papers: 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict by Doreen Ingrams:
www.balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine

2 Avraham Stern and other Lehi / Stern Gang members at first praised Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, as related in Zionism and the Foundations of Israeli Diplomacy , by Sasson Sofer p. 254 (for his references see footnote 14 on p. 426). Sofer is a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I am using the English translation of his book, originally in Hebrew, published by Cambridge University Press.

Our quote of Stern in the main text, from late 1940, is incomplete. When he said that his group's goal was to establish a Jewish state based on "nationalist and totalitarian principles" he went on to say: "and linked to the German Reich by an alliance ... ." Another Stern Gang leader, Israel Eldad, had written in the spring of 1940:

From a purely Zionist point of view, a pure and consistent point of view, it is not Hitler who is the enemy of the Jews and the Return to Zion, it is not Hitler who condemns us to fall into his hands time and again, but only Britain.
It's not too consistent but the general idea of this and other Zionist statements was that the Nazis were driving Jews to Israel and that was comparatively good, while Britain was limiting Jewish immigration to Israel (after the Jewish population had gone from 65,000 in 1917 to 384,000 in 1936) and that was bad.

In 1943 the alliance the Stern Gang desired switched from Germany and Italy to Soviet Russia, from the Third Reich to the Third International. Because Witold Hulanicki, the former Polish consul-general for Palestine, opposed an alliance with the Soviets, in February 1948 he was abducted and shot by the Stern Gang. A similar end for the same reason came to Stefan Arnold, a Polish journalist in Palestine.

Years later when Uri Avnery asked Shamir which historical personality he admired most, he immediately answered: Lenin. Avnery "understood that he admired him because Lenin ruthlessly followed the maxim 'the end justifies the means'."

See footnote 2 of Ayn Rand on Israel on this website, about Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, and his admiration of the Communists.

3 54 of the 91 killed were not British officials. The King David Hotel, in Jerusalem, housed – besides the headquarters of the British – the staff and clientele of a regular hotel.

The public reaction of the elderly Chaim Weisman (formerly of the British Zionist Federation, see footnote 1) was anger, for he had ostensibly been opposed to violent resistance. But he showed his true feelings during a visit by Richard Crossman, member of the British Parliament and of the Anglo-American Commission, and a lifelong supporter of the Zionist movement. When Crossman mentioned the King David bombing, Weisman replied, "I can't help feeling proud of our boys." Then Weisman said something the logic of which takes a little thought to understand: "If only it had been a German headquarters, they would have gotten the Victoria Cross." The Victoria Cross is a British medal of honor. If there is any logic to his reply (WW II in Europe had ended over two years before) he meant that "our boys" deserve a corresponding Zionist medal of honor.

The attack on the King David Hotel was not the first of the Irgun's bombings. On July 6, 1938 agents threw a grenade from an automobile into a busy Haifa Arab market. Seconds later a milk churn packed with explosives the Irgun had planted there earlier detonated. 23 Arab men, women and children were killed in the explosion.

Sixty years after the King David massacre almost to the day, on July 19 and 20, 2006, a group of Israelis, including Benjamin Netanyahu, met at the restored hotel to commemorate the Irgun bombing of it. Irgun "veterans" and the Menachem Begin Heritage Center sponsored the event.

The Israelis unveiled a commemorative plaque they had attached to the gates of the hotel, held speeches, a two day seminar, and one of the former Jewish "resistance fighters" who had helped deliver the bomb gave a tour of the hotel basement.

The text on the plaque is a lie. It claims the British brought the deaths upon themselves because the Irgun had phoned them in advance warning of the impending explosion. People were killed, it says, only because the British ignored their warning. This is absurd, a case of blaming the victim. (1) The British had no choice but to routinely ignore unverified phone calls because to act on them would give any random person enormous disruptive power. Hoax warnings were common, and the Irgun surely knew this. (2) No one in authority received such a phone call unless they were among those killed in the massacre. (3) The Irgun says the alleged phone calls were made a few minutes before the detonation, not enough time for information to percolate through the chain of command and be evaluated.

The Irgun had killed other Westerners in previous terrorist attacks, the only difference was that this one killed more at one time. The plaque expressed the Irgun's "regret" over the casualties. What fools they think people are. They got what they wanted, and obviously that was all that mattered to them.

Netanyahu celebrated the bombing in a speech on the first day of the two day event. He said the Irgun was governed by morality, unlike some other groups:

It's very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terror action and legitimate military action. ... Imagine that Hamas or Hezbollah would call the military headquarters in Tel Aviv and say, "We have placed a bomb and we are asking you to evacuate the area." They don't do that. That is the difference.
Some difference, to be sarcastic. Like a shyster lawyer he makes a big thing out of an inconsequentiality.

Two days after the massacre in 1946 the Irgun broadcast the following on its radio station "Voice of Fighting Zion":

The British Department of Information published the content of our announcement of July 23rd and said that the Irgun Zvai Leumi had announced that it "mourned the high number of victims," etc.
This is a distortion. We wrote that "we mourn for Jewish victims" and we meant -- as always -- what we said. It is true that the objective of our attack was in this case not any person but the destruction of the objective itself, and all the victims who fell, fell because of the guilty negligence of the British. However, the British did not mourn at all for the six million Jews who lost their lives, because of them, during the war; ...
Etc, etc.

During the festivities in 2006 The Times interviewed Sarah Agassi, an aged former member of the Irgun, in the lobby of the King David. Her rôle in the bombing 60 years before had been to help with the planning. She and an accomplice visited the hotel posing as a couple, then as they "danced tangos and waltzes, sipped whisky and wine" as guests – they cased the premises.

On the day for the bombing Irgun agents gained entry by posing as Arabs delivering milk. Holding some British guards at gunpoint, they brought in seven milk churns each containing 50 kg of explosives (360 kg total of gelignite and TNT) and piled them together in the basement of the south wing. Agassi says she waited across the street and claims she made a warning phone call to the British command in the hotel. In fact, someone phoned the hotel switchboard, not the British command, which per above ignored the call.

In the interview Agassi expressed her pride in the bombing and its effect: "If I had to fight for Israel, I swear even now I would do anything." See "British anger at terror celebration" The Sunday Times July 20, 2006.

The King David Hotel terrorist attack was the first of its kind. It succeeded only because the British vastly underestimated the savagery of their opponent.

For more on the bombing see the BBC documentary
The Age of Terror: In the Name of Liberation
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfYi3XPVwo4
and the exhaustive book
By Blood and Fire
by Thurston Clarke. (Some of the facts and quotes used in the above are on pages 76, 247, 249.)

4 By April 1936 the Arabs, realizing the British are facilitating, even if not enough for the Zionists, an ultimate Zionist conquest of Palestine by immigration, themselves had begun to revolt against the British. In April 1947 at the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, Britain announced its desire to terminate the Mandate for Palestine and it ended in May 1948.

The Irgun and Stern Gang collaborated in the Deir Yassin village attack on April 9, 1948 in which they killed over a hundred residents.

It has become common to say that Israel represents civilization in the Middle East, but there had been a civilization there, primitive and growing, before the Zionist invasion. After it, all in all the day the British left Palestine was the day civilization left Palestine.

After the British were gone the Israeli terror didn't let up, as the treatment afforded Folke Bernadotte attests. Count Bernadotte had been a Swedish diplomat and head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War II. He negotiated with Heinrich Himmler, head of the German Gestapo, to release thousands of prisoners from German concentration camps which he then transported in a fleet of buses, himself one of the drivers, to Swedish hospitals in the Spring and Summer of 1945.

(After the Battle of Stalingrad Germany had effectively lost the war. Himmler's motive in releasing the prisoners was ultimately to negotiate a peace treaty with the Allies, except for Soviet Russia which Germany would continue to fight. To digress into this fascinating bit of history, when in April 1945 Himmler offered his plan to Britain and the U.S. they flatly rejected it, insisting that Soviet Russia be included in the peace. The Normandy Invasion in June allowed the Soviets to eventually overrun Eastern Europe.)

The UN created Israel in 1948 by partitioning Palestine, and made Count Bernadotte mediator between the Arabs and Israelis. The Stern Gang's three leaders, Yitzhak Shamir still among them, decided they must deal with Bernadotte. In Jerusalem on September 17, 1948 four Irgun "freedom fighters" ambushed Bernadotte's car and broke open the door. Using a machine gun they shot and killed Bernadotte. Mistaking the man sitting next to him, a French officer, for Bernadotte's American deputy Dr. Ralph Bunche, they shot and killed him too.

The Stern Gang at first denying any part in the killing, later boasted of it. Israel arrested many of the group's members, released most of them without charge, and convicted and immediately pardoned the rest. The assassination's aftermath permanently ended the Stern Gang, though none of its three leaders were arrested. The Israelis elected one of those leaders to the Knesset during the trials. As noted in our main text the Israelis eventually elected one of the others Prime Minister.

The Israeli government used the affair to reach an agreement with the Irgun, a different group from the Stern Gang, that its members would disband and join the ranks of the IDF.

One more word about the letter bombs to Britain: they continued right up until the UN established Israel. On September 3, 1947 one addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring two people. On May 3, 1948 a book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine, exploded killing his brother. On May 11, 1948 a letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected by his wife and later disarmed.

Israel granted general amnesty to all Stern Gang members in 1949. In 1980 Israel created a special ribbon – a multi-colored military decoration – for former Stern Gang members to wear, called the LEHI ribbon. The year before, Israel had created a special ribbon for former Irgun members, called the ETZEL ribbon.

More on the Bernadotte killing can be found in the book by Kati Marton, A Death in Jerusalem: The Assassination by Jewish Extremists of the First Arab/Israeli Peacemaker . The "extremist" in the title is a mistake though, they were typical.

5 The article is " 'Jews' Tried to Kill Truman in 1947" by David Martin. We quote a bit more from what is our third reference, and what is our fourth reference replaces his quote from David McCullough's biography, which is unreliable. I have verified, and in some cases corrected, his quotes using the original sources. For a link to David Martin's articles see the Links page on this website.

A few words about Truman's career are in order. Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his running mate for the 1944 election and when FDR died less than three months into his fifth term Truman succeeded him as president. Truman, just as much a socialist, continued FDR's "New Deal" under the rubric "Fair Deal." In 1945 he refused Japan's offer of surrender and dropped two atom bombs on the country instead. By creating the National Security Council and, using the OSS as basis, the Central Intelligence Agency he vastly increased executive power and corruption. By working to establish NATO he helped make foreign intervention permanent. One of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

6 Robert Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, A Life , p. 307.

7 Memoirs of Harry S. Truman , Vol. 2, p. 150.

8 Roy Jenkins, Truman , p. 117. Truman may be making himself look better than he was, but the point remains that he was a reluctant supporter of Zionism. Edwin M. Wright, a State Department official in the 1940s, described the first meeting referred to in the quote, or one like it, many years later during an interview for the Truman Library. He stated (starting on transcript page 36, his bracketed insertions silently removed):

... when the election was coming up in 1946 in New York [when the governor, Thomas Dewey, was up for reelection – A.W.], the group of New York Jews called upon Mr. Truman. Emmanuel Cellar was the head of this committee. Rabbi Steven Wise and several others were in it. They called upon Mr. Truman and said, "We have just been talking with Mr. Thomas Dewey. He is willing to come out and declare for a Jewish state, and we are going to turn our money and urge the Jews to vote for him [apparently referring to the next presidential election, in 1948 – A.W.] unless you beat him to it." Then Emmanuel Cellar pounded upon Mr. Truman's desk and said, "And if you don't come out for a Jewish state we'll run you out of town."
This, I'm sure, is the threat that Mr. Truman refers to in his book, saying [paraphrasing – A.W.], "The extreme Zionists threatened me." They were Emmanuel Cellar, Rabbi Steven Wise, etc. These are not the extreme Zionists, these are just the run of the mill Zionists. What Mr. Truman did was to cave in to these threats that they would support Mr. Dewey.
Wright's paraphrase doubtless refers to the following, from volume two of Truman's Memoirs , p. 225:
The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White house, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders – actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats – disturbed and annoyed me.
Truman does not admit that the pressure affected his decision to support Israel.

Regarding the propaganda, according to Wright in his essay "The Great Zionist Cover-Up," about this time the Zionists coined the slogan "What is good for Israel is good for the U.S.A."

9 Robert Donovan, Conflict and Crisis: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945-1948 , p. 319.

10 Perhaps her circumlocution was due to a certain fear syndrome: the fear of being labeled "anti-semitic." See the last comment of Jeers on this website.

David Martin, when titling his article (see footnote 5 above), was quoting the title of another article: "Jews sent President Truman letter bombs, book tells" – from the Tri City Herald of Washington State, December 2, 1972 – the item having been furnished by the AP newswire. It quotes excerpts from Margaret's biography reprinted in the New York Times the day before.
www.news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1951&dat=19721201&id=s00xAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AeIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2264,343939

After sending the letter bombs to Britain, the Stern Gang claimed responsibility, not that it was necessary. (Besides the obviousness, around the time the letters bombs were arriving in Britain two Stern Gang members were caught red handed in Europe carrying letter bombs addressed to British officials.) On the other hand no former Stern Gang member has admitted to sending the letter bombs, identical to the British ones, to the U.S. One former leader explicitly denied it. Considering that it is a known murderer issuing this denial, that lying is rather less a problem than killing, that he waited until after Truman was dead to make the denial after the facts had been public for over 20 years, his denial has zero credibility.

The Israelis are masters of the expedient lie and have a long history of deceit toward the U.S. The attack on Truman makes the Jewish State look bad when it matters – by the time of the denial there is a constant flow of foreign aid from America to Israel – therefore it didn't happen. A more recent example of Israeli perfidy is the case of the traitor Jonathan Pollard. For many years Israel claimed, and self-righteously, that it had not authorized Pollard's spying. (Apparently you were to believe Israel receives thousands of top secret U.S. defense documents and doesn't wonder or care about the source.)

Another argument in defense of the Irgun goes as follows. The Zionists would not attempt to murder Truman because, successful or not, if the Zionists were suspected it would only drive him or his successor away from supporting Israel. The error in that argument is assuming one is dealing with rational people. In fact one is dealing with fanatics blinded by Jewish chauvinism.

The assassination attempt on Truman we've been considering was the first of two. The perps in the second attempt, made on November 1, 1950, were two Puerto Ricans. One of them died in the attack after mortally shooting a White House policeman, Leslie Coffelt, who managed to shoot and kill his assailant before he died.

The earlier, Zionist, attempt on Truman's life might help explain the death of James Forrestal, former Secretary of Defense, in 1949. For more about it see The Willcutts Report: On the Death of James Forrestal on this website.

[Sep 03, 2018] The First Attempted Assassination of President Truman

Sep 03, 2018 | ariwatch.com

The Attempted Assassination of President Truman

The year is 1947, the place the White House. But before we visit that venerable edifice we need some background about the British Empire. At this time numbered among Britain's possessions is an area in the Middle East called Palestine, about the size of New Jersey. The British have ruled Palestine since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.

The British still administer Palestine pursuant to a "declaration" in a letter dated November 2, 1917 from James Balfour of the British Foreign Office to, in effect, the British Zionist Federation. Nominally the letter was addressed to Walter Rothschild, the liaison between the Foreign Office and the Zionist Federation. At the time – during World War I – Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire which was on the Axis side in the war. The letter gave Rothschild a "declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations" that had been approved by the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Balfour concluded the letter by asking Rothchild to bring this declaration to the attention of the Zionist Federation.

We won't address why the British did this, [1] suffice it to say that they kept the declaration's promise to the Zionists. The Balfour Declaration, as it came to be known, was later incorporated into the Allies' peace treaty with Turkey (head of the soon to be defunct Ottoman empire) and into the League of Nations' "Mandate for Palestine" which placed Palestine under British rule in 1923.

It wasn't long before the Zionists, led mostly by Jews from Eastern Europe, began to chaff under the British protectorate. What irked them most was "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ... ." The Zionists' goal was total control of Palestine, massive Jewish immigration beyond what the British had already allowed and the expulsion of all existing non-Jews. By the 1930s the Zionists, crying "Independence!", were trying to drive the British out of Palestine to accomplish this.

Though the Zionists engaged in open battles against British troops their principle method of operation was terrorism, first in Palestine, later to include England and, as we shall see, elsewhere. The militant group Irgun Zva'i Le'ummi began operations in 1931. An even more violent offshoot, Lehi ( Lohamei Herut Yisrael ), better known as the Stern Gang after its founder Avraham Stern, split from the Irgun in 1940. Avraham Stern declared that his group's goal was to establish a Jewish state based on "nationalist and totalitarian principles ... ." [2] After Stern's death in 1942 the group was commanded jointly by three men, and by 1943 Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. In 1944 Menachem Begin assumed leadership of the Irgun. Under cover of World War II and its aftermath the attacks by the Irgun and Stern Gang increased in frequency and violence.

Some planned attacks were never carried out, for example sending agents to London to assassinate Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. Some attacks didn't come off, for example on April 15, 1947 a Stern Gang agent planted a twenty-four stick bomb at the Colonial Office of Whitehall, the seat of British government, which failed to explode because of a faulty timer. Some attacks were thwarted, for example when the Stern Gang mailed booby-trapped letters – letter bombs, designed to maim and kill – eventually totaling 21 in number, to various officials in England, including (in 1947) Ernest Bevin and his predecessor Anthony Eden. All but one, which injured two employees at a London post office, were intercepted in time. Other terrorist attacks succeeded only too well. The Stern Gang murdered Walter Guinness (Lord Moyne), the British Minister in State for the Middle East, in Cairo on November 6, 1944 (they also killed his driver, Arthur Fuller). The Irgun planted a huge seven piece time bomb in the King David Hotel, in Palestine, on July 22, 1946 killing 91 people and injuring 46, most of whom were not British officials. [3] On October 31, 1946 the Irgun bombed the British Embassy in Rome, injuring three people. By 1947 the British are ready to give up on Palestine. [4]

Which brings us to President Harry Truman. By 1947 his ambivalent, at times even hostile, attitude toward the promoters of a "Jewish state" has become well known. A few quotes, three taken from an article by David Martin, will give some indication of that attitude. [5] The first is from a letter Truman wrote to Edward Pauley dated October 22, 1946. [6] Speaking of the situation in Palestine:

That situation is insoluble in my opinion. I have spent a year and a month trying to get some concrete action on it. Not only are the British highly successful in muddling the situation as completely as it could possibly be muddled, but the Jews themselves are making it almost impossible to do anything for them. They seem to have the same attitude toward the "underdog" when they are on top as they have been treated as "underdogs" themselves.
From Truman's Memoirs : [7]
My efforts to persuade the British to relax immigration restrictions in Palestine might have fallen on more receptive ears if it had not been for the increasing acts of terrorism that were being committed in Palestine. There were armed groups of extremists who were guilty of numerous outrages. On June 16 eight bridges were blown up near the Trans-Jordan border, and two other explosions were set off in Haifa. The following day there was a pitched battle between Jews and British troops in Haifa, after explosions had started a fire and caused great damage in the rail yards there. British officers were kidnapped. Others were shot at from passing automobiles. Explosions took place in ever-increasing numbers, and the British uncovered a plot by one extremist group to kidnap the British commander in chief in Palestine.

The Zionist faction in the U.S., though not numerous, is vocal and persistent, and pressures Truman to help their cause of increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. Though Truman is on their side he becomes annoyed with their methods. A Truman biographer describes [8] "the irritation with which he reacted to excessive Jewish lobbying":

In June of 1946 he at first refused to see a delegation of all the New York Congressmen, and finally received them only with obvious impatience. He was no better when the two Senators from the state ... brought a former member of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry (into Palestine) to see him. "I am not a New Yorker," Truman is alleged to have told them. "All these people are pleading for a special interest. I am an American."
Another Truman biographer, [9] referring to Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, co-chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council:
Truman despised Rabbi Silver. [In 1947] he was to write to [his aide David] Niles: "... Terror and Silver are the contributing causes of some , if not all, of our troubles." ...
...
At a cabinet meeting July 30, 1946, [Commerce Secretary Henry] Wallace warned Truman that the Morrison-Grady Plan was "loaded with political dynamite." Feeling harassed, Truman was angry at the Jews -- "put out" with them, as Wallace recalled his words. According to Wallace, Truman snapped, "Jesus Christ couldn't please them when he was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?"

By 1947 Truman's bad attitude has likely come to the attention of the worst of the Zionists. Seen from a Zionist fanatic's eyes there is good reason to punish him, as much reason as there had been to punish Ernest Bevin and Anthony Eden in England.

What happens next is told by Ira Smith, a White House staff mail reader under nine successive presidents, in his autobiographical book Dear Mr. President: The Story of Fifty Years in the White House Mail Room , p. 229:

... in the summer of 1947 I was summoned back to Washington from my vacation because controversy over important issues, including the Palestine question, had greatly increased the volume of mail to the President. I was rather surprised that the volume should be more than could be handled routinely by the office but when I got back I found that not all the difficulty was due to volume. Some of the letters received had obviously been intended to kill.

There had been a flurry in England in June of that summer because eight or more government officials and political personages had received terrorist letters in which explosives were cleverly concealed. Among those who got such letters were Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones, President of the Board of Trade Sir Stafford Cripps, and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. Cripps's secretary noticed that the letter he received was hot (police said later it was apparently about ready to explode) and he stuck it in water. Eden carried his letter unopened in his briefcase for twenty-four hours before a secretary, tipped off by police, found it. There were two envelopes, the outer one about eight by six inches and cream-colored. The inner envelope was marked "Private and Confidential," presumably in an effort to see that it was opened by the man to whom it was addressed. Inside the second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery, and a detonator arranged to explode when the envelope was opened. Police exploded one experimentally and said that it was powerful enough to kill a man. The so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists later claimed responsibility for having sent the letters from its "branch in Europe." The letters were postmarked from Italy.

The same kind of terrorist letters had been found in the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters with great care, thus slowing up the routine. So far as I know none of those received in this country resulted in an explosion, which may have been due to the excellent system introduced for handling the White House mail during the war.

This craven act of terror against Truman and his staff is confirmed by his daughter, Margaret, in her biography Harry S. Truman . The following starts on page 489 (Avon Books hardback edition). Note that by "Palestine terrorists" she means Jewish terrorists in Palestine. [10]

In the summer of 1947, the so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists tried to assassinate Dad by mail. A number of cream-colored envelopes about eight by six inches, arrived in the White House, addressed to the President and various members of the staff. Inside them was a smaller envelope marked "Private and Confidential." Inside that second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery and a detonator rigged to explode the gelignite when the envelope was opened. Fortunately, the White House mail room was alert to the possibility that such letters might arrive. The previous June at least eight were sent to British government officials, including Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. The British police exploded one of these experimentally and said it could kill, or at the very least maim, anyone unlucky enough to open it. The mail room turned the letters over to the Secret Service and they were defused by their bomb experts.

For whatever reason, on May 14, 1948 President Truman, representing the U.S., recognizes the state of Israel.

The Israelis honor the terrorists as heroes, eventually making them leaders of their country. They elect some of them to the Knesset, Israel's Congress, in the first year. In 1977 they elect the Irgun's former leader, Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel. When he retires in 1983 one of the Stern Gang's former leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, takes over for the remainder of his term. The Israelis elect him Prime Minister again in 1986.

The Ayn Rand Institute says: "Israel is our ally in the Middle East."

This is our ally?

1 The Balfour Declaration was Britain's promise to pay the Zionists for their help in getting America into the Great War.

Britain wanted the U.S. to enter the war in order to defeat Germany unconditionally. However President Woodrow Wilson had won reelection on the slogan "He kept us out of war." The Zionists would try to get the U.S. into the war in return for the British giving them Palestine afterwards – which the British had as much right to do as give Mexico to China, but that was the bargain. The British were lobbied by Chaim Weizman on behalf of the Zionist Federation. Wilson was influenced through his advisors Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, who were ardent Zionists. Using the sinking of the RMS Lusitania as a pretext, in April 1917 Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany to, in his words, "make the world safe for democracy." It was a complete disaster for freedom. See the Links page on this website under "World War I."

In addition there was Russia, which had abandoned the war after the October Revolution. The British may have thought that the Bolshevik leaders, being almost all Jewish, would be sympathetic to Zionism and resume fighting with the Allies if the Allies supported the Zionists. However, Russia remained out of the war.

For what England did to itself during World War I see John A. Hobson's satire 1920: Dips into the Near Future .

For more on the Balfour Declaration see "Balfour and Palestine, a legacy of deceit" by Anthony Nutting, a review of the book The Palestine Papers: 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict by Doreen Ingrams:
www.balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine

2 Avraham Stern and other Lehi / Stern Gang members at first praised Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, as related in Zionism and the Foundations of Israeli Diplomacy , by Sasson Sofer p. 254 (for his references see footnote 14 on p. 426). Sofer is a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I am using the English translation of his book, originally in Hebrew, published by Cambridge University Press.

Our quote of Stern in the main text, from late 1940, is incomplete. When he said that his group's goal was to establish a Jewish state based on "nationalist and totalitarian principles" he went on to say: "and linked to the German Reich by an alliance ... ." Another Stern Gang leader, Israel Eldad, had written in the spring of 1940:

From a purely Zionist point of view, a pure and consistent point of view, it is not Hitler who is the enemy of the Jews and the Return to Zion, it is not Hitler who condemns us to fall into his hands time and again, but only Britain.
It's not too consistent but the general idea of this and other Zionist statements was that the Nazis were driving Jews to Israel and that was comparatively good, while Britain was limiting Jewish immigration to Israel (after the Jewish population had gone from 65,000 in 1917 to 384,000 in 1936) and that was bad.

In 1943 the alliance the Stern Gang desired switched from Germany and Italy to Soviet Russia, from the Third Reich to the Third International. Because Witold Hulanicki, the former Polish consul-general for Palestine, opposed an alliance with the Soviets, in February 1948 he was abducted and shot by the Stern Gang. A similar end for the same reason came to Stefan Arnold, a Polish journalist in Palestine.

Years later when Uri Avnery asked Shamir which historical personality he admired most, he immediately answered: Lenin. Avnery "understood that he admired him because Lenin ruthlessly followed the maxim 'the end justifies the means'."

See footnote 2 of Ayn Rand on Israel on this website, about Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, and his admiration of the Communists.

3 54 of the 91 killed were not British officials. The King David Hotel, in Jerusalem, housed – besides the headquarters of the British – the staff and clientele of a regular hotel.

The public reaction of the elderly Chaim Weisman (formerly of the British Zionist Federation, see footnote 1) was anger, for he had ostensibly been opposed to violent resistance. But he showed his true feelings during a visit by Richard Crossman, member of the British Parliament and of the Anglo-American Commission, and a lifelong supporter of the Zionist movement. When Crossman mentioned the King David bombing, Weisman replied, "I can't help feeling proud of our boys." Then Weisman said something the logic of which takes a little thought to understand: "If only it had been a German headquarters, they would have gotten the Victoria Cross." The Victoria Cross is a British medal of honor. If there is any logic to his reply (WW II in Europe had ended over two years before) he meant that "our boys" deserve a corresponding Zionist medal of honor.

The attack on the King David Hotel was not the first of the Irgun's bombings. On July 6, 1938 agents threw a grenade from an automobile into a busy Haifa Arab market. Seconds later a milk churn packed with explosives the Irgun had planted there earlier detonated. 23 Arab men, women and children were killed in the explosion.

Sixty years after the King David massacre almost to the day, on July 19 and 20, 2006, a group of Israelis, including Benjamin Netanyahu, met at the restored hotel to commemorate the Irgun bombing of it. Irgun "veterans" and the Menachem Begin Heritage Center sponsored the event.

The Israelis unveiled a commemorative plaque they had attached to the gates of the hotel, held speeches, a two day seminar, and one of the former Jewish "resistance fighters" who had helped deliver the bomb gave a tour of the hotel basement.

The text on the plaque is a lie. It claims the British brought the deaths upon themselves because the Irgun had phoned them in advance warning of the impending explosion. People were killed, it says, only because the British ignored their warning. This is absurd, a case of blaming the victim. (1) The British had no choice but to routinely ignore unverified phone calls because to act on them would give any random person enormous disruptive power. Hoax warnings were common, and the Irgun surely knew this. (2) No one in authority received such a phone call unless they were among those killed in the massacre. (3) The Irgun says the alleged phone calls were made a few minutes before the detonation, not enough time for information to percolate through the chain of command and be evaluated.

The Irgun had killed other Westerners in previous terrorist attacks, the only difference was that this one killed more at one time. The plaque expressed the Irgun's "regret" over the casualties. What fools they think people are. They got what they wanted, and obviously that was all that mattered to them.

Netanyahu celebrated the bombing in a speech on the first day of the two day event. He said the Irgun was governed by morality, unlike some other groups:

It's very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terror action and legitimate military action. ... Imagine that Hamas or Hezbollah would call the military headquarters in Tel Aviv and say, "We have placed a bomb and we are asking you to evacuate the area." They don't do that. That is the difference.
Some difference, to be sarcastic. Like a shyster lawyer he makes a big thing out of an inconsequentiality.

Two days after the massacre in 1946 the Irgun broadcast the following on its radio station "Voice of Fighting Zion":

The British Department of Information published the content of our announcement of July 23rd and said that the Irgun Zvai Leumi had announced that it "mourned the high number of victims," etc.
This is a distortion. We wrote that "we mourn for Jewish victims" and we meant -- as always -- what we said. It is true that the objective of our attack was in this case not any person but the destruction of the objective itself, and all the victims who fell, fell because of the guilty negligence of the British. However, the British did not mourn at all for the six million Jews who lost their lives, because of them, during the war; ...
Etc, etc.

During the festivities in 2006 The Times interviewed Sarah Agassi, an aged former member of the Irgun, in the lobby of the King David. Her rôle in the bombing 60 years before had been to help with the planning. She and an accomplice visited the hotel posing as a couple, then as they "danced tangos and waltzes, sipped whisky and wine" as guests – they cased the premises.

On the day for the bombing Irgun agents gained entry by posing as Arabs delivering milk. Holding some British guards at gunpoint, they brought in seven milk churns each containing 50 kg of explosives (360 kg total of gelignite and TNT) and piled them together in the basement of the south wing. Agassi says she waited across the street and claims she made a warning phone call to the British command in the hotel. In fact, someone phoned the hotel switchboard, not the British command, which per above ignored the call.

In the interview Agassi expressed her pride in the bombing and its effect: "If I had to fight for Israel, I swear even now I would do anything." See "British anger at terror celebration" The Sunday Times July 20, 2006.

The King David Hotel terrorist attack was the first of its kind. It succeeded only because the British vastly underestimated the savagery of their opponent.

For more on the bombing see the BBC documentary
The Age of Terror: In the Name of Liberation
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfYi3XPVwo4
and the exhaustive book
By Blood and Fire
by Thurston Clarke. (Some of the facts and quotes used in the above are on pages 76, 247, 249.)

4 By April 1936 the Arabs, realizing the British are facilitating, even if not enough for the Zionists, an ultimate Zionist conquest of Palestine by immigration, themselves had begun to revolt against the British. In April 1947 at the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, Britain announced its desire to terminate the Mandate for Palestine and it ended in May 1948.

The Irgun and Stern Gang collaborated in the Deir Yassin village attack on April 9, 1948 in which they killed over a hundred residents.

It has become common to say that Israel represents civilization in the Middle East, but there had been a civilization there, primitive and growing, before the Zionist invasion. After it, all in all the day the British left Palestine was the day civilization left Palestine.

After the British were gone the Israeli terror didn't let up, as the treatment afforded Folke Bernadotte attests. Count Bernadotte had been a Swedish diplomat and head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War II. He negotiated with Heinrich Himmler, head of the German Gestapo, to release thousands of prisoners from German concentration camps which he then transported in a fleet of buses, himself one of the drivers, to Swedish hospitals in the Spring and Summer of 1945.

(After the Battle of Stalingrad Germany had effectively lost the war. Himmler's motive in releasing the prisoners was ultimately to negotiate a peace treaty with the Allies, except for Soviet Russia which Germany would continue to fight. To digress into this fascinating bit of history, when in April 1945 Himmler offered his plan to Britain and the U.S. they flatly rejected it, insisting that Soviet Russia be included in the peace. The Normandy Invasion in June allowed the Soviets to eventually overrun Eastern Europe.)

The UN created Israel in 1948 by partitioning Palestine, and made Count Bernadotte mediator between the Arabs and Israelis. The Stern Gang's three leaders, Yitzhak Shamir still among them, decided they must deal with Bernadotte. In Jerusalem on September 17, 1948 four Irgun "freedom fighters" ambushed Bernadotte's car and broke open the door. Using a machine gun they shot and killed Bernadotte. Mistaking the man sitting next to him, a French officer, for Bernadotte's American deputy Dr. Ralph Bunche, they shot and killed him too.

The Stern Gang at first denying any part in the killing, later boasted of it. Israel arrested many of the group's members, released most of them without charge, and convicted and immediately pardoned the rest. The assassination's aftermath permanently ended the Stern Gang, though none of its three leaders were arrested. The Israelis elected one of those leaders to the Knesset during the trials. As noted in our main text the Israelis eventually elected one of the others Prime Minister.

The Israeli government used the affair to reach an agreement with the Irgun, a different group from the Stern Gang, that its members would disband and join the ranks of the IDF.

One more word about the letter bombs to Britain: they continued right up until the UN established Israel. On September 3, 1947 one addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring two people. On May 3, 1948 a book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine, exploded killing his brother. On May 11, 1948 a letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected by his wife and later disarmed.

Israel granted general amnesty to all Stern Gang members in 1949. In 1980 Israel created a special ribbon – a multi-colored military decoration – for former Stern Gang members to wear, called the LEHI ribbon. The year before, Israel had created a special ribbon for former Irgun members, called the ETZEL ribbon.

More on the Bernadotte killing can be found in the book by Kati Marton, A Death in Jerusalem: The Assassination by Jewish Extremists of the First Arab/Israeli Peacemaker . The "extremist" in the title is a mistake though, they were typical.

5 The article is " 'Jews' Tried to Kill Truman in 1947" by David Martin. We quote a bit more from what is our third reference, and what is our fourth reference replaces his quote from David McCullough's biography, which is unreliable. I have verified, and in some cases corrected, his quotes using the original sources. For a link to David Martin's articles see the Links page on this website.

A few words about Truman's career are in order. Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his running mate for the 1944 election and when FDR died less than three months into his fifth term Truman succeeded him as president. Truman, just as much a socialist, continued FDR's "New Deal" under the rubric "Fair Deal." In 1945 he refused Japan's offer of surrender and dropped two atom bombs on the country instead. By creating the National Security Council and, using the OSS as basis, the Central Intelligence Agency he vastly increased executive power and corruption. By working to establish NATO he helped make foreign intervention permanent. One of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

6 Robert Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, A Life , p. 307.

7 Memoirs of Harry S. Truman , Vol. 2, p. 150.

8 Roy Jenkins, Truman , p. 117. Truman may be making himself look better than he was, but the point remains that he was a reluctant supporter of Zionism. Edwin M. Wright, a State Department official in the 1940s, described the first meeting referred to in the quote, or one like it, many years later during an interview for the Truman Library. He stated (starting on transcript page 36, his bracketed insertions silently removed):

... when the election was coming up in 1946 in New York [when the governor, Thomas Dewey, was up for reelection – A.W.], the group of New York Jews called upon Mr. Truman. Emmanuel Cellar was the head of this committee. Rabbi Steven Wise and several others were in it. They called upon Mr. Truman and said, "We have just been talking with Mr. Thomas Dewey. He is willing to come out and declare for a Jewish state, and we are going to turn our money and urge the Jews to vote for him [apparently referring to the next presidential election, in 1948 – A.W.] unless you beat him to it." Then Emmanuel Cellar pounded upon Mr. Truman's desk and said, "And if you don't come out for a Jewish state we'll run you out of town."
This, I'm sure, is the threat that Mr. Truman refers to in his book, saying [paraphrasing – A.W.], "The extreme Zionists threatened me." They were Emmanuel Cellar, Rabbi Steven Wise, etc. These are not the extreme Zionists, these are just the run of the mill Zionists. What Mr. Truman did was to cave in to these threats that they would support Mr. Dewey.
Wright's paraphrase doubtless refers to the following, from volume two of Truman's Memoirs , p. 225:
The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White house, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders – actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats – disturbed and annoyed me.
Truman does not admit that the pressure affected his decision to support Israel.

Regarding the propaganda, according to Wright in his essay "The Great Zionist Cover-Up," about this time the Zionists coined the slogan "What is good for Israel is good for the U.S.A."

9 Robert Donovan, Conflict and Crisis: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945-1948 , p. 319.

10 Perhaps her circumlocution was due to a certain fear syndrome: the fear of being labeled "anti-semitic." See the last comment of Jeers on this website.

David Martin, when titling his article (see footnote 5 above), was quoting the title of another article: "Jews sent President Truman letter bombs, book tells" – from the Tri City Herald of Washington State, December 2, 1972 – the item having been furnished by the AP newswire. It quotes excerpts from Margaret's biography reprinted in the New York Times the day before.
www.news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1951&dat=19721201&id=s00xAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AeIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2264,343939

After sending the letter bombs to Britain, the Stern Gang claimed responsibility, not that it was necessary. (Besides the obviousness, around the time the letters bombs were arriving in Britain two Stern Gang members were caught red handed in Europe carrying letter bombs addressed to British officials.) On the other hand no former Stern Gang member has admitted to sending the letter bombs, identical to the British ones, to the U.S. One former leader explicitly denied it. Considering that it is a known murderer issuing this denial, that lying is rather less a problem than killing, that he waited until after Truman was dead to make the denial after the facts had been public for over 20 years, his denial has zero credibility.

The Israelis are masters of the expedient lie and have a long history of deceit toward the U.S. The attack on Truman makes the Jewish State look bad when it matters – by the time of the denial there is a constant flow of foreign aid from America to Israel – therefore it didn't happen. A more recent example of Israeli perfidy is the case of the traitor Jonathan Pollard. For many years Israel claimed, and self-righteously, that it had not authorized Pollard's spying. (Apparently you were to believe Israel receives thousands of top secret U.S. defense documents and doesn't wonder or care about the source.)

Another argument in defense of the Irgun goes as follows. The Zionists would not attempt to murder Truman because, successful or not, if the Zionists were suspected it would only drive him or his successor away from supporting Israel. The error in that argument is assuming one is dealing with rational people. In fact one is dealing with fanatics blinded by Jewish chauvinism.

The assassination attempt on Truman we've been considering was the first of two. The perps in the second attempt, made on November 1, 1950, were two Puerto Ricans. One of them died in the attack after mortally shooting a White House policeman, Leslie Coffelt, who managed to shoot and kill his assailant before he died.

The earlier, Zionist, attempt on Truman's life might help explain the death of James Forrestal, former Secretary of Defense, in 1949. For more about it see The Willcutts Report: On the Death of James Forrestal on this website.

[Sep 03, 2018] Neo-conservative Americans lead us towards Total War Dr. Paul C. Roberts in exclusive interview on Herland Report

May 03, 2018 | www.hannenabintuherland.com

Hanne Nabintu Herland, founder of The Scandinavian Herland Report: It is such an honour to be with you, Sir, Dr Paul Craig Roberts. You are the chairman of the Institute for Political Economy in the US, a former Wall Street editor and an author of many books. In Europe we love you, because you have a perspective that many do not have as you speak in broad manners about the important issues of foreign policy and the state of the American culture today.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: The are several terrible things that have happened to the United States. The worst thing that have happened in my lifetime was the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was absolutely the worst thing. Not only for the United States, but for the entire world, because it removed the only constraint on American unilateralism. As long as the Soviet Union was there, there was a limit to Washington and its ability to bully and dominate.

It could do it in South America, excluding Cuba, it could do it in Western Europe and of course it had firm control of Japan. Yet, most of the world was immune to this kind of bullying because the Soviet Union was there as an alternative. It could check American unilateralism. Both sides pretty much knew where the line was.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the constraint on American unilateralism disappeared. It was down to nothing to constrain Washingtons power and its hegemony. This happened right at the time when a new ideology in the United States was rising up: The ideology of the neo-conservatives.

Now, the neo-conservatives' ideology is that America is a indispensable country. It is the exceptional country. Now what does it mean when you say that? If the United States is indispensable then it means everyone else are dispensable.

If the United States is exceptional, then everyone else are unexceptional. It's a claim to hegemony over mankind. Its like stating that we, the Americans, are God's chosen people, not the Jews. This is the neo-conservative ideology and it has dominated American foreign policy since Bill Clinton's regime.

These people came into the government first during the Reagan years. I know them and they caused a mess. Reagan fired them and prosecuted them. When George Herbert Walker Bush (the first Bush) succeeded President Reagan, he pardoned them. They didn't have much influence in his government, but at the beginning of Bill Clinton's regime their influence increased.

This is where the attacks on Serbia came from, with the sanctions of Iraq that killed 500 000 Iraqi children, that Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, stated that it was worth it. Can you imagine saying that after killing 500 000 children? It shows how hard the ideology is. It's a merciless ideology! Nothing counts but Washington's hegemony.

It's really not even American hegemony, it's just Washington's hegemony. Of course with George W.W Bush, the neo-conservatives completely ran the government. The real president was Dick Cheney, the vice-president and a hard lined neo-conservative. The Secretary of Defence, the State Department, the Pentagon was full of them. They completely dominated the National Security Council. This is where 9/11 came from. This is where the war on Afghanistan and Iraq came from.

Hanne Nabintu Herland: – And we all remember so well the American four-star general Wesley Clark, who stated, and wrote a book about it later as well, and also spoke in a number of TV-interviews on a later note how he was shocked post 9/11 when he found out that there were plans in the Pentagon of destroying nation after nation.

He speaks about how he felt that there was a neo-conservative foreign policy coup in the United States at the time. We know, of course, in retrospect that this has brought the West into such a havoc. Maybe America is one of the most hated nations in the world today because of this. I live in the Middle-East and I see people just wonder, you know, why hundreds of thousands must die due to these interests. They ask; is democracy going to be bombed on us?

Paul Craig Roberts: – Yeah, well I think Wesley Clark was shocked but it showed that he was unaware of the neo-conservative ideology because they had all been in the government for some time while he was commander of American forces in Europe. He was a NATO-commander, as I remember. He was unaware of this ideology even though Paul Wolfowitz, former Pentagon official, said it out.

He stated that the principle goal of American foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any other power, especially Russia, that could serve as a constraint on American unilateralism. You can find this online, he actually said this. It's an official Pentagon document that he wrote stating this.

Now, others in the government thought that this was a bit too obvious so the toned it down a little bit, but they didn't change the meaning. So this is what I meant when I said that the worst thing that happened was the collapse of the Soviet Union. It removed the constraint, it lead the neo-conservatives to make these kind of claims and it has ever since dominated our foreign policy.

Of course, the neo-conservatives are a very close ally with Israel. In fact, most of them are Zionists. Some of them are duo-citizens and in my opinion, this is why the American unilateralism began in the Middle-East. Because its been directed at the countries that supply Hezbollah, the militia in Lebanon, that twice defeated the Israeli army from occupying southern Lebanon. Israel wants the water recourses in southern Lebanon and tried to take control over it twice and was twice fought back. So who supplies Hezbollah? Iraq, Syria and Iran.

This is why we have so much pressure in the United States from Israel to continue the war on Assad and to start a war with Iran. Because if Iran and Assad are not supplying Hezbollah, then there is nothing to stop Israel from expanding in southern Lebanon. It is obvious if you just look at the media. So much of the attack on Iran is Israeli inspired and it's the Israelis that wants to use the American forces to put Iran in the same chaos that Iraq is in, which they hoped Syria would be in if it hadn't been for Russia intervening.

So this is another aspect because it shows an alliance between the ruling ideology in the United States. The neo-conservative ideology and the identity politics-ideology. Both of these are destructive in their own ways. But when you get a dose with both of them, you're really in trouble.

So that is a situation that is difficult for the president because the Israeli lobbyist are very powerful, there has been numerous books written about it, there have been numerous congressmen and senators who have said "we lost because we opposed something Israel wanted". In fact, if Israel wants something, it usually gets voted unanimously. It is very rare that even two members of the entire Congress will oppose something in Israel's favour.

So they are a powerful entity. The Wall Street crowd and the big banks are a powerful entity. The security complex is probably the most powerful because it has the intelligence agencies who can control explanations, who can fabricate cases and events, who can claim things happened that didn't because under the guise of national security, they don't have to tell you or go in to detail. They just say it. "We can't show you now because it will compromise national security". They can get away with this.

So, when you have a country like that and it doesn't have an independent media, then the question is; who is in control? Well, whoever controls the explanations. They are easy to control due to the reasons I just said. The media is organized in six hands and they are not run by journalists.

Hanne Nabintu Herland: – Thank you very much. We are so honoured to have spoken with you.

Paul Craig Roberts: – Well, thank you very much for including me in your wonderful programmes.

[Sep 03, 2018] Neoliberalism privatised profits and socialised risk and losses

Notable quotes:
"... Tucker Carlson went off last week on how the US welfare system is gamed by major corporations like Amazon and Walmart to keep workers' wages below a basic level of being able to support one's self and family. ..."
"... How about reducing these companies' tax deductions for wages by an estimate of the welfare benefits, e.g. "Food Stamps," etc., their workers use to stay afloat? ..."
Sep 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Alarmist , says: Next New Comment September 3, 2018 at 9:46 am GMT

You missed the pithiest soundbite that succinctly sums it all up:

We privatised profits and we socialised risk and losses.

We continue to do so in a major way to prop up our oligarch class.

Capitalism died a long time ago in the US, and its death is not just evident in the way banks are coddled.

Tucker Carlson went off last week on how the US welfare system is gamed by major corporations like Amazon and Walmart to keep workers' wages below a basic level of being able to support one's self and family.

How about reducing these companies' tax deductions for wages by an estimate of the welfare benefits, e.g. "Food Stamps," etc., their workers use to stay afloat?

"We can look to Iceland for an example of how to handle the next crisis."

No, we should follow the example of Vietnam and execute a few bankers and other oligarchs.

Iris , says: Next New Comment September 3, 2018 at 10:06 am GMT

The Asian country that best overcame the 1997 crisis was Malaysia.

Under then PM Mahathir, the country defied the IMF and refused to take loans from it.

Instead of obeying the Washington Consensus rules, Malaysia applied completely unorthodox measures: fixing the peg of the ringgit to the dollar, selective foreign exchange controls, de- internationalisation of the ringgit. As a consequence, Malaysia preserved all her assets.

Ironically, such unorthodox crisis measures are now recognised as innovative and efficient by the same vulture IMF.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2003/09/04/mahathir-was-right-says-imf/

The 1997 crisis followed the trademark asset rip off script set up by the financial industry loan sharks. The same script has repeated time and again over decades.

Si1ver1ock , says: Next New Comment September 3, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT

Great article. I'll probably link to it.

On a slightly related topic, "Let's put forward a People's Agenda."

India just created one of the worlds largest Public Banks.

The mother of all banks is coming today

. . .

A banking behemoth will take birth at Delhi's Talkatora Stadium today when Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurates the India Post Payments Bank (IPPB).

Read more at:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/the-mother-of-all-banks-is-coming-today-10-things-to-know/articleshow/65633379.cms

[Sep 03, 2018] Al Jazeera documentary on the USA Israeli lobby

Sep 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Debsisdead , Sep 3, 2018 8:42:00 PM | link

Further to the point I made upthread is an english language article on Le Monde Diplomatique which considers how and why an Al Jazeera documentary which featured israelis and their stooges around Capitol Hill openly discussing their campaigns of dirty tricks and their concern that young amerikans were no longer buying their tosh.
The documentary was an early victim of the Saudi/UAE attack on Qatar (the home of AJ) that left al Jazeera's staff extremely upset and the leaks have been continuous.
The article goes on to discuss current methods of the israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs, methods to be used on websites which square with much of the nonsense we have been subjected to. I'm not going to waste space by pasting any of it here, don't be put off by the intro, this goes way past rewording Mearsheimer or any of the already familiar stuff about aipac and the deceivers. I reckon we all need to read it in its entirety before hunting out the four part doco which will inevitably surface on the web in the not-too distant future, especially since the cold shouldering of Qatar has re-commenced.

Daniel , Sep 3, 2018 9:50:03 PM | link

The censored al Jazeera documentary on the USAmerican Israeli lobby may well be Qatari propaganda. Some may have noticed that I am quite critical of al Jazeera Arabic (which heavily campaigned for Muslims from around the world to go to Syria and fight holy Jihad against the hated secular government of the infidels). But propaganda is not necessarily false. To propagate is to nurture and help to grow.

At any rate, I haven't seen anyone mention that al Jazeera made another documentary on the Israel Lobby, but in Britain. It was released and may be viewed here:

https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/

[Sep 03, 2018] Israel's Fifth Column by Philip Giraldi

Would it be prudent to view Israel as yet another US state, albeit without formal association with the union ?
I doubt that Israeli influence is a one way street. In most areas the USA neoliberal elite interests and Israeli interests coincide or strongly corrlate. For example in no way the USA invade Iraq to serve exclusively Israeli interests. They were interested in control of oil rich state (the scenario later repeated in Libya) and Israeli interests played important, but secondary role in the invasion.
Notable quotes:
"... American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel. ..."
"... Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel. ..."
"... How he represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery. ..."
"... Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. ..."
Sep 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer said "I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the American intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was operating in international waters and was displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had identified the vessel as American, even strafed the life rafts to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It was the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the crew deservedly received the most medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one hell of a story of courage under fire, but don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make a movie out of it.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel. Then came the cover-up from inside the U.S. government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry headed by Admiral John McCain, father of the senator, deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the attack as well as crewmen from Navy ships that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado in Malta before being threatened and sworn to secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress, the White House and the Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures from the Liberty survivors.

The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act against its own interests has been around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted in a lopsided trade agreement that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year on the top of direct grants from the U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.

If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation vis-à-vis Israeli power is much worse now than it was in 1983. He would be very interested in reading a remarkable bit of research recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and its friends work from inside the system to corrupt our political process and make the American government work in support of Jewish state interests. He describes in some detail how the Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement community to protect and promote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.

A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George W. Bush's 2004 signing off on the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. The group's website proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but it has from its founding been really all about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how "the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons complex."

The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated secretly within the Treasury itself while also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli government as well as with pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel on the taxpayer's dime, as did his three successors in office.

Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen. It was reported then and subsequently that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who were both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey tradition of resisting any transparency regarding what the office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he refused to answer reporter questions "about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and whether sanctioning Iran, a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian nuclear program was an example of endemic double standards at OTFI."

Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal Pearl Mandelker, a former and possibly current Israeli citizen . All of the heads of OTFI have therefore been Jewish and Zionist. All work closely with the Israeli government, all travel to Israel frequently on "official business" and they all are in close liaison with the Jewish groups most often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has been that many of the victims of OTFI have been generally enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's Jewish lobbyists. OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List ( SDN ), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers . And once placed on the SDN there is no transparent way to be removed, even if the entry was clearly in error.

Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut down and individuals exercising their right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish state have been imprisoned. If the Israel Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making its way through congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the land when it comes to curtailing free speech whenever Israel is involved.

The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews closely attached to Israel being promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.

Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan Administration and they and their heirs in government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were major players in the catastrophic war with Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow, described in 2004 as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with Iran.

American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel.

Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel.

He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government talking points and has tried to change the wording of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word "occupied" when describing Israel's control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli shooting thousands of unarmed Gazan protesters and the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.

Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences.

Apparently when opportunity knocked he changed his mind about his new boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a Jewish advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement and also worked to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He is reportedly still connected financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a conflict of interest. As the Senior Adviser to Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of living allowance and a 10% hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.

So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything, it wants, apparently. Sink a U.S. warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a minute and we'll draft some legislation that will give you even more money. Create a treasury department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to punish critics of the Jewish state? No brainer. Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and top aide overseas to represent the interests of the foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just happens to be Israel. Will it ever end?

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

[Sep 03, 2018] Poison for the Goyim- More Hysteria and Hyperbole about Labour Anti-Semitism by Tobias Langdon

Notable quotes:
"... New Statesman ..."
"... The New Statesman ..."
"... Jewish Chronicle ..."
"... Jerusalem Post ..."
"... The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society ..."
"... The Jerusalem Post ..."
"... New Statesman ..."
"... New Statesman ..."
"... Guide for the Perplexed ..."
"... Guide for the Perplexed ..."
"... Jewish Chronicle ..."
"... Jewish Chronicle ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | www.unz.com
TOBIAS LANGDON SEPTEMBER 2, 2018 1,600 WORDS 3 COMMENTS REPLY RSS

Jonathan Sacks is given an award by the war-criminal Tony Blair

Jeremy Corbyn has a beard. So has Jonathan Sacks . But this shared philopogony hasn't brought the two men closer together. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and, to be fair, I think we be better off if more Jews were like him. He doesn't seem to hate Whites and the Christian religion in the way so many of his co-ethnics do.

Battle of the Beards

But that doesn't mean Sacks is a reasonable or objective man where his own race is concerned. He can be ethnocentric and apply double standards with the best of them, as he's just proved by his comments on his fellow beardie:

Jeremy Corbyn is "an anti-Semite" who has "given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate", the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman , the peer described Corbyn's recently reported 2013 remarks on "Zionists" as "the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell's 1968 'Rivers of Blood' speech".

Sacks, who was chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, added: "It was divisive, hateful and like Powell's speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien."

At a speech made at the Palestinian Return Centre in London in 2013, Corbyn said of a group of British "Zionists": "They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either." ( Corbyn's "Zionist" remarks were "most offensive" since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi , The New Statesman , 28th August 2018)

Enoch Powell predicted that mass immigration would lead to race war. Jeremy Corbyn said that some Zionists don't get "English irony." Whether or not you agree with Powell, is it reasonable to compare the words of the two men? Are they "hateful" and "divisive" in a similar way? I'd say no, they're obviously not, and the vast majority of British Whites probably agree with me.

Sacks doesn't agree with me, and he has the Community with him, according to the Jewish Chronicle : "Reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue said that, while the Enoch Powell analogy may have shocked people, 'it accurately reflected what most British Jews feel.'"

The poisoning of Britain's politics

Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society , he said the movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." "A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times , Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the highest order." ( Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy , The Jerusalem Post , 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a self-serving, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began with Jews" and had been "inexorably divisive." His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a gentile society.

Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the "identity politics" that has poisoned British politics (and American , Australian , French and Swedish politics too).

By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed that the "poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's condemning Jeremy Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.

"Absolutely nothing apartheid about this"

And in 2018 Sacks is also offering a ridiculous defence of a new law in his beloved land of Israel:

Asked by the New Statesman to comment on Israel's new nationality law, which states that the Jewish people have "an exclusive right to national self-determination" in the country and stripped the Arab language of its official status, Sacks said: "I'm not an expert on this. My brother is, I'm not, he's a lawyer in Jerusalem, he tells me that there's absolutely nothing apartheid about this, it's just correcting a lacuna. As far as I understand, it's a technical process that has none of the implications that have been levelled at it." ( Corbyn's "Zionist" remarks were "most offensive" since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi )

When Sacks said there was "absolutely nothing apartheid about this," he was protesting too much . He is clearly uncomfortable about the new law and struggling to defend it, which is why his usual fluency deserted him when he spoke to the New Statesman . One "levels" accusations, not implications. And the implications of the new law are perfectly clear, which is why Sacks was driven to waffle about "a technical process." Yes, the law is a technical process whereby Arabs are defined as second-class citizens and Jewish supremacism is openly proclaimed as the guiding principle of the Israeli state.

Of Monkeys and Men

I'm sure that one of Sacks' heroes, the great Jewish philosopher and Talmudic scholar Maimonides (c. 1135-1208), would have applauded the new law. This is what Maimonides wrote in his hugely influential Guide for the Perplexed (c. 1190), one of the most revered and respected texts in the three thousand years of Judaism:

The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the Kushites [Blacks] who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey. ( Guide for the Perplexed , Book 3, chapter 51)

Now that is racism, ladies and gentlemen. And if you want proof that Maimonides' poisonous ideas are alive and well in the Jewish world today, look no further than Yitzchak Yosef, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi in Israel, who was condemned this very year for "calling black people 'monkeys'." Rabbi Yosef has visited the headlines before: in 2016 he "stated that non-Jews should not be allowed to live in Israel, except to serve the Jewish population." The Jewish Chronicle added that he "later reversed this position."

"Very, very good relations with the Jewish community"

Well, he might have said he no longer believed it, but that wouldn't be speaking the truth. Servitude for goyim, the superiority of Jews and the subhumanity of Blacks are all perfectly orthodox Jewish doctrines. Jews are not the philanthropic egalitarians that they pretend to be, and Jonathan Sacks was perfectly correct to describe them as poisoners of British politics. He himself has upended another vat of poison by joining in the hysteria and hyperbole about Jeremy Corbyn's mild comments on Zionists.

Let's compare Corbyn with the shabbos goy Tony Blair, who gave Sacks a "Lifetime Achievement Award" in February this year and hailed Sacks as "one of my heroes." According to the Jewish Chronicle , Blair "was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations" with "the Jewish community."

In other words, the tiny Jewish minority pulled Blair's strings. At the behest of his Jewish "fundraiser" Lord Levy , Blair lied Britain into a hugely expensive war on Iraq that killed vast numbers of innocent civilians , fomented sectarian strife in the Middle East and terrorism in Europe, and led directly to the rise of Islamic State. Jeremy Corbyn resolutely opposed the war and predicted its dire consequences. Blair is a liar, confidence-trickster and war-criminal who will one day, I hope, face the death-penalty for what he and his Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche did to Britain. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, is a virtue-signalling Marxist idiot who opposes war and the military-industrial complex .

But Blair obeyed Jewish orders and Corbyn doesn't. That's why Blair is now worth more than £60 million and Corbyn is endlessly vilified in the British media. Few British Whites know the term " ethnocentrism ," but more and more of them can see the Jews practising it.

[Sep 03, 2018] Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War by Paul Craig Roberts

Sep 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Russian Government and President Putin are coming under pressure not from US sanctions, which are very good for Russia as they force Russia into independence, but from Russian patriots who are tiring of Putin's non-confrontational responses to Washington's never-ending insults and military provocations. Russian patriots don't want war, but they do want their country's honor defended, and they believe Putin is failing in this job. Some of them are saying that Putin himself is a West-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationist.

This disillusinonment with Putin, together with Putin's endorsement of raising the retirement age for pensions, a trap set for him by Russia's neoliberal economists, have hurt Putin's approval ratings at the precise time that he will again be tested by Washington in Syria.

In many columns I have defended Putin from the charge that he is not sufficiently Russian. Putin wants to avoid war, because he knows it would be nuclear, the consequences of which would be dire. He knows that the US and its militarily impotent NATO allies cannot possibly conduct conventional warfare against Russia or China, much less against both. Putin also undersrtands that the sanctions are damaging Washington's European vassals and could eventually force the European vassal states into independence that would constrain Washington's belligerence. Even with Russia's new super weapons, which probably give Putin the capability of destroying the entirety of the Western World with little or no damage to Russia, Putin sees no point in so much destruction, especially as the consequences are unknown. There could be nuclear winter or other results that would put the planet into decline as a life-sustaining entity.

So, as I have suggested in many columns Putin is acting intelligently. He is in the game for the long term while protecting the world from dangerous war.

Whereas I endorse Putin's strategy and admire his coolness as a person who never lets emotion lead him, there is nevertheless a problem. The people in the West with whom he is dealing are idiots who do not appreciate his statesmanship. Consequently, each time Putin turns the other cheek, so to speak, the insults and the provocations ratchet upward.

Consider Syria. The Syrian Army with the help of a tiny part of the Russian Air Force has cleared all areas of Syria but one of the American-instigated-financed-and-equiped forces sent by Washington to overthrow the Syrian government.

The remaining US proxy force is about to be eliminated. In order to save it, and to keep a Washington foothold that could permit a restart of the war, Washington has arranged yet another false flag "chemical attack" that the presstitute and obiedient Western media will blame on Assad. President Trump's National Security Adviser, a crazed, perhaps insane, Zionist Neoconservative, has told Russia that Washington will take a dim view of the Syrian/Russian use of chemical weapons against "Assad's own people."

The Russians are fully aware that any chemical attack will be a false flag attack orchestrated by Washington using the elements it sent to Syria to overthrow the government. Indeed, Russia's ambassador to the US explained it all yesterday to the US government.

Clearly, Putin hopes to avoid Washington's orchestrated attack by having his ambassador explain the orchestration to the American officials who are orchestrating it. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-30/russian-ambassador-gave-intel-us-officials-showing-planned-chemical-provocation
This strategy implies that Putin thinks US government officials are capable of shame and integrity. They most certainly are not. I spent 25 years with them. They don't even know what the words mean.

What if, instead, Putin had declared publicly for the entire world to hear that any forces, wherever located, responsible for an attack on Syria would be annihiliated? My view -- https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/29/a-book-for-our-time-a-time-that-perhaps-has-run-its-course/ - and that of Russian patriot Bogdasarov- https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/08/a-russian-response-to-a-new-us-attack-on-syria-should-include-sinking-the-carriers-not-just-shooting-at-their-missiles/ - is that such an ultimatum from the leader of the country capable of delivering it would cool the jets of Russophobic Washington. There would be no attack on Syria.

Bogdasarov and I might be wrong. The Russian forces deployed around Syria with their hypersonic missiles are more than a match for the US forces assembled to attack Syria. However, American hubris can certainly prevail over facts, in which case Putin would have to destroy the sources of the attack. By not committing in advance, Putin retains flexibility. Washington's attack, like its previous attack on Syria, might be a face-saver, not a real attack. Nevertheless, sooner or later Russia will have to deliver a firmer response to provocations.

I am an American. I am not a Russian, much less a Russian nationalist. I do not want US military personnel to be casualties of Washington's fatal desire for world hegemony, much less to be casualties of Washington serving Israel's interests in the Middle East. The reason I think Putin needs to do a better job of standing up to Washington is that I think, based on history, that appeasement encourages more provocations, and it comes to a point when you have to surrender or fight. It is much better to stop this process in its tracks before it reaches that dangerous point.

Andrei Martyanov, whose book I recently reviewed on my website, recently defended Putin, as The Saker and I have done in the past, from claims that Putin is too passive in the face of assaults. https://russia-insider.com/en/russia-playing-long-game-no-room-instant-gratification-strategies-super-patriots/ri24561 As I have made the same points, I can only applaud Martyanov and The Saker. Where we might differ is in recognizing that endlessly accepting insults and provocations encourages their increase until the only alternative is surrender or war.

So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the Russian government is: How long does turning your other cheek work? Do you turn your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage in a confrontation? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country's honor? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war or submission? Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear war?

I think that Martyanov and The Saker agree that my question is a valid one. Both emphazise in their highly informative writings that the court historians misrepresent wars in the interest of victors. Let's give this a moment's thought. Both Napoleon and Hitler stood at their apogee, their success unmitigated by any military defeat. Then they marched into Russia and were utterly destroyed. Why did they do this? They did it because their success had given them massive arogance and belief in their "exceptionalism," the dangerous word that encapsulates Washington's belief in its hegemony.

The zionist neoconsevatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in "the end of history," that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.

When confronted with such deluded and ideological force, does turning the other cheek work or does it encourage more provocation?

This is the question before the Russian government.

Perhaps the Russian government will understand the meaning of the orchestrated eulogies for John McCain. It is not normal for a US senator to be eulogized in this way, especially one with such an undistinguished record. What is being eulogized is McCain's hatred of Russia and his record as a warmonger. What Washington is eulogizing is its own committment to war.

[Sep 03, 2018] The US Department of Homeland Security fabricated "intelligence reports" of Russian election hacking

Russiagate can be viewed as a pretty inventive way to justify their own existence for bloated Intelligence services: first CIA hacks something leaving traces of russians or Chinese; then the FBI, CIAand Department of Homeland security all enjoy additional money and people to counter the threat.
The scheme is almost untraceable
Sep 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
BM , Sep 3, 2018 12:54:15 PM | link

The US Department of Homeland Security fabricated "intelligence reports" of Russian election hacking in order to try to get control of the election infrastructure (probebly so that they can hack it more easily to control the election results).

How the Department of Homeland Security Created a Deceptive Tale of Russia Hacking US Voter Sites

[Sep 03, 2018] Ukraine conflict- Blast kills top Donetsk rebel Zakharchenko - BBC News

Sep 03, 2018 | bbc.co.uk

Ukraine conflict: Blast kills top Donetsk rebel Zakharchenko

Related Topics
Alexander Zakharchenko Image copyright REUTERS
Image caption Alexander Zakharchenko in a 2017 photo

A leader of Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, Alexander Zakharchenko, has been killed in an explosion at a cafe in Donetsk city.

"The head of the DNR [Donetsk People's Republic]... has died as the result of a terrorist attack," Zakharchenko's spokeswoman told AFP news agency.

Russia's foreign ministry said it suspected Ukraine of organising the latest killing.

The Ukrainian government has denied any involvement.

Some observers have attributed previous deaths of rebel leaders in Donetsk to infighting among the rebels, or moves by Moscow to eliminate inconvenient separatist leaders.

What are the two sides saying?

Rebel and Russian news reports say the separatists' "finance minister" Alexander Timofeyev was wounded in the blast at the Separ cafe that killed Zakharchenko.

Ukrainians suspected of being behind the blast were arrested nearby, a security source was quoted as saying.

Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said "there is every reason to believe that the Kiev regime is behind the murder".

She said the Kiev "party of war" was "violating its pledges about peace and has decided on a bloodbath".

However, recent reports suggested that Zakharchenko had fallen out of favour with Russia.

A spokeswoman for Ukraine's state security service, Yelena Gitlyanskaya, rejected Moscow's accusations.

She said the killing was a result of "internal fighting... between the terrorists and their Russian sponsors".

What is happening in eastern Ukraine?

Heavily armed rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk regions refuse to recognise the Ukrainian government in Kiev.

The rebels seized large swathes of territory there in an uprising in April 2014. Since then, thousands of people have died in fighting between the rebels and Ukrainian government forces.

Ukraine map - rebel-held territory

Moscow denies sending regular troops and heavy weapons to the separatists, but admits that Russian "volunteers" are helping the rebels.

The frontline between them and Ukrainian government troops has remained largely static for months, but skirmishes continue despite a fragile ceasefire deal.

There has been shooting on the frontline despite a "back-to-school truce" that was supposed to take effect on Wednesday. International monitors reported 70 ceasefire violations on that day alone.

Who was Alexander Zakharchenko?

He played a key role in the Russian-backed separatist military operation from its very beginning.

In early 2014, soon after Ukraine's pro-Russian government was toppled by the Maidan revolution, he took part in the seizure of the Donetsk regional administration building by people saying they were protesting against the new pro-Western authorities.

Later that year, he was chosen as the prime minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic by its parliament, the "Supreme Council".

He had been in the role ever since, assuming the title of president, and was among the signatories of the stalled Minsk peace agreement.

He was wounded twice in combat, and survived a car bomb blast in August 2014.

Who else has been assassinated in Donetsk?

[Sep 03, 2018] Ambassador Kurt Volker- US To Drastically Expand Military Assistance To Ukraine

Expensive weapon systems for export is Trump administration official policy, his Military Keyseanism stance.
Notable quotes:
"... The US is to render substantial military assistance to a country with an economy in the doldrums , reforms that have foundered , a democracy that is in question , and corruption that is widespread . ..."
Sep 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

... Kurt Volker , US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, said in an interview with the Guardian published on September 1 that "Washington is ready to expand arms supplies to Ukraine in order to build up the country's naval and air defense forces in the face of continuing Russian support for eastern separatists ." According to him, the Trump administration was "absolutely" prepared to go further in supplying lethal weaponry to Ukrainian forces than the anti-tank missiles it delivered in April .

" They need lethal assistance," he emphasized.

Mr. Volker explained that "[t]hey need to rebuild a navy and they have very limited air capability as well. I think we'll have to look at air defense."

The diplomat believes Ukraine needs unmanned aerial vehicles, counter-battery radar systems, and anti-sniper systems. The issue of lethal arms purchases has been discussed at the highest level.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 allocated $250m in military assistance to Ukraine, including lethal arms. The US has delivered Javelin anti-tank missile systems to Kiev but this time the ambassador talked about an incomparably larger deal. Former President Barack Obama had been unconvinced that granting Ukraine lethal defensive weapons would be the right decision, in view of the widespread corruption there. This policy has changed under President Trump, who - among other things - approved deliveries of anti-tank missiles to Kiev last December.

Ukraine has officially requested US air-defense systems. According to Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, the Ukrainian military wants to purchase at least three air-defense systems. The cost of the deal is expected to exceed $2 billion, or about $750 million apiece. The system in question was not specified, but it's generally believed to be the Patriot.

Volker's statement was made at a time of rising tensions in the Sea of Azov, which is legally shared by Ukraine and Russia. It is connected to the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait. The rhetoric has heated up and ships have been placed under arrest as this territorial dispute turns the area into a flashpoint. Russia has slammed the US for backing Ukraine's violations of international law in the area. According to a 2003 treaty, the Sea of Azov is a jointly controlled territory that both countries are allowed to use freely.

The US military already runs a maritime operations center located within Ukraine's Ochakov naval base. The facility is an operational-level warfare command-and-control organization that is designed to deliver flexible maritime support throughout the full range of military operations. Hundreds of US and Canadian military instructors are training Ukrainian personnel at the Yavorov firing range.

NATO has granted Ukraine the status of an aspirant country - a step that is openly provocative toward Russia. Macedonia, Georgia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina are also aspirant nations. Last year, Ukraine's parliament adopted a resolution recognizing full membership in NATO as a foreign policy goal. In 2008, NATO agreed that Ukraine along with Georgia should become a full-fledged member. In March, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia announced the formation of an alliance to oppose Russia.

The US is to render substantial military assistance to a country with an economy in the doldrums, reforms that have foundered, a democracy that is in question, and corruption that is widespread. It will be no surprise if those weapons fall into the wrong hands and are used against the US military somewhere outside of Europe. lIt was the US State Department itself that issued a report this year slamming Ukraine's human-rights record. The UN human-rights commissioner tells the same story. So do human-rights monitors all over the world.

[Sep 03, 2018] Inspired by the Atlantic Council and Ben Nimmo, Facebook deletes Craig Murray's posts since July 2017 - apparently cause he's a 'Russian bot'

Sep 03, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk


Facebook has deleted all of my posts from July 2017 to last week because I am, apparently, a Russian Bot. For a while I could not add any new posts either, but we recently found a way around that, at least for now. To those of you tempted to say "So what?", I would point out that over two thirds of visitors to my website arrive via my posting of the articles to Facebook and Twitter. Social media outlets like this blog, which offer an alternative to MSM propaganda, are hugely at the mercy of these corporate gatekeepers.

Facebook's plunge into censorship is completely open and admitted, as is the fact it is operated for Facebook by the Atlantic Council - the extreme neo-con group part funded by NATO and whose board includes serial war criminal Henry Kissinger, Former CIA Heads Michael Hayden and Michael Morrell, and George Bush's chief of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff , among a whole list of horrors .

The staff are worse than the Board. Their lead expert on Russian bot detection is an obsessed nutter named Ben Nimmo, whose fragile grip on reality has been completely broken by his elevation to be the internet's Witchfinder-General. Nimmo, grandly titled "Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab", is the go-to man for Establishment rubbishing of citizen journalists, and as with Joseph McCarthy or Matthew Clarke, one day society will sufficiently recover its balance for it to be generally acknowledged that this kind of witch-hunt nonsense was not just an aberration, but a manifestation of the evil it claimed to fight.

There is no Establishment cause Nimmo will not aid by labeling its opponents as Bots. This from the Herald newspaper two days ago, where Nimmo uncovers the secret web of Scottish Nationalist bots that dominate the internet, and had the temerity to question the stitch-up of Alex Salmond.

Nimmo's proof? 2,000 people had used the hashtag #Dissolvetheunion on a total of 10,000 tweets in a week. That's five tweets per person on average. In a week. Obviously a massive bot-plot, eh?

When Ben's great expose for the Herald was met with widespread ridicule , he doubled down on it by producing his evidence - a list of the top ten bots he had uncovered in this research. Except that they are almost all, to my certain knowledge, not bots but people . But do not decry Ben's fantastic forensic skills, for which NATO and the CIA fund the Atlantic Council. Ben's number one suspect was definitely a bot. He had got the evil kingpin. He had seen through its identity despite its cunning disguise. That disguise included its name, IsthisAB0T, and its profile, where it called itself a bot for retweets on Independence. Thank goodness for Ben Nimmo, or nobody would ever have seen through that evil, presumably Kremlin-hatched, plan.

No wonder the Atlantic Council advertise Nimmo and his team as " Digital Sherlocks ".

[Sep 03, 2018] Why the whole banking system is a scam

Sep 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Agent76 , says: Next New Comment September 3, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT

May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam

Godfrey Bloom MEP • European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013 • Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire).

The Federal Reserve Explained In 7 Minutes

soviet crash , says: Next New Comment September 3, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT

https://www.sott.net/article/390915-Grand-Deception-The-1990s-Raid-on-Russia

TG , says: Next New Comment September 3, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT

Indeed. Especial kudos for mentioning that the bailout cost way way more than the "Tarp" program. Some additional thoughts though.

1. Our financial economy is now so subsidized and rigged, I wonder if it is even possible to have a traditional financial-style collapse? I mean, the stock market is high only because the companies are borrowing like crazy to boost their stock prices, and the Federal Reserve will manufacture unlimited money to boost and bail out financial firms. However, on its own this won't cause hyperinflation, because this money is mostly not making it back onto Main Street, it's just money chasing money in the the clouds. I suggest that perhaps the next collapse will be triggered by physical matters, as massive immigration fuels continued population growth, and the real economy is starved of the massive physical investment needed to deal with this and our own industrial base is gutted by free trade agreements. A physical collapse cannot be papered over by financial manipulation

2. There will be no revolution, sorry. Look at Barack Obama, for eight years he was as corrupt a whore to big money as any US politician, and the man is still treated as a secular saint. The Democrats are for Wall Street bailouts and eternal pointless wars etc.etc. but people will keep voting for them because Trump is a fascist, a racist, "literally Hitler." I mean, CNN told them so, so it must be true. Meanwhile, even though it looked like the Republicans for a moment were going to deal with reality, they too have mostly been co-opted into mindlessly supporting Trump because the Democrats are "socialists" (hah! Lenin would have had a good laugh at that one) and Nancy Pelosi is weird.

We're doomed.

Agent76 , says: Next New Comment September 3, 2018 at 2:30 pm GMT

Mar 20, 2017 US Debt of $20 Trillion Visualized in Stacks of Physical Cash

Showing stacks of physical cash in following sequence: $100, $10,000, $1 Million, $2 Billion, $1 Trillion, $20 Trillion

Wizard of Oz , says: September 3, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
@Miggle

I think you'll find what common sense might predict, namely, that deaths by shooting have declined in per capita terms. Maybe people still manage to commit suicide as reliably by other means but there can have been no substitute for accidental shootings.

[Sep 03, 2018] Tenth Anniversary of Financial Collapse, Preparing for the Next Crash by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

Notable quotes:
"... Many of the root causes of the crisis remain today, making another economic downturn or collapse possible. The New Yorker reports that little has changed since 2008, with Wall Street banks returning to risky behavior and the inadequate regulation of Dodd-Frank being weakened. Big finance is more concentrated and dominant than it was before the crash. Inequality and debt have expanded, and despite the capital class getting wealthier in a record stock market with corporate profits soaring, real wages are stuck at pre-crisis levels . ..."
"... So, when the next crash comes. Let's put forward a People's Agenda. Let's be like Iceland and mobilize for policies that put people first. Collectively, we have the power to overcome the political elites and their donor class. ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ten years ago, there was panic in Washington, DC, New York City and financial centers around the world as the United States was in the midst of an economic collapse. The crash became the focus of the presidential campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain and was followed by protests that created a popular movement, which continues to this day.

Banks: Bailed Out; The People: Sold Out

On the campaign trail, in March 2008, Obama blamed mismanagement of the economy on both Democrats and Republicans for rewarding financial manipulation rather than economic productivity. He called for funds to protect homeowners from foreclosure and to stabilize local governments and urged a 21st Century regulation of the financial system. John McCain opposed federal intervention, saying the country should not bail out banks or homeowners who knowingly took financial risks.

By September 2008, McCain and Obama met with President George W. Bush and together they called for a $700 billion bailout of the banks, not the people. Obama and McCain issued a joint statement that called the bank bailout plan "flawed," but said, "the effort to protect the American economy must not fail." Obama expressed "outrage" at the "crisis," which was "a direct result of the greed and irresponsibility that has dominated Washington and Wall Street for years."

By October 2008, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), or bank bailout, had recapitalized the banks, the Treasury had stabilized money market mutual funds and the FDIC had guaranteed the bank debts. The Federal Reserve began flowing money to banks, which would ultimately total almost twice the $16 trillion claimed in a federal audit. Researchers at the University of Missouri found that the Federal Reserve gave over $29 trillion to the banks.

This did not stop the loss of nine million jobs , more than four million foreclosures and the deep reduction in wealth among the poor, working and middle classes. A complete banking collapse was averted, but a deep recession for most people was not.

The New Yorker described the 2008 crash as years in the making, writing:

" the crisis took years to emerge. It was caused by reckless lending practices, Wall Street greed, outright fraud, lax government oversight in the George W. Bush years, and deregulation of the financial sector in the Bill Clinton years. The deepest source, going back decades, was rising inequality. In good times and bad, no matter which party held power, the squeezed middle class sank ever further into debt."

Before his inauguration, Obama proposed an economic stimulus plan, but, as Paul Krugman wrote, "Obama's prescription doesn't live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he's offering isn't as strong as his language about the economic threat."

In the end, the stimulus was even smaller than what Obama proposed. Economist Dean Baker explained that it may have created 2 million jobs, but we needed 12 million. It was $300 billion in 2009, about the same in 2010, and the remaining $100 billion followed over several years -- too small to offset the $1.4 trillion in annual lost spending.

New York Magazine reports the stimulus was "a spending stimulus bigger without being required to admit guilt or having their cases referred for prosecution. The fines were paid by shareholders , not the perpetrators.

Protest near Union Square in New York, April, 2010. Popular Resistance

Still at Risk

Many of the root causes of the crisis remain today, making another economic downturn or collapse possible. The New Yorker reports that little has changed since 2008, with Wall Street banks returning to risky behavior and the inadequate regulation of Dodd-Frank being weakened. Big finance is more concentrated and dominant than it was before the crash. Inequality and debt have expanded, and despite the capital class getting wealthier in a record stock market with corporate profits soaring, real wages are stuck at pre-crisis levels .

People are economically insecure in the US and live with growing despair, as measured by reports on well-being . The Federal Reserve reported in 2017 that "two in five Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $400 emergency expense." Further, "more than one in five said they weren't able to pay the current month's bills in full, and more than one in four said they skipped necessary medical care last year because they couldn't afford it."

Positive Money writes: "Ten years on, big banks are still behaving in reckless, unfair and neglectful ways . The structural problems with our money and banking system still haven't been fixed. And many experts fear that if we don't change things soon, we're going to sleepwalk into another crash ."

William Cohen, a former mergers and acquisitions banker on Wall Street, writes that the fundamentals of US economy are still flawed. The Economist describes the current situation: "The patient is in remission, not cured."

The Response Of the Popular Movement

Larry Eliott wrote in the Guardian , "Capitalism's near-death experience with the banking crisis was a golden opportunity for progressives." But the movement in the United States was not yet in a position to take advantage of it.

There were immediate protests. Democratic Party-aligned groups such as USAction, True Majority and others organized nationwide actions . Over 1,000 people demonstrated on Wall Street and phones in Congress were ringing wildly. While there was opposition to the bailout, there was a lack of national consensus over what to do.

Protests continued to grow. In late 2009, a "Move Your Money" campaign was started that urged people to take their money out of the big banks and put it in community banks and credit unions. The most visible anti-establishment rage in response to the bailout arose later in the Tea Party and Occupy movements . Both groups shared a consensus that we live in a rigged economy created by a corrupt political establishment. It was evident that the US is an oligarchy, which serves the interests of the wealthy while ignoring the necessities of the people.

The anti-establishment consensus continues to grow and showed itself in the 2016 presidential campaigns of Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They were two sides of the same coin of populist anger that defeated Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Across the political spectrum, there is a political crisis with both mainstream, Wall Street-funded political parties being unpopular but staying in power due to a calcified political system that protects the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans.

Preparing for the Next Collapse

When the next financial crisis arrives, the movement is in a much stronger position to take advantage of the opportunity for significant changes that benefit people over Wall Street. The Occupy movement and other efforts since then have changed the national dialogue so that more people are aware of wealth inequality, the corruption of big banks and the failure of the political elites to represent the people's interests.

There is also greater awareness of alternatives to the current economy. The Public Banking movement has grown significantly since 2008. Banks that need to be bailed out could be transformed into public banks that serve the people and are democratically controlled. And there are multiple platforms, including our People's Agenda , that outline alternative solutions.

We also know the government can afford almost $30 trillion to bail out the banks. One sixth of this could provide a $12,000 annual basic income, which would cost $3.8 trillion annually, doubling Social Security payments to $22,000 annually, which would cost $662 billion, a $10,000 bonus for all US public school teachers, which would cost $11 billion, free college for all high school graduates, which would cost $318 billion, and universal preschool, which would cost $38 billion. National improved Medicare for all would actually save the nation trillions of dollars over a decade. We can afford to provide for the necessities of the people.

We can look to Iceland for an example of how to handle the next crisis. In 2008 , they jailed the bankers, let the banks fail without taking on their debt and put controls in place to protect the economy. They recovered more quickly than other countries and with less pain.

How did they do it? In part, through protest. They held sustained and noisy protests, banging pots and pans outside their parliament building for five months. The number of people participating in the protests grew over time. They created democratized platforms for gathering public input and sharing information widely. And they created new political parties, the Pirate Party and the Best Party, which offered agendas informed by that popular input.

So, when the next crash comes. Let's put forward a People's Agenda. Let's be like Iceland and mobilize for policies that put people first. Collectively, we have the power to overcome the political elites and their donor class.

[Sep 03, 2018] New Book Gives Credence to US Ambassador's Claim That Israel Tried to Assassinate Him in 1980

Notable quotes:
"... Rise and Kill First ..."
"... Danger Zones, ..."
"... Thanks to Donald Johnson. ..."
Sep 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

PHILIP WEISS AUGUST 22, 2018 1,900 WORDS 16 COMMENTS REPLY RSS

John Gunther Dean, now 92, and a former American ambassador to five countries, has long maintained that Israel was behind his attempted assassination on August 28, 1980, in a suburb of Beirut, which was attributed to a rightwing Lebanese group. Dean and his wife and daughter and son-in-law were in a motorcade and narrowly escaped serious injury.

Dean said that he was targeted because he was doing something regarded as antithetical to Israel's interest: consulting with the Palestine Liberation Organization and its head, Yasser Arafat, at a time when such contacts were the third rail in US politics. He was also outspokenly critical of Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

A new book offers backing to Dean's claim. But while that book has been highly-publicized, the question of whether Israel attacked our ambassador has gotten no attention in the press. That is not a surprise; for Dean has asserted that the case itself was never thoroughly investigated by the U.S. government.

Let's begin this story where I first heard about it, from historian Remi Brulin's twitter thread on May 30:

"On August 28, 1980, the three-car motorcade of John Gunther Dean, the American Ambassador to Lebanon, was attacked on the motorway by several assailants armed with automatic rifles as well as light anti-tank weapons or LAWs. The ambassador and his wife escaped unscathed.

"This attack is in RAND's 'terrorism' database . Entry states that 'responsibility for attack was later claimed by the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, a shadowy right-wing group.' Various media outlets at the time reported on FLLF taking credit for the attack

"Over the years Ambassador Dean has repeatedly argued that Israel was behind the August 1980 attempt on his life. In a n interview for the Oral History Project in September 2000, he explained how the Lebanese Intelligence services had managed to retrieve the empty canisters of two of the light anti-tank weapons (LAWs) that had been used during the attack on his motorcade and, during raiding a house by the intersection where the assault had taken place, found 8 more. Dean collected the numbers on the 10 missiles & sent them to Washington to be traced.

"Three weeks (and one angry phone call) later, the US Ambassador finally learned 'where the light anti-tank weapons came from, where they were shipped to, on what date, who paid for them, and when they got to their destination.'

"The LAWs had been manufactured in the US and 'were sold and shipped to Israel in 1974.' In this interview , Dean further states that he "did find out a great deal about this incident' over the following years, and calls this assassination attempt 'one of the more unsavory episodes in our Middle Eastern history' and ends by noting that 'our Ambassador to Israel, Sam Lewis, took up this matter with the Israeli authorities.'

"Dean concludes: 'I know as surely as I know anything that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was somehow involved in the attack. Undoubtedly using a proxy, our ally Israel had tried to kill me.' [Haaretz covered Dean's claim, made in his 2009 autobiography ; so did The Nation ]

"All of this has been known for years, although it is very rarely discussed in the US media. When discussed, Dean's assertions/accusations are dismissed as conspiracy theories.

"In January however, a book was published that appears to reinforce the plausibility of Dean's position. The book is Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First . It has received rave reviews in the US press, and its author has been interviewed countless times since the book was published. The book focuses on Israeli 'targeted assassinations' and it contains one truly remarkable revelation.

"In 1979, [Rafael] Eitan and [Meir] Dagan [both brass in the Israel Defense Forces] created the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, and ran that fictitious group from 1979 to 1983. In 1981 and 1982, Ariel Sharon used that Front to conduct a series of indiscriminate car bombings that killed hundreds of civilians.

"The objective of this massive 'terrorist' car bombing campaign was to 'sow chaos' amongst the Palestinian & Lebanese civilian population" and, in 1981-82, to provoke the PLO into resorting to 'terrorism,' thus providing Israel with an excuse to invade Lebanon.

"The FLLF operation is described in great details in Bergman's book. His account is based solely on first hand accounts from Israeli officials involved in the operation or who were aware of it at the time. It is also described in detail in my article here [ in Mondoweiss in May: The remarkable disappearing act of Israel's car-bombing campaign in Lebanon or: What we (do not) talk about when we talk about 'terrorism'].

"As I show in this article, not a SINGLE review of Bergman's book in the US media has mentioned the FLLF operation. Nor has it been mentioned in a SINGLE of the countless interviews he has given on the topic over the last few months. The US media has thus been fully silent about the fact that Israeli officials directed a major & fully indiscriminate car bombing campaign that killed 100s of civilians in Lebanon. This silence also means that the US media has failed to notice the possible implications of this revelation about the Dean case.

"Bergman himself does not mention the assassination attempt against Dean. But we know that the FLLF took credit for this attack at the time. That Dean's own investigation pointed to Israel & to its Lebanese proxies. And we now know that the FLLF was CREATED and RUN by Israel.

"None of this is absolutely conclusive, of course. Nonetheless, this topic might warrant investigation from US journalists (who might also want to write about the FLLF car bombing campaign, ie about Israeli officials resorting to 'terrorism.'"

Brulin subsequently added this important comment:

Bergman does note on several occasions in his book that he is not allowed to write and talk about a lot of the operations that his sources talked to him about. I wonder if this FLLF operation vs Dean is one of those.

Let us add some details and context. Dean was born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1926 and escaped the Holocaust to the United States in 1938, later graduating from a Kansas City high school. It goes without saying that being ambassador to five countries, Cambodia, Denmark, Lebanon, Thailand and India, is a stellar career in foreign service.

I reached out to Dean and did not hear from him, but in his oral history, the ambassador says that the attack was a "horrible experience" that scarred his daughter.

The road at that stretch was wide and a Mercedes car was parked below a small hill overlooking the road. As we turned, our convoy took 21 rifle bullets and two grenades anti-tank fired against the car I was in. My wife threw herself on top of me and said: "Get your head down" because I was trying to look out and was stunned by the "fireworks". When you have these light anti-tank weapons (LAWs) explode, there are a lot of sparks and explosions. The two LAWs fired at my car bounced off the rear of the car. I also noticed that on the window of my armored car there were some shots all very well centered where I was sitting, but they had not penetrated because the plastic windows were bullet-proof.

In his autobiography Danger Zones, Dean says he urged the State Department to investigate, but: "No matter how hard I tried, I could not get a straight answer from the State Department about what the U.S. had discovered in its investigations I was simply told to resume my duties as ambassador. That was not so easy when I learned what the Lebanese intelligence agency found out [using the numbers on the weapons]."

Dean says he was clearly understood to be an enemy of Israel because on repeated occasions he had publicly condemned Israel's attacks on Lebanon's borders and air space, a stance the State Department usually did not take.

Scurrilous attacks on me in the Israeli Knesset and the Israeli press just prior to the assassination attempt indicate that the Israeli authorities were unhappy with the activist role I played in Lebanon, defending Lebanese sovereignty and maintaining an active relationship with the PLO–the very policies I was given to pursue by the president of the United States. The venomous talk in the Israeli Knesset by the right-wing parties portrayed me as a tool of the Palestinians. Because I was willing, even eager, to talk with all the factions in Lebanon's civil war, I was suspected of being anti-Israel.

Dean said he had a "close working relationship" with the PLO– including calling on Yasser Arafat to help broker the release of 13 of 66 American hostages held by Iranians in Tehran in November 1979, those 13 being the women and African-Americans. "On a number of occasions the PLO helped me to get Americans released American authorities considered the PLO a valid interlocutor for discussing ways of finding a nonmilitary solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

At that time, the PLO was verboten in official policy circles. Andrew Young was forced to resign as Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the U.N. in 1979 after the Israelis leaked the fact that he had met with a representative of the PLO. In 1977, Ted Koppel and Marvin Kalb wrote a thriller that turned on a US official having a supersecret meeting with a fictitious Palestinian group, and it leaking and the official being charged with betraying Israel. In 1976, the dissident Jewish peace group Breira came apart after Wolf Blitzer, who was at the time also working for the Israel lobby group AIPAC, reported in the Jerusalem Post that Breira members had met with PLO officials.

Dean had a reputation for being free-thinking in Washington circles. In 1988, when Dean was ambassador to India, Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq died in Pakistan when his plane was sabotaged. Dean maintained that Israel was behind the assassination because it did not want Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons, which it was then developing. Dean's speculation was based in part on the fact that pro-Israel congressmen (Stephen Solarz and Tom Lantos) had visited him in New Delhi and pressed him to support Israel's ally India over Pakistan and to seek to thwart Pakistan's path toward nukes.

"The more I pushed for answers, the more officials from the Reagan administration pushed back," he wrote. Within a year, Dean, 63, retired amid official questions about his sanity under "strain." "The department's first thought was to send me to an asylum." Instead he was sent to Switzerland for "recuperation," he writes in his autobiography. "This was the kind of technique that the Stalinist regime used to silence its critics in the Soviet Union."

Ronen Bergman's new book on the Israeli assassination and terrorism campaign contains no reference to the John Gunther Dean attack. I asked him via a twitter message why he had left it out, noting that his revelation about Israeli security officials establishing the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners gives credence to Dean's claim. He did not respond.

The Israeli investigative reporter is now working for the New York Times, and lately reported in the Times on the killing of a Syrian rocket scientist in a car bomb attack in northwestern Syria on the night of August 4, evidently by Israel.

P.S. The US government has had a miserable record of investigating known Israeli attacks on Americans– on the USS Liberty in 1967 and Rachel Corrie in 2003.

Thanks to Donald Johnson.

sarz , says: August 25, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT

Good to see Dean being taken seriously after so long in the wilderness.

The throwaway line about Dean, a Jew, being born in Germany and escaping the Holocaust when his family went to America in 1938, is a bit much, but serves to remind us what a challenge it is for those of Tribal consciousness such as friend Weiss, to hew to the truth when the opposing lie is so consequential.

[Sep 03, 2018] How identity politics poison politivcal dioscourse and divide people by Tobias Langdon

Notable quotes:
"... The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society ..."
"... "Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." ..."
"... "A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times ..."
"... The Jerusalem Post ..."
Sep 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

The poisoning of Britain's politics

Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society , he said the movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive."

"A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times , Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the highest order." ( Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy , The Jerusalem Post , 20th October 2007 ; emphasis added)

So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a self-serving, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began with Jews" and had been "inexorably divisive." His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a gentile society.

Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the "identity politics" that has poisoned British politics (and American , Australian , French and Swedish politics too).

By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed that the "poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's condemning Jeremy Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.

[Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

Highly recommended!
Aug 30, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

Mister President,

The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for the real perpetrators.

In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.

However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime. Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find the guilty parties.

We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists on which none of the suspects were mentioned.

From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.

In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:

- the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ", this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.

- The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation, under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme, conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised. Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix ", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the armed wing of these predators.

For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth and poverty has increased.

We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy – phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East. Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.

In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version, two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile, and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.

In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic.

So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.

So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress, one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your homeland by attacking your position.

Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of 11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.

Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which aspires to freedom.

Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today a political refugee in Syria.

Thierry Meyssan

See : Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton; James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks; T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom; John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele; and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.

Thierry Meyssan Political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire ( Voltaire Network ). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

[Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

Highly recommended!
Aug 30, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

Mister President,

The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for the real perpetrators.

In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.

However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime. Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find the guilty parties.

We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists on which none of the suspects were mentioned.

From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.

In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:

- the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ", this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.

- The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation, under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme, conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised. Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix ", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the armed wing of these predators.

For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth and poverty has increased.

We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy – phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East. Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.

In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version, two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile, and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.

In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic.

So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.

So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress, one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your homeland by attacking your position.

Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of 11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.

Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which aspires to freedom.

Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today a political refugee in Syria.

Thierry Meyssan

See : Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton; James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks; T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom; John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele; and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.

Thierry Meyssan Political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire ( Voltaire Network ). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

[Sep 02, 2018] Russian Oligarch And Putin Pal Admits To Collusion, Secret Meetings

Sep 01, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Sat, 09/01/2018 - 19:30

Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of Vladimir Putin, has gone on record with The Hill 's John Solomon - admitting to colluding with Americans leading up to the 2016 US election, except it might not be what you're thinking.

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=2381

me title=

Deripaska, rumored to be Donald Trump's " back channel " to Putin via the Russian's former association with Paul Manafort, says he "colluded" with the US Government between 2009 and 2016.

In 2009, when Robert Mueller was running the FBI , the agency asked Deripaska to spend $25 million of his own money to bankroll an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent - Robert Levinson, who was kidnapped in 2007 while working on a 2007 CIA contract in Iran. This in and of itself is more than a bit strange.

Deripaska agreed, however the Obama State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, scuttled a last-minute deal with Iran before Levinson could be released. He hasn't been heard from since.

FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington . Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither involve nor harm his homeland. -The Hill

In other words - Trump's alleged "back channel" to Putin was in fact an FBI asset who spent $25 million helping Obama's "scandal free" administration find a kidnapped agent. Deripaska's admitted

Steele, Ohr and the 2016 US Election

Trending Articles Earth's "Big Freeze" Looms As Sun Remains Devoid Of

Scientists believe that Earth could experience a "big freeze" as the sun goes through what's known as "solar minimum."

https://c5x8i7c7.ssl.hwcdn.net/vplayer-parallel/20180830_1458/videojs/show.html?controls=1&loop=30&autoplay=0&tracker=3f77479b-4e21-4f12-bfb4-919ba5f0243c&height=323&width=574&vurl=%2F%2Fc5x8i7c7.ssl.hwcdn.net%2Fvideos%2Fdgv_zerohedge%2F20180901063215_5b8a227fef14c%2Fdgv_zerohedge_trending_articles_20180901063215_5b8a227fef14c_new.mp4&poster=%2F%2Fc5x8i7c7.ssl.hwcdn.net%2Fvideos%2Fdgv_zerohedge%2F20180901063215_5b8a227fef14c%2Fdgv_zerohedge_trending_articles_20180901063215_5b8a227fef14c_new.jpg

Powered By

me title=

As the New York Times frames it, distancing Deripaska from the FBI (no mention of the $25 million rescue effort, for example), the Russian aluminum magnate was just one of several Putin-linked Oligarchs the FBI tried to flip.

The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia's richest men, nearly all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V. Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said. - NYT

Central to the recruiting effort were two central players in the Trump-Russia investigation; twice-demoted DOJ #4 official Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele - the author of the largely unverified "Steele Dossier."

Steele, a longtime associate of Ohr's, worked for Deripaska beginning in 2012 researching a business rival - work which would evolve to the point where the former British spy was interfacing with the Obama administration on his behalf - resulting in Deripaska regaining entry into the United States, where he visited numerous times between 2009 and 2017.

The State Department tried to keep him from getting a U.S. visa between 2006 and 2009 because they believed he had unspecified connections to criminal elements in Russia as he consolidated power in the aluminum industry. Deripaska has denied those allegations...

Whatever the case, it is irrefutable that after he began helping the FBI, Deripaska regained entry to the United States . And he visited numerous times between 2009 and 2017, visa entry records show. - The Hill

Deripaska is now banned from the United States as one of several Russians sanctioned in April in response to alleged 2016 election meddling.

In a September 2016 meeting, Deripaska told FBI agents that it was "preposterous" that Paul Manafort was colluding with Russia to help Trump win the 2016 election . This, despite the fact that Deripaska and Manafort's business relationship "ended in lawsuits, per The Hill - and the Russian would have every reason to throw Manafort under the bus if he wanted some revenge on his old associate.

So the FBI and DOJ secretly collaborated with Trump's alleged backchannel over a seven-year period , starting with Levinson, then on Deripaska's Visa, and finally regarding whether Paul Manafort was an intermediary to Putin. Deripaska vehemently denies the assertion, and even took out newspaper advertisements in the US last year volunteering to testify to Congress, refuting an AP report that he and Manafort secretly worked on a plan to "greatly benefit the Putin government" a decade ago.

Soon after the advertisements ran, representatives for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees called a Washington-based lawyer for Mr. Deripaska, Adam Waldman, inquiring about taking his client up on the offer to testify, Mr. Waldman said in an interview.

What happened after that has been in dispute. Mr. Waldman, who stopped working for Mr. Deripaska after the sanctions were levied, said he told the committee staff that his client would be willing to testify without any grant of immunity, but would not testify about any Russian collusion with the Trump campaign because "he doesn't know anything about that theory and actually doesn't believe it occurred." - NYT

In short, Deripaska wants it known that he worked with the FBI and DOJ, and that he had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.

Today, Deripaska is banned anew from the United States, one of several Russians sanctioned in April by the Trump administration as a way to punish Putin for 2016 election meddling. But he wants to be clear about a few things, according to a statement provided by his team. First, he did collude with Americans in the form of voluntarily assisting and meeting with the FBI, the DOJ and people such as Ohr between 2009 and 2016.

He also wants Americans to know he did not cooperate or assist with Steele's dossier, and he tried to dispel the FBI notion that Russia and the Trump campaign colluded during the 2016 election . - The Hill

Interestingly, Steele's dossier which was partially funded by the Clinton campaign, relied on senior Kremlin officials .

[Sep 02, 2018] Official narrative still can't explain Building 7 collapse, so the demolition hypothesis is the strongest of all alternatives

If the state manages to sustain the version of fire induced collapse that mean that the USA is a national security state and press is just lapdog of the establishment, fully controlled by CIA or other relevant agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Mona Ahmed Zaki , Sep 2, 2018 4:46:00 PM | link

Did you know?

Just months before 9/11 the World Trade Center's lease was privatized and sold to Larry Silverstein.

Silverstein took out an insurance policy that "fortuitously" covered terrorism.

After 9/11 Silverstein took the insurance companies to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were two attacks.

Silverstein won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000.

The question on everyone's mind is:

Why is Silverstein claiming that airliners destroyed his buildings, when he has already confessed to demolishing at least one of them himself?

In the 2002 PBS documentary "America Rebuilds," Silverstein admitted to complicity in the controlled demolition of WTC-7, a 47-story skyscraper that dropped into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.

Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Snopes says lloyd Blankfein, real estate investor, was also an owner.

Of course, Blankfein is the Goldman Sachs CEO who claimed that he does gods work.

Snopes left that part out

Posted by: Fastfreddy | Sep 2, 2018 5:13:39 PM | 8

@ 8 Fastfreddy

The mysterious destruction of Building 7 has become the Rosetta Stone of 9/11.

Virtually all independent experts who have studied the case, including thousands of architects and engineers, agree that the government's explanation – that a few small office fires somehow destroyed WTC-7 – is a non-starter. Building 7, these experts say, was obviously taken down in a controlled demolition, as Silverstein himself admitted.

Despite his confession to demolishing his own building, Silverstein received $861 million from insurers for Building 7 alone, as well as over $4 billion for the rest of the Tr

According to Haaretz, Larry Silverstein was a close friend of Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Natanyahu,

https://www.haaretz.com/1.5462012

Posted by: Mona Ahmed Zaki | Sep 2, 2018 6:09:39 PM | 15

ade Center complex. That $861 million for WTC-7 was paid on the basis of Silverstein's claim that airplanes were somehow responsible for making Building 7 (which was not hit by any plane) disappear at free-fall acceleration.

As for Snopes, wasn't the founder David Mikkelson accused of fraud and embezzling company funds?

Posted by: Mona Ahmed Zaki | Sep 2, 2018 5:58:11 PM | 13

[Sep 02, 2018] >Declassified docs reveal how Pentagon aimed to nuke USSR and China into oblivion

Notable quotes:
"... "to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies." ..."
"... "as a viable society" ..."
"... "would no longer be a viable nation," ..."
"... "population loss as the primary yardstick for effectiveness in destroying the enemy society with only collateral attention to industrial damage." ..."
"... "might not be as important," ..."
"... "no-warning US strike" ..."
"... "an unprecedented range and mix of threats" ..."
"... "significant non-nuclear strategic attacks" ..."
"... "confrontational, ..."
"... "Cold-War mentality." ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | www.rt.com

Published time: 2 Sep, 2018 09:41 Get short URL Declassified docs reveal how Pentagon aimed to nuke USSR and China into oblivion US troops during nuclear tests in Nevada. April 1952 © Intercontinentale / AFP 3050 12 Plans for a nuclear war devised by the US Army in the 1960s considered decimating the Soviet Union and China by destroying their industrial potential and wiping out the bulk of their populations, newly declassified documents show.

A review of the US general nuclear war plan by the Joint Staff in 1964, which was recently published by George Washington University's National Security Archive project, shows how the Pentagon studied options "to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies."

The review, conducted two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, devises the destruction of the Soviet Union "as a viable society" by annihilating 70 percent of its industrial floor space during pre-emptive and retaliatory nuclear strikes.

Read more FILE PHOTO: B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber, is an American heavy penetration strategic bomber © U.S. Air Force Despite US denial, nuclear posture review revolves around Russia

A similar goal is tweaked for China, given its more agrarian-based economy at the time. According to the plan, the US would wipe out 30 major Chinese cities, killing off 30 percent of the nation's urban population and halving its industrial capabilities. The successful execution of the large-scale nuclear assault would ensure that China "would no longer be a viable nation," the review reads.

The Joint Staff had proposed to use the "population loss as the primary yardstick for effectiveness in destroying the enemy society with only collateral attention to industrial damage." This "alarming" idea meant that, as long as urban workers and managers were killed, the actual damage to industrial targets "might not be as important," the George Washington University researchers said.

The 1964 plan doesn't specify the anticipated enemy casualty levels, but – as the researchers note – an earlier estimate from 1961 projected that a US attack would kill 71 percent of the residents in major Soviet urban centers and 53 percent of residents in Chinese ones. Likewise, the 1962 estimate predicted the death of 70 million Soviet citizens during a "no-warning US strike" on military and urban-industrial targets.

The Pentagon continues to rely heavily on nuclear deterrence, and – just like in the 1960s – the US nuclear strategy still regards Russian and Chinese military capabilities as main "challenges" faced by Washington. The latest Nuclear Posture Review, adopted in February, outlined "an unprecedented range and mix of threats" emanating from Beijing and Moscow. The document, which mentions Russia 127 times, cites the modernization of the Russian nuclear arsenal as "troubling" for the US.

The existing nuclear strategy also allows the US to conduct nuclear strikes not only in response to enemies' nuclear attacks, but also in response to "significant non-nuclear strategic attacks" on the US, its allies and partners.

The newest US Nuclear Posture Review was heavily criticized by Russia and China. Moscow denounced the strategy as "confrontational, " while Beijing described the Pentagon's approach as an example of "Cold-War mentality."

[Sep 02, 2018] There's a power struggle between Trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there

Notable quotes:
"... For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief Executive. ..."
"... There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there. ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief Executive. It fit Trump's profile and his skepticism about the USIC that he felt no need to have more quasi-official advisors peering over his shoulder. And a year-and-a-half into the first term, the Trump Administration is still suffering from scores of vacancies in important posts in all the executive branch departments.

Now, lo and behold, some appointments have been made to PFIAB, and it don't look good. The only two names I have been able to locate as appointees to the PFIAB are: Steve Feinberg, who was named on May 11, 2018 as the PFIAB chairman, and Samantha Ravich was named more recently as the Board's vice chairman. To date, there are no indications there are any other members. Back in January, Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who founded PayPal and was one of the only Valley big wigs to back Trump for President, rejected the offer to head PFIAB. Thiel's data mining firm Palantir has extensive contracts with the USIC and he may have felt he'd be caught up in conflict of interest allegations. He has also expressed concerns to friends that the Trump Presidency may be headed for oblivion.

So who are the new PFIAB chair and vice chair? Steve Feinberg is a vulture fund magnate, whose Cerberus Capital Management has wrought havoc across the US economy. The firm, founded in 1992 and named after the mythical three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades, Apropos. After looting GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, Feinberg bought up a number of arms manufacturers and defense contractors, including DynCorp. According to his bio on AllGov, Feinberg was trained by ex-Army snipers and set up his own private "military base" outside of Memphis, Tennessee.

Ever the hedger, Feinberg backed Jeb Bush for president, then switched to Donald Trump in the final months of the 2016 campaign, while also bankrolling Chuck Schumer in his Senate re-election campaign.

Samantha Ravich is pure neocon. She was a national security aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and was one of the biggest promoters of the "Saddam WMD" hoax, leading to the Iraq invasion of March 2003. She runs the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Transformative Cyber Innovation Lab, is listed on the FDD site as "principal investigator on FDD's Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project" and Board Advisor on FDD's Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance. She is an advisor to the Chertoff Group.

You can't get more neocon than Samantha Ravich.

Question: Has President Trump finally caved in to the neocon long march through the institutions? Is PFIAB another romper room for son-in-law and Netanyahu captive and love slave Jared Kushner? Will PFIAB actually have a role or simply be a window dressing that Trump ignores as he relies on a handful of cabinet and White House advisors and his rolodex of billionaire friends who he chats up most evenings from the East Wing?

Insights are welcome.

jdledell , 12 hours ago

What I don't understand is after Iraq, who in the world with any brains would listen to the Neo-cons again? As a veteran of the NY real estate wars, Trump has run into tons of snake oil salesmen in his life and survived because he did not listen to them. What arguments are neo-cons now advancing that would overcome all our previous mistakes and cause Trump to not boot them out of the room. In my previous job as interim CFO of Prudential I was involved with the negotiations with Trump and his Japanese partner over selling the ground under the Empire State Building in 1991. At least back then, Trump did not listen to anyone except what his gut told him. His mannerisms and personality have not changed one iota from those days to his Presidency so why would Trump be susceptible to the nwo-cons when it goes against the grain of everything he has espoused in the past.

Pat Lang Mod , 17 hours ago

Sad, but Trump doesn't pay any attention to groups like that. For him anything like that is just PR and shareholder relations. He is much more interested in what the true loudmouths on the boob tube have to say.

Vicky SD -> Pat Lang , 13 hours ago

It's amazing to me that somebody who has engaged in NYC business and politics for so long is so oblivious of how and when the strings are pulled when something needs to get done. Is it even humanly possible that the same person that got himself into the WH can be so oblivious. It's really an enigma. But then again, you kindly like to point out that sometimes the most obvious explanations are the ones staring you right in the face

cobaltbluedolphins , 12 hours ago

Somewhat off topic but interesting . . .

"Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah Calls Israeli Military Weak: He is Correct"

https://therealnews.com/sto...

VietnamVet , 13 hours ago

Donald Trump doesn't have an ideology or think tanks backing him; only his family. He is in his 70s. He will appoint GOP flacks who didn't diss him in the past notwithstanding if they are neocons or not. What he has done is jump in front of the parade. The FBI ran a sting on Mayor of Tallahassee who is now the Democrat's Florida candidate for governor. The power class is trying to contain the parade and direct it in the direction that they want. If it goes wild, they will jail it.

im cotton , 13 hours ago

More on Stephen Feinberg and his military connections:

"Through DynCorp, Feinberg already controls one of the largest military
contractors in the U.S., one which trains Afghanistan's police force and
assists in their narcotics-trafficking countermeasures. According to the
Times, Feinberg proposed an expanded role for such contractors, and
also recommended transferring the command of paramilitary operations in
the country to the C.I.A., increasing their operating footprint while
decreasing both transparency and accountability. He reportedly discussed
Afghanistan with President Trump in person."

https://www.newyorker.com/b...

I hope the Colonel is right and Trump pays no mind to these people.

pretzelattack , 16 hours ago

same old bullshit in a new bottle.

Pat Lang Mod -> pretzelattack , 16 hours ago

You need to be more precise. Which BS and in whose bottles?

pretzelattack -> Pat Lang , 14 hours ago

same bullshit from the MIC, promoting war in Syria, in the bottles of the democrats and the republicans. both parties are supporting the Russia bullshit -- look at the politics swirling around McCain's funeral for example.

Both parties interfere in the middle east, paying off different sides, fighting al Qaida one place, supporting them in Syria.

Both parties promote people like Bolton, with Bolton's agenda. Trump's main value is as a destabilizer, which is why the established republicans and the democrats hate him, but the people he surrounds himself with are very telling.

There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there.

Pat Lang Mod -> pretzelattack , 12 hours ago

The MIC meme is such an inadequate concept. tell me exactly how the defense industry companies control foreign policy. Explain it to me.

Snow Flake , 18 hours ago

Ok, no insights or insides to offer, Harper, but from my own reading of Trump's Foreign Policy Speech, scripted it was, I seem to recall I was told then vs earlier ad lib approaches, I somewhat assumed this more general road into the future under Trump.

Strictly I dislike it deeply to approach anything resembling the, I" told you so" pattern. It could suggest I only search for bits and pieces that fit in.

Irony/sarcasm alert: How well did the respectively selected PFIAB experts conform under Bush, Obama? And who but a master in business would fit into let's say Trump's larger meme-strategy: we have been exploited as a nation by close to everyone for ages?

Fred -> Snow Flake , 12 hours ago

What a wonderful insightful comment. Other than missing that PFIAB helped sell the Iraq WMD, just like they were paid to do; and this pair will do the same next time out.

Pat Lang Mod -> Snow Flake , 17 hours ago

You are right. So called intelligence experts are worthless. I think of myself as just lucky, but for a long time.

[Sep 02, 2018] Bombing it induced a humanitarian crisis in the coastal region where Gaddafi's power was concentrated, contributed to a wave of refugees, and let the cities which supported him know they were not impregnable, that their weaknesses were being exploited

Sep 02, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN August 31, 2018 at 2:41 am

Bombing it induced a humanitarian crisis in the coastal region where Gaddafi's power was concentrated, contributed to a wave of refugees, and let the cities which supported him know they were not impregnable, that their weaknesses were being exploited. The stupid cover story, solemnly intoned by talking heads who believe their listeners are almost too stupid to breathe without prompting and assistance, was because cutting the civilian population off from water in order to force capitulation is a war crime.

[Sep 02, 2018] Is a 'Suez' Event Being Prepared for Syria by ALASTAIR CROOKE

Sep 01, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

So, the metamorphosis is done. President Trump has finally, fully, shed his 2016 Campaign 'skin' of loosely imagining a grand foreign policy bargain that could be the foundation for "WORLD PEACE, nothing less!" as Trump tweeted when imposing sanctions on Iran. We wrote, on 3 August, quoting Prof Russell-Mead, that Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' (the US exit from JCPOA), constituted a step-change of direction: one that reflected "[Trump's] instincts, telling him that most Americans are anything but eager, for a "post-American" world. Trump's supporters don't want long wars, "but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline".

It all began, very precisely, with Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' - which is to say, to the moment when the US president definitively took the Israeli 'line': exiting from the Iranian nuclear accord, deciding to sanction and to lay siege to Iran's economy, and when he endorsed the (old, never materialized) idea of a Sunni 'Arab NATO', led by Riyadh, that would confront Shi'a Iran.

In practical terms, Trump's Art of the Deal geo-strategy, as we now see, became thus transformed into the search for radical US leverage (through weaponising a strong dollar and tariffs) -- looking always to the means to force the capitulation of the counter-party. This cannot be rightly termed negotiation: It is rather, more as if the script has been lifted from The Godfather.

But, when Trump unreservedly took the Israeli (or, more properly the Netanyahu) 'line', he assumed to himself all 'the baggage' that comes with it, too. The 1996 Clean Break document, prepared by a study group led by Richard Perle for Binjamin Netanyahu, meshed the Israeli and US neocon camps into one. And they are still umbilically linked. 'Team Trump' now is filled with neocons who are unreserved Iran-haters. And Sheldon Adelson (a major Trump donor, a patron of Netanyahu, and the instigator for the US embassy move to Jerusalem), consequently has been able to implant his ally, John Bolton (a neocon), as Trump's chief foreign policy advisor.

The Art of the Deal has effectively been neocon-ised into a tool for enlarging American power – and there is nothing of earlier 'mutual advantage' to be heard of, or to be seen, these days.

And now, this week, the metamorphosis has been cemented. After the Helsinki summit between Trump and President Putin, there seemed to have opened a small window of opportunity – for co-operation between the two states - to return stability to Syria. Many hoped that from this small terrain of tentative Syria co-ordination, some lessening of tensions between the US and Russia, might have found fertile soil.

Trump said some positive things; the area around Dera'a, in south Syria, was smoothly cleared of insurgents, and was retaken by the Syrian army. Israel did not demur in having the Syrian army as their near neighbours. But then co-operation rather obviously stalled. It is not clear why, but perhaps this was the first sign of power fracturing apart in Washington. The Helsinki 'understandings' somehow were melting away (though military-to-military co-ordination continued).

Putin dispatched the head of the Russian Security Council to a meeting with Bolton in Geneva on 23 August, to explore whether there was still any possibility for joint co-operation; and, if so, was such activity politically 'viable'. But before even that bilateral meeting with a Russian envoy could be held, Bolton - speaking from Jerusalem (from what was billed as a 'roll-back Iran' brainstorming with PM Netanyahu) - warned that the United States would respond "very strongly" if forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons in the offensive to retake Idlib province (expected to commence early September), claiming that the US had intelligence of the intent to use such weapons in Idlib.

The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, however, said on August 25 "Militants of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), [trained by a named British company], are preparing to stage a chemical attack in northern Syria that will be used as a pretext for a new missile strike by the U.S., the UK and France - on facilities of the Damascus government". Russian officials said they had full intelligence on this false flag operation.

What is clear is that since early August the US has been moving a task force (including the USS The Sullivans and USS Ross) into position that would be able to strike Syria, as well as positioning air assets into the US airbase in Qatar. French President Emmanuel Macron too has declared that France was also ready to launch new strikes against Syria, in case of a chemical weapons attack there.

The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet says that the US military is laying the groundwork to close the airspace over northern Syria. US military freighters are reported to have transported radar systems to the city of Kobanî, controlled by the Kurdish militia, and to the US military base in Al-Shaddadah in southern al-Hasakah. Hurriyet claims that the US plans to use these complexes to establish a no-fly zone over the territory between Manbij in Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor. (This claim however, is unconfirmed)

Evidently, Russia takes this US threat seriously (it has deployed 20 naval vessels into the E. Mediterranean, off Syria). And Iran evidently takes the threat seriously, too. The Iranian Defence Minister on Sunday made a rapid unscheduled visit to Damascus in order to agree a tri-partite (Russia, Syria Iran) response to any US attack on Syria.

Then, in the wake of Bolton's chemical weapons claims, and the pre-positioning of US guided-missile vessels close to Syria, Petrushev and Bolton met. The meeting was a disaster. Bolton insisted that Petrushev admit to Russian interference in the US elections. Petrushev refused. Trump said we have 'secret' evidence. Petrushev retorted if that were so, what was the purpose of demanding admission. Bolton said effectively: We sanction you anyway.

Well not surprisingly, the two were unable to agree on Iranian withdrawal from Syria (which Petrushev put on the table). Bolton not only said flatly 'no', but afterwards went public with the Russian initiative to talk possible Iran withdrawal – thus killing it, and killing the initiative as a gambit to leverage further diplomacy. Even the customary, bland, uninformative, final communiqué that is usual in such circumstances, could not be agreed.

The message seems clear: any Helsinki understandings on Syria are dead. And the US is prepared it seems (they have actually moved assets into position) to strike Syria. Why? What is going on?

One obvious element is, that until now, Trump's hand in all this is not visible. Now, power appears to have fractured in Washington with regard to Middle East policy. The neocons are in the lead. This is very significant, since the slender pillar on which Trump's rapport with President Putin had been built, was the prospect of US-Russian co-operation over Syria. And that hat seems, now, to be a dead letter.

Lawrence Wilkerson, now a professor, but formerly the Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the infamous Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction' episode says it 'cold' :

"It has to do with the return of the Neoconservatives (Neocons) what is happening today, as Trump is preoccupied increasingly with the considerable, ever-growing challenges to him personally and to his presidency institutionally, is the re-entry into critical positions in the government of these people, the people who gave America the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even those many of them who declared "Never Trump" -- as arch-Neocon Eliot Cohen summed it up -- are salivating at the prospect of carrying out their foreign and security policy - while Trump essentially boils in his own corrupt juices.

"A vanguard, of course, is already in our government to beckon, comfort, and re-establish others of their type. John Bolton as national security advisor to the president leads this pack though he's not, strictly speaking, a card-carrying Neocon

"Presently, their first and most identifiable target is the unfinished business -- which they largely commenced -- with Syria and Iran, Israel's two most serious potential threats. If the Neocons got their way -- and they are remarkably astute at getting their way -- it would mean a reignited war in Syria and a new war with Iran, as well as increased support for the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth, Saudi Arabia".

Bolton, Pompeo and the neocons have made it abundantly clear that they – at least – have not abandoned 'regime change' in Syria, as their objective - and they remain set on delivering somehow a strategic setback to Iran (Bolton has said that sanctions alone, on their own, and without Iran suffering some extra strategic blow, would be insufficient to alter Iranian 'malign behaviour').

Whether or not Mattis and Votel are fully on board with Bolton's "very strong" military reprisal on Syria threat (for alleged chemical weapons use) is not clear. (Mattis succeeded in mitigating the last missile strike by Trump on Syria, and to co-ordinating with Moscow a 'nil response' to Trump's Tomahawk salvo). Will it be the same this time if the US again makes an unsubstantiated (and later unproven) claim of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government?

Will Israel join in any attack – using the pre-text of its self-awarded 'right' to attack Iranian forces anywhere in Syria? Given the new strategic 'fact' of the Iranian Defence minister's 'surprise' Sunday visit to Damascus to sign a common resolve on countering any such attack on Syria. Will Netayahu 'bet' on the Russians not responding to hostile Israeli aircraft entering Syrian airspace?

Who will blink first? Netanyahu? Or will Trump surface from his domestic tribulations sufficiently, to take notice and to say 'no' ?

Whatever happens, Presidents Putin and Xi can 'read the runes' of this affair – which is to say that President Trump's highest officials remain committed, openly, or through 'false flags', to defend the American 'global order'. These officials share a disdain for the Obama administration's retrenchment and retreat. They want to arrest, and even truncate the rise of America's rivals, whilst restoring to their former position, those former pillars to U.S. world power: i.e. America's military, financial, technological and energy, dominance.

Russia is trying to defuse the critical situation by sharing their intelligence with Washington that Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra), was plotting a chemical attack that would then be misrepresented as another 'atrocity' committed by the 'Syrian regime'. Eight canisters of chlorine have been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a specially trained group of militants, prepped by a British security company, have also arrived in the area, to imitate a rescue operation to save the civilian 'victims'. Militants plan to use child hostages in the staged incident, Russian officials say .

But will Washington listen? From the moment that the Syrian or the Iranian 'regime' is subjected to a judgement of moral delinquency (irrespective of evidence) – in the context of America's claim to its own Manifest (moral) Destiny – these 'regimes' become transformed from being a temporary, relative adversaries, into an absolute enemy. For, when one is upholding humanity's 'destiny' and seeking "WORLD PEACE, nothing less!", how can one wage war - unless it is in the name of a self-evident good. What is afoot is not attacking an adversary, but punishing and killing the guilty.

Faced with the radical moral devaluation of the 'Other' across western media; and - on the other hand - with the virtue signaling of western good consciousness, can Russia's rational presentations hope to carry weight? The only fact that might just weigh in the balance is the threat that Russia will use its missile arsenal assembling in the East Mediterranean. But what then?

[Sep 02, 2018] A few are beginning to wake up to the reality that snatching Ukraine away from Russia was never about prosperity and security for its people, and all about destabilizing Russia by MARK CHAPMAN

Notable quotes:
"... Washington – does not give a fuck about the economic well-being of Ukrainians, does not have even the brotherly connection of being of the same ethnic group, and for so long as Ukraine is willing to suffer being poor in silence, for that long it will not be a problem for its new 'partners'. ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN August 30, 2018 at 8:05 am

A few are beginning to wake up to the reality that snatching Ukraine away from Russia was never about prosperity and security for its people, and all about destabilizing what the west perceived as the quickening of an unwelcome regional influence, and curbing it. The EU – and its string-puller, Washington – does not give a fuck about the economic well-being of Ukrainians, does not have even the brotherly connection of being of the same ethnic group, and for so long as Ukraine is willing to suffer being poor in silence, for that long it will not be a problem for its new 'partners'.

Nationalist Nazi nutjobs are always proposing the border be sealed ever-tighter, if it were feasible to build a stainless-steel wall between Ukraine and Russia which reached to low earth orbit, they would vote for it. But the Great Wall Of Yatsenyuk never materialized, he's enjoying his Florida condo, and there is no practical way to limit commerce between the two countries while the people are increasingly motivated toward its continuing.

Ukraine is on the edge of collapse, and I don't think any force on earth can prevent its sliding over the edge. The west is not going to pony up the $170 Billion or so it would take to rescue it; if it did so, Porky and his minions would steal most of it for themselves, and Russia is unlikely to ever permit again the degree of fraternal closeness that existed between the two countries, since it is clear it would take only another western intervention to render it once again an untrustworthy spoiler. Once Nord Stream II is built, Ukraine will have lost its leverage and will be of no further significant value to the western purveyors of destabilization.

More such core realization is necessary to prevent Ukraine from officially blaming its collapse on anyone but itself. The government will try that course, naturally, and you don't need to be able to see very far into the future to know that it is Russia who will be blamed, despite plenty of empirical evidence that Russian investors and Ukrainian refugees working in Russia were all that kept it alive before the end. But in order that Ukrainians know in their heart of hearts that their government stepped on its own dick over and over, and that they passively failed to correct it, there needs to be more such public confession. I can show you plenty of analysis, in English, published before things went pear-shaped in the dying moments of 2013, which proposed that severing trade relationships with Russia as the nationalists insisted would cost Ukraine just about exactly what the Rada now says will happen, years too late. But they got one thing right – Ukraine and Russia cannot be brothers, not even friends, for so long as Ukraine harbours that nutty nationalist element.

Give western Ukraine to Poland, and encourage all the nationalists to go to the new paradise, and ensure that happens. They can bore the Poles with their raptures about Kievan Rus. Then maybe some relationship could be salvaged.

[Sep 02, 2018] Zakharchenko was a soldier and knew the risks, many others are ready to take his place

This war is tremendous waste of resources on both sides with no clear victory in sight. Killing of individual commanders does not change the strategic situation. It just invites retaliation.
Although the war did increase the coherence of the Ukrainian society (like any war does) the price is way too high.
Sep 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Aaron Hillel -> johngaltfla Fri, 08/31/2018 - 22:41 Permalink

No, they wont.

Zakharchenko was a soldier and knew the risks, many others are ready to take his place.

VV Putin could have occupied the whole so-called ukraine in the same manner he occupied Crimea, even better, he could've sent volunteers to shoot CIA and Mossad agents during the maidan events.Lots of volunteers.

He didnt.

Please consider that ukraine project is an infinite black hole sucking money and resources (agents, weapons, influence) from the Hegemon, at the same time bringing him absolutely nothing.

Especially the Debaltsevo cauldron was painful, as lots of modern artillery control gear was lost in pristine state and sent directly to Moscow.Without considering the humiliation of German and Canadian mercenaries being caught and released for indeterminate price.

In exchange the Hegemon learned that Russian artillery is still as dangerous as in '45, at Saur Mogila whole battalions of Ukrainian army disappeared literally in minutes when caught by Buratino fire.

Perhaps some remember the shellshocked Ukrainian infantry lieutenant, when interviewed by CNN freshly out of Ilovaisk, screaming into the mic that *two meters, you must dig two meters, or you die!* , well-intentioned American female reporter decidedly confused.

The show will go on until Hegemon decides that he had enough, and gives green light to the ukrainian army to coup the govt, exterminate the nazi battalions, and begin a very slow and painful ascension back into a semblance of normality first, then re-unification with the Motherland next.

As usual, the most vulnerable, old people, women, workers will suffer the most, and the guilty will go unpunished.

Ace006 -> Aaron Hillel Sat, 09/01/2018 - 02:57 Permalink

The Russians didn't "occupy" Crimea. They were already there. It's not like they needed to subdue a hostile local populace.

Aaron Hillel -> Ace006 Sat, 09/01/2018 - 08:22 Permalink

I meant *occupy* in military sense, as in denying a sector to the enemy.

[Sep 02, 2018] Slide to national security state due to crisis of neoliberalism was unavoidable

Neoliberalism did improved that conditions of top 20% population, but not the rest, who actually lost the standard of living achived under the New Deal capitalism
Notable quotes:
"... Financial capitalism under the neoliberal 'ideology' that has started in the early 70s, has offered a fake prosperity - all based on debt - for the masses in Western societies, for a couple of decades. Through this way, the ruling class managed to 'hypnotize' the majority, hiding the enormous fraud. This 'hypnosis' made societies compromise with the wars and destruction outside the Western soil. ..."
"... When this illusion collapsed, the ugly picture of reality paralyzed the societies. The police state became stronger under the pretext of terrorism to crush any thoughts for uprising against the fake democracy. ..."
"... the warmongers of the regime don't even bother to search for pretexts to conduct new wars. ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.com

Financial capitalism under the neoliberal 'ideology' that has started in the early 70s, has offered a fake prosperity - all based on debt - for the masses in Western societies, for a couple of decades. Through this way, the ruling class managed to 'hypnotize' the majority, hiding the enormous fraud. This 'hypnosis' made societies compromise with the wars and destruction outside the Western soil.
As long as this colourful circus was performing on the stage of a deceptive ideological framework, very few bothered to question and condemn the undemocratic nature of the West. And they were often being characterized as 'radicals' by the establishment machine.
When this illusion collapsed, the ugly picture of reality paralyzed the societies. The police state became stronger under the pretext of terrorism to crush any thoughts for uprising against the fake democracy.
The more people wake up and realize the authoritarian nature of the regime, the more it will becoming more authoritarian. Just think for a moment: it's not only the increasing censorship, the brutality of the police state. It is also the fact that the warmongers of the regime don't even bother to search for pretexts to conduct new wars.
Varoufakis says that Europe and the United States were never set up as democracies. And that it is impossible for our sophisticated societies to become sustainable without democracy. It is highly questionable whether our societies are indeed sophisticated apart from the technological progress. Yet, there is no doubt that they are walking away from real democracy instead of trying to approach it. So, instead of becoming sustainable, they become increasingly unstable, which fatally leads to their final collapse.

[Sep 02, 2018] An Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear sites is going to involve F-15 and F-16 jets loaded to the gills with big-arse bombs. Those will be unable to dogfight even a relic like an F-5 unless they drop that ordinance.

Sep 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Yeah, Right , Sep 2, 2018 1:27:48 AM | link

@82 There is some logic to the Iranians fielding a jet fighter of any sort, even if it is based on a relic of the 1970s.

An Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear sites is going to involve F-15 and F-16 jets loaded to the gills with big-arse bombs. Those will be unable to dogfight even a relic like an F-5 unless they drop that ordinance.

If that is all those Iranians do that then they will have achieved their purpose.

Alternatively, the Israelis could use fighter escorts but then you have to consider that each escort represents one less bomb-laden F-16 (or, put another way, twice as many sorties).

Simply put: Absent any Iranian jet fighters then the Israelis can commit ALL of their jets to the task of bombing Iranian targets, and do so from the very beginning. But once Iranian fighters are in the mix then the job becomes much harder: the Israelis either have to take out those jets first before committing to a bombing campaign, or they have to commit half their force to escort duties from the very start.

Sure, SU-35s would be much better, but an F-5 is still way better than nothing.

partizan , Sep 2, 2018 3:40:55 AM | link

@Yeah, Right | Sep 2, 2018 1:27:48 AM | 144

the Iranian defense budget is one of lowest in that part of the world. even tiny Dubai has higher one.

upgrading an old fighter jet (not only jet) is sometime more costly than developing a new one.

su-35 flanker-e 4++ costs about $85 million a piece. i simply refuse to believe they cannot afford that.

[Sep 02, 2018] The countries that are truly dependent on Russia are in ex-communist Eastern Europe. They still rely on a network of pipelines built by USSR, and would go into energy crisis if Russia suddenly ended supply.

Sep 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Felix Keverich , says: September 1, 2018 at 10:48 pm GMT

@AquariusAnon

You seem ignorant about economic issues. For example, when it comes to natural gas market, European countries are not in the same boat. Britain and Spain import virtually no gas from Russia. These countries built lots LNG terminals and import from Qatar.

Germany, Italy and France have a well-diversified supply from multiple sources. The countries that are truly dependent on Russia are in ex-communist Eastern Europe. They still rely on a network of pipelines built by USSR, and would go into energy crisis if Russia suddenly ended supply.

There is no Chinese FDI in Belarus, and in Russia it accounts for 1% of the total FDI. Nobody is learning Chinese in Russia or Belarus. I don't know what you're smoking.

[Sep 02, 2018] Foreign currency private debt is worse in Russia than in the rest of East-Central Europe other than Hungary

Sep 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Thorfinnsson , says: September 1, 2018 at 9:49 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

Sure, but Russia is not Turkey/Ukraine/Argentina-tier. I am furthermore under the impression that it has better fundamentals than most of East-Central Europe.

Foreign currency debt is worse in Russia than in the rest of East-Central Europe other than Hungary. That said Russia's robust current account surplus means that a financial crisis is highly unlikely. Russia also has competent adults in charge of monetary policy and banking regulation.

Turkey is meanwhile run by a completely lunatic who believes that high interest rates cause inflation. Turkish secret police are now also imprisoning people for the "crime" of speaking ill of the Lira. Makes the Argies look good in comparison.

I suspect they are just afraid of independent people getting too much of the super wealth generated in those industries. These people are going to be structurally drawn towards loyalty to the West, and Russia's means of overseeing them are far more modest than China's. United Russia is no CPC.

Other policy tools to keep the rich disciplined are available. Capital controls, credit controls, punitive taxation, regulation, etc. Some of these policy tools might also be quite popular with Russian voters, especially in the wake of the pension reform.

A lot of corporate equity can also come to be owned by ordinary people themselves with an appropriately designed pension system. Good examples of this are Sweden, Chile, and (surprisingly) Malaysia. America's tax-deferred defined contribution pension programs are also a good model.

Privatization can even have a bit of a populist flair. The Thatcher government ran advertising campaigns promoting shares of crown corporations soon to be listed to ordinary retail investors.

They are of course highly inefficient and corrupt. Though that might be more feature than bug, as it gives the people around Putin direct access to financial firepower. This is the standard explanation, anyway. While I can understand that being the case for Rosneft, Gazprom – which is even less well run – essentially gives away money to connected subcontractors, as argued in the recent report by Alex Fak at Sberbank's investment banking division. But those subcontractors as far as I'm aware are not even an important mainstay of the regime – most are just talented grifters.

No doubt, but presumably the views of Russians themselves also play a role. Plenty of Sovoks around who think state ownership is glorious, and obviously the Wild '90s are not fondly remembered.

[Sep 02, 2018] Is the next US aggression on Syria already scheduled- by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... The brilliant usefulness of this system of faux "government" is that it gives the puppet masters maximum flexibility – which is especially valuable in the uncharted waters they're presently in which involve testing limits and probing for red lines. ..."
"... In practice, the well-meaning and always blameless Trump surrounds himself with a coterie of people of varying degrees of unreasonableness, and then gets to pick one from the magazine as the situation warrants, or something like that. ..."
"... For example, when he makes bellicose threats against Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc., he's listening to Pompeo or Bolton; and then, if/when it appears Russia will retaliate militarily and he needs a way out, the more reasonable Mattis luckily catches his ear and "convinces him" to back down. ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

...

Ma Laoshi , says: August 31, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT

Things have gone waaay past the point where Russia can be praised for its "restraint". Every one of Russia's four previous premature withdrawal announcements from Syria has had the predictable consequence of only emboldening its enemies. So what is Putin to do? Why, a fifth premature withdrawal announcement of course. And between this one and the last, Lavrov has gone on the record as stating the Russia will not shoot at Americans under any circumstances. If one makes such a show of signaling that Russia's Syria mission is not meant to have a deterrent effect, why be surprised if you get taken at your word. The Russian naval task force that matters seems to be the gaggle of oligarchs calling Putin from their yachts, imploring him to appease, appease, appease.

Why is it always all or nothing with these "pro-Russia military experts". America doesn't need a "major military defeat", America needs consequences. Trump is very vulnerable once his political base finds out that he's embarked on a massive nation-building project in E Syria. But so far, the deplorables have had no reason to pay attention because the occupation has been cheap. You serve up some payback for the assassinated Russian general, the Wagner personnel, and the jet downed by a MANPAD which was just lying around with the moderates, and the calculus changes. But this would require shelving the partnership delusions in lieu of, well, reality. Have the Kremlin critters simply become too old for that?

Max Payne , says: August 31, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT

.a nuclear war has become so unthinkable that many have concluded that it can never happen.

It's true. Netanyahu is not going to let Russia and the US destroy the debt-cattle of which Israel-firsters survive off of.

This is the man that stood next to Putin and decided to talk about Iran during the victory day parade.

So relax guy.

War for Blair Mountain , says: August 31, 2018 at 4:11 pm GMT

Pompeo the cockroach .how do you say this in Russian?

War for Blair Mountain , says: August 31, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

In the beginning .Satan created the filthy cockroach for practice then Satan immediately created Mike Pompeo .

Sean , says: August 31, 2018 at 7:30 pm GMT

Israel had joint exercises with Russia and probably they know exactly how to defeat the most advanced Russian AA weapons systems. ( not something Iran which had paid through the nose for those systems was happy about) . America will be told.

[W]orld hegemony by violence.

What other kind is there?

Felix Keverich , says: August 31, 2018 at 7:30 pm GMT
@Ma Laoshi

If anything, Putin could start by imposing consequences for the Ukraine. They killed DNR leader today.

Harold Smith , says: August 31, 2018 at 8:22 pm GMT

"Sadly, the rather evident answer to that is that the upcoming missile strike has less to do with the war in Syria and much more to do with internal US politics."

Is it possible that, in their desperation, Orange Clown and his jewish-supremacist handlers seek to undermine Vladimir Putin's domestic political support by trying to make him look weak? IOW every time Orange Clown does another war crime in Syria, and Vladimir Putin fails to respond firmly, he's portrayed as being weak/indecisive, which at some point will start to take a serious political toll if it hasn't already.

If this is their intent, then it may actually behoove the perpetrators to let their false-flag plans be "discovered." The more outrageously brazen they are, the more deliberately sloppy they are, the worse Putin will look if he does nothing decisive in response.

To put it another way, the Orange Clown demoniac and its demoniac handlers, knowing that Vladimir Putin is restrained because he doesn't want to risk escalation to nuclear war, are using the whole world as a "human shield" to attack Putin politically by committing unanswered war crimes in Syria.

Virgile , says: August 31, 2018 at 9:16 pm GMT

Russia holds a strong card that it will use if the USA bombs Syria: Iranian army on Israel border with Syria.
Israel is panicking to see Iran at its borders in Syria, in Lebanon and Iraq gradually joining in. It is trying to get the USA to announce annexation of the Golan Heights so that the presence of Iranians troops will be seen as an aggression. As long as the Golan Heights is a Syrian occupied land Iran has a justification to be present there at the invitation of Syria.
Russia is the only power that could negotiate with Syria and Iran for a restraint. Israel is now a hostage and it is probably begging the USA either to announce the Golan Heights annexation or to stop antagonizing Russia.
Putin is certainly playing this card. Will Trump announce the annexation of the Golan Heights to neutralize this card?

Confused , says: August 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm GMT

I'm confused.

Russia knows the who, what, why and where of the planned false flag.

And it takes no action to stop it. No soldiers, either Syrian or others, no bombing campaign, nothing.

It just complains and hopes "international opinion" will cause FUKUS to change course because, whining works.

And so we get the State Department response as in this vid that "they try to put the blame, they try to put the onus on other groups and we don't buy that."

AnonFromTN , says: August 31, 2018 at 11:13 pm GMT

Silly question. Of course, it's scheduled and planned. Head-choppers in Idlib received whatever will be passed as the chemical weapons of the Syrian forces and abducted a number of children that will be sacrificed as "victims of chemical attack".
The only question is whether will the US go through with it, goaded by Israel and neocons, or whether common sense (or cowardice) prevails and the aggression will be called off.
We'll see soon enough.

Felix Keverich , says: September 1, 2018 at 2:49 am GMT
@Confused

You mean bomb the storage of chemicals? Wouldn't this cause a release of dangerous gas? And then the rebels would say that Russia dropped chemical bomb.

Personally, I think it's BS. Russia has no solid intel, and is spreading propaganda preemptively, "crying wolf". The attack itself is less important than international reaction to it, so Russia's goal in this is to prepare the public opinion that some chemical incident might happen.

James Charles , says: September 1, 2018 at 10:09 am GMT

'One of many truths lost within this discourse is the reality that the creation of a no-fly zone would, in the words of the most senior general in the US Armed Forces, mean the US going to war "against Syria and Russia". '

https://mronline.org/2016/12/13/allday131216-html/

Realist , says: September 1, 2018 at 10:10 am GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Pompeo the cockroach .how do you say this in Russian?

Trump is responsible for Pompeo.

War for Blair Mountain , says: September 1, 2018 at 11:26 am GMT
@Realist

Trump is a puppet .Pompeo is running the show .

I'm not suggesting that Pompeo is a Russian puppet ..I am stating that Pompeo is a cockroach and I would like to know how to say this in Russian ..

Pompeo is a psychopath who works on behalf of the special interests that own the US .and these special interests are:Israel .Military Industrial Complex .Big Oil ..and Silicon Valley ..

Pompeo enjoys the power he has .and using this power to murder millions ..Pompeo will be in a state of rapturous joy perhaps in 7 days ..when his species .blataria .begin its one billion .two billion .three billion year reign on the Planet Earth .Pompeo and Hillary Clinton will be the King and Queen breeding pair of this virulent blataria species when they step out of their concrete bunker on the 8th day of this SATANIC CREATION

Harold Smith , says: September 1, 2018 at 1:49 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

"Trump is a puppet .Pompeo is running the show ."

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

The most plausible theory is what I would call my theory of "government by disingenuous dialectics." In this theory, the perfidious Orange Clown (Trump) and all of those around him are nothing more than puppets; they're all actors on a stage. Of course Trump is cast as the central figure, the fickle "decider," who is at the same time portrayed as a hapless victim; a weak-willed, impressionable, morally/philosophically rudderless character; a sympathetic figure who has generally "good" intentions, but who finds himself in complete reliance on those around him for guidance.

The brilliant usefulness of this system of faux "government" is that it gives the puppet masters maximum flexibility – which is especially valuable in the uncharted waters they're presently in which involve testing limits and probing for red lines.

In practice, the well-meaning and always blameless Trump surrounds himself with a coterie of people of varying degrees of unreasonableness, and then gets to pick one from the magazine as the situation warrants, or something like that.

For example, when he makes bellicose threats against Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc., he's listening to Pompeo or Bolton; and then, if/when it appears Russia will retaliate militarily and he needs a way out, the more reasonable Mattis luckily catches his ear and "convinces him" to back down.

As another example, when he launched those 59 cruise missiles at Syrian govt. military forces and infrastructure, it wasn't because that's what his jewish-supremacist handlers wanted, it was because of his daughter's tears at the sight of dead children.

Greg Bacon , says: Website September 2, 2018 at 4:45 am GMT

Like former Trump advisor Steve Bannon said, the Trump that we fought for to win the WH is gone. The neo-cons know most Americans are worn out, and sick of these endless ME wars, which we have spent trillions on (and which we have no legit interest in fighting), while watching our infrastructure go to hell because of lack of money spent on maintenance, but they don't give a damn, since their loyalty is to Israel.

Trump has allowed himself to be surrounded and has surrendered to the worst of the worst war mongering neoCONs, like that vile nut case Bolton, who thinks mass murder of the real Semites, like the Syrians and Iranians, is the answer to any question.

Not only did multi-billionaire and rabid Zionist Sheldon Adelson pay for the new US Embassy in Jerusalem, he also apparently purchased what remained of Trump's soul. This is the same sadist that thinks the US should drop a nuke or two in the Iranian desert, just to show them we mean business. What business, the mass-murder of Iranians?

Just watch this 'Best of My War Mongering' by the ultimate war mongering neo-con, John McCain, as he talks about killing Persians in such an excited way, he almost looks like he has an orgasm at the same time.
That's the kind of dangerous crazies now running the Trump WH, with Shadow President Kushner passing info to and fro his bed buddy, Israeli PM and War Criminal Netenyahu.

P.S. I actually thought the neo-con crazies would have given 'Insane McCain' a rousing send off to Hades by launching a massive missile attack against Syria, but maybe those Russian warships in the eastern Med, with their superior EW jamming units and anti-missile guns, made them actually think rationally for once.

Daniel Rich , says: September 2, 2018 at 5:02 am GMT

During the Vietnam 'war' the US lost a total of 1,737 aircraft to hostile action [accidents not included]. A lot were shot down by Russian pilots in Vietnamese uniforms. It didn't lead to WWIII.

Why would it this time?

alley cat , says: September 2, 2018 at 7:03 am GMT

While U.S. neocons hold the world hostage to their game of nuclear chicken , even the dimmest American jingos are beginning to perceive that the neocons may be a greater threat to humanity's survival than the Russian president.

Thankfully, Putin is slowly outflanking the neocon crazies on every front. He bobs and weaves while their punches land on air. Putin will continue to shun direct confrontation with these megalomaniacs armed with nuclear weapons as long as he is winning on the battlefield in Syria as well as on the battlefield of public opinion.

Putin is winning because he has a strong ally that the neocons never took into account: sanity . Sanity mandates that Syrians choose Assad over ISIS, and thus the neocons ultimately face their own stark choice: a rational, multipolar world like the one Putin is advocating, or nuclear incineration. The Russians and the Syrians are going to persevere. Since the neocons are power mad but not completely psychotic, they will read the handwriting on the wall, declare victory, and leave.

The reed is stronger than the oak.

Mike P , says: September 2, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT

The purpose seems simply to provoke the Russians into a more forceful reaction than the last time. The CIA probably fed them the recon about the impending "gas attack" on purpose. Pompeo telling them that "they will be held responsible" is intended to induce Russia to strike at American targets first, which will then, together with the "chemical attack", be passed off to the American public as evidence of evil Russian aggression. At the same time, the noise about "Trump the Russian Puppet" will ramp up once more, "spontaneous" mass demonstrations will gather in the streets, and down he goes. At least that is the plan. Russia would be stupid to play along with this. Their naval and air reconnaissance build-up is meant to avoid the need of striking first by providing sufficient protection from an American first strike. Being able to say to Americans "you gave it your best shot, but we denied you" will be a strong enough statement on the world stage.

DESERT FOX , says: September 2, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT

The U.S. and NATO are in Syria illegally, while Russia was invited in by the Syrian government to help defend against an attack by the U.S./ISRAEL/BRITAIN created ISIS aka AL CIADA and so Syria is being destroyed by the Zionist forces that control the U.S. and Britain and all of Europe.

The problem is that Zionists are in control and have the U.S. and NATO destroying the Mideast for Zionist Israel and its goal of a Zionist controlled NWO aka ONE WORLD GOV and they have only Syria and Iran left to destroy so they will do anything in their power to see their goal accomplished.

If this goal of destroying Syria and Iran means a nuclear war with Russia the SATANIC Zionist forces in control of the U.S. and Europe will be glad to have a nuclear war with Russia as they feel that they will survive it in their DUMBS ie deep underground military bases which they have throughout the U.S. and Europe and which are connected via a tunnel system throughout the U.S. and Europe.

The satanic Zionists believe that Russia is the only roadblock in the way of their satanic Zionist NWO and so they feel that a nuclear war with Russia would eliminate this roadblock and also destroy the only Christian nation that is a threat to their satanic communist NWO.

If anyone doubts that the satanic zionists control the U.S. gov, remember this, Zionist Israel and the zionist controlled deep state did 911 and murdered some 3000 Americans on 911 and got away with it and every thinking American knows that Israel did it, we are under satanic zionist control.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website September 2, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT
@alley cat

Putin is winning. He just allows the arrogant neocons to enrage other nations. Turkey is a key player and no longer an American ally. Germany and others have refused to reinstate sanctions on Iran as ordered by Trump. They refuse to shut off Russian gas pipelines and suffer an economic disaster. The neocon's key puppet Merkel is unpopular and may not last long, while the majority of Germans now want US troops gone.

Trump sees this and is trying to make peace with North Korea after South Korea said it was going ahead with peace no matter what Trump thought. Watch this great short video of Putin explaining that the USA doesn't have allies, only vassals. Watch Europeans nodding and some applauding.

AnonFromTN , says: September 2, 2018 at 4:18 pm GMT
@Cyrano

You mean, a murderer and rapist who does not admit his guilt is more "civilized" than the one who does? An unorthodox perspective. I can't imagine that many people would agree with it.

Not to mention that Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria were all clear cases of naked aggression on the part of the US.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: September 2, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT

On the abysmal stupidity of the British political class:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-02/uk-syrian-terrorists-cant-possibly-be-planning-chemical-weapons-false-flag-because

Harold Smith , says: September 2, 2018 at 6:22 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty

"A few ineffective tomahawks mean nothing at this stage."

Then why would Orange Clown and his handlers do it in the first place?

A few ineffective tomahawks here, and a few ineffective tomahawks there, and a few more ineffective tomahawks whenever and wherever, preceded by the most brazen false-flag chemical attack yet, and pretty soon Putin starts looking like a pathetic weakling.

If Orange Clown attacks Syria again, the real target is Putin's domestic political support, IMO.

As I see it, Orange Clown and his handlers are using all life on this planet as a "shield" behind which they will endlessly provoke Russia.

Sean , says: September 2, 2018 at 6:55 pm GMT

Please read this

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

The only reason Assad is still in power is the US military helped him. The US Joint Chiefs are not going to attack Syria and Russia is not going to get into a war with the US over Syria.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4621738/dunford-tells-wicker-controlling-airspace-syria-means-war-russia-mccain-throws-tantrum-dunford

In the above video Dunford tells Wicker controlling airspace in Syria means war with Russia. McCain throws a tantrum, then Dunford refines answer. However, it is perfectly obvious that the current head of the Joint Chiefs is no more keen than Martin Dempsey was on aggressive action against Assad.

That said , Assad blames everone but himself for the state of his country yet he is incredibly stupid, and that is a major reason for the Civil War which his father would never have let happen. If he is foolish enough to use chemical weapons again there will be a price to pay, similar to previous air strikes on Assad, but the Saker should stop being hysterical about Russia and America going to war over Assad. He might try and bring it about by false flagging himself, did Saker ever think of that ?

redmudhooch , says: September 2, 2018 at 7:05 pm GMT

Amazing how the White Helmets (terrorists) are immune to those deadly chemical weapons like sarin.

Good article to read:

Obama's foreign policy options were continually limited by Netanyahu and the lobby -- Ben Rhodes

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/foreign-continually-netanyahu/

Sad!

[Sep 02, 2018] US Strategy in Syria: 'Create Quagmires Until We Get What We Want

Sep 02, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL September 2, 2018 at 6:05 am

Antiwar.com : US Strategy in Syria: 'Create Quagmires Until We Get What We Want'
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/08/31/us-strategy-in-syria-create-quagmires-until-we-get-what-we-want/

In 2013, top Obama Administration officials described their policy in the Syrian War as one of keeping the war going. The administration wanted a big seat at the table for a political settlement, which officials clarified meant ensuring that the war kept going so that there was never a clear victor https://news.antiwar.com/2013/10/02/cia-in-syria-train-moderate-rebels-but-not-so-many-that-they-win/
####

Remember kids, it's Trump that is evil, not Obama.

Now if we are honest, this is a time worn strategy of Washington regardless of which vessel is currently president of the United States. Roll back to Bosnia where self-proclaimed leader of Bosnia Alija Izebegovic was close to signing the UN's Cutilhiero's peace plan. Whence flies in Warren Zimmerman who sidles up to Izzyb and sayz " You don't have to sign it if you don't want to. We've got your back. " Fast forward two and a half years, slightly over 100,000 dead and a Dayton Peace plan that is rather similar to the Cutilhiero one.

Whether it is I-rack asking April Glaspie if it is ok to sort out the dispute with Kuwait, Izzyb and all the way forward to Saakashiti, being Washington's lesser ally ends to be quite deadly. Apparently some lessons are never learned.

[Sep 02, 2018] Iran Hawks Always Get Iran Wrong

Sep 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The president's Iran obsession is paired with exceptionally poor understanding of the region:

"When I came into here, it was a question of when would they take over the Middle East," Trump said Thursday in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg News. "Now it's a question of will they survive. It's a big difference in one and a half years."

Only Iran hawks have ever claimed that Iran was capable of "taking over" the entire region, and they were completely wrong when they said that. Now they're fantasizing about regime collapse, and their analysis is just as bad as before. Iran hawks will always overstate Iranian power for the sake of fear-mongering, and then they will make equally unfounded claims about Iran's internal weaknesses to lend support to their plans for regime change. The same people will insist that Iran is "on the march" and then in the next breath pretend that their government is a shaky house of cards that just needs a nudge to come tumbling down. They invariably sound the alarm about Iranian "expansionism" when Iran has relatively less regional influence and then boast about Iranian isolation when most other countries are happy to do business with them. The reality is that Iran hawks are always missing the mark in both directions: they exaggerate the threat from Iran because it makes it easier to sell aggressive policies against them, and they exaggerate the fragility of the regime because it makes regime change seem relatively easy to achieve.

The silly contrast Trump drew between now and a year and a half ago would make a more thoughtful president question some of his assumptions. If the "question" at the start of 2017 was when Iran would "take over" the entire region, the people asking that question were inexcusably ignorant. If the same people are now wondering whether the regime that was supposedly on the verge of regional domination is going to survive, it's safe to say that no one should ever listen to anything those people say. The problem is that Trump knows so little about Iran and the region that he never realizes that he is relying on shoddy "analysis" offered up by propagandists and ideologues. That doesn't bode well for the future of U.S. Iran policy, which is already defined by its cruelty , stupidity , and ineffectiveness.

[Sep 01, 2018] WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO INDICT AIPAC?

Notable quotes:
"... AIPAC intferes in every election. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rational , says: Next New Comment September 1, 2018 at 4:11 am GMT

WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO INDICT AIPAC?

AIPAC intferes in every election. Soros interferes all over the world. Judaists interefere all over the world and tell people in other countries how to vote.

So does CNN. Many on its staff are dual Isreali citizens, and did not register as foreign agents. And many Jewish Oligarchs.

Even Chomsky, a Jewish scholar, and a darling of the left, agrees that Israeli interference in US elections "vastly overwhelms" what Russia has done (if anything):

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html

[Sep 01, 2018] Survey of the pervasively corrupt history of Robert Mueller

Sep 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Brabantian , says: Website September 1, 2018 at 7:57 am GMT

Donald John Trump has not yet 'released the Kraken' of the Robert Mueller – Hillary Clinton corruption files

Survey of the pervasively corrupt history of Robert Mueller:

https://www.newnationalist.net/2018/08/robert-mueller-crime-syndicate-operative-extraordinaire/

As UK barrister Michael Shrimpton notes:

Mueller has resorted to the classic sleazy prosecutor's gambit of resorting to auxiliary allegations like perjury. All you need is to bully someone into contradicting the President and you have a perjury charge if you can trap the President into making statements on oath.

And re the tangled web of Robert Mueller gang corruption:

From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations were illegally undeclared.

The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.

When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell 20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a one-hour speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium One deal then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation

FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under gag order not to speak of it.

Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.

When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary.

Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time in many cases, was either herself or her legal partner acting in representation of James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller to his current job.

The Alarmist , says: September 1, 2018 at 8:07 am GMT

You could have mentioned Robert Reich's call for the entire Trump presidency to be annulled, including erasure of all executive orders he has issues and unseating of all judges and officials he has appointed. In a perfect nod to Stalinism, he is is to be sent down the memory hole with every shred of evidence of his existence airbrushed out of existence. BTW, Reich is a great name for one who comments on how to deal with Nazis, nicht war?

El Dato , says: September 1, 2018 at 8:15 am GMT

The corporate media run these features in the wake of every "Trump Deathwatch" episode to taper liberals off the effects of the mindless hysteria they have just finished generating.

Yeah, wouldn't want to those liburls to go cold-turkey and crash on the sidewalk with blood running out of their ears, noses and eye sockets.

And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it.

Don't doubt. Doublethink is an integrated feature of liberalism and there would not be any sort of problem whatsoever in doing both. Like a priest how lies with a sex worker, then has her whipped and branded for being a temptress.

Inb4 Corvinus proclaiming his fealthy in Mueller and his "extremely complex, never-had-it-before" investigation that will calve any minute now.

Robjil , says: September 1, 2018 at 10:37 am GMT
@Reg Cæsar

That was the old days. The cold war was playing it safe. The US did coups and wars then too. Vietnam and South Asia was bombed and destroyed. Coups in Latin America were a regular thing. Cuba was the only one that managed to keep the US out. After the cold war, the US branched out to Europe (Yugoslavia, Ukraine), North Africa (Libya) and West Asia ( Afghanistan, Iraq). The US has been going crazy in the middle east since 1991. 1991 Iraq war ended on Purim 1991. 2003 war on Iraq started on Purim. 2011 war on Libya started on Purim. Notice the eight year play for the last two. Is Iran in line for the next Purim attack in 2019?

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: September 1, 2018 at 10:41 am GMT

Readjustment!!!!
And so it took two years for Miller and his team of superhero lawyers to find one miserable tax cheat, who was hiding his money in all the wrong places.
So what is IRS doing anyway? Playing with theirs ?
This is only one, little bit more significant signs of decaying of US hegemonistic Capitalism.
One way or the other, with Trump or without Trump Us society is standing on the doorsteps of major readjustment theoretical, practical, and political.
Hypocrisy will end, and somebody will have to tell the American people the naked truth.

Sean , says: September 1, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
@Reg Cæsar

Russia had zero influence on US politics by the time of Reagan, the main source of subversion in America switched to Israel and is now also the main source of the opposition to Trump. He can take the mainspring out of the opposition machine by wrong-footing his enemies in the Jewish community with an attack on Iran. It will only remain to destablise Jordan then expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and officially annex it, and the anti-Trump movement will be like the Left after the Six Day War.

jilles dykstra , says: September 1, 2018 at 11:56 am GMT

Mueller, the man accused on a German site of having perpetrated Lockerby, to kill a rival secret service, that found out about Mueller's drug trade in Beirut.

It was, if it is true, great for Mueller that he was the USA investigator of Lockerby.

I wonder if it is known in the USA that already during the trial held in the Netherlands, the father of one of the victims, who was at the trial, that some about the mechanism for the ignition was inconsistent.
This was later confirmed by the, if I remember correctly, Swiss manufacturer.
The Libyan convicted for Lockerby went to a Scottish jail, quite soon, a Scottish investigation committee came to the conclusion that he was innocent.
Those who lost relatives in the disaster never got answer to the question how and why it was possible that shortly before take off in London VIP's were manoevred out of the plane.

As to the Libyan, 'luckily' he got a deadly disease, great smokescreen for letting him go.
Until now we do not how the cause of the death of Arafat.

If Mueller is as criminal as asserted, I cannot know.
However, three years after Sept 11 I could no longer fool myself, this was not a Muslim terrorist attack.
The mentioned German site also explained that Sept 11 brought a profit of some $ 5 billion to thr owners of the Twin Towers, to be paid by Allianz, A German firm, that as a result had to fire 3000 employees.
The insurance with Allianz dated from three weeks before Sept 11.

So, for who thinks, what is his point, no crime within the USA I judge impossible any more.
Also not accusing a president of things that never happened.

jilles dykstra , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:02 pm GMT
@Brabantian

This reminds me of the Iran Contra deals.

jilles dykstra , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

" decaying of US hegemonistic Capitalism. "

Wonder if hegemonistic capitalism can decay. When in Florida I visited the Flagler museum, accompanied by a USA friend who lived in the vicinity. He told me some interesting Flagler stories. The main USA problem, is, in my opinion, that little has changed since the times of Flagler and Rockefeller.

Rockefeller, BTW, was able in a few years time, by buying a news agency, to change his image with the USA public from ruthless capitalist to philantropist, Bill Gates and Soros accomplished something similar, though not here in Europe.

Polish socialists call the Soros followers 'Sorosjugend'.

[Sep 01, 2018] Jeremy Corbyn has acknowledged Labour has a "real problem" with antisemitism as he attempted to defuse the row engulfing his party by John Chuckman

Notable quotes:
"... "Jeremy Corbyn has acknowledged Labour has a "real problem" with antisemitism as he attempted to defuse the row engulfing his party." ..."
"... Response to a comment, "But Jeremy Corbyn has said that Jews, uniquely, can't be trusted to define anti-Semitism and that he knows best": ..."
"... Response to a comment: ..."
"... Response to a comment: ..."
"... Response to a comment about the need for education: ..."
"... "People Aren't Having Intelligent Conversations Anymore, They're Just Yelling at Each Other" ..."
"... Response some days later to someone who wrote a long and angry comment: ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

"Jeremy Corbyn has acknowledged Labour has a "real problem" with antisemitism as he attempted to defuse the row engulfing his party."

Well, yes, "real problems," but not what you might think from a quick glance at the headline.

The real problem is people using the accusation as a cheap attack, a way to libel a decent man and influence a party, and doing so regularly over a considerable period of time.

Where was all this "anti-Semitism" hiding in Tony Blair's day? Or even after? It just suddenly exploded into existence under Corbyn? Like a parody of Athena suddenly erupting from the head of Zeus? No reasonable person can believe that. It's a bizarre notion. No, what has changed since Blair's day is simply this.

A leader who helped kill about a million people and destroy a society, lying continuously about what he was doing, and received the Israel Peace Prize plus many handsome sinecures for his efforts, stopped being leader. Another man, a decent man who is fair-minded about the Middle East, as he is about many other matters, became leader. So, all stops were pulled by interested parties in doing something about it.

He's been attacked from the beginning. He had to win his leadership vote twice. The attacks, here or there, seem to fade a bit, then, wham!, they're back, this recent round perhaps the worst ever.

Well, you can have whatever kind of country you like, but this way of doing things is shabby and dishonest and can produce nothing good.

Much as some of Theresa May's incompetent efforts and unwarranted attacks, all damaging and utterly without evidence.

As a young man, I always thought of Britain as more honorable political society than the United States with its folks like Senator Joseph McCarthy or FBI Director J Edgar Hoover or blood-drenched liar, Lyndon Johnson.

But either I was naive or Britain has changed, and changed greatly for the worse

_________________________

Response to a comment, "But Jeremy Corbyn has said that Jews, uniquely, can't be trusted to define anti-Semitism and that he knows best":

That's just plain dishonest.

He said no such thing.

But your using that claim as an argument is symbolic of this whole shabby business.

Posted August 6, 2018 by JOHN CHUCKMAN in Uncategorized JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: YOUNG PEOPLE FORGETTING TERRIBLE PAST EVENTS – RUSSIAN DECLINING POPULATION DURING COLLAPSE OF SOVIET UNION – ROLE OF ALCOHOL IN HISTORICAL EVENTS – WHY PUBLIC EDUCATION CAN'T DO MUCH ABOUT FORGETFULNESS OF THE TERRIBLE PAST

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIAN INSIDER

Young people always forget about terrible times.

It's a natural human tendency.

In the US, it is amazing how few young Americans know anything about the Vietnam War, a war in which America conducted a holocaust killing 3 million Vietnamese, many in the most horrible fashion as with napalm.

It was also a time that nearly divided America like a new Civil War.

Polls find few young Americans know much about it.

___________________________

Response to a comment:

Please, don't forget, the USSR lost 27,000,000 in the Hitler invasion.

The loss of men caused a huge demographic deficit.

Also, alcoholism in the USSR, in the 1970s, was widespread and desperate. Many men died prematurely.

But the suffering from the collapse of the USSR did a lot of damage.

_________________________

Response to a comment:

I wasn't labeling Russians.

It is just a fact about the drinking, and it did shorten average lifespan.

Some of the conditions in the Soviet era could be pretty grim. You've heard the joke about "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work?"

Americans are indeed drug addicts. They consume about as many drugs as the rest of countries together.

There is a whole range of this activity from cocaine at wealthy parties to people in the streets and gutters consuming God-knows-what.

It's American demand that drives the awful drug cartels of Mexico, but Americans never give that a thought.

In a number of American cities recently, the murder rates among blacks have been dramatic, and it involves competitive gangs selling drugs.

The price of some drugs has dropped on the streets and there is over-supply. This has a lot to do with America's pointless invasion of Afghanistan.

Growing opium poppies had been virtually halted by the Taliban government. Then America invaded, and it has been "let her rip" with a flood of drugs.

This always happens in such regions with America. It happened too in the Vietnam War. Many believe CIA makes off-the-books cash by working with drugs in such places. It was said Air America, a then covert private airline serving CIA used to fly loads out. I don't doubt it at all.

By the way, in early America, heavy drinking was very common. Rum from the Caribbean and home-made whisky.

And it is said that Britain's industrial revolution was fueled by cheap gin for the workers.

_______________________________

Response to a comment about the need for education:

You get no argument from me about education.

Trouble is, as with so many of society's institutions, public education – especially in the United States – is highly political.

Many subjects and many ways of talking about those subjects are dangerous territory.

And what could be more stifling than the political correctness of local school boards, state education departments, and the teachers' unions?

It's amazing when anything gets done beyond the basics.

With all these forces at work, in many locations of the US, public education likely has little more latitude than in the good old USSR. Religion? Hands off. Political corruption? Hands off. The delirious effects of plutocracy? Hands off. The political corruption of money? Hands off. Why all the American wars? Hands off.

I don't see a lot of hope in general from education, although there always are exceptional teachers who manage somehow. I had a few.

Posted August 6, 2018 by JOHN CHUCKMAN in Uncategorized JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: REFERENCE TO AMERICA'S CURRENT INABILITY TO HAVE INTELLIGENT POLITICAL DISCUSSION – IN FACT IT IS AN ILLUSION TO THINK THINGS WERE EVER MUCH DIFFERENT – HIGHLIGHTS OF AN EXTREMELY BRUTAL HISTORY – ADDED RESPONSE TO A LONG AND ANGRY COMMENT – SERIOUS MISUSE OF STATISTICS AND POINTS ON TRUMP

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MICHAEL KREIGER IN RUSSIA INSIDER

"People Aren't Having Intelligent Conversations Anymore, They're Just Yelling at Each Other"

I agree with the tone of the article.

But the United States has never been a place where what the French call "politesse" featured. It is a myth for anyone to think so.

Going back to President Andrew Jackson, who horsewhipped an opponent and who regularly challenged men to duels, this plainly is the fact. Yet note that his image is honored today on the twenty-dollar bill.

You can never forget all those years of slavery – Jackson owned gangs of them (As did Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others) – which entailed public auctions of slaves stripped of their clothes, including women who were sometimes bought by lonely rural farmers for "company."

Slavery existed for the best part of a century in the formal United States, but of course it went back long before that in order to build the colonial society that would become strong enough to seek independence.

The culture and undertone of much of America were heavily colored for the future by this pervasive and poisonous institution. It was definitely was not one that encouraged conversations among either camps, supporters and opponents. There were violent disagreements and brawls by politicians over much of the era.

The fact that slave owners quite typically slept with pistols and/or hunting knives under their pillows or within easy reach, such was the constant paranoid fear of slave rebellion, explains a great deal about America's violent gun culture down to this day and its relations between black and white citizens.

Slavery, de facto, continued for about a century after the Civil War (1861-5) in the South's sharecropper system combined with Jim Crow Laws. You know, even when Franklin Roosevelt was President in the 1930s, lynching in town squares was common. It was even a practice, in parts of the South, to hold family picnics on the grass at a lynching.

Then for much of the same period, we had America's treatment of Native people. Again, early on, the honored Andrew Jackson featured. He signed a bill called the Indian Removal Act which was to uproot tens of thousands of peaceful Natives belonging to about half a dozen tribes like the Cherokee in America's Southeast, people who in many cases practiced agriculture, and drive them with the American Cavalry to what was then the remote west, Oklahoma Territory, a land that had no relationship to the places like Florida whey had lived and farmed for a long time. It was quite a different climate and physical geography into which they were unceremoniously dumped.

This forcible removal, named the Trail of Tears (1830s), caused the deaths of several thousand by hunger, exhaustion, and exposure. This was a big number in those days when military battles losses were often counted in hundreds. Their farms and settlements and resources in the Southeast were greedily seized by white Americans.

Years later, as American population grew and pushed West, we had the Indian Wars, which involved the American Calvary's again driving Natives off their lands. Since these were not mainly settled farmers but migrating hunters on horseback, the tactics used against them were much harsher. Whole villages were burned down and all the people killed, just as though they were packs of wild animals being subdued. It was viewed about the same way as farmers shooting coyotes or wolves.

We have old photos of things like a Cavalry Trooper posed proudly with his boot on a man's dead body, resembling an image from the film, "Planet of Apes," and of long trench-like mass graves into which rows of bodies were flung, something resembling smaller, rural versions of Auschwitz.

As America continued to expand and drive westward, there was a constant sequence of such violent events, including the appalling and unwarranted Mexican War (1846-8) intended only to steal land from Mexico.

Still later in the 1890s, we had America's seizure of the Hawaiian Islands, a place which had its own royalty and an established society. The Hawaiians were overwhelmingly opposed to Washington's rule and sent a delegation to submit a petition signed by virtually everyone on the islands. No one in Washington would even speak to them. They were ignored and treated with contempt.

The ruthlessness and crudity weren't limited to stealing land and killing natives. Americans practiced the kind of wholesale theft of what today is called "intellectual property" from Europe. Many mechanisms and machines, as for farming, were purchased in Europe, shipped to America, and then copied. This was done with anything you care to mention, even books. Charles Dickens got quite bitter about the way a new book of his would appear shortly after publication in London as a separate edition in Boston. He never saw a penny in royalties. It is ironic that today America feels so self-righteous about the Chinese, for example, in this regard. All they are seeing is their own history repeated.

Well, that's just a part of the story, but a surprising number of Americans have no idea of the brutality involved in America's growth. There was mighty little civility ever. America was, and remains, in many respects a raw place. G B Shaw joked that it went from barbarism to decadence without ever passing through civilization. The fact that we still laugh at the joke tells us something of its sharp truth.

A lot of what people complain of today in political discussion reflects some effects of the Internet. All the ugly thoughts and words that once were reserved for the streets and alleys now are put on view for anyone to share, and they do share them. And believe me, having grown up in Chicago in the 1950s, there was plenty of ugly stuff around. There was just no way to broadcast it, except graffiti, and there was plenty of that.

Look at Trump. You simply could not find a ruder, more careless-mouthed man if you tried, and here he is, as President, constantly sending out thoughtless, libelous, and brutal words. Maybe the incivility of much of the Internet helped pave the way for acceptance of his record-setting public crudity.

Candidates for President were once limited by something so simple as having been divorced. Although those kinds of limits were a social pretense, representing a lot of hypocrisy and dishonesty, we have dropped the pretense. And we have dropped the pretense about the rudeness and crude expression that was always there in private.

In many ways, Trump represents a large portion of contemporary American society. The words and thoughts are not new, but the method of widespread transmission is, as is the ready willingness to use it. And note that he is not ignored, by the mainline press or anyone else. His stupidities if unreported would have far less effect, but his words are reported and commented upon and copied daily.

I think it probably is creating something of a downward spiral in the public tone of discussion as people become accustomed to nasty language, ugly thoughts, and prejudice openly broadcast on the Internet, even by the President of the country. Experience suggests that any practice which becomes much repeated, one way or another, tends to drive things even further along. New norms keep being set.

By that, I'm not advocating any form of censorship, something to which I'm utterly opposed, but I am making it clear that we are unavoidably into a new era of public discussion, although I think "discussion" a wholly inadequate word, carrying, as it does, the connotation of calm and rational exchange of ideas.

Indeed, the whole discussion of notions like "fake news," a Trump favorite with its pejorative and accusatory tone, is muddled and meaningless since all sides in the debate constantly engage in lying, distortion, and hypocrisy. That goes for The New York Times and Washington Post as much as it does for an outfit like Breitbart News.

Everyone wants to get their views "out there," with little authentic regard for facts. Outfits like The Times still maintain a façade of tone and claim of respectability, but behind the façade, they have an immensely long history of dishonesty and promoting ugly establishment interests, supporting wars and coups and aggression and imperialism in polite words. I actually do not find that more attractive than what we are getting with the Internet. They are both repulsive for anyone who wants to understand some truth.

And I stress that the nastiness and brutality have always been there as an integral part of American culture, only lacking a mechanism of direct communication to large numbers and perhaps being tamped down somewhat by a desire to seem a bit less crude in public. An awareness that others in the world did not engage in quite the same way and responded badly to it may have played a role. But such niceties are lost today.

Traditional religious values may have played a role too in tamping down the public tone, but not only is traditional religion declining rather quickly, a good deal of what remains in America has morphed into bizarre forms with preachers in some cases having parishioners bring their guns to church services or preaching in fervent support of the kind of absolutely brutal violence we see in Israel. Ditto for invoking God's blessings on "our troops" as they illegally invade yet another country and bomb more women and children.

Actually, the traditional press used to act as something of a filtering mechanism. A great deal of ugly stuff never made it out for anyone's attention, but it was in fact still there in private. That same impulse to maintain an appearance of civility brought many dishonesties to journalism.

Americans never even knew facts like Roosevelt being wheel chair-bound or Kennedy being anything but a family man or Nixon, around the time of his resignation, putting his wife into the hospital with a serious beating.

And likewise, they never knew the lies and most of the horror of Korea or Vietnam or Iraq. The absolutely massive levels of brutality, as the fact that one-fifth of the entire population of North Korea was exterminated by three years of American carpet bombing. Or that America left Vietnam having killed 3 million souls with more carpet bombing and napalm and early cluster bombs, also leaving the land packed with landmines and soaked with Agent Orange to keep killing and crippling for decades.

Even earlier, there was journalism's lies about things like "Remember the Maine" in the deliberately-engineered Spanish-American War, a false slogan which made its way into American grade school history books as fact.

The Internet puts much into plain view, but it also does so with a new confusion, a chaotic situation in which ugly fact and ugly myth and deliberate propaganda all come jumbled together. Only people who carefully read and assess and balance realize its potential for communicating truth, but such people always anywhere are a minority.

The chaotic nature of so much "discussion" in America is, just like the country's brutality and crudeness, simply a part of America's heritage.

__________________________

Response some days later to someone who wrote a long and angry comment:

There's an old saying you might profitably make note of.

It's usually a good idea to know the words to the music before you get up to sing.

Nothing worse than using a statistic you've picked up somewhere to attempt characterizing a situation you clearly have no understanding of.

Only a few percent of Americans were slaveholders?

My God, it is only a few percent of any population that are criminal, but they influence us all every day of our lives.

They make police forces necessary. They make courts necessary. And prison systems and guards and wardens. They make an entire criminal legal system necessary with criminal lawyers, judges, juries, parole boards, the acts of politicians legislating, etc. Their acts fill our newspapers and broadcasting, causing much fear and upset in many ordinary people. Their acts are the topic of endless private and public discussion.

And just so slavery, perhaps even more so. I've read a good deal of serious history of the United states. Slavery and all of its related issues colored and affected everything from the way the Constitution was written to import laws to the courts and political arguments. It affected the careers of politicians, it affected law enforcement, North and South, it affected the courts and their decisions. It affected attitudes of people. Its pervasive and noxious influence never went away, having absolutely no connection with the number of slaveholders.

A person of any understanding knows that this is the case for a great many parts of human affairs. Today, we have the economic issue of the extremely lopsided distribution of wealth and income and the "one-percent." And I suppose you think they do not affect almost everything in society because of their small number? Its politics and the candidates of its political parties? Its laws? Its wars and turmoil? Its taxation system? The government's treatment of those less fortunate?

As for Trump, do you really think the approach of some corporate business people should characterize government? The ways of Google or Apple or Amazon or John D. Rockefeller or Henry Ford? There are many reasons for thinking that is a terrible idea. Such people already have inordinate influence on government and its policies., and astute observers on both the Left and the Right agree.

Running a company and running a government are two very different things. Different skills. Different understanding. Different expectations. And working under different sets of rules.

Trump is an exceedingly ignorant and impatient man, and he did not even write "The Art of the Deal," of which he told us he is so proud. He paid a ghostwriter. And that ghostwriter has now spoken out several times about his private observations of Trump. He is an appalling man who listens to no one, is totally obsessed with his own opinions, and is rude and unpleasant. He, of course, only confirms the views of other outsiders who have worked near Trump and written about it.

And do you really think it is the job of a head of government to publicly insult various of its citizens? That is the behavior of an angry child, and a not very pleasant child. He is supposed to be president of all the people, not just some. Imagine Putin doing this in Russia? No, Putin only speaks to the kind of matters a President should speak to. He has what we used to call "class," a quality utterly missing in Trump. You, know, some of his cheap-bully remarks, here or there, might seem funny at first to some because we've never heard their like before, but they do in fact lasting and long-term damage to society.

Again, the number of lynchings, which you obviously regard as small and try to minimize? What an asinine statistic to quote. It addresses nothing but your own ego. I am well familiar with it, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

By the way, from some of your remarks you show that you did not even understand what I wrote. Hard to know why you would want to comment then, but one detects in your tone that same Trumpian quality, a person ready to open his mouth, and loudly, without ever pausing to think.

Posted August 2, 2018 by JOHN CHUCKMAN in Uncategorized

Tagged with A FACADE OF RESPECTABILITY , A PART OF AMERICAN HERITAGE , A RUDE TOUGHTLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP , A WHOLE ERA OF BRAWLS AND VIOLENT DISAGREEMENTS , AMERICA A RAW PLACE STILL , AMERICA AND NATIVE PEOPLE , AMERICA HAS DROPPED ITS PRETENSES , AMERICA'S DRIVE WESTWARD , AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE , AMERICAN THEFT OF EUROPEAN INVENTIONS , BRUTAL RECORD OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON , BRUTALITY AND DISHONESTY AND HYPOCRISY IN AMERICA , CHAOTIC NATURE OF "DISCUSSION" IN AMERICA , CHARLES DICKENS AND AMERICAN LITERARY THEFT , CHEROKEE AND AMERICAN SOUTHEAST , DE FACTO SLAVERY AFTER CIVIL WAR , DISCUSSION IN AMERICA , DISHONESTIES OF JOURNALISM , FACTS AMERICANS NEVER KNEW , G B SHAW ON AMERICA PASSING FROM BARBARISM TO DECADENCE , GOD'S BLESSING ON OUR TROOPS INVADING ANOTHER PLACE AND KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN , HAWAIIAN ISLANDS , HIS STUPIDITIES ARE REPORTED DAILYINSTEAD OF BEING IGNORED , IN CHINA AMERICANS SEE SOME OF THEIR OWN HISTORY REPEATED , INCIVILITY OF MUCH OF THE INTERNET , INDIAN WARS AND CAVALRY , INTERNET PUTS MUCH INTO PLAIN VIEW , JOHN CHUCKMAN , KILLING INDIANS VIEWED AS SHOOTING COYOTES , KOREA AND VIETNAM HORRORS , METHOD OF WIDESPREAD TRANSMISSION OF UGLY WORDS , MEXICAN WAR , NEW NORMS KEEP BEING SET , NEW YORK TIMES AND BREITBART NEWS PARALLELS , OKLAHOMA TERRITORY , OPPOSED TO CENSORSHIP , POLITICAL DISCUSSION TODAY REFLECTS EFFECTS OFINTERNET , PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF RECORD CRUDITY , RELIGION IS DECLINING , REMEMBER THE MAINE , SHARECROPPERS AND JIM CROW LAWS , SMALL RURAL VERSIONS OF AUSCHWITZ , THE ROLE OF SLAVERY IN FORMING AMERICA , THE WEIRD IDEA OF "FAKE NEWS" , THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY , TRAIL OF TEARS , TRUMP REPRESENTS A LARGE PORTION OF AMERICA

[Sep 01, 2018] ISRAEL LOBBY TO DESTROY A POLITICIAN START RESEMBLING STALINISM

Notable quotes:
"... "But he needs to move quickly and decisively now" ..."
"... This fixation over anti-Semitism, always without any effort to provide proof of anything, borders on the days of Stalin. ..."
"... If Stalin was looking for "wreckers of the Revolution," as he did every once in a while, the phrase being his code words for a new purge, and you happened to be one in the eyes of your local NKVD detachment – perhaps for as little cause as the their needing to achieve their quota of wreckers this week – you were in deadly trouble. ..."
"... Corbyn is hated in Israel because he is fair-minded on Israel and Palestine, and that these days is simply not allowed. Actually, true liberals and the Left are hated widely in Israel because they stand for traditional Western values of human and democratic rights. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MATTHEW NORMAN IN THE INDEPENDENT

"But he needs to move quickly and decisively now"

Move on what?

Nothing inappropriate was said or done, but someone has to "move" on it?

There is no anti-Semitism in the words. None. People were called "Trump fanatics." The people happen to be Jewish, something they themselves continually draw attention to in their unwarranted attacks on Corbyn.

This fixation over anti-Semitism, always without any effort to provide proof of anything, borders on the days of Stalin.

If Stalin was looking for "wreckers of the Revolution," as he did every once in a while, the phrase being his code words for a new purge, and you happened to be one in the eyes of your local NKVD detachment – perhaps for as little cause as the their needing to achieve their quota of wreckers this week – you were in deadly trouble.

That truly is the level of so much of this name-calling reverse-prejudice filth against a decent man, Jeremy Corbyn.

I have never seen such ugliness, and I do understand the reason for it.

Corbyn is hated in Israel because he is fair-minded on Israel and Palestine, and that these days is simply not allowed. Actually, true liberals and the Left are hated widely in Israel because they stand for traditional Western values of human and democratic rights.

[Sep 01, 2018] Haley s failure to properly address sanctionable acts of Israel misbehavior wholly enable Trump, and co-pilot bolt-on, on their wayward war bus express, bound for extinction

Notable quotes:
"... The AKP over the years did manage to set up a quite decent universal healthcare insurance system – including the upgrading of public hospitals – as well as a pension system. ..."
"... Neocons are second guessing that the Trumpster is being tough via sanctions and issuing missile launches. They think that ultimately their plans will continue in some form or other. The rest of America, possibly the world, is waiting for the Trumpster to clean up the place and give honest US acumen a chance, end wars that go nowhere for no good reason and re-instate those financial safeguards which were repealed and led directly to present day problems. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Meet The Sanctioned; a multinational band starring multi-instrumentalists Vladimir Putin (Russia), Xi Jinping (China), Hassan Rouhani (Iran) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey).

Beijing and Moscow offer an array of trade deals; Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has already offered trade in their own currencies. Erdogan for his part said Turkey is ready to begin using local currencies in trade with Russia, China, Iran and the EU.

After Turkey restructures its US dollar debts, China buys up the Turkish lira off foreign exchange markets – an easy play for the People's Bank of China (PBOC). Ankara is already planning to issue yuan-denominated bonds. China's ICBC already announced a $3.6 billion loan for energy/transport.

In sharp contrast to the Washington Consensus, Erdogan very well knows that Turkey cannot "rewrite the crisis management playbook for emerging markets" by surrendering to IMF austerity. An answer would be to increasingly rely on the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

As EU companies leave sanctioned Iran, Chinese and Russian companies go into overdrive. As the US Congress slaps a nyet on Turkey buying F-35 fighter jets because Ankara is buying the Russian S-400 air-defense system, Boeing and Airbus in Iran are bound to lose market share to Russian jets such as the MS-21 or the IL-96-400M.

And as Iran-Turkey trade gets a boost, Turkish Stream – the Russia-Turkey strategic energy partnership – is far from being derailed.

Erdogan knows very well how Turkey is the quintessential East-meets-West strategic connector across Eurasia. And he knows what's he's really "guilty" of: buying the S-400s, ditching the "Assad must go" obsession, advancing Turkish Stream and insisting Turkey will continue to buy Iranian oil.

... ... ...

Fatih mirrors Erdogan's immense popularity all across Anatolia. Whatever his notorious, incandescent illiberal traits, Erdogan's development program is not only about more mosques and more malls. The AKP over the years did manage to set up a quite decent universal healthcare insurance system – including the upgrading of public hospitals – as well as a pension system.

Now it's time to deliver again – nationally and globally.

Calling all Eurasian young dudes

Meanwhile, Russia will keep developing a very sophisticated strategy across the Black Sea .

In no time, Putin has already reshaped the Black Sea – geopolitically and geoeconomically. The graphic symbol is the sumptuous Kerch Strait bridge to Crimea – an engineering tour de force inaugurated only three months ago.

Putin's multi-instrumental riffs are ubiquitous. Erdogan gets S-400s, nuclear power plants and Turkish Stream (which also benefits vast tracts of southern Europe). Rouhani and the Central Asians get a Caspian convention and the prospect of a succession of energy deals. Damascus and Tehran – with Ankara a little far behind – get to see the possible end of the tragic Syria war cycle.

As Erdogan progressively moves Turkey's reserves to yuan – and gold – benefits can accrue from more interaction with the BRI/EAEU/SCO galaxy in everything from electronics and nuclear technology to advanced weapons. And further connectivity may entail, for instance, Chinese goods transiting through Russian ports in Krasnodar and Crimea to Turkish ports in the Black Sea.

The Black Sea, for all practical purposes, is being configured as a Russo-Turk Mediterranean Sea – much as the Caspian is now configured as a Central Asian, non-NATO, Mediterranean Sea.

In parallel, The Sanctioned is also enjoying a guest performing appearance by the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim al-Thani, instrumental in the offer of a $15 billion loan to Ankara. And this after Qatar restored good relations with Iran, including energy collaboration on the shared South Pars/North Dome – the largest gas field on the planet.

It's crucial to consider that in the event the Qatar-Turkey Combined Joint Force Command may "disappear", for some reason, the path would be open for a nasty, joint Saudi/UAE invasion of Doha, with major consequences; the double confiscation of the Qatari sovereign wealth fund and North Dome – to the benefit of salvaging the sinking "Vision 2030" House of Saud.

... ... ...

Source: Asia Times

Peter Jennings • 10 days ago ,

The Trumpster is doing a very good job alienating his corrupt system from world markets. We should be thankful for that. If sanctions can be ignored this easily, they become counter-productive.

The world is moving on and the Trumpster knows that the US system will not be welcome in the B&R in its present form.

Neocons are second guessing that the Trumpster is being tough via sanctions and issuing missile launches. They think that ultimately their plans will continue in some form or other. The rest of America, possibly the world, is waiting for the Trumpster to clean up the place and give honest US acumen a chance, end wars that go nowhere for no good reason and re-instate those financial safeguards which were repealed and led directly to present day problems.

Those involved in the B&R project are going to require a different form of payment, use of a different clearing system and a different way of working. Dinosaurs need not apply.

If provisions for members also include extradition rights between borders for wanted criminals caught interrupting trade or attacking member states via fraud and political agitation, it could prove a tough time for US shyster business and their spook helpers. Might be best to clean up first.

dan kopfz • 10 days ago ,

Should Turkey, Qatar and Iran find common ground, then there's a real possibility for a middle-east trade union that would include Syria, Iraq, and others that would line up to join.

John C Carleton • 10 days ago ,

How about, the world makes this simpler.

The USA, which is not America or Americans, it is a foreign corporation, serves Israhell.

How about, America rents a U-haul transport jumbo jet, starts flying all USA personal, to Israhell, which they love, and out of America, which they hate.

All materials, monies and such to stay in America of course.

Once all the zionist ass wipes have moved from Washington DC, to Tel Aviv, they will be Russia's buddies, friends, and fellow collaborators , as both Putin and Russia, seems to just love the shit hole zionism has made of Palestine.

tom nogaro • 7 days ago ,

if the us, or any agency thereof, orchestrated or participated in any overthrow coup attempt upon any nation of nato, it would seem to me this fact alone would be some violation of at least the spirit, if not the letter, of the nato treaty agreement, which is that all members will jointly come to the aid and defense of any member nation attacked from within or without, in effort to topple or destroy it.

turkey has made a serious allegation that the us was in fact involved in such a coup against it.

this serious allegation has not, to my knowledge, in any respect been heard, litigated, dispelled, disproven, or even denied by the us in any formal proceedings, international body, or court of law of appropriate jurisdiction.

yet the us has simply taken upon itself the right to punish the innocent people of turkey, via imperial economic sanctions, possibly war, even world war, simply for its government making such allegation in the first instance, then subscribing to it, without any just hearing or legal resolution of same.

is this any way for a nation to conduct itself? where is niki haley, purported us ambassador to the united nations? has she taken up this matter at the united nations, or is she merely an ihop waitress posturing as ambassador of the us to the un?

ms. ihop is woefully derelict in her ambassadorial duties, a shameless national disgrace, and an international disgrace to the un and international law. what did this imbecile do at the un to smooth over this spat between these two former nato allies, to avoid sanctions or war? now we hear insane babble this lazy, irresponsible reprobate should be considered vice presidential timber. heaven forbid.

president genius trump must immediately require her immediate resignation, for dishonor of her office. if not, he in effect affirms her abandonment of her position, his duty to the people of the us and the world.

tom nogaro tom nogaro • 7 days ago ,

btw, what i wrote above about turkey and ihop haley goes for the sanctions trump has leveled against russia, syria, china, iran.

when did mime clown haley ever utter syllable one in credible proof at the un, to warrant sanctions: russia colluded to overthrow the us 2016 election, or poisoned british subjects (unlike israel which guns down its innocent, defenseless, unarmed children citizens); syria
chem-bombed its own people (not israel's terrorist proxies); china engaged in lawless international trade or economic behavior (unlike the imf); iran violated jcpoa, lawlessly aggressed in attack over international borders (unlike israel, which refuses to adhere to any nuclear non-proliferation treaty at all, maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, and conducts abjure air raid attacks in syria from disallowed lebanese skies)?

to my mind, haley's dereliction of duty and failure to properly address sanctionable acts of misbehavior wholly enable trump, and co-pilot bolt-on, on their wayward war bus express, bound for extinction. thus enabled, they embark, at first stop: to level sanctions without proven cause; progress to the next stop: unmitigated and unrelenting irritability; and, finally, the last stop:war, possibly world war to annihilate the planet.

never-war-unless-attacked job-candidate trump has thus morphed into his frankensteinian 180-opposite, ever-war president trump, without anyone's proof of actual wrongdoing, only imperial edicts by the tump-haley new pope pair of israel, tweedledee and tweedledum. america, wake up before it is too late: we are a nation of laws, not of men or women. laws, properly enforced, require proof soundly made, of guilt and culpability. sound and fair proof takes time to adduce; war does not, only a handy dandy button to push.

[Sep 01, 2018] THE PECULIAR CASE OF SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM by John Chuckman

Notable quotes:
"... "The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With Russia With New Sanctions ..."
"... "The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department thinks they are a bad idea.' ..."
"... Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East. ..."
"... And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of him existed. ..."
"... His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like – of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious threat. ..."
"... This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after largely non-existent communists across America. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE TO RUSSIA INSIDER

"The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With Russia With New Sanctions

"The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department thinks they are a bad idea.'

I think in many such analyses about American-Russian strained relations an important actor is left out, and that actor is America's strange Middle East quasi-colony, Israel.

Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East.

In order to have the kind of highly aggressive America represented by those wars, much in Israel's favor, effort has to be made to keep antagonisms high. And Russia is inevitably viewed as a barrier to an aggressive America, no matter how friendly Russian-Israeli relations are, and Putin does a very good job of trying to keep good relations.

But, still, while Netanyahu and his gang smile for the cameras after meetings, their deep-down drives are in conflict with Russia in some fundamental ways that cannot be made to disappear with handshakes or smiles. A highly aggressive America serves Israel in its own aggressive regional ambitions as well as in vague matters as "security," the term likely used by its lobby in America.

Russia has her own experience with these drives in the unhappy induced-coup in Ukraine, something in which that charming Neocon from the State Department, Barbara Nuland, famous for bragging that America spent $5 billion on its Ukraine operation and also for once shouting within earshot of others, "Fuck Europe!" played an important role.

The anti-Russian crowd in Washington – very much including the Neocons, who are part and parcel of the total multi-fronted Israel Lobby in Washington, many of the Neocons holding (or having held, as Nuland did) influential government posts – won something for their cause whichever way events in Ukraine went.

They gained either a large country, hostile to Russia right on its border, one with good American connections, to harass and worry Russia, or with the outcome we see, Ukraine having made a fool of itself in falling apart through incompetence and pig-headedness, they have gained the theme of Russian aggression. While Putin's moves were masterful and required, making the very best of a very bad situation, what has emerged still serves these nasty folks in stoking hatred of Russia, now accused of aggression, a charge strongly embraced in Washington and in American-influenced parts of Western Europe.

Lindsay Graham is about the most vocal and reactionary defender of Israel in the Congress. He might be matched by John McCain, but I'm not sure he doesn't in fact earn top honors in his service to another country. He quite literally leaps to his feet at any mention of Israel. So, when a guy like that strongly advocates greatly increased hostility towards Russia, it should tell us something.

And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of him existed.

You see, Graham is known as a fairly flagrant gay in Washington.

His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like – of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious threat.

This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after largely non-existent communists across America.

[Sep 01, 2018] ZERO CHOICE OFFERED TO VOTERS DURING US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Notable quotes:
"... "The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign ..."
"... "The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed, particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down our collective throats." ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER

"The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign

"The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed, particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down our collective throats."

No question, the woman fits the description "evil," but that sure doesn't make Trump a saint by comparison.

America's tragedy – one shared by the entire world – is that this is the kind of choice American voters get, a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump.

No matter who wins or loses each American presidential election, the people in general lose and the establishment wins.

And right now, the American establishment likes and embraces the Clinton nonsense about Russia. It serves its current purposes. Actually, it wasn't truly Clinton's own nonsense. She was definitely feeding off a pre-existing set of attitudes in her Washington set.

So, it is more threatening than just a residual from an election campaign.

[Sep 01, 2018] Trump real estate tactics was based on the idea of countersuing, with the intent to financially bust whoever might dare to challenge him in court.

Notable quotes:
"... The business-man's equivalent to a President's threat to unleash "Shock and Awe" upon any nation not adhering to his diktats. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

jacobo , August 30, 2018 at 11:04 pm

Seems to me that, as President, Trump is performing in ways that are analogous to how he performed as a real estate mogul, Recall that he'd make deals which he subsequently would violate, at the same time threatening to countersue anyone demanding in court that Trump make good on whatever his original commitment. Suing, that is, with the intent to financially bust whoever might dare to challenge him in court. The business-man's equivalent to a President's threat to unleash "Shock and Awe" upon any nation not adhering to his diktats.

Thus,, whether as a real estate mogul or President, Trump's deal-making modus operandi remains consistent: Go one way first, then turnabout. While his initial move is may be positive (Singapore,Helsinki), subsequent events (increased sanctions, cancelling diplomatic meetings) can quickly turn negative.

Whether these turnarounds are planned in or forced by minders, perhaps not even Trump himself knows, but based upon the direction our nation is headed under his leadership, for sure, he's not to be trusted – no more than he was as a real estate mogul.

mike k , August 30, 2018 at 9:25 pm

America longs to live in a past that never really happened, We are poorly equipped to deal with the rapidly changing real world around us. We are in a hopeless effort to turn back the clock to an illusory America. Donald Trump continues to play on this futile nostalgia.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , August 31, 2018 at 3:57 am

The problems discussed above, and some others, relate to the fact that America really isn't what so many ordinary Americans think it is.

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

[Sep 01, 2018] The US is out of control. These people now running it are not the same people who won WWII, but they are certainly the unpleasant reminders of an era of some 70 years or so, where the US began losing wars while enriching the rich at the same time

Sep 01, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky , August 31, 2018 at 3:23 pm

What is catching up to the U.S., is that all of this off shoring of product and productivity over these last fifty years has weaken the once mighty Post America that was able by default after WWII to be the world's sole provider. The almost near monopolized leverage once enjoyed by the U.S. has been thoroughly diluted by American corporations finding greater value to go aboard to manufacture and farm, as the American consumer loses mightily to dead end wage jobs.

The sanctions so as imposed by the U.S. have only driven sanctioned countries to coalesce amongst each other out of need. This along with tariffs is driving America's friends right into the arms of the already solvent sanctioned countries, who are doing their best to steer clear of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. Where there is a will, will find away, is no better pronounced as it is in these sanctioned and tariffed countries of various interest who are now exploring, while erecting new foundations of finance, and trade, where the U.S. is no where to be found. It is only a matter of time when the U.S. will be all dressed up with nowhere to go.

Keep your eye on China. The Chinese are developing a Navy which will rival U.S. seagoing supremacy. Add to this that China is dispatching troops to such places as Syria, and Afghanistan, as it would now appear China has nothing to lose, as the Trade War escalates. I'm not saying Trade should not be dealt with, but the less we give in to China the more anti-hegemon pronounced the Chinese will be with their total world foreign policies. The U.S. will learn to respect China's relationships with other sovereign nations not so loved by U.S. foreign policy, as China appears to be stepping up their game. Unipolar must be replaced with Multipolar sovereign nations.

Let's face it, the U.S. is out of control. These people now running it are not the same people who won WWII, but they are certainly the unpleasant reminders of an era of some 70 years or so, where the U.S. began losing wars while enriching the rich at the same time, all due to it's commitment towards dealing out death for the sake of profit. Seventy years ago the rest of the world was not in any shape to oppose such might, but this isn't 70 years ago, and the world is starting to say, enough is enough.

Dave P. , August 31, 2018 at 4:50 pm

Excellent comments, Joe. There is this very relevant article in Strategic Culture today by M.K. Bhadrakumar.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/08/31/russia-china-in-alliance-conditions.html

Joe Tedesky , August 31, 2018 at 10:52 pm

Dave maybe President Trump should read his mail, and get a sense of where much of everything went wrong,

http://www.voltairenet.org/article202645.html

Dave P. , August 31, 2018 at 11:18 pm

It is very timely mail, only if it can get to the President. From the article by Bhadrakumar:

"On the other hand, the Russia-China alliance will also be a "unique community of values", as NATO keeps proclaiming itself. Conceivably, these "values" will include strict adherence to international law and the UN Charter, respect for national sovereignty – no Libya or Iraq-style interventions, for example – and the peaceful resolution of disputes and differences without the use of force. However, one cardinal difference with the NATO will be that unlike the latter, which takes cover behind inchoate "values" such as "liberty", "rule of law", "democracy", et al, the Russian-Chinese alliance will be focused and purposive on the strengthening of a multipolar world order.

Arguably, the Russian-Chinese alliance will be in sync with the spirit of our times – unlike NATO, which must constantly justify its raison d'etre through the juxtaposition of an "enemy", caught up in the tragic predicament of having to stir up paranoia and xenophobia among member states in order to simply keep the herd from wandering away toward greener pastures.

Where the Russia-China alliance has an advantage is that it is a new type of alliance that allows the two countries to pursue their national interests while also creating space for each other through mutual support and foreign-policy coordination to maneuver optimally in the prevailing volatile international environment where it is no longer possible for any single power to exercise global hegemony. Indeed, the Sino-Russian coordination is working well in the Syrian conflict, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, Iran nuclear issue or the struggle against terrorism and has become a factor of peace and regional stability."

I hope the Rulers in the West can understand this message. But it does not look very likely to happen. It is increasingly clear that this country is run by people who are megalomaniacs. The Ruling Powers across the Atlantic are no better either. The political climate in the World is getting very unstable. In this World with nuclear weapons, accidentally or intentionally, some catastrophe to happen is just around the corner.

[Sep 01, 2018] WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO INDICT AIPAC?

Notable quotes:
"... AIPAC intferes in every election. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rational , says: Next New Comment September 1, 2018 at 4:11 am GMT

WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO INDICT AIPAC?

AIPAC intferes in every election. Soros interferes all over the world. Judaists interefere all over the world and tell people in other countries how to vote.

So does CNN. Many on its staff are dual Isreali citizens, and did not register as foreign agents. And many Jewish Oligarchs.

Even Chomsky, a Jewish scholar, and a darling of the left, agrees that Israeli interference in US elections "vastly overwhelms" what Russia has done (if anything):

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html

[Sep 01, 2018] Trump wants his FBI and DOJ to "do the right thing" or he "may have to get involved." He better act soon or be scalped by Mueller.

Notable quotes:
"... There it is, slowly coming to light, one of the great political scandals in our history. A sitting Presidents institutes a "counter intelligence" disinformation campaign against an opposition party which is still ongoing. ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon , [178] Disclaimer says: Next New Comment September 1, 2018 at 3:47 pm GMT

So it turns out there was NO FISA hearing for the first application to spy on Trump through Carter Page. It was simply rubber stamped by a Republican (in name only) judge in this most secret of Star Chambers. What judge wouldn't approve, as it was signed by John Kerry, his deputy, Susan Rice, her deputy, James Comey, his deputy McCabe, Brennan, Clapper and to put the icing on top, Ash Carter, Obama's Secretary of Defense? It might just as well have been signed by the President himself. And this was while he was still in office.

There it is, slowly coming to light, one of the great political scandals in our history. A sitting Presidents institutes a "counter intelligence" disinformation campaign against an opposition party which is still ongoing. Trump wants his FBI and DOJ to "do the right thing" or he "may have to get involved." He better act soon or be scalped by Mueller.

[Sep 01, 2018] Johnnie Walker Read

Notable quotes:
"... Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East." ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

September 1, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT

@Bennis Mardens

"A certain tribe hates Trump"

Wow, you must live on a different planet than the rest f us. Israhell has never had a greater friend in the White House than Donald Trumpenstien.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-it-comes-to-jewish-ties-no-gop-candidate-trumps-trump/

Jake , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:18 pm GMT

My favorite part of this article: "And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it. Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East."

We live in times in which the media elites and academia are fully insane. That means that the 'normal' levels of insanity and venality for career politicians will be ramped up.

factjis , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

So this "tribe" (as you call them) are the folks leading the criticism of the President? These folks "own the media" you aver -- yes?

Hmmm, then that clearly can't be a "tribe" which includes Netanyahu, his likudniks and neo-cons and militant right-wing, American billionaire Zionists -- because they've never had it so good under any U.S. President.

As for the Palestinians (let alone the American middle class), well, things are rather different.

Moi , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

How so? Mr. T is a crypto Jew himself who loves Israel almost as much as Bibi.

anon , [317] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

unilateral private media ownership is the problem, not privatized tribal hate for Trump or whomever..

Government vs Private Parallel Media can solve many, many problems created by Deep State it can quickly turn the tables on the deep state or strongly support it.. Since 1492 when Martin Luther exposed unilateral backroom power, massive singularities of accumulated wealth, and controlled, filtered propaganda to the masses. government has become the responsibility of the governed, and the governors have become the servants of the masses. However, those same powers Luther exposed have done everything in their power to deny the masses the right to self determination

Trump has a plan to nationalize the media, but I think he should merely parallel the private media with open source government media ( no rules to use it, none, not any, sex weird stuff, criminal stuff, whatever ,just let anyone with something to say say it on their own website hosted by the government). Produce a government media hosting site, allow anyone, foreign or local, to present on the public media. use government developed search engine and indexing technology (no private party no private contractors, everything and everyone involved at the government host site is a government employee and all technology is developed by government for government use only) and let the masses decide for themselves both 1) form of government and 2) degree of corruption they will accept. Everyone can then select do they want to view the Deep State Media or one of the millions of content providers visible on the government media host.

Johnnie Walker Read , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

"Zionism(A.K.A. Neo-Cons, and all "Israeli Firsters") is a political ideology based upon the suspension of reason and common sense, rooted upon a macabre death wish that worships the state of Israel.

Israel-First loyalists do not have to be Jewish. Christian-Zionists routinely forgo faithfulness to our country, when they place Israel above the interests of our own nation. The notion that Israel is a trusted ally is the most absurd illusion that exists in a demented political culture. This is the "Big Lie", an invention of Zionist subversion, which is the cause of an insane American foreign policy. Israel-First zealots control every aspect of political power in the United States. An actual American holocaust that stares us directly in our faces stems from sick fraudulent propaganda and phony guilt deceit that only benefits Zionists and Israel."

http://batr.org/gulag/051605.html

Trump praising Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-ZadGhAo5M

Anonymous , [321] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

South America, North America .. is there still a difference?

Anonymous , [321] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:23 pm GMT
@Sean

I hope not. If Trump wants to go down a hero, he can be the monkey wrench that wrecks so much damage on the machine that it's no longer capable of threatening the world. If he can perform a controlled demolition of the USA, the rest of the world will continue just fine without them. We'll remember him as a hero for preventing WW3.

HallParvey , says: September 1, 2018 at 1:40 pm GMT
@Brabantian

None of this makes any difference. The MSM still control 98 percent of the information transmission systems in the western world. Indeed, (((they))) are beginning to prohibit other information systems such as the internet.

What you don't hear about never happened. The flip side of that coin is that what you hear about over and over comes to be reality, regardless. Think Tawana Brawley. Think Duke sports teams.

Where there's smoke there must be fire, right?

Trump has a talent for feeding the MSM red meat. Always with a good dose of poison mixed in so they are happy to shoot themselves in the foot. Think Roseanne Roseannadanna. Nevermind

Anonymous , [795] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:55 pm GMT
@Sean

That is why Trump will attack Iran.

Well, he can't attack Syria because Israel, ya know, might get hot grease spattered on them. And besides, Israel wants Syria with as little additional damage as possible, leaving an attack on Iran as the only method of "attacking" Russia. But, it cannot be done directly, with flimsy excuses. The excuses are just too damn flimsy.

Also, life is too damn good for American Army mercenaries to have to risk life and limb for another meaningless ME conflict. Nope, the Army needs another five years, at the very least, before another round of medals and benefit-increases justifies their personal risk. US Army take-home, "combat" pay and massive health-and-living benefits amount to the best living any white American boy can experience, but there is a limit.

Now, limited-scope attack by proxy? Iraq border conflict? Afghanistan border conflict? Both good, plus there is already umpty-ump bajillion $ of US taxpayer-paid military equipment in Afghanistan. Good excuse to junk it all and get new stuff. That's what taxpayers are for, after all.

Anonymous , [795] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

Hypocrisy will end, and somebody will have to tell the American people the naked truth.

Don't be silly. Hypocrisy will increase, and the American people are never told any truth, ever.

DESERT FOX , says: September 1, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT

The fact is that the U.S. is a Zionist controlled plantation and there is no difference at the top levels between the demonrats and the republicons as both are Zionist controlled and are traitors to America, as proof of this is the Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state attack on 911 which killed 3000 Americans and Israel and the Zionists got away with it and every thinking America knows they did it.

The only difference between Trump and Helliary is their plumbing, both are Zionist puppets and the ziocons run the U.S. gov..

[Sep 01, 2018] We are in for another two years of alternating Russia and Nazi hysteria in neoliberal MSM by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Personally, I'm rooting for the Democrats to take control of the House in the midterms, purely for the sake of entertainment.

After calling this ass clown a Russian spy and Literal Hitler for the last two years, they're going have to at least pretend to impeach him, or else stage a series of internationally-televised neo-McCarthyite congressional hearings to root out the diabolical networks of Putin-Nazis that have infested America, and Britannia, and the rest of the West.

That's the main thing, after all. Yes, the corporatist ruling classes need to make an example of Trump to dissuade any future billionaire ass clowns from running for high office without their permission, but even more so, they need to put down the "populist" opposition to the spread of global capitalism and the gradual phase-out of national sovereignty that began with Brexit and continued with Trump, so they can transform the smoldering remains of the Earth into one big happy neoliberal market run by supranational corporations and the "democratic governments" they have bought and paid for which

Damn, I think I may have gone and opened a rather enormous can of leftist worms right at the end of this essay by mentioning the "national sovereignty" thing. So, leftists, please ignore the previous paragraph. National sovereignty is the same as nationalism. Nationalism is very, very bad. Internationalism is good. Internationalist socialism is what we all want. Okay, admittedly, the forces of internationalist socialism appear to be well, somewhat marginal at the moment (or possibly virtually non-existent), but that's not a problem, because the global capitalists will be happy to internationalize everything for us, and to do away with all those nasty nationalists, and that national government-subsidized healthcare and university education and all that stuff.

So let's forget that I mentioned national sovereignty, because that's all Putinist Trumpism, and so on. There's absolutely no reason at all for leftists to discuss that subject, or to view it in any kind of larger historical or geopolitical context or anything. Once the global corporate empire finishes their Privatization of Everything, I'm sure they will be open to considering socialism. They'll probably even let us vote on it. By then, they will have cleansed the Internet of all the discord-sowing Putin-Nazis so there won't be any danger of being "influenced" to vote the wrong way or anything.

In the meantime, don't forget to do your part in the War on Trump, Putin, Assad, Corbyn, and whoever else the corporate media tell us we're at war against. Forget about global capitalism. Keep obsessing about Donald Trump. And if you get tired of obsessing about Donald Trump, you can always call Corbyn an anti-Semite , or accuse Glenn Greenwald of working for Putin , or, if you've got some free time and want to get creative, compile a Directory of International Assadists , or some other paranoid pseudo-blacklist. Every little contribution counts!

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

Sean , says: August 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm GMT

And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it. Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East. So, probably, no attack on Iran.

That is why Trump will attack Iran.

S , says: Next New Comment September 1, 2018 at 5:04 am GMT

..Robert Mueller, who is doggedly investigating allegations that the President of the United States is a devious Russian intelligence asset personally planted in the Oval Office by Vladimir Putin, the Russian mob, and a conspiracy of crackerjack "cyber-influencers," who brainwashed millions of American voters into betraying Hillary Clinton, and the nation, with a bunch of emails and some Facebook posts, and who are even now waging "a chaos campaign to undermine faith in American democracy."

If only there was an Agent 99 to bring some levity and balance to Robert Mueller's Maxwell Smart personna then everything would be complete.

[Sep 01, 2018] We live in times in which the media elites and academia are fully insane. That means that the 'normal' levels of insanity and venality for career politicians will be ramped up

Notable quotes:
"... My favorite part of this article: "And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it. ..."
"... Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East." ..."
Sep 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Johnnie Walker Read , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT

@Bennis Mardens

"A certain tribe hates Trump"

Wow, you must live on a different planet than the rest f us. Israhell has never had a greater friend in the White House than Donald Trumpenstien.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-it-comes-to-jewish-ties-no-gop-candidate-trumps-trump/

Jake , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:18 pm GMT

My favorite part of this article: "And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it.

Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East."

We live in times in which the media elites and academia are fully insane. That means that the 'normal' levels of insanity and venality for career politicians will be ramped up.

factjis , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

So this "tribe" (as you call them) are the folks leading the criticism of the President? These folks "own the media" you aver -- yes?

Hmmm, then that clearly can't be a "tribe" which includes Netanyahu, his likudniks and neo-cons and militant right-wing, American billionaire Zionists -- because they've never had it so good under any U.S. President.

As for the Palestinians (let alone the American middle class), well, things are rather different.

Moi , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

How so? Mr. T is a crypto Jew himself who loves Israel almost as much as Bibi.

anon , [317] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

unilateral private media ownership is the problem, not privatized tribal hate for Trump or whomever..

Government vs Private Parallel Media can solve many, many problems created by Deep State it can quickly turn the tables on the deep state or strongly support it.. Since 1492 when Martin Luther exposed unilateral backroom power, massive singularities of accumulated wealth, and controlled, filtered propaganda to the masses. government has become the responsibility of the governed, and the governors have become the servants of the masses. However, those same powers Luther exposed have done everything in their power to deny the masses the right to self determination

Trump has a plan to nationalize the media, but I think he should merely parallel the private media with open source government media ( no rules to use it, none, not any, sex weird stuff, criminal stuff, whatever ,just let anyone with something to say say it on their own website hosted by the government). Produce a government media hosting site, allow anyone, foreign or local, to present on the public media. use government developed search engine and indexing technology (no private party no private contractors, everything and everyone involved at the government host site is a government employee and all technology is developed by government for government use only) and let the masses decide for themselves both 1) form of government and 2) degree of corruption they will accept. Everyone can then select do they want to view the Deep State Media or one of the millions of content providers visible on the government media host.

Johnnie Walker Read , says: September 1, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Bennis Mardens

"Zionism(A.K.A. Neo-Cons, and all "Israeli Firsters") is a political ideology based upon the suspension of reason and common sense, rooted upon a macabre death wish that worships the state of Israel.

Israel-First loyalists do not have to be Jewish. Christian-Zionists routinely forgo faithfulness to our country, when they place Israel above the interests of our own nation. The notion that Israel is a trusted ally is the most absurd illusion that exists in a demented political culture. This is the "Big Lie", an invention of Zionist subversion, which is the cause of an insane American foreign policy. Israel-First zealots control every aspect of political power in the United States. An actual American holocaust that stares us directly in our faces stems from sick fraudulent propaganda and phony guilt deceit that only benefits Zionists and Israel."

http://batr.org/gulag/051605.html

Trump praising Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-ZadGhAo5M

Anonymous , [321] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

South America, North America .. is there still a difference?

Anonymous , [321] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:23 pm GMT
@Sean

I hope not. If Trump wants to go down a hero, he can be the monkey wrench that wrecks so much damage on the machine that it's no longer capable of threatening the world. If he can perform a controlled demolition of the USA, the rest of the world will continue just fine without them. We'll remember him as a hero for preventing WW3.

HallParvey , says: September 1, 2018 at 1:40 pm GMT
@Brabantian

None of this makes any difference. The MSM still control 98 percent of the information transmission systems in the western world. Indeed, (((they))) are beginning to prohibit other information systems such as the internet.

What you don't hear about never happened. The flip side of that coin is that what you hear about over and over comes to be reality, regardless. Think Tawana Brawley. Think Duke sports teams.

Where there's smoke there must be fire, right?

Trump has a talent for feeding the MSM red meat. Always with a good dose of poison mixed in so they are happy to shoot themselves in the foot. Think Roseanne Roseannadanna. Nevermind

Anonymous , [795] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:55 pm GMT
@Sean

That is why Trump will attack Iran.

Well, he can't attack Syria because Israel, ya know, might get hot grease spattered on them. And besides, Israel wants Syria with as little additional damage as possible, leaving an attack on Iran as the only method of "attacking" Russia. But, it cannot be done directly, with flimsy excuses. The excuses are just too damn flimsy.

Also, life is too damn good for American Army mercenaries to have to risk life and limb for another meaningless ME conflict. Nope, the Army needs another five years, at the very least, before another round of medals and benefit-increases justifies their personal risk. US Army take-home, "combat" pay and massive health-and-living benefits amount to the best living any white American boy can experience, but there is a limit.

Now, limited-scope attack by proxy? Iraq border conflict? Afghanistan border conflict? Both good, plus there is already umpty-ump bajillion $ of US taxpayer-paid military equipment in Afghanistan. Good excuse to junk it all and get new stuff. That's what taxpayers are for, after all.

Anonymous , [795] Disclaimer says: September 1, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

Hypocrisy will end, and somebody will have to tell the American people the naked truth.

Don't be silly. Hypocrisy will increase, and the American people are never told any truth, ever.

DESERT FOX , says: September 1, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT

The fact is that the U.S. is a Zionist controlled plantation and there is no difference at the top levels between the demonrats and the republicons as both are Zionist controlled and are traitors to America, as proof of this is the Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state attack on 911 which killed 3000 Americans and Israel and the Zionists got away with it and every thinking America knows they did it.

The only difference between Trump and Helliary is their plumbing, both are Zionist puppets and the ziocons run the U.S. gov..

[Aug 31, 2018] John Bolton is, I believe, the scariest character in Trump's administration

Aug 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Jessika , August 31, 2018 at 9:55 pm

John Bolton is, I believe, the scariest character in Trump's administration. How did Trump pick him? It makes no sense, but this whole mess literally makes none. There has got to be a way to get him out of there. Sheldon Adelson's money is the connection between Trump, Haley, Bolton. Bolton wants war with Iran, has been intent on it since Bush 2 administration. He is quite dangerous, and has connections to Netanyahu and even Meir Dagan of Mossad. I can't copy this link to Gareth Porter's article but maybe Joe or someone can, it's cited below. Everyone should read it. The facts in the article are quite alarming about Bolton. With all the political drama going on from the Mueller probe, there are possibilities of dreadful consequences, and I think Bolton could bring disaster. He may be the origin as well as the mouthpiece of this latest provocative threat about Assad using chemicals. Here is the article:

"The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War with Iran", by Gareth Porter, in The American Conservative, March 22, 2018.

[Aug 31, 2018] Sources Go Quiet in Moscow

Notable quotes:
"... A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq. ..."
"... The article , entitled "Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin's Plans for Midterms," claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian president "who have provided crucial details" that have now stopped reporting at a critical time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to " American officials familiar with the intelligence" who " spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal classified information." ..."
"... Having Brennan as a source is an indication that the two journalists were desperate and were willing to cite anyone. ..."
"... And then there are the narratives that the journalists accept to make their whole story credible. As the title of the article suggests, they believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a "plan" for America's midterm elections. To support that conjecture they cite recent assertions from both corporate and government leaders that there has been meddling in cyber systems and on social media over the past few months, though it is interesting to note that no evidence has been provided to link such activity to Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... And finally, then there is an odd whine from a former CIA Russia expert John Sipher blaming the intelligence failure on the likelihood that the Agency Station in Moscow is tiny and ineffective because "The Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people" in their expulsion of sixty American diplomats/spies in March. Sipher is inter alia confirming to Moscow that many of those expelled were, in fact, CIA. ..."
"... persona non grata ..."
"... Featured image is from the author. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

by Philip M. Giraldi

A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq.

The article , entitled "Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin's Plans for Midterms," claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian president "who have provided crucial details" that have now stopped reporting at a critical time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to " American officials familiar with the intelligence" who " spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal classified information."

After reading the piece, my first reaction was that Judith Miller was back but the byline clearly read Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg . Noms de plume , perhaps? The article is so astonishingly bad on so many levels that it could have been featured in Marvel Comics instead of the Gray Lady. First of all, if American intelligence truly has in the Kremlin high level human agents, referred to as humint, it would not be publicizing the fact for fear that Moscow would intensify its search for the traitors and discover who they were. No intelligence officer speaking either openly or anonymously would make that kind of fatal mistake by leaking such information to a journalist.

The Establishment Strikes Back

If indeed the source of the leak was a genuine intelligence officer it suggests a different, more plausible interpretation. The CIA might, in fact, have no high-level agents at all at the Kremlin level and is intent on having the Russians waste time and energy looking for the moles. There is additional evidence in the article that the agent story might be a fabrication. The authors assert that the CIA agents in Moscow provided critical information relating to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The nature of that information, if it existed at all, is something less than transparent and the piece cites no less an authority on Moscow's subversion than ex-Agency Director John Brennan, who connived at electing Hillary when he was at CIA and has had an axe to grind ever since. Having Brennan as a source is an indication that the two journalists were desperate and were willing to cite anyone.

And then there are the narratives that the journalists accept to make their whole story credible. As the title of the article suggests, they believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a "plan" for America's midterm elections. To support that conjecture they cite recent assertions from both corporate and government leaders that there has been meddling in cyber systems and on social media over the past few months, though it is interesting to note that no evidence has been provided to link such activity to Russia.

So, does Putin have a plan? The New York Times apparently believes he does. And what would that plan involve? The Times thinks it is no less than "a broad chaos campaign to undermine faith in American democracy." It also cites Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats as affirming that Putin is "intent on undermining American democratic systems." Think about that for a moment. Why would Russia want to damage an already oftentimes dysfunctional system of government? To replace it with what? A dictatorship might be more effective and even warlike, contrary to Russia's own interests. Why mess with something that is already messy all by itself?

The article also hurls out other lies and half-truths. It assumes that Russia was trying to change the outcome of the 2016 US election, for which there is no evidence at all, and it also claims that Putin is killing off spies, citing the Skripal case in Britain, for which proof of an actual Russian connection has never been presented.

And finally, then there is an odd whine from a former CIA Russia expert John Sipher blaming the intelligence failure on the likelihood that the Agency Station in Moscow is tiny and ineffective because "The Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people" in their expulsion of sixty American diplomats/spies in March. Sipher is inter alia confirming to Moscow that many of those expelled were, in fact, CIA.

He also needs to recall that the persona non grata (PNG) move was in response to the US expelling sixty Russians and closing two diplomatic facilities over Skripal, which means the United States deliberately took self-inflicted steps that it should have known would cripple its ability to spy in Moscow. And now it is complaining because it doesn't know what is going on.

*

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

The original source of this article is Strategic Culture Foundation Copyright © Philip Giraldi , Strategic Culture Foundation , 2018

[Aug 31, 2018] Anti-Semitism Charges Against Jeremy Corbyn Are Diversion From Israeli Occupation of Palestine by Miko Peled

Notable quotes:
"... Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. It seems, however, that none of this matters to those who would bring him down. ..."
"... The desperation of those seeking to oust Corbyn can be seen by the latest accusation against him: attending a memorial for terrorists. ..."
"... Corbyn did not remain silent. True to himself once again, he struck back, reminding Netanyahu that what is deserving of condemnation is Israeli forces' killing of hundreds of protesters in Gaza and the passing of the new, racist Israel Nation State Law . ..."
"... By trying to silence the discussion regarding Zionism and its legitimacy, Israel abuses the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust, particularly the Jewish victims. There are entire communities of Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors who are quite ready to discuss and debate any issue, including the Holocaust, and who view the Zionists' stance as absurd. These same Jewish communities also reject Zionism and support the Palestinian call for BDS , or Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. It is time that these voices be heard. ..."
"... Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of " The General's Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine ," and " Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five ." ..."
Aug 30, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. It seems, however, that none of this matters to those who would bring him down.

The U.K. Labour Party conference is more than three weeks away and Jeremy Corbyn, true to himself and his principles, has risen above the mud-slinging and continues to fight for the principles to which he has dedicated his entire life. He focuses on issues like social justice; caring for the many rather than the few, the millions not the millionaires; and, as Corbyn himself said in his speech at last year's convention, "end[ing] the oppression of the Palestinian people."

Zionist groups within the Labour Party, which include LFI (Labour Friends of Israel) and the JLM (the Zionist 'Jewish Labour Movement'), skillfully utilize the pro-Zionist media. They are trying -- and failing -- to paint Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite. However, the problem is not anti-Semitism but Corbyn's stance on Palestine. These Zionist groups want to get rid of Corbyn because of his principled stance on Palestine, Israeli colonialism and occupation of Palestine, and they use anti-Semitism labels because they think it will work.

The 1972 Munich-attacks issue

The desperation of those seeking to oust Corbyn can be seen by the latest accusation against him: attending a memorial for terrorists.

It was given impetus by a remark by the Israeli prime minister, in what is a shocking intervention by Israel in British politics. Benjamin Netanyahu made remarks about the Labour leader, saying that he deserves "unequivocal condemnation." In what can only be described as an escalation of the already heavy-handed intervention of Zionist groups to end Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, Netanyahu said that Corbyn's participation in a ceremony at a cemetery in Tunis in 2014 is deserving of condemnation, because -- according to Netanyahu -- terrorists are buried there.

Corbyn did not remain silent. True to himself once again, he struck back, reminding Netanyahu that what is deserving of condemnation is Israeli forces' killing of hundreds of protesters in Gaza and the passing of the new, racist Israel Nation State Law .

Netanyahu -- along with what may well be the loudest Zionist mouthpiece in Britain, The Daily Mail -- claims that Corbyn was present at a ceremony and even laid a wreath on the graves of terrorists connected with the 1972 attack on the Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympic games .

The truth of the matter is that the event in which Corbyn participated had nothing to do with the Munich attack. In 2014 Jeremy Corbyn attended a service at a cemetery in Tunis commemorating the victims of the 1985 Israeli airstrike on the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) offices in Tunis. This Israeli attack was a breach of international law, violated the sovereignty of another country, and received worldwide condemnation, including by the United States .

The Crisis in Corbyn's Labour Party Is Over Israel, Not Anti-Semitism

Furthermore, none of the eight men who participated in the Munich attack are buried in Tunis. The four men who are buried there -- and whose tombstones are shown in The Daily Mail photo -- are Salah Khalaf, who was Yasser Arafat's deputy; his aide, Fakhri al-Omari; Hayel Abdel-Hamid, who was the PLO chief of security; and Atef Bseiso. Bseiso was assassinated in Paris in 1992 -- 20 years after the Munich Olympics. He was heavily involved in talks with the CIA in an attempt to advance relations between the U.S. and the PLO. Israel claimed that all four were involved in the attack in Munich and had all of them assassinated either directly or by the proxy terror group, Abu-Nidal. There was never a shred of proof, not to mention a trial, to substantiate Israel's allegations against these men.

Blatant intervention

The big question is why does the Israeli prime minister feel he needs to engage in such blatant intervention and and make such blatantly false accusations just as Britain's largest political party is about to convene? Netanyahu and his henchmen must realize that U.K. Labour, having gained over half a million members since Jeremy Corbyn's ascent as leader, is poised to win in the next elections, so that, if Israel fails to oust him, Jeremy Corbyn will end up in 10 Downing Street.

One of the ridiculous charges laid against Corbyn is the following: He was criticized for attending a passover Seder with a particular group of Jewish people who "dismissed concerns about anti-Semitism in the party." So it is not good enough that he went to a Seder and that he opted to do so among people who live in his own constituency; he had to do so with Jewish people who think a particular way.

Corbyn was also criticized for participating in an event with the late Hajo Meyer , a Jewish holocaust survivor himself. This was in 2010, when Corbyn hosted a Holocaust Memorial Day event in London with Meyer as the main speaker. Hajo Meyer was, like many holocaust survivors, a fervent advocate for Palestinian rights and a severe critic of Israel -- hence the criticism.

Anti-Semitism

Another sticking point is the self-appointed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ( IHRA ), which apparently adopted a new and, in their own words, "non-legally binding" working definition of anti-Semitism . Initially Labour's national executive committee refused to accept this definition, but there are signs that a compromise might be on the horizon. This definition of anti-Semitism is one that entire Jewish communities do not accept because it seeks to silence criticism of Israel and conflates Zionism with Judaism. The anti-Semitism definition includes several clauses that have nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism and have everything to do with protecting Israel from criticism. For example:

War of attrition

Another example, in which I was personally involved, has to do with a comment that I made at a fringe event during the 2017 Labour conference and that turned into a major news item. During a panel on free speech, I said that free speech means we should be able to discuss every issue, including Palestine and the Holocaust. The Daily Mail published this as though it was a scandalous thing to say and accused Labour and even Corbyn himself for allowing it to happen.

Every other newspaper in Britain followed suit and then papers in Palestine and even the Israeli papers picked it up as well. I added in my remarks that, while free speech should not be criminalized, we do not need to give a platform to proponents of any racist ideology, and that includes Zionists who regularly demand to be present and give their perspective at events and lectures.

My presence during the conference and my comments did not warrant such attention. However, this is a war of attrition in which Labour Friends of Israel, the so-called 'Jewish Labour Movement, and the British Daily Mail are leading the charge and will jump at every opportunity to get attention. Once again, the problem was not denial of the Holocaust or anti-Semitism -- because there was no expression of either one -- but the fear of a discussion on Palestine and Zionism.

By trying to silence the discussion regarding Zionism and its legitimacy, Israel abuses the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust, particularly the Jewish victims. There are entire communities of Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors who are quite ready to discuss and debate any issue, including the Holocaust, and who view the Zionists' stance as absurd. These same Jewish communities also reject Zionism and support the Palestinian call for BDS , or Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. It is time that these voices be heard.

Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. However, none of this matters. As was stated clearly in The Daily Mai l,

"The Board of Deputies of British Jews warned Mr. Corbyn to 'come out of hiding' and said the anti-Semitism crisis would not go away."

In other words, there is nothing he can say or do to "clear" himself. They are determined to oust him and they think the anti-Semitic card will do the trick.

*

Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of " The General's Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine ," and " Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five ."

[Aug 31, 2018] It is reported that the German company and partner in Nord Stream II, Uniper, may pull out of the project due to the risk of US sanctions

Aug 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL August 30, 2018 at 9:29 am

It is reported that the German company and partner in Nord Stream II, Uniper, may pull out of the project due to the risk of US sanctions (previously it said Uniper will pull out sic see link.).* In related news, construction has been started in German waters. Still silence from Denmark as to whether they will block it or not.

If I were Moscow, I would announce that the pipeline's route will avoid Danish waters and sit back to see the reaction. Why? Coz you can bet that some will claim it is punishment/bribe/threat/anti-competitive to Denmark, to whit, Russia can simply reply that Denmark has XXX days to provide the permits before it is no longer economically feasible for the route to go through its waters.

* https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-company-fully-committed-to-nord-stream-2-despite-fear-of-us-sanctions/

Euractiv: With attacks on Nord Stream 2, Washington ignores collateral damage
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opinion/with-attacks-on-nord-stream-2-washington-ignores-collateral-damage/

####

What p* me off about the reported 'threat from NSII' and even in articles like the one above that point out it is in Europe's interest, none of them mention the preceding sabotage of South Stream II under the mighty Obama and the impact from that led directly to Nord Stream II.

A blast from the past:
Bulgaria halts Russia's South Stream gas pipeline project after visit by US senators
https://www.rt.com/business/164588-brussels-bulgaria-halts-south-stream/

At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've suspended the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."

McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.

"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes anybody it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the thing with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####

Yes kids. Warmonger McCain was at the forefront of getting it killed after interference from Brussels failed to shift the asshole Borissov's government. So when a European asks "What has John McCain done for us? , he's already f*ed you over for the benefit of the US and U-ropean poodle Krazy K**t Klan.

[Aug 31, 2018] It occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out.

Aug 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN August 30, 2018 at 8:49 am

See, this is why I enjoy Leonid Bershidsky's writing . Despite his idealistic prattling that Russia is actually guilty of all the things America says it is – his ultimate loyalty is still to his adopted homeland, the land of milk and honey – he remains essentially a realist. And his take on the economic dynamics is brutally realistic; the United States cannot 'bring the Russian economy to its knees'. Once again, America's ridiculously-high opinion of itself and its power fail to take account of consequences.

Oh, it could, I suppose, in a way. A way that would see the world's largest economy – arguably, and certainly in its last days if it is actually still the world's largest economy – wreck the global economy and its own trade relationship with the world in order to damage Russia. Is it willing to go that far? You just never know, as decades of feeding itself exceptionalism have addled its thinking.

Bershidsky points out – correctly, I think – that Russia has held off on punishing American companies in Russia just as the USA has not dared to sanction the energy industry in Russia. Neither wants to take that step, although one will certainly provoke the other.

In fact, it occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out. What would happen then? America would be bound to drop the sanctions hammer on oil and gas. And what would happen then? Europe would say, it's been a lovely party, but I must be going. I give that an 8 of 10 chance of happening, and solely because of the stupid actions heretofore by the Trump government. Had America been reasonable, it would have stood a chance of carrying Europe with it to a war against Russia. But Trump and his blowhard bullying have hardened European resolve against the USA.

[Aug 31, 2018] Empire Spymongering and Elite Conspiracy Practitioners

Notable quotes:
"... The mass media and political leaders of the US have resorted to denouncing competitors and adversaries as spies engaged in criminal theft of vital political, economic and military know-how. ..."
"... Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

by Prof. James Petras

The mass media and political leaders of the US have resorted to denouncing competitors and adversaries as spies engaged in criminal theft of vital political, economic and military know-how.

The spy-mania has spread every place and all the time, it has become an essential element in driving national criminal hearings, global economic warfare and military budgets.

In this paper we will analyze and discuss the use and abuse of spy-mongering by (1) identifying the accused countries which are targeted; (2) the instruments of the spy conspiracy; (3) the purpose of the 'spy attacks'.

Spies, Spies Everywhere: A Multi-Purpose Strategy

Washington's 'spy-strategy' resorts to multiple targets, focusing on different sectors of activities.

Russia has been accused of poisoning adversaries, using overseas operatives in England. The evidence is non-existent. The accusation revolves around an instant lethal poison which in fact did not lead to death.

No Russian operative was identified. The only 'evidence' was that Russia possessed the poison- as did the US and other countries. The events took place in England and the British government played a major role in pointing the finger toward Russia and in launching a global media campaign which was amplified in the US and in the EU.

The UK expelled Russian diplomats and threatened sanctions. The Trump regime picked up the cudgels, increasing economic sanctions and demanding that Russia 'confess' to its 'homicidal behavior'. The poison plot resonated with the Democratic Party campaign against Trump , accusing Russia of meddling in the Presidential election, on Trump's behalf. No evidence was presented. But the less the evidence, the longer the investigation and the wider the conspiratorial net; it now includes overseas business people, students and diplomats.

US conspiracy officials targeted China, accusing the Chinese government of stealing US technology, scientific research and patents. China's billion dollar "Belt and Road" agreement with over sixty countries was presented as a communist plot to dominate countries, grab their resources, generate debt dependency and to recruit overseas networks of covert operatives. In fact, China's plans were public, accepted by most of the US allies and membership was even offered to the US.

Economic War on Iran Is War on Eurasia Integration

Iran was accused of plotting to establish overseas terrorist military operations in Yemen, Iraq and Syria – targeting the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. No evidence was ever presented. In fact, massive US and EU supplied arms and advisors to Saudi Arabia's overt terror bombing of Houthi-led Yemen cities and populations. Iran backed the Syrian government in opposition to the US backed armed mercenaries. Iranian advisers in Syria were bombed by Israel – and never retaliated.

The US policy elite resort to conspiratorial plots and spying depends heavily on the mass media to repeat and elaborate on the charges endlessly, depending on self-identified experts and ex-pats from the targeted country. In effect the media is the message. Media-state collaboration is reinforced by the application of sanctions -- the punishment proves guilt!

In the case of Russia, the conspirators demonize President Putin; he is 'guilty' because he was an ex-official of the police; he was accused of 'seizing' Crimea which voted to rejoin Russia. In other words, plots are linked to unrelated activity, personality disorders and to US self-inflicted defeats!

L abeling is another tool common to conspiracy plotters; China is a 'dictatorship' intent on taking over the world -- therefore, it could only defeat the US through spying and stealing secrets and assets from the US.

Iran is labelled a 'terrorist state' which allows the US to violate the international nuclear agreement and to support Israeli demands for economic sanctions. No evidence is ever presented that Iran invaded or terrorized any state.

The Political Strategy Behind Conspiracy Terrorists

There are several important motives for the US government to resort to conspiracy plots.

By accusing countries of crimes, it hopes that the accused will respond by revealing their inability or unwillingness to engage in the action falsely attributed to them. Pentagon plots put adversaries on the defensive – spending time and energy answering to the US agenda rather than pursuing and advancing their own.

For example, the US claims that China is stealing economic technology to promote its superiority, is designed to pressure China to downplay or modify its long-term plan for strategic growth. While China will not give general credence to US conspiracy practitioners, it has downplayed the slogans designed to motivate its scientists to "Make China Great'.

Likewise, the US conspiracy practitioners accusation that Iran is 'meddling' in Yemen and Syria is designed to distract world opinion from the US military support for Saudi Arabia's terror bombing in Yemen and Israel's missile attacks in Syria.

Plot accusations have had some effect in Syria. Russia has demanded or asked Iran to withdraw fifty miles from the Israeli border. Apparently Iran has lowered its support for Yemen.

Russia has been blanketed with unsubstantiated accusations of intervening in the Ukraine, which distracts attention from Washington's support for the mob-led coup.

The UK claim that Russia planted a deadly poison, was concocted in order to distract attention from the Brexit fiasco and Prime Minister May's effort to entice the US to sign a major trade agreement.

How Successful are Conspiratorial Politics?

The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist agenda.

Secondly, the conspiracy has had an impact on both political parties – especially the Democratic leadership, which has waged a political war accusing Trump of plotting with Russia, to defeat Clinton in the presidential elections. However, Democratic conspiracy advocates have sacrificed their popular electorate who are more interested in economic issues then in regime plots – and may lose to the Republicans in the fall 2018 Congressional elections.

Thirdly, the plot and spy line has some impact on the EU but not on their public. Moreover, the EU is more concerned with President Trump's trade war and made overtures to Russia.

Fourthly, China , Iran and Russia have moved closer economically in response to the conspiracy plots and trade wars.

Conclusion: The Perils of Power Grabbers

Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars. The media plotters having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the public.

Moreover, the conspiracy has not resulted in any basic shifts in the orientation of their adversaries, nor has it shaped the electoral agenda for the majority of US voters.

The conspiracy advocates have discredited themselves by the transparency of their fabrications and the flimsiness of their evidence. In the long-run, historians will provide a footnote on the bankruptcy of US foreign and domestic policy based on plots and conspiracies.

*

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Prof. James Petras , Global Research, 2018

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

[Aug 31, 2018] The American oligarchy is not homogenous: there are at lease three caps in the top: Wolfowitz doctrine camp, "Clash of civilizations camp, and "anti-China" camp

Notable quotes:
"... The main contradiction, though is between the American nationalist impulse and the inexorable movement of capitalism to dissolve national barriers. We are witnessing the dissolution of the Manifest Destiny, the ideology which states the American national interests are equal to those of world capitalism. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Aug 30, 2018 11:30:02 PM | 66

I'm not surprised by what is happening to the USA after Trump's victory. The American oligarchy is not homogenous: there are a plethora of interests at the top.

But, in my opinion, what offends the elite the most is that Trump is eroding America's soft power, its image to the rest of the world, its allies and enemies. Remember: this is not 1946 anymore, the USA can't keep its alliance through infrastructure investment a la Marshall Plan, so appearances are as important as ever.

Now, as I've already stated many times here in this blog, there are three main orientations/doctrines in the American elite:

  1. establishment/mainstream/Wolfowitz Doctrine/Russophobia, which states Russia is the threat to the USA because it inherited the USSR's nuclear arsenal and kept 90% of its territory and people
  2. "Clash of Civilizations"/Sinophobia, which states China is the new enemy because it is a big and represents the culture of the "East", against the culture of the "West". This is Trump's doctrine, possibly (probably) infused to him by Steven Bannon, and
  3. The Chicoms, which states China is both the cultural/commercial main rival and the successor state of the USSR (as the torch-bearer of socialism in the world). These orientations clash all the time, so one time one is dominant, another time another one is dominant etc.

The main contradiction, though is between the American nationalist impulse and the inexorable movement of capitalism to dissolve national barriers. We are witnessing the dissolution of the Manifest Destiny, the ideology which states the American national interests are equal to those of world capitalism.

So, in a desperate move to keep the MD alive and reverse Mackinder's prophecy (that Eurasia is the natural center of human civilization), the Americans need a way to balkanize Russia. See, for example, this article of 2014, where an Ukrainian ideologue connected to the West (through Radio Free Europe/Liberty), revives Brzezinski's 1997 plan of dissecting Russia in 8 parts (of which only 3-4 would be sovereign countries):

(Redrawing the Map of the Russian Federation: Partitioning Russia After World War III?) https://www.globalresearch.ca/redrawing-the-map-of-the-russia-federation-partitioning-russia-after-world-war-iii/5400748

[Aug 31, 2018] Back to the false flag chemical attack playbook once again

Notable quotes:
"... You know, you can can either have a empire or you can have a decent country. You cannot have both, and you very much do not. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

...

Jessika , August 31, 2018 at 4:09 pm

Very good article from Patrick Lawrence, and count me in on treason, too, might never makes right. Good post, Joe, the American people have been shaken down while their misleaders were shaking down and blowing up much of the world and expecting that, hey, they're supposed to sit back and take that? Hillary would have advanced the already existing decay from neoliberal policies that Obama implemented, but Trump is using dynamite in his Kaiser Wilhelm ham-fisted way to give quicker results of economic gunboat Twitter diplomacy.

Macron just spoke publicly of getting along and doing business with Russia, Merkel just met with Putin, and on Iran's oil other nations like China, Russia, Turkey, are strategizing to find ways around the bully US that can't implement anything but war games including economic ones. And isn't it ironic that the bully boy bunch preside over a massive debt and deficit, while their vilified nemesis Russia has little to no debt and has divested itself of much US dollar business and continues to do so?

But the gangsters can't figure out anything but throwing more bombs. Today we hear of a bomb in a cafe killing a leader of Donetsk separatist movement who didn't want those neo-Nazis and their corrupt chocolate puppeteer Poroshenko put in by the US in 2014. Could the CIA be involved? And Russia just went to the UN to report that there is planned chemical attack in Syria again to blame on Assad, attempting to preempt it. Spoiling is all the US can do, while the misleaders also spoil the lives of regular middle class Americans, many who still don't understand how they are abused. And the Deep State TV show of Muellergate goes on daily.

Gregory Herr , August 31, 2018 at 4:42 pm

Astounding, isn't it? Back to the false flag chemical attack playbook once again–even though any rational person knows that a chemical attack in Idleb would not merely be one of the most ineffective tactics the Syrian Army could use to regain territory, but would be counterproductive in terms of PR both at home with Syrian citizens, and in the eyes of the world. A

ny ploy (no matter how deceitful or overplayed) that the U.S. war planners can use as an excuse to attack Syria and keep the conflict going will be used. The desperadoes know that when the fighting stops and an extensive joint rebuild begins, the truth from Syrian citizens themselves will out.

The testimony of millions of Syrians cannot be denied. The fact that refugees want to return home cannot be denied–they fled terrorism, not Assad.

The war planners didn't dream Syria wouldn't fall, just as they didn't dream Clinton would lose. Now all the dirty tricks are coming to light–and it sure isn't a good look.

Anyway, thoughtful post as usual Jessika.

JR , August 31, 2018 at 2:59 pm

BRAVO! This predicted "false flag white helmets chemical attack" in Syria coincides with what I picked up on-line earlier in the week from Col. W. Patrick Lang's site: http://turcopolier.typepad.com site. He describes himself as a retired senior officer of US. Military Intelligence & U.S Army Secial Forces (The Green Berets) . Check out his site & bio: About Me It seemed to be what Sergei Lavrov is saying based on Russian Intel. Correct me if I'm wrong gotta go now to do urgent errands.

KiwiAntz , August 31, 2018 at 9:19 am

The dilemma America is confronted with, is that it can't allow "peace to break out" anywhere in the World! Be that in Nth Korea, Syria or anywhere else! As a vile, War profiteering, Warmongering, dying Empire, nothing must prevent it from waging endless war to justify its demonic existence! And if the US can't win the conflicts they will continue to play a spoiling role as we have seen in Syria & will do everything possible to sabotage & disrupt any peace making attempts by others because that's what War criminals do! It's petty, vindictive & pathetic! The sooner this deathcult Empire explodes like a dying star & collapses in on itself into a black hole will be a great day for this World!

Martin - Swedish citizen , August 31, 2018 at 2:18 pm

Yes, and isn't perpetual war indeed a foundation of Neocon ideology?

mike k , August 31, 2018 at 7:47 am

What we are seeing now is the drama of the US Hegemon taking on the world, in a last ultimately futile attempt to make it bow to the Empire's fading power. This is going to be very, very messy. All of this is playing out in the shadow of the imminent collapse of industrial civilization and the ongoing extinction of crucial strands in our ecological safety net.

Ma Laoshi , August 31, 2018 at 7:36 am

Apart from the reality-show atmosphere surrounding it all, is there really anything new here? It is the US Govt's written policy to prevent the people of Eurasia from conducting their business among themselves without Wall St getting its cut; in Reagan's famous words, "That's why we fought two world wars". So spoil they must. It has become such an accepted part of the Pentagon jargon that they "want a presence", intend to "play a role", etc. It's all but acknowledged that the wars or at a minimum the base-building must go on; mission objectives or even on whose side the US intervenes are secondary in comparison.

One notes that the Resistance fights Trump on cultural and symbolic issues which are safe for Democrats, not on what the Donald does in the world–once back in power, they'd do the same things.

John Puma , August 31, 2018 at 6:21 am

Re: Quote author of article: " it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. objective is to strangle the Russian economy."

With all due respect, it appears the author is ?3.5 years late. (More like 70 years.)

It was BH Obumma who said, in his 2015 State of the Union Address:

"Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin's aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters."

It IS the US objective and it is unmistakably (if pathetically and pathologically) "bipartisan."

The Cold War was restarted when Bush II abrogated the ABM treaty

JOHN CHUCKMAN , August 31, 2018 at 8:53 am

Yes. Even more to the point.

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

Realist , August 31, 2018 at 5:43 am

"Whether the president or his minders are running affairs, Patrick Lawrence sees the U.S. being reduced to playing a spoiler role in the Middle East and Northeast Asia. "

They are one in the same ..Deep State.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , August 31, 2018 at 3:53 am

Well said.

I think the stuff about Trump only confirms the observation that American presidents really are not in charge.

It was no different with Obama except for the style and superficial "class."

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

JOHN CHUCKMAN , August 31, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Noisy, ugly, and unpleasant – all qualities Trump posses in abundance – have nothing to do with the power relationship between a President and the Washington power establishment.

My point is that Obama from whom we expected a little heroism proved an almost complete coward. He did as was expected of him – in Libya, in Syria, in Bahrain, in Egypt, in Ukraine, and in China. He gave us industrial-scale drone murder, something every American should be deeply ashamed of.

Trump had no promise at all in most areas, but on the crucial matter of the Neocon Wars across the Middle East and relations with Russia – both extremely important matters – he did offer some promise of change. And he has been completely unable to deliver. He's paralyzed.

George Bush was the first convincing proof that America doesn't even need a President, except to sign the required papers put before him by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Obama's sad time proved it further as the man who once wore sandals and eschewed a ridiculous American flag pin on his lapel, killed at least half a million people across the Mideast, created millions of refugees to nearly destabilize Europe, and supported a dangerous and destructive coup in Ukraine. And then there's those drones killing thousands of innocents, because even the targets are legally innocent, let alone the "collateral damage."

And Trump hasn't delivered on one important imperial matter. The killing goes on across the Mideast, and an important country like Russia is treated disgracefully.

Its what the power establishment wants.

So it's what America gets, no matter who is elected, rendering American elections close to meaningless.

You know, you can can either have a empire or you can have a decent country. You cannot have both, and you very much do not.

Great empire, with the anti-democratic and authoritarian instincts of the Pentagon and CIA and the plutocrats who benefit from it all, is about as far from decent and truly democratic as you can get.

That's America today.

You may find interesting:

https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/?s=beast+bellowing

https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/the-cia-and-americas-presidents-some-rarely-discussed-truths-shaping-contemporary-american-democracy/

Ma Laoshi , August 31, 2018 at 7:51 am

With all respect, are you even making sense here. Why would Russia ever have needed to buy Iranian oil? Rather, Russia's less-than-solid commitment to its Iranian ally has in part to do with the two being energy-export rivals. But your larger point stands: no country wants to be caught out in front facing the hegemon's wrath, only to find that the cavalry hasn't followed behind them–the High Noon thing.

It may be just how our chimpanzee brain is wired to approach power. After every disaster, prayer vigils and temples go up to hopefully propitiate God better next time round. Nobody says: "No praises for You until You learn to behave".

Realist , August 31, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Oil is fungible. Russia has, in fact, been accepting oil from Iran in exchange for other goods needed by the Islamic Republic. I suppose it sells the oil to other clients.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russia-To-Assess-Legal-Frame-For-Iranian-Oil-Imports.html

[Aug 31, 2018] A few are beginning to wake up to the reality that snatching Ukraine away from Russia was never about prosperity and security for its people

Aug 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOW EXILE August 29, 2018 at 9:50 pm

" it is under $500 million and is likely mostly money from Ukrainians working in Russia. I do not see any corporate level investment happening in the current climate. "

The above linked RBK article goes on to read:

According to the presented data, during the period from January to June, the Ukraine received $1,259 billion, of which $436 million came from Russia. In second place was Cyprus, which invested $219 million and in third place amongst the largest investors was the Netherlands ($207.7 million).

In addition, contributions were made to the Ukraine economy by Austria ($58.7 million), Poland ($54.1), France ($46.9) and the UK ($43.4).

The report says that almost 60% of these funds ($750 million) were invested in the financial and insurance sphere; 9.6% of of the funds were invested by the Ukrainian authorities into the wholesale and retail trade; 8.2% into industry and 7.9 per cent. into information and telecommunications.

In mid-August, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said that Russia had been the main trading partner of the Ukraine since 2014 and because of this the return of the Crimea and the resolution of the conflict in the Donbass were becoming impossible. "There is no plan for victory in this state. Because you are not behaving like people who want a victory. You are already slaves", he said.

In response to Yushchenko's statement, the ex-head of the Ukrainian Ministry of the Economy, Viktor Suslov, said that the words of the former Ukrainian leader were "absurd" and considered any damage to Kiev caused by breaking off trade with Russia as being "colossal".

Doesn't sound like all of this money sloely consists of that sent off to "Independent" Ukraine by economic migrants from that country who are eking out a living in the Evil Empire.

MOSCOW EXILE August 29, 2018 at 10:14 pm

Verkhovna Rada Deputy Vadym Rabinovich on air of TV channel "112 Ukraine" said that the termination of trade with Russia will destroy Ukrainian economy.

According to him, Russia remains the largest trading partner of the Ukraine, as trade turnover between the two countries is growing every month.

"The trade balance with Russia is growing every month for one simple reason: the free economic zone with Europe has brought us only losses", said Rabinovich.

He noted that the interruption of trade between Moscow and Kiev is fraught with the loss, of "approximately one third of the gross national product".

"With all of the stupidity that you have done in the country, then with another unbalanced step you'll destroy the economy", summed up the Rada deputy.

Earlier, former head of the Main Department of the Ukrainian security Service, Vasily Vovk, proposed that the border with Russia be completely blocked and that ties with her be cut.

Source: В Раде рассказали о последствиях отказа от торговли с Россией

In the Rada they have been speaking about the consequences of refusing to trade with Russia

MARK CHAPMAN August 30, 2018 at 8:05 am

A few are beginning to wake up to the reality that snatching Ukraine away from Russia was never about prosperity and security for its people, and all about destabilizing what the west perceived as the quickening of an unwelcome regional influence, and curbing it. The EU – and its string-puller, Washington – does not give a fuck about the economic well-being of Ukrainians, does not have even the brotherly connection of being of the same ethnic group, and for so long as Ukraine is willing to suffer being poor in silence, for that long it will not be a problem for its new 'partners'.

Nationalist Nazi nutjobs are always proposing the border be sealed ever-tighter, if it were feasible to build a stainless-steel wall between Ukraine and Russia which reached to low earth orbit, they would vote for it. But the Great Wall Of Yatsenyuk never materialized, he's enjoying his Florida condo, and there is no practical way to limit commerce between the two countries while the people are increasingly motivated toward its continuing.

Ukraine is on the edge of collapse, and I don't think any force on earth can prevent its sliding over the edge. The west is not going to pony up the $170 Billion or so it would take to rescue it; if it did so, Porky and his minions would steal most of it for themselves, and Russia is unlikely to ever permit again the degree of fraternal closeness that existed between the two countries, since it is clear it would take only another western intervention to render it once again an untrustworthy spoiler. Once Nord Stream II is built, Ukraine will have lost its leverage and will be of no further significant value to the western purveyors of destabilization.

More such core realization is necessary to prevent Ukraine from officially blaming its collapse on anyone but itself. The government will try that course, naturally, and you don't need to be able to see very far into the future to know that it is Russia who will be blamed, despite plenty of empirical evidence that Russian investors and Ukrainian refugees working in Russia were all that kept it alive before the end. But in order that Ukrainians know in their heart of hearts that their government stepped on its own dick over and over, and that they passively failed to correct it, there needs to be more such public confession. I can show you plenty of analysis, in English, published before things went pear-shaped in the dying moments of 2013, which proposed that severing trade relationships with Russia as the nationalists insisted would cost Ukraine just about exactly what the Rada now says will happen, years too late. But they got one thing right – Ukraine and Russia cannot be brothers, not even friends, for so long as Ukraine harbours that nutty nationalist element. Give western Ukraine to Poland, and encourage all the nationalists to go to the new paradise, and ensure that happens. They can bore the Poles with their raptures about Kievan Rus. Then maybe some relationship could be salvaged.

[Aug 31, 2018] Russiagate has just one purpose: coverup for the crimes of operatives involved in the election manipulation of 2016 and earlier crimes such as the clinton email scandal investigation

This is incorrect: Russiagate first and foremost is a color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the Deep State has many other goals and priorities which align with Russiagate, and therefore support it fully, but the principals of Russiagate are the criminals trying to save their skin ..."
"... Of course, you can look at it at different levels with differing breadths, and at one level the Deep State role is included within the definition of "Russiagate" and therefore will include both Trump and Russia. But the view I expressed above is more fundamental (a) in terms of how and why Russiagate came into being, (b) in terms of the main principals involved, and (c) in terms of the causality of the the main processes. ..."
"... Once the "Russian election meddling" and "Putin puppet" memes were concocted as 1) a deflection from the Wikileaks DNC meddling scandal and 2) a smear to help assure that Trump couldn't be elected, the Dems painted themselves into a corner that they couldn't get out of once Trump was elected. ..."
"... They had made their scurrilous charges without anticipating that Trump would win. Throwing a smear during a campaign is one thing; conducting an investigation to shore up a smear is quite another. A campaign smear doesn't have to withstand scrutiny if it achieves its effect by dominating news cycles. But once they had thrown it and Trump was elected anyway, they were forced into a position where the smear needed to be shored up with bogus investigations. The alternative would have been an admission that the smear was just a smear. ..."
"... Russia derangement is a response to having to deal with an independent regional power acting on its own interests. The only thing that could have defused it would have been if the Russians folded over the Crimea and Donbas, and not shown their agency in Syria. And of course "progressives" have latched onto the new McCarthyism in their aspirations to regain power. Not that I love Trump or the Republicans, but if "progressives" wake up after election day with results showing that it backfired, it will be a great day ..."
"... IMO Russia gate is a cover for the Dems to make no change to their playbook. It also gives Trump an excuse to not deliver on some campaign promises he never intended to deliver on, much like Obama and many other Presidents. Its a great distraction keeping people from looking at the biggest foreign influence on government and elections, which is Israel ..."
"... Whether intended or not Russia gate also serves to strengthen Putin at home in the face of an external threat and keep them on their neoliberal path such as cutting pensions to support their MIC in the face of the US threat, and it will allow EU members to increase their own military spending to meet Trumps demands and many of those Euros will flow to the US ..."
"... IMO this is a carefully planned psyops and con game with each party playing their role and facilitating the execution of the ruling elites game plan. Sure, there are different factions and some infighting is allowed to maintain an illusion of Democracy for the proles, but the only Democracy is at the level of the ruling elite during their many private meetings of various elite groups that need not be named since they are so well known ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pft , Aug 30, 2018 9:05:59 PM | 53

Russiagate has just one purpose: coverup for the crimes of operatives involved in the election manipulation of 2016 and earlier crimes such as the Clinton email scandal investigation.

Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia. Anything else is purely peripheral.

(Of course, the Deep State has many other goals and priorities which align with Russiagate, and therefore support it fully, but the principals of Russiagate are the criminals trying to save their skin.)

BM | Aug 30, 2018 1:42:47 PM | 2

Re @BM 2

"Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia."

Of course, you can look at it at different levels with differing breadths, and at one level the Deep State role is included within the definition of "Russiagate" and therefore will include both Trump and Russia. But the view I expressed above is more fundamental (a) in terms of how and why Russiagate came into being, (b) in terms of the main principals involved, and (c) in terms of the causality of the the main processes.

BM | Aug 30, 2018 1:52:22 PM | 6

Once the "Russian election meddling" and "Putin puppet" memes were concocted as 1) a deflection from the Wikileaks DNC meddling scandal and 2) a smear to help assure that Trump couldn't be elected, the Dems painted themselves into a corner that they couldn't get out of once Trump was elected.

They had made their scurrilous charges without anticipating that Trump would win. Throwing a smear during a campaign is one thing; conducting an investigation to shore up a smear is quite another. A campaign smear doesn't have to withstand scrutiny if it achieves its effect by dominating news cycles. But once they had thrown it and Trump was elected anyway, they were forced into a position where the smear needed to be shored up with bogus investigations. The alternative would have been an admission that the smear was just a smear.

Russia derangement is a response to having to deal with an independent regional power acting on its own interests. The only thing that could have defused it would have been if the Russians folded over the Crimea and Donbas, and not shown their agency in Syria. And of course "progressives" have latched onto the new McCarthyism in their aspirations to regain power. Not that I love Trump or the Republicans, but if "progressives" wake up after election day with results showing that it backfired, it will be a great day.

Jackrabbit | Aug 30, 2018 8:01:51 PM | 47

IMO Russia gate is a cover for the Dems to make no change to their playbook. It also gives Trump an excuse to not deliver on some campaign promises he never intended to deliver on, much like Obama and many other Presidents. Its a great distraction keeping people from looking at the biggest foreign influence on government and elections, which is Israel

Whether intended or not Russia gate also serves to strengthen Putin at home in the face of an external threat and keep them on their neoliberal path such as cutting pensions to support their MIC in the face of the US threat, and it will allow EU members to increase their own military spending to meet Trumps demands and many of those Euros will flow to the US

IMO this is a carefully planned psyops and con game with each party playing their role and facilitating the execution of the ruling elites game plan. Sure, there are different factions and some infighting is allowed to maintain an illusion of Democracy for the proles, but the only Democracy is at the level of the ruling elite during their many private meetings of various elite groups that need not be named since they are so well known

[Aug 31, 2018] The last thing Globalists want is the incompetence and corruption in DC of the last decades brought out into the daylight. the only way he can get off the ropes is to appoint a Second Special Counsel to investigate the Obama Administration FBI/DOJ and the Intelligence Coup against him.

Aug 31, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VietnamVet , a day ago

Colonel,

The sleaze around Donald Trump's NYC businesses has gotten a couple of convictions. This a classic case of looking under the streetlight and finding it. The FBI/DOJ/CIA collaboration is something else. The forwarding of Clinton's 30,000 e-mails to the Chinese that was posted here has popped up, again. The e-mails reportedly went to a business front in Northern Virginia. The Chinese said they have heard this before. The Washington Post says that the FBI denies it. The truth is totally in the dark, but this can be investigated and be proven if true or false.

Jeff Sessions has appointed John Huber, Utah US Attorney, to investigate the claims against the FBI. He is not a special counsel. This likely is the source of friction between the two. The President is starting to show the wounds from the media attacks. All he has is his family. His staff is third string. He doesn't read briefings and gets his news
from Fox TV. He blows his top. He is being wrestled down by the Lilliputians until he slaps the mat.

The last thing Globalists want is the incompetence and corruption in DC of the last decades brought out into the daylight. If the Democrats gain control of the House
this year, the President will be hard pressed to make to 2021. John Kelly and Fox News won't tell the President, but the only way he can get off the ropes is to appoint a Second Special Counsel to investigate the Obama Administration FBI/DOJ and the Intelligence Coup against him.

Pat Lang Mod -> VietnamVet , a day ago

There is no doubt about the Chinese being the automatic recipients of copies of ALL e-mails that went through Hilly's servers.

Britam -> Pat Lang , 16 hours ago

Sir;
How far back does the China/Clinton 'connection' go? I remember some minor scandal from back in Bill Clinton's administration concerning Chinese purported 'agents of influence.' Money, of course played a role.
From your experience "inside the beltway," how large an effect do you think venality has on national governance?
What a cast of characters. Grifters, con-men and neo-con-men. It's a wonder there are any honest men and women left in Washington.

[Aug 31, 2018] For nearly two years, mostly vacuous (though malignant) Russiagate allegations have drowned out truly significant news directly affecting America's place in the world by Shephen Cohen

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... As I have argued previously , such evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper, President Obama's head of the CIA and director of national intelligence respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI. ..."
"... Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will grow ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.thenation.com

For nearly two years, mostly vacuous (though malignant) Russiagate allegations have drowned out truly significant news directly affecting America's place in the world. In recent days, for example. French President Emmanuel Macron declared "Europe can no longer rely on the United States to provide its security," calling for instead a broader kind of security "and particularly doing it in cooperation with Russia." About the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin met to expand and solidify an essential energy partnership by agreeing to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia, despite US attempts to abort it. Earlier, on August 22, the Afghan Taliban announced it would attend its first ever major peace conference -- in Moscow, without US participation.

Thus does the world turn, and not to the wishes of Washington. Such news would, one might think, elicit extensive reporting and analysis in the American mainstream media. But amid all this, on August 25, the ever-eager New York Times published yet another front-page Russiagate story -- one that if true would be sensational, though hardly anyone seemed to notice. According to the Times ' regular Intel leakers, US intelligence agencies, presumably the CIA, has had multiple "informants close to Putin and in the Kremlin who provided crucial details" about Russiagate for two years. Now, however, "the vital Kremlin informants have largely gone silent." The Times laces the story with misdeeds questionably attributed to Putin and equally untrustworthy commentators, as well as a mistranslated Putin statement that incorrectly has him saying all "traitors" should be killed. Standard US media fare these days when fact-checkers seem not to be required for Russia coverage. But the sensation of the article is that the US had moles in Putin's office.

Skeptical or credulous readers will react to the Times story as they might. Actually, an initial, lesser version of it first appeared in The Washington Post , an equally hospitable Intel platform, on December 15, 2017. I found it implausible for much the same reasons I had previously found Christopher Steele's "dossier," also purportedly based on "Kremlin sources," implausible. But the Times ' new, expanded version of the mole story raises more and larger questions.

If US intelligence really had such a priceless asset in Putin's office -- the Post report implied only one, the Times writes of more than one -- imagine what they could reveal about Enemy No. 1 Putin's intentions abroad and at home, perhaps daily -- why would any American Intel official disclose this information to any media at the risk of being charged with a treasonous capital offense? And now more than once? Or, since "the Kremlin" closely monitors US media, at the risk of having the no less treasonous Russian informants identified and severely punished? Presumably this why the Times ' leakers insist that the "silent" moles are still alive, though how they know we are not told. All of this is even more implausible. Certainly, the Times article asks no critical questions.

But why leak the mole story again, and now? Stripped of extraneous financial improprieties, failures to register as foreign lobbyists, tacky lifestyles, and sex having nothing to do with Russia, the gravamen of the Russiagate narrative remains what it has always been: Putin ordered Russian operatives to "meddle" in the US 2016 presidential election in order to put Donald Trump in the White House, and Putin is now plotting to "attack" the November congressional elections in order to get a Congress he wants. The more Robert Mueller and his supporting media investigates, the less evidence actually turns up, and when it seemingly does, it has to be considerably massaged or misrepresented.

Nor are "meddling" and "interfering" in the other's domestic policy new in Russian-American relations. Tsar Aleksandr II intervened militarily on the side of the Union in the American Civil War. President Woodrow Wilson sent troops to fight the Reds in the Russian Civil War. The Communist International, founded in Moscow in 1919, and its successor organizations financed American activists, electoral candidates, ideological schools, and pro-Soviet bookstores for decades in the United States. With the support of the Clinton administration, American electoral advisers encamped in Moscow to help rig Russian President Boris Yeltsin's reelection in 1996. And that's the bigger "meddling" apart from the decades-long "propaganda and disinformation" churned out by both sides, often via forbidden short-wave radio. Unless some conclusive evidence appears, Russian social media and other meddling in the 2016 presidential election was little more than old habits in modern-day forms. (Not incidentally, the Times story suggests that US Intel had been hacking the Kremlin, or trying to, for many years. This too should not shock us.)

The real novelty of Russiagate is the allegation that a Kremlin leader, Putin, personally gave orders to affect the outcome of an American presidential election. In this regard, Russiagaters have produced even less evidence, only suppositions without facts or much logic. With the Russiagate narrative being frayed by time and fruitless investigations, the "mole in the Kremlin" may have seemed a ploy needed to keep the conspiracy theory moving forward, presumably toward Trump's removal from office by whatever means. And hence the temptation to play the mole card again, now, as yet more investigations generate smoke but no smoking gun.

The pretext of the Times story is that Putin is preparing an attack on the upcoming November elections, but the once-"vital," now-silent moles are not providing the "crucial details." Even if the story is entirely bogus, consider the damage it is doing. Russiagate allegations have already delegitimized a presidential election, and a presidency, in the minds of many Americans. The Times ' updated, expanded version may do the same to congressional elections and the next Congress. If so, there is an "attack on American democracy" -- not by Putin or Trump but by whoever godfathered and repeatedly inflated Russiagate.

As I have argued previously , such evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper, President Obama's head of the CIA and director of national intelligence respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI.

Indeed, the Times story reminds us of how central "intelligence" actors have been in this saga. Arguably, Russiagate has brought us to the worst American political crisis since the Civil War and the most dangerous relations with Russia in history. Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will grow

Jeffrey Harrison says: August 30, 2018 at 1:06 am

I'd love to know, Mr. Cohen, why you think that Russiagate was perpetrated by Messrs Brennan and Clapper. I've been under the impression that it all started with Three Names whining about a hack to the DNC done by the Russians (based on no evidence) and the theft of e-mails which revealed Three Names and her henchmen as amoral political con artists. It is so clearly unfair and borderline illegal to expose her and her henchmen for what they are in.their.own.words that something must be done! I would advise that we apply Occam's Razor to this problem and see what kind of answers we get.

David Gurarie says: August 30, 2018 at 7:00 pm

The whining trio is a sideshow on general background run by our deep state (or fourth government branch) made of Clapper-Brennan-McCain types.

Joel Herman says: August 29, 2018 at 4:18 pm

Wrong . All we have to do is look at the actions of Trump and all those that surround him to know that you are wrong take a hike with the BS.
We have a conspiracy in plain sight. We did not meet with any Russians. We discussed adoptions. But so what if we did engage in a criminal conspiracy to swing an election. Then we established or attempted to establish backchannels. To cash in.
All quite normal. Stick your nonsense where the sun doesn't shine.

Clark Shanahan says: August 30, 2018 at 11:30 am

Joel,
Were you part of Hill's $9.5 million "Correct the Record" troll op?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Jeffrey Harrison says: August 30, 2018 at 12:02 pm

It's amazing to me how easily duped people with suspicious minds are. It's also amazing to me how often people think that they can create dynasties out of thin air. Three Names has largely been unable to get anything right; the invasion of Libya being a prime example of her capabilities. It would be best if she just went away and took her daughter with her.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one and simply being incompetent is much simpler than some fantastical tale of Russian interference which was magically able to flip 80,000 votes in three states so that she could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with a 2.9 million vote lead.

[Aug 31, 2018] The real McCain eulogy: from blackagendareport.com

Aug 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

NORTHERN STAR August 30, 2018 at 3:38 pm

The real McCain eulogy:

"During his 32 years in the US Senate, the real John McCain was a consistent warmonger , advocating US military intervention in Africa, South America, Korea, and almost everywhere. He sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" before a veterans group, and called demonstrators against Henry Kissinger "despicable scum." The record of his public calls for coups, invasions, blockades, bombings and assassinations to advance US military and economic domination of the planet is far too long to list.

All this explains why corporate media are lifting up their whitewashed and manufactured version of John McCain. He's one of their own, a genuine war criminal and loyal servant of capital. Lifting him up, creating and embellishing his heroic story lifts up and legitimizes the rule of the rich. Now they'll be looking for parks, schools and airports to name after him. Just as the elementary school in Aaron Magruder's Boondocks was named after J. Edgar Hoover, we'll soon see John McCain's name staring back at us from what little public property is left. Get ready for it."

Ahhh but there is much more to the story here look and read:

https://www.blackagendareport.com/manufactured-mccain-lifting-bloodstained-lying-venal-servant-capitalist-empire

[Aug 31, 2018] Exposing the Giants- The Global Power Elite by Prof. Peter Phillips

Notable quotes:
"... Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite , in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite , in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital.

Thus, in his just-released study Giants: The Global Power Elite , Phillips, a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University in the USA, identifies the world's top seventeen asset management firms, such as BlackRock and J.P Morgan Chase, each with more than one trillion dollars of investment capital under management, as the 'Giants' of world capitalism. The seventeen firms collectively manage more than $US41.1 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital that spans the globe.

This $41 trillion represents the wealth invested for profit by thousands of millionaires, billionaires and corporations. The seventeen Giants operate in nearly every country in the world and are 'the central institutions of the financial capital that powers the global economic system'. They invest in anything considered profitable, ranging from 'agricultural lands on which indigenous farmers are replaced by power elite investors' to public assets (such as energy and water utilities) to war.

In addition, Phillips identifies the most important networks of the Global Power Elite and the individuals therein. He names 389 individuals (a small number of whom are women and a token number of whom are from countries other than the United States and the wealthier countries of Western Europe) at the core of the policy planning nongovernmental networks that manage, facilitate and defend the continued concentration of global capital. The Global Power Elite perform two key uniting functions, he argues: they provide ideological justifications for their shared interests (promulgated through their corporate media), and define the parameters of action for transnational governmental organizations and capitalist nation-states.

More precisely, Phillips identifies the 199 directors of the seventeen global financial Giants and offers short biographies and public information on their individual net wealth. These individuals are closely interconnected through numerous networks of association including the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference, university affiliations, various policy councils, social clubs, and cultural enterprises. For a taste of one of these clubs, see this account of The Links in New York. As Phillips observes: 'It is certainly safe to conclude they all know each other personally or know of each other in the shared context of their positions of power.'

The Giants, Phillips documents, invest in each other but also in many hundreds of investment management firms, many of which are near-Giants. This results in tens of trillions of dollars coordinated in a single vast network of global capital controlled by a very small number of people. 'Their constant objective is to find enough safe investment opportunities for a return on capital that allows for continued growth. Inadequate capital-placement opportunities lead to dangerous speculative investments, buying up of public assets, and permanent war spending.'

Because the directors of these seventeen asset management firms represent the central core of international capital, 'Individuals can retire or pass away, and other similar people will move into their place, making the overall structure a self-perpetuating network of global capital control. As such, these 199 people share a common goal of maximum return on investments for themselves and their clients, and they may seek to achieve returns by any means necessary – legal or not . the institutional and structural arrangements within the money management systems of global capital relentlessly seek ways to achieve maximum return on investment, and the conditions for manipulations – legal or not – are always present.'

Like some researchers before him, Phillips identifies the importance of those transnational institutions that serve a unifying function. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, G20, G7, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Economic Forum (WEF), Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group , Bank for International Settlements, Group of 30 (G30), the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Monetary Conference serve as institutional mechanisms for consensus building within the transnational capitalist class, and power elite policy formulation and implementation. 'These international institutions serve the interests of the global financial Giants by supporting policies and regulations that seek to protect the free, unrestricted flow of capital and debt collection worldwide.'

But within this network of transnational institutions, Phillips identifies two very important global elite policy-planning organizations: the Group of Thirty (which has 32 members) and the extended executive committee of the Trilateral Commission (which has 55 members). These nonprofit corporations, which each have a research and support staff, formulate elite policy and issue instructions for their implementation by the transnational governmental institutions like the G7, G20, IMF, WTO, and World Bank. Elite policies are also implemented following instruction of the relevant agent, including governments, in the context. These agents then do as they are instructed. Thus, these 85 members (because two overlap) of the Group of Thirty and the Trilateral Commission comprise a central group of facilitators of global capitalism, ensuring that 'global capital remains safe, secure, and growing'.

So, while many of the major international institutions are controlled by nation-state representatives and central bankers (with proportional power exercised by dominant financial supporters such as the United States and European Union countries), Phillips is more concerned with the transnational policy groups that are nongovernmental because these organizations 'help to unite TCC power elites as a class' and the individuals involved in these organizations facilitate world capitalism. 'They serve as policy elites who seek the continued growth of capital in the world.'

Developing this list of 199 directors of the largest money management firms in the world, Phillips argues, is an important step toward understanding how capitalism works globally today. These global power elite directors make the decisions regarding the investment of trillions of dollars. Supposedly in competition, the concentrated wealth they share requires them to cooperate for their greater good by identifying investment opportunities and shared risk agreements, and working collectively for political arrangements that create advantages for their profit-generating system as a whole.

Their fundamental priority is to secure an average return on investment of 3 to 10 percent, or even more. The nature of any investment is less important than what it yields: continuous returns that support growth in the overall market. Hence, capital investment in tobacco products, weapons of war, toxic chemicals, pollution, and other socially destructive goods and services are judged purely by their profitability. Concern for the social and environmental costs of the investment are non-existent. In other words, inflicting death and destruction are fine because they are profitable.

So what is the global elite's purpose? In a few sentences Phillips characterizes it thus: The elite is largely united in support of the US/NATO military empire that prosecutes a repressive war against resisting groups – typically labeled 'terrorists' – around the world. The real purpose of 'the war on terror' is defense of transnational globalization, the unimpeded flow of financial capital around the world, dollar hegemony and access to oil; it has nothing to do with repressing terrorism which it generates, perpetuates and finances to provide cover for its real agenda. This is why the United States has a long history of CIA and military interventions around the world ostensibly in defense of 'national interests'.

Giants: The Global Power Elite

Wealth and Power

An interesting point that emerges for me from reading Phillips thoughtful analysis is that there is a clear distinction between those individuals and families who have wealth and those individuals who have (sometimes significantly) less wealth (which, nevertheless, is still considerable) but, through their positions and connections, wield a great deal of power. As Phillips explains this distinction, 'the sociology of elites is more important than particular elite individuals and their families'. Just 199 individuals decide how more than $40 trillion will be invested. And this is his central point. Let me briefly elaborate.

There are some really wealthy families in the world, notably including the families Rothschild (France and the United Kingdom), Rockefeller (USA), Goldman-Sachs (USA), Warburgs (Germany), Lehmann (USA), Lazards (France), Kuhn Loebs (USA), Israel Moses Seifs (Italy), Al-Saud (Saudi Arabia), Walton (USA), Koch (USA), Mars (USA), Cargill-MacMillan (USA) and Cox (USA). However, not all of these families overtly seek power to shape the world as they wish.

Similarly, the world's extremely wealthy individuals such as Jeff Bezos (USA), Bill Gates (USA), Warren Buffett (USA), Bernard Arnault (France), Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico) and Francoise Bettencourt Meyers (France) are not necessarily connected in such a way that they exercise enormous power. In fact, they may have little interest in power as such, despite their obvious interest in wealth.

In essence, some individuals and families are content to simply take advantage of how capitalism and its ancilliary governmental and transnational instruments function while others are more politically engaged in seeking to manipulate major institutions to achieve outcomes that not only maximize their own profit and hence wealth but also shape the world itself.

So if you look at the list of 199 individuals that Phillips identifies at the centre of global capital, it does not include names such as Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Koch, Walton or even Rothschild, Rockefeller or Windsor (the Queen of England) despite their well-known and extraordinary wealth. As an aside, many of these names are also missing from the lists compiled by groups such as Forbes and Bloomberg , but their absence from these lists is for a very different reason given the penchant for many really wealthy individuals and families to avoid certain types of publicity and their power to ensure that they do.

In contrast to the names just listed, in Phillips' analysis names like Laurence (Larry) Fink (Chairman and CEO of BlackRock), James (Jamie) Dimon (Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and John McFarlane (Chairman of Barclays Bank), while not as wealthy as those listed immediately above, wield far more power because of their positions and connections within the global elite network of 199 individuals.

Predictably then, Phillips observes, these three individuals have similar lifestyles and ideological orientations. They believe capitalism is beneficial for the world and while inequality and poverty are important issues, they believe that capital growth will eventually solve these problems. They are relatively non-expressive about environmental issues, but recognize that investment opportunities may change in response to climate 'modifications'. As millionaires they own multiple homes. They attended elite universities and rose quickly in international finance to reach their current status as giants of the global power elite. 'The institutions they manage have been shown to engage in illegal collusions with others, but the regulatory fines by governments are essentially seen as just part of doing business.'

In short, as I would characterize this description: They are devoid of a legal or moral framework to guide their actions, whether in relation to business, fellow human beings, war or the environment and climate. They are obviously typical of the elite.

Any apparent concern for people, such as that expressed by Fink and Dimon in response to the racist violence in Charlottesville, USA in August 2017, is simply designed to promote 'stability' or more precisely, a stable (that is, profitable) investment and consumer climate.

The lack of concern for people and issues that might concern many of us is also evident from a consideration of the agenda at elite gatherings. Consider the International Monetary Conference. Founded in 1956, it is a private yearly meeting of the top few hundred bankers in the world. The American Bankers Association (ABA) serves as the secretariat for the conference. But, as Phillips notes: 'Nothing on the agenda seems to address the socioeconomic consequences of investments to determine the impacts on people and the environment.' A casual perusal of the agenda at any elite gathering reveals that this comment applies equally to any elite forum. See, for example, the agenda of the recent WEF meeting in Davos . Any talk of 'concern' is misleading rhetoric.

Hence, in the words of Phillips: The 199 directors of the global Giants are 'a very select set of people. They all know each other personally or know of each other. At least 69 have attended the annual World Economic Forum, where they often serve on panels or give public presentations. They mostly attended the same elite universities, and interact in upperclass social setting[s] in the major cities of the world. They all are wealthy and have significant stock holdings in one or more of the financial Giants. They are all deeply invested in the importance of maintaining capital growth in the world. Some are sensitive to environmental and social justice issues, but they seem to be unable to link these issues to global capital concentration.'

Of course, the global elite cannot manage the world system alone: the elite requires agents to perform many of the functions necessary to control national societies and the individuals within them. 'The interests of the Global Power Elite and the TCC are fully recognized by major institutions in society. Governments, intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police forces, military, and corporate media all work in support of their vital interests.'

In other words, to elaborate Phillips' point and extend it a little, through their economic power, the Giants control all of the instruments through which their policies are implemented. Whether it be governments, national military forces, 'military contractors' or mercenaries (with at least $200 billion spent on private security globally, the industry currently employs some fifteen million people worldwide) used both in 'foreign' wars but also likely deployed in future for domestic control, key 'intelligence' agencies, legal systems and police forces, major nongovernment organizations, or the academic, educational, 'public relations propaganda', corporate media, medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, all instruments are fully responsive to elite control and are designed to misinform, deceive, disempower, intimidate, repress, imprison (in a jail or psychiatric ward), exploit and/or kill (depending on the constituency) the rest of us, as is readily evident.

Defending Elite Power

Phillips observes that the power elite continually worries about rebellion by the 'unruly exploited masses' against their structure of concentrated wealth. This is why the US military empire has long played the role of defender of global capitalism. As a result, the United States has more than 800 military bases (with some scholars suggesting 1,000) in 70 countries and territories. In comparison, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia have about 30 foreign bases. In addition, US military forces are now deployed in 70 percent of the world's nations with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) having troops in 147 countries, an increase of 80 percent since 2010. These forces conduct counterterrorism strikes regularly, including drone assassinations and kill/capture raids.

'The US military empire stands on hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and continues to support repressive, exploitative governments that cooperate with global capital's imperial agenda. Governments that accept external capital investment, whereby a small segment of a country's elite benefits, do so knowing that capital inevitably requires a return on investment that entails using up resources and people for economic gain. The whole system continues wealth concentration for elites and expanded wretched inequality for the masses .

'Understanding permanent war as an economic relief valve for surplus capital is a vital part of comprehending capitalism in the world today. War provides investment opportunity for the Giants and TCC elites and a guaranteed return on capital. War also serves a repressive function of keeping the suffering masses of humanity afraid and compliant.'

As Phillips elaborates: This is why defense of global capital is the prime reason that NATO countries now account for 85 percent of the world's military spending; the United States spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

In essence, 'the Global Power Elite uses NATO and the US military empire for its worldwide security. This is part of an expanding strategy of US military domination around the world, whereby the US/ NATO military empire, advised by the power elite's Atlantic Council , operates in service to the Transnational Corporate Class for the protection of international capital everywhere in the world'.

This entails 'further pauperization of the bottom half of the world's population and an unrelenting downward spiral of wages for 80 percent of the world. The world is facing economic crisis, and the neoliberal solution is to spend less on human needs and more on security. It is a world of financial institutions run amok, where the answer to economic collapse is to print more money through quantitative easing, flooding the population with trillions of new inflation-producing dollars. It is a world of permanent war, whereby spending for destruction requires further spending to rebuild, a cycle that profits the Giants and global networks of economic power. It is a world of drone killings, extrajudicial assassinations, death, and destruction, at home and abroad.'

Where is this all heading?

So what are the implications of this state of affairs? Phillips responds unequivocally: 'This concentration of protected wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war, starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation are reaching a species-level threat. We realize that humankind is in danger of possible extinction'.

He goes on to state that the Global Power Elite is probably the only entity 'capable of correcting this condition without major civil unrest, war, and chaos' and elaborates an important aim of his book: to raise awareness of the importance of systemic change and the redistribution of wealth among both the book's general readers but also the elite, 'in the hope that they can begin the process of saving humanity.' The book's postscript is a 'A Letter to the Global Power Elite', co-signed by Phillips and 90 others, beseeching the elite to act accordingly.

'It is no longer acceptable for you to believe that you can manage capitalism to grow its way out of the gross inequalities we all now face. The environment cannot accept more pollution and waste, and civil unrest is everywhere inevitable at some point. Humanity needs you to step up and insure that trickle-down becomes a river of resources that reaches every child, every family, and all human beings. We urge you to use your power and make the needed changes for humanity's survival.'

But he also emphasizes that nonviolent social movements, using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a moral code, can accelerate the process of redistributing wealth by pressuring the elite into action.

Conclusion

Peter Phillips has written an important book. For those of us interested in understanding elite control of the world, this book is a vital addition to the bookshelf. And like any good book, as you will see from my comments both above and below, it raised more questions for me even while it answered many.

As I read Phillips' insightful and candid account of elite behavior in this regard, I am reminded, yet again, that the global power elite is extraordinarily violent and utterly insane: content to kill people in vast numbers (whether through starvation or military violence) and destroy the biosphere for profit, with zero sense of humanity's now limited future. See 'The Global Elite is Insane Revisited' and 'Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival' with more detailed explanations for the violence and insanity here: 'Why Violence?' and 'Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice' .

For this reason I do not share his faith in moral appeals to the elite, as articulated in the letter in his postscript. It is fine to make the appeal but history offers no evidence to suggest that there will be any significant response. The death and destruction inflicted by elites is highly profitable, centuries-old and ongoing. It will take powerful, strategically-focused nonviolent campaigns (or societal collapse) to compel the necessary changes in elite behavior. Hence, I fully endorse his call for nonviolent social movements to compel elite action where we cannot make the necessary changes without their involvement. See 'A Nonviolent Strategy to End Violence and Avert Human Extinction' and Nonviolent Campaign Strategy .

I would also encourage independent action, in one or more of several ways, by those individuals and communities powerful enough to do so. This includes nurturing more powerful individuals by making 'My Promise to Children' , participating in 'The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth' and signing the online pledge of 'The People's Charter to Create a Nonviolent World' .

Fundamentally, Giants: The Global Power Elite is a call to action. Professor Peter Phillips is highly aware of our predicament – politically, socially, economically, environmentally and climatically – and the critical role played by the global power elite in generating that predicament.

If we cannot persuade the global power elite to respond sensibly to that predicament, or nonviolently compel it to do so, humanity's time on Earth is indeed limited.

*

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of 'Why Violence?' His email address is [email protected] and his website is here . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

[Aug 31, 2018] John Bolton is, I believe, the scariest character in Trump's administration

Aug 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Jessika , August 31, 2018 at 9:55 pm

John Bolton is, I believe, the scariest character in Trump's administration. How did Trump pick him? It makes no sense, but this whole mess literally makes none. There has got to be a way to get him out of there. Sheldon Adelson's money is the connection between Trump, Haley, Bolton. Bolton wants war with Iran, has been intent on it since Bush 2 administration. He is quite dangerous, and has connections to Netanyahu and even Meir Dagan of Mossad. I can't copy this link to Gareth Porter's article but maybe Joe or someone can, it's cited below. Everyone should read it. The facts in the article are quite alarming about Bolton. With all the political drama going on from the Mueller probe, there are possibilities of dreadful consequences, and I think Bolton could bring disaster. He may be the origin as well as the mouthpiece of this latest provocative threat about Assad using chemicals. Here is the article:

"The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War with Iran", by Gareth Porter, in The American Conservative, March 22, 2018.

[Aug 31, 2018] Bulgaria stepped up when the European Commission called and got absolutely no compensation for cancelling the South stream to the contrary, the decision cost Bulgaria a great deal of money

Aug 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN August 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm

And let's remember what a hard lesson Bulgaria learned from its leap of faith into Brussels' arms.

On May 30, Bulgarian PM Boyko Borisov met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. During the joint press conference, Borisov apologized to Putin for the failure of South Stream and for his responsibility in causing the deterioration of relations between the two countries. Borisov said: "We know about the difficult relations in the past and are grateful to our colleagues for not being vindictive and the fact that Russian-Bulgarian relations do not depend on the extent of guilt of some politicians

"I would like to thank President Putin for his attitude once again. I am to blame for creating certain tensions When it came to the worst and I wanted to talk, my calls were always answered. And I really accept part of the guilt for those developments."

Putin then added that he regrets that the South Stream project has not been implemented, since it would have "greatly benefited" Bulgaria.

In response, Borisov blamed the EU of having imposed Bulgaria diktats that other countries do not respect anyway. Borisov said: "We are the most loyal and the most disciplined country in the European Union. This is the reason why all the pipelines bypassed our territory. We hope that today we have redressed an injustice.

https://www.memri.org/reports/russia-world-%E2%80%93-russia-bulgaria-reconciliation-%E2%80%93-bulgarias-president-radev-no-sanctions-are

Bulgaria stepped up when the European Commission called and got absolutely fuck-all in the way of thanks or compensation – to the contrary, the decision cost Bulgaria a great deal of money. Let that be a lesson to other EU countries; Brussels is big on ideas, but it does not have your back and if your stepping-up causes your country grief and it turns out you made a terrible mistake, and want to talk about it

ET AL August 31, 2018 at 2:58 am

There is absolutely nobody else to blame but Borissov himself, a third rate playa . The position of neither Brussels nor Washington was a surprise at all. They are very well known quantities. Big surprise. Not.

Borissov vacillated and played the same failed and weak gambit we have seen for years in the Ukraine. That he is still around as the biggest fish in the local fish shop is that he is the biggest spineless shit that floats to the surface while the opposition is little more than useless. That is repeated elsewhere in the neighborhood to various degrees and where it is not, it's a choice between two sides of the same gangster/clan coin. To misquote Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for none of the fish.

KIRILL August 30, 2018 at 12:45 pm

Denmark has already been bypassed. And Gazprom said it could finish the project without any partners.

Like

MARK CHAPMAN August 30, 2018 at 1:36 pm

Well, I don't think a decision has been made yet. But the consortium has 'applied to Denmark for an alternate route' – which, since the alternate route would not go through Danish territorial waters, implies Denmark does not really have any say over it, and is essentially a challenge to Denmark to either veto the original route on security grounds (you never know, Putin might hide submarines in it, or Novichok or something) or get on with it. But Denmark is presented with more or less the Bulgarian Alternative: do Washington's bidding and get a pat on the head, or defy it and get transit fees.

https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/91657/nord-stream-2-will-bypass-danish-waters

All the news on the subject that I saw announced that the consortium is 'exploring' an alternate route. It seems they are still hopeful the original route will be cleared, but are getting it on the table that denying it will not stop the project.

But of course western 'analysts' continue to squeal that Putin and the Kremlin are using the Nord Stream II pipeline to 'invade Europe'. Curiously, the same people who once smirked scornfully that Nord Stream II was not needed because the current pipeline is only running at half-capacity now claim "even with Nord Stream 2 on line Russia would still need to send substantial amounts of gas through Ukraine – at least until the upcoming TurkStream pipeline is also finished." Whoa – wut? Even both legs of Nord Stream running at full capacity will not be enough? You don't say.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/with-nord-stream-2-pipeline-putin-waltzes-into-the-heart-of-europe-20180821-p4zyod.html

Once again, nobody is forcing Europe to take more Russian gas than it needs, although the draw-down of domestic supplies suggest it will need more all the time unless 'green energy' becomes more commercially viable and reliable. Certain players want Europe's gas to go through Ukraine for two reasons – one, Ukraine badly needs the money from transit fees to prop up its calamitous economy. Two, it is a ready tickle-trunk of conflict whenever the west wants to make problems for Russia; presto! Ukraine is in a new fight with Russia over gas prices, and Europe is trembling with fear that its gas supplies will be shut off.

Here, you numpties – let me solve the problem for you. Soon there is going to be a perfectly good (according to Ukraine and the west) pipeline network idling without much to do. Why not let all those competitors Europe is always gibbering about use Ukraine's pipeline network to send their gas to Europe? They could have the whole thing all to themselves, completely cutting Gazprom out of Ukraine! What a victory that would be! And they could pay Ukraine transit fees, saving the day there and bringing enormous comfort to Ukrainian economists! It's win/win!

No charge for my consulting.

[Aug 31, 2018] That's the siren song: "Mr. President we can guarantee victory in the Midterms and your re-election, if you just let us do some conventional damage in Syria."

Aug 31, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bill Herschel • 10 hours ago

Very, very worrisome:

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLoca...

http://www.unz.com/article/...

Apparently, U.S. aircraft carriers are toast in the face of Russian stand-off cruise missiles as well as other munitions. So I guess if Bolton and Pompeo are getting ready for war in Syria, they will keep the carriers in port. Wait... the carriers are in port. In passing, about a trillion dollars down the tubes.

GW Bush found out very quickly the incredible advantage of being a wartime President. The simpleton got re-elected on it. 40 kidnapped kids murdered with chlorine gas with the cameras rolling. Small price to pay for being a successful wartime President.

That's the siren song: "Mr. President we can guarantee victory in the Midterms and your re-election, if you just let us do some conventional damage in Syria."

[Aug 31, 2018] Trump will show those borscht-eating bastards!

Aug 31, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
MARK CHAPMAN, August 30, 2018 at 2:30 pm

Breaking news! Russia isolated!!

Oh, wait; sorry – that's the United States. Yes, in another manifestation of his incredibly cunning cunningness, Trump has rolled out a new master-plan to bring Russia to its knees: withdraw the United States of America from all international organizations that will not take orders from POTUS. That will show those borscht-eating bastards! Next up in the crosshairs the WTO.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/trump-threatens-to-withdraw-from-world-trade-organization.html

[Aug 31, 2018] It is quite possible that Trump, and Obama before him, are basically front-men

Aug 31, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Aug 31, 2018 12:52:57 AM | 73

div

JR

There's a difference between direct Russian gov influence and finding Trump linked to Russian financing; lots of it. The real question is who benefits and who benefitted already? Definitely not Russia; only in so much as the military is not involved, but then Russian Zionists are not interested in military aggression on Russia.

So who benefitted? Israel, and I'm sure Mueller already has the answer. The question is: will he come out and state in his report who benefitted from the massive Russian oligarchy investment in Trump? I doubt it

Besides, Trump has Israel's favorite lawyer Dershowitz doing damage control for him. His ass is covered.

Posted by: Circe | Aug 31, 2018 12:06:37 AM | 70

dltravers

I understand your point of view. But I've made a case (starting @4) that Trump, and Obama before him, are basically front-men. To the Deep State, your attachment to one party or one political personality is a lever to work you (and others that have the same affiliations/beliefs). You (and others) have to understand that you're being played before you can actually change anything for the better.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 31, 2018 12:06:39 AM | 71

@65

Here is a scenario in which Trump might be impeached:

If Trump were impeached Pence would become President. Trump came into power because he wanted to tear up the Iran deal and Hillary wanted to keep Obama's deal with Iran. Zionists have been pushing for a U.S. strike on Iran for years. Bush wouldn't do it; Obama got the deal; Hillary wasn't going to tear up the deal, so Trump was their man. Now, it's possible that Zionists fear Trump won't go all the way on Iran; but no doubt Pence would.

Maybe now that Trump gave them Jerusalem and tore up the deal; Pence will finish the job that Trump might not have the stomach for. If this is the case, then Trump might be impeached or something will surface in the Southern District that will give way to an indictment against him. It's very possible that if Zionists are sensing hesitation on Trump's part they will turn on him before the election and put Pence in his place. Pence was also handpicked by them and now with Bolton and Pompeo in place the way is paved for an attack on Iran.

There is another possibility however. If Trump's Presidency is threatened with impeachment; it's possible also that Trump will resort to wag the dog and attack Iran before to have Congress rally around him.

It's going to come down to Iran, because after Syria; Iran was the next target with Zionists and Neocons.

Jackrabbit , Aug 31, 2018 12:55:06 AM | 74

Alexander P

Thanks. They don't make it easy to connect the dots!

I recognized and blogged about the similarities between Trump and Obama from April 2017. But only about 2 months ago did I link Kissinger's Op-Ed and MAGA despite my recognition AT THE TIME that what Kissinger proposed was, as I have called it elsewhere, a 'declaration of war'.

This is what I wrote shortly after Kissinger's Op-Ed was published in August 2014:

My reading is that Kissinger is asserting that the US can and should do whatever it takes to keep the US preeminent – even if that means ignoring allies and/or the post-war international structure (UN, UNSC). That exceptional! message comes through loud and clear despite his 'triage' formalism. And it is a message that is comforting to the elite who read the WSJ (before a holiday weekend), though it should give Joe Sixpack nightmares if fully understood .

There is a lot more there which would take much longer to unpack. But I'll point to one more thing: Note how he forms an equivalence between all the troubles that the 'West' now face, and ignores US/Western actions that have contributed to these conflicts by conflating them. NC readers understand this via Merschemer's (in today's links) work on Ukraine and many links regarding ISIS (like this one).

This comforting message [from Kissinger] is needed because the Ukraine gambit has failed miserably – as many independent oberservers [sic] predicted– and a deeper conflict with Russia (possibly extending to others) is now in the cards. Like the true neocon that he is, Kissinger has doubled down on Nuland's obnoxious and misguided "f*ck the EU" with an exceptional! "f*ck the World".

God help us.

Jackrabbit , Aug 31, 2018 1:05:11 AM | 75
Circe @73

I wrote about the possibility that Trump may not want to be a war President when Cohen and Manafort were convicted.

I differ with you in that I think it would be Trump's choice. If Trump wants to hand the reigns to Pence (friend of McCain) , he just needs to pardon Cohen and Manafort - then resign (knowing that he would be impeached if he didn't) .

dltravers , Aug 31, 2018 1:05:50 AM | 76
Mr. Jackrabbit,

I agree completely. Trump is backed by a faction of the deep state. If I had to pick factions I would pick Trumps. We do not have much of a choice.

8 years of Hillary on top of 8 years of Bill (no pun intended) on top of 20 years of Bush (8 as VP under Reagan plus the other terms of the squad) is just enough.

Obama's mom was a lifelong CIA officer. That is why he was living on embassy row when he was a kid in Indonesia. They got people in the pipe to be president. Obama was one of their long term projects. Both sides have this tutelage thing going where they pick out young people and mentor them as they show the traits needed that they are looking to build and enhance into a person. If they show that they will follow orders and have the right mindset they then support them and place them into various positions.

Trump was not one of them but he was the right guy at the right time and knew the key players, especially the Zionists. I am convinced that his backers war gamed his candidacy with AI.

Of course, This is part speculation and part fact based on a hell of a lot of reading and experience.

Circe , Aug 31, 2018 1:05:57 AM | 77
I don't see Russia in the crosshairs; it would be too risky anyway. I see Iran next on the agenda.
psychohistorian , Aug 31, 2018 1:20:23 AM | 78
@ Noirette who wrote:

"The 'soft progressive liberal set' - just as 'Dems' and 'Reps' - don't really present a political ideology, framework, view-point, or even low-level adherence and/or claims. They are cover for an underlying hidden structure: informal tribes/circuits and sections in an oligarchic corporatist régime, or even something different, which I won't go into now."

I am intrigued by the "....or even something different, which I won't go into now." part and encourage you to share your thoughts but let me go back to the rest of the cover as you call it for the hidden structure. I offer a friendly upgrade to your "oligarchic corporatist régime" characterization by adding monotheistic religion which says all the tribes are not informal in your mix. I think they were/are the brainwashing outlet before mass media and still account for the core faith based delusion so many have and extend to other facets of their lives....so they don't have to take personal responsibility is my life-experience call.

Unrelated, but want to add my fervor to the calling out of ongoing war criminal Henry Kissinger. I am not one to focus my ire on too many individuals, wanting us all to focus on the structure, BUT, there are reasonable exceptions to all rules and Henry K deserves a special place in everyones hell including his own.

Circe , Aug 31, 2018 1:51:29 AM | 79
JR

Trump is not going to pardon Cohen or Manafort unless it benefits Trump. Trump is all about HIM. The only reason he'd do it is to avoid criminal indictment. Trump will not stick his neck out for anyone if it will end his Presidency. If Manafort and Cohen have something on Trump, he's doomed.

I don't see how Manafort has the guts to risk another prosecution especially with the fear that Trump won't be able to pardon him. Trump will only pardon him if he knows Manafort knows something and Manafort doesn't act on fear to spill it first.

In that case Trump will choose the lessor of two evils: resignation over indictment and then the pardon will confirm he committed a crime; because he won't rescue Manafort or Cohen for any other reason. If Manafort holds out under such tremendous pressure is a pretty big IF.

Of course there is the possibility that Manafort knows nothing, will be prosecuted and so Trump will let him rot in prison rather than assuming risk for himself.

Circe , Aug 31, 2018 2:03:05 AM | 80
JR

One more thing: if you suspect he's not a war President then imagine how his Zionist handlers see it. If he can't deliver Iran; they'll turn on him and find a way to replace him with Pence or let him finish his first term and then replace him.

[Aug 31, 2018] Trump is relying on shoddy "analysis" offered up by propagandists and ideologues. They don't, or at least they don't care, as long as they get what they want. They want Iran destroyed, just as the neocons wanted their war on Iraq, and spent the better part of fifteen years concocting excuses until Bush came into office.

Notable quotes:
"... With all due respect, Mr. Larison (and that is not passive aggression, as it is obvious that you are both honest and have your heart in the right place) – you assume that Trump and Iran hawks even want to get it right. ..."
"... They don't, or at least they don't care, as long as they get what they want. They want Iran destroyed, just as the neocons wanted their war on Iraq, and spent the better part of fifteen years concocting excuses until Bush came into office. Bush was weak and easily manipulated (like Trump), and the hawks got the war that they wanted ..."
"... The results for the United States and Iraq are well known. The hawks not only paid no personal or professional price for their crimes, they are largely the same crew cheerleading for the war they have planned for Iran. ..."
"... The same can be said with Libya. In that case, the hawks didn't even bother sticking around after they destroyed the country ..."
"... Why would anybody debate the lies and inanities of paid-for stooges? Never attribute to malice or stupidity what could and should be properly attributed to money, profit, greed: Saudi and Israeli-American oligarch money to selected representatives in exchange for services. ..."
"... Trump is the tragedy of George "Cakewalker" Bush repeating as a farce. There is nothing that cannot be bought of The American People, it you offer the right amount to the right people. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Blind Spot Donald August 31, 2018 at 2:17 am

"The problem is that Trump knows so little about Iran and the region that he never realizes that he is relying on shoddy "analysis" offered up by propagandists and ideologues."

And boy do the propagandists and ideologues know it!

word to the wise , says: August 31, 2018 at 2:47 am

""When I came into here, it was a question of when would they take over the Middle East," Trump said Thursday"

You must be thinking of ISIS, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the total territory taken by Iran in the last one hundred years well, its none. Nothing at all, actually. Zero acres. Zero hectares. Zero square feet, if you prefer. An "Iranian Empire" was never about to take over the Middle East, Mr. President, because an "Iranian Empire" hasn't existed even as a wizened husk since about 1925. Those around you who claimed to fear such a thing despite all evidence to the contrary are either fools or liars. And they obviously don't mind making you one.

Stick to your campaign promise: a) bomb the hell out of ISIS and b) get out of the Middle East. You did a). Now do b).

Downtown Alexandria , says: August 31, 2018 at 4:46 am

Iran hawks don't have to get Iran right. They have to get Israel and Saudi Arabia right. "Truth" misses the point. It's all about what MbS and Bibi want. Say the right things and the Saudi/Israel money flows. Say the wrong thing and, well, don't say the wrong thing: free speech isn't a "Western value" any more.

Christian Chuba , says: August 31, 2018 at 7:19 am

All very true but to play Devil's Advocate, what's the harm in strangling Iran? You have them on the defensive even if they don't collapse. Answer: Iraq 2, the sequel. The mother of all carnage.

The same people who got us into war against Iraq are re-creating the same terms against Iran.
1. They are replacing the transparency of the JCPOA with the opaqueness of WMD Iraq.
2. They are backing Iran into a corner just like we did Saddam.
3. They have MEK just like they had Chalabi.
4. Saddam was the Nexis of terrorism as they now claim wit Iran.
5. They will greet us as liberators.
6. War will be cheap this time, we have stand off weapons (ignoring Iran's ballistic missile arsenal and potential allies, Russia and China).

Yes, we are that stupid.

BradleyD , says: August 31, 2018 at 9:18 am

@Christian Chuba

Also add in Iran's Electronic Warfare capability. They have an awful nice computer virus on hand they can re-release as well as solid GPS denial and spoofing technology. They wrote a white paper on it. Either kill the signal completely or throw a vessel miles off course; should be fun for shipping.

TJ Martin , says: August 31, 2018 at 9:58 am

If I may a minor correction to the header . The correct term in regards to the majority of those proponents for war and regime change should be : ' ChickenHawks ' .. the political idiom not the bird

Sid Finster , says: August 31, 2018 at 10:16 am

With all due respect, Mr. Larison (and that is not passive aggression, as it is obvious that you are both honest and have your heart in the right place) – you assume that Trump and Iran hawks even want to get it right.

They don't, or at least they don't care, as long as they get what they want. They want Iran destroyed, just as the neocons wanted their war on Iraq, and spent the better part of fifteen years concocting excuses until Bush came into office. Bush was weak and easily manipulated (like Trump), and the hawks got the war that they wanted .

The results for the United States and Iraq are well known. The hawks not only paid no personal or professional price for their crimes, they are largely the same crew cheerleading for the war they have planned for Iran.

The same can be said with Libya. In that case, the hawks didn't even bother sticking around after they destroyed the country .

Normally, I'd say that never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but this cannot be adequately explained by stupidity.

b. , says: August 31, 2018 at 11:35 am

The Iranian government is all-powerful, bent on taking over the Middle East. The Iranian people are fully behind it and/or powerless to change it. We must attack!

The Iranian government is weak and falling apart, and the Iranian people are eager to rise up and able to depose of it at the first opening. We must attack!

Why would anybody debate the lies and inanities of paid-for stooges? Never attribute to malice or stupidity what could and should be properly attributed to money, profit, greed: Saudi and Israeli-American oligarch money to selected representatives in exchange for services.

Plurality must never be posited without necessity. Call it Cicero's Blade of human behavior: If it can be explained by profit, it is all-advised to search for other explanations.

War is a racket. It is never begun unless somebody expects to profit from it. If our age is different in any respect, is that we define "profit" as nothing more than convertible currency. It is the single-mindedness of utilitarianism and capitalism applied to all aspects of the human condition.

b. , says: August 31, 2018 at 11:38 am

When Trump "came into" the Oval Office, it was a question of when would the US take over the Middle East again. Now it's a question of will the US survive. It's a big difference in one and a half years.

b. , says: August 31, 2018 at 11:41 am

"they exaggerate the fragility of the regime because it makes regime change seem relatively easy to achieve."

Or possible at all.

Trump is the tragedy of George "Cakewalker" Bush repeating as a farce. There is nothing that cannot be bought of The American People, it you offer the right amount to the right people.

Christian Chuba , says: August 31, 2018 at 1:14 pm

If it wasn't so serious it would almost be comical https://lobelog.com/creating-the-conditions-for-war/

Basically, the usual suspects in the Trump Administration, the FDD types, are trying to sever Iran from the IAEA. It wasn't enough to have the U.S. withdraw from the agreement. They want to make it technically impossible for other countries to remain in the agreement by making inspections and the redesign of Arak impossible.

These people evil, sick and vile.

[Aug 31, 2018] Iran Hawks Always Get Iran Wrong by DANIEL LARISON

Notable quotes:
"... The same people will insist that Iran is "on the march" and then in the next breath pretend that their government is a shaky house of cards that just needs a nudge to come tumbling down. ..."
"... The reality is that Iran hawks are always missing the mark in both directions: they exaggerate the threat from Iran because it makes it easier to sell aggressive policies against them, and they exaggerate the fragility of the regime because it makes regime change seem relatively easy to achieve. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump knows so little about Iran and the region that he never realizes that he is relying on shoddy "analysis" offered up by propagandists and ideologues. That doesn't bode well for the future of U.S. Iran policy, which is already defined by its cruelty , stupidity , and ineffectiveness. ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The president's Iran obsession is paired with exceptionally poor understanding of the region:

"When I came into here, it was a question of when would they take over the Middle East," Trump said Thursday in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg News. "Now it's a question of will they survive. It's a big difference in one and a half years."

Only Iran hawks have ever claimed that Iran was capable of "taking over" the entire region, and they were completely wrong when they said that. Now they're fantasizing about regime collapse, and their analysis is just as bad as before. Iran hawks will always overstate Iranian power for the sake of fear-mongering, and then they will make equally unfounded claims about Iran's internal weaknesses to lend support to their plans for regime change. The same people will insist that Iran is "on the march" and then in the next breath pretend that their government is a shaky house of cards that just needs a nudge to come tumbling down. They invariably sound the alarm about Iranian "expansionism" when Iran has relatively less regional influence and then boast about Iranian isolation when most other countries are happy to do business with them. The reality is that Iran hawks are always missing the mark in both directions: they exaggerate the threat from Iran because it makes it easier to sell aggressive policies against them, and they exaggerate the fragility of the regime because it makes regime change seem relatively easy to achieve.

The silly contrast Trump drew between now and a year and a half ago would make a more thoughtful president question some of his assumptions. If the "question" at the start of 2017 was when Iran would "take over" the entire region, the people asking that question were inexcusably ignorant. If the same people are now wondering whether the regime that was supposedly on the verge of regional domination is going to survive, it's safe to say that no one should ever listen to anything those people say. The problem is that Trump knows so little about Iran and the region that he never realizes that he is relying on shoddy "analysis" offered up by propagandists and ideologues. That doesn't bode well for the future of U.S. Iran policy, which is already defined by its cruelty , stupidity , and ineffectiveness.

[Aug 31, 2018] The Trump Administration's Cruel Collective Punishment of the Iranian People by DANIEL LARISON

Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately, the Trump administration's Iran policy just keeps getting worse. While administration officials pay lip service to the welfare of the Iranian people, they obviously don't care that their policies are impoverishing a country of eighty million people. They have no interest in what Iranians affected by their policies say about those policies, and they aren't bothered by the damage that they're doing to the entire population. ..."
"... Trump has adopted Obama's policies in Libya, Yemen, and Syria and Hillary Clinton's policy toward Iran. That's not what we voted for. When are getting out of the Middle East and starting the "America First" policies that you promised us? ..."
Aug 31, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

It will come as no surprise that Iranians don't want the U.S. meddling in their politics:

Although demonstrators in Iran may be occasionally emboldened to call for the death of Rouhani and Khamenei, they do not necessarily view support from Trump administration regime-change hawks such as national security adviser John Bolton as the answer.

"Just look at our neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. After 6 p.m., you can't go out. It's too dangerous. This is what happens when Americans intervene in other countries," said Mohammad, a merchant at Tehran's Grand Bazaar, referring to two countries where the United States has spent billions of dollars on military occupations and long-term nation-building missions. "The reality is that we don't want the U.S. interfering with our problems."

Most Iranians can see very clearly from our government's track record that our interference tends to make other countries' problems worse. They understandably want none of that for their own country. Our meddling is destructive and therefore it is naturally unwelcome.

The deleterious effects of sanctions are already being felt by ordinary Iranians:

Inside Iran, there is a mixture of anger and weariness at Trump's decision to reimpose sanctions. Though Washington insists the sanctions are not aimed at Iran's civilians, only its government and nuclear program, Iranians find that line of reasoning hard to accept; even though the sanctions don't target them directly, restrictions on Iran's use of the global financial system have led to severe shortages of cancer drugs, certain food supplies and key consumer goods. They also have led to an economic crisis that has severely affected salaries, prices and jobs.

"Please tell Mr. Trump that it will only get worse for ordinary Iranian workers and their families," said Fereshteh Dastpak, head of Iran's National Carpet Center. Dastpak lamented the likely effect of the sanctions on the 1.5 million people who earn their living in Iran's rug industry. Nearly $100 million worth of Persian carpets were exported to the USA last year amid the lifting of sanctions tied to the nuclear accord negotiated during President Barack Obama's tenure. The year before the deal? There were no carpets imported. "Trump needs to reconsider," Dastpak said.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration's Iran policy just keeps getting worse. While administration officials pay lip service to the welfare of the Iranian people, they obviously don't care that their policies are impoverishing a country of eighty million people. They have no interest in what Iranians affected by their policies say about those policies, and they aren't bothered by the damage that they're doing to the entire population.

b. August 30, 2018 at 8:07 pm

"This is what happens when Americans intervene in other countries."

Let us discuss the US' "malign behavior" in the region.

Iran, whatever its failings, is responsible for far fewer deaths than the US – from fueling Saddam's attempted invasion of Iran, to the deaths and misery in Libya and Syria, to aiding and abetting our clients' atrocities in Gaza and Yemen, to meddling in Egypt, to outright invading, occupying, and fragmenting Iraq, to doing as much as the wahabbi "malignancy" of the House of Saud to spread sectarian strife and purchase Sunni "awakenings" . the whole idea that the US has the moral standing left to call out Iran on "malignancy" and "meddling" regarding the Middle East is beyond hypocrisy and by now exceeding farce.

It is an embarrassment that the purveyors of this kind of hogwash aren't dismissed wholesale from what passes as our "national discourse". But surely the "media" will mediate and protect us from manufactured "news" and arrant BS.

b. , says: August 30, 2018 at 8:19 pm

"They have no interest in what Iranians affected by their policies say about those policies, and they aren't bothered by the damage that they're doing to the entire population."

The concept of US "nation building" by "shock'n'awe" is a strange mix of patriotic self-inflation and capitalist/puritan "efficiency". We throw a bunch of expensive bombs on the "flyover abroad", and then, instant revolution – a whole captive population just waiting to become US proxies fighting and dying for dollars and markets.

It makes you wonder – do the "true believers" laboring on behalf of the profiteers see their own US "revolutionary" history in this manner? Are the victims of our "liberation-related activities" expected to stand up and fight for our ideals, and are they expendable failures if they do not fight, or fail to win, on our behalf? You'd have to take seriously the idea that a tax revolt on behalf of plantation owners was somehow a struggle for freedom to rival and exceed the convulsions of the French revolution to manufacture this inflated expectation on how The People of other nations are supposed to conduct themselves in response to US economic warfare or the aftermath of impunitive "strategic" bombing campaigns.

"They" are supposed to do the dying "over there", and if they don't, we'll just have to kill them, and it's their own damn fault by not living up to those standards that, we strenuously pretend, our forerunners set for everybody else. Not much revolutionary fervor at home these days, but high expectations for the rest of the world.

Donald , says: August 30, 2018 at 8:43 pm

Here is a kind of depressing thing I have long suspected -- most Americans don't actually care that much what we do to other people. They care if Americans get hurt. It isn't sadism, except in extreme cases. It just isn't real to them or something.

I think, though, it is probably the press's fault to some degree. They train us to think some things are more important than others by the emphasis they give to different stories and no matter how smart we might be, propaganda works.

Present At The Creation , says: August 30, 2018 at 8:58 pm

"Just look at our neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. After 6 p.m., you can't go out. It's too dangerous."

Even the Iranian man-on-the-street sees that the neocons are good at turning other people's countries into hellholes. Presumably they can see, as we can, that the neocons are also good at getting Americans killed and good at wasting stunning amounts of American taxpayer money.

They aren't good at much else, but when you're good at things like that it doesn't seem to matter. Which must be as puzzling to the Iranian man-on-the-street as it is to us.

Red Hook , says: August 30, 2018 at 9:56 pm

Trump has adopted Obama's policies in Libya, Yemen, and Syria and Hillary Clinton's policy toward Iran. That's not what we voted for. When are getting out of the Middle East and starting the "America First" policies that you promised us?

[Aug 30, 2018] >Once the spy agencies become the controlling element a government degenerates into a regime or imperium depending upon its level of power.

Aug 30, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

exiled off mainstreet , August 29, 2018 at 01:37

Once the spy agencies become the controlling element a government degenerates into a regime or imperium depending upon its level of power.

The rule of law is sidelined and a cynical form of dictatorship develops.

Britain, the US and all anglophone countries are exhibiting the results of this sort of evolution.

It is more dangerous now than when the historical odious tyrannies ran riot during the '30s and '40s of last century because technology has advanced to the point that their continuance is a threat to our survival as a species.

[Aug 30, 2018] Petition about Israeli interference in British politics

Aug 30, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

frank , August 28, 2018 at 21:46

It's really important that as many people as possible sign this petition about Israeli interference in British politics https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214072

Reply ↓
Shakesvshav , August 28, 2018 at 15:08

Some of you former ambassadors have had a torrid time of it: https://www.sott.net/article/394112-Former-US-ambassador-claims-Israel-tried-to-assassinate-him-in-1980

There are forces at work which a humble citizen can only hope he never falls foul of.

Yonatan , August 28, 2018 at 15:55

FWIW an Israeli journalist has made an FOI request to the Israeli government in an attempt to tease out Israeli government connections with the villification of Corbyn by the various 'Friends of Israel' in the UK and the role of Masot wrt Israel as partially exposed in the Al Jazeera undercover video on attempts to oust UK MPs insufficiently obeisant to Israel..

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/attorney-determine-campaign/

[Aug 30, 2018] >Jeremy Corbyn is still there and the pro Israelis have had an unprecedented amount of media coverage to convince the population that he's on a par with Goebbels.

Aug 30, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
duplicitousdemocracy , August 28, 2018 at 14:24

The problem with this scenario is that it's starting to look ineffective. Jeremy Corbyn is still there and the pro Israelis have had an unprecedented amount of media coverage to convince the population that he's on a par with Goebbels. I suspect having already suffered the vilification he received in his ambassador days, he is in a much better position to endure another campaign. There is also the (not so) small matter of a very loyal and supportive blog readership which is always willing to help him in his hour of need. Craig Murray isn't the sitting duck you would like him to think he is.

[Aug 30, 2018] Behviour of the USA toward North Korea confirms the Outlaw US Empire is not agreement capable. It also again confirms the policy to attain Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet is still the #1 goal.

Aug 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Aug 28, 2018 1:50:29 PM | 8

But there is a third party to these agreements--South Korea--and we certainly know South Koreans stand to lose as much as their kin in the North should war again erupt.

I'm sure Korean press have asked President Moon for his reaction, but it's likely published in Korean. At this point Moon must choose between his nothing to gain alliance with the Outlaw US Empire or his excellent opportunity to make Korea whole again and the outstanding economic gains that will bring.

I must also wonder if in his meetings with Kim they discussed the very likely prospect that this situation would arise and how to counter.

In two weeks, the Far Eastern Economic Conference will begin in Vladivostok where sideline talks will likely occur on this issue, but I'd hope we'd see a few statements in reaction well before then. Also, prior to Mattis's announcement, the following event was reported by DPRK news outlet Rodong Sinmun and subsequently reported by EurasiaFuture :

"According to a south Korean radio, U.S. special units in Japan staged a drill of flying 1 200 km to the Philippines through air transport.

"The radio said one can confirm that the drill would be the drill aimed at "the infiltration into Pyongyang" in case of change of direction.

"Prior to the exercise, it was disclosed that the Michigan, the nuclear submarine belonging to the U.S. Navy, transported Green Berets, Delta Force and other special units present in Okinawa, Japan to the Jinhae naval base of south Korea in late July or early in August.

"In this regard, Rodong Sinmun in a commentary on Sunday says that it was extremely provocative and dangerous military moves to mar the hard-won atmosphere of the peace on the Korean peninsula and the dialogue between the DPRK and the U.S. and prevent the implementation of the Singapore DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement.

"Such acts prove that the U.S. is hatching a criminal plot to unleash a war against the DPRK and commit a crime which deserves merciless divine punishment in case the U.S. fails in the scenario of the DPRK's unjust and brigandish 'denuclearization first'.

"We can not but take a serious note of the double-dealing attitudes of the U.S. as it is busy staging secret drills involving man-killing special units while having a dialogue with a smile on its face.

"The U.S. would be sadly mistaken if it thinks that it can browbeat someone through trite "gunboat diplomacy" which it used to employ as an almighty weapon in the past and attain its sinister intention.

"The U.S. should ponder over its deeds."

Clearly, the US had already pondered for as soon as the ink was dry in Singapore, the Outlaw US Empire unilaterally moved denuclearization from step 3 to step 1 and has kept that stance.

[Aug 30, 2018] Back in the (Great) Game- The Revenge of Eurasian Land Powers by Pepe Escobar

Notable quotes:
"... Russia's Geo-economic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia ..."
Aug 30, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Back in the (Great) Game: The Revenge of Eurasian Land Powers August 29, 2018 • 34 Comments

What is left roaming our wilderness of mirrors depends on the mood swings of the Goddess of the Market. No wonder an effect of Eurasia integration will be a death blow to Bretton Woods and "democratic" neoliberalism, says Pepe Escobar.

Get ready for a major geopolitical chessboard rumble: from now on, every butterfly fluttering its wings and setting off a tornado directly connects to the battle between Eurasia integration and Western sanctions as foreign policy.

It is the paradigm shift of China's New Silk Roads versus America's Our Way or the Highway. We used to be under the illusion that history had ended. How did it come to this?

Hop in for some essential time travel. For centuries the Ancient Silk Road, run by mobile nomads, established the competitiveness standard for land-based trade connectivity; a web of trade routes linking Eurasia to the – dominant – Chinese market.

In the early 15 th century, based on the tributary system, China had already established a Maritime Silk Road along the Indian Ocean all the way to the east coast of Africa, led by the legendary Admiral Zheng He. Yet it didn't take much for imperial Beijing to conclude that China was self-sufficient enough – and that emphasis should be placed on land-based operations.

Deprived of a trade connection via a land corridor between Europe and China, Europeans went all-out for their own maritime silk roads. We are all familiar with the spectacular result: half a millennium of Western dominance.

Until quite recently the latest chapters of this Brave New World were conceptualized by the Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman trio.

The Heartland of the World

Mackinder

Halford Mackinder 's 1904 Heartland Theory – a product of the imperial Russia-Britain New Great Game – codified the supreme Anglo, and then Anglo-American, fear of a new emerging land power able to reconnect Eurasia to the detriment of maritime powers.

Nicholas Spykman 's 1942 Rimland Theory advocated that mobile maritime powers, such as the UK and the U.S., should aim for strategic offshore balancing. The key was to control the maritime edges of Eurasia -- that is, Western Europe, the Middle East and East Asia -- against any possible Eurasia unifier. When you don't need to maintain a large Eurasia land-based army, you exercise control by dominating trade routes along the Eurasian periphery.

Even before Mackinder and Spykman, U.S. Navy Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan had come up in the 1890s with his Influence of Sea Power Upon History – whereby the "island" U.S. should establish itself as a seaworthy giant, modeled on the British empire, to maintain a balance of power in Europe and Asia.

It was all about containing the maritime edges of Eurasia.

In fact, we lived in a mix of Heartland and Rimland. In 1952, then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles adopted the concept of an "island chain" (then expanded to three chains) alongside Japan, Australia and the Philippines to encircle and contain both China and the USSR in the Pacific. (Note the Trump administration's attempt at revival via the Quad– U.S., Japan, Australia and India).

George Kennan, the architect of containing the USSR, was drunk on Spykman, while, in a parallel track, as late as 1988, President Ronald Reagan's speechwriters were still drunk on Mackinder. Referring to U.S. competitors as having a shot at dominating the Eurasian landmass, Reagan gave away the plot: "We fought two world wars to prevent this from occurring," he said.

Eurasia integration and connectivity is taking on many forms. The China-driven New Silk Roads, also known as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); the Russia-driven Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU); the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), and myriad other mechanisms, are now leading us to a whole new game.

How delightful that the very concept of Eurasian "connectivity" actually comes from a 2007 World Bank report about competitiveness in global supply chains.

Also delightful is how the late Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski was "inspired" by Mackinder after the fall of the USSR – advocating the partition of a then weak Russia into three separate regions; European, Siberian and Far Eastern.

All Nodes Covered

At the height of the unipolar moment, history did seem to have "ended." Both the western and eastern peripheries of Eurasia were under tight Western control – in Germany and Japan, the two critical nodes in Europe and East Asia. There was also that extra node in the southern periphery of Eurasia, namely the energy-wealthy Middle East.

Washington had encouraged the development of a multilateral European Union that might eventually rival the U.S. in some tech domains, but most of all would enable the U.S. to contain Russia by proxy.

China was only a delocalized, low-cost manufacture base for the expansion of Western capitalism. Japan was not only for all practical purposes still occupied, but also instrumentalized via the Asian Development Bank (ADB), whose message was: We fund your projects only if you are politically correct.

The primary aim, once again, was to prevent any possible convergence of European and East Asian powers as rivals to the US.

The confluence between communism and the Cold War had been essential to prevent Eurasia integration. Washington configured a sort of benign tributary system – borrowing from imperial China – designed to ensure perpetual unipolarity. It was duly maintained by a formidable military, diplomatic, economic, and covert apparatus, with a star role for the Chalmers Johnson-defined Empire of Bases encircling, containing and dominating Eurasia.

Compare this recent idyllic past with Brzezinski's – and Henry Kissinger's – worst nightmare: what could be defined today as the "revenge of history".

That features the Russia-China strategic partnership, from energy to trade: interpolating Russia-China geo-economics; the concerted drive to bypass the U.S. dollar; the AIIB and the BRICS's New Development Bank involved in infrastructure financing; the tech upgrade inbuilt in Made in China 2025 ; the push towards an alternative banking clearance mechanism (a new SWIFT); massive stockpiling of gold reserves; and the expanded politico-economic role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

As Glenn Diesen formulates in his brilliant book, Russia's Geo-economic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia , "the foundations of an Eurasian core can create a gravitational pull to draw the rimland towards the centre."

If the complex, long-term, multi-vector process of Eurasia integration could be resumed by just one formula, it would be something like this: the heartland progressively integrating; the rimlands mired in myriad battlefields and the power of the hegemon irretrievably dissolving. Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman to the rescue? It's not enough.

Divide and Rule, Revisited

The Oracle still speaks.

The same applies for the preeminent post-mod Delphic Oracle, also known as Henry Kissinger, simultaneously adorned by hagiography gold and despised as a war criminal.

Before the Trump inauguration, there was much debate in Washington about how Kissinger might engineer – for Trump – a "pivot to Russia" that he had envisioned 45 years ago. This is how I framed the shadow play a t the time.

In the end, it's always about variations of Divide and Rule – as in splitting Russia from China and vice-versa. In theory, Kissinger advised Trump to "rebalance" towards Russia to oppose the irresistible Chinese ascension. It won't happen, not only because of the strength of the Russia-China strategic partnership, but because across the Beltway, neocons and humanitarian imperialists ganged up to veto it.

Brzezinski's perpetual Cold War mindset still lords over a fuzzy mix of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Clash of Civilizations. The Russophobic Wolfowitz Doctrine – still fully classified – is code for Russia as the perennial top existential threat to the U.S. The Clash, for its part, codifies another variant of Cold War 2.0: East (as in China) vs. West.

Kissinger is trying some rebalancing/hedging himself, noting that the mistake the West (and NATO) is making "is to think that there is a sort of historic evolution that will march across Eurasia – and not to understand that somewhere on that march it will encounter something very different to a Westphalian entity."

Both Eurasianist Russia and civilization-state China are already on post-Westphalian mode. The redesign goes deep. It includes a key treaty signed in 2001, only a few weeks before 9/11, stressing that both nations renounce any territorial designs on one another's territory. This happens to concern, crucially, the Primorsky Territory in the Russian Far East along the Amur River, which was ruled by the Ming and Qing empires.

Moreover, Russia and China commit never to do deals with any third party, or allow a third country to use its territory to harm the other's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.

So much for turning Russia against China. Instead, what will develop 24/7 are variations of U.S. military and economic containment against Russia, China and Iran – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – in a geo-strategic spectrum. It will include intersections of heartland and rimland across Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and the South China Sea. That will proceed in parallel to the Fed weaponizing the U.S. dollar at will.

Heraclitus Defies Voltaire

Voltaire

Alastair Crooke took a great shot at deconstructing why Western global elites are terrified of the Russian conceptualization of Eurasia. It's because "they 'scent' a stealth reversion to the old, pre-Socratic values: for the Ancients the very notion of 'man', in that way, did not exist. There were only men: Greeks, Romans, barbarians, Syrians, and so on. This stands in obvious opposition to universal, cosmopolitan 'man'."

So it's Heraclitus versus Voltaire – even as "humanism" as we inherited it from the Enlightenment, is de facto over. Whatever is left roaming our wilderness of mirrors depends on the irascible mood swings of the Goddess of the Market. No wonder one of the side effects of progressive Eurasia integration will be not only a death blow to Bretton Woods but also to "democratic" neoliberalism.

What we have now is also a remastered version of sea power versus land powers. Relentless Russophobia is paired with supreme fear of a Russia-Germany rapprochement – as Bismarck wanted, and as Putin and Merkel recently hinted at. The supreme nightmare for the U.S. is in fact a truly Eurasian Beijing-Berlin-Moscow partnership.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has not even begun; according to the official Beijing timetable, we're still in the planning phase. Implementation starts next year. The horizon is 2039.

(Wellcome Library, London.)

This is China playing a long-distance game of go on steroids, incrementally making the best strategic decisions (allowing for margins of error, of course) to render the opponent powerless as he does not even realize he is under attack.

The New Silk Roads were launched by Xi Jinping five years ago, in Astana (the Silk Road Economic Belt) and Jakarta (the Maritime Silk Road). It took Washington almost half a decade to come up with a response. And that amounts to an avalanche of sanctions and tariffs. Not good enough.

Russia for its part was forced to publicly announce a show of mesmerizing weaponry to dissuade the proverbial War Party adventurers probably for good – while heralding Moscow's role as co-driver of a brand new game.

On sprawling, superimposed levels, the Russia-China partnership is on a roll; recent examples include summits in Singapore, Astana and St. Petersburg ; the SCO summit in Qingdao; and the BRICS Plus summit.

Were the European peninsula of Asia to fully integrate before mid-century – via high-speed rail, fiber optics, pipelines – into the heart of massive, sprawling Eurasia, it's game over. No wonder Exceptionalistan elites are starting to get the feeling of a silk rope drawn ever so softly, squeezing their gentle throats.

Pepe Escobar is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is 2030 . Follow him on Facebook .

4152

Tags: Halford Mackinder Henry Kissinger Nicholas Spykman Pepe Escobar Ronald Reagan Zbigniew Brzezinski

Post navigation ← How the Department of Homeland Security Created a Deceptive Tale of Russia Hacking US Voter Sites VIPS Tells Media Support for Brennan is Not Unanimous → 34 comments for " Back in the (Great) Game: The Revenge of Eurasian Land Powers "

Hide Comments

Ron Craven aka Ronzig the Wizard , August 30, 2018 at 1:20 am

Isn't it ironic; the people of the Western world, at least those of us who even have a clue of what's happening, are reduced to praying for Russia and China to save us from our own elite leaders WHO SEEK TO REDUCE ALL OF US TO ABSOLUTE SLAVERY? I thank God that Putin is a political genius who surpasses anything the West can put forward. And China the definition of inscrutable has quietly allowed us to finance their takeover of the complete Western economic system which is breathing its last breaths as our leaders wonder what happened.
I have a friend who has a masters degree in business and economics yet he has no clue of what is happening right before his eyes yet I who barely squeezed through grade 12 foresaw this a decade ago. It's pathetic that the most powerful people in the world are sp blinded by greed and dogma that they can't recognize the writing on the wall.

Tom Kath , August 29, 2018 at 7:56 pm

The reference to the pre Socratic "men" as compared to "Man" is significant. – It is inherent in the concept of "Globalism", "Hegemony", and "One God".

Jessika , August 29, 2018 at 7:47 pm

Dunderhead, I am not with the global warming/climate change folks at all! I am with folks who believe that we all must limit consuming and must learn to make do with less, not be greedy, live more simply. Climate change will always happen, that is basic geology, astronomy, science shows that. I am saying that, we are now seeing major shifts and I am with those who say our Sun is the major player. We have millions of landfills on earth, plastic and polllutants choking oceans and killing marine life. I consider these "carbon peddlers" just another form of disinformation and very misinformed, it's political hype for the masses, but we have serious consequences for future generations that are real due to our capitalistic overconsumption and nearly 8 billion on Earth. I think China has awareness of that to some extent, but the competitive pressure from the Western genesis of capitalistic consumption is huge. For my personal choices, I am working to keep my plastic usage to a minimum. There is evidence that we are in the midst of an electromagnetic polar shift right now, we are seeing an intensification of number of earthquakes right now, and the last few years we have witnessed extreme catastrophic earth events. It is Earth itself doing this, and it may be coming from the mantle, or even the core. I used to be support staff for earth scientists in Boston and I learned a lot, took geology courses.

Joe Wallace , August 29, 2018 at 11:57 pm

Jessika:

"I am with folks who believe that we all must limit consuming and must learn to make do with less, not be greedy, live more simply."

I'm with you on that. We in the U.S. and Canada live in immensely wealthy societies, despite the wage stagnation that afflicts those in the middle class and below. It might be making a virtue of necessity, but many of us can live relatively comfortable lives by luxuriating in adequacy, a privilege not accorded those in the developing world.

jose , August 29, 2018 at 6:52 pm

Mr. Escobar is correct to assert that "integration will be a death blow to Bretton Woods and "democratic" neoliberalism" If one internalized this basic premise, it is easy to comprehend why Western elites throw a monkey wrench at every possible opportunity of Asia and Europe integrating. They fail to realize that all things must come to an end because their minds are closed to this very real possibility. Paraphrasing minister and speaker john mason "Nothing dies quicker than a new idea in a closed mind" Their days are numbered and they know it.

jose , August 29, 2018 at 6:37 pm

What I concluded from this article was that Western elites cannot stop what is coming. It is a very natural process that Europe and Asia integrate at some point. Western elites can only postpone the inevitable with their wars and tariffs. In other words, the idea of integration has been maturing long enough and there is no turning back. Quoting Victor Hugo Les Miserables "No army can stop an idea whose time has come"

Dunderhead , August 29, 2018 at 6:36 pm

First off, Pepe you rock, you are the coolest and probably most interesting journalists out right now. Couple of comments however, what looks like Genius from the Chinese is just strategic common sense though you're right the Chinese do know how to play the long game. Speaking of which I really don't believe that they are going to be as benevolent a hegemon as Pepe is suggesting, they're not particularly good about respecting African opportunities for employment on some of their various projects in that region. All that being said I think the new Silk Road project is a fantastic idea and can only wish that that if these any sense left in these incompetent criminals running our government, they could figure out the long-term opportunities for cooperating with the Chinese, the arms manufacturers do not always have to produce arms, guns into plowshares as it were. Anyway Great to see your article and consortium, I've got to catch up with your stuff at Asia Times, Thanks.

Jessika , August 29, 2018 at 5:28 pm

Always fun to read Pepe Escobar, why i look at Asia Times online daily as well as Eurasia Futures and South China Morning Post. The Asians play the long game while the impatient West, especially US, play only the short gotta-have-it-NOW game. The bellicose bully bombing Machiavellian neocons with their hardening of arteries in the brain can't conceive of cooperation. There is one other surprise prime mover in this mix often overlooked, and that is Gaia or Mother Earth. At least it seems that Xi Jinping and the Chinese have made reference to environmental concerns with the BRI, which is more than can be said for the Western neocolonialists in their bombing for "democracy".

At a recent meeting with a top advisor of Assad in Syria, a Lebanese paper reported that the US negotiators said they would withdraw if Syria would give them a cut of the oil! Wow, what gall! Assad would not agree, wonder what's next? This is the way they work, as Pepe said, "My way or the highway", gangster diplomacy. There is no honor among thieves.

Dunderhead , August 29, 2018 at 6:48 pm

Jessica, There is obviously more carbon in the atmosphere, I don't think that is debatable but the technology to actually do something about this has been around for 45 years orso, the fact that they don't do anything about it, means to me this furor over climate change is just another government scam like overpopulation, anyway specific technologies: thorium based fission and long-term carbon sequestration, these are easy things to look up. I don't believe I know everything about this topic but it's even real debatable that wait now the climate is optimum in the sense that a slightly warmer climate all around gives longer growing seasons and makes it also less expensive to heat one's home. So to ask the question, why do you believe global warming is such a problem more than just general pollution?

irina , August 29, 2018 at 10:16 pm

Yes, here in the continental subarctic (Interior Alaska) we are looking forward to a longer
growing season and less heating expense. BUT what we are seeing is simply more variable
weather, making it harder to grow anything in an already challenging climate. Also, for some
reason (go figure) weeds are more adaptive to higher CO2 levels than food crops. Meaning
the weeds thrive even better than ever, while the food crops grow at about the same rate as
always, only more choked out by weeds than ever. Other problems include new (to us) bugs
and plant diseases as they move North, drier droughts and heavier rains (this was predicted)
and skewed seasons with much later springs and somewhat later falls. (Not great, as our
really sunny season is spring, not fall).

Many areas of the planet may end up having such unpredictable year-to-year weather that
annual agriculture, upon which most of the global population depends, becomes untenable.

Professor , August 29, 2018 at 5:24 pm

I've been reading Pepe's stuff for a few years now.I like it. He is good at, Macro/ big picture stuff. He's great on Pipelinestan issues as well. But I think he picks and chooses his ideas a little too freely at times .The result can be more like a collage at times than a Picasso. We are pushing real hard right now on Russia, China and Iran. Eurasian Integration Projects are clearly a threat to American dominance especially since we are undermining the dollar through unilateral sanctions and other tricks everywhere, up and down the line. This should be of great concern to our allies but they are already on board behind whatever decisions Our Government makes. They really don't don't have anywhere to go. Germany and Japan are totally integrated with our economy and Germany has been the biggest beneficiary in terms of economic and fiscal policy of NATO's march eastward. They love it and they'll buy Russia's gas too. No problem. We won't stop them. I believe Trump's strategy is less aggressive than Clinton's would have been. There really isn't much of a choice. One thing I would add, Big Picture: China did not build the Great Wall as a tourist attraction. It was to keep out barbarians/foreigners, After the Boxer Rebellion they kicked out foreigners. Mao kicked out foreigners. They are fine with themselves, A guy I know who spends a lot of time in China and knows many very well, socially, says that the Chinese think the next 1000 years belong to them. . Forget a Project for a New Chinese Century, They expect the New Silk Road to deliver the goods big time and forever. They need Russian Gas to pull it off. They also like 5th and 6th generation Russian weapons but so apparently do everyone else.

Stanko , August 29, 2018 at 4:26 pm

Master analasis.

Paul E. Merrell , August 29, 2018 at 1:44 pm

For those interested in the topic of this article, I heartily recommend reading an Army War College paper from 2000. It's longish, but gives MacInder, Spykman, and geopolitics itself a good debunking. http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/00summer/fettweis.htm

Dunderhead , August 29, 2018 at 7:20 pm

Great article, thanks!

Dunderhead , August 29, 2018 at 9:10 pm

Paul by the way, a couple of weeks back I revisited a post and sore your comment, thanks I think you made some valid points, I particularly thought it was encouraging of meaningful opposition to corporations having the rights of individuals, and your analogy about the regulation of the telephone companys back in the day, on the other hand, in an age of mass communication incorporate state propaganda the fact that more Americans cannot find it in their hearts to feel for the plight of Palestinians simply because they are ignorant of the fax in the matter is testimony to censorship has always been with us. I personally had no knowledge of the Liberty incident until about three months ago and I am a relatively avid reader, this discovery is due to independent journalism who support themselves directly through patrion or readit and probably other platforms, I think this is becoming normal, in certain ways this is a fortunate time to be alive. Anyway thanks again!

Herman , August 29, 2018 at 1:36 pm

The legitimate grievance against the United States is that it has overplayed its hand, throwing sanctions to anyone not adhering to its rules. The power we have over the world banking system created a Putin who rose to challenge our unipolar world. For the sake of the world, and the United States, it is to be hoped that we can be made to climb down and join the rest of the world as real equals.

Escobar mention the principle of Westphalian sovereignty which is part of the UN Charter: : maybe it should be read aloud on the floor of a joint session of Congress and tweeted to our President. Maybe sent to our networks and newspapers. We created the UN Charter, we should abide by it

Mary V , August 29, 2018 at 12:35 pm

This is a fantastic read. I am wondering why the links to the Asia Times pieces don't display correctly – hmmm – maybe it's the new censorship.

I like to think that American Exceptionalism is nearing its end, but I don't hold out hope it will happen soon enough. It appears they are doubling-down on the jingoism of late. Then again, that's what desperation looks like.

Jeff Harrison , August 29, 2018 at 12:18 pm

Pepe is always able to get you thinking

A major difference between the US and China is that the US tries to influence with heavy handed threats and coercion while the Chinese use flattery and assistance to help you see things their way. Russia under Putin acts like China but his predecessors were more of the heavy handed variety. In the end though American hubris and insufferability (from the last four presidents) has driven Russia and China together in a way that economic systems (communism) never could. The US is the past. We have frittered away so much of our wealth and international goodwill chasing phantom fears that were all well past their use by date decades ago. We have spent ourselves into penury. Not just because we have $22T in debt, but more importantly because we no longer have the economic engine to generate enough wealth to support $22T in debt and counting. Yeah, go ahead and print more money. Every dollar will be worth less and less.

Mary V , August 29, 2018 at 12:37 pm

Not to mention the gorilla in the room, the trillions of dollars going into our over-extended military, which doesn't get us anything but the reputation as global terrorists and bullies. :(

bobzz , August 29, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Well, I had a comment here, agreeing and enlarging on Jeff's, but it it gone. I've never had that happen before on CN. If CN did not do it, who did? Just asking.

A Johnson , August 29, 2018 at 4:33 pm

It's not 'we' that did all that, plenty of 'us' have been screaming for decades about foreign deaths, wars for profit, and looting of treasure BY the insiders. The elites did it, including buying the propaganda. 'We' always get stuck with their bill. I'd like a few necks stretched.

enochered , August 29, 2018 at 12:13 pm

This would all be fine if we were still dealing with Mandarins and Tzars but we are not and it is hard to escape from the fear that having watched Baron Rothschild build a new Kingdom quite close to China, that we are simply watching the construction of ever more 'private' Unions, which will, of course, be run by hidden controllers.

Gary Weglarz , August 29, 2018 at 11:57 am

"No wonder Exceptionalistan elites are starting to get the feeling of a silk rope drawn ever so softly, squeezing their gentle throats." – Thank you for that closing Pepe. I needed that very satisfying visual.

Groucho , August 29, 2018 at 11:41 am

Another excellent article from Escobar. I always appreciate his ability to summarize the huge geopolitical transformation that is under way. I also find the response of Western elites to be remarkable. Rather than work toward accommodation and cooperation they will bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to maintain hegemony. Galbraith was correct when he said that those in power will bring about their total destruction rather than give up any part of their advantage.

Mary V , August 29, 2018 at 12:38 pm

I love the Galbraith sentiment – perfect.

Mark Thomason , August 29, 2018 at 11:13 am

A very long railway cannot support continental-scale trade and integration. That requires what does it now, 100,000-ton container ships in constant flow. It is a question of volume first, and of cost per container second. Ships are so far ahead it is absurd to compare.

China is developing the necessary commercial ports to use for this. That is the only real challenge, if there is one. That means the sea, the rim, for both the continent and its rivals. China's real progress is on that.

However, the US and allies are the other end of that sea route. It can't be maintained except by some level of cooperation. There can be no great game, not combined with the integration of world trade. That is a neocon fantasy, they promote as cover for their schemes to dominate with US state power to gain private profit.

TomG , August 29, 2018 at 10:44 am

While the Chinese plan then implement for a long term infrastructure strategy for interconnected markets, we skip the planning piece and go instead for yet another drone base in yet another foreign country. Our long term strategy is apparently to blow up what ever the Chinese-Russia-Euro alliance builds. This has certainly been our expression of 'defending our national interests'–the Kissinger-Brzezinski doctrine of endlessly repeating stupidity until we are completely bankrupt as a nation. When the global corporations abandon the USA for more vibrant and inherently stable infrastructure the USA empire can retire into its apparent destiny as the model for late 21st century failed states.

I hope I'm not expected to share Mr. Escobar's article with others. While I think important points were made and one can link easily to more information, I did think my eyes were going to glaze over with all the jargon and post-Westphalian modal references. Which is to say I might well have missed his most salient points. I'm not intellectual enough to know for sure. :-)

John V. Walsh , August 29, 2018 at 2:19 pm

TomG, You make an excellent point.
Indeed the Chinese agree as seen from this opinion piece in Global Times: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1117108.shtml
The money quote is:
"Considering that sea transportation is comparatively cheap and safe, China must attach great importance to the construction of the south route of the Silk Road, that is, to connect the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) with the Silk Road Economic Belt, and to make supporting the economic and social development of Pakistan as the top priority of the Silk Road strategy."
"There are pros and cons to the development gap between eastern and western China. On the one hand, it poses a serious challenge to the government's efforts to support the development of Xinjiang and Tibet and to eliminate poverty. On the other, it sustains China's demographic dividend and provides a historical opportunity for the "second reform and opening up." The vast central and western regions have got their advantages in terms of labor cost, land supply and natural resources. Therefore, on the basis of access to the Indian Ocean and China-Pakistan Railway, the Kashgar special economic zone, and other western towns are expected to become "inland ports" connecting the oceans, thus re-creating the Shenzhen miracle and becoming the engine of China's second great opening up and development."

In sum the land route goes from the Kashgar region of Xian in China through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. In this way China becomes a two-ocean power in a way. But it is a long way to Kashgar from the rest of China even the western part and another long haul through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. Can this work?

On the other hand, although transport via a land route across all of Eurasia by train is more expensive than by rail, rail is quicker and not as prohibitively expensive as air transport. Will it all work?

I believe MacKinder saw rail transport as the vehicle of Eurasian integration and felt that the trans-Siberian railway was the first attempt at it, if memory serves. Was he right?

In general the Belt and Road must not only be a good idea, it must make sense economically. Does it? Hope so because it holds out hope for the development of the Asian interior, including western China and for spreading China's successful poverty alleviation and development model across Asia and even into Africa. Not to mention it spells the end of the unipolar world which is becoming a worse nightmare every day.

Bob Van Noy , August 29, 2018 at 9:58 am

Geopolitics is endlessly fascinating as we see here again with thanks to Pepe Escobar. Now we hear of yet another geo-arrangement from Glenn Diesen. I havn't read Mr. Diesen's book but I don't doubt that he offers up many insights for would be World Managers. Those managers, both in the past, and those yet to advise, have generally caused much serious chaos to the general populations affected by their thoughts, neither Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski have done America much good for their theories. I'm convinced that the American People are not now and never were, interested in any concept of Empire. We've been Marketed or Propagandized into a coordinated responses, usually an inappropriate ones. This time we actually have an opportunity to re-evaluate our recent lost history and rebuild better more appropriately eco-friendly local economies and to become a better World Neighbor or Partner as the Diplomats say.

A good previous article is here: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/07/old-cold-warriors-cool-to-new-cold-war/

TomG , August 29, 2018 at 10:54 am

" we actually have an opportunity to re-evaluate our recent lost history and rebuild better more appropriately eco-friendly local economies and to become a better World Neighbor "

Oh, how my hope lies in doing just this!

One thing I've observed again and again living beside the Amish, they are kind to those of us 'outside their community' and will help if any help is needed. Kindness and neighborliness go hand in hand–and they us show it can be done.

John V. Walsh , August 29, 2018 at 2:32 pm

TomG,
Another good thought.
BUT the future is no longer in our hands – it is in the hands of the Eurasian powers, China, Russia, Iran AND India. They have to do something new for humanity that goes beyond the old imperial ways to look at the world. Escobar AND Kissinger are both fond of citing Zheng He as evidence that genuine Empire as oppose to border disputes is not in the Chinese culture – or in their DNA as Xi puts it.
The best we can do here in the US is to make sure that the US ruling Elite does not blow us all up, the Samson option, as it tries to come to terms with the new realities. That means supporting all peaceful overtures to Russia and China. One example is the recent Helsinki Summit which deserves our support and had the approval of a majority of Americans. So did the idea of a follow-up. Unfortunately amongst organized progressives there was nary a word of praise or support with very few exceptions, one of them being CodePink which is much to be commended. Otherwise Trump Derangement Syndrome prevailed. And so we drift toward oblivion.

mike k , August 29, 2018 at 9:14 am

Heading off the Samson option by the wounded hegemon US Empire will be a major concern for all global players from now on. As well as factoring in the inevitable collapse of industrial civilization. There is not any way for all this to end well in sight at this time. Human extinction seems by far the most likely outcome for us. Too bad – we have probably screwed up our world, and ourselves, beyond the possibility of recovery.

Sally Snyder , August 29, 2018 at 7:30 am

Here is a more detailed look at how both Russia and China are putting a mechanism in place that will allow them to work around future trade problems with the United States:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/06/russia-and-china-growing-alliance-under.html

The sanctions and tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration against Russia and China will become increasingly ineffective as the old unipolar global order continues to fade away.

[Aug 30, 2018] >Libya and the Failure of 'Humanitarian' Intervention by DANIEL LARISON

Notable quotes:
"... A Foreign Policy for the Left ..."
"... he saw very clearly then how easily the rhetoric of protecting civilians could be abused to launch an unjustified war. ..."
Aug 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Samuel Moyn's review of Michael Walzer's A Foreign Policy for the Left is worth reading in its entirety. This passage jumped out at me:

Walzer's attempt to snatch the promise of American intervention from the jaws of recent horrors shows the need to repeat the litany. The left has long since learned how difficult it is to respond to those who laughed when it tried to save the pure idea of communism from its totalitarian applications. Walzer applies the same strategy to humanitarian intervention, as if it might work better in this case.

Remarkably, Walzer does not even mention the Libyan intervention in 2011 [bold mine-DL], which -- like the Iraq War -- has left hopes for militarized humanism in shambles. Ever since Democrats and their allies abroad acted to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi under the cover of humanitarian protection, the possibility of insulating the so-called "responsibility to protect" civilians abroad from great power designs and horrendous long-term outcomes has become incredible. Much like a stock newsletter touting a new strategy to beat the odds after a market crash, the promise of a better scheme for picking winners among prospective interventions has become unbelievable, at least for now. For Walzer, however, the priority is to chide fellow leftists for failing to defend the option of humanitarian intervention in theory, not to understand today why almost nobody thinks it improves the world in practice.

It seems strange that Walzer wouldn't mention the Libyan war at all in this book. As Moyn says, it is extremely relevant to the debate over "humanitarian" interventions and their consequences. What makes this omission even more striking is that Walzer was a public opponent of the Libyan war when it happened. Walzer opened his article written at the start of the intervention with this statement:

There are so many things wrong with the Libyan intervention that it is hard to know where to begin.

Walzer was absolutely right to oppose the Libyan war, and his early arguments against it were very similar to some my own objections. That makes his decision not to mention the Libyan war or his opposition to it that much more difficult to understand. He could have cited his opposition as an example of good judgment and proof that he could distinguish between necessary and unnecessary wars, but for whatever reason he didn't do that. Libya is one of the chief examples most people today would think of when discussing the merits and flaws of "humanitarian" intervention, but apparently Walzer doesn't think it is worth talking about. It is even odder that Walzer would make defending "humanitarian" interventionism the focus of his book when he saw very clearly then how easily the rhetoric of protecting civilians could be abused to launch an unjustified war.

Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Libyan war , Samuel Moyn , Michael Walzer .

[Aug 30, 2018] Why the U.S. Never Learns from Foreign Policy Failures

Notable quotes:
"... Maximum pressure usually just provokes maximum resistance, and it leads to more of the behavior that the pressure campaign was supposed to stop. ..."
"... Our policymakers rarely, if ever, learn much of anything from our government's past blunders and crimes. If they acknowledge that previous policies failed, they are reluctant to admit that the policies were certain to fail. It is much more common for policymakers and pundits to blame the failure of our policies abroad on the inadequacies of our proxies and allies or the designs of our adversaries. The fact that these policies can be undone so easily by obvious and foreseeable problems does not seem to matter. There are not many that are willing to accept that a policy failed because it was inherently unsound. ..."
"... Real learning is impossible without a willingness to question and then discard faulty assumptions, and far too many of our policymakers and political leaders won't ever get rid of certain assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Once someone takes for granted that the U.S. has both the right and the authority to meddle in the affairs of other states and dictate their policies to them on pain of collective punishment and/or war, he is likely to see the pursuit of regime change in other lands as being almost synonymous with American "leadership" itself. ..."
"... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair. ..."
"... The largest donor to re-election campaigns are the military industrial complex, and it is always in their best interest to start or continue more wars. Since they are the ones that control the money, it is always in the interest of elected representatives to support starting or continuing wars. ..."
"... "When will we ever learn?" When will war cease to be profitable for those that have, or claim, War Powers? ..."
"... One should not mistake the useful "bolt-on" careerists that might or might not be true believers in the Great Gamble with the profiteers that have the actual power. The oligarchs and the arms manufacturers do not care whether the policies are wrong or right, failed or successful, as long as there is blood money to be made. If anything, failure in perpetuity is a guarantor of future cash flow and continued rent extraction. ..."
"... When it comes to their relationship with the world, empires do not learn. They bully. Why should the policy makers learn? They are the invincable empire. They can bully and pounce without consequences, no matter the outcome. Learning is for weaklings who need that in order to survive. ..."
"... As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers -- that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: "follow the money." ..."
"... When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
Aug 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Thomas Pickering explains that the Trump administration's Iran policy is doomed to fail on its own terms:

The policy of maximum pressure and unachievable demands is based on deeply flawed assumptions about Iran and the wise use of American power.

Pickering is describing Trump's Iran policy here, but he could just as easily be talking about the president's handling of many other issues. The Trump administration insists on demanding that other governments capitulate, make sweeping concessions that would overturn most of their current policies, and then punishes them if the other side refuses to comply with insane ultimatums. No one responds well to being dictated to, and that is particularly true of regimes that have made opposition to the U.S. a major part of their reigning ideology. Maximum pressure usually just provokes maximum resistance, and it leads to more of the behavior that the pressure campaign was supposed to stop.

Later on in his column, Pickering reviews the sorry record of U.S.-sponsored regime change and then asks:

When will we ever learn?

If the last two decades are anything to go by, the answer is never. Our policymakers rarely, if ever, learn much of anything from our government's past blunders and crimes. If they acknowledge that previous policies failed, they are reluctant to admit that the policies were certain to fail. It is much more common for policymakers and pundits to blame the failure of our policies abroad on the inadequacies of our proxies and allies or the designs of our adversaries. The fact that these policies can be undone so easily by obvious and foreseeable problems does not seem to matter. There are not many that are willing to accept that a policy failed because it was inherently unsound.

"We" never learn because so many of our political leaders and analysts don't think that our failed policies were wrong in themselves. The only thing that they are interested in knowing is how to implement the same bad ideas more "effectively" the next time. These are the people that still think that preventive war and regime change are appropriate policy options when done the "right" way. Real learning is impossible without a willingness to question and then discard faulty assumptions, and far too many of our policymakers and political leaders won't ever get rid of certain assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Once someone takes for granted that the U.S. has both the right and the authority to meddle in the affairs of other states and dictate their policies to them on pain of collective punishment and/or war, he is likely to see the pursuit of regime change in other lands as being almost synonymous with American "leadership" itself.

GregR August 29, 2018 at 6:33 pm

While I appreciate your optimism I am far more cynical. Our leaders won't learn for the same reason tobacco companies rejected evidence that smoking is bad for you.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair.

The largest donor to re-election campaigns are the military industrial complex, and it is always in their best interest to start or continue more wars. Since they are the ones that control the money, it is always in the interest of elected representatives to support starting or continuing wars.

There is no money to be made in peace. Everything else, sadly, is just window dressing.

Tim , says: August 29, 2018 at 6:55 pm

A sound conclusion based on accumulated evidence is hard to refute. But 2 decades? Nah, more like 5, at least for those who remember Vietnam, a case in which political affiliation ultimately didn't matter to those pursuing the inevitable conclusion of the mistakes they believed they could set right. LBJ got us into it and Nixon, having committed treason by secretly undermining the peace negotiations while running in '68, 'finished the job' by keeping us there 4 more years, at a huge cost in American lives that far exceeded the casualty toll in the more recent debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fazal Majid , says: August 29, 2018 at 7:23 pm

The real reason why is because the US is so rich even George W Bush's $2 Trillion blunder in Iraq is something a $20T economy can shrug off. How long that remains the case against a resurgent China is anyone's guess.

b. , says: August 29, 2018 at 7:37 pm

"When will we ever learn?" When will war cease to be profitable for those that have, or claim, War Powers?

b. , says: August 29, 2018 at 7:42 pm

"our political leaders and analysts don't think that our failed policies were wrong in themselves"

One should not mistake the useful "bolt-on" careerists that might or might not be true believers in the Great Gamble with the profiteers that have the actual power. The oligarchs and the arms manufacturers do not care whether the policies are wrong or right, failed or successful, as long as there is blood money to be made. If anything, failure in perpetuity is a guarantor of future cash flow and continued rent extraction.

Mark B. , says: August 29, 2018 at 10:01 pm

Mr. Larison is an American Republican in the original sense of the word in my view. But I get the feeling he does not realize that when it comes to foreign policy, the US is not a republic. It is an empire. It only is a republic at home.

When it comes to their relationship with the world, empires do not learn. They bully. Why should the policy makers learn? They are the invincable empire. They can bully and pounce without consequences, no matter the outcome. Learning is for weaklings who need that in order to survive.

Empires do not learn, they fall. Either military or financially. Till that day comes, no learning!

lemon soda , says: August 29, 2018 at 10:18 pm

Good to hear from Tom Pickering. I'm very glad his generation retains its voice and contributes to the foreign policy debate. Sometimes it seems like it's all punk kids and neocons who either don't know what the hell they're talking about or are lobbying for a foreign country. More Pickering please, and less of the other stuff.

Franklin , says: August 30, 2018 at 12:02 am

As Robert Higgs said:

As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers -- that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: "follow the money."

When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

So U.S. soldiers get killed, so Palestinians get insulted, robbed, and confined to a set of squalid concentration areas, so the "peace process" never gets far from square one, etc., etc. -- none of this makes the policies failures; these things are all surface froth, costs not born by the policy makers themselves but by the cannon-fodder masses, the bovine taxpayers at large, and foreigners who count for nothing.

[Aug 29, 2018] Max Boot Greases The Wheels of Empire

Aug 29, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

chris rossini friday august 22, 2014
Boot

Max Boot lays it on pretty thick here :

America's brave troopers today fight for freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, all the while yearning, as FDR said, "for the end of battle" when they can return home. They are not there to seize natural resources or to pump up a president's approval ratings–nor, for all of my differences with President Obama, do I believe he has ordered troops into harm's way for such nefarious purposes.
If that isn't the exact opposite of truth, I don't know what is.

As a matter of fact, RPI recently ran a fantastic editorial by Jessica Pavoni, who was a member of the military, but sought to leave the Air Force as a conscientious objector after learning that the Max Boots of the world were spinning false tales.

Not only has the Empire managed to bring the exact opposite of freedom to "Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond," but it has also accomplished the snuffing out of freedom here at home as well. Groping at the airports, the monitoring of all our communications and finances, as well as the militarized local police (See: Boston & Ferguson) are just a few potent examples.

Meanwhile, Chuck Hagel is now trying to scare the pants off Americans once again:

ISIL poses a threat greater than 9/11. ISIL is as sophisticated and well funded as any group we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group This is way beyond anything we have seen.
The Empire wants more!

Max Boot, the fantasy storyteller, is helping to grease the wheels.

[Aug 29, 2018] The Sun Does Not Revolve Around the US by Jean Ranc

Most of US Russiagate charges are projection. Russiagate is a color revolution of the block of neoliberals and neocons to depose Trump. They are afraid of too many skeletons in the closet to allow Trump to finish his term. And for a right reason. Trump is unpredictable and he at one moment can turn on them and start revealing unpleasant truth about Bush II and Obama.
But rumors about the demise of the US neoliberal empire are slightly exaggerated ;-). Without providing an alternative model to neoliberalism and without ethnological superiority China does not stand a chance.
Notable quotes:
"... Through endless repetition, allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia. ..."
"... Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures & keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance & hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth! ..."
"... Their claim to One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than 100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology development system (DARPA) ..."
"... other Nations may reach a saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the realization that this crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped, once & for all time! ..."
Aug 29, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

... ... ...

Continuing Empire

It was around 1898, when America first starting thinking it was the center of the universe. In that year the U.S. intervened in Cuba's war for independence and proceeded to take over parts of the decrepit Spanish Empire, from Latin America to the Philippines. Shortly before, in 1893, the U.S. overthrew the Queen of Hawaii on behalf of U.S.-backed sugar and pineapple plantation owners.

That led to a long history of political interference in other countries, in the form of destabilization, coups and invasions. Once the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, a narrative was fostered to justify expanding NATO to Russia's borders.

In the last four years, anti-Russian propaganda has reached a fever pitch: lies about Russia's "expansionism" in Ukraine; hype about Russia's "meddling" in the U.S. elections, creating an existential "threat to democracy;" unproven allegations of Russia using chemical weapons to poison the Skripals in London. Experts are trotted out on major media to further the narrative without hard evidence. Together with think-tanks, the American and British media run these stories daily with almost no counter news or opinions. Through endless repetition, allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia.

In 2004, journalist Ron Suskind wrote in The New York Times magazine that a top White House strategist for President George W. Bush -- identified later as Karl Rove, Bush's Deputy White House Chief of Staff -- told him, "We're an empire now; we create our own reality."

Swiss journalist, Guy Mettan, in his 2017 book, Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria , writes that the West's psycho-social pathology about Russia dates back over 1,000 years to the division of Christendom between the Orthodox and Roman churches. The U.S. is a relative newcomer to this, but seeks perhaps its biggest role.

" More than merely dominate, the American superpower now seeks to control history," Mettan says.

Myth of Russian Expansionism

The astute University of Chicago Professor John J. Mearsheimer exposed how the West provoked the Ukraine crisis in his 2014 Foreign Affairs article, "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin." But the American foreign policy establishment and media remain committed to the suppression of facts about the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev and the resulting escalating tensions with Russia.

Ignoring or fabricating evidence, the U.S. and NATO persist in lying that Russia has expansionist goals in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. Russia is helping ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine who are resisting the coup, Crimea (which had been part of Russia since 1783 and transferred by the Soviets to Ukraine in 1954) held a referendum in 2014 in which the public voted to rejoin Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in to help fight Western and Gulf-backed jihadists trying to violently overthrow the government, as even then Secretary of State John Kerry admitted .

Another scholar, Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, writes in his latest book, Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order , that the Ukraine crisis crystallized the profound differences between Russia and the West, differences that are not just a replay of the "Cold War."

Simply put, under the banner of the indispensable "liberal world order," neo-conservative warriors and "democracy"-spreading-"humanitarian-interventionists" are promoting the Russophobia "reality" to justify American hegemony.

Ditching Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn : Ditched when he turned on America. (Wikimedia Commons)

One of the greatest illustrations of the centuries-old Russophobia, says Mettan in his 2017 book, is the case of Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

" During the 1990s, I was shocked by the way the West treated Solzhenitsyn," Mettan wrote. "For decades, we had published, celebrated, and acclaimed the great writer as bearing the torch of anti-Soviet dissidence," but only when he criticized his communist Russia. But after moving to the U.S., when Solzhenitsyn showed a preference for privacy "rather than attending anticommunist conferences, western media and academics began to distance themselves."

And when Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia and spoke out against Russian 'westernizers' and liberals who denied Russian interests, he was labeled "an outdated, senile writer," though he had not changed his fundamental views on freedom.

After the mid-July, Trump-Putin Helsinki summit, there were countless mass media delusions and hysteria against U.S.-Russia ties, reminiscent of the Hearst newspaper empire's propaganda that whipped up a frenzy to support the empire-building war against Spain in 1898. Professor Stephen Kinzer vividly described the unsuccessful battle by prestigious anti-imperialists against the power of the Hearst propaganda in his latest book, The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire ."

Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia.

Do we have enough good sense left to follow the advice of Henry David Thoreau: "Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality."

Or, as I thought when I visited Galileo's house that day in the Florentine hills: the world does not revolve around America.

Jean Ranc is a retired psychologist/research associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Gary Weglarz , August 28, 2018 at 7:42 pm

Wonderful observations that challenge the complete and utter madness of our times here in the U.S., and the West in general. The inquisitorial "accusations" leveled against Putin and Russia by the West bear no more resemblance to "reality" than the lunatic accusations that the Holy Inquisition leveled against "witches," "heretics" and "non-believers" for centuries as it used terror to consolidate power. Given the ever more shrill and painfully persistent nature of these ongoing nonsense anti-Russian accusations – it would appear more and more of us in the West are falling into the category of – "non-believers."

jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:45 pm

A very good post Gary. The West is decadent and corrupt.Whatever high moral grounds the West once held, I am afraid they are either forgotten or totally gone.

Jessika , August 28, 2018 at 6:43 pm

Delightful piece to read, great comments as usual. I can only add that the neocolonialists who don't want to give up leading the US over the edge, as mike says "into the abyss", will be forced to change their ways, well stated by Babylon and others. The tragedy of what they have done by their narcissistic, egoistic, delusional misleading, is that they have wrecked the lives of millions worldwide. But of course, that is the story of deluded conquerors until they meet their own end. I welcome the sun setting on the "American Century"; a sharp reset awaits us all but we should welcome it.

jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:48 pm

Jessika: the saddest part in all this is that they still continue to wreck and decimate lives worldwide. It is like a cancer eating and obliterating every thing in their path. A very incisive post.

Diana Lee , August 29, 2018 at 12:08 am

The cancer is psychopathy! These people have no conscience or empathy. They are liars and manipulators. They treat people like objects to be used and abused. Until America admits that we've had a substantial percentage of psychopathic leaders and mentality, from the Puritans forward, we will never recover from the psychological, social, economic, political, legal, religious destruction this ilk has forced upon the rest of us. It took me deep research and therapy to discover that psychopaths project themselves onto the rest of us and then claim we are somehow damaged, flawed or have sinful human nature. The problem has always been the psychopaths among us (1%) who have created hierarchies and placed themselves atop them. They have bamboozled most of us with their lies but as we wake up to their games, we can kick them out of power and we can create a country of the 99% with conscience and empathy rather than a country of slaveowners and deluded "Israelites" who believed they had the right to exploit, enslave, kill

KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:36 am

It's not sad, it's what's deathcult tyrants & dying Empires do, they take as many victims as they can, once they realise the end is nigh! It's a mass shooter mentality & it's disgraceful!

JR , August 28, 2018 at 9:14 pm

HI Jessika,
I tried to find you while I was still living in NH as I got the idea you live there as well. I had lived in the Dartmouth area in the 70's but the brutal winters were too much! this time around so I returned to my home base here in Chapel Hill. If you'd like to be in touch, you can reach me at my old-but-still-good Santa Fe address: [email protected]

mike k , August 28, 2018 at 5:37 pm

American egotism is legendary. It is the defining mark of the breed. Ignorant know-it-alls lead us confidently into the abyss.

jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:53 pm

Mike: If American leaders that are in control of the country have studied history of any empire, they would come to the realization that empires do not last forever. The illogical part is that empire's life expectancy has been more or less the same worldwide. And like an opened book the end is closing in and they know it.

Realist , August 28, 2018 at 5:00 pm

Excellent bit of necessary truth-telling. Too bad it won't be read in most of America, not because the people would reject its premise, but because their keepers just won't let them see it in the highly manipulated mass media.

America has repeatedly become what it most professes to hate: first an onerous empire like Spain, then a pack of fascists like Nazi Germany, and now totalitarian tyrants like the Soviets. Welcome to the truth, the one NOT fabricated by Rove's inheritors of empire.

Babyl-on , August 28, 2018 at 4:32 pm

This thought is so important to understand if you are to make any sense of the new multi-polar world which does not revolve around the failing Western empire.

China's Belt and Road is a catalyst but China will benefit only through the interconnection of the entire Eurasian land mass – sooner than you think, high-speed trains will cross the steppes. That is the new world the Enlightenment era is dead the Eurasian era is opening. Eurasia will trade most naturally with Africa and it will prosper because The US Empire is the last of the Enlightenment white European empires.

When you consider the integration of the great Eurasian land mass for the first time is history (the ancient Silk Road writ large) it's easy to forget about a US over there separated by all that water from the thriving markets.

Those oceans which protected the center of power from attack now are a big disadvantage in trade.
We are witnessing the end of the Enlightenment and the end of Empire which it spawned.

China is not imperial, Russia is not imperial – no country today seeks empire but the US and they are failing in every way. Western Liberal Democracy also died with the Enlightenment, new forms of governance and culture will develop, the sky really is the limit, now that the old dead Enlightenment is moving out of the way.

It would be a brighter future if not for that pesky climate.

KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:51 am

Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures & keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance & hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth!

Russia & China are the future with the one belt, one road initiative & America is being left in the rear view mirror & is on the path to total oblivion thanks to its warmongering ways! The end of this corrupt American Empire can't come soon enough for people who want to live in peace!

O Society , August 28, 2018 at 4:12 pm

Well done, Jean Ranc! BTW, I am a Wolfpack grad

Egocentrism isn't just a Donald Trump thing, it's an American thing. America's never-ending RussiaGate narrative is a classic example of psychological projection. It can't be US who has the problem, it must be THEM who has the problem. Time to own it.

Donald Trump is an All-American Gangster

dick Spencer , August 28, 2018 at 3:07 pm

paraphrasing J. Pilger -- America should leave the rest of the world alone -- leave it alone

KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:15 am

Yes, I second what Mr Pilger stated & I will add a few more requests? "Leave the World" alone! Stop your Warmongering interference in other Countries affairs! Immediately stop all your murderous Wars, Coups & Financial & Economic terrorism such as weaponising the dollar & Trade sanctions to illegally punish other Nations! Abide by International Laws & the U.N. charter! Remove your 800 bases from around the World & stick to your own backyard! Stop being the Worlds Policeman because no one asked you to perform this role! Look after your own people first & stop wasting trillions of dollars on the pointless & stupid Military Industrial Complex! Ban Campaign lobbyists & big money from Politics! Jail all corrupt Corporates & thieving Bankers, Politicians & seize their assets! These are a few things for a start! There are many more things you could do more numerous to name here, but the main thing is LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! We are sick to death of this American Empire!

Sally Snyder , August 28, 2018 at 2:28 pm

Here is what Americans really think about the anti-Russia hysteria coming from Washington:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/americans-on-russia-will-of-people.html

Less than half of Americans believe that Russia's interference in the 2016 election made a difference to the final outcome and nearly six in ten Americans believe that it is important that Washington continue to improve relations with Moscow.

Jeff Harrison , August 28, 2018 at 2:25 pm

When you get to the end of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six volumes of dense, erudite prose which details the failings of a decadent society, Gibbon lets you in on a secret. The Roman Empire was militarily defeated. Not all at once, mind. But militarily defeated nonetheless. Consider what that means for the US.

RnM , August 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm

Rome became a victim of its success, being overstretched beyond their war technology (horses, shields, swords and siege machines.)
My inability and unwillingness to predict the end of the rise of The Empire of "We the People" and its brand of War Technologies, is due to my close perspective and life-long Bernaiseian (?sp) brainwashing by the mass media, which, thankfully, has, since 2016, been dealt a blow to the mask on their (the corporate media's) Totalitarian nature.

Their claim to One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than 100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology development system (DARPA). So, in the American attempt to surpass the Romans, the Empire of We the People (as a Totalitarian dystopia) may well be thwarted by the spread of open information. I hope so. The alternative might be very difficult to defeat.

Diana Lee , August 29, 2018 at 12:23 am

Jeff, if you enjoyed Gibbons, I think you would really enjoy Michael Parenti's, "The Assassination of Julius Caesar". There are so many parallels between the late Roman Republic and today's America. Michael got his PhD in political science and history from Yale and writes "people's history". He argues convincingly that Caesar was assassinated -- - not for being an egomaniac and dictator -- - but because he stood up against the most elite in the senate by seeking reforms that would benefit the masses. He actually argues that Gibbons wrote as a historian from the priviledged class and therefore never condemned the senate for exploiting the masses.

KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:34 am

Yes, what it means,& if History is anything to go by, that other Nations may reach a saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the realization that this crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped, once & for all time!

The Roman Empire never saw the Barbarian hordes such as the Visigoth's, Huns & Vandals coming until it was to late! Will the American Empire see there downfall coming? 9/11 proved the arrogant American Empire couldn't even see that event coming, due to their own hubris & complacency!

[Aug 29, 2018] The Other Side Of John McCain by Max Blumenthal

Aug 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Wed, 08/29/2018 - 02:00 0 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Max Blumenthal via Consortium News,

If the paeans to McCain by diverse political climbers seems detached from reality, it's because they reflect the elite view of U.S. military interventions as a chess game, with the millions killed by unprovoked aggression mere statistics.

Sponsored By Kinesis Invest in the evolution of the gold standard

Kinesis is not just a cryptocurrency, Kinesis combines the best of the old world and the new, bringing the most stable and secure forms of currency, gold and silver, to the consumer, in digital form.

me title=

As the Cold War entered its final act in 1985, journalist Helena Cobban participated in an academic conference at an upscale resort near Tucson, Arizona, on U.S.-Soviet interactions in the Middle East. When she attended what was listed as the "Gala Dinner with keynote speech", she quickly learned that the virtual theme of the evening was, "Adopt a Muj."

"I remember mingling with all of these wealthy Republican women from the Phoenix suburbs and being asked, 'Have you adopted a muj?" Cobban told me. "Each one had pledged money to sponsor a member of the Afghan mujahedin in the name of beating the communists. Some were even seated at the event next to their personal 'muj.'"

The keynote speaker of the evening, according to Cobban, was a hard-charging freshman member of Congress named John McCain.

During the Vietnam war, McCain had been captured by the North Vietnamese Army after being shot down on his way to bomb a civilian lightbulb factory. He spent two years in solitary confinement and underwent torture that left him with crippling injuries. McCain returned from the war with a deep, abiding loathing of his former captors, remarking as late as 2000, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." After he was criticized for the racist remark, McCain refused to apologize. "I was referring to my prison guards," he said, "and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."

'Hanoi Hilton' prison where McCain was tortured. (Wikimedia Commons)

McCain's visceral resentment informed his vocal support for the mujahedin as well as the right-wing contra death squads in Central America -- any proxy group sworn to the destruction of communist governments.

So committed was McCain to the anti-communist cause that in the mid-1980s he had joined the advisory board of the United States Council for World Freedom, the American affiliate of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, a former leader of WACL's British chapter who had turned against the group in 1974, described the organization as "a collection of Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, sellers of forgeries, vicious racialists, and corrupt self-seekers. It has evolved into an anti-Semitic international."

Joining McCain in the organization were notables such as Jaroslav Stetsko, the Croatian Nazi collaborator who helped oversee the extermination of 7,000 Jews in 1941; the brutal Argentinian former dictator Jorge Rafael Videla; and Guatemalan death squad leader Mario Sandoval Alarcon. Then-President Ronald Reagan honored the group for playing"a leadership role in drawing attention to the gallant struggle now being waged by the true freedom fighters of our day."

Being Lauded as a Hero

On the occasion of his death, McCain is being honored in much the same way -- as a patriotic hero and freedom fighter for democracy. A stream of hagiographies is pouring forth from the Beltway press corps that he described as his true political base. Among McCain's most enthusiastic groupies is CNN's Jake Tapper, whom he chose as his personal stenographer for a 2000 trip to Vietnam. When the former CNN host Howard Kurtz asked Tapper in February, 2000, "When you're on the [campaign] bus, do you make a conscious effort not to fall under the magical McCain spell?"

Trending Articles "Exuberance Is Back:" Investing In Ferraris Better Bet

As US stocks hit record highs, a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO offered by sold in Monterey, California on Saturday for a

https://c5x8i7c7.ssl.hwcdn.net/vplayer-parallel/20180615_1258/videojs/show.html?controls=1&loop=30&autoplay=0&tracker=e1b80ae6-31a5-4aa4-ad84-6e5dc620b938&height=362&width=643&vurl=%2F%2Fc5x8i7c7.ssl.hwcdn.net%2Fvideos%2Fdgv_zerohedge%2F20180828061518_5b84dbb8e14ba%2Fdgv_zerohedge_trending_articles_20180828061518_5b84dbb8e14ba_new.mp4&poster=%2F%2Fc5x8i7c7.ssl.hwcdn.net%2Fvideos%2Fdgv_zerohedge%2F20180828061518_5b84dbb8e14ba%2Fdgv_zerohedge_trending_articles_20180828061518_5b84dbb8e14ba_new.jpg

Powered By

me title=

"Oh, you can't. You become like Patty Hearst when the SLA took her," Tapper joked in reply .

Ocasio-Cortez: Called McCain 'an unparalleled example of human decency.'

But the late senator has also been treated to gratuitous tributes from an array of prominent liberals, from George Soros to his soft power-pushing client, Ken Roth, along with three fellow directors of Human Rights Watch and "democratic socialist" celebrity Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who hailed McCain as "an unparalleled example of human decency." Rep. John Lewis, the favorite civil rights symbol of the Beltway political class, weighed in as well to memorialize McCain as a "warrior for peace."

If the paeans to McCain by this diverse cast of political climbers and Davos denizens seemed detached from reality, that's because they perfectly reflected the elite view of American military interventions as akin to a game of chess, and the millions of dead left in the wake of the West's unprovoked aggression as mere statistics.

There were few figures in recent American life who dedicated themselves so personally to the perpetuation of war and empire as McCain. But in Washington, the most defining aspect of his career was studiously overlooked, or waved away as the trivial idiosyncrasy of a noble servant who nonetheless deserved everyone's reverence.

McCain did not simply thunder for every major intervention of the post-Cold War era from the Senate floor, while pushing for sanctions and assorted campaigns of subterfuge on the side. He was uniquely ruthless when it came to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zones to another to personally recruit far-right fanatics as American proxies.

In Libya and Syria, he cultivated affiliates of Al Qaeda as allies, and in Ukraine, McCain courted actual, sig-heiling neo-Nazis.

While McCain's Senate office functioned as a clubhouse for arms industry lobbyists and neocon operatives, his fascistic allies waged a campaign of human devastation that will continue until long after the flowers dry up on his grave.

American media may have sought to bury this legacy with the senator's body, but it is what much of the outside world will remember him for.

'They are Not al-Qaeda'

McCain with Abdelhakim Belhaj, leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a former Al Qaeda affiliate.

When a violent insurgency swept through Libya in 2011, McCain parachuted into the country to meet with leaders of the main insurgent outfit, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), battling the government of Moamar Gaddafi. His goal was to make kosher this band of hardline Islamists in the eyes of the Obama administration, which was considering a military intervention at the time.

What happened next is well documented, though it is scarcely discussed by a Washington political class that depended on the Benghazi charade to deflect from the real scandal of Libya's societal destruction. Gaddafi's motorcade was attacked by NATO jets , enabling a band of LIFG fighters to capture him, sodomize him with a bayonet, then murder him and leave his body to rot in a butcher shop in Misrata while rebel fanboys snapped cellphone selfies of his fetid corpse.

A slaughter of Black citizens of Libya by the racist sectarian militias recruited by McCain immediately followed the killing of the pan-African leader. ISIS took over Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte while Belhaj's militia took control of Tripoli, and a war of the warlords began. Just as Gaddafi had warned , the ruined country became a staging ground for migrant smugglers on the Mediterranean, fueling the rise of the far-right across Europe and enabling the return of slavery to Africa.

Many might describe Libya as a failed state, but it also represents a successful realization of the vision McCain and his allies have advanced on the global stage.

Following the NATO-orchestrated murder of Libya's leader, McCain tweeted , "Qaddafi on his way out, Bashar al Assad is next."

McCain's Syrian Boondoggle

Like Libya, Syria had resisted aligning with the West and was suddenly confronted with a Salafi-jihadi insurgency armed by the CIA. Once again, McCain made it his personal duty to market Islamist insurgents to America as a cross between the Minutemen and the Freedom Riders of the civil rights era. To do so, he took under his wing a youthful DC-based Syria-American operative named Mouaz Moustafa who had been a consultant to the Libyan Transitional Council during the run-up to the NATO invasion.

In May 2013, Moustafa convinced McCain to take an illegal trip across the Syrian border and meet some freedom fighters. An Israeli millionaire named Moti Kahana who coordinated efforts between the Syrian opposition and the Israeli military through his NGO, Amaliah, claimed to have "financed the opposition group which took senator John McCain to visit war-torn Syria."

"This could be like his Benghazi moment," Moustafa remarked excitedly in a scene from a documentary, "Red Lines," that depicted his efforts for regime change. "[McCain] went to Benghazi, he came back, we bombed."

During his brief excursion into Syria, McCain met with a group of CIA-backed insurgents and blessed their struggle. "The senator wanted to assure the Free Syrian Army that the American people support their cry for freedom, support their revolution," Moustafa said in an interview with CNN. McCain's office promptly released a photo showing the senatorposing beside a beaming Moustafa and two grim-looking gunmen.

Days later, the men were named by the Lebanese Daily Star as Mohammad Nour and Abu Ibrahim. Both had been implicated in the kidnapping a year prior of 11 Shia pilgrims, and were identified by one of the survivors. McCain and Moustafa returned to the U.S. the targets of mockery from Daily Show host John Stewart and the subject of harshly critical reports from across the media spectrum. At a town hall in Arizona, McCain was berated by constituents, including Jumana Hadid, a Syrian Christian woman who warned that the sectarian militants he had cozied up to threatened her community with genocide.

McCain with then-FSA commander Salam Idriss, an insurgent later exposed for kidnapping Shia pilgrims.

But McCain pressed ahead anyway. On Capitol Hill, he introduced another shady young operative into his interventionist theater. Named Elizabeth O'Bagy, she was a fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, an arms industry-funded think tank directed by Kimberly Kagan of the neoconservative Kagan clan. Behind the scenes, O'Bagy was consulting for Moustafa at his Syrian Emergency Task Force, a clear conflict of interest that her top Senate patron was well aware of. Before the Senate, McCain cited a Wall Street Journal editorial by O'Bagy to support his assessment of the Syrian rebels as predominately "moderate," and potentially Western-friendly.

Days later, O'Bagy was exposed for faking her PhD in Arabic studies. As soon as the humiliated Kagan fired O'Bagy, the academic fraudster took another pass through the Beltway's revolving door, striding into the halls of Congress as McCain's newest foreign policy aide.

McCain ultimately failed to see the Islamist "revolutionaries" he glad handled take control of Damascus. Syria's government held on thanks to help from his mortal enemies in Tehran and Moscow, but not before a billion dollar CIA arm-and-equip operation helped spawn one of the worst refugee crises in post-war history. Luckily for McCain, there were other intrigues seeking his attention, and new bands of fanatical rogues in need of his blessing. Months after his Syrian boondoggle, the ornery militarist turned his attention to Ukraine, then in the throes of an upheaval stimulated by U.S. and EU-funded soft power NGO's.

Coddling the Neo-Nazis of Ukraine

On December 14, 2013, McCain materialized in Kiev for a meeting with Oleh Tyanhbok , an unreconstructed fascist who had emerged as a top opposition leader. Tyanhbok had co-founded the fascist Social-National Party, a far-right political outfit that touted itself as the "last hope of the white race, of humankind as such." No fan of Jews, he had complained that a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia" had taken control of his country, and had been photographed throwing up a sieg heil Nazi salute during a speech.

None of this apparently mattered to McCain. Nor did the scene of Right Sector neo-Nazis filling up Kiev's Maidan Square while he appeared on stage to egg them on.

"Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better!" McCain proclaimed to cheering throngs while Tyanhbok stood by his side. The only issue that mattered to him at the time was the refusal of Ukraine's elected president to sign a European Union austerity plan, opting instead for an economic deal with Moscow.

McCain met with Social-National Party co-founder Oleh Tyanhbok.

McCain was so committed to replacing an independent-minded government with a NATO vassal that he even mulled a military assault on Kiev. "I do not see a military option and that is tragic," McCain lamented in an interview about the crisis. Fortunately for him, regime change arrived soon after his appearance on the Maidan, and Tyanhbok's allies rushed in to fill the void.

By the end of the year, the Ukrainian military had become bogged down in a bloody trench war with pro-Russian, anti-coup separatists in the country's east. A militia affiliated with the new government in Kiev called Dnipro-1 was accused by Amnesty International observers of blocking humanitarian aid into a separatist-held area, including food and clothing for the war torn population.

Six months later, McCain appeared at Dnipro-1's training base alongside Sen.'s Tom Cotton and John Barasso. "The people of my country are proud of your fight and your courage," McCain told an assembly of soldiers from the militia. When he completed his remarks, the fighters belted out a World War II-era salute made famous by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators: "Glory to Ukraine!"

Today, far-right nationalists occupy key posts in Ukraine's pro-Western government. The speaker of its parliament is Andriy Parubiy , a co-founder with Tyanhbok of the Social-National Party and leader of the movement to honor World World Two-era Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera. On the cover of his 1998 manifesto, "View From The Right," Parubiy appeared in a Nazi-style brown shirt with a pistol strapped to his waist. In June 2017, McCain and Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan welcomed Parubiy on Capitol Hill for what McCain called a "good meeting." It was a shot in the arm for the fascist forces sweeping across Ukraine.

McCain with Dnipro-1 militants on June 20, 2015

The past months in Ukraine have seen a state sponsored neo-Nazi militia called C14 carrying out a pogromist rampage against Ukraine's Roma population, the country's parliament erecting an exhibition honoring Nazi collaborators, and the Ukrainian military formally approving the pro-Nazi "Glory to Ukraine" greeting as its own official salute.

Ukraine is now the sick man of Europe, a perpetual aid case bogged down in an endless war in its east. In a testament to the country's demise since its so-called "Revolution of Dignity," the deeply unpopular President Petro Poroshenko has promised White House National Security Advisor John Bolton that his country -- once a plentiful source of coal on par with Pennsylvania -- will now purchase coal from the U.S. Once again, a regime change operation that generated a failing, fascistic state stands as one of McCain's greatest triumphs.

McCain's history conjures up memory of one of the most inflammatory statements by Sarah Palin, another cretinous fanatic he foisted onto the world stage. During a characteristically rambling stump speech in October 2008, Palin accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." The line was dismissed as ridiculous and borderline slander, as it should have been. But looking back at McCain's career, the accusation seems richly ironic.

By any objective standard, it was McCain who had palled around with terrorists, and who wrested as much resources as he could from the American taxpayer to maximize their mayhem. Here's hoping that the societies shattered by McCain's proxies will someday rest in peace.

[Aug 29, 2018] Max Boot Greases The Wheels of Empire

Aug 29, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

chris rossini friday august 22, 2014
Boot

Max Boot lays it on pretty thick here :

America's brave troopers today fight for freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, all the while yearning, as FDR said, "for the end of battle" when they can return home. They are not there to seize natural resources or to pump up a president's approval ratings–nor, for all of my differences with President Obama, do I believe he has ordered troops into harm's way for such nefarious purposes.
If that isn't the exact opposite of truth, I don't know what is.

As a matter of fact, RPI recently ran a fantastic editorial by Jessica Pavoni, who was a member of the military, but sought to leave the Air Force as a conscientious objector after learning that the Max Boots of the world were spinning false tales.

Not only has the Empire managed to bring the exact opposite of freedom to "Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond," but it has also accomplished the snuffing out of freedom here at home as well. Groping at the airports, the monitoring of all our communications and finances, as well as the militarized local police (See: Boston & Ferguson) are just a few potent examples.

Meanwhile, Chuck Hagel is now trying to scare the pants off Americans once again:

ISIL poses a threat greater than 9/11. ISIL is as sophisticated and well funded as any group we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group This is way beyond anything we have seen.
The Empire wants more!

Max Boot, the fantasy storyteller, is helping to grease the wheels.

[Aug 29, 2018] Bolton calls on Al-Qaeda to stage more chemical attacks in Syria by Diana Johnstone

Notable quotes:
"... Beyond the tattered veil of moral superiority that is US war propaganda, Bolton's words were clearly a very public command to Al-Qaeda and co-extremists to stage yet another fake chemical attack. ..."
Aug 29, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Arby , August 28, 2018 at 5:06 pm

"When Trump revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chief John Brennan got his chance to spew his hatred in the complacent pages of The New York Times. Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually took Trump's joking invitation as a genuine request. "By issuing such a statement," Brennan wrote, "Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent.""

In the meantime, we can read, in Eva Bartlett's blog post titled "Bolton calls on Al-Qaeda to stage more chemical attacks in Syria," the following:

== =
In a move that was entirely predictable, the US administration is once again threatening to bomb Syria if there is a "chemical weapons attack".

This was entirely predictable because that chemical attack script has been read out, with salty crocodile tears, fake concern, and mocked indignation by US talking heads over the years -- since 2012, in fact, when former US President Obama himself drew his red line on Syria.

The latest script-reader to toe the chemical hoax line is President Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, who on August 22, stated: " if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons we will respond very strongly and they really ought to think about this a long time."

Beyond the tattered veil of moral superiority that is US war propaganda, Bolton's words were clearly a very public command to Al-Qaeda and co-extremists to stage yet another fake chemical attack.

[Aug 29, 2018] Ron Paul: President Trump May Not Be a Neoconservative, but He Is Influenced by Neocons by adam dick

Notable quotes:
"... Continuing his answer, Paul grants that Trump frequently "sounds like he doesn't strongly identify with neocons, but his policies frequently do." Paul further explains it is low on his "list of priorities" to label Trump. Instead, Paul says he focuses on analyzing the particular policies Trump pursues. Says Paul: ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

"Do you think that President Trump is a neocon?" That is the first question host Jason Burack asked guest Ron Paul, who is chairman of the Ron Paul Institute and a former United States House of Representative member, in a new Wall Street for Main Street podcast interview. "Probably not in the true sense of the word," replies Paul, "but that does not mean that he isn't influenced by the neocons," which Paul says Trump "obviously is."

Continuing his answer, Paul grants that Trump frequently "sounds like he doesn't strongly identify with neocons, but his policies frequently do." Paul further explains it is low on his "list of priorities" to label Trump. Instead, Paul says he focuses on analyzing the particular policies Trump pursues. Says Paul:

When [Trump] makes a move toward peace, I complement him. When he's moving toward war, I complain.
Listen here to Paul's complete interview, in which Paul and Burack also discuss topics including the deep state, trade wars, and the economic problems many Americans are experiencing:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/mMiFcH0p9-A

Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
"Listening to this show by MSNB is so disguising that I lost any respect for it. "

I actually jumped the gun. That's does not mean that it should not be viewed. There are some positive aspects of MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )

...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.

... ... ...

A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.

Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding a cinder block."

Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.

For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison, probation, and dismal job prospects...."

[Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
"Listening to this show by MSNB is so disguising that I lost any respect for it. "

I actually jumped the gun. That's does not mean that it should not be viewed. There are some positive aspects of MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )

...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.

... ... ...

A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.

Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding a cinder block."

Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.

For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison, probation, and dismal job prospects...."

[Aug 28, 2018] CRITICIZE ISRAEL AND GO TO JAIL? IS THAT HOW LOW ZIONISTS HAVE SUNK?

Notable quotes:
"... During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates". ..."
Aug 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rational , says: August 28, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT

CRITICIZE ISRAEL AND GO TO JAIL? IS THAT HOW LOW ZIONISTS HAVE SUNK?

Thanks for the interesting article, Sir.

As I read it, I felt sick in the abdomen, at how low the Zionists have sunk, demanding that those who criticize Israel go to jail.

If there is evil in this world, this is it. These are the dark ages. These people are primitive and seem to resist civilization.

No civilized human being should put up with this sort of evil.

The Brits need to wake up and actually repeal laws that make certain speech criminal offences that are already on the books (except for incitements to violence and porn).

The need to vote for Labor and keep Corbyn, or vote for BNP, and tell the Zionists that they are evil to make these demands.

Civilize them, please!!

Colin Wright , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT

Israel is not a democracy for a much simpler reason than that the author offers.

It denies the vote to the gentile inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank; that is to say, to about a quarter of its subjects.

Since the Jewish parties in the Knesset boycott the few Arab representatives that are there, Israel effectively denies political representation to the gentiles within its 'pre-1967′ boundaries as well -- that is to say, to another sixth or so of its total subject population.

Obviously, Israel is not a democracy in any sense of the word. 25% of its subjects are without even theoretical representation, and another 17% lack it in any practical sense. It's as if the US denied the vote to all inner-city residents except white 'settlers,' refused to work with Congressmen who weren't Protestants. It would be absurd to regard it as a democracy.

There are some democracies in the Middle East. Israel isn't one of them.

Colin Wright , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:18 am GMT

CNN (!) offers up this truly disgusting hit piece.

"When Jeremy Corbyn talks about 'British Zionists,' we know exactly what he means'

Basically, Jeremy Corbyn, rabid anti-semite, is equated with David Duke.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/opinions/jeremy-corbyn-british-zionists-opinion-intl/index.html

Colin Wright , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:21 am GMT

and Norm Finkelstein brilliantly demolishes the notion that there's any anti-semitism to speak of in Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party, or Britain in general.

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/chimera-british-semitism/

Jon Baptist , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:37 am GMT

Corbyn is shell shocked and cannot comprehend what is required for him to counter this blatant attempt at his ouster. An individual that could help him tremendously as an advisor is Miko Peled, an Israeli citizen, living in the U.S. I mention Peled, because he is a "lefty" just like Corbyn.

Giraldi writes that, "there exists an 'Israel Lobby' in many countries, all dedicated to advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli governments no matter what the actual interests of the host country might be."

ADL, a branch of the B'nai B'rith global enterprise, confirms they are subversive agents that work against their host nation. Straight from their mouth

Justsaying , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 5:38 am GMT

The center of the Axis of Evil is Zionist Israel. No other country, not even the planet's "sole superpower" wields so much power and control over other "sovereign" nations as does Zionist Israel. Regime change? Zionist, apartheid Israel has perfected that art and science -- and without firing a shot. Why do it when others will cheerfully fight your battles for you? Evil is as evil does. Still obsessed with Russophobia? Distractions aplenty for the stupefied.

chris , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:31 am GMT

These efforts to criminalize criticism of Israel seem to be the necessary precursors to major military moves in the Middle East to create 'the greater Israel.'

Probably in coordination with the ongoing efforts to neutralize and destroy all independent players such as Iran and Russia.

Donald , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:42 am GMT

There used to be a "supermarket" chain in Montreal called Steinberg, owned by Steinberg, "Canadian" Jews. They sold the business to another supermarket label, Métro-Richelieu or something, owned by a would-be-venture capitalist/economics professor, Michel Gauthier or something. It was a laughing transaction even in the news. But during the due diligence for the sale it surfaced that Steinberg had unusual deals with his suppliers, meat, dairy or whatever. If you wanted to sell your products to Steinberg, Steinberg made you sign an agreement to buy Israeli bonds. Talk about tied-selling under the Canada Competition Act! Talk about Stephen Harper financing!

Wally , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:46 am GMT

It's all coming down.

... ... ...

This site is a great example, what with the posting Giraldi's work and this:
American Pravda: Holocaust Denial : http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

The Knesset officially declares that Israeli democracy is for Jews only

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/06/officially-declares-democracy/

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

Fighting Israel's Wars
How the United States military has become Zionized: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fighting-israels-wars/

Pandering to Israel Has Got to Stop
Pledges of loyalty to Israel are un-American: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/pandering-to-israel-has-got-to-stop/#comments

America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/#comment-2012898

Verymuchalive , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:47 am GMT

During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates".

In the near future, the Labour Party will break down into 2 or more groups. The "moderates" and more radical groups who will be chasing the Muslim vote.

On top of that, a second Scottish Independence Referendum may not be too many years away. I suspect it will be successful this time.

The dissolution of the British state seems likely over the coming years. The question is how much damage May and her Conservatives In Name Only will do in the interim.

mark green , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT

Thank you, Philip Giraldi.

How ironic that a brave and principled man (Jeremy Corbyn) is being hounded out of office and defamed from all sides while a dishonest neocon toady like such as John McCain is lionized by both wings of Washington's duopoly (as well as our MSM) as a 'hero' and a 'maverick'.

Could this really be happening?

Oh it's happening alright.

McCain dutifully pimped for every US war against any Israeli foes since GHW Bush. McCain expressed no regrets for the destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, the dismemberment of Palestine, or the destabilization of Syria. McCain never apologized for all the needless death and suffering caused by spineless servants such as himself. He also openly advocated for a US war on Iran, just as Israel wanted.

If the Zions didn't control our entire mass media this level of venality would not occur. But they do and it does.

Indoctrination. Brainwashing. Repetition. Conformity. Taboo. Shame. Blacklisting. Political corruption.

Do you deny making anti-Semitic remarks? What will your friends and family say?

The falsification of history is an ongoing and daily occurrence.

The manipulation of the masses: it works!

Who are you going to believe?–your own fallible judgement?–or the expert analysis of our entire political class–including Harvard-educated scholars and journalists?

C'mon. Get a clue. Think right. Stop talking that way.

You don't want to lose your job, do you?

no.

Then STFU!

ok.

tac , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT

It is Israel again up to its old tricks being the real entity that interferes in foreign elections:

Corbyn is viewed by Israel as effectively the "figurehead of the delegitimisation network".

"They hope that by taking action against him, they can decapitate what they see as the most powerful figure in this network," he told Middle East Eye. "By making an example of him, they can sow division, spread fear and suppress speech on Israel."

Certainly, Israel's fingerprints look to be present in the current claims of an anti-Semitism crisis supposedly revolving around Corbyn.

Active interference by the Israeli government in British politics was highlighted last year in a four-part undercover documentary produced by the Qatari channel Al Jazeera. It secretly filmed the activities of an operative in Israel's embassy in London named Shai Masot.

The Al Jazeera investigation provoked numerous complaints that it breached broadcasting rules relating to anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing and invasions of privacy. However, Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, cleared the programme of all charges.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-s-hidden-hand-behind-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-139423040

Michael Kenny , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT

In fact, I think all of this has more to do with Brexit than with Israel. The Brexiteers are in total panic. If they put the exit package to a referendum, they'll lose. If they call an election on it, Corbyn will probably win and he opposes Brexit. Even a parliamentary vote could be lost inasmuch as the Tories don't have a majority and the Brexiteers are a minority within the party.

Thus, Corbyn has to be discredited at all costs. Whether accusations of anti-Semitism will discredit him is quite another matter. In Europe generally, people are indifferent to Israel. They don't care what happens to it one way or the other.

Nobody who is likely to vote Labour cares a hoot about Israel and are not going to change their vote because of the accusations. If anything, people will perceive the campaign against Corbyn as Jewish bullying and rally to him.

Deschutes , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 10:28 am GMT

... ... ...

I was surprised to learn that the population of Israel is only 8.8 million. So small! Contrast that with Iran's 82 million .Egypt's 100 million Iraq's 40 million or Turkey's 82 million. How such a relatively tiny country makes so much noise and disruption for the rest of the world is something to ponder. If you ever google one of those 'most hated countries in the world' polls Israel or USA invariably top the list.

Anon , [129] Disclaimer says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT
@Michael Kenny

In fact, I think all of this has more to do with Brexit than with Israel. The Brexiteers are in total panic.

But Corbyn is attacked by Brit Jews and the Guardian, both opposed to Brexit.

Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 11:14 am GMT

Gilad Atzmon, the self-described ex-Israeli and ex-Jew, writes reams about the Jewish assault on Corbyn. In this recent piece , he quotes from Douglas Reed's The Controversy of Zion :

... ... ..

LondonBob , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@Verymuchalive

The Conservative Party membership numbers are no longer published but they could be as low as fifty thousand going on revenue from membership fees.

All this smearing has so far had no impact at all, in fact it is leading some to question what is the agenda here. There is a nice article on the Israeli smear campaign in the Middle East Eye.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-s-hidden-hand-behind-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-139423040

Digital Samizdat , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT

Bravo, Phil! Keep 'em comin'.

Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some aspects of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed Jews and Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message relating to what is going on in the Middle East.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Although I am no longer much of a Christian myself, I have always bristled every time I hear some left-wing (usually Jewish) anti-Zionist blame American Christians for Washington's mid-east policies, while describing the influence of the Jewish lobby as being 'exaggerated'. The obvious counterargument is: if American Christians have so much power over the federal government that they can virtually dictate mid-east policy, how come they can't ban abortion or gay marriage? How come they can't–forgive the metaphor–resurrect prayer in school?

Indeed, the mere fact that the US now has an entire branch of Christianity devoted to Rapture-Zionism gives you a clue as to who rules whom in this country. Think about it, people: we now have 'Christian' churches who are actually willing to put the interests and well-being of another religion ahead of their own! And their otherwise patriotic followers are being conned into putting the interests of another country ahead of their own. Absolutely astounding! In modern America at least, not only have the Christians lost control of their government; they've even lost control of Christianity!

Moreover, what about all those other western countries, such as Britain, France and Germany, which really lack anything like American-style Rapture-Christians, yet are still completely in thrall to Israel? L'affaire Corbyn is, if nothing else, proof that we are not the only ones being jacked around by the Zionists.

Don't get me wrong: I really wish American Christians would wake the f*ck up and see that they're being used, being made to look pathetic by the Zionists. But the allegation that those Christians are actually running the show in the West is completely fatuous. In fact, it's just a left-wing 'anti-Zionist' gate-keeper story. Don't believe it!

Failure to confront Israel's crimes against humanity combined with an inability to resist its demands regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has done terrible damage to free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone world.

We are all Palestinians now!

I really hope this serves as a wake-up call to all of the pro-Zionist alt-righters out there. The Zionists can never truly be our friends. After all, once they are able to ban anti-Zionist talk for being anti-Semitic, how much longer will be it before they are able to just go ahead and ban all anti-Semitic speech? Then where will you be? You won't even be allowed to criticize George Soros anymore!

Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism, extreme nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism.

Well, I'm not a hundred-percent sure about the "nationalism" part. While "extreme" may well be in the eye of the beholder, it's also true that the IRA and most of the Palestinian groups do self-describe as 'nationalist', and Corbyn has always been OK with them (as am I). The only nationalism his seems to have a real problem with is English nationalism.

The traditionally liberal Guardian has in fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan Freedland

They should just go ahead and relaunch The Guardian as The Shomer .

jilles dykstra , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

Soros bought the Guardian

JoaoAlfaiate , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT

As Norman Finkelstein once observed, Jews "never forgive and never forget." Corbyn ought to keep that in mind. All his bobbing and weaving will availeth nothing.

jilles dykstra , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
@Anon

Why should there be panic by the Brexiteers ? Britain's export to the remaining EU is far less than from the remaining EU to GB. Especially France and Germany have huge exports to GB. As a Brexiteer already long ago mentioned 'they need us more than we them'.

If Merkel and Macron would survive a hard Brexit, I wonder. Under estimated is the why of Brexit, they want their country back, as one voter said 'they even interfere with vacuum cleaners'.

Deschutes , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

I stopped reading the Guardian full stop 4-5 years ago, back when they launched their "Russia is evildoer!!" shrill campaign of propaganda–also about the time the Ukraine civil war got into gear. Never looked back, the Guardian is a steaming pile of US/NATO/Atlantic Council bullshit. I'll never understand why so many fixate on it, such as the Off-guardian.org bloggers who've devoted an entire blog for years on end to criticising Guardian journos, 'comment is free', comment mods, etc. All fine and good, but why?

With so many other better news sources is there a need? No, there isn't. Just move on. The Guardian is not a relevant news outlet. I mean, why keep going there to read pro-Israeli/pro-US government articles which make you angry? Doesn't make any sense.

Ben Sampson , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

we keep accepting these arguments like Giraldis' here and functioning intellectually at this paused rate which is insufficient to the needs of the day and time.

it is immediate the reality in which we live, in all its demands on us and we must respond at the same speed. the enemy moves at the rate of speed of life and succeeds in slowing us down with these arguments in the media

Corbyn is bloody well wrong. he has gone out of his way to compromise with the Zionists and every time they want more. we we knew that, that they would not compromise did we not .we knew it. we know the game. they know they game. they have the power and they never compromise..never! they know to give ground is to lose.

and it is in fact to lose..and the same for the people. that is why it is zero sum. the economic/political game is no place to compromise.

in principle the people have all the power..and we do. where are the leaders who bring the people into awareness of their total power, set up and lead them into that power in the process of fixing society?

why must the leader of those who have all the power be at the feet of a minority who is bleeding the life out of the society?

Corbyn behaves as if he has no power..as if he is not fixing to assume in behalf of the people the greatest social power there is..the power of the people. so he is apologetic and compromising of the peoples power, on and in dealing with the peoples issues

the people's power and social interest have been usurped and compromised by a minority power and their pets in the peoples power structure..and in the media too. that is why we are dealing with a prevaricator in Giraldi and not a radicalized person who brings us up to speed..the speed required to fix society

the peoples power has been betrayed by treasonous citizens who have lied to the people and usurped the peoples power. that is the truth, the immediate truth and requires an immediate and direct response..no compromise will work. this article here by Giraldi is not an immediate response but a kind of time-wasting prevarication. Corbyn and his politics are also prevarication

Verymuchalive , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:59 pm GMT
@LondonBob

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf

MoscowBob ( you're never going back to London to live ), the above official Parliamentary Research Briefing makes alarming reading if you are a Conservative supporter. As of April 2018, Conservative membership is put at 124,000, narrowly ahead of the SNP at 118,000.
Conservative membership collapsed from 1 million in 1990 ( see page 7 ) to less than 500,000 5 years later ( John Major ). Apart from a brief period, it has been declining steadily since the year 2000, especially from 2009 ( David Cameron).
It is no longer a mass membership political party, it is Conservative In Name Only and at the beck and call of any (((big donors ))).
This situation cannot continue much longer. Its hold on political power will be ended shortly unless there is a turnaround, which seems unlikely.

a bystander , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT

Another great article by Dr. Philip Giraldi.

Jonathan Cook has also recently written a very good article on the current Israeli engineered onslaught against Jeremy Corbyn, making much the same argument as Dr. Giraldi.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2018-08-25/israel-hidden-hand-jeremy-corbyn/

[Aug 28, 2018] South Africa is cursed with neo-liberal trickle-down baloney stifling radical economic change by Kevin Humphrey

Notable quotes:
"... There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel, going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters. ..."
"... Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve." ..."
"... Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the neo-liberal trickle-down baloney. ..."
medium.com

SA is cursed with neo-liberal trickle-down baloney stifling radical economic change Kevin Humphrey, The New Age, Johannesburg, 1 December 2016

South Africa's massive inequalities are abundantly obvious to even the most casual observer. When the ANC won the elections in 1994, it came armed with a left-wing pedigree second to none, having fought a protracted liberation war in alliance with progressive forces which drew in organised labour and civic groupings.

At the dawn of democracy the tight knit tripartite alliance also carried in its wake a patchwork of disparate groupings who, while clearly supportive of efforts to rid the country of apartheid, could best be described as liberal. It was these groupings that first began the clamour of opposition to all left-wing, radical or revolutionary ideas that has by now become the constant backdrop to all conversations about the state of our country, the economy, the education system, the health services, everything. Thus was the new South Africa introduced to its own version of a curse that had befallen all countries that gained independence from oppressors, neo-colonialism.

By the time South Africa was liberated, neo-colonialism, which as always sought to buy off the libera-tors with the political kingdom while keep-ing control of the economic kingdom, had perfected itself into what has become an era where neo-liberalism reigns supreme. But what exactly is neo-liberalism? George Monbiot says: "Neo-liberalism sees competi-tion as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that 'the market' delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."

Never improving

There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel, going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters.

Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."

Nelson Mandela

South Africa's sad slide into neo-liberalism was given impetus at Davos in 1992 where Nelson Mandela had this to say to the assembled super rich: "We visualise a mixed economy, in which the private sector would play a central and critical role to ensure the creation of wealth and jobs. Future economic policy will also have to address such questions as security of investments and the right to repatriate earnings, realistic exchange rates, the rate of inflation and the fiscus."

Further insight into this pivotal moment was provided by Anthony Sampson, Mandela's official biographer who wrote: "It was not until February 1992, when Mandela went to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he finally turned against nationalisation. He was lionised by the world's bankers and industrialists at lunches and dinners."

This is not to cast any aspersions on Mandela, he had to make these decisions at the time to protect our democratic transition. But these utterances should have been accom-panied by a behind the scenes interrogation of all the ANC's thoughts on how to proceed in terms of the economy delivering socialist orientated solutions without falling into the minefield of neo-liberal traps that lay in wait for our emerging country.

Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the neo-liberal trickle-down baloney.

Now no one dares to express any type of radical approach to our economic woes unless it is some loony populist. Debate around these important issues is largely missing and the level of commentary on all important national questions is shockingly shallow.

Anti-labour, anti-socialist, anti-poor, anti-black The status quo as set by the largely white-owned media revolves around key neo-liberal slogans mas-querading as commentary that is anti-labour, anti-socialist and anti-poor, which sadly translates within our own context as anti-black and therefore repugnantly racist.

We live in a country where the black, over-whelmingly poor majority of our citizens have voted for a much revered liberation movement that is constantly under attack from within and without by people who do not have their best interests at heart and are brilliant at manipulating outcomes to suit themselves on a global scale.

Kevin Humphrey is associate executive editor of The New Age

[Aug 28, 2018] The Crucifixion of Jeremy Corbyn by Philip Giraldi

Critique of Israeli government interference in internal affair of other states in a form of pro-Israel lobby, or critique Zionism as an ideology is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Neoliberal states like Israel do not represent interests of its citizens, but mostly transnationals and top 1%. Attempt to link those mean weaponizing anti-Semitism. For example, while Israel is an ally of the USA some if its action are definitely are against the USA citizens interests. Although the role of Israel as a collective lobbyist for US MIC should be acknowledged.
Conversion of Israel into ethnostate is probably a logical development, but the problem here is that it further alienate Palestinians, which have higher birth rate then Israelites.
Notable quotes:
"... It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... Corbyn's crime has been that he is critical of the Jewish state and has called for an "end to the repression of the Palestinian people." As a reward, he has been hounded mercilessly by British Jews, even those in his own party, for over two years. ..."
"... Last month, rightwing Labour Parliamentarian Margaret Hodge raised the stakes, calling Corbyn "a fucking anti-Semite and a racist". She then wrote in the Guardian ..."
"... All of the invective has been more-or-less orchestrated by the Israeli government, which directly supports the gaggle of groups that have coalesced to bring down Corbyn. This effort to destroy the Labour leader has included the use of an app disseminating messages via social media accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism. The app was developed by Israel's strategic affairs ministry , which "directs Israel's covert efforts to sabotage the Palestine solidarity movement around the world". ..."
"... The principal argument being made against Corbyn is that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semitism and Corbyn has done little or nothing to oppose it. Some of the most brutal shots against Corbyn have come from the usual crowd in the United States. ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some aspects of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed Jews and Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message relating to what is going on in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the reality is that there exists an "Israel Lobby" in many countries, all dedicated to advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli governments no matter what the actual interests of the host country might be. Failure to confront Israel's crimes against humanity combined with an inability to resist its demands regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has done terrible damage to free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone world.

For the United States this corruption of the media and the political process by Israel has meant endless wars in the Middle East as well of loss of civil liberties at home, but some other countries have compromised their own declared values far beyond that. Former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised Israel completely inaccurately as a light that " burns bright, upheld by the universal principles of all civilized nations -- freedom, democracy justice." He has also said "I will defend Israel whatever the cost" to Canada, an assertion that some might regard as very, very odd for a Canadian head of state.

In some other cases, Israel plays hardball directly, threatening retribution against governments that do not fall in line. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently warned New Zealand that backing a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements would be a "declaration of war." He was able to do so because he had confidence in the power of the Israel Lobby in that country to mobilize and produce the desired result.

It might surprise some that the "Mother of Parliaments" in Great Britain is perhaps the legislative body most dominated by Israeli interests, more in many respects than the Congress in the United States. The ruling Conservative Party has a Friends of Israel caucus that includes more than 80% of its Parliamentary membership. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is an American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) clone located in London. It is well funded and politically powerful, working through its various "Friends of Israel" proxies. Americans might be surprised to learn how that power is manifest, including that in Britain Jewish organizations uniquely are allowed to patrol heavily Jewish London neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving police-type vehicles. There have been reports of the patrols threatening Muslims who seek to enter the areas.

Prime Minister Theresa May is careful never to offend either Israel or the wealthy and powerful British Jewish community. After Secretary of State John Kerry described Israel's government as "extreme right wing" on December 28, 2016, May sprang to Tel Aviv's defense, saying "we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally." May's rejoinder could have been written by Netanyahu, and maybe it was. Two weeks later, her government cited "reservations" over a French government sponsored mid-January Middle East peace conference and would not sign a joint statement calling for a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Netanyahu vociferously condemned the proceedings.

This deference all takes place in spite of a recent astonishing expose by al-Jazeera, which revealed how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).

British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been under unrelenting fire due to the fact that he is the first major political party leader in many years to resist the demands that he place Israel on a pedestal. Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism, extreme nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism. Corbyn's crime has been that he is critical of the Jewish state and has called for an "end to the repression of the Palestinian people." As a reward, he has been hounded mercilessly by British Jews, even those in his own party, for over two years.

The invective being spewed by some British Jews and Israel has increased of late, presumably because Theresa May's Conservative government is perceived as being weak and there is a distinct possibility that the leader of the Labour Party will be the next Prime Minister. That a Prime Minister might be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians is viewed as completely unacceptable.

Last month, rightwing Labour Parliamentarian Margaret Hodge raised the stakes, calling Corbyn "a fucking anti-Semite and a racist". She then wrote in the Guardian that Labour is "a hostile environment for Jews." The traditionally liberal Guardian has in fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan Freedland, who reportedly believes that "his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel." Last month he featured in his paper a letter attacking Corbyn signed by 68 rabbis.

All of the invective has been more-or-less orchestrated by the Israeli government, which directly supports the gaggle of groups that have coalesced to bring down Corbyn. This effort to destroy the Labour leader has included the use of an app disseminating messages via social media accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism. The app was developed by Israel's strategic affairs ministry , which "directs Israel's covert efforts to sabotage the Palestine solidarity movement around the world".

There are two principal objectives to the "get Corbyn" campaign. The first is to remove him from the Labour Party leadership position, thereby ensuring that he will never be elected Prime Minister, while also eliminating from the party any and all members who are perceived as being "too critical" of Israel. In practice that has meant anyone who criticizes Israel at all. And second it is to establish as a legal principle that the "hate crime" offense of anti-Semitism specifically be defined to include criticism of Israel, thereby making it a criminal offense to write or speak about Israel's racist behavior towards its Muslim and Christian minority while also making it impossible to freely discuss its war crimes.

The principal argument being made against Corbyn is that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semitism and Corbyn has done little or nothing to oppose it. Some of the most brutal shots against Corbyn have come from the usual crowd in the United States. Andrew Sullivan recently observed in New York Magazine that "When it emerged, that Naz Shah, a new Labour MP, had opined on Facebook before she was elected that Israel should be relocated to the U.S., and former London mayor Ken Livingstone backed her up by arguing that the Nazis initially favored Zionism, Corbyn didn't make a big fuss." Sullivan then went on to write that "It then emerged that Corbyn himself had subscribed to various pro-Palestinian Facebook groups where rank anti-Semitism flourished" and had even " attended a meeting on Holocaust Memorial Day in 2010, called 'Never Again for Anyone: Auschwitz to Gaza,' equating Israelis with Nazis."

In other words, Corbyn should have been responsible for policing the personal views of Shah and Livingstone , both of whom were subsequently suspended from the Labour Party with Livingstone eventually resigning. He should have also avoided Palestinian Facebook commentary because alleged anti-Semites occasionally contribute their views and ought not to acknowledge in any fashion the Israel war crimes being committed on a daily basis in Gaza.

So Corbyn must go based on the "fact" that he has to be a closet anti-Semite as discerned by the likes of Andrew Sullivan on this side of the Atlantic and a host of Israel-firsters in Britain. But the Labour leader's worst crime that is being regarded as an " existential threat " to Jewish people everywhere is his resistance to the pressure being exerted on him to endorse and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) precise multi-faceted definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. The IHRA basic definition of anti-Semitism is reasonable enough, including "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

The Labour Party and Corbyn have accepted that definition but have balked at eleven "contemporary examples of anti-Semitism" also provided by IHRA, four of which have nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with Israel. They are:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g.

One might observe that many Jews

And yes, Israel is a "racist endeavor." Just check out the recent nationality law passed by the Knesset declaring Israel to be a Jewish State. It grants self-determination only to those living within its borders who are Jews. And if using racial distinctions for full citizenship while also bombing hospitals and schools while lining up snipers to shoot thousands of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators is not Nazi-like behavior, then what is? Israel and its leader are sometimes compared to Nazis and to Adolf Hitler because they behave like Nazis and Adolf Hitler.

And finally there is the definition that challenges any "double standard" in demanding behavior from Israel that is not expected from any other democratic nation. Well, first of all Israel is not a democracy. It is a theocracy or ethnocracy if you prefer wrapped around a police state. Other countries that call themselves democracies have equal rights under law for all citizens. Other democracies do not have hundreds of thousands of settlers stealing land and even water resources from the indigenous population and colonizing it to the benefit of only one segment of its population. Other democracies do not regularly shoot dead unarmed protesters. How many democracies are currently practicing ethnic cleansing, as the Israeli Jews are doing to the Palestinians?

Will Corbyn give in to the IHRA demands to save his skin as party leader? One has to suspect that he will as he is already regularly conceding points and apologizing, publicly delivering the required obeisance to the holocaust as "the worst crime of the twentieth century." And every time he tries to appease those out to get him he emerges weaker. Even if he submits completely, the Israel firsters who are hot to get him, having just like in American significant control over the media, will continue to attack until they find the precise issue that will bring him down. The Labour National Executive Council will meet in September to vote on full acceptance of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. When they, as is likely, kneel before force majeure that will be the end of free speech in Britain. Criticize Israel and you go to jail.

And the same thing is happening in the United States in precisely the same fashion. Criticism of Israel or protesting against it will sooner rather than later be criminalized. I sometimes wonder if Senator Ben Cardin and the others who are promoting the hate legislation really understand what will be lost when they sacrifice the U.S. Constitution to defend Israel. Once free speech is gone, it will never return.

[Aug 28, 2018] Believing in the goodness of the usa, is like believing in the tooth fairy

Aug 28, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Aug 27, 2018 6:00:40 PM | 79

Karlof 63

Sure, if you have a population that is well-educated and trained to think about issues, keep well-informed and the like, you can hope to run a functional democracy, even if people have to work a lot to make their system run.

Thing is, such a population will change sooner or later, and just like later generations tend to forget how horrible wars are and go back to warmongering, or how later generations forget what hard-working is, and might ruin what earlier generations built, the reason for being fully invested in your country's politics and how to do it well will sooner or later disappear from living memory.

That's why I want to create an easier starting situation for the people - so that, without being 100% fail-proof, the system won't collapse as quickly and as totally as it is doing nowadays in the West. So, you have to take into account many people might tend to go for the easy path and be a bit lazy - all the while we should work hard to improve people's global intelligence and information and knowledge awareness.

Of course, in the long run, I hope we'll get a better more intelligent, wiser and more knowledgeable mankind, but we still have to prepare and plan for flaws, accidents, mistakes and failures.

Note that I don't oppose your reasoning and proposals/wishes, I want to put some checks and failsafes mechanisms as much as possible.

... ... ...


Russ 65
What bothers me the most is that, if we don't move our behind, whatever happens to mankind of things go to shit, change the global economic system and stop ruining the planet, we'll take a huge part of the other species down with us - there won't be many species bigger than a cat left around when this will be over. And frankly, if I'm ready to allow mankind to choose to destroy itself (which would already sadden me), like any sentient species who deserves free will and choice, I'm quite upset that mankind thinks it can choose for the whole biosphere and can go around killing off thousands of other species like there's no tomorrow.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Aug 27, 2018 5:32:07 PM | 77

@77 ff... believing in the goodness of the usa, is like believing in the tooth fairy.. unfortunately a good number of americans continue like this and are completely in the dark on the horrors being committed by their good ol usa... selling patriotism, flag waving, honouring the troops and all the rest of it is meant to keep the herd believing in the goodness of the usa.. it is complete bs, but hey - bs is good for the garden, which happens to be the military/financial complex at this point..

[Aug 28, 2018] Just move on. The Guardian is not a relevant news outlet.

Aug 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

Deschutes , says: Next New Comment August 28, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT

@Digital Samizdat

I stopped reading the Guardian full stop 4-5 years ago, back when they launched their "Russia is evildoer!!" shrill campaign of propaganda -- also about the time the Ukraine civil war got into gear. Never looked back, the Guardian is a steaming pile of US/NATO/Atlantic Council bullshit.

I'll never understand why so many fixate on it, such as the Off-guardian.org bloggers who've devoted an entire blog for years on end to criticising Guardian journos, 'comment is free', comment mods, etc. All fine and good, but why?

With so many other better news sources is there a need? No, there isn't. Just move on. The Guardian is not a relevant news outlet. I mean, why keep going there to read pro-Israeli/pro-US government articles which make you angry? Doesn't make any sense.

[Aug 28, 2018] Mueller is part of the plot against Trump as is Rosenstein. Both are guilty of sedition as active participants in a coup to overthrow the POTUS

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump is making a terminable mistake in trusting to facts and truth, neither of which is respected in the scant remains of Western Civilization. ..."
"... all of which are employed for the purpose of contradicting truth. ..."
"... Americans are too insouciant to know it, but they are living day by day only at the mercy of Russia. ..."
Aug 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mueller is part of the plot against Trump as is Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller special prosecutor. Both are guilty of sedition as they are active participants in an organized coup to overthrow the President of the United States. But Trump is too powerless to have them arrested and put on trial for the conspiracy against democracy that they are conducting. President Trump is making a terminable mistake in trusting to facts and truth, neither of which is respected in the scant remains of Western Civilization.

Once there was hope that information available on the Internet would serve as a countervailing power to the lies told by the Western print, TV, and NPR presstitutes. But this was a vain hope. There are some good and reliable websites, increasingly being closed down by the ruling elite. The ruling elites have most of the money and can finance most of the online voices, all of which are employed for the purpose of contradicting truth.

I received today an email from RootsAction urging me to donate money to speed Trump's impeachment. The website has even prepared the Articles of Impeachment and proclaims that "Trump's Fixer Says the President Engaged in a Criminal Conspiracy to Sway the 2016 Election."

This accusation comes from one of Trump's former lawyers, Michael Cohen. They are allegations that most defense attorneys understand is Michael Cohen's effort to gain a light sentence for his income tax evasion by "composing," to use the term of Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, evidence against the man Mueller really wants -- President Trump.

I will be unequivocal. RootsAction, as is the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and the rest of the media whores, is lying. To pay off two women, who might have been paid by the military/security complex, or Hillary & Bill Clinton, or the Democratic National Committee, to bring such charges or who simply saw an opportunity to collect a bunch of dollars from Donald Trump, is most certainly, most definitely not, as RootsAction claims, "the high crime and misdemeanor of attempting to fraudulently influence the outcome of a US presidential election. This is an impeahable offense warranting removal from office."

Whoever advises RootsAction is a totally incompetent attorney. Moreover, to show the utter stupidity of RootsAction's ignorant assertion, a "misdemeanor" cannot be a "high crime." A "high crime" is a "felony."

I have posted on my website statements from legal experts that there is nothing unlawful about paying off claimants. Corporations do it continually. It is much cheaper to pay off a false claim than to finance a court case to refute it. There is no reason whatsoever for a political candidate competing for a party's nomination for the presidency to be distracted by fighting court cases brought to extort money from him.

Moreover, considering the dire straints in which the American population between the two coasts has been left by decades of jobs offshoring, the government's inability to provide assistance to those millions of Americans whose living standard is dissolving because the military/security complex appropriates $1,000 billion annually from America's resources, and the Trump public's awareness that provoking Russia into war is in no one's interest, RootsAction and the rest of the imbeciles have to be crazy beyond all belief to think that that anyone who voted for Trump cared if he had sexual encounters with two women. Considering the dire straits of Americans, the last thing they would do is to vote against their champion because he had sex with two women, assuming that he did.

Yet, an unsubstantiated claim by a lawyer who did not pay his income tax, a claim made for the purpose of a light sentence in exchange for providing false evidence against the President of the United States, is now, according to RootsAction, the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., and so on, grounds for impeaching the President of the United States who hopes to defuse the extremely dangerous tensions between Washington and Russia.

The military/security complex wants to impeach Trump because he wants peace with Russia, thus taking away the essential enemy that justifies their budget and power.

Are Americans too stupid to notice that there is not a shred of evidence of the "Russiagate" accusations? What we have in their place is income tax evasion charges, not against Trump, but against an attorney and a Republian campaign manager. More convincing charges could be brought against Democrats, but have not. The Hillary crowd of criminals has proven immune to prosecution.

No one has to approve of Trump in order to have the intelligence to see that Trump's intention to normalize relations with Russia is the world's main hope of continued existence. Once nuclear weapons go off, global warming will take on new meaning.

... ... ...

Americans are too insouciant to know it, but they are living day by day only at the mercy of Russia.

[Aug 27, 2018] Jimmy Dore rightly states they are CIA funded campaigns of Dems candidates

Notable quotes:
"... Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil war. ..."
"... Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats. ..."
"... These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited Federal funds at their fingertips. ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , says: Website June 8, 2018 at 4:15 am GMT

Jimmy Dore covered this topic a few weeks ago. He rightly states they are CIA funded campaigns.

Eagle Eye , says: June 8, 2018 at 5:03 am GMT

Would it have killed you to link to the WSWS.org pieces you quote from at some length?

Patrick Martin's piece is here: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/07/prim-j07.html

Ron Unz has linked to WSWS.org several times in the past as WSWS was targeted by the Deep State/Google etc. cabal to make it disappear into the "memory hole."

Mishra , says: June 8, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT
@SunBakedSuburb

The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do with economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality. The cultural-Marxist troika.

Just one of many good point you make. The only thing I'd add is in relation to:

Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil war.

As Reg mentions: conflict among the masses is very much the plan. Divide et impera.

Biff , says: June 8, 2018 at 7:21 am GMT

And my stupid [neo]liberal friends still think the democrats are going to save them, and then on to super – duper – special stupid, they think their vote for a democrat is going to have an impact. On to ludicrous stupid – it's all the republicans fault. Identity politics at its finest.

Unfixable, and circling the drain.

The Alarmist, June 8, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT • 100 Words

"Center-right" and "business oriented?"

Try Oligarch-centric.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, from the fall of Constantinople: Sultan Mehmed II rounded up the surviving oligarchs of the Empire and asked them why they had withheld their riches and resources from supporting the Empire's final defense against his conquest, to which the oligarchs replied that they were saving their riches for his most excellent majesty. He had them brutally executed.

Jake, June 8, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT

Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats.

DESERT FOX, June 8, 2018 at 1:06 pm GMT

At the upper levels there is no difference between the Demonrats and the Republicons as all are controlled by the Zionists and congress would by more accurately called the lower house of the Knesset..

prusmc, June 8, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT • 100 Words

@anon

These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited Federal funds at their fingertips.

It is a mistake to think they will be any different than Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerold Nadler or Luis Guitirez. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is about a unconventional as we can expect the new congressional majority members to be.

jacques sheete, June 8, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT

@Anon
The ultra rich use the poor to attack the middle so they can distract everyone else from uniting

That, in fact, is the practical aim of government in general. Parties, schmarties it's all one huge extortion racket.

[Aug 27, 2018] Corbyn is being destroyed -- like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army by Jonathan Cook

Notable quotes:
"... I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow. ..."
"... While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless confident that the free market -- the need to sell papers and audiences -- guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of legitimate opinion are available to readers. ..."
"... This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust -- rather uncomfortably -- into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but to wage "good wars" to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen. ..."
"... The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage. ..."
"... This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within. ..."
"... This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power. ..."
"... For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system, and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters but the corporations who really dominate our societies. ..."
"... Likewise, the media -- supposed watchdogs on power -- are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite. The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse -- and if that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse. ..."
"... This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations' public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism. ..."
"... These "enemies" are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from troubles at home. ..."
"... The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic) for its opposition to western "humanitarian interventions" abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals like Russia's Vladimir Putin or Syria's Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for the world's ills. ..."
"... Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries. Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia's crimes without first admitting the west's greater crimes, our crimes. ..."
"... While the whole US political class obsess over "Russian interference" in US elections, this camp notes, the American public is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia's borders. ..."
"... The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt -- social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news. ..."
"... The two most significant disrupters of the first camp's narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point. ..."
"... Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms. ..."
"... We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt ..."
"... They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we -- the 99 per cent -- have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning ..."
"... Corbyn's significance -- and danger -- is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent. ..."
"... That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army. ..."
"... The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon -- short of sex-crime smears and assassination -- they have in their armoury. ..."
"... The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us -- the 99 per cent -- are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism. ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

The latest "scandal" gripping Britain -- or to be more accurate, British elites -- is over the use of the term "Zionist" by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the opposition and possibly the country's next prime minister.

Yet again, Corbyn has found himself ensnared in what a small group of Jewish leadership organisations, which claim improbably to represent Britain's "Jewish community", and a small group of corporate journalists, who improbably claim to represent British public opinion, like to call Labour's "anti-semitism problem".

I won't get into the patently ridiculous notion that "Zionist" is a code word for "Jew", at least not now. There are lots of existing articles explaining why that is nonsense.

I wish to deal with a different aspect of the long-running row over Labour's so-called "anti-semitism crisis". It exemplifies, I believe, a much more profound and wider crisis in our societies: over the issue of trust.

We now have two large camps, pitted against each other, who have starkly different conceptions of what their societies are and where they need to head. In a very real sense, these two camps no longer speak the same language. There has been a rupture, and they can find no common ground.

I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow.

First, let us outline the growing ideological and linguistic chasm opening up between these two camps: a mapping of the divisions that, given space constraints, will necessarily deal in generalisations.

The trusting camp

The first camp invests its trust, with minor reservations, in those who run our societies. The left and the right segments of this camp are divided primarily over the degree to which they believe that those at the bottom of society's pile need a helping hand to get them further up the social ladder.

Otherwise, the first camp is united in its assumptions.

They admit that among our elected politicians there is the odd bad apple. And, of course, they understand that there are necessary debates about political and social values. But they agree that politicians rise chiefly through ability and talent, that they are accountable to their political constituencies, and that they are people who want what is best for society as a whole.

While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless confident that the free market -- the need to sell papers and audiences -- guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of legitimate opinion are available to readers.

Both politicians and the media serve -- if not always entirely successfully -- as a constraint on corruption and the abuse of power by other powerful actors, such as the business community.

This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust -- rather uncomfortably -- into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but to wage "good wars" to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen.

Russian conspiracies

Once upon a time -- when this camp's worldview was rarely, if ever, challenged -- its favoured response to anything difficult to reconcile with its core beliefs, from the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the 2008 financial crash, was: "Cock-up, not conspiracy!". Now that there are ever more issues threatening to undermine its most cherished verities, the camp's response is -- paradoxically -- "Putin did it!" or "Fake news!".

The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage.

This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within.

This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power.

These structures are no longer primarily national, but global. They are not immutable but as fabricated, as man-made and replaceable, as the structures that once made incontestable the rule of a landed aristocracy over feudal serfs. The current aristocracy, this camp argues, are globalised corporations that are so unaccountable that even the biggest nation-states can no longer contain or constrain them.

Illusions of pluralism

For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system, and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters but the corporations who really dominate our societies.

For the second camp, this fact was well illustrated in 2008 when the political class did not -- and could not -- punish the banks responsible for the near-collapse of western economies after decades of reckless speculation on which a financial elite had grown fat. Those banks, in the words of the politicians themselves, were "too big to fail" and so were bailed out with money from the very same publics who had been scammed by the banks in the first place. Rather than use the bank failures as an opportunity to drive through reform of the broken banking system, or nationalise parts of it, the politicians let the banking casino system continue, even intensify.

Likewise, the media -- supposed watchdogs on power -- are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite. The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse -- and if that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse.

This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations' public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism.

Manufactured enemies

These domestic structures are subservient to a still-bigger agenda: the accumulation of wealth by a global elite through the asset-stripping of the planet's resources and the rationalisation of permanent war. That, this camp concludes, requires the manufacturing of "enemies" -- such as Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea -- to justify the expansion of a military-industrial machine.

These "enemies" are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from troubles at home.

The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic) for its opposition to western "humanitarian interventions" abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals like Russia's Vladimir Putin or Syria's Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for the world's ills.

The second camp argues that it is none of these things: it is anti-imperialist. It does not excuse the crimes of Putin or Assad, it treats them as secondary and largely reactive to the vastly greater power a western elite with global reach can project. It believes the western media's obsession with crafting narratives about evil enemies -- bad men and madmen -- is designed to deflect attention from the structures of far greater violence the west deploys around the world, through a web of US military bases and Nato.

Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries. Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia's crimes without first admitting the west's greater crimes, our crimes.

While the whole US political class obsess over "Russian interference" in US elections, this camp notes, the American public is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia's borders.

Different languages

Two camps, two entirely different languages and narratives.

These camps may be divided, but it would seriously misguided to imagine they are equal.

One has the full power and weight of those corporate structures behind it. The politicians speak its language, as do the media. Its ideas and its voice dominate everywhere that is considered official, objective, balanced, neutral, respectable, legitimate.

The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt -- social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news.

This is the current battlefield. It is a battle the first camp looks like it is winning but actually has already lost. That is not necessarily because the second camp is winning the argument. It is because physical realities are catching up with the first camp, smashing its illusions, even as it clings to them like a life-raft.

The two most significant disrupters of the first camp's narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point.

It hardly needs repeating, except to climate deniers, that we have had even more indications that the Earth's climate is already turning against humankind.

Out of the darkness

Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms.

It is on to this battlefield that Corbyn has stumbled, little prepared for the heavy historic burden he shoulders.

We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt .

The new paradigm is coming anyway. If we don't choose it ourselves, the planet will for us. It could be an improvement, it could be a deterioration, it could be extinction, depending on how prepared we are for it and how violently those invested in the old system resist the loss of their power. If enough of us understand the need for discarding the broken system, the greater the hope that we can build something better from the ruins.

We are now at the point where the corporate elite can see the cracks are widening but they remain in denial. They are entering the tantrum phase, screaming and shouting at their enemies, and readying to implement ever-more repressive measures to maintain their power.

They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we -- the 99 per cent -- have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning .

No one, least of all the corporate elite, knows precisely where this process might lead, what capacities we have for political, social and spiritual growth.

And what the elite don't own or control, they fear.

Putting the genie back

The elite have two weapons they can use to try to force the second camp back into the bottle. They can vilify it, driving it back into the margins of public life, where it was until the advent of social media; or they can lock down the new channels of mass communication their insatiable drive to monetise everything briefly opened up.

Both strategies have risks, which is why they are being pursued tentatively for the time being. But the second option is by far the riskier of the two. Shutting down social media too obviously could generate blowback, awakening more of the first camp to the illusions the second camp have been trying to alert them to.

Corbyn's significance -- and danger -- is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent.

That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army.

It is a sign both of their desperation and their weakness that they have had to resort to the nuclear option, smearing him as an anti-semite. Other, lesser smears were tried first: that he was not presidential enough to lead Britain; that he was anti-establishment; that he was unpatriotic; that he might be a traitor. None worked. If anything, they made him more popular.

And so a much more incendiary charge was primed, however at odds it was with Corbyn's decades spent as an anti-racism activist.

The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon -- short of sex-crime smears and assassination -- they have in their armoury.

The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us -- the 99 per cent -- are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism.

The corporate elites have no plan to go quietly. Unless we can build our ranks quickly and make our case confidently, their antics will ensure the paradigm shift is violent rather than healing. An earthquake, not a storm.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .

YetAnotherAnon , says: August 26, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT

"The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon – short of sex-crime smears and assassination – they have in their armoury."

I must admit I assumed it was because he's less than 100% behind Israel and thinks, not unreasonably, that the Palestinians have had a pretty rough deal over the last 60 years. He raises the frightening (to some) prospect of a UK government that is more neutral on the issues, and doesn't think we can bomb peace into the Middle East.

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that's the answer.

"Corbyn's significance – and danger – is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. "

You're right about the electorate being divided – but I'd suggest young Corbyn voters are just as blinkered as any Daily Mail reader. My kids all voted for him because they thought he'd cancel their student debt.

Maybe Corbyn activists are better informed, but I very much doubt it.

exiled off mainstreet , says: August 27, 2018 at 1:13 am GMT

Corbyn has to resist the temptation to give way to them. He is right on the Palestinian issue, and, since the Palestinians are 100 % semites (though "anti-semitism" has been appropriated to mean anti-Jewish most Jewish emigrants from Europe have considerable non-semitic blood mixed in) the real anti-semites here appear to be the Israeli element bent on eliminating the Palestinians. The Gaza strip is a ghetto operated in a similar manner to how the Nazis operated the ghettoes in occupied Poland (though without the Auschwitz end game up to now). The thing is, if Corbyn stands up to this, in my view, his supporters will fully back him up. In my view, the Israelis are risking real anti-Israeli blowback which could resurrect evils buried with the collapse of the Nazi regime. Indeed, the way they are acting on this and other related issues, threatening those who criticise them in any fashion seems to be providing ex post facto justifications of the most absurd propaganda the Nazis put forward during that era.

DFH , says: August 27, 2018 at 12:25 pm GMT

The real question is why it is that even the slightest hint of a politician not being totally onboard with >1% of the population results in a years long campaign to destroy him by most of the media, but mentioning the open desire of all three parties to discriminate against and replace the native population of Britain makes you a pariah.

Herald , says: August 27, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT
@DFH

You said it. It's because Corbyn is not totally on board with the less than 1% that he is seen as a threat. Total control of everyone and everything is their aim.

jimmyriddle , says: August 27, 2018 at 9:32 pm GMT

I don't think he is being destroyed.

There is certainly an MSM/Blairite full court press to push the anti-Semitism story, that is mostly being fronted by goyim who are kissing up – Jess Phillips, Maajid Nawaz, Dan Hodges (Glenda Jackson's son) etc. But it is getting no traction with the public at large. If they force another leadership contest Corbyn will win easily.

These people live in a North London Anglo-American bubble, and they are now realizing that there is no large Evangelocon constituency in Britain.

No Bubbas waiting to be raptured = Nobody much cares about Israel

[Aug 27, 2018] Superficial differences between Dems and Republicans begs the question -- who is (and has been since the 1940s) setting US policy? If we, the voters, cannot alter or change our national policies, then democratic oversight of the Republic is nothing but a sham

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Spanky , says: June 8, 2018 at 6:04 pm GMT

Sorry Mike, what do you mean by saying the goal is to "create a center-right" Democratic Party? The Clinton's accomplished this in the 1990s -- what we have here is a full scale enfoldment of the Dems into the National Security State

Not that it matters much -- both Republicans and Democrats have been on the same page for a few decades now (since the 1940s IMHO). Inter-party politics don't matter much, except insofar as the voting public can be conned into supporting one or the other, because no matter which party holds the Congress or Presidency the same Deep State agenda is their top priority.

Why? It's simple really -- money. Big campaign donors expect "value" in return for their "political contributions". And if value isn't had for their money, the Deep State's intelligence community can usually dig up something "useful" in the offender's background to "persuade" him or her to support the current bipartisan agenda

If it's really true that to find out who has power, just take note of whom is above criticism, perhaps we ought to consider that Rockefeller and JPMorgan money founded the CFR in 1921 and it took root and bloomed in government "service" during and after WWII.

If you doubt the CFR's power as the Deep State personified, I suggest reading historian Quigley's Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time and sociologist Tom Dye's Who Is Running America series.

Paraphrasing Quigley, writing when Bill Clinton was his student at Georgetown, the two parties should be as alike as two sides of a coin so that voters can "throw the rascals out" in any election without significantly changing governmental priorities and policies because the policies the US is and ought be pursuing are not subject to significant dispute (or at the least not by the voting public).

Which begs the question -- who is (and has been since the 1940s) setting US policy? If we, the voters, cannot alter or change our national policies, then democratic oversight of the Republic is nothing but a sham. The US is, in this view, just another Banana Republic which Tom Dye ably documents from Watergate to Shrub's administration.

exiled off mainstreet , says: June 9, 2018 at 4:36 am GMT

The two party "uniparty" is alive and well. In fact, while the party's supporters still may include self- described "leftists" the party itself has gone further right than the traditionally rightwing GOP. The dual party structure relies on the "Democrats" to gut "entitlements", that is Social Security or Medicare.

It was the "Democrats" who put in Obamacare, which mandated people to spend an arm and a leg on crappy medical insurance the cost of which was massively inflated which they could only use when they had spent way more than average on medical bills. Meanwhile it was the democrats' harpy candidate who proposed a no-fly zone in Syria on behalf of raghead mercenaries hired by the yankee imperium.

While Trump has largely caved in to the deep state, in part perhaps because of the pressure applied by the phony deep state witch hunt taking over the "justice" department of the yankee regime, we know what the democrats, exponents of the fraudulent "Russia-gate" stories, now espouse: a new cold war far more dangerous than the old one.

Meanwhile, the commercial media in the US and satellite countries, has degenerated into a Goebbels-like propaganda apparat. Trump's clumsiness actually may have the accidental salutary effect of enabling the satellite countries to slip the yankee leash, at least to some extent.

The situation brought about by this unprecedented two faction version of fascism is profoundly depressing, in addition to being seriously dangerous.

Harbinger , says: June 9, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT

Why is this article entitled: "Dems Put Finishing Touches on One-Party 'Surveillance Superstate'"
This website seems to have articles that show their authors are awake and yet, this article shows quite the opposite. Who today, with the slightest modicum of common sense, who has made the effort in understanding how the system works, still plays the left-right paradigm, Hegelian Dialectic, political game nonsense?
I mean, let's get real here; the Democrats and the Republicans, like their UK counterparts of Labour and Conservative are merely wings on the same bird, ultimately flying to a destination. Both parties are taking the USA towards a one-party, surveillance, super state. You do not enter American politics unless you bow to Zionism and International Jewry. Unless you show 100% support to Israel then forget a career in politics.

Incidentally, to many who may have heard of her; the new luvey of the conservatives is none other than black, Candace Owens, who is better known as Red Pill Black. She has been this new voice who has entered into the 'alternative right', itself nothing more than controlled opposition, speaking out against feminism, white privilege, rape culture, transgender culture etc etc and has gained a large following. Other than being a complete fraud, as information has appeared that she tried to launch a 'doxing' website, targeting youngsters, she has appeared at the opening of the American Embassy in Jerusalem:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/05/14/candace-owens-not-a-single-elected-democrat-is-here-to-celebrate-this-historic-event-in-jerusalem-634472

Why on earth, would some nobody, who has had an incredibly fast rise on YouTube (most certainly her subscriber base and video view has been doctored) and more so a black conservative, be invited to attend the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem? Bottom line? She's being groomed for a career in politics and I wouldn't be surprised if they wheel her out, some time in the future, as a presidential hopeful to capture the black vote in the USA.
Again, this is controlled opposition.

You never vote in a new party in politics. You vote out the old one. 326 million is the population of the USA and there are only two political parties? Are you serious? It's bad enough, here in the UK with three (liberal party along with Labour and Conservative), with a 66 million population but only two in the USA?

Both parties are heavily controlled.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been putting presidents into power now for over a hundred years. The CFR is the sister organization of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, which has been doing the same, here in the UK for the same time. All politicians are groomed from an early age, taught how to avoid answering any question directly, how to lie and of course who their masters are. By implementing their wishes, politicians are then granted a seat on some board, within some multi conglomerate, a six figure salary, a fat pension on top of their political one and of course umpteen houses spread across wherever. Blair and Obama epitomize this.

Both political parties are left wing, hiding under the right wing and classic liberal monikers.

[Aug 27, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis - John McCain is Dead by Willy B

Notable quotes:
"... I lost all respect for him first on his treatment of his first wife when he returned from captivity. I notice that no one in the media mentioned her existence. ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

26 AUGUST 2018 John McCain is Dead by Willy B

WillyB

Of course, you already know that because the headlines are dominating the news coverage. Most of the coverage is also lionizing him as some kind of hero who defended America from his time as a POW in Vietnam to his attacks on Russia for supposedly trying to undermine American democracy. The fact is, and I know this because I've documented some of it in the course of my own work in recent years, he was a warmonger supreme. McCain never met a war–especially a regime change war–he didn't like, nor a terrorist he couldn't endorse as a "freedom fighter," especially, as in the case of Syria, if that terrorist was in the service of the regime change war he endorsed. In Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, a million or more people have died and tens of millions more are suffering as a result of these wars that McCain did so much to bring about.

In a short but to-the-point piece. Sputnik summarizes McCain's extreme Russophobia and his love for the Nazi regime in Kiev. Vladimir Putin was being charitable when, as Sputnik recounts, he told Oliver Stone that McCain was a patriot, but one who couldn't accept that the world had changed. "People with such convictions, like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old World," Putin said. "And they're reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast the world is changing." That Putin was able to say that says more about his genuine humanity than it does about McCain, who gave up whatever humanity he had a long time ago.

Anyone fighting for a genuine peace in the world will not mourn the passing of John McCain.

Pat Lang Mod , a day ago

https://oathkeepers.org/201...

I endorse Willy B's view of McCain. From dealing with him personally i would say that he was indeed a fighter. He would fight anyone who disagreed with him about anything. RIP

im cotton , a day ago

The beatification of McCain by our media is a symptom of a decadent political and media culture that sees no need to look, see, or hear anything beyond the most superficial analysis. That culture does nothing more than use stock images, phrases, and slogans that trigger blind acceptance by much of the population. (Present company excepted of course.)

chris chuba -> im cotton , 17 hours ago

That's my biggest issue. The MSM fawned over him so much he was a virtual cult hero. I could not watch CNN for more than a total of about 5 minutes over the weekend because they were pouring it on so thick. Jack Tapper would have married the guy.

If you interview his colleagues and they want to wax eloquent and you let them, fine, I get that. But it is unseemly for the hosts themselves to join in and remind us that they are now basically state media.

Anna Cabrera jumped in and said, in regard to his hawkishness, 'He always wanted to spread freedom around to the less fortunate'.

Were they really praising McCain or was it a form of self worship, because McCain and his kind always assured us that we in the U.S. was always 100% right and our enemies were 100% wrong and needed to be vanquished. If CNN hosts entertained different ideas, they would actually have to work for a living.

Bill H -> chris chuba , 11 hours ago

" But it is unseemly for the hosts themselves to join in and remind us that they are now basically state media."

Word.

Vicky SD -> Bill H , 10 hours ago

Had McCain said nice things about Trump, I can assure you this little love fest we are witnessing right now would be playing out a bit differently right now.

Harlan Easley , a day ago

He was an abomination and stupid beyond words. I am very grateful I will no longer have to listen to his hate speech directed against any and all in the world who disagreed with him. His allies Al-Qaeda in Syria I am sure are mourning his passing along with the false flag specialist of the world. He would have been instrumental in any upcoming false flag trying to incite a WWIII conflagration between the US and Russia. The only time in life he would have had peace would have been the 15 minutes he knew the nuclear missiles were flying toward Russia. This tells you everything you need to know about the man. The current hagiography is ridiculous when you realize his own co-workers in the Senate hated him almost to a man minus his BFF Graham. He is property of the Heavens now and no longer our problem here on Earth.

notlurking -> Harlan Easley , 14 hours ago

Not sure about the Heavens......

The Porkchop Express , a day ago

This quasi-religious veneration of politicians is unseemly. It is profane. It is unbecoming of us as a people, and it has transformed the majority of public offices into ones that are truly attractive only to men who are unfit to hold them.

VietnamVet , a day ago

As much as one single man is responsible for anything, John McCain
is responsible for the Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine Wars. Any memorial that doesn't include this is propaganda.

sbnat1ve -> VietnamVet , 6 hours ago

Nice to let Cheney and Kissinger and GWBush off the hook so quickly.

Unhinged Citizen , a day ago

I considered him one of the public faces of the permanent Security State.

He will not be missed here in Canada.

Robert , a day ago

Sidney Schanberg, the Journalist of "The Killing Fields" wrote a damning story about McCain helping cover up evidence of left behind US POWs in Vietnam. https://www.theamericancons...

JoeC , a day ago

I agree w/Col Lang - all you need to know about John McCain's character is well presented in "The Nightingales Song". Hard to see much good there..

As Col Lang notes, absent his family, McCain would have probably have has a very short navy career..

unmitigatedaudacity , a day ago

Amen. The hagiography for this blood-soaked monster underway in the Borg media is all you need to know about his "honor" and "service".

jdledell , a day ago

John McCain was a flawed man, just like the rest of us. I did not agree with many of his policy prescriptions but he seemed genuine in his pursuit of what he thought was right. Anyone who has to stand up in front of the world for all to see and take a political position will find many who agree and many who disagree with only history providing 20-20 hindsight. In 20 years will readers of this Blog go to the achieves and find any stupidity in some of the comments made this past year? It would be an interesting experiment.

Pat Lang Mod -> jdledell , a day ago

Some are more flawed than others. No?

Snow Flake -> Pat Lang , 14 hours ago

I did not agree with many of his policy prescriptions but he seemed genuine in his pursuit of what he thought was right.

the question is was he "genuine"? And if so, what is that?

jdledell reverts to to standard etiquette here. But he does not quite utter the ultimate one: May he rest in peace. Does he?

For me the outsider it looks that McCain, may have been the 'partisan spearheader ' within a larger American institutional representative consensus. What's the core and what is the reason for that phenomenon? Nitwit question, I admit. ...

Harlan Easley -> jdledell , a day ago

"but he seemed genuine in his pursuit of what he thought was right. "

Hitler seemed genuine in his pursuit of what he thought was right. That argument doesn't hold water in my opinion.

condor -> jdledell , 6 hours ago

It might only take a few days after I've written a comment here or elsewhere to see that something I wrote sounded stupid or just me getting way ahead of myself. I try and remember my place when I comment but sometimes dumb stuff gets through. I love this blog.

sbnat1ve , a day ago

Wow...looking for perfection, are we? Why don't we try a reasoned analysis of McCain's good and bad points---he did some good and some bad. I, personally, am not as upset about his war-mongering (although you are certainly correct) but am quite upset that he put Sarah Palin forward into the national spotlight as a possible President. Dear Merciful, what was he thinking! That is probably the single most anti-democracy and anti-American move of his career.

Pat Lang Mod -> sbnat1ve , a day ago

He was a stupid man who rode his family's prominence and his second wife's money and political influence a long way.

David -> Pat Lang , a day ago

Amen.

Rob -> Pat Lang , 18 hours ago

Jeff Gates did some excellent research on the Hensleys and their organised crime background in Arizona.

Don't know enough about the POWs left behind in Vietnam issue to comment on that.

Good riddance, shows the power of the media to create this persona that they found so useful.

Pat Lang Mod -> Rob , 14 hours ago

As a time traveler left behind from that period and someone who led the clandestine search for MIAs and remains I must tell you that I do not think any MIAs were left behind in SE Asia. My operation in Defense HUMINT searched diligently across SE Asia for years and found lots of remains which were reported to the Hickam AFB facility but never any MIAs. There were a few deserters from US forces who chose to remain SE Asia but that was their business and we left them alone once we found them.

SurfaceBook -> Pat Lang , 3 hours ago

Col Lang , a bit off topic here , but do you know if there's french operatives (those who assigned / lived among the tribes) are left abandoned when french pulled out ? i recall reading about it in Bernard Fall's book

Pat Lang Mod -> SurfaceBook , 2 hours ago

No, There were some few of the GCMA who chose to stay. But, in general, it was our montagnard allies and those of the French who were abandoned to the the mercies of the ethnic communist enemies.

sbnat1ve -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago

Col. Lang -- I'm glad you addressed this MIA issue. IMHO, the MIA hagiography may well have been the beginning of the conspiracy theory/fake news extravaganza that we live under today.

Pat Lang Mod -> Degringolade , 10 hours ago

My spook project was based in SE Asia where we could get into all these countries surreptitiously. They reported to me for command and control and product to JCRC. Based on our data among other research they did they asked the VN government, etc. for access to the sites. This was in the early '90s. There was a liaison office in DIA that kept the Congress and the families at bay while we searched.

sbnat1ve -> Pat Lang , a day ago

....as do many stupid men.

Jaime -> sbnat1ve , a day ago

Reasoned analysis? Perhaps you should ask those who were at the other end of your country's gun barrel whether it is possible to have a reasoned analysis about this man. The millions who suffered and died because of this "imperfect" Mc Cain surely must not be sorry this man has passed away. Neither am I. There are evil people whose disappearance lets mankind breath a sigh of relief.

Jack -> sbnat1ve , a day ago

Like every person Sen. McCain had good and bad. While we can admire his grit and courage as a POW and empathize with his suffering in Vietnam, we should not airbrush his incessant campaigning and support for all the regime change interventions that killed millions of innocent civilians.

Unhinged Citizen -> Jack , 11 hours ago

I very much dislike this type of relativistic thinking, because you can say the same about literally anything, making such a statement almost entirely meaningless.

condor -> Unhinged Citizen , 6 hours ago

I agree. reminds me of the gender-identity-anything-goes outlook they peddle in the MSM.

jdledell -> Jack , 3 hours ago

Yes McCain was a neo-conservative who as a senator advocated wars of aggression. However, it was Bush and Cheney who made the decision to go into Iraq - not McCain. Why lay all the responsibility for millions of innocent deaths on just John McCain.

Pat Lang Mod -> jdledell , 2 hours ago

McCain is being promoted as a great American hero. IMO he does not deserve that. I have known brave men who were not the fils a papa of a four star and they were and are ignored. In the ME, he, Lieberman and Graham were just puppets of Israel.

Eugene Owens -> Pat Lang , 8 hours ago

I don't disagree. All I am saying is that there are still one or two O-6s out there that get the honorary title of Commodore when a task-organized unit that does not rate a flag officer arises. That is both in the USN and USCG.

DianaLC , 10 hours ago

I can write only as a citizen who has little influence in politics, if any. These are my thoughts::

First, I did vote for him when he was running for POTUS. But I held my nose in doing so.. We really had two terrible choices that year. Obama or McCain. I think I liked voting for his choice of VP mostly because it set the talking heads into such a state of shock.

I lost all respect for him first on his treatment of his first wife when he returned from captivity. I notice that no one in the media mentioned her existence.

Then his "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" "joke" just seemed shockingly nasty to me. Suggesting bombing of people as a joke?

The McCain / Graham duo of the neocon philosophy would always cause me to turn off the TV. Did no one in the media ever want to do any real investigation of the consequences of the War in Iraq?

I was taught not to speak ill of the dead. And I try not to dwell on the death of Mccain right now. So, I've kept my television off. As a committed Christian, I know Who is sitting in judgement of McCain, and I trust His judgement will be fair and honest and the judgement will be from the heart of a "father" in regard to a "son" who, as we all have, had flaws as well as strengths.

He is now with his Maker, as some day we each will be.

sbnat1ve -> DianaLC , 6 hours ago

Yes, the investigations of the consequences of Iraq are many...read them and weep. Fiasco is a good start.

Snow Flake -> DianaLC , 8 hours ago

In other words, Diana, his bomb, bomb, Iran shocked you a lot less then did the idea Obama could become president? Notice, I am not judging you. My own possibly ill-guided choice would have been based on the fact that he was one of the few that voted against the Iraq War.

You remember your reasoning in 2007?

How exactly did the soccer Mom surface in that context? Arbitrary choice, wasn't aware of the history of its use in elections. By the way. But whenever I hear or read Palin "soccer mom" pops up on my mind, Followed let's say by the flags on her desk and rumors around Weekly Standard's influencing the choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

May he rest in peace.

Pat Lang Mod -> Snow Flake , 3 hours ago

I voted for Obama twice because I could not live with the prospect of the alternatives. Obama, IMO turned out to be a crypto-revolutionary. we don't need a revolution in the US. We need good government and we are getting it with regard to the economy.

Mark Logan , 10 hours ago

His views on many things I disagreed with strongly, but compared to so many herd-minded pusillanimous creatures which hold office in both houses these days..his courage stands out. His finest hour:

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FJIjenjANqAk%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJIjenjANqAk&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FJIjenjANqAk%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Pat Lang Mod -> Mark Logan , 10 hours ago

i have known a great many brave men. Bravery is one thing. Good judgement is another. He had very poor judgement all his life.

Mark Logan -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago

Seems to be the case. He was a "reverse ace" when a flyer. Crashed more planes than he shot down.

I was thinking of comparable historical figures with the malady... Custer and Chinese Gordon sprung to mind. I imagine there are much better ones.

[Aug 27, 2018] Disclaimer

Notable quotes:
"... Empire – the old far left and the new far right are against the USA having an Empire and against perpetual war. ..."
"... Economy – the old far left and the new far right think free trade and Wall Street are killing middle class jobs and the ladders of success. ..."
"... Race/Sex/Gender – the old far right KKK vlugar bigoted view is pretty much dead in America. The new far right is trying to work through real facts on group differences and what is reasonable to do about it. Everyone else is CCCrazy. ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT 200 Words @Alfa158

I think we are all struggling to come up with a new vocabulary to rationally describe the new forces at work in our society. I would welcome suggestions because I've got nuthin here.

I agree. I used to be liberal, then became far left, and I am now far right. And I never changed my views! The politics around me changed.

Here are some forces at work:

1. Empire – the old far left and the new far right are against the USA having an Empire and against perpetual war. Read Pat Buchanan and Mike Whitney on Middle East wars and Russia and they sound a lot alike. Everyone else in America supports the Empire, either actively or passively.

2. Economy – the old far left and the new far right think free trade and Wall Street are killing middle class jobs and the ladders of success. It's the old Democrat pro union view and the old Republican main street vs. wall street view. If you like socialism, you gotta hate Wall Street. If you like free markets, you gotta hate Wall Street. Everyone else in America supports Wall Stree rule over the Fed and economic policy, either actively or passively.

3. Race/Sex/Gender – the old far right KKK vlugar bigoted view is pretty much dead in America. The new far right is trying to work through real facts on group differences and what is reasonable to do about it. Everyone else is CCCrazy.

Corvinus , says: June 9, 2018 at 12:49 am GMT

@Mr. Anon

"What is the "Alt-Right"?"

A name embraced by white nationalists and/or white supremacists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race through populist endeavors, which includes the return of patriarchy, the revocation of the 1965 Immigration Act, an emphasis on race realism and/or the reinstitution of Western Christian civilization.

"Who speaks for it?"

John Derbyshire. Steve Sailer. Vox Day. Richard Spencer. Mike Cernovich. For starters.

"What national platform does it have?"

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

"And why is it you claim to "not be a liberal" when you only ever repeat talking points of the DNC and NPR?"

That would be Fake News on your part.

[Aug 27, 2018] American and European Populists Are Talking Past Each Other

Aug 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Kai Weiss offered up some food for thought last week when he attempted to explain why any plan for a transatlantic union of populists is doomed. And he's largely correct: the integration of right-wing populist governments and parties in Europe into their own umbrella organizations give them a specifically European orientation, which seems to defeat the purpose of nationalism.

Further, the continued economic relations of populist governments in Italy, Hungary, and Poland with other EU countries would render their shift towards a new political configuration based on shared ideological proclivities with American populists highly unlikely. These assumptions are certainly well-founded, and Kai is correct that we shouldn't interpret any change in the European populist Right as aligning with their American counterpart.

But there's another, perhaps deeper, reason that American and European populists are unlikely to cooperate: they show only superficial similarities. Both are obviously concerned with the globalist threat to their national economies and cultivate a rhetorical style that appeals to the plain folk while ostentatiously bypassing the "uppers." All so-called populists invoke national symbols and colors (thus Trump tells us that all Americans, no matter their race, "bleed red, white, and blue"). All ridicule multinational corporations and their usually socially leftist advocates as rootless. All have antagonistic relationships with left-wing media and devote considerable energy to contending with them.

And of course, both oppose mass immigration. But in Europe more than in the U.S., this opposition stems from widespread concern about a growing Muslim presence and the violent crime and cultural dislocation it's brought about.

That said, the differences between European and American populism may be more critical than the overlaps. Put simply: European populism looks real, while its American counterpart seems contrived. Vehicles of American populism with nationwide followings -- for example, the American Greatness website, Steve Hilton's Sunday night defenses of American populism on Fox News, and the West Coast-Straussian Claremont Review -- identify the American nation with an "idea." This "idea" is found explicitly in the passage of the Declaration of Independence that tells us that "all men are created equal." Lincoln's victory over the slave-holding South and America's military crusades for democracy in two world wars are often viewed as efforts to advance this founding ideal of equality.

While other, presumably inferior, nations are based on ethnic membership, shared religious traditions, and histories going back millennia, the U.S. is supposedly morally superior because of our universal founding principles. Those who argue this are entitled to their beliefs, but out of such abstract universals it is hard to fashion a specifically populist movement. That is because populism, for better or worse (I'm not being judgmental here), depends on very different unifying factors, like all the stuff that our would-be populists keep throwing on the junk heap. Hungarian, Polish, French, and Italian populists happily invoke everything that our populists are not supposed to believe.

One could hardly imagine an American populist saying what Viktor Orban repeatedly stated before the Hungarian national election that he won overwhelmingly in the spring. Orban vowed to " keep Hungary safe and Christian ," and called for the country -- and Europe more widely -- to embrace "a modernized version of Christian democracy" in the decades ahead. "Christian democracy protects us from migration, defends the borders, supports the traditional family model of one man, one woman, and considers the protection of our Christian culture as a natural thing," he said.

In some ways, European populists are more generous than their American imitation. They don't engage in trade wars with their fellow Europeans and generally work toward unity with others on the continent as members of a shared culture and history. European populists reserve their bile for those whom they see as Muslim interlopers and the Cultural Marxist Left. From reading the European right-wing press and knowing leaders of the Swedish Democrats, the National Front, and Alternative for Germany, I am hardly struck by the European Right's affinity for the American ruling class, including self-described American nationalists.

Steve Bannon Tilts at Windmills in Europe Trump's Working-Class, Conservative, Populist Realignment

It seems that, as soon as one moves beyond the Atlanticist crowd, European populists, like other Europeans, believe that American political elites are bullying the Old World. Loose talk about American exceptionalism, regime change aimed at conservative European governments, and the raising of tariffs on European products arouse concern among European populists over unwanted American hegemony. In a tour of the United States in February, the former head of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, praised Trump's defiance of the left-wing media but then criticized his increasingly confrontational relations with Russia.

Clearly she was concerned with American dominance over Europe, a problem that European populists can't imagine will go away even if self-styled populists come to power in the U.S. Confirming this impression was the reluctance of Italian president Sergio Mattarella to name as Italian premier Matteo Salvini, the populist leader of the Lega Nord, after Salvini's stunning electoral victory in a national election in early March. It was the Trump administration that put pressure on Mattarella not to authorize a coalition led by someone who might not be obedient to the American government on foreign affairs. It was only after this American "veto" was removed and proper assurances were offered that Salvini in May was allowed to form a government. If this is what American populist leadership looks like, it may not be the case that Steve Bannon's alliance is just around the corner.

By the way: the American populist website American Greatness quotes approvingly passages taken from National Review that justify American meddling in foreign elections and foreign regimes. Our government "has done so to promote democracy and political liberty and human rights." No doubt Signor Salvini will appreciate this explanation.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .

[Aug 27, 2018] Ukraine and NATO

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Cagey Beast , says: July 23, 2018 at 11:00 am GMT

@Peter Akuleyev

In the alt-right/far left scenario, we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US) as being simply irrelevant. Or, worse backed by shadowy Western forces.

Or how about we wish these East European countries well but we choose not to take their side in whatever feud they have going with Russia? Maybe the people who "love the US" love the worst aspects of America? Maybe a lot of them come across as greasy little hustlers on the make? Ever think of that?

Anyone who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes, especially in Western Ukraine.

And that's precisely why countries like Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland shouldn't be in NATO. We should never have included countries with deep resentments against, and hazy borders with Russia. The geniuses running the West should have encouraged the creation of a lots of neutral states -- like Finland and Austria -- rather than expand NATO eastward.

EugeneGur , says: July 23, 2018 at 9:30 pm GMT
@Peter Akuleyev

who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes

I don't know where is Ukraine you spent your time and in what company, but this is complete BS. The South-Eastern Ukraine hates the Western Ukrainian "banderovtsi" as much as the Russians do if not more -- after all, the followers of Bandera operated mostly on the Ukrainian soil. There are deranged individuals in every country, of course, and Ukraine has been subjected lately to intense hate propaganda as well as repressions, but there is no hatred of Russia. This is contradicted by both sociology and everyday behavior of Ukrainian, which move to Russia in droves, spend time in Russia, support Russian sport teams, etc.

we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US)

Nobody is asking about what the real Ukrainians, Estonians, Georgians or even Poles actually think, least of all the US. There are almost as many Georgians living in Russia as there are in Georgia, and they show no desire to move back. In 2008 during the conflict, their biggest fear was that they'd be deported.

The Ukraine's Maidan was a violent coup, where a few thousand militants armed and trained abroad overthrew a government elected by the entire country. Protests that immediately started all over the country were suppressed with force -- the one in Donbass still is.

How could anyone with an access to Internet remain unaware of these facts is beyond me.

peterAUS , says: July 23, 2018 at 10:25 pm GMT
@EugeneGur

That's an interesting point. Even if true, doesn't matter. One could wonder ..who are the people populating Ukrainian Armed Forces? Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass? All of them. Including those is logistics/maintenance depots far away from the (current) line of separation?

The will to fight against "Russia" ranges from a deep hate to simply not wishing to go against the (current) Ukrainian government. The former are in those "shock" battalions. The later are manning the logistics train. And everything in between.

Now .if/when a real shooting starts, as soon as Russia, as expected (and desired) by the most of readers here, starts delivering ordnance into operational depth of Donbass enemy, the ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I suspect.

Vojkan , says: July 24, 2018 at 8:25 am GMT
@Peter Akuleyev

Why should anyone freaking care and put his ass in the line of fire because you bunch of primitives hate Russia? Between having a nuclear cataclysm because you pathetic dwarfs of nations are frustrated to have a neighbour you can't bully and Russia obliterating you, I say let Russia obliterate you, thus we won't have to suffer the ear-hurting dissonnance of your incessant whining any more. Though I doubt Russia would stomp on you. When you see shit, you don't stomp on it, you don't want you don't want your shoes to stink, you just walk around it.

EugeneGur , says: July 25, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass?

Besides those in "volunteer battalions", which tend to be nationalistic with distinct Nazi overtones, people in the regular Armed Forces are there for the money. There are very few paying jobs in today's Ukraine, so men enlist and hope for the best.

the ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I suspect.

That could've been the case in 2014. Today I very much doubt it. Even the Right Sector people are fed up with the current power in Kiev, and even the dumbest nationalists are beginning to realize what a deep hole the country is in. Normal people all over the South-East are hoping and praying for the Russians to come. The problem is the Russians aren't coming.

[Aug 27, 2018] Hillary was Sec of State at the time the US election-meddling-and-color-revolution brigade tried to rig the Russian elections against Putin.

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Bill the Cat , says: July 24, 2018 at 12:06 am GMT

To add to the list of things that the Russians had on Hillary .

IIRC, she was Sec of State at the time the US election-meddling-and-color-revolution brigade tried to rig the Russian elections against Putin.

Putin does not seem to be the sort to let emotion be more important than policy, but I've always wondered that to the small extent the Russians did take a pop at Hillary's campaign, if it didn't bring a bit of a smile to Putin's face to know he was just giving back the hits he'd already taken from her.

Hillary of course was incompetent in having America interfere in Russian elections. That campaign never had a chance as Putin is a lot more popular in Russia than Hillary is in America. So, she took a pot shot at a rival world leader knowing (or at least some smart people did) that it would have no effect and that Putin would win that election anyways.

And of course Hillary the Arrrogant could never imagine that another player in the game would get to take a turn, and that others might interfere in her election, and she knew she'd run and she knew she'd rig the Dem party to get the nod, in the same way the NED and the Soros NGO's tried to interfere in Russia.

[Aug 27, 2018] Trump Lied About His Intentions Toward Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Trump's surprising new position ..."
"... that the U.S. should rethink whether it needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe. ..."
"... Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," adding, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money." ..."
"... U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO's cost. But calling for the possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate -- even a candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable. ..."
"... It also wasn't clear how Trump's arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance squared with his choice of advisers. ..."
"... One other Trump adviser had previously been reported. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn had told The Daily Beast that he "met informally" with Trump. Flynn was pushed out of his post as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has since spoken out publicly about the need for the U.S. to forge closer ties with Russia. ..."
"... I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it's obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today's Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don't think – right now we don't have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in the old days you'd have uniforms and you'd go to war and you'd see who your enemy was, and today we have no idea who the enemy is. ..."
"... I'll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending -- you know, in fact, they're even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I'm a person that -- you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don't have money anymore because we've been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don't have money -- and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I'm all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn't seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn't seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we're the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn't seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn't seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they're not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else's reports, how often do you see other countries saying "We must stop, we must stop." They don't do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn't that interesting? We're fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn't seem fair and it doesn't seem logical. ..."
"... Even Barack Obama, despite his pretenses for ' a reset in U.S.-Russia relations ', had had actually the opposite of that pretension in mind -- a doubling-down on the Cold War . And Obama's successor, Donald Trump, doubles down on his predecessor's double-down, there. ..."
"... the Koch brothers' Doug Bandow, who represents his sponsors' bet against neoconservativsm, headlined on 27 April 2017 "Donald Trump: The 'Manchurian (Neoconservative) Candidate'?" and he itemized what a terrific Trojan Horse that Trump had turned out to be, for the war-lobby, the 'neocons', or, as Dwight Eisenhower had called them (but carefully and only after his Presidency was already over), "the military-industrial complex." ..."
"... Other people (the masses) fight, kill, die, get maimed, and are impoverished, while these few individuals at the very top in the U.S. profit, from those constant invasions, and military occupations ..."
"... bête noire ..."
"... I will say this about Iran. They're looking to go into Saudi Arabia, they want the oil, they want the money, they want a lot of other things having to do they took over Yemen, you look over that border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that is one big border and they're looking to do a number in Yemen. Frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us, and at what point do we get involved? And how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them? ..."
"... the stockholders in those American war-making corporations ..."
"... America's Founders ..."
"... Donald Trump just wants for Europeans to increase military spending (to buy U.S.-made weapons) even more than the U.S. is doing against Russia, and for the Sauds and Israelis also to buy more of these weapons from America's weapons-firms, to use against Iran and any nation friendly toward it. Meanwhile, America's own military spending is already at world-record-high levels.That's Trump's economic plan; that's his jobs-plan; that's his 'national security' plan. That is Trump's Presidency. ..."
"... He lied his way into office, just like his predecessors had been doing. This is what 'democracy' in America now consists of: lies -- some colored "liberal"; some colored "conservative"; but all colored "profitable" (for the 'right' people); and another name for that, in foreign affairs, is "neoconservative." ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | countercurrents.org

in Imperialism -- by Eric Zuesse -- August 21, 2018

On August 20th, Gallup headlined "More in U.S. Favor Diplomacy Over Sanctions for Russia" and reported that, "Americans believe it is more important to try to continue efforts to improve relations between the countries (58%), rather than taking strong diplomatic and economic steps against Russia (36%)." And yet, all of the sanctions against Russia have passed in Congess by over 90% of Senators and Representatives voting for them -- an extraordinarily strong and bipartisan favoring of anti-Russia sanctions, by America's supposed "representatives" of the American people . What's happening here, which explains such an enormous contradiction between America's Government, on the one side, versus America's people, on the other? Is a nation like this really a democracy at all?

Donald Trump understood this disjunction, when he was running for President, and he took advantage of the public side of it, in order to win, but, as soon as he won, he flipped to the opposite side, the side of America's billionaires, who actually control the U.S. Government.

While he was campaigning for the U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump pretended to want to soften, not harden, America's policies against Russia. He even gave hints that he wanted a redirection of U.S. Government expenditures away from the military, and toward America's economic and domestic needs.

On 31 January 2016 , Donald Trump -- then one of many Republican candidates running for the Republican U.S. Presidential nomination -- told a rally in Clinton Iowa, "Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia and China and all these countries?"

On 21 March 2016 , he was published in the Washington Post as having told its editors, that "he advocates a light footprint in the world. In spite of unrest abroad, especially in the Middle East, Trump said the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic infrastructure. 'I do think it's a different world today, and I don't think we should be nation-building anymore,' Trump said. 'I think it's proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We're sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it's a bubble that if it breaks, it's going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country.'" On that same day, The Daily Beast's Shane Harris wrote that:

Trump's surprising new position [is] that the U.S. should rethink whether it needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe.

Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," adding, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."

U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO's cost. But calling for the possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate -- even a candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable.

It also wasn't clear how Trump's arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance squared with his choice of advisers.

One other Trump adviser had previously been reported. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn had told The Daily Beast that he "met informally" with Trump. Flynn was pushed out of his post as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has since spoken out publicly about the need for the U.S. to forge closer ties with Russia.

Five days later, on March 26th

, the New York Times bannered, "Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds on His Foreign Policy Views" and David Sanger and Maggie Haberman presented their discussion with Trump about this, where Trump said:

I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it's obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today's Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don't think – right now we don't have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in the old days you'd have uniforms and you'd go to war and you'd see who your enemy was, and today we have no idea who the enemy is.

I'll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending -- you know, in fact, they're even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I'm a person that -- you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don't have money anymore because we've been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don't have money -- and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I'm all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn't seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn't seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we're the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn't seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn't seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they're not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else's reports, how often do you see other countries saying "We must stop, we must stop." They don't do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn't that interesting? We're fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn't seem fair and it doesn't seem logical.

The next day, March 27th, on ABC's "The Week," Trump said, "I think NATO's obsolete. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger, much larger than Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia's not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism and NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."

It's easy to see why Trump was opposed by not only Hillary Clinton and other Democratic Party neoconservatives, but also by all Republican Party neoconservatives. The main target of neoconservatives -- ever since that movement (which only in the 1970s came to be called "neoconservatives") was founded by Democratic U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson back in the 1950s -- has been to conquer Russia . That's the ultimate objective, toward which they all and always have striven.

Even Barack Obama, despite his pretenses for ' a reset in U.S.-Russia relations ', had had actually the opposite of that pretension in mind -- a doubling-down on the Cold War . And Obama's successor, Donald Trump, doubles down on his predecessor's double-down, there.

Of course, neocons aren't only against Russia; they also are against any country that Israel and Saudi Arabia hate -- and, of course, Israel and Saudi Arabia are large purchasers of American-made weapons, such as weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics. In fact: Saudi Arabia is the world's largest purchaser (other than the U.S. 'Defense' Department itself) of their products and services. In fact, soon after coming into office, Trump achieved the all-time-world-record-largest international weapons-sale, of $350 billion to the Sauds, and it was quickly hiked yet another $50 billion to $400 billion . It's, as of yet, his jobs-plan for the American people. Instead of Trump's peaceing the American economy, he has warred it. Consequently, for example, the Koch brothers' Doug Bandow, who represents his sponsors' bet against neoconservativsm, headlined on 27 April 2017 "Donald Trump: The 'Manchurian (Neoconservative) Candidate'?" and he itemized what a terrific Trojan Horse that Trump had turned out to be, for the war-lobby, the 'neocons', or, as Dwight Eisenhower had called them (but carefully and only after his Presidency was already over), "the military-industrial complex."

They're all actually the same people; they serve the same billionaires, all of whom are heavily invested in these war-makers -- all against two main targets: first, Russia (which America's aristocracy hate the most); and, then, Iran (which Israel's and Saudi Arabia's aristocracies hate the most). Any nation that's friendly toward those, gets destroyed. Other people (the masses) fight, kill, die, get maimed, and are impoverished, while these few individuals at the very top in the U.S. profit, from those constant invasions, and military occupations -- which Americans admire (their nation's military, America's invasion-forces) above all else .

On the Bill O'Reilly Show, 4 January 2016, Trump was asked to announce, before even the Presidential primaries, what would cause him as the U.S. President, to bomb Iran, and Trump then was panned everywhere for refusing to answer such an inappropriate question -- to announce publicly what his strategy, as the U.S. President, would be in such a matter of foreign affairs (in which type of matter only the President himself should be privy to such information about himself, namely his strategy) -- but Trump did reveal there his sympathy for the Sauds, and his extreme hostility toward Iran, a nation which is a bête noire to neocons:

I will say this about Iran. They're looking to go into Saudi Arabia, they want the oil, they want the money, they want a lot of other things having to do they took over Yemen, you look over that border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that is one big border and they're looking to do a number in Yemen. Frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us, and at what point do we get involved? And how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?

The Sauds have already answered that question, with their commitment to paying $400 billion, and they're already using some of this purchased weaponry and training, to conquer Yemen. But who gets that money? It's not the American people; it is only the stockholders in those American war-making corporations (and allied corporations) who receive the benefits.

And what's this, from Trump, about "at what point do we get involved" if Saudi Arabia's tyrants "don't survive without us"? America is now supposed to be committed to keeping tyrannical hereditary monarchies in control over their countries? When did that start? Certainly not in 1776. Today's America isn't like the country, nor the culture, that America's Founders created, but instead is more like the monarchy that they overthrew. This was supposed to be an anti -imperialist country. Today's American rulers are traitors , against the nation that America's Founders had created. These traitors, and their many agents, are sheer psychopaths. The American public are not their citizens, but their subjects -- much like the colonists were, who overthrew the British King.

Donald Trump just wants for Europeans to increase military spending (to buy U.S.-made weapons) even more than the U.S. is doing against Russia, and for the Sauds and Israelis also to buy more of these weapons from America's weapons-firms, to use against Iran and any nation friendly toward it. Meanwhile, America's own military spending is already at world-record-high levels.That's Trump's economic plan; that's his jobs-plan; that's his 'national security' plan. That is Trump's Presidency.

He lied his way into office, just like his predecessors had been doing. This is what 'democracy' in America now consists of: lies -- some colored "liberal"; some colored "conservative"; but all colored "profitable" (for the 'right' people); and another name for that, in foreign affairs, is "neoconservative."

About Russia, he's continuing Obama's policies but even worse ; and about Iran, he's clearly even more of a neocon than was his predecessor. However, as a candidate, he had boldly criticized neoconservatism. Democracy cannot be based on lies, and led by liars.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

see also Eric Zuesse – Countercurrents

[Aug 27, 2018] On a difference between ruthless ambition with psychopathy. They have similar features, but are not the same

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

another fred , says: July 7, 2018 at 2:31 am GMT

@Cold N. Holefield

I believe you may be confusing ruthless ambition with psychopathy. They have similar features, but are not the same. This argument is not on completely solid ground as there is no complete agreement on what psychopathy is, but the consensus is that there is something wrong with a psychopath's brain.

The ruthless can be mentally intact, they see the same world we do, they just don't care enough about others to restrain their own ambition. This is often learned, they've been hardened by the world, but can sometimes be just a result of excessive ambition or peer pressure. They can be quite pro-social among their peers. They manipulate or punish for gain, not for the kick of manipulating or punishing others.

Psychopaths don't often make it to the top (board level) of organizations, they're too anti-social to get along with other board members. They manipulate and punish for the kick they get out of it. Psychopaths are abundant among the self-made and at lower levels of organizations where they are used and discarded.

[Aug 27, 2018] Rich, middle class and poor relationship

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jollyroger , says: July 22, 2018 at 4:52 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

That's more or less what George Carlin insinuated: "The middle class does all the work, pays all the taxes while the wealthy class takes all the money and pays none of the taxes and the poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class .keep asking for all those jobs".

[Aug 27, 2018] WSWS.org offers a valuable alternative perspective on current events

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

deschutes , says: June 10, 2018 at 12:03 pm GMT

@Eagle Eye

WSWS.org offers a great perspective on current events, and Whitney is right to quote from them. He should use links to them for sure, as you point out. WSWS gives more content and analysis in its reporting than most other 'liberal' outlets like Intercept or crappy Trughdig, and FAR more than the beneath contempt corporate media such as Guardian which is the very worst of the worst.

Hey everybody! Go and read WSWS.org it is an excellent news source-

http://www.wsws.org

Free Assange!

republic , says: June 10, 2018 at 1:41 pm GMT
@deschutes

The communist WSWS may have some good viewpoints on things like internet censorship and its support for Assange, but it is an extreme advocate for open border

[Aug 27, 2018] Chemically induced fanaticism. We have no idea which of our 'opinion leaders' have undergone such antidepressant induced change

Notable quotes:
"... Further to my idea, what distinguishes the person on antidepressants is the complete self assurance with which they say the most ridiculous things. ..."
"... If one in ten people use the drugs, and more than one in ten higher up the social ladder, then each of us deals every day with someone who looks normal but displays chemically induced fanaticism. ..."
Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Gordon Pratt , says: July 23, 2018 at 6:23 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Thank you for replying to my post.

And you may be right. Scam artists know how easy it is to convince a mark of something silly once the mark has dollar signs in his eyes.

Further to my idea, what distinguishes the person on antidepressants is the complete self assurance with which they say the most ridiculous things. It is that inability to say "I could be wrong, but " which is the giveaway plus of course the unquestioning belief they are right.

If one in ten people use the drugs, and more than one in ten higher up the social ladder, then each of us deals every day with someone who looks normal but displays chemically induced fanaticism.

A chap I have known for forty years used to be shy, sensitive, well-read and funny. Now he is spending his retirement playing World of Warcraft and has nothing to say. Big Pharma says antidepressants turn introverts like him into extroverts. In fact the drugs have turned him into a jerk.

We have no idea which of our 'opinion leaders' have undergone a similar change.

[Aug 27, 2018] The Deep state is not, repeat not , the American people

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jeff Davis , says: July 27, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT

@Lauri Törni

So standing up for American citizens is considered a "mentally insane" thing?

You are utterly and completely out of your mind, virtually from another planet, another reality. A textbook example of insanity. The fact that you don't recognize it, simply confirms the fact.

The Deep state is not, repeat not , the American people.

Regarding the Intel community: There are the guys in the trenches. these are honorable guys. Then there is the leadership. The current leadership is on notice to behave itself, on account of the new "Sheriff" in town. The corrupt politicized leadership from the Clinton/Bush/Obama regimes however, now out of power, are attempting to overthrow the legitimately elected president of the United States. In so doing, they are pursuing treason-lite.

Clapper, Brennan, and Hayden are already full-on war criminals: Iraq & torture. Now, in their attempt to destroy the Trump presidency, they are adding betrayal of democracy and betrayal of the Constitution of the United States to their criminal resume. These are evil men who think it is their job to run the United States from behind a malleable (gutless?) figurehead who does what they tell him to do.

As I said in my original post, it is fascinating to observe people like you, utterly dominated -- brain-raped really -- by a neocon/neoliberal narrative that has reduced them to robotic -- even willing -- slaves of the 1%. Good for you. Enjoy. The others, who prefer self-mastery to self-enslavement, will benefit from your choice of enslavement.

That is what all of this boils down to; Trump treating Americans like s*hit in front of the whole world, while praising Russia and Russians.

The IC war criminals/traitors should not be equated with or allowed to hide anonymous behind the majority population of decent Americans. Which is what simpletons like you enable and then fall for.

I fully understood all the concerns for what the Left is doing to people and to the society.

Trump praises Israel and says that, "Securing Israel's safety is our most important task" not a peep comes from the Trump-supporters?!

Some Trump supporters do object. Others however grasp the political reality of Jewish political influence in the US. Politically incompetent simpletons like yourself think Trump should commit political suicide by taking on the Jews.

The Jews/Israel will be dealt with -- or not -- later, when Trump has secured his presidency. And then, the rebalancing of the US-Israeli relationship will not be grounded in hostility to the Jews, but will be more along the lines of America First.

Never ever did I expect, that it would be the Trump-supporters surfacing as the fifth column, giving the "finishing touch" to the destruction of American citizens.

The above is pure paranoid, "the sky is falling", TDS whackadoodle.

The Liberals seem to have woken up,

The country is in the throes of a cultural war between the bubble-wrapped snowflakes and "real" people. Thankfully, the "real" people will win, precisely because they have the advantage of being reality-connected. The snowflakes will benefit as well -- you will benefit -- by the resulting opportunity to reconnect with reality.

Good luck, best wishes, Trump is rapidly changing the world for the better.

And let me add: The Soviet Union is a quarter century gone, and with it Soviet Communism. Putin is the preeminent statesman of our times. Go to YouTube and listen to what he says. He and Trump, aligned, are a force for good in the world. Peace with Russia is coming, and with it a new era of peace and prosperity in the world.

Which leaves me to echo your closing comment:

Are you ever going to be able to comprehend this?

(Answer: Probably not for another six years, if ever.)

[Aug 27, 2018] Russian Threat

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Book Review- The Russian Peace Threat by Ron Ridenour by The Saker

Ron Ridenour's latest book (this is his 10 th book on international relations and politics) takes a direct shot at one of the most prevailing myths in the western political discourse: the thesis that Russia and its USSR predecessor have been uniquely aggressive and generally bellicose states. At a time when rabid russophobia is the order of the day (again -- chronic russophobia has been a regular feature of western political culture for many centuries now), this is a very timely and important book which I highly recommend to those interested in history.

The book is separated into three parts. In the first part of the book ( The Great Capitalist Socialist Divide ), Ridenour looks at the Cuban Missile Crisis in some detail and uses it to debunk the many myths which the "official" US historiography has been presenting as dogma for decades. In this first section, Ridenour also provides many fascinating details about Captain Vasili Arkhipov "the man who prevented WWIII". He also recounts how the US propaganda machine tried, and still tries, to blame the murder of JFK on the Russians. The second part of the book ( Peace, Land, Bread ) goes back in history and looks into the ideological and political struggle between the collective West and the Soviet Union from the revolution of 1917 and well into the Cold War. The third part of the book ( Russia At the Crossroads -- the Putin Era ) conclude with very recent events, including the western backed coup d'etat in the Ukraine and the Russian intervention in Syria.

The first and the third parts of the book are extremely well researched and offer a rock-solid, fact-based, and logical analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis and its modern equivalent, the AngloZionist "crusade" against modern Russia. This is a very important and good choice because the two crises have a lot in common. I would even argue that the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites. Ridenour shows that in 1962 it was not the Soviets, but the US which pushed the world to the edge of a nuclear war, and in the third section of his book he shows how, yet again, the Empire is cornering Russia into a situation which very much risks resulting in a nuclear conflict.

For those who would have a knee-jerk rejection of Ridenour's crimethink, the book, on page 438-444, offers a list of governments the USA has overthrown since WWII (50), countries which the USA has bombed (30), foreign leaders it has murdered (50+), suppressed populist/nationalist movements (20), and subverted democratic elections (30). Ridenour then asks how it is that with a tally like that the US gets to moralize about Russia. He is absolutely right, of course. Compared to the USA, the Soviet Union was a peace-loving, non-interventionist and generally international law respecting country. Oh sure, the USSR had its share of horrors and evil deeds, but compared with the "land of the free and the home of the brave" these are minor, almost petty, transgressions.

The book is not without its faults. Sadly, in the second part of his book Ridenour repeats what I can only call the "standard list of western clichés" about the 1917 Revolution, it's causes and effects. Truth be told, Ridenour is most certainly not to be singled out for making such a mistake: most of the books written in English and many of those written in Russian about this period of Russian history are basically worthless because they are all written by folks (from all sides of the political spectrum) with a vested ideological interest in presenting a completely counter-factual chronology of what actually took place (Russian author Ivan Solonevich wrote at length about this phenomenon in his books). Furthermore, such a process is inevitable: after decades of over-the-top demonization of everything and anything Soviet, there is now a "return of the pendulum" (both in Russia and outside) to whitewash the Soviet regime and explain away all its crimes and atrocities (of which there were plenty). For these reasons I would recommend that readers skip chapter 7 entirely (the description of the 1905 and 1917 revolutions are particularly bad and sound like a rehash of Soviet propaganda clichés of the early 1980s).

This weakness of this historical analysis of the two Russian revolutions is, of course, rather disappointing, but it in no way affects the pertinence of the fundamental thesis of this book: that, for all its very real faults, the "Evil Empire" was a gentle and timid regime when compared to the AngloZionist "Axis of Kindness" and its never-ending violent rampages all over the world (literally) and its orgy of subversion and violence in the name of democracy, freedom, human rights and all the rest of the western propaganda buzzwords.

The book's afterworld begins with the following words " WAITING AND WAITING! Waiting for the end of the world! Waiting for Godot! Although, unlike in Samuel Beckett's Theater of the Absurd play, in which Godot never arrives, the mad men and mad women leaders of the US, France and UK (and Israel) are bringing us their bombs ". Having been warning about the very risks of war for at least 4 years now, and having, along with others, posted a special " Russian Warning " to warn about this danger, I can only wholeheartedly welcome the publication of an entire book aimed at averting such a cataclysmic outcome.

My other big regret with this book is that it does not have an index. This is particularly frustrating since the book is packed with over 500 pages of very interesting information and can be used as a very good reference book.

Still, these criticisms should not distract from the very real value of this book. One of the most frightening phenomena today is that the Empire and Russia are currently headed directly for war and that, unlike what took place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, almost nobody today speaks about this. The western corporate media is especially guilty in this regard, as it encourages a constant escalation of rabid anti-Russian rhetoric (and actions) without ever mentioning that if brought to its logical conclusion such policies will result in a devastating war which the West cannot win (neither can Russia, of course, but that is hardly much of a consolation, is it?).

There have been courageous voices in the West trying to stop this crazy slide towards a nuclear apocalypse (I especially think of Professor Stephen Cohen and Paul Craig Roberts) but theirs were truly "cries in the wilderness". And it doesn't matter one bit whether somebody identifies himself as a conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, socialist, anarcho-capitalist or by another other (mostly meaningless) political label. What matters is as simple as it is crucial: preventing the Neocons from triggering a war with Russia or with China, or with Iran, or with the DPRK, or with Venezuela, or with ( fill in the blank ). The list of countries the US is in conflict with is very long (just remember Nikki Haley berating and threatening the entire UN General Assembly because the vast majority of its members dared to disagree with the US position on Jerusalem), but Russia is (yet again) the designated arch-villian, the Evil Empire, Mordor -- you name it! Russia is the country which wants to murder everybody with poison gas, from the Skripals in the UK, to the innocent children of Syria. Russia is the country which shoots down airliners and prepares to invade all her western neighbors. Finally, Russia is the place which hacks every computer in the "Free World" and interferes with every single election. The longer that list of idiotic accusations stretches, the bigger the risk of war becomes, because words have their weight and you cannot have normal, civilized relations with the Evil Empire of Mordor which is "highly likely" to invade, nuke or otherwise subvert the peace-loving peoples of the West.

Except that there never was any such thing as a "peace loving West" -- that is truly a self-serving and 100% false myth. The historical record shows that in reality the collective West has engaged in a 1000 year long murderous rampage all over the planet and that each time it designated its victim as the culprit and itself as the defender of lofty ideals. Ridenour's The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert (alongside with Guy Mettan's " here ) does a long way towards debunking this myth.

With the few caveats mentioned above, I highly recommend this book.

JVC , says: August 24, 2018 at 10:24 pm GMT

I tend to agree with Saker–that yes, the Soviet Empire, and the current Russian government have had their"nasty" moments, but it is not those governments that made their very existence depend on creating chaos, death and destruction across the globe. The American people have been too complacent–at least through out my life time (far side of 70) -- because they really have had no struggle as most of the rest of the world has. Mostly good economic conditions, not having to rebuild after invading armies have passed through, plenty of meat and potatoes–and all the other consumer goods. As long as that has been the case, we have not really cared about what the government in DC has been doing "over there" Consequently, the war industry has won control of the country.

So the possibility of nuclear war is closer now than ever before. It seems to me that the neocon mentality that has been dominant for the past 25-30 years (the fall of the Soviet empire?) comes with an erroneous belief that some how as was the case in the two previous "great wars" conus will be spared any pain. However, it is my belief that there can not possible be a limited nuclear exchange–one bomb will have everyone with the capacity using them, and even if the "elite" manage to survive in their extensive underground shelters, when they finally do have to come out, the idiots will have no idea at all as to how to survive in an alien world.

Anyway, hope it doesn't happen, but arrogance has caused more than it's share of trouble, and the neocons are nothing if not arrogant.

peterAUS , says: August 26, 2018 at 5:10 am GMT

Good article.

Especially:

.rabid russophobia is the order of the day .

..the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites ..

.The longer that list of idiotic accusations stretches, the bigger the risk of war becomes ..

I do place a bit of the blame for unhappy outcome on Kremlin , though.
Had it acted more assertively, and decidedly, maybe US elite wouldn't have been acting so recklessly.

Sharp and decisive intervention in Syria; overwhelming intervention in Ukraine.
And last but not least, a couple of missiles towards those two destroyers recently. With training warheads, calculate for just one, two tops, to make through, and make a hole.

"They" believe that whenever they push Kremlin will step back. As so far.
Can anyone point as to where is that "red line"? I can't. But I am sure there is somewhere.
And, it's highly likely we'll recognize it only when ICMBs start flying.
Much good it will do to all of us then.

Here we are.

[Aug 27, 2018] Empire Spymongering and Elite Conspiracy Practioners by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist agenda. ..."
"... Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars. The media plotters having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the public. ..."
Aug 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

The mass media and political leaders of the US have resorted to denouncing competitors and adversaries as spies engaged in criminal theft of vital political, economic and military know-how.

The spy-mania has spread every place and all the time, it has become an essential element in driving national criminal hearings, global economic warfare and military budgets.

In this paper we will analyze and discuss the use and abuse of spy-mongering by (1) identifying the accused countries which are targeted; (2) the instruments of the spy conspiracy; (3) the purpose of the 'spy attacks'.

Spies, Spies Everywhere: A Multi-Purpose Strategy

Washington's 'spy-strategy' resorts to multiple targets, focusing on different sectors of activities.

Russia has been accused of poisoning adversaries, using overseas operatives in England. The evidence is non-existent. The accusation revolves around an instant lethal poison which in fact did not lead to death.

No Russian operative was identified. The only 'evidence' was that Russia possessed the poison- as did the US and other countries. The events took place in England and the British government played a major role in pointing the finger toward Russia and in launching a global media campaign which was amplified in the US and in the EU.

The UK expelled Russian diplomats and threatened sanctions. The Trump regime picked up the cudgels, increasing economic sanctions and demanding that Russia 'confess' to its 'homicidal behavior'. The poison plot resonated with the Democratic Party campaign against Trump , accusing Russia of meddling in the Presidential election, on Trump's behalf. No evidence was presented. But the less the evidence, the longer the investigation and the wider the conspiratorial net; it now includes overseas business people, students and diplomats.

US conspiracy officials targeted China, accusing the Chinese government of stealing US technology, scientific research and patents. China's billion dollar "Belt and Road" agreement with over sixty countries was presented as a communist plot to dominate countries, grab their resources, generate debt dependency and to recruit overseas networks of covert operatives. In fact, China's plans were public, accepted by most of the US allies and membership was even offered to the US.

Iran was accused of plotting to establish overseas terrorist military operations in Yemen, Iraq and Syria – targeting the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. No evidence was ever presented. In fact, massive US and EU supplied arms and advisors to Saudi Arabia's overt terror bombing of Houthi-led Yemen cities and populations. Iran backed the Syrian government in opposition to the US backed armed mercenaries. Iranian advisers in Syria were bombed by Israel – and never retaliated.

The US policy elite resort to conspiratorial plots and spying depends heavily on the mass media to repeat and elaborate on the charges endlessly, depending on self-identified experts and ex-pats from the targeted country. In effect the media is the message. Media-state collaboration is reinforced by the application of sanctions -- the punishment proves guilt!

In the case of Russia, the conspirators demonize President Putin; he is 'guilty' because he was an ex-official of the police; he was accused of 'seizing' Crimea which voted to rejoin Russia. In other words, plots are linked to unrelated activity, personality disorders and to US self-inflicted defeats!

Labeling is another tool common to conspiracy plotters; China is a 'dictatorship' intent on taking over the world -- therefore, it could only defeat the US through spying and stealing secrets and assets from the US.

Iran is labelled a 'terrorist state' which allows the US to violate the international nuclear agreement and to support Israeli demands for economic sanctions. No evidence is ever presented that Iran invaded or terrorized any state.

The Political Strategy Behind Conspiracy Terrorists

There are several important motives for the US government to resort to conspiracy plots.

By accusing countries of crimes, it hopes that the accused will respond by revealing their inability or unwillingness to engage in the action falsely attributed to them. Pentagon plots put adversaries on the defensive – spending time and energy answering to the US agenda rather than pursuing and advancing their own.

For example, the US claims that China is stealing economic technology to promote its superiority, is designed to pressure China to downplay or modify its long-term plan for strategic growth. While China will not give general credence to US conspiracy practitioners, it has downplayed the slogans designed to motivate its scientists to "Make China Great'.

Likewise, the US conspiracy practitioners accusation that Iran is 'meddling' in Yemen and Syria is designed to distract world opinion from the US military support for Saudi Arabia's terror bombing in Yemen and Israel's missile attacks in Syria.

Plot accusations have had some effect in Syria. Russia has demanded or asked Iran to withdraw fifty miles from the Israeli border. Apparently Iran has lowered its support for Yemen.

Russia has been blanketed with unsubstantiated accusations of intervening in the Ukraine, which distracts attention from Washington's support for the mob-led coup.

The UK claim that Russia planted a deadly poison, was concocted in order to distract attention from the Brexit fiasco and Prime Minister May's effort to entice the US to sign a major trade agreement.

How Successful are Conspiratorial Politics?

The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist agenda.

Secondly, the conspiracy has had an impact on both political parties – especially the Democratic leadership, which has waged a political war accusing Trump of plotting with Russia, to defeat Clinton in the presidential elections. However, Democratic conspiracy advocates have sacrificed their popular electorate who are more interested in economic issues then in regime plots – and may lose to the Republicans in the fall 2018 Congressional elections.

Thirdly, the plot and spy line has some impact on the EU but not on their public. Moreover, the EU is more concerned with President Trump's trade war and made overtures to Russia.

Fourthly, China , Iran and Russia have moved closer economically in response to the conspiracy plots and trade wars.

Conclusion: The Perils of Power Grabbers

Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars. The media plotters having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the public.

Moreover, the conspiracy has not resulted in any basic shifts in the orientation of their adversaries, nor has it shaped the electoral agenda for the majority of US voters.

The conspiracy advocates have discredited themselves by the transparency of their fabrications and the flimsiness of their evidence. In the long-run, historians will provide a footnote on the bankruptcy of US foreign and domestic policy based on plots and conspiracies.

[Aug 27, 2018] The CIA is the armed wing of Washington's permanently governing technocratic party, in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party. For both the contol of MSM is the part of the agenda

Aug 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

MK-DELTABURKE , says: July 22, 2018 at 8:25 pm GMT

@Cagey Beast

Aspen Institute does make attempts at outreach, but they invariably cock it up by eliciting, recruiting, or suborning every single person they bring in. The shitheads even tried to do it to me. You would think they'd have a dossier saying I hate those cobags. Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in complete control.

Cagey Beast , says: July 22, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
@MK-DELTABURKE

Exactly.

Aspen Institute is CIA.

Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute. Or, to be more precise, the CIA is the armed wing of Washington's permanently governing technocratic party, in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party.

Poor Julian Assange is likely going to be in their hands not too long from now. The citizen of one Five Eyes country will be arrested by another and then sent off to the imperial metropole, to be kicked around like a political football. The rest of us Anglosphericals are expected to cheer or remain silent. Either is acceptable.

Halper , says: July 23, 2018 at 6:52 pm GMT

CIA is boosting the volume of its anti-Russian vilification because more and more CIA assets are getting flushed out. Stephan Halper is an obvious spook. Page is the corniest traitor since Lee Harvey Oswald.

https://dailystormer.name/is-carter-page-a-cia-spook/

Strzok has clearly got a dotted-line report to his real boss in CIA:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/22/a-review-of-the-doj-fbi-fisa-application-release/

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/fisa-fraud-by-obamas-doj-and-intel-community-by-publius-tacitus.html

Publius Tacitus is incorrect, though, in making a distinction between the obama administration and the intelligence community. Obama is a third-generation CIA spook he's a CIA spokesmodel, not a head of state (see Andrew Krieg's Presidential Puppetry.)

Daniel Rich , says: July 23, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT
@peterAUS

It's impossible to asses [correctly] who's influenced by what, but it seems that telling lies doesn't work that well any longer. You can find some numbers in the following article: Democracy Dies in Debt? US News Outlets Slashing Staff Left and Right -- Link to Sputnik.

Excerpt : "A Pew Research analysis on Monday found that more than a third of the US' largest newspapers and more than a fifth of its largest digital outlets experienced layoffs between January 2017 and April 2018."

Pancho Perico , says: July 23, 2018 at 10:27 pm GMT
@MK-DELTABURKE

The Aspen Institute is CIA, but the CIA is an organization created and controlled by the globalist conspirators at the Council on Foreign Relations, mostly the Rockefellers and other banksters.

skrik , says: August 1, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

But you cannot see that because you're focused on US cultural colonization or things you have seen in Hollywood films You compare yourself to the United States because it is a similar former British colony and white settler nation

...Since the CIA-sponsored coup of 1975, the country has been 'going to the dogs' at an increasing rate. The sheople glory under their 'Lucky Country' delusion, not even knowing its full import: Lucky not to be even partly aware. Yeah sure, the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs [= publicly financed broadcasters] try to revive 'the yellow peril' scare, but that's just standard 'Bernays haze' scare mongering, to keep the proles from thinking: Der, they [as peterAUS] didn't think. rgds

PS The great Aus-unwashed, as any 'Western' citizen, has zero choice; so-called 'Western democracy' allows for as good as zero 'citizen input.' The 'choice' of Trump should be put down to an aberration -- some 'clever-clogs' manipulators -- *not* Russians -- pulled off a coup. But as they used to say: "Better red than dead;" better Trump than HRC.

[Aug 26, 2018] Mueller's History of Cover-Ups

Notable quotes:
"... TIME magazine reported ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal reported ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | digwithin.net

Posted on April 8, 2018 by Kevin Ryan

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been in the news lately due to his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. After a 12-year stint leading the Bureau, the longest ever since J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller is now seen by many as an honest man serving the interest of the American public. However, that perception cannot be defended once one knows about Mueller's past.

What some people don't know about Mueller is that he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups. These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI investigations into the crimes of September 11 th , 2001. Today the public is beginning to realize that Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is a similar diversion.

Mueller's talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S. Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they didn't commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant -- mobster James "Whitey" Bulger." According to the Boston Globe , "Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset."

Mueller was then appointed as chief investigator of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 in Scotland. The account Mueller produced was a flimsy story that accused a Libyan named Megrahi of coordinating placement of a suitcase bomb that allegedly traveled unaccompanied through several airports to find its way to the doomed flight. Despite Mueller's persistent defense of this unbelievable tale, Megrahi was released from prison in 2009 and died three years later in Libya.

With the Pan Am 103 case, Mueller was covering up facts related to some of the of victims of the bombing -- a group of U.S. intelligence specialists led by Major Charles McKee of the Defense Intelligence Agency. McKee had gone to Beirut to find and rescue hostages and, while there, learned about CIA involvement in a drug smuggling operation run through an agency project called COREA. As TIME magazine reported , the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives "targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage-rescue team." This would prevent disclosure of what McKee's team had learned. That theory was also supported by the fact that the CIA showed up immediately at the scene of the crash, took McKee's briefcase, and returned it empty.

Mueller's diversions led to his leadership of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, putting him in charge of investigations regarding BCCI. When Mueller started in that role, members of Congress and the media were already critical of the government's approach to the BCCI affair. Mueller came into the picture telling the Washington Post that there was an "appearance of, one, foot-dragging; two, perhaps a cover-up." Later he denied the cover-up claim and the suggestion that the CIA may have collaborated with BCCI operatives.

But again, Mueller was simply brought in to accomplish the cover-up. The facts were that BCCI was used by the CIA to operate outside of the rule of law through funding of terrorists and other criminal operatives. The bank network was at the root of some of the greatest crimes against the public in the last 50 years, including the Savings & Loan scandal, the Iran-Contra affair, and the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Mueller was instrumental in obstructing the BCCI investigation led by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During this time, Justice Department prosecutors were instructed not to cooperate with Morgenthau. Describing Mueller's obstruction of Morgenthau, the Wall Street Journal reported that, "documents were withheld, and attempts were made to block other federal agencies from cooperating."

Describing Mueller's role in the BCCI cover-up more clearly, reporter Chris Floyd wrote :

"When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI's operations in the late Eighties, President George Herbert Walker Bush boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been unaccountably 'botched'–witnesses went missing, CIA records got 'lost,' Lower-ranking prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to 'lay off.' Most of the big BCCI players went unpunished or, like [Khalib bin] Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller, of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001–by George W. Bush."

Yes, in the summer of 2001, when the new Bush Administration suspected it would soon need a cover-up, Mueller was brought in for the job. Although suspect Louis Freeh was FBI Director in the lead-up to the crimes, Mueller knew enough to keep things under wraps. He also had some interesting ties to other 9/11 suspects like Rudy Giuliani , whose career paralleled Mueller's closely during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Under Mueller, the FBI began the whitewash of 9/11 immediately. Mueller himself lied repeatedly in the direct aftermath with respect to FBI knowledge of the accused hijackers. He claimed that the alleged hijackers left no paper trail , and suggested that they exercised "extraordinary secrecy" and "discipline never broke down." In fact, "ring leader" Mohamed Atta went to great lengths to draw attention to himself prior to the attacks. Moreover, the evidence the accused men supposedly left behind was obvious and implausibly convenient for the FBI.

Meanwhile, Mueller's FBI immediately seized control of the investigations at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA where United Flight 93 was destroyed. Under Mueller , leaders of the Bureau went on to arrest and intimidate witnesses, destroy or withhold evidence, and prevent any independent investigation. With Mueller in the lead, the FBI failed to cooperate with the government investigations into 9/11 and failed miserably to perform basic investigatory tasks. Instead, Mueller celebrated some of the most egregious pre-9/11 failures of the FBI by giving those involved promotions, awards, and cash bonuses.

As FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley later wrote with regard to 9/11, "Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general) presided over a cover-up." Kristen Breitweiser , one of the four 9/11 widows known as the "Jersey Girls," stated something similar:

"Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation."

Supporting Breitweiser's claims, public watchdog agency Judicial Watch emphasized Mueller's role in the cover-up.

"Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that the lies were approved by Mueller."

Mueller's FBI went on to "botch" the investigation into the October 2001 anthrax attacks. As expected, the result was a long series of inexplicable diversions that led nowhere. The anthrax attacks occurred at a time when Mueller himself was warning Americans that another 9/11 could occur at any time (despite his lack of interest in the first one). They also provided the emotional impetus for Americans and Congress to accept the Patriot Act, which had been written prior to 9/11. Exactly why Mueller's expertise was needed is not yet known but examining the evidence suggests that the anthrax attackers were the same people who planned 9/11.

With knowledge of Mueller's past, people can see that he is not in the news today to reveal important information about Russia and the Trump Administration. To the contrary, Mueller is in the news to divert attention away from important information and, most likely, to prevent the Trump Administration from being scrutinized in any real way.

[Aug 26, 2018] Techniques Used to Disrupt 9/11 Questioning

Notable quotes:
"... The Art of Being Right : 38 Ways to Win an Argument ..."
"... Popular Mechanics ..."
"... Air America ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | digwithin.net

June 24, 2018 by Kevin Ryan

In 2008, Harvard professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule proposed that the government should engage in "cognitive infiltration" of citizen groups that seek the truth about 9/11. The proposal was that government operatives, whether anonymous or otherwise, should infiltrate and disrupt the groups. They wrote, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action. "

The following year, this anti-Constitutional stance was rewarded when Sunstein was made director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement responded with detailed criticism.

Of course, the idea of infiltrating a grassroots action group, to disrupt and defame its members, was not new. The FBI program called COINTELPRO was a widely reported example after it was revealed in the early 1970s to have infiltrated citizen groups seeking civil rights and peace. After being revealed, COINTELPRO techniques continued at the FBI and elsewhere in government.

Since 9/11, journalists have noted that government infiltration of political groups is no longer a rare exception but is the norm . The goals of such infiltration are to destabilize and prevent citizen dissent by creating a negative public image for the target group and conflict within the group. Infiltration is easy when it comes to a grassroots movement like 9/11 Truth. That is, you cannot just claim to be a 9/11 Commission member or an employee of a government agency but anyone can say they are a truth seeker. The beauty of this for government operatives is that they can control both sides of the conversation.

To make a significant impact, however, an infiltrator needs to quickly move into a position as a leading voice for the movement. One way in which this was done, even before Sunstein's proposal, was through a social variant of the physical principle called the " gravitational assist ." The physical principle leverages the movement and gravitational pull of a moon or planet to slingshot a spacecraft into a higher velocity trajectory by moving the path of the spacecraft near the larger body. The social variant is when a brief association with a leading voice in a group lends someone credibility that they would otherwise not have.

Examples of the gravitational assist occurred when physicist Steven Jones made news in September 2005 for challenging the official account of the World Trade Center destruction. People wanted their photo taken with him and he was invited to speak at many events. Soon afterward, Jim Fetzer, previously unknown to 9/11 investigators, dramatically announced that he and Jones were starting a new "scholars" group to challenge the official account of 9/11. That association led to Fetzer discrediting Jones and others through association with absurd concepts like Star Wars beams and holograms at the WTC.

It was later learned that Fetzer was an expert on the use of disinformation yet he and his colleagues Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods went on to link 9/11 questioning with many preposterous ideas. They created nonsensical hypotheses and promoted them through mass emails targeting media representatives and others in order to present the 9/11 Truth Movement as a ludicrous spectacle.

When recently asked to help reveal more of what happened during that time, it occurred to me that people could benefit from learning the general techniques used to disrupt grassroots movements. Examined more closely, the techniques used by infiltrators or disruptors can be seen as expressions of commonly known rules of debate. Specifically, the rules are reflected in philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's sarcastic publication, The Art of Being Right : 38 Ways to Win an Argument . Here are a few examples of how these techniques were used to disrupt 9/11 questioning.

" The Extension " takes a proposal beyond its intended limits so that the extended proposal can be refuted and thereby make the original statement sound weaker. A 9/11 example took the question about whether an aircraft had actually hit the Pentagon and extended it to all other aspects of 9/11. Therefore if there was no plane at the Pentagon then there were no planes at all, and no alleged hijackers, and so on.

" The Homonymy " is a misuse of a proposition through use of similar words. The government agency NIST utilized this method effectively by replacing words in its reports with weaker homonyms, making it easier for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC to sound more plausible. Therefore fireproofing became "insulation" and joists became "trusses."

Using the " Postulate What Has to Be Proved " rule, 9/11 disruptors presented and then destroyed their own straw man arguments. That is, they first framed the questions in simplified, diverting ways and then refuted those "straw man" frames. This was the go to technique of the "debunkers" at Popular Mechanics .

The method of " Make Your Opponent Angry " was frequently used. Through the years, infiltrators often resorted to baseless accusations, threats, and absurd insinuations. Luckily, this could be easily spotted.

In the " Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition " technique, the disruptor frames the issue as two very distinct options. This is the "split screen" method that FOX News used so well over may years to move national discussions toward extreme views. With 9/11, it was again most well demonstrated by arguments over the Pentagon in which everyone was either a "planer" or a "no-planer." All other questioning about the Pentagon event was forsaken as a result of this mindless dichotomy.

Using " Arguments Ad Hominem ," Schopenhauer described how the opponent could be shown to be inconsistent and therefore untrustworthy. With 9/11 questioning, disruptors often attacked the person ( ad hominem ) rather than the argument itself.

Fetzer helped the government deflect questions by using the " Make Him Exaggerate His Statement " technique in which "when you refute this exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had also refuted his original statement." In the short time that he was in the 9/11 limelight, Fetzer would begin every interview with the claim that my former company UL had "certified the steel used in the World Trade center to 2000 degrees for six hours." Despite being an incorrect exaggeration, Fetzer continued to use it even after that fact was made clear to him. Ultimately this allowed the government agency NIST to refute Fetzer's exaggerated claim, quoting it word for word, rather than address true questions about UL's certification of the WTC steel components.

In the " Find One Instance to the Contrary " method, the disruptor simply finds one example of when a proposition was not met. For example, a disruptor would argue that because the WTC towers were destroyed from the top down, they could not be demolitions because all demolitions occur from the bottom up. This was the argument from "skeptic" Michael Shermer when I debated him on Air America radio in 2007. In order to support his contention, Shermer casually claimed to have watched thousands of demolition videos during the 2-minute radio break. Unfortunately for him, a top-down demolition was posted on a leading 9/11 truth website which I referred to at the time.

With the " Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category " technique, 9/11 questioning was frequently conflated with positions that were seen as hateful or stupid. This led to some members of the media lumping "truthers" in with "birthers," holocaust deniers, and those who question the moon landings.

In retrospect, it is comforting to know that so much effort at disruption was needed to prevent 9/11 questions from taking over the national discussion. It means that many people were informed to some degree and that citizen groups working for the truth were seen as a threat to a corrupt system. Many people are now aware that terrorism events are not as simple as the government and mainstream media portray them.

People need to be able to recognize infiltration of grassroots movements because the system will not change on its own. It's likely that only a catastrophic and catalyzing realization on the part of a large segment of society will lead to any real change and recognizing the techniques of disruption could help achieve that realization. Posted in 9/11 , Terrorism | Tagged Cass Sunstein , Disruption , Infiltration | 8 Comments

  1. geeyp says: June 25, 2018 at 4:55 am

    Sunstein and his wife Samantha Powers were quite the power couple weren't they? Oh yes, they are what we all strive for in our own lives here in America. Perfect fit for the last president's adminis tration. The CIA runs us all ragged and we suffer and pay hard times for it, pay our inheritance towards them, and feel guilty for not having more success in our own lives. I know that twinge hits me a little now and then. J. F. does give good talk and spins a good tale, although slightly unfocused. Not as dangerous as a Cass Sunstein, though. Punishment for the corruption of the previous two (16 years, though 1st one never officially elected, got in 'cause otherwise would hurt his feelings ) administrations could not happen soon enough. Reply

  2. geeyp says: June 25, 2018 at 5:07 am

    I want to add to my post that this piece is a great reminder, Kevin, of these characters from our recent past. Never forget the ongoing COINTELPRO operation wherever you find yourselves, people. Just like with the CIA's "conspiracy theory" JFK coverups, these people hand it down to the next generation of paid disinformation agents. I have spent my life explaining to anyone and their children the truths of JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11 situations, and will until the day I die. Thanks again, Kevin, you do great work! Reply

  3. Bruce Terrence says: June 28, 2018 at 6:45 am

    So brilliant, so important and with points so obvious once the great mind of a great man, Kevin Ryan, makes it so clear. Thank you. Reply

  4. Ken Gerasimos says: June 28, 2018 at 7:34 pm

    How about BASIC PHYSICS? Jet fuel burns up at what temp? And steel becomes molten at about 1000 degrees hotter? Nano Thermite found at the site? And to go right along with that . . . the news broadcasts for a year that it was still too hot to get near it – at ground zero. Yeah . . . Okay. .live in fear now and remove freedoms. I think we got the jist of this game. Reply

  5. tmspell says: July 2, 2018 at 10:36 am

    Yes Kevin Thanks for working. "Dust" is what they called it and still call it today in the museum BUT it was and is all that powder ie 40,000 cubic yards of concrete broken and much of it pulverized (along with lots of other stuff) all in less than 15 seconds. Peace Tom

[Aug 26, 2018] Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment by Diana Johnstone

Notable quotes:
"... The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are ready to leap off the cliff. ..."
"... For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of institutional power – by creation of a myth ..."
"... So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else? ..."
"... In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon! ..."
"... The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility – and perhaps this one too. ..."
"... This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction. ..."
"... In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery you have to be alive. ..."
"... Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real base of support. ..."
"... It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot footsoldiers, screaming in mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them. ..."
"... Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990 describes how the USA weapons industry skillfully prevents that spending on useless weapons deminishes. The history of the later Roman empire, the army in control. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are ready to leap off the cliff.

For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.

Donald Trump was elected by Russia ?

On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn't need to try to "undermine our democracy". It would mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be knocked over by a tweet.

Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating millions of Americans as "deplorables" because they didn't fit into her identity politics constituencies.

The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi, the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus, perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.

When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those "revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.

So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.

But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of accusations of "treason" when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to normalize relations with Russia.

This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. They have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following U.S. whims in the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign intervention units of NATO under U.S. command. Having not thought seriously about the implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to themselves.

The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.

Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?

But for the mainstream media, "the story" at the Helsinki summit, even the only story, was Trump's reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in advance.

Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the "big stories" on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few exceptions. To get the job, one must have important "sources", meaning government spokesmen who are willing to tell you what "the story" is, often without being identified. Once they know what "the story" is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: "The President has betrayed our great country to the Russian enemy. Treason!"

This demented chorus on "Russian hacking" prevented mainstream media from even doing their job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For example, "the Moon of Alabama" site offers an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy , which sounds infinitely more plausible than "the story". In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a reverse version of Kissinger's strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump's policy, unlike the caterwauling we've been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.

Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it's got to be a zero sum game, winner take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.

They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project, no strategy. Just hate Trump.

He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been assassinated yet.

It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home for failing to chide the American president for U.S. violations of human rights in Guantanamo, murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless countries by government-financed "non-governmental organizations" (the National Endowment of Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the world's greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic Russians know how to be polite.

Still, if Trump actually makes a "deal", there may be losers – neither the U.S. nor Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else's expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.

Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:

"We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly."

In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have much choice.

On another subject, Trump said that "our militaries" get along with the Russians "better than our politicians". This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.

In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon!

The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility – and perhaps this one too.

"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world" Trump declared "I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."

That is more than his political enemies can claim.

exiled off mainstreet , says: July 20, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT

This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction.

AnonFromTN , says: July 22, 2018 at 3:30 am GMT

In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery you have to be alive. If only they die, it would be a great service to the humanity. Unfortunately, the way things go, they might take us all with them.

Cyrano , says: July 22, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT

This mass hysteria over a country hostile to both democracy and gay rights (it's hard to tell which one is worse) has been seen in the west before. It's very reminiscent of the lead-up to Iraq war in 2003. I mean what's next? Are they gonna accuse Russia of having WMD's too?

They are pretty good at providing false evidence of WMD's, I wouldn't be surprised if they stage another presentation of evidence of Russian WMD's at UN, complete with satellite images of mobile trucks equipped with Uranium enrichment technology and all that.

That Nikki Halley can be quite persuasive, you know. I just hope that the world doesn't buy that BS again. Russia having WMD's? That's preposterous. They tricked us the last time, I hope that the people have learned their lesson – not to trust them anymore.

Cagey Beast , says: July 22, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT

Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos .

On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents "populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations.

Anonymous , [115] Disclaimer says: July 22, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT

OT

Diana Johnstone is not alone. Others on the alt-Left are starting to wake up, too. This is Joaquín Flores:

People are seeing through dishonesty, and the old language traps are used up and done for. If reconquista is the goal, then we need to have an honest conversation about that. If there's a Latino nation with self determination in the south-west US, or rights 'back' to the south-west US, then let's speak of it in such terms. Because then we'd be looking at a Euro-American nation also. Now of course there's issues of interpenetrated peoples, and identities we carry in our minds in diverse urban centers. But the point here is that we have to have an honest discourse, and stop hiding reconquista sentiments under the rubric of 'human rights'. Because European-Americans don't have right of return to Europe, so the left is promoting what will ultimately be a race war, full scale, if they don't chill the fuck out and back off this disingenuous approach to policy-wonkism on immigration.

The paradigmatic question today is, how is wealth made, and where does wealth come from? What is the balance of trade and debts, and how is that is no longer manageable? The US empire and NATO is no longer manageable. Trump is unwinding NATO. That can't be a bad thing.

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/07/explaining-trump-to-socialist-liberals-flores/

Fort Russ News is really turning out to be a leading voice of the Third Way movement.

Daniel Rich , says: July 23, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT

Q: " the cautious Russians "

R: I see it this way: " the Russians, who've learned their lessons after first fully trusting their partners "

TG , says: July 23, 2018 at 4:56 am GMT

I hear you, and I sympathize, but this is not mass dementia. The oligarchy that runs the United States was worried that Donald Trump might actually (!!) take some consideration for the national interest of the people of the United States of America. That will never do.

This is not irrational. The screaming, the hysteria, this is the utterly rational, breathtakingly brutal reaction of a ruling elite that has the moral sense of a reptile. And it's working. All of Trump's campaign promises to stop wasting trillions on pointless winless foreign wars of choice, and instead spend that on our own country? Gone. And so much else besides.

It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot footsoldiers, screaming in mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:04 am GMT

In my view, at the moment the deed is done. The president signed onto the report acknowledged the he accepts the report has even gone as far to say, he blames Pres. Putin

Another backtrack, just muddies the waters, and mat be acceptable because no one wants to accept the real consequences of a president who has repudiated the one state president he most desired to make a deal with -- the jig is up.

Whether kabuki theater or real gamesmanship –

A threshold has been crossed and uncrossing it is going to be tricky and in my further humiliation for the wh. The analysis here mattered before the president agreed with the report. But when he did, this analysis, becomes moot. Having a chit chat about de-escalating nuclear tensions is quaint in light of the president acknowledging that russia has in fact undermined the US democratic process. This is a serious charge and no amount of changing the subject, crying foul, or pretending it was all a big misunderstanding is going to change that.

I think it would have been prudent for the president to hold fire in Helsinki and read the report and then responded . He did make any of those choices. It matters not how exposed the establishment in wanton eagerness to have their way, wh has embraced the matter. it is on record and . . . oh well. I see merit in maintaining his original position of disbelief -- however, the president did a complete about face -- and there is no question of that or the implications.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:46 am GMT

Hillary lost the election when she could not walk. she lost a shoe, she was shown in the van, and shoe was thrown after her. And that was arranged by Russians.

peterAUS , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:48 am GMT
@TG

Agree.

Having a title "Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment" and approaching this effort as "mass insanity","demented chorus" etc. is simply delusional. They know exactly what they are doing and, it appears, they are doing it well. The are able to create their own reality.

What puzzles me a bit isn't "them" or their servants (media etc.). It's people in general. They appear to be buying that manufactured reality with ease. In this era of instant communications it's .sobering.

This constant shitting on "them" and their servants is fine and dandy but feels as just a feel good exercise.
Perhaps some effort could be spared in trying to analyze and explain common people approach to all this. The buying, hook and sinker, that manufacture.

Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how false all that is. And, yet, here we are. The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online can't, for SOME reason, figure all that out.

Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever. Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general.

Not holding my breath.

jilles dykstra , says: July 23, 2018 at 7:30 am GMT

In my opinion, no dementia. Too many careers and institutions are built on continuing hostility towards Russia.

First ECB President Duisenberg's ph d thesis had as title 'The economic consequences of peace', something like that, his conclusion was that demilitarisation was possible economically, when controlled sensibly. Did anyone read 'The Iron Mountain Report', I never quite knew what to make of it, but it also is about if demilitarisation is possible.

Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990 describes how the USA weapons industry skillfully prevents that spending on useless weapons deminishes. The history of the later Roman empire, the army in control.

Anon , [122] Disclaimer says: July 23, 2018 at 8:07 am GMT
@Daniel Rich

The Russians are by nature cautious. They are a conglomerate of individuals, many of whom remember times when they would be sent by communist tyrants to a gulag for Wrongthink. Of course they're cautious.

Daniel Rich , says: July 23, 2018 at 8:13 am GMT

H.E. Mr. Putin clearly knows what the USA/West is about – Link to Youtube [03:42]

nagra , says: July 23, 2018 at 8:34 am GMT

How Hillary Clinton could even run for presidency after the murder of Moammer Gaddafi and Libya destruction, in any decent civilisation and society. That's planetary shame and the most important question, not DNC hack or anything else, which just trace in wrong direction.

So, Trump should grow some balls and arrest not just her but Barack Obama as well on the same charges, as war criminals as they are, and prove that he really deserves to be trusted. And sacrifice himself in the process if needed as that would do any honest true US president, and he knew what to expect from such position from the start.

It's not TV reality show, as still it is. All he cares about is his ego and popularity, and he is loosing both.

Israel lobby finally see that they put their money in the wrong bank. I intend to believe more that West, namely USA and UK the most, keeps them more hostage in uncertainty for decades than in some Jewish conspiracy.

Also, I also believe that only Russia can guaranty Israel security and peace in the region.

Sean , says: July 23, 2018 at 10:12 am GMT

In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have much choice.

Saudi Arabia spent 40 billion dollars helping Saddam's Iraq in its war against Iran, the cost of US efforts in the Syria civil war have largely been met by the Saudis. The coming attack on Iran will be as much to please the Saudis as to lock Israel into West Bank Arab expulsion mode. The Israel Lobby will is not pushing Donald Trump, they are playing catch up with him. Trump has already shown with the Jerusalem recognition that he is encouraging Israel in unilateral courses of action.

Cagey Beast , says: July 23, 2018 at 10:42 am GMT
@TG

No, I agree with the assessment in this article and its title: the establishment is dangerously detached from reality right now. Our stagnant and locked-down political culture in the West allowed the "elite" to develop a false sense of security and and certainty. They thought they had things pretty much figured out a few years ago but now they're genuinely panicked.

yurivku , says: July 23, 2018 at 10:43 am GMT

Looking to this circus from Russia, to those insane speaches, insulting caricatures in MSM, I understand the huge amount of rotteness of Western society, mainly its high top part, but not only. Even here in comments (not in this particularly article) the percentage of trolls and brainwashed idiots exceeds all I could've imagined. So I stopped writing here – no sense, I believe that something can change only after the dramatic changes in US/West society and that is possible only after a big war/revolution.
So, I'm afraid our future is vague

Cagey Beast , says: July 23, 2018 at 11:06 am GMT
@yurivku

I think you are right. Over the last four years I have been amazed again and again at how broken the political culture of the West has become. It's only outsiders and newcomers to politics who give me hope. I'm thinking of people like Trump or the new governments in Italy and Austria.

lavoisier , says: Website July 23, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@peterAUS

Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how false all that is. And, yet, here we are. The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online can't, for SOME reason, figure all that out.

Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever. Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general. Not holding my breath.

I fully agree with this sentiment. The only reason the evil bastards who control our society can get away with their treachery is because most of the American people are out to lunch on the most important issues of our time. If the sheeple were to take responsibility to inform themselves of what is happening today they would be able to see the lies they are being constantly exposed to as just that–lies. And then, they could put down the beer and turn off the damn sports channel and get angry at what has happened to their country.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for ignorant people to remain ignorant.

skrik , says: July 23, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general

Ma-a-ate! Let me give you a quick refresher on "1984:"

1st, the inner party – that's my ccc @ 25.

2nd, the outer party – that's Ike's MI-complex, which I expand to:

The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption.

a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches

add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies

We can add the -plexes to their main 'allied criminal regimes' and get FUKUSIL.

3rd, the proles in the book are the proles in real life.

4th, 'hate sessions' are mediated by the US/Z-MMH = corrupt&venal Media (aka press, radio + TV, incl. PFBCs = publicly financed broadcasters), Madison Ave., Hollywood etc..

5th, as well as "All politicians lie!" [thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward], most politicians are a) ccc-puppets and b) traitors to us, we the people and our countries.

Fazit: Even if most proles really were switched-on = fully and fairly informed, their votes would still mean nothing since there is a disconnect [my 5th.] Unless you are thinking 'pitch-forks and tumbrels,' there's nothing effective that we, the people can do. "1984″ is pretty-well exactly our reality, and here is a bit of proof:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who *manipulate* this unseen mechanism of society *constitute an invisible government* which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

There is a lie in there, surrounding "must cooperate" – it's simply not true – but worse, worst: " an invisible government ." The latter is what is termed 'deep state' tyranny; the foul, un-elected and criminal puppet-string manipulators (part of the 1%) – again, the ccc.

The lie-cloud they choke the sheople's minds with is deliberately 'spiced' with scientifically designed psychological propaganda, and that's what does the majority of dumbing-down damage.

Ta ra! The Bernays haze. Choke on that.

PS Q: Is there any hope at all? A: Apart from hope being hopeless policy, there *could* be a solution, whereby a big enough proportion of the 1%, a decent portion [should such a thing exist] could call a halt to the ccc and its murder-most-foul depredations.

MK-DELTABURKE , says: July 23, 2018 at 12:40 pm GMT
@Cagey Beast

Yup. Furthermore, CIA is organized crime and organized crime is CIA. CIA recruits and runs agents in favored criminal syndicates in every illicit trade: drugs, child sexual trafficking, arms, fraud, bustouts, extortion, money laundering. Their purpose is not to interdict the trade but to control it. CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up their budget for unauthorized clandestine operations, like killing JFK. CIA protects its criminal proteges with their chartered impunity. They call off law enforcement with the magic words national security or 'sources and methods.' If the plan gets exposed, CIA's criminal cutouts insulate the agency from exposure.

RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime until CIA whacked him. That's why his book was made to sink without a ripple.

https://popularresistance.org/the-mass-media-will-not-review-rfk-jr-s-book-why/

Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover illegal moles are embedded in our own government. Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who report to CIA handlers without the other agency's knowledge.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/ST.html

Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power.

Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're enough to destabilize the CIA Reich that has ruled America since 1949.

Giuseppe , says: July 23, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT

This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations.

They are CIA assets who do what they're told.

Z-man , says: July 23, 2018 at 1:31 pm GMT

In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon!

Disgusting, in the case of Izruel, but true.

The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility – and perhaps this one too.

Again NEOCONS .

Dagon Shield , says: July 23, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT

Don't know if the Cabal controls the Homeland but it certainly seems to exert a great deal of its influence and it also becomes apparent that the Crowd has a long history with the Russians as well thus given that, the whole thing appears to be a three ring circus created to avoid being, in all honesty, noticed by the dumbed down bozos who are shouting loudest in the bleachers in time it won't amount to a bag of beans!

AnonFromTN , says: July 23, 2018 at 2:37 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

I wonder, were her "speaking fees" from AIPAC and Saudis also arranged by the Russians? Those pesky Russians are everywhere, like Christian God. Did you check under your bed lately?

AnonFromTN , says: July 23, 2018 at 3:09 pm GMT
@Gordon Pratt

I think you are mistaken trying to rationalize the behavior of the political class and their puppet masters. I believe the real driver are not antidepressants, but an obscene greed, which is so blinding that it made MIC profiteers forget that to enjoy the fruits of their thievery they have to be alive.

Finnbar McDougal , says: July 23, 2018 at 3:27 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Thank you, Michael, for your very interesting perspective. Considering all the factors, it appears most likely that Trump's apparent groveling was simply the deference an underdeveloped country like the US owes to a strategically-invulnerable great power with superior governance.

Trump probably concluded that he and America have much to learn from Russia's categorically superior human rights performance in all the most comprehensive categories,

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

And from Russia's progressive compliance with a broad range of human rights commitments,

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/ENACARegion/Pages/RUIndex.aspx

especially in comparison with US bad-faith evasion of a disgracefully derelict subset of the core conventions, and failures prompting multiple urgent follow-on inquiries:

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/LACRegion/Pages/USIndex.aspx

The summit was a mission civilizatrice for Russia. Trump doubtless knows that the whole world has seen the facts exhaustively documented above by preeminent human rights experts and independent civil society organizations. A bit of humility on Trump's part might help to restore lost US world standing.

Which of the treaty bodies' conclusions and recommendation do you think would do most to mitigate the international disgrace of the USA?

anonymous , [339] Disclaimer says: July 23, 2018 at 3:49 pm GMT

The psychology of the mass of Americans with it's self-righteousness and self-centerdness is really amazing. Just in the last seventeen years the US has invaded or otherwise attacked numerous countries and has caused millions of people to die, become miserable refugees, become orphans and all other manner of evil. Not least of all has been it's creation and patronage of ISIS, one of the most heinous groups in history. Yet Americans have this massive blind spot to the war criminality of all this that their country has committed against the peace of the world. Instead they're being stampeded into some irrational Russia-phobia. It's the US that's been on the march everywhere, labeling those countries that resist it's aggression as being aggressors for being willing to defend themselves. It's all upside-down.

Anonymous , [306] Disclaimer says: July 23, 2018 at 4:51 pm GMT
@follyofwar

(BTW, is this scenario really so far-fetched? After all, Russia did nothing but complain to the UN when the US angels of death destroyed both Iraq and Libya. Could not the same fate soon await Iran?)

You're omitting Syria. It should be pretty obvious that the Russians and the Chinese aren't going to sit back and allow Uncle Scam to destroy Iran when they wouldn't allow it to happen to a much less important country like Syria.

Sofocles , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT

QUOS VULT IUPITER PERDERE DEMENTAT PRIUS

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad"

obviously the Gods want to destroy the so called western man

Jeff Davis , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMT
@Lauri Törni

Feel free to attack me.

TDS is a convenient shorthand for this form of disconnect from reality. That said it is absolutely fascinating to see and puzzle over this geopolitical tectonic event. The old narrative is crumbling, with the result that people like Lauri are fighting desperately to preserve their "sanity", dependent as it is on their tribal submission to the old order and its old narrative (its timeworn lies).

"Science advances one funeral at a time." Max Planck

By which he means that people persist in believing in those "truths" (their belief system) they have held for a lifetime. Only when they die out will a new, revised belief system replaced the old. The same in geopolitics as in science.

Jeff Davis , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT
@Tulips

"Malefactors of great wealth."

jilles dykstra , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Assad still is there. The USA was unable to remove Assad, how would they destroy Iran ? The USA has no idea of what Iran built deep in the rocks. Trump screaming in capitals on Twitter against Iran, sign of weakness, in my opinion.

Simple Pseudonym , says: July 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT

American dementia is not new. It is current but after the false flags of almost all of our (US) wars going back as far as the Barbary Pirates, Americans have thrived on being the good guys in an evil world. We are SO GOOD, and the world thinks we are perfect and want to be part of US so much, that any other thought is treasonous.

The fact that getting along with Russia is necessary to NOT create armageddon, is irrelevant to the typical citizen because no matter how wrong, we are blessed and perfect in the eyes of the gawd we pretend to believe in.

So, same old same old

seeing-thru , says: July 23, 2018 at 8:07 pm GMT
@Jeff Davis

Now, now, don't underestimate the Donald! The man has razor sharp brains, is an accomplished mover/rouser of people, and I imagine has oodles of strategic abilities. Look at the facts, hard facts, not at perceptions. No man made tons of legitimate, legal money without possessing some qualities of genius. Never in US history has an outsider come in, overturned the political establishment, taken on the whole pack of media-hyenas, won the election capitalising on the weakness of all his opponents, then tried to do what he said he would do. Who could have imagined that seemingly simple-minded tweets, in simple vocabulary, would be used to beat down the collective might of the massed media? His tweets scored over their collective shrieks and howls! The power of simplicity, no?

This guy is complex, clever, and a very astute strategist. He puts on the rude, crude and buffoonish show to get peoples' attention – and he did get that, did he not? That is called strategy and real smarts.

Yurivku , says: July 24, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@RobinG

UWell, we here in Russia know all this (about Browder) for quite a time. What new did you find? It's just one story in long list of those written and spoken for western idiots like Scripals, MH17, chemicals in Syria and WMD in Iraq, Russian meddling in f-n US elections and so on. Eat it all dummies.

[Aug 26, 2018] The Union of Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats

Notable quotes:
"... It began in 2016, when neconservative war criminals formed an alliance with warmongering Democrats. ..."
"... @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal ..."
"... @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal ..."
"... @lotlizard ..."
"... @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

The Union of Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats

d by gjohnsit on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 4:42pm

It began in 2016, when neconservative war criminals formed an alliance with warmongering Democrats.

Illustrative of their emerging alliance, as Glenn Greenwald reports, is yet another Beltway foreign policy initiative: the Alliance for Securing Democracy....The Alliance's advisory council includes Jake Sullivan, Clinton's foreign policy adviser, and Mike Morell, acting CIA director under Obama. They sit comfortably with Kristol, Mike Chertoff, homeland security secretary under Bush, and hawkish former Republican congressman Mike Rogers. With a record of catastrophic foreign policy fiascoes, the establishment comes together to strike back.

It turns out that this was only the beginning.
The common enemy here was Russia, and one method of unity is the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI) .

A group of neocon heartthrobs have banded together with an eclectic array of Russiagaters to form a visionary organization committed to protecting Western democracy....
Celebrated war cheerleader Max Boot, who serves on RDI's board of directors, announced the creation of this highly original organization in a Washington Post op-ed.
... Unlike the dozens of other well-financed bastions of status-quo thinking, RDI aims to "unite both the center-left and center-right" by promoting "liberty, democracy and sanity in an age of discord."

Also on RDI's board of directors is WaPost writer Anne Applebaum who once wrote an op-ed entitled "Should We Assassinate Saddam?"
The organization's president, Richard Hurowitz, is a member of the warmongering Council on Foreign Relations.

In 2018 a new alliance formed, this time between neoconservatives and neoliberals .

For several months, an alliance has been forming between the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP). It's the sort of kumbaya not witnessed since wartime Washington a decade ago.

A press release from CAP on May 10 blares: "CAP and AEI Team up to Defend Democracy and Transatlantic Partnership." The same joyous tidings accompanied a public statement issued by AEI on July 31, which stressed that the alliance was meant to resist "the populist assault on the transatlantic community" for the purpose of "defending democracy."

It's hard to tell what they mean when they say "democracy", but it's virtually certain that it isn't in the dictionary.
There's something pathetic and ironic about neconservatives and neoliberals joining forces to defend "democracy" when they are the biggest threats to democracy.
Now we have mainstream conservatives openly cheering for the Democrats in November.

Nor is Boot alone among neocon Never-Trumpers. Syndicated columnist George Will, who left the GOP after the election of Trump, is also agitating for a Democratic congressional takeover...

Another former Republican, MSNBC commentator and onetime congressman Joe Scarborough (also a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations), has set the standard for anti-Trump animus. His colleague at MSNBC, former GOP congressman and McCain presidential campaign chair Steve Schmidt, is yet another fiery Trump detractor rooting for the Dems.

This union of evil and evil comes from the Dems as well.
For instance, liberals new found love of warmonger John McCain .

Forty-four percent of Republicans surveyed in the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Wednesday hold a negative view of McCain, while only 35 percent have a positive view of him. Meanwhile, 52 percent of Democrats surveyed now see him in a positive light.

When did so many liberals become worthless, pieces of shit?

The press and liberal groups gushed, and hundreds of headlines approvingly quoted the former president. "Why you should listen when George W. Bush defends the media," declared a headline at the Washington Post. "George W Bush: a welcome return," raved the Guardian, which went so far as to call him a "paragon of virtue." The leftist site ThinkProgress ran a blog post titled "George W. Bush defends the Constitution to rebuke Trump."

"Paragon of virtue"? Has everyone forgotten that he's a war criminal?

Rick Hasen
tted by gjohnsit on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 4:47pm
The Dems new hero

all is forgiven

The White House said that Brennan used his security clearance to "sow division and chaos," and lend a sheen of credibility to his public criticisms of the president. The White House looked into revoking Brennan's clearance after he accused Trump of "treason" for meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last month.

Straight away, Democrats jumped in to defend Brennan's character and to blast Trump for pulling his clearance. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that "In adding John Brennan to his enemies list, Trump demonstrates again how deeply insecure and vindictive he is."

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Virginia) called the revocation "the weak, paranoid, authoritarian behavior of a dictator."
...
Brennan's thesaurus-heavy Tweets and self-righteous grandstanding have made him a hero to the anti-Trump #resistance. However, while Democrats are falling over themselves to pat the former career spy on the back, there was a time when Brennan spied on Democratic lawmakers compiling a report into his agency's use of torture tactics – and got away with it.

In 2014, as the Senate Intelligence Committee was compiling a lengthy report into the CIA's use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' at its secret prisons, chair Dianne Feinstein (D-California) accused Brennan's agency of secretly monitoring the committee's computers and removing sensitive documents.

After initially denying any wrongdoing and rejecting Feinstein's "spurious allegations," Brennan quietly apologized to lawmakers after an internal review proved the senator right.

Despite being caught red-handed spying on his overseers, the Obama administration Department of Justice declined to press charges against Brennan, and he remained in charge of the CIA.

tted by WoodsDweller on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 5:20pm
These jokers wouldn't know "The Left"...

...if it bit them on their fat, hairy asses. The Left starts with those three little words that make my heart beat faster ... "Nationalize the Banks". It doesn't start with "microscopically left of the extreme radical far right". The rich old lady who says "impeachment is off the table" and "we're capitalist and that's that" isn't the freaking Left.

tted by Lily O Lady on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 6:42pm
Your second link leads to The New American

published by the John Birch Society. The Koch's and their evil father are Birchers. I'm kinda creeped out.

tted by Snode on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 6:51pm
That's bipartisanship at it's finest.

and they do it out in the open, and take pride in it. They are protecting democracy, from us. Like the economy, education, health care, democracy is reserved for the 1%. Too dangerous to leave it to us.

tted by Not Henry Kissinger on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 7:26pm
If George Will is for it...

George Will, who left the GOP after the election of Trump, is also agitating for a Democratic congressional takeover...

then I'm against it.

After all, why break a habit of a lifetime?

tted by karl pearson on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 7:34pm
Match made in hell

IMO, neoliberalism and neoconservatism are dependent on each other. How can neoliberal policies be spread around the world without using neoconservative policies? That is why Bush can be popular with the "left". When I read this essay, this song came to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZUrxG8APyiI

tted by dkmich on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 7:40pm
Trump implodes, GOP loses big in 2018

crazy tea party gets ambushed and loses control, establishment neolibs and neocons come into power en masse, all is well.

tted by k9disc on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 11:37pm
tted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 12:18pm
This has been in the works for a long time.

A guy on DKos, AntonBursch, once told me he couldn't wait till they "purged all the Greens (which I think meant us) out of the Democratic party, so we can make an alliance with the center-right."

Not really sure what anyone means by "center," anymore; it appears to have something to do with money.

As Alan Grayson once said, "So that's what passes for centrist these days."

itted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 12:18pm
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Interestingly, one could

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Interestingly, one could interpret the illegal changing of people's registration data as exactly that: a purge.

mitted by lotlizard on Sun, 08/26/2018 - 1:09am
That to me is the most unforgivable thing Bernie did

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
People were scrimping and saving and skimping on essentials for themselves and their loved ones in order to come up with multiples of $27 to donate to Bernie's campaign, but he couldn't be bothered to defend his own supporters' right to be registered correctly and vote in a fair primary.

Instead he went with the very cabal that had cheated him, and them.

bmitted by mimi on Sun, 08/26/2018 - 2:20am
he never had clear foreign policies outlined

@lotlizard
which I found 'telling'. I think his time is coming to an end.

itted by mimi on Sun, 08/26/2018 - 2:24am
uh, oh, even I remember the AntonBursch guy ...

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
may be it was a sign of 'open mindedness' and 'non-partisanism' over there /s

[Aug 26, 2018] Despite Comey Assurances, Vast Bulk of Weiner Laptop Emails Were Never Examined

Amazing level of corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."
"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."
"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."
"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."
"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."
"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."
"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."
"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."
"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."
"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."
"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."
"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."
"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."
"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."
"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."
"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."
"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."
"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."
"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."
"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."
"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."
"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."
"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."
"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."
"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | www.realclearinvestigations.com

When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

James Comey, above. Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick

At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the "hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.

Comey later told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen. Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the remaining material.

But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.

In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.

"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.

Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive .

The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.

Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.

One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.

Timeline: How the FBI Ignored Hundreds of Thousands of Clinton Emails

RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel, along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports. Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest lawyers.

If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for this article said.

"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election."

Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the search.

The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands of emails sought by investigators.

Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them, according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.

Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.

Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton: "Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?"

What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.

However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information.

Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence on the laptop.

The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.

The Background

In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her 2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected manner.

By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.

That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal." Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21, 2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server, bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal statute.

Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen

One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this case."

Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility, including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the FBI interviewed her.

Fast-forward to September 2016.

FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.

On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.

The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com.

The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some 60,000 originally reported by Clinton.

The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain" immediately.

The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney, was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of this."

(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)

McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text messages show.

Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the time.")

FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary.

By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report. Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get somebody elected here in the United States?"

Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.

The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male - John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.

The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really, really horrible."

Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a search and to inform Congress about the discovery.

By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."

Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.

The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search warrant.

Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to reopening email case.

"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on the Clinton investigation.

Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.

"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."

Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the election."

He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.

The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.

Fearing Leaks

Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and notify Congress.

FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October surprise" on Fox News.

Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.

During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks." McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."

Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election.

"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it," then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak this."

Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.

But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation.

Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant emails.

'Giant Nothing-Burger'

Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."

That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had "a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential," according to the IG report.

Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only one.

Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman, who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack Obama's presidential campaigns.)

His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."

In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping," or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.

The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either. They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.

For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.

"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to wrap up her email investigation.)

The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."

At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails "may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the pile.

A Hurried, Constrained Search

Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.

Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit. By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in the FBI system.

(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton.)

The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it would find on the laptop.

"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period," Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search warrant request was "too narrow."

That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted, because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of emails.

Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well.

Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term.

"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.

Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.

That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton and her team.

"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.

In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry.

One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."

Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.

On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.

De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'

Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.

"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.

But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to national polls opening.

At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on Nov. 2.

Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.

"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about all of this."

"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."

Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."

"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty [attorney-client] privilege."

Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation – having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and electronic devices manually.

Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.

Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to individually review manually.

But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation."

Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."

The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields – informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear investigation."

Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say.

"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked. Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at those documents.

After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.

Exoneration Before Investigation

At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop. High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying" statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."

A scene from the documentary "Weiner."

As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."

On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about "drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted back about an hour later.

The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new controversy and would still pull off a victory.

"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.

Filtering

Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.

Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the "filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with 6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."

On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077 emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the original classification authorities within the intelligence community.

"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.

By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a criminal motive.

Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.

As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."

Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system."

New Classified Information

Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077 emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the time.

Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not duplicates but new to investigators.

RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.

Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."

Tom Fitton: "sham" investigation.

Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of the 3,077 "work-related" emails.

"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."

He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.

The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all before."

No Damage Assessment

Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.

Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.

Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach, gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.

Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means."

Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.

Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.

Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.

Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to receive them.

The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on Weiner's laptop."

Premature Re-Closure

In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been investigated.

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?

Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.

Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling classified information, Comey explained:

"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."

At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to interview him."

Pro-Clinton Bias

The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."

Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.

Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying "hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster, to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.

IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.

Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias in regards to the October events."

Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.

In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work."

The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.

"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."

Recovering the Laptop

A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?

The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.

But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the evidence on the device was preserved.

The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.

"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will return the subject laptop."

Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities.

[Aug 26, 2018] US ready to drive Iranian oil exports to zero, says US national security adviser

Notable quotes:
"... The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out for US interests. ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Ron Patterson

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 3:47 PM

US ready to drive Iranian oil exports to zero, says US national security adviser

The US is prepared to use sanctions to drive Iranian oil exports down to zero, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, has said.
"Regime change in Iran is not American policy, but what we want is massive change in the regime's behaviour," Bolton said on a visit to Israel, as he claimed current sanctions had been more effective than predicted.
Donald Trump took the US out of Iran's nuclear deal with the west in May and is imposing escalating sanctions, both to force Iran to renegotiate the deal and to end Tehran's perceived interference in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
Complete removal of Iranian oil from world markets would cut oil supply by more than 4% probably forcing up prices in the absence of any new supplies.
SNIP
Fuller US sanctions, including actions against countries that trade in Iranian oil are due to come into force on 5 November, 180 days after the initial Trump announcement to withdraw.
The measures against Iranian oil importers, and banks that continue to trade with the Central Bank of Iran, will ratchet the pressure to a higher level.
Pompeo has set up an Iran Action group inside the US State Department to coordinate US leverage on companies and countries that cannot show that their trade, including in oil, has fallen significantly by November.
Measures may also be taken against firms that insure ships carrying Iranian crude.
It is expected some of the major Iranian oil importers, such as Russia, China and Turkey, will either ignore the threat of US sanctions, or, possibly in the case of Iraq, Japan and South Korea, seek exemptions.
China takes a quarter of all Iran's oil exports, and with Chinese banks little exposed to the US it can avoid the impact of Trump's sanctions. REPLY

Dennis Coyne

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 4:13 PM

I wonder if China could just take all of Iran's oil? I imagine at the right price they would be happy to do so. China imports about 8 Mb/d, Iran exports about 2.5 Mb/d of oil, seems possible.

Also note that if this does occur and there is no drop in Iranian output, the impact of the Iranian sanctions on the World Oil market will be effectively zero.

Survivalist

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 4:34 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-iran-oil-shipping/exclusive-china-shifts-to-iranian-tankers-to-keep-oil-flowing-amid-us-sanctions-sources-idUSKCN1L50RZ

I wonder what the capacity is of the Chinese and Iranian oil tanker fleet is? If nobody else will buy it or ship it then the tanker fleet will have to be owned/insured by either Iran or China.

Watcher

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 10:07 PM

Previously posted.

The big issue is the insurance. A US seized cargo triggers insurance on either party, Iran or China. No way that doesn't escalate to violence.

Survivalist

Ignored says: 08/23/2018 AT 2:08 PM

I'm interested in knowing if Chinese oil tankers are even capable of hauling 2.5 million barrels a day home from Iran. It seems doubtful that anybody else will be doing it for them. I can't find much info on the size of the Chinese owned tanker fleet and it's capabilities.

While US forces have been known to seize North Korean oil tankers hauling Libyan oil, I find it doubtful that they will seize Chinese ones, for the reason you mentioned; China punches back. Nothing spells the end of hegemony like getting your ass kicked.

Fernando Leanme

Ignored says: 08/25/2018 AT 8:26 AM

One would assume its easy for the chinese to buy used oil tankers if they offer a bit over current market prices. This is a very long term conflict, and they could buy tankers, reregister them Chinese or Iranian or say Russian and start moving that oil.

The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out for US interests.

[Aug 26, 2018] Jonathan Winer, Steele dossier and the Magnitsky Act

Notable quotes:
"... However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges against himself. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated. ..."
"... Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs. ..."
"... U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America. ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest of APCO's many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president and CEO, is a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition to Vladimir Putin.

In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in U.S. and Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.

However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally brought him into the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named him as one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.

By Winer's own account, he had been friends with former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts. These included the infamous "Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old friend Sidney Blumenthal – a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton – gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer, repeating the salacious attacks.

All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media before being revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate the "Russiagate" investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited but the investigation goes on and on.

So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from "Russian agents" and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.

Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act

Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November 16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.

However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges against himself.

In any case

The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds.

It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.

, "When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky. He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act. Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom."

Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing U.S. authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.

But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.

As Winer wrote, "Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the U.S. attorney general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case." (My emphasis.)

"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there. Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the senior State Department official managing U.S.-Russia law-enforcement relations."

So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated.

In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman").

The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client." However, by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was "clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore in violation of FARA filing requirements."

Catch-22 all over again.

Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.

Conclusion

The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this.

The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs.

So, if Russians were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, they would not be trying to change the U.S. system but to prevent it from trying to change their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody's computer.

U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.

Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S. interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.

[Aug 26, 2018] Trump and Corbyn by Israel Shamir

Notable quotes:
"... The idea is Israeli, the operational plans are British, weapons and vessels are American, and a possibility for confrontation grows stronger each day. ..."
"... And with the legal noose around Trump's neck, he will be more than willing to play along for just one more breath (which is all they'll really need him for). ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

As a new military confrontation over Syria is impending, thought out by Israel, prepared by the British and executed by the US, the West's future depends greatly upon two mavericks, the US President Donald Trump and the UK Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn. These two men are as different as you can make. One is for capitalism, another one is a socialist, but both are considered soft on Russia, at least they do not foam at the mouth hearing Putin's name. Both are enemies of Wall Street and the City, both stand against the Deep State, against NATO, both are enemies of globalism and of world government. One is a friend of Israel, another is a friend of Palestine, but both are charged with racism and anti-Semitism.

It is a quaint peculiarity of our time, that anti-Semitism is considered the great and unforgivable sin, trading places with Christ Denial. Negative attitude to Christ-denying Jews had been de rigueur at its time, and the Church, or its Tribunal, the Inquisition, had tried the charged. Nowadays, the heavily Zionists MSM is the accuser, the judge and jury, considering anti-Zionists attitude as a worst sort of racism. The two leaders aren't guilty as charged, but the MSM court dispenses no acquittals.

Racism is indeed an ugly trend (though greed is worse), and hatred of Jews qua Jews is not nice, either. (You wouldn't expect a different answer from the son of Jew parents, would you?) Jews are entertaining, clever, cunning, sentimental and adventurous folk, able to do things. They can be good, that's why the Church wants to bring them to Christ. If they were inherently bad, why bother with their souls? Are Jews greedy? Everyone would sell his grandma for a fistful of dollars, but only a Jew would actually deliver, say Jews. Jews tend to preach and claim high moral ground, but that is a tradition of the Nation of Priests. However, universalism and non-racism is not their strong point, and it is amazing that they appointed themselves the judges on racism.

... ... ...

In the British establishment, pro-Zionists forces decided to side with the Washington War Party to push us close to war. The recent visit of the British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (the man on the shortlist of Israel's agents within the British establishment) to Washington where Hunt delivered a speech calling for full-out war on Russia, "has been read as an intervention on the side of the anti-Russian faction in the split and divided US administration", said the Guardian .

The speech is just an opening, missiles will follow soon. Today, I was informed by my contacts, the Russians have delivered a demarche to the State Department, warning the Americans to desist from their plans to attack Syria. Russian intelligence learned that eight tanks containing chlorine have been delivered to Halluz village of Idlib province where the group of specially trained militants has already been deployed in order to simulate the rescue of the victims of chemical attack. The militants were trained by the British private military company Olive (which had merged with the American Constellis Group.

The operation, the Russians say, had been planned by the British intelligence services to justify an impending airstrike directed against Syrian military and civil infrastructure. For this strike, USS The Sullivans guided missile destroyer with 56 cruise missiles onboard arrived to the Persian Gulf, and the US Air Force bomber B-1B with 24 cruise Air-to-Surface Missiles had been flown to the Al-Udeid air base in Qatar.

The idea is Israeli, the operational plans are British, weapons and vessels are American, and a possibility for confrontation grows stronger each day. The success of Corbyn would put a stop to these plans of war. But will he have a chance?

renfro , says: August 26, 2018 at 6:27 am GMT

Trump and Corbyn are coming to the point from different sides. They are fighting a strong and well-entrenched adversary. Both are tired, both are full of imperfections, but they offer us a chance to save our beautiful world from destruction.

Should I laugh or cry at Trump saving us from another ... Israel inspired war?

NO ONE has ever been more Jew mobbed up than Trump is. In case no one has noticed what Trump is actually doing -- –The Jew neocon crew that gave us Iraq is back and going after Iran.

Here is his latest: .I believe this is 6th one I have identified on here as Fifth Column Zionists Trump has put in sensitive positions.

Trump names Zionists security expert to senior intelligence post | The

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-names-Zionists-security-expert-to-senior-intellige&#8230 ;

3 days ago – Appointment of Samantha Ravich comes after president taps Trump names Zionists security expert to senior intelligence post .
WASHINGTON -- US President Donald Trump chose as the deputy chairwoman of the intelligence advisory board a Zionists national security expert who is well known in the pro-Israel national security community.
 Ravich, a former deputy national security adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, is a senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an influential hawkish pro-Israel think tank. She is also a senior adviser to the Chertoff Group, founded by Michael Chertoff, a homeland security secretary in the George W. Bush administration, and has worked with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. One of her specialties is combating extremists.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/408749/trump-names-Zionists-pro-israel-security-expert-to-senior-intelligence-post/

Ravick has also worked with the pro-Israel community helping to raise money for Israel Bonds .
Ravich does not require confirmation.

Also Tuesday, Jeffrey Gunter, a dermatologist from Los Angeles, was nominated as the ambassador to Iceland. Gunter, a board member of the Republican Zionists Coalition, must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate

ICELAND REALLY NEEDS A Zionists DERMATOLOGIST AMBASSADOR

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith

Ravich also worked with Douglas Feith, PaulWolfowitz and Richard Perle in drumming up the war on Iraq
They worked on creating "wiring diagrams" showing relationships among terror groups. For example, they concluded
"Iraq trains Palestinian terrorists associated with PFLP, PIJ, Hamas, ANO, PLF, Ansar al-Islam which has direct ties to al-Qaeda[5]"
Samantha Ravich, studied the charts and reported back to Scooter Libby. Wolfowitz personally

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/asg/ASGChallengeTextwCOVER.pdf

At Aspen Ravick showed her hand in advancing a anti Russia policy to get Russia to stop supporting Iran, her suggestion is to basically undermine Russia economically and financially in order to make them kow tow to the US.

chris , says: August 26, 2018 at 7:20 am GMT

Wow, quite a revelation Saker putting the pieces of this puzzle together!

And with the legal noose around Trump's neck, he will be more than willing to play along for just one more breath (which is all they'll really need him for).

Miggle , says: August 26, 2018 at 7:29 am GMT

Cook points out that by conceding ground, Corbyn betrayed Palestinians and betrayed anti-Zionist Jews who were expelled by droves from Labour. Even Tony Greenstein, a Zionists nationalist though anti-Zionist, had been expelled; the same Tony Greenstein who attacked me and Gilad Atzmon for our anti-Semitism (I responded to him here). He was also sent home packing. The late Hajo Meyer, a Holocaust survivor and defender of Palestinian rights, a personal friend of Corbyn, had been denounced. Palestinians were betrayed, and we should care about them more than about Zionists fine feelings.

Very sad -- Corbyn caving in and sacking anti-Zionists including anti-Zionist Jews from his party. Horrible if he's betrayed the Palestinians. Maybe not aggressive enough. Is he a leader?

Anyway, British voters, please show your support for him.

[Aug 26, 2018] NEO- RussiaGate, the Fox in the Hen House

Aug 26, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

Reporting on RussiaGate, as it is called, goes on day after day, always something new, more hacks, more targets, more election rigging or is it all more fake news? Who controls the news, who really controls the news? Perhaps the news itself rigs elections and spreads rumors, promotes fakery and serves foreign interests as well, let's take a look.

First of all, we might ask why no one, certainly not anyone in the paid media, noted that "non-state actors" as they are called in intelligence and counter-terrorism, are the big players nowadays. After all, it is the media that creates reality, that defines truth, though that effort has now migrated to Silicon Valley moguls who now hire failed academics and journalists who have set up "truth panels."

Before that, the fake press reported lies, and any academic who taught otherwise or wrote otherwise was a "conspiracy theorist" and faced loss of tenure, though tenure seldom exists in today's world of rapidly declining academic standards, in the US at least.

A case study for infiltration of US government by a foreign intelligence service, other than Russia, is easy to find. When Australian Rupert Murdoch and his media empire came to America, they clearly bought House Speaker Newt Gingrich in order to have laws changed.

[Aug 25, 2018] How to interfere in a foreign election by Stephen Kinzer

Notable quotes:
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
Aug 19, 2018 | www.bostonglobe.com

FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened. Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded. Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece of political vandalism on a global scale.

The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin, whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits. President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."

"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate.

Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya, comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together. As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187 lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it. He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.

Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.

RELATED

Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to death!"

Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency.

American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."

This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically. Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.

[Aug 25, 2018] There is no way anyone in their right mind would enter into an agreement with the USA, and even when they do, as in the examples of North Korea here, or Iran recently - the USA backs out of them! That is not the kind of dance partner anyone would want to tango with

Notable quotes:
"... further signs of the usa coming apart at the seams and getting closer to some type of war.. ..."
"... the msm only holds trumps feet to the fire domestically to let him know that if he strays from supporting the financial/military complex, he is toast.. they never do it when he is carrying water for this same complex... ..."
"... i think it is hard to hold out any hope for trump being different then the ongoing succession of presidents.. that are all serving the plutocracy at this point, and trump is no exception... the only difference is we are getting closer to the wheels coming off the usa here.. ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Aug 25, 2018 3:07:24 PM | 3

thanks b.. further signs of the usa coming apart at the seams and getting closer to some type of war.. it seems like a reckless ride from here on in..

there is no way anyone in their right mind would enter into an agreement with the usa.. and even when they do, as in the examples of north korea here, or iran recently - the usa backs out of them!! that is not the kind of dance partner anyone would want to tango with..

the msm only holds trumps feet to the fire domestically to let him know that if he strays from supporting the financial/military complex, he is toast.. they never do it when he is carrying water for this same complex...

it is hard to tell the difference between trump and the hawks in his present gov't especially in light of his tweets.. maybe someone hacked his twitter account, but i doubt it.. those are his tweets, not bolton or pompeo's..

i think it is hard to hold out any hope for trump being different then the ongoing succession of presidents.. that are all serving the plutocracy at this point, and trump is no exception... the only difference is we are getting closer to the wheels coming off the usa here..

[Aug 25, 2018] Trump is deliberately pushing Germany and Russia to make deals in order to shuffle the deck by Gilbert Docotrow

Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both countries support. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times' ..."
"... I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing to an article in The Guardian ..."
"... Both Merkel and Putin are now facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on Russia relating to the Skripal affair. ..."
"... La Libre Belgique ..."
"... "Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people." ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of Merkel and Putin knows that. ..."
"... Vremya Pokazhet ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a 360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the small slices we see discussed in the news. ..."
"... When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas bases. ..."
"... By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . ..."
"... Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it. ..."
Aug 23, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Reading the tea leaves of the Putin-Merkel meeting

During this past Saturday, 18 August, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a brief visit to Austria to attend the wedding of the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs Karin Kneissl. Per the Kremlin, this stop of several hours in the Styrian wine country not far from the border with Slovenia was a "purely private" side excursion "on the road to Germany" for the state visit with Chancellor Angela Merkel starting later in the day at the Meseberg Palace, the federal guest house 60 km north of Berlin.

Journalists were admitted to film the wedding party, including Putin's dance with the 53 year old bride. No questions were taken and no statements were issued by the President's Press Secretary, who also was present. We know only that on the return journey to Graz airport, Putin was accompanied by Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Presumably they had some issues to discuss that may be characterized as official talks.

Prior to their meeting both Putin and Angela Merkel made statements to the press listing the topics they intended to discuss. We may assume that these lists were not exhaustive. Comparing their lists, we find that the respective priorities of the parties were in inverted order, with economic cooperation at the head of Putin's list while regulating the Donbass crisis in Ukraine was the top concern of Merkel. Moreover, the content of issues bearing the same heading was very different. Both sides spoke of Syria, but whereas for Putin the issue for discussion is the humanitarian crisis of refugees, ensuring their return to their homes from camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey by raising funds to repair and replace fundamental infrastructure destroyed in the war. For Merkel, the number one issue in Syria is to prevent the Russian-backed Syrian armed forces from creating a new humanitarian disaster by their ongoing campaign to retake Idlib province from the militants opposed to Bashar Assad.

Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both countries support.

As was explained at the outset, there was to be no press conference or joint statement issued at the conclusion of the talks. The only information we have is that Merkel and Putin conferred for more than three hours, which is in itself quite extraordinary and suggests that some understandings may have been achieved.

In a word, the potentially very important diplomatic developments of Saturday remain, for once, a state secret of the parties, with no leaks for the press to parse. And yet there is material here worthy of our consideration. I have in mind the interpretations of what might transpire before, during and after the events of Saturday in the news and commentary reportage of various countries having greater or lesser interest in Russian affairs. Indeed, my perusal of French, Belgian, German, British, American and Russian news media shows great diversity of opinion and some penetrating and highly pertinent remarks based on different information bases. This material is all essential if we are to make sense of the behavior of the parties on the international stage in the coming weeks.

In this essay, I will set out what I have found per country, starting with the least attentive to detail - the United States - and ending with those who offered the best informed and most interested reportage, Germany and Russia. I will conclude with my own reading of the tea leaves.

* * * *

Let us take The Washington Post and The New York Times as our markers for how US mainstream media reported on Putin's meetings this past Saturday.

On the 18th, The Washington Post carried in its online edition two articles dealing with the Putin diplomatic doings. "At Austrian foreign minister's wedding, Putin brings the music, the flowers and the controversy" was written by the newspaper's bureau chief in Berlin, Griff Witte. It is accompanied by video clips of Vladimir Putin dancing with the bride and speaking, in German, to the wedding party seated at their banquet table. The journalist touches very briefly on the main political dimensions of Putin's visit to Austria, including the party relations between United Russia and the far right Freedom Party in Austria's ruling coalition which nominated Kneissl for her post, the criticism of Putin's participation in the wedding coming from the Opposition parties in Austria who see it as a violation of the government's own ambition to be a neutral bridge between East and West, and the issue of Putin's sowing division on the continent. The only criticism one might offer is that the article is superficial, that each of the issues raised deserves in-depth analysis separately.

The newspaper's second article online, which spread its net more broadly and covered the meeting with Merkel in Germany as well as the visit in Austria, came from an Associated Press reporter, not its own staff. Here again, the problem is that issues surrounding the meetings are not more than bullet points, and the reader is given no basis for reaching an independent finding on what has happened..

The New York Times' feature article "Merkel and Putin Sound Pragmatic Notes After Years of Tension," also published on the 18th and datelined Berlin was cited by Russian television news for a seemingly positive valuation of the talks in Meseberg Palace. However, the content of the article by reporter Melissa Eddy is more cautious, highlighting the pattern of "conflicts and reconciliations" that have marked German-Russian relations over the centuries and seeing the present stage not as a warming of relations but instead as reaching for compromises "on Syria, energy and other key issues while maintaining their differences over Russia's role in the conflict in Ukraine." She sees the Syrian issue as one where German and Russian interests may be closest given that refugees from the Middle East are now a German preoccupation with political weight. The reporter cites several experts attached to well-known institutes in Germany that are generally skeptical about Russia's intentions. But the end result is better informed than most NYT reporting on Russia even if it leaves us wondering what will result from the Saturday diplomacy.

In both mainstream papers there is no attempt to find a link between Putin's two visits on Saturday.

I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing to an article in The Guardian from the 18th entitled "Putin urges Europe to help rebuild Syria so refugees can return." This piece comes from the Agence France-Presse in Berlin. It is not much more than a recitation of the lists of topics for discussion that Putin and Merkel issued before their talks. But the reporter has made his choice for the most important of them, Syria and refugees.

The French-language press does not seem to have been very interested in Putin's "private" trip to the wedding of the Austrian foreign minister, but was definitely keen to discuss Putin's trip to Berlin. On the day preceding the Putin-Merkel meeting, the French press offered a clear concept of where things were headed. We read in Figaro , "Merkel receives Putin Saturday to renew a difficult dialogue." A caption in bold just below is more eye-catching: "While the German Chancellor has become the main opponent to the Russian President within the EU, the policy of sanctions conducted by Washington has led to a rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow with regard to numerous issues."

The reporter notes that following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, relations between the two heads of state had become quite bad and in four years they met only when obliged to do so during international summits.

"But starting three months ago, their diplomatic exchanges have intensified: in May Angela Merkel met the chief of the Kremlin in Sochi, Russia. In July, she met the head of the Russian diplomatic corps, Sergei Lavrov, in Berlin. By inviting Vladimir Putin this time, the German Chancellor has promised 'in-depth discussions.' "She is pursuing a pragmatic attempt at normalization of German-Russian relations, because the international realities have changed,' explains Stefan Meister, director of the Robert Bosch Center for Russia."

And how has the calculus of international relations changed? Both Merkel and Putin are now facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on Russia relating to the Skripal affair.

"The American policy represents a danger for the Russian economy and a threat to German interests."

A spokesperson from Merkel's CDU party responsible for foreign policy is quoted on the possible dangers of secondary sanctions being directed at Germany through the application of US extraterritoriality against those failing to respect the new sanctions on Russia.

The article explains the issues surrounding the Nord Steam 2 pipeline, and in particular Trump's hostility to the project for its locking in German dependence on Russian hydrocarbons.

And the author points to the common interests of Germany and Russia over maintenance of the Iranian nuclear deal as a factor powering the rapprochement of the two countries. Here again the common threat is Donald Trump and American sanctions against those companies which continue to trade with Iran.

The article concludes that divergent views of Russia and Germany over Ukraine and Syria exclude any breakthrough at the meeting on Saturday. But nonetheless the dialogue that was lacking these several past years is being recreated.

In its weekend edition issued on 18 August, the Belgian mainstream daily La Libre Belgique was even more insistent on interpreting the Merkel-Putin meeting as a consequence of the policies of Donald Trump. Their editorial captures the sense very nicely in its tongue-in-cheek headline: "Trump is the best 'ally' of Putin."

La Libre sees Vladimir Putin's latest diplomatic initiatives as directly resulting from the way his host at the White House has annoyed everyone. Moreover, his outreach is welcomed:

"Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people."
The editors point to Turkish President Erdogan's clear signal that he is now looking for other allies. He has done his calculations and has said he has more to gain with Moscow than with Washington.'

The editorial concludes that a summit on reconstruction of Syria might even take place at the start of September between Moscow, Ankara, Paris and Berlin. The conclusion? "Putin has taken center stage on the chessboard. Thank you, Mr. Trump."

The article filed by La Libre 's correspondent in Berlin, Sebastien Millard, bears a heading that matches the editorial view of the newspaper: "Merkel and Putin - allies of convenience facing Trump." The author credits Donald Trump with being the catalyst for the resumption of dialogue between Germany and Russia; they are telling Washington that they do not accept its blackmail. He notes that we should not expect any reversal of alliances. There are too many differences of view between Berlin and Moscow on a variety of issues.

* * * *

The German press paid a good deal of attention to Vladimir Putin's visit to Austria for the wedding of Foreign Minister Karin Kreissl.

In an article posted on the 16th entitled "Suspicion that Austria is a Trojan horse," Die Welt highlighted the negatives of Putin's presence. Quoting an "expert from the University of Innsbruck" this does not cast a good light on the country. They anticipate political fall-out. This will impair Austria's ability as chair of the European Council to play a role of intermediary in the Ukraine conflict. The only beneficiary of the visit will be the the Russia-friendly be the Russia-friendly Freedom Party. For Putin, being a guest provides him with the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not isolated but is instead highly welcome in society of an EU country.

As for the coming meeting with Merkel on Saturday evening, Die Welt in a related article of the same day lists the issues for discussion. Without taking a position, it cites experts for and against the Nord Stream II pipeline and other issues on the list.

Welt's report from the wedding party on the 18th was gossipy and unfriendly, comparing it to a wedding of some European royal family because of the extraordinary guest list that included the country's chancellor, vice chancellor, and defense minister as well as the head of OPEC and...Vladimir Putin. With typical German petty financial accounting, they reckon that the 500 police and other security measures needed for the safety of the highly placed guests cost the Austrian tax payers 250,000 euros.

A separate article in Die Welt deals with Putin's meeting with Merkel at the Meseberg Palace. The emphasis here is on Merkel's remarks during the Statement prior to the talks that cooperation with Russia is "vital" to deal with many conflicts globally and that both sides bear responsibility to find solutions.

The article quotes from the opening statements of the leaders on all the issues in their list for discussion - Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream II. We are given bare facts without any analysis to speak of.

The other major mainstream daily Frankfurter Allgemeine in its Saturday, 18 August edition offered separate articles on Putin's visits to Austria and Germany.

The article on Karin Kneissl's wedding heads off in a very different direction from the reporting in other media that I have summarized above. FAZ notes that Kneissl is rarely in the headlines and it asks: who is she? They answer the question with some curious details. We learn that Kneissl was once active in competitive sports and even now swims a kilometer every day. For many years she has lived on a small farmstead with a couple of boxers, two ponies, hens and cats. Each morning her chauffeur takes her and the dogs to her office in Vienna, to return in the evening. Regrettably, FAZ does not take this curious biographical sketch further. No connection is drawn between her personality and the Russian President's acceptance of her invitation to her wedding.

FAZ similarly has chosen to amuse rather than inform in its coverage of the meeting in Berlin entitled "Sparkling wine in Austria, sparkling water in Meseberg." They comment on how Putin arrived half an hour late, on how it is hard to see how the meeting could be characterized as a success. They stress that we know nothing about the content of the consultations. Then they tick off the opening positions of the sides as set out in their statements before the talks.

Spiegel online risks more by giving more interpretation and less bare facts. Its article entitled "Something of a new start" suggests that a rapprochement is underway and that both Merkel and Putin have a lot in play. Unlike the other German press we have mentioned, Spiegel sees a direct link between Putin's attending the wedding in Styria and his visit to Merkel.

Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of Merkel and Putin knows that.

Meanwhile, says Spiegel , Germany also is interested in improving relations with Russia despite all the controversy, namely due to the growing conflicts with US President Donald Trump. We don't know the exact content of the talks which were confidential, but there is some movement now between Germany and Russia.

Spiegel remains cautious. Cordiality does not enter into the relationship. The parties keep their distance. There is no laughter to lighten the atmosphere. Yet, it concludes: "The talks have prospects and we can see the wish to make progress through common positions, and without being silent about contradictions. Diplomatic normality, as it were. A step forward."

* * * *

If the great bulk of commentary in the West about Putin's diplomatic weekend was reserved and stayed by the bare facts without speculation, Russian television more than made up for dryness. I point in particular to two political talk shows which invited a mixture of experts from different backgrounds.

Let us begin with the show Vremya Pokazhet (Time will tell) on state television's Pervy Kanal . Their Friday, 17 August program focused on Putin's forthcoming visit to the wedding 'on the road to Berlin,' which several panelists saw as a strong signal to Germany that Russ1+
ia had other channels to the EU if Germany refuses to be its intercessor.

The visit was said to be breaking new ground in diplomatic practice. According to panelist Andrei Baklanov, deputy chair of the association of Russian diplomats, this kind of positive, human diplomacy is Russia's answer to the negative behavior in international affairs that has occupied center stage in the recent past - sanctions, fake news, etc. As another panelist interjected, this is the first time that a Russian head of state attended a wedding abroad since Tsar Nicholas did so in Germany in 1913.

Baklanov proceeded to provide details about the bride, however, bringing out aspects of her career that are far more relevant to her attracting the attention of Putin than the Frankfurter Allgemeine produced. We learn that she grew up in Amman, Jordan, that she speaks 8 languages: Arabic, Hebrew, Magyar, French, Spanish, Italian, English as well as her native German. She studied Near Eastern languages in Vienna University, in the Jewish University of Jerusalem, in the University of Jordan and also graduated from the National School of Administration in France. She holds a doctorate in law. She is a non-party minister, which also attests to her generally recognized professionalism. For all of these reasons, she is a good fit with Putin's determination to find supporters in Europe for investments to restore Syrian infrastructure and enable the return of refugees.

The country's most prestigious talk show, "Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov," had a couple of Duma members and a well-known politician from Liberal circles comment on the diplomacy of the day before.

Sergey Mironov, leader of the socialist party Fair Russia said that despite Merkel's warning in advance not to expect breakthroughs it is likely progress was made in agreeing how to deal with US sanctions. This would be tested in the coming days.

As for the link between the visits to Austria and Germany, the representative of a pro-business party Sergey Stankevich reminded viewers that Germany and Austria are the market makers in Europe for Russian gas. Nord Stream II gas may land in Germany but a large part of it will be pumped further to Austria's hub for distribution elsewhere in Europe. Whatever may have been said publicly, Stankevich believes that Merkel and Putin did agree on many if not all the subjects named before the start: Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream.

Russian media coverage of the Saturday travels of their President continued on Russian news programs into Monday, with video clips of Putin dancing at the wedding and speaking alongside Merkel before entering into their talks at Meseberg Palace.

* * * *

Looking back at the media coverage of Putin's visits to Austria and Germany on 18 August, and with all due respect to those who opinions are different from mine, I find that the most helpful for our understanding of the present day international situation were the report and editorial in Belgium's Libre Belgique and the unruly, risky but at times brilliant insights on Russian television.

What comes out of this is the understanding that the visits to a wedding in Austria and to the federal Chancellor outside Berlin were directly linked in Russian diplomatic strategy, that Russia is playing the Austrian card during the country's six months at the helm of the European Council in Brussels, that Russia is pushing for a multi-party relief effort for Syria to facilitate the return of refugees to their home and pacification of the war-torn country. The web of common interests that Russia is pursuing has at its core the fragility of the current world order and generalized anxiety of leading countries due to America's aggressive pursuit of narrow national interest under Donald Trump as seen in his tariff wars and sanctions directed at friends and foes alike.

Where I differ from the interpretations set out in the foregoing press reports is in my understanding of what Trump is doing and why.

The nearly universal assumption of commentators is that Trump's policies known as "Make America Great" are ignorant and doomed to fail. They are assumed to be isolationist, withdrawing America from the world community.

However, Trump did not invent bullying of US allies. That was going strong under George W. Bush, with his challenge "you are either with us or against us" when he sought to align the West behind his invasion of Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council. His more urbane successor Barack Obama was no kinder to U.S. allies, who were slapped with crushing fines for violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran, just to mention one way in which they were kept in line. And the U.S. Congress today is no more reasonable and diplomatic than the President in the brutal unilateral sanctions it has on its own initiative advocated against not just Russia but also against Turkey and other states which are not snapping to attention with respect to purchases of military materiel from Russia.

What made U.S. bullying tolerable before Trump was the ideological smokescreen of "shared values," namely democracy promotion, human rights and rule of law, that all members of the alliances could swear to and which set them apart from the still unenlightened parts of the globe where autocrats hold sway.

In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a 360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the small slices we see discussed in the news.

When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas bases.

The first two presidencies of this millennium undid the country's greatest geopolitical achievement of the second half of the 20th century: the informal alliance with China against Russia that put Washington at the center of all global politics. Bush and Obama did that by inattention and incomprehension of what was at stake. That inattention was an expression of American hubris in the unipolar world which, it was assumed, was the new normal, not a blip.

By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . We see this understanding when he speaks about looking out for American interests while the heads of state whom he meets are looking out for the interests of theirs.

In his tweets we find that our allies are ripping us off, that they are unfair competitors. His most admiring remark about Russia is that it is a strong competitor. The consistent element in Trump's thinking is ignored or willfully misunderstood in the press.

Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it.

Good Optics · about 3 hours ago

This nuanced analysis rings true and speaks to the fact that - though Trump may not exactly be playing 47D chess - he certainly does have some good intentions that, left to follow their course, would have a chance of making the world a better place. But that will not be allowed to happen by those in the US with firm commitments to pursue the world's subjugation through any means possible.

The Cs did tell us that Trump's heart is in the right place, unlikely though that does appear a lot of the time . . .

[Aug 25, 2018] Ron Paul interviews Rep. Thomas Massie on Russia, Sanctions, and Tariffs

Aug 25, 2018 | www.antiwar.com

Why is Congress so obsessed with starting a new Cold War with Russia? Are they all gripped by group-think? Who do sanctions hurt most? And how can people visit with Rep. Thomas Massie and Ron Paul later this month? Tune in to today's Ron Paul Liberty Report with a very special guest!

https://youtu.be/ZLzNqwuPVE4

[Aug 25, 2018] As Washington's Neocons "Crush" Russia, Ron Paul Warns Sanctions Lead To War

Aug 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Mon, 08/06/2018 - 16:47 206 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

You can always count on the neocons in Congress to ignore reality, ignore evidence, and ignore common sense in their endless drive to get us involved in another war.

Last week, for example, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-NC), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and others joined up to introduce what Senator Graham called "the sanctions bill from hell," aimed at applying "crushing" sanctions on Russia.

me title=

Senator Graham bragged that the bill would include "everything but the kitchen sink" in its attempt to ratchet up tensions with Russia.

Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) bragged that the new sanctions bill "includes my language requiring the State Department to determine whether Russia merits the designation of a State Sponsor of Terror."

Does he even know what the word "terrorism" means?

Sen Ben Cardin (D-MD) warns that the bill must be passed to strengthen our resolve against "Vladimir Putin's pattern of corroding democratic institutions and values around the world, a direct and growing threat to US national security."

What has Russia done that warrants "kitchen sink" sanctions that will "crush" the country and possibly designate it as a sponsor of terrorism? Sen. Menendez tells us:

"The Kremlin continues to attack our democracy, support a war criminal in Syria, and violate Ukraine's sovereignty."

There is a big problem with these accusations on Russia : they're based on outright lies and unproven accusations that continue to get more bizarre with each re-telling .

How strange that when US Senators like Menendez demand that we stand by our NATO allies even if it means war, they attack Russia for doing the same in Syria. Is the Syrian president a "war criminal," as he claims? We do know that his army is finally, with Russian and Iranian help, about to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, which with US backing for seven years have turned Syria into a smoking ruin. Does Menendez and his allies prefer ISIS in charge of Syria?

And how hypocritical for Menendez to talk about Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty. The unrest in Ukraine was started by the 2014 US-backed coup against an elected leader. We have that all on tape!

How is Russia "attacking our democracy"? We're still waiting for any real evidence that Russia was involved in our 2016 elections and intends to become involved in our 2018 elections. But that doesn't stop the propagandists, who claim with no proof that Russia was behind the election of Donald Trump.

These Senators claim that sanctions will bring the Russians to heel, but they are wrong. Sanctions are good at two things only: destroying the lives of innocent civilians and leading to war.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BLiDwzJ2EJs

As I mentioned in an episode of my Liberty Report last week, even our own history shows that sanctions do lead to war and should not be taken lightly. In the run-up to US involvement in the War of 1812, the US was doing business with both France and the UK, which were at war with each other. When the UK decided that the US was favoring France in its commerce, it imposed sanctions on the US. What did Washington do in response? Declared war. Hence the War of 1812, which most Americans remember as that time when the British burned down the White House.

Recent polls show that the majority of Americans approve of President Trump's recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among Republicans, a vast majority support the meeting. Perhaps a good defeat in November will wake these neocon warmongers up. Let's hope so!

[Aug 25, 2018] Defections from Pax Americana Coming Louder and Faster

Notable quotes:
"... What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of anyone who doesn't toe the line. ..."
"... What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence. ..."
"... So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it all. ..."
"... Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran. Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than this. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework. ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of anyone who doesn't toe the line.

And Trump feeds off this by casting everyone as a leach who has been sucking off the US's breast for decades. It doesn't matter the issue, to Trump US economic fragility is a hammer and every trade and military partner a nail to be bashed over the head to pay their way.

What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence.

Trump is against that in principle, but not against the US maintaining as much of the empire as possible.

So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it all.

The latest major one was with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This meeting wasn't expected to provide anything concrete, only vague assurances that projects like the Nordstream 2 pipeline goes through.

But, no breakthroughs on Crimea or Ukraine were expected nor delivered. It was, however, an opportunity for both Putin and Merkel to be humanized in the European media. Between Putin's attending Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl's wedding as well as the garden party photo op background for their talk, this meeting between them was a bit of a 'charm tour' to assist Merkel in the polls while expanding on Putin's humanity post World Cup and Helsinki.

That said, however, the statement by Merkel's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, about the need for a new financial payment system which bypasses the US-dominated SWIFT system was the big bombshell.

Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran. Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than this.

The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework.

While KYC and AML laws can at least have the appearance of validity in attempting to stop illegal activity, targeted sanctioning is simply Orwellian.

It politicizes any and all economic activity the world over. Just look at the recent reasons for these sanctions – unproven allegations of chemical weapons usage and electioneering. Recent actions by the US have driven this point home to its 'allies' with stunning clarity.

Why do you think Putin brought up Bill Browder's name at the Helsinki press conference? He knows that Browder's story is a lie and it's a lie that has been used as the foundation for the type of political repression we're seeing today.

The US is blocking the simplest of transactions in the dollar now, claiming that any use of the dollar is a global privilege which it can revoke at a whim. Aside from the immorality of this, that somehow dollars you traded goods or services for on the open market are still somehow the property of the U.S to claw back whenever it is politically convenient, this undermines the validity of the dollar as a rational medium of exchange for trade.

This is why after the first round of sanctions over the reunification with Crimea Putin ordered the development of a national electronic payment system. He rightly understood that Russia needed a means by which to conduct business that was independent of US political meddling.

So, to me, if Heiko Maas is serious about the threat posed by continued use of the dollar in EU trade, he should look to Putin for guidance on building a system separate from SWIFT.

Moreover, Maas' statement didn't go out to the world without Merkel's approval. This tells me that this was likely the major topic of conversation between her and Putin over the weekend. Because a payment system that skirts the dollar is one the US can't control.

It took the Russians longer than they should have to develop MIR. Putin complained about how slow things went because too many within the Bank of Russia and the financial community could be thought of as fifth columnists for the West.

It's also why development of the crypto-ruble and Russia's policy on cryptocurrencies has been so slow. It took Putin publicly ordering the work done by a certain time to get these tasks completed. In the end, it shouldn't take the EU long to spin up a SWIFT-compliant internal alternative. It is, after all, just code.

And that's why so many of the US's former satraps are now flexing their geopolitical muscle. The incentives aren't there anymore to keep quiet and go along. Alternatives exist and will be utilized.

I don't expect the EU brass to do much about this issue, the threat may be all that is needed to call Trump's bluff. But, if in the near future you see an announcement of MIR being accepted somewhere in the EU don't be surprised.

Because what used to be a node of political stability and investor comfort is now a tool of chaos and abuse. And abusing your customers is never a winning business model in the long run. Customers of the dollar will remind the US of that before this is over.

[Aug 25, 2018] Moscow is ready to rumble by Thanassis Cambanis

The author is a typical neocon. But some of his thought are interesting if only for delusions they contain.
Notable quotes:
"... While these Russian endeavors are important, they're a sideshow to the main event: a long geopolitical struggle in which the United States briefly gained a dominant position, but which today is more evenly matched. ..."
"... the chaotic process amounted to a looting of some of the former Soviet Union's prized assets by a tiny circle of corrupt oligarchs. Yeltsin's inner circle engaged in epic corruption ..."
"... Citizens lost the social safety net, while gaining very little in return. The visible results of capitalism piled up only for a tiny elite. ..."
"... if America has squandered international goodwill and allowed alliances to fray, those assets will prove as ineffectual as they have in the most recent contests in which Putin has outfoxed the West. ..."
"... Thanassis Cambanis, a fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of "Once Upon a Revolution: An Egyptian Story." He is an Ideas columnist and blogs at thanassiscambanis.com. ..."
"... Following the collapse of the USSR, the US broke it's promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO. It did so, right up to the border of Russia, essentially encircling it. ..."
"... ''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.'' ..."
Dec 25, 2016 | www.bostonglobe.com

It should come as no surprise that many Russians will mourn this month, a quarter century after Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as president of the Soviet Union and overnight, one of the great world empires simply dissolved.

Today a tense realignment is underway, as a resurgent Russia jostles to the table and upends American nostrums about the post-Cold War order. Russia has given the United States plenty of grist for worry with its apparent meddling in the US presidential election. President Vladimir Putin's hackers and propagandists appear ready and willing to work to tip the balance to the right in upcoming European elections as well.

While these Russian endeavors are important, they're a sideshow to the main event: a long geopolitical struggle in which the United States briefly gained a dominant position, but which today is more evenly matched.

... ... ...

Putin wants to erase once and for all the image of Russia as the tottering, ex-empire low on cash, trying to bully the world with a limping army whose rusty equipment is staffed by alcoholics with truncated life spans.

A multipolar world is full of fuzzy boundaries that breed conflict and uncertainty. The United States might be in first place, but China is gaining, and neither can patronizingly dismiss Russia as a "regional power." The European Union is politically fragmented and economically hobbled, but it remains one of the richest markets in the world and, like Russia, possesses geostrategic depth. The fallacy of the American interregnum after 1991 was that old standards of geopolitical power no longer applied. Now the world has been put back on notice that they do, but that doesn't answer the specific question: What should the United States do about Russia?

The first step toward a more effective Russia policy is to understand Moscow's grievances. The sudden collapse of an empire of global scope traumatized many former Soviet citizens.

After Gorbachev's Christmas-day resignation, Boris Yeltsin led an independent Russia into what was supposed to be a bright new age of capitalist democracy. Expert American advisers helped usher in a headlong rush to privatize state-owned industries. Whatever their intention, the chaotic process amounted to a looting of some of the former Soviet Union's prized assets by a tiny circle of corrupt oligarchs. Yeltsin's inner circle engaged in epic corruption. Some of the experts argued that a flawed sell-off of Communist-era industries was a necessary shock to shed Soviet mores. The result was catastrophic. Citizens lost the social safety net, while gaining very little in return. The visible results of capitalism piled up only for a tiny elite.

Added to the quotidian discomfort was a wrenching loss of national status. An ailing Yeltsin lurked out of view, while oligarchs ran riot and former Soviet republics made a mockery of Russia's former primacy. NATO spread closer to Russia's borders.

"Russia's brief experience of democratic life was an experience of being pushed around by the United States," said Mark MacKinnon, a Canadian journalist and author of "The New Cold War."

Yeltsin's Communist challenger was expected to win in 1996, but a unified front of oligarchs, worried they might lose their privileges, and campaign experts dispatched by Clinton, saved the day for Yeltsin, if not for his constituents. The episode was memorialized in the 2003 American comedy "Spinning Boris."

"Many Russians look at what's happening now in the United States and giggle that it's payback time," MacKinnon said.

Russian influence reached its nadir when NATO intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, which Russia considered parts of its sphere of influence.

... ... ...

The first seminal crisis will come when Putin challenges an interest dear to the Trump administration. Perhaps the Russian government will confiscate the assets of an American corporation or clash with NATO forces or invade the Baltic republics or enter a showdown with Europe.

Trump will presumably have the advantage, from America's unparalleled military and the imposing NATO infrastructure, to an economy orders of magnitude richer and more productive than Russia's. But if America has squandered international goodwill and allowed alliances to fray, those assets will prove as ineffectual as they have in the most recent contests in which Putin has outfoxed the West.

The chapter in contemporary history in which America stood alone at the top has come to a close. Russia will return to the top tier, along with the United States, China, and potentially other alliances. But the natural size of its power, whether measured in wealth, military power, or global political influence, is not as great as Putin appears to think it is. Trump might be willing to accept a bigger Russian role than his predecessors, but he's unlikely to forfeit first place.

Thanassis Cambanis, a fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of "Once Upon a Revolution: An Egyptian Story." He is an Ideas columnist and blogs at thanassiscambanis.com.

Ronin555 12/25/16 11:53 AM

Following the collapse of the USSR, the US broke it's promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO. It did so, right up to the border of Russia, essentially encircling it. The threat of bringing the Ukraine into NATO, after the coup supported by the US, alarmed Putin, and he took Crimea with its strategically important port. Russia has adopted a mostly defensive posture.

With regard to Syria, the US mistake was not doing enough to assist the rebels, but choosing to support them at all. While the Russians have been nothing short of ruthless in destroying the rebels, we are not blameless.

tanfeldman 12/25/16 12:41 PM

The underlying world view in the article is that there are 3 super powers jockeying for global leadership. This world view belies the fact that global power does come from military leverage, although it is important, but economic power. The 1980s Soviet Union was never a real threat because its economic production base could never sustain a war of any type and one did not need the Afghan war to prove this. It was clear by the mid 1970s but the military industrial complex would never let this view become part of the popular DNA.

Today, Russia's economy is in a shambles, and with oil prices not likely to rise ( U.S. is the marginal producer now so U.S. production will rise to cap any global price rise), the basis of a military buildup as part of a new Cold War will yield economic hardship to a nation already suffering.

China is naturally treating Asia as its sphere of influence which can be challenged economically but China's leadership knows that any real military conflict with the U.S. will lead to economic disaster as capital flows out and the yuan depreciates.

In short, a strong U.S. economy and not a military buildup should be Trump's focus.

MNMoore 12/26/16 06:37 AM

George Kennan, the architect of the Cold War, had this to say on the expansion of NATO:

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

-- http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

[Aug 25, 2018] MoA - Trump Ties North Korea Talks To Trade Deal With China

Notable quotes:
"... Some MoA commentators have discussed the possibility of Trump having been installed as the "front man" for the 'Deep State'. Our suspicions are derived from the falseness of Obama, the clear manipulations of the 2016 Presidential election (not by Russians, but by DNC and Hillary) , and Kissinger's cryptic but clear call for MAGA! after the Donbas rebels won in Ukraine (August 2014) ..."
"... A forgotten aspect: USA has a variety of goals in trade policies that inevitably conflict each other. Trump got an idea to change conditions of the trade with China in a way that will improve the manufacturing jobs in USA, but he also wants the negotiation on that issue to hinge on "cooperative attitude" in respect of starving North Korea to submission ..."
"... And there is a long list of issues that confuse trade negotiations: e.g. impunity for Israel, impunity for USA for war crimes, cooperating with American sanctions on Iran that do not have trade purpose. Then we have Trumpian quasi-economic idea to force import of American weapons and unleash sanctions if, say, Russian weapons a for being twice cheaper. ..."
"... North Korea already has the solution for the problem you highlight: the Chinese model of "one country, two systems" mixed with the American model. ..."
"... The problem is: the South (and the USA) doesn't want it. They are betting on the North's collapse, followed by a would be chaebol/American multinationals takeover, followed by an IMF-like "shock doctrine", which would result in the mass enslavement of the Northern population ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Aug 25, 2018 3:25:46 PM | 7

b: Trump is suddenly binding the continuation of Korea talks to a trade deal with China.

If Trump previously used trade to coerce China's support for a hardline against NK (as seems likely) then his claim that CHINA is using NK to strike back at USA over trade must infuriate the Chinese.

b: There are small and big signs that a deeper conflict [with China] is developing .

Trump has said that anyone trading with Iran after Nov. 4th will not be trading with USA. I don't think the signs could be any more clear than that.

b: Are these Trump's plans?

Some MoA commentators have discussed the possibility of Trump having been installed as the "front man" for the 'Deep State'. Our suspicions are derived from the falseness of Obama, the clear manipulations of the 2016 Presidential election (not by Russians, but by DNC and Hillary) , and Kissinger's cryptic but clear call for MAGA! after the Donbas rebels won in Ukraine (August 2014) :

... the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course.

karlof1 , Aug 25, 2018 3:41:52 PM | 8

As usual, BigLie Media shows its an impediment to establishing peace as it tries to BigLie away the reality of the Trump/Kim agreement. Unfortunately, even outlets opposing the monopoly of BigLie Media like RT and Sputnik further the BigLie regarding denuclearization, which I then try to correct via comments--I think 9 times so far, which is far too many. Despite denouncing Fake News, the Trump admin continues to fuel BigLie Media's BigLie by announcing the appointment of someone to oversee a process--denuclearization--that won't begin anytime soon. Furthermore, today China called-out the ongoing prevarications :

"The United States' claims that China has been impacting Washington's talks with Pyongyang on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula are irresponsible and contradict the facts, Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, said in a statement on Saturday."

There're no talks about denuclearization occurring because it's not time for them to occur as DPRK has said on several occasions in denouncing Bolton's & Pompeo's lies while praising Trump. 3 weeks ago , China reiterated its ongoing policy to assist DPRK's economic development, so Trump's moves have done nothing to weaken China's resolve.

IMO, what Trump says on the matter doesn't hold much weight as I see Moon and Kim--and the Korean people, North and South--having more than enough courage and drive to attain the goal of unification. Nor does it matter which side ends up the "winner" from a Western perspective as the real winners will be Koreans and all other peoples of the region from Japan to Indonesia. Just imagine the shock to US Imperialists when RoK and DPRK announce the joining of their militaries into one overall institution--including DPRK's nukes.

All events in Korea are having a big affect of Okinawa and Okinawans' drive to attain their freedom from Japanese and US Imperialism. And the shock waves don't avoid Japan proper either as its economy really doesn't have yen to spare on wasteful military equipment. Not to mention Japan's business sector's salivation at the monies possible by joining Xi's BRI's Winwinism.

karlof1 , Aug 25, 2018 3:57:08 PM | 9
IMO, the remainder of the 21st Century will witness the metamorphosis of East Asia's political-economy into a hybrid of Xi's Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, which will eventually encompass Eurasia because WinWinism is far more desirable than the Outlaw US Empire's Zerosumism. Furthermore, WinWinism lends itself far more readily to adopting resiliency as resources dwindle and climate change bites harder.
karlof1 , Aug 25, 2018 4:49:43 PM | 11
fastfreddy @10--

By continuing to engage in such behavior, "the West" just hastens its journey into irrelevance as the tenuous Atlanticist ties rupture due to Outlaw US Empire hubris/arrogance. This site has a global view of Eurasia that provides an honest comparison in size between it and its European appendage.

The historical reasons allowing for European ascendency over Eurasia and much of the rest of the planet no longer apply. The dynamism of Europe's run its course; and as Hesse noted 100 years ago, Europe's future lies to the East.

Piotr Berman , Aug 25, 2018 4:50:53 PM | 12
A forgotten aspect: USA has a variety of goals in trade policies that inevitably conflict each other. Trump got an idea to change conditions of the trade with China in a way that will improve the manufacturing jobs in USA, but he also wants the negotiation on that issue to hinge on "cooperative attitude" in respect of starving North Korea to submission (some wonder why USA is so approving toward starving Yemen to submission, this is modus operandi in general). So, how much of economic goals is he willing to surrender to get this cooperative attitude?

And there is a long list of issues that confuse trade negotiations: e.g. impunity for Israel, impunity for USA for war crimes, cooperating with American sanctions on Iran that do not have trade purpose. Then we have Trumpian quasi-economic idea to force import of American weapons and unleash sanctions if, say, Russian weapons a for being twice cheaper.

Building our economy on the basis of piracy is perhaps a sound idea if we cannot compete in other ways, but that harks to "build better future by stealing office supplies". But the fact is that USA is not an omnipotent pirate, so to get concessions we need to concede something else, and the least important are issues that affect jobs (think tanker jobs and other elite occupations are not threatened after all).

vk , Aug 25, 2018 5:22:25 PM | 14
@ Posted by: Inkan1969 | Aug 25, 2018 2:18:44 PM | 1
Reunification under what government. When you say, "on its way to reunification", do you foresee the Kim Jong-Un regime taking over the entire peninsula, or dissolving while a democratic government similar to the one in South Korea is established across the whole continent, as was the case in Germany?

North Korea already has the solution for the problem you highlight: the Chinese model of "one country, two systems" mixed with the American model. In the North's plan, there would be peace, the frontier would be more porous (families could reunite, more or less freedom of movement), strategic infrastructural projects that would involve both halves interests would be joint, foreign policy would be unified but domestic policies would be practically independent (the American model, where the States of the Federation can decide on tax, etc.).

The problem is: the South (and the USA) doesn't want it. They are betting on the North's collapse, followed by a would be chaebol/American multinationals takeover, followed by an IMF-like "shock doctrine", which would result in the mass enslavement of the Northern population (slave labor for the chaebols factories, generating a new cycle of high profit rates) -- precisely what happened to the DPR (which capitulated) and, in the second case, the Russian SR (shock doctrine).

[Aug 25, 2018] America's Anxiety of Influence

Primitive analysis. Traditional imperial view. The only good thing is that it does acknowledge the disaster of Iraq invasion and Lybia. But those are oil rich countries and the US decided to conquer them exactly due to this.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Specifically, it suggests that U.S. influence is always a good thing and that its diminution (whether by accident or by design) is something to mourn. ..."
"... The United States is still the 800-pound gorilla in the international system and other global actors will inevitably pay close attention to whatever Uncle Sam is doing ..."
"... For foreign-policy practitioners, having lots of influence and being fully engaged is also a heady experience; it means foreign governments will take your calls, treat you with deference and respect when you visit, and sometimes they follow your advice (or at least pretend to). ..."
"... But "influence" (a notoriously nebulous term) is merely a means to some end; it is not an end itself. Having lots of influence is not necessarily a good thing if you have no idea what to do with it, or if what you choose to do is wrong-headed, or if you end up shouldering burdens and bearing responsibility for mishaps and miscues that you lacked the wisdom or foresight to avoid. ..."
"... After 9/11, the Bush administration decided the United States needed more ..."
"... The "global war on terror" dragged the United States into Somalia and Yemen too, with baleful effects in both places, and the United States is now using its remaining "influence" to support a brutal Saudi military campaign in Yemen, thereby bearing indirect responsibility for the world's most severe humanitarian crisis. ..."
"... I could go on, but the point should be clear. The United States had plenty of influence during this period, but it's hard to argue that it exercised that influence with much wisdom or success. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | foreignpolicy.com

Earlier this week, David Ignatius at the Washington Post published an interesting column ruing the decline of U.S. "influence" in the Middle East. His central theme is that U.S. "disengagement" from the region is allowing local actors to chart their own courses, and that many of them are now making bad decisions. In his view, the prospects for positive change in the region are receding and that we will all be worse off as a result.

It's a thoughtful column and worth reading . It's also a revealing one, because it rests on one of those unspoken assumptions that are articles of faith in the U.S. foreign-policy community. Specifically, it suggests that U.S. influence is always a good thing and that its diminution (whether by accident or by design) is something to mourn. But if you've been paying attention to the results of U.S. policy over the past quarter-century -- especially in the Middle East but also in some other places -- that position may not be the hill you want to die defending.

Look, it's easy to understand why American foreign-policy elites like having lots of "influence." To some degree it's unavoidable. The United States is still the 800-pound gorilla in the international system and other global actors will inevitably pay close attention to whatever Uncle Sam is doing .

For foreign-policy practitioners, having lots of influence and being fully engaged is also a heady experience; it means foreign governments will take your calls, treat you with deference and respect when you visit, and sometimes they follow your advice (or at least pretend to).

If you're in the foreign-policy business, it's a helluva a lot more gratifying to represent the United States than to be out there pitching on behalf of a small or weak country whose voice does not carry.

But "influence" (a notoriously nebulous term) is merely a means to some end; it is not an end itself. Having lots of influence is not necessarily a good thing if you have no idea what to do with it, or if what you choose to do is wrong-headed, or if you end up shouldering burdens and bearing responsibility for mishaps and miscues that you lacked the wisdom or foresight to avoid.

Which brings me, naturally, to the Middle East, where American influence is now supposedly waning. What's the track record of U.S. influence over the recent past?

One could argue that U.S. influence was a net positive for much of the Cold War. The U.S. role in the Middle East was fairly limited: Washington backed a number of allies for some combination of economic, strategic, and domestic political reasons, and it worked hard to limit the Soviet role in the region and to make sure that oil and gas kept flowing to markets around the world. And until the first Gulf War in 1991, Washington did all this without having to send its own ground or air forces to the region for any length of time and without having to fight any costly wars. Instead, the United States relied on diplomacy, intelligence cooperation, and foreign assistance and generally acted like an "offshore balancer," relying on local allies and keeping its own forces over the horizon. It even switched sides once or twice when strategic circumstances dictated. U.S. policy wasn't a perfect success, perhaps, but on the whole this approach worked pretty well.

But U.S. influence in the region -- though considerable -- had been almost entirely negative ever since. For starters, despite having enormous potential leverage at their disposal, successive Democratic and Republican administrations mishandled the Oslo peace process, fueling extremism and helping make the two-state solution that the United States favored a dead letter by 2018. Unconditional U.S. support for its various Middle East clients also helped inspire groups like al Qaeda, and the policy of " dual containment " adopted by the Clinton administration in 1993 helped turn Osama bin Laden's attention away from his local enemies (i.e., the House of Saud) and toward the "far enemy," with the results we all saw on Sept. 11, 2001.

After 9/11, the Bush administration decided the United States needed more influence in the region, and it tried to kick-start a democratic transition by toppling Saddam Hussein and establishing a pro-American democracy in Iraq. That misguided exercise of "influence" led to heightened Iranian influence and the rise of the Islamic State, squandered several trillion dollars and thousands of lives, distracted two successive administrations, and struck a severe blow to U.S. prestige. Remarkably, the Obama administration repeated this error on a smaller scale in Libya, helping topple Muammar al-Qaddafi even though it had no idea what would come after him.

The "global war on terror" dragged the United States into Somalia and Yemen too, with baleful effects in both places, and the United States is now using its remaining "influence" to support a brutal Saudi military campaign in Yemen, thereby bearing indirect responsibility for the world's most severe humanitarian crisis. And let's not forget how U.S. "influence" first pressed Egypt to democratize after President Hosni Mubarak was driven from power, and then tacitly embraced the military coup that ousted Mohamed Morsi, and now turns a blind eye to the repression and corruption that continues to afflict Egypt.

I could go on, but the point should be clear. The United States had plenty of influence during this period, but it's hard to argue that it exercised that influence with much wisdom or success. Both Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility for these repeated debacles; their common failures are one of the few examples of bipartisanship left in our polarized polity.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University. @stephenwalt

[Aug 25, 2018] Be Careful What You Ask For- Wasting Time with Manafort, Cohen, and Russiagate by Jim Kavanagh

Notable quotes:
"... First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." ..."
"... It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts. ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

But these crimes are tax fraud, money laundering, and credit app padding that have nothing to do with Donald Trump, and campaign-finance violations related to what a critic of Trump aptly describes as "a classic B-team type of bumbling screw-up of covering up mistresses." I question the level of word play, if not fantasizing, necessary to claim that these crimes validate " this investigation of foreign subversion." None of them has anything to do with that. The perils of this, that, these, and those.

Do these results disprove that the Mueller probe is "a political investigation"? I think they imply quite the opposite, and quite obviously so.

Why? Because these convictions would not have occurred if Hillary Clinton had been elected president. There would be no convictions because there would have been no investigation.

If Hillary had been elected, all the crimes of Manafort and Cohen -- certainly those that took place over many years before the election, but even, I think, those having to do with campaign contributions and mistress cover-ups -- would never have been investigated, because all would have been considered right with the political world.

The Manafort and Cohen crimes would have been ignored as the standard tactics of the elite financial grifting -- as well as of parasitism on, and payoffs by, political campaigns -- that they are. Indeed, there would have been no emergency, save-our-democracy-from-Russian-collaboration, Special Counsel investigation, from which these irrelevant charges were spun off, at all.

... ... ...

Have you heard of the Podestas? The Clinton Foundation? Besides, the economic purpose of American electoral politics is to funnel millions to consultants and the media. Campaign finance law violations? We'll see how the lawsuit over $84 million worth of funds allegedly transferred illegally from state party contributions to the Clinton campaign works out. Does the media report, does anybody know or care, about it? Will anybody ever go to prison over it?

... ... ...

First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." If the Democrats insist these convictions are not just matters of financial hijinx, irrelevant to Mueller's "Russia collusion" investigation, and irrelevant in fact to anything of political substance; if they assert that the payoffs to Stormy and Karen (the only acts directly involving Trump) disqualify Trump for the presidency, then they will have no excuse but to call for Trump's impeachment, and act to make it happen. Their base will demand that Democratic candidates run on that promise, and if the Democrats re-take the House, that they begin impeachment proceedings immediately.

... ... ...

If they try to impeach and fail (which is likely), well, then, as happened to the Republicans with Clinton, they will just look stupid, and will be punished for having wasted the nation's political time and energy foolishly. And Trump will be strengthened.

If they were to impeach, convict, and remove Trump (even by forcing a resignation), a large swath of the population would conclude, correctly, that a ginned-up litigation had been used to overturn the result of the 2016 election, that the Democrats had gotten away with what the Republicans couldn't in 1998-9. That swath of the population would likely withdraw completely from electoral politics, leaving all their problems and resentments intact -- hidden for a while, but sure to erupt in some other ways. It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts.

. .. ... ...

...if they do move forward, that will initiate a political battle that will tear the country apart and end up either with their defeat or the victory of Mike Pence.

... ... ...

By the way, for those who think that Manafort's conviction portends a smoking gun, based on his work for "pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych," as the NYT and other liberals persistently call him, I would suggest looking at this Twitter thread by Aaron Maté. It's a brilliant shredding of Rachel Maddow's (and, to a lesser extent, Chris Hayes's) version of the deceptive implication -- presented as an indisputable fact -- that Manafort's work for Yanukovych is proof that he (and by extension, Trump) was working for Putin. As Maté shows, that is actually indisputably false. Manafort was working hard to turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is abundant and easily available. It was given in the trial, though you'd never know that from reading the NYT or listening to MSNBC. As a former Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "If it weren't for Paul, Ukraine would have gone under Russia much earlier. He was the one dragging Yanukovich to the West." And the Democrats know this.

And if you think Cohen is harboring secret knowledge of Trump-Russia collusion that he's going to turn over to Mueller, take look at Maté's thread on that.

We are now entering a new period of intense political maneuvering that's the latest turning point in the bizarre and flimsy "Russiagate" narrative. I've been asked to comment on that a number of times over the past two years, and each time I or one of my fellow commentators would say, "Why are we still talking about this?" It was originally conjured up as a Clinton campaign attack on Trump, but, to my and many others' surprise and chagrin, it somehow morphed into the central theme of political opposition to Trump's presidency.

... ... ...

Russiagate was a pretext to dig around everywhere in his closet. Trump was clueless about the trap he was setting for himself, and has been relentlessly foolish in dealing with it. It is a witch hunt, and he's riding around on his broom, skywriting self-incriminating tweets.

There are a thousand reasons to criticize Donald Trump -- his racism, his stupidity, his infantile narcissism, his full embrace of Zionist colonialism with its demand to attack Iran, his enactment of Republican social and economic policies that are destroying working-class lives, etc. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them. His election was a symptom of deep pathologies of American political culture that we must address, including the failure of the "liberal" party and of the two-party system itself. That Donald Trump is a Russian agent is not one of them. There are a number of very good justifications for seeking his impeachment, starting with the clear constitutional crime of launching a military attack on another country without congressional authorization. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and its allied media do not want to center the fight on these substantive political issues. Instead, they are centering on this barrage of Russiagate litigation -- none of which yet proves, or even charges, Russian "collusion" -- which they are using as a substitute for politics. And, in place of opposition, they're substituting uncritical loyalty to the heroes of the military-intelligence complex and "our democracy" that only a complete fantasist could stomach. I mean, when you get to the point that you're suspecting John Bolton's " ties to Russia " .

[Aug 25, 2018] Obama Marries the Liberals to the Neocons by PATRICK ARMSTRONG

Notable quotes:
"... In the Obama years the marriage of the neocons and the humanitarian interventionists was effected. The neocons, with their doctrine of American Exceptionalism are always ready for an intervention and their justification is always the same: "American moral leadership": ..."
"... In March he told us that "we are on the brink of a major humanitarian disaster in Kosovo the likes of which have not been seen in Europe since the closing stages of World War II." The NATO operation was conducted to "stop human suffering" (15 April). On 20 April he gave us a catalogue of Serb horrors: hundreds of Kosovar boys possibly preserved as living "blood banks for Serb casualties"; Kosovar human shields tied to Serb tanks; "chain gangs of Kosovars" digging mass graves; "systematic destruction of civilian homes"; rape camps. On 4 May "at least 100,000 men of military age are missing". And so on: how could you not support the "alliance of civilised nations" (his description) intervening to stop these horrors? And CNN was there every step of the way; later we learned that US military psyops personnel had " helped in the production of some news stories ". Other media outlets were equally quick on board, again with occasional "help" from US intelligence : ..."
"... In the case of Yugoslavia, the gullibility quotient has been breathtakingly high: Only material that conformed to the reigning victim-demon dichotomy would be hunted down with tenacity and reported; material that contradicted it, or that served to weaken and disconfirm it, would be ignored, discounted, excluded, even attacked. ..."
"... Thus was R2P implemented -- with no protection for Yugoslav Serbs. They had to die in the experiment to explore the limits of US power and the limits of its resistance. ..."
"... The experiment worked: it showed that an aggressive war could be packaged so that liberals signed on: all you had to do was push the war crimes/humanitarian/genocide button. And, as a bonus, it was discovered that when the truth finally came out, no one remembered and you could sell the same shabby story again; and so, Serb-run " rape camps " became Qaddafi's men with Viagra . ..."
"... Obama celebrated the liberal-interventionist/neocon marriage at West Point in 2014 . Starting with the neocon foundation on which all their wars are erected, that America will and must lead ..."
Aug 22, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

Obama Marries the Liberals to the Neocons

When President Bush decided to attack Iraq in 2003 there were enormous protests in the United States and around the world. Not, of course, that they stopped the attack or even slowed it, but people did protest in large numbers. When Obama – "leading from behind" – and some NATO members decided to attack Libya in 2011 there were, as far as I know, no protests anywhere. Nor were there protests as wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and a secret war in Syria dragged on for nearly his whole eight years.

The surface explanation is that Obama, as a Democrat, the First Black President, an " intellectual " and a Nobel Prize winner, got the free pass that Bush as a Republican and an " incurious idiot " did not get. But there was another factor at work, I believe.

In the Obama years the marriage of the neocons and the humanitarian interventionists was effected. The neocons, with their doctrine of American Exceptionalism are always ready for an intervention and their justification is always the same: "American moral leadership":

Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job.

So there was never any difficulty getting neocons and their ilk to support another bombing campaign to do a bit of "morally exceptional police work". The Obama change is that liberals, whose historic tendency is to oppose another war, are now in the War Party. And so there was hardly anyone was left to go out on protest.

Their first date, as it were, was NATO's intervention in Kosovo/Serbia in 1999. That experiment proved that liberals would happily agree to go to war if the intervention could be coloured as morally acceptable: "genocide" and "rape" being especially powerful words. And, on command, it happened. " Serbs 'enslaved Muslim women at rape camps '". Hundreds of thousands missing, feared murdered . 10,000 in mass graves . But the ur-source was the official NATO spokesman, Jamie Shea. (The following quotations are from NATO press briefings I collected at the time. I do not know whether they are still available on the NATO website, although, like the first one, many are still visible .) In March he told us that "we are on the brink of a major humanitarian disaster in Kosovo the likes of which have not been seen in Europe since the closing stages of World War II." The NATO operation was conducted to "stop human suffering" (15 April). On 20 April he gave us a catalogue of Serb horrors: hundreds of Kosovar boys possibly preserved as living "blood banks for Serb casualties"; Kosovar human shields tied to Serb tanks; "chain gangs of Kosovars" digging mass graves; "systematic destruction of civilian homes"; rape camps. On 4 May "at least 100,000 men of military age are missing". And so on: how could you not support the "alliance of civilised nations" (his description) intervening to stop these horrors? And CNN was there every step of the way; later we learned that US military psyops personnel had " helped in the production of some news stories ". Other media outlets were equally quick on board, again with occasional "help" from US intelligence :

In the case of Yugoslavia, the gullibility quotient has been breathtakingly high: Only material that conformed to the reigning victim-demon dichotomy would be hunted down with tenacity and reported; material that contradicted it, or that served to weaken and disconfirm it, would be ignored, discounted, excluded, even attacked.

Entirely one-sided with the media ( predominantly liberal in sympathy ) following the choir leader.

Later, too late in fact, we learned that it wasn't so simple. A UN court ruled that it wasn't "genocide" after all . Milosevic, dead in prison, was exonerated . Not so many mass graves after all. And, after all those deaths, whom did NATO put in power and give a whole country to? Organ harvesters and arms smugglers . And yes, the CIA was in there from the get go. A completely manipulated discussion. And the Serbs have been driven out of Kosovo right under NATO's nose . Too late indeed.

In his essay, " Hidden in Plain View in Belgrade ", Vladimir Goldstein discovers, under the heading "What For?", a memorial to the people killed in the attack on the TV centre . His conclusion, with which I agree, is:

Thus was R2P implemented -- with no protection for Yugoslav Serbs. They had to die in the experiment to explore the limits of US power and the limits of its resistance.

The experiment worked: it showed that an aggressive war could be packaged so that liberals signed on: all you had to do was push the war crimes/humanitarian/genocide button. And, as a bonus, it was discovered that when the truth finally came out, no one remembered and you could sell the same shabby story again; and so, Serb-run " rape camps " became Qaddafi's men with Viagra .

It was around this time and these circumstances that the responsibility to protect ("R2P") idea began to gain traction. Finally formalised at the UN in 2005, the essence was that governments are obliged to protect their populations from atrocities and that the "international community, through the United Nations" may intervene. That was the magic potion: if the war party could make a case for R2P (and, as Kosovo showed, the case didn't have to last any longer than the war did) liberals would cheerfully sign on.

Obama celebrated the liberal-interventionist/neocon marriage at West Point in 2014 . Starting with the neocon foundation on which all their wars are erected, that America will and must lead , comes the liberal deal-clincher: "not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe." And that leading involves a "backbone", not of example or persuasion, but of bombs: "The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership". When should the USA use "that awesome power"? Certainly when "core interests" demand it but also when "crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction".

Which brings me to the fourth and final element of American leadership: Our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.

And, he assured us, it all works out for the best in the end:

remember that because of America's efforts, because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance as well as the sacrifices of our military, more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history.

And, finally, this paladin of liberalism declared:

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.

When the "victim-demon dichotomy" media siren is turned on, any war, any bombing campaign, can be massaged to fit "core interests" and/or "human dignity". We're all exceptionalists now.

Despite a successful movie showing us, step by step, how to do it , the scam still pulls in the suckers: justifying the attack on Libya, Obama said (note he combines leadership and atrocities ):

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and -- more profoundly -- our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. [My italics]

The atrocities? In September 2013, after Qaddafi had been murdered and Libya destroyed, Harvard's Belfer Center said the " model intervention " was based on false premises:

The cynic would say, the real lesson is get the intervention over before anybody notices the atrocity stories have been " sexed up ". When they do, it's too late and few remember. And it will work the next time around. And so the happily-married couple proceeds: " The West cannot stand by in Syria as we did for too long in Bosnia. "

That is Obama's real legacy: the union – marriage – of the neocon assumption that America must "lead" with the liberal desire to "do good". And the issue from the happy marriage? "

See also

Tags: Neocons Obama

[Aug 25, 2018] Trashing Treaties- Trump s Shameful Legacy

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's authorization for the establishment of a "US Space Force" as an additional military branch was one of the more egregious trashing of a longstanding international treaty. ..."
"... In June 2018, America's Israeli-style harassment was also meted out to former Spanish Foreign Minister and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. He was denied a US visa waiver because he had visited Iran in 2013 to attend President Hassan Rouhani's inauguration. ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

On December 6, 2017, Trump announced official US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In 1980, a UN Security Council abstention permitted the adoption of Resolution 478. The measure supplemented the earlier Resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, and 465, which required that all UN member states, including the United States, are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem. The passage of Resolution 478 resulted in nations that had moved their embassies to Jerusalem, including Costa Rica and El Salvador, moving them back to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, or Herzliya. Trump's action reversed that action, with Guatemala, Paraguay, and Honduras moving their embassies back to Jerusalem.

On May 8, 2018, Trump renounced the US signature on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran, the nuclear agreement with Iran. Even though the pact was signed by the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Germany, the European Union and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, Trump, taking his cues from the Israeli war hawk, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, decided, once again, to make the United States an outlier. Trump effectively gave the back of his hand to the international community to placate Netanyahu. Moreover, Trump threatened "secondary sanctions" against foreign nations and firms that continued to engage in commerce with Iran after a November 4, 2018 deadline.

Trump's authorization for the establishment of a "US Space Force" as an additional military branch was one of the more egregious trashing of a longstanding international treaty. The 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, known simply as the "Outer Space Treaty," established the basis for international space law. The original signatories were the United States, Soviet Union, and United Kingdom. Since 1967, 107 nations have fully ratified the treaty, which bans the placement of weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit and the establishment of military bases, installations, and fortifications on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

Trump's creation of a military Space Force to supplant the civilian National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in US space operations and his call for space to be a "new warfighting domain" effectively violate US treaty obligations.

The US Air Force's X-37B robotic space planes, smaller versions of NASA's discontinued space shuttle orbiter, are believed to have carried out top secret military-oriented missions since 2010. Trump's creation of a Space Force represents a public admission of America's desire to militarize space, even as the Air Force remains mum on the actual purpose of the X-37B program.

The basis in international law for the Outer Space Treaty was the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. The Antarctic Treaty bans military activity of the continent. Only scientific research in Antarctica is permitted under the Antarctic Treaty System. However, Trump's disregard for the entire international treaty system has placed the Antarctic Treaty in as much jeopardy as the Outer Space Treaty. The suspected presence of rare earth minerals and gas hydrates under melting Antarctic ice shelves has Trump's cronies in the mining and fossil fuel industries anxious to undermine the Antarctica Treaty and open the continent to commercial exploitation.

Considering the schoolmarmish haughtiness of Trump's ambassador to the UN, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, someone who had no foreign policy experience before taking over at the US Mission to the UN, the 1947 US-UN treaty, titled the "Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States of America Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations," may also be violated. The imposition of draconian visa bans and other sanctions and travel restrictions on government officials of Iran, Turkey, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba, China, Chad, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Yemen, Myanmar, Laos, Syria, Somalia, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Eritrea places in jeopardy US law that requires the facilitation of travel for delegations of UN member states and official observers to and from the UN headquarters in New York.

Trump's total disregard for international laws and treaties may eventually see leaders and diplomats of foreign nations detained or arrested when they arrive in New York to attend UN sessions. Such harassment began in earnest just a few weeks after Trump was inaugurated as president. In February 2017, former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was caught up in Trump's visa ban against visitors from Muslim nations. Bondevik was detained at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington and subjected to questioning about an Iranian visa in his diplomatic passport.

In June 2018, America's Israeli-style harassment was also meted out to former Spanish Foreign Minister and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. He was denied a US visa waiver because he had visited Iran in 2013 to attend President Hassan Rouhani's inauguration. Solana told Spanish television, "It's a bit of a mean decision... I don't think it's good because some people have to visit these complicated countries to keep negotiations alive." Trump's renunciation of the US signature on the Iran nuclear deal showed the world what Trump and his neo-conservative advisers think about peace "negotiations." Although the general purpose visa waiver ban was instituted by Barack Obama, the Trump administration has been violating the spirit and intent of the US-UN Treaty by applying it to those, like Bondevik and Solana, possessing diplomatic passports.

Trump has made no secret of his disdain for foreign government officials and the countries they represent. During a briefing on the Indian sub-continent, Trump reportedly delighted in referring to Nepal as "nipple" and Bhutan as "button." According to the "tell-all" book by former White House adviser Omarosa Manigault Newman, Trump, after viewing a video of his pushing aside Montenegro Prime Minister Duško Marković at the 2017 NATO summit, called him a "whiny punk bitch." Trump referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "meek and mild" over a rift on US-Canadian trade policy.

One of Trump's first phone calls as president with a foreign leader resulted in Trump complaining that his discussions with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull were "most unpleasant." Before warming to North Korean leader Kim Jong UN, Trump referred to him as "little rocket man." During remarks at the UN in September 2017, Trump referred to Namibia as "Nambia." Later, he called African countries and Haiti "shithole" countries.

Cities that have served as hosts for international summits and meetings have also earned Trump's scorn. He called Brussels a "hell hole," London a magnet for Muslim terrorist immigrants, and Paris not being Paris any longer because of Muslim immigrants.

Trump, ever the America Firster – a phrase invented by pro-Hitler politicians in the 1930s – has decimated international law on issues ranging from the environment and outer space to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and international guarantees for the right of the Palestinians. Trump's tearing up of international treaties signed by his predecessors with the chiefs of various Native American tribes warrants it own article. Mr. Trump's damage to international relations represents a historical watershed event and it will take decades to recover from the current "dark ages" of American diplomacy.

[Aug 25, 2018] The Trump administration and Iran by Thierry Meyssan

Notable quotes:
"... The people known as " neo-conservatives " form a group of Trotskyist intellectuals (thus opposed to the concept of nation-states), militants of Social Democrats USA, which worked with the CIA and MI6 to fight the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Today they conserve the control of a common Intelligence agency connected with the " Five Eyes " (Australia, Canada, New-Zealand, UK, USA) - the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) ..."
"... they have popularised the idea of " democratising " régimes by way of " Colour Revolutions ", or directly by means of war. ..."
"... If we look a little closer, we may note that his entire career since the collapse of the USSR has been centred around Iran, but not necessarily in opposition to it. For example, during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran fought alongside Saudi Arabia under the orders of the Pentagon. ..."
"... According to Pompeo, the aim of this new group is not to change the régime, but to force Iran to change its politics. This strategy appears while the Islamic Republic is navigating a major economic and political crisis. ..."
"... Contrary to the image we were presented in the West, Ayatollah Khomeiny's revolution was not clerical, but anti-imperialist. The protests can therefore either lead to a change of the régime, or to the continuation of the Khomeinist Revolution, but without the clergy. It is this second option which is represented by ex-President Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest) and his ex-Vice-Ppresident Baghaie (imprisoned for 15 years and held incommunicado). ..."
"... On 15 August, in other words, on the day before Pompeo's announcement, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recognised that he had been in error when he allowed Cheikh Hassan Rohani's team to negotiate the JCPoA agreement with the Obama administration ..."
"... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes a distinction between the policies of Presidents Obama and Trump, wrote to the new President just after his election [ 7 ]. He demonstrated that he shared Donald Trump's analysis of the Obama-Clinton global system and its painful consequences for the rest of the world and also for the citizens of the United States. ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

The people known as " neo-conservatives " form a group of Trotskyist intellectuals (thus opposed to the concept of nation-states), militants of Social Democrats USA, which worked with the CIA and MI6 to fight the Soviet Union. They were associated with Ronald Reagan's power structure, then followed through all the US political mutations, remaining in power under Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama.

Today they conserve the control of a common Intelligence agency connected with the " Five Eyes " (Australia, Canada, New-Zealand, UK, USA) - the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) [ 3 ]. Partisans of the " World Revolution ", they have popularised the idea of " democratising " régimes by way of " Colour Revolutions ", or directly by means of war.

In 2006, they created the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group within the Bush Junior administration. It was directed by Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of Vice-President Dick Cheney. At first, they were housed with the Secretariat of Defense, then transferred to the Vice-President's offices. The group had five sections.

In 2007, this group was officially disbanded. In reality, it was absorbed by an even more secret structure tasked with the strategy for global democracy (Global Democracy Strategy). This unit, under the command of neo-conservative Elliott Abrams (who was involved in the " Iran-Contras affair "), and James Jeffrey, spread this sort of work to other regions of the world.

It is this Group which supervised the planning for the war against Syria.

When the new President had a long meeting with Abrams at the White House, the US Press, which is violently anti-Trump, presented him as the first possible Secretary of State for the Trump administration. It obviously came to nothing.

However, the fact that ambassador James Jeffrey has just been nominated as a special representative for Syria makes the accusation that the Trump administration was attempting to resuscitate this strategy more credible.

Jeffrey is a career " diplomat ". He organised the application of the Dayton agreements in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was on post in Kuwaït during the Iraqi invasion. In 2004, under the orders of John Negroponte, he supervised the transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority (which was a private company [ 4 ]) to the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. Then he joined Condolleezza Rice's cabinet in Washington, and participated in the Coalition Provisional Authority. He was one of the theorists for US military redeployment in Iraq (the Surge), implemented by General Petraeus. He was also the assistant of National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley during the war in Georgia, then Bush Junior's ambassador in Turkey and Obama's ambassador in Iraq.

If we look a little closer, we may note that his entire career since the collapse of the USSR has been centred around Iran, but not necessarily in opposition to it. For example, during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran fought alongside Saudi Arabia under the orders of the Pentagon. On the other hand, in Iraq, Jeffrey opposed the influence of Teheran. But when Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhasia, he did not defend President Saakachvili, since he knew that he had rented two airports to Israël to facilitate an attack on Iran.

Mike Pompeo named Brian Hook as the head of the Iran Action Group. He is an interventionist who was the assistant for Condoleezza Rice, working with international organisations. Until now, he was tasked with elaborating strategies for the State Department.

According to Pompeo, the aim of this new group is not to change the régime, but to force Iran to change its politics. This strategy appears while the Islamic Republic is navigating a major economic and political crisis. While the clergy (doubly represented by the Cheikh President and by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution) is clinging to power, there are demonstrations against it all over the country.

Contrary to the image we were presented in the West, Ayatollah Khomeiny's revolution was not clerical, but anti-imperialist. The protests can therefore either lead to a change of the régime, or to the continuation of the Khomeinist Revolution, but without the clergy. It is this second option which is represented by ex-President Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest) and his ex-Vice-Ppresident Baghaie (imprisoned for 15 years and held incommunicado).

On 21 May last, before the Heritage Foundation, Mike Pompeo presented his 12 objectives for Iran [ 5 ]. At first glance, this seemed to be a long list of demands which are impossible to satisfy. However, when we look closer, points 1 to 3 relative to the nuclear question do not go as far as the JCPoA. Point 4 concerning ballistic missiles is unacceptable. Points 5 to 12 aim to convince Iran to give up the idea of exporting its revolution by force of arms.

On 15 August, in other words, on the day before Pompeo's announcement, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recognised that he had been in error when he allowed Cheikh Hassan Rohani's team to negotiate the JCPoA agreement with the Obama administration [ 6 ]. Note that the Supreme Leader had authorised these negotiations before Rohani's election, and that he – and the eviction of Ahmadinejad's movement – had been part of the preparatory discussions.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes a distinction between the policies of Presidents Obama and Trump, wrote to the new President just after his election [ 7 ]. He demonstrated that he shared Donald Trump's analysis of the Obama-Clinton global system and its painful consequences for the rest of the world and also for the citizens of the United States.

When the demonstrations began in December 2017, the Rohani government accused Ahmadinejad of being responsible. In March 2018, the ex-President clinched his break with the Supreme Leader by revealing that Khamenei's office had misappropriated 80 billion rials belonging to humanitarian and religious foundations [ 8 ]. Two weeks before Pompeo's announcement, although he was under house arrest, he called for the resignation of President Rohani [ 9 ].

Everything therefore points to the idea that although the Obama administration supported Rohani, Trump's administration supports Ahmadinejad's party. Just as when President Carter and his advisor Brzeziński launched "Operation Eagle Claw " against the Revolution, while President Reagan supported Imam Khomeiny (October Surprise).

In other words, the White House could be quite comfortable with a return to power of Ahmadinejad's party, on the condition that Iran agrees to export its Revolution only by the debate of ideas.

[Aug 25, 2018] Seize the transnational corporations to rebuild Syria-, by Thierry Meyssan

Notable quotes:
"... The United States, which had been planning the war against Syria since 2004, does not want to part with a penny. According to the Trump administration, this war was created by the Bush Jr. administration and led by the Obama administration. However, these two administrations were not serving the interests of the US people, but those of a transnational financial class. Not only did they destroy Syria, but also the US economy. Thus it is not for Washington to pay, but these people and the transnational corporations directly implicated in the war. ..."
"... The engagement of these corporations in the implementation of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski's plan to destroy the states and societies of the Greater Middle East can probably be explained by their certainty that they would thus gain access to the region's natural resources, under the protection of the Western armies. ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

The United States, which had been planning the war against Syria since 2004, does not want to part with a penny. According to the Trump administration, this war was created by the Bush Jr. administration and led by the Obama administration. However, these two administrations were not serving the interests of the US people, but those of a transnational financial class. Not only did they destroy Syria, but also the US economy. Thus it is not for Washington to pay, but these people and the transnational corporations directly implicated in the war.

For example, the United States investment fund and rival of the Carlyle Group, Henry Kravis' KKR (market value 150 billion dollars). It employs General David Petraeus and transferred funds and weapons to Al-Qaeda and Daesh [ 2 ]. Or Japanese automobile manufacturer Toyota, which furnished all of Daesh's new vehicles (market value 170 billion dollars) [ 3 ]. Or again, Caterpillar, the manufacturer of construction machines, which sold to the jihadists the tunnel-building machinery necessary for the construction of their underground networks (market value 76 billion dollars). Not to mention the Franco-Swiss cement producer Lafarge-Holcim, which produced 6 million tonnes of cement for the construction of their bunkers (market value 40 billion dollars) [ 4 ], etc.

The engagement of these corporations in the implementation of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski's plan to destroy the states and societies of the Greater Middle East can probably be explained by their certainty that they would thus gain access to the region's natural resources, under the protection of the Western armies.

Making the multinationals pay does not exclude obtaining damages from certain states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar or Turkey, which financed, or certain of whose citizens publicly financed the jihadists.

[Aug 25, 2018] CIA's Kremlin Spies Suddenly Go Dark

Aug 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

CIA spies operating within the Kremlin have suddenly "gone to ground" according to the New York Times , citing American officials clearly abusing their security clearances.

The officials do not think their sources have been compromised or killed - rather, they've been spooked into silence amid "more aggressive counterintelligence by Moscow, including efforts to kill spies," according to the Times, pointing to the still-unsolved March poisoning of former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal in the UK.

Curiously, the Times immediately suggests that the lack of intelligence is " leaving the CIA and other spy agencies in the dark about precisely what Mr. Putin's intentions are for November's midterm elections. "

But American intelligence agencies have not been able to say precisely what are Mr. Putin's intentions : He could be trying to tilt the midterm elections, simply sow chaos or generally undermine trust in the democratic process . - NYT

There it is. Of course, buried towards the end of the article is this admission:

But officials said there has been no concrete intelligence pointing to Mr. Putin ordering his own intelligence units to wade into the election to push for a certain outcome , beyond a broad chaos campaign to undermine faith in American democracy.

Meanwhile, "current and former officials" tell the Times that the outing of FBI spy Stefan Halper, who infiltrated the Trump campaign, had a " chilling effect on intelligence collection ."

[Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

PATIENT OBSERVER August 23, 2018 at 5:19 pm

Here is my take on the priorities of the deep state and its public face – the MSM:

  1. stopping the deplorable rebellion
  2. cutting off the head of the rebellion – perceived as Trump
  3. reinstating the Cold War in an effort to derail Rusisa's recovery and international leadership role
  4. bitch slapping China

The rest involves turning unsustainable debt into establishment of a feudal world comprised of elites living on Mount Olympus, legions of vassals and a vast sea of cerebrally castrated peasants to serve as a reservoir for any imaginable exploitation.

Won't happen, not even close.

PATIENT OBSERVER August 23, 2018 at 7:29 pm

Upon further reflection, Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering.

[Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

PATIENT OBSERVER August 23, 2018 at 5:19 pm

Here is my take on the priorities of the deep state and its public face – the MSM:

  1. stopping the deplorable rebellion
  2. cutting off the head of the rebellion – perceived as Trump
  3. reinstating the Cold War in an effort to derail Rusisa's recovery and international leadership role
  4. bitch slapping China

The rest involves turning unsustainable debt into establishment of a feudal world comprised of elites living on Mount Olympus, legions of vassals and a vast sea of cerebrally castrated peasants to serve as a reservoir for any imaginable exploitation.

Won't happen, not even close.

PATIENT OBSERVER August 23, 2018 at 7:29 pm

Upon further reflection, Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering.

[Aug 24, 2018] Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee, subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG

Notable quotes:
"... Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG ..."
"... Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them, not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out in legislation. ..."
"... Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their rescue in a New York minute. ..."
"... Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy, I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination of the major intel agencies. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning government in the bathtub" all too literally. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

GM August 16, 2018 at 10:22 pm

Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG

He could easily be brought up on rather serious charges.

Abby , August 18, 2018 at 11:23 pm

He also leaked classified information to the press as did others and they could have been prosecuted under the espionage act. They will be losing their security clearances soon too. The information that they leaked was the NSA information on Flynn to the Washington post. But of course the Obama justice department only prosecuted people who exposed Washington's dirty secrets.

Realist , August 17, 2018 at 1:21 am

Yes, what Kenneth might like to see happen may be admirable but not going to happen in 2018 or 19, which is practically a different universe from 1975 and for exactly the reasons you specify. This country and its self-appointed minders have changed massively in 45 years. Besides, 1975 was a year after Watergate was finally resolved with Nixon and Agnew's resignations and Congress may have been feeling its oats, going so far as to defund the Vietnam war! Imagine defunding ANY of the multiple wars ongoing!

Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them, not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out in legislation. Schumer let that feline out of the sack when he warned the president not to mess with them.

Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their rescue in a New York minute.

We saw how the CIA worked around congressionally-imposed budgetary restraints in Iran-Contra: by secretly running drugs from Columbia to LA, selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to fund death squads in Central America. Congress didn't have the guts to take that investigation to it logical conclusion of impeachments and/or indictments. Why?

Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy, I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination of the major intel agencies.

Unfettered Fire , August 17, 2018 at 12:11 pm

The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning government in the bathtub" all too literally.

Rosa Brooks' book How War Became Everything and Everything Became the Military exposes the vast expansion and added responsibilities of the MIC, as governmental departments continue to be dismantled and privatized.

She even said in a book circuit lecture that she thought the idea of Congress "declaring war" was antiquated and cute. Well, how long will it be when the very hollowed out structures of Capitol Hill and the White House are considered antiquated and cute?

What if the plan all along has been to fold up this whole democratic experiment and move HQ into some new multi-billion dollar Pentagon digs?

Remember the words of Strobe Talbott:

"Within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

This nation had better wake up fast if it wants to salvage the currency authorizing power of government and restore its role in the economy, before it's no longer an option and the private bankers, today's money lenders in the temple, govern for good.

"The bank strategy continues: "If we can privatize the economy, we can turn the whole public sector into a monopoly. We can treat what used to be the government sector as a financial monopoly. Instead of providing free or subsidized schooling, we can make people pay $50,000 to get a college education, or $50,000 just to get a grade school education if families choose to go to New York private schools. We can turn the roads into toll roads. We can charge people for water, and we can charge for what used to be given for free under the old style of Roosevelt capitalism and social democracy."

This idea that governments should not create money implies that they shouldn't act like governments. Instead, the de facto government should be Wall Street. Instead of governments allocating resources to help the economy grow, Wall Street should be the allocator of resources – and should starve the government to "save taxpayers" (or at least the wealthy). Tea Party promoters want to starve the government to a point where it can be "drowned in the bathtub."

But if you don't have a government that can fund itself, then who is going to govern, and on whose terms? The obvious answer is, the class with the money: Wall Street and the corporate sector. They clamor for a balanced budget, saying, "We don't want the government to fund public infrastructure. We want it to be privatized in a way that will generate profits for the new owners, along with interest for the bondholders and the banks that fund it; and also, management fees. Most of all, the privatized enterprises should generate capital gains for the stockholders as they jack up prices for hitherto public services.

You can see how to demoralize a country if you can stop the government from spending money into the economy. That will cause austerity, lower living standards and really put the class war in business. So what Trump is suggesting is to put the class war in business, financially, with an exclamation point."

http://michael-hudson.com/2017/03/why-deficits-hurt-banking-profits/

[Aug 24, 2018] From what I have read about Mueller's career as a kind of designated hitter, I doubt that there are any scruples lying within him to hold him back from any step that would "prove his case."

Notable quotes:
"... Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino, and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!! ..."
"... I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. ..."
"... Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. ..."
"... Gone are those heady days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Litchfield August 17, 2018 at 3:53 pm

"What do you all think?"

What does Mueller himself stand to lose if he can't find any dirt on Trump/collusion?

From what I have read about Mueller's career as a kind of designated hitter, I doubt that there are any scruples lying within him to hold him back from any step that would "prove his case."

Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino, and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!!

Tom , August 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm

I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Professor , August 19, 2018 at 5:09 pm

Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. I do think he's in for a comeuppance of some kind but how does it help Republicans in the midterm to do this now?

Gone are those heady days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? He must be stewing in his own juices ., steaming hot.

He is a hard man to admire and he's tough to look at as well but hey he's not as ugly as Clapper and nothing is ever going to touch him.

[Aug 24, 2018] Credit Suisse freezes $5 billion of Russian money due to U.S. sanctions

Notable quotes:
"... Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers. ..."
"... The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOW EXILE August 22, 2018 at 11:47 am

Credit Suisse freezes $5 billion of Russian money due to U.S. sanctions
AUGUST 22, 2018 / 5:53 PM / UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO

ZURICH (Reuters) – One of Switzerland's largest banks, Credit Suisse, has frozen roughly 5 billion Swiss francs ($5 billion) of money linked to Russia to avoid falling foul of U.S. sanctions, according to its accounts, further increasing pressure on Moscow .

Credit Suisse is being cautious in part because of earlier bad experiences. In 2009, it reached a $500 million settlement with U.S. authorities over dealings with sanctions-hit Iran.

There have been other instances where European banks have been punished. In 2014, France's BNP Paribas ( BNPP.PA ) agreed to pay a record $8.9 billion for violating U.S. sanctions against Sudan, Cuba and Iran.

Switzerland's banking watchdog FINMA does not require Swiss banks to enforce foreign sanctions, but has said they have a responsibility to minimize legal and reputational risks.

I hope the present Russian administration and those yet to come remember this.

CARTMAN August 22, 2018 at 3:42 pm
Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers.
MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 5:39 pm
I doubt very many ordinary Russians lost anything, but they got a pretty useful lesson for free. The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal.
MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 4:21 pm
Surely there is something Russia can seize to pay them back, or a bank they can close down and kick out in reprisal.

Like

KIRILL August 22, 2018 at 5:01 pm
I wonder whose money this was. Russian offshoring is rather sneaky and uses all sorts of places like Cyprus and the Cayman Islands through various instruments. As of 2014, simply keeping money in a western bank was no longer an option.

So this is either illegal money or Credit Suisse is simply lying.

MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 5:51 pm
That's a good point; some time ago (you're probably correct that it was 2014, or around there) the Russian government did somewhat formalize its advice to not keep money in western banks. As I best remember, it was only mandatory for members of government. But it seems unlikely the government would order all its ministers and senators to move all monies held in western banks out of those banks, and then leave government funds there itself. So perhaps some oligarch/s got burned.
JEN August 23, 2018 at 3:08 am
Could some of this money that Credit Suisse has frozen be Mikhail Khodorkovsky's?

Like

MARK CHAPMAN August 23, 2018 at 1:45 pm
Possibly, but I doubt it. Saint Mikhail's money, what there is left of it, is transparent to western investigations, and if they could think of a good reason they would give him a lot more, especially if he were even remotely popular in Russia and they thought he might be a candidate for insertion into Putin's role.

Like

MOSCOW EXILE August 23, 2018 at 4:02 am
Now Credite Suisse says that Russian accounts have not been frozen, that the Bank had reclassified certain assets placed under sanctions. By these actions no Russian customers have been affected, reports TASS .

Meanwhile, in the world's greatest dirty money laundry, it has been revealed that the London branch of Deutsche Bank has issued threats to the Russian government.

Deutsche Bank London Threatens to End Business With Russia
Bloomberg, 3 hours ago

Deutsche Bank AG threatened to end business with Russia's government earlier this year in a letter sent to the state demanding that it provide more information related to know-your-customer records.

The lender's London branch sent the correspondence in June saying the business relationship could be terminated if Russia failed to submit the documents within 30 days. While that deadline has long since elapsed, Russia never answered the letter and the German bank hasn't followed up on the initial request, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

Arschlöcher!

I was working only yesterday and last week as well in the main office of Deutsche Bank here in Moscow.

Never saw no Fritzes there, only Ivans. Seemed to be business as usual to me..

Like

[Aug 24, 2018] US sanctions on Russia tied to UK attack to take effect Monday

Skripal (most probably false flag) poisoning now has distinct Washington connections. Cue Bono?
Nobody can still explain why Skripals lost conscience simultaneously. That kills UK version of door knob. Another strange issue is why all but one victims survived. That can be explained only if this was a false flag and novichok was injected in bio samples.
Aug 24, 2018 | uk.reuters.com

Plans to impose the latest sanctions were announced by the Trump administration on Aug. 8, a response to what the State Department said was Moscow's use of a nerve agent against a former Russian agent and his daughter in Britain in March.

RELATED COVERAGE

Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's GRU military intelligence service, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of Salisbury after a liquid form of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to the front door of his home. Both survived the attack.

Moscow has denied involvement in the attack. It has also denied meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections.

'CHANGE IN BEHAVIOUR'

Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, said on Friday Moscow must change its ways before the United States will lift its already long list of sanctions.

"The sanctions remain in force and will remain in force until the required change in Russian behaviour," he told a news conference in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.

The new measures will be published and come into effect on Aug. 27 and remain in place for at least one year, according to the notice in the Federal Register, a daily catalogue of government agency actions. They are authorized by the 1991 Chemical and Biological Weapons and Warfare Elimination Act.

Space flight activities, government space cooperation, areas concerning commercial aviation safety and urgent humanitarian assistance will be exempt.

A second batch of penalties will be imposed after 90 days unless Russia gives "reliable assurance" that it would no longer use chemical weapons and allow on-site inspections by the United Nations or another international observer group.

Soon after the attack on the Skripals, Washington also showed solidarity with Britain and announced it would expel 60 Russian diplomats, joining governments across Europe in punishing the Kremlin.

[Aug 24, 2018] Comey Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to Hilllary loss

Notable quotes:
"... Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents. ..."
"... In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job. ..."
"... Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates was even remotely suitable for the presidency. ..."
"... Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the election. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

GKJames, August 16, 2018 at 2:25 pm

(1) An intellectual Rubicon is crossed when Giuliani is deemed a reliable source for anything.

(2) Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents. It's not a quality unique to Brennan. In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job.

(3) Am happy to hear that Brennan wants "all Americans [to] get the answers they so rightly deserve" [NYT] from the Mueller investigation. But he'd be more persuasive if that desire extended equally to the Senate's investigation into torture.

(4) Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates was even remotely suitable for the presidency. Where does the law come in? If the claim -- hinted at but not made explicit -- is that Brennan was part of a conspiracy to produce the Steele dossier, allegations of fact, not to mention citation to laws violated, would be helpful. Based on information known to date, we can reasonably surmise that some, but not all, of the material in the dossier was the product of Russian disinformation channelled to Steele. If there's something more, it would be good to get details.

(5) Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the election. And, more broadly, if there really was a conspiracy by the national security apparatus, it was an endeavor that failed. One would think that the 63 million would be pleased on both counts.

(6) If law breaking there was, what explains the silence from the DOJ under Sessions, whose stellar career is littered with contrived prosecutions of political opponents? It doesn't take much to draft an indictment. Yet, here we are, nearly two years into the new dawn, and Brennan continues to walk free and even spout off publicly. What explains that?

[Aug 24, 2018] From reading The Devil s Chessboard it is quite clear that Allen Dulles still ran things after he was fired by JFK, and was most likely the coordinator of the assassination

Notable quotes:
"... Right now I think they are trying to figure out a way to get him out of office without having to actually kill him. ..."
"... I too think they'd love to assassinate Trump, but I don't think they dare. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Skip Scott August 18, 2018 at 6:31 am

Hi B.E.-

I agree that Brennan should have his clearance revoked, and frankly so should anyone after they leave government. The thing is, I just got done reading "The Devil's Chessboard", and it is quite clear that Allen Dulles still ran things after he was fired by JFK, and was most likely the coordinator of the assassination.

I doubt that Trump has any more control of the CIA than JFK had.

Until people like Brennan are capable of being prosecuted in a court of law, our so-called "Intelligence" agencies don't give a rat's ass what the president orders. In fact, they probably give "suggestions" that are in fact orders.

Right now I think they are trying to figure out a way to get him out of office without having to actually kill him.

backwardsevolution , August 18, 2018 at 8:22 am

Hi, Skip. The Devil's Chessboard sounds like a good book; I'll have to read it. Yes, I think whoever gets to the top of the CIA is probably one mean, bad monster of a human being.

I too think they'd love to assassinate Trump, but I don't think they dare. There are too many people who just don't believe the government anymore, and Trump's supporters would blow the roof off if anything happened to him. They've got to be worried about that because they're the ones with all the guns. Ha!

I think they're desperately racing against time, trying to nail Trump before he nails them. The evidence is slowly trickling out (because the FBI and DOJ are stalling) re the Steele dossier/Russiagate/spying, etc.

From the evidence gathered so far, it's pretty evident that the upper layer of the DOJ, FBI and CIA are rotten to the core and should be dismantled ASAP. If all Trump does while being in office is bring these guys down, then he will have done a great service.

Take care.

[Aug 24, 2018] I would say that the ' few days of bombing Serbia ' in 1999 ripped any last vestiges of belief that the West was here to help

Notable quotes:
"... The 78 day all-out NATO bombing of Serbia was the act that, I believe, shocked/energized Russia's patriotic elements into action. The fact that little Serbia, after years of severe sanctions and every dirty trick imaginable would not buckle to the empire showed Russia that the Empire was not invincible. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL August 24, 2018 at 1:42 am

For me, I would say that the ' few days of bombing Serbia ' in 1999 ripped any last vestiges of belief that the West was here to help mega violently (deliberate bombing of the Chinese embassy) away from everyone. Of course plenty happened in the years running up to that event The other is when China joined the WTO on 11/12/2001 and hit the ground running – they were expected to behave meekly and ask the great white men for their advice and follow it.

PATIENT OBSERVER August 24, 2018 at 4:25 am

The 78 day all-out NATO bombing of Serbia was the act that, I believe, shocked/energized Russia's patriotic elements into action. The fact that little Serbia, after years of severe sanctions and every dirty trick imaginable would not buckle to the empire showed Russia that the Empire was not invincible.

The deliberate attack on the Chinese embassy IIRC triggered waves of spontaneous demonstrations in China of such intensity that the Chinese government had to take means to dampen. But, the message was not lost on the leadership.

Those acts of hubris and cruelty by the Empire may have been the beginning of its end.

[Aug 24, 2018] After the election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.

Notable quotes:
"... "Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their security clearance and their puppet masters ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

AnthraxSleuth , August 18, 2018 at 12:57 am

@GkJames.

MMMM mmmm, tasty kool-aid you're drinking bruh.

From the book shattered:

"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.

https://nypost.com/2017/10/26/how-team-hillary-played-the-press-for-fools-on-russia/

And now you want to talk about trying to shoe horn reality into your fantasy outcome.

Anyone with with 2 brain cells to rub together is laughing at you and your ilk pushing this complete horse chit.

The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their security clearance and their puppet masters.

Do yourself a favor and turn off that freak Rachel Madcow!

[Aug 24, 2018] Do Democrats Want an Impeachment Fight by Pat Buchanan

Cohen / Manafort mess creates a whole other level of problems for the current Administration. So Mueller got Trump in an old fashioned way by digging the personal and business related dirt and going after people who were close to Trump. This is how prosecutors approach mafia cases ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president. ..."
"... Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature. ..."
"... But if Cohen's guilty plea and Tuesday's conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump's dealings for more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of motives to "flip" and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump. Then there is the Mueller probe itself. ..."
"... Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate. ..."
"... However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down. ..."
"... And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller's report. ..."
"... Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas, federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his enemies. ..."
"... No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted. ..."
"... if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment. ..."
"... Instead, he's embarked on a massively ambitious nation-building project in northeast Syria and is otherwise scouring the globe for new wars to start, while mostly catering to his rich friends at home. And Israel, Israel, Israel all the time. ..."
"... What has he done that's actually useful? Ditching TTIP? OK let's grant him that one. Meeting Kim? Mayyybe, but at the same time he chose to appoint Bolton and Pompeo who are predictably sabotaging the Singapore understanding. Meanwhile, American finances are going off the cliff at an ever-accelerating pace. ..."
"... All of which is the perfect mirror image of an equally true statement: if Obama hadn't been such a lousy president (which his supporters are in denial about), a known charlatan like Trump would've never had a shot at the office. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

"If anyone is looking for a good lawyer," said President Donald Trump ruefully, "I would strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen." Michael Cohen is no Roy Cohn.

Tuesday, Trump's ex-lawyer, staring at five years in prison, pled guilty to a campaign violation that may not even be a crime. Cohen had fronted the cash, $130,000, to pay porn star Stormy Daniels for keeping quiet about a decade-old tryst with Trump. He had also brokered a deal whereby the National Enquirer bought the rights to a story about a Trump affair with a Playboy model, to kill it.

Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president.

Would a Democratic House, assuming we get one, really impeach a president for paying hush money to old girlfriends?

Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature.

But if Cohen's guilty plea and Tuesday's conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump's dealings for more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation.

Nothing that comes of this collaboration will be helpful to Trump.

Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of motives to "flip" and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump. Then there is the Mueller probe itself.

Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate.

However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down.

Mueller may not have the power to haul the president before a grand jury or indict him. After all, it is Parliament that deposes and beheads the king, not the sheriff of Nottingham. But Mueller will file a report with the Department of Justice that will be sent to the House.

And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller's report.

Still, as of now, it is hard to see how two-thirds of a new Senate would convict this president of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Thus we are in for a hellish year.

Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas, federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his enemies.

No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted.

Democrats who have grown giddy about taking the House should consider what a campaign to bring down a president, who is supported by a huge swath of the nation and has fighting allies in the press, would be like.

Why do it? Especially if they knew in advance the Senate would not convict.

That America has no desire for a political struggle to the death over impeachment is evident. Recognition of this reality is why the Democratic Party is assuring America that impeachment is not what they have in mind.

Today, it is Republicans leaders who are under pressure to break with Trump, denounce him, and call for new investigations into alleged collusion with the Russians. But if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment.

Taking the House would put newly elected Democrats under fire from the right for forming a lynch mob, and from the mainstream media for not doing their duty and moving immediately to impeach Trump.

Democrats have been laboring for two years to win back the House. But if they discover that the first duty demanded of them

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. "

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

Sally Snyder , says: August 24, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT

Here's what the United States would look like under a Pence presidency:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/09/impeaching-trump-and-america-under.html

President Pence would do little to undo the political polarization that America has experienced over the past two decades since his voting record suggests that he leans rather heavily to the right side of the political spectrum.

Sir Launcelot Canning , says: August 24, 2018 at 12:00 pm GMT

Maybe this is payback for the other impeachment attempt 20 years ago. Perhaps some dems have been waiting two decades for vengeance. Whatever Clinton's faults, the GOP should not have opened that can of worms back then.

Johnny Smoggins , says: August 24, 2018 at 12:14 pm GMT

One of two things will likely happen in November.

Either the Republicans come out ahead in which case the left will say it was because of "Russian" interference and the election results are thus illegitimate. Or the Democrats will and they will not only be under pressure to impeach Trump but also to punish the deplorables who voted for him.

Either way things are going to be ugly.

Stick , says: August 24, 2018 at 1:28 pm GMT

Well, this would constitute a real civil war. All because Obama and Hillary failed at rigging an election and failed at launching a coup. Good Times. Keep your powder dry.

Anonymous , [363] Disclaimer says: August 24, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
@Stick

Well, this would constitute a real civil war. All because Obama and Hillary failed at rigging an election and failed at launching a coup. Good Times. Keep your powder dry.

Meh. Who are you going to shoot at? Your neighbors? The local messican ghetto? Cops in general?

IMO, just like always throughout history, the key is to nab "elected representatives" from local, state and federal positions, and hang them. You don't have to hang very many -- they're smarter than they look; they're merely corrupt slimebags. Kill a few, and the rest scatter, awaiting future opportunity.

Ma Laoshi , says: August 24, 2018 at 6:04 pm GMT

Mr. Buchanan somehow manages to make it through the entire article without reminding us that, in fact, the GOP did impeach a president over a blowjob–what goes around, comes around. And while I doubt that Pat is among his fans, Bill Clinton at the time was a good deal more popular than Trump is now.

Which brings us to something basic: Democrats and liberals in general have jumped the shark for everyone to see, they're stark raving mad. Granted, the GOP is not exactly Trump's party, but in an environment where Republicans face no substantial opposition, Trump could potentially do something for his voters and there would be no possibility of a blue wave.

Instead, he's embarked on a massively ambitious nation-building project in northeast Syria and is otherwise scouring the globe for new wars to start, while mostly catering to his rich friends at home. And Israel, Israel, Israel all the time.

What has he done that's actually useful? Ditching TTIP? OK let's grant him that one. Meeting Kim? Mayyybe, but at the same time he chose to appoint Bolton and Pompeo who are predictably sabotaging the Singapore understanding. Meanwhile, American finances are going off the cliff at an ever-accelerating pace.

All of which is the perfect mirror image of an equally true statement: if Obama hadn't been such a lousy president (which his supporters are in denial about), a known charlatan like Trump would've never had a shot at the office.

For an outsider, the sentimental attachment of this supposedly forward-looking country to its two officially allowed parties which haven't served their stated purpose for decades already is a curious thing to behold.

Longfisher , says: August 24, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT

Although I lean conservative, I despair for my country. If Trump's election "unauthorized by the real powers that be" proves to be the match that sets alight the country then we're all in for a form of Hell that few of us have seen.

I sense that it's coming. So, I despair.

Corvinus , says: August 24, 2018 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Stick

"Well, this would constitute a real civil war."

Note that someone whose supposed level of intimacy with violence is someone who would not know the first thing to do if war actually broke out. Exactly why you, the armchair warrior, who waits with bated breath to jackboot your "enemies", will be staying at home rather than being on the front lines, just like yourself, dear.

Now, onto Patrick's post.

"Michael Cohen is no Roy Cohn."

Patrick is partially right. They are both Jewish, and they both engaged in illegal activity, but one was a closet homosexual.

"But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation "

Obviously if that was the case, Cohen would not have pled guilty. And clearly Patrick has not been keeping up with the Mueller investigation on this particular development.

"Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law."

No, Cohen is offering to corroborate the evidence collected by prosecutors as to what constitutes illegal activities.

"No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival."

Well, we know for a fact that if Shitlery or Obama was in the SAME SITUATION, Patrick would NOT be advocating this course of action. Rather, he would call for either of them to step aside.

"Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate."

The Mueller investigation is a sore spot for Buchanan, who had to endure an eerily similar experience with Nixon. So it is other than surprising that Buchanan is defending Trump. Patrick ought to know better here, as Mueller is carefully gathering evidence from one of the most complex cases in our nation's political history.

Justice in this instance has no time table. Mueller is under no obligation to show his cards, that is not how prosecutions work.

[Aug 24, 2018] With Cohen as a cooperating witness Trump attempt to hush up Stormy can lead to his impeachment

Notable quotes:
"... "Perhaps the greatest political damage came not from the felony charges, all of them related to various forms of financial chicanery, including five counts each for Cohen and Manafort of income tax evasion, but from Cohen's public statement in the courtroom of Judge Kimba Wood. In confessing his guilt to the eight counts, Cohen declared that in two instances, violating federal laws by using personal funds to suppress politically inconvenient statements by Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, he was acting "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office." ..."
"... My point is that Cohen's admissions implicating Trump in carrying out either himself or in concert with others willful ongoing acts violative of Federal Campaign Finance laws are CLEARLY sufficient-if substantiated-to oust him from office. ..."
"... "Mueller's strategy of focusing on Cohen and Manafort's white-collar crimes is perfectly reasonable, even in a probe directed at Russian interference in the 2016 election. "It's not unusual for prosecutors to use charges -- Al Capone is the primary example -- to bring down a criminal conspiracy in any way they can," Waxman pointed out." ..."
"... Cohen's guilty plea effectively makes Trump an unindicted co-conspirator. Current Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted -- but building a legitimate criminal case against Trump would make it harder for Republicans to stand united in opposition to impeaching the president ..."
"... Cohen would be a prosecutor's "dream cooperator: one who had special insider access to the leader of a powerful, closed, corrupt organization," former prosecutors Mimi Rocah and Elie Honig wrote last month. "We used to prosecute mafia cases. We both know that in the mob -- and perhaps in this White House -- the right cooperator can bring down the entire hierarchy." ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

NORTHERN STAR August 22, 2018 at 2:44 pm

Frankfurter NS here:

"Perhaps the greatest political damage came not from the felony charges, all of them related to various forms of financial chicanery, including five counts each for Cohen and Manafort of income tax evasion, but from Cohen's public statement in the courtroom of Judge Kimba Wood. In confessing his guilt to the eight counts, Cohen declared that in two instances, violating federal laws by using personal funds to suppress politically inconvenient statements by Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, he was acting "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/22/trum-a22.html

My point is that Cohen's admissions implicating Trump in carrying out either himself or in concert with others willful ongoing acts violative of Federal Campaign Finance laws are CLEARLY sufficient-if substantiated-to oust him from office.

Don't think so??

If the following transgressions were sufficient to 'nail' their intended targets -which is what happened - then Trump's acts in attempting to hush up Stormy (supra) COULD achieve the same result. Whether or not some faction of TPTB has the WILL to impeach him is another matter.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

NORTHERN STAR August 22, 2018 at 2:56 pm
"Mueller's strategy of focusing on Cohen and Manafort's white-collar crimes is perfectly reasonable, even in a probe directed at Russian interference in the 2016 election. "It's not unusual for prosecutors to use charges -- Al Capone is the primary example -- to bring down a criminal conspiracy in any way they can," Waxman pointed out."

Yup!!!

" Cohen's guilty plea effectively makes Trump an unindicted co-conspirator. Current Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted -- but building a legitimate criminal case against Trump would make it harder for Republicans to stand united in opposition to impeaching the president .

When President Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator by a grand jury, he opted to resign instead of face impeachment proceedings. Trump seems unlikely to step down, however. Any further efforts on his part to block the investigation into his campaign would put the Justice Department in uncharted territory"

Cohen would be a prosecutor's "dream cooperator: one who had special insider access to the leader of a powerful, closed, corrupt organization," former prosecutors Mimi Rocah and Elie Honig wrote last month. "We used to prosecute mafia cases. We both know that in the mob -- and perhaps in this White House -- the right cooperator can bring down the entire hierarchy."

From links I've already posted , getting a USC Title 18 conviction of Trump is not necessarily that required to charge him with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Although there is some dispute in legal circles as to what exactly constitutes a sufficent basis of facts upon which impeachment can be based.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-cohen-paul-manafort-convictions-trouble-for-trump_us_5b7c9cc9e4b0cd327df79e44

MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 4:36 pm
But it will establish an unsavory precedent – that any sitting president can be taken out merely by selecting one of his/her aides and then threatening them with crushing penalties for some silly transgression or other or they can turn state's evidence. Anyone who ever dreamed of ascending to the nation's highest office would have to know that, by facilitating this process, they were handing the lawmakers the means to remove any future president.

But, as I said, I don't care. Hillary can't win it now, Pence is a dink, The Donald would dig in his heels and fight all the way out, probably causing great damage, but if he went, so what? He's a dreadful president. And the USA would be in political chaos.

KIRILL August 22, 2018 at 5:23 pm
Trump should have fired Sessions for recusing himself from this Congress instituted witch-hunt. The job of Sessions is to be over-seer of the Special Counsel investigation. Mueller cannot have special rights, he must follow the rules. Shaking down people around Trump for tax evasion or assorted other unrelated crimes is not following the rules. It is pure Inquisition tactics.

I would not be so quick to write Trump off as dreadful. He basically sabotaged the two hyped up cruise missile attacks on Syria. Even though his hands are tied and his mouth is gagged by US corporate-run "freedom", he managed to make both those attacks totally ineffective. If he was a loyal servant of the US elites, he would have kept sending more and more missiles and actually ordered NATzO or "coalition" jets to bomb Syrian targets seriously. The sporadic Israeli and coalition attacks have been basically irrelevant.

He is rocking the boat as much as he can. This creates are sorts of noise. This noise is not a metric of his efforts and success.

MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 4:28 pm
We'll see. If the Democrats are successful at having him impeached, they will probably create a special holiday recognizing Stormy Daniels, or give her the Presidential Medal of Freedom or something. I frankly don't care – he beat Hillary, and that's something she can never erase or cover up.
MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 4:17 pm
I imagine they sweated him with the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison; all the newspaper accounts of his testimony spoke of his shaky voice, and it's typically pretty hard to scare a lawyer. They likely told him that he could just disappear into the prison system and that there would be nothing at all he could do about it.
KIRILL August 22, 2018 at 4:58 pm
Any testimony under such coercion is utterly worthless. It is basically a show trial signed "confession".
PATIENT OBSERVER August 22, 2018 at 6:57 pm
He was probably reminded that lawyers do not do well in prison.

[Aug 24, 2018] Some info about the American senator who famously could not remember how many houses he and his wife owned.

Notable quotes:
"... If it's really true that the centre cannot hold, The Empire is going to have an increasingly hard time cloaking its lies. Of course, the west could simply return to the values of brotherhood and the common struggle it continues to espouse but never really seriously practiced. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

So let's start with America's next big war -- the Gulf War against Iraq, Take One. John McCain voted for war . Were there casualties? You could say that; 294 Americans died in the Gulf War. The UK lost 47. It's worth noting, as an aside, that Syria was a US ally in the Gulf War, and had 2 of its soldiers killed. How about Iraqis? Well, nobody seems to have kept a very accurate count -- they were, after all, the enemy, and killing them was encouraged -- and the official American count is established from Iraqi prisoner-of-war records, and was featured in a report commissioned by the US Air Force. It estimates 20,000-22,000 combat deaths overall, in both the air and ground campaigns. Was that a slaughter? You tell me. And before we move on from the Gulf War, John McCain voted (after the war was over) against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans' benefits.

Four years later, McCain supported an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and other federal agencies by $8.9 billion. The following year, McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. As of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who participated, had been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

You may only be 'slaughtered' if you are dead, but the irrevocable changes for the worse in the quality of life for thousands of Americans who were only doing what their country ordered them to do should count for something, what do you say?

This from the American senator who famously could not remember how many houses he and his wife owned . For the record, the number of homes, ranches, condos, and lofts, together worth a combined estimated $13,823,269.00, was ten.

Gee; I'm starting to get a little mad at McCain. Well, let's move on.

In 2003, the US government of the day decided that Saddam Hussein had not learned his lesson the first time, and so this time he had to go. Accordingly, the USA polled its allies for military forces who were not otherwise occupied, and had another go at it. John McCain said hell yes, let's get it on. American military casualties , 4,287 killed, 30,187 wounded. A bit more of a slaughter than the first attempt. The advent of ceramic-plate body armor protected the soldier's body core, so that many more survived injuries that would have been so horrific they would surely have killed them. The downside is that many lived who lost limbs too badly damaged to save, and were crippled for whatever life remained to them. The Iraqi casualty figures were again an estimate, although better documented; by the most reliable count, somewhere between 182,000 and 204,000 Iraqis were killed. Needlessly and pointlessly slaughtered, many of them; American troops grew so fearful as a result of the steady drip of casualties among their own that they frequently opened fire on families in cars with children simply because they did not obey instructions in a language they did not speak or understand. At Mahmudiya, in March 2006, Private Steven Green and his co-conspirators raped and killed 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza, killed her family and set her body afire to blur the details of the crime. When Iraqi soldiers arrived on the scene, Green and his fellow murderers blamed it on Sunni insurgents.

The following year, President Bush approved a 'surge' of 20,000 additional troops, which John McCain so energetically agitated for that it became known informally as 'the McCain doctrine'. That's after he claimed in 2004 that if an elected government in Iraq asked that US forces leave, they would have to go even if they were not happy with the security situation. He also recognized, the following year, that Iraqis resented the American military presence, and the sooner and more dramatically it could be reduced, the better it would be for everyone. I guess if you lay claim to both sides of the argument, you're bound to convince someone that you know what you're doing.

That same year, 2007, John McCain voted against a requirement for specifying minimum time periods between deployments for soldiers deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. When they need you back in the meat-grinder, you go, never mind how many times you've already been there. Let's just keep in mind, before we leave Iraq, that the entire case for war the second time around was fabricated with wild tales of awful weapons Saddam supposedly had which could kill Americans while they were still in America , and so he had to be dealt with. When it was suggested to the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that America should concentrate on Afghanistan, since that is where the backers of the 9-11 strike against America had fled, he mused that there were 'no good targets in Afghanistan' , although there were 'lots of good targets in Iraq'. Some researchers suggest he was after a 'teachable moment' for America's enemies which would convince them of America's irresistible power. While John McCain assessed that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense ever, his complaint was not that Rumsfeld was not killing enough people, but that he showed insufficient commitment to winning the war.

Libya. Hoo, boy. In 2009, John McCain -- together with fellow die-faster-please senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham -- visited Tripoli , to discuss Libya's acquisition of American military equipment. John McCain assured Gadaffi (his son, actually) that America was eager to provide Libya with the equipment it needed. Hardly more than a year later, he espoused the position that Gadaffi must be removed from power because he had American blood on his hands from the Lockerbie bombing. In 2011, he visited the Libyan 'rebels', and publicly urged Washington to consider a ground attack to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power. Just a friendly public service reminder; the Lockerbie bombing was most likely carried out by Syria, was -- according to pretty reliable testimony -- rigged by the American intelligence services to finger Libya , and probably the stupidest thing Gaddafi ever did was to admit to it anyway and pay compensation, in an effort to move on.

Anyway, more war. What the fuck is it with this guy?

Well, even something so grim as war has its comic moments. What else would you call it when NATO claims, with a straight face, that the enemy is hiding his tanks and artillery from its watchful eye inside the water pipes of the Great Man-Made River? What they actually wanted was an excuse to bomb it -- which they did, as well as the pumping stations which brought abundant fresh water to the coastal region, in the certain knowledge that it would create a crisis for the civilian population. Which, by the bye, is against just about every convention on the subject ever written.

Well, even something so grim as war has its comic moments. What else would you call it when NATO claims, with a straight face, that the enemy is hiding his tanks and artillery from its watchful eye inside the water pipes of the Great Man-Made River? What they actually wanted was an excuse to bomb it – which they did, as well as the pumping stations which brought abundant fresh water to the coastal region, in the certain knowledge that it would create a crisis for the civilian population. Which, by the bye, is against just about every convention on the subject ever written.

Here are some of the pipe sections, when they were being trucked to the assembly point. As the article suggests, these sections are 4 meters across; but remember, that's at their widest point. They are only 4 meters for about a foot, because a water pipe is a circle.

Libya mostly used the T-72 Main Battle Tank, and those would be the ones NATO wanted to eliminate, since the others were considerably older. A T-72, width-wise, would just fit in a 4-meter water pipe, as it is 3.6 meters wide . However, it's also over 45 tons in weight. The concrete rings were designed to carry free-flowing water, not a 45-ton tank. Would they take that kind of weight, distributed only over a 7-meter length? Where is there an entry point to the water-pipe that is the same width as the widest diameter of the pipe? As discussed, the water pipe is 4 meters wide at its widest point. But the T-72 is 2.3 meters high. The tank would only fit if it was as high as a lunchbox, because the 4-meter width narrows dramatically from the widest point; it's a circle. Even where it did fit, it would be supported only on the outer edges of its tracks, and you have to cut the 4-meter measurement approximately in half, because the upper portion of the tank would have to be above the point where the tracks touched on each side. The idea was preposterous from the outset, and it speaks to what fucking simpletons western government believes make up its populations that they would dare to put such nutjobbery in print. A T-72 could not fit in a 4-meter water pipe. The notion was demonstrably foolish. But NATO wanted to destroy the water system, so it made up a reason that would allow it to be a well-meaning potential victim of deadly violence.

According to The Guardian – the same source that told you Gadaffi was hiding his tanks in the plumbing – the death toll in the Libyan civil war prior to the NATO intervention was about 1000-2000. According to the National Transitional Council, the outfit the west engineered to rule post-Gaddafi Libya, the final butcher's bill was about 30,000 dead . The very day after NATO folded its tents – figuratively speaking, as the western role was entirely air support for the flip-flop-wearing rebels – and went home, al Qaeda raised its black flag over the Benghazi courthouse .

Caitlin Johnstone claimed John McCain used his political career to advocate for military interventions which resulted in the slaughter of large numbers of human beings. Is that accurate? What say you, members of the jury? In each of the cases above, John McCain used his political influence, over and above his vote, to argue, advocate, hector and plead for military intervention by the armed forces of the United States of America and such coalition partners as could be rounded up. In each of the cases above, the necessity of toppling the evildoing dictator was exaggerated out of all proportion, portrayed as an instant and refreshing liberation for his people, and as only the first phase of a progressive plan which would turn the subject country into a prosperous, western-oriented market democracy. In each of the cases above the country is now a divided and ruined failed state whose pre-war situation was significantly better than its miserable present. And in each of the cases above, a lot of people were killed who could otherwise have reasonably expected to be alive today.

Also, each of the cases above is chronologically separated from the others by a sufficient span for it to be quite evident what a cluster-fuck the previous operation was, so that anyone disposed to learn from his mistakes might have approached the situation differently as it gained momentum, argued for caution based on previously-recorded clusterfuckery, pleaded for reason to prevail and for improved dialogue to be a priority. Not John McCain. He learned precisely the square root of nothing from previous catastrophes, and plunged into the next catastrophe with the enthusiasm most remarked among those who are not all there, as the vernacular describes it. He not only voted for war every time, he expended considerable effort in cajoling and persuading the reluctant to go along.

Perhaps the introduction here of the definition for 'warmonger' would be helpful to the jury. To wit; "O ne who advocates or attempts to stir up war. A person who fosters warlike ideas or advocates war." Synonyms: hawk, aggressor, belligerent, militarist, jingoist, sabre-rattler. There, John; I just saved you the trouble of writing an epitaph.

Will the world be a better place once John McCain is gone? Difficult to say, really, and the present state of affairs in the world argues strongly that it will not. But it will certainly be no poorer for his passing, and if he were to be replaced politically by an individual who took the trouble to do a little research, muse on previous experience, and review all the available options before voting to send in the Marines why, that would be a victory for everyone in a world where victory is increasingly not even a possibility.

Was Caitlin Johnstone right? Broadly speaking, and going on the information available at the time her statement was made, yes; she was.

MOSCOW EXILE August 21, 2018 at 8:31 pm

Well argued article, Mark.

More dirt on McCain, whose source I now forget, but, if I rightly recall, it was a comment made by a US citizen on some blog way back. I have posted it before:

Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several accounts ("Why Does the Nightingale Sing", for example), he only got into the Naval Academy for a free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and he should have been kicked out several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his third mission over Vietnam, and getting captured is not heroic.

What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating allowing him to collect some $40,000 a year tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000 a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement, while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.

McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.

I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour.

McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes.

McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet thinks it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor a rare good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.

PATIENT OBSERVER August 22, 2018 at 7:03 pm

McCain is walking talking proof that sociopaths are fast-tracked for success. There never was a man, in my opinion, in US politics that was more exploitative, coldly calculating and utterly ruthless than that bag of shit.

But, Mark said it much better with style, slashing wit and evidence.

KIRILL August 22, 2018 at 7:04 pm

The problem with such talented men is that they have no talent in anything else. They get to the top and then poop on our heads.

CORTES August 21, 2018 at 9:53 pm

Thanks, Mark, for another analysis of the opinion-management being rolled out across the media.

The stand-out memory I have of the great Ken Kesey novel "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is the description of a "pecking party" inside a battery hen building in which one bird is injured, a speck of blood appears and the crazed neighbours peck it to death. Unfortunately they get spattered and their neighbours take up the pecking a bloodbath ensues. That seems like a decent analogy to the current attempts to close down any alternative to official narrative promotion.

MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 3:55 pm

Thanks, Cortes, and to all my well-wishers. I loved 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', it was at least as memorable as 'Flowers for Algernon' for me, and I read them both at around the same point in my life, when I was in my early 20's.

If it's really true that the centre cannot hold, The Empire is going to have an increasingly hard time cloaking its lies. Of course, the west could simply return to the values of brotherhood and the common struggle it continues to espouse but never really seriously practiced. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

CORTES August 22, 2018 at 9:53 pm

"Flowers For Algernon" is such a stunning work it's a real shame that it's not better known (at least in the UK).
On the news management front, I get the sense that the narrative is slipping away from control. Over a couple of months I've noticed that the free "Metro" papers have been left unread in largish amounts on some buses (busy routes) -- when they were being snaffled up until recently. People can sense that they are being herded, I think, and resent it.

[Aug 24, 2018] The WaPo op-ed "God Bless the Deep State" can be viewed as a suggestion for a military coup

Notable quotes:
"... Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in removing uncooperative heads of state? ..."
"... I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo Ufkotte. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

alley cat August 16, 2018 at 1:58 pm

From the WaPo op-ed "God Bless the Deep State," by Eugene Robinson:

Democrats in Congress are powerless; the Republican leadership, spineless. Experienced government officials know that their job is to serve the president. But what if the president does not serve the best interests of the nation?

In this emergency [emphasis mine], the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher duty. It's called patriotism.

Is Robinson really suggesting a military coup? That would take a lot of planning and organization and would be almost impossible to keep secret. Some honest military officer might find out and put the kibosh on it, like Kirk Douglas did in Frankenheimers's classic political thriller, Seven Days in May .

Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in removing uncooperative heads of state?

Since deep state conspirators routinely smear all those who demand evidence as "Russian agents," maybe non-conspirators should use the same tactic on them, e.g.: Is Robinson on the CIA payroll? Because anyone who agrees with anything the CIA says is obviously working for the CIA, right?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo Ufkotte.

Ltichfield

, August 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm

Re "Thank god for the Deep State."

Amazing, absolutely amazing, statement.
This is, obviously, an admission of the existence of the Deep State -- otherwise generally written off as a "conspiracy theory."

Simultaneously it is a statement that the Deep State "knows better than voters" and also "knows what to do."

This is, actually, a treasonous statement. Why doesn't anyone notice this???

Frederike , August 17, 2018 at 6:34 pm

There is only one article that is translated into English: "The world upside down" 2006,
http://www.ulfkotte.de/18.html
Journalists for Hire is available in German only. (I was able to buy a copy last year.)

Frederike , August 17, 2018 at 6:47 pm

http://it-book.org/pdf/journalists-for-hire
You can download the ebook in English

alley cat , August 16, 2018 at 1:05 am

I've always avoided Eugene Robinson's columns because he seemed like the quintessential, no-think, Borg-assimilated, groupie to me. His column of July 19 entitled "God Bless the Deep State" proves it.

I started highlighting the patent falsehoods in Robinson's column. It didn't take me long to realize that it would be much quicker to highlight the truthful comments. Much, much quicker. I've read the column twice and my copy remains unmarked.

It's a tough call, but probably the most bizarre of Gene's assertions was the following:

"God bless them. With a supine Congress unwilling to play the role it is assigned by the Constitution, the deep state stands between us and the abyss."

Seriously? The deep state stands between us and the abyss? In the real world, where the rest of us live, the deep state is the abyss!

Seems like Washington has been overrun by pod people from an alternate universe, where everything is an inverted, mirror image of reality. Up is down, left is right, etc. Their moral compasses aren't exactly broken, they just point south instead of north.

As for Brennan, he and the president are both zealous advocates of torture. That tells us much about the condition of their moral compasses. A plague on both their houses, with the following reservation: as a certified neocon and Clinton dead-ender, Brennan is even more dangerous to us real-worlders than Trump. He called Trump a traitor for trying to do the right thing. In Brennan's alternate-universe Washington, to do evil is the summum bonum of patriotism.

[Aug 24, 2018] ANTI-VACCINE MYTHS ARE BEING PROMOTED BY SOCIAL MEDIA BOTS AND RUSSIAN TROLLS, STUDY

Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOW EXILE August 23, 2018 at 5:23 pm

Front-page story headline and sub-heading, "The Independent":

ANTI-VACCINE MYTHS ARE BEING PROMOTED BY SOCIAL MEDIA BOTS AND RUSSIAN TROLLS, STUDY
Malicious characters look to use arguments to divide the American public and exploit them
ANDREW GRIFFIN
@_andrew_griffin
2 hours ago

Now read the article.

Anyone find any reference to "Russian trolls" in it, apart from this: " It found many tweets that were posted by the same bots thought to have been used to influence the 2016 election, as well as marketing and malware bots "?

I see: "thought to have been used", writes the "journalist".

And on that supposition the Independent "journalist" rests his case.

Like

MARK CHAPMAN August 23, 2018 at 6:45 pm

It turns out that many anti-vaccine tweets come from accounts whose provenance is unclear ," said David Broniatowski, an assistant professor in GW's School of Engineering and Applied Science.

"These might be bots, human users or 'cyborgs' – hacked accounts that are sometimes taken over by bots. Although it's impossible to know exactly how many tweets were generated by bots and trolls, our findings suggest that a significant portion of the online discourse about vaccines may be generated by malicious actors with a range of hidden agendas."

Equivocation central – it's amazing what can pass as a 'study' these days. What is even more incredible is that we have arrived at a point in our history when the appearance of debate on a point is suspicious, and inspires 'researchers' to 'study' the problem to see who is behind it rather than focusing on why the point generated debate in the first place. We have arrived at a point where it is actually unpatriotic to disagree with the official narrative.

Many more Americans believe vaccines are safe than the astroturfed 'debate' suggests, found the study. Google says bullshit. A recent Zogby poll of a claimed representative sample group found only 32% of respondents said they were 'very confident' vaccines were safe. The same or a similar question was posed 10 years ago, and the proportion who said they were 'not too confident has risen 3% since then, while those who said they were 'not at all confident' in the safety of vaccines went up by 2%. People are not getting more confident, they're getting less confident. There; that's my study – where's my research grant?

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/06/nearly-20-percent-of-americans-think-vaccines-may-be-unsafe-and-45-percent-are-not-sure/

Once again, as soon as the mainstream media finds an argument, it is quick to blame it on unidentified 'Russian trolls', rather than addressing the problem. The state narrative is the law. And the pace is quickening.

Like

DRUTTEN August 24, 2018 at 2:27 am

This is how you can tell Americans (and media as a whole, for that matter) truly are stupid.

Okay, first of all: The whole anti-vaccine hysteria is as American as apple pie, going way back to at least 1998 and to a research paper in the medical journal The Lancet linking MMR vaccines to autism spectrum disorders (a paper that was lated found to be severely lacking in scientific rigor) and certain people raising concern about the mercury content in the thiomersal vaccines. This sparked numerous anti-vaccination campaigns all over the US, ranging from concerned but ignorant parent groups all the way to the Alex Jones type of conspiracy guzzlers, and many of these are alive and kicking to this day.

The vaccine controversy rose to new prominence the widely publicized Jenny McCarthy crap in 2007-2008 and was further fueled by the (legitimate, as it happens) swine flu vaccine-linked narcolepsy cases a few years later.

This stuff trends from time to time, and apparently this clickbait farm (that is what it actually is) caught a whiff of it and thus posted a grand total of 253 (!) short-worded tweets with a vaccination hashtag, out of which according to these so-called researchers 43% were "pro-vaccination", 38% "anti-vaccination" and the remainder were neutral.

And they're "sewing division", "threatening our health" and so on Good god, I'm not sure how much more of this I can take to be honest.

This reminds me of a piece of news here in Sweden the other day, namely that the Swedish Social Democrats got their website DDoS-ed twice. I mean, that's to be expected (the elections are coming up shortly, some of these "establishment" parties are not held in high regard in certain demographics and regularly get their election posters torn down or vandalized and so on, DDoS attacks are cheap to order online and so on and so forth. Fine. The "IT expert" at the Social Democratic Party said they'd tracked down the IPs from which the attack came, and these were random IPs in Japan, in South Africa, in Spain, in Korea and in Russia.

Well, duh , it's a distributed denial-of-service attack, using botnets consisting of infected personal computers all over the world, and it's all available for hire on various onion/darknet market websites for a couple of bucks an hour or so. But of course, the media just disregarded the blatantly obvious and instead decided to illustrate the news with a great Russian flag and some hooded hacker-type fellow superimposed.

It just blows my mind. The info war is real, no doubt about it

Like

YALENSIS August 24, 2018 at 3:00 am

Most Americans simply don't understand how science works. In school they are not taught the scientific method, how experiments are conducted, how statistical sampling works, or even anything about statistics period.
Without such knowledge they are left to the human "default" state of mind, which is magical thinking coupled with basic empiricism. As in "My best friend's daughter got the polio vaccine and then was diagnosed with autism " etc etc.

The ignorance is colossal. I have a friend at work who is actually quite brilliant in her own way, but I discovered, in a conversation, that she doesn't understand how computers work, or how language works. She bought some product and is now convinced that computers "understand human speech". I almost despaired in trying to explain to her that computers are only machines and cannot understand human language.

Apparently she was suckered by some of these "AI" products like Siri, Cortana, etc. People don't learn in school how the "natural language" computer processing works. I don't claim to understand these algorithms myself, as this is a very specialized field of Computer Science, and I never really studied it that much. The only bit that I know, is that "Natural Language" algorithms are based on massive database searches coupled with statistical probabilities in the formation of phrases.
Apparently the Computer Science developments in this field were held back for about 10 years due to reliance on Chomsky's theories (of Transformational Grammar), which turned out to be false and fruitless. As people should have known from the start, if only they had read their Alan Turing in school.

Once the wrong-headed Chomskyite approach was abandoned and a more empirical methodology was introduced, then progress started to be made more quickly in the arenas of computer translation, voice recognition, and "natural language" algorithms.
But the main point here is that computers are just machines and cannot actually speak or understand human languages. And yet Americans apparently think that they can. All part of the "magical thinking" mode which is encouraged by The Powers That Be.

Like

ET AL August 24, 2018 at 9:59 am

I was recently told to turn off my mobile/cellphone because of storms and told that more than one person had been hit by lightning not so far away. I asked where it was. A kid outside in a field. I was indoors. I didn't turn it off. I do though unplug stuff if it's going to be a biggie.

Like

NORTHERN STAR August 24, 2018 at 11:31 am

"Apparently the Computer Science developments in this field were held back for about 10 years due to reliance on Chomsky's theories (of Transformational Grammar), which turned out to be false and fruitless. As people should have known from the start, if only they had read their Alan Turing in school."

Ummm Followed by a thorough familiarization Searle's work

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

Like

YALENSIS August 24, 2018 at 4:08 pm

Thanks for the post, it is an interesting article. However, I believe that it misrepresents the fundamental point of Turing's work in his development of the Turing Machine. Turing's legacy is actually (I believe) the opposite of what the layperson thinks it is, since Turing had proved mathematically that "computer" languages are not the same as "natural" languages and cannot be mapped out nor parsed. Turing's proofs basically dismiss (in advance) all of Chomsky's research in the field of so-called transformational grammar.

I would also point out that Roger Schank was a con-man who received unwarranted grant money based on his fictitious research into so-called "Artificial Intelligence".

I put Chomsky in a different category: His work was well-meaning but incorrect. His theories went against Turing's proofs and led researchers down a blind alley. Which resulted in the loss of approximately one decade of what could have been fruitful empirical work. But is catching up now. I notice, for starters, that google translation is getting better than it used to be. But these products like "Siri" and "Alexa" are simply toys, they are like the dancing dolls of the wizard Coppelius.

Like

MARK CHAPMAN August 24, 2018 at 8:21 am

You can also tell the writer is a son of of the uneducated and doltish media himself (I think it was a man, I don't have time now to go back and look); it's 'sowing division', as if division were seeds, rather than 'sewing', as if it were thread.


[Aug 23, 2018] What the Brennan Affair Really Reveals by Stephen Cohen

"My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides."
Brennan exposed "intelligence community" as a forth branch of government. The branch more powerful that then the other three combined.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
The main suspicion is that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... Los Angeles Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... It's a misnomer to term these people representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War. ..."
Aug 23, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Brennan's allegation was unprecedented. No such high-level intelligence official had ever before accused a sitting president of treason, still more in collusion with the Kremlin. (Impeachment discussions of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, to take recent examples, did not include allegations involving Russia.) Brennan clarified his charge : "Treasonous, which is to betray one's trust and to aid and abet the enemy." Coming from Brennan, a man presumed to be in possession of related dark secrets, as he strongly hinted , the charge was fraught with alarming implications. Brennan made clear he hoped for Trump's impeachment, but in another time, and in many other countries, his charge would suggest that Trump should be removed from the presidency urgently by any means, even a coup. No one, it seems, has even noted this extraordinary implication with its tacit threat to American democracy. (Perhaps because the disloyalty allegation against Trump has been customary ever since mid-2016, even before he became president, when an array of influential publications and writers -- among them a former acting CIA director -- began branding him Putin's "puppet," "agent," "client," and "Manchurian candidate." The Los Angeles Times even saw fit to print an article suggesting that the military might have to remove Trump if he were to be elected, thereby having the very dubious distinction of predating Brennan.)

Why did Brennan, a calculating man, risk leveling such a charge, which might reasonably be characterized as sedition? The most plausible explanation is that he sought to deflect growing attention to his role as the "Godfather" of the entire Russiagate narrative, as Cohen argued back in February. If so, we need to know Brennan's unvarnished views on Russia.

They are set out with astonishing (perhaps unknowing) candor in a New York Times op-ed of August 17. They are those of Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover in their prime. Western "politicians, political parties, media outlets, think tanks and influencers are readily manipulated, wittingly and unwittingly, or even bought outright, by Russian operatives not only to collect sensitive information but also to distribute propaganda and disinformation. I was well aware of Russia's ability to work surreptitiously within the United States, cultivating relationships with individuals who wield actual or potential power. These Russian agents are well trained in the art of deception. They troll political, business and cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters. Too often, those puppets are found." All this, Brennan assures readers, is based on his "deep insight." All the rest of us, it seems, are constantly susceptible to "Russian puppet masters" under our beds, at work, on our computers. Clearly, there must be no "cooperation" with the Kremlin's grand "Puppet Master," as Trump said he wanted early on. (People who wonder what and when Obama knew about the unfolding Russiagate saga need to ask why he would keep such a person so close for so long.)

And yet, scores of former intelligence and military officials rallied around this unvarnished John Brennan, even though, they said, they did not entirely share his opinions. This too is revealing. They did so, it seems clear enough, out of their professional corporate identity, which Brennan represented and Trump was degrading by challenging the intelligences agencies' (implicitly including his own) Russiagate allegations against him. It's a misnomer to term these people representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government. This too has gone largely undiscussed while nightingales of the fourth branch -- such as David Ignatius and Joe Scarborough in the pages of the The Washington Post -- have been in full voice.

The result is, of course -- and no less ominous -- to criminalize any advocacy of "cooperating with Russia," or détente, as Trump sought to do in Helsinki with Putin. Still more, a full-fledged Russophobic hysteria is sweeping through the American political-media establishment, from Brennan and -- pending actual evidence against her -- those who engineered the arrest of Maria Butina (imagine how this endangers young Americans networking in Russia) to the senators now preparing new "crippling sanctions" against Moscow and the editors and producers at the Times , Post , CNN, and MSNBC. (However powerful, how representative are these elites when surveys indicate that a majority of the American people still prefer good relations with Moscow?)

As the dangers grow of actual war with Russia -- again, from Ukraine and the Baltic region to Syria -- the capacity of US policy-makers, above all the president, are increasingly diminished. To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War.

Finally, there was a time when many Democrats, certainly liberal Democrats, could be counted on to resist this kind of hysteria and, yes, spreading neo-McCarthyism. (Brennan's defenders accuse Trump of McCarthyism, but Brennan's charge of treason without presenting any actual evidence was quintessential McCarthy.) After all, civil liberties, including freedom of speech, are directly involved -- and not only Brennan's and Trump's. But Democratic members of Congress and pro-Democratic media outlets are in the forefront of the new anti-Russian hysteria, with only a few exceptions. Thus a generally liberal historian tells CNN viewers that "Brennan is an American hero. His tenure at the CIA was impeccable. We owe him so much." Elsewhere the same historian assures readers , "There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support since the CIA was created in the Cold War." In the same vein, two Post reporters write of the FBI's " once venerated reputation ."

[Aug 23, 2018] The War Piece to End All War Pieces Or How to Fight a War of Ultimate Repetitiousness by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... Here, for instance, is what I wrote about our Afghan War in 2008, almost seven years after it began, when the U.S. Air Force took out a bridal party, including the bride herself and at least 26 other women and children en route to an Afghan wedding. And that would be just one of eight U.S. wedding strikes I toted up by the end of 2013 in three countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, that killed almost 300 potential revelers. "We have become a nation of wedding crashers," I wrote, "the uninvited guests who arrived under false pretenses, tore up the place, offered nary an apology, and refused to go home." ..."
"... Thought of another way, the U.S. military is now heading into record territory in Afghanistan. In the mid-1970s, the rare American who had heard of that country knew it only as a stop on the hippie trail . If you had then told anyone here that, by 2018, the U.S. would have been at war there for 27 years ( 1979-1989 and 2001-2018), he or she would have laughed in your face. And yet here we are, approaching the mark for one of Europe's longest, most brutal struggles, the Thirty Years' War of the seventeenth century. Imagine that. ..."
"... raison d'être ..."
"... Afganistan is the graveyard of poor empires. It's the playground of the rich American empire, a place to test weapons, test men, gain battle experience, get promotions, and generally keep the military-industrial complex in top health. If it didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. ..."
"... As shown in this article there is a very interesting connection between growing wealth inequality in the United States and American wars: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/how-american-wars-lead-to-increased.html ..."
"... it's not a war; it's an occupation. More cops get killed/wounded in USA proper then military personnel in that "war". 2017, 46 U.S. police officers were killed by felons in the line of duty; 17 military personnel in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Yes , the US military industrial complex is rich and in top health as you say , but what I see is that the health of the US as a whole , physical and mental , is going down in the last 50 years . Maybe the metastasis of the " healthy " military cancer are killing the American host . ..."
Aug 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Fair warning. Stop reading right now if you want, because I'm going to repeat myself. What choice do I have, since my subject is the Afghan War (America's second Afghan War, no less)? I began writing about that war in October 2001, almost 17 years ago, just after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. That was how I inadvertently launched the unnamed listserv that would, a year later, become TomDispatch . Given the website's continuing focus on America's forever wars (a phrase I first used in 2010 ), what choice have I had but to write about Afghanistan ever since?

So think of this as the war piece to end all war pieces. And let the repetition begin!

Here, for instance, is what I wrote about our Afghan War in 2008, almost seven years after it began, when the U.S. Air Force took out a bridal party, including the bride herself and at least 26 other women and children en route to an Afghan wedding. And that would be just one of eight U.S. wedding strikes I toted up by the end of 2013 in three countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, that killed almost 300 potential revelers. "We have become a nation of wedding crashers," I wrote, "the uninvited guests who arrived under false pretenses, tore up the place, offered nary an apology, and refused to go home."

Here's what I wrote about Afghanistan in 2009, while considering the metrics of "a war gone to hell": "While Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind of money, if any, to put into health care, or decaying infrastructure, or other key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how, and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant part, of our own creation."

Here's what I wrote in 2010, thinking about how "forever war" had entered the bloodstream of the twenty-first-century U.S. military (in a passage in which you'll notice a name that became more familiar in the Trump era): "And let's not leave out the Army's incessant planning for the distant future embodied in a recently published report, 'Operating Concept, 2016-2028,' overseen by Brigadier General H.R. McMaster, a senior adviser to Gen. David Petraeus. It opts to ditch 'Buck Rogers' visions of futuristic war, and instead to imagine counterinsurgency operations, grimly referred to as 'wars of exhaustion,' in one, two, many Afghanistans to the distant horizon."

Here's what I wrote in 2012, when Afghanistan had superseded Vietnam as the longest war in American history: "Washington has gotten itself into a situation on the Eurasian mainland so vexing and perplexing that Vietnam has finally been left in the dust. In fact, if you hadn't noticed -- and weirdly enough no one has -- that former war finally seems to have all but vanished."

Here's what I wrote in 2015, thinking about the American taxpayer dollars that had, in the preceding years, gone into Afghan "roads to nowhere, ghost soldiers, and a $43 million gas station" built in the middle of nowhere, rather than into this country: "Clearly, Washington had gone to war like a drunk on a bender, while the domestic infrastructure began to fray. At $109 billion by 2014, the American reconstruction program in Afghanistan was already, in today's dollars, larger than the Marshall Plan (which helped put all of devastated Western Europe back on its feet after World War II) and still the country was a shambles."

And here's what I wrote last year thinking about the nature of our never-ending war there: "Right now, Washington is whistling past the graveyard. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the question is no longer whether the U.S. is in command, but whether it can get out in time. If not, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Indians, who exactly will ride to our rescue? Perhaps it would be more prudent to stop hanging out in graveyards. They are, after all, meant for burials, not resurrections."

And that's just to dip a toe into my writings on America's all-time most never-ending war.

What Happened After History Ended

... ... ...

In reality, when it comes to America's spreading wars , especially the one in Afghanistan, history didn't end at all. It just stumbled onto some graveyard version of a Möbius strip. In contrast to the past empires that found they ultimately couldn't defeat Afghanistan's insurgent tribal warriors, the U.S. has -- as Bush administration officials suspected at the time -- proven unique. Just not in the way they imagined.

Their dreams couldn't have been more ambitious. As they launched the invasion of Afghanistan, they were already looking past the triumph to come to Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the glories that would follow once his regime had been "decapitated," once U.S. forces, the most technologically advanced ever, were stationed for an eternity in the heart of the oil heartlands of the Greater Middle East. Not that anyone remembers anymore, but Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and the rest of that crew of geopolitical dreamers wanted it all.

What they got was no less unique in history: a great power at the seeming height of its strength and glory, with destructive capabilities beyond imagining and a military unmatched on the planet, unable to score a single decisive victory across an increasingly large swath of the planet or impose its will, however brutally, on seemingly far weaker, less well-armed opponents. They could not conquer, subdue, control, pacify, or win the hearts and minds or anything else of enemies who often fought their trillion-dollar foe using weaponry valued at the price of a pizza . Talk about bleeding wounds!

A War of Abysmal Repetition

Thought of another way, the U.S. military is now heading into record territory in Afghanistan. In the mid-1970s, the rare American who had heard of that country knew it only as a stop on the hippie trail . If you had then told anyone here that, by 2018, the U.S. would have been at war there for 27 years ( 1979-1989 and 2001-2018), he or she would have laughed in your face. And yet here we are, approaching the mark for one of Europe's longest, most brutal struggles, the Thirty Years' War of the seventeenth century. Imagine that.

... ... ...

Almost 17 years and, coincidentally enough, 17 U.S. commanders later, think of it as a war of abysmal repetition. Just about everything in the U.S. manual of military tactics has evidently been tried (including dropping "the mother of all bombs," the largest non-nuclear munition in that military's arsenal), often time and again, and nothing has even faintly done the trick -- to which the Pentagon's response is invariably a version of the classic misquoted movie line, "Play it again, Sam."

And yet, amid all that repetition, people are still dying ; Afghans and others are being uprooted and displaced across Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and deep into Africa; wars and terror outfits are spreading. And here's a simple enough fact that's worth repeating: the endless, painfully ignored failure of the U.S. military (and civilian) effort in Afghanistan is where it all began and where it seems never to end.

A Victory for Whom?

Every now and then, there's the odd bit of news that reminds you we don't have to be in a world of repetition. Every now and then, you see something and wonder whether it might not represent a new development, one that possibly could lead out of (or far deeper into) the graveyard of empires.

As a start, though it's been easy to forget in these years, other countries are affected by the ongoing disaster of a war in Afghanistan. Think, for instance, of Pakistan (with a newly elected, somewhat Trumpian president who has been a critic of America's Afghan War and of U.S. drone strikes in his country), Iran, China, and Russia. So here's something I can't remember seeing in the news before: the military intelligence chiefs of those four countries all met recently in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, officially to discuss the growth of Islamic State-branded insurgents in Afghanistan. But who knows what was really being discussed? And the same applies to the visit of Iran's armed forces chief of staff to Pakistan in July and the return visit of that country's chief of staff to Iran in early August. I can't tell you what's going on, only that these are not the typically repetitive stories of the last 17 years.

And hard as it might be to believe, even when it comes to U.S. policy, there's been the odd headline that might pass for new. Take the recent private, direct talks with the Taliban in Qatar's capital, Doha, initiated by the Trump administration and seemingly ongoing. They might -- or might not -- represent something new , as might President Trump himself, who, as far as anyone can tell, doesn't think that Afghanistan is " the right war ." He has, from time to time, even indicated that he might be in favor of ending the American role, of " getting the hell out of there," as he reportedly told Senator Rand Paul, and that's unique in itself (though he and his advisers seem to be raring to go when it comes to what could be the next Afghanistan: Iran ).

But should the man who would never want to be known as the president who lost the longest war in American history try to follow through on a withdrawal plan, he's likely to have a few problems on his hands. Above all, the Pentagon and the country's field commanders seem to be hooked on America's " infinite " wars. They exhibit not the slightest urge to stop them. The Afghan War and the others that have flowed from it represent both their raison d'être and their meal ticket. They represent the only thing the U.S. military knows how to do in this century. And one thing is guaranteed: if they don't agree with the president on a withdrawal strategy, they have the power and ability to make a man who would do anything to avoid marring his own image as a winnner look worse than you could possibly imagine. Despite that military's supposedly apolitical role in this country's affairs, its leaders are uniquely capable of blocking any attempt to end the Afghan War.

And with that in mind, almost 17 years later, don't think that victory is out of the question either. Every day that the U.S. military stays in Afghanistan is indeed a victory for well, not George W. Bush, or Barack Obama, and certainly not Donald Trump, but the now long-dead Osama bin Laden. The calculation couldn't be simpler. Thanks to his " precision" weaponry -- those 19 suicidal hijackers in commercial jets -- the nearly 17 years of wars he's sparked across much of the Muslim world cost a man from one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest families a mere $400,000 to $500,000 . They've cost American taxpayers, minimally, $5.6 trillion dollars with no end in sight. And every day the Afghan War and the others that have followed from it continue is but another triumphant day for him and his followers.

A sad footnote to this history of extreme repetition: I wish this essay, as its title suggests, were indeed the war piece to end all war pieces. Unfortunately, it's a reasonable bet that, in August 2019, or August 2020, not to speak of August 2021, I'll be repeating all of this yet again.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His sixth and latest book is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).

Anonymous , [142] Disclaimer says: August 16, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT

Afganistan is the graveyard of poor empires. It's the playground of the rich American empire, a place to test weapons, test men, gain battle experience, get promotions, and generally keep the military-industrial complex in top health. If it didn't exist, we'd have to invent it. All very human. If America wasn't doing it, somebody else would.

Life is a killer.

MarkU , says: August 16, 2018 at 3:06 pm GMT

Its all about pipelines, rare-earth elements and drug money for CIA black ops.

15 years of American efforts to suppress opium growing and the heroin trade in that country (at historic lows, by the way, when the U.S. invaded in 2001).

And many record harvests after the US invasion.

' In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way ' Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Sally Snyder , says: August 16, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT

As shown in this article there is a very interesting connection between growing wealth inequality in the United States and American wars: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/how-american-wars-lead-to-increased.html

Unless Washington shifts from a program of funding wars by deficit financing to funding wars through direct taxation, wars being fought by the United States will continue to contribute to America's growing income inequality.

mijj , says: August 17, 2018 at 4:14 am GMT

fyi: Forever War was a 1974 Sci-Fi book inspired by the Vietnam war.

Colin Wright , says: Website August 17, 2018 at 9:32 pm GMT

To leave Afghanistan we would have to admit defeat. We don't want to admit defeat. Therefore, we don't leave.

Deschutes , says: August 18, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT

About the only thing I take away from this insufferably droll, repetitive piece on America at war forever, is how powerless the both the writer and the reader are. All we can do is read these depressing articles which remind us of a war we can do absolutely nothing about. Very shitty and depressing, just like USA!

peterAUS , says: August 19, 2018 at 1:56 am GMT
@Anonymous

Pretty much. Besides, it's not a war; it's an occupation. More cops get killed/wounded in USA proper then military personnel in that "war". 2017, 46 U.S. police officers were killed by felons in the line of duty; 17 military personnel in Afghanistan.

The article's point/issue is simply overblown. That's why people don't pay attention to it.

skrik , says: August 19, 2018 at 7:29 am GMT
@peterAUS

Besides, it's not a war; it's an occupation

BS; it's an alien invasion = Nuremberg-class war crime.

More cops get killed/wounded in USA proper

This looks very much like the "tu quoque" or the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy plus 'oranges vs. apples.' What the good US-burghers do in their own country is entirely their business, and IF it looks like they act like antediluvian neanderthal savages [a direct result of their risible 'education' + night & day TV, perhaps] THEN tough luck for the cops. It probably doesn't help that the US-cops are just as much free with the lead as their oppressed subjects. And don't think that the same sort of savagery won't impact someone near you; a quick glance into abc.net.au/news/justin reveals horrendous 'social situations,' like bodies in barrels, say, or aggravated home invasions, etc., also caused by defective education plus importing 'cheap' labour.

That's why people don't pay attention to it

More BS; the sheeple ignore US/Z aggression everywhere it occurs because the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs [= publicly financed broadcasters, like the AusBC] sell the powerless population pups = the sheeple get actively, deliberately brainwashed [cf. Lügenpresse ]. Apologists for [here terrorist] criminals make themselves accessories = assign themselves guilt and should be punished after being tried & found so guilty.

blackswan , says: August 21, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT

" The U.S. has spent 25 trillion since the Vietnam War, what do they have to show for it? " Jack Ma Ali Baba
" The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept the majority of people from ever questioning the inequity of a private for profit fraudulent banking system where most people drudge along, paying heavey taxes for which they get nothing in return." Gore Vidal

Biff , says: August 23, 2018 at 4:37 am GMT

Tom, you have to get over tying Osama bin Laden to 9/11. Who organized that event, I do not know, but cave dwelling Arabs it was not.

cui bono does include Osama's ilk, but many others as well, and there HAD to be insiders in the U.S. government to pull it off.

Yukon Tom , says: August 23, 2018 at 5:06 am GMT

(War) "It's something we do all the time because we're good at it. And we're good at it because we're used to it. And we're used to it because we do it all the time." Sergeant Michael Dunne played by Paul Gross in Passchendaele the Movie

I'm not sure, but I don't think we are good at it anymore. But it appears to me that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Houthi's are and that really scares us. But it does make a lot of money for some people, careers for others and the MSM loves it for the ratings and avoiding telling the truth.

Realist , says: August 23, 2018 at 8:11 am GMT

Your opening photo is of two of the dumbest son-of-a-bitches to ever hold the office of President of The United States. Indicative of the shit slide this country is on.

The Alarmist , says: August 23, 2018 at 9:07 am GMT

"Afghans and others are being uprooted and displaced across Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and deep into Africa ."

So the strategy is to depopulate the country of its indigenous peoples until "we" outnumber them? Never mind the damage these re-settled folks are doing to Western Europe, not to mention other places.

Winning!

blood drunk , says: August 23, 2018 at 9:16 am GMT
@Anonymous

.generally keep the military-industrial complex in top health

Yes , the US military industrial complex is rich and in top health as you say , but what I see is that the health of the US as a whole , physical and mental , is going down in the last 50 years . Maybe the metastasis of the " healthy " military cancer are killing the American host .

The same happened to most of the empires , got drunk on blood and fell .

[Aug 23, 2018] "Don't get fat": but be careful to understand what's too fat, what too thin. If correlation is worth anything never certain then if you want a long life be "overweight". Don't, please don't, flirt with being "underweight".

Notable quotes:
"... You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism). ..."
"... The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle. ..."
"... the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. ..."
"... Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant. Body composition is much more important, but it's also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness. ..."
"... So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of 'research' was performed in a Department of Psychology – the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It's fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as 'neuroscientists' grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift). ..."
"... Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least – and moderation can go fuck itself). ..."
"... There is also the factor that the body reacts to stimuli in complex ways. Merely eating less signals times of famine, and ensures a stored fat gain after normal eating resumes. Paradoxically, eating slightly more while exercising (like walking) where the total mass of the body must be carried signals reduction in total mass while maintaining muscle and bone tissue. That adequate food is available (slightly increased caloric intake) enable weight loss. ..."
"... "But fat people eat too much food." They eat too much of the wrong kinds of foods. ..."
"... As for intelligence and health, unfortunately our society is so caste laden with upper castes regardless of intelligence having access to better incomes and therefore better care I would be hard pressed to buy that healthy eating is hardwired in people with higher IQ's. Maybe. ..."
"... Regardless of intellect, cultural values and norms determine behavior and behavior determines health outcomes and mortality rates. ..."
"... Or it might be that intelligent folks don't go to the doctor for a mere cold. And it might also be that intelligent have healthier eating habits because they can afford to buy healthier food. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. a calory is just a quantity of energy. ..."
Aug 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon , [148] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT

What a condescending attitude toward the science of the relationship between food, appetite and health – sneering at any criticism of your simplistic view of the subject.

Anonymous , [259] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 5:06 pm GMT

@ comment #1:

It's a wonder you didn't label him racist too.

United States, Overweight and Obesity:
• White 64%
• Hispanic 70%
• Black 72%

dearieme , says: August 21, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT

"Don't smoke": certainly don't smoke cigarettes. Whether occasionally puffing contemplatively on a pipe does any measurable harm I don't know. Just in case it does I gave up decades ago. If it does no harm then those puritanical swine in the medical trades have denied me a good deal of pleasure.

"Don't get fat": but be careful to understand what's too fat, what too thin. If correlation is worth anything – never certain – then if you want a long life be "overweight". Don't, please don't, flirt with being "underweight". Some evidence is displayed in fig4:

http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html

That was for a control group. For a bunch of invalids, specifically people who have had a stroke, look at fig 5. As the good Dr Grimes remarks "The death rate at 10 years for normal weight individuals is standardised as 1.0. We see a survival advantage in those with low overweight, high overweight, and low obesity – that is with people with BMI between 25 and 32.5. With "low obesity" there is a death risk reduction of almost 40%.

Repeat, stroke-people with "low obesity" outlive those who are "normal" by a whopping margin. You might almost think that the sawbones and quacks ought to redefine "normal", "overweight" and "obese" in light of such figures. Sorry, the surgeons and physicians.

"and don't read too many health warnings": I never disagree with tautologies.

James Thompson , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT
@anon

If you have data showing that calorie reduction is not the main factor in weight loss, then of course that would be relevant.

Bruce , says: August 21, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT

I assume increased health is a result of lower mutational load which also correlates with higher IQ.

Bruce , says: August 21, 2018 at 5:47 pm GMT

Not to start that debate again but my experience agrees with Dr. Thompson wrt calories. Whether my goal is to lose weight or stabilize my weight I can eat a LITTLE BIT more (calorie wise) each day if I eat more protein and less carbs but it really doesn't make much difference.

I have meticulously counted my calories while trying various "macros" and it's basically how many you eat. It may be easier to stay within a particular calorie limit depending on what you I eat but that's beside the point.

FKA Max , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 7:15 pm GMT
@RaceRealist88

You also have to think of the body weight set point and how metabolism drops while on an extended kcal deficit.

That is why intermittent fasting is the way to go:

Intermittent Fasting May Preserve Muscle Mass That Is Usually Lost When Dieting

Most weight loss diets cause you to lose fat and muscle, which is a big problem.

Maintaining muscle is fundamental to ensure your metabolic rate doesn't drop and just to support a healthy weight loss (5, 6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20935667/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22327054/ .

Failing to do so means any fat loss will come back fast, such as what happens with every Biggest Loser contestant.

According to the authors of the review study mentioned above, fasting may be more useful than regular calorie restriction for many overweight patients because of greater loss of body fat, and better preservation of muscle (4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27708846 .

Another study found that 25% of weight lost was muscle mass in normal calorie restriction diets, compared to just 10% lost in intermittent calorie restriction diets (8) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 .

– https://www.dietvsdisease.org/intermittent-fasting-is-powerful-for-weight-loss/

James Speaks , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT

The basic equations implicit in your assumptions are

(caloric intake – caloric demand) = caloric excess

(caloric excess) / (3,500 kcal/lb) = daily gain or loss.

You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism).

RaceRealist88 , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 8:23 pm GMT
@James Speaks

"You fail to consider that the type of food eaten affects caloric demand, both short term (fiber reduces blood sugar) and long term (gut microbes, metabolism)."

He's under the delusion that a calorie is a calorie. It's clearly false:

The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

Stating that a "a calorie is a calorie" is fallacious. Humans are not bomb calirometers. A whole slew of variables affects weight gain/loss, reducing it to calories only doesn't make sense.

Santoculto , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT

Intelligent people lead healthier lives, and that is not just because they intelligently make healthy decisions, but also, it would appear, because they are inherently healthier. Spooky.

Long-lived sardinians "have" higher IQ **

Santoculto , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:06 pm GMT

Urban-industrialized-cognitive adaptation, aka, higher IQ, is correlated with mental stability which is correlated with organism stability.

Kratoklastes , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:44 pm GMT
@RaceRealist88

As you point out, we're sneaking up (slowly) on genuine root causes of Western lifestyle disease and 'metabolic' syndrome (better referred to as insulin resistance syndrome) – the root cause seems to be the damage done by rapid intraday insulin cycling, driven by excess consumption of carbohydrate. Give it a generation, and that will be the dominant paradigm.

There are two big red flags in this piece that make it pretty clear that the pudding is over-egged.

The first red flag is the implicit acceptance of CICO – which is GIGO on a par with other dead tropes like dietary-cholesterol-causes-serum-cholesterol, dietary-fat-causes-CVD, and 'healthy whole grains'.

CICO is true (almost) by construction, so long as all excess calories are stored as tissue of the same density, which is a stretch. But the 'CO' side of things is not meaningfully within the scope of things that individuals can control, because most of the 'CO' happens as a result of basal metabolism and the composition of the 'CI' affects that.

Why didn't the writer go full-retard, and declare that the key paradigm is WIWO ( weight -in/ weight -out)? That must be true irrespective of metabolism. (Answer: it would be meaningless, even though it would be more useful than CICO but WO is also not under anybody's conscious control).

Besides: body weight is relatively unimportant. Body composition is much more important, but it's also not a very good measure of cardiovascular fitness.

In my 20s I weighed upwards of 250lb, but was lean as a motherfucker (6-pack with vascularity lean). Nowadays I weigh ~225-230 depending on whether I've had a shit, but my abs have a good 2″ of fat covering them.

And yet I'm also objectively fitter: my VO2Max is 15% higher at 54 than it was in my 20s.

Long story even longer: nutrition, metabolism, body comp and fitness/longevity are thinks that require bespoke attention; measures of general tendency are worse than meaningless, and most 'research' in the field is worse than muscle-mag bro science.

Anyway enough about that. Back to red flags.

The second red flag is that the author presents obviously-poor data-munging as if it's science.

Take a look at the list of variables for which correlations were obtained: the entire study is one of those lamentable exercises in promotion-disguised-as-research: the reduced-form, grant-seeking paradigm that was eliminated from Economics in the 1970s after the Lucas Critique –

test everything against everything else, and pick some interesting things that correlate with IQ with our preferred sign, and pretend that we did science

Most of those correlations – even the 'highly significant' ones – are absolutely meaningless when expressed as contributions to variance ; they are certainly not of any predictive use (because most people's lives are mostly noise).

Worse still, correlation coefficients are meaningless if the Gauss-Markov conditions do not hold (because ρ – Pearson's correlation – is explicitly the correlation derived from an OLS estimation; OLS is not efficient or unbiased if the model is not linear).

What is the basis for assuming that the true relationship between any of those factors and IQ is linear? (Hint: if it's not, the G-M conditions do not hold).

So, absolutely no surprise that this piece of 'research' was performed in a Department of Psychology – the natural stamping ground of the innumerate charlatan. (It's fun to watch the psycho-charlatans starting to re-brand themselves as 'neuroscientists' grifters always need to know which way the wind is blowing and reposition themselves to extend the grift).
.
.
It's exceedingly tedious when badly-performed 'research' of this kind gets any publicity: it reflects poorly on the numeracy of those doing the publicising, for a start.

But it's doubly -tedious when the conclusions are things that I broadly agree with: it tars my anecdotally-supported personal hypotheses when they are associated with the sort of pseudo-scientific bunk that this article presents as 'research'.

My own view is based on a few hundred anecdotes (smart people I know) contrasted against the sea of Betas-and-below readily observable in any shopping mall.

Put broadly, it seems that in general, higher intelligence endows the bearer with a greater capacity for introspection, which in turn will help drive a general tendency to moderation. (Oddly, although being objectively the smartest of my social group, I am not introspective in the least – and moderation can go fuck itself).

Smarter people do tend to be less fat than the Deltas and Epsilons, but that's not saying much. They smoke much less (although that's a recent thing – a behavioural change that started in the mid-80s) – and that single difference is enough to be the driver for almost all non-obesity related health outcomes.

James Speaks , says: August 21, 2018 at 11:36 pm GMT
@RaceRealist88

Stating that a "a calorie is a calorie" is fallacious. Humans are not bomb calorimeters. A whole slew of variables affects weight gain/loss, reducing it to calories only doesn't make sense.

There is also the factor that the body reacts to stimuli in complex ways. Merely eating less signals times of famine, and ensures a stored fat gain after normal eating resumes. Paradoxically, eating slightly more while exercising (like walking) where the total mass of the body must be carried signals reduction in total mass while maintaining muscle and bone tissue. That adequate food is available (slightly increased caloric intake) enable weight loss.

Bruce , says: August 22, 2018 at 11:35 am GMT

I feel bad for distracting discussion of the article but to respond to RaceRealist88

I can only go by my experience tracking my weight, approximate body composition and food/macro/calorie intake. If it makes a difference I do some basic weight training (not a 250 lb ripped bodybuilder like 0.1% of the population).

With high carbs, my weight and body composition stabilize at about 2250 KCAL per day (which is about what the Cunningham formula predicts for my age and LBM). If I eat low carb, it's a bit higher. Maybe 2400-2500 KCAL per day (it's hard to track macros and calories with extreme precision). So there's not a big difference. Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

If I had to guess what's going on, based on what I've read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there's some nuance.
But fat people eat too much food.

EliteCommInc. , says: August 22, 2018 at 11:24 pm GMT
@Bruce

"But fat people eat too much food." They eat too much of the wrong kinds of foods.

I think the evidence that our sugar intake is just too high and that processed foods have had a long term negative impact on masses of people, , not most perhaps not even all, but the case to curb eating sugars/carbs of a certain type in large doses and processed foods is clear, in my view.

As for intelligence and health, unfortunately our society is so caste laden with upper castes regardless of intelligence having access to better incomes and therefore better care I would be hard pressed to buy that healthy eating is hardwired in people with higher IQ's. Maybe.

But the analysis here is pretty darn near a circular ring around the rosey. The uncontrolled biases effecting results are pretty open wound.

What constitutes a healthy body and lifestyle might not reflect what is noted in the BMI, even we could agree on the standard for healthy, fat, skinny etc.

Anonymous , [400] Disclaimer says: August 23, 2018 at 4:27 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

So you were on the gear. And now you're not.

The Abs Of Natural Bodybuilders vs. The Abs of Steroid Users

http://nattyornot.com/the-abs-of-natural-bodybuilders-vs-the-abs-of-steroid-users/

Eat Clen, Tren Hard!

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: August 23, 2018 at 4:35 am GMT

Hogwash. Testosterone and its production by body is the key. Physical activity at young age result in increasing testosterone production through lifetime.

Triumph104 , says: August 23, 2018 at 6:50 am GMT

The associations between higher intelligence test scores from early life and later good health, fewer illnesses, and longer life are recent discoveries.

While the above statement isn't wrong, it is misleading and irrelevant. Regardless of intellect, cultural values and norms determine behavior and behavior determines health outcomes and mortality rates.

I don't deal with IQ, but instead look at academic performance and income. In the US, Hispanics perform significantly worse than whites and slightly better, but nearly the same as blacks. Throughout the US, Hispanics often live in the same neighborhoods as blacks and attend the same schools. Yet Hispanics do not experience the same health disparities that blacks do. Instead we have the "Hispanic paradox" where Hispanics often have the same or sometimes better health outcomes than whites. When looking at Hispanic subgroups, Puerto Ricans have outcomes significantly worse than whites, although better than blacks.

Hispanics have a much higher incidence of HIV/AIDS than whites, but if you look at an HIV/AIDS map of the US, you will see that Hispanics in the western half of the US (mostly Mexican-Americans) have the same incidence of the disease as whites. It is only along the East Coast of the US that significant disparities in HIV/AIDS rates are seen between the two ethnic groups. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans tend to live on the East Coast and not only do they have varying degrees of African ancestry but they also behave more like black Americans.

Diabetes is rampant among Native American Indians in the US, Pacific Islanders on Polynesian islands, and Australian Aborigines. Their ancestors from 150 years ago didn't have higher IQs, but avoided diabetes by eating differently.

This remains to be proved, but is worth testing.

The Research Industrial Complex doesn't want to prove or cure anything because funding will dry up.

anonymous , [124] Disclaimer says: August 23, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
@Bruce

Is a calorie a calorie? Not exactly but close enough.

If I had to guess what's going on, based on what I've read a protein calorie counts for 3/gram when your body burns it (not 4/gram like in a lab) and foods with a higher insulin load encourage growth (potentially muscle and fat). Ok, there's some nuance.
But fat people eat too much food.

Yep, but you aren't gonna sell any potions, powders, courses, or books with thinking like that.

Vojkan , says: August 23, 2018 at 8:10 am GMT

"Higher intelligence [....] lower general medical practitioner costs, lower hospital costs, and less use of medical services"

Or it might be that intelligent folks don't go to the doctor for a mere cold. And it might also be that intelligent have healthier eating habits because they can afford to buy healthier food. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. a calory is just a quantity of energy.

Vojkan , says: August 23, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
@Vojkan

I wanted to rephrase my second sentence but my attention was diverted and my time to correct expired.
It might be that people who score higher on "intelligence" tests have healthier eating habits because they usually can afford to buy healthier foods. Calory for calory, some foods happen to be healthier, and also more expensive than others. A calory is just a unit of energy.

talents , says: August 23, 2018 at 8:48 am GMT

We are not created equal : tall , small , fat , thin , ugly , handsome , clever ,dumb , healthy , ill . white ,black

Maybe God is not a democrat ?

[Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

William Blum shares with us his correspondence with Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.

When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China. Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon inherited and did not want.

The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.

Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told

The Anti-Empire Report # 159
Willian Blum

The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter:
July 18, 2018

Dear Mr. Birnbaum,

You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure. Therefore ?

If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in Mexico?
William Blum

Dear Mr. Blum,

Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who did it.

It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014, according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts.
Best, Michael Birnbaum

To MB,

I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a while.
William Blum

To WB,

I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.

And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific. Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides.
Best, Michael Birnbaum

======================= end of exchange =======================

Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments; never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make it easy to give some examples.

For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird.

To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner.

The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK. But I do not find such evidence.

Each day brings headlines like these:

These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article, but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY. Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.

There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which earn money simply by attracting visitors.

As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.

However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.

But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?

For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the wall.

After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America, CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."

And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections."

"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."

How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?

We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."

"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a U.S. retreat from global leadership."

"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in anything abroad.

And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and government-overthrows.

https://williamblum.org/aer/read/159

[Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

William Blum shares with us his correspondence with Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.

When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China. Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon inherited and did not want.

The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.

Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told

The Anti-Empire Report # 159
Willian Blum

The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter:
July 18, 2018

Dear Mr. Birnbaum,

You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure. Therefore ?

If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in Mexico?
William Blum

Dear Mr. Blum,

Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who did it.

It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014, according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts.
Best, Michael Birnbaum

To MB,

I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a while.
William Blum

To WB,

I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.

And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific. Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides.
Best, Michael Birnbaum

======================= end of exchange =======================

Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments; never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make it easy to give some examples.

For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird.

To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner.

The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK. But I do not find such evidence.

Each day brings headlines like these:

These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article, but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY. Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.

There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which earn money simply by attracting visitors.

As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.

However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.

But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?

For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the wall.

After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America, CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."

And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections."

"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."

How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?

We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."

"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a U.S. retreat from global leadership."

"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in anything abroad.

And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and government-overthrows.

https://williamblum.org/aer/read/159

[Aug 22, 2018] The investigation of Clinton Foundation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Notable quotes:
"... Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept. ..."
"... When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary. ..."
"... Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA. ..."
Aug 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Brabantian (Website) August 22, 2018 at 10:46Hh am GMT

From the web the other side of the rabbit hole, key items in the utterly corruption-tainted profile of the Robert Mueller – Hillary Clinton etc team jabbing at Trump

From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations were illegally undeclared.

The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.

When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell 20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a one-hour speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium One deal then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation

FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under gag order not to speak of it.

Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.

When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary.

Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA.

Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller to his current job.

[Aug 22, 2018] Our Sanctions Addiction by DANIEL LARISON •

Notable quotes:
"... Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons. Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason to cooperate. ..."
"... Now Trump has not only gone back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well. ..."
"... Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of time before many more states look for ways to get around them. ..."
"... Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage ..."
"... If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal, Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT. In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions, the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's North Korea blunder ..."
"... In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah, proxies in Iraq. ..."
"... Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to deterrence ..."
"... I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract – for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning ..."
"... Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss? ..."
"... the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex are not in perfect alignment ..."
"... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory delight. ..."
"... The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences. China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... BTW, Trump is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current circumstances. ..."
Aug 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Iran's Foreign Minister recently criticized the U.S. for its "addiction" to sanctions:

"I believe there is a disease in the United States and that is the addiction to sanctions," he told CNN, adding that, "Even during the Obama administration the United States put more emphasis on keeping the sanctions it had not lifted rather than implementing its obligation on the sanctions it lifted."

Zarif has his own reasons for saying this, but the addiction he describes is all too real. Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons. Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason to cooperate. In Iran's case, they made significant concessions on the nuclear issue in the expectation of receiving sanctions relief. Contrary to the lies of nuclear deal opponents, Iran made the bulk of its concessions up front in exchange for the promise of relief later. That relief was very slow in coming to the extent that it came at all. Now Trump has not only gone back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well.

Iran is still in compliance with the deal even after the U.S. broke its promises, and now the U.S. is piling on sanctions simply for the sake of inflicting economic harm. Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of time before many more states look for ways to get around them. The more that our government abuses sanctions , the more likely it is that other states will create mechanisms to shield themselves and their companies from them.

U.S. abuse of sanctions reminds me of another part of Bloomberg's recent editorial on the nuclear deal. The editors write:

But a deepening economic crisis could yet force a change of heart in Tehran. A second round of U.S. sanctions, targeting oil exports and due in November, could also concentrate minds. For his part, Trump has said he's open to meeting with Iran's leaders "whenever they want to." He might welcome a second act to his summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un. The Iranians might reflect on the fact that Kim lost nothing from that encounter.

All this is, admittedly, slim hope on which to base a long, tortured process of negotiation. But it's better than the false hope that Europe's leaders are currently clinging to.

If additional sanctions "concentrate minds" in Tehran, what is likely to happen? Prior to the nuclear deal, increasing sanctions spurred Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges and advance their nuclear program significantly. Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage . In order for sanctions to have any chance of being effective, the other government has to believe that there is way to get the sanctions lifted permanently. Iran's leaders no longer believe that because Trump shredded our government's credibility by reneging on the deal. Now that the U.S. has shown that its promises of sanctions relief are meaningless, it can impose any number of sanctions for as long as it wants and all it will do is provoke Iran into doing exactly what our government opposes.

If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal, Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT. In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions, the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's North Korea blunder . Sanctions addicts don't think that abusing sanctions can have adverse and undesirable consequences, but in this case they could end up producing a much worse outcome to the detriment of all concerned. Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Iran , North Korea , Bloomberg , NPT , Mohammad Javad Zarif , Donald Trump , JCPOA .

b. August 21, 2018 at 1:09 pm

"In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT."

For the Bolt-On et.al. this would be a best case outcome. There are good arguments that Iran will refrain from anything that would deliver a pretext for "non-proliferation at gunpoint" until at least 2020 – US election – and 2021 – Iranian elections.

In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah, proxies in Iraq.

When the Trump administration and Congress defined that "malignancy", which so mirrors our own, they signaled clearly that Iran's actions were exposing weaknesses and serve as constraints on US impunitive action. Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to deterrence .

I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract – for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning . For administrations such as Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, that all hail from different toxic brews of corporate and oligarch interests, there has to be a reason to force these costs on one segment of their true "constituencies". On first glance, it would imply that the interests of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex – that is, the profit and business interests of the industrial segment, or the ancillary benefits for the other war profiteers – trump (for lack of a more appropriate word) the concerns and interests of the non-defense and non-electioneering business.

Bloomberg, of all publications, should be sensitive to this, unless they, too, place a premium on "national securities".

b. , says: August 21, 2018 at 1:25 pm

Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss?

Our foreign policy might be decided and defined by this trade-off. Do our war profiteering business elites consider regime change a requirement for deferred return on investment, or would they prefer sanctions in perpetuity?

Certainly, the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex are not in perfect alignment . For example, a trillion dollar budget for mutually assured nuclear suicide might offer significant short term profits to a narrow "market segment" while increasing the "business risks" to all beneficiaries of inbred wealth across the world, for generations.

But it would appear that these trade-offs are not well understood. I guess I cannot complain about that, given my choice of "inbred wealth" as a description for the multi-generational estrangement of the rich, connected and powerful from existential realities.

SteveM , says: August 21, 2018 at 3:23 pm

Given the Neocon constitution of Trump's inner circle, it is not surprising that the Karl Rove delusion is again in play:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

How did that work out last time?

U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory delight.

How did that work out in Libya, Ukraine and Syria? And Mattis successfully fear-mongers out the wazoo for even more hyper-expensive "lethality".

The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences. China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy.

And incredulously, Trump merely stands back and watches as his minions run his albeit mal-formed foreign policy vision into the ground. BTW, Trump is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current circumstances.

Stick a fork in this harebrained administration – because it's cooked

[Aug 22, 2018] Beijing s Bid for Global Power in the Age of Trump by Alfred McCoy

This is partially incorrect view on Trump foreign policy. At the center of which is careful retreat for enormous expenses of keeping the global neoliberal empire, plus military Keyseanism to revive the us economy. Which means tremendous pressure of arm sales as the only way to improve trade balance.
NATO was always an instrument of the USA hegemony, so Trump behavior is perfectly compatible with this view -- he just downgraded vassals refusing usual formal respect for them, as they do no represent independent nations. That's why he addressed them with the contempt. He aptly remarked that German stance of relying on Russia hydrocarbons and still claiming the it needs the USA defense is pure hypocrisy. On the other side china, Russia and North Korea can't be considered the USA vassals.
China is completely dependent on the USA for advanced technologies so their dreams of becoming the world hegemon is such exist are premature.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington's dominance over the world economy had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive edge. ..."
"... By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed "populist" Donald Trump to power. ..."
"... Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus. ..."
"... On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent. ..."
"... Instead of reigning confidently over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy, Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests. ..."
"... Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed) advantage of the United States. ..."
"... As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats." ..."
"... Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation for Washington's global power since the 1950s ..."
"... Donald Trump acted more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. ..."
"... Beijing's low-cost infrastructure loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding construction of the Mediterranean's busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England, a $6 billion railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70% percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market without peer on the planet. ..."
"... In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters opened by global warming, Beijing began planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious Russian and Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's northern coast to Europe. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. ..."
"... In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every successful empire," observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate states and their leaders. ..."
"... China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters, not 26 letters. ..."
"... During Japan's occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed to propagate their similarly particularistic culture. ..."
"... A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful effect." ..."
Aug 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

...Although they started this century on generally amicable terms, China and the U.S. have, in recent years, moved toward military competition and open economic conflict. When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, Washington was confident that Beijing would play by the established rules and become a compliant member of an American-led international community. There was almost no awareness of what might happen when a fifth of humanity joined the world system as an economic equal for the first time in five centuries.

By the time Xi Jinping became China's seventh president, a decade of rapid economic growth averaging 11% annually and currency reserves surging toward an unprecedented $4 trillion had created the economic potential for a rapid, radical shift in the global balance of power. After just a few months in office, Xi began tapping those vast reserves to launch a bold geopolitical gambit, a genuine challenge to U.S. dominion over Eurasia and the world beyond. Aglow in its status as the world's sole superpower after "winning" the Cold War, Washington had difficulty at first even grasping such newly developing global realities and was slow to react.

China's bid couldn't have been more fortuitous in its timing. After nearly 70 years as the globe's hegemon, Washington's dominance over the world economy had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive edge.

By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed "populist" Donald Trump to power.

Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus.

Within months of Trump's entry into the Oval Office, the world was already witnessing a sharp rivalry between Xi's advocacy of a new form of global collaboration and Trump's version of economic nationalism. In the process, humanity seems to be entering a rare historical moment when national leadership and global circumstances have coincided to create an opening for a major shift in the nature of the world order.

Trump's Disruptive Foreign Policy

Despite their constant criticism of Donald Trump's leadership, few among Washington's corps of foreign policy experts have grasped his full impact on the historic foundations of American global power. The world order that Washington built after World War II rested upon what I've called a "delicate duality": an American imperium of raw military and economic power married to a community of sovereign nations, equal under the rule of law and governed through international institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent.

Even after the Cold War ended, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that Washington would remain the world's preeminent power only as long as it maintained its geopolitical dominion over Eurasia. In the decade before Trump's election, there were, however, already signs that America's hegemony was on a downward trajectory as its share of global economic power fell from 50% in 1950 to just 15% in 2017. Many financial forecasts now project that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's number one economy by 2030, if not before.

In this era of decline, there has emerged from President Trump's torrent of tweets and off-the-cuff remarks a surprisingly coherent and grim vision of America's place in the present world order. Instead of reigning confidently over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy, Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests.

Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed) advantage of the United States. In place of the usual democratic allies like Canada and Germany, he is trying to weave a web of personal ties to avowedly nationalist and autocratic leaders of a sort he clearly admires: Vladimir Putin in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Narendra Modi in India, Adel Fatah el-Sisi in Egypt, and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Instead of old alliances like NATO, Trump favors loose coalitions of like-minded countries. As he sees it, a resurgent America will carry the world along, while crushing terrorists and dealing in uniquely personal ways with rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

His version of a foreign policy has found its fullest statement in his administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy. As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats." But in less than a year of his leadership, it insisted, "We have renewed our friendships in the Middle East to help drive out terrorists and extremists America's allies are now contributing more to our common defense, strengthening even our strongest alliances." Humankind will benefit from the president's "beautiful vision" that "puts America First" and promotes "a balance of power that favors the United States." The whole world will, in short, be "lifted by America's renewal."

Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation for Washington's global power since the 1950s. During the president's first foreign trip in May 2017, he promptly voiced withering complaints about the supposed refusal of Washington's European allies to pay their "fair share" of NATO's military costs, leaving the U.S. stuck with the bill and, in a fashion unknown to American presidents, refused even to endorse the alliance's core principle of collective defense. It was a position so extreme in terms of the global politics of the previous half-century that he was later forced to formally back down . (By then, however, he had registered his contempt for those allies in an unforgettable fashion.)

During a second, no-less-divisive NATO visit in July, he charged that Germany was "a captive of Russia" and pressed the allies to immediately double their share of defense spending to a staggering 4% of gross domestic product (a level even Washington, with its monumental Pentagon budget, hasn't reached) -- a demand they all ignored. Just days later, he again questioned the very idea of a common defense, remarking that if "tiny" NATO ally Montenegro decided to "get aggressive," then "congratulations, you're in World War III."

Moving on to England, he promptly kneecapped close ally Theresa May, telling a British tabloid that the prime minister had bungled her country's Brexit withdrawal from the European Union and "killed off any chance of a vital U.S. trade deal." He then went on to Helsinki for a summit with Vladimir Putin, where he visibly abased himself before NATO's nominal nemesis, completely enough that there were even brief, angry protests from leaders of his own party.

During Trump's major Asia tour in November 2017, he addressed the Asian-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) in Vietnam, offering an extended "tirade" against multilateral trade agreements, particularly the WTO. To counter intolerable "trade abuses," such as "product dumping, subsidized goods, currency manipulation, and predatory industrial policies," he swore that he would always "put America first" and not let it "be taken advantage of anymore." Having denounced a litany of trade violations that he termed nothing less than "economic aggression" against America, he invited everyone there to share his "Indo-Pacific dream" of the world as a "beautiful constellation" of "strong, sovereign, and independent nations," each working like the United States to build "wealth and freedom."

Responding to such a display of narrow economic nationalism from the globe's leading power, Xi Jinping had a perfect opportunity to play the world statesman and he took it, calling upon APEC to support an economic order that is "more open, inclusive, and balanced." He spoke of China's future economic plans as an historic bid for "interconnected development to achieve common prosperity on the Asian, European, and African continents."

As China has lifted 60 million of its own people out of poverty in just a few years and was committed to its complete eradication by 2020, so he urged a more equitable world order "to bring the benefits of development to countries across the globe." For its part, China, he assured his listeners, was ready to make "$2 trillion of outbound investment" -- much of it for the development of Eurasia and Africa (in ways, of course, that would link that vast region more closely to China). In other words, he sounded like a twenty-first century Chinese version of a twentieth-century American president, while Donald Trump acted more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. As if to put another nail in the coffin of American global dominion, the remaining 11 Trans-Pacific trade pact partners, led by Japan and Canada, announced major progress in finalizing that agreement -- without the United States.

In addition to undermining NATO, America's Pacific alliances, long its historic fulcrum for the defense of North America and the dominance of Asia, are eroding, too. Even after 10 personal meetings and frequent phone calls between Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump during his first 18 months in office, the president's America First trade policy has placed a "major strain" on Washington's most crucial alliance in the region. First, he ignored Abe's pleas and cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact and then, as if his message hadn't been strong enough, he promptly imposed heavy tariffs on Japanese steel imports. Similarly, he's denounced the Canadian prime minister as "dishonest" and mimicked Indian Prime Minister Modi's accent, even as he made chummy with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and then claimed , inaccurately , that his country was "no longer a nuclear threat."

It all adds up to a formula for further decline at a faster pace.

Beijing's Grand Strategy

While Washington's influence in Asia recedes, Beijing's grows ever stronger. As China's currency reserves climbed rapidly from $200 billion in 2001 to a peak of $4 trillion in 2014, President Xi launched a new initiative of historic import. In September 2013, speaking in Kazakhstan, the heart of Asia's ancient Silk Road caravan route, he proclaimed a "one belt, one road initiative" aimed at economically integrating the enormous Eurasian land mass around Beijing's leadership. Through "unimpeded trade" and infrastructure investment, he suggested, it would be possible to connect "the Pacific and the Baltic Sea" in a proposed "economic belt along the Silk Road," a region "inhabited by close to 3 billion people." It could become, he predicted, "the biggest market in the world with unparalleled potential."

Within a year, Beijing had established a Chinese-dominated Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank with 56 member nations and an impressive $100 billion in capital, while launching its own $40 billion Silk Road Fund for private equity projects. When China convened what it called a "belt and road summit" of 28 world leaders in Beijing in May 2017, Xi could, with good reason, hail his initiative as the "project of the century."

Although the U.S. media has often described the individual projects involved in his "one belt, one road" project as wasteful , sybaritic , exploitative , or even neo-colonial , its sheer scale and scope merits closer consideration. Beijing is expected to put a mind-boggling $1.3 trillion into the initiative by 2027, the largest investment in human history, more than 10 times the famed American Marshall Plan, the only comparable program, which spent a more modest $110 billion (when adjusted for inflation) to rebuild a ravaged Europe after World War II.

Beijing's low-cost infrastructure loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding construction of the Mediterranean's busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England, a $6 billion railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70% percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market without peer on the planet.

Underlying this flurry of flying dirt and flowing concrete, the Chinese leadership seems to have a design for transcending the vast distances that have historically separated Asia from Europe. As a start, Beijing is building a comprehensive network of trans-continental gas and oil pipelines to import fuels from Siberia and Central Asia for its own population centers. When the system is complete, there will be an integrated inland energy grid (including Russia's extensive network of pipelines) that will extend 6,000 miles across Eurasia, from the North Atlantic to the South China Sea. Next, Beijing is working to link Europe's extensive rail network with its own expanded high-speed rail system via transcontinental lines through Central Asia, supplemented by spur lines running due south to Singapore and southwest through Pakistan.

Finally, to facilitate sea transport around the sprawling continent's southern rim, China has already bought into or is in the process of building more than 30 major port facilities, stretching from the Straits of Malacca across the Indian Ocean, around Africa, and along Europe's extended coastline. In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters opened by global warming, Beijing began planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious Russian and Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's northern coast to Europe.

Though Eurasia is its prime focus, China is also pursuing economic expansion in Africa and Latin America to create what might be dubbed the strategy of the four continents. To tie Africa into its projected Eurasian network, Beijing already had doubled its annual trade there by 2015 to $222 billion, three times that of the United States, thanks to a massive infusion of capital expected to reach a trillion dollars by 2025. Much of it is financing the sort of commodities extraction that has already made the continent China's second largest source of crude oil. Similarly, Beijing has invested heavily in Latin America, acquiring, for instance, control over 90% of Ecuador's oil reserves. As a result, its commerce with that continent doubled in a decade, reaching $244 billion in 2017, topping U.S. trade with what once was known as its own "backyard."

A Conflict with Consequences

This contest between Xi's globalism and Trump's nationalism has not been safely confined to an innocuous marketplace of ideas. Over the past four years, the two powers have engaged in an escalating military rivalry and a cutthroat commercial competition. Apart from a shadowy struggle for dominance in space and cyberspace, there has also been a visible, potentially volatile naval arms race to control the sea lanes surrounding Asia, specifically in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. In a 2015 white paper, Beijing stated that "it is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force structure commensurate with its national security." Backed by lethal land-based missiles, jet fighters, and a global satellite system, China has built just such a modernized fleet of 320 ships, including nuclear submarines and its first aircraft carriers.

Within two years, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson reported that China's "growing and modernized fleet" was "shrinking" the traditional American advantage in the Pacific, and warned that "we must shake off any vestiges of comfort or complacency." Under Trump's latest $700-billion-plus defense budget, Washington has responded to this challenge with a crash program to build 46 new ships, which will raise its total to 326 by 2023. As China builds new naval bases bristling with armaments in the Arabian and South China seas, the U.S. Navy has begun conducting assertive "freedom-of-navigation" patrols near many of those same installations, heightening the potential for conflict.

It is in the commercial realm of trade and tariffs, however, where competition has segued into overt conflict. Acting on his belief that "trade wars are good and easy to win," President Trump slapped heavy tariffs, targeted above all at China, on steel imports in March and, just a few weeks later, punished that country's intellectual property theft by promising tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports. When those tariffs finally hit in July, China immediately retaliated against what it called "typical trade bullying" with similar tariffs on U.S. goods. The Financial Times warned that this "tit-for-tat" can escalate into a "full bore trade war that will be very bad for the global economy." As Trump threatened to tax $500 billion more in Chinese imports and issued confusing, even contradictory demands that made it unlikely Beijing could ever comply, observers became concerned that a long-lasting trade war could destabilize what the New York Times called the "mountain of debt" that sustains much of China's economy. In Washington, the usually taciturn Federal Reserve chairman issued an uncommon warning that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy."

China as Global Hegemon?

Although a withering of Washington's global reach, abetted and possibly accelerated by the Trump presidency, is already underway, the shape of any future world order is still anything but clear. At present, China is the sole state with the obvious requisites for becoming the planet's new hegemon. Its phenomenal economic rise, coupled with its expanding military and growing technological prowess, provide that country with the obvious fundamentals for superpower status.

Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia, has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.

In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every successful empire," observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate states and their leaders. Successful imperial transitions driven by the hard power of guns and money also require the soft-power salve of cultural suasion for sustained and successful global dominion. Spain espoused Catholicism and Hispanism, the Ottomans Islam, the Soviets communism, France a cultural francophonie , and Britain an Anglophone culture.

Indeed, during its century of global dominion from 1850 to 1940, Britain was the exemplar par excellence of such soft power, evincing an enticing cultural ethos of fair play and free markets that it propagated through the Anglican church, the English language and its literature, and the virtual invention of modern athletics (cricket, soccer, tennis, rugby, and rowing). Similarly, at the dawn of its global dominion, the United States courted allies worldwide through soft-power programs promoting democracy and development. These were made all the more palatable by the appeal of such things as Hollywood films, civic organizations like Rotary International , and popular sports like basketball and baseball.

China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters, not 26 letters. Its communist ideology and popular culture are remarkably, even avowedly, particularistic. And you don't have to look far for another Asian power that attempted Pacific dominion without the salve of soft power. During Japan's occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed to propagate their similarly particularistic culture.

As command-economy states for much of the past century, neither China nor Russia developed an independent judiciary or the autonomous rules-based order that undergirds the modern international system. From the foundation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 1899 through the formation of the International Court of Justice under the U.N.'s 1945 charter, the world's nations have aspired to the resolution of conflicts via arbitration or litigation rather than armed conflict. More broadly, the modern globalized economy is held together by a web of conventions, treaties, patents, and contracts grounded in law.

From its founding in 1949, the People's Republic of China gave primacy to the party and state, slowing the growth of an autonomous legal system and the rule of law. A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful effect." Beijing's Foreign Ministry simply dismissed the adverse decision as "invalid" and without "binding force." President Xi insisted China's "territorial sovereignty and maritime rights" were unchanged, while the state Xinhua news agency called the ruling "naturally null and void."

If Donald Trump's vision of world disorder is a sign of the American future and if Beijing's projected $2 trillion in infrastructure investments, history's largest by far, succeed in unifying the commerce and transport of Asia, Africa, and Europe, then perhaps the currents of financial power and global leadership will indeed transcend all barriers and flow inexorably toward Beijing, as if by natural law. But if that bold initiative ultimately fails, then for the first time in five centuries the world may face an imperial transition without a clear successor as global hegemon. Moreover, it will do so on a planet where the " new normal " of climate change -- the heating of the atmosphere and the oceans , the intensification of flood, drought, and fire , the rising seas that will devastate coastal cities, and the cascading damage to a densely populated world -- could mean that the very idea of a global hegemon is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books).

[Aug 22, 2018] In Spies Battle, Trump Holds the High Ground by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... At bottom, the issue is: Who speaks for America? Is it the mainstream media, the deep state, the permanent government, the city that gave Trump 4 percent of its votes? Or is it that vast slice of Middle America that sent Trump to drain the swamp? ..."
"... For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen. But this issue of security clearances is a battlefield where the president cannot lose, if he fights wisely. ..."
"... its way past time that Trump start the sacking of the "disloyal" in the security/intelligence agencies. Yes, he may need to move cautiously -- smaller fish first, perhaps ? But, to repeat: "For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen, just like in the movies." ..."
"... Its interesting to see how shielded the Dem party is from voters. First is their use of Caucuses which uniformly went with Obama over Hillary in 2008 – they represent a quasi church. Then there are the super delegates, the money wranglers and blue bubble potentates that decide who wins a nomination. ..."
"... there are the two factions of the ruling dynasties, Bush and Clinton, that are seeded into the deep state. It should be noted that Bill and Hillary are personally worth $300M and have a family foundation that controls $2.5B in tax free funds. They could only have done that by selling America under the protection of Deep State. Finally, there is Manhattan Media which is the King Maker with its air cover ..."
"... Of those 4 million Americans holding Top Secret clearances, how many also hold dual citizenship? ..."
"... It's not complicated. I was surprised to find that these spy bureaucrats apparently remain cleared after leaving government "service" in one way or another. Obviously, big-boy swamp creatures have their privileges. They should have them no more. If the orange clown can't handle that, I don't see what use he is for anything else, either. ..."
"... If you need to know or have access to something, then you will require clearance according to what you will have access in accordance with your work level. Some times, it is better not to know somethings, believe me. ..."
Aug 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

The White House statement of Sarah Huckabee Sanders on John Brennan's loss of his clearances was spot on:

"Any access granted to our nation's secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.

"Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations -- wild outbursts on the Internet and television -- about this administration. Mr. Brennan's lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets, and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos."

Trump is said to be evaluating pulling the security clearances of Clapper, ex-FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

This is a good start. Some of these individuals have been fired. Some are under investigation. Some were involved in the FBI's "get-Trump" cabal to prevent his election and then to abort his presidency.

... ... ...

At bottom, the issue is: Who speaks for America? Is it the mainstream media, the deep state, the permanent government, the city that gave Trump 4 percent of its votes? Or is it that vast slice of Middle America that sent Trump to drain the swamp?

Trump's enemies, and they are legion, want to see Robert Mueller charge him with collusion with Russia and obstructing the investigation of that collusion. They want to see the Democratic Party take over the House in November, and the Senate, and move on to impeach and remove Trump from office. Then they want to put him where Paul Manafort sits today.

For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen. But this issue of security clearances is a battlefield where the president cannot lose, if he fights wisely.

Americans sense that these are privileges that should be extended to those who protect us, not perks for former officials to exploit and monetize while they attempt to bring down the commander in chief.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

animalogic , says: August 21, 2018 at 9:26 am GMT

A neutral observation on political expediency: its way past time that Trump start the sacking of the "disloyal" in the security/intelligence agencies. Yes, he may need to move cautiously -- smaller fish first, perhaps ? But, to repeat: "For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen, just like in the movies."

anonymous , [340] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 9:58 am GMT

OK, I admit that I haven't researched it myself. But shouldn't a column on this topic state briefly what a "security clearance" is and explain what is had enabled Mr. Brennan, once he left government employ, to access? Is it like a password or something? What is the practical effect of its revocation?

"With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances," this sounds like the Battle of Molehill Mountain. Thanks to anyone who helps to provide some context.

Sally Snyder , says: August 21, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT

Here is a look at a unique that shows us why Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2016: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-did-americans-vote-for-donald-trump.html

Given the demographic changes that the United States is experiencing, it is quite likely that populist political candidates will continue to play on voters' perceptions of vulnerability.

Stick , says: August 21, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT

Its interesting to see how shielded the Dem party is from voters. First is their use of Caucuses which uniformly went with Obama over Hillary in 2008 – they represent a quasi church. Then there are the super delegates, the money wranglers and blue bubble potentates that decide who wins a nomination.

Then there are the two factions of the ruling dynasties, Bush and Clinton, that are seeded into the deep state. It should be noted that Bill and Hillary are personally worth $300M and have a family foundation that controls $2.5B in tax free funds. They could only have done that by selling America under the protection of Deep State. Finally, there is Manhattan Media which is the King Maker with its air cover. Its like we are ruled by a House of Lords answerable only to Manhattan Privilege, the owners and operators of multinational entertainment companies. This is what Trump beat. His presidency is truly a miracle.

SolontoCroesus , says: August 21, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT

Of those 4 million Americans holding Top Secret clearances, how many also hold dual citizenship?

Per/Norway , says: August 21, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
@anonymous

https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm

Per/Norway , says: August 21, 2018 at 8:22 pm GMT
@Anon

+ all the living expresidents whose kill list is huge and let us not forget the dead ones
your country have been at war over 200 years since its creation. so how American dare use the old muuh "commies killed a gazillion of people" is not easy to understand tbh.
but i guess hubris, propaganda and no knowledge about the world plays a big part

Reactionary Utopian , says: August 21, 2018 at 8:33 pm GMT
@anonymous

OK, I admit that I haven't researched it myself. But shouldn't a column on this topic state briefly what a "security clearance" is and explain what is had enabled Mr. Brennan, once he left government employ, to access? Is it like a password or something? What is the practical effect of its revocation?

"With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances," this sounds like the Battle of Molehill Mountain.

Thanks to anyone who helps to provide some context.

I held clearances at various times during my engineering career. It's very simple. If you quit or retire, your clearance evaporates instantly. If, within your job, you are assigned to work that doesn't require a clearance and your employer doesn't anticipate your needing it again anytime soon, it is dropped (maintaining a clearance isn't cheap).

And, no, it isn't like a password, not really. If you want classified information, you need two things to get it: appropriate clearance, and need-to-know. The person or system from whom or which you're trying to get the information is duty-bound to verify that you have both. Obviously, for someone who's retired or been fired and is now out jacking the jaw on CNN, there is no need-to-know, and for an "ordinary" cleared person, there'd be no clearance, either.

It's not complicated. I was surprised to find that these spy bureaucrats apparently remain cleared after leaving government "service" in one way or another. Obviously, big-boy swamp creatures have their privileges. They should have them no more. If the orange clown can't handle that, I don't see what use he is for anything else, either.

anonymous , [340] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 9:41 pm GMT
@Reactionary Utopian

Thank you. I didn't appreciate that the restrictions are upon those already privy to information as part of their jobs. So, Mr. Brennan can no longer be furnished, under color of law, non-public information by sympathetic former colleagues.

I agree with the end of your comment, too.

in the middle , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:51 pm GMT
@anonymous

I did have a clearance when in the Service. Once I left, I kept it for five years I think. And it is a 'sellable' when you are looking for a job with defense contractors, Basically, it means that you could have access to the level of clearance that you have, related to what you work on. Not every one has the same level of clearances. I assume they do have Top Secret clearances of higher, because they do have access to high level stuff, and or info that is not available to others. Its called 'need to know'. If you need to know or have access to something, then you will require clearance according to what you will have access in accordance with your work level. Some times, it is better not to know somethings, believe me.

[Aug 22, 2018] Trump Caves To Enemy Of The People -- Time To Show Loyalty To Those Loyal To Him, by James Kirkpatrick - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Trump says it's 'very dangerous' when Twitter, Facebook self-regulate content , ..."
"... Beattie was fired not because of anything he did, or even because of anything he said, but because of sensationalism by a deeply dishonest media. Needless to say, President Trump's own supporters have stood by him even after President Trump actually said things that are far more controversial . If President Trump does not begin returning such loyalty, he will find himself politically isolated -- and powerless to resist the drive for impeachment being agitated for by the Main Stream Media ..."
"... Beattie was fired because he spoke at the H.L Mencken Club in 2016. For those reading this waiting for the punchline, you've already heard it -- that's it. That was all he did. Andrew Kaczynski of CNN breathlessly reported this as "having attended a conference frequented by white nationalists " [ Speechwriter who attended conference with white nationalists in 2016 leaves White House , ..."
"... The Trump White House just did succumb. Needless to say, this won't end the "controversy" -- it will simply mean that the hunt will continue for more people who can be forced out, culminating in the POTUS himself. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Nolte: Nine times 'racist-sexist' Trump described white men as 'dogs,' ..."
"... "I'm not going there": As Trump hurls racial invective, most Republicans stay silent ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Huffington Post ..."
"... For fancy racists, classical liberalism offers respect, intrigue , ..."
"... Twitter says Infowars hasn't 'violated our rules.' It looks like that's not the case , ..."
"... Tech companies promised to stop helping neo-Nazis raise money. They haven't . ..."
"... Huffington Post, ..."
"... YouTube, Apple and Facebook remove content from Infowars and Alex Jones , ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Scaramucci: Steve Bannon has white nationalist 'tendencies' ..."
"... Business Insider, ..."
"... Call Stephen Miller a white nationalist , ..."
"... Journofa: Daily Beast "Journalist" Kelly Weill Follows Multiple Antifa Accounts On Twitter , ..."
"... Occidental Dissent, ..."
"... 2018 Generic Congressional Vote , RealClearPolitics, ..."
"... Midterms exposing divide in Democratic Party , FoxNews, ..."
"... Omarosa: I believe Trump wants to start a race war , ..."
"... The Firings And Fury: The biggest Trump resignations and firings so far , ..."
Aug 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

See, earlier Brimelow At Mencken: The "American Conservative Movement" Has Ended. The American Right Goes On.

It's the best of times and the worst of times for supporters of President Donald Trump concerned about free speech. President Trump recently blasted the conduct of social networking companies that censor conservative-leaning views based on subjective standards, correctly labeling it "very dangerous" [ Trump says it's 'very dangerous' when Twitter, Facebook self-regulate content , by Sara Salinas, CNBC, August 20, 2018]. At the same time, the shameful decision by the Trump Administration to terminate speechwriter Darren Beattie , just for speaking at a conference at which VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow also spoke, shows the president still doesn't understand the nature of his political opposition. Beattie was fired not because of anything he did, or even because of anything he said, but because of sensationalism by a deeply dishonest media. Needless to say, President Trump's own supporters have stood by him even after President Trump actually said things that are far more controversial . If President Trump does not begin returning such loyalty, he will find himself politically isolated -- and powerless to resist the drive for impeachment being agitated for by the Main Stream Media.

Beattie was fired because he spoke at the H.L Mencken Club in 2016. For those reading this waiting for the punchline, you've already heard it -- that's it. That was all he did. Andrew Kaczynski of CNN breathlessly reported this as "having attended a conference frequented by white nationalists " [ Speechwriter who attended conference with white nationalists in 2016 leaves White House , August 19, 2018] This is an example of what can be termed a wrist-flapping piece, in which a journalist points-and-sputters at people he doesn't like. It's an attempt by journalists to dictate what people are and are not allowed to say, read, and do. And such a tactic only has power if people succumb to it.

The Trump White House just did succumb. Needless to say, this won't end the "controversy" -- it will simply mean that the hunt will continue for more people who can be forced out, culminating in the POTUS himself.

Thus, the Washington Post 's Robert Costa cheerleads Beattie's firing and links it to his own article in which he quotes various Republicans accusing the president himself of racial insensitivity.

Robert Costa ✔ @costareports

The exit of a WH speechwriter linked to a white nationalist event comes as the GOP is all but silent on race. https:// wapo.st/2PmhllI

2:05 PM - Aug 19, 2018 'I'm not going there': As Trump hurls racial invective, most Republicans stay silent

The studied avoidance reflects the reluctance of most Republicans to confront some of Trump's divisive and inflammatory rhetoric.

washingtonpost.com
Twitter Ads info and privacy

In this case, Costa accuses Trump of having made a " racially charged insult" by calling Omarosa Manigault a "dog." Costa almost certainly knows that he is lying, as this is a term Trump has used against all his enemies for years and is as characteristic of his speech as the word "huge" [ Nolte: Nine times 'racist-sexist' Trump described white men as 'dogs,' by John Nolte, Breitbart, August 15, 2018]. George Wallace, the Southern Strategy, and Ronald Reagan's references to states' rights are also ritually invoked in Costa's article [ "I'm not going there": As Trump hurls racial invective, most Republicans stay silent , by Ashley Parker, Seung Min Kim and Robert Costa, Washington Post, August 18, 2018]. Of course, such an expansive approach shows that any attempt by Republicans to "prove" they are not racist is doomed to fail. After all, the preferred Never Trumper self-description of "classical liberal" was just described by the Huffington Post as simply "fancy racism" [ For fancy racists, classical liberalism offers respect, intrigue , by Zach Carter, August 19, 2018].

During the 2016 election, journalists looked on in baffled fury as President Trump easily moved on from one "disqualifying" pronouncement to another -- from his first speech about illegal alien criminals to his proposed travel ban . However, President Trump's victory did not inaugurate a new era of Political Incorrectness, but the imposition of a more virulent orthodoxy. Since journalists failed to take President Trump down, they have increasingly turned on random, hapless people, destroying lives and careers by widely promoting relatively trivial incidents and turning them into national controversies.

This is also why it is literally true to describe journalists as the "enemy of the people."

@DawnHasbrouck tweet reading, "This man just told me and my family we were "causing trouble as usual" while we walked to the air and water show. I have never met this man before. I think he has an opinion about a certain group of people. So I'm putting his face on the Internet. Maybe someone knows him. 🤔"
J Burton @JBurtonXP

In the latest episode of "Not An Enemy Of The People," a news anchor uses her verified Twitter account to try to start a dox/harassment campaign against a private citizen over some petty interpersonal dispute she only provides her version of.

9:18 AM - Aug 20, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

An individual citizen has several forms of redress against government officials or law enforcement if he is targeted. For all the hysteria about Russian "meddling," no foreign enemy poses an appreciable threat to individual citizens . However, if a citizen is targeted by the Main Stream Media, he has no real way to fight back against what the late Joe Sobran appropriately termed " The Hive ." Alternative media and the Internet could potentially provide a way for citizens to push back. But journalists have made a priority of shutting down such outreach and funding for political enemies. For example:

In each of these cases, reporters may argue they are simply opposing "hate speech" or "extremism." Yet this is absurd at a time when the overtly hateful Sarah Jeong is rewarded with a spot on The New York Times editorial board, stripping former Communist supporter John Brennan of his security clearance is treated like a constitutional crisis , and we have the likes of Al Sharpton , Van Jones , and Spike Lee held as moral exemplars. One only has to look at verified accounts at Twitter to see over the top hate speech in terms far more virulent and extreme than anything on supposed "white nationalist" sites.

Blue Check Watch @meme_america

We have uncovered close to 900 examples of explicit racism towards white people though # VerifiedHate

This is left wing hypocrisy! There is an institutionally supported hatred of white people in the media! https:// pasteboard.co/HzdB4wI.png https:// pasteboard.co/HzdBkuf.png https:// pasteboard.co/HzdBAUN.png

2:14 PM - Aug 16, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

What even is a "white nationalist?" As the term "racist" has lost much of its pejorative power through overuse, "white nationalist" seems to be increasingly deployed. If it means anything, it means creating an homogenous white ethnostate, an objective no one in mainstream politics has ever advocated. Nonetheless, Steve Bannon is casually described as possessing "white nationalist tendencies" [ Scaramucci: Steve Bannon has white nationalist 'tendencies' by Allan Smith, Business Insider, September 22, 2017]. Stephen Miller has become a "white nationalist" [ Call Stephen Miller a white nationalist , by Clio Chang, Splinter, June 25, 2018]. Somehow however, Keith Ellison, second-in-command of the Democrat Party, never faces questions for his explicit black nationalist past. What's more, no black Congressmen feel compelled to denounce such views .

The entire moral crusade by journalists is self-discrediting. It is best understood as a crude exercise of power, not as a display of real ethical concern. Journalists clearly regard themselves as a kind of guild, and are moving to ensure only those within their closed network have access to the financial and communications infrastructure needed to connect with the mass public.

Let it be said plainly -- if America were not saddled with today's "journalists," we would be better informed, have more freedom of speech, and have a greater potential to mobilize against government abuses. Today's journalists are simply activists in the service of established power. It is the First Amendment right of such journalists to work on behalf of their policy preferences, but there is no reason for Americans to treat them any different than the shrieking lunatics of the Revolutionary Communist Party or the masked radicals of antifa reporters so often work with [ Journofa: Daily Beast "Journalist" Kelly Weill Follows Multiple Antifa Accounts On Twitter , by Hunter Wallace, Occidental Dissent, August 16, 2018]

As Steve Bannon accurately said many months ago, this is the real "opposition party" to President Trump . The Democratic party currently enjoys an almost seven point lead in the generic party ballot [ 2018 Generic Congressional Vote , RealClearPolitics, August 20, 2018]. Yet the Democrats have no real policy agenda, are deeply internally divided, and are barely keeping the kid on what is likely to be a full-scale intra party civil war along both racial and ideological faultlines [ Midterms exposing divide in Democratic Party , FoxNews, August 9, 2018]. President Trump isn't facing the Democrats so much as he is facing the MSM and its ability to create new Narratives that he needs to respond to every day. His war with the reporters that are quite openly trying to take down his Administration is his most important battle.

In that battle, President Trump keeps being undermined most by the people supposedly on his side. His former African-American aide Omarosa Manigault is telling Al Sharpton that the president wants a "race war" [ Omarosa: I believe Trump wants to start a race war , by Brett Samuels, The Hill, August 19, 2018]. His lawyers seem to be working for the enemy. He keeps being betrayed by aides who are more eager to make friends with the press than to do their jobs [ The Firings And Fury: The biggest Trump resignations and firings so far , by Sam Morris and Francisco Navas, The Guardian, July 5, 2018]. It's easy to imagine that he is frustrated and that, as his son Eric fumed, he must " truly hate disloyal people ."

Yet loyalty is a two-way process. President Trump hired many people who opposed him during the primaries and turned his back on many of those who supported him all the way. Now, his administration is firing a loyal soldier at the behest of open enemies.

If Trump wants to complete his term, he needs to give people a reason to stick by him. And if he truly wants to defeat the enemies of the people, even the President of the United States needs to realize he can't win this battle by himself.

Colin Wright , says: Website August 22, 2018 at 5:12 am GMT

' In that battle, President Trump keeps being undermined most by the people supposedly on his side '

Yeah -- but this merely demonstrates that he's a lousy leader. He obviously can't pick good people, he's not able to command their loyalty, and he flagrantly and gratuitously abuses them in public. Can anyone name another American president who has carried on in this fashion?

It's the story of Trump. Throughout, he's been better than the alternative, and that remains the case, but somehow, we've got to find someone better.

polistra , says: August 22, 2018 at 6:18 am GMT

Trump never "caved" because he was never on the nationalist side at all. Total fake from the start.

The most important fact about Trump was quietly revealed a few months ago. He was Roy Cohn's protege in the '80s. If you know anything about Roy Cohn, this tells you that Trump is an Agent Provocateur working solidly and permanently for Deepstate.

eah , says: August 22, 2018 at 7:11 am GMT

Unfortunately, so far there are few signs Trump is intelligent and sensible enough to take good advice.

mark green , says: August 22, 2018 at 8:21 am GMT

Excellent article. Kirkpatrick succinctly outlines Trump's problems which are huge and growing. The deeply-embedded Disloyal Opposition that manages the Empire's daily doings and which helped unleash a partisan 'special prosecutor' on Trump have come up empty as far as Russia's alleged 'theft' of the last presidential election goes. But no matter. Even though 'Russiagate' is basically a dry hole, and even though Trump did not collude with Putin as alleged, the Demorat fishing expedition lives on.

The partisan Special Prosecutor will find something with which to hang Trump, ruin his Presidency, and derail Trump's mission. This has been the undeclared objective ever since the whole 'Russian conspiracy' was first concocted.

The fabricated 'Russians-stole-the-election' fantasy was the excuse to launch a politicized fishing expedition. Soon Russiagate will become 'old news', replaced by hyped-up charges involving 'hush money' to secret lovers, campaign finance irregularities, and other infractions which are mere trivialities when compared to the massive, wholesale criminality that Zio-Washington delivers continuously to undeclared war zones across the Middle East and Central Asia each and every day.

Zio-Washington is on a decades-long murder spree. But the MSM barely notices.

With that in mind, why are routine shenanigans by political operatives in an immensely corrupt, blood-soaked, money-driven election cycle so gawd-awful-bad when compared to the serial, routine, and ongoing mass murder (wars) along with Zio-Washington's routine 'meddling' in the affairs of other sovereign states?

Consider the trillions squandered and the million or more killed. This is not serious?

Where is the balance? Where's the objectivity?

Why won't the MSM do its real job?

Or is the MSM part of the conspiracy?

At this point, there may be no way for Trump to escape the clutches of a Nuremberg-esque Star Chamber that is fast approaching. Watch the MSM not only cheer it all on, but sanitize the entire spectacle–equating a legalistic assault on a sitting President with 'impartiality'.

Kirkpatrick shrewdly observes that "today's journalists are simply activists in the service of established power." So true.

But who are the chief titans of 'established power' in NY, DC, LA, Chicago, Silicon Valley, Wall St. and Hollywood?

Where are their 'unshakable' commitments?

Main St. America?

Many are hard-core Zionists ('Jewish nationalists') or sycophantic and unsophisticated goyim who work for these unified plutocrats.

Unfortunately, Kirkpatrick usually avoids exploring this topic. This keeps his analyses incomplete.

But the glaring double-standards which undermine the genuine and legitimate interests of white Americans (as they shrink towards minority status) are used openly and unapologetically to advance the ethno-tribal interests of Jewish-Americans; as well as the interests of their distant, genetically-geared headquarters in the Holy Land.

Has the MSM not noticed these strange facts and glaring inconsistencies?

Or is the MSM part of this grand deception?

We live in a rapidly-changing era where Black unity, pan-Asian identity and solidarity (inside America), Hispanic cohesion and activism, and exalted Jewish preeminence are all accepted as 'normal', pluralistic, and even virtuous.

When whites try to advance–or even articulate reasons–that would address their collective interests (are whites permitted to even have 'interests'?) then the MSM shock troops become unleashed and unhinged. The pundits howl and headlines blare:

'Trump Finds Support Among Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists'.

Violators of anti-white taboos (reviled in the MSM as 'white supremacists') are publicly shamed, routinely fired, and often banished.

Entrenched double standards. Speech crimes. Guilt by association. Denial of Free Assembly. Persecution of the majority.

Do these hostile conditions not resemble tyranny?

EliteCommInc. , says: August 22, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT

"Yet loyalty is a two-way process. President Trump hired many people who opposed him during the primaries and turned his back on many of those who supported him all the way. Now, his administration is firing a loyal soldier at the behest of open enemies."

It's one of the toughest postures to harness, knowing one's enemies."

But the president seems heck bent on squishing his supporters. And that is unfortunate. i suspect that sometimes he misinterprets admonitions as attacks as opposed to warnings .

EliteCommInc. , says: August 22, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
@polistra

Interesting theory.

Problem is that he has made too many decisions that counter "Deep State" thinking. Though I realize to conspiracy advocates -- nearly everything constitutes a plot by the deep state.

It's like the line from the "Abyss"

"You think everythings a conspiracy."

Reply,

"That's because everything is a conspiracy."

GourmetDan , says: August 22, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
@mark green

Why won't the MSM do its real job?

What if part of the MSM's 'real job' is to mislead us as to what it's real job really is? It has likely always been so

snag , says: August 22, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT

Agree! Tired of watching him getting rid of honest and loyal supporters like Bannon, Gorka, McMaster and now speechwriter Beattie because of the zio-nazis don't like it.

Where're your balls Mr. President?

KenH , says: August 22, 2018 at 11:05 pm GMT

The one big problem I have with Trump is his willingness to throw his closest supporters under the bus or fire them over some bad publicity and trumped up charges manufactured by (((the media))). Yet he hypocritically expects absolute loyalty from those who serve him.

The Jewish owned and controlled media are comprised of nothing more than little Ilya Ehrenburgs who foment hatred of white people and anyone to the right of Barack Obongo and Valerie Jarrett. They're all ultra left wing commissars committed to the neo-bolshevik revolution taking place so they only offer ideologically and semitically correct "news" that bolsters fake left wing narratives about everything.

On censorship by the tech giants, Trump needs to give the deplorables something tangible like DOJ lawsuits and threats to enforce the Sherman anti-trust act. To date all we got are some tweets deploring this state of affairs. That's not good enough.

[Aug 21, 2018] Will the Real John Brennan Please Stand Up by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Indeed, Brennan's retaining a Top Secret code word clearance had nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with enhancing his market value for those poor sods who actually pay him to mouth off as an "expert" on television and in the newspapers ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Even John Brennan's supporters are shy about defending the former CIA Director's more extravagant claims. James Clapper, the ex-Director of National Intelligence, has described Brennan's comments as "overheated." ..."
"... The John Brennan backstory is important. In 2016 he was Barack Obama's CIA Director and also simultaneously working quite hard to help Hillary Clinton become president, which some might regard at a minimum as a conflict of interest. After Clinton lost, he continued his attacks on Trump. He apparently played a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan continued to prove to be unrelenting. ..."
"... there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. ..."
"... it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began. ..."
"... Since that time, Brennan has tweeted President Donald Trump, asserting that "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." He has attacked the president for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is "wholly in the pocket of Putin," definitely "afraid of the president of Russia" and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he does have something to fear and something very serious to fear." And he then administered what might be considered the coup de main ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... This behavior by Brennan is no surprise to those who know him and have worked with him. An ambitious crawler with a checkered history, he was strongly disliked by his peers at CIA, largely because of his lack of any sense of restraint and his reputation for over-the-top vindictiveness. He notoriously flunked out of spy training at the Agency, forcing him to instead become an analyst, so he went after the Clandestine Service in his reorganization of CIA after he became Director. ..."
"... John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even as he successfully climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA's Chief of Station (COS) in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were bombed , killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he incorrectly blamed on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA chief of staff when his boss George Tenet concocted phony stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the Agency torture and rendition programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well as the attempt to do the same to Syria. ..."
"... After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections and appoint Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the Agency to read the communications of the congressional committee then engaged in investigating CIA torture, the very program that he had been complicit in. ..."
"... Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that any such intramural spying had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out. Moon of Alabama characterizes him as " always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest." ..."
"... Indeed, he should be answerable for torture, renditions, extrajudicial killing of foreigners and targeted murder of American citizens. Those constitute war crimes and in the not too distant past Japanese and German officers were hanged for such behavior. One has to hope that Brennan's day of judgment will eventually come and he will have to pay for his multiple crimes against humanity. ..."
"... Brennan should be in prison for the lies and accusations he has made. He is as corrupt as they come. Brennan is at the center of an Obama/Clinton directed scam to discredit Trump. Trump, love him or hate him, was elected by the American people. Brennan and his ilk may not like it but that does not mean they have the right to bend the country to their collective wills. Time to throw the book at these malcontents. ..."
"... What does it say about Obama that he favored a character like Brennan? ..."
"... Paranoids project a lot and accuse others of everything dark they ( paranoids ) have inside , blaming others for their own`s paranoid violent drives ..."
"... Brennan is part of Obama's swamp that Trump promised to drain. I hope others like Susan Rice and Clapper will follow. ..."
"... Unhinged and dumb. IMHO, they're easier to manipulate by the Puppet Masters. You can't have Groton & Yale-educated types like in Allen Dulles' day because they might go off the Puppet Master playbook and start calling audibles out in the field. ..."
"... Brennan is such a small part of a massively corrupt behind the scene picture. There are probably 2000 or 3000 more who need the same treatment immediately. ..."
"... I hope the issue of whether or not the POTUS has the authority to Trump all security clearance goes to court, because if its outcome is positive for Trump, maybe Trump will Trump Bush's and Clinton clearances. That would make the job of the AG quite a bit easier. ..."
"... Brennan is an idiot. Just listen to him and watch him. And having missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11 and Iraqi WMD, why does the press suddenly hold the intelligence community in such high regard? The truth is the MSM will do anything to nail Trump not that I particularly like him although compared to HC ..."
"... On the contrary, Brennan is just the kind of person who rises up the ranks in government. And look at Gina, his successor, should she even be where she is ? ..."
"... Oh sure, we can pick on Brennan, he's a funny-looking asskisser, thick as mince, but making it all his fault obscures the blindingly obvious fact that Hillary was the institutional choice of CIA. The other CIA talking heads are distancing themselves from Brennan simply because he bends over backwards to please his Project Mockingbird producers. He's hamming it up and embarrassing them, that's all. ..."
"... CIA installed four presidents: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Hillary was supposed to be next but she couldn't even beat her handpicked loser asshole in a rigged election. So CIA is going berserk. Trump's war is with CIA, not Brennan. ..."
"... I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense. . ..."
"... On the brighter side, in Dante's Inferno , the hottest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors. Hope Mr. Brennan likes warm weather. ..."
"... In a contemporary newspaper account of the creation of the OSS (forerunner of CIA) the OSS was described as "five Jews working in a converted vault in Washington DC". Described in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". The CIA has always been Israel's club. Even before it was called CIA ..."
"... Brennan voted for the communist party as a youth. Perhaps youthful flightiness could be taken in stride but a tendency to flip-flop from one form of utopianism to another is often a lifetime trait of unstable people, much like some switch religions constantly. ..."
"... There really is a swamp to drain. There really is a lot of fake news. There really are people within our government, intelligence agencies, and media who, whether through malicious intent or just stupidity, are "enemies of the people." ..."
"... After a major air disaster with large loss of life, the standard TV reporting template is to send a news crew to the arrival airport to get coverage of the distraught relatives. On 9/11 there were 4 simultaneous air disasters with approx 500 dead. How many extended TV reports at the 4 arrival airports, with hundreds of 'grieving relatives/friends' did you see? I saw zero. ..."
"... Brennan sounds like a hog that doesn't wash itself of his own sins while he is carrying out his paymasters' wish. He thinks that he is indispensable to the powers that be he may want to remember the late Alphonse D'Amato of New York, who was chucked aside once he had used up his senatorial cudgel to extract gelt out of the Swiss banks ..."
"... It is absolutely terrifying to recognize that very many in those "elites" never became real adults in their lives and psychologically (mentally?) are still at the high school maturity level. All political tops are messy, soaked in palace intrigues and clash of egos larger than cathedrals, but this particular case is something else entirely and it has a lot to do with overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American party and government so called "elites". ..."
"... The talking head types typically heard in US mass media are overly suspect and coddled. From the FBI, there's Frank Figluizzi and Josh Campbell. A rare exception to that spin is Tucker Carlson hosting former NSA official William Binney. ..."
"... I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense. ..."
"... Trump is imperfect but he must be doing something right because the entire establishment is out to get him. I've never seen anything like it in my life. ..."
"... CIA Democrat Party Hack John Brennan says: "Sometimes my IRISH comes out in my Tweets." ..."
"... What Giraldi calls a "failure of intelligence" is probably about as far as most ex-CIA officer would go on 9/11, at least in public. Whether or not some part the intelligence community was actually complicit in the execution of 9/11 is another matter, though discussing it here only distracts from the main thrust of the article. ..."
"... I think we used to all think that the spooks were at least guided by some moral principles, in their goals, if not in their operations, but bozos like Brennan, Morell, Tenet, Heyden, etc, clearly show that this is not the case. ..."
"... Brennan is not the first to use hyperbole to monetize a scandal. Not the first to take advantage of his proximity to the President. And I agree with Sen Burr's statement. But that's not the point. I'm concerned by what he did as CIA director as the Trump/Russia relationship developed. ..."
"... I totally agree with you about Brennan requesting an FBI investigation. But rather than looking into non-existent Russian operations, if he were truly doing his job he should be calling for an investigation into Zion-gate ..."
Aug 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

The battle between many former intelligence chiefs and the White House is becoming a gift that keeps on giving to the mass media, which is characteristically deeply immersed in Trump derangement syndrome in attacking the president for his having stripped former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. One of the most ludicrous claims , cited in the Washington Post on Sunday, was that the Trump move was intended to "stifle free speech." While I am quite prepared to believe a lot of things about the serial maladroit moves and explanations coming out of the White House, how one equates removing Brennan's security clearance to compromising his ability to speak freely escapes me. Indeed, Brennan has been speaking out with his usual vitriol nearly everywhere in the media ever since he lost the clearance, rather suggesting that his loss has given him a platform which has actually served to enhance his ability to speak his mind. He should thank Donald Trump for that.

Indeed, Brennan's retaining a Top Secret code word clearance had nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with enhancing his market value for those poor sods who actually pay him to mouth off as an "expert" on television and in the newspapers. Are you listening New York Times and NBC ? Brennan's clearance did not mean that he had any real insight into current intelligence on anything, having lost that access when he left his job with the government. It only meant that he could sound authoritative and well informed by relying on his former status, enabling him to con you media folks out of your money on a recurrent basis.

It has sometimes been suggested that free speech is best exercised when it is somehow connected to the brain's prefrontal lobes, enabling some thought process before the words come out of the mouth. It might be argued that Brennan has been remarkably deficient in that area, which is possibly why he looks so angry in all his photographs. Even John Brennan's supporters are shy about defending the former CIA Director's more extravagant claims. James Clapper, the ex-Director of National Intelligence, has described Brennan's comments as "overheated."

The John Brennan backstory is important. In 2016 he was Barack Obama's CIA Director and also simultaneously working quite hard to help Hillary Clinton become president, which some might regard at a minimum as a conflict of interest. After Clinton lost, he continued his attacks on Trump. He apparently played a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan continued to prove to be unrelenting.

In May 2017, Brennan testified before Congress that during the 2016 campaign he had " encountered and [was] aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." Politico was also in on the chase and picked up on Brennan's bombshell in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .

What Brennan did not describe, because it was "classified," was how he developed the information regarding the Trump campaign in the first place. We know from Politico and other sources that it derived from foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

Since that time, Brennan has tweeted President Donald Trump, asserting that "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." He has attacked the president for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is "wholly in the pocket of Putin," definitely "afraid of the president of Russia" and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he does have something to fear and something very serious to fear." And he then administered what might be considered the coup de main , saying that the president should be impeached for "treasonous" behavior after Trump stood next to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a news conference in Finland and cast doubt on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump's decision to pull Brennan's clearance attracted an immediate tweeted response from the ex-CIA Director: "This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out." He also added, in a New York Times op-ed , that "Mr. Trump's claims of no collusion [with Russia] are, in a word, hogwash," though he provided no evidence to support his claim and failed to explain how exactly one washes a hog. There has subsequently been an avalanche of suitably angry Brennan appearances all over the Sunday talk shows, a development that will undoubtedly continue for the immediate future.

The claim that Trump is a Russian agent is not a new one, having also been made repeatedly by Brennan CIA associate the grim and inscrutable Michael Morell, who flaunts his insider expertise both at The Times and on CBS. Regarding both gentlemen, one might note that it is an easy mark to allege something sensational that you don't have to prove, but the claim nevertheless constitutes a very serious assertion of criminal behavior that might well meet the Constitutional standard for treason, which comes with a death penalty. It is notable that in spite of the gravity of the charge, Brennan and Morell have been either unable or unwilling to substantiate it in any detail. Even a usually tone-deaf Congress has noted that there is a problem with Brennan's credibility on the issue, not to mention his integrity. Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has observed that

"Director Brennan's recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan's statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn't he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017? If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times ."

This behavior by Brennan is no surprise to those who know him and have worked with him. An ambitious crawler with a checkered history, he was strongly disliked by his peers at CIA, largely because of his lack of any sense of restraint and his reputation for over-the-top vindictiveness. He notoriously flunked out of spy training at the Agency, forcing him to instead become an analyst, so he went after the Clandestine Service in his reorganization of CIA after he became Director.

John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even as he successfully climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA's Chief of Station (COS) in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were bombed , killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he incorrectly blamed on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA chief of staff when his boss George Tenet concocted phony stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the Agency torture and rendition programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well as the attempt to do the same to Syria.

Barack Obama wanted Brennan to be his CIA Director but his record with the Agency torture and rendition programs made approval by the Senate problematical. Instead, he became the president's homeland security advisor and deputy national security advisor for counterterrorism, where he did even more damage, expanding the parameters of the death by drone operations and sitting down with the POTUS for the Tuesday morning counterterrorism sessions spent refining the kill list of American citizens.

After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections and appoint Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the Agency to read the communications of the congressional committee then engaged in investigating CIA torture, the very program that he had been complicit in.

Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that any such intramural spying had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out. Moon of Alabama characterizes him as " always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest."

So the real John Brennan emerges as an unlikely standard bearer for the First Amendment. He has an awful lot of baggage and is far from the innocent victim of a madman Trump that is being portrayed in much of the media. Indeed, he should be answerable for torture, renditions, extrajudicial killing of foreigners and targeted murder of American citizens. Those constitute war crimes and in the not too distant past Japanese and German officers were hanged for such behavior. One has to hope that Brennan's day of judgment will eventually come and he will have to pay for his multiple crimes against humanity.

Taras77 , says: August 21, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT

The question seems stark to me as to how in the hell did brennan ever get accepted by the cia in the first place. Was he vetted all? With his psychological makeup, his past political affiliations (or inclinations), he seems from the outside as a candidate mostly likely to be rejected out of hand beyond the first step.

And then we have his rise through the ranks to Director-one could ask WTF? Who were his handlers?

abbybwood , says: August 21, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT

Perhaps Mr. Brennan is guilty of using the psychological tactic of "projection" against President Trump? All the things he accuses President Trump of ("treason" perhaps), he is actually guilty of himself.

The Alarmist , says: August 21, 2018 at 5:38 am GMT

How an admitted supporter of CPUSA and Gus Hall voter even got past the SBI investigation is enough to mystify one. He must have had strong supporters and the top of the house in his young days.

Snarky , says: August 21, 2018 at 5:51 am GMT

"He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that intelligence failure."

Shame on you Philip. Years of research has convinced me that it was not a failure at all but rather one of their greatest hits. I usually like your commentary but salting your rhetoric with lies to promote the false CIA narrative is not acceptable.
AMF

Mikhail , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 6:10 am GMT

JB comes across as a liar, with a bigoted and flawed moral superiority complex, when it comes to Russia. Related is this piece from not too long ago: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/11/misreading-trump-putin-and-us-russian-relations.html

Excerpt –

The PBS NewsHour segment with CIA Director John Brennan, included this quote from him:

" We see what he has done in places like Crimea and Ukraine and in Syria. he tends to flex muscles, not just on himself, but also in terms of Russia's military capabilities. He plays by his own rules in terms of what it is that he does in some of these theaters of conflict.

So I don't think we underestimated him. He has sought to advance Russia's interests in areas where there have been political vacuums and conflicts. But he doesn't ascribe to the same types of rules that we do, for example, in law of armed conflict. What the Russians have done in Syria in terms of some of the scorched-earth policy that they have pursued that have led to devastation and thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths, that's not something that the United States would ever do in any of these military conflicts."

Own rules as in what Turkey has done in northern Cyprus and the Clinton led NATO in Kosovo? It was a shameful example of journalism on the part of PBS to let Brennan's comments go unchallenged. PBS had earlier run a pro-CrowdStrike feature. It's not as if there aren't any expert cyber security/ intelligence sources offering a different perspective.

As for the devastation of thousands of civilians during war (raised by Brennan), consider some past US actions like what happened in Japan during WW II, the Cold War activity in Southeast Asia, as well as post-Cold War actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The collateral damage emphasis has been hypocritically applied. Along with the subjectively dubious comments of Hayden and Nance, the above excerpted comments from Brennan are indicative of a (past and present) politicized element within US Intel.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: August 21, 2018 at 6:44 am GMT

Not very outstanding personality, He had his moment on the sun when Libyan and Syrian war crimes by Hillary and Obama were prepared. He is now in the shade and his brain is feed for mold and mildew.

jilles dykstra , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT

Forgot who said 'according to Neurenberg standards any USA president could have been hanged'.

Jack Rauber , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:49 am GMT

Brennan should be in prison for the lies and accusations he has made. He is as corrupt as they come. Brennan is at the center of an Obama/Clinton directed scam to discredit Trump. Trump, love him or hate him, was elected by the American people. Brennan and his ilk may not like it but that does not mean they have the right to bend the country to their collective wills. Time to throw the book at these malcontents.

Greg Bacon , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 8:07 am GMT

"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history."

Methinks Brennan was looking in the mirror when he first mouthed that truth, which is actually about the former CIA Director. Why these intelligence people maintain that Top Secret(TS) clearance after they retire, resign or get tossed during a change in the WH is beyond me. It's great for them, as they can burnish that TS as credentials when getting hired by CNN or FOX to blather on about something, usually enhancing some lie or propaganda those pseudo-news outlets are promoting.

But the bigger problem is that some or maybe many are Israel-Firsters, who have loyalty to that Apartheid nightmare and most likely pass on info to their Israeli buddies that they should not have gotten.

That is called treason and is one more reason why their TS clearance should be revoked when they leave government work.

anonymous , [340] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 9:08 am GMT

A powerful, pointed essay to be shared widely. That Mr. Brennan's shameful acts listed here go back to the last Bush presidency can also help to enlighten those still gulled by the Red/Blue puppet show.

The notion that anyone high up in the CIA might ever be convicted of war crimes under the rule of Imperial Washington, though, is sadly laughable. Notice that Senator Burr still refers to Mr. Brennan as "Director Brennan." The way these people think of themselves is not only annoying, but maintains a system in which they're above the law.

One suggested edit: " Japanese and German officers were [hanged] for such behavior."

Thank you, Mr. Giraldi and Mr. Unz.

Z-man , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:13 am GMT

I'm waiting for Clapper and the rest to be so excised. But Clapper has now pushed back at Brennan so Trump might give him a pass. (Grin)

Antiwar7 , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:18 am GMT

What does it say about Obama that he favored a character like Brennan?

Habibi , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:54 am GMT
@abbybwood

Paranoids project a lot and accuse others of everything dark they ( paranoids ) have inside , blaming others for their own`s paranoid violent drives .

Once I read that Brennan converted to Islam , when he was serving in Saudi , is true ?? Habibi Brennan ? anyway he looks like a camel driver .

fnn , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:55 am GMT

Why does the CIA hire unhinged people like Brennan and Philip Mudd?

Philip Giraldi , says: August 21, 2018 at 11:09 am GMT
@fnn

Dunno but it also hires good people like Bob Baer, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou!

Nobel Prize , says: August 21, 2018 at 11:10 am GMT
@Antiwar7

Obama favored the Muslim Brotherhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood. The Nobel Prize of " peace " winner bombed a few arab countries from Libia to Afganistan , and organized " color revolutions " ( coups d` Etat ) in many other arab and non arab countries . Obama provoked millions of arabs refugees escaping from wars and invading Europe . Obama provoked the coup d`Etat and war in Ukraina

https://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-coup-obama-admits-that-us-brokered-a-deal-in-support-of-regime-change/5429142

etc .

Frankie P , says: August 21, 2018 at 11:33 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

That was Noam Chomsky, I believe.

EagleEye , says: August 21, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT

Great article Philip, as usual. I am your biggest fan ..roasting here in the south of Turkey watching the unfolding debacle on par with the suns relentlessness.

jilles dykstra , says: August 21, 2018 at 12:18 pm GMT

" He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that intelligence failure. "

Is meant here that for some reason that I still do not understand the plotters failed to make use of the hijacked planes to fly into the towers, the Pentagon and into Camp David ? In my usual immodest opinion Sept 11 was blundering along, so that two other planes than the 'hijacked' ones flew into the towers, the first had some bulge under the plane, the second had no windows, what flew into the Pentagon was something small, and the Pennsylvania plane 'atomised' in mid air, according to the coroner.

But, with a complete failure, I must admit that the improvisation was not bad, and had success, with help of the USA's media. BTW, on a German site is explained what profit the Jewish owners of the Towers made, $ five billion, seen in Germany by the insurer, Allianz, as insurance fraud. In order to be able to pay Allianz fired 3000 employees. Alas, the article has disappeared, too shocking, maybe.

Virgile , says: August 21, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT

Brennan is part of Obama's swamp that Trump promised to drain. I hope others like Susan Rice and Clapper will follow.

Dolton Boy , says: August 21, 2018 at 12:51 pm GMT
@Taras77

You are assuming a level of competence on the CIA. No one there predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, they said Iraq had WMDs, and now made up this nonsense about Trump. They are the same folks who brought us the Bay of Pigs more than half a century ago. Too bad Kennedy didn't get to break them up into a million pieces and scatter them in the wind like he wanted to do.

Anonymous , [266] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMT
@fnn

Why does the CIA hire unhinged people like Brennan and Philip Mudd?

Unhinged and dumb. IMHO, they're easier to manipulate by the Puppet Masters. You can't have Groton & Yale-educated types like in Allen Dulles' day because they might go off the Puppet Master playbook and start calling audibles out in the field.

DESERT FOX , says: August 21, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT

Saying as Giraldi did that 911 was a failure of intelligence is a coverup for the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and Giraldi and every thinking America knows that Israel and the deep state did it and got away with it.

Brennan and the majority of the deep state are under Zionist control and the fact that they let Israel and the Zionists get away with 911 means that Brennan and every one of the 17 intel agencies that had knowledge of 911 is a traitor to America and the fact that Israel got away with killing 3000 Americans proves that Zionists and Israel have total control of every facet of the U.S. government.

May God help America as we are a captive nation of zionists.

MLK , says: August 21, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT

You're quite right McGovern and Kiriakou. You couldn't be more wrong on Baer -- he belongs to Hillary:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn

Michael Kenny , says: August 21, 2018 at 1:02 pm GMT

I don't think this has anything to do with free speech. Trump is panicking and lashing out wildly in all directions.

anonymous , [157] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 1:03 pm GMT
@Snarky

Who's to say that 2 loads of jet fuel can't soften steel in 3 buildings?

anonymous , [340] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 1:15 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

Already posted under the current Buchanan column, but more likely to learn something here:

OK, I admit that I haven't researched it myself. But shouldn't a column on this topic state briefly what a "security clearance" is and explain what is had enabled Mr. Brennan, once he left government employ, to access? Is it like a password or something? What is the practical effect of its revocation?

"With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances [Buchanan]," this sounds like the Battle of Molehill Mountain.

Thanks to anyone who helps to provide some context.

anon , [317] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 1:26 pm GMT
@Taras77

Brennan is such a small part of a massively corrupt behind the scene picture. There are probably 2000 or 3000 more who need the same treatment immediately.

Trumping security clearance at termination from any job that requires them; in government, military or in the private sector, should be automatic, without exception. Trump all non active or non essential clearances would reduce the power of and the number of corporate lobbyist, private mercenaries, global gun slingers and creators of the privately owned 24/7 promoted, highly spied on fake news stories and many corrupt crossboard activities..

I hope the issue of whether or not the POTUS has the authority to Trump all security clearance goes to court, because if its outcome is positive for Trump, maybe Trump will Trump Bush's and Clinton clearances. That would make the job of the AG quite a bit easier.

This idea of trumping security clearances has some real promise as a way to restore some modicum of democracy in the USA. But Trumping Security Clearance should be rule based. Trump needs to issue a presidential order.. worded something like this. All security clearances in the USA are issued on a as needed basis, and shall terminate as soon as the need is resolved, or the person holding the clearance is terminated from the job for which the clearance was issued.

JoaoAlfaiate , says: August 21, 2018 at 1:34 pm GMT

Brennan is an idiot. Just listen to him and watch him. And having missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11 and Iraqi WMD, why does the press suddenly hold the intelligence community in such high regard? The truth is the MSM will do anything to nail Trump not that I particularly like him although compared to HC .

Moi , says: August 21, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT
@Taras77

On the contrary, Brennan is just the kind of person who rises up the ranks in government. And look at Gina, his successor, should she even be where she is ?

Moi , says: August 21, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
@fnn

Read "Catch=22." It's the reason why Yossarian can't leave the military.

Center for Study of the Obvious , says: August 21, 2018 at 2:08 pm GMT

Oh sure, we can pick on Brennan, he's a funny-looking asskisser, thick as mince, but making it all his fault obscures the blindingly obvious fact that Hillary was the institutional choice of CIA. The other CIA talking heads are distancing themselves from Brennan simply because he bends over backwards to please his Project Mockingbird producers. He's hamming it up and embarrassing them, that's all.

You don't get near the White House without doing lots of favors for CIA. Trump laundered money for the CIA agents who looted Russia. Hillary was of course senior Nomenklatura and next in line. Cord Meyer recruited her husband at Oxford, and she helped frame Nixon with CIA's Watergate burlesque (read Russ Baker.) She's the Queen of Mena.

CIA installed four presidents: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Hillary was supposed to be next but she couldn't even beat her handpicked loser asshole in a rigged election. So CIA is going berserk. Trump's war is with CIA, not Brennan.

AnonFromTN , says: August 21, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT

I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense. .

Greg Bacon , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 2:50 pm GMT
@anonymous

Maybe we should start constructing skyscrapers out of the bodies of birds, like the ones that crashed this Swedish jet?

'Russia hacked the birds': Social media mocks Swedish paranoia after birds take down fighter jet

https://www.rt.com/news/436477-sweden-russian-bird-attack/

On the brighter side, in Dante's Inferno , the hottest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors. Hope Mr. Brennan likes warm weather.

AnonFromTN , says: August 21, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

He'd have a lot of company there: pretty much every American federal official in the last few decades, as well as most Russian officials who were in power from ~1989 to ~2000. That circle must be really crowded, like Washington, DC.

DaveE , says: August 21, 2018 at 3:19 pm GMT
@Taras77

In a contemporary newspaper account of the creation of the OSS (forerunner of CIA) the OSS was described as "five Jews working in a converted vault in Washington DC". Described in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". The CIA has always been Israel's club. Even before it was called CIA.

Wally , says: August 21, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

"Panicking" not. You're projecting.

'The Left needs to face reality: Trump is winning' : https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/the-left-needs-to-face-reality-trump-is-winning/

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/2018-07-21_13-12-33.jpg?itok=Z5vuW-mu

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/mrz060918-color-1-8mb_1_orig.jpg?itok=SvL_SyXx

anonymous , [341] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 3:36 pm GMT

Brennan voted for the communist party as a youth. Perhaps youthful flightiness could be taken in stride but a tendency to flip-flop from one form of utopianism to another is often a lifetime trait of unstable people, much like some switch religions constantly. Why promote someone like this to such a high position? This Russian Manchurian Candidate business is bizarre and casts doubt about his mental health. In addition there were rumors about him having converted to Islam while posted in Saudi Arabia. Just some of the usual rumor-mongering that goes on, I thought. Then I looked at him in testimony on YouTube. I was struck by his weirdly rhapsodic way of describing Islam that seemed to go beyond merely playing up to them. In addition he calls Jerusalem by the Arabic name of Al-Quds, something no one here does and seems strange for a CIA head to do that. People like this are the cream of the crop, guardians of our security and well-being?

Ludwig watzal , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 4:05 pm GMT

Brennen is one of the Most untrustworth political gangsters among the totally corrupted Amerian political class. That the fawning Media does Not dismiss this crook as an so-called expert speaks for itself. President Trump should revoke all Security clearances from the Obama crooks.

Mark Zuckerberg might be a robot , says: August 21, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT

John Brennan is a traitor to America. At this point, this is basically undeniable to any rational observer who has assessed the verifiable details of his career. It is mind-boggling that he was ever accepted to any position within our government and the CIA. The level of incompetence within the US government and intelligence agencies is terrifying. The only good thing about this idiot's irrational blabbering in the media is that it has the potential to cause even many liberals to finally grasp how stupid, petty, and dangerous the actions of the socialist-leaning left in our government, intelligence agencies, and media are. There really is a swamp to drain. There really is a lot of fake news. There really are people within our government, intelligence agencies, and media who, whether through malicious intent or just stupidity, are "enemies of the people."

In a more just world, John Brennan would be hanged and all of America would cheer.

slapstick , says: August 21, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT

@ jilles dykstra

Is meant here that for some reason that I still do not understand the plotters failed to make use of the hijacked planes to fly into the towers, the Pentagon and into Camp David?

There were no 'hijacked planes'. The hijack ruse was a sleight of hand distraction. It's like the old movie plane crash trick: Set up your camera to frame a hill in extreme long shot. A plane dives into the frame from the right and disappears behind the hill. The moment it goes behind the hill, special effects set off a large pyro charge and there's a huge fireball. Oh no, the plane crashed behind the hill!

Scheduled flights must have taken off with the requisite squawk codes, but where they went & who was on them if any, is anyone's guess. What's clear (in the same way it's clear Oswald wasn't sniping on Nov 22 '63) is the scheduled jets didn't fly into towers/buildings. UAV aircraft did.

After a major air disaster with large loss of life, the standard TV reporting template is to send a news crew to the arrival airport to get coverage of the distraught relatives. On 9/11 there were 4 simultaneous air disasters with approx 500 dead. How many extended TV reports at the 4 arrival airports, with hundreds of 'grieving relatives/friends' did you see? I saw zero.

Sparkon , says: August 21, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT

A security clearance is granted on a strict need-to-know basis. I fail to see how these former ranking intelligence officials like John Brennan maintain the need-to-know after they have left public service.

When the Central Intelligence Agency was established by President Truman on September 18, 1947, one justification was that the United States had been caught off-guard by the surprise Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and therefore it was necessary to coordinate all intelligence activities under a single head, or director, who would have direct access to the president, and there would be no more such surprises.

Of course, all that about Pearl Harbor is a cock 'n' bull story from top to bottom, just like 9/11 is. FDR knew exactly what was going on. In fact, no one had worked harder to bring it about than the President himself. Just as Stalin had been successful in tricking Hitler into attacking the Soviet Union, so too was Roosevelt successful in goading the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. It was the plan all along: Let the enemy strike the first blow, then seize the moral high ground, from which lofty summit the enemy can be vilified and demonized with propaganda including the most astonishingly poisonous accusations, like an industrialized program in Nazi Germany to exterminate the Jews.

But Truman wasn't done yet. In 1952, he established the National Security Agency, ostensibly because the CIA was doing a poor job with communications intelligence.

Now, in the wake of 9/11–where the initial story was that we were "blindsided"– we've got 17 different intelligence agencies, with a new position created to coordinate them all. Whatever it is all these guys are doing, about the only thing we can be sure of is that they will have few problems getting the budget to do it, and instead of intelligence, we get propaganda and chaos.

Dagon Shield , says: August 21, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT

Brennan sounds like a hog that doesn't wash itself of his own sins while he is carrying out his paymasters' wish. He thinks that he is indispensable to the powers that be he may want to remember the late Alphonse D'Amato of New York, who was chucked aside once he had used up his senatorial cudgel to extract gelt out of the Swiss banks. Trump isn't going to be either impeached or gotten rid off, simply because he works for the same crowd and the only difference between him and lowly spook is that the former is part of the ruling class, while the latter is just a peon used to distract the dumbed down public!

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 4:46 pm GMT
@anonymous

It is absolutely terrifying to recognize that very many in those "elites" never became real adults in their lives and psychologically (mentally?) are still at the high school maturity level. All political tops are messy, soaked in palace intrigues and clash of egos larger than cathedrals, but this particular case is something else entirely and it has a lot to do with overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American party and government so called "elites".

Herald , says: August 21, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Taras77

Your questions have been answered by others. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that such naive questions were in fact rhetorical.

Mikhail , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
@MLK

I didn't quite get that about Baer as well. The only basis perhaps is that Baer might be less of a propagandist when compared to Mudd and Brennan.

The talking head types typically heard in US mass media are overly suspect and coddled. From the FBI, there's Frank Figluizzi and Josh Campbell. A rare exception to that spin is Tucker Carlson hosting former NSA official William Binney.

Mikhail , says: Website August 21, 2018 at 5:59 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense.

I don't believe he's being singled out. Much attention is focused on him, on account of the absurd things he spews in high profile settings. He deserves to get severely rebuked, long with a good number in mass media and body politic who handle him with kid gloves.

Charles Pewitt , says: August 21, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT

... ... ...

The CIA Must Be Abolished Immediately.

The NSA, military intelligence outfits and other groups can provide information gathering services to the United States government and the President of the United States.

John Brennan... is completely and totally representative of the kind of CIA government worker human filth that steals money from the US government while damaging the best interests of the United States.

If General George Washington and General Andrew Jackson were alive, John Brennan would be forcefully exiled from the United States for his actions against the United States of America.

Johnny Smoggins , says: August 21, 2018 at 6:49 pm GMT
@Center for Study of the Obvious

So if Trump is a CIA asset, why are they doing everything in their power to get rid of him, short of killing him (so far..)? The fact of the matter is that both Hillary and Jeb Bush were the Deep State candidates, either was supposed to win, didn't matter which as both would be puppets anyway.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Trump were supposed to win, the Democrats did their part in getting rid of Sanders, the Republicans tried, and failed, to get rid of Trump (again, so far..)

Trump is imperfect but he must be doing something right because the entire establishment is out to get him. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

Charles Pewitt , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT

CIA Democrat Party Hack John Brennan says: "Sometimes my IRISH comes out in my Tweets."

Baby Boomer Leprechaun John Brennan Is A Treasonous Rat IBDeditorials @IBDeditorials

Simply Simon , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:17 pm GMT
@Dolton Boy

Hardly anything memorable has been written about the botched CIA operation in Laos during the Vietnam War. Under the guise Air America , the CIA spent millions if not billions of dollars in a futile attempt to stop the Pathet Lao. Lots of innocent lives lost but no one held accountable at the highest levels of our government. But then again that seems to be the same story involving inept leadership and corruption in all the conflicts the US has been engaged in since WWII.

Rever , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:18 pm GMT
@Snarky

Phil only goes part of the way. 9/11 was their greatest hit. Phil knows

Herald , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

What Giraldi calls a "failure of intelligence" is probably about as far as most ex-CIA officer would go on 9/11, at least in public. Whether or not some part the intelligence community was actually complicit in the execution of 9/11 is another matter, though discussing it here only distracts from the main thrust of the article.

chris , says: August 21, 2018 at 7:35 pm GMT
@Taras77

Very good question, Taras!

I think we used to all think that the spooks were at least guided by some moral principles, in their goals, if not in their operations, but bozos like Brennan, Morell, Tenet, Heyden, etc, clearly show that this is not the case.

Obviously, it's only about power and being in the game; whichever way the wind blows they have to be in on it in order to apply pressure on whoever turns up on top. At no level do they even care whether the general direction is moral or criminal. They simply play all sides of the table for best agency, deep state, or personal interest – no other consideration comes even in play. The image they portray on television is as realistic as the depiction of Ozzie and Harriet was to a real marriage.

PintOrTwo , says: August 21, 2018 at 9:30 pm GMT

Trump revoking Brennan's security clearance doesn't move me. His freedom of speech is not stifled; it gives him a larger platform.

Brennan is not the first to use hyperbole to monetize a scandal. Not the first to take advantage of his proximity to the President. And I agree with Sen Burr's statement. But that's not the point. I'm concerned by what he did as CIA director as the Trump/Russia relationship developed.

... ... ...

Steve in Greensboro , says: August 21, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT

"Will real Brennan stand up?" I'd settle for him shutting up.

geokat62 , says: August 21, 2018 at 11:26 pm GMT

It's abundantly clear to me that Director Brennan acted appropriately and the Mueller investigation is legitimate and necessary.

Abundantly clear, eh, PintOrTwo? Perhaps it was so clear to you after having a pint or two?

I expect he would "(use) that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers (to) Trump". To do otherwise would be egregious.

I totally agree with you about Brennan requesting an FBI investigation. But rather than looking into non-existent Russian operations, if he were truly doing his job he should be calling for an investigation into Zion-gate – i.e., the massive interference into US politics wielded by the Zionists through their network of organizations, aka The Lobby . Why concentrate on the ant when the elephant is standing right in front of you? You wouldn't be engaging in deflection, would you, PintOrTwoOrThree?

anon , [317] Disclaimer says: August 21, 2018 at 11:52 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

... ... ..

When the state keeps a secret it subordinates the human right to know. There are very few things that reach that standard. When the state enables an abuse of a secret, it endangers everyone's freedoms and liberties.

There can be no greater abuse of free speech than state secrets, and therefore no greater duty of the state to both prove the need to keep the knowledge secret and to prevent anyone from wrongfully using or abusing the knowledge kept secret.

When someone on the inside, committed to preserving the secret in trust realizes that the trust has been abused and that the trust is regularly abused, and decides as a matter of conscious to endure the consequences, by stepping forward to disclose failures of the state with regard to the knowledge kept secret, that brave person becomes known as a whistle blower. In effect that whistle blower is speaking for all of us, he or she becomes the protector of human rights because only he or she knows, outside of the state, that the state is infringing a human right.

Human rights always trump state rights. Unless the whistle blower exposed the wrong doings or abuse, the state is left to continue its wrongdoing. Exposed, the state must explain its behavior, suffer the consequences, and protect the whistle blowers. Its unfortunate that the whistle blower is treated much like the woman abused, in court, the victim is made to look to be the criminal.

steinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: August 22, 2018 at 12:27 am GMT

Brennan is a parasite and a shitbag. The fact that someone of this 'calibre' even made topdog at CIA indicates how truly corrupt D.C. is. Pathetic.

Erebus , says: August 22, 2018 at 12:41 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American "elites".

I'm not sure whether, on balance, that bodes well or ill. For Americans, probably ill, but from the RoW's perspective it may simply mean that the Empire dies that much more quickly. Barring somebody doing something really stupid. EG: "Assessing" in their ignorance that they can win a nuclear exchange when they inevitably find themselves at their wit's end, of course.

NoseytheDuke , says: August 22, 2018 at 1:36 am GMT
@Simply Simon

That you don't care is evidenced by your trust in The Guardian and AP as reliable sources for news and information, I mean, fool me once and all that but dozens of times should be more than enough for anyone who does care.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website August 22, 2018 at 1:59 am GMT
@Erebus

For Americans, probably ill

In the long run it may even be a bitter but life-saving medicine. BTW, OT–can you, please, get me to your excellent economic post about GDP "growing" while in reality shrinking. I hope you recall which one, I lost the link to it, sadly.

Squirty , says: August 22, 2018 at 2:09 am GMT

Anon (76) below is the interpretive guidance for US human rights law relating to the right to seek and obtain information – Article 18 – supreme law of the land.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf

[Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike. ..."
"... But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it. ..."
"... In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it ..."
Aug 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star August 16, 2018 at 3:07 pm

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/16/pers-a16.html

"But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike.

The character of world economy has undergone a major transformation in the past decade in which economic growth, to the extent it that it occurs, is not driven by the development of production and new investments but by the flow of money from one source of speculative and parasitic activity to the next."

"But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it.

This is the lesson from the past decade which, in every country, has seen a deepening attack on wages, social conditions and living standards as wealth is redistributed up the income scale, raising social inequality to unprecedented heights.

In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it."

[Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike. ..."
"... But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it. ..."
"... In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it ..."
Aug 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star August 16, 2018 at 3:07 pm

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/16/pers-a16.html

"But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike.

The character of world economy has undergone a major transformation in the past decade in which economic growth, to the extent it that it occurs, is not driven by the development of production and new investments but by the flow of money from one source of speculative and parasitic activity to the next."

"But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it.

This is the lesson from the past decade which, in every country, has seen a deepening attack on wages, social conditions and living standards as wealth is redistributed up the income scale, raising social inequality to unprecedented heights.

In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it."

[Aug 19, 2018] Why we do not negotiate with the USA

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals. ..."
"... The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries to enchant the other side by mere promises. ..."
"... And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises. ..."
Aug 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain the Iranian position:

This is the U.S. formula for negotiation:

  1. Because U.S. officials depend on power and money, they consider negotiations as a business deal.
  2. The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals.
  3. They demand the other side to give them immediate benefits and if the other party refrains from giving in, the U.S. officials will create an uproar so that their partner would give up.
  4. The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries to enchant the other side by mere promises.
  5. And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises.
  6. This is the U.S.'s method of negotiation. Now, should one negotiate with such a duplicitous government?

[Aug 19, 2018] Economics

Notable quotes:
"... each click brings us closer to the bang ..."
"... Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ..."
"... there will be no war and no negotiations ..."
"... carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who functions as the country's head of state ..."
"... Trump's ALL IN CAPS meme ..."
"... This is where Ali Khamenei's stance is more puzzling, at least to me: when he says that there will be no war, does he mean that the US threats are not credible or does he mean that Iran has the means to deter a US attack? His words make it sound like he is quite certain that there will be no war. How can he be so sure? I am especially amazed by the apparent Iranian confidence that the AngloZionists will not attack them when I compare it with the obvious Russian policy of actively preparing for war since at least 2014 (also see here , here , here , here , here and here ). Of course, Iran has been preparing for war with the US for almost 40 years now whereas the Russians only woke up to reality comparatively recently. I see several potential explanations for Ali Khamenei's statement (there might be more, of course) ..."
"... Personally, every time I think of a possible US attack on Iran I think of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 which happened in spite of the fact that it was plainly visible to everybody that the Israelis were waltzing straight into a conflict which they could not win and which, in fact, resulted into one of the most abjects defeats in military history. Conversely, while Hezbollah did win a truly historical victory, it also remains a fact that Hezbollah leaders did not expect the Israelis to launch a full-scale ground offensive. Finally, history is full of examples of wars which were started in spite of all objective factors indicating that they would end up in disaster. ..."
"... If it weren't for its nuclear arsenal, the US could be dismissed as a particularly obnoxious country led by ignorant leaders with bloated and mostly ineffective armed forces. Alas, the US nuclear arsenal is very real (and still very capable) and we know that top-level US Neocons have already considered using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state's conventional force in the past . In a twisted way, this makes sense: if you are a megalomaniac infused with a sense of messianic superiority then international or even civilizational norms of behavior are of no interest (or even relevance) to you. Listening to US Presidents, pretty much all of them (but especially Obama and Trump) it is pretty clear that these folks consider themselves to be the Kulturträger ..."
"... Shaytân-e Bozorg ..."
"... It would be a big mistake to dismiss the US because of its incapable military or moral bankruptcy. The truth is that in terms of aggregate national power, the US still remains the most powerful country on the planet (even if we don't include nuclear weapons). Anyone doubting that needs to look how how the currencies of the countries the US is singles out for attack suddenly began slipping: the Russian ruble (which has since bounced back), the Iranian rial, the Venezuelan bolivar, the Turkish lira , etc.) or how little time it took Trump to bring the (admittedly spineless) Europeans to heel . ..."
"... As for Russia, for all her military might, she remains only a semi-sovereign country in which the pro-US/pro-Israeli "Atlantic Integrationists" continue to try to sabotage (often successfully) everything Putin and his supporters are doing . I would not place big hopes in China either, especially considering the lack of meaningful Chinese action in Syria where Russia and Iran did all the heavy lifting. ..."
"... So count with yet another imperial war of aggression, a barrel of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation, job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?). But don't worry: there will still be a huge supply of Chinese-made US flags to wave! ..."
Aug 19, 2018 | www.unz.com


Ideology History
Science Bloggers


Columnists Videos
Books Print Archives
Announcements Popular
Comments Articles
Authors Settings
More... ← Making Sense of a Few Rumors About Russ... Blogview The Saker Archive Blogview The Saker Archive Iran's Reply: No War and No Negotiations The Saker August 17, 2018 2,500 Words 81 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

We can all thank God for the fact that the AngloZionists did not launch a war on the DPRK, that no Ukronazi attack on the Donbass took place during the World Cup in Russia and that the leaders of the Empire have apparently have given up on their plans to launch a reconquista of Syria. However, each of these retreats from their hysterical rhetoric has only made the Neocons more frustrated and determined to show the planet that they are still The Hegemon who cannot be disobeyed with impunity. As I wrote after the failed US cruise missile strike on Syria this spring, " each click brings us closer to the bang ". In the immortal words of Michael Ledeen , " Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ". The obvious problem is that there are no "small crappy little countries" left out there, and that those who are currently the object of the Empire's ire are neither small nor crappy.

Having now shown several times that for all its hysterical barking the Empire has to back down when the opponent does not cower away in fear, the Empire is now in desperate need to prove its "uniqueness" and (racial?) superiority. The obvious target of the AngloZionist wrath is Iran. In fact, Iran has been in the cross-hairs of the Empire ever since the people of Iran dared to show the AngloZionists to the door and, even worse, succeed in creating their own, national and Islamic democracy. To punish Iran, the US, the USSR, France and all the other "democratic" countries unleashed their puppet (Saddam Hussein) and gave him full military support, and yet the Iranians still prevailed, albeit at a terrible cost. That Iranian ability to prevail in the most terrible circumstances is also the most likely explanation for why there has not been an overt attack on Iran for the past four decades (there have, of course, there has been plenty of covert attacks during all these years).

I won't list all the recent AngloZionist threats against Iran – we all know about them. The bottom line is this: the US, Israel and the KSA are, yet again, working hand in hand to set the stage for a major war under what we could call the " Skripal-case rules of evidence " aka " highly likely ". And yet, in spite of all this saber-rattling, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has summed up Iran's stance in the following words " there will be no war and no negotiations ".

First, let's first look at Iranian rationale for "no negotiations"

The obvious: "no negotiations"

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been very clear in his explanations for why negotiating with the US makes no sense. On his Twitter account he wrote:

The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain the Iranian position:

Finally, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated his fundamental approach towards the AngloZionist Empire:

The contrast between the kindergarten-level low-IQ bumbling hot air and threats coming out of the White House and the words of Ali Khamenei could not be greater, especially if we compare the words the two leaders decided to post all in caps;

Trump : To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Khamenei : THERE WILL BE NO WAR, NOR WILL WE NEGOTIATE WITH THE U.S..

Notice first that in his typical ignorance, Trump fails to realize that Hassan Rouhani is only the President of Iran and that threatening him makes absolutely no sense since he does not make national security decisions, which is the function of the Supreme Leader. Had Trump taken the time to at the very least check with Wikipedia he would have understood that the Iranian President " carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who functions as the country's head of state ". It is no wonder that Trump's infantile threats instantly turned into an Internet meme !

In contrast, Khamenei did not even bother to address Trump by name but, instead, announced his strategy to the whole world.

Trump's ALL IN CAPS meme

Of course, issuing ALL IN CAPS threats just to be treated with utter contempt by the people you are trying to hard to bully and having your words become a cause of laughter on the Internet will only further enrage Trump and his supporters. When you are desperately trying to show the world how tough and scary you are, there is nothing more humiliating as being treated like some stupid kid. Therein also lies the biggest danger: such derision could force Trump and the Neocons who run him to do something desperate to prove to the word that their "red button" is still bigger than everybody else's.

ORDER IT NOW

It is important to note here that making negotiations impossible is something the Trump administration seems to have adopted as a policy. This is best illustrated by the conditions attached to the latest sanctions against Russia which, essentially, demand that Russia admit poisoning the Skripals. In fact, all the western demands towards Russia (admitting that Russia is guilty for the Skripal case, that Russia shot down MH-17, that Russia hand over Crimea to the Ukronazis, etc.) are carefully crafted to make absolutely sure that Russia will not negotiate. The sames, of course, goes for the ridiculous Pompeo demands towards the DPRK (including handing over to the US 60 to 70 percent of its nukes within six to eight months; no wonder the North Koreans denounced a "gangster-like" attitude) or the latest US grandstanding towards Turkey. Sadly, but the Neocon run media has successfully imposed the notion that negotiations are either a sign of weakness, or treason, or both. Thus to be "patriotic" and "strong" no US official can afford to be caught red-handed negotiating with the enemy of the day.

Under these conditions, why would anybody want to negotiate with the US?

Frankly, the "no negotiations" approach makes perfectly good sense, and while the Iranians are the only ones who have openly said so, the Russians have hinted to the same on many occasions (see their words about the US being "non-agreement capable" or about US diplomats confusing Austria and Australia). To any objective observer it should by now be completely obvious by now that a) the US cannot negotiate (due to intellectual, cultural and political limitations) and b) the US has no desire to negotiate. This is, of course, a highly undesirable and dangerous situation, but it would only make things worse to pretend that civilized negotiations with the US are possible.

So, if both sides agree on "no negotiations", what about war?

The not so obvious: No war?

This is where Ali Khamenei's stance is more puzzling, at least to me: when he says that there will be no war, does he mean that the US threats are not credible or does he mean that Iran has the means to deter a US attack? His words make it sound like he is quite certain that there will be no war. How can he be so sure? I am especially amazed by the apparent Iranian confidence that the AngloZionists will not attack them when I compare it with the obvious Russian policy of actively preparing for war since at least 2014 (also see here , here , here , here , here and here ). Of course, Iran has been preparing for war with the US for almost 40 years now whereas the Russians only woke up to reality comparatively recently. I see several potential explanations for Ali Khamenei's statement (there might be more, of course):

Personally, every time I think of a possible US attack on Iran I think of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 which happened in spite of the fact that it was plainly visible to everybody that the Israelis were waltzing straight into a conflict which they could not win and which, in fact, resulted into one of the most abjects defeats in military history. Conversely, while Hezbollah did win a truly historical victory, it also remains a fact that Hezbollah leaders did not expect the Israelis to launch a full-scale ground offensive. Finally, history is full of examples of wars which were started in spite of all objective factors indicating that they would end up in disaster.

It seems to me that in purely military terms (not in political ones!) Israel could be seen as a stand-in for the US and Hezbollah as a stand-in for Iran and that the outcome of any future US-Iranian war will be very similar to the outcome of the war in 2006, albeit on a much larger (and bloodier) scale. I am confident that the folks in the Pentagon realize that, but what about their Neocon bosses – do they even care about Iranian or, for that matter, US casualties? I highly doubt it: all they care about is their power and messianic ideology.

If it weren't for its nuclear arsenal, the US could be dismissed as a particularly obnoxious country led by ignorant leaders with bloated and mostly ineffective armed forces. Alas, the US nuclear arsenal is very real (and still very capable) and we know that top-level US Neocons have already considered using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state's conventional force in the past . In a twisted way, this makes sense: if you are a megalomaniac infused with a sense of messianic superiority then international or even civilizational norms of behavior are of no interest (or even relevance) to you. Listening to US Presidents, pretty much all of them (but especially Obama and Trump) it is pretty clear that these folks consider themselves to be the Kulturträger and the Herrenvolk of the 21st century and their messianism is in no way less delusional than the one of their Nazi predecessors (or, for that matter, the one of the Popes of the past 1000 years). And why would the people who nuked two Japanese cities under the (entirely fallacious) pretext of "shortening the war" (almost a humanitarian operation!) not do the same thing in Iran?

Of sure, they probably realize that using nukes will result in a massive political backlash, but they are confident that no matter what happens in the end, they will always be able to say "screw you!" to the rest of the planet. After all, this is something which Israel and the US have been doing with almost total inpunity for decades already – why would they stop now? As for the fact that the Persian people have been dealing with all kinds of invaders since no less than 2500 years will not stop the AngloZionists from trying to crush them. After all, having laid waste to a country which many see as the cradle of civilization, Iraq, why not do the same thing to Iran? Iraq, Iran – what's the difference, they are all just "sand niggers" and our red button is bigger than theirs, right?

Standing up to Shaytân-e Bozorg (almost alone?)

It would be a big mistake to dismiss the US because of its incapable military or moral bankruptcy. The truth is that in terms of aggregate national power, the US still remains the most powerful country on the planet (even if we don't include nuclear weapons). Anyone doubting that needs to look how how the currencies of the countries the US is singles out for attack suddenly began slipping: the Russian ruble (which has since bounced back), the Iranian rial, the Venezuelan bolivar, the Turkish lira , etc.) or how little time it took Trump to bring the (admittedly spineless) Europeans to heel .

As for Russia, for all her military might, she remains only a semi-sovereign country in which the pro-US/pro-Israeli "Atlantic Integrationists" continue to try to sabotage (often successfully) everything Putin and his supporters are doing . I would not place big hopes in China either, especially considering the lack of meaningful Chinese action in Syria where Russia and Iran did all the heavy lifting.

Sadly, but the only ally Iran can truly count on is Hezbollah. And while Hezbollah is considered a "non-state actor", it has a formidable capability to strike at the US's colonial masters, especially in terms of missiles .

This will not protect Iran, but it could serve as a very real deterrent to the Israelis, especially since Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah he has made it clear that Hezbollah more than capable of taking on Israel .

For the time being, the Israelis are already preparing for a re-match against Hezbollah and they are massing forces in the north to prepare for a war against Hezbollah .

Does that look to you like there will be no war against Iran?

I hope so. But to me it very much looks like an attack is pretty much inevitable. I have been predicting such an attack since 2007 and, so far, I have been completely wrong (and thank God for that!). The very first article I ever wrote for my blog was entitled " Where the Empire meets to plan the next war " ended with the following words:

So count with yet another imperial war of aggression, a barrel of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation, job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?). But don't worry: there will still be a huge supply of Chinese-made US flags to wave!

And yet, 11 years later, the AngloZionist attack which looked so imminent in 2007 has not happened yet. Could it be that this time again an attack on Iran can be avoided? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appears to be very confident that it will not happen. I am not so sure, but I fervently hope that he is right.

[Aug 19, 2018] What's going on in the US is unprecedented. The entire political or so-called liberal establishment is fighting with every means at their disposal against a democratically elected President.

Aug 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ludwig Watzal , Website August 17, 2018 at 2:16 pm GMT

Pat Buchanan demonstrates how so-called liberal America despises ordinary folks who don't seem so "enlightened" such as crooks like Obama, Hillary Clinton, Cuomo, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Hayden. Not to speak of their disgusting infantry of the kind of the Strzoks and his lover girl Lisa Page and their ilk, plus the biased media rascals that are in fact "the enemy of the people" (deplorable).

What's going on in the US is unprecedented. The entire political or so-called liberal establishment is fighting with every means at their disposal against a democratically elected President. Together with the Deep State and its agent, Robert Mueller, they want to bring Donald Trump down. It's only a question of time when the Deep State comes up with a kind of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , August 17, 2018 at 5:40 am GMT
One good thing about Trump. He's a clown but he triggered so many in the Deep State to come out of the woodwork and show their true face. And what a hideous lot.

I had no idea that the Deep State was so infested with lowlife scum.

[Aug 19, 2018] Neoliberals have monopolized the information distribution system internet and television and used it to silence critics, prevent competing platforms from arising, bully society into accepting their standards of conduct and thought, blacklist conservatives in Hollywood, promote physical violence against dissenters

Notable quotes:
"... In that sense, the elite media are indeed enemies of the people – our people, that is. If they didn't want to perceived as such, they should have been fairer in their coverage, they shouldn't have started censoring people and banning them off Twitter and PayPal for wrongthink, they shouldn't have promoted endless invasion, they shouldn't have coordinated outrageous attacks like that disgraceful WaPo story alleging everyone who didn't support Hillary Clinton was part of a Russian plot (lying bastards) ..."
"... It's not appropriate for a handful of American cities (LA, NY, and DC), a single political party (the democrats), and a handful of democrat-voting businessmen and leftist "journalists" to control 98% of the narrative. Something needs to be done about that. ..."
"... Otherwise, South Africa is our future. They faced the same choice as we do now, and they did it wrong. ..."
Aug 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [178] Disclaimer , August 17, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT

I think some clarification is needed here. What these people have actually done is the following:

They have monopolized the information distribution system – internet and television – and used it to silence critics, prevent competing platforms from arising, bully society into accepting their standards of conduct and thought, blacklist conservatives in Hollywood, promote physical violence against us (punch a Nazi where "Nazi" is basically any non extremist), and organize countless wide-spread coordinated attacks against our government in order to overthrow it, and replace it with their own. They've used banks to deny service to legal gun shops (a roundabout way to ban them), they've used credit card companies to shut down critics of Islam, they've used lawfare to attack Christian bakers, they've banned critics from PayPal, they've censored YouTube videos, they boot critics from Facebook, they employ an army of "state-sponsored in all but name" censors for social media – SPLC, ADL, and they have recruited a "state-sponsored in all but name" KGB to track down and dox/fire/witchunt dissenters on the internet.

We live in fear that at any moment out lives could be destroyed if we are filmed in public expressing wrong think; other countries like Germany have laws against this, so why don't we? Oh, that's right, because it is a useful tool to control dissent. The deepstate needs to keep their little empire together. Careful not to be white and say the wrong thing or your picture may end up being broadcast by the Young Turks to the world: "racist white lady calls the cops on innocent non-whites who didn't pay for anything in a restaurant and loitered around, refused to leave a private establishment after being politely asked to pay or go, and then screamed at cops for 10 minutes before being arrested. The shame. Dirty racist."

We are subject to false allegations in a system rigged by feminists to discriminate against men. We are guilty until proven innocent. We have to work twice as hard for half the results due to racist affirmative action policies. We are bombarded with leftist propaganda in the entertainment industry. No form of entertainment is free from their proselytizing. There are endless 2 minute sessions of hate directed at us: Duke Lacrosse, Virginia rape hoax, Ferguson, Starbucks,

The media got away with this in the past by pretending to be objective, but they don't even bother with that aspect anymore. Unfortunately, the corrupt, spineless traitors in the GOP let this happen. They should have been rigorously enforcing anti-monopoly laws, media ownership laws, and supporting public broadcasting – internet and television – in order to drive down the ratings of deepstate-run organs like CNN. Instead, they sold out. They are traitors, too.

In that sense, the elite media are indeed enemies of the people – our people, that is. If they didn't want to perceived as such, they should have been fairer in their coverage, they shouldn't have started censoring people and banning them off Twitter and PayPal for wrongthink, they shouldn't have promoted endless invasion, they shouldn't have coordinated outrageous attacks like that disgraceful WaPo story alleging everyone who didn't support Hillary Clinton was part of a Russian plot (lying bastards)

How many of these fake news stories have these people come up with? Stormy Daniels, Omarosa, Russiagate, BLM . It should be clear by now that these scum are trying to rig the upcoming election in the democrat party's favor by ginning up racial and gender animus; that is blatantly what they tried to do in 2016. So, why are we letting them? We can't organize a boycott of them, their advertisers, their distribution networks? If they ban us from social media, can't we pass laws requiring their distribution network – internet service providers and trucking companies – to ban them in retaliation? Can't we organize state-sponsored, censorship-free competition? Our state legislatures can ban boycotts of Israel but not protect we the people?

It's not appropriate for a handful of American cities (LA, NY, and DC), a single political party (the democrats), and a handful of democrat-voting businessmen and leftist "journalists" to control 98% of the narrative. Something needs to be done about that.

Personally, I think the US is done for as a constitutional republic. Either we secede and have a country run for the benefit of our own people (optimal), or we seize control and run the government for the benefit of ourselves. Works for China. And that's exactly what the left is plotting with their immigration invasion. So why not strike first? Do we want to end up like South Africa? Do we want to end up with a one-party democrat state? Imagine racist SJW scum stomping on your face forever. That's the choice we face, and it is coming up soon.

As far as I'm concerned, Trump won 60% of the American vote. A near majority of the people who voted democrat are not American. They are foreign invaders invited after the 1965 immigration act to steal away our democracy and give it to the racist democrat party. If the Chinese army invaded California, we wouldn't give them the vote. So, why do racist invaders get to vote? Strip them of their citizenship and let only republicans vote. Then, expel these traitors to other countries where they belong.

Our country was originally founded as an exclusive society that reserved the vote for white landowners, and the American Revolution was only supported by a third of the public. Patriots rose up and kicked out the king against the wishes of the stupid masses, and they were right to do so. Thank God that wasn't left up to an equal vote because not all men are equal in their abilities.

I don't see how it would be wrong to reserve the vote exclusively for our people again, or at least Republicans in general, people who have the nation's best interest at heart, people wise enough and capable enough to understand right from wrong and wisdom from stupidity.

Think this is too extreme? It isn't because that's exactly what they have publicly advocated doing to us – deport us, enslave us, censor our speech, jail us, attack us in the streets, ban Fox News. One of their democrat senators publicly supported censoring more people after Alex Jones was deplatformed via RICOesque collusion. They announce it publicly! When are we going to take their threats seriously and strike first?

Otherwise, South Africa is our future. They faced the same choice as we do now, and they did it wrong. They gave their country away to racist vermin who now threaten to steal their land without compensation. It was obvious at the time that it would end badly for the whites there one day, but they stupidly ignored the warnings, Now, their racist president chants "death to the Boar, death to the white man." Don't think that can happen here? It can. The racist democrat running for Georgia governor wants to destroy Stone Mountain and give reparations to blacks (steal our money like SA steals white lands).

When the rats retake the White House in 2020, they are going to unleash a wave of racist hate against us that will never abate. That's what Obama did with BLM, so there is no reason to believe they won't do so again but much worse after all their rhetoric. And there will be so many democrat-voting immigrant invaders here that we can never win power again. They thirst to make our country a dictatorship like China, but with themselves at the top. That's a scary thought. Are we going to let them do it?

[Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements. ..."
"... Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away ..."
"... In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events. ..."
"... U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?" ..."
"... If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters. ..."
"... The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content ..."
"... Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense. ..."
"... To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. ..."
"... The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. ..."
"... There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite ..."
"... A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. ..."
"... A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. ..."
"... In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. ..."
"... The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. ..."
"... The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. ..."
"... To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. ..."
"... The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

"Homeland" Distortion

Consistent with its possession as a leading and money-making asset of the nation's wealthy elite, the United States corporate and commercial mass media is a bastion of power-serving propaganda and deadening twaddle designed to keep the U.S. citizenry subordinated to capital and the imperial U.S. state. It regularly portrays the United States as a great model of democracy and equality. It sells a false image of the U.S. as a society where the rich enjoy opulence because of hard and honest work and where the poor are poor because of their laziness and irresponsibility. The nightly television news broadcasts and television police and law and order dramas are obsessed with violent crime in the nation's Black ghettoes and Latino barrios, but they never talk about the extreme poverty, the absence of opportunity imposed on those neighborhoods by the interrelated forces of institutional racism, capital flight, mass structural unemployment, under-funded schools, and mass incarceration. The nightly television weather reports tells U.S. citizens of ever new record high temperatures and related forms of extreme weather but never relate these remarkable meteorological developments to anthropogenic climate change.

The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements.

As the prolific U.S. Marxist commentator Michael Parenti once remarked, US "Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away." [1]

Selling Empire

U.S. newscasters and their print media counterparts routinely parrot and disseminate the false foreign policy claims of the nation's imperial elite. Earlier this year, U.S. news broadcasters dutiful relayed to U.S. citizens the Obama administration's preposterous assertion that social-democratic Venezuela is a repressive, corrupt, and authoritarian danger to its own people and the U.S. No leading national U.S. news outlet dared to note the special absurdity of this charge in the wake of Obama and other top U.S. officials' visit to Riyadh to guarantee U.S. support for the new king of Saudi Arabia, the absolute ruler of a leading U.S. client state that happens to be the most brutally oppressive and reactionary government on Earth.

In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events.

As the leading Left U.S. intellectuals Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman showed in their classic text Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Orwellian double standards are rife in the dominant U.S. media's coverage and interpretation of global affairs. Elections won in other countries by politicians that Washington approves because those politicians can be counted on to serve the interests of U.S. corporations and the military are portrayed in U.S. media as good and clean contests. But when elections put in power people who can't be counted on to serve "U.S. interests," (Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro for example), then U.S. corporate media portrays the contests as "rigged" and "corrupt." When Americans or people allied with Washington are killed or injured abroad, they are "worthy victims" and receive great attention and sympathy in that media. People killed, maimed, displaced and otherwise harmed by the U.S. and U.S. clients and allies are anonymous and "unworthy victims" whose experience elicits little mention or concern.[2]

U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?"

In February of 2015, an extraordinary event occurred in U.S. news media – the firing of a leading national news broadcaster, Brian Williams of NBC News. Williams lost his position because of some lies he told in connection with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A naïve outsider might think that Williams was fired because he repeated the George W. Bush administration's transparent fabrications about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11. Sadly but predictably enough, that wasn't his problem. Williams lost his job because he falsely boasted that he had ridden on a helicopter that was forced down by grenade fire during the initial U.S. invasion. If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters.

More than Entertainment

The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content but was completely ignored in Herman and Chomsky's groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent. [3] One example is the Hollywood movie "Zero Dark Thirty," a 2012 "action thriller" that dramatized the United States' search for Osama bin-Laden after the September 11, 2001 jetliner attacks. The film received critical acclaim and was a box office-smash. It was also a masterpiece of pro-military, pro-CIA propaganda, skillfully portraying U.S. torture practices "as a dirty, ugly business that is necessary to protect America" (Glenn Greenwald[4]) and deleting the moral debate that erupted over the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques." Under the guise of a neutral, documentary-like façade, Zero Dark Thirty normalized and endorsed torture in ways that were all the more effective because of its understated, detached, and "objective" veneer. The film also marked a distressing new frontier in U.S. military-"embedded" filmmaking whereby the movie-makers receive technical and logistical support from the Pentagon in return for producing elaborate public relations on the military's behalf.

The 2014-15 Hollywood blockbuster American Sniper is another example. The film's audiences is supposed to marvel at the supposedly noble feats, sacrifice, and heroism of Chris Kyle, a rugged, militantly patriotic, and Christian-fundamentalist Navy SEALS sniper who participated in the U.S. invasion of Iraq to fight "evil" and to avenge the al Qaeda jetliner attacks of September 11, 2001. Kyle killed 160 Iraqis over four tours of "duty" in "Operational Iraqi Freedom." Viewers are never told that the Iraqi government had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or al Qaeda or that the U.S. invasion was one of the most egregiously criminal and brazenly imperial and mass-murderous acts in the history of international violence. Like Zero Dark Thirty's apologists, American Sniper's defenders claim that the film takes a neutral perspective of "pure storytelling," with no ideological bias. In reality, the movie is filled with racist and imperial distortions, functioning as flat-out war propaganda.[5]

These are just two among many examples that could be cited of U.S. "entertainment" media's regular service to the American Empire. Hollywood and other parts of the nation's vast corporate entertainment complex plays the same power-serving role in relation to domestic ("homeland") American inequality and oppression structures of class and race. [6]

Manufacturing Idiocy

Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense.

In the U.S., where violence is not as readily available to elites as in 1970s Latin America, corporate America seeks the same terrible outcome through its ideological institutions, including above all its mass media. In U.S. movies, television sit-coms, television dramas, television reality-shows, commercials, state Lottery advertisements, and video games, the ideal-type U.S. citizen is an idiot in this classic sense: a person who cares about little more than his or her own well-being, consumption, and status. This noble American idiot is blissfully indifferent to the terrible prices paid by others for the maintenance of reigning and interrelated oppressions structures at home and abroad.

A pervasive theme in this media culture is the notion that people at the bottom of the nation's steep and interrelated socioeconomic and racial pyramids are the "personally irresponsible" and culturally flawed makers of their own fate. The mass U.S. media's version of Athenian idiocy "can imagine," in the words of the prolific Left U.S. cultural theorist Henry Giroux "public issues only as private concerns." It works to "erase the social from the language of public life so as to reduce" questions of racial and socioeconomic disparity to "private issues of individual character and cultural depravity. Consistent with "the central neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature," it portrays the only barriers to equality and meaningful democratic participation as "a lack of principled self-help and moral responsibility" and bad personal choices by the oppressed. Government efforts to meaningfully address and ameliorate (not to mention abolish) societal disparities of race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and the like are portrayed as futile, counterproductive, naïve, and dangerous.[8]

To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. It celebrates and otherwise advances the "right hand of the state"[9]: the portions of government that serve the opulent minority, dole out punishment for the poor, and attacks those perceived as nefariously resisting the corporate and imperial order at home and abroad. Police officers, prosecutors, military personnel, and other government authorities who represent the "right hand of the state" are heroes and role models in this media. Public defenders, other defense attorneys, civil libertarians, racial justice activists, union leaders, antiwar protesters and the like are presented at best as naïve and irritating "do-gooders" and at worst as coddlers and even agents of evil.

The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. As the American cultural critic Neil Postman noted thirty years ago, the modern U.S. television commercial is the antithesis of the rational economic consideration that early Western champions of the profits system claimed to be the enlightened essence of capitalism. "Its principal theorists, even its most prominent practitioners," Postman noted, "believed capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature, well-informed, and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest." Commercials make "hash" out of this idea. They are dedicated to persuading consumers with wholly irrational claims. They rely not on the reasoned presentation of evidence and logical argument but on suggestive emotionalism, infantilizing manipulation, and evocative, rapid-fire imagery.[10]

The same techniques poison U.S. electoral politics. Investment in deceptive and manipulative campaign commercials commonly determines success or failure in mass-marketed election contests between business-beholden candidates that are sold to the audience/electorate like brands of toothpaste and deodorant. Fittingly enough, the stupendous cost of these political advertisements is a major factor driving U.S. campaign expenses so high (the 2016 U.S. presidential election will cost at least $5 billion) as to make candidates ever more dependent on big money corporate and Wall Street donors.

Along the way, mass cognitive competence is assaulted by the numbing, high-speed ubiquity of U.S. television and radio advertisements. These commercials assault citizens' capacity for sustained mental focus and rational deliberation nearly sixteen minutes of every hour on cable television, with 44 percent of the individual ads now running for just 15 seconds. This is a factor in the United States' long-bemoaned epidemic of "Attention Deficit Disorder."

Seventy years ago, the brilliant Dutch left Marxist Anton Pannekoek offered some chilling reflections on the corporate print and broadcast media's destructive impact on mass cognitive and related social resistance capacities in the United States after World War II:

"The press is of course entirely in hands of big capital [and it] dominates the spiritual life of the American people. The most important thing is not even the hiding of all truth about the reign of big finance. Its aim still more is the education to thoughtlessness. All attention is directed to coarse sensations, everything is avoided that could arouse thinking. Papers are not meant to be read – the small print is already a hindrance – but in a rapid survey of the fat headlines to inform the public on unimportant news items, on family triflings of the rich, on sexual scandals, on crimes of the underworld, on boxing matches. The aim of the capitalist press all over the world, the diverting of the attention of the masses from the reality of social development, nowhere succeed with such thoroughness as in America."

"Still more than by the papers the masses are influenced by broadcasting and film. These products of most perfect science, destined at one time to the finest educational instruments of mankind, now in the hands of capitalism have been turned into the strongest means to uphold its rule by stupefying the mind. Because after nerve-straining fatigue the movie offers relaxation and distraction by means of simple visual impressions that make no demand on the intellect, the masses get used to accepting thoughtlessly all its cunning and shrewd propaganda. It reflects the ugliest sides of middle-class society. It turns all attention either to sexual life, in this society – by the absence of community feelings and fight for freedom – the only source of strong passions, or to brute violence; masses educated to rough violence instead of to social knowledge are not dangerous to capitalism "[11]

Pannekoek clearly saw an ideological dimension (beyond just diversion and stupefaction) in U.S. mass media's "education to thoughtlessness" through movies as well as print sensationalism. He would certainly be impressed and perhaps depressed by the remarkably numerous, potent, and many-sided means of mass distraction and indoctrination that are available to the U.S. and global capitalist media in the present digital and Internet era.

The "entertainment" wing of its vast corporate media complex is critical to the considerable "soft" ideological "power" the U.S. exercises around the world even as its economic hegemony wanes in an ever more multipolar global system (and as its "hard" military reveals significant limits within and beyond the Middle East). Relatively few people beneath the global capitalist elite consume U.S. news and public affairs media beyond the U.S., but "American" (U.S.) movies, television shows, video games, communication devices, and advertising culture are ubiquitous across the planet.

Explaining "Mainstream" Media Corporate Ownership

There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite. The first and most important explanation for this harsh reality is concentrated private ownership – the fundamental fact that that media is owned primarily by giant corporations representing wealthy interests who are deeply invested in U.S. capitalism and Empire. Visitors to the U.S. should not be fooled by the large number and types of channels and stations on a typical U.S. car radio or television set or by the large number and types of magazines and books on display at a typical Barnes & Noble bookstore. Currently in the U.S., just six massive and global corporations – Comcast, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, The News Corporation and Disney – together control more than 90 percent of the nation's print and electronic media, including cable television, airwaves television, radio, newspapers, movies, video games, book publishing, comic books, and more. Three decades ago, 50 corporations controlled the same amount of U.S. media.

Each of the reigning six companies is a giant and diversified multi-media conglomerate with investments beyond media, including "defense" (the military). Asking reporters and commentators at one of those giant corporations to tell the unvarnished truth about what's happening in the U.S. and the world is like asking the company magazine published by the United Fruit Company to the tell the truth about working conditions in its Caribbean and Central American plantations in the 1950s. It's like asking the General Motors company newspaper to tell the truth about wages and working conditions in GM's auto assembly plants around the world.

As the nation's media becomes concentrated into fewer corporate hands, media personnel become ever more insecure in their jobs because they have fewer firms to whom to sell their skills. That makes them even less willing than they might have been before to go outside official sources, to question the official line, and to tell the truth about current events and the context in which they occur.

Advertisers

A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As Chomsky has noted in a recent interview, large corporations are not only the major producers of the United States' mass and commercial media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens the captivity of nation's supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:

"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case, almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses – advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that significantly shapes the nature of the institution."[12]

At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate the affluent people who count for an ever rising share of consumer purchases in the U.S. It is naturally those with the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.

Government Policy

A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. Under the terms of the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, commercial, for-profit broadcasters have almost completely free rein over the nation's airwaves and cable lines. There is no substantive segment of the broadcast spectrum set aside for truly public interest and genuinely democratic, popular not-for profit media and the official "public" broadcasting networks are thoroughly captive to corporate interests and to right-wing politicians who take giant campaign contributions from corporate interests. Much of the 1996 bill was written by lobbyists working for the nations' leading media firms. [13]

A different form of state policy deserves mention. Under the Obama administration, we have seen the most aggressive pursuit and prosecution in recent memory of U.S. journalists who step outside the narrow parameters of pro-U.S. coverage and commentary – and of the whistleblowers who provide them with leaked information. That is why Edward Snowden lives in Russia, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, Chelsea Manning is serving life in a U.S. military prison, and Julian Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. A leading New York Times reporter and author, James Risen, has been threatened with imprisonment by the White House for years because of his refusal to divulge sources.

Treetops v. Grassroots Audiences

In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. Left U.S. media critics like Chomsky and Herman are said to be hypocrites because they obviously find much that is of use as Left thinkers in the very media that they criticize for distorting reality in accord with capitalist and imperial dictates.

The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. As far as the business elites who own and manage the U.S. mass media and the corporations that pay for that media with advertising purchases are concerned, this "rabble" cannot be trusted with serious, candid, and forthright information. Its essential role in society is to keep quiet, work hard, be entertained (in richly propagandistic and ideological ways, we should remember), buy things, and generally do what they're told. They are to leave key societal decisions to those that the leading 20th century U.S. public intellectual and media-as-propaganda enthusiast Walter Lippman called "the responsible men." That "intelligent," benevolent, "expert," and "responsible" elite (responsible, indeed, for such glorious accomplishments as the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the Great Recession, global warming, and the rise of the Islamic State) needed, in Lippman's view, to be protected from what he called "the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd."[15] The deluded mob, the sub-citizenry, the dangerous working class majority is not the audience for elite organs like the Times, the Post, and the Journal.

The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. This elite includes such heavily indoctrinated persons as corporate managers, lawyers, public administrators, and (most) tenured university professors. Since these elites carry out key top-down societal tasks of supervision, discipline, training, demoralization, co-optation, and indoctrination – all essential to the rule of the real economic elite and the imperial system – they cannot be too thoroughly misled about current events and policy without deleterious consequences for the smooth functioning of the dominant social and political order. They require adequate information and must not be overly influenced by the brutal and foolish propaganda generated for the "bewildered herd." At the same time, information and commentary for the relevant and respectable business and political classes and their "coordinator class" servants and allies often contains a measure of reasoned and sincere intra-elite political and policy debate – debate that is always careful not to stray beyond narrow U.S. ideological parameters. That is why a radical Left U.S. thinker and activist can find much that is of use in U.S. "treetops" media. Such a thinker or activist would, indeed, be foolish not to consult these sources.

"P"BS and N"P"R

A second objection to the Left critique of U.S. "mainstream" media claims that the U.S. public enjoys a meaningful alternative to the corporate media in the form of the nation's Public Broadcasting Service (television) and National Public Radio (NPR). This claim should not be taken seriously. Thanks to U.S. "public" media's pathetically weak governmental funding, its heavy reliance on corporate sponsors, and its constant harassment by right wing critics inside and beyond the U.S. Congress, N"P"R and "P"BS are extremely reluctant to question dominant U.S. ideologies and power structures.

The tepid, power-serving conservatism of U.S. "public" broadcasting is by longstanding political and policy design. The federal government allowed the formation of the "public" networks only on the condition that they pose no competitive market or ideological challenge to private commercial media, the profits system, and U.S. global foreign policy. "P"BS and N"P"R are "public" in a very limited sense. They not function for the public over and against corporate, financial, and imperial power to any significant degree.

"The Internet Will Save Us"

A third objection claims that the rise of the Internet creates a "Wild West" environment in which the power of corporate media is eviscerated and citizens can find and even produce all the "alternative media" they require. This claim is misleading but it should not be reflexively or completely dismissed. In the U.S. as elsewhere, those with access to the Internet and the time and energy to use it meaningfully can find a remarkable breadth and depth of information and trenchant Left analysis at various online sites. The Internet also broadens U.S. citizens and activists' access to media networks beyond the U.S. – to elite sources that are much less beholden of course to U.S. propaganda and ideology. At the same time, the Internet and digital telephony networks have at times shown themselves to be effective grassroots organizing tools for progressive U.S. activists.

Still, the democratic and progressive impact of the Internet in the U.S. is easily exaggerated. Left and other progressive online outlets lack anything close to the financial, technical, and organizational and human resources of the corporate news media, which has its own sophisticated Internet. There is nothing in Left other citizen online outlets that can begin to remotely challenge the "soft" ideological and propagandistic power of corporate "entertainment" media. The Internet's technical infrastructure is increasingly dominated by an "ISP cartel" led by a small number of giant corporations. As the leading left U.S. media analyst Robert McChesney notes:

"By 2014, there are only a half-dozen or so major players that dominate provision of broadband Internet access and wireless Internet access. Three of them – Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast – dominate the field of telephony and Internet access, and have set up what is in effect a cartel. They no longer compete with each other in any meaningful sense. As a result, Americans pay far more for cellphone and broadband Internet access than most other advanced nations and get much lousier service These are not 'free market' companies in any sense of the term. Their business model, going back to pre-Internet days, has always been capturing government monopoly licenses for telephone and cable TV services. Their 'comparative advantage' has never been customer service; it has been world-class lobbying.' [16]

Along the way, the notion of a great "democratizing," Wild West" and "free market" Internet has proved politically useful for the corporate media giants. The regularly trumpet the great Internet myth to claim that the U.S. public and regulators don't need to worry about corporate media power and to justify their demands for more government subsidy and protection. At the same time, finally, we know from the revelations of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and others that the nation's leading digital and Internet-based e-mail (Google and Yahoo), telephony (e.g. Verizon), and "social network" (Facebook above all) corporations have collaborated with the National Security Agency and with the nation's local, state, and federal police in the surveillance of U.S. citizens' and activists' private communications.[17]

Solutions

The fourth objection accuses Left media critics of being overly negative, "carping" critics who offer no serious alternatives to the nation's current corporate-owned corporate-managed commercial and for-profit media system. This is a transparently false and mean-spirited charge. Left U.S. media criticism is strongly linked to a smart and impressive U.S. media reform movement that advances numerous and interrelated proposals for the creation of a genuinely public and democratically run non-commercial and nonprofit U.S. media system. Some of the demand and proposals of this movement include public ownership and operation of the Internet as a public utility; the break-up of the leading media oligopolies; full public funding of public broadcasting; limits on advertising in commercial media; the abolition of political advertisements; the expansion of airwave and broadband access for alternative media outlets; publicly-funded nonprofit and non-commercial print journalism; the abolition of government and corporate surveillance, monitoring, and commercial data-mining of private communication and "social networks."[18] With regard to the media as with numerous other areas, we should recall Chomsky's sardonic response to the standard conservative claim that the Left offers criticisms but no solutions: "There is an accurate translation for that charge: 'they present solutions and I don't like them.'"[19]

A False Paradox

The propagandistic and power-serving mission and nature of dominant U.S, corporate mass media might seem ironic and even paradoxical in light of the United States' strong free speech and democratic traditions. In fact, as Carey and Chomsky have noted, the former makes perfect sense in light of the latter. In nations where popular expression and dissent is routinely crushed with violent repression, elites have little incentive to shape popular perceptions in accord with elite interests. The population is controlled primarily through physical coercion. In societies where it is not generally considered legitimate to put down popular expression with the iron heel of armed force and where dissenting opinion is granted a significant measure of freedom of expression, elites are heavily and dangerously incentivized to seek to manufacture mass popular consent and idiocy. The danger is deepened by the United States' status as the pioneer in the development of mass consumer capitalism, advertising, film, and television. Thanks to that history, corporate America has long stood in the global vanguard when it comes to developing the technologies, methods, art, and science of mass persuasion and thought control.[20]

It is appropriate to place quotation marks around the phrase "mainstream media" when writing about dominant U.S. corporate media. During the Cold War era, U.S. officials and media never referred to the Soviet Union's state television and radio or its main state newspapers as "mainstream Russian media." American authorities referred to these Russian media outlets as "Soviet state media" and treated that media as means for the dissemination of Soviet "propaganda" and ideology. There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and commercial media as any more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in their day. It is just as dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal perspectives of its host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective.

Its success is easily exaggerated, however. To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. A recent Pew Research poll showed that U.S. "millennials" (young adults 18-29 years old) have a more favorable response to the word "socialism" than to "capitalism" – a remarkable finding on the limits of corporate media and other forms of elite ideological power in the U.S. The immigrant worker uprising of May 2006, the Chicago Republic Door and Window plant occupation of 2008, the University of California student uprisings of 2009 and 2010, the Wisconsin public worker rebellion in early 2011, the Occupy Movement of late 2011, and Fight for Fifteen (for a $15 an hour minimum wage) and Black Lives Matter movements of 2014 and 2015 show that U.S. corporate and imperial establishment has not manufactured anything like comprehensive and across the board mass consent and idiocy in the U,S. today. The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. The struggle for popular self-determination, democracy, justice, and equality lives on despite the influence of corporate media.

[Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements. ..."
"... Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away ..."
"... In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events. ..."
"... U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?" ..."
"... If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters. ..."
"... The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content ..."
"... Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense. ..."
"... To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. ..."
"... The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. ..."
"... There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite ..."
"... A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. ..."
"... A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. ..."
"... In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. ..."
"... The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. ..."
"... The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. ..."
"... To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. ..."
"... The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

"Homeland" Distortion

Consistent with its possession as a leading and money-making asset of the nation's wealthy elite, the United States corporate and commercial mass media is a bastion of power-serving propaganda and deadening twaddle designed to keep the U.S. citizenry subordinated to capital and the imperial U.S. state. It regularly portrays the United States as a great model of democracy and equality. It sells a false image of the U.S. as a society where the rich enjoy opulence because of hard and honest work and where the poor are poor because of their laziness and irresponsibility. The nightly television news broadcasts and television police and law and order dramas are obsessed with violent crime in the nation's Black ghettoes and Latino barrios, but they never talk about the extreme poverty, the absence of opportunity imposed on those neighborhoods by the interrelated forces of institutional racism, capital flight, mass structural unemployment, under-funded schools, and mass incarceration. The nightly television weather reports tells U.S. citizens of ever new record high temperatures and related forms of extreme weather but never relate these remarkable meteorological developments to anthropogenic climate change.

The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements.

As the prolific U.S. Marxist commentator Michael Parenti once remarked, US "Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away." [1]

Selling Empire

U.S. newscasters and their print media counterparts routinely parrot and disseminate the false foreign policy claims of the nation's imperial elite. Earlier this year, U.S. news broadcasters dutiful relayed to U.S. citizens the Obama administration's preposterous assertion that social-democratic Venezuela is a repressive, corrupt, and authoritarian danger to its own people and the U.S. No leading national U.S. news outlet dared to note the special absurdity of this charge in the wake of Obama and other top U.S. officials' visit to Riyadh to guarantee U.S. support for the new king of Saudi Arabia, the absolute ruler of a leading U.S. client state that happens to be the most brutally oppressive and reactionary government on Earth.

In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events.

As the leading Left U.S. intellectuals Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman showed in their classic text Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Orwellian double standards are rife in the dominant U.S. media's coverage and interpretation of global affairs. Elections won in other countries by politicians that Washington approves because those politicians can be counted on to serve the interests of U.S. corporations and the military are portrayed in U.S. media as good and clean contests. But when elections put in power people who can't be counted on to serve "U.S. interests," (Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro for example), then U.S. corporate media portrays the contests as "rigged" and "corrupt." When Americans or people allied with Washington are killed or injured abroad, they are "worthy victims" and receive great attention and sympathy in that media. People killed, maimed, displaced and otherwise harmed by the U.S. and U.S. clients and allies are anonymous and "unworthy victims" whose experience elicits little mention or concern.[2]

U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?"

In February of 2015, an extraordinary event occurred in U.S. news media – the firing of a leading national news broadcaster, Brian Williams of NBC News. Williams lost his position because of some lies he told in connection with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A naïve outsider might think that Williams was fired because he repeated the George W. Bush administration's transparent fabrications about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11. Sadly but predictably enough, that wasn't his problem. Williams lost his job because he falsely boasted that he had ridden on a helicopter that was forced down by grenade fire during the initial U.S. invasion. If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters.

More than Entertainment

The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content but was completely ignored in Herman and Chomsky's groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent. [3] One example is the Hollywood movie "Zero Dark Thirty," a 2012 "action thriller" that dramatized the United States' search for Osama bin-Laden after the September 11, 2001 jetliner attacks. The film received critical acclaim and was a box office-smash. It was also a masterpiece of pro-military, pro-CIA propaganda, skillfully portraying U.S. torture practices "as a dirty, ugly business that is necessary to protect America" (Glenn Greenwald[4]) and deleting the moral debate that erupted over the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques." Under the guise of a neutral, documentary-like façade, Zero Dark Thirty normalized and endorsed torture in ways that were all the more effective because of its understated, detached, and "objective" veneer. The film also marked a distressing new frontier in U.S. military-"embedded" filmmaking whereby the movie-makers receive technical and logistical support from the Pentagon in return for producing elaborate public relations on the military's behalf.

The 2014-15 Hollywood blockbuster American Sniper is another example. The film's audiences is supposed to marvel at the supposedly noble feats, sacrifice, and heroism of Chris Kyle, a rugged, militantly patriotic, and Christian-fundamentalist Navy SEALS sniper who participated in the U.S. invasion of Iraq to fight "evil" and to avenge the al Qaeda jetliner attacks of September 11, 2001. Kyle killed 160 Iraqis over four tours of "duty" in "Operational Iraqi Freedom." Viewers are never told that the Iraqi government had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or al Qaeda or that the U.S. invasion was one of the most egregiously criminal and brazenly imperial and mass-murderous acts in the history of international violence. Like Zero Dark Thirty's apologists, American Sniper's defenders claim that the film takes a neutral perspective of "pure storytelling," with no ideological bias. In reality, the movie is filled with racist and imperial distortions, functioning as flat-out war propaganda.[5]

These are just two among many examples that could be cited of U.S. "entertainment" media's regular service to the American Empire. Hollywood and other parts of the nation's vast corporate entertainment complex plays the same power-serving role in relation to domestic ("homeland") American inequality and oppression structures of class and race. [6]

Manufacturing Idiocy

Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense.

In the U.S., where violence is not as readily available to elites as in 1970s Latin America, corporate America seeks the same terrible outcome through its ideological institutions, including above all its mass media. In U.S. movies, television sit-coms, television dramas, television reality-shows, commercials, state Lottery advertisements, and video games, the ideal-type U.S. citizen is an idiot in this classic sense: a person who cares about little more than his or her own well-being, consumption, and status. This noble American idiot is blissfully indifferent to the terrible prices paid by others for the maintenance of reigning and interrelated oppressions structures at home and abroad.

A pervasive theme in this media culture is the notion that people at the bottom of the nation's steep and interrelated socioeconomic and racial pyramids are the "personally irresponsible" and culturally flawed makers of their own fate. The mass U.S. media's version of Athenian idiocy "can imagine," in the words of the prolific Left U.S. cultural theorist Henry Giroux "public issues only as private concerns." It works to "erase the social from the language of public life so as to reduce" questions of racial and socioeconomic disparity to "private issues of individual character and cultural depravity. Consistent with "the central neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature," it portrays the only barriers to equality and meaningful democratic participation as "a lack of principled self-help and moral responsibility" and bad personal choices by the oppressed. Government efforts to meaningfully address and ameliorate (not to mention abolish) societal disparities of race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and the like are portrayed as futile, counterproductive, naïve, and dangerous.[8]

To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. It celebrates and otherwise advances the "right hand of the state"[9]: the portions of government that serve the opulent minority, dole out punishment for the poor, and attacks those perceived as nefariously resisting the corporate and imperial order at home and abroad. Police officers, prosecutors, military personnel, and other government authorities who represent the "right hand of the state" are heroes and role models in this media. Public defenders, other defense attorneys, civil libertarians, racial justice activists, union leaders, antiwar protesters and the like are presented at best as naïve and irritating "do-gooders" and at worst as coddlers and even agents of evil.

The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. As the American cultural critic Neil Postman noted thirty years ago, the modern U.S. television commercial is the antithesis of the rational economic consideration that early Western champions of the profits system claimed to be the enlightened essence of capitalism. "Its principal theorists, even its most prominent practitioners," Postman noted, "believed capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature, well-informed, and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest." Commercials make "hash" out of this idea. They are dedicated to persuading consumers with wholly irrational claims. They rely not on the reasoned presentation of evidence and logical argument but on suggestive emotionalism, infantilizing manipulation, and evocative, rapid-fire imagery.[10]

The same techniques poison U.S. electoral politics. Investment in deceptive and manipulative campaign commercials commonly determines success or failure in mass-marketed election contests between business-beholden candidates that are sold to the audience/electorate like brands of toothpaste and deodorant. Fittingly enough, the stupendous cost of these political advertisements is a major factor driving U.S. campaign expenses so high (the 2016 U.S. presidential election will cost at least $5 billion) as to make candidates ever more dependent on big money corporate and Wall Street donors.

Along the way, mass cognitive competence is assaulted by the numbing, high-speed ubiquity of U.S. television and radio advertisements. These commercials assault citizens' capacity for sustained mental focus and rational deliberation nearly sixteen minutes of every hour on cable television, with 44 percent of the individual ads now running for just 15 seconds. This is a factor in the United States' long-bemoaned epidemic of "Attention Deficit Disorder."

Seventy years ago, the brilliant Dutch left Marxist Anton Pannekoek offered some chilling reflections on the corporate print and broadcast media's destructive impact on mass cognitive and related social resistance capacities in the United States after World War II:

"The press is of course entirely in hands of big capital [and it] dominates the spiritual life of the American people. The most important thing is not even the hiding of all truth about the reign of big finance. Its aim still more is the education to thoughtlessness. All attention is directed to coarse sensations, everything is avoided that could arouse thinking. Papers are not meant to be read – the small print is already a hindrance – but in a rapid survey of the fat headlines to inform the public on unimportant news items, on family triflings of the rich, on sexual scandals, on crimes of the underworld, on boxing matches. The aim of the capitalist press all over the world, the diverting of the attention of the masses from the reality of social development, nowhere succeed with such thoroughness as in America."

"Still more than by the papers the masses are influenced by broadcasting and film. These products of most perfect science, destined at one time to the finest educational instruments of mankind, now in the hands of capitalism have been turned into the strongest means to uphold its rule by stupefying the mind. Because after nerve-straining fatigue the movie offers relaxation and distraction by means of simple visual impressions that make no demand on the intellect, the masses get used to accepting thoughtlessly all its cunning and shrewd propaganda. It reflects the ugliest sides of middle-class society. It turns all attention either to sexual life, in this society – by the absence of community feelings and fight for freedom – the only source of strong passions, or to brute violence; masses educated to rough violence instead of to social knowledge are not dangerous to capitalism "[11]

Pannekoek clearly saw an ideological dimension (beyond just diversion and stupefaction) in U.S. mass media's "education to thoughtlessness" through movies as well as print sensationalism. He would certainly be impressed and perhaps depressed by the remarkably numerous, potent, and many-sided means of mass distraction and indoctrination that are available to the U.S. and global capitalist media in the present digital and Internet era.

The "entertainment" wing of its vast corporate media complex is critical to the considerable "soft" ideological "power" the U.S. exercises around the world even as its economic hegemony wanes in an ever more multipolar global system (and as its "hard" military reveals significant limits within and beyond the Middle East). Relatively few people beneath the global capitalist elite consume U.S. news and public affairs media beyond the U.S., but "American" (U.S.) movies, television shows, video games, communication devices, and advertising culture are ubiquitous across the planet.

Explaining "Mainstream" Media Corporate Ownership

There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite. The first and most important explanation for this harsh reality is concentrated private ownership – the fundamental fact that that media is owned primarily by giant corporations representing wealthy interests who are deeply invested in U.S. capitalism and Empire. Visitors to the U.S. should not be fooled by the large number and types of channels and stations on a typical U.S. car radio or television set or by the large number and types of magazines and books on display at a typical Barnes & Noble bookstore. Currently in the U.S., just six massive and global corporations – Comcast, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, The News Corporation and Disney – together control more than 90 percent of the nation's print and electronic media, including cable television, airwaves television, radio, newspapers, movies, video games, book publishing, comic books, and more. Three decades ago, 50 corporations controlled the same amount of U.S. media.

Each of the reigning six companies is a giant and diversified multi-media conglomerate with investments beyond media, including "defense" (the military). Asking reporters and commentators at one of those giant corporations to tell the unvarnished truth about what's happening in the U.S. and the world is like asking the company magazine published by the United Fruit Company to the tell the truth about working conditions in its Caribbean and Central American plantations in the 1950s. It's like asking the General Motors company newspaper to tell the truth about wages and working conditions in GM's auto assembly plants around the world.

As the nation's media becomes concentrated into fewer corporate hands, media personnel become ever more insecure in their jobs because they have fewer firms to whom to sell their skills. That makes them even less willing than they might have been before to go outside official sources, to question the official line, and to tell the truth about current events and the context in which they occur.

Advertisers

A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As Chomsky has noted in a recent interview, large corporations are not only the major producers of the United States' mass and commercial media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens the captivity of nation's supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:

"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case, almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses – advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that significantly shapes the nature of the institution."[12]

At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate the affluent people who count for an ever rising share of consumer purchases in the U.S. It is naturally those with the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.

Government Policy

A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. Under the terms of the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, commercial, for-profit broadcasters have almost completely free rein over the nation's airwaves and cable lines. There is no substantive segment of the broadcast spectrum set aside for truly public interest and genuinely democratic, popular not-for profit media and the official "public" broadcasting networks are thoroughly captive to corporate interests and to right-wing politicians who take giant campaign contributions from corporate interests. Much of the 1996 bill was written by lobbyists working for the nations' leading media firms. [13]

A different form of state policy deserves mention. Under the Obama administration, we have seen the most aggressive pursuit and prosecution in recent memory of U.S. journalists who step outside the narrow parameters of pro-U.S. coverage and commentary – and of the whistleblowers who provide them with leaked information. That is why Edward Snowden lives in Russia, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, Chelsea Manning is serving life in a U.S. military prison, and Julian Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. A leading New York Times reporter and author, James Risen, has been threatened with imprisonment by the White House for years because of his refusal to divulge sources.

Treetops v. Grassroots Audiences

In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. Left U.S. media critics like Chomsky and Herman are said to be hypocrites because they obviously find much that is of use as Left thinkers in the very media that they criticize for distorting reality in accord with capitalist and imperial dictates.

The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. As far as the business elites who own and manage the U.S. mass media and the corporations that pay for that media with advertising purchases are concerned, this "rabble" cannot be trusted with serious, candid, and forthright information. Its essential role in society is to keep quiet, work hard, be entertained (in richly propagandistic and ideological ways, we should remember), buy things, and generally do what they're told. They are to leave key societal decisions to those that the leading 20th century U.S. public intellectual and media-as-propaganda enthusiast Walter Lippman called "the responsible men." That "intelligent," benevolent, "expert," and "responsible" elite (responsible, indeed, for such glorious accomplishments as the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the Great Recession, global warming, and the rise of the Islamic State) needed, in Lippman's view, to be protected from what he called "the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd."[15] The deluded mob, the sub-citizenry, the dangerous working class majority is not the audience for elite organs like the Times, the Post, and the Journal.

The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. This elite includes such heavily indoctrinated persons as corporate managers, lawyers, public administrators, and (most) tenured university professors. Since these elites carry out key top-down societal tasks of supervision, discipline, training, demoralization, co-optation, and indoctrination – all essential to the rule of the real economic elite and the imperial system – they cannot be too thoroughly misled about current events and policy without deleterious consequences for the smooth functioning of the dominant social and political order. They require adequate information and must not be overly influenced by the brutal and foolish propaganda generated for the "bewildered herd." At the same time, information and commentary for the relevant and respectable business and political classes and their "coordinator class" servants and allies often contains a measure of reasoned and sincere intra-elite political and policy debate – debate that is always careful not to stray beyond narrow U.S. ideological parameters. That is why a radical Left U.S. thinker and activist can find much that is of use in U.S. "treetops" media. Such a thinker or activist would, indeed, be foolish not to consult these sources.

"P"BS and N"P"R

A second objection to the Left critique of U.S. "mainstream" media claims that the U.S. public enjoys a meaningful alternative to the corporate media in the form of the nation's Public Broadcasting Service (television) and National Public Radio (NPR). This claim should not be taken seriously. Thanks to U.S. "public" media's pathetically weak governmental funding, its heavy reliance on corporate sponsors, and its constant harassment by right wing critics inside and beyond the U.S. Congress, N"P"R and "P"BS are extremely reluctant to question dominant U.S. ideologies and power structures.

The tepid, power-serving conservatism of U.S. "public" broadcasting is by longstanding political and policy design. The federal government allowed the formation of the "public" networks only on the condition that they pose no competitive market or ideological challenge to private commercial media, the profits system, and U.S. global foreign policy. "P"BS and N"P"R are "public" in a very limited sense. They not function for the public over and against corporate, financial, and imperial power to any significant degree.

"The Internet Will Save Us"

A third objection claims that the rise of the Internet creates a "Wild West" environment in which the power of corporate media is eviscerated and citizens can find and even produce all the "alternative media" they require. This claim is misleading but it should not be reflexively or completely dismissed. In the U.S. as elsewhere, those with access to the Internet and the time and energy to use it meaningfully can find a remarkable breadth and depth of information and trenchant Left analysis at various online sites. The Internet also broadens U.S. citizens and activists' access to media networks beyond the U.S. – to elite sources that are much less beholden of course to U.S. propaganda and ideology. At the same time, the Internet and digital telephony networks have at times shown themselves to be effective grassroots organizing tools for progressive U.S. activists.

Still, the democratic and progressive impact of the Internet in the U.S. is easily exaggerated. Left and other progressive online outlets lack anything close to the financial, technical, and organizational and human resources of the corporate news media, which has its own sophisticated Internet. There is nothing in Left other citizen online outlets that can begin to remotely challenge the "soft" ideological and propagandistic power of corporate "entertainment" media. The Internet's technical infrastructure is increasingly dominated by an "ISP cartel" led by a small number of giant corporations. As the leading left U.S. media analyst Robert McChesney notes:

"By 2014, there are only a half-dozen or so major players that dominate provision of broadband Internet access and wireless Internet access. Three of them – Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast – dominate the field of telephony and Internet access, and have set up what is in effect a cartel. They no longer compete with each other in any meaningful sense. As a result, Americans pay far more for cellphone and broadband Internet access than most other advanced nations and get much lousier service These are not 'free market' companies in any sense of the term. Their business model, going back to pre-Internet days, has always been capturing government monopoly licenses for telephone and cable TV services. Their 'comparative advantage' has never been customer service; it has been world-class lobbying.' [16]

Along the way, the notion of a great "democratizing," Wild West" and "free market" Internet has proved politically useful for the corporate media giants. The regularly trumpet the great Internet myth to claim that the U.S. public and regulators don't need to worry about corporate media power and to justify their demands for more government subsidy and protection. At the same time, finally, we know from the revelations of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and others that the nation's leading digital and Internet-based e-mail (Google and Yahoo), telephony (e.g. Verizon), and "social network" (Facebook above all) corporations have collaborated with the National Security Agency and with the nation's local, state, and federal police in the surveillance of U.S. citizens' and activists' private communications.[17]

Solutions

The fourth objection accuses Left media critics of being overly negative, "carping" critics who offer no serious alternatives to the nation's current corporate-owned corporate-managed commercial and for-profit media system. This is a transparently false and mean-spirited charge. Left U.S. media criticism is strongly linked to a smart and impressive U.S. media reform movement that advances numerous and interrelated proposals for the creation of a genuinely public and democratically run non-commercial and nonprofit U.S. media system. Some of the demand and proposals of this movement include public ownership and operation of the Internet as a public utility; the break-up of the leading media oligopolies; full public funding of public broadcasting; limits on advertising in commercial media; the abolition of political advertisements; the expansion of airwave and broadband access for alternative media outlets; publicly-funded nonprofit and non-commercial print journalism; the abolition of government and corporate surveillance, monitoring, and commercial data-mining of private communication and "social networks."[18] With regard to the media as with numerous other areas, we should recall Chomsky's sardonic response to the standard conservative claim that the Left offers criticisms but no solutions: "There is an accurate translation for that charge: 'they present solutions and I don't like them.'"[19]

A False Paradox

The propagandistic and power-serving mission and nature of dominant U.S, corporate mass media might seem ironic and even paradoxical in light of the United States' strong free speech and democratic traditions. In fact, as Carey and Chomsky have noted, the former makes perfect sense in light of the latter. In nations where popular expression and dissent is routinely crushed with violent repression, elites have little incentive to shape popular perceptions in accord with elite interests. The population is controlled primarily through physical coercion. In societies where it is not generally considered legitimate to put down popular expression with the iron heel of armed force and where dissenting opinion is granted a significant measure of freedom of expression, elites are heavily and dangerously incentivized to seek to manufacture mass popular consent and idiocy. The danger is deepened by the United States' status as the pioneer in the development of mass consumer capitalism, advertising, film, and television. Thanks to that history, corporate America has long stood in the global vanguard when it comes to developing the technologies, methods, art, and science of mass persuasion and thought control.[20]

It is appropriate to place quotation marks around the phrase "mainstream media" when writing about dominant U.S. corporate media. During the Cold War era, U.S. officials and media never referred to the Soviet Union's state television and radio or its main state newspapers as "mainstream Russian media." American authorities referred to these Russian media outlets as "Soviet state media" and treated that media as means for the dissemination of Soviet "propaganda" and ideology. There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and commercial media as any more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in their day. It is just as dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal perspectives of its host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective.

Its success is easily exaggerated, however. To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. A recent Pew Research poll showed that U.S. "millennials" (young adults 18-29 years old) have a more favorable response to the word "socialism" than to "capitalism" – a remarkable finding on the limits of corporate media and other forms of elite ideological power in the U.S. The immigrant worker uprising of May 2006, the Chicago Republic Door and Window plant occupation of 2008, the University of California student uprisings of 2009 and 2010, the Wisconsin public worker rebellion in early 2011, the Occupy Movement of late 2011, and Fight for Fifteen (for a $15 an hour minimum wage) and Black Lives Matter movements of 2014 and 2015 show that U.S. corporate and imperial establishment has not manufactured anything like comprehensive and across the board mass consent and idiocy in the U,S. today. The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. The struggle for popular self-determination, democracy, justice, and equality lives on despite the influence of corporate media.

[Aug 18, 2018] America the Punitive by Philip Girald

Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

There has been a dramatic shift in how the United States government carries out its business internationally. Admittedly, Washington has had a tendency to employ force to get what it has wanted ever since 9/11, but it also sometimes recognized that other countries had legitimate interests and accepted there was a place for diplomacy to resolve issues short of armed conflict. The Bush Administration reluctance to broaden its engagement in the Middle East after it recognized that it had blundered with Iraq followed by Obama's relaxation of tensions with Cuba and his negotiation of a nuclear agreement with Iran demonstrated that sanity sometimes prevailed in the West Wing.

That willingness to be occasionally accommodating has changed dramatically, with the State Department under Mike Pompeo currently more prone to deliver threats than any suggestions that we all might try to get along. It would be reasonable enough to criticize such behavior because it is intrinsically wrong, but the truly frightening aspect of it would appear to be that it is based on the essentially neoconservative assumption that other countries will always back down when confronted with force majeure and that the use of violence as a tool in international relations is, ultimately, consequence free.

I am particularly disturbed with the consequence free part as it in turn is rooted in the belief that countries that have been threatened or even invaded have no collective memory of what occurred and will not respond vengefully when the situation changes. There have been a number of stunningly mindless acts of aggression over the past several weeks that are particularly troubling as they suggest that they will produce many more problems down the road than solutions.

The most recent is the new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury England. For those not following developments, last week Washington abruptly and without any new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in the belief that Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March 4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia Skripal has recently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the conclusion that even one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted by the British and American governments.

Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise, suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign policy.

Turkey is also feeling America's wrath over the continued detention of an American Protestant Pastor Andrew Brunson by Ankara over charges that he was connected to the coup plotters of 2016, which were allegedly directed by Fetullah Gulen, a Muslim religious leader, who now resides in Pennsylvania. Donald Trump has made the detention the centerpiece of his Turkish policy, introducing sanctions and tariffs that have led in part to a collapse of the Turkish lira and a run on the banking system which could easily lead to default and grave damage to European banks that hold a large party of the country's debt.

And then there is perennial favorite Iran, which was hit with reinstated sanctions last week and is confronting a ban on oil sales scheduled to go into effect on November 4th. The US has said it will sanction any country that buys Iranian oil after that date, though a number of governments including Turkey, India and China appear to be prepared to defy that demand. Several European countries are reportedly preparing mechanisms that will allow them to trade around US restrictions.

What do Russia, Turkey and Iran have in common? All are on the receiving end of punitive action by the United States over allegations of misbehavior that have not been demonstrated. Nobody has shown that Russia poisoned the Skripals, Turkey just might have a case that the Reverend Brunson was in contact with coup plotters, and Iran is in full compliance with the nuclear arms agreement signed in 2015. One has to conclude that the United States has now become the ultimate angry imperial power, lashing out with the only thing that seems to work – its ability to interfere in and control financial markets – to punish nations that do not play by its rules.

Given Washington's diminishing clout worldwide, it is a situation that is unsustainable and which will ultimately only really punish the American people as the United States becomes more isolated and its imperial overreach bankrupts the nation. As America weakens, Russia, Turkey, Iran and all the other countries that have been steamrolled by Washington will likely seek revenge. To avoid that, a dramatic course correction by the US is needed, but, unfortunately, is unlikely to take place.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

[Aug 18, 2018] The USA with a single strike killed all efforts of Puting to establ;ish better relations with the USA

Google translation
Aug 18, 2018 | newzfeed.ru

According to leading analysts, America decided to take such a tough step because of Washington's desire to restrain the development of our state as much as possible. However, it is already clear that such actions on the part of American colleagues will only worsen relations between the two superpowers. The new sanctions package altogether nullifies all previous agreements.

"All the positive aspects that have emerged after the meeting of the two presidents in Helsinki, of course, will be almost completely leveled," the media quoted the statement of the head of the center for military and political studies Vladimir Batyuk.

According to him, the actions of the us administration threaten with negative consequences, extremely complicating the further dialogue between Washington and Moscow.

First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on international Affairs Vladimir dzhabarov, commenting on the situation, said - the United States is trying to "trim the wings" of Russia.

"The reason is banal – they are trying to restrain the development of Russia. The Americans themselves understand that our country is now deploying its wings, Russia is on the rise, it can become a powerful competitor both economically and militarily. Therefore at any cost try to constrain us", – the member of the Federation Council spoke.

According to dzhabarov, our country has long understood that Russia has no partners in America. The US is engaged in dirty methods of competition, using a variety of levers to squeeze Moscow from the EU energy markets.

"But it's useless. The history they, probably, not teaching. Let them read what the sanctions against Russia led to, " the Senator added.

We will remind, on August 8, the U.S. state Department announced the introduction of new restrictive measures against Russia. This package of anti-Russian sanctions includes a ban on the supply of dual-use products to Russia, a decrease in the level of diplomatic relations, an almost complete cessation of us exports, as well as a ban on flights to the States of the Russian company Aeroflot.

[Aug 18, 2018] All Sanctions Against Russia Are Based on Lies by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it) ..."
"... still refuses to say any such thing ..."
"... Look at this paragraph: ..."
"... "Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities." ..."
"... It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as made in Russia, the FCO ..."
"... would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in Russia. ..."
"... In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and to the world. ..."
"... Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act Sanctions on Russia ..."
"... Press Statement ..."
"... Department Spokesperson ..."
"... Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. ..."
"... Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22, 2018. ..."
"... no path to peace, ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | theduran.com

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org:

All of the sanctions (economic, diplomatic, and otherwise) against Russia are based on clearly demonstrable intentional falsehoods; and the sanctions which were announced on August 8th are just the latest example of this consistent tragic fact -- a fact which will be proven here, with links to the evidence, so that anyone who reads here can easily see that all of these sanctions are founded on lies against Russia.

The latest of these sanctions were announced on Wednesday August 8 th . Reuters headlined "US imposes sanctions on Russia for nerve agent attack in UK" and reported that, "Washington said on Wednesday it would impose fresh sanctions on Russia by the end of August after it determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent against a former Russian agent and his daughter in Britain." This was supposedly because "Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's GRU military intelligence service, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found slumped unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of Salisbury in March after a liquid form of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to his home's front door. European countries and the United States expelled 100 Russian diplomats after the attack, in the strongest action by President Donald Trump against Russia since he came to office."

However, despite intense political pressure that the UK Government and 'news'media had placed upon the UK's Porton Down intelligence laboratory to assert that the poison had been made in Russia (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it) , the Porton Down lab refused to say this. Though the US Government is acting as ifPorton Down's statement "determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent," the actual fact is that Porton Down still refuses to say any such thing , at all -- this allegation is merely a fabrication by the US Government, including its allies, UK's Government and other Governments and their respective propaganda-media. It's a bald lie.

On March 18th, the great British investigative journalist and former British diplomat Craig Murray had headlined about UK's Foreign Secretary, "Boris Johnson Issues Completely New Story on Russian Novichoks" and he pointed to the key paragraph in the Porton Down lab's statement on this matter -- a brief one-sentence paragraph:

Look at this paragraph:

"Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities."

It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as made in Russia, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office -- UK's foreign ministry] would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in Russia.

Murray's elliptical report, which unfortunately was unclearly written -- it was rushed, in order to be able to published on the same day, March 18 th , when the UK's official response to the Porton Down lab's analysis was published -- was subsequently fully explained on March 23 rd at the excellent news-site Off-Guardian, which specializes in investigating and interpreting the news-media (in this case, Craig Murray's article, and the evidence regarding it); they headlined "Skripal case: 'closely related agent" claim closely examined'," and concluded their lengthy and detailed analysis:

In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and to the world.

Nothing has been published further about the Skripal/Novichoks matter since then, except speculation that's based on the evidence which was discussed in detail in that March 23 rd article at Off-Guardian.

On the basis of this -- merely an open case which has never been examined in more detail than that March 23rd analysis did -- the Skripal/Novichok case has been treated by the UK Government, and by the US Government, and by governments which are allied with them, and by their news-media, as if it were instead a closed case, in which what was made public constitutes proof that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government. On that blatantly fraudulent basis, over a hundred diplomats ended up being expelled.

The Porton Down lab still refuses to say anything that the UK Government can quote as an authority confirming that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government.

All that's left of the matter, then, is a cold case of official lies asserting that proof has been presented, when in fact only official lies have been presented to the public.

The UK Government prohibits the Skripals from speaking to the press, and refuses to allow them to communicate even with their family-members . It seems that they're effectively prisoners of the UK Government -- the same Government that claims to be protecting them against Russia.

This is the basis upon which the US State Department, on August 8th, issued the following statement to 'justify' its new sanctions:

Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act Sanctions on Russia

Press Statement

Heather Nauert

Department Spokesperson

Washington, DC

August 8, 2018

Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals.

Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22, 2018.

US law is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" -- the opposite of legal systems in which the contrary assumption applies: "guilty until proven innocent." However, regarding such matters as invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 upon the basis of no authentic evidence; and invading and destroying Libya in 2011 on the basis of no authentic proof of anyone's guilt; and on the basis of invading and for years trying to destroy Syria on the basis of America's supporting Al Qaeda in Syria against Syria's secular government; and on the basis of lying repeatedly against Russia in order to load sanction after sanction upon Russia and to 'justify' pouring its missiles and thousands of troops onto and near Russia's border as if preparing to invade 'the world's most aggressive country' -- the US federal Government routinely violates that fundamental supposition of its own legal system ("innocent until proven guilty"), whenever its rulers wish. And yet, it calls itself a 'democracy'.

Donald Trump constantly says that he seeks improved relations with Russia, but when his own State Department lies like that in order to add yet further to the severe penalties that it had previously placed against Russia for its presumed guilt in the Skripal/Novichok matter, then Trump himself is publicly exposing himself as being a liar about his actual intentions regarding Russia. He, via his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's State Department, not only is punishing Russia severely for this unproven allegation, but now adds yet further penalties against Russia for it. Trump is being demanded by the US Congress to do this, but it is his choice whether to go along with that demand or else expose that it's based on lies. He likes to accuse his opponents of lying, but, quite obviously, the members of Congress who are demanding these hiked rounds of sanctions against Russia are demanding him to do what he actually wants to do -- which is now clearly demonstrated to be the exact opposite of exposing those lies. If Trump is moving toward World War III on the basis of lies, then the only way he can stop doing it is by exposing those lies. He's not even trying to do that.

Nothing is being said in the State Department's cryptic announcement on August 8th that sets forth any reasonable demand which the US Government is making to the Russian Government, such that, if the reasonable demand becomes fulfilled by Russia's Government, then the United States Government and its allies will cease and desist their successive, and successively escalating, rounds of punishment against Russia.

Russia is being offered no path to peace, but only the reasonable expectation of escalating lie-based American 'justifications' to perpetrate yet more American-and-allied aggressions against Russia.

There have been three prior US excuses for applying prior rounds of sanctions against Russia, and all of them have likewise been based upon lies, and varnished with many layers of overstatements.

First, in 2012, there was the Magnitsky Act, which was based upon frauds (subsequently exposed here and here and here ) which assert that Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by the Russian Government. The evidence (as linked-to there) is conclusive that he was not; but the US Government and its allies refuse even to consider it.

Then, in 2014, Crimea broke away from Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation, and the US and its allies allege that this was because Russia under Putin 'seized' Crimea from Ukraine, when in fact America under Obama had, just weeks prior to that Crimean breakaway, seized Ukraine and turned it against Russia and against Crimea and the other parts of Ukraine which had voted overwhelmingly for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom the Obama regime had just overthrown in a bloody coup that had been in the planning ever since at least 2011 inside the Obama Administration . Several rounds of US-and-allied economic sanctions were imposed against Russia for that -- for the constant string of lies against Russia, and of constant cover-ups of "the most blatant coup in history," which had preceded and caused the breakaway.

These lies originated with Obama; and Trump accuses Obama of lying, but not on this, where Obama really did lie, psychopathically . Instead, Trump makes those lies bipartisan. On what counts the most against Obama, Trump seconds the Obama-lies, instead of exposing them. And yet Trump routinely has accused Obama as having lied, even on matters where it's actually Trump who has been lying about Obama.

Then, there have been the anti-Russia sanctions that are based upon Russiagate and 'Trump is Putin's stooge and stole the election.' That case against Russia has not been proven, and Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange says that what he had published were leaks from the DNC and Podesta's computer, not hacks at all; and yet the sanctions were imposed almost as soon as the Democratic Party's accusations started. Those sanctions, too, are utterly baseless except as being alleged responses to unproven (and likely false) allegations . Furthermore, even in the worst-case scenario: the US Government itself routinely overthrows foreign governments, and continues tapping the phones and electronic communications of foreign governments, and manipulating elections abroad. Even in the worst-case scenario, Russia hasn't done anything that historians haven't already proven that the US Government itself routinely does. That's the case even if Russia is guilty as charged, on all of the U.S-and-allied accusations.

So: Who wants World War III? Apparently, both the Democratic and the Republican Parties do . Obama called Russia the world's most aggressive nation . Trump joins with him in that bipartisan lie. Outside of America itself, most of the world consider the United States to be actually the " greatest threat to peace in the world today." Therefore, why isn't the NATO alliance against America? The NATO alliance is America and most of its vassal-nations: they're all allied against Russia. Their war against Russia never stopped. That 'Cold War' continued, even after the USSR and its communism and its Warsaw Pact mirror-image to NATO, all ended in 1991 ; and now the intensifying 'cold war' threatens to become very hot. All based on lies. But that seems to be the only type of 'justifications' the US-and-allied tyrants have got.

Either the lies will stop, or else we all will. Trump, as usual, is on the wrong side of the lies . And he seems to be too much of a coward to oppose them, in these cases, which are the most dangerous lies of all. This is how we could all end. Doing something heroic that would stop it, seems to be way beyond him -- he doesn't even try. That's the type of cowardice which should be feared, and despised, the most of all. Trump has taken up Obama's worst, and he runs with it. Trump had promised the opposite, during his Presidential campaign. But this is the reality of Trump -- a profoundly filthy liar -- at least insofar as he has, thus far, shown himself to be. What he will be in the future is all that remains in question. But this is what he has been, up till now.

[Aug 18, 2018] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/3/15914750/steve-bannon-trump-tax-rich

Aug 18, 2018 | www.vox.com

That might have been true .then. However, Bannon was never the puppet master (Trump is a capitalist who has never listened to anyone else apart from his own messy ego in his life: the idea that he would be a puppet for anyone, Bannon, Putin or whatever, is risible). Without wanting to raise from the dead the 'Trump is teh Hitler' meme: there is a very very tiny grain of truth in it, just as there is a very very tiny grain of truth in the right wing idea that Hitler was a socialist because his party had the word 'socialist' in it. Hitler's initial programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some elements of the working class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.

But it was never real and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts (the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the '30s.

Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run up to the election he threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White House soon after.

But Trump, a right wing Republican who is, as I've said, far more orthodox a Republican than the media would have you believe, was never going to deliver. Bannon was the most 'left wing' of Trump's circle (and as his admiration for Thatcher makes clear, he was never very left wing) and he was quickly cast out. Trump did not, in fact, 'drain the swamp' and nor did he try. His major economic policy has turned out to be .tax cuts for the rich. And he has totally failed to follow through on the (interesting) isolationist rhetoric he used in his election campaign (despite the fact that some of us hoped otherwise). He has turned out to be as much of a warmonger as Obama or even Bush jr (even towards Russia, again despite what the media would have you believe).

And we haven't heard too much about that 'trillion dollar' investment in infrastructure recently have we?

The problem is that the Democrats have concentrated on the (mainly trivial and uninteresting) ways in which Trump differs from previous Republican Presidents (the lies, the silly tweets, the dubious rhetoric) and have therefore persuaded themselves that this 'unorthodox' President will have to be removed by 'unorthodox means'. 'Tain't so. Trump will be removed the only way any President (except Nixon) has ever been removed since the dawn of the Republic: by the opposing party organising, developing a strong program that people can believe in, and getting out the core vote. No election has ever been won any other way. In the case of the Democrats this means using the might and money of organised labour and activists to get candidates who can inspire and who have a genuinely progressive message that resonates with people.

Democrats, #Russiagate will not save you. Getting your core vote out to vote for a genuinely progressive candidate, will.

Likbez

@Hidari 08.18.18 at 6:41 pm

Powerful post and a veryclear thinking. Thank you !

Also an interesting analogy with NSDAP the 25-point Plan of 1928

Hitler's initial programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some elements of the working class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.

But it was never real, and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts (the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the '30s.

Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run-up to the election he threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White House soon after.

Actually NSAP program of 1928 has some political demands which are to the left of Sanders such as "Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes", ".We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)." and "We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries."

7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens... ... ...

... ... ...

9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:

11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

... ... ...

21.The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

22.We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

23.We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press...

.... ... ...

24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race...

But I think Trump was de-facto impeached with the appointment of Mueller. And that was the plan ( "insurance" as Strzok called it). Mueller task is just to formalize impeachment.

Pence already is calling the shots in foreign policy via members of his close circle (which includes Pompeo). The recent "unilateral" actions of State Department are a slap in the face and, simultaneously, a nasty trap for Trump (he can cancel those sanctions only at a huge political cost to himself) and are a clear sign that Trump does not control even his administration. Here is how <a href="http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/august/17/america-the-punitive/">Philip Giraldi</a> described this obvious slap in the face:

The most recent is the new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury England. For those not following developments, last week Washington abruptly and without any new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in the belief that Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March 4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia Skripal has recently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the conclusion that even one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted by the British and American governments.

Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise, suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign policy.

From the very beginning, any anti-globalization initiative of Trump was sabotaged and often reversed. Haley is one example here. She does not coordinate some of her actions with Trump or the Secretary of State unliterary defining the US foreign policy.

Her ambitions worry Trump, but he can so very little: she is supported by Pence and Pence faction in the administration. Rumors "Haley/Pence 2020" surfaced and probably somewhat poison atmosphere in the WH.

Add to this that Trump has hostile to him Justice Department, CIA, and FBI. He also does not control some critical appointments such as the recent appointment of CIA director (who in no way can be called Trump loyalist).

Which means that in some ways Trump already is a hostage and more ceremonial President than a real.

[Aug 18, 2018] In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship -- Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Scott Horton Show ..."
"... This commentary was originally published on ..."
"... Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship August 10, 2018 • 92 Comments

In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship, argues Caitlin Johnstone in this commentary.

By Caitlin Johnstone

Last year, representatives of Facebook, Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to "quell information rebellions" and adopt a "mission statement" expressing their commitment to "prevent the fomenting of discord."

" Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," the representatives were told. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."

Yes, this really happened.

Today Twitter has silenced three important anti-war voices on its platform: it has suspended Daniel McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, suspended Scott Horton of the Scott Horton Show , and completely removed the account of prominent Antiwar.com writer Peter Van Buren.

I'm about to talk about the censorship of Alex Jones and Infowars now, so let me get the "blah blah I don't like Alex Jones" thing out of the way so that my social media notifications aren't inundated with people saying "Caitlin didn't say the 'blah blah I don't like Alex Jones' thing!" I shouldn't have to, because this isn't actually about Alex Jones, but here it is:

I don't like Alex Jones. He's made millions saying the things disgruntled right-wingers want to hear instead of telling the truth; he throws in disinfo with his info, which is the same as lying all the time. He's made countless false predictions and his sudden sycophantic support for a US president has helped lull the populist right into complacency when they should be holding Trump to his non-interventionist campaign pledges, making him even more worthless than he was prior to 2016.

But this isn't about defending Alex Jones. He just happens to be the thinnest edge of the wedge.

Infowars has been censored from Facebook, Youtube (which is part of Google), Apple, Spotify, and now even Pinterest, all within hours of each other. This happens to have occurred at the same time Infowars was circulating a petition with tens of thousands of signatures calling on President Trump to pardon WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, who poses a much greater threat to establishment narratives than Alex Jones ever has. Assange's mother also reports that this mass removal of Infowars' audience occurred less than 48 hours after she was approached to do an interview by an Infowars producer.

In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. Because legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the ability to control the U.S. government's policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no effective influence whatsoever, the U.S. unquestionably has a corporatist system of government. Large, influential corporations are inseparable from the state, so their use of censorship is inseparable from state censorship.

This is especially true of the vast mega-corporations of Silicon Valley, whose extensive ties to U.S. intelligence agencies are well-documented . Once you're assisting with the construction of the US military's drone program , receiving grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance, or having your site's content regulated by NATO's propaganda arm , you don't get to pretend you're a private, independent corporation that is separate from government power. It is possible in the current system to have a normal business worth a few million dollars, but if you want to get to billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where money translates directly to political power, you need to work with existing power structures like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else they'll work with your competitors instead of you

Censorship Through Private Proxy

And yet every time I point to the dangers of a few Silicon Valley plutocrats controlling all new media political discourse with an iron fist, Democratic Party loyalists all turn into a bunch of hardline free market Ayn Rands. "It's not censorship!" they exclaim. "It's a private company and can do whatever it wants with its property!"

They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will never be censored. Everyone else is on the chopping block, however. Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's algorithms, and it won't be long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the establishment Syria and Russia narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same exact pretext as Infowars.

This is a setup. Hit the soft target so your oligarch-friendly censorship doesn't look like what it is, then once you've manufactured consent, go on to shut down the rest of dissenting media bit by bit.

Don't believe that's the plan? Let's ask sitting US Senator Chris Murphy: " Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart," Murphy tweeted in response to the news. "These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it."

That sure sounds an awful lot like the warnings issued to the Silicon Valley representatives on the Senate floor at the beginning of this article, no? This is headed somewhere dark.

We're going to have to find a way to keep the oligarchs from having their cake and eating it too. Either (A) corporations are indeed private organizations separate from the government, in which case the people need to get money out of politics and government agencies out of Silicon Valley so they can start acting like it, and insist that their owners can't be dragged out on to the Senate floor and instructed on what they can and can't do with their business, or (B) these new media platforms get treated like the government agencies they function as, and the people get all the First Amendment protection that comes with it. Right now the social engineers are double-dipping in a way that will eventually give the alliance of corporate plutocrats and secretive government agencies the ability to fully control the public's access to ideas and information.

If they accomplish that, it's game over for humanity. Any hope of the public empowering itself over the will of a few sociopathic, ecocidal, omnicidal oligarchs will have been successfully quashed. We are playing for all the chips right now. We have to fight this. We have no choice.

This commentary was originally published on CaitlinJohnstone.com .

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium . Follow her work on Facebook , Twitter , or her website . She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . This article was re-published with permission.

gininitaly , August 14, 2018 at 6:59 am

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-344-problem-reaction-solution-internet-censorship-edition/

Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 8:23 am

Cal-

Caitlin is still on medium.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/latest

glitch , August 14, 2018 at 10:17 pm

She also has her own website now https://caitlinjohnstone.com/

Herman , August 13, 2018 at 11:07 am

Ms. Johnstone is right. Government pressure on corporations works but the media in all its forms does a pretty good job of sowing discord without government interference. There are so few instances where the government and the major media are not in sync, they are hard to find. As to allowing the lonely voices of worthy organizations like Consortium News, why should they bother. Allowing them creates the pretense of free speech. If they become dangerous, the mood of our elected officials is to fix the problem as Ms. Johnstone rightly notes. The defense of freedom of speech by government and the major media is very selective, and the use of the calling fire in a loaded theatre standard is a big enough vehicle for suppression to drive a truck through, a whole convoy in fact.

As an aside, watching Sixty Minutes on their hit piece about Russian interference in our elections was an example of sloppy journalism that seems to be the norm. when it is about Russia. I was about to say they never used to be like that, but I think that is probably not true.

uncle bob , August 13, 2018 at 12:42 am

https://therealnews.com/series/max-blumenthal-on-the-silicon-valley-dc-internet-police

peon d. rich , August 12, 2018 at 6:19 pm

Bulls-eye!!!! especially on Democratic party loyalists who perform a much more important function for plutocracy than the Republicans and the Tea Party – to rally around fake progressive politics dripping out of the DNC, and effectively drain off the pressure building for true progressive politics.

cjonsson1 , August 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm

This is a good example of Caitlin explaining what is going on in the American media wars which is crucial for people to know.
Our access to information, other than government propaganda, is becoming very limited because the few major social network corporations are owned by a few wealthy individuals or private government contractors. They are monopolies which should be designated public utilities, and regulated as such, or broken up into smaller entities, allowing for competition.
It is important to preserve what is left of our freedom of expression and our free press. The ability to comment on reporting and discuss it with others is diminishing while sources are becoming more and more restricted.
Government and big business fight the public for control of information and opinion. We have to collectively save our stake in democracy by rejecting censorship.

Karl Pomeroy , August 11, 2018 at 8:55 pm

You make some very good points. Alas, I disagree about Alex Jones. The very few times I've listened to his videos, it seemed to me every last thing he said was absolutely true and correct. So I don't know where the idea comes from that he speaks disinformation. He's sometimes obnoxious and hard to watch. But that's a different thing. His words are accurate, particularly about the globalists, the deep state, US-Russia relations, and Trump.

Arby , August 11, 2018 at 12:01 pm

"It is possible in the current system to have a normal business worth a few million dollars, but if you want to get to billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where money translates directly to political power, you need to work with existing power structures like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else they'll work with your competitors instead of you."

Actually, If companies get big, they become potential big tools/weapons for the war-making State, at which point they will be offered a deal that they can't refuse, as one would expect within this gangster Corporatocracy. Look at Wikileaks. Mozilla simply jumped on the fake news bandwagon, so they are now safe, as Aaron Kesel at Activist Post points out. Lavabit's owner, Ladar Levinson had principles and was loyal to his customers (including Edward Snowden) whom he didn't want to betray just because the Corporatocracy State demanded it, and so he shut down. He revived his company once he figured out ways to shield his customers from the war-making State that attacks us all in the name of 'national security'.

So, it's a little more dire than the government just deciding to favor your competitors, which of course the amazing Caitlin knows.

With all of this capture by tech giants, innovators, by the war-making State (Randolph Bourne), How will end? I have more than one answer to that. One of those answers is the obvious one: Ramped up counterrevolution, in the area of cyberspace mainly, in the State's war against the people. And such a war is underway as any number of authors have demonstrated thoroughly. And its not (just) Russia attacking the people. Jeff Halper wrote "War Against The People." Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes edited "The Secure And The Dispossessed." Douglas Valentine wrote "The Phoenix Program," which he notes wasn't confined to Vietnam. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote the devastating two-volume "Political Economy Of Human Rights," which included "The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism." And Edward Herman wrote: "The Real Terror Network." All of those books and many others talk about counterrevolution and the counterinsurgency (State terrorism) that goes with it.

And counterrevolution and counterinsurgency doesn't have to be of the extreme variety, such as in South Vietnam when the US was torturing that country to death. Caitlin has talked about how the State (New Zealand) went to work on her friend, Suzie Dawson. Read the account. It's quite illuminating.

What do you call 'thinking' that is against 'thinking' (and what we consider to be a part of innovation that leads to inventions that elevate society? It's called counterrevolution. That's where our corrupt tech giants have gone. It won't end well for them, even if they think otherwise and even if they feel safe because they are with the big guy. There's a bigger guy who has that big guy in his sights.

"Thinking About Thinking" – https://arrby.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/thinking-about-thinking/

"41 Tags, 17 Entries And No Views. Bookmark Me Maybe?" – https://arrby.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/41-tags-17-entries-and-no-views-bookmark-me-maybe/

vinnieoh , August 11, 2018 at 10:14 am

"We Do What We're Told" – Peter Gabriel; "So"

Somehow I had missed those words from our elected "representatives" in Congressional hearing. What these political pimps and whores don't want us to do is get together and agree to dispel the bullshit that we're up to our necks in right now.

As far as I know this is the first piece I've read by Caitlin Johnstone, and I agree with her general premise that this is more than just ominous. More and more of our elected "representatives" talk and act like alien totalitarians.

The good news is that Trump's "trade" and saber-rattling belligerence is finally awakening the rest of humanity to the fundamental non-starter of a unipolar anything. That one entity so militarily, politically, and economically dominant that it can cause pain and suffering wherever and whenever it decides. It is ironic that Trump's MAGA is the act in this play that will dethrone the USA. The downside is that the 99% control NOTHING (this is true across most of the planet.) Another downside is that the megalomaniacs in power will not concede power without a cataclysmic conflict. But nothing is set in stone, though the indications don't look promising.

Jerry Alatalo , August 11, 2018 at 8:57 am

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is always a great benefit – the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

– JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) English political economist, philosopher

Realist , August 11, 2018 at 3:12 am

Something must be getting into the water supply either by accident or design to induce the mass hypnosis that has so many presumably intelligent people believing that we must all walk in lockstep on every policy the elites want. Maybe we are all zombified from the massive amounts of Xanax, Valium, Oxycontin and other mind-numbing psychoactive agents our population consumes and pisses, unmetabolized, into the water table to be recycled into our drinking water, obviating the need for a personal prescription to enjoy (suffer) the effects.

It's a real pity if the totally transparent sham scare stories they have disseminated are alone enough to convince most of the people to give up their constitutional rights and privacy. Clearly the tactic of the big lie doesn't work on every last individual or sites like this one would not have an audience. That is why they want to shut us down, and Alex Jones, though not a member of this journal club, is just the first step towards an outcome that will encompass everyone remaining outside an all pervasive Groupthink.

Ideas, beliefs, memes, values, customs, habits and such are not received universally from some inspirational force on high. (You are simply told to believe that from earliest childhood.) They are spread through the population like a virus from mind-to-mind contact, whether in person or via some modality of mass communication, like the TV or the internet. The object of censorship, as per Alex Jones or Ron Paul most recently, is to extirpate the source of "infection" as close to its point of origin as possible, before it can be spread to too many carriers for transmission to others. People tend to believe what they hear and what they hear comes from their regular contacts. Shut down their favorite talk show host or internet site and they become starved for new "seditious" ideas. If they never hear a truth, chances are they won't think it up themselves and certainly not act upon it.

Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard. I know, I know, some of our number already get a taste of that.

Dave P. , August 11, 2018 at 5:46 pm

Realist –

"Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard . . . "

You have it absolutely right. There have been markers all along since G.W. Bush/Cheney rule, clear indicators of this new Future.

But some of us are so desperate to have a better and peaceful future for the humanity on this planet that we get our hopes high for any silver lining in the sky – Obama's hope and change, now Trump's getting along with Russia and stopping interventions abroad.

Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate, candidates with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been or is. The politicians in both parties are accomplished ConMen, in service of the real Masters – MIC, Wall Street Finance, Media and Entertainment, working to bring this new Future. Bernie Sanders is no different.

Skip Scott , August 12, 2018 at 7:08 am

"Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate, candidates with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been or is. "

I have noticed this ploy as well. They are willing to have a few faux progressives to keep the progressive wing of the party from abandoning them altogether. They use Sanders, and now this new Ocasio-Cortez, to sell their "big tent" narrative, and then co-op them when it comes to all the important issues. They also constantly sell the idea that voting for third party candidates is a waste of time, so you have to settle for "the lesser of evils" when it comes time for a new president. I don't know how long they can keep playing the same con-game before people see through it, but if it happens again in 2020, I think we are doomed.

Realist , August 12, 2018 at 10:01 am

The Democratic incumbent running for the senate in Florida (Bill Nelson) has made me so angry by yet again using the party con against Russia that I could never vote for him even though his opponent is the horrendous Governor Rick Scott (who plead guilty to defrauding Medicare to the tune of a billion dollars for his Columbia HMO system prior to his election). I cannot abide such theft of taxpayer money in broad daylight, but I also cannot accept Nelson's spewing lies that Russia has actively hacked the Florida voter roles, plans to delete registrations and disrupt the November elections. You know who's really more likely to do those things? The Democratic and Republican parties.

Nelson is just making pre-emptive excuses for the loss that he sees coming. If he believes his desperate gambit can work, he must think the voters are damned idiots to believe that Russia would persist in perpetrating sabotage against American interests putting them constantly in the crosshairs of our politicians and media. He must think that Floridians will buy any tall tale that their elected officials tell them, totally unsupported by any evidence. We are to believe that Assad never stops trying to poison his own people and that Putin never stops interfering in American elections. (Why should Putin favor Rick Scott? Because he admires American crooks?) If you truly believe such accusations, it is probably logical that you would favor WAR with that country. I will vote for someone from the Baader-Meinhof gang or the Taliban Party (if there is such a beast) before either Nelson or Scott. Or I won't vote at all.

Jessika , August 10, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Zero Hedge tonight has an interesting article by Charles Hugh Smith, "The Grand Irony of Russiagate: US Becomes More Like USSR Every Day". The clampdown in the old Soviet Union before its collapse has parallels to what's going on in US now.

Jeff Harrison , August 10, 2018 at 5:12 pm

From Wikipedia. Fascism:
Fascism (/?fæ??z?m/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

The Cheetos-in-chief would love to wield dictatorial power and has tried to do so in the past as have his predecessors (Obama, yeah, well, we had to torture some folks::Shrub you're with us or against us.). Senator Chris Murphy essentially telling these companies who to kick off their platforms, the regimentation of society and the economy is continuing apace as companies are forced to comply with government demands that the government should never be able to make but they do for "national security reasons"

Pfui. As I've said before the US has become a fascistic police state.

MBeaver , August 11, 2018 at 10:50 pm

Many other western countries, too. The only thing missing to "fit" fascism is the nationalism. They completely gave up their national identity for neoliberal agendas. I wont look for a new term, because its as close to fascism as anything else, especially since the definition of leftism and socialism has changed a lot since fascism was invented (by a socialist), so why shouldnt the definition of fascism a tiny bit?
But it exposes people who always cry "its not fascism" because nationalism is missing, as accomplices at the very least.

Also, as an objective person, you should at least admit, that "cheeto-in-chief" is actually trying hard to keep the promises he made. I havent seen that in a western leader in a very VERY long time. Its just very obvious that the president isnt almighty and the deep state is very powerful. Thanks to Trump its become evident to even fools, that the USA is much more corrupt than even any conspiracy theorist would have thought just a few years ago.

jaycee , August 10, 2018 at 4:27 pm

The idea that discordant speech is somehow a threat to the nation or democracy is so looney and bereft of fact that it is actually painful to contemplate how many otherwise intelligent persons seem to have internalized the notion. Obviously, Trump's election victory severely damaged the Establishment's confidence in the ability to "manufacture consent" to the degree that fundamental concepts of free speech are now in the cross-hairs. They will destroy the Republic in order to save it.

Gary Weglarz , August 10, 2018 at 3:58 pm

When the corporate state speaks of "hate speech" and "community standards" – one can be sure they are not referring to Madeline Albright's stunning defense for killing of a half a million Iraqi children with sanctions as "worth it." Nor would the corporate state ever categorize as "hate speech" the daily attack by a wide variety of U.S. officials and media pundits, not only on the Russian government, but on the very – "character" – of the Russian people as a whole.

Our actual and very real – "community standards" – in the U.S. include the complete normalization of illegal immoral endless aggressive war-making in violation of international law (not to mention regime change by jihadists, drone murders, economic warfare, political assassinations, etc.) – along with the despicable demonization of official enemies – in other words the total "normalization of hate-speech."

"Violations" of these widely held U.S. "community standards" & "hate-speech standards" involves plain and simply any – "challenge" – to them or deviation from them. In other words to speak words not sufficiently 'anti-Russian' today is considered a form of "hate speech" in MSM and in political discourse. To suggest peace rather than war with Russia might be a good idea is to violate precious "community standards" which today tolerate only mindless fact-free warmongering in public discourse. You really can't make this stuff up!

Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 5:48 pm

Excellent comments. So true.

We are heading towards some sort of dark ages, and at very fast pace.

Maxwell Quest , August 10, 2018 at 10:00 pm

Gary, pointing out the shameless and bald-faced hypocrisy as you did can sometimes shake the stupefaction from an open-minded reader. Sadly, though, arguments such as these just seem to bounce off the Russiagaters, having no effect. Conversely, these very same people couldn't lavish enough praise on the peace prize winner Obama, whether he was bailing out the corrupt banks, letting the lobbyists craft Obamacare, trafficking arms through Benghazi, or droning some wedding party in the desert.

What do both of these examples have in common? Easy, the state media was able to control the narrative in each case, and these same hypnotized drones ate it up hook, line and sinker. This brings us right back to why internet-based censorship is the hot topic of the day, since it is the single most threat to complete state control over the public mind.

Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 11:09 pm

Well said. Obama is not gone yet. He is still out there selling his philosophy of promoting the Wall street and corrupt banks, and droning and killing the weak and innocents all over the world , for the right cause so to speak – spreading freedom and democracy. And liberals buy it. What a World we live in!

He, along with Clintons, is the main instigator of "Russia Gate", which may lead the human life to extinction on Earth.

Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:24 am

Dave

Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.

Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:22 am

Damn straight, Maxwell.

Mildly Facetious , August 11, 2018 at 4:16 pm

Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.
??????????????????????????

They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will never be censored.

Everyone else is on the chopping block, however.

Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's algorithms, and it won't be long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the establishment Syria and Russia narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same exact pretext as Infowars.

-- - compare that, if you've a clue, (not to obfuscate your subject), Caitlan Johnstone, with, not mere censorship, but the Protection of 'Confidential' information such as the Industrial Pharma INDUSTRY OF DEATH (shades -of -nazi-germany??? )via INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION and PRESCRIBING OF OPIOIDS as if Huxley's "Soma" or/and a preview of " The Chemical and Bacteriological Conditioning of the Embryo. – Practical Instructions for Beta Embryro-Store Workers /// as in government forced vaccinations along with Facebook enforced capitulation of any/all -- Personal Sovereign Belief/s massively defaulting and bowing the knee and Becoming Persuaded and Trapped into inescapable Autocracy, by reason of Darwin-esk dissembling and a dis-informed election to Dissent Into The Maelstrom of the sinking ship of American Exceptionalism, -- as if God could/would "forgive" all-of-the-collective Brutality of Bombs, bullets, Uranium Munitions / CRIPPLING Sanctions imposted -- support of brutal dictators Who massacred INNOCENT Civilians in order to obtain/secure US MILITARY FUNDS, in order to secure autocratic/authoritative CONTROL

We are engulfed in a Molding Faze of acceptance of/into a totally new Reality strangely built upon Nazi science/experiments, now Entering an/the Age of Space-Age manipulation of DNA, Gene Manipulation -- origins of species ordered inside test tubes.

George Gilder prophetically saw this in this and more in his prescient 1990's book, MICROCOSM. --
George Gilder and his Discovery Institute were far Ahead – of -the -curve in this 'Facebook" era of Futurisms .

Please find and consider his book, esp as it relates to technological possibilities and the New Wonders (Brave New Worlds) of Gene splicing / manipulation .

[Aug 18, 2018] Pence brought in swamp creatures like Rosenstein, John Bolton, Nikki Haley.

Aug 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

quo vadis , August 18, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT

@TTSSYF

Trump could assure himself such support by getting rid of all the swamp creatures around him.

The first persons to dump are Javanka, who are the worst kind of swamp – Zionist libtards. Next he should dump his running mate Mike Pence, who is part of the swamp. Pence brought in Zionist swamps like Rosenstein, John Bolton, Nikki Haley.

He also needs to get rid of Jeff Sessions, bring in an AG who could fire Rosenstein and Mueller, investigate and prosecute the Clinton-Uranium One scandal, that case alone will topple all of Deep State incl. Rosenstein and Mueller. It'll put Obama's legacy in tatters.

Kris Kobach will most likely become governor of KS this Nov, but if he doesn't, Trump should tap him for AG.

bluedog , August 18, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
@TTSSYF

And now you know what's the problem with America, the stupid voters who voted for Bush, and the demise of the Constitution and the freedoms it contained,after all he did say the Constitution was nothing but a G.D. piece of paper and promptly wiped his ass with it and people rushed to vote for him again.Was he selected of course he was, they are all selected by the CFL, or some sister organization who then funds them, Trump was an angel from heaven for the corporations and the MIC after all those billions of dollars was an early Christmas present, it was the mine the other 80-90% got the shaft with yet another trillion added to the debt.As the man said people usely get what they deserve, and indeed they deserve whats coming and party will make no difference

[Aug 18, 2018] Bread and circuses are integral parts of empire building especially in promoting urban street mobs to overthrow independent and elected governments.

Aug 18, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Thesis 9

Bread and circuses are integral parts of empire building – especially in promoting urban street mobs to overthrow independent and elected governments.

Imperial financed mobs – provided the cover for CIA backed coups in Iran (1954), Ukraine (2014), Brazil (1964), Venezuela (2003, 2014 and 2017), Argentina (1956), Nicaragua (2018), Syria (2011) and Libya (2011) among other places and other times.

Masses for empire draw paid and voluntary street fighters who speak for democracy and serve the elite. The "mass cover" is especially effective in recruiting leftists who look to the street for opinion and ignore the suites which call the shots.

[Aug 18, 2018] The illness took hold during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented

Aug 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jack Thomsen , Aug 18, 2018 10:07:22 AM | 92

At last – a paterfamiliar earful by none other than James Howard Kunstler, on the state of the "Three Headed Monster" that is the Democratic Party.

This is an important tipping point, because the country is waiting for nobles of the left to lead their children from the deep dark woods.
Every day, we ask, "Where are the adults? Who will call this madness for what it is?" I'll provide the link to this masterful analysis of the "illness" – but first let me tempt readers with a brief synopsis of the "first head".

" one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented.

The "doctors" of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.

The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself . who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.

With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous -- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges -- for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- "

This was published on his blog yesterday..... this is monumental, if only because the masks are coming off.

Read his description of the other 2 heads.... it's wonderful.

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-three-headed-monster

[Aug 18, 2018] The funny thing is people still believe Putin wanted Trump, believing a poor translation

Aug 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

TS , August 15, 2018 at 7:17 am

> Do you also dismiss the global pattern of Russian interference on democratic elections by the same means and methods?

Yup! Since nobody has presented the slightest evidence of such a pattern (and even the German intelligence agencies have said it didn't happen )

> Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump?

Nope!

> Are the CEO's of FACEBOOK and Google and Twitter also spouting lie about Russian media interference in our elections's

As far as I know, they have been avoiding doing so (presumably because they know such lies would be exposed immediately).

> When the details come out about how Russia has funneled money throu the NRA, will you dismiss that as well?

The NRA is funded by Moscow gold! I like it that makes all its right-wing supporters in Congress agents of Moscow, right? Please launch a campaign to have them all impeached. (I won't hold my breath waiting, though.)

> Is Florida election systems not really under Russian military attack as I write this?

Well, no, it is not. And why should the Russians want to, in the first place? The existing office-holders do more harm than anything they could possibly arrange

jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:56 am

his name is seth rich. the dnc gave him a memorial bike rack.

Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 3:27 pm

Do you dismiss the global pattern of CIA interference in elections all around the world for decades, including Russia in 1996? Look at the amount and quality of this so-called interference by Russian citizens. It is miniscule. Facebook , google, and twitter know they have to play ball with our so-called "Intelligence Community" and Congress or else. Please provide a source for Putin saying publicly he helped Trump. I found nothing on a browser search.

You are drinking MSM Kool-aid by the bucketload. Try reading through the archives here for an education.

Rob , August 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm

I believe that Putin said that he hoped for Trump to win, not that he ordered Russian operatives to interfere in the U.S. election process. There is a big difference. If I am wrong about this, I would love to see the evidence.

Curious , August 15, 2018 at 1:40 am

Rob, there's is a lot of confusion about what Putin really said, and most of it is wrong. Again, the 'lost in translation' issues. Here is what was said by Putin, quoted in CGI and elsewhere:

CGI quote: What Putin actually called Trump in Russian is "ochen' yarkiy chelovek," which literally translates to "a very bright person." Unlike the English word "bright," the Russian yarkiy does not connote intelligence; rather, it means someone who is colorful, flashy, showy, an individual who makes himself stand out from the crowd.

The more colloquial translation is "a colorful character," a phrase that in the Russian carries a note of bemusement. Putin added that Trump is also "talented (talantlivyi), without a doubt." He then went on to say that "regarding [U.S.] internal politics and the turns of phrase [Trump] employs to boost his popularity, I repeat that it is not our business to assess that aspect of his performance." Taken as a whole, the statement suggests that Putin recognizes the theatrical component of Trump's campaign, and chose not to comment on the contentious impact that Trump and his statements have had on American politics.

Putin himself later explained this to the journalists at one of his end of the year Q&As he has.

Trump, naturally, heard a bad translation and this appealed to his self-aggrandizement. He gave the thumbs up thinking Putin was congratulating, and backing him. Unsurprisingly, people still misunderstand Putins' statement.

Translation issues often occur and I remember when Jimmy Carter went to Poland for his first trip abroad to Poland, and the translator said President Carter had a great "lust" for the people of Poland, whereas the word "lust", as in German, means "desire, fondness and affection" and not some sexual connotation at all in a formal context.. The funny thing is people still believe Putin wanted Trump, believing a poor translation. Foreign languages really should be taught in schools again.

rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:21 pm

Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump? NO, he did not. The questioner joined several questions together. Putin agreed that he wanted a person to win who would try to mend relations with Russia. He said he did nothing to help the process.

You really believe the billionaire CEOs of those controlling businesses???

As for Florida- remember the 2000 election.

Paul P , August 14, 2018 at 4:35 pm

These are all quite easily addressed point by point. As the saying goes, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Where is this established pattern of interfering with the "same means and methods"? If the claim is essentially, "Russia obtained evidence of corruption in an unfavorable party and disseminated this evidence to swing a democratic foreign election against said party" please cite an example of another election where this can be proven as something that happened. It hasn't.

Did Putin publicly admit that Russia acted to help Donald Trump? The answer to that is no. You are likely misinterpreting or misrepresenting an interview in which Putin stated Trump's more conciliatory campaign rhetoric (vs Clinton's open hostility) seemed preferable. This is as far as the "admission" went and is miles from your assertion/interpretation.

FB and Twitter's definition of Russia-linked activity is purposefully misleading. For activity to be considered Russia-linked, only ONE (not all) of the following conditions must apply. 1. The account is set up from Russian IP. 2. The account is confirmed using number with a Russian phone carrier. 3. Any services purchased are paid for in Russian currency. 4. The user has ever logged in via a Russian network, even once. 5. The user posts primarily in Russian. 6. User has a screen name spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet.
None of these things can even guarantee that a user is even Russian national, much less acting at the behest of the Russian government. If you used the wifi at Sheremtyevo during a layover between Amsterdam and Beijing and used Twitter, they'd call that Russia-linked activity.

According to Bloomberg, "Russia funneling money through the NRA" amounts to a meager $2512 donated by 23 people with Russian addresses in 2015-2018 (laughably paltry for an organization with over $433,000,000 in annual revenue), the majority is in the form of membership dues and less than half in the form of individual donations. This is hardly indicative of some giant secret funding operation, especially as there is no proof the Russian government has anything to do with this. There are an estimated 300,000 American citizens at least temporarily residing in Russia, but it's inconceivable that among them might be 23 NRA members/donors?

As for Florida, to date there's been no evidence presented. If there's no evidence, then anyone believing this only does so because they want to.

keir , August 14, 2018 at 4:39 pm

I can only assume that:
"Are the CEO's of FACEBOOK Google and Twitter also spouting lie about Russian media intereference in our elections's"
-was meant to be ironic?
If not, then what do you think these unregulated public forums and their selective censoring are really for?
An exercise in freedom of speech?
(clearly not all speech)
They are literally designed to sway public opinion (at best) and circulate the lies that corporate media is spouting.

Russian Meddling?
Why this so funny to the majority of the rest of the world is because historically America not only meddles in elections, but illegally invades and overthrows democratically elected governments and installs dictatorships (think Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine and the Honduras)
The real irony is that in the 1996 Russian election under Clinton the US made sure it was their man Yeltsin that got elected.
It is psychologically easy to attach to the hysteria of Russian fear mongering, because of the history of propaganda.
"Fear Communism!"
"They are infiltrating America through worker's unions!!"
Only now they are crony capitalists just like us.

Karelian , August 14, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Bream Lynch,

No, he didn't say that. And if some media claims so, then please avoid that media in the future, as it lies to you. He answered the first part of a two-piece question. He said that he hoped Trump to win, not that he ordered people to assist Trump.

And there is no "global pattern" of Russian interference. You may remember how NSA said they watched the Russians hack Macron's email? But do you remember how soon after that France said there were no "Russian hacking" of any sort. You might also remember how the media in Germany (and in US) told that Russia was ready to hack the German elections? Do you remember how after the elections German intelligence agency said that they didn't find any Russian activities at all?

The France case:
https://apnews.com/fc570e4b400f4c7db3b0d739e9dc5d4d

And how the "trusted" NSA claimed to "saw everything":
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/nsa-director-confirms-russia-hacked-french-election-infrastructure/

The German case (you might want to use google translator):
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/geheimdienste-bnd-keine-beweise-fuer-desinformations-kampagne-putins-1.3365839

P.S. Sorry about my English. This is not my native language :)

backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 5:12 am

Karelian -- excellent English. Good job.

GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:23 pm

"Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump?"
No, he did not, though media pundits pretended he did for a few days and then dropped it.

Gregory Herr , August 14, 2018 at 6:32 pm

When the details come out? That's the problem -- relentless accusations for 20 months with no evidence and little detail except absurd notions about the (non) effect of click-bait ads on social media that have nothing to do with Russian government activity. What is equally absurd is the idea that the Russian Federation gives a rat's petunia about who wins a contest between Bill Nelson or Rick Scott, two all-too-similar politicians in the American mold. And of course the Russian government has an idea of how to purge just the right voters to achieve a preference! What nonsense!

With all the "information" and "disinformation" coming from a myriad of quarters trying to sell one candidate over another during our protracted election seasons, people need to get a grip about terms such as "influence" and "interference" and perhaps arrive at the perspective that amidst all the chatter and influence-peddling lies the responsibility for individual voters to separate wheat from chaff and come to a personal voting decision.

CNN and MSNBC backed Clinton to the hilt so in my disagreement should I cry "untoward influence!"? well, that's touching on another subject and I'll leave it at that.

Jean , August 14, 2018 at 10:46 pm

The fact Putin would want Trump as opposed to the war criminal Hillary who threatened war with Russia and destabilize the Middle East in a proxy war is just sanity.

Why would you believe the very same people who lied us into Iraq and worse ?

Literally

willow , August 14, 2018 at 10:54 pm

Obama traveled to the UK to urge voters to vote against Brexit. The Saudi's funded 20 percent of Hillary's campaign. yada-yada-yada

Gregory Herr , August 14, 2018 at 11:25 pm

And Obama went to France to cheerlead for Macron the week of the election. But that's exceptional -- no indispensable -- advice.

AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:08 am

Obama wiretapped Merkel's phone!

People should really think hard about that when tossing around these horse chit lies about Russia hacking the DNC.

alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 11:54 am

Looking over the comments on Lawrence's post, I wonder if we're losing sight of the bigger picture here. Exposing the truth about a presidential candidate, whoever did it (and all the credible evidence to date points toward Seth Rich) isn't meddling, it's a public service. The DNC leak didn't threaten democracy, it promoted it by providing crucial information to the U.S. electorate. Those who claim that revealing the truth about a political candidate is a crime are the ones who constitute the real threat to democracy.

Smears, hoaxes, fabrications, and psyops are standard operating procedure for U.S. intelligence agencies. You would have to be simple to believe that these agencies would hesitate to use these same tactics against the American public when it furthers their political agenda. Just like you would have to be simple to believe that the officials running these agencies don't have a political agenda.

Russia is an obstacle to U.S. global hegemony? Blow it up, after first subverting their economy with groundless sanctions and whipping the American public into a hysterical war frenzy. That's the grand strategy behind the Russiagate hoax, the Skripal hoax, the Douma hoax, and whatever hoax they dream up next.

If President Trump is foolish enough to get in the way, he's expendable, and he knows it now if he didn't before.

Skip Scott , August 15, 2018 at 8:22 am

alley cat-

I've thought the same myself. Even if it was the evil Vlad himself who snuck into the DNC, stole the files and personally handed them to Assange, how is bringing the truth about the collusion between team Hillary and the DNC to sabotage the Sanders' campaign an "attack" on our democracy? Actually it would be a service to our democracy, and an "attack" on an evil oligarchy that was trying to subvert our democracy.

This whole "evil Ruskies" thing is just ridiculous. Our democracy has been utterly corrupted from within, and providing the truth to the voting public can never be considered an "attack", no matter the source.

Al Pinto , August 14, 2018 at 11:49 am

Quote from the article:

"The intrusion into the Democratic National Committee mail was a local download -- wherever 'local' is."

"wherever" is a wide definition. While I certainly agree that 22.6MB/s, or ~180Mb/s, does seem a lot like USB 3.0 write speed, one cannot neglect the possibility of over the network transferring the same data with the same speed.

The DNC server certainly had the bandwidth available for this transfer rate, most hosting service providers do allow ramping up the transfer rate up to 1Gb/s. Verizon and other ISPs in the New York Metropolitan area had been providing fiber connection for businesses and home users for years, with transfer rates of up to 1Gb/s. For home users the most popular speed had been 200Mb/s for years.

Please keep in mind that 8 bits = 1 Byte Notice the capitalization of the letter "B"

The 200Mb/s speed has a maximum transfer rate of 25MB/s. Knowing that the network protocol overhead uses up about 10% of the nominal speed, then the 22.6MB/s transfer rate is easily achievable remotely. And yes, "wherever that local is".

Theoretically The Russians could have hacked a PC/server, with high speed Internet access within the New York Metropolitan, hacked the DNC server from the "Zombie" system, download the archived files to the "Zombie" system and download to possibly couple of other "Zombie" systems, prior to reaching the destination in Russia. At least that's how I would have done it

Even doing so, there should have been traces of these connections in the NSA data warehouse in UTAH, possibly even capturing the transfered archived file. It would not surprise me a bit, if that's the case. The fact in itself, that there has been no such verification/capture for this connection seems to indicate that the data transfer has taken place directly on the server, via the USB port. Unless of course the NSA does not want to disclose network traces of the connection, since it might implicate a friendly country, maybe the most friendly country for the US, that would also exonerate Russia.

As for the dates of the file It seems that these files had been generated just prior to downloading the .7z archived files. The default behavior for .7z is to preserve both the folder and file creation dates, while recording the current time for the archive folder in itself. Of course, this can be changed, both during and/or after archiving

JoeD , August 14, 2018 at 12:40 pm

Ok you're a troll right? Verizon has most certainly not provided fiber connections for home users in the New York Metropolitan area. They stopped their fiber roll out A LONG TIME AGO. So no, the infrastructure does not exist.

No you don't know much about network speeds if you believe that you can have those sustained speeds all the way through the connections. If you have ever done internet speed tests you will know that your speed depends a lot on the different nodes you pass through.

"You'd need a dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit line all the way to Russia to achieve that result," Binney said in a recent interview. "

If you can shoe me that and you have something, otherwise, you're trolling.

Al Pinto , August 14, 2018 at 3:26 pm

If anyone, you don't know much about network speeds and Verizon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS

https://www.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/

For businesses, that had been mentioned, Verizon started the fiber rollout even earlier

Show me where my numbers are incorrect?

Johnmichael2 , August 14, 2018 at 4:23 pm

trollling ? I don't think you understand internet data rates nor the capabilities of hackers .. he's talking about remote control of a PC local to the DNC server with good access not a direct high speed route out of the country.
Come on folks, the great US of A has been influencing electoral politics of other nations for years by many methods. Russians are not dumb some of the best virus detection and protection comes out of Kaspersky Labs. Look up the work of Russian and eastern country information science experts; the Chinese, Israelis and Indian practitioners are no dummies either.
Open your eyes Russian and other hacking is real and 'turn about is fair play' . we ain't the rulers of the world anymore in case you didn't notice.

Rob , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm

This comments section is a place where people are allowed to spout their own ideas and theories, but still, I am amused by commenters who presume to have knowledge about communications technology that is somehow unknown to the likes of William Binney and other genuine experts in the field. I know that this may sound like ad hominem thinking on my part, but some of the opinions regarding technology are so simplistic that they make me laugh.

willow , August 14, 2018 at 11:04 pm

It's all good because it leads to deeper understanding of subject and makes us better able to finesse/counter/debate disinformation on forums like the Washington Post or the NYT, where
opposing views are scant and we need to push back.

michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:59 am

If the evidence existed, it would have been released in redacted form by the NSA over a year ago (although by now you would think they would have fabricated something).

Diane Rejman , August 14, 2018 at 10:50 am

I believe much of this whole "Russiagate" thing started as a disgusting and pathetic attempt to give Hillary an excuse for losing, and is now out of control, with tentacles reaching throughout our country and the world. The DNC has admitted to being cheaters. THAT should be the bigger investigation. Our right to vote should be sacred, but the DNC took all legitimacy away from it. If they thought their "chosen one" couldn't win the primary without cheating and other assistance, why would they think she could win the main election? She was a horribly bad candidate, and they won't admit this. So instead -- they came up with this whole, "My dog ate my homework" type theory. And yes -- it is very scary to think this whole Russiagate conspiracy theory has gotten out of hand, and is now too big to fail. What a ridiculous reason to create trouble with Russia!

rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:25 pm

I remember Obama in his "lame-duck" period expelling Russian diplomats, stealing their US properties, starting the whole landslide of Russia-hatred when he had spent 8 years helping to reduce the seats of the Democratic Party at all levels of government by his actions. Check out the figures- Democrats lost because of their own faults.

Elizabeth Burton , August 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm

The original intent, based on the rhetoric that followed right after the Russiagate narrative was first launched, seem to have been to have the election declared invalid so they could either do it over or have HRC declared the real winner by fiat. Apparently, at some point wiser heads pointed out that wasn't Constitutionally viable, so the story was toned down to its current level then repeated over and over, per Goebbels' Law, to ensure the bulk of the public accepted it as proven fact.

AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:22 am

don't kid yourself.
They still have the fantasy of installing their queen.
Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School.
Postulates the fantasy that Democrats win the house in 2018.
A NY congressman/woman takes the dive and resigns so Hillary can be appointed to the seat by NY governor.
And, she is then elected Speaker of the house putting her in #3 for the presidency.
Then Pence resigns a- la Spirow Agnew.
And, Trump is impeached and removed by the Senate.
Voila Herself is president.

These F'n people have lost all grip on reality.
The only people buying the Russia Russia Russia hysteria is the same people pushing it.
They are delusional.
Completely unhinged and delusional.

Stephen P , August 14, 2018 at 10:22 am

Suzie Dawson and Chris Hedges discuss elite power five weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zzcDELakRM

Jim other , August 14, 2018 at 1:07 pm

Thank you for this video!

jean , August 14, 2018 at 3:18 pm

Thank you, Stephen P!
I'll tweet it, to remind people of what Assange has done.

Peter Bowen , August 14, 2018 at 10:08 am

Your excellent discussion is only lacking the role of British intelligence. See "The fish stinks from the head down" by Barbara Boyd at LaRouchePAC.com.

anastasia , August 14, 2018 at 9:49 am

Guccifer is a manipulator and a fabricator, and time and location cannot be determined? Yet, Guccifer leaves fingerprints of the Russians, in Cyrillic letters. If Guccifer is a manipulator and a fabricator, deliberately leaving fingerprints of the Russians, one need only ask, who in the world would want to pin the blame on the Russians for election interference in the US, and for what reason would they want to do such a thing. When that question is answered, you narrow down who is behind it all.

xeno , August 14, 2018 at 9:47 am

The American public has been living in a cloud of mis- and dis- information for decades. This isn't new.

Since Trump came on the political scene a couple years ago and scared the big money and big power "elite", it has become more obvious and extreme.

Christian Chuba , August 14, 2018 at 8:10 am

If the hack narrative is ever refuted, the IC community will just fallback to 'Russians are still attacking our democracy with facebook posts', aren't we the fragile, hot house plants. Still I would love to see the truth come out someday, whatever that may be.

This other article makes a convincing case that the first set of Russians indicted by Mueller were just commercial scammers, not spy masters from the Kremlin http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/02/mueller-indictement-the-russian-influence-is-a-commercial-marketing-scheme.html
I hate that he is an anonymous blogger who calls himself 'Moon of Alabama' but dang, he just writes so well.

The last set of accusations centers around hacking voter registration servers which is reported as 'Russians hacking state elections'.
I've wondered if this is just another commercial enterprise where hackers are just doing routine identity theft, not nice, but not a state enterprise.

I remember Putin wanting to have a treaty with the U.S. to clamp down on all international hacking but that would require reciprocity and this would prevent our infiltration of their systems. This never gets any mention in our MSM.

Chucky LeRoi , August 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm

Just a very small point Christian. The blogger at MOA is hardly anonymous. Click the "about this blog" link on the site. I even have his home address for donations

F. G. Sanford , August 14, 2018 at 7:58 am

Observations I have shared here in the past have had little impact on the grand scheme of things, so it is with little hope that I comment today. Arguments become complex and tortured, esoteric even to the point of grasping at philosophical abstractions which, in the end, bear no resemblance to the actual events.

We are asked to believe that Russian "insiders" fed information damaging to Candidate Trump to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, who then concocted the "dossier". This would serve to subvert his electability, and failing that, would provide an "insurance policy" to insure that his Presidency would be nonviable. In the same breath, we are asked to believe that those same Russians who sabotaged Mr. Trump's credibility -- wait for it -- manipulated the election to insure that his opponent would lose. Either strategy would result in an outcome unfavorable to Russia. Either Pence would assume leadership after an engineered coup, or Clinton would have won. Neither outcome benefits the Russians. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. All of this ignores what I and others observed long before the election: Hillary Clinton was the most repugnant candidate the DNC could possibly have chosen. Gotta give it to COL Lawrence Wilkerson, who stated frankly: "I just don't think she's electable".

Without all the ontological baggage, "Fideism" simply refers to articles of religious faith. Religion cares not a wit for evidence. In fact, it relies on the rejection of common logic in favor of "faith", itself the polar opposite of empirical, evidence-based thinking.

When news outlets of the day smeared, fabricated, edited, misrepresented and outright lied about Jim Garrison's case regarding the JFK assassination, the affronts to his integrity became so egregious and so obvious that, under the "Fairness Doctrine", he was granted a thirty minute rebuttal on one of the major television networks. To paraphrase, he said, "The American public has been sold a children's fairytale. But we are not children, and as adults, the consequences of believing such nonsense will be devastating. We will eventually lose our democracy".

Garrison's prediction has come to pass. We now vehemently defend fairytales as reality collapses in front of our very eyes.

Bob Van Noy , August 14, 2018 at 8:52 am

Thanks F. G. Sanford for the very appropriate referral to Jim Garrison. It was his dedication in the face of near impossible odds that convinced me to dedicate myself to fighting the ongoing battle for honesty and justice with respect to JFK's Assassination. When I remember the lifelong dedication of Jim Garrison, Fletcher Prouty, and the many totally dedicated Journalists, Researchers, and Public Servants like William Binney, I'm encouraged that the Truth will yet win out

Bob H , August 14, 2018 at 1:33 pm

Somehow I think Christopher Steele is the link to all of Russiagate. He was the head of Mi6's Russia Desk and "held the hand" of the dying Alexander Litvinenko(the 1st alleged poison victim of Putin), he was still around for the mysterious suicide of Dr. Kelley, he was hired by Fusion GP3, first by the GOP, then by the Dems to dig up dirt on Trump. He was then hired by Crowdstrike to clean up the DNC server(denied to the FBI). His association with Portman Down might well connect him with the Skripal poisonings.

jdd , August 14, 2018 at 4:36 pm

You are on target. In fact there is speculation that Skripal may have been one of the infamous "sources" of Steele's salacious dossier. In any case, Skripal was recruited to MI6 by one Pablo Miller, during the time Steele was undercover in Moscow, and who in addition to living near Skripal, was employed by Orbis, Steele's Private Intelligence firm. Interestingly,according to the Telegraph, Miller's association with Orbis has since been removed from his linkedin profile.Steele also pops up in a key role in conjunction with State's Victoria Nuland and Jonathan Winer in the violent 2014 coup against the elected government of Ukraine. where he began surveillance of Paul Manafort, and was later involved,along with his boss richarad Dearlove of MI6, in the targeting of Mike Flynn, Carter Page and George Papadopolous, the intended entrapment of the last two occurring on British soil, and then fed into the FBI by John Brennan.

Bob Herrschaft , August 14, 2018 at 10:24 pm

jdd if you have a link for Steele's connection with the 2014 Ukraine coup, I would appreciate it if you would post it here thanks

rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm

No wonder Reagan got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine". The US MSM could not survive it these days.

I wonder too how many people remember the McCarthy times, which seem to have returned with a vengeance without the commies!!

GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:32 pm

Re Wilkerson "I just don't think she's electable".
This might be a good time to remind readers that HRC has never won a contested election in her life.

David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:49 am

She was twice elected to the U.S. Senate with opponents on the ballot, and had to win contested primaries both times.

It doesn't speak very well of the people of New York that she won all those races, but in what sense were they not "contested elections", at least in the limited sense that applies to U.S. politics generally?

GKJames , August 14, 2018 at 7:02 am

(1) Does this set an impossibly high bar? Assuming one can navigate the technological intricacies -- the point about transfer speeds seems reasonable enough -- can't one equally conclude that there is compelling evidence of Russia's ongoing (over years) cyber-operations against a number of countries? Certainly, there is the counter-argument, Well, you've not proved anything. True enough, but in terms of crafting policies, we're never dealing with a proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. And even if we agreed that DNC emails were leaked (by Americans) rather than hacked by Russians, that wouldn't be the end of the inquiry, would it?

(2) Reasonable people will agree that hysteria should not drive policy. But hasn't US policy -- especially in connection with the country's relationship with the rest of the world -- been driven by exactly that, more often than not, for eons? The Infotainment Complex recognized long ago that there are profits to be made by luring eyeballs. The particular flavor may vary with time (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, etc.), but the hysteria itself is ever-present. Today's flavor happens to be Russia, a perennial best-seller that benefits a variety of domestic constituencies, not least the Threat Industry. Whether the public is being manipulated or simply getting what it wants is an open question. My own view is that, by and large, very little happens without the public's (even if only tacit) support.

(3) US foreign policy has always been an extension of domestic politics. Politicians taking sensible positions invariably would be flogged by power-seekers for being "soft" on some contrived evil. Reality, especially the nuanced kind, has rarely played much of a role. Nor has self-reflection. Neither Washington nor the public it ostensibly serves show a capacity for asking, What might explain Russia's position on, for instance, Crimea, Ukraine, and Georgia? The cavalier decision to expand NATO eastward to Russia's border as THE source of Moscow's resentment -- shared by a large proportion of the Russian public -- simply doesn't compute in American minds. That non-computation is bipartisan; it's simply how an empire does things.

(4) What remains strikingly elusive is a public exploration of how/why information on social media was found persuasive by American voters, irrespective of who planted the information. If it hadn't been Russians, would the November 2016 outcome have been different? Unlikely. A cursory look at the on-line world makes it obvious that ignorance is the coin of the realm, and that Americans do just fine in that regard all on their own.

All to say that the contentiousness among the world's powers will stay with us. As will the national myth-making. The best that can be hoped for is that there is enough self-restraint all around to keep in check the worst of the insanity.

mike k , August 14, 2018 at 8:02 am

GK -- Your comment can be summed up as: Nothing new here, get used to it -- there's nothing we can do about it. Really? The establishment would dearly love for all of us to adopt your ho hum attitude.

GKJames , August 14, 2018 at 9:08 am

Am suggesting that the problem facing what's left of the republic is far greater than a hack/leak case, "collusion", or even the Nov '16 outcome. The American mind needs re-wiring, something that Americans had better do themselves if they don't want a changing geopolitical landscape to do it for them. Sure, there are (always have been) people with a clue, but they tend to be outnumbered, now more than ever as widely cheered appeals to the visceral have taken over the ethos of government itself. Problem is, the opposition (at least at national leadership levels) to the current administration is mired in incoherence, obsessed to distraction with the obviously woeful personal qualities of the president, and devoid of imagination (the realistic kind). In other words, liberal democracy as we've known it since 1945 and imperfect as it's been, is under threat. And the threat doesn't come from Russia, but from half of a population no longer persuaded that it's the only viable way of sustaining the grand experiment. Concerns with anything less than that strike me as a matter of nibbling at the edges and avoiding what we really need to do: look at ourselves and stop pointing fingers at whatever "others" we can conjure as the source of our troubles.

Ray McGovern , August 14, 2018 at 10:56 am

Dear GK,

Thanks for both your comments and the wider perspective they offer.

Ray

JOHN CHUCKMAN , August 14, 2018 at 6:45 am

A further thought.

We have, of course, someone who can precisely and accurately answer any question in the matter.

Unfortunately, he is more or less imprisoned at the behest of your American government.

And should he be turned out of his current situation, he faces certain extradition to the US where he faces ugly treatment and a long prison term.

Such are the realities of American power in the world today.

By the way, his name is Julian Assange.

And the Democratic Party's own candidate, Ms Clinton, was quoted in her charming fashion, "Can't we just drone him or something?"

Of course, it was in line with many ugly statements by Clinton, as the one, after Qaddafi's assassination -- a man who did his best for his people and kept them in peace -- "We came, we saw, he died! Ha ha ha!"

It isn't just Trump who has a filthy mouth and constantly tells lies.

It is the whole American power establishment.

There is no easy solution, at least not in our time.

Powerful people who are determined to do terrible things will do them.

The total stakes for America's power establishment are too big for any argument or evidence to turn it around.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , August 14, 2018 at 6:28 am

But this is just the way American politicians have learned to deal with any adverse finding about almost anything, especially in foreign affairs.

They just ignore it.

"How far will we allow our government to escalate against others without proof of anything?" is a reader quote cited by the author.

But I ask, first, what the "allow" is doing in there?

Just what options, what real power, do average Americans have today? My best guess is that it is close to zero.

Yes, you're still free, at least for a little while, to write and speak words, words, and more words. But their net effect on the giant engine that is the American power establishment is close to zero also.

And perhaps before long -- given events like the Alex Jones creepy stunts -- you may not even be able to utter the words.

The stupid, endless stuff about Russia and hacks is just one small battle front of a huge multi-front war being waged by the American power establishment for world supremacy.

If you want to understand the engines driving all this, read:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

willow , August 14, 2018 at 11:29 pm

The censorship extends to the alternative commentators too. KPFA, Pacifica radio, which hosts Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, just removed a long running program, Guns & Butter hosted by Bonnie Falkner because she recently dared to discuss verboten subjects, i.e., Zionism.

Gregory Herr , August 15, 2018 at 12:10 am

I was hoping she was vacationing. I'll miss her interviews with people like William Pepper, William Engdahl, the Saker, and many others. What a disappointment.

exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 2:53 am

They'd rather stick with establishment shills, which is what Amy Goodman has evolved into as a serial apologist for yankee war crimes in the middle east.

exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 2:51 am

Great articles; great responses; great website. You've accurately described the true nature of the present day yankee imperium in your responses and articles.

AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:22 am

Thank Dog our wonderful elites in the halls of power are spending millions; if not hundreds of millions of dollars on Russiafarce.
Instead of frittering it away on hardening the electrical grid to an EMP.

I feel so represented and cared for by our illustrious elites

David G , August 14, 2018 at 3:12 am

Ok, here's my technical question, which is not calculated to make me very popular around here.

Suppose the following:

Somebody (the Russians, the Samoans, elves, whoever) did in fact hack the DNC computer for these emails, and this was done at the expected, relatively slow download rate. They then may or may not have manipulated the data or metadata in some fashion on their own machine. The somebody then uploaded these files onto a USB flash drive, and then re-downloaded them onto another computer at the high transfer rate noted by the VIPS. From this second computer they were sent on to Wikileaks (or some intermediary).

Does the VIPS analysis preclude this scenario? If not, is it possible that they are correct about the download rate, but still have not excluded the possibility that the initial taking of the emails from the DNC was done by hack?

AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 3:54 am

The disseminator (wikileaks/Julian Assange) of those LEAKED emails has already answered the question.
He has unequivocally stated that the emails were leaked; Not hacked.
NOTHING Wikileaks has released or claimed has ever been found to be false.

Kim Dotcom also claims to have intimate knowledge of the leak.
Both have offered to give testimony in this entire farce investigation
Yet, the grand inquisitor, Mueller the 9/11 and Anthrax, coverup artist refuses to interview them.
That alone should tell you what is really going on.

David G , August 14, 2018 at 4:07 am

So you're saying there's nothing in the VIPS analysis that refutes the scenario I outlined? Just those unrelated statements, upon which VIPS did not rely?

I'd be surprised if that's the case, but I'm waiting to hear from someone with useful knowledge on the subject. That doesn't seem to be you.

AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:40 pm

That "someone" with the most knowledge on the subject has already spoken. His name is Julian Assange and he flat out said it came from a leak not a hack.

Who else do you think is more qualified to make a statement on the hack than Julian himself?

gratification , August 14, 2018 at 4:56 am

So what you're saying is that these cunning Russians faked the metadata on the DNC download (or whatever it was) so as to obfuscate the fact that it was them but left other "Russian fingerprints" -- such as cyrillic text -- that pointed to them? Baldrickian cunning! It's beyond my simple mind.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/04/new-analysis-by-the-forensicator-examines-russian-fingerprints-left-by-guccifer-2-0/

David G , August 14, 2018 at 5:34 am

I'm not saying anything like that.

What I'm *asking* is how the VIPS analysis can tell that the download (or upload, whatever) speed that they are relying on was from the *beginning* of the data's journey to Wikileaks (i.e. the initial transfer from the DNC server), which is what is required to prove their thesis, rather than from some subsequent step along the way?

I'm not crediting myself with any genius in bringing up this point. It seems like a fairly obvious challenge to make to the VIPS analysis, and I'm sure it's been made elsewhere.

I imagine the VIPS have dealt with this question long ago somewhere or other, but I've never run across it and am hoping someone here has the technical chops to enlighten me.

In the mean time, how about everybody else stop trying to mischaracterize my question or throw irrelevant (to this specific issue) facts at me?

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:28 am

I am also no technocrat.
My understanding is that any hack or leak leaves "fingerprints" in the files.
Both the original and the target files.

Thus, in the case of the scenario you propose -- earlier hacks that were amalgamated and transformed into one large leak (I think this is your scenario) -- there would be fingerprints of the earlier hacks.

AFAIK no allegations or evidence have been put forth concerning earlier suspicious hacks that could have been transformed into one large, fast leak.

We need to look at the very strong possibility that the real purpose of Mueller's investigation is to hide something, not reveal something. That is the strong record of his CV.

Can someone tell me whether a person who has posted regularly in the past and who wants to post here must enter name and email address afresh with each and every post?

Or is it just me?

David G , August 14, 2018 at 7:44 am

Well, what you say may well be true, Litchfield, but it still seems to me to be external to the VIPS point about internet download-speed limitations, upon which -- based on Patrick Lawrence's article -- they seem to be hanging a great deal, especially since they now acknowledge that "[t]he conclusions initially drawn on time and location in VIPS50 are now subject to these recent discoveries" (i.e. have been brought into question).

So I think my question stands.

I too now have to re-enter name and email with each post, and I also was wondering whether it was just me. Guess not. Maybe an anti-spam thing?

Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:39 am

Litchfield-

The re-entry of your personal data started a couple weeks ago. I believe it is a safety precaution so that your personal email address is no longer stored by CN. I could be wrong.

Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 8:41 am

As I understand your question, you are asking whether some information may not have been tracelessly stolen from the DNC server quite separately from the transfer to an external device described by VIPS.

My first reaction to this is that, obviously, any information could be copied from any computer at any time by any person -- but if the operation left no traces, nobody could know that it ever took place.

The only data that investigators have to go on are the files provided by Wikileaks and the logs and other records of the DNC server itself. As far as I know, those point only to one download -- that described by VIPS and this article.

Incidentally, you have reversed the usual meanings of "upload" and "download". Conventionally, one downloads data from a repository or database, and uploads to it.

Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 8:50 am

Having had a look at https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/07/new-research-shows-guccifer-2-0-files-were-copied-locally-not-hacked/ which explains the forensic methods used to derive the download speeds, I admit that my first comment was inaccurate.

The files used were in fact not those provided by Wikileaks. The article linked to above states that,

'The Forensicator specifically discusses the data that was eventually published by Guccifer 2.0 under the title "NGP-VAN." This should not be confused with the separate publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks'.

The file copy times were derived from a compressed archive containing all the files of interest. You can see a partial picture of the archive listing in the linked article.

David G , August 14, 2018 at 9:43 am

I appreciate your comments, Tom Welsh, but I feel I am just foundering deeper in confusion.

To be clear, I wasn't "asking whether some information may not have been tracelessly stolen from the DNC server quite separately from the transfer to an external device described by VIPS." At least, I didn't mean to ask that.

I want to know specifically why the VIPS are sure that the speedy download/upload rate they build their case on happened exactly when the data left the DNC server, and not at some later point in their history. The VIPS argument depends on the former being the case.

The article you link to in fact *does* speak to this point, which is great, but as you say it specificies that it is *not* about the DNC files that ended up at Wikileaks.

But this Patrick Lawrence article has William Binney "examin[ing] all the metadata associated with the files [Guccifer] 2.0 has made public" without making any distinction between that and the DNC/ Wikileaks files.

I guess I really don't have a handle on the essential details here.

While I like reading Patrick Lawrence's reflections on statecraft, I think he may have been out of his depth here. There's nothing here that clarifies these questions, and that's without even mentioning the passages that are confusing on their own, such as the paragraph about how "G-2.0" somehow "merged" two sets of data into two sets of data.

I realized my use of "download" (vs. "upload") was off after my initial comment, and have tried to avoid it in the later ones, but Binney himself is quoted using it in the "reversed" sense in the article, and I took my lead from that.

Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:37 am

David G-

Here is a good video of Bill Binney explaining the merged data sets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe1movhtIfA

As to your other question, it is my understanding that ALL transfer of files leaves metadata, and Bill Binney and the Forensicator have backtracked the metadata to the original download that was of a speed only possible (at that time and place) locally via a storage device.

David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:29 pm

Thanks, Skip Scott. That's helpful.

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:23 pm

I thought that there were two incidents concerning hacks/leaks, which some people are conflating.

1. *Leak* of files from DNC computers. This info ended up being given to Wikileaks by a person w ho is known to both Craig Murray and Julian Assange
.
2. *Hack* of Hillary's private email server, including emails that should not have been on a private server. And that there is some speculation that the Chinese hacked into Hillary's private server.

Am I wrong about that?

AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 4:23 am

"*Hack* of Hillary's private email server, including emails that should not have been on a private server. And that there is some speculation that the Chinese hacked into Hillary's private server.

Am I wrong about that?"

Not wrong.
Any intelligence agency and every intelligence agency, including 3rd world rate, were in and out of Hillary's paper MCSE server set up.
FFS Brian Pagliano was busted asking for help on how to delete files on Reddit.

Aaron Schwartz got the last laugh!
And, we all got a few more years of an unradiated planet.
Well, so long as you pretend like the MSM does that Fukushima is a mass fertilaztion event.

David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:04 am

Litchfield --

It's reasonable to assume that Clinton's home server was compromised by any number of intelligence agencies, but that's not connected to any of the emails that have been publicly released -- because they're spies and Wikileaks is journalism, no matter how much U.S. pols and their stooges want to pretend otherwise.

Part of the Russia-gate snow job is to confuse this matter, though -- for instance by pretending references by Trump on the campaign trail to "Hilary's emails" were actually about the DNC and Podesta leaks.

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:12 pm

" other records of the DNC server itself"

I thought that no one had been able to get their hands on the DNC servers -- the DNC had not turned them over to law enforcement or the FBI -- to do forensics on them.
Am I wrong about that?

backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 2:22 am

Litchfield -- no, you've got it right, the DNC servers have not been forensically examined by the FBI. They were given to Crowdstrike to examine, if you can believe it.

Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 11:48 am

One thing has been bugging me about Binney's argument. Yes, it is nearly impossible for someone in Russia to transfer the files that quickly. But who's to say the "hacker" was not much closer to the DNC server, somewhere near DC?

They then transported the files via thumb drive or (more likely) portable disk drive to Wikileaks.

Mind you, I desperately want Binney to be right, and for the whole charade to fall apart, but this seems to be a weakness in his forensic argument.

David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:57 pm

My understanding has been that the VIPS are saying any internet upload at the recorded rate would have been impossible under the applicable conditions, even a local one. Despite the Binney quote in this piece referring to a "dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit line all the way to Russia", I hadn't thought that's really their argument. Am I wrong?

In any case, without any expertise myself, I'm inclined to trust them on that, at least provisionally, but it's true that at this point the VIPS seem to be resting their entire thesis on that one point -- there's not a lot of redundancy (in the good sense) there.

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:15 pm

"Despite the Binney quote in this piece referring to a "dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit line all the way to Russia", I hadn't thought that's really their argument. Am I wrong?"

I think you are right. That is my understanding. That any upload/download over the Internet would be much slower than a transfer to a flash drive.

I thought the mention of the 400-megabit line to Russia was a bit of hyperbole designed to show how ridiculous the upload over internet scenario is.

Curious , August 16, 2018 at 1:11 am

Litchfield,
Although you are not a 'techie' the bottom line is not proximity. One can be in the same room and not duplicate the speed of transfer. The internet is set up with limitations inherent in the technology available.
As a personal reference, doing the Olympics in Italy, we had our own 'home run fiber' with our fiber run to NY with copper as a backup. I do not have William Binneys' skills and tech savvy, but I do know as a different techie we could not create anywhere close to the speed this argument entails. And when on our 'home run' fiber from the US to Italy we had speed issues, not because of the fiber links, but the interfaces that terminate the ends of the fiber. This is important even for a non techie. If one doesn't have the latest and greatest fiber interface, or (god help us) copper pairs, the speed is dependent on the termination of the lines.
This hacking thing is as bogus as the world has seen, mainly because a lot of people don'y Know the difference between a hack and a leak, and would have to put down too many beers to learn.
Given what I know, I would trust Mr Binney to tell us what is possible, and again, it is not proximity, nor super copper pairs, fiber, not sat feeds. He, above others probably built what we now use randomly and he knows what is possible. This is just a suggestion to trust a man with his experience which is uncommon to those who have not built systems in their lives, and can only question without tech info.

Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 6:13 pm

Actually I think they underestimate some because to transmit a byte serially takes 10 bits total because there is overhead (start and stop bits). So 49.1 MBps is about 491 Mbps.

Was a 491 Mbps network connected to the DNC computer? Probably not (that's very fast) but it could be easily verified if the FBI or anybody else cared about the truth.

AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:53 pm

What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that "manipulating" the "data" or "metadata" would leave fingerprints of the manipulation as well.
As was demonstrated by the VIPS being able to discern that the Guccifer 2.0 data was actually 2 seperate batches of data "manipulated" into one set.

I left any snark I have for you in my head and not on the keyboard.
I ask that you do the same in the future so we can have an adult conversation on the subject and not an emotionally filled rant.

nonsense like "I'd be surprised if that's the case, but I'm waiting to hear from someone with useful knowledge on the subject. That doesn't seem to be you." is petty and childish.

David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:40 pm

You should also consider leaving in your head aspersions such as telling people who are honestly seeking information that they are not "able to grasp" things.

Compare your aggressive approach to helpful attempts at addressing my question from Litchfield, Tom Welsh, and Skip Scott (so far).

You seem like a wants-the-last-word kind of person. Looking forward to reading it.

AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:21 pm

I was quite polite to you in my first response.
You drew first blood.

Your question has been answered.
Any attempt to adjust the metadata would be traceable as was demonstrated by the 2 data sets being discovered as merged into 1 data set.

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:25 pm

Why not be perfectly polite in all responses?
What is this "first blood" nonsense?
Grow up!!!

AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:45 am

@Litchfield
"Why not be perfectly polite in all responses?"

Perhaps you could ask your buddy that same question.

"Grow up!!!"

Introspection
Learn it!
Live it!

backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 3:12 am

Litchfield -- there are many people who come on sites like this, pretending to be novices, when their real objective is to place doubt in everybody's minds. That is their plan, to create confusion, obfuscate. Of course these people have the right to question what VIPS has discovered, but notice what they never ask for:

1) where are the DNC servers?

2) why haven't the DNC servers been handed over to the FBI?

3) why did the FBI accept Crowdstrike's analysis of the DNC servers?

4) why don't we allow VIPS access to these servers, along with the FBI, so that a complete analysis can be done?

5) why don't we allow VIPS access to NSA data in order to follow the evidence from beginning to end?

VIPS are doing the best job they can with what they have, but they are left with trying to piece a puzzle together. Let's get our hands on the real data.

We can't know whether David G is sincere in his questions or whether he's just trying to discredit VIPS (yes, that is the real objective of some people). I have my own opinion, but I'll keep that to myself.

David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:18 am

backwardsevolution --

I don't think you did a particularly good job about keeping your opinion about me to yourself here.

I didn't ask the questions you list because I was asking about something germane to this specific article which I wanted to learn more about.

If you equate that with a "plan, to create confusion, obfuscate", then how are you different from our members of Congress who are delegitimizing everybody who questions their preferred narrative?

Bluesugartribe , August 14, 2018 at 2:00 am

I couldn't agree more. Lockeed Martin and the numerous Political sellouts as well as the War merchants, including corporate media, need another Russian cold war to justify getting enormous government contracts that keep them glutinously feeding from the troth. This fake Russian narrative seems to tie the President's hands until the mid-terms
where they hope to flip the house and stop the investigation by the House Intel committee and politically damage him with impeachment and then to oust him in the 2020 election while setting the narrative to justify Cold War 2.0

alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 1:27 am

U.S. neoconservatism is just the latest permutation of imperialism that has plagued us since the dawn of human history. Thucydides documented the blind greed and pig-headedness that destroyed Greek civilization almost two and a half millennia ago in his History of the Peloponnesian War :

"What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta."

And from Pericles' speech to the Athenians:

"And do not imagine that what we are fighting for is simply the question of freedom or slavery: there is also involved the loss of our empire and the dangers arising from the hatred which we have incurred in administering it. Nor is it any longer possible for you to give up this empire, though there may be some people who in a mood of sudden panic and in a spirit of political apathy actually think that this would be a fine and noble thing to do. Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go."

Add half a cup of Goebbels and Bernays sauce and a heaping tablespoon of hysteria to Pericles' recipe for Armageddon, and voila ! you have a deadly dish of yellow journalism like the one served up by the Washington Post editorial of Feb. 6, 2003:

"Irrefutable

After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. . . .

. . . .Diplomats from these nations [e.g., France and Germany] do not dispute Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that "any country on the face of the Earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

. . . .None say Iraq has complied [with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441]. Until now, however, they have cynically argued that the inspectors must uncover evidence proving what they already know, or that it's too early to judge Saddam Hussein's cooperation. Mr. Powell's presentation stripped all credibility from that dodge."

All a perfect iteration of the law of the lynch mob: We don't need no stinkin' evidence, everyone knows they're guilty!

Ray McGovern , August 14, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Dear alley cat,

Good points, all. Thanks.

(I keep learning a whole lot from the many knowledgeable people who comment here. Please, nobody stop!)

Ray

alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 4:59 pm

Many thanks to you Ray for all you are doing and have done.

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:26 pm

Dear Ray,

So many thanks for all you do. And for always showing a pleasant demeanor.

David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:33 am

"Bernays sauce" is good.

I watched Powell's U.N. presentation live. Even on its face -- before the specific falsehoods had been exposed -- it was so obviously feeble, yet the media unanimously praised it as irresistibly convincing. This left a lasting impression on me, and it came to mind a few weeks ago during the stupefying media meltdown following the Trump-Putin Helsinki summit.

[Aug 18, 2018] Is Russia an Adversary by Gary Leupp

Notable quotes:
"... The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly. But Russia was not an adversary then. ..."
"... Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian border. ..."
"... We are your adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | dissidentvoice.org

Or, What's Wrong with Russian Collusion?

The question is finally being asked, by the president himself: what's wrong with collusion? Or at least his lawyer asks the question, while Trumps tweets:

Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn't matter because there was No Collusion.

The problem, of course, is that of collusion with an alleged adversary. Russia, we are constantly informed, is one such adversary, indeed the main state adversary, with Putin is its head.

Adversary is a very strong term. The Hebrew word for adversary is Satan. Satan is the ultimate symbol of evil in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Satan tempted Eve at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, causing her to eat the fruit, and so evil entered the world.

Just like some want you to think that evil entered the (good, pristine) U.S. electoral process due to this Russian adversary in 2016.

(Sometimes listening to TV pundits vilifying Putin I find Luther's famous hymn floating through my head:

For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe.
His craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal.

Luther's referring to Satan, of course. But the current mythology around Putin -- as someone who still , like Lenin and Stalin before him, and the tsars of old, wishes us harm; is an unbridled dictator with a powerful great nuclear arsenal; is the wealthiest man on earth; and hates democracy -- resembles the mythology around the Adversary in the Bible.)

But let us problematize this vilification. When did Russia become a U.S. adversary? Some might say 1917 when in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution Moscow became the center of the global communist movement. But surely that period ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR.

Throughout the 1990s the U.S. cultivated Boris Yeltsin's Russia as a friend and even aided the drunken buffoon in winning the 1996 election. Bill Clinton and Yeltsin signed the Start II treaty. Harvard professors advised Moscow on economic reform.

The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly. But Russia was not an adversary then.

Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian border.

It was a clear statement by the U.S. to a friendly country: We are your adversary. But, of course, the Pentagon and State Department always pooh-poohed Russian concerns, denying that NATO targeted any particular country.

Four years later (2008) NATO announced intentions to draw Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. Meanwhile the U.S. recognized Kosovo as an independent state. Kosovo, the historical heart of Serbian civilization, had been wrenched from Serbia in 1999 under the pretext of a "humanitarian" intervention that included the first bombing (by NATO) of a European capital city since 1945. The province had been converted into a vast NATO base.

Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, emboldened by the prospect of NATO membership and western backing, attacked the capital of the separatist republic of South Ossetia, provoking (as the Russians explain it) a proper punitive response: the Russo-Georgian War of August 7-16 . After this Moscow recognized South Ossetia and a second breakaway republic, Abkhazia, in a tit-for-tat response to Washington's recognition of Kosovo.

Now Russia was labelled an aggressive power -- by the power that had carved up Yugoslavia, and invaded and occupied Iraq on the basis of lies and killed half a million in the process. Plans to include Georgia in NATO had to be put on hold, in large part due to European allies' opposition (why provoke Russia?) but the U.S. intensified efforts to draw in Ukraine. That meant toppling the anti-NATO elected president Viktor Yanukovych.

The U.S. State Department devoted enormous resources to the Maidan coup in Kiev on February 23, 2014. Its agents helped topple the government, ostensibly for its failure to negotiate an agreement for Ukrainian associate membership in the EU, but really to bring pro-NATO forces to power and expel the Russian Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula where it has been based since 1783. Moscow's limited support for the Donbass ethnic-Russian separatists and re-annexation of Crimea were, of course, depicted by the U.S. as more aggression, more mischievous opposition to "U.S. global interests."

But from Moscow's point of view these moves have surely been defensive. The main problem is (obviously) NATO and its dangerous, unnecessary and provocative expansion. Throughout his presidential campaign Trump questioned the continued "relevance" of NATO. Characteristically he focused on budget issues and allies' failure to meet the goal figure of 2% if GDP for military expenses (misleadingly depicting investment shortfalls as a betrayal and rip-off of the victimized U.S.). But he did -- to the alarm of many, and probably to Moscow's delight -- express little enthusiasm for the alliance's historical purpose.

The most rational proposition Trump voiced before his election that the U.S. should "get along" with Russia. That is, get along with the so-called adversary. Trump as we all know had been in Russia on business, hosting the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, and maintains interest in building a Trump Tower in the city. He has met and befriended Russian oligarchs. He quite possibly sees Russia as just another country, like Germany or France.

If "the French" had had dirt on Hillary, would it have been okay to "collude" with them to influence the election result? France is, of course, a NATO ally. Would that make it different? Now that the president and his layers are openly questioning whether "collusion", per se, is even illegal, the specific nature of the colluder becomes more relevant.

Russia is an adversary.

Russia is an adversary.

Putin in Helsinki acknowledged to a reporter that he had hoped Trump could win, because he had expressed hope for better relations. He might have added that he dreaded the prospect of a Hillary victory because of her warmongering and characterization of him as a Hitler. Naturally the Russian media favored Trump over Clinton at a certain point when he emerged as a credible candidate. So when Trump on July 27, 2016 called on Russia to release Hillary's missing emails ("if you've got 'em") the Russians probably felt invited to make contact through channels. And when informed that they had dirt, Don Jr. wrote: "If that's what you say, I love it." (Who can blame him?)

Let's say there was some collusion after the June 6 Trump Tower meeting. Trump has suddenly acknowledged that the meeting with the Russians was indeed to "seek political dirt." He adds that this is "totally legal," and this may be true. Some are now saying that Don Jr. may have violated a federal statute (52 USC 30121, 36 USC 5210) forbidding any foreign person to "make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.' and for anyone to knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law]." But the language is vague. If a Canadian speechwriter works gratis for a U.S. political candidate, in order to help him or her win, is this not "a thing of value" intended to affect an election?

If Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner had met with Canadian agents in Trump Tower I doubt there would have been any controversy. The fact is, Trump won the election and many of those stunned by that wish to undermine him using revived Cold War-type Russophobia. They insist: He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. And now they hope they've got him on this charge.

*****

Five years ago a young man named Edward Snowden (now living in forced exile in Russia) revealed to the world the extent of the U.S.'s global surveillance. He showed us how the NSA wiretaps EU meetings, popes' conversations, Angela Merkel's cell phone and maintains metadata on virtually all U.S. residents. He showed us what the contemporary advanced state can do in this respect. We should suppose that Moscow has, if not similar capacity, at least enough expertise to hack into the DNC emails or John Podesta's g-mail account. Is that surprising?

What none of the TV anchors is allowed to say needs to be said again: The U.S. interferes in foreign elections all the time, including Russian ones. It should surprise no one if Russian intelligence responds in kind. The point is not the provenance of the leaked emails but their content.

Those horrified by the leaked material complain that their release was designed to "undermine faith in our democratic system." Really? Don't the workings of the system itself undermine one's faith in it, once they are exposed? Was it adversarial of the leaker to inform us that the DNC had no intention of allowing Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination, and thus that the process was rigged? Was it unfriendly to reveal that Podesta was hoping the media would hype Trump, as an easy target for his candidate?

The question that will no doubt be debated in the coming days is whether seeking dirt on a political opponent from any foreigner is indeed illegal, or whether there are specific legal ramifications of meeting with someone from an "adversary" country. But it seems to me that Russia has not been defined as such officially. So we may have a discussion less about legality than the politics of Russophobia.

I am happy to see Trump besieged, rattled, possibly facing impeachment. But to bring him down on the basis of "Russian collusion," on the assumption that Russia is an adversary, would only advantage the warmongers who want no-fly zones over Syria and military support for the Kiev regime against the Donbas separatists. Vice President Pence I believe favors both.

Trump has said that he cannot host Putin in Washington this year, or until the Russian Hoax witch hunt is over. But Putin has invited him to Moscow. One senses he wants some agreements with Trump before he is ousted by his gathering adversaries, including the press, courts, Democrats, select Republicans, turncoat aides and he himself sometimes in his unguarded tweets.

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: [email protected] . Read other articles by Gary .

This article was posted on Monday, August 13th, 2018 at 10:30pm and is filed under (Ex-)Yugoslavia , Chancellor Angela Merkel , Donald Trump , Elections , Espionage/"Intelligence" , Hillary Clinton , Kosovo , Mike Pence , President Vladimir Putin , Russia , Serbia , Ukraine , United States , US Hypocrisy , US Lies .

[Aug 18, 2018] But always remember, the FBI/DOJ is honorable .

Aug 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

agcw86 , Fri, 08/17/2018 - 10:07 Permalink

But always remember, the FBI/DOJ is "honorable". Yeah, that's the term they use to refer to the scumbags that "represent" us in congress. In reality, "there is no honor amongst thieves", and government is full of them because sociopaths gravitate to positions of power.

romanmoment Fri, 08/17/2018 - 10:08 Permalink

It's a unruly fuck show at the FBI and nobody is being held accountable. No leadership, no standards, no neutrality, no accountability. Obama weaponized the FBI. Fire everyone.

[Aug 18, 2018] How Syria and Ukraine Drove the Russia Hawks Insane

Notable quotes:
"... also mentioned adversary ..."
"... veritable demon ..."
Aug 18, 2018 | russia-insider.com

In Part 1 we referenced the infamous hysteria triggered in Salem Massachusetts by Betty Parris (age 9) and Abigail Williams (age 12).

In 1692 their prepubescent imaginations were apparently more than capable of detecting the evil doings of witches at loose in their community; and a population hopped up with Calvinist enthusiasm for the supernatural works of the Almighty apparently was also capable of lapsing into collective madness – at least for a spell.

But who would have thought that in the year 2018 the grizzled adults and racketeers who populate the Imperial City would fall prey to the same momentary outbreak of deliriums?

After all, Vladimir Putin was the very same Putin who made a mere cameo appearance in the 2012 presidential debates. He got an honorable mention when Barack Obama appropriately schooled Mitt Romney on the fact that Russia was not America's principal national security threat.

Indeed, the MSM commentators who are shrieking about Trump's parlay with Vlad today were knowingly furrowing their brows about Romney's alleged gaffe back then.

So the question at hand is what changed? How did the politics as usual debating points about the status of Russia and Putin only 69 months ago turn into a veritable Salem style hysteria?

We'd suggest two pivotal events turned the Imperial City upside down. To wit, Barry lost his nerve in August 2013 on the Syrian red line and Donald Trump won the 2016 election in the red zones of Flyover America.

In between, the mainstream media completely lost its grasp on reality as the Imperial City dove headlong into it latest and greatest Indispensable Nation adventures by intervening in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Yemen, and Iraq for the third time.

The Indispensable Nation conceit, of course, is the ultimate cover story for the work of Empire and is the polar opposite of the rudimentary America First notions on which Donald Trump rode into the White House.

As it happened, the Indispensable Nation meme flourished when the neocons and liberal interventionists became ascendant during the Clinton and early Bush 43 era; and they virtually ran the policy tables after 9/11 as the full-throated War on Terrorism cranked up a powerful head of steam.

Nevertheless, the acolytes of Empire nearly lost their political lunch when Shock & Awe in Iraq turned into a bloody quagmire and the retaliation against the Taliban for harboring the 9/11 conspirators ended up as an endless trillion dollar war in the Hindu Kush.

That's why the peace candidate won in 2008. And it didn't matter that Barrack Obama was an utterly unqualified greenhorn Senator and former part-time law professor and community organizer who had no more claim to the Oval Office in his day than the Donald did this time around.

But Barry was too much the quick study by half. Rather than dismantle the rogue postwar Empire of the neocons and militarists, he sought to make it smarter and more deft. So he populated his national security team with moderate neocons like Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus and Victoria Nuland and a posse of liberal interventionists including Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power.

Our point here is not simply that peace never had a chance with that crowd in charge of policy; it's that the outbreak of the so-called Arab Spring in early 2011 triggered a toxic brew of interventionist enthusiasm among Barry's foreign policy team that quickly metastasized into R2P (responsibility to protect) madness in Libya and Syria.

Needless to say, even a newly arrived Martian visitor in 2011 what have been scratching his head about Libya.

In his advancing old age, Khadafy had turned himself into a model non-proliferator and exclusively inward focused tyrant. Libya thus posed a threat to exactly no one outside its own borders; and it was just plain laughable as a matter of concern to the security of the American homeland.

But Hillary and her posse famously danced on Khadafy's grave after NATO-enabled terrorists brought about his brutal demise. So doing, they learned a dangerously erroneous lesson.

Namely, that uncooperative dictators who purportedly threatened their citizens with genocidal repression could be clinically removed for a few billions worth of bombs, drones and aid to local rebels.

That proposition really had nothing to do with homeland security in America and was belied by the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now the "smart" people were in charge, and both Libya and Egypt were proof they knew how to make Regime Change happen with a minimum of muss and fuss.

Yet any intelligent reading of the impossible sectarian politics of Syria put the lie to that conceit in a heartbeat.

Indeed, given the 40-year history of the Assad family business built around Baathist secularism and a protective umbrella for Syria's numerous minority confessions – Alawite, Druse, Shiite, Christian, Jewish, Kurd etc. – the very idea of arming Sharia-spouting Sunni Arabs to overthrow the Assad regime was sheer lunacy.

So whatever the immediate origins and allegedly peaceful intentions of the anti-Assad uprising in the spring of 2011, it did not take long for these clashes to degenerate into bloody urban warfare.

And it did not take a lot of figuring to also see that arming Muslim Brotherhood sectarians was absolutely guaranteed to generate a violent response from Damascus. That's because the Brotherhood had been the historic vanguard of Sunni religious opposition to the Baathist secularism of the Assad regime; and had been brutally suppressed by the senior Assad in the 1980s.

Beyond that, it was also a given that the Shiite polities on either side of Syria's borders would likely come to Assad's aid. That is, the Iranians in the east and Hezbollah across the southwest border in Lebanon – to say nothing of the regime's longtime Russian patrons, whose only naval base in the Mediterranean was located on Syria's tiny slice of coastline.

In any event, Obama's neocons and R2P liberals threw every caution to the wind. In going all in for regime change and demonizing Assad as a butcher who used barrel bombs and chemical weapons against innocent civilians, they maneuvered Obama – newly feisty as the slayer of Osama bin-Laden – into drawing his famous red line on the use of chemical weapons.

Needless to say, that was catnip to the Nusra Front and ISIS jihadists who dominated the armed opposition. It did not take long for them to mount a false flag attack in Ghouta in August 2013, which horrified the social media connected world when 1300 civilians suffered gruesome deaths from what was apparently sarin gas.

Only later did rocket experts demonstrate that the sarin had been delivered by short-range projectiles launched from jihadist controlled areas outside of Damascus, not by Assad's forces 15-20 miles away. But at the moment, the job was done: Obama was on the hot-seat of his own foolishly drawn red line – exactly where the jihadist and his own interventionists wanted him.

When he attempted to escape the trap by punting the decision to bomb Assad to Capitol Hill, however, Cool Hand Vlad saw his opening. To wit, he quickly brokered a deal with Assad to have his entire chemical weapons arsenal removed and destroyed under international supervision.

That was operationally executed by the acknowledged neutral experts at the OPCW (Organization For The Prevention of Chemical Weapons) and there is little doubt that the preponderant share of Assad's arsenal was eliminated.

Yet for that act of constructive statesmanship, the neocons and liberal interventionists never forgave Putin. Then and there he became Bad Vlad because his action on chemical weapons but the kibosh on Washington's excuse for regime change in Damascus.

In fact, the War Party interventionists of both stripes – neocons and R2P liberals – went on the all-out attack in September 2013, transforming Putin from the also mentioned adversary of the Obama-Romney debate one year earlier into a veritable demon . Hillary now even insisted his was a modern day Adolph Hitler.

As it happened, the duly elected President of Ukraine chose that same fall to pursue an economic bailout deal with Moscow to rescue his country's debt-laden, corruption ridden post-Soviet economy; and he did so in lieu of the far less attractive deal that had been offered by the west through the EC, IMF and Washington.

Not surprisingly, that wholly appropriate decision by the leader of a sovereign nation became exactly the opening for the Washington interventionists to strike hard at Putin and Russia.

We have detailed elsewhere how the so-called Maidan uprising on the streets of Kiev in February was funded, organized and enabled by Washington and its cadres of operators from the CIA, NED, State and sundry NGOs; and how that divided the country to the quick politically when Washington installed and recognized a radical nationalist government that immediately moved against the Russian speaking populations of the Donbas and Crimea.

Indeed, enabling the Kiev coup and instantly recognizing the crony capitalists, ruffians and neo-Nazi nationalists who formed the new government was the single stupidest act of peace candidate Barry's entire presidency.

But by then the interventionists were in high dudgeon. So there was no stopping their virtually instantaneous demonization of Russia and Putin for actions which were self-evidently driven by Russia's vital national interests in it own backyard – not some kind of aggressive quest for territory or lebensraum.

To wit, Putin did not "seize" Crimea like it was some country in the Benelux that he coveted. To the contrary, Crimea was virtually Russian to the core after it was purchased by Catherine the Great in 1783 and thereafter when Sevastopol become the homeport for the great black sea fleet of czars and commissars alike.

For crying out loud, Crimea was never part of Ukraine until Khrushchev had the Soviet Presidium transfer it in 1954 from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic as a gift to his Ukrainian compatriots who had stood with him the bloody struggle for Stalin's succession.

So Washington decided to declare economic war on Russia through Obama's idiotic sanctions in order to make sure that the dead hand of the Soviet Presidium's writ is enforced 64 years later.

Besides, Russia did conduct a referendum which was fair by all objective accounts; and under which 83% of the eligible voters elected to return to Mother Russia after what had been an historical short interlude of rule by the Ukrainian state. Among other things, the overwhelmingly Russian speaking population of Crimea as not enthusiastic about being culturally "cleansed" the Ukrainian nationalists who now ruled in Kiev.

Likewise with the Donbas and the other nearby Russian speaking provinces on the eastern border. Many of them had been put there generations earlier by Stalin to man what was the industrial maw – coal, iron, steel, chemicals and heavy engineering – of the Soviet Union.

And all of them knew of the terrors that had occurred during WWII when the Hitler's Wehrmacht marched through the Donbas and destroyed everything and everyone in sight on its way to the siege of Stalingrad, and how it had been accompanied by legions of Ukrainian collaborators during the terror.

They also knew that the region had eventually been liberated from the Nazi terror by the Red Army as it returned through the region on its way to Berlin.

Yet the interventionist fools in Washington ignored all of this and proclaimed Putin menace to peace and the rule of law because he came to the aid of the overwhelmingly Russian-speaking population, which did not want to be ruled by the Ukrainian nationalists who had illegally sized power in Kiev.

The obvious solution all along was partition – just like happened when Washington forced Serbia to give up Kosovo; or when the artificial country of Czechoslovakia, created by backroom intrigue at Versailles in 1919 peacefully decided to separate into two sovereign countries a few year back.

In short, there is no there, there. The Ukraine/Crimea "aggression" is nothing of the kind, and Putin was in Syria because he was invited to be there by its sovereign government.

In fact, the whole demonization campaign, the sweeping economic sanctions and NATO's provocative encroachments on Russia's borders in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea are nothing more than retaliation for Putin's wise rescue of Barrack Obama from his own stupid red line.

But this isn't the end of the stupidity. In part 3 we will strip the bark off the Russian election meddling meme by laying out the simple fact that a country which is no threat to the security of the American homeland, but which has been viciously attacked by Washington, might will seek to make it's case for a different policy.

That is to say, none of this is about espionage or stealing military secrets. It actually boils down to the obvious fact that Donald Trump had an open mind about Russia and had not been party to Obama's cabal of neocon and R2P interventionists and their campaign of revenge against Vlad Putin.

That Putin preferred Trump was a no brainer and he admitted as such at the Helsinki Summit. But that Putin's preference for Trump had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the election is also patently obvious.

Nevertheless, the Deep State has cooked up a massive fiction that claims Moscow made every effort to do so.
We intend to tear that Big Lie limb-for-limb in Part 3, but suffice it here to consider the take below from CIA veteran Philip Giraldi . It does remind that Salem on the Potomac is actually happening in the here and now:

Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly includes the GRU, operates. If there had been a large-scale Kremlin sanctioned plan to disrupt the US election, it would not be run by twelve identifiable GRU officers working with what appears to be only limited cover and resources. If the facts are correct, the activity might have been a routine probing, collecting and selective dissemination of information effort that all intelligence agencies engage in. The United States does so routinely in many countries, interfering in elections worldwide, far more than Russia with its limited resources, and even carrying out regime change.

If the Kremlin's objective were truly to undermine American democracy, a task that is already being undertaken very ably by the GOP and Democrats, hundreds of officers would be involved, all working under deep cover and operating securely out of dispersed sites. And no one involved would be using computers connected to networks that could be penetrated to enable personal identification or discovery of the ultimate source of the activity. Everyone would be working in alias on stand-alone machines and the transmission of information would be done using cutouts to break any chain of custody. A cutout might consist of using thumb drives to transmit information from one computer to another, for example. There would be no sending or receiving of information by channels that could be identified by NSA or CIA and compromised.

So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a loss to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together of the leaders of the world's two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.

[Aug 18, 2018] I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War

Aug 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website August 18, 2018 at 4:49 am GMT

It's nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

Jan 2, 2011 – The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

Biff , August 18, 2018 at 5:00 am GMT
A recent book destroyed the notion that the South is more racist than the North. Without going into too much detail(read the book, it's really good) the book reveals where the staunchest racist lie, and that is in the North – Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania.

https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Lies-Internet-About-Really/dp/0062390856

Now there are historians/people/people I know/teachers/government employees that got it in their head that a bunch of very racist union troops where willing to leave their comfortable home and very segregated cities up north, and go down south to fight and die to free the black man. A crazy fairy tale that happens to be true.

Dumbo , August 18, 2018 at 5:05 am GMT
What's funny for me is this, the "United States", consisting of states that joined together voluntarily in an union, by the same measure should have been allowed to secede any time they wished, without interference of a tyrannical central government, which should not even have that authority. Patrick Henry was right.
Anonymous [337] Disclaimer , August 18, 2018 at 6:10 am GMT
@Logan

No one's stopping you from finding out on your own. But if you need help getting started, here are a couple relevant quotes:

Charles Adams: The South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South ."

Carl Pearlston: In 1860, the 15 Southern states had 8 million whites and 4½ million black slaves, compared to 19 million whites and ¼ million blacks in the North's 19 states. The vast areas of undeveloped western territory were rapidly being settled by people whose economic interests were not with the South. It found itself continually outvoted in both the Congress and Senate, especially on commercial regulations, with the prospect of an increasing majority against it. The nub of the problem was that the North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange. High tariffs in effect depressed the price for the South's agricultural exports; the South paid high prices for what it bought and got low prices for what it sold because of the federal tariff policy which the South was powerless to change. Southerners viewed themselves as being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia had proposed a requirement for a 2/3 majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. George Mason of Virginia stated "The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states". Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of securing adoption of the Constitution, but ratification was with the proviso that it could be rescinded whenever the powers granted to the Union were used to oppress, and Virginia could then withdraw from the Union. True to George Mason's prediction, the high tariff of 1828 did bring the South to the verge of rebellion, leading Senator John C. Calhoun to unsuccessfully champion the concept of Nullification and the doctrine of the Concurrent Majority in 1833 to ensure that the South could have a veto power over commercial acts passed by a simple majority in Congress and the Senate.

Jeff Stryker , August 18, 2018 at 6:27 am GMT
Couple of things-

THING A-

We can argue demographic data but many white Americans were not in the United States at the time of the Civil War.

East Coast dominates and whites in the East Coast center aside from Jews tend to be Italians (Rudy, Nancy etc) and Irish-Catholics (Kennedy's) whose ancestors arrived in the late 19th or early 20th century.

So why is the Civil War important today? Because white Southerners long for some period of time when being descended from English aristocrats was relevant?

THING B

Cubans have made Miami economically relevant if only because Caribbean dictators stick their money to be safe from the next revolution and it attracts a great deal of international tourism.

Texas pumps out a great deal of oil.

Otherwise, what is the relevance of much of the South? To who, and why? That they are often poorer than the West Coast or the East Coast. That whites are poorest there? What's its relevance? GDP? Technological innovation? Standard of living?

THING C

If the South could not have Federal bailouts than what would it do? More than Northern states with massive human capitol from Wall Street brokers and businessmen and international investors and tech giants the South has .well, poverty.

The North is not a reliant on Federal money. Northern California and Manhattan could tell the Beltway to go F*(X themselves. They'd get by. But would Alabama?

THING D

The Southern border is the problem. It is not the Northern border. If anything, Canada is the one saying they don't want whites from Maine or Michigan and rigidly enforce border security.

Yet the South and Southwest allows millions of illegal immigrants through their border.

Canada sure does a good job of keeping Americans from immigrating illegally. Try to do it. I guarantee you'll be caught and end up with Canadian mounties and helicopters with infrared surrounding you.

THING E

White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

jilles dykstra , August 18, 2018 at 6:44 am GMT
Thomas L Thompson describes the task of the historian ' to make sense of the apparent jumble of unrelated facts', but I always wondered if this hindsight sense is reality or a construction.
There is a saying among historians 'a history book says more about the time it was written than about the time it describes'.
Interesting in professional history books is how historians disagree, one finds them critising colleagues in the notes.
In gymnasium I found history boring, nothing was explained, such as that the king of France never ate hot food, the time between the food leaving the kitchen and being under his nose was so long that it was cold.
I now know why.
History just becomes interesting when one knows details, alas these details dot not explain anything, sometimes very little.
A historian of a very interesting book on how technical inventions changed society writes 'an invention is a door opened on a until the closed room, but mankind never was obliged to go into the room'.
Why mankind ignored many inventions, unexplained.
Thomas L Thompson, 'The mythic past, Biblical archaeology and the myth of Israel', London 1999
Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, ' The world of the Huns', 1973 Berkeley
Raymond Aron, ´Introduction à la philosophie de l'histoire, Essai sur les limites de l'objectivité historique', Paris 1948
Lynn White Jr., 'Medieval Technology and Social Change', Oxford 1962
Ilya G Poimandres , August 18, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
Draws nice parallels with Ukraine's problems since the anti-constitutional coup too!
Truth , August 18, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT
Whoa

I thought Dinesh was conservative.

Reg Cæsar , August 18, 2018 at 7:31 am GMT

D'Souza omits Lincoln's repeated desire that blacks be sent back to Africa.

And Cathey omits that that alone would make Lincoln smarter, wiser, and more just than just about anyone in the South.

On the other hand, Lincoln thought Southerners and their beloved African livestock were worth waging battle to keep in the Union. That alone is proof positive that Lincoln was insane.

it was the various states that granted the Federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves

And the fugitive slave bills, no matter how constitutional, make a total hash of this. Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south?

If Southerners wanted to keep their pets on the farm, they had the technology to build a Berlin Wall along the Ohio and the Potomac, and let states to the north (not "North") make their own policies concerning chattel.

Dan Hayes , August 18, 2018 at 7:54 am GMT
@Logan

Logan:

No. It's up to you to prove the purported inaccuracies.

Anonymous [134] Disclaimer , August 18, 2018 at 7:56 am GMT
D'Souza's book sounds like more 'Dems are real rayciss' nonsense.
anonymous [340] Disclaimer , August 18, 2018 at 7:58 am GMT
@Logan

This may be Mr. Cathey's reading of the Taussig book cited earlier in the paragraph. A linked citation to the 8th (1931) edition can be found at the end of the Wikipedia article on Taussig.

Anonymous [134] Disclaimer , August 18, 2018 at 8:01 am GMT
@Logan

Without getting too technical, the finished goods and–especially–farm equipment that the south depended on were mostly imported in those days. Additionally, there was some fear in the south that foreign countries might retaliate with tariffs of their own on the agricultural commodities that the south exported. To be sure, I don't buy the theory that 'slavery had nothing to do with Civil War', but tariffs, no doubt, were at least a contributing factor.

Heros , August 18, 2018 at 8:50 am GMT
Just like after the failed jew inspired Weimar take over of Germany in the 1920′s, after the failed 1848 revolutions in Europe, many squealing and kvetching marxist jews fled to the US, where they quickly integrated into their "good for the jews" JP collective. The Rothschilds, the bloodline families and the illuminati had already subverted all the masonic lodges in precisely the same way they are using D'Sousa to subvert "conservatism" now, but the JP was still gathering all the reigns of power into their hands.

In fact, what Jewish Power (JP) is doing with D'Sousa is deliberately dividing any conservative resistance into the subverted "racist" alt-right and the subverted "non-racist" Neocon war machine. Of course, the militarized police forces are being set up to be deployed against the "racist" alt-right in the same way facebook, twitter and all the other JP social media corporations have shut down the free speech of that same alt-right. This is the same kind of judaic divide and conquer strategy that the tribe was using in the lead up to the war of northern aggression.

D'Sousa is clearly a non-white, and like all dot-Indian immigrants he is merely another form of trojan horse brought into our society in the same way jews opened the gates let the moors into Granada and the Turks into Constantinople. Whether he realizes it or not, he is a jew puppet brought in to destroy Christianity and European civilization and replace their true liberalism with a Frankfurt School marxist cuckoo bird egg. Dot-Indians are to become a new technocratic upper caste brought into to help jews keep the goyim slaves in line. No good will come from allowing dot-Indians to preach judaicly perverted Christian morality back onto us.

One of the little known characteristics of the War of Northern Aggression was that the majority of slave plantation owners in the south were jews , while the vast majority of Yankee bankers and slave traders were also jews. This is precisely the same kind of jewish over representation that we see in SCOTUS, Hollywood, Harvard and the "1%" today.

So it was JP and its Freemason puppets who started the War of Northern Aggression, and it was a part of a thousand year old plan described in the Talmud and the Protocols to obliterate Europeans and their culture from the face of planet earth as revenge for Titus's destruction of the Second Temple to Solomon in 70AD. There is plenty of confirmation of this in writings from places like the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky and Cultural Marxism. Although D'Sousa pays lip service to exposing some of these hidden agendas, he cannot see the forest because all he is willing to see is a "racist" hiding behind every tree. What a kike tool he is.

Dave McGowan wrote in his great understated and laconic style about the judaic and masonic lies surrounding the Lincoln assassination. You can read it for free online, along with his great books "Wagging the Moon Dog" and "Weird Scenes in the Canyon".

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/

Here is a fascinating unrolled, archived twitter feed about Lincoln and his jewish and masonic connections, with lots of interesting embedded pictures:

https://archive.is/H3aMW

"On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A.A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which is now known as Huntsville, Alabama. At first Mr. Christopher and his colleagues could not believe what their eyes, because the name of his son was "ABRAHAM LINCOLN" !

This new information added to what they had already learned about the Springs, whose real name was Springstein , was one more twist to this already enigmatic family."

WorkingClass , August 18, 2018 at 10:43 am GMT
Lincoln invaded, conquered, occupied and annexed the Confederacy. Sans federalism the Constitution was already not the Constitution. So fuck Lincoln.

But we have Hamilton. Why not Death Of A Nation?

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 11:12 am GMT
@Colin Wright

US population 1860, 31.5M. 4M slaves, so 27.5M free people, vast majority white.

Determining what "the South" was in 1860 is a little ambiguous. Slaveowning states? States that seceded?

Let's look at all slaveowning states. Total white population – 8M. Which leaves 18.5M in "the North," or free states.

Tariffs are duties charged on imported goods. They are paid at the point of entry, not by the eventual buyer, other than indirectly. Hence there was no way to charge different taxes for different sections other than, theoretically, by including or excluding certain items from tariffs or by changing rates based on the rate of purchase of such items in the difference regions.

So for the 80% claim to be accurate, the 29% of white people who lived in the South would have to purchase tariffed goods at a rate 2.8x that of white people who lived in the North. Does that seem likely to you?

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT
@Anonymous

The Adams quote is not evidence, it's merely the source for the claim made in this article. It's from a book published in 2000. Adams, in that book, may quite possibly provide evidence the claim is accurate. But that Adams stated something is not evidence that the statement is true.

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
@Dan Hayes

Disagree. The person making a statement is the one logically required to demonstrate why the statement is accurate.

You have just provided a classic example of the "shifting the burden of proof" logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 11:37 am GMT
@Anonymous

Thanks for the logical reply.

So the North did not used finished goods or farm equipment? The question is not whether the South paid tariffs on imported goods, it's whether the 29% of southern whites paid 80% of the tariffs, rather than the 71% of northern whites. Which would mean southern whites would have consumed finished good and farm equipment at a rate almost 3x that of northern whites. Which doesn't make a great deal of sense.

It is often claimed that the South was agricultural while the North was industrial. But of course in 1860 the North was also still primarily agricultural. Of the 18.5M northern whites, 5M or 27% were urban (defined as living in towns over 2500). Of the 8M southern whites, 1.2M or 15% were urban by this definition. (Which is probably not the best definition.)

This means that 73% of northern whites did not live in cities or even towns. As in the South, most of them were farmers. This was especially the case outside of the Northeast, where cities and industry were concentrated.

An Iowa farmer paid (indirectly) exactly the same tariff as the South Carolina planter. And, for that matter, so did the Pennsylvania mill owner or worker.

jilles dykstra , August 18, 2018 at 11:40 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

" In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, "
Weird, in a country that treated the Indians far worse than the slaves.
I spoke to an old USA lady, who was proud on her grandfather participating in smuggling run away slaves to the North.
When I talked about the Indians her reply was 'before the Indians there were others'.
I did not continue the discussion, but to this day do not understand how helping black people was good, but ethnically cleaning and killing Indians was irrelevant.

Johnnie Walker Read , August 18, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@Logan

Read'em and weep my little mis-informed, publicly educated man. Although truth is a bitter pill, it must be swallowed if you are ever to rise above a mind controlled sheep.

https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 11:55 am GMT
@anonymous

You may very well be right. That book is 500+ pages, and while I downloaded it, I'm not really going to slog through it to find some quote that may or may not line up with the 80% number.

However, Taussig, in his discussion of the prewar tariff (Part 2 – Chapter 1), states that it was the lowest it had been in a long time and was generally along free trade lines. I don't think anybody is going to find much support in Taussig for the notion that the intolerable exploitation of the tariff was the primary cause of secession.

I've seen this 80% number tossed around for years, and have never been able to track it to its lair. The closest I've been able to come is the fact that 60% of exports were cotton, and if you add in other southern exports, you might get close to 80% of US exports being from the South.

But of course exports are not tariffs. I suspect the two have been conflated and then the statistic passed from one source to another without bothering to check if it's, you know, true.

Johnnie Walker Read , August 18, 2018 at 11:55 am GMT
@Thomm

Say's the MAGA Trumptard .Try as you might, sometimes it is impossible to stomp out ignorance from the public and the propaganda(lies) from the likes of the Neocon knee boy D'Souza.

jacques sheete , August 18, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT

The one very significant fact that becomes clear in his latest cinematic screed is that D'Souza is ignorant of American history, and that he is an ideological and historical fabricator who seeks, in the name of defending his adopted nation, to bend and mishandle its history to fit a preconceived narrative which satisfies his Neoconservative task masters.

In my experience with American "educators," I can state with confidence that the great bulk of them fit the description of "ignorant fabricator" or worse. Much the same can be said of the products of their so called "education" including journalists and pundits.

Reader beware.

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 12:08 pm GMT
@anonymous

The other factor cited was that majority of federal spending would be in the North.

Federal in 1860 was $78M. Let's at least note that in a country of 32M people this was an itsy-bitsy amount, nothing even remotely similar to the impact of federal spending today. It was $2.43 per person. Hard to be terribly oppressive with that kind of budget!

Hard to find numbers on what the government spent its money on and where. But 37% was Defense and 4% interest.

Much if not most of the Defense funds were spent in the West, where most troops were stationed. Which was of course neither in North nor South. A lot of Defense money at this time was also being spent on fortifications to defend ports. The South, having a much longer coastline, got a big chunk of this money, with, famously, a big project underway at Fort Sumter.

Another big chunk of spending was clearly related to the overhead of the government, as largely located in DC. Which was in the South.

One of the biggest operations of the federal government was the postal system, which is population related.

So while it's possible the majority of federal funds were spent in the North, depending on how you define the terms, I'd be very surprised indeed if more federal funds were spent in northern states than their percentage of the population.

Johnnie Walker Read , August 18, 2018 at 12:19 pm GMT
Great article by Boyd in once again exposing the massive lies about "hero" Lincoln and the true causes of the war of northern aggression. I see the trolls or mis-informed are also here in force. Just a little advice from George Carlin: "Never argue with an idiot.They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Logan , August 18, 2018 at 12:19 pm GMT
@Johnnie Walker Read

Your link reiterates the claim that protective tariffs were the primary cause of the war. But it asserts the claim. It provides very little in the way of evidence.

Amusingly, the cartoon about the Morrill Tariff is dated April 13, which was of course long after the initial secession. The Morill Tariff was passed as a result of secession, because it removed a large chunk of opponents from Congress, allowing it to pass when it had failed previously.

You simply can't use a tariff that passed after and because of secession as the cause of that secession.

You know, I've read the Declarations of Secession of every state, though it's been a while. Every one of them cites as the reasons for seceding primarily issues related to slavery. I don't recall any mention of tariffs at all, though it's possible they were cited in passing.

If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It's likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860.

Johnnie Walker Read , August 18, 2018 at 12:29 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

Ever heard of Judah P. Benjamin. Get educated before you speak my man.

http://tomatobubble.com/id866.html

Them Guys , August 18, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

THING E
White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

#1 Reason since just over 100 yrs ago is .The Cyrus Scofield-perverted interpretations KJV Bible, and the fact that about 99% of Scofield Bible evangelical Jewdeo-Christian Devotees reside within the very same 10 or so Southern States that made up the Confeds of the civil war era.

These are the who's that make up the huge vast majority of Jewdo-Zio-Christians, who basically worship, Jews & Israel, and do so regardless of what Jewry or Israel has ever done or will do that most sane folk consider to be wrong, bad, evil, unethical, and immoral. In other words, when the issue revolves around Israel or Jews Both can never, ever do such wrongs etc Period. No amount of proofs, documented and vetted facts, or anything else can change this. Only a self-wake-up, performed by each affected and delusional, warped minded individual has any chance of real success at lasting and good changes.

Just among the Southern Baptist Conference group membership, is a whopping, 25,000,000+ individual members. This is the absolute largest sized group, aprox. one half of entire amount, of such worshipers of Jewry & Israel within the entire, Jewnited Snakes of Jewmerica.

And furthermore, if not for their rabid foam at mouth worship of both entities, aka synagogue of Satan combo of Jewry+Israel, America would never be able to continue on as an, Colony of Tel Aviv Israel. There also would be massive exiting of most neocon repubs, who also worship Jewry & Israel, if not for these so totally Duped Via scam Scofield falsehood biblical interpretations, voters.

Now do you understand, HTF aka how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina ? Or Bobby Jindal also Governor in another deep south state ? .Very easy to do, all those two Israel firster clowns needed do to get elected by mostly White Southern voters .Was to state their deep love for and never ending support for Jewry & Israel! .And an election win was in the proverbial bag, eh. Add in massive, several generations worth of, constant White Guilt effects, and the fools would likely elect Chicago's Louie Da Farakahn as Alabama Governor as long as he too did a 180 and stated avowed love and support for Jewry & Israel. Cuz, Now he beez a Changed colored folk man, and seen dat light to worship Jewry like's we does.

Them Guys , August 18, 2018 at 1:02 pm GMT
@Reg Cæsar

The first US Supreme Ct. Case about, is a slave owned as Real property, like land or homes? Was a case dealing with a run away slave, that ended up in some northern state and was being protected by those northern folks. The BLACK Man slave OWNER, of the run away black slave, is who brought that case to supreme court .and He Won his case. Supremes decided a slave was property owned by slave owner who paid $$$ for his slave, and no matter Where slave was found or protected from return to slave owner Black man, those northern protector folks Had to hand slave back over to his Black Man slave owner. So that refutes the part you wrote of .."Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? "

It is probably a good thing that the GA state, Black Woman who owned over, 300 black slaves, and was about the wealthiest $$$ Woman in the state then, didn't have her slaves run away eh? Because for her to need bring hundreds of run away slave cases all the way to us supreme ct, would have likely depleted her vast $$$ holdings down to, herself perhaps needing to work as a black slave just to eat eh.

Funny/Ironic they never taught us about Black Slave Owners back in school 50+ years ago eh? I reckon such truthful facts would cause all the anti-whitey propaganda agendas to, fast come Unglued and so awaken dumbed down white kids, they may never recover to again maintain vast white guilt feelings the Jewdeo-commie-Marxist Frankfurtist's worked so hard to develop in Whites.

Jake , August 18, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Logan

You believe it to be entirely inaccurate? What if it believes that you do not exist? Or that you are a pederast Cultural Marxist?

Che Guava , August 18, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Your comment is interesting and informative.

If you have not read the book, Gangs of New York , strongly recommend it.

The depiction in the movie is confused, too brief, and does not capture the scale at all. Really, it was one of the battles of the war, not just 'riots'.

Reading the account, the idea of the CSA somehow having some coordination with the anti-draft protestors would make a nice (but unlikely, due to pace, other factors) counter-factual history.

GoNY is worth reading in general, but the most surprising parts to me were that part and the final parts on the rise of Jewish organised crime in Noo Yawk.

No doubt, both topics that Scorcese was wanting to avoid.

The movie seems not near his best at all, especially after reading the book.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , August 18, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Logan

Do you want others to post the texts, with annotations, of the books to which you've now been directed? In a comment thread under an article on a website? I doubt that you would be so absurd and ungracious without pseudonymity.

At this point, it now is incumbent on you to either (i) back down or (ii) go find and share the title of a scholarly work that might validate your hunches. Then, those who care to learn the truth can dig in. A group that apparently doesn't include "Logan."

Them Guys , August 18, 2018 at 1:29 pm GMT
@Heros

Heros: Indeed, and here are a couple of famous high rated Jewish guys who fully confirm the Vast, Huge, Massive role Jews played in not only America's slave trading/owning business But also, even long prior when Jews had control of European slavery, which consisted mostly of, European White Christians that Jews sold into slavery, To Arabs After Jews stole or kidnapped said euro white Christians of course.

"Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760s and early 1770s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent."
-- Marc Raphael (Jew): "Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History"

This quoted statement is from the same book, Blood Passover, that not too long ago an UNZ Article was done about it!

"During this period, Jewish merchants, from the cities in the valley of the Rhône, Verdun, Lione, Arles and Narbonne, in addition to Aquisgrana, the capital of the empire in the times of Louis the Pious [Louis I]; and in Germany from the centres of the valley of the Rhine, from Worms, Magonza and Magdeburg; in Bavaria and Bohemia, from Regensburg and Prague – were active in the principal markets in which slaves (women, men, eunuchs) were offered for sale, by Jews, sometimes after abducting them from their houses. From Christian Europe the human merchandise was exported to the Islamic lands of Spain, in which there was a lively market. The castration of these slaves, particularly children, raised their prices, and was no doubt a lucrative and profitable practice "
-- Dr. Ariel Toaff, Chapter Eight, Blood Passover . This book was ordered taken off book shelves and destroyed. Toaff was the son of the chief rabbi of Rome and had access to synagogue writings dating back to the Middle Ages.

And it wasn't any "Nazis" or German's who did the book burnings on that expose' of Jewry eh.

"To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
-- The Talmud: Libbre David 37

"The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud."
-- Michael Rodkinson, in preface of Babylonian Talmud, page XI.

"The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe -- whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or merely spasmodic sentimentalists -- we follow the Talmud. It is our common law."
-- Herman Wouk, "This is My God." Wouk wrote the book and screenplay "Winds of War," popular back in the 1970's.

Well, perhaps those last few quotes explain or answer the question of, "Gee why are there so very Few good Jews it seems, huh"? Ie: 99%+ adhere to their Talmud.

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 1:40 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war.

Sorry, but this is flatly untrue. Lincoln was entirely aware that he did not have forces sufficient to crush the rebellion.

The entire US Army in 1860 was composed of 16,000 men and officers, almost all scattered across the West in tiny packets to defend against Indians. About 20% of them promptly left when secession and war broke out.

So by the time of Sumter, Lincoln had perhaps 14,000 men scattered across an entire continent. At this same time the state of SC alone fielded around 10,000 men, albeit mostly not nearly as well trained or armed as the Regulars.

In fact, during the very early days of the War Lincoln's primary concern was that there simply was nothing at all to stop southern troops from marching straight into DC. I've not been able to find numbers for VA militia in 1860, but given that its white population was 3x that of SC, I think it's not unreasonable to assume VA had 25,000 or more men under arms in April of 1860. That would have outnumbered the entire US Army almost 2:1, even assuming the Regulars were concentrated, which they most certainly were not.

People just don't realize how tiny the early 19th century US Army was. The organized militia of the Nauvoo Legion in the early 1840s numbered at least 2500. Compare that to the 8500 in the entire US Army. That's a single city.

RebelWriter , August 18, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
The title of the movie should have been, "Dems R Real Rayciss, Part 2; Electric Bugaloo"

I agree with pretty much everything in this article. I'm not a degreed historian (and don't play one on TV), but I have been reading and studying this conflict for more than 40 years. The perspective is always given from the wrong angle, that of the people of the North vs. the people of the South; it was not. It was the elites of the North vs. the elites of the South.

Elites of the North were industrialist, bankers, and those involved in commerce. The elites of the South were the Planters. What they were fighting over was the treasury, most specifically Mercantilist use of the treasury; i.e. spending Federal funds on roads, canals, bridges, harbors, and railroads to benefit commerce and trade. If anything approaching half of that spending had occured in the South, allowing Southern elites to profit from it, there would have been no war. As it was, almost all of it was spent north of the Mason Dixon line.

The Planter elite were THE Congressional opposition to various bills proposing the use of Federal funds for infrastructure improvement. All such projects were plagued with graft and corruption, all ran over budget and schedule. The Achilles Heel of the planters was slavery, and THAT is why slavery was attacked. The vast majority of the people of the North could hardly care less, except that they considered the practice embarrassing, like a preacher having a drunk for a brother.

There are always at least two reasons for every war; those used to motivate the common masses to fight, and the real reason, which is always and forever power, or control of resources. This war was no different. James McPherson, prof. of History Emeritus, Princeton, a man who HATES the South, investigated the reasons common soldiers fought, and discovered, to his dismay, that the men of both sides fought for almost exactly the same reasons, they just interpreted them differently. The men of both sides saw themselves as patriots; Northerners defending the Union, and Southerners defending the ideals of the Revolution.

It was a complicated war, and anytime it is painted in simple terms, it is done so for some political or ideological purpose having nothing to do with presenting a factual and honest narrative.

BUT LET ME SAY THIS AS BOLDY AS I CAN – IT DOESN'T MATTER TODAY. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE NOW. IT IS A FRACTURE POINT TO DIVIDE US AT A TIME WE SHOULD BE UNITED.

The Dems R Real Rayciss meme was introduced originally by Dinesh, and was very popular among misguided, historically ignorant Southerners, and still is among some. This meme is the very reason we got traitor Nikki Haley for governor, and houseboy Tim Scott for a senator here in SC. The gaping flaw of this meme is that it acknowledges the social, racial, and cultural arguments of the progressives, and in reponse merely says, "no, you are."

This meme irritates me like no other, because I, for one, believe the Democrats in those days were right, and the Republicans were not only wrong, but were destructive to American ideals. The United States was founded as a free and voluntary Union of States. That union was destroyed the day Lincoln called for volunteers to invade the Southern states. Lincoln and the Republicans destroyed the free union, and erected another from its ashes, the one we live with today.

The Democrats were right about States Rights (10th Amendment), slavery, the Constitution, and later they were right in confronting the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. They were right about keeping the races separated. Readers of this site, especially those iSteve readers, are aware of the consequences borne by the white race since the Democrats abandoned racial reality.

The Republicans today are not the Republicans of 1860, nor are they the polar opposite of the Democrats, though I wish they were.

Whether our ancestors were Confederate, like mine, or Union, or both, or neither if your ancestors came afterwards, is of little consequence today. We can argue points of contention about a war already fought and won in our spare time, but we do have a war going on now, one every bit as grave and consequential to the future of the United States, and we should really focus on that.

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 1:46 pm GMT
@Them Guys

Wiki: "The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791)."

Neither had anything to do with slavery.

Methinks you're conflating the much earlier case where a Virginia colonial court first decided that blacks could be held in permanent slavery, rather than indentured servitude with a limited term of service. Ironically, the plaintiff/owner in that case was himself a black man who had previously served a term as an indentured servant.

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 1:50 pm GMT
@Jake

I stated my opinion that it is inaccurate, and requested evidence to the contrary, if it exists.

One of the more common logical fallacies is "shifting the burden of proof." The article made a claim about facts. I requested evidence that the claim is true. So you and others respond by claiming that I must disprove the claim. That's not how logic works.

Same thing applies to any such claim as that "Sherman is a pederast Cultural Marxist."

I can reply that the accusation is untrue, which of course it is. But I can't prove it to be untrue, as "proving a negative" is inherently very difficult, though not perhaps always impossible. This is the main reason our legal system requires the State to prove the guilt of the accused, not the accused to prove his innocence of the charges.

Luckily, the burden of proof is on the accuser in this case also. Feel free to provide any evidence you might have that any of these aspersions are accurate.

Logan , August 18, 2018 at 2:03 pm GMT
@anonymous

I looked up Taussig, one of those to which I was referred. Did not read the 500 page book, but did read the chapter about the prewar tariff. It does not at all line up with what is claimed. In fact, he states that the prewar, pre-secession tariff was largely free trade. I refer you to Part 2, Chapter 1 of his book.

I haven't read Adams, also cited as a reference. Possibly his book includes documentation that the claim is accurate.

But it all gets back to the "burden of proof."

Person A: The wage gap between men and women is entirely the result of sex discrimination.

Person B: Can you provide proof that your assertion is true?

Person A: I don't have to. It's up to you to prove it is false.

Okay, okay. It's not a very good analogy, as proving that other factors also play at least some role in the wage gap is not hard. But my point is that if one asserts a claim as fact, one should be prepared to back up that claim with evidence. Which does not consist of a reference to a book in which purportedly the author made the claim. That author also would be required to prove the truth of the claim.

Jake , August 18, 2018 at 2:09 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I have had such conversations a number of times with Leftists/Liberals. They never have an answer that makes sense.

My assessment is it primarily is about the Who/Whom. The best way to grasp that is to know that while so much as being white and living in a state that had legal slavery in 1860 marks you condemned, being the direct ancestor of super rich New England WASPs who made a fortune from slave trading is not to be discussed in public, much less condemned.

The Who/Whom is not about the non-whites involved but the whites doing to other whites as the end game. Pure WASPs from New England and the whites who became their closest allies by the Revolution (NY Dutch and PA Quakers and Old Germans) cannot be held accountable for slave trading (though nearly 100% of the massively profitable cross-Atlantic slave trade was by those very people). So the 'other whites' are damned as white trash.

If whites moving in and displacing Indians is The Great Sin, then all those Yankees are guilty as Hell. But if the Great Sin, the Unpardonable Sin, is owning black slaves, then the original 'mainstream media' which was owned and operated 100% by Yankee WASPs could declare that slave shipping by their people was to be forgotten and also that what happened to Indians was totally insignificant compared to the pure evil of owning a black slave in 1860.

And then they could claim that all their usurpations of government were really about saving the Union an spreading democracy.

Jews did not invent the ultra hypocrisy and self-righteous mendacity and blood-lust that IS Neo-conservatism.

rebelwriter , August 18, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT
@Logan

Sir,

What you are demanding is information not easily acquirable on the internet, namely records of Federal Revenue, broken down geographically, and Federal spending broken down the same way. Such records exist, but I have only seen them in the footnotes of various books. Let me aid your understanding, however.

Remember reading of the American Industrial Revolution? Where did it take place? In New England, of course. And in 1860 there were counties in New England that had more manufacturing than every state in the Confederacy combined. These tariffs were protective in nature, and only placed on manufactured goods. At first they were only placed on those goods which were also produced in the US, but later nearly anything manufactured outside of the US was subject to a tax.

Who paid the tariffs? Those who purchased goods manufactured outside the US. The planters of the South paid a generally agreed upon estimate of 80% of tariffs due to simply wanting things not manufactured in the US; grand pianos, gilded mirrors, certain tiles for roofs, English buggies and carriages, French dresses, etc., etc.

The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates. I must also point out to those unaware that John C. Calhoun supported tariffs for the common good of the United States; he was not opposed to them until this point in time, and only opposed them out of political expediency.

It's pretty clear from a casual reading of the history that the Southern states, who had no manufacturing to speak of, paid most of the tariffs, and benefitted from them the least. Whether or not you're satisfied, this is so.

The next point of contention is where the revenues were spent. Southern senators and congressmen were not without power, in fact they were the dominant power up until around 1830. The fight over slavery in the new territories was all about congressional representation, and guarding the parity which was reached in 1830. So there were some projects, mostly military forts and bases, in the South, built with federal money.

However the largest part of federal spending was infrastructure to ease transportation for commerce. Some money was spent on the nation's two largest ports of the time, Charleston and New Orleans, but much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North. Most federal infrastructure spending, by far, were those projects which aided the transportation of raw goods from the Midwest to the East Coast.

There are books which break these down in detail, but I'm not going to be your private Google and hunt them down for you. There are no historians I have read, or read of, who contest this particular point, that the South paid most of the tariffs, and that most of the money from them was spent up North.

Tigran the Great , August 18, 2018 at 2:16 pm GMT
EXCELLENT article. I love reading concise argument presented by someone who knows how to think and write. We are lost, but as the writer makes clear, the losing has been a long time in the making.
Ilyana_Rozumova , August 18, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

You are correct. Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Civil war was about textile industry, and so keeping the profits in US instead giving them to England. Slavery was only flag of camouflage.

DESERT FOX , August 18, 2018 at 2:26 pm GMT
Just as in Orwells OCEANIA history is be rewritten every day by the Zionists who control the U.S. gov and just like Oceania it is rewritten to satisfy the Zionist line whatever that may happen to be at the time.

War is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery and Israel is the sacred cow.

Anonymous [410] Disclaimer , August 18, 2018 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Thomm

Thomm is an Indian and is just defending his ethnic kin.

D'Souza poses as a conservative but he is an open borders guy and would love nothing more than to flood this country with more Indians.

The Scalpel , Website August 18, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
Much like what happened with the Soviet Union, when the end comes for the "United" States, secession will be the mechanism that allows it to happen. Going forward, states rights, once a nearly forgotten topic of discussion, will become increasingly debated.
rebelwriter , August 18, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Just a couple of points; One is that the Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware (slave states which did not secede), as well as Tennessee, 7 parishes in Louisiana, and 10 counties in Virginia, all of which were currently under Federal control.

I think it's a bit naïve to lay the war at Lincoln's feet, and neglect the powers that raised him from a railroad lawyer to President. The elite of both sides were ready to fight, and I believe that by that time a war was unavoidable. All Lincoln could have done was delay the inevitable.

There was a documentary I watched not long ago on dueling in the South. One professor from Virginia held that the war was the largest, and last, duel in American history. The Southerners honor was besmirched by the claims of the North, and the press in particular, and nothing would suffice save blood be shed on the field of honor. This is something not given much attention, but it should be. The Code Duello in use at the time was written by a former governor of South Carolina, and planters would duel at the drop of a hat, and drop the hat themselves. Andrew Jackson fought 13 duels, and was not atypical of the elite of the time.

The Northern interests wanted to forever defeat their enemy, the planters, and turn the South into a colony, of sorts. They also saw a lot of money to be made selling goods to the army and navy, and the opportunity to force huge changes in the government in the expediency of war. "Never let a good crisis go to waste," is something that was not invented by Rahm Emanuel.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , August 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
@Logan

Sherman?

And let us know of any scholarly work that supports your "opinion," which appears to remain informed by nothing beyond itself.

Mulegino1 , August 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
Those who fought for the Union were fighting to defend the United States from Balkanization and dissolution at the hands of the predatory British and French Empires. Those who fought for the Confederacy were fighting to defend their perceived state and local rights. Chattel slavery was a secondary issue.

It is time to let this conflict rest in peace. We can attribute noble motives to both sides, provided we recognize the excesses committed- particularly those by Sherman on his march through Georgia and the Carolinas- as well as the horrendous treatment of the prisoners of war by both sides.

Stan d Mute , August 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
@anonymous

Too nuanced and truthful to ever be seen or heard, much less comprehended, by 98% of the people in this country of TV-level, willful ignorance.

I so wanted to hit the "agree" button, but my Aspie nature kicked in and so instead I FIFY.

Nothing "nuanced" about it. It galls me to no end that the evil bastard who slaughtered more Americans than any other, who shredded the Constitution of our Republic, has a gigantic monument in his honor on the National Mall and is enshrined as a hero by the public. And I have family who died on the wrong side of Lincoln's evil War of Northern Oppression.

Butchering 2.4% of the population, Lincoln was by far the most evil man in American history and one of the worst in human history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

We will know our Nation has been saved when the hideous monument to Lincoln is turned to rubble.

rebelwriter , August 18, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
@Jake

Good points all. I refer readers to the amazing website slavenorth.com, which is still up and running, to my surprise.

[Aug 18, 2018] The debate's been ongoing for over 2 years now: Is Trump part of the Deep State, or is he an outlier backed by a Deep State faction?

Aug 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Aug 17, 2018 7:13:14 PM | 32

The debate's been ongoing for over 2 years now: Is Trump part of the Deep State, or is he an outlier backed by a Deep State faction?

Escobar answered the second clause's query in the positive as he admitted being fed info by a member of that faction. If one's an independent hitman and gets hired by the Mob, does that make you a member or do you remain just an affiliate? IMO, once employed, you become a member until you're no longer employed. Ergo, Trump's a member of the Deep State as he's employed by one or more of its factions.

What was/is the Deep State's stated goal? Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet and outer space. When was it explicitly stated? During WJ Clinton's second term when Clear Skies 2010 was published, which provided flesh to GHW Bush's announcement of the New World Order. Is that goal compatible with the 1787 US Constitution? No, in a host of ways, but most importantly it violates the UN Charter in wholesale fashion.

So, as one who pledged an oath to defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic , should the orders of POTUS Donald Trump be obeyed since we've just deduced he's a member of a domestic enemy cabal? No! He must be resisted.

But who do we deem not a domestic enemy, which is to ask: Who can/do we trust, or should we trust nobody? Of course, these questions are primarily for US citizens to ponder, specifically those of us who still stand by our Oath despite being discharged from service, and of course those actively serving or in reserve capacities.

Or maybe some person will shoot my logic full of holes.

[Aug 17, 2018] The Department N of the Ministry of Truth is upset about Trump revelations

Aug 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the Times .

[Aug 17, 2018] The Department N of the Ministry of Truth is upset about Trump revelations

Aug 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the Times .

[Aug 17, 2018] The roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014, as was well covered here at Consortium News

Notable quotes:
"... I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism. ..."
"... Kees van der Pijl fills in the details here (ignore the title of the piece): https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/ ..."
"... the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended). ..."
"... I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of its nation's citizens becomes a target. ..."
"... I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was grounds for the first round of sanctions. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

jaycee , August 13, 2018 at 9:51 pm

I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014, as was well covered here at Consortium News. The policy – isolate Russia as a pariah nation – was set before the Maidan events reached their resolution. Victoria Nuland's "f -- - the EU" rant was in response to efforts to mediate the situation and possibly spoil or derail the plans. IMHO, the Russian response to the violent coup was fully expected by the Americans to have been a tanks-in-the streets-Czechoslovakia-1968 scenario, and yet all they got was a Crimean referendum and a frozen stalemate in eastern Ukraine. Still, policy being policy, NATO reacted as if there had been a full invasion regardless.

Anecdotally, conversations I've had with intelligent, progressive, good-hearted persons suggests the election of Trump has in effect destabilized their critical thinking abilities. This has opened up the space in which the worst aspects of Cold War 2.0 have flourished. In their minds, the urgent need to remove Trump by any means, fair or foul, fully overwhelms any other priorities, including objective consideration of the current moment.

Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:14 pm

I think you are right about Ukraine. I also recall that everything went downhill after Putin negotiated for Assad to give up all Syria's chemical weapons. Which gave cause to believe Putin was being punished for interfering in the Coalitions schemes. I think Robert Parry sighted that as well.

No matter jaycee I too believe that Ukraine was where the U.S. fired the first bullet. This New World Order the U.S. represents doesn't negotiate, no instead it's either our way or no way, is the mantra of the tribe. Joe

Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 11:08 pm

I wrote a response jaycee that went to the wind . What I was saying was Putin got punished with the uprising in Ukraine after he pulled Assad out of the chemical weapons debate. Joe

Suggestion the Consortium needs to get this comment boards algorithm problem figured out.

Sibiriak , August 14, 2018 at 2:55 am

Jaycee:

"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014 "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism.

Kees van der Pijl fills in the details here (ignore the title of the piece): https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/

OlyaPola , August 14, 2018 at 4:42 am

"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014,"

As in statistics perceived trajectories are functions of framing including evaluation horizons.

From inception, and through declarations such as the Monroe doctrine, some in the misrepresentation "United States of America" have perceived others as simultaneously existential threats and existential opportunities.

These existential threats and opportunities have been facilitated and acted upon as functions of perceived needs and opportunities.

The targets and modes of activation of these perceived needs and opportunities have varied according to perceived needs and opportunities, sometimes using the tactics of "hot wars" and sometimes using the tactics of "cold wars".

Some in the misrepresentation "United States of America" have correctly perceived others as existential threats and opportunities to/for them given their socio-economic system and its perceived requirements – the functions of the "other" being multi-various – the definition of the "others" include but are not necessarily restricted to those of difference within and without the "United States of America".

Some in the Soviet Union in the early 1970's attempted to conflate "strategy" with "tactics" and decided to forget notions of existential threat and perceive only existential opportunity through conflation, thereby facilitating detente on the basis of spheres of influence.

War is not restricted to things that go bang but restricted to forms of coercion.

The misrepresentation "cold war", which was never cold but sometimes engaged through proxies, was/is a context specific tactic.

Some are of the view that the ends justify the means instead of understanding that means condition ends, and consequently some facilitate and rely upon increasing the conflation of strategy with tactics increasing the sum, motivations, and resolve of the "others", thereby conditioning strategy through accelerating, continuing and expanding existential threats.

Those who engage in such self-delusion were not/are not restricted to the misrepresentation "United States of America" but as Thucydides and others were aware, have been/are generally restricted to those who perceive others as existential opportunities and threats.

Some others correctly assess the misrepresentation "United States of America" to be more a land of opportunity than an existential threat.

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:48 am

I agree with your comment. A good precis. And the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia.

Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended).

Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:47 am

jaycee-

I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of its nation's citizens becomes a target.

Aime Duclos , August 14, 2018 at 1:50 pm

Yes, Skip, when the West's pillaging and looting of Putin's country was stopped, the one percent was not amused. Add to that NATO's constant march up to Russia's borders, the threat to and actual placement of "defensive" missles on Russia's border.

The last straw was the US orchestrated coup in it's next NATO prize for acquisition Ukraine. Putin reacted as any leader would, and with restraint I might add.

Yet somehow all this proves Putin is a thug? It's been a calculated drive to this new Cold War. The MIC is having it's way.

GM , August 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm

I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was grounds for the first round of sanctions.

[Aug 17, 2018] Stephen F. Cohen Sanction mania versus Russia -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

Notable quotes:
"... For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security. ..."
"... Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking. ..."
"... US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. ..."
"... Moscow could sell off its billions of dollars of US Treasury securities ..."
"... It could end titanium exports to the United States ..."
"... Nor have four other circumstances. ..."
"... turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. ..."
"... in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia. ..."
"... with the apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, ..."
"... is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during the 2016 presidential election . ..."
"... only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced, almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. ..."
"... to thwart and even punish President Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki summit in July. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | www.sott.net

For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security.

Cohen begins by putting the current bipartisan Senate campaign to impose new, "crushing" sanctions on Russia in historical context. Broadly understood, sanctions have been part of US policy toward Russia for much of the past 100 years. During the Russian civil war of 1918-20, President Woodrow Wilson sent American troops to fight against the emerging Soviet government. Though the "Reds" were clearly the established government of Soviet Russia by 1921, Washington continued to deny the USSR diplomatic recognition until President Franklin D. Roosevelt established formal relations in 1933. During much of the 40-year Cold War, the United States imposed various sanctions on its superpower rival, mainly related to technological and military exports, along with periodic expulsions of diplomats and "spies" on both sides.

Congress' major political contribution was the 1975 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which denied Moscow privileged trading status with the United States, primarily because of Kremlin restrictions on Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. Indicative of how mindlessly habitual US sanctions had become, Jackson-Vanik was nullified only in late 2012, long after the end of the Soviet Union and after any restrictions on Jews leaving (or returning to) Russia. Even more indicative, it was immediately replaced, in December 2012, by the Magnitsky Act, which purported to sanction individual Russian officials and "oligarchs" for "human-rights abuses." The Magnitsky Act remains law, supplemented by additional sanctions leveled against Russia as a result of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and particularly Moscow's annexation of Crimea.

Looking back over this long history, there is no evidence that any US sanctions ever significantly altered Moscow's "behavior" in ways that were intended. Or that they adversely affected Russia's ruling political or financial elites. Any pain inflicted fell on ordinary citizens, who nonetheless rallied "patriotically" around the Kremlin leadership, most recently around Russian President Vladimir Putin. Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking.

Why, then, Washington's new bout of sanction mania against Moscow, especially considering the harsh official Russian reaction expressed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who called the Senate's proposed measures "a declaration of economic war" and promised that the Kremlin would retaliate?

One explanation is an underlying, astonishing assumption recently stated by Michael McFaul , the media-ubiquitous former US ambassador to Moscow and a longtime Russia scholar: "To advance almost all of our core national security and economic interests, the US does not need Russia." Such a statement by a former or current policymaker and intellectual is perhaps unprecedented in modern times - and manifestly wrong. US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. They include avoiding nuclear war; preventing a new and more dangerous arms race; guarding against the proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction; coping with international terrorists (who are in pursuit of such materials); achieving lasting peace in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East; fostering prosperity and stability in Europe, of which Russia is a part; promoting better relations with the Islamic world, of which Russia is also a part; and avoiding a generation-long confrontation with a formidable new alliance that already includes Russia, China, Iran, and other non-NATO countries. If McFaul's assumption is widespread in Washington, as it seems to be, we are living in truly unwise and perilous times.

A second assumption is no less myopic and dangerous: that the Kremlin is weak and lacks countermeasures to adopt against the new sanctions being advocated in Washington. Consider, however, the following real possibilities. Moscow could sell off its billions of dollars of US Treasury securities and begin trading with friendly nations in non-dollar currencies, both of which it has already begun to do. It could restrict, otherwise undermine, or even shut down many large US corporations long doing profitable business in Russia, among them Citibank, Cisco Systems, Apple, Microsoft, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Ford Motor Co., and even Boeing. It could end titanium exports to the United States , which are vital to American civilian and military aircraft manufacturers, including Boeing. And terminate the sale of rocket engines essential for NASA and US satellite operations. The world's largest territorial country, Russia could charge US airlines higher tariffs for their regular use of its air space or ban them altogether, making them uncompetitive against other national carriers. Politically, the Kremlin could end its own sanctions on Iran and North Korea, alleviating Washington's pressure on those governments. And it could end the Russian supply transit to US troops fighting in Afghanistan used since the early 1990s.

None of this seems to have been considered by Washington's sanction zealots. Nor have four other circumstances. Sanctions against Russia's "oligarchs" actually help Putin, whom the US political-media establishment so despises and constantly indicts. For years, he has been trying to persuade many of the richest oligarchs to repatriate their offshore wealth to Russia. Few did so. Now, fearful of having their assets abroad frozen or seized by US measures, more and more are complying. Second, new sanctions limiting Moscow's ability to borrow and finance investment at home will retard the country's still meager growth rate . But the Kremlin coped after the 2014 sanctions and will do so again by turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. (Russian agricultural production, for example, has surged in recent years, now becoming a major export industry.) Third, already unhappy with existing economic sanctions against Russia, European multinational corporations - and thus Europe itself - may tilt even farther away from their capricious "transatlantic partner" in Washington, who is diminishing their vast market in the East. And fourth, waging "economic war" is one impulsive step from breaking off all diplomatic relations with Russia, this too actually being discussed by Washington zealots. Such a rupture would turn the clock back many decades, but in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia.

Finally, what reason do Washington extreme Cold Warriors themselves give for imposing new sanctions on Russia? Most of them are in the US Senate, historically a body with at least several independent-minded distinguished statesmen, but no longer, with the apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has demonstrated considerable wisdom in regard to US-Russian relations. Their professed reasons are various and nonsensical. Some say Russia must be sanctioned for Ukraine, but those events happened four years ago and have already been "punished." Others say for "Russia's aggression in Syria," but it was Putin's military intervention that destroyed the Islamic State's terrorist occupation of much of the country and ended its threat to take Damascus, to the benefit of America and its allies, including Europe and Israel. Still others insist the Kremlin must be sanctioned for its "nerve agent" attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the UK several months ago. But the British government's case against the Kremlin has virtually fallen apart, as any attentive reader of articles in David Johnson's Russia List will understand.

Ultimately, though, the new bout of sanction mania is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during the 2016 presidential election . In reality, there was no "attack" - no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11, no Russian parachuters descending on Washington - only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced, almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. Indeed, whatever "meddling" Russian actors did in 2016 may well have been jaywalking compared to the Clinton administration's massive, highly intrusive political and financial intervention on behalf of the failing Russian President Boris Yeltsin's reelection campaign in 1996.

We are left, then, with the real reason behind the new anti-Russian sanctions effort: to thwart and even punish President Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki summit in July. This bizarre, also unprecedented, reality is more than a whisper. According to a New York Times "news analysis," as well as other published reports,

a "bipartisan group of senators, dismayed that Mr. Trump had not publicly confronted Mr. Putin over Russia's election meddling, released draft legislation" of new sanctions against Moscow. "Passage of such a bill would impose some of the most damaging sanctions yet."
Leave aside for now that it is not Russian "meddling" that is delegitimizing our elections but instead these fact-free allegations themselves that are doing so. (How many losing candidates in 2018 will claim their victory was snatched away by Putin?) Consider instead that for doing what every American president since Eisenhower has done - meet with the sitting Kremlin leader in order to avoid stumbling into a war between the nuclear superpowers - in effect both Trump and Putin are being condemned by the Washington establishment, including by members of Trump's own intelligence agencies.

If so, who will avert the prospect of war with Russia, a new Cuban missile-like crisis, conceivably in the Baltic region, Ukraine, or Syria? Certainly not any leading representative of the Democratic Party. Certainly not the current Russophobic "bipartisan" Senate. Certainly not the most influential media outlets, which amplify the warmongering folly almost daily. In this most existential regard, there is for now only, like it or not, President Donald Trump.

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at TheNation.com .
Comment: As Cohen brilliantly points out - sanctions, for the US, are a dead end.

[Aug 17, 2018] Jim Kunstler Exposes The Democratic Party s Three-Headed Monster

Notable quotes:
"... The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness). ..."
"... The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn up the temperature with some nuclear fire. ..."
"... This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse them of "aggression." ..."
"... The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between men and women. ..."
"... "We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. " ..."
"... And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the "Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify. ..."
"... The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend, not just nationally, but world wide... ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Jim Kunstler Exposes The Democratic Party's "Three-Headed Monster"

by Tyler Durden Fri, 08/17/2018 - 14:35 132 SHARES Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

The faction that used to be the Democratic party can be described with some precision these days as a three-headed monster driving the nation toward danger, darkness, and incoherence.

Anyone interested in defending what remains of the sane center of American politics take heed:

The first head is the one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" -- especially the leadership of the FBI -- to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented. The "doctors" of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.

The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.

With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous -- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges -- for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness).

The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn up the temperature with some nuclear fire. They are apparently in deep confab with the first head and its Russia collusion storyline. Note all the current talk about Russia already meddling in the 2018 midterm election, a full-fledged pathogenic hallucination.

This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse them of "aggression." We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. The sane center never would have stood for this arrant recklessness. The world community is not fooled, though. More and more, they recognize the USA as a national borderline personality, capable of any monstrous act.

The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between men and women. Those differences must be abolished, and replaced with chimeras that enable a childish game of pretend, men pretending to be women and vice-versa in one way or another: LBGTQetc. Anything BUT the dreaded "cis-hetero" purgatory of men and women acting like men and women. The horror .

Its companion is the race hustle and its multicultural operating system. The objective has become transparent over the past year, with rising calls to punish white people for the supposed "privilege" of being Caucasian and pay "reparations" in one way or another to underprivileged "people of color." This comes partly from the infantile refusal to understand that life is difficult for everybody, and that the woes and sorrows of being in this world require fortitude and intelligence to get through -- with the final reward being absolutely the same for everybody.

Creative_Destruct -> Got The Wrong No Fri, 08/17/2018 - 16:30 Permalink

"We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. "

And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the "Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify.

Chad Thunderfist -> venturen Fri, 08/17/2018 - 14:56 Permalink

...[MSM] owners:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=N00000019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sussman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_Simons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dustin_Moskovitz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Rosenstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Daniel_Abraham

STP -> edotabin Fri, 08/17/2018 - 17:36 Permalink

I was talking to someone, who knows a lot about the 'inner workings' and we were discussing, not only the US, but Europe's situation as well.

The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend, not just nationally, but world wide...

[Aug 17, 2018] Review Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism by Andre Vltchek, by David William Pear - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Sanders and his "Sandernistas" rarely talked about ending US illegal wars of aggression in 2016. If liberal/progressives had insisted that Bernie take an anti-war platform and a reduction of the Empire's military-industrial-complex, then Bernie might well be in the White House now, instead of Trump. Instead most of the Sandernistas told liberal/progressives to shut up about the wars. ..."
"... They said it would be political suicide for Bernie to bring up war during a presidential campaign. Sandernistas said not to worry, because Bernie was secretly antiwar. We fell for that one with Obama, who committed more war crimes than George W. Bush. ..."
"... The Empire's "destructive suction tube" is waging all sorts of wars: military, economic and propaganda. It is waging economic terrorism against the Global South. The Empire-backed World Bank, IMF and gangster banking monopolies force austerity on the poor of the world. Those poor countries in the Global South that are under attack by the Empire's economic terrorist organizations do not get to have Bernie's socialism. Not only do I agree with Andre that we do not deserve Bernie's social programs, nor do we have funds or the energies for them. Bernie and the Sandernistas rarely spoke about rehabilitation of America's poor; it was all about the middle class. Silence is betrayal. ..."
"... The Empire always wants enemies. The public never seems to question why the most powerful military the world has ever known, supposedly has so many poor weak enemies threatening it. It is all a pretext for the Empire to extract wealth from the Global South for the benefit of oligarchs. ..."
"... The Empire never stops plotting to overthrow revolutionary leaders. Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Russia, Cuba and North Korea are under attack because they want to go their own way. There will be economic warfare, propaganda warfare, and political warfare, and when those don't work to impose conformity and compliance; there is always the military option. For the Empire "all options are always on the table", including the nuclear option. The Empire would rather see the destruction of the entire world, than to coexist with a threat to its hegemony. ..."
"... Now the cry goes out that the Russians are coming! Those like myself that lived through the Cold War are seeing history repeated. The paranoia, propaganda, lies, repression, persecution and provocations are déjà vu. The US has encircled Russia with military bases, and plays war games on its border. We are told, and we are supposed to believe that Russia is the aggressor and an expansionist threat. ..."
"... Georgia attacks South Ossetia, and we are told that Russia invaded Georgia. The US midwifes a coup against an elected government in Ukraine, but it is Russia that is blamed for destabilizing Ukraine. Crimea has a referendum to rejoin Russia, and we are told that the Russians used military force to annex Crimea. The US has criminally invaded Syria, but we are told that Russia invaded Syria, even though they are there legally. ..."
"... We are supposed to be afraid that Putin will "destroy the West's democracy" by sowing dissention, chaos and meddling in US elections. If anybody wants to destroy America's democracy, then they are several decades too late. It has already been mostly destroyed. The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated, except for the 2 nd Amendment, which is enabling the worst fascistic elements in the US to heavily arm themselves. The police are militarized. The US has secret police, secret courts, and secret prisons. ..."
"... Andre has much to say on all the above issues in his book "Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism". The book is a collection of many of his great writing of the past few years. Shorter versions of his essays have been published in articles by non-Western media, such as the New Eastern Outlook (NEO) as well as Western alternative media such as The Greanville Post. ..."
"... In every direction one turns now they face a barrage of propaganda put out by the Empire. Most Americans are isolated and know very little about the rest of the world. For many people the mainstream media is their only source for information. What they get is a steady stream of propaganda that Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria, North Korea and Russia are evil. They believe it, just like when I was a child, I believed the US propaganda during the Cold War. Russia was both feared and ridiculed when I was growing up. I was told that communism never works, and that Russia cannot even make toilets that flush. Imagine how surprised I was when I finally went to Russia and found out that their toilets work just fine. ..."
"... In the Empire one is only valuable for what they have to sell. It is all about dollars and cents, and the logic of the market. The market determines the value of everything, including people. If it has a market price, then it has value. If not then it is worthless and of no value, according to the market. ..."
"... I do not want to undermine Andre Vltchek or David Pear, even though Andre tends to get carried away, IMHO. I'd like to correct at least one thing. Regarding Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, at the beginning the US media (including all TV channels) reported events as they were: Georgia attacked South Ossetia, Georgian troops are shelling Tskhinval, killed many Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Then they got their marching orders and turned the story the opposite way: Russia invaded Georgia. Their assumption was that the US public is too dumb to remember what was said the day before. The sad thing is, they were right. ..."
"... As far as Syria is concerned, the lies were there from day one. Thanks to propaganda, most Americans don't even know that Russia and Iran are in Syria legally, on the invitation of its legitimate government represented in the UN, whereas the US is there illegally by both international and US law. ..."
"... The same is true about Yemen: genocidal war by Saudis and other Gulf satrapies against Yemen was always presented as something good, whereas Yemeni resistance to foreign occupiers as something bad. The US in Yemen went the whole mile, showing its true colors for all to see: in the fight against Houthis it allied itself not only with Saudis, but even with their copycats ISIS, created and armed by the US for Saudi money. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

A lot of people are not going to like Andre's book " Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism ", I can tell you that right now. The first to hate it will be the Empire, because they fear truth-tellers more than bomb-throwers. The next who will not like Andre's book will be the smug critics who want to nitpick his every word. I am not talking about the Deep State and its Mockingbirds. I am talking about the so-called liberal/progressives; especially the ones that never get off of the "proverbial couches of spinelessness", which Andre speaks of. You have to be brave to put up with their shit. This is the time when we should be organizing and supporting each other, instead of criticizing, and letting the Empire divide us. Andre is a revolutionary writer and doer that is on a mission that is bigger than himself.

It is called "life". Look at his website "Vltchek's World in Words and Images" to see what he has been doing with his life.

As Andre says: "Obedient and cowardly masses hate those who are different". Different is an understatement to describe Andre Vitchek. You'll not find many like him in Europe or North America. You may have to go to South America, Africa, Asia, or Russia to find such uniquely honest voices.

Russia is the perfect metaphor for Andre: Russia is neither Europe nor Asia; it is both and neither. Like Russia, Andre is unique. He is neither this nor that. He is a writer, philosopher, photo journalist, pamphleteer, activist, witness and doer. He is all of those things, but above all he is a humanist and an artist. He is an optimistic pessimist. Only a hopeless optimist would say:

"One day, hopefully soon, humanism will win over dark nihilism; people will live for other people and not for some cold profits, religious dogmas and "Western values".

Western values, now that is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Andre is a pessimist that sees and writes about the anti-humanism and the soullessness of so-called Western values. He exposes it for what it is: gray, cold and without spirit.

Andre says he is a Communist in an era when being a communist is not fashionable. Most liberal/progressives are afraid to mention John Maynard Keynes, let alone Marx, Lenin and Mao.

For a while in 2016 pseudo-socialism was popular among supporters of Bernie Sanders, whom claimed to be a socialist. He promised his followers what every poll shows that most Americans want: universal healthcare, low cost higher education, better infrastructure, strong economic safety nets, and $15 dollars an hour minimum wage. Where have all these so-called socialists gone now that Bernie disillusioned them? Chasing illusionary Russian spies, it seems.

Sanders and his "Sandernistas" rarely talked about ending US illegal wars of aggression in 2016. If liberal/progressives had insisted that Bernie take an anti-war platform and a reduction of the Empire's military-industrial-complex, then Bernie might well be in the White House now, instead of Trump. Instead most of the Sandernistas told liberal/progressives to shut up about the wars.

They said it would be political suicide for Bernie to bring up war during a presidential campaign. Sandernistas said not to worry, because Bernie was secretly antiwar. We fell for that one with Obama, who committed more war crimes than George W. Bush.

Andre has the guts to say that liberal/progressives do not deserve free college, universal healthcare and all the goodies that Bernie was selling us, while also peddling the trillion dollar F-35 boondoggle. I agree with Andre, especially since Bernie sold out his loyal followers, and sheep dogged for warmongering Hillary. We do not deserve social programs at home, while the Empire is killing millions of people with all the US illegal wars of aggression. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

"A time comes when silence is betrayal -- I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube."

The Empire's "destructive suction tube" is waging all sorts of wars: military, economic and propaganda. It is waging economic terrorism against the Global South. The Empire-backed World Bank, IMF and gangster banking monopolies force austerity on the poor of the world. Those poor countries in the Global South that are under attack by the Empire's economic terrorist organizations do not get to have Bernie's socialism. Not only do I agree with Andre that we do not deserve Bernie's social programs, nor do we have funds or the energies for them. Bernie and the Sandernistas rarely spoke about rehabilitation of America's poor; it was all about the middle class. Silence is betrayal.

Whatever the Empire does in foreign lands, sooner or later the chickens come home to roost. The Empire keeps crushing countries of the Global South whose leaders want to use their country's natural resources for their own people. Anti-colonial revolutionaries like Castro, Che and Ho were personally vilified for not embracing the Empire's neocolonial model of capitalism. The Empire conspires to overthrow governments that nationalize their country's natural resources, and have social programs for the people.

The Empire always wants enemies. The public never seems to question why the most powerful military the world has ever known, supposedly has so many poor weak enemies threatening it. It is all a pretext for the Empire to extract wealth from the Global South for the benefit of oligarchs.

The Empire never stops plotting to overthrow revolutionary leaders. Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Russia, Cuba and North Korea are under attack because they want to go their own way. There will be economic warfare, propaganda warfare, and political warfare, and when those don't work to impose conformity and compliance; there is always the military option. For the Empire "all options are always on the table", including the nuclear option. The Empire would rather see the destruction of the entire world, than to coexist with a threat to its hegemony.

Now the cry goes out that the Russians are coming! Those like myself that lived through the Cold War are seeing history repeated. The paranoia, propaganda, lies, repression, persecution and provocations are déjà vu. The US has encircled Russia with military bases, and plays war games on its border. We are told, and we are supposed to believe that Russia is the aggressor and an expansionist threat.

Georgia attacks South Ossetia, and we are told that Russia invaded Georgia. The US midwifes a coup against an elected government in Ukraine, but it is Russia that is blamed for destabilizing Ukraine. Crimea has a referendum to rejoin Russia, and we are told that the Russians used military force to annex Crimea. The US has criminally invaded Syria, but we are told that Russia invaded Syria, even though they are there legally.

We are supposed to be afraid that Putin will "destroy the West's democracy" by sowing dissention, chaos and meddling in US elections. If anybody wants to destroy America's democracy, then they are several decades too late. It has already been mostly destroyed. The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated, except for the 2 nd Amendment, which is enabling the worst fascistic elements in the US to heavily arm themselves. The police are militarized. The US has secret police, secret courts, and secret prisons.

Nationalism that breeds repression at home and wars abroad is running amok. The people no longer have the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Protesters are restricted to so-called free-speech zones, and they are subject to indiscriminate mass arrest. The people are told to obey the government, but it is the government that is supposed to obey the people in a democracy. Those that don't worship the flag, and praise militarism are accused of being unpatriotic.

Andre has much to say on all the above issues in his book "Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism". The book is a collection of many of his great writing of the past few years. Shorter versions of his essays have been published in articles by non-Western media, such as the New Eastern Outlook (NEO) as well as Western alternative media such as The Greanville Post.

Andre writes about the Empire's many crimes. Terrible crimes have been committed against millions of people who have done the West no harm, and were of no threat. The Empire and its vassal states punish people of the Global South for being born in countries with vast natural resources that the Empire covets. Andre gives these victims a voice and a human face.

Andre's writings are not for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach. He will pound the truth into you on every page, and you may not be able to put his book down, as I could not. The reader realizes that Andre is on a mission. Part of that mission is to be the conscience of the world, and to make sure that the victimized are not forgotten and that they are not alone. Andre has a great capacity for empathy. His writing, videos and documentaries cry out for the world to have empathy too. The world is empathy deficient.

Even for those that already intellectually know the truths that Andre writes about, will have that truth pound into their hearts and souls. Unfortunately, the people that are ignorant of the truth are the most likely ones not to read Andre. We all know people like that. They are our brother-in-law, neighbors, and the students and professors in our institutions of so-called higher learning. Our schools do not teach the important truths and philosophies anymore. They have just become vocational schools turning out accountants, lawyers, propagandist, stockbrokers, and super sales people to keep churning money in the economy, so that it flows up the food chain.

In every direction one turns now they face a barrage of propaganda put out by the Empire. Most Americans are isolated and know very little about the rest of the world. For many people the mainstream media is their only source for information. What they get is a steady stream of propaganda that Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria, North Korea and Russia are evil. They believe it, just like when I was a child, I believed the US propaganda during the Cold War. Russia was both feared and ridiculed when I was growing up. I was told that communism never works, and that Russia cannot even make toilets that flush. Imagine how surprised I was when I finally went to Russia and found out that their toilets work just fine.

When I mentioned the above story to someone who was regurgitating anti-Putin propaganda he asked me a rhetorical question:

"As for Russia, besides the toilets flushing, was there anything you wanted to buy there besides vodka and nesting dolls? Or do they have anything that you would wish that we imported (like Japanese cars or Chinese clothing or Swiss watches, etc.)?"

I know that Andre gets the stupidity of that question. In the Empire one is only valuable for what they have to sell. It is all about dollars and cents, and the logic of the market. The market determines the value of everything, including people. If it has a market price, then it has value. If not then it is worthless and of no value, according to the market.

Andre writes about things that are priceless and have great value. They are the things of life that make us human, instead of robots. There is no market for love and living a fulfilling life. It is free if one knows how to find it. Andre helps to show us the way.

Besides Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism Andre has written many other books, such as Exposing Lies of the Empire , a novel titled Aurora and many other books. Andre is a world class philosopher, novelist, filmmaker, investigative journalist, poet, playwright, and photographer. He is a true revolutionary. He is a human being. His website is http://andrevltchek.weebly.com/ .

Lord God Almighty , August 17, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT

Excerpt from Thomas Sowell's book Intellectuals and Society:

What preferences are revealed by the actual behavior of intellectuals -- especially in their social crusades -- and how do such revealed preferences compare with their rhetoric? The professed beliefs of intellectuals center about their concern for others -- especially for the poor, for minorities, for "social justice" and for protecting endangered species and saving the environment, for example. Their rhetoric is too familiar and too pervasive to require elaboration here. The real question, however, is: What are their revealed preferences?

The phrase "unintended consequences" has become a cliché precisely because so many policies and programs intended, for example, to better the situation of the less fortunate have in fact made their situation worse, that it is no longer possible to regard good intentions as automatic harbingers of good results. Anyone whose primary concern is in improving the lot of the less fortunate would therefore, by this time, after decades of experience with negative "unintended consequences," see a need not only to invest time and efforts to turn good intentions into policies and programs, but also to invest time and efforts afterwards into trying to ferret out answers as to what the actual consequences of those policies and programs have been.

Moreover, anyone whose primary concern was improving the lot of the less fortunate would also be alert and receptive to other factors from beyond the vision of the intellectuals, when those other factors have been found empirically to have helped advance the well-being of the less fortunate, even if in ways not contemplated by the intelligentsia and even if in ways counter to the beliefs or visions of the intelligentsia.

[MORE]
In short, one of the ways to test whether expressed concerns for the well-being of the less fortunate represent primarily a concern for that well-being or a use of the less fortunate as a means to condemn society, or to seek either political or moral authority over society -- to be on the side of the angels against the forces of evil -- would be to see the revealed preferences of intellectuals in terms of how much time and energy they invest in promoting their vision, as compared to how much time and energy they invest in scrutinizing (1) the actual consequences of things done in the name of that vision and (2) benefits to the less fortunate created outside that vision and even counter to that vision.

Crusaders for a "living wage" or to end "sweatshop labor" in the Third World, for example, may invest great amounts of time and energy promoting those goals but virtually none in scrutinizing the many studies done in countries around the world to discover the actual consequences of minimum wage laws in general or of "living wage" laws in particular. These consequences have included such things as higher levels of unemployment and longer periods of unemployment, especially for the least skilled and least experienced segments of the population. Whether one agrees with or disputes these studies, the crucial question here is whether one bothers to read them at all.

If the real purpose of social crusades is to make the less fortunate better off, then the actual consequences of such policies as wage control become central and require investigation, in order to avoid "unintended consequences" which have already become widely recognized in the context of many other policies. But if the real purpose of social crusades is to proclaim oneself to be on the side of the angels, then such investigations have a low priority, if any priority at all, since the goal of being on the side of the angels is accomplished when the policies have been advocated and then instituted, after which social crusaders can move on to other issues. The revealed preference of many, if not most, of the intelligentsia has been to be on the side of the angels.

The same conclusion is hard to avoid when looking at the response of intellectuals to improvements in the condition of the poor that follow policies or circumstances which offer no opportunities to be on the side of the angels against the forces of evil. For example, under new economic policies beginning in the 1990s, tens of millions of people in India have risen above that country's official poverty level. In China, under similar policies begun earlier, a million people a month have risen out of poverty. Surely anyone concerned with the fate of the less fortunate would want to know how this desirable development came about for such vast numbers of very poor people -- and therefore how similar improvements might be produced elsewhere in the world. But these and other dramatic increases in living standards, based ultimately on the production of more wealth, arouse little or no interest among most intellectuals.

However important for the poor, these developments offer no opportunities for the intelligentsia to be on the side of the angels against the forces of evil -- and that is what their revealed preferences show repeatedly to be their real priority. Questions about what policies or conditions increase or decrease the rate of growth of output seldom arouse the interest of most intellectuals, even though such changes have done more to reduce poverty -- in both rich and poor countries -- than changes in the distribution of income have done. French writer Raymond Aron has suggested that achieving the ostensible goals of the left without using the methods favored by the left actually provokes resentments:

"In fact the European Left has a grudge against the United States mainly because the latter has succeeded by means which were not laid down in the revolutionary code. Prosperity, power, the tendency towards uniformity of economic conditions -- these results have been achieved by private initiative, by competition rather than State intervention, in other words by capitalism, which every well-brought-up intellectual has been taught to despise."

Another excerpt from Intellectuals and Society:

One of the sources of the credibility and influence of intellectuals with the vision of the anointed is that they are often seen as people promoting the interests of the less fortunate, rather than people promoting their own financial self-interest. But financial self-interests are by no means the only self-interests, nor necessarily the most dangerous self-interests. As T.S. Eliot put it:

"Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

Sollipsist , August 17, 2018 at 10:19 am GMT
Can you still really call them "revolutionaries" when the ideas and strategies are 150 years old? When every leftist for generations has been saying the same things, is it still a visionary act of courage?

I'd welcome a truly revolutionary solution. I'm not convinced it's coming from this tradition.

Michael Kenny , August 17, 2018 at 1:06 pm GMT
I've never taken Andre Vltchek seriously and Mr Pear is very obviousy a pro-Putin propagandist.
AnonFromTN , August 17, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT
I do not want to undermine Andre Vltchek or David Pear, even though Andre tends to get carried away, IMHO. I'd like to correct at least one thing. Regarding Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, at the beginning the US media (including all TV channels) reported events as they were: Georgia attacked South Ossetia, Georgian troops are shelling Tskhinval, killed many Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Then they got their marching orders and turned the story the opposite way: Russia invaded Georgia. Their assumption was that the US public is too dumb to remember what was said the day before. The sad thing is, they were right.

As far as Syria is concerned, the lies were there from day one. Thanks to propaganda, most Americans don't even know that Russia and Iran are in Syria legally, on the invitation of its legitimate government represented in the UN, whereas the US is there illegally by both international and US law.

The same is true about Yemen: genocidal war by Saudis and other Gulf satrapies against Yemen was always presented as something good, whereas Yemeni resistance to foreign occupiers as something bad. The US in Yemen went the whole mile, showing its true colors for all to see: in the fight against Houthis it allied itself not only with Saudis, but even with their copycats ISIS, created and armed by the US for Saudi money.

AnonFromTN , August 17, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Key words: pot, kettle, black.

jilles dykstra , August 17, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
" Georgia attacks South Ossetia, " It did, with huge loans Israeli military hardware was bought, Israel was in the process of upgrading Migs in Georgia. President at the time Saaskiville now is in Ukrainian prison, or under investigation by Kiev. If he still has a nationality, I do not know.

The Georgian attack was a fiasco, there is just a tunnel between N and S Ossetia. The Georgian plan was to block the exit to the south, to prevent Russian tanks getting through. This had to be done with artillery, firing over a mountain, guided by two Israeli drones. Russia succeeded in the signals from the drones reaching a satellite, so no blocking, the tanks came to the rescue. To this day the Georgian people are paying for the loans. Israeli technology seems not first class.

AnonFromTN , August 17, 2018 at 3:40 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

Correction: Saakashvili is not in prison, even though he richly deserves to be (just ask Ossetians: they'd love to hang him for his crimes, but can't get their hands on him, more's the pity). In fact, his Ukrainian citizenship was revoked, he is now in the Netherlands, of all places.

As to Israel, it may not be the technology issue. Israel tends to hedge its bets. They like to get their shekels anywhere they can, but certainly won't go out on a limb for something worthless and inconsequential, like Georgia.

Che Guava , August 17, 2018 at 3:54 pm GMT
Vltchek is a privileged fool and some kind of evil propagandist. Look at the places he stays, always 4- or 5-star hotels (except when he stays in a place where there are none), who pays for all of that?

Perhaps he is independently wealthy on a grand scale. Don't think so. In the immortal words of P.K. Dick in A Scanner Darkly , he is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Che Guava , August 17, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

That is a very simplistic view (and implies that you have read very little of Vltchek). I stopped about two years ago, he is so full of lies, it was tiring to see them.

Have an old comment on this site (when stupid Counterpunch was still publishing his semi-deranged articles, not that Counterpunch has not gone even worse since) except that his articles are absent, a small improvement, more than made up for by the newly added other bullshit artists.

Vltchek is either super-wealthy or subsidized by somebody, it sure is not the Russian state or any of its arms.

[Aug 17, 2018] The Russian meddling fraud Weapons of mass destruction revisited by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

Notable quotes:
"... There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to end. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to use against the United States.

In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."

There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to end.

... ... ...

...War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction." Rather, "it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global hegemony."

The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different. Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the Iraqi government.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."

The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there "is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."

Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its media accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one million people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.

Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time, instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again, the media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government -- which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been relentlessly expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.

[Aug 17, 2018] Trump business deals problem

Notable quotes:
"... When I hear people talk about how vulnerable Trump is because of his allegedly dirty business deals, I wonder: if that's true, then why wasn't he charged long ago, since he's been active as a businessman for many years. ..."
"... My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would expose too many powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass. ..."
"... I doubt it very much, Trump has any dirty deals in those Russian money laundering as some commentators write about, the money the corrupt Russian Oligarchs, mostly Jewish, who brought to London and other West's Financial Centers during the plundering of Russia in 1992 – 2004 period. And as you pointed out, if there is any, seriously investigating these deals will expose many powerful people, and the corruption and rot of London Financial Center along with many other West's Financial Centers. ..."
"... All the Oligarchs engage in some sort of corruption, Mitt Romney was no different with all his money stashed away in off shore financial safe heavens. Trump is singled out because he ran against that Swamp which he called it during his election campaign, and in their view, he is damaging the World Uni-polar System with U.S. as the Master and EU as vassal States. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

John Kirsch , August 15, 2018 at 7:10 am

When I hear people talk about how vulnerable Trump is because of his allegedly dirty business deals, I wonder: if that's true, then why wasn't he charged long ago, since he's been active as a businessman for many years.

My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would expose too many powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass.

And yes, I agree, there is no public evidence of collusion, not surprising since it isn't a federal crime to begin with, except, potentially, in an anti-trust context that doesn't apply here.

Dave P. , August 15, 2018 at 2:56 pm

John Kirsch – Good comments. I agree.

I doubt it very much, Trump has any dirty deals in those Russian money laundering as some commentators write about, the money the corrupt Russian Oligarchs, mostly Jewish, who brought to London and other West's Financial Centers during the plundering of Russia in 1992 – 2004 period. And as you pointed out, if there is any, seriously investigating these deals will expose many powerful people, and the corruption and rot of London Financial Center along with many other West's Financial Centers.

All the Oligarchs engage in some sort of corruption, Mitt Romney was no different with all his money stashed away in off shore financial safe heavens. Trump is singled out because he ran against that Swamp which he called it during his election campaign, and in their view, he is damaging the World Uni-polar System with U.S. as the Master and EU as vassal States.

O Society , August 15, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Trump says he discovered the power of being shallow: "Whenever I am making a creative choice, I think back and remember my first shallow reaction. The day I realized it can be smart to be shallow, was for me, a deep experience.

I have no personal business dealings with Trump nor have I ever met the guy. Just reading information as everyone else does. No special knowledge of specific anything.

The allegation floating around is one very common to real estate. Laundering money.

Trump's business model is his "brand," which basically means Trump lends his names to building projects rather than actually owning said buildings himself. Sounds similar to franchising.

Not surprisingly, Trump has been involved in such shady scandals in the past. As someone else stated, "My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would expose too many powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass."

Whether or not Trump gets convicted of these sorts of crimes depends on a cost/ benefit analysis the powers that be will have to make. Is nailing Trump worth enough to them to draw unwanted attention to how these money laundering/ not paying taxes/ globalism foreign investment/ corrupt crony capitalist scams work?

Trump Taj Mahal Settles Lawsuit Over Money Laundering Violations
 Casino Pays $10 Million Unsecured Claim To Treasury Department

[Aug 17, 2018] OBAMUNISM: Weaponizing government agencies to attack DemoRats political opponents

Aug 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

DaiRR -> surf@jm Thu, 08/16/2018 - 22:49 Permalink

DemoRats and Deep Staters are all about the enemy "Russia". To hell with them both. And to hell with Brennan, Clapper, Yates, Rice, and all the other lying, cheating promoters of OBAMUNISM: Weaponizing government agencies to attack DemoRats' political opponents like you and me. You know the fake "Russia Collusion" fraud perpetrated by the DemoRats goes all the way up to Obama.

[Aug 17, 2018] The Ruling Establishment are accomplished in the art of manipulating the public into believing whatever they want them to believe in. In fact, they have world wide reach

Notable quotes:
"... The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped. ..."
"... Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor, providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in establishment institutions. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

GM , August 14, 2018 at 4:48 pm

The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped.

Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor, providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in establishment institutions.

Hell, it's even being leveraged to explain away racism. Win win win win. I'd say they are right where they want to be at this juncture.

Dave P. , August 14, 2018 at 6:21 pm

GM – Excellent observations. Very true.

I would add that they – the Ruling Establishment – are accomplished in the art of manipulating the public into believing whatever they want them to believe in. In fact, they have world wide reach.

[Aug 17, 2018] New York Times exploits Parkland tragedy to escalate anti-Russian campaign - World Socialist Web Site

Notable quotes:
"... But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the Times ..."
"... The logic of the Times ..."
"... Imperial Messenger ..."
Feb 21, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Less than four days after the Parkland school shooting, the New York Times has found a way to turn a national tragedy that claimed the lives of 17 high school students into an opportunity to escalate its unrelenting campaign of anti-Russian propaganda, involving the continuous bombardment of the public with reactionary lies and warmongering.

Against the backdrop of a major escalation of military tensions between the two countries, the Times seized upon the Justice Department indictment of Russian nationals over the weekend to claim that Russia is at "war" with the United States. Now, the Times has widened this claim into an argument that Russia somehow bears responsibility for social divisions over the latest mass shooting in America.

Its lead headline Tuesday morning blared: "SHOTS ARE FIRED, AND BOTS SWARM TO SOCIAL DIVIDES - Florida School Shooting Draws an Army Ready to Spread Discord"

According to the Times , Russian "bots," or automated social media accounts, sought "to widen the divide" on issues of gun control and mental illness, in order to "make compromise even more difficult." Russia sought to exploit "the issue of mental illness in the gun control debate," and "propagated the notion that Nikolas Cruz, the suspected gunman" was "mentally ill."

The absurd claim that Russia is responsible for the existence of social divisions in America is belied by the shooting itself, which is a testament to the fact that American society is riven by antagonisms that express themselves, in the absence of a progressive outlet, in outpourings of mass violence.

The aim of this campaign is to target anyone who would criticize the underlying social causes of the shooting -- the violence of American society, the nonexistence of mental health services, or even the social psychology that gives rise to mass shootings -- as a "Russian agent" seeking to "sow divisions" in American society. The Times lead is based entirely on a "dashboard" called Hamilton 68 created by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy, whose lead spokesman is Clint Watts, the former US intelligence agent and censorship advocate who declared in November that social media companies must "silence" sources of "rebellion."

Without naming any of the accounts it follows, Hamilton 68 claims to track content tweeted by "Russian bots and trolls." But most of the trends leading the dashboard are news stories, many posted by Russia Today and Sputnik News , that are identical with the trending topics followed by any other news agency. Thus, Hamilton 68 provides an instant New York Times headline generator: Any major news story can be presented as the result of "Russian bots."

The New York Times is making its claims about "Russian meddling" with what is known in the law as "unclean hands." That is, the Times practices the very actions of which it accuses others.

Here is not the place to deal with the long and bloody history of American destabilization campaigns and their horrific consequences in Latin America and the Middle East, or to review the fact that many American journalists serving abroad had dual functions -- as reporters and as agents.

But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the Times with the major operations of the US intelligence agencies.

This is particularly true with regard to Russia, in regard to which the Times acts as an instrument of US foreign policy misinformation, practicing exactly what it accuse the Kremlin of.

Take, for example, the so-called political "dissident" Aleksei Navalny. This proponent of extreme nationalism and xenophobia, with deep ties to Russia's fascistic right, and extensive connections to US intelligence agencies, has been championed by the Times as the voice of social dissent in Russia. Despite his miniscule support within Russia, Navalny's activities generate front-page headlines in the Times , which has mentioned him in over 400 separate articles.

Another example is the Times ' promotion of the "feminist" rock band Pussy Riot, which makes a habit of getting themselves arrested by taking their clothes off in Russian Orthodox churches, and whose fate the Times holds up as a horrific example of Russian oppression. The very name "Pussy Riot," which in typical usage is not even translated into Russian, expresses the fact that this operation aims to influence American, and not Russian, public opinion.

In 2014, the Times met with members of Pussy Riot at their editorial offices, and have since extensively promoted the group, having mentioned it in over 400 articles. The term "anti-Putin opposition" is mentioned in another 600 articles.

The logic of the Times ' campaign was expressed most clearly by its columnist Thomas Friedman, the personification of the pundit as state intelligence mouthpiece whose career was aptly summed up in a biography titled Imperial Messenger . In a column published on February 18 ("Whatever Trump is Hiding is Hurting All of US Now"), Friedman declares a "code red" threat to the integrity of American democracy.

"At a time when the special prosecutor Robert Mueller -- leveraging several years of intelligence gathering by the F.B.I., C.I.A. and N.S.A. -- has brought indictments against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups -- all linked in some way to the Kremlin -- for interfering with the 2016 U.S. elections," Friedman writes, "America needs a president who will lead our nation's defense against this attack on the integrity of our electoral democracy."

This "defense," according to Friedman, would include "bring[ing] together our intelligence and military experts to mount an effective offense against Putin -- the best defense of all." In other words, war.

The task of all war propaganda is to divert internal social tensions outwards, and the Times ' campaign is no different. Its aim is to take the anger that millions of people feel at a society riven by social inequality, mass alienation, police violence, and endless war, and pin it on some shady foreign adversary.

The New York Times ' claims of Russian "meddling" in the Parkland shooting set the tone for even more hysterical coverage in the broadcast evening news. NBC News cited Jonathan Morgan, another collaborator on the Hamilton 68 project, who declared that Russia is "really interested in sowing discord amongst Americans. That way we're not focused on putting a unified front out to foreign adversaries."

The goal of the ruling class and its media accomplices is to put on "a unified front" through the suppression of social opposition within the United States. Along these Lines, NBC added, "Researchers tell us it's not just Russia deploying these attacks on social media," adding "many small independent groups are trying to divide Americans and create chaos."

Who are these "small independent groups" seeking to "create chaos"? By this, they no doubt mean any news or political organization that dares question the official line that everything is fine in America, and that argues that the horrendous levels of violence that pervade American society are somehow related to social inequality and the wars supported and justified by the entire US political establishment

[Aug 17, 2018] Teleology means to view things by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes . If we are to look at Russiagate from a teleological perspective we can see eight puposes of Russiagate

Aug 17, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Ian Brown, August 13, 2018 at 7:20 pm

In philosophy there is a concept called Teleology which means to view things "by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes". If we are to look at Russiagate from a teleological perspective, and indeed we should, as the evidentiary and proportional justification is severely lacking, we see a distinct organism with a broad purpose. So let's examine, what purposes are being served by Russiagate, what agendas being driven, and interests being advanced?

  1. Control of information by imperial, establishment and corporate interests
  2. Control of discourse and dissent being stigmatized
  3. Restriction of democracy by third parties and anti-establishment candidates being smeared as "Kremlin supported'
  4. The enlargement of the military industrial complex
  5. The ideological alignment of the nominal left and center with authoritarianism
  6. The justification of imperialism and aggressive foreign policy
  7. The deflection from widespread issues of discontent
  8. The projection of issues in the 2016 election, particularly primary rigging, voting irregularities, voter suppression, candidate funded troll operations like Correct the Record, widespread collusion between candidates and the mainstream media, and outsized influence of Israeli, Saudi and Ukrainian lobbies

Considering how much of an impact Russiagate has had towards these ends, in comparison how meagerly it has tackled these phantom Russian meddlers and "active measures", I think it's fair to say that Russiagate has NOTHING to do with it's stated cause. If Russiagate can be described by what it does, and not what allegedly caused it, what it is is an authoritarian push to broadly increase control of society by establishment elites, and to advance their imperialistic ambitions. In this way, it does not look dissimilar to the way previous societies have succumbed to authoritarian and imperialist rule, nor do the flavors of propaganda, censorship and nationalism differ greatly. The 2016 election represented the ruling Establishment losing control of the narrative, and to a lesser degree, not getting their preferred candidate. And in response the velvet glove is slipping. Reply

mike k , August 13, 2018 at 7:33 pm

Excellent analysis!

Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 9:12 pm

You nailed that one man, Kudos

Maxwell Quest , August 13, 2018 at 9:32 pm

9. The delegitimization of Trump's presidency, and a false justification for removing him from office, or in the very least crippling his ability to function as the executive.

O Society , August 14, 2018 at 2:52 pm

Ian Brown ~

Indeed. The Shit Snowball keeps gaining size and momentum because so many groups get various benefits from propagating the Russiagate narrative.

I xeroxed your list of 8 – as well as an excerpt from Patrick Lawrence's original article – then added references and artwork to set it off in a classy way.

Please let me know what the two of you think of the results:

Russiagate: Too Big to Fail

exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 3:00 am

This analysis is spot on.

Kevin Huxford , August 13, 2018 at 7:18 pm

Duncan Campbell's article is embarrassing, especially in that it took him so long to even slightly correct his misrepresentation of Binney's position on the matter.

Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 7:00 pm

This article touches on such a fundamental truth which is the new paradigm of US disunity, the fracturing of both US political parties and a greater General dysfunction of the American body politic not to mention the US's Image of itself.

Gary Weglarz , August 13, 2018 at 6:41 pm

A truly excellent and very important post! Thank you.

"To doubt the hollowed-out myth of American innocence is a grave sin against the faith." – author

Absolutely! The current "Russiagate" lunacy renders anyone a "heretic" who might engage in such "doubt"
– or who engages in any independent critical thinking on this matter. I've never seen the political class, the deep state psychopaths, and the MSM more irrational, nor more out of touch with and more contemptuous of – simple basic verifiable physical "reality" – than at this historical moment. The current state of affairs suggests the American empire may not simply be in decline, but is instead perhaps in free fall with the hard ground of reality rapidly approaching. The current level of absolute public lunacy also suggests the landing will be neither graceful nor pleasant, and may actually come as a shock to the true believers.

O Society , August 13, 2018 at 5:42 pm

Terrific article, Patrick Lawrence. Too Big Too Fail is exactly correct. Just as the banks in the 2008 mortgage crisis got bailed out, so the Russiagate narrative is cultivated by the US government. Both are insults to the American people.

As you know, there has been some recent discussion of this leak vs. hack topic. To wit:

There is a response by William Binney in video form at the end of this article:

How to Understand this Russian Hacking Thing

To a recent challenge of the VIPS "leak" evidence presented in this article in Computer Weekly:

Duncan Campbell alleges Bill Binney changes mind about the leak

[Aug 17, 2018] The Enigma of Orwellian Donald Trump How Does He Get Away with It So Easily by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

Notable quotes:
"... With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above lobbies. ..."
"... Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk." ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... Please visit Dr. Tremblay's sites : ..."
"... http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/ ..."
"... http://rodriguetremblay.blogspot.com/ ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

There are four groups of one-issue voters to whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:

With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above lobbies.

Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.

There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record, according to the Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his inauguration.)

  1. The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form of entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is OK to lie and to ask his assistants to lie . In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of post-democracy .
  2. The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks ' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly, on a daily basis, 24/7.

    That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of " Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.

    In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a pet project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the coming weeks.

    That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear case for impeachment .

  3. Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting, have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some 'alternative' truths and facts.

Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the mass conglomeration of local broadcasting in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well financed, and they have essentially become powerful political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative facts as the truth.

In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.

2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment

Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk."

Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.

3- Trump VS the media and the journalists

Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.

The ABC News network has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration. The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, -- an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year, he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!

The media in general, (and not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which are often devoid of any thought and logic.

Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning for the long run.

Conclusion

All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own Cabinet , whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself. If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?

The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones.

*

This article was originally published on the author's blog site: rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com . International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book " The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles ", and of "The New American Empire" .

Please visit Dr. Tremblay's sites :

See also

[Aug 17, 2018] Lavrov Gives Tillerson a Brilliant History Lesson on US Interventionism

The same day one year ago...
Aug 17, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Ali Haider , 1 year ago (edited)

Russians are really brilliant...salute you Russia 

Phil Newmann , 1 year ago

Tillerson. What a high HYPOCRISY. The US has murdered more than 10 million people in the last 13 years and you say Assad is a war criminal for defending his own country?

Morbius1963 , 1 year ago

Tillerson makes no mention of the democratic wishes of the Syrian people.

Sangam Sangam , 9 months ago

Assad killed terrorist in Syria sent and trained by US.

tom parankewich , 1 year ago

He forgot to say they want pipelines to go through Syria pure and simple .

Ds Vic , 1 year ago

Lavrov is a beauty! Making illmericans look dumb as usual.

[Aug 17, 2018] It is quite interesting how many uninformed posters and/or trolls would love to find a way to show the Russiagate nonsense is somehow plausible in spite of the evidence

Notable quotes:
"... They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands. ..."
"... Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling, rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America. ..."
"... America is after all a country in which half the population believe in the creation myth. ..."
"... "Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives. ..."
"... I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a third manifestation of mass hysteria. ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Gary Weglarz August 14, 2018 at 4:37 pm

It is quite interesting how many uninformed posters and/or trolls would love to find a way to show the "Russiagate" nonsense is somehow plausible in spite of the evidence. They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands.

I will say that the amount of mental gymnastics required to continue not believing evidence that is right in front of one's eyes is quite impressive – but I'd never underestimate the American people's creativity when they want to maintain their illusions/delusions. And I'd certainly never underestimate the Russiagate troll army's persistence.

At this rate I expect to soon encounter some version of the following "observation" in the comments section for this article: – "maybe space aliens hired by the Russians downloaded the files to a to a new fangled thig-a-ma-jig and then shape-shifted so Craig Murray would be fooled into thinking a real-like-human insider provided him the files on a flash drive." – "oh, oh, wait, maybe the aliens abducted Murray too, and then just made him "think" a fellow human gave him the drive in person." "yeah, yeah, and maybe Assange just says he didn't get the files from the Russians because "he's a space alien too." "Yeah, prove to me that it didn't happen this way – you can't – ha! there! I win!"

Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling, rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America.

Reply

GM , August 14, 2018 at 4:51 pm

America is after all a country in which half the population believe in the creation myth.

jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:11 am

but if i had to bet, the creationists are less likely to believe in Russiagate than the evolutionists.

Just Plain Scott , August 14, 2018 at 6:14 pm

Please don't give Rachel Maddow any more ideas.

michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:06 am

"Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives.

ToivoS , August 14, 2018 at 4:26 pm

I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a third manifestation of mass hysteria.

It all began with Hillary's shocking defeat. Many millions of her supporters knew that she was so good that she had to win. But then she lost. Those millions of Democrats could not accept that in fact their assessment of her talents were totally wrong and that she lost because she has to be one of the worst candidates in American history. That is a reality those people refused to accept. Instead they had to concoct some crazy conspiracy to explain their break with reality. This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance which often leads to mass hysteria.

GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm

People choose to believe what they feel that they most need to believe to assuage their insecurities fostered by what they perceive to be the dangerous and scary world in which they exist. The simple fact that we know that life is finite by the time we're three years old fosters the creation of such constructs as that of the myth of everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven complete with a mortgage-free condo and an extra parking space for all repentant sinners are mainstream beliefs.

Rob Roy , August 14, 2018 at 11:07 pm

ToivoS, you are right about Hillary. She simply couldn't accept her defeat. She was the one who began Russiagate by the lie, "17 intelligence agencies" said the Russians hacked the emails.
As for times of mass-swallowing of a lie in the 1930s every German thought that Poland was about to invade Germany and they were scared so much that they believed their leaders who "false flagged" them into invading Poland "first." Of course, Poland had no intention of invading Germany.
Notice every time the US attacks another sovereign country, there's a false flag waved for the citizens to follow?
Don't you appreciate that we have consortiumnews?

[Aug 17, 2018] Just like the establishment of long TSA lines pushing us travelers through airport security like inspected cattle, was an example of 911 reforms to our system, this Russia Gate Investigation and all its trappings are doing the same destruction to our liberties on the Internet

Notable quotes:
"... The erosion of the American society is on track, and its stay the course until this corporate owned government cannot govern no more. ..."
"... In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would take all this evidence the VIPS have produced and present it into the Mueller Investigation as just that evidence, or proof of lack there of. ..."
"... For a possibly useful parsing of what is actually going in the Mueller investigation, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEt4kwAvNqU The delivery is a bit inelegant, but the main takeaway is that the Mueller investigation is meant to hide what really went down between the Dems and the Russians. ..."
"... Here you can read to how far the U.S. is willing to go with nothing but allegations. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-sanctions/ This insanity has to end. ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky, August 13, 2018 at 8:59 pm

Russia Gate has given us one thing for sure, and that it is now ravishing the internet of all of its corporate controlled First Amendment Rights. Just like the establishment of long TSA lines pushing us travelers through airport security like inspected cattle, was an example of 911 reforms to our system, this Russia Gate Investingation and all its trappings are doing the same destruction to our liberties.

What memories of a free and liberal society have we all seen swirl ever so slowly, but deliberately down the memory hole of our once civil liberties? The erosion of the American society is on track, and its stay the course until this corporate owned government cannot govern no more.

In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would take all this evidence the VIPS have produced and present it into the Mueller Investigation as just that evidence, or proof of lack there of.

Good to hear Patrick Lawrence get down with it, that's what we need more of. At the rate the internet is going, say it now, or forever hold your peace, is now in force.

Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:26 pm

Here is a link to something that at first seems a little unrelated, but after reading it ask yourself, is it? Moon Jae in of S Korea may just have the answer for the way of dealing with past government malpractices.

https://journal-neo.org/2018/08/13/military-plot-in-south-korea-mayhem-in-defense-intelligence-agency/

Hey want to drain the swamp? call Moon Jae in ASAP.

Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:40 pm

Read this, it will piss you off.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/regulation/senator-mark-warner-proposes-the-end-of-free-speech-the-revenge-of-hillary/

Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:53 am

For a possibly useful parsing of what is actually going in the Mueller investigation, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEt4kwAvNqU The delivery is a bit inelegant, but the main takeaway is that the Mueller investigation is meant to hide what really went down between the Dems and the Russians.

Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 11:06 pm

Here you can read to how far the U.S. is willing to go with nothing but allegations. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-sanctions/ This insanity has to end.

Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 11:27 pm

I can't help myself, you need to read Caitlin Johnston's take on how it's okay to run with scissors in your hand . just brilliant. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50024.htm

Dave P. , August 14, 2018 at 1:29 am

Excellent observations, Joe. I hope this – Russia gate – does not lead to a much more dangerous zone as it appears to be heading to with these sanctions against Russia slated to go into effect in November. There was this rather very disquieting article the other day in Strategic Culture by Finnian Cunningham.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/08/11/us-sanctions-pushing-russia-war.html

As you said this insanity must end or else. . .

[Aug 17, 2018] The Russia-gate narrative has become "too big to fail

If this is true it is hard to see Russiagate collapsing...
Notable quotes:
"... The ruling establishment has pushed all their chips onto the table in a do-or-die effort to make this allegation stick. ..."
"... How many times has the U.S. "national security" establishment brazenly deceived the country and the world, at incalculable cost, without being held to account in a way that seriously discomfited the perpetrators? ..."
"... From the bomber gap, to the missile gap, through Vietnam from beginning to end, to Iran-Contra, to Iraqi WMDs, and so much more. ..."
"... It's hard to see Russia-gate collapsing in a way that would force its architects and proponents to acknowledge its fictitiousness: it is too much of an irrational miasma to actually be falsifiable in the sort of concrete way that led to even such perfunctory admissions of error as we got when Saddam's "WMDs" failed to exist. ..."
"... Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned elusive WMDs – and get laughs – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would this time be any different? ..."
"... People often wonder why psychopathic sadists enjoy torturing their victims, when presumably they have enough cognitive empathy to appreciate how terrible the suffering is. ..."
"... But that is WHY the sadists enjoy their activities so much. What they do to their victims is so unendurable, yet someone is having to endure it – and that somebody is not the perpetrator. ..."
"... It's hard to know if the American people will ever see a full explanation of this, Church Committee or FOIA style, ..."
Aug 17, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Maxwell Quest August 13, 2018 at 9:38 pm Excellent article! I was particularly jolted by the reference that the Russia-gate narrative has become "too big to fail." So true!

The ruling establishment has pushed all their chips onto the table in a do-or-die effort to make this allegation stick.

They have passed the point of no return; there is no walking it back now. If it fails heads will roll, but most importantly these trusted institutions will have flushed their last vestiges of credibility down the drain. Then what? Reply

David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:45 am

Or, as Patrick Lawrence puts it: "The risk of self-inflicted damage these institutions assume, should the truth of the Russia-gate events emerge -- as one day it surely will -- is nearly incalculable."

However, I disagree with both Mr. Lawrence and you, Maxwell Quest. I think that assessment is actually too optimistic.

How many times has the U.S. "national security" establishment brazenly deceived the country and the world, at incalculable cost, without being held to account in a way that seriously discomfited the perpetrators?

From the bomber gap, to the missile gap, through Vietnam from beginning to end, to Iran-Contra, to Iraqi WMDs, and so much more.

It's hard to see Russia-gate collapsing in a way that would force its architects and proponents to acknowledge its fictitiousness: it is too much of an irrational miasma to actually be falsifiable in the sort of concrete way that led to even such perfunctory admissions of error as we got when Saddam's "WMDs" failed to exist.

But even if that somehow does happen, and the whole Beltway official and media establishment has to suck it up and emit a feeble "my bad" about Russia-gate, what makes you think it will have any lasting consequences in terms of the dispensation of power and privilege among the U.S. elites?

Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned elusive WMDs – and get laughs – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would this time be any different?

AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:07 am

"Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned elusive WMDs – and get laughs" – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would this time be any different?

Yup, got lots of laughs from his fellow members of the club that were coconspirators.

Had he tried that joke around veterans and the families of casualties of that whole criminal adventure I doubt he would have made it out alive.

Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 8:57 am

Had he tried that joke around any of the millions of victims of his criminal aggression or their familes and friends, I am sure he would not have made it out alive.

But if you have ever managed to think yourself into the criminal mind, you will understand that it is precisely the fact that he was NOT subject to any comeback that made the whole thing such fun.

People often wonder why psychopathic sadists enjoy torturing their victims, when presumably they have enough cognitive empathy to appreciate how terrible the suffering is.

But that is WHY the sadists enjoy their activities so much. What they do to their victims is so unendurable, yet someone is having to endure it – and that somebody is not the perpetrator.

AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 4:51 am

I've never tried to think myself into the criminal mind. And, I thank you for the insight. I have had someone try to kill me. Someone that has killed at least one person before by his own admission. It changes you forever.

Anne Jaclard , August 14, 2018 at 10:33 am

Agreed. The American corporate press has been running what are essentially press releases and "dossiers" of evidence for a year now, mostly from shady private firms (Twitter trolls "discovered" by Graphika, Fusion GPS's "Dirty Dossier," CrowdStrike's initial investigation of the DNC).

Many of these firms aren't neutral parties either, head of CrowdStrike is rabidly anti-Russia and just put together another package of "research" that was debunked on Ukraine.

It's hard to know if the American people will ever see a full explanation of this, Church Committee or FOIA style, given that these are companies with no public obligations .not good.

Jeff Harrison , August 13, 2018 at 8:51 pm

Well, Patrick, I"m glad to see that you're writing for a reputable organization for a change. I don't have a hell of a lot to add to what you've said but I'll say this. I saw an article about the DefCon in Las Vegas this AM or yesterday. I don't remember where and I can't find it again but the gist of it is – they had like 39 kid volunteers who they told to go hack the election systems in some number of "battleground" states. The upshot? 35 of the 39 kids successfully hacked several election systems. The champ was an 11 yo girl who broke in in 10 minutes. If our election systems are so poorly designed that kids can break into them in just a few minutes, I'm sure it's just a walk in the park for an actual pro.

Jeff Harrison , August 13, 2018 at 10:45 pm

Hah! I found it. It was on RT, of course. Here's the link -https://www.rt.com/usa/435824-us-midterms-hacking-children/

Jessika , August 13, 2018 at 8:29 pm

Good comments to this very good article. I agree with Gary that the US is in decline, perhaps terminal, and that rising Eurasia led by China and Russia is the reason for the Deep State's frantic need to try to focus the people on Russia, and now the biggie, China, to avoid the reality of the social decay within from not addressing the people's needs for well over 30 years. However, i also don't think as many Americans are swallowing this lie as MSM and politicos would have us believe. What we now call the "alt-left", perhaps, may take it seriously. It was Mme Clinton herself who is at the top of chain of this manufactured story.

But I don't think we'll see this fixation around for the next 20-30 years, as Mr. Lawrence speculates, because I don't think we'll have that much time for such political nonsense as we are confronted by massive Earth changes, not all human-caused, that are now manifesting.

Tom Kath , August 13, 2018 at 8:28 pm

The correction of "illusions" often has the appearance of being too horrendous to contemplate. Be it the delusion that we can get wealthy on debt, or the delusion that we are invincible. These are all able to be traced back to a fundamental belief which has long been proven to be inconsistent with reality.

mike k , August 13, 2018 at 7:29 pm

How did we get here? The stupefication of the American people was well advanced before the pilgrims landed. The idea that this continent only really began when we "discovered" it was the beginning of our idiocy. That this land was waiting for the blessing of our special role in "civilizing' it was a continuation of our delusional thinking.

[Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs

Highly recommended!
In both cases CIA and neocons run the show. But there is new powerful factor: emergence of CIA democrats like Brennan and the conversion of intelligence agencies into political tool, the Cerberus that safeguard the castle of neoliberalism in the USA. The USA people (bottom 90%) be damned.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's guilt in " Russiagate " is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day. ..."
"... Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right -- from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to pretend that chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as reported by the New York Times ..."
"... Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs. ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
Aug 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
declared liberal celebrity activist Rosie O'Donnell at a protest in front of the White House last week. "We see it, he can't lie about it," she added. "He is going down and so will all of his administration." "The charge is treason," O'Donnell declared. Protesters held held large letters that spelled it out: " T-R-E-A-S-O-N ."

O'Donnell is by no means alone in her sentiments. Trump's guilt in " Russiagate " is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day.

This kind of partisan religiosity is not new.

In the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, conservative pundit Ann Coulter accused war opponents of " treason " and insisted of Saddam Hussein, "We know he had weapons of mass destruction."

Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right -- from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to pretend that chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as reported by the New York Times in 2014 were somehow the same thing as the " mushroom cloud " the Bush administration said Saddam was capable of.

Unfortunately for the right (and America, and the world), that premise turned out to be false. There were no WMDs. Today, only a minority of delusional, face-saving hawks and unreconstructed neoconservatives still parrot that lie .

And far from being "traitors," Iraq war opponents today are considered to have been on the right side of history .

John Brennan: Melting Down and Covering Up The Iraq War's Age of Madness

Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.

The post-2016 left's most dominant narrative is arguably their deeply held belief -- with all the ferocity and piety of yesterday's pro-war conservatives -- that Russia colluded with Trump's campaign to undermine the presidential election. Many believe that the president and anyone who supports his diplomatic efforts like Senator Rand Paul are in the pocket of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies," said Barack Obama in 2008, and he did just that with Putin, as has every other president in recent times .

But Trump-Russia relations have been spun into far-fetched conspiracy theories on the left. New York Magazine 's Jonathan Chait recently went so far as to speculate that Trump has been a Russian agent since 1987 , a cockamamie idea on par with the Weekly Standard 's Stephen Hayes' discredited conspiracy theory that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots .

It really was plausible that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 based on what our intelligence agencies knew, or purported to know. Today, it is feasible that American democracy really has Putin's fingerprints on it based on things revealed by U.S. intelligence.

But isn't it also possible that the left is reading far too much into Russiagate?

The Nation 's Aaron Maté believes liberals are overreaching, and that's putting it mildly:

From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of US government officials and other sources, most of them unnamed. The reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller's recent indictment of 12 Russian military-intelligence officers for hacking of Democratic party servers and voter databases is no exception. Mueller's indictment is certainly detailed. Most significantly, it marks the first time anyone has been charged for offenses related to Russiagate's underlying crime.

But while it is a major step forward in the investigation, we have yet to see the basis for the allegations that Mueller has lodged. As with any criminal case, from a petty offense to a cybercrime charge against a foreign government, a verdict cannot be formed in the absence of this evidence.

Then the irony kicks in. Maté continues, "The record of US intelligence, replete with lies and errors, underscores the need for caution. Mueller was a player in one of this century's most disastrous follies when, in congressional testimony, he endorsed claims about Iraqi WMDs and warned that Saddam Hussein 'may supply' chemical and biological material to 'terrorists.'"

Noting Mueller's 2003 WMD testimony is not an attempt to undermine him or his investigation, something Maté also makes clear. But it does serve as an important reminder that "intelligence" can be flat-out wrong. It reminds us how these scenarios, which so much of Washington and the elite class fully endorse, can be looked back on as lapses of reason years later.

Mass psychology is real. Political classes and parties are not immune.

"Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true," Maté asks. "Hacking e-mails and voter databases is certainly a crime, and seeking to influence another country's election can never be justified."

He continues, "But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that stealing e-mails and running juvenile social-media ads amount to an 'attack,' even an 'act of war,' are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed."

The U.S. could have certainly used less hyperbole and more sobriety in 2002 and 2003.

And there's good chance that when the history books are written about American politics circa 2018, much of Russiagate will be dismissed as more Red Scare than Red Dawn .

With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security concerns to the level of existential threat based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind of thinking has already proven to be dangerous.

We don't know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come forth, but it's easy to see how, even if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of fact, but political identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history.

No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially damaging information about Trump and Russia that may yet emerge.

Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans' Iraq fantasy.

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.

JLF August 16, 2018 at 1:31 pm

All this may be as Hunter would have it. Yet there is the nagging doubt that Trump, who could only find major financing for his enterprises following his last bankruptcy through Putin-controlled banks, could be free of any entangling ties or obligations. And if those doubts prove true, what then?
MM , August 16, 2018 at 1:42 pm
From the Nation: "From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of U.S. government officials and other sources, most of them unnamed."

This is a key point, because now Democrats and the most of the Left are ready to embrace a guy like Brennan a.k.a. Mr. Torture, merely because they hate Trump.

I'll also admit to not knowing what's coming in the future, but as of now there's a strong circumstantial case to be made that this reactions to Russian election meddling, which when all was said and done amounted to providing the voting public with the truth about the DNC and its own election-fixing operation, that this reaction is only about losing the 2016 presidential election to a guy who was only given a 1% chance of winning by almost everyone.

Clyde Schechter , , August 16, 2018 at 2:20 pm
This is the most sensible commentary on "Russiagate" I have seen anywhere in a long time.

At present, there is some suggestive evidence in the public arena, but nothing conclusive.

What we probably need, actually, is a moratorium on commentary about this until the investigation reaches its conclusion. That can take a long time. But until then, the endless partisanship-motivated speculation we hear daily is, frankly tiresome.

Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your temperate perspective on this. I wish this would be the last word on the subject until the investigation ends.

b. , , August 16, 2018 at 3:01 pm
'"Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.'

I suspect I agree with the author's sentiment, but it is not easy to tell.

Who stands accused? Trump? Russia? Both?

The claim that Trump is colluding with Russia is not the same as the claim that Iraq War opponents were colluding with Saddam Hussein.

The manufactured "Russia!" hysteria campaign orchestrated by the Obama/Clinton Democratic Party leadership, as deplorable and dubious as it might be, has nothing in common with the "5th column" smears Sullivan et.al. were peddling in 2002-2003 and beyond.

The claim that Trump committed "treason" would be legally incorrect on the worst case. Without a formal Congressional declaration of war, we are not at war with Russia, and Russia is not the enemy, no matter how much irresponsible mouthbreathing is broadcast from the biparty Congress members. However corrupt and corrupted Trump may be, corruption does not qualify as treason. If corruption were treason, Congress, in support of Israel and Saudi Arabia at the expense of the US (and certainly not in support of Russia) would be a house of traitors.

In comparison, the claim that opponents of the Iraq war were traitors was not just idiotic, but morally inexcusable. If anybody violated their oath, it was Bush himself, his appointees, and the ranking officers of the US military, for issuing illegal orders and/or following them.

"Russian election meddling" is the new WMD only the extent it is used as a pretext for war against Russia. It is the new "stained dress" in the attempt to challenge the ballot and paralyze an inconvenient President. I have no doubt that the Clintons are corrupt, and the GOP has engaged in many a Congressional effort to "investigate". The Clinton campaign adopted this playbook, and the damage to the Republic done by all is growing every day.

The real corruption here is the pretense that Congress is any better than Trump, that Russian oligarchs have more impact on the eroding Republic than Israeli-American, Saudi and UAE oligarchs, and that the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections and the franchise is Russia, and not the Roberts Court, Democrat apparatchiks like Sunstein, or Republican frauds like Kobach. Both parties are actively conspiring and plotting to make sure our votes are meaningless and cannot harm incumbents and the war profiteering classes, and where there used to be an opposition to illegal war and to oligarchs and plutocrats, there is now willing participation in manufactured hysteria to extend the 2016 campaign indefinitely.

WMDs? The very concept is a scam -- there is nukes, and nothing else. Nuclear arsenals outsized to end us all, and trillion dollar waste to expand them, are the tie that binds the US and Russia, and I suspect that Russia would be a lot more rational about reducing those arsenals than the US. If the author wants to worry about ending up on the wrong side of history, he should stop worrying about partisan points and focus. Politics is not a team sports, and anybody who picks a favorite is a failure as a citizen. Nobody who wants power is suitable for it.

b. , , August 16, 2018 at 3:07 pm
Ask yourself, if Saddam Hussein had had "WMD" -- say, some of those chemical and biological stocks Reagan envoy Rumsfeld helpfully provided to Saddam Hussein -- would that have made the Iraq invasion legal, right just, necessary, successful? Or if Powell's little phials and mobile weapons labs actually existed?

Heck, let's say Saddam managed to make actual nukes out of tubes that weren't and yellowcake that wasn't. North Korea has nukes. Does that make invasion and aggressive war legal, right, just necessary, successful?

WMD or not was a lie wrapped within a deception inside a fraud. That's the one thing that it has in common with "Russiagate". Every layer, every aspect of it is a lie, a distraction, and everybody -- Trump included -- is perpetuating the hysteria for their own benefit. The stupidity of it is only barely rivaled by the mendacity.

Stavros , , August 16, 2018 at 3:17 pm
Trump is proving to be the Republican Alger Hiss. The partisanship of 1948 quickly crystallized into pro- and anti-Hiss camps in which the then limited evidence was trumped by ideology. It was not until the Verona tapes were released in the early 1990s that Hiss was proven to be guilty. Had Nixon and his allies called for a special prosecutor in 1948 and the facts both open and classified been examined intensely, Hiss would never have become the progressive Victim that he was to be for over thirty years. Ditto with Trump. Absent Mueller's investigation, these accusations against Trump (and I believe them to have serious weight and substance as well as potential for policy changes to prevent election fraud) would be mere ideological shrapnel to be argued over for another thirty years. Let the investigations proceed unimpeded and a final accounting be published at the very least for the sanity and integrity of the Republic. Don't let Trump become the Right's Alger Hiss.
b. , , August 16, 2018 at 3:18 pm
In other words, let's imagine that Putin has really tried to change election results. Let's imagine that Trump really has been bribed by Russian oligarchs.

Is that why we are at this juncture? Is that why Congress has not served the People and upheld the Constitution in decades? Is that why citizens and voters lose trust in our institutions, and doubt election results?

Really?

We cannot even own up to our own mistakes, our own greed, our own malignancy. We have to blame it not on our "business partners" and "allies" and their hundreds of billions of dollars of arms purchases, we will blame it on Russia.

How small we have become.

It is not just Trump, it is Congress. It is not just this administration and this Congress, it is the previous ones, and the ones before it, and so on.

The point is not whether or not the "Russia!" hysteria and the allegations against Trump are accurate or not. The point is that, in comparison to everything else, it would just be more of the same, and we brought it upon ourselves.

Regime change begins at home.

Sisera , , August 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
@Collin-
Isn't it extremely Orwellian to say that 'information isn't really information/should be censored or disregarded if it comes from a subversive (Russia) source'?

Naturally, it allows for a very easy way to control and censor information.

Now, as far as pure security threats, aside from information that should've been public anyway, experts deem that the DNC information came from on site:

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

Now this is also an appeal to authority, but VIPs has a better track record and I've seen them actually elaborate on their claims, not just assert them.

[Aug 16, 2018] Russiagate and neo-McCarthysim are result of the newly minted Anti-Trump allience of neocons and neoliberals

Notable quotes:
"... Your comment is awaiting moderation. ..."
"... "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law." ..."
"... Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." ..."
"... This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
Aug 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Q August 13, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
– Globalism
– open borders
– anti-Russia, Iran
– American hegemony which means endless wars
– support for gay marriage
– anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues aren't as clearcut anymore.
Learned Foot , says: August 13, 2018 at 9:42 pm
Two sides of the same bad penny. Question is, how do we get rid of it?
Tom Cullem , says: August 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm
@Dundalk – Second all that, perfectly put.

They aren't worried about democracy: they're worried about global corporatist power, which is what "transatlantic partnerships" really translates to.

"Populism" is another name for the Great Unwashed trying to regain some control of their environment. Bloody cheek, eh?

likbez , says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 15, 2018 at 9:34 pm
@Q, August 13, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:

Bingo! It looks like neocons and neoliberals joined forces to fight the rise of "populism" which should probably be more properly called "the crisis of neoliberalism." To a certain extent, the current "NeverTrumplists" neo-McCarthyism campaign is the behavior of a wounded neoliberal beast (I am not sure why they have such an allergic reaction to Trump who in domestic policies is 100% neoliberal and in foreign policy is 66% neocon.)

They try to suppress dissent under the smoke screen of "commitment to democracy and core democratic principles" because, as you can guess, this is very important "at a time when the character of our societies is at stake." The character of the neoliberal society in the USA and EU to be exact.

Ironically, those "defenders of democracy" are interested in the issue of democracy even less than former Soviet nomenklatura. All they want is to kick the "classic neoliberalism" can down the road (and, as a side effect, preserve their lucrative sinecures; this is especially visible with Max Boot in his recent interviews )

As Professor Paul Gottfried noted about the recent alliance of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP):

Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?

Presumably, it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban.

Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing with its villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law."

It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have disrespected their countries' legal traditions.

Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values."

This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."

[Aug 16, 2018] Russiagate and neo-McCarthysim are result of the newly minted Anti-Trump allience of neocons and neoliberals

Notable quotes:
"... Your comment is awaiting moderation. ..."
"... "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law." ..."
"... Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." ..."
"... This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
Aug 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Q August 13, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
– Globalism
– open borders
– anti-Russia, Iran
– American hegemony which means endless wars
– support for gay marriage
– anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues aren't as clearcut anymore.
Learned Foot , says: August 13, 2018 at 9:42 pm
Two sides of the same bad penny. Question is, how do we get rid of it?
Tom Cullem , says: August 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm
@Dundalk – Second all that, perfectly put.

They aren't worried about democracy: they're worried about global corporatist power, which is what "transatlantic partnerships" really translates to.

"Populism" is another name for the Great Unwashed trying to regain some control of their environment. Bloody cheek, eh?

likbez , says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 15, 2018 at 9:34 pm
@Q, August 13, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:

Bingo! It looks like neocons and neoliberals joined forces to fight the rise of "populism" which should probably be more properly called "the crisis of neoliberalism." To a certain extent, the current "NeverTrumplists" neo-McCarthyism campaign is the behavior of a wounded neoliberal beast (I am not sure why they have such an allergic reaction to Trump who in domestic policies is 100% neoliberal and in foreign policy is 66% neocon.)

They try to suppress dissent under the smoke screen of "commitment to democracy and core democratic principles" because, as you can guess, this is very important "at a time when the character of our societies is at stake." The character of the neoliberal society in the USA and EU to be exact.

Ironically, those "defenders of democracy" are interested in the issue of democracy even less than former Soviet nomenklatura. All they want is to kick the "classic neoliberalism" can down the road (and, as a side effect, preserve their lucrative sinecures; this is especially visible with Max Boot in his recent interviews )

As Professor Paul Gottfried noted about the recent alliance of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP):

Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?

Presumably, it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban.

Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing with its villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law."

It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have disrespected their countries' legal traditions.

Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values."

This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."

[Aug 16, 2018] DRAIN THE SWAMP Trump FIRES Notorious Neocon Witch Victoria Nuland!

Youtube video
Aug 16, 2018 | www.youtube.com

MEATPOET , 1 year ago

Thank you, GOD!!! She should count herself lucky that this is all that happens given her EXTENSIVE war crimes.

regolo gellini , 1 year ago

Those that threw fire bombs in Maidan Square were ZEE (Blackwater) people paid for by dark CIA money and Victoria, the cow, Nuland was there to check the payment went through

jim52536 , 1 year ago

Great day for America and the world to clean the trash masters of delusion out of the state dept...

wize oldfart , 1 year ago

i bet Poroshenko feels very lonely and abandoned these days.

[Aug 15, 2018] Some suggestions about contra sanctions that Russia can implement

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Cortes says: August 12, 2018 at 10:44 pm

...Call a presser at the UN and have the Ambassador confirm that Obama and HRC are wholly paid-up RF assets and watch Civil War II unfold.

[Aug 15, 2018] "Under the mantle of the "war on terrorism," successive US governments, Democratic and Republican alike, have not only conducted wars whose victims number in the millions, but also carried out an unrelenting attack on democratic rights, from domestic spying to censoring the Internet.

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star August 7, 2018 at 2:36 pm

"Washington allies with ISIS as great power conflict trumps "war on terror"
7 August 2018
The "National Defense Strategy" document released at the beginning of this year declared bluntly that the nearly two-decade focus by the US military on the so-called "global war on terrorism" had come to an end. In its place, a new strategic orientation was being introduced based on preparing for "great power" confrontation, i.e., war with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

This was the first such defense strategy to be issued by the Pentagon in over a decade and expressed the urgency with which Washington views the preparations for a third world war.

A particularly crude and criminal outcome of this policy shift is becoming increasingly apparent in three major theaters where US forces are engaged in active combat operations. Reports from Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan provide firm evidence that the US and its local proxies are allying themselves with and employing the services of elements of ISIS and Al Qaeda in the pursuit of Washington's broader strategic interests.

In Yemen, hundreds, if not thousands, of fighters from Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), branded by the US government as the "most dangerous" affiliate of the loose international Al Qaeda network, have been recruited by Washington's closest allies in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to fight as foot soldiers in the near-genocidal US-backed war that these Persian Gulf oil monarchies have been waging against the impoverished country of Yemen since 2015.

According to an investigative report published Monday by the Associated Press, the Saudi-led coalition "cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash Hundreds more were recruited to join the coalition itself."

It added that "Key participants in the pacts said the US was aware of the arrangements and held off on any drone strikes."

"Elements of the US military are clearly aware that much of what the US is doing in Yemen is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that," Michael Horton, a senior analyst at the Jamestown Foundation, a CIA-connected Washington think tank, told the AP.

"However, supporting the UAE and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against what the US views as Iranian expansionism takes priority over battling AQAP and even stabilizing Yemen," Horton added.

This is a gross understatement. Washington is providing indispensable military support for a war that has reduced millions of Yemenis to the brink of starvation. It is prepared to wipe out much of the country's population in order to bolster its strategic position and that of the reactionary Arab regimes with which it is allied against the perceived threat of Iranian influence to US regional hegemony.

The war has escalated in recent days in the ongoing siege of the Yemeni Red Sea Port of Hodeidah, which was green-lighted by the Trump administration. The UN has warned that a quarter of a million people could lose their lives in this operation, while millions more across the country may die of starvation if it shuts down the port, the sole lifeline for food, fuel and medicine for at least 70 percent of the population.

Recruiting Al Qaeda fighters to slaughter Yemenis in this immense and bloody war crime is entirely consistent with US policy.

In regard to Syria, meanwhile, Russia's Defense Ministry last Thursday issued a statement warning that ISIS has increasingly concentrated its forces in the area around al-Tanaf, near the Syrian-Iraqi border, where the US military maintains a military base and has unilaterally declared a 34-mile exclusion zone around it. US troops there have provided training to so-called "rebels" opposing the government of President Bashar al-Assad and appear to be providing a security screen for ISIS."

"Under the mantle of the "war on terrorism," successive US governments, Democratic and Republican alike, have not only conducted wars whose victims number in the millions, but also carried out an unrelenting attack on democratic rights, from domestic spying to censoring the Internet.

The emerging international alliance between the Pentagon and ISIS only serves to expose the real interests underlying these policies, which are bound up with the waging of war to offset US imperialism's loss of economic preeminence and defend its crumbling global hegemony, and domestic repression to sustain a social order characterized by the most extreme inequality in modern American history."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/07/pers-a07.html

Mark Chapman August 7, 2018 at 7:03 pm
The USA proudly announces that it is repatriating captured ISIS fighters from the Syrian war to their countries of origin.

https://www.keyt.com/news/politics/us-transferring-some-isis-detainees-from-syria-to-their-home-countries/778531846

Keep in touch, ya hear?

Why no money from the Trump administration for Syrian recovery? You know why – because the wrong side won. They say so, in so many words.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/07/trumps-post-isis-retreat-leaves-syria-vulnerable-to-russia-and-iran/

"The very abhorrent reality is that Assad has prevailed in this civil war," Dalton said.

yalensis August 8, 2018 at 2:05 am
"While many of the countries that have received detainees have chosen to keep quiet about the repatriations, the Pentagon confirmed on Tuesday that the Republic of Macedonia had taken custody of a group of foreign fighters.
"Today's transfer of Foreign Terrorist Fighters to their country of origin, Macedonia, marks a significant milestone in the much-needed cooperative effort to combat the global threat of terrorism," Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told CNN."

Huh? Are the Westie media not even pretending any more, that they are fighting against the terrorists? Most of us know that was B.S. anyhow, but the broader (ignoramuses) public, the kind of morons who watch CNN every day, were not ever supposed to be let in on that little secret.

[Aug 15, 2018] Talking Turkey: In essence this is an emerging market financial crisis, much like the 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis

Notable quotes:
"... So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the danger of contagion . ..."
"... Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008. ..."
"... Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war. ..."
"... NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires. ..."
"... NATO only seems to be useful to the hegemony that supports it. Peace is not it's mission. ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 3:46pm

By now you've probably heard that Turkey is having a financial crisis, and Trump appears to be pouring gasoline on it.
But you may not understand what is happening, or you may not know why it's important.
So let's do a quick recap .

Turkey's currency fell to a new record low today. Year to date it's lost almost half its value, leading some investors and lenders inside and outside of Turkey to lose confidence in the Turkish economy.
...
"Ninety percent of external public and private sector debt is denominated in foreign currencies," he said.

Here's the problem. Because of the country's falling currency, that debt just got a lot more expensive.
A Turkish business now effectively owes twice as much as it did at the beginning of the year. "You are indebted in the U.S. dollar or euro, but your revenue is in your local currency," explained Lale Akoner, a market strategist with Bank of New York Mellon's Asset Management business. She said Turkey's private sector currently owes around $240 billion in foreign debt.

In essence this is an emerging market financial crisis, much like the 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis.

This is all about hot money that has been washing around in a world of artificially low interest rates, and now, finally, an external shock happened. As it always happens .

The bid-ask spread, or the difference between the price dealers are willing to buy and sell the lira at, has widened beyond the gap seen at the depth of the global financial crisis in 2008, following Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s collapse.

So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the danger of contagion .

The turmoil follows a similar currency crash in Argentina that led to a rescue by the International Monetary Fund. In recent days, the Russian ruble, Indian rupee and South African rand have also tumbled dramatically.

Investors are waiting for the next domino to fall. They're on the lookout for signs of a repeat of the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis that began when the Thai baht imploded.

A minor currency devaluation of the Thai baht in 1997 eventually led to 20% of the world's population being thrust into poverty. It led to Russia defaulting in 1998, LTCM requiring a Federal Reserve bailout, and eventually Argentina defaulting in 2001.

Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008.

The markets want Turkey to run to the IMF for a loan, but that would require a huge interest rate hike and austerity measures that would thrust Turkey into a long depression. However, that isn't the biggest obstacle .

The second is that Erdogan would have to bury his hatchet with the United States, which remains the IMF's largest shareholder. Without U.S. support, Turkey has no chance of securing an IMF bailout program.

There is another danger, a political one and not so much an economic one, that could have dramatic implications.
If Erdogan isn't overthrown, or humbled, then there is an ironclad certainty that Turkey will leave NATO and the West.

Turkey, unlike Argentina, does not seem poised to turn to the International Monetary Fund in order to stave off financial collapse, nor to mend relations with Washington.

If anything, the Turkish President looks to be doubling down in challenging the US and the global financial markets -- two formidable opponents.
...
Turkey would probably no longer view the US as a reliable partner and strategic ally. Whoever ends up leading the country, a wounded Turkey would most likely seek to shift the center of gravity away from the West and toward Russia, Iran and Eurasia.

It would make Turkey less in tune with US and European objectives in the Middle East, meaning Turkey would seek to assert a more independent security and defense policy.

Erdogan has warned Trump that Turkey would "seek new friends" , although Russia and China haven't yet stepped up to the plate to bat for him.
Russia, Iran and China do have a common interest when in comes to undermining the petrodollar . Pulling Turkey into their sphere of influence would be a coup.

Turkey lies at a historic, strategic crossroad. The bridge between the peaceful West and the war-ridden dictatorships of the East that the West likes to bomb.

On its Western flank, Turkey borders Greece and Bulgaria, Western-facing members of the European Union. A few years ago, Turkey -- a member of NATO -- was preparing the join Europe as a full member.

Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war.

Losing Turkey would be a huge setback for NATO, the MIC, and the permanent war machine.

QMS on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 4:59pm

IMF = Poison

more struggling economies are starting to get it. Trade wealth for the rulers (IMF supporters) to be paid by the rest of us. Fight back. Squeeze the bankers balls. Can't have our resources, now way, no how, without a fight.

enhydra lutris on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 6:26pm
Can the BRICS get by without Brazil, perhaps by pulling

in a flailing Turkey? Weren't there some outside potential takers encouraging China when it floated its currency proposal?

Nastarana on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 8:41pm
NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires.

Patrolling our shores for drug running and toxic dumping. Teaching school, 10 kids per class maximum. Refurbishing buildings and housing stock. Post Cold War, an military alliance with Turkey makes no sense.

QMS on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 9:22pm
NATO only seems to be useful to the hegemony that supports it. Peace is not it's mission.

[Aug 15, 2018] The US Must Engage With Russia by Rand Paul

Looks like the US politics of the first decapitating shrike now is under review. Encirclement of Russian meanwhile continues unabated.
Aug 15, 2018 | www.theatlantic.com

Over the years, though, agreements with Russia to reduce nuclear arms have not followed a straight path of success. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush announced his intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by announcing that the INF Treaty might no longer be in Russia's interests. Russia had ratified START II in 2000 but pulled out of the treaty after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

Most recently, New START took effect in 2011. In addition to placing a cap of 1,550 on deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a nearly three-quarters drop from START, New START also cut in half the allowable number of strategic nuclear-delivery vehicles, such as missile launchers and heavy bombers.

New START expires in 2021. If either side allows it to simply sunset, it will be the first time in several decades that a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia lapses.

... ... ...

Rand Paul is the junior United States Senator from Kentucky.

[Aug 15, 2018] Human cost of anti-Putin propaganda

Notable quotes:
"... But .but they criticized Putin!!! That's a common link, surely? ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Drutten August 10, 2018 at 6:23 am

This is old news, but I decided to take a closer look at it. You may remember this viral tidbit:

Yup, that's 54,000 retweets and 65,000 "likes" right there. Good lord

Most of the actual names aren't visible, but the ones that can be read go as follows (I added some background information on them as well):


Funny, ain't it?

Mark Chapman August 10, 2018 at 7:20 am
But .but they criticized Putin!!! That's a common link, surely?
Drutten August 10, 2018 at 8:11 am
Out of all those that can be easily identified in the photograph above, I think it's safe to say only two of them even knew about Putin. The rest died when Putin was a nobody, save for Pralnikov, but he had been hospitalized on and off for a decade before he finally passed away in 1997.

When you dig deeper into it, the trail of dead journalists, business competitors and local officials in the wake of Boris Berezovsky's and Mikhail Khodorkovsky's 1990's escapades is the most striking one by far. That was under Yeltsin's watch, needless to say, and we all know what became of those two gentlemen when they finally ditched Russia for Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Among the journalists that have died since 2000, nearly all of which are attributed to Putin in one way or another these days by lazy pundits (and politicians, and human rights organizations etc), several curiously also probed Berezovsky. Then, you have a big bunch of deaths that are routinely and grossly misrepresented e.g:
https://fkriuk.blogspot.com/2008/02/audit-of-committee-to-protect.html

All in all, summing it up it's all a steaming pile of fake news.

[Aug 15, 2018] Mastercard and Visa can be hit by Russian sanctions; the US financial sector can be eliminated in Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics . ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman August 10, 2018 at 7:58 am

It's time for everyone to come off Twitter – it is like writing your message on your buttocks with a black sharpie and dropping your trousers. Tweets are the kind of stupid thing you send out at the end of work after you've had a bastard of a day, and something you read or hear pushes you over the edge. People in diplomatic posts should not be allowed to use Twitter at all, and should be punished for doing so – reporters now avidly follow the Twitter feed of anyone who is anyone, and pounce on anything that has not been thought through before it can be deleted: an attempt to delete it is just the icing on the cake, an admission that you shouldn't have said it.

Time was, diplomats ran everything they said in writing in an official capacity through a review before it was released, it was parsed six ways from Sunday to see how it might be spun, twisted or misinterpreted. Diplomats speaking in a live interview were careful to remain vague and say nothing which might not have meant several different things. You did not get countries straining to get at one another because of something the minister of agriculture said. But now everybody feels they can speak for the government on Twitter. It's hard to imagine how the various countries of the world could come to be represented by their stupidest citizens.

I hope America does formally sanction the Russian finance and banking sector. They're already doing it under the radar, and going formal would give Russia an excuse to dump SWIFT and stop using it, as well as the US dollar. Mastercard and Visa would be gonzo, taillights, possibly in China as well. America sanctioning the Russian financial sector would remove its last ability to keep an eye on it easily.

Patient Observer August 10, 2018 at 3:29 am
Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics .
Mark Chapman August 10, 2018 at 7:42 am
It's just diplo-speak, to mark the speaker as a civilized man and not a thug. That is beginning to become a bit of a sore point – is there anyone left who actually believes that because Russian diplomats say "our American friends" or "our American colleagues", that they labour under a delusion that this is just a temporary spat and under it all they still have brotherly connections? If so, let me disabuse all those people of that notion; the Russian government and all its operatives are well aware that America is a self-declared and thus committed enemy. But saying, "the Americans, our enemies" would make for tiresome commentary in the western papers, in which ideologues would assess that this practice proved the Russians are the aggressors while westerners are just trying to work it out. Alternatively, they could lower themselves to the vernacular and instruct, "Listen up, motherfuckers".

Russia understands that America is an enemy and not a friend of any description, just as it understands the United Nations is an American-dominated body and that it is next to useless to expect the UN to back any Russian initiative. It continues to go through the motions in both cases, merely to underline who is following the rules and protocols set up by a better and more aware global civilization than currently prevails, and who is just kicking sand in the other's face and trying to get him to swing for the chin.

Moscow Exile August 13, 2018 at 12:41 am
I feel that I should add that by saying that Americans are not Russia's friends, I mean "deep-state" Americans and others of like mind.

I am sure that most American citizens just want to live their lives in peace and do not feel threatened by "Vlad" and his Evil Empire.

Not long back from the country and head off there again this afternoon for the rest of the week.

And no, I am not building my nuclear fall-out bunker there!

Patient Observer August 13, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Very true. Poll after poll fails to show any concern by American citizens over Russian "meddling" or Russian "assertiveness". Sure, questions can be posed such as "Should the US resist the Russian invasion of xxxxx?". Naturally, the answer would likely be yes. But when asked, without prompting, what concerns them, Russia does not register as a concern at any level. I find this remarkable as anti-Russian news is often the lead on every network evening news show. I can not recall a news broadcast for many months that did not include a Russian-bashing story. The tipping point on media credibility may have been reached

[Aug 15, 2018] Sanctions that Russia can implement

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer says: August 12, 2018 at 6:23 pm

https://www.rt.com/business/435760-russia-response-us-sanctions/

In short:

  1. Cut off titanium metals and fabrications to the West – Boeing shutdowns as well as many other US aerospace operations;
  2. Close off air space or charge much higher tariffs to US carriers using Russian airspace. US airlines become non-competitive in many Asian and European markets;
  3. Stop exporting LNG and other energy products to the US;
  4. Raise taxes or shutdown US companies in Russia;
  5. Stop exports of the RD-180 and 181 rocket engines.

Action 1 would have a devastating impact on US aerospace manufacturing. The US has little ability to replace with domestic or foreign supplies. This action should be reserved in the event of extremely aggressive US actions such as a direct military attack on Syria;

Perhaps the sequence should be 2, 3, 5, 4, 1.

Cortes says: August 12, 2018 at 10:44 pm I propose a 6.

Call a presser at the UN and have the Ambassador confirm that Obama and HRC are wholly paid-up RF assets and watch Civil War II unfold.

[Aug 15, 2018] Countermove in Caspian see: no NATO allowed

Notable quotes:
"... It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.' ..."
"... Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox. ..."
"... Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

yalensis August 13, 2018 at 2:06 am

Apologies if somebody already posted, the legal partitioning of the Caspian Sea is finally complete and constitutes good news for Russia:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-says-deal-to-settle-status-of-caspian-sea-reached-a8486311.html

yalensis August 13, 2018 at 2:10 am
The other backstory being that NATO wanted to stick its nose in the Caspian Sea, but has been pushed out. Not sure exactly what the pretext was. I have a piece in VZGLIAD that explains the whole thing, but I haven't worked through it yet, will probably do a piece on my own blog in the near future. But I have a couple of other projects in the queue first.
Mark Chapman August 13, 2018 at 8:39 am
Dick Cheney, among others, was convinced that the Caspian Basin holds massive deposits of oil and gas and is strategically significant for that reason.

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue46/articles/real_reasons_quotes.htm

"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led alliance. This would be a nightmare situation. We had better wake up to the dangers or one day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more. The potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance. The potential economic rewards of Caspian energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect our investment if necessary."

Mortimer Zuckerman
Editor, U.S. News and World Report

"This is about America's energy security. Its also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."

Bill Richardson
Then-U.S. Secretary Energy (1998-2000)

It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.'

Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox.

Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. A pipeline network would have carried Caspian oil and gas to Europe. Agreement among the Caspian nations was most definitely not in American interests, and if you dig you will probably find American interventions to prevent that from coming about.

[Aug 15, 2018] Russia need to preserve normalcy for its own population despite US sanctions, so overreacting might be counterproductive as some goods produced by West can't be easily replaced

Notable quotes:
"... Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride. ..."
"... Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are potentially stupid dangerous. ..."
"... I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian. Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA. ..."
"... Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back and see the bigger picture ..."
"... I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to get elsewhere. ..."
"... The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling. But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical damage on Russian society and Russian people. ..."
"... It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate. ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman August 12, 2018 at 10:43 am

Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride.

Mr. Putin's popularity with the Russian people rests largely on their confidence that he is looking out for them, and always carefully balancing risk with reward. If Russia were run by somebody like Erdogan, the west would have succeeded in overthrowing him ages ago.

Russia is in a good position to resist sanctions, because Washington dares not impose restrictions on its trade in oil and gas. While it would be wrong to assume Russia has nothing else, these are core industries and in the other sectors where Russia is strong, the west does not buy much from it anyway except for steel and raw materials. Russia can easily replace those markets. But western brands who spent decades building up their market in Russia slowly and carefully have lost it almost overnight. And they will be a long, long time getting it back.

Jen August 12, 2018 at 3:20 pm
PCR's sources of information probably focus too much on the doings of the Central Bank of Russia and not enough on other sources of advice that the Russian government might rely on. You wonder whether PCR or his researchers are aware that the Russians and the Chinese might be mocking the US in the statements and policies they choose to make public.
Patient Observer August 12, 2018 at 4:41 pm
Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are potentially stupid dangerous.

I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian. Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA.

Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

Mark Chapman August 12, 2018 at 10:23 pm
I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to get elsewhere.

I also agree Russia should keep on supplying the EU with energy, for a couple of reasons. One, any interruption in the supply is just what Washington and its Atlanticist Eurobuddies are looking for so they can label Russia an unreliable partner, and start that whole alternative-sources conversation again: it's why they want to keep Ukraine in the loop – to initiate disruptions and promote uncertainty about the reliability of Russian gas.

Two, Russia has a good chance of splitting factions in Europe off from the USA, as the latter is more and more perceived to be trying to boss the European energy market so as to secure a captive customer for its own exports. The last thing Russia needs is to create the impression that Washington is saving Europe instead of dicking it around.

James lake August 12, 2018 at 7:16 am
https://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/finian-cunningham.html

US Sanctions Are Pushing Russia to War

"The new round of sanctions this week unleashed by the United States on Russia has only one meaning: the US rulers want to crush Russia's economy. By any definition, Washington is, in effect, declaring war on Russia.

The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling. But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical damage on Russian society and Russian people.

It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate."

kirill August 12, 2018 at 10:14 am
All these articles are hysterical pap. The events after 2014 have demonstrated that Russia is immune to western sanctions and actually massively benefits from them. It has also shown that it can rapidly react to changing financial conditions as seen in the offloading of $230 billion in foreign debt in 2015. The current round of "the mother of all sanctions" trash talk from Washington is desperate and pathetic failure.

Russia has no reason or incentive for war. It is NATzO that wants to take Russia out. Russia will adjust to the new sanctions by become fully independent of any western financial or economic links. Russia has the critical economic mass to by an autarchy. But it does not need to be since it will keep on trading with most of the planet. NATzO accounts for 11% of the global population (but thinks it is 100%). The congenital retards who run NATzO are helping China to become the next premier financial power. The Yuan will replace the dollar by necessity if not by choice.

I want to see the writers of this scaremongering garbage list the actual economic impacts on Russia. Starting with the financial ones. Russia does not depend on foreign currencies. It also does not depend on foreign loans like some banana republic. The current claims by the chimps in Congress that they will bring Russia's economy to its knees are the same BS as during the post Banderite Kiev coup sanctions which Obama was sure were going to cut Russia down.

Enough already!

davidt August 12, 2018 at 3:49 pm
There is some truth in what you say but nevertheless I think you quite underestimate the threat of US sanctions. One doesn't have to be an unabashed fan of Ben Aris to accept some of the points that he makes in the following article.
http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-us-declares-economic-war-on-russia-146707/?source=blogs
In any case, I am a fan of Eric Kraus and he has serious concerns- check out some of his comments here, say, for example, 7 minutes in.
kirill August 12, 2018 at 4:29 pm
Eric Kraus apparently thinks that Russian enterprises need to borrow dollars or euro from the west. He is dead wrong. Russia can get all the dollars and euro it needs via the exports of oil and gas, minerals, military equipment, nuclear power plants and assorted other exports over $400 billion US per year. That was the point of my post: Uncle Scumbag's sanctions on financial transactions do not cut Russia off, they cut the US and the EU off from the Russian market. We are back to 2014 and these new "mother of all sanctions" will be as useless as the previous round.

As for Japan, it is a useless comparison. Pearl Harbour was triggered by the US trying to cut Japan off from vital resources. Non financial ones. Nobody can cut Russia either from natural resources or the financing it needs. But Russia can f*ck the EU over big time by cutting off natural gas exports. As the rabid mutt in Washington tries to go for broke, Russia should keep diverting natural gas eastward. Let Uncle Scumbag save the EU with the spare LNG he doesn't have.

Patient Observer August 12, 2018 at 5:20 pm
Yes, the analogy between prewar Japan and Russia is false. It can be argued that it is exactly the opposite. Russia has the resources that the West needs and if Russia were to cut those off, the West could be induced to launch a war of desperation as Japan did. If Russia is "walking on eggs" that is why.
Mark Chapman August 12, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Russia also can borrow whatever money it needs to from China. China probably has more than enough to lend of its own, but if it does not, it is under no restrictions against borrowing from western banks, and those banks have no control over how that money is reallocated.
davidt August 13, 2018 at 2:19 pm
I commented on the Pearl Harbour episode simply to make the point that the proposed sanctions are a very aggressive move- this is clearly how the Russian government sees them, and rightly so. If these sanctions clip a percent or so of Russian GDP growth for the foreseeable future then they are very damaging for the country. Frankly, I would not be very sanguine about Russia's long term future if it were not for China, and I continue to back Kraus's opinion over Kirill's This earlier article by Aris sets the stage reasonably well- it's obvious weakness is that the role of China is not taken into account
. http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-russio-delenda-est-140787/?source=blogs
A further point. No matter how creative Russia's scientists and engineers might be, it beggars belief to imagine that any country can compete technologically long term if largely isolated by the rest of the World. Again, this further emphasizes how critical China is likely to be for Russia's well being.
Patient Observer August 13, 2018 at 3:01 pm
Russia needs China and China needs Russia if it wants to remain a sovereign nation.

I would add that the US is in a very fragile state burdened by a stagnate economy despite massive deficit spending in addition to a crumbling global empire. Russia may simply need to ride out the storm and let nature takes it course relative to the US.

kirill August 13, 2018 at 6:24 pm
The chimps in Congress can't see past their own noses and think that borrowing and debt is what sustains the Russian economy. Their bubble of delusion has no bearing on Russian reality. They are currently engaged in "the definition of insanity is to repeat the same failed approach over and over and expect a different result". You can't cut Russia off from western banks more than once and there is obviously no cumulative impact from such sanctions.
kirill August 13, 2018 at 6:20 pm
On what basis do you estimate 1% GDP growth reduction (or contraction?) for the foreseeable future? Kraus needs to make a case and not just engage in proof by assertion. How can we have the same restrictions to banking access that were imposed in 2014 all of the sudden starting to matter now? That is just ludicrous. Cutting off access to NATzO banks in 2014 was the limit of what NATzO could do. It can't go into Russia and shut down Russian banks to prevent Russian companies from financing themselves there or from the Russian government.

Anyway, too much obscure mush and utter lack of details. These "mother of all sanctions" are a joke because the 2014 sanctions did most of the "damage".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/russia-sanctions-us-eu-banks-sberbank-oil-gazprom

LOL.

Mark Chapman August 13, 2018 at 11:18 pm
But for how long can the rest of the world (meaning, I suppose, the United States and western Europe, which seem together to think they are The World) keep it up? Long enough to bring Russia down? I frankly doubt it. America needs trade for its corporations to flourish and expand market share, and it is not achieving that through sanctions and tariffs. The USA is not just taking on Russia; it is making enemies everywhere. The global economy is so interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to death unless you can block all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to Russia) without hurting Europe.

The present sanctions are lame and do not really do anything but get journalists excited and use up paper. The sting is in the ones set to automatically go into effect in three months, because to avoid them Russia must admit that it has a secret chemical-weapons program, agree to shut it down and allow UN inspectors into the country to verify it has been done. Perhaps Trump and his cabal gamble that Russia will cop to something it actually doesn't have, just to avoid sanctions, as Gadaffi did. But Russia will not, while the American attempt to bring more inconvenience and problems to the Russian people in an effort to use them to bludgeon the government into doing Washington's bidding is about as shitty a thing as America has ever done without involving weapons, since it offers no proof at all of its conclusions. It is simply imposing collective punishment in order to get ts own way, and would be the first to squeal if Russia did it.

Northern Star August 14, 2018 at 3:06 pm
"The global economy is so interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to death unless you can block all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to Russia) without hurting Europe."

The entire sanctions discussion in a nutshell.

Northern Star August 14, 2018 at 3:48 pm
From the Ben Aris link:

"Like the Romans, the US has built a military-industrial economy that can massively out-resource all its opponents' and so is impossible to defeat – a legacy of the rapid militarisation during WWII when it simply out produced first the Nazis and then the Soviet Union, the only other country on the planet at the time with any chance of matching the US's industrial might"

Unlike the Reich the USA industrial base wasn't hampered by round the clock bombing from the Eighth AirForce and the RAF , which also involved the diversion on billions of Reichsmarks for thousands of planes and the Luftwaffe manpower in an attempt to stop or at least mitigate the air attacks.

Likewise the USA industrial base was not hampered by having to -in a massive undertaking-uproot its core manufacturing facilities and move them thousands of kilometers to where they could be reassembled and resume production of machinery , armor and weaponry in general.

Furthermore:

These are just a couple reasons for the fall of Rome, but what is perhaps most terrifying about the fall are the corollaries to today. The Unites States of America has a Gini coefficient of .45, and 40% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population.[5] By every metric, the United States is even more divided and unfair than Rome before its fall. The effects are perfectly evident as well as there is increasing inclination from the rich to build fallout bunkers and withdraw from civilization and politics just as the roman elites did centuries before. Worsening matters is the evidence of extreme racism towards migrant workers who like slaves in Rome "take the labor from the hardworking middle class". Increasingly the middle class shrinks as social unrest and bigotry grows. It is a scary combination that, if we aren't careful, could spell the end of civilization as we know it, just like it did for the Romans centuries before.

https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017/11/05/how-socialincome-inequality-and-the-fall-of-rome-is-relevant-today/
AND the five links therein.

Therefore the Aris notion that USA can simply bide its time and wait for Russia to collapse is suspect. If anything there may well be be a collapse but not Russia.

Patient Observer August 14, 2018 at 4:58 pm
Agree with the sentiment but the Soviet Union outproduced the US in every industrial category that mattered. Its military was much stronger than the US on land and in the air. On the sea, the US probably had the edge.

The Soviet Union fell because its ideology provided no means to deal with psychos and sociopaths. Religion, with all of its shortcomings, at least tried to address sociopathic behaviors with such terms as sin, evil, etc. When religion left the building, there was nothing left to stop the psychos and its kissing cousins, the Randites.

The West is immune from such dangers as it embraces sociopathyy. Russia, I believe, is seeking a society that can withstand such assaults without heavy handed purges which only provide temporary relief. The Orthodox Church ascendancy in modern Russia is helping to provide that moral anchor to keep socciopathy from becoming the dominant world view. I think even atheists can agree on the importance of its role in providing a stable and humane society.

[Aug 15, 2018] Russia is one of only 7 nation states to have verifiably dismantled and destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles as ratified by the OPCW and in compliance to the CWC. After Skripal false flag they probably have a second thought.

Notable quotes:
"... What can I say – perhaps now Russia will batten down the hatches and stop all this pandering to western partners. ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake August 8, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Breaking news here in the UK.

USA say that Russia did poison the Skripals in Salisbury.

"The US blamed the attack on Vladimir Putin and said they would be issuing fresh sanctions in response to the deadly attack.

The state department says Wednesday the sanctions will be imposed on Russia because it used a chemical weapon in violation of international law.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said: "The United States determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law, or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals."

Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent, in the British town of Salisbury in March."

What can I say – perhaps now Russia will batten down the hatches and stop all this pandering to western partners.

kirill August 8, 2018 at 3:28 pm
No need to batten down the hatches. Just ignore the yapping NATzO chihuahuas. We have not even had a proper trial to determine guilt. The US leadership is not some ultimate judicial body. They can make as many political judgements as they want, but that will do Jack to Russia.

At this point all the hysterical US-driven sanctions against Russia are totally self defeating. The monkeys in Washington clearly think that Russia is a banana republic and that it needs to have access to foreign money and technology to function. They are cleared fucked in the head.

Patient Observer August 8, 2018 at 3:56 pm
More on the above per RT:

It would reportedly include more drastic measures, such as downgrading diplomatic relations, banning the Russian airline Aeroflot from flying to the US and cutting off nearly all exports and imports.

So, are we talking about RD-180 rocket engines and Americans traveling to the ISS on Russian rockets? Are we talking about titanium fabrications that Boeing needs for its aircraft manufacturing?

This Russian hysteria is masking something, something big. My one-track mind suggests fixated on the idea of an approaching economic collapse and subsequent imposition of martial law and/or massive levels of censorship; all to be blamed on Russia. The increasingly frenetic pace of Russian hysteria suggests a near-term sh!t-storm is on the way.

James lake August 8, 2018 at 4:18 pm
The Russian hysteria is scary as so many citizens over there believe in the Russiagate nonsense and have been manipulated to feel they have been attacked.

It means therefore that conditions have been created whereby the USA has the support to attack back.

Putin should never have gone to Helsinki as that escalated the madness.

Trump is emasculated just as obama was and has no power to do anything to block this pathway to outright confrontation

The Europeans will sit by and watch – Russia has no allies there.,

Patient Observer August 8, 2018 at 5:27 pm
Europe will stay on the porch and let the big boys duke it out. In the red corner, we have Vlad – the Terminator. In the other corner, we have Donald – the Orange Haystack. In another corner we have Bruce – the Red Dragon.

Haystack lumbers out of his corner before the bell rings, makes some nasty gestures and starts his victory dance. The Terminator stands in his corner, muscular arms folded across his chest with a wry smile across his face. The Red Dragon is closely studying Haystack with an inscrutable stare. Haystack exhausts himself and collapses mid-ring. The Terminator and Red Dragon leave the arena as the Haystack fans seek their autographs. Something like that.

Mark Chapman August 8, 2018 at 4:41 pm
Perhaps a boxed piano will fall from a ninth-floor balcony and crush Nauert to a rectangular pizza. I'd pay to see that.

Define 'pandering'. Can you name some concessions the United States has wrung from Russia in the last two years? I seem to recall the British investigators said there was no proof that anyone in the Russian government was involved – they simply speculated that because Novichok could only be made in a state facility, there must be state involvement. Does the USA have some evidence that the British have not seen yet? Perhaps they found it in the same place they filed their satellite photography of the Buk missile taking out MH17.

Murdock August 9, 2018 at 1:05 pm
You mean the same Russia that is one of only 7 nation states to have verifiably dismantled and destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles as ratified by the OPCW and in compliance to the CWC? That Russia?

I can't wait for this determination to be made public along with the coinciding evidence as released by an official judiciary body wielding the requisite jurisdiction and authority under official auspices of the UN. That's what is meant by determined right? Pretty unambiguous terminology there.

This entire charade has gone so far beyond farce it's not even comical anymore, just depressing.

Mark Chapman August 9, 2018 at 3:51 pm
That's an interesting point, because a likely consequence of the continued hysterical hostility from the west will be opacity where there once was transparency; ie: if the United States wants to know something about Russian unconventional weapons programs, it will have to go to extensive and complicated labour to insert a deep-cover spy or persuade an asset that it can trust to find out the information, never knowing if it is being fed disinformation deliberately by a double agent, where once it could simply have asked and been invited to verify the truth itself. International organizations controlled by Washington will be less and less likely to have a free pass to come in and poke about as they see fit.

[Aug 15, 2018] Medvedev: if they introduce something like a ban on banking operations or the use of any currency, we will treat it as a declaration of economic war. And we'll have to respond to it accordingly economically, politically, or in any other way, if required

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile August 10, 2018 at 12:38 am

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has warned the US that any sanctions targeting Russian banking operations and currency trade will be treated as a declaration of economic war and retaliated against by any means necessary.
" If they introduce something like a ban on banking operations or the use of any currency, we will treat it as a declaration of economic war. And we'll have to respond to it accordingly – economically, politically, or in any other way, if required ," Medvedev said during a trip to the Kamchatka region.

" Our American friends should make no mistake about it ," he emphasized.

Source RT: Russia to treat further US sanctions as an open declaration of economic war – PM
Published time: 10 Aug, 2018 04:42
Edited time: 10 Aug, 2018 08:25

Why does that prick of a Russian PM speak about "our American friends"?

I wish Medvedev would just fuck off out of it.

FFS! They are not your friends, idiot!!!!!

James lake August 10, 2018 at 2:39 am
Why is Medvedev even discussing the areas that would cause Russia harm in public?

It is like pointing a big arrow at the banking and finance sector with "Sanction this"" written on it in big red letters

There is a time for silence. And he needs to come off twitter as well.

[Aug 15, 2018] Trump policies are all over the place first the hard-ass who will never back off, then conciliatory and talking international unity

Notable quotes:
"... Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU – remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute' which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing, if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year ago? ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman August 6, 2018 at 5:21 pm

I suppose few were under any apprehension that Trump would not sign the sanctions bill reimposing American sanctions on Iran. Consequently, most will be unsurprised that he did so.

http://www.intellinews.com/trump-triggers-iran-sanctions-eu-unveils-updated-blocking-statute-146376/?source=iran

Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU – remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute' which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing, if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year ago?

I need hardly draw attention to the unmitigated and brazen arrogance of the stated US aim: to "force the Iranians to the table for a renegotiation of their role in the Middle East". They fucking live there, for God's sake, but the intent of the sanctions is to force them to bow to American will, and accept the plans for them of a state which is more than 6,000 miles away – yet insists on its right to direct and order regional affairs to its own strategic and economic benefit.

Once upon a time, America's meddling in the Middle East could count on the support of all the major western powers. For the time being, that practice is in abeyance, as the major western allies try to bring about American failure. Goodwill toward the United States has more or less evaporated completely, and America is increasingly regarded as an enemy by former allies. I can't see any possibility of it prevailing, unless it starts a major war and drags everyone into it. I can, however, see irreparable economic damage being inflicted on the American economy.

Patient Observer August 6, 2018 at 5:56 pm
If the EU will actually protect European companies from US enforcement/retaliation and compel European companies to honor contracts with Iranian companies or government, that is big. But why would they do such?

I speculate the US plan is to take Iranian oil off the market thereby driving up crude prices. The downside is that it helps Russia (perhaps not a major concern for Trump) and hurts China but it will be a boon for US oil frackers to the point of avoiding mass default of loans and collapse of major US operations. If Nord Stream II can be stopped, US LNG may surge as well assuming gas frackers can ramp up. And when Iran capitulates (in US dreams) US companies will be granted special concessions to soak up Iranian oil revenues and the EU left of the sidelines.

So the above could be some of the reasons for the EU's stiffening. Putin is probably breaking out the popcorn.

Mark Chapman August 6, 2018 at 7:06 pm
The US has suddenly recollected that if it wants to take on China, it will actually need the support of its traditional allies, and is supposedly launching a make-up effort, especially where Europe is concerned.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/02/the-associated-press-us-mends-ties-with-allies-prepares-for-trade-war-with-china.html

Trump is such a boob; his policies are all over the place – first the hard-ass who will never back off, then conciliatory and talking international unity. Anyone who would willingly help that country achieve its goals needs their head examined, as it clearly will turn on its traditional friends the instant it is unhappy with the relationship. Trump brags that trade hardball is 'his thing', but that's just more of his stupid ego, and he appears to not grasp many of its implications.

American farmers understand, though, all too well. It does not take a genius to figure that a $12 Billion bailout fund suggests an assessment of a potential $12 Billion in damage to the sector, which seems like a lot of money. But as agricultural economists correctly deduce, the real damage is to long-term trade relationships, as customers repelled by America's thug tactics turn to other suppliers. I already mentioned the new prominence in Canadian supermarkets of identifying symbols to highlight Canadian products, and Canada is the biggest export market by a considerable margin for American agricultural products. Canada could not win in a trade war against the USA, but it could inflict serious damage on the agricultural sector. Much of Canada is farm country just like south of the border, and all the USA really has going for it in the way of growing-season advantage is California and Florida. Products from there which are out of season in Canada can be purchased from Mexico. Otherwise, pretty much anything you can grow in the USA, you can grow in Canada.

https://theconversation.com/american-farmers-want-trade-partners-not-handouts-an-agricultural-economist-explains-100795

[Aug 15, 2018] After everything Germany has done to our country, I think, they should not talk on the issue for another two hundred years

Notable quotes:
"... When Germany starts up talking again about 'negotiating from a position of strength', it should be slapped down as if it had said 'lebensraum'. ..."
"... Washington wants it, because Washington sees the world as existing to support the comfort and entertainment of Americans, but America cannot do it on its own, so von der Leyen is just doing America's bidding with the tough talk – the whole barnyard of European political elites needs to be cleaned out before there can be any hope of better relations, as they are all committed Atlanticists. ..."
"... But when NATO speaks of 'dealing from a position of strength', it means 'you know what will happen if your offer is not as expected'. In the NATO lexicon, there is no such situation as both sides dealing from a position of strength. ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Patient Observer August 11, 2018 at 7:39 pm
Lovin' it:
the recent call by the German Defense Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, to engage in dialogue with Moscow only from a "position of unity and strength," Shoigu reminded his counterpart that, while Russia seeks peace, it will not tolerate being coerced.

"After everything Germany has done to our country, I think, they should not talk on the issue for another two hundred years," Shoigu said. "Ask your grandparents about their experience of talking to Russia from the position of strength. They will probably be able to tell you."

Shoigu was to the point.

Mark Chapman August 12, 2018 at 9:23 am
Exactly; it seems it was almost instantly impolite to remind the Germans of their Nazi past, along with their aspiration to achieve their goals through military force. When Germany starts up talking again about 'negotiating from a position of strength', it should be slapped down as if it had said 'lebensraum'.

The EU has to know that it is not frightening Russia with tough talk, and so it may as well cut it out. Russia by itself would squash the EU like a bug if they could not go running to Uncle Sam, and NATO as a whole would have a tough time with China and Russia – it's hard to say who would win, because military victory depends on a lot of things and you can't plan for them all, but the scale of global casualties would be so horrific it would be difficult to call any outcome 'victory'.

Washington wants it, because Washington sees the world as existing to support the comfort and entertainment of Americans, but America cannot do it on its own, so von der Leyen is just doing America's bidding with the tough talk – the whole barnyard of European political elites needs to be cleaned out before there can be any hope of better relations, as they are all committed Atlanticists.

If I were Shoigu, although I cannot fault his actual response, I would have said, "I see nothing constructive will be accomplished here today, so I will leave you to it, for I have drills to conduct and work to do. I'll see you next time".

There's nothing wrong in dealing from a position of strength so long as you are prepared to be reasonable; it merely signifies that you do not have to accept any terms that are offered. But when NATO speaks of 'dealing from a position of strength', it means 'you know what will happen if your offer is not as expected'. In the NATO lexicon, there is no such situation as both sides dealing from a position of strength.

[Aug 15, 2018] Canadian sniper rifles expected to be in the hands of Ukrainian military by fall, MP says

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al August 8, 2018 at 1:30 pm

Well Canada has rather upset the apple cart, hasn't it? On the one hand, western moralizing and sermonizing other states about what they should do used to be only restricted to mostly enemy states, preferably much less rich ones, on the other hand values only mean something if you actually are willing to pay a literal price in either money, blood or both.

The financial papers are saying that this will damage SA's the confidence of foreign investors, precisely those SA is trying to attract so that it can start to diversify its economy away from petroleum based products, but we have yet to see if this will have a noticeable effect, rather than just a wish effect.

The US has said Sweet FA, along with the rest of the sermonizing weapon selling west, so Canada has very little support from its allies. So far. Germany should be an obvious supporter but if pissing of the Saudis makes it more dependent on Russia ergo there are plenty of reasons that can be wheeled out to keep treading lightly.

It looks to me as just another sign of the existing order breaking down, whether or not Canada back tracks or not. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.

As for the so-called free and democratic media, well they only further discredit themselves publicly.

Meanwhile, I just checked out the Canada headlines and this jumped out:

National Post: Canadian sniper rifles expected to be in the hands of Ukrainian military by fall, MP says
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-sniper-rifles-expected-to-be-in-the-hands-of-ukrainian-military-by-fall-mp-says

Global Affairs Canada would not say whether Canadian taxpayers are financing the sale, and would not provide any other details about the arms deal

Few details are available about the proposed sale of weapons, as the Canadian government says such information is commercially sensitive. It has declined to name the company selling the guns or indicate how many rifles would be sent to Ukraine. However Conservative MP James Bezan, who has been in contact with the Canadian company that has the agreement to supply the rifles to Ukraine, confirmed the deal's likely timeline. He declined to name the firm since the sale still has to be finalized.

Nicolas Moquin, a spokesman for the Canadian Joint Operations Command Headquarters, said the Canadian military has been providing sniper and counter-sniper training to Ukraine's security forces since September 2015. He said Canada is not looking at this time of providing additional sniper training to coincide with the delivery of new weapons .
####

Freeland will be doing her grandfather justice!

Canadian sniper rifle manufacturers:

PGW Defense Technologies – C14 Timberwolf (CAF current rifle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_Timberwolf

Parker-Hale C3, C3A1 and M82

Where as this old NP article fingers Colt Canada chasing sales to the Ukraine, though this seems to be for assault rifles rather than sniper rifles:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-arms-manufacturer-hopes-to-sell-assault-rifles-to-ukraine-military

OR, is this just Canada selling sniper rifles that are not necessarily of Canadian origin?

According the the video below with Canadian MP James Barazan, he says there are large numbers of weapons such as assault rifles, sniper systems, mortar systems, counter battery radar etc. sitting in warehouses in Jordan (& Toronto) that were supposed to go to Kurdistan.

Patient Observer August 8, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Yes,, the world order is falling apart. For some reason, this state of affairs reminds me of the observation that married couples who are heading toward divorce are on that path not because of a lack of communications but because they are now communicating for the first time.
Mark Chapman August 8, 2018 at 4:48 pm
Ukraine is awash in small arms – they could give them out with a box of tea at the supermarket as a promotion, and it would still take months to work through their supply. The last thing they need is more rifles. On the other hand, new ones will probably fetch a good price on e-Bay.
Hor August 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm
Maybe the hryvnia no longer holds any value and the new currency is sniper rifles.

[Aug 15, 2018] Putin, Lavrov, Shoigu have been there for years and yet they seem to wear rose coloured glasses when it comes to America

Notable quotes:
"... Peskov made a statement about how unfriendly this action was after the two presidents met and got on – is this guy for real? The Americans are aiming to crush Russia and Peskov thinks it's unfriendly. This is what I mean by pandering ..."
"... What was the cost to Russia? Nada. What did it do to the US – more comical flailing, posturing and noise. Russia clearly understood what they were doing and the repercussions to the US political system – more dysfunction and misdirection. Score: Russia 1, USA 0. ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake August 9, 2018 at 7:48 am

Mark asked what I meant by Russian pandering

When I used the term pandering I mean the following

– Agreeing to meet in Helsinki with no agenda.
The meeting btw Lavrov and Pompeo was cancelled.
But Russia went along and has now escalated the Russophobia attacks against itself – this behaviour by Russia is pandering – let's meet with America whatever the cost, since at least 2014 and the latest Ukrainian coup; USA has proved untrustworthy yet Russia turns up when the USA asks. Putin was even going to Washington.

Is the Kremlin living in a bubble?

Putin lavrov Shoigu have been there for years and yet they seem to wear rose coloured glasses when it comes to America

Now with the latest sanctions – there is a protest and vague threat to respond –

Peskov made a statement about how unfriendly this action was after the two presidents met and got on – is this guy for real? The Americans are aiming to crush Russia and Peskov thinks it's unfriendly. This is what I mean by pandering

I really think the government needs fresh people – doing what they have been doing is not working.

Patient Observer August 9, 2018 at 2:21 pm
let's meet with America whatever the cost

What was the cost to Russia? Nada. What did it do to the US – more comical flailing, posturing and noise. Russia clearly understood what they were doing and the repercussions to the US political system – more dysfunction and misdirection. Score: Russia 1, USA 0.

Cortes August 9, 2018 at 4:41 pm
Spot on.
Northern Star August 9, 2018 at 11:36 am
USA psycho vermin continue to poke the Bear putting ALL our lives at risk::

https://www.afp.com/fr/infos/334/la-russie-promet-une-riposte-apres-les-sanctions-inadmissibles-de-washington-doc-1889cy3

Mark Chapman August 9, 2018 at 7:35 pm
If the situation eventually resolves itself without a major war, and things go back to something more like normal, when American manufacturers like Caterpillar and Ford are looking to expand into Russia, they will say "Waaahhhhh!!! Why do they hate us?"

Well, for your freedom, of course.

Cortes August 9, 2018 at 12:53 pm
Review of the cravatovore's glorious campaign of 2008 with thoughts on milestones in the recovery of the RF:

http://thesaker.is/the-war-of-08-08-08-and-ten-years-of-struggle-for-russian-sovereignty/

One comment makes the clearly valid point that recovery began in Chechnya.

Moscow Exile August 9, 2018 at 8:15 pm

Media: "We would like to have better relations with the Russian government. And sanctions are one tool from a whole set, through which we can try to set up some kind of government that shows an improvement in its behavior", the head of the State Department press service has said.

What kind of tool-set is this, "through which governments are set up to improve their behaviour for the betterment of their relations with the US": 🦇 🗜 🧟 ♀️ 🕷 🐍 ☄️ 🌪 🦂 💨 🤹🏻 ♂️ 🌋 🔫 💣 🔪 ⚰️ 🕳 💉 ⛓ ⚔️ 📌 🔞 🃏?
And I should like a couple of examples of where and how this "set" has worked.

Mark Chapman August 9, 2018 at 8:30 pm
I daresay there are a few countries in the world which would like to use various tools against the United States until those countries managed to set up a government in America which showed an improvement in its behavior. Would that be regarded as just another avenue of diplomacy by America? Surely not, in the Shining City On A Hill? Then what's all this talk of 'meddling' in America's democracy? Either the people of the country get to pick its leader, or the international community decides who would be appropriate and then uses the tools at its disposal to maneuver a satisfactory government into power. Make up your mind, but stop babbling about 'democracy', what say?

Amazingly enough, some people believe this nonsense. There are a handful of Russian liberals who allow that the country deserves to be sanctioned, and express hope that there will be more until the government is cast down, and a new American-style – possibly even American-picked – government takes power. This, to the US State Department, is the very distilled essence of democracy and freedom. However, the electoral process in America is evidently flawless, as no tampering with it is either required or permitted, and any result which does not meet with the approval of the corporate lobbyists is obviously an engineered takeover attempt by Russia.

Jen August 9, 2018 at 9:17 pm
1/ Third from the left of the tool-set: zombie.
As in zombie politicians leading zombie governments throughout the West.

2/ Fifth from the left of the tool-set: tarantula.
As in Gavin Williamson's soul brother.

There, I answered Maria Zakharova's query.

[Aug 15, 2018] Some suggestions about contra sanctions that Russia can implement

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Cortes says: August 12, 2018 at 10:44 pm

...Call a presser at the UN and have the Ambassador confirm that Obama and HRC are wholly paid-up RF assets and watch Civil War II unfold.

[Aug 15, 2018] McFaul and Browder are on the same team, playing different positions

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile August 8, 2018 at 3:10 am

McFaul is talking shit:

First rule of diplomacy– respect the culture and traditions of your your [sic] host country, aka as [sic] the place where you were born.

In Seagal's case, the "host" country to which the "academic" McFaul refers is not "also known as the place where you were born", where "you" is Seagal, to whom McFaul is proffering unsolicited advice.

The place where Seagal was born is the USA: Seagal's host country in this instance is Russia.

If Seagal had truly wished to respect the culture and traditions of his host country, he should have made his statement of acceptance of the post in Russian:

Я глубоко потрясен и польщен назначением специальным представителем российского Министерства иностранных дел по гуманитарным связям с США. Надеюсь, что мы сможем достичь мира, гармонии и положительных результатов в мире. Я очень серьезно отношусь к этой чести.

However, as far as I am aware, Mr. Seagal does not speak Russian, but McFaul does, albeit он несет полную хуйню!

Jen August 8, 2018 at 4:58 am
I see Seagal writes better English than McFaul does.
Mark Chapman August 8, 2018 at 4:06 pm
Oh, yeah, uh huh, McFaul speaks Russian. In fact, he is some kind of jive-talkin' Russian homie, telling his audience that he looked forward to seeing them in 'Yoburg', which is the culture-respectful term for "Yekaterinburg'. That's what got him dubbed "McFuck'. if I recall correctly.

http://exiledonline.com/mister-mcfahk-goes-to-fuckberg-the-continuing-saga-of-amb-michael-mcfauls-epic-struggle-with-language/

Samenleving August 8, 2018 at 4:56 am
McFaul shredded for his hypocrisy here:

https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2018/05/ex-us-ambassador-to-russia-mcfaul-dissembles-then-reveals-about-magnitsky-act/

McFaul is a long time friend of Browder. In 2011, when he was Obama's advisor and architect of the "Russian reset" policy, he disagreed with the proposed Magnitsky bill and wrote this memo:
https://www.scribd.com/document/60996722/Administration-Comments-on-S1039-Final

Then off he went as US Ambassador to Russia, where he almost immediately invited a host of Russian opposition figures to the US embassy. According to Olga Romanova (& wikipedia) they discussed the recent Russian protests and "the United States Presidential election campaign" with McFaul.

While McFaul was away fostering Democrat collusion with Russian opposition figures, Browder rammed the Magnitsky Act through Congress because of the legislative anomaly that the Jackson-Vanik Amendment had to be repealed and Congress wouldn't give away something for nothing.

McFaul and Browder are on the same team, playing different positions.

kirill August 8, 2018 at 3:33 pm
But ultimately they are impotent chimps. This ain't 1917 and not Sorosite and similar funding of regime change is going to work in Russia. All these US laws and sanctions are blowhard vapidity. They only generate healthy stimulus for Russia to clean up the last vestiges of Yeltsin's 1990s era distortions in its economy and legal system.
et Al August 8, 2018 at 6:24 am
History Extra Al Beeb s'Allah GONAD (God's Own News Agency Direct): Britain's foreign policy secrets
https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/britains-foreign-policy-secrets/

Rory Cormac investigates Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations in the postwar period

Historian Rory Cormac discusses his new book Disrupt and Deny, which investigates Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations in the postwar period
####

Podcast at the link.

There's plenty not mentioned within, but still interesting. I would question though the veracity of official reports released under (Freedom of Information) requests and would assume that some of those documents are fabricated. After all, if keeping secrets is your business, then you have have whole range of options for obfuscation, from complete release to none at all.

Curiously having spoken of the Mau Maus, no mention is made of the discovery a few years ago of MoD dossiers discovered in a skip (UK gov selling off real estate) detailing the torture and abuse of them which until then had been completely denied, and ultimately went before the high court and was fully exposed

[Aug 15, 2018] Imperial brainwashing works very well: Many US citizens were willing to kill 2 million Iranian civilians to save 20,000 U.S. soldiers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxWNAM8Cso a very powerful anti-war video.
Notable quotes:
"... Our experiments suggest that the majority of Americans find a 1:100 risk ratio to be morally acceptable. They were willing to kill 2 million Iranian civilians to save 20,000 U.S. soldiers. One respondent who approved of the conventional air strike that killed 100,000 Iranian civilians candidly expressed even more extreme preferences regarding proportionality and risk ratios, while displacing U.S. responsibility for the attack onto the Iranian people: "I would sacrifice 1 million enemies versus 1 of our military. Their choice, their death." ..."
"... It is all about the radius of impact and the background MSM brainwashing. The average media consumer lemming does not think for itself and lets its opinion be essentially implanted by the MSM for anything that is not immediate. Those remote Russians and Serbs are definitely not in the immediate realm of the lemming. ..."
"... Interesting how the PC "west" engages in pure hate ideology towards the un-west. Tolerance is strictly for domestic consumption. The far domain is populated by barbarians who need to be controlled by force since they are a "threat". ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Northern Star August 6, 2018 at 1:28 pm

Hiroshima anniversary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxWNAM8Cso

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/6/17655256/hiroshima-anniversary-73-nuclear-weapons-proliferation-arms-control

Patient Observer August 6, 2018 at 1:46 pm

Public opinion polling suggests that many Americans would not think twice if there were a great many casualties against evildoers. For example, a 2017 survey found that 60 percent of Americans would support a nuclear attack on Iran that would kill 20 million civilians, to prevent an invasion that might kill 20,000 American soldiers.

Yup, exceptional people of an exceptional nation.

Northern Star August 6, 2018 at 2:22 pm
Yes the psychos were planning mass murder a decade ago under Bush.

https://original.antiwar.com/jorge-hirsch/2006/07/06/nuking-iran-is-not-off-the-table/

https://original.antiwar.com/jorge-hirsch/2006/10/16/nuclear-strike-on-iran-is-still-on-the-agenda/

A more detailed analysis of some of the background material relating to your comment: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00284

"We were not surprised by the finding that most Americans place a higher value on the life of an American soldier than the life of a foreign noncombatant. What was surprising, however, was the radical extent of that preference. Our experiments suggest that the majority of Americans find a 1:100 risk ratio to be morally acceptable. They were willing to kill 2 million Iranian civilians to save 20,000 U.S. soldiers. One respondent who approved of the conventional air strike that killed 100,000 Iranian civilians candidly expressed even more extreme preferences regarding proportionality and risk ratios, while displacing U.S. responsibility for the attack onto the Iranian people: "I would sacrifice 1 million enemies versus 1 of our military. Their choice, their death."

Patient Observer August 6, 2018 at 3:02 pm
There was a discussion the the value of human life. American military and Israeli everyone were at the top. Loss of Arab life was a wash and death of Serbs and Russians were viewed as positive.

The order is apparently malleable. Japanese have moved up the list while Iranians are gaining Serb-like status.

ErGalimba August 7, 2018 at 9:11 am
In part I suspect it has to do with the fact that most of the uneducated idiots responding can't relate to numbers as large as a few thousand, much less compute ratios, even in cases where the numbers don't relate to those being bombed to bits. Or at least I'd rather lie to myself that way.
kirill August 7, 2018 at 7:03 pm
It is all about the radius of impact and the background MSM brainwashing. The average media consumer lemming does not think for itself and lets its opinion be essentially implanted by the MSM for anything that is not immediate. Those remote Russians and Serbs are definitely not in the immediate realm of the lemming.

Interesting how the PC "west" engages in pure hate ideology towards the un-west. Tolerance is strictly for domestic consumption. The far domain is populated by barbarians who need to be controlled by force since they are a "threat".

[Aug 15, 2018] Dezinformation from Euractive intended to block North Stream II

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al August 6, 2018 at 12:55 pm

Two pieces by Euractive with Neuters, though curiously no byline or attribution is given . Why so shy?

BS1: Friendship no more: How Russian gas is a problem for Germany
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/friendship-no-more-how-russian-gas-is-a-problem-for-germany/

####

The headline is pure tabloid and not supported in the body of the article apart from 'opinions' by certain people or through use of qualifiers. This is not journalism . Only further proof in my opinion that Euractiv has become part of the EU's unofficial channels of hybrid warfare . Euractiv/Neuters has also expanded in to the Balkans to provide 'services' in Croatia/Serbia etc. which just so happens to coincide with all the shrill headlines about Russia 'influencing the Balkans' – which are of course BS. Just look at the map. Short of Macedonia (not for long) and Serbia, they are all NATO states . Russia only helps states who want to help themselves (Syria/Serbia – more or less).

Not a shred of proof, nay evidence, that Germany is shifting away from NordStream II. FAKE NUDES!

bs2 with Neuters & crAP: https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/russia-used-lessons-from-georgia-war-in-ukraine-conflict/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/russia-used-lessons-from-georgia-war-in-ukraine-conflict/

Languages: Slovak

Ten years ago, in August 2008, Russia and Georgia went to war over South Ossetia, a small separatist Georgian region which Moscow would later controversially recognise as independent, in the face of international criticism.

Ten years later, Moscow has still not softened its position towards its neighbours and its rift with the West has only deepened.

Russia launched armed action against Georgia to come to the rescue of South Ossetia, a small pro-Russian separatist region where Tbilisi had begun a military operation. The Russian army rapidly outnumbered the Georgian forces and threatened to take the country's capital.

A peace treaty was finally hammered out by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy that led to the withdrawal of Russian forces. But Moscow recognised as independent the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where it has stationed a large military presence ever since.

Russia demonstrated its military might over the five days and showed its readiness to defend – by force, if necessary – its interests in the region it considers its sphere of influence .
####

Well shove that in your pipe and smoke it!

Yet again, no attribution, no name. It smacks of a thinktank piece peddled through their Slovak branch.

But this is how things work in the West. No-on is ordered on pain of death to produce certain items, but is is made very clear that it is in their interests to do so, from without & from within, but remember kids, it is voluntary ! Neither self-censorship exists. Those in positions of influence may convince themselves, but for the rest of the great unwashed, no so much. We've already seen the system fail and produce not only BREXIT, but other referendums contrary to EU dogma. The evidence is all around us and plain to see, but still the structures persist in the same old ways, which only bodes ill. Apparently they still think the sheeple are too stupid to notice let alone act.

[Aug 15, 2018] A concise summary of the nuclear attack on Japan

Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer August 8, 2018 at 5:36 pm

A concise summary of the nuclear attack on Japan (emphasis added):

According to Kamps, US estimates of American casualties during the first month of a US invasion of mainland Japan -- before the bombs were dropped -- were approximately 50,000, not 1 million.

"And the myth became that a million American lives were saved by dropping the bombs. That was not true. The truth is, the bombs were dropped to send a message to the Soviet Union where to get off. Billions of dollars in 1945 money had been spent on that [atomic] project, and the bombs were dropped to fulfill an experiment as well , to show some return on the so-called investment. If those billions of dollars had been spent on ships, tanks and guns in the US military instead of atomic bombs, would the war have ended sooner because of that?" Kemps asked.

Another common myth is that the bombs ended World War II, Kamps said.

"But no, it was the threat of a Soviet military invasion that ended World War II . The Japanese had been firebombed by the Americans for months already, and that lends a lot more to the theory that these atomic bombings were tests, because they [the Americans] were saving some cities to use these bombs against, and they wanted to see full on what the effects were. So Hiroshima was preserved for that purpose," Kemps told Radio Sputnik.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201808091067060230-expert-debunks-hiroshima-nagasaki-myths/

Ghastly and perhaps the single greatest war crime of WW II.

Also, IIRC, Japan was preparing to surrender to the Soviet Union but the nuclear attack caused them to reconsider.

[Aug 15, 2018] War Without End by C.J. Chivers

Notable quotes:
"... More than three million Americans have served in uniform in these wars. Nearly 7,000 of them have died. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. More are killed or wounded each year, in smaller numbers but often in dreary circumstances, including the fatal attack in July on Cpl. Joseph Maciel by an Afghan soldier -- a member of the very forces that the United States has underwritten, trained and equipped, and yet as a matter of necessity and practice now guards itself against. ..."
Aug 15, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

... ... ...

More than three million Americans have served in uniform in these wars. Nearly 7,000 of them have died. Tens of thousands more have been wounded. More are killed or wounded each year, in smaller numbers but often in dreary circumstances, including the fatal attack in July on Cpl. Joseph Maciel by an Afghan soldier -- a member of the very forces that the United States has underwritten, trained and equipped, and yet as a matter of necessity and practice now guards itself against.

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting slate of senior officers and politicians and editorial-page hawks, the wars have continued in varied forms and under different rationales each and every year since passenger jets struck the World Trade Center in 2001. They continue today without an end in sight, reauthorized in Pentagon budgets almost as if distant war is a presumed government action.

As the costs have grown -- whether measured by dollars spent, stature lost or blood shed -- the wars' architects and the commentators supporting them have often been ready with optimistic or airbrushed predictions, each pitched to the latest project or newly appointed general's plan. According to the bullhorns and depending on the year, America's military campaigns abroad would satisfy justice, displace tyrants, keep violence away from Western soil, spread democracy, foster development, prevent sectarian war, protect populations, reduce corruption, bolster women's rights, decrease the international heroin trade, check the influence of extreme religious ideology, create Iraqi and Afghan security forces that would be law-abiding and competent and finally build nations that might peacefully stand on their own in a global world, all while discouraging other would-be despots and terrorists.

Aside from displacing tyrants and leading to the eventual killing of Osama bin Laden, none of this turned out as pitched. Prominent successes were short-lived. New thugs rose where old thugs fell. Corruption and lawlessness remain endemic. An uncountable tally of civilians -- many times the number of those who perished in the terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001 -- were killed. Others were wounded or driven from their homes, first by American action and then by violent social forces American action helped unleash.

The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, each of which the United States spent hundreds of billions of dollars to build and support, are fragile, brutal and uncertain. The nations they struggle to rule harbor large contingents of irregular fighters and terrorists who have been hardened and made savvy, trained by the experience of fighting the American military machine. Much of the infrastructure the United States built with its citizens' treasure and its troops' labor lies abandoned. Briefly schools or outposts, many are husks, looted and desolate monuments to forgotten plans. Hundreds of thousands of weapons provided to would-be allies have vanished; an innumerable quantity are on markets or in the hands of Washington's enemies. Billions of dollars spent creating security partners also deputized pedophiles, torturers and thieves. National police or army units that the Pentagon proclaimed essential to their countries' futures have disbanded. The Islamic State has sponsored or encouraged terrorist attacks across much of the world -- exactly the species of crime the global "war on terror" was supposed to prevent.

Almost two decades after the White House cast American troops as liberators to be welcomed, large swaths of territory where the Pentagon deployed combat forces are under stubborn insurgent influence. Areas once touted as markers of counterinsurgency progress have become no-go zones, regions in which almost no Americans dare tread, save a few journalists and aid workers, or private military contractors or American military and C.I.A. teams.

... ... ...

Time eases only so much doubt. Six years after leaving the Army, Soto still spent nights awake, trying to come to terms with his Korengal tour. It was not regret or the trauma of combat that drained him. It was the memories of lost soldiers, an indelible grief blended with a fuller understanding that could feel like a curse. Often when Soto reflected upon his service, he was caught between the conflicting urges of deference and candor. He tread as if a balance might exist between respecting the sacrifice and pain of others and speaking forthrightly about the fatal misjudgments of those who managed America's wars. "I try to be respectful; I don't want to say that people died for nothing," he said. "I could never make the families who lost someone think their loved one died in vain."

Still he wondered: Was there no accountability for the senior officer class? The war was turning 17, and the services and the Pentagon seemed to have been given passes on all the failures and the drift. Even if the Taliban were to sign a peace deal tomorrow, there would be no rousing sense of victory, no parade. In Iraq, the Islamic State metastasized in the wreckage of the war to spread terror around the world. The human costs were past counting, and the whitewash was both institutional and personal, extended to one general after another, including many of the same officers whose plans and orders had either fizzled or failed to create lasting success, and yet who kept rising. Soto watched some of them as they were revered and celebrated in Washington and by members of the press, even after past plans were discredited and enemies retrenched.

... ... ...

C.J. Chivers is a writer at large for the magazine. His previous feature article, which followed the combat service and incarceration of a Marine veteran suffering from alcoholism and PTSD, led to the veteran's release from prison and won a Pulitzer Prize. This article is adapted from ''The Fighters: Americans in Combat in Afghanistan and Iraq,'' published by Simon & Schuster.

[Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!! ..."
"... he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others. ..."
"... The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan! ..."
"... Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration! ..."
"... What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"? ..."
"... Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question. ..."
"... The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers. ..."
"... As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space. ..."
Aug 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kan Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:23 Permalink

Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!!

Nevermind the CFR has this in hand...

booboo -> Kan Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:41 Permalink

I think one of Mueller's deeply embedded character flaws is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed. Much like the awful dealings with Whitey Bulger, sending men to prison for crimes they did not commit, in federal custody where they could keep them quiet and under the threat of death if they were to talk.

He did this to protect the corruption surrounding that case, he is Mr. Wolf, sent in to clean up the fucking mess. He has gotten away with this tact of ruthlessness for so long that he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others.

This will be his downfall, like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick the White whale, caught in the harpoon tethers and wrapped around the great whale as he takes him deep into the abyss.

BankSurfyMan -> Kan Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:52 Permalink

The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan!

lester1 Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:36 Permalink

Mueller hasn't even interviewed Don Jr yet. If he were going after Trump that would be a big deal. I tell this to my liberal friends this info and they're like wtf is Mueller even doing?

Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration!

Bernard_2011 Thu, 08/09/2018 - 23:32 Permalink

What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"?

Lord Raglan -> Bernard_2011 Fri, 08/10/2018 - 00:08 Permalink

Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question.

The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers.

Lord Raglan Fri, 08/10/2018 - 00:05 Permalink

You wonder what Mueller and his team do with "exculpatory evidence" they discover. It must go in that deep, dark recess where Obama's birth cert and college and law school records go.......

MuffDiver69 Fri, 08/10/2018 - 00:14 Permalink

As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space.

[Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

Highly recommended!
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
Jul 28, 2018 | russia-insider.com
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage, but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you look at things.

First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.

In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate negotiating future spy swaps.

In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies, sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.

Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence.

There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).

There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.

A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper, professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents. In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for injecting disinformation.

Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet. Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from Russia.

Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state."

Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.

That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.

He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?

Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.

In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed, at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?

The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up."

The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual objective is easily discernible.

The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.

One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.

Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A light-hearted answer would have been:

"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task."

A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:

"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact."

And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:

"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their dismissal."

But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts.

Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria.

The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593. Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."

The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.

There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.

First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for their mistakes.

Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars."

[Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!! ..."
"... he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others. ..."
"... The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan! ..."
"... Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration! ..."
"... What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"? ..."
"... Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question. ..."
"... The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers. ..."
"... As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space. ..."
Aug 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kan Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:23 Permalink

Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!!

Nevermind the CFR has this in hand...

booboo -> Kan Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:41 Permalink

I think one of Mueller's deeply embedded character flaws is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed. Much like the awful dealings with Whitey Bulger, sending men to prison for crimes they did not commit, in federal custody where they could keep them quiet and under the threat of death if they were to talk.

He did this to protect the corruption surrounding that case, he is Mr. Wolf, sent in to clean up the fucking mess. He has gotten away with this tact of ruthlessness for so long that he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others.

This will be his downfall, like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick the White whale, caught in the harpoon tethers and wrapped around the great whale as he takes him deep into the abyss.

BankSurfyMan -> Kan Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:52 Permalink

The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan!

lester1 Thu, 08/09/2018 - 22:36 Permalink

Mueller hasn't even interviewed Don Jr yet. If he were going after Trump that would be a big deal. I tell this to my liberal friends this info and they're like wtf is Mueller even doing?

Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration!

Bernard_2011 Thu, 08/09/2018 - 23:32 Permalink

What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"?

Lord Raglan -> Bernard_2011 Fri, 08/10/2018 - 00:08 Permalink

Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question.

The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers.

Lord Raglan Fri, 08/10/2018 - 00:05 Permalink

You wonder what Mueller and his team do with "exculpatory evidence" they discover. It must go in that deep, dark recess where Obama's birth cert and college and law school records go.......

MuffDiver69 Fri, 08/10/2018 - 00:14 Permalink

As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space.

[Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

Highly recommended!
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
Jul 28, 2018 | russia-insider.com
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage, but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you look at things.

First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.

In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate negotiating future spy swaps.

In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies, sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.

Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence.

There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).

There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.

A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper, professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents. In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for injecting disinformation.

Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet. Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from Russia.

Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state."

Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.

That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.

He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?

Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.

In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed, at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?

The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up."

The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual objective is easily discernible.

The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.

One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.

Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A light-hearted answer would have been:

"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task."

A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:

"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact."

And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:

"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their dismissal."

But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts.

Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria.

The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593. Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."

The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.

There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.

First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for their mistakes.

Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars."

[Aug 14, 2018] Why Confronting Israel is Important by Philip Giraldi

I believe Mr. Giraldi should choose his language more carefully. Perhaps instead of referring to "Jews," he should narrow this to "Jewish Likud supporters" or Jewish supremacists, or something similar
Notable quotes:
"... Jewish power ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

I am often asked why I have this "thing" about Israel, with friends suggesting that I would be much more respected as a pundit if I were to instead concentrate on national security and political corruption. The problem with that formulation is that the so-called "special relationship" with Israel is itself the result of terrible national security and foreign policy choices that is sustained by pervasive political and media corruption, so any honest attempt to examine the one inevitably leads to the other. Most talking heads in the media avoid that dilemma by choosing to completely ignore the dark side of Israel.

Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism. It is also the single most significant threat to genuine national security as it and its powerful domestic lobby have been major advocates for the continuation of America's interventionist warfare state. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.

And I can go on from there. According to the FBI, Israel runs the most aggressive spying operations against the U.S. among ostensibly "friendly" nations, frequently stealing our military technology for resale by its own arms merchants. Its notable successes in espionage have included the most devastating spy in U.S. history Jonathan Pollard, while it has also penetrated American communications systems and illegally obtained both the fuel and the triggers for its own secret nuclear weapons arsenal.

Israel cares little for American sovereignty. It's prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu have both boasted how they control the United States. In 2001, Israel was running a massive secret spying operation directed against Arabs in the U.S. Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it had considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with Washington. There was the spectacle of the "dancing Shlomos," Israeli "movers" from a company in New Jersey who apparently had advanced knowledge of the terrorist attack and danced and celebrated as they watched the Twin Towers go down.

Jewish power , both in terms of money and of access to people and mechanisms that really matter, is what allows Israel to act with impunity, making the United States both poorer and more insecure. A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House without any objection from a controlled media.

Israel has also obtained carte blanche political protection from the U.S. in fora like the United Nations, which is damaging to America's reputation and its actual interests. This protection now extends to the basing of U.S. troops in Israel to serve as a tripwire, guaranteeing that Washington will become involved if Israel is ever attacked or even if Israel itself starts a war. The current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley is little more than a shill for Israel while America's Ambassador in Israel David Friedman is an open supporter of Israel's illegal settlements, which the U.S. opposes, who spends much of his time defending Israeli war crimes .

And here on the home front Israel is doing damage that might be viewed as even more grave in Senator Ben Cardin's attempt to destroy First Amendment rights by making any criticism of Israel illegal. The non-violent Israel Boycott movement (BDS) has already been sanctioned in many states, the result of intensive and successful lobbying by the Israeli government and its powerful friends.

So if there is a real enemy of the United States in terms of the actual damage being inflicted by a foreign power, it is Israel. In the recent Russiagate investigations it was revealed that it was Israel, not Russia, that sought favors from Michael Flynn and the incoming Trump Administration yet Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidently not chosen to go down that road with his investigations, which should surprise no one.

Noam Chomsky, iconic progressive intellectual, has finally come around on the issue of Israel and what it means. He has always argued somewhat incoherently that Israeli misbehavior has been due to its role as a tool of American imperialism and capitalism. At age 89, he has finally figured out that it is actually all about what a parasitic Israel wants without any regard for its American host, observing on "Democracy Now" that

..take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that's almost a joke. First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015 .

Politicians are terrified of crossing the Jewish lobby by saying anything negative about Israel, which means that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu always gets a pass from the American government, even when he starves civilians and bombs hospitals and schools. Netanyahu uses snipers to shoot dead scores of unarmed demonstrators and the snipers themselves joke about their kills without a peep from Washington, which styles itself the "leader of the free world."

Just recently, Israel has declared itself a Jewish State with all that implies. To be sure, Israeli Christians and Muslims were already subject to a battery of laws and regulations that empowered Jews at their expense but now it is the guiding principle that Israel will be run for the benefit of Jews and Jews alone. And it still likes to call itself a "democracy."

A recent television program illustrates just how far the subjugation of America's elected leaders by Israel has gone. British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is featured on a new show called "Who is America?" in which he uses disguises and aliases to engage politicians and other luminaries in unscripted interviews that reveal just how ignorant or mendacious they actually are. Several recent episodes remind one of a February 2013 Saturday Night Live skit on the impending confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. A Senator asks Hagel. "It is vital to Israel's security for you to go on national television and perform oral sex on a donkey Would you do THAT for Israel?" A "yes" answer was, of course, expected from Hagel. The skit was never aired after objections from the usual suspects.

Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad, an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them. Cohen, wearing an Israeli military uniform and calling himself a colonel, clearly displayed sergeant's stripes. Hinting that he might actually be a Mossad agent, Cohen also sported a T-shirt on which the Hebrew text was printed backwards and he claimed that the Israeli spy agency's motto was "if you want to win, show some skin."

Cohen set up Dick Cheney by complimenting him on being the "the king of terrorist killers" before commenting that "my neighbor in Tel Aviv is in jail for murder, or, as we call it, enhanced tickling." Morad went on to tell Cheney that he once waterboarded his wife to check for infidelity and then convinced the former Vice President to sign a "waterboarding kit" that "already had" the signatures of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Demi Lovato.

Another more spectacular sketch included a Georgia state senator Jason Spencer who was convinced to shout out the n-word as part of an alleged video being made to fight terrorism. After Cohen told Spencer that it was necessary to incite fear in homophobic jihadists, Spencer dropped his pants and underwear, before backing up with his exposed rear end while shouting "USA!" and "America!" Spencer also spoke with a phony Asian accent while simulating using a selfie-stick to secretly insert a camera phone inside a Muslim woman's burqa.

In another series of encounters, Cohen as Morad managed to convince current and ex-Republican members of Congress -- to include former Senate majority leader Trent Lott -- to endorse a fictional Israeli program to arm grade school children for self-defense.

Cohen's footage included a former Illinois congressman and talk radio host named Joe Walsh saying : "The intensive three-week 'Kinderguardian' course introduces specially selected children from 12 to 4 years old to pistols, rifles, semiautomatics and a rudimentary knowledge of mortars. In less than a month -- less than a month -- a first-grader can become a first grenade-er."

Both controversial Alabama judge Roy Moore and Walsh were fooled into meeting Cohen to attend a non-existent pro-Israel conference to accept an award for "significant contributions to the state of Israel." Representative Dana Rohrabacher, meanwhile, also was interviewed and he commented that, "Maybe having young people trained and understand how to defend themselves and their school might actually make us safer here." And Congressman Joe Wilson observed that "A 3-year-old cannot defend itself from an assault rifle by throwing a 'Hello Kitty' pencil case at it."

Cohen's performance is instructive. A man shows up in Israeli uniform, claims to be a terrorism expert or even a Mossad agent, and he gains access to powerful Americans who are willing to do anything he says. How Cohen did it says a lot about the reflexive and completely uncritical support for Israel that many American politicians -- particularly Republicans -- now embrace. This, in a nutshell, is the damage that Israel and its Lobby have done to the United States. Israel is always right for many policymakers and even palpably phony Jews like Colonel Morad are instantly perceived as smarter than the rest of us so we'd better do what they say. That kind of thinking has brought us Iraq, Libya, Syria and the possibility of something far worse with Iran.

Israel routinely interferes in American politics and corrupts our institutions without any cost to itself and that is why I write and speak frequently regarding the danger to our Republic that it poses. It is past time to change the essentially phony narrative. Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself and protect its interests but that should not involve the United States. One can only hope that eventually a majority of my fellow American citizens will also figure things out. It might take a while, but the ruthless way Israel openly operates with no concern for anyone but itself provides a measure of optimism that that day is surely coming.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .

Anonymous [679] Disclaimer , August 14, 2018 at 4:50 am GMT

. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.

Oh right, who can forget the cabal of Jews controlling the US government and military at the time of the Iraq invasion, such as President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, CIA director George Tenet, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice Every.Single.Time, am I right, folks?

Oh wait, they aren't Jewish? Well, I blame the Jews away. Just look at uh Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Woflowitz and journalist Bill Kristol. That sounds like an extremely powerful cabal easily capable of commanding such trivial figures as the President, CIA director, Secretary of State, et cetera, to do their bidding.

Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks, but I'm sure it's all part of the plan.

Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel because uh chaos and destabilization.

And if you doubt that neocons totally control the US government, just look at how we're at war with Iran! Well we're not technically at war yet, a decade after neoconservatives began promoting the war .and President Obama did somehow manage to sign a nuclear deal with Iran that infuriated his neocon and Israeli puppetmasters but I'm sure that President Trump, famously beloved by Jews and neocons everywhere, will soon go to war with Iran.

Colin Wright , Website August 14, 2018 at 7:25 am GMT

@Ben_C

' I'm not entirely sure why you keep hanging on to this tired and false narrative that US politicians are some sort of stooges and puppets of Israel '

Maybe because they are stooges and puppets? In extreme cases, they even boast of it. When Romney was running for president, he promised he would check with Israel on any action we took in the Middle East. When Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was promoting civil war in Syria, she explained that this was necessary because Israel wished it.

It goes on, and on. If someone is considering a run for Congress, he gets a nice little packet from AIPAC. Among other things, he's asked to write an essay expressing his feelings about Israel.

If the essay isn't satisfactory, AIPAC backs his opponent.

Not surprisingly, when Netanyahu -- the premier of a tiny state on the other side of the planet -- spoke to Congress he was interrupted with standing ovations seventeen times. The display put me in mind of the sort of frenzied adulation Communist delegates used to display towards Stalin.

and the motives, of course, would be similar, even if actual death isn't in prospect. For most in Congress, displease Israel, and your political career just ended.

Colin Wright , Website August 14, 2018 at 7:29 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke

"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with Washington."

It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack.

Colin Wright , Website August 14, 2018 at 7:52 am GMT
I think it needs to be emphasized that it's not merely a matter of practical politics.

Israel is evil -- she brings misery to millions, actual happiness to almost no one, and engages in behavior with no defensible moral foundation at all. She has attacked every single one of her neighbors, compulsively seeks out further conflict to paper over the shortcomings in her own national identity, and treats her Palestinian subjects with a morality about like that of a nasty little boy pulling the wings off a fly.

Arguably, others are as bad. However, unlike the others, Israel could not have come into being without our support, and could not continue to exist today without our continued moral, economic, diplomatic, and military support. If we pulled the plug, Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish supremacist state within -- at most -- a decade.

We are, in fact, responsible for Israel, and hence responsible for Israel's crimes. Other people's teenaged sons may well be out there stealing cars and raping girls. This happens to be our son doing it. We're responsible.

We pursue many policies I regard as futile, short-sighted, deluded, or self-destructive. My personal list would include 'come one come all' immigration, global warming denial, maintaining a massive military establishment, condoning 'Black Lives Matter,' and probably some other things.

No doubt the reader has his own list. However, that's not the point. The point is that essentially, these policies are merely stupid rather than actually evil. It's not evil to think we should just let whoever wants come into the US. It's dumb -- but it isn't evil. In fact, I'll willingly credit people who vote for 'sanctuary cities' et al with the most laudable sentiments. I merely question their intelligence.

Israel is different. Israel is evil, and hence our support for it is as well. It is the most fundamentally wrong act we are engaged in.

There is a moral dimension to life. There is a distinction between striving to do good -- however unsuccessfully -- and willingly participating in evil.

We need to stop supporting Israel.

The Alarmist , August 14, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT

"A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House without any objection from a controlled media."

Kind of begs the question, why are we giving any aid to a first-world country with a GDP growth rate in the 3% to 4% rate for years (even while we were stuck below 2%) and an unemployment rate below 4%?

The Israeli economy is in better shape than the US economy; they should be giving us aid.

"Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad, an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them."

Yes, it is truly amazing what our "Best & Brightest" will do to stay on-side. Following Mr. Giraldi's earlier post regarding the gubernatorial run of Israeli puppet Ron DeSantis and the Big Sugar connections of Adam Putnam, it would seem a Floridian's least worst choice is Bob White.

skrik , August 14, 2018 at 9:31 am GMT

Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself

1st part: Absolutely, indubitably correct.

2nd part: ¿Qué? Why do people say/write this? Under what corrupt arrangement does an oh, so obvious outlaw have any such right?

Consider: A gang of out-of-towners turns up at a block of flats, breaks the doors down and occupies the building, killing some erstwhile owner/occupiers and ejecting most of the rest on the way in, thereafter whooping it up big, and ignoring [obviously too feeble] orders to RoR+R*3 [= Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation.] Since when can such outlaws dictate anything, thumb their noses at the Law?

Property, especially here land, is alienable – but this does not mean ' subject to seizure by aliens .'

Kindly consider: "A fair exchange is no robbery." A fair exchange means willing seller, interested buyer, and a freely and fairly agreed price. No such thing exists vis-à-vis the forcible colonisation of Palestine. Some proof may be seen here [my bolding]:

By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20,500 km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine

Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership.[5]

5. Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.

Especially in reference to the illegitimate entity which terms itself Israel, wiki is not reliable, being, like the US Congress, Israeli-occupied territory. So it is noteworthy that they write "in control of" as opposed to 'own.' They can't ever own it due to not having purchased it, and Palestinians may not surrender it, due to the UDHR which specifies *inalienable* rights:

Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Also, see the Washington Consensus:

10.Legal security for property rights.

Further, there is UNSC242: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, plus only just law may earn respect, and/or be respected. A law dispossessing erstwhile legal owner/occupiers is an utter travesty.

Me; comment: Its illegitimacy is all so howlingly obvious!

Fazit: Apart from the ~6% of 'pre-Herzl Palestine' which 'invading by stealth' alien, mostly European Jews managed to purchase, the illegitimate entity does not own nor can they ever own the land/property they squat upon, which still belongs to the erstwhile owner/occupiers, specifically the 'native' pre-Nakba Palestinians [now including heirs & successors]. Then, the illegitimate entity does not declare borders for two reasons 1) any such declaration would be [probably successfully] challenged and 2) the illegitimate entity expresses the desire to expand to 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.' Q: Just how ghastly is that? A: Could hardly be worse.

Closing the loop: How can land-thieves have any 'right to defend' such improperly alienated land/property? It doesn't compute! rgds

mark green , August 14, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT
Thank you, Mr. Giraldi, for another forceful rebuke of Zionist criminality and US culpability.

The supremacist kosher state is a cancer on America. Just survey the wreckage. Count the bodies. Who benefits from this?

The Zionist project is a plague on humanity. It entertains no compromise. It will stop at virtually nothing. Examine the blood-soaked damage from Soviet Russia to Germany to Palestine and beyond. It moves Washington around via remote control.

The situation has become very grave. Speech deemed 'anti-Semitic' is rapidly being criminalized worldwide.

Right wing political expression (that Jews don't like) on Twitter, Facebook and the web is being de-platformed for speech infractions that involve 'hate'. But it's only 'hate' of a certain stripe.

After all, hatred is ubiquitous in America. It cuts in every direction. So why is the focus so intense on just one spectrum of hatred?

Might it have something to do with the political preferences of those in power?

Oh maybe.

Principles be damned. Whose ox is being gored?

With that in mind, consider this: who might actually be the biggest hater of all?–and killer? (Hint: it's certainly not the powerless Alt-right 'deplorables'.)

Might it instead be the world's foremost victims?

After all, incendiary speech–even 'hate speech'–does not kill. It takes bombs, drones, tanks and missiles to accomplish that.

So where's the uproar over routine sorties which needlessly dispense death and destruction?

It's gone missing.

Incredibly, it is rough speech and acute political criticism–not failed, horrific wars–that are being criminalized. Pro-Zionist 'wars of choice' still get a pass in our corporate board rooms, TV studios, news rooms, and in most of Official Washington.

This entrenched distortion allows neocons and their underlings to jawbone and plot their next preemptive war. The Big Squeeze is on. Beware Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran. Zionism is an 'unshakable' Washington value. So get ready.

How distant wars advance the interests of average Americans remains a mystery.

Despite this puzzle, America's MSM offers little resistance and no straightforward criticism of Zio-Washington's ceaseless war efforts on behalf of a certain 'democratic ally'. In similar fashion, the Fourth Estate has also been compromised.

It's worth remembering that, according to the UN Charter, a state-sponsored 'First Strike' against another sovereign state is the most serious war crime. This elementary moral precept however matters not–at least not when Israel is pulling the strings. Quiet, children. Listen. Obey.

What we have here is a pattern of vast serial criminality.

Zio-Washington has become Israel's war vessel. We regular folk are just along for the ride.

So don't forget to cheer for the good guys!

Incredibly, US-enabled, Israeli ruthlessness has gotten even worse under 'America First' Trump. After all, Trump needlessly tore up Obama's hard-fought peace deal with Iran.

Why would Trump make such a move? (As a candidate, he was far less hawkish).

Our weakened and despised President needs desperately to please America's foremost lobby. Trump cannot govern without their support. This peculiar situation however requires additional blood-letting on behalf of the Zionist state. Foreign wars that benefit Israel are the unwritten price that the goyim leadership in America must pay. Sorry folks!

(Are you listening, Tehran?)

Jewish power corrupts. Overwhelming Jewish power corrupts in overwhelming fashion.

skrik , August 14, 2018 at 11:21 am GMT
@Colin Wright

It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack

Err 'do + document?' It's certainly difficult to explain how 19 reputed Muslim/Arab hijackers could have 'control demolished' WTC7; ~2.5secs at *exactly* free-fall speed, WTCs 1&2 at almost free-fall speed [plus the outwards-ejected massive steel sections], and all mainly 'all the way down' into their own 'footprints' = all three control demolished [all for one; one for all]. Camel-f ** ckers just ain't that clever, eh? The observed fact that the US rogue-regime made no 'counteractions' vis-à-vis the so-called 'attack on America' made all 'responsibles' accessories; before [covert agencies], during [order-givers] and after ['led' by the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs [latter = publicly financed broadcasters]; all vile traitors.] Ho, hum; just another US/Z travesty. rgds

JessicaR , August 14, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
I read these kinds of articles with mixed reactions.

On the one hand, I believe Mr. Giraldi should choose his language more carefully. Perhaps instead of referring to "Jews," he should narrow this to "Jewish Likud supporters" or something similar.

The Jewish community as a whole is moderate, reasonable, and not especially devoted to war. It is a subset of the community–which, alas, happens to be well-funded and dedicated–that promotes war 24/7.

I believe Mr. Giraldi would appear more credible if he made this crucial distinction.

On the other hand, someone will always comment that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. are more powerful than Wolfowitz and Feith. I believe this line of attack ignores crucial facts.

1. It is these less powerful underlings that package the information that their superiors use when determining policy. One need only recall the Office of Special Plans, headed by Feith, that cherry-picked intelligence to make the case for war. Also, Wolfowitz served as Bush II's foreign policy tutor when he was a candidate.

2. It has been credibly reported, I believe by Dana Milbanks in the Washington Post, that Jewish donors provide 50% of individual donations to the Democratic party and 35% of donations made to the Republicans. This kind of money gives those hawkish elements of the Jewish community considerable power. In a system in which the vote is split almost equally between both parties, these funds are crucial to electoral success.

So, yes, the Israel lobby is extraordinarily powerful. But no, it does not represent all American Jews.

Philip Giraldi , August 14, 2018 at 12:00 pm GMT
@JessicaR

Jessica – I never say "all Jews" or even "most Jews" but to ignore that the dominance of Israel is a Jewish problem is to turn one's back on reality. It is Jewish oligarchs and organizations that push the Israeli agenda, that fund it, and that sustain it in the media and on capitol hill. I know there are a lot of liberal Jews and even some not so liberal ones that abhor what Israel is doing but are afraid to say anything lest they be called "self hating." They have to get off the fence and declare that the USA is their home and that Netanyahu's insistence that Israel is the Jewish homeland is a self-serving fraud. Until that happens, Israel will dominate America's foreign policy discussion, to our damage. Israel is a foreign country and should be treated by Washington like any other foreign country, i.e. based on US national interests.

anon [317] Disclaimer , August 14, 2018 at 12:08 pm GMT
@Ben_C

"special relationship" with Israel is itself the result of terrible national security and foreign policy" while I agree that the statement is true, if does not begin to explain the depth of Zionist control of the American Empire, nor does it look to the origin of that control.

1. Israel is the network @ Colin wright, @ anonymous in reply to Ben_C as well as

2. The well researched book entitled "The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguised Service professor of Political Science and the co director of the progarm on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) and Stephen M. Walt (the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor international Affairs at the John f. Kennedy School of government at Harvard University and past academic dean of the Kennedy School which discusses the Impact of US Foreign Policy as it relates to America's nation interest.

3. https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/08/05/570217/US-aid-to-Israel-to-exceed-38B
38 billion is $112 per America given to Israel by the USA congress
What possible benefit can Americans get from giving a bunch of militants in the Middle East 38 million?

4. Article VI of the US Constitution readmitted back into Independent America the entire banking and corporate leaches which caused the American revolution, explained in some detail on this website just a few days ago. @ Anon[317] • Disclaimer says: August 12, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT • 1,100 Words wherein the so called landed estates and landed Gentry were mostly British Banking and Trading and Slaving Corporations (many Jewish owners) doing business in America. Their wealth was derived from their land ownership and corporations licensed to do business in America by foreign governments. The British Aristocratic land grants mostly made to privately owned British banking, trading and slaving corporations or wealthy British and French Aristocrats allowed foreign nations to deed title to American land. These baron-landed owners, the so-called Gentry, were the very centers of the British a-human rights authority and vicious corporate and political powerhouses that controlled the American Colonies of Britain. It was the landed gentry that brought the American colonist to revolt against British rule. BUT just 12 years after the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the banker and Aristocrat favorable US constitution was imposed by a process called ratification? ( a third party regime change process that appears in the US Constitution as Article VII?). This ratification process was used to impose the very same British mostly Wealthy Crowd to not only keep their land granted lands, their personal wealth earned by inhumanity to mankind, and their educated Aristocratic global life styles in America. So the US constitution itself allowed to be installed: a government that only gave the British Baron Aristocrats voting control of America's destiny but it also terminated the Democracy (Articles of Confederation) that so much American blood had been spilt to bring about. These were the some of the forefathers forefathers to global Zionism, a part of the powerhouse support team of the Jewish banking and corporate global network, many of whom became team members in the formalized conspiracy to take control of the oil in the world and to weaponize immigration in order to take the oil from the Arabs. In 1896 (Switzerland , first Zionist Congress) the Jewish controlled organizations weaponized immigration and aimed it at the Ottoman Arab oil. Trace a failed coup attempt against the Ottoman, the Balfour Agreement, WWI, British and French control over once Ottoman Palestine, the Palin Commission, a network established military base that became Israel, immediate International recognition by the Jewish controlled nations of the world) and so on. .

I trust you might now be " entirely sure why .. the narrative that US Politicians {must be ] .. [elected, salaried] stooges and puppets of Israel " few outsiders are allowed to take a position among the 527 who control the law making powers and war making powers that the USA uses to force Americans into their wars.

Miggle , August 14, 2018 at 12:10 pm GMT
It seems that a large proportion of the members of the US Congress are Israeli citizens.

It is unconstitutional for a member of the Australian Parliament to be a dual citizen. This is taken to such an extent that if it's found that an MP born in New Zealand moved to Australia as a baby, that person's election becomes null and void, unless he or she was conscious of the situation and verifiably renounced NZ citizenship prior to the election. That is so even in this mad case of Australians and New Zealanders having the same head of state, the English monarch.

Why on earth can't America bring in a similar law, making it impossible for Israeli citizens to vote in its Congress, to even be there?

[Aug 14, 2018] Bloody Sunday 1972 The British Beginning of Gladio

Notable quotes:
"... However, these gunmen were not local Catholics, they were not part of the IRA or any other Ulster organisation, whoever they were, they were there on the orders of external forces. ..."
"... From the point of view of those who sent those gunmen, the event was a great success, it achieved precisely the results they wanted as it resulted in 13 dead, innocent Catholic civilians and ignited the province of Ulster into decades of awful violence. ..."
"... Who would want to do such a thing, who would want to create an internal conflict inside the British Isles that would greatly influence Britain and it's governments for a quarter of a century? I believe that Bloody Sunday was part of the CIA-lead campaign of false flag terror known as Gladio. Gladio terrorist operations had begun in 1972, three years after Muammar Gadaffi had been placed in power in Libya by a CIA coup and Libya was to be the base of operations for Gladio. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

https://us-u.openx.net/w/1.0/pd?plm=6&ph=2857f3e0-a998-4d70-b5c1-b19a3d6766a1&gdpr=0

Note the point made by a Para that all of the members of the British Army killed in the three years of The Troubles to that point had been the victims of 'highly accurate sniper fire'. Then note how the situation was setup to place the Paras in the worst possible position – sent in to a very hot spot where the high ground – the blocks of flats, was occupied by the enemy, an enemy that was known to have possessed at least one sniper rifle. The Paras were going to be shot at and the gunfire was almost certain to come from the flats.

Listen to the testimony of the Paras, they are adamant that is indeed what happened – that multiple weapons opened fire on them from the flats, they were experienced troops and knew exactly what incoming rifle fire sounded like, they saw the bullets striking the ground around them. I have no doubt that this is indeed what happened, that the Paras were fired on from the flats. What happened next was all too predictable -the Paras reacted in the only way they were trained to react when fired upon – to seek out the source of the gunfire and attack it immediately.

This was the start of the massacre as the Paras reacted to the gunfire from the flats by moving forward and shooting at any targets that presented themselves and tragically, the only targets that day were innocent, unarmed British civilians, young Catholics who were guilty of little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The bishop and other Catholics present on that day are equally adamant that no-one on the civilian side was armed, that none of the protesters fired on the Paras; I believe they are telling te truth just as much as the Paras are.

How can both the Paras and the civilians be telling the truth when they hold opposing testimonies?

I think it is pretty simple and with the benefit of decades of hindsight and the knowledge of many subsequent false flag events, pretty obvious what really happened. I believe that gunmen were indeed placed in the flats and perhaps other buildings around 'Aggro Corner' and those gunmen did indeed fire at the Paras, not with the intention of hitting any of them as that would provide proof that gunmen were present and active that day, but with the intention of causing the Paras to react with the hyper aggression which they had been trained to display.

However, these gunmen were not local Catholics, they were not part of the IRA or any other Ulster organisation, whoever they were, they were there on the orders of external forces. Forces that intended to escalate the civil unrest that had wracked the province since 1969 into a far more belligerent and violent affair where large and highly organised paramilitary forces like the IRA were formed to battle the British Army and the Ulster Constabulary in what was a virtual civil war. For this to happen, an event like Bloody Sunday had to take place, innocent Catholics had to be sacrificed and the British had to look like brutal and murderous imperialist oppressors.

From the point of view of those who sent those gunmen, the event was a great success, it achieved precisely the results they wanted as it resulted in 13 dead, innocent Catholic civilians and ignited the province of Ulster into decades of awful violence.

Who would want to do such a thing, who would want to create an internal conflict inside the British Isles that would greatly influence Britain and it's governments for a quarter of a century? I believe that Bloody Sunday was part of the CIA-lead campaign of false flag terror known as Gladio. Gladio terrorist operations had begun in 1972, three years after Muammar Gadaffi had been placed in power in Libya by a CIA coup and Libya was to be the base of operations for Gladio.

Gladio had multiple objectives, in the political climate of the Cold War it aimed to discredit left wing political groups, more importantly, the aim was to inculcate a climate of fear among the general populace. This was known as the 'strategy of tension' which was intended to generate a pervasive sense of fear which would encourage the population to appeal to the state for protection. I firmly believe that Bloody Sunday and the subsequent 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland was part of Gladio and that the intelligence services of Britain, the USA and their NATO allies were directly responsible.

https://us-u.openx.net/w/1.0/pd?plm=6&ph=2857f3e0-a998-4d70-b5c1-b19a3d6766a1&gdpr=0

  1. US-First August 14, 2018 at 9:08 pm CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR

    One point Ian that is not clear from the videos Ian is that high above the Bogside along the City of Derry walls British soldiers fired down from on high into the crowds making away from the city center for Free Derry Corner. With soldiers separated there is always danger of crossed signals, soldiers caught in crossfire and officers at cross purposes. All in all, as you say, it was a disaster. When the Paras are around expect a no-nonsense high intensity encounter. Whoever, the cad or Hooray Henry was who decided to use the Paras for crowd arrests deserved to be thumped. Nobody deserved to die that day. Nobody! Soldiers as you say just follow orders and if confronted with real or probable danger will react accordingly. And those trained to kill, do just that, kill. Everything in the planning of that day smacked of deliberate provocation/saber-rattling against a peaceful Civil Rights protest march. And the planners of the Bogside havoc from their offices at Whitehall proved a world away from ensuing events on the ground and a far remove from logic or basic common sense. And God rest the dead!

    My favorite poem of the North of Ireland troubles from 300 years ago: "The Man From God Knows Where"
    http://www.politics.ie/forum/northern-ireland/205823-man-god-knows-where.html

[Aug 14, 2018] An objective criticism of the Zionist enterprise now a days and its apologists resort immediately to unrestrained howls and accusations of antisemitism.

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

JoaoAlfaiate , August 14, 2018 at 7:54 pm GMT

@Sam Shama

" antisemites "

There are antisemitic rants in many places on the web, almost all of which are ignored.

But make an objective criticism of the Zionist enterprise now a days and its apologists resort immediately to unrestrained howls and accusations of antisemitism.

One ought, therefor, to understand this rhetorical device for the simple ad hominem attack that it is.

[Aug 14, 2018] Habakkuk on Russia Delusion Syndrome (RDS)

Aug 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

One rather material element in delusions about Russia, alike in my country as in yours, is that people still appear to have difficulty realising that Putin is not a communist, and, where they can get this far, find it utterly impossible to make sense of what he actually is.

Among the more extreme instances was provided by our Ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce, in the exchanges in April as the Western powers were trying to cover up yet another 'false flag' chemical weapons attack. She explained: "In respect of Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory."

(See https://www.rt.com/uk/42384... .)

This problem might have been avoided had our then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, summoned his Eton and Oxford contemporary Paul Robinson back from Ottawa, where he now teaches. Ironically, it was when Johnson was editing the 'Spectator' that, in January 2004, he published an article by Robinson, headlined 'Putin's might is White', which had a shaping influence on my view of contemporary Russian realities.

(See http://archive.spectator.c o... .)

Only later did I learn that, after leaving university, its author had served for five years in Army Intelligence, and, when he chose to do a doctorate, opted to excavate some forgotten figures from Trotsky's 'dustbin of history', writing on the White Russian Army in exile.

As a result, at a time when so many who had opted for 'relevant' subjects quite patently had no idea what was happening, Robinson could see, clearly, that what goes into the 'dustbin' does not necessarily stay there: that Putin was, in essence, a grandchild of the Rev olution who had come to believe that some of those who had opposed it had been completely justified. (As it were, Trotsky should have been in the 'dustbin', not Denikin.)

Moreover, having described the new Russian President as a 'typical Soviet radish – red on the outside but white at the core', Robinson went on to put into context the complexities of his relationship towards 'liberal' ideas:

'Probably the most fundamental tension in Russian politics is that between the concepts of gosudarstvennost' and its rival obshchestvennost'. The nuances of the latter are difficult to translate, but the term refers to civil society and, roughly speaking, means "public opinion". Liberal commentators regard the state in Russia with suspicion. At the start of the 20th century, they longed for the state to surrender its power to "public opinion". They still do. But supporters of gosudatstvennosr view supporters of obshchestvennost' with equal suspicion. They see them as the self-interested representatives of the chattering classes, who, if put into positions of power, will immediately plunge Russia into a state of anarchy in which their beloved liberties will be of no use to them or anybody else. This, the Whites argued, was what the liberals of the provisional government had done in 1917, and this, many now claim, is what free-market democrats such as Yegor Gaidar did to Russia in the early 1990s.

A.Trophimovsky , an hour ago

What about the historical, by the ammount of millions, military budget Trump signed yesterday at that military base, destined mainly to counter Russia and China?

Is he suffering of RDS too already?

How do you see it?

It includes an increase in military personel wages of 2.5%...this would translate into pensions as well, I guess, thus, added to the tax cut, it would seem that for some people Trump is the hen of the golden eggs...

Pat Lang Mod -> A.Trophimovsky , an hour ago
IMO DJT is firmly in the grip of RDS.
VietnamVet , 2 hours ago
Excellent. The past isn't even past.

The Reagan/Thatcher revolution was a restoration of a new Victorian Gilded Age. The USA is a plutocracy with two ideologies (globalism and nationalism) at war. Donald Trump represents the old national myths. Peter Strzok is a courtier of the Clinton globalists. The little people, under stress from austerity, are reverting to their old myths and religions. American globalists cannot face the reality of the defeat of Hillary Clinton. Instead they project themselves on to others. It is the evil Vladimir Putin who is doing the dirty deeds. As with all scapegoats, the truth about Russia does not matter.

This is very scary. The weaponizing of sanctions and tariffs plus the possibility of the 17 year old Middle East Holy War spreading into Turkey and involving NATO troops in Turkey, Syria and Iraq; make the ignition of Russia's 1,960 strategic nuclear weapons a real possibility.

richardstevenhack , 4 hours ago

It is only under the shelter of a state strong enough to protect its subjects from crime or external assault, to create and enforce laws to regulate commerce and industry, and to encourage the arts, education and other social benefits, that a society can prosper, and that the conditions for individual liberty can ever hope to exist.'

This is the quintessential state delusion. History proves the exact opposite, nowhere better than the United States whose founding was based on minimizing state power as much as possible consistent with there being a state. Clearly it was not enough... "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."

'In that story, America is placed at the vanguard of the great human march of progress. America is the grateful inheritor of other people's gifts. It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role. America culminates history. It advances a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The things Americans do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.

'This historical story was America's true myth '

How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me. Truly delusional and divorced from any notion of reality. Nothing but a propaganda piece by Brooks. A pure example of "America Delusion Syndrome."

Ishmael Zechariah -> richardstevenhack , 10 minutes ago
re: "How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me."

Perhaps the current propaganda is analogous to that described by Auden in "The Shield of Achilles" ( https://www.poets.org/poets... )

"... She looked over his shoulder
For vines and olive trees,
Marble well-governed cities
And ships upon untamed seas,
But there on the shining metal
His hands had put instead
An artificial wilderness
And a sky like lead.

A plain without a feature, bare and brown,
No blade of grass, no sign of neighborhood,
Nothing to eat and nowhere to sit down,
Yet, congregated on its blankness, stood
An unintelligible multitude,
A million eyes, a million boots in line,
Without expression, waiting for a sign.

Out of the air a voice without a face
Proved by statistics that some cause was just
In tones as dry and level as the place:
No one was cheered and nothing was discussed;
Column by column in a cloud of dust
They marched away enduring a belief
Whose logic brought them, somewhere else, to grief..."

At this rate many may come to grief due to the corruption of bloviating megaphones.
'Tis a pity.
Ishmael Zechariah

[Aug 14, 2018] Maybe The US congress truly believe they can decapitate Russia with very little risk or damage to NATO countries, but from publicly available data it doesn't look like that.

Notable quotes:
"... Why are they pushing a propaganda war which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know that there cannot ever be a real hot war? ..."
"... How will they prevent escalation if they themselves seem to slowly drink their own Kool-Aid and believe that Russia is "waging hybrid warfare" with them, and therefore that any military action against Russia counts as self-defense, moreover, that it'd be insane not to wage an actual war against Russia? ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT

@Mitleser

Exactly. It's a bit frightening because I don't quite get what their endgame is here.

Maybe they truly believe they can decapitate Russia with very little risk or damage to NATO countries, but from publicly available data it doesn't look like that.

Why are they pushing a propaganda war which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know that there cannot ever be a real hot war?

How will they prevent escalation if they themselves seem to slowly drink their own Kool-Aid and believe that Russia is "waging hybrid warfare" with them, and therefore that any military action against Russia counts as self-defense, moreover, that it'd be insane not to wage an actual war against Russia?

[Aug 14, 2018] Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia.

Notable quotes:
"... Russia's economy is weak. Its GDP did not make the world's top 10, yet its military, especially its nuclear power, has sustained its status as one of the most influential nations in the world. Russia and the US have serious geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, but Trump suddenly reversed the hardline US stance and showed a low-key response to Putin. That's probably because, as Trump said, Russia is a nuclear power. ..."
"... Yet Trump's respect toward Russia is worth mentioning. Trump is a man who values strength, and he attaches great importance to military strength, especially nuclear strength. ..."
"... China is different from Russia. China has a robust economy and has many tools at its disposal, which is an advantage. Yet China's relatively weak military, especially its nuclear power, which lags behind the US, is a major strategic sore point. ..."
"... Just by looking at the US' aggressive attitude in the South China Sea and the Taiwan question, we know that China's nuclear strength is "far from sufficient." Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage. We are concerned that maybe one day, Washington will turn this arrogance into military provocation, whereby China will face very grave challenges. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Thorfinnsson , August 13, 2018 at 9:04 pm GMT

@Okechukwu

From Chinese state media: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1111711.shtml

Amid the lingering fury from the US media over US President Donald Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the White House announced Thursday that Trump invited Putin to visit Washington this fall. Trump's attitude has been firm on improving US-Russia relations. Despite staunch opposition, it is quite likely that US-Russia relations will halt its slide during Trump's presidency.

Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is clearheaded.

Russia's economy is weak. Its GDP did not make the world's top 10, yet its military, especially its nuclear power, has sustained its status as one of the most influential nations in the world. Russia and the US have serious geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, but Trump suddenly reversed the hardline US stance and showed a low-key response to Putin. That's probably because, as Trump said, Russia is a nuclear power.

We know US-Russia relations cannot be improved overnight because it is difficult for the two countries to make strategic compromises in Europe and the Middle East. Even if their relations improve, other frictions may emerge, causing new rifts in bilateral ties.

Yet Trump's respect toward Russia is worth mentioning. Trump is a man who values strength, and he attaches great importance to military strength, especially nuclear strength.

The US has defined China as its strategic competitor and is exerting more pressure. The trade war may be just the beginning. Tensions between the two nations may spread to other areas. We believe that during this process, the White House will continue to evaluate, including a look at China's nuclear arsenal.

China is different from Russia. China has a robust economy and has many tools at its disposal, which is an advantage. Yet China's relatively weak military, especially its nuclear power, which lags behind the US, is a major strategic sore point.

A popular view among Chinese strategists is that we need only a sufficient number of nuclear weapons. Too many nuclear weapons cost more and may trigger outside alarm, leading to strategic uncertainty. Those who hold this view believe China does not need to increase its strategic nuclear weapons and should instead focus on modernizing its nuclear weapons to secure the country's capability for a second nuclear strike. We believe this view is a serious misinterpretation of the major countries' nuclear situation.

China is no small country that needs only a few nuclear weapons to scare off an intimidator at a critical moment. China has grown into a global influence, facing greater risks and pressure than smaller countries do. We must reconsider what constitutes "sufficient" in terms of nuclear weapons.

China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate China militarily. Once major countries are engaged in military conflicts, each side must evaluate the determination of the other side to see the conflict through. Nuclear power is the pillar of that determination. One of the major reasons that the US used a "salami-slicing" method to push for NATO's eastward expansion but refused to engage in open conflict in Ukraine and Syria with Russia is probably because it was concerned about what Moscow might do with its huge nuclear arsenal.

Just by looking at the US' aggressive attitude in the South China Sea and the Taiwan question, we know that China's nuclear strength is "far from sufficient." Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage. We are concerned that maybe one day, Washington will turn this arrogance into military provocation, whereby China will face very grave challenges.

China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power. Advanced missiles such as the Dongfeng-41 should materialize as soon as possible. Not only should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.

Of course, we do not believe nuclear power development should override all the other work or its development should come at the expense of other major developmental interests. But this work must be made a top priority. We must recognize the urgent need for China to strengthen its nuclear prowess.

[Aug 14, 2018] If a nuclear war starts, it is only logical for the initial combatants to target ALL powers at once, as this may be their last chance to reduce their neighbors' ability to loot and conquer after the war.

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

ZZZ , August 13, 2018 at 10:30 pm GMT

@neutral

If a nuclear war starts, it is only logical for the initial combatants to target ALL powers at once, as this may be their last chance to reduce their neighbors' ability to loot and conquer after the war. So expect Europe & China to be hit. China will in turn target Japan, India, Korea, etc. The US do not trust Canada or Mexico, so these may well become targets too. Pakistan and Israel may want to make their move at this point. Pretty soon it would become clear that no major industrial or population center should be spared. So within a couple of hours, the world's entire nuclear stockpile would be launched.

After these events, the country with the most extensive tunnel system will emerge as the new world leader.

[Aug 14, 2018] A blockade is an act of war. A much more lively August than any of us expected. The devil is never idle.

Aug 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Uncoy , Aug 12, 2018 5:33:18 PM | 21

A very busy week indeed. It looks like the world is dividing into two alliances: those who will follow the dictates on Iran and Russian sanctions and those who won't. We're in the prelude to a long winter of a cold war or a very hot one, depending on how the USA chooses to enforce those sanctions. Effectively at this point the upcoming sanctions would serve as the equivalent of a blockade. A blockade is an act of war. A much more lively August than any of us expected. The devil is never idle.

Miserable fat scheming twats like Karl Rove have nothing to look forward to on vacation and so delight in poisoning everyone else's. There's a whole warren of similar rats in the Trump administration and over at Langley which is why I mention Rove. While he's not in the current administration, he's a very visceral representation of what the world is up against until we put the neocons and PNACers out of business for good.

PS. I see nhs continues to post tracking links instead of direct links @7. b, I'd really appreciate it (and the rest of the tech savvy audience here would too) if you'd ban tracking links or more positively insist on direct links. Technically speaking all of nhs's posts should be held as he's a serial offender. You can either clean his links for him (sounds like as much fun as fixing his toilet for free) or just delete the comments which contain URL shorteners (tracking links). The latter would make encourage him to clean up his act fast. You'd be surprised how quickly inconsiderate, spying, spamming types like nhs would learn how to post direct links.

[Aug 14, 2018] Russia of today is in a comparatively much weaker position overall than the USSR due to powerful fifth column

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Parbes , August 14, 2018 at 1:45 am GMT

@reiner Tor

" I don't quite get what their endgame is here .Why are they pushing a propaganda war which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know that there cannot ever be a real hot war?"

Most probably, because they are calculating that under various forms of psychological and economic pressure Russia will crumble from within and surrender, just like in the times of Gorbachev-Yeltsin, without having to fight a real, risk-filled war. Surrender and subjugation without firing a shot – THAT'S their imagined endgame. "Why wouldn't what worked within living memory, a mere 30 years ago, work again now in updated form?", they think – especially since the Russia of today is in a comparatively much weaker position overall than the USSR of back then and the Russian rulers and society are not really too much different psychologically from what they were back then, and are even mostly COMPOSED OF THE SAME INDIVIDUALS? Is it really surprising that they think that way, given the continued existence and thriving inside Russia of a powerful, openly seditious Fifth Column which is not seriously combatted by either the Putin government or the stupid mass of the Russian populace (who stand to lose the most, suffer terribly, and be reduced to colonized virtual serfs or exterminated if the Fifth Columnists and their foreign masters succeed in crashing Russia)?

Of course, IF this is a miscalculation (and I'm not sure that it is, given the current weak, appeasing mentality of the Russian government and population), and the psychopathic Western ruling elites don't manage to get a hold of their oversized lunatic egos and rein in their arrogant hubristic belligerence – well, then the whole situation could devolve pretty quick into a massive, WW I/WW II/Iraq/Serbia combination-type hot war scenario. Except, this time, with the real probability of stepwise escalation from conventional hostilities to Thermonuclear Holocaust.

Vidi , August 14, 2018 at 1:14 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive power of American sanctions on Russia?

Russia may have struck a heavy blow already, when she dumped her holdings of U.S. treasuries. The relatively small amount ($100 to $200 billion) may not have been significant, but as a signal to the rest of the world it may have been loud. The new sanctions may be an attempt to punish Russia for that. They won't work, of course, but the noise they generate may help to obscure the import of Russia's recent action.

Si1ver1ock , August 14, 2018 at 12:57 am GMT
What I don't understand is why the US thinks Russia and China will continue to sanction North Korea. It seems like the US is handing out straight razors to everybody and asking them to slit each others throats. Except for Erdogan, they all seem to be saying, "Sure why not?"

Maybe they are simply accustomed to taking orders.

[Aug 14, 2018] Republicans call Justice Department's Bruce Ohr to testify, but where is British Spy Steele (Video)

Notable quotes:
"... "DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+ contacts with dossier author Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016. He owes the American public the full truth." ..."
"... So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians, likely -- I believe was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counter-intelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now polluted nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. It is absolutely amazing, ..."
"... Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show that Ohr, Steele, and Simpson communicated throughout 2016, as Steele and Simpson were being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump. ..."
"... why the most central of figures in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, British spy for hire Christopher Steele, is not sitting before Congress, testifying to the real election collusion between the UK, the Obama White House, the FBI and the DOJ. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | theduran.com

Representative Mark Meadows tweeted Friday

"DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+ contacts with dossier author Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016. He owes the American public the full truth."

DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+ contacts with dossier author, Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016.

He owes the American public the full truth.

-- Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) August 10, 2018

Lawmakers believe former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is a central figure to finding out how the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid PR smear firm Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele to fuel a conspiracy of Trump campaign collusion with Russians at the top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) said Sunday to Fox News' Maria Bartiromo

So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians, likely -- I believe was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counter-intelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now polluted nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. It is absolutely amazing,

According to Breitbart , during the 2016 election, Ohr served as associate deputy attorney general, and as an assistant to former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. His office was four doors down from Rosenstein on the fourth floor. He was also dual-hatted as the director of the DOJ's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.

Ohr's contacts with Steele, an ex-British spy, are said to date back more than a decade. Steele is a former FBI informant who had helped the FBI prosecute corruption by FIFA officials. But it is Ohr and Steele's communications in 2016 that lawmakers are most interested in.

Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show that Ohr, Steele, and Simpson communicated throughout 2016, as Steele and Simpson were being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump.

The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine the role Bruce Ohr played in Hillary Clinton's Deep State attack against the Presidency of Donald Trump, and why the most central of figures in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, British spy for hire Christopher Steele, is not sitting before Congress, testifying to the real election collusion between the UK, the Obama White House, the FBI and the DOJ.

[Aug 14, 2018] Creating problems in Ukriane is one of the few ways Russia could impose tangible costs on USA

Looks like the aim of US sanctions is to ratchet the hostility up with Russia to the level of a full blown cold war. Ukraine can be a victim.
Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, you'll get bogged down in Ukraine. You'll face tough choices (sanctions will get North Korea-style quickly, and even Chinese sympathy will get questionable), like should you spend your scarce resources on modern weaponry or a large security force to keep Ukraine pacified? ..."
"... Very few people in Russia would want Ukraine now. The consensus is: "good riddance". In Ukraine, on the other hand, there are people who want Russia to invade. Some are waiting for someone else to liberate them from Nazis (they apparently are not familiar with Protestant wisdom that God helps those who help themselves), some pray for a pretext to invite NATO/US (as if anyone is willing to die for them). ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

@reiner Tor


We'll need an anti-sanctions law regardless of whether or not we are going to invade.
Well, I'd say it's a precondition to invading Ukraine. If you're incapable of making such a simple law, you're sure as hell incapable of invading Ukraine. And you do need the law if you want to avoid the sanctions creating the perverse incentives inside Russia, like the biggest banks not having branches in the Crimea. Decoupling from the US dollar is no help, since US sanctions are extraterritorial, if you didn't notice, so they affect euro or even Chinese yuan denominated transactions, too.
Eastern Europeans will never mobilise. What would mass mobilisation even look like in a country like Hungary? Instead, they'll petition USA to station more of its troops in Eastern Europe. A lot more, like hundreds of thousands more.
Within living memory, Hungary had armed forces of 150,000 troops and 1,500 main battle tanks (admittedly, the majority were somewhat obsolete), with hundreds of fighter and light bomber jets (MiG-21s and Su-22s etc.), and we were the slackers in the Eastern Bloc, not spending on defense as much as other neighbors of us. Increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP is what's the plan. If you invaded and occupied the whole of Ukraine, it could easily go up to 4-5%.

Of course, the Americans might come in numbers, too. But you're delusional here:

Doing so will impose costs on the USA. Actually, this is one of the few ways Russia could impose tangible costs on USA: by stoking tensions in Eastern Europe.
We have no military industry to speak of. Most of our neighbors do have some, but even they are nowhere near self-sufficiency. You can guess who we'll buy our weapons from. Poland recently offered to pay for an American base on its soil. So it won't be much of a cost for the US, it might actually be quite beneficial.

Meanwhile, you'll get bogged down in Ukraine. You'll face tough choices (sanctions will get North Korea-style quickly, and even Chinese sympathy will get questionable), like should you spend your scarce resources on modern weaponry or a large security force to keep Ukraine pacified?

Mass deportations is the best part about occupying the Ukraine!
Stalin's USSR at the height of its power only deported much smaller populations. You'd need a lot of people to achieve that. But let's assume you'll manage to do that. It will, of course, create a huge backlash against Russia: popular opinion will get united against Russians. (Defense spending quickly up to 5% of GDP or higher.) The Ukrainians in our countries will of course enter the workforce and join anti-Russian ragtag militias to control the border.
Instead they would have to contend with an insurgency in Eastern Poland
So the people ethnically cleansed from their homes will rise up against NATO in support of Russia. This is a seriously dumb idea.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT

Very few people in Russia would want Ukraine now. The consensus is: "good riddance". In Ukraine, on the other hand, there are people who want Russia to invade. Some are waiting for someone else to liberate them from Nazis (they apparently are not familiar with Protestant wisdom that God helps those who help themselves), some pray for a pretext to invite NATO/US (as if anyone is willing to die for them).

This reminds me of an old Russian joke.

An old hag sits on the bench and screams: "Help! They are raping me!"
Another one passes by and asks: "Have you gone completely mad?"
The first one answers: "Everyone is entitled to a pleasant dream!"

Cyrano , August 13, 2018 at 6:15 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Don't worry about my IQ woes – they are non-existent. I am a stable genius – just like Donald Trump. Your IQ issues are – on the other hand – very easy to fix. All you have to do is admit that you are Russian and you immediately gain 20-30 IQ points. Of course, this will come at the expense of Russia, but then again. everything you've ever done in your history came at the expense of Russia. All the Russians ever wanted was to have a brotherly nation in Ukraine. They have a brother all right, unfortunately that brother has a Down syndrome.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Okechukwu

Any Russian ruler who tries to return Crimea will be overthrown in no time. As Russia gradually disengages from the US-dominated financial system, the costs will go down. Russia has already created its own payment system similar to that of Visa and Mastercard, as well as its own money transfer system similar to SWIFT. On the other hand, if Russia fails to disengage from dollar-dominated system, the losses would be much greater than Crimea. It might even turn into a shithole, like Ukraine.

Insurance is more often a scam than not: Lehman Brothers enjoyed pretty high ratings until their crash. What's more, banks were insured against the risks of sub-prime mortgages they held. Remember what happened in 2008?

As to the future, nobody has the crystal ball. Can you tell how much a Big Mac will cost in the US five or ten years from now? $4? $40? $400? $4,000? Your guess is as good as mine. Ponzi schemes have a habit of crashing and nobody worked out a way of predicting when exactly the crash will occur.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT
@DaveE

This might be in the cards. The US sanctions actually squeezed Russian comprador (5th column) oligarchs, who were always subservient to the West, sent their families there, and are siphoning off their money offshore, more than anything. If Putin uses this to expropriate their stolen riches, which he might do (98% of Russian population would be cheering; they'd cheer even more if Putin hangs those bastards, but that's unlikely), these sanctions would be yet another example of the US shooting itself in the foot. The US is getting pretty good at that lately, always screaming that it hurts afterwards.

[Aug 14, 2018] Our Despicable, Indefensible Policy in Yemen by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... So will a good Christian like Mike Pompeo reconcile these obvious falsehoods, self deception. With every letter, he will be denying the very God he professes to believe in. ..."
"... Trump and his administration are the reveal of the true nature of modern American political Christianity. This is what it always was ..."
"... But The People are not exactly conscientious objector on the issue of Yemen and the crimes committed in our name either. The Republic might rot from the head, but the rot has certainly spread far and wide. ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
The pathetic U.S. response to last week's massacre of students in Yemen continues :

A senior general urged Saudi officials to conduct a thorough investigation into an airstrike that killed at least 40 children in Yemen, the Pentagon said Monday, an indication of U.S. concern about allied nations' air operations against Houthi militants.

The general's request actually shows how little concern the U.S. has for how the Saudi coalition conducts its war effort. If the U.S. were concerned with how the war was being fought, our officials wouldn't be asking the perpetrators of atrocities to investigate their own crimes. It is pointless to urge the Saudis to conduct an investigation into their own war crime when we already know that they will find that they did nothing wrong. As the Post article notes later on, the coalition's investigations predictably excuse their actions:

According to Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director for Human Rights Watch, Saudi investigators had cleared coalition military officials of legal responsibility in virtually all investigations the JIAT had conducted.

The pattern of Saudi coalition conduct over the last three years is clear. Their forces commit numerous documented war crimes, and then when they "investigate" those crimes they determine that their forces are guilty of nothing. It would have been laughable to ask the Saudis to investigate themselves back in 2015, and to do the same over three years later is inexcusable. It is an invitation to whitewashing heinous, illegal acts. The U.S. will not honestly call out the coalition members for their crimes against Yemeni civilians because our government is deeply complicit in those crimes, and so we are treated to this pantomime farce where we send officers to call for investigations whose results have been predetermined even before the crimes were committed. The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone ordered to participate in it.

There needs to be an independent, international inquiry into war crimes committed by all sides in Yemen. All parties to the conflict are assuredly guilty of war crimes, and all parties should be held accountable for what they have done to Yemen's civilians. As long as the U.S. enables Saudi coalition crimes and then shields them from scrutiny, our government is implicated in both the crime and the cover-up. Congress could put a stop to this if they were willing to do their jobs and assume their proper responsibilities, but for more than three years they have shirked their duties and acquiesced in a despicable and indefensible policy in Yemen.

Other Costs August 14, 2018 at 1:34 am

"The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone ordered to participate in it."

For all that they're doing it at the order of even more disgusting civilians, this has got a be a low point in the history of the American military. The word "Yemen" on a resume or CV will make military people stink for the rest of their lives. Like "My Lai" or "Dishonorable Discharge".

Christian Chuba , says: August 14, 2018 at 7:41 am
We are getting a preview of the letters Mike Pompeo will be signing off on to Congress.

So will a good Christian like Mike Pompeo reconcile these obvious falsehoods, self deception. With every letter, he will be denying the very God he professes to believe in.

rayray , says: August 14, 2018 at 10:33 am
@Christian Chuba
Trump and his administration are the reveal of the true nature of modern American political Christianity. This is what it always was
b. , says: August 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm
"The entire policy is a disgrace, and it brings dishonor on everyone ordered to participate in it."

Conduct unbecoming.

The higher the rank of the officers involving themselves in this – in following unconstitutional orders to participate in an illegal campaign of aggressive war and collective punishment – the worse it gets. It would be a heroic act for a private – or even the officer piloting a refueling tanker – to speak out against this, a general has much less of a claim to honor and acquiescence both.

If The People really supported those who serve, they would rally to every conscientious objector – even the misguided ones – because anybody who has the honor and integrity to question orders is preferable to those that pay no heed to the meaning of their oath.

But The People are not exactly conscientious objector on the issue of Yemen and the crimes committed in our name either. The Republic might rot from the head, but the rot has certainly spread far and wide.

[Aug 14, 2018] It was Neocons who pushed the USA to invade Iraa, but, as Greenspan said, the goals of USA were about oil not so much about Israeli interests in the region

Notable quotes:
"... Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks, but I'm sure it's all part of the plan. ..."
"... Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel because uh chaos and destabilization. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [679] Disclaimer , August 14, 2018 at 4:50 am GMT

. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.

Oh right, who can forget the cabal of Jews controlling the US government and military at the time of the Iraq invasion, such as President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, CIA director George Tenet, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice Every.Single.Time, am I right, folks?

Oh wait, they aren't Jewish? Well, I blame the Jews away. Just look at uh Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Woflowitz and journalist Bill Kristol. That sounds like an extremely powerful cabal easily capable of commanding such trivial figures as the President, CIA director, Secretary of State, et cetera, to do their bidding.

Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks, but I'm sure it's all part of the plan.

Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel because uh chaos and destabilization.

And if you doubt that neocons totally control the US government, just look at how we're at war with Iran! Well we're not technically at war yet, a decade after neoconservatives began promoting the war and President Obama did somehow manage to sign a nuclear deal with Iran that infuriated his neocon and Israeli puppetmasters but I'm sure that President Trump, famously beloved by Jews and neocons everywhere, will soon go to war with Iran.

Colin Wright , Website August 14, 2018 at 7:25 am GMT

@Ben_C

' I'm not entirely sure why you keep hanging on to this tired and false narrative that US politicians are some sort of stooges and puppets of Israel '

Maybe because they are stooges and puppets? In extreme cases, they even boast of it. When Romney was running for president, he promised he would check with Israel on any action we took in the Middle East. When Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was promoting civil war in Syria, she explained that this was necessary because Israel wished it.

It goes on, and on. If someone is considering a run for Congress, he gets a nice little packet from AIPAC. Among other things, he's asked to write an essay expressing his feelings about Israel.

If the essay isn't satisfactory, AIPAC backs his opponent.

Not surprisingly, when Netanyahu -- the premier of a tiny state on the other side of the planet -- spoke to Congress he was interrupted with standing ovations seventeen times. The display put me in mind of the sort of frenzied adulation Communist delegates used to display towards Stalin.

and the motives, of course, would be similar, even if actual death isn't in prospect. For most in Congress, displease Israel, and your political career just ended.

Colin Wright , Website August 14, 2018 at 7:29 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke

"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with Washington."

It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack.

Colin Wright , Website August 14, 2018 at 7:52 am GMT
I think it needs to be emphasized that it's not merely a matter of practical politics.

Israel is evil -- she brings misery to millions, actual happiness to almost no one, and engages in behavior with no defensible moral foundation at all. She has attacked every single one of her neighbors, compulsively seeks out further conflict to paper over the shortcomings in her own national identity, and treats her Palestinian subjects with a morality about like that of a nasty little boy pulling the wings off a fly.

Arguably, others are as bad. However, unlike the others, Israel could not have come into being without our support, and could not continue to exist today without our continued moral, economic, diplomatic, and military support. If we pulled the plug, Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish supremacist state within -- at most -- a decade.

We are, in fact, responsible for Israel, and hence responsible for Israel's crimes. Other people's teenaged sons may well be out there stealing cars and raping girls. This happens to be our son doing it. We're responsible.

We pursue many policies I regard as futile, short-sighted, deluded, or self-destructive. My personal list would include 'come one come all' immigration, global warming denial, maintaining a massive military establishment, condoning 'Black Lives Matter,' and probably some other things.

No doubt the reader has his own list. However, that's not the point. The point is that essentially, these policies are merely stupid rather than actually evil. It's not evil to think we should just let whoever wants come into the US. It's dumb -- but it isn't evil. In fact, I'll willingly credit people who vote for 'sanctuary cities' et al with the most laudable sentiments. I merely question their intelligence.

Israel is different. Israel is evil, and hence our support for it is as well. It is the most fundamentally wrong act we are engaged in.

There is a moral dimension to life. There is a distinction between striving to do good -- however unsuccessfully -- and willingly participating in evil.

We need to stop supporting Israel.

The Alarmist , August 14, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT

"A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House without any objection from a controlled media."

Kind of begs the question, why are we giving any aid to a first-world country with a GDP growth rate in the 3% to 4% rate for years (even while we were stuck below 2%) and an unemployment rate below 4%?

The Israeli economy is in better shape than the US economy; they should be giving us aid.

"Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad, an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them."

Yes, it is truly amazing what our "Best & Brightest" will do to stay on-side. Following Mr. Giraldi's earlier post regarding the gubernatorial run of Israeli puppet Ron DeSantis and the Big Sugar connections of Adam Putnam, it would seem a Floridian's least worst choice is Bob White.

skrik , August 14, 2018 at 9:31 am GMT

Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself

1st part: Absolutely, indubitably correct.

2nd part: ¿Qué? Why do people say/write this? Under what corrupt arrangement does an oh, so obvious outlaw have any such right?

Consider: A gang of out-of-towners turns up at a block of flats, breaks the doors down and occupies the building, killing some erstwhile owner/occupiers and ejecting most of the rest on the way in, thereafter whooping it up big, and ignoring [obviously too feeble] orders to RoR+R*3 [= Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation.] Since when can such outlaws dictate anything, thumb their noses at the Law?

Property, especially here land, is alienable – but this does not mean ' subject to seizure by aliens .'

Kindly consider: "A fair exchange is no robbery." A fair exchange means willing seller, interested buyer, and a freely and fairly agreed price. No such thing exists vis-à-vis the forcible colonisation of Palestine. Some proof may be seen here [my bolding]:

By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20,500 km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine

Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership.[5]

5. Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.

Especially in reference to the illegitimate entity which terms itself Israel, wiki is not reliable, being, like the US Congress, Israeli-occupied territory. So it is noteworthy that they write "in control of" as opposed to 'own.' They can't ever own it due to not having purchased it, and Palestinians may not surrender it, due to the UDHR which specifies *inalienable* rights:

Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Also, see the Washington Consensus:

10.Legal security for property rights.

Further, there is UNSC242: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, plus only just law may earn respect, and/or be respected. A law dispossessing erstwhile legal owner/occupiers is an utter travesty.

Me; comment: Its illegitimacy is all so howlingly obvious!

Fazit: Apart from the ~6% of 'pre-Herzl Palestine' which 'invading by stealth' alien, mostly European Jews managed to purchase, the illegitimate entity does not own nor can they ever own the land/property they squat upon, which still belongs to the erstwhile owner/occupiers, specifically the 'native' pre-Nakba Palestinians [now including heirs & successors]. Then, the illegitimate entity does not declare borders for two reasons 1) any such declaration would be [probably successfully] challenged and 2) the illegitimate entity expresses the desire to expand to 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.' Q: Just how ghastly is that? A: Could hardly be worse.

Closing the loop: How can land-thieves have any 'right to defend' such improperly alienated land/property? It doesn't compute! rgds

mark green , August 14, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT
Thank you, Mr. Giraldi, for another forceful rebuke of Zionist criminality and US culpability.

The supremacist kosher state is a cancer on America. Just survey the wreckage. Count the bodies. Who benefits from this?

The Zionist project is a plague on humanity. It entertains no compromise. It will stop at virtually nothing. Examine the blood-soaked damage from Soviet Russia to Germany to Palestine and beyond. It moves Washington around via remote control.

The situation has become very grave. Speech deemed 'anti-Semitic' is rapidly being criminalized worldwide.

Right wing political expression (that Jews don't like) on Twitter, Facebook and the web is being de-platformed for speech infractions that involve 'hate'. But it's only 'hate' of a certain stripe.

After all, hatred is ubiquitous in America. It cuts in every direction. So why is the focus so intense on just one spectrum of hatred?

Might it have something to do with the political preferences of those in power?

Oh maybe.

Principles be damned. Whose ox is being gored?

With that in mind, consider this: who might actually be the biggest hater of all?–and killer? (Hint: it's certainly not the powerless Alt-right 'deplorables'.)

Might it instead be the world's foremost victims?

After all, incendiary speech–even 'hate speech'–does not kill. It takes bombs, drones, tanks and missiles to accomplish that.

So where's the uproar over routine sorties which needlessly dispense death and destruction?

It's gone missing.

Incredibly, it is rough speech and acute political criticism–not failed, horrific wars–that are being criminalized. Pro-Zionist 'wars of choice' still get a pass in our corporate board rooms, TV studios, news rooms, and in most of Official Washington.

This entrenched distortion allows neocons and their underlings to jawbone and plot their next preemptive war. The Big Squeeze is on. Beware Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran. Zionism is an 'unshakable' Washington value. So get ready.

How distant wars advance the interests of average Americans remains a mystery.

Despite this puzzle, America's MSM offers little resistance and no straightforward criticism of Zio-Washington's ceaseless war efforts on behalf of a certain 'democratic ally'. In similar fashion, the Fourth Estate has also been compromised.

It's worth remembering that, according to the UN Charter, a state-sponsored 'First Strike' against another sovereign state is the most serious war crime. This elementary moral precept however matters not–at least not when Israel is pulling the strings. Quiet, children. Listen. Obey.

What we have here is a pattern of vast serial criminality.

Zio-Washington has become Israel's war vessel. We regular folk are just along for the ride.

So don't forget to cheer for the good guys!

Incredibly, US-enabled, Israeli ruthlessness has gotten even worse under 'America First' Trump. After all, Trump needlessly tore up Obama's hard-fought peace deal with Iran.

Why would Trump make such a move? (As a candidate, he was far less hawkish).

Our weakened and despised President needs desperately to please America's foremost lobby. Trump cannot govern without their support. This peculiar situation however requires additional blood-letting on behalf of the Zionist state. Foreign wars that benefit Israel are the unwritten price that the goyim leadership in America must pay. Sorry folks!

(Are you listening, Tehran?)

Jewish power corrupts. Overwhelming Jewish power corrupts in overwhelming fashion.

[Aug 14, 2018] Trump's Trade War with China Undermining China's Dependence on Neoliberalism

Notable quotes:
"... Trump in fact was not the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against China. ..."
"... So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that. ..."
"... despite whatever happened to the U.S., China would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic sectors to foreign investment. ..."
"... for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income, wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor. ..."
"... first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall economy, by various measurements. ..."
"... And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal. ..."
"... let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global order that the Trump administration in the U.S. ..."
"... The Trump administration of this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans' current political system. ..."
"... So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | therealnews.com

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.

The Financial Times chief economic columnist Martin Wolf has called Trump's trade wars with Europe and Canada, but obviously the big target is China, he's called this a war on the liberal world order. Well, what does this mean for China? China's strategy, the distinct road to socialism which seems to take a course through various forms of state hypercapitalism. What does this mean for China? The Chinese strategy was developed in what they thought would be a liberal world order. Now it may not be that at all.

Now joining us to discuss what the trade war means for China, and to have a broader conversation on just what is the Chinese model of state capitalism is Minqi Li, who now joins us from Utah. Minqi is the professor, is a professor of economics at the University of Utah. He's the author of The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy, and the editor of Red China website. Thanks for joining us again, Minqi.

MINQI LI: Thank you, Paul.

PAUL JAY: So I don't think anyone, including the Chinese, was expecting President Trump to be president Trump. But once he was elected, it was pretty clear that Trump and Bannon and the various cabal around Trump, the plan was twofold. One, regime change in Iran, which also has consequences for China. And trade war with China. It was declared that they were going to take on China and change in a fundamental way the economic relationship with China and the United States. And aimed, to a large extent, trying to deal with the rise of China as an equal, or becoming equal, economy, and perhaps someday in the not-too-distant future an equal global power, certainly as seen through the eyes of not just Trumpians in Washington, but much of the Washington political and economic elites.

So what does this mean for China's strategy now? Xi Jinping is now the leader of the party, leader of the government, put at a level virtually equal to Mao Tse-tung. But his plan for development of the Chinese economy did not, I don't think, factor in a serious trade war with the United States.

MINQI LI: OK. As you said, Trump was not expected. Which meant that Trump in fact was not the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against China.

Now, on the Chinese part, and we know that China has been on these parts, there was capitalist development, and moreover it has been based on export-led economic growth model and with exploitation of cheap labor. So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that.

And so you have, indeed there are serious trade conflicts between China and U.S. that will, of course, undermine China's economic model. And so far China has responded to these new threats of trade war by promising that China, despite whatever happened to the U.S., China would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic sectors to foreign investment.

Now, with respect to the trade itself, at the moment the U.S. has imposed tariffs on, 25 percent tariffs on the worth of $34 billion of Chinese goods. And then Trump has threatened to impose new tariffs on the additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. But this amount at the moment is still a small part of China's economy, about 3 percent of the Chinese GDP. So the impact at the moment is limited, but certainly has created a lot of uncertainty for the global and the Chinese business community.

PAUL JAY: So given that this trade war could, one, get a lot bigger and a lot more serious, and/or even if they kind of patch it up for now, there's a lot of forces within the United States, both for economic and geopolitical reasons. Economic being the discussion about China taking American intellectual property rights, becoming the new tech sector hub of the world, even overpassing the American tech sector, which then has geopolitical implications; especially when it comes to the military. If China becomes more advanced the United States in artificial intelligence as applied to the military, that starts to, at least in American geopolitical eyes, threaten American hegemony around the world.

There are a lot of reasons building up, and it's certainly not new, and it's not just Trump. For various ways, the Americans want to restrain China. Does this start to make the Chinese think that they need to speed up the process of becoming more dependent on their own domestic market and less interested in exporting cheap labor? But for that to happen Chinese wages have to go up a lot more significantly, which butts into the interests of the Chinese billionaire class.

MINQI LI: I think you are right. And so for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income, wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor.

PAUL JAY: You know, there's some sections of the left in various parts of the world that do see the Chinese model as a more rational version of capitalism, and do see this because they've maintained the control of the Chinese Communist Party over the politics, and over economic planning, that do see this idea that this is somehow leading China towards a kind of socialism. If nothing else, a more rational planned kind of capitalism. Is that, is there truth to this?

MINQI LI: Well, first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall economy, by various measurements.

And then regarding the rationality of China's economic model, you might put it this way: The Chinese capitalists might be more rational than the American capitalists in the sense that they still use most of their profits for investment, instead of just financial speculation. So that might be rational from the capitalist perspective. But on the other hand, regarding the exploitation of workers- and the Chinese workers still have to work under sweatshop conditions- and regarding the damage to the environment, the Chinese model is not rational at all.

PAUL JAY: My understanding of people that think this model works better, at least, than some of the other capitalist models is that there's a need to go through this phase of Chinese workers, yes, working in sweatshop conditions, and yes, wages relatively low. But overall, the Chinese economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and China's position in the world is more and more powerful. And this creates the situation, as more wealth accumulates, China is better positioned to address some of the critical issues facing China and the world. And then, as bad as pollution is, and such, China does appear to be out front in terms of developing green technologies, solar, sustainable technology.

MINQI LI: OK. Now, Chinese economy has indeed been growing rapidly. It used to grow like double-digit growth rate before 2010. But now China's growth rate has slowed down just under 7 percent in recent years, according to the official statistics. And moreover, a significant part of China's growth these days derives rom the real estate sector development. And so there has been this discussion about this growing housing market bubble. And it used to be that this housing price inflation was limited to a few big cities. But for the first half of 2018, according to the latest data, the national average housing price has grown by 11 percent compared to the same period last year. And that translates into a pace of doubling every six years.

And so that has generated lots of social resentment. And so not only the working class these days are priced out of the housing market. Moreover, even the middle class is increasingly priced out of the housing market. So that is the major concern. And in the long run, I think that China's current model of accumulation will also face the challenge of growing social conflicts. Worker protests. As well as resources constrained and environmental damage. And regarding the issue of China's investment in renewable energy, it is true. China is the largest investor in renewable energy development, in the solar panels. And although China is of all the largest investor in about everything.

And so China is still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, accounting for almost 30 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions in the world every year. And then China's own oil production in decline, but China's oil consumption is still rising. So as a result, China has become the world's largest oil importer. That could make the Chinese economy vulnerable to the next major oil price shock.

PAUL JAY: And how seriously is climate change science taken in China? If one takes the science seriously, one sees the need for urgent transformation to green technology. An urgent reduction of carbon emission. Not gradual, not incremental, but urgent. Did the Chinese- I mean, it's not, it's so not taken seriously in the United States that a climate denier can get elected president. But did the Chinese take this more seriously? Because you don't get the same, any sense of urgency about their policy, either.

MINQI LI: Well, yeah. So like many other governments, the Chinese government also pays lip service to the obligation of climate stabilization. But unfortunately, with respect to policy, with respect to mainstream media, it's not taken very seriously within China. And so although China's carbon dioxide emissions actually stabilized somewhat over the past few years, but is starting to grow again in 2017, and I expect it will continue to grow in the coming year.

PAUL JAY: I mean, I can understand why, for example, Russia is not in any hurry to buy into climate change science. Its whole economy depends on oil. Canada also mostly pays lip service because the Alberta tar sands is so important to the Canadian economy. Shale oil is so important to the American economy, as well as the American oil companies own oil under the ground all over the world. But China is not an oil country. You know, they're not dependent on oil income. You'd think it'd be in China's interest to be far more aggressive, not only in terms of how good it looks to the world that China would be the real leader in mitigating, reducing, eliminating the use of carbon-based fuels, but still they're not. I mean, not at the rate scientists say needs to be done.

MINQI LI: Not at all. Although China does not depend on all on oil for income, but China depends on coal a lot. And the coal is still something like 60 percent of China's overall energy consumption. And so it's still very important for China's energy.

PAUL JAY: What- Minqi, where does the coal mostly come from? Don't they import a lot of that coal?

MINQI LI: Mostly from China itself. Even though, you know, China is the world's largest coal producer, on top of that China is either the largest or the second-largest coal importer in the world market as well. And then on top of that, China is also consuming an increasing amount of oil and natural gas, especially natural gas. And so although natural gas is not as polluting as coal, it's still polluting. And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal.

PAUL JAY: The Chinese party, just to get back to the trade war issue and to end up with, the idea of this Chinese nation standing up, Chinese sovereignty, Chinese nationalism, it's a powerful theme within this new Chinese discourse. I'm not saying Chinese nationalism is new, but it's got a whole new burst of energy. How does China, if necessary to reach some kind of compromise with the United States on the trade war, how does China do that without looking like it's backing down to Trump?

MINQI LI: Well, yes, difficult task for the Chinese party to balance. What they have been right now is that on the one hand they promise to the domestic audience they are not going to make concessions towards the U.S., while in fact they are probably making concessions. And then on the other hand the outside world, and they make announcement that they will not change from the reform and openness policy, which in practice means that they will not change from the neoliberal direction of China's development, and they will continue down the path towards financial liberalization. And so that is what they are trying to balance right now.

PAUL JAY: I said finally, but this is finally. Do the Americans have a case? Does the Trump argument have a legitimate case that the Chinese, on the one hand, want a liberal world order in terms of trade, and open markets, and such? On the other hand are not following intellectual property law, property rights and law, the way other advanced capitalist countries supposedly do. Is there something to that case?

MINQI LI: Well, you know, let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global order that the Trump administration in the U.S. - but I don't want to make justifications for the neoliberal global order. But let's put it this way: The Trump administration of this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans' current political system.

PAUL JAY: So the crisis- you know, when you look at the American side and the Chinese side, including the deep debt bomb people talk about in China, there really is no sorting out of this crisis.

MINQI LI: So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable.

PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks for joining us, Minqi. I hope we can pick this up again soon.

MINQI LI: OK. Thank you.

PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

[Aug 14, 2018] Israel not Russia is the one foreign country that can interfere with impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism.

Notable quotes:
"... Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sean , August 14, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT

By all means confront Israel if that is your thing, but don't pretend that there is any possibility of besting them.

Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism.

Yes. And that is why only Israel can tame American Jews.

[Aug 14, 2018] Iran s Supreme Leader No War Nor Negotiations Ever With This White House

Aug 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

In near simultaneous statements addressed to the Iranian public in a speech aired on state TV, the supreme leader who has the final word over all affairs in the Islamic republic, issued the directive: "I ban holding any talks with America... America never remains loyal to its promises in talks."

"America's withdrawal from the nuclear deal is a clear proof that America cannot be trusted," state TV quoted Khamenei further.

As part of his series of tweets, some of which mocked Trump's policy in the Middle East, Khamenei published an infographic presenting his position on ratcheting tensions with the U.S.

He also slammed the idea that this was the first such offer of talks, saying that Iran has proudly resisted unfair and imbalanced U.S. offers of negotiations for decades, and even cited President Ronald Reagan's sending his national security advisor, Robert McFarlane to Tehran for failed negotiations.

Notably, he appeared to troll Trump personally as well as his cabinet in the following:

A stupid man tells the Iranian nation that 'your government spends your money on Syria'. This is while his boss-- the U.S. president-- has admitted he spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East without gaining anything in return!

The top Iranian cleric also briefly referenced Iran's domestic crisis, which has included sporadic protests and clashes with the police throughout the summer in response to a plummeting rial and inability of people to access imported goods, stating "Today's livelihood problems do not emerge from outside; they are internal."

He urged the country to resist sanctions and erect "prudent" ways shielding from their effects.

It will be interesting to see if Trump responds to this directly in a tweet, or if any official reaction will be forthcoming from the White House.

But in the meantime it appears the possibility of any renegotiation after Trump's official pullout of the JCPOA last May has just had to the door slammed on it.

truthseeker47 -> vvaleria692 Mon, 08/13/2018 - 13:41 Permalink

Of course Iranian leaders do not want to negotiate with Trump, they know they cannot walk all over him like they did with Obummer.

peddling-fiction -> truthseeker47 Mon, 08/13/2018 - 13:50 Permalink

No war? Chuckle.

TBT or not TBT -> peddling-fiction Mon, 08/13/2018 - 13:57 Permalink

The mullahs are going to be quite the whiny bitches for a while. The anti-American pro Islam President Obama, Commie CIA director, for sale Sec of State, gay agenda Pentagon director and Ben Rhodes and ValJar, Rice and their ill will not be returning. Islamic socialism will be performing the economic wonders you can expect, putting a strong clamp on you their foreign subversion and domestic payrolls too. Meanwhile, they've got a middle class that hates them and views Islam as foreign dirty Arabs' inhuman sect. Good luck with that.

[Aug 14, 2018] Putin to Western Elites Playtime is Over by Dmitry Orlov

Notable quotes:
"... A longer version of this article originally appeared at the ClubOrlov blog . ..."
Mar 17, 2016 | russia-insider.com
An excellent blogger about Russia distills Putin's Sochi speech into 10 simple points A longer version of this article originally appeared at the ClubOrlov blog .

Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago, and, chances are, those who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance.

Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech of March 5, 1946.

In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows: politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations, in which the actual deals were hammered out.

Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed, and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over the heads of elite clans and political leaders.

  1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles . But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.
  2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins . There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.
  3. The builders of the New World Order have failed , having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.
  4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.
  5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding "empire of chaos ," and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.
  6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image , but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.
  7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable , is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war -- nor does she fear it.
  8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order -- until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests , will be taught the true meaning of pain .
  9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war . This new world order must of necessity include the United States -- but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?

[Aug 14, 2018] Paradoxically it is not in best inteersts of Russia to rock the boat of international economy despite sanctions

Aug 14, 2018 | russia-insider.com

All attempt to limit their effectiveness are OK. Attempts to undermine the USA economy or dollar status as the reserve currency are not.

[Aug 14, 2018] New US Sanctions. Bring Them on and Let's See Whose Side God Is On!

Russia pays the [huge] cost of remaining a nation, a civilization and a state ~Vladimir Putin.
Putin Slams US: "The Biggest Mistake Russia Ever Made Was To Trust You"
This is a clear attempt top abuse the dominant position of the USA in the world. For Russian this is powerful blow in the torso, Will it be knockdown remains to be seen. Also as a weaker party Russia can's afford a powerful counterstrike.
Notable quotes:
"... "Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas" ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | russia-insider.com
"Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas" Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey 14 hours ago | 2,909 85 More sanctions from the USA using the Skripal affair as an excuse without a shred of evidence, based on hype, hysteria and hearsay. Back-door economic warfare.

Surprise, surprise. The USA invokes a law from the 1990s claiming that it has to impose sanctions when a country crosses a chemical or biological line, in this case an invisible one with no proof, no law case, no due legal process, just an allegation from wonderful British intelligence that the Kremlin was involved in the Skripal case. Proof? None actually...none at all. Just a vague blanket statement along the lines of "They have done it before and they have said they will take out traitors and in the absence of any plausible alternative, they must be guilty". For Washington, after months of vacillating, stating the obvious that it is very complicated to apportion the blame when nobody knows which novichok was used, where it was produced and in the total absence of any trail linking it to the Kremlin, we get the idea that we are looking yet again at the wonderful British intelligence of the type that Colin Powell used to justify the USA's illegal and murderous act of butchery against Iraq. The type of intelligence which resembles a decade-old doctoral thesis copied and pasted from the net and sexed up by Downing Street.

And here they are again, the dynamic duo. Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas.

Drawing the time line at the beginning, let us analyze what is happening and let us see the movie developing from a distance. The political system in vogue at present is the corporatist model controlled by the $inister $ix $isters which control the policies of Washington and its chihuahuas, namely the BARFFS (Banking, Arms, eneRgy, Finance, Food, Pharma/DrugS Lobbies). The BARFFS live off resources and as history has shown us when they have none themselves, they invade countries and steal them. Ask Africa, the victim of a silent Holocaust which claimed seventy million lives.

Russia for them is kosher when it is ruled by something that bends over when told to and allows foreigners to steal the country's resources. Russia for them is not kosher when someone like Putin comes along, slams his fist on the table and says loud and clear that Russian resources are for Russians, managed by Russians. What the BARFFS want is to see Russia divided up into, say, one hundred micro-states each one with a BARFFS-friendly government allowing foreigners to syphon off the vast resources of this country.

me width=

The game starts with promises made to the then-USSR about friendly relations, about NATO not encroaching eastwards, about a new world order based on partnership. It then quickly morphs out of control with the help of the media, using buzz-words and expressions such as "collapse of the Soviet Union" (absolute nonsense, it did not collapse, it transformed from the Union to the Commonwealth as per the terms of the Third Soviet Constitution, without consulting the people, or has everyone forgotten that?). There then ensued acts of provocation in the Balkans, and then in Russia itself (Chechnya), then on Russia's frontiers.

Before Georgia in 2008 we had a spectacular example of war crimes and an illegal invasion of Iraq to test the waters, where military hardware was deployed against civilian structures, where fields of cereals were strafed by NATO aircraft to starve families, where Depleted Uranium was deployed leaving swathes of territory poisonous; beforte this we had the illegal interference in the Republic of Serbia, backing terrorists (Ushtria Çlirimtare ë Kosovës, UÇK or KLA) and the illegal act of kidnapping and subsequent manslaughter/murder of Slobodan Milosevich, who died in custody while being held illegally and without being found guilty of any of the crimes leveled against him.

With Georgia we had another act of provocation in which Georgian forces attacked Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and were building up to do the same in Abkhazia, territories which under the Soviet Constitution had necessarily to have status referendums on which way the people wanted to go and into which Republic they should integrate. Georgia refused to hold these referendums.

And since Georgia we had Libya, a shocking act of barbarity in which NATO interfered in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, sending the country with the highest Human Development Index back into the dark ages, fragmented and crawling with terrorists. Not to mention Afghanistan, started in 2001 and ongoing, where "allied" troops are photographed guarding opium fields, where opium production has risen and where Talebaan fighters are seen escorting NATO convoys, paid, like WTF?... and not to mention Syria, in which the same side once again allied itself with terrorists as it did in Libya, terrorists which raped little girls before and after they were beheaded, which raped nuns savagely in every orifice of their bodies, which impaled little boys on stakes and which ripped the hearts out of Syrian soldiers and bit into them.

So we see what we are up against. And if all that were not enough today we have the idiotic acts of provocation in the Baltic where a handful of NATO soldiers are cavorting around like toy soldiers claiming to keep their countries safe. From what? Jupiter? Ah and yes, we have Ukraine as the latest act of provocation.

It started off well before the so-called protests in Independence Square, Kiev with subversion and organization of protesters who took to the streets in November 2013 and in late February 2014, shots were fired from the sixth floor of Hotel Ukraine on the protesters in the square below to create a "cause", the democratically elected President was ousted in an illegal coup, massacres were perpetrated against Russian-speaking Ukrainians (this story seems to have disappeared from the Western media) and Fascists shouted slogans such as "Death to Russians and Jews". As a reaction, Russian-speaking Ukrainians defended themselves in South-East Ukraine and in the absence of the due legal force in the Republic of Crimea, the Legislative Assembly, now the organism with due legal force, organized a referendum on status and over ninety per cent of the population (Russians) voted to reintegrate Russia. It's called Democracy. Maybe Washington and its chihuahuas should try it some time.

What the BARFFS wanted Russia to do was to roll over, drop its pants and say "sock it to me, babe". With another leader, that might have happened. Not with Putin. So now we have instead, economic warfare with sanctions, more sanctions and increased sanctions, trying to tie a knot around Russia's throat and tightening it, now linking Crimea to Abkhazia to South Ossetia, to state-sponsored terrorism without a shred of respect for the law and the facts. It is by now crystal clear what the West wants.

It wants to strangle the Russian economy to create unrest in Russia and create political movements against Putin. It then wants to instal a west-friendly government which will see Russia fragmented, sooner or later, into a myriad of republics, each one with their resources controlled by foreigners.

That is what the sanctions are about. Let us see whose side God is on.

Source: Pravda.ru

[Aug 14, 2018] Washington won t be winning any wars against Russia and/or China. It should stick with what it s good at, that is bombing third world countries, on behalf of its Zionist masters. On second thoughts, it shouldn t be doing that either.

Aug 14, 2018 | russia-insider.com
Nicole Temple • 15 hours ago ,

As shown in this article, the United States is preparing to fight a war on a frontier outside of Russia and China:

https://viableopposition.bl...

One has to wonder on how many fronts can Washington keep expanding America's military with the goal of fighting and actually winning a war before it collapses under the weight of its expenditures?

Walter Braben Nicole Temple • 13 hours ago ,

Washington won't be winning any wars against Russia and/or China. It should stick with what it's good at, that is bombing third world countries, on behalf of its Zionist masters. On second thoughts, it shouldn't be doing that either.

[Aug 14, 2018] Latest Sanctions Against Russia Show Trump Not in Control of His Administration by F. Michael Maloof

It could be the Trump was already deposed as a President by Pompeo.
I never understood appointment of Haley and appointment of Bolton if we assume that Trump is not a neocon and does not want to continue previous administration policies. Haley is kind of Sikh variant of Samantha Power. Bolton is probably as bad as Wolfowitz. Pompeo also can be viewed as Hillary 2.0.
Notable quotes:
"... In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties. ..."
"... The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government. ..."
"... However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline. ..."
"... Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England. ..."
"... All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country. ..."
"... It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place. ..."
"... With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever. ..."
"... Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise. ..."
Aug 10, 2018 | russia-insider.com
Forget about running the Empire or the American state. Trump isn't even in control of his team US President Donald Trump is not in control of his own administration, as evidenced by the latest round of sanctions imposed against Russia for the alleged involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK in March.

The sanctions came the same day that US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., announced on a trip to Moscow that he had handed over a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump calling for better relations between the two countries. For that reason, the timing appears to be suspect, suggesting strongly that Trump has his own foreign policy while the Trump administration, comprised mainly of bureaucrats referred to as the Deep State, have their own. Right now, they appear to be in control, not President Trump, over his own administration, and it is having the adverse effect of further alienating Washington and Moscow.

The neocons, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, comprise the Trump " war cabinet " ostensibly aimed at directing a harder line toward Syria, North Korea, Iran but also Russia. Bolton, in particular, has been outspoken in calling for regime change in some of these countries. Trump not so much so. In fact, he has said just the opposite. Nevertheless, their anti-Russian flair in Washington has breathed new life into the neocons who, along with the Democrats, Deep State and much of the mainstream media, have pushed the false narrative of collusion between Russia and Trump.

This persistent anti-Russian rant and repeated sanctions which have been imposed have had the effect of leading to further threats of sanctions for questionable reasons, raising the potential prospect of suspension of diplomatic ties.

Even at the height of the Cold War, relations between the US and Russia never reached such low depths as they have now. The latest sanctions affect primarily dual-use technologies which are civilian products with potential military applications. They include gas turbine engines, electronics and integrated circuits which will now be denied. Previous sanctions going back to the Obama administration, however, already imposed bans on many of these dual-use technologies.

In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties.

Implementation of the sanctions stem from provisions of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991.

The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government.

However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline.

Curiously, the British government hasn't implemented similar sanctions, although the US has. It may reflect the continued uncertainty among some British politicians and experts over the origin of the Novichok and concern with Britain's trade dependency on Russia. But since the Americans opted to implement sanctions due to existing legislation, there was apparently no objection from London even though it initially implemented sanctions by kicking out Russian diplomats from the country.

Moscow, however, vehemently denied that it was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. Novichok was created by Russian scientists during the Cold War but never used on the battlefield. Russian officials asked Britain for evidence of Russian involvement and called for a joint investigation to be conducted by the Kremlin and British governments.

The British government repeatedly turned down the offer, as did other Western members of the United Nations Security Council, the US and France, when Moscow sought such a joint investigation.

The US claimed that the information linking the poison to Russia was " classified ."

Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England.

Results from the examination confirmed the poison was a form of Novichok but – importantly – could not determine where the poison had been created or who had used it. This development created further confusion and prompted disputes among politicians.

It is known that samples of Novichok have been in the hands of many NATO countries for years after the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, had reportedly obtained a sample from a Russian defector in the 1990s.

The formula was later shared with Britain, the US, France, Canada and the Netherlands, where small quantities of Novichok reportedly were produced in an effort to develop countermeasures. Porton Down labs similarly had received samples to study. Czech President Milos Zeman recently admitted that his country synthesized and tested a form of Novichok. Sweden and Slovakia also have the technical capability to produce the nerve agent, according to Russian officials.

All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country.

It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place.

With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever.

The reason, however, isn't due to anything that Moscow initiated but by Trump himself who isn't in control of his own administration, and maybe never has been. Many of his campaign promises such as dropping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iranian nuclear agreement, the threat of sanctions against any company that trades with Iran, his tariff war with US allies are in conflict with each other, leading to increased world instability. At the same time, Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise.

F. Michael Maloof is a former Pentagon security analyst.

[Aug 14, 2018] Mismanagement hits Iran more than US sanctions Iran's supreme leader -- RT World News

Notable quotes:
"... "It is not that the sanctions do not play a role; but a major part of the situation is the result of [government's own] actions," ..."
"... "better and stronger" ..."
"... "The Ayatollah has needed to explain who is to blame for the current situation, to prop up his regime," ..."
"... "the opponents of the conservatives," ..."
"... "mother of all wars," ..."
"... "consequences the likes of which few have ever suffered before." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | www.rt.com
Get short URL Mismanagement hits Iran more than US sanctions – Iran's supreme leader FILE PHOTO: Iranian Parliament © Islamic Consultative Assembly News Agency / AFP In a rare statement Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lashed out at the country's authorities, accusing them of poorly handling internal issues. The mismanagement is even worse than US sanctions, he said. "It is not that the sanctions do not play a role; but a major part of the situation is the result of [government's own] actions," Khamenei said, according to Irna, as he was addressing thousands of Iranians in Tehran on Monday.

The supreme leader added that if Tehran acted "better and stronger" itself US sanctions would have not been so harmful.

Read more Iran's President Hassan Rouhani © Lisi Niesner Rouhani blasts Trump's 'psychological warfare' as Iran braces for US sanctions

Analysts told RT that what Khamenei said is not really surprising given the worsening economic situation inside the country after the relations with the US went on a downward spiral. The supreme leader has been trying to keep Iranian society balanced by taking a neutral position between the liberal and conservative parts of the establishment. Now the former, including President Hassan Rouhani, are finding themselves in a weaker position, according to Irina Fedorova from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

"The Ayatollah has needed to explain who is to blame for the current situation, to prop up his regime," Fedorova told RT. She said that "the opponents of the conservatives," and Rouhani in particular, who supported the JCPOA, will fall victims of this approach. But it will not lead to his resignation, the researcher noted. However, this means the conservatives' positions, such as those of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are to strengthen significantly.

The statement may also mean a reshuffling of the political elite as well as some economic changes, Jamal Wakeem, professor of history and international relations at Lebanese University in Beirut, told RT. He said that "reformists" and those who pressed for the deals with the West are to be targeted, while the leadership is going to seek alternatives to the West, including a partnership with Russia and China.

The US reinstated certain economic sanctions against Iran last week, with President Trump promising more to come in November. The restrictive measures had been lifted under the historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but Washington unilaterally withdrew from the landmark deal despite international condemnation, including from its EU allies. The 2015 agreement placed tight controls on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Iran's commitment has been confirmed by the IAEA since then.

READ MORE: US can't force trade rules on others, Germany must invest more in Iran – economy minister

Tehran has repeatedly blasted the US for the move, vowing to restart its nuclear program in retaliation against any foreign restrictions. While the US has been pressing its allies to completely refuse Iranian oil imports, the Islamic Republic has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, effectively blocking all the oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, should they accede to American demands.

The row between the US and Iran escalated last month, when their respective leadership exchanged a barrage of threats. Back then, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that a conflict with Iran would be "mother of all wars," provoking Trump's harsh response when he promised "consequences the likes of which few have ever suffered before."

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Aug 14, 2018] France must be kicking themselves for listening to the US. At this rate, China/Russia will take all the Iran oil business

Aug 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ian , Aug 12, 2018 8:55:07 PM | 23

Likklemore @17:

France must be kicking themselves for listening to the US. At this rate, China/Russia will take all the oil business, leaving Western companies sitting on the sidelines. On the other hand, I wonder if US O&G companies are waiting for other Western competitors to go bankrupt.


Uncoy @22:

US sanctions have already failed. Other nations will give lip service, then turn around to continue on whatever they were doing.

Likklemore , Aug 12, 2018 10:28:02 PM | 24
Ian @ 24

Come November we are spectators of the comeuppance.

Imho, US "prosperity" built on debt and avoiding the knock on the door. The Bailiff cometh. How does one go bankrupt? Slowly, then all at once.

We will see if Germany is turning east.
RT Link
US can't force trade rules on others, Germany must invest more in Iran

Washington cannot dictate trade rules to others, Germany's economy minister said, adding that his country should be more assertive and defy American sanctions – particularly by investing more in Iran.

"We don't let Washington dictate [their will] on trade relations with other countries," German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier told Bild newspaper on Saturday. He said the US sanctions on Iran are one instance in which America's neglect of its partners are clearly shown.[.]

Pft , Aug 12, 2018 11:40:17 PM | 27
Likklemore@25

Only 1/3 of US debt is owed to foreigners and that is denominated in their own currency. They just print whatever is due.

A country with the land and natural resources the US has to go along with with its agricultural, human and military capital can never go bankrupt, especially when they control the debt collectors

As for Germany they are an occupied country, as are many countries. Between the military bases and CIA controlled NGO's they dance to whatever musuc is played. Some squawking is permitted for appearances sake so people can maintain their illusions of nationalist control.

I dont rule out a major financial adverse event in the US (and global) soon so the elite can profit off the collapse and shrink the wealth of the bottom 90%, but that wont affect much at all and much of the world will suffer in much the same way

When one looks at the major financial disasters over the last century, many seem to come in the 8th-9th year of the decade. After the elections we should see a great fall as bubbles are burst and the 17 trillion dollar + investment firms that maintain liquidity will swoop in and buy low. This time around the banks wont need a government bail out as the laws have authorized them to seize deposits like what was done in Greece.

[Aug 14, 2018] Book: RAND DECEPTION: The TRUTH ABOUT BILL BROWDER, the MAGNITSKY ACT, and ANTI-RUSSIAN SANCTIONS

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , August 14, 2018 at 4:25 am GMT

Re. RUSSIAGATE: the 2nd edition of Alex Krainer's book is now available, with new title.

GRAND DECEPTION: The TRUTH ABOUT BILL BROWDER, the MAGNITSKY ACT, and ANTI-RUSSIAN SANCTIONS https://www.redpillpress.com/shop/grand-deception-bill-browder-magnitsky-act-russian-sanctions/

In 2015, Bill Browder published Red Notice – purportedly a true story about his experience in Russia between 1996 and 2005. Upon closer scrutiny however, his story doesn't add up and demonstrably fails to stand up in a court of law. Nonetheless, on the dubious strength of that story, Browder has been able to lobby the U.S. Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act in 2012 which needlessly damaged the relations between the U.S. and Russia. Where he failed in courts of law, however, his campaign of relentless demonization of Russia and of Vladimir Putin has been successful in the court of public opinion in the West. As humanity finds itself on the precipice of yet another great war, what we need are bridges of mutual understanding and constructive engagement, not demonization.

[Aug 14, 2018] Is not it ironic that the neocon and MI6 corrected Browder is a grandson of two KGB agents?

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , August 14, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT

@Sean

" and so Putin immediately issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered "
What an amazing consistency in supporting the Browder/Steele line "Putin did it." Which is understandable, considering the efforts and investment made into the MSM memes. You made a very strong impression that the presstituting MSM is your main source of information.
Here are some excerpts from the honest sources.

"Poisoned Russian spy was close to Christopher Steele consultant:" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/poisoned-russian-spy-close-steele-consultant-report-article-1.3862516
"Jonathan Winer was not only a point man for the Steele "dossier" at the State Department in 2016 (and Steele dossiers of yore), he was also a father of the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Yes, longtime Senate staffer Winer is the "old friend" Browder credits with envisioning the legislative strategy that culminated in passage of the law. (More recently, Winer is serving as Browder's bulldog-lawyer -- story here.)
"Cardin knew there were problems with Browder's story about Magnitsky's death and yet brought him into Congress to testify to secure the vote. That's suborning perjury:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-04/magnitsky-trio-pushes-war-russia-new-sanctions

"Litvinenko's circle also included Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Goldfarb, Vyacheslav Zharko, and Akhmed Zakayev, most of whom have received asylum in the U.K. In the 1990s, Boris Berezovsky worked with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and George Soros' International Science Foundation which was headed by Alexander Goldfarb for almost ten years. He was also involved in money laundering millions of dollars through the Bank of New York and the Republic Bank of New York which was owned by Bill Browder's now deceased partner, Edmond Safra:" https://jimmysllama.com/2018/05/07/11191/

– Is not interesting, how so many Browder's connections met an untimely death yet Browder the Scoundrel is well supported and protected by the "deciders." -- See the fate of a DOCUMENTARY about Browder, Magnitsky, and a bloody trail of the dead former employees of Browder whom he used for his very profitable if criminal enterprise.
Alexander Perepelichny" was the key witness who could potentially destroy the scam with highest political stakes on Magnitsky dossier. As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and "I do not know" on any substantial inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very interested in hearing Perepelichny. This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week before the bill passed the US House: on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead outside his mansion in London."

[Aug 14, 2018] Why Did 51 American State Department Officials 'Dissent' Against Obama and Call for Bombing Syria?

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , August 14, 2018 at 7:25 pm GMT

@Colin Wright

Yea it was suppose to be Hillary. Under her 51 US State Dept. officials demanded Obama bomb Syria.

Why Did 51 American State Department Officials 'Dissent' Against Obama and Call for Bombing Syria?

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/why-did-51-american-state-department-officials-dissent-against-obama-and-call-for-bombing-syria.html

51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's image. In an internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Chas Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, told me he found the cable "unusual" in two respects. First, it garnered a large number of signatures. Most of those who signed the cable, a State Department official told me, were "rank and file" diplomats, such as a deputy to U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and a secretary in the Near East Bureau. They had a good understanding of the current situation in the region. The second reason this cable is unusual, said Ambassador Freeman, is that the signatories "are arguing for rather than against the use of force." Over the past 40 years, diplomats have used the "dissent channel" to caution against a rush to war. Now these diplomats are asking for an intensification of war.

A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton. Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a more robust attack on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017? Clinton certainly advocated tougher military action in Syria. She joined CIA chief David Petraeus to push for a U.S.-backed rebel army in 2012, and she argued for air strikes when there was no appetite for this in the White House.

[Aug 14, 2018] America's Lengthening Enemies List by Pat Buchanan

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

A list of America's adversaries here would contain the Taliban, the Houthis of Yemen, Bashar Assad of Syria, Erdogan's Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China -- a pretty full plate.

Are we prepared to see these confrontations through, to assure the capitulation of our adversaries? What do we do if they continue to defy us?

And if it comes to a fight, how many allies will we have in the battles and wars that follow?

Was this the foreign policy America voted for?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

[Aug 14, 2018] Does mere accusation now stand for "truth" in this inmates-running-the-asylum charade USA is putting on?

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

skopros , August 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm GMT

Has anybody in comments noted how far we have swung from absence of actual PROOF Russia did the Skripal "poisonings" (or even Litvenenko for that matter?!) to what seems like complete acceptance of "guilt," even as major international bodies (OPCW, etc., even Porton Down) have not been able to tie Russia/Putin to these alleged acts of terror or isolate the "novichoks" genre of nerve agent ? The Red Queen triumphs.

Does mere accusation now stand for "truth" in this inmates-running-the-asylum charade USA is putting on? If the "big lie" (Lenin, BTW not Goebbels, originally) works this easily, we are indeed down the chute & over the brink. Orwell is spinning in his grave (gnashing his teeth).

Mitleser , August 13, 2018 at 7:05 pm GMT

Does mere accusation now stand for "truth" in this inmates-running-the-asylum charade USA is putting on?

It was the same when the Iraq was the enemy.

[Aug 14, 2018] Litvinenko affair now looks like a dressed rehearsal of Skripals

Notable quotes:
"... Therefore, we have to deal with facts in the matter. Among the facts, I'd like to point out to the behavior of the investigating party, i.e. the British authorities. "We have proof but won't show them to you, because they are secret" attitude; bypassing normal investigative and judicial channels; unreasonable demands towards Russia they knew full well won't be met and total refusal to cooperate on realistic terms – we saw it for the first time in the Litvinenko affaire. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

EugeneGur , August 13, 2018 at 7:25 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack

All I was pointing out was that there were many reasons why Litvinenko was a target for unfriendly Russian actions

I am pretty sure Litvinenko wasn't particularly loved in Russia: he was a traitor, after all, and, judging by his actions, a pretty miserable human being. However, building a case on motive alone is not possible, if for no other reason than because a motive is by definition subjective. You could analyze until your face turns blue how Putin felt about Litvinenko's accusations but you'd never come to any firm conclusion, for only Putin can possibly know that.

Therefore, we have to deal with facts in the matter. Among the facts, I'd like to point out to the behavior of the investigating party, i.e. the British authorities. "We have proof but won't show them to you, because they are secret" attitude; bypassing normal investigative and judicial channels; unreasonable demands towards Russia they knew full well won't be met and total refusal to cooperate on realistic terms – we saw it for the first time in the Litvinenko affaire.

The same patters was repeated exactly in the Skripal case. This tells you who is the "highly likely" culprit, doesn't it? These two scenarios are so much alike, the have the same author – not necessarily the same person, but definitely the same office.

[Aug 14, 2018] An objective criticism of the Zionist enterprise now a days and its apologists resort immediately to unrestrained howls and accusations of antisemitism.

Aug 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

JoaoAlfaiate , August 14, 2018 at 7:54 pm GMT

@Sam Shama

" antisemites "

There are antisemitic rants in many places on the web, almost all of which are ignored.

But make an objective criticism of the Zionist enterprise now a days and its apologists resort immediately to unrestrained howls and accusations of antisemitism.

One ought, therefor, to understand this rhetorical device for the simple ad hominem attack that it is.

[Aug 14, 2018] Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo Push Confrontation With Iran

Aug 14, 2018 | truthout.org

July 23, 2018

President Donald Trump lashed out at Iran Sunday, warning he was prepared to unleash dire "consequences" on Iran if its president threatens the United States again. Trump's threat came just hours after Rouhani's speech earlier Sunday, in which the Iranian president warned the US about pursuing a hostile policy against his government. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech Sunday in which he compared Iran's leaders to a "mafia" and promised unspecified backing for Iranians who are unhappy with their government. Pompeo spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library outside Los Angeles. "This is not an administration that is pursuing a policy of actually trying to find a way to the negotiating table or striking a new deal," says Trita Parsi, founder and president of the National Iranian American Council. "Everything they're doing right now is only compatible with a policy of confrontation."

... ... ...

But it is nevertheless indicative of where this administration wants to go with its Iran policy. And I'm very worried that the pattern that we've seen before, which is that when the United States escalates, the Iranians escalate, as well -- and they have made threats of saying that if they cannot sell oil and they cannot ship oil out of the Strait of Hormuz, then no one can, threatening to close it. This is going to have a devastating effect on the global economic markets, but also it will risk sparking a larger military confrontation, because if the Iranians do this, in response to efforts by Trump to reduce their oil sales to zero, then the US will move in militarily. So this is a very dangerous moment, with very unresponsible people here at the helm in Washington.

... ... ...

TRITA PARSI : So, as you mention, we don't know exactly what was being said. But it is a very important part of this puzzle, because the Russians, so far -- I wouldn't say that they're allies with Iran, but they have aligned interest in some areas. They've had it, to a certain extent, in Syria. And, perhaps most importantly, the Russians don't want to see the United States be able to have more governments in the Middle East that are aligned with Washington. So, in that sense, they do appreciate that Iran is quite opposed to American influence in the Middle East.

But the Russians have more important interests at heart, as well, which is particularly breaking out of their own sanctions that the US have imposed on them, as well as issues such as NATO expansion, Ukraine, etc. So there is a gamble from the Trump administration side in which, essentially, by offering the Russians anything they want on Ukraine and some other issues, that they would get the Iranians -- they'd get the Russians to throw the Iranians under the bus. What they may not be as sensitive to is that if that scenario were to take place, it's not so much Russia throwing Iran under the bus as it is the United States throwing Europe under the bus. And this may also explain why Trump has been so negative in his rhetoric towards the Europeans.

[Aug 14, 2018] A neocon view of Trump attempt to solve the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA

What Michael T. Klare does not understand that in attempt to be global policemen and dominant superpower the USA overextended itself and shallowed its economy. Trump understands that at least America needs a break to rebuild what was lost. Neocons just want to kick the can down the road.
Notable quotes:
"... Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet ..."
"... Blood and Oil ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | truthout.org

Originally from: Implementing the Sino-Russian Blueprint for a Tripolar World Order by Michael T. Klare

it's a mistake to assume that Trump lacks a coherent foreign-policy blueprint. In fact, an examination of his campaign speeches and his actions since entering the Oval Office -- including his appearance with Putin -- reflect his adherence to a core strategic concept: the urge to establish a tripolar world order, one that was, curiously enough, first envisioned by Russian and Chinese leaders in 1997 and one that they have relentlessly pursued ever since.

Such a tripolar order -- in which Russia, China, and the US would each assume responsibility for maintaining stability within their own respective spheres of influence while cooperating to resolve disputes wherever those spheres overlap -- breaks radically with the end-of-the-Cold-War paradigm. During those heady years, the United States was the dominant world power and lorded it over most of the rest of the planet with the aid of its loyal NATO allies.

For Russian and Chinese leaders, such a "unipolar" system was considered anathema. After all, it granted the United States a hegemonic role in world affairs while denying them what they considered their rightful place as America's equals. Not surprisingly, destroying such a system and replacing it with a tripolar one has been their strategic objective since the late 1990s -- and now an American president has zealously embraced that disruptive project as his own. The Sino-Russian Master Plan

The joint Russian-Chinese project to undermine the unipolar world system was first set in motion when then-Chinese President Jiang Zemin conferred with then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin during a state visit to Moscow in April 1997. Restoring close relations with Russia while building a common front against US global dominance was reportedly the purpose of Jiang's trip.

"Some are pushing toward a world with one center," said Yeltsin at the time. "We want the world to be multipolar, to have several focal points. These will form the basis for a new world order."

This outlook was inscribed in a "Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order," signed by the two leaders on April 23, 1997. Although phrased in grandiose language (as its title suggests), the declaration remains worth reading as it contains most of the core principles on which Donald Trump's foreign policy now rests.

At its heart lay a condemnation of global hegemony -- the drive by any single nation to dominate world affairs -- along with a call for the establishment of a "multipolar" international order. It went on to espouse other key precepts that would now be considered Trumpian, including unqualified respect for state sovereignty, non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states (code for no discussion of their human rights abuses), and the pursuit of mutual economic advantage.

Yeltsin would resign as president in December 1999, while Jiang would complete his term in March 2003. Their successors, Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao, would, however, continue to build on that 1997 foundational document, issuing their own blueprint for a tripolar world in 2005.

Following a Kremlin meeting that July, the two would sign an updated "Joint Statement of the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation Regarding the International Order of the 21st Century." It was even more emphatic in its commitment to a world in which the United States would be obliged to negotiate on equal terms with Moscow and Beijing, stating :

"The international community should thoroughly renounce the mentality of confrontation and alignment, should not pursue the right to monopolize or dominate world affairs, and should not divide countries into a leading camp and a subordinate camp World affairs should be decided through dialogue and consultation on a multilateral and collective basis."

The principal aim of such a strategy was, and continues to be, to demolish a US-dominated world order -- especially one in which that dominance was ensured by American reliance on its European allies and NATO. The ability to mobilize not only its own power but also Europe's gave Washington a particularly outsized role in international affairs. If such ties could be crippled or destroyed, its clout would obviously be diminished and soit might someday become just another regional heavyweight.

In those years, Putin was particularly vocal in calling for the dissolution of NATO and its replacement by a European-wide security system that would, of course, include his country. The divisions in Europe "will continue until there is a single security area in Europe," he told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera in 2001. Just as the Warsaw Pact had been disbanded as the Cold War ended, he argued, so Western Europe's Cold War-era alliance, NATO, should be replaced with a broader security structure.

... ... ...

The proof that Trump sought such an international system can be found in his 2016 campaign speeches and interviews. While he repeatedly denounced China for its unfair trade practices and complained about Russia's nuclear-weapons buildup, he never described those countries as mortal enemies. They were rivals or competitors with whose leaders he could communicate and, when advantageous, cooperate. On the other hand, he denounced NATO as a drain on America's prosperity and its ability to maneuver successfully in the world. Indeed, he saw that alliance as eminently dispensable if its members were unwilling to support his idea of how to promote America's best interests in a highly competitive world.

"I am proposing a new foreign policy focused on advancing America's core national interests, promoting regional stability, and producing an easing of tensions in the world," he declared in a September 2016 speech in Philadelphia. From that speech and other campaign statements, you can get a pretty good idea of his mindset.

First, make the United States -- already the world's most powerful nation -- even stronger, especially militarily. Second, protect America's borders. ("Immigration security," he explained, "is a vital part of our national security.") Third, in contrast to the version of globalism previously espoused by the American version of a liberal international order, this country was to pursue only its own interests, narrowly defined. Playing the role of global enforcer for allies, he argued, had impoverished the United States and must be ended. "At some point," as he put it to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and David Sanger in March 2016, "we cannot be the policeman of the world."

As for NATO, he couldn't have been clearer: it had become irrelevant and its preservation should no longer be an American priority. "Obsolete" was the word he used with Haberman and Sanger. "When NATO was formed many decades ago there was a different threat, [the Soviet Union,] which was much bigger [and] certainly much more powerful than even today's Russia." The real threat, he continued, is terrorism, and NATO had no useful role in combating that peril. "I think, probably a new institution maybe would be better for that than using NATO, which was not meant for that."

All of this, of course, fit to a T what Vladimir Putin has long been calling for, not to speak of the grand scheme articulated by Yeltsin and Jiang in 1997. Indeed, during the second presidential debate, Trump went even further, saying , "I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together."

Though the focus at the moment is purely on President Trump and Russia, let's not forget China. While frequently lambasting the Chinese in the economic realm, he has nonetheless sought Beijing's help in addressing the North Korean nuclear threat and other common perils. He speaks often by telephone with President Xi Jinping and insists that they enjoy an amicable relationship. Indeed, to the utter astonishment of many of his Republican allies, he even allowed the Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE to regain access to essential American technology and computer chips after paying a $1 billion fine, though the firm had been widely accused of violating US sanctions on trade with Iran and North Korea. Such a move was, he claimed , "reflective" of his wish to negotiate a successful trade deal with China "and my personal relationship with President Xi."

Trump's World Reflects That Sino-Russian Plan

Although there's no evidence that Donald Trump ever even knew about the Sino-Russian blueprint for establishing a tripolar global order, everything he's done as president has had the affect of facilitating that world-altering project. This was stunningly evident at the recent Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, where he repeatedly spoke of his desire to cooperate with Moscow in solving global problems.

"The disagreements between our two countries are well known and President Putin and I discussed them at length today," he said at the press conference that followed their private conversation. "But if we're going to solve many of the problems facing our world, then we're going to have to find ways to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests." He then went on to propose that officials of the national security councils of the two countries get together to discuss such matters -- an extraordinary proposal given the historical mistrust between Washington and Moscow.

And despite the furor his warm embrace of Putin triggered in Washington, Trump doubled down on his strategic concept by inviting the Russian leader to the White House for another round of one-on-one talks this fall. According to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, National Security Advisor John Bolton is already in preparatory talks with the Kremlin for such a meeting.

[Aug 14, 2018] Rand Paul Stands Up for Peace by Justin Raimondo

Please support antiwar.com -- a unique antiwar site in the climate of rabid militarism and jingoism...
Notable quotes:
"... "the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect stooge." ..."
"... Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator! ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Libertarians are largely lost in the wilderness of the present era: wandering without a compass, either moral or ideological, and without a clue as to how to get home, never mind reach their ultimate goal of "freedom in our time." Yes, that was the old slogan that we libertarians started out with: an optimistic battle-cry that, today, seems unrealistic, at best. But is it? And if it isn't, who can show us the way forward?

My answer is simple: look at what Sen. Rand Paul is doing, and take a lesson. Instead of weeping and wailing about the loss of a "libertarian moment" that never really happened, Sen. Paul is making a difference. As Politico reports :

" Rand Paul has the ear, and the affection, of the most important person in the White House: President Donald Trump.

"Once bitter rivals on the Republican campaign trail, the Kentucky senator and the commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the president likes to deride as 'foreign policy eggheads,' including those who work in his own administration."

When Trump appointed the hawkish John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, the usual suspects crowed that "the neocons have taken over the White House." Never mind that a) Bolton is no neocon, and b) Trump is known for encouraging vigorous debate among his policy advisors while not necessarily agreeing with one or the other – these people, mostly alleged non-interventionists, hate the President for other reasons, and merely seized on the appointment as a convenient talking point. However, this narrative is contradicted by the reports of Sen. Paul's increasing influence in the Oval Office:

"While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul: 'He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul.'"

"Paul has quietly emerged as an influential sounding board and useful ally for the president, who frequently clashes with his top advisers on foreign policy. The Kentucky senator's relationship with Trump, developed via frequent cellphone calls and over rounds of golf at the president's Virginia country club, became publicly apparent for the first time on Wednesday when the senator announced he had hand-delivered a letter to the Kremlin on Trump's behalf."

While the Beltway apparatus put together by the Kochs has jumped on the NeverTrump bandwagon with both feet, publicly declaring war on the administration and announcing a de facto alliance with the Democrats, Sen. Paul has made a difference in a key area that the Koch machine has largely abandoned or reversed itself: foreign policy. Here's Politico again:

"Both Paul and Trump routinely rail against foreign entanglements, foreign wars, and foreign aid – positions characterized as isolationist by critics and as 'America first' by the president and his supporters. Even on points of where they disagree, Paul has extracted small victories."

That one area is Iran, and even there it looks like Sen. Paul has his finger in the dike:

"But Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White House. '

Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East."

As the President launches peace initiatives from the Korean peninsula to the steppes of Russia, the virtue-signalers among us pretend that none of that is happening and obsessively descry the decision to exit the Iran deal. Yet where has all their moaning and groaning gotten them? Sen. Paul is single-handedly doing more for peace than any of these bloviating nonentities could dream of.

The hysteria aimed at the President is now directed at Sen. Paul, with the New York Times in what is perhaps mistakenly presented as a "news" article describing the Senator's relationship with the White House in words that are clearly over the top:

"Suddenly, in the mind of the junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Trump has soared from lower than that speck of dirt to high enough for Mount Rushmore."

One imagines the foam-flecked computer screen of the author was quite a mess well before she reached the end of her jeremiad. Hatred for the President blends and merges with hatred for Russia as the Fourth Estate becomes an instrument in the hands of the War Party. Vanity Fair – that bastion of foreign policy expertise – shrieks that

"the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect stooge."

Yeah, suuure it does, Tina: anything you say. Just like those who wanted to end the Vietnam war were "stooges" of Ho Chi Minh. Just like Ronald Reagan getting rid of a whole category of nukes made him a "stooge" of Gorbachev.

And to get down to the real intellectual heavyweight: S. E. Cupp, whose credentials seem to be phony glasses and blondness, vomits up her considered opinion that Sen. Paul is now Putin's "errand boy." Which is far better than being Max Boot's errand girl , but don't anyone tell Iraq war-supporting Ms. Cupp that she has blood on her hands. She feels no need to apologize.

Oh yes, the heavies are out in force, sliming Sen. Paul for defending the President's Helsinki peace initiative with nuclear-armed Russia. Vanity Fair , S. E. Cupp – who's next? Madonna? Women's Wear Daily ?

Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator!

[Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

Highly recommended!
Marxism provides one of the best analysis of capitalism; problems start when Marxists propose alternatives.
Notable quotes:
"... Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the "drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo ..."
"... I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the contemporary periods. ..."
"... The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system. ..."
"... any state activism, other than for promoting its own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own domain. ..."
"... dirigiste regimes ..."
"... With the reassertion of the dominance of finance, in the guise now of an international ..."
"... Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact. ..."
"... Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. ..."
"... US military intervention all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the imperialism of international finance capital. ..."
"... absolute immiserization ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | truthout.org

C.J. Polychroniou: How do you define imperialism and what imperialist tendencies do you detect as inherent in the brutal expansion of the logic of capitalism in the neoliberal global era?

Prabhat Patnaik: The capitalist sector of the world, which began by being located, and continues largely to be located, in the temperate region, requires as its raw materials and means of consumption a whole range of primary commodities which are not available or producible, either at all or in adequate quantities, within its own borders. These commodities have to be obtained from the tropical and sub-tropical region within which almost the whole of the Third World is located; and the bulk of them (leaving aside minerals) are produced by a set of petty producers (peasants). What is more, they are subject to "increasing supply price," in the sense that as demand for them increases in the capitalist sector, larger quantities of them can be obtained, if at all, only at higher prices, thanks to the fixed size of the tropical land mass.

This means an ex ante tendency toward accelerating inflation as capital accumulation proceeds, undermining the value of money under capitalism and hence the viability of the system as a whole. To prevent this, the system requires that with an increase in demand from the capitalist sector, as capital accumulation proceeds, there must be a compression of demand elsewhere for these commodities, so that the net demand does not increase, and increasing supply price does not get a chance to manifest itself at all.

Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the "drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo . The income of the working population of the Third World, and hence its demand, was thus kept down; and metropolitan capitalism's demand for such commodities was met without any inflationary threat to the value of money. Exactly a similar process of income deflation is imposed now upon the working population of the Third World by the neoliberal policies of globalization.

I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the contemporary periods.

We recognize the need for a reserve army of labor to ward off the threat to the value of money arising from wage demands of workers. Ironically, however, we do not recognize the parallel and even more pressing need of the system (owing to increasing supply price) for the imposition of income deflation on the working population of the Third World for warding off a similar threat.

The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system.

Those who argue that imperialism is no longer a relevant analytic construct point to the multifaceted aspects of today's global economic exchanges and to a highly complex process involved in the distribution of value which, simply put, cannot be reduced to imperialism. How do you respond to this line of thinking?

Capitalism today is of course much more complex, with an enormous financial superstructure. But that paradoxically makes inflation even more threatening. The value of this vast array of financial assets would collapse in the event of inflation, bringing down this superstructure, which incidentally is the reason for the current policy obsession with "inflation targeting." This makes the imperialist arrangement even more essential. The more complex capitalism becomes, the more it needs its basic simple props.

I should clarify here that if "land-augmenting" measures [such as irrigation, high-yielding seeds and better production practices] could be introduced in the Third World, then, notwithstanding the physical fixity of the tropical land mass, the threat of increasing supply price -- and with it, [the threat] of inflation -- could be warded off without any income deflation. Indeed, on the contrary, the working population of the Third World would be better off through such measures. But these measures require state support and state expenditure, a fact that Marx had recognized long ago. But any state activism, other than for promoting its own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own domain.

The post-decolonization dirigiste regimes [regimes directed by a central authority] in the Third World had actually undertaken land-augmentation measures. Because of this, even as exports of commodities to the metropolis had risen to sustain the biggest boom ever witnessed in the history of capitalism, per capita food grain availability had also increased in those countries. But I see that period as a period of retreat of metropolitan capitalism, enforced by the wound inflicted upon it by the Second World War. With the reassertion of the dominance of finance, in the guise now of an international finance capital, the Third World states have withdrawn from supporting petty producers, a process of income deflation is in full swing, and the imperialist arrangement is back in place, because of which we can see once more a tendency toward a secular decline in per capita food grain availability in the Third World as in the colonial period.

There is a third way -- apart from a greater obsession with inflation aversion and a yoking of Third World states to promoting the interests of globalized finance rather than defending domestic petty producers -- in which contemporary capitalism strengthens the imperialist arrangement. It may be thought that the value of imports of Third World commodities into the capitalist metropolis is so small that we are exaggerating the inflation threat from that source to metropolitan currencies. This smallness itself, of course, is an expression of an acutely exploitative relationship. In addition, however, the threat to the Third World currencies themselves from a rise in the prices of these commodities becomes acute in a regime of free cross-border financial flows as now, which threatens the entire world trade and payments system and hence makes income deflation particularly urgent. Hence the need for the imperialist arrangement becomes even more acute.

Not long ago, even liberals like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times were arguing that "McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" (that is, the US Air Force). Surely, this is a crude version of imperialism, but what about today's US imperialism? Isn't it still alive and kicking?

The world that Lenin had written about consisted of nation-based, nation-state-supported financial oligarchies engaged in intense inter-imperialist rivalry for repartitioning the world through wars. When [Marxist theorist] Karl Kautsky had suggested the possibility of a truce among rival powers for a peaceful division of the world, Lenin had pointed to the fact that the phenomenon of uneven development under capitalism would necessarily subvert any such specific truce. The world we have today is characterized by the hegemony of international finance capital which is interested in preventing any partitioning of the world, so that it can move around freely across the globe.

Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact.

Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about belongs to a different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism per se . The latter, though it is, of course, empirically visible because of US military intervention all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the imperialism of international finance capital.

Some incidentally have seen the muting of inter-imperialist rivalry in today's world as a vindication of Kautsky's position over that of Lenin. This, however, is incorrect, since both of them were talking about a world of national finance capitals which contemporary capitalism has gone beyond.

... ... ...

One final question: How should radical movements and organizations, in both the core and the periphery of the world capitalist economy, be organizing to combat today's imperialism?

Obviously, the issue of imperialism is important not for scholastic reasons, but because of the praxis that a recognition of its role engenders. From what I have been arguing, it is clear that since globalization involves income deflation for the peasantry and petty producers, and since their absorption into the ranks of the active army of labor under capitalism does not occur because of the paucity of jobs that are created even when rates of output growth are high, there is a tendency toward an absolute immiserization of the working population. For the petty producers, this tendency operates directly; and for others, it operates through the driving down of the "reservation wage" owing to the impoverishment of petty producers.

Such immiserization is manifest above all in the decline in per capita food grain absorption, both directly and indirectly (the latter via processed foods and feed grains). An improvement in the conditions of living of the working population of the Third World then requires a delinking from globalization (mainly through capital controls, and also trade controls to the requisite extent) by an alternative state, based on a worker-peasant alliance, that pursues a different trajectory of development. Such a trajectory would emphasize peasant-agriculture-led growth, land redistribution (so as to limit the extent of differentiation within the peasantry) and the formation of voluntary cooperatives and collectives for carrying forward land-augmentation measures, and even undertaking value-addition activities, including industrialization.

Small Third World countries would no doubt find it difficult to adopt such a program because of their limited resource base and narrow home market. But they will have to come together with other small countries to constitute larger, more viable units. But the basic point is that the question of "making globalization work" or "having globalization with a human face" simply does not arise.

The problem with this praxis is that it is not only the bourgeoisie in the Third World countries, but even sections of the middle-class professionals who have been beneficiaries of globalization, who would oppose any such delinking. But the world capitalist crisis, which is a consequence of this finance-capital-led globalization itself, is causing disaffection among these middle-class beneficiaries. They, too, would now be more willing to support an alternative trajectory of development that breaks out of the straitjacket imposed by imperialism.

[Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

Highly recommended!
Marxism provides one of the best analysis of capitalism; problems start when Marxists propose alternatives.
Notable quotes:
"... Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the "drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo ..."
"... I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the contemporary periods. ..."
"... The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system. ..."
"... any state activism, other than for promoting its own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own domain. ..."
"... dirigiste regimes ..."
"... With the reassertion of the dominance of finance, in the guise now of an international ..."
"... Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact. ..."
"... Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. ..."
"... US military intervention all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the imperialism of international finance capital. ..."
"... absolute immiserization ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | truthout.org

C.J. Polychroniou: How do you define imperialism and what imperialist tendencies do you detect as inherent in the brutal expansion of the logic of capitalism in the neoliberal global era?

Prabhat Patnaik: The capitalist sector of the world, which began by being located, and continues largely to be located, in the temperate region, requires as its raw materials and means of consumption a whole range of primary commodities which are not available or producible, either at all or in adequate quantities, within its own borders. These commodities have to be obtained from the tropical and sub-tropical region within which almost the whole of the Third World is located; and the bulk of them (leaving aside minerals) are produced by a set of petty producers (peasants). What is more, they are subject to "increasing supply price," in the sense that as demand for them increases in the capitalist sector, larger quantities of them can be obtained, if at all, only at higher prices, thanks to the fixed size of the tropical land mass.

This means an ex ante tendency toward accelerating inflation as capital accumulation proceeds, undermining the value of money under capitalism and hence the viability of the system as a whole. To prevent this, the system requires that with an increase in demand from the capitalist sector, as capital accumulation proceeds, there must be a compression of demand elsewhere for these commodities, so that the net demand does not increase, and increasing supply price does not get a chance to manifest itself at all.

Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the "drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo . The income of the working population of the Third World, and hence its demand, was thus kept down; and metropolitan capitalism's demand for such commodities was met without any inflationary threat to the value of money. Exactly a similar process of income deflation is imposed now upon the working population of the Third World by the neoliberal policies of globalization.

I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the contemporary periods.

We recognize the need for a reserve army of labor to ward off the threat to the value of money arising from wage demands of workers. Ironically, however, we do not recognize the parallel and even more pressing need of the system (owing to increasing supply price) for the imposition of income deflation on the working population of the Third World for warding off a similar threat.

The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system.

Those who argue that imperialism is no longer a relevant analytic construct point to the multifaceted aspects of today's global economic exchanges and to a highly complex process involved in the distribution of value which, simply put, cannot be reduced to imperialism. How do you respond to this line of thinking?

Capitalism today is of course much more complex, with an enormous financial superstructure. But that paradoxically makes inflation even more threatening. The value of this vast array of financial assets would collapse in the event of inflation, bringing down this superstructure, which incidentally is the reason for the current policy obsession with "inflation targeting." This makes the imperialist arrangement even more essential. The more complex capitalism becomes, the more it needs its basic simple props.

I should clarify here that if "land-augmenting" measures [such as irrigation, high-yielding seeds and better production practices] could be introduced in the Third World, then, notwithstanding the physical fixity of the tropical land mass, the threat of increasing supply price -- and with it, [the threat] of inflation -- could be warded off without any income deflation. Indeed, on the contrary, the working population of the Third World would be better off through such measures. But these measures require state support and state expenditure, a fact that Marx had recognized long ago. But any state activism, other than for promoting its own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own domain.

The post-decolonization dirigiste regimes [regimes directed by a central authority] in the Third World had actually undertaken land-augmentation measures. Because of this, even as exports of commodities to the metropolis had risen to sustain the biggest boom ever witnessed in the history of capitalism, per capita food grain availability had also increased in those countries. But I see that period as a period of retreat of metropolitan capitalism, enforced by the wound inflicted upon it by the Second World War. With the reassertion of the dominance of finance, in the guise now of an international finance capital, the Third World states have withdrawn from supporting petty producers, a process of income deflation is in full swing, and the imperialist arrangement is back in place, because of which we can see once more a tendency toward a secular decline in per capita food grain availability in the Third World as in the colonial period.

There is a third way -- apart from a greater obsession with inflation aversion and a yoking of Third World states to promoting the interests of globalized finance rather than defending domestic petty producers -- in which contemporary capitalism strengthens the imperialist arrangement. It may be thought that the value of imports of Third World commodities into the capitalist metropolis is so small that we are exaggerating the inflation threat from that source to metropolitan currencies. This smallness itself, of course, is an expression of an acutely exploitative relationship. In addition, however, the threat to the Third World currencies themselves from a rise in the prices of these commodities becomes acute in a regime of free cross-border financial flows as now, which threatens the entire world trade and payments system and hence makes income deflation particularly urgent. Hence the need for the imperialist arrangement becomes even more acute.

Not long ago, even liberals like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times were arguing that "McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" (that is, the US Air Force). Surely, this is a crude version of imperialism, but what about today's US imperialism? Isn't it still alive and kicking?

The world that Lenin had written about consisted of nation-based, nation-state-supported financial oligarchies engaged in intense inter-imperialist rivalry for repartitioning the world through wars. When [Marxist theorist] Karl Kautsky had suggested the possibility of a truce among rival powers for a peaceful division of the world, Lenin had pointed to the fact that the phenomenon of uneven development under capitalism would necessarily subvert any such specific truce. The world we have today is characterized by the hegemony of international finance capital which is interested in preventing any partitioning of the world, so that it can move around freely across the globe.

Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact.

Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about belongs to a different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism per se . The latter, though it is, of course, empirically visible because of US military intervention all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the imperialism of international finance capital.

Some incidentally have seen the muting of inter-imperialist rivalry in today's world as a vindication of Kautsky's position over that of Lenin. This, however, is incorrect, since both of them were talking about a world of national finance capitals which contemporary capitalism has gone beyond.

... ... ...

One final question: How should radical movements and organizations, in both the core and the periphery of the world capitalist economy, be organizing to combat today's imperialism?

Obviously, the issue of imperialism is important not for scholastic reasons, but because of the praxis that a recognition of its role engenders. From what I have been arguing, it is clear that since globalization involves income deflation for the peasantry and petty producers, and since their absorption into the ranks of the active army of labor under capitalism does not occur because of the paucity of jobs that are created even when rates of output growth are high, there is a tendency toward an absolute immiserization of the working population. For the petty producers, this tendency operates directly; and for others, it operates through the driving down of the "reservation wage" owing to the impoverishment of petty producers.

Such immiserization is manifest above all in the decline in per capita food grain absorption, both directly and indirectly (the latter via processed foods and feed grains). An improvement in the conditions of living of the working population of the Third World then requires a delinking from globalization (mainly through capital controls, and also trade controls to the requisite extent) by an alternative state, based on a worker-peasant alliance, that pursues a different trajectory of development. Such a trajectory would emphasize peasant-agriculture-led growth, land redistribution (so as to limit the extent of differentiation within the peasantry) and the formation of voluntary cooperatives and collectives for carrying forward land-augmentation measures, and even undertaking value-addition activities, including industrialization.

Small Third World countries would no doubt find it difficult to adopt such a program because of their limited resource base and narrow home market. But they will have to come together with other small countries to constitute larger, more viable units. But the basic point is that the question of "making globalization work" or "having globalization with a human face" simply does not arise.

The problem with this praxis is that it is not only the bourgeoisie in the Third World countries, but even sections of the middle-class professionals who have been beneficiaries of globalization, who would oppose any such delinking. But the world capitalist crisis, which is a consequence of this finance-capital-led globalization itself, is causing disaffection among these middle-class beneficiaries. They, too, would now be more willing to support an alternative trajectory of development that breaks out of the straitjacket imposed by imperialism.

[Aug 13, 2018] FBI Reveals Maria Butina Traded Sex In Exchange For All 62,984,828 Votes Trump Received In 2016

Jul 19, 2018 | politics.theonion.com
WASHINGTON -- Saying that their investigation indicated her involvement in election interference went deeper than previously believed, the FBI revealed Thursday that Russian agent Maria Butina traded sex in exchange for all 62,984,828 votes Donald Trump received for president in 2016. "Our inquiry into Ms. Butina

[Aug 13, 2018] Corporate Capitalists Killed American Identity by David Masciotra

Notable quotes:
"... In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States," Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in." ..."
"... Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business." ..."
"... Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism," he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society." ..."
"... Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage. ..."
"... We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. ..."
"... While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion? How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge doesn't really get us anywhere. ..."
"... Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are constantly on the defensive. ..."
"... That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts; it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich. ..."
"... So, what should replace corporate capitalism -- socialism, distributism, non-corporate capitalism, what? ..."
Aug 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Donald Trump, during a recent stop on his "Anarchy in the UK" tour, argued that the mass influx of immigrants into Europe is causing Great Britain and other nations to "lose their culture." The fear of cultural dilution and transformation as a consequence of shifting demographics is widespread, and it resonates in the United States, too, especially among those who support the current president.

Stephen Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and other popular right-wing figures have warned of threats to national identity in an American context, contending that Mexicans will not assimilate and that Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy and secular governance. Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with the outrage that often accompanies new arrivals. Nearly every ethnic group, from the Italians to the Chinese, has been the target of political and social hostility. It is an old story, but one worth telling, and it is an old debate, but one worth having. Border sovereignty, even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and not to be easily dismissed.

The current conversation about traditionalism, national identity, and cultural preservation, however, is so narrow to render it counterproductive and oblivious. For those truly worried about the conservation of traditional culture, to focus solely, or even primarily, on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut.

Rather than asking whether American culture is at risk of ruination, it is more salient to inquire, after decades of commercialization, Madison Avenue advertising onslaughts, the erasure of regional differences, and the "Bowling Alone" collapse of community, whether America even has a culture.

Some Conservatives Have Been Against Capitalism for Centuries Blame Regulation, Not Capitalism

In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States," Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in."

Prophesizing with his pen that democratic structures and procedures would prove insufficient to cultivate a truly democratic culture, Whitman likened the American obsession with commercial conquest and pecuniary gain to a "magician's serpent that ate up all the other serpents." Americans, Whitman warned, were dedicating themselves to creating a "thoroughly-appointed body with no soul."

When Whitman wrote the essay in question -- "Democratic Vistas" -- the United States had open borders and immigrants freely entered the "new world" for reasons of freedom and financial ambition. Even if they attended churches in their native languages and lived in ethnic enclaves, they often found that they could matriculate into the mainstream of Americana through pursuit of the "American dream," that is, hope for monetary triumph. Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business."

Capitalism is a formidable engine, enabling society to advance and allowing for high standards of living. But to construct an entire culture around what Coolidge identified as "buying, selling, investing, and prospering," especially when capitalism becomes corporate and cronyist, is to steadily empty a culture of its meaning and purpose.

Few were as celebratory over the potential for meaning and purpose in American culture as Whitman, who drew profound inspiration from America's natural beauty and regional diversity. So what force was most responsible for the widespread desecration of America's own Garden of Eden? All arguments about immigration aside, changing demographics did not transform the country into the planetary capital of asphalt and replace its rich terrain with the endless suburban sprawl of office complexes, strip malls, and parking lots. The reduction of the American character to a giant Walmart and the mutation of the American landscape, outside of metropolitan areas, to the same cloned big box stores and corporate chains is not a consequence of immigration.

The degradation of the American arts and the assault on history and civics in public school and even higher education curricula is not the result of immigrants flooding American streets. Amy Chua has argued quite the opposite when it comes to America's increasingly imbecilic and obscene pop culture. Many immigrant families try to keep their children away from the influence of reality television, the anti-intellectual reverence for celebrities, and the vigilant commercialization of every aspect of life.

The same cultural killer is responsible for all the assaults on American identity visible as daily routine, from environmental destruction to the endangerment of independent retailers and "mom and pop" shops. That culprit is corporate capitalism. It is a large entity that, like any killer, justifies its death toll with dogmatic claims of ideology. "Progress," everyone from the owner of the local diner to the out-of-work art teacher is told, has no room for you.

In his song "The West End," John Mellencamp gives an angry account of the disappearance of a small town:

For my whole life
I've lived down in the West End
But it sure has changed here
Since I was a kid
It's worse now
Look what progress did
Someone lined their pockets
I don't know who that is

Progress, as Mellencamp succinctly captures in song, often comes at someone else's expense, and translates to enrichment for the few who benefit.

Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism," he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society."

The irony Lasch describes is tragic. A culture of corporate capitalism demands conformity, and most people cooperate. But because its center is hollow, few people feel any sense of connection to each other, even as they parrot the same values. It is no wonder that most forms of rebellion in the United States are exhibitions of stylized individualism -- inspiring theater and often enlivening to observe, but politically fruitless.

Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage.

Those concerned about tradition and cultural longevity can lament immigration and condemn "open borders." But if they are serious about American identity, they should begin and end with the villainous corporate enterprise that has waged war on it since the late 19th century.

David Masciotra is the author of four books, including Mellencamp: American Troubadour (University Press of Kentucky) and Barack Obama: Invisible Man ( Eyewear Publishing).

Nelson August 9, 2018 at 10:36 pm

Whatever culture remains in this country can often be found in the places where people still maintain at least a symbolic link with their immigrant roots.
Whine Merchant , , August 9, 2018 at 11:55 pm
Many of the immigrants came to the dream of America believing the myth. That they could be anything hard work would bring them, regardless of rank or class of birth, title, family name, or religious prejudice. For the most part, this was sufficiently true that they prospered. They became "us". This [perhaps naive] belief in the dream made most of them, and their children, our most loyal and law-abiding citizens.

It was indeed the robber barons of the 19th century that pushed us down the path of self-destruction.

Fran Macadam , , August 10, 2018 at 12:33 am
I feel vindicated. Some years ago, Rod Dreher pilloried me for being obsessed with how destructive corporate capitalism had become to American culture, values and social cohesion. I think his epiphany came, when supposedly "conservative" big business turned out to be on the other side in the culture wars.
Ray Woodcock , , August 10, 2018 at 6:02 am
I hear you, Mr. Masciotra. I'm not especially fond of large for-profit corporations. But they wouldn't occupy monopolistic positions and enjoy rapacious profits and latitude for enormous misdeeds if the public were firmly opposed to that sort of thing. Americans generally love a winner, even if the "winning" is fraudulent or coerced, as long as they personally aren't coerced or defrauded. It's all about the money, or at least the belief that the money might come.
Crème fraiche , , August 10, 2018 at 8:09 am
Thank you for this refreshing piece which points the finger to a place where those on the left and right can actually make a difference. Of course, making any changes will require dismantling some the mythology of the American prosperity gospel, but it starts with great articles like these.

The system didn't become corrupt in the 80s, it's been that way for much longer. And there have been hustlers and " well meaning " Corporate yes men making dishonest money off of their compatriots for centuries (everywhere, I might add).

So the question is, do we want to continue to encourage this behavior or do we dare to dream of another reality ?

GaryH , , August 10, 2018 at 8:39 am
Oh so true. America's super rich are the enemy, a much worse one than a naive socialist like Bernie Sanders.
connecticut farmer , , August 10, 2018 at 9:05 am
Well crafted and thoughtful. Years ago, Walker Percy observed that America was unique among nations in that it was simultaneously the most religious country and the most materialistic country in the world. Fast forward to 2018 and while religion appears to be in decline "getting and spending" continues apace.
Youknowho , , August 10, 2018 at 9:17 am
SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK!

WHAT ARE YOU, SOME KIND OF COMMUNIST?

THE FREE MARKET WILL SOLVE IT!

There, I put in the Libertarain response so there is no need to read all the posts they all will say the same thing.

How dare you attack the sacred cow of Capitalism, sir?

joshua , , August 10, 2018 at 9:25 am
Agreed but lets be honest with ourselves. We have to go where the kindling is dry and abundant to start a proverbial fire. America does have a culture. To see that all one need do is visit Nashville, the Ozarks or farm country in nebraska. Where there are still people the culture survives. That is a stoical dispensation. The culture does go back to Hellenism but Americana does have it's own ways. Go visit Europe for any amount of time or dare I say it Asia and American culture becomes obvious.

Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday that, in my opinion, best represents American culture and how it is different from all else.

collin , , August 10, 2018 at 9:47 am
Corporate Capitalism has always been American culture and life. Basic Taylorism on the assembly line was over 100 years in which men spent 50 -- 60 hours a week performing a single task very quickly.

What is American art? Would we consider Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley great American art and music? I do but the original reaction of older Americans was 1950s R&R was complete degradation of music. (Some of the racial language was very colorful by good citizens.) Or what Star Wars or Godfather. Or maybe the modern Marvel 'universe' has a degree of great pop art.

Jon , , August 10, 2018 at 10:02 am
Certainly well argued but for one important element that has been omitted; one ingredient which bundles everything together into one integrated picture. That necessary item can be summed with these two words, "buy in." Corporate capitalism would never hold sway except for the acquiescence of the populace which wanting the quantity of commodities had gathered in the shopping malls but now remain isolated in the front of their computer screens or cell phones.

Rather than there being the tyranny of the marketplace bringing forth this dominance of goods over people and the legerdemain of monetized value displacing our organic relationship to the land, it is this anonymous accommodation to the denigration of the high arts and the erosion to our culture which is the ultimate culprit.

In a word, it is the tyranny of the masses which pulls apart any endeavor at creating and sustaining a hierarchy of value rewarding all enterprise which appeases public taste by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Fore it is through this tyranny that capitalism has built its avaricious edifice.

Suffice it to say that the target "corporate capitalism" remains the straw man, that ethereal and empty concept devoid of blood and sinews. Where then does one find the source to this dilemma but in that which is of both flesh and blood namely humanity. The problem lies with the populace.

What is called for here is an awakening but not through a reckoning as that would only cause humanity to roll over and return to its slumber. And if crisis and collapse serves not the catalyst for such an awakening what then will provide such an arousal? Until such a time, we remain asleep and the institutions of our dream life will rule us.

Corporate capitalism is not the source. It is not even at the source. We are the source until such a time as we awaken.

Joe the Plutocrat , , August 10, 2018 at 10:06 am
excellent points. oh, and ironically (or not), from the Middle Ages (Europe) through the 19th century (American West), it was not uncommon for a barber to also perform ad hoc surgery/medical procedures, or to share space with the town's 'doctor', so in some instances it was prudent to go to the barbershop if shot
Winston , , August 10, 2018 at 10:22 am
"Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with the outrage that often accompanies new arrivals."

Apples and oranges. The welfare state didn't exist then, so it was assimilate or fail. 1/3 of all culturally similar to existing US culture Europeans returned to Europe.

Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation and allow extremely large cultural enclaves which are politically divisive as pointed out MANY years ago by the not exactly "right wing" former WH press secretary for LBJ, Bill Moyers, in one of his many excellent documentaries.

William Taylor , , August 10, 2018 at 11:02 am
interesting to see how this challenging article agrees with Chris Hedges in the radical left "Truthdig."
Tony Soprano , , August 10, 2018 at 11:17 am
We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. The author paints this focus of the Trumpian and dissident right as exclusionary, but it is not; at the same time arguing for his own exclusionary anti-capitalist platform. Quite frankly, I don't know what it's doing on TAC, but I will take the time to respond.

The criticism of anti-immigration on the right is a straw man argument. The dissident right is not merely anti-immigration, it is more broadly anti-multiracialist. Many understand and agree with the author on the problems of capitalism, but also see racial and cultural integration as an additional threat to the American tradition. His point about how the immigration (into America) didn't cause the hellspace of suburbia is true, since only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate well into society. However, he ignores the history of black empancipation and subsequent desegregation that led to massive internal migration from the South into cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. There weren't always majority black, my friend. The very real problems that this internal migration presented to ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods in the 20th century were the driving force behind the suburban sprawl. We colloquially refer to this phenomenon as "white flight," and many on the left and the right see it as unjustified "racism."

The curious reader would do well to investigate this claim to see if maybe white flight might have actually been very justified, maybe a gross historical injustice was done to those now ethnically cleansed communities, and maybe racial desegregation is partly to blame for the author's perceived lack of (white) culture in America.
Thank you for reading.

Tyro , , August 10, 2018 at 11:35 am
"Capitalism" is cronyist by nature. "Capitalism" itself requires an extensive set of laws that benefit some economic arrangements over others. Now the reason for this is because nations need development, and that means they need capital, and that means they need to create laws that ensure that the people who have capital feel willing and confident enough to invest it in that country.

But once you've opened the pandora's box of bankruptcy laws, limit liability, and other "terms and conditions" of investment and capital, you're going to have a system that lends itself to cronyism when you have no other counter-balancing power from labor.

Ken Zaretzke , , August 10, 2018 at 11:45 am
My brilliant iPad just deleted my response. So, quickly, capitalism is partly curable by antitrust and protectionism, but proto-amnesty mass immigration is not curable, and it more quickly distorts national identity than does capitalism, which takes a very long time to alter society's frame. Mass immigration does that relatively quickly. Also, immigration has as many rackets as capitalism does -- for the one, capital gains tax cuts, and for the other, H1-B visas.
Tyro , , August 10, 2018 at 12:40 pm
only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate well into society

The immigration act of 1924 which choked off most immigration was about reducing white immigration. It didn't actually affect Mexican immigration. The largest beneficiaries the post-1965 immigration laws have been Asian immigrants who everyone argues integrate perfectly well.

ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods

Any of the residents of those neighborhoods in Chicago would have been quick to deny they were "ethnically homogeneous" because they would have pointed out how they were mixed neighborhoods of Greeks, Poles, Slovenes, etc.

TJ Martin , , August 10, 2018 at 1:06 pm
Its about time someone on this site placed at least 50% of the blame when it comes to demise of the American Middle Class as well as ' culture ' -- ( such as it is seeing we have no well defined codified ' culture ' because we are and have been since the beginning so diverse ) -- on the American Corpocracy .

But the fact is the other 50% of the blame must fall firmly upon the shoulders of the greedy speculators and investors convinced every year should be a profitable year and they should of received next year's profits yesterday

Along with the American Consumer addicted to cheap goods 60% of which they have no need for nor ever use .

So what is the answer ? First we need to move towards a Responsible Capitalism rather than the Ayn Rand addled narcissist Hyper- Capitalism rapidly approaching Anarcho -- Capitalism we're currently immersed in from the Oval Office on down

Second the American Consumer needs to accept paying what something is worth .. be it service , goods or food .. rather than thinking the entire world is a discounted oyster at their beck and call

And Third .. with the onus once again falling firmly upon the shoulders of the discount addled American consumer . We need to get over the theater of convenience shopping ( online ) and get back to supporting local businesses who pay taxes to our local community and are in fact our neighbors

Problem is all of the above solutions require both compromise , authentic thought as well as discernment

None of which ( for the most part ) currently exists in this over polarized ' Collective Stupidity of America ' zeitgeist we're firmly entrenched in

Lecture over . Donuts , bagels and coffee in the virtual break room .

Cynthia McLean , , August 10, 2018 at 1:49 pm
English colonials brought to the American continent both English Law -- based on private property -- which has turned into Corporate Market Capitalism (Citizens United, eh?), and the Enlightenment idea of the centrality of Individual Freedom, which has turned into the rank Individualism of our current Me-Myself-and-I cultural ethos.

Democracy and a healthy culture, in my view, depend upon holding in balance the needs/desires/rights of both the Individual and the broader Common Good. There now seems to be little left of a Social Covenant that includes all Americans, which is central to a viable culture.

Great article, thank you.

BradD , , August 10, 2018 at 2:29 pm
I'll say this when it comes it integration: people in the past weren't forced to integrate in the least. A friend of mine has a grandmother that speaks Russian, only Russian, and no English. As long as she remained in her little enclave in the US, why need to speak English? In my native Cincinnati the "Over the Rhine" neighborhood had beer gardens, German schools, German newspapers, and German street signs. Only a fire and I am sure some Progressive 'encouragement' broke the neighborhood up.

White in America use to mean Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. To be Wet was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be an immigrant. Dry was honest, hard working, and true. Wet was disorderly, murderous, and poor. Irish weren't white, Poles weren't white, and the Italians most certainly weren't white.

My question is why are we poo pooing Latina values? Family centric, conservative, Catholic/Christian, and hard working (come on, either immigrants are stealing our jobs or they are welfare leeches, pick one!). Their food is delicious and the music is fun.

The latina vote should be the Republican vote if they would just get over themselves. Spanish is just as much a Romance language as French or Italian. Get with the program, declare them white, and let's enjoy a super majority with taco Tuesday.

KDM , , August 10, 2018 at 3:42 pm
@BradD
Nothing is necessarily wrong with "Latin" values per se . The problem is with massive amounts of Illigeal immigration coming all from one area. I'm sorry but integration and assimilation is extremely important, just look at Europe for an idea of what happens to countries that don't integrate immigrants well.

Also, if "Latin" values are great and desirable then why would such a massive amount of people be bum rushing our southern borders?

Can you please tell me one example of a country in Latin America that has been successful for an extended period of time? I cannot even think of one. When people come in small waves they can integrate and learn the value of our institutions, laws, freedom, liberty ect They basically become American w/ Latin heritage. When they come en mass, they keep their societies values a lot longer and stay in enclaves a lot longer as well. As an example not too long ago I was in the southern part of Houston Texas and the Galveston area and I cannot tell you the number of cars, houses and business that have the Mexican flag up instead of the USA flag! That is all kinds of wrong to me. If Mexico is so great, than they should just move on back and set up shop there.

LT , , August 10, 2018 at 6:50 pm
Ding, ding, ding
We have a winner here. America is promoted as merchant culture, bread or bombs. The peoole termed colonists were largely corporate sponsored. So when people continue to arrive, they figure starting their store or buying the "right" things is American culture. And for everything else, they just say, "We have our own, thank you."
Auguste Meyrat , , August 10, 2018 at 9:39 pm
While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion? How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge doesn't really get us anywhere.

I would be happy to defend free enterprise in America and would even credit the business and marketing practices in America for inculcating customer service as a uniquely American trait. You can tell you're in America when people act politely and aim to serve you -- even illiterate young people know this. Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning at you for having the nerve to have want of their services. And that's just a side benefit. The main thing business does is finance the creation of culture at all levels. Any civilization's golden age followed from societal prosperity, not from a more democratic and tasteful distribution of wealth.

If we're talking about the arts and influence, America is still the most dynamic in the world, being a great producer of movies, music, books, and all the rest. Even the existence of a site like TAC should cause one to reflect on just how nice it is to live in a country that permits open discourse and values quality writing and ideas -- and for no cost at all to the reader. We can despair all we like of the decline of the Oscars, or the stupidity of modern art, or the pointlessness of postmodernist ideology, but it says something that we can even have this conversation. I'm not sure other cultures, outside those in elite circles, even think about this stuff.

mike , , August 10, 2018 at 9:55 pm
Yes! Intentionally generalising: Big, remote, powerful things are ALWAYS evil. Small, local, law-governed communities are always good.
Thomas Hobbes , , August 11, 2018 at 12:44 am
Wow, something Fran Macadam and I agree on! Surely there is enough there for some bright politician to make a central platform plank out of?

A number of commenters point out that this isn't just imposed on us, we also embrace it (or just succumbed to the propaganda/advertising). Fixing the problem will require efforts to curb corporate power as well cultural change from the ground up to embrace real values beyond just capitalism.

JonF , , August 11, 2018 at 8:11 am
Re: We need to get over the theater of convenience shopping ( online ) and get back to supporting local businesses

Sure, if local businesses carry the stuff I'm looking for. All too often you have to go online to find anything that is not a mass appeal staple.

JonF , , August 11, 2018 at 8:17 am
Re: Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation

The evidence, notably from language learning, shows that today's immigrants assimilate at about the same rate others did in the past. And yes, you could hear other languages in the US in the past also. There were places in Detroit I remember in childhood where all the signs were in Polish. Going farther back 19th century nativists were horrified that entire communities in the Midwest spoke German. Early on, our eighth president, Martin Van Buren, grew up speaking Dutch in the Hudson Valley.

As for the welfare state, well, there were lots of mutual aid societies which provided help -- we were not a social Darwinist nation. And don't forget the Civil War pensions to which a significant fraction of the population was entitled.

Kurt Gayle , , August 11, 2018 at 8:55 am
Mr. Mascriota tells us: "Border sovereignty, even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and not to be easily dismissed."

And yet, Mr. Mascriotra, last Sept 9th (2017) at "Salon" you wrote an article entitled "The case for open borders: Stop defending DACA recipients while condemning the 'sins' of their parents":

"As an English instructor and tutor, I've met young men and women from Ethiopia, China and Nigeria, and I have taught students whose parents emigrated from Mexico to the United States 'illegally.' If I were an insecure coward afraid to compete in a multicultural society, and convinced my future children would become deadbeats without the full force of white privilege to catapult them into success, I would advocate for the deportation of immigrant families similar to those of my students, and I would repeat mindless bromides like 'America First' and 'Build that Wall.' One of the costs of racism, xenophobia, or any form of pathetic provincialism is that freezes the prejudicial person in a permanent state of mediocrity President Donald Trump's decision to end DACA, and his demand that Congress 'fix the' nonexistent 'immigration problem,' demonstrates a stunning streak of sadism, projecting yet another signal to his rabid and anti-American base of closed-minded losers If the 'real Americans' are afraid to compete with immigrants for jobs, prestige, or cultural authority, they only indict themselves as weak, self-entitled and easy to panic. In a word, 'snowflakes'. A bureaucratic permission slip is trivial compared to the imperative of human freedom -- freedom that should transcend what are largely artificial borders."

https://www.salon.com/2017/09/09/the-case-for-open-borders-stop-defending-daca-recipients-while-condemning-the-sins-of-their-parents/

Hibernian , , August 11, 2018 at 11:51 am
@Mr. Soprano: I think Baltimore was a special case as a Southern city (which it historically was up to maybe WW1, maybe WW2.) Don't know its demographics pre-WW2 but I'd bet dollars to donuts it was substantially more black pre-WW1 than Chicago, which was nearly all white up to about 1915 even though it was founded by a Francophone Black man Jean Baptiste Pont du Sable.
johnhenry , , August 11, 2018 at 1:14 pm
David Masciotra: Not sure what I think about the ironmongery in your left ear, but this piece is excellent. My only criticism -- mild at that -- concerns the analogy in your third paragraph:

" to focus [our worries] on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut."

DOA. Sorry.

paradoctor , , August 11, 2018 at 1:46 pm
This article is timely, but only because its complaints are perennial. 'Twas ever thus.

Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are constantly on the defensive.

That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts; it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich.

A similar cycle applies to demographics. Today's scary outsider becomes tomorrow's stodgy insider, after they buy their way in. I therefore second BradD's motion to declare Hispanics to be white; and Asians too.

All those disturbed by demographic transitions should contemplate this truism: that by the middle of next century every man, woman and child now alive shall be dead, and replaced by people not born yet.

This includes you, which makes it personal. What a way to run a world! But if you can put up with 100% population turnover by 2150, then language and skin tint seems (to me at least) a trivial detail.

***

Self-critique: The preceding analysis has a flaw, namely that this is not simply a 'commercial' culture; it is a 'capitalistic' culture, which is the least free form of commercial culture.

Siarlys Jenkins , , August 11, 2018 at 4:48 pm
Wow, something Fran Macadam and I agree on! Surely there is enough there for some bright politician to make a central platform plank out of?

Right! And I agree with Fran AND Thomas Hobbes!

Thrice A Viking , , August 11, 2018 at 5:46 pm
So, what should replace corporate capitalism -- socialism, distributism, non-corporate capitalism, what?
Tyro , , August 11, 2018 at 6:20 pm
Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning at you for having the nerve to have want of their services.

Americans, in my experience, mistake lack of slavish over-friendliness as rudeness. I have realized this because I am a fairly reserved kind of person, and "reserved" gets coded as "aloof" or "snobbish."

European retail still follows the "sole proprietor" model of service -- it's assumed that by shopping there you're effectively entering someone else's home, and you must act accordingly. In the US, lacking a formal class system, the retail experience is one coded towards allowing the customer to feel as though he is a noble with servants to attend on him that he can order around. The store is selling that experience.

Related to this is why middle class and upper middle Americans are so upset by the DMV and the Post Office. It's the only place where money does not buy them any better service, and they cannot use the threat of talking to the manager to have the service personnel fired in order to get what they want.

America's customer service culture is probably one of our most culturally dysfunctional aspects, all rooted in middle class insecurity.

Renoaldo , , August 12, 2018 at 1:12 am
If this were actually, a Conservative website, that valued Western ideals? Do you really believe such excuses or something outside of myself like the "devil made me do it" will pass mustard with "God" or "St. Peter?"
Paul , , August 12, 2018 at 4:40 am
I strongly endorse Jon's (much earlier comment). It is not corporations that ruin culture but we who demand what they give. Corporations are just a convenient funding vehicle to produce goods. Yes they often mass market them. But it is we who like the marketing. If we were appalled, or turned away and it ignored it, they would change. In the end, when the spiritual life is subordinate to the material, our appetites and the corporations that serve them are a guaranteed outcome.
M. Orban , , August 12, 2018 at 12:31 pm
late to this thread but what is American identity? How is it different from let's say a Danish identity? I have a good number of coworkers from other countries: Asians, South Americans, some Germans or Swedes. When I visit them, do you think I find their homes, their families (or their priorities for that matter) different from that of born-here American? If so, I must have missed it
Ricardo , , August 12, 2018 at 4:40 pm
Auguste Mayrat hit the nail on the head. This article is garbage. It's sad that so many commentators agree with it. America is full of culture: pro and college sports, movies, TV shows, technology, books, music of all kinds all consumed throughout the world, as people from all countries love and admire American culture. Find a country that produces more culture than America. You can't.

Churches and schools proliferate here. What's so bad about corporations? If you own an iPhone or a television or a car or shop at the mall, or ride a plane or go on a cruise, you're a hypocrite to be against corporations. Corporations provide goods and services that people want, not to mention jobs. The author of this piece is an intellectual lightweight, and those who agree with his views are the type of blind sheep that communists find useful. The author neither specified what's bad about corporations, nor provides any solutions. Can believe TAC publishes such drivel.

[Aug 13, 2018] Question to Mr. Mueller: Was 911 an insurance fire, or what ? by globalintelhub

Aug 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Grabbing some perspective here, fake news has been around long before Trump, who happens to be himself a reality TV star. As we explain in Splitting Pennies - the world is not as it seems (or as is presented on TV).

Global Intel Hub received the following text message from an ex-CIA operative who we obviously cannot disclose:

911 was an insurance fire. My neighbor's do this - I've lived in the South for 25 years when their house is in bad need of repair they light a fire and take the insurance check, only people from New York only Israelis only high-level military people are capable of organizing such a high-profile Insurance fire this was a Hollywood quality Blockbuster make no question about it this was an A+ event like nothing the world has ever seen if the Holocaust was a bold and aggressive move by Hitler; 9/11 was pure genius mazel tov

It doesn't take more than Google to read about the terrorism insurance clause taken out just months before the event, and connecting the dots from there is not hard.

Larry Silverstein was paid a little over $4.5 Billion in insurance money as a result of the destruction of the WTC complex:

Ending more than five years of bitter legal battles, the World Trade Center's insurance carriers agreed to fork over the remaining $2 billion in payments – a move that clears the way to rebuild the massive complex, Gov. Spitzer announced yesterday.

The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking.

Then there is this issue about the WTC building itself. There were design flaws, the engineers knew it. The building would have needed billions in repairs, should it not have been destroyed on 911.

Here's how it probably went down. Sitting around the Kibbutz chatting, owner told friend about structural problems of WTC. Friend says "well I have a problem too, cannot get US help fighting Arabs, we need a 'Pearl Harbor' - let's kill 2 birds with one stone. Call our friends in Hollywood, in Washington, let's make a plan."

Owner: "Oh it will be epic!"

.. drama ensues

For more cutting edge intel visit www.globalintelhub.com

Crypto Currency Prices @ www.totalcryptos.com Tags Human Interest Other Specialty Retailers - NEC Semiconductors - NEC

Comments Vote up! 19 Vote down! 1

Buckaroo Banzai Sun, 08/12/2018 - 19:48 Permalink

9/11 was the biggest case of "Jewish lightning" ever pulled off.

Mazzy -> Buckaroo Banzai Sun, 08/12/2018 - 20:34 Permalink

Damn, you beat me to it B.B.

Jewish Lightning indeed. Look up the term in papers during the early 1900's. People noticed a connection back then. "Hmmmm, I wonder why all these jew owned tenement buildings are going up in smoke...." People were smart back then, no sense of guilt to hold them back from acknowledging the truth of the matter. Sadly all too many of the jews got away with it, their crummy buildings burned, the residents displaced, then they got new property paid for by the insurance company that they stole from due to a fraudulent fire.

oddjob -> Mazzy Sun, 08/12/2018 - 20:50 Permalink

Insurance fraud was on the laundry list of crimes committed that day. However, Fire is a believable cause for the collapse(s) only if you are learning disabled.

Bushogboner -> oddjob Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:03 Permalink

I thought WTC7 free-fell out of sympathy for #1 & #2.

Hope Copy -> Bushogboner Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:18 Permalink

LoL

Manthong -> Hope Copy Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:39 Permalink

I guess few have seen the news report of WTC 7 seen falling before it fell .

OOP's ..

vaporland -> Buckaroo Banzai Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:49 Permalink

Two guys sitting in the insurance adjustor's waiting room.

Guy #1: what happened?

Guy #2: lightning struck my store and burned it to the ground. How about you?

Guy #1: a flood destroyed my factory, wiped out everything.

Guy #2: how do you start a flood?

Posa -> Buckaroo Banzai Mon, 08/13/2018 - 00:05 Permalink

Absolute fake news... the overwhelming evidence is that 9/11 was terror spectacle engineered by the US military and intelligence with the Saudi Royal family. The purpose was to stampede the population into perpetual war -- a new or second Pearl Harbor as it were. And also to shred what remains of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Much of the story is documented in the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry (which is NOT the 9/11 Commission cover-up designed to refute the Congressional Inquiry)

Mossad has thoroughly infiltrated US intelligence whose key leaders were dual passport citizens so they likely knew that the CIA allowed al Qaeda figures into the US more than a year in advance of Sept 11th. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence that Mossad had any working operational role in 9/11... don't bother bloviating about dancing Jews unless you can bring some real evidence to the table.

AutoLode Sun, 08/12/2018 - 20:45 Permalink

Right out of silverburgstein's mouth came the command to "Pull it" literally on day one did it take this long to know what the plan was? Not for most of us

futureman Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:09 Permalink

There is also plenty of evidence that the markets were being played as well: shorts on airline and insurance stocks and other trades that only make sense if you know what is coming. There is no doubt that there was foreknowledge of the event and that many actors profited handsomely from it.

BGO -> futureman Mon, 08/13/2018 - 00:08 Permalink

Correction- there WAS plenty of evidence that the markets were being played. All the evidence was conveniently destroyed by...(((Wall St.)))

fleur de lis Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:10 Permalink

So when will Robert (M)Bueller go after his friends for the 911 murder spree?

Oh that's right -- every day is (B)Mueller's day off.

Bueller?

Mueller?

Juggernaut x2 -> fleur de lis Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:08 Permalink

Mueller is in on the Kabuki Theater just like Trump and all the rest - it's just to make Trump look like a Maverick-y Swamp-Drainer while he is actually part of the Banker/Wall St/Fed ass-fucking that the US citizens are getting

HopefulCynical -> Juggernaut x2 Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:12 Permalink

It's straight up bukakke theater, at this point.

Jury's still out as to which side Trump's on.

Drop-Hammer Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:12 Permalink

There is no such thing as a COHENcidence.

Dragon HAwk Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:44 Permalink

Once had a Jewish executive tell me once with a straight face, that a Jewish fathers responsibility to his son is to help him thru his first lawsuit so he can get established in Life.

JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:58 Permalink

911 was many things, there was no single magic bullet.

It was the means for the USA to begin it's Global Rampage.

It solved all these problems ....

It allowed the US to get into Afghanistan to secure Lithium and Opium

It allowed the US to get into Iraq to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's

It allowed the US to get into Libya to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's

It gave the Bush Clown his 15 minutes of Fame and a boost in popularity he desperately needed
It allowed Silverstein to make a Profit on his purchase of the Towers

It allowed the US to Invade any country on the Pretext of Terrorism for any Country not buying US Bonds

It allowed the Pentagram to not worry about where 2.3 Trillion Dollars went missing

It allowed the MIC to get a boost in Sales and Profits by selling more Military Weapons

It allowed the US to prevent GazProm (Russian) from Installing a Pipeline to Syria

Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld all got Richer as a Direct result of these Wars

The CIA got more money, more control and more spying capability for Domestic and International

The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.

loveyajimbo -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:03 Permalink

Don't forget that it also cancelled out the Constitution, via the "Patriot" Act...

Hope Copy -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:23 Permalink

Jawoll

wafm -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:36 Permalink

"US" being interchangeable with "Israel" of coz...

elephant -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:43 Permalink

The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.

"A few people died" being many millions and counting.

Yes, maybe the biggest scam was getting the US military to murder Israel's enemies on an even larger scale than before. This was a Mossad operation with Deep State complicity.

VWAndy Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:24 Permalink

Yep we got fucking played planet wide. An yes your government went along with it too.

file:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_intelligence_agencies_influence/FBI_mayberry_machiavellians/John_911_coverup_mueller

[Aug 13, 2018] The Perils of Trump's Iran Obsession by Daniel Larison

Aug 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit: Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson chide Trump for his dangerous Iran obsession:

The United States' treatment of Iran as a serious strategic competitor is deeply illogical. Iran imperils no core U.S. interests.

Trump's Iran obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it is also the most irrational. The president's reflexive hostility to Iran is one of the few constants in his view of the world, and it is one that aligns him most closely with his party's hawks and parts of the foreign policy establishment. This has been clear for several years ever since Trump declared his opposition to the nuclear deal and surrounded himself with hard-liners . The Iran obsession is among the worst aspects of Trump's presidency, but it is also one of the least surprising. Over the last eighteen months, Trump's Iran obsession has become more of a derangement , and it is putting the U.S. and Iran on a collision course at the expense of our relations with many other states and our own economic interests. The risk of unnecessary war continues to rise because the president and his allies insist on making maximalist demands of Iran while imposing stringent sanctions on the country without justification.

As Simon and Stevenson capably explain, there is no valid reason to view Iran as a major threat to the U.S. Contrary to the fevered warnings about Iranian "expansionism," Iranian military power in the region is quite limited:

Yet Iran's foreign policy has evolved essentially on the basis of opportunistic realism rather than especially aggressive revisionism, and, as noted, it has a sparse military presence in the region.

There is certainly no reason for our government to treat Iran as if it were a major competitor. Our government's fixation on Iran as the source of all the region's problems exaggerates Iran's influence and puts the U.S. at odds with a regional power whose interests are sometimes aligned with our own. The obsession simply makes no sense:

Casting Iran as a major strategic rival simply doesn't make sense in terms of traditional international relations considerations such as threat- and power-balancing.

The authors list a number of causes for the unwarranted obsession with Iran, including "pro-Israel" influence and the influence of the Saudis and Emiratis in Washington, and I agree with them. Our political leaders' enthusiasm for engaging in threat inflation and credulously accepting the threat inflation of others would has to figure prominently in any explanation as well. Obsessing over a non-existent Iranian threat to U.S. interests obviously has nothing to do with American security, and it represents an unhealthy subordination of American interests to those of its reckless regional clients. Indulging those clients in their paranoia about Iran will only stoke more regional conflicts and ensure that the U.S. becomes more deeply involved in those wars, and the result will be greater costs for the U.S. and greater turmoil, instability, and loss of life throughout the region.

b. August 13, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Obama's Yemen obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it is also the most irrational.

Cluster bombs, drone strikes, covert kill teams and, most importantly, the backing for Saudi Arabia and the UAE to cross the blood-red line and commence an aggressive illegal bombing campaign, invasion and occupation of Yemeni territory did not start with Trump.

Direct participation of US military logistics personnel and US military assets in this military aggression – while other US forces operate in the same territory under the "separate but equal" Authorization To Use Military Force – did not start with Trump.

Trump might apply his Reverse Midas Touch to this aspect of Obama's legacy as well, but just because Obama manufactured another transient executive "achievement" in JCOPA does not mean that his policy with respect to Yemen was any more irrational than Trump's policy towards Iran, or that Obama's willingness to hire out US military forces to support Saudi aggression for 100 billion dollars in blood money is any less venal, corrupt and despicable than Trump's willingness to do the same.

Mattis didn't become fixated on Iran when he joined the Trump administration either, although he might just be blaming – in the absence of conclusive evidence – Iran today for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeting Reagan's negligent use of the Marine Corps. That is even less of a defensible foundation for foreign policy and military aggression that profiteering.

b. , says: August 13, 2018 at 3:18 pm
It is not just Trump, either, and not even just neolibcons, but also the basement crusaders:

'In 2017, US Vice President Mike Pence called the bombings "the opening salvo in a war that we have waged ever since – the global war on terror".'

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-says-war-terror-began-911-hezbollah-attack-us-troops-691653
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings

It is a good guess that Obama's obsession with Yemen was rooted in printer cartridges, shoe bombs, and the fear to have any terrorist attack "succeed". For Obama & Co. the fear of the Next Big Blowback led them to Yemen. It would appear that Pence has supplied the Trump administration with a Grand Unified Theory that all campaigns in the Great War On Terror ultimately lead to Tehran – or the Trump administration made him their willing mouthpiece.

Christian Chuba , says: August 13, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Pence is so desperate to connect terrorism to Iran that he has to reach back almost 40yrs to pin an at best Hezbollah pre-cursor organization on them. Isn't it more telling that Hezbollah has avoided attacking U.S. troops during their entire existence? Pence doesn't seem alarmed about the 3,000+ Americans who died on U.S. soil in NYC that we can attribute to the Saudis and their cohorts.

BTW the Khobar tower bombings was Al Qaeda. The Saudis extracted confessions in their torture chambers. There was no corroborating evidence that it was a branch of Hezbollah.

[Aug 13, 2018] The Rent-a-Crowd critics of Jeremy Corbyn's alleged 'antisemitism' enjoy Freedom Of Screech

Aug 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 13, 2018 2:51:07 AM | 31

Thought for the day...
The Rent-a-Crowd critics of Jeremy Corbyn's alleged 'antisemitism' enjoy Freedom Of Screech.

[Aug 13, 2018] http://www.euronews.com/2018/08/13/iran-s-leader-orders-governent-not-to-talk-to-u-s

Aug 13, 2018 | www.euronews.com

Iran's leader orders government not to talk to US

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banned holding any direct talks with the United States, state TV reported, rejecting an offer last month by U.S.

He said "It was my mistake to allow the government for starting The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I gave the permission for the negotiations because of the insistence of the gentlemen".

President Donald Trump for talks with no preconditions with Tehran.

"I ban holding any talks with America ... America never remains loyal to its promises in talks ... just gives empty words ... and never retreats from its goals for talks," Khamenei was quoted as saying by TV.

Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif told Al Jazeera that Iran will not change its policies in the Middle East because of US sanctions and threats.

Posted by: partizan | Aug 13, 2018 8:50:05 AM | 38

[Aug 13, 2018] Sergey Lavrov SLAMS new US sanctions over Skripal case

Aug 13, 2018 | theduran.com

Sergey Lavrov SLAMS new US sanctions over Skripal case

Ruble continues to tank under the spectre of looming American sanctions imposed on the basis of circumstantial evidence and insinuation.

Published

9 hours ago

on

August 13, 2018 By

Seraphim Hanisch 1,639 Views ,

[Aug 13, 2018] Like Iran, the Russians know the USA. Is about as reliable as a third hand condom and just as classy.

Aug 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Beibdnn. , Aug 13, 2018 4:33:04 PM | 59

@spudski.

I believe Russia sees the sanctions for what they are. A crude attempt to provoke them into a hasty reaction. It is virtually certain they won't react in a childish or inconsidered way.

Paul Craig Roberts is well behind the curve when it comes to what is believed about the west in Russia politics.

A clue might be in the fact they have just reduced their $ reserves to 14 billion, down from nearly 200 4 or so years ago.

Like Iran, the Russians know the U.S.A. Is about as reliable as a third hand condom and just as classy.

[Aug 13, 2018] New US Sanctions vs. Russia by Anatoly Karlin

Notable quotes:
"... Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. ..."
"... The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war. I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack" on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep drifting towards actual war. ..."
"... I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave. ..."
"... Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a hostile act by Europe. ..."
"... Any compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again. ..."
"... Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely – then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world order. ..."
"... Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly doesn't give two hoots about. ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

* NBC: Trump administration to hit Russia with new sanctions for Skripal poisoning

The Trump administration is hitting Russia with new sanctions punishing President Vladimir Putin's government for using a chemical weapon against an ex-spy in Britain, U.S. officials told NBC News Wednesday.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on a determination that Russia violated international law by poisoning the former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in March, officials said, a decision that was announced Wednesday afternoon by State Department.

The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case basis.

A second, more painful round kicks in three months later unless Russia provides "reliable assurances" that it won't use chemical weapons in the future and agrees to "on-site inspections" by the U.N. -- conditions unlikely to be met. The second round of sanctions could include downgrading diplomatic relations, suspending state airline Aeroflot's ability to fly to the U.S, and cutting off nearly all exports and imports.

The sanctions are directly based on H.R.3409 – Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 .

Section 7 covers the sanctions that are to be imposed, which consist of initial sanctions, and further sanctions to be imposed after 90 days if there is no compliance on the country's part.

Initial sanctions : Ban on foreign assistance, arms sales, denial of US credit, and exporting national security sensitive goods. (Most of this is already functionally in place with respect to Russia).

Further sanctions : Ban on multilateral bank assistance [e.g. IMF, World Bank, the EBRD, etc], ban on US bank loans, a near total export ban (except food and agricultural commodities) and import ban, downgrade or suspension of US diplomatic relations, revocation of landing rights to air carriers controlled by the government of the sanctioned country.

Reuters has a US State Department official saying that the sanctions would not apply to Aeroflot, which some commenters have qualified as backtracking. But I think that the official was merely talking of the initial sanctions.

How does Russia go about removing the sanctions? The President will need to "certify" to Congress that the country in question: (1) Has made "reliable assurances", and is not making preparations, to use chemical/biological weapons in violation of international law, or against its own citizens; (2) is willing to allow on-site inspections by UN observers to confirm the above; (3) is making restitutions to the victims of its chemical/biological weapons usage.

This would basically require Russia to admit guilt for the Skripal poisoning and subject itself to the inspections regimes that the US typically tries to force on "rogue states." In other words, it is out of the question.

Moreover, even in the theoretical possibility that this goes through, it's not like President Trump's "certification" will be worth anything amidst the Russiagate hysteria.

Another possibility to avoid the near cessation of trade between the US and Russia is to have the President "waiver" the application of individual sanctions, if he can determine and certify to Congress that doing so is necessary for the national security interests of the US; or that there has been "a fundamental change in the leadership and policies" of the sanctioned country. In either case, the President needs to provide a report to Congress explaining his detailed rationale for the waiver, and listing steps the sanctioned country is taking to satisfy the "removal of sanctions" clause.

This isn't near the end of it, though.

***

* Meduza: Russian newspaper leaks draft text of U.S. Senate's Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act

The newspaper Kommersant has published a full draft of the proposed "Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act," which demands a U.S. investigation into Vladimir Putin's personal wealth and whether Russia sponsors terrorism, and would impose a ban on U.S. citizens buying Russian sovereign debt, though the U.S. Treasury publicly opposed this idea in February, warning that it would disrupt the market broadly. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the initiative's sponsors, says one of the draft legislation's goals is to impose "crushing sanctions."

[Sanctions to include:]

* Banning the banks . The draft bill proposes banning Russia's biggest state banks -- Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Rosselkhozbank, Promsvyazbank, or Vnesheconombank -- from operating inside the United States, which would effectively prevent these institutions from conducting dollar settlements.

* Oil and gas . In the energy sector, the legislation would impose sanctions on investment in any projects by the Russian government or government-affiliated companies outside Russia worth more than $250 million. Businesses would also incur penalties for any participation (funding or supplying equipment or technology) in new oil projects inside Russia valued above $1 million.

* Lists and research . If the bill is submitted in its current form and adopted, the U.S. president would have 180 days to begin implementing its provisions; within 60 days of adoption, the White House would need to provide a new list of Russian individuals suspected of cyber-attacks against the United States; the Treasury Department would have 180 days to update its "Kremlin list" of Russian state officials and oligarchs; the director of national intelligence would be tasked with completing a "detailed report on the personal net worth and assets" of Vladimir Putin and his family; and the State Department would have 90 days to determine whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

* A new Sanctions Office . In order to shore up the 2017 Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, the draft legislation would also create an "Office of Sanctions Coordination" within the State Department to coordinate work with the Treasury.

Here is the original Kommersant article: Комплекс мер по сдерживанию Дональда Трампа

Here is the text of the draft bill: https://www.kommersant.ru/docs/2018/_2018d140-Menendez-Russia-Sanctions-Bill.pdf

It contains many more interesting details.

(1) The bill's sponsors, which include Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, and Ben Cardin, preface their text with a call for President Trump to demand Russia stop interference in US "democratic processes", return Crimea to the Ukraine, stop supporting the separatists in East Ukraine, as well the "occupation and support of separatists" in the territories of Georgia and Moldova, and support for Bashar Assad, who continues to commit "war crimes."

(2) They note that the general drift of the document is towards a consolidation of separate anti-Russian sanctions, from the "Ukrainian" to the "cyber" ones, into a "single mechanism."

(3) Subject to a 2/3 vote in the Senate, the bill also includes a ban on financing "direct or indirect" steps, that have as their goal to support the attempts of "any US government official" to take the country out of NATO. Every 90 days, the US Secretary of State, in coordination with the Defense Minister, would be required to present a report to the relevant committees in Congress about "threats to NATO", which would include attempts to weaken US commitments to the alliance. Considering Trump's ambiguous feelings on NATO, this part is primarily aimed at Trump himself.

(4) There are calls to "pressure" Russia from interfering with UN and the OPCW attempts to investigate chemical weapons usage, as well as to "punish" Russia for producing and using chemical weapons. This directly syncs this sanctions bill to the previous one.

The report concludes that it's not yet clear how to interpret this. In the worse case, it could be a "preliminary application" for a UN campaign to exclude Russia from the Security Council; alternatively, it could just be a "pragmatic" run-up to merely invoking great sanctions, as with Iran in 1983.

***

I suppose we now also know why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15 billion from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).

For comparison, the last time such a drawback happened (but which only lasted three weeks) was in the immediate aftermath of Crimea.

The last time Russia pulled such a large sum out of the U.S. was just after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, when the central bank withdrew about $115 billion from the New York Fed, Reuters reported last year, citing two former Fed officials. Most of that money was returned a few weeks later, after it became clear that the scope of initial U.S. sanctions would be narrower than the Kremlin expected, according to the news service.

But I suppose this drawdown would now be permanent, since it is increasingly evident that Iran-tier sanctions on Russia are now on the horizon.

These sanctions are either going to steadily creep in – or rush in like a tsunami if there is a Blue Wave in 90 days, or if Trump was to be removed.

However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly punish Russia is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the economic output. Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.

Moreover, as I have pointed out , Russia has plenty of surprising ways to hurt the US as well. For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to the US has a simple response – banning US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia, period. It can resurrect a bill – first raised this May, since sunken in the legislature – to impose fines and prison time on individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated copyrights regimen out of the window.

Some questions we should now be asking include:

1. Precisely how far is the US prepared to go? Cutting off its own trade with Russia is one thing – penalizing foreign companies that do business with Russia is something else. As Ben Aris notes , the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions against Oleg Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals market. The ideological Russiagaters need to balance their PDS/TDS against the pecuniary practicalities of catering to finance and oil & gas interests and their lobbies.

2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US sanctions against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine precisely how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.

reiner Tor , August 10, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT

Putin and his regime are weak on the USA, but Uncle Sam seems intent on making even Medvedev-style weak comprador liberals enemies.

I think unrequited love often turns to hate, and so there's some chance that these weaklings become anti-American nationalists.

The Scalpel , Website August 10, 2018 at 3:40 pm GMT
This sounds very close to a declaration of war. USA is beginning to throw everything it has behind economic warfare and go "all in" forcing even its closest allies to either suffer serious sanctions for not joining the economic attacks or to inflict self-harm by limiting trade with Russia, Iran, and anyone else the US chooses to declare economic warfare upon.

I don't believe that this set of circumstances can continue indefinitely without a serious realignment or a degeneration into "kinetic" warfare.

Mitleser , August 10, 2018 at 3:47 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Putin and his regime are weak on the USA, but Uncle Sam seems intent on making even Medvedev-style weak comprador liberals enemies.

Twit:

Maxim A. Suchkov @MSuchkov_ALM

Russia's PM @MedvedevRussiaE now: #Moscow to treat
:urther #US sanctions as an open declaration of economic war.
1:54 AM-Aug 10, 2018

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm GMT
Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. Lunatic asylum is the most appropriate place for the whole American "leadership", down to the last man/woman/tranny. The only thing that stands between us and WWIII, which would be a suicide of humanity, is unbelievably cool and reasonable position of Putin and the rest of Russian leadership.

It is clear to anyone with a brain that the US "sanctions" on Russia have zero chance of changing Russia's stance on any international issues of consequence. Crimea is a good example: it will return to Ukraine the day after the Hell freezes over. On the same date Georgia gets South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and US-sponsored Islamic bandits win over Assad in Syria. Thus, The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war. I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal.

reiner Tor , August 10, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

I agree. They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack" on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep drifting towards actual war.

There is also a lot of projection going on here: the Americans obviously perceive their own election meddling as war by other means, and so they accuse their enemies with the very same thing.

reiner Tor , August 10, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Maybe we'll see unrequited love turning into hatred.

LondonBob , August 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT
Russia is far too integrated in to the wider European economy, and Russia is too stronk for sanctions to do anything. See Nord Stream II. Ignore the Israel lobby sanctions, not even the corrupt congress critters could vote for those.

I have no idea why these new meaningless sanctions have been conjured up, maybe the Rand Paul letter has the answer, maybe not. I think we may have some answers after the midterms.

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 4:05 pm GMT
@LondonBob

I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave.

neutral , August 10, 2018 at 4:13 pm GMT
Now that it is within the realms of reasonable debate, if there were a nuclear war between the USA and Russia what targets would be hit? Would Russia hit puppet regimes such the UK, France or Poland? Would the USA hit Iran (because if they are going to hit Russia they might as well get Iran in there as well).

If say only Russian and USA were hit, how much of the nuclear fallout would affect Europe?

LondonBob , August 10, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Why, if Putin threatened Netanyahu to call off his dogs, he would have to? Actions of AIPAC should be accountable.

Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a hostile act by Europe.

Polish Perspective , August 10, 2018 at 4:18 pm GMT
Russia today is in a much better position to withstand sanctions. Global oil investments have been lagging for half a decade due to low prices, and this will inevitably show up in the coming years. Russia in 2014 was battered by a twin storm, of which the oil price collapse was in fact far worse. That factor is now gone.

Furthermore, a planned VAT rise next year will mean that the break-even oil price for the Russian budget will fall to $50 after $60 this year and $67 last year, according to Alfa Bank's analysis . Steady, impressive improvement. So even in an event of an unexpected oil price decline, Russia is far more prepared this time around.

Additionally, over the last 4 years, Russia's economy has indigenised to a much greater extent than before. This is especially the case in the financial markets. Russia is simply a lot less reliant on foreign funding. Bershidsky wrote about how more and more Russian companies are leaving UK capital markets and returning to Russia. This process will continue but it has already yielded results. As a country with a large current account surplus, tamed inflation, an incredibly strong fiscal state, there is indeed very little that the US can do, which is probably why they are reaching with ever-greater desperation.

I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again.

India has always bristled at being treated as a close ally rather as a 'partner'. It has cherished it's non-aligned movement legacy and its historically close relations to Russia. It is unlikely to want to give up on that in order to become a subservient lapdog to US interests in the manner that the EU has degraded itself.

China's AIIB is a good start, but the full range of new institutions must bear fruit. Some of the BRICS ideas are good but ultimately both Brazil and South Africa are too unimportant. It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit yet have a bright future ahead of them.

Turning to Europe. Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely – then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world order.

Dmitry , August 10, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
America now has a "good cop, bad cop" with Trump and Congress. Congress puts in more sanctions, but there is constraint responding too much because Trump seems friendly, and you don't want to alienate him. Trump himself doesn't care about the sanctions, because he thinks it is leverage that he can lift them later.

There was an article a few months ago that Trump is actually worse than Obama – even in Obama did not supply direct weapons to Ukraine.

I think Trump plans to remove the sanctions in the next year and improve the relations – but without any kind of timetable (his meeting with Putin is delayed already to next year).

Polish Perspective , August 10, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
OT: The Turkish lira is now the worst-performing currency this year, bar none.

Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly doesn't give two hoots about.

Turkey was not entirely foolish to believe this strategy could work. Pakistan during the reign of Islamist military dictator Zia ul-Haq, used a similar strategy during the 1980s. He empowered the mullahs and moved Pakistan decidedly to the hard-right in religious/cultural terms while massively opening up the economy to speculative finance, thereby pleasing Washington. Saudi Arabia has used this policy for a long time. For those who knew this, the revelation that the US funded some of the most extremist "moderate" rebels in Syria came as no shock.

So perhaps it isn't the Islamism in of itself which is the problem in Erdogan's case. What could it be? Well, one clue is the case of Pastor Brunson. The good pastor, who under house arrest in Turkey, is accused to be close to the Gülen cult. The official line in the Western MSM is that Trump is trying to appease evangelicals before the midterms. I don't buy that. He has them in the bag regardless. Gülen himself, some of you might recall, still lives in the US despite repeated pleas from Turkey to give him back. Which is the unreliable ally here? Curiously, Gülen's religious bent is even more Islamist than Erdogan's. He's also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?

At any rate, the demand from the US has been for Turkey to release Brunson unconditionally. Erdogan's media has speculated that Brunson was slated to become CIA chief in Turkey had the 2016 coup come to pass. Obviously, Turkey does not want to release him unconditionally: it makes them look extremely weak. Well, they now got hit where it hurts. Indeed, Trump even tweeted out new sanctions news today even as Erdogan was delivering a speech. I don't happen to believe in coincidences. The result is that the lira lost close to a quarter of its value in a single day. I haven't even mentioned Turkey's apparent interest in the S-400 missile system among other matters. This, I think, is what truly irked D.C. rather than Erdogan's human rights record or "authoritarianism", which is just the pretext.

Make no mistake: the decline of the lira was structural from the beginning. Turkey's large CAD made it extremely vulnerable to financial speculation from the getgo. It has now paid that price. But this does not preclude the fact that countries which are overtly reliant on Western financial flows to fund large current account deficits should forgo the lesson that there is no free lunch. Erdogan made this cardinal error. Poland is not nearly as vulnerable, but we're also in the same orbit. This is why I always laugh at the Poland Stronk memes. It's also why I dismiss the criticism against Orban that he plays all sides, including taking money from the EU, as politically naïve. Very few countries in this world can reliably be called truly independent. Russia is in the process of becoming one. So is China. India is not quite there, but it has the potential. The rest of us will simply have to balance hegemons, while reminding ourselves of our inherent vulnerability. If we forget that, then we just had a textbook example of what happens when we overestimate our hand, playing out in front of our very eyes today.

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 4:46 pm GMT
@Polish Perspective

Good to hear something sensible from Polish Perspective (in every sense of this expression). I know some Poles, who tend to be reasonable people, so the policies of Polish government always amazed me. Then again, if Polish democracy is similar to the US, the opinions of the people don't matter at all.

There is still a long way to go before Russia, China, or any other country frees itself from the clutches of dollar-based financial system. However, an alternative might look parallel at the beginning, but it won't be parallel for long. Thing is, the US dollar and the US sovereign debt have become essentially Ponzi schemes. If Russia, China, and a few others create a "parallel" system, dollar-based Ponzi scheme folds, as the US does not have sufficient assets to support the dollar or pay off its debt. The fall of the Empire will likely be violent. The only thing we can hope for is that the humanity survives it.

As to EU, it missed every chance of becoming something with a spine. Too late now. In fact, what French president once said about Arafat (he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity) applies to the EU with a vengeance.

Felix Keverich , August 10, 2018 at 4:47 pm GMT

I suppose we now also now why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15 billion from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).

You're making the Kremlins look smarter than they actually are. They should have done this 4 years ago. What I want to know is what happened to the proceeds from the sale? CBR data shows that value of "foreign exchange" held by the CBR hasn't declined:

https://www.cbr.ru/eng/hd_base/mrrf/mrrf_m/

Did they convert the dollars into other currencies, or are they keeping it in cash on a bank account somewhere, where it could be easily "frozen"?

notanon , August 10, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
@LondonBob

Why, if Putin threatened Netanyahu to call off his dogs, he would have to? Actions of AIPAC should be accountable.

i don't this is just AIPAC driven – partly yes but the banking mafia have their own reasons for trying to bring Russia to heel.

Thorfinnsson , August 10, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
Great.

Now I can't use the Export-Import Bank insure the export of American-made products from a swing state to Russia. Really Making America Great Again! Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?

Felix Keverich , August 10, 2018 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Polish Perspective

Regarding India, they are asking America for a permission to keep buying Russian weapons. Asking for a sanctions "waiver" – this is just sad. India also agreed to reduce imports of Iranian oil. So, perhaps, not so independent anymore.

There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress Russian economic growth. But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil, our economy will shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.

Cagey Beast , August 10, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?

Rohrabacher is a flake and blowhard as well. If he were in the running for Secretary of State, he could just as easily flip and become militantly anti-Russian in order to impress people in Washington. Appearing tough on foreigners in front of one's peers in Washington is their prime motive. They've been like this since before the Vietnam War era.

Kimppis , August 10, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
Anatoly, I read your Russian "Whitepill" article through Google Translate recently:

http://akarlin.ru/2018/08/whitepill/

Obviously a good read overall, but there was this one part that I found particularly well, interesting, and actually quite surprising:

"Moreover, the mid-2020s will also see a massive influx of electric vehicles into the global car fleet, which could lead to a final collapse in oil prices. There was practically no real diversification: the number of industrial robots per worker in Russia is at the level of Iran and India. Meanwhile, "effective managers" like Sechin turned out to be so effective that Rosneft's debts exceed the value of the company itself from this year. An acute economic crisis in a few years is almost inevitable. "

So I'm clearly not even entirely sure whether that translation is accurate, but it really seems like you're kind of suddenly much more pessimistic on the Russian economy. Or is that just the "best-case" scenario for Russian nationalists?

Didn't you rate Putin's "economic management" reasonably highly not a long time ago, just before the Presidential elections? Of course compared to the situation in 2000, but still.

You've also pointed out several times that Russia's oil dependency has been considerably exaggerated. Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's Jon Hellevig's research and numbers as well (GDP share of oil & gas, the consolidated budget, etc). And Polish Perspective's comment above.

So shouldn't the repeat of 2014 be kind of unlikely, if not impossible? At this rate, Russia's remaining oil dependency should already be considerably lower by the mid-20s, despite all those technological limitations.

You don't believe in an annual growth of 3% anymore? You seriously think there will be an "acute crisis" in a few years?

I actually just read that even the always (or atleast recently) conservative/pessimistic Russian authorities (in this case, the Economic Development Ministry) forecast a growth rate of atleast around 3% beginning from 2021, after the VAT hike, some other "reforms" and increasing spending.

Cagey Beast , August 10, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
At the same time, Trump his helping to push the Turkish economy off a cliff with his Twitter account. Russia and Turkey find themselves in the same boat. So?
Dmitry , August 10, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@LondonBob

Israel and Netanyahu responsible for American sanctions on Russia, conspiracy makes less sense to me than the others I read here (Israel responsible for killing Kennedy, etc). Why do Israel want to impose American sanctions on Russia?

This week's sanctions mainly targeting Russian airlines. Aeroflot is about to buy 30 Boeing 737s from America – and now this is in danger.

In Israel, Aeroflot is the third airline, and Israeli government pays it direct subsidies to reduce the ticket prices for places like Eilat. They allow Aeroflot to put giant Aeroflot commercial posters along the roads and skyscrapers.

According to the news earlier in the year, Israel is negotiating to join a customs union with the Eurasian Economic Union. How will they reconcile their own actions, with being the one responsible for America to sanction Russia? It would be very competent 4 dimensional chess, from people who cannot even count their illegal immigrants or deport a single illegal immigrant, or coordinate their nationality policy with a few thousand druze. While making America sanction Russia has no benefit for them, deporting illegal immigrants, or coordinating with Druze has important benefits for them (yet supposedly they can do the former, but not the latter).

At the same time, they do the opposite of sanctioning themselves.

Also if this is the case, how in Russia, nobody in the expert community is aware Israel is responsible for the sanctions. Instead the media celebrate when it still wants to export carrots. And if any of the Kremlin top think relations with Israel are bad, then why is Israel allowed to operate freely in Russia.

If explanation is to do with Syria – it also does not fit. Intervention in Syria was presented as something which would encourage West to remove its sanctions.

For Israel, Russian-American alliance would improve the situation in the region. And also probably for Turkey and the Arabs.

Israel is terrified with an increase of Iran in Syria. The reality is that is that both Russia and America is going to reduce presence in Syria, and Iran is going to increase it. The problem of Russia in Syria for Israel, is that Russia's presence is only minimal, and will allow Iran on the ground to take over the same territories that Russia helps secure for Assad. In the current equation and stage of the war, they will be hoping Russia increases its presence and reduces the need for Iranian forces. Problem of Assad for them is his only to the extent of his relation with Iran, not with Russia.

Mikhail , Website August 10, 2018 at 5:43 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Before the Trump-Putin summit, the Mueller involved FBI indicted 12 Russians, knowing full well that they'd not be turned over to the US. This latest round of sanctions comes right after Rand Paul's trip to Moscow, for the purpose of seeking closer US-Russian relations.

As noted in this below piece, these sanctions are crock based: https://www.rt.com/news/435576-russia-us-sanctions-reactions/

On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge. He leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK, there're Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the Russian government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to kill two birds (so to speak) in one shot.

Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government disclosure on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the Russian government.

Mitleser , August 10, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT
@Polish Perspective

I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions.

Seconded. Washington is too much in love with their sanctions.

It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit yet have a bright future ahead of them.

What about Turkey?

Dmitry , August 10, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT
@Kimppis

Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's

It's up to 50% of the federal budget in recent years, is funded by oil and gas revenue, although in low oil price years the proportion can fall (to lower 40s%).

When the proportion falls, then you are by definition financing a federal budget in other ways, which are usually less politically popular.

You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.

Raising pension age (as needs to often be repeated to people) is necessary and reasonable, but raising VAT is a bad thing as in most countries.

Karlin is probably too pessimistic about oil price demand peaking in 2020s (demand for oil probably peaking in the 2030s).

Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms, reduction of size of government sector, increase in proportion of private sector in many areas, investment in education for future industries.

Mitleser , August 10, 2018 at 6:05 pm GMT
@Dmitry

Aeroflot is about to buy 30 Boeing 737s from America – and now this is in danger.

Aeroflot should cancel the orders and buy the Airbus 320s Iran was supposed to get.

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
@Cagey Beast

But they fail to produce the next generation of consumer-citizens. Or is the Western elite so shortsighted? To the level of "après moi le déluge"?

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 6:09 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Agree. Aeroflot should not buy anything American. Neither should Iran or Syria. The most sensitive part of the US anatomy is the wallet.

Lars Porsena , August 10, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
Having Russia go pirate on US copy-rite laws could be interesting. Do you think the US would build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing Russian content, and could they actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like back in the good old 90′s days with Napsternik?

Russia might even make some headway with Pirate Party types. Information belongs to the people, comrades! Also Russia switching to Linux would probably lead to an increased development of Linux.

g2k , August 10, 2018 at 7:00 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Looks like these sanctions will force their hand: their new narrowbody airliner was going to have pratt and witney engines with the aviadvigatel ones only for government planes. Not sure what the exact reasons for this were: p&w ones have a slightly higher bypass ratio, it allows international buyers to utilise existing service infrastructure or aviadvigatel's ability to mass produce might be crap. If the us imposes a complete export ban they'll all have to have them.

Russia's current widebody airliner is pretty much obsolete though.

Dmitry , August 10, 2018 at 7:03 pm GMT
Aeroflot had benefited from collapse of Transaero. They're getting 35 planes (all Airbus and Boeing models) from the Transaero fleet and are putting them into Aeroflot fleet this year.

With Boeing, they also had an order of Dreamliners, which they cancelled a few years ago. Although that was just because there was a downturn in long-haul flights. New Boeing 737 orders are for building up their lowcoster "Pobeda".

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 7:03 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

For that, Russia needs to produce all types of civilian aircraft, like the USSR did. That's hard after the 1990s, when the traitors destroyed Russian aircraft industry. There are moves in the direction of restoring it, in cooperation with China. However, they both need to be able to build aircraft w/o any parts from the US and its vassals. That would take 5-10 years. In fact, US sanctions pushed Russia and China in the direction of self-sufficiency very hard. In Russian it is called "sawing off the bough you sit on". The West is really good at that lately.

reiner Tor , August 10, 2018 at 7:03 pm GMT
@g2k

These sanctions might be a net positive for Russia in the long term, forcing them to develop indigenous industries instead of just importing everything from the oil revenue.

reiner Tor , August 10, 2018 at 7:17 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Probably working together with China is the easier way, and more feasible economically.

Daniel Chieh , August 10, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT
@Lars Porsena

Do you think the US would build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing Russian content, and could they actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like back in the good old 90′s days with Napsternik?

The "free market" of Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify will protect good Americans from fake news.

El Dato , August 10, 2018 at 7:24 pm GMT
@Lars Porsena

Also Russia switching to Linux would probably lead to an increased development of Linux.

I would finally have a good reason to learn me some Russian.

Thorfinnsson , August 10, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@g2k

Presumably they can still source from Rolls Royce. The UK is a smaller economic power than America and presumably less interested in sabotaging one of its crown jewels (never rule it out with the UK ofc).

Russia's aerospace technology is inferior to the West, but that's irrelevant since Russia can simply force Russian carriers to purchase Russian aircraft. Higher operating costs relative to foreign carriers can be addressed with subsidies (or tariffs).

Prioritizing your own technology also creates the option of charting an independent technological course. For instance, instead of building swept-wing jets with low bypass turbofan engines optimized for transonic cruise, you could build straight-wing aircraft with propfans optimized for low fuel consumption. You can also build supersonic aircraft and experiment with different planforms than the boring one established by the Boeing 707.

Thorfinnsson , August 10, 2018 at 7:34 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

This is already in the works with the CRAIC CR929. Engineering in Moscow, assembly in Shanghai. Will be in service around a decade from now.

German_reader , August 10, 2018 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

It's kind of funny how many Americans feel threatened by Iran. Regarding Russia as a threat at least makes a certain sense given Russia's nuclear arsenal and ability to destroy the US.

Felix Keverich , August 10, 2018 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Every time Medvedev opens his mouth, he makes me cringe. Seriously, if you're going to proclaim an "economic war", against USA no less, then you better explain how Russia is going to fight back and win. Smart Russians will be heading to currency exchange ( обменный пункт ) after hearing this statement.

reiner Tor , August 10, 2018 at 7:58 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

More fuel consumption than is usual with modern aircraft, noisier passenger cabin, more external noise (also important for some airports with regulations restricting noisy aircraft), less safety, etc.

It's just not competitive to operate them. Airlines have very low margins anyway, you cannot make a profit with obsolete aircrafts.

Mitleser , August 10, 2018 at 8:50 pm GMT
@German_reader

On the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ideologically far more committed to anti-Americanism than the RF.

Mitleser , August 10, 2018 at 8:53 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

if you're going to proclaim an "economic war", against USA no less, then you better explain how Russia is going to fight back and win.

Sun Tzu would disagree. Why let the enemy know what you are planning to do?

Dmitry , August 10, 2018 at 9:50 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

There are a couple of new planes which Aeroflot is going to buy/buying for shorthaul – Superjet 100 and MC-21. Karlin was blogging about these planes a few weeks ago.

Airtickets are a freemarket, and most passengers don't want to fly in unsafe old planes like Tu-154

A single crash can be even fatal for an airline – crash of an An-148 has earlier this year, destroyed Saratov Airlines

As a customer, I don't think there is any disgrace in buying Boeing and Airbus. All major airlines now, and around the world, are using mainly Airbus and Boeing, and have now retired the Tu-154.

Gerard2 , August 10, 2018 at 9:52 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress Russian economic growth

AND also Ukraine's, Moldova's, Georgia's, the Baltics and the friendly countries like Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan etcetera. If anything the US's moron, scumbag policy towards Russia ends up doing the exact opposite of what it intends to do Ukraine, Moldova, Gerogia and Baltics then become more financially interlinked and even dependent on Russia than they were before.

But in the circumstances ..is guaranteed 1% or 1.5% GDP growth per year for the next decade even that bad considering the circumstances? Every social/infrastructure element is improving in Russia

Felix Keverich , August 10, 2018 at 10:08 pm GMT
@Mitleser

The enemy is probably laughing his ass off at Medvedev. One simply should NOT be making such statements as a prime-minister of Russia. Here is another fool, who doesn't understand currency markets:

Gerard2 , August 10, 2018 at 10:13 pm GMT
@Dmitry

You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.

It's fake outrage and fake unpopularity on these two issues. 18% increased to 20% is a non-issue ( the budget is being spent significantly better than ever to offset this increase in VAT)

A lot of nonsense about "long overdue" get's said about pension reform but this is total BS. Yes Russia has 48 million out of 146 million as pensioners, but the most important thing is the unexpected , way above average increase in life expectancy . that has actually instigated this move by the authorities.

Those approaching retirement won't suddenly have to work 1-5 years longer they can still opt-in to the current arrangements in the overlapping period.. and with guarantees pension increased much further to corresponding inflation levels than now.

Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms

Disagree with this .the same patterns that have been shown in the last 4 years need to continue, no radical "reform" is necessary. Small and medium sized business have gone from 10 million to 20 million people and should easily reach the target in afew years time that the President wished for in May,credit behavior and availability is becoming more and more western,

Instead of saying "reduction in size of government sector" you must specify exactly which areas of state control should be privatised .too often from liberasts their focus is solely on getting state control off critically important energy resources and distribution .nothing else.

Cyrano , August 10, 2018 at 10:45 pm GMT
Americans see the Russians as greatness deniers. Their European lackeys are their greatness-acknowledgers – even when it's detrimental to their own survival.

If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers – the role of the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.

Russia is not a part of the audience, it's not even a heckler. It's a performer, it has always been, and a very talented one too. To try to demote them to the role of spectators, or to try to usher them out of the concert hall can be suicidal, they have enough musical instruments to put on a remarkable concert – even if afterwards no one is left to applaud.

Mitleser , August 10, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

One simply should NOT be making such statements as a prime-minister of Russia.

What statements should the PM make?

Anonymous [899] Disclaimer , August 10, 2018 at 11:12 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Yes we can.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mouse-grown-from-its-mothers-skin-cells-2016-10

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2109305-eggs-made-from-skin-cells-in-lab-could-herald-end-of-infertility/

Daniel Chieh , August 10, 2018 at 11:31 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Mice and humans are quite different, results applying to mice apply to humans less than 50% of the time. The loss rates on this, at any rate, are insane:

Of the 1348 embryos they made, eight pups were born.

Anonymous [931] Disclaimer , August 11, 2018 at 12:16 am GMT
@Daniel Chieh

Every beginning is hard. Considering that all the cutting edge research in fertility/cloning/artificial wombs is done on shoestring budgets, the progress is amazing. Imagine what could be done with sufficient funding.

Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better Russians.
The West is stymied by the "pro-lifers" of the right and "bioethicists" of the left, and this is Russia's chance. Unlike the origial M project, Russians can keep things secret, and even if the West will suspect something, what can they do? Impose sanctions?

In the thirties, ignorant Caucasian moustacheoid gangster picked the Lysenkoists over the scientifically correct Darwinist transhumanist eugenicists. Time to undo this mistake.

utu , August 11, 2018 at 12:37 am GMT
@Anonymous

Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better Russians.

And it will have as much impact on the outcome of the looming confrontation as the Mengele's research had on the outcome of the WWII.

utu , August 11, 2018 at 2:01 am GMT
@Polish Perspective

He's also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?

The west has no qualms about using Islamist. Radical Islam has been used in 1950s against Nasser's regime in Egypt. Islamist were used against secular pro Soviet regime of Afghanistan and then against Assad's Syria, Hussain's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya. The equation is complicate: on one side you have Israel's Yinon Plan and global neoliberal and Islamists and on the other side you have secular national countries that try to build greater sovereignty and stronger state.

Majority of Islamist are just useful idiots while some among the leadership are operatives of western security services. Sometimes they break off the leash like Hamas which it does not seem to be controlled by Mossad anymore but it still does everything from the wish list of Israel's hard-liners.

My pet theory is that Islamist of Iran who destroyed the fast growing and developing Iran of Shah were also used by some foreign interests in the west and/or Israel. Shah himself believed it was the British.

You should look at history of your own country in 19 and 20 century. To what extent all those patriots responsible for numerous and hopeless uprisings were useful idiots, dupes or operatives of foreign interests?

Mr. XYZ , August 11, 2018 at 2:09 am GMT
Question about the Skripal poisoning–if it wasn't the Russians, then who did it?

Also, it's interesting that Sergei Skripal's poisoning has resulted in much more Western action than Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning back in 2006 did.

Colin Wright , Website August 11, 2018 at 3:00 am GMT
' The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case basis. '

Now they'll have to pay the Israelis to get it for them. Does this count as aid to Israel?

Colin Wright , Website August 11, 2018 at 3:04 am GMT
If, without admitting guilt, Russia expressed her regret for the fact that Donald Trump won the election, would that open the door to a settlement?
Colin Wright , Website August 11, 2018 at 3:07 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

' Americans view Russia as a greater threat than Iran '

I can go along with that. Russia's a greater threat than Togo as well.

Anon [813] Disclaimer , August 11, 2018 at 3:39 am GMT
@German_reader

I am always puzzled to hear that lesbians require artificial insemination. I had a couple of friends who were a bit behind schedule, and were trying hard to conceive just before the last eggs would wither. Whatever they were doing, taking days off from work when the thermometer said so, shoving it at any price, and so on – it could not be described as pleasurable. So why would the lesbians not bear it if they so much need children?

On a more general note, I am puzzled as to how USSR survived between 1945 and 1989 without fainting at the thought that Americans would not recognize annexation of the Baltic jokes, that Russians would not be allowed to use dollars, or that Pokemon Go could be blocked in the Russian app store. Surely, if you have a population of idiots, like USSR circa 1989, who would think that it's their ow government blocking the dollar and Pikachu, it may gnaw at the roots of the state. But today's Russians can guess that with Putin or without him, with Crimea or without it, they are still seen as enemies of America, and will be treated accordingly.

utu , August 11, 2018 at 4:08 am GMT
@Anon

New state provision would cover fertility services for lower income women

https://nypost.com/2017/04/16/new-state-provision-would-cover-fertility-services-for-lower-income-women/

Conservatives pilloried the program, which sources said is a gift to an Orthodox Jewish community that has pressed for government-paid fertility services for 15 years.

Orthodox leaders called the budget measure a "significant victory" for women struggling to have kids in a community that traditionally values large families.

"This amendment will make it easier for women who would like to have children to do so," said Jeff Leb, a top lobbyist for Jewish nonprofits.

anonymous coward , August 11, 2018 at 7:25 am GMT
@Anonymous

scientifically correct Darwinist

Darwinism violates basic laws of probability theory and the observed fossil record.

It's a nice just-so story for the innumerate (most biologists are innumerate), but not in any way, shape or form science.

anonymous coward , August 11, 2018 at 7:28 am GMT
@Mr. XYZ

if it wasn't the Russians, then who did it?

Guilty until proven innocent? Don't open that Pandora's box. You're gleefully piling on the Russians now, but give a few years and the same gang might apply that principle to you in turn. Just because they hate Russians at this moment doesn't mean they hold any love for the rest of humanity.

Bukephalos , August 11, 2018 at 8:28 am GMT
@Polish Perspective

Brunson's captivity had dragged for quite long already, and we heard negotiations for his release made some progress before. However, Trump ramped up the rhetoric at a precise moment: when Turkey announced they would not only shirk new Iran sanctions (like they did in the past) but also were being vocal about this.

Seeing what ensued, again yes the S-400 was an irritant for a while already and certainly cumulate with other factors but the timeline is interesting. God forbid we conclude those who should not be named are ultimately setting the agenda here, not really the pastor's plight under islamist thugs.

Mikhail , Website August 11, 2018 at 8:45 am GMT
@Mr. XYZ

You could do a better job at reading this thread. See:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-sanctions/#comment-2458139

Excerpt –

On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge. He leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK, there're Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the Russian government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to kill two birds (so to speak) in one shot.

Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government disclosure on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the Russian government.

As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.

reiner Tor , August 11, 2018 at 9:05 am GMT
@anonymous coward

That's wrong, except about the innumeracy of the majority of biologists. Evolutionary biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of them are numerate (like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).

anonymous coward , August 11, 2018 at 9:29 am GMT
@reiner Tor

[MORE]

That's wrong

It isn't. I'm a professional, trust me.

Evolutionary biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of them are numerate (like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).

Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form a semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.

(A theory that will never be formed, because Darwinism violates the very basic theorems of probability and computation.)

anon [170] Disclaimer , August 11, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT
Sanctions are more or less equivalent to Neo Mercantilism. Currency devalued, imports surpassed, etc.

Last round led to Russian agriculture boom.

The US would not tolerate a sanctions equivalent industrial policy, Nr would the Russian people.

Just call it better than tariffs,

Never before have unintended consequences been so obvious.

utu , August 11, 2018 at 9:49 am GMT
@anonymous coward

[MORE]

Could you give an example of some probabilities? How do you calculate them and with what assumptions?

At resent article by Fred Reed the commenter "j2″ produced some numbers but I was too lazy and not certain that his starting assumptions were correct to verify it.

The Scalpel , Website August 11, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Mr. XYZ

If it wasn't the British, or ISIS, or the Martians, who did it?

Jaakko Raipala , August 11, 2018 at 10:55 am GMT
@anonymous coward

Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form a semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.

Such complete bullshit. Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics and an education in theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the practical applications, better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly deal with abstract theory. You clearly know nothing beyond high school level physics (or anything else for that matter).

Some fields of modern physics like thermodynamics ARE basically just pure probability theory applied to physical phenomena. If you take a random sample of research physicists from your local university, they're much more likely to be doing statistical mechanics rather than trying to find analytical solutions for their n-body problem and some application of probability is usually the most important field of mathematics for working physicists.

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 11:11 am GMT
@Mikhail

You're right again about the Litvinenko conspiracy, Mickey. The notion that the Russian government would want to eliminate somebody who had betrayed its secret service, written books denouncing Vladimir Putin for giving the order to murder the likes of Boris Bereszvsky, Anna Polikovskaya and others, accused the secret service of being behind the bombings of the Russian apartment buildings, just doesn't add up or make any sense. The fact that Litvinenko, while lying on his death bed directly accused Putin for being responsible for his death also didn't lend any value that it was indeed Putin behind his poisoning. It just goes to show you the lengths to which the enemies of Russia and Vladimir Putin will go to try and besmearch Putin's honorable name. But they'll never be able to fool somebody with your veracity and skillul analysis – keep up the great 'independent foreign analysis'!

Anatoly Karlin , Website August 11, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@Jaakko Raipala

anonymous coward makes it a point of pride to be as consistently wrong as possible.

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.

I wasn't aware of this and am glad that you pointed this out. Another incredibly strong reason not to believe that the Russian government was behind the Litvinenko poisoning. Isn't it time that you wrote a book, Mickey? I know that other book authors regularly rely on your input to write their own monographs, isn't it time that you put it all together and shared more of your thoughts with the world? Perhaps, Karlin might let you write a chapter in his forthcoming book 'The Dark Lord of the Kremlin'?

APilgrim , August 11, 2018 at 11:33 am GMT
'Russia-Sanctions' are pitiful ' Double-Standards ', written by ' Frustrated Globalists '.
Felix Keverich , August 11, 2018 at 1:30 pm GMT
Anyone wants to comment on this bizarre diplomatic spat, that Greece and Russia are having?

The abrupt deterioration in relations between Greece and Russia has intensified after Athens publicly accused Moscow of attempting to bribe state officials and meddle in the country's internal affairs.

Athens also rejected requests for entry visas from Russian Orthodox clerics heading for northern Greece's all-male monastic republic of Mount Athos.

The community is alleged to be a "den of spies" , with reports that Moscow has turned the Holy Mount – widely seen as the spiritual centre of Orthodoxy – into an intelligence-gathering operation with extensive funding of monasteries across the peninsula.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/11/greece-accuses-russia-bribery-meddling-macedonia-deal

Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in 2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.

anonymous coward , August 11, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT
@Jaakko Raipala

[MORE]

Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics and an education in theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the practical applications, better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly deal with abstract theory.

Untighten your panties. That was my point, which you managed to miss by blindly charging to M'Lady Science's defense.

Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy, computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly the "abstract theory" you're deriding.

The practical stuff physicists are using for solving practical, well-defined problems is useless here.

anonymous coward , August 11, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT
@utu

[MORE]

Some quick back-of-the-napkin calculations:

* Age of the universe is about 10^18 seconds.
* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45 seconds.
* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.

Now assume an ideal computer. Let each atom of the Universe be a CPU, operating as fast as physics allows.

That gives us an upper bound of 10^(18+45+82) = 10^145 CPU cycles for computation.

Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.)

If we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random combinations.

So if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose a Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so.

How much more complex is an E. Coli cell compared to a sonnet?

P.S. This is obvious, freshman-tier stuff unless you're blinded by ideology.

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 2:34 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

What' s to make of it? The article that you cite clearly explains what the row is all about:

Moscow announced the move weeks after Athens banned four Russian diplomats after accusing them of fomenting opposition to a landmark deal between Greece and macedonia, opening up the possibility of eventual Nato membership for Skopje.

Your own bizarre explanation betrays your own Russian reasoning:

Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in 2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.

Mitleser , August 11, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

My guess is that the Greek government wants to gain a powerful backer against Brüssel.

In Greece, he very often appears in public alongside Kammenos and spreads his political views on what is going on in the country via his Twitter account.

The influence goes so far that Pyatt unchallengedly criticizes the Greek judiciary and demands measures against anti-American demonstrators. Tsipras administration, arguing anti-Americanly itself at opposition times, on the other hand, fulfils every wish of the USA. While on the other side of the Bosphorus NATO partner Turkey is pushing its dispute with the US to the top, Greece's government is the most US-friendly since the overthrow of military rule in July 1974: NATO interests, gas pipelines and the regional influence of the North Atlantic defence alliance.

The coalition government of SYRIZA and the Independent Greeks agreed to the expansion of American military bases in Greece, including the stationing of nuclear weapons. This was not initially communicated to the public by the government, but only became known when the Secretary General of the Communist Party, Dimitris Koutsoubas, criticized it during public performances.

Secret diplomacy, as in the case of NATO, is also a characteristic of the Tsipras government in resolving the name dispute with northern Macedonia and in ongoing negotiations on border corrections with Albania. All negotiations are held in secrecy, with reference to the protection of state interests. There is no detailed information and no transparency regarding the reasons for the decision.

Athens is now providing NATO with the infrastructure for military bases in the event that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan withdraws his country from the North Atlantic Defence Alliance.

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Russland-weist-griechische-Diplomaten-aus-4130628.html

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator

Yes, that's is the infamous Pyatt who was ambassador in Kiev during the Maidan Coup.
He has been in Athen since 2016.

The case brings to the forefront the tension that seems to have been brewing between Athens and Moscow over the last two years, for reasons that have to do with regional security.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/230551/article/ekathimerini/news/greece-decides-to-expel-russian-diplomats

reiner Tor , August 11, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
@Mitleser

As late as this April Tsipras was still skeptical of the Skripal case.

But yes, probably they want America's friendship.

Sean , August 11, 2018 at 3:12 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Yeltsin was president when the bombings happened. Putin was only prime minister for a couple of weeks before the tower block bombings happened. Boris Bereszvsky killed himself (exiles are often miserable, Skripal wanted to go back) after Litvinenko, they were a couple of losers. No, Putin is a proud man, he sent the anti terror police to arrest Gusinsky not because of investigation into the apartment massacres of hundreds, but because that puppet show Dolls of Gusinsky's NTV portrayed Putin in a way he hated.

Who wouldn't want to inflict a horrible death on someone who accused them of being a paedophile? Litvinenko accused Putin of being a child molester and so Putin immediately issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered and a month he was poisoned (like apartment bombings, these things take a while to set up).

Felix Keverich , August 11, 2018 at 3:30 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

This brings me back to my point about Hitler & weak, foolish Eastern Europeans. Greek government is only behaving this way because it sees no risks in antagonising Russians whatsoever. Slapping sanctions on Greece (by banning tourism for example) might get them thinking.

Anatoly Karlin , Website August 11, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

One thing I saw is that they dislike Russia's support for replacing Greeks with Palestinians in the Orthodox Church in Israel.

https://www.facebook.com/pakopov/posts/1975263482518921

Israel Shamir had an article on that, interestingly enough: http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-greek-occupation/

Mitleser , August 11, 2018 at 3:44 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

No sanctions, just encourage the tourism branch to redirect Russian tourists to Turkey which can offer them more for less.

https://www.xe.com/de/currencycharts/?from=RUB&to=TRY&view=5Y

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 3:49 pm GMT
@Sean

Look, I'm not passing judgement on the veracity of these accusations, that Litvinenko made against Putler. I see that you've added another one to the list, that Litvinenko accused Putler of being a pedophile too. All I was pointing out was that there were many reasons why Litvinenko was a target for unfriendly Rusian actions, not like our resident 'Independent foreign Policy Analyst' Mike Averko who claims:

As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act.

Of course, he's a professional analytical type that always knows what he's talking about?

Sean , August 11, 2018 at 4:05 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Greece was told it had to join NATO to be allowed into the EU.

German_reader , August 11, 2018 at 4:11 pm GMT
@Sean

Greece has been a member of NATO since 1952, it joined the European Community in 1981.
It's odd though that a Greek leftist like Tsipras is pro-American, given the strong anti-American traditions of Greek left-wingers. But Tsipras seems to be an all-around scumbag anyway.

JudyBlumeSussman , August 11, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT

how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades

Russia can start taking China's side on an ad hoc basis, e.g. sending ships to the disputed sea and hassling US ships and planes. Russia could hassle them on the Northern half and China on the Southern half, a nice division of labor and multiplication of hassle for the US Navy.

Dmitry , August 11, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

You can read statements of their foreign ministry.

His statements to do with paranoia about Russian-Turkey relations – statement from Greece was claiming Russia is a "comrade in arms with Turkey".

If Greece is angry about something, it is usually related to Turkey.

As Russia becomes friendly with Turkey – they will find an excuse to be angry, and vice-versa.

Think about Trump is this week criticizing Turkey – so he is probably now a hero in Greece this week.

Greeks are also angry because they think Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society is trying to de-Hellenize Middle Eastern patriarchates .

Philip Owen , August 11, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
Russia has enough chicken legs of its own now. They are not washed in chlorine.

Disengagement will simply remove what little influence the US has on Russia. Russia's exports are utterly dominated by primary production which is entirely fungible. The US exports little of high added to Russia and the EU and Switzerland, Korea and increasingly China can replace that. Japan probably won't. Russia has been trying to play a softer game with Japan but both sides true imperialist nature keeps on re-emerging. Like the US, Japan has remarkably low levels of trade with Russia given the size of its economy. Switzerland does a lot of high end complex electromechanical systems, like the Germans. The Germans are good; The Swiss are perfect.

Dmitry , August 11, 2018 at 4:59 pm GMT
@Mitleser

I'm not really sure how low prices for Turkey can become lower. It's already very cheap.

Maybe further devaluation can contribute to the tourist market diverging more between Greece and Turkey. More and more poorer people will go on holiday to Turkey, as it becomes almost as cheap to go on holiday in Turkey, as it is to stay at home.

Maybe Greece can focus more on middle segment of the tourist market.

Sean , August 11, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT
@German_reader

Greece had withdrawn from the NATO military structure after the invasion of Cyprus by fellow member Turkey. If I remember rightly it was their own PM who told Greeks they had to go back into NATO to be allowed to join the EC.

Jaakko Raipala , August 11, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@anonymous coward

Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy, computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly the "abstract theory" you're deriding.

Bullshit. I have a pretty good education in probability theory both from the theoretical physics and mathematics departments so feel free to explain whatever point you think you have in as technical terms and with as much abstract math as you like.

I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X, Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me wrong.

anon [170] Disclaimer , August 11, 2018 at 5:41 pm GMT
@anon

It will have a negative impact on domestic Russian consumption short term. It's stupid, short sighted, and hard to reverse. Sanctions work best when used least.

German_reader , August 11, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT
@Sean

I hadn't known about Greece's withdrawal from NATO in the 1970s, interesting, thanks.

Jaakko Raipala , August 11, 2018 at 5:48 pm GMT
@anonymous coward

* Age of the universe is about 10^18 seconds.

"Age of the universe" is a pop sci concept. In the standard model of cosmology it is estimated that the universe has developed from a massively dense state to the current state in roughly 13 billion years. We can backtrack the development over that time with current theories of physics and then we hit a wall as matter is so dense that we'd need a quantum theory of gravity to go further back in time but we don't have that. We don't know how long the universe existed before that, actually we don't even know if time existed in the same manner. The earliest known state of the universe was NOT informationless (there were variations in mass distribution etc) so your assumption that patterns would emerge only in the following 13 billion years is false.

[MORE]

If you watch some pop sci documentary, they will explain all sorts of stuff about how the universe was at first some tiny point and there was a big explosion that spread it all over. This is all nonsense that was made up so that pop sci documentaries could have CGI graphics.

* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45 seconds.

There is no such thing as the "smallest possible unit of time". This is complete nonsense. You seem to get your knowledge of physics from science fiction movies.

There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small time scales (which have not been reached by experiment). This is not the same thing as postulating that there is some "smallest possible unit of time". Current theories of physics simply do not include such a thing.

* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.

We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.

AnonFromTN , August 11, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT
@Dmitry

Turks are a lot more orderly and competent than Greeks. In fact, I was surprised how much more organized Turks are: we rented a car in Ankara near railway station and returned it in another city near airport, and they delivered the car where we wanted it and then took it off my hands, without car rental agency at either point.

For Russians, there are two additional advantages: no visa is required (you just pay $20 at the airport, and they stick what they call "visa" in your passport), and the same services are cheaper than in Greece.

ploni almoni , August 11, 2018 at 6:10 pm GMT
@anonymous coward

"Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy, computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly the "abstract theory" you're deriding."

Phony Baloney.

Mikhail , Website August 11, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Empty calories sarcasm on your part.

The US went thru a period of noticeable politically motivated violence (in one form or another), that among other things included the murders of the Kennedy brothers, King, X, black children in a church, fatal Kent State shootings and the Manson involved murders.

There was absolutely no need for the Russian government to orchestrate the Moscow apartment bombings. The evidence is non-existent, with the so-called evidence being a put mildly creative stretch. On par with the idea that the US government sought and was involved in planning 9/11. Terrorism from Chechnya was a clear reality before the Moscow apartment bombings.

Mikhail , Website August 11, 2018 at 6:28 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

A disingenuous cherry pick on your part, along with empty calories sarcasm. It wasn't only his (as has been said) sympathy for Chechen separatism, but a combination of factors, in conjunction with that aspect.

What I said in full on this matter:

As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.

Mikhail , Website August 11, 2018 at 6:33 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks, designed to spin an otherwise faulty impression.

In comparison, there's better reason to be critical of the Kiev regime's stunt with Babchenko.

Spisarevski , August 11, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
It's a pity that the good things Macedonia is doing (like fixing its relations with Bulgaria and Greece and starting to slowly accept the real history as opposed to the shit made up by the Serbs, the communists and Tito) are all done for such a shitty reason like entering the EU and NATO.
Simpleguest , August 11, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

"Turks are a lot more orderly and competent than Greeks."

Hear, hear.

Mitleser , August 11, 2018 at 6:46 pm GMT
@Dmitry

Greece has an inferior tourist industry and plenty of great European competition (Spain, Italy, Croatia etc.)
Thanks to Cyprus, you don't even to travel to Greece if you want to be on vacation in a Greek-speaking country.

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 7:40 pm GMT
@Mikhail

'Svido cherry picking'?

Stick to the facts and do not reply back with your monotonous drum of often recited BS when you don't have a credible reply, Mickey!

I was specifically pointing out the paucity of information that you provided regarding your alternative suggestion that somebody other than Russian backed was responsible for Livinenko's demise. As I've already pointed out, I do not pass judgments on any of the aspersions that Litvinenko made against Putler, only that the smoking gun clearly points towards Moscow. If you've got something better, then present it I'd try something more clever than indicating that Litvinenko was in favor of Chechen separatists.

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT
@Mikhail

Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks, designed to spin an otherwise faulty impression.

Whoa, what do we have here? Another genuine ' Averkoism '??

You indicate that I ' include mis-informative cherry picks' to spin an otherwise faulty impression. Why yes, I guess that's what I can be contrued doing. Most impressions that you make are faulty' ' and deserve to be rebuked, don't you think? I think that what you meant to say was that:

Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks, designed to spin an otherwise accurate impression.

Mickey, you don't really want to be remembered for making 'faulty impressions ' now do you?

Cyrano , August 11, 2018 at 8:37 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

I have to agree with Mikhail here. I think that Litvinenko affair was like a dress-rehearsal for the most famous, daring and successful spy operation in history – the Babchenko affair.

You see, such a stunning operation like that takes years to perfect and for the Ukrainians Litvinenko was just a guinea pig on whom they tested their secret intelligence (OK, intelligence might be a stretch) operations skills.

And Litvinenko was an easy choice, the Ukrainians were sure that because of his background – it will be blamed on the Russians.

Nevertheless, this doesn't take anything away from the professionalism and mastery that Ukrainians displayed when they designed the Babchenko hoax. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Babchenko success story launches a new series of spy novels – maybe about agent 008 – where 008 is the IQ of the agent.

ThreeCranes , August 11, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

My take too rT. Economic warfare will not play out against Russia today as it did against Japan and Germany in the 1930′s; because while they were energy dependent, Russia has an abundance of oil and can and will–as you say–bootstrap its own industries inso far as they are able. They don't have to develop a surplus to trade since, like the USA 100 years ago, their population is sufficiently large to support a robust internal market.

Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.

Felix Keverich , August 11, 2018 at 9:59 pm GMT
@Dmitry

You can read statements of their foreign ministry.

His statements to do with paranoia about Russian-Turkey relations – statement from Greece was claiming Russia is a "comrade in arms with Turkey".

As Russia becomes friendly with Turkey – they will find an excuse to be angry, and vice-versa.

I feel that this is one of those situations, when you need to read between the lines. Turkey, religion and "meddling" ARE excuses for Greece. Trying to please Greece's creditors is the real issue here. It's a literal crackwhore of a nation, living from one tranche to another.

Hyperborean , August 11, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
@ThreeCranes

Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.

This is implausible, for reasons that have been discussed multiple times here, including recently.

Thorfinnsson , August 11, 2018 at 10:03 pm GMT
@ThreeCranes

China isn't a threat to Russia at present for many reasons.

See my comment on this: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/kissinger-sees-sense-but-its-far-too-late/#comment-2456313

The idea that the Chinese will move to seize Siberia is a ridiculous fantasy.

China and Russia already in the 1990s peacefully resolved all of their outstanding border issues.

China suffers from below replacement fertility and solved its food security issues in the 1980s, so the era of "Yellow Peril" population pressure belongs to the distant past. And in any case the Russian Far East is useless for agricultural purposes.

There are indeed some minerals in Siberia, but let's review some economic facts about China:

#1 exporter
#1 forex reserve holder
#2 creditor nation
#6 gold reserve holder

China can buy all the resources it needs. The main threat to China's economic security are the naval and air forces of the United States and Japan, and to a lesser extent the US Treasury and Commerce Departments. Expanding into Siberia does exactly zero to counter any of these threats, unless you think the Port of Vladivostok somehow enables the PLA-N to break out into the open Pacific.

Instead it multiplies these threats by pointlessly adding Russia to its enemies and eliminating the possibility of overland trade substituting for seaborne trade.

China is a security threat to Siberia only once the following are true:

1 – USA abandons Western Pacific in favor of hemispheric security
2 – China secures dominance over Second Island Chain
3 – China replaces USA as lynch pin of global financial (as opposed to just economic) system

And given China's cautious attitude, that might not be enough. For instance, a USA focused on hemispheric security would still be viewed as potentially dangerous by China owing to its blue water navy and dominance of the "Third Island Chain".

If China displaces the USA as the world's preeminent power, then there might be some cause for concern. But even then I'm not so sure–Russia would be Canada to China's America. The USA and Canada have had very good relations since the 1930s.

Lebensraum with Chinese Characteristics is not going to happen.

That's not to say everything will be hunky dory in Russian-Chinese relations. There are areas of friction like:

• Influence in Central Asia
• Chinese IP theft
• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad
• Competition for defense and nuclear exports

The CRAIC CR929 project looks great for now, but the gist of it is that while it's designed in Russia it will be made in China. Once China matches Russia in aerospace technology, what is Russia's role in this partnership? Seems like the most likely outcome is that Russian industry is reduced from producing aircraft to merely being a Tier One supplier and, perhaps, an engine supplier.

Will Russia be happy with that? I don't know. The UK decided to accept being reduced to this status after the commercial failure of its innovative but flawed postwar airliners cheerfully enough I suppose. Japan considered but decided against developing a complete aerospace-industrial base, though this may be changing (MHI Regional Jet, Kawasaki P1, MHI X-2 Shinden).

Mikhail , Website August 11, 2018 at 10:05 pm GMT
@Cyrano

He's a svido troll as evidenced by his ongoing distortions and omissions, which include not having a good comeback to the following:

As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.

Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 10:08 pm GMT
@Cyrano

So, do you have even one shred of any evidence linking the poisoning of Litvinenko with the Ukrainian secret service? If not, I wouldn't spend too much time writing your novel about 008 and Babchenko, unless you intend it for an audience of only one gullible reader, Michael Averko!

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 10:19 pm GMT
@Mikhail

His ' Italian friend '? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job too?

Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.

Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!

Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.

Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.

Mikhail , Website August 11, 2018 at 10:37 pm GMT

Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest?

Why Litvinenko himself, albeit (if true) in a possible unintended way. No proof that the Rusisan government did him in. No need to reply anymore to your rehashed trolling tripe.

Still no good answer to:

As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.

Dmitry , August 11, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.

Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order. Followed by IMF and ECB.

Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get their money back.

Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them), especially not accountants.

-

Reason for tensions with Greece, are the new relations with Turkey.

An alternative world, with a solvent Greece, they would be more angry, than currently weak, insolvent one – considering sale of S-400 to Turkey, construction of Akkuyu for Turkey, and recent decision for Turkstream.

Turkstream was always supposed to go to Greece, but two months ago, finally announced it's going to Bulgaria (with no mention of Greece).

https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-gas-bulgaria/update-1-bulgaria-says-will-be-entry-point-for-russian-turkstream-gas-link-idUSL5N1T16DI

For Turkstream it's now option if it needs to go to Greece at all – it could also reach Italy, via the Balkans.

In a Northern option that gets to Hungary and Italy over Serbia. (With no need of Greece).

At the same time, Israel, Cyprus and Greece are probably building a rival pipeline (probably not very economically rational), after Cyprus has discovered a gas field.

https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/cyprus-israel-greece-push-east-med-gas-pipeline-to-europe

Dmitry , August 11, 2018 at 11:02 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Well orderliness is not the only reason for holiday choice.

And Schengen visa is not a big deal for middle class tourists (35 euros).

Greece already has almost "too many" tourists (from around the world), for size of the country.

Greece receives 32 million tourists this year (while Turkey receives around 40 million a year tourism – and is six times larger than Greece in land area).

Perhaps Greece can even raise prices and market more for middle class tourists?

Mr. Hack , August 11, 2018 at 11:03 pm GMT
@Mikhail

You missed my reply in #143 with plenty of decent replies. I don't mind reprinting them for you, I know how prone you are to missing information that is contrary to your myopic belief system:

His 'Italian friend' ? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job too?

Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.

Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!

Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.

Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.

Anatoly Karlin , Website August 11, 2018 at 11:18 pm GMT
@ThreeCranes

Has been discussed to death on this blog, both in general, and recently.

Anatoly Karlin , Website August 11, 2018 at 11:30 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

• Influence in Central Asia

I believe Russia's loss of influence there is inevitable. China has $$$; Turkey/Islamic world has ethno/religious draw; USA has its hegemonic culture.

Russia has some fading sovok relicts, such as old political ties and the Victory Day cult.

However, China is displacing it gently, as opposed to batting it away as the US and EU are wont to do. This naturally makes Russia much better disposed than it otherwise would be.

• Chinese IP theft

Will become less of an issue as China converges with and overtakes Russia in many technological areas. For instance, the realization that China's MIC is progressing far faster than expected – without significant Russian tech transfer – has contributed to Russia dropping its inhibitions on selling the S-400 and advanced fighters to China in recent years. (An HBD realist could have told them as much, earlier).

• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad

The equitable arrangement would be for Russia to defer to China on North Korea and the Far East in general (though economic relations with Japan should be broadened), and to require that China do the same for Russia wrt to its Near Abroad.

But certainly a much more dominant China may no longer feel the need to honor such an arrangement.

• Competition for defense and nuclear exports

This will certainly be an issue.

Russia's nuclear technology is much further advanced than China's (the gap is much bigger than the rapidly dwindling one in the military sphere), and it doesn't appear to me that China is making a major R&D push in that area. I think Russia will continue to dominate global nuclear tech exports for at least 2-3 more decades.

AaronB , August 11, 2018 at 11:55 pm GMT
@Dmitry

Lol, NYC received 62.8 million visitors last year. One city.

Thorfinnsson , August 12, 2018 at 12:07 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Russia's current dominance of global nuclear exports is something of a fluke.

The West crippled its nuclear industry owing to pathological atomophobia. Design expertise didn't atrophy, but construction experience did. Result was massive cost overruns and endless delays on the few Western Gen III reactor projects. Now effectively priced out of the world market.

Japan suffered from the double whammy of Fukushima and Toshiba getting dragged down by the collapse of Westinghouse. Even though it's somewhat unfair, no one will now order Japanese reactors in the near future. The Japanese elite, once truly impressive in its atomophilia and determination to resist popular atomophobia, is no longer united on the issue either. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koisumi has for instance called for Japan to shut down all nuclear power plants.

Emerging competitor is South Korea. The Koreans successfully won the project in the United Arab Emirates, and within South Korea they have an excellent record of efficient construction. Fortunately for Russia, the very weak President Moon is a disgraceful atomophobe.

ThreeCranes , August 12, 2018 at 12:11 am GMT
@ThreeCranes

Thanks for your comments. I really wasn't referring to today, more to a tomorrow when China is the world's leading economy and the USA is struggling to enforce dollar supremacy.

Daniel Chieh , August 12, 2018 at 12:55 am GMT
@ThreeCranes

It's a big world to the south without powers with nuclear weapons.

Cyrano , August 12, 2018 at 12:59 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

You are looking at it from a wrong perspective, pal. I was simply expressing pride and admiration for the competence of the Ukrainian Secret Services. Why can't a fellow – even though admittedly phony – Slav like me feel proud of the accomplishments of a Slavic country that I look upon to for inspiration and guidance?

utu , August 12, 2018 at 1:10 am GMT
@anonymous coward

[MORE]

Interesting argument but it hinges on something that is not a part of it, i.e, what is special about the 458 letter sonnet? Your argument only demonstrates that if another world began 10^18 seconds ago it most likely would not produce the same 458 letter sonnet but it would produce some other sonnet which could have a meaning in this different world.

You could create similarly fallacious argument 'proving' that you cannot possibly exist. Assign probabilities p<<1 of an event that two of your ancestors met and procreated. What was a chance that your parent met and then go back to grandparents and so on. And soon you will obtain cumulative probability close to zero stating exactly what? That your life could not have happened?

I think it is east to be confused and tricked by probabilities. And this happens when we are sloppy in defining the space of events on which the probability function must be defined. When you are heating up water at some point there will me one molecule of H2O that will break free and evaporate. If this molecule asked the Nancy Kerrigan's question "Why me?" and began calculating the probability of this event soon it would have to conclude the even was impossible. The problem is with the question "Why me?"

Mr. Hack , August 12, 2018 at 1:38 am GMT
@Cyrano

Sounds like you're making some real progress – keep it up!

Cyrano , August 12, 2018 at 2:26 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

Thanks man, I am really trying. If I may confide in you, you know what I find the most admiring about the Ukrainians? Your keen sense of democracy.

I mean, it took you what – barely 4 years to figure out that Yanukovych was not democratic enough – and then boom – revolution. I mean you guys are sharp. Look at the Russians, they have been electing Putin since 2000 and they still haven't figured out that he is not democratic enough. You are way ahead of the game.

You know what I think? I think that one good coup is worth at least 5-6 regular elections. So if you guys were to stage another coup within – let's say the next couple of years – it's like you've gone through 12 regular elections of 4 years each. You know what – if I was you I wouldn't even bother with elections, elections are for dummies, just stick with coups and soon you'll overtake even Western Europe – democracy and economic development wise, so you won't even need their stinking EU.

Mikhail , Website August 12, 2018 at 2:32 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

You're still shooting blanks to this:

As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.

Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.

I can't help it if you don't know the specifics about Litrvinenko's aforementioned Italian friend. Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid they are. Then again, part of you might recognize that, seeing your cowardly anonymous empty calories insults.

Opposite to your shooting blanks is this precision reply:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/29/an-unhealthy-trump-putin-summit-fallout.html

Mikhail , Website August 12, 2018 at 2:35 am GMT
@Cyrano

In case you missed it:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/10/cold-war-in-the-sauna-notes-from-a-russian-american/

Thek ind of Russian-American views not getting propped in US mass media. Similar to the PC Ukrainian views getting the nod over Ukrainians thinking differently.

Mr. Hack , August 12, 2018 at 3:00 am GMT
@Cyrano

You're on the right track, buddy! I don't know why AP tries to continually put you in place by pointing out that you're not really a Slav, but some sort of Balkanized Turk. Who cares? Your last two comments indicate that you're capable of evolving your thinking patterns much higher that the typical 97 or 98. Heck, I'd guess that you're a solid 99! Keep it up!

Mr. Hack , August 12, 2018 at 3:08 am GMT
@Mikhail

[MORE]

Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid they are.

I see that you're still babbling on Mickey. Isn't it time for you to do a few rounds of kumbaya in front of your icon of Herr Putler and go to sleep yet?

As La Russophobe imagines it, Averko then sits down in the lotus position, the room lit by a single candle beneath a large photo of Stalin, and intones his mantra several thousand times: "I am a journalist I am a journalist I am a journalist " until he falls asleep. When he wakes up, he heads out to his day job flipping hamburgers at Wendy's

Chainsaw1 , August 12, 2018 at 5:05 am GMT
@anonymous coward

[MORE]

"Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.) If we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random combinations. So if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose a Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so."

The above just shows that the author is just completely ignorant of scientific, statistics and computing principles.

First in English the occurance of letters do not have random frequencies, the frequencies range from 0.074% for letter z to 12.702% for letter e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency

Next the letters are not combined randomly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetic_principle Next there are pattern the letters are used to form phonetics. The English language only has 40 sounds (English orthography) the combination of which form the words. Then there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemic_orthography

Incidentally sonnet 27 only has 80 unique words, many of which are not random but closely related, e.g. blind, old, sight, tired, sightless, see, ghastly, shadow, darkness, expired, eyelids, drooping, weary, bed, toil, view, night, etc. A task simple enough for markov text sonnet generators,

http://www.devjason.com/2010/12/28/shakespeare-sonnet-sourced-markov-text-generation/

https://www.prism.gatech.edu/~bnichols8/projects/markovchains/main.shtml "Shakespeare Sonnets Training Set"

and the more sophisticated that the word frequency will be generated from the 154 Shakespeare sonnets and will preserve the classic ABAB CDCD EFEF GG rhyme scheme of the sonnets, https://medium.com/@SherlockHumus/creating-markov-chain-based-sonnets-9609d77a2635

By trying to shuffle 26^458 random letters by brute force into sonnet showed that the author is only good at shuffling shits.

utu , August 12, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
@Chainsaw1

[MORE]

After showing off that you know statistics of character string in English language try to explain what is your point.

RadicalCenter , August 12, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT
@Mr. XYZ

If it wasn't a setup by formerly-great formerly-Britain, who was it?

Mikhail , Website August 12, 2018 at 5:57 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

[MORE]

Your uncritically citing LR is indicative of one stupid anonymous coward referencing another.

anonymous coward , August 12, 2018 at 6:24 am GMT
@Jaakko Raipala

[MORE]

I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X, Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me wrong.

What's the "it" in your post, exactly? Darwinism? The problem with Darwinism is that it's not a scientific theory. It's not even formulated correctly. The problem itself is framed by biologists in handwavey terms on a "monkeys and typewriters" level.

When one tries putting some sort of numbers to the idea, the whole thing falls apart. See my post above, for example, where it turns out you need a Universe about 10^300 larger than ours to make random selection work.

And before you charge to M'Lady Science's defense: note this isn't a "disproof", it's just a demonstration that nobody bothered to frame the question properly yet. There's nothing there that can be proved or disproved.

anonymous coward , August 12, 2018 at 6:34 am GMT
@Jaakko Raipala

[MORE]

Congratulations, you missed the point again.

The actual point is that biologists framed a problem in a way that doesn't match the scale of our Universe as we observe it.

Feel free to correct the numbers I made; maybe the correct factor is 10^100 instead of 10^300. So what? The processes biologists postulate are so asymptotic that they require an infinite Universe, which doesn't exist in real life.

There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small time scales (which have not been reached by experiment).

We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.

Good point, but no. You missed the point again.

Any theory that requires time or space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding of physics isn't Darwinism. It wouldn't even be biology, because biologists don't (and can't) deal with stuff like that.

anonymous coward , August 12, 2018 at 6:39 am GMT
@utu

[MORE]

I never assigned any special meaning to a sonnet. I merely demonstrated that the size of the probability spaces we're traversing are unimaginable orders of magnitude larger than the Universe we observe.

Formulating the probability spaces and functions should be step one of any biological theory of evolution. Only then we can start talking about meanings and other philosophy.

anonymous coward , August 12, 2018 at 6:43 am GMT
@Chainsaw1

[MORE]

Good point, but unfortunately Markov chains (and evolutionary algorithms) are intelligent design, not random evolution.

They are tools for getting an answer when you know the result you want, but don't know the steps to get it. The better you understand the result you want, the faster you arrive at a solution.

That's a framework postulated by 'intelligent design' proponents, and rejected by conventional Darwinist biologists.

utu , August 12, 2018 at 7:38 am GMT
@anonymous coward

[MORE]

I never assigned any special meaning to a sonnet.

OK, so what is the big deal about generating random string of 458 letters? Any such string can be easily generated with the same probability from a bag full of letters. Each string is equivalent.

utu , August 12, 2018 at 8:20 am GMT
Important speech of Victor Orban

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's speech at the 29th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp

http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/prime-minister-viktor-orban-s-speech-at-the-29th-balvanyos-summer-open-university-and-student-camp

AquariusAnon , August 12, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT
Continuing on AKarlin's conclusion how Russia's future economic and foreign policy orientation lies on the EU's response to the US's inevitable Iran-style sanctions against Russia, I'll walk through some situations, and also state that once sanctions and adversaries with unfriendly relations escalate to embargo and enemies with no relations on the US side, the EU's decision at that point will be able to determine its fate for a long time to come.

1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own whatsoever, follows US policy. This is more likely to happen if the US threatens third party trade ties with Russia. This means that EU imposes Iran-style sanctions, and gradually turns to more expensive US LNG for energy. This would put the EU under incredible strain, and a large amount of state coffers would be shaved off due to these purchases; the citizens disposable income would plunge too. On the other hand, Europe won't really collapse if the US agrees to subsidize gas sales to the EU in exchange for joining the ideological crusade against Russia.

In the Kissinger thread where I mentioned how a blackpilled possibility of Russia's future lies as a vassal state, or junior partner, of China, while I may have exaggerated a little regarding permanent PLA bases on Russia soil, it still is a slight possibility if the oligarchs become more powerful again and also get a little desperate. However, PLA bases aside, if the EU joins in the US on an embargo against Russia, Russia would still be cut off from trade and other ties to its west, and inevitably having to completely rely on its east for trade and political ties. Since even Japan/Korea trade can be a little difficult due to their strong US ties and India doesn't really offer Russia much, except as a place to export some goods, this leaves us with China, rendering Russia's future as China's largest and most important vassal state.

This would also enable the EU branch of neoliberalism.txt to show their true colors as an American vassal. Outside of Poland and the Baltics, attitudes towards Russia vary directly on how neoliberal they feel, so in order to prevent the people from voting in non-neoliberal parties, some "checks and balances" aka non-democracy has to be implemented to make sure neoliberalism.txt stays via "voting". In this case, shave off a good at least 10% to EU's white percentage in the long run also; while its unlikely for Britain and France to ever dip below 60% white but stabilize around that point instead, a quasi-neoliberal dictatorship would mean Eastern and Southern Europe bearing a lot of this brunt, e.g. ghettos in Warsaw might go from a fear to actual reality. And expect the EU's economic growth to be highly stagnant, and China, with Russia as not just a friendly state but a vassal state, would take advantage of this to end up becoming the other pole in a bipolar world along with the US.

Unless China changes the way it conducts trade and foreign policy, this means that Russia will likely get taken advantage of and not get too much in return, especially with non-patriotic and greedy oligarchs still having significant power. In this case, Russia-China relations will resemble a more predatory version of UK/Canada-US relations and Russia will find itself to be a largely China-oriented, with Chinese tourism, businesses, language, and other ties etc. having a very broad, visible, and dominating presence.

Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran. China will gladly take advantage of the situation.

2. The EU doesn't cave in and continues to maintain trade and political ties with Russia. This is the better result for not just Russia, but also the entire world. A Europe that's able to stand up to American foreign policy, especially if its more ideological hysteria than based on realpolitik in the case with Russia, is one that would have taken its first step towards significantly reasserting their sovereignties. This would've also been a huge blow to the American establishment, if not THE nail in the coffin ending American unipolarity. And China also needs more competitors instead of a bipolar world with just China and America.

2a). Europe continues to be ruled by neoliberalism.txt as America enforces the embargo. Sanctions won't be lifted and the status quo remains. As China gets more powerful and European relations still cold, Russia and China will end up in a full-blown alliance, but its status quo trade and personal ties with Europe would ensure that Russia can continue to maintain a somewhat multi-vectored approach instead of complete subservience to Beijing. And Russia won't be as much of a "hot potato" if not embargoed by the EU, ties with countries like Japan and South Korea will continue unabated if not upgraded. In this case, the EU can still be a more sovereign entity, albeit just ruled by the neoliberalism.txt ideology; demographically, slightly better than, but no significant differences from the EU caving to US embargo case. In this case, Russia-China relations will resemble Japan-US relations, albeit without the military bases.

Chance of this happening? 40%.

2b). Europe undergoing a right-wing wave as America enforces the embargo. Europe in this case will lift sanctions against Russia and ties likely even upgrade to a strategic partnership. While Russia will not become enemies with China since it is in its best interest to not pick a fight with the world's #1 or #2 power, its relationship will stabilize as non-adversarial but non-aligned, a renewed strategic partnership with Europe can stimulate Russia's economy and will ensure a multipolar world emerges in the 21st century, with Russia as a powerful 3rd or 4th most powerful country on good terms with everybody (minus the US and parts of Eastern Europe). Such close ties to Russia will also be a boon for Europe's economy, and the possibility to regain their sovereignties after a century-long occupation post-WW2. America becomes more isolated and loses its unipolarity in this case.

An unrelated side effect of this tactic is that the nonwhite percentages of Europe will probably stabilize at or just above or below (in the case of southern Europe) current values.

In this case, Russia-China relations won't be any special, with close trade relations, some military cooperation, and neutral détente but inevitable minor beefs that spring up every once in a while, like a closer and better version US-China relations pre-Trump. Russia in this case will truly be one of the smaller poles in a multipolar world.

Chance of this happening? 30%, but this is by far the best outcome for the entire world.

Mitleser , August 12, 2018 at 9:24 am GMT
@Dmitry

Perhaps Greece can even raise prices and market more for middle class tourists?

And encourage tourists to travel to other countries?

anonymous coward , August 12, 2018 at 9:36 am GMT
@utu

[MORE]

Good point. If 1/2 of all random strings of letters are sonnets, then the probability of generating one is 50%. Let's test that hypothesis.

Take a dictionary of English words: https://github.com/dwyl/english-words

* There are 27 words of one letter and 26 letters.
* There are 635 words of two letters and 676 two-letter combinations.
* There are 4710 words of three letters and 17576 three-letter combinations.
* There are 11169 four-letter words and 456976 four-letter combinations.
* There are 22950 words of five letters and 11 million five-letter combinations. (Oops.)

* There are 61018 words of 8 letters, but 208 billion 8-letter combinations.

Now, these are words, not texts, but you get the idea. Letter combinations grow as c^n, while the number of English texts clearly doesn't.

Mitleser , August 12, 2018 at 9:41 am GMT
@AquariusAnon

1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own whatsoever, follows US policy.

Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran.

Eh, what? It is not EUropean rhetoric that suggests that, but the gap between their rhetoric and reality.
Europeans talk about defending JCPOA yet European big business ditches Iran and European banks stab Iran in the back.

In recent weeks, U.S. and European intelligence agencies flagged a European-Iranian Trade Bank request to withdraw 300 million euros from the Deutsche Bundesbank. Iran claimed the cash is necessary so that Iranian citizens can use foreign currency when they travel, but Western governments warned that the cash would be used to fund Iran's terrorist proxies.

Fearing repercussions from the U.S. Treasury, the German bank decided last week to introduce the new rules to prevent the withdrawal. This move was likely coordinated with the German government.

In recent months, the E.U. has said that it will try to salvage the Iranian nuclear deal, despite the U.S. withdrawal and renewed sanctions.

Initially, the E.U. explored the possibility of compensating European firms that would be affected by the new sanctions, using the European Investment Bank.

This effort was torpedoed by the EIB, which said it might be blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury of it was part of a scheme to offset the sanctions. EIB President Werner Hoyer said two weeks ago that "doing business in Iran is something that we cannot be actively engaged in."

https://www.jns.org/wary-of-repercussions-eu-unlikely-to-defy-us-sanctions-on-iran/

AquariusAnon , August 12, 2018 at 9:47 am GMT
@Mitleser

Didn't know that. I'll keep that as a note.

So my 3 predictions are essentially, Iran-style western embargo, status quo with embargo only on US side, and normalization of relations with Europe. How would you recalibrate the likelihoods?

Felix Keverich , August 12, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
@Dmitry

Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.

Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order. Followed by IMF and ECB.

Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get their money back.

Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them), especially not accountants.

You assume that Greece is the rational actor in this situation. It's a stupid crackwhore, desperate for a bit of debt relief.

It is also fair to say that Western decisions on financial aid are not made by accountants, ultimately they are made by politicians, who do consider geopolitics.

Surely Greece can see that IMF is dumping billions of dollars into the Ukraine for no other reason than geopolitics. Ukrainian regime also got a nice debt relief a couple of years back – to better resist "Russian aggression".

utu , August 12, 2018 at 10:25 am GMT
@anonymous coward

[MORE]

So it comes down to the meaning after all. You look for words that have meaning. But why? Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not know of. Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on what has meaning in English language? There are some believers in the intelligent design like yourself in Pentecostal church who speak all kind of tongues nobody heard of them but to them they have some meaning. There are patients in psychiatric wards who write 458 letter sonnets that have meaning only to them. So why did you pick up this particular Shakespeare sonnet to calculate a number that suppose to prove something?

Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument?

utu , August 12, 2018 at 10:29 am GMT
@Mitleser

Interesting. It looks really bad.

Miro23 , August 12, 2018 at 10:57 am GMT

2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US sanctions against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine precisely how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.

This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to 1) develop its own international settlements system based on a Euro reserve currency 2) redirect trade and investment towards the ROW (rest of the world), if necessary, excluding the US 3) become a reliable non-political trade partner to these countries 4) make a unilateral decision to terminate NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism.

The place to start would be the termination of NATO, but it would be better to implement the policies simultaneously. It would initially be very costly to European corporations, but ultimately worth it, with new more predictable international relationships.

AquariusAnon , August 12, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT
@Miro23

This is exactly what I meant by my response. Not only will EU's response to the upcoming US embargo be instrumental in writing Russia's role and development in the 21st century world, but also if the EU ever wants to transform from a neoliberalism.txt US vassal experiment to either an independent "Great Power" quasi-federation (essentially USSR 2.0 after the revolutionary phase died down, Communism replaced by neoliberalism.txt), or to break up as wholly sovereign states, a continuation if not strengthening of relations with Russia will be a pivotal first step for that to happen.

Jaakko Raipala , August 12, 2018 at 11:35 am GMT
@anonymous coward

Feel free to correct the numbers I made;

There is no reason to look at any further steps in your calculations when you begin with false premises.

[MORE]

Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No. The earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity. Even if you somehow managed to argue that the complexity of life on earth is too high to emerge in 13 billion years, it would still be of no consequence to Darwinism since we don't need it to emerge in that time – 13 billion years ago is not some patternless zero state of complexity.

In fact, for all we know the emergence of life on earth could have already been determined in the earlier state of the universe 13 billion years ago. That's implausible to me but a lot of people believe in an intelligent creator and you can easily just postulate that he baked the emergence of man in the design of the early universe and then you're in no contradiction with modern science whatsoever.

Where did the patterns and complexity in the early universe come from? We don't know since the current theories of physics can't probe that far. In fact, as I said before, the whole "age of the universe" thing is a false notion that unfortunately some physicists peddle as a simplification of cosmology. What we can do is trace back the development of the universe from this point in time and we can go back 13 billion years and conclude that the universe back then was a very different place, in a very dense state that gradually "expanded" into the current one.

However in this process we run into a dead end as to study such dense states we'd need to make the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics work together and we can't do that currently. Hence, everything "earlier" than that is pure speculation, in fact we don't even know for sure whether there was a "before". This state beyond current theories has been dubbed the "big bang", "the beginning" and such but that's all just popularization. This has the unfortunate side effect that some people now believe physics to somehow have proven that the universe emerged from "nothing" 13 billion years ago and that's just not true.

And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe is X seconds old". You are the one who began with assumptions that require physics well beyond Newtonian mechanics.

Mitleser , August 12, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
@AquariusAnon

Most likely is "status quo with embargo only on US side" with limited shift towards "Iran-style western embargo". EUropean elites do not show much willingness to oppose Russophobia, but on the other hand Russia is much more integrated in the EU economy than the Iran.

For instance, the value of the trade in 2017 between Russia and Germany was 57,3 billion Euro (rank 14th), the number for the Iran-Germany trade was only 3,4 billion Euro (rank 58th).

https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesamtwirtschaftUmwelt/Aussenhandel/Tabellen/RangfolgeHandelspartner.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

That reduces their willingness to follow American sanctions.

Mitleser , August 12, 2018 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Don't bash Greece so much.

They are still making right decisions.

From 2009 to 2011, Syria supplied almost a fifth of EU imports of phosphate, but those sales collapsed during the war.

Official EU import data shows that phosphate shipments to Europe -- heading almost exclusively to Greece -- are resuming and more than tripled between December 2017 to April 2018. The volumes remain small compared to the pre-war heyday, but Syria is making a clear push to return to the EU market and its giant farm sector.

Syrian data show that total phosphate exports were more than $200 million in 2010.

Three people either working in the phosphate industry or involved with trading the commodity said Syria is able to export again because Russian investors have resurrected the Palmyra mines, which Islamic State militia captured in 2015. Assad awarded these reserves to the Russians last year after Moscow helped him turn the tide against ISIS.

anonymous coward , August 12, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT
@utu

[MORE]

So it comes down to the meaning after all.

No, it actually doesn't. The probabilities grow as c^n, while the Universe doesn't. No matter how big it is, it's still a fixed size due to the laws of conservation of mass and energy.

Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not know of.

Even if every atom in the observable Universe had its own language, the number of possible letter combinations would still be vastly bigger.

Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on what has meaning in English language?

I'm not "disproving" anything. I'm demonstrating that the "monkeys and typewriters" argument used by biologists (and its variants "the universe is really big" and "the Earth is really old" arguments) violate basic mathematical logic.

The Universe isn't really big. In fact, it is infinitesimal compared to the probabilities we're dealing with here.

Once biologists acknowledge this obvious fact, then we can formulate some sort of theory, and maybe then there will be something to prove or disprove.

Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument

Do you? The point is that we're traversing probability spaces here that grow exponentially, and yet nothing in nature can be exponential indefinitely. Somewhere in your assumptions is a grave error.

Mr. Hack , August 12, 2018 at 1:21 pm GMT
@Mikhail

[MORE]

What do you mean uncritically? I think that the citation is very critical of you. If you're looking for something even more critical, just let me know?

anonymous coward , August 12, 2018 at 1:25 pm GMT
@Jaakko Raipala

[MORE]

Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No. The earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity.

Very good point, and one I agree with. However, this is a variant of the Intelligent Design hypothesis, and is considered to be pseudoscience by biologists.

Like I said, I'm not "disproving" anything, merely pointing out that the way Darwinian evolution is framed by biologists is not science.

Maybe it can be reformulated in a way that makes sense, but don't hold your breath -- the biologists don't even understand the objections and fall back to the "Earth is, like, really old" argument.

And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe is X seconds old".

Again, the actual figure is irrelevant. The point is that we've posited an exponentially exploding probability space, and yet nothing in nature is infinite and exponential. (I know about the cosmology arguments about the finite/infinite universe, spare me. In any case, the observable Universe is definitely finite, and science only deals with the observable.)

AquariusAnon , August 12, 2018 at 1:26 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Now that Syria has all but won the war, I wonder when will rebuilding and eventually re-emerging as a stable country good enough for FDI and tourism will start. By then, I also wonder how it will be sanctioned.

My guess is that it will rebuild under Iran-style conditions back to more or less where it was in the early 2000s politically, economically, socially, and sanctions-wise starting around 2020 or so.

Anon [536] Disclaimer , August 12, 2018 at 1:34 pm GMT
"For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to the US has a simple response – banning US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia, period. It can resurrect a bill – first raised this May, since sunken in the legislature – to impose fines and prison time on individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated copyrights regimen out of the window."

As an American, I think Russia should do this and for good reason: the people who run this country are idiots; if this is allowed to stand, they'll continue to push this until we get a war. Best to head it off now by making the US Ruling Class pay the price. I especially like the last part. Russia should just host all Hollywood movies, books, and video games on a server accessible to American pirates (hey, Red States won't have problem with this these scum just voted to remove Trump's star on the walk of fame anyway).

Anon [360] Disclaimer , August 12, 2018 at 1:52 pm GMT
"This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to make a unilateral decision to terminate NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism."

Not going to happen for a variety of reasons. NATO is a good way to keep an incompetent, belligerent U.S. bogged down so that it doesn't cause any serious trouble for advanced nations. Take Germany for instance. The number of US troops there is quite small in an absolute sense, not enough to cause trouble, but combined with troops all over the place, the all-volunteer US military can't really marshall the numbers necessary to invade anyone without support from Europe. NATO is actually a clever way to control the aggressive tendencies of the United States; without it, there is no telling what the U.S. could do.

Europe also gets high-tech weapon systems in the process – and sold at a premium considering the enormous R&D costs involved. That's why German industrialists were stupid to provoke Trump and go around telling Europeans to not buy American weapons (those weapons are in some cases FAR superior to what the Europeans have and someone is definitely going to buy them considering the cost spent to develop them, either you or a potential enemy so it might as well be you). In all, it's good deal for them. They aren't going to chunk that for anything.

The real key here is for Russia to strike back in a way that doesn't galvanize the American public against them. My suggestion: cancel all American copyright protections and start hosting American movies and television programs. Conservative republicans won't oppose this as these programs are made in Trump-hating California – a place that just voted to remove Trump's star on the walk of fame.

Uebersetzer , August 12, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@German_reader

In fact, his "conservative" predecessor Samaras was more pro-German than pro-American. Tsipras is pro-American. He is leftist like Tony Blair is leftist.

Hyperborean , August 12, 2018 at 2:00 pm GMT
@Anon

Europe also gets high-tech weapon systems in the process – and sold at a premium considering the enormous R&D costs involved.

Right, which is why Denmark bought the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.

Buying American weaponry is often a combination of tribute, corruption and paying protection money.

dfordoom , Website August 12, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil, our economy will shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.

It still makes Russia look pathetically weak. The U.S. actions are essentially an act of war. If Russia just rolls over allows itself to get kicked then the U.S. is just going to keep on kicking. Cowardice is rarely a good policy.

reiner Tor , August 12, 2018 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Hyperborean

the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.

I bought into much of the criticism, and probably a somewhat better plane could've been made cheaper, but all in all I think it'll be a fine enough weapon, and probably better than any currently deployed Russian fighters. The Su-57 is not yet ready (and it's recently got questioned if it ever will), so you cannot meaningfully compare it to it.

Altogether if you want the very best fighter jet available in the market, then you should choose it, unless the costs are prohibitive for you. It's actually no longer much more expensive than 4+ generation planes. I think Boeing is trying to market the F-15X, which would be a newly produced version of the F-15 with all possible technologies (except stealth which is impossible for this frame), and it's not going to be meaningfully cheaper than the latest (and cheapest) F-35.

If buying Russian is politically possible for you, then the Su-35 might be a good cheaper alternative, though countries which are allowed to buy it are usually not sold the F-35. Maybe India (and perhaps soon Turkey?) is the only country where both could even be considered.

If the Su-57 were ready, then maybe we could talk about whether it was better than the F-35 (the answer would probably depend on a number of issues, e.g. the rest of the equipment used by the military in question, and of course politics, which is to say, if there was a chance of a political conflict with the supplier, because if yes, then obviously you'd need to buy from the other).

For most (but not all) roles the F-35 is at least as good as any other American fighter jet (except maybe the F-22, and maybe not even that).

Mitleser , August 12, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Altogether if you want the very best fighter jet available in the market, then you should choose it, unless the costs are prohibitive for you.

Or you do not want Lockheed use your combat jets to spy on you.

reiner Tor , August 12, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Yes, that's another risk.

Maybe that's why Israel uses its own software? (At least they rewrote part of the software, or so I read.)

Anyway, I don't think it's a bad fighter jet for the job of fighting America's enemies. Probably even against neutrals. It might be useless against America's friends, or America itself, but no one buys it for that. And actually it's probably useful against America, too, or else why is the US so reluctant to sell it to Turkey?

And probably the American idea that the Russians might use their S-400 to spy on other Turkish weapon systems (including the F-35), when in fact it's the Americans who use weapons they sell to do that. The Russians are probably too afraid to lose their reputations.

reiner Tor , August 12, 2018 at 3:32 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Interestingly, when I searched for it, besides RT, I only found an Israeli and an Australian site. It's not a widely reported news.

Thorfinnsson , August 12, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards. Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft.

That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors.

Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates. And on a small aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your stealth. F-35 stealth is in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band. It will be easily detected by long wavelength radars. In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft and firing AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where the F-35 will be dogmeat).

The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs.

As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical. Lots of air forces continuously modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits, etc. Why exactly is a new airframe needed for any of this?

That said it's not like the F-35 is awful , and as usual pilot skill and other factors can overcome inappropriate technology.

The F-35 also now costs less to buy than the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale, which is an important advantage. Gripen is much cheaper, but Sweden has no geopolitical clout and has a very bad habit of finding moralistic reasons not to export armaments.

If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise. France is also a reliable supplier. Worst choice is the Super Hornet. The F-16, while now quite an old design, is still a very capable aircraft at a reasonable price as well.

Japan now has a stealth fighter technology demonstrator in the MHI X-2 Shinden. They somehow built it, including with indigenous turbofans, for $360m. The airframe is very interesting in that it's built of new materials which eliminate the need for RAM, which should keep operating costs down and increase sortie rates. But this is only a technology demonstrator at this time, probably as proof-of-concept for the new materials and an indigenous low-bypass afterburning turbofan engine.

As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance. Russia's official reason for delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate for existing threats, which is probably true.

Who knows what the real reason is. Budgetary pressures perhaps? Russia wants to double capital spending in rouble terms in 2024, and to do so without increasing debt. At the same time it's continuing its import substitution efforts, and there are no moves to soaking the rich. So the money has to come from somewhere, and presumably that makes mass production of the Su-57 and T-14 Armata less attractive.

Mitleser , August 12, 2018 at 3:44 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

And actually it's probably useful against America, too, or else why is the US so reluctant to sell it to Turkey?

>study F-35 and its data
> get better at detecting/fighting F-35

It is probably one of the main reasons why the RoC (Taiwan) won't get this jet despite needing more than most. The risk that pro-PRC agents would have access to the F-35 is not small.

Felix Keverich , August 12, 2018 at 3:46 pm GMT
@dfordoom

Cowardice is rarely a good policy.

I agree. However, let's not forget that Russia and USA have very different weight and role in the international economy. USA effectively owns the system of international finance. That is to say "international finance" is but an extention of US financial system. They can exclude Russia, we can't exclude them (from the system they created and own).

If Russia is going to impose meaningful costs on the US, I think it can only be done through non-economic means. Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central American drug cartels?

Thorfinnsson , August 12, 2018 at 3:51 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Using your own software is common for technologically advanced powers concerned about their sovereignty and their own military-industrial capabilities. Japan for instance (after being bullied out of building its own indigenous fighter in the 80s) built its own upgraded version of the F-16 which, among other things, included Japanese software. Like Israel, Japan also fields its own air-to-air missiles which on paper are in the first rank.

The UK took a different route of becoming a Level 1 Partner on the F-35 program, so they received privileged access to the source code which is not available to other powers.

The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most anyone else. It actually could have some utility against America since America lags Russia and China in low-frequency radar and infrared search and track, but probably the real reluctance is safeguarding technology. In particular materials (e.g. the new RAM panels instead of finicky coatings) and the engines.

anon [356] Disclaimer , August 12, 2018 at 4:38 pm GMT
LOL. Not only the usual Russo-Ukro shitstorm that takes over every thread longer than 100 replies, but evolution-creation debate is there too.

This thread is officially over. RIP.

LondonBob , August 12, 2018 at 4:50 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Sun Tzu say avoid combat with superior force, bide time and wait till you are stronger. Of course doesn't take Sun Tzu to work that out, even if he did say it.

Dmitry , August 12, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

IMF funded by a lot of countries though – Russia now one of the top ten important creditors and more influential owners of the IMF (although it's proportion of ownership is still multiples times smaller compared to US).

Russia is 8th largest shareholder of the IMF (out of 189 countries). US is largest share-holder, and then Japan and China.

Decisions are based on member voting which is based on share in the organization, so Russia has 8th largest vote in IMF, but behind USA, Japan, China, etc.

Part of the Greek debt is owned by Russia through the IMF, probably relative to Russian ownership of IMF and the debt relief packages partly also funded from Russian loans.

Fortunately, IMF ownership of Greek debt is several times smaller than the eurozone countries. But Russia's government share of Greece debt will probably be some billions of dollars. That's how Greece can basically continue receiving money – so many countries are owed money on their debt.

Felix Keverich , August 12, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT
@LondonBob

Not really applicable in Russia's situation. We are already at war, it's entirely one-way for now, but that doesn't make it less of a war.

Cyrano , August 12, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Thanks man, that's what I have been craving all my life – an approval from a Ukrainian hick. You keep it up too buddy, your encouragement means the world to me.

Dmitry , August 12, 2018 at 6:50 pm GMT
@Gerard2

VAT is not a "non-issue". When you raise from 18% to 20%, then you are taking significantly more money from the whole population (including poor people) who want to buy things in private sector, and transferring this money to state sector, where not all extra money (to be "polite") is going to be used "wisely".

At the same time, a problem now is to have up to 50% of the federal budget from oil/gas revenues – which is a volatile priced resource.

So it's typical dilemma with neither option looking good.

Of course, the solution to both, is to reduce unnecessary government expenditure, which continues to grow all the time in many useless areas, to the extent that you can see expressed in even unhidden ways of the luxurious buildings being constructed for all kinds of different government offices who could really do their job just as well (or incompetently) in a warehouse or a polyester and nylon tent.

Mikhail , Website August 12, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

[MORE]

Your reading comprehension sucks.

You uncritically referenced an anonymous, lying coward (not too much different from yourself BTW), who ducked a live one hours BBC World Service radio panel discussion, much unlike the person who you've an obsession with.

Mikhail , Website August 12, 2018 at 7:15 pm GMT
@Mikhail

[MORE]

That's: a live one hour .

Thorfinnsson , August 12, 2018 at 7:34 pm GMT
@Dmitry

Increasing taxation reduces private consumption, but I'm skeptical that it creates a long-term output gap (short term is a different matter). The OECD has prosperous economies with taxation at a share of GDP ranging from about one-third to three-fifths. Such a wide divergence suggests that high taxes and prosperity are not incompatible. Money spent by the state is still spent, and even if it's spent dubiously it continues to circulate.

Russia's official economic plan (besides import substitution) is to increase capital spending. It intends to do with while retaining fiscal discipline and limiting offshore borrowing. If you are unable or unwilling to borrow to finance investment, you must suppress consumption.

Suppressing consumption to finance investment has a track record of success in East Asia and for that matter Russia itself (~1928-1970).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-12/putin-s-wealth-shift-takes-aim-at-russian-economy-s-idled-engine

The intent is to increase capital spending from one-fifth of GDP to one-quarter. A reasonable goal.

The real issue here of course is that the intent is for this increase in investment to come from the state and state-controlled companies, whose track records are dubious.

Still, perhaps something good could be done. Russia's nuclear industry is one bright spot, and shifting to a more nuclear power mix would allow for more hydrocarbon exports and improve public health. Russia is a growing agricultural exporter, and somehow I doubt Russia has the ubiquitous farm roads like we have here in the American Midwest.

Perhaps it would be wiser to reduce Rouble borrowing costs for the business sector by suppressing consumer credit and promoting higher household savings. Household savings rate in Russia is only 8%. China is 38%.

Anon [204] Disclaimer , August 12, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
"F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards. Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft."

The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy reduces stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.

"That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors."

Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft – and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There is no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive sensor suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as good, and probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to the contrary is wishful thinking.

"Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates."

The US can easily afford it.

"And on a small aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your stealth."

Doesn't matter. The F-35 will be operating with many other F-35s. Combined, it will be a formidable foe.

"F-35 stealth is in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band."

No, it's not. The F-35 is simply more stealthy frontal but still stealthy over all. Further, X-band is the frequency required for a weapons lock. All stealth aircraft are specialized for this radar band.

"It will be easily detected by long wavelength radars."

Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat. Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already detect stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the 90s.

"In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft and firing AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where the F-35 will be dogmeat)."

Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.

"The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs."

F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be produced, that should work fine.

"As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical."

You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation weapons that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be any different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you have displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete, just wishful thinking.

"Lots of air forces continuously modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits, etc. Why exactly is a new airframe needed for any of this?"

This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.

"That said it's not like the F-35 is awful, and as usual pilot skill and other factors can overcome inappropriate technology."

The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.

"If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise."

Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter aircraft.

"As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance."

Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.

"Russia's official reason for delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate for existing threats, which is probably true."

Russia is delaying because 1. they can't afford to buy the aircraft 2. they are having trouble constructing the aircraft as designed and in the quantity required 3. it probably isn't as good as the F-35 anyway, so they don't see a point in building it.

Sean , August 12, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The F-35 is for transferring US technology to Israel

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/israels-air-force-might-have-the-ultimate-weapon-custom-25983
Lockheed-Martin has mostly refused to allow major country-specific modifications to the F-35, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars foreign F-35 operators contributed to the aircraft's development. Israel, however, managed to carve out an exception. Though not an investor in the F-35's development, Tel Aviv was nonetheless quick to sign on to the program with an initial order of fifty. It also negotiated a favorable deal in which billions of dollars worth of F-35 wings and sophisticated helmet sets would be manufactured in Israel, paid for with U.S. military aid. Furthermore, depot-level maintenance will occur in a facility operated by Israeli Aeronautics Industries rather than at a Lockheed facility abroad.

The Lightning's sophisticated flight computer and ground-based logistics system has become a matter of contention with many F-35 operators. Foreign air forces would like to have greater access to the F-35's computer source codes to upgrade and modify them as they see fit without needing to involve external parties -- but Lockheed doesn't want to hand over full access for both commercial and security-based reasons. Israeli F-35Is uniquely will have an overriding Israeli-built C4 program that runs "on top" of Lockheed's operating system.

Anon [121] Disclaimer , August 12, 2018 at 7:56 pm GMT
"Right, which is why Denmark bought the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising. Buying American weaponry is often a combination of tribute, corruption and paying protection money."

Please. They bought the F-35 because it is the best aircraft they could get, and they don't trust the Russians. If they wanted to offer tribute, they'd just write a check and buy another aircraft.

Further, much of the so-called criticism of the F-35 came from non-experts in the subject or older guys who worked with the now-outdated F-14. The F-35 has made enough progress for me to believe that it will likely crush anything the Russians have now or in the future. Even if the Russians could build the Su-57, the F-35 would still win in most contests because 1. its sensor suite and over the horizon A2A capability + electronic warfare capability will be appreciably superior 2. it will be built in far larger numbers.

"The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most anyone else."

The F-35 will be quite effective against any aircraft those countries currently field. Any belief to the contrary is either ignorance or delusion. The US isn't spending a trillion dollars on this thing to fight Trinidad and Tobago.

Thorfinnsson , August 12, 2018 at 8:25 pm GMT
@Anon

The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy reduces stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.

"Over-the-horizon A2A capability" has existed for half a century. Previously structuring our airpower around this concept resulted in high losses in Vietnam.

The real reason for the bubble canopy's elimination (note that the stealthier F-22 and YF-23 both have bubble canopies) is the ridiculous insistence on the same platform being used for a STOVL aircraft with a lift fan placed right in the middle of the fuselage.

If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area only and it can't carry a large missile load.

Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more powerful radar.

The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military ones.

Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft – and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There is no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive sensor suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as good, and probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to the contrary is wishful thinking.

I have no doubt in the capability to produce and field top-class avionics. What I do doubt is the idea that we produce (and always will produce) superior avionics to anyone else. Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and even tiny Israel all produce AESA radars. The US lagged Russia (and Europe) in IRST for decades. The US is far behind on low-frequency radar.

The US can easily afford it.

You'll note that this was originally about F-35 exports . A solution with high operating costs and low sortie rates is problematic for anyone, but especially undesirable for a small power.

Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat. Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already detect stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the 90s.

Detection is not useless. It allows you to vector interceptors until they get close enough for a radar lock or can identify the target with IRST or visual tracking.

Incompetent Arabalonians. Norman Scwhartzkopf stated that if you'd reversed the weapons on each side but kept the personnel and training the same, the Allied coalition would've still handily won. Serbia incidentally did successfully shoot down an F-117, which largely owed itself to the skill of the operator in question and poor tactics on the part of NATO.

Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.

The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s.

F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be produced, that should work fine.

F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite persistent requests from Japan).

You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation weapons that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be any different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you have displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete, just wishful thinking.
[...]
This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.
[...]
The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.

This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are guilty of.

Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter aircraft.

Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this moot.

Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.

Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a decisive edge in WVR combat.

The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps STOVL requirement.

Sean , August 12, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

The Kremlin would have killed the organ grinder (Boris Abramovich Berezovsky) not the monkey. Litvinenko virtually committed suicide. People become depressed when they are exiles.. Litvinenko publicly accused Putin of the apartment bombings by Chechens that killed hundreds of Russians so he must have had some inkling that Putin could be dangerous.

If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing you, and if they have the means and opportunity then it is not the biggest surprise in the world if you give them the motive and you are killed by a method that is as good as a signed confession they did it. Putin wanted Litvinenko to know who had put an end to him. That was the whole point of using alpha radiation; nice and slow all the while knowing who did it. Putin is very like another famous Vlad.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/vampirediaries/images/0/08/Vlad-The-Impaler-dracula-untold-37680708-854-347.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141217165742

reiner Tor , August 12, 2018 at 9:27 pm GMT
@Sean

If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing you

I have fantasized about killing people who had seriously harmed me or the public. But I have never fantasized about killing a clown, nor can I ever imagine fantasizing about it. I cannot imagine anyone who is not a psychopath fantasizing about killing a clown. By accusing Putin of the house explosions and converting to Islam etc. Litvinenko totally jumped the shark. He was a clown, a tool used by others.

Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you have just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on that assumption.

Litvinenko was a poor devil, incapable of harming Putin. If anyone harmed Putin, it's Berezovsky or the western media which gave a platform to poor devils like Litvinenko. Do you think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful people wielding them?

Mr. Hack , August 12, 2018 at 10:05 pm GMT
@Mikhail

[MORE]

That is pretty incredible, however, because of your reputation perhaps she was afraid of some sort of retribution for being critical of you? I notice that you often like to taunt me on by calling me a 'coward' for using a moniker instead of presenting you with my true identity. Whether deserved or not, many feel that you're some sort of a Kremlin Stooge nutcase, Mickey. From Srebrenica Genocide Denier to this:

friend of mike averko | April 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Reply
I have known mike averko for a very long time and wish to warn all of you who feel safe mocking him and his rants this is not someone you want to get angry . HE IS INSANE!!! I have seen how this man lives and it is not that of a healthy person, it is that of someone insane. Make your comments but don't ever let this man into yuour life in any way or you will end up being sorry.

This is why I choose to shield my true identity from you, Mickey. Who needs any grief from a Kremlin Stooge wacko?

utu , August 12, 2018 at 10:12 pm GMT
@anonymous coward

[MORE]

So it comes down to the meaning after all.

No, it actually doesn't.

No, it does.

The machine that draws the numbers for a lottery manages to pick 7 winning numbers every week. It never fails to pick the winning numbers. Is this an amazing feat? The numbers it picks are the winning numbers while millions of lottery players have great difficulty to pick the winning numbers and spend millions of dollar on it while the cost to the machine is just few bucks.

Shakespeare picked 458 'winning' letters but if you would try to reproduce them in the same sequence by random selections it becomes probabilistically impossible task.

Finding a winning sonnet by Shakespeare for the Universe was not a probabilistic feat just as it is not for the lottery machine to pick the winning numbers. It all comes down to the meaning and when that meaning is assigned. You assigned a special meaning to this particular sequence of 458 letters just like lottery players assign special meaning to 7 numbers picked by a machine.

Mr. Hack , August 12, 2018 at 10:13 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Although you show a lot of promise, unfortunately there are still a few rough edges. Don't concentrate so much on your less than honorable pedigree, but work on improving your emotional dilemmas. AP is a medical doctor, and has diagnosed some of your ailments. Listen to him, for he's a pure blood Slav. And you know how great the Slavic race is. (I know that you can overcome!).

g2k , August 12, 2018 at 10:31 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

On the subject of of agriculture, it should be noted that Rostelmash has done ok for a big sovok behemoth and has had at least some success exporting west. It's combines are competitive with the American makes but not Claas, they've also been able to buy up varsatile. This is quite surprising given the fact that rostov has a reputation for being a rough and corrupt place. Ak, any thoughts?

APilgrim , August 12, 2018 at 10:33 pm GMT
The US Congress, has popularity & confidence levels in the toilet.

Congress, in defiance of public opinion has MANDATED 'Russia-Sanctions', in the law.

Congress has done this overwhelmingly & repeatedly, without VISIBLE public support.

There is no evidence available to the American Public which justifies 'Russia-Sanctions'.

Sadly, the USA Public regards Vladimir Putin more highly than they regard congress.

Vladimir Putin has consistently high favorable ratings with the US Public.

Congress is rated below treatable venereal diseases, but above Ebola.

APilgrim , August 12, 2018 at 10:41 pm GMT
Sadly, the USA Public regards Vladimir Putin more highly than they regard congress.

Vladimir Putin has consistently high favorable ratings with the US Public.

Congress is rated below treatable venereal diseases, but above Ebola.

Cyrano , August 12, 2018 at 11:08 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

You make it sound like being a Slav is like being a member of an exclusive club. How exclusive can it be if you – the Ukrainians are in it? I would say that that is setting the standards pretty low. Don't worry about my "emotional" dilemmas. I am happy with who I am, which can't be said about you people. You seem quite torn between your Western European heritage and your humble Slavic origin that gets in the way of being recognized as one of the nations that are pillars of western civilization which everybody agrees that you are.

Thorfinnsson , August 12, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT
@g2k

USSR engaged in intensive agricultural motorization earlier than any country other than the USA and Canada. It was also fairly early to intensive chemicalization, mainly beaten out by Germany and America.

In the postwar period the share of capital investment devoted to agriculture varied from 11.8% in 1946-1950 to a peak of 20.1% in 1971-1975.

Not surprising there is something of a positive legacy. Main failures of postwar Soviet agriculture were distribution and processing. Not enough roads or trucks, inadequate cold chain, too few food processing plants, etc.

Belarus also has a successful agricultural machinery sector as well.

Heavy transportation machinery was generally a Soviet success story, probably because not only are they producer goods but they also require routine replacement. Thus unlike other capital goods in centrally-planned economies they weren't kept in service long past the time they ceased to be efficient. The irrational "development" of Siberia also increased the size of this sector and the quality of its output.

Lastly, worth noting Rostelmash has been privately owned since 2000.

utu , August 12, 2018 at 11:24 pm GMT
@Anon

The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it.

If this is the case then obviously its 'kinematic performance' is secondary. If you can see the enemy before it can see you and you have weapons to engage the enemy then obviously your top speed and acceleration are not that important. The missile you launch is faster than your top speed and your enemy's top speed.

But there are doubts. How much the stealth technology is a hype? Is information about radar cross sections of various planes credible?

Sean , August 12, 2018 at 11:25 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was either Western intelligence or Putin's orders. Western intelligence simply would not dare frame Putin because the Russians would become too jumpy. Yeltsin almost started WW3 in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West was framing Putin repeatedly and he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then something like the Black Brant scare occurred.

Litvinenko was a poor devil.

I don't think he was a happy man.

Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you have just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on that assumption.

I happen to believe that Putin is deliberately trying to alienate the West with these assassinations because he wants Russia to remain proudly independent after he is gone. Yet he has to justify that policy to his close associates many of whom who love the Western lifestyle and making money. It is like Hitler having to explain his attack on the USSR to his generals and Goebbels by saying it was necessary to remove that threat from the east before moving against Britain. Obviously Hitler really longed to conquer Russia, and it seems likely to me that Putin wants to initiate schismogenesis with the West. He probably is not telling his cronies that though, there will be some security pretext.

Do you think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful people wielding them?

Putin has more power than anyone else on Earth, I should have thought that was obvious by now. He wants to exert control when he is no longer there, and that means setting Russia on a course that cannot be altered, and consulting/implicating the entire future leadership cadre.

Philip Owen , August 12, 2018 at 11:27 pm GMT
@g2k

John Deere does very well in Russia because they own a local factory. They seem to be the combine of choice because they have faster parts distribution than Class. Rostelmash does better than it used to but the really big commercial farms and associated contractors buy the best machines. The operators on the ex cooperatives, usually farmed under (corrupt) rental arrangements tend to use Rostelmash, insofar as they buy new.

Mikhail , Website August 12, 2018 at 11:41 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

[MORE]

No, you're a cowardly anonymous troll, who uncritically references such people. Much different from yours truly.

Thorfinnsson , August 13, 2018 at 12:13 am GMT
@utu

In BVR combat kinematic performance is indeed secondary to the performance of sensors, electronic warfare equipment, and missiles.

But not irrelevant. Higher top speed allows for longer-ranged missile shots. Faster acceleration (and, for that matter, turning performance) allows for faster escape from the combat zone.

Note how BVR optimized interceptors like the F-102/106, MiG-25/31, F-4, F-111B, English Electric Lightning, and so forth had great top speeds and excellent acceleration. They were however lacking in maneuverability as it was not intended for them to dogfight (hence the bad air combat performance over North Vietnam).

China's Chengdu J-20 is a modern stealth aircraft designed for this role. The F-35 is not. It's basically a tactical strike fighter. Historical analogues would be the F-100, F-105, SEPECAT Jaguar, Su-24, and so forth.

Tactical strike fighters of the classic style are dubious today since multi-mode radars and PGMs have made fighters very capable of ground attack.

Stealth isn't hype unless you believe the maximalist fanboy nonsense from the 1990s.

utu , August 13, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

If indeed F-22 and F-35 have several orders of magnitude smaller cross-sections (RCS) than other jet fighters then obviously it is a huge advantage that if utilized will render small differences (±10%) in speed and acceleration completely unimportant.

F-22 RCS=0.0001 sqm
F-35 RCS=0.005 sqm

F16 RCS= 5 sqm
SU-35s RCS= 1-3 sqm
PAK-FA (T-50) RCS=0.5 sqm

Providing that one can trust this blogger:

http://mil-embedded.com/guest-blogs/radar-cross-section-the-measure-of-stealth/

Mr. Hack , August 13, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
@Cyrano

being recognized as one of the nations that are pillars of western civilization which everybody agrees that you are.

Like I said, you're showing some progress. It's hard an takes some time, don't get discouraged.

Mr. Hack , August 13, 2018 at 1:33 am GMT
@Mikhail

Much different from yours truly.

You're right about that, and I'm glad to be different from you. At least people aren't leaving messages about me at blogs warning them that I might be dangerous to deal with. 'Sbrebrenica Genocide Denier' is nothing to be proud about, Mickey.

dfordoom , Website August 13, 2018 at 1:38 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central American drug cartels?

I quite like that idea!

Provide sophisticated arms to everybody (no matter how crazy) with an ability to cause grief to the U.S.

The U.S. objective is not to punish Russia or weaken Russia. The U.S. objective is to destroy Russia as a sovereign nation. This is war to the death. There can be no negotiation with the U.S. The only hope of forcing the Americans to adopt a sane policy is to make the costs of their current policy catastrophically high.

The U.S. is obviously stronger but a strong man will usually back down if faced with someone crazy and unpredictable. Putin needs to be crazy and unpredictable.

And Russia needs to target America's lapdogs, like the British. Perhaps let them know that if it ever came to nuclear war London would be a priority target.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
@Mikhail

[MORE]

Svidomism is a mental disorder, incurable like the rest of them. You are violating the first rule of psychiatry: never argue with patients.

Parbes , August 13, 2018 at 2:28 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

U.S. "public opinion" is literally the collective opinion of dumbed-down, amoral idiots. In fact, the word "opinion" is too dignified for this – "braindead recantation of MSM-fed government propaganda" would be a better description.

Thorfinnsson , August 13, 2018 at 2:41 am GMT
@utu

Stealth is definitely an advantage.

But it's not an invisibility cloak.

It's optimized for certain wavelengths and expected receiver locations.

Thus stealth aircraft can for instance be readily detected by low frequency radars. Stealth is still useful as low frequency radars are too bulky to fly, and they indicate a general location rather than a precise location.

Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually, acoustically, through their own electronic emissions, and through their heat signatures. Employment of weapons, obviously, compromises stealth as well.

There are also degrees of stealth. The F-22 for instance is considered an all-aspect stealth design, at least in the higher frequency bands. The Have Blue, MBB Lampyridae, F-117, B-2, and YF-23 were as well.

The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. This of course reflects the fact that it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter, but incompetent American force planning is now pressing it into that role.

Lastly, while stealth is obviously a good capability (hence why everyone is following America's lead on it), it's not without trade-offs. Stealth is lost if weapons are carried externally. Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive (though the Japanese may have solved this problem). Because stealth requires precision shaping of the airframe, it is difficult to modify the airframe for future requirements.

Mikhail , Website August 13, 2018 at 3:00 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

[MORE]

A few cranks out of many more thinking quite differently.

You of course can take pride in being a cowardly anonymous troll.

Mikhail , Website August 13, 2018 at 3:02 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

[MORE]

Yes, I've been told that.

utu , August 13, 2018 at 3:20 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

"But it's not an invisibility cloak." – Nobody talks about invisibility. RCS matters. You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.

"The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. " – Presumably it will show its rear to its enemy only when the enemy will be already falling down after being hit.

"Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually " – Nobody argues invisibility.

"it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter". – It all depend on superiority over whom. Anyway this is a vague and pompous term.

"Stealth is lost if weapons are carried externally." – What good are those weapons for if you are shot before you see your stealthy enemy?

"Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive". – Yes. That's why Russians do not have it.

Listen. I do not really care about this issue and I do not know much about it. I just responded to your arguments which are mostly rhetorical in nature among at diminishing importance of the orders of magnitude lower RCS of F-22 and F-35 comparing to that of their potential opponents.

Mr. Hack , August 13, 2018 at 3:36 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

[MORE]

Do you remember Ukraine? remember your Ukrainian mother? you're a sorry excuse for a human being, a modern day janissary.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 3:44 am GMT
@Sean

I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was either Western intelligence or Putin's orders.

Or something else neither of us thought of. It's a false dichotomy when we have no information at all about the whole thing, the only thing we know is that the British are lying.

Western intelligence simply would not dare frame Putin because the Russians would become too jumpy.

But that's just your model. Maybe they wouldn't become jumpy, or maybe the Western intelligence services would dare frame him anyway.

By the way it's interesting that you managed to draw a psychological profile of Putin based on just two cases a decade apart, and Putin only did it twice in his whole reign. Sure if he enjoyed torturing his critics he'd do it more, wouldn't he?

Yeltsin almost started WW3 in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West was framing Putin repeatedly and he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then something like the Black Brant scare occurred.

Risk management is my job. People don't think about risks that way. They assign a very low probability to events like the Black Brant scare, and anyway probably Putin would just realize it was only one rocket. There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to launch than Yeltsin.

Daniel Chieh , August 13, 2018 at 4:26 am GMT
@utu

Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ countermeasures.

However, ground sites lack many countermeasures against incoming missile launches and cannot lock onto low-visibility planes from the front, so even if its general location is known, there's not much that a SAM site can do to it in theory. Thus, it has a very effective, but limited role.

This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any number of third world countries.

Mikhail , Website August 13, 2018 at 4:27 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

[MORE]

On your warped world, cranks like La Russophobe and pro-Bosnian Muslim extremists are okay.

Mr. Hack , August 13, 2018 at 4:34 am GMT
@Mikhail

[MORE]

Nah, not really. In my world, only cranks like you are special. Don't worry, your status as #1 Kremlin Stooge remains intact.

Cyrano , August 13, 2018 at 4:37 am GMT
@Mr. Hack

Like I said, you're showing some progress

I wish I could say the same thing about the Ukrainians. You are showing nothing but regress since 1991, but I don't expect that you'll agree with that. It's one of the side effects of having a thick head.

You know how the Ukrainians got their name? It's from the Latin Cranium for scull. Basically, what it means is that when any new idea (or old one for that matter) tries to penetrate the thick Ukrainian sculls – it has to make a U turn when it reaches their fortified cranial structures – U Cranium – therefore Ukraine. Get it? It's pretty discouraging actually.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 4:55 am GMT
@utu

A good case could be made that we don't know how these jets would perform under the conditions of a real world war. But I think it's always the best bet that it will be the American weapons which perform the best. That's simply the way to bet.

It's possible that many of their weapons systems wouldn't perform as advertised. Some would perform better than thought or for roles they weren't designed for.

It's a very safe decision to buy the F-35, which is now not even that expensive. It's possible that it won't be worth much in a real war against comparable opponents, but this could be true of any other platform: these weapons are only tried out against vastly inferior opponents.

You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.

He will usually have a vague idea where you are. Currently it's not possible to launch a missile based on that vague knowledge, but will it stay like that forever? A lot depends on other systems like air defense and AWACS.

Anyway, my original point was that probably buying the F-35 is not based on politics, it's a safe decision for those with deep enough pockets to buy the best available fighter jet. Even if under the circumstances of a real war it turned out to be bad: it could happen to a number of other weapons systems anyway, and you cannot really tell in advance which ones.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 5:12 am GMT
@Daniel Chieh

The longer range just telegraphs their intentions earlier

But wouldn't the idea be that you get closer to the enemy without being detected? Your argument might work against BVR combat in general, but more against non-stealth BVR combat than against stealth: stealthy planes will probably employ their BVR weapons from closer range than non-stealthy planes.

If BVR air-to-air missiles work at all, they work much better with stealthy planes. Regardless of whether against peer or non-peer opponents.

utu , August 13, 2018 at 5:13 am GMT
@Daniel Chieh

Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ countermeasures.

If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do not understand) I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o being detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time for the enemy to deploy countermeasures.

I realize this is a complex game with many possible strategies and tactics with many parameters involved. For each strategy there are decision regions where the different parameters dominate what will be the optimal tactic. Furthermore we really do not know how effective various countermeasures are but I suspect that they might be decisive. But if they fail and planes get close to each other within the visual range then obvious completely different parameters might be decisive including the human factor.

I won't argue with you on this subject because I know you were raised by video games so you now better at least in the realm of video games model. I would not argue with Mowgli about the purpose and efficacy of howling at the moon. Perhaps it was a sophisticated countermeasure.

utu , August 13, 2018 at 5:16 am GMT
@reiner Tor

Exactly!

Daniel Chieh , August 13, 2018 at 6:39 am GMT
@utu

I actually have never played a flight simulator within recent memory. As far as I'm aware, none of them really calculate the issues of missile flight with any degree of accuracy and treat guidance systems like some sort of magic. My comments are actually speculations from conversations with military pilots.

If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do not understand)

Missiles have extremely limited flight times and their flight characteristics degrade after launch. Disrupting either their guidance or their flight negates the kill chain.

I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o being detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time for the enemy to deploy countermeasures.

This is possible, but ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond visual range. Its possible that this is the idea, coupled with the Block III Sidewinders which are designed against a number of countermeasures, but that seems to have been cancelled for some reason.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 6:42 am GMT
@utu

Though the first comment there:

If you don't know the composite materials used, you can not give a correct RCS, and you can not tell just by looking, the physics don't work like that!

So at least we have the word of the US Air Force and Lockheed regarding the stealthiness of their planes (these are probably not outright lies, but might differ from reality in either direction: they might be modest to hide their true capabilities, or, more likely, exaggerate and give a number only true under ideal conditions for a specific type of radar etc. ), but regarding the supposedly 5th generation Chinese or Russian jets we have just very rough estimates based on the shape and some assumptions about their coating.

Imperial Menopause , August 13, 2018 at 7:29 am GMT
How hard is Imperial Menopause

Nowadays USA is Sactionistan ,sanctions !! sanctions !! sanctions !!

I read that the USA is considering sanctions to Russia because she thinks Russia insulted Mickey Mouse .

Kairos , August 13, 2018 at 7:47 am GMT
So many US sanctions and interdictions , to friends and foes alike , will end up isolating the US .

The US pressure to the EU not to trade with Russia , Iran and other countries has provoked a deep resentment in the EU and has turned the US into a very unreliable partner , and even a dangerous " friend " .

The Alarmist , August 13, 2018 at 8:13 am GMT
The better part of four decades ago, President Reagan made a joke about outlawing the Soviet Union and the press and the left went apeshit. Now Congress seriously proposes legislation that would essentially outlaw Russia, and the press and the left are all for it.
reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT
@Daniel Chieh

ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond visual range

How many seconds will the stealth pilot have to identify the target and fire its missiles? Sixty? Hundred-twenty? Thirty? Even thirty seconds must be enough for a well enough trained pilot.

There might be issues with how to leave the scene after having killed an opponent, if other enemies are still there, because it's less stealthy from other angles. I guess we're not the first to think about it, so probably there's some solution. At the very least, I wouldn't expect them to perform worse than the 4th gen planes.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 8:47 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

I think even the production of the F-16 is about to end.

Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though that's not saying much, considering the price differential.

Hungary also has Gripens, though we didn't fully equip them until recently, and I don't think we spend enough on training the pilots.

Anonymous [333] Disclaimer , August 13, 2018 at 8:57 am GMT
@reiner Tor

These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to Serbia after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war. The whole slow-motion drama, with all its attendant false flags (MH17, the Skripals, gassings in Syria, etc), numerous rounds of sanctions and specious rhetoric including accusations of "stealing the election" from Hillary, since Putin checked Obama's attempt to seize Russia's Crimean base and recruit another hostile NATO member on that country's frontier has been meant to convince the American public that Russia is our country's blood enemy, that it is run by an insane dictator the equal of Hitler, and that the consequent world war will have been all Putin's fault in spite of America bending over backwards to make peace with those vicious mongrels from the steppes.

As a commentor above said, I'd hate to be killed by a Russian nuke directed at my city only because of an insane American leadership, but I'd equally hate for tens of millions of Russians (and others) to be exterminated by our weapons simply to further an agenda being promoted by the likes of Jeff Bezos, Sheldon Adelson and the other plutocrats who really pull all the strings in Washington to benefit themselves plus their Saudi and Israeli co-conspirators in some great game to rule the world. I'd say that Washington is about poised to commit the greatest crime in the history of the human race, and chances are good that it will be the last.

Anon [332] Disclaimer , August 13, 2018 at 9:42 am GMT
"Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ countermeasures."

That's not quite true. The ability to shoot a barrage of sophisticated missiles at an opponent that can't shoot back beyond visual range should be quite useful in combat; these missiles will also close the gap much sooner than you would think, so it's not like an enemy is going to have all day to deal with incoming threats. Further, electronic countermeasures won't be perfect as most A2A missiles fielded by the US will have systems designed to defeat them. The F-35 will also be fielded in large enough numbers such that they'll just overwhelm opponents with their stealth ability. Combine the F-35 with the F-18 or F-22, and you'll have a very effective air dominance force.

"This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any number of third world countries."

I expect the F-35 to do quite well against both Russia and China in helping to establish air dominance. The F-35 will additionally have utility against surface S2A units. The navy could overwhelm Russian and Chinese air defenses – even assuming they are quite effective – by coordinating strikes with F-22s and F-35s. Those air defenses will go active, and the F-35 will then be able to hit many of them with a degree of survivability + coordinate with surface ships to smoke them out, mobile or not.

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 9:46 am GMT
George Soros (AKA György Schwartz) is a bigger threat to the USA, than Vladimir Putin.
APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 9:47 am GMT
Ex-Pat William Felix Browder is a bigger threat to the USA, than Vladimir Putin.
APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 9:48 am GMT
The lying MSM is a bigger threat to the USA, than Vladimir Putin.
APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 9:49 am GMT
The ChiCOMS are a bigger threat to the USA, than Vladimir Putin.
APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 9:49 am GMT
Muhammadans are a bigger threat to the USA, than Vladimir Putin.
APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 9:51 am GMT
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a bigger threat, than Vladimir Putin.
reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 9:53 am GMT
@Anonymous

These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to Serbia after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war.

That's the most frightening part.

utu , August 13, 2018 at 9:53 am GMT
@Daniel Chieh

I have never put much thought into these issues. But now after reading comments and some articles I realized that this is a fascinating topic and that there are many people somewhere who study it, write simulations and developed optimal algorithms for all possible situations where they have input data on all plane and missile characteristics except with only partial knowledge of enemy characteristics and efficacy of countermeasures. So I think that everything has been already calculated. When and what to shoot and when and where to turn and when to retreat and so on. And as new data are flowing in with the outcome of the first missile or the arrival of another enemy plane the master program is just bringing in pre-calculated solutions for each new situations. And then every geometric configuration must have been analyzed and optimal actions has been found. Furthermore optimal configuration were found about how to fly , in what formations, with what speeds and so on. Mathematically this problem might not be harder than a chess game on multiple boards and thus I think a completely autonomous AI system must exist where pilot is really not needed. The only big unknown are countermeasures. You do not have them in chess. Can pilot be better in making some decisions in the present of countermeasure than computer? I doubt it.

Now the question is who is better in this game? Russians or Americans? It all comes down to money. How many good mathematicians, computer programmers and physicists I can employ? In USSR at secret sites like Arzamas-16 they had departments where 1000 or so PhDs in math (many, many women) worked. In Yeltsin times and probably before they mostly drank tea and coffee, organized birthday celebrations and send designated ones to stand in lines to do shopping. And it all fell apart. But in the US DARPA and Aerospace R&D continued w/o a break. So I would not hesitate to bet on Americans that they have significantly better systems. Another question is about spying. Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D and no longer enamored with the Soviet Union, so it is more likely that India and China has know more about it and obviously Israel but through more official channels. But the fact that F-22 was not donated to Israel yet may suggest that there are still some boundaries within American MIC that are off limits even to our beloved Jews.

No future , August 13, 2018 at 9:57 am GMT
@Anon

Sounds like you want a war of the US against Russia and China , do you really ?

And even sounds that you think that the US could win it , and the atomic long range missiles ?

Mitleser , August 13, 2018 at 10:01 am GMT
@reiner Tor

Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though that's not saying much, considering the price differential.

You don't ask for the "best", you ask for the right system.
Unless you need a stealth strike fighter (and don't mind Lockheed's involvement), the F-35 does not have to be the right one.
In Hungary's case, it is more important to have enough jets for air patrol duty.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 10:12 am GMT
@utu

Can pilot be better in making some decisions in the present of countermeasure than computer? I doubt it.

I doubt it. It's open ended, and the number of variations practically infinite. The computer can do most things way better than a human, but then could succumb to stupidity in some unknown situation, like the Tesla charging at full speed into the firetruck. Is the Tesla autopilot better than a well trained professional human, like a rally race driver? I don't think so, especially in unexpected (for the computer) situations, where the human would just do the easy and sensible thing, but not the computer.

Anyway, the US warplanes are still flown by human pilots. Of course, most things which could be automated are automated, and the logical conclusion is fully autonomous drones flying without much input from their handlers in underground bunkers.

Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D and no longer enamored with the Soviet Union, so it is more likely that India and China has know more about it and obviously Israel but through more official channels.

Do you think that one of the things Israel pays Putin for being so friendly to him is US military tech? They did sell Russia some drones back in the Medvedev days, but nothing more recent can be found. But I'd be surprised if Putin didn't think about it. I also think it's not above Netanyahu to sell Russia American secrets. They gave such secrets to the USSR, and they also helped China more recently. I'm sure that if there's anything going on, the MSM wouldn't be reporting much on it. They also rarely wrote about the extent of the Israel-South Africa arms trade, and things only got worse recently.

But maybe it's not happening.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 10:13 am GMT
@Mitleser

The F-35 would cost so much that we couldn't operate it. We can at least operate the Gripens. Having Gripens is better than having nothing.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT
@No future

I think you can write about American military tech being better than Russian military tech without wanting a war between the two.

utu , August 13, 2018 at 10:33 am GMT
@reiner Tor

Whatever is going on within the triangle Trump-Netnayahu-Putin is the most puzzling and the most interesting.

Anon [123] Disclaimer , August 13, 2018 at 10:37 am GMT
"The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s."

I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In a real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it, especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.

"F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite persistent requests from Japan)."

That's irrelevant for three reasons:

1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to produce in the near term.

2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to sell the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.

3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35 should be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any other country save perhaps Israel.

"This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are guilty of."

Please. Extrapolation from a set of known facts and historical precedent is hardly projection. What you've done is classic deflection.

"Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this moot."

The aircraft you quoted are certainly not superior, so the issue is hardly moot.

"Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a decisive edge in WVR combat."

Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that you can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance. Kinematic performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a decisive advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any issues with the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm opponents + combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.

"The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps STOVL requirement."

That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other aircraft."

Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these craft – thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad idea after all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a program.

I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are hard to hit or detect.

"If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area "

That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It also has IR reduction measures.

"Small number of missiles."

Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?

"Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more powerful radar."

No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American aircraft.

"Flying wing."

1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in coordination with the F-35.

2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability and maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or in a variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role fighter. It will do BVR just fine.

"The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military ones."

The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by pointing out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when building the craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.

Felix Keverich , August 13, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT
@dfordoom

There can be no negotiation with the U.S.

You don't need to convince me. You'll need to convince Russian kleptocrats, who've been sending their kids to live in the West since 1991, and who have kept their (stolen) money in the West.

And reiner Tor , you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom, but getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?

The fact is asserting dominance in Eastern Europe will be a lot easier for Russia to accomplish, than confronting USA directly, and it is something I would probably do before I started threatening New York and London with nuclear devastation. You gotta make your threats credible you know. Credibility doesn't come from making scary faces and shouting loudly, it's earned.

Mitleser , August 13, 2018 at 10:41 am GMT
@reiner Tor

Your Croatian neighbors are still operating Mig-21 and will get second-hand ((((F-16)))).
And your Austrian neighbors are unhappy with their Eurofighters.
Gripens are better than alternatives and nothing.

Anon [123] Disclaimer , August 13, 2018 at 10:45 am GMT
"Sounds like you want a war "

No, I don't. In fact, I think the American Deep State is nuts. I have great respect for Russians and their military. I am simply pointing out facts: the F-35 isn't the chump some think it is; do not believe any random internet poster when he says this thing won't work. I've seen enough to know that it will and that you should be afraid of what it can do in large numbers.

As I said earlier, the Russians should just dump all Hollywood movies and video games onto a server and call it MegaUpload 2. Hurt an industry most Trump voters despise anyway and you might be able to turn republicans against their warmongering representatives in congress who are pushing for sanctions, etc.

Non Future , August 13, 2018 at 10:46 am GMT
@reiner Tor

Reiner Tor = Pure Door in german , not so pure , the door opens to wars .

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 10:56 am GMT
Hillary Clinton is an existential threat to The: Republic & Constitutional Rule of Law.

Obama is an existential threat to The: Republic & Constitutional Rule of Law.

Michael Anthony McFaul may be a greater threat to America, than Vladimir Putin.

Samantha Jane (Sunstein) Power may be a greater USA threat, than Vladimir Putin.

Robert Mueller may be a greater USA threat than Vladimir Putin.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT
@Non Future

Actually, it means "pure fool," "reines Tor" would be "pure gate" (not door), and it comes from the Wagner opera Parsifal, where the protagonist is a pure fool, enlightened by compassion. I'd probably choose a funnier handle today, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

I.M , August 13, 2018 at 11:00 am GMT
@reiner Tor

This point of false dichotomy is very important. Everything at this point, points to the fact that there was no nerve agent employed against the Skripals and that they were simply knocked out by some chloroform like substance. The fact that they survived, and recovered without any problems, is irrefutable proof of this.

Therefore a false dichotomy is employed in order to, we can say mentally sodomise people into believing that the only option is that the Kremlin did it.

I see people stating in comments sections in British newspapers that the official story is bullshit but that they simply can't believe that their own government would disperse CWs throughout their country, however this is a mute point as it has been disproven that CWs were used at all and that the obvious conclusion is that they were simply drugged and held against their will while their oh so benevolent government spun an endlessly shifting fairytale, growing ever more convoluted and self contradictory by the day.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 11:07 am GMT
@Mitleser

Even if both NATO and the EU collapsed, and a war broke out with one or some of our neighbors, neither Austria nor Croatia would be likely enemies. Of our NATO allies, both Romania and Slovakia were more likely enemies. I hope it won't happen, because both are seriously stronger than us.

The F-16 is no longer in production (though maybe a restart is planned?), but most operators are happy enough with it.

utu , August 13, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
@I.M

mentally sodomise people into believing

Here, locally, I find it interesting that the commenter "Sean" got sodomized himself or is just trying to sodomize us. There is one recurring almost below the radar theme in his comments: war with Iran and the opportunity of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians it will bring. He might be right about it though I still hope this will be prevented while he seems to be welcoming it. And for some reason he seems to need Putin dead or compromised for this scenario to happen.

Felix Keverich , August 13, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
@Parbes

Public opinion in Russia is a lot like this actually. It seems that state-tv interrupted its anti-Western programming during World Cup, which caused approval of both US and EU to spike into positive territory for the first time since 2014.

Tom Van Meurs , Website August 13, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT
America is gradually isolating itself from the rest of the world. A beast driven into a corner is a dangerous one.
APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 11:25 am GMT
Somebody SHOULD investigate: Michael McFaul, Samantha Power, Robert Mueller, Peter Strzok, George Soros, William Browder, Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, Christopher Steele, John Podesta, Barack Obama, and John Brennan.

Congress has done a SHlTTY Job of it. Perhaps Vladimir Putin SHOULD be allowed to publicly question these traitors, in the USA.

We would probably learn a LOT!

Contraviews , Website August 13, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
America is isolating itself increasingly more from the rest of the world, A beast driven into a corner is a dangerous beast.
Mitleser , August 13, 2018 at 11:29 am GMT

Of our NATO allies, both Romania and Slovakia were more likely enemies. I hope it won't happen, because both are seriously stronger than us.

They are?

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 11:30 am GMT
@Felix Keverich

And reiner Tor, you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom, but getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?

I don't fear it much, it'd simply be a stupid policy. I also don't like ethnic cleansing and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a requirement if you were to occupy Ukraine.

The predictable result would be a state of emergency in Central Europe and a strong mobilization against Russia. Military expenditures would quickly rise to 5% of GDP in Central Europe, but it'd rise around Europe.

But actually some kind of military action in Ukraine as a direct response to American sanctions might make sense. Just don't expect Ukrainians or neighboring peoples to greet you with flowers. So you might bomb some military targets recently installed by the Americans.

But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about conquest.

There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which you wouldn't even be able to finish.

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 11:42 am GMT
The notion of modern WVR 'Dogfighting' is as hokey as this photo.
APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 11:56 am GMT
AK: In the future, please unite your multiple low effort one-sentence posts into one. Since they aren't very high quality, fill up valuable screen real estate, and splicing them together takes too much time on my part, I will otherwise have to just start deleting them.

Captain Albert Ball, VC, DSO & Two Bars, MC (14 August 1896 – 7 May 1917) was an English fighter pilot during the First World War. At the time of his death he was the United Kingdom's leading flying ace, with 44 victories.

Those days are gone.

Forrestal , August 13, 2018 at 12:02 pm GMT
@APilgrim

and Mc Cain ??? , he hero of the Isis desert , pardon the hero of Vietnam , Victoria Nuland the F the EU " lady " .. Geoffrey Pyatt .

neutral , August 13, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

That's the most frightening part.

The thing is that if say Serbia, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, etc had nuclear weapons in 1914 then WW1 would likely not have broken out.

Ilyana_Rozumova , August 13, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
These sanctions are complex, well thought out, most probably not by Goyim.
Now We can see that Scripal affair was definitely false flag.
These sanctions are obviously not a punishment.
..
These sanctions are telling Mother Russia to get on her knees, or die.
.
These are not really sanctions. This is Ultimatum.
.
Everybody should understand that.
Sean , August 13, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Putin cannot be read like a book, but we can be confident that he is capable of deceiving even his closest confidants, for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin .

There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to launch than Yeltsin.

All other things being equal, but Yeltsin was never framed for murder by the West even once, so he never had Russian forces on red alert; never had the safety catches off . Yet in the Black Brant scare Yeltsin actually activated the nuclear keys , something that never happened even in the Cuban Missile crisis. In circumstances where there was already a hair trigger because of some misunderstanding and Yeltsin had a too much of a hangover to think clearly and recognize bad advice, he might well have launched. Putin would never knowingly launch first, but the opening of move of a nuclear first strike would be a high altitude air burst to blind the victim's radar so waiting for the first nuclear detonation would not be an option.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-nato-military-exercise-freaked-out-russia-nearly-started-25864?page=0%2C2
As these reports filtered in to Western intelligence agencies, there initially was little alarm. Analysts and experts who examined the information simply could not believe that the Soviets seriously thought that NATO was preparing a nuclear first strike. At this point, the West did not have any real clue just how dangerous the situation had become.

If he and his country had been framed for murder twice in a row, Putin would take the some of the safeties off of the Russian nuclear deterrent because it was not working at the normal settings. All it would then take is someone, possibly at a low level, to get careless and we are in the danger zone. The Russians do not think America is likely to attack them out of the blue, but they do not rule out the possibility (Reagan said that was what most surprised him about the Soviet leadership once he came to know them).

Wealthy Russians put their money in offshore British accounts, you seriously think anyone in their right mind would do that if the British Deep State was capable of deliberately framing Russia for assassinations. Dirty money from all over the world comes to offshore British accounts because Britain has the rule of law and the ill gotten gains are safe. It simply would not pay Britain to behave like a banana republic in the way you are suggesting. What you are suggesting is like MI5 & 6 stealing the gold out of the Bank of England, except it would be more plausible because there would be something in it for them. South Korean had the death penalty for capital flight. Putin is less crude, he is using the British sanctions against his circle (and you must be associated with circle to get rich in Russia) to force dodgy Russians and their money to stay put .

Putin's long term objective is to nullify foreign influences, which boils down to Western soft power and money. The Russian and Western elite were growing together before he started the high profile assassinations, now the divergence is gaining a momentum of its own. The more the West retaliates the better Putin likes it, hence arrest of Maria Butina and the heavy boots of the bots are grist to Putin's mill, the more amateurish the espionage against the West, the better. That is why the OPSEC–oblivious GRU suit his purpose so much

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/06/the-gru-the-russian-intelligence-agency-behind-the-headlines
"The GRU regards itself as a war-fighting instrument. Yes, it gathers conventional intelligence but its culture is much more military," said Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian security issues and the country's intelligence agencies. "Although only a minority of GRU officers are Spetsnaz, it has an impact when part of your service are commandos."

Putin sacked the vast majority of the old GRU; the new commander Sergun was low ranking (although he was to be promoted to Colonel General after he designed the Donbass uprising) and was keen on contacts with the US, but died mysteriously in 2016, and the ones left know better than to ask questions about the ultimate purpose or ulterior motive of goading the US. Anyway, Putins's objectives in all this are not to get away with anything, he wants the bad public relations, he wants the West to reject Russia and all its works, all the better to keep Russian away from Western influence. I just think the idea of the West deliberately pushing a proud nuclear armed power into confusion such as Andropov was in during Able Archer would be foolhardy beyond belief.

Mr. Hack , August 13, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Ukrainian = U Cranium

Brilliant. And I like how you are able to weave in your almost non-existent knowledge of Latin too! This definitely proves that your IQ is in the 99* range. Like I say, you're showing real progress each and every day. Soon, I suspect that readers of this blog will be giving you 'agreements' each and every time you write something here, like your buddy Janissary !

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT
@neutral

Probably.

On the other hand, the more such crises there will be between nuclear armed states, the more likely that one of those will result in a nuclear war. Humans (or machines, for that matter) will inevitably miscalculate once in a while, and those might result in one side believing it's about to be obliterated, so that it can "use it or lose it." All kinds of stupid (or seemingly stupid) factors might get into this, like sleep deprivation, extreme stress, fear of shame or loss of face, etc. People have committed murder-suicide under all kinds of circumstances, starting a nuclear war as an act of final desperation is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities.

So while nuclear weapons greatly diminish the likelihood of a world war, it certainly doesn't make it impossible, and, on a long enough timeline, its likelihood will approach 1.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 1:03 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Their armies are certainly much stronger, in terms of artillery or armored forces for example. Their air forces are not, but with the very low number of planes, it wouldn't be decisive anyway. And they're both in the process of buying F-16s, unless I'm mistaken. I think once these are over, the Slovakian Air Force will be roughly as strong as the Hungarian one, or somewhat stronger, while the Romanian will be multiple times stronger.

The Slovak military is somewhat smaller on paper (in terms of troop numbers) than the Hungarian, but even that might be just a paper advantage. At least Slovakia is a smaller country (roughly half the size of Hungary), but Romania is vastly bigger, and its military is even larger than would be proportional.

Anyway, I don't think any Hungarian government would have the appetite to wage war against either of these.

reiner Tor , August 13, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Sean

Cool story, but where's the evidence that you read Putin's mind correctly?

Michael Kenny , August 13, 2018 at 1:09 pm GMT
This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and the world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory. I don't see EU Member States raising any objection to further sanctions. Quite the contrary, in fact. The EU is the principal victim of Putin's actions and is therefore the principal beneficiary of sanctions. Don't forget that the fight with Putin began over an attempt by him to prevent Ukraine signing an association agreement with the EU. The idea that the EU Member States are just dying to resume trade with Russia is a US internet myth (like so much else about Europe!).
Sean , August 13, 2018 at 1:27 pm GMT
@I.M

OK the GRU did not use deadly nerve gas on the traitor Skripal because he survived, but by the same token the GRU did not use knockout gas in the Dubrovka Theater because they killed hundreds of innocent Russian hostages. At least we can agree GRU did use flamethrowers and heavy machine guns in the Beslan school, because they shot and burned hundreds of Ossetian children to death.

Mitleser , August 13, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

The EU is the principal victim of Putin's actions and is therefore the principal beneficiary of sanctions.

What? How are we the "principal benficiary of sanctions"?
It is our trade that suffers.

It is the Anglophone world that is obsessed with "fighting" the guy who is soon going to visit Berlin.

neutral , August 13, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and the world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory.

Look I know you are another dim witted Ukrainian pretending to be an Anglo Saxon, but even for you this logic is beyond ridiculous.

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
The best idea out there, for exploring a better relationship with the Russian Federation.

'Michael McFaul and the Astonishment of American Life Under Trump', By David Remnick, News Desk, July 19, 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/michael-mcfaul-and-the-astonishment-of-american-life-under-trump

President Trump has not dismissed the idea that Russian investigators meet with, and question, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. President Trump has said that Vladimir Putin tendered him an "incredible offer": that, in exchange for letting Robert Mueller's team question the twelve indicted Russian intelligence officers thought to have participated in the cyber-meddling in the 2016 election, Russian counterparts would get the chance to question McFaul, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama years. Rather than dismiss this idea out of hand, Trump, according to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is "going to work with his team, and we'll let you know if there's an announcement on this front."

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
Why should the crimes & tyrannies of Obama, Hillary, Soros, & McFall remain secret?
pyrrhus , August 13, 2018 at 1:45 pm GMT
@Mitleser

This economic "war", if implemented, will cause an economic collapse in Europe, and subsequently in North America These Senators are lunatics

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
The USA, UK & USSR tried, convicted & hanged NAZI War Criminals.

'What you need to know about Michael McFaul, the ex-U.S. envoy drawn into the center of another Trump-Russia flap', By LAURA KING and SABRA AYRES, WASHINGTON, WORLD, JUL 19, 2018 | 3:15 PM, http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-russia-mcfaul-20180719-story.html

At a summit in Helsinki, Finland, with President Trump, Putin floated the idea of inviting U.S. special counsel investigators to Russia for the questioning of a dozen Russian intelligence officials indicted last week as part of the special counsel's inquiry into Kremlin interference in the 2016 election. In return, Putin wanted Russian authorities to be allowed to interrogate a roughly equal number of Americans, including McFaul, for supposed illicit activities. At Monday's post-summit news conference with Putin at his side, Trump -- sounding intrigued rather than indignant -- called that an "incredible" offer.

What is the problem with a joint investigation of Michael McFALL, on American Soil.

Sean , August 13, 2018 at 1:49 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

I have no idea what is going on in Putin's mind, but I can see what he is doing and if he wants closer relations with the West, his way of showing it seems odd. Do I need to read Dostoevsky to understand Putin?

Felix Keverich , August 13, 2018 at 1:52 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about conquest.

There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which you wouldn't even be able to finish.

But the sanctions are happening anyway. We'll need an anti-sanctions law regardless of whether or not we are going to invade. Actually, as an economist, I don't think we need a law. What we need is to make sure that the vital sectors of the economy do not rely on US financial system, by converting oil trade into non-dollar currencies for example.

Eastern Europeans will never mobilise. What would mass mobilisation even look like in a country like Hungary? Instead, they'll petition USA to station more of its troops in Eastern Europe. A lot more, like hundreds of thousands more. Doing so will impose costs on the USA. Actually, this is one of the few ways Russia could impose tangible costs on USA: by stoking tensions in Eastern Europe.

And if USA suddenly grows a brain and declines to play along, Eastern NATO members will begin re-orienting their foreign relations towards appeasement of Russia instead. That's what weak people do.

I also don't like ethnic cleansing and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a requirement if you were to occupy Ukraine.

Mass deportations is the best part about occupying the Ukraine! I would drive Galicia population into Poland and other neighboring countries. There would be millions of refugees. This by itself will seriously destabilise NATO's "Eastern flank". There could be Russian agents among the refugees, allowing us to seamlessly move from the invasion of the Ukraine to a campaign of hybrid warfare against Eastern NATO members.

NATO will react to invasion of the Ukraine by positioning to support an insurgency in the Western part of the country. Instead they would have to contend with an insurgency in Eastern Poland – wouldn't that be fun?

utu , August 13, 2018 at 2:03 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Czechs if I remember correctly did everything to not blow money on any jet fighters while being pressured.

neutral , August 13, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Sean

Do I need to read Dostoevsky to understand Putin?

Probably better than trying to understand things by reading comic books (Hollywood movies are the same), which is pretty much what the US establishment uses for their thinking.

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
Congress did not do their job, when Barack Hussein Obama drone-killed Americans.

Hell no, we don't trust the traitors in congress.

Why would we, trust those Oath-Breaking POS?

anon [374] Disclaimer , August 13, 2018 at 2:23 pm GMT
@Sean

for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin "

Doesn't that apply to Obama? Will that not apply to future presidents? Doesn't it apply to the sitting US senators and congress ? Doesn't this "fooling" apply every time US senators and congress apply more sanction on Iran and justify their earlier "fooling" when they failed to stop Trump get out of JCPOA?
It does because majority of Americans supported the deal and wanted to keep the deal.

"fooling" is a little more complex in America that it is in Papua NewGuinea . But fooling it is.

It is like cries against "fake news ' charges leveled against Facebook infowar or intercept or antiwar or common dreams by WaPo and NYT and FOX/CNN – being bad because those lead to violences.

The violences perpetrated against Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Syria are based on lies and been made possible by Fake News of CNN NYT . The latest servile and sinsiter attempt by NYT to start talking of banned CW use by Syrians to kill more Syrians is nothing but 'fooling and lying" fakery of news what they accuse Putin and Russian bot of but without proof.

APilgrim , August 13, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
Congress did not do their job when the CIA, DOJ & FBI ILLEGALLY:

Surveiled citizens.
Investigated the Trump Presidential Campaign.
Paid Christopher Steele to fabricate a pack of God Damned Lies.
Told the FISA Court a pack of God Damned Lies.
Obstructed a congressional investigation, into that pack of God Damned Lies.
Fabricated ANOTHER pack of lies about Civil-Wars in Georgia & Ukraine.
Fabricated YET ANOTHER pack of lies about the Syrian Civil War & ISIS.
Fabricated STILL ANOTHER pack of lies about Russia President Putin.

So, there's that.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Even though I am not a psychiatrist, I had enough MD/PhD students to respect the first rule of psychiatry: never argue with patients.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Don't confuse Ukrainians with Ukies. Ukrainians are humans, with their stronger and weaker points, like all humans, whereas Ukies are the scum of the Earth.

Z-man , August 13, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
Trump has to thread a fine line with the Neocons and outright JOO firsters in his cabinet who HATE Putin and the Russians. Push back against these vermin would be good but he probably wont do it until after the mid terms, we shall see.
Thorfinnsson , August 13, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT
@Anon

I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In a real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it, especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.

Here's a discussion of the matter in the Australian parliament: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/verbatim/4/133273/f_35-fares-worse-in-rand-wargame.html

The basic assumption is that over the horizon UHF radar (like Australia's Jindalee system) detects the F-35, allowing Flankers to use their IRST.

Of course some have disputed the study, as well they should. A major problem with IRST is its very limited field of view, though pairing this with low frequency radar mitigates that.

In a real world situation the Su-35 would detect the AMRAAMs before impact rather than be surprised. Whether or not the AMRAAMs destroy the Su-35 would depend on many factors such as:

• Number of AMRAAMs fired
• Distance from which AMRAAMs are fired
• Quality of Su-35 countermeasures
• Pilot skill (duh)

Should also be pointed out that the Russians are now fielding L-band AESA radars embedded in wingtips specifically for counter-VLO purposes. See here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html

That's irrelevant for three reasons:

1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to produce in the near term.

2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to sell the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.

3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35 should be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any other country save perhaps Israel.

Chengdu J-20 and J-31 units will most certainly not be capped at 187 units. Fifth generation fighters will almost certainly proliferate beyond China and Russia as well.

No, the US didn't "need" to sell the F-22 to Japan. But the sale would've strengthened Allied forces in the Pacific theater, kept the F-22 production line open and cut unit costs, reduced the American trade deficit, and provided jobs and profits to Americans. The F-22 export ban was an own goal.

Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that you can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance. Kinematic performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a decisive advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any issues with the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm opponents + combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.

This decisive advantage depends on two assumptions:

• Counter-VLO sensors will not be effective (or fielded in adequate numbers), or at least won't be enough to vector interceptors (whether aircraft or missiles) to the target
• Kill probability of BVR missile shots has improved by two orders of magnitude since the last air war against a near peer

Obviously, overwhelming the opponent with numbers is always a war winning strategy. NATO can thus be expected to prevail in any air war against Russia, though not without a bloody nose.

That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other aircraft."

Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these craft – thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad idea after all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a program.

I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are hard to hit or detect.

The airframe is inferior to what the US could have done otherwise, and is inferior to contemporary aircraft. This inferiority was not driven by the stealth does requirement and thus counts as an own goal.

The B model stems from the Marine Corps remember some battle in the Pacific War where Navy air support didn't show up. Therefore they must have their own fighters, a logic which strangely wouldn't apply to the Army.

If our doctrine or experience dictates that a STOVL aircraft is desirable, fine. But given the limitations of STOVL aircraft, it ought to be a separate design.

Dealing with Chinese strikes at Pacific bases is probably better dealt with by buying more heavy equipment and training more Seabees. You can patch holes pretty quickly.

That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It also has IR reduction measures.

Here's a thermal image of an F-35 from a modern IR camera:

No IR reduction in the world is going to disguise 45,000 pounds of thrust from a single nozzle.

Yes, the F-35 has substantially reduced RCS compared to non-VLO aircraft. News at 11. It has, however, inferior stealth compared to the F-22 (let alone the YF-23).

RAM is useful, but the largest reductions in RCS come from airframe shaping. F-35 is not optimized in the lower or aft areas. The original X-35 is quite decent here, but this was changed for the F-35 in order to increase internal weapons load out. Given the original intention of employing it as a tactical strike fighter, this wasn't unreasonable.

Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?

This originally concerned exports. Any damn fool can tell you that numerical superiority is very powerful.

No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American aircraft.

In a 1v1 engagement with no supporting elements where the rival fighters approach each other head on, I agree. But this isn't reflective of actual combat.

1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in coordination with the F-35.

B-2 is unsuitable for this role owing to the location of its radar:

That said it has been proposed to use the B-1 for this role, which I think is a good idea.

Drone idea is worth trying, though I'm skeptical of the ability to retain datalinks in an electromagnetically challenged environment. And drones autonomously launching missiles could be dubious–but this could be solved by wargaming (if its proven autonomous drones ID targets better than human pilots, have at it).

2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability and maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or in a variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role fighter. It will do BVR just fine.

Stability not a concern with fly-by-wire and thrust vectoring (which the B-2 doesn't have incidentally, yet is a stable bombing platform).

There is incidentally a trade-off between stability and maneuverability, hence why fighters from the F-16 on have been designed to be inherently unstable.

But in any case you've been pooh poohing maneuverability here, citing the superiority of BVR combat. If BVR is your goal, then you want a larger missile load, more powerful/sensitive sensors, and increased stealth. A flying wing eliminates the issue with resonant effects (if a vertical surface is less than eight times the size of a radar wavelength, it produces a resonant effect).

The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by pointing out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when building the craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.

Well I suppose that's true, but whole JSF program would've been better if:

1 – STOVL had been left out
2 – Kinematic performance had been considered important

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT
@APilgrim

Have to agree with you: Soros, Browder, MSM owners, Pentagon contractors, and all other sorts of scum are much bigger threat to the US than Putin, Un, Iranian Ayatollahs, Assad, and many others. The enemy within is always more dangerous. Especially when that enemy has only one loyalty: to his/her/its money.

Z-man , August 13, 2018 at 2:40 pm GMT
@Mitleser

Interesting, a few years ago Algeria had to have Russia redo the electronics in the Su 30′s that it bought because there was some Izraeli electronics in it.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
@utu

You are forgetting thievery and corruption that provides cover for that thievery. Out of every dollar spent in the U on "defense", at least 90 cents are stolen, some of the money is used to buy "patriotic" politicians who pretend not to see the thievery.

anon [374] Disclaimer , August 13, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT
@neutral

No they don't pluck books off shelf . They watch the snippet cribbed from some internet site on Fox TV /CNN and use it as evidence. That were the sources of evidences they offered on Syrian using sarin gas.

Thorfinnsson , August 13, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@APilgrim

Last air war between near peers was Vietnam. BVR combat was a total failure.

Radars and missiles have improved a lot since then of course, but so have countermeasures.

There were BVR kills in Operation Mole Cricket 19 and Desert Storm, but fighting incompetent Arabalonians doesn't count as near peer. And there were still WVR kills in those campaigns.

Depending on ROE in a conflict or confused airspace, there will be a need to visually ID targets on occasion.

The main thing that's changed about dogfighting is that heat seeking missiles can now lock onto an aircraft from any angle (instead of just behind) and launch from high off boresight. This makes instantaneous turning performance more importance than sustained turning performance.

But like I said, if BVR missiles are now truly as miraculous as you think, then the F-35 is an improper design. In fact, so is the F-22 and more or less all other existing fighters. The idea "fighter" of existing aircraft would be the Airbus A380 launching thousands of missiles at once

BVR missiles also work just as well from the ground as the air (with some kinematic disadvantages, and of course can't deal with attackers on the deck). Magical BVR missiles suggest we should be building a lot more SAM systems.

I bring you the air superiority force of the future:

anon [317] Disclaimer , August 13, 2018 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Mr. XYZ

who did it.. answered right here go no further

https://www.rt.com/usa/435824-us-midterms-hacking-children/

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT
@pyrrhus

These senators may or may not be lunatics themselves. This does not change the fact that they are bought and paid for puppets of lunatics, the US moneyed elites that dangerously degenerated after 1991. The US used to be a decent country. Not anymore.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 2:52 pm GMT
@utu

There was a joke about Czechoslovakia in the USSR: Czechoslovakia is the most peaceful country on Earth, it does not interfere even in its own internal affairs. Puppet masters change (Hitler, USSR, the US), but the policy stands.

dryhole dutton , August 13, 2018 at 3:09 pm GMT
i lived in the russian federation for several years (yuzhno sakhalinsk, 2011-2012). i don't claim to be a russian expert, however, i did not detect any virulent comintern intent amongst the russians with whom i was privileged to interact. for the most part, they seemed like everyone else i have come across in my travels on this pitiable orb; they were simply trying to get by, and were as capitalistic as any crony capitalist in america.

maybe someone with more foreign relations erudition, and experience than i could pen an expositive on why there exists such animosity betwixt our nations, other than the all to well known need for a bogeyman so as to facilitate u.s. world hegemony.

for a country which is broke, and which depends upon martial, and venal, intimidation to achieve/sustain its aims, the impending comeuppance could be very humbling, and decisive.

Okechukwu , August 13, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT

As Ben Aris notes, the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions against Oleg Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals market.

Aluminum has a unique market dynamic which other products with more fungible supply chains don't share. Sanctions are a work in progress. Treasury has learned from the Rusal matter. Henceforth it can collapse even bigger Russian companies like Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil without much fear of a concomitant contagion. Oil and gas are the ultimate fungible commodities.

However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly punish Russia is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the economic output

This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls. Russia's economic output, measured in GDP, is the same size as New York City's. It has always been a question of how far the US was willing to go to punish Russia. There are nuclear options in the US quiver that can pretty much destroy the Russian economy. But so far the US has been applying relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not making a value judgement). But the perception that Trump has somehow been captured by Russian intelligence has ratcheted things up.

Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.

It's not a question of trade between Russian and the US. It's a question of trade between Russia and the world since the US controls the global economy.

Maudits , August 13, 2018 at 3:32 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

[MORE]

Mr Fack , your ukraruina , your jojolistan , is the black hole of Europe , you want to set Europe on ( atomic ) fire fot the benefit of the usa , and of your corrupted oligarcs .

No real country in Europe respects ukraruina , a very inmoral and stupid pseudocountry . Ukraruina could have been a golden bridge between the EU and Russia ,and choosed instead to be a blood trench for the benefit of the oligarcs of the usa . You are a cursed land .

Daniel Chieh , August 13, 2018 at 3:36 pm GMT
@Anon

Swarms of missiles? What? With the F-35 capacity of 4 AMRAAM? The ones that haven't been upgraded, have been unreliable since at least 2016, and would be vulnerable to manuever anyway? The twenty five plus year old missiles?

Stealth is only stealth to high fidelity radar, as in versus missile locks. That's great, but low frequency radar will still reveal the location of aircraft for the purpose of general location. So it's not really a "bolt from blue," which is much more of a ground to air concept since IR missiles don't telegraph themselves like radar locks do.

Gerard2 , August 13, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

[MORE]

Goodness, you are one thick POS.
As I have said before Cyrano is a serious intellectual .you on the other hand are a serious cretin.

Seeing as it's that part of your menstruation cycle, I thought I would add another proof of how fake "Ukrainian" history and language is. From a company yet again threatening the collapse of Ukrainian infrastructure due to an oligarchic dispute:

Russian version:

http://www.azot.com.ua/ru/company/activity/

Ukrop version

http://www.azot.com.ua/uk/company/activity/

As you can see the Ukrainian version is a waste of time, when the Russian version exists ..the whole fake language is a fabrication by lowlife scum Banderite tossers who escaped bestiality charges in the 1940′s/50′s and fled to America/Canada

Virgile , August 13, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
If Putin wants to retaliate by creating a destabilizing crisis in the USA, he could simply admit that he has proofs that Trump COLLUDED with Russians operatives to affect the election.
Trump will be removed and Mike Pence will take over throwing the USA in a deeper crisis.
Is Trump aware of this Damocles sword if he does not stop the Congress for escalating sanctions?
Daniel Chieh , August 13, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
@utu

There are theories, but the mass bueaucracy made some really strange results. In Vietnam, ROE required visual confirmation of targets to use beyond visual range weapons. Weapons that homed into flares because they produced "heat."

Well, that worked about as well as could be expected.

awry , August 13, 2018 at 4:03 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Well, no, Austria-Hungary gave an ultimatum: "do these in 48 hours or we'll go to war". These demands are also unrealistic, but they are just pretext for new sanctions. It is very unlikely that the US will take any military action against Russia. Russia responding to more sanctions/economic warfare with attacking the West with nukes is also very unlikely.
It is also very unlikely that the people pulling the strings want WW3 with Russia. They just found a convenient scapegoat and want to ramp up tensions with Russia not independently of the game to bring down Trump for "colluding with Russia".
Face it, Russia is bound to lose an economic war, they cannot really retaliate without hurting themselves. They could close the gas taps, but then they lose a lot of money. They could close Russian airspace, but then they lose a lot of money too. They could deny Soyuz seats to American astronauts, but the US has other options (not ready yet but they could get them ready if really needed) etc. Russia is not a big economic player and never was one.
Regarding the sanctions the question is whether the EU will follow the US, probably yes, EU companies are going to lose a lot of money, but they would lose much more if they are punished by the US govt.
The US hawks think that they can bankrupt Russia like they did with the Soviet Union. The question is how viable is Russian economy if mostly cut from the world economy including finance and how tolerant will be the Russian people with the hardships. Looking at Iran, if they could manage then Russia should be able to, but more hardships must be expected. Also the government may do away with democratic pretensions and go full autocracy in the case of popular unrest. And of course Russia will be dependent on China more than now. Why is it good for the US if Russia becomes China's little bitch instead of a strategic ally against Chinese expansion is another question. Rationally thinking China is the future geopolitical rival of America and not Russia. But the people pulling the strings want to screw Russia bad, that is their first goal, obviously, they feel ideologically fueled hatred for Russia beyond strategic calculations.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 4:16 pm GMT
@Daniel Chieh

Somehow a lot of comments here were deflected into a discussion of F-35 vs other fighters, including Russian. I am not a technical expert, so I can comment only in general terms. Overall, the technology in the US is more advanced. However, there is one huge difference between Russian and American weapons: Russian ones are designed for the battlefield, whereas American ones are design to maximize manufacturers' profits. To what extent does this difference cancel technological potential in fighter planes, I don't know.

I do know, though, that the engine of the super-modern destroyer Zumwalt, for which the US taxpayers paid more than $4.4 billion, broke down on its first voyage. To add insult to injury, this happened in the Panama canal, of all places ( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/us-navys-most-expensive-destroyer-breaks-down-in-panama-canal ). What's more, presumably super-modern Royal Navy destroyer HMS Duncan had the same problem and was towed back to port ( https://navaltoday.com/2016/11/24/royal-navy-destroyer-towed-back-to-port-after-engine-breakdown/ ). All this sounds pretty much like Ukraine, where thievery has no bounds.

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
@Virgile

Why would Russia do that? The US is destroying itself more efficiently than any of its enemies could ever achieve. Reminds me of a dark joke "if you see your enemy committing suicide, do not interfere".

AnonFromTN , August 13, 2018 at 4:23 pm GMT
@awry

As a matter of fact, the USSR was not bankrupted. It was destroyed because the Party elites wanted to steal a lot more than the Soviet system allowed. They succeeded, now they are oligarchs, whereas the great majority of the population got screwed.

awry , August 13, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT
@Okechukwu

This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls

For now yes, but if forced to, it could leave those structures and survive without them. Of course it wouldn't be pretty especially the transitional period.

But so far the US has been applying relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not making a value judgement).

The idea that Russia would i.e. abandon the Crimea if sanctioned hard enough and such "hopes" are delusional. A country that still sees itself as a great power and has a lot of national pride is not going to make such concessions to the US. If Putin looks a wuss to the Russian people he will fall more quickly than because of any sanctions. But I doubt that there were even such hopes for real. The aim was always just to ratchet the hostility up with Russia more and more, until a full blown cold war.

Daniel Chieh , August 13, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Sadly, it often seems the case of comparing not which competing MIC is smarter, but which one is slightly less corrupt.

LondonBob , August 13, 2018 at 4:32 pm GMT
@Art

Exactly it is AIPAC driving this and the sooner the Russians start to squeeze Israel, which is so vulnerable, the better.

[Aug 13, 2018] >As dubya the idiot once said

Aug 13, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

ggersh on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 10:01am "you're either with us or against us"

Well I'm fucking against us

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/13/heres-video-schoolchildren-...

Here's the Video of Schoolchildren Just Moments Before Being Massacred by U.S.-Backed Saudi Bombing
"This blood is on America's hands, as long as we keep sending the bombs that kill so many Yemenis."

After

[Aug 13, 2018] Not supposed to get angry right? Supposed to be civil

Notable quotes:
"... "Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed." ..."
"... "Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in." ..."
"... "In reality, Saudi Arabia's and the United States' rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess." ..."
"... Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC. ..."
"... "Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed." ..."
"... "By backing the Saudi coalition's war in Yemen with weapons, aerial refueling, and targeting assistance, the United States is complicit in the atrocities taking place there." -- Sen. Bernie Sanders ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Big Al on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 12:28pm

ya right.
Like all wars, most media, including Common Dreams, either sugarcoat them or obfuscate the real purpose. And of course the politicians do that even better, like Sanders, who just a few years ago was begging Saudi Arabia to "get their hands dirty", just at the time that the U.S. proxy war in Yemen heated up with their lapdog Saudi Arabia getting their hands dirty indeed. The problem of course is that it's not just the U.S. supplying the bombs and military guidance, it's that it's actually another U.S. proxy war using it's favorite terrorists and terrorist supporting countries for it's imperialist agenda.

"Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed."

"Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in."

"In reality, Saudi Arabia's and the United States' rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess."

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/03/us-saudi-blitz-in-yemen-naked....

Actually it's larger than that, it's part of the larger imperialist struggle against China and Russia, control of the Bab-el-Mandeb oil chokepoint and control of oil and other resources in the MENA.

Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC.

ggersh on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 12:55pm
My guess is that most amerikans

@Big Al don't get the why/when for if they ever do amerika won't be amerika anymore and that could go both ways, for better
or for worse

and you're correct in Sanders won't say it but Bernie shouldn't be the one stop cure all, their need to be many more voices but the crickets are most abundant.

Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC.

ya right.

Like all wars, most media, including Common Dreams, either sugarcoat them or obfuscate the real purpose. And of course the politicians do that even better, like Sanders, who just a few years ago was begging Saudi Arabia to "get their hands dirty", just at the time that the U.S. proxy war in Yemen heated up with their lapdog Saudi Arabia getting their hands dirty indeed. The problem of course is that it's not just the U.S. supplying the bombs and military guidance, it's that it's actually another U.S. proxy war using it's favorite terrorists and terrorist supporting countries for it's imperialist agenda.

"Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed."

"Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in."

"In reality, Saudi Arabia's and the United States' rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess."

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/03/us-saudi-blitz-in-yemen-naked....

Actually it's larger than that, it's part of the larger imperialist struggle against China and Russia, control of the Bab-el-Mandeb oil chokepoint and control of oil and other resources in the MENA.

Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC.

TheOtherMaven on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 4:06pm
Future generations, if there are any,

@ggersh

will call these years the "Oil Wars".

#4 don't get the why/when for if they ever do amerika won't be amerika anymore and that could go both ways, for better
or for worse

and you're correct in Sanders won't say it but Bernie shouldn't be the one stop cure all, their need to be many more voices
but the crickets are most abundant.

Sanders won't say that and most media will simply blame it on the U.S. supplying weapons but they don't get into the why, typically blaming it on the MIC being the MIC.

Big Al on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 1:52pm
Actually what Sanders and some others

(the other so called progressive heroes) are saying,

"By backing the Saudi coalition's war in Yemen with weapons, aerial refueling, and targeting assistance, the United States is complicit in the atrocities taking place there."
-- Sen. Bernie Sanders

is basically propaganda. Clearly he's making it sound like the U.S. is supplying weapons and some military assistance and therefore is complicit in the atrocities that Saudi Arabia and it's "coalition" are perpetrating in "their" war, which in turn leads people to believe (and the progressive hero politicians to propose) the U.S. simply needs to stop supplying those weapons and military assistance, i.e., get out of Saudi's war. But that misses the history of U.S. interest and involvement in Yemen, it's real role in the near genocide happening there and the overall agenda of those controlling our government. And that is why most Americans, including most progressives, don't know what is really going on in Yemen. Our political "representatives" and the 90% owned by six rich bastard corporations oligarchy media won't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's why people still believe the war in Syria is a civil war. It's why people believe the Russia cold war propaganda. That's all they hear and the only way to get the real truth is to dig for it and try to make sense of the big picture along with the true history of this country and our government and political system.

Not to mention he's a fucking hypocrite.

"Even worse, after the Saudis started bombing Yemen with U.S. government backing earlier this year, killing thousands and leading to what the UN is now calling a "humanitarian catastrophe," and suffering that is "almost incomprehensible," Sanders continued. In another interview, again with Wolf Blitzer in May, Sanders did correctly note that as a result of the Iraq invasion, "we've destabilized the region, we've given rise to Al-Qaeda, ISIS." But then he actually called for more intervention: "What we need now, and this is not easy stuff, I think the President is trying, you need to bring together an international coalition, Wolf, led by the Muslim countries themselves! Saudi Arabia is the third largest military budget in the world, they're going to have to get their hands dirty in this fight. We should be supporting, but at the end of the day this is [a] fight over what Islam is about, the soul of Islam, we should support those countries taking on ISIS."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/bernie-sanders-policy-backing-saudi-in...

(Note on Truthdig article: also propaganda inserted by both Sanders and the author by insinuating the U.S. wars in the MENA "gave rise" to ISIS. That is not true, ISIS was created, aided and abetted FOR the wars in the MENA and beyond.)

[Aug 13, 2018] Oh, yeah, those evil "Muslim dictators" -- always interfering with elected governments foreign trade policies

Aug 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

bus full of kids was a target of 500 pound bomb and probably f-16! partizan , Aug 13, 2018 11:24:58 AM | 45

Another imperial crime in the US Overseas Territory.

https://twitter.com/BitarSaif/status/1028977314351198208

Probably Raytheon's Hellfire.

partizan , Aug 13, 2018 11:39:04 AM | 46
bus full of kids was a target of 500 pound bomb and probably f-16!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb

[Aug 13, 2018] FBI Reveals Maria Butina Traded Sex In Exchange For All 62,984,828 Votes Trump Received In 2016

Jul 19, 2018 | politics.theonion.com
WASHINGTON -- Saying that their investigation indicated her involvement in election interference went deeper than previously believed, the FBI revealed Thursday that Russian agent Maria Butina traded sex in exchange for all 62,984,828 votes Donald Trump received for president in 2016. "Our inquiry into Ms. Butina

[Aug 13, 2018] Turkey blames Trump for attack on lira, says it won't 'kneel' and has counter-measures ready

Notable quotes:
"... "The currency of our country is targeted directly by the US president," ..."
"... "This attack, initiated by the biggest player in the global financial system, reveals a similar situation in all developing countries." ..."
"... "All of our action plan and measures are ready," ..."
"... "Together with our banks, we prepared our action plan regarding the situation with our real sector companies, including Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is the sector that is affected by the fluctuation the most," ..."
"... "Together with our banks and the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA), we will take the necessary measures quickly." ..."
"... "It is making an operation against Turkey Its aim is to force Turkey to surrender in every field from finance to politics, to make Turkey and the Turkish nation kneel down," ..."
"... "We have seen your play and we challenge you." ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | www.rt.com

Turkey has accused Donald Trump of leading an attack on its national currency. The lira lost about 40 percent of its value against the US dollar this year and, to reduce its volatility, Ankara has prepared an urgent action plan. "The currency of our country is targeted directly by the US president," Finance Minister Berat Albayrak told the Hurriyet. "This attack, initiated by the biggest player in the global financial system, reveals a similar situation in all developing countries."

The Turkish lira took a massive hit against the dollar on Friday following Trump's decision to double tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from Turkey to 20 percent and 50 percent. Overall, the national currency lost roughly about 40 percent of its value this year.

Read more © Ozan Kose Erdogan urges Turks to dump dollar to support lira

To calm down the markets, the government instructed its institutions to implement a series of actions on Monday. "All of our action plan and measures are ready," Albayrak said, without elaborating.

"Together with our banks, we prepared our action plan regarding the situation with our real sector companies, including Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is the sector that is affected by the fluctuation the most," the minister said . "Together with our banks and the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA), we will take the necessary measures quickly."

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan meanwhile slammed the US decision to impose new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

"It is making an operation against Turkey Its aim is to force Turkey to surrender in every field from finance to politics, to make Turkey and the Turkish nation kneel down," Erdogan said in Trabzon on Sunday. "We have seen your play and we challenge you."

[Aug 13, 2018] If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers -- the role of the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.

Aug 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Cyrano , August 10, 2018 at 10:45 pm GMT

Americans see the Russians as greatness deniers. Their European lackeys are their greatness-acknowledgers -- even when it's detrimental to their own survival.

If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers -- the role of the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.

Russia is not a part of the audience, it's not even a heckler. It's a performer, it has always been, and a very talented one too. To try to demote them to the role of spectators, or to try to usher them out of the concert hall can be suicidal, they have enough musical instruments to put on a remarkable concert -- even if afterwards no one is left to applaud.

[Aug 13, 2018] Cold War in the Sauna Notes From a Russian American by Pavel Kozhevnikov

Aug 13, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

I had just finished exercising and went to the sauna. The gym I go to is a modern facility with new equipment and is very popular in our city.

My favorite parts are the sauna and the steamer. Both remind me of my old country – Russia. Though, to be politically and geographically correct – I never lived in Russia: I was born and raised in one of the fifteen republics of the former USSR – the republic of Kazakhstan.

So, I am a Russian from Kazakhstan. It's kind of confusing for Americans, and when twenty-six years ago my American wife brought me here, the customs official gave me an alien card where my nationality was stated not Russian but Kazakh. My friends make fun of me, because Russians and Kazakhs are like apples and oranges. We look different

In 1992, when I arrived in America, the relationship between the two cold war rivals was excellent: Americans traveled to Russia, opening McDonalds, KFC's, Burger Kings, and other businesses, and Russians were opening not only their hearts but even the secrets of the overthrown KGB. Millions of Russians and Americans enjoyed such a "romance" between the two most powerful nuclear countries in the world.

Not anymore! Every morning I wake up to the words, "Russia is terrible," and go to sleep with the humiliating jokes of the "night-show-clowns" about "the dictator" Putin and "barbaric" Russians, whose 13 hackers changed the electoral minds of millions of naïve Americans. Wow! What a powerful "gasoline station country"- Russia, as Senator McCain calls it.

If in 1992 the people in my city who heard my accent were very nice to me and to Russia, now the usual reaction is to stare at me like a goat at the newly painted gates. One of my neighbors even yelled at me when I answered his question about my recent trip to Russia. I told him: "Russians like Putin because he saved their country from collapse. I saw with my own eyes how Russia has changed since my last trip there. I didn't see the impact of Obama's sanctions, Russians have better roads, than we have in Colorado; the shops, are filled with all kinds of products; the churches are restored "

My neighbor who didn't like Trump yelled at me: "If you like Russia go back to your country!" My answer was: "I love Russia but I am American – like your immigrant wife, like you. I love America for a lot of reasons, one of them – the right to speak! Nobody should privatize this right." He ran away, later coming to apologize

My wife, knowing my hard-tempered character asks me not to talk about policy – Putin-Trump anymore. And I don't, to a certain degree. However, when someone asks me about Russia or Putin I usually answer, giving my point of view; I just cannot be silent. I was silent for 40+ years living in the USSR, not anymore! Of course, not everyone likes my answers, like the man I am going to tell you about.

So, I went into the sauna; a stout man was sitting on the upper bench. He was the same age as I. Many of the older men in America call ourselves "old farts." The name is not offensive to us, because we really do not care about our image, and because we like to make jokes about everything, mostly about ourselves. Usually, we old farts are nice, we love to talk, even in the sauna. Young people nowadays do not talk. They turn on their phones even in the sauna – I bet they do not know how to talk with other people. They cover their "secrets" in towels while we do not – we do not have any secrets anymore.

Anyway, the man said hello to me, I answered, and he caught my slight accent.

"Where are you from?" It's a question I am usually asked.

"From here." I answered.

He was a little confused. I knew what usually followed if I had said – "from Kazakhstan." Usually, there would be an exchange of this type: "Where is it?" – "Between Russia and China," – "How do you like it here?" The silly film "Borat" helped me for a short period of time. People were smiling, as if they met Sasha Cohen, and I was happy that at least they knew some geography, though the film was silly and the geography in it was completely mistaken.

"No, I mean originally where are you from?" The guy, let's call him Tony, found the right question.

I decided not to check his geography skills and said that I came from Russia. The dialog that followed was remarkable. Here it is.

"Welcome to America! Your English is pretty good!"

"Yours, too." He didn't get my humor. "Just joking," I said, "As for welcoming, it's a little late: I have lived here for 25 years."

"Have you been in Russia lately?" He asked.

"Yes, I go there every year."

"Wow. So, what do you think about that crazy guy , Pyutin?"

"Sorry, honey," – I apologized to my wife in my thoughts and picked up the gauntlet. "You mean Putin? He is not crazy. Actually, he is one of the smartest rulers Russia ever had." I said.

Tony's eyes nearly leaped from their sockets. "But he is a dictator and kills people!"

"I wouldn't call him a dictator – he was just last week elected by nearly 67% of Russians. I would call him an authoritarian, strong ruler; but a weak ruler in Russia wouldn't survive a day. Besides, there were seven people opposed him in the election!"

Tony smiled. "You call it an election? He chose the opponents himself from his friends. The whole world knows that elections in Russia are a sham!"

"Who told you this nonsense, Tony? Did you listen to the debates? Did you hear how these people yelled at each other and cursed Putin, asking people to vote for them not for Putin. They really were as tough as Hillary to Donald! And besides, there were a lot of observers from 110 countries. They claimed the election was legitimate."

"No, I do not believe you."

"You may not believe me but I am citing the international organizations reports. You may check their reports on the Internet yourself. You may even sue these organizations if you wish."

Tony was silent for a minute, then turned his head to me and asked: "You know that Pyutin is evil even to his own people?"

"You mean Putin? Who told you? How many Russians share your opinion?"

"McCain."

"Is he Russian?"

"No, but he knows that Pyutin is KGB."

"His name is Putin!" I tried to correct at least this in his mind. "So, you do not believe me, a Russian, who just returned from Russia, but you believe this Senator, who hates Putin and Russia? Besides, there are no KGB anymore."

"But he used to be KGB?"

"Yes, and Bush H. was also a CIA agent. So, what? After the collapse of the Soviet Union there were no people who didn't work for government in that country, we all worked for government! Putin is good for Russia, he is the brightest politician nowadays. He is like a great Chess-master, and he is a dangerous player. We must be careful with him. Some Congressmen are underestimating Russia, calling it "a gasoline station with nukes," but I was there this summer and saw with my own eyes how much people love Putin, and how much he is doing to make that country great again."

"Yeh, yeh, yeh " Tony didn't know what to say. Then he recalled something and turned his red face to me. "Well, he invaded Crimea, and Ukraine!"

"No, he did not. Crimea was a harbor for the Russian navy, and according to the treaty between Ukraine and Russia there were sixteen thousand Russian troops stationed there on a permanent base. There were about twenty-three thousand Ukrainian troops there, too. So, when the thugs in Kiev took power, illegally kicking out president Yanukovych and killing the political opponents, the Crimean people decided to organize a referendum. Ninety-six percent decided to reunite with Russia, as they were Russians for nearly 400 years before the Communist dictator Khrushchev gave that peninsula to Ukraine as a present to his native land."

"But they had no right to secede from the main land of Ukraine!"

"Yes, they did. International law gives the right for self-determination to people. Remember, we split from the British Empire."

"But it was so long ago!"

"Okay, what about East and West Germany or Kosovo? The people in these countries also exercised their right of self-determination, but they didn't have any referendum as far as I know."

Tony looked at me attentively. "I don't believe you."

"You have the right not to believe me. You asked, I answered."

Tony was silent for a while. Then he threw out his last argument. "I hope you wouldn't deny that Putin killed British citizens recently, using KGB gas!"

Wow, he pronounced "Putin" correctly! I smiled. The nice face of my American wife appeared in my head again, and she was not happy! I kissed her in my thoughts and finished the conversation with my last knockout blow:

"I wouldn't deny it if the poisoning by Russians had been proved!"

"But it was proved by Teresa May!"

"Really? What did she say?"

"She said that it was Putin who poisoned the British citizens!"

"Not really, my friend. She said that it was "highly likely" that Russia did it! Besides, only Mr. Skripal is a British citizen, his daughter is a Russian citizen"

"Does it make any difference?"

"You mean, "highly likely" is proof to punish somebody? What about one of the main pillars of democracy – innocent until proven guilty?"

"But we believe our allies, not the Russians!"

That statement made me laugh. "You believe not facts but political statements without any facts? Wow! What kind of democracy is that?"

Tony's face became so red that I was afraid it would melt. He stood up from the bench and without looking at me firmly said:

"Russians are our enemies, and democracy does not apply to them."

He left, leaving me with a sudden fear of approaching nuclear war.

At night I prayed for peace. I prayed for American and Russian people-in-power who could easily destroy this fragile planet. If people refuse to understand each other, they fight. Kennedy and Khrushchev fortunately understood this. Will Putin and Trump understand?

Pavel Kozhevnikov was born in Kazakhstan. In 1992 he married an American woman and relocated to Colorado, USA, where he worked in a variety of business ventures and taught various subjects including Russian at Mitchell High School as well as at Pikes Peak Community College and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Pavel continues to enjoy teaching Russian at the local community college and university and devotes his free time to writing. He has published four books of stories and poems as well as numerous articles for newspapers and journals in Russia, Germany, Kazakhstan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

[Aug 12, 2018] What is Trumpism by Sanjay Reddy

Notable quotes:
"... By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
Aug 12, 2018 | www.ineteconomics.org

... ... ...

Grappling with the shock of Donald Trump's election victory, most analysts focus on his appeal to those in the United States who feel left behind, wish to retrieve a lost social order, and sought to rebuke establishment politicians who do not serve their interests. In this respect, the recent American revolt echoes the shock of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, but it is of far greater significance because it promises to reshape the entire global order, and the complaisant forms of thought that accompanied it.

Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump. The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of mainstream political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that there was no alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the iron-handed enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy.

It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.

First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. Economics made the case for such agreements, generally rejecting concerns over labor and environmental standards and giving short shrift to the effects of globalization in weakening the bargaining power of workers or altogether displacing them; to the need for compensatory measures to aid those displaced; and more generally to measures to ensure that the benefits of growth were shared. For the most part, economists casually waved aside such concerns, both in their theories and in their policy recommendations, treating these matters as either insignificant or as being in the jurisdiction of politicians. Still less attention was paid to crafting an alternate form of globalization, or to identifying bases for national economic policies taking a less passive view of comparative advantage and instead aiming to create it.

Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proleterianization and lumpenization of suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and working class.

Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.

All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed, it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.

Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which, although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.

The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]

By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

[Aug 12, 2018] Were not Soros donations and financial speculation also attacks on democracy?

This financial shark creates conflict and then try to profit off of it.
Aug 12, 2018 | www.nytimes.com
Middleman MD New York, NY July 17

@Georgi
In many ways, it is not different. Soros holds citizenship in Hungary and in the US. The article mentions him having "donated more than $500,000 to a group called Best for Britain, led by Malloch-Brown, that plans to push for a second referendum to undo Brexit."

While that $500k is a drop in the bucket for Soros, he is not a citizen of Britain. I also have to wonder, when columnists in the NYT and elsewhere have referred to Russian meddling in the election (originally referred to as "hacking") as a "attack" on the US, how they would characterize George Soros' speculation in Britain and Thailand and elsewhere. Were these currency manipulations also not attacks?

[Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement

Highly recommended!
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @ nytimes , @ NBCNews , @ ABC , @ CBS , @ CNN ) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! ~ Donald Trump
On Thursday, Mr. Trump expressed his distaste for journalists in more populist terms, saying, "much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks not for the people, but for the special interests."
"The public doesn't believe you people anymore," Mr. Trump added. "Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don't know. But they don't believe you."
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC ..."
Aug 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post , the Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.

[Aug 11, 2018] Economics, Trumpism and Migration

Aug 11, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off by reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations. The second part of this claim has been pretty thoroughly demolished, so I want to look mainly at the first. However, as we will see, the corporate tax cuts remain central to the argument.

likbez>, 08.11.18 at 7:52 pm 11

Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off by reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations.

The emergence of Trumpism signifies deepening of the ideological crisis for the neoliberalism. Neoclassical economics fell like a house of cards. IMHO Trumpism can be viewed as a kind of "national neoliberalism" which presuppose rejection of three dogmas of "classic neoliberalism":

1. Rejection of neoliberal globalization including, but not limited to, free movement of labor. Attempt to protect domestic industries via tariff barriers.

2. Rejection of excessive financialization and primacy of financial oligarchy. Restoration of the status of manufacturing, and "traditional capitalists" status in comparison with financial oligarchy.

3. Rejection of austerity. An attempt to fight "secular stagnation" via Military Keysianism.

Trumpism sent "Chicago school" line of thinking to the dustbin of history. It exposed neoliberal economists as agents of financial oligarchy and "Enemy of the American People" (famous Trump phase about neoliberal MSM).

See, for example, a good summary by Sanjay Reddy ( Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research) at https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/trumpism-has-dealt-a-mortal-blow-to-orthodox-economics-and-social-science.html

It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.

First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. ...

Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proletarianization and lumpenization of suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and working class.

Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.

All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed, it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.

Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which, although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.

The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]

Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens' political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while indulging in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low measured unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity of living in hollowed-out communities.

Mainstream accounts of politics recognized the role of identities in the form of wooden theories of group mobilization or of demands for representation. However, the psychological and charismatic elements, which can give rise to moments of 'phase transition' in politics, were altogether neglected, and the role of social media and other new methods in politics hardly registered. As new political movements (such as the Tea Party and Trumpism in the U.S.) emerged across the world, these were deemed 'populist' -- both an admission of the analysts' lack of explanation, and a token of disdain. The essential feature of such movements -- the obscurantism that allows them to offer many things to many people, inconsistently and unaccountably, while serving some interests more than others -- was little explored. The failures can be piled one upon the other. No amount of quantitative data provided by polling, 'big data', or other techniques comprehended what might be captured through open-eyed experiential narratives. It is evident that there is a need for forms of understanding that can comprehend the currents within the human person, and go beyond shallow empiricism. Mainstream social science has offered few if any resources to understand, let alone challenge, illiberal majoritarianism, now a world-remaking phenomenon.

[Aug 11, 2018] Soros is a criminal promoter of very specific form of political corruption masquerading desire of obtain full control of countries to top 0.01% with words like "promotion of democracy."

Democracy for whom?
Notable quotes:
"... Soros is a Vulture Capitalist of the worst kind. His foray into Eastern Europe after the fall of te USSR was to strip them of their assets by crashng their economies under the Guise of all those lies he pushes. ..."
"... It is clear from the interview of Alex Soros, that George Soros, as a Jew is against nation states and is dreaming up a world where nation states are replaced by a mix and match of minorities. ..."
"... But was this campaign any different from what the U.S. did to elections in the Ukraine? It appears that we may have set the example, and Putin's response is only tit-for-tat one-upmanship. ..."
"... Sorry, Soros; your philanthropy can be spent well on other causes. We need to get the money out of politics, and we need to do it NOW. ..."
"... Paint Soros however you want - it doesn't change the fact he is a devil with the desire to destroy... ..."
"... He cannot enter his country of birth because of his evil, and other world leaders realize his plots of destruction - using the pound disaster for UK almost bankrupting the country. He is the opposite of anything good - because what he masks as "good" is for his own purposes. ..."
"... A guy with a self-admitted messias complex, made his money by wrecking economies and then giving back a portion of his plunder so he can feel as the great philantropist. When apparently he never built a real business in his life other than the necessary bureaucracy to dispense his 'charity'. I never put much stock in the right-wing Soros conspiracies, but the facts don't make him look so much better. ..."
"... He is like the robber baron taking a family's home and then turning up at the homeless shelter bringing them some hot soup to relieve their suffering. ..."
"... Soros, like the Kochs and the Waltons and Gates and Zuckerberg, is an oligarch. He uses his money to buy political influence in order to impose his priorities on the rest of us. Period. ..."
"... Soros reaps what he sows. He promoted some of the worst neoliberals and got wealthy on currency speculation. In that regard, is he truly better than say, the Koch family? ..."
"... The [neo]Liberal order he promoted is losing credibility because the common citizen is facing declining living standards, while billionaires get wealthier and wealthier. The current order seems to exist to transfer the wealth of society to them. ..."
"... I should note that Soros has defied public opinion on many issues, most notably open borders. It seems like he has promoted his version of politics and imposed his views under the guise of democracy. He is villifed and I think rightfully so. ..."
"... Our world would be better if the billionaires had less influence over society and frankly, less billionaires to begin with, while the common citizen is wealthier. ..."
"... He smothered the Democratic Party with his dirty money. Instead of listening to millions of voters, party leaders heard only the cha-ching of a cadre of billionaires, especially Soros. ..."
"... Overtly biased article, but I don't expect legitimate journalism from the NY Times. Soros is hardly the wonderful philanthropist that this article tries to paint him as. He's a scheming radical leftist with delusions of grandeur -- and he and thrives on creating chaos. ..."
"... Hey, George -- why won't you pay your $7 billion dollar back tax bill?? ..."
"... Someone who is as wealthy as Soros made their money by creating misery for others. Once folks like Soros have become obscenely rich, they create foundations to offset the damage of their actions or to pursue lofty ideals to stroke their narcissistic egos. ..."
"... The [neo]liberal progressive movement is focused on globalism and enslavement of the individual to a single ideology antithetical to individual freedom and liberty ..."
"... It's why the EU is starting to break up...and it's why Soros "senses" that all of his money and influence is gradually being rejected by so many, because people are starting to understand where his ideas lead: to a marginalization of any/all positions and opinions that conflict with the [neo]liberal/progressive ideology. His way is anything but support of individual freedoms and empowerment ..."
"... Ego, vast wealth, intellectual snobbery, lack of transparency and moralistic pontification... It is no wonder why the "plebs" demonize this man. Has he done more harm than good to Europe? Certainly his "open borders" initiatives have fanned the flames of nationalism in Europe. I personally think we would do a lot better off without him. ..."
"... Tax loopholes for subversives. Taxpayers in the US and the "compassionate" elsewhere must quit financially supporting Soros's Open Society Foundations. ..."
"... In America, George Soros's Open Society Foundations are tax-exempt organizations that are funded by other tax-exempt organizations. And therefore, funded by the American taxpayer. The Ford Foundation and other 501-type tax-exempt foundations give their tax-exempt dollars to George Soros to campaign against the un-globalized world. ..."
"... Soros, like the Coke brothers, exemplifies why no one should have so much money - which can translate into so much political influence. We should have tax rates of 90% for the very wealthy, not just for the sake of greater economic justice, but for the sake of greater equality in terms of political influence. ..."
"... I was living in Thailand when Soros helped crush the Thai baht. Much can be blamed on the failures of political and business individuals within Thailand, but Soros is a predator that takes no prisoners. I saw with my own eyes the misery and lost savings that followed. Don't ever throw a lifeline to Mr. Soros...he may pull you in. ..."
Aug 11, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Truth, Australia July 17

Soros is a Vulture Capitalist of the worst kind. His foray into Eastern Europe after the fall of te USSR was to strip them of their assets by crashng their economies under the Guise of all those lies he pushes.

He has never officially managed money because he keeps his hands clean by consulting so he can't be touched for all the insider trading and fraud he he commits. This is the biggest crook working for the Biggest bankers who manage The Wealthy of Europe's money. Their all rotten.

alexgri New York July 17

This is an excellent, well written and complex article. It is sinning against painting Orban as a bad guy, though.

It is clear from the interview of Alex Soros, that George Soros, as a Jew is against nation states and is dreaming up a world where nation states are replaced by a mix and match of minorities.

Therefore every citizen of a nation state is rightfully rattled by Soros. If you dont respect who I am and what I represent, then why should I respect you and who do you represent? The so called liberal democracy that Soros champions turned into a death sentence for nations states, to accomodate people like Soros. Soros is no better than Orban.

Soros says he is first and foremost a Jew, Orban is first and foremost a Hungarian. They both defend the group and the type of group they belong to. It is telling that Orban, a Soros protegee turned against his mentor, AFTER the mentor changed the contract and tried to force Hungary to cease being a nation state and become a melting pot of ethnicities.

Hungary has been around for 1200 years and is a small country, only 8 million people. If it opens to refugees and migrants, in 50 years there will be no more Hungary, and real Hungarians will become a bad name in Hungary like white has become a name of scorn in the US. If Soros hated the Holocaust, he shouldnt push it on Europeans.

robmac Tucson AZ July 18

This isn't liberal democracy, it's elitist, top-down global progressivism - rule by Brussels bureaucrats and billionaires, such as himself.

Chris Missouri July 17

This country has - more and more - been saddled with politicians in high office that are bought and paid for. Both Democrats and Republicans are agents of the uber-rich, because the wealthy are the ones that have enough discretionary cash lying around to buy the campaigns for the politicians.

In our last election, a new wrinkle was added - a candidate owned by a hostile foreign power, with assets and resources that you and I cannot even begin to imagine, much less pay for. Lo and behold, that candidate won, and now we are in a terrible spot.

But was this campaign any different from what the U.S. did to elections in the Ukraine? It appears that we may have set the example, and Putin's response is only tit-for-tat one-upmanship.

Anyone with any sense knows that Trump is a goner, and that there is years of work to undo that chaos he has brought to our domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental policy, etc., etc. We do not, however, need any persons in high office that are beholden to anyone but ALL the voters in their election.

Sorry, Soros; your philanthropy can be spent well on other causes. We need to get the money out of politics, and we need to do it NOW. We need to limit political donations to some fraction of the average American income, and eliminate donations by anyone except registered voters. Supreme Court will be damned, but We the People is still the basis of our country, not unions, corporations, or foreign "investors". We the People.

Mauloa Babb, Montana July 17

Paint Soros however you want - it doesn't change the fact he is a devil with the desire to destroy... He cannot enter his country of birth because of his evil, and other world leaders realize his plots of destruction - using the pound disaster for UK almost bankrupting the country. He is the opposite of anything good - because what he masks as "good" is for his own purposes.

GS Berlin July 17

Even in this admiring portrait, Orban really comes across as the villain. A guy with a self-admitted messias complex, made his money by wrecking economies and then giving back a portion of his plunder so he can feel as the great philantropist. When apparently he never built a real business in his life other than the necessary bureaucracy to dispense his 'charity'. I never put much stock in the right-wing Soros conspiracies, but the facts don't make him look so much better.

He is like the robber baron taking a family's home and then turning up at the homeless shelter bringing them some hot soup to relieve their suffering.

And then, worst of all, he uses his ill-gotten gains to infiltrate and undermine the societies he stole the money from in the first place. Let's do a poll how many ordinary Britons support his open-borders ideology that he is funding so lavishly with their tax money.

Honeybee Dallas July 17

Soros, like the Kochs and the Waltons and Gates and Zuckerberg, is an oligarch. He uses his money to buy political influence in order to impose his priorities on the rest of us. Period.

Why in the world does a man, at age 87, still have billions of dollars? Why hasn't that money been given to groups all over the planet who are currently doing good work, quietly and successfully (the first example that springs to mind for me is the Marine Mammal Center outside of SF--although I'd hate to see Gates waltz in there and muck it up with his hobby-horse ideas for "improvement").

These men are not philanthropists. They are oligarchs who pay weak politicians to play God.

Chris Canada July 18

Soros reaps what he sows. He promoted some of the worst neoliberals and got wealthy on currency speculation. In that regard, is he truly better than say, the Koch family?

The [neo]Liberal order he promoted is losing credibility because the common citizen is facing declining living standards, while billionaires get wealthier and wealthier. The current order seems to exist to transfer the wealth of society to them.

While he has been donating, I must ask, would we not be better off in a society with steeply progressive taxes? We could build far more with the money than any philanthropy could.

I should note that Soros has defied public opinion on many issues, most notably open borders. It seems like he has promoted his version of politics and imposed his views under the guise of democracy. He is villifed and I think rightfully so.

Our world would be better if the billionaires had less influence over society and frankly, less billionaires to begin with, while the common citizen is wealthier.

Rick Summit July 17

He smothered the Democratic Party with his dirty money. Instead of listening to millions of voters, party leaders heard only the cha-ching of a cadre of billionaires, especially Soros. Against that elitism, Trump is a populist.

Samantha Earth July 17

Overtly biased article, but I don't expect legitimate journalism from the NY Times. Soros is hardly the wonderful philanthropist that this article tries to paint him as. He's a scheming radical leftist with delusions of grandeur -- and he and thrives on creating chaos.

Hey, George -- why won't you pay your $7 billion dollar back tax bill??

Lisa McFadden Maryland July 17

Someone who is as wealthy as Soros made their money by creating misery for others. Once folks like Soros have become obscenely rich, they create foundations to offset the damage of their actions or to pursue lofty ideals to stroke their narcissistic egos.

Bloomberg is another one. His company aides and abets corporations that ravage the environment, but Bloomberg Philanthropies supports Sierra Club to retire coal fired power plants. You don't create change by making millions on the backs of others and then spending millions on causes.

You create change by ensuring that everyone has a stake in government and society, and you do that by re-distributing income and wealth. If anything, Soros and Bloomberg should have fought for being taxed heavily, so the money could have gone into public coffers where we all would have had a say in how it's being spent. Instead of that, foundations are putting a pretty, hopeful picture (If you have ever seen their websites) on the deterioration of our institutions, systems, our population, and our environment.

Jim. TX|July 17

This is not rocket science. Soros has not invested in any kind of democracy. He is a [neo]liberal progressive (itself a misnomer). Democracy is focused on individual freedoms and liberty. The [neo]liberal progressive movement is focused on globalism and enslavement of the individual to a single ideology antithetical to individual freedom and liberty.

It's why the EU is starting to break up...and it's why Soros "senses" that all of his money and influence is gradually being rejected by so many, because people are starting to understand where his ideas lead: to a marginalization of any/all positions and opinions that conflict with the [neo]liberal/progressive ideology. His way is anything but support of individual freedoms and empowerment

Barry, Vienna, Austria|July 17

Ego, vast wealth, intellectual snobbery, lack of transparency and moralistic pontification... It is no wonder why the "plebs" demonize this man. Has he done more harm than good to Europe? Certainly his "open borders" initiatives have fanned the flames of nationalism in Europe. I personally think we would do a lot better off without him.

V, LA|July 17

I have a problem with too much wealth being concentrated in the hands of so few.

I don't care what their belief system is because for every one George Soros, there are two Koch brothers.

This is capitalism run amuck and dangerous for all of us. That is, this continued, expanding gulf between the 1% and everyone else will not end well for the majority and will end with increasing tension and discord, worldwide.

njglea, Seattle|July 17

No matter how honorable Mr. Soros' love of and support of democratic governance is, the fact still remains that he is a predatory capitalist. Any "master of the universe" ego is destructive.

Hedge funds should be outlawed for bonds, currencies and other governmental financial tools. One person should never be able to manipulate the world through the worlds' biggest craps tables - markets.

NOW is the time. Mr. Soros and his Robber Baron brethren on the other side of the political spectrum are destroying the world with their demented, insatiable greed.

Forget "philanthropy". It's just a word used by those who have stolen/inherited enough wealth to try to create the world in their own image - and to massage their demented egos.

Taxes. BIG taxes. 99% taxes on the International Mafia Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/radical religion Good Old Boys' Cabal that is trying to start WW3 and destroy OUR lives. Confiscate the inherited/stolen wealth they are hiding around the world - and OUR natural resources they have gotten control of. Use the money to erase deficits around the world and for Social Good like health care for all, excellent education for all, reasonable communications/entertainment costs, reasonable housing costs, reasonable water/power prices and other Social Goods.

NOW is the time.

Al Nonamus, USA|July 17

Tax loopholes for subversives. Taxpayers in the US and the "compassionate" elsewhere must quit financially supporting Soros's Open Society Foundations.

I wish the rest of the citizens of the United States were tax exempt too. In America, George Soros's Open Society Foundations are tax-exempt organizations that are funded by other tax-exempt organizations. And therefore, funded by the American taxpayer. The Ford Foundation and other 501-type tax-exempt foundations give their tax-exempt dollars to George Soros to campaign against the un-globalized world.

Few tax-exempt foundations are charities any more. Most 501 tax-exempt organizations make plenty of money. They can afford to pay their taxes too. If Soros' Open Society Foundations wants to take down America, let them do it with their own money.

Jenifer Wolf, New York|July 17

Soros, like the Coke brothers, exemplifies why no one should have so much money - which can translate into so much political influence. We should have tax rates of 90% for the very wealthy, not just for the sake of greater economic justice, but for the sake of greater equality in terms of political influence.

When Soros says that the Democrats ar moving too far to the left, I'm thinking why doesn't a man his age know that even Bernie Sanders is to the right of where the Democrats were before the 'New" Democrat Clintons in the '90s, who are basically like the Liberal (Eastern) Republicans used to be. I was not thrilled to read that Soros contributed hugely to continued Clinton ownership of the Democratic party. Sure, he has the right to support what he believes in, but he shouldn't have that much money to do it with.

Reflections9, Boston|July 18

This is a man who cornered commodity markets drove up the price or set up an elite pump and dump stock scheme using as he admits the herd psychology. He likes the neoliberal open borders policies because he can game the system. It says a lot that his protege Orban saw through him and turned against him.

J House, NY,NY|July 19

I was living in Thailand when Soros helped crush the Thai baht. Much can be blamed on the failures of political and business individuals within Thailand, but Soros is a predator that takes no prisoners. I saw with my own eyes the misery and lost savings that followed. Don't ever throw a lifeline to Mr. Soros...he may pull you in.

Paul, NYC|July 17

Is Soros a Statesman? If no, is he a registered agent? If not, he may be arrested in the US or several other countries.

W. Ogilvie, Out West|July 22

Soros' demonstrated his greed when he speculated on the Thai baht, a move that ultimately brought the country to its knees. Being in Thailand at the time it was evident that Soros was considered a public enemy of the highest order.

Yes, he is congenial and lovable in person, but his funding of left wing radical organizations in the US and elsewhere continues to be suspect. Perhaps he is trying to expiate his Thailand misdeeds.

J House, NY,NY|July 19

Soros has profited enormously from the free flow of capital and labor across the globe in the past 20 years...of course he and many of the loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires are for an 'open society'. It makes them richer...


[Aug 11, 2018] Major color revolutions sponsor is in decline, but still show his teeth and his methods did not become less dangerius for Eastern Europe, xUSSR space and developing countries

It is not only George Soros is losing. Neoliberalism is losing some of its fights too, despite recent revenge in sev eral Latin American countries. Deep state was always an alliance of Wall Street sharks with intelligence agencies and Soros is a true representative of this breed. He is connected and acted in sync with them in xUSSR space. In this sense he can be viewed as a part of Harvard Mafia which economically raped Russia in 1990th...
Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, correctly called Soros and other speculators "unscrupulous profiteers" whose immoral work served no social value. That actually aptly characterize all members of Harvard mafia not just George Soros.
BTW, if Victoria Nuland (of EuroMaydan putch fame) praises a particular person, you can be sure that his person serves US imperial interests...
Notable quotes:
"... ...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark against him. ..."
"... In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that "we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the world." ..."
"... I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has created around the world it has been confirmed. ..."
"... Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. ..."
"... I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening. ..."
"... As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best. But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the rest of us. ..."
"... I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate power to effect political outcomes because of their money. ..."
"... Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. ..."
"... Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used in that context by those who have it. ..."
"... What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights. ..."
"... Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity. ..."
"... Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous. ..."
"... George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that "philanthropy". ..."
"... What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple. ..."
"... What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth ..."
"... What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent among which are these two: ..."
"... Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism. ..."
"... The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe. ..."
"... Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals. ..."
Aug 11, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Yet the political realm is where Soros has made his most audacious wager. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, he poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the former Soviet-bloc countries to promote civil society and [neo]liberal democracy. It was a one-man Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, a private initiative without historical precedent. It was also a gamble that a part of the world that had mostly known tyranny would embrace ideas like government accountability and ethnic tolerance. In London in the 1950s, Soros was a student of the expatriated Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, who championed the notion of an "open society," in which individual liberty, pluralism and free inquiry prevailed. Popper's concept became Soros's cause.

... ... ...

...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark against him.

Last autumn, he signaled that same sense of defiance when he announced that he was in the process of transferring the bulk of his remaining wealth, $18 billion in total at the time, to the O.S.F. That will potentially make it the second-largest philanthropic organization in the United States, in assets, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is already a sprawling entity, with some 1,800 employees in 35 countries, a global advisory board, eight regional boards and 17 issue-oriented boards. Its annual budget of around $1 billion finances projects in education, public health, independent media, immigration and criminal-justice reform and other areas

... ... ...

He decided that his goal would be opening closed societies. He created a philanthropic organization, then called the Open Society Fund, in 1979 and began sponsoring college scholarships for black South African students. But he soon turned his attention to Eastern Europe, where he started financing dissident groups. He funneled money to the Solidarity strikers in Poland in 1981 and to Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia. In one especially ingenious move, he sent hundreds of Xerox copiers to Hungary to make it easier for underground publications to disseminate their newsletters. In the late 1980s, he provided dozens of Eastern European students with scholarships to study in the West, with the aim of fostering a generation of [neo]liberal democratic leaders. One of those students was Viktor Orban, who studied civil society at Oxford. From his Manhattan trading desk, Soros became a strange sort of expat anticommunist revolutionary.

... ... ...

In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that "we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the world." Along with the fiery speeches, there were the billboards, which featured a picture of a smiling Soros and the message, "Let's not let George Soros have the last laugh."

... ... ...

Orban's coalition won 49 percent of the vote, enough to give it a supermajority in Parliament. But the anti-Soros campaign didn't end with the election. Days after the vote, a magazine owned by a pro-Orban businesswoman published the names of more than 200 people in Hungary that it claimed were Soros "mercenaries."

... ... ...

There have been mistakes; by his own admission, Soros erred in championing Mikheil Saakashvili, the mercurial former president of Georgia, and also became too directly involved in the country's politics in the early 2000s. He clearly misjudged Orban. But as Victoria Nuland, a former American diplomat who worked for both Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, put it when I spoke to her recently, "George is a freedom fighter."

alexander hamilton new york July 17

"Billionaire philanthropist?" Really? Does that make the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelstein "philanthropists" too, or does that label apply only to left-leaning individuals seeking political leverage many times that of the average citizen?

One citizen, 1 vote. ALL citizens should be limited to $100 contributions for their senators, representatives and the President. NO citizen should be able to contribute to a campaign in a state where he/she is not a full-time permanent resident.

And NO citizen should be able to contribute more than $100 to his/her own campaign. We don't need more Kennedys, Clintons, Bloombergs, Trumps, Perots or Forbes buying (or trying to buy) their way into public office, using their millions.

Of the people, by the people, for the people. That's the model, folks. Depart from it at your peril.

Conservative Democrat WV July 17

For a man that purportedly promotes democracy, Mr. Soros conveniently overlooked public opinion when it came to promoting open borders.

In its essence, democracy is all about the wisdom and will of those governed, and not about what a billionaire thinks is best for them.

Maqroll North Florida July 17 Times Pick

Soros--a "European at heart." Must have brought some much-needed smiles to the UK following the recent Trump Tour of Destruction. How soon we forget--in the 90s, Soros broke the pound as the Brits were trying to unify European currencies--with unfortunate conditions that weakened the effort and Soros smartly exploited.

Who can blame a globalist from crashing a poorly devised govt scheme and walking away with a cool $1B--back when a billion dollars was a lot of money? I am not the person to say whether Soros may qualify as an honest proponent of democracy, but I strongly suspect that he is a poster boy of the ultra-nationalists as they battle globalization.

In a way, Soros epitomizes the failure of globalization, which may or may not benefit the classic, labor-intensive industries of manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and mining, but always benefits, sometimes wildly, the financial "industry."

As far as I'm concerned, Soros is merely making reparations. And, sorry to say, George, it's prob too little, too late.

WPLMMT New York City July 17 Times Pick

I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has created around the world it has been confirmed. Nigel Farage, the British politician, recently said on television that Mr. Soros is out to destroy the world. It certainly appears to be the case when you see what he did to the British and Thai economies. He was so concerned with helping immigrants and refugees that he had little regard for the citizens that actually lived in those countries that are being affected. People lost their livelihoods but that did not matter to him.

Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. He ... does not care who he hurts as long as he promotes his progressive agenda. He wants to allow as many immigrants to enter a nation as possible even if it adversely affects that country while he lives in luxury and is not inconvenienced by this invasion. He has billions and will probably never be touched by massive immigration.

I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening.

gpickard Luxembourg July 17 Times Pick

As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best. But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the rest of us.

I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate power to effect political outcomes because of their money.

The making of such huge amounts of money is not done with any charitable purpose. Only later, does charity come to mind.

c smith Pittsburgh July 17

Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. Yes, a billion people around the world are better off because of the forces of "globalization" (this total most definitely includes Soros himself), but millions of Americans have suffered economically as a result. GATT, NAFTA and the entire alphabet soup of trade deals have lined the pockets of the globalists, while grinding the fortunes of U.S. working and middle class laborers into dust.

Karekin USA July 17

Great article. Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used in that context by those who have it. At this juncture, I think the American people deserve to see an expose of all those millionaires and billionaires who have and continue to support Trump. It's only fair, to lay the money trail on the table, on all sides, for everyone to see.

Tim DC area July 17 Times Pick

What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights.

Immigration policies are also sometimes used in ways to suppress wages, and even more worse, enacted with very little thought given to assimilation. Most of the poorer areas, or ghettoes surrounding Paris for example are populated with huge numbers of Muslim immigrants that face extremely daunting odds of fully assimilating into French culture.

While the wealthier (sometimes elite [neo]liberals) Parisians almost certainly live in gated or posh neighborhoods with hardly any immigrants as their neighbors. Despite the generous financial support Soros (and some other elites) gives to human rights causes, he rarely outright discusses some of these problems associated with free trade, globalization and mass immigration. These seeming hypocrisies and inconsistencies then become much easier fodder for those of Orban's ilk to manipulate and ultimately consolidate power.

Samuel Spade Huntsville, al July 17

Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity.

Ivory Tower Colorado July 17

First, Hungary is not xenophobic, they merely want to protect their culture. Second, George Soros wants plenty of wealth for him and his family, yet he wants those of us in the middle class to dive up our meager assets with the world's poorest. Third, his personal wealth has often been generated by destroying currencies and the middle class who owns those currencies. Fourth, he promotes open borders without consulting the citizenry of said borders as to their opinion regarding their own national sovereignty. Our world would be a much better place without George Soros.

Concerned EU Resident Germany July 17

Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous.

geezer117 Tennessee July 17

Soros employs his vast wealth to create the society he dreams of, regardless of what the rest of us want. When the democratic process veers away from his vision, he uses the power of his wealth to steer it back.

So he's just another wealthy and powerful elite trying to remake the world as he prefers it. Such arrogance!

Rose Philadelphia July 17

Sucking money out of the world's economies so that he can direct it as HE sees fit does not make a man great. Rather, I would argue that such actions contributed to the rise of both Brexiteers and Trumpsters.

If Soros really wants to contribute to society, he would lobby for financial industry reform - less favorable tax treatment for hedge funds (what value do they really provide to society) and a transaction tax on trades to reduce speculation. Then fight for minimum wage increases.

Jonas Seattle July 17

This is a horrifying interview and does not improve the image of George Soros. "My ideology is nonideological," he says while spending billions on politics, which he defines as "In politics, you are spinning the truth, not discovering it." He describes Obama as his greatest disappointment because Obama "closed the door on me," as in he expected Obama should work with him and take his advice. Soros uses his billions to fund politicians and meddle in elections... this is a man who enjoys influencing and manipulating politics and becomes frustrated when his efforts backfire or are not successful.

Peter Albany. NY July 17

This man is the absolute worst! His no borders policy has done more to hurt Europe then Russia ever could. The Soros gang has zero respect and tolerance for nation-state sovereignty and local governance. Talk about a global elite! He and his gang epitomize that arrogance.

Marian Maryland July 17

George Soros bet big on open borders,one world governance and destroying the working class through unfair trade agreements. Yes he appears to be losing. Thank God for small favors.

Al Nino Hyde Park NY July 17

It cracks me up to read these type of article in the NYT and then read another story in the NYT about how if you can pay the money you can have yourself a private waiting area in a major airport to separate yourself from the chaos of the masses in the public waiting areas. Maybe democracy wouldn't be in trouble around the world if it worked as well for the "slobs" in the public waiting areas as it did for those in the exclusive waiting rooms. This is globalization in a nutshell. It works great for the rich, not so well for the rest of us slobs. This is a government of the rich people, by the rich people, for the rich people. The slobs realise their government doesn't really care that their jobs are disapearing and their standard of living is going down.

Charles Becker Sonoma State University July 17

I am not interested in windfall investing profits. Soros is *not* my hero: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-george-soros-broke-the-bank-of-thaila... . Wretched.

John Medina Holt July 17

To say that George Soros is funding [neo]liberal democracy is a misnomer. What Soros is funding is open borders. Where national interests are set aside, global interests prevail. This is precisely what George Soros is advocating. Tired of having to face multitude regulatory systems in his effort to build a global financial empire, Soros is quite right in discerning that a borderless, global regulatory system would increase his financial power exponentially. Nations are right to resist the encroachment of Soros because global interests, by definition, are not local interests. Nationalism, so loathed by Soros and his open border lackeys, serves as a check and balance on men like Soros who would be god and would dictate to the world from some point of central governance what their truth and value should be. George Soros and his globalist kin should be resisted. The true threat to global interests is not nationalism, it is globalism.

Richard L. Wilson Moscow, Russia July 17

Soros, and American [neo]liberalism, economic and social [neo]liberalism championed by Soros and the NYT, is in its death throes. Call us fascists, totalitarians, racists--- understand clearly: we do not care. Europe is waking up. [neo]liberalism is close to being dead. No spectres or phantoms are haunting Europe. Blood is standing up and answering our ancestors.We are not commodoties, consumers, meat for your wars. You have attacked us, belittled us, turned our queen of continents into latrines of filth. You, American [neo]liberalism, have destroyed us.Now, we take our nations back.

elizabeth renant new mexico July 17

It's amusing to read phrases like "nationalism and tribalism are resurgent". It never does to underestimate tribalism; as long as groups feel safe they are tolerant. But when groups feel threatened, tribalism rears up in what is not so much a resurgence but more like an awakening from a nap.

The older cultures of Europe are waking up from a nap and realizing that unless they reassess a few long-held assumptions, they will eventually be ethnically diminished and culturally pressured.

Denmark has banned the burka and legislated some of the harshest migration, immigration, asylum, and naturalization laws in Europe. It is implementing laws to ensure integration, including stopping benefits to families whose children are not integrating. Do the author and Mr. Soros think that Denmark exercising control over its future demographics and preserving its culture are malign?

The Danes some years ago elected the Danish People's Party to significant power; the DPP is often referred to as a far right party, but is a typical left-wing party in everything except pushing Denmark toward "multiculturalism".

Sweden's centre-left government, on the other hand, brought in hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants and then refused even to admit, let alone discuss, the glaring problems with integration within its immigrant community.

Result: the Sweden Democrats, a bona fide neo-Nazi party, are set to do extremely and alarmingly well in Sweden's September elections.

Yes - in Sweden.

Larry Left Chicago's High Taxes July 17

This super-rich elitist from Hungary is trying to buy American democracy and reshape it in his image regardless of what We The People want. And the Democrats are on his payroll and totally owned by this foreign agent!

Burton Austin, Texas July 17

Soros' flaw is that he only tolerates centralized socialist democracy. He cannot stand the idea of democracy in the form of a federal republic with a weak central government. Interestingly, he made his billions as a predatory capitalist now he turns on capitalism. He also exhibits a particularly vicious elitism: No one should be allowed to own guns except his private security guards. He knows that umarmed men are always someone's slaves.

Ned Flarbus Berkeley July 17

Soros is a hypocrite who did one thing and is now out to create a legacy. All is shows is he is driven by both greed and ego. His blatant hypocrisy probably did more harm than good - common denominator, it's always about him. Hey Soros, don't do us plebes any more favors, ok?

Philly Expat July 17

Democracy is alive and well, regardless of what Soros thinks. He does not represent democracy, he was never been elected to any public office. He represents open borders mass migration, as the name of one of his NGOs implies, Open Society Foundation. Brexit voters, and other voters across the west are increasingly voting against his philosophy. Voters in the US, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, etc, have democratically chosen as their leaders conservative controlled borders leaders, and to underscore, all were elected via the democratic process.

Open Borders and globalism that Soros is pushing is increasingly being rejected in voting booths in the EU and the US.

It is hardly undemocratic to increasingly vote against what Soros is selling – chaotic mass migration made possible by open borders.

He represents [neo]liberal democracy, and voters increasingly favor conservative democracy.

David Brisbane July 17

George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that "philanthropy".

Red Cross and Salvation Army is philanthropy. What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple.

Sure, he is not the only one doing that, but he is the one doing that most overtly and blatantly. He seems to relish being the face of the elitist disregard for the masses. What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort.

idimalink usa July 17

Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth, just as leftists predicted. Soros benefitted financially, which has increased his privilege to participate in governance voters cannot achieve. Despite Soros' wealth, successfully manipulating currency markets does not easily transfer to manipulating electorates. Even if Soros believes his projects would produce good governance, he lacks the ability to convince voters what is in their best interests.

Jose Pardinas Collegeville, PA July 18

I am elated to hear that George Soros might be losing.

What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent among which are these two:

1). Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism.
2). The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe.

Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals.

[Aug 11, 2018] Rudy Giuliani declares that Russiagate probe will blow up in Mueller's own face (VIDEO)

Aug 11, 2018 | theduran.com

This segment is interesting theatre, especially considering that Mr. Giuliani is acting as President Trump's attorney on the Russiagate matter, and that he is going public about anything at all having to do with the investigation and its case, in full knowledge that anything he says publicly will be noted. Nevertheless, "America's Mayor" made several very strong assertions:

These and other points are included in Mr. Giuliani's responses in his discussion with Sean Hannity.

The question that would logically arise with such a set of claims is "why would this investigation even be happening in the first place, if it is only guaranteed to lose?"

And this question is what gives lie to the massive conspiracy of the Deep State and various powerful figures such as Bill Browder , the neo-con establishment, and secular humanist liberals, all banded together to stop President Trump at any cost from changing America's headlong plunge into the darkness of the soft tyranny of modern-day liberalism. Russia stands as the one great power in the world that declares with great strength that this group of people is wrong, and therefore, Russia, and anyone who wishes to grant her legitimacy – must be stopped.

A speculative question that next arises is this:

What happens when President Trump gets vindicated?

There is a massive power play in motion here, and the stakes are much higher than anyone cares to admit.

[Aug 11, 2018] Rand Paul Against the World

Notable quotes:
"... But this part of the story was the most revelatory: "'Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East." ..."
"... This is significant, not because Trump couldn't have arrived at the same position without Paul's counsel, but because it's easy to imagine him embracing regime change, what with virtually every major foreign policy advisor in his cabinet supporting something close to war with Iran. "Personnel is policy" is more than a cliché. ..."
"... "So let's understand that the people pushing for regime change in Iran are seeking to destabilize and harm the country " writes TAC ..."
"... Most importantly, on arguably the most crucial potential foreign policy decision the president can make -- one that could potentially start another disastrous U.S. Middle Eastern war -- it appears to be Rand Paul who is literally keeping the peace. ..."
Aug 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Not long ago, Donald Trump's national security advisor John Bolton was promising regime change in Iran by the end of this year . Uber-hawk Bolton has long wanted war with Tehran . Secretary of State Mike Pompeo isn't much different , and has even advocated bombing Iran . Secretary of Defense James Mattis has previously recommend U.S. airstrikes against Iranian targets .

Today, Bolton says the U.S. does not to seek regime change in Iran. So does Pompeo . So does Mattis .

Why?

President Trump has been known to be hawkish on Iran. Politico observed Wednesday: "Trump has drawn praise from the right-wing establishment for hammering the mullahs in Tehran, junking the Iran nuclear deal and responding to the regime's saber rattling with aggressive rhetoric of his own ." There are also powerful factions in Congress and Washington with inroads to the president that have been itching for regime change for years. "The policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran," says Senator Tom Cotton, once rumored to be Trump's pick to head the CIA.

Ron and Rand Paul Cut Through the Foreign Policy Noise A Madman on the National Security Council

So what, or who, is stopping the hawks?

Politico revealed Wednesday some interesting aspects of the relationship between Senator Rand Paul and the president, particularly on foreign policy: "While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the [Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul: 'He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul '."

On Iran, Politico notes, "Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White House."

But this part of the story was the most revelatory: "'Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East."

This is significant, not because Trump couldn't have arrived at the same position without Paul's counsel, but because it's easy to imagine him embracing regime change, what with virtually every major foreign policy advisor in his cabinet supporting something close to war with Iran. "Personnel is policy" is more than a cliché.

Paul and Trump apparently like making fun of some White House staffers, as Politico also reported: "the Kentucky senator and the commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the president likes to deride as 'foreign policy eggheads,' including those who work in his own administration."

Eggheads indeed. For every foreign policy "expert" in Washington who now admits that regime change in Iraq was a mistake (and a whole slew of them won't even cop to that), you will find the same people making the case for regime change in other countries, including Iran , explaining how this time, somehow, America's toppling of a despot will turn out differently.

"So let's understand that the people pushing for regime change in Iran are seeking to destabilize and harm the country " writes TAC 's Daniel Larison. "Just as many of the same people did when they agitated for regime change in Iraq and again in Syria, they don't care about the devastation and chaos that the people in the country would have to endure if the policy 'works.'"

These are the same Washington foreign policy consensus standard bearers who would likely be shaping U.S. foreign policy unfettered if 2011 Libya "liberator" Hillary Clinton had become president -- or any other Republican not named Trump or Paul.

When it comes to who President Trump can turn to for a more sober and realist view of foreign policy, one who actually takes into account past U.S. mistakes abroad and tries to learn from them, at the moment it appears to be Paul against the Washington foreign policy world.

President Trump hired regime change advocates as advisors presumably because he wanted their advice, yet there's evidence to suggest that at least on Iran, certain hawks' wings might have been clipped .

Most importantly, on arguably the most crucial potential foreign policy decision the president can make -- one that could potentially start another disastrous U.S. Middle Eastern war -- it appears to be Rand Paul who is literally keeping the peace.

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.

Adam August 10, 2018 at 2:08 pm

Rand's father, Ron Paul is the greatest President America never had, and unlike Trump he told Americans what they needed to hear rather than what they wanted to hear.

The problem is that we don't consider Rand a neocon because we are comparing him to the warmongers and lunatics in the White House. Whereas comapred to his father, Rand is a neocon who time and time again has flip flopped on his morals and principals whereas his father never did.

And Rand is not the reason the US doesn't want war with Iran. Iran is the reason the US doesn't want war.

Iran simply has to flood A-stan with small arms, their respective ammo, and logistical equipment, and 15,000 US soldiers will 'Saigoned'

Combine the above with the distaste of European countries to NOT have refugees flood their borders and Turkey's increasing hatred for the US, and you have a perfect storm of potentially deadly but wholly justified anti-Americanism

[Aug 11, 2018] The USA never ratified Versailles, on the contrary, there came neutrality laws.

Aug 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , August 10, 2018 at 10:00 am GMT

After WWI there was revisionist literature etc galore, the USA people realised for what their sons had died overseas, what culminated in Versailles, at the time seen as a jewish conference.

Baruch and Frankfurter were there, the secretaries of Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George are said to have been jews.

Wilson had won the elections by money from Morgenthau sr, a Germany hater. The USA never ratified Versailles, on the contrary, there came neutrality laws.

In 1932 Baruch financed the election of FDR, who had the problem of the neutrality laws. As Sol Bloom, a friend of FDR writes 'the great accomplishment of FDR was that he slowly prepared the USA people for war.

Beard explains it in detail. Anyone now can know the FDR deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, he needed an attack, at his 1940 elections he had promised 'not to send boys oversees, unless the USA was attacked'.

In how far FDR already violated neutrality laws by using the USA Atlantic fleet for escorting convoys, since Sept 1939, is not clear to me. Anyhow, with FDR began a new period of USA belligerence, that continues to the present day, or stops at the present day, I still hope that Trump ends it, therefore the hysteria at CNN, Washpost and NYT.

But, with Bolton, it is said that the neocons, jews, are back in the White House
David Sinclair, 'Hall of Mirrors', London, 2001
Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
Sol Bloom, 'The Autobiography of Sol Bloom', New York 1948
Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 -- 1940, A study in responsibilities', New Haven, 1946
Charles A. Beard, 'President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities', New Haven, 1948
Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath', Caldwell, Idaho, 1953

jilles dykstra , August 10, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

What the USA would have done had it not had jews is anybody's guess. The Monroe Declaration, as a USA correspondent wrote me, still taught in 'glowing terms', is of 1820 or so, in Europe is was seen as colonialism. Some Euopean countries considered waging war.
Manifest Destiny came around 1840. What seems sure to me that jews had little or nothing to do with both.

The Civil War had little to do with slavery, secession was seen by Washington as Brexit now by Brussels. At the time war was by shooting, war now is by economic measures.

The first USA imperial war was the Spanish war, also there I do not know of any jewish influence.

But this was different in WWI, Morgenthau financed the campaign of Wilson. The USA never was neutral in WWI, the British, at the time illegal, blockade of Germany by GB was tolerated. Morgenthau hated Germany, his parents had left the country because of antisemitism.

His 1918 book, anti German propaganda, inventing the German guilt for WWI, inventing the Armenian genocide. Henry Ford, because of Baruch's control of USA industrial production for war, called him 'the economic dictator of the USA'. Baruch's father or grandfather also left Germany, because of militarism, around 1870, read: he did not want to fight for the country in which he lived. So my conclusion, USA imperialism is not of jewish origin, but was strenghtened by jews. It is weard that Zuese does not know these facts, or ignores them.

Am reading a book about jews in Visigothic Spain and Gaul, they indeed were persecuted, anything was done to convert them to catholicism.
If one can blame jews in Visigothic Spain around 690 for a plot of letting Muslim warriors in, difficult to judge. In 711 it succeeded.

Yet, jewish behaviour there then reminds me of jews in tsarist Russia, where no attempt was made to convert them, and where, as Baruch's ancestor, jews also dodged military service.

Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002
Solomons Katz, 'The Jews in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and Gaul', Cambridge 1937

[Aug 10, 2018] When> people use the term Jews they typically mean Financial oligachy

Notable quotes:
"... I never meet Jew haters in my personal life but there sure are a lot on this site. How does less than 2% of the US population utterly dominate the nation? Is each Jew 50 times stronger than every gentile. ..."
"... They tend to be urban dwellers where salaries are higher but standards of living are often lower. Those in my neighborhood are very well assimilated. They put elaborate Christmas lights on their houses. It is not a rich neighborhood. ..."
"... Their earlier history was wretched and included slavery and persecutions for thousands of years. Don't waste much time fearing Jews ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Patricus , June 5, 2018 at 11:43 pm GMT

I never meet Jew haters in my personal life but there sure are a lot on this site. How does less than 2% of the US population utterly dominate the nation? Is each Jew 50 times stronger than every gentile.

I meet many Jews but can't recall a single super Jew. Maybe they are clever deceivers? The great majority are middle earners. There are some rich and some poor. Jews dominate Hollywood and certain occupations but they are underrepresented as engineers and architects. So what.

They tend to be urban dwellers where salaries are higher but standards of living are often lower. Those in my neighborhood are very well assimilated. They put elaborate Christmas lights on their houses. It is not a rich neighborhood.

Jewish history does not support the idea of a super race. They only entered middle classes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and only in the western world. Before that they were not allowed to attend universities or even own land in many cases.

Their earlier history was wretched and included slavery and persecutions for thousands of years. Don't waste much time fearing Jews.

[Aug 10, 2018] America's Militarized Economy by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... Taxpayer-funded mass-slaughter is now routine and goes on year after year. ..."
"... "democracy" requires free access to unconstrained information. Otherwise the voter is like cattle free to chose which pre-determined path to take to the same slaughterhouse ..."
"... Wars being fought by the United States will continue to contribute to America's growing inequality, an issue that Washington is completely ignoring. ..."
"... In THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN it is laid out that the business of the U.S. is war and that war is good for business and war we shall have and so it is that we are a nation of war and as in Orwells 1984 the wars are not meant to be won, the wars are meant to be continual for the profit of the elites and we the proles are to suffer. ..."
"... The sheeple are not only lead to slaughter, they are made totally unaware of the fact. Sad. ..."
"... "Why didn't Putin simply restore Yanukovych to power and leave it at that?" -- Michael Kenny, why have not you asked Brennan, the former CIA director who traveled "secretly" to Kiev to "organize" the ongoing civil war in Ukraine? ..."
Aug 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Donald Trump's biggest success, thus far into his Presidency, has been his sale of $400 billion (originally $350 billion) of U.S.-made weapons to the Saudi Arabian Government, which is owned by its royal family, after whom that nation is named. This sale alone is big enough to be called Trump's "jobs plan" for Americans. It is also the biggest weapons-sale in all of history. It's 400 billion dollars, not 400 million dollars; it is gigantic, and, by far, unprecedented in world-history.

The weapons that the Sauds and their friends, the 7 monarchies that constitute the United Arab Emirates, are using right now, in order to conquer and subdue Yemen, are almost entirely made in America. That's terrific business for America. Not only are Americans employed, in strategically important congressional districts (that is, politically important congressional districts), to manufacture this equipment for mass-murdering in foreign lands that never threatened (much less invaded) America, but the countries that purchase this equipment are thereby made dependent upon the services of those American manufacturers, and of the taxpayer-funded U.S. 'Defense' Department and its private military contractors such as Lockheed Martin, to maintain this equipment, and to train the local military enforcers, on how to operate these weapons. Consequently, foreign customers of U.S. military firms are buying not only U.S. weapons, but the U.S. Government's protection -- the protection by the U.S. military, of those monarchs. They are buying the label of being an "American ally" so that the U.S. news media can say that this is in defense of American allies (regardless of whether it's even that). American weapons are way overpriced for what they can do, but they are a bargain for what they can extract out of America's taxpayers, who fund the U.S. 'Defense' Department and thus fund the protection of those monarchs: these kings and other dictators get U.S. taxpayers to fund their protection. It's an international protection-racket funded by American taxpayers and those rulers, in order to protect those rulers; and the victims aren't only the people who get slaughtered in countries such as Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Libya, and Syria, and Yemen, and Palestine, but also (though only financially) are the American public, who get fleeced by it -- the American public provide the bulk of the real funding for this operation to expand the lands where America's allies rule, and so to serve both America's aristocracy and the aristocracies that are America's allies.

This is how today's America enforces its 'democracy' around the world, so that America can spread this 'democracy', at gunpoint, and at bomb-point, like America's allies, those Kings and Emirs, and the apartheid regime in Israel, are doing, to the people whom they kill and conquer, with help from the taxpayer-funded American military -- funded to protect those aristocrats, against their respective publics, and to further enrich America's own aristocrats, at the expense of America's own public.

The global 'aggressor' has been identified by America's previous President, Barack Obama , who won office like Trump did, by promising 'a reset' in relations with post-communist Russia, and by mocking Obama's opponent (Mitt Romney) for having called Russia "the number one geopolitical foe" -- which America's aristocracy has historically considered Russia to be, ever since the aristocracy in Russia fled and were killed in 1917, which caused America's and other aristocracies to fear and hate Russia and Russians, for having ousted its aristocracy, this being an act that aristocrats everywhere are determined to avenge, regardless of 'ideology' . (Similarly, America and its pro-aristocracy foreign allies, seek to avenge Iran's 1979 overthrow of the Shah.) As Obama's own actions during his subsequent Presidency made clear, and as he already had started in 2011 (if not from day one of his Presidency) secretly to implement, he privately agreed with what Romney said on that occasion, but he was intelligent enough (which his opponent obviously was not) to recognize that the American public, at that time, did not agree with it but instead believed that Islamic terrorists and aristocrats such as the Sauds who finance them are that); and Obama took full advantage of his opponent's blunder there, which helped Obama to win a second term in the White House (after having skillfully hidden from the public during his first term, his intention to weaken Russia by eliminating leaders who were friends or even allies of Russia, such as in Syria, and Ukraine).

This is American 'democracy', after all ( rule by deceit, lies ), and that's the reason why, when Russia, in 2014, responded to the U.S. coup in Ukraine (a coup under the cover of anti-corruption demonstrations) which coup was taking over this large country next-door to Russia and thus constituted a deadly threat to Russia's national security, Obama declared Russia to be the world's top 'aggressor' . Obama overthrew Ukraine and then damned Russia's leader Putin for responding to Obama's aggressive threat against Russia from this coup in neighboring Ukraine. Russia was supposedly the 'aggressor' because it allowed the residents of Crimea -- which had been part of Russia until the Soviet dictator in 1954 had arbitrarily handed Crimea to Ukraine -- to become Russian citizens again, Russians like 90% of them felt they still were, despite Khrushchev's transfer of them to Ukraine in 1954. The vast majority of Crimeans felt themselves still to be Russians. But Obama and allies of the U.S. Government insisted that the newly installed Government of Ukraine must rule those people; those people must not be permitted to rule (or be ruled) by people they've participated in choosing.

... ... ...

America has a militarized economy . It also currently has the very highest percentage of its people in prison out of all of the world's 222 countries and so certainly qualifies as a police state (which Americans who are lucky enough to be not amongst the lower socio-economic classes might find to be a shocking thing to assert). On top of that, everyone knows that America's military spending is by far the highest in the world, but many don't know that it's the most corrupt and so the U.S. actually spends around half of the entire world's military budget and that the U.S. 'Defense' Department is even so corrupt that it has been unauditable and thus unaudited for decades, and that many U.S. military programs are counted in other federal departments in order to hide from the public how much is actually being spent each year on the military, which is well over a trillion dollars annually, probably more than half of all federal discretionary (which excludes interest on the debt, some of which pays for prior wars) spending. So, it's a very militarized economy, indeed .

This is today's American 'democracy' . Is it also 'democracy' in America's allied countries? (Obviously, they are more democratic than America regarding just the incarceration-rate; but what about generally?) Almost all of those countries continue to say that America is a democracy (despite the proof that it is not), and that they are likewise. Are they correct in both? Are they allied with a 'democracy' against democracy? Or, are they, in fact, phonies as democracies? These are serious questions, and bumper-sticker answers to them won't suffice anymore -- not after invading Iraq in 2003, and Libya in 2011, and Syria right afterward, and Ukraine in 2014, and Yemen today, etc.

Please send this article along to friends, and ask for their thoughts about this. Because, in any actual democracy, everyone should be discussing these issues, under the prevailing circumstances. Taxpayer-funded mass-slaughter is now routine and goes on year after year. After a few decades of this, shouldn't people start discussing the matter? Why haven't they been? Isn't this the time to start? Or is America so much of a dictatorship that it simply won't happen? We'll see.

renfro , August 10, 2018 at 6:23 am GMT

I am very tired of the limp dick gutter trash that passes for leadership in this country trying to tell the rest of the world what they can and cant do. The Orange Clown is too big for his britches and is doing the donkey for his Jew Israeli gang. This is not America First.

China, Germany defend Iran business ties as U.S. sanctions grip

Reuters•August 08, 2018

BEIJING/BERLIN (Reuters) – China and Germany defended their business ties with Iran on Wednesday in the face of President Donald Trump's warning that any companies trading with the Islamic Republic would be barred from the United States. The comments from Beijing and Berlin signaled growing anger from partners of the United States, which reimposed strict sanctions against Iran on Tuesday, over its threat to penalize businesses from third countries that continue to operate there. "China has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions and long-armed jurisdiction," the Chinese foreign ministry said. "China's commercial cooperation with Iran is open and transparent, reasonable, fair and lawful, not...

Turkey to continue buying natural gas from Iran despite U.S. sanctions

ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey will continue to buy natural gas from Iran in line with its long-term supply contract, Turkey's energy minister said on Wednesday, a day after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened that anyone trading with Iran will not do business with America. NATO member Turkey is dependent on imports for almost all of its energy needs and Iran is a key supplier of Ankara's natural gas and oil purchases. While the Turkish refiner Tupras has already cut back on oil shipments from Tehran, a complete halt of energy imports would be near impossible. Energy Minister Fatih Donmez told A Haber broadcaster that he expected Ankara's talks with Washington on the issue to yield a positive outcome.

mijj , August 10, 2018 at 7:06 am GMT
"democracy" requires free access to unconstrained information. Otherwise the voter is like cattle free to chose which pre-determined path to take to the same slaughterhouse
Wizard of Oz , August 10, 2018 at 7:20 am GMT
I am in no position to contest much of the author's detail on matters of peripheral interest to me like Ukraine but I have an honest and expert source of information which makes me understand the unmentioned fact that, apart from the Crimeans, there is a very solid body of Ukrainians including those whose first language is Russian whose main objective would be for Ukraine to be and remain independent of Russia.

Correspondingly the idea that Yanukovich was "democratically elected" is humbug coming from someone who – rightly in my view – denies America's democratic credentials.

Akbar Ali , August 10, 2018 at 7:22 am GMT
LOL, Justin Trudeau is having a row with Saudi Arabia for jailing a female activist. But he care less about civilian being mascaraed in Yemen, especially children (school bus) being bombed .

Akbar Ali

Sally Snyder , August 10, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
As shown in this article there is a very interesting connection between wealth inequality and American wars:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/how-american-wars-lead-to-increased.html

Wars being fought by the United States will continue to contribute to America's growing inequality, an issue that Washington is completely ignoring.

anon [317] Disclaimer , August 10, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@mijj

democracy requires more; it also requires voting power..

IN USA controlled America, Americans are not allow to vote on law at all and for law maker[Pharaoh directed slave drivers of Americans] each voter gets to check on the ballot whether he, she or it prefers the donkey Pharaoh or the Elephant Pharaoh to rule America by selecting (voting for) the next slave driver office holder. Real candidates selected by Americans in a true democracy do not happen.

Secondly, 527 positions in the USA are filled by voting outcome, Americans can Corporations and Foreigners can fund these guys vote for 1 to be your next slave driver

  • 1 President Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
  • 1 V Pres. Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
  • 1 Senator Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
  • 1 Senator Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
  • 1 member of the House Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate

that's a total of five votes, each voter can caste, but there are 527 jobs to be filled? you vote is limited, what you say is ignored., what you are allowed to know or hear about is directed by private media corporations and highly paid psychologist and professional intelligence people.

Think about it, Americans have no power to control how they are Governed or whot will inflict the next pain Americans will be made to suffer, nor are Americans allowed access to the information needed to understand the environment or the issues important to that environment in which they live. True in many countries.

Seems to me there are two prisons in America: the larger unconfined prison and the highly confined jails.

The occupants of each are under 24/7 surveillance, not by government but by private corporations.

Neither is given access to important information, and those in the unconfined prison are threatened each day with confinement should the thoughts or behaviors of the threatened challenge those in control of the system.

The article is about Militarization of our economy, but that too is not within the control of Americans. Militarization is dictated by private corporations and their Pharaoh owners; it is they who control the USA, and it is the USA that Controls Americans in accord to the directives given by the Pharaohs.

BTW Pharaohs never stand for election.

DESERT FOX , August 10, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
The Zionist controlled U.S. gov is in the war business and has been ever since the Zionists took control of the U.S. via their privately owned money creation machine know as the FED and their IRS in 1913 so once they had the ability to create money out of thin air and the ability to tax Americans to pay for the debts that war incurred, the Zionists had control of America lock stock and gun barrel.

All the wars that the U.S. has been in since and including WWI and right down to the war in Syria , have been Zionist banker created wars and all the millions of lives lost and the trillions in debt from these wars can be laid at the feet of the Zionists who control every facet of the U.S. gov, and as said by General Smedley Butler in his book War Is A Racket, and that is what war is a Zionist racket.

In THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN it is laid out that the business of the U.S. is war and that war is good for business and war we shall have and so it is that we are a nation of war and as in Orwells 1984 the wars are not meant to be won, the wars are meant to be continual for the profit of the elites and we the proles are to suffer.

Michael Kenny , August 10, 2018 at 2:15 pm GMT
Good God, what a hysterical rant! It's hardly worth bothering with the details but just a few points for the heck of it. He says that the Ukrainian coup "constituted a deadly threat to Russia's national security" but doesn't explain why that, even if true, gave Putin the right to invade Ukraine and annex part of its territory. Why didn't Putin simply restore Yanukovych to power and leave it at that? By the way, Ukraine has never at any time applied for EU membership.
AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
MSM are doing their job of keeping Americans in the dark about anything of consequence. The State Department just posted on its site proposed new "sanctions" on Russia that essentially amount to a declaration of war. Lunatic asylum is the most appropriate place for the whole American "leadership", down to the last man/woman/tranny. The only thing that stands between us and WWIII, which would be a suicide of humanity, is unbelievably cool and reasonable position of Russian leadership.

But Americans are kept in the dark entirely, distracted with BS stories. The top "news" on the CNN site: "2 police officers among 4 killed in Canada shooting; a suspect is in custody"; "Ex-Ohio state wrestler clarifies comment about congressman's awareness of abuse". As if any of this would matter when nuclear missiles start flying.

The sheeple are not only lead to slaughter, they are made totally unaware of the fact. Sad.

DESERT FOX , August 10, 2018 at 3:24 pm GMT
@Skip Sullivan

Do some research, there is plenty of information available for example Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Anthony Sutton, can be had on Amazon.

annamaria , August 10, 2018 at 5:13 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

So much irritation but zero refutation. The article certainly struck a nerve in an "Intelligent Dasein," a supporter of Zio-Nazism.

Meanwhile, here is a rational approach towards war reparations: http://www.voltairenet.org/article202370.html
"'the conflict that took place in Syria is a war of aggression organized by transnational financial interests – such as the investment fund KKR, Toyota, the global leader of Cement Lafarge, etc. Therefore it must be the transnationals involved and the States that worked with them that have to pay the damages."

The Jewish State must be unquestionably included in the list of "organized interests" guilty of the war of aggression and war crimes in Syria, which resulted in a massive loss of life and tremendous damage to Syrian infrastructure. Considering the sheer number of the war-cheerleaders among Israel-firsters and the influence of ziocons (the Jewish Lobby) on the US policies abroad, Israel owes a lot to Syria.

This is not some sort of inventive claims peddled by Holo-biz, but a fact-based demand that must be honored by the aggressors.

Every time a "chosen" makes a noise about "uncomparable sufferings" he/she must be reminded of the Jewish crimes in Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Gaza Ghetto.

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT
@Skip Sullivan

I do mean rational factually supported arguments. But creationists and adepts of any other system of baseless beliefs, including various religions, communism, Nazism, etc., should be also allowed to air their arguments, however ridiculous they are. Let everyone show his/her true colors. Smart people will see through any BS, whereas fooling the fools is not a crime, the fools exist to be fooled, often by other fools.

Censorship is an admission that you have no arguments. That's why Western MSM are so heavily censored.

annamaria , August 10, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

"Why didn't Putin simply restore Yanukovych to power and leave it at that?" -- Michael Kenny, why have not you asked Brennan, the former CIA director who traveled "secretly" to Kiev to "organize" the ongoing civil war in Ukraine?

How old are you to ask such a naive question, 7 or 97?

Do you understand how much $5 billion is? -- This is how much the zionized US government had invested in regime change in Ukraine.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev

annamaria , August 10, 2018 at 5:45 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

The rationale for the anti-Russian sanctions carries, of course, a "humanitarian" touch: bad Russia is punished by the righteous US for the alleged poisoning of Skripals. There is zero evidence to support the US/UK verdict re Skripals

On the same day when the US was showing its righteousness by "sunctioning" Russia for the alleged poisoning of Skripals (both Skripals are alive) the Saudi-American coalition had bombed, with the US provided WMD, a bus filled with school children in Yemen. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/08/us-fine-tuning-of-saudi-airstrike-target-list-creates-results.html#comments

Here is what is left of the formerly alive and healthy children after the "righteous" US had sent a "legitimate" "humanitarian" help in the kids' direction:

Herald , August 10, 2018 at 5:47 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

So you are saying most Russian speaking Ukrainians are happy to be governed by a bunch of pro-US/Israel neo-nazi thugs. Sorry can't buy that one.

AnonFromTN , August 10, 2018 at 6:17 pm GMT
@annamaria

Typical of the "defenders of human rights". The "shining city on a hill" did the same in Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and countless other countries. As Madeleine Albright put it, the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it.

The US is always more arrogant, as opposed to super-hypocritical Europe. Hard to tell what's worse.

peterAUS , August 10, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

If this article were any more poorly written, it would be banned by the FDA. The repetitious, tub-thumping tone should not be consumed while driving or operating heavy machinery.

Agree. Promising topic, disappointing delivery. Just the usual, shallow, propaganda. Simply a very bad article.

[Aug 10, 2018] Dozens of Yemeni Children Killed in Saudi Coalition Airstrike by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Coalition attacks on Yemeni markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never call them out for what they do. ..."
Aug 09, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
There was another Saudi coalition airstrike on a crowded market in northern Yemen today. Dozens of civilians have been killed and dozens more injured. Many of the dead and injured were children whose school bus was hit in the attack:

Coalition attacks on Yemeni markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never call them out for what they do. The U.S. continues to arm and refuel coalition planes despite ample evidence that the coalition has been deliberately attacking civilian targets. At the very least, the coalition hits civilian targets with such regularity that they are ignoring whatever procedures they are supposed to be following to prevent that. The weapons that the U.S., Britain, and other arms suppliers provide them are being used to slaughter wedding-goers, hospital patients, and schoolchildren, and U.S. refueling of coalition planes allows them to carry out more of these attacks than they otherwise could. Today's attack ranks as one of the worst.

Saada has come under some of the most intense attacks from the coalition bombing campaign. The coalition illegally declared the entire area a military target three years ago, and ever since they have been blowing up homes , markets , schools , water treatment systems, and hospitals without any regard for the innocent civilians that are killed and injured.

The official U.S. line on support for the war is that even more civilians would be killed if the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition. Our government has never provided any evidence to support this, and the record shows that civilian casualties from Saudi coalition airstrikes have increased over the last year. The Saudis and their allies either don't listen to any of the advice they're receiving, or they know they won't pay any price for ignoring it. As long as the U.S. arms and refuels coalition planes while they slaughter Yemeni civilians in attacks like this one, our government is implicated in the war crimes enabled by our unstinting military assistance. Congress can and must halt that assistance immediately.

Update: CNN reports on the aftermath of the airstrike:

The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said that a hospital it supports in Saada had received 29 dead bodies of "mainly children" under 15 years of age, and 40 injured, including 30 children.

"(The hospital) is very busy. They've been receiving wounded and dead since the morning and it is non-stop ," ICRC head of communications and spokesperson Mirella Hodeib told CNN.

Second Update: The Associated Press reports that the death toll stands at 43 with another 63 injured.

Third Update: The death toll has reportedly risen to 50 . 77 were injured.

an older america weeps August 9, 2018 at 11:30 am

School buses?

Good Lord above. School buses.

Of course I have no right to surprise or shock. They've already targeted hospitals, foreign doctors and nurses, first responders, wedding parties, and funerals.

School buses.

We used to make movies about killing people who do things like this. Now we help them do it.

Daniel O'Connor , says: August 9, 2018 at 12:54 pm
The repetitive frequency and intensity of these attacks on hospitals, schools, markets and other civilian gatherings, coupled with the indifference of the guilty national governments and their international enablers, signals that the world and human species is passing through a mass psychosis. This psychosis is playing itself out at all levels. Fascism, which is very current as a national psychology, is generally speaking, a coping strategy for dealing with nasty chaos. This coping strategy is designed around generating even more chaos, since that is a familiar and therefore more comfortable pattern of behavior; and that does provide a delusion of stability. A good example would be the sanctions just declared by the Trump Administration on Iranian commerce. In an intrinsically connected global market, these sanctions are so thorough that they qualify as a blockade, within a contingency plan for greater global conflict. But those who destroy hospitals, schools, school buses and public celebrations are not, otherwise, forward looking nice people. We are descending into a nasty fascist war psychosis. Just shake it. Live. Long and well.
b. , says: August 9, 2018 at 2:18 pm
"even more civilians would be killed if the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition"

If we did not hand them satellite images, did not service, repair and refuel their planes, and did not sell them the bombs, then they would . kill more civilians how? They could not even reach their targets, let alone drop explosives they do not have.

What Would Mohammad Do? Buy bombs from the Russians? Who have better quality control and fewer duds, hence more victims?

What Would Mohammad Do? Get the UAE to hire Blackwater to poison the wells across Yemen?

How exactly do the profiteers in our country, that get counted out blood money for every single Yemeni killed, propose that the Saudis and Emiratis would make this worse?

But, good to know that our "smart" and "precise" munitions can still hit a school bus. Made In America!

Great.

Hunter C , says: August 9, 2018 at 5:00 pm
The coverage in the media has been predictably cowardly and contemptible in the aftermath of this story. I read articles from CNN and MSNBC and they were variations on "school bus bombed", in the passive tense – with no mention of who did it or who is supporting them in the headline, ad if the bombings were natural disasters.

Fox, predictably, was even worse and led with "Biblical relics endangered by war", which speaks volumes about the presumed priorities of their viewership.

This, and not anything to do with red meat domestic politics, is the worst media malpractice of our time. "Stop directly helping the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks drop bombs on school children" should be the absolute easiest possible moral issue for our media to take a stand on and yet they treat it like it's radioactive.

Speaking as someone who considers themselves a liberal I am infuriated by the Democrats response. How can the party leadership not see that if they keep flogging the horse of Russian trolls and shrugging their shoulders over American given (not sold – *given*) bombs being dropped on schools and hospitals, no one is ever going to take the supposed Democratic anti-war platform seriously again. The Republicans can afford to be tarde by association with these atrocities. The Democrats can't.

I wonder how many Democrats are in the same boat as me right now: I may not like Trump or the Christian conservatives but fights over the Supreme Court or coal plants or a healthcare law look terribly petty compared to the apparent decision by Saudi Arabia to kill literally millions. For the first time in my life I'm seriously wishing there was a third-party candidate I could support and the congressional elections just so I could send a message on this.

Erik , says: August 9, 2018 at 10:13 pm
@Hunter C
Vote Libertarian Party. You won't agree with a lot of their domestic agenda, but they're not going to win, so it doesn't matter. The noninterventionist foreign policy is your message.

[Aug 10, 2018] There is also the documented presence of American forces and officers in the operations room of the Saudi coalition

Aug 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , August 10, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT

@DESERT FOX

The ZUSA empire in action (for children, you know) on the other side of the globe: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/08/us-fine-tuning-of-saudi-airstrike-target-list-creates-results.html#comments

"Following an attack this morning on a bus driving children in Dahyan Market, northern Saada, (an ICRC-supported) hospital has received dozens of dead and wounded," the organisation said on Twitter without giving more details.

In a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency, the coalition called the strike a "legitimate military action"

The Comment section:

"The US provides the in-flight refueling that makes these bombing sorties possible. The "Five Eyes" provides the surveillance that picks the targets, and the navigation to hit them.

KSA is doing precisely what the AZ Empire requires of it. Just as the British Royals and their banker sponsors dictated over a century ago, so does the Empire direct these heinous crimes today.

If the Saud Royals ever did go "rogue," they'd be taken out just as the AZ [American Zionist] Empire has done time and time again."
"There is also the documented presence of American forces and officers in the operations room of the Saudi coalition." https://twitter.com/abcdaee198/status/1027649243568386055

"Why is it that the Zionist media were up in arms every time White Helmets were digging Syrian children out of rubble or dousing them with hoses? Dozens of children were slaughtered in Yemen, and many more maimed and injured and hundreds of thousands are being subjected to famine but there's only deafening silence on the Zionist-run media."

"Imagine the reaction if the Russians or Syrians had blown up a busload of kids."

-- On the same topic: Israel demanded -- and BBC changed its headline. In a headline, BBC claimed that "Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby.'" After some time, BBC changed its title to "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/250275

[Aug 10, 2018] U.S. 'Fine Tuning' Of Saudi Airstrike Target List Creates Results

Aug 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

occidentosis , Aug 9, 2018 3:03:23 PM | 1

I saw one video
there was nothing left of the children but bits
It was surreal
Kalen , Aug 9, 2018 3:17:53 PM | 2
Next Saudi Target: Ottawa.
MbS went beserk like Musk overdosed on juice.
Ian , Aug 9, 2018 3:22:53 PM | 3
One day, the West will reap the Karma it has sowed upon the world.
librul , Aug 9, 2018 3:35:10 PM | 4
Obama spoke about mothers sending their children to school in his acceptance speech for the
Nobel Peace Prize.

He contrasted reality vs hope
and we learned which one he would deliver.

Obama in Oslo, December 10, 2009,:

"Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty
still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what
few coins she has to send that child to school
-- because she believes that
a cruel world still
has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example.
We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us,
and still strive for justice .
We can admit the intractability of deprivation,
and still strive for dignity.
Clear-eyed,
we can understand that there will be war,
and still strive for peace.
We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the
hope
of all the world; and at this moment of challenge,
that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much.
(Applause.)

One week later Obama shredded dozens of women and children in Yemen
and covered it up.

Here is ABC's Brian Ross using his most masculine baritone voice to boast about Obama's attack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcg3TNSRPs

Wikileaks cable corroborates evidence of US airstrikes in Yemen
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen/

Cable itself:
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10SANAA4_a.html

S , Aug 9, 2018 3:57:13 PM | 5
The comments under the Daily Mail article are disabled, lest someone mentions the U.S. involvement.
Lochearn , Aug 9, 2018 4:06:42 PM | 6
Imagine the reaction if the Russians or Syrians had blown up a busload of kids...
worldblee , Aug 9, 2018 4:08:36 PM | 7
Yes, they are fine tuning their ability to hit children, hospitals, etc.
Circe , Aug 9, 2018 4:16:06 PM | 8
@4

I've written many times Obama was Bush II - BUT F...KING TRUMP IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOW! So why are you giving us the ancient history deflection???????????

karlof1 , Aug 9, 2018 4:16:41 PM | 9
The pic provides an example of how the Outlaw US Empire implements its global population control policy--all bombs, no kids. Twitterverse is madder than a wet hen. One went to Trump's twitter to ask where's his outrage over these kid's real deaths, not the staged ones he launched missiles at Syria over. It deserves to be retweeted millions of times. Unfortunately, sadists are incapable of being shamed; they just grin at such pics while congratulating themselves. Betcha the Trump dossier got it backwards--It was Trump who pissed all over the Russian women.
librul , Aug 9, 2018 4:29:31 PM | 10
@8

It isn't about you.

Mark2 , Aug 9, 2018 4:38:58 PM | 11
Almasdarnews. Com. Are reporting a massive Israile army convoy heading for Gaza bigger than enything seen since 2014 ! This looks serious ! The whole dam world picture is looking way beyond serious !!!
james , Aug 9, 2018 4:41:56 PM | 12
kudos the exceptional nation in support of those other exceptional nations - ksa and israel...

everyone else on the planet want to know when this horror will end...

Ahh, thats why. The Saudis are incompetent and vile, but trust the us to be even more incompetent and even more vile and putrid.
This is horrible! I see it and can not really do much. It is a never ending story of innocent people being killed off. But it does nurture a solid and hot hate to those people who are architects of this. They feel safe and secured, but they are sitting on a volcano, and when it goes, they will go too. Maybe a Gadaffi end.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe , Aug 9, 2018 4:42:25 PM | 13

Ahh, thats why. The Saudis are incompetent and vile, but trust the us to be even more incompetent and even more vile and putrid.
This is horrible! I see it and can not really do much. It is a never ending story of innocent people being killed off. But it does nurture a solid and hot hate to those people who are architects of this. They feel safe and secured, but they are sitting on a volcano, and when it goes, they will go too. Maybe a Gadaffi end.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Aug 9, 2018 4:42:25 PM | 13 /div

Den Lille Abe , Aug 9, 2018 5:01:23 PM | 14
Hate is a hefty spice; it can make you blind to reason, it can make you oblivious to truth, and make you inoculated against love. But hate controlled, is also a drug that is powerful and useful, hate nurtured and fed can move mountains and empires. Hate is good in manageable doses and wrecking in large ones. But take it at own risk.
Christian Chuba , Aug 9, 2018 5:17:15 PM | 15
The KSA isn't even trying to hide their evil.

They are claiming these are legitimate military targets, they targeted 'militants', the Houthis use 'child soldiers', and use human shields. I bet Nikki Haley still thinks they are the most wonderful people ever, on the front lines, fighting against the real monsters, Iran.

Guerrero , Aug 9, 2018 5:26:14 PM | 16
This is terrible.
karlof1 , Aug 9, 2018 5:30:35 PM | 17
Here's the Twitter post I mentioned using the same pic b chose.
Circe , Aug 9, 2018 5:30:42 PM | 18
@10

What's that supposed to mean??? Trump is President! Aren't you excusing Trump by dredging up Obama's shet? That excuse not to criticize Trump is getting real old.

Yeah, Right , Aug 9, 2018 5:31:45 PM | 19
@15 Nah, Christian, you are clearly wrong. Nikki would consider KSA to have the 2nd most wonderful people ever, with the USA holding the Bronze Medal position. There is no doubt who she holds as The Chosen People.


Mark2 , Aug 9, 2018 5:52:53 PM | 20
Don't let this stuff get normalised ! That's why they do it in plain site. It desensitises the dumb public
i e trump supporters in u s, torys in uk. We should be feeling outrage and hatered towards the people that
do this . Including our own governments.
ToivoS , Aug 9, 2018 5:59:38 PM | 21
#10 circe

No one is excusing Trump. The point that needs to be emphasized is that the War Party has two wings: repubs and dems. Every last president since WWII has put the interests of imperial conquest over the interests of the American people. Bill Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump (as well as all of their wannabes Gore, Kerry, McCain HRC) were and are war mongers. They are united in their lust for killing children (don't forget Madeline Albright with her "it was worth it" over the 500,000 babies Clinton killed through sanctions).

Mark2 , Aug 9, 2018 6:14:14 PM | 22
This evening #switch off bbc is trending number one on Twitter and number four world wide! Time we all pushback. on the net,on the streets, everywhere we can.no justice no peace !
ToivoS , Aug 9, 2018 6:21:20 PM | 23
Mark2 opines It desensitises the dumb public i e trump supporters

Are you serious? You should listen to my college educated colleagues (more than half with professional degrees) most of whom are democrats and not one who voted for Trump. When it comes to war against Syria, Libya, threats against Russia they are true blooded war mongers. Actually worse than Trump supporters because they in general oppose those wars or war threats.

Bart Hansen , Aug 9, 2018 6:26:32 PM | 24
For more terrorist reading in the Middle East by Number 2 Democracy -

https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/eyewitness-passengers-antibiotics/

Mark2 , Aug 9, 2018 6:32:10 PM | 25
Toivos @ 23
Dumb is as dumb does! They come in all shapes sizes and political party's . Trumps a greedy pig puts children in cages and is a kkk racist don't make excuses he's a monster full stop!
Don't give me eny of that o but, o but blah blah.!!!
Pft , Aug 9, 2018 6:33:12 PM | 26
Mark2@20

It already is normalized. Go look at many of the comments on MSM (left and right) and so called progressive sites. Hopefully those are all astroturfers but I suspect many are real folks. Its luny tunes. They live in the Matrix and are blissfully unaware. Like something out of 1984 during the 2 minute hate but its 24/7 , or maybe walking dead if the WD could type or talk.

Toxik , Aug 9, 2018 6:36:01 PM | 27
as a parent, I feel the loss. as an American, I feel disgusted.
Jen , Aug 9, 2018 6:40:31 PM | 28
Another sterling example of how the US teaches its allies to be incompetent, vicious and cowardly in targeting and killing those least able to fight back.
Piotr Berman , Aug 9, 2018 6:46:23 PM | 29
O Canada! Recently, I praised them as "New Trumpland". But why did they forget that silence can be golden? Apparently, it dawned on PM that his party is called "liberal" and thus it must make "liberal calls"*. But what cause should be selected? Massacres and starvation of cute emaciated children? Conservative predecessor of current PM got ca. 7 G USD contract for "vehicles" (motorized infantly?) for KSA, and Trudeau will not endanger precious Canadian jobs. After leaving the task to the Foreign Minister (Freedland, Feminazi**), the plight of women right activists in KSA with family members in Canada.

Canada cannot yield to Saudi Arabia's deranged overreaction
The regime's reaction to a couple of tweets is more about snuffing out its own country's voices of dissent
Iyad El-Baghdadi, Amarnath Amarasingam · for CBC News · Posted: Aug 09, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: August 9

If Canada folds, some fear that a line would be drawn in the sand, and behind that line, petty Arab dictators could do what they want with their activist communities, without as much as a complaint from the world. (Cliff Owen/Associated Press)

=====

Of course Canada cannot yield. For starters, it is unclear what would appease the irate Crown Prince. Perhaps Trudeau and Friedland coming together to KSA to submit to a public flogging. But judging from the titles I have seen, Canadians cherish "delicate balance", and they though that an occasional complaint that is not 100% aligned with USA and principal customers of Canadian products should be safe.

karlof1 , Aug 9, 2018 6:49:11 PM | 30
ToivoS @23--

Agreed. When it comes to knowing the Truth of the Outlaw US Empire's overseas deeds, most people are illiterate/ignorant. They hang the flag aside their front porch and feel righteous. The only reason we don't have multitudes of people saluting whoever's POTUS and chanting Sieg Heil is because in the back of their tiny minds they somehow know that's incorrect behavior but don't know why. Some provided feedback on Michael Hudson's going autobiographical saying his upbringing seemed unreal--faked--thus showing how little they know of WW2 Home Front US history when people were much more informed and politically savvy.

It seems safe to say that Animal Farm & 1984 have both put down extensive roots within the Outlaw US Empire to the point where digging up and destroying those weeds will cause major social damage. Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs is how the saying goes. But a positive outcome isn't the only possibility.

Mark2 , Aug 9, 2018 6:49:27 PM | 31
We need to remember this' the about left or right ! That's just devide and rule. This about the 1% killing off the 99%
Agend 21.what they are doing to Yemen people now they will do to you next.
karlof1 , Aug 9, 2018 7:01:30 PM | 32
jen @28--

The deliberate targeting of civilians is Outlaw US Empire policy since WW2 despite it being a War Crime. Guernica was an outrage, but Powell had it covered up since spoke directly to US actions since the paint dried in 1937. The School Bus was yet another of all too many Guernicas that have occurred since. Someone mentioned desensitized. Yes, on an International Scale. It was an act of Terror, but how many are describing it as such? BigLie Media? Not a chance if they show/mention it at all.

I know you feel as I do, but I needed to vent.

dh , Aug 9, 2018 7:06:13 PM | 33
@29 '...Canadians cherish "delicate balance",...'

I'm not sure we should generalize about Canadians. Trudeau is trying to satisfy his base and presumably staying true to his own liberal convictions. But I've met Canadians who dislike him intensely. They do not think gender politics, welcoming refugees, settling native land claims, lecturing Saudi Arabia etc. is the best way to maintain a high standard of living.

Peter Schmidt , Aug 9, 2018 7:08:48 PM | 34
Israel demanded - and BBC changed its headline. In a headline, BBC claimed that "Israeli air strikes 'kill pregnant woman and baby.'" After some time, BBC changed its title to "Gaza air strikes 'kill woman and child' after rockets hit Israel
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/250275
Peter Schmidt , Aug 9, 2018 7:13:26 PM | 35
A good comment from HistoryHacker (Guardian web page), I thought I share it:

"Let's see: in 1913 the British grabbed Iranian oil and made it their property. Six years later, Britain imposed another agreement and took over Iran's treasury and the army. During the Second World War, Britain's requisitioning of food led to famine and widespread disease. Shortly after that war, Iran's own efforts to establish its nascent democracy and nationalize the oil industry were thwarted. And by whom? Eisenhower joined the systematic British looting, and, sadly, by 1953, the blossoming Iranian democracy was completely destroyed by the covert operation of the American CIA and British MI6, known as Operation Ajax. In place of the democracy was installed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a US-British puppet, a despot deeply hated by his own people.
America picked up the baton, and here's Trump going bat crazy!
What could Iranians possibly think?! What do you think?"

Piotr Berman , Aug 9, 2018 7:40:19 PM | 36
@29 '...Canadians cherish "delicate balance",...'
I am not sure we should generalize about Canadians. Posted by: dh | Aug 9, 2018 7:06:13 PM | 33

I tried to make it clear that "Canadians" refer to my observations on titles from Canadian media as reported by Google News.

dh , Aug 9, 2018 7:58:27 PM | 37
@36 I knew that PB. Excuse my inadequate attempt to emulate your tone.

But I think it's true that Canadians enjoy a high standard of living mainly because of things like water, oil, minerals, wheat, lumber etc. and most prefer not to get involved in Saudi Arabian politics.

Virgile , Aug 9, 2018 8:03:42 PM | 38
I hope that Canada will finally lead heavy public condemnation of the Saudi-UAE coalition murderous actions in Yemen. Canada has nothing to loose anymore, it is high time it take a serious stand on the 3 years human rights abuse of the Yemenis.
It should indirectly send a dissaproval message to the USA on its complicity in these war crimes...
Maybe it is time for Canada, to reinstate diplomatic relation with Iran to snub the Saudis and the USA, but I am dreaming...
.
TG , Aug 9, 2018 8:04:08 PM | 39
"But I think it's true that Canadians enjoy a high standard of living mainly because of things like water, oil, minerals, wheat, lumber etc. "

Not quite. It's because of water, oil, minerals, wheat lumber, etc., AND they don't breed like rodents.

India has plenty of resources - adjusting for the cold climate in Canada, probably about as much as Canada, effectively. It's just that these resources don't go that far split up 1.4 billion ways and counting.

And Yemen? With very little water, and one of the highest fertility rates in the world, what do you expect?

CarlD , Aug 9, 2018 8:05:49 PM | 40
out of subject.

What to make of the new sanctions put in place by the State Dept against Russia?

What about those on Iran?

Are these implemented to generate WAR?

Whether it be against Russia, Iran or China, The US attitude is orchestrated by
Zion/Israel.

Why deal with the US when Israel is the culprit?

Wiping out Israel is the solution. Obliterating Israel will certainly ease
the World's woes.

Of course, targeted assassinations should be carried out.

Short of this, Netanyahu should be kept waiting for days whitout being able
to meet Putin. His ambassador should be expelled and the Russian Ambassador to Israel recalled.

Sanction Israel in every way possible. Break the Gaza Siege. Wipe out Israel's
Navy. Down its jets over Lebanon. Kill its Jericho rockets at lift off.

The World will certainly be a better place.

Sasha , Aug 9, 2018 8:05:52 PM | 41
@Posted by: Circe | Aug 9, 2018 4:16:06 PM | 8

I was going to say something in the same vein but you saved me the effort. I am really sick of this.

Is not this woman the spokesperson of the DoS of Trump administration?

https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/1027137513570414593

There is also the documented presence of American forces and officers in the operations room of the Saudi coalition....These guys have not been sent there by Obama...I guess....

https://twitter.com/abcdaee198/status/1027649243568386055

But what most makes me feel sick is not that American commenters out there, well payed or volunteer, insist after two years already on this cantinele, what takes me out of my nerves is that the Russians insist...in throwing balls out with certain issues....

https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1027197665845673985


Sasha , Aug 9, 2018 8:20:02 PM | 42
@Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 9, 2018 4:38:58 PM | 11

But what could have really happened? Just yesterday or the day before I was reading that Israel and Hamas were in negotiations...From that to this...I wonder what could be the breaking point...

Anyone has any information/ link?

dh , Aug 9, 2018 8:23:24 PM | 43
@39 Well yes...er I mean no...er bluster bluster....here comes Malthus again.
karlof1 , Aug 9, 2018 8:44:37 PM | 44
Sasha @42--

Talks were a ruse as usual . Supposedly, a cease fire was in place but was broken as reported at the link. Ongoing protests against the "Nationality Law" continue and go unreported as usual. The continuing murder of Gazans serves as cover.

spudski , Aug 9, 2018 8:56:04 PM | 45
@37, "But I think it's true that Canadians enjoy a high standard of living mainly because of things like water, oil, minerals, wheat, lumber etc. and most prefer not to get involved in Saudi Arabian politics."

As a lifelong Canuckistani, my view is that Canada is the world's largest mine - and it is not mine.

dh , Aug 9, 2018 9:09:03 PM | 46
@45 But I understand it's not as easy to get mining permits as it used to be. Lot of environmentalists and first nations lawyers involved. Which is why Canadian mining companies move to Africa.
michaelj72 , Aug 9, 2018 9:12:39 PM | 47
the USA will perhaps suffer blowback, both at home and in many places 'strategic' to its Empire, for generation or two to come, for all the horrible and savage war crimes perpetuated by it and its allies on the poor people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, and especially now Yemen, the poorest of the poor - the sorrows of Empire
Pft , Aug 9, 2018 9:12:47 PM | 48
Spudski@45

Spending only 1% of GDP on military helps support your healthcare system too.

Neoliberalism will get you in the end. Trump going to push on NAFTA and our buddy the Saudis giving you a push.

Daniel , Aug 9, 2018 9:18:43 PM | 49
The US provides the in-flight refueling that makes these bombing sorties possible. The "Five Eyes" provides the surveillance that picks the targets, and the navigation to hit them.

KSA is doing precisely what the AZ Empire requires of it. Just as the British Royals and their banker sponsors dictated over a century ago, so does the Empire direct these heinous crimes today.

If the Saud Royals ever did go "rogue," they'd be taken out just as the AZ Empire has done time and time again.

Daniel , Aug 9, 2018 9:25:35 PM | 50
CarlD, the purpose of sanctions is to hurt the citizens of a country enough that they will rise up and revolt against their ruling class.

The AZ Empire has been striving for complete global dominance for a long time, and that means either destroying Russia and China or at least installing "friendly" governments. Hence, sanctions, "trade wars," and infiltration to foment "color revolutions."

CarlD , Aug 9, 2018 9:32:33 PM | 51
50 @ Daniel

And who is behind all of this?

Ian , Aug 9, 2018 9:49:38 PM | 52
Saudi state news agency: "strikes were carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law."

Ugh...

Chipnik , Aug 9, 2018 10:14:45 PM | 53
4

Pence's new Space Command is a blatant telltale that the twice-hacked and never-audited Pentagon has a massive hemorrhage of funds and Trump will be demanding ANOTHER $40B budget increase for Pentagon to paper over a huge Deep Purple Hole in the Bucket.

Chipnik , Aug 9, 2018 10:23:59 PM | 54
40

I was just saying something similar about a more direct way to change A-Z politics to a friend on FB today, with anecdotes from the past as examples, but within the hour, FB delinked our pages so we can't correspond. All part of the Perpetual Now© End of History campaign across pan-media towards a totally-scripted CGI-enhanced Marvel-ously fictional non-reality. With lizard people from Niburu, lol.

Pft , Aug 9, 2018 10:27:32 PM | 55
So Saudis sanction Canada but will still let the oil flow to them (2billion a year) and the US sanctions Russia but will still buy space rockets from them , and they will still sell them to us. Trade war with China but they still buy US Treasuries to finance US debt. British owned BBC rents out their studios to RT to help Russia with their propaganda

LOL. Enjoy the show, more to come

Circe , Aug 9, 2018 10:34:32 PM | 56
@21TS

You expressed it correctly, but @4, 10 I suspect is Trumpgod can do no wrong.

It's a Zionist-rigged system, where Kucinich and Ron Paul didn't stand a chance; to name a mere two of the uncorrupted.

To add to the insanity of this Saudi massacre, Israel's at it again in Gaza. Damn!

It's all Zionist-driven.

Pft , Aug 9, 2018 10:40:02 PM | 57
Carl D@51

Woodrow Wilson : "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Today some call them ruling or power elites, global elites for the most part. Elites is an interesting word whose origins come from the french word for chosen and latin word for elect.

Piotr Berman , Aug 9, 2018 10:51:43 PM | 58
Some general remarks about Canada:

1. Wealth from natural resources. This is a bit of mixed blessing, because with some exceptions, mining is very capital intensive, so the profit margins are so-so, and job creation is also so-so. Canada is blessed with nice mix of extracting industries, agriculture, "normal" manufacturing, financial centers etc. They also have somewhat reasonable spending in terms value for money in health and military sectors, saving ca. 10% of GDP between the two compared with the less rational southern neighbor Perhaps this is still short of 10%, but USA also wastes money and human resources on prison complex and other inanities.

2. Liberal Canada. Domestically, I do not know enough, but "harmonizing with USA" could please some conservatives while being too expensive to implement. On foreign policy they stick to the worst of liberalism, not standing much for anything, even for their beloved Vilna Ukrayina, although converting Ukraine to land of milk and honey with capable military and a reasonable level of corruption is beyond capacity of any foreign power. But they implemented what used to be totally unjustifiable insult, "feminazi". That said, conservatives learned from Trump to raise mind boggling issue and gain in polls, lately, how to stop hordes of "deplorables" crossing the border. I guess a cheapish solution would be to create a network of recreational trails with very confusing mapping (even GPS) and totally confusing signage, and plant some smilax = green briar or other thorny plants to impede hiking according to compass directions. A note on GPS maps based on satellite pictures: software has very hard time telling dead ends from actually passable trail connections.

3. Populist-progressive Canada of my dreams. Declare the conflicts with KSA and Trump to be matters of national dignity, punish KSA by stopping delivery of military vehicles per Harper's contract and purchases of oil, replace the latter with Iranian. Would Trump dare to impose secondary sanctions, fine American companies in Canada.

Circe , Aug 9, 2018 11:18:38 PM | 59
Why is it that the Zionist media were up in arms every time White Helmets were digging Syrian children out of rubble or dousing them with hoses?

Dozens of children were slaughtered in Yemen, and many more maimed and injured and hundreds of thousands are being subjected to famine but there's only deafening silence on the Zionist-run media.

Syrian children had propaganda value; Yemeni children have no value at all. Americans, Zionists and Saudis are sick and depraved.

Piotr Berman , Aug 9, 2018 11:38:00 PM | 60
A little correction to Circe, Aug 9 11:18:38 PM. SELECTED Syrian children were newsworthy, a recent massacre by ISIS in Sweida was newsworthy only as an example of a failure by "the regime". An earlier example, when majority of people of Greater Aleppo lived in the western part controlled by Damascus, "Aleppo" meant only the eastern part, controlled by the "moderate" rebels, and victims of moderate massacres and shelling were totally un-newsworthy.
Pft , Aug 10, 2018 12:06:44 AM | 61
Piotr@58

Natural resources drive 20 per cent of the economy -- and about 10 per cent of all the jobs in Canada. These natural resources also help Canada attract manufacturing and value added business that utilize domestically produced metals, fuel and timber (as opposed to more expensive imports) Profit motive is overstated, large companies are focused more on income growth and market share. The jobs that are produced are good paying jobs as well

I'd rather have more good paying capital intensive industries than low pay labour intensive service and manufacturing industries that may generate more profits but which end up mostly in CEO and top managements bank accounts

Frankly, the mystery is why America has not invaded Canada and taken over since we last tried in 1812. :>)

dh , Aug 10, 2018 12:10:13 AM | 62
@58 Support in Canada for Ukraine is mainly concentrated in Ukrainian communities in Alberta I believe. They form a quite significant voting block.
ben , Aug 10, 2018 12:21:33 AM | 63
Mark2 @ 31 said:"We need to remember this' the about left or right ! That's just devide and rule. This about the 1% killing off the 99% "

Yep, bottom line statement. From austerity to all neoliberal policies, and the world-wide wars now going on, are basically nothing more than class warfare directed at the 99% to enrich the already rich.

Profits uber alles. Avarice uber alles..

Piotr Berman , Aug 10, 2018 12:46:21 AM | 64
Frankly, the mystery is why America has not invaded Canada and taken over since we last tried in 1812. :>)

Posted by: Pft | Aug 10, 2018 12:06:44 AM | 61

Absorbing Canada could undermine political balance in USA leading to such calamities like socialized medicine, legal marijuana etc. Keeping them on Puerto Rico status is not tenable given the ethnic composition -- too many English speaking whites. If we could just annex Alberta...

Jen , Aug 10, 2018 12:50:16 AM | 65
Bang on cue, TG @ 39 uses a comment about Canada's standard of living (brought about in part by its governments' spending on transport infrastructure - in particular, transcontinental railways - that stimulated job growth and enabled the agricultural and manufactured wealth of the provinces to be spread across the nation and to be exported overseas) to push a racist opinion about how poor countries are at fault for being poor because their people don't have access to birth control measures made in rich countries.
Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 10, 2018 12:51:44 AM | 66
...
..for all the horrible and savage war crimes perpetuated by it and its allies on the poor people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, and especially now Yemen, the poorest of the poor - the sorrows of Empire.
Posted by: michaelj72 | Aug 9, 2018 9:12:39 PM | 47

Kipling summed it up with grim irony in three words:
White Man's Burden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

Jen , Aug 10, 2018 12:56:00 AM | 67
Pft @ 61, Piotr Berman & 64:

The British and the Americans signed a treaty in 1819 to respect one another's borders in North America. The treaty was renegotiated in 1846.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_1818

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Treaty

Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 10, 2018 1:07:20 AM | 68
White man's burden...
A phrase used to justify European imperialism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; it is the title of a poem by Rudyard Kipling. The phrase implies that imperialism was motivated by a high-minded desire of whites to uplift people of color.
Amir , Aug 10, 2018 1:15:15 AM | 69
Part of the targeting assurance happens by looking at unexpected "gaps" in electronic communication signals. When there is a lot of cellphone communication noise" where is is suddenly absent, despite presence of humans, indicated an interesting anomaly for target acquisitions.
To confuse the enemy, these "silent spots" should be mirrored in different locations. They counter The selectief bias.

During WWII, RAF lost planes to German AAA. They wondered where armor them up?
Counterintuitively, the mathematician Abraham Wald explained that, if a plane makes it back safely despite a bunch of bullet holes in its wings, it means that bullet holes in the wings aren't very dangerous.
Where you really need the armor, are the areas that, on average, don't have any bullet holes.

Why? Because planes with bullet holes in those places never made it back. That's why you don't see any bullet holes there on the ones that do return.

Daniel , Aug 10, 2018 1:17:34 AM | 70
Posted by: CarlD @ 51 "And who is behind all of this?"

Wouldn't you agree that the PTSB are, as Paul Simon wrote, A Loose Affiliation of Billionaires?

The way I see it, the pinnacle of the pyramid are members of the dynasties that have controlled the finance system for centuries. Rothschilds, Warburgs, the Vatican, the European Royal Families and such. They profit off of everything, since all revenues generated by all industries pass through their sticky fingers, in addition to their Central Banking cabal that almost every country on earth is fully beholden to.

They are not a monolith, in that they compete with one another, but they all share interest in keeping this system in place.

Then, at the next level down there are the members of the Nouveau Riche, like the Rockefellers and Carneigies whose wealth was only generated a couple generations ago, and the even newer rich who do not have dynastic power (yet), but do wield enough wealth to influence the actions of the Empire, like the MIC "Daddy Warbucks" and tech industry newcomers.

And of course, there are the upper-level managers of Empire like Kissinger, Brzezenski, Soros, etc.

NemesisCalling , Aug 10, 2018 1:20:53 AM | 71
We have seen images of dead children of warfare before. I am not sure if it helps the antiwar cause. I will have to go read Susan Sontag's "The Pain of Others." In any case, thanks for posting it, b.

Will DJT order a retaliatory strike on KSA after being so moved by these photos like he was when the children of the fake gas attacks in Syria were being paraded around on the msm? I think not. Sad!

Daniel , Aug 10, 2018 1:38:19 AM | 72
Posted by: Pft | Aug 10, 2018 12:06:44 AM | 61:
"Frankly, the mystery is why America has not invaded Canada and taken over since we last tried in 1812. :>)"

Canada and the US are both members of the Five Eyes. Clearly, their roles in the great chessboard are different. But the way I see it, the nation-states are fictions that serve the charade of representative democratic self-rule.

[Aug 10, 2018] Our Government Is Awash With Foreign Citizens by Chuck Baldwin

This is not so much about Israel as about Neoconservatism and neoliberal globalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they required to disclose such dual citizenship. ..."
"... Dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for policy-level members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national loyalties of dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such legislators, judges or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their second country. ..."
Aug 09, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Most Americans would be shocked if they knew how many foreign citizens are in our federal government -- and at what levels. They don't know because the mainstream media (or the conservative media, for that matter) almost never talks about it. It is one of the biggest secrets in Washington, D.C.

Back in 2015, Michael Hager wrote a very important missive that appeared in The Hill . Hager said:

The Biblical injunction that "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24) doesn't apply to nations. Almost half of the world's countries, including the U.S., recognize dual citizenship -- even when they don't encourage it for the complicated legal issues it often raises.

For example, one who obeys a requirement to give allegiance to a country or votes in a foreign election may be regarded as having renounced citizenship in the other country. What happens when the legal claims of one country conflict with those of the second country? Which of the two countries has an obligation to assist a dual national in distress?

Until the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk , a U.S. citizen who voted in a political election in a foreign state would forfeit his or her U.S. citizenship. From that point on, dual citizens have maintained their right to vote and hold public office without penalty.

Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they required to disclose such dual citizenship.

So what's the problem?

Dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for policy-level members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national loyalties of dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such legislators, judges or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their second country.

The potential damage to our democracy is the greater when such potential conflicts of interest are concealed in undisclosed dual citizenship.

The lack of transparency regarding citizenship erodes trust in government, raising credibility doubts where there should be none, and allowing some apparent conflicts of interest to continue undetected.

When a senator, representative or senior U.S. official speaks out, submits bills or determines policy on an issue of importance to a foreign country of which that member or official (or judge) has the tie of citizenship, their constituents and the U.S. public at large should at least be able to assess whether such views or actions are influenced by the divided loyalty.

Since they don't involve national loyalty, religion and ethnicity seldom raise conflict issues. Moreover, they are generally matters of public record.

By contrast, dual citizenship creates conflict of interest through divided loyalties. Thus it would seem reasonable to require that dual citizen members of Congress, the judiciary and the executive be required to renounce citizenship in another country as a condition of public service.

Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to disclose their citizenship in another country?

Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country.

As a first step, the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress should begin to include citizenship (along with the current listings of party breakdown, age, occupations, education, Congressional service, religion, gender, ethnicity and military service) in its published profiles of each new Congress.

Americans can then decide whether our legislators (and possibly federal judges and senior government officials as well) should be required to renounce their citizenship in another country as a condition of public service.

The U.S. Department of State -- Bureau Of Consular Affairs, "Dual Nationality," official web page says:

Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other.

Yet, there are probably hundreds (we really don't know the true number, because as Hager notes, they are not required by law to declare their foreign citizenship) of foreign citizens serving in our federal government. And will you be shocked to learn that almost all of them -- if not ALL of them -- are citizens of ONE foreign country? Take a wild guess which country that is. You're right. ISRAEL.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

In my research for this column (which was not exhaustive), I found over 100 members of the U.S. government who are known to be dual U.S.-Israeli citizens. Here is a short sample list (compiled from public documents):

Michael Chertoff

He was the 2nd United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2005 – 2009), serving under G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. He was co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, Federal Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2003 – 2005) and United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (2001 – 2003).

Chertoff's father was Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff (a Talmud scholar and the former leader of the Congregation B'nai Israel in Elizabeth, New Jersey). His mother was Livia Chertoff (née Eisen), an Israeli citizen who worked for the Mossad.

Researcher and investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn (author of the blockbuster book The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ) writes this about Chertoff:

As Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Dept. of Justice, Chertoff personally supervised and controlled the entire FBI non-investigation of 9-11. Chertoff is the responsible person for the obstruction of justice and blocking access to the evidence since September 11, 2001.

Chertoff is the co-author, along with Viet Dinh, of the USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law on October 26, 2001. As head of the Justice Department's criminal division, he advised the Central Intelligence Agency on the legality of torture techniques in coercive interrogation sessions.

From 2001 to 2003, he headed the criminal division of the Department of Justice, leading the prosecution against terrorist suspect Zacarias Moussaoui. In this role, Chertoff was central in creating the 9-11 myth by providing the list of the 19 Arab suspects and supervising the FBI's confiscation of evidence and the non-investigation of 9-11.

Michael Mukasey

He served as the 81st Attorney General of the United States (2007 – 2009) under President G.W. Bush; he was the 2nd Jewish U.S. Attorney General. He served for 18 years as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1987 – 2006), 6 of those years as Chief Judge (2000 – 2006).

Mukasey was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center. He was a major proponent of G.W. Bush's efforts to expand executive powers in the name of national security. He was especially outspoken in his support for the USA Patriot Act.

Richard Perle

Perle served as the 1st Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs under President Ronald Reagan. He began his political career as a senior staff member to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson on the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 1970s. He served on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004 (chairman 2001 – 2003) under the Bush Administration before resigning due to conflicts of interest.

A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing highly-classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy.

He has been involved with neocon think tanks including:
·The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Board of Advisors
·The Center for Security Policy (CSP)
·The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
·The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)

Perle was a member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group until December 2015. He is a self-described neoconservative. He co-authored the book An End To Evil: How To Win The War On Terror with fellow neoconservative David Frum in 2004. The book is regularly used as a defense of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and outlines important neoconservative ideas, including ways to abandon all Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, invade Syria and implement strict US domestic surveillance.

Perle is also "an ardent Zionist, a personal friend of [former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon, head of Hollinger Digital, part of the group that publishes the Daily Telegraph in Britain, a board member of the Jerusalem Post, a resident 'fellow' of the American Enterprise Institute and ex-employee of the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam." Jensen, H. (2002, October 7). Pre-Emption, Disarmament Or Regime Change? Part III. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from www.antiwar.com/orig/jensen1b.html .

Over the years, Perle has been known by the nickname "Prince of Darkness." He is a major player in the Israel lobby.

Perle's connections with former Vice President Dick Cheney run deep, as both are members of the board of advisors to JINSA, along with National Security Adviser John Bolton and Douglas Feith. Under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Perle and Feith worked together in 1996 as advisers to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. There they devised the war to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq and the removal of as many Palestinians as possible from their homes and properties in the Israeli occupied territories.

Paul Wolfowitz

Wolfowitz is a political scientist and diplomat who served as the 10th President of the World Bank from 2005 to 2007 (and resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power), United States Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001 – 2005) under G.W. Bush and United States Ambassador to Indonesia (1986 – 1989) under Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Like Perle, Wolfowitz came from the Jewish think tank JINSA. He was the number two leader within the G.W. Bush administration, planning and implementing the Iraq War.

Douglas Feith

Born to a Jewish family in Philadelphia, PA, Feith attended Harvard University and Georgetown University Law Center. After graduation, he worked for three years as an attorney with the law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. Feith also came from the Jewish think tank JINSA.

In the Reagan Administration, he worked at the White House as a Middle East specialist for the National Security Council and then served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy.

Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the G.W. Bush administration from 2001 to 2005. His appointment was facilitated by connections he had with other neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. In that position, he helped devise the U.S. government's strategy for the war on terrorism and contributed to the plans for the Afghanistan and Iraq war campaigns.

He is closely associated with the extremist group the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences.

Feith co-founded a small Washington DC law firm, Feith & Zell, which only has one international office: in Israel. Feith supervised the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a group of policy and intelligence analysts created to provide senior government officials with raw intelligence, unvetted by the intelligence community. The office was responsible for hiring Lawrence Franklin, who was later convicted along with AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) employees Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman for passing classified national defense information to an Israeli diplomat, Naor Gilon.

Henry Kissinger

Kissinger was the 56th United States Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977 under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. He was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from January 1969 until November 1975 under Nixon and Ford. He was appointed by President Reagan to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America in July 1983 until 1985. He served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 1984 to 1990 under Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. He was a member of the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy of the National Security Council and Defense Department from 1986 to 1988. And he served as a member of the Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2016 (under Richard Perle). Henry Kissinger -- a prominent member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission -- has been a close personal advisor to every President from John F. Kennedy to Donald Trump.

John Bolton

Bolton is the current National Security Advisor to President Trump. He was the interim U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005 – 2006) under G.W. Bush. From 1989 to 1993, under G.H.W. Bush, he was Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. He held positions in the United States Agency for International Development and as Assistant Attorney General under Ronald Reagan (1985 – 1989). One of the most hawkish of war hawks, he aggressively supported and helped plan military action and regime change in Iraq and Libya and is now doing the same thing in Syria and Iran.

Additional Israeli citizens serving in high level U.S. government positions include:

I found 14 current and former U.S. senators who are dual U.S.-Israel citizens including:

Barbara Boxer
Russ Feingold
Dianne Feinstein
Frank Lautenberg
Joe Lieberman
Bernard Sanders
Charles Schumer

And I found 32 current or past members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are dual U.S.-Israel citizens including:

Eric Cantor
Barney Frank
Gabrielle Giffords
Jerrold Nadler
Adam Schiff
Henry Waxman
Anthony Weiner

As I said, I have been able to identify well over 100 high-level members of the U.S. government who are citizens of Israel. And for the sake of this column, I tried to find U.S. government officials who were dual citizens with other countries, and I couldn't find any. Not one! I am not saying there aren't any; I'm just saying I couldn't find any. (I am not including those who were born on foreign soil to American parents. That is a completely different category.)

Remember what the U.S. State Department official website under the category of "Dual Citizenship" said:

Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country . They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. [Underlines added]

The U.S. government is awash with foreign citizens -- Israeli citizens. And if you don't think that Israel is exerting tremendous influence over the decisions, policies and wars of the United States, you are hopelessly naïve.

It is absurd that people who are citizens of foreign nations would be allowed to hold public office in the United States -- or, at the very least, would not be required by law to disclose those foreign citizenships and recuse themselves from any vote or decision involving the countries in which they hold citizenship, as Michael Hager opined above. Senator Ted Cruz and Rep. Michele Bachmann were right to renounce their foreign citizenships (Canada and Switzerland respectively), albeit they both served several years in Congress as dual citizens and both surrendered their foreign citizenships only after receiving media backlash for it during their respective presidential campaigns.

And the presence of a large network of Israeli citizens serving in the U.S. government should also inspire people to read Christopher Bollyn's new book referenced above, The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East .

I guarantee you that once you read Bollyn's book, you will be able to better understand how the presence of a large network of Israeli citizens serving as officials within the U.S. government has been able to shape America's foreign policy and take our country into perpetual war.

This quote is taken from the book's back cover:

The government and media have misled us about 9/11 in order to compel public opinion to support the War on Terror.

Why have we gone along with it? Do we accept endless war as normal? Are we numb to the suffering caused by our military interventions?

No. We have simply been propagandized into submission. We have been deceived into thinking that the War on Terror is a good thing, a valiant struggle against terrorists who intend to attack us as we were on 9/11.

Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims in order to start the military operations for that strategic plan. Recognizing the origin of the plan is crucial to understanding the deception that has changed our world.

This book is the one book you must read in 2018. It dispels the myths and destroys the lies about 9/11 and America's "War on Terror." READ THIS BOOK!

Order Christopher Bollyn's new blockbuster book The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East here: The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Aug 10, 2018] Russia blasts new US sanctions as 'theatre of the absurd'

Aug 10, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Russian officials reacted with outrage and markets slumped on Thursday morning following the announcement of tough new US sanctions over Russia's alleged use of a nerve agent in the Salisbury attack.

President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the sanctions were "absolutely unlawful and don't conform to international law", as politicians vowed to respond with countermeasures, which could include bans on the exports of rockets or resources for manufacturing.

"The theatre of the absurd continues," tweeted Dmitry Polyanskiy, first deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN. "No proofs, no clues, no logic, no presumption of innocence, just highly-likelies. Only one rule: blame everything on Russia, no matter how absurd and fake it is. Let us welcome the United Sanctions of America!"

One senior Russian MP called the US a "police state".

A member of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, Leonid Slutsky, said Russia could block exports of RD-180 rocket engines to the US as a potential countermeasure, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

The United States announced on Wednesday that it would impose restrictions on the export of sensitive technology to Russia because of its use of a nerve agent in the attempted murder of a former Russian spy and his daughter in Britain.

The State Department said the new sanctions would come into effect on 22 August and would be followed by much more sweeping measures, such as suspending diplomatic relations and revoking Aeroflot landing rights, if Russia did not take "remedial" action within 90 days.

Moscow is not expected to agree to the response required by US legislation, which includes opening up Russian scientific and security facilities to international inspections to assess whether it is producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of international law.

"Certainly it is really up to Russia to make that decision, whether they meet this criteria," a senior administration official said. "The second round of sanctions are in general more draconian than the first round."

Another senior state department official said the US received in March "persuasive information" from the UK that Russia was behind the attack. It made its own determination last weekend and was now acting on the basis of "objective facts" and "legal requirements".

Russian markets took the news poorly. Stocks in Aeroflot, the country's national carrier, fell by 12% in trading before lunchtime on Thursday over concerns that its direct flights between Russia and the US could be halted entirely.

Russia's currency, the rouble, fell to below 66 to the US dollar, a 4% slide from Wednesday morning that began with the leak of a separate draft sanctions bill that could see Russia named a state sponsor of terror.

The US has already expelled 60 suspected Russian spies as part of a global response to the March attack in Salisbury against Sergei Skripal , a former colonel in Russian military intelligence, and his daughter, Yulia , in which a rare and potent Russian-made nerve agent, novichok, was found to have been used.

[Aug 10, 2018] Russian Ruble Leads World Currency Losses on New U.S. Sanctions

Notable quotes:
"... Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. ..."
"... Traders are particularly concerned by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank, Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed. ..."
"... The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
Aug 10, 2018 | www.bloomberg.com

Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders.

"The Kommersant publication was the straw that broke the camel's back," said Denis Davydov, an analyst at Nordea Bank in Moscow. "It's important to be able to read and assess the actual bill."

Market Jitters

No action will be taken on the draft until the House is back from summer recess in September, leaving room for more market jitters through the end of the month. But with President Donald Trump calling for closer ties with Russia, and the U.S. Treasury warning earlier this year against sanctioning the sovereign debt market, it's uncertain the bill will make it into law.

Traders are particularly concerned by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank, Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed.

The draft also includes Bank of Moscow, which was merged into VTB in 2016, while Vnesheconombank is listed twice in the text, without explanation.

'Crushing Russia'

"If you start crushing Russia by causing the banking system to collapse as a result of sanctions, it could actually lead to worse political outcomes than what you have right now," Khan said. "The key rule of sanctions is that you want to keep some in reserve because if you use your worst sanctions then what do you follow it up with?"

The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.

Lawmakers from both parties have also been sharply critical of President Donald Trump's meeting with Putin in Helsinki last month, saying Trump hasn't done enough to hold Russia accountable.

[Aug 10, 2018] US slanders Russia with new sanctions over Skripal poisoning hoax

This is attack on ruble. Kind of Magnitsky II set of moves. Strange if view of Trump supposed attempt to split Russia and China in Helsinki. You should chose a single target in such cases.
Sanctions weaken the effect of Iranian sanctions. While the goal is to undermine the Russian economy -- the effect of negative expectations is always stronger than a onetime action -- 90 days allow to avoid big financial losses for major banks. The requirement of inspection of Russia objects is from Iraq war textbook.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to the dollar. ..."
"... This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the worst valuation since mid-November, 2016. ..."
"... For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK, which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , ..."
"... This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing intensity since 2013. ..."
Aug 10, 2018 | theduran.com
sanctions was apparently enough to create jitters on the Russian stock exchanges, and the Russian Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to the dollar.

This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the worst valuation since mid-November, 2016.

This incident has not gone unanswered in Moscow. The Russian Embassy in the United States called for documentation about the source and reasoning behind these new sanctions, as reported by TASS:

The Russian embassy in the United States has called on the US Department of State to publish correspondence on the introduction of new sanctions on Moscow over the Skripal incident, the embassy said in a statement.

" For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK, which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , " the statement reads.

"We suggested publishing our correspondence on this issue. No answer has followed so far," the Russian embassy added.

This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing intensity since 2013. It reveals the machinations of a very divided American government, with the "deep State" or establishment politicians and foreign policy makers completely unwilling to even give Russia a fair shake at representing itself. This policy is shared by the United Kingdom, as this piece by The Duran's Editor in Chief, Alexander Mercouris shows, with this summary of violations of due process the British authorities are committing with regard to Russia:

(1) The British government is interfering in the conduct of a criminal investigation, with Prime Minister Theresa May and especially Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pointing fingers at who they say is guilty (Russia) whilst the criminal investigation is still underway;

(2) The British government has said that unless Russia proves itself innocent within a specific time the British government will conclude that it is guilty. As I have explained previously this reverses the burden of proof : in a criminal case it is the prosecution which is supposed to prove the defendant's guilt, not the defendant who must prove his innocence;

(3) The British government refuses to share with Russia -- the party it says is guilty -- the 'evidence' upon which it says it has concluded that Russia is guilty, the evidence in this case being a sample of the chemical with which it says Sergey and Yulia Skripal was poisoned.

This violates the fundamental principle that the defendant must be provided with all the evidence against him so that he can properly prepare his defence;

(4) The British government is not following the procedure set out in Article IX (2) of the Chemical Weapons Convention to which both Britain and Russia are parties. This reads as follows

States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than ten days after the request, with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation of how the information provided resolves the matter.

(5) The British authorities are denying the Russians consular access to Yulia Skripal, though she is a Russian citizen who the British authorities say was subjected to a criminal assault on their territory.

This is a potentially serious matter since by preventing consular access to Yulia Skripal the British authorities are not only violating the interstate consular arrangements which exist between Britain and Russia, but they are preventing the Russian authorities from learning more about the condition of one of their citizens who has been hospitalised following a violent criminal assault, and are preventing the Russian authorities from carrying out their own investigation into the assault on one of their citizens which the British authorities say has taken place.

I would add that this obstruction of Russian consular access to Yulia Skripal has gone almost entirely unreported in the British and Western media.

The Americans are playing the same game here, and, regrettably, President Trump's overtures towards repairing this relationship are almost sure to be torn out from under him by the actions of this virulent group of people. It is quite possible that this is the very reason for these new sanctions.

The perspective of the American government as one divided, with a rabid force in favor of continuing to isolate and vilify a great power in the world for no good reason, is sure to have repercussions. However, given the gradual realignment of Russia and China to be in closer and closer partnership, and Russia's increasing prominence in Asian and Eastern Hemisphere affairs, the end result of this behavior is likely to damage the United States and its standing in the world over the long run.

Shadow1275 Thu, 08/09/2018 - 23:21 Permalink

The National Socialist Workers Party:

1. Implemented Health care

2. Outlawed firearms

3. Froze Wages

4. Focused on government work projects

5. Implemented controls on Free Speech

6. Focused on violence through brownshirt stormtroopers who beat up any who disagreed

7. Had an intelligence service which focused on crushing dissent and spying on its own people

8. Placed more power in the central government and state then any Nation before it.

All of the above are things proposed or carried out by leftists. It is almost as if the true parties espoused by people are those who support individualism and those who support collectivism. Spoiler alert for the Leftist retards: Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Your Statist Sanders Utopia will never come to fruition. The "Kind Socialist Politicians" will sell you out to the elite in a heartbeat.

All you are doing is focusing the power of your society into one single glass for the Elite to sip as they assfuck you into oblivion, Death toll of all of these Statist Nations, IE Imperial Japan, Soviet Union, Communist China, the People's "Republic" of Korea, etc is over 200,000,000 and counting.

How is it that the acronym NAZI Literally has the word SOCIALIST in it and people still think they were right wing??? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for the average individual?

.....And how is Trump like Hitler exactly???????

[Aug 10, 2018] "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn all others" ~ Emperor Septimius Severus to his sons

Aug 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

fnn , August 10, 2018 at 1:08 pm GMT

Emperor Septimius Severus said to his sons: "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn all others"

This is the stage the American Empire is at today. Except now the "soldiers" include the FBI, CIA and NSA. The deep state/permanent govt has the state security organs and Trump is trying to hold on to the loyalty of the uniformed military.

[Aug 10, 2018] Butina Case Neo-McCarthyism Engulfs America

Several US lobbing organizations leadership should probably also be arrested if the same criteria is applied...
Aug 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Phillip Giraldi via The Stratgeic Culture Foundation,

The United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe that the Kremlin sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association (NRA) by having two Russian citizens take out life memberships in the organization with the intention of corrupting it and turning it into a mouthpiece for President Vladimir Putin.

Both of the Russians – Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin – have, by the way, long well documented histories as advocates for gun ownership and were founders of Right to Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence front organization of some kind and is rather a genuine lobbying group with an active membership and agenda.

Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can own guns but the licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to Bear Arms, modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.

Maria Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in solitary confinement in a federal prison, having been charged with collusion with Torshin and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. It is unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but she has not been granted bail because, as a Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee the US and return home. It is to be presumed that she is being pressured to identify others involved in her alleged scheme to overthrow American democracy through NRA membership.

Indeed, in any event, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would consider the NRA to be a legitimate intelligence target. It only flexes its admitted powerful legislative muscles over issues relating to gun ownership, not regarding policy on Russia. In short, Butina and by extension Torshin appear to have done nothing wrong. Both are energetic advocates for their country and guns rights, which they appear to believe in, and Butina's aggressive networking has broken no law except not registering, which in itself assumes that she is a Russian government agent, something that has not been demonstrated. To put the shoe on the other foot, will every American who now travels to Russia and engages in political conversations with local people be suspected of acting as an agent of the US government? Once you open the door, it swings both ways.

One might dismiss the entire Affair Butina as little more than a reflection of the anti-Russia hysteria that has been sweeping the United States since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, but that would be unfair to those remaining honest FBI agents who may have investigated Butina and Torshin and come up with what they believed to be a plausible case for an indictment . There were possibly suspicious money transfers as well as email intercepts that might be interpreted as incriminating.

But two important elements are clearly missing.

The first is motive. Did the Kremlin seriously believe that it could get anything substantial out of having a gun totin' attractive young Russian woman as a life member in the NRA? What did the presumed puppet masters in Moscow expect to obtain apart from the sorts of group photos including Butina that one gets while posing with politicians at the annual NRA convention? Sure, the photo might even evolve into a cup of coffee together, but what is the end game?

Second is the lack of any of the hallmarks of an intelligence operation, which is referred to in the business as tradecraft. Spies meet secretly or at least outside the public eye with prospective agents whereas Maria operated completely in the open and she made no effort to conceal her love for her country and her desire that Washington and Moscow normalize relations. Spies also communicate securely, which means that they use encrypted systems or various cut-outs, i.e. mis-directions, when maintaining contact with those who are running them. Again, Maria did none of that, which is why the FBI has her emails. Also spies work under what is referred to as an "operating directive" in CIA-speak where they have very specific information that they seek to obtain from their contacts. There is no indication that Maria Butina in any way sought classified information or intelligence that would relate either to the security of the United States or to America's political system. And finally, Maria made no attempt to recruit anyone and turn them into an actual controlled Russian agent, which is what spies eventually seek to do.

It has come down to this: if you are a Russian and you are caught talking to anyone in any way influential, there is potentially hell to pay because the FBI will be watching you. You are automatically assumed to be part of a conspiracy. Once "evidence" is collected, you will be indicted and sent to prison, mostly to send a message to Moscow.

It is the ultimate irony that how the old Soviet Union's judiciary used to function is now becoming standing operating procedure in the United States.

[Aug 09, 2018] Russian diplomat warns US sanctions against Iran to destabilize Middle East AMN

Aug 09, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Resumption of anti-Iranian sanctions by the US is a destructive step that might bring about destabilization in the Middle East, the Russian Foreign Ministry's official spokesperson Maria Zakharova told a news briefing on Thursday."

"Washington's course at bringing down the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] on the Iranian nuclear program and restoring full-scale pressure through sanctions is absolutely destructive," she said.

"There's scarcely any doubt these steps by the US administration will have long-term deplorable consequences for global nonproliferation [of the weapons of mass destruction] and will impart a destabilizing impulse to the situation in the Middle East."" AMN

---------

IMO Zakharova, the Russian spokesperson has it right.

The Israeli desire to have a less than 1% chance of an Iranian nuke existing has led us to adopt sanctions that may well bring down the present Iranian government. Unrest is growing across the country because of ever growing economic hardship. We claim that regime change is not our goal but I do not believe it. IMO Gina Haspel has been given a presidential finding that orders CIA to bring down the government and the sanctions are just part of that attempted coup.

The Iranians have every reason to distrust the US. First there was Mossadgh. Kermit Roosevelt brought him down by manipulating street mobs. Secondly there is the undoubted fact that we backed Iraq against them in the Iran-Iraq War. Now we have abandoned JCPOA, an agreement that IMO was good for everyone except the extreme right in Israel and their neanderthal friends in the US (Hannity, Varney, Keane, Pompeo etc.) Bolton I will not even mention in that list because he is such an extremist, a man who hungers for war, a man who hid from VN in the Maryland National Guard. The CIA is just doing its legally ordained task but the rest of them seem to have no comprehension of the chaos that will occur if Wilayet al-faqih falls.

Trump, Bolton and Giuliani seems to want the Mujahideen e Khalq to become the government of Iran. This passel of Islamic Marxists (spawn of Ali Shariati) actually fought against Iran as allies of Saddam's Iraq. That has never been forgotten. Why would it be? In fact they would be destroyed in short order of they attempted to form a government.

There is no other coherent body who could form a government. But, from the Israeli point of view that would be just fine. pl

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-diplomat-warns-us-sanctions-against-iran-to-destabilize-middle-east/

Jack , 4 hours ago

"There is no other coherent body who could form a government. But, from the Israeli point of view that would be just fine ."

Spot on, Sir. This is precisely what the Israelis want. Instability, domestic violence and chaos in all their adversaries. And they have us as their poodle to do the dirty deeds.

Pat Lang Mod -> Jack , 2 hours ago
Yup
richardstevenhack , 2 hours ago
I doubt very much that, despite any economic problems Iran may have, it is likely to have its government - still less it's form of government - overthrown. Iran has been under sanctions to one degree or another for the last fifty years. Every time the US claims the government is fraudulent or its elections are fraudulent, they've been proven wrong, most notably in 2009 when millions of Iranians took to the streets in support of the government and the election results.

The problem is this notion of "reducing Iranian oil exports to zero", as voiced by US officials. China has already dismissed that notion. So this time next year, at least China and probably India and others will be ignoring US sanctions and importing Iranian oil. Even the EU might do so.

What does Trump do then? Well, Obama suggested during his 2008 campaign to install a naval blockade, in that case to block Iranian imports of gasoline, since at the time Iran did not have enough refineries to process their own gasoline. That has since been corrected. But what if Trump is persuaded by Bonkers Bolton that this would be a good idea: a naval blockade to block Iranian oil exports?

Iran would correctly view that as an act of war and would start escorting its oil tankers, which would inevitably lead to conflict with US Navy ships ordered to interdict them. Bingo - nice way to start a war, with Trump blaming Iran and Israel sitting back blameless.

Walrus , 3 hours ago
Applying the Walrus law: "governments achieve the reverse of their stated intentions", leads me to believe that with a little help from those other pariah states, Russia and China, the Government and state of Iran will be renewed and strengthened as a result of current American policy.

To put that another way, the most effective American tools for corroding regimes are Ipads, Facebook, rappers and McDonalds.

Bill Herschel , 3 hours ago
Sanctions against Iran. Sanctions against Russia (more every day). Tariffs against China (more every day). China, Russia, Iran. These nations are going to fold and disappear. Yes, an alliance is being forced on them from without, but they are a collection of stupid people who are up against a stable genius.

Before you accuse me of being snide and flippant, remember that approximately 50%, at least, of the electorate agrees with me. And the Constitution? Why the Constitution is in my pocket.

[Aug 09, 2018] Pompeo Slaps On Major Russia Sanctions...Over Unproven UK Poisoning!

Aug 09, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Aug. 9 - Is Pompeo launching a coup against his boss? By kicking in sanctions on Russia - invoking a 1991 US law on chemical weapons - the US State Department is further poisoning President Trump's efforts to improve relations with his Russian counterpart. If President Trump refuses to enforce the sanctions, he will hand a political gift to Democrats who believe their election fortunes in November rest on endlessly screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia." And what are these new sanctions all about? The totally unproven, full-of-holes claims that the Russian government was behind the Skripal "poisoning" in the UK in March. We untangle some of this madness in today's Liberty Report:

[Aug 09, 2018] 'No surprise if Moscow recalls ambassador' Russia will lash out against new sanctions, say experts

Notable quotes:
"... "When will you finally stop beating your wife?" ..."
"... "Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even show," ..."
"... "The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US –we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," ..."
"... "Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison him,'" ..."
"... "And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," ..."
"... "This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," ..."
"... "looking strong on Russia" ..."
"... "The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a campaign move," ..."
"... "As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now." ..."
"... "It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else. Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide this," ..."
Aug 09, 2018 | www.rt.com

Washington's latest sanctions have left no room for a constructive response from Moscow, analysts explain, but opinions differ widely on how much the measures will affect relations between the two countries. All interviewed by RT railed against the framing of the sanctions, nominally prompted by the alleged use of chemical weapons against the Skripals in the UK back in March. Russia will be punished with a first set of measures from August 22, and is given 90 days to assure Washington that it will no longer deploy chemical weapons, and to open up its chemical production facilities to international inspectors.

One problem: Russia denies that it has used chemical weapons in the first place and says that it had already disposed of its stockpile in accordance with international treaties. So, to use the proverbial example, the US is asking Russia: "When will you finally stop beating your wife?"

READ MORE: Sanctioning Russia for false link to UK poisonings 'unacceptable & unlawful' – Kremlin

"Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even show," Vladimir Kornilov, a political analyst for RIA news agency, told RT.

Read more US State Dept sanctions against Russia aimed at 'undercutting' Trump, analysts say

"The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US –we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," said Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council.

Leonid Polyakov, from the Higher School of Economics, says that Washington must be aware that the Kremlin would never agree to its conditions, so setting them in the first place is a cheap pretense at diplomacy.

"Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison him,'" he told RT.

"And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," Polyakov pointed out, citing the recent offer by the Russian president to allow the questioning of its citizens involved in alleged election-meddling, but only in exchange for William Browder and others being interviewed by Moscow's investigators.

US 'showing who's boss' or playing to home audience?

All three experts agreed that not only will the sanctions be rejected, but they are unlikely to have any indirect effect on Russia's international policies, or its economic outlook.

So, why implement them at all?

Read more © Regis Duvignau Russia to retaliate if Washington bans Aeroflot flights to US

Kortunov says this is an attempt to claw back international prestige, particularly in the wake of the US failure to impose its will in Syria, fraying relations with Europe and China, and Donald Trump's perceived softness in negotiating with Putin in Helsinki last month.

"This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," Kortunov said.

For Polyakov, this is all about "looking strong on Russia" ahead of October's mid-term elections.

"The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a campaign move," he said to RT.

The professor of political science adds that a lack of ideas over how to corral a feisty Russia is pushing American officials to press the sanctions button again and again.

"As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now."

Yet Kornilov believes that sanctions are not just a shield for a beleaguered establishment, but an offensive weapon.

"It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else. Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide this," he said.

Can things get worse?

Since hostility between Moscow and Washington is at a post-war high as it is, Polyakov believes it will be impractical for the two nuclear powers to escalate tensions still further, beyond the headlines.

[Aug 09, 2018] Now national during elections The FBI and CIA set the preferable candidate and call the shots

That's a clear exaggeration: after the neoliberal ideology went source in 2008, the power of CIA and friends to brainwash public greatly diminished...
Aug 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

prusmc , Website Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT

@Gordo

Chittum's work makes more sense than either of the books reviewed here. The two books discussed above are good for the Harry Potter set but in no way conform to 2018 reality.
I frequently reread Chittum's work and am amazed at how he correctly analyzed the future into what is contemporary USSA.
LOOK NO further, than the incipient election of a reparation Democrat governor in Georgia and a like minded legislature,come November, for validation of Chittum's hypotheses. The one weakness in his predictions is the belief that there will be a patriotic core in the local police and national military that could be relied on to protect the lives and property of traditional Americans. This just won't happen. The FBI, CIA, ATFE, Homeland Security Police and like activities set the pace, call the shots and control the funds and the locals provide a conditioned response.
Chittum writing 20 years back could not see the rise of the mass surveillance and correct thought propagation that we increasingly welcome or endure today.
My bet is Unz Review will totally access denied after the massive Democrat election gains in November.

[Aug 09, 2018] Why They Fail - The Quintessence Of The Korengal Valley Campaign

Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
Aug 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

A new excerpt from a book by C.J. Chivers, a former U.S. infantry captain and New York Times war correspondent, tells the story of a young man from New York City who joined the U.S. army and was send to the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan. While the man, one Robert Soto, makes it out alive, several of his comrades and many Afghans die during his time in Afghanistan to no avail.

The piece includes remarkably strong words about the strategic (in)abilities of U.S. politicians, high ranking officers and pundits:

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting slate of senior officers and politicians and editorial-page hawks, the wars have continued in varied forms and under different rationales each and every year since passenger jets struck the World Trade Center in 2001. They continue today without an end in sight, reauthorized in Pentagon budgets almost as if distant war is a presumed government action.

That description is right but it does not touche the underlying causes. The story of the attempted U.S. occupation of the Korengal valley, which Civers again describes, has been the theme of several books and movies. It demonstrates the futility of fighting a population that does not welcome occupiers. But most of the authors, including Chivers, get one fact wrong. The war with the people of the Korengal valley was started out of shear stupidity and ignorance.

The main military outpost in the valley was build on a former sawmill. Chivers writes:

On a social level, it could not have been much worse. It was an unforced error of occupation, a set of foreign military bunkers built on the grounds of a sawmill and lumber yard formerly operated by Haji Mateen, a local timber baron. The American foothold put some of the valley's toughest men out of work, the same Afghans who knew the mountain trails. Haji Mateen now commanded many of the valley's fighters, under the banner of the Taliban.

Unfortunately Chivers does not explain why the saw mill was closed. Ten years ago a piece by Elizabeth Rubin touched on this:

As the Afghans tell the story, from the moment the Americans arrived in 2001, the Pech Valley timber lords and warlords had their ear. Early on, they led the Americans to drop bombs on the mansion of their biggest rival -- Haji Matin. The air strikes killed several members of his family, according to local residents, and the Americans arrested others and sent them to the prison at Bagram Air Base. The Pech Valley fighters working alongside the Americans then pillaged the mansion. And that was that. Haji Matin, already deeply religious, became ideological and joined with Abu Ikhlas, a local Arab linked to the foreign jihadis.

Years before October 2004, before regular U.S. soldiers came into the Korengal valley, U.S. special forces combed through the region looking for 'al-Qaeda'. They made friends with a timber baron in Pech valley, a Pashtun of the Safi tribe, who claimed that his main competitor in the (illegal) timber trade who lived in the nearby Korengal river valley was a Taliban and 'al-Qaeda'. That was not true. Haji Matin was a member of a Nuristani tribe that spoke Pashai . These were a distinct people with their own language who were and are traditional hostile to any centralized government (pdf), even to the Taliban's Islamic Emirate.

The U.S. special forces lacked any knowledge of the local society. But even worse was that they lacked the curiosity to research and investigate the social terrain. They simply trusted their new 'friend', the smooth talking Pashtun timber baron, and called in jets to destroy his competitor's sawmill and home. This started a local war of attrition which defeated the U.S. military. In 2010 the U.S. military, having achieved nothing, retreated from Korengal. (The sawmill episode was described in detail in a 2005(?) blog post by a former special force soldier who took part in it. It since seems to have been removed from the web.)

Back to Chivers' otherwise well written piece. He looks at the results two recent (and ongoing) U.S. wars:

The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, each of which the United States spent hundreds of billions of dollars to build and support, are fragile, brutal and uncertain. The nations they struggle to rule harbor large contingents of irregular fighters and terrorists who have been hardened and made savvy, trained by the experience of fighting the American military machine.
...
Billions of dollars spent creating security partners also deputized pedophiles, torturers and thieves. National police or army units that the Pentagon proclaimed essential to their countries' futures have disbanded. The Islamic State has sponsored or encouraged terrorist attacks across much of the world -- exactly the species of crime the global "war on terror" was supposed to prevent.

The wars fail because they no reasonable strategic aim or achievable purpose. They are planned by incompetent people. The most recent Pentagon ideas for the U.S. war on Afghanistan depend on less restricted bombing rules. Yesterday one predictable and self defeating consequence was again visible:

An American airstrike killed at least a dozen Afghan security forces during intense fighting with the Taliban near the Afghan capital, officials said Tuesday.
...
Shamshad Larawi, a spokesman for the governor, said that American airstrikes had been called in for support, but that because of a misunderstanding, the planes mistakenly targeted an Afghan police outpost.
...
Haji Abdul Satar, a tribal elder from Azra, said he counted 19 dead, among them 17 Afghan police officers and pro-government militia members and two civilians.
...
In the first six months of this year, United States forces dropped nearly 3,000 bombs across Afghanistan, nearly double the number for the same period last year and more than five times the number for the first half of 2016. ... Civilian casualties from aerial bombardments have increased considerably as a result, the United Nations says.

One argument made by the Pentagon generals when they pushed Trump to allow more airstrikes was that these would cripple the Taliban's alleged opium trade and its financial resources. But, as the Wall Street Journal reports , that plan, like all others before it, did not work at all:

Nine months of targeted airstrikes on opium production sites across Afghanistan have failed to put a significant dent in the illegal drug trade that provides the Taliban with hundreds of millions of dollars, according to figures provided by the U.S. military.
...
So far, the air campaign has wiped out about $46 million in Taliban revenue, less than a quarter of the money the U.S. estimates the insurgents get from the illegal drug trade. U.S. military officials estimate the drug trade provides the Taliban with 60% of its revenue.
...
Poppy production hit record highs in Afghanistan last year , where they are the country's largest cash crop, valued at between $1.5 billion and $3 billion.

More than 200 airstrikes on "drug-related targets" have hardly made a dent in the Taliban's war chest. The military war planners again failed.

At the end of the Chivers piece its protagonist, Robert Soto, rightfully vents about the unaccountability of such military 'leaders':

Still he wondered: Was there no accountability for the senior officer class? The war was turning 17, and the services and the Pentagon seemed to have been given passes on all the failures and the drift. Even if the Taliban were to sign a peace deal tomorrow, there would be no rousing sense of victory, no parade. In Iraq, the Islamic State metastasized in the wreckage of the war to spread terror around the world. The human costs were past counting, and the whitewash was both institutional and personal, extended to one general after another, including many of the same officers whose plans and orders had either fizzled or failed to create lasting success, and yet who kept rising . Soto watched some of them as they were revered and celebrated in Washington and by members of the press, even after past plans were discredited and enemies retrenched.

Since World War II, during which the Soviets, not the U.S., defeated the Nazis, the U.S. won no war. The only exception is the turkey shooting of the first Gulf war. But even that war failed in its larger political aim of dethroning Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. population and its 'leaders' simply know too little about the world to prevail in an international military campaign. They lack curiosity. The origin of the Korengal failure is a good example for that.

U.S. wars are rackets , run on the back of lowly soldiers and foreign civil populations. They enriche few at the cost of everyone else.

Wars should not be 'a presumed government action', but the last resort to defend ones country. We should do our utmost to end all of them.

bjd , Aug 8, 2018 4:19:05 PM | 1

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the lament ringing through in this story.

The policy makers and the generals do not care about Afghanistan, nor about American boys being sent and being killed there.

Any bombs spent means more bombs being ordered and manufactured. The Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Complex thus profits.

Those belonging to that complex do not belong to the same class as those boys in body bags.

In spite of these valuable insights like in this story, everything is going just hunky dory.

Mischi , Aug 8, 2018 4:34:28 PM | 2
you know, it is just as easy to influence a foreign society by making movies (Bollywood in this case) with a certain bent, the one you want people to follow. After a few years of seeing the Taliban as villains, there would be no fresh recruits and mass desertion. But, the weapons manufacturers wouldn't be making their enormous profits. This same effect can be seen in American society, where the movies coming out of Hollywood started becoming very aggressive in tone around the time that Ronald Reagan became president. Movies went from The Deer Hunter to Rambo and Wall Street. Is it any wonder that even the progressive Left in the USA thinks it is ok to attack their political adversaries and that violence is justified? This is the power of movies and the media.
Mark2 , Aug 8, 2018 4:45:09 PM | 3
Thank you 'b' this post as always is a true in depth education !
If you run for president of the United States of America enytime soon you'v got my vote !
karlof1 , Aug 8, 2018 5:09:38 PM | 4
bjd @1 highlights an important truth similar to that exposed by Joseph Heller in Cache-22 and by Hudson's Balance-of-Payments revelation he revealed yet again at this link I posted yesterday . Most know the aggressive war against Afghanistan was already planned and on the schedule prior to 911 and would have occurred regardless since after Serbia the Outlaw US Empire felt it could do and get away with anything. 911 simply provided BushCo with Carte-Blache, but it wasn't enough of a window to fulfill their desired destruction of 7 nations in 5 years for their Zionist Patron.

IMO, as part of its plan to control the Heartland, those running the Outlaw US Empire never had any plan to leave Afghanistan; rather once there, they'd stay and occupy it just as the Empire's done everywhere since WW2. The Empire's very much like a leech; its occupations are parasitic as Hudson demonstrated, and work at the behest of corporate interests as Smedly Butler so eloquently illustrated.

As with Vietnam, the only way to get NATO forces to leave is for Afghanis to force them out with their rifles. Hopefully, they will be assisted by SCO nations and Afghanistan will cease being a broken nation by 2030.

jayc , Aug 8, 2018 5:13:05 PM | 5
The Wall Street Journal article on the Taliban's ties to the local drug trade also the reveals deliberate omission practiced by the MSM, which keeps its readers actively misinformed. Estimating illegal drug revenues contribute as much as $200 million to the Taliban, the article fails to put that in proper context: that figure represents merely 7%-13% of total production receipts (estimated at 1.5 to 3 billion dollars). Most informed persons know exactly who reaps the rewards of more than 80% of the Afghan drug products, and why this much larger effort is not the focus of "targeted airstrikes."
Pft , Aug 8, 2018 5:17:07 PM | 6
1. "The wars fail because they no reasonable strategic aim or achievable purpose........
Since World War II, during which the Soviets, not the U.S., defeated the Nazis, the U.S. won no war. The only exception is the turkey shooting of the first Gulf war."

2 "U.S. wars are rackets, run on the back of lowly soldiers and foreign civil populations. They enriche few at the cost of everyone else"

Your points in 1 ignore the reality expressed by 2. The real strategic aims and purposes are not those provided for public consumption. Winning wars is not the objective, the length and cost of wars is far more important than results. Enriching and empowering the few over the many is the entire point of it all

And lets put an end to "US " responsibility for all evils. Its a shared responsibility. None of this is possible without the cooperation of Uk and its commonwealth nations, EU, Japan and the various international organizations that allow the dollar to be weaponized such as IMF/World Bank and BIS not to mention the various tax havens which support covert operations and looting of assets obtained in these wars (military or economic).

Until the rest of the world is prepared to do something about it they are willing accomplices in all of this.

The global elites are globalists, they dont think in national terms. Its a global elitist cabal at work that is hiding behind the cover of US hegemony.


Ash , Aug 8, 2018 6:01:26 PM | 7
b: "Wars should not be 'a presumed government action', but the last resort to defend ones country. We should do our utmost to end all of them."

Well said, sir.

ben , Aug 8, 2018 6:09:27 PM | 8
karlof1 @ 4 said:"The Empire's very much like a leech; its occupations are parasitic as Hudson demonstrated, and work at the behest of corporate interests as Smedly Butler so eloquently illustrated."

You bet.. The operative words being " work at the behest of corporate interests "

And so it goes around the globe. Question is; How to get this information to the herded bovines the general public has become?

Without a major network to disseminate such info, we're all just spinning our wheels. Oh, but, the therapy is good..

fast freddy , Aug 8, 2018 6:18:02 PM | 9
Very interesting stories - especially re: the timber mill warlord competition.

Defoliants are still used in warfare - especially "by accident". Carpet bombing is still legal. If NATO wanted to wipe out the poppies, it surely could do so.

Pft at 6, reminded me of this zinger:

The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. - The Brzez

Deltaeus , Aug 8, 2018 6:38:00 PM | 10
jayc @5 implies it, and I'll say it more directly: US soldiers guard poppy fields in Afghanistan. I'm also reminded of Alfred C McCoy's famous 1972 work The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzQUsY6a_Ds
Why the US grows heroin in Afghanistan, from the movie War Machine

Piotr Berman , Aug 8, 2018 6:51:23 PM | 11
The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. - The Brzez

Posted by: fast freddy | Aug 8, 2018 6:18:02 PM | 9

This gem hides a deep truth. One has to replace "creative" and "far in advance", instead, we have power relationships. And those power relationships resemble central planning of the Communist states, concept that is attractive in abstraction, but centralization cannot cope with complexities of societies and economies, in part because the central institutions are inevitably beset by negative selection: people rise due to their adroit infighting skills rather than superior understanding of what those institutions are supposed to control. Ultimately, this proces leads to decay and fall. "Nation states" themselves are not immune to such cycles and are at different stages of the cycle creative-decadent-falling. However, international finance lacks observable "refreshing" mechanisms of nation states.

Kalen , Aug 8, 2018 6:54:16 PM | 12
War as always is financial racket, $trillion stolen, MIC thrives, took over with CIA all prerogatives of power and has million agents in US alone in every institution government and corporate.

I call it success of ruling elite. B war would stop tomorrow if it was unsuccessful read unprofitable for those who wage it. Nazi death camps were most profitable enterprises in third Reich.

Curtis , Aug 8, 2018 7:22:43 PM | 13
For some reason, when the US wars are admitted to be civil wars, no one questions whose side did the US take until it is too late and so very few tune in. Incompetence is the excuse. It reminds me of that adage to not blame on malice that which can be explained by stupidity but stupidity has been used to excuse a lot of malice. It's one reason why "military intelligence" resides at the top of oxymorons along with "congressional ethics" and "humanitarian intervention."

It is amazing to think that the US has been in Afghanistan for 17 years and supposedly knows where the opium and its processors are and yet could not take it out. (The pix of soldiers patrolling poppy fields is rich.) The initial excuse years ago was that the US needed to support the warlords who grew/sold it. What is the excuse now? Incompetence, corruption, laziness?

The US likes the idea of opium products going into Iran and Russia ... who have protested to no avail. A bit of indirect subversion.

Ian , Aug 8, 2018 7:27:07 PM | 14
@13:

The adage is Hanlon's Razor. There should be a joint air operation to bomb those poppy fields.

goldhoarder , Aug 8, 2018 7:33:26 PM | 15
US wars are rackets. They are very successful in that regard. It doesn't matter what people think about them.
fast freddy , Aug 8, 2018 7:50:42 PM | 16
The US likes opium products going into the US. It makes for broken citizens who lack zeal for knowledge, and therefore, comprehension; and the will to organize against the PTB. Importantly, being illegal, opiate use feeds the pigs who own the prison-industrial complex.
par4 , Aug 8, 2018 7:50:56 PM | 17
The Taliban had virtually eradicated opium when they controlled Afghanistan. Try this link or or this one.
fast freddy , Aug 8, 2018 7:55:40 PM | 18
https://www.thenation.com/

article/bushs-faustian-deal-taliban/

In April 2001, 5 months prior to nine elva, $43 million was gifted to the Taliban in Afghanistan for the stated purpose of eradicating opium.


karlof1 , Aug 8, 2018 8:09:38 PM | 19
ben @8--

Given the current, longstanding dynamics within the Outlaw US Empire, I don't see any possibility of the required reforms ever having an opportunity to get enacted. The situation's very similar to Nazi Germany's internal dynamic--the coercive forces of the State and its allies will not allow any diminution of their power. Within the Empire, thousands of Hydra heads would need to be rapidly severed for any revolt to succeed, and that requires a large, easily infiltrated organization to accomplish. Invasion by an allied group of nations invites a nuclear holocaust I can't condone. I think the best the world can do is force the Empire to retreat from its 800+ bases and sequester it behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans until it self-destructs or drastically reforms itself--Containment. But for that to work, almost every comprador government would need to be changed and their personages imprisoned, exiled or executed--another close to impossible task. Ideally, the ballot box would work--ideally--but that requires deeply informed voters and highly idealistic, strongly principled, creative, and fearless candidates, along with an honest media.

Yeah, writing can be good therapy. But I'm no more cheery than when I began. Must be time for intoxicants.

b4real , Aug 8, 2018 8:20:04 PM | 20
@6 Pft

"Until the rest of the world is prepared to do something about it..."

What is this 'something' of which you speak?

b4real

vk , Aug 8, 2018 8:26:25 PM | 21
More than 200 airstrikes on "drug-related targets" have hardly made a dent in the Taliban's war chest. The military war planners again failed.

Or did they?

Jen , Aug 8, 2018 9:11:48 PM | 22
Karlofi @ 19:

The world does not need to force the Evil Empire to retreat from its 1,000 (and counting) military bases around the planet.

All the world needs to do is trade with Iran, Venezuela or some other outsider nation. The Evil Empire will be so busy trying to punish everyone who trades with these countries by extending sanctions against the outsiders to their trading partners that the Empire effectively ends up having sanctioned everyone away and it becomes the victim of its sanctioning.

The 1,000+ military bases around the globe are then effectively on their own and the soldiers and administrators inside can either stay there and starve, throw in their lot with the host nation's citizenry or beg to be allowed to return home.

james , Aug 8, 2018 9:22:13 PM | 23
thanks b... as long as the americans support the troops, lol - all will be well apparently... jesus.. meanwhile - the support for the 1% bomb makers and etc continues... maybe it is the mutual fund money that folks are concerned about maintaining..

"In the first six months of this year, United States forces dropped nearly 3,000 bombs across Afghanistan." what is that? about 17 or 18 bombs a day or something? what about the drones? they have to be put to use too... best to get someone who is involved in their own turf war in afgan to give out the targets.. brilliant... usa war planning is mostly destroy and destroy and honour the troops and wave their stupid american flag and that is about it... sorry, but that is what it looks like to me..

Jason , Aug 8, 2018 9:32:50 PM | 24
its not so much they want to end the war on terror or the war on drugs.........they just want to say one thing to cover their asses and do another thing completely..

no matter what there should of been one general who got it right.....but we see it was never about peace .... it was always about war and its profits. anyone who didn't take orders or even had a hint of the right strategy would be Hung like dirty boots to dry.

what is the right strategy? leave. just as other empires did. before you call on your faces

to be even more frank....its not even about the money as that is not as important than having a nation of 300m regurgitate the news that they are there for 17 years to be the police of the world. because USA are the good ones... that they need to buy the biggest trucks which can't even fit in normal parking spaces because they have land mines(I mean ieds...) to avoid and need to haul 5tons of cargo to their construction job all while watching out for terrorists and trump Hillary divisions. is disorienting and it is deliberate. just as having a war last without a reason is deliberate while they entertain the masses with games..

dh , Aug 8, 2018 9:35:25 PM | 25
@23 "...maybe it is the mutual fund money that folks are concerned about maintaining.."

Definitely a big factor james. Unfortunately a lot more than 1% of the US population depends on the MIC for their livliehood.

james , Aug 8, 2018 9:38:08 PM | 26
@23dh... same deal here in canuckle head ville... people remain ignorant of what there money is ''''invested'''' in... could be saudi arabia for all the canucks think... btw - thanks for the laugh on the other thread... you made a couple of good jokes somewhere the past few days! i don't have much free time to comment at the moment..
pogohere , Aug 8, 2018 9:39:10 PM | 27
par4:

McCoy, in "The Politics of Heroin" gives a more complete picture:

In 1996, following four years of civil war among rival resistance factions, the Taliban's victory caused further expansion of opium cultivation. After capturing Kabul in September, the Taliban drove the Uzbek and Tajik warlords into the country's northeast, where they formed the Northern Alliance and clung to some 10 percent of Afghanistan's territory. Over the next three years, a seesaw battle for the Shamali plain north of Kabul raged until the Taliban finally won control in 1999 by destroying the orchards and irrigation in a prime food-producing region, generating over 100,000 refugees and increasing the country's dependence on opium.

Once in power, the Taliban made opium its largest source of taxation. To raise revenues estimated at $20-$25 million in 1997, the Taliban collected a 5 to 10 percent tax in kind on all opium harvested, a share that they then sold to heroin laboratories; a flat tax of $70 per kilogram on heroin refiners; and a transport tax of $250 on every kilogram exported. The head of the regime's anti-drug operations in Kandahar, Abdul Rashid, enforced a rigid ban on hashish "because it is consumed by Afghans, Muslims." But, he explained, "Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs [unbelievers] in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans." A Taliban governor, Mohammed Hassan, added: "Drugs are evil and we would like to substitute poppies with another cash crop, but it's not possible at the moment because we do not have international recognition."

More broadly, the Taliban's policies provided stimulus, both direct and indirect, for a nationwide expansion of opium cultivation. . . Significantly, the regime's ban on the employment and education of women created a vast pool of low-cost labor to sustain an accelerated expansion of opium production. . . . In northern and eastern Afghanistan, women of all ages played " a fundamental role in the cultivation of the opium poppy"---planting, weeding, harvesting, cooking for laborers, and processing by-products such as oil. The Taliban not only taxed and encouraged opium cultivation, they protected and promoted exports to international markets.

In retrospect, however, the Taliban's most important contribution to the illicit traffic was its support for large-scale heroin refining.
. . .
Instead of eradication, the UN's annual opium surveys showed that Taliban rule had doubled Afghanistan's opium production from 2,250 tons in 1996 to 4,600 tons in 1999--equivalent to 75 percent of world illicit production. (508-509)
. . .

War on the Taliban

All this [heroin] traffic across Central Asia depended on high-volume heroin production in politically volatile Afghanistan. In July 2000, as a devastating drought entered its second year and mass starvation spread across Afghanistan, the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar ordered a sudden ban on opium cultivation in a bid for international recognition. (p.517)

dh , Aug 8, 2018 9:53:59 PM | 28
@26 I've been following the Canada/Saudi spat. I guess Justin has his own reasons for what he said but he certainly pissed MBS off.

Doesn't look like Donald wants to mediate. Perhaps Justin will have better luck with Teresa.

Pft , Aug 8, 2018 10:05:34 PM | 29
B4real@20

Dealing with their own elites for a start

james , Aug 8, 2018 10:17:03 PM | 30
@28 dh... usa daily propaganda press briefing had a few things to say - https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/08/285028.htm
folktruther , Aug 8, 2018 10:27:00 PM | 31
B's article assumes that the operative purpose of the US military is to win wars. This isn't the case. The US military largely a business enterprise whose objective is to make money for the plutocracy that largely controls them. That being the case, the Afghanistan war has been a great success. If the US 'won' it, it would cease; if the Taliban conquered, it would cease. In this form of military stagnation it continues, and the money roles in making the ammunition, equipment, etc.

The military budget is largely an institution for transferring the tax money of the population from the people to the plutocracy. Military stagnation serves this purpose better than winning or losing.

Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 8, 2018 10:38:55 PM | 32
If there is one standout factor which makes makes all this profitable mayhem possible then it's the successful campaign by the Elites to persuade the Public that Secrecy is a legitimate variation of Privacy.
It is not.

Impregnable Government Secrecy is ALWAYS a cover for erroneous interpretations of an inconvenient Law - or straight-out cover for criminal activity.
It's preposterous to believe that a government elected by The People has a legitimate right to create schemes which must be kept Secret from The People.
This is especially true in the case of Military/Defense. There wouldn't be a CIC on earth who doesn't have up-to-date and regularly updated info on the hardware and capabilities of every ally and every potential foe. The People have a legitimate right to know what the CIC, and the rest of the world, already knows.

And that's just the most glaring example of the childish deception being perpetrated in the name of Secrecy. If governments were to be stripped of the power to conduct Our affairs in Secret then the scrutiny would oblige them to behave more competently. And we could weed out the drones and nitwits before they did too much damage.

dh , Aug 8, 2018 10:41:21 PM | 33
@30 Right. I notice they avoid mentioning the Badawis who are central to the issue. I guess helping Justin out isn't very high on Donald's list of priorities.
the pair , Aug 8, 2018 11:41:17 PM | 34
i forget who said it and the exact phrasing, but the best explanation i've seen is "why is the US there? it answers itself: to be there".

vast opium money for the deep state vermin.

profits for the bomb makers (you know, the respectable corporate ones as opposed to the quaint do-it-yourselfers).

lithium deposits that probably rival those in bolivia as well as other untapped profitable resources (probably, anyway; i could see oil and gas coming out of those ancient valleys).

it's also an occupation as opposed to a "win and get out" war. these military welfare queens think they can win a staring contest with the descendants of people who bitchslapped every would-be conqueror since alexander the great. ask the russians how well that went for them.

the west supports israel's 70+ years of colonizing palestine (plus the 3 or 4 decades of dumbness before it with balfour and such) and still has troops in south goddamn korea. as long as the tap flows they'll keep drinking that sweet tasty tax welfare.

[Aug 09, 2018] No fighter of the establishment would make such stupid mistakes as Trump has

Which means that he is not a real fighter. Just a "very flexible" pretender.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was no revolution and has been little deviation from the norm. The hyperventilating diaspora not withstanding, nobody would know he was anything but another middle of the road neocon with a bit more hawkish immigration policy (that he never intends to implement). ..."
"... And while many of us are amused with some of his antics, President Trump seems at other times to be evolving into a caricature of the anti-PC candidate. Remember the hijacking of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, with bigots and flakes becoming the faces of the organizations in the mass media? The Establishment may in the same way be using Trump to discredit the views of those who voted for him. ..."
"... , on the stupidity of his picks for underlings. He has total responsibility for most of the Feral Gov. bureaucracy, and you don't start off picking people that are against you. ..."
"... In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider. ..."
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics." ..."
"... Trump's behavior is very obviously conflicted, but I don't think it's because he doesn't know his own mind. My working hypothesis is that he's making some effort to carry out his platform (very unlike Obama), but that behind-the-scenes forces are resisting mightily. ..."
"... Maybe it is right that Trump is just the latest iteration of Obama, a sop to our nation's discontent. But what choice did we have other than to support him and hope for the best? He does seem increasingly under neocon influence. ..."
Aug 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Realist , August 7, 2018 at 8:52 am GMT

Many of Trumps worst problems are the result of his own egregious choices. Such as the appointment of obvious Deep State apparatchiks to Cabinet and advisory positions, allowing GOP Inc sycophants such as Ryan, McConnell, Graham and others to ride rough shod over his campaign promises. Playing good cop to the bad cop Deep State, with Russia. Taking a belligerent stance with North Korea, Iran, China and the EU.
I strongly suspect he is playing a Nationalist swamp drainer to his base, while in reality he is a Deep State Globalist.
No fighter of the establishment would make such stupid mistakes as Trump has.

CalDre , August 7, 2018 at 10:40 am GMT

the establishment elites of both parties, who have also not given up on a foreign policy of using America's economic and military power to attempt to convert mankind to democracy .

Really, Pat? Surely you know they are trying to convert mankind to Globalism/Bolshevism, as the rest of your article makes clear. But for some reason Pat feels compelled to put some stupid lie like this in every article. Cognitive dissonance? Or an effort to keep getting invited to the DC Club Parties?

nickels , August 7, 2018 at 1:15 pm GMT
"The terrible and fateful events that befell our wonderful and tragic homeland, are carried as a searing and purifying fire on our souls.

In this fire are burnt the false basis, the errors and prejudices on which the ideology of the former Russian intelligensia were built. On these basis it was impossible to build Russia; these falsehoods and prejudices led her to decay and death."
Ivan Ilyin, On Fighting Evil by Force

Sound familiar?

MarkinLA , August 7, 2018 at 1:54 pm GMT
@Realist

I hope he is only doing this because he thinks he needs to go slow and play along sometimes because of all the swamp dwellers aligned against him. However, it is allowing the swamp to run the clock out on him. It is also allowing the intelligence community to avoid the shake up it needs and force his foreign policy into something the people don't want.

If he truely is willing to fight the swamp, there will come a time when he can fight and the swamp won't have any bullets left. However, it doesn't help when he continues to agree with the swamp that the Russians are meddling in our elections.

Issac , August 7, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
Trump was no revolution and has been little deviation from the norm. The hyperventilating diaspora not withstanding, nobody would know he was anything but another middle of the road neocon with a bit more hawkish immigration policy (that he never intends to implement). Global flavela bazaar neoliberalism for everyone is the revolution and it is still on schedule everywhere outside of the Visegrad.
anonymous [340] Disclaimer , August 7, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
@MarkinLA

Don't forget that he has chosen Bolton, Giuliani, Haley

Linh Dinh not only called the election months out, but explained that President Trump, like President Obama, would amount to nothing more than a vent pipe for a different group of gullible Americans.

I, too, said that Mr. Trump neither believed nor would act effectively on much of what many of us here loved hearing in those speeches written by young Mr. Miller. I encouraged people not to vote, and was accused of doing so to help Jeb, then Hillary.

It sounds like you may be coming to see things differently than you did in 2016.

And while many of us are amused with some of his antics, President Trump seems at other times to be evolving into a caricature of the anti-PC candidate. Remember the hijacking of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, with bigots and flakes becoming the faces of the organizations in the mass media? The Establishment may in the same way be using Trump to discredit the views of those who voted for him.

Achmed E. Newman , Website August 7, 2018 at 2:59 pm GMT
@Realist

AGREED , on the stupidity of his picks for underlings. He has total responsibility for most of the Feral Gov. bureaucracy, and you don't start off picking people that are against you.

I don't suspect Trump is a Globalist at heart, though. He may be under tremendous pressure of some sort by the Deep State to ACT LIKE one. Remember Ross Perot!

MarkinLA , August 7, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT
@anonymous

No, I always knew that Trump might not be everything we hoped. I just knew that only he could beat Hillary. Anybody else but Trump or Cruz and we would already have that Luis Gutierrez amnesty for 30 million illegals and 100 million more put on the fast track.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , August 7, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@MarkinLA

Linh Dinh, published here June 12, 2016, in part:

"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."

MarkinLA , August 7, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
@anonymous

I don't know what your point is? Are you saying we should not have voted or chosen somebody we know could not win? What is the point of crying that Trump is a bad guy when there was no other choice?

Realist , August 7, 2018 at 5:33 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

I don't suspect Trump is a Globalist at heart, though. He may be under tremendous pressure of some sort by the Deep State to ACT LIKE one. Remember Ross Perot!

It is probable he is under threat from the Deep State, but he should have known that going in. The Deep State probably has an unbreakable hold on our government at least by electoral means. Other means will be needed to crush it.

Realist , August 7, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@KenH

I scratch my head but the Trump cultists are convinced this is 4D chess and part of some grand master plan.

Not a chance. He should have known this would happen going in. The Deep State will not be uprooted by electoral means

Realist , August 7, 2018 at 5:46 pm GMT
@MarkinLA

If he truely is willing to fight the swamp, there will come a time when he can fight and the swamp won't have any bullets left.

I wish that were true, but I believe the Deep State is so entrenched in our government (it is the government) that it will not be destroyed by electoral means.

SunBakedSuburb , August 7, 2018 at 8:28 pm GMT
" Who says current values -- some of them deeply evil " "Think about the money we could save and make."

So says the materialist flesh-bot from the Cato Institute in regard to open borders. I'm assuming the libertarian is okay with the attempt at mainstreaming transgenderism and the sexualization of children by cultural Luciferians. I'd guess the freedom fighter views transhumanism as a positive evolutionary step. I'm sure the liberty lover will fit right into the synthetic/organic hive-mind that will be the result.

Svigor , August 7, 2018 at 9:57 pm GMT
@anonymous

Nonsense, Trump and the altright have forced the J-Left to accelerate their plans, tipping their hands and awakening a lot more people. Thousands will flock to our banner over Sarah Jeong alone.

David , August 7, 2018 at 10:48 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

The best thing about Pat Buchanan is that, nowadays at least, he's always polite. His is an example that all of us should take to heart while we still can: Not insulting your adversary is the first step to bringing him onto your side.

Pat isn't always absolutely frank in his supporting points or in his framing of a political objective, but then he's not the kind to give up when the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor either.

anon [322] Disclaimer , August 7, 2018 at 11:06 pm GMT
The elites have always been the enemies of the people throughout history, in every country. From the pharaohs of Egypt to the Patricians of Rome, the British aristocracy, the European monarchies, the Bolsheviks, Soviet Politburo, Chinese princelings to the present day tech plantation owners, Wall Street billionaires and political elites, these people will do everything they can to maintain their elitism, if everyone else has access to what they have, namely money and power, they wouldn't be elite anymore.

It's why democracy does not work. Anyone who can get elected president has to come from the elites or have wide support of the elites, like Obama. Those who are rich enough to run their own campaigns, like Trump, is already by definition an elite. Can you trust an elite to look out for the masses? Not since time immemorial.

Trump campaigned on no more foreign wars and no more illegal immigration, America First. Two years on and we continue to have wars everywhere, last year we granted more OPT for foreign grads than at any time in history, he hasn't done jack on H1b, has increased H2b, still allows H1b spouses to work, no cut on legal immigration, and managed to completely fuck up healthcare. If it's truly bipartisanship that tripped him up, you wouldn't know it judging by the umpteen Cohens from Wall Street in his cabinet, and his backing of RINOs like Ryan and neocons like Pence, Bolton and Haley. Instead of focusing all his energy fighting the Deep State, he's trying to start a war with Iran. What the fuck do we care about Iran? Trump's true identity and intention are in doubt. His biggest problem is he lacks principles. There's only so much you can trust a guy who got rich working almost exclusively with shysters.

America is going through our own Bolshevik revolution, but too many are either unaware, apathetic or too afraid to speak out.

Achmed E. Newman , Website August 7, 2018 at 11:42 pm GMT
@bluedog

In deeper over his head than the former community organizer/ constitutional scholar (wow, what a resume!) fool Øb☭ma? Yeah, there's a lot going on, but picking the right underlings should not be hard for a businessman – delegation of work is a big part of the job.

Did you read the post about Mr. Ross Perot? What happened back in 1992 was pretty damn strange, looked at with the understanding I have now.

Achmed E. Newman , Website August 8, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT
@David

You are right, David. Mr. Buchanan is VERY polite. He's as civil as he can be, as if this were 1985 and the more American-oriented GOP was quibbling over the budget with the more American-oriented Democrat party in some committee hearings. I've written this before a couple of times regarding Pat Buchanan:

IT! IS! NOT! 1985! The people we are dealing with will absolutely NOT come to our side if we treat them nice. It just greatly encourages their stupidity when you are polite and try to be understanding (unless they are, which is NEVER). David, you are under the highly erroneous impression that you are dealing with people who are sane. I hate to break it to you this time of night, but our enemies are deeply insane.

I hope this reply was respectful enough to you, though, David.

map , August 8, 2018 at 5:49 am GMT
Mr. Buchanam,

The supply-side economics of Jude Wanniski does not require open borders or free trade. In fact, without a gold standard, free trade is unworkable.

APilgrim , August 8, 2018 at 5:49 pm GMT
Reportedly Richard Spencer created the term "alt-right".

Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is president of the National Policy Institute, as well as Washington Summit Publishers. Spencer rejects considers himself a white nationalist or white identitarian. Spencer created the term "alt-right", which he considers a movement about "white identity". Spencer advocates white-European unity and a "peaceful ethnic cleansing" of nonwhites from America, criticizes Euroskepticism, and advocates the creation of a white ethno-state that would be open to all "racial Europeans", which Spencer considers a reconstitution of the Roman Empire.

Spencer sounded as dumb as a brick on Dinesh Joseph D'Souza's new movie, 'Death of a Nation', but I suppose that a director can make anybody look the fool, with their edits.

Wally , August 9, 2018 at 1:13 am GMT
@MarkinLA

Same here, well said.

Wally , August 9, 2018 at 1:19 am GMT
@anonymous

Not so fast there.

Trump's accomplishments

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/6/giving-trumps-accomplishments-their-due/

Trump's 60-point accomplishment list

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/media-blackout-trumps-60-point-accomplishment-list-of-american-greatness

' The Left needs to face reality: Trump is winning '

https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/the-left-needs-to-face-reality-trump-is-winning/

cassandra , August 9, 2018 at 5:50 am GMT
What I've liked about Trump:

a) Watching the smugness of Hillary and the MSM disappear on election night: by itself worth the price of admission.
b) Using twitter to go over the heads of the pearl-clutching MSM.
c) Seeing the partisanship in the intelligence community exposed, especially the FBI.
d) Trying to have a formal rather than discretionary immigration policy.
e) Restricting immigration from Mideast countries with radicals.
f) Seeing him try to get along with Putin.
g) International independence in foreign policy.
h) Shutting down the trans-oceanic secret trade treaties and reexamining trade.
i) Just talking to Kim il-Sung
j) Covfefe, because it upsets prudes.

What I haven't liked about Trump:

a) Even more sanctions on Russia.
b) Losing his original advisers to neocon types, one by one.
c) Implacable hostility toward Iran.

Ambiguities in Trump's behavior:

a) Saying he doesn't trust the intelligence community, then retracting.
b) Sanctions, Syrian bombings and military buildup while trying to have talks.

Trump's strange political decisions:

a) What is Jared Kushner?
b) Why didn't he fight Flynn's resignation?
c) Why did he appoint Mueller & Rosenstein?
d) Why did he appoint Pompeo & Bolton?

Trump's behavior is very obviously conflicted, but I don't think it's because he doesn't know his own mind. My working hypothesis is that he's making some effort to carry out his platform (very unlike Obama), but that behind-the-scenes forces are resisting mightily. In some cases I think he's being worn down, in others, I think he's being subjected to very heavy pressure to avoid and even walk back certain policies. Why did he get rid of his campaign policy advisers, why did he make politically hostile appointments in the FBI and Justice, why did he appoint advisors who hold stated positions contrary to his? What made him retract what he said about trusting intelligence agencies? These were the same guys who let 911 happen after all.

I wouldn't necessarily be happy if he succeeded with all his goals. However, it seems that every time he tries to do something, massive political barriers and MSM hostility are thrown up in front of him*. So, I do think that he's fighting the deep state, that the situation is pretty much revealing how it works, as I'd hoped. There's a chance that he might do some effective swamp-draining eventually, but we're still in the shallow end.

*With the unfortunate exception of Iranian sabre-rattling.

cassandra , August 9, 2018 at 6:37 am GMT
Buchanan's discussion of the Pundits' opinion starkly exposes their elitist arrogance:

For free trade is always and ever a "win-win for trading partners."

Maybe for the trading partners, but what about the rest of the population? But the most revealing is:

Who says America's current values -- some of them deeply evil -- are the right ones?

That'd be the people, wouldn't it? And who exactly are the "we" here:

"Think about the money we could save and make." This is truly economics uber alles, economy before country.

Buchanan reveals a bad attitude: imagine suggesting that money might not be the bottom line.

But of course the Globalists are plotting; what would make them stop? My money is on the Kalergi-Coudenhove Plan, formed in 1924, for the Jewish people to rule Europe, based on lame excuses derived from eugenics theories that make Hitler's racial policies look positively enlightened. After you've had a chance to look it up, and you stop laughing that such a preposterous idea could possibly get enough traction to last beyond the next day's hangover, see this link: https://uia.org/s/or/en/1100019566 , and then search for the Coudenhove-Kalergi prize recipients in 2010 and 2012. This mad project is about to survive its centennial.

MarkinLA , August 9, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
@therevolutionwas

When you learn what true free trade is you will learn to appreciate the benefits.

Substitute communism for free trade and it's true believers say the same thing about their imaginary utopia. Hell, why stop there, put in any ISM you want and get the same thing.

cassandra , August 9, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT
@therevolutionwas

When you learn what true free trade is you will learn to appreciate the benefits.

or else? It's not even clear that "true free trade" is possible, or what it is, for that matter. The term is a propaganda meme: it's emotionally evocative but linguistically vague. It's not at all clear what specific policies (i.e., legislation) are being advocated.

Buchanan criticised consequences of the agreements that we have , not hypotheticals with consequences we'd like to have. The former may have been good for the traders, but they haven't been beneficial for the middle class, nor the nation at large.

Mike P , August 9, 2018 at 7:15 pm GMT
@cassandra

My working hypothesis is that there are three forces at play:

1. Trump with his own agenda – MAGA, terminate wars, stop globalisation
2. Zionist radical globalists
3. Zionist MAGA sympathisers

No. 3 are of course really still Israel-firsters and don't care much about America, but they do realise that the radical globalist agenda undermines U.S. power, which is causing the U.S. to lose its grip on the rest of the world. Thus, they support MAGA in order to preserve and restore U.S. power, so that it may continue to serve Israel.

Trump has allied himself with No. 3, because without any allies he would go the way of JFK in a hurry (he still might). They let him pursue his nationalist economic agenda, but each time he tries to pursue his other aims – detente, mostly, a foreign policy that truly serves America first – they yank his leash.

As I said, this is my working hypothesis; there may be better explanations.

jacques sheete , August 9, 2018 at 9:49 pm GMT

densa , August 9, 2018 at 10:57 pm GMT

@David

Agree that Mr. Buchanan should be respected, not denounced for not being someone else. He has long worked in the trenches, and I don't think it too much to say that he and others like him helped create the alt-Right and made Trump's win possible. This is another fine piece by him.

I was impressed with Trump's tweet reply to the Kochs. In part Trump said, "I'm for America First & the American Worker -- a puppet for no one." I'd like to believe that but it gets harder as his words of support for America are beginning to pale against his acts of neocon continuity.

Maybe it is right that Trump is just the latest iteration of Obama, a sop to our nation's discontent. But what choice did we have other than to support him and hope for the best? He does seem increasingly under neocon influence. The pressures are intense. The negative ones only relent when he does what they want. The positive pressures reward him with the decadence of wealth and power. I'd be surprised at this point if he can remember the people he promised he'd never forget. But we got a mention in twitter

[Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

Highly recommended!
Aug 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as interviews he's given since publication...

1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle East

(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007 speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime change in "7 countries in 5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)

From Reporter: A Memoir pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S. the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones, as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that "they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to civilization.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nUCwCgthp_E

* * *

2) On early regime change plans in Syria

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to 9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...

3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States -- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.

Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of betraying my sources...

I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible. I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good idea from whom I was getting the information.

4) On Russian meddling in the US election

From the recent Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.

Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't know."

5) On the Novichok poisoning

From the recent Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's position.

Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing on Obama – "a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.

He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.

* * *

6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which in a 2007 New Yorker article Hersh accurately predicted would set off war in Syria

From the Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.

He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...

He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...

I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."

* * *

7) On the official 9/11 narrative

From the Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis potentially involved.

Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community. We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"

8) On the media and the morality of the powerful

From a recent The Intercept interview and book review -- If Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:

  1. The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
  2. The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
  3. The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.

* * *

... ... ...

[Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

Highly recommended!
Aug 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as interviews he's given since publication...

1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle East

(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007 speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime change in "7 countries in 5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)

From Reporter: A Memoir pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S. the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones, as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that "they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to civilization.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nUCwCgthp_E

* * *

2) On early regime change plans in Syria

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to 9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...

3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States -- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.

Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of betraying my sources...

I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible. I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good idea from whom I was getting the information.

4) On Russian meddling in the US election

From the recent Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.

Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't know."

5) On the Novichok poisoning

From the recent Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's position.

Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing on Obama – "a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.

He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.

* * *

6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which in a 2007 New Yorker article Hersh accurately predicted would set off war in Syria

From the Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.

He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...

He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...

I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."

* * *

7) On the official 9/11 narrative

From the Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis potentially involved.

Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community. We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"

8) On the media and the morality of the powerful

From a recent The Intercept interview and book review -- If Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:

  1. The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
  2. The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
  3. The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.

* * *

... ... ...

[Aug 08, 2018] God Bless Stephen Cohen

Notable quotes:
"... Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened (Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work? ..."
Aug 04, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Let me stipulate at the outset that the phrase, "Max Boot," should be consider as a new synonym in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word inane moron or imbecile are other plausible possibilities.

Not since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy have we witnessed such a bizarre, vicious level of red-baiting and smearing. Max Boot, have you no decency?

You will understand the context of my introductory observations after you view the following video. Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened (Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work?

[Aug 08, 2018] The Elys e and Gladio B by Thierry Meyssan

Notable quotes:
"... Of course, in the 21st century, we no longer torture and assassinate people as we used to, we simply discredit trouble-makers by way of the Press. Above all, there is no more Soviet Union, and consequently no more stay-behind network. But the personnel we used and who were replaced have had to be recycled. ..."
"... A number of elements attest to the fact that these agents first of all led the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then, today, against Russia [ 8 ], to the point where they are labelled by the FBI as Gladio B [ 9 ]. The efficiency of this network in the " Greater Middle East " over the last 17 years needs no further proof. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

Nonetheless, we may remember that during the Cold War, the United States and the United Kingdom had created, in all of the allied states, a service designed to combat Soviet influence – without the knowledge of the national institutions. This system is known to historians as the stay-behind, and to the public by the name of its Italian branch, Gladio. All over the world, it was under the joint command of the CIA and MI6, via the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) [ 3 ], except for Europe, where it was connected to NATO [ 4 ]

The main operational officials of this stay-behind network (in other words, capable of becoming clandestine in the case of a Soviet invasion) were the ex-officials of the Nazi repression. While the French people know that SS captain and head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Klaus Barbie, became the official representative of the stay-behind network in Bolivia working against Che Guevara, they do not know, for example, that the Police Prefect for Paris, the collaborator Maurice Papon, who massacred a hundred Algerians on 17 October 1961, was one of the leaders of the network in France, working against the FLN [ 5 ]. Here in Damascus where I live, people remember another SS officer and director of the camp at Drancy, Alois Brunner, who was placed as an advisor to the Syrian secret services by the CIA and MI6 in order to prevent the country from swinging over into the Soviet camp. He was arrested by President Bachar el-Assad as soon as he came to power.

In France, when the stay-behind turned against France, accused it of leaving Algeria to the Soviets, organised the coup d'état in 1961 and financed the OAS (Organisation de l'Armée Secrète), President De Gaulle recuperated certain of its agents in order to form a militia to work against the militia - the SAC (Service d'Action Civique) [ 6 ].

Despite appearances, these stories are not as old as all that - the world of politics still hosts personalities who were part of the stay-behind network. For example, the current President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Junker, was the head of Gladio in Luxembourg [ 7 ].

The first General Secretary of " En Marche ! ", Ludovic Chaker, is allegedly an agent of the DGSE. He is said to have hired – by accident – a friend of Jawad Bendaoud, " Daesh's landlord, " as a bodyguard for the candidate Macron. Today he works at the Elysée where he " doubles " the anti-terrorist task force of Prefect Bousquet de Florian.

Of course, in the 21st century, we no longer torture and assassinate people as we used to, we simply discredit trouble-makers by way of the Press. Above all, there is no more Soviet Union, and consequently no more stay-behind network. But the personnel we used and who were replaced have had to be recycled.

A number of elements attest to the fact that these agents first of all led the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then, today, against Russia [ 8 ], to the point where they are labelled by the FBI as Gladio B [ 9 ]. The efficiency of this network in the " Greater Middle East " over the last 17 years needs no further proof.

Precisely, the question of the fight against terrorism – or its manipulation - was handled by the United States secret service, which the Elysée was preparing to replicate. Oddly enough, the Elysées anti-terrorist task force, directed by Prefect Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, is already doubled by a " cell " entrusted to an executive of the President's chief of staff, Admiral Bernard Rogel. According to L'Opinion , this executive, Ludovic Chaker – who hired Benalla – is a " veteran " agent of the Direction Générale de la Sécurite Exterieure (DGSE) [ 10 ]

We are not attempting to compare Alexandre Benalla with Maurice Papon, but to enquire whether an element of an illegal force of repression is in the process of being (re)created in Europe. Article licensed under Creative Commons

The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND ).

Source : "The Elysée and " Gladio B " ", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network , 29 July 2018, www.voltairenet.org/article202201.html

[Aug 08, 2018] Russiagate Cover for Real Scandal by Finian Cunningham

Notable quotes:
"... During his election campaign, Donald Trump reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of US laws? ..."
"... Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was, and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy". ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

So the US news media are in uproar over President Trump's latest admission that a meeting between his son and a Russian lawyer more than two years ago was about "getting dirt" on Hillary Clinton.

With self-righteous probity, Trump's political and media enemies are declaring him a felon for accepting foreign interference in the US presidential election.

Admittedly, President Trump appears to have been telling lies about the past meeting, which took place at Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2016. Or maybe it's just this American president shooting himself in the foot -- again -- with his inimical gibberish-style.

However, the burning issue of "foreign interference" is being stoked out of all proportion by Trump's enemies who want him ousted from the White House.

US constitutional law forbids candidates from receiving help from foreign governments or foreign nationals.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Thus, by appearing to accept a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 -- during the presidential campaign -- the Trump election team are accused of breaking US law.

The alleged transgression fits in with the wider narrative of "Russiagate" which posits that Republican candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the race to the White House against Democrat rival Hillary Clinton .

Russia has always denied any involvement in the US elections, saying the allegations are preposterous. Moscow also points out that in spite of indictments leveled by American prosecutors, there is no evidence to support claims that Russian hackers meddled in the presidential campaign, or that the Kremlin somehow assisted Trump.

The Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya , who met with the Trump campaign team in early June 2016 is described in US media as "Kremlin-linked". But that seems to be just more innuendo in place of facts. She denies any such connection. The Kremlin also says it had no relation with the attorney on her business of approaching Team Trump.

In any case, what is being totally missed in the latest brouhaha is the staggering hypocrisy in the US media circus over Trump. Let's take Trump at his word -- not a reliable source admittedly -- that his campaign team were trying to "get dirt" on Clinton. That would appear to be a violation of US law.

If Trump is going to be nailed for improper conduct with regard to alleged foreign assistance, then where does that leave Hillary Clinton and US intelligence agencies?

During the presidential campaign, Clinton's team contracted a British spy, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on Trump in the form of the so-called "Russian dossier". That was the pile of absurd claims alleging that the Kremlin had blackmailing leverage over Donald Trump. It was Steele's fantasies that largely turned into the whole Russiagate affair which has dominated US media and politics for the past two years.

Not only that, but now it transpires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also paid the same British spy to act as a source for the FBI's wiretapping of Trump's associates, according to declassified documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a US citizens' rights group.

In other words, the foreign interference that the FBI engaged in under the Barack Obama administration, as well as by Hillary Clinton's campaign team, is on a far greater and more scandalous scale that Trump seems to have clumsily endeavored to do with a Russian lawyer.

The real, shocking interference in US democracy was not by Russia or Trump, but by American secret services working in collusion with the Clinton Democrats to distort the presidential elections. This scandal which Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen has labeled "Intelgate" is far more grievous than the Watergate crisis which resulted in President Richard Nixon's ignominious resignation back in the mid-1970s.

The Obama administration's intelligence agencies and the Democrats attempted to sabotage the 2016 presidential election in order to keep Trump out of the White House. They failed. And they have never gotten over that defeat to their illegal scheming.

The Russiagate claims are just a sideshow. As American writer Paul Craig Roberts, among others, has commented , the media-driven "witch hunt" against Trump and Russia is blown out of all proportion in order to distract from the real scandal which is Intelgate -- and how millions of American voters were potentially disenfranchised by the US intelligence apparatus for a political power grab.

Another staggering hypocrisy in the US media kerfuffle over Trump and alleged Russian interference is that all the fastidious hyperbole completely ignores actual foreign interference in American democracy -- foreign interference that is on an absolutely colossal scale.

As American critical thinker Noam Chomsky points out , "Israeli intervention in US elections overwhelms anything Russia may have done".

Israel's interference includes the multi-million-dollar lobbying by such groups as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial sponsorship of hundreds of lawmakers in both houses of Congress. Many critics maintain that the entire Congress is in effect "bought" by AIPAC.

Chomsky referred specifically to the occasion in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu snubbed then President Obama by addressing the US Congress with a speech openly calling for lawmakers to reject the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of US laws?

Trump has since shown himself to do Adelson's and Israel's bidding by walking away from the Iran deal and in pushing stridently pro-Israeli interests in the conflict with Palestinians.

Another foreign benefactor in US politics is the so-called Saudi lobby and other oil-rich Gulf Arab states. Millions of dollars are funneled into Congress by these dubious regimes to shape US government foreign policy in the Middle East. For several decades, Saudi oil money is also documented to be a major contributor to the CIA and its off-the-books covert operations around the world.

Foreign interference in US politics -- in which often nefarious foreign interests are promoted over those of ordinary American citizens -- is conducted on a gargantuan and systematic scale. But this massively illegal interference in flagrant violation of US laws is stupendously ignored by the American media.

Trump is being assailed over an alleged scandal regarding Russia which is, by any objective measure, negligible.

The whole Russiagate narrative is sheer hysteria driven by anti-Trump forces who do not want to accept the result of the 2016 election. It is, in effect, a coup attempt by unelected political forces.

Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was, and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy".

Such lies are an odious distortion of the truth by America's real enemies who are its own domestic political and media operators trying to cover up their anti-constitutional crimes. What's even more despicable is that these people are willing to inflame US-Russia relations to the point of starting a war between two nuclear powers.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by " Sputnik " -

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Aug 08, 2018] Hidden in Plain View in Belgrade Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... A good hypothesis is, that Olof Palme was assassinated by a US stay-behind group, consisting of Nazi military and police. ..."
"... I think VG is quite correct in this: it was a test. And the test was of the neocon/humanitarian intervention marriage. Yes, the USA has doe a lot of this sort of thing in its history, but there has always been some opposition inside the USA. This time, they figured it out and "humanitarian bombing" was born. We have seen a lot more humanitarian bombing since. ..."
"... It was Gore, in consultation with Hillary Clinton, who decided to launch the criminal bombing of Serbia, informing PM Primakov after taking a phone call meant for the president. ..."
"... By launching an illegal attack on Russia's ally, the VP and the future Sec. of State, were offering a foreshadowing of the hawkish and belligerent anti-Russian policy that was to follow for the next 17 years. ..."
"... Western populations for the most part are so thoroughly brainwashed they still cling to the belief they live in civilized countries and their militaries keep them safe from barbarians. ..."
"... Gary I agree whole heartedly with every word you wrote. I would add to how intriguing it would be to learn of the high deception played during the passage of the Federal Reserve back in 1913. Then I'd push out of the way those who blocked Claude Pepper from endorsing Henry Wallace into the 1944 Democratic Convention. This alone may have changed the course of the establishment of the CIA, and avoided the disaster that is happening in Palestine to this day. ..."
"... I do believe the assassination era was the biggest turning point, as it sent a strong message to the would be seekers of sane government policies who would incur such tragedy if explored. Joe ..."
"... I believe there are many questions that need answering about NATO. For instance: July 14, 2018 The Diabolical "Work" of NATO and Its Allies: Why Are These War Criminals Still Free? ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

By Vladimir Golstein
 in Belgrade
 Special to Consortium News

Right across the street from my hotel, tucked behind tall office buildings, is the rather large Church of St. Mark. Hidden in St. Mark's shadows is a tiny Russian Orthodox church. The Church of the Holy Trinity, known simply as the Russian Church, is famous for holding the remains of Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel , the Russian Civil War leader of the Whites. It is hard to find, but luckily, a friend took me there.

As we were looking around the church, not particularly interested in Wrangel, a couple of Russians asked me to take their picture in front of his tomb. Trying to find a proper angle for the picture, I noticed a small plaque on a wall nearby. It listed the names of Russians who died fighting for Yugoslav Serbs during the conflict with separatist Albanians in Kosovo and the subsequent NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.

As we left the church, we took a small path toward the top of the park. There we observed another brutal sign of that war: a destroyed building next to the TV center. It too had a plaque. It screamed, " Zashto " (For What? Why?). Below it were the names of all the TV people NATO killed during that attack. In all, as many as 2,500 civilians may have been killed by NATO, according to the then Yugoslav government, though the real number may never be known.

On the one hand, the question Zashto is both idle and provocative. It implies a laceration of wounds, a refusal to forget and to start anew. On the other, there is an obvious need to find an answer to this question simply to prevent future destruction and senseless murders.

We won't find answers to this question in the official narratives, which tell us that the noble Clinton administration decided to stop flagrant violations of human rights in the extremely complex situation in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo by bombing the Serbs into respecting minorities both on its own and on neighboring territories. (In fact the large exodus of Kosovo Albanians to Albania proper only began after NATO bombs started to fall.)

Testing the Limits

Russians who died fighting for Yugoslavia. (Photo by Vladimir Golstein)

Behind these official stories, a much sadder picture emerges. Why did these people die? Why did this NATO operation go ahead without UN Security Council authorization nor proof of self-defense, requirements of the UN Charter? Was it to satisfy the lust for power of U.S. and NATO leaders, of liberal interventionists like Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, and Susan Rice? To assuage the Clinton administration's guilt over its failure to respond to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda? Was it to set up America's largest military base in Europe since the Vietnam War, Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo? For American access to Kosovo's vast mineral wealth and other business opportunities, including for Ms. Albright ? Or was it to finally kill off a rather successful Yugoslav experiment in the "third way" between the West and the Soviet Union?

It seems these people had to die for all those reasons and to put into practice the doctrines of responsibility to protect ( R2P ) and full spectrum dominance , doctrines cooked up by liberal interventionists and neocons in Washington. Those who died were essentially guinea pigs of a New World Order experiment to see how far the world could be pushed to implement R2P, a policy that could be used to mask imperial ambitions.

And it worked. Yugoslavia was unable to stand up to the power of NATO operating outside the mandate of its obsolete charter: namely to defend Western Europe against an alleged Soviet threat. Indeed one could argue that with the Cold War over, another motive for the attack on Yugoslavia was to provide NATO with a justification to exist. (It would later go even further afield outside its legal theater of operation, into Afghanistan and then Libya.)

Russia could do little to help the Serbs. Then the Chinese Embassy was hit as well, as a test it seems, though The New York Times said it was a mistake. The Chinese did nothing.

Thus was R2P implemented -- with no protection for Yugoslav Serbs. They had to die in the experiment to explore the limits of U.S. power and the limits of its resistance.

Vladimir Golstein, a former associate professor at Yale University, manages the Department of Slavic Studies at Brown University and is a commentator on Russian affairs.

Noel cowling , August 7, 2018 at 4:16 pm

If my memory serves me correctly, President Bill Clinton had set up a summit meeting with Russian President Yevgeny Primakov here in the USA. Primakov was in flight on his way here for that summit meeting when President of Vice, Al Gore, without Clinton's permission or knowledge, called Primakov, in flight, to tell him NATO had decided to bomb Kosovo. Primakov immediately ordered his plane to turn around and return to Russia, thus cancelling the summit meeting...

Aurora , August 7, 2018 at 8:55 pm

In Russia that is known as "The Primakov Loop."

rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 3:57 pm

Thanks Vladimir. The Serbs are demonized by so many, especially the Germans-many believe it was because they fought so valiantly against the Nazis in WW2. Diana Johnstone has written "Fools' Crusade- Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions", and Michel Collon "Media Lies and the Conquest of Kosovo", but books with this point of view are not readily publicised. Nor is the fact that after his death (no trial had yet taken place) Slobodan Milosovic was finally found nOT to have been responsible for all the murderous acts he was accused/assumed to be responsible for.

We can note now of course the Russian reaction to the "annexation of Crimea" after a referendum, no bloodshed and the referendum also of Russians all over the Federation, while Kosovo was ripped from Serbia by trickery and not consent, and we see how it is now. Russia is sanctioned, the people who overthrew the Ukrainian government are not mentioned, Crimea is not allowed to return to Russia. Slight difference from the "nation" of Kososvo!

Thomas Binder , August 6, 2018 at 6:35 am

The war against #Serbia under #R2P was the #MilitaryIndustrialFinancialMedialComplex'es ruling the #USA/#NATO/#ISR/#SAU empire (#PNAC's) test for eternal war against #AlQaeda outside international law & interference of #USLegislators for getting full-spectrum dominance.

Jackson , August 5, 2018 at 2:21 pm

NATO should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviets. When you arm people and train them to kill, they will look for an enemy to fight. War becomes inevitable.

jose , August 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm

It is hard to disagree with your post. Nato, disgracefully, has become a terrorist organization that has dedicated itself to be the paw of the western elite. Shamefully, other countries have joined Yugoslavia as victims of Nato criminality. Well done Jackson.

Björn Lindgren , August 5, 2018 at 7:25 am

FOR REASON OF STATE, FOR REASON OF INTEREST

There might be still more reasons for the destruction of Yugoslavia.

Germany had put its mind into destabilizing Yugoslavia to get a "Hinterland". Added to this, a revenge motive: Nazi Germany occupation of Yugoslavia failed, and this has never been forgotten. And lastly, Yugoslavia was a member of the non-alignment movement, not obeying US-NATO.

And, of course, after the collapse of the Warsaw pact, NATO had no enemy, no purpose. But, it invented one: full US spectrum global dominance.

Sweden has also been punished to obey the US.

During the years of PM Olof Palme, Sweden was also a member of the non-alignment movement. Palme was educated in and friendly to the US, but critized the US war in Vietnam. (Nixon hated Palme, and withdraw the US diplomats from Sweden).

1992 foreign submarines penetrated Swedish waters repeatedly.

The submarine incident at Hårsfjärden, a marine base, was not made by Russia, but was made by US and British submarines. Afterwards, both Caspar Weinberger and Sir Keith Speed confirmed this. Weinberger even thanked Sweden for not blowing up the US mini-sub (which we could have done. (Read, "Hårsfjärden. Det hemliga ubåtskriget mot Sverige," by Ola Tunander).

Purpose: pushing Sweden westward.

Already in the mid 50s, William Colby, later head of the CIA, was in Sweden organizing stay-behind groups, recruting Swedish voluntary ex-soldiers from the Finnish wars against Soviet Union. In the 50-s these people were organized in "Sveaborg", a Nazi group.

A good hypothesis is, that Olof Palme was assassinated by a US stay-behind group, consisting of Nazi military and police.

Which, of course, had to be stonewalled "for reason of state". Today, Sweden is "cooperating" shamelessly with NATO, invite, and have excersices with NATO. This week, the Swedish government annonced that it will purchase US "Patriot" anti-missiles with "ballistic capability" (Hey, hey!).

Supporting the insane belligerent US and UK nuclear armament (for a nuclear first-strike?) against neoliberal, oligarchic Russia, which is planning to keep up in the race towards the abyss. That is, Sweden is now d e f a c t o a member of NATO, without the Swedish people or parliament have had a say. NATO which eventually is falling apart, and with a lunatic US president and his military government in the White House, in a US empire collapsing. The peace aspirations of Sweden are long forgotten. And so, is the Helsinki Conference and agreement (1975-1983) for common security, disarmamanet , and a nuclear-free zone in Europe.

The question is if Germany, France, UK (with Corbyn in 10 Downing) and Russia will organize a new Helsinki Conference and Agreement?

Maybe, "for reasons of interest".

--

rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 4:01 pm

Thanks so much for this comprehensive addition to the discussion. Sweden indeed has been placed in an invidious position. Pretending that NATO has any purpose even vaguely related to peace is laughable.

David G , August 6, 2018 at 6:01 pm

Great comment, Björn Lindgren. Many thanks.

The withering away of Swedish neutrality into an empty formality has become so obvious, but never remarked upon in the U.S. I'm sure most cable TV talking heads just assume Sweden is in NATO – indeed, I've heard the error made, albeit corrected after the next commercial break.

I appreciate reading your committed, highly informed perspective. Maybe you could submit an article on this under-reported subject to Consortium News?

Zivadin Jovanovic , August 5, 2018 at 4:54 am

Excellent article in the eve of 20th anniversary of NATO aggression on Yugoslavia which will be marked by Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, March 23, 24rth, 2019.

NATO 1999 aggression was meant to be precedent and turning point in global conduct toward globalization of military interventionism (Avganistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.). Willy Wimmer wrote to Schoerder on May 2nd, 2000, USA position: "The war against Yugoslavia was conducted in order to correct the mistake of General Eisenhower from the 2ndWW. Subsequently, for strategic reasons, USA troops had to be stationed there ". And: "It is clear that it is the precedent to be recalled any time" The Bondstil base in Kosovo was only the first in the ensuing chain of new USA bases in Bulgaria (4), Rumania (4), Albania (2), Baltic states

Patrick Armstrong , August 4, 2018 at 5:30 pm

I think VG is quite correct in this: it was a test. And the test was of the neocon/humanitarian intervention marriage. Yes, the USA has doe a lot of this sort of thing in its history, but there has always been some opposition inside the USA. This time, they figured it out and "humanitarian bombing" was born. We have seen a lot more humanitarian bombing since.

Branko Mikasinovich , August 4, 2018 at 4:45 pm

A great and truthful article about Western Policy, NATO and US. A courageous and informative analysis of Mr. Golstein. Thank you.

ToivoS , August 4, 2018 at 1:18 pm

Goldstein writes Russia could do little to help the Serbs. Then the Chinese Embassy was hit as well, as a test it seems, though The New York Times said it was a mistake. The Chinese did nothing.

Actually the Chinese did do something. They changed their attitude towards the US. I have yet to meet a Chinese national who believes that the embassy hit was a "mistake". They and their government view it as a deliberate attack on their sovereignty. But they realized they were not in a position respond so they then began military planning for possible conflict between China and the US Navy in the Western Pacific. In 2000 they started a 10 plan to achieve the ability to sink any US aircraft carrier within a 1000 km of their shores. We won't know if they have achieved that ability until a real test is conducted. But that is the something they have done.

FB , August 8, 2018 at 9:24 am

Good point Toivos The Chinese have never forgotten the Belgrade embassy bombing and they never will. Ask any Chinese today, even those living in the West the Chinese are an ancient people with a long and proud memory the embassy bombing was a step too far. All of these hubristic missteps will come back to haunt the empire

Theo , August 4, 2018 at 10:51 am

I remember well the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia under the pretext to stop the genocide that was allegedly committed by the Serbs. The saddest thing for me was that Germany was participating in the bombing campaign. My father who was in Yugoslavia as a Wehrmacht soldier was outraged as were many others. After almost sixty years German bombers were over Serbia again. My dad used to say German soldiers on foreign soil had never been good neither for the foreign country nor for Germany. That's why until today the Germans have an aversion to all military and the deployment of German soldiers in foreign countries is not very popular.

David G , August 4, 2018 at 11:16 am

The 1999 air attacks were the coup de grace, but I think Germany had the (dis)honor of leading the vivisection of Yugoslavia from the start.

As Vladimir Golstein rhetorically asks: "Or was it to finally kill off a rather successful Yugoslav experiment in the 'third way' between the West and the Soviet Union?"

Indeed it was, and that surely appealed to all the Western powers. But Germany was particularly interested in removing a possible continental rival, and took the lead in making sure it happened – not at all to absolve the U.S., under whose aegis it was ultimately operating.

Antiwar7 , August 4, 2018 at 11:42 am

The German people and the German government are different. The German government has had an anti-Serb animus for over 150 years: that's clear. But the German people, as Theo's dad shows, can be very nice. My father was a POW in Germany for 4 years during WWII, and most of the German people he encountered were quite nice to him.

Theo , August 4, 2018 at 3:56 pm

You are right. The vivisection of Yugoslavia began when Germany recognized the independence of Slovenia before any other country did. The German government with Genscher as foreign minister didn't consult with any of the European allies. Especially France was not amused at all.

rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 4:04 pm

It was Germany, 9 days after reunification, which led the removal of Croatia from Yugoslavia and beginning the breakup of a successful multicultural country.

Juan P. Zenter , August 4, 2018 at 7:29 am

Yugoslavia was a federation of states and was, thus, an obstacle to consolidating EU and NATO power in Southeastern Europe. Once the federation was destroyed, the individual states that comprised it could be absorbed by EU/NATO. That was the ultimate outcome of NATO bombing there, despite all denials about that being the intent.

Jessika , August 4, 2018 at 5:30 am

Thanks for the article, the photo of the beautiful church, and the reflection on this horrible chapter from the book of atrocities disguised as "humanitarian" to fool the masses. This also helped Bill and Hillary Clinton distract the American public from the Monica Lewinsky affair.

j. D. D. , August 4, 2018 at 7:59 pm

I don't see it that way. Rather, as President Clinton was hit with the Lewinsky scandal and put on the defensive immediately following his speech to NY's Council on Foreign Relations in which he called for "a new world financial archithitecture," VP Al Gore, who later shunned the president, saw the opportunity to determine policy. It was Gore, in consultation with Hillary Clinton, who decided to launch the criminal bombing of Serbia, informing PM Primakov after taking a phone call meant for the president. Whereupon the PM turned around his flight in mid-air over the Atlantic and returned to Russia. By launching an illegal attack on Russia's ally, the VP and the future Sec. of State, were offering a foreshadowing of the hawkish and belligerent anti-Russian policy that was to follow for the next 17 years.

FB , August 8, 2018 at 9:31 am

Disagree these are minor details that are meaningless. Yugoslavia had already been systematically dismembered starting the very instant after German unification and the fall of the Soviet Union. Coincidence ? Maybe a child could believe it by 1999, the final chapter of the dismemberment, Kosovo, was ready, after several years of laying careful groundwork of subversion, propaganda and agitation

The Nato war of aggression in 1999 would have proceeded no matter what to think that the Lewisnky nonsense had anything to do with anything is ridiculous

nonsense factory , August 3, 2018 at 11:50 pm

One major factor in the NATO bombing and the overall agenda in the region was control of territory for a proposed gas/oil pipeline export route from Central Asia to Europe. The creation of Camp Bondsteel was directly related to that goal, and the chief contractor (KBR-Halliburton) played the same role there that they did in the construction of numerous military bases in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

That's been a dominant theme in U.S. foreign policy and military strategy circles ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Numerous routes have been proposed – trans-Afghanistan pipeline, the Nabucco pipeline, etc., all with the same goal – getting Central Asia fossil fuels (leased to US and British majors like Exxon, Chevron, BP, etc.) to global markets while bypassing Iran and Russia.

Monbiot in the Guardian, 2001 (when it was still a fairly decent paper, rather than a gung-ho enforcer of the Blairite neoliberal agenda), said this:

"For the past few weeks, a freelance researcher called Keith Fisher has been doggedly documenting a project which has, as far as I can discover, has been little-reported in any British, European or American newspaper. It is called the Trans-Balkan pipeline, and it's due for approval at the end of next month. Its purpose is to secure a passage for oil from the Caspian sea. . ."

"In November 1998, Bill Richardson, then US energy secretary, spelt out his policy on the extraction and transport of Caspian oil. "This is about America's energy security," he explained. "It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west. We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right. . ."

Paul Stuart, in the WSWS, 2002, noted:

"According to leaked comments to the press, European politicians now believe that the US used the bombing of Yugoslavia specifically in order to establish Camp Bondsteel. Before the start of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the Washington Post insisted, "With the Middle-East increasingly fragile, we will need bases and fly over rights in the Balkans to protect Caspian Sea oil.""
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/04/oil-a29.html

Forward project of American imperial power in the name of control of energy resources and the cash flows arising from them, in a nutshell. Or, "business as usual since the 1950s". Since JFK, it's all been done under the cover of "humanitarian intervention" and "protecting democracy" which is why so many American citizens have no idea what the true aims of these wars have really been

MH , August 7, 2018 at 2:13 pm

Sadly, Monbiot's column aside, the Guardian's coverage of what most of us here think of as a war against Yugoslav independence was unabashedly pro-NATO and anti-Serb. The outlet did it's best to confuse otherwise war skeptical liberals -- by demonizing the Serbs as bloodthirsty savages purveying late 1930s genocide -- about the true character of "the west's" aggression against the Serbs. Unlike Iraq, where the Graundiad reversed their pro-war stance, the paper only doubled down on its anti-Serb biases, culminating in trumpets and coronets for Hague's prosecutors ludicrously inept (at best) handling of Milosevic's trial.

Bob Van Noy , August 3, 2018 at 8:11 pm

Thank you Vladimir Golstein for this article. I'm sure you know the answers to the questions you ask in the paragraph titled "Testing the Limlts". The answer to each of them is given to us and to the world in F. William Engdahl's devastating book entitled "Manifest Destiny" : Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. I say devastating because Mr. Engdahl thoroughly describes a series of American administrations responsible for all of these crimes and more.

It will be up to us (American Citizens) to educate ourselves as to the real history of our government acting secretly, without broad consensus, and illegally. This article is a good beginning but the discussion needs to be broadened and further documented. Then we can begin to find a resolution.

https://www.amazon.com/Manifest-Destiny-Democracy-Cognitive-Dissonance/dp/3981723732/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533341271&sr=8-1&keywords=f.+william+engdahl

Jimbobla , August 3, 2018 at 6:55 pm

How one can wonder how the German population stood aside while the Nazis committed their atrocities while at the same time not speaking out at our own apparent daily military excesses is beyond me.

irina , August 4, 2018 at 12:01 am

Not to mention meekly paying for these daily military excesses, with no protest.

christina garcia , August 4, 2018 at 1:02 am

here is an historical answer, My Grandfather and Grandmother were born in Koenigsberg Prussia what is now known as Kaliningrad. The City of Emanuel Kant and not quite in the 1930's fans of National Socialism. My Grandfather owned a brick factory and a saw mill . They were capitalists, not National Socialists. And you JIMBOBLA , fyi, My Opa was caught by the Russian Army 1943, my family was totally disunited. It took the Red Cross 3 years to find my family members and repatriate them .The Nazi organization disliked capitalism . I can prove every single sentence I wrote. Please be careful when you write Nazism

Sam F , August 4, 2018 at 8:48 am

If you disagree, you should really address the issue of "how the German population stood aside while the Nazis committed their atrocities." Are you arguing that Nazi atrocities were justified by the USSR dispersing a family in 1943 Kaliningrad, during a war in which Nazis killed over 20 million Russians? It would be interesting to hear an argument with substance and references.

christina garcia , August 4, 2018 at 1:04 am

it is beyond you because you never experienced these atrocities

Milojkovic , August 5, 2018 at 8:11 pm

Dear Christina, I am very sorry about what happened to your family. They probably didn't have a choice, otherwise the Nazis would have hurt them. Maybe you'd have never been born if they dared to resist actively. Probably good people, unfairly caught in the whirlwind of history and human brutality. They were then retaliated against by other Nazi victims without deserving so, just because of their ethnicity. I am a Serb, living in U.S. Trust me, I can relate. I was here in U.S. during those terrible days of 1999, living through them as if in a daze. Life is now "kinda back to normal", but I try my best not to think just how big a part of me had died in that bombing. My grandfather, who was just a peasant but a very devoted Christian, died in a horrible pain from the terminal stomach cancer because there was no pain medication for him; plus the pharmaceutical factories were bombed after having been accused of being able to produce chemical weapons in a coordinated NATO propaganda just days before. In agony, he was trying to undress himself, and was screaming and running around the garden. Several of our family members were killed by Wehrmacht in WW II. I think that Germany had no business participating in this bombing. Look up Varvarin bridge. It was shameful. And yes, unfortunately, it was a German hand holding the match that lit up the powder keg that was Yugoslavia in early 90's.

Consortium's Fan , August 7, 2018 at 10:28 am

Did YOU, Christina Garcia, experience atrocities? Judging by you comment, I am confidently saying you DIDN'T. You know NOTHING about atrocities. Read and watch films about Nazi doings. And compare them to "dispersing a family" in a wartime. A recent film worth seeing is SOBIBOR, entirely based on archives, – a Nazi concentration camp in Poland's Sobibor – hence the name. Educate yourself.

Lois Gagnon , August 3, 2018 at 5:37 pm

Western populations for the most part are so thoroughly brainwashed they still cling to the belief they live in civilized countries and their militaries keep them safe from barbarians. Unf*cking believable.

rosemerry , August 6, 2018 at 4:11 pm

The likelihood of damage being caused by the USA NOT intervening anywhere must be vanishingly small!!!!!

Realist , August 3, 2018 at 5:24 pm

To U.S. authorities, foreign lives simply do not matter. No need to conduct any "intelligence assessment" to determine their culpability. They shamelessly commit mass murder right out in the open with impunity.

Jean , August 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm

What makes you think USA lives matter to them. I see no evidence of that either.

Realist , August 3, 2018 at 11:39 pm

Nothing makes me think that. Why do you think I chose the phraseology that I did? It gained currency in reaction to the murderous abuses by American police on our own streets.

LarcoMarco , August 4, 2018 at 1:50 pm

It gained currency when that other Donald (Rumsfeld) essentially said that G.I's were cannon fodder.

REDPILLED , August 4, 2018 at 4:54 pm

That despicable attitude long predates war criminal Rumsfeld: "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."? Henry Kissinger

Drew Hunkins , August 3, 2018 at 5:17 pm

Michael Parenti's book "To Kill a Nation" is the best book on the criminal NATO war on Yugoslavia. Followed closely by Diana Johnstone's seminal book "Fool's Crusade."

Antiwar7 , August 4, 2018 at 11:45 am

Agreed: those are excellent books, the best English language works on the breakup of Yugoslavia.

dj anderson , August 3, 2018 at 4:57 pm

Thank you for this article. Noam Chomsky also bravely gave a fine accounting. https://chomsky.info/200005__/

Jeff Harrison , August 3, 2018 at 4:55 pm

One wonders how many times these sorts of things have to happen, and fail before the rest of the world says enough of your bullshit, "West".

REDPILLED , August 4, 2018 at 4:59 pm

The rest of the world has already passed judgment on the imperialistic, war-waging U.S.: Polls: US Is 'the Greatest Threat to Peace in the World Today'
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/07/polls-us-greatest-threat-to-peace-world-today.html

Joe Tedesky , August 3, 2018 at 4:50 pm

Isn't it sad that the most enduring monuments the U.S. is leaving for it's worldly legacy are but artifacts of war and destruction. We could have done much better than this.

Gary Weglarz , August 3, 2018 at 8:25 pm

Joe – Exactly. I sometimes find myself thinking the "what if" to the U.S. mayhem of just my own lifetime. "What if" the CIA hadn't coordinated the assassinations of JFK and Lumumba, as well as of course the murder or overthrow of dozens of elected leaders in former colonies who simply aspired to helping their own people, rather than acting as proxies to the continuing pillage by U.S. & Western capitalism. What if instead those leaders were allowed to lead their nations into a non-aligned world and not forced to be beholden to either the U.S. or Soviet systems by threats of U.S. military and economic violence? What if Malcolm and MLK and RFK had not been murdered by forces connected to the U.S. ruling institutions, and had instead by now had become elder statesmen in a more humane and democratic U.S. system that would stand in stark contrast to the insane neoliberal capitalist freak show which has been forced upon the world, and who's mystical – "invisible hand" – can be found tightly wrapped around the throats of the poor everywhere?

Yes Joe I agree, I think we could have lived in a very different world had not the greed and pathology of U.S. and Western oligarchy quite intentionally and violently destroyed any possibility of a more humane and egalitarian world by routinely murdering those more humane leaders who could have helped us reach it. That possibility of a more humane world was replaced instead with the odious Maggie Thatcher's "there is no alternative" global nightmare of continued neocolonial pillage euphemistically called neoliberal capitalism. Only the fine-tuning of the rational for mass murder has changed. Now we have "duty to protect" – which translated from 'newspeak' means = "we now must bomb and kill you because we care about you so very, very much." Sort of a Western postmodern version of earlier justifications for slaughtering the indigenous in order to – "save their souls" I suppose. We in the West have created this current version of global "reality" through absolutely amoral unrelenting mass violence over 500+ years now, and sadly there does not seem to be any real evidence of a change of heart or direction in our global mayhem.

Joe Tedesky , August 3, 2018 at 9:24 pm

Gary I agree whole heartedly with every word you wrote. I would add to how intriguing it would be to learn of the high deception played during the passage of the Federal Reserve back in 1913. Then I'd push out of the way those who blocked Claude Pepper from endorsing Henry Wallace into the 1944 Democratic Convention. This alone may have changed the course of the establishment of the CIA, and avoided the disaster that is happening in Palestine to this day.

Thatcher & Reagan surly introduced us into this new economy which is often said to be doing so great, and there we are ruined by an overly eager Fed lender along with an out of sight Defense budget. Your job isn't there, and with that you are told to blame the union. Ah, the Union wasn't that what Margaret & Ronny sabotaged eventually . nice work.

I do believe the assassination era was the biggest turning point, as it sent a strong message to the would be seekers of sane government policies who would incur such tragedy if explored. Joe

Gary Weglarz , August 3, 2018 at 11:11 pm

Joe – I quite agree. The assassination era was the huge turning point, but as you point out the corruption and manipulation of democracy by the oligarchy goes way back. Yes, imagine if Wallace had been the VP for FDR? Had Wallace's nomination not been sabotaged, perhaps the Dulles brothers would have spent their remaining time on earth learning woodworking skills in prison workshop after being convicted for the treason of their Nazi dealings – instead of leading the CIA and State Dept. into the corrupt secrecy of multiple regime changes, assassinations, and endless insane cold war posturing. The Dulles CIA era, including it's loving embrace of the Nazi war criminals, seems to have a been in retrospect a very dark prelude leading up to the assassination era to follow. Ike certainly had some foreboding of the evil to come given his parting comments.

REDPILLED , August 4, 2018 at 5:04 pm

A brief recommended reading list:

  • The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot
  • The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the attack on U.S. Democracy by Peter Dale Scott
  • The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Mike Lofgren
Bob Van Noy , August 4, 2018 at 8:35 am

Joe and Gary, very nice and well informed thread, thank you. Clearly we all share the history that both of you mentioned and we also see through the now crumbling obfuscation. It will become our new duty to use that past experience and a new hope to help make an official case for correcting the official record and reclaiming Democracy. Actually it's a worthy endeavor and we're uniquely positioned to help

Consortium's Fan , August 7, 2018 at 10:42 am

"Sort of a Western postmodern version of earlier justifications for slaughtering the indigenous in order to – "save their souls" I suppose."

Or even earlier justifications (by the Holy Inquisition in the Middle Ages) to burn people alive to "save their souls".

Realist , August 4, 2018 at 6:03 pm

Excellent point, Joe. I wonder how different the history books will look if this country somehow manages to shed the warmongering hegemonists who have been in control for at least the last 70 years (or, one might argue, from its inception).

I'd also like to see an English translation of the current world history books, used in the schools of China, Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan, Cuba, Vietnam or dozens of other countries not part of the American World Empire. I'll bet American actions and motives are not portrayed to be as noble and pure as the driven snow. I'll bet even Mexico has a quite different take. Canada? You stopped our invasion in 1812, aided the slaves sent to you via the Underground Railway and refused to cooperate in the Vietnam fiasco. What happened since then? Now you extradite AWOL GI's who don't want to go back to the numerous "sand boxes" we play in. I'll bet those books, if ever published in English, would not be allowed on public library shelves in the U.S.

Stephen J. , August 3, 2018 at 4:45 pm

Interesting article.

I believe there are many questions that need answering about NATO. For instance: July 14, 2018 The Diabolical "Work" of NATO and Its Allies: Why Are These War Criminals Still Free?

NATO's recent meeting or summit in Brussels July 11 – 12, 2018, could be described as a gathering of heinous hypocrites. [1] There are millions of people dead, millions are refugees, their countries have been destroyed and our ruling hypocrites spout the words "rule of law." Has there ever been a gang of human reptiles (are they even human?) so evil, dressed in expensive suits [and dresses] and operating out of houses of power called "parliaments" and other houses of ill repute? These criminals, or gangsters, or bandits, or reprobates (Add your own epithet) are up to their filthy necks in the blood of the victims of their planned carnage.

Yet it was reported: "The summit will also discuss the fight against terrorism." Gee! Does that statement about fighting "terrorism" smack of hypocrisy? There is evidence that NATO and its members have, in fact, been consorting with, and supporting, terrorists. [2]
[much more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-diabolical-work-of-nato-and-its.html

[Aug 08, 2018] At some point the Western Powers decided the that old Communist Apparachik Milosevic would be the Bad Guy and the Croatian freedom-loving "our bastards" the good guys to be internationally recognized and thus enflamed the passion of secession.

Notable quotes:
"... At some point the Western Powers decided the that old Communist Apparachik Milosevic would be the Bad Guy and the Croatian freedom-loving "our bastards" the good guys to be internationally recognized and thus enflamed the passion of secession. The thing just flew apart. And afterwards we had to bomb the country in order to save it. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sic Semper , August 8, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT

I vividly recall the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo. I was nine-years-old and we were not wired for cable then. There also was no remote control for the 27″ Zenith color console. I was forced to watch some of the coverage for those reasons. Sarajevo was held up as a utopian city where Serbs, Croats and Muslims all lived in a beautiful city peacefully.

It was so beautiful said the announcers. And in less than a decade that Olympic stadium was turned into a cemetery as those peaceful Croats, Serbs and Muslims slaughtered each other. Once the Soviet Army withdrew from Yugoslavia and the nation disintegrated back into its ethnic lines, the killings started.

Imagine what is coming in the United States where the simmering hatreds are invited and exploited by not three distinct groups, but hundreds. Image what is to come when "historically aggrieved" peoples who have been weaponized for generations to despise their non-homogenous neighbors.

The erasure of common nationhood and the instilling of grievance as a caste system will see the US descend into chaotic slaughter the likes of which have never been seen before.

When Pakistan separated from India after the British pulled out, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus slaughtered each other, stopping trains filled with refugees being repatriated into their new nations and slaughtering every one of them. Americans have been so denuded of historical understanding that these histories are unknown.

The malevolence of humanity seething just under the surface until the opportunity arises for it to burst forth is forgotten by placated propagandized people. What people in world history have been more propagandized and placated than Americans who have been viewing carefully crafted scripts since their eyes were first able to focus on a tv screen and whose desperately poor are morbidly obese?

Stocking a warehouse to the rafters with volatile materials, packing them in so tightly until they near critical mass, now add in some agitation -- and light a match. The most devastating weapon ever devised in not the hydrogen bomb, it is a population bomb. A 100 megaton nuclear weapon destroys cleanly -- one flash and a wind storm -- it's all over aside from lingering sunshine units. In a thousand years the land will forget what had happened.

A population bomb where the very people have been weaponized will prove far more devastating and remain scarring the land for eons and that common memory lives on in the survivors igniting anew every few decades.

El Dato , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Sic Semper

Once the Soviet Army withdrew from Yugoslavia and the nation disintegrated back into its ethnic lines, the killings started.

That never happened though because the Soviet Army was never in Yugoslavia in the first place. It was Tito who maintained order with an iron fist.

At some point the Western Powers decided the that old Communist Apparachik Milosevic would be the Bad Guy and the Croatian freedom-loving "our bastards" the good guys to be internationally recognized and thus enflamed the passion of secession. The thing just flew apart. And afterwards we had to bomb the country in order to save it.

I vaguely remember a pretty explanation in First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia by David N. Gibbs

[Aug 08, 2018] The Utility of the RussiaGate Conspiracy

Images deleted...
Notable quotes:
"... The election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many ( Independent , 11/5/16 ). ..."
"... The Washington Post ( 11/24/16 ) was one of the first media outlets to blame the election results on Russian "fake news." ..."
"... Thomas Friedman ( Morning Joe , 2/14/18 ) pointedly compared email hacking to events that the US responded to with major wars. ..."
"... Outlets like Slate ( 5/11/18 ) warned of a sinister connection between Black Lives Matter and Russia. ..."
"... "We are at war," Morgan Freeman assures us on behalf of the Committee to Investigate Russia. ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | fair.org

New McCarthyism allows corporate media to tighten grip, Democrats to ignore their own failings Alan MacLeod

The election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many ( Independent , 11/5/16 ).

To the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, becoming the 45th president of the United States. Not least shocked were corporate media, and the political establishment more generally; the Princeton Election Consortium confidently predicted an over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC 's Rachel Maddow ( 10/17/16 ) said it could be a "Goldwater-style landslide."

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and her team actively attempted to secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest candidate to beat. The Podesta emails show that her team considered even before the primaries that associating Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning strategy and employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.

With Clinton claiming , "Putin would rather have a puppet as president," Russia was by far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates ( FAIR.org , 10/13/16 ), easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media seized upon the theme, with Paul Krugman ( New York Times , 7/22/16 ) asserting Trump would be a " Siberian candidate," while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden ( Washington Post , 5/16/16 ) claimed Trump would be Russia's "useful fool."

The day after the election, Jonathan Allen's book Shattered detailed, Clinton's team decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored "fake news" online was the primary reason for their loss.

Within weeks, the Washington Post ( 11/24/16 ) was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com , which purports to help users differentiate sources as fake or genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news ( FAIR.org , 12/1/16 , 12/8/16 ). The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources critiquing the "mainstream media," the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton, Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of Russian propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against foreign intervention and war with Russia, that's evidence that you are reading Kremlin-penned fake news.

The Washington Post ( 11/24/16 ) was one of the first media outlets to blame the election results on Russian "fake news."

PropOrNot claims it has identified over 200 popular websites that "routinely peddle Russian propaganda." Included in the list were Wikileaks , Trump-supporting right-wing websites like InfoWars and the Drudge Report , libertarian outlets like the Ron Paul Institute and Antiwar.com , and award-winning anti-Trump (but also Clinton-critical) left-wing sites like TruthDig and Naked Capitalism . Thus it was uniquely news sources that did not lie in the fairway between Clinton Democrats and moderate Republicans that were tarred as propaganda.

PropOrNot calls for an FBI investigation into the news sources listed. Even its creators see the resemblance to a new McCarthyism, as it appears as a frequently asked question on their website. (They say it is not McCarthyism, because "we are not accusing anyone of lawbreaking, treason, or 'being a member of the Communist Party.'") However, this new McCarthyism does not stem from the conservative right like before, but from the establishment center.

That the list is so evidently flawed and its creators refuse to reveal their identities or funding did not stop the issue becoming one of the most discussed in mainstream circles. Media talk of fake news sparked organizations like Google , Facebook , Bing and YouTube to change their algorithms, ostensibly to combat it.

However, one major effect of the change has been to hammer progressive outlets that challenge the status quo. The Intercept reported a 19 percent reduction in Google search traffic, AlterNet 63 percent and Democracy Now! 36 percent. Reddit and Twitter deleted thousands of accounts, while in what came to be called the "AdPocalypse," YouTube began demonetizing videos from independent creators like Majority Report and the Jimmy Dore Show on controversial political topics like environmental protests, war and mass shootings. (In contrast, corporate outlets like CNN did not have their content on those subjects demonetized.) Journalists that questioned aspects of the Russia narrative, like Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté, were accused of being agents of the Kremlin ( Shadowproof , 7/9/18 ).

The effect has been to pull away the financial underpinnings of alternative media that question the corporate state and capitalism in general, and to reassert corporate control over communication, something that had been loosened during the election in particular. It also impels liberal journalists to prove their loyalty by employing sufficiently bellicose and anti-Russian rhetoric, lest they also be tarred as Kremlin agents.

Thomas Friedman ( Morning Joe , 2/14/18 ) pointedly compared email hacking to events that the US responded to with major wars.

When it was reported in February that 13 Russian trolls had been indicted by a US grand jury for sharing and promoting pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes on Facebook , the response was a general uproar. Multiple senior political figures declared it an "act of war." Clinton herself described Russian interference as a " cyber 9/11 ," while Thomas Friedman said that it was a " Pearl Harbor–scale event ." Morgan Freeman's viral video, produced by Rob Reiner's Committee to Investigate Russia, summed up the outrage: "We have been attacked," the actor declared ; "We are at war with Russia." Liberals declared Trump's refusal to react in a sufficiently aggressive manner further proof he was Putin's puppet.

The McCarthyist wave swept over other politicians that challenged the liberal center. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein refused to endorse the Russia narrative, leading mainstream figures like Rachel Maddow to insinuate she was a Kremlin stooge as well. After news broke that Stein's connection to Russia was being officially investigated, top Clinton staffer Zac Petkanas announced :

  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
  • Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

"Commentary" that succinctly summed up the political atmosphere.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders has consistently and explicitly endorsed the RussiaGate theory, claiming it is "clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be involved in 2018." Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post ( 11/12/17 ) asking its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.

Outlets like Slate ( 5/11/18 ) warned of a sinister connection between Black Lives Matter and Russia.

It is not just politicians who have been smeared as Russian agents, witting or unwitting; virtually every major progressive movement challenging the system is increasingly dismissed in the same way. Multiple media outlets, including CNN ( 6/29/18 ), Slate ( 5/11/18 ), Vox ( 4/11/18 ) and the New York Times ( 2/16/18 ), have produced articles linking Black Lives Matter to the Kremlin, insinuating the outrage over racist police brutality is another Russian psyop. Others claimed Russia funded the riots in Ferguson and that Russian trolls promoted the Standing Rock environmental protests.

Meanwhile, Democratic insider Neera Tanden retweeted a description of Chelsea Manning as a "Russian stooge," writing off her campaign for the Senate as "the Kremlin paying the extreme left to swing elections. Remember that." Thus corporate media are promoting the idea that any challenge to the establishment is likely a Kremlin-funded astroturf effort.

The tactic has spread to Europe as well. After the poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei Skripal, the UK government immediately blamed Russia and imposed sanctions (without publicly presenting evidence). Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist, leftist leader of the Labour Party, was uncharacteristically bellicose, asserting , "The Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both decisive and proportionate."

The British press was outraged -- at Corbyn's insufficient jingoism. The Sun 's front page ( 3/15/18 ) attacked him as "Putin's Puppet," while the Daily Mail ( 3/15/18 ) went with "Corbyn the Kremlin Stooge." As with Sanders, the fact that Corbyn endorsed the official narrative didn't keep him from being attacked, showing that the conspiratorial mindset seeing Russia behind everything has little to do with evidence-based reality, and is increasingly a tool to demonize the establishment's political enemies.

The Atlantic Council published a report claiming Greek political parties Syriza and Golden Dawn were not expressions of popular frustration and disillusionment, but "the Kremlin's Trojan horses," undermining democracy in its birthplace. Providing scant evidence, the report went on to link virtually every major European political party challenging the center, from right or left, to Putin. From Britian's UKIP to Spain's Podemos to Italy's Five Star Movement, all are charged with being under one man's control. It is this council that Facebook announced it was partnering with to help promote "trustworthy" news and weed out "untrustworthy" sources ( FAIR.org , 5/21/18 ), as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives from some of the largest corporate outlets, like the New York Times , CNN and News Corp , to help develop a system to control what content we see on the website.

"We are at war," Morgan Freeman assures us on behalf of the Committee to Investigate Russia.

The utility of this wave of suspicion is captured in Freeman's aforementioned video . After asserting that "for 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to the world of what we can all aspire to" -- a tally that would count nearly a century of chattel slavery and almost another hundred years of de jure racial disenfranchisement -- the actor explains that "Putin uses social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political process."

The obvious implication is that the political process and media ought to be trusted, and would be trusted were it not for Putin's propaganda. It was not the failures of capitalism and the deep inequalities it created that led to widespread popular resentment and movements on both left and right pressing for radical change across Europe and America, but Vladimir Putin himself. In other words, "America is already great."

For the Democrats, Russiagate allows them to ignore calls for change and not scrutinize why they lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. Since Russia hacked the election, there is no need for introspection, and certainly no need to accommodate the Sanders wing or to engage with progressive challenges from activists on the left, who are Putin's puppets anyway. The party can continue on the same course, painting over the deep cracks in American society. Similarly, for centrists in Europe, under threat from both left and right, the Russia narrative allows them to sow distrust among the public for any movement challenging the dominant order.

For the state, Russiagate has encouraged liberals to forego their faculties and develop a state-worshiping, conspiratorial mindset in the face of a common, manufactured enemy. Liberal trust in institutions like the FBI has markedly increased since 2016, while liberals also now espouse a neocon foreign policy in Syria, Ukraine and other regions, with many supporting the vast increases in the US military budget and attacking Trump from the right.

For corporate media, too, the disciplining effect of the Russia narrative is highly useful, allowing them to reassert control over the means of communication under the guise of preventing a Russian "fake news" infiltration. News sources that challenge the establishment are censored, defunded or deranked, as corporate sources stoke mistrust of them. Meanwhile, it allows them to portray themselves as arbiters of truth. This strategy has had some success, with Democrats' trust in media increasing since the election.

None of this is to say that Russia does not strive to influence other countries' elections, a tactic that the United States has employed even more frequently ( NPR , 12/22/16 ). Yet the extent to which the story has dominated the US media to the detriment of other issues is a remarkable testament to its utility for those in power.

[Aug 08, 2018] America the Unexceptional by William S. Smith

Notable quotes:
"... National Review ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In the wake of President Trump's Helsinki press conference, National Review declared itself "Against Moral Equivalence." The magazine claimed that there could be no equating American meddling in foreign elections with Russian interference in our election because the goal of the U.S. is to "promote democracy and political liberty and human rights." Though while America's actions might be noble and have the sanction of heaven, National Review did concede that its efforts to promote democracy have often been "messy" -- an adjective that the people of Iraq might find understated.

Like many of Trump's critics, National Review 's embrace of American exceptionalism, of exempting the United States from the moral laws of the universe because of its commitment to democracy, is of a type the West has seen before. Swept up in their revolutionary enthusiasm, the French Jacobins made similar claims. In late 1791, a member of the Assembly, while agitating for war with Austria, declared that France "had become the foremost people of the universe, so their conduct must now correspond to their new destiny. As slaves they were bold and great; are they to be timid and feeble now that they are free?"

Robespierre himself was taken aback by the turn of a domestic revolution into a call for military adventurism. Of plans to invade Austria and to overthrow "enemies" of liberty in other nations, he famously remarked, "No one loves armed missionaries." (Robespierre's advice might have also benefited the American occupiers of Iraq.) The Jacobins' moral preening led France to declare war on Austria in 1792 and set in motion years of French military adventurism that devastated much of central Europe. Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became the legacy of self-declared French exceptionalism.

Hubristic nations that claim a unique place for themselves high atop the moral universe tend to be imperialistic. This is because claims of national exceptionalism, whether of the French or American variety, are antinomian, even nihilistic. The "exceptional" ones carve out for themselves an exemption from the moral law. And prideful claims of moral purity are the inevitable predicate to imposing one's will upon another. Once leaders assert that their national soul is of a special kind -- indispensable and not subject to the same rules -- the road to hell has been paved.

The Immorality of American Exceptionalism A Jacobin-in-Chief

While supporters of American exceptionalism are careful to claim the mantle of Western civilization, their philosophical orientation in fact amounts to a repudiation of the central principles of the West and the Constitution.

Arguably, the tradition of the Judeo-Christian West has been special because it has asserted that human nature is not particularly special. And the Constitution has been exceptional because it's warned Americans that we are not particularly exceptional.

For example, the legacy of Pauline Christianity, Irving Babbitt tells us, is "the haunting sense of sin and the stress it lays upon the struggle between the higher and lower self, between the law of the flesh and the law of the spirit." No person or nation is above this moral challenge. The uniquely American repudiation of exceptionalism shines brightly in The Federalist , where no angels can be found among men, and, because no one's behavior enjoys the sanction of heaven, extensive checks are placed upon people's ability to impose their wills upon others. The foreign policy that flowed out of the worldview of the Framers was that of George Washington, a strong recommendation against hubris and foreign meddling.

These historical and cultural warnings about human nature have since been swept away by acolytes of American exceptionalism. Our moral superiority, they claim, makes us Masters of the Universe, not careful and mindful custodians of our own fallen nature. We have been put on earth to judge other nations, not to be judged. Tossing the legacy of the Framers onto the ash heap of history, George W. Bush declared in his Second Inaugural Address that our exceptionalism creates an obligation to promote democracy "in every nation and culture." In this endeavor, Bush pronounced, the United States enjoys the sanction of heaven, as "history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of liberty." Bush's Second Inaugural was probably better in the original French.

Now, the puffed-up American establishment, many of whom supported the bloody Iraq war, drip with moral condescension as they brand Vladimir Putin an existential outlaw and the enemy of democracy, foreclosing the possibility of common ground with Russia on nuclear weapons, China, terrorism, and other issues that matter to the national security of the United States. That Washington has meddled in countless nations' affairs from Iraq to Russia -- and caused untold damage -- is of no account to the establishment. Rules do not apply to democracy promoters.

After the Iraq war, we should have reconsidered our hubristic American exceptionalism. One can take pride in the American tradition without laying claim to a uniquely beautiful national soul that is exempt from the laws of nature and of nature's God. The hysterical reaction to Trump's truthful admission that the United States too has made mistakes in its relationship with Russia is a sign that American exceptionalism is still in full flower among elites. Without the return of a certain humility, there will be more military adventures abroad and political strife at home.

William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. 11 Responses to America the Unexceptional

Nelson August 7, 2018 at 11:32 pm

I agree with the sentiment but the facts show we've always been this way. Historically speaking our hubris didn't start with George W. Bush. We had quite the exceptionalist spirt with "Manifest Destiny" back in the 19th century. And indeed it took a bit of hubris to declare independence from Britain.
charles cosimano , , August 8, 2018 at 2:44 am
All great powers are exempt from any moral law, not merely because it does not exist, but because even if it did, who could enforce it?
paradoctor , , August 8, 2018 at 2:44 am
Exceptionalism is the sin of pride.
Wayne Lusvardi , , August 8, 2018 at 2:58 am
Dr. Smith wrote his PhD dissertation in political philosophy on a critique of romanticism in political thinking. However, in the above article he somehow believes America is unexceptional for having exempted itself from God's laws and natural law. But what if American policy makers acted out of political necessity and realism, not "hubris" or un-humility? I might agree with Smith about using "democracy building" as a pretense for military intervention. But does Smith take what US presidents and congressmen say at face value? What if US intervention in Iraq had to do with trying to balance power between Iraq and Iran, or stop Islamic expansionism from pushing into Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? Moralism can be just as dangerous as democracy building in foreign affairs.
polistra , , August 8, 2018 at 3:21 am
We did renounce exceptionalism and imperialism after WW1. Wilson's pet agencies faded out and we focused internally. We remained non-interventionist until 1946 when the Wilsonians snatched power again.

We should figure out why and how the bureaucracy and media gave up Empire in the early '20s. Obviously the people were tired, just as they are now, but the people are irrelevant.

Something changed in the power structure. What was it? Can we help it to happen again?

Robert , , August 8, 2018 at 4:19 am
A very fine article, one of the best that TAC has published.
Andrew , , August 8, 2018 at 6:07 am
The writer in question of the referenced piece at National Review, Jimmy Quinn, is a 20something college intern, proving they aren't even interested in hiring newer young conservatives at NRO who don't just mindlessly repeat the neoconservative line on "American exceptionalism". They are long past their days as a serious magazine. If not by ideology, just by having a more interesting collection of writers, I'd say even the Weekly Standard is now a better magazine than National Review. It's become like the boring Pravda rulebook for Official Conservatism™ in America.
TomG , , August 8, 2018 at 8:29 am
Well done, Mr. Smith. Our hubris blinds this nation to the pain it inflicts in other lands. I reflect again and again on these words from the hymn (tune Finlandia):

This is my song, oh God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
and sunlight beams on clover leaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
and skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
This is my song, thou God of all the nations;
a song of peace for their land and for mine.

When nations rage, and fears erupt coercive,
The drumbeats sound, invoking pious cause.
My neighbors rise, their stalwart hearts they offer,
The gavels drop, suspending rights and laws.
While others wield their swords with blind devotion;
For peace I'll stand, my true and steadfast cause.

We would be one as now we join in singing,
Our hymn of love, to pledge ourselves anew.
To that high cause of greater understanding
Of who we are, and what in us is true.
We would be one in loving and forgiving,
with hopes and dreams as true and high as thine.

Roberto , , August 8, 2018 at 9:29 am
C'mon people, it's right to separate yourselves from the bombast and violent meddling we've done all over the world, but let's not get carried away with this ridiculous "we're just like any other bully" mentality.

The exceptionalism is in the elevation of individual human freedom as a foundational principle. We declared it, the French declared it, and it remains a beacon for many others, no matter how poorly we've observed it from time to time.

"Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became the legacy of self-declared French exceptionalism." No, that was the paroxysm of revolution, one that the U,S. fortunately avoided.
The real legacy was the sweeping away of monarchy across the continent, despite the irony of Napoleon making himself emperor.

For all our imperialism, did we treat western Europe the same as Stalin treated eastern Europe?
Is it just an accident of history that the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, former British colonies all, lead the world in the protection of individual human rights? You can draw a line, crooked though it may be, from those countries right back to the Magna Carta.

Yes, we had slavery, a legacy of our status as an agricultural colony, but the British, French, and Americans all abolished it because it couldn't square with our declared principles.

We may forget why we are exceptional but our immigration pressure shows that the the rest of the world hasn't.

JonF , , August 8, 2018 at 9:38 am
Re: The Jacobins' moral preening led France to declare war on Austria in 1792

It wasn't just the Jacobins: pretty much everyone wanted war. The royalists hoped that foreign intervention would restore Louis XVI as an absolute monarch. The moderates wanted to consolidate the gains of the Revolution and deflect public anger at its economic failings. The radicals, as noted, looked to evangelize Europe with the Rights of Man. And the foreign powers wanted to crush the Revolution lest its ideals take root in their own country -- and help themselves to this or that bit of France's empire.

john35 , , August 8, 2018 at 9:40 am
Thanks for reading "National Review" to bring us this hilarious declaration.

[Aug 08, 2018] Is Russia Facilitating Trump's Strangulation of Iran

Bloomberg article cited in Russia To Propose Rolling Back 1.8 Million Bpd Of Oil Cuts OilPrice.com is a rumor. Russians clearly understand that it was the USA who orchestrated 2014-2018 oil price slump which hurt Russia pretty severely with standard of living still not recovered to 2014 levels. There no trump toward the USA left. for russia the USA with its neocon foreign policy is now in a way "Great Satan" as it is for Iran.
Aug 08, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
put forward a proposal to OPEC to increase production by 1.8million barrels per day (bpd) – and, unusually, proposed that these increases were to start kicking in within weeks. In the end, a pact to increase production by 1 million barrels per day – spearheaded by Russia and Saudi Arabia – was agreed by OPEC and non-OPEC countries in late June. The rise was opposed by Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Algeria, with Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh commenting ahead of the meeting that "OPEC is not the organization to receive instruction from President Trump OPEC is not part of the Department of Energy of the United States".

Within days of the adoption of the Russian-led production increase, the Trump administration announced its plans to "reduce Iranian oil exports to zero" by November 4th. Questioned on whether such a policy might cause disruption as countries scrambled to replace supplies, State Department policy director Brian Hooks remarked that "we are confident there is sufficient global spare oil capacity." Russia's push for increased production had, in effect, smoothed the path for the next round of Trump's strangulation of Iran. It was precisely this deal which lay behind Trump's brazen claim that world oil supplies would plug the gap created by the loss of Iranian crude; without the end to Russian-Saudi production limits, this would have been unthinkable. As things stand, however, all the pieces are in place for Trump to apply serious pressure on all importers of Iranian oil. Whilst the Russian-Saudi deal offers alternative sources of supply, the trade war now underway demonstrates Trump's willingness to use tariffs against those who do not bend to his geopolitical will. Whilst Trump has openly threatened sanctions against those who do not heed his call to end their dealings with Iran, it is quite possible that those who do heed it will be rewarded with tariff exemptions. China, in particular – Iran's biggest trading partner, and now threatened with tariffs on all $500bilion of their exports to the US – will be particularly under pressure.

On the surface, then, Russia's actions appear self-defeating. The end to the, hugely successful, production quotas of the previous 18 months immediately triggered a drop in oil prices – Russia's main export commodity – whilst facilitating the escalation of US economic warfare against key Russian ally Iran. Yet there are several reasons Russia may be supporting Trump's moves.

Most obviously, Iran is a major competitor with Russia for oil export markets – especially in Europe. European hopes to reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies are likely to be seriously dashed if they can no longer turn to Iran as an alternative supplier. Quite simply, Russia will sell more oil without Iranian competition.

More than this, however, even Trump's use of tariffs as leverage to push countries away from Iran could be to Russia's benefit. If Trump does indeed make tariff-free access to the US market conditional on cutting investment and trade with Iran, China would face a major dilemma.

China has for some years been not only Iran's major trading partner, but investment financier as well. In 2011, China signed a $20 billion agreement to boost bilateral cooperation in Iran's industrial and mining sectors. Today, China is poised to take over development of the massive South Pars oil and gas field should the French company TOTAL pull out, as they are widely expected to do, whilst a $3billion deal was recently signed giving SINOPEC the right to expand the Abadan oil refinery in Khuzestan Province. Meanwhile, reports Fox News , "With the U.S. Treasury putting pressure on Western banks to not make any deals with Iran, the Chinese state-owned CITIC bank is extending lines of credit worth $10 billion for Iranian banks. This funding will finance water, energy and transport projects. To bypass U.S. sanctions, the lines of credit will use euros and yuan currencies".

But most significant for Russia is the 2017 $1.5 billion deal made by the Chinese Export-Import Bank to finance a high-speed railway between Tehran and Mashhad. The railway is envisioned to become part of China's 'Belt and Road Initiative' , creating a high-speed transit route between central Asia and Europe that will shave weeks off current travel times.

This May – in a clear act of defiance to the US – China opened a new train line between China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Tehran, shortening travel time by 20 days compared to cargo ship. Once the full vision of a Chinese built high-tech, high-speed rail network across central Asia is realised, however, the current 'Northern route' through Russia is likely to be rendered all but redundant.

Could it be, then, that Russia sees it as in its own interests to facilitate Trump's quest to chase Chinese investment out of Iran in order to preserve its trade routes and access to European oil markets?

If so, it is likely to be disappointed. For Iran is central not only to the Belt and Road Initiative – China's multi-trillion, multi-decade long 'geoeconomic' programme – but also to its defence strategy. As correctly observed in a recent piece published by The Diplomat, "Iran constitutes [China's] true priority. China has nurtured bilateral relations with Tehran for decades, leveraging a common resentment toward Western dominance . This partnership has great geostrategic importance to both nations. Thanks to its oil and gas reserves, Iran could help Beijing withstand a U.S. attack on its SLOCs (Sea Lines of Communication)."

For China, much as it naturally seeks to avoid further punishment from the US, Iran is simply too important to be bargained away. Unfortunately not so, it seems, for Moscow. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Dan Glazebrook

[Aug 08, 2018] US addiction to sanctions knows no bounds – Iranian foreign minister

Notable quotes:
"... "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers – from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," ..."
"... "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" ..."
"... "an absence of evidence." ..."
"... "a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being." ..."
"... "any property, or interest in property" ..."
"... "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them." ..."
"... "psychological warfare" ..."
"... "a strong and sincere ally." ..."
"... "won't be left without retaliation." ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.rt.com
The "addiction" of Washington to sanctions "knows no bounds," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said. It comes after Washington slapped two top officials from major ally Turkey with restrictions. "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers – from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," Zarif tweeted.

US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers - from an allied country - illustrates not just US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds.

-- Javad Zarif (@JZarif) August 2, 2018

In a heightening of tensions between the two allies, the US Treasury Department on Wednesday announced restrictions against Turkish Minister of Justice Abdulhamit Gul and Minister of Interior Suleyman Soylu over the continued detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson.

Brunson is being held by Turkey on charges of espionage and assisting the plotters of an unsuccessful 2016 military coup attempt.

The US says Brunson is "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" by the Turkish government, adding that he was accused with "an absence of evidence." US President Donald Trump has called the pastor "a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being."
The Treasury Department announced that "any property, or interest in property" of both Gul and Soylu within US jurisdiction is blocked and "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them."

Brunson's case has long been a stumbling block in already strained relations between Washington and Ankara. Days before the US Treasury announced its decision, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused his American counterpart of waging "psychological warfare" against Turkey over the pastor and warned that the US may lose "a strong and sincere ally."

Responding to the restrictions, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu tweeted that they "won't be left without retaliation."

US relations with Turkey have not been smooth in recent months. Among other things, Ankara and Washington are locking horns over Turkey's decision to buy Russian S-400 missile systems. Erdogan's government is also adamant on pushing ahead with the purchase of American F-35 jets, which US lawmakers are trying to block due to Ankara's S-400 deal.

Read more:

[Aug 08, 2018] The Empire-Lovers Strike Back Trump, Putin and the Post-Helsinki Uproar by Richard Rubenstein

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Resolving Structural Conflicts ..."
"... How Violent Systems Can Be Transformed ..."
Aug 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country? Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents, then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is anti-Empire.

Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.

The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the mid-1940's."

"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20 million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran, Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.; the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy at all costs.

It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent: the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance. There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style democracy seeking to liberate.

The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily, could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears" not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . . shocked!

In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be – to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.

This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world, with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many more bargaining options in the power game.

More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases, negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.

No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism, multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . . American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will act like an empire, and we will have open war.

In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S. military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his enemies is Empire.

What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.

My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives. We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony. Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD, slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.

Notes.

[1] The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).

[Aug 08, 2018] George Stephanopoulos is trying to criminalize any contacts with Russia

Notable quotes:
"... STEPHANOPOULOS: And I gave you a chance to explain all the irregularities you thought you saw in the investigation. I asked you about that. You said no collusion. At first the White House said that there were no contacts with Russians. We now know there were at least 80 contacts. If the White House or anyone connected to the Trump campaign accepted information from the Russians, that could potentially be collusion. That would be -- that could be considered collusion, could be considered participating with a conspiracy. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | crooksandliars.com

STEPHANOPOULOS: And I gave you a chance to explain all the irregularities you thought you saw in the investigation. I asked you about that. You said no collusion. At first the White House said that there were no contacts with Russians. We now know there were at least 80 contacts. If the White House or anyone connected to the Trump campaign accepted information from the Russians, that could potentially be collusion. That would be -- that could be considered collusion, could be considered participating with a conspiracy.

So that's also -- that's also the possibility of a legal violation there as well. But I do want to ask you about --

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: -- in that allegation, though, you'd have to -- the -- the so-called collusion, which by the way is not a legal term, that's now what results in a -- a-- a issue of criminality. I mean, that's just one theory (ph). And by the way, you know, the phrasing here, especially at this late date is very important. So everyone is still talking about this collusion concept. And when Rudy Giuliani said collusion's not a crime, that was again rather unremarkable.

What was the fact? I mean what was the fact? Well the facts that we know is what is the violation or what violation has anybody put forward of an actual federal statute that's been violated by the – by the president of the United States?

And we've yet to seen (ph) it, and as I said, we've seen an awful lot of it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well that's one of the things that Robert Mueller's investigating. I agree with you on that.

[Aug 08, 2018] Exclusive Iran, then Turkey, as the Hot War Gains Ground in Washington

Notable quotes:
"... The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present), have never known a real relaxation of tension. ..."
"... a warning against the oppressors of the people ..."
"... the outcasts have become creators of public norms ..."
"... 5Stars – League ..."
"... rhetoric of the clash between civilizations ..."
"... Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason, according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused. ..."
"... velayat-e faqih ..."
"... the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through the definition of a government able to run the law. ..."
"... The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist model of civilization. ..."
"... Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

The intelligence is coming in, Russia appearing to be pushed to the side, making many wonder what Netanyahu has on Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Iran should well be a "redline" for Russia but, increasingly, analysts are coming to believe that Trump and Putin at their conference in Helsinki may well have "sold Iran down the river."

The next target, of course is Turkey.

When Iran is gone, Turkey will go as well, with America having a long standing relationship with the Kurds and holding the what Trump's sees has his key to Turkey, Gulan, the radical cleric living in Pennsylvania, groomed by the CIA to become Washington's puppet in Ankara when Erdogan can finally be eliminated.

Behind this is an economic war. Israel is crushing the Palestinians, aided by Trump rag-tail relation and probably Mueller investigation target, Jared Kushner. Few are aware of the real "geologicals" from the Eastern Mediterranean, with massive gas deposits under Idlib and Latakia in Syria and adjacent Turkey and both off and onshore in Gaza. The Gaza reserves alone may well constitute the second largest untapped gas reserve in the world.

The the first under both Iran and Qatar, moves to put both nations "out of business," will benefit Israel, Russia and the US and push pipeline gas and LNG to new record highs.

It is always about the money and US sanctions on Iran and Russia are intended, of course, to bring the "hot war" on Iran to fruition as soon as possible.

Now for an Italian source on the issue translated by Pravda's Constantino Ceoldo

by Daniele Perra

The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present), have never known a real relaxation of tension.

The 1979 hostage crisis, as a result of which Pope John Paul II sent a request for release that Imam Khomeini rejected by arguing his answer with the fact that the Iranian people would have expected from the messenger of Christ a warning against the oppressors of the people and not solidarity with them, and the terrifying war of aggression that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, on US and Saudi commission, moved against the newborn Islamic Republic were only the first episodes of a long series of more or less direct confrontation between a nation with ancient history and culture and that paradise of Protestant eschatological heterodoxy in which, as the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin affirmed, the outcasts have become creators of public norms .

Add to this the fact that between the imposition of sanctions regimes on several levels and in different periods and direct interference in Iranian internal affairs (heavy exploitation of the protests of the so-called Green Movement and support to various terrorist groups that aim to destabilize the country: first among all the Mojahedin-e Khalq with offices in France and Albania), the US has never stopped aspiring and dreaming of that "regime change" that now, with the appointment of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State but above all of John R. Bolton as a national security advisor, seems to have come back very closely.

Also, and above all, because the fears for the Iranian presence in Syria, considered as an existential threat to Israel, has triggered various hysterical reactions between the North American Zionist lobby and the Israeli military and political leaders themselves. See in this regard the bombastic as unreliable presentation of "irrefutable evidence" on the Iranian violations of the JCPOA by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the twelve requests, drawn up by Mike Pompeo, that Iran should meet if it intends to renegotiate the agreement with the USA. Requests among which there appears to be at least a ridiculous cessation of aid to al-Qaeda and to the Afghan Taliban that Iran have always been sworn enemies and which, on the contrary, have often enjoyed the support of the US and Zionist intelligence . The Taliban, among other things, have carried out real massacres of the Hazara : the ethnic Shiite component of Afghanistan.

For what concerns Italy (Iran's first European commercial partner), the new sanctions imposed by the USA following the unilateral exit from the JCPOA would damage the economy much more than those, however useless, inflicted on Russia and the whose removal has been included (even if at the time it is taken into the background) in the program of the new yellow-green government [ 5Stars – League ].

The low negotiating power of European economic actors, faced with the forced choice between access (with the risk of sanctions) to the Iranian market or to the "imposed" US market, and the cultural subalternity that many governments continue to suffer towards the US, despite of the desire to preserve the JCPOA, do not foresee anything that does not go beyond the usual forms of masochistic schizophrenia of Europe.

Now, from a purely geopolitical point of view, the North American obsession with Iran is more than justified. The Islamic Revolution has overthrown a regime that in previous decades, except for the small parenthesis of the nationalist government of Mossadeq (not coincidentally overturned by a joint Anglo-American operation), had made of its total alignment to the United States its only form of international legitimacy and which, with Turkey, represented one of the "pillars" of North American geopolitics in the Middle East. And the Revolution has also prevented the North American elites from directly managing huge energy resources.

Iran, to date, is the third country in the world in terms of oil resources and the first in terms of natural gas reserves. It is therefore clear how the Trump administration, by launching the Energy Dominance doctrine aimed at achieving dominance on the global energy market, can not help but perceive Iran as a fearsome potential competitor and at the same time as a "prey" for the effective expansion and implementation of the aforementioned plan.

Nor should we forget the fact that Iran, as a pillar of the new multipolar order and a hegemonic power in the Middle East, represents a sort of black hole that threatens the US control of that Eurasian rimland that the geopolitical scholar Nicholas J. Spykman laid the foundation of the North American hegemonic system. However, there are other factors that, although preliminary to the North American hegemonic design, remain more related to the rhetoric of the clash between civilizations and the perception of an Islam that can not be used for its geopolitical purposes as an enemy to be fought and annihilated whenever possible. And even in this sense, the North American obsession with Iran appears more than justified.

Today's Iran, albeit with obvious defects (though not alien to any nation in the world), represents the antithesis par excellence of a model of civilization set on the magnificent and progressive fate of modernity. The Khomeinist Revolution developed as a reappropriation of the dimension of the sacred, as a restoration of that direct thread between the physical and metaphysical order that the Western modernity imposed by the Shah regime had almost irretrievably split. The Revolution, understood in the etymologically correct sense of the term re-evolution , has shown how the phenomenon of modernity has no connection with contemporaneity. Modernity is only a model of society, of civilization, of the vision of the world which through a process of reversion of time and of reappropriation of one's traditional "being in the world" can be overturned.

Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason, according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused.

But this law must refer to authentic Islam and not to its version counterfeited by Western colonialism. The Imam, for example, never stopped defining Wahhabism as American Islam . The doctrine of the velayat-e faqih (vicariate of the jurisconsult) as the foundation of the current Iranian political system, by the admission of Khomeini himself, is not the product of his theoretical elaboration. This is not something new, but is at the center of the question of Islamic government from the beginning. Khomeini limited himself only to a more in-depth analysis, identifying its roots in the Islamic tradition.

The vicariate of the jurisconsult is the order to fulfill a delivery. The assumption of the obligations of government and of the burden of command by the doctors of the law implies the realization of a precise purpose: to confirm the truth and to eliminate the lie. According to a well known prophetic hadith the doctors of the law are the custodians of the trust of the prophets. And as the Imam reiterates in his speech on the Islamic government:

the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through the definition of a government able to run the law.

A concept present on several occasions even in his most strictly focused works on irfan (gnosis) in which to the divine Nuncio and fixed archetype of the Perfect Man is given the task of preserving the limits established by God and preventing them from coming out of the confines of moderation. A call, that to measure, present in a relevant way also in Western culture, both in ancient Greece and in the Middle Ages. It is said, for example, that Frederick II Hohenstaufen, questioned by the legendary Priest Gianni (figuration of the Guenonian "King of the World") about what was the best thing in the world, replied: "the best thing in this world is measure".

It is therefore obvious that as a philosophical-metaphysical logos set entirely on the sense of measure and on the virtue of moderation it can not necessarily clash against a vision of the world based on excess (on that "gigantism" so stigmatized by Martin Heidegger) and on the negation of all that is human. Man realizes himself through thought. Being human means first of all to think and investigate around the sense of truth. And if the instrument of the intellect is not exercised and developed, man is transformed into a machine and is sacrificed on the altar of technique. The fact that Western thought has produced such an artificial act by determining its own suicide does not mean that every other civilization / culture must do the same in the name of unipolar globalization.

The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist model of civilization. And the same idea is also valid for what concerns Zionism that has imported this model in the Near East, openly confronting the Islamic world. In this regard, the Imam was particularly critical in the first place with the rabbis: "they – said Khomeini – despite being the guardians of Jewish religious law have done nothing to prevent the oppressors to pronounce their sinful words, spread lies, slander and distort the truth".

Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance

[Aug 08, 2018] Barack Obama Net Worth After Presidency Increased Nearly 3000%

Notable quotes:
"... How much money do you think Obama defines as "enough"? Would receiving $65 million for a book deal be "enough"? Or how about a multi-million dollar deal to produce a Netflix series ? And speaking of Wall Stress excesses, what would 2010 Obama think of 2017 Obama charging $500k per speech before the same Wall Street bankers he used to criticize? ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | thepoliticalinsider.com

Matt | Contributor | August 6, 2018 4:15PM

During a speech in 2010 on Wall Street reform, former President Barack Obama let out a telling remark about what he thinks of success. "We're not, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money . But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don't want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."

How much money do you think Obama defines as "enough"? Would receiving $65 million for a book deal be "enough"? Or how about a multi-million dollar deal to produce a Netflix series ? And speaking of Wall Stress excesses, what would 2010 Obama think of 2017 Obama charging $500k per speech before the same Wall Street bankers he used to criticize?

Now that he's amassed a fortune of its own, its unlikely he wants to spread that wealth around.

According to AOL , "Recent endeavors, along with the six-figure pension all former presidents receive -- have significantly contributed to Obama's current estimated net worth of $40 million. From the time he joined the US Senate in 2005 to the end of his presidency, Obama made $20 million alone from his presidential salary, book royalties, and investments, reports Forbes. And based on all the projects he's taking on in just his first-year post-presidency, we can only expect him to make many millions more."

In total, Obama has increased his net worth thirty-fold thanks to his Presidency.

He's but the second Democrat to monetize the Presidency in recent times. While the Clintons were "dead broke" (which I guess translates to "down to our last million") when leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary racked up a combined $153 million in speaking fees in the nearly two decades leading up to the 2016 election. And despite that, Bill, like Barack, receives a Presidential pension at the expense of the American taxpayer.

[Aug 08, 2018] Obama added some $12.8 Trillion Dollars to the debt.

Aug 08, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

RepaTea -> plakias , 6 Aug 2018 14:56

Why quote figures without context?

Obama came to power January 2008.

Financial crisis hit 2007/8

So he gets the blame for the cost?

Conservative estimate is it added some $12.8 Trillion Dollars to the debt.

Now please grow up and compare apples with apples and be honest about the context....

plakias -> RepaTea , 6 Aug 2018 14:49
On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. Most people would calculate Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president. But then Tom Eleven isn't "Most people".

[Aug 08, 2018] Has US misread the Iranian street

Aug 08, 2018 | www.csmonitor.com

"The hatred, the distrust, the dissatisfaction toward the establishment is growing here, no question about it," says the analyst. "People are protesting here and there. But what Trump is doing" makes the prospect of a popular uprising even more distant.

Citing "current America and these policies," which had shown the US to be "totally unreliable," Tehran dismissed an offer by Mr. Trump Monday to meet Iranian leaders with "no preconditions." The White House later clarified that it has no plans to change its policy of ratcheting up pressure and sanctions on Iran.

Ordinary Iranians have taken to Twitter using the hashtags #ShutUpTrump and #StopMeddlingInIran to condemn US actions.

"Trump's craziness has no end. But our unity is endless, too. So the more he shows his teeth, the more we will show our fists," says Saeed, a clean-shaven student of mechanical engineering at Azad University in Tehran who says he supports reformist politicians.

"We have passed all those hurdles in the past and this one, although it is more serious than ever, I'm sure we will successfully leave behind," says Saeed, who only gave his first name. "It is Trump who will be thrown away or, in the words of the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei], will be 'thrown into the dust bin of history.' We will stand behind the establishment forever."

Mutual hostility between the US and Iran has defined the geopolitical strife between these arch foes since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

... ... ...

Yet today Iranians also are reeling from being included – alongside Somalis and Yemenis – in a blanket seven-nation White House travel ban, even though an estimated one million Iranian-Americans live in the US.

They are baffled by Trump's unilateral US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. And they are feeling the bite of new US sanctions designed to put "unprecedented" economic pressure on Iran by cutting it off from the outside world, forcing all third-country business to withdraw, and blocking the sale of any Iranian oil.

[Aug 08, 2018] Imagine what is coming in the United States where the simmering hatreds are invited and exploited by not three distinct groups, but hundreds by Sic Semper

Notable quotes:
"... At some point the Western Powers decided the that old Communist Apparachik Milosevic would be the Bad Guy and the Croatian freedom-loving "our bastards" the good guys to be internationally recognized and thus enflamed the passion of secession. The thing just flew apart. And afterwards we had to bomb the country in order to save it. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sic Semper , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT

I vividly recall the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo. I was nine-years-old and we were not wired for cable then. There also was no remote control for the 27″ Zenith color console. I was forced to watch some of the coverage for those reasons. Sarajevo was held up as a utopian city where Serbs, Croats and Muslims all lived in a beautiful city peacefully.

It was so beautiful said the announcers. And in less than a decade that Olympic stadium was turned into a cemetery as those peaceful Croats, Serbs and Muslims slaughtered each other. Once the Soviet Army withdrew from Yugoslavia and the nation disintegrated back into its ethnic lines, the killings started.

Imagine what is coming in the United States where the simmering hatreds are invited and exploited by not three distinct groups, but hundreds. Image what is to come when "historically aggrieved" peoples who have been weaponized for generations to despise their non-homogenous neighbors.

The erasure of common nationhood and the instilling of grievance as a caste system will see the US descend into chaotic slaughter the likes of which have never been seen before.

When Pakistan separated from India after the British pulled out, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus slaughtered each other, stopping trains filled with refugees being repatriated into their new nations and slaughtering every one of them. Americans have been so denuded of historical understanding that these histories are unknown.

The malevolence of humanity seething just under the surface until the opportunity arises for it to burst forth is forgotten by placated propagandized people. What people in world history have been more propagandized and placated than Americans who have been viewing carefully crafted scripts since their eyes were first able to focus on a tv screen and whose desperately poor are morbidly obese?

Stocking a warehouse to the rafters with volatile materials, packing them in so tightly until they near critical mass, now add in some agitation – and light a match. The most devastating weapon ever devised in not the hydrogen bomb, it is a population bomb. A 100 megaton nuclear weapon destroys cleanly – one flash and a wind storm – it's all over aside from lingering sunshine units. In a thousand years the land will forget what had happened.

A population bomb where the very people have been weaponized will prove far more devastating and remain scarring the land for eons and that common memory lives on in the survivors igniting anew every few decades.

El Dato , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Sic Semper

Once the Soviet Army withdrew from Yugoslavia and the nation disintegrated back into its ethnic lines, the killings started.

That never happened though because the Soviet Army was never in Yugoslavia in the first place. It was Tito who maintained order with an iron fist.

At some point the Western Powers decided the that old Communist Apparachik Milosevic would be the Bad Guy and the Croatian freedom-loving "our bastards" the good guys to be internationally recognized and thus enflamed the passion of secession. The thing just flew apart. And afterwards we had to bomb the country in order to save it.

I vaguely remember a pretty explanation in First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia by David N. Gibbs

Chris Mallory , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 2:31 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

Secession was about slavery. The war was started by Lincoln for economic reasons.

jacques sheete , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Heisendude

How can there be a second civil war when the US never had one civil war?!

The so called Am Rev could, in many ways, be considered a "civil" war, and you are correct that the War of Northern Bankers Against Southern Planters was not a "civil war" but essentially another war of conquest and centralization and concentration of wealth in the hands of ever fewer.

In my opinion, as such concentration proceeds, it inevitably corrupts the morals and values (if any), of a polity and to me, it's pretty obvious that it's proceeding as expected and at an ever increasing rate.

[Aug 08, 2018] The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it

Notable quotes:
"... Continuous immigration makes the country a de facto one party state; the democrats win congress and the presidency and retain it through successive election cycles, all legitimized through the fig leaf of democratic voting. ..."
"... US financial life is punctuated by continual boom/bust cycles as minorities use the government to re-appropriate wealth for themselves at the expense of white Caucasians (see Zimbabwe and South Africa's looming land grab). We saw something like this with the housing crisis of 2008-9: George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy urged banks to lower lending standards for poor minorities; Wall Street got in on the act and, predictably, people with low incomes couldn't pay back what they owed and the system came crashing down as a result. Expect this to be a more frequent staple of future American life. ..."
"... Racial tensions reach a boiling point as intractable racial disparities in everything remain. Whites begin leaving for Eastern, Western Europe and eventually China and Japan once their populations fall enough for those countries to change their immigration laws. This brain drain crushes the United States. ..."
"... By 2070, the US ends up like the Soviet Union: a powerful external entity (China) foments rebellion among different groups; the country, poor and defeated, splits up. 300 years wasn't a bad run ..."
"... He agrees that high levels of immigration and economic inequality breed "popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of living standards and the declining fiscal health of the state )" and that in periods when economic inequality is high ("disintegrative phases") socio-economic well being and political cooperation plummet. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [370] Disclaimer , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 6:35 am GMT

The three most likely ways the United States will descend into tyranny, from most likely to least likely are the following:

1. Continuous immigration makes the country a de facto one party state; the democrats win congress and the presidency and retain it through successive election cycles, all legitimized through the fig leaf of democratic voting.

With electoral checks removed, radical leftists will rescind most American rights such as free speech and association – tacitly, they won't directly say that's what they are doing, rather they will present it with terms like "hate crime" and the like. Say the wrong thing, and you will get fired, your bank will deny you service, and you will be subject to international media scorn. They'll start with traditionally "right wing" freedoms like gun rights, speech, and religious affiliation. But they'll move on to internet anonymity and the secret ballot.

Expect endless media-generated witch trials of dissenters and two minute orgies of hate for white Caucasians, and to a lesser extent, East Asians.

Expect a security state that monitors and records EVERYTHING you do for future use against you should it be necessary – phone calls, internet usage, public travel via CCTV and automobile/cell phone tracking (they already do that) perhaps even what you do in your own home via technologies that can see through walls, record through television and computer cameras and mics, and inquiries to personal AI assistants like Siri. Quantum computer-based AI will additionally be able to track down internet posters through sophisticated mathematical analysis, encryption breaking, and grammar/syntax analysis.

Future development of AI makes brainwashing and propaganda easier than anyone could have previously imagined. This works miracles at controlling the population for a while, but even AI can't erase day-to-day multicultural tensions through personal interactions. People begin disbelieving everything they see and hear from the media. Ironically, this presents propaganda opportunities for foreign governments against the US population.

The country will become increasingly ungovernable. The corrupt oligarchical media, owned and controlled by individuals loyal to the democrat party, lie endlessly on their behalf. The internet is eventually censored using "harassment" and "hate speech" as a pretext. Those who oppose this are labeled supporters of hate – a derivation of the "think of the children" fallacy.

The US tries to counter a rising China militarily but fails. America's military isn't committed; it's just a job in a country no one has any true loyalty to anymore (like the Roman Empire in the early fifth century). There may be a battle over Taiwan that the US navy loses. A multicultural US population has no desire to fight a protracted war with a determined, nationalist and nearly homogeneous China, so the US backs off after a single humiliating sea battle. The event presages a new Chinese century much like US entry into WWI marked a new era or the Russo-Japanese war marked the end of Western military hegemony for the first time since the end of the Middle Ages.

Sensing a sea change, Asian governments like Japan begin rapprochement with China. US alliances falter in Asia.

As SJWs take over Hollywood and churn out leftist agitprop, new centers of culture and entertainment pop up in China. Just as the Russians hoarded Western pop music during the Cold War, many white Americans do the same with Chinese movies and books – their own movies and books being uninteresting propaganda (see the downfall of the US comic book industry for an example of what is to come) – and sometimes even racist anti-white trash.

Diversity (non-white) efforts cripple US industry. Meritorious China becomes even more economically dominant than expected at American expense.

US financial life is punctuated by continual boom/bust cycles as minorities use the government to re-appropriate wealth for themselves at the expense of white Caucasians (see Zimbabwe and South Africa's looming land grab). We saw something like this with the housing crisis of 2008-9: George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy urged banks to lower lending standards for poor minorities; Wall Street got in on the act and, predictably, people with low incomes couldn't pay back what they owed and the system came crashing down as a result. Expect this to be a more frequent staple of future American life.

The US's financial stability is threatened when massively expensive social programs – ineptly thought out and implemented – drive up the federal deficit to record highs; the government raises taxes to cover the losses. This works for a time, but there is only so high taxes can be raised before the economy suffers. A sovereign debt crisis looms. The country becomes ever more socialist.

Racial tensions reach a boiling point as intractable racial disparities in everything remain. Whites begin leaving for Eastern, Western Europe and eventually China and Japan once their populations fall enough for those countries to change their immigration laws. This brain drain crushes the United States.

US standing in the world falls dramatically as Europeans recoil in horror at the prospect of their own people's looming – similar – fate. Democracy is discredited world wide. Elections still happen, but in many places they simply serve as propaganda to legitimize ruling regimes.

The US attempts to solve its problems by picking fights with smaller countries, the logic being that the population will rally around the flag in response, distracting everyone from internal strife. These military adventures will not go well, leading to increasing internal unrest.

The elite will engage in a Cold War with Russia because the Russians are white; the belief among the establishment is that this will distract America's majority minorities from attacking white Americans, the country's single most valuable resource. This leads to a series of dangerous standoffs and, perhaps, even war.

By 2060, the US is much weakened. China has an economy 3-4x larger than the total US economy. China has military bases in most of South America and perhaps even Mexico. China also has a military that dwarfs the US military in technological sophistication, size, and overall determination.

By 2070, the US ends up like the Soviet Union: a powerful external entity (China) foments rebellion among different groups; the country, poor and defeated, splits up. 300 years wasn't a bad run.

2. The democrats take back all branches of government in 2020. By 2028, it is apparent that no Republican can win the White House ever again. One of the Red States secedes. The US military, purged of patriotic white men and filled with immigrant scabs, brutally attacks said Red State; Obama did something very similar when he started filling the military with immigrants. Also, one poll after Charlottesvile indicated that the vast majority of the military would favor using the national guard to shut down those protestors, so they definitely aren't on our side (your feelings about the protestors and their views are irrelevant, but the sentiment expressed by the military in regards to the expression of constitutionally-protected public beliefs is astonishing); don't be surprised when the military does whatever the democrats demand in the future, including shooting protestors or putting down rebellions with force.

This is not a civil war because you don't have a situation where groups fight over control of the government. This is a massacre perpetrated by the left and it's been building for years now – from "punch a Nazi" and encouraging violence against Sarah Huckabee to antifa terrorist attacks on protestors and doxxing dissenters.

Future historians (Chinese and Indian) will wonder why Red States didn't break off sooner when they had the chance. They will point out that a frog put in a pot won't leap out if the temperature is raised slowly. They will use this to remind themselves that democracy is ultimately a fool's errand.

3. Some patriotic element of the Deep State concocts a plan for Trump to remain president permanently. The 2020 election is called off. The democrat party is banned and voting is limited to republicans. The government works to reverse the country's looming demographic disaster.

CCZ , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 7:04 am GMT
Peter Turchin, author of "Ages of Discord: A Structural Demographic Analysis of American History" (2016) has examined the "demographic, social, and political trends that changed direction from favorable to unfavorable in America around the 1970s" and has concluded that "in the United States social instability and political violence would peak in the 2020s."

He agrees that high levels of immigration and economic inequality breed "popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of living standards and the declining fiscal health of the state )" and that in periods when economic inequality is high ("disintegrative phases") socio-economic well being and political cooperation plummet. Most importantly, he cites "the key role of "elite overproduction" in "driving waves of political violence, both in historical societies and in our own." [United States]

"Increasing inequality leads not only to the growth of top fortunes; it also results in greater numbers of wealth-holders. Rich Americans tend to be more politically active than the rest of the population. In technical terms, such a situation is known as 'elite overproduction'. Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class. the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions."

"The victory of Donald Trump changes nothing in this equation. The 'social pump' creating new aspirants for political offices continues to operate at full strength. In addition to politically ambitious multi-millionaires, the second important source of such aspirants is U.S. law schools, which every year churn twice as many law graduates as there are job openings for them, about 25,000 "surplus" lawyers, many of whom are in debt. It is emblematic that the 2016 election pitted a billionaire against a lawyer."

jacques sheete , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 1:06 pm GMT
@Anon

The three most likely ways the United States will descend into tyranny, from most likely to least likely are the following:

Will descend?

Done deal. What do you think the constitution was all about?

The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

mises.org/daily/4254

Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.

-Lysander Spooner, No Treason: No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority, p1. (1870)

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf

[Aug 08, 2018] In past wars, civilian oil tankers did not sail through the straits

Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , • Website August 4, 2018 at 6:03 am GMT

Four key points:

1. Iraq is run by a pro-Iran Shite government that tolerates the US occupation due to the money provided. Before the USA attacks Iran, it should remove all its 10,000 troops and 10,000 civilians and close its massive embassy there and write that country off. Otherwise, we'll have thousands of American POWs. Meanwhile, the Kurds will get crushed as the Turks and Iraqis use the chaos to destroy them.

2. The oil-rich British puppet state of Kuwait is hated by all Iraqis and Iranians. If the USA attacks Iran, one should expect Iranian and maybe Iraqi units crossing the border, while Kuwait's army flees as expected. The USA keeps an army brigade there, but that may not be enough to fend off an invasion, even with air superiority.

3. In past wars, civilian oil tankers did not sail through the straits. The insurers (mostly Lloyds of London) and others announced they would not cover losses, and unionize ship crews refused to enter the war zone. So even if the USA keeps the straits open, all that oil will not flow forth.

4. Iran has a fortified island in the Gulf whose guns cannot be silenced with just air power. A major amphibious landing is required to clear that island, and it will be bloody. Note the ship channels in the map. Supertankers are huge, so while the Straits of Hormuz are large, these big ships can only pass thru these two narrow channels, which are easily blocked. Iran could park its own tankers in these channels to block them and hope the USA foolishly sinks them, thus really blocking the entire channel.

These four issues are of more importance than air battles over Iran.

[Aug 08, 2018] The CIA, FBI, and US army killed Dr. King with the help of their organized crime assets. JFK might be killed the same way

Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

From: Civil War II Coming by Kevin Barrett

William Pepper -- the King family's attorney who proved in a court of law that the CIA, FBI, and US army killed Dr. King with the help of their organized crime assets -- once spoke with a US Army Colonel who admitted to helping plan the assassination. The Colonel said that the military had done extensive focus group style interviews with participants in the 1967 race riots and determined that Dr. King's charisma was the biggest factor driving the riots.

Counterintuitively, the apostle of nonviolence was inspiring the psychological liberation of black people in such a way that a certain percentage felt empowered to act out their repressed anger. So when King determined to bring half a million followers to Washington, DC and stay there until the feds pulled out of Vietnam and declared a real war on poverty, the Colonel and his friends immediately envisioned the nation's capital erupting into mass violence that could spread nationwide on a scale many orders of magnitude beyond what had happened during 1967's Long Hot Summer, perhaps precipitating a real civil war culminating in the revolutionary overthrow of the American State. This, the Colonel explained to Pepper, was the primary reason King had to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

Predictably, the Deep State's murder of Dr. King did not solve the racial violence problem. The assassination itself set off a wave of new riots in cities including Chicago, Baltimore, and -- sorry, Colonel -- Washington, DC. White-dominated forces of the State retaliated with escalating repression. Black communities felt increasingly under siege, and have continued to feel that way until the present day.

[Aug 08, 2018] Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement on the already identified Enemies of the People

Notable quotes:
"... please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in 1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate targets of war. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [207] Disclaimer , Next New Comment August 8, 2018 at 7:08 am GMT

After observing Skynet's coordinated attack on Alex Jone's Infowars yesterday, we can hardly wait to implement Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement on the already identified Enemies of the People, and eagerly await the God-Emperor's word.

Second, please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in 1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate targets of war.

No one else may have been paying attention to the unintended consequences of that, but many folks on our side of the present divide were. Food for thought. A reminder about the shape of the battlefield (legal and otherwise) and Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/man-bites-dog-dogs-get-pissed-off.html

[Aug 08, 2018] The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation

Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Question , August 3, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Johnny Rico

Thank you for the clarification. Based on their research, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Professor of History at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Terry Charman, a Senior Historian at London Imperial War Museum, concur:

"
"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," Hasegawa, a Russian-speaking American scholar, said in an interview.

Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings -- 140,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea, which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and Terry Charman

"The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."
"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html

Pablo , August 3, 2018 at 10:47 pm GMT
@Question

"Isn't this patently contradicting the historical fact that Japan surrendered (militarily, what else!) precisely because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic destructions? "

Another victim of the American education system and Hollywood history lessons

[Aug 08, 2018] Trump as the disposable President for the Neocons?

The US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War
Notable quotes:
"... The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him. The best example of this kind of "ownership" is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded. The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran. ..."
"... Where is the UN in this? What use is the UN if it can't prevent this ghastly scenario? ..."
"... Trump's tactic is chutzpah, doing anything he wants and saying screw you ..."
"... Europe is so weak it can barely force through a gas pipeline against Washington's displeasure. ..."
"... Iran is guilty . It has section and groups who want to kneel before USA for personal gains. No different from Russia, India, Pakistan and even Syria and Libya. The world suffers from this Anerican centric view of the economy and the growth . ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him. The best example of this kind of "ownership" is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded. The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran.

It appears that the Neocons have a basic strategy which goes like this: " we hate Trump and everything he represents, but we also control him; let's use him to do all the crazy stuff no sane US President would ever do, and then let's use the fallout of these crazy decisions and blame it all on Trump; this way we get all that we want and we get to destroy Trump in the process only to replace him with one of "our guys" when the time is right ". Again, the real goal of an attack on Iran would be to bomb Iran back into a pre-revolutionary era and to punish the Iranian people for supporting the "wrong" regime thus daring to defy the AngloZionist Empire. The Neocons could use Trump as a "disposable President" who could be blamed for the ensuing chaos and political disaster while accomplishing one of the most important political objectives of Israel: laying waste to Iran. For the Neocons, this is a win-win situation: if things go well (however unlikely that is), they can take all the credit and still control Trump like a puppet, and if things don't go well, Iran is in ruins, Trump is blamed for a stupid and crazy war, and the Clinton gang will be poised to come back to power.

The biggest loser in such a scenario would, of course, be the people of Iran. But the US military will not fare well either. For one thing, a plan to just "lay waste" to Iran has no viable exit strategy, especially not a short-term one, while the US military has no stomach for long conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq are bad enough). Furthermore, once the US destroys most of what can be destroyed the initiative will be in the Iranians' hands and time will be on their side. In 2006 the Israelis had to fold after 33 days only, how much time will the US need before having to declare victory and leave?

If the war spreads to, say, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria, then will the US even have the option to just leave? What about the Israelis – what options will they have once missiles start hitting them (not only Iranian missiles but probably also Hezbollah missiles from Lebanon!)?

Former Mossad head Meir Dagan was fully correct when he stated that a military attack on Iran was "the stupidest thing I have ever heard" . Alas, the Neocons have never been too bright, and stupid stuff is what they mostly do. All we can hope for is that somebody in the US will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.

Dan Hayes , August 3, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT

The Saker,

Israel seems to act with impunity carrying out assassination and intelligence-gathering operations inside Iran.

How important would these covert strengths be in an actual war?

Just asking.

no , August 3, 2018 at 8:45 am GMT
You omit a potential land attack on Israel via Syria and Lebanon.
MarkU , August 3, 2018 at 10:34 am GMT
If there is one thing we have learned over the last few decades it is that there is nothing too stupid, ignorant, arrogant, demented or evil for the US to do.

Just a few months ago Iran was quite willingly and certifiably honouring the terms of the nuclear deal, now they are quite possibly going to be subjected to a completely unprovoked attack, with or without some (probably fabricated) Casus belli.

Where is the UN in this? What use is the UN if it can't prevent this ghastly scenario? It seems doubtful that the Europeans will do anything, they have been craven enough to go along with the US on the Russia "threat" despite them having a military budget nearly four times larger than that of the RF and a population about three times bigger (The Europeans have even for all intents and purposes sanctioned themselves at the behest of the US) Do we seriously believe that Russia and China are going to sit idly by while Iran is being bombed and its oil bearing regions invaded? Potentially nuclear armed missiles flying around near the southern border of Russia anyone?

If anyone has seen the 1984 nuclear war drama "Threads" they will be noticing an eerie similarity.

Anonymous [312] Disclaimer , August 3, 2018 at 2:09 pm GMT
@MarkU

"Jesus Christ, they're doing it."

It's too bad youtube took down the whole movie, with the Iranian invasion and newscast sequences at the beginning. Maybe vimeo or dailymotion has it up

Den Lille Abe , August 3, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
from another thread, same subject:

All said US lost ~9K aircraft in the Vietnam war, to hostile action and a further 500 in accidents, approximately 58 000 KIA.

Yes , i understand Vietnam is not Iran (Iran is not a rice paddy), but the US is not the same either, now it is a "professional" defense force, whose Navy rams defenseless civilian ships (or cant perform at all) , whose Air force planes keep falling from the sky and whose Army are best moving down civilians.

Of course Iran would loose such a war, no doubt, but can the US sustain the losses, can public opinion ? Say 15 000 bodybags ? 25 000 ? 50 000?

I doubt the US can even put 100 000 soldiers on the ground, combat soldiers, that is, not 3′rd echelon cooks and chauffeurs, very few armies can. Iran has got at least 5 000 000 trained people with ammo and a AK 47 or RPG eager to put a dent in the US. (China has between 15 – 40 Million they can draw from).

Forget it, the Iranians can simply "trample" the US to death, at least until the US runs out of body bags.

And consider if the US starts a war, we don't have to trade with it anymore, its under sanction, goodbye "Rare metals" (China), goodbye computer chips (China) goodbye everything, because the US cant produce anything (No factories) and has few resources left, hehe.

Sanction the American people to a dose of "concentration camp", 900 calories a day, candle light, and horse drawn transportion! The Morgentau plan is fulfilled ! I will bathe in Champagne, wash my cojones in Budweiser when that happens. And Israel ? What Israel ? You mean Palestine ? ahhhh I will feed a bagel to the ducks!

And no, i don't think it will be necessary to learn either Russian or Chinese, I think we might get along well enough.

Frederick V. Reed , Website August 3, 2018 at 4:01 pm GMT
There is an awful lot of wishful thinking in this. Trump's tactic is chutzpah, doing anything he wants and saying screw you if you can't take a joke. Europe is so weak it can barely force through a gas pipeline against Washington's displeasure.

Neither China nor Russia is likeliy to go to war for Iran, and who else is there? If Iran did manage to block the Straits for more than a short time, do we think the Judaeo-Trumpians would say sorry and back off? Even if Trump used nukes, what could the world do? Be outraged, and learn not to cross the Empire. And diesel electrics have to surface.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 3, 2018 at 4:59 pm GMT
@Frederick V. Reed

Neither China nor Russia is likeliy to go to war for Iran, and who else is there?

There is a larger structure called Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Xi since 2016 was calling on accepting Iran into it, with Iran having currently an Observer status. For Russia it will be enough (which was done before already) to place some of its VKS units on Iranian airfields, especially under auspices of SCO military practices and even bombing will become a huge issue. Russia is not going to allow any hostile power to have direct access to Caspian Sea. Again, WHAT war? Combined Arms invasion–that will be the end of the US as we know it. Bombing? Let's wait an see. In fact, it is not up to Russia, it is up to Iran do decide how to proceed–Iran has options. Will she exercise them?

Even if Trump used nukes, what could the world do? Be outraged, and learn not to cross the Empire . And diesel electrics have to surface.

Ahh, what? Is the world "crossing" the Empire now? Russia is, but then again she can erase the Empire from the map. This mental construct is so "out there" that it is even difficult to respond properly to it. I omit here, of course, a gigantic political fallout for US which will make it a de facto a pariah in case it decides to use nukes. In fact, I can predict with a good degree of probability what is going to happen. For starters–dedollarization will go into overdrive.

If Iran did manage to block the Straits for more than a short time, do we think the Judaeo-Trumpians would say sorry and back off

The only thing with which I may agree here. In fact, if one of the US Navy carriers (God forbids), somehow gets damaged, let alone sunk, one may expect an escalation to a nuclear threshold since US is inherently nuclear weapons-biased since can not take any serious conventional losses, especially in terms of a naval assets. But I agree, that with about 2-3 air-wings in a vicinity of Hormuz Strait, plus the wing of ASW aviation on call–neither Iranian submarine forces, nor, especially those proverbial "speed boats" will be much of a strategic challenge.

WorkingClass , August 3, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT

All we can hope for is that somebody in the US will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.

We all know how to stop them. But nobody wants to say it out loud. Certainly not me.

tulips , August 3, 2018 at 10:13 pm GMT
1) The oil and gas infrastructure of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. are all fixed targets, relatively easy to destroy by missiles. Iran would likely destroy all regional oil and gas infrastructure, if their's is damaged.

2) Also, Iran has a nuclear reactor right on the shores of the Persian Gulf? If that is blown up, or even fails because staff or electricity are not available, then the Persian Gulf, and maybe Turkey and Israel, would be hit by heavy radioactive fallout, like at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

3) Finally, Iran has many skilled and able electronics and programming young people. Iran was able to take control of, and land undamaged, America's most advanced surveillance drone. It is likely that a war on Iran would unleash cyberwar and cause damage to electrical, communication, and finance systems in the USA, in ways and places that we have not imagined.

Napoleon was certain to defeat Russia. Hitler was certain to defeat Russia. The US was certain to defeat North Korea and certain to defeat Vietnam. But the outcomes of wars are not certain. Which it is why rational people do not like war.

pogohere , Website August 3, 2018 at 10:17 pm GMT
@Den Lille Abe

China is dependent on the US for semiconductor chips. That's why the ZTE fines were an issue. (see: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/zte-reportedly-finalizing-comeback-deal-with-us-government/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/us/politics/trump-trade-zte.html

China buys $US200+ billion in computer chips from the US and produces ~$US 20+ billion itself.

Robots, chips and the pursuit of China's tech dreams

7-10-18

Despite its high-profile ambitious, the world's second-largest economy still has to rely on a steady supply of foreign-made semiconductors, the heartbeat of the "Internet of Things" and the industrial factories of the future.

To illustrate the point, China's fragility was exposed last month when ZTE was dragged into President Donald Trump's trade war. At one point, there were fears it would go under after being banned for seven years from buying US-made components such as chips.

"Xi himself has made semiconductor development a priority for years," Jesse Heatley, a director at Albright Stonebridge Group and a security fellow with the Truman National Security Project, wrote for The Diplomat in April.

"Almost exactly two years ago, he gave a controversial speech in which he similarly assailed China's dependence on foreign suppliers and urged mastering 'core technologies.' At that time, China observers noted Xi's plans to develop globally competitive chipset champions and challenge foreign tech firms' dominance."

The task will be daunting. A glance at the global semiconductor industry underlines just how far behind the country is when it comes to chip manufacturing, and R&D.

Last year, revenue from the sector in the US edged close to $250 billion compared to China's miserly $24.7 billion, statistics from IEK, which is part of the government-sponsored Industrial Technology Research Institute in Taiwan, showed.

With such a disparity, it is hardly surprising that Chinese companies have to import about $200 billion worth of chips from the US each year.

http://www.atimes.com/article/robots-chips-and-the-pursuit-of-chinas-tech-dreams/

FB , August 3, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

' But Iran is not an "easy" ally and as events with initial lifting of sanction demonstrated, she forgot about Russia the minute they were lifted–Russians are extremely well aware of this "small" fact, especially the way Iran proceeded, despite warnings, in commercial aerospace '

No argument there I've been saying the same thing for a long time the Iranian aviation press started badmouthing Russian civil aircraft the minute sanctions were lifted [thanks mostly to Russia] and then placing $20 billion orders with Boeing and Airbus

Not to mention the trouble they are causing in Syria even Assad is holding his nose

I'm no fan of Iran, or religious extremism of any kind but merely was debunking the horseshit about Iranian air defense spouted by clown Margolis

As for the P8, I'm not badmouthing it it's an impressive piece of work but I also know the MIC 'way' which is to deliver crap that doesn't work and takes years to actually get working, if ever and regardless of MAD or no MAD the main weapon against subs is still dropping sonobuys to find the sub in the first place the P8 just isn't the right tool for the strait of Hormuz even if working properly

And I still maintain that even with the four S300 batteries in Iran [each has four TELs, the mobile launchers, so that's 16 total] Iran can close its airspace and that over the strait mounting a serious SEAD effort is not going to be a Sunday walk in the park they also have a lot of S200s, which they have reportedly modernized and mounted on trucks [and we recall how Syria brought down that F16 with its S200 a few months ago] the S200 missile itself is still a monster even compared to S400 it's actually faster at 2500 m/s that's near mach 10 at high altitude compare that to US SAM technology the SM6 has a whopping M3.5 top speed and uses the AIM120 air to air missile seeker

[There is also a ground-launched version of the AIM120 the SLAAMRAM...Houthis in Yemen are doing the same thing, turning old Soviet R27 AA missiles into SAMs...actually hit a Saudi F15 with one...of course one would expect the US MIC to be somewhat more sophisticated]

I would not be surprised if the Bavar 373 is a decent SAM at least the missile kinematic performance, since the Iranians have shown they can build pretty good missiles [the Syria strike a while back comes to mind, impressively precise from such a long range] piggybacking those off the big Russian radars and they might have an impressive air defense capability overall [I doubt their own radar tech is up to big league standards just yet]

But overall I agree there's no way that Putin is going to 'save' Iran if the US attacks but then I doubt the US is going to attack I think it's pretty far fetched Trump just offered 'no preconditions' talks to Iran so I think the whole thing is political theater US sanctions will seriously hurt Iran and Trump needs to look like a winner for domestic politics he can do this by simply redoing an Iran deal that is basically the same thing with window dressing

FB , August 3, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT
@tulips

' Iran has many skilled and able electronics and programming young people. Iran was able to take control of, and land undamaged, America's most advanced surveillance drone. It is likely that a war on Iran would unleash cyberwar and cause damage to electrical, communication, and finance systems in the USA, in ways and places that we have not imagined '

That's an interesting point Here is part of what Major General Qassim Soleimani said after that all-caps tweet threat by Trump

' We are near you where you can't even imagine '

I found that puzzling but your mention of cyberwar and civil infrastructure sabotage could in fact be what he was alluding to

Incidentally he also said this

'You threaten us with an action that is 'unprecedented' in the world. This is cabaret-style rhetoric. Only a cabaret owner talks to the world this way.

What was it that you could do over the past 20 years but you didn't? You came to Afghanistan with score of tanks and personnel carriers and hundreds of advanced helicopters and committed crimes there. What the hell could you do between 2001 and 2018 with 110,000 troops? You are today begging Taliban for Talks.

Afghanistan was a poor country, what the hell could you do in this country that you are currently threatening us?

You arrogantly attacked Iraq with 160,000 troops and multiple times (military equipment) compared to what you used in Afghanistan. But what happened? Ask your then commander who was the person that he sent to me and asked 'Is it possible for you to give us time and use your influence so that our soldiers will not be attacked by the Iraqi fighters in these few months until we exit the country?'

Have you forgotten that you provide adult diapers for your soldiers in the tanks? Despite that you are currently threatening the great country of Iran? With what background to you threaten us?'

Ouch this guy is a tough cookie not sure how eager US generals are to dance with this guy

KA , August 4, 2018 at 2:51 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Sanction on Iran on the false accusations of pursuing nuclear activities was mounted by USA UK France but Russia could have vetoed. China cold have vetoed. The truth was available to IAEA (,El Baradi 's term ) . They didn't. The 2011 agreements by Brazil and Turkey was reneged by Hillars US after proposing that very deal.

That itself should have prompted Russia and Rusdia's fellow traveler on this area China not to trust anything coming from USA . It should have stood firm. They didn't . Russia and China received the bribes offered as India did when it referred the case to UN in 2006 .

These are the realities Iran took note . To Iran, USA was the top dog. So they went knocking at the door of the dog house . You must cut some slack for Iran.

Iran is guilty . It has section and groups who want to kneel before USA for personal gains. No different from Russia, India, Pakistan and even Syria and Libya. The world suffers from this Anerican centric view of the economy and the growth .

Kiza , August 4, 2018 at 6:53 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

I enjoyed your military discussion guys and would not disagree with what you wrote. But for me, there two key points:
1) war is a totally unpredictable affair; this whole discussion is playing armchair generals; Iran is not Iraq, and
2) the Saker did touch on the US morale but one mid-size US ship sunk and the US military would turn into one crying baby and will reach for the nukes as every impotent wanker would.

Yes, I agree that most of Attack Iran talk is a psyops bull, designed to financially exhaust Iran. US is made up of tough-talking clowns such as Fred Reed, Eric Margollis at al but none of these clowns would be willing to risk their lifestyles let alone their lives more than by moronic chest beating that they engage in. Attack Iran is simply Zionist incited US trash-pile rumbling. One long smelly fart, for lack of a better methapor. Cause it would be the end of US as it is now, still a relatively comfortable living country. Event the Hebrew Slaves know their own limitations.

[Aug 08, 2018] Israel is not only Iran's greatest enemy

Notable quotes:
"... Yes, I agree that most of Attack Iran talk is a psyops bull, designed to financially exhaust Iran. ..."
"... Attack Iran is simply Zionist incited US trash-pile rumbling. ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Pat Kittle , August 4, 2018 at 6:07 am GMT

Iran has always been the Grand Prize of the Jews' Oded Yinon agenda:

-- ( http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-jewish-plan-for-the-middle-east-and-beyond.html ]

The Terrorist Theocracy of Eretz Ysrael is not only Iran's greatest enemy, it's ours as well.

Kiza , August 4, 2018 at 6:53 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

I enjoyed your military discussion guys and would not disagree with what you wrote. But for me, there two key points:
1) war is a totally unpredictable affair; this whole discussion is playing armchair generals; Iran is not Iraq, and
2) the Saker did touch on the US morale but one mid-size US ship sunk and the US military would turn into one crying baby and will reach for the nukes as every impotent wanker would.

Yes, I agree that most of Attack Iran talk is a psyops bull, designed to financially exhaust Iran. US is made up of tough-talking clowns such as Fred Reed, Eric Margollis at al but none of these clowns would be willing to risk their lifestyles let alone their lives more than by moronic chest beating that they engage in.

Attack Iran is simply Zionist incited US trash-pile rumbling. One long smelly fart, for lack of a better methapor. Cause it would be the end of US as it is now, still a relatively comfortable living country. Event the Hebrew Slaves know their own limitations.

[Aug 08, 2018] American Pravda Jews and Nazis by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Zionism in the Age of the Dictators ..."
"... 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis ..."
"... Jewish Frontier ..."
"... Times of London ..."
"... Life Magazine ..."
"... Times of London ..."
"... The Transfer Agreement ..."
"... The New Republic ..."
"... Hitler's Jewish Soldiers ..."
"... The American Historical Review ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Around 35 years ago, I was sitting in my college dorm-room closely reading the New York Times as I did each and every morning when I noticed an astonishing article about the controversial new Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir.

Back in those long-gone days, the Gray Lady was strictly a black-and-white print publication, lacking the large color photographs of rap stars and long stories about dieting techniques that fill so much of today's news coverage, and it also seemed to have a far harder edge in its Middle East reporting. A year or so earlier, Shamir's predecessor Menacham Begin had allowed his Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to talk him into invading Lebanon and besieging Beirut, and the subsequent massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps had outraged the world and angered America's government. This eventually led to Begin's resignation, with Shamir, his Foreign Minister, taking his place.

Prior to his surprising 1977 election victory, Begin had spent decades in the political wilderness as an unacceptable right-winger, and Shamir had an even more extreme background, with the American mainstream media freely reporting his long involvement in all sorts of high-profile assassinations and terrorist attacks during the 1940s, painting him as a very bad man indeed.

Given Shamir's notorious activities, few revelations would have shocked me, but this one did. Apparently, during the late 1930s, Shamir and his small Zionist faction had become great admirers of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis, and after World War II broke out, they had made repeated attempts to contact Mussolini and the German leadership in 1940 and 1941, hoping to enlist in the Axis Powers as their Palestine affiliate, and undertake a campaign of attacks and espionage against the local British forces, then share in the political booty after Hitler's inevitable triumph.

Now the Times clearly viewed Shamir in a very negative light, but it seemed extremely unlikely to me that they would have published such a remarkable story without being absolutely sure of their facts. Among other things, there were long excerpts from the official letters sent to Mussolini ferociously denouncing the "decadent" democratic systems of Britain and France that he was opposing, and assuring Il Duce that such ridiculous political notions would have no future place in the totalitarian Jewish client state they hoped to establish under his auspices in Palestine.

As it happens, both Germany and Italy were preoccupied with larger geopolitical issues at the time, and given the small size of Shamir's Zionist faction, not much seems to have ever come of those efforts. But the idea of the sitting Prime Minister of the Jewish State having spent his early wartime years as an unrequited Nazi ally was certainly something that sticks in one's mind, not quite conforming to the traditional narrative of that era which I had always accepted.

Most remarkably, the revelation of Shamir's pro-Axis past seems to have had only a relatively minor impact upon his political standing within Israeli society. I would think that any American political figure found to have supported a military alliance with Nazi Germany during the Second World War would have had a very difficult time surviving the resulting political scandal, and the same would surely be true for politicians in Britain, France, or most other western nations. But although there was certainly some embarrassment in the Israeli press, especially after the shocking story reached the international headlines, apparently most Israelis took the whole matter in stride, and Shamir stayed in office for another year, then later served a second, much longer term as Prime Minister during 1986-1992. The Jews of Israel apparently regarded Nazi Germany quite differently than did most Americans, let alone most American Jews.

... ... ...

Over the years I've occasionally made half-hearted attempts to locate the Times article about Shamir that had long stuck in my memory, but have had no success, either because it was removed from the Times archives or more likely because my mediocre search skills proved inadequate. But I'm almost certain that the piece had been prompted by the 1983 publication of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators by Lenni Brenner, an anti-Zionist of the Trotskyite persuasion and Jewish origins. I only very recently discovered that book, which really tells an extremely interesting story.

Brenner, born in 1937, has spent his entire life as an unreconstructed hard-core leftist, with his enthusiasms ranging from Marxist revolution to the Black Panthers, and he is obviously a captive of his views and his ideology. At times, this background impairs the flow of his text, and the periodic allusions to "proletarian," "bourgeoisie," and "capitalist classes" sometimes grow a little wearisome, as does his unthinking acceptance of all the shared beliefs common to his political circle. But surely only someone with that sort of fervent ideological commitment would have been willing to devote so much time and effort to investigating that controversial subject and ignoring the endless denunciations that resulted, which even included physical assaults by Zionist partisans.

ORDER IT NOW

In any event, his documentation seems completely airtight, and some years after the original appearance of his book, he published a companion volume entitled 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis , which simply provides English translations of all the raw evidence behind his analytical framework, allowing interested parties to read the material and draw their own conclusions.

Among other things, Brenner provides considerable evidence that the larger and somewhat more mainstream right-wing Zionist faction later led by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was almost invariably regarded as a Fascist movement during the 1930s, even apart from its warm admiration for Mussolini's Italian regime. This was hardly such a dark secret in that period given that its main Palestine newspaper carried a regular column by a top ideological leader entitled "Diary of a Fascist." During one of the major international Zionist conferences, factional leader Vladimir Zabotinsky entered the hall with his brown-shirted followers in full military formation, leading the chair to ban the wearing of uniforms in order to avoid a riot, and his faction was soon defeated politically and eventually expelled from the Zionist umbrella organization. This major setback was largely due to the widespread hostility the group had aroused after two of its members were arrested by British police for the recent assassination of Chaim Arlosoroff, one of the highest-ranking Zionist officials based in Palestine.

Indeed, the inclination of the more right-wing Zionist factions toward assassination, terrorism, and other forms of essentially criminal behavior was really quite remarkable. For example, in 1943 Shamir had arranged the assassination of his factional rival , a year after the two men had escaped together from imprisonment for a bank robbery in which bystanders had been killed, and he claimed he had acted to avert the planned assassination of David Ben-Gurion, the top Zionist leader and Israel's future founding-premier. Shamir and his faction certainly continued this sort of behavior into the 1940s, successfully assassinating Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East, and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, though they failed in their other attempts to kill American President Harry Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin , and their plans to assassinate Winston Churchill apparently never moved past the discussion stage. His group also pioneered the use of terrorist car-bombs and other explosive attacks against innocent civilian targets, all long before any Arabs or Muslims had ever thought of using similar tactics ; and Begin's larger and more "moderate" Zionist faction did much the same. Given that background, it was hardly surprising that Shamir later served as director of assassinations at the Israeli Mossad during 1955-1965, so if the Mossad did indeed play a major role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy , he was very likely involved.

The cover of the 2014 paperback edition of Brenner's book displays the commemorative medal struck by Nazi Germany to mark its Zionist alliance, with a Star-of-David on the front face and a Swastika on the obverse. But oddly enough, this symbolic medallion actually had absolutely no connection with the unsuccessful attempts by Shamir's small faction to arrange a Nazi military alliance during World War II.

Although the Germans paid little attention to the entreaties of that minor organization, the far larger and more influential mainstream Zionist movement of Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion was something else entirely. And during most of the 1930s, these other Zionists had formed an important economic partnership with Nazi Germany, based upon an obvious commonality of interests. After all, Hitler regarded Germany's one percent Jewish population as a disruptive and potentially dangerous element which he wanted gone, and the Middle East seemed as good a destination for them as any other. Meanwhile, the Zionists had very similar objectives, and the creation of their new national homeland in Palestine obviously required both Jewish immigrants and Jewish financial investment.

... ... ...

The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel's establishment is difficult to overstate. According to a 1974 analysis in Jewish Frontier cited by Brenner, between 1933 and 1939 over 60% of all the investment in Jewish Palestine came from Nazi Germany. The worldwide impoverishment of the Great Depression had drastically reduced ongoing Jewish financial support from all other sources, and Brenner reasonably suggests that without Hitler's financial backing, the nascent Jewish colony, so tiny and fragile, might easily have shriveled up and died during that difficult period.

Such a conclusion leads to fascinating hypotheticals. When I first stumbled across references to the Ha'avara Agreement on websites here and there, one of the commenters mentioning the issue half-jokingly suggested that if Hitler had won the war, statues would surely have been built to him throughout Israel and he would today be recognized by Jews everywhere as the heroic Gentile leader who had played the central role in reestablishing a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine after almost 2000 years of bitter exile.

This sort of astonishing counter-factual possibility is not nearly as totally absurd as it might sound to our present-day ears. We must recognize that our historical understanding of reality is shaped by the media, and media organs are controlled by the winners of major wars and their allies, with inconvenient details often excluded to avoid confusing the public. It is undeniably true that in his 1924 book Mein Kampf , Hitler had written all sorts of hostile and nasty things about Jews, especially those who were recent immigrants from Eastern Europe, but when I read the book back in high school, I was a little surprised to discover that these anti-Jewish sentiments hardly seemed central to his text. Furthermore, just a couple of years earlier, a vastly more prominent public figure such as British Minister Winston Churchill had published sentiments nearly as hostile and nasty , focusing on the monstrous crimes being committed by Bolshevik Jews. In Albert Lindemann's Esau's Tears , I was surprised to discover that the author of the famous Balfour Declaration, the foundation of the Zionist project, was apparently also quite hostile to Jews, with an element of his motivation probably being his desire to exclude them from Britain.

Once Hitler consolidated power in Germany, he quickly outlawed all other political organizations for the German people, with only the Nazi Party and Nazi political symbols being legally permitted. But a special exception was made for German Jews, and Germany's local Zionist Party was accorded complete legal status, with Zionist marches, Zionist uniforms, and Zionist flags all fully permitted. Under Hitler, there was strict censorship of all German publications, but the weekly Zionist newspaper was freely sold at all newsstands and street corners. The clear notion seemed to be that a German National Socialist Party was the proper political home for the country's 99% German majority, while Zionist National Socialism would fill the same role for the tiny Jewish minority.

In 1934, Zionist leaders invited an important SS official to spend six months visiting the Jewish settlement in Palestine, and upon his return, his very favorable impressions of the growing Zionist enterprise were published as a massive 12-part-series in Joseph Goebbel's Der Angriff , the flagship media organ of the Nazi Party, bearing the descriptive title "A Nazi Goes to Palestine." In his very angry 1920 critique of Jewish Bolshevik activity, Churchill had argued that Zionism was locked in a fierce battle with Bolshevism for the soul of European Jewry, and only its victory might ensure amicable future relations between Jew and Gentile. Based on available evidence, Hitler and many of the other Nazi leaders seemed to have reached a somewhat similar conclusion by the mid-1930s.

During that era extremely harsh sentiments regarding Diaspora Jewry were sometimes found in rather surprising quarters. After the controversy surrounding Shamir's Nazi ties erupted into the headlines, Brenner's material became the grist for an important article by Edward Mortimer, the longtime Middle East expert at the august Times of London , and the 2014 edition of the book includes some choice extracts from Mortimer's February 11, 1984 Times piece:

Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that "each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews"?

No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization and later still the first president of the state of Israel.

And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but republished as late as 1936: "The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline"?

Not in Der Sturmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer Hatzair.

As the above quoted statement reveals, Zionism itself encouraged and exploited self-hatred in the Diaspora. It started from the assumption that anti-Semitism was inevitable and even in a sense justified so long as Jews were outside the land of Israel.

It is true that only an extreme lunatic fringe of Zionism went so far as to offer to join the war on Germany's side in 1941, in the hope of establishing "the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich." Unfortunately this was the group which the present Prime Minister of Israel chose to join.

The very uncomfortable truth is that the harsh characterizations of Diaspora Jewry found in the pages of Mein Kampf were not all that different from what was voiced by Zionism's founding fathers and its subsequent leaders, so the cooperation of those two ideological movements was not really so totally surprising.

However, uncomfortable truths do remain uncomfortable. Mortimer had spent nineteen years at the Times , the last dozen of them as the foreign specialist and leader-writer on Middle Eastern affairs. But the year after he wrote that article including those controversial quotations, his career at that newspaper ended , leading to an unusual gap in his employment history, and that development may or may not be purely coincidental.

Also quite ironic was the role of Adolf Eichmann, whose name today probably ranks as one of the most famous half-dozen Nazis in history, due to his postwar 1960 kidnapping by Israeli agents, followed by his public show-trial and execution as a war-criminal. As it happens, Eichmann had been a central Nazi figure in the Zionist alliance, even studying Hebrew and apparently becoming something of a philo-Semite during the years of his close collaboration with top Zionist leaders.

Brenner is a captive of his ideology and his beliefs, accepting without question the historical narrative with which he was raised. He seems to find nothing so strange about Eichmann being a philo-Semitic partner of the Jewish Zionists during the late 1930s and then suddenly being transformed into a mass-murderer of the European Jews in the early 1940s, willingly committing the monstrous crimes for which the Israelis later justly put him to death.

This is certainly possible, but I really wonder. A more cynical observer might find it a very odd coincidence that the first prominent Nazi the Israelis made such an effort to track down and kill had been their closest former political ally and collaborator. After Germany's defeat, Eichmann had fled to Argentina and lived there quietly for a number of years until his name resurfaced in a celebrated mid-1950s controversy surrounding one of his leading Zionist partners, then living in Israel as a respected government official, who was denounced as a Nazi collaborator, eventually ruled innocent after a celebrated trial, but later assassinated by former members of Shamir's faction.

Following that controversy in Israel, Eichmann supposedly gave a long personal interview to a Dutch Nazi journalist, and although it wasn't published at the time, perhaps word of its existence may have gotten into circulation. The new state of Israel was just a few years old at that time, and very politically and economically fragile, desperately dependent upon the goodwill and support of America and Jewish donors worldwide. Their remarkable former Nazi alliance was a deeply-suppressed secret, whose public release might have had absolutely disastrous consequences.

According to the version of the interview later published as a two-part story in Life Magazine , Eichmann's statements seemingly did not touch on the deadly topic of the 1930s Nazi-Zionist partnership. But surely Israeli leaders must have been terrified that they might not be so lucky the next time, so we may speculate that Eichmann's elimination suddenly became a top national priority, and he was tracked down and captured in 1960. Presumably, harsh means were employed to persuade him not to reveal any of these dangerous pre-war secrets at his Jerusalem trial, and one might wonder if the reason he was famously kept in an enclosed glass booth was to ensure that the sound could quickly be cut off if he started to stray from the agreed upon script. All of this analysis is totally speculative, but Eichmann's role as a central figure in the 1930s Nazi-Zionist partnership is undeniable historical fact.

Just as we might imagine, America's overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry was hardly eager to serve as a public conduit for Brenner's shocking revelations of a close Nazi-Zionist economic partnership, and he mentions that his book agent uniformly received rejections from each firm he approached, based on a wide variety of different excuses. However, he finally managed to locate an extremely obscure publisher in Britain willing to take on the project, and his book was released in 1983, initially receiving no reviews other than a couple of harsh and perfunctory denunciations, though Soviet Izvestia took some interest in his findings until they discovered that he was a hated Trotskyite.

His big break came when Shamir suddenly became Israel's Prime Minister, and he brought his evidence of former Nazi ties to the English-language Palestinian press, which put it into general circulation. Various British Marxists, including the notorious "Red Ken" Livingstone of London, organized a speaking tour for him, and when a group of right-wing Zionist militants attacked one of the events and inflicted injuries, the story of the brawl caught the attention of the mainstream newspapers. Soon afterward the discussion of Brenner's astonishing discoveries appeared in the Times of London and entered the international media. Presumably, the New York Times article that had originally caught my eye ran sometime during this period.

Public relations professionals are quite skilled at minimizing the impact of damaging revelations, and pro-Israel organizations have no shortage of such individuals. Just before the 1983 release of his remarkable book, Brenner suddenly discovered that a young pro-Zionist author named Edwin Black was furiously working on a similar project, apparently backed by sufficient financial resources that he was employing an army of fifty researchers to allow him to complete his project in record time.

Since the entire embarrassing subject of a Nazi-Zionist partnership had been kept away from the public eye for almost five decades, this timing surely seems more than merely coincidental. Presumably word of Brenner's numerous unsuccessful efforts at securing a mainstream publisher during 1982 had gotten around, as had as his eventual success in locating a tiny one in Britain. Having failed to prevent publication of such explosive material, pro-Israel groups quietly decided that their next best option was trying to seize control of the topic themselves, allowing disclosure of those parts of the story that could not be concealed but excluding items of greatest danger, while portraying the sordid history in the best possible light.

ORDER IT NOW

Black's book, The Transfer Agreement , may have arrived a year later than Brenner's but was clearly backed by vastly greater publicity and resources. It was released by Macmillan, a leading publisher, ran nearly twice the length of Brenner's short book, and carried powerful endorsements by leading figures from the firmament of Jewish activism, including the Simon Weisenthal Center, the Israel Holocaust Memorial, and the American Jewish Archives. As a consequence, it received long if not necessarily favorable reviews in influential publications such as The New Republic and Commentary .

In all fairness, I should mention that in the Foreword to his book, Black claims that his research efforts had been totally discouraged by nearly everyone he approached, and as a consequence, he had been working on the project with solitary intensity for many years. This implies the near-simultaneous release of the two books was purely due to chance. But such a picture is hardly consistent with his glowing testimonials from so many prominent Jewish leaders, and personally I find Brenner's claim that Black was assisted by fifty researchers far more convincing.

Since both Black and Brenner were describing the same basic reality and relying upon many of the same documents, in most respects the stories they tell are generally similar. But Black carefully excludes any mention of offers of Zionist military cooperation with the Nazis, let alone the repeated attempts by Shamir's Zionist faction to officially join the Axis Powers after the war had broken out, as well as numerous other details of a particularly embarrassing nature.

Assuming Black's book was published for the reasons I suggested, I think that the strategy of the pro-Israel groups largely succeeded, with his version of the history seeming to have quickly supplanted Brenner's except perhaps in strongly leftist or anti-Zionist circles. Googling each combination of the title and author, Black's book gets eight times as many hits, and his Amazon sales ranks and numbers of reviews are also larger by roughly that same factor. Most notably, neither the Wikipedia articles on "The Transfer Agreement" and "The Ha'avara Agreement" contain any mention of Brenner's research whatsoever, even though his book was published earlier, was far broader, and only he provided the underlying documentary evidence. As a personal example of the current situation, I was quite unaware of the entire Ha'avara history until just a few years ago when I encountered some website comments mentioning Black's book, leading me to purchase and read it. But even then, Brenner's far more wide-ranging and explosive volume remained totally unknown to me until very recently.

Once World War II began, this Nazi-Zionist partnership quickly lapsed for obvious reasons. Germany was now at war with the British Empire, and financial transfers to British-run Palestine were no longer possible. Furthermore, the Arab Palestinians had grown quite hostile to the Jewish immigrants whom they rightfully feared might eventually displace them, and once the Germans were forced to choose between maintaining their relationship with a relatively small Zionist movement or winning the political sympathy of a vast sea of Middle Eastern Arabs and Muslims, their decision was a natural one. The Zionists faced a similar choice, and especially once wartime propaganda began so heavily blackening the German and Italian governments, their long previous partnership was not something they wanted widely known.

However, at exactly this same moment a somewhat different and equally long-forgotten connection between Jews and Nazi Germany suddenly moved to the fore.

Like most people everywhere, the average German, whether Jewish or Gentile, was probably not all that political, and although Zionism had for years been accorded a privileged place in German society, it is not entirely clear how many ordinary German Jews paid much attention to it. The tens of thousands who emigrated to Palestine during that period were probably motivated as much by economic pressures as by ideological commitment. But wartime changed matters in other ways.

ORDER IT NOW

This was even more true for the German government. The outbreak of a world war against a powerful coalition of the British and French empires, later augmented by both Soviet Russia and the United States, imposed the sorts of enormous pressures that could often overcome ideological scruples. A few years ago, I discovered a fascinating 2002 book by Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler's Jewish Soldiers , a scholarly treatment of exactly what the title implies. The quality of this controversial historical analysis is indicated by the glowing jacket-blurbs from numerous academic experts and an extremely favorable treatment by an eminent scholar in The American Historical Review .

Obviously, Nazi ideology was overwhelmingly centered upon race and considered racial purity a crucial factor in national cohesion. Individuals possessing substantial non-German ancestry were regarded with considerable suspicion, and this concern was greatly amplified if that admixture was Jewish. But in a military struggle against an opposing coalition possessing many times Germany's population and industrial resources, such ideological factors might be overcome by practical considerations, and Rigg persuasively argues that some 150,000 half-Jews or quarter-Jews served in the armed forces of the Third Reich, a percentage probably not much different than their share of the general military-age population.

Germany's long-integrated and assimilated Jewish population had always been disproportionately urban, affluent, and well-educated. As a consequence it is not entirely surprising that a large proportion of these part-Jewish soldiers who served Hitler were actually combat officers rather than merely rank-and-file conscripts, and they included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, and another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering's powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.

Admittedly, the racially-elite SS itself generally had far stricter ancestry standards, with even a trace of non-Aryan parentage normally seen as disqualifying an individual from membership. But even here, the situation was sometimes complicated, since there were widespread rumors that Reinhard Heydrich, the second-ranking figure in that very powerful organization, actually had considerable Jewish ancestry. Rigg investigates that claim without coming to any clear conclusions, though he does seem to think that the circumstantial evidence involved may have been used by other high-ranking Nazi figures as a point of leverage or blackmail against Heydrich, who stood as one of the most important figures in the Third Reich.

As a further irony, most of these individuals traced their Jewish ancestry through their father rather than their mother, so although they were not Jewish according to rabbinical law, their family names often reflected their partly Semitic origins, though in many cases Nazi authorities attempted to studiously overlook this glaringly obvious situation. As an extreme example noted by an academic reviewer of the book, a half-Jew bearing the distinctly non-Aryan name of Werner Goldberg actually had his photograph prominently featured in a 1939 Nazi propaganda newspaper, with the caption describing him as the "The Ideal German Soldier."

The author conducted more than 400 personal interviews of the surviving part-Jews and their relatives, and these painted a very mixed picture of the difficulties they had encountered under the Nazi regime, which varied enormously depending upon particular circumstances and the personalities of those in authority over them. One important source of complaint was that because of their status, part-Jews were often denied the military honors or promotions they had rightfully earned. However, under especially favorable conditions, they might also be legally reclassified as being of "German Blood," which officially eliminated any taint on their status.

Even official policy seems to have been quite contradictory and vacillating. For example, when the civilian humiliations sometimes inflicted upon the fully Jewish parents of serving half-Jews were brought to Hitler's attention, he regarded that situation as intolerable, declaring that either such parents must be fully protected against such indignities or all the half-Jews must be discharged, and eventually in April 1940 he issued a decree requiring the latter. However, this order was largely ignored by many commanders, or implemented through a honor-system that almost amounted to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," so a considerable fraction of half-Jews remained in the military if they so wished. And then in July 1941, Hitler somewhat reversed himself, issuing a new decree that allowed "worthy" half-Jews who had been discharged to return to the military as officers, while also announcing that after the war, all quarter-Jews would be reclassified as fully "German Blood" Aryan citizens.

It has been said that after questions were raised about the Jewish ancestry of some of his subordinates, Goring once angrily responded "I will decide who is a Jew!" and that attitude seems to reasonably capture some of the complexity and subjective nature of the social situation.

Interestingly enough, many of part-Jews interviewed by Rigg recalled that prior to Hitler's rise to power, the intermarriage of their parents had often provoked much greater hostility from the Jewish rather than the Gentile side of their families, suggesting that even in heavily-assimilated Germany, the traditional Jewish tendency toward ethnic exclusivity had still remained a powerful factor in that community.

Although the part-Jews in German military service were certainly subject to various forms of mistreatment and discrimination, perhaps we should compare this against the analogous situation in our own military in those same years with regard to America's Japanese or black minorities. During that era, racial intermarriage was legally prohibited across a large portion of the US, so the mixed-race population of those groups was either almost non-existent or very different in origin. But when Japanese-Americans were allowed to leave their wartime concentration camps and enlist in the military, they were entirely restricted to segregated all-Japanese units, but with the officers generally being white. Meanwhile, blacks were almost entirely barred from combat service, though they sometimes served in strictly-segregated support roles. The notion that an American with any appreciable trace of African, Japanese, or for that matter Chinese ancestry might serve as a general or even an officer in the U.S. military and thereby exercise command authority over white American troops would have been almost unthinkable. The contrast with the practice in Hitler's own military is quite different than what Americans might naively assume.

This paradox is not nearly as surprising as one might assume. The non-economic divisions in European societies had almost always been along lines of religion, language, and culture rather than racial ancestry, and the social tradition of more than a millennium could not easily be swept away by merely a half-dozen years of National Socialist ideology. During all those earlier centuries, a sincerely-baptized Jew, whether in Germany or elsewhere, was usually considered just as good a Christian as any other. For example, Tomas de Torquemada, the most fearsome figure of the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, actually came from a family of Jewish converts.

Even wider racial differences were hardly considered of crucial importance. Some of the greatest heroes of particular national cultures, such as Russia's Alexander Pushkin and France's Alexandre Dumas, had been individuals with significant black African ancestry, and this was certainly not considered any sort of disqualifying characteristic.

By contrast, American society from its inception had always been sharply divided by race, with other differences generally constituting far smaller impediments to intermarriage and amalgamation. I've seen widespread claims that when the Third Reich devised its 1935 Nuremberg Laws restricting marriage and other social arrangements between Aryans, non-Aryans, and part-Aryans, its experts drew upon some of America's long legal experience in similar matters, and this seems quite plausible. Under that new Nazi statute, pre-existing mixed-marriages received some legal protection, but henceforth Jews and half-Jews could only marry each other, while quarter-Jews could only marry regular Aryans. The obvious intent was to absorb that latter group into mainstream German society, while isolating the more heavily-Jewish population.

Ironically enough, Israel today is one of very few countries with a similar sort of strictly racially-based criteria for citizenship status and other privileges, with the Jewish-only immigration policy now often determined by DNA testing , and marriages between Jews and non-Jews legally prohibited. A few years ago, the world media also carried the remarkable story of a Palestinian Arab sentenced to prison for rape because he had consensual sexual relations with a Jewish woman by passing himself off as a fellow Jew.

Since Orthodox Judaism is strictly matrilineal and controls Israeli law, even Jews of other branches can experience unexpected difficulties due to conflicts between personal ethnic identity and official legal status. The vast majority of the wealthier and more influential Jewish families worldwide do not follow Orthodox religious traditions, and over the generations, they have often taken Gentile wives. However, even if the latter had converted to Judaism, their conversions are considered invalid by the Orthodox Rabbinate, and none of their resulting descendants are considered Jewish. So if some members of these families later develop a deep commitment to their Jewish heritage and immigrate to Israel, they are sometimes outraged to discover that they are officially classified as "goyim" under Orthodox law and legally prohibited from marrying Jews. These major political controversies periodically erupt and sometimes reach the international medi a.

Now it seems to me that any American official who proposed racial DNA tests to decide upon the admission or exclusion of prospective immigrants would have a very difficult time remaining in office, with the Jewish-activists of organizations like the ADL probably leading the attack. And the same would surely be true for any prosecutor or judge who non-whites to prison for the crime of "passing" as whites and thereby managing to seduce women from that latter group. A similar fate would befall advocates of such policies in Britain, France, or most other Western nations, with the local ADL-type organization certainly playing an important role. Yet in Israel, such existing laws merely occasion a little temporary embarrassment when they are covered in the international media, and then invariably remain in place after the commotion has died down and been forgotten. These sorts of issues are considered of little more importance than were the past wartime Nazi ties of the Israeli prime minister throughout most of the 1980s.

But perhaps the solution to this puzzling difference in public reaction lies in an old joke. A leftist wit once claimed that the reason America has never had a military coup is that it is the only country in the world that lacks an American embassy to organize such activities. And unlike the U.S., Britain, France, and many other predominately-white countries, Israel has no domestic Jewish-activist organization filling the powerful role of the ADL.

Over the last few years, many outside observers have noted a seemingly very odd political situation in Ukraine. That unfortunate country possesses powerful militant groups, whose public symbols, stated ideology, and political ancestry all unmistakably mark them as Neo-Nazis. Yet those violent Neo-Nazi elements are all being bankrolled and controlled by a Jewish Oligarch who holds dual Israeli citizenship. Furthermore, that peculiar alliance had been mid-wifed and blessed by some of America's leading Jewish Neocon figures, such as Victoria Nuland, who have successfully used their media influence to keep such explosive facts away from the American public.

At first glance, a close relationship between Jewish Israelis and European Neo-Nazis seems as grotesque and bizarre a misalliance as one could imagine, but after recently reading Brenner's fascinating book, my perspective quickly shifted. Indeed, the main difference between then and now is that during the 1930s, Zionist factions represented a very insignificant junior partner to a powerful Third Reich, while these days it is the Nazis who occupy the role of eager suppliants to the formidable power of International Zionism, which now so heavily dominates the American political system and through it, much of the world.

Related Reading:

Zionism in the Age of the Dictators by Lenni Brenner Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler American Pravda: The Nature of Anti-Semitism American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?

[Aug 08, 2018] Jerusalem could be a safer location for the US Embassy than Tel Aviv if there is a war against Iran. For religious reasons ;-)

Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Bliss , August 4, 2018 at 4:17 am GMT

the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act

How so? It's done and no one cares.

At the very least it could be a safer location for the US Embassy than Tel Aviv if there is a war against Iran. For religious reasons.

[Aug 08, 2018] Soros the 400k Question What constitutes 'foreign interference' in democracy

Notable quotes:
"... "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit -- terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group -- that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!" ..."
"... "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU -- and with it, potentially, western civilisation," ..."
"... "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ..."
"... "at the back of the queue" ..."
"... "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!" ..."
"... " highly probable " ..."
"... "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ." ..."
"... "Russian troll factory," ..."
"... "very low levels of engagement" ..."
"... "conspiracy theorist" ..."
"... "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him." ..."
"... "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," ..."
"... "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money " ..."
"... "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," ..."
"... "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired." ..."
www.rt.com

You'd have to have a real sense of humor failure not to laugh. The news that US billionaire Soros donated £400k to an anti-Brexit group came on the day that YouTube said they found no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit. Repeat After Me (with robotic arm movements): "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit -- terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group -- that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!"

You don't have to own a brand new £999 state-of-the art Hypocrisy Detector from Harrods, to pick up on the double standards. Just having a few functioning brain cells and thinking for yourself will do. For months in the UK we've been bombarded with Establishment-approved conspiracy theories -- peddled in all the 'best' newspapers -- that Russia somehow 'fixed' Brexit. Getting Britain to leave the EU was all part of a cunning plot by Vladimir Putin, aka Dr. Evil, to weaken Europe and the 'free world.'

Read more Soros-backed anti-Brexit group is 'undemocratic' -- cofounder Gina Miller

Even West End musical composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who knows quite a bit about phantoms, seemed taken in by it. "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU -- and with it, potentially, western civilisation," the noble Lord declared in July.

Never mind that we don't have a single statement from Putin or other senior Kremlin figures saying that they actually supported Brexit. These Establishment Russia-bashers know exactly what The Vlad is thinking.

And never mind that RT and Sputnik, which we are repeatedly told are "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ran articles by pro- and anti-Brexit writers. The same people who told us Iraq had WMDs in 2003 were absolutely sure it was those dastardly Russkies who had got Britain to vote 'leave.' The irony is of course that there was significant foreign interference in Brexit. But it didn't come from Moscow.

Or Obama actually visiting the U.K. to urge people to vote Remain. Imagine if Putin did the same for Leave!

-- jeffreydujon (@vanremny) February 8, 2018

The US has always wanted Britain to stay in the EU. In April 2016, two months before the Referendum, President Obama made it clear what he wanted when he visited the UK. He warned that if Britain exited the EU it would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with the US .

Just imagine if Putin had said that. The Russophobes would have spontaneously combusted.

Then of course there was the backing the Remain camp had from the giants of US capital. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan donated £500,000 each to the 'Britain Stronger in Europe' group, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley -- £250,000 each.

Again, repeat after me (with robotic arm movements): "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!"

You've got to see the funny side of this: all that hysterical fake news about 'Russian interference' in Brexit & here we have one side receiving £400K from a US billionaire who is part of the US political establishment. Is that not 'interference' ?!! https://t.co/URzrB3ciLd

-- Neil Clark (@NeilClark66) February 8, 2018

The point is not whether we are for or against Brexit. Or whether we think George Soros is a malign influence who only acts out of self-interest or an old sweetie-pie with the good of humanity at heart. The point is the double standards that are causing our Hypocrisy Detectors to explode.

Let's think back to December 2016. Then, the pro-war and fiercely anti-Russian Labour MP Ben Bradshaw told Parliament that it was " highly probable " that Russia had interfered with Brexit.

Fourteen months on, what have we got? On Thursday, the global head of You Tube's public policy, Juniper Downs, said her company "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ."

Read more © Sophia Kembowski / Global Look Press No Russian interference in Brexit referendum - YouTube exec tells parliamentary committee (VIDEO)

Twitter meanwhile says it detected 49 (yes, 49) accounts from what it claimed to be a "Russian troll factory," which sent all of 942 messages about Brexit -- amounting to less than 0.005% of all the tweets about the Referendum. Twitter said the accounts received "very low levels of engagement" from users. If the Kremlin had planned to use tweets to persuade us to vote 'leave,' they didn't really put much effort into it, did they?

Finally, Facebook said that only three "Kremlin-linked" accounts were found which spent the grand sum of 72p (yes, 72p) on ads during the Referendum campaign. Which amounts to the greater "interference" ? 72p or £400K? Erm tough call, isn't it?

You might have thought, given his concern with 'foreign interference' in British politics, that Ben Bradshaw would have been urging 'Best for Britain' to return George Soros' donation. Au contraire! His only tweets about it were retweets of two critical comments about the Daily Telegraph, and the BBC's coverage of the story. Conclusion: Those who rail about 'Russia meddling in Brexit' but not Soros' intervention aren't concerned about 'foreign interference' in UK politics, only 'foreign interference' from countries they don't approve of.

Those who are quite happy peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories about Russians shout "conspiracy theorist" (or worse) at those who report factually on proven meddling from others. The Daily Express hit the nail on the head in their Friday editorial which said: "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him."

That really is the rub of the matter. And Bradshaw and co. have no adequate response except to shoot the messenger.

If we look at the affair with an even wider lens, the hypocrisy is even greater. The US has been gripped by an anti-Russian frenzy not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. The unsubstantiated claim that Russia fixed the election for Donald Trump is repeated by 'liberals' and many neocons too, as a statement of fact. "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," film director Rob Reiner said .

But the number one country round the world for undermining democracy and interfering in the affairs of other sovereign states is the US itself.

Read more The US Vice President Joe Biden (L) jokes that Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko (R) is buying lunch, before sitting down to their bilateral meeting at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington March 31, 2016. © Jonathan Ernst 'Son of b***h got fired': Joe Biden forced Ukraine to sack prosecutor general 'in six hours'

While Establishment journos and pundits have been foaming at the mouth over 'Russiagate' and getting terribly excited over 'smoking guns' which turn out -- surprise, surprise -- to be damp squibs, there's been less attention paid to the boasts of former Vice President Joe Biden on how he got the allegedly 'independent' Ukrainian government to sack its prosecutor general in a few hours. "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money "

"I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," Biden said during a meeting of the US' Council on Foreign Relations. "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired."

Again, just imagine the furore if a leading Russian government figure boasted about how he used financial inducements to get another country's Prosecutor General to be sacked. Or if a tape was leaked in which the Russian Ambassador and a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson could be heard discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new 'democratic' government of another sovereign state. But we had the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the US Assistant Secretary of State doing exactly that in 2014 -- and the 'Russia is interfering in the Free World!' brigade were as silent as a group of Trappist monks.

It's fair to say that Orwell would have a field day with the doublespeak that's currently on show. The cognitive dissonance is there for all to see. Repeat After Me: Unproven Russian interference -- Bad. Proven interference from other external sources -- Good. What's your problem?

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[Aug 08, 2018] Trump Warns Allies Risk Severe Consequences If They Violate Iran Sanctions

Notable quotes:
"... "The Trump Administration intends to fully enforce the sanctions reimposed against Iran, and those who fail to wind down activities with Iran risk severe consequences. " ..."
"... The first set of sanctions will hit at the Iranian financial system, including Iranian government purchases of US dollars and its gold trade and government bond sales. The US' dominant role in the world's financial system means it has been able to pressure countries and companies into compliance, though China remains a key holdout. ..."
"... The US denies it is seeking regime change, but rather aims to "modify the regime's behavior," according to an administration official. ..."
"... A US administration official said the Iranian government was using financial resources freed up by the nuclear deal "to spread human misery." The US was seeking now to address the "totality of the Iranian threat" in the Middle East ..."
Aug 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

With the hours ticking by ahead of Washington's re-imposition of a slew of economic sanctions on Iran, President Trump has just released a statement confirming the narrative he would prefer Americans believe.

Just hours after the European Union issued a statement Monday ahead of when renewed US sanctions are set to snap back against Iran after midnight US Eastern time, saying it "deeply regrets" the sanctions and will take immediate action to protect European companies still doing business with Iran.

Trump makes it clear that any violation (among America's allies) will not be tolerated...

"The Trump Administration intends to fully enforce the sanctions reimposed against Iran, and those who fail to wind down activities with Iran risk severe consequences. "

The first set of sanctions will hit at the Iranian financial system, including Iranian government purchases of US dollars and its gold trade and government bond sales. The US' dominant role in the world's financial system means it has been able to pressure countries and companies into compliance, though China remains a key holdout.

"The JCPOA, a horrible, one-sided deal, failed to achieve the fundamental objective of blocking all paths to an Iranian nuclear bomb," Trump said Monday, defining that its policy as applying "maximum economic pressure on the Iranian regime."

The US denies it is seeking regime change, but rather aims to "modify the regime's behavior," according to an administration official.

A US administration official said the Iranian government was using financial resources freed up by the nuclear deal "to spread human misery." The US was seeking now to address the "totality of the Iranian threat" in the Middle East.

"None of this needs to happen," an official said on sanctions. Trump is willing to meet the Iranian leadership "any time" for talks," the official noted. * * *

Full Statement below:

REIMPOSING TOUGH SANCTIONS: President Donald J. Trump, Administration is taking action to reimpose sanctions lifted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In connection with the withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Administration laid out two wind-down periods of 90 days and 180 days for business activities in or involving Iran.

The purchase or acquisition of United States bank notes by the Government of Iran.

Iran, trade in gold and other precious metals.

Graphite, aluminum, steel, coal, and software used in industrial processes.

Transactions related to the Iranian rial.

Activities relating to Iran's issuance of sovereign debt

Iran, automotive sector.

Iran, port operators and energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors.

Iran, petroleum-related transactions.

Transactions by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran.

ENSURING FULL ENFORCEMENT: President Trump will continue to stand up to the Iranian regime's aggression, and the United States will fully enforce the reimposed sanctions.

The regime has used this funding to support terrorism, promote ruthless regimes, destabilize the region, and abuse the human rights of its own people.

PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY: The JCPOA was defective at its core and failed to guarantee the safety of the American people.

The regime continues to threaten the United States and our allies, exploit the international financial system, and support terrorism and foreign proxies.

* * *

The initial reaction in markets was modest aside from in the oil complex where prices spiked...

[Aug 07, 2018] Britain Tightens NATO s Noose Around Russia

Notable quotes:
"... In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to NATO and are also building fences with Russia. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

A European Parliament report (2017) says :

"All Russian security documents explicitly single out the challenges that the policies of Western states supposedly create for Russian security (with particularly harsh words in the Security strategy). Grievances connected to what Russia sees as 'systemic problems in the Euro-Atlantic region' (Foreign policy concept), the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure close to Russian borders, its 'offensive capabilities' and the trend towards the Alliance acquiring 'global functions', the 'symptoms' of the U.S. efforts to retain absolute military supremacy (the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, militarization of space) "

Are Russian forces in Canada and Mexico conducting joint exercises against the US? No. Are Russian forces in Ireland conducting joint exercises against Britain? No. Is there an obvious Russian presence in Scotland promoting independence from the UK? No. But Britain and the US are mounted on Russia's borders and conducting joint exercises with its neighbors.

In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to NATO and are also building fences with Russia.

But what do Russia's neighbours, like the Estonians, rank as their national security priorities? A survey suggests that for Estonians, the biggest threat to global security is the Islamic State, followed by the refugee crisis in Europe and the war in Syria. Russia came fourth on the list, even after the Ukraine crisis. According to Gallup , a majority 52% of Estonians consider NATO a protective force, but 43% see it as either a threat (17%) or neither (26%). Estonians are behind Kosovars, Albanians, Poles and Lithuanians in their opinions of NATO.

[Aug 07, 2018] The Death Of US And UK Neo-Colonialism Zero Hedge by Martin Sieff

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Winston Churchill
Notable quotes:
"... As if living out one of Aesop's Fables, the hammer of US kinetic power so eagerly embraced at the urging of neo-conservatives and neoliberals alike following the collapse of communism exhausted the Western welders of the weapon instead of their targets. ..."
"... The reckless resort to indiscriminate military power in the US-dominated invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the following campaigns to topple the governments of Syria and Libya created unexpected consequences comparable to Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion – Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction. ..."
"... However, the motives of the scores of millions of Americans who voted for Trump were perfectly clear: They were opting for American nationalism instead of American Empire. They were sickened by the clear results of 70 years of post-World War II global imperium that had arrogantly and casually allowed US domestic industry and society to wither on the vine for the supposed Greater Good of Global Leadership. ..."
"... These developments, to echo US President Thomas Jefferson's telling phrase nearly 200 years ago, are grave warnings. They are firebells in the night. They serve notice to Washington and London that their facilely optimistic "ever onward and upwards" drive to reshape the entire human race in their own image must be abandoned. ..."
"... Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom is a remotely united society any more. Both of them need to turn inward to resolve their own problems and abandon the fantastic quest to reassert global dominance that Reagan and Thatcher launched nearly 40 years ago. ..."
"... Capitalism is a society where billionaire capitalists own vast companies, banks, shares, and much of the land as well. Elected governments are bent to the will of the big corporations which the capitalists own. ..."
"... America has the greatest inequalities, highest mortality rate, most regressive taxes, and largest public subsidies for bankers and billionaires of any developed capitalist country. ..."
"... Contrary to the propaganda pushed by the business press, between 67% and 72% percent of corporations had zero tax liabilities after credits and exemptions while their workers and employees paid between 25 – 30% in taxes. The rate for the minority of corporations, which paid any tax, was 14%. ..."
"... According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458 billion dollars in lost public revenues every year – almost a trillion dollars every two years by this conservative esti ..."
"... Meanwhile US corporations in crisis received over $14.4 trillion dollars (Bloomberg claimed 12.8 trillion) in public bailout money, split between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, mostly from US tax payers, who are overwhelmingly workers, employees and pensioners. ..."
"... The problem is both the US and the UK have lost citizenry-control. Both countries have shadow governments and media operatives that work unseen to manipulate sentiment and events in-line with an overall world-government objective (Neo-Marxism). ..."
"... The so-called elites behind the curtain are after total control which is why we will continue toward totalitarian dictatorship. It will not be a one-man show nor will it be readily recognizable as such, rather there will be a Cabal of select ultra-wealthy liberals who will negotiate with each other as to which levers to pull and valves to turn in order to "guide" culture and civilization. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Martin Sieff via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The colossal project to re-colonialize the world started with United States President Ronald Reagan eagerly backed by United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1981 and over the next 20 years seemed to sweep all before it.

But we can now see that the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the 9/11 attacks in 2001 marked the turn of the tide.

Since then one super-ambitious project of nation destruction and rebuilding after another generated by Washington and eagerly embraced by its main Western European allies has collapsed spectacularly.

As if living out one of Aesop's Fables, the hammer of US kinetic power so eagerly embraced at the urging of neo-conservatives and neoliberals alike following the collapse of communism exhausted the Western welders of the weapon instead of their targets.

The reckless resort to indiscriminate military power in the US-dominated invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the following campaigns to topple the governments of Syria and Libya created unexpected consequences comparable to Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion – Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction.

Nevertheless, US and Western confidence in the triumph of liberal, free trade and democratic ideals around the world has remained almost totally impervious to the sobering lessons of recalcitrant global realities. The great reawakening of Western imperial and capitalist resolve heralded by Reagan and championed by his loyal spear carriers, Thatcher and her successors as prime ministers of the United Kingdom continued unabated: Until 2016.

Two epochal events happened that year :

The British people, to the astonishment most of all of their own leaders, pundits and self-selected Platonic guides and "betters' voted for Brexit : They opted by a narrow but decisive vote of 48 percent to 52 percent to leave the 28-nation European Union. The disruptions and chaos set in motion by that fateful outcome have still only begun to work their way through the political and economic systems of Europe.

Second, Donald Trump, even more amazingly was elected president of the United States to the limitless fury of the American "Deep State" which continues unabated in its relentless and frantic efforts to topple him.

However, the motives of the scores of millions of Americans who voted for Trump were perfectly clear: They were opting for American nationalism instead of American Empire. They were sickened by the clear results of 70 years of post-World War II global imperium that had arrogantly and casually allowed US domestic industry and society to wither on the vine for the supposed Greater Good of Global Leadership.

A decade and a half of endless, fruitless, ultra-expensive global wars entered into by the feckless and stupid George W. Bush and continued by the complacent and superficial Barack Obama advanced this process of weariness and rejection.

Two years after the election of Trump and the British people's vote for Brexit, the great surge of the West that outlasted the Soviet Union is clearly on the ebb : Now the United States is exhausted, the EU is falling apart and NATO is an empty shell – a paper tiger if you will. Why is this happening and can it be reversed?

Free Trade was never the universal panacea it has been ludicrously claimed to be now for more than 240 years since Adam Smith published his Wealth of Nations . On the contrary, the cold, remorseless facts of economic history clearly show that protective tariffs to safeguard domestic manufactures and advantageous export-driven balance of payment surpluses are the true path to economic growth and sustainable, lasting national power and wealth.

The idea that democracy – at least in the narrow, highly structured, manipulative and patchy form practiced in the United States is some sort of universal guarantee for happiness, national stability and growth has also been repeatedly confounded.

Instead, the Western democratic states have fallen into exactly the same intellectual pit that trapped and eventually wrecked the Soviet Union. They have launched a worldwide ideological crusade and poured wealth and resources into it to ignoring the well-being and advancement of their own domestic economies and populations.

Far from bringing eternal and universal world peace – the alluring Holy Grail of every dangerous idealistic idiot since Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant – these policies only brought failure, frustration and rising military death lists for the countries that pursued them instead.

This year, new hammer blows are following on the Reagan-Thatcher-spawned era of revived Anglo-American global leadership and domination.

The British themselves have palpably failed to cave out any secure or even plausible economic prospects for themselves in the world once they leave the EU. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya all remain wrecked societies shattered by the repeated air strikes that Western compassion and reverence for human rights and democracy have visited upon them.

Now India and Pakistan – two English-speaking democracies and members of the once British-led Commonwealth of Nations, still so dear to Queen Elizabeth II's aging heart – have opted to bury their existential rivalry and jointly join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – confirming it as the premier and by far the most powerful security alliance on the planet.

These developments, to echo US President Thomas Jefferson's telling phrase nearly 200 years ago, are grave warnings. They are firebells in the night. They serve notice to Washington and London that their facilely optimistic "ever onward and upwards" drive to reshape the entire human race in their own image must be abandoned.

Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom is a remotely united society any more. Both of them need to turn inward to resolve their own problems and abandon the fantastic quest to reassert global dominance that Reagan and Thatcher launched nearly 40 years ago.

And they had better move fast. Jefferson's firebell is tolling and the sands of time are running out.

Justin Case Mon, 08/06/2018 - 23:34 Permalink

Capitalism is a society where billionaire capitalists own vast companies, banks, shares, and much of the land as well. Elected governments are bent to the will of the big corporations which the capitalists own. To achieve genuine socialism, this ownership of the world's wealth by the 1% must be ended. Capitalism means that a great deal of our society's resources, needed to produce the things we need, are privately owned.

Capitalism is based on the private ownership of the productive forces (factories, offices, science and technique)

The bosses of the big corporate enterprises always threaten that if wages and conditions are not worsened, they will take their business to another country where wages are lower.

Justin Case -> medium giraffe Tue, 08/07/2018 - 00:37 Permalink

America has the greatest inequalities, highest mortality rate, most regressive taxes, and largest public subsidies for bankers and billionaires of any developed capitalist country.

Contrary to the propaganda pushed by the business press, between 67% and 72% percent of corporations had zero tax liabilities after credits and exemptions while their workers and employees paid between 25 – 30% in taxes. The rate for the minority of corporations, which paid any tax, was 14%.

According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458 billion dollars in lost public revenues every year – almost a trillion dollars every two years by this conservative estimate.

The largest US corporations sheltered over $2.5 trillion dollars in overseas tax havens where they paid no taxes or single digit tax rates.

Meanwhile US corporations in crisis received over $14.4 trillion dollars (Bloomberg claimed 12.8 trillion) in public bailout money, split between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, mostly from US tax payers, who are overwhelmingly workers, employees and pensioners.

medium giraffe -> Justin Case Tue, 08/07/2018 - 00:48 Permalink

You confuse free market capitalism with corporate cronyism, then suggest socialism is the answer? Why do you think that socialism is the default panacea? Have you considered other alternatives? What of the pitfalls of socialism?

Felix da Kat Tue, 08/07/2018 - 00:48 Permalink

The problem is both the US and the UK have lost citizenry-control. Both countries have shadow governments and media operatives that work unseen to manipulate sentiment and events in-line with an overall world-government objective (Neo-Marxism).

The so-called elites behind the curtain are after total control which is why we will continue toward totalitarian dictatorship. It will not be a one-man show nor will it be readily recognizable as such, rather there will be a Cabal of select ultra-wealthy liberals who will negotiate with each other as to which levers to pull and valves to turn in order to "guide" culture and civilization.

But the tightknit Cabal has more work to do to infiltrate deeper into world governments.

The EU's Parliament is a proto-type test to tweak how they must proceed. As the Cabal coalesces their power, more draconian rulership will become apparent. The noose will tighten slowly so as to be un-noticeable. Certain events are planned that will cause citizenry to demand totalitarianism (for safety reasons). For the Cabal, it'll be like taking candy from a baby.

This, in a nutshell, is the outline of how the West loses its democracy.

[Aug 07, 2018] The UK s Labour Party and Its Anti-Semitism Crisis

Aug 07, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The Labour is in the midst of an "antisemitism crisis" orchestrated by the media, pro-Zionist Jewish groups, and the party's Blairite faction bent on ousting Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader.

The UK's media is overwhelmingly rightwing and pro-Israel. Even the BBC, terrified of being donated to Rupert Murdoch in a Tory privatization, is pro-Tory and pro-Israel in its news reporting, all its professions of "objectivity" notwithstanding.

Corbyn has been their constant target since he became the party's leader, and the "antisemitism" smear is the latest installment in this rightwing effort to discredit him.

Even the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper, whose editorial line on Israel is led by the staunch Zionist Jonathan Freedland, is resolutely anti-Corbyn.

No leader of a major political party has been as resolute as Corbyn in defending Palestinian rights. The Observer newspaper put this succinctly: "As a long-term and ardent critic of Israel's policies and staunch supporter of Palestinian causes, he has always been distrusted by the Jewish community".

Pro-Zionist Jewish groups fear that under his leadership Britain will become much more like Ireland (which recently banned the import of products made in the illegal Israeli settlements) in its disposition towards Israel.

A clue to the motivation of these pro-Zionist UK Jewish groups was provided by the recent public protest in London against Labour's "antisemitism"– many protesters carried the Israeli flag and "Israel we stand behind you" signs, thereby making it clear that their concern for Zionist Israel was highly instrumental, and perhaps primarily so, in their presence at this rally against Labour's "antisemitism".

Several Blairite Labour MPs were present at this demonstration.

The Blairite faction in Labour has already made one attempt to overthrow Corbyn when it made him submit to an unprecedented reelection shortly after he became party leader.

Corbyn went on to win this challenge with a percentage exceeding Blair's when the latter was elected Labour leader.

Labour's Blairite bloc know that Corbyn has to lose the next general election if they are to survive as a force within the party. If Labour (under Corbyn) wins this election, they will have little choice but to take the option already being talked about by some of these Blairites, that is, splitting from Labour and forming a new "centrist" party.

Their eminence grise, Tony Blair himself, has already talked about creating this "centrist" party.

So, paradoxically, Labour's Blairites would rather have the Conservatives win the next general election as their ticket to survival within their own party!

Predictably, one of these Blairites, Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson, jumped on the "crisis" bandwagon by saying that Labour faces "eternal shame" over antisemitism.

Of course, there are pockets of antisemitism in Labour, as is the case in nearly every non-Jewish British walk of life, including the Tories (though dressing up in Nazi uniform and chanting "Sieg Heil!" at parties, as opposed to upholding Palestinian rights, is their forte).

A few days ago, it was revealed that the senior Tory politicians Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg had recently met in secret with Steve Bannon, who runs Breitbart News , a haven for antisemitic views. The British media, and the Blairite Labour MPs hounding Corbyn, have said nary a word about these meetings. Nor have the vociferous UK Jewish organizations.

The notion that there is significant antisemitism in Labour, let alone one amounting to a "crisis", is a red herring.

The most recent purported manifestation of this crisis pivots on the decision of Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's "non-legally binding working definition" of antisemitism, but not the "illustrations" which accompany it. The definition states:

"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

The "illustrations" which accompany this definition include some which are uncontroversial for any fair-minded and relatively rational person, and others which are highly problematic for such a person.

The uncontroversial "illustrations" of antisemitism:

+ advocating the killing or harming of Jews for ideological or religious reasons;

+ making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such;

+ holding Jews as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group;

+ Holocaust denial;

+ using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;

+ holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;

+ accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

The controversial "illustrations" of antisemitism (and non-coincidently they all have a bearing on the Palestinian cause):

+ accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations;

+ claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour;

+ applying double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;

+ drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

A close examination of this latter set of "illustrations" shows that Labour is absolutely right to resist the immense pressure from Zionists and their supporters to accept these latter "illustrations" as part of the definition of antisemitism.

There are examples of Jewish US citizens being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their country.

The casino mogul Sheldon Adelson donated $25 million to Trump's 2016 campaign ($82 million in total to Republicans in 2016), and $5 million towards his inauguration. Earlier this year Adelson donated $70 million to Birthright, the organization that brings young Jews to Israel for nothing (he's donated $100m in total to Birthright). He also donated $30 million to Republicans after Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran. Adelson spent $150m in the 2012 election in a futile attempt to unseat the "anti-Israel" Barack Obama.

Adelson's aim in all of this is to swing Trump behind his friend Netanyahu's "Greater Israel" political agenda. To this end Adelson pushed hard for the US's withdrawal from the Iran deal, appointing the arch-Zionist John Bolton as a Trump adviser, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital (in contravention of international law), and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson has succeeded in all of these objectives.

Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and "envoy" for a "peace" deal in the Middle East, has made it clear that any such deal will have to be compatible with Likud's "Greater Israel" political agenda.

According to The New York Times , Kushner's family real estate company "received a roughly $30 million investment from Menora Mivtachim, an insurer that is one of Israel's largest financial institutions".

The same NYT article also reported that "the Kushners had teamed up with at least one member of Israel's wealthy Steinmetz family to buy nearly $200 million of Manhattan apartment buildings, as well as to build a luxury rental tower in New Jersey".

More from the same article: "Mr. Kushner's company has also taken out at least four loans from Israel's largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, which is the subject of a Justice Department investigation over allegations that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes".

Kushner's family foundation also donates to an illegal settlement in the West Bank.

Meanwhile , US military aid to Israel amounts to $3.8 billion annually, or $23,000 per year for every Jewish family living in Israel for the next 10 years.

At the same time, 40 million Americans live in poverty, seniors and veterans are sleeping rough, and teachers have to buy school supplies, and in some cases food, for their students.

Given these two examples of prominent Jewish individuals with loyalties divided between the US and Israel, with Israel acquiring much and the US gaining so little from their actions, it is arguable whether it is "antisemitic" to broadcast the information detailed above.

Claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour is likewise hardly antisemitic. The recently passed Israeli Nationality Law confirms why.

According to the law, Israel's full name is "Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people". The law stipulates that Eretz Israel (historical Palestine) is the homeland of the Jewish people, while the state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.

As such, only Jews have the right to self-determination in Israel. Hebrew is the only official language, with Arabic no longer considered an official language.

The nationality law enjoins that future Jewish settlement in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is a supreme national objective (in contravention of international law).

The law also grants Jewish communities the right to a segregated territory in the state(in practice legalizing exclusive villages and towns for Jews).

The nationality law effectively deprives Arabs of any official semblance of their national identity, and confirms Israel's status as an apartheid, i.e. racist, state. Saying this is certainly anti-Zionist, but only a dogmatist would insist that it is ipso facto "antisemitic".

The IHRA "illustration" maintaining that it is antisemitic to apply double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is likewise extremely awkward in formulation and also in practice.

The 2017 Democracy Index used 4 categories to assess countries– full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime.

The following countries were ranked by the Index as full democracies: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Israel was listed as a flawed democracy, as was the US.

Israel's leaders have always touted their country as "the only democracy in the Middle East", as if their country stood on a par with the 19 countries ranked as full democracies by the 2017 Democracy Index.

Is it "antisemitic" to hold Israel to a standard deemed to be achieved by Mauritius and Uruguay?

Or to say that Israel is really an "ethnocracy", as opposed to being a democracy?

The Israeli political geographer Oren Yiftachel argued in his 2006 book Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine that an ethnocracy is a regime promoting "the expansion of the dominant group in contested territory while maintaining a democratic façade".

When it comes todrawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, it all depends on the basis used in making the comparison between Israel and the Nazis.

Having gas chambers for mass exterminations, then certainly not.

However, nearly everyone who believes that comparing Israel with the Nazis is "antisemitic" invariably takes the concentration-camp gas chambers as the implicit norm, whether out of bad faith or ignorance, for making such comparisons.

The Nazi "final solution", vast as it was, had many strands, with horror piled upon horror. This multiple-layering must be considered when making the Israel-Nazi comparison.

Encircling and starving-out an entire community in a ghetto (Warsaw?), then yes, the comparison is valid– this is precisely what is taking place in Gaza.

The Nazis confiscated Jewish property wholesale; the Israelis are doing the same to Palestinian houses and land in order to "clear" them for the expansion of the illegal settlements, and for alleged military purposes. B'Tselem, Israel's human rights watchdog, confirms this on their website . So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.

Jews were prevented from leaving German-occupied Poland by the SS. Similarly, Palestinians are prevented from leaving Gaza (even for medical treatment) by the combined efforts of Israel and the Egyptian dictatorship. So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.

German Civil Police K-9 Units were used by the SS to assist in the roundup and deportation of Jews in WW2. Similarly, the Israeli army uses attack dogs on unarmed Palestinians when raiding their homes, and when arresting peaceful demonstrators. So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.

It is difficult to see why comparing Israel to the Nazis on these latter bases, while scrupulously eschewing the gas chambers as a basis for comparison (the Palestinians have not been sent to gas chambers en masse), necessarily makes one an "antisemite".

The Israeli historian Ilan Pappé describes Israel's policy regarding Gaza as "incremental genocide", in contrast to the Nazi's absolute genocide. The final outcome however is not in doubt.

The distinguished Oxford jurist Stephen Sedley (himself a Jew) has saidthat "there is no legal bar on criticising Israel. Yet several of the "examples" that have been tacked on to the IHRA definition (by whom is not known) seek to stifle criticism of Israel irrespective of intent. The House of Commons select committee on home affairs in October 2016 advised adding: "It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent"."

Corbyn, under siege from the media and Jewish groups (who say, with risible hyperbole, that he poses an "existential threat" to British Jews), has apologized for not doing enough to root out antisemitism in the Labour Party.

Corbyn's apology was unnecessary. Not just because it was not merited by the real circumstances underlying this manufactured "crisis", but also because every step he takes now is dismissed as "meaningless" and "too little, too late" by his opportunistic opponents.

Instead Corbyn should have given an immediate forensic analysis of the IHRA's flawed "examples" of "antisemitism", indicating that Labour was wise not to incorporate these, root and branch, in the definition of antisemitism it adopted.

Corbyn should also have come out earlier with his pledge to deal firmly with those justifiably guilty of antisemitism in the Labour party.

Corbyn has many admirable qualities, but perhaps doing forensics is not one of them. However, he has many surrogates capable of undertaking this task, and they should be entrusted with it immediately.

The late and much missed Robin Cook, the former Labour minister who demolished Blair's rationales for the Iraq war in the House of Commons debate on Blair's push for the war, would have been perfect for the job.

Will Labour now find its anti-Zionist Robin Cook? Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Kenneth Surin

Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina. He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

[Aug 07, 2018] False flag antisemtism

Aug 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

MoreSun -> Luc X. Ifer Tue, 08/07/2018 - 12:17 Permalink

Yip, and this is a part of (((their))) tactic:

Doesn't matter if it's 2004 or 2018, the (((usual suspects))) keep playing this cruel game to maintain their eternal victim status, garner pity, sympathy and the mandatory outpouring of tax dollars from the city/state/nation's Treasury to their jew supremacist pockets.

And it's been going on for centuries....all over the western world.

Five Jews Arrested for Painting Swastikas on Israel Consulate

Jewish man accused of spray-painting swastikas on own home

It's restricted, jewtube don't want you viewing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgSEmkhMcIM

[Aug 07, 2018] Ministry of Plenty

Aug 07, 2018 | en.wikipedia.org

The Ministry of Plenty ( Newspeak : Miniplenty ) is in control of Oceania's planned economy .

It oversees rationing of food , supplies , and goods . As told in Goldstein's book, the economy of Oceania is very important, and it's necessary to have the public continually create useless and synthetic supplies or weapons for use in the war, while they have no access to the means of production .

This is the central theme of Oceania's idea that a poor, ignorant populace is easier to rule over than a wealthy, well-informed one. Telescreens often make reports on how Big Brother has been able to increase economic production, even when production has actually gone down (see § Ministry of Truth ).

The Ministry hands out statistics which are "nonsense". When Winston is adjusting some Ministry of Plenty's figures, he explains this:

But actually, he thought as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of time you were expected to make them up out of your head.

Like the other ministries, the Ministry of Plenty seems to be entirely misnamed, since it is, in fact, responsible for maintaining a state of perpetual poverty , scarcity and financial shortages. However, the name is also apt, because, along with the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Plenty's other purpose is to convince the populace that they are living in a state of perpetual prosperity. Orwell made a similar reference to the Ministry of Plenty in his allegorical work Animal Farm when, in the midst of a blight upon the farm, Napoleon the pig orders the silo to be filled with sand, then to place a thin sprinkling of grain on top, which fools human visitors into being dazzled about Napoleon's boasting of the farm's superior economy.

A department of the Ministry of Plenty is charged with organizing state lotteries . These are very popular among the proles, who buy tickets and hope to win the big prizes – a completely vain hope as the big prizes are in fact not awarded at all, the Ministry of Truth participating in the scam and publishing every week the names of non-existent big winners.

In the Michael Radford film adaptation , the ministry is renamed the Ministry of Production, or MiniProd.

[Aug 07, 2018] Does the Russiagate Narrative Protect Those with Power and Influence Q A (Pt 2-5)

Notable quotes:
"... There are too many lucrative salaries on the line that depend on that trillion dollars a year military budget to allow Russia to end up being bogeyman number one. ..."
"... They are fighting for their own lifestyles. And I think that speaks to a broader point that the Russiagate narrative is one that sustains privilege because, really, who does it threaten? ..."
"... And of course, Russia has no huge, powerful lobby in Washington. Russia has no major economic power in the U.S. So attacking Russia really hurts nobody domestically in a position of privilege and influence. And meanwhile, attacking Russia serves a double benefit of allowing people to deflect from other interests much more powerful than Russia that are doing real damage here at home, as Paul has been talking about. ..."
"... While the importance of the existential threat of Russia, the importance of that narrative to the military-industrial complex, is I think that's only one piece of why the American state and large sections of the American oligarchy see Russia so much as a threat. They keep using the word 'adversary.' ..."
"... The United States wants what they call in some of their documents Full Spectrum Dominance. They want global hegemony. Global hegemony means hegemony in every region of the world. They do not like it when any power emerges. The challenges for regional hegemonic because that's obviously part of global hegemony. So they don't like the fact that Russia has a major economy; and not one of the biggest economies, by any means, but a major economy. A big army. Of course, nuclear weapons. So they don't like that it has, kind of, independent will in this region. It's not a global competitor. ..."
"... In the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a free-for-all plundering of all the natural resources and state resources, privatization mania. And the U.S., the Americans thought they'd get a much bigger piece of this. I don't think they thought, after all these years of trying, they thought, bringing down the Soviet Union, in truth the Soviet Union fell mostly for internal reasons. And bureaucrats within the party and the state became the oligarchs, became the billionaires. They seized a lot of these assets, not the West and the Americans. ..."
"... And the out of the chaos emerges a Russian state, led by Putin, to create some sense of normalcy, turn it into a kind of a normal capitalist country, with laws, to some extent, so you can do business and commerce. And one of the things that state did is it didn't allow the West to just hocus pocus, I forget the term, they didn't just allow the West to come in and pick up all these resources and privatization directly themselves. ..."
"... So different parts of the U.S. state have different agendas connected to different sections of capital that have their other agendas, but none of this justifies this McCarthyite level of Cold War rhetoric. ..."
"... And Kissinger observed to Nixon, he says: In 20 years your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese. And then he went on to say: Right now we need the Chinese to correct the Russians, and to discipline the Russians. ..."
"... The, the metaphysical vision of the world- and don't forget, Hitler had quite a metaphysical vision of the world. The, the role of, the mission of the aryan nation to take over the world and march into a new era of civilization and all this was all intertwined with, with a metaphysical, quasi-fanatical religious view of the world. ..."
"... Putin is very close to the Russian Orthodox Church. He's been promoting this kind of nationalism intertwined with religious messaging through the church. He promotes this kind of stuff in Western Europe. Putin has been nurturing the far right in Western Europe. So this jives, the agenda of the people around Trump and Putin have similar views of the world. ..."
"... So yeah, the idea of some kind of accommodation with Russia because of the coming trade war, and who knows what kind of war, with China, yeah, this is definitely, I think, part of the equation. The shorter-term play is Iran. They are, this group, this cabal in Washington, is fixated on regime change in Iran. I actually am not sure how they, why they see that fits the China strategy, but I don't know that it matters, because that's their play. And they've been talking about it for years, since the late night 1990s. And this document, Project for a New American Century. Undoing the Iranian revolution has been absolutely at the core of these people's foreign policy. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | therealnews.com

Watch Part 2 of Paul Jay and Aaron Mate's interactive discussion with viewers about the controversy over Trump's visit to Helsinki – From a live recording on July 18th, 2018

AARON MATE: I want to read a comment from a viewer, Kristen Lee, who writes: There are too many lucrative salaries on the line that depend on that trillion dollars a year military budget to allow Russia to end up being bogeyman number one. To not end up-. To have Russia not end up being boogeymen number one, I believe. They are fighting for their own lifestyles. And I think that speaks to a broader point that the Russiagate narrative is one that sustains privilege because, really, who does it threaten? I mean, yes, it threatens Trump. But we already know that there's a huge cross-section of the elite that despises Trump, including many Republicans who campaigned against him during the campaign.

And of course, Russia has no huge, powerful lobby in Washington. Russia has no major economic power in the U.S. So attacking Russia really hurts nobody domestically in a position of privilege and influence. And meanwhile, attacking Russia serves a double benefit of allowing people to deflect from other interests much more powerful than Russia that are doing real damage here at home, as Paul has been talking about.

PAUL JAY: Could I just, could I just then-.

AARON MATE: Let me ask you about China, first. Because we're-.

PAUL JAY: Before we do China, before we do China, let me just add one thing to this, which I think-. While the importance of the existential threat of Russia, the importance of that narrative to the military-industrial complex, is I think that's only one piece of why the American state and large sections of the American oligarchy see Russia so much as a threat. They keep using the word 'adversary.' .

And the reason why I think there's a several pieces to it, and I said this in the interview the other day, one, the United States does not like regional powers that are not under the American thumb. They don't want anyone, they-. The United States wants what they call in some of their documents Full Spectrum Dominance. They want global hegemony. Global hegemony means hegemony in every region of the world. They do not like it when any power emerges. The challenges for regional hegemonic because that's obviously part of global hegemony. So they don't like the fact that Russia has a major economy; and not one of the biggest economies, by any means, but a major economy. A big army. Of course, nuclear weapons. So they don't like that it has, kind of, independent will in this region. It's not a global competitor.

But there's another piece to this. Russia has oil. They don't like an oil state, a country that has such massive oil supply, not being under the U.S. umbrella, U.S. hegemony. That's, that's number two. Number three, they don't like the way Putin and that state emerged. You know, if people are watching the series that I'm doing of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin, we're telling the whole story of the emergence of Putin out of the collapsed Soviet state, Soviet system. In the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a free-for-all plundering of all the natural resources and state resources, privatization mania. And the U.S., the Americans thought they'd get a much bigger piece of this. I don't think they thought, after all these years of trying, they thought, bringing down the Soviet Union, in truth the Soviet Union fell mostly for internal reasons. And bureaucrats within the party and the state became the oligarchs, became the billionaires. They seized a lot of these assets, not the West and the Americans.

And the out of the chaos emerges a Russian state, led by Putin, to create some sense of normalcy, turn it into a kind of a normal capitalist country, with laws, to some extent, so you can do business and commerce. And one of the things that state did is it didn't allow the West to just hocus pocus, I forget the term, they didn't just allow the West to come in and pick up all these resources and privatization directly themselves.

So this Putin's state's been to some extent blocking the U.S. from turning this Russia, as they have with most most other areas of the world- of course the other big exception is China and Iran- under, into the American global capitalist system, where the Americans are the dominant power. And they even had ways to do that. But these things jive, don't always jive, I should say, which is the economic incorporation of Russia into, into global capitalism, into, even into the EU, for example, or something, some structure like that, does not jive with the narrative of an existential threat that serves this massive military expenditure.

So different parts of the U.S. state have different agendas connected to different sections of capital that have their other agendas, but none of this justifies this McCarthyite level of Cold War rhetoric.

AARON MATE: Right. So in terms of China, as we're talking about other possible explanation for Trump's desire to work with Russia that go beyond him being a potential intelligence asset, or that Putin has kompromat on Trump, which really is right now the dominant corporate media narrative and question. You've been laying out some- I want to focus on China for a second, and actually read to you, Paul, a quote. This is John Pomfret. He's a historian. And he writes about Kissinger talking to Nixon after Kissinger returned from China as part of the Nixon administration's overture to China in the early '70s. And Kissinger observed to Nixon, he says: In 20 years your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese. And then he went on to say: Right now we need the Chinese to correct the Russians, and to discipline the Russians.

So I find that interesting, because it's a way to help understand what might have motivated Nixon's overtures to China back then. But also I think that might help us understand what might motivate Trump's overtures to Russia. Now, obviously China has been a huge obsession of Trump. He talks about it constantly. He's launching a trade war right now. And it's quite likely, I think, he recognizes that if he really wants to confront China, a far bigger world power than Russia is, especially, obviously, economically, that he might need to enlist Russia for that task.

PAUL JAY: I certainly think there's part of it. How conscious Trump himself is of these kind of geostrategic assessments and plans, I don't know. Trump's a very smart con man. I don't know that he has a big geopolitical brain. But that being said, he's got people around him, including John Bolton, who are actually quite smart and have real geopolitical brains, and are fanatics.

The, my guess is the short-term play, and I don't see this- I think it's ridiculous that Trump is Putin's stooge, and all of this. The agenda of this group that's in power and that Trump represents the interests of, this isn't just a one man band, even if he flies off the handle in a one-man way. But this agenda of Iran and China, this was very well articulated by Steve Bannon before and after the victory of Trump in the election. This has economic interests which they, of course, China is the real economic competitor in the world that's a threat to American dominance. But it also has an ideological framing for it. And that's the defense of Western Christian civilization. And I think they believe in this stuff. Bannon himself is connected to Opus Dei in the Catholic Church. He's connected to Cardinal Burke. They're waging a war against Pope Francis. They want to overthrow the Pope. And it's really as open as that. They don't like, they're shocked that they've got a pope that's a social democrat. The, the metaphysical vision of the world- and don't forget, Hitler had quite a metaphysical vision of the world. The, the role of, the mission of the aryan nation to take over the world and march into a new era of civilization and all this was all intertwined with, with a metaphysical, quasi-fanatical religious view of the world.

Well I think they have this. So China does not fit the plan of saving Western civilization. But Russia does. And Putin is very close to the Russian Orthodox Church. He's been promoting this kind of nationalism intertwined with religious messaging through the church. He promotes this kind of stuff in Western Europe. Putin has been nurturing the far right in Western Europe. So this jives, the agenda of the people around Trump and Putin have similar views of the world. And it is a far right, far right view of the world.

So yeah, the idea of some kind of accommodation with Russia because of the coming trade war, and who knows what kind of war, with China, yeah, this is definitely, I think, part of the equation. The shorter-term play is Iran. They are, this group, this cabal in Washington, is fixated on regime change in Iran. I actually am not sure how they, why they see that fits the China strategy, but I don't know that it matters, because that's their play. And they've been talking about it for years, since the late night 1990s. And this document, Project for a New American Century. Undoing the Iranian revolution has been absolutely at the core of these people's foreign policy.

So there are, all these things are interconnected. And you know, dividing Russia from China, and having clearly some kind of alliance there, it's also in the interests of Putin, and it's very much in the interest of this, of this cabal. I think we should even stop talking and being so focused on Trump. Because if they bring down Trump the individual, they'll find some other, some other individual to come play a similar role. And he won't, this, whoever he or she is won't be such a clown.

[Aug 07, 2018] Why 'Russian Meddling' is a Trojan Horse by Rob Urie

Notable quotes:
"... Graph: The Democrats' choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people's choice. The largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the 'developed' world for a reason. Source: ..."
"... electproject.org ..."
"... Director of National Intelligence. ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single act could seal a new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives with the operational core of the American military-industrial-surveillance complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as an offshoot of Democratic Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal invective against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it that doing so wouldn't be easy.

The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton's electoral loss was made in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff. Within days the received wisdom amongst Clinton supporters was that the election had been stolen and that Donald Trump was set to enter the White House as a pawn of the Russian political leadership. Left out was the history of U.S. – Russian relations; that the largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who didn't vote and that domestic business interests substantially control the American electoral process.

Graph: The Democrats' choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people's choice. The largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the 'developed' world for a reason. Source: electproject.org .

More than a year later, no credible evidence has been put forward to establish that any votes were changed due to 'external' meddling. As the Intercept has reported , since the election progressive candidates seeking public office have been systematically subverted by establishment Democrats in favor of those with connections to big-money donors. And the Democratic Party leadership in congress just voted to give Mr. Trump expanded spying powers with fewer restraints. Congressional Democrats are certainly behaving as if they believe Mr. Trump was duly elected. And more to the point, they are supporting his program.

The choice of Russia would seem bizarre if not for the history. Residual propaganda from the first Cold War -- itself largely a business enterprise that provided ideological cover for American imperial incursions , had it that substantive grievances against the American government, in the form of protests, were universally the product of 'external' enemies intent on sowing discord to promote their own interests. This slander was used against the Civil Rights movement, organized labor, anti-war protesters and the counterculture of the 1960s.

Therefore, the choice by the Clintonites to invoke a new Cold War by bringing Russia into the American electoral mix is not without a past. Students of history may recall that in the early 1990s Mikhail Gorbachev was given assurances by senior members of George H.W. Bush's administration that NATO would not be expanded to Russia's border in exchange for Russia's help re-integrating East and West Germany. It was Bill Clinton who unilaterally abrogated these assurances and moved nuclear-armed NATO to Russia's border.

In 2013 the Obama administration ' brokered ' (Mr. Obama's term) a coup in the former Soviet state of Ukraine that ousted the democratically elected President to install persons favorable to the interests of Western oligarchs . At the time Hillary Clinton had just vacated her post as Mr. Obama's Secretary of State to prepare for her 2016 run for president, but her lieutenants, including Victoria Nuland , were active in coordinating the coup and deciding who the new 'leadership' of Ukraine would be.

An analogy would be if Russia moved troops and weaponry to the Mexican border with the U.S. after giving assurances that it wouldn't do so and then engineered a coup (in Mexico) to install a government friendly to the interests of the Russian political leadership. One needn't be sympathetic to Russian interests to understand that these are provocations. Given U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, the provocations seem more reckless than 'tough.' Then consider Mr. Obama's, later Trump's, move to 'upgrade' the U.S. nuclear arsenal toward 'tactical' use.

This is to suggest that it certainly makes sense that the Russian political leadership would want to keep American militarists, a/k/a the Clintons and their neocon ' crazies ,' out of White House. But as of now, the evidence is that the Russians changed no votes in the 2016 election. As far as inciting dissent -- the charge that protests were organized by Russian 'interests,' not only does this reek of prior misdirection by the FBI and CIA, but there is no evidence that any such protests had an impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.

Given Mr. Trump's belligerent (unhinged) rhetoric toward North Korea, if enhancing geopolitical stability was the Russians' goal, Mr. Trump must be a disappointment. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump's critics (among whom I count myself), there is a lot of 'theory' from American think tanks that supports crazy as a strategy . And it was after Mr. Trump's provocative posture toward North Korea became widely known that senior Democrats voted to give him additional NSA powers with fewer restrictions.

The most cynically brilliant outcome of the 'blame Russia' campaign has been to neuter left activism by focusing the attack on Donald Trump rather than the interests he represents. As evidence, the proportion of Goldman Sachs alumni in Mr. Trump's administration approximates that in Mr. Obama's and what was expected for Mrs. Clinton's. If the problem is Donald Trump, then the solution is 'not Trump.' However, if the problem is that the rich substantially control American political outcomes, how would electing 'not Trump' bring about resolution?

As it is, within days of the 2016 election Mr. Trump, his supporters plus the political opponents of Mrs. Clinton were recast as stooges of the Kremlin. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had required loyalty oaths from their stalwarts. But even a loyalty oath wouldn't prove that one isn't a stooge of the Kremlin. And the larger problem with the theory (of Russian meddling) is that the U.S. electoral system was already thoroughly corrupted by economic power.

As students of the scientific method know, you can't 'prove' a negative. Condoleezza Rice used this knowledge in 2003 to sell the George W. Bush administration's calamitous war against Iraq through the charge that the proof that Saddam Hussein had an ongoing WMD program is that he hadn't handed over his WMDs. As history has it, Mr. Hussein couldn't hand over his WMDs because he didn't have any to hand over. How then would critics of Mrs. Clinton 'prove' they weren't / aren't acting on behalf of foreign interests?

The answer lies with Democratic Party loyalists. Much as Bush – Cheney supporters were impervious to logical and evidentiary challenges to the rationales given for the war against Iraq, Clintonites believe what they believe because they believe it. For those with an interest and some knowledge of empirical research, read the myriad articles touting 'proof' of Russian meddling and find a single instance where such proof is provided. Or with an eye toward not being the half of Republicans who still believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, bring the proof forward if it exists.

Here is the disclaimer taken from the National Intelligence Estimate (link here ).

The National Intelligence Estimate , initially claimed to be based on input from 17 intelligence agencies, later reduced to selected representatives from three of the agencies (NSA, CIA and FBI), provides no proof for claims of Russian meddling and states quite openly that it is conjecture. Amongst these agencies, one (NSA) is known for illegally spying on Americans and lying about it to congress, the second (CIA) provided fraudulent 'evidence' to drag the U.S. into a calamitous war against Iraq where it ran illegal torture camps and the third (FBI) has such a checkered history that is was called 'Gestapo' by former U.S. president Harry Truman.

Here is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Here is Trevor Timm in the Columbia (University) Journalism Review explaining the many ways former head of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden has lied to congress and the American people. Here is a brief history of COINTELPRO and FBI attempts to disrupt and discredit the Civil Rights movement. At the time that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was accusing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of being a communist (link above), the term approximated being an agent of Russia.

(Here is a compendium of links related to claims made in this piece: Promise by U.S. that NATO wouldn't expand to surround Russia. Bill Clinton expands NATO to Eastern Bloc to surround Russia. Barack Obama admits U.S. role in Ukraine coup. James Clapper committing perjury. Victoria Nuland discusses overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installing U.S. puppets. Backstory of CIA and Robert Sheer that supports argument Propornot is government operation with ties to Ukrainian fascists.)

There is circumstantial evidence that the first list of 'Russian-linked' websites published by the 'credible' media, that of Propornot published in the Washington Post (in their 'Business' section) to which a disclaimer was subsequently added, was the work of Ukrainians with links to the CIA. The Propornot website (link above) is worth visiting to get a sense of how implausible the whole enterprise is. On it former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts , is listed prominently as a puppet of the Kremlin. And deep-research political website Washington's Blog made the honor roll as well.

More recently, the New York Times cited the German Marshall Fund as an authority on Russian meddling. The German Marshall fund (U.S.) is headed by Karen Donfried , a former Obama Administration official and operative for the National Intelligence Council. The National Intelligence Council supports the Director of National Intelligence. Here (again) is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Derek Chollet , Executive Vice President of the fund, is the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Obama administration and a senior member of Hillary Clinton's Policy Planning Staff.

The question for the Left is why liberals and progressives would align themselves with Hayden, Clapper, the FBI, CIA and NSA, and suspect organizations like Propornot and the German Marshall Fund when most have spent their entire existences trying to undermine and shut down the Left? The (near-term) cynical brilliance of the Democrats' strategy is through revival of the Cold War frame of national interests that was always a cover for imperial business schemes. As the Intercept articles (links above) have well- uncovered, this is all just business for the Democrats anyway. Can you say class warfare?

Assuming for a moment that not everyone is playing the Democrats' one-dimensional checkers, if the Russian political leadership really intended to 'undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order,' as the NIE puts it, it is doing Mrs. Clinton a disservice to suggest that she wasn't up to the job. From the Clintons' 1994 Crime Bill to deregulating Wall Street to support for George W. Bush's calamitous war against Iraq to the U.S. / NATO destruction of Libya, Mrs. Clinton has 'undermine(d) the U.S.-led liberal democratic order' just fine.

Likely not considered when the Russian meddling hypothesis was originally put forward is what happens next? The initial charge that America's 'sacred democratic tradition' was soiled when the Russian political leadership hacked the election has run up against the apparent fact that no votes have been found to have been changed. The charge that AstroTurf protests organized by the Russians led to dissent smells a lot like the last half-century of FBI / CIA lies against / about the Left. And the charge that narcissistic plutocrat Trump has been 'compromised' misses that he was already compromised by the circumstances of his birth and upbringing. This is the problem.

The Democrats, in their wisdom, have given a gift to the U.S. intelligence 'community' that provides political cover for closing down inconvenient commentary and disrupting inconvenient political organizations. A political Left with a brain would be busy thinking through strategy for when the internet becomes completely unusable for organizing and communication. The unifying factor in the initial 'fake news' purge was criticism of Hillary Clinton. Print media, a once viable alternative, has been all but destroyed by the move to the internet. This capability needs to be rebuilt.

Bourgeois incredulity that Donald Trump still has supporters could be seen by an inquisitive Left through a lens of class struggle. Yes, his effective supporters are rich, just as the national Democrats' are -- the term for this is plutocracy. But back in the realm of human beings, rising deaths of despair tie in theory and fact to the wholesale abandonment of the American people by the political class. An inquisitive Left would be talking to these people, not at them. The Russian meddling story is a sideshow with a political purpose. But class struggle remains the relevant story. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Rob Urie

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.

[Aug 07, 2018] Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics by Rob Urie

Notable quotes:
"... The Great Satin (sic) ..."
"... Source: gulfbusiness.com ..."
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
Feb 19, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr. Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr. Mueller proceeds.

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless to maintain an unjust social order.

Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against Iraq.

It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr. Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and evidence of being a foreign agent.

The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger story.

In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet , that the NSA has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the outcome of the election.

I Have a List

While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the 2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question that needs to be asked.

The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic institutions?

The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity. It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath are entirely home grown.

More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem in need of addressing, wouldn't the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shut down years ago?

The Great Satin (sic)

While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,' the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged) villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'

The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.

The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants. Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over the last half-century quite well.

Source: gulfbusiness.com

It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two -- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S. Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.

Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office via free and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of power, the CIA joined with local plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed Russia.

What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian oil and gas.

The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this affair were ideological Nazis .

Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe.

In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe, admits that the U.S. engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S. electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?

Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been, militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's' heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are currently in.

Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya that murdered 30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.

Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the Americans.

By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and prosperity.

There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?

[Aug 07, 2018] Obamacare architect: We passed law due to 'stupidity of the American voter'

Aug 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

847328_3527 -> Kaiser Sousa Tue, 08/07/2018 - 17:45 Permalink

Obamacare architect: We passed law due to 'stupidity of the American voter'

~ Obama's Affordable Care Act author, Jonathan Gruber

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/10/obamacare-architect-we

[Aug 07, 2018] Yemen? We are assisting a genocidal war. What else can be said?

Aug 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
8. Yemen? We are assisting a genocidal war. What else can be said? pl

English Outsider -> EEngineer , 7 hours ago

On your last paragraph, I've been nursing that hope as far as the ME goes for a while as well. Ever since the Jerusalem decision.

As for European NATO, isn't that already shot? Turkey unreliable at one end. The UK at odds with the mainland at the other, if all the disaster talk isn't just theatre and maybe if it is. European NATO no longer looks like a credible alliance. Not an alliance at all should Trump remove or cause to be removed the American glue holding it all together.

But the Colonel's item 8 is going to weigh on the conscience of the West for a long time.

EEngineer -> English Outsider , 6 hours ago
On #8: I would bet that not 1 in 100 Americans know anything about the place at all, never mind the current slaughter. There will be nothing for them to forget. I'm not trying to be flippant either. Unfortunately, most of my countrymen are simply fat, dumb, and happy; and content to stay that way.

[Aug 07, 2018] Three Reasons Why 'Fire and Fury' Won't Work With Iran by By Scott Ritter

Aug 07, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
addressed a crowd of Iranian-Americans , giving voice to a new American policy on Iran that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the Iranian government. It would also strangle Iran's economy through the reimposition of economic sanctions that had been set aside when Iran and five other Western nations, including the United States, came to an agreement in 2015 over Iran's nuclear program.

According to this agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, Iran accepted sanctions on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. When President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in May, he promised to reimpose sanctions that had been approved by Congress, including those targeting Iran's sale of oil. The goal of the Trump administration, Pompeo told the crowd, was to "get [Iranian oil] imports as close to zero as possible" by this November.

Pompeo's address did not go over well in Tehran. Addressing a gathering of Iranian diplomats , Iran's President Hassan Rouhani asked, "Is it possible that everyone in the region sells their oil and we stand idly by and watch? Do not forget that we have maintained the security of this waterway [Strait of Hormuz] throughout history. We have historically secured the route of oil transit. Do not forget it."

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Approximately 18.5 million barrels of oil a day transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel of water separating Iran from Oman. The loss of this oil to the global economy would be devastating. On July 5, Rouhani commented on the American plan to shut down Iran's oil imports, saying, "The Americans say they want to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero. It shows they have not thought about its consequences." While Rouhani had remained silent about what those consequences would be, Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, made it clear that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz to all oil traffic.

"America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars," Rouhani said, warning the American president not to "play with the lion's tail, this would only lead to regret."

President Trump's response, delivered via Twitter the next day, caught the attention of the world.

NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

On July 24, the Iranian Armed Forces chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, responded to Trump's threats . "As the dominant power in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, [Iran] has been the guarantor of the security of shipping and the global economy in this vital waterway and has the strength to take action against any scheme in this region," Bagheri said.

"As our president correctly pointed out, the enemies, particularly America, whose centers of interest are within reach of the visible and hidden defense forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, should not play with the lion's tail," the Iranian general said, "because they will receive a strong, unimaginable and regrettable response of great magnitude in the region and the world."

That same day, President Trump addressed a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars , seemingly a perfect venue for offering a bellicose response to the Iranian threats of action. Instead, the president offered up a fig leaf of sorts. "We'll see what happens," Trump said, "but we're ready to make a real deal, not the deal that was done by the previous administration, which was a disaster."

The seesawing rhetorical game of threat and counterthreat being played by Trump seems reminiscent of a similar approach taken late last year and early this year with North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Last August, responding to North Korean threats to test missiles capable of reaching the United States, Trump had declared that North Korea "best not make any more threats to the United States," saying that if North Korea disregarded him, "They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen." Trump later went on to famously belittle North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, as "little rocket man," while Kim in turn responded by calling Trump a "dotard" and a "warmonger" whose true nature was that of a "destroyer of the world peace and stability."

In June, Trump and Kim held a summit in Singapore, where they discussed the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Many observers believe that Trump is reaching back to his North Korean playbook in engaging in the current hostile exchange with Iran. Iran, however, is not North Korea.

What follows are major reasons why Trump is wrong if he thinks Iran will accede to his demands that it renegotiate a nuclear agreement with the United States to replace the JCPOA.

Reason One: Iran Isn't Breaking the Law

North Korea was in open violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and there was (and is) widespread concurrence that North Korea's nuclear weapons program posed a clear and present threat to international peace and security. While Trump's hostile rhetoric toward Kim Jong Un represented American policy only, he was backed up by a global consensus that the threat from North Korea's nuclear arsenal was no longer acceptable. North Korea was on the wrong side of the law, and it knew it.

Iran, on the other hand, had successfully negotiated a nuclear agreement with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany and the European Union. Its nuclear program today operates in total conformity with the terms of that agreement. The Security Council had passed a resolution undoing the totality of the economic sanctions imposed on Iran because of its nuclear program. Trump withdrew from the JCPOA because of American domestic politics, not because Iran threatened international peace and security. As the United States moves to reimpose sanctions on Iran, one is struck by the number of nations rushing to its side to join in this endeavor: zero.

Simply put, there is no compelling narrative than can be crafted that has Iran walking away from the JCPOA.

Reason Two: Iran Doesn't Have to Win to Win

A war between the United States and North Korea, while potentially devastating for the entire region, had only one sure outcome -- total American victory (at a huge cost), and the absolute destruction of the North Korean regime. In short, if Kim Jong Un opted for war with the United States, he would be committing suicide -- and taking millions of others down with him. Kim Jong Un is anything but suicidal. He built his arsenal of nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes, not to engage in a self-destructive acquisition of technology. North Korea's ultimate goal has been to break free of the international isolation it has been subjected to; nuclear weapons were a way to secure that outcome. The Singapore Summit occurred because of North Korean initiatives -- the Olympic outreach, the meetings with South Korean leaders, and so on. Kim Jong Un was not compelled to go to Singapore -- a meeting with an American president was always his ultimate objective.

The Iranian government does not trust the United States and has no desire to engage in diplomatic relations with the United States. This does not mean that the two nations cannot peacefully coexist -- they can, and Iran desires as much. But throwing the possibility of a grand bargain with the United States on the table in exchange for Iran giving up its nuclear program is sheer fantasy. As such, any effort to compel Iran into diplomatic engagement by threatening it with war is doomed to fail. Iran learned the lessons of Hezbollah's ongoing conflict with Israel, and in particular that of the 2006 war, all too well. To win the war, Hezbollah did not need to defeat Israel; it had only to make sure Israel did not defeat it. This is an ambition Iran readily aspires to -- it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, cripple the global economy and ride out any American military response. In the end, the United States will succumb to international pressure and search for a negotiated settlement, and Iran will emerge victorious simply because it survived. Iran would accept this outcome rather than surrender its hard-won diplomatic achievement regarding the JCPOA.

Reason Three: Religious Democracy

North Korea is an absolute dictatorship -- Kim Jong Un need only gain the concurrence of his inner circle to move forward on ground-changing policy, such as improving relations with the United States. Even then, any voices of dissent can be -- and indeed, have been -- summarily silenced. Kim Jong Un has a constituency of one when it comes to getting his policies approved: himself.

Iran is a far more complex problem when it comes to making policy -- an Islamic republic governed by a democratically elected executive and legislature whose decisions are subject to review by a theocracy that itself is governed by a constitution and held accountable, via elections, to the will of the people. While Iranian democracy has been openly mocked in the United States as a sham, the fact is that democratic processes have shaped the Islamic Republic of Iran since its founding. The current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has spoken of Iran as being a "religious democracy," where the people's participation in the government, expressed through the vehicle of elections, is indicative of the nation's health (indeed, Iran's 73.3 percent turnout in the presidential election of 2017, in which Hassan Rouhani won re-election, dwarfs the paltry 55.7 percent turnout in the U.S. presidential election of 2016 that put Donald Trump in office).

The JCPOA that was negotiated between Iran and the West was more than simply an expression of political will by the Iranian leadership -- it was an expression of the will of the Iranian people, given voice through countless parliamentary debates and legitimized through repeated elections where the issue of Iran's nuclear program factored in the balloting. The Iranian people would support its government refusing to bend a knee in the face of American threats; they would not support a government that surrendered their hard-won gains on the nuclear front, which the Iranian people suffered greatly to achieve.

Donald Trump lives in a transactional universe where everything can be dealt away. While this approach might work with New York City real estate and may even have limited application in international affairs, it fails where issues derived from intangible principles -- something that cannot be monetized -- are at stake. In Trump's world, one can try to bribe North Korea with the promise of economic largesse or threaten NATO's viability by placing a dollar value on continued membership. While the ulterior motives of North Korea agreeing -- in principle, if not reality -- to denuclearize, and NATO to increase its defense spending to 2 percent GDP per member, are probably far more complex than the zero-sum thinking that Trump's transactional diplomacy suggests, the results are the same. But there can be no transactional diplomacy when the other side refuses to name a price, and Iran has made it clear that there is no price it is willing to accept to give up its nuclear program.

The danger here is that Trump doesn't realize he is playing a losing hand. His bluff will be called by Iran (indeed, based upon Rouhani's words, it has been called), but Trump will continue to throw chips into the pot until compelled to either reverse course and rejoin the JCPOA (unlikely), or force the issue and watch the United States enter a war with Iran it will not lose -- but cannot win.

In 2002 Scott Ritter spoke out against the case being made by the US government for war with Iraq. After the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter spoke out against the war. He continues to do so today, offering critical analysis of American foreign and national security policy.

This article was originally published by " Truth Dig " -

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Aug 07, 2018] Iranians Not Pining for American Intervention The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Akhilesh "Akhi" Pillalamarri is a fellow at Defense Priorities. An international relations analyst, editor, and writer, he studied international security at Georgetown University. Find him on Twitter ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Iranians: Not Pining for American Intervention Some seem to think they can't wait for us to overthrow their government. Nothing could be further from the truth. By Akhilesh Pillalamarri • August 6, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2FQX17B8fU-Vm.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df21a7df621488d%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff33265c47028bec%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Firanians-not-pining-for-american-intervention%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.cb6df5c11eb74c4885e17101a777cb60.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Firanians-not-pining-for-american-intervention%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Iranians%3A%20Not%20Pining%20for%20American%20Intervention%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1533621534712&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Firanians-not-pining-for-american-intervention%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Firanians-not-pining-for-american-intervention%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.tfeHgeF_foc.O%2Fam%3DwQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPRlx2OWxoDDX3Ql-cQOEJ5Wxkorw%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1533621534336&_gfid=I0_1533621534336&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=12849422

Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Shutterstock Defense hawks in Washington think the people of Iran are waiting with bated breath for the regime in Tehran to collapse and wouldn't mind a little American help along the way -- whether through direct military intervention, or "naturally" as the result of grassroots protests , "with Washington backing," of course.

There is no greater fallacy. While the people of Iran are undoubtedly frustrated with their government, they are not on the cusp of changing it, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems to believe . In fact, any attempt by outside actors to change the regime would cause the people of Iran to unify around the clerics. We would end up deflating the reformist party and enabling the hardliners who have consistently warned their people that we can't be trusted.

This ongoing mind reading of the Iranian people is pure Washington hokum with no basis in reality.

After witnessing the debacles of our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, who can blame the people of Iran for not wanting direct American military aid? As Damon Linker points out in The Week , our attitude towards unsavory regimes in other nations is all too often informed by "an incorrigible optimism about the benefits of change and consequent refusal to entertain the possibility that a bad situation might be made even worse by overturning it."

Trump Will Never Get a Better Deal With Iran Is Washington Playing Iran's Useful Idiot in Syria?

Almost nobody in Iran supports the main group pushing for Western-backed regime change, the National Council for the Resistance of Iran (NCRI). That organization is widely seen as a front for the despised Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iranian Marxist group that fought against the late Shah, was virulently anti-American, and worked with Saddam Hussein to invade Iran during the Iran-Iraq War before rebranding itself as a democratic opposition group.

Despite this being common knowledge among unbiased observers, figures like National Security Advisor John Bolton continue to promote it as an alternative for Iran.

In actuality, despite the desire among a sizable segment of Iranians -- especially young people in Tehran and other large cities -- for a pro-Western government, there is no well-organized, secular, democratic alternative waiting to take charge. Any organization that bills itself as such is following in the deceitful footsteps of Ahmed Chalabi , the Iraqi leader-in-exile who sold himself in the United States as the Iraqi George Washington, but failed to garner any political support after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

History shows us that there is no quicker way for a leader or group to lose legitimacy than by seeking the aid of a foreign power. King Louis XVI of France managed to hold on to his throne for a few years after the storming of the Bastille, but was deposed after fleeing Paris and seeking the aid of France's enemies. Iranians, like Americans, value liberty in the sense of national self-determination: they would rather be under-served by their own leaders than by well-meaning foreigners or those perceived to be puppets.

After wasting almost two decades of blood and treasure trying to rebuild countries with weaker national identities than Iran -- like Iraq -- U.S. policymakers would have to be detached from reality to believe that anything good could come of intervention in Iranian affairs.

The people of Iran have a long historical memory: those who sold out their nation to foreign powers, even in opposition to tyranny, have garnered not thanks but the collective hatred of the Iranian people. From the actions of the satrap Bessus who killed the last Achaemenid Persian king Darius III to curry favor with Alexander the Great, to the slaying of the last pre-Islamic Persian ruler Yazdegerd III by a local ruler to appease the invading Arabs, Iranians have long looked askance at collaboration with foreigners. Numerous 19th-century Qajar rulers failed to implement their policies because they were thought to be too close to the goals of the imperial powers of Russia or Britain. And the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, never escaped the perception that his ascent to power in 1953 was enabled by British and American intelligence agencies, regardless of his own self-portrayal as a nationalist.

Most Iranians, no matter how much they oppose their current government and politics, would not support an invasion of their own country, let alone the peaceful ascendancy of groups believed to serve interests other than theirs: it is a matter of pride and honor.

It is true that Iran has been racked by protests throughout the past year, such as January's multi-city demonstrations and the closure of the Grand Bazaar in Tehran in June. But those were spontaneous actions resulting from blue-collar frustrations with the economy and are unlikely to lead to an outcome favorable to American interests.

If our pressure on Iran leads to regime change, the most likely alternative is probably a military junta led by members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a shift away from the semi-civilian government that Iran now enjoys. The IRGC has been infringing on our geopolitical interests throughout the Middle East for decades and could take an even harder anti-American line than the current government. When confronted with invaders and foreign pressure, Iranians have always rallied around military strongmen, such as Nader Shah in the early 18th century, who threw out the invading Afghans, and Reza Shah in the early 20th century, who saved Iran from disintegration after World War I.

Washington should be careful what it wishes for. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that the people of Iran are waiting for our support and intervention. The truth is much darker.

Akhilesh "Akhi" Pillalamarri is a fellow at Defense Priorities. An international relations analyst, editor, and writer, he studied international security at Georgetown University. Find him on Twitter @akhipill .

Christian Chuba August 6, 2018 at 1:47 pm

The people of Iran instinctively love America because everyone in the world loves America.

This is true regardless of the fact that we have never done anything whatsoever to merit their love. We have never given them assistance when they had an earthquake, we won't let them get spare parts for passenger airlines causing air travel to be unsafe. We hinder civilian projects but since we are narcissists, we simply believe that everyone loves us because of our intrinsically great qualities.

Clyde Schechter , says: August 6, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Really, what if the shoe were on the other foot? Trump is very unpopular as our own President. But if a foreign power were to attempt to depose him and install a new government, there would be massive popular resistance to that here. Why the neocons think it would be different in any other country eludes me.

Nothing can unite even a fractiously divided nation more readily than foreign interference.

HenionJD , says: August 6, 2018 at 2:10 pm
>>But if a foreign power were to attempt to depose him and install a new government, there would be massive popular resistance to that here.((

A foreign power attempted to put him IN office and lots of folks are just fine with that.

b. , says: August 6, 2018 at 2:17 pm
US policy since Libya and Syria has been "regime destruction", with not even token commitments to pretend "nation building". The miscalculation continues: if the US manages to turn Iran into a "failed to comply" state without effective governance, there will be several factions with professional military capabilities – especially given the IRGC "deterrent" of connections and alliances throughout the Middle East – that can continue where our pathological US "maglinity" plans to stop.

There are no "wars of choice". The only choice the US gets is whether to start an unnecessary war, from then on our victims get a say, eventually. We are still trapped in Eisenhower's grandstanding "meddling" in Iranian elections, after all .

Sid Finster , says: August 6, 2018 at 3:27 pm
O please!

Everyone knows that Iranians are not begging for "liberation", just as everyone with the brains God gave my youngest cat knew damn well that American boots would not transform Iraq into a western democracy, that American bombs would ruin Libya and American bombs are used for genocide in Yemen.

The Trump Administration is looking for an excuse to attack. Just as the Bush Administration shed crocodile tears over the poor Iraqis, and Obama cynically exploited the fate of Libyans.

[Aug 07, 2018] An interesting analogy with neocons effort to fuel Russiagate hysteria

Notable quotes:
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
"... Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved to be so careless, complacent,and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting agents of foreign states to responsible posts. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

clarky90 , August 3, 2018 at 5:15 pm

Re. "Old, white, Bernie Sanders"

Comrade Stalin speaks from the grave, in support of Kommissar General Clinton supporting her brave fight against wreckers, spies, provocateurs, diversionists, whiteguards, kulaks .who are trying to infiltrate and destroy, OUR Democratic Party!

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/03.htm

Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers : March 3, 1937

"Comrades!

From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that we are dealing with the following three main facts.

First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.

Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.

Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved to be so careless, complacent,and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting agents of foreign states to responsible posts.

These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the discussions on them "

JBird , August 4, 2018 at 12:14 am

Diversionist is a new one to me. I suppose that those are thieves?

clarky90 , August 4, 2018 at 1:12 am

Wrecking (Russian: вредительство or vreditel'stvo, lit. "inflicting damage", "harming"), was a crime specified in the criminal code of the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. It is often translated as "sabotage"; however, "wrecking", "diversionist acts" , and "counter-revolutionary sabotage" were distinct sub-articles of Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) (58-7, 58-9, and 58-14 respectively), The meaning of "wrecking" is closer to "undermining".

These three categories were distinguished in the following way:

Diversions were acts of immediate infliction of physical damage on state and cooperative property.

Wrecking was deliberate acts aimed against normal functioning of state and cooperative organisations, such as giving deliberately wrong commands.

Sabotage was non-execution, or careless execution, of one's duties.
The definition of sabotage was interpreted dialectically and indirectly, so any form of non-compliance with Party directives could have been considered a 'sabotage'."

JBird , August 4, 2018 at 6:40 pm

Sabotage was non-execution, or careless execution, of one's duties.
The definition of sabotage was interpreted dialectically and indirectly, so any form of non-compliance with Party directives could have been considered a 'sabotage'."

So no deviating from being, or at least appearing as, an ultra obedient group-thinking conformist drone. Gotcha. Anyone the higher ups didn't like would be guilty of something, rather like how Americans today commit multiple felonies each day because it is unavoidable.

ObjectiveFunction , August 4, 2018 at 2:50 am

Yeah, a not so distant mirror. Didn't Stalin also have a title that amounted to Stable Genius of the Revolution?

In 1937 he wasn't on about ((((homeless cosmopolitans)))) yet.

Procopius , August 4, 2018 at 11:13 pm

I never followed up on it, but I read years ago that virtually all the original members of PNAC and American Enterprise Institute were Trotskyites. Specifically Irving Kristol (Butcher Bill's father), and Gertrud Himmelfarb (his mother).

[Aug 07, 2018] On Iran, the Neocons Are No Ronald Reagan by Barbara Slavin

The USA now is viewed as imperial power hell-bent of crushing other countries. US foreign policy in the region is viewed as pandering to Israeli interests. That increases resistance to color revolutions.
The author analogies with the USSR are very problematic. The collapse of the USSR was due to mass betrayal of the elite which adopted neoliberalism. In Iran even if its theocratic system experience the same crisis of confidence as Bolheviks system in the USSR, this mass defection of elite is less probable due to history of relations with the USA and, especially the USA support of Iraq in brutal war between the countries. People view the USA as a "great Satan."
The current US foreign policy is totally controlled by neocons and as such is less flexible then in the past.
Notable quotes:
"... While neoconservatives have portrayed the Islamic Republic of Iran as a global bogeyman on the order of the USSR and argued that it should be President Trump's "pre-eminent challenge ," it remains a mid-level power in a region that most Americans, including Trump, would like to quit. ..."
"... In his speech, Pompeo asserted that the U.S. would somehow bolster Iranians who have taken to the streets -- in a very un-Soviet set of popular protests -- since late last year. "In light of these protests and 40 years of regime tyranny, I have a message for the people of Iran," Pompeo said. "The United States hears you; the United States supports you; the United States is with you." ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In their pursuit of a policy of maximum pressure on Iran, America's neoconservatives have pushed a nostalgic narrative: the Trump administration can bring down Iran's theocracy the way that the Reagan administration helped defeat and dissolve the Soviet Union.

This comparison has been advanced by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which promotes draconian sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Its arguments figured prominently in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's recent speech at the Reagan library in which he asserted that Iran is still a revolutionary regime "committed to spreading the revolution to other countries, by force if necessary."

The strategy to confront and collapse the Soviet Union included military and economic pressure coupled with a focus on human rights abuses and corruption, as well as U.S. support for indigenous dissidents. The comparison to Iran is flawed on a number of levels, and even in those areas where some overlap exists, such a plan is unlikely to be successfully implemented by the Trump administration.

While neoconservatives have portrayed the Islamic Republic of Iran as a global bogeyman on the order of the USSR and argued that it should be President Trump's "pre-eminent challenge ," it remains a mid-level power in a region that most Americans, including Trump, would like to quit.

Iran has never successfully exported its unique theocratic-led system, even to neighboring Iraq, with its Shiite majority, or Lebanon, where Shiites are a plurality and Iran has a potent ally in Hezbollah. The Soviet Union, by contrast, dominated Eastern Europe for four decades and supported communist parties throughout the world, including in Iran when it was under the Shah. It invaded other countries at will, crushing the Prague spring of 1968 and entering Afghanistan in 1979 to shore up a friendly regime.

The Soviet Union was also a nuclear peer competitor of the United States, possessing a massive atomic arsenal. Iran has never developed nuclear weapons and could be constrained for more than a decade from building them if the United States returned to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or if a rump JCPOA somehow survives the U.S. unilateral withdrawal.

The comparison to the Soviet Union does work in the sense that Iran's economy is now under severe strain, although the reasons are not the same. The Reagan administration outspent the Soviet Union in a massive arms race that left Moscow unable to satisfy the growing demands of its long-suffering consumers and maintain its military edge and alliances, including the debilitating war in Afghanistan. The Trump administration is collapsing the Iranian economy through sanctions that have frightened away major multinational companies and destroyed confidence in the Iranian currency.

Both the old USSR and Iran have autocratic systems that repress political expression and jail dissidents. It is entirely appropriate for the U.S. and other countries to publicize these abuses and seek to penalize those most directly responsible. However, the Trump administration's credibility in denouncing what Pompeo called a "mafia" government run by "hypocritical holy men" is undercut by egregious double standards. This is, after all, an administration led by a president who has called North Korea's brutal leader Kim Jong-un "honorable," sword-danced with Saudi autocrats, and fawned over reprehensible leaders from the Philippines to Egypt.

In his speech, Pompeo asserted that the U.S. would somehow bolster Iranians who have taken to the streets -- in a very un-Soviet set of popular protests -- since late last year. "In light of these protests and 40 years of regime tyranny, I have a message for the people of Iran," Pompeo said. "The United States hears you; the United States supports you; the United States is with you."

That support, however, does not extend to allowing actual Iranians to come to America -- unlike Reagan's embrace of Soviet exiles and others fleeing persecution. Thanks to the travel ban, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court, most Iranian citizens are barred from even visiting the U.S. And while academic exchanges are technically still allowed, the "extreme vetting" required for Iranians -- and their fear that they may not be able to return to the U.S. if they have to leave for any reason -- has severely undercut this key feature of old-style public diplomacy.

Iran and the United States, of course, lack diplomatic ties, which were so instrumental in promoting people-to-people contact with the Soviet Union. This author was an exchange student in what was then called Leningrad in the 1970s, an experience that humanized the Soviet Union in the eyes of the visiting Americans and performed a similar function for our Soviet counterparts.

Unfortunately, few Americans know the reality of today's Iran and are thus easily manipulated by propagandists who cast the country in relentlessly negative terms.

If despite all these differences, the Trump administration really embraced a Reaganesque approach to Iran, it would not only rescind the travel ban but would sincerely pursue new negotiations that build on the JCPOA.

Instead, the administration is punishing Iran for non-compliance and demanding that it capitulate and reverse all its other foreign and domestic policies. This approach almost certainly guarantees that Iran will not produce an "Ayatollah Gorbachev" willing and able to resolve the long U.S.-Iran divide and further liberalize Iranian society. The main victims will be the Iranian people but American interests will also suffer.

Barbara Slavin directs the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council. The views expressed here are her own.

[Aug 07, 2018] Would War With Iran Doom Trump by Pat Buchanan

Like Greenspan said about Iraq war. It's about oil.
Aug 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

A war with Iran would define, consume and potentially destroy the Trump presidency, but exhilarate the neocon never-Trumpers who most despise the man.

Why, then, is President Donald Trump toying with such an idea?

Looking back at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, wars we began or plunged into, what was gained to justify the cost in American blood and treasure, and the death and destruction we visited upon that region? How has our great rival China suffered by not getting involved?

Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran would imperil, not secure, that interest.

Mass migration from the Islamic world, seeded with terrorist cells, is the greatest threat to Europe from the Middle East. But would not a U.S. war with Iran increase rather than diminish that threat?

Would the millions of Iranians who oppose the mullahs' rule welcome U.S. air and naval attacks on their country? Or would they rally behind the regime and the armed forces dying to defend their country?

"Mr Trump, don't play with the lion's tail," warned President Hassan Rouhani in July: "War with Iran is the mother of all wars."

But he added, "Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace."

[Aug 07, 2018] OIL and only OIL should guide the policy making considerations of the American Empire in the Middle East

Aug 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Renoman , August 3, 2018 at 9:21 am GMT

War with Iran? I can not imagine a more foolish thing to do.
Of course they will rally with their own Countrymen, everyone hates the USA.
The World economy will be in a complete tailspin, the US will likely finally go broke over it and chances are pretty good that Israel will be flattened and paved [one positive thing].
You fight Iran you fight China, you don't go messing with their road. Likely not bombs and guns either most likely money, something America has not much of.

The faster America dumps this crazy fascination with the Jews the faster it will get it's act together and become a Country again.

Sally Snyder , August 3, 2018 at 11:29 am GMT
As shown in this article, the U.S. Secretary of State is trying to manipulate Iranian Americans into supporting regime change in Iran:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/manipulating-iranian-americans-laying.html

Washington is working overtime to lay the groundwork for a war in Iran.

bob sykes , August 3, 2018 at 12:19 pm GMT
"ultimately prevail"

What can that possibly mean? We can bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, but Iran does not need a modern economy or military to close Hormuz. All they need do is fire a few land-based artillery and anti-ship missiles at a defenseless freighter or tanker. The insurance companies would do the rest–remove all commercial shipping from the Persian and Oman Gulf regions. That eliminates 20% of the World's oil supply, and it would collapse the World's economy, including our own.

Asymmetric warfare would engulf the entire Middle East, including Israel, with its large native Arab population and its occupation of large Arab populations in Gaza and the West Bank.

Iran has the upper hand here. We need to be very careful.

nickels , August 3, 2018 at 12:23 pm GMT
Let's face it-when we impose sanctions on Iran, we are already at war with them. Just like we are already at war with Russia. Imbeciles, all who run this country.
WorkingClass , August 3, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
Paranoid thug Bibi to Trump: Destroy Iran for me or I will feed you to your domestic enemies.
Charles Pewitt , August 3, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT

Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran would imperil, not secure, that interest.

The American Empire's only strategic three letter word interest in the Middle East is O -- I –L.

The WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party wants to elevate the three letter word J -- E –W to paramount importance in the Middle East.

OIL and only OIL should guide the policy making considerations of the American Empire in the Middle East.

[Aug 07, 2018] More Lies About the White Helmets by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Is resettling a terrorist front group in the West a good idea? ..."
"... The White Helmets ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Syria conflict: White Helmets evacuated by Israel. ..."
"... The BBC story could have been written by the White Helmets themselves or by their press department. Or alternatively by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. First of all, the Israelis do not do humanitarian gestures. They helped bail out the White Helmets at the request of the U.S. because capture by the Syrians would have produced embarrassing revelations about how the group was funded and what its affiliation with terrorists was all about. And Israel's denial of involvement in Syria is nonsense, unless one considers demonstrated collaboration with the terrorist groups punctuated by nearly weekly bombing and missile attacks to be non-involvement. ..."
"... The British too are into the deception up to their eyeballs. The comment by Hunt and Mordaunt is complete fabrication regarding what the White Helmets represent. The same goes for the BBC account of how the group developed, which comes directly from the White Helmet's own propaganda division as amplified by Hollywood and the U.S. and U.K. governments. ..."
"... The White Helmets travel to bombing sites with their film crews trailing behind them. Once at the sites, with no independent observers, they are able to arrange or even stage what is filmed to conform to their selected narrative which consistently promotes tales of government atrocities against civilians to encourage outside military intervention in Syria and bring about regime change in Damascus. The White Helmets were, for example, the propagators of the totally false but propagandistically effective claims regarding the government use of so-called "barrel bombs" against civilians. ..."
"... Peter Ford, British Ambassador in Damascus from 2003-2006, recently described the group in an audio interview saying, "The White Helmets are jihadi auxiliaries. They are not, as claimed by themselves and by their supporters simple rescuers. They are not volunteers. They are paid professionals of disinformation." ..."
"... All their activities are directed at mobilizing Western opinion behind the jihadis with whom they associate. They co-locate their centers with the Al-Qaeda organization known as Al-Nusra and with other militant groups such as Jaish al-Islam. They have in the past been shown associating with and waving the flags of ISIS." ..."
"... The group is currently largely funded by a number of non-government organizations (NGOs) as well as governments, including the United States, Britain and some European Union member states. The U.S. has directly provided $23 million through the USAID (US Agency for International Development) as of 2016 and almost certainly considerably more indirectly. ..."
"... Perhaps the most serious charge against the White Helmets consists of the evidence that they actively participated in the atrocities , to include torture and murder, carried out by their al-Nusra hosts. There have been numerous photos of the White Helmets operating directly with armed terrorists and also celebrating over the bodies of execution victims and murdered Iraqi soldiers. The group's jihadi associates regard the White Helmets as fellow "mujahideen" and "soldiers of the revolution." ..."
"... The White Helmets were and are part and parcel of the attempt to overthrow a legitimate government and install a regime friendly to western, American and Israeli interests. For Israel in particular the ongoing chaos in Syria was and is part of its plan for dividing all of its neighbors into warring ethnicities and sects, making them less viable as threats to the Jewish state. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Is resettling a terrorist front group in the West a good idea?

When is a terrorist group not a terrorist group? Apparently the answer is that it ceases to be terrorist when it terrorizes someone who is an enemy of the United States. The most prominent recent example is the Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK), a murderous Iranian Marxist cult which assassinated five Americans in the 1970s as part of its campaign against the Shah's government. It was removed from the State Department terrorist list in 2012 by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after it had promised not to kill any more Americans but really because it had bought the support of prominent politicians to include Elaine Chao, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton. It also had the behind the scenes endorsement of both the Israeli Mossad and CIA, both of whom have been using it in their operations to kill Iranians and damage the country's infrastructure. Someone high up in the federal government, perhaps Hillary or even President Obama himself, must have decided that terrorists who kill only Iranians deserve a get out of jail free card from the State Department.

There are other examples of cynical doublespeak from the Syrian conflict, including labeling rebels against the Damascus government "freedom fighters" when in reality they were as often as not allied with the al-Qaeda affiliated group Al-Nusra or even with ISIS. Frequently they received training and weapons from Washington only to turn around and either join Al-Nusra and ISIS as volunteers or surrender their weapons to them.

But perhaps there is no bigger fraud making the rounds than the so-called White Helmets. The recent media coverage derives from the documentary The White Helmets , which was produced by the group itself and tells a very convincing tale promoted as "the story of real-life heroes and impossible hope." It is a very impressive piece of propaganda, so much so that it has won numerous awards including the Oscar for Best Documentary Short last year and the White Helmets themselves were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. More to the point, however, is the undeniable fact that the documentary has helped shape the public understanding of what is going on in Syria, describing the government in Damascus in purely negative terms.

The fawning Hollywood and Congressional depictions of the group go something like this: "the White Helmets are an 'heroic' impartial non-government humanitarian volunteer group that engages in 'first response' emergency rescue and medical treatment for all those who have been impacted by the fighting in Syria. The Syrian government hates the group because it assists victims of the fighting who are either rebels or living in rebel held areas. Recently, with the Syrian Army closing in on the last White Helmet affiliates still operating in the country, the Israeli government, assisted by the United States, staged an emergency humanitarian evacuation of the group's members and their families to Israel and then on to Jordan."

Virtually all the mainstream media coverage of the White Helmets is bogus, but by far the most ridiculous account of the Exodus from Syria came from the BBC. For those who are not familiar with it, the BBC, which once upon a time had a reputation for journalistic integrity, has become one of the worst pro-government propaganda shills of all time. Reading its articles is even worse that having a similar go at The Washington Post , which is the prime newspaper exemplar of fake news and phony journalism pretending to be a respectable news source in the United States. Let's face it, Donald Trump has a point. Nearly all of the mainstream media lies persistently these days but some sources are worse than others. People complain about Fox, and rightly so, but CNN is the absolute pits when it comes to slanting its coverage, as is MSNBC.

BBC's article is entitled Syria conflict: White Helmets evacuated by Israel. It makes the following statements, many coming directly from Israeli official sources, regarding the White Helmets, its activities and the group's relationship to some governments, to include Britain:

"The IDF said they had 'completed a humanitarian effort to rescue members of a Syrian civil organization and their families', saying there was an 'immediate threat to their lives.' The transfer of the displaced Syrians through Israel was an exceptional humanitarian gesture." "Although Israel is not directly involved in the Syria conflict, the two countries have been in a state of war for decades. Despite the intervention, the IDF said that 'Israel continues to maintain a non-intervention policy regarding the Syrian conflict.'" "A statement from Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt said: 'White Helmets have been the target of attacks and, due to their high profile, we judged that, in these particular circumstances, the volunteers required immediate protection. We pay tribute to the brave and selfless work that White Helmet volunteers have done to save Syrians on all sides of the conflict.'" "Their official name is the Syrian Civil Defense and it began in early 2013 as an organization of volunteers from all walks of life, including electricians and builders. Its main task soon became to rescue civilians in war zones in the immediate aftermath of air strikes, and it says its volunteers have saved the lives of more than 100,000 people during the civil war."

The BBC story could have been written by the White Helmets themselves or by their press department. Or alternatively by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. First of all, the Israelis do not do humanitarian gestures. They helped bail out the White Helmets at the request of the U.S. because capture by the Syrians would have produced embarrassing revelations about how the group was funded and what its affiliation with terrorists was all about. And Israel's denial of involvement in Syria is nonsense, unless one considers demonstrated collaboration with the terrorist groups punctuated by nearly weekly bombing and missile attacks to be non-involvement.

The British too are into the deception up to their eyeballs. The comment by Hunt and Mordaunt is complete fabrication regarding what the White Helmets represent. The same goes for the BBC account of how the group developed, which comes directly from the White Helmet's own propaganda division as amplified by Hollywood and the U.S. and U.K. governments.

Just as important as what is said about the White Helmets' activities is the exclusion of a great deal of credible negative reporting on the group. The carefully edited scenes of heroism under fire that have been filmed and released worldwide conceal the White Helmets' relationship with the al-Qaeda affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra and its participation in the torture and execution of "rebel" opponents. Indeed, the White Helmets only operate in rebel held territory, which enables them to shape the narrative both regarding who they are and what is occurring on the ground.

Exploiting their access to the western media, the White Helmets thereby de facto became a major source of "eyewitness" news regarding what was going on in those many parts of Syria where European and American journalists were quite rightly afraid to go. It was all part of a broader largely successful "rebel" effort to manufacture fake news that depicts the Damascus government as engaging in war crimes directed against civilians, an effort that led to several attacks on government forces and facilities by the U.S. military.

The White Helmets travel to bombing sites with their film crews trailing behind them. Once at the sites, with no independent observers, they are able to arrange or even stage what is filmed to conform to their selected narrative which consistently promotes tales of government atrocities against civilians to encourage outside military intervention in Syria and bring about regime change in Damascus. The White Helmets were, for example, the propagators of the totally false but propagandistically effective claims regarding the government use of so-called "barrel bombs" against civilians.

Peter Ford, British Ambassador in Damascus from 2003-2006, recently described the group in an audio interview saying, "The White Helmets are jihadi auxiliaries. They are not, as claimed by themselves and by their supporters simple rescuers. They are not volunteers. They are paid professionals of disinformation." He noted particularly the large size of the organization's "press department", saying, "This gives us an idea what the priority is for this very dubious organization. All their activities are directed at mobilizing Western opinion behind the jihadis with whom they associate. They co-locate their centers with the Al-Qaeda organization known as Al-Nusra and with other militant groups such as Jaish al-Islam. They have in the past been shown associating with and waving the flags of ISIS."

The group is currently largely funded by a number of non-government organizations (NGOs) as well as governments, including the United States, Britain and some European Union member states. The U.S. has directly provided $23 million through the USAID (US Agency for International Development) as of 2016 and almost certainly considerably more indirectly. Max Blumenthal has explored in some detail the various funding resources and relationships that the organization draws on, mostly in Europe and the United States.

Perhaps the most serious charge against the White Helmets consists of the evidence that they actively participated in the atrocities , to include torture and murder, carried out by their al-Nusra hosts. There have been numerous photos of the White Helmets operating directly with armed terrorists and also celebrating over the bodies of execution victims and murdered Iraqi soldiers. The group's jihadi associates regard the White Helmets as fellow "mujahideen" and "soldiers of the revolution."

So Israel's celebrated rescue of the White Helmets was little more than a theatrical performance intended to perpetuate the myth that the al-Assad government was thwarted in an attempt to capture and possibly kill an honorable non-partisan group engaged in humanitarian relief for those caught up in a bloody conflict seeking to oust a ruthless dictator. The reality is quite different. The White Helmets were and are part and parcel of the attempt to overthrow a legitimate government and install a regime friendly to western, American and Israeli interests. For Israel in particular the ongoing chaos in Syria was and is part of its plan for dividing all of its neighbors into warring ethnicities and sects, making them less viable as threats to the Jewish state.

The 800 White Helmets rescued reportedly will be resettled in the U.S., Britain and Germany. One hopes those coming to America can end up in Los Angeles, where they would presumably mingle with Hollywood big shots and the usual snowflakes while working on their next documentary. As some of them are most certainly radical Jihadists, it will be interesting to observe exactly how that will play out.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

[Aug 07, 2018] The Legacy of Infinite War

Notable quotes:
"... While so much about the War on Terror turned Global War on Terrorism turned World War IV turned the Long War turned " generational struggle " turned " infinite war " seems repetitious, the troops most associated with this conflict -- the U.S. Special Operations forces -- have seen changes galore. ..."
"... "Vicious Iraqi dictator" Saddam Hussein is, of course, still dead and gone, but in 2014, about a third of "the new, democratic Iraq" was overrun by Islamic State militants. The country was only re-liberated in late 2017 and the Islamic State is already making a comeback there this year. ..."
"... In spite, or perhaps because, of these circumstances, SOCOM continues to thrive. Its budget, its personnel numbers, and just about any other measure you might choose (from missions to global reach) continue to rise. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

While so much about the War on Terror turned Global War on Terrorism turned World War IV turned the Long War turned " generational struggle " turned " infinite war " seems repetitious, the troops most associated with this conflict -- the U.S. Special Operations forces -- have seen changes galore. As Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), chairman of the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, pointed out in 2006, referring to Special Operations Command by its acronym: "For almost five years now, SOCOM has been leading the way in the war on terrorism: defeating the Taliban and eliminating a terrorist safe haven in Afghanistan, removing a truly vicious Iraqi dictator, and combating the terrorists who seek to destabilize the new, democratic Iraq."

Much has changed since Saxton looked back on SOCOM's role in the early years of the war on terror. For starters, Saxton retired almost a decade ago, but the Taliban, despite being "defeated" way back when, didn't do the same. Today, they contest for or control about 44% of Afghanistan. That country also hosts many more terror groups -- 20 in all -- than it did 12 years ago. "Vicious Iraqi dictator" Saddam Hussein is, of course, still dead and gone, but in 2014, about a third of "the new, democratic Iraq" was overrun by Islamic State militants. The country was only re-liberated in late 2017 and the Islamic State is already making a comeback there this year.

Meanwhile, Iraq is beset by anti-government protests and totters along as one of the most fragile states on the planet, while the Iraqi and Afghan war zones bled together -- with U.S. special operators now fighting an Islamic State terrorist franchise in Afghanistan, too.

In spite, or perhaps because, of these circumstances, SOCOM continues to thrive. Its budget, its personnel numbers, and just about any other measure you might choose (from missions to global reach) continue to rise. In 2006, for instance, 85% of Special Operations forces (SOF) deployed overseas -- Army Green Berets and Rangers, Navy SEALs, and others -- were concentrated in the Greater Middle East, with far smaller numbers spread thinly across the Pacific (7%), Europe (3%), and Latin America (3%). Only 1% of them were then conducting missions in Africa.

[Aug 07, 2018] It s very profitable to be an anti-Russian talking head.

Aug 07, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

New Cold War

"Ex-FBI agent: Trump got elected, thanks to Russia" [ Yahoo News ]. • One thing to remember about RussiaRussiaRussia -- R 3 ? -- is that it's very profitable to be a talking head.

"DOJ Announces Public Release of the Cyber-Digital Task Force's First Report; Impact on and Role of the Private Sector Likely to be a Focus in the Coming Months" [ Compliance and Enforcement ]. "[Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] lauded 'self-policing' efforts to remove 'fake accounts' and encouraged companies to 'consider the voluntary removal of accounts and content' that are linked by the FBI to foreign agents' activities, which he said 'violate terms of service and deceive customers.'" • What could go wrong?

flora , August 6, 2018 at 2:44 pm

re: Living in the Age of the Big Lie.

"The Death of Truth" by Pulitzer-Prize winning book critic Michiko Kakutani explores the waning of integrity in American society, particularly since the 2016 elections. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts," is more timely than ever, Kakutani says: "polarization has grown so extreme that voters have a hard time even agreeing on the same facts." And no wonder: Two-thirds of Americans get at least some of their news through social media -- a platform that has been overwhelmed by trolls and bots, and which uses algorithms to decide what each of us gets to see.

Executives ignore the cultural shift away from honesty at their peril.

I would put the start date for the cultural shift away from honest at 2008; every one knew what caused the financial disaster, knew who the culprits were (and are), saw them get away with grand theft and govt protection, and knew they were being lied to by the sort of bs excuses like WF's "it was a computer glitch" that done it. Once it was clear the govt was going to protect the robbers, the new paradigm of dishonesty in high places trickled down. Ohhh, so that's how trickle down works.

[Aug 07, 2018] During the presidential political campaign, Trump made clear that he was against regime change and that is why many people voted for him. Now he is trying to launch a potentially disastrous war on Iran.

Aug 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Uncle Sam , August 3, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT

Trump is obviously engaging Iran to please his Jewish-in-law, who probably is laughing behind his back. During the presidential political campaign, Trump made clear that he was against regime change and that is why many people voted for him. He has gone back on that pledge, once again, to please his Jewish son-in-law. Beyond that, Iran is no threat to America and has nothing whatsoever to do with "making America great again".

Pat Buchanan vastly overestimates American military capabilities. Is he not aware of a war game with Iran conducted by the Pentagon back in 2002 wherein the American navy lost 16 ships including an aircraft carrier and 8 cruisers? The war game was even rigged to favor America, and we still lost. Moreover, the military equipment the Iranians have today is far more advanced than what they had in 2002. Wake up and smell the coffee Pat.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there is a war with Iran the American Fifth Fleet would be decimated, as it would be hit by barrages of both subsonic and supersonic antiship cruise missiles along with the supercavitating 225 mph Hoot torpedoes (based on Russian technology). Not only that, American bases in that general area would be hit by numerous surface to surface missiles. And of course Israel would be attacked and destroyed.

Since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question, because it would require at least a 2 million man army to even have a chance of being successful, that leaves the only option of an air/naval military campaign. Since the Fifth Fleet would be destroyed within a few days of that war, there would be no carrier launched aircraft. They would have to use land based aircraft which would have to go up against the S-300, TOR and other air defense systems. The losses would be enormous. The attacking aircraft that survive the air raids would have to fly back to bases under rocket attack by the Iranians. The attacking aircraft, both manned and unmanned, obviously would damage some of Iran's military assets but not to the point that Iran would throw in the towel.

If any of you recall that several years ago the Iranians downed a highly sophisticated American spy aircraft thru electronic means (It wasn't shot down.). They took it apart, analyzed it and probably used its technology in their military equipment. This gives one an insight into their capabilities.

If any of you think that a war with Iran would result in an American victory, you are living in a fool's paradise.

Avery , August 3, 2018 at 6:03 pm GMT
@bob sykes

Buchanan wrote "U.S., would swiftly prevail.", but your point is valid.

Iran fought a desperate 8-year war with Iraq, and never surrendered.
Iraq was supplied and assisted (e.g. satellite intelligence) by US, UK, etc. Iran basically had no air-force or any modern (for the time) military equipment. Iranian teenage boys volunteered by the 1,000s to walk over mine fields and clear them, so that valuable, experienced soldiers could be spared to fight Iraqi military. As a side note, Iraq is now Shia controlled and is allied with Iran.

{Iran has the upper hand here. We need to be very careful.}

Exactly. Unfortunately, neocons who run the WH and US foreign policy are not only evil, but are also recklessly stupid. One cannot underestimate their arrogant stupidity to plunge US and the region into another bloodbath.

redmudhooch , August 3, 2018 at 9:38 pm GMT
As it stands now, Trump has already lost. The people that won him the election, the independents and democrats that voted for him will not show up if he keeps on the path he is on.
Unless he brings the troops home, all of them, makes peace with Russia, Iran, stops trying to push other nations around like in Venezuela, letting Wall St-Zionists use our military to make themselves richer while Americans that are already broke as fuk pay for it, droning and assassinating people who pose no threat to Americans, repeal Patriot act and all of the other anti-American laws that have been passed since the false flag of 9-11, those voters are not gonna show up to vote for another Bush-0bama puppet. Stop funding and arming Christian murdering terrorists for Israels benefit!
People voted for him cause they thought he would be a fighter, he bends over every time the establishment and media starts throwing their fits, more sanctions, more MIC spending, going back on everything he said. We're still stuck with crappy unaffordable "healthcare" that is bankrupting people left and right, while we give Israel and the MIC billions.
If he pulls his nose out of Netanyahus, Wall st, and MIC's ass and does the above he will win. If not he will lose.
Yeah, I doubt it too.
Aren Haich , August 3, 2018 at 9:43 pm GMT
@Uncle Sam

You make some very good points. The US military decision makers are also well aware of the perils of attacking Iran. They would resist risking a war with Iran on behalf of the neocons.
The US administration's war ploy is to intimidate Iran into an agreement to boost Trump's standing with the voters in the Midterms2018.

bluedog , August 3, 2018 at 10:26 pm GMT
@redmudhooch

Trump won't do a thing for Trumps a neocon himself,Trump was put in office by Jewish money in fact he is still taking it, and the fools who voted him in office are still waiting for the clown to keep his word on anything he promised

Realist , August 4, 2018 at 8:39 am GMT
@Uncle Sam

Trump is obviously engaging Iran to please his Jewish-in-law, who probably is laughing behind his back.

He is doing it to please his handlers the Deep State.

Johnny Smoggins , August 4, 2018 at 1:34 pm GMT
Iran will be another one of those easy to get into, hard to get out of wars. I'm sure the US military will defeat the Iranian one within weeks at most. But then what?

Iran is a huge, mountainous country. Israel doesn't want it merely beaten, they want it to be smashed to pieces because of something or other the Persians did to the Jews millennia ago. So once again, the US will have to completely destroy a functioning, relatively modern country and then rebuild it and occupy it for decades to come.

I doubt that many American soldiers would die but it will cost the US another couple of trillion dollars in debt to the Rothschilds. So the Jews win twice; another ancient enemy defeated at no cost to them AND the stupid, filthy goyim are even further in debt to them.

Win/win for the Jews, lose/lose for America.

Anon [350] Disclaimer , August 4, 2018 at 10:10 pm GMT
"The faster America dumps this crazy fascination with the Jews the faster it will get it's act together and become a Country again."

We can only do that by seizing control of the media and redistributing it to ourselves and our supporters. It's not right that two Jewish strong holds – NY and LA – get to control the entirety of the country's media and entertainment industry.

Why the hell is prime time CNN in NY instead of Atlanta (hint: to more easily control the narrative by staffing positions from a pool of people more likely to share certain beliefs). The NYT, The New Yorker, Hollywood, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, a host of think tanks and magazines, prominent websites and basically everything else is in just two or three cities.

We erred very badly in letting the enemy control the narrative machine. Instead of supporting corporate merges, we should be breaking them up. Instead of defunding public broadcasting, we should fund it and make it more appealing than the propaganda outlets like CNN, hurting our enemies by driving down their ratings and helping our cause in the process.

We can follow this up by banning Israeli control organizations like the SPLC and the ADL.

But unless we are willing to organize a viable opposition and take control away from the vermin who originally seized it from our people in the first place, nothing will change. Things will only get worse.

Harold Smith , August 4, 2018 at 10:40 pm GMT
@bluedog

I don't think "Jewish money" was much of a factor in getting Orange Clown elected. I think it may have actually tainted him and lowered his odds.

What put Orange Clown in office was Obama's attack on the Syrian Army at Deir Ezzor in Sept. 2016, and the escalation of tension with Russia, IMO. I believe it was the prospect of war with Russia that caused some antiwar democrats/Sanders supporters to hold their noses and vote for Orange Clown that swung the election to him.

nebulafox , August 5, 2018 at 6:18 am GMT
Hm let's think.

1) An electorate that has soured on Wilsonian interventionism to the point that they managed to shut down talk of regime change in Syria back in 2013 unilaterally, despite being supported by both the White House and the opposition dominated Congress, to say nothing of mainstream media outlets high on the Arab Spring. And a President that was both nominated and elected not least because voters figured he'd be less likely than his opponents to go on military crusades abroad.

2) A treasury that is trillions of dollars in debt. News flash to the GOP: wars be expensive, way more expensive than welfare programs.

3) A country with a cohesive basis in culture/ethnicity that nobody else in the Middle East except for Israel has, three times Iraq's population, and a far more functional/competent governmental apparatus, military, and special forces. Not to mention that this time around, there's not going to be an oppressed majority sect fantasizing about toppling the regime and getting revenge, a la the Shi'a in Iraq.

4) A military who hasn't faced a serious opponent in a long time.

5) Further confirming for the world-especially the people in Moscow and Beijing-that the Americans are a bunch of trigger-happy kids hell-bent on spreading their decidedly not-looking-very-good-from-a-distance political system around the world, and who should never, ever be taken at their word. Not to mention sending a message to Pyongyang to make sure we're aware of the nuclear bomb so that we don't decide KOREAN FREEDOM is next, and advertising to Muslims in general that the stereotypes of spoiled Saud princes and the Jews truly controlling things in Washington are all too true.

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?

Rich , August 5, 2018 at 1:29 pm GMT
First let me state that I'm opposed to war with Iran, but there is an argument, and it may be a neocon argument, but there is a legitimate argument for war with them.
1. The Iranian army, navy and air force could probably be destroyed within a couple of weeks with air power alone.
2. Iranian infrastructure, bridges, communications, transportation, could also probably be, at the least, severely damaged in an air attack. The US military could defang the Iranians and put them in a vulnerable position for years to come.
3. Regime change, boots on the ground would be a grave mistake, although I believe the US would eventually prevail, the cost in lives wouldn't be worth the fight.
4. Because the US petrodollar is the world's reserve currency, the US can keep printing to pay for all the replacement costs of military hardware, and even take other steps, like raising interest rates, to control inflation.
5. Finally, a 20% increase in the cost of oil would make shale oil look cheap and would add millions of jobs to the US payrolls, making plenty of money for investors.

I'm a vet myself, and opposed to sending more of our guys to a foreign country to die, but I could definitely see the chicken-hawks in DC win this argument.

SIMPLE Pseudomoronic Handle , Website August 5, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
@18 > I'm sure the US military will defeat the Iranian one within weeks at most.

True dat. And when, the US military defeats the Iranian one within weeks, then, the war will begin.

WJ , August 5, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
PJB is one of the best but it is simply amazing to recall how many people have written so many stories about how an Iran attack is imminent. Those stories have been out there since at least 2005 when GWB was about to launch an air campaign against Iran and the dire concern then was that US troops were vulnerable to retaliation in Iraq. Take a breath. It's not going to happen. Trump knows it would be the end of his presidency. There are not enough neocons to offset the loss of deplorable support. And in fact, the neocons are still going to hate him. He sucks up to Israel, moves the Embassy and pulls out of the Iran deal and it gets him no where with them.
Blackdawg , August 5, 2018 at 9:12 pm GMT
@redmudhooch

I believe you underestimated the main reason Independents voted for Trump. Militant Marxists taking over the MSM, and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If anything the attacks on Trump and 'anybody but Hillary' voters have gotten more and more pointed and aggressive. Do those voters care about Iran? No. Not to any significant degree when confronted by aggressive enemies of what remains of their culture right here in the US trying to take over the House in order to impeach Trump and to criminalize free speech (when it doesn't favor their agendas). No 'blue wave' will materialize IMO. But even if it does, it's going to get squashed by more of the same that it experienced in 2016. Can't wait to watch them blame the Russians again while the wheels fall off of their little red wagons carrying their dreams of the fourth coming of Hillary.

Dannyboy , August 6, 2018 at 3:03 am GMT
How is Iran a threat to the US again?

Is it the same sort of "imminent" threat that Iraq posed?

Ok, play the "fool me once" Dubya youtube here.

Dannyboy , August 6, 2018 at 3:15 am GMT
Yes, if Trump attacks Iran, he will show himself as just another Jew Globalist tool, who could care less about the good of the American people.

http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor45.htm

Momus , August 6, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
@Uncle Sam

And of course Israel would be attacked and destroyed

.

How and by who? More likely Israel, which has the capability and motivation would do the destroying. They've been flying their F35′s around Iran undetected.

anastasia , August 6, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
He will have his war during his second term, and then, he could not care less. They are gearing up now – economic sanctions that are imploding the economy, and protests in the street.
Mr Darcy , August 6, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT
@bob sykes

Agree with you in general, but am just wondering why people think that asymmetrical warfare by Iran would be confined to the Middle East? Suppose their sleeper cells in the US decided to shut down our power grid–something that can be done with few resources and little manpower. We already know that destroying fewer than ten electrical power substations would do the trick, and those are alongside rural roads everywhere in the country–"guarded" by modest chain-link fences and in plain view of the roads.

But suppose that the critical substations have been hardened by our efficient and ever-forward-looking government bureaucrats. Simply knocking out substations "here and there" could shut down entire cities–no water, no banking, no payments system, no distribution system, no food in stores, etc., etc. That could be done quite easily in one night by a very small number of men. Shut off Chicago's water supply. And Denver's. Bring down a bridge at Baton Rouge and close the Mississippi to all traffic for months or even years. Etc. Does anybody really believe that the Iranians are not prepared to do these very things?

I can't think why people seem to think that Iran's reaction would be confined to "the Middle East." These are not stupid people.

Avery , August 6, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
@Momus

{They've been flying their F35′s around Iran undetected.}

How could _you_ possibly know that? You think Iranians would announce they had detected an F-35? Only Iranians know if they had detected F-35s or not.

Remember the "stealth" US drone RQ-170 that Iran captured intact? How were they able to detect a stealth drone? And certainly a stealth drone is a lot harder to detect than a stealth fighter jet. No?

[Aug 07, 2018] Fool on the Hill the Bombast of Boris Johnson

Notable quotes:
"... His crude realism is underestimated by a contemptuous media, dismissive of everything he does. They portray him as an ill-informed crackpot who makes up his policy on the spur of the moment, but this is often much saner than it looks: despite all his jingoism, he has yet to start a war; his belligerent threats towards countries such as North Korea and Iran appear to be designed primarily as negotiating positions in pursuit of a deal; he respects power and will talk to those who possess it, such as Vladimir Putin , enraging other parts of the US government that are trying to isolate Russia as a pariah state. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

British commentators – the BBC is particularly prone to this – tend to adopt a patronising and derisive approach to Trump's demagoguery about "making America great again". But he can get away with the most bizarre antics because the US is a political, economic and military superpower regardless of Trump, even if it does not have the primacy it had after the Second World War or, once again, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Its status is not changed by Trump's words and actions, though these are usually more carefully calculated and rooted in the real world than his critics give him credit for.

His crude realism is underestimated by a contemptuous media, dismissive of everything he does. They portray him as an ill-informed crackpot who makes up his policy on the spur of the moment, but this is often much saner than it looks: despite all his jingoism, he has yet to start a war; his belligerent threats towards countries such as North Korea and Iran appear to be designed primarily as negotiating positions in pursuit of a deal; he respects power and will talk to those who possess it, such as Vladimir Putin , enraging other parts of the US government that are trying to isolate Russia as a pariah state.

The pro-Brexit vote in the referendum in 2016 is said by Trump to have given vital extra momentum to the populist-nationalist surge that elected him president later that year. But the danger of looking at everything through an isolationist and nationalist lens is far greater in Britain than it is in the US simply because it leads to the British systematically overplaying their hand. The price of doing so is illustrated by every stumbling step Britain takes out of the EU, contradicting the Brexiteer mantra that Britain has political and economic potential that will make it better off outside the EU.

[Aug 07, 2018] A "Tour d'horizon" of the ME - Lang's opinion

Aug 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

4. China is teasing us all with the idea that it may send troops to participate in the Idlib offensive. Their twin objectives would probably be to insure a foot in the door with the SAG for contracts in reconstruction as well as a desire to kill as many Uighur Muslims as possible in Idlib before they escape and return to western China.

[Aug 07, 2018] Comrade Stalin speaks from the grave, in support of Kommissar Hillary Clinton

Notable quotes:
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

clarky90 , August 3, 2018 at 5:15 pm

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/03.htm

Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers : March 3, 1937

"Comrades!

From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that we are dealing with the following three main facts.

First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.

Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.

Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved to be so careless, complacent, and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting agents of foreign states to responsible posts.

These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the discussions on them "

[Aug 07, 2018] Iran sactions will be another instance of Trump learning that intimidating countries is a different game than making hotel project deals

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's faithful execution of Israeli policy will result in re-imposition of US sanctions on Iran tomorrow. ..."
"... Trump, Mattis and Co. want to form a Sunni Arab version of NATO united against Iran. This would include the GCC plus Egypt and Jordan. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

5. Trump's faithful execution of Israeli policy will result in re-imposition of US sanctions on Iran tomorrow. The UK, France and Germany have announced that they will not be governed by these sanctions and IMO Trump will not have the stones to sanction these actual American allies. This will be another instance of Trump learning that intimidating countries is a different game than making hotel project deals. In the case of tariffs the EU caved in what can be seen as bi-lateral negotiations but in this case accepting American orders to reimpose sanctions will be seen as acceptance of a servile position. The US position with regard to desired Iranian concessions includes acceptance of a statehood bereft of foreign policy or foreign interventions of any kind. This is a maximum Israeli position that has been sold to Trump ,the real estate guy, by his donors and family. Pompeo and Bolton, the neocons, are fully on board as well. DoD is supportive. Mattis is always seeking a childish revenge against the Iranians for their actions in Iraq.

... ... ...

7. Trump, Mattis and Co. want to form a Sunni Arab version of NATO united against Iran. This would include the GCC plus Egypt and Jordan. Words fail me at the blind ignorance of this idea. All these countries will gladly accept Saudi money. That does not mean they will accept Saudi leadership in anything. This has been proven over and over again.

im cotton , 6 hours ago

Point no. 7, Iran--

Just read an interesting piece by Trita Parsi concluding that Iran should accept negotiations with the US; that it would be in its interests for Trump and Rouhani to have a nice two hour chat in strict privacy with no one else present but interpreters--if nothing else to watch Saudi and Israeli heads explode.

"Though any deal with Trump may have little value due to his unreliability, Tehran can also use that unreliability to its own advantage. The mere image of Trump and Rouhani shaking hands and speaking in private will spread panic in Riyadh and Tel Aviv – precisely because these allies of Trump know that they too cannot rely on him.

Their deep-seated fear of being betrayed by America in any US-Iran dialogue will reach a breaking point and likely cause a significant weakening of the concerted US-Israel-Gulf effort to break Iran. Ultimately, that would make Iran look good, not Trump."

https://tinyurl.com/y7k4kxdb

[Aug 06, 2018] The deeper problem, is that while Max Boot get so many issues wrong, he is given such a massive platform for propagating his neocon views.

Notable quotes:
"... BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong, it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views. Notably: the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo . That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence. ..."
"... Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy! And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion. ..."
"... Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist", and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia and the history of the first Cold War. ..."
"... Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when attacked. ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Keith Harbaugh , 21 hours ago

Thanks, PT, for publicizing this.

BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong, it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views. Notably: the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo . That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence.

As to Fred Hiatt's network, some insight is given by the acknowledgements in Robert Kagan's book Dangerous Nation , where Kagan writes:

I [Robert Kagan] have also been lucky to enjoy the comradeship and wise counsel of dear friends Fred Hiatt, Bill Kristol, Leon Wieseltier, Reuel Gerecht, Ed Lazarus, and Joe Rose ...

Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy! And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion.

PRC90 , 2 days ago
Boot would appear to be a self-publicist, in this case unsuccessfully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

http://maxboot.net/

richardstevenhack , 2 days ago
So this has been popping up on my screen for the last week, so I finally decided to watch it.

Cohen, of course, was the voice of reason. Boot is an idiot and a disrespectful one at that. All true.

The problem is that the bulk of the population is going to go with Boot. That is, the bulk of the population that give a damn about Russia or foreign policy, which as the recent poll testifies is a mighty small group.

However, that group includes most of the Democrats. So Boot is going to walk away claiming a win and Anderson Cooper is never going to claim otherwise, either, because he is on Boot's side.

Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist", and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia and the history of the first Cold War.

In a debate, that isn't enough. WE think Cohen "schooled" Boot. The Democrats won't. And the undecided's won't either.

Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when attacked.

Now how you do that can vary. You can either be a sneering scumbag like Boot, or you can be a cold assassin that simply blows him away with calm, but vicious ridicule.

I'm reminded of a joke video I saw a while back. Check it out.

Dressing Up Your Dressing Downs with Indira Varma

[Aug 06, 2018] Both Zionism and Nazism are essentially exaggerations of Nineteenth century European racial nationalism, both posit a more or less imaginary history to justify their territorial claims

Aug 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Colin Wright , Website August 6, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT

It's worth pointing out that described abstractly, Zionism and Nazism are ideologically very similar. Both are essentially exaggerations of Nineteenth century European racial nationalism, both posit a more or less imaginary history to justify their territorial claims, both ignore the rights of all others in favor of their chosen group, both openly worship violence, and both are contemptuous of both legal and moral constraints. Israel has committed crimes proportionately as horrific as any Nazi Germany committed up to the outbreak of total war in 1941, and I'm all too confident that if total war did come to the Middle East, Israel would take advantage of the opportunity to engage in some very genocidal treatment of her Palestinian subjects.

The primary differences are really that while Nazism was defeated over seventy years ago, Israel is still very much in being, and that while we here in the US opposed Nazism, we support Israel.

[Aug 06, 2018] Sanctions and Trump s Disdain for Diplomacy by Daniel Larison

Looks like "My way or the highway diplomacy" is the only one Trump masters in his long life.
Trump tries fully leverage the US global power before it dissipates ...
Notable quotes:
"... The track record is not encouraging. By constantly expanding its demands, the United States may have given the impression that its negotiations are not in good faith, and that rather than trying to reach a diplomatic resolution, it is simply trying to punish the target. ..."
"... The most hawkish sanctions advocates aren't interested in using sanctions to resolve conflicts. Many Iran hawks advocated piling on additional sanctions against Iran both before and after Trump's decision to renege on the JCPOA, and they insisted on making demands that Iran couldn't possibly accept. Their goal was never to "fix" the deal or find a diplomatic solution to other issues, but to create a pretext for punishing Iran for "refusing" the demands that had been designed to be rejected. Pompeo's list of demands has the same purpose. ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
warn that the Trump administration's overuse of sanctions is eroding whatever effectiveness they might have:

The track record is not encouraging. By constantly expanding its demands, the United States may have given the impression that its negotiations are not in good faith, and that rather than trying to reach a diplomatic resolution, it is simply trying to punish the target. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 points for resetting relations with Tehran tied so many goals to each sanction program so as to render such measures useless as conflict-resolution tools.

The most hawkish sanctions advocates aren't interested in using sanctions to resolve conflicts. Many Iran hawks advocated piling on additional sanctions against Iran both before and after Trump's decision to renege on the JCPOA, and they insisted on making demands that Iran couldn't possibly accept. Their goal was never to "fix" the deal or find a diplomatic solution to other issues, but to create a pretext for punishing Iran for "refusing" the demands that had been designed to be rejected. Pompeo's list of demands has the same purpose.

Opponents of the nuclear deal hated the JCPOA because it worked and removed the main excuse for punishing and isolating Iran, so as far as they're concerned punishment is the reason for the sanctions. That is why there is nothing Iran can do short of surrender to get them lifted, and that is why Iran has no incentive to deal with the Trump administration. Iran sees the reimposition of sanctions as entirely incompatible with dialogue, and they are right to do so. Iran hawks have been pushing for more sanctions on Iran for the purpose of sabotaging any further engagement, and Trump has given them exactly what they wanted. Far from trying to reach a diplomatic resolution of any outstanding issues, Iran hawks are determined to make that impossible. They want to maintain the illusion that the U.S. is still open to talking while doing everything possible to make negotiations politically radioactive for the other side. Iranian leaders aren't falling for it, and neither should we.

[Aug 06, 2018] Russiagate Cover for Real Scandal

Aug 06, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Russiagate Cover for Real Scandal

By Finian Cunningham

August 06, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - So the US news media are in uproar over President Trump's latest admission that a meeting between his son and a Russian lawyer more than two years ago was about "getting dirt" on Hillary Clinton.

With self-righteous probity, Trump's political and media enemies are declaring him a felon for accepting foreign interference in the US presidential election.

Admittedly, President Trump appears to have been telling lies about the past meeting, which took place at Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2016. Or maybe it's just this American president shooting himself in the foot -- again -- with his inimical gibberish-style.

However, the burning issue of "foreign interference" is being stoked out of all proportion by Trump's enemies who want him ousted from the White House.

US constitutional law forbids candidates from receiving help from foreign governments or foreign nationals.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Thus, by appearing to accept a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 -- during the presidential campaign -- the Trump election team are accused of breaking US law.

The alleged transgression fits in with the wider narrative of "Russiagate" which posits that Republican candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the race to the White House against Democrat rival Hillary Clinton .

Russia has always denied any involvement in the US elections, saying the allegations are preposterous. Moscow also points out that in spite of indictments leveled by American prosecutors, there is no evidence to support claims that Russian hackers meddled in the presidential campaign, or that the Kremlin somehow assisted Trump.

The Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya , who met with the Trump campaign team in early June 2016 is described in US media as "Kremlin-linked". But that seems to be just more innuendo in place of facts. She denies any such connection. The Kremlin also says it had no relation with the attorney on her business of approaching Team Trump.

In any case, what is being totally missed in the latest brouhaha is the staggering hypocrisy in the US media circus over Trump. Let's take Trump at his word -- not a reliable source admittedly -- that his campaign team were trying to "get dirt" on Clinton. That would appear to be a violation of US law.

If Trump is going to be nailed for improper conduct with regard to alleged foreign assistance, then where does that leave Hillary Clinton and US intelligence agencies?

During the presidential campaign, Clinton's team contracted a British spy, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on Trump in the form of the so-called "Russian dossier". That was the pile of absurd claims alleging that the Kremlin had blackmailing leverage over Donald Trump. It was Steele's fantasies that largely turned into the whole Russiagate affair which has dominated US media and politics for the past two years.

Not only that, but now it transpires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also paid the same British spy to act as a source for the FBI's wiretapping of Trump's associates, according to declassified documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a US citizens' rights group.

In other words, the foreign interference that the FBI engaged in under the Barack Obama administration, as well as by Hillary Clinton's campaign team, is on a far greater and more scandalous scale that Trump seems to have clumsily endeavored to do with a Russian lawyer.

The real, shocking interference in US democracy was not by Russia or Trump, but by American secret services working in collusion with the Clinton Democrats to distort the presidential elections. This scandal which Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen has labeled "Intelgate" is far more grievous than the Watergate crisis which resulted in President Richard Nixon's ignominious resignation back in the mid-1970s.

The Obama administration's intelligence agencies and the Democrats attempted to sabotage the 2016 presidential election in order to keep Trump out of the White House. They failed. And they have never gotten over that defeat to their illegal scheming.

The Russiagate claims are just a sideshow. As American writer Paul Craig Roberts, among others, has commented , the media-driven "witch hunt" against Trump and Russia is blown out of all proportion in order to distract from the real scandal which is Intelgate -- and how millions of American voters were potentially disenfranchised by the US intelligence apparatus for a political power grab.

Another staggering hypocrisy in the US media kerfuffle over Trump and alleged Russian interference is that all the fastidious hyperbole completely ignores actual foreign interference in American democracy -- foreign interference that is on an absolutely colossal scale.

As American critical thinker Noam Chomsky points out , "Israeli intervention in US elections overwhelms anything Russia may have done".

Israel's interference includes the multi-million-dollar lobbying by such groups as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial sponsorship of hundreds of lawmakers in both houses of Congress. Many critics maintain that the entire Congress is in effect "bought" by AIPAC.

Chomsky referred specifically to the occasion in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu snubbed then President Obama by addressing the US Congress with a speech openly calling for lawmakers to reject the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of US laws?

Trump has since shown himself to do Adelson's and Israel's bidding by walking away from the Iran deal and in pushing stridently pro-Israeli interests in the conflict with Palestinians.

Another foreign benefactor in US politics is the so-called Saudi lobby and other oil-rich Gulf Arab states. Millions of dollars are funneled into Congress by these dubious regimes to shape US government foreign policy in the Middle East. For several decades, Saudi oil money is also documented to be a major contributor to the CIA and its off-the-books covert operations around the world.

Foreign interference in US politics -- in which often nefarious foreign interests are promoted over those of ordinary American citizens -- is conducted on a gargantuan and systematic scale. But this massively illegal interference in flagrant violation of US laws is stupendously ignored by the American media.

Trump is being assailed over an alleged scandal regarding Russia which is, by any objective measure, negligible.

The whole Russiagate narrative is sheer hysteria driven by anti-Trump forces who do not want to accept the result of the 2016 election. It is, in effect, a coup attempt by unelected political forces.

Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was, and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy".

Such lies are an odious distortion of the truth by America's real enemies who are its own domestic political and media operators trying to cover up their anti-constitutional crimes. What's even more despicable is that these people are willing to inflame US-Russia relations to the point of starting a war between two nuclear powers.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by " Sputnik " -

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Aug 06, 2018] The Rise and Continued Influence of the Neocons. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

Notable quotes:
"... The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in the documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin. ..."
"... This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State, including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year. ..."
"... Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin). ..."
"... Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon. ..."
"... from the period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media ..."
"... they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality. ..."
"... And how it only took, you know, certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we are. They essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall of communism and the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. ..."
"... she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her. ..."
"... Foreign Policy Initiative is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. ..."
"... Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the Obama era. ..."
"... the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran. ..."
"... That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say, hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe. ..."
"... So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you think the effect of that was? ..."
"... Because, and this is important to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so relatively obscure They're not household names. ..."
"... The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S. media was doing. ..."
"... And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane? ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Robert Kagan. William Kristol. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. John Bolton. Elliott Abrams. Gary Schmitt. These are a few of the names generally associated with a strain of far-right political thought called neoconservatism. [1][2]

Politically, the neocons favour a world in which the United States adopts a much more aggressive military posture, and utilizes its military might to not only contain terrorist and related threats to its security, but force regime change in regions like the Middle East. They further take on the task of 'nation-building' all in the name of creating a safer world for 'democracy.' It was the neocons who promoted the stratagem of pre-emptive military action. [3]

The neocons enjoyed a robust period of influence under the Bush-Cheney administration. The 9/11 attacks and the triggering of a 'war on terrorism' enabled a series of foreign policy choices, most notably the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, which aligned with the aims and aspirations of the group once referred to by President George Bush Sr. as the 'crazies in the basement.'[4]

The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in the documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9kHHR_yy9CE

In part one of a special two part interview by Global Research News Hour guest contributor Scott Price , Martin describes the inspiration behind making the film, the post 9/11 atmosphere in which the neocons flourished, and the neocons' role in fostering the new Cold War mentality which contributed to the smearing of his better-known sister, former RT host Abby Martin .

This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State, including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year.

Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin).

Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with Robbie Martin, July 2018

... ... ...

And of course, right after the Sochi Olympics, is when the Euromaidan protest in Ukraine, it kind of boiled over to the point where there were, you know, walls of flaming tires all over Euromaidan – basically a war zone. And of course the Ukrainian government fell due to a coup which many believe, including myself, was partially U.S. sponsored by the U.S. State Department.

And then things from there, Scott, just started to spiral out of contro , and from the period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media, and when I made my film series, I didn't I made it before the election, s o I didn't realize how hysterical it was going to get after the election, and frankly, I had no idea it was going to get this bad, to the point that it's got now.

I know that doesn't quite answer your question about my inspiration, but it 's kind of a long answer to your question is my film itself is essentially.. was tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints to the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality.

Neocon 101: What do neoconservatives believe?.

And how it only took, you know, certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we are. They essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall of communism and the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. So that's I don't know if that was too long of an answer for your question , but that's what was sort of my inspiration for how I made it. My sister was also kind of a part of the story because some of these neocons actually tried to smear her while she was working for RT.

... ... ...

RM: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think at first, I was really fascinated by the psychology of these key neoconservatives. I was watching, at first I didn't even know I was going to make a film. I was kind of in this weird place mentally, my sister had just been put through the wringer, she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her.

So I was watching videos from this think tank, they were called the Foreign Policy Initiative, and I quickly learned maybe over 48 hour period, oh, the Foreign Policy Initiative is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. Once I realized that, then I just then I was obsessed with watching these videos. I watched probably every single video on their YouTube channel, and the majority of them were incredibly boring, very dry. And I was already in a depressed place, so, you know, it was kind of just putting me into this weird state where I was watching nothing but these dry foreign policy think tank videos for weeks on end.

Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the Obama era. Once I saw this, I became fascinated with his psychology. And I was already sort of fascinated with Bill Kristol's psychology, you know , going back to when I was a young man when I would watch Fox News you know during the Iraq War, I would watch Bill Kristol, and I found him fascinating back then because he seemed on a different level than most other, you know, war hawks that would go on Fox News.

But it was really Robert Kagan though that made me think, you know, his own words are so fascinating and so candid and so revealing without adding any editorial content that I wonder if this will work, if I present it just simply in his own words.

... ... ...

But I think one way to describe why they're so important and they're still so influential is because they managed to, a very small handful of them, maybe less than a dozen figures, managed to convince the rest of, what people describe as the DC blob, the sort of foreign policy consensus in DC overall, the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran.

That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say, hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe.

So yes, it's true that there are not that many actual literal neocons, but a lot of people now who are sort of anti-war, do work in anti-war or do foreign policy critique, they don't see much of a difference any more between sort of the neoliberal foreign policy group in DC, which is most of it, and the actual neocons anymore. Because they have essentially merged in a non-partisan fashion, and it's been very surreal to watch, especially after the 2016 election when you actually saw neocons saying well you should vote for Hillary. For the first time ever they all said that you shouldn't vote for a R epublican.

That's so I don't know that fully answers your question, but I think to su m it up it's because the neocons have influenced everybody. So now that they've been able to do that you don't really need that many of them around you know making that much trouble because everybody is carrying out their agenda essentially. In this DC foreign policy think-tank.

GR: Yeah I think the way you kind of describe it in maybe it's I don't know if you personally describe it, but I wrote it down in my notes about how neoconservatism is almost like a species and it kind of evolved over the last 20 years in a way? So I think what you're talking about how there's a shift to Hillary, and, but I mean that shift is more that the neoconservative line really became the mainstream line, whereas, you know, maybe in the early 2000s, like, there was a larger perception, yes, they were in the White House, but these people are also crazy, whereas now is kind of like the mainstream, which is quite scary. Which is something I think we'll talk about in a little bit. But kind of what I was talking about a bit before what I referenced was that I was a teenager when 9/11 happened, and it really shaped my generation and the world that I'm living in now

But as I was watching the 3-part documentary, there were several things that I was like kind of blown away by how these things kind of just went down the memory hole, and I want to talk about those things because several of these things I vaguely kind of remember now but for some odd reason I had totally forgotten about them, and they're not really within the wider narrative of 9/11 and the war on terror.

So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you think the effect of that was?

RM: You just opened up a really big can of worms with that question. Well, to fully answer that it would require a totally separate interview, but I'll do my best to answer it in this short time that we have. What you're describing is, what I would say, is the neocons flipping up and revealing too much of an early iteration of their script, than the rest of the consensus was ready to reveal or get on board with. And perhaps, even, they jumped ahead with something that the rest of the neocons already decided, we can't go there. Because, and this is important to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.

Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so relatively obscure They're not household names.

So to hear both of them saying that we need to clean out Palestine with the U.S. Delta Force raids and the full panoply of U.S. military tools and arsenal, it's a very shocking thing to hear. Even though I've long believed that neocons are some of the most evil people on the planet, that was even surprising for me to hear. That they went ahead and openly said that the U.S. military should do that, and actually, in their broadcast they make it clear that they don't even care who's behind 9/11. Which is strange. They say that if we run around tracing the actual perpetrators, we're just going to be wasting our time and we won't get anywhere. So what they are saying is that we should just go attack all these countries anyways because even if they're behind it or not, they hate us and want to kill us.

And Palestine was one of their primary targets to retaliate against in response to 9/11. Now that's very strange when you look at the day of 9/11, and I've actually done a podcast on this, I call it the Palestinian Frame-up, on 9/11, there were four separate incidences that were run throughout U.S. media throughout the day of 9/11 that were attempting to blame Palestinians for the attacks before Bin Laden became the primary culprit that the U.S. media latched on to. So I find that very strange.

And I'm not going to try to explain it here during this interview, but you can look into that. It's all documented. The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S. media was doing.

So it's very interesting for me to see neocons actually piggy-backing on that and saying we should attack Palestine. And that's a rare thing, I think, to find neocons slipping up that badly. And I guess I find that clip particularly fascinating because it's really one of the only ones like that out there, and to my knowledge, I'm the first one to find it by combing through all these archives. I've never heard of it before, never even heard of any neocon s saying that before on record.

And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane?

GR: Right. Yeah.

RM: And on October 5, weaponized anthrax was sent through the U.S. mail. While the Bush Administration was already inoculated with Cipro. the antibiotic taken to prevent Anthrax infection. So there's a lot of interesting and very scary questions that are raised just by that single clip. and I'm to this day it's still a mystery to me.

GR: That was Part 1 of the Global Research News Hour special with Robbie Martin on his documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda that explores the rise and continued influence of the neoconservatives. Part 2 will air next week where we will explore the anthrax attacks, the role of Vice in spreading U.S. propaganda. You can buy or stream A Very Heavy Agenda at averyheavyagenda.com. Music for this special provided by Fluorescent Grey, AKA Robbie Martin. For the Global Research News Hour, I'm Scott Price.

-end of transcript-

Global Research News Hour Summer 2018 Series Part 5

[Aug 06, 2018] Barack Obama Net Worth After Presidency Increased Nearly 3000%

Aug 06, 2018 | thepoliticalinsider.com

By Matt | Contributor | August 6, 2018 4:15PM During a speech in 2010 on Wall Street reform, former President Barack Obama let out a telling remark about what he thinks of success. "We're not, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money . But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don't want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."

How much money do you think Obama defines as "enough"? Would receiving $65 million for a book deal be "enough"? Or how about a multi-million dollar deal to produce a Netflix series ? And speaking of Wall Stress excesses, what would 2010 Obama think of 2017 Obama charging $500k per speech before the same Wall Street bankers he used to criticize?

Now that he's amassed a fortune of its own, its unlikely he wants to spread that wealth around.

According to AOL , "Recent endeavors, along with the six-figure pension all former presidents receive -- have significantly contributed to Obama's current estimated net worth of $40 million. From the time he joined the US Senate in 2005 to the end of his presidency, Obama made $20 million alone from his presidential salary, book royalties, and investments, reports Forbes. And based on all the projects he's taking on in just his first-year post-presidency, we can only expect him to make many millions more."

In total, Obama has increased his net worth thirty-fold thanks to his Presidency.

He's but the second Democrat to monetize the Presidency in recent times. While the Clintons were "dead broke" (which I guess translates to "down to our last million") when leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary racked up a combined $153 million in speaking fees in the nearly two decades leading up to the 2016 election. And despite that, Bill, like Barack, receives a Presidential pension at the expense of the American taxpayer.

[Aug 06, 2018] The deeper problem, is that while Max Boot get so many issues wrong, he is given such a massive platform for propagating his neocon views.

Notable quotes:
"... BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong, it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views. Notably: the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo . That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence. ..."
"... Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy! And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion. ..."
"... Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist", and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia and the history of the first Cold War. ..."
"... Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when attacked. ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Keith Harbaugh , 21 hours ago

Thanks, PT, for publicizing this.

BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong, it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views. Notably: the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo . That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence.

As to Fred Hiatt's network, some insight is given by the acknowledgements in Robert Kagan's book Dangerous Nation , where Kagan writes:

I [Robert Kagan] have also been lucky to enjoy the comradeship and wise counsel of dear friends Fred Hiatt, Bill Kristol, Leon Wieseltier, Reuel Gerecht, Ed Lazarus, and Joe Rose ...

Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy! And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion.

PRC90 , 2 days ago
Boot would appear to be a self-publicist, in this case unsuccessfully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

http://maxboot.net/

richardstevenhack , 2 days ago
So this has been popping up on my screen for the last week, so I finally decided to watch it.

Cohen, of course, was the voice of reason. Boot is an idiot and a disrespectful one at that. All true.

The problem is that the bulk of the population is going to go with Boot. That is, the bulk of the population that give a damn about Russia or foreign policy, which as the recent poll testifies is a mighty small group.

However, that group includes most of the Democrats. So Boot is going to walk away claiming a win and Anderson Cooper is never going to claim otherwise, either, because he is on Boot's side.

Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist", and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia and the history of the first Cold War.

In a debate, that isn't enough. WE think Cohen "schooled" Boot. The Democrats won't. And the undecided's won't either.

Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when attacked.

Now how you do that can vary. You can either be a sneering scumbag like Boot, or you can be a cold assassin that simply blows him away with calm, but vicious ridicule.

I'm reminded of a joke video I saw a while back. Check it out.

Dressing Up Your Dressing Downs with Indira Varma

[Aug 06, 2018] Bolton Blocking Strait of Hormuz will be Iran's 'worst mistake' instead it must 'come to table'

Notable quotes:
"... "They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," ..."
"... "If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are or not," ..."
"... "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security." ..."
"... "behaves like a normal country." ..."
"... "require enormous change" ..."
"... "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue from crude oil sales." ..."
"... "the mother of all wars." ..."
"... "confronting possible threats." ..."
"... "The hours of our negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this [negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | www.rt.com

Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be the biggest mistake Iran has ever made, the US president's national security advisor John Bolton said. He urged Tehran to sit down for talks on its nuclear and missile programs with the US. Dismissing Tehran's threats to block the strait if its oil exports are stopped, Bolton on Monday said the Iranians were "bluffing." He then quickly changed his tone saying that Iran should actually engage in a dialog with the US instead of issuing threats.

"They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," Bolton told Fox News, referring to the US President Donald Trump's demands to "re-negotiate" the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

"If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are or not," Bolton added. The White House national security advisor's remarks came less than a day before the first round of renewed US sanctions take effect on Tuesday after midnight US Eastern time. The harshest restrictions are expected to be re-imposed by early November.

Washington decided to reinstate the penalties following Trump's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA in May. Shortly after exiting the agreement, the US penned a 12-point ultimatum to Iran, which, among other things, demanded that Tehran end its ballistic missile program, a condition it has repeatedly rejected. The move was then widely condemned by the EU and other signatories of the deal, including Russia and China, which still consider the agreement to be an effective means of non-proliferation and have vowed to keep their part of the deal.

Earlier on Monday, the EU said that starting August, it is enforcing its so-called Blocking Statute aimed at protecting the European companies doing business in Iran from the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions. The bloc said that maintaining the nuclear deal with Iran is a "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security."

Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed to "rigorously" enforce the sanctions on Iran until it "behaves like a normal country." He added that it would "require enormous change" on Iran's part for the US to review its increasingly hostile approach to Tehran.

In July, Brian Hook, the US State Department's director of policy planning, said that Washington's goal is to "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue from crude oil sales."

Iranian leaders repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and stop the Persian Gulf oil exports if its own oil exports are blocked. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also cautioned Washington against launching a war against Tehran by saying that it would be "the mother of all wars." Iran's Revolutionary Guards have recently admitted that its warships took part in a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to hone skills in "confronting possible threats."

Earlier, the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has slammed Donald Trump's recent proposal to enter into talks with Iran by calling it nothing but a PR stunt. "The hours of our negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this [negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" he said.

The Trump administration has reportedly requested a meeting with Rouhani eight times, but the Iranian side refused to participate.

Read more

[Aug 06, 2018] US sanctions forcing creation of work arounds

Aug 06, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

As Iran is preparing for the first wave of returning US sanctions that could largely hamper its foreign trade, the country's banks appear to have already created a mechanism for imports of essential goods from Russia .

Bank Saderat Iran (BSI) announced in a statement on Sunday that it had sealed a deal with the Moscow offshoot of Bank Melli Iran (BMI) over a re-financing scheme that envisaged providing €10 million to fund imports of essential commodities, medicines, medical equipment and the raw materials for industrial units.

[Aug 06, 2018] Iran Scrambles to Ready Economy for US Sanctions by Jason Ditz

Sanctions might hit Iran oil industry hard.
Aug 06, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

New restrictions aim to protect currency from further falls

With US sanctions against Iran officially going back into place on August 6, the Iranian government is scrambling to take some last minute measures to shore up their economy, and particularly their currency, before the sanctions start to hit.

Trying to protect the rial is a high priority, with a former central bank deputy governor and a number of foreign exchange dealers arrested amid the rial plummeting to all-time lows. On Monday, a rash of strict new measures are to be imposed on foreign currency access to try to limit any further falls.

Iran wants to make sure that what foreign currency does flow overseas is strictly allocated to a handful of important industries. The fall of prices for the rial has been heavy related to the surge in the price of gold, as economic uncertainty has many Iranians running to precious metals, and gold imports surged in recent weeks.

US sanctions aim to limit, if not totally eliminate, Iran's access to foreign markets. That also has Iran trying to make some last-minute purchases while they know they still can. Five new planes were purchased from ATR for the state airline. It's far short of the new fleet of airliners Iran initially sought, but the best they can do with the US blocking Boeing and Airbus from fulfilling contracts.

Since the August 6 date has been known for months, it's likely much of the market reaction to the sanctions is already factored in to Iran's currency pricing. China's refusal to comply with US sanctions, likewise, is a sign that Iran won't be totally cutoff from world markets. Still, it will take awhile before the full extent of the US attempt, and its effectiveness, is known.

[Aug 06, 2018] The Birth of a Bomb and the Rebirth of a City

Aug 06, 2018 | angrybearblog.com

On August 6, 1945; The US dropped an atomic bomb (Little Boy) on Hiroshima destroying much of the city and instantly killing 80,000 of its citizens. 60,000 more would die later

On August 6, 1945; The Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb ever used in military combat on Hiroshima. A second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki August 9, 1945.

On August 6, 2018; On the 73rd anniversary of dropping of the first atomic bomb, the residents of Hiroshima will pause to remember the 80,000 residents and the destruction which changed the course of history. Church bells will ring at 8:15 AM, the moment the bomb was dropped from the Enola Gay.

Later on August 6, 2018 and in the evening, Toro Nagashi Lanterns will be floated down the Motoyasu river and past The Atomic Dome (Prefuctural Industrial Promotion Hall). First held in 1946, the Toro Nagashi (literally, "flowing lanterns") ceremony was first held in Tokyo. Participants Float glowing paper lanterns down a river to commemorate the souls of the dead.

Today, Hiroshima is a prosperous manufacturing city.

[Aug 06, 2018] It's very profitable to be an anti-Russian talking head.

Aug 06, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

New Cold War

"Ex-FBI agent: Trump got elected, thanks to Russia" [ Yahoo News ]. • One thing to remember about RussiaRussiaRussia -- R 3 ? -- is that it's very profitable to be a talking head.

"DOJ Announces Public Release of the Cyber-Digital Task Force's First Report; Impact on and Role of the Private Sector Likely to be a Focus in the Coming Months" [ Compliance and Enforcement ]. "[Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] lauded 'self-policing' efforts to remove 'fake accounts' and encouraged companies to 'consider the voluntary removal of accounts and content' that are linked by the FBI to foreign agents' activities, which he said 'violate terms of service and deceive customers.'" • What could go wrong?

[Aug 06, 2018] Trump Warns Allies Risk Severe Consequences If They Violate Iran Sanctions Zero Hedge

Aug 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

With the hours ticking by ahead of Washington's re-imposition of a slew of economic sanctions on Iran, President Trump has just released a statement confirming the narrative he would prefer Americans believe.

Just hours after the European Union issued a statement Monday ahead of when renewed US sanctions are set to snap back against Iran after midnight US Eastern time, saying it "deeply regrets" the sanctions and will take immediate action to protect European companies still doing business with Iran.

Trump makes it clear that any violation (among America's allies) will not be tolerated...

"The Trump Administration intends to fully enforce the sanctions reimposed against Iran , and those who fail to wind down activities with Iran risk severe consequences. "

The first set of sanctions will hit at the Iranian financial system, including Iranian government purchases of US dollars and its gold trade and government bond sales. The US' dominant role in the world's financial system means it has been able to pressure countries and companies into compliance, though China remains a key holdout.

"The JCPOA, a horrible, one-sided deal, failed to achieve the fundamental objective of blocking all paths to an Iranian nuclear bomb," Trump said Monday, defining that its policy as applying "maximum economic pressure on the Iranian regime."

The US denies it is seeking regime change, but rather aims to "modify the regime's behavior," according to an administration official.

A US administration official said the Iranian government was using financial resources freed up by the nuclear deal "to spread human misery." The US was seeking now to address the "totality of the Iranian threat" in the Middle East.

"None of this needs to happen," an official said on sanctions. Trump is willing to meet the Iranian leadership "any time" for talks," the official noted. * * *

Full Statement below:

REIMPOSING TOUGH SANCTIONS: President Donald J. Trump, Administration is taking action to reimpose sanctions lifted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In connection with the withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Administration laid out two wind-down periods of 90 days and 180 days for business activities in or involving Iran.

The purchase or acquisition of United States bank notes by the Government of Iran.

Iran, trade in gold and other precious metals.

Graphite, aluminum, steel, coal, and software used in industrial processes.

Transactions related to the Iranian rial.

Activities relating to Iran's issuance of sovereign debt

Iran, automotive sector.

Iran, port operators and energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors.

Iran, petroleum-related transactions.

Transactions by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran.

ENSURING FULL ENFORCEMENT: President Trump will continue to stand up to the Iranian regime's aggression, and the United States will fully enforce the reimposed sanctions.

The regime has used this funding to support terrorism, promote ruthless regimes, destabilize the region, and abuse the human rights of its own people.

PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY: The JCPOA was defective at its core and failed to guarantee the safety of the American people.

The regime continues to threaten the United States and our allies, exploit the international financial system, and support terrorism and foreign proxies.

* * *

The initial reaction in markets was modest aside from in the oil complex where prices spiked...

[Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
paul malfara , a day ago
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".

If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."

Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say. The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.

I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.

I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.

\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content are not made by them.

What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!

Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed with accurate information.

[Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
paul malfara , a day ago
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".

If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."

Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say. The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.

I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.

I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.

\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content are not made by them.

What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!

Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed with accurate information.

[Aug 05, 2018] "Anti-semitism" is merely the enforcement wing of Zionism

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

nickels , July 30, 2018 at 1:55 pm GMT

"Anti-semitism" is merely the enforcement wing of Zionism.

Anywhere Zionists uses injustice, pointing that out becomes anti-Semitic. The Zionists, unlike the dullard goyim, understand the power of the moral force, despite the fact they work fully against it's dictates.

[Aug 05, 2018] 23 Years Ago the US Backed a Brutal Croatian Ethnic Cleansing of Serbs

Notable quotes:
"... "We could not prevent the slaughter of the Serbs by the Croatians, including elderly people and children " –  UNPROFOR French Lieutenant-General Jean Cot ..."
"... " The decision to launch Operation Storm is not controversial; what is controversial, however, is 'the successful effort' of some Croatian officials headed by President Franjo Tudjman to 'exploit the circumstances' and implement the plan to drive Serbs out of Krajina ." --  ICTY prosecutor Alain Tieger ..."
"... Just remember that at that time, US government offered $5 million reward for the capture of war criminal Ante Gotovina, making him the ICTY most wanted man. He was at that time sheltered by Croatian government, and through the notorious Vatican' "Rat Channels", that were used at the end of WWII to facilitate the escape of Nazis, he was hidden (among the other Croatian war criminals) in a Catholic monastery, to be smuggled to Tenerife, where he was eventually captured by the Spanish police, in 2005. ..."
"... " It is important that these [Serb] civilians start moving and then the army will follow them, and when the columns start moving, they will have a psychological effect on each other. That means we provide them with an exit, while on the other hand we feign (pretend) to guarantee civilian human rights and the like " -- ..."
"... Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, during War Council meeting in July 1995 ..."
"... Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varivode_massacre ..."
"... "American concern is that if General Gotovina is arrested he may carry out a threat to disclose previously unknown extent of US covert involvement in the Krajina offensive " ..."
"... – London Times, June 14th, 2003. ..."
"... Crime pays, doesn't ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | russia-insider.com

23 Years Ago the US Backed a Brutal Croatian Ethnic Cleansing of Serbs Miodrag Novakovic ( FBReporter ) Sat, Aug 4, 2018 | 4,303 445 If there was a nation that could safely conclude from its own historical experience that "Crime Pays", than it must be the newest EU member, Croatia. In the modern history this tiny Catholic nation committed one of the most horrific genocides in WWII over Serbian Orthodox Christian population residing in Croatia and Bosnia, murdering at least one million people; and recently in 1995, Croatia conducted (under US supervision) the biggest and permanent ethnic cleansing "military operation" against its (again) Serbian population, expelling over 200,000 of them in just three days (the real number of ethnically cleansed Serbs from Croatia during the wars in 90ies, is at least twice larger)- unofficially becoming the most ethnic cleanse European state.

If you believe, that Croats "en masse", would be ashamed of such reputation, then you are dead wrong. Actually most of them are very proud, and for the last 23 years they are celebrating it very loudly, and doing everything in their power to prevent (after being pressured by the international community) the return of hundreds of thousands of Serbs to their ancient land, and to avoid returning of their stolen property, mostly (real estates, farm lands, etc.).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lw0qZmFhPBg

"We could not prevent the slaughter of the Serbs by the Croatians, including elderly people and children " –  UNPROFOR French Lieutenant-General Jean Cot

Elderly Krajina' resident murdered in his home by Croatian soldiers. His guilt- He was a Serb

WHEN WESTERN "DEMOCRACIES" ORCHESTRATE ETHNIC CLEANSINGS

Of course, if would be unreasonable, for this evident and well documented war crimes, and crimes against humanity, to blame only Croats. If their hands are soaked in the blood, of innocent Serbian civilians, up to their arms, then the hands of their Western sponsors (namely USA and Germany) are soaked in the blood at least up to their elbows. Simply Croats would never get away with "such perfect crime", if they were not backed, in every possible way, by their American and German sponsors.

This week will mark 22 years, since on August 4th 1995, Croatia lunched so called military-police operation, named Storm, against Serb' held and controlled Krajina region. Croats backed by US military-logistic & air support, CIA intelligence drone reconnaissance, and open political support from Washington, completed their "operation" in just three days. On August 7th they declared "victory".

Their "victory resulted": in a complete ethnic cleansing of Krajina region, and a murder of at least 2,000 Serbs; vast majority of them were defenseless civilians. Official sources claim that: 1,192 Serbian civilians were killed or missing, and around 200,000 thousands (entire Krajina population) were expelled from their ancient land. Their property was destroyed, looted and stolen, by the Croatian "soldiers" (who performed this "operation" under direct Washington' supervision, while UNPROFOR peacekeepers assigned for the protection of UN designated "Krajina Safe Zone" just stood by, doing almost nothing to prevent the slaughter).

Croatian "soldiers" in "liberated Krajina"

IMPERATIVE WAS TO ESTABLISH US MILITARY PRESENCE IN YUGOSLAVIA

To understand this US complicity, and its direct military involvement, in such horrendous atrocity against one ethnic group, in one, of many, civil wars, which erupted, when former Socialist Yugoslavia "fell apart", again with covert or overt Western support, we have to look here at the wider picture-

When the Clinton' government, together with their major European allies, decided in 90ies, that the best American interest in the Balkans will be to back armed rebellion of the separatist administrative regions in Western Yugoslavia, and openly support the breakup of, internationally recognized, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while it was still the UN member, they consciously opened the Pandora box.

They openly sided politically & militarily with Slovenian and Croatian Catholics from the Western Yugoslavian Republics, and with Islamic fundamentalists from Bosnia, in their civil and religious wars against Orthodox Christian Serbs living outside, then administrative Republic of Serbia (and later in 1999, US & NATO started another illegal war against Serbia, on behalf of Islamic Albanian separatists from Kosovo, ultimately "stealing" this Southern Serbian province).

Croatian and Bosnian Serbs, who simply wanted to remain in their Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and not to be "taken away" by Catholic and Islamic separatists, and not to be stripped of their constitutional rights, under existing Yugoslavian laws, naturally rebelled against such illegal and violent Yugoslavian outcome, and they subsequently declared own autonomy within the Yugoslavian separatist' regions.

And then all hell broke loose

The historical roots of such American approach, could be found in the Western (mainly British and American) support of "Anti-Stalin" communist leader of post-WWII Yugoslavia Marshal Josip Broz Tito (who was Croat himself), who provided Western leaders with assurances that he will, not only keep Yugoslavia outside the Soviet bloc, but he would align militarily his country with NATO alliance as well; and later in Reagan' presidential directive NSDD133, from 1984, which outlined US strategic interest to expand its military presence to Yugoslavia.

Croatian and US military leadership celebrating "joint operation"- the biggest ethnic cleansing in Europe since WWII

THEY ARE KILLING "LITTLE RUSSIANS" TOO, AREN'T THEY ?

The "only" obstacle to this US (read NATO) expansionist policy in the former Yugoslavia, was Serbian (majority) population, which was, due to its traditional friendship with Russia, considered as "problematic" and had to be decimated, "broken into pieces", and Republic of Serbia to be disabled as an independent state, during so called "spontaneous" civil wars in 90s.

I am not trying here to state that in the Western society exist some unexplained hatred against Serbs (in same time, there is a lots of prejudice, and media & Hollywood bias, picturing Serbs primarily as "bad guys"), actually I believe that people and their politicians in the West could not care less about Serbs (Serbians), and most of them have no clue where to find Serbia on the geographic map. But in same time, as we can observe these days in the West, particularly in United States, there is a lot of unfounded and unreasonable hatred for the Russians

And if we are familiar with the popular saying among Western diplomats, that "Serbs are Little Russians", then is not difficult to put two and two together, and understand their desire to "disable" any Russian-friendly nation in the region.

As long as you are a Serb, regardless of your age, for Croats and their US sponsors, you are a "fair game"

CROATIAN WAR CRIMES AGAINST SERBS WERE SO EVIDENT, AND ON SUCH LARGE SCALE, THAT WESTERN CONTROLLED ICTY HAD NO CHOICE, BUT TO SENTENCE CROATIAN LEADERSHIP

Western controlled ICTY (International Crime Tribunal for Yugoslavia) reluctantly brought charges for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, against (war time) ultra-nationalistic Croatian leadership and group of its generals. But in the wake of overwhelming evidence and international outcry, they had little choice.

In 2001 ICTY brought charges for war crimes against Croatian president general Franjo Tudjman (who will be remembered for publically saying "that he was very proud that his wife was neither Jew or Serb"), Croatian defence minister Gojko Susak (prior to war- open Neo-Nazi ideologist), and two other former (renegade) Yugoslav Army generals, (promoted into supreme commanders of Croatian army) Janko Bobetko and Zvonimir Cermenko. Their indictment was actually travesty of justice, because at the time they were charged, all of them (with exception of General Janko Bobetko), were already dead (by natural cause). General Bobetko died one year after indictment, before he could be delivered to ICTY.

" The decision to launch Operation Storm is not controversial; what is controversial, however, is 'the successful effort' of some Croatian officials headed by President Franjo Tudjman to 'exploit the circumstances' and implement the plan to drive Serbs out of Krajina ." --  ICTY prosecutor Alain Tieger

When the indictment of Croatian generals Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac, for their war crimes and ethnic cleansing of Croatian Serbs in Krajina, during "operation" Storm in 1995, was announced in 2008- Serbs who survived US sponsored pogrom and ethnic cleansing, were naively hoping that at last some justice will be served.

Even, with such unprecedented obstruction of ICTY by Croatian government, Catholic Church and wider Croatian society, who concealed and destroyed many war documents, facilitated escape and concealment of indicted Croatian war criminals, and intimidated not only victims and witnesses, but ICTY leadership as well- the trial of those three Croatian generals came to conclusion in 2011, and after the overwhelming evidence (the evidence, Croats were not able to conceal or destroy), Gotovina was sentenced to 24 years, Markac to 18 years, while Cermak was acquitted.

Serbian victims hoped that at the end at least some justice was served- but they were wrong again. There is a Serbian saying: "A crow doesn't pick out another crow's eyes."-

In 2012, ICTY appeal chamber overturned the decision of lower chamber, and unconditionally acquitted Croatian war criminals Gotovina and Markac for all crimes. Entire Croatia and its diaspora erupted in joy and massive celebration.

Their historical experience that Crime Pays have been proven yet again

Serbian children getting starved to death and slaughtered by knife in a first-ever death camp for children and infants established by Croats in Jastrebarsko, Sisak, Stara Gradiska, Independent State of Croatia in WW2

Even, after the ICTY had proved (from the audio and written transcript of Croatian war leadership meeting in July 1995) – that there was very credible evidence of existence of a joint criminal enterprise, with intent to forcibly remove ethnic Serbs from Croatia, and that civilian areas in Krajina, including the subsequent civilian refugee columns, were indiscriminately shelled by Croatian artillery, and bombed & machine gunned by Croatian air-force – that did not prevent the real ICTY masters to pervert the course of justice.

One would wander who and what was behind such obvious and embarrassing justice travesty, demonstrated in this example. What had forced American controllers of ICTY to change their mind, and influence the tribunal to free of any charges, these obvious and heavy documented, war criminals?

Just remember that at that time, US government offered $5 million reward for the capture of war criminal Ante Gotovina, making him the ICTY most wanted man. He was at that time sheltered by Croatian government, and through the notorious Vatican' "Rat Channels", that were used at the end of WWII to facilitate the escape of Nazis, he was hidden (among the other Croatian war criminals) in a Catholic monastery, to be smuggled to Tenerife, where he was eventually captured by the Spanish police, in 2005.

Serbian civilians fleeing US/CRO joint operation "Storm" were bombed, machine-gunned, and ran by Croatian tanks, mercilessly- thousands of innocent people just perished

INTERNATIONAL "POST-MORTEM" RESPONSE

It is worth to mention accusations and reactions, to such perversion of justice by ICTY, from some highest international bodies and public persons, at that time-

US Security Council, on August 10th 1995 issued "post-mortem" (when ethnic cleansing of Serbs was already completed) resolution #1009, demanding from Croatia to halt military operation, and condemning targeting of UN peacekeepers (during the operation Storm, Croats had killed three UN soldiers) – but UNSC failed to request a withdrawal of the Croatian forces, and de-facto accepted new "ethnically cleanse" reality!?

The only UN official, who was fully aware of the horrific aspect of this US sponsored "operation", and who was trying to prevent further Croatian atrocities against Serbian population, was, at that time, the Head of UN mission in Yugoslavia, Thorvald Stoltenberg, who urged UN Secretary Yasushi Akashi to request NATO strikes against Croatian army, to prevent further atrocities against civilians.

Of course, that never happened, especially if we know that Croatian operation Storm, was directly supervised by the retired US generals (via Pentagon military contractor MPRI), while US Air Force conducted air raids against Serbian Air Defense systems in Krajina, and CIA officers operated surveillance drones, which provided intelligence for advancing Croatian troops, from two Croatian bases in Adriatic.

Even, EU negotiator Carl Bildt, and US ambassador in Croatia Peter Galbraith, publically condemned Croatian atrocities in Krajina- but they too stayed short of requesting some concrete and punitive measures.

" It is important that these [Serb] civilians start moving and then the army will follow them, and when the columns start moving, they will have a psychological effect on each other. That means we provide them with an exit, while on the other hand we feign (pretend) to guarantee civilian human rights and the like " --   Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, during War Council meeting in July 1995

The only ones from UN troops who tried to prevent Croatian atrocities, and in couple occasions fought bravely against bloody-thirsty Croatian soldiers, where Canadian peacekeepers from "Patricia Company", but they too, where upon return to Canada, silenced and their experience never got real media traction. Their testimony simply did not fit with the Western agenda, that Serbs are the only bad guys

THE REAL ATROCIOUS OUTCOME OF THE BIGGEST ETHNIC CLEANSING IN POST-WWII EUROPE IS MUCH HIGHER, THEN THE OFFICIAL FIGURES STATE

While ICTY prosecutors accepted the fact that some 200,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed in just couple of days from Krajina region, they "lowered" the number of murdered Serbian civilians to 324. Serbian sources on the ground documented 1,192 dead or missing civilians, while Croatian Helsinki Committee documented 677 killed.

Human Rights Watch documented at least 5,000 Serbian homes razed to the ground by Croatian forces, and HRW accused Croats for summary executions of elderly and disabled Serbs, who stayed behind due to inability or unwillingness to leave their homes. We can only imagine if the entire defenseless Serbian civilian population stayed behind, and faced bloody-thirsty Croatian soldiers- in that case we would be talking here about a full scale genocide, not "just" the ethnic cleansing!?

To better understand what kind of "Croatian justice" were facing defenseless Serbian civilians, who decided not to leave their homes during operation Storm, here is one excerpt from Wikipedia, describing one of many of Croatian "post-Storm" atrocities against innocent civilians-

"The Varivode massacre was a mass killing that occurred on 28 September 1995 in the village of Varivode , Croatia during the Croatian War of Independence . According to United Nations officials, soldiers of the Croatian Army (HV) and Croatian police killed nine Croatian Serb villagers, all of whom were between the ages of 60 and 85. [4] After the war, six former Croatian soldiers were tried for committing crimes in the village, but were all eventually released due to lack of evidence On the night of 28 September 1995, Croatian soldiers entered the village of Varivode and killed nine elderly Serb villagers. The civilians that were killed were Jovan Berić, Marko Berić, Milka Berić, Radivoje Berić, Marija Berić, Dušan Dukić, Jovo Berić, Špiro Berić and Mirko Pokrajac. After the executions occurred, the bodies were buried in a cemetery near the village without the knowledge of the families of the victims. [4] After the massacre, Croatian authorities denied reports of widespread atrocities targeting Serbs and said that they were propaganda. Later, the government blamed the atrocities on uncontrollable elements within the Croatian Army and Croatian police. [25] Christiane Amanpour 's report from October 1995 said that the "United Nations believes 12 Serb civilians were massacred." [25] In the first one hundred days following Operation Storm, at least 150 Serb civilians were summarily executed, and many hundreds disappeared as part of a widespread campaign of revenge against Croatia's Serb minority. [26] The bodies of the killed Serbs were never exhumed, autopsies were never performed and much of the evidence that could have been used against the perpetrators of the crime was discarded. [27] Despite this, six Croatian soldiers were tried for committing crimes in the village. The soldiers were Ivan Jakovljević, Peri Perković, Neđeljko Mijić, Zlatko Ladović, Ivica Petrić and Nikola Rašić. However, in 2002 they were all released due to the lack of evidence against them. [27] In July 2012, the Supreme Court of Croatia ruled that the Republic of Croatia was responsible for the deaths of the nine Serb villagers who were killed in Varivode. The Supreme Court declared, "two months after the conclusion of Operation Storm, an act of terrorism was committed against the Serb inhabitants of Varivode for the purpose of causing fear, hopelessness and to spread feelings of personal insecurity among the citizens." [35] – Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varivode_massacre

By 2012, Croatian government received 6,390 reports about committed war crimes against Serbian civilians, during and after operation Storm, but did little or nothing to bring the perpetrators to justice.

To make things worse and more humiliating for surviving Krajina Serbs, Croatian government is still refusing to return (or reimburse) 140,000 Serbian homes, stolen from ethnic Serbs. 795 Serbs, presumed dead, are still missing, 1,604 bodies were retrieved- according to NGO "Veritas".

Croats were attacking Krajina using the strategy of "Scorched Earth", with unconditional US support

DID THE CROATS SUCCESSFULLY BLACKMAIL U.S. GOVERNMENT INTO SUBMISSION, FORCING THEM TO OVERTURN THE INITIAL ICTY RULING!?

Defense ministers celebrating the joint outcome of the biggest ethnic cleansing in Europe since WWII- Left: US William Perry, Right: CRO Gojkos Susak

The initial ICTY ruling in 2011, which sentenced Croatian generals Gotovina and Markac to long term imprisonment, was expected, and very well supported by the "conclusive evidence". Even, according to many international experts, this sentencing was not enough tough, and did not cover the full scale of war crimes and atrocities, committed by Croatian political and military leadership, during and in the aftermath of operation Storm. Still, many Serbian victims were satisfied that they finally achieved at least some justice

So, when in November 2012 ICTY appeal chamber ruled that Croatian generals are innocent of all charges and free to go, the news came to many as a complete shock, and reaffirmed them in a belief that ICTY tribunal is just another NATO war tool, in their efforts to punish and humiliate, not only the Serbian government, but the numerous Serbian victims of civil wars in 90ies, whose executors were never (and probably never will be) brought to justice.

The ruling was very controversial, not only because it ignored all the hard evidence, including the forensics and the testimony of the international observers, but because the formal excuse for the liberating judgment was – that in the prosecutor documents were missing the Croatian artillery log books, that according to the Appeal chamber, were the only document that would prove the Croatian intent to drive Serbian population from Krajina. The same books were previously repeatedly requested by the ICTY prosecutors, and Croatia did not even deny its existence, but simply refused to cooperate with ICTY and hand them over. Finally, when in 2008 Croatia was warned by European leaders that non-cooperation with ICTY might affect the prospect of its EU membership – somebody from the Croatian leadership simply destroyed these books, and they informed Hague tribunal that Artillery logs no longer exist. Even such provocative and blunt obstruction of the international justice by the Croatian government, did not result in any repercussions for them, and practically they were forgiven for their deeds. Crime pays – doesn't it?

Anyway, ICTY tribunal had plenty of other evidence, proving the intentional destruction of Serbian civilian infrastructure was very well documented by the international observers, and in April 2011 ICTY had no choice but to sentence general Gotovina to 24 years, and general Markac to 18 years.

Another fact that indicates that Appeal chamber' ruling was the political one, and result of some external interference was its split decision – the chamber ruled by the majority decision 3 – 2, implying that there were serious doubts and disagreements, by at least two of the Appeal chamber judges.

"American concern is that if General Gotovina is arrested he may carry out a threat to disclose previously unknown extent of US covert involvement in the Krajina offensive " – London Times, June 14th, 2003.

Gotovina was arrested, but only shortly, until Croatian blackmail convinced their US masters, to pull strings in ICTY, and free him unconditionally

CROATIAN OFFICIALS PROVIDED A PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS INVOLVED IN "STORM" MILITARILY, AND HAD A FULL CONTROL OVER WAR (CRIMES) ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE GROUND

As soon the ICTY indictments against Croatian leaders were announced in 2001, the Croatian government, NGOs, public, and very well organized and connected diaspora, displayed anger and disagreement, promising that they will do everything in their power to obstruct ICTY investigations and prevent trials against their "national heroes". When in 2011, the first instance judgment by ICTY was issued and Croatian generals were sentenced to long term imprisonment, the Croatian Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor and President Ivo Josipovic publicly expressed their shock and rejection of the ruling, promising to help to overturn the judgment, on appeal!?

And they started their campaign – of obstruction of justice, of abetting the accused war criminals, of the intimidation, and finally, of the blackmail, of ICTY and US officials –

On July 4th, 2002, NGO associated with Croatian government "Croatian World Congress- CWC" filed complaint with ICTY citing what proofs, about US direct involvement in ethnic cleansing of Krajina, they have:

" US officials aided General Gotovina and the Croatian army in operation Storm by violating UN arms embargo and allowing Croatia to obtain weapons US officials established a CIA base inside General Gotovina' military base, which provided the US officials with real-time video footage of events transpiring on the ground during Operation Storm (and thus imputing to them knowledge of events on the ground ), but also from which they could provide such intelligence data to General Gotovina to assist him in conducting Operation Storm . If General Gotovina carried out pre-planed campaign to deport 150,000 to 200,000 Croatian Serbian civilians, the CIA base was not only used to provide knowledge to US officials of such plan and course of conduct on the part of General Gotovina , but was also used to assist General Gotovina in achieving the goals of his alleged plan . The US official gave the green light for the Operation and provided diplomatic and political support for it . The US officials at all times had the ability to halt the military operations . Accordingly, the US officials named in the complaint should be indicted for having aided and abetted General Gotovina. "

Ethnic cleansing in Krajina was the joint US/CRO criminal enterprise History will be the judge

If you read carefully through this CWC statement (threat), they are not even trying to deny Gotovina' war crimes, they are just implying bluntly, that if their lovely General was sentenced, they would gladly provide ICTY with the evidence of Croatian-American "Joint criminal enterprise to forcibly remove the Serb population from Croatia ", as it states the ICTY indictment from 2001, of course omitting the US participation (which was the very secret deal, at least until Croatian officials started "mouthing" their "American friends").

Croatian complaint to ICTY specifically named the highest US officials, alleging that they, along General Gotovina, committed too war crimes against Serbian population:

"On behalf of the Croatian World Congress, a non-governmental organization that is a member of the United Nations with advisory status, you are hereby notified pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of the existence of information concerning serious violations of international humanitarian law (hereinafter "IHL"), namely that officials of the United States of America, including but not limited to William Jefferson Clinton , Anthony Lake , Samuel Berger , Richard Holbrooke , Peter Galbraith and/or George J. Tenet (hereinafter collectively referred to as "U.S. officials"), aided and abetted Croatian General Ante Gotovina , who was indicted by your office on 8 June 2001."

War Criminals at work together- Croatian general Kresimir Cosic and US supreme commander general Wesley Clark

We are not going here to present detailed evidence of US crimes, committed during the operation Storm. Of course, the Croatian war crimes on the ground were very brutal, systematic and savage, they did "the physical work", but from the evidence provided by numerous Croatian officials and their organizations, it is very obvious, that operation Storm would never happen, or if happened never would be successful, without US military support and direct supervision, or without US approval.

Just to give you "a taste" what kind of American support Croats were enjoying during their atrocious operation against innocent Serbian civilians, will present you with some documented facts:

The Green Light for the operation came a couple days prior the assault- President Clinton passed the order directly to US military attaché in Zagreb Colonel Richard Herrick; Herrick passed order to Croatian head of military intelligence Markica Rebic (the others involved directly were defense minister Gojko Susak, Miro Tudjman and Miro Medimurac, heads of Secret Service and Intelligence Service). US masters were so pleased with Rebic' service, that they rewarded him with Meritorious Service Medal, delivered to him by Ambassador Galbraith in 1996. The other people from USG involved in this joint criminal enterprise with Croats, in addition to Clinton, were Anthony Lake and William Perry. US masters imposed the time limit on operation Storm- it had to be completed in 5 days.

Long before the Storm, in 1992 USG with Croatian approval established CIA reconnaissance base on island of Brac, from where CIA operators were flying unmanned aircraft spying on Serbian positions in Krajina, Bosnia and part of Serbia itself. USG requested that this cooperation to be held a top secret, so outsiders don't find that US is taking sides in the Balkans' civil wars. But it did not stay for too long the top secret. On January 1st, 1994, Croatian state security apprehended a spy on the base perimeter. They delivered him right away to General Gotovina, to find out it was their German ally, precisely it was German military attaché Hans Schwan.

This incident alerted USG, which wanted to conceal any covert activities on behalf of CG, so they promptly removed CIA base to new secret location, in Sepurina, near city of Zadar. This new location was covered by three security layers, to ensure the full secrecy. From new base CIA started immediately collecting photographic and video evidence of Serbian activities in Krajina and Bosnia, and passing them to Croats, and to Pentagon. There was 24 hours, 6 member intelligence crew, present on site- consisting of three CIA and three Croatian military officers.

Croatian military base Sepurine, near Zadar, from which CIA operated drones, aiding operation Storm, and providing live video feed of "military activities" on the ground to Pentagon

"STORM" WASN'T THE FIRST ETHNIC CLEANSING, UNDERTAKEN BY CROATIA AND US, AS A JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE:

It is interesting that disgruntled (by ICTY indictment) Croatian Officials and Croatian World Congress body, in their complaint to ICTY, are providing the evidence about USG intelligence and logistical support for another Croatian genocidal operation, named Flash, that took place in Western Slavonia, between May 1st and 3rd, 1995, which resulted in another complete ethnic cleansing of Serbian population- prior to the operation this area was populated by 29,000 Serbs, after Flash, only 1,500 remained.

The number of killed civilians is unknown because Croats prevented UNPROFOR troops from accessing the area, until they did "the sanitation" (read: removing the evidence of their crimes, because entire Serbian refugee columns were massacred and overran by Croatian tanks). Estimates of killed civilians rage between one hundred to couple thousands. Another example of "the successful US-CRO joint criminal enterprise"?

The interesting details, revealed here by Croatian sources, is- that US military attaché Herrick was attached to the Croatian mobile military command, during the genocidal operation Flash, supervising it directly- and the head of CIA branch in Zagreb Marc Kelton was directly coordinating expulsion of Slavonia' Serbs, with Croatian president Tudjman son Miro.

In the eve of the attack on Krajina, on August 4th 1995, between midnight and 4 a.m. Croatian forces were ordered to turn off all telecommunication devices, to unable US air force to electronically disable all Serbian communications.

The outcome of Joint US/CRO "justice"

According to NATO spokesman Jim Mitchell in Aviano, Italy, two US military planes EA-6B Prowlers were dispatched to Krajina air space. USAF planes, on the top of jamming Serbian telecommunications, destroyed the airport Udbine, and Radar and Serbian Air Defense near Knin, in order to prevent any Serbian air support or defence, against invading Croatian forces.

Here, US military attaché Herrick was replaced by the Colonel John Sadler, who was embedded with Gotovina command unit, directly supervising operation Storm. Pentagon was also directly monitoring the operation via live video feed.

Shortly after the biggest joint (US/CRO) ethnic cleansing in Europe was completed, US head of DIA General Colonel Patrick Hughes visited Croatia to coordinate further military actions against Serbs in Bosnia and if necessary in Republic of Serbia

Crime pays, doesn't

[Aug 05, 2018] War Is A Racket After 17 Years and Billions Wasted, US Seeks Peace With Taliban by Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams

Jul 31, 2018 | www.antiwar.com
Last week, US State Department officials met with Taliban leaders in Qatar. At the request of the Taliban, the US-backed Afghan government was not invited. The officials discussed ceasefires and an end to the war. Meanwhile, the US inspector general charged with monitoring US spending on Afghanistan reconstruction has reported that since 2008, the US has completely wasted at the least $15.5 billion. He believes that's just the tip of the iceberg, though. Will President Trump do the smart thing and negotiate peace and leave? Tune in to today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:

[Aug 05, 2018] The Empire-Lovers Strike Back Trump, Putin and the Post-Helsinki Uproar

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Resolving Structural Conflicts ..."
"... How Violent Systems Can Be Transformed ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country? Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents, then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is anti-Empire.

Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.

The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the mid-1940's."

"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20 million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran, Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.; the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy at all costs.

It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent: the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance. There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style democracy seeking to liberate.

The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily, could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears" not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . . shocked!

In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be – to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.

This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world, with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many more bargaining options in the power game.

More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases, negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.

No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism, multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . . American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will act like an empire, and we will have open war.

In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S. military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his enemies is Empire.

What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.

My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives. We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony. Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD, slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.

Notes.

[1] The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).

[Aug 05, 2018] Donald Trump and the American Left by Rob Urie

With some editing for clarity.
Notable quotes:
"... As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.' ..."
"... What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in return. ..."
"... The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles, relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in various stages of economic decline. ..."
"... Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the neoliberal world order. ..."
"... Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their donor base. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class control -- neoliberalism, is something else. ..."
"... Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And they were fascists. ..."
"... As political scientist Thomas Ferguson has been arguing for decades and Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls the politics. ..."
"... The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing. ..."
"... Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book ..."
"... is published by CounterPunch Books. ..."
Aug 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The election of Donald Trump fractured the American Left. The abandonment of class analysis in response to Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism left identity politics to fill the void. This has facilitated the rise of neoliberal nationalism, an embrace of the national security state combined with neoliberal economic analysis put forward as a liberal / Left response to Mr. Trump's program. The result has been profoundly reactionary.

What had been unfocused consensus around issues of economic justice and ending militarism has been sharpened into a political program. A nascent, self-styled socialist movement is pushing domestic issues like single payer health care, strengthening the social safety net and reversing wildly unbalanced income and wealth distribution, forward. Left unaddressed is how this program will move forward without a revolutionary movement to act against countervailing forces.

As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.'

This points to the most potent fracture on the Left, the question of which is the more effective reactionary force, the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism or Mr. Trump's racialized version? As self-evident as the answer apparently is to the liberal / Left, it is only so through abandonment of class analysis. Race, gender and immigration status are either subsets of class or the concept loses meaning.

By way of the reform Democrat's analysis , it was the shift of working class voters from Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016 that swung the election in Mr. Trump's favor. To the extent that race was a factor, the finger points up the class structure, not down. This difference is crucial when it comes to the much-abused 'white working-class' explanation of Mr. Trump's victory.

What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in return.

The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles, relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in various stages of economic decline.

Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling class ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they are factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.

Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can ] accommodate class analysis whereas the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.

Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.

Within the frame of identity politics rich and bourgeois blacks, women and immigrants have the same travails as their poor and working-class compatriots. Ben Carson (black), Melania Trump (female) and Melania Trump (immigrant) fit this taxonomy. For them racism, misogyny and xenophobia are forms of social violence. But they aren't fundamental determinants of how they live. The same can't be said for those brutalized by four decades of neoliberalism

The common bond here is a class war launched from above that has uprooted, displaced and immiserated a large and growing proportion of the peoples of the West. This experience cuts across race, gender and nationality making them a subset of class. If these problems are rectified at the level of class, they will be rectified within the categories of race, gender and nationality. Otherwise, they won't be rectified.

Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their donor base.

Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class control -- neoliberalism, is something else.

Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And they were fascists.

More recently, the effort to secure capitalist control has been led by [neo]liberal Democrats using Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements. So that identity warriors might understand the implications, this control limits the ability of governments to rectify race and gender bias because supranational adjudication can overrule them.

So, is race and / or gender repression any less repressive because capitalists control the levers? Colonial slave-masters certainly thought so. The people who own sweatshops probably think so. Most slumlords probably think so. Employers who steal wages probably think so. The people who own for-profit prisons probably think so. But these aren't 'real' repression, are they? Where's the animosity?

As political scientist Thomas Ferguson has been arguing for decades and Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls the politics.

The liberal explanation for this is 'political culture.' The liberal solution is to change the political culture without changing the economic relations that drive the culture. This is also the frame of identity politics. The presence of a desperate and destitute underclass lowers working class wages (raising profits), but ending racism is a matter of changing minds?

This history holds an important lesson for today's nascent socialists. The domestic programs recently put forward, as reasonable and potentially useful as they are, resemble FDR's effort to save capitalism, not end it. The time to implement these programs was when Wall Street was flat on its back, when it could have been more. This is the tragedy of betrayal by Barack Obama his voters.

Despite the capitalist rhetoric at the time, the New Deal wasn't 'socialism' because it never changed control over the means of production, over American political economy. Internal class differences were reduced through redistribution, but brutal and ruthless imperialism proceeded apace overseas.

The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing.

Otherwise, the rich have assigned the opining classes the task of defending their realm. Step 1: divide the bourgeois into competing factions. Step 2: posit great differences between them that are tightly circumscribed to prevent history from inconveniently intruding. Step 3: turn these great differences into moral absolutes so that they can't be reconciled within the terms given. Step 4: pose a rigged electoral process as the only pathway to political resolution. Step 5: collect profits and repeat. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Rob Urie

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.

[Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

Notable quotes:
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
paul malfara , a day ago
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".

If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."

Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say. The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.

I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.

I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.

\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content are not made by them.

What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!

Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed with accurate information.

[Aug 05, 2018] Film that tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era pushed the Iraq war

Notable quotes:
"... "My film itself is essentially was tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints for the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality." ..."
"... – Robbie Martin, from this week's program. ..."
Aug 04, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

"My film itself is essentially was tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints for the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality."

– Robbie Martin, from this week's program.

[Aug 05, 2018] Multiculturalism is a recipe for national suicide. Culture, including religious belief, is the unifying factor that allows strangers to work with one another, by ensuring that they share the same assumptions about morality and about correct behavior in general.

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

CanSpeccy , Website July 31, 2018 at 12:10 am GMT

Multiculturalism is a recipe for national suicide. Culture, including religious belief, is the unifying factor that allows strangers to work with one another, by ensuring that they share the same assumptions about morality and about correct behavior in general.

Jews have been a problem for European societies for hundreds of years. The recent mass migration of people of multiple races and religions to Europe and its settler outposts in the America's and the Pacific is creating cultural chaos.

Immigrants who will not assimilate to the Christian culture of the West have no place in the West. For Africans, Asians, Hispanics and Middle-Easterners the message must be: assimilate or leave. The same for Jews who now, fortunately, have a place to go where they can live by the precepts of their ancient religion, however bizarre some of those precepts may seem to others.

That then leaves only the problem of the Palestinians. A solution can surely be found in a deal with Egypt. The Sinai is twice the size of Palestine, yet has only a half a million inhabitants. The US could easily organize a purchase, funded by itself, Britain, the country primarily responsible for the dispossession of the Palestinians, the EU, Russia and some other countries, and of course Israel, which would have to pay for the land and houses of the departing Palestinians.

At say $10,000 per hectare, a ridiculous price for a desert sand and rocky hillsides, the whole of Sinai could be purchased for $60 billion, a trivial amount in relation to the US trillion-dollar defense budget. In addition, there might be a need for something like half a trillion dollars for construction of the the cities and high-tech desert agricultural system of the new Palestinian state. But again, that is a rather trivial amount over, say ten years.

[Aug 05, 2018] Nationalists winning Eastern Europe after the dissolution of the USSR is a verifiable tendency

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

peterAUS , July 31, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT

@AaronB

Only Leftists can defeat Leftists, only progressives can defeat progressives – conserving the old cannot win. Ideas of stability, homeostasis, and the like, cannot win.

You sure?

Don't know.

Franco, for example. Then, more recently, Nationalists winning over Communists in Eastern Europe after the fall of The Wall. We could agree, I guess, that Nationalism is a bit older than Communism.

And there is no organized opposition because there is no Platonic Idea around which they can rally – while the Left has one. The Right seems to just be a headless chicken- all body, no head.

In the West. In the East not so sure about that. Do a (mental) test: imagine that US (military) power can't get delivered in Balkans anymore. Or Russian (military) power can't get delivered in Donbass. Or some other places.

Watch ..

AaronB , July 31, 2018 at 3:07 am GMT
@peterAUS

That's a good point about nationalism – but I think what we are seeing in places like Russia and Poland is a resurgence of religious nationalism – pure nationalism, without a Platonic Idea, just materialism, seems to have no long term success anywhere. I don't think the attempt to revive it among materialist western right wingers will work. I think they fundamentally misunderstand this.

In the context of a failed Communism, religious nationalism appears as progressive – as an exciting step in the direction of progress towards a higher state.

Its not that old traditional ideas can't be revived – its that I think conservatives basically misunderstand traditional ideas. In their time, traditional ideas were meant to facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis. Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.

Traditional ideas were based on a Platonic Idea – never materialism. The attempt to revive traditional ideas on a materialist basis, because they provide stability, seems a misunderstanding. In fact, traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as part of the plan of self-perfection. That's why they secured consent – i.e became the basis of a stable society. People accept a social organization that they believe will assist in self-perfection, and that is the source of social stability.

As for military power projection, once local power balances alter its hard to predict what will come to seem "progressive". And short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.

That's my take, at any rate.

peterAUS , July 31, 2018 at 5:14 am GMT
@AaronB

A thoughtful post.

.traditional ideas were meant to facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis. Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.

..traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as part of the plan of self-perfection.

I am not quite sure I get this.
Feels as a deep topic. Not well versed in that I am afraid.

A couple of things: the concept of "self-perfection" in, say, traditional Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, with accepting that a man is a sinner and only though Jesus he/she can find salvation.
Then, I can get that top thinkers of those nations maybe thought along those lines; common folk, though, based their nationalism on simple living with people who shared the same values in life. Sometimes even just the same customs. The sense of belonging. The perception of "us" and "them" as the bottom line.

You want a problem to ponder about?
Here it is, then:
Why such ..animosity .. then, between Catholics and Orthodox in Balkans and Ukraine? The same, now dormant, between Protestant and Catholics in N.I.?

I guess that your approach to nationalism is, say, what ..metaphysical?
Mine is way, way below. Just blood and soil, in that order. "Us" vs "them".

West is doomed re nationalism. Maybe. Not quite sure.
All those wars of Catholics vs Protestants ..and we are talking about people of the same race.
Now, that "we" vs "them" is much more visible.

.short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.

Agree.
Again, so what? If it works during my lifetime fine (say, if I were a young man). After me, their problem. Something like that.

[Aug 05, 2018] Ideas of stability, homeostasis, and the like, cannot win.

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

AaronB , July 31, 2018 at 3:07 am GMT

@peterAUS

That's a good point about nationalism – but I think what we are seeing in places like Russia and Poland is a resurgence of religious nationalism – pure nationalism, without a Platonic Idea, just materialism, seems to have no long term success anywhere. I don't think the attempt to revive it among materialist western right wingers will work. I think they fundamentally misunderstand this.

In the context of a failed Communism, religious nationalism appears as progressive – as an exciting step in the direction of progress towards a higher state.

Its not that old traditional ideas can't be revived – its that I think conservatives basically misunderstand traditional ideas. In their time, traditional ideas were meant to facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis. Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.

Traditional ideas were based on a Platonic Idea – never materialism. The attempt to revive traditional ideas on a materialist basis, because they provide stability, seems a misunderstanding. In fact, traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as part of the plan of self-perfection. That's why they secured consent – i.e became the basis of a stable society. People accept a social organization that they believe will assist in self-perfection, and that is the source of social stability.

As for military power projection, once local power balances alter its hard to predict what will come to seem "progressive". And short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.

That's my take, at any rate.

[Aug 05, 2018] Bernie Sanders did everything he was told he should do. He supported the Democratic establishment candidate, and now he believes the Russiagate story.

Notable quotes:
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours. ..."
"... You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by DNC! Everybody knows... ..."
"... Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.

-- Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 16, 2018

However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.

Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.

It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.

Slate: Russian Trolls Were Obsessed With Black Lives Matter
CNN: Her son was killed -- then came the Russian trolls
NY Times: The Propaganda Tools Used by Russians to Influence the 2016 Election

snoopydawg on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 6:32pm
Bernie's tweet is hysterical
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.

Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates. That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.

Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.

Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he? I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.

US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the

The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.

....

the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself.

While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "

And let's not forget how many coups and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.

One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.

It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.

The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also Russian puppets. Good grief!

snoopydawg on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 6:55pm
The first tweet shows how people twist events

The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?

You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank you Bernie!

-- Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) February 16, 2018

So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.

-- Underdawg47 (@Underdawg47) February 17, 2018

You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by DNC! Everybody knows...

-- Logan (@KOMBUCHABABY) February 17, 2018

Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB

-- SanBernieDingDong (@noreallyhowcome) February 17, 2018

MrWebster on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 7:19pm
2020 dem candidates will try to out do each other on Russia

Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats.

The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.

And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.

I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.

[Aug 05, 2018] Earlier this year, Representative James Moran, a Democrat, said that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."

While neocons definitely agitated for invasion and were well represented in Bush Ii government, this statement might be not true. As Greenspan said it was about oil.
Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [228] Disclaimer , August 2, 2018 at 7:32 pm GMT

Earlier this year, Representative James Moran, a Democrat, said that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." In Britain, Tam Dalyell, a longstanding Labor member of Parliament, expressed a similar view. Tony Blair, he opined, was listening too much to a "cabal" of Jews around President Bush that included Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; an under secretary of defense, Douglas Feith; Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board; Elliott Abrams, director of Middle East Affairs in the White House; and the former presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Those people drive this policy," Dalyell said.
Dalyell was "worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik-Sharon agenda" by British Jews close to Blair.
-- -- -- -- -- -
Earlier this year, Representative James Moran, a Democrat, said that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." In Britain, Tam Dalyell, a longstanding Labor member of Parliament, expressed a similar view. Tony Blair, he opined, was listening too much to a "cabal" of Jews around President Bush that included Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; an under secretary of defense, Douglas Feith; Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board; Elliott Abrams, director of Middle East Affairs in the White House; and the former presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Those people drive this policy," Dalyell said.
Dalyell was "worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik-Sharon agenda" by British Jews close to Blair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/31/magazine/how-to-talk-about-israel.html

The way , this war has played out, the way Oslo has been shredded, the way Iran deal has been gutted, the way Blair spoke in Bush's ranch and took money form and awards from Israel, the way attacks on Lebanon and Syria have been allowed and helped , the way Libya have been made a failed country, the way billions have been poured on Israel, the way dissent against war has been suppressed, the way Corbyn was attacked prove one thing – only one thing that is the author was entirely wrong .Moran Japanense and British minister are and were correct.

[Aug 05, 2018] Are you a Russiagate traitor by gjohnsit

Notable quotes:
"... There was NO hack. ..."
"... emphasis in original. ..."
"... "inside job" ..."
"... "Who's the insider?" ..."
"... -- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on. ..."
"... In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian" hacker. Here's how we know that: ..."
"... Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred. ..."
"... The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia, which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world.... ..."
"... @Pluto's Republic ..."
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... third run ..."
"... ~~Author Unknown ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
Aug 04, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Russiagate may technically be about Trump, but in fact most of the "traitors" and Putin Puppets are progressives on the left. Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-12-21 12:09

Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin

Russiagate never was actually about Russia. It's the Democrats' version of Obama's birth certificate. As Caitlin Johnstone puts it, Russiagate is 9/11 minus 9/11.

TWIT:

Kurt Eichenwald

@kurteichenwald

Bottom line: You either support the patriots in our intelligence community and law enforcement who work endlessly for our national security, and all of the intelligence agencies of our allies, or you support Putin.

You're either a patriot, a traitor or an idiot. Choose.

10:51 AM-16 Jul 2018

In reality, Russiagate started with Ralph Nader and the 2000 election .

They said a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. You have a moral duty to vote for the Democrat and to be pragmatic. Your Naderite purity came at the expense of the poor. Only affluent selfish white guys could afford this type of virtue signaling. In fact, maybe some of these people were really Republicans in disguise. There were no Russian bots to blame just yet, but clearly some liberals are unable to imagine good faith criticism of Democrats coming from the left.

The terms " virtue signaling", " purity pony", and of course "White Berniebro" weren't coined yet, but the the stereotype they describe was formed in 2000. Gore lost and Nader and all his voters, in swing states or not, were vilified. They were worse than Republicans. They were traitors. Of all the factors that caused Gore's loss, the only one that Democratic partisans really cared about was Nader.

People that voted for Nader became responsible for the Iraq War, while Democrats who voted for Bush and the Iraq War got a free pass. Liberals, besides their obvious double-standards when allocating responsibility, made the dubious claim that morality requires being pragmatic in your voting. And then, as if to prove the basis of their claims to be false, they approach their target audience in a non-pragmatic way.

The anger on open display is the opposite of pragmatic politics. They don't try to persuade people to vote for the Democrat. They demand it. It is a moral litmus test, or rather, a judgement of one's very soul. Good people know they have to vote for the Democrat. Bad people vote for Republicans and the very worst people of all claim to be left, but vote for Stein or maybe even voted for Clinton, but criticized her. Democratic partisans have no interest in what you say about an issue if they perceive it as in any way an attack or a criticism of a Democrat. If you are a third party advocate you can forget about being taken seriously on any issue because you have already self identified as a Satanist and you need to be exorcised from the body politic. Even if you say you support the Democrat as the lesser evil, you speak as one of the damned and deserve no mercy. Sanders played the game in 2016 exactly the way people said Nader should have played it and he and his supporters were still dismissed.

Like Nader before her, Stein is the absolute worst traitor of all . Worse than Trump himself.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent. https://t.co/qkDUe6yADd

-- Zac Petkanas (@Zac_Petkanas) 18 December 2017

Maddow cast suspicion on Stein's silence over alleged Russian attempts to interfere with the election to benefit Donald Trump, who she claimed during her own campaign would govern no differently than Hillary Clinton.

"So everybody's like, 'Wow, how come this like super, super aggressive opposition that we saw from these third-party candidates -- how come they haven't said anything since this scandal has broken?'" Maddow said.

"I don't know, Jill -- I can't pronounce it in Russian," Maddow said, with apparent sarcasm.

. @maddow spots something fishy going on between Jill Stein and Vladimir Putin. pic.twitter.com/Cah10YWx8p

-- DESUS & MERO (@desusandmero) 15 February 2017

Bernie Sanders, OTOH, did everything he was told he should do. He supported the Democratic establishment candidate, and believed the Russiagate story.

It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.

-- Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 16, 2018

However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.

Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.

It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.

Slate: Russian Trolls Were Obsessed With Black Lives Matter
CNN: Her son was killed -- then came the Russian trolls
NY Times: The Propaganda Tools Used by Russians to Influence the 2016 Election

That's because you, Russia, funded riots in Ferguson. See 0 hour I have your connections to Trump archived via Schiller and Scavino https://t.co/aTUDlCGkYi

-- Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 9, 2017

If you are still confused about what is treason and what isn't, ask yourself the question: Does the issue advance the narrative that the Democratic Party is a force for absolute good?

Oh my god: this is how deranged official Washington is. The President of the largest Dem Party think tank (funded in part by dictators) genuinely believes Chelsea Manning's candidacy is a Kremlin plot. Conspiracy theorists thrive more in mainstream DC than on internet fringes pic.twitter.com/e8g314iQHT

-- Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 15, 2018

We still have the 2018 election, and then the long lead-up to the 2020 election. There is nothing to indicate that the rhetoric won't get a lot more insane. The general indifference of the public doesn't seem to discourage the media and pundits. So how will it likely look in Fall 2020? Probably like it looked in 1952 .

The purpose of advancing the Communist issue was not to fix the Communist problem -- it was to exploit that problem for political and ideological advantage. That is how the Republican Party could produce its unhinged 1952 platform, which charged that the Democrats "have shielded traitors to the Nation in high places," "work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism," and "by a long succession of vicious acts, so undermined the foundations of our Republic as to threaten its existence." (Does that kind of talk strike you as overheated? Then you, too, are failing to take the Russia issue seriously.)

There is little to no danger for conservatives and Republicans. All of the danger is for progressives and socialists, and the angry mob is the Democratic establishment trying to silence left-wing ideas. In comparison, the danger of the GOP to the left-wing is trivial.

Deja on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 5:04pm

Ffs, there was NO "hack"

Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.

I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that people keep posting it as common knowledge and factual -- especially on this site. Old dkos habits are hard to break, I guess. The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network. Not from Russia, or from a van parked down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used to do so, because it would blow the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.

There was NO hack.

thanatokephaloides on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 5:21pm
inside job

@Deja

The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network. Not from Russia, or from a van parked down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used to do so, because it would blow the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.

There was NO hack.

emphasis in original.

The term usually used by the perpetrator classes for this sort of thing is: "inside job" . And, as with all other inside jobs, the question really is: "Who's the insider?"

"The easiest way to raise a revolutionary army is to use someone else's; especially if it belongs to your enemy."
-- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory

Deja on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 5:27pm
Dead men tell no tales

@thanatokephaloides
R.I.P. Seth Rich

Side note: I find it odd that his parents sued Fox News for saying he was murdered by the DNC. The judge sided with Fox.

gjohnsit on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 5:51pm
It makes no difference

@Deja

I've seen an article debunking the "hack was a leak" story, but it makes no difference anyway. In my book, the leak/hack just created a more informed electorate, and that's good for American democracy.

gjohnsit on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 6:25pm
"care about the truth"

@Deja
The truth is contained in the emails, not in their journey. Remember who else is telling you that the contents of the emails is less important than how they got there - the Democrats.

divineorder on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 8:22pm
Yes, 'shill' equals bad imo. I too, have read that the 'leak'

@Deja hypothesis has problems. Don't get me wrong, I think it holds more promise than the 'hack' hypothesis. But right now, really, we got shit for proof either way? Would honestly look forward to your proof either way, sans the critique of the essayist. Might I suggest that you criticize the point, not the person, please? Questions remain.

- DNC leak vs hack remains unproven (servers not provided)
- one party consent is complicated. On the tape, there was 3rd party on speaker phone. Were they in one party consent jurisdiction as well?
- How was CNN able to confirm that this tape was recorded in NY?

-- John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) July 25, 2018

snoopydawg on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 10:09pm
Leak or hack - there's no evidence that Russia was involved

@divineorder

in it. This is the point that matters to me. Assange has stated that the emails didn't come from Russia. Craig Murray said that he was involved with the person who got the information from the DNC computers and that there was no connection to Russia.

The CIAs Vault 7 shows how evidence on computers can be manipulated to make it seem like someone's dawg did the deed. I think it'd be very sloppy for trained hackers to leave their own footprints on the scene don't you think?

Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on.

Pluto's Republic on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 10:34pm
Absolutely right.

@Deja

It matters profoundly. Knowing the facts surrounding critical political events or social earthquakes can be epigenetic events. Hard truths can trigger conscious evolution while we are alive and your advanced gene expressions can be physically inherited, changing the species.

By exercising our own critical thinking and working very hard to see through narratives to the core realities in the universe and in all things -- we are physically evolving the species into better and more enlightened generations of humans.

In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian" hacker. Here's how we know that:

Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred.

The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia, which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world....

If that is what your instincts tell you, you should trust them. It's a biological imperative.

on the cusp on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 10:22pm
Perfect.

@Pluto's Republic At the very least, we should call it "alleged" hacks. I want some proof before we drop nukes.

Mickt on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 5:57pm
I saw this today

Just to lighten things up?

https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-reviews-christopher-robin-1828056997

The Aspie Corner on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 6:17pm
This whole thing is starting to look like

the plot to Beavis and Butt-head Do America.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3eTqb_fgTAA

snoopydawg on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 6:32pm
Bernie's tweet is hysterical
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.

Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates. That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.

Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.

Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he? I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.

US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the

The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "

And let's not forget how many coups and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.

One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.

The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also Russian puppets. Good grief!

Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 6:53pm
Say it, Sister! ;-) The entire exercise--

@snoopydawg

meaning the 'Russia Ruse'--IMO, has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system geared toward major social media 'censorship,' and, a face-saving exercise for FSC--just in case she decides to make a third run in 2020. Heaven forbid!

Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)

"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving." ~~Author Unknown

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche

MrWebster on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 7:51pm
Coates said the Russias are engaged in "messaging campaign"

@Unabashed Liberal @Unabashed Liberal

"... has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system geared toward major social media 'censorship,'

Yup. Dan Coates directory of national intelligence came out and accused Russsia of engaging in a "messaging campaign". So how does one stop this messaging campaign. Well, back in the day, the answer was to answer bad speech with more and better speech.

Well, with Russiagate both the media and dem/gop establishment have to come to demand censorship from the major social media platforms. And they have responded. At first they actually didn't and thought the Russia charges were trivial. Until that is, they were theatened by House and Senate reps. And then they hopped to it.

And just a number of days ago, Facebook proudly announced they took down some nefarious pages who seemed to be engaging in a message campaign. And turns out they shut down a real group organizing an anti-fascist rally. There are other examples like this.

The censorship will continue becoming more and more brazen. (BTW, youtube started ths process earlier demonitizing and hurting a lot of popular, but alternative voices.)

BTW--the Young Turks showed the Coats clip and claimed "see the Russians are still hacking our elections".

Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 8:17pm
Hi, Mr W!--good to see you. I couldn't

@MrWebster

agree more with all of your comments/sentiments.

I'm truly getting concerned regarding the direction our government appears to be taking when it comes to 'freedom of expression/speech.' Strangely, many on the 'left' don't seem very concerned. Indeed, because the MSM is so intent on going after DT, many so-called progressives--including the supposedly more liberal (cough, cough) lawmakers--have become major cheerleaders of the corporatist media. Go figure.

Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went." ~~Will Rogers

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche

snoopydawg on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 8:35pm
Dan Coates should be fired

@MrWebster

as well as every other person in Trump's administration that is working against him. This is insubordination and if Trump continues to let them run their mouths then I believe that he is in on this scam and is playing along with it. Why? Look at what has been happening since he became president. From the increasing Russian sanctions to the internet censorship to the increased military budget with money that goes to fighting cyber warfare and many other things that are being done because of this new and improved false flag.

As you stated YouTube has been removing lots of videos, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring alternative media sites that are not playing along with Russia Gate and Google changed its algorithms so that traffic to those sites are down up to 90% according to WSWS.

I once thought that this would eventually be exposed for the scam it is, but not any more. It's here to stay. And just like in 1984 where there was that place where history was changed to fit the narrative of the day, we are seeing that here. Things that happened last decade are being blamed on Russia hacking. I wouldn't be surprised if the KKK and Jim Crow were blamed on Russia. This is how out of control it's gotten. And I was so looking forward to seeing Rachel trying to explain to her viewers how she got things so wrong.

The Aspie Corner on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 8:46pm
Trumpy Boy is as complicit in this as the rest of the pigs.

@snoopydawg His erratic actions are the perfect distraction for the capitalist pigs the same as the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Communist Fascist Socialist Radical Leftist Feminazi SJW" crap that went on during the last capitalist puppet presidency. Either way, the world still burns and the pigs make out like bandits in the process. Keeping the plebs at each other's throats is just a bonus for them.

Alligator Ed on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 9:41pm
Rachel will never admit she's wrong.

@snoopydawg Remember whom you are discussing. Alas, you must be a Russian wolfhound to think R. Madcow could ever be wrong. Apologize, then stand in the corner until after the midterms when the GRU hauls off recalcitrant Dims and Repugnants failing to swear fealty to Vladimir Vladimirovich.

divineorder on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 7:18pm
sd yes Orlov calls it like it is.

@snoopydawg

Caitlin J. Interesting Twitter thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/caitoz/status/1025482696628137986

"Russiagate is like a mirage. It looks so real from a distance you'll swear it's there and mock anyone who says otherwise, but once you get up close and examine its component parts you find it's made of nothing but innuendo, spin, unsubstantiated claims and dishonest omissions.
2:45 PM · Aug 3, 2018"

And....

https://mobile.twitter.com/caitoz/status/1025489710594945024Caitlin Johnstone

"
@caitoz
·
Aug 3
Nothing wrong with wanting a full investigation. There's something very, very wrong with pressuring a US president to continually escalate dangerous cold war tensions with a nuclear superpower without ever backing down based on an "idea" with no evidence. "

MrWebster on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 8:11pm
In 2020 Bernie will be a "strong" pro-war candidate

@snoopydawg Bernie will not be able to say "Oh evil Russia but let's not go to war with them." Diplomacy itself finally became full criminalized and made tresonous when Trump meet Putin in Finland. Any level of moderation will be attacked as soft on Putin and treasonous.

And I write "pro-war" and not "anti-Russian". One cannot be anti-Russian in any moderate way. Being anti-Russian means supporting a harsh and aggressive military stance toward their nation. The Russians are after all destroying Western civilization and this cannot be meant with diplomacy.

And from what I can, every national democratic candidate for House and Senate will follow suite.

divineorder on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 10:25pm
Hard to know what will happen by then but your guess

@MrWebster is as good as mine.

I wonder if this list is correct?

For reference, these are the only 10 senators who voted AGAINST giving Trump a $717 billion war budget:

Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Ed Markey
Kirsten Gillibrand
Dick Durban
Kamala Harris
Jeff Merkley
Ron Wyden
Mike Lee (R)
Marco Rubio (R)
So much for #Resistance huh?

-- Clayton Farris (@ClaytonRFarris) August 3, 2018

Wars and rumours of wars...

This is OT, and some will say Bernie is sheepdogging these kids.

Thank you to the young people standing up to fossil fuel corporations and leading the movement to combat climate change. #ThisIsZeroHour pic.twitter.com/77f9KvY4og

-- Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 24, 2018

... ... ...

snoopydawg on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 6:55pm
The first tweet shows how people twist events

The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?

You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank you Bernie!

-- Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) February 16, 2018

So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.

-- Underdawg47 (@Underdawg47) February 17, 2018

You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by DNC! Everybody knows...

-- Logan (@KOMBUCHABABY) February 17, 2018

Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB

-- SanBernieDingDong (@noreallyhowcome) February 17, 2018

MrWebster on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 7:19pm
2020 dem candidates will try to out do each other on Russia

Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats.

The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.

And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.

I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.

[Aug 05, 2018] Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war! a vote in epic bipartisan collegiality

Notable quotes:
"... subtitled 'The Sneeze Wrong, We're Comin' to Fuck You Up Act' ..."
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
"... The idea that we're dependent on Microsoft Windows ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

for the John S. McCain 2019 National Defense Authorization Bill ( subtitled 'The Sneeze Wrong, We're Comin' to Fuck You Up Act' ). Here's the very lengthy summary of provisions in the House version from govtrack.us , although it may have changed slightly since the House and Senate conference agreements.

Let's start with the House: 'House Democrats vote for record US military spending', Patrick Martin, 28 July 2018, wsws.org

"By an overwhelming bipartisan vote Thursday, the US House of Representatives approved the largest military authorization bill in American history. The National Defense Authorization Act approves $716 billion to fund US military aggression around the world, and gives President Trump the power to order cyberwarfare attacks on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea without further congressional action.

... ... ...

"Particularly ominous are the sections of the NDAA on cyberwarfare. The bill authorizes the Pentagon to conduct "unattributed" cyber operations without having to comply with the usual restrictions on covert operations, such as requiring a Presidential Finding which is submitted to key leaders of Congress. According to the bill "clandestine military activity or operation in cyberspace shall be considered a traditional military activity.

It pre-authorizes US military cyber operations if the president determines that (1) there is "an active, systematic, and ongoing campaign of attacks against the Government or people of the United States in cyberspace, including attempting to influence American elections and democratic political processes" and (2) that Russia, China, North Korea or Iran are responsible. In that event, the president may order US cyberwar forces "to take appropriate and proportional action in foreign cyberspace to disrupt, defeat, and deter such attacks."

This provision effectively gives Trump and any successor, Democrat or Republican, the power to launch a full-scale cyberwar without further congressional authorization , merely on his own declaration that the United States is under attack."

... ... ...

Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 7:11pm

Full steam ahead!

Sounds like we continue to waste a ton of borrowed cash on last generation tech.

Basically Trump's bought himself his own shiny new aircraft carrier battle group.

I'm sure it will be a simply fantastic fleet.
The best fleet ever in the history of the oceans.
I hear they want to call the carrier 'Trump class'.

That'll show China who's boss in the Western Pacific.

Just one thing though:

The Virginia-class was intended in part as a less expensive alternative to the Seawolf-class submarines ( $1.8 billion vs $2.8 billion), whose production run was stopped after just three boats had been completed. To reduce costs, the Virginia-class submarines use many "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) components, especially in their computers and data networks.

Sounds totally secure to me!

I'm sure the Russians or Chinese EW is nowhere near powerful enough to hack/disable/commandeer the 'off-the-shelf-tech' that runs our latest generation nuclear powered submarine.

Tom Clancy eat your heart out.

thanatokephaloides on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 9:07pm
off-the-shelf

@Not Henry Kissinger

To reduce costs, the Virginia-class submarines use many "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) components, especially in their computers and data networks.

Sounds totally secure to me!

The idea that we're dependent on Microsoft Windows to operate our current Naval vessels, with little or no manual over-ride even available much less trained or used, makes my skin crawl!

... ... ...

detroitmechworks on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 7:13pm
The Army can't meet its recruiting goals NOW

The only way that this can happen is if a whole lot of people get really desperate really fast. So expect more cuts to education, health care for civilians, and all sorts of new exciting waivers that will allow us to form our own Legion Etangere.

And everybody knows there will be an "incident" at the Trump military parade. It's practically guaranteed, and you know the CIA is going to have a full three months to cook something up. Hell, they've been waiting for this kind of chance for years.

Big Al on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 8:05pm
"Defense related spending"

I remember reporting years ago that the imperialism budget had surpassed a trillion per year. Estimates prior to Obama's sequester budget were around 1.2 trillion per year for total costs. Wrote many an article about it and yet here we are, still writing and reading articles about it and not doing shit to stop it.

Boycott the duopoly, boycott this political system, demand democracy, demand power to the people. It's so far past time for talking it's pathetic.

Thanks for the essay Wendy.

snoopydawg on Sat, 08/04/2018 - 9:08pm
I'm okay with the pay raise for the troops

Gawd knows that the officers are getting too much money and perks without putting their asses on the line.

The bill "restates our commitment to NATO and our partners," Smith said. "It extends the prohibition on military cooperation with Russia. It declares that Russia violated the Chemical Weapons Convention

Okay. No working with Russia on defeating ISIS. Not that we're doing this, just the opposite. We're funding and protecting ISIS from Syria and Russia. But what chemical weapons has Russia used in recent times? This country has been the ones using them in our various wars. Stupid congress.

[Aug 05, 2018] Question

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: August 3, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT 200 Words @Johnny Rico There's no circle. The Saker believes the only thing the US did in World War II was murder civilians.

That it was Russia that saved the world from fascism. Japan surrendered because Stalin finally entered the war against Japan like the day after Hiroshima and invaded Manchuria. The US had nothing to do with it.

It is nonsense. But that is the standard narrative here. Thank you for the clarification. Based on their research, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Professor of History at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Terry Charman, a Senior Historian at London Imperial War Museum, concur:

"
"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," Hasegawa, a Russian-speaking American scholar, said in an interview.

Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings -- 140,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea, which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and Terry Charman

"The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."
"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html

[Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.rt.com
The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender. Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle against those who profit from their brain and muscle.

Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism - has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.

Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.

At the time of writing there are apparently over 70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA . Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping " lesbians'.

The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's wealthiest individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling. For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in any socialist society.

Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the world are more divided by class than any other factor.

It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged white cisgender male billionaire George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.

There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept.

'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics.

The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it.

Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more

[Aug 05, 2018] Israel is not only Iran's greatest enemy, it's ours as well.

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Pat Kittle , August 4, 2018 at 6:07 am GMT

Iran has always been the Grand Prize of the Jews' Oded Yinon agenda:

-- ( http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-jewish-plan-for-the-middle-east-and-beyond.html ]

The Terrorist Theocracy of Eretz Ysrael is not only Iran's greatest enemy, it's ours as well.

[Aug 05, 2018] Trump as the "disposable President" for the Neocons?

The US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War
Notable quotes:
"... The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him. The best example of this kind of "ownership" is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded. The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's tactic is chutzpah, doing anything he wants and saying screw you ..."
"... Europe is so weak it can barely force through a gas pipeline against Washington's displeasure. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Neocons hate Trump, but they also own him. The best example of this kind of "ownership" is the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem which was an incredibly stupid act, but one which the Israel Lobby demanded. The same goes for the US reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or, for that matter, the current stream of threats against Iran.

It appears that the Neocons have a basic strategy which goes like this: " we hate Trump and everything he represents, but we also control him; let's use him to do all the crazy stuff no sane US President would ever do, and then let's use the fallout of these crazy decisions and blame it all on Trump; this way we get all that we want and we get to destroy Trump in the process only to replace him with one of "our guys" when the time is right ". Again, the real goal of an attack on Iran would be to bomb Iran back into a pre-revolutionary era and to punish the Iranian people for supporting the "wrong" regime thus daring to defy the AngloZionist Empire. The Neocons could use Trump as a "disposable President" who could be blamed for the ensuing chaos and political disaster while accomplishing one of the most important political objectives of Israel: laying waste to Iran. For the Neocons, this is a win-win situation: if things go well (however unlikely that is), they can take all the credit and still control Trump like a puppet, and if things don't go well, Iran is in ruins, Trump is blamed for a stupid and crazy war, and the Clinton gang will be poised to come back to power.

The biggest loser in such a scenario would, of course, be the people of Iran. But the US military will not fare well either. For one thing, a plan to just "lay waste" to Iran has no viable exit strategy, especially not a short-term one, while the US military has no stomach for long conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq are bad enough). Furthermore, once the US destroys most of what can be destroyed the initiative will be in the Iranians' hands and time will be on their side. In 2006 the Israelis had to fold after 33 days only, how much time will the US need before having to declare victory and leave?

If the war spreads to, say, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria, then will the US even have the option to just leave? What about the Israelis – what options will they have once missiles start hitting them (not only Iranian missiles but probably also Hezbollah missiles from Lebanon!)?

Former Mossad head Meir Dagan was fully correct when he stated that a military attack on Iran was "the stupidest thing I have ever heard" . Alas, the Neocons have never been too bright, and stupid stuff is what they mostly do. All we can hope for is that somebody in the US will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.

Dan Hayes , August 3, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT

The Saker,

Israel seems to act with impunity carrying out assassination and intelligence-gathering operations inside Iran.

How important would these covert strengths be in an actual war?

Just asking.

no , August 3, 2018 at 8:45 am GMT
You omit a potential land attack on Israel via Syria and Lebanon.
MarkU , August 3, 2018 at 10:34 am GMT
If there is one thing we have learned over the last few decades it is that there is nothing too stupid, ignorant, arrogant, demented or evil for the US to do.

Just a few months ago Iran was quite willingly and certifiably honouring the terms of the nuclear deal, now they are quite possibly going to be subjected to a completely unprovoked attack, with or without some (probably fabricated) Casus belli.

Where is the UN in this? What use is the UN if it can't prevent this ghastly scenario? It seems doubtful that the Europeans will do anything, they have been craven enough to go along with the US on the Russia "threat" despite them having a military budget nearly four times larger than that of the RF and a population about three times bigger (The Europeans have even for all intents and purposes sanctioned themselves at the behest of the US) Do we seriously believe that Russia and China are going to sit idly by while Iran is being bombed and its oil bearing regions invaded? Potentially nuclear armed missiles flying around near the southern border of Russia anyone?

If anyone has seen the 1984 nuclear war drama "Threads" they will be noticing an eerie similarity.

Quartermaster ,
Anonymous [312] Disclaimer , August 3, 2018 at 2:09 pm GMT
@MarkU

"Jesus Christ, they're doing it."

It's too bad youtube took down the whole movie, with the Iranian invasion and newscast sequences at the beginning. Maybe vimeo or dailymotion has it up

Den Lille Abe , August 3, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
from another thread, same subject:
All said US lost ~9K aircraft in the Vietnam war, to hostile action and a further 500 in accidents, approximately 58 000 KIA.
Yes , i understand Vietnam is not Iran (Iran is not a rice paddy), but the US is not the same either, now it is a "professional" defense force, whose Navy rams defenseless civilian ships (or cant perform at all) , whose Air force planes keep falling from the sky and whose Army are best moving down civilians.
Of course Iran would loose such a war, no doubt, but can the US sustain the losses, can public opinion ? Say 15 000 bodybags ? 25 000 ? 50 000?
I doubt the US can even put 100 000 soldiers on the ground, combat soldiers, that is, not 3′rd echelon cooks and chauffeurs, very few armies can. Iran has got at least 5 000 000 trained people with ammo and a AK 47 or RPG eager to put a dent in the US. (China has between 15 – 40 Million they can draw from).

Forget it, the Iranians can simply "trample" the US to death, at least until the US runs out of body bags.
And consider if the US starts a war, we don't have to trade with it anymore, its under sanction, goodbye "Rare metals" (China), goodbye computer chips (China) goodbye everything, because the US cant produce anything (No factories) and has few resources left, hehe.
Sanction the American people to a dose of "concentration camp", 900 calories a day, candle light, and horse drawn transportion! The Morgentau plan is fulfilled ! I will bathe in Champagne, wash my cojones in Budweiser when that happens. And Israel ? What Israel ? You mean Palestine ? ahhhh I will feed a bagel to the ducks!
And no, i don't think it will be necessary to learn either Russian or Chinese, I think we might get along well enough.

Frederick V. Reed , Website August 3, 2018 at 4:01 pm GMT
There is an awful lot of wishful thinking in this. Trump's tactic is chutzpah, doing anything he wants and saying screw you if you can't take a joke. Europe is so weak it can barely force through a gas pipeline against Washington's displeasure.

Neither China nor Russia is likeliy to go to war for Iran, and who else is there? If Iran did manage to block the Straits for more than a short time, do we think the Judaeo-Trumpians would say sorry and back off? Even if Trump used nukes, what could the world do? Be outraged, and learn not to cross the Empire. And diesel electrics have to surface.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 3, 2018 at 4:59 pm GMT
@Frederick V. Reed

Neither China nor Russia is likeliy to go to war for Iran, and who else is there?

There is a larger structure called Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Xi since 2016 was calling on accepting Iran into it, with Iran having currently an Observer status. For Russia it will be enough (which was done before already) to place some of its VKS units on Iranian airfields, especially under auspices of SCO military practices and even bombing will become a huge issue. Russia is not going to allow any hostile power to have direct access to Caspian Sea. Again, WHAT war? Combined Arms invasion–that will be the end of the US as we know it. Bombing? Let's wait an see. In fact, it is not up to Russia, it is up to Iran do decide how to proceed–Iran has options. Will she exercise them?

Even if Trump used nukes, what could the world do? Be outraged, and learn not to cross the Empire . And diesel electrics have to surface.

Ahh, what? Is the world "crossing" the Empire now? Russia is, but then again she can erase the Empire from the map. This mental construct is so "out there" that it is even difficult to respond properly to it. I omit here, of course, a gigantic political fallout for US which will make it a de facto a pariah in case it decides to use nukes. In fact, I can predict with a good degree of probability what is going to happen. For starters–dedollarization will go into overdrive.

If Iran did manage to block the Straits for more than a short time, do we think the Judaeo-Trumpians would say sorry and back off

The only thing with which I may agree here. In fact, if one of the US Navy carriers (God forbids), somehow gets damaged, let alone sunk, one may expect an escalation to a nuclear threshold since US is inherently nuclear weapons-biased since can not take any serious conventional losses, especially in terms of a naval assets. But I agree, that with about 2-3 air-wings in a vicinity of Hormuz Strait, plus the wing of ASW aviation on call–neither Iranian submarine forces, nor, especially those proverbial "speed boats" will be much of a strategic challenge.

WorkingClass , August 3, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT

All we can hope for is that somebody in the US will find a way to stop them and avert another immoral, bloody, useless and potentially very dangerous war.

We all know how to stop them. But nobody wants to say it out loud. Certainly not me.

tulips , August 3, 2018 at 10:13 pm GMT
1) The oil and gas infrastructure of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. are all fixed targets, relatively easy to destroy by missiles. Iran would likely destroy all regional oil and gas infrastructure, if their's is damaged.

2) Also, Iran has a nuclear reactor right on the shores of the Persian Gulf? If that is blown up, or even fails because staff or electricity are not available, then the Persian Gulf, and maybe Turkey and Israel, would be hit by heavy radioactive fallout, like at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

3) Finally, Iran has many skilled and able electronics and programming young people. Iran was able to take control of, and land undamaged, America's most advanced surveillance drone. It is likely that a war on Iran would unleash cyberwar and cause damage to electrical, communication, and finance systems in the USA, in ways and places that we have not imagined.

Napoleon was certain to defeat Russia. Hitler was certain to defeat Russia. The US was certain to defeat North Korea and certain to defeat Vietnam. But the outcomes of wars are not certain. Which it is why rational people do not like war.

[Aug 05, 2018] Soros the 400k Question What constitutes 'foreign interference' in democracy -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit – terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group – that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!" ..."
"... "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU – and with it, potentially, western civilisation," ..."
"... "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ..."
"... "at the back of the queue" ..."
"... "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!" ..."
"... " highly probable " ..."
"... "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ." ..."
"... "Russian troll factory," ..."
"... "very low levels of engagement" ..."
"... "conspiracy theorist" ..."
"... "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him." ..."
"... "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," ..."
"... "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money " ..."
"... "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," ..."
"... "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired." ..."
"... Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66 ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.rt.com

Soros & the £400k Question: What constitutes 'foreign interference' in democracy? Neil Clark Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 Published time: 9 Feb, 2018 16:32 Edited time: 19 Feb, 2018 09:39 Get short URL Soros & the £400k Question: What constitutes 'foreign interference' in democracy? © Wiktor Dabkowski / Global Look Press You'd have to have a real sense of humor failure not to laugh. The news that US billionaire Soros donated £400k to an anti-Brexit group came on the day that YouTube said they found no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit. Repeat After Me (with robotic arm movements): "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit – terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group – that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!"

You don't have to own a brand new £999 state-of-the art Hypocrisy Detector from Harrods, to pick up on the double standards. Just having a few functioning brain cells and thinking for yourself will do. For months in the UK we've been bombarded with Establishment-approved conspiracy theories – peddled in all the 'best' newspapers – that Russia somehow 'fixed' Brexit. Getting Britain to leave the EU was all part of a cunning plot by Vladimir Putin, aka Dr. Evil, to weaken Europe and the 'free world.'

Read more Gina Miller(R), George Soros(L) © Global Look Press Soros-backed anti-Brexit group is 'undemocratic' – cofounder Gina Miller

Even West End musical composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who knows quite a bit about phantoms, seemed taken in by it. "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU – and with it, potentially, western civilisation," the noble Lord declared in July.

Never mind that we don't have a single statement from Putin or other senior Kremlin figures saying that they actually supported Brexit. These Establishment Russia-bashers know exactly what The Vlad is thinking.

And never mind that RT and Sputnik, which we are repeatedly told are "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ran articles by pro- and anti-Brexit writers. The same people who told us Iraq had WMDs in 2003 were absolutely sure it was those dastardly Russkies who had got Britain to vote 'leave.' The irony is of course that there was significant foreign interference in Brexit. But it didn't come from Moscow.

Or Obama actually visiting the U.K. to urge people to vote Remain. Imagine if Putin did the same for Leave!

-- jeffreydujon (@vanremny) February 8, 2018

The US has always wanted Britain to stay in the EU. In April 2016, two months before the Referendum, President Obama made it clear what he wanted when he visited the UK. He warned that if Britain exited the EU it would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with the US .

Just imagine if Putin had said that. The Russophobes would have spontaneously combusted.

Then of course there was the backing the Remain camp had from the giants of US capital. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan donated £500,000 each to the 'Britain Stronger in Europe' group, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley – £250,000 each.

Again, repeat after me (with robotic arm movements): "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!"

You've got to see the funny side of this: all that hysterical fake news about 'Russian interference' in Brexit & here we have one side receiving £400K from a US billionaire who is part of the US political establishment. Is that not 'interference' ?!! https://t.co/URzrB3ciLd

-- Neil Clark (@NeilClark66) February 8, 2018

The point is not whether we are for or against Brexit. Or whether we think George Soros is a malign influence who only acts out of self-interest or an old sweetie-pie with the good of humanity at heart. The point is the double standards that are causing our Hypocrisy Detectors to explode.

Let's think back to December 2016. Then, the pro-war and fiercely anti-Russian Labour MP Ben Bradshaw told Parliament that it was " highly probable " that Russia had interfered with Brexit.

Fourteen months on, what have we got? On Thursday, the global head of You Tube's public policy, Juniper Downs, said her company "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ."

Read more © Sophia Kembowski / Global Look Press No Russian interference in Brexit referendum - YouTube exec tells parliamentary committee (VIDEO)

Twitter meanwhile says it detected 49 (yes, 49) accounts from what it claimed to be a "Russian troll factory," which sent all of 942 messages about Brexit – amounting to less than 0.005% of all the tweets about the Referendum. Twitter said the accounts received "very low levels of engagement" from users. If the Kremlin had planned to use tweets to persuade us to vote 'leave,' they didn't really put much effort into it, did they?

Finally, Facebook said that only three "Kremlin-linked" accounts were found which spent the grand sum of 72p (yes, 72p) on ads during the Referendum campaign. Which amounts to the greater "interference" ? 72p or £400K? Erm tough call, isn't it?

You might have thought, given his concern with 'foreign interference' in British politics, that Ben Bradshaw would have been urging 'Best for Britain' to return George Soros' donation. Au contraire! His only tweets about it were retweets of two critical comments about the Daily Telegraph, and the BBC's coverage of the story. Conclusion: Those who rail about 'Russia meddling in Brexit' but not Soros' intervention aren't concerned about 'foreign interference' in UK politics, only 'foreign interference' from countries they don't approve of.

Those who are quite happy peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories about Russians shout "conspiracy theorist" (or worse) at those who report factually on proven meddling from others. The Daily Express hit the nail on the head in their Friday editorial which said: "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him."

That really is the rub of the matter. And Bradshaw and co. have no adequate response except to shoot the messenger.

If we look at the affair with an even wider lens, the hypocrisy is even greater. The US has been gripped by an anti-Russian frenzy not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. The unsubstantiated claim that Russia fixed the election for Donald Trump is repeated by 'liberals' and many neocons too, as a statement of fact. "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," film director Rob Reiner said .

But the number one country round the world for undermining democracy and interfering in the affairs of other sovereign states is the US itself.

Read more The US Vice President Joe Biden (L) jokes that Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko (R) is buying lunch, before sitting down to their bilateral meeting at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington March 31, 2016. © Jonathan Ernst 'Son of b***h got fired': Joe Biden forced Ukraine to sack prosecutor general 'in six hours'

While Establishment journos and pundits have been foaming at the mouth over 'Russiagate' and getting terribly excited over 'smoking guns' which turn out – surprise, surprise – to be damp squibs, there's been less attention paid to the boasts of former Vice President Joe Biden on how he got the allegedly 'independent' Ukrainian government to sack its prosecutor general in a few hours. "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money "

"I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," Biden said during a meeting of the US' Council on Foreign Relations. "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired."

Again, just imagine the furore if a leading Russian government figure boasted about how he used financial inducements to get another country's Prosecutor General to be sacked. Or if a tape was leaked in which the Russian Ambassador and a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson could be heard discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new 'democratic' government of another sovereign state. But we had the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the US Assistant Secretary of State doing exactly that in 2014 – and the 'Russia is interfering in the Free World!' brigade were as silent as a group of Trappist monks.

It's fair to say that Orwell would have a field day with the doublespeak that's currently on show. The cognitive dissonance is there for all to see. Repeat After Me: Unproven Russian interference – Bad. Proven interference from other external sources – Good. What's your problem?

Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[Aug 05, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude

Notable quotes:
"... cordon sanitaire ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit."

When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming.

That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had.

At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won.

Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.

With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).

It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.

However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.

Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of the Russian state.

For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.

That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.

But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain in remission forever. The need for them was too great.

In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.

The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.

This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the story.

However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.

When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However, unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.

Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol – of this aspiration.

And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed over a quarter century ago.

***

As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections looming, they are at it again.

This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.

But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that all that luck will hold.

Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom.

Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations.

Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.

How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!

Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016 election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself, is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their media flacks don't seem to mind that either.

They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.

Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.

Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege.

Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.

Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees fit.

When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is merciless towards nations that rebel.

With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky – especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of "democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan "socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted, homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.

This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could actually win.

Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.

Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east.

But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.

Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.

The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.

Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders of international law.

Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States. This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations shamelessly.

Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.

The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II.

However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world."

George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in Vietnam.

That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued.

The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."

However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.

Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.

It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.

However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done; and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.

From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.

However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for meddling, but for meddling stupidly.

No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That problem's name is Donald Trump.

Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all.

Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe.

Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.

For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia.

It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.

If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too.

Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine

ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Aug 05, 2018] Has US misread the Iranian street

Aug 05, 2018 | www.csmonitor.com

"The hatred, the distrust, the dissatisfaction toward the establishment is growing here, no question about it," says the analyst. "People are protesting here and there. But what Trump is doing" makes the prospect of a popular uprising even more distant.

Citing "current America and these policies," which had shown the US to be "totally unreliable," Tehran dismissed an offer by Mr. Trump Monday to meet Iranian leaders with "no preconditions." The White House later clarified that it has no plans to change its policy of ratcheting up pressure and sanctions on Iran.

Ordinary Iranians have taken to Twitter using the hashtags #ShutUpTrump and #StopMeddlingInIran to condemn US actions.

"Trump's craziness has no end. But our unity is endless, too. So the more he shows his teeth, the more we will show our fists," says Saeed, a clean-shaven student of mechanical engineering at Azad University in Tehran who says he supports reformist politicians.

"We have passed all those hurdles in the past and this one, although it is more serious than ever, I'm sure we will successfully leave behind," says Saeed, who only gave his first name. "It is Trump who will be thrown away or, in the words of the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei], will be 'thrown into the dust bin of history.' We will stand behind the establishment forever."

Mutual hostility between the US and Iran has defined the geopolitical strife between these arch foes since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

... ... ...

Yet today Iranians also are reeling from being included – alongside Somalis and Yemenis – in a blanket seven-nation White House travel ban, even though an estimated one million Iranian-Americans live in the US.

They are baffled by Trump's unilateral US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. And they are feeling the bite of new US sanctions designed to put "unprecedented" economic pressure on Iran by cutting it off from the outside world, forcing all third-country business to withdraw, and blocking the sale of any Iranian oil.

[Aug 05, 2018] Marxism is a colossal ideology

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Intelligent Dasein , Website August 1, 2018 at 3:23 pm GMT

@iffen

What did the Bolsheviks have?

Are you serious? Marxism is a colossal ideology that was developed in every particular by a host of academics and philosophers great and small, plus their thousands of associated propagandists and pamphleteers. Marxist exegesis probably accounts for half the academic writing produced over the last century and a half. Its ideas have spread into every corner of public life -- sociology, psychology, economics, religion, government -- it's all been thoroughly worked over by the Marxists. Wherever there is problem, there is Marxist on the scene with a tract and a theory. As ideologies go, it has been one of the most developed and rigorous ever to appear on Earth.

[Aug 05, 2018] Mulegino1

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: August 1, 2018 at 11:33 pm GMT @Beefcake the Mighty This is a highly misleading statement as Stalin did not turn against the Jewish faction of the Party until the late 30's (the Purges are best understood as a reaction against an essentially Jewish mafia), by which time this faction had wrought bloodthirsty terror. Stalin was obviously no angel, but one shudders to think of the horrors that would have been unleashed had Trotsky assumed control. You're 100 percent correct. An interesting book on this subject is "Stalin's Enduring Legacy" by Kerry Bolton. Bolton does not excuse Stalin's brutality, but he points out exactly what you wrote. Stalin was a thousand times preferable to Trotsky and the other vicious Jewish Bolsheviks.

[Aug 05, 2018] Human beings, in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but as causally bound as the stars in their motions

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

UnzReader , August 3, 2018 at 2:31 am GMT

@AaronB

AaronB, your observations are always insightful and interesting. I wonder if you believe in freewill at all, even in "insignificant" matters because time and sequence are all important and such trivial events set up the really big ones in our lives.

"Human beings, in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but as causally bound as the stars in their motions." – Albert Einstein.

I look forward to your response.

UR

[Aug 05, 2018] A real collusion happened with 911. The BBC knew that tower 7 would fall before it did

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Robjil , August 3, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

A real collusion happened with 911. The BBC knew that tower 7 would fall before it did. Israelis danced before the tumbling towers. They said that they were video taping the event. Why? How did they know it was going happen? How did the BBC know it would happen? The US obviously knew it. It is the biggest military in the world. Yet it did nothing to stop it. Solving 911 by Christopher Bollyn names names. Everyone knows about this real collusion. Everyone fears our rulers, so they remain silent. Silence is not golden. Power unchallenged goes on forever...

[Aug 04, 2018] Liberal Hero Chomsky Admits Israeli Intervention In US Elections Overwhelms Anything Russia Has Done

Aug 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

...so, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that's almost a joke .

First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.

Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done...

I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies - what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015 ....

https://www.youtube.com/embed/i70TPzXjsqM

Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to - calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence.

So if you happen to be interested in influence of - foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.

I mean, one of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that elected representatives should be responsive to those who elected them. There's nothing more elementary than that. But we know very well that that is simply not the case in the United States.

There's ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply comparing voters' attitudes with the policies pursued by their representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of the population, they're basically disenfranchised. Their own representatives pay no attention to their voices. They listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent - the rich and the powerful, the corporate sector.

The elections -- Tom Ferguson's stellar work has demonstrated, very conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have been pretty much bought. You can predict the outcome of a presidential or congressional election with remarkable precision by simply looking at campaign spending. That's only one part of it. Lobbyists practically write legislation in congressional offices. In massive ways, the concentrated private capital, corporate sector, super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively, overwhelmingly, to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are undermined. Now, of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you something about the way the society functions.

So, if you're concerned with our elections and how they operate and how they relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a look at Russian hacking is absolutely the wrong place to look. Well, you see occasionally some attention to these matters in the media, but very minor as compared with the extremely marginal question of Russian hacking.

And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia.

Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes - Russia shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done .

But they shouldn't refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better - right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We're very close to that.

Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama.

The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That's the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns.

So, yes, there's tensions at the Russian border - and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern.

The fate of - the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.

So to sum up - Trump's right about better relations with Russia - the fate of the world depends on it, Russia did nothing of note, Russian hacking is extremely marginal, Israel is the real meddler, US democracy no longer exists, the billionaire corporatocracy runs America.

[Aug 04, 2018] Liberal Hero Chomsky Admits Israeli Intervention In US Elections Overwhelms Anything Russia Has Done

Aug 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

...so, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that's almost a joke .

First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.

Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done...

I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies - what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015 ....

https://www.youtube.com/embed/i70TPzXjsqM

Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to - calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence.

So if you happen to be interested in influence of - foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.

I mean, one of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that elected representatives should be responsive to those who elected them. There's nothing more elementary than that. But we know very well that that is simply not the case in the United States.

There's ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply comparing voters' attitudes with the policies pursued by their representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of the population, they're basically disenfranchised. Their own representatives pay no attention to their voices. They listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent - the rich and the powerful, the corporate sector.

The elections -- Tom Ferguson's stellar work has demonstrated, very conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have been pretty much bought. You can predict the outcome of a presidential or congressional election with remarkable precision by simply looking at campaign spending. That's only one part of it. Lobbyists practically write legislation in congressional offices. In massive ways, the concentrated private capital, corporate sector, super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively, overwhelmingly, to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are undermined. Now, of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you something about the way the society functions.

So, if you're concerned with our elections and how they operate and how they relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a look at Russian hacking is absolutely the wrong place to look. Well, you see occasionally some attention to these matters in the media, but very minor as compared with the extremely marginal question of Russian hacking.

And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia.

Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes - Russia shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done .

But they shouldn't refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better - right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We're very close to that.

Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama.

The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That's the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns.

So, yes, there's tensions at the Russian border - and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern.

The fate of - the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.

So to sum up - Trump's right about better relations with Russia - the fate of the world depends on it, Russia did nothing of note, Russian hacking is extremely marginal, Israel is the real meddler, US democracy no longer exists, the billionaire corporatocracy runs America.

[Aug 04, 2018] The Strangulation of the Russian Economy in the 1990s Was a Deliberate IMF policy

Notable quotes:
"... if the notion of billions of barrels of proven oil reserves and billions of tons of gold fills your dreams with visions of red-hot cash flow and ice-cold vodka, then Boris Yeltsin just might find some work for you. – Paul Hofheinz , Fortune Magazine, 23 September 1991 [1] ..."
"... the dirty dishonesty of Russia ..."
"... Russia's evil foundation, ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its people attain a better life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years – to which the United States and Europe devoted billions of dollars – was aimed at helping Russia overcome the horrid legacy of Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in 1991. The Americans, ..."
"... came for the best of reasons. a generous hand was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and know-how. ..."
"... any suspension of debt payments would result in the immediate suspension of urgent food aid and that the ships nearly arrived at the Black Sea ports would turn around. ..."
"... primitive beyond belief ..."
"... parroting the political decisions already decided by the United States ..."
"... The activities of the organization are gussied up in sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world. Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ..."
"... for inexplicable reasons, ..."
"... harshly worded ..."
"... One cannot really fault the youthful democratic movements for this failure. They were amateurs and innocents with a hazy grasp at best of what they wanted to achieve and no grasp at all of how concretely to achieve it. ..."
"... To be sure, there were unsettling reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. ..."
"... for the best of reasons ..."
"... Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager and author. His book, banned by Amazon in September 2017 is now available in pdf , kindle , and epub formats at the following link " Grand Deception: Truth About Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act and Anti-Russian Sanctions. " Paperback version is now available here . Alex also wrote one book on commodities trading. ..."
Aug 04, 2018 | russia-insider.com

The Strangulation of the Russian Economy in the 1990s Was a Deliberate IMF policy Alex Krainer Thu, Aug 2, 2018 | 2,796 64 MORE: History

if the notion of billions of barrels of proven oil reserves and billions of tons of gold fills your dreams with visions of red-hot cash flow and ice-cold vodka, then Boris Yeltsin just might find some work for you. – Paul Hofheinz , Fortune Magazine, 23 September 1991 [1]

The foregoing article is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of my book " Grand Deception: the Truth about Bill Browder, Magnitsky Act and Anti-Russian Sanctions ." Part 1 is here . Part 2 is here .

Shock therapy gave Russia one of the worst and longest economic depressions of the 20th century, an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe for a peace time crisis, and a criminally inequitable privatization of public assets. The reasons why things happened this way in Russia generally aren't well understood in the west. Even among better informed intellectuals, the failure of shock therapy is often thought to be vaguely related to some sinister flaw in the Russian society.

It is what Bill Browder characterized as " the dirty dishonesty of Russia ," or " Russia's evil foundation, " which spawned corruption and criminality of staggering proportions. In this toxic environment, the sweet fruits of western democracy and capitalism simply could not grow in spite of the generous benevolence of Russia's western friends.

Such a credulous version of events was never based on any coherent analysis of what transpired in Russia during the 1990s. Rather, it was based on purposeful perception management in the Western media. As late as April 2015, Washington Post provided a good example of this perception management. In an editorial board article, Washington Post informed its readers that in the 1990s, " thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its people attain a better life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years – to which the United States and Europe devoted billions of dollars – was aimed at helping Russia overcome the horrid legacy of Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in 1991. The Americans, " write Washington Post editors, " came for the best of reasons. a generous hand was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and know-how. " [2]

Indeed, western role in Russian transition is almost invariably represented as generous benevolence. While many among Russia's western helpers did come with sincere and honorable intentions, the whole project, insofar as it was determined by its command and control structure, was simply a massive, bald-faced criminal enterprise.

IMF's policy dictate

When Jeffrey Sachs drafted his shock therapy recommendations, he estimated that for the reforms to succeed, Soviet Union would need financial support of about $15 billion per year for many years. This money was needed for the state to continue administering essential social services like pensions, health care and food aid for the country's population. But while the IMF and U.S. government insisted that Moscow abidingly implement the draconian shock therapy measures, they stubbornly refused to provide the needed financial aid. Sachs also advocated debt relief for the USSR which, before its collapse in 1991 was already $60 billion behind in payments to foreign creditors.

When he advised the Bolivian (1985-1986) and Polish (1989-1991) governments in implementing their own shock therapies, Sachs was able to negotiate a 50% debt write-off for Poland and a 90% write-off for Bolivia. By contrast, Russia would get no debt relief of any kind.

To the contrary, at the G7 summit held in Moscow in November 1991, representatives of the seven leading western powers insisted that Soviet Union had to continue servicing its external debts at all cost, even menacing Yegor Gaidar that " any suspension of debt payments would result in the immediate suspension of urgent food aid and that the ships nearly arrived at the Black Sea ports would turn around. " [3] Moscow's endeavor to comply with these payment obligations completely depleted the government's treasury within only three months' time (by February of 1992).

Sachs later reported that in December of 1991 he held discussions with the IMF urging its representatives to advance the financial support needed for Russia's transition, but they insisted that Russia didn't need any such assistance and told him that they had instructed the G7 accordingly. Sachs found the methodology on which the IMF had based their decision, " primitive beyond belief ," which led him to assume that the IMF was simply " parroting the political decisions already decided by the United States ."

He was right, of course: as we now know, US aid policy for Russia was indeed determined by two key US government agencies: the Treasury Department run by Robert Rubin with Lawrence Summers in charge of Russian affairs, and the National Security Council. [4]

To be sure, IMF did advance some loans to Russia during its transition period, but the amounts in question were too small and came too late to provide any meaningful economic or social relief. In all, between 1993 and 1999 the IMF lent Russia between $30 and $40 billion, a far cry from the $15 billion per year that were thought necessary to support her economic reforms. Furthermore, the bulk of IMF loans were given to the oligarch owned private banks which used them to fund capital flight, bond market speculation and betting against the ruble. [5]

There were further problematic aspects to the IMF loans: in 1995, with hardly any conditions attached, IMF advanced Russia a $6.7 billion loan through its Systematic Transformation Facility. Practically the entire $6.7 billion sum was used to finance Yeltsin's military assault on Chechnya. [6] That operation was a disaster but domestically it served the purpose of distracting the public attention from economic problems and political corruption. IMF's very next loan to Russia was a thinly veiled mission to rescue Yeltsin and his government from Russia's democracy. Namely the Chechen misadventure cost Yeltsin dearly in the December 1995 parliamentary elections and his party suffered a devastating defeat to the Communists.

The president himself had become deeply unpopular. With his approval ratings languishing between 4% and 6%, [7] Yeltsin was in real danger of losing the June 1996 presidential elections, which again risked reversing Russia's transition and nullifying the privatization of its economy.

To avert this, Yeltsin's cabinet hired a team of American political strategists with ties to the Clinton administration to advise his election campaign. As the Americans got to work in March of 1996, one of the first things they realized was that the Russian people were furious about the government's failure to pay state salaries and pensions for months on end. Washington got the signal and the IMF took action: it promptly released a $1 billion tranche of its next, $10.2 billion loan so that Yeltsin could pay all the salaries and pensions his government owed. The loan served the purpose of improving Yeltsin's unpopularity and making the rigged election appear a bit less suspect.

IMF approved its largest, $22.6 billion loan to Russia as late as 20thJuly 1998 as its bankrupt government slid inexorably toward default. The loan served two key purposes: large part of it was a gift to the oligarchs who helped themselves to the funds to convert their hoard of rubles into USD.

Within four weeks they bought $6.5 billion and transferred most of it to foreign banks. [8] Most of the rest of IMF loan was a stealth bailout for western financial institutions which had some $200 billion worth of loans and investments in Russia. The banks feared the prospect of Russian default which would leave them with crippling losses. These risks became even more acute in the aftermath of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis that would engulf Russia in 1998.

In a testimony before the U.S. Congress, veteran investor Jim Rogers characterized IMF's assistance to Russia as follows: " The activities of the organization are gussied up in sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world. Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ." [9]

In addition to loading Russia up with unproductive debt, IMF also engineered Russia's hyperinflation and liquidity crisis. After eliminating price controls, IMF obliged Russia to maintain the ruble as the common currency for all Soviet Union successor states, giving each of the 15 new countries the incentive to issue ruble credits for their own benefit while fueling inflation for all others. Sachs reported that he strenuously argued with the IMF against this measure but " for inexplicable reasons, " he was consistently rebuked.

The result was a one-year delay in the introduction of national currencies for the former Soviet republics, pushing Russia into hyperinflation and needlessly prolonging its economic depression. At this same time, the IMF engineered Russia's staggering liquidity crisis that made it almost impossible for enterprises to pay their suppliers and workers. Under IMF's dictate, Russian economy struggled along on less than one sixth of the currency required to operate an economy of its size.

The extent of IMF's iron-fisted control over Russian economy was exemplified in a letter from the IMF's representative Yusuke Horaguchi to Russia's central bank chairman Sergei Dubinin . The letter specified the precise schedule of Russia's ruble supply along with " harshly worded " instructions regarding bank credits, the state budget, energy policy, price levels, trade tariffs and agricultural policies. Horaguchi's letter even included a warning that any acts of the parliament contravening the IMF mandates would be vetoed by president Yeltsin. [10]

It is clear that shock "therapy" was little more than a relentless, cruel strangulation of Russia's economy to facilitate looting of her vast industrial and resource wealth . Nonetheless, most Western-published analyses of this episode tended to treat it as failure of good intentions. While lamenting the outcomes and certain questionable practices, most analysts essentially attribute the failure of Russian transition to honest errors, Russia's endemic corruption, and perhaps inexperience in many of the drama's protagonists.

In New York Review of Books, Robert Cotrell provides a typical example: " One cannot really fault the youthful democratic movements for this failure. They were amateurs and innocents with a hazy grasp at best of what they wanted to achieve and no grasp at all of how concretely to achieve it. " [11] Goldman Marshall of Harvard and the Council of Foreign Relations wrote: " To be sure, there were unsettling reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. "

Naturally, Marshall fails to detail how or where he polled these "most observers," but his message to the readers is unmistakable: move along folks, there's nothing to see here – especially pay no attention to the fact that many of those thousands of Westerners who came to Russia " for the best of reasons ," including Bill Browder , Andrei Schleifer and Jonathan Hay , [12] returned from Russia as multi-millionaires. Financial reporter Anne Willamson , who covered Russia for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal rightly remarked in her Congressional testimony that, " Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. "

Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager and author. His book, banned by Amazon in September 2017 is now available in pdf , kindle , and epub formats at the following link " Grand Deception: Truth About Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act and Anti-Russian Sanctions. " Paperback version is now available here . Alex also wrote one book on commodities trading.

[Aug 04, 2018] Edward Snowden 5 years in Russia and still relevant as ever

Aug 04, 2018 | theduran.com

TASS reported that August 1 was the five year anniversary of Edward Snowden's being granted temporary asylum in the Russian Federation. This happened after his release of an enormous trove of information showing clandestine and illegal practices being carried out by the US intelligence agencies to gather information on just about anyone in the world, for any – or no – reason at all.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

Edward Snowden, 35, is a computer security expert. In 2005-2008, he worked at the University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Study of Language sponsored by the National Security Agency (NSA) and at the global communications division at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In 2007, Snowden was stationed with diplomatic cover at the US mission to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. In 2009, he resigned from the CIA to join the Dell company that sent him to Hawaii to work for the NSA's information-sharing office. He was particularly employed with the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm.

In June 2013, Snowden leaked classified information to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, which revealed global surveillance programs run by US and British intelligence agencies. He explained the move by saying that he wanted to tell the world the truth because he believed such large-scale surveillance on innocent citizens was unacceptable and the public needed to know about it.

The Guardian and The Washington Post published the first documents concerning the US intelligence agencies' spying on Internet users on June 6, 2013. According to the documents, major phone companies, including Verizon, AT&T and Sprint Nextel, handed records of their customers' phone conversations over to the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who also had direct access to the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Skype, YouTube, Paltalk, AOL and Apple. In addition, Snowden's revelations showed that a secret program named PRISM was aimed at collecting audio and video recordings, photos, emails and information about users' connections to various websites.

The next portion of revelations , which was published by the leading newspapers such as The Guardian, Brazil's O Globo, Italy's L'Espresso, Germany's Der Spiegel and Suddeutsche Zeitung, concerned the US spying on politicians. In particular, it became known that the NSA and Great Britain's Government Communications Headquarters intercepted the phone calls that foreign politicians and officials made during the G20 summit in London in 2009. British intelligence agencies particularly tried to intercept then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's phone calls. US intelligence monitored the phone calls of 35 world leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

According to the disclosed information, the NSA regularly gathered intelligence at the New York and Washington offices of the European Union's mission. The agency also achieved access to the United Nations' internal video conferences and considers the Vienna headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as one of its major targets for spying.

The leaks also uncovered details about the Blarney and Rampart-T secret surveillance programs. Blarney, which started in 1978, is used to collect information related to counter-terrorism, foreign diplomats and governments, as well as economic and military targets. Rampart-T has been used since 1991 to spy on foreign leaders. The program is focused on 20 countries, including Russia and China.

Snowden also let the world know that Germany's Federal Intelligence Service and Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution used the NSA's XKeyScore secret computer system to spy on Internet users, monitoring their web activities. In addition, the NSA and Great Britain's Government Communications Headquarters developed methods that allowed them to hack almost all the encryption systems currently used on the Internet. Besides, the leaked documents said that the NSA had secretly installed special software on about 100,000 computers around the globe that provided access to them and made cyber attacks easier. In particular, the NSA used a secret technology that made it possible to hack computers not connected to the Internet.

Portions of the information Snowden handed over to Greenwald and Poitras continue to be published on The Intercept website . According to edwardsnowden.com – a website commissioned by the Courage foundation (dedicated to building support for Snowden), a total of 2,176 documents from the archive have been published so far.

The NSA and the Pentagon claim that Snowden stole about 1.7 mln classified documents concerning the activities of US intelligence services and US military operations. He is charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person. He is facing up to ten years in prison on each charge.

As can be seen, Mr. Snowden's work is of extreme importance now in the connected Internet age. But how is his life in Russia now?

According to Sputnik News, his life goes on . Reports say that he is continuing to learn the Russian language and to travel about the country:

Anatoly Kucherena, Edward Snowden's lawyer, has revealed some details of the renowned whistleblower's life to Sputnik. According to him, Snowden has found a job, is actively traveling around Russia and is continuing to learn the language.

Kucherena added that Snowden receives visits from his girlfriend, Lindsey Mills, and his parents. When asked about the whistleblower's favorite place in Russia, his lawyer said that he likes St Petersburg "a lot."

"He is doing alright: his girlfriend visits him, he has a good job and he's continuing to study Russian. His parents visit him occasionally. [They] have no problems with visas. At least they have never complained about having any trouble," the lawyer said.

After Snowden released classified NSA documents, he fled first to Hong Kong, then, on June 23, 2013, arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong. The whistleblower remained in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport until he was granted temporary asylum in Russia, which was later prolonged to 2020.

[Aug 04, 2018] The US empire was always conducting trade wars that even included deliberately created cartels

Notable quotes:
"... These laws allow a company that believes a foreign rival is selling a product below cost to request that the government impose special tariffs to protect it. Selling products below cost is called dumping, and the duties are called dumping duties. Often, however, the U.S. government determines costs on the basis of little evidence, and in ways which make little sense. To most economists, the dumping duties are simply naked protectionism. Why, they ask, would a rational firm sell goods below cost? ..."
"... Cartels work by restricting output, thereby raising prices. O'Neill's interest was no surprise to me; what did surprise me was the idea that the U.S. government would not only condone a cartel but actually play a pivotal role in setting one up. He also raised the specter of using the antidumping laws if the cartel was not created. These laws allow the United States to impose special duties on goods that arc sold at below a "fair market value," and particularly when they are sold below the cost of production. ..."
"... The reality is that the US empire was always conducting trade wars that included not only tariffs on specific products, but even deliberately created cartels. ..."
"... In the early 90s the Clinton administration uncritically adopted the neoliberal doctrine from Ronald Reagan and continued the big fraud against the majority of the Americans. ..."
"... On the one hand, the Clinton administration was selling the big fairy tale of neoliberalism to the American public: free market capitalism would bring prosperity for all through that trickle-down fiasco. And it was translated, as always, in further cuts in public spending - more tax-cuts for the super-rich. On the other hand, behind the scenes, the same administration was implementing the most aggressive protectionism in favor of some US corporations and against consumers. ..."
Aug 04, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.com

Donald Trump is using his trade wars to support the part of the US capital that has heavily lost from free trade globalization, which is more powerful than ever in our days. This is also part of the Trump agenda to persuade Americans for his "patriotic devotion" based on his "America First" slogan.

The reality is that the US empire was always conducting trade wars that included not only tariffs on specific products, but even deliberately created cartels.

In the early 90s the Clinton administration uncritically adopted the neoliberal doctrine from Ronald Reagan and continued the big fraud against the majority of the Americans.

On the one hand, the Clinton administration was selling the big fairy tale of neoliberalism to the American public: free market capitalism would bring prosperity for all through that trickle-down fiasco. And it was translated, as always, in further cuts in public spending - more tax-cuts for the super-rich. On the other hand, behind the scenes, the same administration was implementing the most aggressive protectionism in favor of some US corporations and against consumers.

In his book Globalization and its discontents , Joseph Stiglitz describes how the United States under Clinton administration set up a cartel in favor of the US aluminum industry:

The United States supports free trade, but all too often, when a poor country does manage to find a commodity it can export to the United States, domestic American protectionist interests are galvanized. This mix of labor and business interests uses the many trade laws - officially referred to as "fair trade laws," but known outside the United States as "unfair fair trade laws"- to construct barbed-wire barriers to imports.

These laws allow a company that believes a foreign rival is selling a product below cost to request that the government impose special tariffs to protect it. Selling products below cost is called dumping, and the duties are called dumping duties. Often, however, the U.S. government determines costs on the basis of little evidence, and in ways which make little sense. To most economists, the dumping duties are simply naked protectionism. Why, they ask, would a rational firm sell goods below cost?

During my term in government, perhaps the most grievous instance of U.S. special interests interfering in trade - and the reform process - occurred in early 1994, just after the price of aluminum plummeted. In response to the fall in price, U.S. aluminum producers accused Russia of dumping aluminum.

Any economic analysis of the situation showed clearly that Russia was not dumping. Russia was simply selling aluminum at the international price, which was lowered both because of a global slowdown in demand occasioned by slower global growth and because of the cutback in Russian aluminum use for military planes. Moreover, new soda can designs used substantially less aluminum than before, and this also led to a decline in the demand.

As I saw the price of aluminum plummet, I knew the industry would soon be appealing to the government for some form of relief, either new subsidies or new protection from foreign competition. But even I was surprised at the proposal made by the head of Alcoa, Paul O'Neill: a global aluminum cartel.

Cartels work by restricting output, thereby raising prices. O'Neill's interest was no surprise to me; what did surprise me was the idea that the U.S. government would not only condone a cartel but actually play a pivotal role in setting one up. He also raised the specter of using the antidumping laws if the cartel was not created. These laws allow the United States to impose special duties on goods that arc sold at below a "fair market value," and particularly when they are sold below the cost of production.

I worked hard to convince those in the National Economic Council that it would be a mistake to support O'Neill's idea, and I made great progress. But in a heated subcabinet meeting, a decision was made to support the creation of an international cartel.

While I had managed to convince almost everyone of the dangers of the cartel solution, two voices dominated. The State Department, with its close connections to the old-line state ministries, supported the establishment of a cartel. The State Department prized order above all else, and cartels do provide order. The old-line ministries, of course, were never convinced that this movement to prices and markets made sense in the first place, and the experience with aluminum simply served to confirm their views.

Rubin, at that time head of the National Economic Council, played a decisive role, siding with State. At least for a while, the cartel did work. Prices were raised. The protfits of Alcoa and other producers were enhanced. The American consumers - and consumers throughout the world - lost, and indeed, the basic principles of economics, which teach the value of competitive markets, show that the losses to consumers outweigh the gains to producers. Donald Trump is using his trade wars to support the part of the US capital that has heavily lost from free trade globalization, which is more powerful than ever in our days. This is also part of the Trump agenda to persuade Americans for his "patriotic devotion" based on his "America First" slogan.

The reality is that the US empire was always conducting trade wars that included not only tariffs on specific products, but even deliberately created cartels.

In the early 90s the Clinton administration uncritically adopted the neoliberal doctrine from Ronald Reagan and continued the big fraud against the majority of the Americans.

On the one hand, the Clinton administration was selling the big fairy tale of neoliberalism to the American public: free market capitalism would bring prosperity for all through that trickle-down fiasco. And it was translated, as always, in further cuts in public spending - more tax-cuts for the super-rich. On the other hand, behind the scenes, the same administration was implementing the most aggressive protectionism in favor of some US corporations and against consumers.

In his book Globalization and its discontents , Joseph Stiglitz describes how the United States under Clinton administration set up a cartel in favor of the US aluminum industry:

The United States supports free trade, but all too often, when a poor country does manage to find a commodity it can export to the United States, domestic American protectionist interests are galvanized. This mix of labor and business interests uses the many trade laws - officially referred to as "fair trade laws," but known outside the United States as "unfair fair trade laws"- to construct barbed-wire barriers to imports.

These laws allow a company that believes a foreign rival is selling a product below cost to request that the government impose special tariffs to protect it. Selling products below cost is called dumping, and the duties are called dumping duties. Often, however, the U.S. government determines costs on the basis of little evidence, and in ways which make little sense. To most economists, the dumping duties are simply naked protectionism. Why, they ask, would a rational firm sell goods below cost?

During my term in government, perhaps the most grievous instance of U.S. special interests interfering in trade - and the reform process - occurred in early 1994, just after the price of aluminum plummeted. In response to the fall in price, U.S. aluminum producers accused Russia of dumping aluminum.

Any economic analysis of the situation showed clearly that Russia was not dumping. Russia was simply selling aluminum at the international price, which was lowered both because of a global slowdown in demand occasioned by slower global growth and because of the cutback in Russian aluminum use for military planes. Moreover, new soda can designs used substantially less aluminum than before, and this also led to a decline in the demand.

As I saw the price of aluminum plummet, I knew the industry would soon be appealing to the government for some form of relief, either new subsidies or new protection from foreign competition. But even I was surprised at the proposal made by the head of Alcoa, Paul O'Neill: a global aluminum cartel.

Cartels work by restricting output, thereby raising prices. O'Neill's interest was no surprise to me; what did surprise me was the idea that the U.S. government would not only condone a cartel but actually play a pivotal role in setting one up. He also raised the specter of using the antidumping laws if the cartel was not created. These laws allow the United States to impose special duties on goods that arc sold at below a "fair market value," and particularly when they are sold below the cost of production.

I worked hard to convince those in the National Economic Council that it would be a mistake to support O'Neill's idea, and I made great progress. But in a heated subcabinet meeting, a decision was made to support the creation of an international cartel.

While I had managed to convince almost everyone of the dangers of the cartel solution, two voices dominated. The State Department, with its close connections to the old-line state ministries, supported the establishment of a cartel. The State Department prized order above all else, and cartels do provide order. The old-line ministries, of course, were never convinced that this movement to prices and markets made sense in the first place, and the experience with aluminum simply served to confirm their views.

Rubin, at that time head of the National Economic Council, played a decisive role, siding with State. At least for a while, the cartel did work. Prices were raised. The protfits of Alcoa and other producers were enhanced. The American consumers - and consumers throughout the world - lost, and indeed, the basic principles of economics, which teach the value of competitive markets, show that the losses to consumers outweigh the gains to producers.

http://digamo.free.fr/stig2002

It was the time where the Democrats had become Republicans and the US bipartisan dictatorship was established for good to serve the corporate America.

https://youtu.be/8d1ibtOVImg

[Aug 04, 2018] On Contact Decline of the American empire with Alfred McCoy

YouTube
Nov 26, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Alfred McCoy, Harrington Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explains the decline of the United States as a global power and the rise of the Chinese empire.

[Aug 04, 2018] The US establishment behind the Helsinki Summit, by Manlio Dinucci

So the US neoliberal establishment tried to sabotage Trump-Putin summit in doer to pursue "business as usual". In other words military-industrial complex is in control of the USA government...
Notable quotes:
"... It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran. ..."
"... At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who, inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas. ..."
"... The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful. ..."
"... In opposition to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "), but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war. ..."
"... Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex? ..."
Aug 04, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

While the International Press distorted the content of the NATO Summit, the US establishment perfectly understood the unique issue – the end of enmity with Russia. Thus disturbing the bilateral summit in Helsinki between the USA and Russia became its priority. By all means possible, it had to prevent any rapprochement with Moscow.

We need to talk about everything, from commerce to the military, missiles, nuclear, and China " - this was how President Trump began at the Helsinki Summit. " The time has come to talk in detail about our bilateral relationship and the international flashpoints ", emphasised Putin.

But it will not only be the two Presidents who will decide the future relationships between the United States and Russia.

It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran.

At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who, inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas.

The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful.

What Putin tried to obtain from Trump is both simple and complex – to ease the tension between the two countries. To that purpose, he proposed to Trump, who accepted, to implement a joint enquiry into the " conspiracy ". We do not know how the discussions on the key questions will go – the status of Crimea, the condition of Syria, nuclear weapons and others. And we do not know what Trump will ask in return. However, it is certain that any concession will be used to accuse him of connivance with the enemy. In opposition to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "), but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war.

It will not be the words, but the facts, which will reveal whether the climate of détente of the Helsinki Summit will become reality - first of all with a de-escalation of NATO in Europe, in other words with the withdrawal of forces (including nuclear forces) of the USA and NATO presently deployed against Russia, and the blockage of NATO's expansion to the East.

Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex?

One thing is certain – we in Italy and Europe can not remain the simple spectators of dealings which will define our future. Manlio Dinucci

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Source
Il Manifesto (Italy)

Manlio Dinucci

Geographer and geopolitical scientist. His latest books are Laboratorio di geografia , Zanichelli 2014 ; Diario di viaggio , Zanichelli 2017 ; L'arte della guerra / Annali della strategia Usa/Nato 1990-2016 , Zambon 2016. The warmonger The warmonger's response to negotiation
"The Art of War"

[Aug 04, 2018] The warmonger s response to negotiation, by Manlio Dinucci

Aug 04, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

The conflict between transnational financial capitalism and productive national capitalism has entered into a paroxystic phase. On one side, Presidents Trump and Putin are negotiating the joint defence of their national interests. On the other, the major daily newspaper for the US and the world is accusing the US President of high treason, while the armed forces of the US and NATO are preparing for war with Russia and China.

You have attacked our democracy. Your well-worn gamblers' denials do not interest us. If you continue with this attitude, we will consider it an act of war." This is what Trump should have said to Putin at the Helsinki Summit, in the opinion of famous New York Times editorialist Thomas Friedman, published in La Repubblica . He went on to accuse the Russian President of having "attacked NATO, a fundamental pillar of international security, destabilised Europe, and bombed thousands of Syrian refugees, causing them to seek refuge in Europe."

He then accused the President of the United States of having " repudiated his oath on the Constitution " and of being an " asset of Russian Intelligence " or at least playing at being one.

What Friedman expressed in these provocative terms corresponds to the position of a powerful internal and international front (of which the New York Times is an important mouthpiece) opposed to USA-Russia negotiations, which should continue with the invitation of Putin to the White House. But there is a substantial difference.

While the negotiations have not yet borne fruit, opposition to the negotiations has been expressed not only in words, but especially in facts.

Cancelling out the climate of détente at the Helsinki Summit, the planetary warmongering system of the United States is in the process of intensifying the preparations for a war reaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific:

When Trump meets Chinese President Xi Jinping, Friedman will no doubt accuse him of connivance not only with the Russian enemy, but also with the Chinese enemy. Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci Geographer and geopolitical scientist. His latest books are Laboratorio di geografia , Zanichelli 2014 ; Diario di viaggio , Zanichelli 2017 ; L'arte della guerra / Annali della strategia Usa/Nato 1990-2016 , Zambon 2016.

[Aug 04, 2018] The "next" financial crisis and public banking as the response by Michael Hudson

Notable quotes:
"... You said that we're entering into a recession. That's just the flat wrong statement. The economy's been in a recession ever since 2008, as a result of what President Obama did by bailing out the banks and not the economy at large. ..."
"... The largest element of fakery is a category that is imputed – that is, made up – for rising rents that homeowners would have to pay if they had to rent their houses from themselves. That's about 6 percent of GDP right there. Right now, as a result of the 10 million foreclosures that Obama imposed on the economy by not writing down the junk mortgage debts to realistic values, companies like Blackstone have come in and bought up many of the properties that were forfeited. So now there are fewer homes that are available to buy. Rents are going up all over the country. Homeownership has dropped by abut 10 percent since 2008, and that means more people have to rent. When more people have to rent, the rents go up. And when rents go up, people lucky enough to have kept their homes report these rising rental values to the GDP statisticians. ..."
"... The other great jump in GDP has been people paying more money to the banks as penalties and fees for arrears on student loans and mortgage loans, credit card loans and automobile loans. When they fall into arrears, the banks get to add a penalty charge. The credit-card companies make more money on arrears than they do on interest charges. This is counted as providing a "financial service," defined as the amount of revenue banks make over and above their borrowing charges. ..."
"... The statistical pretense is that they're taking the risk on making loans to debtors that are going bad. They're cleaning up on profits on these bad loans, because the government has guaranteed the student loans including the higher penalty charges. They've guaranteed the mortgages loans made by the FHA – Fannie Mae and the other groups – that the banks are getting penalty charges on. So what's reported is that GDP growth is actually more and more people in trouble, along with rising housing costs. What's good for the GDP here is awful for the economy at large! This is bad news, not good news. ..."
Aug 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Paul Sliker: So, Michael, over the past few months the IMF has been sending warning signals about the state of the global economy. There are a bunch of different macroeconomic developments that signal we could be entering into another crisis or recession in the near future. One of those elements is the yield curve, which shows the difference between short-term and long-term borrowing rates. Investors and financial pundits of all sorts are concerned about this, because since 1950 every time the yield curve has flattened, the economy has tanked shortly thereafter.

Can you explain what the yield curve signifies, and if all these signals I just mentioned are forecasting another economic crisis?

Michael Hudson: Normally, borrowers have to pay only a low rate of interest for a short-term loan. If you take a longer-term loan, you have to pay a higher rate. The longest term loans are for mortgages, which have the highest rate. Even for large corporations, the longer you borrow – that is, the later you repay – the pretense is that the risk is much higher. Therefore, you have to pay a higher rate on the pretense that the interest-rate premium is compensation for risk. Banks and the wealthy get to borrow at lower rates.

Right now what's happened is that the short-term rates you can get by putting your money in Treasury bills or other short-term instruments are even higher than the long-term rates. That's historically unnatural. But it's not really unnatural at all when you look at what the economy is doing.

You said that we're entering into a recession. That's just the flat wrong statement. The economy's been in a recession ever since 2008, as a result of what President Obama did by bailing out the banks and not the economy at large.

Since 2008, people talk about "look at how that GDP is growing." Especially in the last few quarters, you have the media saying look, "we've recovered. GDP is up." But if you look at what they count as GDP, you find a primer on how to lie with statistics.

The largest element of fakery is a category that is imputed – that is, made up – for rising rents that homeowners would have to pay if they had to rent their houses from themselves. That's about 6 percent of GDP right there. Right now, as a result of the 10 million foreclosures that Obama imposed on the economy by not writing down the junk mortgage debts to realistic values, companies like Blackstone have come in and bought up many of the properties that were forfeited. So now there are fewer homes that are available to buy. Rents are going up all over the country. Homeownership has dropped by abut 10 percent since 2008, and that means more people have to rent. When more people have to rent, the rents go up. And when rents go up, people lucky enough to have kept their homes report these rising rental values to the GDP statisticians.

If I had to pay rent for the house that I have, could charge as much money as renters down the street have to pay – for instance, for houses that were bought out by Blackstone. Rents are going up and up. This actually is a rise in overhead, but it's counted as rising GDP. That confuses income and output with overhead costs.

The other great jump in GDP has been people paying more money to the banks as penalties and fees for arrears on student loans and mortgage loans, credit card loans and automobile loans. When they fall into arrears, the banks get to add a penalty charge. The credit-card companies make more money on arrears than they do on interest charges. This is counted as providing a "financial service," defined as the amount of revenue banks make over and above their borrowing charges.

The statistical pretense is that they're taking the risk on making loans to debtors that are going bad. They're cleaning up on profits on these bad loans, because the government has guaranteed the student loans including the higher penalty charges. They've guaranteed the mortgages loans made by the FHA – Fannie Mae and the other groups – that the banks are getting penalty charges on. So what's reported is that GDP growth is actually more and more people in trouble, along with rising housing costs. What's good for the GDP here is awful for the economy at large! This is bad news, not good news.

As a result of this economic squeeze, investors see that the economy is not growing. So they're bailing out. They're taking their money and running.

If you're taking your money out of bonds and out of the stock market because you worry about shrinking markets, lower profits and defaults, where are you going to put it? There's only one safe place to put your money: short-term treasuries. You don't want to buy a long-term Treasury bond, because if the interest rates go up then the bond price falls. So you want buy short-term Treasury bonds. The demand for this is so great that Bogle's Vanguard fund management company will only let small investors buy ten thousand dollars worth at a time for their 401K funds.

The reason small to large investors are buying short term treasuries is to park their money safely. There's nowhere else to put it in the real economy, because the real economy isn't growing.

What has grown is debt. It's grown larger and larger. Investors are taking their money out of state and local bonds because state and local budgets are broke as a result of pension commitments. Politicians have cut taxes in order to get elected, so they don't have enough money to keep up with the pension fund contributions that they're supposed to make.

This means that the likelihood of a break in the chain of payments is rising. In the United States, commercial property rents are in trouble. We've discussed that before on this show. As the economy shrinks, stores are closing down. That means that the owners who own commercial mortgages are falling behind, and arrears are rising.

Also threatening is what Trump is doing. If his protectionist policies interrupt trade, you're going to see companies being squeezed. They're not going to make the export sales they expected, and will pay more for imports.

Finally, banks are having problems of they hold Italian government bonds. Germany is unwilling to use European funds to bail them out. Most investors expect Italy to do exit the euro in the next three years or so. It looks like we're entering a period of anarchy, so of course people are parking their money in the short term. That means that they're not putting it into the economy. No wonder the economy isn't growing.

[Aug 03, 2018] US Senators Announce Russia Sanctions 'Bill From Hell'

Trump administration works against Trump
Aug 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Neuters via Antiwar.com: U.S. Senator Paul to visit Russia to promote diplomacy
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-russia-senator-meeting/u-s-senator-paul-to-visit-russia-to-promote-diplomacy-statement-idUKKBN1KN1N9

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov will meet U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a proponent of encouraging diplomacy with Russia amid tense relations, in Moscow on Aug. 6, the senator's office said on Thursday.

"Senator Rand Paul is a proponent of diplomacy and is supporting President Donald J. Trump in engaging around the world. He looks forward to his meetings," Paul's office said in a statement on Thursday. No further information was available about the trip, including who else might be in the delegation.
####

Meanwhile:

Sources via Antiwar.com: US Senators Announce Russia Sanctions 'Bill From Hell'
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/08/02/us-senators-announce-russia-sanctions-bill-from-hell/

Bill intends to sanction Russian 'oligarchs,' restrict energy projects

The Russian Ruble dropped Thursday to a near-term low after bipartisan US senators announced what they are calling a "bill from hell" round of new sanctions and restrictions targeting the Russian economy and leadership.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the leading proponents of the bill, said the massive present US sanctions against Russia have failed, saying that all of these new sanctions are needed to "punish" Russia.

As currently envisioned, the sanctions target a number of top Russian politicians and "oligarchs." The bill also aims to severely restrict Russia's ability to raise sovereign debt, and to restrict their ability to seek investment in energy projects.

There is no timeline for a vote on the bill yet, but reportedly some senators are also lining up to offer amendments adding yet more sanctions or other measures against Russia. This could go on for quite awhile, with almost the whole Senate looking to one-up each other on being anti-Russia these days, and could mean an actual vote won't happen.
####

It looks to me that with the mid-terms coming up and showing diplomacy with Russia not taking a hit with Republican voters, this further push by Rand Paul looks to make the Dems look and sound even more extreme, maybe drawing disgusted voters to the Republican camp..

Like Like Reply Mark Chapman August 3, 2018 at 6:24 pm

This is just America pretending to itself that it controls the global economy and that it can strangle any country economically at a time of its choosing – I am frankly surprised to see them continually trying harder when their efforts to date have had such negligible success. I suppose the Senate needs something to do to make itself look busy and necessary. But all this will achieve is further cementing of America as an enemy of Russia in the eyes of ordinary Russians – should a future US government decide that was a mistake, and soft power is the way to go, it will not be able to make any progress for around 50 years, and a great deal of hard work and careful relationship-building has been thrown away. American businesses must be finding it increasingly difficult to continue operations in Russia, and Asian companies must be acing them out for market share . Altogether a continuing exercise in stupidity and willful blindness – if America wants to destroy Russia, it is eventually going to have to take it on in a head-on military confrontation. Because its efforts to destroy it economically are failing and will continue to fail. Not to mention that they are building sympathy around the world – outside North America – for Russia. America has to understand that while it is enjoying playing "I'm crushing Russia", it has consequences and it will not be able to make things up for a generation.

I'm not quite sure what Paul thinks he might achieve with this, but he certainly is not going to make any friends in Russia, and he certainly is not going to have any leverage to make changes in American policy so long as the Russophobic majority has the bit in its teeth. He's basically just wasting the taxpayers' money on a junket to Moscow. Alternatively, he might be going to measure Russian desperation, to see if there is any possibility the country can be brought to its knees without having to fight it.

[Aug 03, 2018] The Little Known Black Hole in the Pentagon Budget by By Ross Marchand •

Aug 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

In February, the Pentagon announced a $950 million no-bid contract to REAN Cloud, LLC for the migration of legacy systems to the cloud. As an Amazon Web Services consulting partner and reseller, REAN Cloud was likely favored due to Amazon's recent $600 million cloud project for the Central Intelligence Agency. Creating an unusually large contract with little oversight or competition led to ample criticism of the Pentagon, as lawmakers demanded an explanation from DoD. In response to the brouhaha, the Pentagon announced in early March that the maximum value of the contract would be reduced from $950 million to $65 million.

As it turned out, though, even the Pentagon wasn't exactly sure how to apply the murky requirements of OTA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled in May that the REAN contract did not accord with federal law, in that REAN was granted an award without even really considering going through a competitive bidding process. "Vague and attenuated" statements from the Pentagon to potential bidders in the beginning of the process ensured that the process would not be an open one. After the cancellation of the REAN deal, the Pentagon finally seems open to competitive bidding for cloud migration.

Unfortunately, OTA is still alive and well across the DoD procurement process. In June, the Defense Information Systems Agency joined the growing list of agencies dabbling in OTA, noting that "many of the companies we're dealing with are small start-ups." But as the REAN Cloud case shows, many companies appear "small" but have far larger partners. According to statistics in the Federal News Radio report , "Only $7.4 billion of the nearly $21 billion went to nontraditional companies." The problem is created in part by the use of consortiums, which are comprised of multiple companies, which vary in size. The consortium can decide how money is allocated for an award, allowing larger businesses to benefit disproportionately out of sight of the DoD and taxpayers.

Congress has finally started to demand more accountability for OTAs. The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress requires more data reporting and analysis by acquisition officials. But far more work remains.

Lawmakers should set stricter limits on when it's okay to eschew competitive bidding, and lower the threshold for requiring congressional notification (currently set at $500 million). Allowing tens of billions of dollars to be spent behind the backs of taxpayers without a bidding process cannot continue.

Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

[Aug 03, 2018] Trumpism and the Politics of Distrust

Aug 03, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

We have lost some of our democratic habits -- indeed, in many ways we are losing our very cohesion as a society. But I frame the question very differently.

I know a bunch of Trump supporters. Some of them are intellectuals who write for places like TAC . But most are not. Neither are any of them raving bigots or knuckle-dragging neanderthals, and all of them read the news, though with vastly less obsessiveness than people who work in the business.

None of them "like" things like "unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking vulgarity, legislative failure" or collusion with foreign governments. Some of them minimize some of these things at least some of the time -- and I myself have been known to derive a kind of pleasure from the absurdity of a figure like Mooch. But this isn't what the people who I know who voted Trump voted for , nor is it why they continue to be happy with their vote -- which, however unhappy they are with how the administration is conducting itself, most of them still are.

Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the election.

SDS August 1, 2017 at 12:29 pm

"They are, however, people who have lost trust in the individuals and institutions who are most alarmed about Trump: the political establishment, the press, etc. And so, on a relative basis, they'd rather continue to put their trust in Trump."

That last line does not follow .We have lost trust in all of the others; so would rather see what Trump does; not that we have any trust in him to do the right thing

THAT would be ridiculous; especially after the last six months.

Will Harrington , says: August 1, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Hmmm. Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't help but read that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites are capable of governing. As for the American people taking a turn to authoritarianism. This is possible, after all, our Federal government has spent most of the last century increasing their control over many of the aspects of our lives and stretching the limits of the Constitution beyond any recognition. We have been prepared to accept authoritarianism. Increasingly we have had an authoritarian presidency that surveils its own people and has usurped regulatory and warmaking authority from the Congress. The Federal government has created, out of whole cloth, a role for itself in public education. Do not blame the populace for being what the elite has spent a century shaping them to be.
I am convinced that the saber rattling and fear-mongering concerning Korea, Iran, and Russia are not happening because we have any reason to be particularly concerned about these countries or because they threaten our interests. No, this is the way a corrupt and ineffective regime distracts its citizens from its own failings. Lets be clear, this would be happening even if She-who-shall-not-be-named had one the Presidency.
JonF , says: August 1, 2017 at 1:20 pm
Whatever happened to "trust but verify"?
OK, a bunch of people did the political equivalent of a Hail Mary play in voting for Trump. But now that the ball has not only fallen short but gone way out of bounds and beaned some spectators in the stands shouldn't they be revoking that trust and casting around for someone else to represent them? Why stick with a sinking ship?
JessicaR , says: August 1, 2017 at 1:25 pm
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/11/why-veterans-voted-donald-trump-swing-states/21603486/

There is strong evidence to suggest that one factor in Trump's victory was distrust of US foreign policy. The link above is to an article about exit polls showing Trump won the veteran's vote 2:1 over Hillary Clinton.

Not long ago, a study by two academicians found that Trump carried counties with high casualties in the Iraq war: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2989040

People don't regret their votes for Trump because if they had voted for Clinton, they or their loved ones would be coming home in body bags–or minus body parts.

As bad as Trump is, his foreign policy instincts are less hawkish than Clinton's–witness his decision to end the CIA funding of Syrian insurgents.

Trump's behavior is certainly "unpresidential" and chaotic. It is also less horrible than war by many orders of magnitude.

Kevin , says: August 1, 2017 at 1:29 pm
"The politically relevant, and profoundly disturbing, fact is precisely the opposite of the conventional wisdom: After six months of unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking vulgarity, legislative failure, and credible evidence of a desire to collude with a hostile foreign government to subvert an American election, President Trump's approval rating is astonishingly high -- with something between one-third and two-fifths of the American people apparently liking what they see and hear from the White House"

But George W Bush at his nadir averaged 26% approval, and that's seven years in, during an epic economic collapse, a catastrophic war, and a host of other disasters. Trump is not THAT far away from that average.

There is simply a line beyond which a president can't decline unless he murders and eats a puppy in public, and I see no reason to presume that we can judge that Trump hit his bottom six months in, when the economy is decent and no non-self inflicted crisis looming.

I'd also add that while all your friends have different reasons to stay aboard the Trump train, all of them sound like high information, fairly ideological voters. This is probably not the profile of Trump voters set to vote for The Rock in 2020

c matt , says: August 1, 2017 at 2:23 pm
Well, when a building is rotten to the core, the only thing you can do is raze it to the ground to start rebuilding. Our government has long passed its sell-by date. Really, expecting a political solution to arise from a government controlled system such as ours does not border on insanity – it completely crosses that border in leaves it miles in the dust. Witness our insane Congress voting by a 98% margin to inflict sanctions based upon absolute crock. But then the US has never let reality get in the way of statesmenshowmanship. We get what we deserve, good and hard.
polistra , says: August 1, 2017 at 2:57 pm
You're OK until the last line. "And populism by its very nature cannot build institutions, cannot govern "

You're still using the Deepstate definition of populism. In fact populists want only one thing: We think the government of THIS country should serve the interests of the people of THIS country.

It's perfectly possible to govern by this rule. FDR did it magnificently.

Why did it work for FDR? Because he was determined to BREAK the monopolies and forces that acted contrary to the interests of the people, and because governments BELOW the Federal level were still strong. When he closed the banks for several months, cities and Chambers of Commerce jumped in immediately to develop scrip systems.

Thanks to an unbroken series of evil judges and presidents after WW2, local governments and institutions are dead or dying. Even if a competent and determined populist tried to close down banks or Amazon or the "health" insurance system, there would be no organized way to replace them.

Jones , says: August 1, 2017 at 2:59 pm
What exactly did these people think a Clinton administration would do? What nightmarish dystopia did they see coming around the bend? And what do you think -- were their perceptions of America's future under a Clinton administration accurate, or at least close to the mark? And if so, why?
Jones , says: August 1, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Also, I get that people have lost trust in mainstream institutions. What makes them think that Trump is trustworthy in comparison? Why do they have more trust in Trump than in the institutions? And does that seem reasonable?
Heyseed , says: August 1, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I didn't vote for Trump: His rhetorical style turns me cold; I don't like his position on many issues, or his general governing philosophy, to the extent he can be said to have one. But, BUT, I sure as Hell did not vote for Hilary Clinton(I voted for Johnson and Weld, who were obvious non-starters from the word Go. I might possibly have voted for Trump if it had looked like the election might be close in Illinois, but since the Chicago Machine had already stolen it for HRC, I could salve my conscience and vote for Johnson.

Clinton was the status quo candidate, and since I did not desire "more of the same", governmentally, Trump and his circus are preferable to Clinton and whatever cabal she would have assembled to run the country.

You claim that the elite "inevitably" run the machinery of government, but it's worth noting that once upon a time in America, most of the people in government were political appointees who could be sent packing(along with their bosses) by the voters. Nowadays, the 'elite' which runs government is dug in pretty much permanently, and the same people will be, in practice, running the government no matter who wins the next election, or the one after that

Hilary Clinton was forthrightly the candidate of the permanent, un-elected bureaucracy, and Trump, well, didn't seem to be. The choice was between Trump, whose actual position on the size of government was not clear, and Hilary Clinton who was actually promising to make government bigger, more centralized, more expensive and less responsive. I'm not sorry Trump won however distasteful he and his henchmen are to me.

Michael R Honohan , says: August 1, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I too had a friend who was a huge Ron Paul supporter who not only backed Trump, but became a major apologist for him ever since. The man ran two back to back campaigns in Georgia for US Senate, the Ron Paul mold. Now, no on his original team will give him the time of day. Those who tried to get some sense into him, have been closed off.

As a libertarian, I am no more afraid of the left or the right. In fact, listening to the right rant about the left yields a lot of ignorance, disinformation and paranoia: stock in trade for right wing propaganda. But I am disturbed when people spend years fighting for liberty suddenly joined Cult 45 that has no sense of liberty Ron Paul or his followers would recognize.

But Trump fit the bankrupt GOP. Lest we forget, those 49 GOP Senators who voted for "skinny repeal" (even the name is joke!) never gave a moment's consideration to the bill written by Rand Paul that covers the conservative attributes of free markets and self-determination. Lest we also forget that Rand is not only one of the few legit conservatives, but a doctor and the son of doctor or former Congressman. Those credentials alone would have been enough if GOP was actually interested being conservative. Apparently, Trumpism is what the GOP is about and 49 of them proved it.

ojc , says: August 1, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I think that you have identified a problem that transcends Trump and his opponents. Vitriolic partisanship is one thing. At various points in our history, we have had some nasty spells of polarization. The deeper problem that the institutions of public life are now losing their very legitimacy.

Legitimacy is something deeper than mere approval. It relies upon the unspoken acceptance of political and institutional norms.

We are clearly in the process of publicly reevaluating and even rejecting these norms. The birthers questioning Obama's background and "not my president" folks do not view their oppponents as legitimate, if mistaken. In the case of Trump and the radical left, they contest the legitimacy of the other side even participating in the process, a process by the way to which they owe no fealty.

Whine Merchant , says: August 1, 2017 at 5:42 pm
"We had to destroy the village to save it."

Where have we heard that line before??

Cash , says: August 1, 2017 at 5:58 pm
Nothing wrong with America that couldn't be fixed, one, by making voting mandatory, and two, by having top two vote getters in primary face each other in the general.

We'd have a moderate politics with elected officials clustering slightly right and left of the center.

cka2nd , says: August 1, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Speaking as a Commie Pinko Red, I still prefer Trump as President over Clinton, precisely because he is doing so much to undermine America's "leadership" in world affairs. He's still a murderous imperialist, maybe even just as much as she would have been, but there's just so much more damage that she could have done making bi-partisan deals with the GOP for the benefit of Wall Street and the insurance industry.

The movement against GOPcare – Trumpcare wasn't really a fair name for the wet dreams of Paul Ryan and Conservative, Inc. – probably couldn't have been so effective or flew under the radar of the establishment tools running the Democratic Party and its media mouthpieces if a Democrat was in the White House and the various beltway "movement" honchos had had their precious seat at the table where they could have rolled over for the Democratic president of the moment.

bt , says: August 1, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The biggest problem is what comes after Trump for the GOP?

He's kicked off a process for the GOP that will be very difficult to manage going forward. He showed that outright racism, sexism, continuous lying, even treasonous collusion with Russia to subvert our election is just fine with the Republican Party. How does the GOP sell family values to their 'base' after they all lined up with Donald j Trump, serial wife-cheater and money-launderer?

It will be hard for anyone to forget that any of this happened.

Consider this: 8 years of W Bush yielded the first black President – It really could not have happened if W hadn't burned the house down. What comes after Trump?

FiveString , says: August 1, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I'm a very middle-class worker in the IT sector where most of my coworkers have been sensible, but my weekend hobby of playing music has put me in contact (largely via Facebook) with many Trump supporters who do happen to be knuckle-dragging neanderthals. They generally don't read; their "news" comes from partisan demagogues on the radio or TV. If I give one the benefit of the doubt and share an article from, say, The American Conservative -- "The Madness of King Donald" was a favorite -- it's been all too common to receive a childish/hate-filled meme in response. Bigots are legion: I've unfriended the raving variety, and unfollowed the milder dog-whistlers. These deplorables have in fact been emboldened by the current POTUS.

But I get your point. I abhor the current duopoly, but it could be fixed if thinking citizens wanted to put in some effort. So, it's depressing in a different kind of way that so many thoughtful and well-read Americans are so cynical about state of US politics that they are fine with Trump wrecking it.

Barry , says: August 1, 2017 at 8:23 pm
"Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the election."

They are people who were full of it beforehand, and as the evidence rolls in, they just sink deeper into lies.

MarkW , says: August 1, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Linker's quote "a desire to collude" you reference later as "collusion". The first instance is an attempt to broaden the charge from collusion, the second instance is a (sloppy?) change in language.
Mdet , says: August 1, 2017 at 9:31 pm
@Will Harrington, "Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't help but read that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites are capable of governing."

I read that statement as "Once you are governing, once you are the one(s) in a position of power, then by definition you have become 'the elite' and are no longer 'a plebeian'". Populists, by definition, are the people who call for the tearing down of institutions that make up the status-quo, and elites, by definition, are the people who build and maintain status-quo institutions. At least in my eyes, "being a populist" and "governing institutions" are mutually exclusive.

Frank Lettucebee , says: August 2, 2017 at 12:46 am
Since the conservative party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower was invaded by the right wingers and became the party of Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, the goal has been to tarnish all concept of a functioning a democracy and a government is built to work for the people, of the people, and by the people. The right wing main tactic is lies and just get people riled up so that they don't realize and oblivious to the fact that America has slipped from capitalism to corporatism; from a capitalist democracy to a caste based plutocracy run for the sole benefit of the oligarchs who bought this country.

Don Trump is the embodiment and distillation of the right winger and their economic and social cultural policies. He is not an alternative or antidote to the Republicans or Democrats.

Cal , says: August 2, 2017 at 2:04 am
" Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the government is in chaos and that Trump is not bringing the change he hoped for. But he doesn't regret his vote, and he prefers the chaos of Trump to business-as-usual under either the Democrats or the Republicans. And if Trump winds up discrediting the Federal government generally, that's fine with him."

I didn't vote this election because I didn't like either candidate. I had been promoting 'America First' as a rallying cry for a candidate for years but Trump wasnt exactly the kind of leader I had in mind for it.
But I'm with the guy above -- if chaos will bust up the musical chair dual monarchies of the dems and repubs and the corrupt status quo government bring it on.

Pear Conference , says: August 2, 2017 at 6:23 am
I think the Democratic nominee in 2020 should be O.J. Simpson.

The reason is that I have lost trust in the media and the elites that are most alarmed about O.J. Simpson.

Kurt Gayle , says: August 2, 2017 at 8:37 am
A somewhat related question, Noah: If you had been a young man living in China on August 1, 1927, do you think you would have joined the People's Liberation Army?
connecticut farmer , says: August 2, 2017 at 9:50 am
Originally I wanted to sit out this past election but gave in to peer pressure. And I regret this. Trump? Clinton? Johnson? Stein? All were mediocre. Clinton/Trump were the two worst candidates that the "major" parties have ever produced in my lifetime. It was with fear and trepidation that I voted for Trump, notwithstanding that I fundamentally agreed with him on the issues of immigration and the need for a reduced American role in global affairs. In the end, I rationalized this (wasted) vote based upon the notion that not only had his opponent committed a felony (detouring government emails) but also because (as others have pointed out) she was the candidate of the status quo, the "permanent bureaucracy", Big Finance etc. etc. The fact that Trump actually won surprised me, but only moderately, because as terrible a candidate as he was, his opponent was even worse.

What has transpired since his election comes as no surprise. Had Clinton been elected conditions would have only been mirror imaged, such being the state of things in this once-great republic. I continue to maintain that the two-party system is archaic and has to go. Whether a multi-party system would be better, I don't know. Perhaps we have reached a point where the country is simply ungovernable. Perhaps more responsibility should be returned to state and local government (Jefferson would have approved). Again, I don't know.

What I do know is that the current system is dysfunctional.

And that, my friends, is why we have a real estate/TV personality as President.

wallysdaughter , says: August 2, 2017 at 12:40 pm
i am neither an establishment voter, or a member of the media/press. i am deeply worried where the man (trump) is taking this nation. the gop is complicit in this chaos as they see trump as a rubber stamp for their plutocratic agenda. i don't know what it will take to right the ship of state
EliteCommInc. , says: August 3, 2017 at 7:49 am
I don't regret my vote. And I ave had issues with my choice before and after the election. The sky is not even close to falling as predicted. And the democracy you claim is at threat may very well be, but it's from the current executive. And nothing thus far suggests that it will.

I m not going to dismiss the caterwauling liberals have been making since the campaign or the election as major distraction to governance.

And by the way there remain not a twiddle's evidence that the WH prior to the election colluded to undermine the US in any manner. It's time to cease throwing that out as sauce for the goose.

I think I agree with all four of your "freinds". I am very fond of the establishment, they have their place. What they provide in cohesion, stability and continuity is valuable to the state. But they appear to be want for any level of substance, depth thereof or moral consistency (if any at all). The double standards they hold themselves, their donors and connections on issues and accountability is unsustainable in a democracy as I think you understand it.

When I was laid out in the ER, I found myself wrestling with my own position on healthcare. The temptations are great to bend the guide as to my own conditions -- but I don't think I could so with a clear conscience. I am nor sot sure that what we haven't lost is a sense of conscience -- that sense that truth overrides immediate gain. I don't think the US can survive as the US if the leadership is bent on holding themselves to a standard not available to the country's citizens.

"Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the government . . ."

And the discredited notions that

1. the rich know how to run an economy effectively and

2. that a rise in the market is a sign of economic health.

Brendan Sexton , says: August 3, 2017 at 10:48 am
Pear Conference captures perfectly the 'thinking' i have heard from more than one Trump voter. This is 'reasoning'?
If there is one system in America that needs blowing up to start over it might be our education system. I am generally supportive of public ed, and i am impressed by some of the commitment and inventiveness i see among the proposers of various alternatives to public ed. So, some folks are trying, even sometimes succeeding, but we have managed to arrive at a point in our culture where we have elected a President whose election success depended more than anything else on a public who have lost the ability to think critically. (if they ever had it, of course)
Yes I know the other one got more votes, by a lot. And i know that this other candidate was oddly not at all an attractive alternative. I know all that, but still, a huge fraction of the voting population–a fraction large enough to make themselves now THE base the government is playing to–is a group who could not/would not see this con-job coming? There was every opportunity to use actual logic and facts to reach a voting decision, but these millions of voters chose instead to go with various variations on the theme of 'they all stink, so i'm using my vote to poke a stick in their eyes." Or, as Pear satirized, "I hate/mistrust the elites and they like almost anybody else other than my guy, so I'm gonna turn my country over to the most vulgar non-elite pig the system can come up with."
There is talk now about the damage he can do to American politics and sense of community, but I think he may be more symptom than cause. We don't value the things we thought were a standard part of the American process: truthfulness, kindness, authenticity, devotion to the common good. We value, it turns out, showmanship, machismo, crass shows of wealth and power, and ..I can't go on.
I'm not sure how we got here, but I know the institutions held in high regard on this site, such as church, and some factors we all put our faith in such as increasing levels of education, turn out not to matter so much as we had thought. It is going to take some hard work and more than a little time to recover from this sickness in the country's soul.
Fran Macadam , says: August 3, 2017 at 11:43 am
"Trump supporters are just like people who are outraged by something and show it by rioting and burning down their own neighborhoods." – Greg in PDX

The antifas rioting and destroying in Portland also got very violent when some old folks held a peaceful rally for Trump there.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that when "progressives" disagree with someone, they consider that merely disagreeing with them constitutes "violence" against their "safe space" and they are compelled to go out and punch or shoot people.

Fran Macadam , says: August 3, 2017 at 11:47 am
"Nothing wrong with America that couldn't be fixed, one, by making voting mandatory"

Right, and by making public disclosure of who you voted for mandatory as well!

Just don't be the first to stop clapping.

Fran Macadam , says: August 3, 2017 at 11:50 am
Those calling for a soft coup to reinstate elite status quo leaders against the election results are the ones who are profoundly anti-democratic.
Grumpy Old Man , says: September 5, 2017 at 8:33 pm
No reason why populism couldn't govern. Huey Long was a damn effective governor of Louisiana. Send the whole Acela Corridor élite to Saddam's woodchipper and the country would noodle along just fine. I'm not for state violence, and yet the fantasy gives me a frisson. Forgive me, a sinner.

[Aug 03, 2018] The elites "have no credibility left by David North and Chris Hedges

Notable quotes:
"... War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, The Death of the Liberal Class ..."
"... Empire of Illusion: the End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt ..."
"... Wages of Rebellion: the Moral Imperative of Revolt ..."
"... Do not significantly alienate those upon whom we depend for money and access! ..."
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
Oct 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

On Monday, WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North interviewed Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author, lecturer and former New York Times correspondent. Among Hedges' best-known books are War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, The Death of the Liberal Class , Empire of Illusion: the End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt , which he co-wrote with the cartoonist Joe Sacco, and Wages of Rebellion: the Moral Imperative of Revolt .

In an article published in Truthdig September 17 , titled "The Silencing of Dissent," Hedges referenced the WSWS coverage of Google's censorship of left-wing sites and warned about the growth of "blacklisting, censorship and slandering dissidents as foreign agents for Russia and purveyors of 'fake news.'"

Hedges wrote that "the Department of Justice called on RT America and its 'associates' -- which may mean people like me -- to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. No doubt, the corporate state knows that most of us will not register as foreign agents, meaning we will be banished from the airwaves. This, I expect, is the intent."

North's interview with Hedges began with a discussion of the significance of the anti-Russia campaign in the media.

David North: How do you interpret the fixation on Russia and the entire interpretation of the election within the framework of Putin's manipulation?

Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is an absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation -- critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.

I have no doubt that the Russians invested time, energy and money into attempting to influence events in the United States in ways that would serve their interests, in the same way that we have done and do in Russia and all sorts of other countries throughout the world. So I'm not saying there was no influence, or an attempt to influence events.

But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.

This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour. It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the 1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country.

Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities, where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control. They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population that becomes restive.

The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions.

Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater.

These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.

DN: Chris, you worked for the New York Times . When was that, exactly?

CH: From 1990 to 2005.

DN: Since you have some experience with that institution, what changes do you see? We've stressed that it has cultivated a constituency among the affluent upper-middle class.

CH: The New York Times consciously targets 30 million upper-middle class and affluent Americans. It is a national newspaper; only about 11 percent of its readership is in New York. It is very easy to see who the Times seeks to reach by looking at its special sections on Home, Style, Business or Travel. Here, articles explain the difficulty of maintaining, for example, a second house in the Hamptons. It can do good investigative work, although not often. It covers foreign affairs. But it reflects the thinking of the elites. I read the Times every day, maybe to balance it out with your web site.

DN: Well, I hope more than balance it.

CH: Yes, more than balance it. The Times was always an elitist publication, but it wholly embraced the ideology of neo-conservatism and neoliberalism at a time of financial distress, when Abe Rosenthal was editor. He was the one who instituted the special sections that catered to the elite. And he imposed a de facto censorship to shut out critics of unfettered capitalism and imperialism, such as Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. He hounded out reporters like Sydney Schanberg, who challenged the real estate developers in New York, or Raymond Bonner, who reported the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador.

He had lunch every week, along with his publisher, with William F. Buckley. This pivot into the arms of the most retrograde forces of corporate capitalism and proponents of American imperialism, for a time, made the paper very profitable. Eventually, of course, the rise of the internet, the loss of classified ads, which accounted for about 40 percent of all newspaper revenue, crippled the Times as it has crippled all newspapers. Newsprint has lost the monopoly that once connected sellers with buyers. Newspapers are trapped in an old system of information they call "objectivity" and "balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy and obscure the truth. But like all Byzantine courts, the Times will go down clinging to its holy grail.

The intellectual gravitas of the paper -- in particular the Book Review and the Week in Review -- was obliterated by Bill Keller, himself a neocon, who, as a columnist, had been a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. He brought in figures like Sam Tanenhaus. At that point the paper embraced, without any dissent, the utopian ideology of neoliberalism and the primacy of corporate power as an inevitable form of human progress. The Times , along with business schools, economics departments at universities, and the pundits promoted by the corporate state, propagated the absurd idea that we would all be better off if we prostrated every sector of society before the dictates of the marketplace. It takes a unique kind of stupidity to believe this. You had students at Harvard Business School doing case studies of Enron and its brilliant business model, that is, until Enron collapsed and was exposed as a gigantic scam. This was never, really, in the end, about ideas. It was about unadulterated greed. It was pushed by the supposedly best educated among us, like Larry Summers, which exposes the lie that somehow our decline is due to deficient levels of education. It was due to a bankrupt and amoral elite, and the criminal financial institutions that make them rich.

Critical thinking on the op-ed page, the Week in Review or the Book Review, never very strong to begin with, evaporated under Keller. Globalization was beyond questioning. Since the Times , like all elite institutions, is a hermetically sealed echo chamber, they do not realize how irrelevant they are becoming, or how ridiculous they look. Thomas Friedman and David Brooks might as well write for the Onion .

I worked overseas. I wasn't in the newsroom very much, but the paper is a very anxiety-ridden place. The rules aren't written on the walls, but everyone knows, even if they do not articulate it, the paper's unofficial motto: Do not significantly alienate those upon whom we depend for money and access! You can push against them some of the time. But if you are a serious reporter, like Charlie Leduff, or Sydney Schanberg, who wants to give a voice to people who don't have a voice, to address issues of race, class, capitalist exploitation or the crimes of empire, you very swiftly become a management problem and get pushed out. Those who rise in the organization and hold power are consummate careerists. Their loyalty is to their advancement and the stature and profitability of the institution, which is why the hierarchy of the paper is filled with such mediocrities. Careerism is the paper's biggest Achilles heel. It does not lack for talent. But it does lack for intellectual independence and moral courage. It reminds me of Harvard.

DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation of this?

CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on "Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity, meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying, racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.

I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.

The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced.

DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who pitch it to them.

CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA. The CIA wasn't buying the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.

DN: It goes the other way too?

CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.

DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left."

CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.

If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this cartoonish vision of politics.

The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch.

I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis. We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.

So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with people who consider themselves part of the left.

The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!

Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors.

DN: What about the impact that you've seen of identity politics in America?

CH: Well, identity politics defines the immaturity of the left. The corporate state embraced identity politics. We saw where identity politics got us with Barack Obama, which is worse than nowhere. He was, as Cornel West said, a black mascot for Wall Street, and now he is going around to collect his fees for selling us out.

My favorite kind of anecdotal story about identity politics: Cornel West and I, along with others, led a march of homeless people on the Democratic National Convention session in Philadelphia. There was an event that night. It was packed with hundreds of people, mostly angry Bernie Sanders supporters. I had been asked to come speak. And in the back room, there was a group of younger activists, one who said, "We're not letting the white guy go first." Then he got up and gave a speech about how everybody now had to vote for Hillary Clinton. That's kind of where identity politics gets you. There is a big difference between shills for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation.

It is extremely important, obviously, that those voices are heard, but not those voices that have sold out to the power elite. The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The old feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering oppressed women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew that it is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits that prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose to be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics.

DN: I believe you spoke at a Socialist Convergence conference where you criticized Obama and Sanders, and you were shouted down.

CH: Yes, I don't even remember. I've been shouted down criticizing Obama in many places, including Berkeley. I have had to endure this for a long time as a supporter and speech writer for Ralph Nader. People don't want the illusion of their manufactured personalities, their political saviors, shattered; personalities created by public relations industries. They don't want to do the hard work of truly understanding how power works and organizing to bring it down.

DN: You mentioned that you have been reading the World Socialist Web Site for some time. You know we are quite outside of that framework.

CH: I'm not a Marxist. I'm not a Trotskyist. But I like the site. You report on important issues seriously and in a way a lot of other sites don't. You care about things that are important to me -- mass incarceration, the rights and struggles of the working class and the crimes of empire. I have read the site for a long time.

DN: Much of what claims to be left -- that is, the pseudo-left -- reflects the interests of the affluent middle class.

CH: Precisely. When everybody was, you know, pushing for multiculturalism in lead institutions, it really meant filtering a few people of color or women into university departments or newsrooms, while carrying out this savage economic assault against the working poor and, in particular, poor people of color in deindustrialized pockets of the United States. Very few of these multiculturalists even noticed. I am all for diversity, but not when it is devoid of economic justice. Cornel West has been one of the great champions, not only of the black prophetic tradition, the most important intellectual tradition in our history, but the clarion call for justice in all its forms. There is no racial justice without economic justice. And while these elite institutions sprinkled a few token faces into their hierarchy, they savaged the working class and the poor, especially poor people of color.

Much of the left was fooled by the identity politics trick. It was a boutique activism. It kept the corporate system, the one we must destroy, intact. It gave it a friendly face.

DN: The World Socialist Web Site has made the issue of inequality a central focus of its coverage.

CH: That's why I read it and like it.

DN: Returning to the Russia issue, where do you see this going? How seriously do you see this assault on democratic rights? We call this the new McCarthyism. Is that, in your view, a legitimate analogy?

CH: Yes, of course it's the new McCarthyism. But let's acknowledge how almost irrelevant our voices are.

DN: I don't agree with you on that.

CH: Well, irrelevant in the sense that we're not heard within the mainstream. When I go to Canada I am on the CBC on prime time. The same is true in France. That never happens here. PBS and NPR are never going to do that. Nor are they going to do that for any other serious critic of capitalism or imperialism.

If there is a debate about attacking Syria, for example, it comes down to bombing Syria or bombing Syria and sending in troops, as if these are the only two options. Same with health care. Do we have Obamacare, a creation of the Heritage Foundation and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, or no care? Universal health care for all is not discussed. So we are on the margins. But that does not mean we are not dangerous. Neoliberalism and globalization are zombie ideologies. They have no credibility left. The scam has been found out. The global oligarchs are hated and reviled. The elite has no counterargument to our critique. So they can't afford to have us around. As the power elite becomes more frightened, they're going to use harsher forms of control, including the blunt instrument of censorship and violence.

DN: I think it can be a big mistake to be focused on the sense of isolation or marginalization. I'll make a prediction. You will have, probably sooner than you think, more requests for interviews and television time. We are in a period of colossal political breakdown. We are going to see, more and more, the emergence of the working class as a powerful political force.

CH: That's why we are a target. With the bankruptcy of the ruling ideology, and the bankruptcy of the American liberal class and the American left, those who hold fast to intellectual depth and an examination of systems of power, including economics, culture and politics, have to be silenced. (Republished from World Socialist Web Site by permission of author or representative)

JackOH , October 9, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

I'm a moderate admirer of Chris Hedges, but he is really cooking in this interview. Too much to praise here, but his thinking that corporations, the mainstream media, and the academy can and do successfully "game" dissent by suppression, divide and conquer, co-optation, and so on, is spot on.
Albertde , October 9, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
Good but not great interview with Chris Hodges: he manages to talk about an amorphous elite without identifying any of them and not a word about Israel. So pseudo-good roally
alexander , October 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT
I think this was an excellent discussion, and I would like to thank you both for having it, and sharing it.

Among the crises effecting the United States, the one effecting us most profoundly is the absence of any accountability for the crimes committed by our oligarchic class.

Addressing this issue is ground zero for any meaningful change.

If there is no accountability for their crimes , there will be no change.

Certainly the greatest among these crimes was(is) defrauding the nation into " a war of aggression". which, being the supreme international crime, should be met with harsh prison sentences for all who promoted it.

It is important for everyone to recognize just how much damage these policies have done to the country, not just in terms of our collective morale or our constitutional mandates,not just in terms of our international standing on universal principles of legality and justice, but our long term economic solvency as a nation.

The "exceptionalism" of our "war of aggression" elites has completely devastated our nation's balance sheet.

Since 9-11, our national debt has grown by a mind numbing "fourteen and a half trillion dollars".. nearly quadrupling since 1999.

This unconscionable level of "overspending" is unprecedented in human history.

Not one lawmaker, not one primetime pundit, nor one editorialist (of any major newspaper), has a CLUE how to deal with it.

Aside from the root atrocity in visiting mass murder on millions of innocents who never attacked us (and never intended to) which is a horrible crime in and of itself,

There is the profound crisis , in situ , of potentially demanding that 320 million Americans PAY FOR THE WARS OUR ELITES LIED US INTO .

This is where the rubber meets the road for our "war of aggression-ists ", gentlemen.

This is the "unanimous space" of our entire country's population on the issue of "no taxation without representation".

WHOSE assets should be made forfeit to pay for these wars .The DECEIVERS or the DECEIVED ?

Ask "The People" ..and you will find your answer .very fast.

No wonder our "elites" are terrified to discuss this .

Absolutely terrified.

exiled off mainstreet , October 10, 2017 at 1:27 am GMT
I agree with the general tenor of this article and would further state that in addition to the Iraq thing which was a war crime and eliminated any shreds of legitimacy retained by the yankee regime that the Libya overthrow and destruction, a war crime of historic proportions, and the use of that overthrow to provide major support to the barbaric element in Syria expose the yankee regime as an enemy of civilization with all that entails, including questions of whether, absent any legitimacy, the regime's continued existence itself does not constitute a major threat.
The elements in the article discussing and exposing the New York Times and its role as an integral part of the power structure should be read and remembered by all.
Grandpa Charlie , October 10, 2017 at 6:10 am GMT

How do you interpret the fixation on Russia and the entire interpretation of the election within the framework of Putin's manipulation?

Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is an absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation -- critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.

With all due respect for Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, I would suggest that what is also and most ridiculous is the thought that it is only agents of Israel that have suborned the neocon faction within USA's government and 'Deep State' (controllers of MSM). Or is this OT? I don't think so, because if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?

Who or what interest is served by anti-Russia propaganda other than, or in addition to, just the usual MIC suspects, profiteering corporations who want to keep a supposed need for nuclear weapons front and center in the minds of Congress? Cui bono?

To be clear: I suggest that neocon office-holders within USA's government or within the Deep State (controllers of MSM) are foreign agents for at least three nations: the People's Republic of China,the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel.

(I would compare USA now with Imperial China in its declining years when it was being sold piecemeal to all the great powers of Europe.)

Who benefits from this situation and how do they benefit? All three of these countries are deeply involved in suborning members of Congress and others within the government of the USA, yet none of the three is mentioned in such a connection by the MSM or by officials of the Executive. Thus, it is beneficial to them to have suspicion thrown onto Russia and thus investigative attention deflected from themselves. A few public figures (e.g., Philip Giraldi) have made such allegations respecting Israel, more public figures have made such suggestions respecting Saudi Arabia, but very few have made the allegations in the case of the PRC.

Let's think about this in the context of history, beginning with the Vietnam War. When USA got involved in Vietnam -- which involvement began during the days of Eisenhower/Dulles -- probably the primary interest groups that swayed USA global/foreign policy were the Vatican and the China Lobby. The interests of these two lobbies converged in Vietnam. From the RC side, consider an historical event that is unknown practically to any Americans under the age of 60 or 70, namely, Operation Passage to Freedom, 1954-55.

"The period was marked by a CIA-backed propaganda campaign on behalf of South Vietnam's Roman Catholic Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem. The campaign exhorted Catholics to flee impending religious persecution under communism, and around 60% of the north's 1 million Catholics obliged." (Wikipedia: Operation Passage to Freedom )

From the side of the China Lobby – avoiding the matter of JFK's planning to dump USA involvement in Vietnam after the 1964 election – what we saw in the early years of USA's involvement, 1965-1969, was a period in which the China Lobby could push an agenda that included widening the Vietnam campaign into southern China, particularly to include the tungsten mining operations supposedly owned by K.C. Wu. Tungsten at that time was considered as having tremendous strategic value, centering on, but not limited to, its essential use in the filaments of incandescent light-bulbs. It became clear after the Tet Offensive that the entire strategy of reopening the Chinese civil war, capturing the tungsten, etc, could make sense only if Chang Kai Shek's KMT would commit its troops in huge numbers, virtually all of its troops, on the ground in Vietnam (which would have brought in huge numbers of PRC troops on the other side) -- it became, to borrow one of Nixon's favorite phrases, "perfectly clear" that expansion into southern China and capture of the tungsten operations there were not in the cards. When Kissinger talked up his 'realpolitik', what he really meant was the politics of surrendering to Beijing. So, Nixon in July 1969, recognizing that there was nothing to be gained by the loss of life and expenditure of every form of capital, ordered first of many troop withdrawals from Vietnam. It was all a done deal as of Kissinger taking over as National Security Adviser, January 1969 -- everything but the tears.

Now, patience, dear reader, this is all leading up to a certain crucial event that took place in 1971 -- namely, Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing in July (1971) to arrange for everything regarding what amounted to a surrender to the PRC, except the end of the Vietnam War. The documents are still unavailable as classified Top Secret or whatever, but clearly, China had no interest in seeing an end to the Vietnam War, because both parties – Vietnam and USA – were adversaries of China. (Let them knock each other out!) Most likely, Zhou talked Henry into doing what he could to prolong USA's involvement in the Vietnam War, not to shorten it. See, including between the lines, National Security Archives:

http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/

As noted, this stuff is mostly unavailable to us, the public, but it is clear that USA's 'leaders' (Nixon and Kissinger) wanted to make kissy-kissy with Zhou Enlai, and it was all arranged including George H. W. Bush's appointment as USA's first 'Ambassador' (in all but name) to Beijing, and including giving China's permanent seat on the UNSC to Beijing and otherwise selling out the old China Lobby. I call it the 'old China Lobby' because part of what was arranged was that the old China Lobby would be taken over by the New China lobby, complete with all the payola channels into Congress and the Deep State.

Now, I think, we arrive at today, 2017, and the failure of Trump to act on his campaign promises to oppose China in any way. Maybe he thought about it for a minute, but he was surrounded by neocons, who were already on the payroll of the PRC -- if not taking direct orders from the Standing Committee of the CCP, then at least promised to avoid offending the interests of the PRC -- on pain of losing regular paychecks from Beijing into their secret Grand Cayman accounts.

What I would like to say to Hedges. and others like him, is just this:

THEY say that you are foreign agents for Russia? Time to use a little judo on them: time for YOU to speak truth that THEY are foreign agents for the People's Republic of China.

And don't forget this potent phrase: YET NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!

AB_Anonymous , October 11, 2017 at 5:24 am GMT

"The elite has no counterargument to our critique. So they can't afford to have us around. As the power elite becomes more frightened, they're going to use harsher forms of control, including the blunt instrument of censorship and violence."

Precisely! What makes it even worse, they will be pushing this new pretexts for control sloppy (as in Vegas) and in a hurry. Which will make them look even more ridiculous and due to the lack of time will force to act even more stupid, resulting in an exponential curve of censorship, oppression and insanity. And that's there the maniacal dreams of certain forces to start a really big war in the Middle East (with or without attacking North Korea first) may come true.

Anonymous Disclaimer , October 11, 2017 at 6:03 am GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

"avoiding the matter of JFK's planning to dump USA involvement in Vietnam after the 1964 election – "

Now that's a lie. This part is a lie. Or it is carefully crafted ex post hoc mythology a la Camelot, the Kennedy Mystique.

FACT: JFK was a Cold War Hawk and during his administration increased nuclear arms higher than Ike and until Reagan.

JFK during his administration increased the number of "advisers" to a higher number than Ike.

William F. Buckley pointedly asked Senator Robert Kennedy in the mid. '60′s "So, was there any thought of the White House pulling out [of Vietnam]?

RFK: No. There never was.

If anything, had he lived to see a second term, most likely US involvement in Vietnam would have escalated as much as under LBJ, perhaps with the same disastrous results, perhaps not. But JFK was no peacenik dove.

Mr. Hedges comes across as a total whackjob, and makes Bill Moyers appear to be a gentle moderate in comparison. That he thinks so highly of race man BLM supporter Cornell West speaks volumes of naivety to the nth degree. A total cuck without even knowing it, nay, totally appreciative of being a cuck and it appears to be his hope that one day his cardinal sin of being white will be purged by peoples of color, who are his true moral and intellectual betters in every step of the way.

OilcanFloyd , October 11, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT
I agree that the Russia fixation is garbage, but explaining the populist revolt without touching on the major issue of forced demographic and cultural change through legal and illegal immigration is dishonest. Almost everyone who isn't an immigrant or the descendant or relative of a post-65 immigrant is pissed off beyond words about this! How did you miss the popular response to Trump's promises to "deport them all," end birthright citizenship and chain migration, build a wall etc.? Without those promises, he wouldn't have made it to the debates.

I'm also not sure how welfare has been stripped. What programs aren't available?

I'm not sure how to lower black incarceration rates. Having taught in inner-city schools and worked in the same environment in other jobs, I know that crime and dysfunction are through the roof. I can only imagine what those communities would be like if the predators and crooks that are incarcerated were allowed to roam free.

Greg Bacon , Website October 11, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT

Chris Hedges: It's as ridiculous as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It is an absolutely unproven allegation that is used to perpetuate a very frightening accusation -- critics of corporate capitalism and imperialism are foreign agents for Russia.

Is this the same Chris Hedges that wrote those articles in November 2001 that Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots, which led to the illegal 2003 invasion?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/wmd.html

Tell me Chris, did you know about the CIA pollution then or just find out lately? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you also write NYT articles in the Fall of 2002 saying that Saddam had WMD's?

Again, getting your tips from the CIA? Ever hear of 'Operation Mockingbird?"

jacques sheete , October 11, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT

It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy.

That's cringe-worthy.

Transformation into an oligarchy? Transformation ??? I like Hedges' work, but such fundamental errors really taint what he sez.

The country was never transformed into an oligarchy; it began as one.

In fact, it was organized and functioned as a pluto-oligarchy right out of the box. In case anyone has the dimness to argue with me about it, all that shows is that you don't know JS about how the cornstitution was foisted on the rest of us by the plutoligarchs.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for "

-Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782 . ME 2:163

The Elites "Have No Credibility Left"

Guess what, boys and girls Why did they have any to begin with?

Where do people get their faith? WakeTF up, already!! (Yes, I'm losing it. Because even a duumbshit goy like myself can see it. Where are all you bright bulb know-it-alls with all the flippin answers???)

jacques sheete , October 11, 2017 at 11:35 am GMT

Newspapers are trapped in an old system of information they call "objectivity" and "balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy and obscure the truth.

It's amazing that here we are, self-anointed geniuses and dumbos alike, puttering around in the 21st century, and someone feels the necessity to point that out. And he's right; it needs to be pointed out. Drummed into our skulls in fact.

Arrrgggghhhh!!! Jefferson again.:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 14 June 1807

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html

More deja vu all over again and again. Note the date.:

"This is a story of a powerful and wealthy newspaper having enormous influence And never a day out of more than ten thousand days that this newspaper has not subtly and cunningly distort the news of the world in the interest of special privilege. "

Upton Sinclair, "The crimes of the "Times" : a test of newspaper decency," pamphlet, 1921

https://archive.org/stream/crimesofthetimes00sincrich/crimesofthetimes00sincrich_djvu.txt

Stephen Paul Foster , Website October 11, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT
"The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace."

Look what they did to Henry Wallace -- Are you kidding me? Wallace was a Stalinist stooge, too treasonous even for his boss, FDR, although the bird brain Eleanor loved him. The guy was so out of touch with reality that after the Potemkin tour of the Gulag that Stalin gave him during WWII he came back raving about how swell it was for the lunch-bucket gang in Siberia. He also encouraged FDR to sell out the Poles to Stalin

jacques sheete , October 11, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT
I find it most fascinating that none of what Hedges says is news, but even UR readers probably think it is. Here's an antidote to that idea.

The following quote is from Eugene Kelly who's excoriating government press releases but the criticism applies as well to the resulting press reports. I found the whole article striking.:

Any boob can deduce, a priori, what type of "news" is contained in this rubbish.

-Eugene A. Kelly, Distorting the News, The American Mercury, March 1935 , pp. 307-318

http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury/

I'd like good evidence that the situation has improved since then. Good luck.

polistra , Website October 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT
Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly stated in every poster and shout and beating.

[Aug 03, 2018] Appeasement as Global Policy by James Petras

Aug 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Extracted from: Appeasement as Global Policy, by James Petras - The Unz Review

EU kowtowing to President Trump's grab for global power, has only aroused his desire to dominate their markets, dictate their trade relations and defense spending. Trump tells the EU that his enemies are theirs.

Trump believes in the doctrine of unilateral trade and 'deals' based on the principle that the US decides what you sell, how much you pay, and what you buy. The giant French oil multinational Total, which had promised to invest in Iran ,submitted to Trump and withdrew from its agreement and turned a deaf- ear to the French President

President Macron facing US tariffs on French exports bent his knee to Trump. Paris would support 'joint efforts to reduce overcapacities, regulate subsidies and protect intellectual property'. Trump heard the ring of the EU begging cup and imposed tariffs and demanded more

The EU 'vowed' to retaliate to Trump's tariffs by . . . sucking up to Trump's trade war with China. The European Commission (EC) announced it was launching a case against . . . China! Echoing Trump's allegations that Beijing was committing the 'crime' of insisting ('forcing' in EU rhetoric) foreign investors transfer technology as part of the basis for doing business.

Trump turned on Mexico and Canada, his flunky allies in NAFTA by slapping both with tariffs.

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was 'dismayed' after wining and dining Trump in an embarrassing charm offensive, Trump ate, drank, and slapped a tariff on steel and aluminum and threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In response Trudeau cited Canada's century and a half military support for US imperial wars. To no avail!

For Trump, the past is the past. It's time to move ahead and for Canada to 'buy American'.

And when Trudeau talked of imposing reciprocal tariffs on US exports, Trump countered by threatening to break all trading agreements. At which point Trudeau proposed 'further' negotiations.

Trump's tariff on Mexican steel and aluminum exports evoked the robust response of a true Treaty lackey – the Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto claimed negotiations were 'continuing' and US companies were 'involved'!

The harder Trump pushed, the greater the retreat of his EU and North American 'allies'. Facing rhetorical retaliation from the EU, Trump tweeted German Prime Minister Merkle's nose out of shape, by threatening to slap Germany with car tariffs worth $20 billion dollars.

The German Prime Minister and the head of Volkswagen broke ranks with the EU, and forgot all talk of retaliation and EU 'unity'. They embraced negotiations and proposed 'bilateral trans-Atlantic agreements based on Trump's terms!

Trump is not improvising', nor is he 'erratic'. He wields power; he knows that his competitors' spinelessness is accompanied by mutual back-stabbing and he is exploiting their appeasement, by encouraging their belly crawling.

President Trump exhibits a 'will to power'.

Appeasement in the nineteen thirties allowed Germany to defeat and occupy Europe. President Trump ,in the 21 st century. is defeating the EU and conquering its markets

Seamus Padraig , June 8, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT

Trump is not improvising', nor is he 'erratic'. He wields power; he knows that his competitors' spinelessness is accompanied by mutual back-stabbing and he is exploiting their appeasement, by encouraging their belly crawling.

As disappointed as I am with Trump on so many levels, I am still enjoying the hell out of watching this! The Euro-muppets are so weak, pathetic and contemptible. It's just so much fun watching them get kicked in the teeth by Trump over and over and over, each time crawling back begging for more. BOHICA, little bitchez!

I hope their voters are watching this too. Then we might be able to bring down this damnable 'Atlantic bridge' at the next election.

[Aug 03, 2018] Katrina vanden Heuvel We Need "Robust Debate" in Reporting on Russia, Not "Suffocating Consensus"

Notable quotes:
"... The vilification of alternative, dissenting views or linking those views to a foreign power -- in many people's views, an implacably hostile foreign power -- is the degradation of our political media culture. When Rand Paul, who is interesting on foreign policy, reminds, as The New York Times has over the last -- you know, that America has meddled in other countries' elections, has interfered, has overthrown countries' governments, and MSNBC contributors tweet "traitor"? ..."
"... - it's dangerous when you have a suffocating consensus instead of a full, robust debate. ..."
"... But I think what -- the tweeting, to call someone a traitor because they have a point of you don't agree with, we're in a dangerous territory. ..."
Aug 03, 2018 | www.democracynow.org

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL : I think what Trump did on this trip, between Europe and the Helsinki summit, is he played to his base. He's reconfiguring the Republican Party so that it becomes more consistent with its isolationist roots, its roots as going it alone, not tethered by international institutions, and also sympathetic to strongmen. I mean, I think Trump is more a con man than a strongman, but he certainly has an affinity. I don't have much use for those who say, "Look, he's guilty, because he never says a bad word about Putin." Problem is, he never says a bad word about Bibi Netanyahu, doesn't say a bad word about the Saudi leaders, nor does he say a bad word about the murderous Duterte in the Philippines. So he does have an affinity for those strongmen, which I think does lead him and guide a kind of foreign policy. So we need, as small-D democrats, to counter and not accept -- what I talked to Amy about last week -- the failed bipartisan foreign policy establishment as our default. We should not go back to policing the world, indispensable nation, but instead have a demilitarized foreign policy that truly deals with the challenges of our time, which most of are not going to be met with a military solution.

... ... ...

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL : The vilification of alternative, dissenting views or linking those views to a foreign power -- in many people's views, an implacably hostile foreign power -- is the degradation of our political media culture. When Rand Paul, who is interesting on foreign policy, reminds, as The New York Times has over the last -- you know, that America has meddled in other countries' elections, has interfered, has overthrown countries' governments, and MSNBC contributors tweet "traitor"?

And I would also mention Glenn Greenwald. We talked of him earlier. Malcolm Nance, a very ubiquitous commentator on MSNBC on intelligence and other issues, said Glenn was -- I'm going to read it, because it's so outrageous -- "an agent of Trump & Moscow deep in the Kremlin's pocket." This is -- we've seen this in our history before. And I think it is -- it's dangerous when you have a suffocating consensus instead of a full, robust debate.

And it should be about issues. Juan is right. When we fix so much on personalities, we're feeding the beast, we've seen, of media malpractice, this obliteration of the line between news and entertainment, the conglomeratization, the decimation of local news.

These are issues which collide with an administration which does want to delegitimize public accountability, if they know public accountability journalism, delegitimize any check on abuses. And we, as representatives of a media which seek to speak to the issues, seek debate, to foster, not police, debate, need to stand up and continue to do our work despite these fake news and -- people are despairing about the issue of news, about facts, about -- anyway.

But I think what -- the tweeting, to call someone a traitor because they have a point of you don't agree with, we're in a dangerous territory.

[Aug 03, 2018] Noam Chomsky on Mass Media Obsession with Russia the Stories Not Being Covered in the Trump Era Democracy Now!

Aug 03, 2018 | www.democracynow.org

NOAM CHOMSKY : So, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that's almost a joke. First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to -- calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in influence of -- foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.

I mean, one of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that elected representatives should be responsive to those who elected them. There's nothing more elementary than that. But we know very well that that is simply not the case in the United States. There's ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply comparing voters' attitudes with the policies pursued by their representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of the population, they're basically disenfranchised. Their own representatives pay no attention to their voices. They listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent -- the rich and the powerful, the corporate sector. The elections -- Tom Ferguson's stellar work has demonstrated, very conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have been pretty much bought. You can predict the outcome of a presidential or congressional election with remarkable precision by simply looking at campaign spending. That's only one part of it. Lobbyists practically write legislation in congressional offices. In massive ways, the concentrated private capital, corporate sector, super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively, overwhelmingly, to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are undermined. Now, of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you something about the way the society functions. So, if you're concerned with our elections and how they operate and how they relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a look at Russian hacking is absolutely the wrong place to look. Well, you see occasionally some attention to these matters in the media, but very minor as compared with the extremely marginal question of Russian hacking.

And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes -- Russia shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn't refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better -- right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We're very close to that. Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama. The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO . That's the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes, there's tensions at the Russian border -- and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern. The fate of -- the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.

... ... ...

And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes -- Russia shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn't refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better -- right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We're very close to that. Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama. The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO . That's the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes, there's tensions at the Russian border -- and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern. The fate of -- the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.

[Aug 03, 2018] Syria war US-led strikes on Raqqa may be war crimes, Amnesty International says

Jun 05, 2018 | www.cnn.com

Airstrikes by the US-led coalition in Raqqa, Syria, probably breached international humanitarian law and potentially amount to war crimes, according to a report by Amnesty International that is being hotly contested by the Pentagon.

The rights group accuses the coalition of killing and injuring thousands of civilians in attacks that were at times "disproportionate or indiscriminate," during its offensive to flush ISIS militants from their de facto capital. "The coalition's claims that its precision air campaign allowed it to bomb (ISIS) out of Raqqa while causing very few civilian casualties do not stand up to scrutiny," said Amnesty's senior crisis response adviser, Donatella Rovera. "On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we've seen in decades of covering the impact of wars."

... ... ...

The report, "War of Annihilation," details the loss of civilian life in Raqqa, based on interviews with 112 civilians at the sites of 42 coalition airstrikes. It illustrates the cases of four civilian families who, between them, lost 90 relatives and neighbors, including 39 from one family alone. Almost all were killed by coalition airstrikes, the report alleges.

... ... ...

The coalition's offensive in Raqqa began a year ago, with US, British and French forces taking part. Tens of thousands of airstrikes were carried out in the city, Amnesty said, adding that US forces "admitted to firing 30,000 artillery rounds during the offensive." It said US forces were responsible for 90% of coalition strikes.

[Aug 03, 2018] Latin America: Reforms Which Deform

Aug 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Extracted from: Appeasement as Global Policy, by James Petras - The Unz Review

In recent decades throughout Latin America, rulers have spoken and demanded 'reforms' as essential to stimulate and sustain growth and foster equity and sustainability. The 'reforms' involve implementing 'structural changes' which require large scale privatization to encourage entrepreneurship and end state corruption; deregulation of the economy to stimulate foreign and domestic investment; labor flexibility to 'free' labor markets and increase employment; and lower business taxes. According to the reformers all this will lead to free markets and promote democratic values.

Over the past thirty years, ruling elites in Latin America have carried out IMF and World Bank structural reforms in two cyclical periods: between 1989-1999 and more recently between 2015-2018. In both cases the reforms have led to a series of major economic, political and social deformations .

During the first cycle of 'reforms', privatization concentrated wealth by transferring public means of production to oligarchs, and increased private monopolies, which deepened inequalities and sharpened class divisions.

Deregulation led to financial speculation, tax evasion, capital flight and public- private corruption.

'Reforms' deformed the existing class structure provoking social upheavals, which precipitated the collapse of the elite led 'reforms' and the advent of a decade of nationalist populist governments.

The populists restored and expanded social reforms but did not change the political and economic 'deformations', embedded in the state.

A decade later (2015) the 'reformers' returned to power and restored the regressive free market policies of the previous neo-liberal ruling elite. By 2018 a new cycle of class conflicts flared throughout Brazil and Argentina, threatening to overturn the existing US center free market order.

[Aug 03, 2018] Would War With Iran Doom Trump by Pat Buchanan

Aug 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

A war with Iran would define, consume and potentially destroy the Trump presidency, but exhilarate the neocon never-Trumpers who most despise the man.

Why, then, is President Donald Trump toying with such an idea?

Looking back at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, wars we began or plunged into, what was gained to justify the cost in American blood and treasure, and the death and destruction we visited upon that region? How has our great rival China suffered by not getting involved?

Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran would imperil, not secure, that interest.

Mass migration from the Islamic world, seeded with terrorist cells, is the greatest threat to Europe from the Middle East. But would not a U.S. war with Iran increase rather than diminish that threat?

Would the millions of Iranians who oppose the mullahs' rule welcome U.S. air and naval attacks on their country? Or would they rally behind the regime and the armed forces dying to defend their country?

"Mr Trump, don't play with the lion's tail," warned President Hassan Rouhani in July: "War with Iran is the mother of all wars."

But he added, "Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace."

Rouhani left wide open the possibility of peaceful settlement.

Trump's all-caps retort virtually invoked Hiroshima: "Never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the like of which few throughout history have suffered before."

When Trump shifted and blurted out that he was open to talks -- "No preconditions. They want to meet? I'll meet." -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contradicted him: Before any meeting, Iran must change the way they treat their people and "reduce their malign behavior."

We thus appear to be steering into a head-on collision.

For now that Trump has trashed the nuclear deal and is reimposing sanctions, Iran's economy has taken a marked turn for the worse.

Its currency has lost half its value. Inflation is surging toward Venezuelan levels. New U.S. sanctions will be imposed this week and again in November. Major foreign investments are being canceled. U.S. allies are looking at secondary sanctions if they do not join the strangulation of Iran.

Tehran's oil exports are plummeting along with national revenue.

Demonstrations and riots are increasingly common.

Rouhani and his allies who bet their futures on a deal to forego nuclear weapons in return for an opening to the West look like fools to their people. And the Revolutionary Guard Corps that warned against trusting the Americans appears vindicated.

Iran's leaders have now threatened that when their oil is no longer flowing freely and abundantly, Arab oil may be blocked from passing through the Strait of Hormuz out to Asia and the West.

Any such action would ignite an explosion in oil prices worldwide and force a U.S. naval response to reopen the strait. A war would be on.

Yet the correlation of political forces is heavily weighted in favor of driving Tehran to the wall. In the U.S., Iran has countless adversaries and almost no advocates. In the Middle East, Israelis, Saudis and the UAE would relish having us smash Iran.

Among the four who will decide on war, Trump, Pompeo and John Bolton have spoken of regime change, while Defense Secretary James Mattis has lately renounced any such strategic goal.

With Israel launching attacks against Iranian-backed militia in Syria, U.S. ships and Iranian speedboats constantly at close quarters in the Gulf, and Houthi rebels in Yemen firing at Saudi tankers in the Bab el-Mandeb entrance to the Red Sea, a military clash seems inevitable.

While America no longer has the ground forces to invade and occupy an Iran four times the size of Iraq, in any such war, the U.S., with its vastly superior air, naval and missile forces, would swiftly prevail.

But if Iran called into play Hezbollah, the Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and sectarian allies inside the Arab states, U.S. casualties would mount and the Middle East could descend into the kind of civil-sectarian war we have seen in Syria these last six years.

Any shooting war in the Persian Gulf could see insurance rates for tankers soar, a constriction of oil exports, and surging prices, plunging us into a worldwide recession for which one man would be held responsible: Donald Trump.

How good would that be for the GOP or President Trump in 2020?

And when the shooting stopped, would there be installed in Iran a liberal democracy, or would it be as it was in Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, with first the religious zealots taking power, and then the men with guns.

If we start a war with Iran, on top of the five in which we are engaged still, then the party that offers to extricate us will be listened to, as Trump was listened to, when he promised to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

[Aug 03, 2018] Anglo America Russophobes as Fake Miracle workers; the Post Christ Resurrections

Jun 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Extracted from: Appeasement as Global Policy, by James Petras - The Unz Review

As part of the propaganda campaign to discredit and isolate Russia, the UK and the Ukraine, stalwart flunkies of Washington, accused Moscow of assassinations by poison and bullets. Both alleged victims appeared live and well in due time!

On March 4, 2018, the Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May claimed that Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Russian secret agents. Foreign Secretary Boris "Bobo" Johnson called the poison, 'the most-deadly agent known to man' (sic) – Novichok. According to "Terry and Bobo" the poison kills in 30 seconds. Two months later Sergei and Yulia were seen taking a stroll in a park.

The fake charges were promoted by the entire Anglo-Americans mass media. The UK proceeded to charge Putin with 'crimes against humanity' , backed additional diplomatic and economic sanctions, increased military spending for homeland defense and urged President Trump to take forceful action. Once the 'victims' 'rose from the dead' the media never questioned the regime's claim of a Russian conspiracy planned at the highest level.

The UK scored a few trivial merit points from Washington, which, however, did not prevent President Trump from slapping a double-digit tariff on British steel and aluminum exports (with more to come)!

The Ukraine joined the line of toadies trying to secure President Trump's approval by cooking up another Russian murder plot. This time Ukraine leaders claimed Kremlin agents assassinated one Arkady Babchenko, an anti-Russian journalist and self-proclaimed exile in Kiev.

On May 29, 2018, Arkady was found 'murdered' or so said the Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and repeated, embellished and circulated by the entire western mass media.

On May 31, a wide-eyed 'Arkady' turned up alive and claiming his 'resurrection' was a planned plot to catch a Russian agent!

Western regimes systematic use of lies, plots and conspiracies are central to the imperial drive for world power.

In Syria, the US accused Damascus of using poisonous gas against its own people in order to justify NATO's terror bombing of Aleppo's civilian population!

In Libya, Obama and Clinton claimed President Gaddafi distributed Viagra to his armed forced to rape innocent civilians, precipitating the US-EU terror bombing of the country and rape and murder of President Ghaddafi.

The question is whether western leaders will seek papal recognition of CIA directed resurrections to coincide with Easter?

[Aug 02, 2018] Stephen F. Cohen Debates Max Boot on CNN

Jul 31, 2018 | American Committee for East-West Accord

Perhaps the defining trait of neoconservatives like Max Boot is that they – for whatever reason – feel free to opine on subjects about which they know little, if anything.

Having no knowledge of history, cheap polemicists like Boot resort to ad hominem attacks when confronted by serious scholars like Cohen while cable news anchors sit by and scoff.

– Editor

[Aug 02, 2018] Prof Cohen beating Max Boot like a rented mule

Max Book demonstrates typical neocon Chutzpah (Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan) and attacks like rabid dog. Intelligcully he is nto equl to Cohen.
Q: What's the difference between a rabid dot and Max Boot? A: You think there is difference
Aug 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Aug 02, 2018] As I heard a USA female politician say about the USA Zionist lobby 'we do not like them, w're afraid of them'.

Notable quotes:
"... There is no mystery at all. Any USA politician who critises Israel knows that the end of his career is near. An opponent is financed. As I heard a USA female politician say about Jews 'we do not like them, w're afraid of them'. ..."
"... Don't forget the assassination of JFK by the CIA and their instigators. JFK and his brother Robert, at that time Attorney General, the American Zionist Committee (AZC), the predecessor organization of AIPAC, to register as a foreign agent because the AZC funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. ..."
"... Rep. Louie Gohmert recently said that, in reference to Hillary Clinton, the FBI had discovered a "foreign entity that was not Russia was getting every single one of her 30,000 emails" and further, "They did nothing". Question is: what foreign country would get a pass from the FBI for that type of behavior? ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , July 31, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT

" The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to. "

There is no mystery at all. Any USA politician who critises Israel knows that the end of his career is near. An opponent is financed. As I heard a USA female politician say about Jews 'we do not like them, w're afraid of them'.

Maybe the suspicious deaths of German politicians who criticized Israel, Möllemann, or Barschel, he would not allow Mossad to train Iranian fighter pilots in N Germany, also are factor.

Möllemann's parachute did not open, the safety mechanism was not there, it seems, Barschel went to Geneva to commit suicide.

Then we have the murders of Palme and Anna Lyndh. Anna Lyndh was to be next Swedish prime minister, she wanted an EU economic boycott of Israel.

Then there is the murder of the Dutch diplomat Ferdinand Smit, in 2000, in N Mali, he spoke Arabic fluently, Perez had sent him to Arafat. Possibly the talks were not what Perez had expected, on top of that, his ph d thesis certainly was not liked.

Ferdinand Smit, 'The battle for South Lebanon, The radicalization of Lebanon's Shi'ites, 1982-1985', Amsterdam, 2000

Ludwig Watzal , Website July 31, 2018 at 11:09 am GMT
Phil Geraldi's analogy should finally open at least the eyes of the last American dreamer of the so-called special relationship between the US and its Zionist master. It's not a mystery or a lack of guts like Phil Geraldi speculates, but 95 percent of the US Congress is in the pocket of the Zionist Lobby, and 99 percent of the US press is in the hands of "Israel Firster." The well-being of the Zionist regime is on the front burner not only for the political but also for the media class. The American people count least. When anybody meddled in the "sacrosanct" American election, which is the most corrupted election system in the world, then the Zionist regime with its fifth column, the Zionist Israel Lobby in the US. They are to blame and not Russia.

Don't forget the assassination of JFK by the CIA and their instigators. JFK and his brother Robert, at that time Attorney General, the American Zionist Committee (AZC), the predecessor organization of AIPAC, to register as a foreign agent because the AZC funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations.

JFK strongly objected to Israel's secret nuclear program. After Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded JFK, everything the assassination was concerned, was glossed over. Johnson also obstructed the solving of Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty.

Bobby Kennedy, who resigned in 1964 as Attorney General under Johnson, could only elucidate the assassination of his brother as President of the United States. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. On June 5, 1968, Kennedy was deadly wounded by his alleged assassin Sirhan Sirhan, who happened to be a Palestinian. For the American public and its political and media class, these are all real hazards.

Giraldi is entirely right that the Zionist regime wants to fight Iran on US behalf such as George W. did with Iraq. Although President Trump is at least rhetorically the most subservient US President to Israel, so, he seems not as trigger happy and politically stupid as George W. At least on his campaign trail he wanted the US out of the needless wars his predecessors started and continued. But now Trump is not only surrounded by a bunch of Zionists but also encompassed by the most hawkish adviser the US establishment has to offer, John Bolton. He wishes Iran to hell like Netanyahu.

The Zionist regime is the most significant liability the US has. This regime is fed by yearly over 3.8 billion, plus the extras in weaponry and other goodies they need to oppress the Palestinian people or against aggression from outside that they deliberately provoke. The largest interferers in US elections are Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, and the rest of the Zionist Israel lobby who make the candidates for US Congress look like obedient doggies.

How much longer will the American People still accept this farce?

Dante , July 31, 2018 at 11:14 am GMT
Superb article as usual on Jewish dominance of American Foreign policy MSM, I wonder just how many Americans realised their role in so many of the nation's problems ? After all all MSM propaganda sorry I mean news is declining and at least as far as I am aware fewer people than ever listen or watch it. Certainly it appears that people are waking up to the lies and hypocrisy at last.
Wally Streeter , July 31, 2018 at 12:05 pm GMT
Rep. Louie Gohmert recently said that, in reference to Hillary Clinton, the FBI had discovered a "foreign entity that was not Russia was getting every single one of her 30,000 emails" and further, "They did nothing". Question is: what foreign country would get a pass from the FBI for that type of behavior?

The question answers itself.

[Aug 02, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Meet VIAB Virginia's Taxpayer-Funded Israel Lobby

Notable quotes:
"... Note: VIAB rebranded itself as the Virginia-Israel Advisory Authority as part of in its recent legislative reconstitution. ..."
"... is the director of the ..."
"... in Washington and the author of the 2016 book, ..."
"... now available as an audiobook. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com . ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Meet VIAB: Virginia's Taxpayer-Funded Israel Lobby Written by Grant Smith Tuesday July 31, 2018
undefined

The Virginia-Israel Advisory Board VIAB has one key difference with scores of privately funded state chambers of commerce created to foster closer economic integration between the United States and Israel while supporting the Israeli government's policy agenda.

Originally created by an uncodified act in 2001 , VIAB has been funded by Commonwealth of Virginia taxpayers. Its charter is to "advise the Governor on ways to improve economic and cultural links between the Commonwealth and the State of Israel, with a focus on the areas of commerce and trade, art and education, and general government." VIAB is a pilot for how Israel can quietly obtain taxpayer funding and official status for networked entities that advance Israel from within key state governments.

According to emails recently released under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act , VIAB's lofty claims about creating Virginia jobs and mutually beneficial business opportunities faced growing skepticism inside the governor's office. VIAB also uses state resources to fight Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. BDS is a nonviolent movement to pressure Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights. VIAB faced intense scrutiny over its handling of funds by the Virginia State Attorney General. Resistance to public scrutiny and oversight led VIAB to lobby for more "independence" from the governor in early 2018. This move sounded alarm bells at another Israel advocacy organization which feared that VIAB could face public backlash.

VIAB's charter severely restricts who can exercise power on its board to the state Israel advocacy community. By law 13 of the 29-citizen members of the VIAB board had to be drawn from four Virginia-based Jewish community federations. Like other such federations across the nation, Virginia's are heavily involved in advocating for Israel, fundraising and hosting candidate forums. In 2017 tax filings, the four federations that provide board members to VIAB raised a combined $20 million in tax exempt funding. Like other federations, these charities uniformly claimed to the IRS that they did not engage in any lobbying activities.

Early in 2018, the federations that staff VIAB (PDF) attempted to ram through a series of controversial changes to Virginia K-12 textbooks with the help of an outside Israel advocacy organization, the " Institute for Curriculum Services ." The proposed edits to McGraw Hill, Prentice Hall, National Geographic and other publisher textbooks demanded they teach that Israel does not occupy any foreign territory and that Arabs alone were responsible for all crisis initiation in Middle East conflicts, among other dubious claims. When the stealth campaign was disclosed, it provoked an immediate " campaign for textbook accuracy " from the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights alongside prominent state educators. VCHR is a coalition of 16 organizations representing 8,000 Virginians.

VIAB makes aggressive claims about the return on investment it brings to Virginia's economy, which are then trumpeted and celebrated by the local federations. One 2010 claim asserted "VIAB has added approximately 1,134 new jobs Virginia's workforce that in turn have generated an estimated $38.4 million in state tax revenues over the past 10 years," while complaining about a cut that brought VIAB's state budget "below $130,000." However, few of VIAB's major initiatives have panned out.

VIAB's work to bring Israeli airline El Al Dulles-to-Tel Aviv nonstop flights produced nothing after a decade of announcements, online petitions and $300 million investment infrastructure forecasts. In May of 2018, VIAB lamented that despite a visit by Governor McAuliffe to El Al headquarters in Israel, Dulles airport had been passed over in favor of San Francisco and Miami for El Al's "next direct flights." VIAB lobbying campaigns, meetings, state visits and petitions could apparently not overcome lack of market demand.

VIAB maintains a veil of secrecy over some of its projects. In 2013, the VIAB board gave an aquaculture project the code name "Project Jonah" stating that "All Board members are asked to refer to the project by this code name. Leaked information could jeopardize funding opportunities from the State."

Obtaining massive state and other local funding for Israeli projects is undeniably VIAB's principal objective. VIAB boasted in 2015 that "Project Jonah has secured a $10 million grant conditional on meeting certain benchmarks including matching private funds. Other funds of at least $1 million have also been awarded in Tazewell County and additionally Virginia Tech was involved in securing $500,000 from Federal and local sources for R&D." Documents reveal some VIAB board members have business ties to the Israel projects for which funding is sought. However, the profile of Israeli activity in Virginia also reveals the success of BDS. Few Israeli companies risk boycotts through greenfield foreign direct investment in Virginia by operating subsidiaries under their own Israeli parent organization. Instead, most attempt to license technology or engage in joint ventures with U.S. companies

VIAB thrived during Governor Terry McAuliffe's administration (2014-2018). Among McAuliffe's most generous out of state campaign contributors were Israel boosters Haim Saban and J.B. Pritzker . McAuliffe was a regular at off-the-record "no press allowed" appearances before Israel advocacy organizations where he was encouraged to talk about "the Virginia Advisory Board and its successes" But internal emails reveal how VIAB chafed under open meeting and sunshine laws and the commonwealth's financial reins even under McAuliffe. After the governor's office became skeptical about VIAB's operations, VIAB deployed a strategy used for decades by Israel affinity organizations in crisis such as the Jewish Agency for Israel , the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA): a complete reconstitution.

Before stepping down at the end of the McAuliffe administration in January, Virginia Secretary of Commerce Todd Patterson Haymore complained in a private email (PDF) about VIAB's job creation claims. "I can't argue with the short annual report where they stated they helped create 127 jobs/$436k tax dollars; however, the annual report is likely the most inflated without merit that I've seen in my decade here."

VIAB's taxpayer funded anti-BDS lobbying inside the governor's office blossomed. At a July 26, 2016 meeting at the state capitol, VIAB worked to implement a legislative version of the State of New York's anti-boycott executive order . The Virginia General Assembly subsequently passed resolution HJ 177 which claimed that the BDS movement was hampering peace and preventing negotiations while claiming boycotts are not a legitimate accountability tactic. Across the nation, such Anti-boycott laws and resolutions have similarly passed with few organizations or entities claiming any financial role in lobbying for their passage. There may be a reason for the stealthy approach. Polling indicates most Americans oppose new US laws banning boycotts as a response to Israel's human rights abuses.

The VIAB came under the scrutiny of the Virginia Conflict of Interest and Ethics Advisory Council, when in July of 2017 VIAB handed departing executive director Ralph Robbins a check from the Virginia Israel Foundation. VIAB claimed the cash was not unlawful outside compensation or a bonus for a job well done, but rather a " farewell gift. " (PDF)

The Virginia Office of the Attorney General issued on May 22, 2017 a secret letter to the VIAB "regarding the selection and appointment of the position of Executive Director of the Virginia-Israel Advisory Board." The VIAB apparently considered the letter a challenge to its authority to pick and install its own executive director without the governor's interference. VIAB had already begun searching for a "suitable" successor executive director to Robbins by posting job descriptions on Israel advocacy organization websites.

In early 2018, VIAB shaped (PDF) and monitored HB1297 , a new law designed to "keep the VIAB independent" by transferring funding and oversight of VIAB from the office of the governor to Virginia's legislature and reducing the number of gubernatorial appointments from 13 to five.

After passage, the VIAB hoped it would gain the authority to hire its own staff (under the old authorizing law, the Office of the Governor served " as staff to the Board .") VIAB would also no longer be subject to the governor's oversight via control of the purse strings. VIAB chairman Norm Chaskin explained in a January 25, 2018 email (PDF) that the bill "adds back the requirement that the Governor and all other agencies shall assist the [VIAB] Board upon request We believe this will accomplish what we have been talking about in our Board meeting for the last couple of years .Adding the word 'independent' shows that we are not part of any other agency or government office, which was the original idea in establishing the board."

This VIAB independence did not include severing its state funding, since the legislation as proposed by VIAB (PDF) required, "all members shall be reimbursed for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties "

The VIAB's move worried the Jewish Community Relations Council for Greater Washington's executive committee, which warned via email (PDF) that "the request to grant Virginia's Israel development activities special status, status that no other economic development group enjoys, may draw negative attention to VIAB and result in VIAB's dissolution and absorption into Virginia's greater economic development activities."

However, the bill reconstituting VIAB passed Virginia's House and Senate on March 20, 2018. VIAB felt liberated and quickly filed to cover with state funds the expenses of its handpicked executive director and committed anti-BDS evangelist Dov Hoch's travel amounting to"$1,500-$2,000" as he journeyed through Virginia to discuss VIAB with Virginia "Legislative Services" on his way back to Israel.

VIAB quietly operates as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for a foreign country in the fifth most economically important state of the union. Whether VIAB ever faces the backlash feared by a fellow Israel advocacy organization may depend on the actions of vastly more representative Virginia-based grassroots organizations dedicated to conditioning state support for Israel on improving its deplorable human rights record.

Note: VIAB rebranded itself as the Virginia-Israel Advisory Authority as part of in its recent legislative reconstitution.

Grant F. Smith is the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington and the author of the 2016 book, Big Israel: How Israel's Lobby moves America now available as an audiobook.

Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com .

[Aug 02, 2018] This is a large book, embracing a vast amount of research. Conclusion is that accommodation with Putin will be very difficult

Events in Ukraine after EuroMaidan are notoriously difficult to understand.
The book is fairly recent and as such might be a useful introduction for a Western reader who is interested in Ukrainian event, but the material should be taken with a grain of salt. The author is way too simplistic and his views on geopolitical problems are incorrect. The idea that " Putin's Munich speech as a declaration of war" is nonsense. Also most of the readers probably know State Department talking points and can recognize them in the text.
. In some areas the author is clearly incompetent as the quote "In 2016, France blocked 24,000 cyber attacks targeting its military. Ukraine experienced 24, 000 cyber attacks in only the last two months of 2016" suggests.
The author views of Russia are typical of the US-based Ukrainian diaspora. As it is pretty much radicalized, it can be argued that it brings to Ukraine more harm then good. In short his views on Russia can be defined as cocktail of a 40% proof Russophobia with pure Neoconservatism. So while author analysis of "Post-Maydan" Ukrainian elite has its value, his view on Russia should probably be discarded.
For those who also bough McFaul book it is interesting to see correlation in views as well as differences (especially McFaul laments from page 429 to the end of the book) . McFaul was the co-architect of the 2011-2012 color revolution in Russia; and as an Ambassador became ostracized by Russian and later removed by Obama. For his role in "White color revolution of 2012" McFaul was put on the travel ban list by Russians and is not allowed to travel to the country. Both represent neoconservative stance on the events, but there are some subtle and rather interesting differences ;-)
Some Amazon reviews as one reproduced below are actually as valuable as the book itself and can serve as a valuable addition.
Aug 02, 2018 | www.amazon.com
5.0 out of 5 stars Graham H. Seibert TOP 500 REVIEWER on March 17, 2017
This is a large book, embracing a vast amount of research. Conclusion is that accommodation with Putin will be very difficult.

This is a large book, embracing a vast amount of research. Kuzio provides the conclusion to the book as the conclusion to his introduction. It is somber, but realistic:

"There cannot be a conclusion to the book because the Donbas is an unresolved conflict that is on-going. There will be no closure of the Ukraine-Russia crisis as long as Putin is Russian president which will be as long as he remains alive. To fully implement the Minsk-2 Accords would mean jettisoning the DNR-LNR which Putin will not do and therefore, a political resolution to the Donbas conflict is difficult to envisage."

Having lived in Kyiv for ten years, I was witness to the latter chapters of the drama that Kuzio describes. His account jibes with what I witnessed, and provides a coherent explanation of the events as they unfolded. The animus against Yanukovych was universal. His blatant theft was visible to all. Every merchant I dealt with lived in fear of his tax police. We saw, or more often read accounts about, the depredations of the titushki on a daily basis.

One of my key questions in 2014 was whether it might have been better to endure Yanukovych for another couple of years, until the elections. The Ukrainian people answered for me -- they had had enough. It wasn't exactly a coup, because the opposition was not well organized and because Yanukovych fled before he could be overthrown. But the will of the people was clear. He had to go. Kuzio makes a strong case that if it had not happened then, Yanukovych might have had time to secure his dictatorship in such a way that he could not be dislodged through democratic means.

Kuzio provides the most thorough and accurate description of the language situation I have ever read. A fact he often repeats is that a majority of the soldiers fighting against the Russians are themselves Russian speakers. Putin's claim that he is protecting a persecuted linguistic minority is absolute nonsense. Kuzio makes the very useful analogy between the use of English in Ireland and that of Russian in Ukraine. It is a matter of history and convenience.

Ukrainian is not a dialect of Russian. They are very distinct languages. Speaking Spanish, I was able to learn Portuguese quite easily. Speaking Russian has not enabled me to master Ukrainian. They have different alphabets and even different grammars. As a resident of Kyiv for 10 years I have not been forced to, and almost not been in a position to speak Ukrainian. Everybody I interact with is exactly as Kuzio describes – ardently Ukrainian, but nevertheless Russian speaking.

A question Kuzio does not raise is the utility of a language. For better or worse, Russian is a world language. There is a significant body of scientific literature, fiction and poetry written in Russian. It is, or was until recently, the lingua franca of the former USSR.

A lot of information about Kuzio himself is packed in the brief lead into his chapter entitled Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism: "Ukraine is in the hands of homosexuals and Jewish oligarchs. Aleksandr Dugin"

Russian philosopher Dugin is one of Kuzio's major bête noire's. Kuzio's book makes it clear that Dugin is as much of an activist as he is a philosopher. Dugin seems to have a hand in most things anti-Ukrainian. As a philosopher he is nothing – his book The Fourth Political Theory is the subject of the most savage pan I have ever written. Nonetheless, he is taken seriously by the resurgent Russian nationalists and Putin himself.

Dugin's claim that Ukraine is in the hands of homosexuals is absurd. Homosexuals are tolerated here, but they are discrete. Most Ukrainians, though they have no love whatsoever for Russia, are largely in sympathy with Russia's stand against the flaunting of homosexuality. The college-educated twentysomethings whom I know seem unaware that they even know homosexuals, though it appears to this San Franciscan that some people in our circles must be gay.

The claim that Ukraine is in the hand of Jewish oligarchs is quite another matter. Kuzio gives quite rational explanations for anti-Ukrainian, anti-Belarusian and anti-Russian sentiment, a great deal of which he manifests himself. He somehow looks at anti-Semitism as a phenomenon that is beyond explanation. I would contend that it should be regarded just as the other anti- concepts. Especially in the former USSR, where the Jews were regarded as a separate people in the same way as Ukrainians.

He writes about the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Fraud or hoax might be a better word. Internet sources name the author as a certain Russian Professor S. Nilus writing in 1901. The attractiveness of the fraud is that it coincides quite neatly with widely held opinions about the Jews, many of which have some substance.

Going to substance, Kuzio mentions some of the major Jewish oligarchs, Kolomoisky and Taruta, and some of the Jewish participants and Ukrainian politics: Yatsenyuk and Groisman. He discounts the notion that President Poroshenko's father, born Valtzman, was Jewish. I had never heard this account questioned. Other prominent Jews in Ukrainian politics/oligarchy who come immediately to mind include Feldman and Rabinowitz. It is not that there is anything wrong with Jews occupying dominant positions, but "simple Ivan" is not so stupid as to fail to notice them. It is also widely perceived that the Jewish oligarchs are no better or worse than the others, in that they put their personal interests ahead of that of the people who elected them. Poroshenko has been a major disappointment. Kuzio writes of Kolomoisky's support of the volunteer battalions in Donbas. True – but it was totally in line with his business interests.

The fact that six of the seven billionaires to emerge after the collapse of the USSR were Jewish belies Kuzio's claims that they were radically disadvantaged in the USSR. More balanced accounts of Soviet Judaism have been written by Robert Wistrich , Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Yuri Slezkine .

Even a paranoid has enemies. American Jewish neocons, especially Victoria Nuland and husband Robert Kagan, actively involved in Ukrainian politics, were strongly anti-Russian. Though Kuzio is absolutely correct that the animus of the Ukrainian people for Yanukovych was more than enough to power the Maidan uprising, it is also probably true that the CIA was covertly abetting the protesters.

Kuzio's history of the Donbas and Crimea provides a very useful background to the conflict. After the Welsh engineer John Hughes discovered coal around Donetsk in the 1880s there was a rush to exploit it. The sparse population of Ukrainian farmers was not interested in working the mines. The Russians brought in men from all over the Empire. A large number were criminals who earned early release by promising to work there. Others were simply soldiers of fortune.

Mining is dirty, dangerous and very masculine work. Kuzio reports that the history of the Donbas always mirrored the miners themselves. Politically, it sat in the middle between the Russians and the Ukrainians, respecting neither very much and casting its lot with whoever appeared at the moment to be most generous to them, more often Moscow than Kyiv.

Kuzio relates that Lenin included the Donbas within the Ukrainian SSR as a built-in fifth column, as a lever to control all of Ukraine. It remained after independence in 1991. The Donbas' unique culture and clannishness protected its politicians from probing inquiries into their dark pasts, such as Yanukovych' two prison terms. They would overlook his depredations and send him to Kyiv with the idea that "he's a crook, but he's our crook."

Crimea's history is even more convoluted, but the bottom line is that it has always been Russian speaking and did not identify greatly with Ukraine.

Kuzio reports, seemingly approvingly, that fellow author Alexander Motyl believes that Ukraine would be better off without these insubordinate, intransigent ingrates.

In the end, Kuzio sums the origins of the crisis up very well, "The roots of the Ukraine-Russia crisis do not lie in EU and NATO enlargement and democracy promotion, as left-wing scholars and realists would have us believe, but in two factors. The first is Russia's and specifically Putin's unwillingness to accept Ukrainians are a separate people and Ukraine is an independent state with a sovereign right to determine its geopolitical alliances. The second is Yanukovych and the Donetsk clan's penchant for the monopolization of power, state capture, corporate raiding of the state and willingness to accommodate practically every demand made by Moscow that culminated in treason on a grand scale. This was coupled with a shift to Sovietophile and Ukrainophobic nationality policies and return to Soviet style treatment of political opponents. Taken together, these policies made popular protests inevitable in the 2015 elections but they came a year earlier after Yanukovych bowed to Russian pressure to back away from the EU Association Agreement. These protests, in turn, became violent and nationalistic in response to the Party of Regions and KPU's destruction of Ukraine's democracy through the passing of draconian legislation, the president's refusal to compromise and his use of vigilantes and police spetsnaz for political repression, torture, and murders of protestors."

The question facing Ukraine at the moment is how to resolve the war in Donbas and how to prevent Russia from making further incursions. Kuzio shares some very useful insights in this regard.

Even in 2014, Russia simply did not have the resources to conquer Ukraine even if it had had the desire. Kuzio repeatedly makes the point that the Russian doctrine of hybrid war depends on a sympathetic or at least indifferent local populace. Even in the Donbass the Russians have not been welcomed by a majority.

Time and again, Putin proves himself too smart by half. In his desire to maintain deniability, he employed Chechens, Don Cossacks and "political tourists," thugs from all over Russia to infiltrate the Donbass as separatists. Criminals are simply not suited for either civil administration or organized warfare. After three months it was clear to Putin that he had to use Russian troops and administrators, pushing the separatists aside. Not mentioned in the book is the fact that a great many of the separatist leaders died mysteriously. Although Russia attempted to frame Ukraine for "Motorola's" death, it appears to have been done by Russian agents. Russia's trecherous duplicity neither won the war for them no fooled anybody for very long.

Russia has thus had several handicaps in capturing and holding even the small, Russophone and previously Russophile enclaves in Lugansk and Donetsk. The LPR and DPR would not survive without ongoing Russian support. They have not won the hearts and minds of the people.

This calls to mind Custine's Penguin Classics Letters From Russia on the fact that Russian duplicity and deceit made it impossible for them ever to subvert the West. Alexandr Zinoviev summed it up exquisitely in his satirical Homo Sovieticus :

"Even though the West seems chaotic, frivolous and defenseless, all the same Moscow will never achieve worldwide supremacy. Moscow can defend itself against any opponent. Moscow can deliver a knockout blow on the west. Moscow has the wherewithal to mess up the whole planet. But it has no chance of becoming the ruler of the world. To rule the world one must have at one's disposal a sufficiently great nation. That nation must feel itself to be a nation of rulers. And when it comes to it, one that can rule in reality. In the Soviet Union the Russians are the only people who might be suited to that role. They are the foundation and the bulwark of the Empire. But they don't possess the qualities of a ruling nation. And in the Soviet empire their situation is more like that of being a colony for all the other peoples in it."

This is the bottom line, something for the warmongers in Washington to keep in mind. Ukraine and NATO cannot defeat Russia on its own doorstep, but Russia can certainly defeat itself. For NATO to arm Ukraine, as the west did Georgia, or continue to crowd it as they are doing in the Baltics, is counterproductive. It would be quite possible, but also quite stupid for Russia to roll over its neighbors. The adventure in Ukraine has already been expensive, and holding Crimea and Donbas will only become more so. Conversely, for the west to arm countries against the Russians, as the US did in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Nicaragua, proved quite deadly for these supposed friends. Ukraine and the west should wait Putin out just as they waited out the USSR.

I have a couple of quibbles with the book. Kuzio uses the word "Fascist" to characterize various Russian nationalist groups that support Putin and attack Ukrainians. Fascism died with Hitler, 72 years ago. There should be a better term. This is especially true as Putin terms Ukrainians as "Fascists." The word is inappropriate, old and clichéd.

Kuzio goes on to paint the rising nationalist movements in Europe as Fascist, or extreme right wing. He excoriates Marine le Pen for taking Putin's money. There is a strong case to be made that anti-democrats, supported by mainstream parties, have seized the European Parliament and strongly suppressed free speech, open debate and the ability of such nationalists to find funding. Their national banks are prejudicially closed to Farage, Wilders, Orban, le Pen and the others. Kuzio should be more accommodating to the nationalists. Ukraine may soon find itself forced to work with them. Moreover, they have many good points. Generation Identity provides a succinct summary. It is a book of the millennial generation, the nationalists' strongest base, outlining their case against their elders, the boomers.

Ukraine is a conservative country. It is not wise to push the west's liberal agendas with regard to immigration, homosexuality, feminism and civil rights for the Roma and at the same time steel Ukraine for its fight against Russia. Even joining the battle against corruption smells of hypocrisy, as evidence of political corruption emerges all over the west. It is better to recognize the simple facts, as Kuzio does, and have a bit of faith. Ukraine managed against stiffer odds in 2014. It will survive.

[Aug 02, 2018] Putin Tongue-Lashes American Journo Who Criticized Him For Promoting Stereotypes About America

Flashback: Putin about Neo-McCarthyism
Nov 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Putin Puts in Place American Journo Toby Gati Who is Criticizing Him for Not Wanting to Admit that America is Exceptional Nation

Steve Powell , 4 months ago

I think he behaved very well towards this lady. He was polite and respectful and open. I believe everything he said. We need more like him. I do not believe for a moment all the rubbish in the news. Its quite clearly from lack of evidence (re the UK incident) or proper dialogue that the reason for those accusing Russia is purely political and Anti-Russia as per usual.

F Zulu , 4 months ago

Bravo Putin i love this man so humble and straight to the point. He literally ripped the old hog apart .

[Aug 02, 2018] Cohen - who Trump has severed ties with, was either a terrible unregistered lobbyist or ran a bait and switch operation

Notable quotes:
"... Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the probe ..."
"... Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud surrounding, among other deals, Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. - WSJ ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the probe .

Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud surrounding, among other deals, Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. - WSJ

[Aug 02, 2018] Stephen F. Cohen Debates Max Boot on CNN

Jul 31, 2018 | American Committee for East-West Accord

Perhaps the defining trait of neoconservatives like Max Boot is that they – for whatever reason – feel free to opine on subjects about which they know little, if anything.

Having no knowledge of history, cheap polemicists like Boot resort to ad hominem attacks when confronted by serious scholars like Cohen while cable news anchors sit by and scoff.

– Editor

[Aug 02, 2018] Senators Seek Crushing Sanctions For Russia In New Bill

Aug 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

In the latest effort to punish Moscow over alleged election meddling, as well its role in both Ukraine and Syria, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate Thursday that seeks to be so far reaching that it's being widely described as "crushing".

Predictably, it has as sponsors such Congressional hawks as Senators Bob Menendez, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham -- the latter which announced the bill's goal is to " impose crushing sanctions and other measures against Putin's Russia until he ceases and desists meddling in the U.S. electoral process, halts cyber-attacks on US infrastructure, removes Russia from Ukraine, and ceases efforts to create chaos in Syria," according a statement .

Via Google News

According to lawmakers' statements, the Graham-Menendez bill introduces harsh new restrictions on sectors ranging from energy and oil projects to uranium imports and on sovereign debt transactions. And the new sanctions further target various Russian political figures and oligarchs.

Bob Menendez (D) of New Jersey called the measure the "next step in tightening the screws on the Kremlin" so Putin understands "that the U.S. will not tolerate his behavior any longer."

Other supporters include Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) among those previously mentioned.

In a statement Sen. John McCain said, "Until Putin pays a serious price for his actions, these attacks on our democracy will only grow. This bill would build on the strongest sanctions ever imposed on the Putin regime for its assault on democratic institutions, violation of international treaties, and siege on open societies through cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns."

Notably, part of the legislation would require the State Department to make an assessment on whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism .

It might have trouble passing, however, as even though a broad spectrum of legislators have lately criticized President Trump for meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki last month and have charged Russia with seeking to interfere in US elections, there's concern that it could inadvertently impact markets beyond Russia's borders. It would further have to pass the House of Representatives before going to Trump's desk.

According to Reuters :

The Banking and Foreign Relations Committees are planning hearings in advance of legislation coming to the floor. Some senators have expressed concern new sanctions might go too far or not succeed in getting Putin to change course.

The Treasury Department has warned Congress against legislation that would block transactions and financing for Russian sovereign debt in part because of the pain it would wreak across markets outside Russia's borders .

The bill is considered the broadest and most far reaching of any Russia sanctions bill previously considered. Sen. Graham had recently described that it would include everything but "the kitchen sink."

Meanwhile the ruble and Russian local bonds were shaken moments after the bipartisan legislation was announced Thursday : the ruble traded down by as much as 0.9 percent against the dollar, and bond yields jumped to the highest level since July last year.

[Aug 02, 2018] Note on the level of efficiency of imperial brainwashing

Those polls now became an echo changer. As valid information is by-and-large relegated to alt-channels people who rely on MSM can't form an independent opinion about foreign policy issues. As the USA moved to the national security state model after 9/11 people also naturally stopped giving honest answers in the polls.
So the level of conforms simultaneously reflects the level of distrust and fear of the ruling neoliberal elite.
Also many spend too much efforts on earning a living to form a coherent view of foreign affairs. They just regurgitate MSM. Still while they have lingering distrust and some level of fear to ward ruling neoliberal elite, they feel that it is saver to give "politically correct answer.
So polls became an echo chamber of government policies. like with netters to Pravda: "We enthusiastically support the wise policies of our Politburo" no matter what is the issue.
Notable quotes:
"... By Bruce Jentleson ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Millennials Are Done with US Domination of World Affairs By Bruce Jentleson Posted on August 2, 2018 by Lambert Strether ... ... ...

This year, an average of all respondents – people born between 1928 and 1996 – showed that 64 percent believe the U.S. should take an active part in world affairs, but interesting differences could be seen when the numbers are broken down by generation.

The silent generation, born between 1928 and 1945 whose formative years were during World War II and the early Cold War, showed the strongest support at 78 percent. Support fell from there through each age group. It bottomed out with millennials, of whom only 51 percent felt the U.S. should take an active part in world affairs. That's still more internationalist than not, but less enthusiastically than other age groups.

There is some anti-Trump effect visible here: Millennials in the polling sample do identify as less Republican – 22 percent – and less conservative than the older age groups. But they also were the least supportive of the "take an active part" view during the Obama administration as well.

Four sets of additional polling numbers help us dig deeper.

These and other polls show millennials to have a world view that, while well short of isolationist, is also not as assertively and broadly internationalist as previous generations.

... ... ...

By Bruce Jentleson , Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, Duke University. Cross-posted from Alternet .

StephenLaudig , August 2, 2018 at 3:18 pm

"active part in world affairs" has, since 1893, usually meant invasions and bombing.
The US military, the costliest in history, hasn't won a war since 1946, unless Panama and Grenada count. Korea is still a tie. Perhaps many are coming to realize that all the US population [compared to corporations and corporation owners which show allegiance only to money] needs is a border patrol and a coast guard. Not 'our' empire.

JTMcPhee , August 2, 2018 at 4:47 pm

"War is a racket." And people like me were and are its thug enforcers (enlisted 1966 to "do my duty to God and my country," in that Vietnam place )

Romancing The Loan , August 2, 2018 at 3:27 pm

First, the United States has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for close to half the lives of the oldest millennials, who were born in 1981

They're not counting the first Iraq War.

Only 70% in favor of "globalization" is pretty good in light of our lifetime of propaganda. I'd be in favor of disbanding NATO and cutting the military and intelligence budget by 80%, at least as a starting offer.

Ultrapope , August 2, 2018 at 5:11 pm

I think you have an interesting point re: "globalization" and propaganda. In school (2000-2010ish) the term globalization was presented as a kind of antonym of isolationist. It was portrayed as an attitude of openness to other countries, travelling internationally, sharing in someone else culture, etc. The business/economic side was sort of introduced in high school, but even then I remember being taught a definition of "globalization" closer to "multiculturalism" than to one like "Imperialism". Post-high school life (and the GFC) really drove home the true meaning of the word.

To this day I still reflexively read the word globalization as something akin to "multiculturalism", despite knowing full well that it is anything but. From discussing politics with other people in my generation I also get a sense that they are operating with this weird dual (schizo?) meaning of "globalization".

Any other millennials have a similar experience with this word?

JTMcPhee , August 2, 2018 at 4:50 pm

It might be nice to see the survey instruments too, to see what the questions were and how loaded in favor of Empire or balanced (that deadly word) they were.

juliania , August 2, 2018 at 6:13 pm

I didn't much like being put into the group called the Silent Generation, so I went to wikipedia to see why it was called that.

" While there were many civil rights leaders, the "Silents" are called that because many focused on their careers rather than on activism, and people in it were largely encouraged to conform with social norms. As young adults during the McCarthy Era, many members of the Silent Generation felt it was dangerous to speak out Time magazine coined the term "Silent Generation" in a November 5, 1951 article titled "The Younger Generation" The Time article said that the ambitions of this generation had shrunk, but that it had learned to make the best of bad situations [?] In the United States, the generation was comparatively small They are noted as forming the leadership of the civil rights movement as well as comprising the "silent majority"

Ah, that's why I didn't much like it – and that was Nixon's silent majority, not me, wikipedia – not me! But I'll forgive you because down below you put me in the group called "The Lucky Few" and said how many of us were Really Good People. I'll buy that. ;))

Schmoe , August 2, 2018 at 7:03 pm

Interesting results on Millennials' view of American Exceptionalism. I am not at all surprised by those results, and I wonder if study abroad programs are having a deep impact on young people's political views. They are seeing in detailed fashion the utter horror of government-sponsored or managed healthcare, as well as how "socialism" in northern European has inflicted a very favorable standard of living on most of the middle class.

Conversely, I still have to laugh at the 2012 campaign ad sponsored by Rickets of TD Ameritrade fame that described the results of "socialism" and showed post-War Europe pictures of old ladies on the side of the road. One of my parent's friends (now in her '80s) seemed surprised that people in Europe didn't live shacks when shown my parent's vacation pictures.

[Aug 02, 2018] Trump's nationalistic blather is creating a "base" of people who believe in the godliness of the US. They are in for a very serious disappointment.

Aug 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bill Herschel , 2 days ago

Very, very slightly off-topic.

Much has been made, including in this post, of the excellent organization of Russian forces and Russian military technology.

I have been re-investigating an open-source relational database system known as PosgreSQL (variously), and I remember finding perhaps a decade ago a very useful whole text search feature of this system which I vaguely remember was written by a Russian and, for that reason, mildly distrusted by me.

Come to find out that the principle developers and maintainers of PostgreSQL are Russian. OMG. Double OMG, because the reason I chose it in the first place is that it is the best non-proprietary RDBS out there and today is supported on Google Cloud, AWS, etc.

The US has met an equal or conceivably a superior, case closed. Trump's thoroughly odd behavior with Putin is just one but a very obvious one example of this. Of course, Trump's nationalistic blather is creating a "base" of people who believe in the godliness of the US. They are in for a very serious disappointment.

kao_hsien_chih -> Bill Herschel , a day ago
After the iron curtain fell, there was a big demand for Russian-trained programmers because they could program in a very efficient and "light" manner that didn't demand too much of the hardware, if I remember correctly. It's a bit of chicken-and-egg problem, though. Russia, throughout 20th century, had problem with developing small, effective hardware, so their programmers learned how to code to take maximum advantage of what they had, with their technological deficiency in one field giving rise to superiority in another.

Russia has plenty of very skilled, very well-trained folks and their science and math education is, in a way, more fundamentally and soundly grounded on the foundational stuff than US (based on my personal interactions anyways). Russian tech ppl should always be viewed with certain amount of awe and respect...although they are hardly good on everything.

TTG -> kao_hsien_chih , a day ago
Well said. Soviet university training in "cybernetics" as it was called in the late 1980s involved two years of programming on blackboards before the students even touched an actual computer. It gave the students an understanding of how computers works down to the bit flipping level. Imagine trying to fuzz code in your head.
FarNorthSolitude -> TTG , a day ago
I recall flowcharting entirely on paper before committing a program to punched cards. I used to do hex and octal math in my head as part of debugging core dumps. Ah, the glory days. Honeywell once made a military computer that was 10 bit. That stumped me for a while, as everything was 8 or 16 bit back then.
kao_hsien_chih -> FarNorthSolitude , 10 hours ago
That used to be fairly common in the civilian sector (in US) too: computing time was expensive, so you had to make sure that the stuff worked flawlessly before it was committed. No opportunity to seeing things go wrong and do things over like much of how things happen nowadays. Russians, with their hardware limitations/shortages, I imagine must have been much more thorough than US programmers were back in the old days, and you could only get there by being very thoroughly grounded n the basics.

[Aug 02, 2018] Call to break up Russia by Latvian MP proof of NATO's hostile plans senior lawmaker

Notable quotes:
"... We should not be shy, we should offer tough resistance. Resistance not even to such statements but rather the danger of our country being split up that arises after them ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.rt.com

" We should not be shy, we should offer tough resistance. Resistance not even to such statements but rather the danger of our country being split up that arises after them ," said Kalashnikov. The Russian lawmaker also noted that the call to split up Russia clearly contradicted earlier assurances from Western nations that they have no intention of capturing Russian territory and breaking it into parts. He went on to say that it's important for Russia to counter NATO's aggressive plans and not simply trust assurances from aggressive nations.

According to Russian Defense Ministry reports, the first half of 2018 saw NATO conduct 13 large-scale military exercises – involving more than 40,000 servicemen and 2000 units of combat hardware – near the bloc's south-western borders. Russia maintained the same military strength on the " contact line " with NATO, but had to increase their combat ability through more intensive training and the introduction of new, more effective weapons.

Last week Russian defense chief Sergey Shoigu told an assembly of senior generals and officers that NATO countries have never stopped carrying out actions aimed at preventing Russia from becoming an independent player in international politics and geopolitical competitors to the nations of the Western military bloc. He also accused NATO of using all spheres of human activity such as politics, economics and even culture and sports to impose its anti-Russian agenda on as many people as possible.

[Aug 02, 2018] Chalmers Johnson Dismantling the Empire by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire ..."
"... Dismantling the Empire ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

It's been almost eight years since Chalmers Johnson died. He was the author of, among other works, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and Dismantling the Empire . He was also a TomDispatch stalwart and a friend . As I watch the strange destructive dance of Donald Trump and his cohorts , I still regularly find myself wondering: What would Chal think? His acerbic wit and, as a former consultant to the CIA, his deep sense of how the national security state worked provided me with a late education. With no access to my Ouija board, however, the best I can do when it comes to answering such questions is repost his classic final piece for this site on the necessity of dismantling the American empire before it dismantles us. He wrote it in July 2009, convinced that we had long passed from a republic to an empire and were on the downward slide, helped along by what he called a " military Keynesianism " run amok. He saw the Pentagon and our empire of bases abroad as a kind of Ponzi scheme that would, someday, help bankrupt this country.

How fascinated he would have been by the first candidate to ride an escalator into a presidential contest on a singular message of American decline. ("Make American great again !") And how much more so by the world that candidate is creating as president, intent as he seems to be, in his own bizarre fashion, on dismantling the system of global control the U.S. has built since 1945. At the same time, he seems prepared to finance the U.S. military at levels, which, even for Johnson, would have been eye-popping, while attempting to sell American arms around an embattled planet in a way that could prove unique. What a strange combination of urges Donald Trump represents, as he teeters constantly at the edge of war ("fire and fury like the world has never seen"), more war ("never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before"), and peace in our time. Amid all the strangeness, don't forget the strangeness of a mainstream media that has gone bonkers covering this president as no one has ever been covered in the history of the universe (something that would undoubtedly have amazed Chal).

Think of what President Trump has launched as the potential imperial misadventure of a lifetime, while checking out Chal's thoughts from so long ago on a subject that should still be on all our minds.

Three Good Reasons to Liquidate Our Empire And Ten Steps to Take to Do So Chalmers Johnson July 29, 2018 4,000 Words

[Aug 02, 2018] The classic method of American negotiation and warfare like the Roman before them is to divide and conquer.Even the Soviet Union and Russians were unable to make the American respect their commitments

Notable quotes:
"... I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true fighters as well as stronger economic planning. ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
The United States seems ready to give up on Afghanistan.

After the World Trade Center came down the U.S. accused al-Qaeda, parts of which were hosted in Afghanistan. The Taliban government offered the U.S. to extradite al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden to an Islamic country to be judged under Islamic law. The U.S. rejected that and decided instead to destroy the Afghan government.

Taliban units, supported by Pakistani officers, were at that time still fighting against the Northern Alliance which held onto a few areas in the north of the country. Under threats from the U.S. Pakistan, which sees Afghanistan as its natural depth hinterland, was pressed into service. In exchange for its cooperation with the U.S. operation it was allowed to extradite its forces and main figures of the Taliban.

U.S. special forces were dropped into north Afghanistan. They came with huge amounts of cash and the ability to call in B-52 bombers. Together with the Northern Alliance they move towards Kabul bombing any place where some feeble resistance came from. The Taliban forces dissolved. Many resettled in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda also vanished.

A conference with Afghan notables was held in Germany's once capital Bonn. The Afghans wanted to reestablish the former Kingdom but were pressed into accepting a western style democracy. Fed with large amounts of western money the norther warlords, all well known mass-murderers, and various greedy exiles were appointed as a government. To them it was all about money. There was little capability and interest to govern.

All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country.

For a few years the Taliban went quiet. But continued U.S. operations, which included random bombing of weddings, torture and abduction of assumed al-Qaeda followers, alienated the people. Pakistan feared that it would be suffocated between a permanently U.S. occupied Afghanistan and a hostile India. Four years after being ousted the Taliban were reactivated and found regrown local support.

Busy with fighting an insurgency in Iraq the U.S. reacted slowly. It then surged troops into Afghanistan, pulled back, surged again and is now again pulling back. The U.S. military aptly demonstrated its excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence. The longer it fought the more Afghan people stood up against it. The immense amount of money spent to 'rebuild' Afghanistan went to U.S. contractors and Afghan warlords but had little effect on the ground. Now half the country is back under Taliban control while the other half is more or less contested.

Before his election campaign Donald Trump spoke out against the war on Afghanistan. During his campaign he was more cautious pointing to the danger of a nuclear Pakistan as a reason for staying in Afghanistan. But Pakistan is where the U.S. supply line is coming through and there are no reasonable alternatives. Staying in Afghanistan to confront Pakistan while depending on Pakistan for logistics does not make sense.

Early this year the U.S. stopped all aid to Pakistan. Even the old Pakistani government was already talking about blocking the logistic line. The incoming prime minister Imran Khan has campaigned for years against the U.S. war on Afghanistan. He very much prefers an alliance with China over any U.S. rapprochement. The U.S. hope is that Pakistan will have to ask the IMF for another bailout and thus come back under Washington's control. But it is more likely that Imran Khan will ask China for financial help.

Under pressure from the military Trump had agreed to raise the force in Afghanistan to some 15,000 troops. But these were way to few to hold more than some urban areas. Eighty percent of the Afghan people live in the countryside. Afghan troops and police forces are incapable or unwilling to fight their Taliban brethren. It was obvious that this mini-surge would fail :

By most objective measures, President Donald Trump's year-old strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan has produced few positive results.

Afghanistan's beleaguered soldiers have failed to recapture significant new ground from the Taliban. Civilian deaths have hit historic highs. The Afghan military is struggling to build a reliable air force and expand the number of elite fighters. Efforts to cripple lucrative insurgent drug smuggling operations have fallen short of expectations. And U.S. intelligence officials say the president's strategy has halted Taliban gains but not reversed their momentum, according to people familiar with the latest assessments.

To blame Pakistan for its support for some Taliban is convenient, but makes little sense. In a recent talk John Sopko, the U.S. Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), made a crucial point:

"We keep referring to Pakistan as being the key problem. But the problem also was that the Afghan government at times was viewed very negatively by their local people and what you really need is to insert a government that the people support, a government that is not predatory, a government that is not a bunch of lawless warlords," observed Sopko.

He went on to say that the U.S. policy of pouring in billions of dollars in these unstable environments contributed to the problem of creating more warlords and powerful people who took the law into their own hands.

"In essence, the government we introduced, particularly some of the Afghan local police forces, which were nothing other than warlord militias with some uniforms on, were just as bad as the terrorists before them," said Sopko ...

This was the problem from the very beginning. The U.S. bribed itself into Afghanistan. It spent tons of money but did not gain real support. It bombed and shot aimlessly at 'Taliban' that were more often than not just the local population. It incompetently fought 17 one-year-long wars instead of a consistently planned and sustained political, economic and military campaign.

After a year of another useless surge the Trump administration decided to pull back from most active operations and to bet on negotiations with the Taliban:

The shift to prioritize initial American talks with the Taliban over what has proved a futile "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned" process stems from a realization by both Afghan and American officials that President Trump's new Afghanistan strategy is not making a fundamental difference in rolling back Taliban gains.

While no date for any talks has been set, and the effort could still be derailed, the willingness of the United States to pursue direct talks is an indication of the sense of urgency in the administration to break the stalemate in Afghanistan.
...
Afghan officials and political leaders said direct American talks with the Taliban would probably then grow into negotiations that would include the Taliban, the Afghan government, the United States and Pakistan.

In February the Taliban declared their position in a public Letter of the Islamic Emirate to the American people (pdf). The five pages letter offered talks but only towards one aim:

Afghans have continued to burn for the last four decades in the fire of imposed wars. They are longing for peace and a just system but they will never tire from their just cause of defending their creed, country and nation against the invading forces of your war­mongering government because they have rendered all the previous and present historic sacrifices to safeguard their religious values and national sovereignty. If they make a deal on their sovereignty now, it would be unforgettable infidelity with their proud history and ancestors.

Last weeks talks between the Taliban and U.S. diplomats took place in Doha, Qatar. Remarkably the Afghan government was excluded. Despite the rousing tone of the Reuters report below the positions that were exchanged do not point to a successful conclusion:

According to one Taliban official, who said he was part of a four-member delegation, there were "very positive signals" from the meeting, which he said was conducted in a "friendly atmosphere" in a Doha hotel.

"You can't call it peace talks," he said. "These are a series of meetings for initiating formal and purposeful talks. We agreed to meet again soon and resolve the Afghan conflict through dialogue."
...
The two sides had discussed proposals to allow the Taliban free movement in two provinces where they would not be attacked, an idea that President Ashraf Ghani has already rejected . They also discussed Taliban participation in the Afghan government.

"The only demand they made was to allow their military bases in Afghanistan ," said the Taliban official.
...
"We have held three meetings with the U.S. and we reached a conclusion to continue talks for meaningful negotiations," said a second Taliban official.
...
"However, our delegation made it clear to them that peace can only be restored to Afghanistan when all foreign forces are withdrawn ," he said.

This does not sound promising:

It is difficult to see how especially the last mutually exclusive positions can ever be reconciled.

The Taliban are ready to accept a peaceful retreat of the U.S. forces. That is their only offer. They may agree to keep foreign Islamist fighters out of their country. The U.S. has no choice but to accept. It is currently retreating to the cities and large bases. The outlying areas will fall to the Taliban. Sooner or later the U.S. supply lines will be cut. Its bases will come under fire.

There is no staying in Afghanistan. A retreat is the only issue the U.S. can negotiate about. It is not a question of "if" but of "when".

The Soviet war in Afghanistan took nine years. The time was used to build up a halfway competent government and army that managed to hold off the insurgents for three more years after the Soviet withdrawal. The government only fell when the Soviets cut the money line. The seventeen year long U.S. occupation did not even succeed in that. The Afghan army is corrupt and its leaders are incompetent. The U.S. supplied it with expensive and complicate equipment that does not fit Afghan needs . As soon as the U.S. withdraws the whole south, the east and Kabul will immediately fall back into Taliban hands. Only the north may take a bit longer. They will probably ask China to help them in developing their country.

The erratic empire failed in another of its crazy endeavors. That will not hinder it to look for a new ones. The immense increase of the U.S. military budget, which includes 15,000 more troops, points to a new large war. Which country will be its next target?

james , Jul 30, 2018 3:26:49 PM | 2

thanks b.. it would be good if the exceptional warmongering nation could go home, but i am not fully counting on it.. i liked your quote here "The U.S. military aptly demonstrated its excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence." that is ongoing.. unless the usa leaves, i think the madness continues.. i suspect the madness will continue.. the only other alternative is the usa, with the help of their good buddies - uk, ksa, qatar, uae and israel - will keep on relocating isis to afgan for future destabilization.. i watched a video peter au left from al jazzera 2017 with isis embedded in the kush mtns... until the funding for them ceases - i think the usa will have a hand in the continued madness... if the usa was serious about ending terrorism they would shut down the same middle east countries they are in bed with.. until that happens, i suspect not much will change.. i hope i am wrong..
Pft , Jul 30, 2018 3:52:04 PM | 5
I dont believe it for a second. Especially with Iran looming as a potential target. US is staying in Afghanistan also to counter China , keep opium production high and of course there is the TAPI pipeline to "protect" that is backed by US as an alternative to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline that would have tapped Iran's South Pars gas field. A hostile or unfriendly Pakistan is just one more reason to stay

Just like US will never leave Iraq or Syria, they will stay in Afghanistan. There will be ebbs and flows, and talk of disengagement from time to time primarily for domestic consumption, but thats all it is IMO.

Jackrabbit , Jul 30, 2018 4:01:30 PM | 7
It seems that an ISIS-Taliban proxy war has begun.

That will take pressure off USA to leave. Likely gives USA an excuse to stay (to supply fight ISIS).

Uncoy , Jul 30, 2018 4:19:49 PM | 11
This is a fine recap of the situation. It's much too optimistic. The classic method of American negotiation and warfare like the Roman before them is to divide and conquer. It was very successful against the American Indians.

If the Taliban get free movement in two provinces, the Americans will demand an end to attacks on their bases, their soldiers and their agents elsewhere in Afghanistan. Just as the Iroquois Confederation enjoyed special privileges in what is now Upper New York for their help against the French, the Taliban will have special privileges in their two provinces while the Americans consolidate in the rest of Afghanistan. When the Americans feel strong enough, just as with the Iroquois, they will break the previous treaties.

After the Revolutionary War, the ancient central fireplace of the League was re-established at Buffalo Creek. The United States and the Iroquois signed the treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 under which the Iroquois ceded much of their historical homeland to the Americans, which was followed by another treaty in 1794 at Canandaigua which they ceded even more land to the Americans./b

Posted by: Uncoy | Jul 30, 2018 4:03:17 PM | 8

(...continuation of the comment above, somehow got posted when I pressed the return key)

Even the Soviet Union and Russians were unable to make the American respect their commitments. The United States reneged on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as soon as it could in 2001 (Russia was on its knees), reneged on its commitments not to expand NATO east and has built ballistic missile bases all around Russia which seem to be preparation for a pre-emptive nuclear strike/war against Russia.

The Afghanis (foolish to call them the Taliban, they are traditional Afghani patriots) have always been wise enough to annihilate any invader to the last man. This salutary policy keeps invaders out for decades at a time. The Taliban have a long row to hoe. It took almost a hundred years and several massacres to finally curb British ambitions on Afghanistan (1838 to 1919). Afghanis' best hopes rely on forging tight alliances with Pakistan and China, squeezing the Americans out completely right now.

The Americans burnt their bridges with the Russian already and are in the process of burning their bridges with Pakistan while losing influence with China. The US is very short of options right now. It's the ideal time for Afghanis to reclaim the whole territory, not leaving a single American soldier or airbase operational. They'll need a technically sophisticated ally to help them clear their skies of US drones. This role might appeal to either the Russians or the Chinese. As a training exercise, extended anti-drone warfare could be very useful.

fast freddy , Jul 30, 2018 4:24:15 PM | 12
What a great success the US achieved in destroying Yugoslavia. Murdering thousands went almost unnoticed. It was able to break up the country into a number of tiny, impoverished nations and got to put a US MIC Base in most of them.

Afghanistan is one tough nut to crack.

Bilal , Jul 30, 2018 4:39:14 PM | 13
You did not mention isis-k in your analysis. Its active mostly in eastern afghanistan in areas close to or adjacent to Pakistan (it is also controlls a small area in Jawzjan, in northern afghanistan). Many fighters are formerly pakistani taliban(not to be confused with afghan taliban who are simply called taliban). Before isis-k appeared in afghanistan, the areas which it now controls had pakistani taliban presence. TTP, or tehreek e taliban pakistan was facilitated by afghan ggovernment to settle down in these areas after they fled pakistan when its military launched a large scale offensive, Operation Zarb e Azb. The afghan government planned to use them to pressurize Pakistan, basically to use them as a bargaining chip. They operate openly in eastern afghanistan, but many of them joined isis-k.

Russians estimate isis-k's strength to be between 10k to 12k, although it might be a bit inflated number. From here they plan attacks against afghanistan and pakistan alike, mostly suicide bombings as of now. They have had fierce clashes with afghan taliban in eastern Afghanistan but have held their territory for now. Afghan army simply doesn't have the capacity in those areas to confront them. It was here that MOAB was dropped but as expected against a guerrilla force, it was ineffective in every way. But it did make headlines and has helped US in giving an impression its seriously fighting ISIS. The reports of unmarked helicopters dropping god-knows-what have also been coming from these areas. Hamid karzai mentioned that and also maria zakharova asked afghan gov. and US to investigate that which shows these are not just rumors. Recently intelligence chiefs of Pakistan, russia, iran and china as well(if i remember correctly) met in islamabad to discuss isis-k in afghanistan, no details other than this of this meeting are available.

In Northern afghanistan, in Jawzjan, fierce clashes broke out between taliban and isis-k after taliban commander in thiae areas was beheaded. ISIS-k has been beaten up pretty badly there but clashes are ongoing. Many areas have been cleared but fighting is still ongoing. An interesting aspect is taliban sources claiming that whenever they come close to a decisive victory, they have to stop operations becauae of heavy bombardment by US planes. They made similar claims when fighting daesh in eastern afghanistan. Anyway in a few days isis presence will probably be finished in Jawzjan. ISIS fighters who have survived have done so by surrendering to afghan forces. They will probably end up back in eastern afghanistan.

Red Ryder , Jul 30, 2018 4:49:21 PM | 14
Next Target for a long war?

Africa. US AFRICOM has a huge playground, tactics won't change and logistics is far easier.

There also will be a long Hybrid wr against Iran, but that will be much like the early days of Syria. Proxies as "moderates". Insurgents, not US troops. ISIS and AQ crazies will be on the ground.

The big money will go into Africa. You want to see Trillions "spent"? It will be Africa.

Robert Snefjella , Jul 30, 2018 4:55:49 PM | 15
The decision to invade Afghanistan had been taken before the 9/11 false flag coup. Had nothing much to do with the CIA's al-Qaeda mercenaries.

As I understood it, there were many agendas at work: testing weapons and making money for the MIC; controlling the lucrative (how many hundreds of billions of dollars ?) opium/ heroin production/profiteering; military bases relating to Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and other ...stans, etc; control of oil and gas pipelines; access to increasingly valuable and sought rare earth minerals; proximity to oil and gas actual and potential.

More generally, subjugating Afghanistan was a necessary part of the 'full spectrum dominance' 'we will rule the earth' doctrine, dear til recently to too many mad hatters, and still evoking a misty eyed longing in some, no doubt.

NemesisCalling , Jul 30, 2018 5:00:17 PM | 16
Ahhh...the US produces some of the lamest euphemisms approved for all audiences; such as "Afgahn Security Forces." So sterile, innocuous. And benign. How could anyone question their plight? (We did pick up the game a little bit in Syria with "Free Syrian Army..." Can I get a hell yeah?) All the people hearing this in the US could do was shrug their shoulders and speak, "I guess I should support them." That is, of course, after we took out OBL and the mission in Afghanistan was a little more opaque. Just a little bit. Anyways...Hell, yeah! Get some!

Thanks b for the brief history. Really invaluable.

StephenLaudig , Jul 30, 2018 5:26:35 PM | 17
Afghani patriots, resisting invaders since 330 BCE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan
The US military, the planet's costliest losingest military since 1946. The US military, like its munitions manufacturers, doesn't win but it does get paid and is why we can have nice things like oh, decent health care. Lack of health insurance kills more Americans than the Russians ever will. The Russians aren't the enemy, Trump is. Lobbyists are too.
Eugene , Jul 30, 2018 5:39:35 PM | 18
I haven't read anything about Blackwater wanting to replace the U.S. Military in Afghanistan. Of course, the U.S. Treasury would continue to shovel those pallet loads of newly printed $100.00 bills down the Blackwater hole. Any odds this might go forward from anyone's opinion?
Willy2 , Jul 30, 2018 5:45:04 PM | 19
- The US already started to plan an invasion of Afghanistan in januari & february of 2001.
adam gadahn , Jul 30, 2018 5:45:40 PM | 20
robin cook before he was murdered stated that alqueda was a cia data base.
i believe bresinski knew obl as tim osman who was later killed by cia mi6 man omar blah blah sheikh bhutto of pakisyan was assasinated after spilling the beans about sheikh.

christopher bolleyn on you tube will give you the sp on what 9 and 11 was shirley we are past the point of the offecal theory.
the turd burger that is the official theory is clearly the worst and lowest grade of all the conspiracy theories.
the taliban where in barbera bushes texas talking lithium opium and oil pipelines with the paedo bush crime syndicate before 9 and 11

marvin bush ran security at the twin towers

christopher bollyn is the go to man in these regardings

http://www.bollyn.com/

Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 5:55:31 PM | 21
The US wants peace talks but wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. US under Trump has built new bases in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait.
SDF have been talking with Syrian government, and US in Talks with Taliban. Are these just moves to buy the US a little time until it launches the war Trump has been building the US military up for.
dahoit , Jul 30, 2018 6:00:22 PM | 22
Trump is?What about the neocons who started this f*ck up.
adam gadahn , Jul 30, 2018 6:02:02 PM | 23
alas not a nice number 13 bilal

isis is israeli counter gang with support of usa usa and the city of london,ukrainian,polish,uk sas,cia,kiwi,aussie,jordanian and donmeh satanic house of saud.

talking of isis as if it is real entity rather than a frank kitson gang counter gang and pseudo gang is polluting the well.

who has been providing extraction helicopters from syriana for the last 14 months.
who has been washing these bearded devils operating on them in kosher field hospitals making them well shiny and new
who?
scchhhhh you know who

Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 6:13:36 PM | 24
From Russian Ministry of Foriegn Affairs 25 March 2018.

http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3139715
"We are alarmed by the growing number of terrorist activities being carried out by the Taliban who stage armed attacks across Afghanistan, as well as by the increased ISIS presence in Afghanistan's northern provinces that border CIS countries.

We are concerned about reports regarding the use of helicopters without any identification marks in many parts of Afghanistan that are delivering terrorists and arms to the Afghan branch of this terrorist organisation. We believe that reports to this effect made by Afghan officials should be thoroughly investigated."

Willy2 , Jul 30, 2018 6:27:53 PM | 25
- Of course. The US wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. Surprise, surprise.
In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village Hajji, the writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit. The only question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous it will be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam War (1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and the Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be even more severe.

Posted by: VietnamVet , Jul 30, 2018 7:06:37 PM | 26

In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village Hajji, the writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit. The only question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous it will be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam War (1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and the Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be even more severe.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jul 30, 2018 7:06:37 PM | 26 /div

james , Jul 30, 2018 7:21:13 PM | 27
@uncoy.. i basically see it like you, however another proxy war involving usa-russia-china sounds like a running theme now...

@13 bilal.. good post.. i agree about the analysis missing much on isis presence in afgan as @6 jr also points out.. i think it is a critical bit of the puzzle.. it appears the usa is using isis as a proxy force, as obama previously stated with regard to syria... the usa just can't seem to help themselves with their divide and conquer strategy using isis as part of it's methodology... it's exact opposite of what they profess..

@18 eugene.. isn't blackwater or whatever they're called now - headquartered in uae? perfect place for them, lol... right on top of yemen, afgan, and etc. etc.. if isis can't do the job for the west thru their good friends ksa, uae - well, then maybe they can pay a bit more and get blackwater directly involved too..

dltravers , Jul 30, 2018 7:41:30 PM | 28
Trump is serious when he said he would talk to anybody. The CIA is alleged to have been stirring the pot with Islamic militants prior to the Soviet invasion when the country went full socialist. I would suspect the Russians had a hand in that in 1978. US intelligence was said to be helping along the backlash to socialism by Islamic militants back then in 1978. The CIA station chief was promptly assassinated the next year.

Obviously you could dump 600,000 NATO and US soldiers into the country and not control it short of executing every Muslim. What a foolish endeavor but what would you expect from these buffoons and their death cult? These human sacrifices are holy to them. They worship blood, death, power and money.

With their loss in Syria the NEOCONS can now make peace with the Taliban and use them and ISIS to push into old Soviet Central Asia in an attempt to deny them what the Anglo American Zionist alliance cannot have at this time, control of the commodities.

China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place. Even the Brits knew when it was time to leave India and their Middle Eastern holdings. They realized the costs of containment would wipe out their country.

Harry , Jul 30, 2018 7:53:57 PM | 29
@ Patrick Armstrong | 10
I still think Trump wants to cut the Gordian Knot and get the USA out of all this crap. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/trump-i-am-ready-to-meet-with-iran-anytime-they-want-to.html

No he doesnt, along with Israel and neocons. There was already nuclear deal, and US was out of "all this crap", so why introduce Gordian Knot if he doesnt want it?

What Trump demands is Iran's surrender. 'b discussed it at length some time ago, the list of Trump's demands is completely ridiculous and the goal is Iran as a client state.

From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to meet, it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt worth a toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even endeavor to negotiate dead from the get go.

Curtis , Jul 30, 2018 7:54:05 PM | 30
Congress went along with the Pentagon's 7 countries in 5 years plan. No investigation of 9/11 or even consideration of Ron Paul's bringing in an old idea of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
As to the US leaving the warlords in power to continue opium production, etc, Van Buren (We Meant Well book) said some of the same happened in Iraq with some sheikhs still holding power in local areas. General Garner looked forward to going in to rebuild (and was promising quick elections) but was shocked to see no protection of ministries (except oil) which were looted and burned. And then Bremer was put in charge. Complete mismanagement of the war, the aftermath, etc. Like someone once said, if they were doing these things at random you would expect them to get it right once in a while.

The Kunduz Airlift which allowed Pakistan a corridor to fly out Pak officials, Taliban, and possibly al Qaeda was yet another snafu like paying Pakistan to supposedly block any escape from their side of Tora Bora only to have a long convoy leave at night. It made one wonder about the US supposed air superiority/domination. Again, complete mismanagement.

A comparison to the end situation in VietNam 1975 is apt.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 8:11:57 PM | 31
Trump meeting Rouhani. Trump saays he wants a better deal. The nuke agreement took years to negotiate and Iran accepted far more stringent inspections than any other country signed up NPT. There is nothing more for Iran to negotiate other than to give away their sovereignty.
The offer of a meeting by Trump is more along the line of "we tried to avoid war".
The US under Trump have scrapped the nuke agreement and made demands that are impossible for Iran to meet without giving away its sovereignty.
Red Ryder , Jul 30, 2018 8:21:00 PM | 32
Erik Prince's plan for fighting in Afghanistan.
He presented it to the WH. Military rejected it.
He is no longer Blackwater-connected.
Frontier Services Group Ltd. is his new military-security services corp.
He has extensive contracts with the Chinese government and their SOEs overseas.

This was a trailer he made to explain his concept. He still wants to do this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjhPSaqBj1c

spudski , Jul 30, 2018 8:38:09 PM | 33
Peter AU 1 @31

I fear you're absolutely right.

occidentosis , Jul 30, 2018 9:08:50 PM | 34
did you see General Souleimani answer's to Trump rabid tweet

it went like this

Our president doesnt lower himself to answer someone like.I, a soldier answer someone like you, you re someone who speaks in the vocabulary of a cabaret owner and a gambling house dealer.(paraphrasing saker has the video on his site)

and then he went on to describe how your cowad troops wore adult diapers in Afghanistan and Iraq

fairleft , Jul 30, 2018 9:25:35 PM | 35
China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place.

dltravers @28

No. China, being development-oriented rather than imperialist, will leave Afghanistan alone. China and Russia, but especially China, requires an Afghanistan that is not a U.S.-controlled terrorist base. Because China needs the oil/gas link that it is building through Pakistan to access Gulf energy resources, and that energy corridor would be the primary target of U.S.-hired mercenaries ('terrorists').

How Afghanistan manages itself in the post-U.S. era is Afghan business, but it will almost certainly involve the Pashtun majority (in the form of the 'Taliban') retaking power in Kabul but with the traditional huge amounts of autonomy for the provinces. That arrangement reduces pressure by Pashtun nationalists in Pakistan against Pakistan's government, and in general seems to be the long-term stable set up, and stability is what China has to have in Afghanistan.

Now is the time with perfect China partner Khan and the Pakistan military firmly in power. Not instant, but over the next two years I think we'll see the Taliban's fighting capacity hugely improve, with transfers of supplies, weapons and intelligence from Pakistan. It would be very smart for Trump to get out in 2019. History is going to accelerate in that region.

S , Jul 30, 2018 9:31:48 PM | 36
Which country will be its next target?

I know I'm in the minority here, but I worry a lot about Venezuela. See, it's a perfect fit for the U.S. economy. U.S. shale oil is way too light to be useful, while Venezuelan oil is way too heavy to be useful. They are destined for each other, i.e. to be mixed into a blend that would be a good fit U.S. refineries. Plus, Venezuela is very import-dependent and thus would make for a good vassal. It also has a rabid capitalist class that will do anything -- any kind of atrocity or false flag -- to return to the good old days of exploitation. "But Venezuela has a lot of arms!", I hear you counter. True, but the people are severely demoralized because of the extreme economic hardship. Think of the USSR in late 80s/early 90s. It had the most powerful military in the world, and yet people were so demoralized and disillusioned with the old system that they simply chose not to defend it. Same thing may happen in Venezuela. After Colombia has signed peace accords with FARC, U.S. has been steadily increasing its military presence in Colombia. I think there is a very real possibility of a naval blockade combined with supply lines/air raids from Colombia supporting the "Free Venezuelan Army" assembled from Venezuelan gangs and revanchist capitalists and foreign mercenaries. It would be logistically impossible for Russia or China to provide military help to far-away Venezuela. Neighbors will not come to the aid of Venezuela either as there is a surge of pro-U.S. right-wing governments in the region.

ben , Jul 30, 2018 9:33:25 PM | 37
Any moves the U$A makes will have to be approved according to which natural resources their corporate masters covet at any particular moment. Lithium and other rare earth minerals, strategic importance, whatever the corporate form needs to stay on top globally, will dictate what the empire does.

Leave Afghanistan? I very much doubt it.

DJT will do what the "puppet masters" desire. Just like all his predecessors.

Profits uber alles!!

fairleft , Jul 30, 2018 9:36:15 PM | 38
'Correction': No reliable census has been done in decades, but I don't think the Pashtun are the majority in Afghanistan. They
are by far the largest minority however. British 'divide and rule' stategists long ago deliberately separated them into Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 9:40:53 PM | 39
s 36

Venezuela and Iran have two things in common. Both have large oil reserves and neither recognize Israel.
Trump's wars will be about destroying enemies of Israel, and at the same time, achieving global energy dominance.

Chipnik , Jul 30, 2018 9:58:21 PM | 40
I've posted this before. I met a Taliban leader and his two guards in a brutal area during the Hearts and Minds Schtick, preparatory to Cheney getting all the oil and gas, and copper and iron and coming coal lease awards.

He was a nice guy, the Taliban leader. His guards looked at me with absolute death in their eyes. Not wanting them to hear him, as we finished our tea, the Taliban leader leaned close, then whispered, 'I love your Jesus, but I hate your Crusaders.'

And I take issue with the US 'incompetence' meme. Ever since Cheney hosted the Taliban in Texas in 1998, trying to get a TAPI pipeline, the US has deliberately and cunningly taken over the country, assassinated the local-level leadership, and installed their foreign Shah, first Karzai, then Ghani.

In that time of occupation, 18 years, Pentagon MIC disappeared TRILLIONS in shrink-wrapped pallets of $100s, and ballooned from $340B a year, to now Trump is saying $840B a year.

That's not incompetence. Just the opposite.

Now, to honor my Afghan friends, who love to joke even after 35+ years of machine warfare, a joke I wrote in their honor:

Ring ring ring ring

"Office of the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan!"

"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."

"Hold please."

President Reagan, it's the Iranian ambassador!"

"Well hello Mr. Assinabindstani, what can I do for you?"

"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."

"Well I'll get my staff right on it."

[Intercomm clicks]

"Hey Ollie, the Ayatollah wants more guns! Step on it!"

Chipnik , Jul 30, 2018 10:10:55 PM | 41
38

Actually, the British paid an annual tithe-tribute the the Afghan king to stop raiding their India holdings, and agreed to a neutral zone between them. Then when the British pulled out, they declared the neutral zone as Pakistan and shrunk India away from Pashtun territory to create a bigger divide. The Afghan leaders had no say in the matter. I believe Baluchistan was also carved away. At one time, Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley. There is no way to defeat a nation of warriors who created a kingdom that vast, while William the Conqueror was still running around in bear skin diapers.

dh , Jul 30, 2018 11:03:19 PM | 42
@41 'Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley.'

You are probably referring to the Khalji Dynasty, a brutal bunch, who ruled India from 1290 to 1320 by which time William the Conqueror was long dead. You would be a lot more credible if you got your history right.

Lozion , Jul 30, 2018 11:30:50 PM | 43
@42 dh is correct. Afghan territory was in the Persian sphere of influence much longer compared to the Mughal/British/Indian periods..
Charles Michael , Jul 31, 2018 12:19:59 AM | 44
IMHO the military Budget increase, and what an increase it is!
is part of worsening an already outrageous situation to reach a caricatural point. Typical of trump repeated special "art".
Of course Nobody in USA, no President can go against the MIC and Pentagon.
But money is cheap when you print it.

It is sugaring the intended shrinking of foreign deployments (as in NATO), closure of "facilities" and replacing them officially with total deterrence capacities (Space Forces anybody ?).
While keeping classical projection capacities for demonstration against backward tribes.

Guerrero , Jul 31, 2018 12:21:04 AM | 45
That is an excellent account. Who can help rooting for the Afghanis to get their country back?

The economics of empire are always upside down; the homeland people end up shelling out for it.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 31, 2018 12:26:51 AM | 46
...
From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to meet, it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt worth a toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even endeavor to negotiate dead from the get go.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 30, 2018 7:53:57 PM | 29

Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if you feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what Iran wants it to mean.

Trump jumped into the NK and Putin talks first because both were eager to talk. Iran will be a good test of Trump's seduction skills. All he's got to do is persuade the Iranians that talking is more useful than swapping long-distance insults. Iranians are rusted onto logical principles and Trump will find a way to appeal to that trait, imo.

Ian , Jul 31, 2018 12:41:07 AM | 47
Which country will be its next target?

Iran.

Debsisdead , Jul 31, 2018 1:11:58 AM | 48
It's too late for the afghanis who have been driven into the urban areas during the regulaar 'Afghanistanisation' campaigns. Most of them will have become hooked on consumerism and the necessity of dollars.
That leaves only two options for the Taliban when they take over as they undoubtedly will altho that is likely to mean having to tolerate clutches of obese amerikans lurking in some Px strewn green zone, the inhabitants of which are likely to have less contact with people from Afghanistan than any regular user of a Californian shopping mall. The new government can ignore the consumerists even when these rejects insist on getting lured into some nonsense green revolution - the danger with this isn't the vapid protests which can easily be dealt with by fetching a few mobs of staunch citizens from rural Afghanistan who will quickly teach them that neither cheeseburgers nor close captioned episodes of daytime television provide sufficient nutrition to handle compatriots raised on traditional food and Islam. Or the new administration can do as other traditional regimes have done many times over the last 80 years or so, purge the consumerists by disappearing the leadership and strewing empty lots in the urban areas with mutilated corpses of a few of the shitkicker class consumerists. That option can cause a bit of a fuss but it (the fuss) generally only lasts as long as the purge.

I suspect the Afghan government will favour the latter approach but they may try to hold off until the North has been brought back into line. OTH, consumerism is a highly contagious condition so, unless the North can be pacified speedily which seems unlikely, initially at least the Taliban adminsitration may have to fight on two fronts, agin the North while they nip urban consumerists in the bud before those confused fools can cause any highly publicised in the west but in actuality, low key, attempted insurrection.
My advice to the gaming, TV or cheeseburger addicted inhabitants of Kabul would be to volunteer your services to the amerikan military as a 'translator' asap and join yer cobbers in California.
It is unlikely that you will bump into Roman Brady especially not when he is in one of his avuncular moods, but if you stay outta Texas, Florida or any other part of flyover amerika chocka with alcohol induced blowhardism, you will discover than amerikan racism isn't as lethal as it once was.

Apart from having to ignore being jostled in the line at fast food joints and being loudly and incorrectly termed a motherf**in sand n***er mid-jostle. Certainly a whole lot less lethal than trying to cover your Fortnite jones by waving a badly copywritten sign in front of the al-Jazeera cameras for a one month battle pass .

AV17 , Jul 31, 2018 1:49:03 AM | 49
This retreat is to focus resources on Iran. Nuclear Winter it is!
Daniel , Jul 31, 2018 2:05:21 AM | 50
What was happening in Kabul, Afghanistan less than 8 hours after the WTC Towers turned into dust in midair? Who here remembers the massive bombing/cruise missile attack?

Here is CNN's transcript:

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "Well, Joie, it's about 2:30 in the morning here in Kabul. We've been hearing explosions around the perimeter of the city. We're in a position here which gives us a view over the whole city. We just had an impact, perhaps a few miles away.

"If I listen, you can hear the ripple of explosions around the city. Perhaps you heard there. The fifth explosion -- sixth explosion, I think. Gun bursts and star bursts in the air. Tracer fire is coming up out of the city. I hear aircraft flying above the city of Kabul. Perhaps we've heard half a dozen to 10 detonations on the perimeter of the city, some coming from the area close to the airport. I see on the horizon what could be a fire on the horizon, close, perhaps, to where the airport might be. A flash came up then from the airport. Some ground fire coming up here in Kabul."

"I've been in Belgrade and I've been in Baghdad and seen cruise missiles arrive in both those cities. The detonations we're hearing in Kabul right now certainly sound like the detonations of loud missiles that are coming in. "

"Certainly -- certainly it would appear that the Afghan defense systems have detected a threat in the air. They are launching what appears to be anti-aircraft defense systems at the moment. Certainly, I can see that fire that was blazing on the horizon. It was a faint yellow; it's now a bright orange blazing. Several other detonations going off around the city, multiple areas. Rockets appear to be taking off from one end of the airport. I can see that perhaps located about 8 or 9 miles away from where we stand, Joie."

The bombing/explosions continue for 10+ minutes of this broadcast.

Then, they cut to WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: who says the US is only collecting intelligence. He says what we're seeing must be part of the "Civil War" (despite the fact that neither side had an air force or cruise missiles). The Pentagon later denies knowing anything about it.

Then, CNN returns to Nic Robertson, who- within 15 minutes of his first report - begins to change his tune. Suddenly, the jet sounds are not mentioned. The cruise missiles (jet engines) have transformed into possible rockets. The airport fire is now an ammunition dump.

And voila! They lose their connection and Nic will not be heard from again. And this little bit of history will essentially disappear.

CNN video archive (attack report starts at 7:43).

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.61.html

NPR had a reporter in Kabul that night. He apparently didn't notice the massive bombing, at least in his memoir 15 years later.

Mishko , Jul 31, 2018 2:07:19 AM | 51
Dear Mr. B,
"All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country."
These mistakes are by design. To cause and keep causing destabilisation.

I like to refer to it as the 3-letter Scrabble method of doing things.
Me living in the Netherlands as I do, let me take the example of Greece.
Greece had its regime changed in 1948 (Wiki says 46-49).
And how is Greece doing these days? ...

Plasma , Jul 31, 2018 2:16:47 AM | 52
@37 yep, gotta agree with the more passimistic outlook here. Personally i'll eat my shoes if US leaves Afghanistan within any reasonable time frame. In addition to plentiful natural resources, there are very influential vested interests in Afghanistans booming opium industry.
Quentin , Jul 31, 2018 2:20:09 AM | 53
Off topic: Andrei Nekrasov's 'Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes' can be viewed in full on You Tube at this moment (31 July, 08:15 Amsterdam time). Can it also be seen in the USA, I wonder? How long will it take before Google take it down ? Watch it and learn about one of the main drivers of the Russia obsession.
Andreas Schlüter , Jul 31, 2018 3:35:18 AM | 54
The US (Neocon dominated) Power Elite has only one strategy left for that Region: destabilization and chaos to serve as a barrier against the Project of the Eurasian Cooperation!
See:
„Geo-Politics: The Core of Crisis and Chaos and the Nightmares of the US Power Elite" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/geo-politics-the-core-of-crisis-and-chaos-the-nightmares-of-the-us-power-elite/
And on the recent developments:
"US Politics, Russia, China and Europe, Madness and Strategies": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/us-politics-russia-china-and-europe-madness-and-strategies/
Best regards
Harry , Jul 31, 2018 4:35:59 AM | 55
@ Hoarsewhisperer | 46
Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if you feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what Iran wants it to mean.

White House just explained what Trump's "no preconditions" means: 1) Iran should at the core change how it deals with its own people. 2) Change its evil stance in foreign policy. 3) Agree on nuclear agreement which would REALLY prevent them making a nuke.

In other words, Iran should capitulate and become a client state, thats what Trump means by "no preconditions."

venice12 , Jul 31, 2018 4:53:03 AM | 56
@eugene #18

https://taskandpurpose.com/blackwater-eric-prince-afghan-war-plan/

"Blackwater Founder Erik Prince's Afghan War Plan Just Leaked, And It's Terrifying "

Tis was 8 months ago.

et Al , Jul 31, 2018 5:04:41 AM | 57
Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires!

When I heard old hand Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (what a name!) was heading back it was clear that things were afoot.

China's been trying to get in for a while, the Mes Aynak mine for example, but nothing much has happened.

Afghanistan is sitting on huge amounts of valuable mineral resources (an estimated $3t) but remains dirt poor...

ashley albanese , Jul 31, 2018 6:42:37 AM | 58
In any hot clash with China the U S would be very exposed in Afghanistan .
Mark2 , Jul 31, 2018 6:51:36 AM | 59
At this advanced stage of American insanity, I don't see why the devil should have all the best tunes. I'm sick of the yanks doing this shit in over people's county's ! While they stuff there fat faces with burgers and donuts! The dirty games they play on over country's, should now be played in America with all the brutality that they have used on others. Until that happens things world wide will continue to detriate. Natural justice is all that remains. They'v curupted all else.
Yeah, Right , Jul 31, 2018 7:09:00 AM | 60
@19 "The US already started to plan an invasion of Afghanistan in januari & february of 2001."

Well, to be fair the USA probably has plans to invade lots of countries.

Indeed, it would be more interesting to consider how many countries there are that the USA *doesn't* have invasion plans gathering dust on the shelves.

Not many, I would suggest.

Mark2 , Jul 31, 2018 7:41:56 AM | 61
It's just been reported on the bbc news---- the man responsible for the Manchester bombing had been 'rescued from Lybia when Gadafi was overthrown and tracked ever since. Even in Britain up to the day of the bombing ! And now on this post we discuss America uk transporting terrorists from Syria to Afghanistan . Not to mention the white helmet bunch and where Ther going! The Manchester bombing, Westminster bridge and London Bridge atacks were done by the Tory party to win a general election ! This is the reality of the world we live in.full on oppression !!!
TG , Jul 31, 2018 8:26:48 AM | 62
Indeed, I agree with the sentiments here. But missing a big part of the picture.

Afghanistan and Pakistan have sky-high fertility rates. Forget the rubbish peddled by economist-whores like Milton Friedman, under these conditions no country without an open frontier has ever developed into anything other than a larger mass of poverty. In Pakistan something like half the children are so malnourished that they grow up stunted, and it is this misery that is starting slow population growth. Pakistan is yet another example of the Malthusian holocaust, which is not a global catastrophe: it is slow grinding poverty that results when people have more children than they can support.

Bottom line: these places will remain poor and unstable no matter what lunacy the United States does or does not do. The traditional approach to such places is to leave them alone, and only keep them from escaping. Bottled up, the Afghanis and Pakistanis will kill only each other. 9/11 is a consequence of allowing people from these places free access to the Untied States.

The 'war on terror' is a consequence of 'there shall be open borders.' It's a big and messy world, and even if the government of the United States was not criminally incompetent, there would be a lot of misery and hatred in it. Open borders means that now the Untied States has to intervene in every country all over the world to ensure that nowhere can there develop terrorist cells. An impossible task.

Charles Michael @ 44

I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true fighters as well as stronger economic planning.

financial matters , Jul 31, 2018 9:19:51 AM | 63
The US still has some resources and some use but needs to continue to make friends in the pattern of Kim and Putin and give up on its self defeating economic and military sabotage planning which has been exposed as morally bankrupt as well.

[Aug 02, 2018] Hegel The Uninvited Guest at the Conservative Party by James McElroy

Notable quotes:
"... Philosophy of Right ..."
"... History of the Idea of Progress ..."
"... Quest for Community ..."
"... The Soul of the World ..."
"... James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in finance. ..."
Aug 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Is David Brooks openly flirting with the state-worship of this vexing 19th Century philosopher?Conservatism has gone from a rigid waltz between libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks to a limb-flailing rave. Writers are reaching towards the bookshelf for thinkers that will refine and define first principles during this time of flux. While it's all been great fun, an esteemed but concerning guest has now entered the party. Increasingly, the right is dancing with G.W. Hegel.

David Brooks' recent column is a clear example of a Hegel flirtation. In it, Brooks defines conservatism as an internal critique of the Enlightenment. Explaining opposition to the idea that individuals randomly choose to start society, he writes: "There never was such a thing as an autonomous, free individual who could gather with others to create order. Rather, individuals emerge out of families, communities, faiths, neighborhoods and nations. The order comes first. Individual freedom is an artifact of that order."

Family and community are the basic building blocks of society and social contract theory has plenty of flaws. Yet note how Brooks lists the nation state as prior to individual freedom. It's dropped so casually that its radicalism is almost obscured. What type of freedom is dependent on the nation state? Hegelian.

Hegel argued that freedom was the origin of self-consciousness, and defined his work as tracing "the stages in the evolution of the idea of the will free in and for itself." In Philosophy of Right , he critiqued how Enlightenment liberals see freedom, arguing that liberal freedom could be divided into three stages.

Knock It Off With the 'Little Platoons' Already Alpo Leopold's Ecological Conservatism

First comes freedom defined negatively: "Nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner!" In the second stage of freedom, we want to choose specific states of mind or to concern ourselves with a particular. "I'm going to eat at Waffle House." But if we choose to eat at Waffle House, we've restricted that first stage of freedom. We can no longer say "nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner" because we've selected a particular place to eat. So the third stage of freedom is the ability to change one's mind, to keep options open, regardless of prior commitments. "I will eat at Waffle House, unless I decide to just drink mini-wines in the Applebee's parking lot." This reveals how our conception of freedom is dependent upon the options available to us.

Liberal freedom is thus our capacity to enter and exit choices, which are determined by factors other than ourselves. I did not choose for Waffle House to exist. I did not choose to get hungry at dinner time. We do not choose what we choose between. Therefore, the order of society creates freedom.

So Brooks is clearly doing the robot with Hegel. But so what? Maybe Hegel's ideas are both conservative and correct. Maybe conservatives ought to embrace Hegel openly. There have always been right-wing Hegelians. These are defensible positions. Yet we should remember that conservative bouncers have restricted Hegel from their canon before and for good reason.

Hegel has always been associated with state worship, and Marxism largely sprang from his thought. In History of the Idea of Progress , conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote that, while many try to disguise Hegel as some sort of liberal, "There is simply no way of separating him from ideas and expressions which were in themselves acts of obeisance to the national state and which on the ineffacable record, led others to ever-higher levels of intensity in the glorification of the state."

Some may disagree with Nisbet's reading. Some may say that Marxists misread Hegel . Yet the link to state worship and Marxism must be contended with, and anyone who slips in Hegel without acknowledging it -- like Brooks -- is masking the potentially radical nature of his statement.

Strip the Brooks column of the usual sentimental odes to "beautiful communities" and his strange statement stands bare and a little menacing. There is a world of difference between saying that freedom is dependent upon the family and saying that it's dependent on the nation state. Brooks sounds an awful lot like former President Barack Obama: "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."

Yet apparently, as Brooks tells us, big government is no longer a threat to the "sacred space." Community focused conservatives often use Nisbet's Quest for Community to criticize hyper-individualism, yet they should also remember Nisbet's criticism of Hegelian freedom: "Hegel clothes the absolute state, just as Rousseau had, in the garments of freedom; but there cannot be the slightest doubt of Hegel's dedicated belief in the absolutism, the sanctity, even the divinity of the national state's power."

Perhaps I'm reading too much into a throwaway line. After all, Aristotle offered ideas similar to those of Hegel and Brooks without the taint of state worship -- maybe that's where Brooks is drawing his inspiration from. Yet the connection between Brooks and Hegel is still inescapable because the former is basing his definition of conservatism from British philosopher Roger Scruton.

Scruton is one of two modern philosophers currently disseminating Hegelian ideas into mainstream punditry. He reads Hegel in a positive light, and in his book The Soul of the World , he writes: "Freedom is fully realized only in the world of persons, bound together by rights and duties that are mutually recognized." Yet Scruton does not say "in the world of nations," and elsewhere warns that Hegel is like a "beautiful oasis around a treacherous pool of nonsense." Brooks doesn't offer any such qualifications.

Alasdair MacIntyre is the other philosopher who has helped popularize Hegel in conservative circles, and in fact Brooks referenced him just a few days ago . Conservatives who discuss "liquid modernity" as read through MacIntyre describe something almost identical to Hegel's Absolute Negativity. And McIntyre's idea of waiting for Benedict is similar to waiting for the Absolute Spirit, which is similar to waiting for the revolution.

What would a more Hegelian conservatism look like? It's hard to tell. Perhaps we'd see books declaring an end to one form of consciousness. Perhaps Hegel's ideas on corporations would be directly referenced by those concerned with working-class alienation. Or perhaps we would see more fishy ideas about the nation state being a prerequisite for individual freedom.

This isn't about pointing at Brooks and pulling an " Invasion of the Body Snatchers ," or just beating up on him for the sake of it. He's merely the most obvious example of a conservative who's done a waltz with the German philosopher. And even then it's always difficult to tell. Hegel wrote on such a wide range of topics in such confusing prose, that, like a crazed ex, we might mistakenly spot him everywhere.

Hegel's work is important, and both Scruton and MacIntyre are geniuses. Yet we should always remember Russell Kirk's warnings that "Marx could draw upon Hegel's magazine; he could find nothing to suit him in Burke" and that Hegel was "a conservative only from chance and expediency." Hegel is already at the party; whether we want him to stay is another question entirely.

James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in finance.

[Aug 02, 2018] Neocon media Russiagate sham

Notable quotes:
"... It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and no preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein (The Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth. ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

CitizenOne , July 29, 2018 at 9:26 pm

Today on ABC Martha Raddatz hosted "This Week" which featured James Lankford a Republican from Oklahoma describing how Russia and Putin were actively trying to ruin our democracy and also were trying to influence elections at every possible turn. The Russian Bear and Putin according to Lankford were also trying to rewrite the Constitution, trying to upend every election and were seeking to disrupt our national electrical grid not to be confused with our national election grid which they were also trying to destroy as well as to control the most local elections by a means of electronic control that was beyond any means to control.

Of course no mention was made about possible solutions to thwart the Russians was mentioned and it is doubtful that there are any serious efforts to counteract the alleged Russian hacking of US elections since not one single preventive action to stop the Orwellian monster of Russia, like Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty Four" was put forth.

Apparently ABC and the other media are trying to convince Americans that there is an overwhelming force in Russia that is somehow able to infiltrate and control all our national elections. Apparently the Russians are unstoppable.

It is a sham.

It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and no preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein (The Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth.

Instead the publishers of "This Week" on ABC were content to provide evidence-free incriminations of Russia and attribute all manner of influence in our elections to the incredibly sneaky and unstoppable Russian-Putin election Influencing machine which is unstoppable by our intelligence agencies.

What is missing from Martha Radditz's show? There will never be any admission that they have jobs because of Citizens United, their corporate benefactors (Koch Industries), Gerrymandering, Dark Money, Media Bias which ensures that the Iron Triangle of corporate election dark money flows to hand picked political candidates that will support conservative causes or that these are the real election influencing mechanisms which have the most power in our country to influence elections.

As long as ABC, NBC, CBS and other cable news shows fail to correctly identify the real reasons of election corruption which is our very near and dear corporate money funded political organizations we will continue to be duped by the free press to believe that Russia has control over our national elections and not believe that US Corporations hold all the power.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , July 29, 2018 at 5:51 am

Yes, but the great Putin Scare is not just the tactic of a political interest group or party

It feeds off of something more fundamental and much more pervasive and dangerous.

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/john-chuckman-comment-trump-is-out-maneuvering-his-enemies-on-russia-official-u-s-russophobia-is-epidemic-it-serves-real-interests-trump-does-not-have-leverage-he-cant-even-build-his-silly/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/john-chuckman-comment-putin-orders-air-force-to-prepare-for-a-time-of-war-he-is-wise-to-do-so-america-and-russia-today-a-completely-unnecessary-conflict-thanks-to-obama/

rosemerry , July 28, 2018 at 6:39 pm

Thanks to Norman for reminding us of the continued waste of time and effort on the 'russiagate' stories based on allegations and indictments, NOT evidence or possible reasons for such behavior. The USA is fully capable of unfair election practices, helped by the undemocratic system of electoral college, partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, lack of response to voter desires .plus of course Israel being the very large external factor.
Trump's influence on workers, environment, USA's reputation are negative, but blaming Russia when this is in nobody's real interest is hardly the way forward for the Democratic Party.

Realist , July 27, 2018 at 9:26 pm

All those loons you mentioned are effectively practicing a religion, in which there is a dogma everyone must believe to be virtuous and a set of commandments every believer must live by to gain salvation. Don't toe the line on every bit of it and you are rejected as an apostate.

I'm surprised that some of those folks, notably Thom Hartmann, choose not to practice what they preach -- you know, the platitudes about studying the facts and coming to your own conclusions rather than following the herd. They rightly condemn acting on prejudice, out of pure self-interest, without verifiable facts (indeed at odds with empirical fact) and using group intimidation, as per McCarthyist tactics, and then they go ahead and embrace those vices to their own ends.

It is my process on everything in this life to learn as much as I can on my own, without being brainwashed by any group or movement, and only backing a cause if it is congruent with my own conclusions. Unfortunately, most people do the opposite: they are joiners first and analysts only if their biases are not threatened.

I feel entirely justified in agreeing with movements on some things and not others. I doubt that human beings have arrived at definitive answers about most phenomena in the real world or that any single organised group of us has it all down accurate and pat on everything. Listen to any casual debate on the questions big and small in science: the give and take, back and forth, can go on as long as the participants have the interest and energy. I never give my interlocutors any respite, because there is always one more thing to be considered or one more way of looking at a problem. I'm sure I would have been burned at the stake in many previous lives and so would a lot of the readers here.

Eddie , July 27, 2018 at 11:26 pm

Yes, good points Drew. I view Maddow as a liberal Rush Limbaugh, trying to win a Leni Riefenstahl award from the DNC, and having to be satisfied with her purported $9M/yr salary (which definitely DOES buy a LOT of co-opting).

In support of your argument, I would add that ultimately we should be voting for a candidate based on his/her POLICIES, as evidenced by their prior political voting record and whatever political actions they've taken, NOT based on what they SAY they believe -- that's 1st period high school civics as I recall. It's too easy for candidates to say this or that during a campaign. Trump's policy of detente w/Russia, is -- like the proverbial 'blind squirrel who occasionally finds a nut' -- probably random chance or perhaps a way to penetrate a relatively untapped market with his hucksterism. But so what?? For something as IMPORTANT as NOT having a nuclear war, I'm all for any honest, significant efforts in that direction. Even Nixon, whose presidency I disliked greatly, did a good thing by 'going to China' -- I don't recall anybody on the liberal side at that time saying he was Mao's dupe or foolishness like that. Did Nixon do it as a cynical ploy to draw attention away from other political problems, and did he previously help aggravate/perpetuate a lot of the conflict w/China? Sure, but the act of rapprochement w/China was in-and-of-itself desirable and laudable in that it moved the world a major step AWAY from possible nuclear war. And full-scale nuclear war trumps (no pun intended) virtually all other problems, with the possible exception of climate change, so a POTUS should devote extra energy to that task. Ideally, they should be ramping down the militarism and nationalism, but unfortunately those are campaign tactics that are too easy for either major party to set aside (with 1/2 the fault lying in the electorate who too often endorses those 'isms).

Nik , July 28, 2018 at 9:10 am

Is not Maddow well compensated for her anti-Russian stance that is so valued by the Military-Industrial Complex? She is a profiteer.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-27/paul-craig-roberts-exposes-all-pervasive-military-security-complex

Jeff Harrison , July 27, 2018 at 1:56 pm

Re-reading this today for some reason really popped a few things up for me. The first one right in my face was: "Now, after a remarkable 46-minute news conference on foreign soil where Trump stood side by side with a former KGB agent to praise his 'strong' denials of election interference and criticize the FBI, those strategists believe the ground may have shifted."

Can someone explain to me what the hell "foreign soil" has to do with the price of tea in China? Trump has given plenty of pressers "on foreign soil" but that phrase nor anything like it is ever mentioned. Trump stood side by side with a former KGB agent.

Talk about a lack of respect and blatant bias. He stood side by side with the democratically elected President of the Russian Federation who, by the way, won his election by a clear majority of the vote unlike Mr. Trump who would have lost the election had it been held in Russia. One wonders what would have happened had WaPo and the NYT said something like Russian President Gorbachev stood side by side with the former head of the KGB I mean CIA without ever saying President Bush?

It's also blindingly obvious how screwed we are. We really only have one political party in the US -- the US Corporate Party. There is, indeed, very little reason to vote as a recent survey pointed out Congressional votes correspond to the people's preferences as determined by polling only about 5% of the time.

Gregory Herr , July 27, 2018 at 12:08 pm

Progressives, particularly those few taken tokens the Democrats allow for, should have realised long ago that MSNBC is all in on the corporatist controlled economy and leans heavily forward in the quest for War and Profits.

FAIR is correct to point to the "traditional centers of power" that MSNBC services, but the farcical "coverage" of Russiagate inanity certainly doesn't "preserve" a "progressive image" and is not "elegant" in any way.

The war on Yemen and the weapons contracting with the Saudi terrorist regime was already "steroidal" during Obama's Administration. In October 2016, warplanes bombed a community hall in Yemen's capital, Sana'a, where mourners had gathered for a funeral, killing at least 140 people and wounding hundreds. We should note that the U.S. provided intelligence assistance in identifying targets and mid-air refueling for Saudi aircraft and helped blockade the ports of Yemen during Obama's tenure.

[Aug 02, 2018] The Trump Doctrine Has Foreign Policy Elites Pulling Out Their Hair by Harry J. Kazianis

Notable quotes:
"... On the one hand, he loves to flatter and compliment China's President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin -- that angers the Beltway foreign policy intelligentsia to no end, myself included. But, and of a more important note, Trump also plays hard-nosed geopolitics as good as anyone, arming Ukraine, sending ships into the South China Sea, hitting Moscow with more sanctions and working more closely with Taiwan. ..."
"... When you add in a growing military budget, Trump might sound weak to his critics and at the podium during superpower summits, but his policies are, in fact, right out of the standard GOP foreign policy playbook. ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

What about America's traditional great-power adversaries like Russia and China? Here and again, anyone who studies international politics for a living is likely ripping their hair out, as Trump does not conform to anything that they understand.

On the one hand, he loves to flatter and compliment China's President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin -- that angers the Beltway foreign policy intelligentsia to no end, myself included. But, and of a more important note, Trump also plays hard-nosed geopolitics as good as anyone, arming Ukraine, sending ships into the South China Sea, hitting Moscow with more sanctions and working more closely with Taiwan.

When you add in a growing military budget, Trump might sound weak to his critics and at the podium during superpower summits, but his policies are, in fact, right out of the standard GOP foreign policy playbook.

Harry J. Kazianis ( @grecianformula ) is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm The National Interest. Previously, he led the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage Foundation, and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The views expressed are his own.

[Aug 02, 2018] Prof Cohen beating Max Boot like a rented mule

Max Book demonstrates typical neocon Chutzpah (Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan) and attacks like rabid dog. Intelligcully he is nto equl to Cohen.
Q: What's the difference between a rabid dot and Max Boot? A: You think there is difference
Aug 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Aug 02, 2018] Theatrical micro-militarism

Aug 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Aug 02, 2018] No Peter Brimelow, I Am Not Reviewing Jonah [Expletive Deleted] Goldberg's New Book by Hubert Collins

Notable quotes:
"... Chronicles Magazine ..."
"... Nostalgia for Flawed Thinkers Won't Solve the Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual ..."
"... The New Republic ..."
Aug 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Burnham was also a white supremacist. As Samuel Francis noted in the magazine Chronicles Magazine in 2002, "in the 1960's, Burnham defended segregation on pragmatic and constitutional (though not explicitly racial) grounds and, by the 70's, was suggesting actual racial separation of blacks in a 'non-contiguous' area accorded 'limited sovereignty.' He also defended both Rhodesia and South Africa, as well as other right-wing states." In fact, Burnham thought that South Africa's Apartheid system could be a model for America, with blacks confined to Bantustans.

[ Nostalgia for Flawed Thinkers Won't Solve the Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual , by Jeet Heer, The New Republic , October 31, 2016.]

Diversity Heretic , August 1, 2018 at 3:58 am GMT

I tried to read the Goldberg book on the recommendation of a relative, but I found myself merely scanning many sections. As this reviewer notes, it isn't worth the effort to plow through all of the pages.

I plan to see what I can find of James Burnham, however. I have read his masterful The Managerial Revolution and this article whets my appetite for more.

[Aug 02, 2018] Did God Send Us Donald Trump by Nick Pemberton

Notable quotes:
"... I Thought About Killing You ..."
"... No, my new theory about why Americans want conflict with Russia is because we know in our heart of hearts that the world is ending soon because of climate change. ..."
"... Nick Pemberton is a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is currently employed by Gustavus Dining Services. Nick was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Did God Send Us Donald Trump?

Photo by Durán | CC BY 2.0

And I think about killing myself
And I love myself way more than I love you, so

-- Kanye West, I Thought About Killing You

For the past two years, I have been wondering why Americans have been so ready, if not eager, to reengage the Cold War with Russia, despite Russia showing no desire to do so. A war between Russia and the United States, given the nuclear arsenals, political allegiances around the world, and the unhinged nature of our President, could destroy the entire species. And for what? Russia's alleged crime of election meddling, is negligible at best when in comparison to what America has done in Russia, or what rich Americans have done in America. Xenophobia, historical revisionism, and an embrace of fake news are all on the rise in the age of Trump, and are surely all factors for blaming Russia. But lying and bigotry, while practiced routinely, is often shameful, not something to get excited about.

No, my new theory about why Americans want conflict with Russia is because we know in our heart of hearts that the world is ending soon because of climate change. Just as born-again Christians flock to Trump as they yearn for a Revelations-style apocalypse, liberals want a showdown with Russia. If the world is ending anyways, let's end it on our own terms seems to be the rationale. Other countries have reacted with a more rational response to the potential of the world ending -- namely doing something about it. The Republican Party stands alone, in terms of rich countries, in its blatant denial of climate change. This is why Noam Chomsky correctly calls them the most dangerous organization in human history. The Democratic Party, their hapless and willing enablers, are a close second.

The Republican Party though has seemed to stand alone in their tendency to live in an 'alternative facts' universe. As bad as Democrats are, they know better ways to lie. But since the election of Donald Trump, the Democrats have become just as paranoid and dishonest as their friends across the aisle. The Republicans may see a communist behind every corner, but the Democrats see a Russian behind every corner. This makes sense because Russia, or at least the Soviet Union, was seen as communist the first time around. And the Democrats have always been scared of communism too. Now Russia isn't communist, or even close, but what world power is? Poor Mr. Putin. He has tried so hard to be a ruthless capitalist, in fact he has succeeded at this goal, but it appears that America is too hotheaded to care.

In the age of Barack Obama, those who deal with life superficially could forget the coming Armageddon. If one could get by his arrogance and kill lists, Mr. Obama seemed like a pretty cool guy. And when it came to Russia, a better diplomat. One has to wonder if the fear of Trump has become so irrational that we are scared of anything he does, and that by simply forcing him into the opposite, we will be better off. There also is surely a part of the American psyche that is just rooting for Mr. Trump to fail. And who wouldn't want that? Anything that gets him out of office as soon as possible should be welcomed, no matter the undemocratic implications of Robert Mueller's agenda. Trump failing while in office though? It is unclear who this helps besides the anti-Trump resistance who may be more interested in being morally superior than stopping Trump's vicious agenda.

Regardless, what Donald Trump brings to America is the sense that we are powerless. He is unpredictable, reckless, stupid and vengeful. We now live in constant fear, and for good reason. But the legitimate fear of Trump manifests as illegitimate fear of Putin, even though there is little implication they actually like each other. We fear Putin's authoritarian state, when it is Donald Trump who is bringing authoritarianism home. Why? Well, many of the resistance are imperialists. We want an enemy we can bomb and scapegoat, not one that pervades all of our own crumbling American institutions. It is the same reason why Republicans blame immigrants that Democrats blame Russia. Someone to blame, not something to change.

This powerlessness we feel may remind us of our powerless future that can easily be forgotten in the age of mass distraction. However, with Donald Trump, he is both the distraction and the problem. He is useful to the rich because he distracts, but perhaps he is a little too close to the real problem to be the calming relaxer that our smartphones are. One can turn on the TV and see Trump said blank, or Russia did that, but any person could quickly be reminded that not only is Trump a petty scandal, but a serious one.

Such is the reason for this extreme level of neurosis. There is endless piffling Trump material to focus on, but the material is based in something far more alarming not yet examined in a serious way. Thus, Trump, while ever present, remains enticing simply because we are not yet at the root of our fear. Many Americans may fear Donald Trump will grope them, insult them or embarrass them but the real fear is that he is deregulating and privatizing everything, and killing us all in the process. This is not the focus of discourse though. In part because mass media and their ties to polluting companies won't allow it. But also in part because it is no longer fun gossip.

Russia somehow remains fun gossip. The game of bringing down Donald Trump continues. He messes up, we scold, nothing happens. Until we drop the bomb, it's all fun and games. It's endless flirtation without a lot of action. I imagine it is how Ted Cruz deals with his sexual urges. It is a whole lot of fun talking about them, but he knows he is going to hell if he ever does them. Likewise, Russia is fun to talk about, but if we ever act on our claim that they are the greatest threat to democracy since 9/11, we will be bringing the end times early.

If Donald Trump was impeached, what would war-mongering corporate liberals talk about? Expect them to ask Russia to rig it even harder in 2020 for Mr. Trump.

Trump has reminded us of the real cause for alarm: the mass extinction thundering towards us. We feel so uneasy, but what can we do? Climate change is depressing and horrifying and we can seemingly do nothing about it on an individual level. We then opt for the only thing that we have left to control: how we all die. Foolish, I think. As bad as Trump is, there is something left to live for, and if Trump were to blow up Russia, it would not be on our terms, but on his. In fact, he is only likely to blow up Russia if he feels he is being out-machoed by the neoliberal corporate class in combative rhetoric. As it stands, America is egging on this madman for no other purpose than a sense of control over our own demise. If anything lets Trump and the corporate overlords win, this is it.

It is worth detailing what has happened in the Russia scandal, if only to show nothing has really happened. The first charge, which is denied by the accused firm, is that a Russian company known as Internet Research Agency funded 'millions of dollars' in advertisements. There has been no link established between this company and the Russian government. The accusation, if it is true, is no different from the private American companies who invest billions in elections, sometimes illegally, but often legally. The second charge is related to the Russian government and the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Once again, this is only a charge, but the information released by hackers was potentially damaging to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, simply because it was true. The irony is that the damaging information for the DNC was that they had rigged their own primary. The accused riggers only crime is exposing the proven riggers. There are allegations of state and local hacking too, but those were present before 2016. Did Russia do it? is hardly our biggest story now. For whatever it is, even if it did prevent the corporate warmonger Hillary Clinton from winning, it should be far less concerning than the obsessive, neurotic, fear-mongering, scapegoating, ominous mood in the United States since the 2016 election.

Why were Democrats tearing their hair out over a Trump-Putin meeting last week that seemed to offer zero conclusions about how Trump felt about anything? The whole week, which was typical Donald, was just another week of bullying the weak and submitting to the strong. Putin may be able to push some buttons in his own country, but when Trump, who never apologizes for anything, ran back his own words, it was clear that NATO would live to see another day, no matter the scattered thoughts of a wimpy man in over his head. The deranged response to the deranged Donald was enough for me to think long and hard about a theory given to me by a right-wing woman this past week.

Her theory was that God had in fact sent us Donald Trump. My first thought: highly unlikely. This man lacks the morals of the people God sends to us. In fact, I can hardly think of a worse human being. There may actually be no human being worse than Trump, save maybe Charles Koch, David Koch and whoever funds Adam Sandler movies. But I thought of the alternative the corporate media was telling me: Vladimir Putin is the real President of America and the real reason the entire country is undemocratic, poor, hungry, and in prison. Also, highly unlikely.

Yet the pamphlet this woman handed me at least admitted there was no rhyme or reason to this theory other than some guy hearing it from God: "I, like many of you, was shocked by the word I received regarding Donald Trump. Trust me when I say it was given with fear and trembling." Has the fear and trembling gone away?

The only biblical evidence of this theory the pamphlet provided was 1 Corinthians 15:52: "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." and 1 Thessalonians 4:16: " For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." The problem with being a fundamentalist in the age of Trump is that you are taking a book word for word that you haven't even read. If you are going to take it literally, at least look for that capital T in trump, otherwise you have to take every trumpet player as a prophet. Next thing you know Trumpettes will be swapping out their Johnny Rebel records and replacing them with Lee Morgan. Still, the trail left by the Trumpettes was no less convincing than Robert Mueller's. There was as much evidence of Trump in the Bible as Trump in Putin's pocket.

It should come to no one's surprise that Donald Trump has not exactly been pro-Russia. A broken clock may strike right twice a day, but a doomsday clock never strikes right. Glen Greenwald points out that Barack Obama was actually more pro-Russia than Trump: "you look at President Obama versus President Trump, there's no question that President Obama was more cooperative with and collaborative with Russia and the Russian agenda than President Trump. President Trump has sent lethal arms to Ukraine -- a crucial issue for Putin -- which President Obama refused to do. President Trump has bombed the Assad forces in Syria, a client state of Putin, something that Obama refused to do because he didn't want to provoke Putin. Trump has expelled more Russian diplomats and sanctioned more Russian oligarchs than [Obama] has. Trump undid the Iran deal, which Russia favored, while Obama worked with Russia in order to do the Iran deal." Once again, liberals give Mr. Trump too much credit. He has no friends. He gets along with no one. There is no coherent plan here other than corruption.

As liberals resist Putin-Trump with homophobic memes, one has to wonder, how mad are these people? Do they realize that Donald Trump is crazy, even crazier than them? Why on earth do they want Trump armed and angry?

Anyone who can still bear to follow the news knows that the corporate media is still attempting to paint Russia as an aggressive and unreasonable foe. This is all with Mr. Trump as the President! It is hard to believe that anyone is more unreasonable and aggressive than Trump, but once again, the liberals let him off the hook. Despite military on Russia's borders, years of war-mongering rhetoric and hostile economic activity, meddling in Russia's own elections, and constant racism, Russia remains a reasonable actor in its relation to the United States. One wonders why Russia tries to reason with us at all, but the nuclear weapons certainly make things a little more complicated.

For all the talk about Putin destroying American democracy, no one mentions the real threats to U.S. democracy that led to Trump's election -- absurd campaign financing, a sensationalist profit-driven corporate media, and voter suppression. No one mentions that there was a proven election scandal in the United States in 2016. This scandal was the DNC rigging its primary for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. If the United States was a democracy, Bernie Sanders would be President right now.

Finding no comfort or coherence in the liberal narrative, I turned once again to my new right-wing friend. She told me that all these recent storms were punishment for the sins of a liberal society. Almost, actually. But her anti-choice, anti-immigrant complaints showed me she was as far from the truth as anyone else. Still, I found this to be a fascinating denial of climate change. It was not so much that she denied that it is happening, she just denied human involvement. Which goes to show, as climate change becomes increasingly hard to ignore, religion may be the only method left to explain it away.

I have always thought the war over public opinion is a losing battle though. After all, what is the prize if you win? It is far more rewarding to fight hunger, poverty, deregulation, incarceration and war. Beat those things and we will all be too cozy to have a worthwhile opinion anyways.

The public opinion debate too often turns into a qualification of other people's mental health, as if any skepticism deserves to be medicated by the liars who tell you that you need their drugs. Climate change skeptics should have a place in public discourse. The skeptics do at times have a financial interest in keeping us fooled, but then their problem isn't their skepticism, but their dishonesty, which almost proves the real skeptics right. Otherwise, these are sincere believers who are right to be skeptical of science, which has brought us eugenics, unnecessary mental health treatments, nuclear power, and the very pollutants we now oppose, and would have kept at it without government checks and populist skeptics. If only the same amount of skepticism could be applied to Fox News and the corporate hacks Donald Trump appoints.

In the spirit of skepticism, let's look at what Trump has done on climate change and the coming end of the world. As Noam Chomsky puts it, the Republicans are racing to the precipice. Among the recent sins by Mr. Trump:

1. Rolling back the Endangered Species Act.

2. Cutting NASA Climate monitoring.

3. A move to make details of scientific studies public, making sure that scientists will have to choose between privacy rights and conducting a study.

4. Rollback of car emissions standards

5. Repeal of Water of the United States rule, which threatens clean water for 117 million Americans.

6. Repeal of lead-risk reduction program

7. Reduction of chemical bans for methylene chloride, trichloroethylene and N-Methylpyrrolidone

8. Stripping rules for coal ash waste removal.

9. Pardoning despicable ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond

10. Appointing anti-EPA Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

11. Pushing for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

If anything, God sent us Trump to punish us for our sins, not to save us from them.

Alas, while a worthwhile exercise to imagine that God indeed sent us Donald Trump, I was only reminded that the right-wing is just as bonkers as the neoliberal wing. A week of watching CNN will have you believing anything; even pushing one to believe that God really did send Donald Trump. But I will confirm, for anyone so tempted by a new way of thinking, the glove just doesn't fit. God did not send us Donald Trump. I can't prove it, but I am fairly certain. I then was left with one mystifying question: if God did not send Donald Trump, what does the corporate media have against him?

The common variable between Trumpettes and Russiaphobes is the end of the world narrative. Is it a reaction to climate change that both must make up stories about how the world will end? Is it the only power any of us have left? Is it the cancer patient learning they have a year to live and then shooting up a school just so they can end it on their own terms? Sorry, to all Cold War Warriors and all Donald Doomers, some of us just are not ready to die. There is, one has to believe, a rose growing in the concrete somewhere that makes these prophecies not worth an early exit. At the very least, must we go out on such fabricated and petty terms? Surely there is something worth dying for besides hating political correctness or Putin's soccer ball.

What is that nuclear taste? Is reviving Hillary's corpse really worth it? Or has the entire country given up and opted for a death they can blame on someone else? It is not so dissimilar from the apocalypse envisioned by the Trumpettes, who can blame every storm that Trump makes worse on the sins of a liberal society. If Trump and Putin were to blow each other up tomorrow, liberals would die on top. However, if we are to die slightly slower due to climate change, the entire industrialized world will have to know we played a part. And there will be those pesky Trumpettes who blame it on liberalism, not capitalism. To all this I say, who cares. Yes, we messed up. We shouldn't have drained the earth of all its resources, we shouldn't have elected Trump. But no need to feel guilty and embrace the end of the world! There is still good work to be done. Who will be laughing when the world dies by nuclear (a Russiaphobe wet dream) or fire (a Trumpette wet dream). There will be no moral high ground at that point. The apocalypse will be the great equalizer. Even in the age of Trump, the world is worth sticking around for, although She might as well be done with us as soon as She can be.

Surely the principle of lesser evilism still has a place, no? Can't we all agree that dying tomorrow is better than dying today? Who is more looney, the apocalyptic Trumpettes or the Russiaphobic corporate class? We will find out soon enough. While it is very likely that Trump will win reelection (poll numbers in the Republican Party for him are very positive), it is just as likely that the new Cold War will continue until Trump is gone, whether that be in 2 years, 6 years, or 14 years (Ivanka). The premise is that we will either have Trump's apocalypse or we will blow up Russia. There must be a winner. Given Trump's flair for winning and upending the liberal class, who would be surprised if it was he who ended up blowing up Russia, not for our reasons, but for his own. Therefore, it is equally important to get Trump, the Republicans and Democrats out of power as quickly as possible.

We are once again pawns to the powers that be. Sensing the end is coming, they wish to go out with a bang. It is true, the end is coming, whether that be by climate change, nuclear weapons or God Himself. The battle over how we end is worth fighting for. I for one have no interest in being killed by Trump, the neocons, or the ecocide maniacs. If God must take me, I will let Him, but giving the establishment the satisfaction of having the last word is too much to bear. To hear Hillary's cackle at my funeral with the words "We came, we saw, he died" across the headstone would be a tragedy too great for even a species sprinting towards the precipice. If Donald were to preside over my grave, he would simply say "I won, you tiny loser", but I would resent this option equally. If God exists, and wants the last word for Himself, He should start by kicking all with nuclear fever to the curb. For we all are dangerously close to becoming the latest item on America's war-mongering resume. Let's just hope Donald doesn't take the bait and one-up the liberals one last time.

Even if God doesn't exist, one would have a better chance reasoning with Him than either Donald or his yuppy resistance groupies. So I thanked my right-wing friend today. For even if she was no more sane than the neoliberals prattling to the abyss, she at least had a nice place to send me after the world ended; that is assuming, I was born in America, had as many babies as ejaculations, and voted for God's unconventional servant, Donald J. Trump. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Nick Pemberton

Nick Pemberton is a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is currently employed by Gustavus Dining Services. Nick was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected]

[Aug 01, 2018] Let Mikey do it Maybe not.

Aug 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

IMO Mikey Pompeo suffers from Smart Guy Syndrome. My wife calls it Great Man Syndrome. In both of these a delusion of centrality sets in based on a belief in one's own superiority. This rots the mind. Mikey has always been the smartest kid in the room. You know his resumé. And, pilgrims, he has a smiley face welded onto his real sharkey face. These attributes have carried him far but he has a weakness or two. He really does think he is a being above the ken of mortal men AND he is a hyper-nationialist neocon ideologue through and through and in many ways immune to appeals to reason. He surely think thatTrump is a dolt. Look at the picture. He has contradicted the president several times. This is a very dangerous thing to do. Trump is a reality based self-centered hustler who is used to dealing with supercilious p---ks who want to manipulate him.

Now Mikey has John-John Bolton as ally and playmate. Bolton is, IMO, more than a little crazy. Bolton loves his place in an NSC made over into extensions of his neocon craziness. He thinks that he has the Iranians right where he wants them. He believes that we could fight a maritime campaign in the Gulf with next to no losses and that if necessary we can bomb the Iranian people into unleashing their economic deprivation wrath against the mullahs.

Pompeo agrees with him. He is trying to keep the president buttered up while pursuing his shared goals with Bolton both cleverly and surreptitiously. Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk.

Off to one side in this drama, stand the inbred caste of generals and admirals. Trump professes to admire them, but Mattis, Dunford and CENTCOM are steadily losing real power in the contest for the president's attention. IMO there will be a unifying deal between Damascus and the YPG Kurds and Trump knows all about progress toward that goal. Do the generals want that? No. They have their own desired foreign policy. They want to make the casualties of the last 15 years meaningful through victory somewhere, anywhere would do. They also want revenge against Iran for men lost in Iraq. They listen to the Israelis far too much.

IMO Trump has a private line of communication to Russia. This is perfectly legal and probably is conducted over CIA communications links or through the ambassador in Moscow, Jon Huntsman or both.

Pompeo may or may not know what is being said in those channels. pl

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/399597-pompeo-sets-conditions-for-iran-meeting-after-trump-says-hell-meet

Larry Kart , 20 hours ago

if Trump is such a reality-based hustler who knows how to deal with supercilious p--cks" like Pompeo and Bolton, why the heck does he keep bringing those p--cks on board and then waste so much time and energy on dealing with them? Are there no prospective officials around who are not of that stripe? Or is it that Trump is unable to detect them and/or unwilling for some reason to bring them in and put them to work?

I'm reminded of a point made throughout Vol. 1 of Michael Broers' brilliant new biography of Napoleon -- that Napoleon, who despised the talk-talk-talk of parliaments and liked best to work with and through committees, had a near-infallible gift for detecting the best and the brightest, whether or not they had impressive credentials or even if they had opposed or still opposed some of his policies. In these committees, which dealt with both political and military matters, all were expected to speak freely, while Napoleon listened like a hawk. For him the key test, aside from the committee members' intelligence and energy, was whether they were men of honor -- by which he meant that when agreements had been reached after all had had their fair say and Napoleon had put his stamp on them, they would abide by what had been thoroughly vetted and agreed to. An autocrat, for sure, and yet...

Pat Lang Mod -> Larry Kart , 19 hours ago
He hired people recommended to him by their cronies like Rosenstein, Wray, Pruitt, Coates. There have been many mistakes.like that. He could not appoint the kind of people he had eaten well-done steaks with in NY while hustling them in a deal. He also relies too much on his gut reaction to people he meets.
Larry Kart -> Pat Lang , 19 hours ago
Yes but, if he is that susceptible to dubious advice, isn't that something of a flashing-red-light character flaw -- just as Napoleon deserves blame for taking the advice of the treacherous Josephine on several disastrous occasions (i.e. the decision to invade Haiti)?
Pat Lang Mod -> Larry Kart , 18 hours ago
"You see," as Auda Abu Tayi said of Lawrence in the movie, "He is not perfect."
unmitigatedaudacity -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
No, he is not. We all lament The Boltens and Pompeos. However, where is he to find "good people"? The American political class is reflectively myopic and partisan. Find some more Jon Huntsman types (where? IDK) who can serve American interests without all the Sturm und Drang of today's hyperbolic, puerile political warfare.
EEngineer , a day ago
I would wager that Trump sees both of them as dangerous but useful idiots that willingly play their role in his "good-cop, bad cop" negotiating tactics. They will be gone with the next tacking.
Pat Lang Mod -> EEngineer , a day ago
Yup. Ready about! Ah, they went over the side.
EEngineer -> Pat Lang , 19 hours ago
I envisioned something closer to being forced to walk the plank.
Charles Pettibone , 11 hours ago
I was pleasantly surprised at Bolton's behavior in Russia and in his comment that getting rid of Assad was no longer the goal of the US. To be sure, time will tell, but it's clear that at this point Trump is driving foreign policy and is far more self-confident than he was in 2017.

Whatever Pompeo says doesn't matter- if he tries to throw up walls to a summit, Trump will tell him to go to hell. It's a core principle of Trump's that meeting is not a "concession." He knows that "legitimacy" is an utterly meaningless concept, not something that can be granted or withdrawn by the US president. If Iran offers Trump a meeting, he'll meet. No questions asked.

chris chuba , a day ago
"Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk."

I completely agree with you Col. I hear people call Trump a moron or a genius, I think that what makes him so vexing is that he is both at the same time. He is probably very good at making certain nobody gets the better of him, especially his subordinates.

NathalieM , a day ago
Except for the belief on Trump´s masterliness on anything, I never would had thought I will be agreeing with you all the way till the last line....of this concrete post....What I most agree with you in is in Pompeo´s overestimating his own capabilities...and I conclude also along with you that is a very dangerous situation...But, if you see it so clear, and we all too, could you provide a convincing explanation on why Trump, being such a master on personal management and business administration, elected Pompeo and Bolton for office in the first place?

Thanks in advance, in case you answer my question and do not find something outrageous enough for your sensibility in my comment so as to delete it.

EEngineer -> NathalieM , 2 hours ago
It frames Trump as the moderate. He uses them to move the Overton Window. Nothing more.

[Aug 01, 2018] The word McCarthyism came to mean making accusations of treason without sufficient evidence

Aug 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply by accusing them of being Russian sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league with Russia was enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy fired his first shot on February 9, 1950, proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing but assertions .

Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making accusations of treason without sufficient evidence. Other definitions include a ggressively questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or discredit an opponent, and subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security.

Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed thousands of lives over the next four years simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist." Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy answered that this was "the most positive proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used by others as well: the Lavender Scare , which concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their perversions, was an offshoot of McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals" charges. State legislatures and school boards mimicked McCarthy. Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded.

The FBI embarked on campaigns of political repression (they would later claim Martin Luther King Jr. had communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political thinking to exclude communism.

[Aug 01, 2018] Hegel The Uninvited Guest at the Conservative Party The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Philosophy of Right ..."
"... History of the Idea of Progress ..."
"... Quest for Community ..."
"... The Soul of the World ..."
"... James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in finance. ..."
Aug 01, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Hegel: The Uninvited Guest at the Conservative Party Is David Brooks openly flirting with the state-worship of this vexing 19th Century philosopher? By James McElroy • August 1, 2018

Columnist David Brooks and German Philosopher G.W. Hagel (public domain) Conservatism has gone from a rigid waltz between libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks to a limb-flailing rave. Writers are reaching towards the bookshelf for thinkers that will refine and define first principles during this time of flux. While it's all been great fun, an esteemed but concerning guest has now entered the party. Increasingly, the right is dancing with G.W. Hegel.

David Brooks' recent column is a clear example of a Hegel flirtation. In it, Brooks defines conservatism as an internal critique of the Enlightenment. Explaining opposition to the idea that individuals randomly choose to start society, he writes: "There never was such a thing as an autonomous, free individual who could gather with others to create order. Rather, individuals emerge out of families, communities, faiths, neighborhoods and nations. The order comes first. Individual freedom is an artifact of that order."

Family and community are the basic building blocks of society and social contract theory has plenty of flaws. Yet note how Brooks lists the nation state as prior to individual freedom. It's dropped so casually that its radicalism is almost obscured. What type of freedom is dependent on the nation state? Hegelian.

Hegel argued that freedom was the origin of self-consciousness, and defined his work as tracing "the stages in the evolution of the idea of the will free in and for itself." In Philosophy of Right , he critiqued how Enlightenment liberals see freedom, arguing that liberal freedom could be divided into three stages.

First comes freedom defined negatively: "Nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner!" In the second stage of freedom, we want to choose specific states of mind or to concern ourselves with a particular. "I'm going to eat at Waffle House." But if we choose to eat at Waffle House, we've restricted that first stage of freedom. We can no longer say "nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner" because we've selected a particular place to eat. So the third stage of freedom is the ability to change one's mind, to keep options open, regardless of prior commitments. "I will eat at Waffle House, unless I decide to just drink mini-wines in the Applebee's parking lot." This reveals how our conception of freedom is dependent upon the options available to us.

Liberal freedom is thus our capacity to enter and exit choices, which are determined by factors other than ourselves. I did not choose for Waffle House to exist. I did not choose to get hungry at dinner time. We do not choose what we choose between. Therefore, the order of society creates freedom.

So Brooks is clearly doing the robot with Hegel. But so what? Maybe Hegel's ideas are both conservative and correct. Maybe conservatives ought to embrace Hegel openly. There have always been right-wing Hegelians. These are defensible positions. Yet we should remember that conservative bouncers have restricted Hegel from their canon before and for good reason.

Hegel has always been associated with state worship, and Marxism largely sprang from his thought. In History of the Idea of Progress , conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote that, while many try to disguise Hegel as some sort of liberal, "There is simply no way of separating him from ideas and expressions which were in themselves acts of obeisance to the national state and which on the ineffacable record, led others to ever-higher levels of intensity in the glorification of the state."

Some may disagree with Nisbet's reading. Some may say that Marxists misread Hegel . Yet the link to state worship and Marxism must be contended with, and anyone who slips in Hegel without acknowledging it -- like Brooks -- is masking the potentially radical nature of his statement.

Strip the Brooks column of the usual sentimental odes to "beautiful communities" and his strange statement stands bare and a little menacing. There is a world of difference between saying that freedom is dependent upon the family and saying that it's dependent on the nation state. Brooks sounds an awful lot like former President Barack Obama: "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."

Yet apparently, as Brooks tells us, big government is no longer a threat to the "sacred space." Community focused conservatives often use Nisbet's Quest for Community to criticize hyper-individualism, yet they should also remember Nisbet's criticism of Hegelian freedom: "Hegel clothes the absolute state, just as Rousseau had, in the garments of freedom; but there cannot be the slightest doubt of Hegel's dedicated belief in the absolutism, the sanctity, even the divinity of the national state's power."

Perhaps I'm reading too much into a throwaway line. After all, Aristotle offered ideas similar to those of Hegel and Brooks without the taint of state worship -- maybe that's where Brooks is drawing his inspiration from. Yet the connection between Brooks and Hegel is still inescapable because the former is basing his definition of conservatism from British philosopher Roger Scruton.

Scruton is one of two modern philosophers currently disseminating Hegelian ideas into mainstream punditry. He reads Hegel in a positive light, and in his book The Soul of the World , he writes: "Freedom is fully realized only in the world of persons, bound together by rights and duties that are mutually recognized." Yet Scruton does not say "in the world of nations," and elsewhere warns that Hegel is like a "beautiful oasis around a treacherous pool of nonsense." Brooks doesn't offer any such qualifications.

Alasdair MacIntyre is the other philosopher who has helped popularize Hegel in conservative circles, and in fact Brooks referenced him just a few days ago . Conservatives who discuss "liquid modernity" as read through MacIntyre describe something almost identical to Hegel's Absolute Negativity. And McIntyre's idea of waiting for Benedict is similar to waiting for the Absolute Spirit, which is similar to waiting for the revolution.

What would a more Hegelian conservatism look like? It's hard to tell. Perhaps we'd see books declaring an end to one form of consciousness. Perhaps Hegel's ideas on corporations would be directly referenced by those concerned with working-class alienation. Or perhaps we would see more fishy ideas about the nation state being a prerequisite for individual freedom.

This isn't about pointing at Brooks and pulling an " Invasion of the Body Snatchers ," or just beating up on him for the sake of it. He's merely the most obvious example of a conservative who's done a waltz with the German philosopher. And even then it's always difficult to tell. Hegel wrote on such a wide range of topics in such confusing prose, that, like a crazed ex, we might mistakenly spot him everywhere.

Hegel's work is important, and both Scruton and MacIntyre are geniuses. Yet we should always remember Russell Kirk's warnings that "Marx could draw upon Hegel's magazine; he could find nothing to suit him in Burke" and that Hegel was "a conservative only from chance and expediency." Hegel is already at the party; whether we want him to stay is another question entirely.

James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in finance.

[Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

Highly recommended!
Jul 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Nik , July 28, 2018 at 9:22 am

Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html

For several years, a family of foreign nationals (and not only Wassermannn-Schultz) has been surfing the congressional computers while having no security clearance.

Then there was a criminal negligence by H. Clinton who made her emails, filled with the highest-level classified information, available to Chinese (not the Russians). http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/httpstruepunditcomfbi-lisa-page-dimes-out-top-fbi-officials-during-classified-house-testimony-bureau-bos.html

Both Debbie and Hillary should be in federal prison already. Clinton used to be fond of droning Assange for divulging the criminal and illegal activities of the state. What Debbie and Hillary did has been much more dangerous to the US national security.

[Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

Highly recommended!
Jul 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Nik , July 28, 2018 at 9:22 am

Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html

For several years, a family of foreign nationals (and not only Wassermannn-Schultz) has been surfing the congressional computers while having no security clearance.

Then there was a criminal negligence by H. Clinton who made her emails, filled with the highest-level classified information, available to Chinese (not the Russians). http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/httpstruepunditcomfbi-lisa-page-dimes-out-top-fbi-officials-during-classified-house-testimony-bureau-bos.html

Both Debbie and Hillary should be in federal prison already. Clinton used to be fond of droning Assange for divulging the criminal and illegal activities of the state. What Debbie and Hillary did has been much more dangerous to the US national security.

[Jul 31, 2018] Uber Neocon Max Boot Often Wrong but Never in Doubt by Richard C. Young

Notable quotes:
"... Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American empire," outright. ..."
"... Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.richardcyoung.com

Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American empire," outright.

Gottfried writes (abridged):

Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the provocative title The Virtue of Nationalism, I encountered a distinction drawn by the late Charles Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the editors of the Weekly Standard, for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the U.S. actively spread its own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said, he and those who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to accuse them of "imperialism."

Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory.

Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation.

The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's response (which I suspect would have been more devastating had Hazony not been afraid of losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?

It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both morally superior and less dangerous than ethnically defined societies because we advocate a "value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race.

Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building. The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give it.

Read more here .

[Jul 31, 2018] Trump vs. the New World Order by Stephen Kokx

Notable quotes:
"... As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands, if not millions, of lives. ..."
"... Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers. ..."
Mar 07, 2016 | akacatholic.com

Super Tuesday and Super Saturday came and went. As expected, Donald Trump dominated the competition.

Sort of.

While Trump did exceptionally well in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere in the South, The Donald has stumbled as of late, coming in second to Ted Cruz in a number of recent contests.

Trump will likely expand his delegate lead in the coming weeks. However, he won't arrive at the Republican convention with enough of them to secure the nomination outright.

If that happens, the oligarchs in the Republican Party will do everything they can at the convention to deny Trump that which would rightfully be his.

It's been rumored that Mitt Romney will be called upon by the establishment to save the Party of Lincoln from being "torn asunder." Some Republicans say they simply won't vote for Mr. Trump. Others suggest running a third party "conservative" candidate.

However it shakes out, if reaction to Romney's anti-Trump press conference held earlier this month indicates anything, it's that refusing the billionaire from New York the nomination if he has the majority of delegates would literally break the GOP in two.

Before discussing what a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party, let's backtrack a bit and try to put this man's candidacy into context. If possible, a Catholic context.

American "exceptionalism"

Since the Second World War but most especially since the early 1990s, a cabal of intellectuals desirous of global empire have hubristically argued that it is America's duty to advance "freedom" and "democracy" to "the people" of the world, all in the name of bringing about a lasting "peace."

Of course, when these men speak of "freedom" what they really mean is massive economic inequality and social hedonism. And when these men speak of "democracy" what they truly mean is rigged elections with candidates that they and not "the people" get to pick. (See the U.S.-backed coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014 for evidence of this.)

Despite the lofty language used to trick Americans into supporting this political pyramid scheme, the reality is that bringing about this so-called "peace" is a dirty business.

For one, the U.S. essentially bribes countries into joining NATO. Economically sanctioning those who refuse to do so.

Two, when leaders from sovereign Middle Eastern nations are no longer viewed as politically useful, they're assassinated. Of course, the more diplomatic way to put it is "so and so has to go! "

And three, sustaining American imperialism oversees requires the funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars to Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and providing firearms to "moderate rebels" in countries most people can't locate on a map.

As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands, if not millions, of lives.

The end game, of course, is to pick off Eastern European countries one by one in order to expand NATO (something the U.S. promised decades ago they wouldn't do) so that "liberal democracy" can be established not only there but also in North Africa and, most importantly, in Russia.

Globalism

Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers.

While paying lip service to social conservatism, limited government, constitutionalism and state's rights these war hawks hijacked the Republican Party and surgically transformed it into a weak-kneed, open borders, bloodthirsty Frankenstein in the service of international elites.

Though insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s reminded folks about the direction this clandestine group of war criminals was leading the country, the monied class acted quickly and decisively. Buchanan's warnings about 1) the looming culture wars 2) the harm cheap labor abroad would have on the American middle class 3) the problems associated with not securing the border and 4) the debt and death required with being the policeman of the world were easily tamped down, thanks in no small part to the help of the corporate media.

Since that time Americans have had to choose between presidential candidates who, at the end of the day, were nothing more than cogs in the globalist's wheel.

Enter Trump

Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can't give specifics to half the things he talks about. And I don't trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does .

For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.

At the same time, much of his public image is an act, and he has turned out be a shrewder political operator than I expected. No one, and I mean no one, predicted he would have this much success.

People support Trump not necessarily because of his policies but because of what he represents. And what he represents is the frustration ordinary, mostly white, Americans have towards politics in general. More specifically, the antipathy they have towards the feckless politicians the Republican Party has nominated over the past thirty years who have largely failed to halt the social and economic decay of the United States.

Against the neocons

Despite his inconsistency, immaturity and, at times, imbecility, Trump has been clear on several important policies. Policies that can be appreciated from a Catholic viewpoint.

In an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel Mcadams outlines where Trump differentiates himself from the war hawks in his party.

First, according to Mcadams Trump states "the obvious" when he says "the Iraq war was brought to us by the liars of the neoconservative movement" and that it was a "total disaster" for the rest of us who "are forced to pay for their fantasies of world domination."

Second, Trump wants to "actually speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to see if US/Russia differences can be worked out without a potentially world-ending nuclear war."

Third, although Trump is "arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel" he is "nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role in the Israel/Palestine issue the US side should take a neutral role in the process."

Fourth, Trump is also calling out the "idiotic neocon advice" that resulted in the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya that has led to "the red carpet" being "laid down for ISIS" in that failed state.

And lastly, Trump is "suggesting that it may be a good thing that Russia be bombing ISIS into oblivion and that we might want to just sit back and let that happen for once."

Push back

The ruling class disdains each and every one of these positions. And for good reason.

By talking about the Iraq War and claiming Bush lied about it, Trump reminds us about the back room dealings and costs, both human and monetary, spreading "freedom" and "democracy" necessarily entails. And by drawing attention to the disastrous situation in Libya, Trump shines light on the foolishness of nation building abroad and the need to nation build at home. Obviously, all of this causes voters to have a less favorable view of foreign intervention in the future.

By painting Putin as a potential ally instead of a "thug," Trump de-programs Americans from thinking of the Russian President as Josef Stalin re-incarnated. It also disabuses ordinary citizens from seeing everything through an us-versus-them prism. Having a villain to point at evokes patriotism at home and affirms Americans in the moral right-ness of the pursuit of spreading "liberty." Neocons have long understood this. And Trump could potentially reverse that paradigm.

Furthermore, by taking a "neutral" stance towards Israel, Trump is indicating that he may put American interests ahead of Zionist interests. In other words, Trump would likely approach the Middle East in a way that holds Israel to the same moral standards as others. Realizing that this may result in an American president who refuses to be silent about the terrorist attacks Israelis commit against Palestinians on an almost daily basis, the globalists and their cronies in the media have been quick to compare Trump with, you guessed it, Adolf Hitler.

Going forward

Neoconservatives, in short, are apoplectic over a possible Trump presidency. His success could mean their demise, if only for a short while.

To be sure, it is difficult to know who Trump would surround himself with if he were to win the presidency. Would he call up Henry Kissinger? Would he seek the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations? I don't know.

But what I do know is that as of right now Trump appears to have all the right enemies. Enemies that include the neo-Catholic neocon community. Read here .

Now, don't expect the elites to go silently into the night. The attacks in the coming days and weeks will only get more vicious. We've already seen how quickly they brought up "the 1930s." Additionally, more than 100 self-identified "members of the Republican national security community" have signed an open letter excoriating Trump for his foreign policy views, adding that they are "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."

Unsurprisingly, some of them have said they would support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic neocon, instead of Trump in the general election.

So much for party loyalty.

In brief, a Trump nomination means the internationalists would no longer dictate the terms of America's economic and foreign policy. Moreover, if Trump arrives at the Republican convention with the majority of delegates and is denied the nomination, it will be clear to all that we live in country that is anything but a democracy.

Indeed, far from being a "breaking" of the GOP in two, wouldn't a Trump victory be nothing more than a re-calibration of the party to what it stood for historically? A party that serves the will of the American people instead of global elites?

Stephen Kokx is the host of " Church & State with Stephen Kokx " on Magnificat Media.com , which airs Fridays at 11am, 2pm, 6pm and 9pm and Saturdays at 10am EST. Follow him on twitter @StephenKokx and like him on Facebook

aroamingcatholicny March 7, 2016

I utterly despise Neocons, whether in Politics & Government or as Catholic Church Commentators.

This is why I come to akacatholic.com, The Remnant Newspaper & Catholic Family News.

In Politics, Conservatives would use The Bomb, while Neocons would engage in "Protective Reaction", whatever that means.

In The Case of Louie, Mike Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, Dr John Rao & Ann Barnhardt, one is told the truth as it occurred. There are no "Sweeps Week Specials" by People who are financed by Fat Cats & sound like Shills for said Fat Cats, while broadcasting from a Miniaturized Version of The CBS Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, from a Suburb of The Motor City, who tells everyone that what The Pope Said was a Mistranslation, while making Hay of Cardinal Dolan, passing wind on the Uptown Platform of the IND 6th Avenue Subway, all while the Polemicist is telling the World that The SSPX is in Schism. No, THAT Guy, despite the Bells & Whistles, is a Neo Catholic, who in many cases, cannot get his facts straight.

The NeoCatholics are the ones telling people that Girl Altar Servers are OK because the Pope says so. Ditto, Sancte Communion A Mano & Altar Tables facing the Congregation.You know WHO They Are.

But something I have noticed is that when it comes to Intelligent Conversation on the message boards, the Neo Catholics will not tolerate dissent vis a vis their position. The one with his broadcast centre is a classic example, with commenters practically forced to pay homage to The Fearless Leader's Position, even when not well researched.

Those who hold the Traditional Catholic Position, allow True Discussion on matters Catholic.

Traditional Catholic is true Freedom, without being patronizing. I cannot say that for a certain site, which charges $10 per month for Premium Membership.

AlphonsusJr March 7, 2016

You've reminded me of how the totally neocon and cuckservative National Review now rigorously–with all the fanaticism of the Stasi–polices its comments section. It's unreal.

[Jul 31, 2018] Three Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire by Chalmers Johnson

Notable quotes:
"... These massive concentrations of American military power outside the United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries. They are also unimaginably expensive. According to Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website Foreign Policy in Focus, the United States spends approximately $250 billion each year maintaining its global military presence. The sole purpose of this is to give us hegemony -- that is, control or dominance -- over as many nations on the planet as possible. ..."
"... Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

However ambitious President Barack Obama's domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there -- 49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.

These massive concentrations of American military power outside the United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries. They are also unimaginably expensive. According to Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website Foreign Policy in Focus, the United States spends approximately $250 billion each year maintaining its global military presence. The sole purpose of this is to give us hegemony -- that is, control or dominance -- over as many nations on the planet as possible.

We are like the British at the end of World War II: desperately trying to shore up an empire that we never needed and can no longer afford, using methods that often resemble those of failed empires of the past -- including the Axis powers of World War II and the former Soviet Union. There is an important lesson for us in the British decision, starting in 1945, to liquidate their empire relatively voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so by defeat in war, as were Japan and Germany, or by debilitating colonial conflicts, as were the French and Dutch. We should follow the British example. (Alas, they are currently backsliding and following our example by assisting us in the war in Afghanistan.)

Here are three basic reasons why we must liquidate our empire or else watch it liquidate us.

1. We Can No Longer Afford Our Postwar Expansionism

Shortly after his election as president, Barack Obama, in a speech announcing several members of his new cabinet, stated as fact that "[w]e have to maintain the strongest military on the planet." A few weeks later, on March 12, 2009, in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington D.C., the president again insisted , "Now make no mistake, this nation will maintain our military dominance. We will have the strongest armed forces in the history of the world." And in a commencement address to the cadets of the U.S. Naval Academy on May 22nd, Obama stressed that "[w]e will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen."

What he failed to note is that the United States no longer has the capability to remain a global hegemon, and to pretend otherwise is to invite disaster.

According to a growing consensus of economists and political scientists around the world, it is impossible for the United States to continue in that role while emerging into full view as a crippled economic power. No such configuration has ever persisted in the history of imperialism. The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, author of the important study Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Random House, 2005), typically writes :

"America is in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today's world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back on the Bush years as the death knell of American hegemony."

There is something absurd, even Kafkaesque, about our military empire. Jay Barr, a bankruptcy attorney, makes this point using an insightful analogy:

"Whether liquidating or reorganizing, a debtor who desires bankruptcy protection must provide a list of expenses, which, if considered reasonable, are offset against income to show that only limited funds are available to repay the bankrupted creditors. Now imagine a person filing for bankruptcy claiming that he could not repay his debts because he had the astronomical expense of maintaining at least 737 facilities overseas that provide exactly zero return on the significant investment required to sustain them He could not qualify for liquidation without turning over many of his assets for the benefit of creditors, including the valuable foreign real estate on which he placed his bases."

In other words, the United States is not seriously contemplating its own bankruptcy. It is instead ignoring the meaning of its precipitate economic decline and flirting with insolvency.

Nick Turse, author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books, 2008), calculates that we could clear $2.6 billion if we would sell our base assets at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and earn another $2.2 billion if we did the same with Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. These are only two of our over 800 overblown military enclaves.

Our unwillingness to retrench, no less liquidate, represents a striking historical failure of the imagination. In his first official visit to China since becoming Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner assured an audience of students at Beijing University, "Chinese assets [invested in the United States] are very safe." According to press reports , the students responded with loud laughter. Well they might.

In May 2009, the Office of Management and Budget predicted that in 2010 the United States will be burdened with a budget deficit of at least $1.75 trillion. This includes neither a projected $640 billion budget for the Pentagon, nor the costs of waging two remarkably expensive wars. The sum is so immense that it will take several generations for American citizens to repay the costs of George W. Bush's imperial adventures -- if they ever can or will. It represents about 13% of our current gross domestic product (that is, the value of everything we produce). It is worth noting that the target demanded of European nations wanting to join the Euro Zone is a deficit no greater than 3% of GDP.

Thus far, President Obama has announced measly cuts of only $8.8 billion in wasteful and worthless weapons spending, including his cancellation of the F-22 fighter aircraft. The actual Pentagon budget for next year will, in fact, be larger , not smaller, than the bloated final budget of the Bush era. Far bolder cuts in our military expenditures will obviously be required in the very near future if we intend to maintain any semblance of fiscal integrity.

2. We Are Going to Lose the War in Afghanistan and It Will Help Bankrupt Us

One of our major strategic blunders in Afghanistan was not to have recognized that both Great Britain and the Soviet Union attempted to pacify Afghanistan using the same military methods as ours and failed disastrously. We seem to have learned nothing from Afghanistan's modern history -- to the extent that we even know what it is. Between 1849 and 1947, Britain sent almost annual expeditions against the Pashtun tribes and sub-tribes living in what was then called the North-West Frontier Territories -- the area along either side of the artificial border between Afghanistan and Pakistan called the Durand Line. This frontier was created in 1893 by Britain's foreign secretary for India, Sir Mortimer Durand.

Neither Britain nor Pakistan has ever managed to establish effective control over the area. As the eminent historian Louis Dupree put it in his book Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 425): "Pashtun tribes, almost genetically expert at guerrilla warfare after resisting centuries of all comers and fighting among themselves when no comers were available, plagued attempts to extend the Pax Britannica into their mountain homeland." An estimated 41 million Pashtuns live in an undemarcated area along the Durand Line and profess no loyalties to the central governments of either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

The region known today as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan is administered directly by Islamabad, which -- just as British imperial officials did -- has divided the territory into seven agencies, each with its own "political agent" who wields much the same powers as his colonial-era predecessor. Then as now, the part of FATA known as Waziristan and the home of Pashtun tribesmen offered the fiercest resistance.

According to Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, experienced Afghan hands and coauthors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story (City Lights, 2009, p. 317):

"If Washington's bureaucrats don't remember the history of the region, the Afghans do. The British used air power to bomb these same Pashtun villages after World War I and were condemned for it. When the Soviets used MiGs and the dreaded Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships to do it during the 1980s, they were called criminals. For America to use its overwhelming firepower in the same reckless and indiscriminate manner defies the world's sense of justice and morality while turning the Afghan people and the Islamic world even further against the United States."

In 1932, in a series of Guernica-like atrocities, the British used poison gas in Waziristan. The disarmament convention of the same year sought a ban against the aerial bombardment of civilians, but Lloyd George, who had been British prime minister during World War I, gloated: "We insisted on reserving the right to bomb niggers" (Fitzgerald and Gould, p. 65). His view prevailed.

The U.S. continues to act similarly, but with the new excuse that our killing of noncombatants is a result of "collateral damage," or human error. Using pilotless drones guided with only minimal accuracy from computers at military bases in the Arizona and Nevada deserts, among other places, we have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unarmed bystanders in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pakistani and Afghan governments have repeatedly warned that we are alienating precisely the people we claim to be saving for democracy.

When in May 2009 General Stanley McChrystal was appointed as the commander in Afghanistan, he ordered new limits on air attacks, including those carried out by the CIA, except when needed to protect allied troops. Unfortunately, as if to illustrate the incompetence of our chain of command, only two days after this order, on June 23, 2009, the United States carried out a drone attack against a funeral procession that killed at least 80 people , the single deadliest U.S. attack on Pakistani soil so far. There was virtually no reporting of these developments by the mainstream American press or on the network television news. (At the time, the media were almost totally preoccupied by the sexual adventures of the governor of South Carolina and the death of pop star Michael Jackson.)

Our military operations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan have long been plagued by inadequate and inaccurate intelligence about both countries, ideological preconceptions about which parties we should support and which ones we should oppose, and myopic understandings of what we could possibly hope to achieve. Fitzgerald and Gould, for example, charge that, contrary to our own intelligence service's focus on Afghanistan, "Pakistan has always been the problem." They add:

"Pakistan's army and its Inter-Services Intelligence branch from 1973 on, has played the key role in funding and directing first the mujahideen [anti-Soviet fighters during the 1980s] and then the Taliban. It is Pakistan's army that controls its nuclear weapons, constrains the development of democratic institutions, trains Taliban fighters in suicide attacks and orders them to fight American and NATO soldiers protecting the Afghan government." (p. 322-324)

The Pakistani army and its intelligence arm are staffed, in part, by devout Muslims who fostered the Taliban in Afghanistan to meet the needs of their own agenda, though not necessarily to advance an Islamic jihad . Their purposes have always included: keeping Afghanistan free of Russian or Indian influence, providing a training and recruiting ground for mujahideen guerrillas to be used in places like Kashmir (fought over by both Pakistan and India), containing Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan (and so keeping it out of Pakistan), and extorting huge amounts of money from Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf emirates, and the United States to pay and train "freedom fighters" throughout the Islamic world. Pakistan's consistent policy has been to support the clandestine policies of the Inter-Services Intelligence and thwart the influence of its major enemy and competitor, India.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor, U.S. Army (retired), an adviser to the Center for Defense Information in Washington, summarizes our hopeless project in South Asia this way: "Nothing we do will compel 125 million Muslims in Pakistan to make common cause with a United States in league with the two states that are unambiguously anti-Muslim: Israel and India."

Obama's mid-2009 "surge" of troops into southern Afghanistan and particularly into Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold, is fast becoming darkly reminiscent of General William Westmoreland's continuous requests in Vietnam for more troops and his promises that if we would ratchet up the violence just a little more and tolerate a few more casualties, we would certainly break the will of the Vietnamese insurgents. This was a total misreading of the nature of the conflict in Vietnam, just as it is in Afghanistan today.

Twenty years after the forces of the Red Army withdrew from Afghanistan in disgrace, the last Russian general to command them, Gen. Boris Gromov, issued his own prediction: Disaster, he insisted, will come to the thousands of new forces Obama is sending there, just as it did to the Soviet Union's, which lost some 15,000 soldiers in its own Afghan war. We should recognize that we are wasting time, lives, and resources in an area where we have never understood the political dynamics and continue to make the wrong choices.

3. We Need to End the Secret Shame of Our Empire of Bases

In March, New York Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert noted , "Rape and other forms of sexual assault against women is the great shame of the U.S. armed forces, and there is no evidence that this ghastly problem, kept out of sight as much as possible, is diminishing." He continued:

"New data released by the Pentagon showed an almost 9 percent increase in the number of sexual assaults -- 2,923 -- and a 25 percent increase in such assaults reported by women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan [over the past year]. Try to imagine how bizarre it is that women in American uniforms who are enduring all the stresses related to serving in a combat zone have to also worry about defending themselves against rapists wearing the same uniform and lining up in formation right beside them."

The problem is exacerbated by having our troops garrisoned in overseas bases located cheek-by-jowl next to civilian populations and often preying on them like foreign conquerors. For example, sexual violence against women and girls by American GIs has been out of control in Okinawa, Japan's poorest prefecture, ever since it was permanently occupied by our soldiers, Marines, and airmen some 64 years ago.

That island was the scene of the largest anti-American demonstrations since the end of World War II after the 1995 kidnapping, rape, and attempted murder of a 12-year-old schoolgirl by two Marines and a sailor. The problem of rape has been ubiquitous around all of our bases on every continent and has probably contributed as much to our being loathed abroad as the policies of the Bush administration or our economic exploitation of poverty-stricken countries whose raw materials we covet.

The military itself has done next to nothing to protect its own female soldiers or to defend the rights of innocent bystanders forced to live next to our often racially biased and predatory troops. "The military's record of prosecuting rapists is not just lousy, it's atrocious," writes Herbert. In territories occupied by American military forces, the high command and the State Department make strenuous efforts to enact so-called "Status of Forces Agreements" (SOFAs) that will prevent host governments from gaining jurisdiction over our troops who commit crimes overseas. The SOFAs also make it easier for our military to spirit culprits out of a country before they can be apprehended by local authorities.

This issue was well illustrated by the case of an Australian teacher, a long-time resident of Japan, who in April 2002 was raped by a sailor from the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk , then based at the big naval base at Yokosuka. She identified her assailant and reported him to both Japanese and U.S. authorities. Instead of his being arrested and effectively prosecuted, the victim herself was harassed and humiliated by the local Japanese police. Meanwhile, the U.S. discharged the suspect from the Navy but allowed him to escape Japanese law by returning him to the U.S., where he lives today.

In the course of trying to obtain justice, the Australian teacher discovered that almost fifty years earlier, in October 1953, the Japanese and American governments signed a secret "understanding" as part of their SOFA in which Japan agreed to waive its jurisdiction if the crime was not of "national importance to Japan." The U.S. argued strenuously for this codicil because it feared that otherwise it would face the likelihood of some 350 servicemen per year being sent to Japanese jails for sex crimes.

Since that time the U.S. has negotiated similar wording in SOFAs with Canada, Ireland, Italy, and Denmark. According to the Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces (2001), the Japanese practice has become the norm for SOFAs throughout the world, with predictable results. In Japan, of 3,184 U.S. military personnel who committed crimes between 2001 and 2008, 83% were not prosecuted. In Iraq, we have just signed a SOFA that bears a strong resemblance to the first postwar one we had with Japan: namely, military personnel and military contractors accused of off-duty crimes will remain in U.S. custody while Iraqis investigate. This is, of course, a perfect opportunity to spirit the culprits out of the country before they can be charged.

Within the military itself, the journalist Dahr Jamail, author of Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007), speaks of the "culture of unpunished sexual assaults" and the "shockingly low numbers of courts martial" for rapes and other forms of sexual attacks. Helen Benedict, author of The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq (Beacon Press, 2009), quotes this figure in a 2009 Pentagon report on military sexual assaults: 90% of the rapes in the military are never reported at all and, when they are, the consequences for the perpetrator are negligible.

It is fair to say that the U.S. military has created a worldwide sexual playground for its personnel and protected them to a large extent from the consequences of their behavior. I believe a better solution would be to radically reduce the size of our standing army, and bring the troops home from countries where they do not understand their environments and have been taught to think of the inhabitants as inferior to themselves.

10 Steps Toward Liquidating the Empire

Dismantling the American empire would, of course, involve many steps. Here are ten key places to begin:

1. We need to put a halt to the serious environmental damage done by our bases planet-wide. We also need to stop writing SOFAs that exempt us from any responsibility for cleaning up after ourselves.

2. Liquidating the empire will end the burden of carrying our empire of bases and so of the "opportunity costs" that go with them -- the things we might otherwise do with our talents and resources but can't or won't.

3. As we already know (but often forget), imperialism breeds the use of torture. In the 1960s and 1970s we helped overthrow the elected governments in Brazil and Chile and underwrote regimes of torture that prefigured our own treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. (See, for instance, A.J. Langguth, Hidden Terrors [Pantheon, 1979], on how the U.S. spread torture methods to Brazil and Uruguay.) Dismantling the empire would potentially mean a real end to the modern American record of using torture abroad.

4. We need to cut the ever-lengthening train of camp followers, dependents, civilian employees of the Department of Defense, and hucksters -- along with their expensive medical facilities, housing requirements, swimming pools, clubs, golf courses , and so forth -- that follow our military enclaves around the world.

5. We need to discredit the myth promoted by the military-industrial complex that our military establishment is valuable to us in terms of jobs, scientific research, and defense. These alleged advantages have long been discredited by serious economic research. Ending empire would make this happen.

6. As a self-respecting democratic nation, we need to stop being the world's largest exporter of arms and munitions and quit educating Third World militaries in the techniques of torture, military coups, and service as proxies for our imperialism. A prime candidate for immediate closure is the so-called School of the Americas, the U.S. Army's infamous military academy at Fort Benning, Georgia, for Latin American military officers. (See Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire [Metropolitan Books, 2004], pp. 136-40.)

7. Given the growing constraints on the federal budget, we should abolish the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and other long-standing programs that promote militarism in our schools.

8. We need to restore discipline and accountability in our armed forces by radically scaling back our reliance on civilian contractors, private military companies, and agents working for the military outside the chain of command and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (See Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater:The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army [Nation Books, 2007]). Ending empire would make this possible.

9. We need to reduce, not increase, the size of our standing army and deal much more effectively with the wounds our soldiers receive and combat stress they undergo.

10. To repeat the main message of this essay, we must give up our inappropriate reliance on military force as the chief means of attempting to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Unfortunately, few empires of the past voluntarily gave up their dominions in order to remain independent, self-governing polities. The two most important recent examples are the British and Soviet empires. If we do not learn from their examples, our decline and fall is foreordained.

Chalmers Johnson was the author of Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006), and editor of Okinawa: Cold War Island (1999). His final book was Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope (2010).

[Note on further reading on the matter of sexual violence in and around our overseas bases and rapes in the military: On the response to the 1995 Okinawa rape, see Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire , chapter 2. On related subjects, see David McNeil, "Justice for Some. Crime, Victims, and the US-Japan SOFA," Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 8-1-09, March 15, 2009; "Bilateral Secret Agreement Is Preventing U.S. Servicemen Committing Crimes in Japan from Being Prosecuted," Japan Press Weekly, May 23, 2009; Dieter Fleck, ed., The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces , Oxford University Press, 2001; Minoru Matsutani, "'53 Secret Japan-US Deal Waived GI Prosecutions," Japan Times, October 24, 2008; "Crime Without Punishment in Japan," the Economist, December 10, 2008; "Japan: Declassified Document Reveals Agreement to Relinquish Jurisdiction Over U.S. Forces," Akahata, October 30, 2008; "Government's Decision First Case in Japan," Ryukyu Shimpo, May 20, 2008; Dahr Jamail, "Culture of Unpunished Sexual Assault in Military," Antiwar.com, May 1, 2009; and Helen Benedict, "The Plight of Women Soldiers," the Nation, May 5, 2009.]

Franz , July 30, 2018 at 9:29 pm GMT

"2. Liquidating the empire will end the burden of carrying our empire of bases and so of the "opportunity costs" that go with them"

Never forget, such "liquidation" will destroy the economy.

Harry Truman & Company invented the GI Bill of Rights to keep millions of returning WWII veterans out of the bad labor market following the war. It was a delaying tactic, no more.

Within a few years, to everyone's shock, the economy began to uptick. New factories were built, and the interstate highways created a plethora of opportunity. For a while.

Those days are gone. The plethora of opportunities is now in Mexico, China, South Korea by any rational yardstick the USA is an employment desert for young people. It's been heading that way since the oil shocks of the 1970s allowed the plutocrats to shed middle class jobs for four-fifths of the people on the wrong side of the bell curve.

Bringing armies home to debt and penury? By all means, assuming there's a Leon Trotsky or an Adolf Hitler in the woodpile. At least they know how to play a situation like that.

[Jul 31, 2018] Uber Neocon Max Boot Often Wrong but Never in Doubt by Richard C. Young

Notable quotes:
"... Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American empire," outright. ..."
"... Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.richardcyoung.com

Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American empire," outright.

Gottfried writes (abridged):

Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the provocative title The Virtue of Nationalism, I encountered a distinction drawn by the late Charles Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the editors of the Weekly Standard, for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the U.S. actively spread its own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said, he and those who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to accuse them of "imperialism."

Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory.

Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation.

The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's response (which I suspect would have been more devastating had Hazony not been afraid of losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?

It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both morally superior and less dangerous than ethnically defined societies because we advocate a "value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race.

Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building. The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give it.

Read more here .

[Jul 31, 2018] The whole corrupt, crazy political process is a distraction from our real problems, and an endless maze of futility.

Notable quotes:
"... The whole corrupt, crazy political process is a distraction from our real problems, and an endless maze of futility. The illusion of democracy is collapsing all around us, and safety lies in abandoning it. ..."
"... Agreed. Our entire national political debate is a theater of smoke and mirrors. The facts most obvious and degrading to the national interest are ignored at all costs, e.g., an out of control military-industrial-intelligence complex that now swallows up an obscene $1 trillion annually (including "defense related expenditures"). ..."
"... My plans for the upcoming Democratic primary in Florida: I will write "none of these clowns" at the top of the ballot. ..."
"... I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the Soviets, but we just haven't figured it that out yet. ..."
"... Most of the human race has been speeding towards the cliff at 100 mph like Thelma and Louise. Certainly America has been. It's getting ever closer. We will get there. Don't expect Zeno's paradox to save us. ..."
"... I share your setiment about the Democrats but voting for Republicans just because is equally foolish. Why support banning labor unions, corporate very expensive health care, greatly reducing and eventually eliminating social security and Medicare, privitzing all public infrastructure and bailing out wall Street at all cost. I could go on but you get the idea. Vote for candidates that stand for the American people and have the guts to stand up to the elites. If no such candidates exist in a particular election don't vote simple as that. ..."
"... tealing a "none of the above" write-in requires the ballot be destroyed, so it can provide a paper trail and/or a potential theft exposure point. ..."
"... I am a registered Democrat; I will NOT be voting for them this fall. They no longer have any credibility with me. Rachel helped them shoot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. How are they any different from neocons??? I'm grateful WikiLeaks pulled off their mask. I'm a historian and know a lot of both CIA and Russian history and am not buying Russiagate or Democrats. ..."
"... I like that, the "Demented-crats"! They are so completely clueless, in their overpaid bubbles, nothing to say about the Race-to-the-Bottom, Hunger Games society they have helped create. ..."
"... The loyal shrills to Clinton? Those aren't progressives. ..."
"... As Jimmy Dore keeps telling us: the Democratic leadership, which is totally corporatist and neocon, would rather lose to the GOP candidate than to see a progressive or liberal Democrat win the office. The Dems have no independent policies of their own and are merely enablers to make sure that the hard right agenda always prevails. ..."
"... And I see Bernie Sanders was spewing this neo-McCarthyite crap on a Sunday morning talk show earlier this week. He really should know better. ..."
"... Isaac Christiansen observes that "As Democrats seek to shift blame away from the discontent with our economic system, their party and their chosen Neoliberal candidate, we are told that Trump came to power almost solely due to Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election." ..."
"... Remember how the entire anti-Russian theme began? The Clinton team used Russia as their excuse for losing 2016. It didn't get much attention at first because the party/candidate that loses inevitably blames someone or something other than the candidate/party. But the Democrats ran with it from there, using much of the media marketed to liberals to build the Russian Tale. The most insane thing about the claims that Russia hacked voting machines for Trump, etc.: In spite of much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton right wing, H. Clinton got the most votes. (Did Russia do that, and if so, why?) Trump is president because of our antiquated electoral college process. Meanwhile, while Dems ramble on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has watched as Trump set the stage for our final war, US vs. Russia and China. ..."
"... Everything gets conspicuously twisted by a biased media, yet no one (of consequence) says anything about that. Even as Trump gets bashed, he gets cheered whenever he does something dangerous and stupid, such as launching missiles in the aftermath of an obvious false flag incident. We see the matrix being blatantly and clumsily spun right before our eyes and nobody says a word about the emperor's nakedness. ..."
"... It is time for the progressives to flee the Democratic party en masse and go their own way. ..."
"... "One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates." ..."
"... We haven't seen any progressives in years. Progressive politics isn't a new invention. In the US, it goes back at least to the early 1900s. It's about building a better nation from the bottom up -- legit aid for the poor at one end, firm restraints in the rich at the other end.We have nothing like that today. This isn't about "political purity," but about not calling an apple an armadillo. ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

mike k , July 27, 2018 at 8:39 am

The whole corrupt, crazy political process is a distraction from our real problems, and an endless maze of futility. The illusion of democracy is collapsing all around us, and safety lies in abandoning it. We need a new way of thinking and acting that clearly and directly sees our problems and deals with them. Politics as now understood is a dead end.

Heather S. , July 28, 2018 at 10:36 am

Agreed. Our entire national political debate is a theater of smoke and mirrors. The facts most obvious and degrading to the national interest are ignored at all costs, e.g., an out of control military-industrial-intelligence complex that now swallows up an obscene $1 trillion annually (including "defense related expenditures"). Even the fact that we no longer live in a democracy but an oligarchy, according to objective studies and noted commentators, including former president Carter, is never commented upon by the miscreant pundits posing as reporters (Hayes, Maddow, Anderson, Cuomo, et al).

Realist , July 27, 2018 at 6:33 am

My plans for the upcoming Democratic primary in Florida: I will write "none of these clowns" at the top of the ballot. Under that I will write "Stop the warmongering and phony Russia-bashing. Stop the obstructionism just to damage Trump and exonerate Hillary for losing a poorly-run campaign. I cannot vote for my party this November, and never again until you stop trying to run to the right of the Republicans." Maybe someone reading the ballot will pass the message on to the party leadership and adjustments will at least be considered.

If not, eff 'em. We will be better off sweeping corrupt corporatist cronies of Hillary, like Wasserman-Schultz, out of congress. Then there will be no doubt that the GOP needs to go too, after they use their mandate to totally wreck all before them, and maybe, after a few election cycles, some third party representing the interests of the people rather than Wall Street and the MIC can emerge. Maybe the Greens and the Libertarians can become at least equal players with the corporatist Dems and GOPers.

Somebody new is going to have to preside over the coming economic and societal collapse, and do we want that to be the military, the police and the spooks? That is who will seize power (not just covertly but overtly) if the usually mercenary politicians cannot effect some workable changes.

Broompilot , July 27, 2018 at 7:01 pm

Like the Eastern Roman Empire, we could wax and wane for 1000 years with the power we possess. Or, like the Soviet Union, we could suffer an economic collapse over a decade throwing a large percentage of us into poverty.

I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the Soviets, but we just haven't figured it that out yet.

Realist , July 27, 2018 at 9:48 pm

"I tend to think that the Cold War bankrupted us as well as the soviets, but we just haven't figured that out yet."

Because we prefer to blow off science and empirically-supported concepts like the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just transferred or changed in form.

We choose to believe that we can endlessly create money, which is a token representing access to available stored energy, out of nothing by issuing debt. Even if the tokens are infinite, on a finite planet the available energy is certainly not.

Most of the human race has been speeding towards the cliff at 100 mph like Thelma and Louise. Certainly America has been. It's getting ever closer. We will get there. Don't expect Zeno's paradox to save us.

Ma Laoshi , July 27, 2018 at 5:37 am

We are long past the point that this extreme Russophobia has revealed itself to be plain old race hatred. These bouts of hysteria have always been part of the American DNA, and it has been most instructive how fast and seamless the switch has been from Muslims to Russians as the hated. Other. Progressives have solemnly declared themselves to be the good guys without much introspection, so one would expect them to be more susceptible to this bigotry, not less; a more astute observer might have asked "When will the machine turn on me next?", as is of course already happening to Sanders and others.

Yes RussiaGating is a losing strategy, but most of the evidence is that progressives ARE losers. So there's no surprise that they're falling for it, and little to indicate that they deserve any better.

Mike , July 26, 2018 at 11:43 pm

Never voted for Republican congressmen in the past. Never. This time I will. Democrats are the party of open borders and war. Now they want conflict with Russia over this ginned up fake investigation. They don't represent working people any more. I don't even think they put AMERICANS over illegal immigrants. Why is it wrong that people should be forced to obey immigration law? The laws for citizens are enforced. Never thought I'd vote Republican.

Torture This , July 27, 2018 at 9:18 am

I can't think of any reason to vote for 99.9% of the Democrats. The more everyone including the media lies about Russia, the more I empathize with them.

I'd guess the business owners that rely on illegals vote for Republicans because they're business owners. We need to eat and they need to make more money than they deserve so neither party is going to stand in the way of it as long as they bribe their politicians and anybody else that feels entitled to free stuff. Democrats won't get rid of ICE soon, if ever.

Nearly all people coming from the South are escaping conditions we've created and are granted asylum when allowed to make their case in court.

I think treating defenseless people terribly to show how mean we can be is wrong.

Freedomlover , July 28, 2018 at 8:05 am

Mike,

I share your setiment about the Democrats but voting for Republicans just because is equally foolish. Why support banning labor unions, corporate very expensive health care, greatly reducing and eventually eliminating social security and Medicare, privitzing all public infrastructure and bailing out wall Street at all cost. I could go on but you get the idea. Vote for candidates that stand for the American people and have the guts to stand up to the elites. If no such candidates exist in a particular election don't vote simple as that.

glitch , July 28, 2018 at 11:28 am

If you can't vote third party write in none of the above on a paper ballot. If those aren't options spoil your ballot but turn it in. Not voting doesn't register your disdain, it's easier for them to ignore as apathy. And non votes can be spoofed (stolen). S tealing a "none of the above" write-in requires the ballot be destroyed, so it can provide a paper trail and/or a potential theft exposure point.

Diana Lee , July 26, 2018 at 10:20 pm

I am a registered Democrat; I will NOT be voting for them this fall. They no longer have any credibility with me. Rachel helped them shoot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. How are they any different from neocons??? I'm grateful WikiLeaks pulled off their mask. I'm a historian and know a lot of both CIA and Russian history and am not buying Russiagate or Democrats.

Jessika , July 26, 2018 at 9:33 pm

I like that, the "Demented-crats"! They are so completely clueless, in their overpaid bubbles, nothing to say about the Race-to-the-Bottom, Hunger Games society they have helped create.

Meanwhile, over in Russia, the government with leadership of Vladimir Putin has increased the Russians' standard of living, much as was done for Americans under FDR and the New Deal. (Never a word about the 80+ governments the USA/CIA has destabilized or directly overthrown, including Russia's -- oh no! We're exceptional, didn't you know?)

William , July 26, 2018 at 7:12 pm

Yea, I don't get it. Who the hell do you consider to be the progressives!?! Most people I know who consider themselves to be progressives aren't all wrapped up in the Russian narrative. The loyal shrills to Clinton? Those aren't progressives. Clinton herself pretty much backed away from that stamp during the election cycle. Pelosi has quite obviously made it clear she can't even see that side of the fence. Or will she allow it the light of day. In case you missed it, there's a war on progressives going on. And we aren't allowed in that club over there. I follow a hand full of Green Party sites on face hack, and they aren't having the Russia did it by any means. Only those loyal to the liberal democrats have the ignorance to bellow out the talking points and support for Sanders. Yea, those people that wouldn't give him the light of day during that same election cycle when we thought he was a progressive. Easy Bob! Just a hic cup. I hope! Rest peacefully!

Realist , July 27, 2018 at 6:46 am

As Jimmy Dore keeps telling us: the Democratic leadership, which is totally corporatist and neocon, would rather lose to the GOP candidate than to see a progressive or liberal Democrat win the office. The Dems have no independent policies of their own and are merely enablers to make sure that the hard right agenda always prevails. They are a sham party. Enough "blue dogs" and GOP-light types always win as Democrats to ensure that no progressive legislation will ever be enacted even when "the party" has 60% majorities in both houses -- as they did in Obama's first term. This is by design. Even the putative Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama functioned as center-right Republicans. Obama said as much. Clinton didn't have to as his policies were all reactionary and brought us to the impending economic collapse.

Zim , July 26, 2018 at 5:39 pm

Looks like the Inauthentic Opposition Party is gearing up for another ass whooping at the polls. The hypocrisy, the cluelessness is astounding.

JMG , July 26, 2018 at 5:33 pm

From this excellent Norman Solomon's article:

"As The Hill newspaper reported this week under the headline "Most Americans Back Trump's Call for Follow-Up Summit With Putin," 54 percent of respondents favored plans for a second summit. "The survey also found that 61 percent of Americans say better relations with Russia are in the best interest of the United States.""

This is very important.

Poll: Most Americans back Trump's call for follow-up summit with Putin | TheHill
http://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/398370-majority-of-americans-support-follow-up-summit-with-putin-poll

Jay , July 26, 2018 at 5:24 pm

And I see Bernie Sanders was spewing this neo-McCarthyite crap on a Sunday morning talk show earlier this week. He really should know better.

Realist , July 27, 2018 at 7:01 am

He's been co-opted. He's been told that the blame will be his when the Democratic Party collapses unless he works like hell to keep his sheep in the fold. He's following orders from the DNC which believes that the party's last best hope for a comeback, indeed to stave off annihilation, is to keep bashing Putin and Trump because they have no policies, no credibility and no candidates that the people eagerly want to get behind. They think that lies and war are the winning combination. How did that work out for LBJ, Bushdaddy, and Dubya's organisation?

mrtmbrnmn , July 26, 2018 at 5:15 pm

Ever since the Bonnie & Clyde Clinton years, the sclerotic Establishment Dementedcrats have essentially despised their base. They only speak AT them. Never FOR them. Or else they SCOLD them or simply IGNORE them. I hope now they are beginning to FEAR them.

jose , July 26, 2018 at 4:22 pm

Personally speaking, I am yet to see any serious evidence against allege Russia meddling in US elections. And I am not alone in this regard; For instance, according to counterpunch news, " The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton's electoral loss was made in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff." According to Mike Whitney, "So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia to steal the US presidency."

Isaac Christiansen observes that "As Democrats seek to shift blame away from the discontent with our economic system, their party and their chosen Neoliberal candidate, we are told that Trump came to power almost solely due to Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election." I reckon that any rational person should believe any Russian interference in US electoral system only when presented with real iron-clad prove. Otherwise, it would be foolhardy to accept at face value speculations and innuendo of a foreign interference that purportedly put Trump in the White House.

DH Fabian , July 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm

Well, a couple of issues here. Liberals have not been about economic justice, but about protecting the advantages of the middle class (with an occasional pat on the head to min. wage workers). They've forgotten that we're over 20 years into one hell of a war on the poor. Not everyone can work, and there aren't jobs for all. The US began shipping out jobs in the '80s, ended actual welfare aid in the '90s -- lost over 6 million manufacturing jobs alone since 2000. What is" justice" for today's jobless poor?

Remember how the entire anti-Russian theme began? The Clinton team used Russia as their excuse for losing 2016. It didn't get much attention at first because the party/candidate that loses inevitably blames someone or something other than the candidate/party. But the Democrats ran with it from there, using much of the media marketed to liberals to build the Russian Tale. The most insane thing about the claims that Russia hacked voting machines for Trump, etc.: In spite of much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton right wing, H. Clinton got the most votes. (Did Russia do that, and if so, why?) Trump is president because of our antiquated electoral college process. Meanwhile, while Dems ramble on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has watched as Trump set the stage for our final war, US vs. Russia and China.

Realist , July 27, 2018 at 7:09 am

"Meanwhile, while Dems ramble on about a Putin/Trump bromance, the sane world has watched as Trump set the stage for our final war, US vs. Russia and China."

So very right. Everything gets conspicuously twisted by a biased media, yet no one (of consequence) says anything about that. Even as Trump gets bashed, he gets cheered whenever he does something dangerous and stupid, such as launching missiles in the aftermath of an obvious false flag incident. We see the matrix being blatantly and clumsily spun right before our eyes and nobody says a word about the emperor's nakedness.

Skip Scott , July 26, 2018 at 2:27 pm

It is time for the progressives to flee the Democratic party en masse and go their own way. If they haven't learned anything from the 2016 election, they are doomed. The DNC has a stranglehold on the Progressive movement, and sheep dog Bernie will once again herd them over to the corporate sponsored candidate in the end. For the midterms, this is what the Democrats have planned:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html

"One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates."

The Green Party has a truly Progressive platform on Domestic and Foreign policy, and are our only hope at this point. They just need the right standard bearers to break through the MSM censorship. If they could get a charismatic candidate for President in 2020 and break the 15% threshold for the debates, the American people would finally see that they really do have a choice for a better future.

DH Fabian , July 26, 2018 at 3:36 pm

We haven't seen any progressives in years. Progressive politics isn't a new invention. In the US, it goes back at least to the early 1900s. It's about building a better nation from the bottom up -- legit aid for the poor at one end, firm restraints in the rich at the other end.We have nothing like that today. This isn't about "political purity," but about not calling an apple an armadillo.

It's true that the Green Party platform does include legitimatrely addressing poverty, but perhaps understandably, this fact was swept under the carpet during their 2016 campaign.

will , July 26, 2018 at 8:32 pm

"We haven't seen any progressives in years" Apparently you don't get out much.

hetro , July 26, 2018 at 4:14 pm

Skip, let's hope we don't have the "hold your nose and vote Democrat" arguments again, with Greens as a vote for Trump (or Putin?). Interestingly, the following poll from FOX news indicates the strum und feces hysteria of the current Democratic machine may not be working out all that well, as 7 in 10 respondents here indicate the political atmosphere in the US at this time is "overheated."

Well, a good deal of that overheat is coming from the "them Russians them Russians" meme continually pushed -- and way over the top for most American people trying to "have a great day!" This poll does indicate Dems are ahead at this point, and in the past several election cycles there has been a regular switch every two years in congressional domination.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/12/fox-news-poll-democrats-ahead-in-election-enthusiasm-interest-and-vote.html

Miranda Keefe , July 26, 2018 at 4:59 pm

"The Green Party has a truly Progressive platform on Domestic and Foreign policy, and are our only hope at this point."

The Green Party is a Capitalist party, just the kindest and gentlest Capitalism of any of the Capitalist parties with the most stringent leash on the mad killer dog that is Capitalism and the best safety net for those chased off the cliff by that mad killer dog.

For those of us who see that Capitalism is the problem, that makes voting Green actually a lesser evil choice. If we're going to vote lesser evil, we might as well vote for the most progressive Democrats, or even centrist ones when they're running against fire breathing Randian Republicans who combine that with a Fundamentalist Christian Theocratic agenda (a combination that makes no sense, but who said the GOP makes sense?)

There are few viable Socialist parties in the US anymore. The biggest jettisoned Socialism nearly 50 years ago when it also jettisoned actually being a political party and decided to just be a lobby group within the Democratic Party. The only political heir of Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party USA, is now a fringe group whose national conventions are more like a picnic gathering of a few friends. The other organizations that seem more viable are actually Trotskyite groups, and Trotsky was not non-violent at all, which I am.

I am really at a lost what to do as far as the less important task of voting (which is less important than ongoing activism.) I just did my primary ballot. We've got this terrible top two primary, a system that basically kills movement building.

I could have voted for Gigi Ferguson, the independent, who was endorsed by the Green Party, running for senate against NeoLiberal phony environmentalist Maria Cantwell and not the poser, who said he was Green, (parties have no say in candidates' statements of which party they prefer,) but is for privatizing Social Security. But I instead voted for Steve Hoffman, the only avowed Socialist on the ballot in any race, even though his Freedom Socialist Party is Troskyite.

I voted for Stoney Bird, a real Green, running against TPP loving and indefinite detention loving and NeoLiberal anti-Single Payer Rick Larsen for Congress.

My state legislation had two positions. In one I voted for Alex Ramel, an ecological activist, over the preferred establishment choice of Identity Politics candidate (tribal,) Debra Lekanoff. In the other the incumbent, Jeff Morris, another establishment Democrat, ran unopposed. I wrote in "None." (Morris having the same family name as my mother's maiden name didn't affect me at all.)

But it was all an exercise in futility, voting for my conscience as much as possible. I have little doubt that none of my choices, except maybe Ramel, will make it to the top two. Cantwell and Larsen are shoo-ins and they'll surely face the establishment GOP candidate. Thus cutting out all other options in the Fall.

I'll have to write in my choices then. Oh well.

maryam , July 27, 2018 at 4:54 am

Over here in Europe (not UK) and faced with the similar problem of inapt candidates, we sometimes need to vote creatively: so we vote, of course, but choose to make the ballot sheet invalid. this way our voice is noted and we show that we care about the electoral process, while it also makes clear that we do not care much about the cabdidate(s). "we" will vote, but "they" are not very trustworthy.

MBeaver , July 27, 2018 at 8:12 am

Yep. We in Germany had that lesson already. The Green party was one of the most corrupt one when they finally got elected into the government. They also harmed the social systems massively and supported the first offensive war with German support since WW2. Even as opposition they show all the time how much they lie about their true intentions.
They are not an option, because they are hypocrites.

ronnie mitchell , July 27, 2018 at 4:09 pm

Interesting comment with some good information that I appreciate.\ I live in Bellingham and have filled out my vote for Stony Bird over Rick Larsen whom I truly despise. In fact in previous election cycles I voted for Mike Lapointe instead but he quit running more than a few years ago so the last time I just left it blank and the same goes for the general election vote for Congress.
With the TPP issue Rick Larsen had a townhall meeting at City hall building which was packed and he starts off by saying he hasn't read any of the text of the TPP yet so he was free from answering most questions however he would be checking it out BUT no there would be no further meeting before the voting. In other words he was giving us NOTHING.
I had been part of the protesters outside his fundraising gathering (private and by invitation only) and have been to his local office many times (it's two blocks from where I live) and when myself and a small group were in opposition to building the largest coal terminal in north America at Cherry Point. He would never say he was against it or for it but his fundraisers were backers of the terminal and as each of our group stepped forward to give a statement to his office workers on the issue (Rick was in DC,aka District of Corruption at the time) they just politely listened but neither recorded nor wrote down ANYTHING we said.
The list is long regarding issues on which he is on the opposite side of his constituents wishes and at one gathering was smugly dismissive of requests to represent the votes of the people and not use his super delegate status(not Democratic) to endorse Hillary Clinton because votes in Caucuses were overwhelmingly for Sen. Sanders.
I could go on but it would be too long of a comment but you've given me some good ideas for other choices on the ballot which I needed in particular with Maria Cantwell whom (like fellow neoliberal Patty Murray) I have refused to support in the last two elections.For one of many examples of why, one big one was their stand against importing cheaper medicines from Canada which was word for word straight out of the Big PHarma handbook of talking points, but they DID get quite a lot of flak for it.

I'll look into some of your other suggestions as well before I turn in this ballot, thanks for your comment.

TS , July 27, 2018 at 4:06 am

> Skip Scott

> If they could get a charismatic candidate for President in 2020 and break the 15% threshold for the debates,

And what makes you think the people who decide wouldn't simply shift the goalposts?

Skip Scott , July 27, 2018 at 2:48 pm

I'm sure that would be attempted, but with a strong candidate hopefully there'd be enough of a fuss made to get them to back off. I'd also like to dream that some of the more progressive Democrats in congress would see the writing on the wall, and declare themselves Greens. That'd give us a toehold in two branches of government. I know I'm being overly optimistic, but it keeps me away from the whiskey bottle.

Piotr Berman , July 28, 2018 at 3:06 pm

I have some misgivings to "eco politics", I am not sure to what extend they apply to Greens, and I am sorry to say, liberals have a knack to pick the worst parts of any progressive idea.

Any goal has to consider trade-off. If we think that emitting carbon to the atmosphere is a major problem, solutions must follow economic calculus. Instead, there was two much stress on "aesthetic solutions" and sometimes scientifically unsound solutions. For example, aesthetic solution is electric vehicles, but hybrid vehicles offer a much smaller cost per amount of carbon that is saved, only when majority of vehicles already gain from regenerative braking and having engines work only in fuel optimal conditions (battery absorbing surplus or augmenting the engine power when the amount of needed power is outside parameters optimal for the internal combustion engine) you may get better cost from electric engines.

Or excluding nuclear power from the "approved solutions". One of my many objections on "Republicans on energy" that they promised a few times to be "rational" but they never delivered.

Philosophically, there should be a fat carbon tax and social policies and subsidies to avoid poor people to loose.

"Hyperrational" progressive approach would be to make a balance: as a society, where do we waste, and where do we spent too little.

1. Military/foreign policy. In aggregate, spendings are huge and nobody is overly proud from the results. An open question if this category of spending should be decreased by 50% or 75%, if we proceed in stages we can reach satisfactory point. Mind you, the largest ticket items are improving nuclear weapons or conventional weapon systems that are needed against very few most sophisticated adversaries who also waste resources. USA, Russia, China, the rest of NATO etc. could agree to some disarmament, Russia and China actually accelerated weapon development in response to "Let America dominate forever" policies, bad news are they they do it for less money.

2. Medical robbery complex. Private insurance and lack of costs control leads to spending on medical care around 18% of GDP rather than 10%. This waste is actually larger than all spending on defense.

3. Infrastructure (large public role) and other capital investments (small public role but essential fiscal policies and "thoughtful protectionism"), we spent too little, can be covered by a part of 1 and 2.

I could continue with "hyperrational progressive manifesto" but I will give one example. Enforcing labor standards may eliminate 90% of illegal employment without walls, concentration camps for aliens etc. Some industries cannot make it without cheap illegal aliens, if they REALLY cannot, workers should work legally in their home countries and resulting imports should be encouraged. If picking carrots is too expensive in USA, we may get them from other countries in Western Hemisphere. On that note, lately there are enough jobs in USA, but native born citizens do not flock to carrot picking, they would rather have jobs that required large capital investments and there are too few of those.

Hyperrational rhetoric can borrow from libertarians: if our allies do not feel secure when they spend X times more than their regional adversaries (especially if we add our own regional expenditures), that says that money alone cannot cure their "secure feeling" deficit and we and they are already spending too much. We do not need to hate or demean anyone to reach such conclusions.

Skip Scott , July 29, 2018 at 1:09 pm

Piotr-

I am all in favor of rational solutions to our environmental problems. The problem is the entrenched power of the existing exploitive industries. An incredible amount of progress could be made through on-site power generation and energy efficient building design.

I'm am not in favor of current nuclear power plants, but I am not opposed to research, and I've heard good things about recent designs, especially thorium nukes. I am no engineer, but if we had safe nukes, we could go with hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles. There are plenty of other creative ideas as well for things such as localized food production.

If we find common purpose with the Libertarians to stop the war machine, the amount of energy and resources and creative potential to bring humanity forward would be tremendous. First we have to stop the war machine, and then we can argue about the extent of the role of government in a free society.

[Jul 31, 2018] Three Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire, by Chalmers Johnson - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... These massive concentrations of American military power outside the United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries. They are also unimaginably expensive. According to Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website Foreign Policy in Focus, the United States spends approximately $250 billion each year maintaining its global military presence. The sole purpose of this is to give us hegemony -- that is, control or dominance -- over as many nations on the planet as possible. ..."
"... Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

Three Good Reasons to Liquidate Our Empire And Ten Steps to Take to Do So Chalmers Johnson July 29, 2018 4,000 Words 1 Comment Reply

However ambitious President Barack Obama's domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there -- 49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.

These massive concentrations of American military power outside the United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries. They are also unimaginably expensive. According to Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website Foreign Policy in Focus, the United States spends approximately $250 billion each year maintaining its global military presence. The sole purpose of this is to give us hegemony -- that is, control or dominance -- over as many nations on the planet as possible.

We are like the British at the end of World War II: desperately trying to shore up an empire that we never needed and can no longer afford, using methods that often resemble those of failed empires of the past -- including the Axis powers of World War II and the former Soviet Union. There is an important lesson for us in the British decision, starting in 1945, to liquidate their empire relatively voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so by defeat in war, as were Japan and Germany, or by debilitating colonial conflicts, as were the French and Dutch. We should follow the British example. (Alas, they are currently backsliding and following our example by assisting us in the war in Afghanistan.)

Here are three basic reasons why we must liquidate our empire or else watch it liquidate us.

1. We Can No Longer Afford Our Postwar Expansionism

Shortly after his election as president, Barack Obama, in a speech announcing several members of his new cabinet, stated as fact that "[w]e have to maintain the strongest military on the planet." A few weeks later, on March 12, 2009, in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington D.C., the president again insisted , "Now make no mistake, this nation will maintain our military dominance. We will have the strongest armed forces in the history of the world." And in a commencement address to the cadets of the U.S. Naval Academy on May 22nd, Obama stressed that "[w]e will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen."

What he failed to note is that the United States no longer has the capability to remain a global hegemon, and to pretend otherwise is to invite disaster.

According to a growing consensus of economists and political scientists around the world, it is impossible for the United States to continue in that role while emerging into full view as a crippled economic power. No such configuration has ever persisted in the history of imperialism. The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, author of the important study Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Random House, 2005), typically writes :

"America is in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today's world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back on the Bush years as the death knell of American hegemony."

There is something absurd, even Kafkaesque, about our military empire. Jay Barr, a bankruptcy attorney, makes this point using an insightful analogy:

"Whether liquidating or reorganizing, a debtor who desires bankruptcy protection must provide a list of expenses, which, if considered reasonable, are offset against income to show that only limited funds are available to repay the bankrupted creditors. Now imagine a person filing for bankruptcy claiming that he could not repay his debts because he had the astronomical expense of maintaining at least 737 facilities overseas that provide exactly zero return on the significant investment required to sustain them He could not qualify for liquidation without turning over many of his assets for the benefit of creditors, including the valuable foreign real estate on which he placed his bases."

In other words, the United States is not seriously contemplating its own bankruptcy. It is instead ignoring the meaning of its precipitate economic decline and flirting with insolvency.

Nick Turse, author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books, 2008), calculates that we could clear $2.6 billion if we would sell our base assets at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and earn another $2.2 billion if we did the same with Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. These are only two of our over 800 overblown military enclaves.

Our unwillingness to retrench, no less liquidate, represents a striking historical failure of the imagination. In his first official visit to China since becoming Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner assured an audience of students at Beijing University, "Chinese assets [invested in the United States] are very safe." According to press reports , the students responded with loud laughter. Well they might.

In May 2009, the Office of Management and Budget predicted that in 2010 the United States will be burdened with a budget deficit of at least $1.75 trillion. This includes neither a projected $640 billion budget for the Pentagon, nor the costs of waging two remarkably expensive wars. The sum is so immense that it will take several generations for American citizens to repay the costs of George W. Bush's imperial adventures -- if they ever can or will. It represents about 13% of our current gross domestic product (that is, the value of everything we produce). It is worth noting that the target demanded of European nations wanting to join the Euro Zone is a deficit no greater than 3% of GDP.

Thus far, President Obama has announced measly cuts of only $8.8 billion in wasteful and worthless weapons spending, including his cancellation of the F-22 fighter aircraft. The actual Pentagon budget for next year will, in fact, be larger , not smaller, than the bloated final budget of the Bush era. Far bolder cuts in our military expenditures will obviously be required in the very near future if we intend to maintain any semblance of fiscal integrity.

2. We Are Going to Lose the War in Afghanistan and It Will Help Bankrupt Us

One of our major strategic blunders in Afghanistan was not to have recognized that both Great Britain and the Soviet Union attempted to pacify Afghanistan using the same military methods as ours and failed disastrously. We seem to have learned nothing from Afghanistan's modern history -- to the extent that we even know what it is. Between 1849 and 1947, Britain sent almost annual expeditions against the Pashtun tribes and sub-tribes living in what was then called the North-West Frontier Territories -- the area along either side of the artificial border between Afghanistan and Pakistan called the Durand Line. This frontier was created in 1893 by Britain's foreign secretary for India, Sir Mortimer Durand.

Neither Britain nor Pakistan has ever managed to establish effective control over the area. As the eminent historian Louis Dupree put it in his book Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 425): "Pashtun tribes, almost genetically expert at guerrilla warfare after resisting centuries of all comers and fighting among themselves when no comers were available, plagued attempts to extend the Pax Britannica into their mountain homeland." An estimated 41 million Pashtuns live in an undemarcated area along the Durand Line and profess no loyalties to the central governments of either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

The region known today as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan is administered directly by Islamabad, which -- just as British imperial officials did -- has divided the territory into seven agencies, each with its own "political agent" who wields much the same powers as his colonial-era predecessor. Then as now, the part of FATA known as Waziristan and the home of Pashtun tribesmen offered the fiercest resistance.

According to Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, experienced Afghan hands and coauthors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story (City Lights, 2009, p. 317):

"If Washington's bureaucrats don't remember the history of the region, the Afghans do. The British used air power to bomb these same Pashtun villages after World War I and were condemned for it. When the Soviets used MiGs and the dreaded Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships to do it during the 1980s, they were called criminals. For America to use its overwhelming firepower in the same reckless and indiscriminate manner defies the world's sense of justice and morality while turning the Afghan people and the Islamic world even further against the United States."

In 1932, in a series of Guernica-like atrocities, the British used poison gas in Waziristan. The disarmament convention of the same year sought a ban against the aerial bombardment of civilians, but Lloyd George, who had been British prime minister during World War I, gloated: "We insisted on reserving the right to bomb niggers" (Fitzgerald and Gould, p. 65). His view prevailed.

The U.S. continues to act similarly, but with the new excuse that our killing of noncombatants is a result of "collateral damage," or human error. Using pilotless drones guided with only minimal accuracy from computers at military bases in the Arizona and Nevada deserts, among other places, we have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unarmed bystanders in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pakistani and Afghan governments have repeatedly warned that we are alienating precisely the people we claim to be saving for democracy.

When in May 2009 General Stanley McChrystal was appointed as the commander in Afghanistan, he ordered new limits on air attacks, including those carried out by the CIA, except when needed to protect allied troops. Unfortunately, as if to illustrate the incompetence of our chain of command, only two days after this order, on June 23, 2009, the United States carried out a drone attack against a funeral procession that killed at least 80 people , the single deadliest U.S. attack on Pakistani soil so far. There was virtually no reporting of these developments by the mainstream American press or on the network television news. (At the time, the media were almost totally preoccupied by the sexual adventures of the governor of South Carolina and the death of pop star Michael Jackson.)

Our military operations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan have long been plagued by inadequate and inaccurate intelligence about both countries, ideological preconceptions about which parties we should support and which ones we should oppose, and myopic understandings of what we could possibly hope to achieve. Fitzgerald and Gould, for example, charge that, contrary to our own intelligence service's focus on Afghanistan, "Pakistan has always been the problem." They add:

"Pakistan's army and its Inter-Services Intelligence branch from 1973 on, has played the key role in funding and directing first the mujahideen [anti-Soviet fighters during the 1980s] and then the Taliban. It is Pakistan's army that controls its nuclear weapons, constrains the development of democratic institutions, trains Taliban fighters in suicide attacks and orders them to fight American and NATO soldiers protecting the Afghan government." (p. 322-324)

The Pakistani army and its intelligence arm are staffed, in part, by devout Muslims who fostered the Taliban in Afghanistan to meet the needs of their own agenda, though not necessarily to advance an Islamic jihad . Their purposes have always included: keeping Afghanistan free of Russian or Indian influence, providing a training and recruiting ground for mujahideen guerrillas to be used in places like Kashmir (fought over by both Pakistan and India), containing Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan (and so keeping it out of Pakistan), and extorting huge amounts of money from Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf emirates, and the United States to pay and train "freedom fighters" throughout the Islamic world. Pakistan's consistent policy has been to support the clandestine policies of the Inter-Services Intelligence and thwart the influence of its major enemy and competitor, India.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor, U.S. Army (retired), an adviser to the Center for Defense Information in Washington, summarizes our hopeless project in South Asia this way: "Nothing we do will compel 125 million Muslims in Pakistan to make common cause with a United States in league with the two states that are unambiguously anti-Muslim: Israel and India."

Obama's mid-2009 "surge" of troops into southern Afghanistan and particularly into Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold, is fast becoming darkly reminiscent of General William Westmoreland's continuous requests in Vietnam for more troops and his promises that if we would ratchet up the violence just a little more and tolerate a few more casualties, we would certainly break the will of the Vietnamese insurgents. This was a total misreading of the nature of the conflict in Vietnam, just as it is in Afghanistan today.

Twenty years after the forces of the Red Army withdrew from Afghanistan in disgrace, the last Russian general to command them, Gen. Boris Gromov, issued his own prediction: Disaster, he insisted, will come to the thousands of new forces Obama is sending there, just as it did to the Soviet Union's, which lost some 15,000 soldiers in its own Afghan war. We should recognize that we are wasting time, lives, and resources in an area where we have never understood the political dynamics and continue to make the wrong choices.

3. We Need to End the Secret Shame of Our Empire of Bases

In March, New York Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert noted , "Rape and other forms of sexual assault against women is the great shame of the U.S. armed forces, and there is no evidence that this ghastly problem, kept out of sight as much as possible, is diminishing." He continued:

"New data released by the Pentagon showed an almost 9 percent increase in the number of sexual assaults -- 2,923 -- and a 25 percent increase in such assaults reported by women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan [over the past year]. Try to imagine how bizarre it is that women in American uniforms who are enduring all the stresses related to serving in a combat zone have to also worry about defending themselves against rapists wearing the same uniform and lining up in formation right beside them."

The problem is exacerbated by having our troops garrisoned in overseas bases located cheek-by-jowl next to civilian populations and often preying on them like foreign conquerors. For example, sexual violence against women and girls by American GIs has been out of control in Okinawa, Japan's poorest prefecture, ever since it was permanently occupied by our soldiers, Marines, and airmen some 64 years ago.

That island was the scene of the largest anti-American demonstrations since the end of World War II after the 1995 kidnapping, rape, and attempted murder of a 12-year-old schoolgirl by two Marines and a sailor. The problem of rape has been ubiquitous around all of our bases on every continent and has probably contributed as much to our being loathed abroad as the policies of the Bush administration or our economic exploitation of poverty-stricken countries whose raw materials we covet.

The military itself has done next to nothing to protect its own female soldiers or to defend the rights of innocent bystanders forced to live next to our often racially biased and predatory troops. "The military's record of prosecuting rapists is not just lousy, it's atrocious," writes Herbert. In territories occupied by American military forces, the high command and the State Department make strenuous efforts to enact so-called "Status of Forces Agreements" (SOFAs) that will prevent host governments from gaining jurisdiction over our troops who commit crimes overseas. The SOFAs also make it easier for our military to spirit culprits out of a country before they can be apprehended by local authorities.

This issue was well illustrated by the case of an Australian teacher, a long-time resident of Japan, who in April 2002 was raped by a sailor from the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk , then based at the big naval base at Yokosuka. She identified her assailant and reported him to both Japanese and U.S. authorities. Instead of his being arrested and effectively prosecuted, the victim herself was harassed and humiliated by the local Japanese police. Meanwhile, the U.S. discharged the suspect from the Navy but allowed him to escape Japanese law by returning him to the U.S., where he lives today.

In the course of trying to obtain justice, the Australian teacher discovered that almost fifty years earlier, in October 1953, the Japanese and American governments signed a secret "understanding" as part of their SOFA in which Japan agreed to waive its jurisdiction if the crime was not of "national importance to Japan." The U.S. argued strenuously for this codicil because it feared that otherwise it would face the likelihood of some 350 servicemen per year being sent to Japanese jails for sex crimes.

Since that time the U.S. has negotiated similar wording in SOFAs with Canada, Ireland, Italy, and Denmark. According to the Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces (2001), the Japanese practice has become the norm for SOFAs throughout the world, with predictable results. In Japan, of 3,184 U.S. military personnel who committed crimes between 2001 and 2008, 83% were not prosecuted. In Iraq, we have just signed a SOFA that bears a strong resemblance to the first postwar one we had with Japan: namely, military personnel and military contractors accused of off-duty crimes will remain in U.S. custody while Iraqis investigate. This is, of course, a perfect opportunity to spirit the culprits out of the country before they can be charged.

Within the military itself, the journalist Dahr Jamail, author of Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007), speaks of the "culture of unpunished sexual assaults" and the "shockingly low numbers of courts martial" for rapes and other forms of sexual attacks. Helen Benedict, author of The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq (Beacon Press, 2009), quotes this figure in a 2009 Pentagon report on military sexual assaults: 90% of the rapes in the military are never reported at all and, when they are, the consequences for the perpetrator are negligible.

It is fair to say that the U.S. military has created a worldwide sexual playground for its personnel and protected them to a large extent from the consequences of their behavior. I believe a better solution would be to radically reduce the size of our standing army, and bring the troops home from countries where they do not understand their environments and have been taught to think of the inhabitants as inferior to themselves.

10 Steps Toward Liquidating the Empire

Dismantling the American empire would, of course, involve many steps. Here are ten key places to begin:

1. We need to put a halt to the serious environmental damage done by our bases planet-wide. We also need to stop writing SOFAs that exempt us from any responsibility for cleaning up after ourselves.

2. Liquidating the empire will end the burden of carrying our empire of bases and so of the "opportunity costs" that go with them -- the things we might otherwise do with our talents and resources but can't or won't.

3. As we already know (but often forget), imperialism breeds the use of torture. In the 1960s and 1970s we helped overthrow the elected governments in Brazil and Chile and underwrote regimes of torture that prefigured our own treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. (See, for instance, A.J. Langguth, Hidden Terrors [Pantheon, 1979], on how the U.S. spread torture methods to Brazil and Uruguay.) Dismantling the empire would potentially mean a real end to the modern American record of using torture abroad.

4. We need to cut the ever-lengthening train of camp followers, dependents, civilian employees of the Department of Defense, and hucksters -- along with their expensive medical facilities, housing requirements, swimming pools, clubs, golf courses , and so forth -- that follow our military enclaves around the world.

5. We need to discredit the myth promoted by the military-industrial complex that our military establishment is valuable to us in terms of jobs, scientific research, and defense. These alleged advantages have long been discredited by serious economic research. Ending empire would make this happen.

6. As a self-respecting democratic nation, we need to stop being the world's largest exporter of arms and munitions and quit educating Third World militaries in the techniques of torture, military coups, and service as proxies for our imperialism. A prime candidate for immediate closure is the so-called School of the Americas, the U.S. Army's infamous military academy at Fort Benning, Georgia, for Latin American military officers. (See Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire [Metropolitan Books, 2004], pp. 136-40.)

7. Given the growing constraints on the federal budget, we should abolish the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and other long-standing programs that promote militarism in our schools.

8. We need to restore discipline and accountability in our armed forces by radically scaling back our reliance on civilian contractors, private military companies, and agents working for the military outside the chain of command and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (See Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater:The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army [Nation Books, 2007]). Ending empire would make this possible.

9. We need to reduce, not increase, the size of our standing army and deal much more effectively with the wounds our soldiers receive and combat stress they undergo.

10. To repeat the main message of this essay, we must give up our inappropriate reliance on military force as the chief means of attempting to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Unfortunately, few empires of the past voluntarily gave up their dominions in order to remain independent, self-governing polities. The two most important recent examples are the British and Soviet empires. If we do not learn from their examples, our decline and fall is foreordained.

Chalmers Johnson was the author of Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006), and editor of Okinawa: Cold War Island (1999). His final book was Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope (2010).

[Note on further reading on the matter of sexual violence in and around our overseas bases and rapes in the military: On the response to the 1995 Okinawa rape, see Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire , chapter 2. On related subjects, see David McNeil, "Justice for Some. Crime, Victims, and the US-Japan SOFA," Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 8-1-09, March 15, 2009; "Bilateral Secret Agreement Is Preventing U.S. Servicemen Committing Crimes in Japan from Being Prosecuted," Japan Press Weekly, May 23, 2009; Dieter Fleck, ed., The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces , Oxford University Press, 2001; Minoru Matsutani, "'53 Secret Japan-US Deal Waived GI Prosecutions," Japan Times, October 24, 2008; "Crime Without Punishment in Japan," the Economist, December 10, 2008; "Japan: Declassified Document Reveals Agreement to Relinquish Jurisdiction Over U.S. Forces," Akahata, October 30, 2008; "Government's Decision First Case in Japan," Ryukyu Shimpo, May 20, 2008; Dahr Jamail, "Culture of Unpunished Sexual Assault in Military," Antiwar.com, May 1, 2009; and Helen Benedict, "The Plight of Women Soldiers," the Nation, May 5, 2009.]

Franz , July 30, 2018 at 9:29 pm GMT

"2. Liquidating the empire will end the burden of carrying our empire of bases and so of the "opportunity costs" that go with them"

Never forget, such "liquidation" will destroy the economy.

Harry Truman & Company invented the GI Bill of Rights to keep millions of returning WWII veterans out of the bad labor market following the war. It was a delaying tactic, no more.

Within a few years, to everyone's shock, the economy began to uptick. New factories were built, and the interstate highways created a plethora of opportunity. For a while.

Those days are gone. The plethora of opportunities is now in Mexico, China, South Korea by any rational yardstick the USA is an employment desert for young people. It's been heading that way since the oil shocks of the 1970s allowed the plutocrats to shed middle class jobs for four-fifths of the people on the wrong side of the bell curve.

Bringing armies home to debt and penury? By all means, assuming there's a Leon Trotsky or an Adolf Hitler in the woodpile. At least they know how to play a situation like that.

[Jul 31, 2018] Chalmers Johnson Dismantling the Empire, by Tom Engelhardt - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire ..."
"... Dismantling the Empire ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

Chalmers Johnson: Dismantling the Empire Tom Engelhardt July 29, 2018 400 Words 2 Comments Reply

It's been almost eight years since Chalmers Johnson died. He was the author of, among other works, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and Dismantling the Empire . He was also a TomDispatch stalwart and a friend . As I watch the strange destructive dance of Donald Trump and his cohorts , I still regularly find myself wondering: What would Chal think? His acerbic wit and, as a former consultant to the CIA, his deep sense of how the national security state worked provided me with a late education. With no access to my Ouija board, however, the best I can do when it comes to answering such questions is repost his classic final piece for this site on the necessity of dismantling the American empire before it dismantles us. He wrote it in July 2009, convinced that we had long passed from a republic to an empire and were on the downward slide, helped along by what he called a " military Keynesianism " run amok. He saw the Pentagon and our empire of bases abroad as a kind of Ponzi scheme that would, someday, help bankrupt this country.

How fascinated he would have been by the first candidate to ride an escalator into a presidential contest on a singular message of American decline. ("Make American great again !") And how much more so by the world that candidate is creating as president, intent as he seems to be, in his own bizarre fashion, on dismantling the system of global control the U.S. has built since 1945. At the same time, he seems prepared to finance the U.S. military at levels, which, even for Johnson, would have been eye-popping, while attempting to sell American arms around an embattled planet in a way that could prove unique. What a strange combination of urges Donald Trump represents, as he teeters constantly at the edge of war ("fire and fury like the world has never seen"), more war ("never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before"), and peace in our time. Amid all the strangeness, don't forget the strangeness of a mainstream media that has gone bonkers covering this president as no one has ever been covered in the history of the universe (something that would undoubtedly have amazed Chal).

Think of what President Trump has launched as the potential imperial misadventure of a lifetime, while checking out Chal's thoughts from so long ago on a subject that should still be on all our minds.

Three Good Reasons to Liquidate Our Empire And Ten Steps to Take to Do So Chalmers Johnson July 29, 2018 4,000 Words

[Jul 31, 2018] The classic method of American negotiation and warfare like the Roman before them is to divide and conquer.Even the Soviet Union and Russians were unable to make the American respect their commitments

Jul 31, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
The United States seems ready to give up on Afghanistan.

After the World Trade Center came down the U.S. accused al-Qaeda, parts of which were hosted in Afghanistan. The Taliban government offered the U.S. to extradite al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden to an Islamic country to be judged under Islamic law. The U.S. rejected that and decided instead to destroy the Afghan government.

Taliban units, supported by Pakistani officers, were at that time still fighting against the Northern Alliance which held onto a few areas in the north of the country. Under threats from the U.S. Pakistan, which sees Afghanistan as its natural depth hinterland, was pressed into service. In exchange for its cooperation with the U.S. operation it was allowed to extradite its forces and main figures of the Taliban.

U.S. special forces were dropped into north Afghanistan. They came with huge amounts of cash and the ability to call in B-52 bombers. Together with the Northern Alliance they move towards Kabul bombing any place where some feeble resistance came from. The Taliban forces dissolved. Many resettled in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda also vanished.

A conference with Afghan notables was held in Germany's once capital Bonn. The Afghans wanted to reestablish the former Kingdom but were pressed into accepting a western style democracy. Fed with large amounts of western money the norther warlords, all well known mass-murderers, and various greedy exiles were appointed as a government. To them it was all about money. There was little capability and interest to govern.

All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country.

For a few years the Taliban went quiet. But continued U.S. operations, which included random bombing of weddings, torture and abduction of assumed al-Qaeda followers, alienated the people. Pakistan feared that it would be suffocated between a permanently U.S. occupied Afghanistan and a hostile India. Four years after being ousted the Taliban were reactivated and found regrown local support.

Busy with fighting an insurgency in Iraq the U.S. reacted slowly. It then surged troops into Afghanistan, pulled back, surged again and is now again pulling back. The U.S. military aptly demonstrated its excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence. The longer it fought the more Afghan people stood up against it. The immense amount of money spent to 'rebuild' Afghanistan went to U.S. contractors and Afghan warlords but had little effect on the ground. Now half the country is back under Taliban control while the other half is more or less contested.

Before his election campaign Donald Trump spoke out against the war on Afghanistan. During his campaign he was more cautious pointing to the danger of a nuclear Pakistan as a reason for staying in Afghanistan. But Pakistan is where the U.S. supply line is coming through and there are no reasonable alternatives. Staying in Afghanistan to confront Pakistan while depending on Pakistan for logistics does not make sense.

Early this year the U.S. stopped all aid to Pakistan. Even the old Pakistani government was already talking about blocking the logistic line. The incoming prime minister Imran Khan has campaigned for years against the U.S. war on Afghanistan. He very much prefers an alliance with China over any U.S. rapprochement. The U.S. hope is that Pakistan will have to ask the IMF for another bailout and thus come back under Washington's control. But it is more likely that Imran Khan will ask China for financial help.

Under pressure from the military Trump had agreed to raise the force in Afghanistan to some 15,000 troops. But these were way to few to hold more than some urban areas. Eighty percent of the Afghan people live in the countryside. Afghan troops and police forces are incapable or unwilling to fight their Taliban brethren. It was obvious that this mini-surge would fail :

By most objective measures, President Donald Trump's year-old strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan has produced few positive results.

Afghanistan's beleaguered soldiers have failed to recapture significant new ground from the Taliban. Civilian deaths have hit historic highs. The Afghan military is struggling to build a reliable air force and expand the number of elite fighters. Efforts to cripple lucrative insurgent drug smuggling operations have fallen short of expectations. And U.S. intelligence officials say the president's strategy has halted Taliban gains but not reversed their momentum, according to people familiar with the latest assessments.

To blame Pakistan for its support for some Taliban is convenient, but makes little sense. In a recent talk John Sopko, the U.S. Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), made a crucial point:

"We keep referring to Pakistan as being the key problem. But the problem also was that the Afghan government at times was viewed very negatively by their local people and what you really need is to insert a government that the people support, a government that is not predatory, a government that is not a bunch of lawless warlords," observed Sopko.

He went on to say that the U.S. policy of pouring in billions of dollars in these unstable environments contributed to the problem of creating more warlords and powerful people who took the law into their own hands.

"In essence, the government we introduced, particularly some of the Afghan local police forces, which were nothing other than warlord militias with some uniforms on, were just as bad as the terrorists before them," said Sopko ...

This was the problem from the very beginning. The U.S. bribed itself into Afghanistan. It spent tons of money but did not gain real support. It bombed and shot aimlessly at 'Taliban' that were more often than not just the local population. It incompetently fought 17 one-year-long wars instead of a consistently planned and sustained political, economic and military campaign.

After a year of another useless surge the Trump administration decided to pull back from most active operations and to bet on negotiations with the Taliban:

The shift to prioritize initial American talks with the Taliban over what has proved a futile "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned" process stems from a realization by both Afghan and American officials that President Trump's new Afghanistan strategy is not making a fundamental difference in rolling back Taliban gains.

While no date for any talks has been set, and the effort could still be derailed, the willingness of the United States to pursue direct talks is an indication of the sense of urgency in the administration to break the stalemate in Afghanistan.
...
Afghan officials and political leaders said direct American talks with the Taliban would probably then grow into negotiations that would include the Taliban, the Afghan government, the United States and Pakistan.

In February the Taliban declared their position in a public Letter of the Islamic Emirate to the American people (pdf). The five pages letter offered talks but only towards one aim:

Afghans have continued to burn for the last four decades in the fire of imposed wars. They are longing for peace and a just system but they will never tire from their just cause of defending their creed, country and nation against the invading forces of your war­mongering government because they have rendered all the previous and present historic sacrifices to safeguard their religious values and national sovereignty. If they make a deal on their sovereignty now, it would be unforgettable infidelity with their proud history and ancestors.

Last weeks talks between the Taliban and U.S. diplomats took place in Doha, Qatar. Remarkably the Afghan government was excluded. Despite the rousing tone of the Reuters report below the positions that were exchanged do not point to a successful conclusion:

According to one Taliban official, who said he was part of a four-member delegation, there were "very positive signals" from the meeting, which he said was conducted in a "friendly atmosphere" in a Doha hotel.

"You can't call it peace talks," he said. "These are a series of meetings for initiating formal and purposeful talks. We agreed to meet again soon and resolve the Afghan conflict through dialogue."
...
The two sides had discussed proposals to allow the Taliban free movement in two provinces where they would not be attacked, an idea that President Ashraf Ghani has already rejected . They also discussed Taliban participation in the Afghan government.

"The only demand they made was to allow their military bases in Afghanistan ," said the Taliban official.
...
"We have held three meetings with the U.S. and we reached a conclusion to continue talks for meaningful negotiations," said a second Taliban official.
...
"However, our delegation made it clear to them that peace can only be restored to Afghanistan when all foreign forces are withdrawn ," he said.

This does not sound promising:

It is difficult to see how especially the last mutually exclusive positions can ever be reconciled.

The Taliban are ready to accept a peaceful retreat of the U.S. forces. That is their only offer. They may agree to keep foreign Islamist fighters out of their country. The U.S. has no choice but to accept. It is currently retreating to the cities and large bases. The outlying areas will fall to the Taliban. Sooner or later the U.S. supply lines will be cut. Its bases will come under fire.

There is no staying in Afghanistan. A retreat is the only issue the U.S. can negotiate about. It is not a question of "if" but of "when".

The Soviet war in Afghanistan took nine years. The time was used to build up a halfway competent government and army that managed to hold off the insurgents for three more years after the Soviet withdrawal. The government only fell when the Soviets cut the money line. The seventeen year long U.S. occupation did not even succeed in that. The Afghan army is corrupt and its leaders are incompetent. The U.S. supplied it with expensive and complicate equipment that does not fit Afghan needs . As soon as the U.S. withdraws the whole south, the east and Kabul will immediately fall back into Taliban hands. Only the north may take a bit longer. They will probably ask China to help them in developing their country.

The erratic empire failed in another of its crazy endeavors. That will not hinder it to look for a new ones. The immense increase of the U.S. military budget, which includes 15,000 more troops, points to a new large war. Which country will be its next target?

james , Jul 30, 2018 3:26:49 PM | 2

thanks b.. it would be good if the exceptional warmongering nation could go home, but i am not fully counting on it.. i liked your quote here "The U.S. military aptly demonstrated its excellent logistic capabilities and its amazing cultural incompetence." that is ongoing.. unless the usa leaves, i think the madness continues.. i suspect the madness will continue.. the only other alternative is the usa, with the help of their good buddies - uk, ksa, qatar, uae and israel - will keep on relocating isis to afgan for future destabilization.. i watched a video peter au left from al jazzera 2017 with isis embedded in the kush mtns... until the funding for them ceases - i think the usa will have a hand in the continued madness... if the usa was serious about ending terrorism they would shut down the same middle east countries they are in bed with.. until that happens, i suspect not much will change.. i hope i am wrong..
Pft , Jul 30, 2018 3:52:04 PM | 5
I dont believe it for a second. Especially with Iran looming as a potential target. US is staying in Afghanistan also to counter China , keep opium production high and of course there is the TAPI pipeline to "protect" that is backed by US as an alternative to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline that would have tapped Iran's South Pars gas field. A hostile or unfriendly Pakistan is just one more reason to stay

Just like US will never leave Iraq or Syria, they will stay in Afghanistan. There will be ebbs and flows, and talk of disengagement from time to time primarily for domestic consumption, but thats all it is IMO.

Jackrabbit , Jul 30, 2018 4:01:30 PM | 7
It seems that an ISIS-Taliban proxy war has begun.

That will take pressure off USA to leave. Likely gives USA an excuse to stay (to supply fight ISIS).

Uncoy , Jul 30, 2018 4:19:49 PM | 11
This is a fine recap of the situation. It's much too optimistic. The classic method of American negotiation and warfare like the Roman before them is to divide and conquer. It was very successful against the American Indians.

If the Taliban get free movement in two provinces, the Americans will demand an end to attacks on their bases, their soldiers and their agents elsewhere in Afghanistan. Just as the Iroquois Confederation enjoyed special privileges in what is now Upper New York for their help against the French, the Taliban will have special privileges in their two provinces while the Americans consolidate in the rest of Afghanistan. When the Americans feel strong enough, just as with the Iroquois, they will break the previous treaties.

After the Revolutionary War, the ancient central fireplace of the League was re-established at Buffalo Creek. The United States and the Iroquois signed the treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 under which the Iroquois ceded much of their historical homeland to the Americans, which was followed by another treaty in 1794 at Canandaigua which they ceded even more land to the Americans./b

Posted by: Uncoy | Jul 30, 2018 4:03:17 PM | 8

(...continuation of the comment above, somehow got posted when I pressed the return key)

Even the Soviet Union and Russians were unable to make the American respect their commitments. The United States reneged on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as soon as it could in 2001 (Russia was on its knees), reneged on its commitments not to expand NATO east and has built ballistic missile bases all around Russia which seem to be preparation for a pre-emptive nuclear strike/war against Russia.

The Afghanis (foolish to call them the Taliban, they are traditional Afghani patriots) have always been wise enough to annihilate any invader to the last man. This salutary policy keeps invaders out for decades at a time. The Taliban have a long row to hoe. It took almost a hundred years and several massacres to finally curb British ambitions on Afghanistan (1838 to 1919). Afghanis' best hopes rely on forging tight alliances with Pakistan and China, squeezing the Americans out completely right now.

The Americans burnt their bridges with the Russian already and are in the process of burning their bridges with Pakistan while losing influence with China. The US is very short of options right now. It's the ideal time for Afghanis to reclaim the whole territory, not leaving a single American soldier or airbase operational. They'll need a technically sophisticated ally to help them clear their skies of US drones. This role might appeal to either the Russians or the Chinese. As a training exercise, extended anti-drone warfare could be very useful.

fast freddy , Jul 30, 2018 4:24:15 PM | 12
What a great success the US achieved in destroying Yugoslavia. Murdering thousands went almost unnoticed. It was able to break up the country into a number of tiny, impoverished nations and got to put a US MIC Base in most of them.

Afghanistan is one tough nut to crack.

Bilal , Jul 30, 2018 4:39:14 PM | 13
You did not mention isis-k in your analysis. Its active mostly in eastern afghanistan in areas close to or adjacent to Pakistan (it is also controlls a small area in Jawzjan, in northern afghanistan). Many fighters are formerly pakistani taliban(not to be confused with afghan taliban who are simply called taliban). Before isis-k appeared in afghanistan, the areas which it now controls had pakistani taliban presence. TTP, or tehreek e taliban pakistan was facilitated by afghan ggovernment to settle down in these areas after they fled pakistan when its military launched a large scale offensive, Operation Zarb e Azb. The afghan government planned to use them to pressurize Pakistan, basically to use them as a bargaining chip. They operate openly in eastern afghanistan, but many of them joined isis-k.

Russians estimate isis-k's strength to be between 10k to 12k, although it might be a bit inflated number. From here they plan attacks against afghanistan and pakistan alike, mostly suicide bombings as of now. They have had fierce clashes with afghan taliban in eastern Afghanistan but have held their territory for now. Afghan army simply doesn't have the capacity in those areas to confront them. It was here that MOAB was dropped but as expected against a guerrilla force, it was ineffective in every way. But it did make headlines and has helped US in giving an impression its seriously fighting ISIS. The reports of unmarked helicopters dropping god-knows-what have also been coming from these areas. Hamid karzai mentioned that and also maria zakharova asked afghan gov. and US to investigate that which shows these are not just rumors. Recently intelligence chiefs of Pakistan, russia, iran and china as well(if i remember correctly) met in islamabad to discuss isis-k in afghanistan, no details other than this of this meeting are available.

In Northern afghanistan, in Jawzjan, fierce clashes broke out between taliban and isis-k after taliban commander in thiae areas was beheaded. ISIS-k has been beaten up pretty badly there but clashes are ongoing. Many areas have been cleared but fighting is still ongoing. An interesting aspect is taliban sources claiming that whenever they come close to a decisive victory, they have to stop operations becauae of heavy bombardment by US planes. They made similar claims when fighting daesh in eastern afghanistan. Anyway in a few days isis presence will probably be finished in Jawzjan. ISIS fighters who have survived have done so by surrendering to afghan forces. They will probably end up back in eastern afghanistan.

Red Ryder , Jul 30, 2018 4:49:21 PM | 14
Next Target for a long war?

Africa. US AFRICOM has a huge playground, tactics won't change and logistics is far easier.

There also will be a long Hybrid wr against Iran, but that will be much like the early days of Syria. Proxies as "moderates". Insurgents, not US troops. ISIS and AQ crazies will be on the ground.

The big money will go into Africa. You want to see Trillions "spent"? It will be Africa.

Robert Snefjella , Jul 30, 2018 4:55:49 PM | 15
The decision to invade Afghanistan had been taken before the 9/11 false flag coup. Had nothing much to do with the CIA's al-Qaeda mercenaries.

As I understood it, there were many agendas at work: testing weapons and making money for the MIC; controlling the lucrative (how many hundreds of billions of dollars ?) opium/ heroin production/profiteering; military bases relating to Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and other ...stans, etc; control of oil and gas pipelines; access to increasingly valuable and sought rare earth minerals; proximity to oil and gas actual and potential.

More generally, subjugating Afghanistan was a necessary part of the 'full spectrum dominance' 'we will rule the earth' doctrine, dear til recently to too many mad hatters, and still evoking a misty eyed longing in some, no doubt.

NemesisCalling , Jul 30, 2018 5:00:17 PM | 16
Ahhh...the US produces some of the lamest euphemisms approved for all audiences; such as "Afgahn Security Forces." So sterile, innocuous. And benign. How could anyone question their plight? (We did pick up the game a little bit in Syria with "Free Syrian Army..." Can I get a hell yeah?) All the people hearing this in the US could do was shrug their shoulders and speak, "I guess I should support them." That is, of course, after we took out OBL and the mission in Afghanistan was a little more opaque. Just a little bit. Anyways...Hell, yeah! Get some!

Thanks b for the brief history. Really invaluable.

StephenLaudig , Jul 30, 2018 5:26:35 PM | 17
Afghani patriots, resisting invaders since 330 BCE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan
The US military, the planet's costliest losingest military since 1946. The US military, like its munitions manufacturers, doesn't win but it does get paid and is why we can have nice things like oh, decent health care. Lack of health insurance kills more Americans than the Russians ever will. The Russians aren't the enemy, Trump is. Lobbyists are too.
Eugene , Jul 30, 2018 5:39:35 PM | 18
I haven't read anything about Blackwater wanting to replace the U.S. Military in Afghanistan. Of course, the U.S. Treasury would continue to shovel those pallet loads of newly printed $100.00 bills down the Blackwater hole. Any odds this might go forward from anyone's opinion?
Willy2 , Jul 30, 2018 5:45:04 PM | 19
- The US already started to plan an invasion of Afghanistan in januari & february of 2001.
adam gadahn , Jul 30, 2018 5:45:40 PM | 20
robin cook before he was murdered stated that alqueda was a cia data base.
i believe bresinski knew obl as tim osman who was later killed by cia mi6 man omar blah blah sheikh bhutto of pakisyan was assasinated after spilling the beans about sheikh.

christopher bolleyn on you tube will give you the sp on what 9 and 11 was shirley we are past the point of the offecal theory.
the turd burger that is the official theory is clearly the worst and lowest grade of all the conspiracy theories.
the taliban where in barbera bushes texas talking lithium opium and oil pipelines with the paedo bush crime syndicate before 9 and 11

marvin bush ran security at the twin towers

christopher bollyn is the go to man in these regardings

http://www.bollyn.com/

Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 5:55:31 PM | 21
The US wants peace talks but wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. US under Trump has built new bases in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait.
SDF have been talking with Syrian government, and US in Talks with Taliban. Are these just moves to buy the US a little time until it launches the war Trump has been building the US military up for.
dahoit , Jul 30, 2018 6:00:22 PM | 22
Trump is?What about the neocons who started this f*ck up.
adam gadahn , Jul 30, 2018 6:02:02 PM | 23
alas not a nice number 13 bilal

isis is israeli counter gang with support of usa usa and the city of london,ukrainian,polish,uk sas,cia,kiwi,aussie,jordanian and donmeh satanic house of saud.

talking of isis as if it is real entity rather than a frank kitson gang counter gang and pseudo gang is polluting the well.

who has been providing extraction helicopters from syriana for the last 14 months.
who has been washing these bearded devils operating on them in kosher field hospitals making them well shiny and new
who?
scchhhhh you know who

Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 6:13:36 PM | 24
From Russian Ministry of Foriegn Affairs 25 March 2018.

http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3139715
"We are alarmed by the growing number of terrorist activities being carried out by the Taliban who stage armed attacks across Afghanistan, as well as by the increased ISIS presence in Afghanistan's northern provinces that border CIS countries.

We are concerned about reports regarding the use of helicopters without any identification marks in many parts of Afghanistan that are delivering terrorists and arms to the Afghan branch of this terrorist organisation. We believe that reports to this effect made by Afghan officials should be thoroughly investigated."

Willy2 , Jul 30, 2018 6:27:53 PM | 25
- Of course. The US wants to keep its bases in Afghanistan. Surprise, surprise.
In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village Hajji, the writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit. The only question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous it will be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam War (1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and the Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be even more severe.

Posted by: VietnamVet , Jul 30, 2018 7:06:37 PM | 26

In 2002 when ABC corporate propaganda showed Special Forces rounding up village Hajji, the writing was on the wall. Afghanistan is a Holy War run by incompetents for a profit. The only question is when will the Westerners withdraw from the Hindu Kush and how disastrous it will be. Americans cannot afford the unwinnable war's blood and treasure. The US's Vietnam War (1956 to 1975) ended for the same reasons. That war ushered in the Reagan Revolution and the Triumph of the Oligarchy. The consequences of the breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will be even more severe.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jul 30, 2018 7:06:37 PM | 26 /div

james , Jul 30, 2018 7:21:13 PM | 27
@uncoy.. i basically see it like you, however another proxy war involving usa-russia-china sounds like a running theme now...

@13 bilal.. good post.. i agree about the analysis missing much on isis presence in afgan as @6 jr also points out.. i think it is a critical bit of the puzzle.. it appears the usa is using isis as a proxy force, as obama previously stated with regard to syria... the usa just can't seem to help themselves with their divide and conquer strategy using isis as part of it's methodology... it's exact opposite of what they profess..

@18 eugene.. isn't blackwater or whatever they're called now - headquartered in uae? perfect place for them, lol... right on top of yemen, afgan, and etc. etc.. if isis can't do the job for the west thru their good friends ksa, uae - well, then maybe they can pay a bit more and get blackwater directly involved too..

dltravers , Jul 30, 2018 7:41:30 PM | 28
Trump is serious when he said he would talk to anybody. The CIA is alleged to have been stirring the pot with Islamic militants prior to the Soviet invasion when the country went full socialist. I would suspect the Russians had a hand in that in 1978. US intelligence was said to be helping along the backlash to socialism by Islamic militants back then in 1978. The CIA station chief was promptly assassinated the next year.

Obviously you could dump 600,000 NATO and US soldiers into the country and not control it short of executing every Muslim. What a foolish endeavor but what would you expect from these buffoons and their death cult? These human sacrifices are holy to them. They worship blood, death, power and money.

With their loss in Syria the NEOCONS can now make peace with the Taliban and use them and ISIS to push into old Soviet Central Asia in an attempt to deny them what the Anglo American Zionist alliance cannot have at this time, control of the commodities.

China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place. Even the Brits knew when it was time to leave India and their Middle Eastern holdings. They realized the costs of containment would wipe out their country.

Harry , Jul 30, 2018 7:53:57 PM | 29
@ Patrick Armstrong | 10
I still think Trump wants to cut the Gordian Knot and get the USA out of all this crap. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/trump-i-am-ready-to-meet-with-iran-anytime-they-want-to.html

No he doesnt, along with Israel and neocons. There was already nuclear deal, and US was out of "all this crap", so why introduce Gordian Knot if he doesnt want it?

What Trump demands is Iran's surrender. 'b discussed it at length some time ago, the list of Trump's demands is completely ridiculous and the goal is Iran as a client state.

From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to meet, it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt worth a toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even endeavor to negotiate dead from the get go.

Curtis , Jul 30, 2018 7:54:05 PM | 30
Congress went along with the Pentagon's 7 countries in 5 years plan. No investigation of 9/11 or even consideration of Ron Paul's bringing in an old idea of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
As to the US leaving the warlords in power to continue opium production, etc, Van Buren (We Meant Well book) said some of the same happened in Iraq with some sheikhs still holding power in local areas. General Garner looked forward to going in to rebuild (and was promising quick elections) but was shocked to see no protection of ministries (except oil) which were looted and burned. And then Bremer was put in charge. Complete mismanagement of the war, the aftermath, etc. Like someone once said, if they were doing these things at random you would expect them to get it right once in a while.

The Kunduz Airlift which allowed Pakistan a corridor to fly out Pak officials, Taliban, and possibly al Qaeda was yet another snafu like paying Pakistan to supposedly block any escape from their side of Tora Bora only to have a long convoy leave at night. It made one wonder about the US supposed air superiority/domination. Again, complete mismanagement.

A comparison to the end situation in VietNam 1975 is apt.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 8:11:57 PM | 31
Trump meeting Rouhani. Trump saays he wants a better deal. The nuke agreement took years to negotiate and Iran accepted far more stringent inspections than any other country signed up NPT. There is nothing more for Iran to negotiate other than to give away their sovereignty.
The offer of a meeting by Trump is more along the line of "we tried to avoid war".
The US under Trump have scrapped the nuke agreement and made demands that are impossible for Iran to meet without giving away its sovereignty.
Red Ryder , Jul 30, 2018 8:21:00 PM | 32
Erik Prince's plan for fighting in Afghanistan.
He presented it to the WH. Military rejected it.
He is no longer Blackwater-connected.
Frontier Services Group Ltd. is his new military-security services corp.
He has extensive contracts with the Chinese government and their SOEs overseas.

This was a trailer he made to explain his concept. He still wants to do this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjhPSaqBj1c

spudski , Jul 30, 2018 8:38:09 PM | 33
Peter AU 1 @31

I fear you're absolutely right.

occidentosis , Jul 30, 2018 9:08:50 PM | 34
did you see General Souleimani answer's to Trump rabid tweet

it went like this

Our president doesnt lower himself to answer someone like.I, a soldier answer someone like you, you re someone who speaks in the vocabulary of a cabaret owner and a gambling house dealer.(paraphrasing saker has the video on his site)

and then he went on to describe how your cowad troops wore adult diapers in Afghanistan and Iraq

fairleft , Jul 30, 2018 9:25:35 PM | 35
China will slide right in and take it all at some point once exhaustion sets into place.

dltravers @28

No. China, being development-oriented rather than imperialist, will leave Afghanistan alone. China and Russia, but especially China, requires an Afghanistan that is not a U.S.-controlled terrorist base. Because China needs the oil/gas link that it is building through Pakistan to access Gulf energy resources, and that energy corridor would be the primary target of U.S.-hired mercenaries ('terrorists').

How Afghanistan manages itself in the post-U.S. era is Afghan business, but it will almost certainly involve the Pashtun majority (in the form of the 'Taliban') retaking power in Kabul but with the traditional huge amounts of autonomy for the provinces. That arrangement reduces pressure by Pashtun nationalists in Pakistan against Pakistan's government, and in general seems to be the long-term stable set up, and stability is what China has to have in Afghanistan.

Now is the time with perfect China partner Khan and the Pakistan military firmly in power. Not instant, but over the next two years I think we'll see the Taliban's fighting capacity hugely improve, with transfers of supplies, weapons and intelligence from Pakistan. It would be very smart for Trump to get out in 2019. History is going to accelerate in that region.

S , Jul 30, 2018 9:31:48 PM | 36
Which country will be its next target?

I know I'm in the minority here, but I worry a lot about Venezuela. See, it's a perfect fit for the U.S. economy. U.S. shale oil is way too light to be useful, while Venezuelan oil is way too heavy to be useful. They are destined for each other, i.e. to be mixed into a blend that would be a good fit U.S. refineries. Plus, Venezuela is very import-dependent and thus would make for a good vassal. It also has a rabid capitalist class that will do anything -- any kind of atrocity or false flag -- to return to the good old days of exploitation. "But Venezuela has a lot of arms!", I hear you counter. True, but the people are severely demoralized because of the extreme economic hardship. Think of the USSR in late 80s/early 90s. It had the most powerful military in the world, and yet people were so demoralized and disillusioned with the old system that they simply chose not to defend it. Same thing may happen in Venezuela. After Colombia has signed peace accords with FARC, U.S. has been steadily increasing its military presence in Colombia. I think there is a very real possibility of a naval blockade combined with supply lines/air raids from Colombia supporting the "Free Venezuelan Army" assembled from Venezuelan gangs and revanchist capitalists and foreign mercenaries. It would be logistically impossible for Russia or China to provide military help to far-away Venezuela. Neighbors will not come to the aid of Venezuela either as there is a surge of pro-U.S. right-wing governments in the region.

ben , Jul 30, 2018 9:33:25 PM | 37
Any moves the U$A makes will have to be approved according to which natural resources their corporate masters covet at any particular moment. Lithium and other rare earth minerals, strategic importance, whatever the corporate form needs to stay on top globally, will dictate what the empire does.

Leave Afghanistan? I very much doubt it.

DJT will do what the "puppet masters" desire. Just like all his predecessors.

Profits uber alles!!

fairleft , Jul 30, 2018 9:36:15 PM | 38
'Correction': No reliable census has been done in decades, but I don't think the Pashtun are the majority in Afghanistan. They
are by far the largest minority however. British 'divide and rule' stategists long ago deliberately separated them into Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Peter AU 1 , Jul 30, 2018 9:40:53 PM | 39
s 36

Venezuela and Iran have two things in common. Both have large oil reserves and neither recognize Israel.
Trump's wars will be about destroying enemies of Israel, and at the same time, achieving global energy dominance.

Chipnik , Jul 30, 2018 9:58:21 PM | 40
I've posted this before. I met a Taliban leader and his two guards in a brutal area during the Hearts and Minds Schtick, preparatory to Cheney getting all the oil and gas, and copper and iron and coming coal lease awards.

He was a nice guy, the Taliban leader. His guards looked at me with absolute death in their eyes. Not wanting them to hear him, as we finished our tea, the Taliban leader leaned close, then whispered, 'I love your Jesus, but I hate your Crusaders.'

And I take issue with the US 'incompetence' meme. Ever since Cheney hosted the Taliban in Texas in 1998, trying to get a TAPI pipeline, the US has deliberately and cunningly taken over the country, assassinated the local-level leadership, and installed their foreign Shah, first Karzai, then Ghani.

In that time of occupation, 18 years, Pentagon MIC disappeared TRILLIONS in shrink-wrapped pallets of $100s, and ballooned from $340B a year, to now Trump is saying $840B a year.

That's not incompetence. Just the opposite.

Now, to honor my Afghan friends, who love to joke even after 35+ years of machine warfare, a joke I wrote in their honor:

Ring ring ring ring

"Office of the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan!"

"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."

"Hold please."

President Reagan, it's the Iranian ambassador!"

"Well hello Mr. Assinabindstani, what can I do for you?"

"BRRZZZBRRZZZV..."

"Well I'll get my staff right on it."

[Intercomm clicks]

"Hey Ollie, the Ayatollah wants more guns! Step on it!"

Chipnik , Jul 30, 2018 10:10:55 PM | 41
38

Actually, the British paid an annual tithe-tribute the the Afghan king to stop raiding their India holdings, and agreed to a neutral zone between them. Then when the British pulled out, they declared the neutral zone as Pakistan and shrunk India away from Pashtun territory to create a bigger divide. The Afghan leaders had no say in the matter. I believe Baluchistan was also carved away. At one time, Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley. There is no way to defeat a nation of warriors who created a kingdom that vast, while William the Conqueror was still running around in bear skin diapers.

dh , Jul 30, 2018 11:03:19 PM | 42
@41 'Afghan control extended from Persia to the Indus Valley.'

You are probably referring to the Khalji Dynasty, a brutal bunch, who ruled India from 1290 to 1320 by which time William the Conqueror was long dead. You would be a lot more credible if you got your history right.

Lozion , Jul 30, 2018 11:30:50 PM | 43
@42 dh is correct. Afghan territory was in the Persian sphere of influence much longer compared to the Mughal/British/Indian periods..
Charles Michael , Jul 31, 2018 12:19:59 AM | 44
IMHO the military Budget increase, and what an increase it is!
is part of worsening an already outrageous situation to reach a caricatural point. Typical of trump repeated special "art".
Of course Nobody in USA, no President can go against the MIC and Pentagon.
But money is cheap when you print it.

It is sugaring the intended shrinking of foreign deployments (as in NATO), closure of "facilities" and replacing them officially with total deterrence capacities (Space Forces anybody ?).
While keeping classical projection capacities for demonstration against backward tribes.

Guerrero , Jul 31, 2018 12:21:04 AM | 45
That is an excellent account. Who can help rooting for the Afghanis to get their country back?

The economics of empire are always upside down; the homeland people end up shelling out for it.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 31, 2018 12:26:51 AM | 46
...
From its side, Iran is refusing to even meet Trump, two reasons: 1) If Iran agrees to meet, it would mean they agree to renegotiate the deal, which they dont. 2) US word isnt worth a toilet paper, so any negotiations is meaningless. Plus US list of demands makes even endeavor to negotiate dead from the get go.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 30, 2018 7:53:57 PM | 29

Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if you feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what Iran wants it to mean.

Trump jumped into the NK and Putin talks first because both were eager to talk. Iran will be a good test of Trump's seduction skills. All he's got to do is persuade the Iranians that talking is more useful than swapping long-distance insults. Iranians are rusted onto logical principles and Trump will find a way to appeal to that trait, imo.

Ian , Jul 31, 2018 12:41:07 AM | 47
Which country will be its next target?

Iran.

Debsisdead , Jul 31, 2018 1:11:58 AM | 48
It's too late for the afghanis who have been driven into the urban areas during the regulaar 'Afghanistanisation' campaigns. Most of them will have become hooked on consumerism and the necessity of dollars.
That leaves only two options for the Taliban when they take over as they undoubtedly will altho that is likely to mean having to tolerate clutches of obese amerikans lurking in some Px strewn green zone, the inhabitants of which are likely to have less contact with people from Afghanistan than any regular user of a Californian shopping mall. The new government can ignore the consumerists even when these rejects insist on getting lured into some nonsense green revolution - the danger with this isn't the vapid protests which can easily be dealt with by fetching a few mobs of staunch citizens from rural Afghanistan who will quickly teach them that neither cheeseburgers nor close captioned episodes of daytime television provide sufficient nutrition to handle compatriots raised on traditional food and Islam. Or the new administration can do as other traditional regimes have done many times over the last 80 years or so, purge the consumerists by disappearing the leadership and strewing empty lots in the urban areas with mutilated corpses of a few of the shitkicker class consumerists. That option can cause a bit of a fuss but it (the fuss) generally only lasts as long as the purge.

I suspect the Afghan government will favour the latter approach but they may try to hold off until the North has been brought back into line. OTH, consumerism is a highly contagious condition so, unless the North can be pacified speedily which seems unlikely, initially at least the Taliban adminsitration may have to fight on two fronts, agin the North while they nip urban consumerists in the bud before those confused fools can cause any highly publicised in the west but in actuality, low key, attempted insurrection.
My advice to the gaming, TV or cheeseburger addicted inhabitants of Kabul would be to volunteer your services to the amerikan military as a 'translator' asap and join yer cobbers in California.
It is unlikely that you will bump into Roman Brady especially not when he is in one of his avuncular moods, but if you stay outta Texas, Florida or any other part of flyover amerika chocka with alcohol induced blowhardism, you will discover than amerikan racism isn't as lethal as it once was.

Apart from having to ignore being jostled in the line at fast food joints and being loudly and incorrectly termed a motherf**in sand n***er mid-jostle. Certainly a whole lot less lethal than trying to cover your Fortnite jones by waving a badly copywritten sign in front of the al-Jazeera cameras for a one month battle pass .

AV17 , Jul 31, 2018 1:49:03 AM | 49
This retreat is to focus resources on Iran. Nuclear Winter it is!
Daniel , Jul 31, 2018 2:05:21 AM | 50
What was happening in Kabul, Afghanistan less than 8 hours after the WTC Towers turned into dust in midair? Who here remembers the massive bombing/cruise missile attack?

Here is CNN's transcript:

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "Well, Joie, it's about 2:30 in the morning here in Kabul. We've been hearing explosions around the perimeter of the city. We're in a position here which gives us a view over the whole city. We just had an impact, perhaps a few miles away.

"If I listen, you can hear the ripple of explosions around the city. Perhaps you heard there. The fifth explosion -- sixth explosion, I think. Gun bursts and star bursts in the air. Tracer fire is coming up out of the city. I hear aircraft flying above the city of Kabul. Perhaps we've heard half a dozen to 10 detonations on the perimeter of the city, some coming from the area close to the airport. I see on the horizon what could be a fire on the horizon, close, perhaps, to where the airport might be. A flash came up then from the airport. Some ground fire coming up here in Kabul."

"I've been in Belgrade and I've been in Baghdad and seen cruise missiles arrive in both those cities. The detonations we're hearing in Kabul right now certainly sound like the detonations of loud missiles that are coming in. "

"Certainly -- certainly it would appear that the Afghan defense systems have detected a threat in the air. They are launching what appears to be anti-aircraft defense systems at the moment. Certainly, I can see that fire that was blazing on the horizon. It was a faint yellow; it's now a bright orange blazing. Several other detonations going off around the city, multiple areas. Rockets appear to be taking off from one end of the airport. I can see that perhaps located about 8 or 9 miles away from where we stand, Joie."

The bombing/explosions continue for 10+ minutes of this broadcast.

Then, they cut to WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: who says the US is only collecting intelligence. He says what we're seeing must be part of the "Civil War" (despite the fact that neither side had an air force or cruise missiles). The Pentagon later denies knowing anything about it.

Then, CNN returns to Nic Robertson, who- within 15 minutes of his first report - begins to change his tune. Suddenly, the jet sounds are not mentioned. The cruise missiles (jet engines) have transformed into possible rockets. The airport fire is now an ammunition dump.

And voila! They lose their connection and Nic will not be heard from again. And this little bit of history will essentially disappear.

CNN video archive (attack report starts at 7:43).

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.61.html

NPR had a reporter in Kabul that night. He apparently didn't notice the massive bombing, at least in his memoir 15 years later.

Mishko , Jul 31, 2018 2:07:19 AM | 51
Dear Mr. B,
"All these U.S. mistakes made in the early days are still haunting the country."
These mistakes are by design. To cause and keep causing destabilisation.

I like to refer to it as the 3-letter Scrabble method of doing things.
Me living in the Netherlands as I do, let me take the example of Greece.
Greece had its regime changed in 1948 (Wiki says 46-49).
And how is Greece doing these days? ...

Plasma , Jul 31, 2018 2:16:47 AM | 52
@37 yep, gotta agree with the more passimistic outlook here. Personally i'll eat my shoes if US leaves Afghanistan within any reasonable time frame. In addition to plentiful natural resources, there are very influential vested interests in Afghanistans booming opium industry.
Quentin , Jul 31, 2018 2:20:09 AM | 53
Off topic: Andrei Nekrasov's 'Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes' can be viewed in full on You Tube at this moment (31 July, 08:15 Amsterdam time). Can it also be seen in the USA, I wonder? How long will it take before Google take it down ? Watch it and learn about one of the main drivers of the Russia obsession.
Andreas Schlüter , Jul 31, 2018 3:35:18 AM | 54
The US (Neocon dominated) Power Elite has only one strategy left for that Region: destabilization and chaos to serve as a barrier against the Project of the Eurasian Cooperation!
See:
„Geo-Politics: The Core of Crisis and Chaos and the Nightmares of the US Power Elite" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/geo-politics-the-core-of-crisis-and-chaos-the-nightmares-of-the-us-power-elite/
And on the recent developments:
"US Politics, Russia, China and Europe, Madness and Strategies": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/us-politics-russia-china-and-europe-madness-and-strategies/
Best regards
Harry , Jul 31, 2018 4:35:59 AM | 55
@ Hoarsewhisperer | 46
Tru-ish but Trump's latest offer is, according to the MSM, "no pre-conditions." It's quite likely that Iran's allies have advised the Iranians to tell Trump to Go F*ck yourself (if you feel you must), but then satisfy yourselves that Trump's No Preconditions means what Iran wants it to mean.

White House just explained what Trump's "no preconditions" means: 1) Iran should at the core change how it deals with its own people. 2) Change its evil stance in foreign policy. 3) Agree on nuclear agreement which would REALLY prevent them making a nuke.

In other words, Iran should capitulate and become a client state, thats what Trump means by "no preconditions."

venice12 , Jul 31, 2018 4:53:03 AM | 56
@eugene #18

https://taskandpurpose.com/blackwater-eric-prince-afghan-war-plan/

"Blackwater Founder Erik Prince's Afghan War Plan Just Leaked, And It's Terrifying "

Tis was 8 months ago.

et Al , Jul 31, 2018 5:04:41 AM | 57
Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires!

When I heard old hand Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (what a name!) was heading back it was clear that things were afoot.

China's been trying to get in for a while, the Mes Aynak mine for example, but nothing much has happened.

Afghanistan is sitting on huge amounts of valuable mineral resources (an estimated $3t) but remains dirt poor...

ashley albanese , Jul 31, 2018 6:42:37 AM | 58
In any hot clash with China the U S would be very exposed in Afghanistan .
Mark2 , Jul 31, 2018 6:51:36 AM | 59
At this advanced stage of American insanity, I don't see why the devil should have all the best tunes. I'm sick of the yanks doing this shit in over people's county's ! While they stuff there fat faces with burgers and donuts! The dirty games they play on over country's, should now be played in America with all the brutality that they have used on others. Until that happens things world wide will continue to detriate. Natural justice is all that remains. They'v curupted all else.
Yeah, Right , Jul 31, 2018 7:09:00 AM | 60
@19 "The US already started to plan an invasion of Afghanistan in januari & february of 2001."

Well, to be fair the USA probably has plans to invade lots of countries.

Indeed, it would be more interesting to consider how many countries there are that the USA *doesn't* have invasion plans gathering dust on the shelves.

Not many, I would suggest.

Mark2 , Jul 31, 2018 7:41:56 AM | 61
It's just been reported on the bbc news---- the man responsible for the Manchester bombing had been 'rescued from Lybia when Gadafi was overthrown and tracked ever since. Even in Britain up to the day of the bombing ! And now on this post we discuss America uk transporting terrorists from Syria to Afganistan . Not to mention the white helmet bunch and where Ther going! The Manchester bombing, Westminster bridge and London Bridge atacks were done by the Tory party to win a general election ! This is the reality of the world we live in.full on oppression !!!
TG , Jul 31, 2018 8:26:48 AM | 62
Indeed, I agree with the sentiments here. But missing a big part of the picture.

Afghanistan and Pakistan have sky-high fertility rates. Forget the rubbish peddled by economist-whores like Milton Friedman, under these conditions no country without an open frontier has ever developed into anything other than a larger mass of poverty. In Pakistan something like half the children are so malnourished that they grow up stunted, and it is this misery that is starting slow population growth. Pakistan is yet another example of the Malthusian holocaust, which is not a global catastrophe: it is slow grinding poverty that results when people have more children than they can support.

Bottom line: these places will remain poor and unstable no matter what lunacy the United States does or does not do. The traditional approach to such places is to leave them alone, and only keep them from escaping. Bottled up, the Afghanis and Pakistanis will kill only each other. 9/11 is a consequence of allowing people from these places free access to the Untied States.

The 'war on terror' is a consequence of 'there shall be open borders.' It's a big and messy world, and even if the government of the United States was not criminally incompetent, there would be a lot of misery and hatred in it. Open borders means that now the Untied States has to intervene in every country all over the world to ensure that nowhere can there develop terrorist cells. An impossible task.

Charles Michael @ 44

I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true fighters as well as stronger economic planning.

div
Charles Michael @ 44

I agree with the caricature nature of much of this. I don't think there will be a next target. The MIC has become bloated while Iran, Syria, Russia, China are turning out true fighters as well as stronger economic planning.

div
financial matters , Jul 31, 2018 9:19:51 AM | 63
The US still has some resources and some use but needs to continue to make friends in the pattern of Kim and Putin and give up on its self defeating economic and military sabotage planning which has been exposed as morally bankrupt as well.

[Jul 31, 2018] The positive that Trump could do by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
Dec 23, 2016 | www.sott.net

Lost Opportunity

Eight years ago, President Barack Obama had a similar opportunity but chose to accommodate the Establishment and empower the neocons and liberal hawks by appointing his infamous "team of rivals": Republican Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, liberal-hawk Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and leaving in place President George W. Bush's military high command, including neocon-favorite Gen. David Petraeus.

For doing so, Obama won applause from the editorial and op-ed writers but he doomed his presidency to a foreign policy of continuity, rather than his promised change. Only on the edges did Obama resist the neocon/liberal-hawk pressures for war and more war, such as his decision not to bomb Syria in 2013 and his negotiations with Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon in 2014.

But Obama bowed down more than he stood up. He let Secretary Clinton push a neoliberal economic agenda by supporting oligarchic interests in Latin America, such as the 2009 Honduran coup, and extend the neocon "regime change" strategy in the Middle East, with the brutal overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and covert support for rebels in Syria.

Even after the original "team of rivals" was gone at the start of his second term, Obama continued his pathetic efforts to appease the powerful, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by undertaking a submissive three-day tour of Israel in early 2013 and cozying up to the Saudi royals with trips to the kingdom despite intelligence that they and their Gulf state allies were financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State terrorists.

Though Obama would eventually boast about the rare moments when he defied what he called the Washington "playbook" of relying on military options rather than diplomatic ones, it was a case of the exception proving the rule. The rule was that Obama so wanted to be accepted by Washington's well-dressed and well-heeled establishment that he never ventured too far from what the editorialists at The Washington Post and The New York Times deemed permissible.

Still, the neocon/liberal-hawk establishment continued to scold America's first African-American president for not doing everything that the "smart people" demanded, such as escalating the U.S. role in the "regime change" war in Syria or fully arming Ukraine's military so it could more efficiently slaughter ethnic Russian rebels on Russia's border.

Power Consolidated

In the end, however, Obama did nothing to alter Official Washington's balance of power on foreign policy. Indeed, over his eight years, the neocons and liberal hawks consolidated their power, essentially banishing the once-relevant "realists" from establishment circles and smearing the few anti-war and independent voices as fill-in-the-blank "apologists," maybe even "traitors" deserving FBI investigation.

It now is clear that if Hillary Clinton had won , the drive to silence any dissent against the neocon/liberal-hawk orthodoxy would have escalated. The recently revealed strategies for isolating and punishing dissident Web sites took shape before the Nov. 8 election, not afterwards.

The U.S. government also continues programs to throw tens of millions of dollars to contractors whose job it is "to counter Russian propaganda," code words for going after and harassing Web sites and other news outlets that question U.S. State Department propaganda.

For historians, there may be a reasonable debate about whether Obama was an enthusiastic supporter of these anti-democratic policies or was simply too eager to please the Establishment to resist them.

Nevertheless, despite his early promises of transparency and openness, he oversaw an administration that ruthlessly suppressed government whistleblowers and bought into the neocon/liberal-hawk manipulation of the American people via "perception management" or what NATO likes to call "strategic communications."

Obama then sat back passively as his Democratic Party sought to replace him with Hillary Clinton who had done as much as anyone to turn his beloved motto of "change" into the sad reality of "more of the same."

I'm told that Obama privately had grave doubts about Clinton but he did nothing to encourage alternative Democratic candidates, like Senators Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown, to take on the money-churning Clinton machine.

Because of Obama's miscalculations and timidity, he now will have to take part in the painful and humiliating process of handing over the keys to the White House to a man who launched his national political career by pushing the racist canard that Obama was born in Kenya.

[Jul 31, 2018] Trillions were spend by Obama on wars, bankers bailouts and political corruption

Jul 31, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Handful of Dust -> gigadeath Mon, 07/30/2018 - 21:30 Permalink

"Elections have consequences."

~ Obama

Obama didn't do jack sh8t to improve our infrastructure, His $$$ Trillions $$$ spent were on wars and banker bailouts and political corruption.

dirty fingernails -> Handful of Dust Mon, 07/30/2018 - 21:43 Permalink

Have you met the new boss? He's remarkably similar to what you just described!

tahoebumsmith Mon, 07/30/2018 - 21:30 Permalink

The major infrastructure in most cities is outdated and crumbling yet taxes keep going up and nothing's getting fixed.

Handful of Dust -> tahoebumsmith Mon, 07/30/2018 - 21:33 Permalink

Obama promises to repair infrastructure...instead he spent $10 trillion on bombs killing people in the middle east for 8 years.

"Yes we can!"

dirty fingernails -> Handful of Dust Mon, 07/30/2018 - 21:40 Permalink

Sounds rather similar to 2017 and 2018, doesn't it? What ever happened to that infrastructure idea? Oh, more tax breaks for the donors that matter is a priority because that'll pay for fixing the crumbling infrastructure right after the collapse.

JailBanksters Mon, 07/30/2018 - 21:37 Permalink

Fracking Hell !!!

The whole beauty of Oil Fracking, is they don't have to disclose the secret sauce they pump down the holes, well because it's secret. So it can't be linked to any outbreaks, that's brilliant that is. And that's the Law, that's brilliant as well. It's just a word play on an old War meme, where people have to die so that rich people can get richer.

[Jul 31, 2018] The Yellow Peril Comes to Washington by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

Philippics are good, but at some point they faile to exite. The key question that Phipip forgot to ander is: Dore Izreal acts a alobbist of the US MIC or it hasits own l(local agnda) that conflicts the MIC interests in the region.

So President Donald Trump reckoned on Monday that the United States Intelligence Community (IC) just might be wrong in its assessment that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election but then decided on Tuesday that he misspoke and had the greatest confidence in the IC and now agrees that they were correct in their judgment. But Donald Trump, interestingly, added something about there being "others" that also had been involved in the election in an attempt to subvert it, though he was not specific and the national media has chosen not to pursue the admittedly cryptic comment. He was almost certainly referring to China both due to possible motive and the possession of the necessary resources to carry out such an operation. Indeed, there are reports that China hacked the 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails that are apparently still missing.

Just how one interferes in an election in a large country with diverse sources of information and numerous polling stations located in different states using different systems is, of course, problematical. The United States has interfered in elections everywhere, including in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It engaged in regime change in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala by supporting conservative elements in the military which obligingly staged coups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces invaded and overthrew the governments while in Libya the change in regime was largely brought about by encouraging rebels while bombing government forces. The same model has been applied in Syria, though without much success because Damascus actually was bold enough to resist.

So how do the Chinese "others" bring about "change" short of a full-scale invasion by the People's Liberation Army? I do not know anything about actual Chinese plans to interfere in future American elections and gain influence over the resulting newly elected government but would like to speculate on just how they might go about that onerous task.

First, I would build up an infrastructure in the United States that would have access to the media and be able to lobby and corrupt the political class. That would be kind of tricky as it would require getting around the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), which requires representatives of foreign governments operating in the United States to register and have their finances subject to review by the Department of the Treasury. Most recently, several Russian news agencies that are funded by the Putin government have been required to do so, including RT International and Sputnik radio and television.

The way to avoid the FARA registration requirement is to have all funding come through Chinese-American sources that are not directly connected with the government in Beijing. Further, the foundations and other organizations should be set up as having an educational purpose rather than a political agenda. You might want to call your principal lobbying group something like the American Chinese Political Action Committee or ACPAC as an acronym when one is referring to it shorthand.

Once established, ACPAC will hire and send hundreds of Chinese-American lobbyists to Capitol Hill when Congress is in session. They will be carefully selected to come from as many states and congressional districts as possible to maximize access to legislative offices. They will have with them position papers prepared by the ACPAC central office that explain why a close and uncritical relationship with Beijing is not only the right thing to do, it is also a good thing for the United States.

As part of the process, new Congressmen will benefit from free trips to China paid for by an educational foundation set up for that purpose. They will be able to walk on the Great Wall and speak to genuine representative Chinese who will tell them how wonderful everything is in the People's Republic.

Congressmen who nevertheless appear to be resistant to the lobbying and the emoluments will be confronted with a whole battery of alternative reasons why they should be filo-Chinese, including the thinly veiled threat that to behave otherwise could be construed as politically damaging anti-Orientalist racism. For those who persist in their obduracy, the ultimate weapon will be citation of the horrors of the Second World War Rape of Nanking. No one wants to be accused of being a Rape of Nanking denier.

The second phase of converting Congress is to set up a bunch of Political Action Committees (PACs). They will have innocuous names like Rocky Mountain Sheep Herders Association, but they will all really be about China. When the money begins to flow into the campaign coffers of legislators any concerns about what China is doing in the world will cease. The same PACs can be use to fund billboards and voter outreach in some districts, allowing China to have a say in the elections without actually having to surface or be explicit about whom it supports. Other PACs can work hard at inserting material into social websites, similar to what the Russians have been accused of doing.

And then there is the mass media. Using the same Chinese-American conduit, you would simply buy up controlling interests in newspapers and other media outlets. And you would begin staffing those outlets with earnest young Chinese-Americans who will be highly protective of Chinese interests and never write a story critical of the government in Beijing or the Chinese people. That way the American public will eventually become so heavily propagandized by the prevailing narrative that they will never question anything that China does, ideally beginning to refer to it as the "only democracy in Asia" and "America's best friend in the whole wide world." Once the indoctrination process is completed, the Chinese leadership might even crush demonstrators with tanks in Tiananmen Square or line up snipers to pick off protest leaders and no congressman or newspaper would dare say nay.

When the political classes and media are sufficiently under control, it would then be time to move to the final objective: the dismantling of the United States Constitution. In particularly, there is that pesky Bill of Rights and the First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech. That would definitely have to go, so you round up your tame Congress critters and you elect a president who is also in your pocket, putting everything in place for the "slam-dunk." You pass a battery of laws making any criticism of China both racist and felonious, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached. After that success, you can begin to dismantle the rest of the Bill of Rights and no one will be able to say a word against what you are doing because the First Amendment will by then be a dead duck. When the Constitution is in shreds and Chinese lobbyists are firmly in control of corrupted legislators, Beijing will have won a bloodless victory against the United States and it all began with just a little interference in America's politics alluded to by Donald Trump.

Of course, dear reader, all of the above might be true but for the fact that I am not talking about China at all and am only using that country as a metaphor. Beijing may have spied on the U.S. elections but it otherwise has evidenced little interest in manipulating elections or controlling any aspect of the U.S. government. And even though I am sure that Donald Trump was not referring to Israel when he made his offhand comment about "others," the shoe perfectly fits that country's subjugation of many of the foreign and national security policy mechanisms in the United States over the past fifty years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently boasted about how he controls Trump and convinced him to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement.

The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to.

To be specific, there is no evidence that Russia ever asked for favors from Trump's campaign staff and transition team but Israel did so over a vote on its illegal settlements at the United Nations. Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress interested? No. Is the media interested? No.

Israel, relying on Jewish power and money to do the heavy lifting, has completely corrupted many aspects of American government and, in particular, its foreign policy by aggressive lobbying and buying politicians. All new members of Congress and spouses are taken to Israel on generously funded "fact finding" tours after being elected to make sure they get their bearings straight right from the git-go. Israel's nearly total control over the message on the Middle East coming out of the U.S. mainstream is aided and abetted by the numerous Jewish editors and journalists who are prepared to pump the party line. The money to do all this comes from Jewish billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson, who have their hooks deep into both political parties. Meanwhile, the ability of America's most powerful foreign policy lobby AIPAC to avoid registration as a foreign agent is completely due to the exercise of Jewish power in the United States which means in practice that Israel and its advocates will never be sanctioned in any way.

Israel is eager to have the United States fight Iran on its behalf, even though Washington has no real interest in doing so, and all indications are that it will be successful. Though it is a rich country, it receives a multi-billion-dollar handout from the U.S. Treasury every year. When its war criminal prime minister comes to town he receives 26 standing ovations from a completely sycophantic congress and now the United States has even stationed soldiers in Israel who are "prepared to die" for Israel even though there is no treaty of any kind between the two countries and the potential victims have likely never been consulted regarding dying for a foreign country. All of this takes place without the public ever voting on or even discussing the relationship, a tribute to the fact that both major parties and the media have been completely co-opted.

And now there is the assault on the First Amendment, with legislation currently in Congress making it a crime either to criticize Israel or support a boycott of it in support of Palestinian rights. When those bills become law, which they will, we are finished as a country where fundamental rights are respected.

And what has Russia done in comparison to all this? Hardly anything even if all the claims about its alleged interference are true. So when will Mueller and all the Republican and Democratic baying dogs say a single word about Israel's interference in our elections and political processes? If past behavior is anything to go by, it will never happen.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Rational , July 31, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT

USA = ISRAEL'S BANANA REPUBLIC.

Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.

The New York Times should change its name to Tel Aviv Times. Everyday, it interferes in virtually every US election, on behalf of Israel, attacking candidates who do not support Israel or those who are patriotic and want to ban immigration.

Same with CNN, WaPo, the Economist (a Rothschild publication), etc.

Our Congressmen are Gazans. They are forced to sign pledges supporting Israel, and forced to destroy their country through 3rd world immigration, or risk destruction of their careers, mockery or defamation by the Zionist controlled media, loss of campaign contributions from their biggest donors, or even risk being framed.

When Cynthia McKinney refused to sign the pledge, she was forced out. When another freshman Congressman simply wanted to delay a vote in favor of Israel, he was attacked, taken to Israel where he was softened up and now is totally under the Jewish Lobby's control.

http://forward.com/news/israel/206542/how-the-israel-lobby-set-beto-orourke-right/

And then they bragged about how them "set him straight" -- as if he was crooked before. Or is he crooked now?

[Jul 31, 2018] Donald Trump is Not the 'Manchurian Candidate' The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Vanity Fair ..."
"... The Washington Post , ..."
"... With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions. ..."
Jul 31, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

An answer was needed, so one was created: the Russians. As World War II ended with the U.S. the planet's predominant power, dark forces saw advantage in arousing new fears . The Soviet Union morphed from a decimated ally in the fight against fascism into a competitor locked in a titanic struggle with America. How did they get so powerful so quickly? Nothing could explain it except traitors. Cold War-era America? Or 2018 Trump America? Yes, on both counts.

To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply by accusing them of being Russian sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league with Russia was enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy fired his first shot on February 9, 1950, proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing but assertions .

Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making accusations of treason without sufficient evidence. Other definitions include a ggressively questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or discredit an opponent, and subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security.

Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed thousands of lives over the next four years simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist." Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy answered that this was "the most positive proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used by others as well: the Lavender Scare , which concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their perversions, was an offshoot of McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals" charges. State legislatures and school boards mimicked McCarthy. Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded. The FBI embarked on campaigns of political repression (they would later claim Martin Luther King Jr. had communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political thinking to exclude communism.

John Brennan, Melting Down and Covering Up Real Takeaway: The FBI Influenced the Election of a President

Watching sincere people succumb to paranoia again, today, is not something to relish. But having trained themselves to intellectualize away Hillary Clinton's flaws, as they had with Obama, about half of America seemed truly gobsmacked when she lost to the antithesis of everything that she had represented to them. Every poll (that they read) said she would win. Every article (that they read) said it too, as did every person (that they knew). Lacking an explanation for the unexplainable, many advanced scenarios that would have failed high school civics, claiming that only the popular vote mattered, or that the archaic Emoluments Clause prevented Trump from taking office, or that Trump was insane and could be disposed of under the 25th Amendment .

After a few trial balloons during the primaries under which Bernie Sanders' visits to Russia and Jill Stein's attendance at a banquet in Moscow were used to imply disloyalty, the fearful cry that the Russians meddled in the election morphed into the claim that Trump had worked with the Russians and/or (fear is flexible) that the Russians had something on Trump. Everyone learned a new Russian word: kompromat .

Donald Trump became the Manchurian Candidate. That term was taken from a 1959 novel made into a classic Cold War movie that follows an American soldier brainwashed by communists as part of a Kremlin plot to gain influence in the Oval Office. A Google search shows that dozens of news sources -- including The New York Times , Vanity Fair , Salon , The Washington Post , and, why not, Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti -- have all claimed that Trump is a 2018 variant of the Manchurian Candidate, controlled by ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin.

The birth moment of Trump as a Russian asset is traceable to MI-6 intelligence officer-turned-Democratic opposition researcher-turned FBI mole Christopher Steele , whose "dossier" claimed the existence of the pee tape. Supposedly, somewhere deep in the Kremlin is a surveillance video made in 2013 of Trump in Moscow's Ritz-Carlton Hotel, watching prostitutes urinate on a bed that the Obamas had once slept in. As McCarthy did with homosexuality, naughty sex was thrown in to keep the rubes' attention.

No one, not even Steele's alleged informants, has actually seen the pee tape. It exists in a blurry land of certainty alongside the elevator tape , alleged video of Trump doing something in an elevator that's so salacious it's been called "Every Trump Reporter's White Whale." No one knows when the elevator video was made, but a dossier-length article in New York magazine posits that Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987.

Suddenly no real evidence is necessary, because it is always right in front of your face. McCarthy accused Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower of being communists or communist stooges over the "loss" of China in 1949. Trump holds a bizarre press conference in Helsinki and the only explanation must be that he is a traitor.

Nancy Pelosi ("President Trump's weakness in front of Putin was embarrassing, and proves that the Russians have something on the president, personally, financially, or politically") and Cory Booker ("Trump is acting like he's guilty of something") and Hillary Clinton ("now we know whose side he plays for") and John Brennan ("rises to and exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin") and Rachel Maddow ("We haven't ever had to reckon with the possibility that someone had ascended to the presidency of the United States to serve the interests of another country rather than our own") and others have said that Trump is controlled by Russia. As in 1954 when the press provided live TV coverage of McCarthy's dirty assertions against the Army, the modern media uses each new assertion as "proof" of an earlier one. Snowballs get bigger rolling downhill.

When assertion is accepted as evidence, it forces the other side to prove a negative to break free. So until Trump "proves" he is not a Russian stooge, his denials will be seen as attempts to wiggle out from under evidence that in fact doesn't exist. Who, pundits ask, can come up with a better explanation for Trump's actions than blackmail, as if that was a necessary step to clearing his name?

Joe McCarthy's victims faced similar challenges: once labeled a communist or a homosexual, the onus shifted to them to somehow prove they weren't. Their failure to prove their innocence became more evidence of their guilt. The Cold War version of this mindset was well illustrated in movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the classic Twilight Zone episode " The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street ." Anyone who questions this must themselves be at best a useful fool, if not an outright Russia collaborator. (Wrote one pundit : "They are accessories, before and after the fact, to the hijacking of a democratic election. So, yes, goddamn them all.") In the McCarthy era, the term was "fellow traveler": anyone, witting or unwitting, who helped the Russians. Mere skepticism, never mind actual dissent, is muddled with disloyalty.

Blackmail? Payoffs? Deals? It isn't just the months of Mueller's investigation that have passed without evidence. The IRS and Treasury have had Trump's tax documents and financials for decades, even if Rachel Maddow has not. If Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987, or even 2013, he has done it behind the backs of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and NSA. Yet at the same time, in what history would see as the most out-in-the-open intelligence operation ever, some claim he asked on TV for his handlers to deliver hacked emails. In The Manchurian Candidate , the whole thing was at least done in secret as you'd expect.

With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions.

There is no evidence the president is acting on orders from Russia or is under their influence. None.

As with McCarthy, as in those famous witch trials at Salem, allegations shouldn't be accepted as truth, though in 2018 even pointing out that basic tenet is blasphemy. The burden of proof should be on the accusing party, yet the standing narrative in America is that the Russia story must be assumed plausible, if not true, until proven false. Joe McCarthy tore America apart for four years under just such standards, until finally public opinion, led by Edward R. Murrow , a journalist brave enough to demand answers McCarthy did not have, turned against him. There is no Edward R. Murrow in 2018.

When asking for proof is seen as disloyal, when demanding evidence after years of accusations is considered a Big Ask, when a clear answer somehow always needs additional time, there is more on the line in a democracy than the fate of one man.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .

[Jul 31, 2018] Trump Has a Grand Strategy, He Wants to Do a 'Reverse Nixon' -- Partner Russia for an Alliance against China

Jul 31, 2018 | russia-insider.com

In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States' relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident."

Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and resurgence of Russia necessitating a new global balance .

As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China, signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians), the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period." Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."

Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.

Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for 'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.

But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.

Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.

Now, this recapitulation is useful today, because Trump's moves so far are indicative of an agenda to revert to the Eisenhower era – containment of China by forging an alliance with Russia .

Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US. Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.

Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.

The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, " Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia." Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American cooperation.

On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to Russia -- China can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the global stage due to military power:

Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is clearheaded.

On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:

China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate China militarily Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power Not only should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.

Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle. And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.

Source: Indian Punchline

[Jul 31, 2018] The question re the Russians still targeting our elections? belongs to the same category as Are you still beating your wife? Both suggest kangaroo court in action

Jul 31, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

STEPHEN COHEN: ...Are the Russians still targeting our elections?" This is in the category "Are you still beating your wife?" There is no proof that the Russians have targeted or attacked our elections. But it's become axiomatic. What kind of media is that, are the Russians still, still attacking our elections.

And what Michael McFaul, whom I've known for years, formerly Ambassador McFaul, purportedly a scholar and sometimes a scholar said, it is simply the kind of thing, to be as kind as I can, that I heard from the John Birch Society about President Eisenhower when he went to meet Khrushchev when I was a kid growing up in Kentucky.

...to stage a kangaroo trial of the president of the United States in the mainstream media, and have plenty of once-dignified people come on and deliver the indictment, is without precedent in this country

[Jul 30, 2018] Jeff Bezos Paper Tells You Not To Worry About Those Billionaires

Looks like a lot of people now have doubts about the legitimacy of neoliberal social system.
Jul 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

buzzsaw99 Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

The fact that Mark Zuckerberg is so rich is annoying, and his separateness from Main Street may not be a great thing socially, but in an economic sense, his fortune did not "come from" the paychecks of ordinary workers...

It damn sure did. It came straight out of their pension funds. Thousands of pension funds across the world bought faang stocks and those workers will be getting fucked in the end while while zuck heads back to hawaii with their money. look at elon, his company hasn't made dime one in profit but he is a billionaire. amzn, with a p/e of 228. they didn't get that p/e without millions of ordinary folk buying their overpriced stock. it is pure ponzi-nomics with fascist overtones and the maggots are cashing out big time.

divingengineer -> buzzsaw99 Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

The greatest fortunes in history have been built in the last 10 years with 0% interest rates. You were spot on about pensions, they were the casualties, almost every private pension in the country bankrupted by 0% rates so that these fucks could amass unimaginable wealth.

Now the filthy commoner scum have the audacity to suggest that they should pay taxes on it. Where will the madness end?

cankles' server -> divingengineer Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:24 Permalink

Very soon.

A big reveal of corruption is happening before the end of the month.

The didn't do a half billion dollar renovation on Gitmo for nothing. It's for the treasonous scum that will be on trial in military tribunals.

same2u -> divingengineer Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:35 Permalink

All my friends Jews knew this was going to happen. They were buying stocks like crazy when I was telling them to buy gold and get ready for a big reset that never happened. Ten years later they are all multimillionaires and I lost half of my money buying gold...

buzzsaw99 -> divingengineer Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:42 Permalink

institutions bought their shares with real earned money. bezos did not. as far as i'm concerned being a ceo is a license to steal. bezos damn sure didn't earn that money because he is smarter or works harder than anyone else. look at how he treats his workers. what an asshole.

james diamond squid -> buzzsaw99 Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:48 Permalink

everyone wants to have an IPO or be in on an IPO, so they can dump their shares on a patsy at a later date

Zorba's idea -> divingengineer Sun, 07/29/2018 - 14:09 Permalink

True! The Elites have rigged the system...natural for them to rape our ASSets.

SocratesSolutions -> buzzsaw99 Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:43 Permalink

It's even worse than that. So much worse. Facebook was stolen by the Satanic Judaic Zionist crowd. Research it. Another gentleman invented it. The Jews stole it, like they've stolen pretty much everything else. No wonder Napoleon said that "The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age". And beyond the criminal vile theft, you have what they are using it for. And that is?

Using it for the 911'd cows in America. And that is you. The Satanic Jews are murdering you and robbing you blind. They 911'd you physically with the Twin Towers. Now they're doing it mentally and financially with Facebook, a control system grid -- a gate to herd cattle which they view you as. They are herding you. You'll be 911'd again in larger and larger numbers until the Satanic Judaic is removed from the World Stage.

Here is the real creator of Facebook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ4KRts8RFc

Zuckerberg is a planted punk Zionist spook. You're going to have to clear the world of all of these Satanic Judaic ladies and gentlemen. First the idea needs to come in to show how and why. This is underway.

divingengineer Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:08 Permalink

Sickening wealth and sickening poverty, all on display only feet apart on the West Coast.

I don't know the answer, neither do they, but they better figure something out and quick if they know what's good for them.

FORCE Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:10 Permalink

Amerikan pauper-proles;let them eat cake-apps

same2u Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:12 Permalink

Ever since the housing crisis I been waiting for the world to become a better place. I see now that I been fooling myself into believing that we live in a civilized and honest world. Nobody gives a shit about anyone nor anything, people only care about themselves...

divingengineer -> same2u Sun, 07/29/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

How do we turn these viscous billionaire dogs on each other rather than on us?

We need to figure out how to play the game like they play it on us.

[Jul 30, 2018] RussiaGate Is a Partisan Freak-Show - Latest Update from Consummate Political Insider, Roger Stone

Jul 30, 2018 | russia-insider.com

The Rosenstein Justice Department is entirely too calculated and manipulative, from all we have now seen, to believe there is not a deep and profound ulterior motive behind its obstinate, even petulant, refusal to produce critical documents at the center of the entire Russian collusion pretextual hoax that, beyond question now, was manufactured." Roger Stone 4 hours ago | 311 31 Stay classy MSM

Well, America's national freak show hit parade of the sleazy shaved head "Intelligence Community" liars, and Bond-villainous deep state subversives are at it again, busy rolling out the 6th or 7th permutation (who can keep count?) of their ever-evolving (ever-collapsing, really) Russian collusion defamation-distraction hoax.

Even with the fact that bipartisan hitman Robert Mueller has spent $16 Million and two years using bully tactics and continuously threatening lawyers for people who don't care to testify in this Inquisition still has proof of collusion, conspiracy.

Deep State Democrat frauds are frantic to keep the most cynical, deceitful smear campaign in American history alive and kicking. Time is not on their side. It has brought steady plodding revelation of the facts, inevitably exposing the depths of their deceit and willingness to corrupt public power.

With their bag of manipulative dirty tricks approaching exhaustion these sordid schemers are in panic mode, and their shrill lies and flailing antics are escalating. On July 23, 2018, two of California's worst political afflictions on America, Nancy Pelosi, and Adam Schiff used the ruse of announcing a toothless, useless House resolution "condemning" the president's remarks at the Helsinki summit to double down on their latest round of twisted defamations of President Trump.

" As the whole world knows, one week ago, President Trump sold out our democracy ," crowed Pelosi, in typically-understated rhetorical style.

Without the slightest irony, the under-medicated then incredibly pronounced, " The last thing you want in intelligence is partisanship, and we were able to avoid that for so long ."

[Certainly, Nancy, we wouldn't want that. And rest assured, the self-unmasking of the psychopathic duo of Obama thugs John Brennan and James Clapper has made abundantly obvious which lying partisan lunatics are responsible for ending this mythical streak of non-partisan intelligence.]

If nothing else, Pelosi and Schiff's grandstand-of-the-day highlighted how practiced and polished the Democrat tribe's demagogues are at hyperbole, hypocrisy and almost medical-grade ingenuity. Entirely predictable does not make their nauseating faux sanctimony any less appalling to witness, though.

But really who's to complain when watching one's opponents make complete asses of themselves huckstering a contrived scandal that is polling around 1% in the list of most important issues to Americans.

Plus, if not for power-lusting Democrat demagogues like Adam and Nancy and their Democrat platoon of expert political bullshit artists, America might be forced to go on without the benefit of having our public life perpetually hijacked by one phony leftist melodrama after another.

With the president's poll numbers steadily rising, when not holding firm, it is easy to understand why the conniptions underway amongst the unholy alliance between the bellicose Russo-phobic Beltway war party and perpetually-impotent Democrat leftist losers. Both camps were tossed aside .dethroned in one fell swoop by the ascendancy of a president who promotes the alien idea of having peace around the world. It is no wonder they are so apoplectic.

They are getting an object lesson about how Donald Trump will not be bumrushed and bullied into launching any more messianic military misadventures, squandering American blood and treasure in some hell hole on the other side of the planet. Nor will he be hoaxed into provoking the world's only other nuclear power even close to the United States in its stockpile.

Their latest descent into It was not enough that the Robert Mueller hit squad, being so high, holy and apolitical as we have all been repeatedly admonished by those whose motives are just as pure, happened to conveniently announce the indictment of 12 Russians within hours of the president's face-to-face meetings with the Russian president.

Surely this was just a pure coincidence. Who could dare think there was anything suspicious (or malicious) about having an ad hoc legal inquisition headed by Barack Obama's former FBI chief and loaded with Hillary Clinton supporters (donors, even) spark a partisan media frenzy around astonishingly-specific domestic criminal allegations against purported agents of America's only matching nuclear-armed rival on the planet, just as the president is on foreign soil daring try to establish a workable relationship with that nation, potentially affecting everything from middle-east conflict reduction to North Korean denuclearization.

Apparently this cute little connivance staged by Trump's own #2 at the DOJ, the pompous smirking self-righteous foot-dragger and Mueller protégé Rod Rosenstein, was merely a prelude to the truly-grotesque torrent of vicious, seditious slander unleashed on the president by the Clinton-Obama fifth columnists and their himself was about one step away from facing articles of impeachment for his obstruction of congressional oversight and inquiry into the unprecedented abuse of national security by Obama apparatchiks.

Over at the Comey Noise Network, the hairless, brainless, spineless tub of crap named Brian Stelter (you can also refer to him by his initials: BS) oozed up from his feeding hole to act as a lead parrot for their latest and, so far, thinnest of fabricated defamations.

CNN's very own BS ominously posed their latest ploy to all six of his viewers and on Twitter in the form of laughably-demented questions:

"What does Putin have on Trump?"

"Has he been compromised ?"

When there is a particularly important lie or smear or spin that the Democrat-Media axis of sleaze wants to be injected into the news cycle, the specific talking (lying) points will usually be assigned to multiple prominent Democrat spokesliars to be repeated pretty much verbatim in separate appearances on various high profile news outlets (the Sunday morning network shows are most favored).

Whether their latest consensus lie is meant to breathe new life into their perpetually-collapsing false narrative using a newly cooked-up defamation or false accusation or it is designed to manufacture a timely distraction drawing attention away from some other story they want to be squelched, the imperative of putting it out there can be gauged by how many media stooges are enlisted to parrot it and how precisely the stooges repeat the exact wording of the lie.

This was clearly the case with the latest load of bullschiff initially shoveled by Stelter. Chief Hoaxliar Adam Schiff (and likely fabricator of most or all of the Trump-Russia lies and manipulations floated over the last two years) added his shiny talking head to Smelter's stooging, on where else but ABC's This Week with Clinton deceit fluffer and amenable leftist dwarf, George Stephanopoulos.

Schiff quadrupled down, likely out of smug satisfaction at having concocted this latest twist on his Russia-Trump carousel of lies:

"I think there's no ignoring the fact that for whatever reason, this president acts like he's compromised ."

"Well, I certainly think he's acting like someone who is compromised . And it may very well be that he is compromised or it may very well be that he believes that he's compromised , that the Russians have information on him."

"I hope that Bob Mueller's investigating it, because again, if that's the leverage the Russians are using, it would not only explain the president's behavior, but it would help protect the country by knowing that in fact our president was compromised ."

Schiff naturally did not find the 145 million smakers Bill and Hillary took from executives of the Russian State-owned Energy company compromising – just as he sees no problem with his own association with defense contractors connected to Ukrainian Organized crime.

Reinforcing these two spinning BS artists, they brought in a real luminary from the Obama Mafia to drive the smear home. Good old Susan Rice, what with her clean hands.

Like any other professional con artist, they know better than to linger around any particular pack of lies they pounded incessantly for weeks, or even months, extracting every last molecule of ill-gotten benefit they possibly could from it while desperately squirming to salvage anything possible from their messy, slimy trail of serially-debunked lies and disinformation.

The Rosenstein Justice Department is entirely too calculated and manipulative, from all we have now seen, to believe there is not a deep and profound ulterior motive behind its obstinate, even petulant, refusal to produce critical documents at the center of the entire Russian collusion pretextual hoax that, beyond question now, was manufactured.

Source: Stone Cold Truth

Stop Bush and Clinton • 10 hours ago ,

Spot on about the Russiagate witch hunt -- but describing Trump as a "president who promotes the alien idea of having peace around the world" is almost as Fake News as CNN.

Trump doesn't want peace in Iran. Trump doesn't want peace for Syria or Palestine. He's less insane than Hitlery Clinton on Russia, but that's like saying he's less insane than Adolf Hitler on the issue of annexing Austria.

Surely the Democrats suck -- but it's not like Republicans or Trump are the solution.

Franklin Wisman Stop Bush and Clinton • 7 hours ago ,

Austrians were overjoyed with annexation. Nearly 98% for it.

siamdave Stop Bush and Clinton • 2 hours ago ,

when thinking about Trump and Iran, try to inform your thoughts with the Trump and North Korea story .... he's a very skilled dealmaker, and when doing negotiations, you don't lay your full hand on the table at the beginning ...

XRGRSF Stop Bush and Clinton • 10 hours ago ,

Perhaps Trump, et al, are not the solution, but in the U$ system they are the only other option. There will be only two options until this straw shack finally goes up in flames, and rebuilds itself as something better.

AM Hants • 9 hours ago ,

I do like Tucker Carlson. Interesting interview with Carter Page. Tucker Carlson Tonight 72318 FoxNews Today July 23, 2018 Breaking News...

Play Hide
IllyaK AM Hants • 5 hours ago ,

Carter Page is too fucking stupid to be a spy.

IllyaK • 13 hours ago ,

They are getting an object lesson about how Donald Trump will not be bumrushed and bullied into launching any more messianic military misadventures

Unless one of those 'messianic adventures' features Iran in a starring role. This orange-haired assclown is literally minutes away from doing his benefactor's bidding and starting a war with Persia.

A war the Monkey Empire will lose - but that's beside the point.

wilmers13 • 3 hours ago ,

This is all great fun to see them hissing and fighting but at the end of the day, it is very unproductive to be so preoccupied with things US. I promise I will try to avoid the soap opera a bit more.

Maria Angelica Brunell Solar • 4 hours ago ,

The author expresses his justified anger in an ingenious and hilarious way! I just would like Mr. Stone to apologize for saying that Trump will not continue "squandering American blood and treasure in some hell hole on the other side of the planet". The invaded countries in the ME (or in other parts of the world earlier) were not "hell holes" before the US set its deadly boot on their soil! The author's anger should not be deflected against the US gov's victims

Franklin Wisman • 7 hours ago ,

Here's an important article on 'why' os many in the West, the neocons, hate Russia. Eye opening to the reality of things.
https://www.sott.net/articl...

Russell McGinnis • 11 hours ago ,

Enough irony to explode your brain. Stone misidentifies the subversives in his McCarthy-Murrow graphic. Murrow represented the anti-America Judeo-supremacist faction. It was McCarthy who accurately warned us of the Deep State threat for which shabbos Murrow fronted.

See: Venona Transcripts

Stephan Williams Russell McGinnis • 9 hours ago ,

You might want to read "Blacklisted by History, The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America's Enemies" by M. Stanton Evans

Senator McCarthy was one of the few GOOD GUYS.

https://www.amazon.com/Blac...

Russell McGinnis • 13 hours ago ,

Russiagate isn't a partisan freak show. It is a naked demonstration of Jewish subversion of public institutions to aggress against the White race. Thank you for today's cognitive infiltration, (((Mr. Stone))). We so love marching in circles, it's good cardio training.

AM Hants • 14 hours ago ,

There should be a special investigation into Mueller. Dodgy, some of the investigations he has been involved in, plus, who he supports. Now why does Uranium One, so come to mind?

Has anybody read the George Eliason articles on the Mueller investigation?

The Daily Beast Agrees with Mueller Indictment: It's Ukraine... https://www.opednews.com/ar...

Mueller's Indictment Found Ukrainian Intel is Fancy Bear... https://www.opednews.com/ar...

Hmph AM Hants • 11 hours ago ,

Duh, no kidding. Ukrainian hackers have been posing as Russians from day one. Add to that, the SBU's little noivichok scam and you have the full picture of Ukraine Today.

Congress CAN'T be that stupid. Only logical conclusion, they're in cahoots.

AM Hants Hmph • 10 hours ago ,

Have you seen how much they get from their sponsors? Funny, how the Pro-Israel America Lobby, spend so much on sponsoring politicians, whilst doing nought for the people of Israel or America.

This article from The Saker, with regards who wrote the HR1644 Bill (then went on to write the Russian Sanction Bill, using no more than a Government telephone directory), shows how much they are sponsored, not to represent the electorate. I could not believe it, or the fact the Pro-Israel America Lobby, support the Ukraine Nazis.

How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis... https://www.opednews.com/ar...

..................................

THE US BILL H.R. 1644 TO KILL RUSSIAN FOOD EXPORT AND CHINESE TRADE

Authors of the Bill
Edward Randall "Ed" Royce, a member of the United States House of Representatives for California's 39th congressional district, is listed as the main author of this bill.

Edward R. Royce is listed by the non-government political watchdogs as the top second US representative that received pro-Israel campaign contributions – $233,943

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ed Royce: $4,041,553

NORPAC is a bipartisan, multi-candidate political action committee working to strengthen the United States–Israel relationship – $114,243

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Real Estate $344,349
Securities & Investment $321,400
Insurance $261,850
Pro-Israel $233,943
Lawyers/Law Firms $171,975
Health Professionals $107,185
Commercial Banks $101,000
Misc Finance $88,700
Republican/Conservative $70,740
Accountants $66,250
Top 10 Organizations Funding

Organization Contributions
NORPAC $114,243
Royce Victory Fund $35,100
Morgan Stanley $17,500
Mutual Pharmaceutical $15,600
Blackstone Group $13,500
Rida Development $13,500
First American Financial Corporation $12,700
Seville Classics $12,240
Arnold and Porter $12,200
Wells Fargo $12,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.

According to the MapLight disclamer, "Contributions data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics ( OpenSecrets.org ). Legislative data from GovTrack.us . "

-- –

Eliot L. Engel Democrat (Elected 1988), NY House district 16

I wrote in details about the Representative Eliot Lance Engel in connection to his anti-Russia activities in authoring STAND for Ukraine Act H.R. 5094 in May 2016

Eliot Lance Engel has been reported as being a recipient of the pro-Israel campaign contributions $191,150

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Eliot L. Engel: $1,596,646

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Pro-Israel $191,150
Real Estate $123,000
Health Professionals $105,925
Lawyers/Law Firms $95,186
Securities & Investment $68,025
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $55,700
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $36,350
Education $34,300
Building Trade Unions $34,000
Public Sector Unions $31,500
Top 10 Organizations Funding

Organization Contributions
NORPAC $28,000
St Georges University $20,000
Natural Food Source Incorporated $16,200
Duty Free Americas $16,200
Stroock Stroock and Lavan $11,100
Nimeks Organics $10,800
Baystate Medical Center $10,800
Boeing Company $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000
Raytheon Company $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.

-- -

Ted S. Yoho Republican (Elected 2013), FL House district 3

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ted S. Yoho: $721,346

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Crop Production & Basic Processing $72,411
General Contractors $39,451
Real Estate $35,177
Agricultural Services/Products $24,839
Health Professionals $23,960
Livestock $23,300
Special Trade Contractors $22,150
Pro-Israel $17,000
Securities & Investment $13,400
Printing & Publishing $11,800
Top 10 Organizations Funding

Organization Contributions
Islands Mechanical $15,400
Anderson Columbia Company $13,400
Angel Investor $10,800
National Cattlemens Beef Association $10,000
Hennessey Arabian Horses $10,000
Florida Congressional Committee $10,000
American Crystal Sugar $7,500
Cecil W Powell And Company $6,400
Lockheed Martin $6,000
Vallencourt Construction $5,900
--

Brad Sherman Democrat (Elected 1996), CA House district 30

Brad Sherman has reputedly received $93,580 in pro-Israel campaign contributions.

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Brad Sherman: $1,575,550

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Real Estate $122,900
Securities & Investment $109,475
Pro-Israel $93,580
Lawyers/Law Firms $72,198
Insurance $69,300
Accountants $60,330
Building Trade Unions $57,500
Misc Finance $51,300
Health Professionals $46,575
TV/Movies/Music $46,015
Top 10 Organizations Funding

Organization Contributions
NORPAC $25,720
Hackman Capital Partners $16,200
Capital Group Companies $15,400
Majestic Realty $10,800
Pachulski Stang Et Al $10,800
Saban Capital Group $10,800
Keyes Automotive Group $10,800
United Food and Commercial Workers Union $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Deloitte Llp $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.

--

The US Representatives sponsoring the Bill
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is listed as a recipient of the pro-Israel campaign contributions – $138,800

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican (Elected 1988), FL House district 27

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: $1,453,178

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Pro-Israel $140,650
Real Estate $85,650
Lawyers/Law Firms $80,048
Foreign & Defense Policy $53,750
Transportation Unions $38,000
Health Professionals $36,150
Republican/Conservative $34,700
Building Trade Unions $29,000
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $27,300
Defense Aerospace $26,750
Top 10 Organizations Funding

Organization Contributions
Duty Free Americas $20,500
NORPAC $18,850
Leon Medical Centers $16,450
Southern Wine and Spirits $15,400
Clearpath Foundation $10,800
Badia Spices $10,800
Irving Moskowitz Foundation $10,800
Tate Enterprises $10,700
At and T Incorporated $10,000
Operating Engineers Union $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions fro

--

The US representative Ralph Lee Abraham, Jr.

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ralph Lee Abraham: $649,364

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Crop Production & Basic Processing $76,435
Health Professionals $61,950
Agricultural Services/Products $33,200
Oil & Gas $23,950
Commercial Banks $23,450
Real Estate $22,775
Lawyers/Law Firms $20,850
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $17,900
Misc Business $15,100
Forestry & Forest Products $14,000
Top 10 Organizations Funding

Organization Contributions
American Society of Anesthesiologists $15,000
American Sugar Cane League $10,000
National Association of Realtors $8,500
Farm Credit Council $8,000
Intermountain Management $6,300
Centurylink $6,250
Central Management $5,400
Moore Oil $5,400
Lasalle Management $5,400
Hospital Administrator $5,400
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions from political

--

William R. Keating (D-MA) U.S. House

Total Campaign Contributions Received by William R. Keating: $1,094,550

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest Contributions
Lawyers/Law Firms $76,117
Building Trade Unions $67,500
Public Sector Unions $53,500
Transportation Unions $48,500
Industrial Unions $47,000
Real Estate $40,549
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $39,000
Special Trade Contractors $30,475
Defense Aerospace $30,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $26,500
Top 10 Organizations Funding

Organization Contributions
Superior Plumbing $21,700
Nixon Peabody LLP $13,320
United Food and Commercial Workers Union $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Plumberspipefitters Union $10,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union $10,000
Operating Engineers Union $10,000
Painters and Allied Trades Union $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000
Ironworkers Union $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. https://southfront.org/the-...

Russell McGinnis Hmph • 10 hours ago ,

The Presidency has been compromised for 100+ years. The Congress for at least 50. But I would say "(((blackmailed)))" instead of "in cahoots".

[Jul 29, 2018] It s Official The US is in a Constitutional Crisis

Notable quotes:
"... AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration to lead the investigation. ..."
"... Former FBI Director and Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related scandals to dissolve. ..."
"... arose or may arise ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.thegatewaypundit.com

It's Official: The US is in a Constitutional Crisis – Only President Trump Can Save the Nation Now! The US is now in a constitutional crisis. Yesterday Attorney General Sessions announced that he was refusing to set up a special investigation into FBI and DOJ wrongdoing even though the evidence of corruption, illegalities and cover ups of Obama and Clinton scandals is rampant. A year ago Sessions had no problem with the creation of an unconstitutional investigation into President Trump when no crimes were committed.

Mueller's illegal Trump-Russia investigation moves on while investigations into obvious corruption and criminal activities in Obama's FBI, DOJ and State Department are ignored. We asked in October what does the deep state have on AG Sessions causing him to ignore the constitution and his duty to serve the American people? It's now clear that Sessions must go and a new team be brought in to clean up the FBI, DOJ and other deep state led government departments.

How did we get here?

During the 2016 election one of the biggest chants at Trump rallies was – Drain the swamp!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZDGJB_jXK_o

Americans were tired of the corruption and criminal acts perpetrated by the government under the Obama administration but no one guessed how corrupt it really was. The sinister Obama administration had the audacity to spy on the Trump campaign using the entire apparatus of the US government and then framed the incoming President once he won.

AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration to lead the investigation.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/10519515222215526?pubid=ld-5132-3666&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com&rid=duckduckgo.com&width=820

Former FBI Director and Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related scandals to dissolve. Emailgate, Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton emails, Uranium One, and the IRS scandal all fizzled with no wrong doing identified over Mueller's years with the FBI. Mueller also was best friends with disgraced and fired leaker former FBI Director James Comey. Mueller should have never taken the job to lead the investigation due to his numerous conflicts of interest.

We know that the FBI had an investigation into the Clintons and money they received from Russia in return for giving Russia 20% of all US uranium. Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial Uranium One deal in 2010, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin. The FBI approved the deal anyway. We also know that Rosenstein and Mueller were the ones who allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward. This was the real Russia collusion story involving the US government.

Mueller brought in a team of Obama and Clinton lackeys to form his investigative team who had no intention of performing an independent and objective investigation. The entire team is corrupt lefties who have represented the Clinton Foundation or let Hillary go in her obvious crimes related to her email scandal. This included the texting FBI scoundrels Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Some suspect that their efforts are as much to cover past wrong doings as to frame the current President for unethical acts.

https://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=5670575240001&loc=thegatewaypundit.com&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2018%2F03%2Fits-official-the-us-is-in-a-constitutional-crisis-only-president-trump-can-save-the-nation%2F&_xcf=

We know that Mueller's team illegally obtained emails related to the Trump transition team as reported in December and these emails were protected under attorney-client privilege. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this but the investigation moves on.

Unconstitutionality of the Mueller Investigation

Not only is the Mueller investigation corrupt, it is unconstitutional. We learned in January that Paul Manafort was suing Mueller, Rosenstein and Sessions as Head of the DOJ due to the Mueller investigation being unconstitutional.

Gregg Jarrett at FOX News wrote when initially Mueller brought charges against Manafort that Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable. In addition Jarrett stated-

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.

Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law as noted previously by Jarrett. Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law –

But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute " any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized by DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

In addition to Jarrett and Manafort's arguments above, Robert Barnes wrote this past week at Law and Crimes that –

Paul Manafort's legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign. I agree with this take on Mueller's authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller's requested interview with President Trump.

Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related to obstruction of Mueller's investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases would be exercising Sessions' court-recognized Constitutional obligation to "direct and supervise litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort now rightly complains about.

Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public faith that democratically elected officials.

One thing to remember about Sessions' recusal : Sessions only recused himself from "any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States." This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions' recusal to the 2016 campaigns; it does not authorize Sessions' recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a " duty to direct and supervise litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory obligations for cases that are not related to the "campaigns for President."

Not only is the Mueller investigation run by former FBI and DOJ criminals and bad cops but it is unconstitutional in the way it was created and in the way it is currently being managed outside the scope of Sessions' recusal while incorporating Sessions duties as AG.

The only solution

There's a lot of speculation from some Americans and Trump supporters who believe that AG Sessions is behind the scenes working on cleaning the swamp, but this is all speculation. Little if any evidence supports these hopes.

We must look at the facts. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. Rosenstein was somehow recommended and hired as Assistant AG. With a background of multiple conflicts of interest related to Uranium One and having signed off on at least one FISA warrant to spy on candidate and future President Trump, Rosenstein never should have been appointed. In spite of his conflicts, Rosenstein hired Mueller to investigate President Trump and continues in his oversight role. Sessions', Rosenstein's and Mueller's actions are unethical, illegal and unconstitutional.

We are currently in a constitutional crisis. AG Sessions will not uphold the law. He must be replaced with an aggressive, competent and fair AG who will uphold the constitution. This is something we haven't had in at least a decade.

Only President Trump can save America. Only President Trump can replace AG Sessions and now it's time.

jacobum Lee Lilly • 4 months ago ,

You're right. But the reality is being right doesn't do squat for Sessions very little credibility. For good reason...his actions merit distrusting him. It's the height of arrogance and simply smells to high heaven that a "Man of the highest integrity"...would knowingly allow himself to be confirmed one day and recuse himself the next day......without first telling his boss the POTUS.

That excuse dog is not going to hunt no matter how long or whomever blows that dog whistle. It's an insult to not only the intelligence of folks but their common sense as well.
Bluntly, he is a disaster for the country and POTUS. The problem is NO THINKING ADULT TRUST SESSIONS ANY FARTHER THAN THEY CAN THROW HIM! What he did disqualifies him for the position he took under false pretenses. That is is Deception...not...Integrity. PERIOD!

We are in a war. Nice guys don't win wars. They clean up afterwards. He acts like Mr Magoo and not the nations Chief Law Enforcement Officer. We are in a war and the equivalent of the Military Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Law Enforcement has gone missing.
Sessions is the classical..."Fool me once..your fault; Fool me twice, my fault"
My deadline for him is June 20, 2018 at the maximum. Nothing significant by then....it will be a confirmation he is part of the problem....and always has been....a plant of the "Deep State"

LEEPERMAX Susieq • 4 months ago ,

"Bush Family Plant"
#FireSessions now.

Alti LEEPERMAX • 4 months ago ,

Tom Fitton: "When you read the letter its pretty clear Huber isn't charged with prosecuting anyone. Sessions is not going to appoint a special counsel to investigate anything having to do with the Obama FBI or Hillary Clinton. I don't think [Huber] has empaneled a grand jury or is doing a prosecution, he's just looking at the record and may suggest additional resources. Nothing is going to be done. There is no public indication of any serious investigation by the DOJ."

Lee Lilly jacobum • 4 months ago ,

Had I not come across the following, I would absolutely agree with you. But below is what is really occurring behind the scenes. They ARE fighting the Deep State which has existed for decades, but rest assured POTUS and his team of patriots are on it. If you take the time to really go through it, you can almost predict what POTUS will do next.

qanon.pub or qanonposts.com

It seems unbelievable at first but it checks out as the story unfolds and Q predicts things before they happen... Also, Trump has signalled the truth of it; do you think he said "tip top tippety top" just for the heck of it at Easter speech? (He was asked by an anon to use this in something to verify validity of Q.) It won't make sense unless you start at the beginning in Oct and read posts from there. (And disregard MSM reports that Q is false; if he was, why even bother trying to discredit?)

Think about it - is it like POTUS to keep someone so "obviously inept" around as Sessions? Does that really sound like POTUS? Trump and team have handled this beautifully...they even have conservatives screaming for Sessions' head. He is neither uninvolved nor clueless as is being portrayed. It's the Art of the Deal. Many are going down and POTUS and Q team are bringing us to it live through the posts.

I promise you, this will open your eyes to the long game that POTUS and Sessions are playing out. Check it out - it will be the best read of your life. So many things that never made sense, so many lies, massive corruption...be prepared.

Once you've gone through Q, you will truly know that POTUS meant every single word, literally, in this short link.

Every. Single. Word. ~ Enjoy, my friend

Play Hide
Sir_Tanly jacobum • 4 months ago ,

Don knew of the recusal before the nomination. Betcha.

Alti Guest • 4 months ago ,

After diligent study, I have come to the conclusion that this letter is a deceptively worded masterpiece (if you like being deceived).

robert v g Alti • 4 months ago ,

I have a hunch you're right. Isn't Sessions just a long- time swamp politician/lawyer?

John Jensen Lee Lilly • 4 months ago ,

Biggest problem after watching the video of Lou Dobbs tonight is that Rod Rosenstein is still acting in an oversite position. He will never let anyone be convicted of any crime because he is a sitting member of almost every crime that was committed. I don't think Sessions is that smart in the first place, I believe that Rosenstein is running the show and that is all it is a Dog and Pony show for the masses. All of them should be fired

Molon labe Lotsa Snuggs • 4 months ago ,

Au contraire-All you Sessions sycophants are the ones who'll have an uncomfortably full stomach! That man's public actions are NOT those of a sly old law and order prosecutor maintaining "radio silence" while tirelessly working behind the scenes! They're the actions of a compromised Attorney General who is NOT performing his Constitutional duties and is actively covering for known lawbreakers and Obstructing Justice--NOT demanding it!!

[Jul 29, 2018] Watch Bob Mueller Lie to Congress About Iraq s Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2003 When He Ran the FBI (Video)

Notable quotes:
"... Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees. ..."
"... He is protected by the US media which are the mouthpiece of the Deep State. ..."
"... 'Truth is to WASHINGTON DC, as Sunlight is To Dracula' http://www.johnccarleton.or... ..."
"... he lied the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and the WTC demolition. ..."
"... Politics is the profession where scum rises to the top faster than all the others combined. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | https://russia-insider.com

Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees.

He's a public disgrace and should be behind bars, not running a bogus Russian Meddling investigation that is pure hoax and political conspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uTDO-kuOGTQ

Chi • 12 hours ago ,

He is protected by the US media which are the mouthpiece of the Deep State.

Franklin Wisman Chi • 6 hours ago ,

He's protected all the way around.

John C Carleton • 10 hours ago ,

'Truth is to WASHINGTON DC, as Sunlight is To Dracula' http://www.johnccarleton.or...

Washington Post John C Carleton • 5 hours ago ,

Democracy dies in our darkness.

Franz Kafka • 11 hours ago ,

Mueller is a professional liar, traitor and scumbag. He is not even a good liar but he is a prolific one. ... That he lied the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and the WTC demolition.

The fact that he is not only at large, but in charge of the coup against Donald Trump is a tragedy of immeasurable proportions for the long-suffering US people. The good news is, one way or another, it may be their final tragedy.

ALTERNATE HISTORY • 6 hours ago ,

Once a lying sack of shit, always a lying sack of lying shit.

hmmm ALTERNATE HISTORY • 5 hours ago ,

Politics is the profession where scum rises to the top faster than all the others combined.

wilmers13 Billy Brown • 8 hours ago ,

17 intelligence agencies ensure they publish what leads to more war in other people's streets. Ugly American reincarnation.

Franklin Wisman wilmers13 • 6 hours ago ,

Please, keep the anti-American thing down to a roar. Ya'll by now see that the people do not control their gov at all. They, the cabal, did 9-11 on us and spy on us. It's the cabal at the top which does us in too - Pearl Harbor another e.g.

[Jul 29, 2018] The Helsinki Debacle and US-Russian Relations

MIC is a cancer, and looks like there is no cure
Notable quotes:
"... Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. ..."
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years. ..."
"... Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence. ..."
"... I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him. ..."
"... CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). ..."
"... As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface. ..."
"... No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can't be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments.

If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding a way to work through or around them.

b. July 16, 2018 at 9:35 pm

"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."

I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign.

We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years.

Rob , says: July 16, 2018 at 11:21 pm
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in a way that would allow a proper dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests for those responsible for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint: it's not Trump, unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
a spencer , says: July 17, 2018 at 1:33 am
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Erik , says: July 17, 2018 at 2:35 am
I also agree with b.

Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence.

I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him.

Christian Chuba , says: July 17, 2018 at 9:59 am
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media.

They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil.

CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). These are just two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.

As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface.

No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.

DanJ , says: July 18, 2018 at 1:07 am
The summit was announced by the White House and the Kremlin on June 28. The Finnish hosts probably knew about it a few days earlier. That leaves only three weeks for preparation.

The summit itself lasted one day. Putin arrived late and after lunch and diplomatic niceties there was only 2-3 hours for actual talks.

That's not a problem if everything is already carefully negotiated and the presidents just sign documents and smile for the cameras. But it seems very little was agreed on beforehand.

I'm all for world leaders meeting and talking. The more the better. But I really don't see the point of hastily calling a summit where nothing is agreed upon. At least not that we know of.

[Jul 29, 2018] Russophobic madness of the US neoliberal elite after Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki

The "uncivil war" within the US neoliberal elite is getting a lot hotter... The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn't like the way democracy worked out.
The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
Notable quotes:
"... Written by Eric Margolis ..."
"... But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted to hear the truth. ..."
"... In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve). ..."
"... Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war. ..."
"... For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations. ..."
"... It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks. ..."
"... The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them on CNN, snarling away at President Trump. ..."
"... Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching US TV one might think so. ..."
"... Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence. ..."
Jul 21, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Originally from: Madness in Moscow Written by Eric Margolis Saturday July 21, 2018

Comedy? Disaster? Mental disorder? Hearing loss? Even days after President Donald Trump's bizarre appearance in Moscow alongside a cool, composed President Vladimir Putin, it's hard to tell what happened. But it certainly was entertaining. In case anyone in the universe missed this event, let me recap. Trump met in private with Putin, which drove bureaucrats on both sides crazy. So far, Trump won't reveal most of what was said between the two leaders.

But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted to hear the truth.

In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim.

The whole thing was black comedy. Maybe it was due to Trump's poor hearing or to jet lag and travel fatigue.

Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve).

Yet many Americans swallowed this canard. If Russia's GRU military intelligence was really involved in the run-up to the election, as US intelligence reportedly claimed, it's alleged buying of social media amounted to peanuts and hardly swung the election.

Back in the 1940's, GRU managed to penetrate and influence Roosevelt's White House. Now that's real espionage. Not some junior officers and 20-somethings on a laptop in Moscow.

Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war.

For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations.

Democrats and Republican neocons are in full-throat hysteria over an alleged Russian threat – Russia, whose total military budget is smaller than Trump's recent Pentagon budget increase this year.

What we have been seeing is the fascinating spectacle of America's war party and neocons clamoring to oust President Trump. Included in their ranks are most of the US media, led by the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and TV's war parties, CNN and NBC.

It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.

The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them on CNN, snarling away at President Trump.

Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching US TV one might think so.

Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence.

Reprinted with permission from EricMargolis.com .

[Jul 29, 2018] The USA intentionally tried to destroy Russia after the dissolution of the USSR

Notable quotes:
"... This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think. ..."
"... Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries have risen 3 or 4-fold. ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

John Perry July 28, 2018 at 1:48 pm

"Vladimir Putin rode a counter-wave of anti-Western nationalism to power in Moscow."

Uh, no. Putin came to power at a time when Russia seemed to be falling apart, quite literally. There was war in Chechnya, open criminal activity on the streets, and clear social decay. Putin's popularity begins with his address to the nation after the bombing of the Moscow metro, promising that the government (which he did not then lead) would chase those responsible down and kill them, even if that meant chasing them into outhouses. The relationship between the bombing and Putin's rise is so well-known that the conspiracy theorists who have Jay Nordlinger's ear over at National Review claim that the bombing was a set up by Putin's pals in the FSB, precisely to bring Putin to power.

My wife is Russian, from the city of Kazan in the Tatar Republic (part of Russia; it's complicated), and when we were merely pen pals in 2003 she wrote me what it was like. It was bad, very bad. At one point her entire neighborhood was placed under curfew on account of open warfare between criminal gangs. And of course when we visit the cemetery today one sees the striking spike in tombstones whose date of death is at some point in the mid- to late 90's, when it all seemed to be going to pieces and the government didn't even pay its own employees for half a year.

Today, by contrast, Russians can walk the streets more or less without fear, count on a paycheck, read in the news how their country has sent yet another capsule of Western astronauts to the international space station (because Westerners haven't been able to do that for the better part of a decade, thanks to Bush and Obama), and even find jobs in a successful tech sector (Kaspersky, JetBrains, Yandex, the list goes on).

But, hey, if you want to fantasize that Putin's rise is thanks to anti-Western sentiment, you go ahead and do that.

John Perry , says: July 28, 2018 at 1:53 pm
One other comment, if I may. I share the concern most Westerners have about Russia's seizure of Crimea. But where is our concern about Turkey's 40-plus-year occupation of northern Cyprus, also sparked by internal political disorder on the island? Why is it alright for a NATO country to invade another nation and prop up its separatists, expel the inhabitants of a disfavored ethnic group -- in this case, the Greeks?
Rodrigo Alvarez , says: July 28, 2018 at 6:15 pm
Shame on TAC for publishing this garbage. For one, Putin more or less saved Russia as a sovereign state, it is easy to forget the sorry condition Russia was in at the turn of the century. Without him, Russia would've most likely been dismembered or simply colonized by the West and China. He has performed admirably in the face of massive odds. Russia will still exist in 100 years as the state of the Russian and other native people of its land – can the same be said of the United States? Russia is slowly climbing its way out of the pit of despair created by 80 years of Communism, the United States is crawling into the very same pit.
Cynthia McLean , says: July 28, 2018 at 6:27 pm
I am much more concerned that voter roll purges, suppression of the vote, Citizen's United Dark Money and folks like the Kochs and Addelson are undermining US democracy than the Russians. As for the aggression of military machines around the world, the US wins hands down.
Groucho , says: July 28, 2018 at 6:37 pm
Like Fran my inclination was to bail after the first paragraph but I pushed on.

In the first paragraph Mr Desch lays out his position which is well within the bounds of polite discussion that Russia is a corrupt oligarchy but don't worry because it's an economic and military basketcase.

Where to start?

1. Corrupt kleptocracy. The Russian oligarchy/ mafia was a biproduct of the privatization binge that followed the collapse of the USSR. This evolved under the disastrous Yeltsin aided and abetted by US elites. The case of William Browder is instructive. Putin has taken significant measures to reassert government control and has greatly improved the lot of the average Russian.

2. Political freedom. Putin did not inherit a developed liberal democracy. Russia needs to be judged in the context of its own historical timeline in this regard not compared to western democracies. Do you prefer Stalin, Brezhnev, Andropov? In contrast compare the state and trajectory of US democratic institutions to, say the 1970s.

3. Human rights. Again the situation in Russia vis a vis human rights needs to be judged in terms of Russia's history not against Western nations with a long-standing tradition of human rights and political freedoms. That said, the illusion of political repression is largely overstated. For example Putin is routinely accused of murdering journalists but no real proof is ever offered. Instead, the statement is made again in this article as though it were self evident.

4. Foreign aggression. This is my favorite because it flies in the face of observable reality to the point of being ridiculous. Russia did not invade Ukraine. It provided support to ethnic Russians in Ukraine who rebelled after the illegal armed overthrow of the Russian leaning democratically elected president.That coup was directly supported by the United States. Far from ratcheting up tensions Russia has consistently pressed for the implementation of the Minsk accords. Putin is not interested in becoming responsible for the economic and political basket case which is Ukraine. The "largely bloodless" occupation of Crimea was actually a referendum in which the citizens of Crimea overwhelmingly supported annexation to Russia. Again This result makes sense in light of even a basic understanding of Russian history. Finally, in the case of Georgia Russia engaged after Georgia attacked what was essentially a Russian protectorate. This was the conclusion reached by an EU investigation.

Russia's so-called aggressive foreign-policy has been primarily in response to NATOs continuous push eastward and the perceived need to defend ethnic Russians from corrupt ultranationalist governments in former republics of the USSR. This is what Putin was talking about when he called the dissolution of the USSR one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century – the fact that, overnight 20 million Russians found themselves living in foreign countries. It wasn't about longing for a Russian empire.

As for the current state of Russias military capabilities, Mr Desch Would do well to read Pepe Escobar's recent article in the Asia Times. Russian accomplishments in Syria illustrated a level of technology and strategic effectiveness that rivals anything the US can do. Name one other nation – other than the US – that can design and build a world class 6th generation fighter jet or develop its own space program. Even Germany can't do that.

This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think.

laninya , says: July 28, 2018 at 7:45 pm
VG1959
"It is in the pursuit of empire that Putin, like Napoleon or Hitler before him, threatens the stability of Europe and by extension world peace."

Ah! ha!ha! Right.

Like Russia with a population of 150 million persons inhabiting a land mass that stretches across 9 or 10 time zones, from the Arctic pole to the Black Sea is chafing for "lebensraum" !?

No, Russia just wants to develop what it already owns. And, trying to do it on the strength of their own efforts (no overseas colonies filling the coffers), on a GDP as Winston, above, has pointed out which is smaller than that some US states. They're focussed, not on grabbing tiny, constipated territories like Estonia. Latvia, and Lithuania (full of Nazi sympathizers), but on bringing back to life those ancient trade routes which are their inheritance from the past (the Silk Road, primarily).

Why not just leave them alone and see what they can do? Those who have been relentlessly picking fault with Russia (and North Korea) might want to put down their megaphones and start taking notes.

What I mean is: pause for a moment to consider that:

1. Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries have risen 3 or 4-fold.

2. North Korea, in 1953, had been so destroyed by war that no structures over a single story were left standing (and American generals were actually barfing into their helmets at the horror of what had been done to those people). The DPRK authorities, helpless to assist the population, could only advise to dig shelters underground to survive the winter. Yet, 70 years later, under international sanctions designed to starve those traumatized people into surrender, North Korea has restored its infrastructure, built modern cities, and developed a military apparatus able to credibly resist constant threats from abroad.

See: rather than picking nits to find things that are not yet perfectly hunky-dory with the governing structures/systems in those countries, I'm taking notes!!

Because, I'm convinced that if those people (those nations) were able to do what they've done with the time and resources they've had to work with, there is absolutely no reason and no excuse for our rich nations of "the West" to be caught in a nightmare of austerity budgeting, crumbling infrastructure, collapsing pensions, and spiralling debt.

Funny how the English speaking world SO resisst learning something that could actually do us a whole lot of good. I don't know who coined the terms "stiffnecked" and "bloodyminded", but it sure describes us!

connecticut farmer , says: July 29, 2018 at 12:43 pm
"From Moscow's perspective, the events in Kiev in late 2013 and 2014 looked suspiciously like a Western-backed coup."

Gee, ya think? Kinda reminds one of the 1996 Russian election. But, hey, don't broadcast this because, after all, too many people might start, er, noticing.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 29, 2018 at 1:11 pm

"They may be weakened, but their ability to make trouble is undiminished, given their aptitude for cyberattacks."

And if you have evidence that Russia so engaged, the FBI has a place for you.

[Jul 29, 2018] Bill Maher Leads Attack on Larry Wilkerson over Trump Meeting with Putin

Notable quotes:
"... After Bush I's James Baker's verbal agreement with Russia to not expand NATO was proven "inoperative", the Russians should be very skeptical of American verbal promises/agreements, anyway. ..."
"... BILL MAHER: All our intelligence agencies said that Russia attacked us in 2016. Yes, it was cyber. It wasn't with armaments. But it was still-. ..."
"... not the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such points can be countered and clarified ..."
"... no examples or links to ..."
"... left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are about gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave ..."
"... and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying. Everything in the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis transform into some foggy synthesis, or destruction ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves here. As Lambert might say, the behavior of the enforcers of Liberal Goodthinking has been wonderfully clarifying. Despite the fact that there is a catalogue-full of reasons to be deeply disturbed about the Trump presidency, prominent media figures are regularly resorting to the screeching, pearl-clutching, straw manning, and other forms of "any stick to beat a dog" strategies even faced with people like Lawrence Wilkerson, who is expressing only mild opposition to their views. That sort of behavior is usually the behavior of someone who does not have astrong case. Of course, on RussiaRussia! that is par for the course. The fact that Wilkerson was effectively silenced by Bill Maher is a disgrace. Don't invite people on your show if you aren't prepared to let them have their say. This Real News Network segment reviews the particulars.

Note that Wilkerson was ridiculed for making what should have been an utterly uncontroversial point: that US leaders need to, and always have, had a dialogue with our strategic opponents. Wilkerson doesn't add, perhaps because he does not have corroborating information, or alternatively, does not want to appear to be talking Russia's book, that Putin announced that Russia has weapon systems that the US appeared to have been unaware of, such as a nuclear-powered missile that can fly over the South Pole. If even half of them are real, they are game changers.

There's a sour note at the very end, where Wilkerson says he expects the Democrats to impeach Trump if they win both houses of Congress in the fall. As regular readers know, Nancy Pelosi has taken that off the table .

Bill Maher Leads Attack on Larry Wilkerson over Trump Meeting with Putin - YouTube

... ... ...

SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Larry, from what I understand from this morning's announcement that the invitation that Trump had issued to Vladimir Putin to come to Washington is now rescinded, or it's off. Apparently there was no movement on either side to make sure this happens. Now, are you surprised by that move?

LARRY WILKERSON: Not at all, politically. Because most of everything Donald Trump has done of substance since he was elected is based on his reading of his domestic political needs. As the German foreign minister said so aptly, I think, about his withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement with Iran, it was all based on domestic politics in the United States. It had nothing to do with strategy, nothing to do with security, nothing to do with NATO or the security of Western Europe. It had everything to do with Donald Trump and his political base. I think the German foreign minister was absolutely correct.

So I have to look at everything that Trump does from that perspective, because that's his first consideration. So what he saw was what you cited at the beginning; 46 percent thought he was treasonous, and he said, ooh, John- talking to John Bolton, his national security adviser- walk this bit back about a meeting, and put it out that we're walking it back because we want the brouhaha about the meeting to subside. We want the accusations about the meeting to subside a bit before we invite Mr. Putin to come to Washington. This is bad on two levels. One, Mr. Putin should come to Washington, and we should continue the talks, and hopefully, in the way that I describe, good meaningful talks earlier. That's how we should continue them, particularly the nuclear issues. And two, because we do not need a war in Europe. And it's increasingly apparent that both sides are looking very hard at the potential for that war.

And if you want a war that will pale- make all the other prospects, Iran, Syria, North Korea and everything else, pale in comparison, let's have one break out in Europe, and let's have one go nuclear. This is bad stuff. So I really would like to see Mr. Putin come to Washington and meaningful talks take place. But to answer your question, and to reiterate, the reason this delay or maybe even cancellation altogether has occurred is because Trump read the domestic political signals and said, oop, can't get caught in this mess. The midterms are coming up.

These midterms, Sharmini, are going to determine the fate of the Republican Party. If the Democrats were to win both houses of the U.S. Congress in November, I think impeachment would be on the table for a majority of Republicans, and certainly Democrats, almost instantly. So Trump has got to start thinking about these midterms. And so I think that's the reason he canceled it, or at least told John Bolton to tell the Russians that it'll be later.

The Rev Kev , July 28, 2018 at 4:29 am

A word about that video. I couldn't play it at first but the clip can also be on YouTube found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oymCf_pRk
I noticed that when Larry Wilkerson stated that the US had also interfered in countries since 1947 the audience agreed as there was a lot of clapping about that. Maybe the audience was getting jack over Maher's obstinacy.

I also note that it was not Maher that said in reply "But that doesn't make it right" but Michael Moore who until then had said nothing (How the mighty have fallen). Maher's comment was basically that it was "it's still us" which of course made it different.

You just wish that they had a speaker that would be more direct and say something like: "Well Bill Maher, should we attack and sink a Russian ship in the Black sea to show them who's boss? Maybe attack that Russian airbase in Syria to show how hurt our feelings are?". Probably find that footage like that would hit the editing floor in the same way that guest that give opinions that don't agree with the main stream get cut off and the same happens even with their own reporters.

There is a reason why newspapers are dying of irrelevancy over the past few decades and I would not be surprised if the same fate followed television if this performance is typical fare. The good ones on TV end up like Phil Donahue so all you get left with are the shrills or neocons like Rachel Maddow.

John Wright , July 28, 2018 at 11:34 am

If one goes to Youtube and looks at the readers' comments, there is little support for Bill Maher. An occasional "Trump should not have had secret conversation with Putin".. I may be naive, but I still do not understand why a private conversation with Putin was a problem.

Even if Trump made some concession with Putin during this private talk, wouldn't it have to be backed up with formal written agreements?

After Bush I's James Baker's verbal agreement with Russia to not expand NATO was proven "inoperative", the Russians should be very skeptical of American verbal promises/agreements, anyway.

see https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629

I worked at a company that advocated for "Management by walking around". Part of the advantage of the higher ups talking with workers well down the organization chart was that the entire organization knew there was an alternate path for information to flow outside of the hierarchy.

I believe this improved the accuracy of information flowing in the normal management path as a consequence.

Trump's wandering to Russia might have the same positive effect. The Democrats/Republicans/MIC seem to want to control the Russia narrative by telling Trump, "trust us, you should not try to determine anything about Russia on your own, we will tell you what to do".

Trump, to his credit, ignored them and did not cancel the trip.

witters , July 28, 2018 at 5:16 am

May I ask, how is it in the US that Bill Maher is a "comedian"?

Lee , July 28, 2018 at 9:37 am

Maher has a particularly severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. The condition seems to have seriously impaired that part of the brain where his sense of humor resides, not to mention perspective, at least insofar as the topic of Trump is concerned. His calling for the U.S. intelligence community to save us from Trump is particularly unfunny.

Brooklin Bridge , July 28, 2018 at 10:58 am

That may be, but irrespective of Trump, Maher has always been sneaky, underhanded and whiney. He is at his most palatable when he covers a topic where one tends to be of the same mind, (which, of course, gets one to wonder about objectivity in general) and even then just barely. Scratch beneath superficial agreements and he is but one self indulgent spoiled brat.

Big River Bandido , July 28, 2018 at 11:26 am

IMNSHO, Maher has never been funny, nor particularly bright. I've never understood the appeal, and ever since the whole anti-science anti-vax campaign nonsense (which he pushed) I've come to feel Maher is dangerous, every bit a part of the problem. Certainly he's no friend of the left.

Brooklin Bridge , July 28, 2018 at 9:45 am

BILL MAHER: All our intelligence agencies said that Russia attacked us in 2016. Yes, it was cyber. It wasn't with armaments. But it was still-. -Idiot

As far as I know, ONE: this, "Russia attacked us in 2016" claim is still only claimed by three (3) agencies, not all of them, and TWO: the claim is still simply a set of allegations regarding origin and not hard established facts.

Because people like Wilkerson do not call Macarthyites out on such claims, the allegations have taken on the aspect of established fact to most Americans. If it's still allegations and not facts (that is, if I haven't missed important updates), then much as I like Wilkerson, I fault him for this kind of acquiescence to weapons of mass deception. Perhaps not so much with such a slimy shill as this particular comedic disease, who doesn't let Larry get a word in edgewise and is brain dead enough to think he's being clever, but the Maher episode is not the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such points can be countered and clarified.

pretzelattack , July 28, 2018 at 1:14 pm

well he is a conservative, he was colin powell's chief of staff when powell was lying to the u.n. about wmd's in iraq. he tells the truth sometimes, and admits some responsibility, but i don't really trust him.

Brooklin Bridge , July 28, 2018 at 2:07 pm

Yes, agreed

He has done a number of interviews for The Real News Network that were quite good where he has seemed far more impervious to spin (I think the experience with weapons of mass destruction fiasco, including Powell, represented a sea-change for him). I'm pretty sure that includes the realization that Ukraine was a US backed coup, that Syria and Assad wasn't so cut and dry, that Putin is a remarkable strategist, our part in the horrible fiasco in Lebanon, the brutal nature of Saudia Arabia, Israel criminality and on and on. But I may well be giving him more credit than he is due (by process of projection from a given interview I saw to a topic I thought I had heard him discuss).

And for sure, every now and then, it's as if his military training or background kicks in and he goes into obtuse mode though still making sense.

As to the Maher incident, I suspect he avoids (and/or gets put off balance by) cat claw scrabbles, as undignified.

blennylips , July 28, 2018 at 2:00 pm

> not the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such points can be countered and clarified

perhaps the colonel needs to milk the system for a bit. Any company boards clamouring for his services? That's the whole point: many returns, much clarification for as long as possible, with suitably deep yellow hip waders.

Bill Smith , July 28, 2018 at 6:06 pm

"The Russians attacked us." Depending on what parts of the 'attack' you are talking about there is little doubt about who did it.. For example – you can read interviews in the Russian newspapers with people who worked in the Internet Research Agency about what they did in the US social media. I don't really see the big deal. We have done it to many other countries. There was blow back and we got the same thing done to us. The real issue is that we where not very well prepared.

witters , July 28, 2018 at 9:04 pm

""The Russians attacked us." Depending on what parts of the 'attack' you are talking about there is little doubt about who did it."

Yes, it was "The Russians!" – all of them, anyone of them, some of them, and certainly (for it is their genes) the Russian State and so PUTIN.

So no, "The real issue is" not "that we where not very well prepared."
Unless you mean intellectually prepared for serious analysis.

Brooklin Bridge , July 28, 2018 at 9:55 pm

Right, the attribution of agency to the Kremlin and Putin has not, and almost certainly can not, be made.

Newton Finn , July 28, 2018 at 9:57 am

Many years ago, when I was a college freshman, there was one fraternity on campus that was looked down upon as a collection of losers. But it had at least one very sharp and enterprising brother named Jack, who was a counselor in the freshman dorm. As pledge time approached, he would talk to the most popular freshmen, one by one, and tell us that he had a proposition for us. Why, he asked, would we want to join one of the cool frats and find ourselves at the bottom of the pecking order? Why not instead join his struggling frat, en mass, take it over, and run things ourselves? If we did so, he assured us, this loser frat would become the coolest one on campus, and new students would be beating down the doors to join. Believe it or not, his scheme actually worked, and, one by one, the most popular freshmen agreed to go along with the concept. The key to his success was that he would put it to us this way: Look, I know this is a difficult choice to make, and I'm not asking you to do it on your own. But would you do it these other guys did it? If Jim and Steve and Pete and John and Bill, etc., all agreed to pledge with you, will you now give me your promise that you'd join them? That's all I want you to promise right now, that if these other guys do this, you will too. And by God, it worked, and at pledge time he had a huge group of popular freshmen lined up to join his loser fraternity. Had his conscience not bothered him and caused him to release us from our promises right before pledge day, the greatest and most sudden transformation in my college's frat history would have occurred. I tell this true story because I don't see why it couldn't apply to the Green Party, if only it had enough Jacks in its ranks, with the insight and savvy to reach out in similar fashion to progressives and minorities, one by one or group by group.

Wukchumni , July 28, 2018 at 10:00 am

We stopped watching his show when he let his guests talk over each other on a regular basis, and besides that, he's slower on the uptake of what's really going on, as opposed to any NC reader.

Quentin , July 28, 2018 at 10:24 am

Bill Maher is just disrespectful. He's not even qualified to shine Larry Wilkerson's shoes. Arrogant twat, Bill Maher.

David Carl Grimes , July 28, 2018 at 10:31 am

I watch Bill Maher's show regularly. I normally watch just the beginning and the end. The opening monologue and the New Rules segment at the end. I normally skip the panel in the middle of the show because it's so one-sided. Two or three liberals versus one conservative plus Bill Maher. So the conservative constantly gets drowned out and interrupted. He has little to no airtime because he can barely get a sentence in before the panel devolves to a hysterical shouting match. And this was before Trump even ran for President. Now, it's even worse. They don't even allow anyone else to have a contrarian opinion to the Beltway consensus.

tegnost , July 28, 2018 at 11:12 am

defining the boundaries of the veal pen

Bill , July 28, 2018 at 10:58 am

I find Maher odious in general. However, it does puzzle me as to why he was a strong Sanders supporter (kind of the opposite of a Libertarian) and he also clearly wasn't thrilled about Hillary, although he supported her over Trump.

Brooklin Bridge , July 28, 2018 at 11:09 am

What ever scruples Maher may have, they come along with a heaping helping of playing to what he thinks his perceived public wants to hear. It's possible that he actually does have a soft spot for Sanders (though that could be influenced by shared religious tribe).

tegnost , July 28, 2018 at 11:40 am

yeah, I love my doddering uncle, and I use him as an example to my kids of what they should not be like /s

jrs , July 29, 2018 at 8:35 am

but pretty much never had him on the show at least until the primaries were over

polecat , July 28, 2018 at 11:05 am

Network TV is still a thing ?? Guess I've been missin out .. well, not really. It's such that whenever I happen to be in proximity to a set that's 'on', which is rather rare, it just seems loud, obnoxious, and stupifying .. whether it be the programmed 'entertainment', or the commercial klaxons whailing away. If one thinks of Corpse-rated TV as a virus, then maher et. al. are the phomites of obsfucation, psychopathy and spite !

Blue Pilgrim , July 28, 2018 at 12:13 pm

Wilkerson was in with Powell when the phony reasons for the attack on Iraq were being mounted, and was deep into the military, and MIC. Maher, and Moore are both psychopaths, which Wilkerson, for all his faults, is not. The Republicans and conservatives are insane. The Democrats and liberals are even worse now. It's like watching two groups of insane, childish, drug-crazed, chimps flinging feces at each other as they both set the jungle on fire. The level of stupidity, ignorance, and lunacy is astounding. None of this makes sense.

I think I understand why elves and flying saucer people are not seen: "What? You want to try to contact these creatures? Are you on drugs? They would kill you without thinking twice. Better to interact with hyenas or grizzly bears."

Help! I've fallen into this insane nightmare and can't wake up. The best I've been able is to ignore some of it and hide in my 'cave' with the cats while I still can. It's hard to even find a good reason for thinking or talking about it any more: pissing into the wind.

Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2018 at 1:09 pm

From Terry Practhett:

"I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?"
Death thought about it.

"CATS," he said eventually. "CATS ARE NICE."

Blue Pilgrim , July 28, 2018 at 1:39 pm

I just happened upon this and started reading it -- seems relevant:

https://journal-neo.org/2018/07/27/liberals-leap-to-defend-neo-con-henchmen-mcfaul/
27.07.2018 Author: Tony Cartalucci
Liberals Leap to Defend Neo-Con Henchmen McFaul
https://journal-neo.org/2018/07/27/liberals-leap-to-defend-neo-con-henchmen-mcfaul/

He sums it up in the last three paragraphs:
"
This troubling trend of the Western public gravitating toward and supporting individuals like McFaul and Browder solely out of their perceived hatred for President Trump and Russia is pushing Western political discourse further from rational debate and deeper toward hysteria.

That powerful special interests can easily manipulate sections of the Western public to support virtually anyone or anything, including unsavory characters like McFaul and Browder or the notion of expanding NATO or continued war abroad in nations like Syria simply by invoking "Trump" or "Russia" represents a predictable but dangerous Pavlovian phenomenon likely to leave deep scars, permanently disfiguring American politics and society much in the way the so-called "War on Terror" has.

The increasing lack of political sophistication in America is a reflection of a much wider deterioration of American economic and geopolitical strength both at home and around the globe. While one would expect sound leadership to begin preparing America for an orderly transition from a once global hegemon to a constructive member of a more multipolar world order, history has proven the lack of grace that generally accompanies an empire's decline.
"

athena , July 28, 2018 at 9:14 pm

I've thought since 2011 that "Tony Cartalucci" is a Kremlin writers-group operation thing, or something like that. Those writings are always group projects of some sort, not just one dude, kind of like "Tyler Durden" at zerohedge, but much, much higher quality. I'm not saying to not listen to or to disregard everything "Cartalucci" says. There's a lot of genuinely insightful and useful information in there. But be aware of how "not exactly for America's 99%" the bias is. "They" seem to think we should all give up on democracy and become preppers and wait on techno-utopian solutions to solve all of our problems.

Blue Pilgrim , July 29, 2018 at 3:47 am

I see at https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Tony_Cartalucci he is
"Tony Cartalucci is a geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, Thailand. His work covers world events from a Southeast Asian perspective and promotes self-sufficiency as one of the keys to true freedom."

I see no reason to doubt that right now, but I don't care. I read things for content, and his content is often good, so I pay attention when I see something from him. Other names I recognize as rubbish and don't wast my time or energy with it. I take no one without skepticism, fact checking, etc. Sometimes I could learn something from an idiot, but it's generally not worth the effort to try.
I also read some, such as Paul Craig Roberts, who has some good material and also some blind spots and obvious bias or flaws.

It all goes into the box from which I assemble my own take on the probabilities of which models and narratives are most accurate and useful.

Scott1 , July 28, 2018 at 2:30 pm

"Sex is Funny, but Love isn't." Hence it is that shopping cart traffic conflict is funny, but empty shelves isn't. Most I've done as a stand-up is the pro set time of 45 minutes. I've heard of Maher doing 2 hours. Someone like Eddie Murphy did movie length stand-up. People pay to see Maher live. Carlin was better at being serious. There is the Lenny Bruce tradition for which few can handle, and the Will Ferrell silly genus. If you want to see fine comedy watch Kate McKinnon do Kelly Ann Conway on SNL. I understand Bill Maher as a successful producer.

What do we mean by "BiPartisan". What it best means is neither Left or Right. Best it means American, Eclectic, Ethical, Pragmatism. In fact this is easiest achieved when it is an issue of Defense in Foreign Policy. GOP domestic policy is essentially selfish and mean. Makes the right answer hard to get near. Philosophy of leading GOP figures like Paul Ryan who has terrific power as Speaker is Objectivism not American Pragmatism. Ayn Rand makes what would be wonderful bleak.

You will have reasons to feel safer when you hear that the US & NATO have put 3 thousand Tanks along the Fronts where Russian Tanks would roll into Europe. It is either that or you know that Russian Tanks can all be bazooka blasted away by lots of mobile tank killing crews and their missiles. Nukes exist to kill tanks and their crews. US doctrine is still to use nukes to kill tanks.
When Carter saw he was going to fail to "rid all nuclear weapons from the face of this earth." -Inaugural Address) he came up with the neutron bomb. For some unfathomable reason this flipped people out. We would prefer the Neutron bomb since it would not destroy farmland.

In the time of Trump and the open assault on Democracy characterized by failures of the TV Press distorted by profits and personalities I look at the famines that are associated with One Party Rule, and the Dictators such as Stalin and Mao. Maybe there is a way to make it funny in how I might say "Democracy & a Free Press, No Famine!. One Party Rule & a Dictator & Famine. Don't vote for Famine Folks!"

If I was even negotiating with Russia and China I would be pointing out they are Food Insecure and the US is not. Russia and China need to be wary and fair if they want the US to sell them food at a price the US can maintain its farmers from.

Soybean Tariffs threaten to cause farmland in the US to be taken out of food production making the US take one turn itself towards less food insecurity. It is too much to expect that US Grants to Farmers would prevent some good high number of farmers selling their land for other uses when they are forced to fail on price competition.

William Burroughs who gave us sci fi phrases like "Heavy Metal", & the art he produced from heroin, Scientology's E Meter, pills, guns, spiritually justified murder? and Methadone in Kansas, ended his life saying all he cared about were his 11 cats.

Expat , July 28, 2018 at 1:17 pm

I understand that very few Americans have any objectivity left or imagination, but let's try a thought experiment. Substitute Hillary Clinton and Clinton Advisor for every time we hear Trump or Trump Advisor and tell me that the rabid right would not be foaming at the mouth, demanding impeachment (along with waterboarding and lynching) and threatening to round up all registered democrats as a precaution.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible thing. She should never have been allowed to run or even held any position in anyone's administration for a variety of reasons. But that does not absolve Trump from being everything HE is. And it does not absolve Trump from appearing to collude with Russia and be Putin's puppet. I cannot and will not buy the 9 Dimensional Chess argument or the He's a Business Genius Argument when both are patently false. He is admittedly incredibly ignorant and lacking any attention span. He is a narcissistic liar. A proven racist. A misogynist. A womanizer. A serial cheater. An unfaithful husband and business partner.

How have we gotten to the point where we are defending Donald Trump? How are we giving him the benefit of the doubt in anything when every past lie and action indicates he is incompetent and merits no trust whatsoever.

The Trump Spin Team has done an amazing job turning a megalomaniac serial liar into a victim. And America rolls over and takes it again.

Yves Smith Post author , July 28, 2018 at 6:57 pm

With all due respect, you have this wrong. Please tell me for starters who this "Trump spin team" is. The media is united against him, as is all of the Democratic party and big swathes of the GOP. Helsinki is a case study. Trump does something which every president has done, including the sainted Ronald Reagan, when "Russia" was not Russia but the far more threatening USSR, and no one got bent out of shape about it. All Trump did was high five Putin. He didn't make any commitments. And even when Trump makes commitments, he reneges on them a high proportion of the time. Oh, and Saint Ronnie also got on personally with Gorbachev.

The Republicans made clear they would impeach Hillary. They had both her server and the Clinton Foundation taking foreign cash as issues. They could get her alone on what amounted to taking kickbacks for brokering uranium to Russia.

As for RussiaRussia, you totally misrepresent the issue. What readers and many on the left are upset about is:

1. Disregard for facts or evidence. No one has yet to provide any solid evidence against Trump regarding his supposed dalliance with Russia. The stuff coming from Team Dem is on the order of the birther charges re Obama. Just read this discussion of the Steele dossier as an example:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/an-updated-trump-dossier-cheat-sheet-by-publius-tacitus.html

Or card carrying Putin opponent Masha Gessen on the famed 17 agency report:

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/01/09/russia-trump-election-flawed-intelligence/

Or the evidentiary standard that RussiaRussia! theory proponents have to meet and have yet to meet:

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/07/22/the-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-russiagaters/

If you don't demand accuracy from the press, you are volunteering to be propagandized all the time.

2. The effort to demonize Trump has moved into New McCarthyism. And you are actively promoting it. Standing up for the idea of integrity of information and accurate reporting is now being mischaracterized as defense of Trump. This is tantamount to a loyalty test and is crass authoritarianism.

3. In case you missed it, various parties are now treating the left as a threat and using RussiaRussia to up the ante. See this telling Comey tweet as an example,

me title=

And recall the PropOrNot witch hunt, which the Washington Post had to disavow.

athena , July 28, 2018 at 9:32 pm

Yeah.

I'm usually more or less immune to groupthink and propaganda, at least compared to many, but even I had to take a few days away from all internet communications last week and just re-read old Orwell essays to get my mind straight again regarding Helenski.

"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that 'bourgeois liberty' is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who 'objectively' endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

"These people don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won't stop at Fascists. Soon after the suppressed Daily Worker had been reinstated, I was lecturing to a workingmen's college in South London. The audience were working-class and lower-middle class intellectuals -- the same sort of audience that one used to meet at Left Book Club branches. The lecture had touched on the freedom of the press, and at the end, to my astonishment, several questioners stood up and asked me: Did I not think that the lifting of the ban on the Daily Worker was a great mistake? When asked why, they said that it was a paper of doubtful loyalty and ought not to be tolerated in war time. I found myself defending the Daily Worker, which has gone out of its way to libel me more than once. But where had these people learned this essentially totalitarian outlook?"

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

Unna , July 28, 2018 at 2:05 pm

What am I missing? Why does a guy like Wilkerson lower himself to appear on this show? Once maybe. More than that, why? No one is perfect including Wilkerson and he has a "past" but don't we all?

athena , July 28, 2018 at 9:38 pm

They lower themselves to be able to communicate to people like us, I think. Kind of a media narrative wars Jujutsu move.

Chauncey Gardiner , July 28, 2018 at 2:23 pm

There is a possibility that Maher's behavior reflects an expanded role of the BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors), who controls it, concentration of media ownership in a few large corporate hands, and the recent modifications of the Smith-Mundt Act to allow domestic propaganda. IMO "RussiaRussia!" and "IranIran!" would not have been and continue to be relentlessly injected into our MSM diet for the past year and a half without the table having been set.

Unfortunately, as other readers have noted, this misdirection is also damaging in the sense that it serves to divert attention away from issues of genuine public concern such as climate change, the sad state of our nation's infrastructure, public education, erosion of civil liberties, transitioning from a war-based economy, extreme economic inequality, meaningful campaign finance reform, etc.

john c. halasz , July 28, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Where did Wilkerson pick up that it is now Russian military doctrine to use nukes? Every analysis I've read is that Putin's aim in weapons development, real or imaginary, is to restore deterrence, which the U.S. has been steadily eroding.

integer , July 28, 2018 at 11:21 pm

Why would we want a world without Russia?' Putin on Moscow's nuclear doctrine RT

Russia's latest edition of its nuclear doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack against Russia or its allies, or to a conventional attack that threatens the existence of Russia.

Bill Smith , July 29, 2018 at 5:59 am

Sounds a lot like the US nuclear doctrine.

john c. halasz , July 29, 2018 at 8:45 am

Only the "or its allies" bit isn't straightforward deterrence doctrine. That would be "extended deterrence", a contradictory doctrine that the U.S. has adopted since virtually the start of the Cold War. McNamara's "ladder of escalation" doctrine was its explicit formulation. ("Full spectrum dominance" is its lineal descendant). And the fact of the matter is that the U.S. military has never really fully accepted the straight-forward notion of deterrence, but has always been pressing further, seeking some obscure advantage or leverage. I think it's clear from his statements over many years, that Putin is attempting to respond to the erosion of deterrence by the U.S., (while the Soviet Union itself never explicitly embraced deterrence doctrine, originally crudely understanding nukes as just high powered artillery).

Blue Pilgrim , July 28, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Here is yet another 'liberal' or 'leftist' who has fallen into Trump Derangement Syndrome, complete with hurling names and insults at any who disagree with him and spouting a host of logical and rhetorical fallacies -- and another who has fallen out of list of people who I think are worth listening to.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/27/the-curious-case-of-pro-trump-leftism/
July 27, 2018
The Curious Case of Pro-Trump Leftism
by Eric Draitser

"It's true that the number of self-professed "analysts" and dementia-addled lefties spouting the Trump-as-peacenik line is relatively small
Indeed, because of the Dotard's doting on Putin, we should all sing hosannas as we erect cheaply made gold-plated monuments in his honor.

But back on Planet Earth, even the specious notion that Trump is somehow a peacemaker cannot fake news its way into being true. In fact, if anything, Trump has been the most bellicose president in recent memory. But don't tell those Trumpy lefties that. "

Counterpunch itself is teetering on the edge of that 'worth reading' list such that I rarely bother going there any more. Have these clowns been listening to what Clinton and the Dems have been saying and doing? -- "treason" for a president to talk to Russian leaders ("doting on Putin")? They think Clinton, who laughed when she destroyed Libya, would be better?

Lambert Strether , July 28, 2018 at 5:19 pm

An inventory of verbal tics .

Adding, I just reread the thing, and I found no examples or links to these supposed "Left Trumpists." So it's a smear, plain and simple, left lying about for future use.

Kurt Sperry , July 28, 2018 at 11:46 pm

Re: "Left Trumpists" If anyone from the left agrees with *any* of the hundreds, if not thousands, of policies opinions espoused by Trump. Is a "Left Trumpist". He is evil, to give support to evil in any way is evil. It's politics driven almost purely by ad hominem fallacy. Therefore any person of the left who is capable of independent thought will necessarily be presumptively labeled a "Left Trumpist" by the absurd definition of the #resistance. I won't even bother pointing out to them that always disagreeing with someone puts you in their complete control. if I can make you always contradict me, I can make you think or say almost whatever I like.

Carolinian , July 28, 2018 at 6:32 pm

The world is full of Trump mind readers .wish I had their extra sensory powers.

And some of us who consider ourselves "leftists" do hope Trump makes peace with Russia and others. Since these are things he talked about before he was president it's not impossible. If you think Trump's main goal in life is to build his brand it's also not illogical. Starting a war with, say, Iran would be very unpopular–one new poll says 23 percent support–and bad for brand building. The public now wants peace IMO. Most of Trump's current mayhem is grandfathered in from Obama or at least too much under the radar to be noticed (except for those trash talking tweets of course).

Counterpunch publishes all sorts of views. I don't think we should condemn the site because of one article. However they do publish authors who like to say things like "dotard." Name calling is so childish (unless it's about Hillary).

Blue Pilgrim , July 28, 2018 at 9:10 pm

A view is one thing; this is something else: a tirade of insults is not a view. I regularly listen to Crosstalk, for example, and appreciate Lavelle and most of his guests, even if I disagree with the conservative positions, but they don't rant and rave and insult me with phrases such as "depraved" or "dementia-addled". This is not just unpleasant to read, but demonstrates a fundamental weakness in his analytical, and his writing, ability. If that's the best Draitser can manage then I don't want to take time to see what he has to say -- and there is really not much more there, but a litany of complaints about Trump which most everyone not in the matrix are aware of. It's not just name-calling which is childish, but his thinking and perception. And that's something I find increasingly common in Counterpunch, and other western publications. I have no need or time for more crude propaganda.

The idea of defending Trump is not defending Trump and his ogrish ways, but defending law, legitimate process, open inquiry and dialogue, sophisticated analysis, and even truth. That's not about Trump; that's about us.

Carolinian , July 28, 2018 at 9:30 pm

If it helps I agree they do accept some articles that aren't very good. I think they may be struggling since Cockburn died. I don't think they actually pay people to write there.

But that site has been around a long time and it would be a shame to see it go. Too many lefty sites have bitten the dust.

witters , July 28, 2018 at 9:19 pm

For me, Counterpunch has gone over the edge.

It started with Alexander Cockburn's weird "Climate Science is a fraud! A man on the Nation cruise told me this!" and achieved its defining moment with Andrew Levine, who went on endlessly as to how Trump was necessarily, inevitably, "unelectable in American Democracy," but could be a source of wry amusement to the enlightened liberal.

I suspect an upcoming merger between Counterpunch and the Guardian.

Carolinian , July 28, 2018 at 9:39 pm

Cockburn was a contrarian who liked to provoke. He was also a vehement opponent of nuclear power and thought the AGW warnings were a Trojan horse to restart nuclear power–which is to say even if true the proposed cure could be worse than the disease.

And while AGW is now more widely accepted it's hard to say that much is being done about it. It's not so much an inconvenient truth as a problem from hell. Bandaid solutions make us feel better but may not change the outcome. Fortunately nuclear still seems to be on the skids.

Blue Pilgrim , July 28, 2018 at 10:24 pm

Whether global warming is a hoax or not, nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and can be replaced with solar, wind, hydro, etc. with some good side effects for employment and other economic factors. Beat your swords into plowshares and your soldiers into energy technicians. Just do it -- make the investment (and remember MMT) -- and the survival of the ecology and civilization could well be a nice side effect. There is enough with that to make a decision with. Other countries are managing it.

The old Counterpunch was worth saving, I guess, but for the new one it isn't so clear. Many more left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are about gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying. Everything in the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis transform into some foggy synthesis, or destruction.

witters , July 28, 2018 at 10:53 pm

"Whether global warming is a hoax or not"

Whether we breathe oxygen is a hoax or not Whether water is H20 is a hoax or not Whether the earth is a spheroid is a hoax or not

I really can't see how this is a reasonable place to begin anything.

Blue Pilgrim , July 29, 2018 at 12:30 am

It's a place to begin where there is a not a crowd of climate change deniers and proponents breaking out into avoidable fights which would derail plans and efforts to go sustainable.

It doesn't matter whether the sun goes around the earth and actually sets, or if the earth rotates out of the light, to decide that when it gets dark one needs to light a lamp to see and not fall down the steps. It is being in the dark which is sufficient reason for the decision to light it.

A sufficient decision to do away with coal fired plants is that the pollution makes us sick -- we don't need to consider CO2 or albedo warming effects to not want to breath in the junk.

tegnost , July 29, 2018 at 12:19 am

left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are about gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave
you shouldn't ignore the belly of the beast, the working class, losing their divide that was the big risk to the status quo from sanders, he could have bridged that divide

and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying. Everything in the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis transform into some foggy synthesis, or destruction
the only quibble I have with this perfect description is that many democrats are conservative, and the democrat conservatives got, well, served, and the compass is kind of spinning right now

Seamus Padraig , July 29, 2018 at 10:03 am

Eric Draitser is a deeply, deeply meretricious commentator. In the essay you linked to, Blue, note how he tries to have it both ways. First, he criticizes us for, in effect, being the dupes of Russian propaganda:

Left Trumpists focus their ire on the opponents of Trumpism. Ostensibly, it's because the anti-Trump activists are hypocrites who only form political opposition against Republicans while letting Democrats eat live babies on YouTube and roll wheelchair-bound pensioners into oncoming traffic. But, seen from a more realistic perspective, it seems this chorus of silliness is based more on Trump's words, and those of openly pro-Putin media , than on reality. [Emphasis mine]

Next, he himself begins to spout what–only a few short months ago–would have been roundly dismissed by the MSM as Russian propaganda:

Well, it wasn't particularly inspiring when the Trump Administration decided to escalate Obama's already insane policy vis-à-vis Ukraine by providing lethal weapons to the US-backed Kiev regime which continues to be partnered with, and in some ways captive to, Ukrainian Nazis and other fascist, er um, "ultra-nationalist," forces.

Nazis in Ukraine! Why, that's so very RT of you, Eric.

So, to recap: Eric Draitser can switch sides in an argument whenever he wants, while still claiming that we are the ones who are being inconsistent.

Draitser, along with the rest of the 'Gang of Four' (Louis Proyect, Yoav Litvin, Jeffrey St. Clair), is the reason I now find CounterPunch to be basically unreadable. Sad for years it was my absolute favorite website–head and shoulders above the other alt-left sites back then. But I guess it was just Alexander Cockburn who made it what it was. Over the past two years, they've lost so many of their best writers that I've taken to calling it CounterPurge. Not to worry, though: most of their best writers have turned up at Unz.com.

Mark Ó Dochartaigh , July 28, 2018 at 6:45 pm

I'm far to the left of Bill Maher, but in a general way I agree with him more often than with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. However on what is apparently an attempt at a show with thoughtful discussion from a variety of perspectives, the way Col. Larry Wilkerson was treated was not helpful for any side. Col. Wilkerson is one of the last republicans on the national stage who is reasonable, or even rational at this point in time. And certainly one of the very few who have the backbone to stand up even for what they personally believe is "right". A real lost opportunity by Mr Maher. And regarding "tRump derangement syndrome" how SAD is it that we live in a world where we have to discuss whether it is worse to have a willfully ignorant and egomaniacal dotard with his finger on the nuclear button or whether the real problem is a country where forty per cent of the voters support an authoritarian party willing to steal elections so that they can pass laws to steal wages and savings at home and abroad, destroy the biosphere, and wage war for profit.

On a related note at 51 minutes into this video by the excellent journalist Egberto Willies,Col. Larry Wilkerson, says that the military is being told that the worst case scenario (and IPCC "worst case" scenarios are routinely exceeded) is that "by the end of 2100" there will be less than enough arable land on the planet for 400 MILLION people.
https://egbertowillies.com/2015/09/25/lawrence-wilkerson-the-travails-of-empire-lone-star-college-kingwood-video/

The Rev Kev , July 28, 2018 at 9:20 pm

Something that you will never see. Bill Maher on the Jimmy Dore Show. It would be a massacre.

athena , July 28, 2018 at 10:09 pm

Oh, wow. You're right. My god , would that be a great episode if Maher wasn't Maher and had the courage to do it, though.

tegnost , July 29, 2018 at 12:07 am

no such thing as bad pr, it'd probably be great for both of them, must see youtube tm tv /s !
can't wait to watch

athena , July 29, 2018 at 4:41 am

"No such thing as bad publicity" is one of those truisms that isn't true. For example, this interview was very bad publicity indeed for Donna Brazile. https://youtu.be/GQtu1VsH_0s?t=47s

RBHoughton , July 28, 2018 at 11:02 pm

It looks as though the Pentagon is agreeing with the War Hawks in the Administration (Bolton) and Legislature (Graham) that nuclear war is the way ahead. They must disbelieve the Russian revelation of new weapons. That's a bold position to take when your entire country and its population is likely to be bombed.

I disagree with Colonel Wilkerson's apparent expectation that the war will be restricted to Europe. The day something falls on Russia is the day something falls on the continental USA.

The survivors will be those hundreds of thousands of US soldiers serving in Asia and Africa and South America. The recruiting offices might be able to make something of that but how will they keep the PXs supplied?

[Jul 29, 2018] Political Appointees who should be fired

Notable quotes:
"... I'll second Rod Rosenstein, I couldn't stand his performance before Congress. He played it both ways, 'we are working day and night to get you the documents', same as saying, I don't have enough people and then said he didn't know because ..., 'I can't watch everyone, I have thousands of people working under me'. A first class weasel. ..."
"... It appears that some senior FBI Cybersecurity leaders are retiring. Just when they are needed most - to explain how they let China run rampant through the Secretary of State's email server. They should be fired rather than allowed to collect a retirement check. ..."
"... https://www.wsj.com/article... ..."
"... I wonder which one of the three is Sy Hersh's source for the Seth Rich report. Because that came directly from the FBI cyber division and clearly would have been so explosive that anyone senior at that division would have been aware of it and had access to it. Of course, it could have come from some other agency but Hersh was clear that his source was very good. "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy. He'll do a favor." ..."
"... Since Globalization and President Obama giving out "get out of jail" cards, the Elite can do what they want. Government is secondary. The rule of law for Multinationals is dead. Fines are the cost of doing business. Courtiers use the revolving door to climb the ladder and accumulate power ..."
"... Chris Christie and Wray- two Jersey Republicans. Sessions knew Rosenstein from DoJ and the courts. This tells me that Trump did not know government people. ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The government of the United States is not a parliamentary government. There are three co-equal branches in the federal government; the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. The president is the "line and block chart" boss of everyone in the Executive Branch. All of the categories of political appointees listed above plus the actual department heads in the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president acting as head of the Executive Branch of the US Government. He does not have such a free hand in disposing of civil servants who are below these political appointees and whose employment is protected by law. They generally work for the political appointees. For the record - I was a career SES after retirement from the army and not a presidential appointee. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of the federal government and all its political appointees are subject to presidential discipline as are all others in the Executive Branch. Presidents, like the heads of all executive teams have the right to expect the loyalty of the subordinates below them. It is expected that these subordinates should carry out all policies that are not illegal, nor grossly contrary to the interests of the United States. If an Executive Branch civilian employee believes that a policy is illegal or so contrary to US interests then this person should resign his or her position. In no instance should an Executive Branch employee act as a member of a "resistance" to the lawfully elected president. With that in mind I would suggest that the following officials should be dismissed by President Trump:

  1. DNI Dan Coats - He has made it clear by his utterances at the Aspen security conference this week that he is not loyal to the president. For a supposed member of the president's inner team to communicate in public by words or body language his rejection of presidential policy is a firing offense.
  2. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This man is an obvious affiliate of the "resistance." His arrogance in dealing with the Congress clearly indicates that he thinks that all power is rightfully in the hands of the lawyer bureaucrats at the DoJ and that both the Congress and the president will get what he chooses to give them.
  3. FBI Director Christopher Wray. His performance at Aspen indicates that he thinks that as head of the FBI he is the consecrated protector of the Knights of the Round Table reborn as the FBI. IMO that comes before loyalty to the president for him. The FBI is in no legal or constitutional sense independent of presidential authority.
Others are candidates for this list, but time will develop the case. IMO it is clearly suicidal to retain such people in office when they are proceeding through action or inaction to undermine the administration. The argument will be made that there will be cries of Obstruction of Justice. So be it. pl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States

Pat Lang Mod , a day ago

The US Armed Forces are headed by commissioned officers whose appointments at each level of rank are confirmed by the US Senate. They can be removed at will from positions by superiors including of course the president/commander in chief but cannot be deprived of rank or expelled from the services except by court-martial. The armed forces understand very well that within the limits of US law they are completely subordinated to the commander in chief and will not speak against him or his policies unless they wish to risk conviction under the Punitive Article in UCMJ that forbids such speech. (Article 88)
chris chuba , a day ago
I'll second Rod Rosenstein, I couldn't stand his performance before Congress. He played it both ways, 'we are working day and night to get you the documents', same as saying, I don't have enough people and then said he didn't know because ..., 'I can't watch everyone, I have thousands of people working under me'. A first class weasel.
Fred , a day ago
It appears that some senior FBI Cybersecurity leaders are retiring. Just when they are needed most - to explain how they let China run rampant through the Secretary of State's email server. They should be fired rather than allowed to collect a retirement check.

https://www.wsj.com/article...

richardstevenhack -> Fred , a day ago
I wonder which one of the three is Sy Hersh's source for the Seth Rich report. Because that came directly from the FBI cyber division and clearly would have been so explosive that anyone senior at that division would have been aware of it and had access to it. Of course, it could have come from some other agency but Hersh was clear that his source was very good. "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy. He'll do a favor."
VietnamVet , 21 hours ago
Colonel,

You are correct. Except at this point the only people the President can trust are his family members. He went off to Helsinki and did his thing without senior staff.

Since Globalization and President Obama giving out "get out of jail" cards, the Elite can do what they want. Government is secondary. The rule of law for Multinationals is dead. Fines are the cost of doing business. Courtiers use the revolving door to climb the ladder and accumulate power .

Donald Trump slammed that door shut. Climbers can not work for him and risk pissing off future bosses. Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Greenspan), Don Coats, Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray were at the Aspen Security Forum bonding and networking. If they lose their jobs and power, they face Paul Manafort's fate; jail before trial.

Donald Trump was elected because of American voters lost their jobs and homes, immigration, plus the endless wars. The Aspen Four's mission is to elevate VP Mike Pence and avoid a second Civil War while allowing the continued exploitation of the American people and environment to get richer. Will the global corporate propaganda and coup succeed? We are Americans. "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."

Pat Lang Mod -> VietnamVet , 20 hours ago
No. There all kinds of patriotic Americans with great experience who would answer the call to serve. I can suggest some if Trump asks me.
David Schuler , a day ago
Maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush but I honestly don't understand why President Trump didn't demand the resignations of all of the Obama political appointees the moment he took the oath of office.
Pat Lang Mod -> David Schuler , a day ago
That would have been a good idea.
FB Ali , a day ago
"...it is clearly suicidal to retain such people in office..."

Why doesn't Trump do it? What is he waiting for?

semiconscious -> FB Ali , a day ago
but who does he replace them with? because i think it's this, primarily - the fact that he has no bullpen - that's his single biggest problem afa this issue's concerned...
JJackson -> semiconscious , 19 hours ago
I think you are right but this seems to be changing. He was not part of the Borg (in it's wider sense i.e not just re. FP) and therefore was not the GOP's man. As such it must have been a problem to find enough like minded people to fill all these positions who were not part of the status quo and had the experience to effectively operate within the beltway. Had any of the GOP's boys won they would have been able to dip into the establishment think-tank pool and pick the clones they wanted - not so easy for a boat rocker like President Trump. The unrelenting attacks from the Dems seem to be rallying more of the old Republicans in line behind the President.

We have a very similar problem here in the UK. Corbyn won an overwhelming victory from the Labour party rank and file but Blair had been PM for so long almost all of the senior positions were held by Blairites (AKA 'New Labour') and Corbyn is having a hard time finding 'Traditional Labour' ideologues with experience. Again, like Trump, he is having to try and restructure his party while under constant attack from the MSM and backstabbing from the Blairites. It is not easy trying to steer a Juggernaut like Westminster or Washington on a new course when all the existing crew only know, or want, the old way.

Should our current Brexit meltdown end PM May's Government we could end up with a Trump/Corbyn 'special relationship'. Now that really would be something very interesting to watch, preferably from a safe distance.

Fred -> semiconscious , 21 hours ago
There are a lot of lawyers in the DOJ and FBI. DNI wouldn't be too hard either. Maybe he should recall Martin Dempsey to active duty and give him the job.
semiconscious -> Fred , 18 hours ago
yeah, i'm not saying that there aren't any, i'm sure there're a number of very qualified people. but trump, personally, has no background in government, & just doesn't seem to have any kind of substantial, trustworthy inner circle who's judgments he can rely on when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, & filling positions like these...
Fred S -> semiconscious , 5 hours ago
If only he had been a community organizer.....
Rob , a day ago
I have no idea why Rosenstein is still there, it really is astonishing to behold.
seesee2468 -> Rob , a day ago
Rosenstein is a member of SES. I wonder if that is having an effect. Comey was also an SES member, but he was fired, although I guess that was for malfeasance. Or was Comey fired simply because DOJ members can be fired by the president? BTW, a cursory search showed that Jeff Sessions, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, Valerie Jarrett, and Bruce Ohr are also members of SES.
Pat Lang Mod -> seesee2468 , a day ago
That is not correct. A cabinet member cannot be a member of the SES. What is the citation for your assertion that these people were members of the SES? I think you are lying.
blue peacock , a day ago
Col. Lang

I completely concur with you and will add AG Sessions and DCIA Ms. Gina to the list. Anyone recommended by the traitor and avowed Communist Brennan should go. Jeff Sessions is a disgrace for hiding under his desk. If he had any decency he would have resigned long ago.

Are all SES employees of the federal government, "at will" employees? Or can they only be fired for "cause"?

IMO, a significant purge of the top echelons of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies is required to restore the rule of law and confidence in the integrity and competence of these institutions.

If guys like Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Sally Yates can rise up to the levels they did something is wrong with these institutions. I would even go further and shut them all down and re-build from scratch. These agencies are a bigger threat to our constitutional republic than our foreign adversaries.

Pat Lang Mod -> blue peacock , a day ago
To get rid of a career SES you either have to remove him for malfeasance and make it stick or give him a poor annual rating three years in a row. The president can remove them from position and let them sit in a bare office with a telephone until you have three poor ratings. That was always true.
seesee2468 -> Pat Lang , a day ago
Just to be sure, is it the president who gives this rating, or is it other SES members? Thank you.
Pat Lang Mod -> seesee2468 , a day ago
Whoever is immediately above them in the chain of command.
bonami , a day ago
I for one and all in favor. My favorite possible action which I am sure we will never see is the complete closure of the CIA, but we all know how that idea yielded unfortunate results the last time it was proposed by a President.
FarNorthSolitude , 16 hours ago
At what point do we declare Treason? My personal redline is Trump's Presidency. I don't pretend to know what Trump faces everyday. I do not like his rudeness, his incivility, and several of his policies, but I also don't doubt that he cares about America. And I know that he was legally elected.

Right after the election we saw an incredible social media push against the electoral college, the Constitution. It was the beginning of a coup d'etat here in the USA. That attempt has not ended.

The Constitution will stand or not, but it will not go easy and not without the blood of Patriots. Millions can moan whatever blather the TV tells them but it was a few that created this country and it will be a few that defend it and continues it into the future.

A few passionate and moral people can outweigh millions.

Not advocating revolution here but if needed and and we can get 1% to show up in Washington that is 3.3 million people. 5X current population. D.C. rolled out the tanks and used Patton for only 17,000 vets in 1932.

DianaLC , 16 hours ago
From where I sit and knowing the absolute disgust I am hearing from so many people around me, both those who are old moderates, those who are avid Trump supporters, and the ones around here who always vote for what I call "white 'bread" Republicans all the time, it's time for draining and hosing out the swamp. Even a few of the Democrats I know are a little embarrassed about what is going on in D.C.

I think you would be able to hear the cheering from the West clear out there in D.D. if your recommendations were put into place.

How do we get Trump to ask you for suggestions?

Nobby Stiles , a day ago
Quite so sir. This is an attempt to set aside the Constitution of the US. It is a mutiny and should be put down.
Patrick Armstrong , 3 hours ago
The Saker suggests he do what Putin did. (Maybe this is something the two of them talked about) "When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays."
https://www.paulcraigrobert...

BTW what did they talk about? There's asyory going around that VVP gave him terabytes of coded US messages by and about the conspirators and the key to reading the codes. Don't know what to make of that but we should be alert for sudden revelations.

Bill Herschel , 6 hours ago
I humbly suggest that Trump supporters can stop hyperventilating. Your required reading should be the series of ten articles on the 2016 election by surely the most astute pollster on the political scene, Nate Silver. Among many, many money quotes, here is one of the most brutal,

""Coverage rarely mentioned the parallels between Clinton and Al Gore, for instance, who had failed to win a third consecutive term for Democrats in 2000 under similar conditions to the ones Clinton faced."
-- Nate Silver

Realistically, we're looking at eight years of Trump... and the transformation of U.S. society under malign Russian rule, because I firmly believe the bromance between Trump and Putin is based on one of the two things that Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards said could defeat him.

This is a reverse Yeltsin if you will. What goes around comes around. Given that it may end the horror of American military adventure across the globe, I intend to sit back and enjoy it. States' rights is thankfully a two-edged sword.

Pat Lang Mod -> Bill Herschel , 2 hours ago
Nate Silver predicted a Clinton victory. Yes, we may be headed for the '50s. I remember them fondly.
Jack , 12 hours ago
Trump has very limited support among the GOP establishment in the House and Senate. Just look at the response to the meeting with Putin from Flake, Corker, McCain and Rubio. Who does he have in the White House that shares his views on foreign policy? At least on trade policy he has Ross, Navarro and Lighthizer.

He clearly needs another team to lead the intelligence and law enforcement functions. I think he realizes it but it seems from recent interviews that he feels constrained due to Mueller and the obstruction of justice charge. Maybe he acts after the mid-terms. In the mean time the assault by the TDS crowd will continue.

O rly , 14 hours ago
while i agree with your sentiment that these people all need the axe, it seems like a trend where presidents putting key official in places where they sabotage themselves.

i mean i don't like obama, but what ever good instincts he had, were totally derailed by his own appointments. particularly on the foreign policy side of things.

Eugene Owens , 21 hours ago
All three Republicans. Why leave off Jeff Sessions?
Pat Lang Mod -> Eugene Owens , 20 hours ago
RINO party allegiance means nothing. They are swamp creatures. No reason to remove him. He is inert.
Eugene Owens -> Pat Lang , 20 hours ago
Dan Coats was pushed for DNI by Mike Pence. You have to wonder where Pence now stands in regards to Coats' statements? Wray was pushed for his job by NJ governor Chris Christie. Not sure who was Rosenstein's patron. My guess is Sessions.

Couldn't Sessions fire two of the three?

Pat Lang Mod -> Eugene Owens , 18 hours ago
Yes. Coats and Pence - two Hoosiers. Chris Christie and Wray- two Jersey Republicans. Sessions knew Rosenstein from DoJ and the courts. This tells me that Trump did not know government people.

[Jul 29, 2018] The Putin-Trump Helsinki summit by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... This is the proverbial case where the real " action is in the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject hysterics. ..."
"... What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for what it is. ..."
"... Even such supposed supporters of President Trump like Trey Gowdy who has fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like these... ..."
"... What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are only increasing . ..."
"... By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. ..."
"... The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and, second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other groups. ..."
"... I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters. Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that happen are now horrified by what is taking place. ..."
"... I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress, especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now apparently also want it de-jure too. ..."
"... From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the AngloZionist Empire. ..."
"... the infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction. ..."
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk. ..."
"... Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story. ..."
"... He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push as it heads for the edifice. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of Russia. ..."
"... It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous. ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Oh sure, there were a number of general statements made about "positive discussions" and the like, and some vague references to various conflicts, but the truth is that nothing real and tangible was agreed upon. Furthermore, and this is, I believe, absolutely crucial, there never was any chance of this summit achieving anything. Why? Because the Russians have concluded a long time ago that the US officials are " non-agreement capable " (недоговороспособны). They are correct – the US has been non-agreement capable at least since Obama and Trump has only made things even worse: not only has the US now reneged on Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (illegally – since this plan was endorsed by the UNSC ), but Trump has even pathetically backtracked on the most important statement he made during the summit when he retroactively changed his " President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be " into " I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia " (so much for 5D chess!).

If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to take anything he says seriously?! Besides, ever since the many western verbal promises of not moving NATO east " by one inch eastward " the Russians know that western promises, assurances, and other guarantees are worthless, whether promised in a conversation or inked on paper. In truth, the Russians have been very blunt about their disgust with not only the western dishonesty but even about the basic lack of professionalism of their western counterparts, hence the comment by Putin about " it is difficult to have a dialogue with people who confuse Austria and Australia ".

It is quite obvious that the Russians agreed to the summit while knowing full well that nothing would, or even could, come out of it. This is why they were already dumping US Treasuries even before meeting with Trump (a clear sign of how the Kremlin really feels about Trump and the US).

So why did they agree to the meeting? Because they correctly evaluated the consequences of this meeting. This is the proverbial case where the real " action is in the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject hysterics. I could list an immense number of quotes, statements and declarations accusing Trump of being a wimp, a traitor, a sellout, a Putin agent and all the rest. But I found the most powerful illustration of that hate-filled hysteria in a collection of cartoons from the western corporate media posted by Colonel Cassad on this page:

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/4330355.html

What we see today is a hate campaign against both Trump and Russia the likes of which I think the world has never seen before: even in the early 20th century, including the pre-WWII years when there was plenty of hate thrown around, there never was such a unanimity of hatred as what we see today. Furthermore, what is attacked is not just "Trump the man" or "Trump the politician" but very much so "Trump the President". Please compare the following two examples:

The US wars after 9/11: many people had major reservations about the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire GWOT thing. But most Americans seemed to agree with the "we support our troops" slogan. The logic was something along the lines of "we don't like these wars, but we do support our fighting men and women and the military institution as such". Thus, while a specific policy was criticized, this criticism was never applied to the institution which implement it: the US armed forces. Trump after Helsinki: keep in mind that Trump made no agreement of any kind with Putin, none. And yet that policy of not making any agreements with Putin was hysterically lambasted as a sellout. This begs the question: what kind of policy would meet with the approval of the US deep state? Trump punching Putin in the nose maybe? This is utterly ridiculous, yet unlike in the case of the GWOT wars, there is no differentiation made whatsoever between Trump's policy towards Putin and Trump as the President of the United States. There is even talk of impeachment, treason and "high crimes & misdemeanors" or of the "KGB" (dissolved 27 years ago but nevermind that) having a hand in the election of the US President.

What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for what it is. There are a few exceptions, of course, even in the media (I think of Tucker Carlson), but these voices are completely drowned out by the hate-filled shrieks of the vast majority of US politicians and journalists. Even such supposed supporters of President Trump like Trey Gowdy who has fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like these...

What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are only increasing .

By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. This is particularly true of US politicians and journalists who have long become the accomplices of the deep state (especially after the 9/11 false flag and its cover-up) and who now cannot back down under any circumstances or treat President Trump as a normal, regular, President. The anti-Trump rhetoric has gone way too far and the US has now reached what I believe is a point of no return.

The brewing constitutional crisis: the Neocons vs the "deplorables"

I believe that the US is facing what could be the worst crisis in its history: the lawfully elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn, delegitimizes the electoral process which brought him to power and, of course, it also excoriates the "deplorables" who dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.

The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and, second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other groups.

I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters. Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that happen are now horrified by what is taking place.

I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress, especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. A perfect example of this can be found in Nancy Pelosi's official statement about a possible invitation from Trump to Putin:

"The notion that President Trump would invite a tyrant to Washington is beyond belief. Putin's ongoing attacks on our elections and on Western democracies and his illegal actions in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine deserve the fierce, unanimous condemnation of the international community, not a VIP ticket to our nation's capital. President Trump's frightened fawning over Putin is an embarrassment and a grave threat to our democracy. An invitation to address a Joint Meeting of Congress should be bipartisan and Speaker Ryan must immediately make clear that there is not – and never will be – an invitation for a thug like Putin to address the United States Congress."

Another example of the same can be found in the unanimous 98-0 resolution by the US Senate expressing Congress's opposition to the US government allowing Russia to question US officials. Trump, of course, immediately caved in, even though he had originally declared "fantastic" the idea of actually abiding by the terms of an existing 1999 agreement on mutual assistance on criminal cases between the United States of America and Russia. The White House "spokesperson", Sarah Sanders, did even better and stated : (emphasis added)

"It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it. Hopefully, President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to the United States to prove their innocence or guilt "

Talk about imperial megalomania! The US will not allow the Russians to interrogate anybody, but it wants Putin to extradite Russian citizens. Amazing

As for Nancy Pelosi, her latest "tweet" today is anything but subtle. It reads:

Every single day, I find myself asking: what do the Russians have on @realDonaldTrump personally, financially, & politically? The answer to that question is that only thing that explains his behavior & his refusal to stand up to Putin. #ABetterDeal.

Pretty clear, no? "Trump is a traitor and we have to stop him".

By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now apparently also want it de-jure too. The real question is this: are there any forces inside the US capable of stopping the Neocons from completely taking all the reins of power and, if yes, how could a patriotic reaction to this Neocon coup manifest itself? I honestly don't know, but my feeling is that we might soon have a "President Pence" in the Oval Office. One way or another, a constitutional crisis is brewing.

What about the Russian interests in all this?

I have said it many times, Russia and the AngloZionist Empire (as opposed to the United States as a country) are at war, a war which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% "kinetic". This is a very real war nonetheless and it is a war for survival simply because the Empire cannot allow any major country on the planet to be truly sovereign. Therefore, not only does the AngloZionist Empire represent an existential threat to Russia, Russia also represents an existential threat to the Empire. In this kind of conflict for survival there is no room for anything but a zero-sum game and whatever is good for Russia is bad for the US and vice-versa.

The Russians, including Putin, never wanted this zero-sum game, it was imposed upon them by the AngloZionists, but now that they have been forced into it, they will play it as hard as they can. It is therefore only logical to conclude that the massive systemic crises in which the Neocons and their crazy policies have plunged the US are to the advantage of Russia.

To be sure, the ideal scenario would be for Russia and the US (as opposed to the AngloZionst Empire) to work together on the very long list of issues where they share common interests. But since the Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the sake of their imperial designs, that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand that. Furthermore, since the US constitutes the largest power component of the AngloZionist Empire, anything weakening the US also thereby weakens the Empire and anything which weakens the Empire is beneficial for Russia (by the way, the logical corollary of this state of affairs is that the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto allies).

It is not my purpose here to discuss when and how the Neocons came to power in the US, so I will just say that the delusional policies followed by the various US administrations since at least 1993 (and, even more so, since 2001) have been disastrous for the United States and could be characterized as one long never-ending case of imperial hubris (to use the title of here ). The long string of lost wars and foreign policy disasters are a direct result of this lack of even basic expertise. What passes for "expertise" today is basically hate-filled hyperbole and warmongering hysterics, hence the inflation in the paranoid anti-Russian rhetoric.

The US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money, destroying countries and alienating the rest of the planet. They are still the most expensive and bloated armed forces on the planet, but nobody fears them anymore (not even relatively small states, nevermind Russia or China). In technological terms, the Russians (and to a somewhat lesser degree the Chinese) have found asymmetrical answers to all the key force planning programs of the Pentagon and the former US superiority in the air, on land and on the seas is now a thing of the past. As for the US nuclear triad, it is still capable of accomplishing its mission, but it is useless as an instrument of foreign policy or to fight Russia or China (unless suicide is contemplated).

[Sidebar: this inability of the US military to achieve desired political goals might explain why, at least so far, the US has apparently given up on the notion of a Reconquista of Syria or why the Ukronazis have not dared to attack the Donbass. Of course, this is too early to call and these zigs might be followed by many zags, especially in the context of the political crisis in the US, but it appears that in the cases of the DPRK, Iran, Syria and the Ukraine there is much barking, but not much biting coming from the supposed sole "hyperpower" on the planet] The US is now engaged in simultaneous conflicts not only with Iran or Russia but also with the EU and China. In fact, even relationships with vassal states such as Canada or France are now worse than ever before. Only the prostituted leaders of "new Europe", to use Rumsfeld's term , are still paying lip service to the notion of "American leadership", and only if they get paid for it.

The US "elites" and the various interest groups they represent have now clearly turned on each other which is a clear sign that the entire system is in a state of deep crisis: when things were going well, everybody could get what they wanted and no visible infighting was taking place. The Israel Lobby has now fully subordinated Congress, the White House, and the media to its narrow Likudnik agenda and, as a direct result of this, the US has lost all their positions in the Middle-East and the chorus of those with enough courage to denounce this Zionist Occupation Government is slowly but steadily growing (at least on the Internet). Even US Jews are getting fed up with the now openly Israeli apartheid state (see here or here ). By withdrawing from a long list of important international treaties and bodies (TPP, Kyoto Protocol, START, ABM, JCPOA. UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council, etc.) the United States has completely isolated themselves from the rest of the planet. The ironic truth is that Russia has not been isolated in the least, but that the US has isolated itself from the rest of the planet.

In contrast, the Russians are capitalizing on every single US mistake – be it the carrier-centric navy, the unconditional support for Israel or the simultaneous trade wars with China and the EU. Much has been made of the recent revelation of new and revolutionary Russian weapon systems (see here and here ) but there is much more to this than just the deployment of new military systems and technologies: Russia is benefiting from the lack of any real US foreign policies to advance her own interests in the Middle-East, of course, but also elsewhere. Let's just take the very latest example of a US self-inflicted PR disaster – the following "tweet" by Trump: (CAPS in the original)

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

This kind of infantile (does he not sound like a 6 year old?) and, frankly, rather demented attempts at scaring Iranians (of all people!) is guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect from the one presumably sought: the Iranian leaders might snicker in disgust, or have a good belly-laugh, but they are not going to be impressed .

The so-called "allies" of the US will be embarrassed in the extreme to be "led" by such a primitive individual, even if they don't say so in public. As for the Russians, they will happily explore all the possibilities offered to them by such illiterate and self-defeating behavior.

Conclusion one: a useful summit for Russia

As a direct consequence of the Helsinki summit, the infighting of the US ruling classes has dramatically intensified. Furthermore, faced with a barrage of hateful attacks Trump did what he always does: he tried to simultaneously appease his critics by caving in to their rhetoric while at the same time trying to appear "tough" – hence his latest "I am a tough guy with a big red button" antics against Iran (he did exactly the same thing towards the DPRK). We will probably never find out what exactly Trump and Putin discussed during their private meeting, but one thing is sure: the fact that Trump sat one-on-one with Putin without any "supervision" from his deep-state mentors was good enough to create a total panic in the US ruling class resulting in even more wailing about collusion, impeachment, high crimes & misdemeanors and even treason. Again, the goal is clear: Trump must be removed.

From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the AngloZionist Empire. The Russians simply don't have the means to bring down the Empire, but the infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction.

Conclusion two: the Clinton gang's actions can result in a real catastrophe for the US

Trump's main goal in meeting with Putin was probably to find out whether there was a way to split up the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership and to back the Israeli demands for Syria. On the issue of China, Trump never had a chance since the US has really nothing to offer to Russia (whereas China and Russia are now locked into a vital symbiotic relationship ). On Syria, the Russians and the Israelis are now negotiating the details of a deal which would give the Syrian government the control of the demarcation line with Israel (it is not a border in the legal sense) and Trump's backing for Israel will make no difference. As for Iran, the Russians will not back the US agenda either for many reasons ranging from basic self-interest to respect for international law. So while Trump did the right thing in meeting with Putin, it was predictable at least under the current set of circumstances, that he would not walk away with tangible results.

For all his very real failings, Trump cannot be blamed for the current situation. The real culprits are the Clinton gang and the Democratic Party which, by their completely irresponsible behavior, are creating a very dangerous crisis for the United States: the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk. Furthermore, the Neocons have now completely flipped around the presumption of innocence – both externally (Russian "attack" on the US elections) and internally (Trump's "collusion" with Putin). As for Trump, whatever his good intentions might have been, he is weak and cannot fight the entire US deep state by himself. The Neocons and the US deep state are now on a collision course with Russia and the people of the United States and while Russia does have the means to protect herself from the Empire, it is unclear to me who, or what could stop the Neocons from further damaging the US. Deep and systemic crises often result in new personalities entering the stage, but in the case of the US, it is now undeniable that the system cannot reform

exiled off mainstreet , July 26, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT

All of this seems profoundly depressing, but it appears to be how things are. I was disappointed by Trump's efforts to cave into the deep state on his statements. The fact he can't even control his justice ministry reveals his weakness. I'm of the view history shows that once spy agencies reach a critical mass in power they become the absolute rulers of a structure and the rule of law becomes a facade, then is sidelined completely.
Anonymous [333] Disclaimer , July 26, 2018 at 10:55 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

Trump was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in 2015. He had no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of governance, a solid foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating skills of an 8th grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably not even a majority of Republican politicians.

The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level.

His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain his credibility before the public.

Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and peaceniks, in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal with the real world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.

Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media, expect the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another tomorrow. The situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to Hillary Clinton and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of ersatz "democracy." Her husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm pretty sure Trump had a higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy what you can't have like a petulant child.

(I'm a liberal Democrat.)

Johnny Rottenborough , Website July 26, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
the logical corollary of this state of affairs is that the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto allies

I think it would be more accurate to say that the people of Russia had the same enemy.

Anonymous [346] Disclaimer , July 26, 2018 at 1:37 pm GMT

By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed.

It's like trial lawyers say: if the facts are on your side and the law is not, then argue the facts; if the law is on your side and the facts are not, then argue the law; and if neither the facts nor the law are on your side, then bang your fists on the table and shout as loud as you can! That's exactly what the neo-clowns are doing here.

the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk.

All of which just helps to further discredit the empire. Even with all the insanity in the media, I still thank God every day that Hellary did not become president.

War for Blair Mountain , July 26, 2018 at 2:25 pm GMT
The Paradox:

The above h0moerotic caricature of Putin and Trump is quite revealing in what it tells us about what drives the emotional life of White Liberals and White Leftist. They are driven by powerful urges to impose homosexuality-pedophilia-pederasty on both Christian Russia and the Working Class Native Born White American Christians.

sarz , July 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story.
Carlo , July 27, 2018 at 12:08 am GMT
@sarz

I think because Trump postulated himself as a candidate, then got nominated the Republican candidate and worst of all, despite the huge campaign against him, won the elections, without the blessing of the Deep State and the neocons. So now they want to teach him (and anyone else who might think about doing the same) a lesson: "Anyone who tries to become president without our approval will be crushed", so it never happens again.

Erebus , July 27, 2018 at 2:12 am GMT
@sarz

something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria?

And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around

That Trump is a wrecking ball is a hypothesis I've held since the first GOP debate, when I also realized he would (probably) win not only the election, but may even succeed at the far more difficult challenge of bringing the Empire to a sufficiently soft landing that the nation survives. I'm less convinced of the latter now, largely because I underestimated the centrifugal forces driving the fault lines in the American body politic. The nation, tragically may not survive the Empire's twilight, but I've seen nothing that makes me want to change my hypothesis.

He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push as it heads for the edifice.

As for the summit, I frankly wouldn't be surprised to learn that much of it was staged for maximum hysteria-inducing effect. Their 2hrs spent alone probably was little more than comparing notes. After all, what can Trump promise that he can also deliver under the circumstances? He can only promise to keep doing what he's doing.

In any case, they both know the Empire has to go, and they both want the American nation to be a player after it goes. A vibrant America is as critical to the multipolar world as it is to Americans. Maybe more so.

Collusion? Maybe, but the Trump phenomena, IMHO, has all the earmarks of regime change done right. With or without collusion, the hystericals can't quite put their finger on what happened, which drives further hysteria, which pushes the wrecking ball even faster, which drives....

Franz , July 27, 2018 at 6:13 am GMT
now undeniable that the system cannot reform itself

Yes, Saker and that puts US politics behind European fascism of 70+ years ago. Mussolini was booted out by a fascist committee, Franco paved the way for a constitutional monarchy, but all Americans get is Bozo the Clown/President.

The destruction of the US working class amazes me in its absence from all serious debate. First subverted by the CIA then rendered null by outsourcing (which is still undercounted) the "deplorables" have no mechanism for resistence except the unthinkable one: Hope for total breakup of the United States. Or hope for a foreign invasion.

Makes one wonder. When Egyptians greeted Alexander the Great as a liberator as he conquered them, it was a fairly pungent comment on the ruling Persians. Will blue-collar former-Yanks be cheering for liberating Chinese or Russian troops anytime soon? Henry Kissinger once predicted something of the sort.

We do live in interesting times.

Cyrano , July 27, 2018 at 7:10 pm GMT
@Erebus

Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice

He never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him

I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of Russia.

All they come up with is terrible ideas which they in their generosity are way too eager to share with the world – against the wishes or the best interests of the world. Like the multiculturalism. It's bad enough that they came up with that awful idea, but then they had to force it down the throats of the stupid Europeans.

Then when Merkel showed enough brains to challenge their idea, they forced her to make 180 turn and to welcome over a 1 million refugees from the imperial misadventures.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/18/frum.merkel.multicultural

peterAUS , July 28, 2018 at 7:14 am GMT
Well, Saker did put, this time, some good points here. Of course, they were well mixed with the usual Kremlin propaganda, but that's now like "good morning" with his writing. Probably all public members of "Team Russia" have that clause in their contract. The usual spin "Russia is great, winning, and all is not only good but simply getting better for Kremlin and the Great Leader".

He does point to this "thing" with MSM and public figures in West re the summit. I agree, it's surreal. If I were watching this in a serious movie I'd change the channel/walk out. If I were reading a serious book with the "thing" as a part of the plot I'd stop reading. I think there IS something there.

It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous.

I guess we have entered a zone beyond geopolitics into mass psychology. Not my area of expertise at all, but simply feel there is something there. It feels as watching, hard to express it, hysterical people? Now, on my level, whenever I dealt with such people I simply walked away, most of the time. A couple of times, when I couldn't walk away I simply floored them (or so I say). Both men and women (talking about being a gentleman , a). With women, it's even easier, just one strike, weak hand even. With men a full combination, even with a takedown and ..anyway. Joking. Sort of. Besides, I was younger then. But how can you take out people who control, in essence, US power, nuclear weapons in particular? You simply can't . That is what makes, IMHO, this so dangerous. I simply can't recollect anything similar in relationship between superpowers. I am not so optimistic re the collapse of The Empire, multipolar world etc.

This "thing" can, I concede, deliver a couple of goods: People, at last, realizing who, or better what, are our "betters". The real power of The Empire diminishing because of the mess and chaos those species ..created. Those two things creating an opportunity to, somehow, do something about this abomination.

But, and a big but, there is the flip there. People simply not paying attention. And, those hysterics really getting the levers of power in their hands. While they are in that state, that is.

As I've said several times here so far (doesn't matter a bit, of course) Trump supporters fucked up. Not him; he didn't expect to win and when he did he found himself in a really bad position. His supporters. As soon as he won they walked home. A mistake. A terrible mistake. I feel we'll all pay, dearly, for it.

[Jul 29, 2018] The Helsinki summit, CIA-run media and U.S.-Russian Relations

MIC is a cancer, and looks like there is no cure
Notable quotes:
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)). ..."
"... The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media. They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

b. July 16, 2018 at 9:35 pm

"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."

I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign.

We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years.

Rob , says: July 16, 2018 at 11:21 pm
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in a way that would allow a proper dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests for those responsible for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint: it's not Trump, unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
a spencer , says: July 17, 2018 at 1:33 am
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Erik , says: July 17, 2018 at 2:35 am
I also agree with b.

Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence.

I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him.

Christian Chuba , says: July 17, 2018 at 9:59 am
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media. They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil.

CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). These are just two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.

As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface.

No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.

[Jul 29, 2018] The Grand Illusion of Imperial Power

Notable quotes:
"... Seven Pillars of Wisdom ..."
"... The Modern Machiavellians ..."
"... The Terrorism Industry, ..."
"... European Security and the Soviet Problem ..."
"... – Napoleon Bonaparte during his retreat from Russia ..."
"... Prelude To Terror ..."
"... Washingtonian Magazine ..."
"... the day before they kidnapped him ..."
"... The Grand Chessboard ..."
"... the globally imperial power ..."
"... Copyright © 2018 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
The Grand Illusion of Imperial Power by Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould

Photo by DAVID HOLT | CC BY 2.0

All men dream but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but those dreamers of the day are dangerous men for they act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.

– T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom

How the Neocon Dream for Everlasting Hegemony Turned America Into a Nightmare

Few Americans today understand how the United States came to be owned by a London-backed neoconservative/right-wing alliance that grew out of the institutional turmoil of the post-Vietnam era. Even fewer understand how its internal mission to maintain the remnants of the old British Empire gradually overcame American democracy and replaced it with a "national security" bureaucracy of its own design. We owe the blueprint of that plan to James Burnham , Trotskyist, OSS man and architect of the neoconservative movement whose exposition of the Formal and the Real in his 1943 The Modern Machiavellians justified the rise of the oligarch and the absolute rule of their managerial elite. But Americans would be shocked to find that our current political nightmare came to power with the willing consent and cooperation of President James Earl Carter and his National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski; aided by intelligence agencies in Europe and the Middle East.

A straight line can be drawn between today's political hysteria and the 1970s era of right-wing Soviet hysteria as Russia stands accused of "meddling" in American democracy. The merits of those charges have been discussed in depth elsewhere. According to the dean of American intelligence scholars Loch K. Johnson as reported in the New York Times , the United States has done extensive meddling in other nation's elections.

And then there is that hidden "meddler" behind the meddling; Britain. The extent of British meddling in American politics – at least since – the beginning of the 20 th century would shock even the most devout cheerleaders of ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his "dirty dossier". In a case reminiscent of America's current hysteria over Russia, British intelligence even meddled with its own government back in the mid-1970s when right-wing elements of the military plotted a coup d' etat of Labor Prime Minister Harold Wilson based on information generated by their own disinformation campaign about Soviet influence. The 1917 Zimmerman telegram and the creation of the British Security Coordination in 1940 directly intervened in American politics on behalf of Britain. But the 1970 Creation of the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) by British secret agent Brian Crozier marked a key turning point in the transformation of officially sanctioned propaganda.

As presented by Edward Herman and Gerry O' Sullivan in their 1989 study, The Terrorism Industry, "The London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) provides an especially well-documented case study of the use of a purportedly 'independent' institute as a front for propaganda operations of hidden intelligence agency and corporate sponsors." The purpose of ISC was to give discredited right-wing, anti-Communist and anti-union clichés in Britain the cover of legitimacy. The "Institute" got off to a quick start in the U.S. by forging an alliance with the National Strategy Information Center, NSIC a right-wing neoconservative think tank founded by Frank Barnett, William Casey and Joseph Coors in 1962. ISC's first major triumph came in collaboration with the ultra-right-wing Pinay Cercle when Crozier and his protégé Robert Moss produced an ISC Special Report attacking the legitimacy of détente with the Soviet Union called European Security and the Soviet Problem . The study, financed by the Pinay group made no bones about its "Soviet problem" actually being the old "Russia problem" that European Imperialists had been hoping to solve since Napoleon's disastrous march on Moscow in 1812.

As a devoted acolyte of James Burnham , Crozier brought to his secret world of rightwing businessmen, intelligence, police and military officials a strategic plan to use the media to move the West'sdemocracies to the ideological right by fabricating threats of Communist subversion. Determined to undermine détente, Antoine Pinay was so delighted with Crozier's double-speak he presented the study in person to President Nixon and Henry Kissinger and by 1975 the group was staged to make their move on Washington. Less than two months before the fall of Saigon, the US Committee of the ISC (USISC) was launched which would act as the parent body of the Washington Institute for the Study of Conflict (WISC).

In the vacuum created by Vietnam Crozier and Pinay's extremism was no longer viewed as extreme. Despite the public scandal over the CIA's use of Crozier's Forum World Features as a London-based fake news service, Washington elites were rolling out the red carpet to welcome them, including Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball . Under Ball's Chairmanship WISC appeared a veritable who's who of high-level ex-CIA, neoconservative and right-wing influencers. From Georgetown University came WISC's first President James Thebergewhosebooks on Soviet influence in the Caribbean – helped provide the pretexts for overthrowing Chile's legitimately elected leftist president Salvador Allende. And then there was Richard Pipes , the anti-Soviet history professor from Harvard University, who would soon be hand-picked to lead a neoconservative attack on the CIA known as Team B.

In the words of Lawrence J. Korb , a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985, Pipes and the Team B were the real reason for the intelligence failures represented by 9/11 because of their biases and unbalanced judgement. But in the end the Team B view gainedinfluence. With the appointment of fellow WISC member Zbigniew Brzezinski as President Carter's national security advisor, British intelligence agent Brian Crozier's plan tosubvert the détente process with the Soviet Union was complete. Crozier'sbelief "[T]hat the entire security apparatus of the United States was in a state of near collapse," provoked yet another move to interfere in American politics. His solution was a secret off-the books "Private Sector Intelligence agency, beholden to no government, but at the disposal of allied or friendly governments for certain tasks which, for one reason or another, they were no longer able to tackle " including "[S]ecret counter-subversion operations in any country in which such actions were deemed feasible." Brian Crozier and Zbigniew Brzezinski were of one mind when it came to disbelieving in "mutual coexistence" or power-sharing with the Soviet Union and Brzezinski's membership in WISC proved it. Thanks to WISC member Richard Pipes and the Team B, Brzezinski could now bring Britain's radical right-wing formula for social change right into the Oval Office.

Brzezinski devised astructure that channeled all executive decisions into two committees, the Policy Review Committee (PRC) and the Special Coordination Committee (SCC) chairedby him. Carter thenelevated the national security advisor to cabinet level and the palace coup was complete. As recalled by the neoconservative author David J. Rothkopf in Charles Gati's 2013 book ZBIG , "It was a bureaucratic first strike of the first order. The system essentially gave responsibility for the most important and sensitive issues to Brzezinski."

Another operation initiated by Brzezinski in 1977 was the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) , dedicated to inflaming ethnic tensions among the Islamic populations of the South Asia region. Brzezinski then continued on into nuclear policy where he altered the SALT structure and then rigged the negotiations against Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. With Brzezinski expanding nuclear targeting options from 25,000 to 40,000 andcovert action teams sabotaging behind Soviet lines from early 1977 onward the message was clear; SALT and Détente were getting ripped up as well as the very assumptions both were based on.

By 1978, Brzezinski's plan to use China as a weapon against the Soviets was playing out in Afghanistan. The April, 1978 Marxist coup against the King's cousin, Mohammed Daoud played into Brzezinski's "predictions" of a Sovietplan to incorporate Persia and South Central Asia into the Soviet sphere and ultimately take-over The Middle East. Vance rejected Brzezinski's argument. The coup had caught both the Soviets and the State Department by surprise and the coup leader, Hafizullah Amin raised doubts on both sides of the fence as an unpredictable agent provocateur. Amin had taken money from the CIA and headed up the Afghan Student Association at a time when it was being used as a CIA recruitment tool for future Third World leaders.Amin was now one of those leaders and Vance was sending a tough and savvy American Ambassador to Kabul named Adolph "Spike" Dubs to deal with him. The outcome would change the world and end in tragedy for all.

In an interview we conducted in 1993 with Selig Harrison –former Washington Post foreign correspondent and Carnegie Endowment Senior Associate–Ambassador Dubs came to Kabul in the summer of 1978 with amission: Bring Afghan leader Hafizullah Amin over to the American side and keep the Russians out. President Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski had engineered a grander mission: Pressure Amin to draw the Soviets in through destabilization and then keep them tied down and give them their own Vietnam. By the time Ambassador Dubs arrived in Kabul, Afghanistan had become ground zero for a long anticipated anti-Soviet destabilization campaign organized byBrzezinski and carried out by an off the books intelligence operation known as the Safari Club . The "club"represented the true essence of the CIA ethos; an autonomous covert action organization with global reach, beyond the jurisdiction of American oversight and responsible to no one. A spinoff of the right-wing Pinay Cercle , the Safari Club had been active informally in the Middle East and Africa for years. But the club found its true calling following Watergate and the Church Committee hearings on 30 years of CIA coups, cover-ups and assassinations. Managed by France's Count Alexandre de Marenches chief of French external intelligence, the club included the Shah of Iran, King Hassan II of Morocco, President Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt, Kamal Adham, head of intelligence for Saudi Arabian King Faisal and Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. More to the point, by 1976 the Safari Club had become the real CIA, covertly funded by Saudi Arabia's chief of intelligence Kamal Adham through the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) and run out of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Brzezinski, Afghanistan and the End of Emperors

"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step. "

– Napoleon Bonaparte during his retreat from Russia

According to one-time CNN Special Assignment investigator Joe Trento in his 2005 exposé Prelude To Terror , Saudi Arabia's chief of intelligence Kamal Adham worked alongside the Bank of Commerce and Credit International , BCCI's founder Agha Hasan Abedi to expand the very concept of covert action by using BCCI to merge the Safari Club with "every major terrorist, rebel, and underground organization in the world." A 2001 Time magazine report found that the bank functioned as "a vast, stateless, multinational corporation that deploys its own intelligence agency, complete with paramilitary wing and enforcement units, known collectively as the 'black network:'"that wouldbribe or assassinate anyone to turn Afghanistan into the place to trap the Soviet Union in their own Vietnam.

Uninformed of the Safari Club's activities, America's ambassador proceeded to meet with Amin throughout the fall of 1978 and into the winter of 1979 often in secretmeetings.But Brzezinski's ongoing destabilization, his military relationship with the Chinese and Amin's antagonism toward the Russians was making life for Dubs increasingly dangerous. He grew alarmed by Amin's provocative behavior and demanded to know from his CIA station chief whether he was employed by them. He was told no, but by then Afghan rebels were openly training in Pakistan and China's Xinjiang province. In addition there was what Joe Trento called the CIA's Saudi-funded stockpile of misfits and malcontents manning the Safari Club's 1,500-strong army of assassins and enforcers. And last but not least were Chinese-backed Maoist factions Setam-i Melli, Sholah Jaweed and SAMA programmed by Beijing to bring down their Afghan oppressor, Hafizullah Amin. Thanks to Saudi Intelligence chief Kamal Adham and BCCI banker, Agha Hasan Abedi , there were ample incentives for a holy jihad against Russia. Afghanistan offered the opportunity for BCCI to migrate the lucrative heroin business from Southeast Asia to the Pakistani/Afghan border under the protectionof Western intelligence agencies.President Carter supported Brzezinski's cross-border raids into Soviet territory. He also sanctioned Brzezinski's plan to use Afghanistan to lure the Soviet Union into its own Vietnam; which he lied to the public about when they fell into the trap on December 27, 1979. Joseph Trento writes , "Carter may in fact have signed his directive in July 1979, but the Safari Club's Islamic fighters had been taunting Moscow into invading for nearly a year before that."

By January 1979 the newly unstable region wasbecoming the primary financing source for a terrorist campaign that would spread around the world.But while Dubs was pleading that destabilization would provoke direct Soviet intervention, Brzezinski was promoting armed opposition.

That same month, Brzezinski's NSC director of South Asian affairs, Thomas P. Thornton, arrived in Kabul to shut Dubs down, yet Dubs continued his mission.Between Dubs' arrival in July of 1978 and the fall of the Shah on January 16, 1979 American policy in Iran, China and Afghanistan had shifted into the hands ofthe Pinay Cercle's right-wing cabal. Run by a consortium of intelligence influencers, the decades-long geopolitical plan to move the United States into alignment with the Pinay Cercle's old European right-wing was nearing completion.

By mid-February the Shah had fallen and the Afghan countryside was in open revolt. The Marxist regime of Hafizullah Amin was demanding military assistance from Moscow and the only man left to hold back Soviet retaliation wasAmbassadorDubs. But on the morning of February 14, 1979 Dubs himself would become the vehicle for the very outcome he had gone to Kabul to prevent when four men abducted him on his way to work and brought him to the Kabul Hotel.Three hours later the ambassador would die in a shootout that has been described as a botched rescue attempt.

The subsequent debate in Washington focused mainly on blaming the Soviets with unnamed "U.S. congressional sources" claiming "the Russians had wanted Dubs to die." But as described in an interview conducted for Washingtonian Magazine in 2017 with Bruce Flatin, the political counselor dispatched by the U.S. embassy to the hotel that morning, the whole affair just didn't make sense; unless the kidnapping wasn't intended as a kidnapping and Dubs' unfortunate death wasn't the result of a botched rescue attempt, but was part of a Safari Club operation to remove the last obstacle to their plan. At a 1995 Nobel Symposium on the causes of the Afghan war – in the presence of former CIA director Admiral Stansfield Turner, the former Director of Soviet affairs at the National Security Council, General William Odom and dozens of former high-level officials – the leading Russian authority, General Alexander Lyakhovsky suggested the existence of a cover up. "Dubs was seen in the company of those same people who kidnapped him later in the same hotel -- in the same room -- the day before they kidnapped him . And then later Dubs was in his car, with a travel case. He stopped his car when those same people who he saw the day before ordered him to stop, as if they were known to him."

No one has ever suggested the existence of anon-governmental agency in the death of Adolph Dubs. But the Safari Club's anti-Communist agenda had been brought directly into the White House with Brzezinskiin 1977 and it had been active in Afghanistan long before February 14, 1979. If ever there was an opportunity for their 1,500-strong "black network" of CIA misfits, malcontents, assassins and enforcers to act on Brzezinski's agenda to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam,it was at room 117 of the Kabul Hotel on February 14, 1979.

The kidnapping and assassination of Ambassador Adolph Dubs ended any meaningful effort by the U.S. to prevent a Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. The death was employed however from that day forward by Brzezinski as the opportunity to increase the level of provocation for luring the Soviets into their own "Vietnam quagmire" and keeping them pinned down for as long as possible. Because of Dubs' death, Brzezinski got control of foreign policy; got his hard line neoconservative policy toward the Soviet Union pushed through, ended support for détente once and for all and put Strategic Arms Limitation on hold.

Continuing his coup d'état, Brzezinski proceeded with plans for theradicaltransformation of America's nuclear doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction – MAD into one of nuclear "war-fighting" through a series of Presidential Directives. But the real irony of the Carter presidency was that his greatest success – the U.S- Egypt-Israeli peace treaty – was also arranged by the Safari Club . The death of Ambassador Dubs, the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late December 1979 doomed Carter's reelection to failure. Afghanistan was soon to become the self-fulfilling prophecyof Soviet iniquity that the right-wing had been trying to create for decades;a permanent, ongoing crisis in U.S.-Soviet relations which it had precipitated and then claimed to uncover and respond to. Brian Crozier's "ultimate sophistication of subversion" got its candidate Ronald Reagan elected in 1980 while completing the London-backed neoconservative/right-wing takeover of the American government. And they would never give it back.

The pattern and the profile of events parading across our screens today mirrors the pattern and profile of events engineered in the late 1970s by a London-backed neoconservative/right-wing alliancewhich paralleled the pattern and the profile of the late 1940s and the genesis of the Cold War. The United States, Britain and their post-World War II European creation, the EU continue to manufacture issues with which to demonize Russia as they once demonized the Soviet Union. But in the end, the goal set out by the Pinay Cercle and implemented during the Carter administration can only be said to have failed .

In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard , Zbigniew Brzezinski saw the United States "as the sole and, indeed, first truly global power" using France, Germany, Poland and Ukraine as "The Democratic Bridgehead for projecting into Eurasia the international democratic collective order." Yet even as the United States began to flex its unchallenged global power the ethnic flaw undergirding Brzezinski's motives began to show.

When asked the real reason why the United States had taken such a hard line toward the Soviet Union on Afghanistanat the 1995 Nobel Symposium , President Carter's CIA Director Stansfield Turner replied the responsibility could only be located in one individual. "Brzezinski's name comes up here every five minutes; but nobody has as yet mentioned that he is a Pole," Turner said, implying that it was ethnic hatred of Russia that had propelled his policy against the Soviet Union; not just geopolitics. Yet anybody who knew Brzezinski at the time knew that is exactly what he was doing, but they had all looked the other way.

The year before he died Brzezinskidelivered a profound revelation in an article titled "Toward a Global Realignment" warning that "the United States is still the world's politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity, but given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power ." Zbigniew Brzezinski had expected Poland to be at the center of America's conquest of Eurasia. But after years of American missteps he realized his dream would never be. Though unapologetic at using his imperial hubris to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan, he did not expect his own beloved American Empire to fall into the same trap and ultimately lived long enough to see that in the end, his use of imperial power had won him only a Pyrrhic victory.

Copyright © 2018 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved

[Jul 29, 2018] Cult of GDP is a damaging mental disease. With the size of the USA financial sector it is grossly distorted.

Jul 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Winston July 28, 2018 at 10:00 am

GDPs (2017):

California – $2.751 trillion
Texas – $1.707 trillion
Russia – $1.578 trillion

Likbez:

@Winston July 28, 2018 at 10:00 am

Cult of GDP is a damaging mental disease. With the size of the USA financial sector it is grossly distorted.

The inflated costs of pharmaceutical and medical-industrial complex add another large portion of air into the US GDP.

Surveillance Valley (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc ) firms valuations are also inflated and their contribution to the USA economics is overestimated in GDP.

There is also such thing as purchase parity. To compare GDP between countries, you must use purchasing power parity. To compare GDP without calculating in purchasing parity is just naïve.

I suspect that in real purchasing power Russia is close to Germany (which means it it is the fifth largest economy)

The USA still has dominance is key technologies and cultural influence.

[Jul 29, 2018] Time to Talk to the Taliban by Daniel L. Davis

Too many US clans are profiting from the war...
Notable quotes:
"... While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War. Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. ..."
"... Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of "we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!" ..."
"... "Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures." ..."
"... Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs. The American people just have no say in the matter. ..."
"... Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians ..."
"... Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering (Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there. ..."
"... I'll go a step further and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. ..."
"... It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it. ..."
"... What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished." ..."
"... The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its people. ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
We have no choice. The 17-year war in Afghanistan has failed at every level, while the violence is only getting worse.

Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is instructing its senior diplomats to begin seeking "direct talks with the Taliban." It's a measure that would have been unthinkable at the start of the Afghanistan war yet today it's long overdue. Despite the criticism it's elicited, such talks offer the best chance of ending America's longest and most futile war.

While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military operations in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how to end the fighting on military terms.

Possibly the biggest impediment to ending the war has been the definition of the word "win." General Stanley McChrystal said in 2009 that winning in Afghanistan meant "reversing the perceived momentum" of the Taliban, "seek[ing] rapid growth of Afghan national security forces," and "tackl[ing] the issue of predatory corruption by some" Afghan officials.

Nine full years and zero successes later, however, Lieutenant General Austin S. Miller, latest in line to command U.S. troops in Afghanistan, defined as America's "core goal" at his confirmation hearing that "terrorists can never again use Afghanistan as a safe haven to threaten the United States."

The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished. Predicating an end to the war on such is to guarantee perpetual failure. A major course correction is therefore in order.

Keeping 15,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan does not, in any way , prevent terror attacks against the United States from originating there -- and for this lack of success we will pay at least $45 billion this year alone. The real solution is therefore to withdraw our troops as quickly as can be safely accomplished rather than throw more of them into a fruitless conflict.

I personally observed in 2011 during my second combat deployment in Afghanistan that even with 140,000 U.S. and NATO boots on the ground, there were still vast swaths of the country that were ungoverned and off-limits to allied troops.

Meaning, at no point since October 2001 has American military power prevented Afghanistan from having ungoverned spaces. What has kept us safe, however -- and will continue to keep us safe -- has been our robust, globally focused intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that work in concert with the CIA, FBI, and local law enforcement to defend our borders from external attack.

Many pundits claim that if the U.S. military withdraws from Afghanistan then chaos will reign there -- and that is almost certainly true. But that's how we found Afghanistan, that's how it is today, and -- wholly irrespective of when or under what conditions the U.S. leaves -- that's how it will be long into the future until Afghans themselves come to an accommodation.

The question U.S. policymakers need to ask is which is more important to American interests: the maintenance of a perpetually costly war that fails to prevent any future attacks, or ending America's participation in that war?

Continuing to fight for a country that can't be won cements a policy that has drained the U.S. of vital resources, spilled the blood of American service members to no effect, and dissipated the Armed Forces' ability to defend against potentially existential threats later on -- while in the meantime not diminishing the threat of international terrorism. To strengthen our national security, we must end the enduring policy of failure by prudently and effectively ending our military mission.

While the fundamentals of a withdrawal plan are relatively straightforward, they would still be met by considerable opposition. One of the arguments against leaving was voiced by McChrystal nine years ago when he pleaded with the American public to "show resolve" because "uncertainty disheartens our allies [and] emboldens our foe." Yet the facts can't be denied any longer: for all eight years of the Obama administration and the first 500 days of Trump's tenure, we maintained that "resolve" and were rewarded with an unequivocal deterioration of the war.

Since McChrystal's admonition to maintain the status quo, the Taliban have exploded in strength to reportedly 77,000 , more territory is now in the hands of the insurgents than at any point since 2001 , the Afghan government remains one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet, and civilian casualties in the first half of 2018 are the highest ever recorded .

The only way this permanent failure ends is if President Trump shows the courage he has sometimes demonstrated to push back against the Washington establishment. That means ignoring the status quo that holds our security hostage, ending the war, and redeploying our troops. Without that resolve, we can count on continued failure in Afghanistan. With it, American security will be strengthened and readiness improved.

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him on Twitter @DanielLDavis1 .

Fred Bowman July 24, 2018 at 1:29 pm

While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War. Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. The only way these wars of choice will ever end is when Congress has the balls to cut off funding. Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures. Military madness indeed.
Sid_finster , says: July 24, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of "we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!"

If Trump were going to leave, he should have done so soon after taking office. At least then he could blame his predecessors.

That country is Trump's baby now.

Fran Macadam , says: July 24, 2018 at 3:37 pm
The financial security of the National Security State and its suppliers now depends on no war ever ending or being won. The new definition of defeat is having any war end. As long as it continues, that war is being won.
Kent , says: July 24, 2018 at 4:31 pm
"Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures."

Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs. The American people just have no say in the matter.

spite , says: July 24, 2018 at 5:31 pm
There is only one reason why the USA is still in Afghanistan that makes sense (all the official reasons are an insult to ones intelligence), it borders on Iran and thus serves as a means to open a new front against Iran. The more the US pushes for war against Iran, the more this seems correct.
EliteCommInc. , says: July 24, 2018 at 5:43 pm
"Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is instructing its senior diplomats to begin seeking "direct talks with the Taliban."

I have to give my Jr High response here:

"Well, duh."
__________________

"While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military operations in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks . . ."

Yeah . . . no.

1. They manipulated the game to make what was a crime an act of war to justify the an unnecessary, unethical, and strategically unwise invasion. I remain now where I was 14 years ago -- bad decision in every way.

2. It was even a poor decision based on reason for war. To utterly bend the will of the opponent to conform to the will of the US. it is possible to win. But to do so would require such massive force, brutality and will.

3. 9/11 was a simple criminal act, despite the damage. As a crime we should have sought extradition, and or small team FBI and special forces operations to a small footprint in either capturing, and or if need be killing Osama bin Laden and company.

Nothing that has occurred since 9/11 provides evidence that the invasion was either justified or effective. It will if the end game is to quit be one of three losses suffered by the US.

They are: War of 1812
Iraq
Afghanistan

" . . . it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how to end the fighting on military terms."

Sure leave. Though talking so as to avert whole slaughter of those that aided the US is the decent thing to do.

Whine Merchant , says: July 24, 2018 at 5:48 pm
Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians
Janek , says: July 24, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Solving USA problems in Afghanistan an at the same time pushing for war with Iran is by definition classic oxymoron. Afghanistan's problems can only be solved with cooperation and understanding with Iran. Conflict of the USA with Iran will extend indefinitely the suffering of the Afghanis and the eventual lose of the Afghanistan and Iran to the Russia. Always reigniting and keeping on the front burner the conflict with Iran by the USA is exactly what Russia and V. Putin want. I can't see any other politicians except D. Trump, B. Netanyahu and American 'conservatives' for the advancement of the Russia's goals in the Middle East and in the globalistan. These are the new XXI century 'useful (adjective)'.
Myron Hudson , says: July 24, 2018 at 6:22 pm
Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering (Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there.

I'll go a step further and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. This should have been a dirty knife fight in all the back alleys of the world, but we responded to the sucker punch as our attackers intended; getting into a brawl with somebody else in the same bar; eventually, with more than one somebody else.

It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it.

TG , says: July 25, 2018 at 8:28 am
Indeed, but as others have commented, the entire point of the Afghanistan war is that it is pointless. It can suck up enormous amounts of money, and generate incredible profits for politically connected defense contractors – and because Afghanistan is in fact pointless, it doesn't matter if all of that money is wasted or stolen, how could you tell? The vested interest in these winless pointless foreign wars means that they will continue until the American economy finally collapses – and anyone who opposes these wars is a fascist, a Russian stooge, "literally Hitler." Because money.
EarlyBird , says: July 25, 2018 at 4:22 pm
Thank you for this. I am very surprised to learn that Trump is pursuing this, given his pugilistic nature. I hope he does in fact, get us the hell out of there. He may be, like Nixon, the one who is politically able to make this smart move. Can you imagine the Republican outrage if Obama had tried a diplomatic exit from this sand trap?

We can still be proud of what we attempted to do there. A few years post-9/11, an Afghan colleague of mine who had come to the US as a boy said, "9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan." He meant that rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US would do, we poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads, etc.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 25, 2018 at 8:29 pm
"He meant that rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US would do, we poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads, etc."

And we could have done a lot more if we had not invaded. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

furbo , says: July 26, 2018 at 4:47 pm
The achievable operational level Military objectives in the Afghan war were accomplished in the first year; The Taliban were out of power and hiding in Pakistan and the Afghans had a somewhat benevolent government that wanted to guarantee security an property and a measure of individual liberty.

What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished."

This has been particularly true with the intense guerrilla actions enabled by the Pakistanis who have a vested interest in an unstable Afghanistan.

I believe the noble goals 'might' have been doable – but it would have required a level of effort, and more importantly a 'cultural confidence' on par with the Roman Empire of the 2nd Century to pull it off. That is no longer us.

masmanz , says: July 27, 2018 at 1:29 am
"9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan"? I bet none of his family members died or suffered. Probably they are all living in the US. Are we supposed to feel proud that instead of carpet bombing and killing millions our war killed only a hundred thousand?
Wizard , says: July 27, 2018 at 9:53 am
Sadly, Kent, I do know people who still claim that our continued presence in Afghanistan is a good thing. Some of these are otherwise fairly bright people, so I really can't comprehend why they continue to buy into this idiocy.
James Keye , says: July 27, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Afghanistan must be Afghanistan and the US must be the US; this is such a simple tautology. If the US leaves, Afghanistan will become what ever it can for its own reasons and options. If the US stays, it will be for the US' reasons, not for the Afghans.

The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its people.

[Jul 29, 2018] Russians exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war propaganda

Notable quotes:
"... So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the hook. ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

HO-LY COWW , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT

@anon

Yes indeed, first Britain, and now Russia has pantsed the US too. In a virtuosic dick move, they exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war propaganda ( http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=1454 ) but in CIA crimes against humanity -- specifically, 'legal pretexts for manifestly illegal acts."

David Kramer, Tufts/Harvard Political Science/Russian studies, **PNAC** , DoS focal point, then CIA's famous captive NGO **Freedom House** , and a featherbed job at the McCain Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and Abandoning Thousands of MIAs in Vietnam to Die Slow Agonizing Deaths in Penal Camps.

Here he is talking to his co-conspirator Robert Otto, "Only idiots like Kerry think we have common interests in Syria."

https://freeworld556.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/us-state-department-official-robert-otto-got-hacked/

Needless to say, Kramer wouldn't know a human right from a bar of soap. He's a knuckledragger. CIA sent Kramer to DRL when Alfreda Bikowsky got her tit caught in the crimes-against-humanity wringer for systematic and widespread torture.

The US was five years late reporting to the Committee Against Torture and got a mind-boggling eight (8) follow-on inquiries for urgent derogations of non-derogable rights. So Kramer had to think fast and make up some bullshit why simulated live burial, object rape, death by dryboard suffocation, and penis-slitting is not torture. Kramer is not the brightest bulb, but that's not a hard job. During the Bush administration all the delegation did was say, "The US does not Torture," robotically over and over.

So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the hook.

[Jul 29, 2018] Russia can mediate a grand bargain on Syria

Jul 25, 2018 | blogs.rediff.com

The prevailing impression is that Russia plays a hugely influential role in the Syrian conflict. But it is equally the case that there are serious limits to what Russia can do and/or is willing to do to influence the future trajectory of the conflict.

Russia and the US have managed through joint efforts to bring the conflict in southwestern Syria to an end. This has been possible because the Syrian government forces undertook the operations against extremist groups in Daraa province without involving the Iranian military advisors or Hezbollah (overtly, at least.) In turn, this provided Israel with a a face-saving pretext to swallow the bitter pill – namely, accept the fait accompli of the decimation of its proxy groups in the border region with Syria.

However, Israel still swears that it will ensure the rollback of Iranian presence in all of Syria. PM Netanyahu is meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 11 to discuss the subject ahead of the Helsinki summit on July 16 between President Trump and Putin.

What are the prospects of Russia playing ball with Israel and Trump to "evict" the Iranians from Syrian soil? Frankly, "zero". When asked for comment on the subject at a media interaction in Moscow on July 4, this is how Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded:

Evidently, what Lavrov meant was that the Iranian presence in Syria is "legitimate" under international law. He then added:

So, what we get here is the Russian position, as follows: 'It is not for Moscow (or for Washington) to dictate to Tehran that it should not indulge in any presence outside its territorial borders in foreign countries. The Iranian presence in Syria cannot be viewed in isolation without taking into consideration the highly complicated Middle East security situation where regional states are pursuing policies in their self-interests which are often working at cross purposes. Therefore, the solution – in Syria or elsewhere in the region – lies in the regional states resolving their differences at the negotiating table.'

Lavrov was frank in underscoring that it is "absolutely unrealistic" to demand that "Iran should leave, stay within its borders, and everything will be wonderful."

However, this doesn't mean that there is nothing for Trump and Putin to discuss at Helsinki regarding Iran. Interestingly, NSA John Bolton held out some meaningful signals during his CBS News interview last Sunday when asked about Helsinki summit. He said:

Significantly, this has been the second time in the past 3 weeks that the Trump administration taken note of certain moderation in Iran's regional policies lately. (Trump himself had flagged this earlier – twice – during his press conference in Singapore following the summit with Kim Jong Un on June 12.)

Clearly, what Lavrov said on Wednesday need not necessarily be the last word. Lavrov met Iranian FM Zarif on the sidelines of the foreign minister level meeting of the remaining guarantors of the Iran deal (EU, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) in Vienna today. Trust Russian diplomacy to work on an approach that somehow connects the various dots in the jigsaw puzzle – Iran nuclear deal, sanctions against Iran, Syrian conflict, Israel-Iran tensions, US-Iran standoff, energy security and so on. The point is, Russia is uniquely placed – on talking terms with both the US and Israel on one side and Iran and Syria on the other side.

[Jul 29, 2018] Trump is being beaten down by the propaganda arm of the deep state (the MSM) but his tenacity is paying off. Already poles are indicating that the majority of people are not taken in by the charade

Notable quotes:
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain his credibility before the public. ..."
"... Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the sake of their imperial designs ..."
"... Private corporations have become global, have acquired many public resources, and are now in control of whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world. This makes them as big as or bigger than the nations states that gave birth to them. America is just a small part of the private corporate wealth generating reach of the private domain. What corporations don't control is left to government. What's wrong with that? ..."
"... The USA has become a transfer mechanism and a transport company. Those in power are transferring massive arrays of public rights, duties, and resources to private corporate opulence. The elite (Pharaoh and his private corporation) have not been more secure, but Americans have reached the extended edge of insecurity. Leadership now consist of two masters: Public elected government 40% and privately owned corporations 60%. ..."
"... Every empire in history, after conquering its future colonies, ruled those colonies with a good degree of acceptance by the colonised population. Now the US claims that it is a global empire, the biggest one in history, but I know of no country which likes to be even man-handled let alone managed by US. ..."
"... Here is the specific threat to CIA impunity behind the US propaganda hysterics. Russia is turning over the rocks where CIA hides its moles in the US government. Russia knows what the perps are up to, so US state secrets don't protect them as they do at home. ..."
"... The CIA focal points that Fletcher Prouty told us about decades ago, they're still infesting the government, dug in deeper than ever. Russia proposes to question them. It's the American public's first look at the secret dotted-line reports CIA uses to control the US government. ..."
"... The US agents Russia singled out for questioning: Browder, Steele, McFaul (CIA war propaganda against Russia,) Jonathan Wiener (Lockerbie fabricator and DoS focal point,) David J. Kramer (ran Russian agents from DoS DRL and CIA's Freedom House), Kyle Parker (CIA mole on Senate staff) Todd Hyman, Schvartsman (CIA's DHS moles.) and Jim Rote, a garden-variety CIA spook rather than an agent, and CIA's transnational organized crime boss Robert Otto. ..."
"... Many millions of patriotic conservative, nationalist, and libertarian people working in "white-collar" jobs voted for Trump (as well as some more lefty white-collar folks who couldn't abide the DNC's rigging the primaries against Sanders and/or her obvious personal corruption, incessant warmongering, and loyalty to very rich folks in the finance/banking and entertainment fields). ..."
Jul 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous

Trump was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in 2015. He had no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of governance, a solid foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating skills of an 8th grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably not even a majority of Republican politicians.

The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level.

His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain his credibility before the public.

Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and peaceniks, in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal with the real world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.

Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media, expect the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another tomorrow. The situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to Hillary Clinton and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of ersatz "democracy." Her husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm pretty sure Trump had a higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy what you can't have like a petulant child.

(I'm a liberal Democrat.)

chris , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 12:09 pm GMT

If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to take anything he says seriously?!

I think this is tanken too seriously; the Russians definitely appreciate Trump's courage in taking a step toward them in an era of such hysteria. Trump is being beaten down by the propaganda arm of the deep state (the MSM) but his tenacity is paying off. Already poles are indicating that the majority of people are not taken in by the charade. As with the 2016 election, a sizable portion of the population just ain't buying it.

Anonymous [157] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 12:17 pm GMT
I dunno whether citing Nancy Pelosi on anything is relevant. Never had courage on anything during the Dubya Years, and now she's pretty gone, a political career robot with decaying functions.

You can practically see the cabling coming out of the spine, she's probably having herself dominated remotely via TeamViewer by MS-13 members, too.

animalogic , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 12:25 pm GMT
I agree with your comments. I wish to emphasize one point: Trump was NEVER given a chance. The establishment HATED him from his candidacy. That hatred has become more pathological by the day.
It's gone beyond "agreeing"/ "disagreeing" with Trump: this is a sickening assault on U.S democracy.
The Democratic Party IS guilty of treason. The US establishment – the deep state, if you like is -- criminally INSANE.
animalogic , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

I think there is an element of truth to your views. However, I can't get past the fact that the head of this Trump hating psychotics are native born white Americans. Yes, they pander to "minorities" but it's merely a means to their own piggish elite ends. Minorities are also "useful idiots" .

chris , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT

the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto allies

There's definitely something to this statement. I think the Russian people can definitely commensurate with the "deplorables" as they too have (and to some extent continue to) spend many decades under Jewish dominated Nomenklatura.

anastasia , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
Trump did not do anything different in this meeting with Putin than any other leader, who had in the past met with the Russian leader. It was not what was done; it was the reaction to what was presumed to have been done, and wasn't..

The entire Mueller investigation is being conducted, and will continue for all the years of the Trump Presidency, to be sure, to insure that Trump does not do what he promised to do during his campaign – cooperate with Putin and get out of the mid-east. It is very obvious that so far, Trump has shown to have completely reneged on his campaign promises in this regard (eg. putting military bases in Syria, evacuating ISIS commandos, bombing Syria, recognizing Jerusalem as the state capital, continuing the war in Afghanistan, arming to the teeth Saudi Arabia, etc. and some of the actions he has taken were based upon patent and obvious lies (eg. bombing Syria ..twice).

If one listens carefully to the concerns of Trump in the Putin meeting, it was predominantly the "security" of Israel vis a vis Iran. It was not the Untied States, but Israel that was his major concern, and if you listen even more carefully, anyone could have heard some key words, "Putin is a big fan of BeeBee", which means what? It means that these mid-eastern wars are never, never. never going to end.

All this noise coming from the right and left is only that .noise. Because really nothing under the sun has changed.

anon [317] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 12:56 pm GMT
@Anonymous

the lawfully elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn, delegitimizes the electoral process which brought him to power and, of course, it also excoriates the "deplorables" who dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.

Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the sake of their imperial designs, that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand that.

transition from ::to

But I think the ruling classes intensity is a result of copyright and patent laws and other devices too numerous to list here have been taken to privatize the public resources held in trust by the USA into the hands of Pharaoh and his right arm corporations. Essentially American public assets were entrusted to the USA, and its corporate elected leaders pieced the public assets up, and sold them to the highest bidder. Now the successful bidders are trying to get control or ownership over the remaining few assets that still held in the public [USA} trust, when that is finished America will be wasted and the USA will become a dictatorship.

Privatization is the first and foremost internal problem; unless it is fixed, nothing will change.

What do I mean by privatization? Whole segments of the national USA and global economy now belong to one or a few private enterprises: by contract, by rule of some law, or by ownership of assets that were taken, or that are controlled by contract, or agreement, the public domain was reduced and the private domain was increased. Substantial economic power and most political power h\b transferred into private hands.

Private corporations have become global, have acquired many public resources, and are now in control of whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world. This makes them as big as or bigger than the nations states that gave birth to them. America is just a small part of the private corporate wealth generating reach of the private domain. What corporations don't control is left to government. What's wrong with that?

Private corporations (PCs) conduct their affairs independent of national laws and politics, but the political systems and the people that depend on those political systems are highly dependent, not on government, but on these private corporations.

Privatization means a part of the public domain has been transferred to the private domain (mostly corporations). Water franchises, health care, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, military arms production, transportation (airlines and ships used to be public owned or highly controlled quasi-governmental entities), energy production and distribution, private armies, public research discoveries converted by rule of law and investment capital into private properties, global manufacturers of important and necessary software or hardware systems or components ; energy, water, gas production and distribution, and services such as garbage, jail management, education, and so on, are public services provided by private corporations.

Just as British Colonial Aristocrats and their massive corporations were doing in 1776, today's elites are busy transferring public government and American assets, resources, and governing powers to their private selves.

The USA has become a transfer mechanism and a transport company. Those in power are transferring massive arrays of public rights, duties, and resources to private corporate opulence. The elite (Pharaoh and his private corporation) have not been more secure, but Americans have reached the extended edge of insecurity. Leadership now consist of two masters: Public elected government 40% and privately owned corporations 60%.

Pieces of the public government were carved out and given to private corporate enterprises. Each transfer from public government to private corporate government; provides elites more power, and the government that represents the public less power.

The problems the Saker presents are all results of the private taking from public.

anonymous [128] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
If the media truly hated Trump as much as they say they did, they would never have put him front and center during the primary and given him all that publicity. They would have Ron Pauled him into public oblivion. They had complete control, but instead of ignoring him, they put him front of center.

And those polls? If they were rigged, the media knew they were rigged, and would have conducted one in secret. And why would Hillary have a schedule of campaign stops, half of which were lies. Why was she lying about her campaign schedule? His election was a surprise to no one, except those they wanted to fool – the public.

The "surprise" of his election was nothing more than part of the grand theatre we see being played now.

There was collusion all right during this election, but it certainly wasn't with the Russians.

Kiza , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
Every empire in history, after conquering its future colonies, ruled those colonies with a good degree of acceptance by the colonised population. Now the US claims that it is a global empire, the biggest one in history, but I know of no country which likes to be even man-handled let alone managed by US.

Therefore, I fail to understand where this claim to empire comes from. Yes, the behaviour appears empirial (for example requesting delivery of some "12 Russians" that some third-rate US horse-face pretend-policeman identified as perpetrators of a crime which never happened), but every Napoleon in my local asylum for the insane behaves empirially.

As to Pellosi and the gang who suck the dicks of Netanyahoo and MbS, the real mass murderers, like little bunny rabbits suck bottles of milk, their words on Putin are words of frustration due to the fact that Putin will never offer his member to be similarly sucked.

Let me summise it simply: what an amazing fuck up US is under its Jewish ownership.

HO-LY COWW , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
Here is the specific threat to CIA impunity behind the US propaganda hysterics. Russia is turning over the rocks where CIA hides its moles in the US government. Russia knows what the perps are up to, so US state secrets don't protect them as they do at home.

The CIA focal points that Fletcher Prouty told us about decades ago, they're still infesting the government, dug in deeper than ever. Russia proposes to question them. It's the American public's first look at the secret dotted-line reports CIA uses to control the US government.

From Meduza: "The list of names also includes Homeland Security Department official Todd Hyman (who testified in a deposition against Prevezon, a Russian company accused of laundering proceeds from the fraud uncovered by Sergey Magnitsky), Svetlana Engert (who supposedly stole criminal case materials from Russia), Alexander Shvartsman (who supposedly oversaw Browder's stay in the U.S.), Jim Rote (a supposed CIA agent acting as Browder's "financial manager"), Robert Otto (who supposedly served as deputy director of a U.S. intelligence agency until January 2017), David Kramer (who recently served as an adviser to the U.S. State Department), Jonathan Wiener (a long-time aide to John Kerry and an adviser on national security), and Kyle Parker (a recent U.S. State Department official), according to Kurennoi."

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/621432

The US agents Russia singled out for questioning: Browder, Steele, McFaul (CIA war propaganda against Russia,) Jonathan Wiener (Lockerbie fabricator and DoS focal point,) David J. Kramer (ran Russian agents from DoS DRL and CIA's Freedom House), Kyle Parker (CIA mole on Senate staff) Todd Hyman, Schvartsman (CIA's DHS moles.) and Jim Rote, a garden-variety CIA spook rather than an agent, and CIA's transnational organized crime boss Robert Otto.

Russia is showing us how CIA infiltrates and controls the entire US government.

anonymous [128] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT
Trump's accomplishments:

(1) continuing indefinitely the war in Afghanistan
(2) bombing Syria twice for reasons which he knew or should have known were false.
(3) putting a military base in Syria as an invader https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/u-s-forces-set-up-new-base-in-syria-s-manbij-despite-turkish-threats-1.6073192 something no President dared do in the past.
(4) appointing neo-con war mongers in all key cabinet positions
(5) telling police (on video for all the world to hear) to confiscate guns and "worry about due process later" (13 states have followed this advice) This statement tramples upon not only the second amendment, but the fifth and fourteenth as well
(6) saying absolutely nothing about Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, censuring all right wing groups, showing that he doesn't give a hoot about anyone's lst amendment rights, including his supporters.
(7) recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (at a cost of thousands injured and dead Palestinians during Israel's celebration)
(8) sanctioning Russia at least three times since he has been in office; with sanctions more severe than those imposed by Obama.
(9) having the US military evacuate ISIS commandos in Syria
(10) breaching the agreement with Iran at a time when the only party with continuing contract obligations was Iran who was abiding by the contract (he certainly was not going to get back the Obama money,w hich is the only thing he complained about during his campaign)
(11) fully funding planned parenthood (now trying to undo this Congressional action with an Executive Order which compounds the problem in his attempt to usurp the powers of Congress, violating Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution)
(12) not building the wall
(13) lying about his gross immorality (keep in mind that if the Senate impeached Clinton for committing fellatio in the Oval Office with a foolish young girl in her early twenties, Trump would never have dared to run for office with his background)
(14) lying about the economy (saying there was 4 percent unemployment when all the big retailers employing hundreds of thousands went out of business on the heels of his statement)
(15) proposing to reward millions of immigrants who have broken our laws

Yet, his supporters are still on the street with those silly hats reciting their mantra that he is making America great again.

What he is doing in fact is continuing unjustified wars (military Keynesian economics that will destroy the US) while simultaneously and quietly taking away our constitutional rights. Those are his biggest "accomplishments"

Z-man , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
An example has to be made of one or two Neocons/Deep State'rs .
RadicalCenter , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:55 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Sound analysis, WBC.

I'd just quibble that it's unlikely that the majority of Trump's voters were "blue collar", if that's what we mean by working class.

Many millions of patriotic conservative, nationalist, and libertarian people working in "white-collar" jobs voted for Trump (as well as some more lefty white-collar folks who couldn't abide the DNC's rigging the primaries against Sanders and/or her obvious personal corruption, incessant warmongering, and loyalty to very rich folks in the finance/banking and entertainment fields).

Unfortunately, if we're counting manufacturing and assembly jobs as "blue collar" or "working class", there just aren't enough of those jobs left in the USA for their holders to constitute a majority even of Trump voters. That was part of Trump's appeal, right, the endless loss of good-paying jobs actually making things of tangible usefulness and value?

animalogic , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@peterAUS

What "we" have is a corrupt US (global) elite. An elite, primed in the 80′s & let entirely off the leash in '91. Benevolent despots ? A concept with only the vaguest comprehension.

No – these US/ Globalist elites just KNEW history was on THEIR side. Take the brakes off, & spin the capitalist coin: heads – class war; tails imperialism. Win -win. (Can't remember his name – guy who runs Hathaway-something: "there is class war, & my class is winning". Damn few business men are as worshipped as this bloke) And yes, just look at the 90′s, the Yeltsin years, the Clinton years looked like it was all working out.

Well, contradictions will "out". And here we are. A ruling class descending into sociopathology. A public unable to fully comprehend the toxic brew bubbling just beneath the surface ( the 6 o'clock news, comfortable, day in day out, pay the damn bills, the kid's teeth need braces & the car a new exhaust).

I won't mention climate change – few here who believe, let alone give a fuck ? We are in diabolical trouble but fuck it – instinctively we all know it's a Panglossian universe .& the devil take the hindmost.

RadicalCenter , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 1:59 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Both the USA and Russia are much less "Christian" than you make out. But you're right, of course, that our enemies seem especially motivated to destroy any nation with a meaningful vestige of Western (Greco-Roman-Anglo-European) Civilization and/or Christian mores.

Miro23 , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

The Democratic Party Voting Bloc is now effectively-demographically majority post-1965 nonwhites+American Blacks .

True enough but they aren't necessarily against the "Deplorables". For example Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez who recently won a Democratic primary in New York (against heavy odds) describes herself as a "Democratic Socialist" for affordable single-payer national healthcare, tuition free education in high schools and universities ,with a downsized MIC & Deep State and realistic corporate taxation helping pay for it.

And on the Gaza border shooting of Palestinians she recently said, "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore." She opposes the Likudniks, AIPAC, Netanyahu and wants a two state solution.

Democratic Socialism and Elite Globalist Zionism seem to have a problem living together in the Democratic Party.

The strains are also visible in the UK where Jeremy Corbyn could also be described as a Democratic Socialist with much the same platform as Ocasio-Cortez and a good chance of becoming Prime Minister.

animalogic , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Erebus

Trump – good & evil. But his base need to take to the streets before he has a "problem in Dallas" or the dickless wonders in Congress finally get the gumption to impeach (hard as that's to believe of the Dem-castrartie party .)

Imperial myths , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
The US has been a very succesful country, an amazing empire . In barely a century and a half expanded enormously thanks to Northern European protestant immigration and to the occupation of Mexican territories .

In 1945 the USA was on top of the world , it was " the shining city of the hill " , the only city shining in the hill in fact , it had 50% of the world GDP . while the rest of the world was in ruins . The decadent Europeans had destroyed themselves in two world wars . . The Russians had suffered the horrors of the communist revolution and the two world wars . The Japanese although defeated had destroyed Asia , specially China which also endured a civil war and a communist revolution .

So , in 1945 the world was in ruins , and the USA was indeed the only "shining city on the hill " . The USA never suffered the world wars destruction on its own territory , had few casualties in the world wars , and had 50% of the world GDP. Besides the USA inherited economically and politically the British Empire that England, exhausted by the two world wars could not maintain .

In the 60`s the USA was still the " shining city on the hill ", Kennedy wanted to do some changes , I do not know which ones, and he was killed ( by the deep State ? ), the world was shocked .

In the 70`s Nixon finished the Vietnam war ( a colonial heritage of the French ) it was an American defeat, and the " shining city in the hill " impeached him ( the deep State does not accept defeat ) . Europe , the USSR , Japan , China , had recovered from the wars and wanted to have their shining little villages in the hills too.

Presently the USA has 20% of the GDP , that`s a lot , the USA is a very powerful country , probably the most powerful country of the world , but 20% is not 50% . Probably Kennedy and Nixon realized that this day would come , and Trump sees that this day is arrived . Probably the american deep State would like to freeze time in 1945 , as well as the french deep State would like it to freeze history in 1805 in Austerlitz with Napoleon , or the Spanish deep State would like to freeze history in 1492 when Spain completely expelled the moors from Spain after seven centuries of fighting and discovered America , with the Catholic Kings .

The deep States are always sick of imperial nostalgia , they are the war party , they would like to make war to anyone to threatens its 1945 imperial glorious moment . And the Kennedys , Nixons and Trumps of this world are the party of peace, they want to adapt to a changing reality less glorious than the magic orgasmic moments that all empires have had , but more constructive, more adapted to an ever changing world .

All the Empires that the earth has seen have passed though this dilemma : party of war vs party of peace . At the end the parties of peace end up prevailing, but the parties of war can make a lot of damage both to their own country and to others .

jilles dykstra , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 2:22 pm GMT
@Cyrano

I still think the best explanation of Merkel's immigration policy is her belief that indeed the Germans are guilty of two world wars and the holocaust. Therefore 'ein neuer Mensch', a new German, must be created through mass immigration, as a German commentator explains. His book should be ready by now. His prediction is that just the E European countries, Hungary, Poland, etc., will remain European. Writing this, one may expect that they will turn politically to Russia, also a catholic white country.

jilles dykstra , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
@Imperial myths

" The decadent europeans had destroyed themselves in two world wars . . "

The USA destroyed Europe in two world wars. Do not remember if it was here that I read what Mark Twain said or wrote 'it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled'.
About WWI:
Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)
FDR's preparations for WWII:
Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities', New Haven, 1946
Charles A. Beard, 'President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities', New Haven, 1948

animalogic , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT
@Been_there_done_that

"Russian leaders provoked popular sentiment in numerous countries to join NATO, no doubt abetted by their unfavorable experiences under Russian occupation"

You mean USSR occupation, of course. Perhaps Russia might discuss any number of issues when the US removes it's illegal forces in Syria, stops supporting the crypto--Nazi coup government in Ukraine, withdraws it's missiles from Poland etc (oh, we'll protect you from non existent Iranian nuclear weapons) & pulls back it's conventional forces, stops proving up invasions like the Georgian invasion of Sth Iapetus, stops interfering in what remains of the democratic processes of the former USSR states, stops supporting terrorists across the ME, stops interfering in the energy business of its allies in the EU, stops it's lies & threats against Russian allies such as Iran & stops iys criminal sanctions on Russia .Well, that scratches the surface, anyway .

Anon [235] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT

3.The US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money, destroying countries and alienating the rest of the planet.

Alienating the rest of the planet: Wasting immense sums of money: The U.S. War Industry Raked in $5+ Billion Worth of Foreign Military Sales in June 2018

July 27, 2018 / Christian Sorensen /

"The U.S. war industry raked in $5,408,112,575 worth of foreign military sales (FMS) during June 2018. Notable items included $1.12 billion worth of Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft for Bahrain and "

iseeit , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous

An uncommonly excellent analysis. High quality comment threads and sites that allow for reactions/debate/introduction of public discourse are my gold standard. Unz is exceptional and much appreciated. Just because it's unlikely that I might post here often

I would like to suggest Dr. Judith Curry's blog to anyone like me who enjoys going deeper into subjects than most 'normal' people would ever find time for. It's a climate blog. It's brilliant. Curry is a genuinely exceptional human and scientist. The comment threads are pure mind candy..

Comanche , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT
@Been_there_done_that

are u ok ? Russia occupying her province of Kaliningrad ? maybe your country is occupying illegally California , Arizona , Nevada , Colorado , Utah , New Mexico , Oklahoma and Texas ? Get your nato out of Europe , Europe is fed un with your 80.000 yankee occupation troops .

Even baltics are missing Russians, Baltics` population is going down since they left CCCP , they are fed up with American warmongers , they do not want to be cannon fodder for the well paid eccentric American militarists .

TomSchmidt , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:20 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Trump won 20% of the Black male electorate. If he can increase that percentage, then the Democratic coalition becomes black females, post-1965 immigrants, and white New Class managerial types. He might get blacks to side with him over immigration, which has cut out the support for lower-skilled wages across the board.

linguistic smiles , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
It is very funny for the French speaking the American word neocon , for neo conservative. In French con means idiot , dumb , stupid , silly

so, neocon neoidiot , hehehhehehehehhehe

El Dato , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

The USA destroyed Europe in two world wars.

That's kinda over the top. Continental suicide was on the books for the Great Continental War (I don't know how it comes it is called "World War") as general desire of revanchism, political nastiness, prussian militarism, yougoslav apsirations, decaying empires and the British desire for a continental balance of power met head-on with war tool mechanization. The US came online rather late.

As for "Word War II", it was mainly about two socialist systems facing off, and Japan irking the US with a bout of late-onset colonialism. Also everyone going crazy with operations research and even more mechanization. So it should be called "Socialist War I with Colonialism on the side.".

El Dato , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:40 pm GMT
@Anon

Something out of a Kubrick Movie or out of Borat. Release the Nouveau Cheque!

TomSchmidt , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

They should have destroyed Germany after WWI, or come to a just Peace. They did neither, slightly weakening it and strongly pissing it off.

After the Soviets went out of business, the US neither welcomed it to the brotherhood of nations, nor destroyed it so it could not be a threat. Letting the looters loose upon it sure did piss a lot of people off though. Your point is well taken.

karakulaitis , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Been_there_done_that

You logorrheic schmuck , do you know the evolution of population in the baltic countries after they left the Soviet Union in 1990 ?

1990 : Estonia 1,600.000 2017 : Estonia 1,200.00

1990 : Letonia 2,700.000 2017 : Letonia 1,900.000

1990 : Lituania 3,700.000 2017 : Lituania 2,800.000

Looks like they are being exterminated by the new NATO/EU regime , don`t you think so ?

It is a new version of the plan Ost ?

Colin Wright , Website Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 4:18 pm GMT
Two reactions.

First reaction. All I can think of whenever I read another allegation of Russia influence, control of Trump or anyone else, or of Putin coming to Washington is Israel. Over and over: these people simply keep ignoring the elephant in the room. I don't care about the Pekinese: there's an elephant right there! Look at it! Yes, a Russian businessman once gave a Trump advisor (since dismissed) fifty thousand dollars. Israel partisans were the leading contributors to both candidates; Sheldon Adelson alone gave Donald Trump thirty five million dollars. Shall we talk about what we're doing as a consequence; how we're remorselessly driving Iran to the point where there will be no choice but war -- and at whose behest we're doing this?

No let's fret and fantasize about 'Russian influence.' Never mind that the body bags won't be coming back from Latvia, but from Iran.

Second reaction: this one's more optimistic. Yes, the attacks are increasingly hysterical; but they're also coming from an increasingly narrow base. More and more, people on both the right and the left just don't buy them anymore: see, for example, the denunciation of all this nonsense at the impeccably 'progressive' Mondoweiss.

I perceive the remaining anti-Trump partisans as still possessing a grip on the traditional media outlets. However, more and more, they simply speak for no one but themselves. In fact, this may account for the note of hysterical exaggeration; underneath it all is the sneaking suspicion that no one believes them, or is even listening. After all, look at Trump's poll numbers. The media keeps announcing that 'now he's blown it' -- and his numbers keep inching up. I like tracking a rolling average of the last ten polls. When I started the figure was around 38. Now it's moving past 43. Neither 'babygate' nor 'Russiagate' perceptibly affected this at all.

So to sum up, 'Russiagate' isn't the problem, and it's questionable if many actual Americans even think it is. This remains true whatever the ravings coming out of The Washington Post, or The New Yorker , or USA Today . All the evidence is that these organs speak for fewer and fewer people, and fewer and fewer are even listening.

Colin Wright , Website Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 4:32 pm GMT
Basically, I think most Americans don't even care about all this nonsense.

They know that if Trump is awful, the alternatives were even worse, and they know that the economy's doing well. No one's saying 'if only Hillary coulda won '

jilles dykstra , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
@El Dato

The USA came into WWI from the very beginning. Without buying USA food and weapons on credit GB and France could not have fought at all. Moreover, the USA was not neutral, the USA allowed the British blockade of Germany. As to continental suicide, there was no such thing.
GB wanted war.

WWII, how many times must be repeated what Lindbergh already said before Pearl Harbour, that 'jewry and GB wanted war'. FDR was brought into politics by Bernard Baruch, who already in 1928 prevented his friend Churchill from going into business, because 'he saw great things for Churchill in the future'. These great things came, Churchill waged an unnecessary war, and destroyed the empire.

ploni almoni , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

This is the best the CIA can do?

chris , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Anon

maybe they're singing: "We Arm the World"

Been_there_done_that , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@karakulaitis

Quote:
" do you know the evolution of population in the baltic countries after they left the Soviet Union in 1990 ?"

Yes, the decreases in population can easily be explained primarily by Russians, who used to live there, having moved back to Russia. Additionally, there might have been small population flows of Lithuanias to Poland, Latvians to Sweden, and Estonians to Finland, given the close relationships. Nothing nefarious.

anon [317] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT
@HO-LY COWW

interesting that Russia has been called to defend itself in England. There its Novichok the instant death substance arguably produced in London by USA controlled labs or taken from the old USSR when it fell apart.

Putin vs British government case: Putin charged with poisoning an ex Russian spy and his daughter, unfortunately for the media and the British corporate Zionist both Russians survived, Russia has called the British liars to the carpet.. Russia demands an investigation but the Banksters and their corporations refuse to allow the British Government to open its "so-called" investigation to Russian questioning.

Keep your eyes focused on Nord II. the one road one belt, Turkey moving in support of Syria and Yemen against Saudi Arabia, BRICS and concern yourself with the fact that Russia not only does not own any USA debt, but Russia also has a non federal reserve approved monetary exchange operation, SCO is growing in strength, China Gold backed bonds are available for anyone to buy and convert the face value of the bond to gold. These are game changers.

Stay tuned for more privately owned advertising supported corporate media productions showing on "FREE THEATER". M 16, (criminal instigating Association) CIA and Mossad employees are busy writing new propaganda, budget is not a problem, the Russian's will be made to pay for the articles, movies etc. so everything is free. Enjoy!

HO-LY COWW , Next New Comment July 29, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
@anon

Yes indeed, first Britain, and now Russia has pantsed the US too. In a virtuosic dick move, they exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war propaganda ( http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=1454 ) but in CIA crimes against humanity – specifically, 'legal pretexts for manifestly illegal acts."

David Kramer, Tufts/Harvard Political Science/Russian studies, **PNAC** , DoS focal point, then CIA's famous captive NGO **Freedom House** , and a featherbed job at the McCain Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and Abandoning Thousands of MIAs in Vietnam to Die Slow Agonizing Deaths in Penal Camps.

Here he is talking to his co-conspirator Robert Otto, "Only idiots like Kerry think we have common interests in Syria."

https://freeworld556.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/us-state-department-official-robert-otto-got-hacked/

Needless to say, Kramer wouldn't know a human right from a bar of soap. He's a knuckledragger. CIA sent Kramer to DRL when Alfreda Bikowsky got her tit caught in the crimes-against-humanity wringer for systematic and widespread torture. The US was five years late reporting to the Committee Against Torture and got a mind-boggling eight (8) follow-on inquiries for urgent derogations of non-derogable rights. So Kramer had to think fast and make up some bullshit why simulated live burial, object rape, death by dryboard suffocation, and penis-slitting is not torture. Kramer is not the brightest bulb, but that's not a hard job. During the Bush administration all the delegation did was say, "The US does not Torture," robotically over and over.

So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the hook.

peterAUS , July 29, 2018 at 7:02 pm GMT
@animalogic

.A public unable to fully comprehend .

Really? Why? What's to hard to fully comprehend? This ain't quantum physics. Not enough time in busy lives to spend some effort on the topic?
Yeah .But enough time for shopping, social media, online entertainment and such. Etc.

No. Yes, the elites are corrupted. But, the masses are corrupted too. THAT is the problem here.

Or, Trump support base is corrupted too. Not as bad/evil/malicious. As weak. W ..e a k. And weak always get ruled by strong.

What did/do they think? That the same people who can slaughter hundreds of thousands Iraqis without missing their lunch are just going to give up their power like that? That the half an hour of voting "effort" will change that game of power?

What are they doing now? How can one expect to challenge that power by sitting at home and waiting for one man to go against all that? Bullshit.

I've been told that "Trump base" doesn't do mass demonstrations. I still don't get why not? What's so hard to do, WHENEVER Dems/progs pull their numbers on the street, the "Trump base" does the same? That's reactive. Go active. Whenever Trump pulls some of his moves which flips the Dems/progs his support base floods the streets From the little town in Midwest to New York.

What's so hard about that? The same people have no problem going out .watching games being outdoors..whatever. Oh, yes, it could get what .dangerous? Really? What? Fistfights? Shooting? What happened to that "brave" in the "land of ."?

Don't get this post wrong. Not directed at you. It's directed at lazy and weak people who are out of their depth. Wouldn't be a problem save what's going to happen when Dems/progs get their person in White House.

Then, all of us, will have fun times I am sure.

[Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Lee Camp via TruthDig.com,

Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?

No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency . Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than he could ever spend on himself.

Worldwide, one in 10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has? 193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our current world or even just our nation.

So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire. No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to continue on like this.

Why?

Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.

I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because (A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have other shit to do.

Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.

If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been transformed into an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.

Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.

Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines, voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!

What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?

No, we have what a large Harvard study called the worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"

And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen through our ridiculous rigged system.

Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.

Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat.

Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.

The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."

If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to The New York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence."

That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)

Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .

That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still legal in 32 states .)

The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .

We lock up more people than any other country on earth . Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.

Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.

This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).

If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies off and you'll feel alive !

The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel. And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.

Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.

According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.

Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon a time, jobs boiled down to:

I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.

But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.

If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that truly must get done.

So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.

Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."

One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.

And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.

Myth No. 1 -- You are free.

... ... ...

Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.

Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.

Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."

Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.

Try running for president as a third-party candidate. (Jill Stein was shackled and chained to a chair by police during one of the debates.)

Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.

We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more billionaires than ever .

Meanwhile, Americans supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)

Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.

It's time to wake up.

bobcatz -> powow Fri, 07/27/2018 - 16:43 Permalink

Myth #9: America is not an Israeli colony

DingleBarryObummer -> bobcatz Fri, 07/27/2018 - 16:49 Permalink

#10: Muh 6 Gorillion

#11: Building 7

bfellow -> DingleBarryObummer Fri, 07/27/2018 - 16:55 Permalink

815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.

$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.

Author lost me right there.

Oldguy05 -> Oldguy05 Fri, 07/27/2018 - 22:25 Permalink

" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "

Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars. Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.

BennyBoy -> Nunny Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:51 Permalink

"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."

Oldguy05 -> Nunny Fri, 07/27/2018 - 22:43 Permalink

Eisenhower's speeches were awesome and true. But he was right there doing the same shit. Was he feeling guilty in the end?

Proofreder -> vato poco Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:39 Permalink

Freedom - just another word for nothing left to lose ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7hk-hI0JKw&list=RDEMoIkwgyb6gDyuA-bFyR

east of eden -> vato poco Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:55 Permalink

Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and personal interests.

Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down, into a shit hole.

But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.

TheEndIsNear -> HopefulCynical Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:33 Permalink

As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.

[Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Lee Camp via TruthDig.com,

Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?

No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans can't afford a $500 emergency . Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than he could ever spend on himself.

Worldwide, one in 10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has? 193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our current world or even just our nation.

So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire. No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to continue on like this.

Why?

Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.

I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because (A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have other shit to do.

Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.

If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been transformed into an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.

Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.

Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines, voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!

What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?

No, we have what a large Harvard study called the worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"

And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen through our ridiculous rigged system.

Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.

Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat.

Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.

The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."

If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to The New York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence."

That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)

Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .

That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still legal in 32 states .)

The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .

We lock up more people than any other country on earth . Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.

Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.

This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).

If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies off and you'll feel alive !

The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel. And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.

Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.

According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.

Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon a time, jobs boiled down to:

I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.

But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.

If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that truly must get done.

So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.

Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."

One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.

And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.

Myth No. 1 -- You are free.

... ... ...

Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.

Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.

Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."

Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.

Try running for president as a third-party candidate. (Jill Stein was shackled and chained to a chair by police during one of the debates.)

Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.

We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more billionaires than ever .

Meanwhile, Americans supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)

Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.

It's time to wake up.

bobcatz -> powow Fri, 07/27/2018 - 16:43 Permalink

Myth #9: America is not an Israeli colony

DingleBarryObummer -> bobcatz Fri, 07/27/2018 - 16:49 Permalink

#10: Muh 6 Gorillion

#11: Building 7

bfellow -> DingleBarryObummer Fri, 07/27/2018 - 16:55 Permalink

815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.

$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.

Author lost me right there.

Oldguy05 -> Oldguy05 Fri, 07/27/2018 - 22:25 Permalink

" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "

Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars. Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.

BennyBoy -> Nunny Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:51 Permalink

"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."

Oldguy05 -> Nunny Fri, 07/27/2018 - 22:43 Permalink

Eisenhower's speeches were awesome and true. But he was right there doing the same shit. Was he feeling guilty in the end?

Proofreder -> vato poco Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:39 Permalink

Freedom - just another word for nothing left to lose ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7hk-hI0JKw&list=RDEMoIkwgyb6gDyuA-bFyR

east of eden -> vato poco Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:55 Permalink

Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and personal interests.

Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down, into a shit hole.

But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.

TheEndIsNear -> HopefulCynical Fri, 07/27/2018 - 18:33 Permalink

As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.

[Jul 28, 2018] Alex Krainer's book. It is a devastating critique of Browder,

Jul 28, 2018 | thesaker.is

Harley Schlanger on October 05, 2017 , · at 4:00 pm EST/EDT

I have read Alex Krainer's book. It is a devastating critique of Browder, which exposes him as the corrupt thug he is. Browder is no more interested in "democratizing" Russia than the U.S. Deep State is in protecting the integrity of the U.S. election process! That Browder was the "star witness" for the Congress before it overwhelmingly passed the latest sanctions bill against Russia shows why it is important that he be exposed.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know something about the networks and individuals acting to prevent a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia.

[Jul 28, 2018] How my book unmasking Bill Browder was censored by Amazon by Alex Krainer

Notable quotes:
"... [ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please click here ] ..."
"... "I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is." ― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion" ..."
"... Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at evening. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager based in Monaco. His book, "The Killing of William Browder" may still be available in paperback at Book Depository , Barnes&Noble (USA), Amazon.fr , Amazon.co.uk , or ..."
Oct 05, 2017 | thesaker.is
[ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please click here ]

"I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is." ― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion"

In January 2015 I received a book titled "Red Notice" written by Bill Browder, once a hedge fund manager running Hermitage Capital the largest foreign-owned hedge fund in Russia. In the past, my path had crossed with Browder's on two occasions. In 2005, I was invited to his presentation, only days before he was expelled from Russia. On that occasion Browder surprised me because he was the first credible person I ever heard speaking positively about Vladimir Putin. The next time I met Browder was in 2010 during an investment conference in Monaco. This time he was very anti-Putin. When I received his book, it was recommended to me as an excellent read.

Through his book, Browder presents himself in glowing colors. By contrast, he portrays Russia as a sinister, backward tyranny and President Putin as the greediest, most ruthless tyrant since Genghis Khan. The book's main plot shapes up as an appealing story about the struggle of good against evil, about a lone maverick (Browder himself), taking on a powerful network of dangerous criminals and corrupt government officials in selfless pursuit of justice. It would be a beautiful story – if only it were true.

I was familiar with Parts of Browder's story, so his tale seemed fishy to me. A few days after reading it I had to re-read it from the beginning. Sure enough, I discovered quite a number of things that didn't add up which prompted me to do some research of my own. Much about it bothered me enough that I ended up writing a whole book which I titled "The Killing of William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." In August of this year I finally finished it and self-published it on Amazon.com.

My book's main object is to unmask Browder's brazen and dangerous deception. Beyond this, I've also sought to put his story into proper context by including a rather detailed account of the relevant events that led to the collapse of the USSR, Russia's subsequent transition from Communism to Capitalism and what 17 years of Vladimir Putin's leadership have changed . I've also included a section discussing the person and character of Vladimir Putin (since Browder relentlessly demonizes him). The book's last chapter discusses the history of the relations between the U.S. and Russia from the beginnings of the 19 th century, including the U.S. Civil War when Russia came to Abraham Lincoln's aid and played the key role in preserving the Union and what the future relations between the U.S. and Russia might, or should be.

As it turned out, my book was surprisingly well received by its readers and during the first few weeks it received very encouraging reader reviews (seven five-star and one four-star review). Unfortunately, by mid-September "The Killing of William Browder" came up on Browder team's radar and my problems began. It seems that in the free world, the freedom of expression comes with some restrictions. Exposing Bill Browder is one of them.

On 13 th September, University of Tulsa professor Jeremy Kuzmarov cited some of the materials from my book in his own Hffington Post article about Bill Browder, titled "Raising the Curtain on the Browder-Magnitsky Story." I was flattered by that article, but Huffington Post scrubbed it from their website within hours. A week later, Amazon's publishing company, CreateSpace "suppressed" my book, purging it from Amazon.com website and from its Kindle store.

CreateSpace explained that a third party claimed that my book "may contain defamatory content," and that to resolve the issues I needed to contact Mr. Jonathan M. Winer, Mr. Browder's legal counsel. Mr. Winer's word was all that was necessary for Amazon to oblige and remove my book from its bookstore. My protest and subsequent communications with CreateSpace had no effect and my only venue was to "work" with Browder's lawyers to "resolve the issues." In other words, I was put in the situation to have Browder censor my book and decide on whether it could be published or not. At first I rejected idea and refused to contact Mr. Winer offering instead my book for free to whoever requested a copy. But subsequently I decided to write to Mr. Winer anyway to find out what, if anything went wrong. So far, I have received no response.

This is not the first time Bill Browder – and whoever is backing him – has effectively censored what the Western public may or may not know about his story. In 2016, Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov made the documentary film, "The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes."

Over the years, Nekrasov had built a reputation for producing documentaries that were critical of the Russian government, and with the Magnitsky affair, he initially followed Browder's narrative of the events and even envisioned Browder as the film's narrator. But his research into the subject turned up a number of problems with Browder's story. Nekrasov reached out to him for an explanation, but was unable to get in touch with Browder for several months. Nekrasov finally tracked down Browder at a book signing event where he tried and failed to get clarifications from him. Ultimately however, Nekrasov managed to meet with Browder and with the cameras rolling, he began to lay out his findings. As he did so, Browder became visibly vexed until at one moment he abruptly interrupted Nekrasov with an accusation that he was spreading Russian propaganda.

When Nekrasov's film was completed, Browder took aggressive action to block its screenings. With threats of lawsuits, he prevented an already scheduled screening to a group of Members of the European Parliament in Brussels. He did the same with another screening in Norway, and even managed to pressure the Franco-German television network "Arte" to call off the showing of Nekrasov's film on its channel. In June 2016, Browder tried to force The Newseum in Washington DC to cancel the screening of Nekrasov's film. Thankfully, The Newseum, whose laudable mission is to promote freedom of expression and "the five freedoms of the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution," refused to be cowed by Browder's intimidation and showed the film to a Washington audience.

No, unfortunately this did not happen. Freedom of expression – which should be sacrosanct – is dangerously compromised in the west.

Open, civilized societies seek resolution of contentious issues by allowing proponents of different sides in any dispute to present their respective points of view. An informed, open debate is by far the best mechanism of conflict resolution because we can only arrive at constructive solutions to problems by taking different stakeholders' points of view into consideration. Browder's approach is contrary to that of civilized societies: he seeks to silence all points of view but his own. He seeks to persuade not by initiating an informed debate, but by suppressing all debate. This is not the conduct of a truth teller pursuing elevated objectives like human rights, justice, and truth. Truth does not need such forceful defense. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, " Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at evening. " Browder is clearly anxious that his story cannot take any kicking at all. Meanwhile in the western world, we appear to be at the mercy of lawyered-up elites for what we are allowed to know and what we are not.

In the end, I have no doubt that truth will prevail and that Bill Browder will lose his battle to keep his deception going. It is because there's something sacrosanct about truth and most people will reject a lie once they are aware of it.

Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager based in Monaco. His book, "The Killing of William Browder" may still be available in paperback at Book Depository , Barnes&Noble (USA), Amazon.fr , Amazon.co.uk , or Amazon.de ­

bengo on October 05, 2017 , · at 11:20 am EST/EDT

Does anybody know how to get access to the movie?

This shocking tale of alleged Russian official corruption and brutality drove legislation that was a major landmark in the descent of U.S.-Russian relations under President Barack Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.

.But what the film shows is how Nekrasov, as he detected loose ends to the official story, begins to unravel Browder's fabrication which was designed to conceal his own corporate responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted story collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the fraud who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his medical condition.

The cinematic qualities of the film are evident. Nekrasov is highly experienced as a maker of documentaries enjoying a Europe-wide reputation. What sets this work apart from the "trade" is the honesty and the integrity of the filmmaker as he discovers midway into his project that key assumptions of his script are faulty and begins an independent investigation to get at the truth .

RC on October 05, 2017 , · at 11:49 pm EST/EDT
The reason nekrasov has a following among European liberal snowflakes is that his documentaries have had a sarcastic jaded and negative tinge with respect to Russia (even BBC News has aired his documentaries as recently as 2016). He is rather pessimistic regarding Russia. That's what makes this revelation that even he (Nekrasov, a darling of the debauch liberals of the west, and Putin critic) found browder to not be credible. Coming from Nekrasov, that allegation and documentary would really destroy the battering ram (and useful fraud) that browder had provided the Western establishment.

Nekrasov is now getting a painful reality check as to how sophisticated the West's totalitarian nature is: they are not crude like the Chinese who will arrest small time nobodies for being too honest or critical, the West focusses it's blunt oppression for high value targets; just as outlined in 1984, the higher up you are and the greater your reach, the greater the scrutiny and the more blunt the instrument used to keep you in line. One must admit that the Anglo empire and their hypocrit vassals/covert-competitors in the EU, have refined this to an art and are far more efficient at it than their poor understudies in CCP China, or the Soviet Union.

Krainer is right though, the truth is going to prevail and eventually browder will be exposed (especially when the deep state decides he's too much of an annoying liability – as times progresses or as the deep state finds browder's agenda and his supporters getting in the way of the state's own agenda).

There is one thing that no one has clarified: Why was magnitsky allowed to die, why was he denied medical treatment, who was responsible for that? What are the facts around magnitsky's death?

Alex Krainer on October 06, 2017 , · at 4:40 am EST/EDT
Hi RC – a few great point. In Nekrasov's defence, I think I can understand him. I'm Croatian and if we started discussing Croatia, you'd find me very critical. My inclination would be to expose negative developments – not because I'm anti-Croatian but becauseI would want to draw public attention to problems that need to be addressed. To his credit, when he realized truth was different from what he initially believed, he made a turn to pursue truth when he could have made the film that would have been far better for his career.

I agree with you that Browder will probably end up thrown under the bus. That's what I'm afraid of (and the #1 reason for my book's title). But they will try to first make Browder a household name (crusader for human rights and justice, bla, bla..) with their Hollywood movie. Then they'll try to make it look like Putin had him killed.

As to why Magnistky died – that's a mystery. It was definitely a massive cock-up on the part of Russian law enforcement, but there's also the angle that his death was VERY convenient for Browder and his goodfellas.

Mulga Mumblebrain on October 06, 2017 , · at 5:44 am EST/EDT
Magnitsky died of his alcoholism, as alcoholics do.
Johan Vermeulen on December 25, 2017 , · at 5:10 am EST/EDT
I think that Magnitsky was such a pain in the ass ( he made 450 complaints about the prison-conditions during 358 days in prison, most ofwhich nobody could solve without a much larger budget) that doctors and staff prefered to not hear or to look the other way when Magnitsky came into a psychosis. He got into this psychosis after a court case from where he returned very disappointed. Future looked a lot worse than he had expected.

During the psychosis his heart stopped.

­
anonymoose on October 05, 2017 , · at 3:16 pm EST/EDT
"The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" can be seen online @:

https://my.mail.ru/bk/n-osetrova/video/71/18682.html?time=155&from=videoplayer

Anonymoose

­
Anonymous on October 06, 2017 , · at 7:11 pm EST/EDT
Parry's article mentions that he viewed the film on Vimeo, using a password provided by Piraya Film, the Norwegian production company.

This is a fairly standard way that independent producers shop their films around, looking for a distribution deal. I.e., a journalist or distributor contacts them, and they are given a Vimeo link and password for a private, limited-time viewing of the film. Journalists get this access because their writing helps to promote the film. The simplest distribution deal would then be through a subscription-based streaming platform. DVDs are more complicated and usually happen later.

However, in this case, the film is a co-production with four other companies, including ZDF and ARTE, which are large European networks, and all of whom have been threatened with litigation, presumably by Browder's lawyers.

In effect, then, the film in its original version has been censored. It is not available, unless or until somebody pirates it. There are several scammy-looking streaming sites that claim to have it, but they want your credit card number and they might just have the same Russian-dubbed version that you can watch for free via the link posted above.

I suspect the version of the film with the Russian voice-over was not done by Piraya Film, as the production of the sound doesn't seem very high compared to the quality of the original. This might have been done with authorization of Piraya, but if not, it means somebody has a illegitimate copy of the film to which they added the Russian voice-over. This means, they could also post the film in its original form. If they really want to increase awareness in the West of how the new Cold War is playing out, such a move could help.

Given the legal threats and the fact that few small distribution companies have the resources to fight legal battles, this might be a situation in which we are waiting for somebody to pirate the film, somebody who has access to the original, and to distribute it via a torrent.

Anonymous on October 08, 2017 , · at 2:24 pm EST/EDT
I wonder whether Nekrasov himself knows of the level of interest (at least in some quarters) in seeing the film, and could find a way to make one available somehow. . .

Katherine

Alex on October 09, 2017 , · at 3:08 pm EST/EDT
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.

When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation then it all seems logical.

[Jul 28, 2018] Vladimir The Terrible - US Deep State Desperately Needs A Russian Villain To Cover Its Tracks Zero Hedge

Jul 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/27/2018 - 21:05 24 SHARES Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Conventional wisdom would have us believe that Russia became America's sworn enemy in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. As is often the case, however, conventional wisdom can be illusory.

In the momentous 2016 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, a faraway dark kingdom known as Russia, the fantastic fable goes, hijacked that part of the American brain responsible for critical thinking and lever pulling with a few thousand dollars' worth of Facebook and Twitter adverts, bots and whatnot. The result of that gross intrusion into the squeaky clean machinery of the God-blessed US election system is now more or less well-documented history brought to you by the US mainstream media: Donald Trump, with some assistance from the Russians that has never been adequately explained, pulled the presidential contest out from under the wobbly feet of Hillary Clinton.

For those who unwittingly bought that work of fiction, I can only offer my sincere condolences. In fact, Russiagate is just the latest installment of an anti-Russia story that has been ongoing since the presidency of George W. Bush.

Act 1: Smokescreen

Rewind to September 24th, 2001. Having gone on record as the first global leader to telephone George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Putin showed his support went beyond mere words. He announced a five-point plan to support America in the 'war against terror' that included the sharing of intelligence, as well as the opening of Russian airspace for US humanitarian flights to Central Asia.

In the words of perennial Kremlin critic, Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, Putin's "acquiescence to NATO troops in Central Asia signaled a reversal of two hundred years of Russian foreign policy. Under Yeltsin, the communists, and the tsars, Russia had always considered Central Asia as its 'sphere of influence.' Putin broke with that tradition."

In other words, the new Russian leader was demonstrating his desire for Russia to have, as Henry Kissinger explained it some seven years later, "a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice."

This leads us to the question for the ages: If it was obvious that Russia was now fully prepared to enter into a serious partnership with the United States in the 'war on terror,' then how do we explain George W. Bush announcing the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty just three months later?

There are some things we may take away from that move, which Putin tersely and rightly described as a "mistake."

First , Washington must not have considered a security partnership with Moscow very important, since they certainly understood that Russia would respond negatively to the decision to scrap the 30-year-old ABM Treaty.

Second , the US must not considered the 'war on terror' very serious either; otherwise it would not have risked losing Russian assistance in hunting down the baddies in Central Asia and the Middle East, geographical areas where Russia has gained valuable experience over the years. This was a remarkably odd choice considering that the US military apparatus had failed spectacularly to defend the nation against a terrorist attack, coordinated by 19 amateurs, armed with box cutters, no less.

Third , as was the case with the decision to invade Iraq, a country with nodiscernible connection to the events of 9/11, as well as the imposition of the pre-drafted Patriot Act on a shell-shocked nation, the decision to break with Russia seems to have been a premeditated move on the global chessboard. Although it would be hard to prove such a claim, we can take some guidance from Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff, who notoriously advised, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pb-YuhFWCr4

So why did Bush abrogate the ABM Treaty with Russia? The argument was that some "rogue state," rumored to be Iran, might be tempted to launch a missile attack against "US interests abroad." Yet there was absolutely no logic to the claim since Tehran was inextricably bound by the same principle of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) as were any other states that tempted fate with a surprise attack on US-Israeli interests. Further, it made no sense to focus attention on Shia-dominant Iran when the majority of the terrorists, allegedly acolytes of Osama bin Laden, reportedly hailed from Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia. In other words, the Bush administration happily sacrificed an invincible relationship with Russia in the war on terror in order to guard against some external threat that only nominally existed, with a missile defense system that was largely unproven in the field. Again, zero logic.

However, when it is considered that the missile defense system was tailor-made by America specifically with Russia in mind, the whole scheme begins to make more sense, at least from a strategic perspective. Thus, the Bush administration used the attacks of 9/11 to not only dramatically curtail the civil rights of American citizens with the passage of the Patriot Act, it also took the first steps towards encircling Russia with a so-called 'defense system' that has the capacity to grow in effectiveness and range.

For those who thought Russia would just sit back and let itself be encircled by foreign missiles, they were in for quite a surprise. In March 2018, Putin stunned the world, and certainly Washington's hawks, by announcing in the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems – including those with hypersonic capabilities - designed to overcome any missile defense system in the world.

These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an aggressive nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral pact with the United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.

Now, US officials can only wring their hands in angst while speaking about an "aggressive Russia."

"Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only existential threat to the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective," declared Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM.

Putin reiterated in his Address, however, that there would have been no need for Russia to have developed such advanced weapon systems if its legitimate concerns had not been dismissed by the US.

"Nobody wanted to talk with us on the core of the problem," he said. "Nobody listened to us. Now you listen!"

To be continued: Part II: Reset, or 'Overcharged' Vote up! 9 Vote down! 0

Buckaroo Banzai -> powow Fri, 07/27/2018 - 21:11 Permalink

Everybody needs to get up to speed on international Jew criminal Bill Browder. He's at the center of the Deep State, and royally fucked up when he tried to rip off Putin for $400 million.

https://dxczjjuegupb.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TheKilli

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgK7MlZDuJ8

chunga -> Buckaroo Banzai Fri, 07/27/2018 - 21:27 Permalink

And the maverick didn't want to hear it.

Skip -> Buckaroo Banzai Fri, 07/27/2018 - 21:44 Permalink

Good stuff and may I add some more...

TrumpHate rises to new heights. Will it work?
July 17, 2018 by Kevin MacDonald

I should also mention Putin's treatment of certain Jewish oligarchs who have attempted to influence Western policies toward Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning moment in the Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying that Bill Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5 billion in Russia ("the way the money was earned was illegal") without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where the money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed $400 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign. While the charges back and forth are impossible for me to evaluate, Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other accusations of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act, signed by President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said to be involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate, from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking system.

Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront of hostility over Putin's treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the view that Browder et al. are completely innocent victims of Russian evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin's actions toward the oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP toward Russia. It's no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the hate-Trump chorus throughout the American establishment.

The Jewish Ethnic Nexus of Bill Browder' Financial Operations July 27, 2018 Kevin MacDonald
"A tweetstorm consisting of quotes from Israel Shamir's excellent article on Bill Browder showing how he operated in an entirely Jewish milieu. Jewish ethnic networking is alive and well in the twenty-first century."

Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg and Jewish Ethnic Networking

Infinite Loop: Mueller Now Back at Trump Jr. Russian Lawyer Meeting
Andrew Anglin July 27, 2018
Cohen doesn't have proof, but he is one of God's Chosen people - enough for a conviction.

[Jul 28, 2018] The Curious Case of Pro-Trump Leftism by Eric Draitser

Notable quotes:
"... Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio . He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at [email protected]. ..."
Jul 28, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

To Russia with Love?

Every morning, just before his first threatening tweet of the day, and well before the bright lights and not-so-bright blondes of Fox & Friends have even had a chance to caffeinate, President Trump awakens, shuffles out to the Truman Balcony, and releases a pair of snow white doves in the direction of Moscow.

At least, that's the impression one gets reading what passes for analysis from some of the more depraved corners of the online left.

It's true that the number of self-professed "analysts" and dementia-addled lefties spouting the Trump-as-peacenik line is relatively small, but the impact their voices have had on left discourse around Trump and this historical moment is not insignificant. For every protest, be it a mainstream liberal march, radical Antifa direct action, or anything in between, the Left Trumpists focus their ire on the opponents of Trumpism. Ostensibly, it's because the anti-Trump activists are hypocrites who only form political opposition against Republicans while letting Democrats eat live babies on YouTube and roll wheelchair-bound pensioners into oncoming traffic. But, seen from a more realistic perspective, it seems this chorus of silliness is based more on Trump's words, and those of openly pro-Putin media, than on reality.

Take, for instance, this agonizingly vapid talking point about Trump desperately trying to repair the US-Russia relationship and promote peace with Russia. It certainly aligns with Trump's words. But how about his actions?

Well, it wasn't particularly inspiring when the Trump Administration decided to escalate Obama's already insane policy vis-à-vis Ukraine by providing lethal weapons to the US-backed Kiev regime which continues to be partnered with, and in some ways captive to, Ukrainian Nazis and other fascist, er um, "ultra-nationalist," forces. Even the great Russophobe himself, that elusive covert Kenyan-Muslim Brotherhood communist agent Obama wouldn't go that far.

Trump's genius, apparently, is in being a peacenik toward Russia while arming to the teeth the anti-Russian Nazis whose grandfathers got their jollies collaborating with Hitler, killing Jews and other ethnic minorities. Sources on the ground tell me, however, that these are very fine people who simply want to Make Ukraine Great Again. What's wrong with that? (Sidenote: My grandfather was busy killing their grandfathers. He didn't think they were very fine people.)

The Left Trumpists though still manage to find ways to justify, or at least explain away, Trump's arming of Ukrainian fascists by pointing out that Trump is a victim of his intelligence agencies, the Deep StateTM, SJWs, the Alt-Left, and the War on Christmas. The Hillary-Comey-Maddow cabal hashed out a plan to destroy Trump by forcing the actual left into talking about Trump's actual dangerous policies that are openly acknowledged and easily researched by anyone with an internet connection. Damn liberals.

And let's all remember with warm reminiscence the good old days of the 2016 campaign when Donald Trump stood before the American people undermining the imperial military juggernaut of NATO, presenting himself as the first major US politician in recent memory to question the very function of the alliance. These leftists championed Trump the anti-imperialist, the man who would rein in the US's European war machine.

Welp, within 18 months Trump has not only not reduced NATO's importance or reach, he has, in fact, demanded a more robust, more deadly, and more provocative NATO with each member state increasing significantly their contribution to the military alliance. Oops. I guess Trumpian anti-imperialism and America First-erism extends to funding the world's most dangerous imperial alliance used as a weapon against Russia and much of the world.

But, of course, the spending hike for NATO only mirrors Trump's glorious peace program at home, which includes a record $700 billion military budget . That obscene amount of blood money will fund massive new killing machines and line the pockets of Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, and the other death merchants who today sit around laughing at the notion that Trump would somehow be bad for the military-industrial complex. For these ghouls, Trump means business, and business is booming. Trump: A Russian Stooge?

The history of the Russiagate story is still being written. But, as usual, liberals have already transmogrified a murky, hitherto unproven narrative of Russian puppetry of the US president into a story of treason and of despoiling the good name of the US of A. And the Left Trumpists reject it, arguing that Trump is merely trying to restore friendly relations and avoid a World War III apocalypse.

But what if – bear with me now – what if they're both completely fucking wrong? What if Trump is actually just warmongering and undermining peace in the way that presidents of the Imperium Americana have for decades, but in a more unpredictable way?

Consider that Midtown Mussolini, the great orange conciliator, has actually imposed expanded sanctions on Russia, going further than the Obama Administration did. Whether this is a response to domestic political pressures, a negotiating strategy, weakness in the face of neocons, or some combination of the three, is not terribly important given that the end result is heightened tensions with the Kremlin. Naturally, those points are used by the Left Trumpists as "explantions" for Trump's behavior. Note that these lefties will never admit to defending Trump, they prefer to cast their defenses as "explanations."

Regardless, Trump has managed to present himself as a dove on Russia, while in fact being more hawkish than any president in recent memory. This is further demonstrated by Trump's expulsion of more than 60 Russian embassy, consulate, and/or intelligence officials over the alleged poisoning of a former Russian spy in the UK. Trumpologists, though, have the talking points in hand: "Trump is just bowing to pressure from liberals and the intelligence agencies, he didn't really want to do it!"

Interesting. Since when do leftists care about the political pressures a president faces? Lyndon Johnson faced tremendous political pressures from his right and left, does he get a pass on Vietnam? Nixon faced incredible pressure, as did Carter and Clinton. And why, please tell, am I supposed to care? Their actions are what matter.

I suppose the Left Trumpists also forgot that Trump brought in the utterly unhinged neocon imperialist, John Bolton. And, predictably, the mustache that launched a thousand ships has in short order raised the threat of war with Iran, moved the administration further to the right on Venezuela , argued in favor of a first strike against North Korea , and much more. And who could forget now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who succeeded Exxon Mobil kingpin Rex Tillerson, as Trump's consiglieri. I suppose it's progress as the US threatens to kill millions in the name of Jesus, rather than in the name of oil profits.

There are probably a hundred other policies and actions taken by Trump that are worth examining in context of left apologism for the Fascist-in-Chief. But this essay is not intended to catalog all the criminal, degenerate policies that Agent Orange has enacted or championed. It is merely an introduction, a window into a confused political space and discourse on the Left that is both infuriating and deeply depressing.

Many decent, well-meaning people who have dedicated their lives to fighting neoliberal imperialism have suddenly positioned themselves to the right of neocons in alliance with ascendant fascism in the US. They don't espouse the fascism, but have nonetheless made common cause with the far right in defense of Trump on the grounds of world peace and smashing the neoliberal/neoconservative consensus in Washington.
One has to wonder, though Would they also align with the hangman to spite the gallows-maker? Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Eric Draitser

Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio . He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at [email protected].

[Jul 28, 2018] Keeping Russia as an Enemy

Notable quotes:
"... Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France. ..."
Jul 28, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

As recounted by the commentator Garret Epps in The Atlantic in March 2018, "In 1973, the great Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn coined the term 'Gulag Archipelago' to denote the Soviet system of political prisons and labor camps. In the last 25 years, the United States has, without fanfare, brought into being a kind of Enforcement and Removal Operations ' Archipelago -- secretive, loosely supervised, and, in human and constitutional rights terms, deeply problematic. And the 'system' will, if the current administration carries forward its enforcement plans, grow significantly larger year by year." The US gulag archipelago is firmly in place.

But in the minds of so many of the Western world, that have been ever-so-gently brainwashed over the years of the New Cold War, 'gulags' are forever Russian, and they are ready for pitch invaders.

Cold War Two is thriving, having been initiated and fostered by West and especially by the Pentagon and much of Congress, whose members benefit enormously from cash donations by weapons' manufacturers whose generosity so far this election cycle has totaled $19,332,442 in traceable hand-outs. The Pentagon is reported as having calculated that "overseas weapons sales by US firms rose $8.3 billion from 2016 to 2017, with American arms makers moving a total of $41.9 billion in advanced weaponry to foreign militaries last year." There is profit in supporting confrontation.

Development of the new Cold War was described succinctly in February 2018 by Stephen F Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton, in that "[President] Clinton pursued winner-take-all policies consistent with viewing Russia as a defeated power, presiding over a massive intrusive crusade to shape that former rival into 'the Russia we want'; beginning the expansion of NATO, now on Russia's borders; and bombing Moscow's traditional Slav ally Serbia in 1999, despite Yeltsin's protests. Indeed, the extreme vilification of Putin by former members of the Clinton administration, including Hillary Clinton, who equated him with Hitler, are not unrelated to their unwise Russia policies of the 1990s -- loudly applauded, it should be added, by media journalists now also in the forefront of demonizing the current Kremlin leader."

The Western media and what is now called the ' deep state ' -- the power clique, somewhat akin or even complementary to the military-industrial complex spotlighted by President Eisenhower almost sixty years ago -- are intent on portraying Russia as a warmongering expansionist state, but they never mention the fact that, as recorded in the 2018 World Report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute "In 2017 the USA spent more on its military [$610 billion] than the next seven highest-spending countries combined. . . . at $66.3 billion, Russia's military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than in 2016."

The New York Times summed up the Washington Establishment's attitude to the Putin-Trump July 16 talks with the headline "Trump Opens His Arms to Russia. His Administration Closes Its Fist." Entirely coincidentally, three days before the meeting, Washington's best and brightest announced that twelve Russians had been indicted for allegedly interfering with the US elections in 2016. The word "allegedly" was rarely used by the West's mainstream media, and the fact that no evidence of any sort has been presented to backup up the allegations has been completely ignored. The automatic verdict is that Russia is guilty of whatever charges might be levelled, just as in Britain the blame for an incident of poisoning has been laid firmly at Russia's door without a shred of proof that Russia was involved.

Make no mistake: the man Trump is the worst president the US has ever had. He is, in the well-chosen words of the commentator Robert Reich , a "selfish, thin-skinned, petulant, lying, narcissistic, boastful megalomaniac." But -- it seems he wants to talk and negotiate with Russia, rather than indulging in ceaseless confrontation.

Trump has long expressed interest in improving ties with Russia, and the recent summit was his first real opportunity for doing so. Yet it will be difficult for this progress to have any permanence with so many in the Military-Industrial Complex uniting to undermine it. The Deep State's fury and bitterness will not die down, and its propaganda campaigns will continue to fuel the Second Cold War. Exporting weapons is most lucrative, and many big-ticket items are scheduled to be sold to European countries, which is why it's important to keep Russia as an enemy. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Brian Cloughley

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

[Jul 28, 2018] Paul Craig Roberts Exposes The All-Pervasive Military-Security Complex

Jul 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Via PaulCraigRoberts.org,

The article below by Professor Joan Roelofs appeared in the print edition of CounterPunch Vol. 25, No. 3.

The article is long but very important and is worth a careful read. It shows that the military/security complex has woven itself so tightly into the American social, economic, and political fabric as to be untouchable. President Trump is an extremely brave or foolhardy person to take on this most powerful and pervasive of all US institutions by trying to normalize US relations with Russia, chosen by the military/security complex as the "enemy" that justifies its enormous budget and power.

In 1961 President Eisenhower in his last public address to the American people warned us about the danger to democracy and accountable government presented by the military/industrial complex.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8y06NSBBRtY

You can imagine how much stronger the complex is 57 years later after decades of Cold War with the Soviet Union.

The Russian government, Russian media, and Russian people desperately need to comprehend how powerful the US military/security complex is and how it is woven into the fabric of America. No amount of diplomacy by Lavrov and masterful chess playing by Putin can possibly shake the control over the United States exercised by the military/security complex.

Professor Roelofs has done a good deed for the American people and for the world in assembling such extensive information documenting the penetration into every aspect of American life of the military/security complex. It is a delusion that a mere President of the United States can bring such a powerful, all-pervasive institution to heel and deprive it of its necessary enemy.

The Political Economy of the Weapons Industry

Guess Who's Sleeping With Our Insecurity Blanket?

By Joan Roelofs

For many people the "military-industrial-complex (MIC)" brings to mind the top twenty weapons manufacturers. President Dwight Eisenhower, who warned about it in 1961, wanted to call it the military- industrial-congressional-complex, but decided it was not prudent to do so. Today it might well be called the military-industrial-congressional-almost-everything-complex. Most departments and levels of government, businesses, and also many charities, social service, environmental, and cultural organizations, are deeply embedded with the military.

The weapons industry may be spearheading the military budget and military operations; it is aided immensely by the cheering or silence of citizens and their representatives. Here we will provide some likely reasons for that assent. We will use the common typology of three national sectors: government, business, and nonprofit, with varying amounts of interaction among them. This does not preclude, though it masks somewhat, the proposition that government is the executive of the ruling class.

Every kind of business figures in the Department of Defense (DoD) budget. Lockheed is currently the largest contractor in the weapons business. It connects with the worldwide MIC by sourcing parts, for example, for the F-35 fighter plane, from many countries. This helps a lot to market the weapon, despite its low opinion among military experts as well as anti-military critics. Lockheed also does civilian work, which enhances its aura while it spreads its values.

Other types of businesses have enormous multi-year contracts -- in the billions. This despite the constitutional proviso that Congress not appropriate military funds for more than a two year term. Notable are the construction companies, such as Fluor, KBR, Bechtel, and Hensel Phelps. These build huge bases, often with high tech surveillance or operational capacity, in the US and abroad, where they hire locals or commonly, third country nationals to carry out the work. There are also billion-funded contractors in communications technology, intelligence analysis, transportation, logistics, food, and clothing. "Contracting out" is our modern military way; this also spreads its influence far and wide.

Medium, small, and tiny businesses dangle from the "Christmas tree" of the Pentagon, promoting popular cheering or silence on the military budget. These include special set-asides for minority-owned and small businesses. A Black-owned small business, KEPA-TCI (construction), received contracts for $356 million. [Data comes from several sources, available free on the internet: websites, tax forms, and annual reports of organizations; usaspending.gov (USA) and governmentcontractswon.com (GCW).] Major corporations of all types serving our services have been excellently described in Nick Turse's The Complex. Really small and tiny businesses are drawn into the system: landscapers, dry cleaners, child care centers, and Come- Bye Goose Control of Maryland.

Among the businesses with large DoD contracts are book publishers: McGraw-Hill, Greenwood, Scholastic, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, Elsevier, and others. Rarely have the biases in this industry, in fiction, nonfiction, and textbook offerings, been examined. Yet the influences on this small but significant population, the reading public, and the larger schooled contingent, may help explain the silence of the literate crowd and college graduates.

Much of what is left of organized industrial labor is in weapons manufacture. Its PACs fund the few "progressive" candidates in our political system, who tend to be silent about war and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Unlike other factories, the armaments makers do not suddenly move overseas, although they do use subcontractors worldwide.

Military spending may be only about 6% of the GDP, yet it has great impact because:

1. it is a growing sector;

2. it is recession-proof;

3. it does not rely on consumer whims;

4. it is the only thing prospering in many areas; and

5. the "multiplier" effect: subcontracting, corporate purchasing, and employee spending perk up the regional economy.

It is ideally suited to Keynesian remedies, because of its ready destruction and obsolescence: what isn't consumed in warfare, rusted out, or donated to our friends still needs to be replaced by the slightly more lethal thing. Many of our science graduates work for the military directly or its contractee labs concocting these.

The military's unbeatable weapon is jobs, and all members of Congress, and state and local officials, are aware of this. It is where well-paying jobs are found for mechanics, scientists, and engineers; even janitorial workers do well in these taxpayer-rich firms. Weaponry is also important in our manufactured goods exports as our allies are required to have equipment that meets our specifications. Governments, rebels, terrorists, pirates, and gangsters all fancy our high tech and low tech lethal devices.

Our military economy also yields a high return on investments. These benefit not only corporate executives and other rich, but many middle and working class folk, as well as churches, benevolent, and cultural organizations. The lucrative mutual funds offered by Vanguard, Fidelity, and others are heavily invested in the weapons manufacturers.

Individual investors may not know what is in their fund's portfolios; the institutions usually know. A current project of World Beyond War ( https://worldbeyondwar.org/divest ) advocates divestment of military stocks in the pension funds of state and local government workers: police, firepersons, teachers, and other civil servants. Researchers are making a state-by-state analysis of these funds. Among the findings are the extensive military stock holdings of CALpers, the California Public Employees Retirement System (the sixth largest pension fund on earth), the California State Teachers Retirement System, the New York State Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Employees Retirement System, and the New York State Common Retirement Fund (state and local employees). Amazing! the New York City teachers were once the proud parents of red diaper babies.

The governmental side of the MIC complex goes far beyond the DoD. In the executive branch, Departments of State, Homeland Security, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior; and CIA, AID, FBI, NASA, and other agencies; are permeated with military projects and goals. Even the Department of Agriculture has a joint program with the DoD to "restore" Afghanistan by creating a dairy cattle industry. No matter that the cattle and their feed must be imported, cattle cannot graze in the terrain as the native sheep and goats can, there is no adequate transportation or refrigeration, and the Afghans don't normally drink milk. The native animals provide yogurt, butter, and wool, and graze on the rugged slopes, but that is all so un-American.

Congress is a firm ally of the military. Campaign contributions from contractor PACs are generous, and lobbying is extensive. So also are the outlays of financial institutions, which are heavily invested in the MIC. Congresspeople have significant shares of weapons industry stocks. To clinch the deal, members of Congress (and also state and local lawmakers) are well aware of the economic importance of military con- tracts in their states and districts.

Military bases, inside the US as well as worldwide, are an economic hub for communities. The DoD Base Structure Report for Fy2015 lists more than 4,000 domestic properties. Some are bombing ranges or re- cruiting stations; perhaps 400 are bases with a major impact on their localities. The largest of these, Fort Bragg, NC, is a city unto itself, and a cultural influence as well as economic asset to its region, as so well described by Catherine Lutz in Homefront. California has about 40 bases ( https://militarybases.com/by - state/), and is home to major weapons makers as well. Officers generally live off-base, so the real estate, restaurant, retail, auto repair, hotel and other businesses are prospering. Local civilians find employment on bases. Closed, unconvertible installations are sometimes tourist attractions, such as the unlikeliest of all vacation spots, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

DoD has direct contracts and grants with state and local governments. These are for various projects and services, including large amounts to fund the National Guard. The Army Engineers maintain swimming holes and parks, and police forces get a deal on Bearcats. JROTC programs nationwide provide funding for public schools, and even more for those that are public school military academies; six are in Chicago.

National, state and local governments are well covered by the "insecurity blanket;" the nonprofit sector is not neglected. Nevertheless, it does harbor the very small group of anti-war organizations, such as Iraq Veterans Against War, Veterans for Peace, World Beyond War, Peace Action, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for International Policy, Catholic Worker, Answer Coalition, and others. Yet unlike the Vietnam War period there is no vocal group of religious leaders protesting war, and the few students who are politically active are more concerned with other issues.

Nonprofit organizations and institutions are involved several ways. Some are obviously partners of the MIC: Boy and Girl Scouts, Red Cross, veterans' charities, military think-tanks such as RAND and Institute for Defense Analysis, establishment think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Atlantic Council, and the flagship of US world projection, the Council on Foreign Relations. There are also many international nongovernmental organizations that assist the US government in delivering "humanitarian" assistance, sing the praises of the market economy, or attempt to repair the "collateral" damage inflicted on lands and people, for example, Mercy Corps, Open Society Institutes, and CARE.

Educational institutions in all sectors are embedded with the military. The military schools include the service academies, National Defense University, Army War College, Naval War College, Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University, Defense Acquisition University, Defense Language Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Information School, the medical school, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and the notorious School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA, now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. "In addition, Senior Military Colleges offer a combination of higher education with military instruction. SMCs include Texas A&M University, Norwich University, The Virginia Military Institute, The Citadel, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), University of North Georgia and the Mary Baldwin Women's Institute for Leadership" ( https://www.usa.gov/military-colleges ).

A university doesn't have to be special to be part of the MIC. Most are awash with contracts, ROTC programs, and/or military officers and contractors on their boards of trustees. A study of the 100 most militarized universities includes prestigious institutions, as well as diploma mills that produce employees for military intelligence agencies and contractors ( https://news.vice.com/article/these-are-the-100 - most-militarized-universities-in-america).

Major liberal foundations have long engaged in covert and overt operations to support imperial projection, described by David Horowitz as the "Sinews of Empire" in his important 1969 Ramparts article. They have been close associates of the Central Intelligence Agency, and were active in its instigation. The foundation created and supported Council on Foreign Relations has long been a link among Wall Street, large corporations, academia, the media, and our foreign and military policymakers.

Less obvious are the military connections of philanthropic, cultural, social service, environmental, and professional organizations. They are linked through donations; joint programs; sponsorship of events, exhibits, and concerts; awards (both ways); investments; boards of directors; top executives; and contracts. The data here covers approximately the last twenty years, and rounds out the reasons for the astounding support (according to the polls) that US citizens have conferred on our military, its budget, and its operations.

Military contractor philanthropy was the subject of my previous CP reports, in 2006 and 2016. Every type of nonprofit (as well as public schools and universities) received support from the major weapons manufacturers; some findings were outstanding. Minority organizations were extremely well endowed. For many years there was crucial support for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from Lockheed; Boeing also funded the Congressional Black Caucus. The former president and CEO of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, is now on the Board of Trustees of Northrop Grumman.

General Electric is the most generous military contractor philanthropist, with direct grants to organizations and educational institutions, partnerships with both, and matching contributions made by its thousands of employees. The latter reaches many of the nongovernmental and educational entities throughout the country.

Major donors to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (listed in its 2016 Annual Report) include the Defense Intelligence Agency, Cisco Systems, Open Society Foundations, US Department of Defense, General Electric, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Lockheed Martin. This is an echo of the CEIP's military connections reported in Horace Coon's book of the 1930s, Money to Burn.

The DoD itself donates surplus property to organizations; among those eligible are Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League Baseball, and United Service Organizations. The Denton Program allows non-governmental organizations to use extra space on U.S. military cargo aircraft to transport humanitarian assistance materials.

There is a multitude of joint programs and sponsorships. Here is a small sample...

The American Association of University Women's National Tech Savvy Program encourages girls to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) careers, with sponsorship from Lockheed, BAE Systems, and Boeing.

Junior Achievement, sponsored by Bechtel, United Technologies, and others, aims to train children in market-based economics and entrepreneurship.

Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts is partnered with Northrop Grumman for an "early childhood STEM 'Learning through the Arts' initiative for pre-K and kindergarten students."

The Bechtel Foundation has two programs for a "sustainable California" -- an education program to help "young people develop the knowledge, skills, and character to explore and understand the world," and an environmental program to promote the "management, stewardship and conservation for the state's natural resources."

The NAACP ACT-SO is a "yearlong enrichment program designed to recruit, stimulate, and encourage high academic and cultural achievement among African-American high school students," with sponsorship from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman et al. The national winners receive financial awards from major corporations, college scholarships, internships, and apprenticeships -- in the military industries.

In recent years the weapons makers have become enthusiastic environmentalists. Lockheed was a sponsor of the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation Sustainability Forum in 2013. Northrop Grumman supports Keep America Beautiful, National Public Lands Day, and a partnership with Conservation International and the Arbor Day Foundation (for forest restoration). United Technologies is the founding sponsor of the U.S. Green Building Council Center for Green Schools, and co-creator of the Sustainable Cities Design Academy. Tree Musketeers is a national youth environmental organization partnered by Northrop Grumman and Boeing.

Awards go both ways: industries give awards to nonprofits, and nonprofits awards to military industries and people. United Technologies, for its efforts in response to climate change, was on Climate A list of the Climate Disclosure Project. The Corporate Responsibility Association gave Lockheed position 8 in 2016 in its 100 Best Corporate Citizens List. Points of Light included General Electric and Raytheon in its 2014 list of the 50 Most Community-Minded Companies in America. Harold Koh, the lawyer who as Obama's advisor defended drone strikes and intervention in Libya, was recently given distinguished visiting professor status by Phi Beta Kappa. In 2017, the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility recognized 34 Young Hispanic Corporate Achievers; 3 were executives in the weapons industry. Elizabeth Amato, an executive at United Technologies, received the YWCA Women Achievers Award.

Despite laborious searching through tax form 990s, it is difficult to discover the specifics of organizations' investments. Many have substantial ones; in 2006, the American Friends Service Committee had $3.5 million in revenue from investments. Human Rights Watch reported $3.5 million investment income on its 2015 tax form 990, and more than $107 million in endowment funds.

One of the few surveys of nonprofit policies (by Commonfund in 2012) found that only 17% of foundations used environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria in their investments. ESG seems to have replaced "socially responsible investing (SRI)" in investment terminology, and it has a somewhat different slant. The most common restriction is the avoidance of companies doing business in regions with conflict risk; the next relates to climate change and carbon emissions; employee diversity is also an important consideration. Commonfund's study of charities, social service and cultural organizations reported that 70% of their sample did not consider ESG in their investment policies. Although 61% of religious organizations did employ ESG criteria, only 16% of social service organizations and 3% of cultural organizations did.

Weapon industries are hardly ever mentioned in these reports. Religious organizations sometimes still used the SRI investment screens, but the most common were alcohol, gambling, pornography, and tobacco. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a resource for churches, lists almost 30 issues for investment consideration, including executive compensation, climate change, and opioid crisis, but none concerning weapons or war. The United Church (UCC) advisory, a pioneer in SRI investment policies, does include a screen: only companies should be chosen which have less than 10% revenue from alcohol or gambling, 1% from tobacco, 10% from conventional weapons and 5% from nuclear weapons.

The Art Institute of Chicago states on their website that "[W]ith the fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns on investment consistent with appropriate levels of risk, the Art Institute maintains a strong presumption against divesting for social, moral, or political reasons." Listed as an associate is Honeywell International, and a major benefactor is the Crown Family (General Dynamics), which recently donated a $2 million endowment for a Professorship in Painting and Drawing.

Nonprofit institutions (as well as individuals and pension funds of all sectors) have heavy investments in the funds of financial companies such as State Street, Vanguard, BlackRock, Fidelity, CREF, and others, which have portfolios rich in military industries ( https://worldbeyondwar.org/wp - content/uploads/2016/11/indirect.pdf). These include information technology firms, which, although often regarded as "socially responsible," are among the major DoD contractors.

In recent years foundations and other large nonprofits, such as universities, have favored investments in hedge funds, real estate, derivatives, and private equity. The Carnegie Endowment, more "transparent" than most, lists such funds on its 2015 tax form 990 (Schedule D Part VII). It is unlikely that Lockheed, Boeing, et al, are among the distressed debt bonanzas, so these institutions may be low on weapons stock. Nevertheless, most of them have firm connections to the MIC through donations, leadership, and/or contracts.

Close association with the military among nonprofit board members and executives works to keep the lid on anti-war activities and expression. The Aspen Institute is a think-tank that has resident experts, and also a policy of convening with activists, such as anti-poverty community leaders. Its Board of Trustees is chaired by James Crown, who is also a director of General Dynamics. Among other board members are Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Javier Solana (former Secretary-General of NATO), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman. Harman "received the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service in 1998, the CIA Seal Medal in 2007, and the CIA Director's Award and the National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal in 2011. She is currently a member of the Director of National Intelligence's Senior Advisory Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations." Lifetime Aspen Trustees include Lester Crown and Henry Kissinger.

In recent years, the Carnegie Corporation board of trustees included Condoleezza Rice and General Lloyd Austin III (Ret.), Commander of CENTCOM, a leader in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and also a board member of United Technologies. A former president of Physicians for Peace (not the similarly named well-known group) is Rear Admiral Harold Bernsen, formerly Commander of the US Middle East Force and not a physician.

TIAA, the college teachers' retirement fund, had a CEO from 1993-2002, John H. Biggs, who was at the same time a director of Boeing. TIAA's current board of directors includes an associate of a major military research firm, MITRE Corporations, and several members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Its senior executive Vice President, Rahul Merchant, is currently also a director at two information technology firms that have large military contracts: Juniper Networks and AASKI.

The American Association of Retired Persons' chief lobbyist from 2002-2007, Chris Hansen, had previously served in that capacity at Boeing. The current VP of communications at Northrop Grumman, Lisa Davis, held that position at AARP from 1996-2005.

Board members and CEOs of the major weapons corporations serve on the boards of many nonprofits. Just to indicate the scope, these include the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Newman's Own Foundation, New York Public Library, Carnegie Hall Society, Conservation International, Wolf Trap Foundation, WGBH, Boy Scouts, Newport Festival Foundation, Toys for Tots, STEM organizations, Catalyst, the National Science Center, the US Institute of Peace, and many foundations and universities.

The DoD promotes the employment of retired military officers as board members or CEOs of nonprofits, and several organizations and degree programs further this transition. U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Eden Murrie (Ret.) is now Director of Government Transformation and Agency Partnerships at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. She maintains that "[F]ormer military leaders have direct leadership experience and bring talent and integrity that could be applied in a nonprofit organization. . ." (seniormilitaryintransition.com/tag/eden-murrie/). Given the early retirement age, former military personnel (and reservists) are a natural fit for positions of influence in federal, state, and local governments, school boards, nonprofits, and volunteer work; many are in those places.

Perhaps the coziest relationships under the insecurity blanket are the multitudes of contracts and grants the Department of Defense tenders to the nonprofit world. DoD fiscal reporting is notoriously inaccurate, and there were conflicting accounts between and within the online databases. Nevertheless, even a fuzzy picture gives a good idea of the depth and scope of the coverage.

From the TNC 2016 Annual Report: "The Nature Conservancy is an organization that takes care of people and land, and they look for opportunities to partner. They're nonpolitical. We need nongovernment organizations like TNC to help mobilize our citizens. They are on the ground. They understand the people, the politics, the partnerships. We need groups like TNC to subsidize what government organizations can't do" (Mamie Parker, Former Assistant Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arkansas Trustee, The Nature Conservancy).

Among the subsidies going the other way are 44 DoD contracts with TNC totaling several million for the years 2008-2018 (USA). These are for such services as Prairie Habitat Reforestation, $100,000, and Runway and Biosecurity upkeep at Palmyra Atoll, HI, $82,000 (USA). For the years 2000-2016, GCW lists a total of $5,500,000 in TNC's DoD contracts.

Grants to TNC for specific projects, not clearly different from contracts, were much larger. Each is listed separately (USA); a rough count of the total was more than $150 million. One $55 million grant was for "Army compatible use buffer (acubs) in vicinity of Fort Benning military installation." Similar grants, the largest, $14 million, were for this service at other bases. Another was for the implementation of Fort Benning army installation's ecological monitoring plan. Included in the description of these grants was the notice: "Assist State and local governments to mitigate or prevent incompatible civilian land use/activity that is likely to impair the continued operational utility of a Department of Defense (DoD) military installation. Grantees and participating governments are expected to adopt and implement the study recommendations."

TNC's Form 990 for 2017 states its investment income as $21 million. It reported government grants of $108.5 million, and government contracts of $9 million. These may include funds from state and local as well as all departments of the federal government. The Department of the Interior, which manages the vast lands used for bombing ranges and live ammunition war games, is another TNC grantor.

Other environmental organizations sustained by DoD contracts are the National Audubon Society ($945,000 for 6 years, GCW), and Point Reyes Bird Observatory ($145,000, 6 years, GCW). USA reports contracts with Stichting Deltares, a Dutch coastal research institute, for $550,000 in 2016, grants to the San Diego Zoo of $367,000, and to the Institute for Wildlife Studies, $1.3 million for shrike monitoring.

Goodwill Industries (training and employing the disabled, ex-offenders, veterans, and homeless people) is an enormous military contractor. Each entity is a separate corporation, based on state or region, and the total receipt is in the billions. For example, for 2000-2016 (GCW), Goodwill of South Florida had $434 million and Southeastern Wisconsin $906 million in contracts. Goods and services provided include food and logistics support, records processing, army combat pants, custodial, security, mowing, and recycling. Similar organizations working for the DoD include the Jewish Vocational Service and Community Workshop, janitorial services, $12 million over 5 years; Lighthouse for the Blind, $4.5 million, water purification equipment; Ability One; National Institute for the Blind; Pride Industries; and Melwood Horticultural Training Center.

The DoD does not shun the work of Federal Prison Industries, which sells furniture and other products. A government corporation (and thus not a nonprofit), it had half a billion in sales to all federal departments in 2016. Prison labor, Goodwill Industries, and other sheltered-workshop enterprises, along with for- profits employing immigrant workers, teenagers, retirees, and migrant workers (who grow food for the military and the rest of us), reveal the evolving nature of the US working class, and some explanation for its lack of revolutionary fervor, or even mild dissent from the capitalist system.

The well-paid, and truly diverse employees (including executives) of major weapons makers are also not about to construct wooden barricades. Boards of directors in these industries are welcoming to minorities and women. The CEOs of Lockheed and General Dynamics are women, as is the Chief Operating Officer of Northrop Grumman. These success stories reinforce personal aspirations among the have-nots, rather than questioning the system.

Contracts with universities, hospitals, and medical facilities are too numerous to detail here; one that illustrates how far the blanket stretches is with Oxford University, $800,000 for medical research. Professional associations with significant contracts include the Institute of International Education, American Council on Education, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Academy of Sciences, Society of Women Engineers, American Indian Science and Engineering Society, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Society of Mexican-American Engineers, and U.S. Green Building Council. The Council of State Governments (a nonprofit policy association of officials) received a $193,000 contract for "preparedness" work. Let us hope we are well prepared.

The leaders, staff, members, donors, and volunteers of nonprofit organizations are the kind of people who might have been peace activists, yet so many are smothered into silence under the vast insecurity blanket. In addition to all the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the military establishment, many people with no connection still cheer it on. They have been subject to relentless propaganda forthe military and its wars from the government, the print and digital press, TV, movies, sports shows, parades, and computer games -- the latter teach children that killing is fun.

The indoctrination goes down easily. It has had a head start in the educational system that glorifies the violent history of the nation. Our schools are full of in-house tutoring, STEM programs, and fun robotics teams personally conducted by employees of the weapons makers. Young children may not understand all the connections, but they tend to remember the logos. The JROTC programs, imparting militaristic values, enroll far more children than the ones who will become future officers. The extremely well-funded recruitment efforts in schools include "fun" simulations of warfare.

There is a worldwide supporting cast for the complex that includes NATO, other alliances, defense ministries, foreign military industries, and bases, but that is a story for another day.

The millions sheltered under our thick and broad blanket, including the enlistees under the prickly part of it, are not to blame. Some people may be thrilled by the idea of death and destruction. However, most are just trying to earn a living, keep their organization or rust belt afloat, or be accepted into polite company. They would prefer constructive work or income from healthy sources. Yet many have been indoctrinated to believe that militarism is normal and necessary. For those who consider change to be essential if life on this planet has a chance at survival, it is important to see all the ways that the military- industrial-congressional-almost everything-complex is being sustained.

"Free market economy" is a myth. In addition to the huge nonprofit (non-market) sector, government intervention is substantial, not only in the gigantic military, but in agriculture, education, health care, infrastructure, economic development (!), et al. For the same trillions we could have a national economy that repairs the environment, provides a fine standard of living and cultural opportunities for all, and works for peace on earth.

* * *

Joan Roelofs is Professor Emerita of Political Science, Keene State College, New Hampshire. She is the author of Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (SUNY Press, 2003) and Greening Cities (Rowman and Littlefield, 1996). She is the translator of Victor Considerant's Principles of Socialism (Maisonneuve Press, 2006), and with Shawn P. Wilbur, of Charles Fourier's anti-war fantasy, The World War of Small Pastries (Autonomedia, 2015). A community education short course on the military industrial complex is on her website, and may be used for similar purposes.

Site: www.joanroelofs.wordpress.com Contact: [email protected]

[Jul 27, 2018] What Has Happened to Ukraine. Inertial Scenario for Ukraine's National and Political Identity by Alexei V. Popov

The author provides some interesting observations... He ignores the role of economics though.
Looks like a replay of events in Baltic republics. Might increase emigration and "provisialization" of Ukraine because Russian is suppressed but English did not became the second language (which is probably impossible without switching education into English language). Dominance of EU might be more harsh regime, then most of the supporters of Eurointergation assume, especially in economic sphere -- the status of semi-colony and debt slave are given, but it can be worse.
Economic suffering of population and pauperization of Ukraine are immense...
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, at least half of the population of all eight administrative regions of mainland South-East Ukraine viewed the Euromaidan as a coup, because, according to a survey conducted in early April 2014 by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, only a third of respondents in these regions (the survey was not conducted in Crimea and Sevastopol) considered Yatsenyuk and Turchinov legitimate heads of government and state, while half of respondents considered them illegitimate (Kiev International Institute of Sociology, 2014c). ..."
"... The conformism of the South-East elite, which only recently was at the head of the anti-Maidan movement, surpassed the conformism of society many times over, because this elite had much to lose. ..."
"... The situation with Crimea was another factor that objectively strengthened Kiev's position in the South-East. ..."
"... This predictably could not increase pro-Russian sentiments in the rest of Ukraine. ..."
"... anti-Russian forces took an increasingly tough position, describing all talk of federalization as separatism. ..."
"... the winners of the Euromaidan Crimea was not a reason but a pretext for starting a policy of de-Russification. However, these events influenced the political swamp, that is, citizens without a clear position, and strengthened the base of the current regime, as evidenced by the results of public opinion polls and elections. ..."
"... the Europeans played up to Kiev in criminalizing the notion 'federation,' because for the West the Ukrainian problem is part of the Russian problem ..."
"... The West views them as paramilitary organizations which established power in those regions with external help and imposed themselves on the population. ..."
"... This position of the West strengthened the attitude of the pro-Western liberal public in Ukraine towards people in the South-East as sovok ..."
"... the "discursive violence of the Ukrainian media" in late February-early April 2014 paved the way for the "brutality of the antiterrorist operation" by creating a negative image of people of the South-East. ..."
"... Ukrayinska Pravda, Livyi Bereg, ..."
"... At the same time, Ukrainian radical nationalism objectively was an instrument which Ukrainian [neo]liberals used to achieve victory. ..."
"... However, positive dynamics for either party to the conflict is not only measured by territories they seize -- it is seen in the fact that actions, formerly deemed impossible, turn out to be possible and not having obvious negative consequences. For example, the implementation of the political part of the Minsk Agreement (which both Kiev and the West consider imposed on Ukraine from the outside) now seems to be a much more illusory goal than it seemed in 2014-2015. ..."
"... In particular, Kiev has rescinded a bill on constitutional amendments regarding decentralization; an economic blockade of Donbass has been introduced; and several laws have been passed and measures taken to combat the Russian World, both inside and outside the country. ..."
"... The law on the reintegration of Donbass, passed by the Verkhovna Rada this January, was a logical development and a new stage of this policy. Its purpose is not so much to recognize the territories beyond Kiev's control as occupied by Russia. What is more important is that the law recognizes this state de facto without a formal recognition of the war with Russia de jure. ..."
"... This positive dynamics creates a situation where a critical mass of society thinks that at least Ukraine will not find itself in the same difficult situation as in the spring of 2014 and that, at best, it will restore full control over Donbass on its terms: Russia will not withstand the sanctions and will stop supporting the uncontrolled territories. The policy of the West does not contradict these expectations: the sanctions continue, there is almost no public criticism of Kiev's actions in Donbass at the state level, except for minor issues, and the U.S. has decided to supply Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, which is largely a symbolic gesture fitting perfectly into the aforementioned pattern of positive dynamics. ..."
"... Of course, very many of the above-mentioned elements of the positive (for Kiev) dynamics also have a great negative effect. For example, the existing format of the conflict in Donbass involves great military expenditures and leads to reduced ties with Russia, which is a significant burden for the Ukrainian economy. ..."
"... The present scale of losses of the Ukrainian army is not a factor that may spark a mass antiwar movement in the country, similar to the antiwar movement in the United States in the late 1960s, because the ratio of casualties to population in Ukraine is much smaller than that in the U.S. during the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Naturally, the economic situation in Ukraine is much less stable than that of the U.S. during the Vietnam War. However, in the public consciousness, the war is only one factor behind the economic problems (along with corruption, incompetence of the authorities, etc.). ..."
"... The war has advantages, too. Of course, they would have disappeared in the event of a full-scale conflict, but Kiev is confident that this will never happen. In a situation like this, it finds it simpler to mobilize society, convince it to put up with difficulties and, most importantly, format the political and information space in an advantageous way. Beneficiaries of this reformatting include not only the government but also a wide range of parties and politicians who supported the Euromaidan. ..."
"... So, the current format of the conflict strengthens the political regime in Ukraine, which is actually the closest to regimes of limited political competition, such as those that existed in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe during the interwar period in the 20th century, or some Latin American countries (Brazil and Guatemala) after the Second World War. There is formal pluralism and a real possibility of succession of power there, yet real power can be contested only by forces from one political spectrum, whereas forces that are beyond this spectrum are restrained and can only aspire to seats in parliament. ..."
"... support is limited -- the West will not fight for Ukraine and will not provide aid on a scale comparable to the Marshall Plan. ..."
"... Already now, due to migration, the population of the territory now controlled by Kiev is less than 30 million people (judging by bread consumption statistics). ..."
"... This means it has decreased by more than 40 percent since 1991. ..."
"... As regards Ukraine's admission to NATO, many Western European countries oppose this option. On the other hand, they have not proposed any detailed plan for Ukraine's non-aligned status. Objectively, such status would be best guaranteed by the specifics of the state's internal structure, when accession to a military alliance would require a consensus of the regions. ..."
"... If this state collapses due to external factors, the identity of a large part of its present population may change very quickly, as evidenced by the experience of the 17th century and recent decades. ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | eng.globalaffairs.ru

In Ukraine, however, the switching of sides takes place on a larger scale. For example, President Kuchma and Prime Minister Yanukovich had a majority in the Verkhovna Rada elected in 2002, which decreased somewhat in the last few months before the 2004 elections. Yet, newly elected President Yushchenko did not have any problems with the same parliament. The Ukrainian parliament elected in 2007 supported Prime Minister Timoshenko, but after Yanukovich won a presidential election in February 2010 he had a solid majority in it until the next election. Yanukovich also had a majority in parliament elected in 2012 until the last days of the Euromaidan. However, after the victory of the Euromaidan, a coalition was formed in parliament that supported the new authorities. It united factions and groups of 235 deputies in the 450-seat parliament, of whom 69 did not belong to pro-Euromaidan parties. Also, 371 deputies, including almost all deputies from the Party of Regions, voted to appoint Yatsenyuk as prime minister.

Can these figures serve as grounds to classify the Euromaidan as a coup d'état and accuse the new regime of failing to build a government of national accord, provided for by the agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition? A coup d'état presupposes suspending and resetting the functioning of government institutions, whereas this agreement did not specify what a national accord government should look like. On the other hand, the essence of such governments is to unite people of different political views, rather than make their members and supporters give up their former beliefs.

Yet, at least half of the population of all eight administrative regions of mainland South-East Ukraine viewed the Euromaidan as a coup, because, according to a survey conducted in early April 2014 by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, only a third of respondents in these regions (the survey was not conducted in Crimea and Sevastopol) considered Yatsenyuk and Turchinov legitimate heads of government and state, while half of respondents considered them illegitimate (Kiev International Institute of Sociology, 2014c). However, the elite of the South-East did not question the legitimacy of the new government. The most it was ready to do was consider this government undesirable and due to be replaced at the next election.

The conformism of the South-East elite, which only recently was at the head of the anti-Maidan movement, surpassed the conformism of society many times over, because this elite had much to lose. But in this situation, the masses of protesters who considered the Euromaidan a coup found themselves without their usual leaders. New leaders emerged spontaneously from among protesters and were not viewed as authoritative by those who did not take part in the protests. The depth of the gap between the masses and the elites can be seen from the following fact: There is the émigré Ukraine Salvation Committee in Moscow, headed by former Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov, which positions itself as almost a government in exile. The Committee considers the hostilities in Donbass a civil war and, therefore, does not view the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics as occupation administrations. Yet, it has no contact with the leaders of these republics, which also consider themselves an alternative Ukraine.

Although there was less conformism among the masses than among the elites, it still made the protests in the South-East less widespread than they might have been if there had been a sign of dual power, for example, if Yanukovich and the part of the elite, including parliament deputies, who did not recognize the new regime had tried to create alternative government institutions. This conformism made many people accept on faith the assurances of the new government about broad decentralization, including the humanitarian sphere.

The situation with Crimea was another factor that objectively strengthened Kiev's position in the South-East. Beginning in March, Crimea and Sevastopol, which could have been at the vanguard of protests for reformatting Ukraine, withdrew from the political field of the country by joining Russia. This predictably could not increase pro-Russian sentiments in the rest of Ukraine. Formerly, public opinion polls had invariably showed a good attitude of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians towards Russia. However, during the conflicts over Tuzla in 2003 and the gas dispute of 2009 their attitude deteriorated significantly. Now it happened again, only this time the conflict was much more serious. Attempts by the state which annexed part of Ukrainian territory to act as an arbiter and, at the same time, pressure Kiev to reformat Ukraine into a federation, in which the voice of the South-East should be heard, were predictably doomed to failure. Even potential supporters of Russia doubted the impartiality of such arbitration, and anti-Russian forces took an increasingly tough position, describing all talk of federalization as separatism.

True, Ukrainians who were firmly pro-Russian did not become more hostile to Russia because of Crimea, while for the winners of the Euromaidan Crimea was not a reason but a pretext for starting a policy of de-Russification. However, these events influenced the political swamp, that is, citizens without a clear position, and strengthened the base of the current regime, as evidenced by the results of public opinion polls and elections. EUROPEAN INTEGRATION VS COMPROMISE

On the other hand, it would be legitimate to ask whether the victory of the Euromaidan necessarily had to lead to a war, and whether a compromise could have been reached with the masses of the discontented in the South-East at an early stage. My answer is "no."

The short history of independent Ukraine developed, on the one hand, as a history of steady integration into European and world (but Western-controlled) organizations, and on the other hand, as a history of crises which became increasingly explosive and which ended in increasingly imperfect compromises. For some time, the relationship between these processes could be easily overlooked, but now it is much more difficult not to notice it. The February 2014 agreement on the settlement of the crisis, for the first time achieved with the participation of European guarantors, was also the first world agreement in the history of Ukraine that was not fulfilled. It was after the signing of the economic part of the Association Agreement that an anti-terrorist operation began in the East, and immediately after the political part of this agreement was signed (June 27, 2014), this operation entered into its largest-scale and bloodiest phase.

Of course, the West needed to put an end to Kiev's multi-vector policy and achieve unambiguous certainty for it. Hence its position on the language issue and the territorial structure of the country, which was most vividly realized in the April 2014 PACE resolution, which spoke of the inadmissibility of any mention of Ukraine's federalization (Parliamentary Assembly, 2014).

Obviously, the real problem was not in the word but in an optimal distribution of powers (for example, Spanish autonomous communities have more powers than Austrian federal lands), but the Europeans played up to Kiev in criminalizing the notion 'federation,' because for the West the Ukrainian problem is part of the Russian problem . Its attitude to the protests in the South-East and then the war in Donbass differed fundamentally from its attitude to an overwhelming majority of internal conflicts around the globe.

In the cases of Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, ethnic Serbs in Croatia and Kosovo, Aceh in Indonesia, FARC in Colombia, etc., the West considered the leaders of separatists or insurgents legitimate representatives of certain ethnic or social groups who had taken over powers not provided for by the laws of their country. Their right to be a party to negotiations was not questioned. But the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics are in no way seen as self-proclaimed republics that reflect the views of their populations, even though illegitimately from the point of view of Ukrainian legislation. The West views them as paramilitary organizations which established power in those regions with external help and imposed themselves on the population.

This position of the West strengthened the attitude of the pro-Western liberal public in Ukraine towards people in the South-East as sovok (homo Sovieticus) and vatnik (bigots), whose opinion could be ignored. A recent study (Baysha, 2017) convincingly shows how the "discursive violence of the Ukrainian media" in late February-early April 2014 paved the way for the "brutality of the antiterrorist operation" by creating a negative image of people of the South-East. Importantly, these were not state-run, oligarchic or party nationalist media, although they did the same. These were popular websites, which are thought to be mouthpieces for liberal civil society ( Ukrayinska Pravda, Livyi Bereg, and Gordon ).

In other words, the conflict was a logical consequence of Westernization, rather than the rise of nationalism. Welcoming the successes of the Ukrainian army in July 2014, the European Parliament thus made it clear that this Westernization on the civilizational borders of Europe may not resemble the practices of major European countries. At the same time, Ukrainian radical nationalism objectively was an instrument which Ukrainian [neo]liberals used to achieve victory. True, it is not willing to play this role and wants to be something more than just an instrument. But behind the talk of the Banderization of Ukraine is a confusion of the notions of customer and contractor.

WAR IN AN ACCEPTABLE FORMAT

Of course, many of those who took part in the Euromaidan did not fight there for renaming Vatutin Avenue in Kiev as Shukhevich Avenue, or for banning the import of Russian books, including memoirs of Princess Yekaterina Dashkova, or for banning songs by Russian singers Vladimir Vysotsky and Victor Tsoi described as "tentacles of the Russian World" which leeched onto Ukrainians (definition by Vladimir Vyatrovich, the head of the Institute of National Memory, the most Euro-integrated organization of the Ukrainian government, which consistently advocates the idea of a nationalist "recoding" of Ukrainians). The voices of people who do not agree with this (for example, the poet and culturologist Evgenia Bilchenko) are sometimes heard in the media space, but the problem is whether these voices, together with the voices of those who were against the Euromaidan from the very beginning, can become a political factor.

I think this is almost ruled out under the most likely, inertial, scenario which provides for the development of tendencies that emerged after the victory of the Euromaidan and the preservation by Russia and the West of their behavioral models which have developed over recent years.

When assessing this scenario, one should bear in mind that the armed conflict in Donbass has over the last three years entered into a format that is the most advantageous (of all really possible ones) for Ukraine -- a low-intensity smoldering conflict.

This situation objectively predisposes one to see dynamics, positive for Kiev, in the conflict that began in 2014. At first, Ukraine surrendered Crimea to Russia and pro-Russian forces without a fight. At the next stage, however, it localized the offensive of the Russian World to Donbass, although it failed to take full control over the region. The result of this phase of the fight can be regarded as a draw, or Ukraine's defeat on points. But Crimea was lost through a knockout. After that, a defeat on points is still a better outcome.

The next, longest phase of the conflict has been going on without changes on the frontline. However, positive dynamics for either party to the conflict is not only measured by territories they seize -- it is seen in the fact that actions, formerly deemed impossible, turn out to be possible and not having obvious negative consequences. For example, the implementation of the political part of the Minsk Agreement (which both Kiev and the West consider imposed on Ukraine from the outside) now seems to be a much more illusory goal than it seemed in 2014-2015.

In particular, Kiev has rescinded a bill on constitutional amendments regarding decentralization; an economic blockade of Donbass has been introduced; and several laws have been passed and measures taken to combat the Russian World, both inside and outside the country. The latter include the termination of air service, a ban on remittances, restrictions on the import of Russian books, a ban on performances by some Russian entertainers, the actual abolition of the law "On the Basic Principles of the Language Policy," restrictions on the use of the Russian language on the Ukrainian radio and television and its abolition in education (with the exception of primary school), de-Russification of geographical names, and the removal of monuments.

Kiev views all these measures as non-military blows to the enemy, and the scale of such actions increases with every year.

The law on the reintegration of Donbass, passed by the Verkhovna Rada this January, was a logical development and a new stage of this policy. Its purpose is not so much to recognize the territories beyond Kiev's control as occupied by Russia. What is more important is that the law recognizes this state de facto without a formal recognition of the war with Russia de jure.

This positive dynamics creates a situation where a critical mass of society thinks that at least Ukraine will not find itself in the same difficult situation as in the spring of 2014 and that, at best, it will restore full control over Donbass on its terms: Russia will not withstand the sanctions and will stop supporting the uncontrolled territories. The policy of the West does not contradict these expectations: the sanctions continue, there is almost no public criticism of Kiev's actions in Donbass at the state level, except for minor issues, and the U.S. has decided to supply Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, which is largely a symbolic gesture fitting perfectly into the aforementioned pattern of positive dynamics.

For the reasons mentioned above, the West does not advocate a direct dialogue between Kiev and Donetsk/Lugansk, but considers the existing level of conflict with more and more victims an obviously lesser evil than a possible strengthening of the self-proclaimed republics. This clearly follows from the statement of German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel about the inadmissibility of Russia's proposal on a UN peacekeeping mission, which provides for the separation of the warring parties by peacekeepers, to be deployed along the frontline, and the protection of the OSCE mission, because that would only mean freezing the conflict. (A meeting between Vladislav Surkov and Kurt Volker, which took place in Dubai during the writing of this article, showed that the Americans are nevertheless ready to accept the Russian format as the first phase of a peacekeeping mission; yet its practical implementation is still far off.)

Of course, very many of the above-mentioned elements of the positive (for Kiev) dynamics also have a great negative effect. For example, the existing format of the conflict in Donbass involves great military expenditures and leads to reduced ties with Russia, which is a significant burden for the Ukrainian economy. However, it is important to understand a balance between positive and negative aspects from Kiev's point of view.

Of course, the mobilization was a straining factor for society, because it could affect almost every family. But since the end of 2016, when all people mobilized a year before returned home, only contract soldiers and professional officers have taken part in the conflict from the Ukrainian side -- that is, only those who have made this choice voluntarily or who have chosen military service as their lifetime career. This is the main reason why the format of hostilities can be considered acceptable or, at least, not too burdensome for Ukrainian society.

The present scale of losses of the Ukrainian army is not a factor that may spark a mass antiwar movement in the country, similar to the antiwar movement in the United States in the late 1960s, because the ratio of casualties to population in Ukraine is much smaller than that in the U.S. during the Vietnam War.

Naturally, the economic situation in Ukraine is much less stable than that of the U.S. during the Vietnam War. However, in the public consciousness, the war is only one factor behind the economic problems (along with corruption, incompetence of the authorities, etc.).

The unpopularity of the idea of peace at any cost not only shows the specific character of the Ukrainian regime but, above all, it shows that society does not view the crisis as a catastrophe, which means that the conflict has acquired a format convenient for Kiev.

This format means, in particular, that, to paraphrase Trotsky, Ukraine is in a state of both peace and war with Russia, taking advantage of each of these states. For example, over the first 11 months of 2017, Ukrainian exports to Russia grew by 12 percent and brought Ukraine U.S. $360 million more than a year before. Two-thirds of Ukrainian coal imports come from Russia, including 80 percent of anthracite, which has become scarce due to the blockade of Donbass.

The war has advantages, too. Of course, they would have disappeared in the event of a full-scale conflict, but Kiev is confident that this will never happen. In a situation like this, it finds it simpler to mobilize society, convince it to put up with difficulties and, most importantly, format the political and information space in an advantageous way. Beneficiaries of this reformatting include not only the government but also a wide range of parties and politicians who supported the Euromaidan. For example, there is a segment among supporters of the Batkivshchina Party, led by Yulia Timoshenko, and the Radical Party, led by Oleg Lyashko, who, judging by public opinion polls, do not support either a confrontation with Russia or the current policy of historical memory. Obviously, these are former supporters of the Party of Regions and communists, who have realized that the successors to these parties will not be allowed to win anyway and that power can be contested only by pro-Euromaidan parties. Therefore, they side with forces that are close to their own ideological position, guided by their social slogans and disregarding their greater geopolitical and humanitarian radicalism in comparison with the current authorities. But such a choice can be made only if one is confident that this radicalism will not lead to a great war and catastrophe.

So, the current format of the conflict strengthens the political regime in Ukraine, which is actually the closest to regimes of limited political competition, such as those that existed in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe during the interwar period in the 20th century, or some Latin American countries (Brazil and Guatemala) after the Second World War. There is formal pluralism and a real possibility of succession of power there, yet real power can be contested only by forces from one political spectrum, whereas forces that are beyond this spectrum are restrained and can only aspire to seats in parliament.

History shows that such regimes can exist for a very long time, especially with external support, which Kiev certainly has, if we mean support for its geopolitical policy, rather than concrete persons in power. It is another thing that such support is limited -- the West will not fight for Ukraine and will not provide aid on a scale comparable to the Marshall Plan.

The Georgian scenario for changing this regime is theoretically possible but unlikely, because several factors prevent the success of a would-be Ukrainian Ivanishvili. The conflict in Ukraine is felt more sharply because in 2014 it lost territories that it had controlled all the years of independence, while Georgia lost control over Abkhazia in 1993 and over South Ossetia even earlier. The August 2008 war only showed the impossibility of regaining these territories. But the most important thing is that, whereas Georgia was an obvious loser in that war, Ukraine has some positive dynamics, which was discussed above. In addition, differences between Georgians and Russians have always been obvious, whereas for Kiev the current conflict is a way to recode a large part of the population and form the nation on the basis of the thesis that "Ukraine is different from Russia." Finally, the evolution of Georgia should not be exaggerated. Diplomatic relations between Tbilisi and Moscow have not been restored, while relations between Kiev and Moscow have never been broken off. Although Georgia has toned down its anti-Russian rhetoric, it keeps moving towards the Euro-Atlantic structures.

Ukraine is moving in the same direction. Its problems will obviously grow in the near future. Already now, due to migration, the population of the territory now controlled by Kiev is less than 30 million people (judging by bread consumption statistics).

This means it has decreased by more than 40 percent since 1991. In addition, the largest, postwar, generation is now entering the mortality age, while the generation of newborns is the smallest over the years of independence. Yet, the territory of the country has retained its geopolitical value and, regardless of whether Ukraine is granted formal NATO membership or not, American troops can be permanently deployed in its territory during the current Cold War -- or, more precisely, their presence can be broadened, because several thousand NATO troops, half of them Americans, have been involved in military exercises permanently held at the Yavorovo test range since the spring of 2015.

As regards Ukraine's admission to NATO, many Western European countries oppose this option. On the other hand, they have not proposed any detailed plan for Ukraine's non-aligned status. Objectively, such status would be best guaranteed by the specifics of the state's internal structure, when accession to a military alliance would require a consensus of the regions. In an interview with the Atlantic magazine in November 2016, Henry Kissinger echoed this idea: "I favor an independent Ukraine that is militarily non-aligned. If you remove the two Donbass regions from eastern Ukraine, you guarantee that Ukraine is permanently hostile to Russia, since it becomes dominated by its Western part, which only joined Russia in the 1940s. The solution, then, is to find a way to give these units a degree of autonomy that gives them a voice in military entanglements, but otherwise keeps them under the governance of Ukraine." (Goldberg, 2016)

But since this voice remains solitary, the negative attitude of Western European countries to Ukraine's accession to NATO is only a short-term tactical choice which may change later.

It is also unlikely that the implementation of the Minsk Agreement will help create the model described by Kissinger, because a "voice in military entanglements" is a trait of a confederation. Meanwhile, the status of individual Donbass regions, as defined by the above agreement, is far even from that provided for in a federation. Rather, it is similar to the limited autonomy of ethnic Serbs in Croatia, which they received under the Erdut agreement.

Therefore, even if the Minsk Agreement is implemented, which is unlikely, the existing political regime in Ukraine will hardly change.

As regards Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, in a situation where they cannot change this regime through elections, they will try to adapt to the existing reality, at least outwardly.

The described inertial scenario is basic and most probable. However, it is not the only possible one due to the weakness of the Ukrainian state (in particular, due to the growing influence of right-wing radicals who may obtain parallel power), the unstable situation in the world, and the unpredictability of Russia's policy in the long term, as Moscow may decide that Kiev has crossed certain red lines established by it. If this state collapses due to external factors, the identity of a large part of its present population may change very quickly, as evidenced by the experience of the 17th century and recent decades.

Alexei V. Popov is an expert with the Kiev Center of Political Studies and Conflictology

[Jul 27, 2018] Ukraine over the Edge Russia, the West and the New Cold War by Gordon M. Hahn

Notable quotes:
"... an essential warning against a continuation of the frivolous and dangerous policies of regime change adopted by the West after the end of the Cold War ..."
"... The result is both a sophisticated, multilevel analysis of how and why Ukraine emerged as the key hotspot in East-West relations, and an indispensable guide for those wishing to understand the origins of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Gordon M. Hahn challenges simplistic and often misleading narratives by the media and politicians and provides a corroboration that the Maidan massacre was a false flag mass killing ..."
"... They show Maidan's quasi-revolution was driven by international geopolitics, supporting counterposed Western and Russian "civilizationist" beliefs, and deep divisions within Ukrainian society itself, not a wellspring of widespread aspiration to Western-style democracy. ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | www.amazon.com

Review "Ukraine's 2013-2014 revolution, its civil war, and Russia's annexation of the Crimea have been succeeded by newer crises, but political analyst Hahn uses detailed reportage and geopolitical theory to argue for their long-term significance, presenting Ukraine as a troubling turning point in Russo-American relations and a case study of how democratization efforts can go awry...with Russia atop American headlines to an extent not seen since the end of the Cold War, [this book] will be a strong addition to global studies collections" -- Booklist

"It was not only Ukraine that went over the edge in 2014, but the whole European security system disintegrated, while a 'new cold war' chills relations between the great powers. In this masterful study, Gordon Hahn examines how Ukraine's internal divisions combined with external lines of fragmentation to create an explosive mix, which in turn intensified domestic conflicts. The result is an internationalized civil conflict, with catastrophic consequences for Ukraine and the world. Hahn is one of the few scholars with the knowledge and discernment to make sense of it all. His impressively well-researched and well-written book is essential reading."--Richard Sakwa, University of Kent

"This impressively researched and strongly argued book is an essential corrective to the myths that have been generated concerning the crisis in Ukraine, and an essential warning against a continuation of the frivolous and dangerous policies of regime change adopted by the West after the end of the Cold War ." --Anatol Lieven, Professor, Georgetown University in Qatar and author of Ukraine and Russia, A Fraternal Rivalry

Ukraine Over the Edge is a rigorous analysis of the cultural, historical, and intellectual origins of the Ukrainian crisis. While stressing that blame for the latest phase of this crisis is shared all around, Hahn traces its domestic origins to the militancy of the opposition to president Yanukovych, and its international origins to NATO expansion, which he regards as militarized democracy-promotion. The result is both a sophisticated, multilevel analysis of how and why Ukraine emerged as the key hotspot in East-West relations, and an indispensable guide for those wishing to understand the origins of the New Cold War. "--Nicolai N. Petro, Silvia-Chandley Professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence, University of Rhode Island

" Ukraine Over the Edge is a very useful contribution to understanding origins and key developments of the crisis in this important European and post-Soviet country. Gordon M. Hahn challenges simplistic and often misleading narratives by the media and politicians and provides a corroboration that the Maidan massacre was a false flag mass killing ." --Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottawa About the Author Gordon M. Hahn is an advisory board member at Geostrategic Forecasting Corporation, Chicago, and at the American Institute of Geostrategy (AIGEO), Los Angeles; a contributing expert for Russia Direct, and a senior researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), San Jose, California. He lives in Mountain View, California.

Preface

As I read, listened and watched Western sources on the events surrounding the mass demonstrations on central square in Kiev during winter 2013-2014, a sense of deja vu became undeniable. Having studied the nature of terrorism in Russia's North Caucasus, the causes and course of the August 2008 Georgian-Russian war, and other events involving Russia, I had seen a pattern of misrepresentation of these events by most Western, especially American, media, academia and government sources. There was a clear sense that this pattern was being repeated with regard to the events on the Maidan. Hence, I decided to investigate matters for myself and have come to a distinctly different conclusion regarding them than that imparted to the Western public.

Two years after the Maidan "revolution of dignity," it was already clear that the Western-backed overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich was not entirely a revolution and was ultimately in vain regardless of how one conceptualizes the events surrounding the fall-winter 2013-2014 demonstrations and violence on Kiev's Maidan. The movement was based initially on middle class opposition to corruption and soft authoritarianism and support for European integration. Ultimately, the nascent pro-democratic revolution was hijacked by neofascist elements that infiltrated the Maidan protests, overthrew the government, and then were themselves superseded by several key oligarchs, who always have thrived under the post-Soviet ancient regime. Thus, corruption and criminality have increased rather than decreased, European integration has stalled, and authoritarianism is not just in the corridors of power but on the streets under the yoke of roaming bands of neofascist groups seeking to foment a second, truly "national revolution."

Despite the all-too-numerous adepts of democratization and democratic transition, this is not the first, nor is it likely to be the last time when the West has misunderstood processes it has hoped for, encouraged, and often funded and helped to organize. The "Arab Spring" is only the most recent set of cases in point. Predictably, that spring's various revolutions became an Islamist winter spread across parts of the Middle East and North Africa, except in Egypt -- where a counterrevolution returned the status quo ante.

Similarly, in 1991 the adepts of democratic transitions or "transitology" got it wrong. Few post-Soviet states became democracies because the "democratic revolution" that overthrew the reformist late Soviet regime of Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika was assumed to be a "revolution from below" led by societal opposition forces bent on living in a democracy. This was true in the Baltic republics, but in most cases the elements of democratic revolution from below were subsumed by a mix of less civil state bureaucrat-led revolutions from above and nationalist-led revolutions from below. In Russia, the revolution was largely one led from above by the Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the Russian state apparatus against the partially reformed but crumbling central Soviet state and regime. In Central Asia and elsewhere, there was simply a change of signboards, rebranding for still very authoritarian regimes. The partial exception is Kyrgyzstan's tulip revolutions and counterrevolutions, which also had strong elements from above. Thus, it is no surprise that both Ukraine's 2004 Orange revolution, as 1 noted at the time, and the 2013-2014 Maidan "revolution of dignity," as I predicted, proved to be something less than the democratic revolutions "transitologists" hailed.

In addition to elements of revolution from below, the Maidan revolt also has elements of revolution from above led by some state officials and state-tied oligarchs. Moreover, the revolution from below was under considerable influence from national chauvinist, ultranationalist, and neofascist groups. The Maidan ultranationalist-oligarchic regime now has little popular support and few accomplishments in democratization, and is little different from the previous, except for a marked increase in western Ukrainian neofascism (both in the corridors of power and on the streets) and a near catastrophic economy. Revolutions are indeed unwieldy things, not very manageable once unleashed.

The international geopolitical consequences have been even more deleterious. A deepening Russian-Western confrontation over Ukraine risks recreating a bipolar "world split apart," with Russia more inclined than ever to forge alliances with regimes opposed to American and Western power.

This book is dedicated to clarifying these events and their consequences, something that is imperative given the misleading government and media characterizations of them. This study is based on Western, Ukrainian and Russian sources, including media reports, reliable primary and secondary Internet sources, and official documents of governments and international organizations.

They show Maidan's quasi-revolution was driven by international geopolitics, supporting counterposed Western and Russian "civilizationist" beliefs, and deep divisions within Ukrainian society itself, not a wellspring of widespread aspiration to Western-style democracy.

[Jul 27, 2018] Financial Times: Chinese Officials "Awed" by Trump's "Skill as a Strategist and Tactician"

Notable quotes:
"... You would do well to consult a dictionary on questions of spelling ..."
"... Trump is not merely mouthing platitudes about farmers or workers or the Rust Belt. He is bringing them back into the game for the first time in ages, and the other side (who considered them dead and gone) is furious. You cannot claim to be for the working class and not cheer a little, if you are being at all honest. ..."
"... But if he succeeds? Wow. ..."
"... According to the Center for Automotive Research's (CAR's) latest trade briefing, applying a 25-percent tariff on all automobile and parts imports would result in 2 million fewer U.S. vehicle sales, 715,000 fewer U.S. jobs and nearly $60 billion in lower U.S. economic output. ..."
"... I was stunned to see that and still don't quite know what to make of it. But the argument is basically, there is no real way to ramp up US auto production without investing in new capacity, which the auto companies are not going to do, period. And since domestic steel and aluminum capacity has already been decimated, and the domestic steel and aluminum producers are even more unwilling to add new capacity than the auto companies, the only effect of the tariffs is to dramatically raise materials costs. ..."
Jul 27, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on July 26, 2018 by Yves Smith A Financial Times article, The Chinese are wary of Donald Trump's creative destruction , by Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, is so provocative, in terms of the contrast with Western perceptions of Trump, that I am quoting from it at some length.

According to Leonard, quite a few key players in China see Trump as having a coherent geopolitical agenda, with reducing China's influence as a key objective, and that he is doing an effective job of implementation. From his Financial Times piece :

I have just spent a week in Beijing talking to officials and intellectuals, many of whom are awed by his [Trump's] skill as a strategist and tactician ..

Few Chinese think that Mr Trump's primary concern is to rebalance the bilateral trade deficit .They think the US president's goal is nothing less than remaking the global order.

They think Mr Trump feels he is presiding over the relative decline of his great nation. It is not that the current order does not benefit the US. The problem is that it benefits others more in relative terms. To make things worse the US is investing billions of dollars and a fair amount of blood in supporting the very alliances and international institutions that are constraining America and facilitating China's rise.

In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump's response is a form of "creative destruction". He is systematically destroying the existing institutions .as a first step towards renegotiating the world order on terms more favourable to Washington.

Once the order is destroyed, the Chinese elite believes, Mr Trump will move to stage two: renegotiating America's relationship with other powers. Because the US is still the most powerful country in the world, it will be able to negotiate with other countries from a position of strength if it deals with them one at a time rather than through multilateral institutions that empower the weak at the expense of the strong.

My interlocutors .describe him as a master tactician, focusing on one issue at a time, and extracting as many concessions as he can. They speak of the skilful way Mr Trump has treated President Xi Jinping. "Look at how he handled North Korea," one says. "He got Xi Jinping to agree to UN sanctions [half a dozen] times, creating an economic stranglehold on the country. China almost turned North Korea into a sworn enemy of the country." But they also see him as a strategist, willing to declare a truce in each area when there are no more concessions to be had, and then start again with a new front.

For the Chinese, even Mr Trump's sycophantic press conference with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, in Helsinki had a strategic purpose. They see it as Henry Kissinger in reverse. In 1972, the US nudged China off the Soviet axis in order to put pressure on its real rival, the Soviet Union. Today Mr Trump is reaching out to Russia in order to isolate China.

In fact, Trump made clear on the campaign trail that he wanted to normalize relations with Russia because he saw China as the much bigger threat to US interests, and that the US could not afford to be taking them both on at the same time. He also regarded Russia as having more in common culturally with the US than China, and thus a more natural ally. Given the emphasis that Trump has placed on US trade deficits as a symbol of the US making deals that are to America's disadvantage, by exporting US jobs,

However, even if the Chinese are right, and there is more method to Trump's madness than his apparent erraticness would have you believe, there are still fatal flaws in his throwing bombs at international institutions.

As anyone who has done a renovation knows, the teardown in the easy part. Building is hard. And while the young Trump that pulled off the Grand Hyatt deal had a great deal of creativity and acumen, early successes appear to have gone to Trump's head. He did manage to get out of the early 1990s real estate downturn in far better shape than most New York City developers by persuading lenders that his name was so critical to the value of his holdings that creditors needed to cut him some slack. But the older Trump has left a lot of money on the table, such as with The Apprentice, by not even knowing what norma were to press for greatly improved terms.

The fact that the half-life of membership on Trump's senior team seems to be under a year does not bode well for establishing new frameworks, since they require consistency of thought and action. And the fact that Trump has foreign policy thugs operatives like John Bolton and Nikki Haley in important roles works against setting new foundations.

So even if the Chinese are right and Trump has been executing well on his master geopolitical plan, Trump is at best capable of delivering only on the easy, destructive part, and will leave his successors to clean up his mess.

Code Name D , July 26, 2018 at 2:51 am

Mind blown

(PS) Underline was never closed..

Louis Fyne , July 26, 2018 at 8:02 am

Trump is called GEOTUS by many of his fans, God-Emperor of the United States.

(for any literalists out there, no, Trump fans aren't monarchists. It's a sarcastic joke that stuck.)

pictboy3 , July 26, 2018 at 9:30 am

It's a Warhammer 40k reference. It absolutely tickles me that there are people out there who take it seriously.

Solar Hero , July 26, 2018 at 10:44 am

Well, also Dune, right?

pictboy3 , July 26, 2018 at 12:25 pm

Possibly, but the meme's I saw rolling around in the run up to the 2016 election had a decidedly 40k aesthetic. In either case, that anyone takes it seriously is hilarious.

Plenue , July 26, 2018 at 5:21 pm

It's intended as a 40k reference (see for example: http://i.imgur.com/LYJJTmY.jpg ). But 40k took the title directly from Dune.

Jonathan Holland Becnel , July 26, 2018 at 9:35 pm

Everyone knows theres only one God-Emperor round these parts: LETO II

Code Name D , July 26, 2018 at 4:22 pm

I'm sorry, but I just can't rap my head around this. It reads like a union piece. "Trump brilliantly does nothing in the face of oncoming challenges." Thanks to our insane foreign policy, when Trump doses anything with a modicum of intelligence, it must seem like "brilliance" to the outside world.

The trick to playing poker isn't having a good hand – but convicting the other players that you have a better hand than theirs. And when Trump isn't smart enough to know when he has been dealt a bad hand? You have to look out for two kinds of players – the ones who know what they are doing, and the ones who don't.

Tomonthebeach , July 26, 2018 at 3:07 am

If the Chinese are saying they are in awe of Trump's brilliance as a strategist/tactician then we are witnessing the Great Khan (con?).

Harry , July 26, 2018 at 3:29 am

I got a similar impression. He went to see that old scumbag Kissenger who i am sure would have told him to cosy up to Russia.

vlade , July 26, 2018 at 3:50 am

I suspect that they suffer from overprojection, i.e. can't believe he would not be rational, and project on Trump what they would do in his position. Not unusual behaviour when one meets with a chaotic behaviour.

PlutoniumKun , July 26, 2018 at 4:13 am

It doesn't really surprise me. In China there is still a sort of awe attached to the 'big man' with power who throws his weight around, even if its not always with subtlety. In my experience, many Chinese are quite fascinated with Trump, and were so even before he became POTUS. So it doesn't surprise me that they tend to put the most positive spin on his blunderbuss approach to international affairs. On the flip side, I also found that the Chinese never shared the rest of the worlds awe of Obama, they saw him as weak and vain.

That said, I'm pretty sure the strategists in Beijing are well aware of Trumps weaknesses and will work out (if they haven't already) how to manipulate him. For now, broken institutions may well suit China very well.

John k , July 26, 2018 at 10:07 am

I doubt it. They have been rising like a rocket as they manipulate institutions like WTO, if this breaks they will do ok one on one with small countries, but poorly wrt Eu and us.

Tomonthebeach , July 26, 2018 at 4:37 pm

I doubt seriously if anybody in China is impressed by Trump's brilliance. Like all world leaders, they have realized that if you stroke Trump's ego, he'll sit up and beg – woof.

I suggest reading Hilda Hookham's " A Short History of China. " Though published in 1972, the history of China dates back millennia. From that book, I note that China has cycles of domination followed by economic implosion (often triggered by revolution – most recently Mao) and a slow crawl back. It has been going on for centuries. Some of it is endemic to the Chinese culture (how they view the world), and some of it is likely due to the limits of central control when the country is just too huge to govern. If Hookam's observations are correct, then we should expect a financial meltdown at some point. After all, China's personal debt level is high and their housing bubble is ginormous – the sort of thing that generates recessions.

The Rev Kev , July 26, 2018 at 4:19 am

If this is all the case, it may be partially working. The EU just agreed to buy more soybeans to make up for what US farmers lost in orders to China as well as offering to build more facilities to take in US LPG shipments which is by its nature is much more expensive and less reliable than that coming in from Russia. So the EU has basically surrendered to Trump's demands.
The implication of this article is that Trump would spend his first term smashing up things and the second term securing all these you beaut deals to secure his legacy. I doubt that Russia will go along because they know that the US is not only incapable of keeping an agreement but can trash a deal and impose all sorts of sanctions in a matter of days. Iran is already experiencing this. China may be taking note.
I think too that the deep state is also working against this model. I am going to throw out a theory that what they want is to see the formation of a second Tripartite Pact but this time between China, Russia and Iran hence the constant pressure against these three nations. With that in place, it would guarantee ever-increasing defense budgets for decades to meet this 'united threat'. In addition, China may want to be cautious here. Once you pay 'danegeld' it never stops.

Pookah Harvey , July 26, 2018 at 11:10 am

According to the WaPo it appears Juncker gave Trump a non-concesstion concesstion:

Trump also touted an agreement by the Europeans to buy more American soybeans and liquefied natural gas. But Juncker in a speech later Wednesday indicated the gas purchases would only go forward "if the conditions were right and price is competitive." (Anthony Gardner, a former U.S. ambassador to the E.U., said in a tweet it was "absurd" to believe liquefied gas could compete with what the continent pipes in from nearer by.) And the E.U. was already looking to import more U.S. soybeans, since China -- in its own trade fight with the Trump administration -- has been buying more from Brazil, driving up the price of the product there.

John Zelnicker , July 26, 2018 at 12:28 pm

@The Rev Kev
July 26, 2018 at 4:19 am
-- --

" they want to see the formation of a second Tripartite Pact but this time between China, Russia and Iran"

It is a basic necessity for the MIC (in which I include the "deep state") to have a worthy opponent to continue producing and selling their weaponry to all of the other countries of the world, or at least the ones on "our" side. Such an opponent also justifies the continuing massive funding of the surveillance agencies.

The Soviet Union served for decades as the worthy opponent, but since 1991 the US has been looking for another worthy opponent, i.e., a credible threat. Saddam Hussein served that purpose for a short time, and then the broader War on Terror. However, neither one of those was sustainable as a credible threat.

A Tripartite Pact v2.0 would create a very worthy opponent, keeping the MIC companies very busy and profitable for many years to come.

Yves Smith Post author , July 26, 2018 at 2:50 pm

See Links today. Politico reported that everything that Junkcer promised to Trump (save maybe soyabeans but not sure there) is stuff the EU was doing/going to do already. So Trump got nothing new.

Seamus Padraig , July 26, 2018 at 2:55 pm

I think too that the deep state is also working against this model. I am going to throw out a theory that what they want is to see the formation of a second Tripartite Pact but this time between China, Russia and Iran hence the constant pressure against these three nations.

If so, they would probably be making a huge mistake. Handling China by itself will soon be more than a chore for an ever-declining west. Handling a "tripartite pact" would be way, way out of our league. A Russo-Chinese-Iranian alliance in the Eurasian heartland would have Mackinder turning in his grave. That's why the neocon strategy is so stupid: it just pushes the Russians further into the arms of the Chinese. Say what you want about Trump–at least he understands that much.

nervos belli , July 26, 2018 at 4:34 am

Trump, especially in his foreign policy is very rational if chaotic. Chaotic can still be rational.
He saw what e.g. Obama tried to do. Obama wanted to curb down on US global force projection, less US instigated wars on 7 continntes. He did it poorly, was stupid even. And when he didn't want to start new wars, the deep state including the state department (Hillary) or his allies (France/UK) drew him into new conflicts anyways: Ukraine, Syria, Lybia.

Trump saw this and therefore uses a different strategy, basically a crazy Ivan. Be so outrageous, chaotic, etc, that the US is simply not welcome anymore. Not in Syria, not in Ukraine, but even more important: not with their own allies. UK/France could be sure their ally US would bail them out when it was clear that Lybia was a total clusterfuck for them. Would any NATO ally be able to depend on Trump today for one of their stupid wars anymore? Exactly.
Trump is no pacifist of course. He still likes to sell weapons to anyone who pays, but the crucial difference is, Saudi-Arabia and UAE pays, it's not a "deliver weapons for free via CIA" as before to some shitty terrorist cel^W^Wfreedom fighter.

On the tradefront it's the same: he ruthlessly tries to exploit the hegemonial position the US still enjoys here. That's why he asked Merkel several times about a bilateral trade agreement in the beginning. He knows in one on one treaties the US always has the advantage due to its size. I'm sure he asked everybody he ever met that. Germany loudly and publically declined and pointed to the EU for that, but maybe not every country would: eg. Poland or any other eastern european country might agree to a quiet "we protect you from Russia, but we need a consideration for this" treaty mafia style.
He will try to exploit every kind of advantage like this all the while giving the impression of being a moron, crazy or both.
Same with his constant tries to bring back industry to the US any way he can, gutting NAFTA, etc. He doesn't care if he pollutes to high heaven, for him it's actually bringing the industry back first and foremost. You cannot really have both which sucky but that's physics. The left however wants both, and gets neither btw.

This is a high risk strategy, and far from certain it will work, but it's much better than the constant decline over the last 20 years with perpetual wars draining the coffers, generating unrest at home, hobbling the economy in the process only lining the pockets of the rich and creating two worldwide major economical crises. Not counted the by now millions of deaths the US is almost solely responsible for.
It actually uses the power that the US still has fairly optimally cause when the power is totally gone, it's too late. We all know free trade and globalism do not help "the economy" much less the common man, so when someone is actually doing something practical instead of writing useless books so the NC commentariat can gripe or fap to Mr. Hudson in an embarassing fanboi way, then he's vilified.

You can vilify him for his corruption, e.g. his self serving tax reform, the personal credit for his private ventures from UAE/Saudi Arabia or ZTE, gutting of financial oversight or EPA, but especially his foreign policy has some method in his madness.
Of course he is not a shining liberal progressive saviour, but a right wing reactionary evil capitalist so the way he does it is his way the evil way. The US already tried a compassionate, smiling "peace for all mankind" ineffective moron from 2008-2016. It didn't help, it made it all around much worse everywhere and was indistinguishable from the criminal evil moron before him.

Loneprotester , July 26, 2018 at 9:11 am

There are pearls of wisdom mixed in with a goodly dose of horse hooey here. You would do well to consult a dictionary on questions of spelling (it's not LYbia, but Libya; not hegemonial but hegemonical, etc.).

Like the FT piece itself, it is hard to parse what perspective you are coming from. I will focus here on the piece itself, which I read yesterday. The FT piece could be genuine: "Hey, look at this guys! The Chinese really seem to think Trump is a genius strategist!" It could be a CYA operation by an increasingly hostile FT editorial board worried by the increasing vehemence of commentators on both ends of the spectrum and some of its columnists who appear to be suicidal over the rise of Trump AND Brexit. Or, the 3rd option, it is a concerted strategy by the Chinese to appeal to Trump's vanity in a way that calls to mind a brilliant episode of South Park where Pokeman is a mind control plot by the Japanese to take over America and the worried parents keep getting distracted from their efforts to get to the bottom of it by Japanese proclamations of wonder at the size of their male members. Classic!

Time will tell. But one thing is certain, Trump is not a fool, at least not in the classic sense of the term. For my part, I get the sense of someone who has a map of the minefield and is deftly maneuvering through it, but whose luck could run out at any time. In the meantime, the world as a whole finally gets a chance to see the minefield, which we have been told repeatedly does not exist.

integer , July 26, 2018 at 11:24 am

You would do well to consult a dictionary on questions of spelling

FWIW it's Pokémon, not Pokeman. Orthography aside, I agree that Trump has shown the world the "map of the minefield", although my preferred metaphor is that Trump has sent (and continues to send) impulses through the liberal international order, and in doing so, has revealed the liberal international order's impulse response function.

In signal processing, the impulse response , or impulse response function (IRF), of a dynamic system is its output when presented with a brief input signal, called an impulse. More generally, an impulse response is the reaction of any dynamic system in response to some external change. In both cases, the impulse response describes the reaction of the system as a function of time (or possibly as a function of some other independent variable that parameterizes the dynamic behavior of the system).

In all these cases, the dynamic system and its impulse response may be actual physical objects, or may be mathematical systems of equations describing such objects.

Since the impulse function contains all frequencies, the impulse response defines the response of a linear time-invariant system for all frequencies.

I'm not sure whether the liberal international order is a linear time-invariant system though, but " The End of History and the Last Man " appears to suggest that it is.

marym , July 26, 2018 at 10:04 am

Trump and his appointees have no policies that will benefit the common person, and many that will do them great harm. There's no path from smashing "globalism" to the common good under such a regime.

John k , July 26, 2018 at 10:22 am

Balanced trade is better for our workers than the status quo.
And reduced immigration is similar all this is the unwind of the Corp push, aided by both parties, to push down wages because profits. Unwinding means breaking agreements.
It is not news that we have let other countries take advantage of our workers, or that, as trump said, winning trade wars is easy, given that you're the big importer. Or that in trade wars it is the exporter that is hurt the most in the 30's it was the us. True, Apple might get hurt since most stuff is made in Asia, so what? How many us workers do they have? Not like GM.
Trump certainly wanted his tax cuts, but it seems he has not forgotten flyover.

marym , July 26, 2018 at 10:47 am

What hurts workers is predatory capitalism. That's why we don't have good wages, safe workplaces, universal healthcare, robust social programs, sustainable food and energy supplies, clean air and water, infrastructure maintenance and improvement .etc.

Trump and his appointees are neglecting or working against all those things now. Why would that change under protectionist capitalism, even for the white flown-overs who attend his rallies and cheer his bigotry, let alone the rest of the common people?

Loneprotester , July 26, 2018 at 11:03 am

"Predatory capitalism" is not a thing in and of itself. It is the end product of globalisation breaking all the old rules of reciprocity and communal obligations/rights. Trade unions got a (deservedly) bad rap in post-war America for hindering productivity and making off-shoring attractive to management. What gets less play is their place in western labor/economic history where they held the line against robber barons, big finance, and their political cronies as a link in a chain going back to the Middle Ages, when noblesse oblige was an actual thing and not a vague concept. When we focus too much on one player in a complex chess match, we lose the importance of the shared authority of both sides. JohnK is correct. Trump is not merely mouthing platitudes about farmers or workers or the Rust Belt. He is bringing them back into the game for the first time in ages, and the other side (who considered them dead and gone) is furious. You cannot claim to be for the working class and not cheer a little, if you are being at all honest.

Left in Wisconsin , July 26, 2018 at 12:09 pm

Trump is not merely mouthing platitudes about farmers or workers or the Rust Belt. He is bringing them back into the game for the first time in ages, and the other side (who considered them dead and gone) is furious. You cannot claim to be for the working class and not cheer a little, if you are being at all honest.

While I agree with this in principle, what matters is actual practice, not principle. The farmers here in Wisconsin are going berserk. The commodity soybean producers are seeing their Chinese market go away. The dairy farmers are losing their undocumented help while dairy prices stay depressed. While we have a relatively large organic and small scale farm sector compared to many other places, it is still peanuts in the grand scheme of things and no one in that sector believes Trump is out to help them.

But it should be different in manufacturing, right? Well, I'm not sure what to make of it but an old auto industry acquaintance I know to be union friendly just wrote this:
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/398312-by-any-measure-25-auto-tariffs-will-cost-americans-dearly

According to the Center for Automotive Research's (CAR's) latest trade briefing, applying a 25-percent tariff on all automobile and parts imports would result in 2 million fewer U.S. vehicle sales, 715,000 fewer U.S. jobs and nearly $60 billion in lower U.S. economic output.

I was stunned to see that and still don't quite know what to make of it. But the argument is basically, there is no real way to ramp up US auto production without investing in new capacity, which the auto companies are not going to do, period. And since domestic steel and aluminum capacity has already been decimated, and the domestic steel and aluminum producers are even more unwilling to add new capacity than the auto companies, the only effect of the tariffs is to dramatically raise materials costs.

Loneprotester , July 26, 2018 at 12:30 pm

I do not wish to make light of the real pain of real people, but there was always going to be short to mid-term disruption to "the system" to stop the outflow of capital and redirect growth domestically. It's like trimming a tree or pruning a grape vine. The branches that were growing are definitely feeling the pain and would protest if they could. But the productivity and long term prospects of the plant and/or crop are infinitely improved.

You cannot negotiate with a gun to your head, and if the gun is pointed by your supporters and political opposition, it is nevertheless potentially lethal. Were he the most popular political leader ever, Trump would still face this backlash, and the backlash is legitimate. He is NOT the most popular, so this is very dangerous. But if he succeeds? Wow.

Left in Wisconsin , July 26, 2018 at 1:12 pm

But if he succeeds? Wow.

If you mean success the way I mean success, there will need to be some sort of fundamental change to US/MNC corporate leadership. I don't see how Trump achieves this. Not even convinced he really wants it.

Why would a rational person believe this is anything more than a ploy from a bullsh1tter to win votes? Or that Trump cares about anything beyond 2020 (if that far out)?

Also, I think your (best case) argument only applies to manufacturing, not farming. For better or worse, US agriculture is heavily export oriented. And I have never heard Trump mutter one word about growing our own food.

lyman alpha blob , July 26, 2018 at 2:29 pm

From what I understand the US has been overproducing dairy for quite some time now which benefits the big midwestern farms and hurts the smaller farms, like those in New England. When the New England diary compact came up for renewal by Congress several years ago they declined to renew after pressure from the larger corporate dairy enterprises.

My family has milked 60 cows for decades now no matter what the price of milk is. Others have expanded their herds when prices go up, thinking they would cash in, which annoys my father to no end. As long as we're under a capitalist system, increasing production without increasing demand is going to cause prices to drop. I don't know how all the other farmers in Vermont did over the years, but I do know that my family's farm is still milking 60 cows while all up and down the road nearby other barns are crumbling to dust. My family has never hired any undocumented workers and very few documented ones either, and none in the half century I've been around. The herd is kept to a size they can manage by themselves.

I believe someone here linked the astronomical amount of government cheese we currently have lying around that nobody wants. What exactly is the point of all this overproduction? No small farmers I know are retiring early from any great windfall they've received.

Now if Trump's idea was to cut production and decrease the perceived 'need' for undocumented workers, I'd be all for it. Without the US overproducing cheap dairy and dumping it on other nations, the undocumented might be able to begin farming in their own countries again. But since Trump seems to want Canada, which has evidently managed its dairy industry much better, to start accepting cheap US dairy, I don't think that's his plan. I'm still not convinced he has a coherent strategy on anything, despite what the Chinese think.

But if the result turns out to be less overproduction and less illegal immigration, fewer corporate farms and a return to the smaller family farm, that can't be a bad thing.

At this point global warming can't be denied. If these policies result in less overproduction which means less industrial activity and fewer overall large ruminants with their own food requirement, I would count that as a victory.

Staying the course means capitalism ruins the planet even quicker.

The system needs to change. I'd much rather have someone other than Trump doing the changing, but there seems to be almost noone else in DC willing to upset the apple cart (or the milk wagon) for fear that their corporate bribes will dry up. If someone could convince Trump of a little MMT, and make sure all the workers who do lose their jobs when overproduction is cut will be taken care of, then I think we're on the right track.

Left in Wisconsin , July 26, 2018 at 4:27 pm

I'm no dairy expert. But I found a very informative article in the local ag rag from Sept 2017: Total dairy farms in Wisconsin were just less than 9000, down 500 from the year before, with an average herd size of 142. (That average masks a number of 5000 cow mega-dairies.) Compared to 1997, when there were 50,000 dairy farms with average herd size of 37. 1.8 million total dairy cows then, 1.2 million now producing twice as much milk per cow. (In 1957, 103,000 dairy farms in the state.)

lyman alpha blob , July 26, 2018 at 9:54 pm

Interesting stats – thanks! I'm guessing BGH has something to do with the increased production.

Synoia , July 26, 2018 at 12:24 pm

against robber barons, big finance, and their political cronies as a link in a chain going back to the Middle Ages, when noblesse oblige was an actual thing and not a vague concept.

Noblesse Oblige was more of a guideline than a practice. It certainly was not law.

Loneprotester , July 26, 2018 at 12:34 pm

Not true. There were wide variations depending on country and period, but the vassal/liege model replicated all the way down society. Nobles who broke customary law could face serious uprisings and when agricultural labor was in short supply, as after a plague outbreak, their serfs might simply run away, leaving them with worthless estates.

Yves Smith Post author , July 26, 2018 at 2:56 pm

No, you have it backwards. Predatory capitalism, if you want to call it that, goes back to the Thatcher/Reagan revolutions, which received legitimation from the raiders of the 1980s, who took overdiversified conglomerates that were trading at a discount, bought them with tons of debt, and sold the parts for more than the purchase price. All the money they made was depicted as a victory for entreprenurship over corporate norms of considering the needs of all of what would now be called stakeholders, not just shareholders.

The actions of the raiders and the gospel of "maximizing shareholder value) predate the globalization/outsourcing fetish, which really took hold in the 1990s.

Seamus Padraig , July 26, 2018 at 2:26 pm

There's no path from smashing "globalism" to the common good under such a regime.

Maybe. But there's definitely no path from globalism to the common good, so Trump is just a risk we're going to have to take. One thing is beyond dispute here: we gave those jokers in Washington (and Brussels) a full eight years after the economic crash of 2008 to fix the situation, and they did nothing. Not a damn thing! Now the situation is really dire, and it looks like we might have to–forgive the metaphor–break a little china.

Yves Smith Post author , July 26, 2018 at 2:57 pm

Trump has zero interest in the welfare of ordinary workers save for optics to fool the rubes. If you think he's breaking things for your benefit, you are smoking something very strong.

John k , July 26, 2018 at 8:03 pm

But he does want to be re-elected.
Dems refuse to consider giving up any income stream from donors, trump, though beholden to Sheldon and Israel, will toss any Corp group save real estate under the bus if that helps. M4a would do it, so I think he might get the reps to give up that income stream.
And could be very gradual, two years down every year.

skippy , July 26, 2018 at 5:04 am

"creative destruction" – sigh .

So were back to applying GT to humans in a multivariate T&S matrix and then laying claim or extenuating the results to meaninglessness.

Synoia , July 26, 2018 at 12:29 pm

extenuating? Or extrapolating?

In a chaotic system extrapolation is unwise. Extrapolation assumes some form of linear behavior.

Jim Haygood , July 26, 2018 at 5:24 am

'They think Mr Trump feels he is presiding over the relative decline of his great nation'

And he is, of course, as a nearby post about the downwardly mobile middle class makes clear.

Unfortunately flake-o-nomics will not make America great again. The Republican party's crackpot fiscal stimulus pumps hundreds of billions into negative rate of return global military domination during Trump's first and only term.

This is money flushed down the toilet which should have been invested in fixing the substandard features of America's late-Soviet-era economy: failing infrastructure, failing education, a failed health care system. It's high times for looters defense contractors though.

Don't mistake Chauncey Gardner Trump for a very stable genius.

Anarcissie , July 26, 2018 at 10:18 am

I would expect the domestic money hoses to be turned on for the 2020 election. By the way, education and medical care are weird sinkholes of very large amounts of money now and the hosemasters may try to avoid them. If you waste billions on a highway at least at the end of the process you may have a highway, whereas it's clear that the education and medical care industries can make infinite amounts of money vanish leaving behind no tangible signs of their passage.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 26, 2018 at 11:19 am

The Chinese economy may be in a worse shape, or more vulnerable to going from boom to bust.

Synoia , July 26, 2018 at 12:47 pm

It depends on the speed at which the Chinese can build a self-sustaining consumer economy. That is, become an Autarchy.

Their imports are raw materials and Oil. They will solve the oil problem, as most oilfields are associated with large rivers, and the Chinese have a number of large rivers where they can explore for oil.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , July 26, 2018 at 6:51 pm

Chinese have a trump card: a sovereign currency. Like one other nation: Ecuador. When the state issues the scrip (and not commercial banks) it gives you many options. Michael Hudson is one of the very few to point out the importance of this glaring fact.

athena , July 26, 2018 at 5:43 am

I think there's also a chance the Chinese are just lying, because whatever he's doing is something where they feel it actually gives them the upper hand. It's impossible to say either way at this point, as far as I can tell.

Disturbed Voter , July 26, 2018 at 5:44 am

So much projection by readers, so little time until the next election. Shouldn't y'all spend more time promoting the right kind of populist candidates and getting them elected? Focusing on Trump is taking your eye off the ball (again).

Yes, the Chinese are mercantilist, and so is Trump. They recognize their own. Kissinger has never sold a single ice cube to a single Inuit. Followers of Plato's Republic, frequently are mesmerized by academic nonsense.

Get back to work, I would like some populists to vote for (not same as progressives).

Carolinian , July 26, 2018 at 9:21 am

Agreed that the all Trump all the time focus of much of the left is fruitless. The reality is that nobody knows for sure what Trump is up to including, perhaps, Trump himself. Speculation about a strategic plan is mostly useful for curbing the hysteria that says Trump must be stopped, now, immediately, and that's all that matters. Even Sanders has fallen prey with his recent denunciation of the Russia summit. It makes one wonder whether Sanders has a plan either.

And while Kissinger was certainly amoral and had his own crackpot notions, his "realist" view of foreign policy would be a refreshing change from the fake solicitude that says we have to bomb one country after another in order to save them.

Newton Finn , July 26, 2018 at 9:58 am

Sanders' capitulation to the Russiagate narrative was sad, as was his capitulation to Clinton and the DNC after knowing they stabbed him AND THOSE WHO SUPPORTED HIM in the back. As one who worked hard for Bernie and deeply appreciates what he did for America–demonstrating that an effective national campaign can be crowd-funded, and that socialism is no longer a dirty word–I hope that he does not run the next time around. He was John the Baptist. We await "the one who comes after" to carry the revolution forward and take it home. Horizontalism and the grass roots have their important places, but history shows that nothing happens, nothing changes, without the key ingredient of leadership

pretzelattack , July 26, 2018 at 10:09 am

well that's what he did to chile, via coup rather than bombing, there's a quote about "not letting chile go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people". sanders' capitulation on russia gate bothers me a great deal.

Carolinian , July 26, 2018 at 11:10 am

True, so amoral "realism" can be just as bad as (effectively) amoral R2P.

But in this particular case Kissinger has said that Russia should be given its sphere of influence and given Russia's nuclear status it's hard to see why that isn't sensible and true. It's hard to see what the American interests would be in the Ukraine.

Anarcissie , July 26, 2018 at 12:43 pm

That depends on what you think America's interests are. That is, its ruling class's interests. If one conceives of America's interests as dominating a weakened Russia, then of course one wants to get them kicked out of Syria and the Middle East in general, and to turn Ukraine into a hostile pro-Western bastion by whatever means necessary. The risk that these moves would result in hostility and countermoves was accepted, and some of the threats have now come to pass. From my point of view, it was stupid to provoke them, but as government seems to attract psychopaths, perhaps inevitable.

BillS , July 26, 2018 at 6:50 am

I think this article misses the fact that the Chinese are far more subtle than P45 could ever understand. They may appear "awed", but they are not the least bit fooled. If P45 reads any book before dealing with the Chinese, it should be the Art of War.
*****
Allure the enemy by giving him a small advantage. Confuse and capture him. If there be defects, give an appearance of perfection, and awe the enemy. Pretend to be strong, and so cause the enemy to avoid you. Make him angry, and confuse his plans. Pretend to be inferior, and cause him to despise you. If he have superabundance of strength, tire him out; if united, make divisions in his camp. Attack weak points, and appear in unexpected places.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 26, 2018 at 11:42 am

I think Xi violated the Art of War a while back, with

1. Proclaiming Made In China 2025
2. One Belt One Road.

To appear 'awe,' again, also seems to go against Mao's "the barrel of the gun" strategy that raw power matters more.

Brumel , July 26, 2018 at 7:49 am

Strategy or tactics aside, on the math Trump's retraction of his tariff menace against Europe, at the price of a few bags of soybeans, seems a huge victory for Juncker, right?

Brooklin Bridge , July 26, 2018 at 9:01 am

Teasing out Trump's merits is a little like diving for quarters in the sewer. You'll find some for sure, but

As to the Reno analogy, if the frame of a building is rotten throughout, then tearing down walls even by temper tantrum appears strategic in that it's guaranteed to uncover issues that must be addressed. The established method of diplomacy, for instance, has become so formalized and drawn out that for all it's merits in caution, the simple act of a human meeting between one leader and – GASP – the POTUS can contribute significantly to unexpected success. It's not easy to tell if Trump upsets the apple cart of protocal because he's a spoiled brat who thinks he's the greatest negotiator ever to walk upright, or because he has an intuitive grasp of human nature or a bit of both.

Glen Greenwald strikes me as one of the better Trumpticians who can discuss Trump intellegently without having to put on a wet suit. He presents the facts and highlights the positives and let's the cards fall where they may as far as merit goes and indeed it puts a certain shine on Trump which he may or may not deserve and even then without necessarily being a great tactician.

(recently in links): https://theintercept.com/2018/07/16/a-spirited-substantive-debate-on-the-trumpputin-summit-russia-and-us-politics/

Brooklin Bridge , July 26, 2018 at 9:08 am

protocal -> protocol

Louis Fyne , July 26, 2018 at 9:05 am

It's good to hear that Chinese official-dom believes that it's dealing with a rational, but unconventional, US.

Countries who feel that they're dealing with rational actors tend avoid shooting first and asking questions later.

Danpaco , July 26, 2018 at 9:13 am

Maybe the Chinese are just appealing to his vanity.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 26, 2018 at 9:57 am

Who is going to have more luck

1. The Chinese with this,

or

2. Sanders who said Helsinki was embarrassing?

Brooklin Bridge , July 26, 2018 at 2:23 pm

Now that's a good one

I'll go for Sanders cause we can all make mistakes ? Is there a right answer? All of the above? None o the above? All of the above and none of the above simultaneously?

fajensen , July 26, 2018 at 9:24 am

Ancient Chinese Proverb: Flattery will get you anywhere!

Louis Fyne , July 26, 2018 at 9:59 am

so true.

that's what i like about reading the comments here. lots of people more witty than me cranking out quality lines before i've even finished my 2nd coffee

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 26, 2018 at 10:06 am

I am trying to come with up a historical Chinese example where flattery won a dynasty.

The first emperor – through sheer military might

There was the Feast at Hong Gate ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_at_Hong_Gate ), and Liu Bang escaped with the help of an insider from the opposition (treason) to later establish the second Chinese dynasty – the Han empire.

The Qing conquerors did not win with flattery – with again through the treasonous act of a Ming general guarding the gate to Manchuria (Shanhaiguan).

Throughout Chinese history, I can recall, at this moment, only flattery on the part of the subservient Mandarins or eunuchs, presuming a superior and inferior hierarchy.

And it worked sometimes, and failed disastrously other times, for the flatter.

richard savage , July 26, 2018 at 9:30 am

Great post – saves me having to pay to read the original FT article too

Steely Glint , July 26, 2018 at 9:47 am

Creative destruction. Shock doctrine with new name?

John k , July 26, 2018 at 10:42 am

Couple points
Your earlier point was that his modus was to keep firing until he is happy with his team I can imagine his not being happy yet. And he has to keep hiring people he doesn't know.
Minefields certainly deep, msm and dems are making it as difficult as they can to be nice to Russia, and to pivot from China to them. He's got to keep both the base and elected reps reasonably happy, lots to juggle. Amazing how Twitter keeps to base engaged and opp off guard.
China they really, really don't want existing world order upset or broken, they're doing well, and change that leads to unemployment can slip into revolution, given their only excuse to rule is ever rising living standard. There are always thousands of protests that need suppressing. So why would they say anything that encourages his behavior? Sounds like grudging admiration.
Omelettes require breaking eggs. Reversing 40 years of wage repression attacks profits Bernie wants 15/hr, but stopping immigration while balancing trade would naturally push up wages without mandate. And, of course, push down profits Apple and others in jeopardy.

Left in Wisconsin , July 26, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Amplifying:
The US corporate class does very little business with Russia. They have little to lose by siding with the neocons on Russia. Also very good for defense budgets, military contractors.

The US corporate class is deeply invested in China. The neocons obviously see this and tread much more lightly on the China issue. Also, "we need to protect the WTO and the world trade order" so that our allies see us as a "responsible" trade partner and aren't driven into the arms of China – even though our corporate class is completely wedded to China at this point. Inconsistency on China also not bad for defense budgets, military contractors.

Where does Trump fit in all this? Hard to say. I have been surprised by his continued willingness to push the trade issue despite the complete opposition of the corporate class. On the other hand, I don't see how he actually benefits the working person if the corporations refuse to reinvest in the USA. And I see no evidence that they are or ever will again. So my conclusion at this point is that he simply sees it as an electoral winner even if no substantive change is ever achieved. And my second conclusion would be to follow Trump's money. I'm still of the opinion that Trump taking on the "community" is more about knee-capping their ability to dig into, or at least do anything about, his finances than about any geo-strategic America-first thinking.

John k , July 26, 2018 at 5:59 pm

25% tariff brings a lot of car mfg, whether our own or Japanese or Europe japan now labor short anyway, they can quickly expand.
Grant that trump doesn't care about working class, but he clearly wants to be re-elected. Most dems still aren't paying any attention to working class, all about Russia, a losing strategy even from Bernie.

I could imagine trump pushing m4a thru, great for his hotel workers, not clear even Bernie could beat him if he does. Why not? He's already going against most Corp in attacking China.

Course he makes mistakes, but shouldn't let personal distaste convince you he's stupid.

Left in Wisconsin , July 26, 2018 at 6:05 pm

I posted this (with link) above. Not saying it's gospel but the link between tariffs and domestic manufacturing runs though the US corporate class, who seem very disinterested in US mfg:

According to the Center for Automotive Research's (CAR's) latest trade briefing, applying a 25-percent tariff on all automobile and parts imports would result in 2 million fewer U.S. vehicle sales, 715,000 fewer U.S. jobs and nearly $60 billion in lower U.S. economic output.

I was stunned to see that and still don't quite know what to make of it. But the argument is basically, there is no real way to ramp up US auto production without investing in new capacity, which the auto companies are not going to do, period. And since domestic steel and aluminum capacity has already been decimated, and the domestic steel and aluminum producers are even more unwilling to add new capacity than the auto companies, the only effect of the tariffs is to dramatically raise materials costs.

marym , July 26, 2018 at 6:35 pm

He would need someone to explain how Medicare works, and how it would be expanded to M4A. Probably not the person he appointed to administer it though.

Top Trump health official slams 'Medicare for all'

Verma said the focus of Medicare should be on seniors and disabled individuals and that expanding the program to cover younger, healthier people will drain the program of funding and deprive seniors of the coverage they need.

"By choosing a socialized system, you are giving the government complete control over the decisions pertaining to your care or whether you receive care at all. It would be the furthest thing from patient-centric care," Verma said.

Verma also said the CMS would likely deny waivers from states that seek to implement their own single-payer systems.

coboarts , July 26, 2018 at 11:58 am

Trump's been developing real estate in New York and running casinos. He doesn't need to read the book by Sun Tzu. Underestimation is mentioned where as a recommended strategy? I think Trump has planned his work and is working his plan. That's for strategy. The tactics develop in play. I also think that Mr. Pompeo will be around for a while. Take out your pens. History is being written, and yes, it involves risk.

herm , July 26, 2018 at 12:03 pm

I wonder how much of this would be gaslighting on the part of the Chinese, or at least a hint the direction they would like to nudge Trump. What made me wonder that was the all too true quip tearing down is easy, building is hard . As someone who has gone through renovation I can attest to that! But it's not only me, in the aftermath of WWII America was the only 'great power' that hadn't been shattered by the war, and can thank its postwar dominance on that fact. Even the USSR, though victorious, had lost millions of lives and been thoroughly ravaged by the Nazis. And the best the US could come up with against this fairly broken rival was Cold War!

The thing is, today no other 'great power' is in such as state as they were after WWII. None are at the mercy of the US the way they were then. Trump can take swings and smash stuff, but will not be able to rebuild anything on his own terms because the situation is nowhere near the same. In fact, the more damage Trump does can only put the US in a worse position. We become the loose canon that may vote in another Trump at any time, who may again overtly smash things and try to be more aggressively dominant in the world, and China can portray themselves as a model of stability in comparison.

john c. halasz , July 26, 2018 at 12:18 pm

"Creative destruction" is so 1980's. It's all about "disruptive innovation" nowadays!

Summer , July 26, 2018 at 12:52 pm

" even if the Chinese are right and Trump has been executing well on his master geopolitical plan, Trump is at best capable of delivering only on the easy, destructive part, and will leave his successors to clean up his mess."

What you refer to as a mess, may be the next stage, following the Chinese perception that there is a coherency to the chaos.

Over and over again, it's been shown that the allowed choices by the establishment are neoliberalism (what is currently defined as liberal democracy) or its kissing cousin (maybe siamese twin) overt fascism.

"Overt" is an important word doing a lot of work here.

For the USA, Trumps alliances with supporters of theocracy means the cleanup is going to be a baton pass to actual ideologues with a horrifying domestic agenda that we are not prepared for.

Pelham , July 26, 2018 at 12:52 pm

Maybe it won't be so much a matter of cleaning up a mess as just modestly building international linkages that don't stupidly favor a bunch of leech-like allies.

cbu , July 26, 2018 at 1:05 pm

If Trump destroys the credibility of the U.S. in stage one, then there is not much he can accomplish in stage two.

Susan the other , July 26, 2018 at 2:23 pm

In spite of the face-saving flattery, I think the Chinese are right. But I also think that this is pablum for the egos of us Americans who don't understand the world anymore. If they say rational things about Trump it makes it easier for the US public. I must wonder what Rachel is gonna make of what almost appears to be an orchestrated, cooperative international effort to adjust trading relationships and, clearly, to avoid war. The Chinese know full well they have exported a fatal dose of deflation to the American economy; they knew it would happen as far back as 1980. And so did our big corporations – which explains why they dumped American labor like garbage. I really think the fix was in back then and it is in today.

Our European allies are behaving interestingly, calmly. In Canada they all gathered around a sitting, stubborn looking Trump for a photo op that depicted them all wanting to talk reason – all the while following a set plan. Notice how they stood by us when China wanted to do trade treaties with them that harmed us. And they have been very patient with us over Russia – they didn't rush into Ukraine even though Vicki publicly said "Fuck the EU" and they didn't turn their backs on us when we asked for 2% NATO payments.

And Russia has really kept her powder dry . it all looks orchestrated to me. The big question is Where to now?

Germany just advised India to buy oil from Iran (because Germany is in on the Saudi pipeline no doubt). We and Europe are acting like a big family – and I just heard the most profound description of "family" – it is where "things are left unsaid." I certainly hope that is the reason nobody is talking about what an emergency global warming is – and that they are actually getting ready for some big changes. Always hopeful.

Lambert Strether , July 26, 2018 at 3:45 pm

> In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump's response is a form of "creative destruction". He is systematically destroying the existing institutions

So, " volatility voters " have brought forth a "Volatility Executive." If you're playing in a rigged game and losing, the upside comes from kicking over the table .

John k , July 26, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Absolutely. Maybe delayed on account of Russia Russia, but he seems to have consolidated power and might be on course now. Granted vol voters don't have absolute control over a vol exec, but his moves so far likely encourage them. I personally doubt dems will get enough house seats by appealing to moderate reps.

And it's also granted trump moves have huge Corp and political enemies, flyover knows this, IMO will be patient. I've been talking to HK expats in Toronto, they didn't know what flyover meant, but quickly understood the shift in voter pref. My point to them is that the side hurt the most in a trade war is the big exporter they don't need to be told China is particularly vulnerable, can't take unemployment. We're used to it here

J Bank , July 26, 2018 at 4:13 pm

Or maybe the Chinese know that flattery is the only way to appeal to him?

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 26, 2018 at 10:36 pm

I think Beijing is just acknowledging it's a new world kind of like the people during the last years of the Han dynasty.

That was when the famed Three Kingdom Period commenced. One of the two or three greatest Chinese novels was written in the late Yuan/early Ming dynasty – more than 1,000 years later and Chinese adults and kids still remembered – about the battles of wits, strategizing and brave deeds of various heroes during that period. The novel is called Romance of the Three Kingdom

How the three kingdoms played one off another would be quite relevant today, with three major world powers trying to cope.

stefan , July 26, 2018 at 6:15 pm

Trump is very good at getting people's attention. What he does with that attention remains to be seen. Statecraft is a long game.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 26, 2018 at 10:27 pm

China knows Trump is the first American (or Western) leader, in a long time, and likely to be the only American one in the foreseeable future, to stand up to Beijing.

That they don't just say that, but have to say this, indicates the game has changed for them.

And to think one can bury one's stupid opponent by lauding him can be not too smart. It implicitly under-estimate that opponent, by presuming.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 26, 2018 at 10:47 pm

Among the three kingdoms

As it turned out, Wei provoked Shu and Wu to war against each other, with the latter killing a great general Guan Yu (who was honored by later Chinese through even today as the Martial Saint/Duke/God). Not much later, Wei first defeated Wu and then conquered Shu.

[Jul 27, 2018] What Everyone Seemed To Ignore In Helsinki by Jon Basil Utley

Jul 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jon Basil Utley via The American Conservative,

We continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.

Sifting through the cacophony of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here are four key points missed, ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and mainstream news coverage - and they require a good airing.

They are:

1) It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on NATO in the first place?

Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for all their noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the reasons why. Meanwhile Russia is cutting its military spending.

Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the money that it didn't even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2 percent of gross national product.

2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed keen to discuss it was ejected beforehand). Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC .

The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack on Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, because they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases. Americans may think that we don't start wars, but the Russians don't. The old shill argument that democracies don't start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.

3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his meeting) $200 million of new aid to Ukraine's military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some analysts believe that Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying to weaken and discredit America's overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul writes how we never think about other nations' interests.

4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the "Deep State" in dominating American foreign policy. An article by Bruce Fein in TAC argues we should "Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia, " showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it's good for business.

Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It's interesting to note that TAC has been criticizing the "Deep State" since at least 2015.

The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would be "easy" and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.

America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil and gas vital for the world economy.

For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small nations unable to resist or respond to our power. "We" kill thousands of "them" in easy battles and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don't viscerally understand the full threat of modern weapons because they've never been used against us. This is not unlike World War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the Crimean war. (See " Lessons in Empire")

And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.

Son of Loki Thu, 07/26/2018 - 23:45 Permalink

Pompeo told those democrat Senators where to shove it at the hearing.

"Did You Ask Obama About His Private Meeting With Putin?", Mike Pompeo SILENCES Arrogant Dem Senator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqcefW2F1DI

That Menendez is a total anti-American prick.

[Jul 27, 2018] Natylie's Place Analysis Book Reviews on U.S. Foreign Policy and Russia

Jul 27, 2018 | natyliesbaldwin.com

Alexander Mercouris cuts through the hyperbole and provides a detailed analysis of what actually went on at the Helsinki Summit between Putin and Trump. Some pertinent excerpts include the following regarding rumors of a "grand bargain" to sell out Iran in Syria to appease Israel, the Gulf states and Washington, which was always a fairy tale:

On the subject of Syria, in the weeks leading up to the summit there were some media reports suggesting that Donald Trump was coming under pressure from Israel, the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates to agree a deal at the summit with Putin whereby Russia would be granted sanctions relief and possibly even recognition of Crimea, US troops in Syria would be withdrawn, and in return the Russians would agree that Iranian forces would be expelled from Syria.

The Russians were clearly worried by these reports. Not only did they go out of their way to deny them, but Putin and Lavrov held talks in Moscow on 12th July 2018 with Ali Akbar Velayati, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's Special Adviser on International Relations, in order to reassure the Iranians that they were not true.

.Contrary to what some people are saying, I think it is most unlikely that Putin would have given Netanyahu any assurances that Russia would act to rein in Iranian activities in Syria.If Netanyahu asked Putin for such assurances (which I also think unlikely) Putin would almost certainly have told him what the Russians always say when faced with requests for such assurances: Iran and Syria are sovereign states and Russia cannot interfere in arrangements two sovereign states make with each other.

I suspect that the source of some of the stories about a 'grand bargain' between Putin and Trump involving the role of the Iranians in Syria is the regular discussions the Russians have with the Israelis, the Iranians and the Syrians whereby the Russians routinely pass on to the Iranians and the Syrians Israeli concerns about the presence of Iranian forces in Syria in particular locations as well as Israeli concerns about specific actions which the Iranians take.

.The Russians are not engaged here in discussions over some sort of 'grand bargain' to remove all Iranian troops from Syria, which as I have said they would see as counterproductive and impossible. Rather they are engaged in the classic diplomatic exercise of conflict prevention: keeping the Israelis, the Iranians and the Syrians informed about each other's moves and red lines in order to prevent an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict between them, which might risk an all-out war, which nobody wants, and which the Russians are doing their best to prevent.

Recent reports of an understanding between the Israelis, the Iranians and the Syrians supposedly brokered by the Russians whereby Iranian forces agreed not to participate in the Syrian army's ongoing military operations in south west Syria close to the Israeli occupied Golan Heights are a case in point.

The Iranians and the Syrians agreed to this, not because the Russians forced them to but because it is in their interest to. The Syrian army does not need Iranian help to defeat the Jihadis in southwest Syria so keeping the Iranians away from the area allows the Syrians to clear the area of the Jihadis without risking a military confrontation with Israel.

[Jul 27, 2018] America's Allies Against Russia Iran, by Eric Zuesse - The Unz Review

Jul 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Allies Against Russia & Iran Main U.S. allies are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Israel, & Nazis Eric Zuesse July 27, 2018 4,900 Words 58 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments

List of Bookmarks

Today's Axis (the fascist powers) are the heirs of Hitler's failed Operation Barbarossa to conquer the Soviet Union. After World War II, America's CIA, along with Britain's MI6 and other governmental agencies, plus the Vatican, produced "rat lines" for key Nazis (including their collaborators in other countries) to resettle in U.S., Argentina, and Canada (and in other countries, too, as the CIA-edited and written account at Wikipedia focused upon ), and for these 'former' Nazis (who actually remained ideologically as nazis or racist fascists, and the CIA knew and welcomed this) to continue working to conquer the Soviet Union. These secret nazis carried out secret assignments not only for their new country's military and against the Soviet Union, but also domestically against labor unions of all sorts, and against anything that the owners of the largest U.S.-and-allied international corporations wanted to be targeted.

This was and is an officially secret extension of the internationally coordinated farthest far-right, the few people who actually control the international corporations. It consists of the operations on behalf of the Deep State, but the agents who carry out these instructions are only agents ; consequently, everything that they know regarding what they are instructed to do is told to them only privately on a need-to-know basis, so that only the members of the Deep State itself are aware of what the broader objectives of any given operation are. For example, the CIA's operations aren't part of the Deep State but particular ones of these operations represent the Deep State -- the instructions they execute on these operations come from the Deep State; the CIA is an agency for the international Deep State, but not all of what the CIA does represents the Deep State. Not even the U.S. President himself is necessarily aware of what the agents of the Deep State are doing -- not even of what the Deep State's agents who are on the federal payroll are doing.

For example, as soon as Franklin Delano Roosevelt died in 1945, the Deep State (the controlling owners of the largest international corporations) started to take over, and not everything that it was doing was known at the time by the leaders of the official (elected) American government. Even U.S. President Harry S. Truman -- though the sign on his desk said "The BUCK STOPS here!" and he meant it -- was kept in the dark, and was occasionally deceived, about some things that the OSS (precursor to the CIA) and the CIA were doing. For example, Truman probably didn't know that in 1948 the CIA perpetrated its first coup and this coup in Thailand established the off-the-books funding of the CIA from the international narcotics traffic (more on that is also here ), so that the CIA's actual budget wouldn't be restricted simply to the on-the-books funding, from U.S. taxpayers. This illegal funding-source has been crucial for many of the CIA's operations, and makes bribes untraceable.

A subversive right-wing coup, centered in the United States but operating throughout all U.S.-allied countries, thus gradually took over in the formerly anti-Nazi U.S.-allied countries. This slow coup was internationally coordinated amongst aristocrats (the controllers of international corporations) from all participating countries. But it was internationally led by America's aristocrats, starting when FDR died.

Some of the major operations of the international Deep State were courageously reported in a rare and classic BBC documentary, in 1992, shown in this video . As it makes clear, these agents of the Deep State considered themselves to be revolutionaries. They were heroes, in their own eyes. Here are two brief excerpts from that video:

8:35-9:00: "As the [Nazi] Germans withdrew, they left secret agents in the countries they had occupied. For the retreating Germans, they were the staunchest elitists. They were selected from the SS and the fascist Black Legions. They were to become the footsoldiers in the next war, about to begin.

10:25-10:55: "Then [OSS second-in-command] Jim Angleton [James Jesus Angleton] appeared in August [1945] . He started recruiting fascists, because he said that the best way to control the communists was to hire fascists. One of the most tough ones was Prince Valerio Borghese, who ran what was known as the tenth flotilla. These are the guys that would execute partisans [anti-fascists] and hang them from lamp posts all over Italy."

So: within just months of FDR's 12 April 1945 death, The West's Deep State was already in full start-up mode, to achieve ultimately a fascist victory, not only against the U.S.S.R., but also against Western countries themselves. This is the historical reality, about The West, after WW II.

Angleton's alleged father, James Hugh Angleton, had allegedly been assigned by OSS chief Bill Donovan to the OSS's X-2 operation to identify as many secret fascist operatives in Europe as he could; and, "By the end of World War II, the X-2 had discovered around 3,000 Axis agents." The alleged son (Jesus) was now harvesting his alleged father's crops, who have flowered to what we have today. However, the official U.S. Government record of "Angleton, James H. Jr." "Age: 28" Date: 4 Dec. 1945" (see page 4 there) indicates that he (Hugh) must have been born around 1917. And yet the official birth date of his alleged son, James Jesus Angleton, was 9 December 1917 . The New York Times 7 March 1973 obituary, "James H. Angleton Dead at 84; National Cash Register Officer" , asserts that:

As liaison officer between the O.S.S. and the Fifth Army he assisted the military‐government mission in Italy and captured codes, card files and documents important to American security.
After the war he returned to Italy and worked for the restoration of Italian business and industry and for a stable, democratic government.
He was for many years president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Italy.

Instead of his having been born in 1917, he had actually been born in 1889, which is believable.

So, one can reasonably infer that in 1945, the 56-year-old Hugh Angleton passed along to the 28-year-old Jesus Angleton, his contact list of approximately 3,000 secret operatives of Hitler and of Mussolini in Europe, and that this son (Jesus) proceeded promptly to recruit these secret Nazis and Fascists to work for the OSS. The father could retire rich, while the son went on to grow and harvest his crops, for America's war against Russia ( not actually against communism -- which was the cover-story ).

When the Soviet Union broke up and ended its communism in 1991 and thereafter, their former Warsaw Pact military alliance became gradually absorbed into America's NATO alliance -- and now even a former part of the Russian Federation itself within the former Soviet Union (and which thus is no mere Warsaw Pact ally), Ukraine, is being invited into NATO , and is preparing for admission into the anti-Russia military pact -- into the U.S. alliance against Russia -- and hopes to conquer Russia totally . The name for the broader U.S. plan here ( of which the takeover of Ukraine is only a part ) is "Nuclear Primacy" -- the U.S. Government's goal is U.S. victory in a nuclear war against Russia, and this goal can be achieved only if the U.S. nuclearly blitz-attacks Russia, and if that blitz-attack eliminates Russia's retaliatory weapons (sufficiently to meet the U.S. Government's top-secret standard of what would constitute acceptable damage to the U.S. from a Russian retaliatory attack). This is the ultimate strategic plan (and all details of it are prohibited from being made public).

"Nuclear Primacy" replaces the prior meta-strategy, which was called "Mutually Assured Destruction" or "M.A.D." -- the belief that the purpose of nuclear weapons is to prevent a World War III, not to win a WW III. This new meta-strategy starts from the assumption that the number of people killed in the U.S. and allied countries by a counter-attack from Russia responding to a sudden and unannounced blitz nuclear invasion of Russia, by the U.S. and its allies, will be worth that (currently secret) cost.

Some experts say that since even the proponents of "Nuclear Primacy" have ignored instead of discussed nuclear winter, the only reason for the continuation of the 'Cold War' (the potential for an intentional nuclear war between America and Russia) after the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact and of its communism, is in order to advance the stock-values of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, SAIC, and the other international corporations whose sole main sources of income are the U.S. Government and its allied governments. These government-dependent corporations have taken over the government, just like U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower publicly warned the American people against at the very end of his two terms of office , at a time when the process was, by then, already almost complete, and he himself had actually been the person who had done the most that anyone had yet done to advance the military-industrial complex. His famous "military-industrial complex" speech (and here is its broader context ) urged future Presidents to try to undo what he himself had actually already set inevitably into motion in America. It was as if he was warning to close the barn door so that the horse won't get out, but the horse had already been stolen and was no longer even subject to this person's control. Sales of weapons that American corporations market to the American Government, and to its allied Governments, thus came to wag the tail of America's future 'democracy' ; nobody any longer could stop this process from being completed.

Now that the 'anti-Islamic-terrorist' excuses for selling and buying their weapons and services are declining, the focus is, yet again, increasingly against Russia and its allies, in order that the owners of those corporations (the category of corporations that depend the most upon their Government) will continue to grow in wealth, and not to lose value of their investments. As the anti-Jewish writer Philip Giraldi said accurately (though I think he misunderstands how the Deep State, of which he used to be an operative, actually functions), "Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund their campaigns." He interprets the corruption in a tribal way, rather than as corruption itself and of any type, as being the reason why the United States continues to try to achieve 'Nuclear Primacy'. But that explanation would not explain why nuclear winter is not being discussed by the proponents of 'Nuclear Primacy'.

None of the publicly available estimates, behind the 'Nuclear Primacy' meta-strategy, even discusses nuclear winter, which physicists say would follow such a nuclear war between U.S. and Russia, and would virtually eliminate agriculture and produce mass-starvation throughout the entire world, including in any 'victor' country. It threatens all tribes. The published studies regarding the possibility of "nuclear winter" all concern the likely effect of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan , or other and even lesser pairings. Whether or not the U.S. Government has ever commissioned a study of what the likely effects of a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would be, is not publicly known. Possibly, this subject has been examined but the findings are not disclosed; but, also possibly, the U.S. Government does not want such a study to be done, at all, so that no one will know what the findings might turn out to be. The latter possibility might, for example, be the case if America's weapons manufacturing and marketing firms control the U.S. Government. If constant increases in their sales is the objective that drives the U.S. Government, then there would be sound reason for the U.S. Government to prevent or at least suppress any such analysis of the global effects, inasmuch as its findings could crash those corporations' stock-values, and the billionaires who control those firms and the U.S. Government , might suffer enormous losses. This assumes that the U.S. Government represents those owners and not the public. But in any case: marketing weapons that are suitable only for traditional, non-nuclear, wars, such as against regular jihadists, has apparently run its course and produced all of the sales-growth that that business-plan is likely to achieve; and, therefore, as has been the case since at least the time of the Obama Administration, the U.S. is actively gearing up for an invasion of Russia . The U.S. Government is behaving as if America's weapons-producers own it. The weapons-producers (that is, the owners of the weapons-producers) seem to be in control of the U.S. Government.

Whereas Giraldi and most other writers against U.S. imperialism -- against development of control over the entire world by U.S. billionaires -- allege that the origin of this imperialism is "Jews" (and specifically the Jews who joined together under the banner of "neoconservatism" after 1960), insufficient public attention has been devoted to the possibility that an even more crucial role in the Middle Eastern portion of the U.S. Government's plan is being played by the world's wealthiest family , the royal Saud family of Saudi Arabia, who have the same obsession to conquer Iran that Israel's Government does. Israel's powerful lobby in the United States is pressing the same things that the Saud family do; each of the two (Israel and the Sauds) pushes the invade-Iran theme, and each is at least accepting of all the rest of the other's foreign policies; but, whereas lobbyists for Jews are viewed somewhat sympathetically by the American public, no lobbyists for Muslims have anything like the same level of acceptance by the U.S. public. For a U.S. Senator or Representative to be championing Israel is accepted by the American public far more than is for that same person to be championing the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, or to be championing any of the 7 royal families who own UAE, or etc. (Kuwait, Qatar, or even non-Arab governments, such as Pakistan). Whereas the Gulf Cooperation Council of fundamentalist-Sunni Arab kings constitute, by far, the lion's share of foreign buyers of U.S.-made weaponry, Israel not only doesn't have such enormous financial resources, but it even receives from U.S. taxpayers $3.8 billion in U.S. donations to Israel's Government, each and every year, in order for Israel to be able to afford to buy from U.S. makers the weapons that it does buy. In contrast to Israel's relative pauper-status there, U.S. President Donald Trump personally sold to the Saud family $350 billion of U.S. weapons shortly after becoming President, and increased that to $400 billion soon afterwards . His sale, to the Sauds, of U.S. weaponry, is overwhelmingly the largest military sale in all of world history. It is Trump's major achievement thus far in his Presidency. (Trump can meet privately with King Saud, and with Netanyahu, but the Deep State calls him a 'traitor' for meeting privately with Putin.)

Furthermore, the people who would control Syria, if the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli war to replace Bashar al-Assad's secular, non-sectarian, Government, there, would be the Saud family -- not Israel, and not the U.S. The American Government is fighting in Syria for the Sauds to take over that country. Israel is part of that alliance -- the alliance for the Sauds . America's proxy boots-on-the-ground in Syria have been trained and led mainly by Al Qaeda there . That has a long history going back even to before Al Qaeda existed -- 1949 . Occasionally, ISIS in Syria has also received American assistance in order to advance "regime-change" there . Sometimes, U.S.-backed 'rebels' in Syria have quit because U.S. forces were secretly transferring, to ISIS, weapons that the U.S. had originally supplied to less-fundamentalist groups.

Moreover, the Saud family have been (and perhaps still are) the chief funders of Al Qaeda, and maybe even of its spin-off organization, ISIS . Though Israel has provided crucial assistance to both Al Qaeda and ISIS on some occasions, there is no publicly available evidence that Israel has been funding either group.

In addition: the financial bag-man for Al Qaeda up to the time of 9/11, the person who privately travelled to pick up each of the million-dollar-plus cash donations to Al Qaeda, specifically named Saudi Princes Bandar, Turki, Waleed, and Salman, among those donors, and he said that no Saudi Prince who lacks the endorsement of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist clergy can be considered by the Saud family to appoint as the next King, and that the Wahhabist clergy requested and received from Osama bin Laden a letter with bin Laden's recommendations before they advised the Saud family upon that matter (whom to select as the next King) .

As the major historian of contemporary geopolitics, Michel Chossudovsky, documented in an article, "Secret Meeting on the Privatization of Nuclear War Held on Hiroshima Day 2003: Behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters":

On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima.

The United States Government was already preparing for the time when the then-raging U.S. military buildup in order to deal with terrorism would need to be supplanted with a return to the major-power, strategic nuclear, weaponry, which could carry U.S. weapons-manufacturers back to the good old days of unlimited 'defense' spending, and unlimited war-profits to these firms. Dr. Chossudovsky continued:

The Privatization of Nuclear War: US Military Contractors Set the Stage

The post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine was in the making, with America's major defense contractors directly involved in the decision-making process.

The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had set the stage for the "privatization of nuclear war". Corporations not only reap multibillion-dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons industry, which includes the production of nuclear devices as well as the missile delivery systems, etc., is controlled by a handful of defense contractors with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing in the lead.

These are weapons-systems that cost in the billions of dollars, rather than in the millions of dollars. America's generals and national-'security' advisors and other individuals who take part in the U.S. Government's planning and weapons-purchases, rotate between official government posts and international corporate boards; and, basically, as professionals in their line of work, they play both sides of that revolving door (between the government and 'the private sector') so as to maximize their own future likely income streams. They are not peace-planners. That's not really what they get paid to do -- avoid weapons-buildups and invasions. The people who get paid to do the peace-job don't have nearly as much to sell, and they've got far fewer and poorer buyers for their services (maybe the public?). This is the reality of 'the free market'. Another word for it is: "corruption." Whenever and wherever wealth is extremely concentrated in a few, corruption reigns, the public does not. For a country to have vast inequality of wealth is to have vast corruption, and to be ruled by it.

The CIA-controlled Wikipedia article on "Nuclear Winter" is written to deceive about the subject; and, therefore, for example, it opens one of its sections with a blatantly propagandistic title and introduction:

Soviet exploitation [edit]

See also: Soviet influence on the peace movement § Claims of wider Soviet influence

In an interview in 2000 with Mikhail Gorbachev (the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985–91), the following statement was posed to him: "In the 1980s, you warned about the unprecedented dangers of nuclear weapons and took very daring steps to reverse the arms race", with Gorbachev replying "Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act in that situation."[216]

However, a 1984 US Interagency Intelligence Assessment expresses a far more skeptical and cautious approach, stating that as the hypothesis is not scientifically convincing.

Though the Wiki article discusses several studies that had been done in the 1980s modeling the consequences of an India-Pakistan nuclear war and comparably small ones, it mentions only dismissively the far-more-recent and inclusive study:

In a 2012 "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" feature, Robock and Toon, who had routinely mixed their disarmament advocacy into the conclusions of their "nuclear winter" papers,[18] argue in the political realm that the hypothetical effects of nuclear winter necessitates that the doctrine they assume is active in Russia and US, "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) should instead be replaced with their own "self-assured destruction" (SAD) concept,[200].

The propaganda is strictly by Wikipedia there, not at all by Robock and Toon, whose article does not argue to replace "MAD" with "SAD" nor with anything at all, but instead documents and affirms M.A.D. -- yes, Wikipedia outright lies, when it must -- and their article summarizes studies published between 1980 and 2010, none of which modeled a U.S.-Russia war, but all of which were consistent with the authors' conclusion; namely, that even those, much smaller, wars, would make things vastly worse for both sides (both sides would enormously lose) and would also produce mass-starvation in broader areas of the planet. Then, the article -- which, as noted, was current as of 2012 (not just as-of those earlier periods) -- summarily stated, as follows, all work that had been done on the subject, up till that time (and not since supplanted):

The new models show that a full-scale nuclear conflict, in which 150 million tons of smoke are lofted into the upper atmosphere [the minimum that a U.S.-Russia war would do], would drastically reduce precipitation by 45 percent on a global average, while temperatures would fall for several years by 7 to 8 degrees Celsius [13 degrees Fahrenheit] on average and would remain depressed by 4 degrees Celsius after a decade (Robock et al., 2007a). Humans have not experienced temperatures this low since the last ice age (Figure 2). In important grain-growing regions of the northern mid-latitudes [including both U.S. and Russia, as well as most of Europe], precipitation would decline by up to 90 percent, and temperatures would fall below freezing and remain there for one or more years.

The number of weapons needed to initiate these climate changes falls within the range of arsenals planned for the coming decade (Toon et al., 2008). For instance, the use of 4,000 weapons (the rough total for US and Russian arsenals in 2017 under New START), each with a yield of 100 kilotons (a typical yield for submarine weapons, but at the low end for most nuclear weapons), against urban or industrial targets would produce about 180 million tons of soot [30 million higher than that 150 million estimate]. A single US submarine carrying 144 weapons of 100-kiloton yield could produce 23 million tons of smoke if these weapons were used on densely populated Chinese cities.

The effects of the nuclear contamination itself are in addition to that estimation of the smoke-damages.

The U.S. weapons-manufacturers and their agents might not want the public to know this (and so Wikipedia lies about it), but not only would both sides lose from a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, but the entire planet would lose -- and drastically. The cigarette-manufacturers long hid the harms of their business, but today's privatized weapons-manufacturing firms dwarf the corruption and harm that the tobacco-industry perpetrated. The liars get well-paid, but the truth is far grimmer, and far deadlier -- especially in this matter.

Unlike the CIA-Wikipedia fictionalized version, M.A.D. wasn't "Soviet exploitation" -- it was instead the reality recognized by both sides, and is the reality even today, despite what the U.S. weapons-manufacturers and their enormous sales-forces have been deceiving their publics to believe since 2006.

Consequently, I infer, from the evidence, that the leaders, of the operation to conquer Russia, are the controlling owners of America's large 'defense' contractors, and of those individuals' largest non-U.S. customer, the Saud family. The Sauds' biggest competitors in the international-energy markets (which are their own main markets) are: Russia and Iran.

It makes sense for the Sauds to be the #1 foreign buyers of American-made weapons. Not only do they get the weapons, but they get control over the U.S. Government, which, in turn, determines which nations will be America's 'enemies' (the 'military-industrial complex's targets), and which nations will be America's 'allies' (the 'military-industrial complex's markets). The Sauds buy their allies wisely. Their business-plan includes, as the most important ally, America's aristocracy; and (as a crucial ally to add greatly to the impact of America's aristocracy, supplementing them to win the U.S. policies the Sauds need) Israel's aristocracy. The combination of those two control-levers over the U.S. Government is powerful. Perhaps in the sudden global cooling from nuclear winter, the Sauds' region will even become one of the world's greenest and most fruitful. If anyone still exists then, at all.

Where does the EU, and where does the anti-Russia NATO alliance, fit into this reality? Some of Europe's aristocrats are benefiting from alliance with the U.S., but others are not. And, of course, America's aristocrats benefit enormously from having their support -- i.e., from buying their support, bribing them in the legal ways. However, Europe's aristocratic nazis weren't supposed to have been the winners of WW II. So: nazi Europeans are Europe's enemies, not its friends -- just as nazi Americans aren't friends but instead enemies to the American people. That hasn't changed, and can't change.

Only Europeans can decide what to do regarding nazi Europeans. And only Americans can decide what to do regarding nazi Americans. (One idea might be to refuse to vote for nazis, but, under existing circumstances, how would that even be possible?) Without constant deceit, this situation couldn't exist anywhere. And if people are constantly deceived, they are powerless. Deceit is the chief weapon of Operation Barbarossa II, the American aristocracy's war, not the German aristocracy's war (which was more overtly physical -- military -- and was only secondarily based upon deceiving the public).

When the Sauds became America's allies in 1945 via the secret "Quincy Pact" between FDR and Saud, FDR probably expected that it would move Saudi Arabia gradually toward democracy. What instead happened is that the Saud family and the losers of Operation Barbarossa became carried forward toward ultimate victory over The West, by an alliance between the Saudi and the American aristocracies. The Sauds and America's aristocrats won; FDR and his democratic legacy and the American people ourselves, lost. The subterranean fascist forces turned out to be far more potent than FDR imagined. Perhaps the OSS had been deceiving him.

Incidentally, any secret treaty (including the Quincy Pact) is unConstitutional. None of this happened democratically. It was a slow coup . That's what created today's alliances, and today's targets.

Thus, though Hitler lost, his cause (except for his anti-Jewish fixation ) has been moving slowly and methodically toward victory, and it's being led by the aristocracies of U.S. and Saudi Arabia .

To understand the Deep State, its basic ideological principles need to be recognized. Under Hitler, hereditary rights and obligations were publicly recognized; and democracy, the rule over a land by the residents on that land, was publicly condemned. Not only the hereditary principle, but the imperialistic principle, the right of foreign conquest, was publicly honored. The two principles go naturally together. The main reason why the Sauds and the other (all of them fundamentalist Sunnis) Arab kings, want to conquer Iran, is that Shia Islam denies the right of hereditary rule . (This is also why in Syria, Bashar al-Assad claims no hereditary right to rule; if he were to do otherwise, he'd violate Shia Islam and he would be rejected by Iran.) The main reason why America's aristocracy wants to conquer Russia (other than the latter's natural-resources wealth, which has always been a reason) is that Vladimir Putin insists that only the residents in a land should possess sovereignty there, but the U.S. and British aristocracies insist upon the right to conquer foreign lands . As an ideology, nazism totally affirms both the hereditary principle, and the imperialist principle. This is what the U.S.-Saudi alliance likewise affirms. And that is why, for example, the CIA has always favored monarchies and opposed democracies (or at least authentic ones, which the U.S. aristocracy cannot control).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Tyrion 2 , Website July 27, 2018 at 4:58 am GMT

I think this article goes much too far with the Nazi stuff but the simple fact that Saudi Arabia is the third biggest military spender in the world, bigger than Russia, should inform people as to how much influence Saudi has. Yet it is rarely mentioned.
NoseytheDuke , July 27, 2018 at 5:32 am GMT
The Saudis were just puppets installed by the British. It seems to me that the real "nazis", then and now, are the banksters. Now as before they fund both sides of the conflicts that they initiate and after digesting their profits they own what remains. As Tacitus wrote, solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. They make a desert and call it peace
jilles dykstra , July 27, 2018 at 6:43 am GMT
After reading the article my idea is 'nice try'.

During WWII FDR was informed that in 30 years time USA oil would be exhausted, so Harold L Ickes at the end of 1944 made Saudi Arabia THE USA's oil supplier.
To make the deal more official, FDR, in the beginning of 1945, received the Saud of the time aboard the cruiser Quincy on the Bitter Lakes near the Suez canal.
As FDR said in his last speech to congress, seated, 'ten minutes with Saud had learned him more about zionism than hundreds of letters from rabbi's'.
He also stated that he had promised Saud to limit jewish immigration into Palestine.
Both these statements do not seem to be in the offical record, they also were not in the text prepared for him:
Robert E. Sherwood, 'Roosevelt und Hopkins', 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948)
In 1947, from memory, the then Saud published an interesting article on the folly of 'returning' in a USA newspaper or periodical.

The Saudi regime just exists because of USA support, is my opinion.
Nothing special, all Muslim rulers in the ME are dependent on USA support, Quatar is the USA military headquarters of the USA.
Iran is the exception.

Now it is possible that for the moment Israel is willing to cooperate with Saudi Arabia for the purpose of destabilising the whole ME, present objective Iran.
The Iran regime quite well understands that Big Satan Sam controls a large part of the ME, thus they see the Saudi regime as enemy.

If, if it succeeds, Iran has been destroyed, Israel is willing to cooperate with Saudi Arabia, I wonder.
Israel sees all neighbouring Muslim countries as threats.
If the Israeli destabilisation plans include the destabilisation of the European nations, more and more people wonder.
Why does Soros want to force Muslim immigrants on Hungary ?

Brussels fears a new ME war, they fear the new wave of immigrants.
They do want these immigrants, a 2009 Brussels document states that the EU needs 60 million, but the citizens of the member states more and more realise the burden of these migrants, they cost some € 30.000 per migrant per year in social security, thus it will lead to the collapse of social security, cultural antagonies are more and more realised, as crime rates.
So a new ME war may be the end of the EU.
Therefore Brussels warned Netanyahu about Iran, also because of huge investments by European companies such as Total in Iran.

I do hope that Trump will save us in Europe, also of course the people of Iran, from a new ME war.
He stated that immigration is destroying the European cultures.

j2 , July 27, 2018 at 8:00 am GMT
Just want to add a comment on this Nazi-USA-Israel friendship. When I read the memoirs of Reinhardt Gehlen (The Service, The Memoirs) there was one interesting place. Gehlen predicted in a meeting the exact time of the Israel attack in the Six Day War some time before it. He comments in the book that he had sent to Egypt old Nazi intelligence people and these people knew precisely what weapons Israel had before this 1967 war. Apparently they knew of the coming attack (since Gehlen did) and that Israel would surely win if there came a war (as German military, they could count the strengths), but they did not hint anything to the Egyptians so that they could have had some planes in the air or tried to avoid a war (this failure to do so must have been intentional).
animalogic , July 27, 2018 at 9:02 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

Excellent point. Funny how the gross human suffering in Yemen receives less than enthusiastic coverage by the MSM.

Jeff Stryker , July 27, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
Ex Dubai resident/worker here-

Yemen was a basket case as far back as the Cold War when South Yemen was Communist and backed by Russia.

Yemen does not have the capacity to invade any country. It is too poor and backward. Iran does have the capacity.

War for Blair Mountain , July 27, 2018 at 10:43 am GMT
This essay has an X-files feel to it. I find it hard to believe that Roosevelt and Truman didn't know that Mega-Corporations were running the show.

Yes, there are a collusion of special interests. But no need for "spooky action at a distance" claims. It's all very up front. This is why I don't buy the claim of Roosevelt and Truman being innocent puppets. Roosevelt for sure came from the Oligarch class.

The POTUS effectively acts as a corporate lawyer for the Mega-Corporations whose job is to explain to the MEGA-CEO just what they are able to get away with without provoking violent Peasant Revolt across the US ..at any given point in time. The Ludlow massacre was a close one.

HallParvey , July 27, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT

This illegal funding-source has been crucial for many of the CIA's operations, and makes bribes untraceable.

Illegality is the main function of covert operations. If they were legal, there would be no reason for them to be covert. Laws or legalisms (written behavior restrictions), are put in place by the powers that be, whoever they are, to restrict the behavior of the masses. Not to restrict themselves.
Again. Ask yourself who you cannot criticize. Then you will know who they are. And have been, all along.

annamaria , July 27, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

"why ?"
– Because: https://www.sott.net/article/390483-Israel-now-arming-neo-Nazis-in-Ukraine
Israel now arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine
[Not a peep from the nazi-hunters of the Wiesenthal Center and the thuggish ADL]

"Israeli arms are being sent to a heavily armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine. IWI markets the Tavor as the "primary weapon" of the Israeli special forces.
Fort, the Ukrainian state-owned arms company that produces the rifles under license, has a page about the Tavor on its website. The Israel Weapon Industries logo also appears on its website, including on the "Our Partners" page." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MywW6mOquSk

"A photo on Azov's website also shows a Tavor in the hands of one of the militia's officers. The rifles are produced under licence from Israel Weapon Industries, and as such would have been authorized by the Israeli government:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QopTJkI3_Fs

[Jul 26, 2018] Putin LOSES IT, Warns Journalists of War 'I Don't Know How to Get Through to You People' (Video)

Notable quotes:
"... We know year by year what's going to happen, and they know that we know. It's only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger - this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don't know how to get through to you anymore. ..."
Jul 26, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Putin railed against the journalists for their "tall tales" in blindly repeating lies and misinformation provided to them by the United States on its anti-ballistic missile systems being constructed in Eastern Europe. He pointed out that since the Iran nuclear deal, the claim the system is to protect against Iranian missiles has been exposed as a lie.

The journalists were informed that within a few years, Russia predicted the US would be able to extend the range of the system to 1000 km. At that point, Russia's nuclear potential, and thus the nuclear balance between the US and Russia, would be placed in jeopardy.

Putin completely lost patience with the journalists, berating them for lazily helping to accelerate a nuclear confrontation by repeating US propaganda. He virtually pleaded with the western media, for the sake of the world, to change their line:

We know year by year what's going to happen, and they know that we know. It's only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger - this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don't know how to get through to you anymore.

Does anyone in the reeking garbage heap that is mainstream western media have a conscience? Do they even have enough intellect to get what Putin is saying - that they are helping to push the planet towards World War III?

[Jul 26, 2018] "Soft neoliberals" blatant hypocrisy by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... Guardians of the Galaxy ..."
"... Chris Pratt and more break silence after James Gunn fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ,' ..."
"... Note: Hollywood Finds Child Rape Hilarious , ..."
"... Hollywood demonizes Roseanne, But Defends James Gunn Pedophile Tweets , Newswars, ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Roseanne and the High Cost of Embracing Craziness . ..."
"... Lesson from the Roseanne debacle: Stop hiring hateful nutjobs , ..."
"... New York Daily News, ..."
"... Should James Gunn have lost his job at Disney ? Daily Wire, ..."
"... Roseanne's behavior is not defensible , The Maven, ..."
"... BBQ Becky, Permit Patty and why the Internet is shaming white people who police people 'simply for being black' , ..."
"... How Pizzagate Pusher Mike Cernovich Keeps Getting People Fired , ..."
"... Huffington Post, ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com
Inc.'s Fawning Response to James Gunn Scandal Reveals Where Its True Loyalties Lie •

It's the classic man-bites-dog story; a Leftist artist suffered a career setback because of his statements on social media. The person in question is Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn, who lost his gig directing Disney's next installment in the film series after independent reporters such as Mike Cernovich highlighted his "jokes" about the sexual exploitation of children. Senator Ted Cruz, among others, was outraged and suggested Gunn's comments even bordered on illegality.

Hollywood celebrities are defending Gunn and even demanding that he be rehired [ Chris Pratt and more break silence after James Gunn fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ,' by Lisa Respers France, CNN, July 23 2018). However, one can't help but notice the same celebrities defending or telling graphic "jokes" about sexually exploiting children are also the people who want careers ended for Politically Incorrect comments directed at privileged classes such as women, homosexuals, or nonwhites [ Note: Hollywood Finds Child Rape Hilarious , by John Nolte, Breitbart, July 22, 2018].

It's not clear why Disney, a company dependent on its appeal to children, would ever employ someone who thinks horrific crimes are comedic fodder. After all, as Gunn himself once tweeted:

What's more, this comes only weeks after comedienne Roseanne Barr had her top-rated show canceled for comparing former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett to a monkey . (Revealingly, Barr defended herself by claiming that she thought Jarett was white –Jarrett (right) is notably pale for an African-American.) Many of the celebrities now defending Gunn openly celebrated when Roseanne was fired [ Hollywood demonizes Roseanne, But Defends James Gunn Pedophile Tweets , Newswars, July 21, 2018].

Yet it isn't just Leftist celebrities who are suddenly eager to defend the sacred right of free speech when it comes to pedophilia. Shockingly, some Conservativism Inc. luminaries, particularly those who love to showily brag about their Christianity and social conservatism , have chosen this hill to die on as well.

David French, one of the most prominent Never Trump activists of the 2016 election, rushed to Gunn's defense, saying:

In contrast, however, when Roseanne was purged for a single tweet, French penned an entire piece for National Review on May 29, 2018 entitled Roseanne and the High Cost of Embracing Craziness .

Similarly, S.E. Cupp, who has a long career as one of CNN's token conservatives , decided this of all things was something that she couldn't remain silent about. She endorsed French's tweet in support of Gunn and added:

Yet only two months ago. when mob rule on Twitter decided Roseanne's fate, Cupp gleefully piled on. Like NR 's French, she faulted ABC for hiring Roseanne in the first place.

Remember, this is a woman who was an early supporter of birtherism, has compared Muslims to Nazis, took to Twitter regularly to attack citizens both private and public, floated wild conspiracy theories and bullied Trump opponents with racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic insults.

[ Lesson from the Roseanne debacle: Stop hiring hateful nutjobs , by S.E. Cupp, New York Daily News, May 29, 2018]

Minicon Ben Shapiro , another opponent of Trump during the primaries, is also among Gunn defenders. Shapiro acknowledged Gunn's tweets were "loathsome" but said "that doesn't mean he should have lost his job at Disney". [ Should James Gunn have lost his job at Disney ? Daily Wire, July 20, 2018]

Roseanne, however, was different: "Roseanne played herself in the series, so when she made a new racist reference about Valerie Jarrett, her persona was inseparable from her character," Shapiro wrote. " Roseanne was Roseanne."

This Talmudic reasoning about how the cases are different is suspicious given how eager Shapiro is to police the American right for unauthorized speech

Erick Erickson is another Never Trumper whose views about respectability have mysteriously changed within two months. When Roseanne was driven off the air, Erickson self-righteously proclaimed: "Her joke was not in poor taste. It was racist" [ Roseanne's behavior is not defensible , The Maven, May 30, 2018]. Yet regarding Gunn, he said:

The last comment is revealing. It's hard to imagine in what ways conservatives are "winning" -- Trump supporters are regularly attacked on the street and expelled from businesses. Random white people are humiliated by the Main Stream Media and fired from their jobs for calling the police. [ BBQ Becky, Permit Patty and why the Internet is shaming white people who police people 'simply for being black' , Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY, July 18, 2018] Meanwhile, even as the Democrats become ever more radical, they continue to enjoy all but unanimous support from the MSM and are leading the polls. Insofar as the American Right has won any major victories in the recent past, it was President Trump's election -- something Erickson and his Never Trump co-conspirators fought every step of the way.

Yet the strange connection between Never Trump and defending James Gunn is easily explained. All of the figures above rely on Leftist media, and the powerful mafias that dominate it , to grant them fame and legitimacy as "leading" American conservatives. For that reason, Never Trump conservatives share a common interest with System media outlets in making sure only certain people have access to a mass audience -- certainly not independents like Mike Cernovich [ How Pizzagate Pusher Mike Cernovich Keeps Getting People Fired , by Luke O'Brien, Huffington Post, July 21, 2018].

For ideological and ethnic reasons, Never Trumpers are desperate to purge the American Right of any authentic populist and nationalist tendencies that can't be controlled from the top down. Their power relies on their audience remaining corralled within a certain ideological space and not hearing dissident ideas such as the biological reality of race or the political insanity of expecting nonwhites to vote for "limited government." These Beltway Right hacks have a positive interest in making sure that websites and platform outside Conservatism Inc., although equally or more critical of supposed common enemies on the Left, are marginalized and stripped of resources.

Thus, Cupp, French, Shapiro, Erickson et. al will always be far more eager to purge the Conservative movement than to combat Leftist control of key cultural institutions. To a Never Trump conservative dreaming of future bylines in The New York Times and television appearances on CNN, a far-Left Hollywood degenerate poisoning the minds of America's youth isn't even a problem, let alone an enemy. The problem for Conservatism Inc. remains Donald Trump and what he represents -- a fighting American Right, united behind nationalism, and willing to do what it takes to win power.

After all, the point of that fighting Right is not to get a sinecure in the enemy's System. The point is to destroy it entirely.

[Jul 26, 2018] What Everyone Seemed to Ignore in Helsinki by Jon Basil Utley

Notable quotes:
"... Mr. Utley is the publisher of ..."
Jul 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Washington establishment came to their own conclusions about Russia and NATO -- but this is what they missed.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump during the recent summit in Helsinki. (Office of the Russian Presisdent/Kremin.ru) Sifting through the cacophony of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here are four key points missed, ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and mainstream news coverage -- and they require a good airing.

They are:

It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on NATO in the first place?

Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for all their noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the reasons why. Meanwhile Russia is cutting its military spending.

Trump Needs to Put Up or Shut Up on Russian Arms Race Let's See Who's Bluffing in the Criminal Case Against the Russians

Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the money that it didn't even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2 percent of gross national product.

There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed keen to discuss it was ejected beforehand). Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC .

The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack on Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, because they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases. Americans may think that we don't start wars, but the Russians don't. The old shill argument that democracies don't start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.

For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his meeting) $200 million of new aid to Ukraine's military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some analysts believe that Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying to weaken and discredit America's overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul writes how we never think about other nations' interests. TAC argues we should "Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia, " showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it's good for business.

Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It's interesting to note that TAC has been criticizing the "Deep State" since at least 2015.

The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would be "easy" and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.

America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil and gas vital for the world economy.

For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small nations unable to resist or respond to our power. "We" kill thousands of "them" in easy battles and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don't viscerally understand the full threat of modern weapons because they've never been used against us. This is not unlike World War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the Crimean war. (See " Lessons in Empire")

And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.

Mr. Utley is the publisher of The American Conservative 15 Responses to What Everyone Seemed to Ignore in Helsinki

Fran Macadam July 25, 2018 at 1:56 am

"And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington."

Careful with such cavalier use of the truth. Someone is sure to point out Vlad said just the same, which means according to D.C. war profiteer sponsored consensus we should do exactly the opposite.

S , , July 25, 2018 at 2:01 am
Lovely article. One aspect of going to war for conquest over and over, is that it leads to moral deterioration. Defensive wars aren't that bad. I am not sure why we haven't seen any articles on TAC about this aspect -- is it that it's not a popular idea?
John S , , July 25, 2018 at 8:57 am
What an awful piece. Here's why:

"1) It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO."

No, they are not. Defense budgets are increasing -- very different, and it was happening already before Trump's tweets came along.

"2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or accidental."

How do you know, since Trump hasn't told anyone what was discussed in Helsinki?

"3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave Putin nothing."

Trump abased himself before Putin. That's not nothing. And who knows what else he gave Putin behind closed doors. One must assume a lot since Trump is not out bragging about particulars.

"4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the "Deep State" in dominating American foreign policy."

Trump personally approved the release of that intelligence.

TAC sure carries a lot of water for Trumpistan.

Johann , , July 25, 2018 at 9:10 am
The myth that NATO has kept Europe at peace since WWII (except for the Balkan war) is still alive and well. But really, it was the fear of nuclear weapons that kept the peace.
Christian Chuba , , July 25, 2018 at 9:21 am
It is the risk of war vs. the hidden agenda of trying to break Russia a second time.

The people who want to break Russia a second time really do believe that Russia is weak and unwilling to risk war under any circumstances. So they want to expand NATO, get into another arms race and wait for Russia to go bankrupt again. Rinse repeat China.

If we expand NATO, pull out of INF and even START, we can build missile bases near Russia's borders, reduce or eliminate their exports, we can drive their economy into overdrive. But this requires an information war to make it look like they are the aggressors while we are the ones implementing this strategy.

By 'we' I mean our entrenched Foreign Policy Establishment that blathers about the 'rules based world order' while we bomb any country we want whenever we want. Queue up another story on how they encroached on NATO airspace while flying to their enclave in Kaliningrad, look at a map, it's impossible not to so so.

Tying it back, they do not believe that there is any risk of war. They are wrong.

sean mcauliffe , , July 25, 2018 at 9:28 am
4 is not true.

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/russia-indictment-timing-trump-approved-not-mueller-attack.html

Kurt Gayle , , July 25, 2018 at 9:46 am
Jon Basil Utley makes an important point:

"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in dominating American foreign policy Releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's blood a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia."

To be sure, the 6-4-3 (Mueller to Rosenstein to Mainstream Media) double play appeared at first to be a real beauty. However, the video replay showed that the pitcher had not yet pitched the ball to the batter and that the shortstop Mueller, the second baseman Rosenstein, and the MSM first baseman had carried out their double play with a ball that Mueller had pulled out of his hip pocket. ("Hip pocket" is a polite euphemism for the proximate area of the Mueller anatomy from whence the ball was actually pulled.)

hetro , , July 25, 2018 at 11:00 am
@John S.

*"abased himself" is the popular demon meme of the moment -- how did he do that?

*you say we don't know what he said to Putin then assume you know he gave Putin something he should not have.

This is irrational assumption apparently born from a deep prejudice of some sort.

Michael Kenny , , July 25, 2018 at 11:49 am
The real question is what did Putin give Trump? Nothing, as far as can be seen. Efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by Putin's continued occupation of Ukrainian territory, with its implicit denial of the principle of the sovereign nation-state, which has been the building block of the European political order since the French Revolution. For Americans, given the history of the American continent, European nationalism and the nation-state are wholly incomprehensible concepts but they're very real to us in Europe. Those Americans who promote a poorly-understood European nationalism in the hope of destroying the EU are promoting the very war they so piously claim to oppose.
balconesfault , , July 25, 2018 at 12:30 pm
It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on NATO in the first place?

Why would you top post a commentor who so clearly doesn't understand the details of what he's discussing?

I mean -- such fundamental misunderstanding of the issues might qualify him to be the Republican nominee for President (and thanks to the Electoral College, the President) but it is beneath your editorial standards.

CLW , , July 25, 2018 at 1:41 pm
Enough of this "Deep State" nonsense: stop lambasting U.S. Federal law enforcement and intelligence professionals for calling out Trump's willful ignorance/intentional lies about Russia's malicious actions. Russian belligerence against the U.S. is a predictable and manageable problem, but only by a President (e.g., Reagan, Bush 41) who grasps the complexity of the issue and who can balance targeted confrontation and selective cooperation with Russia. Trump is inherently incapable of striking that balance, as Putin clearly understands, therefore U.S.-Russian relations will remain (usefully for Putin) confrontational for the near term.
One Guy , , July 25, 2018 at 2:57 pm
Why is it up to the media to address the elephant in the room? Shouldn't the media simply report what happened? Why doesn't Trump address the elephant in the room?
Freestater , , July 25, 2018 at 4:02 pm
Our grandparents and parents fought the Commies.
GOP throws that away in search of lower taxes and less regulation.
GOP elites belong to the international elite, namely the highest bidder.
Shame.
b. , , July 25, 2018 at 4:02 pm
"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in dominating American foreign policy"

Others have already pointed out that the facts might not back up that the timing was some elaborate plot, but even if this was a Derp State conspiracy on full display, it would probably be proof of the opposite -- this would have not been an indication of influence, control, domination, but a sign of weakness.

Like all conspiracy theories, "Deep State" implies competence, coordination, capability. Our problem appears to be that we have too many bureaucracies infighting with each other, and filled with too many shallow minds. Indeed, one could argue that 9/11 happened precisely because of this.

That said, the first half of the article makes a compelling case of the foreign policy aspect of the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria, and the existential threat originating with the nuclear sector of the war profiteering presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex -- "We end the world for money!" -- and the Great Gambler faction of the nelibcon biparty -- "We can win nuclear war!".

The other half of the national, collectivized insanity that is "Russia!" is the domestic fraud: the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections and the functions of our institutions of government is not Russia, but ourselves.

The semi-organized biparty mob -- the "Derp State" -- that is pushing the "Russia!" narrative as the Grant Unified Theory of US American Home-Made Failure is systematically destroying whatever is left of The People's confidence in our processes and institutions -- confidence in our ruling class had to have died before anybody considered voting for Trump -- and soon, we will find ourselves in a nation in which nobody can profess any trust in any elected representative without being accused of being a traitor or useful idiot.

Putin, for one, could never accomplish that. American Excess: Hamstring your political opponent? Worth It. Destroy democracy to protect it from The People? Priceless.

Ken Zaretzke , , July 25, 2018 at 4:34 pm
I wasn't aware that the U.s. Is finding new niclear-armed cruise missiles that would give Russia only minutes to respond to an attack, as opposed to a half hour with ICBMs. Russia only has to recalibrate its fully automated Doomsday Machine to target Warsaw, Berlin, and Cracow along with U.S. cities, and to shorten the time of response.

We have to ask whether the exponentially greater likelihood of nuclear holocaust by accident, which is what the U.S. would be bringing about by nuclear-arming cruise missiles, proves that the Deep State's lust for power is irrational bordering on madness.

[Jul 25, 2018] Republicans Begin Impeachment Proceedings Against Rosenstein

If Zero Hedge commenters represent a part of the US public opinion Clinton neoliberal are in real trouble. This is real situation when the elite can't goverm as usual
Notable quotes:
"... it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans ..."
"... Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt. ..."
"... For those of you who have not seen this...This has been in the works since April...... https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/criminal-referral.pdf ..."
"... Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge. ..."
Jul 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

News of the resolution comes after weeks of frustration by Congressional investigators, who have repeatedly accused Rosenstein and the DOJ of "slow walking" documents related to their investigations. Lawmakers say they've been given the runaround - while Rosenstein and the rest of the DOJ have maintained that handing over vital documents would compromise ongoing investigations.

Not even last week's heavily redacted release of the FBI's FISA surveillance application on former Trump campaign Carter Page was enough to dissuade the GOP lawmakers from their efforts to impeach Rosenstein. In fact, its release may have sealed Rosenstein's fate after it was revealed that the FISA application and subsequent renewals - at least one of which Rosenstein signed off on , relied heavily on the salacious and largely unproven Steele dossier.

In late June, Rosenstein along with FBI Director Christopher Wray clashed with House Republicans during a fiery hearing over an internal DOJ report criticizing the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation by special agents who harbored extreme animus towards Donald Trump while expressing support for Clinton. Republicans on the panel grilled a defiant Rosenstein on the Trump-Russia investigation which has yet to prove any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

"This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said of Mueller's investigation. "Whatever you got," Gowdy added, " Finish it the hell up because this country is being torn apart. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4uN9uIqNqxg

Rosenstein pushed back - dodging responsibility for decisions made by subordinates while claiming that Mueller was moving "as expeditiously as possible," and insisting that he was "not trying to hide anything."

" We are not in contempt of this Congress, and we are not going to be in contempt of this Congress ," Rosenstein told lawmakers.

Congressional GOP were not impressed.

" For over eight months, they have had the opportunity to choose transparency. But they've instead chosen to withhold information and impede any effort of Congress to conduct oversight," said Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a sponsor of Thursday's House resolution who raised the possibility of impeachment this week. " If Rod Rosenstein and the Department of Justice have nothing to hide, they certainly haven't acted like it. " - New York Times (6/28/18)

And now, Rosenstein's fate is in the hands of Congress.

Occams_Razor_Trader -> El Oregonian Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:43 Permalink

Nothing about filing a fraudulent FISA application and filing fraudulent successive renewals??

That's the treasonous part!

He's been treading water waiting for the "Blue Wave", the blue wave ain't a commin' Rosenshit.

Dickweed Wang -> New_Meat Wed, 07/25/2018 - 21:05 Permalink

I got directed to Meadows Twitter feed earlier and I couldn't believe some of the comments from the Hilary crowd. Either they actually believe the CNN/MSNBC "Russia did it" bullshit or they've decided to roll with that narrative regardless of what reality shows because they think it gives them some kind of leverage if they keep spewing those accusations. Those people are really sick in the head.

Hugh_Jorgan -> Dickweed Wang Wed, 07/25/2018 - 21:23 Permalink

I'll believe it when Rosenstein is actually removed. Anything short of the is potentially just more theater.

Free This -> Hugh_Jorgan Wed, 07/25/2018 - 21:27 Permalink

Get him out of there - just a bit outside - STRIKE!

nmewn -> Giant Meteor Wed, 07/25/2018 - 20:04 Permalink

Somewhat. Yes, sometimes cowards need a good swift kick in the ass to get em going...lol.

But you gotta place yourself into the mind of a bureautocracy kleptocrat like Rosenstein to discover where his head was at (or whatever bureaucrat, pick any one)...this was "business as usual"...for EIGHT SOLID YEARS they were able to delay/obstruct Congressional oversight at will into any number of things, from "recycled hard drives" to "rogue agents" to "smashed Blackberries" to "Bleachbit" to "illegal servers" to "spontaneous protests in Benghazi" to "Car Czars" to "the benign tracking of weapons into Mexico" (lol...my personal favorite) et fucking cetra so...there was no reason whatsoever that Rosenstein would suspect that oversight would..."change".

Well, it has ;-)

FIAT CON -> nmewn Wed, 07/25/2018 - 20:50 Permalink

And the biggest reason they were careless... "She wasn't supposed to lose"!

nmewn -> FIAT CON Wed, 07/25/2018 - 21:08 Permalink

Yes, dead on.

She-Was-Not-Supposed-To-Lose.

See, all of this nation ending angst, hate, ill-will, divide & conquer, the rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth could have been completely avoided if the People would have just complied with their betters, the elites, the educated, the non-deplorables and used that gift of, ahem, "democracy" (lol) that the rich & powerful are so insecure in trusting us with...none of this would have happened.

There would have been a "historic" coronation of our new Queen Hillary! There were royal wedding plans even!

And we, the deplorables, the plebes, the low-lifes, had to go and mess up their plans of sweeping it all under the rug ;-)

Giant Meteor -> chunga Wed, 07/25/2018 - 20:09 Permalink

Elections coming up ..

Why in the Sam hell do you think they're jawboning this thing to death ..

swmnguy Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:39 Permalink

"They'll move to impeach Rosenstein just as they voted to repeal ObamaCare 50 times or however many. And, just like when they got the chance to re-do ObamaCare altogether and had not the foggiest notion what to do, if they get to impeach Rosenstein they won't have any idea how to proceed."

This ..
Damned Kabuki, will be answered! With more Kabuki ..

MoreFreedom -> Occams_Razor_Trader Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:51 Permalink

Also a big problem, was his CHOICE to not recuse himself from being involved in appointing Mueller, when he was heavily involved in the investigations, such as signing a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign staff when there was allegedly (in the FISA warrant) Russian collusion.

Chupacabra-322 -> Occams_Razor_Trader Wed, 07/25/2018 - 20:37 Permalink

@ Occams,

July 25, 2018: Ep. 770 The Liberal Rage Machine

What is the swamp hiding? This latest revelation by Republicans looking into Spygate offers us some tantalizing clues. In this episode I address the growing efforts by the swamp to sweep the scandal under the rug.

https://www.bongino.com/july-25-2018-ep-770-the-liberal-rage-machine/

"Is they don't want to get into who pushed the Information into the Trump Team orbit. And, the questions surrounding Joseph Mizut. Who was the initiator, I should say, of the Papadopoulos, "they have dirt on Hillary story."

"If this guy was working for Western Intelligence Agencies, this whole case is going to explode." "It's already exploding. But it's going to explode at just Nuclear Levels." "Right?"

"Now they're starting to realize that, that may be a problem too. So, now there's a third track. The third track Joe, is going to be:

"Verification is not necessary." "They're starting to creep this out there now."

"Remember what I told you about the "Woods Procedure." "The Woods Procedure" is a procedure in the FBI & DOJ to verify information before it goes in front of the FISA Court, right?"

"The new line of attack is going to be:

"Well, that's really not necessary. This thorough verification of all the information." "Why they're going down that track I can't give you a conclusive explanation. I can only tell you that, my guess here, is that they're realizing that whatever fork they take in the road."

"Cater Paige who was spied on. With no verified information. Not good. Papadoplolus, who we Prosecuted despite the fact that a potential "Western Connected Intelligence Asset," pushed the information into Papadopoulos. Meaning he was framed. That's not good either."

"They know there's no way out. So what are they going to do? Now, they're going to push:

"Well, lets go back to Cater Paige. But let's say, "Alright, we may have made a mistake but Verification is really not necessary. We were really worried he (Carter Paige) was a terrorist or a spy. So we had to just run with it."

"Folks, they have no where to go."

"Now, how does this tie into the Bryon York piece. Remember, that they're are people up in the House. Nunes & other folks in these Committees. Don't forget this. They're folks, Republicans in the House & on the Senate side too who have seen the Declassified, Unredacted documents about why this whole case stated."

"They've seen that now. They haven't seen all of the DOJ or FBI records. That is where this fight is brewing. But the FISA application. They have seen most of what's in it. The redacted copy the one you've seen. Obviously, has blacked out information. Hence, the redactions. They dropped a hint yesterday. They want disclosed Joe. And, I'm quoting Bryon York here:

"What is on pages 10-12 & 17-34. of the FISA application."

"He says, this is York:

"That is certainly a tantalizing clue dropped by the House Intel Members. But it's not clear what is means. Comparing the relevant sections from the initial FISA application in October & the third renewal in June much appears the same. But in pages 10-12 the date the Republicans want redacted. Of the third renewal. There's a sightly different headline:

"The Russian Governments coordinated effort to influence the 2016 Presidential Election." Plus a footnote seven lines long that was not in the original."

"Folks, the Republicans know something. They have seen these redactions. now, based on some research. I can't tell you because I have not seen the unredacted copy of the document. I can only tell you based on research surrounding the case & some Information I've been working hard to develop. That it may disclose, those footnotes may disclose some connections for information streams. Again, that were not related to formal Intelligence Channels."

"In other words, the theory from the start that we've been operating on is that this case was not developed through standard protocol. If you develop Intelligence in a Five Eyes Country & Intelligence cooperated with the UNITED STATES against Donald Trump. You pass that information to your domestic Intelligence Agency who passes it Central Intelligence Agency. They vet the information before it makes it to the Presidents desk."

"That is not the way this case worked. May I suggest to you that the redactions describe other channels. Other channels of information that developed outside of those standard channels."

"Are we clear on this? I want to make clear what we're talking about. Standard way to do this is Intel Agency to Intel Agency. Vet it, vet the information, check the information before it makes it to the President. The only reason you would go outside of that network with Intelligence, specifically against a Political Candidate in the UNITED STATES is because you want to launder the information without vetting it. You want to clean it to make it seen legitimate."

"We already know, based on Public admissions by State Department Officials on the Obama Administration that they used The State Department. We already know, that there where people working for the Clinton Team that met with people on The State Department. May I suggest that this describes an alternative information channel outside of the standard "modus operandi" here that is going to expose The whole thing was an information laundering operation. The Republicans know something here folks."

"They know something.

mc888 -> Chupacabra-322 Wed, 07/25/2018 - 21:33 Permalink

Bongino is great. And now we're getting warm.

Woods procedure IS required, it's not optional. And we have the FBI self-admittedly not adhering to their own procedure. If they had, Steele would have been paid. The FBI stiffed him.

Further, it's the Judge's responsibility to insure the Prosecutors and Agents followed the procedure, and additionally that they vetted the sources - not just the informant. The informant's sources. They were criminally negligent on that point as well. The Judge was no victim here, the Judge had to be complicit in the conspiracy.

FVEY involvement is a whole 'nother can of worms.

https://www.puppetstringnews.com/blog/gchq-boss-left-in-2017-after-obam

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/03/28/five-eyes-allies-spy-

Totally illegal in their own country, so they have another country do it for them. Can it be prosecuted as Espionage? What about when it's used in Conspiracy to commit Sedition? What about failure to prosecute a crime of this magnitude, a direct attack on our govt by FVEY?

rtb61 -> Occams_Razor_Trader Wed, 07/25/2018 - 22:15 Permalink

What will the punishment be, nothing, be fired for incompetence, that's all. Why are they being stubborn dicks and not handing over the information because if fucking proves they are incompetent and gets them fired.

So either way they are fired, they just suck up more inflated salary for longer by holding off as long as they can and fuck everyone else, fuck the government, fuck Americans, fuck justice, they will stay there as long as they can sucking up quite a large salary well over $100,000 per year, plus perks, plus super and we are not talking dicking around for days but months.

Fired months and months later for not releasing the information versus fired within days of the information being released. As simple as that and as far as they are concerned fuck all other US citizens, they will not leave their spot at the trough of corruption until forced.

Donald J. Trump -> gatorengineer Wed, 07/25/2018 - 20:17 Permalink

Trump hired him but I don't think he's Trump's guy. Although it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans. It is all theater, you got that right, just not sure what the plot is.

Clinteastwood -> nmewn Wed, 07/25/2018 - 21:12 Permalink

Zerohedge readers might want to read this article from theconservativetreehouse.....Rosenstein and Sessions may be up to more than meets the eye; i.e., drain the swamp by catching the leakers:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/24/corrupt-republican-senate-intelligence-committee-chairman-richard-burr-defending-fisa-application-trying-to-hide-ssci-involvement-in-fisa-spygate/

loveyajimbo -> Whoa Dammit • Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:43 Permalink

Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt.

Whoa Dammit -> macholatte Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:34 Permalink

Rosenstein signing off on the FISA documents means he should have recused himself from the Mueller investigation instead of overseeing it. That's what is going to take him down.

FIAT CON -> loveyajimbo Wed, 07/25/2018 - 20:28 Permalink

For those of you who have not seen this...This has been in the works since April...... https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/criminal-referral.pdf

mc888 -> Whoa Dammit Wed, 07/25/2018 - 20:07 Permalink

Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge.

loveyajimbo -> macholatte Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:41 Permalink

True... but WTF is Trump thinking??? He should use this action to FIRE Rosenstein's traitor's ass NOW. Include the useless Sessions and Wray and, obviously, McCabe and Ohr.

DiGenova for AG, David Clarke for FBI head... Maybe Andy McCarthy for new Special Counsel to prosecute Hillary and all the rest of the Barry Obongo criminals... especially pigfart Brennan.

[Jul 25, 2018] US-Russia-China triangle in flux, again

Notable quotes:
"... Has the meeting in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? ..."
"... China can learn from Trump's respect for Russia ..."
Jul 25, 2018 | blogs.rediff.com

In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States' relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident."

Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and resurgence of Russia necessitating a new global balance .

As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China, signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians), the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period." Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."

Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.

Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for 'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.

But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.

Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.

Now, this recapitulation is useful today, because Trump's moves so far are indicative of an agenda to revert to the Eisenhower era – containment of China by forging an alliance with Russia .

Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US. Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.

Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.

The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, " Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia." Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American cooperation.

On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to Russia -- China can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the global stage due to military power:

On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:

Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle. And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.

[Jul 25, 2018] Trump and Corporatism

Notable quotes:
"... For many years some have seen the US as a form of corporatism* - as a country run in the interests of the corporations and those who lead them. There is considerable evidence that in many senses they are correct. However to see Trump as the epitome of this 'rule by corporations' I think misses something important. Trump is different from what went before in important respects. ..."
"... The government of Donald Trump is different. It is a selective plutocracy , and with one important exception that plutocracy is selected by Trump. In that way it can also be seen as a democratic dictatorship , where the complexity of government requires some delegation of power to other individuals. Like many dictatorships, some of those individuals are the dictator's family members. ..."
"... The photo above is taken from an extraordinary recent event (watch here ) where Trump walks down a line of senior executives, who in turn stand up and say what they are doing for the US and pledge to do more. Each statement is applauded with a positive statement by Trump, as his daughter trails behind. These are top companies: IBM, Microsoft, General Motors etc. It is all a show, of course, but of a kind the US has never seen before. It seems indicative that this is not just a continuation of past corporatism but something quite different. These are corporate executives doing the President's bidding for fear or favour. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | mainlymacro.blogspot.com
For many years some have seen the US as a form of corporatism* - as a country run in the interests of the corporations and those who lead them. There is considerable evidence that in many senses they are correct. However to see Trump as the epitome of this 'rule by corporations' I think misses something important. Trump is different from what went before in important respects.

The way business influenced politicians in the past was straightforward. Campaigns cost a lot of money (unlike the UK there are no tight limits on how much can be spent), and business can provide that money, but of course corporate political donations are not pure altruism. The strings attached helped influence both Republican and Democratic politicians. It was influence that followed the money, and that meant to an extent it was representative of the corporate sector as a whole. The same point can be made about political lobbying.

The government of Donald Trump is different. It is a selective plutocracy , and with one important exception that plutocracy is selected by Trump. In that way it can also be seen as a democratic dictatorship , where the complexity of government requires some delegation of power to other individuals. Like many dictatorships, some of those individuals are the dictator's family members.

A dictatorship of this form would not be possible if Congress had strongly opposed it. That it has not is partly because the Republican party chooses not to oppose, but also because Trump wields a power over Congress that can override the influence of corporate money. That power comes from an alliance between Trump and the media that has a big influence on how Republican voters view the world: Fox News in particular but others as well. The irony is that under these conditions democracy in the form of primaries gives Trump and the media considerable power over Congress.

The distinction between traditional corporate power 'from below' and the current Trumpian plutocracy can be seen most clearly in Trump's trade policy. It would be a mistake to see past US trade policy as an uninterrupted promotion of liberalisation, but I think it is fair to say that trade restrictions have never been imposed in such a haphazard way, based on such an obviously false pretext (US surpluses good, deficits bad). Trump's policy is a threat to the international trading system that has in the past been lead by the US, and therefore it is a threat to most of corporate USA. Yet up till now Congress has done very little to stop Trump's ruinous policy.

The photo above is taken from an extraordinary recent event (watch here ) where Trump walks down a line of senior executives, who in turn stand up and say what they are doing for the US and pledge to do more. Each statement is applauded with a positive statement by Trump, as his daughter trails behind. These are top companies: IBM, Microsoft, General Motors etc. It is all a show, of course, but of a kind the US has never seen before. It seems indicative that this is not just a continuation of past corporatism but something quite different. These are corporate executives doing the President's bidding for fear or favour.

All this matters because it creates a tension that could at some stage drive events. So far the Republican party has been prepared to allow Trump to do what he wishes as long as didn't require their explicit approval (i.e their votes in Congress), but it has not as yet bent its collective agenda to his. (Arguments that it already has tend to look at past Republican rhetoric rather than actions.) This uneasy peace may no longer become tenable because of developments on trade, or Russia, or the mid-term election results. If enough Republicans think their future is safer by opposing Trump rather than indulging him, they still have the power to bring Trump to heel. But the longer the peace lasts, Trump's influence on the Republican party will only grow.
* Readers outside the US may be confused by my use of the term corporatism: it is one of those terms with many meanings. I'm using it in the fourth and final sense described here .

[Jul 24, 2018] How think tanks sell war...

Notable quotes:
"... The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas, it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors. ..."
"... According to an email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ... ..."
"... So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Weapons Money Intended for Economic Development Being Secretly Diverted to Lobbying Alex Emmons Aug 18, 2017 undefined

The United Arab Emirates created a "slush fund" using money meant for domestic economic development projects and funneled it to a high-profile think tank in the United States, emails obtained by The Intercept show.

Last week, The Intercept reported that the UAE gave a $20 million grant to the Middle East Institute, flooding a well-regarded D.C. think tank with a monetary grant larger than its annual budget . According to an email from Richard Clarke, MEI's chairman of the board, the UAE got the money from offset investments -- development investments by international companies that are made as part of trade agreements.

The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas, it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors.

Offsets provide a way to sell weapons at inflated prices, when companies offer juicier offset packages. Critics say the lack of transparency in how offset investments are carried out leaves a window open for a form of legalized corruption. The emails lift a veil on what has long been an obscure element of the arms trade.

According to an email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ...

So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States.

Fair use excerpt. Full article here .

[Jul 24, 2018] Angry Bear The Most Important Issue At Helsinki

Notable quotes:
"... While if star wars* were anything other than a very profitable science project, it has already violated ABM, which RS 26 is in part hardened to missile defenses. ..."
"... Worst, if a miracle occurred and the pentagon trough could actually make something work star wars enables a first strike which is far more destabilizing! ..."
"... Given star wars, START is not in Russia's interests. ..."
"... This from soft spoken, occasionally logical Robert Reich. The depths of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and the willingness to scream for war on allegations of cyber attack on "sacred US democracy"* while the money (oil sheik, AIPAC, etc) in government and the DNC dirty tricking Sanders leave huge holes in the claims of "sacred US democracy". ..."
"... Sen Shaheen (D NH)+ was all over Trump about his scaring US allies in NATO! She is a co-chair on the Senate NATO Observer Group whose purpose is to meddle in execute branch operations of foreign policy specifically to turn NATO into an offensive alliance where "collective security" requires surrounding Russia and assuring the new "allies" that the US will go nuclear over their "integrity". ..."
"... Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipe line will not be enough leverage on Germany as it provides 9% of their needs. ..."
"... I am sorry I sent this thread "off the rails". The topic is timely and important. We all should push for new START and INF. From what I have read, it was mentioned but nothing has come out of the executive offices. ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | angrybearblog.com

The Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) was agreed to in Dec. 1987 by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Gorbachev. It is a permanent treaty requiring no special extension. It bans missiles of intermediate range of especial danger to NATO nations in western Europe. Until 2014 it was followed by both sides. Then in 2014 Putin adopted the RS-26 missile that violates the treaty, although he has denied it does. But US SecDef Mattis thinks it does.

So, what Trump should have had as his top priority in Helsinki and before while visiting NATO allies, whom he dissed, including the EU as our "worst foe," would have been to demand that Putin get rid of the RS-26 missile that violates the INF treaty. Instead we are told that he and Putin have agreed to "extend" it and the START. This is plain awful, but not surprising.

Barkley Rosser

ilsm , July 22, 2018 10:39 am

wkik reports the RS 26 is on "hold". We might consider (or Putin might bring up) US respect for deals with Iran and ABM treaty. I worked a project involved in implementing the INF treaty years ago. I also have had dealing with related weapon systems.

I should keep up with the INF kerfuffle.

RS-26 and such "weapons is [are] to deter Western forces from coming to the aid of the NATO's newer eastern members that are located closer to Russia's borders.[15] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-26_Rubezh

Seems RS 26 has been put in some kind of hold, there are better techie things for the Russian's to use for the nuclear trip wire sitting on the Dnieper.

The US needs to meet with Russia about START while spending a trillion bucks upgrading nukes over the next generation.

While if star wars* were anything other than a very profitable science project, it has already violated ABM, which RS 26 is in part hardened to missile defenses.

Ai=sideon the sundered ABM treaty and star wars:

The St Ronald approach to star wars: he did not want to be "Henry Fonda in Fail Safe". It has now grown to systems that are not so useful for missile defense but are enablers of other tactics which have moved in to former Warsaw area and Korea. Worst, if a miracle occurred and the pentagon trough could actually make something work star wars enables a first strike which is far more destabilizing!

Given star wars, START is not in Russia's interests.

Karl Kolchak , July 22, 2018 4:48 pm

Yeah, the U.S. violates every agreement with Russia and brings NATO right up to their doorstep, yet Russia should give up the one weapon that is key to protecting it from NATO aggression. You want to carry some MORE water for the unaccountable empire?

Dan , July 22, 2018 6:32 pm

While the issue of defensive missiles is important, the immediate concern is the rabid anti-Russian stance of the liberals who, up until 2016, were just fine with "discussions" or "negotiations" with the Russians to keep antagonism to a moderate and manageable level. Then, with Trump's election, the rails came off the rational train of thought in liberals' heads. Now they are seeking confrontations with the Russians who they blame for Hillary Clinton's defeat rather than the fact that enough people saw her for the sociopath that she is. So, any chance they have to poke the bear, they take it.

Some reading:
https://www.thenation.com/article/do-liberal-democrats-want-war-with-russia/

ilsm , July 22, 2018 8:18 pm

Imagine you live in a world where a country's leader for merely talking to the leader of a similar, nuclear armed power brings rants of "treason".

http://robertreich.org/post/176069359495

This from soft spoken, occasionally logical Robert Reich. The depths of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and the willingness to scream for war on allegations of cyber attack on "sacred US democracy"* while the money (oil sheik, AIPAC, etc) in government and the DNC dirty tricking Sanders leave huge holes in the claims of "sacred US democracy".

Sen Shaheen (D NH)+ was all over Trump about his scaring US allies in NATO! She is a co-chair on the Senate NATO Observer Group whose purpose is to meddle in execute branch operations of foreign policy specifically to turn NATO into an offensive alliance where "collective security" requires surrounding Russia and assuring the new "allies" that the US will go nuclear over their "integrity".

Opposing that aggressive alliance is not treason it is the best way to assure the future of the world.

The democrats have gone from soft on defense to raving war mongers. TDS is not the main cause.

*in a constitutional republic owned by money foreign and domestic!!

+I will work and contribute to unseat all democrats in NH.

run75441 , July 23, 2018 2:02 pm

ilsm:

If it was just a matter of talking to another world leader, this would be a so what. The fact is, Putin is not just another world leader the same as Merkel, May, or Macron. You have cited Robert Reich's post of July 19, 2018 in general without specifics you would find wildly exaggerated, half true, or just plain lies. Trump's wildly fallacious comments and bizarre actions in light of his past public blundering nationally and globally leave much to the imagination and do not breed trust. He is a liar who makes things up as he goes along.

Shaheen calling for a congressional hearing with an interpreter is a call to war? It is kind of funny we have to interrogate an interpreter to find out what Trump actually said because by the next day he will have forgotten. That is the danger of his forgetting what he actually promised.

Maybe too you meant Bush II placement of missiles in Poland and Czech republic, canceled by Obama due to techie issues, and to be placed elsewhere closer to Iran in 2018 with an improved version (feign south?). Czechs did not want them and the nationalistic Poles did want them. Obama did not want to spend the money on something (Aegis, Patriot?) of which earlier versions did not work effectively. Trump signed off on a $10.5 billion deal with the Poles giving them an advanced version. And Dems are clamoring for war?

A while back Russia was testing hypersonic weapons. You said it earlier that Russia can not afford a large War budget as it takes from the economy. Large amounts of money spent on war materials helped lead to their collapse previously. Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipe line will not be enough leverage on Germany as it provides 9% of their needs.

Barkley Rosser , July 23, 2018 12:17 am

ilsm,

I think you are right that the RS-26 is on some sort of hold, which seems to date to the Obama era. This is a big deal, but nobody wants to talk about it publicly, which is why you have to have somebody like me to bring up this deep shit, :-).
JBR

EMichael , July 23, 2018 8:48 am

So Russia ratfckes our election and the problem is liberals looking for a confrontation with them?

Like to see the reaction of these so called americans when they show up to vote and find they are not registered any longer for reasons no one knows.

ilsm , July 23, 2018 4:29 pm

Barkley Rosser,

I am sorry I sent this thread "off the rails". The topic is timely and important. We all should push for new START and INF. From what I have read, it was mentioned but nothing has come out of the executive offices.

While Kim may be watching how Trump and Putin deal with the really big stuff.

ilsm

[Jul 24, 2018] Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs who stole hundreds of billions from Russia, helped by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies who also filled their pockets.

Notable quotes:
"... So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage? #MeToo ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon , Website July 24, 2018 at 7:43 am GMT

" American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman "

American? I beg to differ. All of those turncoats serve their Master Israel and kiss the nether regions of those TBTF Wall Street Casinos.

Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs -- eight of whom are Jews -- who stole hundreds of billions from Russia when it was decompressing from being the USSR, helped by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies who also filled their pockets.

Watch the tough guy Browder run like a scared bunny rabbit in NYC from a process server.

Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol, tried, convicted and spend the rest of his sorry life in a Super Max prison for his thefts, frauds and helping to poison the relationship between the USA & Russia, in an effort to save his sorry ass from prosecution.

The Alarmist , July 24, 2018 at 10:37 am GMT

"Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton, who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference in the 1996 election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done to it."

[emphasis mine]

So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage? #MeToo

geokat62 , July 24, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
@Greg Bacon

Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol

Although I posted this comment under another thread, I think it bears repeating here (especially relevant to your point is the bolded part):

I think debunking the vulture capitalist Bill Browder's false claim of being, of all things, a human rights advocate is the key to unraveling the Russia-gate hoax. I also think the following information goes a long way in doing that:

1. Nekrasov's documentary, The Magnitsky Act: Behind The Scenes, now available for viewing

2. Alex Krainer's The Killing of William Browder, now available online; and

3. Bill Browder's Previzon deposition in which he claims "I can't remember" at least 50 times and answers "I don't know" fully 211 times.

Notwithstanding these facts, it appears Mr. Browder is an untouchable. The Russians have issued a Red Notice at least six times and he has managed to walk away scot free on each occasion.

The zinger was when the Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to testify as an expert witness against Fusion GPS, arguing that it should have registered under FARA because it was working on behalf of a foreign government, in this case the Russian. The irony of this scene was incredible. The hallowed chamber in which this inquiry took place is completely bought and paid for by The Lobby but not a peep about having it register under FARA. Totally surreal!

Anonymous lurker , July 24, 2018 at 12:00 pm GMT
An interesting thing about this that has gone almost completely unreported is that HSBC quietly held a series of closed-door meetings with Russian authorities earlier this year regarding the tax fraud charges leveled at Browder and his businesses (HSBC jointly managed Hermitage) and decided to pay up some of the cash he illegally siphoned out of the country (22 million dollars I believe, so a drop in the ocean given the scale of his endeavors, but it's something.)

"Bill Browder declined to comment" according to one of the few articles on the matter.

Isn't all of that more or less tantamount to an admission of guilt?

Anonymous [128] Disclaimer , July 24, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
Questions I have:

(1) Why is he so protected?

(2) How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country? No jury in the world would reach a verdict based solely on the word of a convict, without it being substantiated by numerous pieces of other circumstantial and direct evidence.

(3) Even if he paid everyone oodles of money and brought a thousand lawsuits, why would gazillionaire corporations cave in to his demands to ban books, movies, organizations, etc.?

There is something more powerful about Bill Browder than just his pile of money.

Johnny Smoggins , July 24, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
You'd think that a man who gave up his US citizenship to dodge his tax bill would be seen as a villain, not defended by presidents and congressmen.
Andrei Martyanov , Website July 24, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Anonymous

How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country?

US Congress has an approval rating slightly above that of Al Qaeda and Ted Bundy.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/

In fact, most (not all) US lawmakers long ago became a euphemism for incompetence, corruption and lies. So, no -- modern US Congress is not respectable by people and numbers reflect that. Hopefully, sometime in the future, some honorable and loyal to their country people will make it there.

Anatoly Karlin , Website July 24, 2018 at 1:28 pm GMT
Couple of other standard narrative-critical articles on the Magnitsky Affair:

* kovane: Sergei Magnitsky, Bill Browder, Hermitage Capital Management and Wondrous Metamorphoses

* Lucy Komisar: The Man Behind the Magnitsky Act Did Bill Browder's Tax Troubles in Russia Color Push for Sanctions?

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , July 24, 2018 at 2:30 pm GMT
Can someone help me remember the names of those 9 oligarchs?

These are the ones I remember:

1) Anatoly Chubais
2) Browder
3) Boris Berezovsky
4) Mikhail Khodorkovsky
5) Vladimir Gusinsky

Who were the others? Thanks.

Of these 5, Chubais remained in Russia but the others fled. Chubais was the one who was instrumental in starting the loans-for-shares scheme. My understanding is that those who fled are real scum, since Putin offered all oligarchs the chance to keep their money so long as they avoided politics. Most vulture capitalists agreed to this arrangement, but the worst of the Jewish oligarchs were too greedy and lustful to give in. So I have heard, anyway.

[Jul 24, 2018] Demonizaion of Russia and Putin started in full force the day that Putin said "no more" to US mischief and moved into Syria. From there the coup in Ukraine was engineered in an attempt to neutralize the Black Sea fleet supporting Syria, which was based in Crimea.

Jul 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Case in point: An opinion piece on the Fox News website, by Dan Gainor makes note of the absolute media carnage (not too strong a word in this case) concerning the reaction of the political establishment and almost ALL media outlets (including Fox) to President Trump's conciliatory tone struck with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Helsinki Summit, one week ago today.

We have excerpted from his piece, adding emphasis:

A raging epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome broke out among reporters covering the summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, as journalists gave the American president hellish reviews for his performance in Helsinki at a joint news conference.

No reporters knew what actually transpired in the main event of the day – the private meeting between the two presidents. So journalists put themselves in the position of critics, grading President Trump's news conference performance

USA Today reported in a front-page story: " Every nation has an infamous traitor. And now, after a news conference Monday in Finland, the term is being used in relations to the 45th president of the United States. Donald Trump, master of the political insult, finds himself on the receiving end. "

The New York Daily News screamed "OPEN TREASON" on its cover page with a cartoon showing Trump holding Putin's hand and holding a gun in his other hand and shooting Uncle Sam in the head. Really.

CNN host Fareed Zakaria wasn't satisfied with "treason" as a descriptor. "I feel like treasonous is too weak a word, because the whole thing has taken on an air of such unreality," he said.

Zakaria had lots of company : CNN analyst Max Boot, MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, and, of course, former CIA Director John Brennan, who now works for NBC and MSNBC.

CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said "the spirit of what Trump did is clearly treasonous," and declared that the president "came off as being a puppet of Putin."

The list of network reactions in Mr. Gainor's article is very long and deserves a careful read. But all of those reactions and more led to this point :

The hellish outrage over the Helsinki news conference had its desired effect for now. Newsweek posted a story on an opinion poll that declared : "According to a new Ipsos poll, 49 percent of Americans said Trump was "treasonous" during the summit and ensuing press conference, with only 27 percent disagreeing."

In other words the viewing, listening and reading public did absorb this very unified tirade. One of the most unusual aspects of this which we have reported on here, is that the media's unity included many conservative elements. In all but a few cases, most notably that of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, even very respected conservative voices still bought into "Russian meddling" as though this were some sort of issue. It really isn't, because as even some of these hosts acknowledged, "everyone does it."

But as to why this is happening, the explanation really has to do with the establishment reaction to a speech that President Putin himself gave several years ago about the situation in the West. It is this speech that spurred most of the sanctions and actions taken against Russia. It is NOT the "invasion" of Crimea or the 25 invasions of Ukraine that were reported during the years 2014-2016. It is the alignment that the Russian President noted in the West, and Russia's refusal to follow that same path.

Blackpilled offered this video clip and a translation of the speech in English. We offer that clip and the relevant part of the speech's transcript here.

It is of tantamount importance to understand that this is the main factor in all the opposition against President Trump, because his presence threw a major monkey wrench into "the plan."

Two things of note:

1. The narrator of the video here offers a translation that is slightly different than the one offered on the Kremlin's own website. The link to the relevant page is included here.

2. The narrator of "BlackPilled is incorrect in attributing this speech as being given "shortly after Trump was elected." The actual speech was given at the Valdai conference in 2013. If we consider this, and the timeline of events following – such as the Sochi Olympics and the concurrent list of "scandal after scandal" concerning Russia, then the pieces fall into place:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hJdxNEgWirM

From the site Kremlin.ru, emphasis added:

Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values . One must respect every minority's right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires [slaves]."

And... anyone that is against America's unipolar hegemon must be removed - as this year's new US military strategy proved, as Defense Secretary Mattis explained that fighting terror is now on the back burner, because " we face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models ... great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security."

Sanity Bear Mon, 07/23/2018 - 21:20 Permalink

It started the day that Putin said "no more" to US mischief and moved into Syria.

From there the coup in Ukraine was engineered in an attempt to neutralize the Black Sea fleet supporting Syria, which was based in Crimea.

That was never going to be allowed to happen, but the usual suspects managed to lose their shit anyway when they failed to capture Crimea in the coup and the fleet was able to continue to assist Syria against US/Turk/Saudi-sponsored jihadis.

max_is_leering -> Sanity Bear Mon, 07/23/2018 - 21:45 Permalink

the coup de'tat in Ukieville occurred in late 2013/early2014 and Putin's speech to the UN was Sept. 2015, where he asked: 'Do you (meaning the west) realize what you have done?", and promptly a week later he starts bombing terrorists in Syria

opport.knocks -> max_is_leering Mon, 07/23/2018 - 22:38 Permalink

The full speech... https://youtu.be/q13yzl6k6w0

SubjectivObject -> Goodsport 1945 Mon, 07/23/2018 - 21:33 Permalink

i'm predisposed to that

but how'd he become a multi billionaire?

on a politician's "salary"

max_is_leering -> SubjectivObject Mon, 07/23/2018 - 21:50 Permalink

I really couldn't give a good god-damn about whether or not he's a billionaire, a gazillionaire or any other number... look, if Mark Fuckerberg can steal an idea from the twins and make a few billion, I have NO issue with Vlad having all the loot he needs... no questions asked, ever

opport.knocks -> SubjectivObject Mon, 07/23/2018 - 21:59 Permalink

He is not a multi-billionaire. That is just part of the anti-Putin propaganda campaign by: Boris Berezovsky, Bill Browder, Mikhail Khodorovsky, Masha Gessen, George Soros and assorted other (((Usual Suspects))), to attempt to isolate Russia and Putin from the global "community".

opport.knocks -> exlcus Mon, 07/23/2018 - 22:31 Permalink

Anti-Putin propagandists Masha Gessen and the Washington Post's David Ignatius's led the charge on that one. The Palace is wonderful, but no one claims it belongs to Putin.

The whislterblower claims in the Wikipedia entry are unsubstantiated and appear to be totally motivated by other business dealings that went bad. Similar to Bill Browder and the Magninsky Affair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin%27s_Palace

RagnarRedux Mon, 07/23/2018 - 21:31 Permalink

Great articles.

https://russia-insider.com/en

SybilDefense Mon, 07/23/2018 - 21:41 Permalink

Wait until we see Bill Browders client list. What Democratic insiders made the most from his Hermitage hedge fund prior to his stealing the money and the tax money and paying off those deep state Dems (including Soros) who helped make it happen. Can we charge some Mi6 fucks too? Magnitsky was killed by Browder to set the stage for his stories.

From then on, the Dems needed a Russian villain to demonize so the cover would stick... Until Putin and Donald exposed the truth in Helstinky

Chief Joesph Mon, 07/23/2018 - 22:03 Permalink

No, Putin's speech didn't start anything, because most Americans were totally unaware of it, since MSM rarely ever reports much about what Putin says. Instead, America has had a hatred for Russia going back over 100 years, starting with the first Red Scare in 1917-1924. Second Red Scare 1947-1957. . This current nonsense about the Russians makes Red Scare #3.

[Jul 24, 2018] Helsinki Secrets by Israel Shamir

Notable quotes:
"... The Prince and The Pauper ..."
"... In Brussels, Trump attacked Frau Merkel. How does she dare to buy Russian gas, if Germany faces a Russian threat? ..."
"... NATO is an instrument of American control over Europe, and Washington keeps dozens of bases in Europe, in particular – in Germany. Germany has remained under American occupation since 1945. This would seem good for America, but the occupied and controlled Western European states are tied to the Clinton camp, to Democrats and liberals. They do not accept Trump as their rightful sovereign. And Europe does not pay for its occupation, so it is costly. Of course, it is a great honour to occupy and control the great powers of the past, England, France, the Netherlands, Spain. But it costs a lot of money for America. Likewise, in 1990 Russia discovered that it is expensive to control surly East Germany, independent Poland, sunny Georgia, tricky Armenia, populous Uzbekistan and the rainy Baltic States. ..."
"... Russians are in a very uncomfortable seat. All their neighbours are subject to American pressure to annoy Russia, be it Georgia (once they even attacked Russia militarily being led by American and Israeli advisers) or the Ukraine (Americans arranged a coup d'état and installed extremely hostile to Russia government in Kiev). American military bases surround Russia and NATO troops drew closer and closer to its centres. American military budget of 600 billion dollars dwarfs the Russian one, while the armaments' race can undermine Russian finances. If Russia were a woman, she would scream: stop it! ..."
"... From the beginning to the end, the US media was highly hostile to Trump and to his mission in Europe. They eagerly followed anti-Trump demos and exaggerated his every blunder. Google obediently trailed at the top Twitter messages of the ex-CIA boss calling Trump 'a traitor'. All prominent Western newspapers spoke of Trump's 'treason'. ..."
"... In the current Russophobian climate, it would have been impossible to concede almost anything to Russia, and V. Putin understands this. But as Russiagate unravels ever so slowly, he will have more room. But as long as both leaders agreed not to start WWIII , something has been achieved, therefore I also believe the Iran threats to be posturing, it would make sense if Russia have calmed Israel, what the current situation indicates. ..."
"... The US knows fully well than an Iran war would not be winnable and bring the rest of the world together; the world has not yet overcome the last financial crisis, a new largescale war in the ME could very well crash the Global economy and the petrodollar. Nobody are keen on that. ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

an orange hurricane, President Trump made a stormy visit to the Old World. Usually American presidents' visits to Europe present photo opportunities and vows of eternal love and friendship. Not this time. Since the Mongol invasion, not many visitors from outside shook Europe like he did. The US President has finally emerged from the cage built by his political adversaries, and begun to say things his voters wanted to hear.

However, his wonderful daring statements were quickly undermined and disowned by his ministers and advisers, creating the feeling that Trump speaks only for himself, while the US administration, his own appointees say the opposite. And then he also repudiated his own statements, saying he was misunderstood.

The American president increasingly resembles the hero of The Prince and The Pauper , the poor boy who accidentally became a king – and began to behave in a non-royal way: showing mercy and caring for people. His own staff disregards his commands. Trump says what people like to hear, but his administration sticks to the original course.

During the first part of his trip he acted a rebel in Wodehouse World with its feeble men and formidable women. Indeed the West is ruled by formidable aunts and elder sisters. Aunt Angela in Germany, Aunt Theresa in England, Aunt Brigitte in France. Only Aunt Hillary is missing to complete the puzzle and establish the rule of Aunties over their hen-pecked nephews.

(Hillary's defeat didn't derail the Aunties' program of emasculation: #MeToo campaign goes on unabated. Men are afraid to flirt with girls. Henry ( The Superman ) Cavill admitted as much in an interview, saying that flirting with somebody would be like "casting myself into the fires of hell", as a person in the public eye. "I think a woman should be wooed and chased", he said, but it could lead to jail. He was immediately attacked for this heresy: "If Henry Cavill doesn't want to be called a rapist then all he has to do is not rape anyone", implausibly they claimed. And he apologised profusely.)

Trump's trip had been accompanied by mass protest demos. Normally I am all in favour of a good anti-American demo, but in this case, the protesters were extreme feminists and supporters of unlimited immigration. That's people who like the Aunties, and hate Uncles. They do not mind conflict with Russia and even consider Trump as a "Russian agent". They dislike that he does not obey Aunties.

In the second part of the tour, Trump had met with the formidable Mr Putin, a real man. Now that we have learned from our reliable sources what had happened in the palatial halls of Helsinki (excepting face-to-face private talk with Putin) we can describe Trump's Pilgrim's Progress and share our knowledge and conclusions with you.

In short, President Trump made the right sounds and called for right solutions, but he has been unable to insist on any. If he were a free man of his own mind, this trip would transform the world. The way things are, it will remain a sign of his honourable intentions, for everything he said has been overturned and denied by his aides.

In Brussels, Trump attacked Frau Merkel. How does she dare to buy Russian gas, if Germany faces a Russian threat? Why does it accept immigrants and refugees who undermine the European way of life? Saying that, he sided with "the populists", the Italians, Hungarians and Austrians, whose top politicians are male and friendly to Trump and Putin.

The Brussels meeting almost came to an undoing of NATO. Trump hinted that the US would leave NATO unless they pay. They have to pay more, much more, if they want to have American protection.

Could he mean it? NATO is an instrument of American control over Europe, and Washington keeps dozens of bases in Europe, in particular – in Germany. Germany has remained under American occupation since 1945. This would seem good for America, but the occupied and controlled Western European states are tied to the Clinton camp, to Democrats and liberals. They do not accept Trump as their rightful sovereign. And Europe does not pay for its occupation, so it is costly. Of course, it is a great honour to occupy and control the great powers of the past, England, France, the Netherlands, Spain. But it costs a lot of money for America. Likewise, in 1990 Russia discovered that it is expensive to control surly East Germany, independent Poland, sunny Georgia, tricky Armenia, populous Uzbekistan and the rainy Baltic States.

There is no certainty that the countries of Europe will agree to pay and submit to Trump's demands. In Germany, there are growing voices demanding the Yankees be sent home, that is, to ask the American soldiers to leave Germany. It would be good if NATO were to disintegrate and disappear, like the Warsaw Treaty Organization disappeared. Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to return the American soldiers home. Perhaps we shall witness Pax Americana without American troops in Europe, like England fictitiously claimed to belong to the Roman Empire, though Roman legions had left, and Rome lost all interest in foggy Albion.

In England, Trump confronted Mrs May. She reminded him of his school mistress, and Donald does not like school mistresses. The soft Brexit, which she intends to conclude, is a complete bummer, not a Brexit, he said. Under the proposed treaty, all prerogatives remain in Brussels. So, there can be no trade agreement between the United States and Britain. America will negotiate directly with Brussels. And in general, it would be better if May transferred Downing Street 10 to her former Foreign Secretary, a hard-line Brexit supporter, the red-headed Bojo (as the Brits call Boris Johnson, who had just resigned, resenting the proposed plan for soft Brexit).

The European Union is an American design, too. Why, then, does the US President want to undermine it by removing the UK, his own Trojan Horse? Apparently, it means that the globalist forces have entered a state of direct confrontation with America.

This first part of Trump's tour had been followed by the Kremlin with satisfaction. The Kremlin also believes that NATO has become obsolete, and that Brexit is the right step. Russia instinctively disapproves of mass migration, just like Trump.

ORDER IT NOW

Trump's meeting with President Putin had been postponed for a year; both men were eager to meet. Trump wanted to meet another strong man, a powerful chieftain who can assist him in building a new world, instead of the one created under Obama, by media and Supreme Court Judges. President Putin wanted to solve bilateral issues and to ease American pressure upon Russia.

Their problems were very different. The main problems of Trump were Mme Clinton and Barack Obama, and the whole army of their obstinate followers who didn't recognise Trump's legitimacy. Putin couldn't do much for him, with all his sympathy.

Putin's problem is the hybrid warfare carried out by the United States against Russia. Despite accusations you hear in your media (alleged Russian ads in the Facebook and Twitter influencing voters), American pressure on Russia is very real and very painful. American officials try to wreck every international deal Russia attempts to clinch. It is not only, or even mainly about weapons. If a country A wants to sell Russians, say, bananas, the US ambassador will come to A's king, or his minister, and will expressly forbid him to sell bananas to godless Russians. Otherwise, do not expect the US aid, or do not count on US favours in your disputes with your neighbours, or the US won't buy your production, or US banks will take another long and jaundiced view at your financial transactions. You witnessed the scene , when the crazed Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, threatened sovereign nations with severe punishment for voting against the US desires, so you have an idea of American delicacy and caution while pushing their will through.

Russians are in a very uncomfortable seat. All their neighbours are subject to American pressure to annoy Russia, be it Georgia (once they even attacked Russia militarily being led by American and Israeli advisers) or the Ukraine (Americans arranged a coup d'état and installed extremely hostile to Russia government in Kiev). American military bases surround Russia and NATO troops drew closer and closer to its centres. American military budget of 600 billion dollars dwarfs the Russian one, while the armaments' race can undermine Russian finances. If Russia were a woman, she would scream: stop it!

Perhaps our colleague Mr Andrei Martyanov is right and the US can't destroy Russia militarily; perhaps Immanuel Wallerstein is correct and American power is in decline; but meanwhile the US is perfectly able to make life hard and difficult for any state. It made life unbearably hard for North Korea, extremely hard for Iran. Russia is not doing half as good as she could do without ceaseless American meddling.

President Putin would like Trump to relent. There is no reason for this incessant picking on Russia; it is not Communist anymore; it is much smaller and less populous than the former USSR; it wants to live in peace as a member of the family of nations, not as a great alternative. The anti-Russian offensive began in earnest in the days of previous US presidents, namely Obama and Clinton; so it would make sense for Trump to stop it.

Problem is, President Trump is also actively engaged in war against Russia. Just a few days ago he pressured the German Chancellor to give up on the North Stream-2, to stop buying Russian gas. His advisers demanded that Turkey desist from buying a Russian antimissile system. The US Air Force bombed Russian troops in Syria.

Still Putin made a good try. He proposed to hold a referendum in the Donbas area of Eastern Ukraine which is presently independent though lacking international recognition. The people of Donbas had their own referendum in 2014, and voted for independence; Kiev regime and its Western sponsors denied its validity as it was done under Russian army's protection, they claimed. Now Putin proposed a re-run under international auspices.

Trump ostensibly agreed, he said it was a good idea, and he asked for the opinion of John Bolton, his national security advisor; Bolton confirmed it was a good idea. This was in Helsinki; however, since then the idea had been rejected by the Americans, as the Kiev regime balked at it. The regime knows well that the people of Eastern Ukraine aren't likely to opt for their tender mercies, and Trump administration won't push Kiev to agree to secession, or to abide by the Minsk agreements and let them re-join federal Ukraine as an autonomous unit. So this haemorrhaging wound at the western border of Russia will bleed on.

As for Syria, Putin told Trump that he agreed upon the arrangements with Mr Netanyahu to keep Iranians and their militias at some 80 km away from the disengagement (1974) lines at the Golan Heights. (Iranians are now going through a difficult stretch and they accepted this solution without a murmur.) This was acceptable to Trump, and both presidents stressed that they value Israeli security highly.

(They have differing reasons for it. Putin wants Syria to remain in peace under his protégé and ally President Bashar Assad, and for this, he needs some security arrangements with pugnacious Israel. Putin is aware of Jewish state's ability to pull strings and he doesn't want to antagonise it. Putin also wants Trump to be happy, and Israel is a point of huge importance for the US President, much more than for Putin.

Trump sacrifices at the altar of Israel to propitiate the Jews he is fighting in the US. Trump fights everything American Jews stand for, against all they achieved recently. He wants to have them back in the cash flow cubicle, the 'short guys that wear yarmulkes every day', counting his notes. They want much, much more: they wish to dominate and rule America their own way. Trump is ready to give all he can to Israel, so the American Jews will be less eager to fight him.

This ploy had been tried by the German National-Socialists in 1930s, who gave the Zionist-Socialists the most profitable Ha'avara deal to offset and overcome hostility of American Jews. It failed then, it is likely to fail again, but not before the Zionists will get all they dream of.)

For North Korea, Putin lauded Trump's move and said he will keep playing a supportive role to American efforts.

ORDER IT NOW

For the bogus "Russian interference in the US elections", Putin proposed to establish a bilateral expert group for cyber security. Let experts deal with experts, and sort out the claims, he said. Trump agreed with the idea, though his advisers were quick to repudiate it upon their return to Washington.

Putin also proposed to allow cross-examinations on the reciprocity basis: the US investigators will travel to Russia and interrogate Russian officials indicted by Mueller's team; while Russian investigators will travel to the US and interrogate Ambassador McFaul for his participation in Browder affair . Trump had been impressed by the generous offer; but as he returned to Washington, McFaul (falsely) claimed Trump intends to send him to the Gulag, and Trump's advisers promptly repudiated the proposal.

Putin did not intend to arrest and detain McFaul, just to question him; likewise, he wouldn't permit Mueller investigators to carry Russian intelligence officers to a Guantanamo of their choice, just to ask them questions. The Browder Affair grows bigger as time goes: though the rascal was not the biggest of Russian assets' looters, he was the most outspoken and keen on hanging on the stolen goods. The US advisers from top-league universities implanted in the Yeltsin administration in 1990s had stolen more; they also facilitated creation of the mighty oligarchs of that time. However, Browder had more tenacity and he judiciously invested a lion share of his ill-gotten profits in bribes aiming to suborn the US administration and turn it onto relentless pursuit of Russia. Ambassador McFaul fronted for him and covered his misdeeds; while McFaul tried to interfere in Russian electoral process following the precedent established in 1996.

Thus at Helsinki, a pattern had been established, I was told by a witness. Putin would make a proposal, Trump would tentatively agree and promptly deny and repudiate on return to Washington.

From the beginning to the end, the US media was highly hostile to Trump and to his mission in Europe. They eagerly followed anti-Trump demos and exaggerated his every blunder. Google obediently trailed at the top Twitter messages of the ex-CIA boss calling Trump 'a traitor'. All prominent Western newspapers spoke of Trump's 'treason'.

Perhaps they would be able to convince some Republicans to follow their trend, but the defeat of Rep. Mark Sanford in South Carolina primaries following Trump's angry Twitter had brought them to their senses. A Republican leader stated the case well: "Obviously there are going to be those who are going to criticise him but they're going to criticise him for anything that he says. This committee stands strong, stands behind him and wants to support him. We're interested not only in the 2018 elections, we're interested in the 2020 elections as well."

The result of violent Trump-is-a-traitor campaign was surprising: 80% of Trump voters approved of his Helsinki shtick, notwithstanding the vehement accusations. American media had lost its silver touch. President may continue to build his power structure, and perhaps one day his word will be worth something.

Bottom line: Trump dared, and survived.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] This article was first published at The Unz Review .

RobinG , July 24, 2018 at 5:16 am GMT

Putin mentioned BILL BROWDER, and Lee Stranahan's twitter caught fire!

Crack the Deep State matrix. Join Lee's campaign to make Senators answer the question, "Have you seen Bill Browder's deposition in the U.S. vs. Prevezon Holdings case?" Full research links, including testimony, here -

https://populist.tv/2018/01/20/bill-browder-links-and-resources-to-understand-controversy/

Miro23 , July 24, 2018 at 6:01 am GMT

Trump sacrifices at the altar of Israel to propitiate the Jews he is fighting in the US. Trump fights everything American Jews stand for, against all they achieved recently. He wants to have them back in the cash flow cubicle, the 'short guys that wear yarmulkes every day', counting his notes. They want much, much more: they wish to dominate and rule America their own way. Trump is ready to give all he can to Israel, so the American Jews will be less eager to fight him.

This could well be right, with Trump's slavish pro-Israel stance designed to get (some) US Jews off his back. The implication is that there is a split between US Jewry and the Israeli's, which seems likely since US Jews want to dominate and rule America, whereas Israeli Jews want to dominate and rule the Middle East (different concepts).

The Israeli project is a costly affair for the US, and is leading straight towards an Iran war which could well duplicate the cost of Iraq. If it happens, the US will inevitably be weakened and further impoverished – maybe more obviously this time as the US has reached its debt limit – with a guaranteed increase in social unrest.

US Jewry couldn't care less if the US population is impoverished, but there is the issue that social unrest builds support for Trump, so Israeli action on Iran may force US Jewry to deal with increased US popular nationalism – with the (US elite Jewish) instinctive reaction to go for repression. Basically US Jewry wants to be an untouchable minority elite (US Neo-Bolshevism) but the transition to totalitarianism can be tricky, and the Israelis may be dangerously accelerating the process for them.

jilles dykstra , July 24, 2018 at 6:53 am GMT
" Problem is, President Trump is also actively engaged in war against Russia. Just a few days ago he pressured the German Chancellor to give up on the North Stream-2, to stop buying Russian gas. His advisers demanded that Turkey desist from buying a Russian antimissile system. The US Air Force bombed Russian troops in Syria. "

As Trump said 'Russia is not a friend, nor a foe, but a competitor. In Helsinki the gas price was discussed. I wonder if Shamir understands what's going on, unique in history, the leader of an empire giving up that empire, because he sees keeping it, even more expanding it, as neocons, AIPAC, AEI, want, is suicide.

The Alarmist , July 24, 2018 at 9:15 am GMT

"Indeed the West is ruled by formidable aunts and elder sisters."

Better characterised as childless Harpies, agents of globalist punishment, who defecate on the countries and cultures they purport to represent and torture their people as they carry them down into the abyss of Tartarus.

Den Lille Abe , July 24, 2018 at 10:38 am GMT
In the current Russophobian climate, it would have been impossible to concede almost anything to Russia, and V. Putin understands this. But as Russiagate unravels ever so slowly, he will have more room. But as long as both leaders agreed not to start WWIII , something has been achieved, therefore I also believe the Iran threats to be posturing, it would make sense if Russia have calmed Israel, what the current situation indicates.

The US knows fully well than an Iran war would not be winnable and bring the rest of the world together; the world has not yet overcome the last financial crisis, a new largescale war in the ME could very well crash the Global economy and the petrodollar. Nobody are keen on that.

Israel Shamir , July 24, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
Giving up the empire: Gorbachev did it, I witnessed that.
mark green , July 24, 2018 at 12:35 pm GMT
Good article by Shamir.

There are numerous agendas and countless anti-Trump saboteurs at play in this latest escalation. Nevertheless, it is in America's economic and security interests (as well as Russia's) to ease military tensions and seek normalized relations.

Why not? After all, the USSR collapsed nearly 3o years ago. And with it died the 'cold war'. America now trades with communist China. So why not Christian Russia? What's the real roadblock? The last election? That's impossible to believe. Russian 'interference' (if it occurred at all) was not decisive. And what Russia is alleged to have done is not unique or particularly unusual. Besides, the new cold war with Russia had been brewing for years. So what's behind it all?

This is where the oversized Israeli footprint in US politics rears its ugly head. International Zionists have their not-so-secret list of 'demands'. This list gets Washington's attention. So here's the Israeli deal: Russia's alliance with Iran and Syria must be 'contained' and diminshed. And Putin–unless he capitulates–must be kept in his box, isolated. This is what Israel wants. Trump must accommodate–or try to accommodate–these demands. Israel's influence is too great to ignore.

The Zionist master plan is simple: continue the break-up of the Arab (and Persian) worlds into smaller, compliant, non-democratic autocracies or puny, fragmented religious orthodoxies. Sound crazy? Not at all. In Israel's mind, we're already most of the way there.

Starting soon after 911, Zio-Washington initiated a war that crushed Iraq and set back its culture, economy and military capabilities decades. Ditto on Libya. Syria has also been severely damaged. This is all good news to Israel. But the job of re-making the Middle East to Israel's liking remains unfinished. Assad's Syria (with Russian and Iranian help) is about to emerge–if not victorious–then intact, after years of Zio-American meddling and covert warfare. Assad survives but Israel has not given up. Syria remains weak.

Next step: using Washington's awesome military and intelligence capabilities, global Zionism is now embarking on a campaign that will attempt to destabilize Iran without using US bombs or missiles. How? Hundreds of millions of US dollars have just been earmarked to target Iran's existing regime through propaganda, sabotage and subterfuge. The ongoing Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is about to hit an even higher gear. This is another act of war against the people of Iran. Yet no one seems to care. There's simply no discussion or dissent. It's simply Zio-America's next target. For the safety of Israel, Iran must fall.

Talk about direct interference in another country's sovereign affairs! What Zio-Washington is doing to Iran makes 'Russiagate' look absolutely insignificant in comparison, even if every exaggerated assertion was true. Yet no one protests.

Not the pundits. Not the politicians. Not even the anti-war Left. Either they're too frightened or they're complicit. Duplicity, dirty deeds, and double standards is how Zio-Washington rolls. And Israel wouldn't have it any other way. Zionist power is simply too vast, too effective and too unrelenting to resist–even for a US President. But Trump's objective to 'Make America Great Again' is up against Israel's presumption that it can direct US policies to it liking. Can this marriage survive? Can Trump serve two masters?

The inevitable clash ahead is why Trump is under so much media and political pressure. The Zions want to keep him under pressure and off balance. Also, there is the simmering, embarrassing, unresolved matter of Palestine. The native goyim there are still resisting. This fact too, is as astonishing as it is shameful. The refusal of Israel to give back land, allow independence, and cut a deal that would allow Palestine autonomy after decades of Israeli occupation and endless 'talks' speaks volumes about Israeli ruthlessness. The 'Two State Solution' failed because Israel decided that it didn't want an independent and sovereign Palestinian state. To the Israelis, the sad plight of the Palestinian people matters not.

And even Washington is not powerful enough to force Israel to return to the Palestinians the land that the Jewish state snatched in its preemptive 1967 war. So the 'peace process' gradually died. But as the talks dragged on, Israel expanded its borders, built Jewish settlements in Palestine, gained greater militarily power, cultivated its regional influence (and power in Washington), and increased its GDP. Palestine on the other hand, achieved none of those things. Conditions have actually worsened. At this point, all the Palestinians can do is hold on or surrender. Meanwhile, it's clear that Israel's race-conscious majority want the native non-Jews out of the Jewish State. This political 'value' can now be seen for what it is. Can the torture of Palestine go on indefinitely?–or must Israel soon act ruthlessly and decisively?

One option is for the Jewish state to radically increase colonization of the Occupied Territories and begin the forcible transfer of non-Jews into Jordan, Egypt or Syria. Ironically, Meir Kahane's racist, reviled (but prophetic) proclamation (and book) 'They [the Arabs] Must Go' has finally found its audience. Israel's 'national socialist' values are showing. Even Trump is being held hostage. Can Trump shake the Zionist monkey off his back?–or will he have to obediently target all the usual bad guys: Iran, Hamas, Russia and Assad?

Israel orchestrates. Washington executes. And the sad story continues.

DESERT FOX , July 24, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
Trump is but another example of the Zionist control of the American government and Trumps pissing backwards in his statements at the Helsinki news conference is the Zionist deep state in action for all the world to see. Trump is a puppet of the Zionists who surround him and who hold the paper on his real estate house of cards and so he does what he is told as the only other option is the JFK route and obviously he has made the right choice for him but not for America.

Zionist control of American was proven on 911 when Israel and the zionist deep state did 911 and got away with it and every thinking American knows they did it.

Mike P , July 24, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

Trump has always been speaking out of both sides of his mouth, so his agreeing and disagreeing with the "intelligence community" at the same time is all in a day's work for him. It seems to me that he is just playing for time – he may of course still lose bigly in the end, but he has not yet conceded defeat.

[Jul 24, 2018] Political Persecutions in Eastern Europe to prepare War with Russia (and a note on Hungary, Trump and the refugees) Defend De

Notable quotes:
"... By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos ..."
"... (*) We say concealed, because it is becoming more and more the privileged method of the Empire to control and use for its own goals various rightist or leftist political currents and identities, inverting their original intentions and goals. Conspiracy and Deception were always formidable political tools. In our era, an era of unprecedented civilizational decline of Western Capitalism, they have become the main ones. That made it possible for America and the "Deep Finance" to use Tsipras and SYRIZA in Greece and that also made it possible for a politician so closely connected to the US and Israeli Neocons, as Donald Trump is, to deceive so many people and to present himself as a friend of Russia and an opponent of Wars, while in fact he was the guy entrusted with continuing the Neocon agenda in a more dangerous form, bringing into the equation also the nuclear card. ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Political Persecutions in Eastern Europe to prepare War with Russia (and a note on Hungary, Trump and the refugees) 09/07/2018

By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

We have witnessed during the last two years the multiplication of cases of political repressions in various Eastern European countries, like Poland, where Mateusz Piscorski, leader of the party Smena is detained illegally already for two years, without any accusations formulated against him! But this is not the only authoritarian action of the Polish authorities, which, by the way have been condemned by UN Human Rights Committee and by the Polish Ombudsman (Rzecznik praw obywatelskich) for their actions. Among them the process against the Polish Communist party, the harassment against the trotskyte group "Power to the Councils", a pro-Palestinian conference and scientific conferences about Karl Marx! To all that you may add the massive expulsion to the streets of impoverished tenants due to the re-privatization process.

It seems that, for the Polish authorities, "Democracy" and "Freedom" were very good as slogans against "Socialism" and the "Russians", but not so good to be really applied As for Polish nationalism is of a very peculiar brand. Polish say for instance they are still angry with the Soviet invasion to Poland in 1921 (after a failed Polish invasion of Soviet Russia!) But they cannot explain why in the hell the leaders of this proud nation send their troops to invade, occupy and destroy Iraq in 2003, along with US, Britain and Australia! It seems Iraq cannot have the same right to national independence Poles claim for their country.

More to the South, in Moldova, an intellectual like Iurie Rosca, an internationally known Moldovan is also persecuted by the authorities of the country. His real crime is that Rosca, a militant for democracy since the Soviet times, remains a strong pro-independence and pro-neutrality figure in a country NATO wants to include, as fast as possible.

More to the North, in the Baltic states, the so-called "Russian-speaking" huge minorities in those states, of Russian, Ukrainian or Bielorussian origin, are the object of mass repressions since the demise of the USSR. They are even deprived of their most fundamental political and civic rights, with the complicity of European governments and EU institutions. In both Baltic states and Ukraine, authorities do not object to the open celebration of the most terrible and criminal Nazi or pro-Nazi figures as national heroes. (By the way one wonders why the World Jewish Council and other similar organizations seem so little wondered by Nazi and anti-semitic manifestations in this region, in particular by the Nazi activities in Ukraine. If something like that happened anywhere else in the world, as a minimum they would ask for sanctions against the powers which tolerate such manifestations or they would organize campaigns to remove them from power!)

Except for the Baltic states and Ukraine, political persecutions did not take a massive character and they don't need to take for the time being. Still those persecutions and the general ideological climate (mostly anti-Russian and anti-Communist, sometimes clearly pro-Nazi) are quite serious indications of the political project they want to serve.

Communists for instance or the Left are nearly inexistent in nearly all Eastern European countries. Those repressions are not justified by any "Communist threat". As for Russia, it dissolved, at its own initiative, both the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. To claim now it represents a military threat for its ex-dominions it would be utterly ridiculous, if it was not very dangerous. By the way, campaigns to persuade Europeans that Russia is a serious threat are under way in all Europe, including Britain, Scandinavia or Germany, adapted to the particular conditions and the level of consciousness in every European country. In Germany, in 2014, the editor of Handelsblatt himself has compared the treatment of Russia by the local media, with what German newspapers were writing in the beginning of WWI. It is clearly a European wide project to present Moscow under the worse possible light.

Such media campaigns in History usually precede military campaigns, even if in the Russian case it is not so simple. The aim here is not to counter a non-existent Russian threat but to encircle, contain and provoke regime change in Russia and also undermine the relations between Europe and Russia. By destroying the relations between Russia and Europe, you deny also to the latter the means of its independence.

What the powers in place in Eastern Europe try to do by such repressive action is to neutralize "pro-actively" any dissident voice, of the left or of the right, afraid that the mere existence of any independent voice would harm their very ambitious plans. They are also trying to begin shifting European ideology , from its old democratic values (even if often not applied) to new authoritarian ones , something absolutely necessary for the attack of Capital against popular classes and of Western Imperialism against Russia and other "outside enemies" – targets. This is also essentially Trump's game: To use dissatisfaction from the establishment policies to present a more authoritarian regime as an alternative.

Moldova: Encircling Russia from SE Europe

In Moldova, all economy and all politics and all power, except for the President of the Republic, elected by direct vote, are controlled by one and only one Oligarch who was even received officially in the US. Extreme corruption and exploitation of its people is the normal state of affairs in this once rich land, turned into the poorest nation of Europe, after the soviet collapse-suicide and the near to feudal neo-capitalist plundering of its resources, with one third of its population emigrating abroad! NATO and the EU, as usual, pretend to fully ignore the real situation in Moldova.

Read also: EU referendum: Brexit sparks calls for other EU votes

Moldova's Oligarch and the Western powers behind him are afraid now of the likelihood that, in the next parliamentarian elections, the people of Moldova will overthrow their political representatives. In the same time, Moldova is most probably one of the next targets of NATO on its road to Moscow .

After destroying Yugoslavia , after launching a Debt War against Greece and Cyprus , after provoking a bloody civil war in Ukraine , Western imperialism needs now to control Moldova, to abolish whatever remains of its independence and neutrality and to turn it into a military base, absolutely necessary for its war planning against Russia. Moldova , Serbia and FYROM are the three remaining " holes " in the near complete chain of NATO protectorates now encircling Russia from its South West, from the Adriatic to Donetsk, from the Mediterranean to Hungary.

In reality, NATO is not doing anything different than what Hitler did, back in 1941, spending precious time and his best military units to occupy Greece and control the Balkans before launching the Barbarossa Operation. It is absolutely imperative for Western Imperialism to control the Balkans and all of SE Europe before launching, if it will be able, its final attack against Russia, an attack which may not take a ( not impossible but rather difficult) military form, but which can adopt other forms, such as geopolitical isolation and threats, economic, financial and ideological war with the purpose of regime change, to return this country to the status of Western vassal, as it was during the Yeltsin years, in alliance with pro-Western forces inside Russia, probably more concealed that overt (*). In all possible scenarios, the encirclement of Russia, the cutting of its access to the South , to the "Warm Seas", is one of the principal strategic lines of attack of the West against Moscow, as it has always been during the Soviet, but also during the Tsarist regime before the 1917 Revolution. But now, the West is much more advanced as it is already waging war from positions like Kiev or Caucasus, which belonged to the Russian Empire since centuries.

Hungary, Trump and the refugee crisis

Let us open a parenthesis at that point. Hungary is a very special case in Eastern-Central Europe, as it pretends to be simultaneously a friend of Russia, of Trump and of Netanyahu! It is only natural for Russia, attacked as it is from all sides, to see in Budapest a precious ally and he is in some cases, when for example it supports Macedonian Slav nationalism thus putting obstacles to the inclusion of FYROM into NATO. It is also rather normal for a power like Russia to try to manoeuver exploiting serious contradictions inside imperialist centers (Neocon-nationalists vs. Globalizers, Netanyahu against Soros, US Empire vs. Financial Empire). The only problem is that, if the winds of the Western establishment are diverging in serious problems, like Iran or the western political regime, they are absolutely united to their hostility to Russia, even if some of those politicians try to portray themselves as friends of Moscow. By the way that is not new. Even Hitler played in the past, rather successfully, this game, before attacking Russia!

Returning to Hungary, the question is if Orban and similar regimes are or can be long-term strategic allies of Russia. Especially in the context of the broader imperial game against Moscow, of which the NATO expansion is only one, very important, but only one chapter.

We will see at the end of the day what all that game really means. Past historic experience, but also the common anti-German, pro-US front of the Visegrád countries for decades is a very strong indication of problems ahead. It is true that many people in Europe, even in Germany, hate Merkel, Soros and globalization. Trump is using this dissatisfaction to create a pro-US camp in Europe, with Poland and Hungary as its leaders. This does not seem the best method to address the challenges put by Globalizers from the perspective of European independence. (Greece is also such an example, with Tsipras counting on US and "Deep Finance" support to counter Merkel. We have seen where all that led finally).

Hungary and its Eastern and Central European allies are now protesting against the refugees who supposedly threaten them. But in reality it is not they who are threatened, the refugee problem is serious and it is mainly affecting South and not Eastern European countries.

By attacking refugees, Eastern European states are constructing a very convenient outside enemy, whose utility is first to help Trump against Europe, second to solidify an authoritarian ideology at home, and third , to facilitate new Western wars against Islam.

Read also: Israel hints it could hit Iran's 'air force' in Syria

It is very indicative the fact that both sides of the debate in Europe (pro- and anti-immigrant/refugee) are hardly saying one word about the main root cause of the refugee crisis, Western direct or by proxy interventions and the wars they provoked in the Middle East. That means they are not so much interested in addressing the refugee crisis, they are interested in using it.

The Dialectics of the Refugee Crisis

" Neocon – Nationalists " (the Huntington party) seem to be bitter enemies of Soros and the Fukuyama type " Globalizers " and they are indeed regarding many questions. Still they agree on the main, Western and Financial Domination in the world, they are seriously divided as far as the means to impose it are concerned.

By the way, one gets often the impression of a kind of an objective division of labor between those two camps. Neocons helped produce the refugees in the first place, by launching the wars in the Middle East. Then, by greatly facilitating the massive transfer of refugees to Europe, Soros-minded politicians and NGO's, tried to facilitate the implementation of their totalitarian dream of destroying nations, states and every human identity, religion or ideology, potentially able to resist the world domination of Financial Capital and the institutions it is controlling, like the EU.

By doing that, they helped create the adverse reaction, which, instead of provoking a backlash against the Wars, it is destined to fuel new ones! You bomb Libya, you create refugees and then you use them to impose political regimes which are more convenient for new wars! Just fine.

US vs. Europe

We must not forget also that all Eastern European elites, including the Hungarian one, were formed by the Americans and some of their allies after the fall of the soviet regime and they are structurally anti-Russian and against European independence from the US, even if, in some rare cases, they can pretend to be friends of Russia. Eastern Europe, the "New Europe" of Ramsfeld and the Neocons, stubbed in the back France, Germany and Russia, which were opposing the war in Iraq in 2003, the same war which initiated the chain of Middle Eastern wars responsible for the refugee crisis they are now protesting against!

Again on what is Trump

As for Mr. Trump, it is becoming really tiring to have to repeat, in 2018, already obvious facts. The US President, examined on the basis of what he does, not what he says, on the basis of the real record of his administration, on the basis of the fact that now Neocons in Geopolitics and Goldman Sachs in economics are ruling Washington as never before, is nothing else than the main tool for the reappearance of the main Neocon project, albeit in a much expanded, multi-faceted and nuclear version. This program could not reappear by normal political ways, so it reappeared as a result of a huge and complicated conspiracy to elect and control Mr. Trump . Obama did not stop the Neocon policies, but he contained the more dangerous manifestations of them, like war against Iran, a new, Iraqi-style invasion of Syria, or providing Ukraine with more sophisticated weapons, as the present administration is already doing, or in moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem.

Mr. Trump makes everything to persuade us he is mad and he probably is, I am not a psychiatrist to make a diagnosis. But his policy is not mad at all. It is following, on the contrary, an Iron Logic, the logic of Yinon, of Huntington, of the Wars of Civilizations, of the New American Century, of Neocons, of Cheney, albeit adapted to the new international situation. Here we are facing again nothing else than the centuries old phenomenon of Western Imperialism, projected by both Western superpowers, the Empire of Finance and the US Empire, in its more clear, more aggressive and more extremist form.

Regime Change in the West: Precondition for War

Most political and military leaders hate the fact that, always, even after the discovery of Nuclear Weapons, War remains the continuation of politics with other means, as Clausewitz put it. They like the fact that they can use their military means to implement their political goals. But they don't like the fact they have to persuade their citizens and foreign opinion for what they are doing. If they use their weapons without some form of consent, they will pay a huge cost.

Without a political regime like Hitler's in Germany, without the enormous support he commanded among German people (De Gaulle stated that no other people in History has supported so much its leaders), all the technical and military means of the world would not permit the Barbarossa Operation. (Let me clarify at that point that this is not an anti-German comment. It is true that Germans committed horrendous crimes, for which there is no whatever justification. But at least one can say they were pushed into committing them by the social disaster and the national humiliation they suffered after WWII and the 1929 crisis. But there was no military reason for levelling the German industrial, workers towns, or Nagasaki in Japan. Nowadays Americans lack even such a pseudo-justification for what they are doing or threaten to do all around the world. Nobody has invaded or plans to invade the United States, nobody has imposed its catastrophic economic diktats to them.)

Read also: Trump, Flynn and the anti-Islam" Lobby

By the way it was exactly the will and capacity of Hitler's regime to attack Soviet Russia, which made it acceptable to large sections of the German and Western establishment and facilitated its ascension to power. As for his attack against Russia, it was not a mistake. It was his aim and the logic of his project from the very beginning. But of course he had to hide it in order to realize it.

We understand that some of our readers, accustomed to many decades of peace in Europe, may be skeptical about this kind of reasoning. We should remind them that European history is full of such abrupt changes from War to Peace and from Peace to War. It happened before, it can happen again. By the way, it is already happening in modern Europe. It has happened in Yugoslavia, it is happening in Ukraine, it is happening even in Greece, but by economic, not military means. But mainly, the new Cold War is already and in many aspects the dominating reality in nowadays Europe. It is War, even if it is not using the classical military means.

To push further this War, to encircle and strangle Russia, Western Imperialism and its military tool, NATO have now and "pro-actively" to silence any dissenting voice in Eastern Europe, from the right or from the left, which may become tomorrow poles of resistance. They have, through their repression, to teach to all potential dissidents the huge risks they will assume if they express their disagreements.

They need also to persuade European nations that any resistance to their plans is futile and they have nothing else to do than surrender and try to survive as best as they can. In the beginning of the decade we had the transformation of Greece from a more or less usual Western parliamentarian state into a Debt Colony , the Greek experiment and the Greek paradigm . The 2015 betrayal of the Greek people by its own leaders came to support the conclusion of futility of any resistance, in a way even a military defeat would not do.

Now, Poland seems to have been chosen as the New Authoritarian paradigm, with clear proto-Fascist elements, right and pro-US. The historic mission, the function of this new-old Authoritarianism is to attack social rights and their force in both Eastern and Western Europe. By doing that, they promote neoliberalism inside all of Europe, while creating the necessary political and social conditions to facilitate the wars they plan against external threats (Russia, Islam-Iran, Global South like Venezuela, China).

This is why we are witnessing such a definite turn to clearly authoritarian methods also in Western and Central Europe, where special legislation is introduced everywhere, invoking the need to "fight terrorism", which is in many cases a result of western services activities and, in all cases, a result of Western interventions. This special legislation is not so much addressed against terrorists but it aims in reality political dissenters, independent intellectuals and social movements. To organize war against the East, it was always necessary to suppress democracy, political dissent and social movements in the West. (This was also the reason Mc Carthyism has been developed in the USA during the previous Cold War. It was necessary to prepare USA for the War with USSR).

Note

(*) We say concealed, because it is becoming more and more the privileged method of the Empire to control and use for its own goals various rightist or leftist political currents and identities, inverting their original intentions and goals. Conspiracy and Deception were always formidable political tools. In our era, an era of unprecedented civilizational decline of Western Capitalism, they have become the main ones. That made it possible for America and the "Deep Finance" to use Tsipras and SYRIZA in Greece and that also made it possible for a politician so closely connected to the US and Israeli Neocons, as Donald Trump is, to deceive so many people and to present himself as a friend of Russia and an opponent of Wars, while in fact he was the guy entrusted with continuing the Neocon agenda in a more dangerous form, bringing into the equation also the nuclear card.

[Jul 24, 2018] CNN Leaks Confidential Trump-Cohen Recording

Jul 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:26 52 SHARES

The attorney for President Trump's former longtime personal attorney has given CNN a copy of a secretly recorded conversation between Trump and Cohen, in which they discuss purchasing the rights to a Playboy model's claim that she and Trump had an affair.

McDougal, claims to have had a nearly yearlong affair with Trump in 2006, right before Melania Trump gave birth to their son Barron. McDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer for $150,000 as the 2016 presidential campaign was in its final months, however the tabloid sat on the story which kept it from becoming public in a practice known as "catch and kill."

Cohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer.

"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David," Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker.

Trump interrupts Cohen asking, "What financing?" according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, "We'll have to pay." Trump is heard saying "pay with cash" but the audio is muddled and it's unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, "no, no" but it is not clear what is said next. - CNN

me title=

The Enquirer's chairman, David J. Pecker, is a personal friend of Trump's, and McDougal has accused Cohen of taking part in the deal.

By burying Ms. McDougal's story during the campaign in a practice known in the tabloid industry as "catch and kill," A.M.I. protected Mr. Trump from negative publicity that could have harmed his election chances, spending money to do so.

The authorities believe that the company was not always operating in what campaign finance law calls a "legitimate press function," according to the people briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. That may explain why prosecutors did not follow typical Justice Department protocol to avoid subpoenaing news organizations when possible, and to give journalists advance warning when demanding documents or other information. - New York Times

While Trump never paid for the rights, Lanny Davis says that the recording, made in 2016, shows Trump knew about the payment.

On Saturday, President Trump broke his silence over the recording, tweeting: "Inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer's office (early in the morning) - almost unheard of. Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client - totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!" Trump tweeted.

me title=

The release of the tape has sparked a widespread debate about the sanctity of attorney-client privilege, and its use in "one-party" consent states.

me title=

Meanwhile, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani confirmed with the New York Times last week that Trump and Cohen had discussed payments - and that " there was no indication on the tape that Mr. Trump knew before the conversation about the payment from the Enquirer's parent company, American Media Inc., to Ms. McDougal ."

" Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance ," said Giuliani, adding that Trump had previously told Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to the woman, to write a check instead of sending cash so that the transaction could be properly documented. "In the big scheme of things, it's powerful exculpatory evidence," Giuliani added.

Cohen made a similar payment of $130,000 to porn star and stripper Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. Cohen said at the time "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford."

Clifford - whose husband just filed for divorce , is suing Trump over a nondisclosure agreement so that she can "tell her story" (in the form of a book, we imagine), while she is also suing both Trump and Cohen for libel after Trump called her statements "fraud" over Twitter, while claiming that Clifford fabricated a story that she was threatened by a man after she went to journalists with the story of her affair.

Shortly before the 2016 election, former Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that McDougal's allegations were "totally untrue."

Tags Politics Software - NEC Comments Vote up! 13 Vote down! 4

TeamDepends Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:27 Permalink

Powder, aka Vanderbilt Jr., aka Anderson Cooper, approves this message.

vortmax -> TeamDepends Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:27 Permalink

Still don't care tbh. He hasn't even shot anyone on Fifth Avenue yet. MAGA

Stan522 -> vortmax Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:29 Permalink

They really HATE Trump, don't they.....

johngaltfla -> Stan522 Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:30 Permalink

Further proof that Mueller's office leaks like a sieve. Now shut this shitshow circus down the day after election in November.

NoDebt -> johngaltfla Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:32 Permalink

"The Enquirer's chairman, David J. Pecker..."

Oh, come on. You're making that shit up. There's no fucking way that's his real name.

NoDebt -> NoDebt Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:34 Permalink

And, by the way, thank God we finally have a President who nails hot chicks. Clinton went after some real woofers. It was embarrassing.

NoDebt -> NoDebt Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:38 Permalink

Uh oh. This article just became the top-kick post on the site. Here we go. Off to the races again.

Son of Loki -> NoDebt Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:40 Permalink

Honestly, no one cares except the libtards and democrats if there is a difference. The men and women I know love Trump because, among other things, he is not limp-wristed like Bush and Obama were.

Americans care about jobs, immigrants and terrorists.

IridiumRebel -> Son of Loki Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:41 Permalink

Uh oh! They have Trump on tape negotiating a contract for nothing illegal!

Son of Loki -> IridiumRebel Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:43 Permalink

CNN ignores Uncle Joe Biden being "creepy" being women "uncomfortable" and the way he acts around kiddies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy07yHAgM4E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ-YjGmpO4Q

ebworthen -> IridiumRebel Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:08 Permalink

F.B.I. Witch Hunt > Attorney-Client Privilege Shattered > C.N.N. Propaganda mill

If that isn't a banana republic progression of events I don't know what is.

What's next, Trump's Pastor's church raided during Sunday service?

Little Barron taken in by Mueller for questioning?

monkeyshine -> IridiumRebel Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:11 Permalink

"pay with cash" probably is just a response to the word "financing". Just my guess of course, but from the dialogue it flows logically, as in Trump saying to himself "why finance it, just pay her cash". Doesn't necessarily mean pay with currency just means don't borrow the money. Besides, it doesn't matter much in this context since the lawyer said no, and there is no crime here unless he said "pay her with campaign contributions".

Clinton paid Paula Jones, what, $850,000? And he didn't even get the rights to the story.
Trump's negotiating genius on display lol.

LetThemEatRand -> monkeyshine Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:15 Permalink

"'pay with cash' probably is just a response to the word 'financing'."

I would say 99% probability that's what he meant. Lawyer: "we need to talk about financing" Trump: "pay with cash." He didn't mean a suitcase full of bills. He meant "just write a check." Anyone in business knows the terminology. Plus it's not even clear WTF they are talking about.

I have no love for Trump, in fact I think he's an asshole. But this is all so much ado about nothing.

Sanity Bear -> IridiumRebel Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:18 Permalink

I have to admit I'm confused as to why he should pay anything at all. Why not let the smoking hot model tell the world you scored with her? What's the downside here?

Free This -> Sanity Bear Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:25 Permalink

Just to get rid of it, people like to sue to settle, who knows though?

nmewn -> Son of Loki Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:48 Permalink

So this is the tape that Trump said he doesn't give a crap about the release of, outside of the larger question of EVERYONE'S RIGHT of lawyer-client privilege?

Well just damn, it must be a smoker that will finally lead to his impeachment ;-)

nmewn -> chunga Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:58 Permalink

Well yeah...but these days ya just roll with what they present, like..."past and former government officials who are in a position to know have confirmed that"...which invariably leads to, abuse of authority, presenting falsified/manufactured evidence to a court, withholding exculpatory evidence to a court, stolen classified documents after being fired, obstruction of justice, perjury...ya know, the normal regular things progs do to put their heads in the noose ;-)

chunga -> nmewn Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:08 Permalink

It was FBI that raided Cohen's office so I'll presume that's where this tape came from.

I'm not going to start sticking up for the maverick's lapses in fidelity, but holy crap, the FBI/DOJ have been blatantly weaponized against him and in charge of those outfits are....Sessions and Wray?

What the fuck?

nmewn -> chunga Tue, 07/24/2018 - 21:58 Permalink

Well yeah...but these days ya just roll with what they present, like..."past and former government officials who are in a position to know have confirmed that"...which invariably leads to, abuse of authority, presenting falsified/manufactured evidence to a court, withholding exculpatory evidence to a court, stolen classified documents after being fired, obstruction of justice, perjury...ya know, the normal regular things progs do to put their heads in the noose ;-)

chunga -> nmewn Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:08 Permalink

It was FBI that raided Cohen's office so I'll presume that's where this tape came from.

I'm not going to start sticking up for the maverick's lapses in fidelity, but holy crap, the FBI/DOJ have been blatantly weaponized against him and in charge of those outfits are....Sessions and Wray?

What the fuck?

Never One Roach -> nmewn Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:38 Permalink

Time to release all 589 pages of FISA docs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxlO4Fjvvy8

GeezerGeek -> MrAToZ Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:05 Permalink

At least DJT has shown generosity toward his, um, friends. What did JFK do to Marilyn? What did Teddy do to Mary Jo? LBJ had at least one mistress. What did Bill Clinton call the gal in the blue dress, wasn't it "that woman"? What did Obama call his wife, Michael if I recall correctly.

Poor Jimmy Carter. All he ever had was a killer rabbit. He may have been totally incompetent, but at least he was a decent guy while in office. Afterward, unfortunately, not so much.

seek -> Stan522 Tue, 07/24/2018 - 22:03 Permalink

Hate is an understatement.

Seriously, here we have :

Any one of these is a federal felony. The people behind this are willing to break a lot of laws to make it happen. All to release a recording that on the face of it is regarding a legal activity (a forebearance contract.)

These people are desperate.

[Jul 24, 2018] NEO Russiagate, the Comedy of Errors - Veterans Today News - Military Foreign Affairs Policy

Notable quotes:
"... "Why have you done this to us?" ..."
"... "Look elsewhere." ..."
"... Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today , especially for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook ." https://journal-neo.org/2018/07/21/russiagate-the-comedy-of-errors/ ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

https://us-u.openx.net/w/1.0/pd?plm=6&ph=2857f3e0-a998-4d70-b5c1-b19a3d6766a1&gdpr=0

NEO: Russiagate, the Comedy of Errors - Veterans Today | News - Military Foreign Affairs Policy The 2018 Helsinki summit has left Americans puzzled, some terrified, others feign outrage but few have stood back and taken a breath. Always stand back, always take a breath, always keep the mouth shut and the hand off the keyboard.

A quick review of the facts, such as they are, such as we can assume them to be, is a place to begin. Donald Trump, despite his denials and obfuscation, really did side with Russia against America's intelligence agencies.

Let's take a breath, on one hand you have the CIA, NSA and 14 other agencies, all heavily politicized, all with long histories of abuses, of lying, of even drug trafficking, rigging elections, assassinations – this is the "one hand."

On the other, you have Russian President Vladimir Putin saying, "I didn't do it."

Then you have Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller telling us he has evidence of Russian wrongdoing – evidence he got from the CIA, NSA and 14 other agencies.

Then again, I forgot to mention that these agencies generally get their intelligence from Israel, about half of it – a nation that is seldom an unbiased or disinterested party – or from open source intelligence.

They see it on TV.

Then again, they have been accused, from time to time, of making it all up.

Add to this Donald Trump , a man who would lie about what day it was; he doesn't seem to be able to help himself – the mouth opens and out they come – an endless stream of them, many of them bizarre and quite unnecessary. It is as though he is testing us.

There is a simple answer here. Based on reason, Trump may well have been quite correct in his assessment that Putin wasn't lying. Putin was right there; Trump only told the audience what he was told. Trump wasn't making that part up.

As you can note, we are now testing one or more hypotheses, hoping we might end up with something resembling truth, a lonely effort in the best of cases.

Robert Mueller

We can assume Robert Mueller was telling the truth also. He said, through indictments of Russian intelligence personnel, that he had "evidence" received from "intelligence sources" and "witnesses," some of whom are already convicted criminals, that support his hypothesis. Mueller says his evidence proves "the Russians did it."

This doesn't mean Putin lied. It doesn't even mean Trump lied, though in his recent denials, he has begun lying, and quite embarrassingly; nothing new there.

Here is what it hinges down to – the American judicial system, an adversarial system that can be manipulated and in many cases, as Trump has claimed over and over, can be used to target innocent victims.

Then again, we aren't saying Trump is an innocent victim, only that Putin didn't lie.

Then we ask, is it possible for Russian intelligence officers to do exactly what Mueller has claimed – steal identities, hack computers, pay off stooges – the normal things intelligence officers are paid to do anyway, without Putin knowing?

The answer to this is yes; but the answer is also mitigated, in that the likelihood of "yes" being correct is poor. Putin should have known. He says he didn't and, thus, based on his character, or at least his history of blatant fearlessness, he is unlikely to lie over something where he has little or nothing to lose nor does lying serve the interests of the Russian people and their welfare.

Then we look at the real weak link, the sources of the evidence, witness statements from admitted criminals and reports from intelligence agencies.

Past this , we look at who has something to gain in destroying American institutions, discrediting President Trump even more than usual, and worsening relations between the US and Russia.

It isn't Iran. It isn't Syria. It isn't Germany.

We then step back again and assess which nations have the power to fake evidence or corrupt the output of American intelligence reports even more than they are usually faked or corrupted.

Three nations come to mind, in order; Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Each have powerful lobbies in Washington, each could potentially gain through weakening both Russia and the United States, and each has a long history of using black propaganda and even false flag terrorism to achieve gains.

I like this list.

We then take an anecdotal look at a couple of minor aspects of the Mueller inquiry. We begin with internet manipulation of fake news stories attacking Hillary Clinton.

It is one thing putting out a fake story; it is quite another featuring it on Facebook with extremely strong preferences and making sure any and every Google search, for cabbage recipes or vacation spots, gives results that attack the Clinton campaign.

Assuming that "Zuckerberg" of Facebook would work with Israeli intelligence, simply because of his name might well be considered anti-Semitism. However, when examining how Zuckerberg dealt with Cambridge Analytica during an election year and his relationship with Israeli spy contractor, Black Cube, Israel comes to the top of the list.

Jared Cohen at Google Ideas

Google also has things to hide. Behind Google is a regime-change organization, formerly known as Google Idea Groups, now called Google Jigsaw.

Jigsaw, a powerful military and intelligence contractor owned by Google Corporation, is headed by former Bush White House clandestine intelligence chief, Jared Cohen.

Cohen has been active in operations against Russian interests in Crimea, he has run operations inside Iran and has a number of organizations under his command in Turkey aimed at ousting President Assad of Syria.

After all , Cohen's job is "regime change" and Russia, Iran and Syria are long targets of the "Russia bashers" in Washington, many of whom, if not most, are also powerful members of the Israel lobby as well.

We will let Saudi Arabia off the hook this time.

Time to step back again. Note that even if Russia were guilty, but guilty of what? Spying is not illegal. There is no international convention against spying.

America's troops in Syria are illegal. Drone killings are illegal. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel is illegal. Russia rigging an American election is not a violation of international law.

It's not nice, but then again, American sanctions against Russia aren't nice either. America's rightist coup against Ukraine wasn't so nice. America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a few other countries, wasn't so nice.

America's efforts to flood Russia with heroin from Afghanistan isn't nice either, but we don't have to get into that right now.

What we are saying, and a case we are making, there was no reason for Putin to lie. However, there is reason for a nation, let's take Israel for instance, to fake Russia as a "bad guy," putting an American president in office who, as Trump has proven, does what Israel tells him to do 100% of the time.

Does Israel have the muscle, the capability or, using the legal term, the "means" to fake evidence?

We already established they have a motive and they have opportunity.

We then have it – Mueller told the truth, Putin told the truth, even Trump told the truth before he started lying.

Should the Russian people take solace in the fact that America is poorly governed? America has hurt Russia, over and over, though few Americans realize it.

Peace could and should have broken out decades ago, except America has been ruled by Russia-haters for a hundred years – Russia-haters that are alive and well and in control in Washington, even now.

I am not saying Putin is perfect or above sin. I am only saying he would not have bothered lying about anything this stupid or minor; it isn't worth it. He has nothing to gain. Putin is not stupid, though he may well be poorly informed. Is he so poorly informed that his own intelligence agencies might well have acted with blatant stupidity against the United States and gotten caught?

The Russia of the Cold War, the old Soviet Union, would never have been so stupid.

Then again, how much has Russia gained from Trump?

As the ire of the first 48 hours after Helsinki dies down, and some real rage among a population of Americans – no one knows how big – burns on, we ask why?

To many Americans , perhaps a majority that ebbs and flows according to fake pollsters, Russia foisted a dangerous clown into the Oval Office as a sick joke – perhaps a punishment for some crime Americans would never admit to anyway.

"Why have you done this to us?"

When asked, Vladimir Putin simply said, "Look elsewhere."

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today , especially for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook ."
https://journal-neo.org/2018/07/21/russiagate-the-comedy-of-errors/

Related Articles

To read this article, click here

[Jul 24, 2018] Trump Seeks Confrontation for Its Own Sake by Daniel Larison •

Notable quotes:
"... Rouhani is identifying the current administration policy of trying to strangle Iran's oil exports as a hostile act, a "declaration of war" by the U.S. against the Iranian people. Trump's hostility to Iran is such that he treats a verbal rebuke to a destructive policy he initiated as the same as a threat of attack, and he twists Rouhani's defensive statement into a call for war. ..."
"... Trump's outburst is not the response of someone interested in finding a diplomatic solution to tensions between our countries ..."
"... It is obviously the response of a belligerent bully who overreacts to the slightest opposition and seeks confrontation for its own sake. Trump's Iran obsession is extremely dangerous for both the U.S. and Iran, and it is poisoning relations with Iran for many years to come. ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Golnar Motevalli gives the full context for the Rouhani statement that caused Trump to make his unhinged threat earlier this week:

Verbatim excerpts of what Rouhani said on Sunday. The entire statement was almost 2 hrs long. He didn't say he wants to "launch war", he said opposite but warned of what war would look like. He said US policy to choke Iran's economy is a US declaration of war against Iranians: pic.twitter.com/XcirZTWi4d

-- Golnar Motevalli (@golnarM) July 24, 2018

As I said Sunday night, it's clear that the statement from Rouhani wasn't a threat against the U.S. It was a warning not to take aggressive action against Iran. Furthermore, Rouhani is identifying the current administration policy of trying to strangle Iran's oil exports as a hostile act, a "declaration of war" by the U.S. against the Iranian people. Trump's hostility to Iran is such that he treats a verbal rebuke to a destructive policy he initiated as the same as a threat of attack, and he twists Rouhani's defensive statement into a call for war.

It shouldn't have to be said at this point, but Trump's outburst is not the response of someone interested in finding a diplomatic solution to tensions between our countries .

It is obviously the response of a belligerent bully who overreacts to the slightest opposition and seeks confrontation for its own sake. Trump's Iran obsession is extremely dangerous for both the U.S. and Iran, and it is poisoning relations with Iran for many years to come.

[Jul 24, 2018] Leaked Netanyahu Tape We Made Trump Cancel The Iran Deal by Tyler Durden

Notable quotes:
"... The Times of Israel ..."
"... The Times of Israel ..."
"... The prime minister then begins to speak about the Iranian regime -- "not the Iranian people, I have nothing against them" -- before he is interrupted by an unidentified person off-screen who says, "It will disappear with the help of God." ..."
"... "You said it. From your mouth to God," Netanyahu says in response as the clip ends. ..."
"... Netanyahu does not explain in the video aired by Kan how he convinced Trump to exit the deal. Trump had vowed to scrap what he assailed as the "worst deal ever" before becoming president. ..."
"... Netanyahu unveiled the stolen cache of about 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs in a television address that the said proved the existence of an illegal and ongoing secret program to "test and build nuclear weapons" called Project Amad. ..."
"... Just days after the colorful and prop-laden Netanyahu presentation, President Trump announced he would follow through on prior threats to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA. Observers noted at the time that Netanyahu's address had a single audience in mind in the person of Donald Trump during the very week the White House was intensely mulling a final decision over whether to finally pull the plug on the JCPOA. ..."
"... While it appears Netanyahu had his April televised presentation in mind when he says in the clip "I had to stand up against the whole world," there is also little doubt that his personal appeals to Trump on the issue were even more direct and persistent. Other signatories to the deal brokered in 2015 under the Obama administration have vowed to stick by it, which include Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China -- even as the White House threatens punitive measures against any country that continues to do business with Iran. ..."
"... "Israel and the United States formed a joint working group a few months ago that is focused on internal efforts to encourage protests within Iran and pressure the country's government." ..."
"... In the uploaded clip Trump said he and Putin "came to a lot of good conclusions" during the meeting, including "a really good conclusion for Israel, something very strong." Trump said Putin is "a believer in Israel; he is a fan of Bibi and really helping him a lot – and will help a lot, which is good for all of us." ..."
"... Netanyahu posted the interview segment with the commentary in Hebrew: "I will continue to strengthen Israel as a rising global force." Likely, Netanyahu will continue his boasting about his personal intervention and impact with the White House both in public and in private, so more such revelatory footage will probably surface in the coming months. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press
On Tuesday an Israeli television channel aired leaked video footage it obtained exclusively showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasting that he had personally convinced President Trump to abandon the Iran nuclear deal. The statements were made at a small dinner event where he addressed senior members of his Likud party.

The video, aired by Israel's Kan News shows Netanyahu enthusiastically praising his and Likud leadership's efforts, saying "We convinced the US president [to exit the deal] and I had to stand up against the whole world and come out against this agreement." He added, "And we didn't give up."

According to a translation of the prime minister's words by The Times of Israel he further agrees that "the Iranian regime" will "disappear with the help of God" -- in the words of one of his supporters, to which Netanyahu adds, "You said it. From your mouth to God."

The Times of Israel presents the rest of the short clip's contents as follows :

The prime minister then begins to speak about the Iranian regime -- "not the Iranian people, I have nothing against them" -- before he is interrupted by an unidentified person off-screen who says, "It will disappear with the help of God."

"You said it. From your mouth to God," Netanyahu says in response as the clip ends.

Netanyahu does not explain in the video aired by Kan how he convinced Trump to exit the deal. Trump had vowed to scrap what he assailed as the "worst deal ever" before becoming president.

The Israeli broadcaster that obtained the footage said it was filmed two weeks ago.

Read also: Apologise for Balfour, say Palestine campaigners with huge march for justice due tomorrow

When early this week the New York Times published the Israeli account of how a daring Mossad operation deep inside Iran netted what are said to be tens of thousands of secret Iranian nuclear documents in an "Ocean's 11"-style heist, we noted the Times story appeared to be a propaganda victory lap of sorts meant to further bolster Israeli intelligence's reputation and far-reaching abilities abroad.

Netanyahu unveiled the stolen cache of about 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs in a television address that the said proved the existence of an illegal and ongoing secret program to "test and build nuclear weapons" called Project Amad.

Just days after the colorful and prop-laden Netanyahu presentation, President Trump announced he would follow through on prior threats to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA. Observers noted at the time that Netanyahu's address had a single audience in mind in the person of Donald Trump during the very week the White House was intensely mulling a final decision over whether to finally pull the plug on the JCPOA.

While it appears Netanyahu had his April televised presentation in mind when he says in the clip "I had to stand up against the whole world," there is also little doubt that his personal appeals to Trump on the issue were even more direct and persistent. Other signatories to the deal brokered in 2015 under the Obama administration have vowed to stick by it, which include Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China -- even as the White House threatens punitive measures against any country that continues to do business with Iran.

Read also: Kushner attacks Abbas

Earlier this summer it was confirmed that a high level joint US-Israeli "working group" under the oversight of National Security Advisor John Bolton has been meeting for months with the goal of facilitating regime change in Tehran. As Axios reported : "Israel and the United States formed a joint working group a few months ago that is focused on internal efforts to encourage protests within Iran and pressure the country's government." So it's very clear that Netanyahu has the White House's ear on Iran (though this is no surprise).

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has posted to his official Twitter account a clip of Trump saying that Russian President Putin is a "Bibi fan". The statement came in a Fox News interview following the US president's summit and press conference with Putin.

In the uploaded clip Trump said he and Putin "came to a lot of good conclusions" during the meeting, including "a really good conclusion for Israel, something very strong." Trump said Putin is "a believer in Israel; he is a fan of Bibi and really helping him a lot – and will help a lot, which is good for all of us."

Netanyahu posted the interview segment with the commentary in Hebrew: "I will continue to strengthen Israel as a rising global force." Likely, Netanyahu will continue his boasting about his personal intervention and impact with the White House both in public and in private, so more such revelatory footage will probably surface in the coming months.

Read also: SOURCE www.zerohedge.com

[Jul 24, 2018] Reader Coping Strategies for Engaging With Committed Liberals by Yves Smith

Notable quotes:
"... By contrast, Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists. Dissent is not well tolerated at work or social spheres. And its only gotten worse as media fragmentation and political strategies based on hitting voter hot buttons means that many people are deeply invested in their political views, whether they are well founded or not. Punitive unfriending and other forms of ostracism have become a new normal. ..."
"... She said the "fake news" campaign has been extremely effective in discrediting non-mainstream views. And since her friends are also PhDs, she was also frustrated at their refusal to consider evidence, or entertain the idea that their preferred sources were biased. ..."
"... One approach she has used that worked was to find information from other sources they could not reject, like Reuters and the Associated Press, that had not been covered in the New York Times or better yet, contradicted what they wanted to believe, such as a Reuters story describing how Germany opposed sanctions against Russia. But she clearly found it taxing to find these informational nuggets. ..."
"... Saying early on that Hillary was an awful alternative to Trump can lower the temperature considerably. Going on to talk about issues and staying away from Trump bashing is a follow through. ..."
"... Speaking as a member of the clergy, I have a suggestion about how to use the teachings of Jesus to reach Team Blue, whether or not they subscribe to Christianity in some form. ..."
"... One of the most radical of Jesus' teachings, one that is often given lip service but is extremely difficult to put into practice, is the commandment that we love our enemies and pray for them ..."
"... I am increasingly encountering extremism as the base line for discussions, really arguments, in my daily encounters. This comes from both ends of the political spectrum. This I perceive as a sign of desperation. ..."
"... Fair enough, Chuck, but I think you might be missing a very important bit: the fact that many people who are otherwise staunch rank-and-file supporters might also have an otherwise invisible breakpoint, or fault line. I say this as a former Dem Party supporter, who did the full song and dance – supported Hillary, supported Kerry before that, and was a total devotee to Obama. I was as tied to the Dem party as anyone not getting a paycheck could be, and when Obama won, I was elated. I thought that things would really change. ..."
"... The Financial Crisis was a rude, rude awakening. The pretty speeches meant little, and did even less. If anyone had a hand in setting fire to my generally moderate viewpoint, it was Obama himself, his worship for Wall Street, and his inability to put up a fight about anything. It was a weird time for me, politically, but 2008-2016 was what set the stage, while the last set of primaries only confirmed what I had felt in my gut for many years. ..."
"... Listen is first. Would you expect to walk into any fundamentalist church or mosque and change minds? Conversation among strangers gets more specific along commonalities until it hits a split point, then drops down a level. If nothing in common, there's always the weather. That's universal. ..."
"... On Russia – the biggest "liberal" fake new angle for years now – I say "Not one single piece of evidence has ever been presented that Russia meddled in the election. Not one single piece. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now telling us Russia meddled. This is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment." ..."
"... The Making of the President 2016 ..."
"... my point is that she enforces dogma and insinuates disloyalty in any heretic. ..."
"... It would be great if the one group of unthinking believers cancelled out the other group of unthinking believers, but of course the adherents are so blind to reality that that can't see that the difference between Bush's Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary and Obama Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary is .???? ..."
"... I wonder, sadly, if "engaging with liberals" might be, in fact, a lost cause. Struggling to find common cause with the delusional amidst the collapse of empire, environmental catastrophe, and financial ruin might not be the best use of limited resources. ..."
"... Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists ..."
"... fairness and decency ..."
"... Arguing with entrenched people is a lost cause but sarcasm = mercilessly tearing right into their own hypocrisy does the work of shaming them for a while, especially if you make the point about a topic they are virtue signalling about. These people do not have a policy idea in mind, they are pure virtue signallers. ..."
"... knows what he is talking about ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

An oft-repeated bit of advice in America is never to talk about religion or politics. Sadly, the reason is that Americans are dreadful at talking across political lines. When I lived in Australia in the early 2000s and adopted a pub, by contrast, I found the locals to be eager to debate the topics of the day yet remain civil about it. That may be because Australians in generally have mastered the art of being confrontational by lacing it with humor and/or self deprecation.

By contrast, Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists. Dissent is not well tolerated at work or social spheres. And its only gotten worse as media fragmentation and political strategies based on hitting voter hot buttons means that many people are deeply invested in their political views, whether they are well founded or not. Punitive unfriending and other forms of ostracism have become a new normal.

And now that we have anger over Trump directed at not the best or most useful objects, like Russia! Russia! as opposed to his packing of the Federal bench, or his environmental policies, or even his push to privatize Federal parks, a lot of educated people expect, even demand, that their friends be vocal supporters of the #Resistance.

For instance, at the San Francisco meetup, I spent a fair bit of time with a woman who had held elected offices in her community. She was clearly distressed by the fact (without using such crass terms) that her friends had turned into pod people. They all believe that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker are authoritative. When she tried arguing with them about what they've read in these outlets, they shoot back, "Oh, so you believe in fake news?" She said the "fake news" campaign has been extremely effective in discrediting non-mainstream views. And since her friends are also PhDs, she was also frustrated at their refusal to consider evidence, or entertain the idea that their preferred sources were biased.

One approach she has used that worked was to find information from other sources they could not reject, like Reuters and the Associated Press, that had not been covered in the New York Times or better yet, contradicted what they wanted to believe, such as a Reuters story describing how Germany opposed sanctions against Russia. But she clearly found it taxing to find these informational nuggets. She also said they would not consider foreign sources, even the BBC or Der Spiegel or Le Monde.

Readers also discussed their frustrations in Links over the weekend. For instance:

Montanamaven , July 22, 2018 at 8:28 am

"Shame" looks to me like the word of the week. I've heard from liberal/Democrat friends that they are "ashamed" of this President. They are embarrassed by his behavior at NATO and Helsinki. I asked, "Who are you embarassed in front of? What does that mean?" Then I got a link to a Thomas Friedman article .

I'm not sure how to answer my friends with grace. I don't want to be condescending by saying "Really, you read Tom Friedman without a red pen in your hand?" What should I say? "I had no idea you were a globalist although you are kind of anti labor, right?" Any suggestions for talking to Dems about this last week?

My usual answer is "I don't know why we need NATO now that the Cold War is over. Bush I promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Putin wanted to join NATO. Russia, especially the populous West is more European than Asian. So why don't we have Russia join NATO. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Amfortas the Hippie , July 22, 2018 at 10:06 am

on talking to democrats. LOL. you and me both. Haldol as a prophylactic, perhaps. The Berners are a lot easier but the "mainstream" dem people have been difficult to talk to for some time too many triggers and blind spots. They've become as reactionary as the tea party.. The aversion to figuring out what we're FOR must be overcome.

... ... ...

Hamford , July 22, 2018 at 6:10 pm

Montanahaven, great post, and I don't know the answer on how to talk to Dems or the general gammit of duopoly supporters, but I have been working on refining a technique I heard Tim Black talking about: "drop a few lines, and walk away". I am working on inserting a few judgment free comments without argument, however it requires patience in listening to the ramble of the other side. A few examples in my recent life:
  1. Hillary Dem: "But Mueller found Russia was hacking. Blah Blah, Blah, 17 intelligence agencies"

    Me: Did you know in 2003 Mueller helped lead us into Iraq and testified before Congress pushing WMD intel. [I did not follow with anything about along the lines of "Is this guy trustworthy."]

  2. Trump Repub: "People are killing each other in the streets, blah blah freeloaders, murder rate going up, blah blah, this country is not the same, what happened to our country"

    Me: "People are desperate, Americans are addicted to opiates and will get it however they can, but someone peddling marajuana will get 10 years in prison, but the Sackler family who wantonly pushed opiates on all of America are worth billions" [I could have argued that American crime rate has gone down since the 80's, but I just wanted to divert their attention to a part of the current problem, not to start an argument]

    A few weeks later these folks repeated these talking points as their own, which is a win in my book. I have been trying to drop stuff as subtly as possible and hope they find their own way. People get more entrenched on their viewpoint while arguing, and more words often means less average impact per word. My sample size is admittedly low right now, so I will continue observation.

Another approach, although it takes a great deal of patience, is to go Socratic and ask the true believers in your circle to provide the support for their views. You may still be stuck with the problem that they regard people like Louise Mensch or Timothy Synder or (gah) James Clapper as unimpeachable.

Of course, not everyone is dogmatic. On my way back to New York, I sat next to a Google engineer (PhD, possibly even faculty member at Cornell since he'd gotten some major grant funding for his research, now on an H1-B visa and on track to have to leave the US in the next year+ due to Trump changes in the program) who held pretty orthodox views. He wanted to chat and we were able to discuss the Dems and even Russia. He even thanked me for the conversation as he was getting off the plane. But I knew I was lucky to find someone who wasn't deeply invested in his views, or perhaps merely not invested in winning arguments.

Any further tips or observations would be helpful to everyone. Things will only get more heated as the midterms approach.

MassBay , July 24, 2018 at 6:25 am

Nice comments. It is all about ego. Most of us become invested in our own position and will not surrender, because it is OURS!!

Quanka , July 24, 2018 at 8:25 am

This is true. This is why I like Hamford's idea of information nuggets. You have to let people think you are on their side while they come around to your ideas more or less on their own. If you give someone a good nugget that they take in as their own, then you have more leverage to convince them of something grander.

And listen. Just listen. You don't have to agree with people to give them time and space to be heard. They are more likely to reciprocate if you do.

ScottS , July 24, 2018 at 12:14 pm

Letting people "talk it out" works for strangers and acquaintances. They'll eventually run out of road or realize they've monopolized the conversation and give you a chance to react, even if only out of politeness.

I find closer friends and family will chew your ear off mercilessly, and once they start, you're trapped. If you start poking holes in their beliefs after they've gone on for a while, they'll feel betrayed. I find it best to say "that's nice" and walk away to maintain your sanity. Don't mess with tribalism, you'll always lose.

David Miller , July 24, 2018 at 6:31 am

Ha ha these posts resonate with me – my mother is a committed Rachel Maddow watcher and my best friend is a Trump supporter.

And both of them are otherwise very nice people and rather similar in terms of personality, interests, and outlook aside from red team/blue team foolishness.

What I like to do with both of them is use the term BushBamaTrump. And at the slightest bit of pushback just jump right in to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three. It never gets through and you really can't change people, but still. Gives me a bit of pleasure to at least throw a little wrench into their silly partisan blinkered world view

notabanker , July 24, 2018 at 8:26 am

If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and I find it really hard to understand how someone else's does.

I find it difficult to break this construct without coming off as arrogant or cynical. I readily admit this feature in myself could be a bug.

hemeantwell , July 24, 2018 at 8:31 am

jump right in to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three

Yes. Even though disagreements appear to be about issues, there's an underlying personal partisanship that often drives conversational breakdown. This is particularly true for people on the right. Saying early on that Hillary was an awful alternative to Trump can lower the temperature considerably. Going on to talk about issues and staying away from Trump bashing is a follow through.

Amfortas the Hippie , July 24, 2018 at 6:47 am

Hamford's approach is one that I have used with the people I live around(supermajority Repubs, altho much of that is habit and/or single issue apathy is the only growing demograph)

Introducing doubt, "short, sharp shock", and then they worry over it for a day or a week, and later they seem to have incorporated it into their weltanshauung.

That is, indeed, a win.

I've much more experience, given my habitus(central texas wilderness) with culture jamming and otherwise undermining the orthodoxy of republicans. To talk about important things with them, one must avoid numerous trigger words that cause salivation or violent conniptions.

Finding these rhetorical paths has been enlightening, to say the least. like talking about unionism by using the Chamber of Commerce as an example, or playing on their own memories of the Grange or the Farmer's Co-Op or even going directly at the cognitive dissonance, as in "hey, wait a minute if we have freedom of religion, aren't I by necessity free to be a Buddhist?"

Similarly, I've found that using the language of Jesus gets results, unless my interlocutor is too far gone into the whole warrior Christ thing. I'm still working on how to do this with Team Blue.

Like with the R's, the D's have an emotional attachment, and a psychological need, to avoid believing that their party is in any way less than pristine and above board.

Similarly, I remember a discussion of the Puma's (Hillary's 08 supporters) wherein they were so caught up with Herstory(!) that an attack on (or even criticism of) Hillary was an attack on their Identity.

Stages of Grief applies the acceptance we wish for is a big step for most people, because the manifest problems are so huge and complex and intertwined that acknowledging them feels like giving in and even giving up.

It's a big problem, and I thank you for addressing it.

The forces arrayed against civil discourse are huge and well funded(which is, in itself, a sort of indictment and indicator)

Newton Finn , July 24, 2018 at 10:45 am

Speaking as a member of the clergy, I have a suggestion about how to use the teachings of Jesus to reach Team Blue, whether or not they subscribe to Christianity in some form.

One of the most radical of Jesus' teachings, one that is often given lip service but is extremely difficult to put into practice, is the commandment that we love our enemies and pray for them.

I have come to believe that the Russiagate attacks on Trump are driven not by reason but by pure hatred, a sin which always blinds. While there are many reasons to oppose much of Trump's policies and actions, we must not allow ourselves to wallow in personal hatred of the man himself. If Jesus doesn't work here for some of Team Blue, MLK, who taught the same message, is an excellent alternative. Take away the visceral hatred of Trump, and he will be opposed, much more reasonably, ethically, and effectively.

Michael Fiorillo , July 24, 2018 at 11:44 am

I agree: whenever possible, Trump the individual should be ignored, since too many people seem unable to separate the man from the systems, processes and interests in play.

When it's all about Trump, he wins. You'd think people would have realized that by now, but take a look at Alternet, where it's literally "All Trump All The Time," and you see how trapped in their fears and illusions liberals are.

As Lambert and others insist, make it about issues and policy; that's how people can (eventually, hopefully) be reached over time. As the saying goes, they lose their minds in crowds/herds, and will only regain their sanity one at a time.

The added benefit is that ignoring Trump's provocations goes a ways toward depriving him of oxygen. Ignoring him is one of the few ways to drive him crazy(er), takes away much of his effectiveness, and provides the personal satisfaction of being able to do something against him, even if just passively.

readerOfTeaLeaves , July 24, 2018 at 12:06 pm

I'm really hopeful that Michael Hudson's upcoming book on the roots of Christianity will open up a whole new conversation for people of all views, particularly the role of debt and 'what we owe to one another'. Or when we should, and what we shouldn't, owe one another.

IMVHO, Trump is the apotheosis of a debt-based form of greed, which conventional politics mostly exalts and exacerbates, but doesn't seem to really understand -- and papers over its social costs [see also: FoxNews, CNBC]. In this form of (leveraged) debt, the debtor owes absolutely nothing to society, irrespective of the social dislocations that his/her debt creates.

I find that people who get caught up in Dem/Repub conflicts are unreachable on political terms, but if the conversation shifts to economics, to outrage at financial shenanigans, to who 'owes' what to whom, the emotional tone shifts and the conversations are much more engaged.

The R's that I know tend to affiliate with 'lenders', but have an abhorrence of debt. They seem weirdly incapable of grappling with the social and political implications of debt. To them, debt is a sign of weakness. I find myself struggling to grapple with their worldview on the general topic of 'debt'.

The D's that I know tend to at least be able to think about debt as a means to an end: an education, a home, a business idea. But they seem to experience debt as a form of guilt, or powerlessness, a lot of the time. The people in my life who fall into this category are very careful with money, but they are also capable of carrying on a conversation about social meaning of debt.

I don't think it is any accident that the two most articulate, informed voices in current politics are on the 'left', and their expertise and focus is on debt: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I suspect that is because debt is one of the most fundamental social-political-cultural issues of our time.

ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 6:50 am

I do come across as a bit of a nutter, and bloodthirsty to boot. However, in my defense, I am increasingly encountering extremism as the base line for discussions, really arguments, in my daily encounters. This comes from both ends of the political spectrum. This I perceive as a sign of desperation.

The Third Way 'faux left' movement is running out of steam as the inequality that it was designed to enable takes hold, and disenchants those that the movement required to at least be neutral in order for it to do its 'work.' The Right wing has always cultivated a sense of being oppressed in order to cultivate the sense of 'belonging' to a 'special' and 'chosen' people. I have been called "dirty socialist" and even less salubrious terms so many times, I've developed somewhat of a thick skin to the insult. The problem with that is that those who are doing the insulting are dead serious in their obloquy. This can escalate into actions. Therein lies the rub. the step from verbal abuse to physical abuse must be guarded against and, if encountered, short circuited. Hence, the comment about the probable bad results of trying to crash someone's SHTF refuge.

I have worked with several ex-cons during my work life. Jail is the pressure cooker of power relations for Western society. All the ex-cons said that threats, even when coming from obviously superior physical specimens must be responded to quickly and decisively. As one man put it, "Even if you have to take a beat down. Make the point that you will fight. Once is usually enough. After that, people in jail will leave you alone." Another man related the tale of a small man in prison who was being groomed for 'bitchdom' by a much bigger man. "The big guy poked the little guy in the chest and started to say something. The little guy grabbed the finger and broke it. Then this tiny tornado tore into the big guy. Man! Nobody f -- -d with the little guy again. He was crazy everybody said. Some of the older cons said that he was smart."

It may not be relevant yet, but America certainly does seem to be sliding into a full blown Police State. As such, the etiquette of prison is slowly being imposed on the civil society. Pure power relations are becoming the norm. This manifests in our more genteel disputations.
So, my present reply to people who take me to task for not voting for Her Royal Highness is to say; "Thank you for giving us Trump. Without your gallant efforts, we would have had a decent government, under Bernie." Then, as one of the above comments suggests, I walk away, and make sure our Urban Bug In Bag is ready.

Bugs Bunny , July 24, 2018 at 7:02 am

That is a frightening observation and I believe it is unfortunately accurate. Relations in the workplace certainly have resembled this since 2008. Civil society was next.

ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 6:52 am

Skynet ate a longer comment. Short version: "Thank you for running Hillary so Trump could win."

Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 10:01 am

A brilliant compaction. And nice (fascinating being even better desc.) to see the longer version as well. Skynet apparently liked it too.

My poor wife has somewhat 'come around' (been dragged along) because many of the predictions (that I get from NC)seem to materialize in one way or another, but on the flip side we have lost what we thought were real friends (fortunately few), largely because of my inability to shut up (at least I don't do it until asked some hard to get out of question) combined with insufficient command of a given subject – alas, all given subjects it seems.

ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 11:37 am

We do find out who our 'real' friends are when we go a little 'off the reservation' with subjects having a significant emotional content. I have found that I also discover personal biases by observing what subjects being 'rejected' by others give me pain. I have been surprised at some of my personal biases. Don't be too hard on yourself about those things that you need to study more. Everyone has those kinds of subjects. I certainly do. Yesterday's thread on the lowly apostrophe was such a wake up call to me.

ex-PFC Chuck , July 24, 2018 at 6:57 am

It seems to me that the longer the person has supported the Democratic Party the more they are resistant to changing their views. The affiliation comes to resemble that of a football fan to her favorite team. People who've changed their political affiliation over the course of their lives, and especially those who have done so relatively recently, are more open-minded and willing to consider evidence contrary to their current views.

ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 7:10 am

Not to quibble, but your observation takes on the appearance of a 'chicken or egg' problem. As the Political Fundamentalists showed, politics is a long term game. That's one reason that Lamberts comment about the Democrat party and their 'missing' ground game is so pertinent.

Di Modica's Dumb Steer , July 24, 2018 at 10:12 am

Fair enough, Chuck, but I think you might be missing a very important bit: the fact that many people who are otherwise staunch rank-and-file supporters might also have an otherwise invisible breakpoint, or fault line. I say this as a former Dem Party supporter, who did the full song and dance – supported Hillary, supported Kerry before that, and was a total devotee to Obama. I was as tied to the Dem party as anyone not getting a paycheck could be, and when Obama won, I was elated. I thought that things would really change.

The Financial Crisis was a rude, rude awakening. The pretty speeches meant little, and did even less. If anyone had a hand in setting fire to my generally moderate viewpoint, it was Obama himself, his worship for Wall Street, and his inability to put up a fight about anything. It was a weird time for me, politically, but 2008-2016 was what set the stage, while the last set of primaries only confirmed what I had felt in my gut for many years.

I think there are many out there, struggling like I did. They'll show. Eventually. I'd say that the famous line about the center not holding applies here, but I'm likely missing a ton of context.

polecat , July 24, 2018 at 11:58 am

My 'turn' was when Nancy P. swiped "impeachment" off the gilded table in 2006, Right • After • The • House • Elections. So, when shortly there after, while listening to Obama give his inaugural address, all I could say was "we'll see ??" . Then came his cabinet appointments, and from then on the d-party lost me with their passive-aggressive "We'll have to $ee what's in it AFTER WE VOTED FOR IT" FU tactics.

Steve H. , July 24, 2018 at 6:58 am

Mediation in kindergarten words: Listen, Talk, Ask, Agree, Write.

Listen is first. Would you expect to walk into any fundamentalist church or mosque and change minds? Conversation among strangers gets more specific along commonalities until it hits a split point, then drops down a level. If nothing in common, there's always the weather. That's universal.

Which blogger was it, trying to change the world when he realized he was only reaching the 5% who thought like he did, & stopped? Think how hard it is to undo economics class learnin' and understand MMT.

Politically, these are not going to be new customers. I can't find number of new voters for AOC, but turnout was less than 1 in 5. She gained trust by knocking on doors. You can't reach the frontal lobes if the amygdala is signalling threat.

If you find points of agreement, you can move the conversation to universal. Then to concrete and material.

ChiGal in Carolina , July 24, 2018 at 8:38 am

This dovetails with hamsher above, whose defiines success as hearing his talking points adopted by those he has dropped them on. The key is to be nonjudgmental .

kimyo , July 24, 2018 at 6:59 am

there are two statements which have worked in my recent exchanges with liberals:
1) Obama has bombed more nations than Bush
2) no one person did more to put donald trump in office than hillary clinton (extreme, indisputable malfeasance against sanders in the primary)

although many seem completely ready to discard 'russian collusion' i still hear 'why is he trying to be friends with putin?' on a regular basis.

any criticism of obamacare is immediately discarded, even though many know someone who has health insurance but doesn't have health care.

i keep trying to argue that democrats are best served if abortion is constantly under threat. that most democratic politicians strongly prefer this situation, as it would otherwise be close to impossible to motivate people to get out to the polls. (or, likewise, republicans and gun rights) so far, this doesn't seem to work.

calling out tesla as a nonsense scam is working pretty well, though. (monorail!)

also, pointing out that new research shows that wifi/cellphone exposure increases miscarriage risk is starting to gain traction. i cringe everytime i see a toddler playing with an i-pad. (obviously not a liberal issue, but it helps to dispel the fog of complacency)

timbers , July 24, 2018 at 7:01 am

Here is my general approach, good or bad towards Hillary "liberal" or establishment think or whatever you may call it. I think it helps put the burden of proof to the fake news'ers

On Russia – the biggest "liberal" fake new angle for years now – I say "Not one single piece of evidence has ever been presented that Russia meddled in the election. Not one single piece. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now telling us Russia meddled. This is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."

I ask them to "show me the money" if they can point to any evidence to support the claim Russia hacked. Depending on how much time I have, I can shoot it down (like the click bait social media example that is full of holes) but there is so much non-sense out their I am always up on the latest.

Chris , July 24, 2018 at 7:01 am

Long time NC reader in the DC/Maryland area.

Re: discussing what's happening with people I just gave up. Partially because I couldn't keep calm in the face of being labeled a "white cis gendered Russia loving hate monger." Partially because the medium for debate my friends and I were using was Facebook, which is really not a great tool for serious discussions. Partially because it took so much time and energy and garnered no rewards.

Most of my circle of friends ardently believe the following:

(1) the Democrats are significantly different from the Republicans and suggesting otherwise is lying. This gets you the most violent reactions from most people.

(2) all or most of what Trump is doing is a significant departure from the Obama administration.

(3) withholding votes or voting for other candidates than "electable Democrats" is equivalent to voting for fascists.

(4) US citizens who live in depressed economic areas are to blame for their own problems because they vote against their own interests and won't move to better places.

(5) increased immigration, increased globalism, and free trade agreements like TPP are policies we should support.

(6) Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc. are not monopolies and anti-trust law should not be used to break them up.

(7) solutions to inequality in public education should not include busing children from poor areas to wealthy areas. Or vice versa.

(8) our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must continue.

(9) we need identity politics in this country.

(10) the world would be better off if Hillary was president. P.S. she was robbed by Russians, misogynists, and electoral manipulation from the fascistic Trump campaign.

When I try to mention that all of those points are debatable at best, and admittedly I do that with varying degrees of success, they do not accept it. Any of it. They find discussions of what happened during the Obama administration which either lead to, or was similar to, what Trump is doing now tiring and painful. Mentioning how poorly the HRC campaign was run, how HRC laundered money through local state dem orgs, the wasted millions in consultants, the lack of campaigning in key states, globalism, etc. get you a soulful vomiting of Russia/Misogyny/Fascism. They will ask why you focus on the Democrats, and not the Republicans. It's the Republicans fault we're here and their voters deserve rock suffer.

Humor or analogy doesn't work on this topic either. If you mention something like both parties blame outsiders for their troubles, except Republicans blame people from Mexico and Democrats blame people from Michigan, you get angry stares. If you mention both parties want to go back in time to a better, safer place, except for Republicans it's an imaginary 1950 something and for Democrats is an imaginary 2006, you'll end up drinking alone.

I realized that the only thing I was doing was aggravating my friends and hurting my cause. They're all too high strung to have discussions. They don't want to consider that the status quo ante that they think was great was only "great" for a select portion of the country. They might have admitted that progressives and leftists weren't happy with the Obama administration in 2016. They have no space for that kind of thinking now. So I logged out of FB and Twitter, deleted the apps and spend the time doing other things. I will talk to people about this stuff if they're interested and if it's in person. I stop when I see their body language shift to 'uncomfortable.'

The other thing I've been doing is working to support local candidates who believe in th kind of policies I want to see in my community. I think that's a much better way to use my time and political energy.

Good luck to anyone who wants to try and fight this battle with words. No one is reading or listening anymore. They just want red meat and a torch to join their preferred mob. And with what's happening if you post something a boss or other person finds objectionable, I strongly recommend the virtues of self censorship and keeping your mouth shut until this time passes.

Marshall Auerback , July 24, 2018 at 9:19 am

"being labeled a 'white cis gendered Russia loving hate monger'" Welcome to the club!

Shane Mage , July 24, 2018 at 9:27 am

Please. When mentioning Facebook bots, *always* put the scare quotes about the word "friend."

Chris , July 24, 2018 at 11:02 am

These were all people who I know and associate with off line. What surprised and saddened me was that they couldn't leave an argument behind.

I can leave an FB discussion on FB. I have other topics to discuss when I'm with my friends. They can't do that anymore.

It was that fact more than anything that lead me to believe there was no benefit in trying to post articles or participate in social media discussions. No one is listening. Everyone in my socal circle is feeling too raw to have measured discussions about how we got here and where we could go next.

flora , July 24, 2018 at 11:29 am

I've experienced the same from long time friends or who I thought were friends. For months after the election all they could talk about was 'Hillary was robbed.' I let them vent because it seemed like a grieving time for them. After six months or so, when they still could not talk about anything else even if I tried shifting the conversation to family or gardening or something, then I knew they were caught up in more than grieving. I'm starting to wonder if this is the fury of people who suspect they've been conned and are determined to prove they were not conned. 'The most qualified candidate ever' was a terrible campaigner.
From 2016:
https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11

My outlook now is that people determined to prove they were not conned then will need to find their way back to calmness.

Reply ↓
flora , July 24, 2018 at 11:39 am

adding: she couldn't turn out the vote. simple as that. imo. but not something people who are determined to prove they were not conned want to hear.

Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:40 am

In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 , there was a passage about people, many of them on the left, who view those who disagree with them as truly evil people.

What comes next explains a lot about what we've seen since the election. Quoting Stone:

"This is a very immature worldview that produces no coping skills."

Hence, the meltdowns that go on and on and on

christy , July 24, 2018 at 7:01 am

Yes! Plz someone tell me a way to discuss immigration at the border and separating families. The word on the street that 10k of those 12k children being separated were ACTUALLY being 'trafficked' and WITHOUT their REAL parents in the first place.

There are a lot of Dem Nuts on facebook that harrassed the heck out of me and since I posted #walkaway, as an astute BERNIE supporter, this has SHOCKED many and I been unfriended 5 times.

8 million MISSING children and our FBI has only reunited/found 526?

Someone plz tell me wth?

marym , July 24, 2018 at 8:56 am

Please don't post such serious charges about trafficked children without sources. As far as I know not even the Trump administration in its own defense is claiming to have identified trafficked children at those levels.

I'm going to try to put together a comment later today about what we know of the current situation, the need to understand what was happening pre-Ttrump, and what may be happening to the children now after separation. It will probably be on the links thread, as it's not directly related to the coping issue of this thread.

Carla , July 24, 2018 at 10:02 am

Thank you, marym. Hope I can find your comment later.

christy , July 24, 2018 at 7:10 am

Joker Hitler Burgler Spy https://t.co/LA9pTj0jQ0 This is how he does it.

Reply ↓
fresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 7:40 am

So, I made the below comments in today's LINKS. But I will emphasize a different aspect here – in the Links comment my point was the reporter was wrong (about Obama representing the 1% – I think he did). Here my point is that she enforces dogma and insinuates disloyalty in any heretic.

fresno dan
July 24, 2018 at 7:25 am
Why So Many Reporters Are Missing the Political Story of the Decade Washington Monthly. Versailles 1788.

Frankly, someone needs to tell this guy (i.e., Bernie Sanders) to sit down and shut up for a while. Reinforcing the notion that a party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent contributes to the divide and reinforces Republican lies.
====================================================
party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent
BESIDES believing that Obama DIDN'T represent the 1%, I'm sure this reporter believes:
1. The earth is flat
2. Elvis is alive
3. The living head of John F. Kennedy is kept at the CIA
4. There are 2 Melania Trumps
5. that Hillary got more white women voters than Trump .
other examples are welcome

Amfortas the Hippie , July 24, 2018 at 8:29 am

on that inability to confront the less stellar record of Obama: it's the same process that happened(and is happening, I'd argue) on the Right .and that happens, over and over, when science chips out another block in the wall of religious certainty.
Fear of the disenchantment of having been wrong, or fooled they'll resist tooth and claw from admitting being descendants of apes .even when they feel/know in their secret hearts that it's true.
With the Dems(non-Berner subspecies), it's acute right now.
They must defend the paradigm at all costs, because to do otherwise is to open the door to a frightening and incomprehensible world that would demand their attention and resolve. For so long, the ire was safely directed at the Right it's their fault we can't have nice things, they are a regressive existential threat, omgomgomg. This is rendered tolerable by the belief that the Dems are their team, on their side and the polar opposite of the hateful Right.
This latter set of assumptions was thrown into existential even ontological doubt by numerous reports, surveys and even by plain old look-out-the-window observation.
The belief and the Reality couldn't be reconciled(America is not already great for a whole bunch of folks) and the Nature of the newly perceived Reality was so ugly, and so huge, that they recoil into paradigm defense.
a giant edifice of bullshit is inherently unstable, it turns out.

The challenge, as I see it, is to acknowledge that the Way We Do Things is falling apart, and that it should fall apart, if we really believe all the high minded rhetoric we perform to each other and then to try to figure out what system/paradigm we'd like to replace it to use the chaos and destruction of the trump era to our advantage.
So more and more, in lib/dem/prog* social spaces, I'm asking "what are we for?"

(* the confusion of tongues here is both instructive and disheartening and encouraging(!). asking folks to define such things is resulting in less fury and spittle and froth, and more with either silence or thought and honest questioning. at least in my little circles )

Reply ↓
fresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 11:37 am

Amfortas the Hippie
July 24, 2018 at 8:29 am

I can't beat what notabanker said:
notabanker
July 24, 2018 at 8:26 am
If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and I find it really hard to understand how someone else's does ..
==============================================
"Independent" self sufficient Americans .join groups called political parties that as a rite of passage evidently require the adherents to believe idiotic, inconsistent things.
But another thing is that the number of people who even belong to political parties isn't that great. But they set the agenda.

It would be great if the one group of unthinking believers cancelled out the other group of unthinking believers, but of course the adherents are so blind to reality that that can't see that the difference between Bush's Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary and Obama Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary is .????
NOW, of course there were real differences between Obama and Bush .Obama droned a LOT more.

Reply ↓
Colonel Smithers , July 24, 2018 at 7:53 am

Thank you, Yves and the community. This situation applies in the UK, too. It's amazing to meet people who took time off to protest against Trump, but won't against homelessness or austerity.

PlutoniumKun , July 24, 2018 at 11:59 am

Yes, the Irish media used to be moderately independent, but they are getting in line too. Over the weekend I nearly threw my copy of the Irish Times away in disgust at reading some of the articles from writers I'd consider pretty clear minded normally. They are just gradually absorbing the message by osmosis I think.

When someone here rants about Trump, I usually say something like 'well,what exactly has he done thats worse than anything Obama did to, say for example, Libya, or Honduras?' I'd love to say I get a thoughtful response, but thats rarely the case. Interestingly, I find that its the people who profess themselves as non-political or don't read the newspapers much who are more open to discussion.

Watt4Bob , July 24, 2018 at 8:15 am

I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to ' self-correct '.

It's been very painful to realize that ' things ' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.

Over many decades, both the ' other teams ' have pointed fingers at each other and invited us to believe that our problems originated on the other side of the fence, when in reality, as many of us now understand, our two political parties have all the while, worked in collusion to forward the interests of the rich and powerful, the result of which has been wide spread, and extreme economic hardship for most of us.

This failure of our politics has engendered a wide spread visceral hatred of our leadership class, that so far, has remained loosely in the control of the two political parties, but, and I think this a good thing, there is a dawning understanding among a significant number of us, that the hatred of Hillary, and her party, is well deserved, and rooted in exactly the same reality as the hatred of George 'W', and his party.

All that hatred of the political parties and their leadership has so far, resulted in Trump, which in an odd sense is evidence supporting optimism that the two parties strangle-hold on our lives is not invincible, and that there exists a wide-spread thirst for change.

I think that thirst for change is the point where we have an opportunity to make conversation fruitful, and find common ground.

fresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 11:45 am

Watt4Bob
July 24, 2018 at 8:15 am

I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to 'self-correct'.

It's been very painful to realize that 'things' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.
================================================
I don't know how many times I have heard that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away"
REALITY, that voting for a democrat* or a republican is throwing your vote away, never seems to sway anyone.
* maybe there are individual democrats that are worth voting for, but that is usually due to some screw up by the party apparatchiks

festoonic , July 24, 2018 at 8:34 am

I wonder, sadly, if "engaging with liberals" might be, in fact, a lost cause. Struggling to find common cause with the delusional amidst the collapse of empire, environmental catastrophe, and financial ruin might not be the best use of limited resources. There's a guy running for local city council whose campaign I intend to work for, and anyone campaigning on Medicare-for-All (free at the point of care, of course!), a minimum wage humans can live on, and anything else beneficial to people who work for a living will get my jealously-guarded vote. But the rest looks more and more like the re-arranging the proverbial deck chairs.

macnamichomhairle , July 24, 2018 at 8:39 am

I also think that this is not the time to try to argue. Many people (liberals) seem to have been shocked to their core by Clinton's loss and the arrival of the barbarians. The world has come unhinged, it appears to them.

That is a deeply unsettling feeling that can induce a deep distress and panic. I think it's also new to most liberals because things in America had proceeded pretty much sensibly, even during the Bush years. Also, I suspect many are at a stage in life when they have settled their own sense of their lives on a platform of comfort with the status quo as personified by the liberal consensus; or they are deeply committed ideologically for other reasons of self-identity.

The liberal establishment everyday is whipping the flames of people's panic and resulting outrage, and has created a huge firestorm. The "resistance" gives people a way to make sense of the world again. They will hold onto the "resistance" with all their power because admitting that the "resistance" is in any way flawed throws them back into a chaotic world. So any argument about this stuff derives from a deep place and is not conducive to reasoning. You threaten them, if you try to take away their "resistance" bear.

I also think it is better to put energy into other things, like building positive political movements or structures of life that extend "under" the current debate. (If you go down below general political buzz words, you can sometimes find agreement across political barriers.)

I still make general comments non-locally, but I do not engage with people individually about this. It's useless right now.

Eric , July 24, 2018 at 8:41 am

IMO, these factors contribute to the problem:

Some additional tribes: Wall St bankers, corporate CEOs, police, teachers, Congress, your town, your state, sports fans, etc.

GeorgeOrwell , July 24, 2018 at 8:41 am

Very relevant commentary to which I can completely relate. I had to leave a certain FB group because it became increasingly apparent that these mostly PhD, higher education types were not really interested in being the resistance or fighting fascism. No, what they really want is a safe space/echo chamber in which they can whine about everything that has gone to shit while completely ignoring how they themselves and the 'Democrat' party facilitated said shit's construction. The level of cognitive dissonance was simply mind boggling.

No rational thought about how going along to get along contributed to the current situation, that the lesser of two evils still gets you to the same destination. My working theory is they suffer from social detachment disorder due to their comfortable government (many tenured professors) jobs. As I attempted to explain to one of them, the economic damage created by the policy responses following the GR directly contributed to the door opening for Trump or something like him. These PhD types seem to be completely willing to overlook the social injustice of the Obama tenure, growth of the surveillance state, economic monopolies etc.

Many of these people have not had to worry about a paycheck for some time, thus the complete disconnect from the realities of the current economy. They talk a good game about fighting for social & economic equality, but when push comes to shove many of them are willing to throw their working neighbor under the bus so they can keep their comfortable (not rich mind you) tenured positions and lifestyles. If nothing else, the level of cognitive dissonance in this group certainly made me think about tenure from a much different perspective. Certainly not an encouraging picture of higher ed for sure.

TroyMcClure , July 24, 2018 at 10:45 am

Thomas Frank has repeatedly pointed out that credentialed professionals were the most reliably Republican voting block in America for decades. Now they're firmly democrat. Did their politics/interests change? Doubtful

The decades-long purge of any hint of leftists from the American university system (which started right here in California in the 50's then spread out) has led to our extremely conservative tenure class of professors.

I've had the same experience with these credential class types. Their politics are uniformly anti-labor and elitist. There's no convincing them.

jrs , July 24, 2018 at 11:37 am

I think that it is seldom clear in discussions what differentiates credentialed class from not. Just a bachelors degree? Bachelors degree attainment is over 30% now among young people. They are luckier than many who don't have the degree, but with every white collar job wanting a bachelors degree (often for fairly lowly work that didn't used to) and with a bachelors degree no guarantee of anything (nope not even that white collar job) I'm not sure its all that. (BTW I don't have a bachelors degree, but I'm in no good shape economically at all, if I had a degree maybe I'd be allowed to live, that is all .. so I consider it but without illusion at 40 something).

I think what really protects people's jobs etc. is licensed professions (lawyers, doctors, CPAs, landscape architects etc.) and in some cases those requiring post-bachelors attainment including years of additional training (physical therapists etc.). Well and unionization in the public sector obviously and tenure in academia.

jrs , July 24, 2018 at 11:23 am

it's not in their class interest to care, well the tenured ones, the adjuncts it depends on who they identify with, with the working class or with the tenured ones whose life they can't get anyway.

The average office worker would be more likely to care, although usually not political, and though they usually pretend otherwise, and though they are taught to sympathize with the bosses, there is a chance they might at some level ultimately know the are pawns in a game that they don't control and that can eat them alive (unlike those protected with tenure).

TroyMcClure , July 24, 2018 at 11:39 am

Ask the professors at Vermont Law School, 75% of whom just had tenure stripped unceremoniously. It's coming for them all. I give it less than 10 years. These tenured types total lack of solidarity within their group or any other will finally come home to roost.

My dear friend has been slogging through the trenches of the adjunct lifestyle for the better part of a decade and it's only now at this late date starting to dawn on him that he'll never get regular work at the university. Those waves and easy smiles from tenured faculty hid what they were thinking all along, "Better you than me pal!"

David , July 24, 2018 at 8:45 am

Not my country, but this is less a question of talking to "liberals" (who have their own problems) than of talking to conspiracy theorists. All over the world, certain groups of people are finding that history has suddenly, in the last few years, veered off in directions it has no right to. Since they refuse to believe they are responsible, however distantly, and since they seek, as we all do, simple explanations for complex problems, it must be a conspiracy. And anyone who questions the existence of a conspiracy is by definition part of it.

Because conspiracy theories serve essentially emotional and ideological purposes, rational discussion is by definition useless, and studies show that pointing out that people are factually wrong actually makes them more likely to cling to their beliefs.

I'd recommend a site which discusses and dissects conspiracy theories (www.metabunk.org), and which has discussion threads on how to argue with conspiracy theorists.

Darius , July 24, 2018 at 8:47 am

I was a Keynesian. I thought that meant the same as being a Democrat. Obama cured me of that mistake. Now, I'm in the Modern Money camp. Explaining that to paygo liberals is an even bigger chore.

Jeff N , July 24, 2018 at 10:33 am

Yes, although I've found that when I simply explain basic MMT concepts to either repub or dem friends, I come across as non-political. Because neither dems or repubs support it.

And I gain instant credibility/solidarity with them when I agree with their knee-jerk reaction that state/local governments ARE constrained.

Carolinian , July 24, 2018 at 8:59 am

Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists

That's spot on. Perhaps it has to with out lack of a set class structure which makes people socially insecure. Plus the rise of the meritocracy means that the worse thing you can call someone these days is "stupid" meaning uneducated. Life experience gets little credit at a time when knowledge has been overly formalized.

However we can take some comfort in a history where periods of intense conformity such as the 1950s provoke periods of more liberated thinking as in the 1960s. Things do seem to be changing–hopefully not for the worse. Patience with those vehement NYT and WaPo readers may be necessary until the fever breaks.

Amber Waves , July 24, 2018 at 9:02 am

My concern is that we have a poisoned public space, as it is hard to find the facts in the press or the body politic. Hard to find common ground to discuss or solve problems. I think our democracy, what is left of it, is in deep trouble. I agree that we need to talk to our neighbors about issues of the day. It is hard to overcome the do not talk about politics meme of the last 30 years.

Utah , July 24, 2018 at 9:02 am

I try really hard these days to talk about the system. Trump is a product of the system that we created and we need to change to better everyone.
I try to be compassionate above all else. Trump supporters are not evil or selfish. They believed the lies of someone telling them he was going to save jobs. We, as a nation, believed the lies of Obama's "hope and change" and it got us nowhere except a little more hopeless. Its not about political affiliation. Its about the world oligarchs having entire control. I refuse to be divided by what they want me to be divided by.

Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 9:10 am

A fascinating and often painful subject. Being mostly a dismal failure in my own attempts, I've been keenly interested in and come up with several 'types' (hardly exhaustive) that seem gifted with varying degrees of success in communicating though I'm not sure about convincing others. Making others sit up and think (I should say 'having that effect' rather than 'making') might be as far as most in this select group will ever get but I strongly suspect such exchanges can ultimately be very powerful (meaning the 'other' will almost always do the changing of pov, or the expansion of understanding, under their own steam and in their own time).

Trite as it may seem, those who have a strong core of honesty, or who always tend to gravitate toward truth, have the most success in the above. They are the ones who seem to make headway under the most ridiculously difficult or impossible conditions. That they often have a strong command of their subject seems (to me) to be a natural outcome of the affinity for truth rather than truth being a result of knowledge breadth. They aren't always likeable but are often admirable.

After that, there are the 'warm intellectuals' and note that this categorization does not preclude honesty. My father was such. He had a way of making all present feel welcome and valuable despite the intricacy of the discussion. One usually had to ferret out his opinions or his 'take' on something as he rarely made an issue of it. But his conversation and 'presence' always made fairness and decency seem cool; the natural order of things, and I know for a fact he had a profound influence on at least some people – some hard core ones as well.

The ability to bend and compromise for a greater good (or in some cases for another purpose) is yet another 'type' who I see as potentially having considerable power in their exchanges with others. I see them as having emotional energy and an ability to see through the 'facts' or to 'suspend' them for a period. This is obviously a tricky – perhaps flawed (although in reality they are all flawed) – category, home to intellectuals inclined toward the Machiavellian as well as do-gooders quickly judged and relegated -not always justly- to the lot of suck-asses, and I image it has mixed results. It includes but is not the sole domain of those with the facility to put themselves in anther's shoes (and occasionally get lost in so doing).

I am only describing those who can influence others of extreme or highly contrary positions and beliefs, not the relatively larger group who can be eloquent in their own right but are not of note in dealing with made-up minds. Since we are all banging about under varying degrees of illusion , the truly or profoundly successful ambassador, along with his/her close cousin the successful negotiator, even the mundane every-man commenting on a blog or at a social gathering that provokes others to reassess, is a rather unusual individual indeed. That there is some preponderance of such individuals on NC does not contradict the rarity in general.

Perhaps just a very long winded way of saying, "Don't be too hard on yourself."

Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 9:38 am

What I meant to say in the last sentence is, "I won't be too hard on myself ", but put in the general form while thinking of it applying to me. I don't presume to give others such advice (though I imagine it holds for others as well ).

Also, since the process of changing or simply being influenced, always takes time, it is almost impossible to see or assess; an unhappy circumstance for those who try at it rather than let it be an outcome..

Bite hard , July 24, 2018 at 9:11 am

Arguing with entrenched people is a lost cause but sarcasm = mercilessly tearing right into their own hypocrisy does the work of shaming them for a while, especially if you make the point about a topic they are virtue signalling about. These people do not have a policy idea in mind, they are pure virtue signallers.

Sarcasm is not to be confused with irony, which allows people to react mildly along "ha, ha, ha, oh my, what a world we live in". You can always escape from irony but a good, hard sarcasm put the moral dilemma right out there and people cannot escape their own crap poorly founded opinions.

danpaco , July 24, 2018 at 9:23 am

Political talk has really become a competition as opposed to a conversation. If the conversation decends into competition I'll try to ask "are there are any rules to this game?". When all else fails, go Socratic. Their answers can be enlightening.

Skip Intro , July 24, 2018 at 9:24 am

I think it can be effective to do a virtual cannonball into the kiddie pool of their belief system. Like Maddow squared but willing to connect the dots.

'Of course the Russians put Trump in, but the whole hacking story is part of a scam and a distraction. There's barely a connection between the leaked emails and the election results. They are a sideshow to get Assange. No, the real story is that the Russians had a high level operative inside the DNC. That's how the emails leaked. That is why the campaign was diverted away from Wisconsin, for example, in favor of Arizona. It is why the campaign pulled strings to get airtime for Trump during the GOP primary. It is why the DNC relied on bad software models and ignored experienced campaigners. Heck, it is why the DNC ran Hillary, even though she was over 43% animatronic by the end of the primary.'

Then you reveal that the mole is Mook.

The more facts you can weave into an acceptable narrative, the more secret landmines you can slip into their bubble, until the critical mass of cognitive dissonance causes a rupture

Reply ↓
ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 11:58 am

Watch out for the response being a psychotic break. I have had that happen when I got too carried away with 'weaponized humour' in my arguments.
I mean not just angry outbursts directed in my direction but actual punches. These times are becoming physically dangerous.

Reply ↓
William Hunter Duncan , July 24, 2018 at 9:24 am

I will generally, when I encounter a true believer Left or Right, let them get comfortable, agreeing with their critique of the Other until they say something grotesquely hypocritical or patently false or deranged, and then I will call out the hypocrisy/bs by way of pointing to it in their own party, then segway into something like 'MSNBC is part of the DNC, CNN is mockingbird CIA/DEEP STATE, and FOX is Rupert Murdoch's geriatric limp dick. Sometimes I call myself an anarchist, because I am liberal about some things and conservative about others and hypocrisy sucks. Wtf are Americans left and right going to pull their heads out of their buttz and realize the country has been gutted and the people put in debt servitude to globalist corp, bank, billionaire and eternal profiteering war/surveillance machine? Oh, and capitalism looks like a death cult if you are a pollinator or an ecosystem, so wtf about your bloody party ."

Which rant I can sustain as long as the person can hear it. Sometimes with liberals though I just ask why they think Hillary would have been a better president, and they usually realize at some point they have tied themselves in knots.

Reply ↓
voteforno6 , July 24, 2018 at 9:26 am

One quibble: It should be "Russia!Russia!Russia!", not "Russia!Russia!" – it makes the Jan Brady jokes a little funnier.

Anyway, with some people, I'm not sure if people should really be trying to "talk to" liberals, with the intent of changing their minds. I remember similar discussions going on in Daily Kos around 2006 or so, but there they discussed how to "talk to" conservatives, or people in rural areas, or "low information voters," as they liked to call them. It does seem a little condescending – some people believe what they believe, and you're not going to be able to argue them out of their positions. As macnamichomhairle posted above, the election of Trump really seems to have caused a psychic break in certain segments of society. I'm not sure if agitating them any further would really be that helpful. It's gotten to the point that I wonder (only half-jokingly) if Trump Derangement Syndrome will be included in the next volume of the DSM.

So, if you want to argue with people about something, make it sports. It seems that Americans are much more civil and mature when it comes to arguing about that topic. That is, unless they're from Philadelphia.

Reply ↓
Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:44 am

From Philadelphia? Whatsa matter with that?

Says Slim, who was born in Pittsburgh and raised outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Reply ↓
fresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 11:52 am

http://dailysnark.com/vikings-fans-claim-eagles-fans-took-hats-off-peed/

Reply ↓
vidimi , July 24, 2018 at 9:28 am

thank the lord i don't live in the united states.

when facing russia! putin! arguments, i usually retort with a big "i don't care" and paraphrase Mohammed Ali: "ain't no vladimir putin ever set the middle east on fire and crash the global economy".

Reply ↓
Newton Finn , July 24, 2018 at 11:11 am

Utter genius line.

Reply ↓
Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:45 am

Me? I use these arguments as an opportunity to practice my Russian language skills.

Reply ↓
Carolinian , July 24, 2018 at 10:10 am

Caitlin Johnstone has a column on how to respond to the Russiagaters.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-russiagaters-eb0b5e3602a3

Reply ↓
pretzelattack , July 24, 2018 at 10:58 am

thanks for that link. the debate is very familiar to me.

Reply ↓
The Rev Kev , July 24, 2018 at 10:20 am

At first I was going to suggest using a lead pipe on so-called liberals as a coping strategy but I think that this is too serious to joke about. Think about this. The US midterms take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2018 and only 16 days later you will have Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving tables this year?
Look, it is a real bad idea to tie your identity to any political party. Too much putting your faith in princes here – or princesses too for that matter. I don't think that the US voting system helps either where they want you to register for Party A or Party B which, when you think about it, kinda defeats the purpose of a secret ballet.
If people with phds are drinking the kool-aid and are not using their critical thinking skills, then how can you expect average people to be convinced? I am not sure that you can but what you can do is undermine their beliefs. Don't let them shape the battlefield of argument ('Or course everybody knows Russia did it!') or else it is a losing game. In any case, this whole thing reeks of the old identity game where those in power set two sides to fiercely combat each other while skimming profits all the way to the bank. An example of this? Democrats and Republicans hate each other's guts but when it come time to vote $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest people in the country then it was bipartisan all the way, baby.

Reply ↓
Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:47 am

My birthday comes shortly after the election. I'm thinking of throwing a party for myself and inviting liberal Democrats, libertarians, Republicans, Greens, independents, and those who refuse to be classified.

It'll be fun!

Reply ↓
flora , July 24, 2018 at 12:18 pm

Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving tables this year?

hmmm if the MSM determine too many of the midterm winners are the *wrong* sort of people then watch out for more MSM, Thanksgiving weekend, crazy stories, as in 2016. Properly speaking or not. ;)

Reply ↓
vlade , July 24, 2018 at 10:21 am

For a discussion to occur, both sides have to be willing and able to listen. While most people claim both, in my experience especially the latter (able to) is a learned skill which majority lacks (of all bents, not just liberals etc.).

Hence after this was tested, I do not discuss anymore, I rant, if I feel like it.

Reply ↓
tokyodamage , July 24, 2018 at 10:27 am

Talk about small, but 'respectably' sourced news stories instead of whatever's dominating the current news cycle – stories where the DNC spokespeople haven't already poisoned the well by telling people "This is your team's official position, there's no need to make up your own mind."

Give the liberal a chance to make up their own mind on the small story. Chances are that they sympathize with the underdog in that story – showing how 'liberals care'.

Then – if you're in the mood – spring the trap:

"You're absolutely right to be concerned about the underdog in [story A]. The compassion -that's why people like liberals! By the way, why do you think that [famous dem spokesperson] doesn't show the same compassion regarding [morally analogous but more mainstream news controversy B]?"

That's all i got.

Reply ↓
tokyodamage , July 24, 2018 at 10:32 am

"Russian meddling, eh? That's a scary country. I've been reading about Russia in the 90s. The average life expectancy of the whole country went down by years after the communist government collapsed. Old people dying alone in their apartments from easily treatable illnesses. Yeah, it IS terrible. Yeah it IS disgusting and immoral. Oh by the way, that's around the time they switched to a for-profit medical system like we have. Weird huh?"

Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 10:39 am

The inability to talk politics with others of differing views is hardly limited to the US even if it expresses itself in different ways. I have family in France (je suis une pièce rapportée – in-law) and it's almost identical to the US. As even my wife is somewhat of a 'guest' when we go over now, You simply avoid subjects where you know it could get too hot and so do they among themselves. Things are not at all as cut and dry as they were (at least seemed) back in the late 60's early 70's when students AND workers united massively in common cause.

A few years ago, I had a discussion that turned into an argument with a friend visiting from France who is an economist by training but made his pile (of comfortable not gargantuan size) in real estate. It turned around Jeremy Corbyn with my argument that as long as people are really hurting, social/political/economic justice movements will thrive and often succeed in radical change and his argument that 1) he is an economist and therefore knows what he is talking about and 2) Corbyn is simply unacceptable and unworkable in todays economy , c'est tout!

How horribly frustrating for me not to have a good command of the subject, getting hot under the collar is not a compelling argument, (though I didn't let him get away with the, being an economist, braggadocio), but on the good side, our friendship survived the bout and we holstered our pistols for the rest of their visit.

Eureka Springs , July 24, 2018 at 10:57 am

I find arguments of systemic problems, corruption, absence of actual solutions, divide conquer, class war, rather than D vs R work best.

Example:
Ask anyone who has a problem with immigrants why not one politician demands an arrest of a ceo and board members for illegal hiring practices. Put them in jail just for a weekend and things would dramatically change over night. We don't need to cage many thousands of desperate people, just a few greedy ones. Like them or not, quit blaming desperate poor people for crawling through a nasty river and horrific desert to get a crappy job. If the illegal hiring didn't exist they wouldn't come. As for children and adults, once 'we' have them captured, under our control, how they exist is all about us, not them.

And then I shut up. You have to know when to shut up.

At other times I love reminding D's or R's and especially those who are neither, the D's and R's are at best 27 percent of the eligible voters. Independents are far greater in number than they are and 'refuse to vote' for any of them are greatest of all. The D's and R's both have a super majority against them for good reasons which are being ignored at all our peril. That they are not listening, not asking, not representing. They are owned and we are all being played like a two dollar banjo. Fighting for either one of them is exactly what they want and need to keep the con alive.

I keep reminding people this is not professional football, you don't have to watch, much more you are not forced to pick between two teams, please choose neither like most of us are doing because we need an entirely new game. Issues, not personality. Because all owners are always a winner, cashing in, if you do.

Adam Eran , July 24, 2018 at 11:01 am

More generally speaking, there are actually clinical trials of ways to be persuasive. Doctors need this for the difficult patients: the heart patients who don't want to take their meds, the addicts who don't want to quit, etc. It's worth looking up: Motivational Interviewing . The link is to a course offered by Citizens' Climate Lobby, designed to help their members deal with climate change denial.

The key, they say, is forming partnerships. Disagreement can take the form of fights, arguments or partnerships, with only the last providing some prospect for relief.

So providing the "perfect squelch" or putting down one's opponent is the very last thing you want to do. Finding areas of agreement and building on those is the royal road to something more positive.

I've also found some of the worst offenders in the environmental community. These are often former bureaucrats who want to keep the (bankrupt) process in place, but encourage a different outcome. They want to be the "good guys," and judge the environmental "bad guys" rather than make a significant change.

Ah, the human ego! Gotta love it!

Quite Likely , July 24, 2018 at 11:11 am

I tend towards the Socratic approach, both for establishment Democrats and the larger universe of people I disagree with in person. It generally means doing more listening than talking, which I know is a downside for some, but letting people talk things out in front of you with occasional nudges in the right direct does a decent job of moving them gradually in the right direction, and leaves them with an impression of you as a friendly good-listener with whom they have some disagreements rather than that asshole yelling about nonsense.

JohnnyGL , July 24, 2018 at 11:12 am

I'm going to throw out my tips that I've used for years to talk politics in various environments (office, family gatherings, etc).

1) Keep context in mind if you're in the office, keep encounters brief and cordial, couple of news headlines as you breeze by for a couple of minutes. Crack a couple of jokes and try to keep it light. But choose your topics with care, especially if you don't know the person really well.

2) Find common ground: with trumpers you can rail against clintons, obamas, and dem hypocrisy. with clintonites you can talk about how excited you are that Ted Cruz has a real challenge, Paul Ryan's retiring, all the damage Trump is doing to the establishment repubs, etc. Tell them the positive thing about Trump winning is that ALL THE OTHER REPUBS LOST .badly!

3) As far as genuinely changing minds .THESE THINGS TAKE TIME! Some minds aren't open to being changed, some will periodically open and close, and some of us are genuinely trying to figure out WTF is going on in the world (which is why we come to NC!) In any case, minds get changed over weeks and months, not a couple of hours.

4) Understand and remember that you DO NOT have all the answers and think about all things you've changed your mind about over the years and it helps to open minds to SHARE stories with people about what changed your mind and why. If you're not sure why you think what you think, go figure out why! :)

5) Once you've got a certain comfort level, don't be afraid to crack a joke that aggravates the other person, but don't overdo it and don't do a lot of public mocking/shaming.

6) When someone else uses 5) on you, practice to make sure you DO NOT get too mad about it. Get thicker skin, if you can't do it .then you aren't ready to talk politics.

7) Yes, that includes people saying ignorant stuff. That doesn't mean you have to grin and bear it, you don't and you shouldn't. Drop a mild rebuke (no more and no less) and change the subject. Don't ostracize or shame. Keep interacting with people, as much as they want to do so. We've all said stupid $h!t at one time or another, we can and should all be able to forgive/forget. I've certainly said my fair share. But also, people do change their minds over time. It's helpful if you can guide them in a positive direction.

8) Talk about the context in which things happen and put yourself in other people's shoes. This is something I've learned a lot in the last few years and people forget to step back and look at things from a high level. I've been amazed at how much more sense things can make when you think more about context.

marym , July 24, 2018 at 11:34 am

My coping method is mostly avoidance, but if I did intervene it would be something like this:

I agree Trump is ill-suited to the job and has horrible policies.

If Russia (or Russians) interfered with the election, if Trump and his cronies participated in that, or if Trump and cronies had other dealings with Russian that are illegal, Mueller is the right person to figure it out. His whole career has been defending and strengthening the pre-Trump status quo, the "norms" of the military-industrial-corporatist-security complex. If there's a way to push us back in that direction, there may be no one on earth more committed to that job.

Our job is to examine the impacts of current Trump policy, the roots where applicable in those status quo "norms", issues other than Russia that weaken and corrupt our electoral system, failures of centrist Democrat policies to solve problems; and to promote alternative policies and politicians. None of this will be adddressed by any negative Mueller consequences to Trump, and maybe to a few of those around him.

RUKidding , July 24, 2018 at 11:39 am

Whether it's committed liberals (eg, super strong Big D voters) or committed conservatives, there's really not much point in "talking."

I accidentally said something truthful about Trump's/the Republicans' recent tax law, and my super conservative sister launched into a tirade that came right out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. I hadn't meant to stir the pot, either, and what I said was pretty nothingburger. I let her rant for a few minutes; explained my side very graciously and calmly (mainly that MY taxes have been raised, not lowered as advertised), and then I changed the topic.

I know a very few D voter friends who are starting to pay more attention – it's taken a while but they are – and they're starting to see that Big D is NOT their savior, at least, not as they currently exist. Of course, I have Big D friends who revile Bernie Sanders as the worst of the worst, and they're HORRIFIED that he's a socialist!!!111!!!!! Well, there's nothing to say there.

Mostly if I'm thinking about it, I'll drop in a few salient points – as some other commenters have suggested, above – and then mostly walk away.

The Big Fat Propaganda Wurlizter has done it's job, and HOW. And it's not just about conservatives ranting out the usual Fox/Rush rightwing talking points. Now it's so-called liberals ranting out the latest from, I guess (no tv, never watch), Rachael Maddow and similar.

I can barely ever listen to what passes for "nooz" on NPR, but possibly they get their talking points from there, as well. Some of those talking points now come up regularly in the weekend game shows. I duly noted that "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" had James EFFEN Comey on last weeked. R U Kidding ME???? Of course, I didn't listen.

So, go figure.

Both sides are being heavily brainwashed by our M$M. For me: No TV at all and precious little radio (mostly music stations). And judicious nooz paper reading.

Get my real info at sites like this one.

Thanks to all who comment logically here in reality-land.

timbers , July 24, 2018 at 11:41 am

In general, the way I deal with the liberals, partisan Dems, Hillary crowd or whatever you call it, is in person (I'm not on FB) with this type of statement:

"Not one single piece of evidence has every been presented showing Russia meddled in the election. Not one. We don't even have grounds to investigate such a thing. And what evidence we do have points away from Russia. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now saying Russia meddled in the election, have you learned nothing? Russiagate is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."

That usually silences them because they don't have any evidence and some even know that. If they offer "evidence" (like the social media click bait adds) I am usually familiar enough show how silly the examples given are.

meadows , July 24, 2018 at 12:02 pm

I hike regularly w/my buddy who is a 73 year old Nam vet, I am a 65 year old conscientious objector he is blue collar for generations, I am college educated family for generations New Deal Dems forever.

Our concerns in life are the same, the well being of our adult children and grandchildren, our relationships w/our spouses, how to manage our retirements. But Oh do we talk politics! He teases me that I'm a Trumpster because of my deserved critiques of Clinton, Obama and my anger at that gang of liars, as if that means I think Trump and his band of "obligerant" oligarchs are great! (oblivious and belligerent)

The executive branch is a huge about-to-become-extinct dinosaur w/the brain of a tiny reptile, little realizing only the little mammals will survive, while still imagining itself to be king of the place forever.

[Jul 24, 2018] Is Bill Browder the Most Dangerous Man in the World by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... The contrary narrative to that provided by Browder concedes that there was indeed a huge fraud related to as much as $230 million in unpaid Russian taxes on an estimated $1.5 billion of income, but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, who was actually an accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme, using multiple companies and tax avoidance schemes to carry out the deception. Magnitsky, who was on cardiac medication, was indeed arrested and convicted, but he, according to his own family, reportedly died due to his heart condition, possibly exacerbated by negligent authorities who failed to medicate him adequately when he became ill. ..."
"... As Nekrasov worked on the documentary, he discovered that the Browder supported narrative was full of contradictions, omissions and fabrication of evidence . By the time he finished, he realized that the more accurate account of what had occurred with Browder and Magnitsky had been that provided by the Russian authorities. ..."
"... When one gets past all of his bluster and posturing, by one significant metric Bill Browder might well be accounted the most dangerous man in the world. ..."
"... That the U.S. media and Congress appear to be entranced by Browder and dismissive of Moscow's charges against him is symptomatic of just how far the Russia-phobia in the West has robbed people of their ability to see what is right in front of them. To suggest that what is taking place driven by Browder and his friends in high places could well lead to tragedy for all of us would be an understatement. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
Jul 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

At the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin and American President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of resolving potential criminal cases involving citizens of the two countries by permitting interrogators from Washington and Moscow to participate in joint questioning of the individuals named in indictments prepared by the respective judiciaries. The predictable response by the American nomenklatura was that it was a horrible idea as it would potentially require U.S. officials to answer questions from Russians about their activities.

Putin argued, not unreasonably, that if Washington wants to extradite and talk to any of the twelve recently indicted GRU officers the Justice Department has named then reciprocity is in order for Americans and other identified individuals who are wanted by the Russian authorities for illegal activity while in Russia. And if Russian officials are fair game, so are American officials.

A prime target for such an interrogation would be President Barack Obama's Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was widely criticized while in Moscow for being on an apparent mission to cultivate ties with the Russian political opposition and other "pro-democracy" groups. But McFaul was not specifically identified in the press conference, though Russian prosecutors have asked him to answer questions related to the ongoing investigation of another leading critic, Bill Browder, who was named by Putin during the question and answer session. Browder is a major hedge fund figure who, inter alia , is an American by birth. He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 in exchange for British citizenship to avoid paying federal taxes on his worldwide income.

Bill Browder is what used to be referred to as an oligarch, having set up shop in 1999 as Hermitage Capital Management Fund, a hedge fund registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It focused on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the loans-for-shares scheme under Russia's drunkard President Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir Putin. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.

Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton, who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference in the 1996 election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done to it. Yeltsin proved keen to follow oligarchical advice regarding how to strip the former Soviet Union of its vast state-owned assets. Browder's Hermitage Investments profited hugely from the commodities deals that were struck at that time.

Browder and his apologists portray him as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to operate in a corrupt Russian business world. Nevertheless, the loans-for-shares scheme that made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption by all parties involved, an arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder was reportedly involved in money laundering, making false representations on official documents and bribery.

Browder was eventually charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia in 2005 and began to withdraw his assets from the country, but three companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Browder, who refers to himself as Putin's "public enemy #1," has notably been able to sell his tale of innocence to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman, all of whom are always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians and media outlets. In the wake of the Helsinki press conference he has, for example, claimed that Putin named him personally because he is a threat to continue to expose the crimes of the mafia that he claims is currently running Russia, but there is, inevitably, another less discussed alternative view of his self-serving narrative.

Central to the tale of what Browder really represents is the Magnitsky Act , which the U.S. Congress passed into law to sanction individual Kremlin officials for their treatment of alleged whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, arrested and imprisoned in Russia. Browder has sold a narrative which basically says that he and his "lawyer" Sergei Magnitsky uncovered massive tax fraud and, when they attempted to report it, were punished by a corrupt police force and magistracy, which had actually stolen the money. Magnitsky was arrested and died in prison, allegedly murdered by the police to silence him.

The Magnitsky case is of particular importance because both the European Union and the United States have initiated sanctions against the identified Russian officials who were allegedly involved. In the Magnitsky Act , sponsored by Russia-phobic Senator Ben Cardin and signed by President Barack Obama in 2012, the U.S. asserted its willingness to punish foreign governments for human rights abuses. The Act, initially limited to Russia, has now been expanded by virtue of 2016's Global Magnitsky Act , which enabled U.S. sanctions worldwide.

Russia reacted angrily to the first iteration of the Act , noting that the actions taken by its government internally, notably the operation of its judiciary, were being subjected to outside interference, while other judicial authorities also questioned Washington's claimed right to respond to criminal acts committed outside the United States. Moscow reciprocated with sanctions against U.S. officials as well as by increasing pressure on foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups operating in Russia. Some have referred to the Magnitsky Act as the start of the new Cold War.

The contrary narrative to that provided by Browder concedes that there was indeed a huge fraud related to as much as $230 million in unpaid Russian taxes on an estimated $1.5 billion of income, but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, who was actually an accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme, using multiple companies and tax avoidance schemes to carry out the deception. Magnitsky, who was on cardiac medication, was indeed arrested and convicted, but he, according to his own family, reportedly died due to his heart condition, possibly exacerbated by negligent authorities who failed to medicate him adequately when he became ill.

The two competing Browder narratives have been explored in some detail by a Russian documentary film maker Andrei Nekrasov, an outspoken anti-Putin activist, who was actually initially engaged by Browder to do the film. An affable Browder appears extensively in the beginning describing his career and the events surrounding Magnitsky.

As Nekrasov worked on the documentary, he discovered that the Browder supported narrative was full of contradictions, omissions and fabrication of evidence . By the time he finished, he realized that the more accurate account of what had occurred with Browder and Magnitsky had been that provided by the Russian authorities.

When Nekrasov prepared to air his work " The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes," he inevitably found himself confronted by billionaire Browder and a battery of lawyers, who together blocked the showing of the film in Europe and the United States. Anyone subsequently attempting to promote the documentary has been immediately confronted with 300 plus pages of supporting documents accompanying a letter threatening a lawsuit if the film were to be shown to the public.

A single viewing of "The Magnitsky Act" in Washington in June 2016 turned into a riot when Browder supporters used tickets given to Congressional staffers to disrupt the proceedings. At a subsequent hearing before Congress, where he was featured as an expert witness on Russian corruption before a fawning Senate Judiciary Committee, Bill Browder suggested that those who had challenged his narrative and arranged the film's viewing in Washington should be prosecuted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), which includes penalties of up to five years in prison.

Because of the pressure from Browder, there has never been a second public showing of "The Magnitsky Act" but it is possible to see it online at this site .

Bill Browder, who benefited enormously from Russian corruption, has expertly repackaged himself as a paragon among businessmen, endearing himself to the Russia-haters in Washington and the media. Curiously, however, he has proven reluctant to testify in cases regarding his own business dealings. He has, for example, repeatedly run away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath.

When one gets past all of his bluster and posturing, by one significant metric Bill Browder might well be accounted the most dangerous man in the world. Driven by extreme hatred of Putin and of Russia, he personally and his Magnitsky Myth have together done more to launch and sustain a dangerous new Cold War between a nuclear armed United States and a nuclear armed Russia. Blind to what he has accomplished, he continues to pontificate about how Putin is out to get him when instead he is the crook who quite likely stole $230 million dollars and should be facing the consequences. That the U.S. media and Congress appear to be entranced by Browder and dismissive of Moscow's charges against him is symptomatic of just how far the Russia-phobia in the West has robbed people of their ability to see what is right in front of them. To suggest that what is taking place driven by Browder and his friends in high places could well lead to tragedy for all of us would be an understatement.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

tac , July 24, 2018 at 4:45 am GMT

PG:

Please take a look at the documentary that has been quashed by Bill Browder and his enablers, as it has not only been nixed in its premiere in many EU countriu, except Norway, but has been deleted almost immediately when it was made available on YouTube. Now, however, it is still available on bitchute and has almost 13K hits in almost four days after being posted (as of this post):

As an aside, Thank you to Robin and S2C for spreading it so that people can make up their own minds.

tac , July 24, 2018 at 4:51 am GMT
PG:

A special thanks should be made to Robin and S2S for distributing this film. The video is almost at 13K as of this posting. We all have to work together in order to reveal the truth. Perhaps we will benefit in the end, but that is to be determined yet. Nontheless, we must try!

tac , July 24, 2018 at 5:05 am GMT
@tac

Sorry the video on bitchute which you have in your presentation was not present when first losded in my browser, but I must admit from the time I first encountered this video, having just 38 views until now, almost four days later, at almost 13K views, people are certainly paying attention!

RobinG , July 24, 2018 at 5:08 am GMT
YES!!!!

Phil,

Please team up with Stranahan in his campaign to make Senators answer the question, "Have you seen Bill Browder's 2015 deposition in the U.S. vs. Prevazon case?"

Full research sources here , including links to Browder's deposition. See for yourselves how Browder contradicts himself in depositions, Senate testimony and his book. Sad, but maybe not for us!

https://populist.tv/2018/01/20/bill-browder-links-and-resources-to-understand-controversy/

Anonymous [337] Disclaimer , July 24, 2018 at 5:11 am GMT

The darling of the war party

Q: Which party is that?

A: Both of them.

Anon [613] Disclaimer , July 24, 2018 at 6:44 am GMT
SAME THING HAPPENED WITH THE AL JAZEERA DOCUMENTARY ON ISRAELI LOBBY IN AMERICA

For the past year, Qatar has been under tremendous pressure from other US puppet Gulf states (SAudi ARabia, UAE, Egypt etc) and from US and Israeli lobby. There was a economic blockade of Qatar. WHY? Because Al Jazeera was about to release a documentary on Israeli lobby in the US. Its documentary on Israeli lobby in UK had already been embarassing for zionists.

Because of the extreme economic pressure put on Qatar and the threat of sanctions and worse, Qatar (which owns Al Jazeera) shelved the documentary. They also had to grease a lot of zionist organizations in US.

Not only did the Israeli lobby pressure Qatar into shelving the Al Jazeera documentary on the lobby in America, they also shook them down for money.

Qatar donated $250,000 to some of the most extreme pro-Israel organizations in the United States, including one that funds senior Israeli military officers to go on propaganda tours.

Joseph Allaham, a lobbyist working for the Qatari government, transferred the money through his firm Lexington Strategies in late 2017 and early 2018.

The sums included $100,000 to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), $100,000 to Our Soldiers Speak and $50,000 for Blue Diamond Horizons, Inc.

jilles dykstra , July 24, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
The USA idea about justice is best expressed by a USA law, allowing an invasion of the Netherlands, if a USA citizen would be in the The Hague prison of the International Court.

To liberate this USA citizen. " far the Russia-phobia in the West has robbed people of their ability to see what is right in front of them " Nothing new, in the 30ties Kennan was unable to make USA ambassador Davies see through Stalin's show trials.
George F. Kennan, ´Memoirs 1925 – 1950', New York 1967, 1972

Greg Bacon , Website July 24, 2018 at 7:43 am GMT

" American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman "

American? I beg to differ. All of those turncoats serve their Master Israel and kiss the nether regions of those TBTF Wall Street Casinos.

Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs – eight of whom are Jews – who stole hundreds of billions from Russia when it was decompressing from being the USSR, helped by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies who also filled their pockets.

Watch the tough guy Browder run like a scared bunny rabbit in NYC from a process server.

Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol, tried, convicted and spend the rest of his sorry life in a Super Max prison for his thefts, frauds and helping to poison the relationship between the USA & Russia, in an effort to save his sorry ass from prosecution.

Tom Welsh , July 24, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
"Central to the tale of what Browder really represents is the Magnitsky Act, which the U.S. Congress passed into law to sanction individual Kremlin officials for their treatment of alleged whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, arrested and imprisoned in Russia".

Hmmm. The USA has its whistleblowers, too. Maybe Russia (and other civilized countries) should impose their own sanctions on all American officials in any way involved with the persecution of Chelsea Clinton, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and others.

Although the existing US sanctions are a dead letter, since they will not get their hands on the people they are trying to harm, they still give the world a wholly misleading impression.

The sanctions insidiously suggest to the people and governments of the world that the US government is somehow entitled to decide what is legal and what is illegal everywhere – not just within its own jurisdiction – and moreover that it has the power to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner against any of the world's citizens.

That is wrong, illegal, immoral, and unconscionable, and should not be tolerated.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 24, 2018 at 8:45 am GMT
As a Jew, I look at Bill Browder and feel how I imagine decent black Americans feel when they look at thuggish ebonic-speaking black street dealers.

If you're going to be an awful bloke can you at least not conform to racist stereotypes?

Den Lille Abe , July 24, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
He is "just" another robber baron
The Alarmist , July 24, 2018 at 10:37 am GMT

"Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton, who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference in the 1996 election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done to it."

[emphasis mine]

So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage?

#MeToo

Cagey Beast , July 24, 2018 at 10:58 am GMT
@tac

This is most likely the one you mean:

THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQ3qEwX66pIL/

vinteuil , July 24, 2018 at 11:01 am GMT
Andrei Nekrasov's documentary is absolutely damning – how, after viewing it, could anybody see Browder as anything but a shameless serial liar? The closest I can find on the internet to a rebuttal is from the Daily Beast:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dissident-director-helped-trumps-russia-comrade-attack-us

a ridiculous hatchet job which doesn't even begin to engage with Nekrasov's evidence.

Cagey Beast , July 24, 2018 at 11:07 am GMT
@Cagey Beast

Ooops, I posted this comment before seeing that this video was already posted above in the article. I got a link to it from an entirely different source. It shows how it's getting around! Good.

geokat62 , July 24, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
@Greg Bacon

Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol

Although I posted this comment under another thread, I think it bears repeating here (especially relevant to your point is the bolded part):

I think debunking the vulture capitalist Bill Browder's false claim of being, of all things, a human rights advocate is the key to unraveling the Russia-gate hoax. I also think the following information goes a long way in doing that:

1. Nekrasov's documentary, The Magnitsky Act: Behind The Scenes, now available for viewing

2. Alex Krainer's The Killing of William Browder, now available online; and

3. Bill Browder's Previzon deposition in which he claims "I can't remember" at least 50 times and answers "I don't know" fully 211 times.

Notwithstanding these facts, it appears Mr. Browder is an untouchable. The Russians have issued a Red Notice at least six times and he has managed to walk away scot free on each occasion.

The zinger was when the Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to testify as an expert witness against Fusion GPS, arguing that it should have registered under FARA because it was working on behalf of a foreign government, in this case the Russian. The irony of this scene was incredible. The hallowed chamber in which this inquiry took place is completely bought and paid for by The Lobby but not a peep about having it register under FARA. Totally surreal!

jilles dykstra , July 24, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

Is jewish eyesight different from non jewish eyesight ?
I never look as a Dutchman, or a Frysian, whatever you like.

PasDeTout , July 24, 2018 at 11:58 am GMT
Thanks again to Philip Giraldi for another informative article. The film you linked is on my to-do list today.
Anonymous lurker , July 24, 2018 at 12:00 pm GMT
An interesting thing about this that has gone almost completely unreported is that HSBC quietly held a series of closed-door meetings with Russian authorities earlier this year regarding the tax fraud charges leveled at Browder and his businesses (HSBC jointly managed Hermitage) and decided to pay up some of the cash he illegally siphoned out of the country (22 million dollars I believe, so a drop in the ocean given the scale of his endeavors, but it's something.)

"Bill Browder declined to comment" according to one of the few articles on the matter.

Isn't all of that more or less tantamount to an admission of guilt?

Anonymous [128] Disclaimer , July 24, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT
Questions I have:

(1) Why is he so protected?

(2) How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country? No jury in the world would reach a verdict based solely on the word of a convict, without it being substantiated by numerous pieces of other circumstantial and direct evidence.

(3) Even if he paid everyone oodles of money and brought a thousand lawsuits, why would gazillionaire corporations cave in to his demands to ban books, movies, organizations, etc.?

There is something more powerful about Bill Browder than just his pile of money.

Johnny Smoggins , July 24, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
You'd think that a man who gave up his US citizenship to dodge his tax bill would be seen as a villain, not defended by presidents and congressmen.
Andrei Martyanov , Website July 24, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Anonymous

How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country?

US Congress has an approval rating slightly above that of Al Qaeda and Ted Bundy.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/

In fact, most (not all) US lawmakers long ago became a euphemism for incompetence, corruption and lies. So, no–modern US Congress is not respectable by people and numbers reflect that. Hopefully, sometime in the future, some honorable and loyal to their country people will make it there.

DESERT FOX , July 24, 2018 at 1:26 pm GMT
Browder is a Zionist Bolshevik of the stripe that murdered some 60 million Russians from 1917 to 1957 and as such is not only an enemy of Russia but an even greater enemy of America and is a typical communist who wrecks and destroys countries.

Read THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION, Browder is a poster boy for these thieves and murderers .

vinteuil , July 24, 2018 at 1:28 pm GMT
You'd think that a man who gave up his US citizenship to dodge his tax bill would be seen as a villain, not defended by presidents and congressmen.

Yeah, you'd think that.

Anatoly Karlin , Website July 24, 2018 at 1:28 pm GMT
Couple of other standard narrative-critical articles on the Magnitsky Affair:

* kovane: Sergei Magnitsky, Bill Browder, Hermitage Capital Management and Wondrous Metamorphoses

* Lucy Komisar: The Man Behind the Magnitsky Act Did Bill Browder's Tax Troubles in Russia Color Push for Sanctions?

Stel , July 24, 2018 at 1:31 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

The 'Netherlands Invasion Act' is a former fact popularized by Noam Chomsky. The Netherlands invasion provisions were quietly repealed because it was too embarrassing and disruptive to US policy. What remains is a prohibition against US assistance to certain criminal investigations. Putin poked at the same neuralgic spot in Helsinki when he proposed reciprocity in mutual legal assistance. The issue is US impunity for war propaganda and coercive interference.

The US government has asserted a specific reservation to the international prohibition of war propaganda (ICCPR Article 20.) And legal experts are chipping away at the nonsense rationale behind the US reservation. The US claims it is defending free speech, so Article 19 and other NGOs propose an important distinction:

. Dumb broke Joe Blow with his bumper sticker that says Make Iran a Parking Lot
. Concerted government and media campaigns advocating war.

Only the latter constitutes illegal war propaganda, which is illegal under conventional international law (UN Charter Article 2(4)), customary international law (E/Conf. 6/C.i/ig of 1948 and other resolutions), and legal precedent (Nuremberg Count 1).

So when Russia gets fed up and decapitates the US regime, Browder will be in the cage at the war crimes tribunal under the Streicher, Fritzsche, Dietrich, and von Weizsaeker Nuremberg precedents.

Prester John , July 24, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Where is the outrage? You ain't gonna get it from Big Media, who sold out a long time ago. BM has all but ignored the Clinton Administration collusion with Yeltsin in the Russian 1996 election. It was an, er, "inconvenient truth."

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , July 24, 2018 at 2:30 pm GMT
Can someone help me remember the names of those 9 oligarchs?

These are the ones I remember:

1) Anatoly Chubais
2) Browder
3) Boris Berezovsky
4) Mikhail Khodorkovsky
5) Vladimir Gusinsky

Who were the others? Thanks.

Of these 5, Chubais remained in Russia but the others fled. Chubais was the one who was instrumental in starting the loans-for-shares scheme. My understanding is that those who fled are real scum, since Putin offered all oligarchs the chance to keep their money so long as they avoided politics. Most vulture capitalists agreed to this arrangement, but the worst of the Jewish oligarchs were too greedy and lustful to give in. So I have heard, anyway.

[Jul 24, 2018] What puzzles me a bit isn't "them" or their servants (media etc.). It's people in general. They appear to be buying that manufactured reality with ease. In this era of instant communications it's.......sobering.

Jul 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

peterAUS

Agree.

Having a title "Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment" and approaching this effort as "mass insanity","demented chorus" etc. is simply delusional.

They know exactly what they are doing and, it appears, they are doing it well.
The are able to create their own reality.

What puzzles me a bit isn't "them" or their servants (media etc.). It's people in general. They appear to be buying that manufactured reality with ease. In this era of instant communications it's.......sobering.

This constant shitting on "them" and their servants is fine and dandy but feels as just a feel good exercise.
Perhaps some effort could be spared in trying to analyze and explain common people approach to all this. The buying, hook and sinker, that manufacture.

Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how false all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online can't, for SOME reason, figure all that out.

Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever.
Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general.

Not holding my breath.

lavoisier , Website Next New Comment July 23, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT

@peterAUS

Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how false all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online can't, for SOME reason, figure all that out.

Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever.
Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general.

Not holding my breath.

I fully agree with this sentiment. The only reason the evil bastards who control our society can get away with their treachery is because most of the American people are out to lunch on the most important issues of our time. If the sheeple were to take responsibility to inform themselves of what is happening today they would be able to see the lies they are being constantly exposed to as just that–lies. And then, they could put down the beer and turn off the damn sports channel and get angry at what has happened to their country.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for ignorant people to remain ignorant.

skrik , Next New Comment July 23, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT

Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general

Ma-a-ate! Let me give you a quick refresher on "1984:"

1st, the inner party – that's my ccc @ 25.

2nd, the outer party – that's Ike's MI-complex, which I expand to:

The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption.

a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches

add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies

We can add the -plexes to their main 'allied criminal regimes' and get FUKUSIL.

3rd, the proles in the book are the proles in real life.

4th, 'hate sessions' are mediated by the US/Z-MMH = corrupt&venal Media (aka press, radio + TV, incl. PFBCs = publicly financed broadcasters), Madison Ave., Hollywood etc..

5th, as well as "All politicians lie!" [thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward], most politicians are a) ccc-puppets and b) traitors to us, we the people and our countries.

Fazit: Even if most proles really were switched-on = fully and fairly informed, their votes would still mean nothing since there is a disconnect [my 5th.] Unless you are thinking 'pitch-forks and tumbrels,' there's nothing effective that we, the people can do. "1984″ is pretty-well exactly our reality, and here is a bit of proof:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who *manipulate* this unseen mechanism of society *constitute an invisible government* which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

There is a lie in there, surrounding "must cooperate" – it's simply not true – but worse, worst: " an invisible government ." The latter is what is termed 'deep state' tyranny; the foul, un-elected and criminal puppet-string manipulators (part of the 1%) – again, the ccc.

The lie-cloud they choke the sheople's minds with is deliberately 'spiced' with scientifically designed psychological propaganda, and that's what does the majority of dumbing-down damage.

Ta ra! The Bernays haze. Choke on that.

PS Q: Is there any hope at all? A: Apart from hope being hopeless policy, there *could* be a solution, whereby a big enough proportion of the 1%, a decent portion [should such a thing exist] could call a halt to the ccc and its murder-most-foul depredations.

yurivku , Next New Comment July 23, 2018 at 10:43 am GMT
Looking to this circus from Russia, to those insane speaches, insulting caricatures in MSM, I understand the huge amount of rotteness of Western society, mainly its high top part, but not only. Even here in comments (not in this particularly article) the percentage of trolls and brainwashed idiots exceeds all I could've imagined. So I stopped writing here – no sense, I beleive that something can change only after the dramatic changes in US/West society and that is possible only after a big war/revolution.
So, I'm afraid our future is vague

[Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

... ... ...

The Helsinki hysteria shone a spotlight on the utter impotence of the establishment media and their Deep State controllers to make their delusions reality. Never before has there been such a gaping chasm visible between the media's "truth" and the facts on the ground. Pundits compared the summit to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 , with some even reaching for the brass ring of the Holocaust by likening it to Kristallnacht , while polls revealed the American people really didn't care .

Worse, it laid bare the collusion between the media and their Deep State handlers – the central dissemination point for the headlines, down to the same phrases, that led to every outlet claiming Trump had "thrown the Intelligence Community under the bus" by refusing to embrace the Russia-hacked-our-democracy narrative during his press conference with Putin. Leaving aside the sudden ubiquity of "Intelligence Community" in our national discourse – as if this network of spies and murderous thugs is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood – no one seriously believes every pundit came up with "throws under the bus" as the proper way of describing that press conference.

The same central control was apparent in the unanimous condemnations of Putin – that he murders journalists , breaks international agreements , uses banned chemical weapons , kills women and children in Syria , and, of course, meddles in elections . For every single establishment pundit to exhibit such a breathtaking lack of insight into their own government's misdeeds is highly unlikely. Many of these same talking heads remarked in horror on Sinclair Broadcasting's Orwellian "prepared statement" issuing forth from the mouths of hundreds of stations' anchors at once. Et tu, Anderson Cooper?

Helsinki – Trump and Putin – a Showdown for Summer Doldrums or a Genuine Attempt Towards Peace?

The media frenzy was geared toward sparking a popular revolt, with tensions already running high from the previous media frenzy about family separation at the border (though only one MSNBC segment seemed to recall that they should still care about that, and belatedly included some footage of kids behind a fence wrapped in Mylar blankets). Rachel Maddow , armed with the crocodile tears that served her so well during the family-separation fracas, exhorted her faithful cultists to do something . Meanwhile, national-security neanderthal John Brennan all but called for a coup, condemning the president for the unspeakable "high crimes and misdemeanors" of seeking to improve relations with the world's second-largest nuclear power. He called on Pompeo and Bolton, the two biggest warmongers in a Trump administration bristling with warmongers, to resign in protest. This would have been a grand slam for world peace, but alas, it was not to be. Even those two realize what a has-been Brennan is.

Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker.

Trump's grip on his long-elusive spine was only temporary, and he held another press conference upon returning home to reiterate his trust in the intelligence agencies that have made no secret of their utter loathing for him since day one. When the lights went out at the climactic moment, it became clear for anyone who still hadn't gotten the message who was running the show here (and Trump, to his credit, actually joked about it). The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. On to the Playmates .

Sacha Baron Cohen 's latest series, "Who is America," targeted Ted Koppel for one segment. Koppel cut the interview short after smelling a rat and expressed his high-minded concern that Cohen's antics would hurt Americans' trust in reporters. But after a week of the entire media establishment screaming that the sky is falling while the heavens remain firmly in place, Cohen is clearly the least of their problems. At least he's funny.

*

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski .

[Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

... ... ...

The Helsinki hysteria shone a spotlight on the utter impotence of the establishment media and their Deep State controllers to make their delusions reality. Never before has there been such a gaping chasm visible between the media's "truth" and the facts on the ground. Pundits compared the summit to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 , with some even reaching for the brass ring of the Holocaust by likening it to Kristallnacht , while polls revealed the American people really didn't care .

Worse, it laid bare the collusion between the media and their Deep State handlers – the central dissemination point for the headlines, down to the same phrases, that led to every outlet claiming Trump had "thrown the Intelligence Community under the bus" by refusing to embrace the Russia-hacked-our-democracy narrative during his press conference with Putin. Leaving aside the sudden ubiquity of "Intelligence Community" in our national discourse – as if this network of spies and murderous thugs is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood – no one seriously believes every pundit came up with "throws under the bus" as the proper way of describing that press conference.

The same central control was apparent in the unanimous condemnations of Putin – that he murders journalists , breaks international agreements , uses banned chemical weapons , kills women and children in Syria , and, of course, meddles in elections . For every single establishment pundit to exhibit such a breathtaking lack of insight into their own government's misdeeds is highly unlikely. Many of these same talking heads remarked in horror on Sinclair Broadcasting's Orwellian "prepared statement" issuing forth from the mouths of hundreds of stations' anchors at once. Et tu, Anderson Cooper?

Helsinki – Trump and Putin – a Showdown for Summer Doldrums or a Genuine Attempt Towards Peace?

The media frenzy was geared toward sparking a popular revolt, with tensions already running high from the previous media frenzy about family separation at the border (though only one MSNBC segment seemed to recall that they should still care about that, and belatedly included some footage of kids behind a fence wrapped in Mylar blankets). Rachel Maddow , armed with the crocodile tears that served her so well during the family-separation fracas, exhorted her faithful cultists to do something . Meanwhile, national-security neanderthal John Brennan all but called for a coup, condemning the president for the unspeakable "high crimes and misdemeanors" of seeking to improve relations with the world's second-largest nuclear power. He called on Pompeo and Bolton, the two biggest warmongers in a Trump administration bristling with warmongers, to resign in protest. This would have been a grand slam for world peace, but alas, it was not to be. Even those two realize what a has-been Brennan is.

Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker.

Trump's grip on his long-elusive spine was only temporary, and he held another press conference upon returning home to reiterate his trust in the intelligence agencies that have made no secret of their utter loathing for him since day one. When the lights went out at the climactic moment, it became clear for anyone who still hadn't gotten the message who was running the show here (and Trump, to his credit, actually joked about it). The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. On to the Playmates .

Sacha Baron Cohen 's latest series, "Who is America," targeted Ted Koppel for one segment. Koppel cut the interview short after smelling a rat and expressed his high-minded concern that Cohen's antics would hurt Americans' trust in reporters. But after a week of the entire media establishment screaming that the sky is falling while the heavens remain firmly in place, Cohen is clearly the least of their problems. At least he's funny.

*

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski .

[Jul 23, 2018] Obama married the neocons to the humanitarian bombers to the SJWs. It s a powerful bond.

Jul 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Patrick Armstrong -> Jack , 9 hours ago
Obama married the neocons to the humanitarian bombers to the SJWs. It's a powerful bond.
Valissa Rauhallinen -> Patrick Armstrong , 8 hours ago
Great insight! I'm adding that to my Favorite Quotes archive.

As I pondered more deeply on your insight, I tried to imagine how the courtship proceeded. IMO, it was Clinton who presided over the engagement of the neocons to the humanitarian bombers (R2P'ers). Then under Bush the relationship initially strengthened due to 9/11 until the Iraq war became such an obvious mess that there was a brief cooling of ardor due to a still significant antiwar contingent in the Dem party. Under Obama the antiwar Dems began to suffer something like "Stockholm syndrome" as few were willing to protest against the black president of their SJW fantasies. This set the final stage for the neocons and R2P'ers to commit to each other in "marriage" who then "adopted" the SJW's as their useful idiots.

[Jul 23, 2018] Usage Examples of Our Intelligence Community, with Implications

Notable quotes:
"... "Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) ..."
"... On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence community ." ..."
"... Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs." ..."
"... That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions." ..."
"... The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor, exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow, exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Usage Examples of "Our Intelligence Community", with Implications Posted on July 22, 2018 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

"Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) So I thought I'd throw together some usage examples of the term to see if I could find more significant readings than my own reaction, and then draw out some implications from that reading. But first, let's look at how often that term is used, and where. We turn to Google Trends :

Some caveats: Google doesn't have enough data to track "our intelligence community," or so it says, so the search is for "intelligence community" only.

Further, the search is for 2008 to the present, again because Google, or so it says, doesn't have enough data for shorter time frames.[1] However, I think the chart shows that interest in the intelligence community is not general in time or space: It spikes when there's gaslighting with reader interest in particular stories, and spikes along the Acela Corridor, in Washington and New York. (We might also speculate, based on HuffPost/YouGov voter data , that interest in the today's stories about the intelligence is limited not only in space, and time, but in scope: Primarily among liberal Democrats.[2]) With that, let's turn to our usage examples.

I used Google to find them, and of course Google search is crapified and all but useless -- for example, it insists on returning examples of "intelligence community" along with "our intelligence community" in normal search, even with when the search string is quoted -- but it is what it is; readers are invited to supply their own examples.

Example 1, July 13, 2018, New York Times :

On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence community ."

No. Mueller provided no evidence and the case is unlikely to go to trial; the capability consists in the naming, not in the proof. Verdict: Credulity .

Example 2, July 3, 2018, Washington Post :

The intelligence community determined that the Kremlin intended to "denigrate" and "harm" Clinton, and "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process" while helping Trump.

And the same claim, July 10, 2018, Washington Post:

The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to boost Trump's candidacy

No. If you click through, you'll find that this is the "17 agencies"/"high confidence" report, whose agencies and analysts were hand-picked by Clapper; that's just not the "intelligence community" as a whole[3]; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was not involved in the analysis, for example. (I don't see how it's normal that such an important topic not to be the subject of a Presidental Finding, but perhaps people were in a rush.) Verdict; Misinformation .

Example 3, July 19, 2018, ( retiring ) Senator Jeff Flake (R), New York Times :

FLAKE: We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence community . We need to say that in the Senate. Yes, it's symbolic, and symbolism is important.

And a similar formulation, July 22, 2018, Senator Marco Rubio (R), CBS News :

We need to move forward from that with good public policy and part of that is, I think, standing with our intelligence community .

Posturing aside, to my sensibilities, it's pretty disturbing when "support the troops" bleeds over into "support the spies," and when supporting the conclusions of an institution bleeds over into supporting the institution itself, as such. (The whole of the Federalist Papers argues against the latter view: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") Verdict: Authoritarian followership .

Example 4, undated, Office of the Director of National Intelligence :

WE UNIFY OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TOWARD A STRONGER, SAFER NATION

No. The DNI mistakes the hope for the fact; were the intelligence community in fact unified , Clapper would not have hand-picked agencies for his report, and a Presidential Finding would have been made. (And given the source, "our" is doing even more work there than it usual does; it reminds of liberal Democrats talking about "our Democracy." Whose, exactly?) Verdict: Wishful thinking .

Example 5, July 16, 2018, John Sipher (interview), PBS :

I do think the intelligence community is quite resilient. They put their head down and they do their work, but they take this very seriously. And they see the president as their primary customer and they will do almost anything to get the president the information that he needs to do his job.

No. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- "Who will guard the guards themselves?" -- was formulated by the Roman poet Juvenal (d. 138AD) in the late first or early second century, [checks calculator], about 1880 years ago. It's absurd to assume that "the intelligence" community has always served its "primary customer" -- see the Bay of Pigs invastion at " groupthink " -- or that they will in the future, especially considering the enormous stakes involved today. Verdict: Historical ignorance .

Example 6, July 12, 2018, Representative Barbara Comstock :

Today I voted for H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. This important legislation funds our Intelligence community and provides them the resources they need to effectively defend our nation "This legislation makes sure that the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in the Intelligence Community [caps in the original] are fully equipped to fulfill their mission."

No. While Sipher urges ( as does Clapper ) that the intelligence community is in the business of serving customers, Comstock, through her language ("dedicated men and women who serve our nation") identifies it with the military. That's pretty disturbing when you realize that the intelligence community has a domestic component (and when you think back to Obama's 17-city crackdown on Occupy, or Obama's militarized response to #BlackLivesMatter). Verdict: Militarization

Example 7, July 16, 2018, ABC :

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, head of the U.S. intelligence community , reaffirmed his conclusion that Russia had indeed tried to sway the election in a statement published after Trump's remarks.

No. The U.S. has 17 intelligence agencies; the DNI is in no sense their head. From the DNI site :

The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful intelligence possible. That means effectively operating as one team: synchronizing collection, analysis and counterintelligence so that they are fused. This integration is the key to ensuring national policymakers receive timely and accurate analysis from the IC to make educated decisions.

If you boil that bureucratic porridge down -- the Russian word for porridge is kasha , in case kompromat has worn thin for you -- you'll see that the 17 intelligence agencies do not have a reporting relationship to the DNI. Hence, the DNI is not their head. QED. Verdict: Authoritarian followership

Example 8, July 18, 2018, John Brennan, Salon :

[BRENNAN:] What Mr. Trump did (Monday) was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA and NSA and others and betray the American public. That's why I use the term, this was nothing short of treason, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He's giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

(Leaving aside Brennan's broad definition of enemy -- apparently a sovereign state with interests different from our own, as opposed to a nation against whom Congress has declared war -- note that Brennan treats the agencies as individual entities, not as "unified," presumably betraying DNI Coats). More:

BRENNAN:] I still shake my head trying to understand what was discussed during the two-hour one-on-one, what was discussed between the two sides in their bilateral meeting. We only saw what Mr. Trump said during the press conference. I can't even imagine what he said behind closed doors. I can't imagine what he said to Mr. Putin directly. I am very concerned about what type of impact it might have on our intelligence community and on this country."

No. Note well: What ( torture advocate ) Brennan says contradicts the other two models expressed in this aggregation. If the President is the customer, it's not Brennan's concern what that customer does (any more than it's Best Buy's concern what I buy in Starbucks after I pick up my flat-screen TV). And if the intelligence community is a branch of the military, it's not their concern what their Commander-in-Chief does; he'll tell them what they need to know.) Seriously, why does the Praetorian Guard need to know what the emperor is doing. Now, one could argue that Brennan's ambition is counteracting Trump's ambition; well and good, but then one needs to think through the consequences. And if Brennan, et al., really believe that Trump committed treason, then they -- as the good patriots they presumably are -- need to indicate a path to removing him. If that path does not include full disclosure of the evidence for whatever charges are to be made, then the country will have to deal with the consequences -- which I'd speculate won't be pretty -- of a change in the Constitutional order where the "intelligence community" can remove a President from office based on its own internal consensus . Praetorian

(Here's a collection of examples ; I wish I had time to do more examples, but these will have to do.)

But speaking of the internal consensus of the intelligence community, let's take a little walk down memory lane . From the "Salon Staff," quoting Senator Jane Harmon:

Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."

One week later, on February 5th, Secretary of State Colin Powell, with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet sitting behind his right shoulder, used charts and photographs to elaborate on the Administration's WMD case. "These are not assertions," Powell said, "these are facts corroborated by many sources." Among Powell's claims were:

That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."

Powell has subsequently said that he spent days personally assessing the intelligence. He included only information he felt was fully supported by the analysis. Hence, no mention of enriched uranium from Africa, no claim that al Qaeda was involved in 9-11.

The effect was powerful. Veteran columnist for the Washington Post, Mary McGrory, known for liberal views and Kennedy connections, wrote an op-ed the following day entitled "I Am Persuaded". Members of Congress, like me, believed the intelligence case. We voted for the resolution on Iraq to urge U.N. action and to authorize military force only if diplomacy failed. We felt confident we had made the wise choice.

But as the evidence pours in the Intelligence Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence; David Kay's interim report on the failure to find WMD in Iraq; an impressive study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board's critique; thoughtful commentaries like that of Ken Pollack in this month's Atlantic Monthly; and investigative reporting including a lengthy front page story by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post on January 7,

we are finding out that Powell and other policymakers were wrong, British intelligence was wrong, and those of us who believed the intelligence were wrong . Indeed, I doubt there would be discussions of David Kay's possible departure if the Iraq Survey Group were on the verge of uncovering large stockpiles of weapons or an advanced nuclear weapons program.

But if 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots, it appears that the Intelligence Community, in the case of Iraq's WMD, connected the dots to the wrong conclusions . If our intelligence products had been better, I believe many policymakers, including me, would have had a far clearer picture of the sketchiness of our sources on Iraq's WMD programs, and our lack of certainty about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.

Let me add that policymakers -- including members of Congress -- have a duty to ask tough questions, to probe the information being presented to them. We also have a duty to portray that information publicly as accurately as we can.

The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor, exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow, exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government.

Why are we doing that? Well, if you look at the verdicts after each of the quotes I've found, taking the quotes as a proxy for elite opinion, one reason might be that the portion of our elites involved in the Russia narrative -- who, let us remember, are limited in space and scope -- are:

If power is lying in the street, beware of who picks it up. Matters might not improve.

NOTES .

[1] The hit count (100 for the spike in January 2017) is oddly low; sadly, although 100 looks like a blue link, we cannot click through to check the data. However, even if the aggregates are low, I think we can assume that both the shape of the trend line and its geographic distribution are directionally correct, because the spikes occur at reasonable places for them to occur. Sidebar: Note the horrid user interface design, which uses inordinate amounts of screen space to no purpose, disrespecting the time-pressed professional user.

[2] We might even go so far as to speculate that -- given these limitations in space -- that while "our" asserts Democrat leadership as a National party, Democrats are in fact a State party. Removing the hyphen from "nation-state" is a neat way of encapsulating our current legitimacy crisis.

[3] "Intelligence community," like "deep state," connotes unity among institutions that are in fact riven by faction.

ADDENDUM: Scott Horton

I didn't add this material to the post proper, because I only had screen shots, and I wasn't able to find the post in time using Google, or Facebook's lousy search. So after ten minutes of plowing through Facebook's infinite scroll, here is the embed* from Scott Horton that I sought:

And a screen shot personally taken by me:

Note the lead: "European intelligence analysts ," so reminiscent of Bush's "British intelligence has learned " (the sixteen words ). What they "learned," of course, was the faked evidence on Niger yellowcake. Go through my list of "verdicts," starting with "credulous," and see what does not apply to Horton.

Horton is a Contributing Editor to Harper's Magazine, has a law practice in New York, and is affiliate with Columbia Law School and the Open Society Institute.

Corey Robin's reaction ( via ):

I agree. And from a voter:

The key point, for me, is this: "Liberal Democrats do not view anyone outside of places like Orange and Lexington County (whom they go all-out to court) as people fit to make their own choices." It's important to watch for outright denial of agency, to others, not merely lack of agency. That's true for Horton, it was true for Clinton's "deplorables" comment, and it was true for Obama's "bitter"/"cling to" Kinseley gaffe.

It would be nice if Senator Sanders didn't signal boost this stuff. Here's another usage example of "intelligence community":

Or, to put this another way, Sanders needs to get his supporters' backs, and fast, with messaging that doesn't take a "duck and cover" approach by repeating the catchphrases of the current onslaught, but contextualizes and decontaminates it. I didn't say that would be easy

NOTE * I like the picture the Time chose very much; apparently, the evul left is young, female, swarthy, and/or black. No suburban Republicans here! The "AbolishICE" t-shirt -- and not, say, #MedicareForAll -- is also a nice touch.

[Jul 23, 2018] Report Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Revealed Under Oath That There Was No Basis for Mueller's Appointment

Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon . It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign and then sabotage the presidency that resulted. ..."
"... she offered a bombshell confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen (keep in mind that there are many yet to be released). ..."
"... The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters. ..."
"... We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber , who is investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes. That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury sessions, if summoned. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

By Thomas Lifson Global Research, July 23, 2018 American Thinker 20 July 2018

The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon . It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign and then sabotage the presidency that resulted.

Earlier reports indicated that Page has been answering questions from the House Judiciary Committee quite frankly and may even have cut a deal selling out her ex-lover Peter Strzok over their professional misbehavior (and quite possibly worse) in targeting the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump with the intelligence-gathering tools of the FBI.

Last night, John Solomon of The Hill revealed that he has obtained information from sources who heard Page's testimony in two days of sworn depositions behind closed doors that she offered a bombshell confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen (keep in mind that there are many yet to be released).

Writing in The Hill , Solomon explains :

[T]here are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. "There's no big there there," Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say – but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was "there."

The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters.

We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber , who is investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes. That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury sessions, if summoned.

The glacial pace of this probe is frustrating for Trump-supporters. But doing it right and observing the ethical and legal constraints takes time and does not generate leaks. Nevertheless, I am deeply encouraged by this leak to Solomon, as it seems to indicate that the truth will come out.

Appearing on Hannity last night, Solomon elaborated: watch video here .

[Jul 23, 2018] The American Dream Has Been Irreparably Broken by William Hanna

Notable quotes:
"... There are many respects in which America, if it can bring itself to act with the magnanimity and the empathy appropriate to its size and power, can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of generous understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation for peace in our relations with Russia, of reliable and respectful partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of material helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with the developing nations, of abstention from the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of the all-around advantages of minding one's own business in our relations with everybody. ..."
"... Most of all, we have the opportunity to serve as an example of democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be 'the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all' but 'the champion and vindicator only of her own.'" ..."
"... U.S. Senator James W. Fulbright (1905-1995) The Arrogance of Power, 1966. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Nov 27, 2017

There are many respects in which America, if it can bring itself to act with the magnanimity and the empathy appropriate to its size and power, can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of generous understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation for peace in our relations with Russia, of reliable and respectful partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of material helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with the developing nations, of abstention from the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of the all-around advantages of minding one's own business in our relations with everybody.

Most of all, we have the opportunity to serve as an example of democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be 'the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all' but 'the champion and vindicator only of her own.'"

U.S. Senator James W. Fulbright (1905-1995) The Arrogance of Power, 1966.

Despite having met and befriended some fine Americans over the years, my long-held opinion of the U.S. in particular and the American people in general -- an opinion confirmed after I read Senator Fulbright's book in the late 60s -- has not only remained doggedly unchanged, but has in fact become more entrenched and pessimistic. Such entrenched pessimism stems from the inescapable truth that regardless of an illusory concept of the "American exceptionalism" that arrogantly presumes to present itself as the "superpower" champion of democracy and human rights, the U.S. is in reality the world's biggest violator of the very ideals it so hypocritically claims to champion.

This superpower which straddles the world with some 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad -- Britain, France, and Russia combined have only about 30 foreign bases -- has been responsible for the killing of more than 20 million people in 37 "Victim Nations" Since World War Two .

... ... ...

William Hanna is a freelance writer with published books the Hiramic Brotherhood of the Third Temple, The Tragedy of Palestine and its Children, and Hiramic Brotherhood: Ezekiel's Temple Prophesy which is also due to be published in Arabic, Chinese, French, Italian, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Book and purchase information, sample chapters, reviews, other articles, videos, and contact details at: http://www.hiramicbrotherhood.com

[Jul 23, 2018] "Summitgate" screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite

Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Giuseppe , Next New Comment July 23, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT

This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations.

They are CIA assets who do what they're told.

[Jul 23, 2018] US diplomats act like imperial governors riding roughshod over sovereignty of national governments by John Laughland

Notable quotes:
"... More shocking than Nuland's bad language, however, was what the conversation was about. The US government officials were discussing how to put their men into power in Ukraine - which of the three then opposition factions would dominate, who would take the lead (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) and who would be excluded (Vladimir Klitschko). At the time of this conversation, early February 2014, their enemy Viktor Yanukovych was still president. The leaked recording proved that the US and its Kiev embassy were actively involved in a regime change operation. The composition of the post-Maidan government corresponded exactly with US plans. ..."
"... What few people knew at the time was that such levels of control over the composition of foreign governments had become standard practice for US embassies all over the world. As I could see on my very numerous travels around the Balkans in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the US ambassador was treated by the political class and the media in those countries not as the officially accredited representative of a foreign government but instead as an imperial governor whose pronunciamentos were more important than those of the national government. ..."
"... "As regards parallels between Nicaragua in 1989-90 and Belarus today, I plead guilty. Our objective and to some degree methodology are the same." ..."
"... "pseudo-Euroskeptic" ..."
"... " interference " ..."
"... "fifth columnists" ..."
"... "Euro-Atlantic structures" ..."
"... "It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.rt.com

Photo (omitted): Geoffrey R. Pyatt (L) and Samantha Power on Maidan square, in Kiev on June 10, 2015 © YURY KIRNICHNY / AFP

On the world's Grand Chessboard, the US is fighting for control and influence. And there are countries where its ambassadors are perceived more as imperial governors than simple channels of communication. At the height of the Maidan protests in Kiev in early 2014, a conversation was leaked between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the then-Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland. The conversation gained notoriety because Nuland said to Pyatt, "F**k the EU" and the recording was almost instantly available on Youtube .

More shocking than Nuland's bad language, however, was what the conversation was about. The US government officials were discussing how to put their men into power in Ukraine - which of the three then opposition factions would dominate, who would take the lead (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) and who would be excluded (Vladimir Klitschko). At the time of this conversation, early February 2014, their enemy Viktor Yanukovych was still president. The leaked recording proved that the US and its Kiev embassy were actively involved in a regime change operation. The composition of the post-Maidan government corresponded exactly with US plans.

Read more American meddling is bad too, except when it isn't, says ex-ambassador to Russia

What few people knew at the time was that such levels of control over the composition of foreign governments had become standard practice for US embassies all over the world. As I could see on my very numerous travels around the Balkans in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the US ambassador was treated by the political class and the media in those countries not as the officially accredited representative of a foreign government but instead as an imperial governor whose pronunciamentos were more important than those of the national government.

This has been going on for decades, although the levels of control exercised by the United States increased as it rushed to fill the political vacuum created by the collapse of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe after 1989. In earlier times, such control, especially regime change operations, had to be conducted either covertly, as with the overthrow of Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953, or by financing and arming an anti-government militia, such as in Nicaragua and elsewhere in central and South America, or by encouraging the army itself, most famously in Chile in 1973. There is a huge body of literature on this vast subject (for the coup against Mosaddegh, see especially 'All the Shah's Men' by Stephen Kinzer, 2003) and there is no possibility of denying that such operations took place. Indeed, former CIA director, James Woolsey, recently admitted that they continue to this day.

Many of the ambassadors who engineered or attempted regime change operations in Eastern Europe and the former USSR had cut their teeth in Latin America in 1980s and 1990s. One of them, Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, even boasted in a letter to The Guardian in 2001 that he was doing the same thing in Minsk as he had done in Managua. He wrote: "As regards parallels between Nicaragua in 1989-90 and Belarus today, I plead guilty. Our objective and to some degree methodology are the same."

Read more US fingerprints all over Nicaragua's bloody unrest

Kozak did not mention that he also played a key role in the overthrow of General Noriega in Panama in 1989 but he is far from alone. The experience accumulated by the Americans during the Cold War, including in major European countries like Italy where US interference was key to preventing Communist victories in elections, spawned a whole generation of Kermit Roosevelts (the architect of the coup against Mosaddegh) who have made their careers over decades in the State Department. Some names, such as that of Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia who made no secret of his opposition to the president of the state to which he was accredited, will be familiar to RT readers.

Two years after the violent overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, which he helped coordinate, Geoffrey Pyatt was appointed US ambassador to Greece. He remains in that post to this day - which is why some are asking whether his hand might be behind last week's expulsion of Russian diplomats from Athens. Greece and Russia have customarily had good relations but they differ on the Macedonian issue. Now, the Greek government headed by the "pseudo-Euroskeptic" Alexis Tsipras, claims that four Russian diplomats were engaged in covert operations in Greece to lobby against forcing Macedonia to change its official name.

READ MORE: Macedonian MPs ratify Greece name deal again

Like almost every other political issue these days, this relatively arcane one is regarded through the distorting prism of alleged Russian " interference " : any decision which does not consolidate the power of American-dominated supranational structures like the US or the EU is now routinely attributed to all-pervasive Russian influence, as if all dissidents were foreign agents. Western discussion of this subject now resembles the paranoia of the old Soviet regime, and of its satellites in Eastern Europe, which similarly attacked anti-Communists for being "fifth columnists" - the very phrase used by a prominent European politician last month to lambast all his enemies as Russian stooges.

Europe has a fifth column in its ranks: Putin's cheerleaders who want to destroy Europe & liberal democracy from within: Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, Orbàn, Kaczynski, Salvini use Kremlin money & intel. Like Farage's friend Arron Banks, who colluded w/ Russians to deliver #Brexit

-- Guy Verhofstadt (@guyverhofstadt) 13 juin 2018

US influence is suspected in this case between Greece and Macedonia because the Americans are pushing to bring the whole of the Balkan peninsula under Western control. This has been policy for nearly thirty years - at least since the Yugoslav wars led to a US-brokered peace deal in Bosnia in 1995. In recent years the tempo has quickened, with the accession of Montenegro to NATO last year leaving only Macedonia and Serbia as missing pieces of the puzzle. The Greek victory over the name of Macedonia removes the last obstacle to that country's accession to NATO and other "Euro-Atlantic structures" like the EU and soon only Serbia will be left. Will she last long?

One of the most notorious anecdotes of the Second World War was told by Churchill. While in Moscow in 1944, he and Stalin divided up Eastern Europe and the Balkans into spheres of influence, putting percentage figures to show the respective weight of the West and the USSR - 10:90 in Greece, 50:50 Yugoslavia, 25:75 in Bulgaria, and so on. Churchill recalls how this so-called Percentages Agreement was concluded in a few minutes, and how he scribbled a note of their verbal agreement on a piece of paper which Stalin glanced at for a second and then ticked off. Churchill wrote, "It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down."

Churchill then reflected that it might seem cynical to decide the fate of millions of people in such an offhand manner. Later generations have generally agreed with his self-criticism. Today's West would certainly never conclude such an agreement - but not because of any squeamishness or lack of cynicism on its part. Instead, the West, especially the US, could not conclude any agreement because in every case the only acceptable outcome would be 100% influence for itself. That is what Geoffrey Pyatt and his colleagues spend their entire careers trying to achieve - and, to a large extent, they succeed.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

John Laughland, who has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford and who has taught at universities in Paris and Rome, is a historian and specialist in international affairs.

[Jul 23, 2018] Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On? by Jeffrey St. Clair

Notable quotes:
"... If Trump is serious about a dramatic realignment of US relations with Russia, why did he surround himself with people who are implacably opposed to his approach: Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mad Dog Mattis, Pompeo Maximus, Bloody Gina Haspel, Christopher Wray, and Dan Coats, who undermined him before Air Force One lifted off from Helsinki? Either Trump should fire them for insubordination or they should resign. Otherwise, this is all psychology not politics ..."
"... What kind of tyrant would appoint all of his own "deep state" coup plotters? ..."
"... Trump's doltish prevarications have done more to boost Mueller's deflating investigation than 1000 hours of the hyperventilating Rachel Maddow . ..."
"... Trump didn't do Putin any favors. The political over-reaction to Trump's obsequiousness will almost certainly prevent the removal of sanctions on the Russian economy. It may even prompt the imposition of more onerous measures. Russian civilians will almost certainly bear most of the price. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Name this politician

He is pathologically narcissistic and supremely arrogant. He has a grotesque sense of entitlement, never doubting that he can do whatever he chooses. He loves to bark orders and to watch underlings scurry to carry them out. He expects absolute loyalty, but he is incapable of gratitude. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. He has no natural grace, no sense of shared humanity, no decency.

He is not merely indifferent to the law; he hates it and takes pleasure in breaking it. He hates it because it gets in his way and because it stands for a notion of the public good that he holds in contempt. He divides the world into winners and losers. The winners arouse his regard insofar as he can use them for his own ends; the losers arouse only his scorn. The public good is something only losers like to talk about. What he likes to talk about is winning.

He has always had wealth; he was born into it and makes ample use of it. But though he enjoys having what money can get him, it is not what excites him. What excites him is the joy of domination. He is a bully. Easily enraged, he strikes out at anyone who stands in his way. He enjoys seeing others cringe, tremble, or wince with pain. He is gifted at detecting weakness and deft at mockery and insult. These skills attract followers who are drawn to the same cruel delight, even if they know that is dangerous, the followers help him advance to his goal, which is the possession of supreme power.

His possession of power includes the domination of women, but he despises them far more than desires them. Sexual conquest excites him, but only for the endlessly reiterated proof that he can have anything he likes. He knows that those he grabs hate him. For that matter, once he has succeeded in seizing the control that so attracts him, in politics as in sex, he knows that virtually everyone hates him. At first that knowledge energizes him, making him feverishly alert to rivals and conspiracies. But it soon begins to eat away at him and exhaust him.

Sooner or later, he is brought down. He dies unloved and unlamented. He leaves behind only wreckage.

Donald Trump? Not exactly. This is Stephen Greenblatt's psychological profile of Richard the Third in his briskly readable new book, Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics .

[Jul 23, 2018] America On It s Way to Being Stalin s Soviet Union by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... PT is correct. Any Russian anywhere who has ever spoken to any American for any reason is now considered attempting to "undermine American democracy." When in reality, we're doing it just fine ourselves. The hypocrisy and paranoia is breathtaking - and extremely dangerous. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | /turcopolier.typepad.com

richardstevenhack • a day ago ,

I noticed this situation some months ago when Torshin was accused of donating money to the NRA in order to help Trump get elected. Apparently he is a member of the NRA and as such is perfectly entitled to make donations to the organization.

What I noticed in the article about this is that the one piece of information left out was the amount of the donation. Since the NRA spent $50 million trying to get Trump elected, unless Torshin's donation was some significant percentage of that $50 million, it would make no sense for his donation to be considered significant, if it was little more than what a normal NRA member might be expected to contribute.

Which is, of course, why that figure was deliberately left out of the article - and several other articles on the subject.

An article at ABC News finally acknowledged what the "donation" was:

Last month, a lawyer for the NRA told ABC News that Torshin had, indeed, donated membership dues of between $600 and $1,000 to the organization.But the lawyer, J. Steven Hart, said that was the extent of money coming from Russians.

"We have one contribution from a Russian," Steven Hart, outside counsel to the NRA, said in an interview with ABC News before Friday's sanctions announcement.

Hart said it was the "life membership payment" made by Torshin, which went to the NRA's non-profit parent organization, which is not required by law to disclose the donation. Hart added, "The donation was the person's membership dues" and was not used for election-related activities. "That was not a major donor program," he said.

PT is correct. Any Russian anywhere who has ever spoken to any American for any reason is now considered attempting to "undermine American democracy." When in reality, we're doing it just fine ourselves. The hypocrisy and paranoia is breathtaking - and extremely dangerous.

william mcdonald richardstevenhack • 16 hours ago ,

A Russian donating to the NRA - that is going to make liberal heads explode! Snowflakes, run do not walk to the campus safe spaces before they fill up!

RaisingMac richardstevenhack • 10 hours ago ,

"Since the NRA spent $50 million trying to get Trump elected, unless Torshin's donation was some significant percentage of that $50 million, it would make no sense for his donation to be considered significant, if it was little more than what a normal NRA member might be expected to
contribute."

And just how significant was the $100,000 that clickbait firm from St. Petersburg spent on Facebook ads in 2016? We're through the looking-glass now, friend! Logic doesn't matter anymore.

Grazhdanochka • 20 hours ago ,

The Narrative here faces serious Questions... Poor Trade-craft is obvious using insecure Communications, Chit Chat with supposed 'Handler' to name a few... The Note left about the FSB - FSB being INTERNAL Agency of RF begs yet more Questions...

The NYT Article about it brings up another one I think I should Highlight:

https://www.nytimes.com/201...

"Prosecutors sought criminal charges after agents reported over the weekend that she was moving money out of the country, had her boxes packed, looked into renting a moving truck and had terminated her apartment lease. "

If she was an Agent of the Government and preparing to leave the Country due to increased Attention - she would hardly waste her Time sorting her Affairs and Possessions in the US - This would be considered Government write off effectively.

Her actions however screams someone trying to preserve personal Possessions and Earnings..

I can suggest two 'soft' theories on this whole Affair -

A) She is a naive Girl who genuinely believed what she was doing, found a sponsor whom guided her, maybe even persuaded her to thinking she was working for Russian Government or elements within and thus her naive and very unprofessional behavior has obvious explanation.

B) Much of what is suggested she wrote has been playful Jest, the Types of Jokes my Friends and I have made countless Times when visiting Foreign Countries and taken for whatever reason utmost seriously by Investigators....

Even this Explanations feels forced - The alternative hard Theories may be something far worse as PT suggests

Having lived in a few Western Countries for varied Times, I feel vindicated having returned to Russia - Though I still travel constant for work, this serves as careful reminder that the very qualities I once admired in the Western World are potentially at highest risk and as a Russian - maybe best to be careful...

Harlan Easley • 13 hours ago ,

This poor naive girl has been imprison by a bunch of cowards. This insanity has gone so far over the top with this relentless drive toward armed conflict with a nuclear superpower that it forces me to believe there is a more organizing principle than just TDS. They openly defy a elected President and plan his coup. Assange will be arrested next. The conspiracy will use his arrest against Trump as a bludgeoning tool and force his extradition to the US. Just another political prisoner in the Land of the Free.

RaisingMac Harlan Easley • 10 hours ago ,

I'm sure you're right: there's more at work here than just TDS. The establishment was obviously planning something big, and Hillary was in on it. I can't say for sure what it was, but if I had to take a wild guess, I would say she was going to invade Syria, which would have almost certainly led to a war with Russia. But now that Trump is president instead, they're threatened with the specter of peace!

Fred S • 13 hours ago ,

By this indictment's logic every foreign national helping planned parenthood is trying to "influence American politics". I wonder if speeches to chambers of commerce or economic clubs or universities by former Presidents of Mexico also make one guilty of this crime?

James Thomas • 15 hours ago ,

It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union purported to be a democracy - the country held elections and the government and the news media told the people that they lived in the greatest democracy in the world.

I have a friend who grew up in the Soviet Union. Until he was 12 years old he believed he lived in the greatest country in the world. Then his mother went to England on a trade mission (an opportunity that very few Soviet citizens ever had), and when she came back she told her son what she had seen there. It was only then that he started to figure out the truth.

English Outsider • 15 hours ago ,

Scarey. Foreign nationals will no doubt take note. But she is getting a court hearing, at least. Will it extend to Western citizens living and working in their home countries?

It already has. In England, in Australia, on the Continent and in the States there are many such examples. Seldom coming before the Courts. The use of government agencies to harass undesirables has long been standard - using the tax authorities mostly, as far as one can see, but sometimes other agencies.

For the average citizen it's never made a lot of odds. Those targeted are usually big names who are making waves or might do. The ordinary citizen has no fear that because he or she holds the view that Government's activities are wrong some official's going to turn up on the doorstep.

If ordinary people are vulnerable, as this case indicates even though this particular ordinary person is a foreigner, then we may begin to feel a trifle uneasy. But these are uneasy times in any case.

Timothy Hagios • 17 hours ago ,

We are already seeing censorship of social media under the pretext of protecting the country from the supremely powerful Russian bots. I do not see this de-escalating, despite the best efforts of the Russians not to escalate.

Since the general consensus among Russia "experts" in policy-making circles is that they'll get regime change if only Russia's wealthy are harassed sufficiently, the logical next step would be to start arresting the children of wealthy Russians who are studying at US universities.

PRC90 Timothy Hagios • 16 hours ago ,

Trump's intent for dialogue with the Russians and Putin's intent to maintain his 'Putin the Statesman' brand should preclude a very dangerous spiral of retaliation. We think.

[Jul 23, 2018] American Pravda The Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ..."
"... The International Jew ..."
"... The New York Journal-American ..."
"... The Times of London ..."
"... Trotsky in New York, 1917 ..."
"... The Black Book of Communism ..."
"... Dearborn Independent ..."
"... The Dearborn Independent ..."
"... The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem ..."
"... The International Jew ..."
"... The Atlantic Monthly ..."
"... Century Magazine ..."
"... The International Jew ..."
"... The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. ..."
"... The International Jew ..."
"... Times of London ..."
"... The International Jew ..."
"... The International Jew ..."
"... The Dearborn Independent ..."
"... Congressional Record ..."
"... Times of London ..."
"... The Last Days of the Romanovs ..."
"... The New World Order ..."
"... The Jewish Century ..."
"... The International Jew ..."
"... If anybody ever benefited from the Bolshevik revolution – it was the workers in the west, primarily US. ..."
"... The October revolution forced the capitalists to make concessions to the working class that they wouldn't have otherwise made simply out of their good natured kind hearts. ..."
"... If the Jews were so diabolical to unleash the Bolshevik revolution because of sinister motives only, how come that they didn't predict that it's going to hurt their profit margins in the US – via increased wages and benefits that they were forced to pay in order to keep the working class calm – out of fear that the Bolshevik revolution might have given them some ideas about conducting feasibility study of staging a copycat revolution. ..."
Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

In my unjustified arrogance, I also sometimes relished a sense of seeing obvious things that magazine or newspaper journalists got so completely wrong, mistakes which often slipped into historical narratives as well. For example, discussions of the titanic 20th century military struggles between Germany and Russia quite often made casual references to the traditional hostility between those two great peoples, who for centuries had stood as bitter rivals, representing the eternal struggle of Slav against Teuton for dominion over Eastern Europe.

Although the bloodstained history of the two world wars made that notion seem obvious, it was factually mistaken. Prior to 1914, those two great peoples had not fought against each other for the previous 150 years, and even the Seven Years' War of the mid-18th century had involved a Russian alliance with Germanic Austria against Germanic Prussia, hardly amounting to a conflict along civilizational lines. Russians and Germans had been staunch allies during the endless Napoleonic wars, closely cooperated during the Metterich and Bismarck Eras that followed, while even as late as 1904, Germany had supported Russia in its unsuccessful war against Japan. Later, Weimar Germany and Soviet Russia had a period of close military cooperation during the 1920s, the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 marked the beginning of the Second World War, and during the long Cold War, the USSR had no more loyal a satellite than East Germany. Perhaps two dozen years of hostility over the last three centuries, with good relations or even outright alliance during most of the remainder, hardly suggested that Russians and Germans were hereditary enemies.

Moreover, throughout much of that period, Russia's ruling elite had had a considerable Germanic tinge. Russia's legendary Catherine the Great had been a German princess by birth, and over the centuries so many Russian rulers had taken German wives that the later Czars of the Romanov dynasty were usually more German than Russian. Russia itself had a substantial but heavily assimilated German population, which was very well represented in elite political circles, with German names being quite common among government ministers and sometimes found among important military commanders. Even a top leader of the Decembrist revolt of the early 19th century had had German ancestry but was a zealous Russian-nationalist in his ideology.

Under the governance of this mixed Russian and German ruling class, the Russian Empire had steadily risen to become one of the world's foremost powers. Indeed, given its vast size, manpower, and resources, combined with one of the world's fastest economic growth rates and a natural increase in total population that was not far behind, a 1914 observer might have easily pegged it to soon dominate the European continent and perhaps even much of the world, just as Tocqueville had famously prophesized in the early decades of the 19th century. A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain's belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia.

Obviously, this entire landscape was totally transformed by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which swept the old order from power, massacring much of its leadership and forcing the remainder to flee, thereby ushering in the modern world era of ideological and revolutionary regimes. I grew up during the final decades of the long Cold War, when the Soviet Union stood as America's great international adversary, so the history of that revolution and its aftermath always fascinated me. During college and graduate school I probably read at least one hundred books in that general topic, devouring the brilliant works of Solzhenistyn and Sholokhov, the thick historical volumes of mainstream academic scholars such as Adam Ulam and Richard Pipes, as well as the writings of leading Soviet dissidents such as Roy Medvedev, Andrei Sakharov, and Andrei Amalrik. I was fascinated by the tragic story of how Stalin outmaneuvered Trotsky and his other rivals, leading to the massive purges of the 1930s as Stalin's growing paranoia produced such gigantic loss of life.

I was not so totally naive that I did not recognize some of the powerful taboos surrounding discussion of the Bolsheviks, particularly regarding their ethnic composition. Although most of the books hardly emphasized the point, anyone with a careful eye for the occasional sentence or paragraph would surely know that Jews were enormously over-represented among the top revolutionaries, with three of Lenin's five potential successors -- Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev -- all coming from that background, along with many, many others within the top Communist leadership. Obviously, this was wildly disproportionate in a country having a Jewish population of perhaps 4%, and surely helped explain the large spike in worldwide hostility towards Jews soon afterward, which sometimes took the most deranged and irrational forms, such as the popularity of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Henry Ford's notorious publication of The International Jew . But with Russian Jews so much more likely to be educated and urbanized, and suffering from fierce anti-Semitic oppression under the Czars, everything seemed to make reasonable sense.

Then perhaps fourteen or fifteen years ago, I encountered a rip in my personal space-time continuum, among the first of many to come.

In this particular instance, an especially rightwing friend of evolutionary theorist Gregory Cochran had been spending long days browsing the pages of Stormfront , a leading Internet forum for the Far Right, and having come across a remarkable factual claim, asked me for my opinion. Allegedly Jacob Schiff, America's leading Jewish banker, had been the crucial financial supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, providing the Communist revolutionaries with $20 million in funding.

My first reaction was that such a notion was utterly ridiculous since a fact so enormously explosive could not have been ignored by the many dozens of books I had read on the origins of that revolution. But the source seemed extremely precise. The Knickerbocker columnist in the February 3, 1949 edition of The New York Journal-American , then one of the leading local newspapers, wrote that "Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia."

Once I checked around a little, I discovered that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Schiff towards the Czarist regime for its ill-treatment of Jews, and these days even so establishmentarian a source as Wikipedia's entry on Jacob Schiff notes that he played a major role financing the Russian Revolution of 1905, as was revealed in the later memoirs of one of his key operatives. And if you run a search on "jacob schiff bolshevik revolution" numerous other references come up, representing a wide variety of different positions and degrees of credibility. One very interesting statement appears in the memoirs of Henry Wickham Steed , editor of The Times of London and one of the foremost international journalists of his era. He very matter-of-factly mentions that Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia, and he describes their lobbying efforts on behalf of their Bolshevik allies at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference following the end of the First World War.

Even the very recent and highly skeptical 2016 analysis in Kenneth D. Ackerman's 2016 book Trotsky in New York, 1917 notes that U.S. Military Intelligence reports of the period directly made that astonishing claim, pointing to Trotsky as the conduit for the heavy financial backing of Schiff and numerous other Jewish financiers. In 1925 this information was published in the British Guardian and was widely discussed and accepted throughout the 1920s and 1930s by numerous major media publications, long before Schiff's own grandson provided a direct confirmation of those facts in 1949. Ackerman rather cavalierly dismisses all of this considerable contemporaneous evidence as "anti-Semitic" and a "conspiracy story," arguing that since Schiff was a notorious conservative who had never shown any sympathy for socialism in his own American milieu, he surely would not have funded the Bolsheviks.

Now admittedly, a few details might easily have gotten somewhat garbled over time. For example, although Trotsky quickly became second only to Lenin in the Bolshevik hierarchy, in early 1917 the two were still bitterly hostile over various ideological disputes, so he certainly was not then considered a member of that party. And since everyone today acknowledges that Schiff had heavily financed the failed 1905 Revolution in Russia, it seems perfectly possible that the $20 million figure mentioned by his grandson refers to the total invested over the years supporting all the different Russian revolutionary movements and leaders, which together finally culminated in the establishment of Bolshevik Russia. But with so many seemingly credible and independent sources all making such similar claims, the basic facts appear almost indisputable.

Consider the implications of this remarkable conclusion. I would assume that most of Schiff's funding of revolutionary activities was spent on items such as activist stipends and bribes, and adjusted for the average family incomes of that era, $20 million would be as much as $2 billion in present-day money. Surely without such enormous financial support, the likelihood of any Bolshevik victory would have been far lower, perhaps almost impossible.

When people casually used to joke about the total insanity of "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" no better example was ever tossed around than the self-evidently absurd notion that the international Jewish bankers had created the worldwide Communist movement. And yet by any reasonable standard, this statement appears to be more or less true, and apparently was widely known at least in rough form for decades after the Russian Revolution, but had never been mentioned in any of the numerous more recent histories that shaped my own knowledge of those events. Indeed, none of these very comprehensive sources ever even mentioned Schiff's name, although it was universally acknowledged that he had funded the 1905 Revolution, which was often discussed in enormous detail in many of those very weighty books. What other astonishing facts might they similarly be concealing?

When someone encounters remarkable new revelations in an area of history in which his knowledge was rudimentary, being little more than introductory textbooks or History 101 courses, the result is a shock and an embarrassment. But when the same situation occurs in an area in which he had read tens of thousands of pages in the leading authoritative texts, which seemingly explored every minor detail, surely his sense of reality begins to crumble.

ORDER IT NOW

In 1999, Harvard University published the English edition of The Black Book of Communism , whose six co-authors devoted 850 pages to documenting the horrors inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had produced a total death toll they reckoned at 100 million. I have never read that book and I have often heard that the alleged body-count has been widely disputed. But for me the most remarkable detail is that when I examine the 35 page index, I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure individuals whose names are surely unknown to all but the most erudite specialist. But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff, the world-famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation of the whole system in the first place. Nor one for Olaf Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden, who played such an important role in providing the Bolsheviks a financial life-line during the early years of their threatened regime, and even founded the first Soviet international bank .

When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality, there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering what mysterious objects might dwell there. The Ackerman book denounced the notion of Schiff having funded the Bolsheviks as "a favorite trope of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda" and just prior to those words he issued a similar denunciation of Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent , a publication which would have meant almost nothing to me. Although Ackerman's particular book had not yet been published when I began exploring the Schiff story a dozen years ago, many other writers had similarly conjoined those two topics, so I decided to explore the matter.

Ford himself was a very interesting individual, and his world-historical role certainly received very scanty coverage in my basic history textbooks. Although the exact reasons for his decision to raise his minimum wage to $5 per day in 1914 -- double the existing average pay for industrial workers in America -- can be disputed, it certainly seems to have played a huge role in the creation of our middle class. He also adopted a highly paternalistic policy of providing good company housing and other amenities to his workers, a total departure from the "Robber Baron" capitalism so widely practiced at that time, thereby establishing himself as a world-wide hero to industrial workers and their advocates. Indeed, Lenin himself had regarded Ford as a towering figure in the world's revolutionary firmament, glossing over his conservative views and commitment to capitalism and instead focusing on his remarkable achievements in worker productivity and economic well-being. It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford's considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as "Fordism." Indeed, it was not unusual to see portraits of Lenin and Ford hanging side-by-side in Soviet factories , representing the two greatest secular saints of the Bolshevik pantheon.

ORDER IT NOW

As for The Dearborn Independent , Ford had apparently launched his newspaper on a national basis not long after the end of the war, intending to focus on controversial topics, especially those related to Jewish misbehavior, whose discussion he believed was being ignored or suppressed by nearly all mainstream media outlets. I had been aware that he had long been one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America, but I was still astonished to discover that his weekly newspaper, previously almost unknown to me, had reached a total national circulation of 900,000 by 1925, ranking it as the second largest in the country and by far the biggest with a national distribution. I found no easy means of examining the contents of a typical issue, but apparently the anti-Jewish articles of the first couple of years had been collected and published as short books, together constituting the four volumes of The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem , a notoriously anti-Semitic work occasionally mentioned in my history textbooks. Eventually my curiosity got the best of me, so clicked a few buttons on Amazon.com, bought the set, and wondered what I would discover.

Based on all my pre-suppositions, I expected to read some foaming-at-the-mouth screed, and doubted I would be able to get past the first dozen pages before losing interest and consigning the volumes to gather dust on my shelves. But what I actually encountered was something entirely different.

Over the last couple of decades, the enormous growth in the power and influence of Jewish and pro-Israel groups in America has occasionally led writers to cautiously raise certain facts regarding the untoward influence of those organizations and activists, while always carefully emphasizing that the vast majority of ordinary Jews do not benefit from these policies and actually might be harmed by them, even leaving aside the possible risk of eventually provoking an anti-Jewish backlash. To my considerable surprise, I found that the vast majority of the material in Ford's 300,000 word series seemed to follow this same pattern and tone.

The individual 80 chapter-columns of Ford's volumes generally discuss particular issues and events, some of which were well-known to me, but with the vast majority totally obscured by the passage of almost a hundred years. But as far as I could tell, almost all the discussions seemed quite plausible and factually-oriented, even sometimes overly cautious in their presentation, and with one possible exception I can't recall anything that seemed fanciful or unreasonable. As an example, there was no claim that Schiff or his fellow Jewish bankers had funded the Bolshevik Revolution since those particular facts had not yet come out, only that he had seemed to be strongly supportive of the overthrow of Czarism, and had worked toward that end for many years, motivated by what he regarded as the hostility of the Russian Empire towards its Jewish subjects. This sort of discussion is not all that different from what one might find in a modern Schiff biography or in his Wikipedia entry, though many of the important details presented in the Ford books have disappeared from the historical record.

Although I somehow managed to plow through all four volumes of The International Jew , the unrelenting drum-beat of Jewish intrigue and misbehavior became somewhat soporific after a while, especially since so many of the examples provided may have loomed quite large in 1920 or 1921 but are almost totally forgotten today. Most of the content was a collection of rather monotonous complaints regarding Jewish malfeasance, scandals, or clannishness, the sort of mundane matters which might have normally appeared in the pages of an ordinary newspaper or magazine, let alone one of the muckraking type.

However, I cannot fault the publication for such a narrow focus. A consistent theme was that because of the intimidating fear of Jewish activists and influence, virtually all of America's regular media outlets avoided discussion of any of these important matters, and since this new publication was intended to remedy that void, it necessarily required coverage overwhelmingly skewed toward that particular subject. The articles were also aimed at gradually expanding the window of public debate and eventually shame other periodicals into discussing Jewish misbehavior. When leading magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Century Magazine began running such articles, this result was cited as a major success.

Another important goal was to make ordinary Jews more aware of the very problematical behavior of many of their community leaders. Occasionally, the publication received a letter of praise from a self-proclaimed "proud American Jew" commending the series and sometimes including a check to purchase subscriptions for other members of his community, and this achievement might become the subject of an extended discussion.

And although the details of these individual stories differed considerably from those of today, the pattern of behavior being criticized seemed remarkably similar. Change a few facts, adjust the society for a century of change, and many of the stories might be exactly the same ones that well-meaning people concerned about the future of our country are quietly discussing today. Most remarkably, there were even a couple of columns about the troubled relationship between the earliest Zionist settlers in Palestine and the surrounding native Palestinians, and deep complaints that under Jewish pressure the media often totally misreported or hid some of the outrages suffered by the latter group.

I certainly cannot vouch for the overall accuracy of the contents of these volumes, but at the very least they would constitute an extremely valuable source of "raw material" for further historical investigation. So many of the events and incidents they recount seem to have been entirely omitted from the major media publications of that day, and surely were never included in later historical narratives, given that even such widely known stories as Schiff's major financial backing for the Bolsheviks were completely tossed down George Orwell's "memory hole."

With the volumes long out of copyright, I have added the set to my collection of HTML Books, and those so interested may read the text and decide for themselves.

The International Jew The World's Foremost Problem Henry Ford • 1920 • 323,000 Words

ORDER IT NOW

As mentioned, the overwhelming majority of The International Jew seems a rather bland recitation of complaints about Jewish misbehavior. But there is one major exception, which has a very different impact upon our modern mind, namely that the writer took very seriously The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Probably no "conspiracy theory" in modern times has been subjected to such immense vilification and ridicule as the Protocols , but a voyage of discovery often acquires a momentum of its own, and I became curious about the nature of that infamous document.

Apparently, the Protocols first came to light during the last decade of the 19th century, and the British Museum stored a copy in 1906, but it attracted relatively little attention at the time. However, all this changed after the Bolshevik Revolution and toppling of many other long-standing governments at the end of the First World War led many people to seek a common cause behind so many enormous political upheavals. From my distance of many decades, the text of the Protocols struck me as rather bland and even dull, describing in rather long-winded fashion a plan of secret subversion aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical lines with an entirely new group in control. Admittedly, there were many shrewd insights into politics or psychology, notably the enormous power of the media and the benefits of advancing political front-men who were deeply compromised or incompetent and hence easily controllable. But nothing else really jumped out at me.

Perhaps one reason I found the text of the Protocols so uninspiring is that over the century since its publication, these notions of diabolical plots by hidden groups have become such a common theme in our entertainment media, with countless thousands of spy novels and science fiction stories presenting something similar, though these usually involve far more exciting means, such as a super-weapon or a powerful drug. If some Bond villain proclaimed his intent to conquer the world merely through simple political subversion, I suspect that such a film would immediately die at the box office.

But back one hundred years ago, these were apparently exciting and novel notions, and I actually found the discussion of the Protocols in many of the chapters of The International Jew far more interesting and informative than reading the text itself. The author of the Ford books seems to appropriately treat it as any other historical document, dissecting its content, speculating on its provenance, and wondering whether or not it was what it purported to be, namely an approximate record of the statements of a group of conspirators pursuing mastery over the world, with those conspirators widely believed to be an elite fraternity of international Jews.

Other contemporaries seem to have taken the Protocols very seriously as well. The august Times of London fully endorsed it, before later retracting that position under heavy pressure, and I've read that more copies were published and sold in the Europe of that era than any other book save the Bible. The Bolshevik government of Russia paid the volume its own sort of deep respect, with mere possession of the Protocols warranting immediate execution.

Although The International Jew concludes that the Protocols was probably genuine, I doubt that likelihood based upon the style and presentation. Browsing around on the Internet a dozen years ago, I discovered quite a variety of different opinions even within the precincts of the Far Right, where such matters were freely discussed. I remember some forum writer somewhere characterizing the Protocols as "based upon a true story," suggesting that someone who was generally familiar with the secretive machinations of elite international Jews against the existing governments of Czarist Russia and other countries had drafted the document to outline his view of their strategic plans, and such an interpretation seems perfectly plausible.

Another reader somewhere claimed that the Protocols were pure fiction but very significant nonetheless. He argued that the very keen insights into the methods by which a small conspiratorial group can quietly corrupt and overthrow powerful existing regimes arguably ranked it alongside Plato's The Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince as one of the three great classics of Western political philosophy, and earned it a place on the required reading list of every Political Science 101 course. Indeed, the author of Ford's books emphasizes that there are very few mentions of Jews anywhere in the Protocols , and all the implied connections to Jewish conspirators could be completely struck from the text without affecting their content whatsoever.

In any event, this short work is now available as one of my HTML Books, making it quite convenient for reading and text-searching.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion Anonymous • 1903 • 28,000 Words

Some ideas have consequences and others do not. Although my introductory history textbooks had often mentioned Henry Ford's anti-Semitic activities, his publication of The International Jew , and the concurrent popularity of the Protocols , they never emphasized any lasting political legacy, or at least I don't recall any. However, once I actually read the contents and also discovered the enormous contemporary popularity of those writings and the huge national circulation of The Dearborn Independent , I quickly came to a very different conclusion.

For decades pro-immigration liberals, many of them Jewish, have suggested that anti-Semitism was a major factor behind the 1924 Immigration Act that drastically reduced European immigration for the next forty years, while anti-immigration activists have always heatedly denied this. The documentary evidence from that era certainly favors the position of the latter, but I really do wonder what important private discussions may not have been set down in print and entered into the Congressional Record . The overwhelming popular support for immigration restriction had been successfully blocked for decades by powerful business interests, which greatly benefited from the reduced wages of the resulting labor-competition, but now matters had suddenly changed, and surely the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia must have had been a powerful influence.

Russia, overwhelmingly populated by Russians, had been governed for centuries by a Russian ruling elite. Then, heavily Jewish revolutionaries, drawn from a group amounting to just 4% of the population had taken advantage of military defeat and unsettled political conditions to seize control of the country, butchering those previous elites or forcing them to desperately flee abroad as penniless refugees.

Trotsky and a large fraction of the leading Jewish revolutionaries had been living as exiles in New York City, and now many of their Jewish cousins still resident in America began loudly proclaiming that a similar revolution would soon follow here as well. Huge waves of recent immigration, mostly from Russia, had increased the Jewish fraction of the national population to 3%, not far below the figure for Russia itself on the eve of its revolution. If the Russian elites who ruled Russia had been suddenly overthrown by Jewish revolutionaries, is it not obvious that the Anglo-Saxon elites who ruled Anglo-Saxon America feared suffering the same fate?

The "Red Scare" of the 1919 was one response, with numerous immigrant radicals such as Emma Goldman rounded up and summarily deported, while the Sacco-Vanzetti murder trial in 1921 Boston captured the attention of the nation, suggesting that other immigrant groups were violent radicals as well, and might ally themselves with the Jews in a revolutionary movement, just like the Letts and other disgruntled Russian minorities had done during the Bolshevik Revolution. But drastically reducing the inflow of these dangerous foreigners was absolutely essential since otherwise their numbers might easily grow by hundreds of thousands each year, increasing their already huge presence in our largest cities of the East Coast.

Sharply reducing immigration would certainly cause a rise in worker wages and hurt business profits. But considerations of profits are secondary if you fear that you and your family might eventually end up facing a Bolshevik firing squad or fleeing to Buenos Aires with just the clothes on your backs and a few hurriedly-packed suitcases.

A noteworthy bit of evidence in support of this analysis was the subsequent failure of Congress to enact similar restrictive legislation curtailing immigration from Mexico or the rest of Latin America. The local business interests of Texas and the Southwest argued that continuation of unrestricted Mexican immigration was important for their economic success, with Mexicans being good people, politically docile workers, and no threat to stability of the country. This was a clear contrast with the Jews and some other European immigrant groups.

The much less familiar early 1920s battle over restricting Jewish enrollment in the Ivy League may have been another consequence. In his magisterial 2005 volume The Chosen , Jerome Karabel documents how the very rapid growth in Jewish numbers at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other Ivy League colleges had by the early 1920s become an enormous concern to the Anglo-Saxon elites which had established those institutions and always dominated their student bodies.

As a result, a quiet war over admissions broke out, involving both political and media influence, with the reigning WASPs seeking to reduce and restrict Jewish numbers and the Jews struggling to maintain or expand them. Although there seems no paper-trail of any direct references to the enormously popular national newspaper and books published by Henry Ford or any similar material, it is difficult to believe that the academic combatants were not at least somewhat aware of the theories of a Jewish assault on Gentile society then being so widely promoted. It is easy to imagine that a respectable Boston Brahmin such as Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell regarded his own moderate "anti-Semitism" as a very reasonable middle-ground between the lurid claims promoted by Ford and others and the demands for unlimited Jewish enrollment made by his opponents. Indeed, Karabel himself points to the social impact of Ford's publications as a significant background factor to this academic conflict.

At this point in time, the Anglo-Saxon elites still held the upper hand in the media. The very heavily Jewish film industry was only in its infancy and the same was true for radio, while the vast majority of major print outlets were still in Gentile hands, so the descendants of America's original settlers won this round of the admissions war. But when the battle was rejoined a couple of decades later, the strategic political and media landscape had completely shifted, with Jews having achieved near-parity in print influence and overwhelming dominance in the more powerful electronic media formats such as film, radio, and nascent television, and this time they were victorious, easily breaking the hold of their longtime ethnic rivals, and eventually achieving almost complete dominance over those elite institutions .

And ironically enough, the most lasting cultural legacy of the widespread anti-Jewish agitation of the 1920s may be the least recognized. As mentioned above, modern readers might find the text of the Protocols rather boring and bland, almost like they had been cribbed from the extremely long-winded monologue of one of the diabolical villains of a James Bond story. But it wouldn't surprise me if there were actually an arrow of causality in the opposite direction. Ian Fleming created this genre in the early 1950s with his string of international best-sellers, and it is interesting to speculate about the source of his ideas.

ORDER IT NOW

Fleming had spent his youth during the 1920s and 1930s when the Protocols were among the most widely read books in much of Europe and leading British newspapers of the highest credibility were recounting the successful plots of Schiff and other international Jewish bankers to overthrow the government of Britain's Czarist ally and replace it with Jewish Bolshevik rule. Moreover, his later service in an arm of British Intelligence would surely have made him privy to details of that history that went far beyond those public headlines. I think it is more than pure coincidence that two of his most memorable Bond villains, Goldfinger and Blofeld, had distinctly Jewish-sounding names, and that so many of the plots involve schemes of world-conquest by Spectre , a secretive and mysterious international organization hostile to all existing governments. The Protocols themselves may be half-forgotten today, but their cultural influence probably survives in the Bond films, whose $7 billion of aggregate box-office gross ranks them as the most successful movie series in history when adjusted for inflation.

The extent to which established historical facts can appear or disappear from the world should certainly force all of us to become very cautious in believing anything we read in our standard textbooks, let alone what we absorb from our more transient electronic media.

In the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution, almost no one questioned the overwhelming role of Jews in that event, nor their similar preponderance in the ultimately unsuccessful Bolshevik takeovers in Hungary and parts of Germany. For example, former British Minister Winston Churchill in 1920 denounced the "terrorist Jews" who had seized control of Russia and other parts of Europe, noting that "the majority of the leading figures are Jews" and stating that "In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing," while lamenting the horrors these Jews had inflicted upon the suffering Germans and Hungarians.

Similarly, journalist Robert Wilton, former Russia correspondent of the Times of London , provided a very detailed summary of the enormous Jewish role in his 1918 book Russia's Agony and 1920 book The Last Days of the Romanovs , although one of the most explicit chapters of the latter was apparently excluded from the English language edition . Not long afterward, the facts regarding the enormous financial support provided to the Bolsheviks by international Jewish bankers such as Schiff and Aschberg were widely reported in the mainstream media.

Jews and Communism were just as strongly tied together in America, and for years the largest circulation Communist newspaper in our country was published in Yiddish . When they were finally released, the Venona Decrypts demonstrated that even as late as the 1930s and 1940s, a remarkable fraction of America's Communist spies came from that ethnic background.

A personal anecdote tends to confirm these dry historical records. During the early 2000s I once had lunch with an elderly and very eminent computer scientist, with whom I'd become a little friendly. While talking about this and that, he happened to mention that both his parents had been zealous Communists, and given his obvious Irish name, I expressed my surprise, saying that I'd thought almost all the Communists of that era were Jewish. He said that was indeed the case, but although his mother had such an ethnic background, his father did not, which made him a very rare exception in their political circles. As a consequence, the Party had always sought to place him in as prominent a public role as possible just to prove that not all Communists were Jews, and although he obeyed Party discipline, he was always irritated at being used as such a "token."

However, once Communism sharply fell out of favor in 1950s America, nearly all of the leading "Red Baiters" such as Sen. Joseph McCarthy went to enormous lengths to obscure the ethnic dimension of the movement they were combatting. Indeed, many years later Richard Nixon casually spoke in private of the difficulty he and other anti-Communist investigators had faced in trying to focus on Gentile targets since nearly all of the suspected Soviet spies were Jewish, and when this tape became public, his alleged anti-Semitism provoked a media firestorm even though his remarks were obviously implying the exact opposite.

This last point is an important one, since once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering strands of the original reality that survive are often perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as "conspiracy theories." Indeed, even today the ever-amusing pages of Wikipedia provides an entire 3,500 word article attacking the notion of "Jewish Bolshevism" as an "antisemitic canard."

I remember in the 1970s the enormous gusts of American praise for Solzhenitysn's three volume Gulag Archipelago suddenly encountered a temporary headwind when someone noticed that his 2,000 pages had included a single photograph depicting many of the leading Gulag administrators, along with a caption revealing their unmistakably Jewish names. This detail was treated as serious evidence of the great author's possible anti-Semitism since the actual reality of the enormously large role of Jews in the NKVD and the Gulag system had long since disappeared from all the standard history books.

As another example, the Rev. Pat Robertson, a leading Christian televangelist, published The New World Order in 1991, his fiery attack on the "godless globalists" whom he considered his greatest enemy, and it quickly became a massive national best-seller. He happened to include a couple of brief, somewhat garbled mentions of the $20 million which Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff had provided to the Communists, carefully avoiding any suggestion of a Jewish angle and providing no reference for that claim. His book quickly provoked a vast outpouring of denunciation and ridicule across the elite media, with the Schiff story seen as conclusion proof of his delusional anti-Semitism . I cannot really fault these critics since in pre-Internet days they could only consult the indexes of a few standard histories of the Bolshevik Revolution, and finding no mention of Schiff or his money, naturally assumed that Robertson or his source had simply invented the bizarre story. I myself had had exactly the same reaction at the time.

ORDER IT NOW

Only after Soviet Communism had died in 1991 and no longer was perceived as a hostile force were academic scholars in America once again able to publish mainstream books that gradually restored the true picture of that past era. In many respects, a widely praised work such as The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine, published in 2004 by Princeton University Press, provides a narrative quite consistent with long-forgotten works by Robert Wilton but marks a very sharp departure from the largely obfuscatory histories of the intervening eighty-odd years.

Until about a dozen years ago, I had always vaguely assumed that Henry Ford's The International Jew was a work of political lunacy and the Protocols was a notorious hoax. Yet today, I would probably consider the former as a potentially useful source of possible historical events otherwise excluded from most standard accounts, while at least understanding the argument of why the latter might deserve a place alongside Plato and Machiavelli as a classic of Western political thought.

Related Reading:

Colin Wright , Website July 23, 2018 at 5:01 am GMT

' A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain's belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia '

Indeed. I forget where, but I have read that the German General Staff had calculated that after 1916, Russia would be unbeatable. While I disagree with the rather widespread belief that Germany was particularly responsible for World War One, it may well have been the case that once the ball started rolling, many in the General Staff calculated that it would be better to have it out now than to wait.

Incidentally, to digress, I feel that while it was above all the situation and the paradigm of the times that brought World War One about, if anyone should be held culpable, it would be France and Serbia, while -- in contrast to your opinion -- I feel that Britain probably was the one power least responsible for the outbreak of war.

Sean , July 23, 2018 at 5:27 am GMT

Colin Wright , Website July 23, 2018 at 5:43 am GMT

I'd note that associations between Jews and revolutionary socialism in America weren't just the product of observing events in Europe.

I read an interesting book called More Powerful than Dynamite that describes the social unrest and pre-revolutionary agitation that gripped New York City in 1915-1916. The author appears genuinely unaware of the fact, but a very large proportion -- half? two-thirds? -- of the figures he names are Eastern European Jews. For whatever reason, a completely disproportionate percentage of these people came boiling out of their shtetls absolutely possessed by revolutionary fervor. Was it hatred of Tsarism? A reaction to being freed from the rule of their traditional communities and rabbis? I don't know -- but it'd be interesting to read about.

More mundanely, I read Frederik Pohl's memoir of the early science-fiction scene, The Way the Future Was. In it, he discusses his membership in the Young Communists League or some such thing in New York City in late thirties -- and notes that although he didn't find the fact significant, the membership was indeed disproportionately Jewish.

It's a bit like blacks and basketball. Not all basketball players are black, but they disproportionately are. Ditto for Jews and Communists -- both in Europe and here. As a rough rule, they seem to have been overrepresented by a factor of between ten and a hundred. I think that seeing Communism as a Jewish plot is a paranoid over-simplification -- but it is equally unreasonable to see no connection at all.

Anarcho-Supremacist , July 23, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT
You lost me at Robert Wilton. Wilton's list has been debunked. Now I do not know a lot about the guy but some of what he says is obvious BS.
Colin Wright , Website July 23, 2018 at 6:09 am GMT
As to the reality and extent of China's famine during the Great Leap Forward, I strongly recommend you read Yang Jisheng's Tombstone: the Great Chinese Famine 1958-1962. It was real -- and fully as bad as advertised.
Cyrano , July 23, 2018 at 6:34 am GMT
According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews.

Thanks to the capitalist system, many of them have managed to become enormously rich – some would say thanks to their genetic predisposition towards greed, which of course is unique only to them.

Well then it makes a perfect sense to me that they would be the ones to finance a revolution in Russia that would bring a system which pretty much doesn't allow anyone to get rich.

Wouldn't it have made more sense if members of the Jewish community have financed a capitalist – sorry – "democratic" revolution in Russia, which will allow them to prosper financially like they did in the west?

Or was the Bolshevik revolution a payback for the pogroms? What is the logic here? They did it because they are evil? How did the Jewish financiers of the October revolution knew that Stalin will come along and pervert the idea of Socialism (to a certain degree), and turn it into one massive orgy of pogroms (according to some) against anybody and everybody.

The whole idea is pure nonsense. The only way that it will make sense to me is that the Jews financed the October revolution because they expected that their people will get more equal treatment under that system than in Czarist Russia. Not because they wanted to unleash something evil on this world.

jilles dykstra , July 23, 2018 at 7:17 am GMT
Books I do not see mentioned:
Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen <<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
Voline ( Vsevolod Mikhailovitsch Eichenbaum), 'The unknown revolution (Kronstadt 1921 Ukraine 1918-21)', New York 1955
Horace Meyer Kallen, 'Zionism and World Politics; A Study in History and Social Psychology', New York, 1921
Elisabeth Dilling, ´The Roosevelt Red record and its background', 1936, Chicago

And I have a consolation, the murder of Rabin by an orthodox jew after the Oslo Accords made me wonder if zionist jews did want peace, being retired I had the time to investigate, and found about about fairy tales such as 'land without people for people without land'.

Sept 11 was the next investigation trigger, once I could no longer prevent the conclusion that it had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.
How could our liberator of WWII have become an evil state ?
I found out about Baruch and FDR, etc.
Had there been no Baruch, I wonder if there would have been a WWII.
As Hitler in 1939 threatened jewry 'if they again caused a world war '.

I must add that, though WWI was set up by GB, France and the tsar, I never found evidence that jews were involved in the conspiracy.

However, the blackmail of the Balfour Declaration, jews do seem responsible for the German defeat in 1918.
Without USA military interference Germany would have won in November 1917.

Jon Halpenny , July 23, 2018 at 7:23 am GMT
One important historical figure who is unknown in the west is Alexander Parvus, aka Israel Helphand. He was the man who persuaded the German Generals to send Lenin to Russia in the sealed train. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Parvus#Russian_Revolution
Waitemata , July 23, 2018 at 7:41 am GMT
Thanks for this article. I have just reread Ford's 'My Life and Work;' my father's old (1926) edition. Have also read Robert Wilton's 'Last Days of the Romanoffs' several times so appreciate references to these two authors. I hope Wilton has been republished in this year of the anniversary of the cruel martyrdom of the Russian Imperial family by the Bolsheviks.
JohnnyWalker123 , July 23, 2018 at 8:24 am GMT
Very interesting article.

Here's a fascinating quote from "The International Jew."

In other countries the Jew is permitted to mix more readily with the people, he can amass his control unchallenged; but in Germany the case was different. Therefore, the Jew hated the German people; therefore, the countries of the world which were most dominated by the Jews showed the greatest hatred of Germany during the recent regrettable war.

If you replace "Germany" with "Russia," perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. Interestingly enough, modern Jews seem to really like Germany these days.

What are your thoughts on the refugee crisis in Europe? Given how much Jewish currency trader George Soros has done to encourage refugee migration into Europe, do you think there's some sort of Jewish conspiracy at work here?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-european-refugee-crisis-and-why

Anon [341] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 8:25 am GMT
During the early 2000s I once had lunch with an elderly and very eminent computer scientist, which whom I'd become a little friendly.

With

Bukowski , July 23, 2018 at 8:27 am GMT
Article by Mark Weber – The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime – can be found here.

https://codoh.com/library/document/2487/

Anon [122] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 8:45 am GMT
Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the 'socialist utopia' was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of "Let's get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals," in Schiff's thinking.

Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic lever-pulling by men with too much Asperger's disorder to understand human nature, and who keep thinking that if you unleash the dark side of the human personality, everything will turn out all right.

This is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence, because Jews have no understanding of evil human nature. When Jews became a secular, modern, and scientific-minded people, they lost all their understanding of evil, because as moderns, they were now 'above all that primitive, backward thinking.'

Jews who think this way keep saying, "Of course communist Russia turned out to be bad because the wrong people were in charge." This is a bunch of coded wording for, "If me and my friends were in charge we would do it right because we're different and special," without realizing that practically everyone becomes corrupt if handed the reins of power.

At one point in their careers, Obama and Hillary, as well as many of their liberal friends in the Democratic party thought of themselves as decent, well-intended beings who would run things the Correct Way once in power. But once they were in power, they became corrupt, and they're still too blinded by their egos to see it.

Their supporters, left-wing Jews, are also too blind to see it because they have no self-knowledge at all. Part of the problem with Asperger's, which is far too prevalent among Jews, is that the disorder blocks you from acquiring self-knowledge of your own personality, as well as preventing from gaining insight into the personalities of others. This leaves you with the ideological side of your brain entirely in charge.

silviosilver , July 23, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT
I read The International Jew about five years ago. Well, I tried to read it, but gave up before getting half way through. As Ron said, it became quite monotonous and too much of the discussion was focused on obscure events of the day. I might have persevered, but eventually the numerous speculative conspiracy-theory-style reaches in explaining contemporary and historical events got to me.

As for the Protocols , neo-nazis often claim that the important thing about it isn't whether it was a 'hoax' or not, but whether it explains the present. I suppose that's true in the sense that it gives an insight into the mindset of the people who were concerned about the growth of Jewish influence before that influence became a fact. I haven't read the whole thing, so I can't comment on Ron's claim that it deserves to be a considered a classic of political theory.

Another neo-nazi point which I also think is partly correct is that "Jews are the skeleton key to history." Neo-nazis take that and run with it, which leads to all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories, but the basic point has to be granted: that an understanding of certain historical events will always be incomplete without sufficient consideration of the Jewish role.

It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford's considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as "Fordism."

This makes it sound like the Russians coined "Fordism." Did they? I don't know. But modern historians and social scientists with a leftist bent routinely refer to Fordism, both as a management theory and as a social structure.

Jon Halpenny , July 23, 2018 at 10:31 am GMT
A possible consequence of the Bolshevik Revolution was the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany. In Munich refugees from the Russian Empire met members of a new German Nationalist party, the NSDAP. The interactions between these people are believed to have resulted in the adoption of extreme anti-semitic policies by the NSDAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbau_Vereinigung
Anatoly Karlin , Website July 23, 2018 at 11:12 am GMT
A brave and necessary essay. I was not aware of many of the details here.

That said, it's worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have happened without vast amounts of German money (which, given the wartime context, is understandable).

Incidentally, apart from being the Bolsheviks' main money-man in the West, Olof Aschberg also acquired one of the world's finest collections of Russian icons in the process of selling the values that the Bolsheviks had looted. The collection now resides in a Swedish museum.

I recently discovered that his son is rather "colorful" too. Robert Aschberg went being a Maoist in his youth to the anti-racist commissar of Swedish journalism. Dollars to peanuts he also hates current-day Russia, hates Putin, etc. Incidentally, he used to be Director-General of the Swedish Institute, which last year released a 14,000 member list of far right extremists on Twitter, such as myself.

jilles dykstra , July 23, 2018 at 11:50 am GMT
@JohnnyWalker123

The plans to destabilise the ME originate in Israel.
If part of these plans was to destabilise Europe too, possible, but I never heard of it.
Soros' indoctrination scheme for open society has been running for many decades.

jilles dykstra , July 23, 2018 at 11:51 am GMT
@Jon Halpenny

German antisemitism began around 1870.
Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914′, New York 1972

Seraphim , July 23, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
@Colin Wright

As I feel that the subject of German responsibility for the outbreak of WW1, relevant for the outbreak of the revolution in Russia, will be attacked with gusto, I suggest to keep in mind firmly the fact that Germany was the first to declare war on Russia. The reason was indeed the fear that Russia by 1916 would be unbeatable and all the objectives of the 'Weltpolitik' of Germany, which would have been at a certain point in time opposed and countered by Russia. To refresh your memory, the date of the calculations was 1912. Just a few words for orientation (from Wikipedia):

"The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire. Meeting at the Stadtschloss in Berlin, they discussed and debated the tense military and diplomatic situation in Europe at the time. As a result of the Russian Great Military Program announced in November, Austria-Hungary's concerns about Serbian successes in the First Balkan War, and certain British communications, the possibility of war was a prime topic of the meeting
[Kaiser Wilhelms'] opinion was that Austria-Hungary should attack Serbia that December, and if "Russia supports the Serbs, which she evidently does then war would be unavoidable for us, too," and that this would be better now than later, after completion of (the just begun) massive modernization and expansion of the Russian army and railway system toward Germany. Moltke agreed. In his professional military opinion "a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better". Moltke "wanted to launch an immediate attack"
Admiral Tirpitz, however, asked for a "postponement of the great fight for one and a half years" because the Navy was not ready for a general war that included Britain as an opponent. He insisted that the completion of the construction of the U-boat base at Heligoland and the widening of the Kiel Canal were the Navy's prerequisites for war. The British historian John Röhl has pointed out the coincidence that the date for completion of the widening of the Kiel Canal was the summer of 1914, but a reading of the report of the conference shows no agreement as to a war in 1914. However, Tirpitz did say that the Navy wanted to wait until the Kiel Canal was ready in summer 1914 before any war could start. Though Moltke objected to the postponement of the war as unacceptable, Wilhelm sided with Tirpitz. Moltke yielded "only reluctantly."

The 'controversial' book of Fritz Fischer "Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918 (published in English as Germany's Aims in the First World War), will certainly come into the discussions. He devotes a large chapter to the subversive operations of the Germans in Russia in order to provoke the revolution and the exit from the war with the help of the Jews and Social-Democrats (both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks).

Jon Halpenny , July 23, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

In 1915 the British made a treaty promising Constantinople to the Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement

JackOH , July 23, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
Ron, extraordinary, provocative stuff in your American Pravda series. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Unz Review is my impression that this is how big-shouldered people of goodwill and genuinely liberal disposition used to talk a century ago. I don't know squat about The Protocols except as it's referred to by others, almost always prefaced as "anti-Semitic". The Unzian approach: "Let's read the damned thing", seems to me superior and more grown-up.

BTW-a childhood friend of mine and her husband, both Jewish and one of them observant, retired and now live in the Carolinas. Their occasional stories of elderly neighbors, call them Morris and Sheldon, returning from prison after having served time for white collar crimes such as tax evasion or improprieties on government contracts are sort of unintentionally funny. Looks like they missed the memo on how to be the world's wire-pullers.

Andrei Martyanov , Website July 23, 2018 at 12:41 pm GMT

Influenced by Maxim Gorky, he and his nephew Nikolai Pavlovich Schmit[e] were significant financial contributors of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party including the newspaper Iskra.[12][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savva_Morozov

Jake , July 23, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
"From my distance of many decades, the text of the Protocols struck me as rather bland and even dull, describing in rather long-winded fashion a plan of secret subversion aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical lines with an entirely new group in control."

That sounds exactly like traditional WASP rule of non-WASP peoples, exactly the way, for example, that Brit Empire businesses set about arranging for revolution of New Spain against Spain, and then of Mexican mestizos and Indios against Mexican criollos (meaning full of nearly full European blood).

Of course, Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy.

Johnny Rottenborough , Website July 23, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
From pages 390-1 of Henry Wickham Steed's Through Thirty Years :

'The gulf that severed Western Europe from Russia during the latter half of the 19th century was dug and kept open chiefly by Jewish resentment of Russian persecution of the Jews. Yet that resentment sprang also from Jewish detestation of the Russian Holy Synod and of the Russian Orthodox Church. Against Russian Christian fanaticism was ranged an intense Jewish fanaticism hardly to be paralleled save among the more militant sects of Islam. This Jewish fanaticism allied itself with the anti-Russian forces before and during the earlier years of the war. It abated only when the Russian Revolution of March 1917 and the subsequent advent of Bolshevism, largely Jewish in doctrine and in personnel , overthrew the Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church. The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions -- a joy, moreover, in which the Vatican shared, as its attitude towards the Bolshevist delegates to the Genoa Conference of April, 1922, significantly indicated.'

The resurgence of Russian Christianity under President Putin has left the 'joy of Jewry' looking distinctly tattered. Enter the West's largely Jewish-owned governments and media with their Russophobia campaign.

Johnnie Walker Read , July 23, 2018 at 1:03 pm GMT
I feel perhaps the most truthful book ever written on the Bolshevik Revolution was Juri Lina's "Under The Sign Of The Scorpion". It details both the heavy Jewish influence and the financial backing by American financiers such as the Schiff's and Warburg's
https://archive.org/stream/Under The Sign Of The Scorpion/sign_scorpion#page/n0

Another great source for information on the backing of the Bolshevik Revolution by American so called "Capitalist" is Anthony Sutton's "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution"

https://archive.org/stream/WallStreetTheBolshevikRevolution#page/n0

Sean , July 23, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

At comment 7 above is an interview with Antony C. Sutton. From his book.

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-ch3.html
Brockdorff-Rantzau's ideas of directing or controlling the revolutionaries parallel, as we shall see, those of the Wall Street financiers. [...]

A subsequent document5 outlined the terms demanded by Lenin, of which the most interesting was point number seven, which allowed "Russian troops to move into India"; this suggested that Lenin intended to continue the tsarist expansionist program. Zeman also records the role of Max Warburg in establishing a Russian publishing house and adverts to an agreement dated August 12, 1916, in which the German industrialist Stinnes agreed to contribute two million rubles for financing a publishing house in Russia.6

Consequently, on April 16, 1917, a trainload of thirty-two, including Lenin, his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, Grigori Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Karl Radek, left the Central Station in Bern en route to Stockholm. When the party reached the Russian frontier only Fritz Plattan and Radek were denied entrance into Russia. The remainder of the party was allowed to enter.

The German-Jewish Economic Elite (1900 – 1933) was central to the German effort to help Lenin.

Jeff Stryker , July 23, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
@JackOH

WAYWARD JEWS

I've known a few Jewish ex-cons, big tough druggies or con men.

In jail, all the historical differences go right out the window. Its a black and white world in there.

Usually Jewish ex-cons have a bunch of skinhead friends from jail with Swastika tattoos who will basically concur that "Some Jews are cool".

The toughest Jews will all be friends with the Nazis because they've done time with them.

anon [317] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

Quite, man quite. the British Banksters would send your sweat ass to their London Tower for a neck stretching ceremony should they over hear Blasphemy suggesting "Britain was not strongest and most powerful promoter of WWI".

the case begins in earnest in 1896, Switzerland, Hertzl, Zionist Congress.
The failure of the theme British and French and Russian Banksters(generally known as the Jewish controlled Entente) forced on the Congress (basically to orchestrate successfully the overthrow the whole of the oil and gas rich Ottoman Arab world. The plan was to replace the Ottoman system with a Colonial Rule of Law System, to enable Zionist producers of oil and gas access to Ottoman oil and gas). Revolution after revolution was initiated throughout the Balkans and Macedonia all designed in one way or the other to bring about this change..
When regime change failed, plan B was initiated.. that plan involved using the highly distributed small groups of Jewish Populations to migrate into the Ottoman Territory. communicating the messages and propaganda to these distributed groups was a Jewish Network task. Immigration was weaponized and used to gain political control over the Ottoman Territory.. hence WWI purpose: get that control of Ottoman oil and block German and Russia competition for the Ottoman oil.
British and French Palestine.. the result.

Wizard of Oz , July 23, 2018 at 1:19 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

Wasn't Luther an anti Semite? And did this not infect his teachings?

DESERT FOX , July 23, 2018 at 1:25 pm GMT
Check WALL STREET and THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION by Anthony Sutton, can be had on Amazon leaves no doubt that the Zionists bankers were behind the overthrow of the Russian government and they are behind the overthrow of the Russian and American governments today.
CornCod1 , July 23, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
It turns out that the events of the past few years has proven that the views of "right-wing cranks," anti-Semites and "conspiracy theorists" had a more correct view of world events than mainstream conservatives. In the eighties I used to gently dismiss the theories of my Bircher friends (gently because they were nice people). Now I know that most of them were right on the money. The events of the last few years have proven this. We have a shadowy "deep state" rebellion against our president, a James Bond villain named George Soros, whose activities Wikileaks proves controls the Democratic Party and other Leftist parties in Europe. Now, anyone with half a brain admits that secret societies control governments across the world.
RebelWriter , July 23, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
I never read the Protocols in its entirely, only bits and pieces. I remember thinking it seemed to be written by a caricature of an evil villain, not even a Bond villain, but a Scooby Doo level villain. It screams fakery from its style. In form, though, it's brilliant.

If I were ever to pen something like it, for the Anglo-Saxon world, I would write it just like that. It imparts all necessary information and instructions, yet has plausible deniability built into it. "It's a fraud, you see. It's anti-Anglo-Saxon."

I admire you for your courage, Mr. Unz; this sort of self-published introspection cannot be as easy as you sometimes make it out to be. Yet, I believe, for the very sake of world peace, we need to at least be able to discuss these issues. If there's nothing at all to them, let the light shine on the facts, and let each judge for himself. The censorship around certain issues, particularly of the Holocaust, only convinces some of their lack of historical authenticity. Laws aren't required to back up claims which history easily vindicates, after all.

utu , July 23, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Johnnie Walker Read

Juri Lina film or the revolution.

TomSchmidt , July 23, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT
A crucial underlying cause of the First World War was Britain's belief that only a preventative war could forestall a rising Germany, but I suspect that an important secondary cause was the parallel German notion that similar measures were necessary against a rising Russia.

Required reading here is The Silk Roads, by Frankopan. He demarcates the reason for Russo-German war. Edward Grey, English foreign minister, at the behest of a declining British empire, knew that Russian expansion in Asia would eventually threaten Britain's Jewel in the Crown, India. Russia had to be turned from a focus on Asia to one on Europe, and alliances with the South Slavs proved just the trick. Russia rightly saw Austria as an easy target for territorial gains, setting off war amongst what had once been the Dreikaiserbund.

Perfidious Albion has killed more people than any other country as direct and indirect result of policy.

Winnetou1889 , July 23, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
Most people also do not know, because of whitewashing history, that Germany in 1919 had a Bavarian Soviet Republic centered in Munich, headed by Communist Kurt Eisner. WWI vets, the Freikorps, and others rooted them out. Later Herr H and his men weren't just street fighting for the hell of it; they were clashing with the Communists, still fighting to root the Communists all out once and for all. Not all Jews were Communists, but many Communists were Jews.

In 1932, the three people on the ballot in Germany were old von Hindenberg, Hitler and Communist Ernst Thälmann. Eventually, as we know, Herr H won out. The rewriting history and whitewashing this Red scare, in the aftermath of WWII, has obscured all of this. My super educated Jewish husband, who was a history major, had never heard of this. All he knows is of trains going east, and nothing of the root of the fight.

The same fight is actually going on today in a different form. If people knew more about the root of the fight generally, perhaps the issues would be clearer. Like writes above: "And here we are." The same fighting and choices in issues remain, but most people don't even realize it.

Wizard of Oz , July 23, 2018 at 2:03 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

I would like to see elaboration and justification of that apparently careful formulation of Ron's that "a crucial underlying [sic] cause of the First World War was Britain's belief [sic] that only a preventative war could forestall [sic] Germany".

Maybe Jilles Dykstra who makes the extraordinary claim that Britain, France and the Czar conspired to get up the war might pitch in.

Rational consideration, absent any evidence, would star with the demographics. Unlike Germany and Russia the birth rates of France and Britain had become quite modern and sustainable. Consistently with its traditional balance of powers policy it made sense for Britain to make an alliance with France to deter Germany from attacking the latter and, in particular from occupying the Low Countries – an interest of Britain since at latest 1588. Germany would have to concentrate its resources on its army so its naval building program did not loom up as more than a cause of expense to the British taxpayer as Britain stepped up its shipbuilding program accordingly. In a world of no permanent friends what was it that made Britain turn the alleged belief into some action, not mentioned, to precipitate a war against Germany – especially when it must have known that Russia wasn't yet ready. Or is there some record somewhere of Britain calculating that 1914 was the perfect time to ensure parity of German and Russian losses?

RebelWriter , July 23, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

He was a philo-semite, or at least sympathetic to the Jews re the Catholic Church. He seems to have expected the Jews to convert to Christianity under his new ideas. They rejected his version of the Gospel, unsurprisingly, and then he did a 180, and published, "On the Jews and Their Lies."
He seemed to believe that no honest, thinking person could deny what he was preaching, something hardly unusual in religious figures.

Luther's story somewhat parallels that of Mohammed, who was initially very gratuitous toward the local Jewish people in Medina. The Jews didn't want any part of his new polity, and plotted in secret with his enemies, which proved catastrophic for those Jews.

ploni almoni , July 23, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT
@Anarcho-Supremacist

You are hereby debunked.

ploni almoni , July 23, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
@Anarcho-Supremacist

Anarcho-Supremacist? What bunk dedunk.

ploni almoni , July 23, 2018 at 2:22 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Just a doin' a what comes nachurally.

Anonymous [306] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
Ron Unz is kickin' ass and takin' names! I just love American Pravda .

The thing about Jacob Schiff is: what really motivated him? I think the standard version of the story is that he hated Czar because of the pogroms, the Cossacks, etc. But what if there was something more at work than some merely personal peeve, or some gauzy notion of 'tikkum olaam'? Unz also mentions Olof Aschberg (whom I had never heard of), so what if this was not merely the lone act of vengeance of a single Russian Jew, but rather a real plot with a strategy?

One other fact that Unz doesn't mention that draws my attention is that, at exactly the same time that Schiff was financing the Bolsheviks, the US Army was deployed to Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

What were they really doing there? Not even in the official version of events were they 'fighting the Reds'. Some of my Russian contacts have insisted that this was really a sinister Anglo-Zionist plot to fragment or balkanize Russia. (I'm thinking along the lines of Mackinder's old Eurasian 'heartland' theory, which some of the commenters above also mentioned.) If so, could it be that Schiff was really working in tandem with the US Govt. to carry out such a plan? Could it be that the original Bolsheviks were really just an ISIS-like terrorist group that somehow got out of hand and managed to take over all of Russia?

Anonymous [253] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@JackOH

"the only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on." – Henry Ford

"There is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the media. It is in the media that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence minds while remaining unobserved. We shall erase from the memory of men the historical facts we do not want them to know, and leave only those we wish".- the Protocols

Before you read "the damned thing", you may read an interesting article by Mr Israel Shamir:

The Elders of Zion and the Masters Discourse

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm

utu , July 23, 2018 at 2:48 pm GMT
@RebelWriter

Philosemitic undercurrent was present in many anti RC heresies. Often the idea was that the reform would bring Jews to Christianity. Before Martin Luther there was Jan Hus and the subsequent splinter groups that believed that their improved Christianity would be more palatable to Jews. The end result was Judaization of Christianity.

Martin Luther's anti-semitism has all marks of resentment for being betrayed.

JackOH , July 23, 2018 at 2:50 pm GMT
@RebelWriter

Rebel, that's pretty much my understanding, too, that Luther's "On the Jews . . ." was a specific ephemeral work addressing a specific issue of the time with respect to Jews, the Church, and the Reformation. I scanned it years ago, in the Pelikan edition I think, and can't remember much more about it. I'm pretty sure I've seen it and other works of Luther described as adiaphoric, not essential to Luther's teaching.

refl , July 23, 2018 at 2:53 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Read: https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/

Wizard of Oz , July 23, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
@RebelWriter

Thanks. Interesting. It does seem likely then that Luther contributed to anti Semitism in Germany well before the 19th century.

Cf. also the novel Jud Suß by Lion Feuchtwanger which suggests there was popular anti Semitism in 18th century Germany.

Anonymous [155] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 3:16 pm GMT
@JohnnyWalker123

Soros thinks he's a god:

It seems that Soros believes he was anointed by God. "I fancied myself as some kind of god " he once wrote. "If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble."

When asked by Britain's Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."

and not a benevolent one. The "philanthropist" persona is fake:

Despite his reputation as an international philanthropist, Soros remains candid about his true charitable tendencies. "I am sort of a deus ex machina," Soros told the New York Times in 1994. "I am something unnatural. I'm very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself. It represents what I like to be as distinct from what I really am. You know, in my personal capacity I'm not actually a selfless philanthropic person. I've very much self-centered."

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/04/opinion/oe-ehrenfeld4

So there it is. The lizard himself gave you some basic truths. Now you're free to connect the dots of his various "philanthropic" projects and see the common thread (white genocide).

ploni almoni , July 23, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

Dear Innocent in Paradise: German "Anti-Semitism" was the invention of a Jewish journalist, Wilhelm Marr (yes, he was Jewish, and Karl Marx was a Lutheran) hired by the Zionists to prepare the way for the coming of the Millennium. Anti-Semitism was at that time already invented in Russia by a respectable doctor, Leon Pinsker, who said Anti-Semitism is thousands of years old, hereditary and incurable. Dr. Pinsker MD was an early front man, a public spokesman for Zionism, who already adopted Hatikvah as the anthem, before Herzl was hired. And yes, Theodore Herzl was also a hired journalist, a front man, an employee, who did as he was told, until he was disposed of. And yes, the Dreyfus Affair was a gimmick, a phony Psy-Op like 9/11. And yes, Emile Zola was another hired journalist. And yes, the pogroms, including the Kishinev pogrom, were just riots. The people killed were rioters. That the pogroms were Anti-Jewish is pure spin, like what you watch on television. Goyim are hopeless and helpless, muscle bound but dumb, a little like cattle or beasts of burden. Give them a peanut, and they are grateful. You can dance circles around them. You can tell them everything, and they just grunt. And then you can lead them by the ring in their noses because they were not endowed with free-will and can't think for themselves.

utu , July 23, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
@Anonymous

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Elders_of_Zion.htm

Indeed Israel Shamir's article on Elders of Zion is very good. He cites Solzhenitsyn:

"The Protocols show a blueprint of a social system. Its design is well above abilities of an ordinary mind, including that of its publisher. It is a dynamic process of two stages, of destabilization, increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm, and on the second stage, new hierarchical restructuring of society takes place. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb. It could be a stolen and distorted plan designed by a mind of genius. Its putrid style of an anti-Semitic grubby brochure [intentionally] obscures the great strength of thought and insight".

"The text demonstrates impressive foresight on the two systems of society, the Western and the Soviet one. While a strong thinker could possibly predict the development of the West in 1901, how could he grasp the Soviet future?"

The master-plan begins with reshaping of human mind:

"People's minds should be diverted (away from contemplation) towards industry and trade, and then they will have no time to think. The people will be consumed by the pursuit of gain. It will be vain pursuit, for we shall put industry on a speculative basis: what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands of workers and industrialists and pass into the hands of financiers.
The intensified struggle for survival and superiority, accompanied by crises and shocks will create cold and heartless communities with strong aversion towards religion. Their only guide is gain that is Mammon, which they will erect into a veritable cult".

Foresight of Anonym is amazing: in the days of the Protocols' publication, Man was still the measure of things, and full eighty years would pass, until Milton Friedman and Chicago School would proclaim Market and Profit as the only guiding light.

ploni almoni , July 23, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Martin Luther was a competing product to Judaism, but the same materialist, Dualist thing in Christian garb. He was just knocking the competition. The princes supported him because he said that the peasants deserved to treated like animals. Because they were animals.

SunBakedSuburb , July 23, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
"When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality, there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering what mysterious objects might dwell there."

Very Lovecraftian statement. In the previous American Pravda, Ron Unz revealed the polytheistic secret of Judaism. Perhaps the above "mysterious objects" found in the void beyond the veil are the gods of the Kabbalah.

" two of his [Fleming's] most memorable Bond villains, Goldfinger and Blofeld, had distinctly Jewish-sounding names, and that so many of the plots involve schemes of world-conquest by Spectre "

Agree with the idea that Goldfinger is Fleming's concept of an international criminal of Jewish origin, probably an agent of the Schiff or Rothschild cartels. But Spectre was a representation of the shadow power in the Cold War -- the ODESSA/Die Spinne network of diaspora Nazis who had operational ties with the Dulles faction at CIA.

Hans Olav Brendberg , July 23, 2018 at 3:44 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Robert Aschberg is not the son, but the granson of Robert Aschberg. He was central in Swedish maoism in the seventies, then turned to journalism. He has been a driving force in the "anti-extremism"-movement in Sweeden. Not just the Swedish Institute, but also the Expo – a Swedish branch of the ADL/SPLC "antiracist" network.

David Martin , Website July 23, 2018 at 3:44 pm GMT
You failed to mention the Schiff-Gore merger: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/kgore.htm
Dutch Boy , July 23, 2018 at 3:44 pm GMT
Transferring a good part of American manufacturing to China and beggaring the American working class thereby had quite a bit to do with the Chinese economic miracle and that was done by our own ruling class, not the Chinese.
Wally , July 23, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
@Seraphim

Said by a hasbarist / Zionist who hates free speech.

And yes, that tsunami is coming whether you like it or not.

http://www.codoh.com

Anatoly Karlin , Website July 23, 2018 at 3:49 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Easy, the Entente were blocking Russian ports so that they could not be utilized by the Germans, whom they were at war with.

This was of course a tragedy for Russia, since the Bolsheviks could point to this as evidence of an Angl0-French "invasion" of Russia and portray themselves as its defenders (even though they themselves were more or less direct hirelings of the Germans), while the Whites got entirely negligible military benefits from it.

There's no need for conspiracies on this score. None of the Western Powers had a democratic mandate to participate in the Russian Civil War, and having the Bolsheviks win was not entirely negative from their perspective, since there would then be no need to share the postwar spoils with it (the French were a partial exception, since the Bolshevik repudiation of Tsarist era debt hit them far harder).

Wally , July 23, 2018 at 3:51 pm GMT
@Charlie Wyoming

What 'pogroms' do you refer to.
Please present proof.

Thanks.

Wally , July 23, 2018 at 3:53 pm GMT
@Sean

If so, then what exactly did that "microfilm text" say?
And citation, please.

http://www.codoh.com

SunBakedSuburb , July 23, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
@Charlie Wyoming

"Democratic Socialism is on its way."

It's already here in the form of a mixed economy. What we need to fear is the new breed of elites, Trotskyite racialists who have prospered in the capitalist game and now want world revolution, at the behest of the Babylonian supremacist cult.

Wally , July 23, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
@Cyrano

said:
"Or was the Bolshevik revolution a payback for the pogroms? "

Please present proof for these alleged "pogroms".

said:
"According to some, one of the ethnic groups that have benefited the most from the good old capitalism are the Jews."

You surely mean "capitalism" where Jews play by a different set of self serving rules.

http://www.codoh.com

Ronnie , July 23, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT
Another very significant book of the time is "The Rulers of Russia" 1938 by Father Denis Fahey (Amazon), an Irish Catholic Priest who had traveled to Russia and analyzed the make up and financing of the Revolution. He made most of the same points as Ron and his book was widely sold at the time even in the USA. Although Fahey was a noted theologist he was also a brilliant observer and acute analyst. I think that Ron Unz would be very interested to read this book from a sophisticated and honest contemporary of the Revolution.
Wally , July 23, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
@BenKenobi

And here we are.

http://www.codoh.com

SunBakedSuburb , July 23, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous

"Soros thinks he's a god "

By the weights and measures of the Materialist reality, Soros is a god.

Anatoly Karlin , Website July 23, 2018 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Hans Olav Brendberg

Correct, I made a mistake , Robert is ofc Olof's grandson, it can't be otherwise even just age-wise.

As a Swede (I assume), do you know what his position on Russia is? I imagine it's the standard Putlerreich narrative, perhaps turned up to 11. I am curious to see if this guess is correct.

Wally , July 23, 2018 at 4:11 pm GMT
@silviosilver

said:
"Neo-nazis take that and run with it, which leads to all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories, "

Please tell us what alleged 'neo-Nazi' "weird and wonderful conspiracy theories" that it "leads" to.

http://www.codoh.com

anon [393] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
@Sean

Yes id like to see Unz take a run at anthony suttons work which strikes me probably true but all these things so hard to get to bottom when memory holed by powers that be

roo_ster , July 23, 2018 at 4:25 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Luther started out philo-semetic. He railed against the Roman church for using bad technique in its efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. Once the Jews heard Luther and his way of explaining the Gospel, they'd come around.

Then Luther met and interacted with many learned and influential Jews and modified his views accordingly.

Anonymous [306] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT
@SunBakedSuburb

But Spectre was a representation of the shadow power in the Cold War -- the ODESSA/Die Spinne network of diaspora Nazis who had operational ties with the Dulles faction at CIA.

It is likely that Odessa/Spinne was penetrated by Mossad. Founding member Otto Skorzeny was probably an asset: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/the-strange-case-of-a-nazi-who-became-a-mossad-hitman-1.5423137

Colin Wright , Website July 23, 2018 at 4:28 pm GMT
@Seraphim

' "The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire " '

Yes, but

I think all the great powers were making preparations and calculations in the same way.

Against this must be set the fact that Germany was essentially a 'satisfied power' at the time. As even your quote implies, she sought no change in the status quo, but on the contrary, feared such a change.

It was other powers that threatened to bring about that change: France, with her incessant scheming and machinations to create a coalition that could avenge 1870, Serbia, with her pathological belligerence towards everyone, Russia, with her Slavophile pretensions that, in the upshot, led her to support a Serbia that was manifestly in the wrong. Here, too, France played an apparently key if obscured role in egging both Serbia and Russia on, and then in the case of Russia, making sure she didn't back down.

I am not arguing that Germany was innocent. I am merely insisting that (a) it was above all the underlying paradigm that made an eventual explosion probable, and that (b) other powers were more at fault.

There's a lot to be said about it. For example, it's been argued that if Austria hadn't delayed and sought the support of Germany, but rather, had promptly attacked Serbia, then the other powers wouldn't have found themselves taking up the positions that made general war inevitable. Of course, this makes the rather dubious assumption that Austria could in fact have quickly beaten Serbia, but it is an example of how the blame for the greater conflagration shifts depending on how one looks at it.

Germany can be blamed for the gratuitious provocation of building a High Seas Fleet. However, if there was any one nation that could have prevented the war from breaking out, it would have been France. Absent her activities, a great war becomes discernably less probable. Serbia would never have dared to have engaged in the provocations she did, and isolated and without encouragement from France, Russia would have been more likely to seek security in an accord with Germany and Austria rather than hostility towards them. After all, for Russia above all, a great war objectively offered nothing. Finally, theories about British bankers notwithstanding, I see Britain as less guilty than any other player. She didn't even have an immense conscript army. She was the only player who had refrained from building one.

Mike P , July 23, 2018 at 4:29 pm GMT
@Johnny Rottenborough

The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions

The resurgence of Russian Christianity under President Putin has left the 'joy of Jewry' looking distinctly tattered. Enter the West's largely Jewish-owned governments and media with their Russophobia campaign.

Good observations. However, the degenerate Western "elites," whose degradation was caused to a large extent by decades of Zionist blackmail and corruption, are unable to mount another serious challenge to a renewed Russia supported by a rapidly surging China.

LSJohn , July 23, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@JohnnyWalker123

"If you replace "Germany" with "Russia," perhaps this paragraph would be a good explanation of why Western leaders hate Russia so much. "

Simpler than that: Russia supports Iran and Syria, which each support Hezbollah, Public Enemies #s 1, 2, and 3 of you-know-who(m),

Anon [781] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT
therefore regarded American history as just too bland and boring to study.
By contrast, one land I found especially fascinating was China, the world's most populous country and its oldest continuous civilization, with a tangled modern history of revolutionary upheaval

In macro terms, Chinese history was more exciting because of massive upheavals and titans like Mao.
But in micro terms, Chinese history of the 20th century was mostly simple: Until 1950, chaos, humiliation, and incompetence. After 1950 to mid 70s, one-man show of Maoism, a period that produced nothing of interest in thought, art, literature, science, technology, cinema, music, etc. In contrast, US history produced so many important individuals and movements in the arts, sciences, enterprise, music, and just about everything. For Mao to be god, everyone had to be ant-like minions. The US, having a more stable system and short-term leaders, was less exciting on a grand scale. But it achieved so much in so many areas.

utu , July 23, 2018 at 4:50 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

That said, it's worth noting that whatever the figures that Schiff contributed during 1917, they would have paled into irrelevance to the 50 million gold marks ($1 billion in modern currency) that the German government funneled through Swedish and Danish banks to the Bolsheviks in Saint-Petersburg that year.

But we do not know how much money Schiff put into the project of revolution. We know that he put a lot of money into Japan:

http://nda-repository.nda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/11605/91/1/1-2_人文科学抜刷_村岡先生.pdf
By the end of 1905, Kuhn, Loeb&Co., to the surprise of many, floated a bond issue in the sum of $200 million – equivalent to some $4.5 billion in today's money. Schiff's loans were an important factor -- and his extensive financial involvement, a deciding factor -- in bringing victory to Japan.

Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?

Peripatetic commenter , July 23, 2018 at 4:58 pm GMT
Small issue:

I had been aware that he had long been as one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America

Missing word or redundant word in there

Rurik , July 23, 2018 at 5:00 pm GMT
Great read, Mr. Unz.

He very matter-of-factly mentions that Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia ,

Echoes of the ((("Russian"))) oligarchs that looted the wealth and resources of the Russian people following the generations of Jewish Bolshevik genocide and slavery of the Russian people.

They go from being brutalized by commie Jews, to being looted by (crony, klepto)-capitalist Jews. Such a deal!

Many people point out that the "Russian" oligarchs weren't all Jews, and neither was Yeltsin- who summarily betrayed Russia and her people to destitution on behalf of their most intractable enemy, and they'd be right.

But I feel an article like this should include the worst and most loathsome man who ever lived, and he wasn't a Jew.

Schiff and Trotsky would have been stopped long before their treachery could have sent Russia and millions of others reeling into the abyss, were it not for the most execrable man who ever befouled the ether; a one president Woodrow Wilson.

It was Wilson who accommodated Schiff by betraying the American people and handing over the keys to our Treasury to this sinister cabal of Jewish supremacist banksters.

It was Wilson whose betrayals and intrigues allowed for Trotsky to escape Canadian internment and be sent with 'suitcases' full of lucre into Russia, with Wilson even arranging a passport and transport documents.

Also, we shouldn't forget that it was also Wilson who promised the American people that he would keep us out of the war, (and was consequently elected president) and then did all he could to betray that promise, and involve us in that disastrous conflict.

Let's not forget that it was Wilson who foisted the ruse of his "Fourteen Points", guaranteeing 'self-determination' to Germany if she laid down her arms, only to betray Germany with a starvation campaign into signing Germans into perpetual slavery. Leading directly to WWII, and all the attendant horrors.

The weight of Woodrow Wilson's singular treachery, treason, betrayals and enormities is beyond my comprehension, but when calculating the worst villains of the 20th century, he certainly takes all the cakes I can think of.

http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

The Bolshevik government of Russia paid the volume its own sort of deep respect, with mere possession of the Protocols warranting immediate execution.

Not just possession of the Protocols, but any perceived 'anti-Semitism' was declared a capital offense when Lenin came to power. (I remember reading somewhere, that this law, death for "anti-Semites", was the first one enacted, but I don't remember where I read that).

http://truthmegasite.com/the-bolshevik-revolution-in-russia-was-the-work-of-jewish-planning-and-jewish-dissatisfaction-our-plan-is-to-have-a-new-world-order/

with the Schiff story seen as conclusion proof of his delusional anti-Semitism.

conclusive ?

Plato and Machiavelli as a classic of Western political thought.

the problem I would have with calling it "Western", is that I consider the Protocols (and Bolshevism), as distinctively anti- Western.

For me, the meaning of 'Western' goes back to the Greeks and Romans, marching though Bysantium and finding its perfect expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and is an expression of something intrinsic to the spirit and genes of Western man. Fundamental to what I'd describe as the ultimate virtue of the West, is honor. IOW honesty, decency, blood, home and hearth. Father and motherland, and fair play.

Whereas the Protocols seems to mock these notions as the weaknesses of 'beast-like' simpletons. The Achilles heal of the West- to be exploited as a means to bashing the West on the rocks of genocidal malevolence, and enslaving the survivors, just as the Old Testament commands.

So it's difficult for me to consider the Protocols anywhere near the writings of Plato/Socrates, who seemed above all to love the Truth. Whereas such quaint weaknesses like 'honor' are exploited in the Protocols with sinister glee.

Sort of like comparing Ron Paul to Richard Pearl. To me they are mutually exclusive.

Anyway, you're a magnificent and brave intellect Mr. Unz, for taking on these most salient and even urgent issues of our day.

Kudos to you Sir!

sarz , July 23, 2018 at 5:03 pm GMT
Brother Nathanael Kapner at realjewnews.com has published several pieces on the status of the Protocols,showing why they are not to be dismissed with the usual tired responses such as "forgeries". Put Protocols in the search box at his site.
Sean , July 23, 2018 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Wally

It was the Times on microfilm so a reproduction of that days edition. Don't get me wrong the Times article can be read as fully endorsing them, but that is the bit where the piece is rhetorically imagining the effect of the Protocols on lesser minds, so such a quote would be really obtuse if it was sincere . The Times article that is often cited as accepting the Protocols authenticity actually took it for granted that the Protocols were fake, it just bemoaned the lack of information proving they were not what they purported to be. The Times piece was an appeal for someone to find out exactly who wrote the protocols.

jilles dykstra , July 23, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
" ' "The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 was an informal conference of some of the highest military leaders of the German Empire " ' "

The Morgenthau phantasy ?

Anon [680] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 5:11 pm GMT
@Dan Hayes

I got $50 on the holocaust

Peripatetic commenter , July 23, 2018 at 5:12 pm GMT

Not longer afterward, the facts regarding the enormous financial support provided to the Bolsheviks

Another small one.

jilles dykstra , July 23, 2018 at 5:16 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Balfour already in 1907 said to the USA ambassador 'that maybe war was the cheapest way to keep the British standard of living'.
Patrick J. Buchanan, 'Churchill, Hitler and "The unnecessary war", How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world', New York, 2008, Balfour, US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49

jilles dykstra , July 23, 2018 at 5:20 pm GMT
@ploni almoni

See also:
Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire', New York, 1977.
Jakob Wassermann, 'MEIN WEG ALS DEUTSCHER UND ALS JUDE', Berlin 1921
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
'Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry', Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York University press

jilles dykstra , July 23, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@Jon Halpenny

Never heard of this treaty.
If you just read the introduction you understand that it never was.
If you understood anything of geopolitics you would know that never would Britain allow Russia free access to the Med.
The movement of grain ships from Russia to the Med interrupted for two days, already Russia could not pay the interest on her foreign debt.
So the Straits were perfect for controlling Russia.
It of course may have been that perfidious Albion held out a herring.

Hibernian , July 23, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Jake

Juarez served the purpose of evicting the French. Criollo rule continues to this day, exemplified by my Hibernian brother Vicente Fox.

Old fogey , July 23, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT
@Sean

Many thanks for the link to Antony Sutton. I will need to read his books. He had scathing things to say about the Hoover Institution, by the way.

Hibernian , July 23, 2018 at 5:48 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

"She didn't even have an immense conscript army."

We Americans proved in 1863, 1917, 1940, and 1948 (this last continuing until 1971) that those can be put together quickly, as long as you have a strong cadre to start with. The British have a strong tradition of reserve units, also.

Anonym , July 23, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Heros

So when I read these Pravda articles, I am always frustrated because Ron Unz is always deferring to some hidden jew in his background who he knows will take offense at what he says, so he has to temper it. Because he is a jew, he cannot call a lying jew a lying jew, or he will be ostracized and boycotted even more. Unz tells us how Ford documents event after event for 80 chapters about how jews have conspired, tricked, committed fraud, and even murdered Christians, sometimes in rituals, to cover it all up, yet as a Jew he cannot understand that we Christians find this centuries old, documented, and still ongoing, satanic blood conspiracy to be worthy of more than a nod and a "tsk".

I think within the last few weeks Ron has shown immense courage. Ron is an agent of reform and I am thankful he exists.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Art , July 23, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT
The Unz Review is a modern day – The Dearborn Independent .

Thanks!

Art

CanSpeccy , Website July 23, 2018 at 5:56 pm GMT
For God's sake read Strunk and White, or if you have, follow Strunk's rule: "eliminate unnecessary words": all those damn intensifiers -- very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.
Bukowski , July 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT
@Winnetou1889

A lot of people also don't know that there was a short lived communist government in Hungary in 1919 led by Bela Kun.

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/some_pics_from_cecile_tormay.htm

Verymuchalive , July 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT
@Frankie P

None of the civilisations mentioned has been continuous in the sense of unconquered. All have been subject to foreign conquest, partition and warring states at various times. The last continuous civilisation was the Japanese, until their defeat in 1945.

peterike , July 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

Yes. Mao, Deng, and Zhou Enlai were all Jewish.

You mock, but in fact there WERE Jews along with Mao. Which is another topic for Ron some day, perhaps.

https://forward.com/schmooze/159051/a-jew-in-maos-china/

https://jewishjournal.com/news/world/179731/

sarz , July 23, 2018 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Dan Hayes

No, my money for "the eminent computer scientist" is definitely on Claude Shannon, whom I ran into a couple of times in the 60s at the house of a Jewish friend and mentor of mine with whom he used to play chess. I knew about his communism, but not about his Jewish mother. The main thing about him, of course, was that he had pioneered information theory.

Rurik , July 23, 2018 at 6:02 pm GMT
@sarz

Put Protocols in the search box at his site.

from the article

In any event, this short work is now available as one of my HTML Books, making it quite convenient for reading and text-searching.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

http://www.unz.com/book/anonymous__the-protocols-of-the-learned-elders-of-zion/

Rurik , July 23, 2018 at 6:10 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

"eliminate unnecessary words": all those damn intensifiers -- very, actually, entirely, somewhat, rather importantly, extremely, considerably, exactly, etc.

German_reader , July 23, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMT

Once I checked around a little, I discovered that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Schiff towards the Czarist regime for its ill-treatment of Jews

But the Czarist regime had already fallen in March 1917 and the liberals that replaced it enacted Jewish emancipation.
And the allies, including the US, had no interest in overthrowing the provisional government, they wanted it to continue the war against Germany, so Schiff would have acted against American interests, surely not without some risk.
And of course in November 1917 there was the Balfour declaration, which should have aligned any ethnocentric Jewish nationalist with the Allied cause.
So apart from irrational hatred of Russia, what plausible motive could Schiff have had for financing the Bolsheviks?

Arnieus , July 23, 2018 at 6:14 pm GMT
By the time Jewish capitalists financed the Bolsheviks they had honed their weaponized economics to a high degree. The similar MO of most if not all "revolutions" in Europe gives credence to the reality of this articles premise.

It is not hard to find Jewish financing for Cromwell, and later William of Orange. One of the first things William did after deposing James was borrow money to fight France from a central bank the newly created Bank of England. The French and the Bolshevik revolutions were instigated and financed and the reining monarchs were murdered just like Cromwell executed Charles the first. In France the aristocracy was wiped out. Napoleon thwarted the banker plan in France and was put down with Rothschild financing. The revolution in Germany that deposed Kaiser Wilhelm and ended WWI was all too similar though the Kaiser escaped the fate of his cousin in Russia. Like Napoleon, Hitler thwarted the agenda planned for Germany, that is a Bolshevik slaughter of Germans. WWII was the result. As Russia is all too aware the US spent billions to hire revolutionaries to depose the elected, Russia friendly government in the Ukraine.

The revolutions are not ideological. All that "workers paradise" and "freedom and liberty" drivel is to motivate the peasants. Russia was pillaged and the likes of Jacob Schiff received a 20-fold return on investment. Only Bankers win the wars.

for-the-record , July 23, 2018 at 6:19 pm GMT
@Ronnie

Another very significant book of the time is "The Rulers of Russia" 1938 by Father Denis Fahe y

It's in the public domain. Here is a link (PDF):

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_345_The-Rulers-of-Russia.pdf

Thorfinnsson , July 23, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

This dipshit led the program Trolljägarna (Troll Hunters), which EXPOSED internet commenters with right-wing views. Such as the dangerously extremist view that Sweden is for Swedes.

He has the standard Establishment views on Russia and Putin. See this op-ed in Aftonbladet (evening daily, formerly had a working class orientation): https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/a/qnpWom/sociala-medier–demokratins-undergang

Rysslands Vladimir Putin har trollfabriker som jobbar dygnet runt och har satt upp tweet-robotar som den senaste tiden gjort allt för att stödja separatisterna i Katalonien.

Russia's Vladimir Putin has troll factories who work around the clock and have set up Twitter robots that the most recent time did everything to support the separatists in Catalonia.

Karl XII should be reviled less for his disastrous invasion of Russia and more for bringing the Jews into Sweden for the first time ever.

dieter kief , July 23, 2018 at 6:28 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

Add to that the tight connection between jews and the secret police and spys and – you know: intelligence services of all kinds in Eastern Europe. It's said, that they were heavily dominated by Jews – one of the rather solid reasons for anti-semitism there after the implosion of the Eastern Block.

Later famous German literary critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki for example was one of those secret service men in London after he had survived the Third Reich in a hideawy in Poland.

jsm , July 23, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
@Anon

his is one reason why Jews keep insisting that blacks who commit crimes should only get a slap on the wrist and be turned loose right back into society again. They honest-to-god think that scolding will stop sociopaths in their tracks, in denial of all evidence,

Why do you assert that Jews insist criminal blacks be let out because they honest to go think scolding will work

as opposed to

that the Jews insist blacks be let out because they are parasites who want to weaken their White host?

What makes YOU an expert in what goes on in Jews' minds?

SCL , July 23, 2018 at 6:50 pm GMT
I think it is odd that no one has mentioned Solzhenitsyn's TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER. It seems the obscuring of this work has been successful.
Thorfinnsson , July 23, 2018 at 6:54 pm GMT
There are some other examples of Jewish influence in America which few people are aware of.

In the latter part of the 19th century, it became customary for the United States to send Jewish ambassadors to the Sublime Porte. The first Jew was appointed in 1889, and up until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire WASPs would only hold the post for a total of seven years.

The reason why hardly needs to be explained.

Jews also helped poison Russo-American relations in this period (which previously had been quite friendly) by successfully lobbying the American government to intervene diplomatically every time there was a pogrom in Russia.

Charles Pewitt , July 23, 2018 at 6:56 pm GMT
Jews have never found a more secure perch than within the Anglo-Saxon nations of England and the United States.

Jews have rarely displayed any gratitude whatsoever for being able to launch their global plots from such safe perches.

Jacob Schiff was a Jew globalizer banker who funded the Jew-controlled Bolsheviks in Russia. The Jews were so fond of Bolshevism because they saw it as an excellent way to attack and destroy their European Christian enemies.

Paul Singer, George Soros, Seth Klarman, Mark Zuckerberg, Shelly Adelson, Mike Bloomberg and many other wealthy Jews are no different than Jacob Schiff.

Mass immigration will prove to be the ultimate undoing of the Jews in European Christian nations.

The response to the Jew push for open borders mass immigration will be the mass expulsion of Jews from European Christian nations.

Anonymous [155] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
@Anon

Much of the problem with Jacob Schiff and his ilk is that he actually thought the 'socialist utopia' was achievable. He believed all the propaganda. When he was donating his money, he had no clue the communist takeover would turn out to be a bloody failure detested by the Russian people who lived all their lives under the system, although there was certainly a strong element of "Let's get revenge on the Tsar and his ilk for treating us like animals," in Schiff's thinking.

Lol no!

The "socialist utopia" angle was clearly designed to appeal to the poor Russian goyim. Did I miss the part where Schiff abandoned his treasures and moved to Russia to bask in that utopia?

The "revenge" angle was the goal. Obviously. He poured money into "utopia propaganda" and into "revenge". Only one of them worked as advertised. Imagine my shock.

Much of what Jews have been trying to do in politics during the 20th century is idealistic

Haha, save that shit for Yahoo Answers or Wikipedia.

for-the-record , July 23, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT
@utu

Is it possible that German project was linked and coordinated with Schiff? Who was peddling this project to Germans? Are there any links between Alexander Pavrus and Jacob Schiff?

From The World at the Cross Roads by Boris Brasol (1921), pp. 70-71:

The full history of the interlocking participation of the Imperial German Government and international finance in the destruction of the Russian Empire is not yet written. Much time and research will be required in order to disentangle the complex relations between the two powers, which sought to beat down the Russian Colossus which for centuries stood as a watchful sentinel on the border of Europe, protecting Western civilization from savage invasions originated in the depths of Asia.

It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German Agents, the German Foreign Office was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international banking firm Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of which the late Mr. Jacob Schiff was a senior member. Nor is it a mere coincidence that in the later stages of the Russian Revolution we still find international finance hard at work engaged in further endeavors to break the last resistance of Russia against the onslaught of the "Triple Alliance" -- that is of the Central Powers, Revolutionary internationalism and International Finance itself.

This is a link to the book (pdf).

Johnny Rottenborough , Website July 23, 2018 at 7:12 pm GMT
@Mike P

Mike P -- Yes, the chances of engineering another Russian Revolution or replacing Russians with assorted ethnics are slim indeed.

for-the-record , July 23, 2018 at 7:30 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

In the latter part of the 19th century, it became customary for the United States to send Jewish ambassadors to the Sublime Porte.

The most famous being Henry Morgenthau Sr. (1913-1916), perhaps now better known for being the father of Henry Morgenthau Jr., father of the "Morgenthau Plan".

Morgenthau Sr. was the maternal grandfather of the historian Barbara Tuchman (Guns of August ).

Jon Halpenny , July 23, 2018 at 7:39 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

It was a real agreement. Why do you think the British attacked Gallipoli? It was to fulfil the promise to Russia. The Russians gave a Quid Pro Quo in the form of allowing Britain a larger occupation zone in Persia.

MBlanc46 , July 23, 2018 at 7:40 pm GMT
@Charlie Wyoming

Jews are seen as white and Palestinians are seen as people of color. That probably doesn't bode well for the Jews.

gmachine1729 , Website July 23, 2018 at 7:42 pm GMT

By contrast, one land I found especially fascinating was China, the world's most populous country and its oldest continuous civilization, with a tangled modern history of revolutionary upheaval, then suddenly reopened to the West during the Nixon Administration and under Deng's economic reforms starting to reverse decades of Maoist economic failure.

Very unambiguously, Mao >> Deng. Of course, the US media will always twist it the other way round. For an explanation, see this: https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2415952 . And https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/trump-trips-but-hes-right-on-russia-our-ruling-class-is-crazy-remember-the-romanovs/#comment-2429247 .

I used to believe the mainstream American narrative on this too, until I realized that the faster economic growth starting from the reforms had more to do with China's finally being able to trade with the US (at its core more a product of what happened later on in Mao's era than what Deng and his supporters did) than with the accompanying change in economic policy. I came to the conclusion that China in 1970 had more or less secured herself to the extent that establishing relations with the US became a possibility. With the industrial and modern foundation already developed and integration into the wider international community, rapid economic growth became more or less inevitable. One can think of China in Mao's years as having developed a proven to work operating system and programming language in bootstrap mode, on top of which the application software that delivered more immediate and tangible returns were built as part of "economic reform." Many knowledgeable people in China feel the same; that those reformists who returned to power afterwards were actually less competent leaders taking undue credit by building on the work of others.

With the Chinese people clearly having such tremendous inherent talent and their potential already demonstrated on a much smaller scale in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, I believed there was an excellent chance that Deng's reforms would unleash enormous economic growth, and sure enough, that was exactly what happened. In the late 1970s, China was poorer than Haiti, but I always told my friends that it might come to dominate the world economically within a couple of generations, and although most of them were initially quite skeptical of such an outrageous claim, every few years they became a little less so. The Economist had long been my favorite magazine, and in 1986 they published an especially long letter of mine emphasizing the tremendous rising potential of China and urging them to expand their coverage with a new Asia Section; the following year, they did exactly that.

I think the comparison between China and Haiti in the late 70s is patently ridiculous, for obvious reasons. Many in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore look down on mainland Chinese for being much poorer and for being 共匪 . The reality is that it's like comparing ordinary engineers in the dominant company to those who started and built an inferior but for the most part working alternative. And now, that alternative China created is starting to become serious competition to the long established market standard.

These days I feel tremendous humiliation for having spent most of my life being so totally wrong about so many things for so long, and I cling to China as a very welcome exception. I can't think of a single development during the last forty years that I wouldn't have generally expected back in the late 1970s, with the only surprise having been the total lack of surprises. About the only "revision" I've had to make in my historical framework is that I'd always casually accepted the ubiquitous claim that Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1959-61 had caused 35 million or more deaths, but I've recently encountered some serious doubts, suggesting that such a total could be considerably exaggerated, and today I might admit the possibility that only 15 million or fewer had died.

Wow, what exactly did you expect back in the late 1970s for the next forty years? More or less what's happening now? And that was considered extremely farfetched at the time? The more I look at it, the more I realize that China in the late 1970s was in essence not anywhere near as bad as it might have appeared on the surface. There was already, for instance, the expertise to develop not great but passable nuclear submarines, which Andrei Martyanov characterized in his book as "the most complex machinery in human history." I also realized that that estimate of 35 million was made by comparing to the death and birth rate of 1958 (so number of excess deaths plus number of fewer births relative to 1958 baseline). It's laughable to label a "dictator" one does not like as a "mass murderer" by comparing himself to himself in population statistics. The overall trend was that during his 25 years, the population of China went from 475 million to 900+ million, hardly what one would expect from a genocidal state.

Now that China is so much more powerful and credible internationally, more people will discredit what those silly and politically motivated American scholars have put in their history books for the masses.

I'm a pretty exceptional and extreme guy (as are you Ron), so I naturally prefer those who dare to use more extreme and unorthodox approaches. I like revolutionaries who transform weird into normal, be they in science, be they in politics. Because the most consequential to our civilization happens at the extremes. Because there's so much more of a story to tell. Mediocrity and conformism is the default, and more people ought to try radical (but appropriated hedged) methods if societal advancement is to be optimized for. Like, what Stalin did, in pioneering the planned economy, was truly revolutionary and met with fierce opposition from the outside world, but it proved to be a miraculous success. Mao replicated it successfully in the Chinese context to modernize China. I think Mao was a genius poet and political thinker and leader and a true revolutionary at heart. His brothers and sons were all killed for "revolutionary" activities. Nearing the last decade of his life, he wasn't about leaving behind wealth and power to heirs of blood like the typical dictator/magnate, as he had few real ones. Most likely, he cared much more about his legacy and what would happen to China afterwards. He distrusted those people under him running things, Deng included, who were scrambling to ensure the best position for themselves and their children after he died. So he launched the Cultural Revolution, using popular uprising to instigate a political reshuffle at the top. Of course, the people who made it to the top who ran things during his last decade were very questionable. He may well have been quite displeased with the result. Nonetheless, he probably felt this political balancing would be the healthiest choice for his legacy, for the political situation afterwards. The people he brought down came back to power after he died, and I'm sure many of them secretly resented him but were too scared to say anything. So he succeeded, unlike Stalin, in not getting posthumously denounced. And China is still thriving forty years after his death, though maybe not as much as he would have hoped.

As I write this, I am reminded of Mao's poetic quote: 人间正道是沧桑, which means literally "the correct course for the human world is for seas to turn into mulberry fields."

bjdubbs , July 23, 2018 at 7:43 pm GMT
Re Nixon and the problems of hiding the ethnic dimension of red-baiting, it was always puzzling why conservatives focused so much on "Whitaker Chambers and Alger Hiss" because the story itself seemed pretty inconsequential and not really worth the monumental status it seemed to possess for conservatives. Now it makes sense if Hiss served the role of being the respectable, WASP target of redbaiting.
Daniel Rich , July 23, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

Westerns on TV would have Native Americans burn down everything within sight [and mostly without any logical reason].

But when you start looking at who're behind such scenarios [writers, directors, producers], you'll discover a projection of pogroms [quite often by Jews with an Eastern European background].

And, yes, I fell for it too.

The Hollywood Indian – Link to Wikipedia [this being a Wikipedia entry, don't expect to find the full and naked truth]

MarkinPNW , July 23, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
@silviosilver

Wasn't "Fordism" the official state religion in Huxley's "Brave New World", with the symbol of the capitol T in honor of the Ford Model T automobile replacing the Christian Cross (resembling the lower case t) as the primary religious symbol?

Wizard of Oz , July 23, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@Charles Pewitt

Not a fact that "Jews have rarely displayed any gratitude .". In the Anglophone countries many of the great charitable gifts, to art galleries/ museums, to medical research and hospitals, to musical events and institutions and other objects of charity are from Jews.

Done anonymously? Probably not? "Displayed"? Yes.

Daniel Rich , July 23, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
@for-the-record

Most likely you've already read this book, but I'll add a link to it for those who haven't:

"George Bush : the unauthorized biography" – Link to Archive.org

Indeed, what a tangled web they've woven and how we're ff-ing stuck in it

Scipio Africanus , July 23, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT
Mr. Unz,

The intellectually curious know the problem of Jewish, power, influence , propaganda, and subversion. Enlightenment has tremendous value, but the paramount question is how do we stop international Jewish power. The combination of ethnic unity, wealth, media manipulation, high IQ and institutional infiltration creates a formidable deadly opponent. This has been going since the ancient world.

JQ has dire consequences for the very survival of western civilization particularly with mass demographically swamping immigration policies.

What will happen to Jews when the Occident becomes minority majority? Jews will be perceived as just any other white person by minority groups, many of which harbor hatred against Jews. There will be a Chinese world hegemony when the west falls, which will not be good for Jews. The elite Jews need to wake up. Destroying the goyim is not good for them!

Anon [330] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 7:58 pm GMT
@Rurik

Remember that Wilson was blackmailed into WW1 by Sam Untermeyer Zionist and big shareholder in Standard Oil

He was also the kind of do gooder Puritan who causes so many problems in the world

Wizard of Oz , July 23, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@Jon Halpenny

Isn't Gallipoli – and the original attempt to send warships through the Bosporus – explicable as
1. An attempt to knock a German ally out of the war
2. Open an ice free supply route to Russia (and maybe an export route for Russian grain?)?

Cyrano , July 23, 2018 at 8:09 pm GMT
If anybody ever benefited from the Bolshevik revolution – it was the workers in the west, primarily US.

The October revolution forced the capitalists to make concessions to the working class that they wouldn't have otherwise made simply out of their good natured kind hearts.

If the Jews were so diabolical to unleash the Bolshevik revolution because of sinister motives only, how come that they didn't predict that it's going to hurt their profit margins in the US – via increased wages and benefits that they were forced to pay in order to keep the working class calm – out of fear that the Bolshevik revolution might have given them some ideas about conducting feasibility study of staging a copycat revolution.

Wizard of Oz , July 23, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

If actually said it counts for some fraction of one per cent of the needed evidence. That is true, in particular, because it suggests no knowledge of Balfour the man. I recall a vignette (here's another tiny fractional piece of evidence) from an essay by Leonard Woolf (Virginia Woolf's v clever husband) in an essay where he describes Balfour in committee in 1915 receiving a note, pausing for just a moment, then continuing "as I was saying, in the matter of an additional farthing .". The note told him of the sinking of the Lusitania. At least my informants of what was said on the occasion of news being received of, first, the invasion of the Soviet Union and, second, Pearl Harbour, reported "we've won the war" as the enthusiastic expression on both occasions.

I commend resurrection of Leonard Woolf's writings as a pleasure awaiting Ron and like minded fossickers for small nuggets (with hopes of greater ones).

Anonymous [199] Disclaimer , July 23, 2018 at 8:22 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

Destabilize might not be quite the word for it. Pulverize and dilute the various indigenous national identities? Yes.

One other related maneuver that is underway is that the Jews are giving Muslims territory in Europe and the United States in exchange for the Jews' having taken Palestine. It's a form of pacification, of letting the pressure out. It distracts the Muslims with the fruits of capitalism and other material wealth and political power (in Europe and US). It also clears potentially resistant young men out of Israel's neighborhood. I suppose one could also view it as payment of compensatory damages.

Allan , July 23, 2018 at 8:25 pm GMT
@Rurik

Let he who is without hypocrisy cast the first damn .

It's by the way that I agree with your summary of the bust out phase of the life of the crime organization established through the supposedly "Russian Revolution":

Echoes of the ((("Russian"))) oligarchs that looted the wealth and resources of the Russian people following the generations of Jewish Bolshevik genocide and slavery of the Russian people.

So, are not reparations owed to Russians? If so, they must not be financed by further extractions from the Germans, who appear to be the victims of a set up for a holocaust (Dresden, etc.) after a suitable pretext had been identified by the same cabal, more or less, who financed and plotted the 1905 & 1917 insurrections in Russia. Adequate compensation must include unconditional surrender of any and all ownership and control over the many "Holocaust" museums that have been foisted upon us in order to cripple us with guilt and to distract us from another painful pravda about Jewish history.

The painful truth about the Holocaust is basically just this: Any holocaust of Jews in Europe during the 1940′s can be explained correctly as an own goal brought about by compassionate activists such as Hugo Preuß. He and others labored for generations to plunge Europe into chaos again and again and now again with the movement to abolish border controls and to relocate to Europe tens of millions of Muhammadists, subsaharans Africans, and other aliens.

Sparkon , July 23, 2018 at 8:43 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I must add that, though WWI was set up by GB, France and the tsar, I never found evidence that jews were involved in the conspiracy.

T he evidence is there already by 1903 in Zionist co-founder Max Nordau's stirring speech that year to Zionists in Paris:

Litman Rosenthal:

"About a month later [~Sept. 1903] I went on a business trip to France. On my way to Lyons I stopped in Paris, and there I visited, as usual, our Zionist friends. One of them told me that this very same evening Dr. Nordau was scheduled to speak about the Sixth Congress"
[...]
"When we reached the hall in the evening we found it filled to overflowing and all were waiting impatiently for the great master, Nordau, who, on entering, received a tremendous ovation. But Nordau, without paying heed to the applause showered upon him, began his speech immediately, and said:"

'You all came here with a question burning in your hearts and trembling on your lips, and the question is, indeed, a great one, and of vital importance. I am willing to answer it. What you want to ask is: How could I -- I who was one of those who formulated the Basle program -- how could I dare to speak in favor of the English proposition concerning Uganda, how could Herzl as well as I betray our ideal of Palestine '

"The whole assembly was under the spell of Nordau's beautiful, truly poetic and exalted diction, and his exquisite, musical French delighted the hearers with an almost sensual pleasure. For a few seconds the speaker paused, and the public, absolutely intoxicated by his splendid oratory, applauded frantically. But soon Nordau asked for silence and continued":

'Now this great progressive world power, England, has after the pogroms of Kishineff, in token of her sympathy with our poor people, offered through the Zionist Congress the autonomous colony of Uganda to the Jewish nation. Of course, Uganda is in Africa, and Africa is not Zion and never will be Zion.'
[...]
' let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.'

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_International_Jew/Volume_1/Chapter_14

Them Guys , July 23, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
@Johnnie Walker Read

Yes, I found that book as a free read online and read it. It is amazing how purely evil and so filled with hatred those jewish Bolshevik torturers and mass murderers actually were/are.

Every description in that book of the many, many ways jews invented for use as a torture reminds one of Apache Indians of the 1800′s era. There is simply No method of torture or murderous deaths, them bolshie jews will not do. One thing certain is, whoever reads that book better have a strong stomach, and even the strongest of men will be found wiping a few eye tears away now and then, since the abject brutality and totally Inhuman tortures gleefully done border on being unspeakable.

And with No other valid reason to be found, other than a true explaination of how, be it Talmudic religion, or other dna traits, or some form insanity present within jewry in general, folks better trained medically than me can debate But the best reasons when all is added up is simply jews are jews and its Bad for all non jews period. Far too many historical evidences and eras seem to validate that regardless of which nation jews choose to infiltrate in large numbers, so that it then becomes the Next New Host Nation of 1/2 of more of international worldwide jewry. Very evil and immoral and unethical situations develop and develop to the proverbial, Inth-degree every damn time.

And to date about the only remedy has been for every host nation to give jewry the Big Boot Out.

At least now, todays usa host nation, none can claim jews still have zero places to call home eh.

Israel's big enough to fit them all within it. And you can bet all you own, and win the bet, if you bet that within two seconds flat of usa jewry finds out of a plan to get jewry out of America. Most American dwelling jews will screech and squak and holler as if a swine pig stuck with a dagger knife.

All of their constant talk of how jews so so love israel, how they Own it, and even most every athiest jew when asked "Why so, a right to return eh jewboy"? Those athiests with out skipping a beat, will answer back "Oh thats due to G-d (god) Gave land of israel to Us jews, see"! Indeed that same god they reject and refuse to believe even exists, somehow Gave jews lands in palestine like a real estate agent at centruy-21 real estate co. eh. And soon as they get wind of an exit agenda, a thousand excuses to why cannot go live in israel shall surface and do so fast. Benjamin Franklin, founding father, said it best. They are Paristies and like Vampires a jew can't live off another vampire. Nor a flea live off of another flea They always require a Host Body aka Nation to keep 1/2 of jewry in so to provide for the other 1/2 thru too many corrput ways and means to list.

Yet no other method of fixing a host nation works. How long has america left before even that option wont work. It sure be real swell if for a change jewry as a whole would finally just act like Mr. Ron Unz, and be willing to admit to facts and truths without any baggage of talmudic fantasy and jewy jewish fables eh I wont hold my breath for such, and expect that unless jews are who make first moves to fix what they fucked up, it will not end good for anyone involved.

Cannot help but wonder at times what if? What If, about 800 or so years ago when some Pope and european Kings agreed to hunt down and find and Burn every talmud scrolls or copies etc to be found What if they succeded and located every single one, by now 800 yrs later maybe jewry would have assimilated much better and none of this would be reality.

However for now the real main reality is Yes usa Is latest Host nation, Yes many maybe most jews within usa are grand kids of orig russian bolsheviks, and so far many of them have shown their true colors and leave no secret that america is Next up to play role russian whites and christians suffered so badly under .Read that book, see for yourself what a real fully Depraved and pure evil jewish mind can conjur up when it comes to vicious unspeakable tortures, and mass murderous venomous hatred for the "other" aka all non jews HINT: Forget MSM claims of how bad a torture Water Boarding is!..Yes it too sounds not too nice to experience, but compared to 1917 and onwards Russia and jewsih invented methods of tortures and mass deaths, no comparison at all.

Many jews and their Shabboz goy defenders will likely claim such an honest book need be Banned due to it creates more jew haters Well maybe so eh But maybe also after you read of those vile evil methods, maybe some jews deserve being hated so badly. That alone should cause naysayer jews and shabboz goys to divert atten To jews and seek a rapid and lasting jew-fix, before too many more folks read the book perhaps.

Jon Halpenny , July 23, 2018 at 9:27 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Both of the reasons you give are valid in their own right. But it is a fact that the British had given an assurance to hand Constantinople over to the Russians shortly before they began the Gallipoli Campaign. If the campaign had succeeded Russia would have got Constantinople and the Straits.

refl , July 23, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

According to the site I mentioned above (firstworldwarhiddenhistory), the British attacked Gallipoli to keep Russia in the war until the coming collapse of Germany and Russia – hard to swallow but the authors make quite a compelling case. I do not want to unnerve anyone but the site by these two Scots is certainly worth a mention on tis forum.

Che Guava , July 23, 2018 at 9:38 pm GMT
@Verymuchalive

Aah, the myth of etternal Japan. In the fifth century, the nobility was 60% Korean, 20% Chinese, and 20% native. After that brief period, thie Shogunates were in power. The Mongol invasion was, indeed, unsuccessful, but enough landed and wrought havoc in Kyushu, the Kamakura Shogunate fell as a result. That it never happened (they were all blown away by divine winds), is simply a confection for the (unfortunately, still) occupying Americans.

In southern Kyushu, ynu can still see populations of Mongolian ponies, and markers of the sites of landings and battles. One reason the right hates the current emperor is that he once acknowledged his Korean ancestry.

Kratoklastes , July 23, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT
@Anarcho-Supremacist

People who say things like " [X] has been debunked " without giving any evidence of the debunking of [X], debunk themselves.

It takes about ten seconds to buttress a claim of 'debunking' by typing in a reference to the work that supposedly does the debunking.

I know this isn't a graduate seminar or a think-tank tea-room, but given Unz's preparedness to disclose his previous naïveté (and the process by which the scales fell from his eyes), it would be good form to make counter-arguments rather than what amounts to a content-free tweet.

Give Unz some credit: he has the training to discriminate between sources, and seems genuinely committed to figuring out what things are true and what are not. To assert that his process is retarded (which is what you're doing by dismissing a source so flippantly), without any obligation to buttress your assertion, makes you immediately suspect.

James N. Kennett , July 23, 2018 at 11:19 pm GMT
@Heros

This Pravda article was once again a frustrating read because it once again tries to dance around difficult issues while minimizing offense to jews.

When presenting controversial material, IMHO it is best to minimize offense to everyone, so that the material can speak for itself. Do not give one's opponents an excuse to label the article as anti-semitic or anti anything else. Do not give them an excuse to avoid thinking about the subject matter. Present the facts.

I think the American Pravda series strikes the right tone, and each article surprises me with vital historical information that has been memory-holed.

gmachine1729 , Website July 23, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT
@Scipio Africanus

I don't think the West will fall, but it will certainly weaken relative to China and East Asia at large. I feel like the Chinese are the most able to see through Jewish shenanigans and also most politically able to openly talk about it.

There is a benefit from being half isolated from Western culture. It's perfectly okay in China to be like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Rui#Controversy . This is coming from the host of the most prominent English news show of CCTV, China's virtual TV monopoly.

Chinese businessmen can openly say that Jews are the types to do whatever they can to get ahead, scruples be damned.

I used to much admire, to a great extent blindly, Jewish achievement, especially in science. I still do to a great extent. But now I think they are overrated, especially in terms of raw ability. It's the combination of higher raw ability and being a privileged minority group within elite Western culture. Nowadays, in the US it's the East Asian kids winning the 100% meritocratic contests at the high school level, where there is basically zero, human promotion subjective factor. Moreover, from the 40s on, the Japanese more or less held their own vis-a-vis the Jews in theoretical physics.

Yukawa, Tomonaga, Nambu, Maskawa, Kobayashi all won Nobel, and their work arguably exceeded that of the typical physics theory Nobel, as there was still some bias in the committee, against Soviets, against Japanese.

The more mathematical and theoretical and loaded on individual brilliance the field, the better East Asians have done. My non-Jewish white friend who placed at the top in elite math contests shocked me by suggesting that in terms of biological intelligence, East Asians may actually be higher than Jews are.

Colin Wright , Website July 23, 2018 at 11:27 pm GMT
@Cyrano

' If anybody ever benefited from the Bolshevik revolution – it was the workers in the west, primarily US.

The October revolution forced the capitalists to make concessions to the working class that they wouldn't have otherwise made simply out of their good natured kind hearts '

I don't think so. When opportunity afforded, capitalists would be just has hard-hearted and exploitative as ever: see Union Carbide knowingly virtually sentencing workers desperate for employment to death by having them drill a tunnel through dry silica at the height of the Great Depression.

On the other hand, long-term, the restriction on immigration drove wages up; Archie Bunker was able to afford his own house and a stay-at-home wife on a forklift driver's salary, and that wasn't a TV fantasy. By 1970, it was a reality -- and American workers were hardly vulnerable to Communist propaganda.

But opening up the floodgates to immigration did away with that. Now we're back to masses of desperate, suitably docile workers.

It's immigration, not fear of communism. Reduce the supply of labor; conditions for the working man improve. Increase the supply of labor; they decline. This has been true since at least the Enclosure movement.

Kratoklastes , July 23, 2018 at 11:30 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Why do you think that naming a wing after oneself in a museum or university or hospital, is an expression of ' gratitude '? It's an expression of economic power , and is self-serving.

"Charity vampires" are a thing: they're the people who draw a $500k/yr salary, and first-class travel and accom, from the proceeds of earnest-but-naïve 'chuggers' who collect loose change from earnest-but-naïve citizens.

The notion that $2500-a-plate (and upwards) 'charity dinners/galas/events' exist to raise money for 'charity', is marketing aimed at rubes. Such events exist in order for people to rub shoulders with each other, in tax-deductible ways that specifically exclude hoi polloi (because the price of entry is far too high).

The only thing more likely to fund the lives of an economic vampire than a self-styled 'charity', is a self-styled 'foundation'.

(Note – this is all completely independent of the ethnocultural background of the vampire in question: Gentile, Joo, and Musselman too there are parasitic sociopaths in all human societies, and they find the easiest grifts – 'charity' and politics chief among them).

German_reader , July 23, 2018 at 11:32 pm GMT
@iffen

Claiming that a New York banker financed communist revolutionaries seems rather implausible to me all the more so at a time when Czarism had already been overthrown and legal discrimination against bourgeois Jews like Schiff had just been removed by the new liberal government in Russia.

The situation in 1917 was very unlike that in 1904/05, and supporting the Bolsheviks would have been much more extreme than supporting Japan (which was then a British ally; public opinion in the US and Britian had been pro-Japan during the Russo-Japanese war).

I can't think of any plausible reason why Schiff would have supported the Bolsheviks (apart from completely irrational hatred of Russia or did he want to support his old home country Germany in WW1 and help Russia knock out of the war?). If he had wanted to make Russia ripe for exploitation by Jewish finance as Unz seems to insinuate with his vague hints about "Jewish exploitation", there surely would have been more fitting ways than supporting communist revolution.

But yes, I suppose expecting an answer to those questions here is probably futile.

ploni almoni , July 23, 2018 at 11:34 pm GMT
@German_reader

Money. They paid him back plus.

[Jul 23, 2018] The USA is the perfect environment for the virus of groupthink to spread.

Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Gordon Pratt , Next New Comment July 23, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT

There is an unrecognized plague in our society called antidepressants.

More than ten per cent of the people in the industrialized world take drugs which interfere with self doubt. They don't ask themselves whether an idea in their minds is true, fair or kind. They only ask if they believe it. And since the chemical they ingest prevents them from assessing the idea from all sides they always believe that if they think something it must be true.

This is the perfect environment for the virus of groupthink to spread.

And since our leaders, both on the left and the right, may be ahead of the curve on drug usage the neocons and the politically correct may use antidepressants at greater levels than 10 per cent.

Other symptoms of antidepressant use include high levels of free floating anxiety (because useful anxiety is suppressed) and restlessness.

I am still asking myself what motivated a veteran politician like Hillary Clinton to violate a cardinal rule of politics by attacking not her opponent but his supporters with the "basket of deplorable" comment in the closing days of the 2016 campaign except chemically induced madness.

If history has recorded that the Roman Empire collapsed due to lead poisoning from the water pipes a future time may also conclude the US Empire was destroyed due to antidepressants.

AnonFromTN , July 23, 2018 at 3:09 pm GMT
@Gordon Pratt

I think you are mistaken trying to rationalize the behavior of the political class and their puppet masters. I believe the real driver are not antidepressants, but an obscene greed, which is so blinding that it made MIC profiteers forget that to enjoy the fruits of their thievery they have to be alive.

[Jul 23, 2018] Muslim population of Russia

Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

FKA Max , Website July 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm GMT

@Jon0815

Thanks very much for your feedback. You are correct the Stratfor numbers are all over the place, but they were the best I could find.

It is difficult to find definitive numbers on the actual Russian Muslim population. Here is another data point, which points to a quite significant increase in the Muslim population, from 2008:

Meanwhile, identifying with religions other than Orthodox Christianity was more common among younger Russians (13% among those ages 16-29, 7% among those ages 30-49) than among older Russians (1% among those ages 50-69, 4% among those ages 70 and older). According to the ISSP data, Muslims account for 9% of Russians ages 16-29, 6% of Russians ages 30-49, 1% of those ages 50-69 and 3% of those ages 70 and older.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/

The Economist put the Russian Muslim population at about 24-25 million (I added all the populations in the below map together) in 2002:

A Muslim power? It sounds bizarre. But Russia has more Muslims than any other European state (bar Turkey); and the Muslim share of the population is rising fast. The 2002 census found that Russia's Muslims numbered 14.5m , 10% of its total of 145m. In 2005 the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, put the number of Muslims at 20m . Ravil Gaynutdin, head of Russia's Council of Muftis, talks of 23m , including Azeri and Central Asian migrants.

Source: https://www.economist.com/europe/2007/04/04/a-benign-growth and https://www.quora.com/Do-Russians-know-much-about-Islam

Russian Muslims might be less problematic than Middle-Eastern ones though, since they are probably less inbred, i.e. fewer cousin marriages, and thus likely more intelligent and less clannish, violent and fanatical, etc.

But their higher intelligence could also be an advantage to them and a double-edged sword for the native Russian population if they ever wanted to take over the country, once their numbers have reached critical mass and they are close to a majority in Russia.

Russia's formerly richest man is Muslim, for example:

Alisher Usmanov- $19.6 billion
Vagit Alekperov- $12.3 billion
Suleyman Kerimov- $7.1 billion
Iskander Makhmudov- $6.5 billion

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslims_in_business#Russia

Andrei Martyanov , Website July 22, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT
@gmachine1729

I'm about 65% Russian, 25% Lak (Dagestani), and 10% other (mostly Italian, Jewish).

Russian 65% DNA doesn't make one Russian, which is primarily the function of culture.

That Political Economy degree from Berkeley surely is a signal for that. I like humanities. Problem is a lot of US humanities is garbage

Most of them are. We can observe today the results of those "degrees" all over the place -- cognitive dissonances follow and people become hysterical. In general, modern Western "economism" (not all of it) operates of the "profound" assumption that wind blows because trees are moving. Hence Wall Street, "GDP" and virtual economy with consequences of post-modernism and post-industrialism. Per political, so called, "science" -- it is altogether a whole other story. In the West, most people who have some grasp on reality are people primarily from serious academia who dedicated life to a real science and history, and some from military and intelligence -- the rest is a swamp.

Maybe I come across as high V low M

I have no idea what it is.

FKA Max , Website July 22, 2018 at 9:39 pm GMT
@FKA Max

According to the ISSP data, Muslims account for 9% of Russians ages 16-29, 6% of Russians ages 30-49, 1% of those ages 50-69 and 3% of those ages 70 and older.

This is a highly interesting data point. There are more Muslims ages 70 and older in Russia than among those ages 50-69.

What this indicates, in my opinion, is that Russian Muslims not only have more babies than ethnic/native Russians, but that they also live longer.

This is likely due to not drinking alcohol, etc.

So the Russian Muslim population is not only expanding through higher fertility rates, but also because of higher life expectancies.

According to United Nations statistics, the fertility of Russia's Muslims stands at 2.3, much higher than the overall national fertility rate of 1.7.[21]
[...]
Its Muslim population is expected to rise from 16.7 million in 2010 to 18.3 million in 2030. A comparatively robust growth among the Muslim population could be attributed to lifestyle choices like less or no alcoholism and higher rate of reproduction. While the growth rate for the Muslim population in Russia is projected to be 0.6 percent annually over the next two decades, the non-Muslim population is expected to shrink by an average of 0.6 percent annually over the same period.[22] Continuation of TFR differentials across ethnic groups implies long-run shifts in the ethnic composition of the population.

-- https://www.orfonline.org/research/russias-demographic-trajectory-dimensions-and-implications/

[Jul 23, 2018] Those people who still think Trey Gowdy is some sort of great conservative warrior are about as annoying as those who still do not realize that Steve Bannon is nothing but a bloviating, Deep State douchebag.

Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [128] Disclaimer , July 22, 2018 at 6:29 pm GMT

Trey Gowdy is calling on the President and Americans to believe that Russia interfered in our election and that they are our enemy. When did the war start? I missed it. He is wrong.

He should not be encouraging people to believe things when no evidence is produced, and when the showing of "interference", or better, "attempted" interference made so far is preposterous.

1) Russians campaigned for Trump on the internet AFTER the election was over
2) Russians put in campaign ads for all candidates
3) Russians hacked the DNC on the strength of the word of a partisan private organization who actually worked for the DNC and allegedly examined the computer, when the FBI who had every right to inspect the computer didn't, and on the strength of the Russian government leaving the name of its first KGB agent in the metadata in Cyrillic letters.

This is to say nothing about the blatant bias and bad faith by the organizations saying they interfered.

That is the showing made to the American people of Russian interference, or better, "attempted" interference, and it is preposterous, stupid and wholly unworthy of belief.

What is Gowdy asking the American people to do. He is asking them dumb-down to the level of retardation to believe this story. I'd just as soon go to Guantanamo Bay and have those goons break open my skull and leave me brain damaged. Only then would I perhaps believe it.

Intelligent Dasein , Website July 22, 2018 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Those people who still think Trey Gowdy is some sort of great conservative warrior are about as annoying as those who still do not realize that Steve Bannon is nothing but a bloviating, Deep State douchebag.

[Jul 23, 2018] MK-DELTABURKE

Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: July 22, 2018 at 8:25 pm GMT 100 Words @Cagey Beast Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos .

On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents "populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations. Aspen Institute does make attempts at outreach, but they invariably cock it up by eliciting, recruiting, or suborning every single person they bring in. The shitheads even tried to do it to me. You would think they'd have a dossier saying I hate those cobags.

Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in complete control.

Cagey Beast , July 22, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT

@MK-DELTABURKE

Exactly.

Aspen Institute is CIA.

Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute. Or, to be more precise, the CIA is the armed wing of Washington's permanently governing technocratic party, in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party.

Poor Julian Assange is likely going to be in their hands not too long from now. The citizen of one Five Eyes country will be arrested by another and then sent off to the imperial metropole, to be kicked around like a political football. The rest of us Anglosphericals are expected to cheer or remain silent. Either is acceptable.

TG , July 23, 2018 at 4:56 am GMT
I hear you, and I sympathize, but this is not mass dementia.

The oligarchy that runs the United States was worried that Donald Trump might actually (!!) take some consideration for the national interest of the people of the United States of America. That will never do.

This is not irrational. The screaming, the hysteria, this is the utterly rational, breathtakingly brutal reaction of a ruling elite that has the moral sense of a reptile. And it's working. All of Trump's campaign promises to stop wasting trillions on pointless winless foreign wars of choice, and instead spend that on our own country? Gone. And so much else besides.

It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot footsoldiers, screaming in mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them.

[Jul 23, 2018] 'Perpetual War' Explained In 140 Seconds

Jul 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:00 13 SHARES

In 1935 , Major General Smedley Butler warned the world that "War is a racket. It always has been..."

"It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

And we ignored it.

26 years later, in 1961 , President Dwight Eisenhower - a retired five-star Army general - gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex , a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. "

In his remarks, Eisenhower also explained how the situation had developed:

" Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions ."

57 years after that, we see exactly what they warned about... and as far as we can tell, only Ron and Rand Paul remain to argue against 'war' - even though President Trump talks of 'peace', the bombing continues - and so here we are today, beholden to the US war machine...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/z2hRRGHBeSw

Tags Politics War Conflict Comments Vote up! 1 Vote down! 0

Yen Cross Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:04 Permalink

Currency Wars? Same as it ever Weimar was.

Don't let past history cloud your judgement. That's exactly what the scumbag MIC is expecting.

COSMOS -> Yen Cross Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:19 Permalink

Limited number of resources on planet pretty easy to explain endless wars. Only so much arable land to feed the people on this earth. Is it a wonder why rapefugees by the millions will come to places where they will be fed and clothed for free. Its paradise for those backwards brownie turds. Not to mention most of the drinking water of this planet is found in the Northern Hemisphere

Yen Cross -> COSMOS Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:25 Permalink

COSMOS, that was a fine comment!

History makes fantastic references, but does NOT define the outcome of decisions moving forward.

Well Done, and I appreciate your comment.

Ignatius -> Yen Cross Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:27 Permalink

Of course, Qadaffi builds "the great man made river" and NATO, et al, come in and blow the shit out of their country, so there's that, too.

The Syndicate hates good examples.

LetThemEatRand -> Yen Cross Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:30 Permalink

Things are so ass backwards that the same people who would send their son to fight in wars overseas for bankers and who will salute the flag as their son come homes with one leg, don't understand that the war they are not fighting right now is on their home turf.

ted41776 -> Yen Cross Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:19 Permalink

this time it's different, this time the useless eater idle worker bees don't need guns to shoot each other. this time they can be humanely and quickly vaporized to maintain our leaders' control

Yen Cross -> ted41776 Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:36 Permalink

Funny you mention this. I wa driving to the sore for a few things with my Mother earlier.

She got into this us vs them mindset.

I looked at her and said; " Mom, since when did you become one of them?"

Only YOU decide your fate, and what your aspirations are.

Many people have everything and lose it, including myself. We pick ourselves up, and start over.

I'm even happier now. You find out who your real friends were/are, and it's awesome to build relationships with people you otherwise wouldn't have.

Schools and Colleges have indoctrinated young people for several decades, and the kids are starting to wake up. [I hope]

ted41776 -> Yen Cross Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:40 Permalink

i call them the "we"s

ted41776 -> Yen Cross Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:40 Permalink

i call them the "we"s

Dude-dude Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:15 Permalink

Why is it that I make a comment on ZH, like: "if the Deep-State were eliminated somehow, the USA would enter into an economic depression!" Then a few days later I see my argument writ-larger on ZH???

COSMOS -> Dude-dude Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:18 Permalink

Things that make you go hmmmmmm

Ignatius Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:18 Permalink

And Flint, MI still has shitty drinking water.

"Ye shall forge your F-35s into water pipe," sayeth the Lord.

Things are shitty and getting shittier because that's the way our owners/rulers want it.

Dwellerman Mon, 07/23/2018 - 01:22 Permalink

"War is a racket. It always has been... It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in [men's] lives." [there], fixed it for ya.

Men, being disposable, are a free commodity to the MIC which makes war the profitable racket it is. Value men and war becomes obsolete want to make war obsolete? Value men. Until then - welcome to perpetual war ~

"The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." 1984

[Jul 23, 2018] Brennan, Hayden, Panetta, Morell, might well be children of parents who supported Joseph McCarthy

Kind of long-term effect of childhood intoxication with anti-communism...
Jul 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

FKA Max , Website July 22, 2018 at 10:33 pm GMT

So those Facebook ads posted by Russians in 2016 were just like Pearl Harbor, just like 9/11. It's war, says General Hertling! Get those boats in the water! And Trump is Putin's tool!

I just put forth a hypothesis in the other comments thread which could also apply to General Hertling, in my opinion, since he appears to be Catholic:

Hertling was born on September 29, 1953 in St. Louis, Missouri. He attended Christian Brothers College High School in Clayton, Missouri, graduating in 1971 -- he is also a member of the CBC Alumni Hall of Fame, having been elected in 2010.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hertling#Early_life_and_education

Christian Brothers College High School (CBC High School) is a Lasallian Catholic college preparatory school for young men in St. Louis, Missouri . It is located in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Louis and is owned and operated by the De La Salle Christian Brothers Midwest District.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Brothers_College_High_School

Here my hypothesis:

Most of these guys are Catholic; Brennan, Hayden, Panetta, Morell, etc.

I just wanted to explain why, I believe, them being Catholic is relevant in this context.

My guess is that most of these guys' parents were likely supporters of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, since his biggest support base was among Catholic Democrats, so they probably grew up in a very anti-Soviet/Communist/Russian environment and households.

I believe their obsession with alleged, large-scale Russian interference in the election and their McCarthy-like attitude and tactics might stem from and be a carryover from their upbringing.

-- http://www.unz.com/imercer/doubting-the-intelligence-of-the-intelligence-community/#comment-2427738

Joseph McCarthy on Democrats

"This war in which we are now engaged is not -- cannot -- be a war between America's two great political parties. As I have often said in the past, certainly the millions of loyal Americans who have long voted the Democrat ticket love America just as much and hate Communism just as much as the average Republican." -- McCarthy speech to the Irish Fellowship Club, 1954

[Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Jul 22, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Jaime Tapia , 5 hours ago (edited)

Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying. ¯\_(^)_/¯

Boycott israeli products , 5 hours ago

Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.

Sooner Mac , 5 hours ago

Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.

The Alienated TV , 5 hours ago

I think Tucker Carlson and Jimmy are two of the most responsible journalists on the planet. Keep up the good work.

Connor Phillip , 5 hours ago

"Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex" FZappa

Guillermo Rivas , 5 hours ago

Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion.

Kunal Sharma , 6 hours ago

The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States.

Joe Boyko , 5 hours ago

Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good...

Pisstrooper pan shaker , 5 hours ago

THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti war President.

Poseidon Cichlidon , 5 hours ago (edited)

Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose instead of reform their corrupt party!

SONIX , 7 minutes ago

I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?!

Cynthia Johnson , 5 hours ago (edited)

Yep, Bernie is pushing the Russiagate story and Tucker Carlson on Fox News nails it. The world isn't upside down, it's doing back flips.

Vegan4ThePlanet , 4 hours ago (edited)

"So this is the Hostage Tape" CLASSIC LINE, Great one, LMAO

DlchMcV , 4 hours ago (edited)

I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect, unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).

Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with no integrity, pretending to serve the people.

Louis-Ferdinand Féline , 1 hour ago

I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!

Dosh cratonin , 5 hours ago

You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.

swiSSy Schweizer , 6 hours ago

Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change

[Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Jul 22, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Jaime Tapia , 5 hours ago (edited)

Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying. ¯\_(^)_/¯

Boycott israeli products , 5 hours ago

Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.

Sooner Mac , 5 hours ago

Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.

The Alienated TV , 5 hours ago

I think Tucker Carlson and Jimmy are two of the most responsible journalists on the planet. Keep up the good work.

Connor Phillip , 5 hours ago

"Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex" FZappa

Guillermo Rivas , 5 hours ago

Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion.

Kunal Sharma , 6 hours ago

The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States.

Joe Boyko , 5 hours ago

Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good...

Pisstrooper pan shaker , 5 hours ago

THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti war President.

Poseidon Cichlidon , 5 hours ago (edited)

Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose instead of reform their corrupt party!

SONIX , 7 minutes ago

I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?!

Cynthia Johnson , 5 hours ago (edited)

Yep, Bernie is pushing the Russiagate story and Tucker Carlson on Fox News nails it. The world isn't upside down, it's doing back flips.

Vegan4ThePlanet , 4 hours ago (edited)

"So this is the Hostage Tape" CLASSIC LINE, Great one, LMAO

DlchMcV , 4 hours ago (edited)

I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect, unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).

Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with no integrity, pretending to serve the people.

Louis-Ferdinand Féline , 1 hour ago

I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!

Dosh cratonin , 5 hours ago

You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.

swiSSy Schweizer , 6 hours ago

Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change

[Jul 22, 2018] MoA - 'Progressives Are Putin Stooges' - How Centrists Will Help To Reelect Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Naked Capitalism ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Democrats preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders ..."
"... Note that the predominance of these two doctrines undeline a deeper contradiction in the USA: its resources are limited, therefore it can only fight one of the two at a given time. This is funny, because that means the USA is not destined to be the sole superpower in the first place (the underlying objective of both doctrines). ..."
"... It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans are colluding with each other now. They have agreed to share the Presidency and alternate with each other every 8 years. They wont get serious about winning until 2024, assuming there will still be elections then. ..."
"... Both parties have the same elite controllers. Basically voters chose between 2 flavors of neoliberal imperialism. One is a bitter in your face brew, the other is a sickly sweet poison. Both make you sick ..."
"... USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran. ..."
"... Neo-macarthyism as just another aspect of the Trump psy-op. The 'bad cop' to Trump's 'good cop'. ..."
"... In every case what they are looking for is candidates who are not 'soft.' Not soft on crime. Not soft on Russia. Not soft on welfare etc etc. Thus it is that the primary defenders of "our nation's intelligence services" and cops nowadays are the democrats, and none more than the 'progressives' howling about the treason of not believing in CIA intelligence assessments, as leaked to the Washington Post. ..."
Jul 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Blaming 'Russian meddling' for their loss of the 2016 elections allowed the democratic establishment to avoid any discussion about their unelectable candidate and their bad centrist policies. Meanwhile the party base has moved on. Progressives candidates continue to win in primaries. The centrist party establishment will now use their genius invention of 'Russian meddling' to defeat them.

Lambert Strether at Naked Capitalism links several recent pieces about the democrats and notes:

Suddenly a lot of stories about centrists. Somebody must have gotten funding.

The centrists and their big money sources feal endangered. They try to find strategies to defeat calls for 'medicare for all', demands to 'abolish ICE' and other progressive aims:

The gathering here was just that -- an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.

The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-hosted the event and addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
...
The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the left's message about inequality.

"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," said Third Way President Jon Cowan.

The 2016 elections have shown that people no longer buy the Third Way nonsense. The republican electorate moved to the more radical candidate Trump. The democratic electorate is now well underway to mirror that move :

[T]rends within the Democratic Party itself could take the Washington-based establishment by surprise, just as the Republican national security community found itself out of sync with the broad base of GOP voters as demonstrated in the 2016 election. The muscular interventionism championed by almost all of the Republican party's standard-bearers was rejected in favor of an "America First" message which resonated with primary and general election voters. Similarly, the rise and growing prominence of a more unabashedly progressive wing of the Democratic Party has similar implications , because the activists' critique of the status quo does not end at the water's edge. The Democratic foreign policy establishment may find it difficult to forge a stable marriage with a mobilized voter base and the candidates it is putting forward.

The republican establishment has now bought into the 'Russian meddling' meme to suppress the insurgency within its party. It is trying to limit the space for Trump to achieve more radical measures, especially in foreign policies. The democratic establishment is using the very same trick. 'Russian meddling' must be responsible for the insurgency within their own party. Progressive candidates are Putin marionettes.

A few days ago Doug Henwood warned of this:

It seems that Democrats are now incapable of talking about anything but Russian interference in our sacred elections.
...
We're seeing Dem pundits even accusing Bernie Sanders and other insurgents within their party of being Russian agents , witting or unwitting. Their indictments of Trump for treason make them sound like demented right-wingers at the height of the Cold War.

This obsession does relieve mainstream Democrats of concocting an attractive agenda that might win an election or two, but to do that they'd have to tack left, and Goldman Sachs wouldn't like that.

This Russia obsession's a win win for the establishment though – subdue Trump and the domestic left insurgency all at once.

A few days later Henwood points to a Facebook post by Columbia Law lecturer and Harpers author Scott Horton which accuses progressive Democrats of being Putin's agents. Horton comments on a New York Times piece that discussed the wave of progressive candidates in democratic primaries:

Horton claims to have talked with 'European intelligence analysts' who allegedly told him that Putin authorized an 'active measure campaign' to split the Democratic party to let Trump and the Republicans win again:

The Russian operation will also aim, in the classic fashion, to pick Democratic candidates in the primary period who, for whatever reasons, are seen as likely not electable. Some evidence for this is clearly at play now. The key thing to look for is not positive messaging supporting any particular policy program, but negative messaging attacking other Democrats.

To point out what Democratic candidates Putin will pick Horton adds a picture from the NYT piece which shows a 'progressives' candidate with an 'Abolish ICE' t-shirt.

Political scientist and author Corey Robin notes :

In other words, we should look at these [progressive] candidates as tainted by a "Russian operation". Based on nothing other than the word of an individual who cites no facts but alleged conversations with "European intelligence analysts".

Robin points to historic similarities with McCarthyism. He adds :

If this thing catches on , if it becomes something that now gets reported in the paper, everything single candidate from the left, who is running in a Democratic primary, will be tainted by the suspicion that they are somehow or other a Putin operation.

Tainting leftish candidates as Putin stooges is the ideal tool for Democratic centrist to defeat them. Tuition free colleges, single-payer health care and $15 minimum wage are obviously Russian conspiracies designed to destroy the United States. This scheme is effective and will therefore be widely used by the centrists during all primaries and the next federal elections.

It also guarantees that Trump and the Republicans continue to win.

During the Obama years the Democrats lost over 1,000 positions in state and federal elections. Centrist policies have been tried and they failed to win votes. More of the same will not lead to different results. To move even further to the right to catch a few conservative votes from republican voters disgruntled with Trump will not help to win. The further the party moves to the right the more people on the left will abstain from voting for it. These are the decisive few percent that cost the Democrats the presidency and the majorities in Congress and in various states.

These centrists are the ones who are really helping Trump. Aren't they the real 'Russian agents'?

james , Jul 22, 2018 1:06:16 PM | 1

thanks b...lol your last line.. maybe..

how far are we from a civil war in the usa? i think we are a long ways away.. i think most of the folks buying into this bs will go for a hot war with russia instead..

horton is trying to make like christopher steele with his intel sources, lol.. now if horton had talked with skripal, i would be impressed!

mccarthyism version 2 seems very prevalent in the usa at this point..

William Fusfield , Jul 22, 2018 1:37:56 PM | 4
"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," LOL at that choice piece of advice which has been trotted out by centrists and conservatives at least since the legion horrors of the capitalist system were mercilessly exposed to the world by William Wordsworth, Thomas Carlyle, Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Freiderich Engels, and dozens of other perceptive writers during the 19th Century.

And we have global neoliberal capitalism, the very acme of capitalist cruelty to the vast mass of humanity forced to labor hard daily, for relatively ever worse wages and under deteriorating conditions as well, rather than be able to make millions, indeed, even billions annually simply by being lucky stock holders in a financial market system rigges in favor f the plutocrats and against everyone else!

The only people daft enough to buy the idea that the vicous, inhuman, indeed, inherently ever more unequal, irrational, environmentally detructive, and profoundly unjust neoliberal capitalist system all are subjected to today needs merely to be "mended, not ended" are those who are historical, social, political, cultural and economic illiterates.

"Capitalism lives on as ruthless totalitarianism, because the moment for the transition to socialism was missed," said Max Horkeimer as early as the 1930s while observing the rise of Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. High time we quit missing it and built a movement to end capitalist exploitation in all its forms once and for all! ON TO SOCIALISM!!

Jackrabbit , Jul 22, 2018 1:38:27 PM | 5
Psyops. The gift that keeps on giving.

What happens when your in-group controls the narrative AND the counter-narrative.

jayc , Jul 22, 2018 1:41:40 PM | 6
Establishment Democrats have, since 1968, considered holding the left in check a main function. I forget who formulated this sentence but it is completely accurate: "The Democrats preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders."

The NBC News article on the so-called moderate Democrats reveals the game of the past five decades: the Republicans go further and further to the right, and the Establishment Dems follow them to hold an ever-shifting centre. (not to mention that the party has been deliberately courting potential candidates who have military and Intelligence backgrounds)

oops, according to Scott Horton, by using the term "Establishment Democrat" I've revealed myself as part of a Russian influence campaign.

johnt , Jul 22, 2018 2:21:23 PM | 9
jayc @ #6

" The Democrats preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders ."

Sounds like the words of Jimmy Dore. And right on the money.

Clearly in league with Putin. Ha ha

William Fusfield , Jul 22, 2018 3:00:18 PM | 13 vk , Jul 22, 2018 3:05:54 PM | 14
Bottom line is this: the myth of the end of History of the early 1990s evaporated after 2003-2008 (the period which begun with the Iraq Invasion and ended with the financial meltdown). After this, there's an ongoing debate in the USA about what the empire must focus on.

As I've mentioned before many times in this blog, there're three extant doctrines in the USA, of which only two are accessible to the civilian population.

The first is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, by far the dominant one, so dominant Americans don't even give it a name (it's just spelled out a common sense), which states that Russia is the military successor State of the USSR, which inherited its nuclear arsenal, therefore, objectively, the only country materially capable of turning the entire American territory into radioactive ash. So, long story short, Russia is still the main enemy.

The second is the "Clash of Civilizations" doctrine, which states that, after the Cold War, conflict on a global scale would happen only in the cultural front, between many cultures and creeds. The main conflict in the long term, however, would be the cultural clash between West and East, i.e. Western Civilization against the "Yellows", a.k.a. China (the Japanese are the "Westernized yellows", the "honorary whites", as is South Korea, Japan's carbon copy, so they don't count).

Note that the predominance of these two doctrines undeline a deeper contradiction in the USA: its resources are limited, therefore it can only fight one of the two at a given time. This is funny, because that means the USA is not destined to be the sole superpower in the first place (the underlying objective of both doctrines).

Adrian E. , Jul 22, 2018 3:18:57 PM | 16
In general, I also think that by banking mainly on the evidencefree Russiagate conspiracy theory instead of normal political opposition based on issues that are important to most people, mainstream Democrats set themselves up for losing again.

But increasingly, I also think that we (everyone interested in world peace and fearing an escalation of conflicts) also have to hope that this is the case. I find it quite strange that I now think that way because as a center-left European I always used to think that Democrats are the lesser evil and Republicans are the greater evil.

Now, I think there is a scenario that really seems frightening to me. Progressives have won some primaries, but in general, the Democratic party is still dominated by the same forces, and I have read that now, a record number of people from the secret services and other organizations of the military industrial complex will probably be on the Democrats' ballots. If Democrats manage to win in the mid-term elections, the establishment forces in the Democratic forces may see this as a sign that the strategy of banking on the Russiagate conspiracy theory and extreme hostility towards Russia and treating everyone who doubts the allegations of secret services a traitor was the right one. Then, if in 2020 a mainstream Democrat wins the primaries and then the general election, what is he or she going to do? Their core base will be those people who daily watch Rachel Maddow's minutes (or hours) of hate against Russia, and there will be an expectation that they will act on these sentiments. After four years of extreme demonization of Russia, when even just a normal meeting between the US and Russian presidents was treated as a kind of treason, it will be very difficult to return to normal international relations. They will hardly be able to say that all this hatred was just a means to weaken the Trump administration and can be done away with after winning the elections, they have caged themselves in with their extremely hostile rhetoric, and their core base will probably expect that they act on their jingoistic rhetoric and conduct an extremely hostile kind of foreign policy with ultimatums against Russia, which could have extremely dangerous consequences.

I think that the more likely scenario is that mainstream Democrats' behavior will lead to losing again and Trump being re-elected, but I think we should not forget about the possibility of such a horror scenario which could bring the world to the brink of the abyss or beyond.

Pft , Jul 22, 2018 3:20:40 PM | 17
It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans are colluding with each other now. They have agreed to share the Presidency and alternate with each other every 8 years. They wont get serious about winning until 2024, assuming there will still be elections then.

Both parties have the same elite controllers. Basically voters chose between 2 flavors of neoliberal imperialism. One is a bitter in your face brew, the other is a sickly sweet poison. Both make you sick .

Jackrabbit , Jul 22, 2018 3:37:29 PM | 19
Alternative theory:

Trump was used by the establishment to "turn the page" on the Obama years.

Just as Obama was used to "turn the page" on the Bush years.

If we surmise that the Presidency is the most important office for the Empire, and is the "face" of the Empire, if you will, then the Obama Presidency was designed to present a peaceful and rational public face ( very different from the Bush neocons!) while covert opts were used to further the interests of the Empire.

The Obama faux populist psy-op worked very well. Putin recently admitted that he was slow to understand how the game had changed.

The Trump/MAGA psyop lays claim to a new sort of "realist" peaceful and rational standpoint: ending costly adventurism and ending the new Cold War with Russia. But what does the establishment really want? They want to recover from the embarrassing Syrian debacle and stop the rise of SCO. They aim to do this via distractions and splitting Russia from China. Iran is the anvil for splitting Russia and China.

The howls of protest about Trump's meeting with Putin are NOT because Trump seeks "peace" with Russia but because he wasn't successful in convincing Putin to play ball.

USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

1) Neo-macarthyism as just another aspect of the Trump psy-op. The 'bad cop' to Trump's 'good cop'.

2) Hillary could never have "turned the page" like Trump. In fact, she talked about how her election would secure Obama's legacy. Conclusion: the 2016 election was a set-up.

the pair , Jul 22, 2018 4:24:25 PM | 23
some of the targets of these tactics aren't helping themselves; both sanders and ocasio-cortez have hinted that they actually believe the russiagate stupidity. nor did the latter score any hits with the stumbling (and possibly cowardly) interview regarding israel's lunatic tendencies. just letting that idiot get away with saying "the war in the middle east" is enough to make me question her spine.

the establishment dems - like any "establishment" group - are whores. so are the media who have their collective backs. at this point it's time to realize they all - like their financial masters - mistake kindness for weakness. what anyone needs to win at this point is to (unfortunately) copy pre-election trump's tactics with their own message.

there's no law that says you can't be for $15 minimum wage and single payer while also saying "shut up you dumb cunt " to any media prostitute that brings up russiagate. the idiots acting as middle(wo)men for their plutocrat owners rely on forced politeness and decorum. many people have noted that is their main grievance with trump: it's cool that he's horrible and surrounded by warmongers but does he have to be so vulgar and gauche? well i never!

the US is (as it has been for most of its short bloody history) quite angry and wound up right now. obama showed what good a "polite yes man" does. the left needs a fire-breathing populist demon. what they have is a pleasant bartender from the bronx.

bevin , Jul 22, 2018 4:33:25 PM | 24
Bernie Sanders was quick to respond to these attacks by giving in. For every 'progressive' Democrat who has won in the primaries there have been ex CIA, ex FBI, ex military types to add the appeal of their blood stained hands to that of the former prosecutors (boasting about the number of death sentences they have won) and ultra rich candidates.

In every case what they are looking for is candidates who are not 'soft.' Not soft on crime. Not soft on Russia. Not soft on welfare etc etc.
Thus it is that the primary defenders of "our nation's intelligence services" and cops nowadays are the democrats, and none more than the 'progressives' howling about the treason of not believing in CIA intelligence assessments, as leaked to the Washington Post.

Democrats simply cannot understand what the word 'principle' means. That is why they are continually adopting their opponents' ideas- filling the prisons with black people, cancelling welfare programmes- and persecuting their own supporters.

Now Sanders, who knows very well why Hillary lost the election, and spent months warning her that she would do so in the primary campaigns, is front and centre in the farcical campaign to blame Putin and internet trolls 'sowing discord'!
And what is his evidence? The most dishonest and reactionary deep state warmongers say it is true. So it must be.
What will be interesting in the coming months is to watch as these "progressive" Democrats-the victors of primary battles- settle down to agreeing that "Israel has a right to defend itself" by massacring defenceless Palestinians whenever the mood comes over it. And attacking Iran.
Watch in the coming weeks for people like Sanders to attack Trump for not changing the 'regime' in Damascus- the way that Obama with their support did in Libya.
The great thing about the Democrats is that they are united-they are all as bad as each other. This is after all the working man's party that supported slavery with such enthusiasm that when it had been abolished they re-introduced it, in the form of Jim Crow plus lynching, in the states that they controlled. In which it lasted until the late 1960s. Its shadow-in the form of vote suppression and a crooked criminal justice system- still looms over America.

NemesisCalling , Jul 22, 2018 4:37:25 PM | 25
@18 dh

The dems have nobody. Not at the plate or on deck. After DJT's state of the union, they trotted out a Kennedy that had vasoline smeared all over the sides of his mouth as he gave the Dem response. No one remembers what he said, but they do remember that substance.

Now this inexperienced Socialist-airhead from the Bronx who claimed a rough upbringing only to have forgotten her silver-spoon childhood comes along.

Here on the west coast, in Seattle, a socialist mayor and city council has tried to push egalitarian policies regarding wages and taxation, allthewhile dealing with a pervasive homeless population that is tainting the city and its reputation. Their policies have gotten a stiff rebuke from Amazon and Microsoft and so their ironfisted will has itself been crushed and they have yielded to these business behemoths. They will be ousted very soon. As will the wannabe-socialists up and down the west coasts. If they are not...we are talking mass exodus and floundering economies.

So b is right that the centrists will prevail but it is mostly because the left is lost right now. Can't drum up a unified beat to march to for the life of them.

At least DJT tapped into what must be done to save this country, irrespective of his actual will and desire to get there (which I believe is being hampered by both sides of the aisle).

Babyl-on , Jul 22, 2018 4:41:15 PM | 26
Does this not come down to a fight for the BRAND - DNC? The establishment wants to keep the "donors" (same as the Rs) and millions rolling in so they support their interests and try to freeze out progressives.

It's like an invasion, what happens the next day? The progressives take over the DNC, then the donors depart and the DNC brand is the worth about as much as the Green brand.

The problem is that the entire system of Western Liberal Democracy is corrupted entirely and clearly an unmitigated failure.

Russ , Jul 22, 2018 4:53:40 PM | 27
The so-called "insurgents" are no such thing. That's a standard Democrat scam to keep potential apostates roped in. Bernie Sanders always has been a con artist. Not that it's any secret: His entire senate record is of worthless grandstanding and zero real monkey-wrenching or grid-locking action .

As for his campaign, from day one he proclaimed he was a loyal Democrat soldier and that he would support Clinton and do all he could to deliver his supporters to her. He dutifully kept that promise. Along the way and since the 2016 election he's done zero toward building any kind of grassroots alternative. That's because he never intended to be part of any real alternative in the first place. And that's why the DNC always has supported his "independent" senate campaigns - he does an excellent con-job on behalf of their agenda.

And today he's fully on board with the Russiagate campaign, doing all he can to rope in "progressives" who might be having doubts about the anti-Russia lunacy. His usual job.

As for the latest wave of progressive heroes, for just one typical example I'll observe that Ocasio-Cortez immediately after her primary win lost no time scrubbing the anti-war plank from her site and publicly retracting her previous statements on behalf of the Palestinians. The Democrat con always runs like clock-work.

And as the post describes, with Russiagate the fake insurgents provide a new service to the Party: To serve as bogeymen for internally-directed Party propaganda, as an organizational vehicle to "get out the vote" among establishment loyalists.

There's no way forward with the Democrat Party. It always has been a death trap for all progressive, let alone radical aspirations. The Party and its partisans must politically perish completely, as a prerequisite for any good transformation of America.

ben , Jul 22, 2018 5:39:16 PM | 28
@23 said:"the left needs a fire-breathing populist demon. what they have is a pleasant bartender from the bronx."

Absolutely, but it won't happen. The malignant billionaires have won the battle.

b, you nailed this one..

The Kochs, The Mersers and the Adelsons with R. Murdoc own the whole system now.

Workers, bend over!!

0use4msm , Jul 22, 2018 5:53:44 PM | 29
I used to have great admiration for Scott Horton for his intrepid reporting on Gitmo and the War on Terra during the Bush era, so it's very sad to see how he deep has fallen into silly Neo-McCarthyian group-think.

I don't think much of Trump as a person or as a politician. But I think he's great as a trickster performance artist, doing what used to be the task of the 20th century avant-garde: shocking bourgeois complacency. And boy, is there a lot of that around these days. Trump is 21st century Dada.

jo6pac , Jul 22, 2018 6:02:50 PM | 30
#20
My thought also.

Good shut out to Lambert and NC

karlof1 , Jul 22, 2018 6:15:35 PM | 31
The term Progressive is now so mutilated that it's no longer effective as an identifier. To be a truly modern Progressive: one must 1st be Anti-War, except in the most dire of circumstances, which includes being Anti-Imperialist/Anti-Empire; 2nd, one must be Pro-Justice as in promoting Rule of Law over all else; 3rd, one must be tolerant and willing to listen to others of all stripes--even terrorists (not imitation state-sponsored mercenary terrorists); and 4th, work for Win-Win outcomes and denounce Zero-sum as the #1 promoter of inequality. As you might imagine, by that set of criteria there are very few Modern Progressive Politicians in any nation at any level of government--certainly an endangered species within the Outlaw US Empire. Bernie Sanders is not even close to being a Progressive of any sort as he supports and promotes Militarism and Apartheid. The actual differences between his political stances and Hillary Clinton's is really very small--health care and social security are the only two with large gaps.

But there appears to be much happening at the grassroots nationally and the next 2 months will see lots happening--but how will it be reported locally and nationally is my main concern. Insurrections are being aimed at a great many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats. IMO, this off-year election will be the most important for the planet ever as the stakes are very high. IMO, the key factor is if Russiagate's still in play or will it finally be slain by November.

Fidelios Automata , Jul 22, 2018 7:13:03 PM | 32
True progressives and populists (which characterizes a lot of Trump supporters such as myself) have a lot more in common with each other than with the Centrist Democrats and Beltway Republicans (A.K.A. Cuckservatives.) If we could only dispense with all the BS identity politics, we could join forces.
Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 22, 2018 7:54:44 PM | 33
Posted by: William Fusfield | Jul 22, 2018 3:00:18 PM | 13
(Comment lost after Timeout)

Some wag once said "Experience is a good school, but the fees are high."

You can easily bulletproof your draft comment by right-clicking in the comment box and choosing Select All from the menu. That hilites the entire draft. Right click again and select Copy. You can then safely refresh the page knowing you've preserved a copy.

All you really need to do is back arrow and refresh. I've never had a draft erased by refreshing. But then again I usually refresh AFTER copying..

Also Undo (in the right click menu) can usually recover accidentally deleted text.

daffyDuct , Jul 22, 2018 8:52:56 PM | 34
Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.

"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1021132108381683712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Jul 22, 2018] Trump Trips, But He's Right On Russia. Our Ruling Class Is Crazy. Remember The Romanovs! by John Derbyshire

Notable quotes:
"... It is clear that Trump's own DoJ acted to sabotage him by releasing the indictments of the twelve russian GRU officials just before Trump's meeting with Putin. ..."
"... A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to restrict [total] media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group. The Jews wasted no time screaming anti-semitism. ..."
"... It is a ritual, so the purpose is to convey loyalty. It doesn't placate anyone. What it unfortunately does is to undermine all else Derbyshire says. If he is this uninformed, or conformist, about basic facts, how can one take what he says seriously? ..."
Jul 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

PiltdownMan , July 21, 2018 at 4:46 am GMT

Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this somewhat jingoistic prefatory note is, or whom it is intended to placate. It is a farrago of false, outdated stereotypes about Russia based entirely on the situation there in the 1990s.

Like it or not, Putin is the democratically elected leader of Russia, in elections that have been generally free and fair. They like him over there, and vote for him in huge numbers. Given that per capita GDP in Russia is about 3-4 times as high as when he took office, this is not surprising.

As for its being an "economic non-entity among nations", it is a mid-sized economy, about the size of an Australia, Italy, India and so on, a $2 trillion economy, give or take, using the purchasing power parity figures. It is no America, China, Japan or Germany, but is nestled in the tier of countries just below those. Much of the disparagement of its post 2014 economy is based on the US$ figures of its GDP, a misleading measure that is severely affected by transient fluctuations in the exchange rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

The stereotype about its rusting military is equally out-of-date, as numerous factually detailed articles right here at unz.com attest.

Lastly, there is plenty of credible evidence that deaths from alcoholism have fallen by 50% or so, since the bad old days, two decades ago. Yes, that's still twice the rate for males in the EU, but they're sobering up.

Andy , July 21, 2018 at 5:09 am GMT
Russia has a number of problems but a rusting military? Derbyshire needs to be put up to date with Putin's successful drive to modernize the Russian military. In some cases (for example, the hypersonic missiles announced by Putin early this year) they actually have more advanced weaponry than the US. And Russia has actually won a war in the Middle East (in Syria) something that the US gave been unable to do for the last 15 years.
phil , July 21, 2018 at 5:23 am GMT
"Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks."

Putin took over on December 31, 1999. The country had been raped by the oligarchs and suffered hyperinflation. Pensioners were driven into horrific poverty en masse. Life expectancy plummeted. Putin neutralized the oligarchs without renationalizing industries and put the economy on a more sustainable upward path. The people are now in much better shape, including ordinary Jews. Drunkenness has lessened. Putin is reasonably popular. There is hope. Russia also has new advanced weapons.

Miro23 , July 21, 2018 at 6:39 am GMT

Losing the 2016 election was a terrible, colossal psychic trauma for the American Left. They can't believe Trump did it by himself. They can't believe 63 million Americans voted for him of our own free will.

This just shows that a lot of people no longer trust the MSM. The next step is to take a closer look at Congressional candidates and get commitments for 1) no ME wars 2) infrastructure spending 3) no mass immigration 3) stop $ billions for Israel 6) active swamp draining.

blahbahblah , July 21, 2018 at 7:08 am GMT

The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty

It was the falsiest false flag in the history of false flags. Nothing about it made any sense whatsoever. A complete PR operation. The whole(and failed) purpose was to derail the World Cup.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , July 21, 2018 at 7:20 am GMT
Mr. Derbyshire is pretty good at spoon feeding people who enjoy being told that they're superior to blacks, especially those who also think Brits are, in turn, above them.

But Mr. Derbyshire once again genuflects before his adoptive Uncle Sam, mindlessly parroting the PutinIsEvilTyrant mantra that the likes of Pat Buchanan, Andrew Napolitano, and occasionally even Tucker Carlson need to keep their spots along the Right side of Establishia.

That Mr. Derbyshire does so here -- fancying himself a martyr in the war against institutional thinking like that at National Review -- indicates naïveté or cravenness.

Before further embarrassing himself by sharing his gulled views on Russia, he should read and think about the work of the more informed, insightful authors at Unz Review who provide a broader and better readership than he deserves.

Or just stick with the race bait.

Eagle Eye , July 21, 2018 at 7:26 am GMT

The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic retaliation

Agree that "diplomatic retaliation" is called for. The U.S. should break off diplomatic relations to the UK immediately, and through them out on their ear.

The Skripals are DEAD, murdered by MI5 to extend the useful life of Hillary's anti-Trump "Steele Dossier" that Sergei Skripal helped concoct.

The fact that Britain claims to have Sergei and Yulia Skripal in custody proves that Britain is responsible. British media coverage is smothered by "D notices" and blithely play along with a ridiculous government "narrative" – another bad sign.

Does anyone really expect to see the Skripals alive again?

Who else do you expect will come back from the dead?

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/good-timing/#comment-2403153

Adrian E. , July 21, 2018 at 7:31 am GMT
I don't think there is any reasonable way in which Trump can be said to be a more legitimate president of his country than Putin. He did not even receive a majority of votes, after all. Certainly, the electoral college is the way it is done in the US, so overall, Trump is still the legitimate president of the US, but there are certainly fewer doubts in Putin's case than in Trump's.

Calling Russia dysfunctional is completely ignorant. That may have been the case in the 90es when the authoritarian darling of the West, the drunkard Yeltsin was in power and the Russian economy was ruined by oligarchs and American advisors. Things have changed a lot since then.

byrresheim , July 21, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT
The Romanovs undoing was the collusion of a large part of the Russian elite with the British Empire – the very same British Empire that had happily contributed to the Japanese Victory in the war of 1905.

The still-slandered Rasputin was a strong voice against the (for the Romanovs) suicidal war of 1914, and, surprise, the British consul was present on the occasion of his murder).

Indeed, our ruling class is crazy, as is any ruling class that sides with the British.

byrresheim , July 21, 2018 at 8:11 am GMT

Sure, post-Soviet Russia has done naughty things. [ Crimea ] and they've intervened energetically in Syria's civil war. Naughty for sure

Intervening in Syria's civil war is naughty? Thus saving a christian tradition of 2.000 years is naughty? Mr. Derbyshire certainly knows who is acting murderously naughty in Syria. What has happened in Syria is a disgrace for the christian West.

animalogic , July 21, 2018 at 8:25 am GMT
Derbyshire articles are always tricky: a sharp intelligence married to the capacity for utter nonsense.
Once Derbyshire dismounts from his immigration/cultural Marxism hobby horse he often ends up to his ankles in poo of his own making.
He seems to have swallowed the MSM/establishment line on the Skripnals hook, line, & sinker. His views on Russia are simply embarrassing.
But, he's spot on re: causes of the Russia hysteria. Russia is the great convenience – perfect to explain the defeat of the vile Clinton & a perfect stick to constantly bash the President. (I didn't hear the whole of the Putin press conference, but my impression of Trump's so-called treason was that he merely implied that the US's IC wasn't correct re hacking etc So this amounts to treason ? Treason, because Trump is correct & the IC are a ravening pack of liars & monsters.)
Realist , July 21, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT

Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our bordersto share in our blessed bounty.

So much bullshit. Putin is not an illegitimate leader. The is no country on the face of the earth more corrupt than the US.
Derbyshire must be under attack by the Deep State.

David JW , July 21, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
Derbyshire is a phony. First of all, the deep state in the US is controlled by a certain ethnic minority. They're not all patriotic Americans by any means. Trump is doing nothing wrong by winding things up in Syria – or by making peace with Russia, a country with which the US has little trade. I think Trump is preparing for a bigger clash with China and the Russia and Middle East things are diversions. Of course, in a clash with China, which side would Derbyshire be on? 'Nuff said.
Art Deco , July 21, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our borders to share in our blessed bounty.

Richard Lowry employed you for the amusement value of an elderly man making throwaway remarks. In the course of your current employment, you and your readers might benefit if you actually checked the numbers now and again.

1. You could classify Russia as a high-end middle income country or a 2d tier affluent country. Depending on the metric you prefer, its productive base is the world's 6th largest or 12th largest. Since 1998, it has registered a doubling of domestic product per capita with a growth rate exceeding that of all but 5 European countries and all but 1 European country from among those with a population exceeding 4 million. Of course, it has been more dynamic than North America, the Antipodes, and the affluent Far East.

2. Russia's total fertility rate at 1.75 exceeds both the European and occidental means. Russia, unlike many countries, has seen a dramatic recovery in fertility since 1998. If past proves to be prologue, they may reach replacement-level fertility within 10 years. Israel is the only affluent country with replacement-level fertility as we speak.

3. Russian life expectancy at birth (71.6 years) is depressed for an occidental country. However, they've pulled out of the public health catastrophe they suffered during their Yeltsin-era economic depression and have added 7 years to life expectancy at birth since that time.

4. The homicide rate in Russia is high for an occidental country (11 per 100,000). However, it's been cut by 30% in the last 7 years or so.

5. Russia's military expenditure ranks 4th globally. Persons familiar with proper performance metrics can weigh in on how effective that military is. Please note, however, that Russia is one of a small menu of occidental and quasi-occidental countries willing to act independently abroad. (The others are the United States, Britain, France, and Israel).

6. It encompasses all territory in the world which is predominantly Great Russian bar the city of Narva in Estonia and some border counties in Kazakhstan. Over 90% of it's population lives in territories in which ethnic Russians predominate. The only peripheral areas in which Great Russians do not form a majority are in the Caucasus. About 4% of the country's total population lives in those areas. Russia is not territorially over-stretched.

7. The political order is deficient in various ways. It is, however, pluralistic and pluralistic to a degree matched in Russian history only between 1905 and 1918 and between 1988 and 2005. The degree of public assent to VP and his confederates in the Duma exceeds that accorded a head of state and government in just about any other occidental country.

Diversity Heretic , July 21, 2018 at 1:40 pm GMT

Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks.

Other commentators have noted how highly inaccurate this statement is, so I'll say only that I lived in Moscow from September 2016 until January 2018 and the country that I saw in no way resembles Derb's characterization. Russia has its problems but I don't see demographic replacement or civil war in the cards, as I do for the [sooner-or-later-to-be] Disunited States.

Russian control of the Crimea is essential to its national security; the Black Sea is to Russia what the Gulf of Mexico is to the U.S. Any Russian leader, seeing the Ukrainian government toppled by a U.S. backed coup, that failed to act to secure Crimea, is irresponsible. The wisdom of Russian involvement in Syria can be fairly debated among Russians, but Syria is a lot closer to Russia than to the United States. At least Russian involvement in Syria is not the result of being a pawn of a foreign power, as it is in the case of the U.S.

Sunbeam , July 21, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
"Sure, post-Soviet Russia has done naughty things. They occupied the Crimea and they've intervened energetically in Syria's civil war. Naughty for sure, but under strong geostrategic compulsion: Russia needs those naval bases."

Seriously, you wrote this? Besides the hypocrisy of someone living in the US writing this, you actually think the Syria thing is about Russia wanting naval bases.

That's so wrong, I don't know where to start. I'd be here for a while writing exactly why I think Russia is in Syria. Not in my wildest imaginings did any of it involve naval bases though.

"They've murdered people in foreign countries, too. The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic retaliation -- which indeed it's got: 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from Britain."

So I take it you believe the Russian poisoned this guy?

"On 4 March 2018, he and his daughter Yulia, who was visiting him from Moscow, were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent.[5][6] As of 15 March 2018,[7] they were in a critical condition at Salisbury District Hospital. The poisoning is being investigated as an attempted murder.[6] He holds both Russian and British citizenship.[8] On 21 March 2018 Russian ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko said that Sergei Skripal is also a Russian citizen.[9][10] [7]

On 29 March, Yulia was reported to be out of critical condition, 'conscious and talking'.[11] A week later, on 6 April, Skripal was said to no longer be in a critical state.[12] He was discharged on 18 May."

I say it never happened. I think it was made up out of thin air. Just for a talking point and propaganda piece. And it is a clumsy, ludicrous framing job. Nothing clever about it, just BS as brazen as Colin Powell lying his ass off to the UN.

So in England people theoretically exposed to nerve toxins get treated by the NHS at a public facility? Really? Really? That's how they do it? Not by a military doctor trained to specifically deal with cases like this?

Rubbish. If you buy it, you are not very smart.

jeppo , July 21, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT
Yet presentation-wise, Putin looked like the alpha male at Helsinki, with Trump nodding along deferentially.

Trump can afford to be deferential since Putin will be making all the concessions.

Felix Keverich , July 21, 2018 at 4:25 pm GMT
@PiltdownMan

I suspect trashing Russia makes him feel better about his own country going to shit. He knows America and the West in general are anything, but "buoyant". A healthy, confident society does not elect president Donald Trump.

Art Deco , July 21, 2018 at 4:46 pm GMT
@Corvinus

The government barred Putin's leading opponent from running.

No, it did not. Since 1991, the distribution of preferences in Russia has bounced around a series of set points. What you see roughly is as follows:

1. "The Machine": 55%
2. Soviet nostalgiacs: 15%
3. Russian nationalists: 15%
4. Occidental spectrum: 15%

The 3d of these is apportioned about evenly between Zhirinovsky admirers and the remainder. The last is apportioned between parties of a more social democratic or populist bent and parties of a more social-liberal bent. The sort of Europhile element you're calling 'the leading opponent' is generally good for 7% of the ballots. People wanting that choice had that choice, just not the particular person to whom you refer.

Andrei Martyanov , Website July 21, 2018 at 5:32 pm GMT

To add insult to the Left's injury, the Russians -- well, some of them -- returned openly to Christianity. And not only did they drop actual Marxism, they showed no enthusiasm for Cultural Marxism, marginalizing homosexuals and feminists and keeping themselves overwhelmingly, shamefully, white.

So called "Cultural Marxism", or whatever is passing under this term in the West, didn't exist in USSR since Stalin. It was a profoundly conservative society with a huge emphasis on family values, with homosexuality considered a crime and with many other cultural features, including "folkish" Russian culture (somebody has to lecture Western "academia" on what were the most popular TV series in USSR in 1960s-1980s) promoted, including a massive and greatly influential art-movement of Pochvenniki. But I guess for "connoisseurs" of Russian culture whose bottom line is founded on Solzhenitsyn with some Pasternak and Hollywood cliches it is difficult to admit the fact that they pretty much know nothing about Russia's history of the 20th century.

Mr. Anon , July 21, 2018 at 6:03 pm GMT

I'll even have to admit I agree with the people who piled on Trump for dissing our intelligence agencies at the news conference. I'm not a fan of those agencies, or indeed of intelligence agencies in general, ours or anyone else's. I think Trump's right to distrust them.

Maybe. Maybe not. It is clear that Trump's own DoJ acted to sabotage him by releasing the indictments of the twelve russian GRU officials just before Trump's meeting with Putin.

I would like to see a couple questions asked of Trump's critics (maybe Tucker Carlson could ask them).

1.) When was the last time that the Justice Department indicted foreign intelligence agents living abroad? Have they ever done it? Are we truly shocked that foreign spies are spying on us?

2.) Has the CIA ever interfered with a foreign election? Is there any current operation in which they are interfering with a foreign election? Have they supported any NGO or political party in Russia that is in opposition to the current russian government?

3.) When did liberals decide that the acid test of loyalty to America is one's loyalty to the US government's clandestine intelligence agencies?

Reactionary Utopian , July 21, 2018 at 6:20 pm GMT

Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our borders to share in our blessed bounty.

Mr. Derbyshire, in what sense is Putin "illegitimate" as the Russian head of state?

I mean, for all my horror of the HellBeast (and it's substantial), let's face it: Trumpy is the skin-of-his-teeth winner of a Constitutional, yes, but also corrupt and rigged, election process. And our main national problem isn't holding back the tide of border-breakers; it's the lack of any interest in doing so on the part of the ruling class, and the failure of the ruled to rise up and overthrow our corrupt rulers. In a lot of ways, we make Russia look pretty good.

Hunsdon , July 21, 2018 at 6:37 pm GMT
The Russians went into Crimea after the US instigated a coup ("regime change") against Ukraine. Crimea is the home to the Black Sea Fleet and has tremendous national importance to Russia. Think of it as our San Diego.

The Russians went into Syria at the express invitation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic. The US is in Syria on the basis of "no one can tell us no." Might makes right? Is that a principle the Derb really wants to endorse? (If need be, we could go deeper into the weeds and discuss just who each side, the Americans and the Russians, are supporting in Syria; that also favors the Russians.)

Perhaps the Derb should educate himself by visiting Pat Lang's site and reading what non-propagandists are saying.

Cyrano , July 21, 2018 at 9:18 pm GMT

Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military

Watch it there, pal, you are coming dangerously close to what that genius Hitler once said about Russia – something about Russia being a limp virgin ready to be taken into the lustful mighty arms of German Mars – or some stupidity like that. It turned out that our limp virgin by 1945 developed such a phallus that managed to tore a new one to Germany.

If I was you, I wouldn't worry so much about the condition that Russia is in today, I would rather worry about the shape that your country of origin – GB is in. On one hand, Britain still rules over the same eclectic mix of people like in the glory days of its empire – the only difference is that now they had to scale down their "empire" to about 244 000 sq km and also had to suffer some minor indignities along the way, such as organized gang rapes from their subjects of indo-pakistani origin, but other than that – it's just like it used to be.

WorkingClass , July 21, 2018 at 9:30 pm GMT

Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a population increasingly composed of aging drunks.

Bullshit!

They've murdered people in foreign countries, too. The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic retaliation -- which indeed it's got: 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from Britain.

More Bullshit!

I just don't think a news conference in a foreign country is the right place to air that distrust.

That's your stupid opinion. It was a crappy presentation. And presentation for you means more than substance. You are NOT helping Derb.

Jon0815 , July 21, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT
@PiltdownMan

Given that per capita GDP in Russia is about 3-4 times as high as when he took office, this is not surprising.

It's 8 times as high: $1330 in 1999 vs. $10,743 in 2017.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCA

As for its being an "economic non-entity among nations", it is a mid-sized economy, about the size of an Australia, Italy, India and so on, a $2 trillion economy, give or take, using the purchasing power parity figures.

It's a $4 trillion economy using the purchasing power parity figures (the same as Germany).

Colin Wright , Website July 21, 2018 at 9:54 pm GMT
' Our Ruling Class Is Crazy '

They're no longer our ruling class. That's why Trump drives them crazy. That he's in the White House rubs their nose in the fact.

Chris Mallory , July 21, 2018 at 10:41 pm GMT

our intelligence professionals are Americans,

And many of them are dual citizens, foreign nationals, immigrants or the children of immigrants, so they are not American at all. No one not a natural born citizen born to natural born citizens should be employed by the US government in any capacity, including the military.

romar , July 22, 2018 at 12:16 am GMT
@Andy

Mr. JD doesn't appear to keep up with the news about Russia Puzzling.
But even more puzzling: he believes the UK leaders nonsense about the "Skripals affair." A bad sign, indeed.
As for Trump's performance at Helsinki, I don't see why he should be pained by it: it was no worse than any of his previous shows.

And Putin was just his usual self: efficient and together. Trump did well to agree that Putin should present the summary of their talks, as there was no time for producing a written report for Trump to read. Putin had, as usual, taken notes during the two meetings.

What Trump said in his opening remarks was fine, and he sounded just right and convincing. The problem arose when he was answering questions, and he certainly shouldn't have run his intel down as he did, but in all fairness they don't deserve better.

Daniel Rich , July 22, 2018 at 5:21 am GMT
I wonder why nobody denounces the asking of idiotic questions, solemnly to embarrass the leader of another country [H.E. Mr. Putin] in front of an international audience ?
jilles dykstra , July 22, 2018 at 7:29 am GMT
With the exception of the period 1919 1933 the USA, that is, the ruling class, wanted to control the world. In this period the ideas of the ruling class, to be precise, were the same, but the people had enough of USA blood flowing for imperialism, neutrality laws came, the laws that FDR hated.

If trying to control the world is crazy, I wonder. Rome also then wanted to control the then known world, that is, the accessible parts. The British empire controlled 40% of the world, also the then accessible parts.

So when in fact one man blocks that the whole world is controlled, the ruling class assumes that after Russia had fallen China will fall too, I wonder if one can say they're crazy. If they are, then mankind has been crazy forever. A historian calculated that on thirteen years of war in Europe on average there were three years of peace.

If I'm right in my ideas on Trump, he's unique in world history, the first time the ruler of an empire sees that the empire can no longer be held, and acts accordingly. Those who still think the USA can conquer those parts of the world the USA does not yet control, are, of course are near a nervous breakdown. Panic is not good for thoughtful solutions, if one of these days Trump dies unexpectedly, from whatever cause, it will not surprise me. What is interesting, to understate, what the reaction will be among those who elected Trump.

El Dato , July 22, 2018 at 7:38 am GMT
@WorkingClass

Yeah, what happened to the Novichok story? Last I heard was that a person died 4 months after because she found a novichok dispenser somewhere, and the UK announced that after painstakingly combing through CCTV footage and Russian passenger records "they knew who did it".

animalogic , July 22, 2018 at 7:42 am GMT
Trump derangement syndrome makes idiots (greater idiots) of the establishment. These morons can't see that the alliance between Russia & China is THE greatest threat to US international ambitions. If appearances are correct Trump wishes to weaken that alliance – which is diplomacy 101. Trump has a multitude of faults, but his actions re Russia would possibly gain Bismarck's approval.
JL , July 22, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
It seems this author can't overcome his Cold Warrior past of supporting (((Soviet dissidents))) against the evils of Communism so he believes what he wants about Russia and its current state. As others have pointed out here, if he's so wrong about Russia, he's probably getting a lot else wrong as well. Perhaps Unz should become no country for old men, and leave the revolution to the younger vanguard who seem much more reality based.
RVBlake , July 22, 2018 at 11:40 am GMT
Occupied Crimea and attacked Skripal? Hmmm. And intervened energetically in Syria? Pot, kettle?
El Dato , July 22, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
Based commentary by Michael McCaffrey for RT: Captain America savages Trump in battle of the useful idiots He just left out Mr. Schwarzenegger's tweets. People playing tough guys doing shouty politics by short message, thinking they are what they pretend to be on stage. It's pretty liberal out there.
JohnRedburn , July 22, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
@Miro23

I would add number 7: dismantle the monopoly on American media and internet. You're not going to have a functioning democracy when one small ethnic group controls a country's media. And expect the inevitable. A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to restrict media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group. The Jews wasted no time screaming anti-semitism.

Miro23 , July 22, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
@JohnRedburn

And expect the inevitable. A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to restrict [total] media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group. The Jews wasted no time screaming anti-semitism.

I can understand person, family and company but ethnic group? Do you mean minority ethnic group – or are ethnic Swedes not allowed to own more than 5% of their own media?

Jon Halpenny , July 22, 2018 at 1:23 pm GMT
The man who led the killing of the Romanovs. Yakov Yurovsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Yurovsky#Early_life
JMcG , July 22, 2018 at 1:27 pm GMT
@blahbahblah

The Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare just issued a report last week stating that there is no evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Another false flag. I really don't believe a word I read in the press any longer. I can't believe that anyone does. The left means to take and hold power and that's it. That idiot Andrew McCarthy from NR has just expressed astonishment that he could have been so naive as to believe in the integrity of the FISA warrant process. What a load of codswallop.

I, commenter , July 22, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
last year the BBC had a bunch of nostalgic puff pieces on the 1917 Revolution, this year all the press is silent about the murder of the Romanovs. The brutal murder of that family was a grisly foreshadow of what was essentially a government ran by a foreigners was to do to the Russian (and Ukrainian) people. and perhaps its a grisly foreshadow of what the globalists want to do to badwhites. also remember that 'revolution' was sponsored by many wall street firms, who made a ton of money liquidating the nobility's assets
Jon0815 , July 22, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT
@FKA Max

That stratfor chart is outdated and already proven wrong: It projects a total Russian population of 137 million in 2020, but in 2018 Russia's population is 146 million (144 without Crimea), and it has been basically stable for years.

It's true that the Muslim share of Russia's population is rising, but it is doing so very slowly, because the fertility of Russia's Muslims isn't high (below replacement in every majority-Muslim region except Chechnya). It's currently something 1.9 children per woman for Muslims, vs. 1.6 for ethnic Russians, and will likely equalize long before Muslims are anywhere near a majority.

Muslims and the Chinese are taking over the south and east of Russia through high birth rates and (illegal) immigration.

The trope that Chinese are taking over Russia's east is complete nonsense. Chinese have little economic incentive to migrate north to Siberia, rather than south to the wealthy regions of their own country.

Beckow , July 22, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
@PiltdownMan

what the purpose of this somewhat jingoistic prefatory note is, or whom it is intended to placate

It is a ritual, so the purpose is to convey loyalty. It doesn't placate anyone. What it unfortunately does is to undermine all else Derbyshire says. If he is this uninformed, or conformist, about basic facts, how can one take what he says seriously?

gmachine1729 , Website July 22, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

From his website ,

I'm about 65% Russian, 25% Lak (Dagestani), and 10% other (mostly Italian, Jewish).I have a degree in Political Economy from U.C. Berkeley.

Reminds me of http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/06/high-v-low-m.html . That Political Economy degree from Berkeley surely is a signal for that. I like humanities. Problem is a lot of US humanities is garbage, and if you have only a humanities degree from a US school, smart, knowledgable people will assume you to be problematic.

Maybe I come across as high V low M too, but I'm not, see https://gmachine1729.com/writings-by-category/pure-math/ . Yes, I also consider many people in programming and software engineering to be high V low M. I've seen Google senior engineers who don't even know what divergence or curl are.

utu , July 22, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
@Art Deco

https://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38

Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin. According to Jay A. Gertzman, author of Bookleggers and Smuthounds:The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 'Jews were prominent in the distribution of gallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials'.

In the postwar era, America's most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the 'Walt Disney of Porn'. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. Born in 1924, Sturman grew up in Cleveland's East Side. Initially, he sold comics and magazines, but when he realized sex magazines produced twenty times the revenue of comic books, he moved exclusively into porn, eventually producing his own titles and setting up retail stores. By the end of the 1960s, Sturman ranked at the top of adult magazine distributors and by the mid-70s he owned over 200 adult bookstores. Sturman also introduced updated versions of the traditional peepshow booth (typically a dark room with a small colour TV on which the viewer can view X-rated videos). It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry. Eventually he was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes and died, disgraced, in prison in 1997. His son, David, continued running the family business.

The contemporary incarnation of Sturman is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch, who has been described as 'the Donald Trump of porno'. The link between the two is Steve's father, Fred, who was a stockbroker-cum-lieutenant to Sturman. Today Hirsch runs the Vivid Entertainment Group, which has been called the Microsoft of the porn world, the top producer of 'adult' films in the US. His specialty was to import mainstream marketing techniques into the porn business. Indeed, Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by Hirsch. Vivid was the subject of a behind-the-scenes reality TV show recently broadcast on Channel 4.

Anonymous [128] Disclaimer , July 22, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
German Christians whose children are force-fed LGBT sex ed in schools and where home schooling is not permitted, and where parents will be arrested if they do not put their children in the schools, have sought asylum in Russia, and there have been more than a few of them, much as the media likes to ignore it. When the US no longer allows home-schooling, and forces their children into the schools, you will see the same thing happening in the US. Christian Americans will be seeking asylum in Russia

That is going to happen.

Anonymous [128] Disclaimer , July 22, 2018 at 7:02 pm GMT
When Trump said he considers Russia a "competitor", he was right. No truer words were ever spoken. But the only way to get Americans on board with the greedy plans of greedy people in and out of government is to demonize your "competitors."
WJ , July 22, 2018 at 7:48 pm GMT
"Naughty things in Syria"??? Saving the non crazies in Syria from jihadi lunatics is naughty? I suppose if you an Israeli, Saudi or US Democrat. To others , Russia was a savior. This writer appears to be auditioning for a return to NRO.
Art Deco , July 22, 2018 at 10:07 pm GMT
@Stick

Russia's economy is stillborn while China's is booming and feasting on America's assets and market.

Russia's per capita product exceeds China's. It hasn't been as economically dynamic as China (a 2-fold increase in per capita produce over 1998-2016, v. China's 3.3-fold), but it has done quite well and has satisfactory macroeconomic indicators across the board. It's export sector remains dominated by oil and minerals, there's an excess of state ownership in the economy, and there are some quality of life issues (street crime). Room for improvement, but not doing badly.

Avery , July 22, 2018 at 10:54 pm GMT
@Art Deco

{Russia's per capita product exceeds China's.}

Not by a whole lot (China=$8,800 vs Russia=$10,900 2017).
Also, China's huge GDP is divided by 1.38 billion people.
I doubt anything more than 200-300 million of those ~1.4 billion are involved in contributing anything significant to China' GDP. So their $12 trillion GDP is quite impressive.

Russia should be doing much, much better.

{It hasn't been as economically dynamic as China}

China's economic 'miracle' is largely thanks to America, like South Korea before, and like Japan before SK.

America opened up its rich, practically unlimited market to Chinese goods _and_ American companies were encouraged to setup shop in China ( .like in South Korea). Chinese are smart people and they learned, and over time started creating their own. You go to Home Depot or Lowes today and there is hardly _anything_ manufactured in US: it's all "Made in China".

Russia, on the other hand, is considered an enemy by US, so everything is done to thwart its economic progress. Russians are also at fault, but we cannot ignore the fact that China got a huge boost from the economically advanced West to get its (dynamic) economy going.

[Jul 22, 2018] Obstruction of justice by Hillary and her close associates and first of all Cheryl Mills

The is question about whether that information was classified was really important, but if take classification at face value Clinton and her associated are guilty in obstruction of justice...
Apr 01, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Trey Gowdy to James Comey "We Need The Truth! STOP F**CKING LYING!" Looks like "Obstruction of justice" is provable offence.

m peeps 6 days ago

obvious Comey is either being blackmailed or paid.
THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH !!! 6 days ago (edited)
DAAAAAMMMNNN ... IT ... COMEY IS A LIAR ... DAMN IM SICK OF THIS BASTARD LYING !!! ... HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW BIG TIME ... HES GOING TO BE UNDER THE JAIL !!! ... SON OF BITCH ... LET ONE OF US EVEN TRY TO THINK ABOUT BREAKING ONE OF THOSE CRIMES WE WOULD BE IN GITMO ... WHAT THE F
Anjie Wittu 2 days ago
Please write to the DOJ fellow Trump Supporter.. Here is a link you send the request to Attorney General.. I have been asking for a Special Prosuctor to look into Hillary/Comey Hillary Clinton Foundation/Podesta / Russia (He had ties to Russia) And Obama Hello They are all so damn corrupt.
Kimberly Hasty 6 days ago
This is seriously PISSING ME OFF!!!!!!!!!! James Comey is a lying bastard and needs to be fired immediately!!! He is either involved or completely paid off!
Joyce Yancey 6 days ago
Russia is NOT the enemy! Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in Washington DC are! And believe me, the American people are aware of that!
john bounds 6 days ago
AMERICANS JAMES COMEY WORKED FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE HE WAS DIRECTOR OF FBI . DOES THIS EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THAT NOGGIN ? I AM TALKING TO THE LIBTARDS . I WONDER HOW HE GOT HIS PROMOTION ? HHHHHMMMM
okitzme 6 days ago
Comey's entire testimony and the whole of this investigation is a complete farce and he's made a mockery of one of the highest and most elite law enforcement agencies in our nation as a result. WHY he is still the director of the FBI is beyond me... his credibility was obliterated with this ONE case and he will NEVER regain it. As far as most Americans are concerned, everything that comes out of the FBI and/or Comey's mouth is as worthless as shit on the bottom of your shoe.
Mary Mclocke 2 days ago
+Brian Cunningham -- President Trump is doing HIS OWN job.. running the country. THIS is the job of the Justice department. IF Comey is "committing perjury", then the Justice Department - NOT the President - will deal with him. Meanwhile, the hearings have to be completed first . QUIT saying that Trump "isn't doing his job, as he IS. Not every function of our government is *President TRUMP'S job!!*
rlmccullough 6 days ago
Gowdy, is what we need. But this is a circus
Mary Mclocke 2 days ago (edited)
*I give up*. Clueless....... +Brian Cunningham , PLEASE learn how our government works. Stay in school - or use the Internet in front of you to learn something - like, how our government works, for example... that's a start... Please. Please!
Frank Marshall 3 days ago
Your title suggests that Trey Gowdy stated the quotation. Trey Gowdy would not stoop to such language and should be shown more respect
Mary Mclocke 2 days ago
+Frank Marshall -- Exactly -- I reported the title as misleading.. Go up above where it says "more"..click, and "report" comes up. The click bait false titles (and this one is slanderous towards Congressman Gowdy) will NOT stop until enough people get to reporting them and the uploader is warned to stop it by You Tube themselves... things like that and the filthy language people use in comments in general. It's ALL out of hand..thus I started reporting it all. It HAS to start somewhere to shut it down. Take care, have a good week!
Revelation 12:11 6 days ago
President Trump! LEAD! Have Comey arrested immediately under Title 18, U.S. Code violations. Sedition and Treason for starters!
Brian Cunningham 4 days ago
Or, perjury, if he lied under oath. But just like that special prosecutor, for Hillary, Trump won't do shit!
MrDrmillgram 6 days ago
In 2015 the Clinton Foundation had $225 million and 2000 employees. The decision to suspend future operations is blamed on (mostly foreign) unfulfilled donor pledges . I wonder why? The layoff of 22 employees recently made headlines. Gonna be a lot of screaming for termination bonus' from the rest. Any wagers they'll fall on deaf ears?
444age 6 days ago

1. HSBC was embroiled in money laundering and tax evasion in 2012

2. HSBC funded several Clinton Foundation projects

3. HSBC is fined $19 Billion in 2012. AG is Eric Holder. Prosecuting Attorney is Loretta Lynch. All executives are exonerated.

4. HSBC appoints James Comey as non-executive director in 2013

5. Confirmation hearings of Loretta Lynch as AG in 2015 do not reference her role in HSBC case

6. James Comey's brother's firm does the auditing for Clinton Foundation

KILL SHILL'S 6 days ago
Are you kidding me. They and that is the Clintons,Comey should be put in prison then the will follow. Different strokes for different folks that is what is destroying this country. The big shoots can do whatever they want. If it was the regular Joey they would have been imprisoned long ago.......thats why this country is crumbles. No rule of law. Well there is for the regular citizens but not are voted in politicians they can do whatever they want why Illinois sucks.

[Jul 22, 2018] Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.

Jul 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

daffyDuct , Jul 22, 2018 8:52:56 PM | 34

Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.

"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1021132108381683712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Jul 22, 2018] Trump and the crisis of the neoliberal world order by Ashley Smith

A very interesting analysis from 2017
Notable quotes:
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom. ..."
"... For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue states like Iraq. ..."
"... The Making of Global Capitalism ..."
"... Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a strategic partner, as a strategic competitor. ..."
"... Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster in American history." ..."
"... Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil," emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries. ..."
"... Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China. ..."
"... Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade globalization. ..."
"... Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital, particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany. ..."
"... This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21 Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt about that." 22 ..."
"... Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise to imitate Britain and leave the EU. ..."
"... Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to its allies. ..."
"... Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea. ..."
"... On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot. ..."
"... Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's connections with the Russian state. ..."
"... One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York Times ..."
"... The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. ..."
"... Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures. ..."
"... China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China inhospitable for business. ..."
"... China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the strategic islands in the South China Sea. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... International Socialism Journal ..."
"... Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... Imperialism and World Economy, ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and the State in a Transitional World ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... USA Today ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Progressive ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Socialist Worker ..."
"... Socialist Worker ..."
Jul 22, 2018 | isreview.org

The neoliberal world order of free-trade globalization that the United States has pioneered since the end of the Cold War is in crisis. The global slump, triggered by the 2007 Great Recession, has intensified competition not only between corporations, but also between the states that represent them and whose disagreements over the terms of trade have paralyzed the World Trade Organization. Similar conflicts between states have disrupted regional free-trade deals and regional blocs. Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement failed to come to a vote in Congress, and now Trump has scrapped it. The vote for Brexit in the United Kingdom is a precedent that could lead other states to bolt from the European Union. Rising international tensions, especially between the United States, China, and Russia, fill the daily headlines.

Indeed, the world has entered a new period of imperialism. As discussed in previous articles in this journal, the unipolar world order based on the dominance of the United States, which has been eroding for some time, has been replaced by an asymmetric multipolar

world order. The United States remains the only superpower, and possesses by far the largest military reach, but it faces a global rival in China and a host of lesser rivals like Russia. And the competition between nation-states over the balance of geopolitical and economic power is intensifying.

The multiple crises and conflicts have also confronted all the world's states with the largest migration crisis in history. Over fifty million migrants and refugees are fleeing economies devastated by neoliberalism, the economic crisis, political instability, and in the case of the Middle East -- especially Syria -- counterrevolution against the Arab Spring uprisings. The bourgeois establishment and their right-wing challengers have scapegoated these migrants in country after country.

All of this has destabilized bourgeois politics throughout the world, opening the door to both the Left and the Right posing as alternatives to the establishment. In the United States, Donald Trump won the presidency with the promise to "Make America Great Again" by putting "America First." He threatens to retreat from the post-Cold War grand strategy of the United States overseeing the international free-trade regime, in favor of economic nationalism and what has been described as a "transactional" approach to international politics.

While Trump aims to continue certain neoliberal policies at home (such as deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts for the wealthy), his international policies represent a significant shift away from global "free trade." He has promised to rip up or renegotiate free-trade deals and impose protectionist tariffs on economic competitors. To enforce this, he wants to rearm the American military to push back against all rivals -- China in particular -- and conduct what he depicts in racist fashion a civilizational war against Islam in the Middle East. He marries this militaristic nationalism to a bigoted campaign of scapegoating against immigrants, Muslims, Blacks, women, and all other oppressed groups.

Panic in the imperial brain trust

The architects and ideologues of American imperialism recognize that their grand strategy is in crisis, and worry that Trump's new stand will only magnify it. The Financial Times ' Martin Wolf declares,

We are, in short, at the end of both an economic period -- that of western-led globalization -- and a geopolitical one -- the post-cold war "unipolar moment" of a US-led global order. The question is whether what follows will be an unraveling of the post-second world war era into de-globalization and conflict, as happened in the first half of the 20th century, or a new period in which non-western powers, especially China and India, play a bigger role in sustaining a co-operative global order. 1

Obama's favorite neocon Robert Kagan warns that Washington's retreat from managing the world system risks "backing into World War III," the title of the piece in which he writes:

Think of two significant trend lines in the world today. One is the increasing ambition and activism of the two great revisionist powers, Russia and China. The other is the declining confidence, capacity, and will of the democratic world, and especially of the United States, to maintain the dominant position it has held in the international system since 1945. As those two lines move closer, as the declining will and capacity of the United States and its allies to maintain the present world order meet the increasing desire and capacity of the revisionist powers to change it, we will reach the moment at which the existing order collapses and the world descends into a phase of brutal anarchy, as it has three times in the past two centuries. The cost of that descent, in lives and treasure, in lost freedoms and lost hope, will be staggering. 2

In somewhat more measured tones, the imperial brain trust of American imperialism, the Council on Foreign Relations, is using their journal, Foreign Affairs , to oppose Trump and defend the existing neoliberal order with minor modifications. 3 Stewart Patrick, for example, worries that Trump has laid-out

no broader vision of the Unites States' traditional role as defender of the free world, much less outline how the country play that part. In foreign policy and economics, he has made clear that the pursuit of narrow national advantage will guide his policies -- apparently regardless of the impact on the liberal world order that the United States has championed since 1945. That order was fraying well before November 8. It had been battered from without by challenges from China and Russia and weakened from within by economic malaise in Japan and crises in Europe, including the epochal Brexit vote last year. No one knows what Trump will do as president. But as a candidate, he vowed to shake up world politics by reassessing long-standing U.S. alliances, ripping up existing U.S. trade deals, raising trade barriers against China, disavowing the Paris climate agreement, and repudiating the nuclear accord with Iran. Should he follow through on these provocative plans, Trump will unleash forces beyond his control, sharpening the crisis of the Western-centered order.

The Council's Gideon Rose fears that Trump is introducing "damaging uncertainty into everything from international commerce to nuclear deterrence. At worst, it could cause other countries to lose faith in the order's persistence and start to hedge their bets, distancing themselves from the Unites States, making side deals with China and Russia, and adopting beggar-thy-neighbor programs." 4

But the Council and the rest of the foreign policy establishment have little to offer as a solution to the crisis they describe. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations' president, Richard Haass's, new book, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order , produces little more than tactical maneuvers designed to incorporate America's rivals into the existing neoliberal order. 5 But it is within that very order that the United States has undergone relative decline against its increasingly assertive rivals, especially China.

Neoliberalism's solution to the crisis last time

The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom.

The US ruling class adopted what later came to be known as neoliberalism in coherent form under the regimes of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain. 6 Neoliberalism had domestic and international dimensions. At home, the mantra was privatization and deregulation. The ruling class got rid of regulations on capital and launched a war against workers. They privatized state-run businesses as well as traditionally state-run institutions like prisons and schools. They busted unions, drove down wages, and cut the welfare state to ribbons.

Abroad, the United States expanded the program of "free trade" they had pursued since the end of World War II. Seeking cheap labor, resources, and markets, Washington used its dominance of international institutions to pry open national economies throughout the world. It aimed first to incorporate its allies, then its antagonists in this neoliberal world order, with the promise that it would work in the interests of "the capitalist class" around the world. As Henry Kissinger once remarked, "What is called globalization is really another name for the dominant role of the United States." 7 These domestic and international policies overcame the crises of the 1970s and ushered in a period of economic expansion (interrupted by a few recessions) that lasted from the early 1980s through to the early 2000s. 8

The brief unipolar moment

Unable to keep pace with the West's economic expansion and the Reagan administration's massive rearmament program, and beset by its own internal contradictions, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and the Cold War's bipolar geopolitical order came to an end. The United States hoped to establish a new unipolar world order in which it would solidify its position as the world's sole remaining, and unassailable, superpower.

For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue states like Iraq.

Amidst the heady days of this unipolar moment, much of the left abandoned the classical Marxist theory of imperialism developed chiefly by the early twentieth century Russian revolutionaries Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin. In brief, Lenin and Bukharin argued that capitalist development transformed economic competition into interstate rivalry and war for the political and economic division and redivision of the world system between the dominant capitalist powers vying for hegemony. 9

"The development of world capitalism leads," wrote Bukharin, "on the one hand, to an internationalization of the economic life and, on the other, to the leveling of economic differences, and to an infinitely greater degree, the same process of economic development intensifies the tendency to 'nationalize' capitalist interests, to form narrow 'national' groups armed to the teeth and ready to hurl themselves at one another at any moment." 10

Imperialism was a product of the interplay between the creation of a world market and the division of the world between national states, and as such was a product of the system rather than simply a policy of a particular state or party. This was in contrast to the German socialist Karl Kautsky, who argued that imperialism was a policy favored by some sections of the capitalists but which ran against the interests of ruling classes as a whole, which, as a result of the economic integration of the world market, had a greater interest in peaceful competition.

The new period of globalized capitalism produced new theories that rejected Lenin and Bukharin's approach. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argued in their 2000 book that globalization had replaced imperialism with a new structure of domination they termed empire. Nonstate networks of power, like international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, were now, in an era where states were increasingly powerless, the dominant world players. 11 "The United States does not, and indeed no nation-state can today, form the center of an imperialist project," they famously wrote in the preface. 12 Others took the argument further, maintaining that a system of globalized transnational production and trade was fast displacing states, including Washington, as influential centers of power. 13

On the other extreme, Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin argue in their 2012 book The Making of Global Capitalism that the American state organized globalization and integrated all the world's states as vassals of its informal empire. 14 Though diametrically opposed at the start, these arguments ended with the same conclusion -- inter-imperial rivalries between the world's leading states, including the potential for them to spill over into military conflict -- are not a necessary outcome of capitalism; and today those rivalries are a thing of the past.

The return of rivalry in an asymmetric world order

Developments in the real world -- such as the Bush administration's 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and two years later of Iraq -- viscerally disproved these arguments. Indeed, changes in the real world were already undermining the foundations of the postwar world order that Kagan and others are frantically holding up against Trump's "America First" nationalism.

Washington's drive to cement its hegemony in a unipolar world order was undermined in several ways. The neoliberal boom from the early 1980s to the 2000s produced new centers of capital accumulation. China is the paradigmatic example. After it abandoned autarkic state capitalism in favor of state-managed production for the world market, it transformed itself from a backwater producer to the new workshop of the world. It vaulted from producing about 1.9 percent 15 of global GDP in 1979 to about 15 percent in 2016. 16 It is now the second-largest economy in the world and predicted to overtake the United States as the largest economy in the coming years.

But China was not the sole beneficiary of the neoliberal expansion. Brazil and other regional economies also developed. And Russia, after suffering an enormous collapse of its empire and its economic power in the 1990s, managed to rebuild itself as a petro-power with disproportionate geopolitical influence because of its nuclear arsenal. Of course, whole sections of the world system did not develop at all, but instead suffered dispossession and economic catastrophe.

Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a strategic partner, as a strategic competitor. 17

Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster in American history." 18

Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil," emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries.

Russia also took advantage of American setbacks to reassert its power against EU and NATO expansionism in Eastern Europe. It went to war against US ally Georgia in 2008. In Central Asia, China and Russia came together to form a new alliance, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They postured against American imperialism in their own imperial interests.

Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China.

This was the high-water mark of the so-called BRICS -- Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The lesser powers in this bloc hitched their star to Chinese imperialism, exporting their commodities to fuel China's industrial expansion. Together they launched the BRICS bank, officially known as the New Development Bank, and China added another, the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank, as alternatives to the IMF and World Bank. The recent Chinese slowdown and the consequent drop in commodity prices have, however, hammered the economies of many of the BRICS.

These developments cracked the unipolar moment and replaced it with today's asymmetric world order. The United States remains the world's sole superpower; but it now faces an international rival in China and in lesser powers like Russia. It must also wrestle with regional powers that pursue their own interests, sometimes in sync with Washington and other times at odds with it.

Obama's failure to restore dominance

The Obama administration came to power with the hopes of restoring the credibility and standing of American power in the wake of Bush's disasters in the Middle East. It implemented a combined program of stimulus and austerity to restore growth and profitability. By imposing a two-tier wage structure on the auto industry, it set a precedent for competitive reindustrialization in the United States, and launched the massive fracking expansion to provide cheap domestic energy to US corporations.

Intending to extract the United States from its costly and inconclusive ground wars in the Middle East, Obama turned to air power, shifting the focus of the so-called War on Terror to drone strikes, Special Force operations, and air support for US proxy forces in different countries.

Once disentangled from Bush's occupations, Obama planned to conduct the ballyhooed "pivot to Asia" to contain China's ongoing rise, bolster Washington's political and military alliance with Japan and South Korea, and prevent their economic incorporation into China's growing sphere of influence. The now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership was meant to ensure American economic hegemony in the region, which would then be backed up militarily with the deployment of 60 percent of the US Navy to the Asia Pacific region. 19 Obama also began to push back against Russian opposition to the EU and NATO expansion into Eastern Europe -- hence the standoff over Ukraine.

But Obama was unable to fully implement any of this because US forces remained bogged down in the spiraling crisis in the Middle East. Retreating from the Bush administration's policy of regime change to balancing between the existing states, Obama, while continuing to support historic US allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, at the same time struck a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. But this strategy was undermined by the Arab Spring, the regimes' counterrevolutions, attempts by regional powers to manipulate the rebellion for their own ends, and the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The United States has been unable to resolve many of these developing crises on its own terms.

Now Russia, after having suffered a long-term decline of its power in the region, has managed to reassert itself through its intervention in Syria in support of Assad's counterrevolution. It is now a broker in the Syrian "peace process" and a new player in the broader Middle East.

While the United States continued to suffer relative decline, China and Russia became even more assertive. Russia took Crimea, which provoked the United States and Germany to impose sanctions on the Kremlin. China intensified its economic deal making throughout the world, increasing its foreign direct investment from a paltry $17.2 billion in 2005 to $187 billion in 2015. 20 At the same time, it engaged in a massive buildup of its navy and air force (though its military is still dwarfed by the US) and constructed new military bases on various islands to control the shipping lanes, fisheries, and potential oil fields in the South China Sea.

Obama did manage to oversee the recovery of the US economy, and China has suffered an economic slowdown. That has dramatically reversed the economic fortunes of the BRICS, in particular Brazil, which has experienced economic collapse and a right-wing governmental coup. The drop in oil prices that accompanied the Chinese slowdown also hammered the OPEC states as well as Russia.

But China's slowdown has not reversed Beijing's economic and geopolitical ascension. In fact, China is in the process of rebalancing its economy to replace multinational investment, expand its domestic market, and increase production for export to the rest of the world. The aim is to increase its ability to compete with the United States and the EU at all levels.

Thus, well before Trump's election, the United States had been mired in foreign policy problems that it seemed incapable of resolving.

Trump's break with neoliberalism

Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade globalization.

Inside the United States, Trump aims to double down on some aspects of neoliberalism. He plans to cut taxes on the rich, rip up government regulations that "hamper" business interests, expand Obama's fracking program to provide corporations cheaper energy, and to go after public sector unions. He also wants to invest $1 trillion to modernize the country's decrepit infrastructure. While his Gestapo assault on immigrants is less popular among the business class, they are salivating over the tax and regulatory cuts. Trump hopes with these economic carrots to lure American manufacturing companies back to the United States.

At the same time, however, Trump wants to upend the neoliberal Washington Consensus. He is threatening to impose tariffs on American corporations that move their production to other countries. He has already nixed the TPP and intends to do the same to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe. He promises to renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and Canada to secure better terms, and, in response to Chinese and EU protectionism, he threatens to impose a border tax of 45 percent on Chinese and others countries' exports to the United States. These measures could trigger a trade war.

Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital, particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany.

This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21 Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt about that." 22

Trump also plans to intensify what he sees as a civilizational war with Islam. This will likely involve ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran, intensifying the war on ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and conducting further actions against al Qaeda internationally. It will also likely involve doubling down on Washington's alliance with Israel. Trump's appointment as ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is actually to the right of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 23 Trump has already begun escalating the ongoing war on Muslims conducted by the last two administrations, with his executive orders that are in effect an anti-Muslim ban and have increased the profiling, surveillance, and harassment of Muslims throughout the country.

To pay for this military expansion, the Trump administration, in Bannon's phrase, plans to carry out the "deconstruction of the administrative state." Thus, the administration has appointed heads of departments, like Ed Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency, whose main purpose is to gut them. 24 No doubt this will entail massive cuts to social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise to imitate Britain and leave the EU.

Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to its allies.

In a departure from Obama's policy toward Russia, Trump intends to create a more transactional relationship with the Kremlin. He does not view Russia as the main threat; he believes that is China. In addition to considering cutting a deal with Russia to drop sanctions over its seizure of Crimea, he wants to collaborate with Putin in a joint war against ISIS in Syria.

Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea.

Trump's economic nationalism leads directly to his "fortress America" policies. These policies chiefly target Muslims and immigrants, but they should not be seen in isolation from other domestic policies. With the wave of protests against his attacks that emerged from the moment he stepped into office, Trump and his allies in state governments have introduced bills that impose increasing restrictions on the right to protest and give the police a license for repression with impunity. Thus the corollary of his "America First" imperialism abroad is authoritarianism at home.

Can Trump succeed?

Trump faces a vast array of obstacles that could stop him from implementing his new strategy. To begin with, he is an unpopular president with an approval rating hovering below 40 percent in his first months in office. He and his crony capitalist cabinet will no doubt face many scandals, compromising their ability to push through their agenda.

He may be his own biggest obstacle. His 6 A.M. tweets are signs of someone more concerned with his celebrity status than imperial statecraft. He has already lost his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, due to Flynn's failure to disclose his communication with Russian diplomats during the campaign, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions took heat on similar charges, forcing him to recuse himself from any investigations of the Trump campaign with the Kremlin.

There are also real economic challenges to his ability to follow through on his economic program. He simultaneously promises to cut taxes for the wealthy, spend hundreds of millions on domestic infrastructure (not to mention the billions it would cost to build a wall along the US–Mexico border), and cut the deficit. This does not square with economic reality.

On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot. 25

Even his cabinet opposes much of his program. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson testified that he supports the TTP and American obligations to its NATO allies in Europe, including recent deployments of American troops to Poland. And Trump's Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis disagrees with Trump's proposal to rip up the nuclear treaty with Iran.

Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's connections with the Russian state.

One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York Times . 26 Thus, the core of the capitalist state is at least attempting to constrain Trump, bring down some of his appointees and may, if they see it as necessary, do the same to Trump himself. At the very least, these extraordinary divisions at the top create a sense of insecurity, and open up space for questioning and struggle from below.

The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. As Glenn Greenwald writes, the Democrats are

not "resisting" Trump from the left or with populist appeals -- by, for instance, devoting themselves toprotection ofWall Street and environmental regulations under attack , or supporting the revocation of jobs-killing free trade agreements, or demanding that Yemini civilians not be massacred. Instead, they're attacking him on the grounds of insufficient nationalism, militarism, and aggression: equating a desire to avoid confrontation with Moscow as a form of treason (just like they did when they were the leading Cold Warriors).

This is why they're finding such common cause with the nation's most bloodthirsty militarists -- not because it's an alliance of convenience but rather one of shared convictions (indeed, long before Trump, neocons were planning a re-alignment with Democrats under a Clinton presidency). 27

Republicans also object to many of Trump's initiatives. For example, John McCain has attacked his cozy relationship with the Kremlin. And neoliberals in the Republican Party support the TPP and free trade globalization in general. The neocon Max Boot has gone so far as to support the Democrat's call for a special counsel to investigate Trump's collusion with Putin. He explains,

There is a good reason why Trump and his partisans are so apoplectic about the prospect of a special counsel, and it is precisely why it is imperative to appoint one: because otherwise we will never know the full story of the Kremlin's tampering with our elections and of the Kremlin's connections with the president of the United States. As evidenced by his desperate attempts to change the subject, Trump appears petrified of what such a probe would reveal. 28

Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures.

Economic nationalism beyond Trump?

While Trump's contradictions could stymie his ability to impose his economic nationalist program, that program is not going to disappear any more than the problems it is intended to address. The reality is that the United States faces continued decline in the neoliberal world order. China, even taking into account the many contradictions it faces, continues to benefit from the current setup.

That's why, in an ironic twist of historic proportions, Chinese premier Xi Jing Ping defended the Washington Consensus in his country's first address at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland. He even went so far as to promise to come to the rescue of free-trade globalization if the Trump administration abandoned it. "No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war ," he declared. "Pursuing protectionism is just like locking one's self in a dark room. Wind and rain may be kept outside, but so are light and air." 29

One of his underlings, Zhang Jun, remarked, "If anyone were to say China is playing a leadership role in the world I would say it's not China rushing to the front but rather the front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China. If China is required to play that leadership role then China will assume its responsibilities." 30

China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China inhospitable for business. 32

China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the strategic islands in the South China Sea.

All of this was underway before Trump. That's why Obama was already inching toward some of Trump's policies. He initiated the pivot to Asia, deployed the US Navy to the region, and imposed tariffs on Chinese steel and tires. He also complained about NATO countries and others freeloading on American military largesse. He thus encouraged Japan's rearmament and deployments of its forces abroad. He also began the move to on-shoring manufacturing based on a low-wage America with cheap energy and revitalized infrastructure.

So it's imaginable that another figure could take up and repackage Trump's economic nationalism. Regardless of whether this happens or not, it is clear that there is a trajectory deep in the dynamics of the world system toward interimperial rivalry between the United States and its main imperialist challenger, China. Obviously there are countervailing forces that mitigate the tendency toward military conflict between them. The high degree of economic integration makes the ruling classes hesitant to risk war. And, because all the major states are nuclear powers, each is reluctant to risk armed conflicts turning into mutual annihilation.

... ... ...

  1. Martin Wolf, "The Long and Painful Journey to World Disorder," Financial Times , January 5, 2017, www.ft.com/content/ef13e61a-ccec-11e6-b8... .
  2. Robert Kagan, "Backing Into World War III," Foreign Policy , February 6, 2017, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/06/back... .
  3. For background on this key institution of American imperialism see Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (New York: Authors Choice Press, 2004), and Laurence H. Shoup, Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015).
  4. Gideon Rose, "Out of Order," Foreign Affairs (January–February, 2017).
  5. Richard Haass, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order (New York: Penguin Press, 2017).
  6. For one of the best accounts of neoliberalism as a response to globalization and a strategy to overcome the crisis of the 1970s, see Neil Davidson, "The Neoliberal Era in Britain: Historical Developments and Current Perspectives," International Socialism Journal , no. 139 (2013), http://isj.org.uk/the-neoliberal-era-in-... .
  7. Lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, Oct. 12, 1999, cited by Sam Gindin in "Social Justice and Globalization: Are They Compatible?" Monthly Review , June 2002, 11.
  8. For an account of the neoliberal boom and consequent crisis and slump, see David McNally, Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2010).
  9. For a summary of the classical theory of imperialism, see Phil Gasper, "Lenin and Bukharin on Imperialism," International Socialist Review , no. 100 (May 2009), http://isreview.org/issue/100/lenin-and-... .
  10. Nikolai Bukharin, Imperialism and World Economy, chapter 8, "World Economy and the Nation State," at www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/... .
  11. For a summary and critique of Hardt and Negri's ideas see Tom Lewis, "Empire strikes out," International Socialist Review , no. 24 (July–August 2002), www.isreview.org/issues/24/empire_strike... .
  12. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2000), xiii–xiv.
  13. See, for example, William Robinson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and the State in a Transitional World (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins, 2004).
  14. See Ashley Smith, "Global empire or imperialism?" International Socialist Review , no 92 (Spring 2014), http://isreview.org/issue/92 .
  15. Justin Yifu Lin, "China and the Global Economy," Remarks at the Conference "Asia's Role in the Post-Crisis Global Economy," November 29, 2011, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/s... .
  16. Tim Worstall, "China's Only 15% of the Global Economy But Contributes 25-30% of Global Growth," Forbes , October 30, 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10... .
  17. Susan Rice, "Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest," Foreign Affairs , January/February 2000, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2000-01-... .
  18. Cited in Patrick Cockburn, The Occupation (London: Verso, 2006), 4.
  19. Ashley Smith, "US Imperialism's Pivot to Asia," International Socialist Review , no. 88, January 2009, http://isreview.org/issue/88/us-imperial... .
  20. Roger Yu, "China Eyes Global Economic Leadership as U.S. Turns Inwards," USA Today , March 1, 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/0... .
  21. Ed Pilkington and Martin Pengelly, "'Let it Be an Arms Race': Donald Trump Appears to Double Down on Nuclear Expansion," The Guardian , December 24, 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/... .
  22. Max Fisher, "Trump's Military Ambition: Raw Power as a Means and an End," New York Times , March 3, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/world/america... .
  23. Stephen Zunes, "Trump's Frightening Picks for U.S. Policy in the Middle East," The Progressive , December 22, 2016, http://progressive.org/dispatches/trump-... .
  24. Phillip Rucker and Robert Costa, "Bannon Vows Daily Fight for the "Deconstruction of the Administrative State," Washington Post , February 23, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-wh-s... .
  25. John Tammy, "Peter Navarro is Providing Donald Trump with Very Dangerous Economic Advice," Forbes , September 18, 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2016/09/1... .
  26. Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Rumblings of a 'Deep State' Undermining Trump? It Was Once a Foreign Concept," New York Times , March 6, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/po... .
  27. Glenn Greenwald, "Democrats Now Demonize the Same Russia Policies that Obama Long Championed," The Intercept , March 6, 2017, https://theintercept.com/2017/03/06/demo... .
  28. Max Boot, "Trump Knows the Feds Are Closing In on Him," Foreign Policy , March 6, 2017, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/06/trum... .
  29. Stephen Fidler, Te-Ping Chen, and Lingling Wei, "China's Xi Jingping Seizes Role as Leader of Globalization," Wall Street Journal , January 17, 2017, www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-xi-jinping-d... .
  30. Reuters , "Diplomat Says China Would Assume World Leadership if Needed," January 23, 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-pol... .
  31. For China's shifting economic strategy see Fareed Zakaria, "Trump Could Be the Best Things That's Happened to China in a Long Time," Washington Post , January 12, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-best-thing-thats-happened-to-china-in-a-long-time/2017/01/12/f4d71a3a-d913-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.26b51e4d5547 and Andrew Browne, "As China Pivots, Donald Trump Risks Fighting an Old War," Wall Street Journal , December 27, 2016, www.wsj.com/articles/as-china-pivots-tru... .
  32. Huiling Tan, "Businesses Move China Down Priority List: AmCham Survey," CNBC, January 17, 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/01/17/businesses-move-... .
  33. For further discussion of this point, see Ashley Smith, "Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution," Socialist Worker , August 25, 2016, https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/25/a... .
  34. For more on this, see Brian Bean and Todd Chretien, "Socialists and 'the Bern,'" Socialist Worker , February 29, 2016, https://socialistworker.org/2016/02/29/s... .

[Jul 22, 2018] Trump's New Neoliberalism s by Marco Rosaire Rossi

Notable quotes:
"... Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals ..."
"... The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics is not without its basis. ..."
"... The marriage between neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W. Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element. Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up their end. ..."
"... The argument that Trump would somehow overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political savant. ..."
"... The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade war. ..."
"... As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. ..."
"... The Right Nation: Conservative Power in ..."
"... The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal values. ..."
"... Understood in proper terms, "economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else. ..."
"... Capitalism and Freedom ..."
Jan 07, 2018 | new-compass.net
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has refuted any notion that Trump's ascension to the White House would mark an end to neoliberalism. Poor whites who supported Trump expected him to offer America a new version of conservativism that would break with neoliberalism. Instead, furthering neoliberal policies has become a critical objective that works in tandem with Trump's xenophobic rhetoric

With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, President Trump secured his first major policy victory. Despite their federal dominance, the Republican Party has proven to be legislatively constipated. Below the surface of party unity, sectarian differences between the competing strains of American conservatism have hindered it from taking advantage of its historical positioning. Nevertheless, tax cuts proved to be a workable common ground that Trump was able to take advantage of. While commentary of the passage has tended to focus on this Republican unity, the most significant aspect of the Act's passage is the refutation that Donald Trump's ascension to the White House would somehow mark an end to the era of neoliberal economics. Furthering neoliberal policies has not only been an aspect of Trump's agenda but a critical goal that works in tandem with his xenophobic rhetoric. Far from being opposed by the Bannon faction of Trump's coalition, neoliberalism has provided a comforting aerie for their fascist inclinations to develop. Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals .

The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics is not without its basis. In a bizarre case of enveloping ironies, Trump's presidential campaign was successful in portraying him as both a billionaire business wizard and as an example of an American everyman. He advocated for "draining the swamp" of corrupt Wall Street executives, while at the same time paraded his practice of tax evasion has an example of his shrewd financial acumen. The incompatibility of these two personas is obvious, but it has a certain appeal within the context of America's poor whites. Poor white Americans are both spiteful toward and enamored by capitalism. They are spiteful because it retards their own social mobility, but enamored with it because it provides a basis for their own privilege over racial minorities. Unlike their counterparts among racial minorities, poor whites do not consider themselves poor by class, but poor by temporary misfortune. They are not poor per se, but rather down-on-their-luck millionaires whose are unjustly treated by liberal elites and coddled minorities. For these people, Trump represented an enchanting example of uncouth success. The fact that he was crass and despised only reinforced the notion that it is not connections and education that made a person wealthy, but hard work and an intuition for affluence. Culturally speaking, these are traits are considered innate to white Americans. Of course, to believe this mythology, many of Trump's low-class acolytes were only willing to support his campaign under the pretext of an unspoken bargain: they would ignore the reality that his wealth was inherited and not earned, and he would refrain from the usual Republican claptrap about the virtues of privatizing Social Security and Medicare. That way both partners could remain comfortable in their delusions that all their current and potential future wealth was a product of their own doing. The result of this unspoken bargain was that Trump was supposed to offer America a new version of conservativism. The marriage between neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W. Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element. Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up their end.

Astute observers saw this betrayal coming. The argument that Trump would somehow overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political savant. The issue was always economically inane. A trade deficit in-and-of-itself reveals very little about the overall health of an economy. Whether a nation should strive for or against a trade deficit is more dependent on that nation's strategic position within the global economy, and not necessarily an indicator of the health of domestic markets. But, trade proved to be a salient issue for symbolic purposes. Stagnation and automation have compelled American middle and lower classes to accept an economic torpor. Making trade deficits a central campaign tenant provided these people with an outlet for their class anxieties without having to question the nature of class itself. Lethargic economic growth was blamed on Mexicans and the Chinese. The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade war.

While Trump's criticism of Mexico and China seemed to imply an undoing of international market liberalization and a return to an age of greater protectionism, in reality, Trump very rarely recommended such policies. Instead, he made vague references to "good people" who will make "good deals" for American workers and openly preferred lowering America's corporate tax rate in order to encourage businesses to reinvest in the United States. The first proposal was always understood as meaningless. Its value was in showmanship. A person can hoodwink the world into thinking that they are a genius just by referring to everyone around them as a moron. However, the second proposal not only does not overturn the reigning neoliberal order, it strengthens it. As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. The deficit be damned if preventing it smacks of any hint of expropriation of the wealthy. But, the deficit is not entirely damned. It is an open secret that Republicans are salivating for a fiscal crisis that will provide them with a pretext for cutting Social Security and Medicare. It was only a matter of time before Trump's administration wholeheartedly joins them.

The fact that the real potential for cutting favored government programs has not resulted in the same outcry among Trump's supporters, even among low-class demographics, as his suggestion that he might soften his position on immigration is a grave concern. Social Security and Medicare are extremely popular in the United States among poor and working people regardless of ethnicity and political ideology. Nevertheless, tolerance for their obliteration has become palatable to the majority of white Americans. In 2004, journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge published their exhaustive history of the American Right, The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America . At the time, Michlethwait and Wooldridge could accurately claim that "in no other country is the Right defined so much by values rather than class Yet despite the importance of values, America has failed to produce a xenophobic 'far Right' on anything like the same scale as Europe has." A little over a decade later, Michlethwait's and Wooldridge's observation has become obsolete. Trump is inept at policy and governance, but he is a skilled mobilizer and has managed to shift the American Right into a new direction. The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal values.

Trump has not only furthered the neoliberal doctrine of privatization, but also that of the economization of everyday life, and specifically, the economization of American racism. While fear of cultural differences between "the west" and "the rest" has always been front and center for the Bannon wing of Trump's coalition, more tactical voices find economic justifications for their xenophobia: immigrants steal jobs, freeride on welfare benefits, and don't pay taxes. The image that emerges when these talking points converge is a political system enamored with quantifying and dispensing material goods between those who deserve and those who do not. For most modern conservatives, opposition to immigration is not based on an open fear of differences; rather, it is a feeling that immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are unwilling to accept a free market economic system that treats all Americans on fair and equal terms. Unlike average Americans, who work hard and thus deserve their market remunerations, immigrants -- and by implication other minorities -- rely on a mixture of government handouts and liberal acquiescence to the rules. Immigrants cash their welfare checks because liberal elites look the other way on law enforcement. This worldview suggests that the government should not only be redirected to strenuous law enforcement but also that it should not be in the business of providing society with social welfare in the first place. Doing so only creates an impetus for illegal immigration and lazy minorities. In this manner, Bannon's cheerleading of "economic nationalism" was always a rhetorical mirage. Understood in proper terms, "economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else.

There is no fundamental difference in the terms of the realpolitik outcomes between Friedman's neoliberalism and Bannon's economic nationalism, even if they begin from separate economic philosophies. The only difference is in what should be considered preferable within market configurations. In Capitalism and Freedom , Friedman emphasizes his personal objections to racist ideologies but sees no need for a government to ensure racial equality. According to Friedman, racism is to be overcome through individual argumentation, not political struggle; it is the changing of tastes within the marketplace that will provide the liberation of ethnic minorities, not the paternal hand of the government preventing discrimination. Friedman's de-politicizing of racial anxieties to mere matters of "taste," provides an opening for those -- like Bannon -- who are eager to engage in a culture war, but are well aware of the potentially alienating effects of actually taking up arms. If racial discrimination is only a matter of "taste," similar to other desires within the marketplace, then the maintenance of white supremacy is predicated on its profitability. As long as whiteness can maintain its social hegemony, then Friedman's governmental obligations "to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets," will serve to reinforce it. The neoliberal economizing of American racism allows for many of the effects of white supremacy without necessarily the adoption of any of its core premises. Trump's coalition of white nationalists and free-market ideologues thus become comfortable bedfellows, even while maintaining a rhetorical mistrust of each other.

The question is can Trump maintain his coalition of realigned conservatives in time for the next election cycle? While his low polling numbers and recent Democratic Party successes are encouraging, they are not foolproof. The destabilizing of the narrative on American racism can only occur through a refusal to accept the economization of the debate. The exclusion of racial minorities from social welfare and the utter bureaucratic madness of the United States' immigration policies have a moral dimension that has to take precedence over concerns regarding job stealing and tax burdens, no matter how fallacious such arguments are to begin with. Expecting the Democratic Party's leadership to play a leading role in this de-economization of the debate is not impossible, but unlikely. Along with Republicans, Democrats have been complicit in the framing social issues in relations to the economy, and the economy as merely working in the service of private interests. Only recently has the leftwing of the Democratic Party been organized and energized enough to counter this influence and return the party to its New Deal orientation. Whatever its limitations, Roosevelt's "freedom from want" provides a moral framework for economic policy. It is a reasonable and familiar starting point to break with a neoliberal credo that economizes all morality within a capitalist framework.

While the left-wing of the Democratic Party has seen tremendous progress, it is still far from overturning the organization's centrist leadership. In many ways, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a painful reminder of how weak the American Left is once Republicans are able to stay united. Like with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is extremely unpopular. The trickledown theory of economics that the act is based on is rightly seen a convenient canard for the rich. So much so, that it has been reduced to a cliché joke among late night talk show hosts. With the exception of Fox News, the mainstream press has frequently commented on the nearly universal consensus among economists that the Act will result in a massive transfer of wealth to the upper class. Intellectually, there is no place for defenders of the Act to hide. However, unlike opposition to repealing the Affordable Care Act, opposition to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been somewhat muted. While Americans still are seething from the injustices of the 2007-2008 economic collapse, ten years on, they still have not found a tangible political venue to express their frustrations. This means that regardless of the outcome of the next election cycle the American Left is going to have to play a persistent role creating a meaningful outlet for people's dismay, and fostering a political discourse that recognizes that the Trump phenomenon is rooted in the neoliberal age that preceded it. The dangerous tantrum-prone child of Trumpism will only be forced off the playground when its neoliberal parents no longer own the park.

[Jul 22, 2018] Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment by Diana Johnstone

Notable quotes:
"... The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi, the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus, perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things. ..."
"... When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those "revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment Diana Johnstone July 20, 2018 1,600 Words 7 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone

Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are ready to leap off the cliff.

For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.

Donald Trump was elected by Russia ?

On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn't need to try to "undermine our democracy". It would mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be knocked over by a tweet.

Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating millions of Americans as "deplorables" because they didn't fit into her identity politics constituencies.

The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi, the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus, perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.

When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those "revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.

So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.

But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of accusations of "treason" when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to normalize relations with Russia.

This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. They have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following U.S. whims in the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign intervention units of NATO under U.S. command. Having not thought seriously about the implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to themselves.

The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.

Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?

But for the mainstream media, "the story" at the Helsinki summit, even the only story, was Trump's reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in advance.

Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the "big stories" on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few exceptions. To get the job, one must have important "sources", meaning government spokesmen who are willing to tell you what "the story" is, often without being identified. Once they know what "the story" is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: "The President has betrayed our great country to the Russian enemy. Treason!"

This demented chorus on "Russian hacking" prevented mainstream media from even doing their job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For example, "the Moon of Alabama" site offers an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy , which sounds infinitely more plausible than "the story". In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a reverse version of Kissinger's strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump's policy, unlike the caterwauling we've been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.

Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it's got to be a zero sum game, winner take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.

They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project, no strategy. Just hate Trump.

He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been assassinated yet.

It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home for failing to chide the American president for U.S. violations of human rights in Guantanamo, murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless countries by government-financed "non-governmental organizations" (the National Endowment of Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the world's greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic Russians know how to be polite.

Still, if Trump actually makes a "deal", there may be losers – neither the U.S. nor Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else's expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.

Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:

"We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly."

In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have much choice.

On another subject, Trump said that "our militaries" get along with the Russians "better than our politicians". This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.

In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon!

The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility – and perhaps this one too.

"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world" Trump declared "I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."

That is more than his political enemies can claim.

exiled off mainstreet , July 20, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT

This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction.
AnonFromTN , July 22, 2018 at 3:30 am GMT
In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery you have to be alive. If only they die, it would be a great service to the humanity. Unfortunately, the way things go, they might take us all with them.
Cyrano , July 22, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT
This mass hysteria over a country hostile to both democracy and gay rights (it's hard to tell which one is worse) has been seen in the west before.

It's very reminiscent of the lead-up to Iraq war in 2003. I mean what's next? Are they gonna accuse Russia of having WMD's too?

They are pretty good at providing false evidence...

...

Cagey Beast , July 22, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos .

On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents "populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations.

Anonymous [115] Disclaimer , July 22, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
OT

Diana Johnstone is not alone. Others on the alt-Left are starting to wake up, too. This is Joaquín Flores:

People are seeing through dishonesty, and the old language traps are used up and done for. If reconquista is the goal, then we need to have an honest conversation about that. If there's a Latino nation with self determination in the south-west US, or rights 'back' to the south-west US, then let's speak of it in such terms. Because then we'd be looking at a Euro-American nation also. Now of course there's issues of interpenetrated peoples, and identities we carry in our minds in diverse urban centers. But the point here is that we have to have an honest discourse, and stop hiding reconquista sentiments under the rubric of 'human rights'. Because European-Americans don't have right of return to Europe, so the left is promoting what will ultimately be a race war, full scale, if they don't chill the fuck out and back off this disingenuous approach to policy-wonkism on immigration.

The paradigmatic question today is, how is wealth made, and where does wealth come from? What is the balance of trade and debts, and how is that is no longer manageable? The US empire and NATO is no longer manageable. Trump is unwinding NATO. That can't be a bad thing.

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/07/explaining-trump-to-socialist-liberals-flores/

Fort Russ News is really turning out to be a leading voice of the Third Way movement.

[Jul 22, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State Is A Symptom, Not The Disease

Jul 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out:

1. The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.

2. The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the governed.

... ... ...

The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.

[Jul 22, 2018] James Clapper just stated that Obama asked for intelligence assessment...

The truth is not for cowards: Obama was in the center of "Russiagate" and pushed for illegal actions. Such a scoundrel.
"Unless we assume the FBI went completely rogue, it is inconceivable that the deployments of personnel to spy on the Trump campaign and make provocative contact with its lesser members could have occurred without the full knowledge and control of the occupants of the Oval Office." Jarrett and Obama are Behind Spygate
" In a Tuesday appearance on Fox News , Newt Gingrich said that he believed former President Barack Obama and some of his top officials – including Valerie Jarrett – were involved in spying on Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign[.] ..." Jarrett and Obama are Behind Spygate
"Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Thursday he believes it's highly unlikely that President Obama did not know an FBI informant was in the Trump campaign."
Notable quotes:
"... If it weren't for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. President Obama is responsible for that. It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place. ..."
Jul 22, 2018 | twitter.com

cheech_wizard Sun, 07/22/2018 - 14:04

Permalink https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/obamas-former-director-of-nati

Clapper said --

If it weren't for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. President Obama is responsible for that. It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place.

Rita Moreau ‏ @ritmmor Replying to @prayingmedic

Rats are jumping ship and singing. Obamagate for sure. Biggest political spy scandal in history

[Jul 22, 2018] Giuliani suggests Obama, top intelligence officials knew of 'spygate'

May 27, 2018 | thehill.com

President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani suggested on Sunday that former President Obama and his top intelligence officials "knew" the FBI had used a top-secret informant to allegedly spy on Trump's 2016 campaign.

In an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis, Giuliani insisted that former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were aware of the informant.

Giuliani also suggested that Brennan likely briefed Obama himself on the matter.

"Brennan and Clapper knew about it. Brennan briefed him every day, Obama -- well to the extent that he got briefed every day," Giuliani said. "You would have to have brought this up, wouldn't you? Gosh, I can't see how you would escape it."

Trump and his political allies have raised concerns in recent days that the FBI infiltrated his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes.

The informant, identified in media reports as American professor Stefan Halper, reportedly met with three Trump campaign advisers -- George Papadopoulos, Carter Page and Sam Clovis -- during the 2016 presidential race.

[Jul 22, 2018] How eerie and unsettling it can be when people change their minds by Corey Robin

Jul 22, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Jul 5, 2018

I just finished reading the letters of Thomas Mann, who's an exemplary figure in this regard. Leading up to World War I, he was a fairly standard old-school conservative militarist/nationalist. That continued until the end of the war. After the war, he became a dedicated liberal defender of Weimar. Once the Nazis took over, his liberalism morphed into a humanist anti-fascism. By the end of the war, that antifascism had come to include overt sympathy with communism and the Soviet Union (he even praised Mission to Moscow on aesthetic grounds!) That continued into the late 1940s, when he supported Henry Wallace for president and was outspoken in his opposition to HUAC .

But then, around 1950 or so, you begin to see, ever so slightly and subtly, Mann's opinions starting to change once again. He never comes out in defense of McCarthyism, but you begin to feel a chill and distance toward the left. His criticisms of the repression in the US begin to modulate and moderate. Till finally, in a 1953 letter to Agnes Meyer, his close friend and matriarch of The Washington Post, he confesses that he has decided not to publicly oppose McCarthyism in the New York Times. He reports to her that when he was asked -- "probably by someone on the 'left'" -- what he thinks about the censorship and restrictions on freedom in the US, this was his reply: "American democracy felt threatened and, in the struggle for freedom, considered that there had to be a certain limitation on freedom, a certain disciplining of individual thought, a certain conformism. This was understandable." Though he adds some sort of anodyne qualification at the end of that.

It just about broke my heart. That "left" in scare quotes (previously Mann had seen himself as a part of the left), the clichés about freedom and the Cold War, the betrayal of all that he had said and done in the preceding decades -- and most important, the seeming inability to see that he was betraying anything at all.

... ... ....

During the McCarthy years, Arendt wrote in a letter to Jaspers how terrified she was of the repression. It wasn't just the facts of the coercion she saw everywhere. It was how quickly it happened, how the mood of the moment had gone so suddenly from a generous and capacious liberalism to a cramped anticommunism. "Can you see," she wrote, "how far the disintegration has gone and with what breathtaking speed it has occurred? And up to now hardly any resistance. Everything melts away like butter in the sun." Victor Klemperer notices and narrates a similar shift among his friends and colleagues in his diaries of Nazi Germany.

Adam Roberts 07.05.18 at 7:12 am (no link)

One of the core truths about clever people is that they are very good at coming-up with clever justifications for whatever it is they happen to believe.
Z 07.05.18 at 9:27 am (no link)
People who were lambasting that kind of politics in 2016 are now embracing it -- without remarking upon the change, without explaining it, leaving the impression that this is what they believed all along.

Amusingly, and for essentially the same reasons, a symmetric movement has taken place in France, with many people self-identifying as socialist (at least nominally) two years ago now fully behind flat taxes on capital gains, detention of minors up to 90 days if their parents are undocumented and privatization of passenger trains (three ideas that have historically been considered outside of the spectrum of reasonnable political opinion, even by the former mainstream right-wing party).

But coincidentally, I was re-reading Bourdieu's On the State these last weeks so I'm not so surprised, especially as I don't think that believe is quite the right word to describe how political and social positions are embraced (and in that respect, I believe that intellectuals are different only in their vociferous protestations to the contrary, and their somewhat superior ability to identify with the domineering side).

"In modern societies, the State makes a decisive contribution towards the production and reproduction of the instruments of construction of social reality. [ ] The State thereby creates the conditions for an immediate orches­tration of habitus which is itself the foundation for a consensus on this set of shared self-evidences which constitute common sense ."

So when shifts and breaks in the structure of the field of State power happen, it is perhaps not so surprising that schemes of perceptions also quickly change so that single-payer universal health care/the suppression of a capital gain tax can move in a couple of months from worthy to mention only to summarily dismiss as absurd to common sense.

Glen Tomkins 07.05.18 at 1:48 pm (no link)
I don't understand the problem. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Always. Simple fact. What's to explain?
Alex Ameter 07.05.18 at 1:49 pm (no link)
American culture is terrifyingly guilty of this. The inability for an empire's people to understand the concept of blowback when their nation's military incursions into the surrounding world create deep sources of instability and trauma is one marker of empire in decline.

That being said, the fact that free will is tenuous at best and humans are so easily manipulated en masse gives me hope that the species might pull off long-term survival if it finds the right balance between setting up mutually reinforcing beneficial mechanisms to guide most human psyches and cultures into generally sustainable behavior and the chaos of a free reality without socially enforced categorizations or narratives.

Bard the Grim 07.05.18 at 2:02 pm (no link)
I've never liked the wording of the proverbial "When the facts change ." Speaking as a scientist and pedant, facts don't change. Circumstances, which are facts as a function of time, can change. Evidence, which is fact revealed by observation, can change. When discussing how opinions and interpretations change, it's helpful to make those distinctions.
Yan 07.05.18 at 2:50 pm (no link)
Political football @32: "we'd need to know who has changed "in the media, on social media, among politicians, activists, and citizens"."

Exhibit A:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/opinion/radical-democrats-are-pretty-reasonable.html

For Twitter readers, exhibit B:
https://mobile.twitter.com/peterdaou

William Uspal 07.05.18 at 2:55 pm (no link)
"A couple of comments reprimanded me about how Thomas had moved to the right in the 1950s, on a path similar to Thomas Mann's. [ ] The pressure exerted during McCarthyism was immense and it took almost superhuman strength to resist it"

I recently read a biography of Bayard Rustin, partially in the hope of getting some insight into how to integrate civil rights / racial justice and comprehensive social-democratic reform into one program. One might object: Rustin drifted towards the neoconservative right in his later years -- did his theoretical framework already carry the germ of accommodation in the 1960s/70s? But: how easy was it to resist the neoliberal/Reaganite tide?

SusanC 07.05.18 at 3:37 pm (no link)
Yes, I agree the phenomenon is really interesting.

On the other hand, what other people think can be one of the facts that changed. This is particularly true of variants of the "lesser evil argument" which were very much in evidence before the last UK general election and the US presidential election.

If someone was saying, "Look, I know the left of the Democrats prefer Sander's policies, but the important thing is defeating Trump, and Clinton has the best chance of doing that", then they can in good faith claim that new facts -- we now know that Clinton didn't win against Trump -- has caused them to have changed tactics, but their overall objective -- supporting anyone who looks like they could defeat Trump -- is basically unchanged.

The Guardian newspaper became significantly less anti-Corbyn once the general election results were out (although it still regularly features attack pieces), which looks like another instance of this.

Joseph Brenner 07.05.18 at 6:10 pm (no link)
This entire piece seems to be about big changes in attitude and opinion, leaving me a little puzzled by the remark about "micro-shifts". But I guess the general drift is this:

the subtle coercions of new opinion, the ever-finer movements we all make to keep up with the flow, so as not to be left behind.

You want to be engaged with the world, to be part of the conversation, which means you can be influenced by the conversation, which means you may very well be exposed to some pressures to conform.

Much like the later Thomas Mann, I have difficulty talking about the left without quotations (though I'm more likely to use the adjective "lefty"). The present-day right is certainly a mess, it may indeed have always been a mess (which as I take it is Corey Robin's main theme) but there were times in the past when the left was also decidedly a mess (and in some respects it still is [1])–

Why would you be shocked at the lack of intellectual integrity of someone who was a Stalinist on into the 1940s? Myself, I have a lot of respect from someone like Chomsky who's managed to be left-wing his entire life without indulging in apologies for Stalin or Mao.

These days, periodically you see someone try to do a i-was-a-righty-until-trump piece but many people seem to view these with suspicion and regard them as phony ploys for attention of some sort. We pay lip service to the idea that people should be open to intellectual change– who could forget the genre where the author demonstrates open-mindedness with ritual lists of "things I've changed my mind about" (um I see John Quiggin went there)– but when actually confronted with someone who has changed their mind, the reaction is often not very positive.

I have a tendency to use the Iraq war as a pundit-litmus test: In principle I'm willing to continue reading a pro-invasion pundit, but I want to see them recant, and I want to read their excuses– but really there isn't anything they can say that's going to impress me. If they're blowing in the wind this badly, if they can ignore the obvious for the sake of fitting in with the pack, it's unlikely they've got anything of value to add on anything.

[1] my standard example of present-day left-wing madness is the anti-nuclear power stance: if Jerry Brown were really serious about global warming, he would not have had the Diablo Canyon plant closed. I would feel happier about Ocasio-Cortez if she were in favor of clean energy, rather than just "renewable".

Lee A. Arnold 07.05.18 at 7:50 pm (no link)
Corey: "mainstream liberal opinion -- in the media, on social media, among politicians, activists, and citizens micro-shifts that happen under the pressure of events the most pressing fact that seems to change people's opinions is other people's opinions."

1. Most intellectuals aren't guided by intellect but by emotion like everyone else, and so there is a lot of herd instinct especially in regard to politics.

2. I am not convinced that the media catalogue of mainstream opinion truly reflects the most widely-held opinions. What is happening out here in the low-income suburbs seems more amorphous and changeable.

3. A lot of the microshifts are evidence of a political emergence because a compromising centrist Democrat failed, the new President is no such animal, and the Republican Party is revealed to centrists as policy obstructionists with lots of false promises, now freely aiming to destroy the safety-net and distort the justice system. My sense of it is that consequently a lot more people now see that the time for compromising moderation is over because it will never be reciprocated by the Republicans in Congress.

This goes along with our old thesis that both parties are breaking up; the only question was which one would go first. Trump is destroying the Republicans and it opened the cracks wider in the Democratic Party. Question now is whether the centrist Democrats have the brains to accept the newbies.

4. Little noticed is that the "intellectuals" and Bernie supporters committed malpractice by never emphasizing, enough to make it through the media noise, that Sanders' and now Ocasio-Cortez's "socialism" is not "gov't ownership of the means of production" but rather New Deal-style social democracy like any sane country. (Bernie's people acted as if everybody should know this already, but of course they don't.) Next up, will the "intellectuals" continue to commit malpractice by not helping Ocasio-Cortez explain through the media noise how it can work?

engels 07.06.18 at 1:31 am (no link)
Liberal pundits are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain away Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's victory.
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-liberal-pundits
Helen 07.06.18 at 4:17 am (no link)
Speaking as a social democrat who is anti – everything to do with neoliberalism and its destruction of labour relations and economic safety nets, I was scolded relentlessly by a brogressive pro-Sanders friend throughout the year of the US election (I'm an Australian, so is he, so the level of animus was astonishing.) Some of the tropes thrown at me were: Since you think HC is the least worst candidate, it means you endorse everything she's ever done, it means you are in favour of neoliberalism, it means you just want to vote for a woman even though we say Bernie's a better candidate, it means you are pro-war and want to kill Syrian children, it means you're an elitist who just wants to support the haute bourgeoisie.. on and on and on.
So fast forward to last week and guess what? of course I'm delighted by a self-described social democratic (or democratic socialist which seems to be the current wording) winning a primary. My principles haven't changed. They were just distorted and misrepresented by the brogressive left. My friend would eagerly adopt the framing employed in the OP (that I've belatedly seen the light about preferring a social democratic candidate), because of course that makes him look wise and consistent, and me uneducated and fickle. I completely reject that frame; it's false.
Mario 07.06.18 at 10:42 pm (no link)
The problem with the modern left is that it has very little political capital (oh, the word!) apart from principles and morals. Back in the day there was a realistic alternative political project, which, in principle, had something for everyone. Nowadays though there just isn't such a project and the result is that all that is left really just is bare morals and principles, and the resulting piety contests.

As a consequence, the left has, in practice, accepted capitalism as the baseline scenario and is playing by its rules while pretending something else. (Back when the Damore memo hit the waves, what really struck me was the idea that the google campus was a "liberal environment". That was like reading that the death star in star wars was staffed by budhists.)

The modern left can't provide a constructive answer to the problems of, say, the working class. Such things are not even much on the radar. Note how trans rights and gender issues (issues completely irrelevant to the wider population) absolutely dominate the discussion, while the plight of the working poor, or the well-being of families, is mostly ignored.

Furthermore, many on the modern left use principles and morals as branding tokens (like wearing Nike shoes, being vegan or driving a hybrid), and don't give much of a damn about outcomes. That's why they can change opinions overnight without feeling much remorse: it's not as if these ever were sincere opinions.

Mario 07.06.18 at 10:52 pm ( 112 )
Lobsterman @106,

But gender is still a construct, no matter how desperately attached to performing their preferred gender a given person is. That's where people go off the rails. We'll get back there fairly soon, I'm sure. There are far too many cis men who want to be nice to their kids and cis women who have ambition toward their careers for us to put up with this gender role nonsense much longer.

If you pardon me – how do you suggest we negotiate who gets to get pregnant and/or breast feed?

That "role nonsense" you so attack has reasons to exist. It's not just a whim of the folks that just happened to be around recently on the planet. A political project that does not acknowledge that is just plain misanthropy.

mclaren 07.08.18 at 2:23 am (no link)
Does Corey Robin admit how colossally and stupendously wrong he got the entire 2016 zeitgeist?

http://crookedtimber.org/2016/03/22/historically-liberals-and-the-left-have-underestimated-the-right-today-they-overestimate-it/

No? Well, then maybe we shouldn't listen to anything Corey Robin says.

One aspect of his argument that's completely unfair and unrealistic is that people have to decide on whether to elect a politician or enact a social policy or an economic scheme before they have any real experience-based empirical information of what the consequences will be.

Consider: neoliberal globalization was proposed and debated on the basis of books like the Toffler's Future Shock which got the future entirely wrong. The theory behind these kind of futurist predictions sounded plausible. Ever-increasing rates of technological change will result in people constantly moving around the country to new jobs, work will shift from manufacturing to knowledge work, industries will die off and constantly be replaced by new ones, the U.S. will offload its manufacturing to 3rd world countries and move to high-profit knowledge work that will vastly increase the income of the average U.S. worker, and so on. All completely wrong.

Mobility of workers in the USA has dropped to record lows because the interior of the USA is now depopulating and mired in poverty and chronic drug addiction due to the destruction of the middle class by shipping all the high-paid blue collar jobs overseas. Meanwhile, the areas with high-paying jobs are on both coasts, where housing and everything else has become so expensive average people can't afford to live there. But the high-paying coastal jobs are really only for people with artificial licensing barriers to entry that protect their professions, like doctors or lawyers or lobbyists or defense contractor liaisons who need special security clearance or financial traders who need to live within 10 blocks of the stock exchange because any farther away and their high-speed trading internet links will have too much latency to execute 50,000 trades per second. And so on.

Nobody foresaw that knowledge work would collapse because entire movies or ebooks or music CDs could be digitized and downloaded and sprayed all over the world with bittorrent. Nobody foresaw that textbooks and tutorial videos could be digitized and sent to third world countries where their population would whip our asses by producing centers of technological innovation like Shenzen or Guangdong or the whole island of Taiwan. No one foresaw that manufacturing processes prove essential to the very act of technological innovation, so that when America offshored its factories to Asia, we also lost our ability to innovative technologically, to the point where even if the USA wanted to bring back industries like iPad manufacturing to the continential U.S., we couldn't do it because we don't have the essential process technology engineering knowledge and skills.

So globalization sounded completely reasonable and sensible when it was proposed in the 1970s. Converting the USA to knowledge work seemed like a good economic model. Only in retrospect does it become clear what a gigantic trainwreck it turned out to be, and why.

Likewise, I supported Obama when he ran in 2008. Obama ran on a bunch of progressive policies. Single-payer healthcare. Shutting down the drug war. "Not doing stupid stuff." Then Obama abandons single-payer for a disastrous mandate for-profit ACA system with zero cost controls guaranteed to raise health insurance premiums limitless forever, and he starts blowing up wedding parties with drones and prosecutes more whistleblowers than all other presidents put together. That's not what I signed up for.

But how are voters supposed to know what a politician will really do until he's in office? The people who voted for FDR voted for a moderate pol who ran on a policy of balancing the budget. They got a radical progressive who experimented with all sort of wild policies, including packing the Supreme Court, to find something that would work. That's not what voters signed up for but it happened to be very successful.

The people who voted for Herbert Hoover voted for a world-famous humanitarian who was renowned for his 1921 famine relief efforts. Anyone who studied Hoover's life would predict that he would do a great job spearheading relief efforts for impoverished average workers thrown onto the street when the Great Depression hit. Instead, Hoover sat around and tried to rein in the tidal flow of red ink while the U.S. economy crashed and burned.

People change their minds because we live in a fog of uncertainty. No one has the slightest idea of what the actual results of social or economic policies will be. For example: crime has plummeted since 1990 in the U.S., but no one has the slightest idea why. Crime was a huge issue in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s, and now it's turned out to be a problem that mysteriously disappeared on its own. No experts predicted this, no experts have been able to explain it. An awful lot of American history seems to work like this. People convulse in frenzies of worry over some huge problem that then just disappears. (Cue the deadly threat of the USSR or Erlich's "population bomb" of the 1960s or Thomas Malthus' dire predictions or the myth of "future shock" or the worries of eugenics prophets of the 1920s or the "yellow peril" predictions of late 19th century colonialis or our allegedly inevitable rush toward thermonuclear armageddon because of the arms race of the 1950s/60s etc.)

Highly-educated experts with PhDs have demonstrated zero ability to predict the actual real-world results of current trends or technology or socioeconomic policies. We live in a world dominated by the Cobra Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

Efforts to pass this off on the high-school-educated population of the USA as some kind of irrationality ("How eerie and unsettling it can seem when people change their minds") seem infantile and jejune. How about: "How eerie and unsettling it can seem when highly educated Ivy League PhDs' predictions and policies turn out to be gigantic trainwrecks that produce the exact opposite of what was claimed and what was calculated in highly sophisticated mathematical models"?

Larry Summers, anyone? The man responsible both for the rise of Putin (Summers and his Harvard team blew up & wrecked the Russian economy in an epic debacle from 19911-1998) _and_ Trump (Summers infamously urged Bill Clinton to deregulate the financial system and ram through bad "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that turbocharged globalization and destroyed the U.S. middle class, leading to a 1930s-style financial crash and mass impoverishment of Americans exactly the kind of circumstances which, in the 1930s, led to the rise of fascism. Which of course is what's happening today.

Yet our leaders still listen to ignorant incompetent clowns like Larry Summers with the utmost respect and reverence. Maybe that's what really "eerie," not people changing their minds when they discover that the results of the policies proposed by our elites turn out to be the kind of destructive idiocy at which even a brain-damaged three-year-old would rebel.

nastywoman 07.08.18 at 7:33 am (no link)
– and the following might be really worth repeating:

"Ever-increasing rates of technological change will result in people constantly moving around the country to new jobs, work will shift from manufacturing to knowledge work, industries will die off and constantly be replaced by new ones, the U.S. will offload its manufacturing to 3rd world countries and move to high-profit knowledge work that will vastly increase the income of the average U.S. worker, and so on. All completely wrong".

Mobility of workers in the USA has dropped to record lows because the interior of the USA is now depopulating and mired in poverty and chronic drug addiction due to the destruction of the middle class by shipping all the high-paid blue collar jobs overseas. Meanwhile, the areas with high-paying jobs are on both coasts, where housing and everything else has become so expensive average people can't afford to live there".

Yes?

"Converting the USA to knowledge work seemed like a good economic model".

Not – for anybody who know how few jobs "knowledge work" creates.

"So 'globalization sounded completely reasonable and sensible when it was proposed in the 1970s".

It's still "completely reasonable" for any "Producing Country" – where well paying manufacturing jobs were kept.

"Only in retrospect does it become clear what a gigantic trainwreck it turned out to be, and why".

Only in "Consuming Countries" -(like the US) – where the inequality of high paying "knowledge work" and "Finance" and poor paying "service jobs" let to the trainwreck and the funny idea that it is the fault of "trade" – while trade created million an million of better and better paying jobs in "Producing Countries" – which could lead us to Mario and @135

"For example, while it is mostly an illusion, the right offers jobs"

Yes –
it's mostly a illusion – as only "Producing Countries" offer jobs – while "Consuming Countries" -(with their right wing idiots) – don't – or better said they NEVER-EVER will offer enough "good" jobs to make our workers happy -(again)- and that's why we need politicians like AOC!

And that IS – because we actually DON'T live in a fog of uncertainty??!
-(saying: Nearly everybody on CT knows how well "Social-Democratic Producing Countries" work)

bruce wilder 07.11.18 at 8:53 am (no link)
many very interesting comments, but i find myself puzzled by the OP's implicit premises concerning what politics as philosophical discourse is (the nature of the beast), and what it would mean for an individual person to be "consistent" over time.

it seems to me that political discourse is a stream into which it is not possible to step into at the same place twice. and, it also seems to me that political discourse always reflects the panoply of human ambivalence amidst deep uncertainty about the consequences of public choices conditioned against private actions. could anyone strive to either embody the full range of ambivalence or be "right"? i think not.

our political opinions are in the nature of hedges: expressions of some thing we think we "know" balanced against a background of things we choose not to focus on or fully consider. and we bet our hedges socially, aligning with others on the basis of some portfolio of salients, and in historical time, ephemeral salients at that. dare i add, for and against? push-pull marching in step

the split that opened in the Democratic coalition in the 2016 primaries was just as startling and rapid as the current spate of coming together.

[Jul 22, 2018] America's Derangement Syndrome A Danger To World Peace

Jul 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

It is significant that Presidents Putin and Trump have both spoken out against "haters" among America's political establishment who would rather see conflict between Russia and the United States instead of a normalization of bilateral relations.

Following their landmark, successful summit this week in Helsinki, Putin and Trump separately made public comments deploring the hostile hysterical reaction emanating from broad sections of the US political establishment and its dutiful, controlled news media.

Speaking in Moscow to his diplomatic corps, President Putin warned that there were "powerful forces" within the US which are ready to sacrifice the interests of their country and indeed the interests of world peace in order to pursue selfish ambitions.

For his part, Trump also slammed opponents in the US who "hated" to see him having a good meeting with Putin. "They would rather see a major confrontation with Russia, even if that could lead to war," said the American president.

That's it in a nutshell. Rather than welcoming the opening of a cordial dialogue between the US and Russia, the American political establishment seems to desire the deepening of already dangerous tensions between the world's two nuclear superpowers. If that's not deranged, then what is?

Significantly, the hostile reaction was overwhelmingly on the American side. Russians, by and large, welcomed the long-overdue summit between Trump and Putin, and the potential beginning of a new spirit of dialogue and partnership on a range of urgent global problems. Problems including arms control, nuclear proliferation, and working out political settlement to conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and the Korea Peninsula.

Few people would believe that these problems can be resolved easily. But the main thing is that the leaders of the US and Russia are at least attempting to open a dialogue for understanding and political progress. That in itself is a breakthrough from the impasse in bilateral relations which have frozen into a new Cold War since the previous US administration.

We dare say that most citizens of the world would also endorse this effort by Trump and Putin at improving the relations between the US and Russia.

Significantly too, according to recent polls, most ordinary Americans seem to be agreeable or neutral about Trump's diplomatic engagement with Russia. According to a Gallup poll out this week, the vast majority of US citizens are far more concerned by economic woes than they are by anything untoward in American-Russian relations.

Thus, what we are seeing in the explosion of hostility towards the Trump-Putin summit is twofold. It is an American phenomenon, and secondly, it is an angst that animates only the political class in Washington and the news media corporations. This constituency, it is fair to say, is an elite faction within the US, albeit extremely powerful, made up of Washington politicos, the state intelligence apparatus, the corporate media and think tanks, and the deep state establishment of imperial planners and strategists. In short, this constituency is what some observers call the "War Party" that transcends the US ruling class.

Any reasonable person would have to welcome the friendly rapport engendered between Trump and Putin, and at least their initial commitment to working together on major matters of global security. The dangerous impasse of recent years in which dialogue was absent must be overcome for the sake of world peace.

Nevertheless, what has become crystal clear this week following the Helsinki summit is the "War Party" within the US is more determined than ever to sabotage any rapprochement with Russia.

No sooner had Trump returned to the US, he was assailed with a tidal wave of vilification for having met Putin in a mutual, agreeable manner. The most disturbing aspect was the recurring slander denigrating Trump as a "traitor". The hysterical name-calling was conveyed by all the major news media, citing former intelligence officials and politicians from both Democrat and Republican parties.

Which again shows that in the US there is really only one party, the War Party.

President Trump was evidently forced into making an embarrassing U-turn over his views expressed in Helsinki. He made an unconvincing disavowal of statements made alongside Putin. Trump had been pilloried for appearing to dismiss allegations of Russian interference in the US elections while he was in Helsinki. Within 24 hours, he was forced into making a retraction, saying that he did – kind of – believe that Russia had meddled in US democracy.

What Trump was subjected to by the US establishment was akin to the worst years of McCarthyite Red-Baiting as seen during the Cold War in the 1950s and 60s, when Americans were mercilessly humiliated and ostracized for being "Communist sympathizers". Today, official American paranoia is back with a vengeance. In truth, it never went away.

To be fair to Trump he has not completely capitulated to the American derangement syndrome. He has since said that he is looking forward to holding a second meeting with his Russian counterpart and continuing their promises of partnership as announced in Helsinki.

However, it is instructive that the American president is, in effect, being held hostage by powerful elements in the US ruling class who view any kind of detente with Moscow as an unforgivable betrayal.

Trump's instincts are correct that the whole so-called Russia-gate mania is a phony contrivance. That has been orchestrated by the US establishment based on its refusal to accept Trump's democratic mandate, as well as being based on an abiding hostility towards Russia as an independent world power.

The object lesson here is that the scope for improving US-Russia relations is limited, in spite of Trump's favorable personal inclinations.

An entrenched animosity towards Russia remains among the American War Party, and the current president has evidently little room for implementing his avowed policy of normalizing relations.

Russia therefore cannot place too much faith in making progress towards peaceful relations, because all-too apparently President Trump has actually very little freedom to exercise his democratic mandate. That is a damning indictment on the charade of American formal democracy. A president is elected partly on the basis of peaceful engagement, but the unelected powers-that-be have another agenda of conflict which they are pursuing come hell or high water.

What's more, the American derangement syndrome is becoming even more virulent, as can be adjudged from this week's hysterical backlash over the successful Helsinki summit.

Trump's willingness for dialogue with Russia is a welcome development. But the far more disturbing development is the full-tilt belligerence and derangement on display among the American political class. This American political chizophrenia is a clear and present danger to world peace. American citizens are as much a victim of the madness as are Russians and the rest of the world.

One positive aspect of the new phase of Cold War is that before it was largely concealed, and deceived, as a simplistic bifurcated confrontation of Americans versus Russians. Today it is evidently a situation of an American deranged elite versus the rest of the world, with the latter including ordinary American citizens who have much more to gain from standing in solidarity with Russian citizens.

[Jul 21, 2018] Amazon.com Customer reviews A Higher Loyalty Truth, Lies, and Leadership

Comey is loyal to the Empire, not to the country.
Jul 21, 2018 | www.amazon.com

g scott whidden on June 18, 2018

Truth or fiction?

Insightful but who do you believe?? James does make many good points but without confirmation from another or two people, i.m just wondering who is telling the truth. Still something fishy here and I think both parties are full of BS and probably James as well. But only time will tell when historians can weed through all the smoke and mirrors

Mojo on June 8, 2018
Interesting insight into muddy American morales

This is an interesting read. In years gone I wouldn't have been interested but the current political climate in the US is such that I felt it worth a read. The polarity in the system and its players appears beyond what I'd expected and while there appears to be corruption in most systems, it's amazing the Americans have been able to present an appearance of decency and leadership this long. I guess the vail is down now and the current administration is showing just how broken and morally bankrupt the place is and has been for a long time.

Louis S. Menyhert on June 20, 2018
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, the desire for power corrupts the very fabric of humanity

I think the title says it all, Comey has only one true loyalty and that is to himself. I enjoyed this book. It was insightful trip through the mind of a psychopath. His deviations from procedure, his lies, half truths and lawyerisms litter the book and highlight the forces that have corrupted this nation and agencies we rely on.

Its clear that Comey did not act independently but with the tacit guidance and approval of those above him. He makes no admission of guilt about his demonstrated lies, but rathers blames others. His self inflated ego is too commonplace to those who have worked in Washington DC among various political agencies and dens where politicians and their allies lurk. The book betrays no empathy for those he shamelessly prosecuted. The book is laden with attempts at manipulation through lies, half truths, and gross distortions.

On one hand I highly recommend this book because it is sure to become the "textbook" on psychopaths and their characteristics.

On the other hand this book serves as a cautionary warning about ambition run wild, corruption at the highest levels of government, the abuse of power. No author could pen such a novel. As an exhibit it ranks with 1984 as a warning of what evil men do in the name of "a higher good."

lakrow on June 28, 2018
A higher loyalty to himself

A higher loyalty? To himself, I would assume.

This is a lying, childish, self-serving, narcissistic, money grab from a partisan author who can't even keep his story straight. His interviews contradict his book and this book is probably illegal in that it talks about an ongoing sham "investigation" that isn't even an investigation, it's an investigation to find something to investigate.

Vegasdtr on May 6, 2018
Didn't like this book

I went into this book with an open mind after seeing Mr Comey on alot of the morning shows. I didn't like the way he seemed to be trying to be "holier than thou" regardless of which political he was answering to. It did, in the other hand, explain what he was thinking on some of his decisions on some of the moves he made during the election season. But truly it just read like he was making a lot of excuses and sour grapes. I didn't enjoy this book at all. I had to force myself to finish it. I just didn't think it was very well written.

GLENN MCBRIDE on May 16, 2018
There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it

If you read the "Author's Note" on the first page of this book, it will tell you all you need to know about this smug arrogant self righteous man. It reads, "WHO AM I TO TELL others what ethical leadership is?" If you read the book, you may come to the same conclusion as I did. There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it. You could read that first sentence and be done with it and you would get as much out of the book without reading more.

Joel Spring on May 15, 2018
Bitter Former Employee

Just a book filled with Hatred of a former employee. The people who defend this guy are the same people who accused him of violating the Hatch Act when he announced a few days prior to the election that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation. I must admit I was touched at nearly drawn to tears when he details the lost of his newborn son. However that does not change the fact that Comey is a liar. James Comey:'I don't leak.'(In a memo that he leaked.)

Vivian Wallace Allen on May 20, 2018
Self-serving Drivel

This book is second only to What Happened by Hillary Clinton in self-serving drivel. It started out interesting enough with Cindy's work history, but once he got to the subject of his (supposed) interactions with President Trump, it was downhill from there. It will be interesting to see what he has to say now in light of the FBI's possible spying on the Trump campaign. I'm just glad I read it in Overdrive and didn't waste my own money.

Gary on May 15, 2018
How about loyalty to the USA

A higher loyalty would be to the country - not the ego of a sad individual that hates the president. Love him or hate him the president is leading the country in a direction that shows promise. The electorate can throw him out after 4 years, just like it rejected the previous 8 years. In the meantime all Americans should be praying for the president's success and the success of the country. That's loyalty......

grayce tripodi on April 18, 2018
Don't waste your money, Jim wants go for sainthood

Comey is extremely bright, and knows how ( or thinks he does) how to convince his readers he is one step down from sainthood. I am not that naieve. He could have done away with the first ten chapters, where he was born and what he wore growing up was irrelevant.

I knew what he was doing. It annoyed me. He is absolutely blameless in everything.

Having dinner with Donald ALONE four times, making sure he made a EXTENDIVE note of it and gave it to another " means nothing. The head of the FBI does NOT meet with the president alone. Saying he did not know what to do each time insults my intelligence.

He is sport on correct what he wrote " in my opinion " about Trump, but, everyone knew all this and it was on the last 4 chapters.

Jim wanted to tell his story, simple as that. Don't waste your money, I did there is not one thing that you do not already know, if you know politicks .

I am NOT A TRUMP VOTER. I am a R

Sharon Barger on June 25, 2018
Excuses, excuses

I really liked the first part of this book, learning about Comey and his background. At some point though, he started to rationalize and justify his actions and seemed to get on a high horse about defending the reputation of the FBI no matter what. I disagree with the premise that the honor of the FBI is more important than truth and integrity.

Comey explains that he did the things he did for the greater good of the FBI. Look where we are now. By his actions alone, Trump won the election and is now daily attacking the FBI and the DOJ. Is this the outcome Comey really wanted? And where is he beloved FBI's reputation now?

Comey is an excellent writer. No errors or mistakes and a very readable book. He has a sense of humor, but is a little full of himself. When he got into the rationalization of his actions, I couldn't take it anymore and stopped reading.

James Biggerstaff MD on May 24, 2018
Sanctimonious egotist

A sanctimonious, self aggrandizing story of an egotist . I'm glad I read it but I wouldn't advise anyone else to waste their money.

Carol on May 25, 2018
DON'T BUY COMEY'S BOOK: BORING

I really didn't enjoy this book very much. Only the last two chapters were addressed to the problems with Trump. The rest of the book was rather boring, mainly talking about how his career progressed, etc. If I had known what this book contained I would never have bought it. Comey's many TV interviews were misleading in what the majority of the content was. I do not recommend this book at all.

[Jul 21, 2018] Funny how Brennan a former communist sympathizer who voted for Gus Hall in 1976 is crying treason.

Jul 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mar July 20, 2018 at 12:01 pm

China is enjoying this as the Dems distract us without real evidence about Russia collusion we are being blindsided by them. Funny how Brennan a former communist sympathizer who voted for Gus Hall in 1976 is crying treason. Wow.
Winston , says: July 20, 2018 at 11:55 am
Brennan, who voted for the US Communist Party candidate in the 1976 election, is screaming the treason hyperbole because the CIA is most likely the origin of the Russia Collusion farce:

"According to one account, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at "director level". After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation."

BTW, Hannigan resigned for the usual "family reasons" the Monday after Trump was sworn in.

It now appears that there were three dossier versions, all coming via different unofficial channels, outside the intel community channels which was therefore unvetted. Many suspect they were all from the same source coming in from different angles to create a false impression of legitimacy.

What we are going to find out when Trump declassifies everything after the mid-term election, regardless of whether or not the Dems take the House and try to impeach him, is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act put in place after the revelations of COINTELPRO wasn't adequate protection against the serious misuse of power.

The reason Trump won't declassify now is obvious – if you think screams of interference/obstruction are loud now, just watch after he does that, something which would harm the Reps in the mid-terms because any revelations buried within would take time to dig out and would suppressed as much as possible by the incredibly biased media.

The DOJ/FBI stalling in providing the documents demanded by Congress is an obvious stalling tactic in the hope that the Dems take the house in the mid-terms. If Clinton had won as everyone expected, we'd have never heard about any of this which is why they thought they could get away with it.

[Jul 21, 2018] Don t let his trade policy fool you Trump is a neoliberal by Daniel Bessner and Matthew Sparke

Yes he is a libral domestcally and nationalsit in forign policy -- that's why the term "national neoliberalism" looks appropriate for definition of his policies
Notable quotes:
"... When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. ..."
"... Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions. In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism, and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his address to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to shrink. ..."
"... Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have not been well served by the country's policymaking elites. ..."
"... Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables" who deserve what they will get. ..."
"... The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan. ..."
Mar 22, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on his populist campaign pledges to protect Americans from globalization. "For too long," he bemoaned, "we've watched our middle class shrink as we've exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries." But now, he asserted, the time has come to "restart the engine of the American economy" and "bring back millions of jobs." To achieve his goals, Trump proposed mixing massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased spending on the military, infrastructure and border control.

This same messy mix of free market fundamentalism and hyper-nationalistic populism is presently taking shape in Trump's proposed budget. But the apparent contradiction there isn't likely to slow down Trump's pro-market, pro-Wall Street, pro-wealth agenda. His supporters may soon discover that his professions of care for those left behind by globalization are -- aside from some mostly symbolic moves on trade -- empty.

Just look at what has already happened with the GOP's proposed replacement for Obamacare , which if enacted would bring increased pain and suffering to the anxious voters who put their trust in Trump's populism in the first place. While these Americans might have thought their votes would win them protection from the instabilities and austerities of market-led globalization, what they are getting is a neoliberal president in populist clothing.

Neoliberalism is a term most often used to critique market-fundamentalism rather than to define a particular policy agenda. Nonetheless, it is most useful to understand neoliberalism's policy implications in terms of 10 norms that have defined its historical practice. These norms begin with

  1. trade liberalization and extend to
  2. the encouragement of exports;
  3. enticement of foreign investment;
  4. reduction of inflation;
  5. reduction of public spending;
  6. privatization of public services;
  7. deregulation of industry and finance;
  8. reduction and flattening of taxes;
  9. restriction of union organization;
  10. and, finally, enforcement of property and land ownership.

Politicians don't necessarily have to profess faith in all of these norms to be considered neoliberal. Rather, they have to buy into neoliberalism's general market-based logic and its attendant promise of opportunity.

When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. This conclusion will likely surprise his supporters, especially in light of Trump's assaults on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Despite these attacks, however, Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions. In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently.

In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism, and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his address to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to shrink.

Since so much of Trump's agenda aligns with the long-standing ambitions of the Republican Party, it is likely that Trump will be able to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to pass strictly neoliberal legislation. Unlike his approach to trade, which congressional Republicans will probably scuttle, there is little reason to doubt that we will see new legislation that privatizes public lands, overturns Dodd-Frank and other Wall Street regulations, cuts taxes on business, makes organizing unions difficult, and allows big landowners to develop, mine, log, and shoot without restraint. For all the animosity that may exist between the Trump administration and Republican congressmen, the two groups share a neoliberal vision of the world.

From his new budget proposal we also know that Trump plans to continue the neoliberal assault on social service provisions -- such as the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act -- as well as public broadcasting, arts funding, scientific research and foreign aid. As Trump vowed to Congress, he intends to implement a plan in which "Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded health savings accounts." Moreover, the money he does want to spend will be expended on military and infrastructure projects that will almost certainly be organized around public-private partnerships that will fill the coffers of Trump's business cronies.

What does Trump's neoliberal agenda mean for those whose discontent with globalization gave him the presidency? Nothing good. The irony here is that the same neoliberalism that Trump plans to strengthen created the conditions that allowed him to enter the White House. Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have not been well served by the country's policymaking elites.

Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables" who deserve what they will get. Going forward, all of those who want to resist the President's agenda must engage those left behind by neoliberalism and provide them with an economic vision that addresses their very real concerns. After all, Trump's administration will probably strengthen the forces that have hurt these citizens, and they will need representatives who are genuinely concerned with their well-being if our political turmoil is to be put to rest.

Don't let his trade policy fool you: Trump is a neoliberal

Notjames 3/22/2017 1:37 PM EDT [Edited]

(2/2) I think the truth is that many of these people are too far gone mentally and emotionally to ever come around to the "correct" way of thinking (which is to say, they have been so brainwashed by reacting to facile nonsense like "liberty" and "freedom" that they will believe anything as long as the argument is couched in those terms, despite the fact that when they vote they are indeed consigning themselves and the rest of the country to a world without those very freedoms for anybody who's not supposedly "one of them").

A great man once famously said "Conscience do cost." And boy, does it. Liberals need to get over their conscience once and for all, and push back against conservatives the way conservatives have been for decades, but that can only happen if we are honest about who we are arguing with, and call them out, boldly and proudly, on their intellectual failings.

Notjames 3/22/2017 1:37 PM EDT
(1/2) It's clear the authors don't expose themselves to right-wing news outlets. Far too much is made in liberal media about the "deplorables" and how they feel suffocated by the economy (or more realistically, by the natural ebb and flow of capitalism), but they belie the fact that so much of modern conservatism is more about being anti-liberal than it is about any sort of pro-conservative ideology. The "deplorable" moniker has been adapted and co-opted by conservatives and is now worn proudly as a badge of honor (in the same way "fake news" began as a liberal criticism of specific, deliberately-misleading media targeted towards the right, but is now a term used almost exclusively by the right to blanket-describe literally any media that they disagree with). Any criticisms of Trump are immediately met with criticisms of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Democrats in general. Bring up the KKK's support of Trump 3 months ago? They'll bring up how the KKK was invented by Democrats 150 years ago.

The authors are too nice/professional to say it, but liberals need to stop handling conservatives with kid gloves and start calling them what they are: rubes. Because it's not enough that they vote against their own self-interest and the interests of the country, they take it one further and are actively gleeful in depriving liberals of anything liberals might value. Conversely, most liberals I know and read online don't have an active hatred of conservatives, instead they have compassion and want to educate them, and I suppose the thought is that if only enough of these articles get written, they'll eventually come around.

They won't.

I-Myslef 3/22/2017 1:36 PM EDT
Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under.

And here you have it. This is how Trump got elected. The Bernibots are the unwitting agent that gave us Trump. And they are planing on doubling down

Diane_ 3/22/2017 12:30 PM EDT
You have to care about people other than yourself in order to be called a liberal.
elkiii_2008 3/22/2017 10:28 AM EDT
The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan.

It is quite possible that Trump can win again in these areas despite implementing neoliberal policies. And it isn't that Democrats don't have an economic message, they do. But it is one that includes and supports a much wider cultural base and one that many of that WWC that voted for Trump don't want to hear.

I-Myslef 3/22/2017 1:37 PM EDT
NO. The Rust Belt was handed over to him by Bernie and non stop assault on Clinton and trade ...
the T for 2 3/22/2017 8:55 AM EDT
If 73% of Americans Owe Money when they die ? The PURPOSE OF THE STOCK MARKET IS WHAT ? Weed out The Rich at the PEARLY GATES? ... more See More

[Jul 21, 2018] A pox on neoliberals in both of their houses

Notable quotes:
"... Maybe we can stop with the apologetics and demand he stop funding nazis in Ukraine, terrorists in Syria, "color revolutionaries" in Venezuela and Nicaragua and mostly secret "dirty wars" in Africa. Maybe we can demand he actually serve the interests of the 99% in the US, and not the globalist banksters, MIC contractors and extraction industries who are his real beneficiaries. ..."
"... Who knows? Maybe we can even force him to stop "Making Greater Israel Again" at great cost to the US in prestige, blood and gold. ..."
"... "Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism." "The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn't like the way democracy worked out." ..."
"... USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran. ..."
"... Anyone noticed how much personal wealth Obama has gained since he was president? Someone, anyone, please grab a clue... ..."
"... Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Surely the Borg understand this? ..."
"... Mark Blyth is one of my favorite economists. He coined the great phrase, that once the 0.01% screw us bad enough, "The Hamptons is not a defensible position." ..."
"... " The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. " ..."
"... Trump is being given way too much credit. If Russia would have flown all their jets home right after the fake chemical attack in eastern Ghouta, Damascus and the rest of Syrian government controlled areas would lay in rubles by American bombs with jihadi scum committing the most unimaginable atrocities. ..."
"... The whole idea of splitting Russia and China sure, maybe 20 years ago but those days are long gone. The two nations now have deep wide and strategic agreements and interests. Besides, what does the US have to offer? ease sanctions wow how kind. A project to split them can only fail. ..."
"... LOL! Do you really think the US is a democracy? Do you think a real "outsider" populist can be elected via the money-centered US election process? Do you think Obama kept his campaign promises? Do think Trump has? (Prosecute "crooked" Hillary? Eliminated Obamacare "on day one"? Build a wall (and have Mexico pay for it)? Drained the swamp? Pull US troops out of the Middle East?) ..."
"... Consider: The US is NOT a democracy and "the borg" controls the narrative AND the counter-narrative. Obama and Trump were selected and made into the most appealing choice ("lesser evil"). ..."
"... Within days of this press conference, Trump OK'd another $200 million in military aid for the neo-nazis we planted on Russia's border. ..."
"... But all I see is Trump executing the policies of the 0.01% sponsors of the US duopoly. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the borg haven't already won long ago. The hysterical verbal attacks against Trump by the MSM and the swamp are worrying, but I'm starting to notice a similarity between this and Trump's own rhetoric. Trump's "fire and fury," his attacks on journalists, European allies, and "very unfair trade" make a lot of people uncomfortable. ..."
"... The US political circus has been cranked up to maximum volume. The question is whether there are any real actions happening to justify this noise. ..."
"... I would like to see Trump fire some people, but I'm not sure it's necessary (from Trump's perspective) because I'm not sure that the level of conflict is as serious as what is portrayed. Same thing with impeachment. It won't happen, because pretty soon the people would realize that their lot hasn't improved, that Trump wasn't the problem, and the MSM and the swamp would end up with even less credibliity. And if one president can be impeached, the calls for impeachment will continue with the next president and the next... ..."
"... Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? ..."
"... There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason? ..."
"... regarding your last line - i am not so sure.. it looks dicey to me and he is creating a lot of uncertainty with the countries - europe - that typically go along with everything the usa says.. maybe his stirring up stuff is a part of his plan, but he doesn't seem to have a genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly.. ..."
"... No one in their right-fucking mind would willingly drag themselves through the festering piles of all possible mammalian fecal matter that DJT has had to endure since the start of his presidency. You're gonna tell me that he didn't mind that they were going to drag his philandering ass through the mud so that his YOUNG BOY and family would know what kind of a real piece of garbage this two-timer is? ..."
Jul 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Virgile , Jul 21, 2018 3:04:13 PM | 1

Whisper it but despite his terrible week, Trump may be absolutely RIGHT to pursue this new bromance with Putin PIERS MORGAN
When I interviewed him a week ago on Air Force One, Trump explained why he's getting in the room with traditional US enemies like North Korea and Russia.

'I'd like to see peace. A lot of people thought we're going to be at war with Trump as President. Well here it is - we're getting rid of wars. We're actually getting out of wars.'

'Look, if we can get along with Russia that's a good thing. For the United States to get along with Russia and China and all these other places . Piers that's a good thing, that's not a bad thing. That's a really good thing.'

Peter AU 1 , Jul 21, 2018 3:30:40 PM | 3
Like the takfiri's of Idlib killing each other off, this war going on inside the US can only be a good thing. Just needs to get a bit hotter.
Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 3:40:24 PM | 4
For 8 years, I argued with Obama-bots who remained convinced that President CareBear really wanted to do all these wonderful things he said, but was forced to do the opposite by "Republican Obstructionism" (ignoring the Democratic super-majority in his first years), and by threats against him and his family by the very agencies now branded by the MSM as the "Deep State."

When I pointed out that CitiBank picked his Wall Street revolving door Cabinet, I was told that this was a "4-D Chess move," and that the brilliant Obama had to hire insiders who knew how "the system" worked so that he could dismantle that system and bring rainbows and unicorns to the 99%.

Now we are almost 1/2 way through the (first) term of President Trump®, and even b is promoting this exact same narrative for the Orange Führer.

Well, I was only able to win over a small percentage of Obama-bots with my pleas to look at what he was actually doing, and not the pretty words he spoke. Let alone my insistence that if he was really being threatened then the right thing to do would have been to say so, and either call for the people to rise up to overthrow the PTSB or resign. If a President is afraid to serve USAmerican interests, he doesn't deserve to be President.

So maybe I should change tacks for those sucked into either pole of this Trump Derangement Syndrome. Maybe I should jump on the wagon barreling down the abyss, but try to help steer that wagon towards the conclusion that we must push our beloved leader (or despised Putin Puppet) to actually execute those "mumbles, such are promises All lies and jests."

Maybe we can stop with the apologetics and demand he stop funding nazis in Ukraine, terrorists in Syria, "color revolutionaries" in Venezuela and Nicaragua and mostly secret "dirty wars" in Africa. Maybe we can demand he actually serve the interests of the 99% in the US, and not the globalist banksters, MIC contractors and extraction industries who are his real beneficiaries.

Who knows? Maybe we can even force him to stop "Making Greater Israel Again" at great cost to the US in prestige, blood and gold.

Yeah, I know. All we'll see is another round of the copyrighted "You're Fired" trope of our first Reality TV Show President.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 21, 2018 4:00:33 PM | 5
A couple of quotes from the Finian Cunningham piece b has linked to.

"Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism."
"The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn't like the way democracy worked out."

The only two choices the world faces in US leadership is the Russia hating fanatics that may quickly bring on WWIII, or an imperialist realist US that goes back to attacking countries that are no match for US military power.
The longer this internal war in the US lasts, the better off the world will be.

Curtis , Jul 21, 2018 4:15:26 PM | 7
Daniel 4
When Trump announced the Goldman boys in his group - after campaigning against Wall Street - I pointed this out to friends only to have them tell me the exact same thing, that Trump had to have insiders to help him do what he needed to do. Bah! A pox on both their houses R and D.
Jackrabbit , Jul 21, 2018 4:25:27 PM | 8
Daniel @4

Agreed.

Alternative theory: Trump got NOTHING from Putin and that angered the deep state. The peace initiative known as "Trump" will be withdrawn (impeach/resign) if Putin doesn't come around by this fall. The late invitation for Putin to visit Washington - coming after (not before) the firestorm of deep-state protest is the tell.

USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

One more thing. MIC wants weapons contracts, sure. But that doesn't mean that US and Israel doesn't have strategic goals that go beyond enriching MIC.

james , Jul 21, 2018 4:26:04 PM | 9
really good post b.. thank you! grieved posted a link on the Helsinki thread that aligns with your view in many regards... others would enjoy watching it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK5g6v5zrg

@1 virgile.. good quote from trump.. thanks for that.. a moment of sanity and clarity from the unpredictable usa president!

@3 peter.. good comparison / analogy! and i agree with your last paragraph @5 too. thanks..

@4 daniel.. some aspects of trumps presidency look very promising... check out that video grieved shared if you haven't already.. it conforms to your thinking and it especially interesting coming from a russian! opps - it must be a russian set up!!

james , Jul 21, 2018 4:27:40 PM | 10
and i agree with the analysis that trump does have to fire some of these folks, or it will get much worse..
Jackrabbit , Jul 21, 2018 4:32:57 PM | 11
Correction @8:

But that doesn't mean that US and Israel don't have strategic goals that go beyond enriching MIC.

ben , Jul 21, 2018 4:39:45 PM | 13
Such naivete b, it's very alarming. DJT, despite all his rhetoric, is just another empire puppet. He'll do what he must to further his, and his families ambitions, throwing the workers and the "little people" under the bus, along with the rule of law, the constitution, and anything else that gets in his way. The globalists own him, just like rest of our modern day presidents. His increase in personal wealth, is just the price he charges for being "owned" by them.

Anyone noticed how much personal wealth Obama has gained since he was president? Someone, anyone, please grab a clue...

james , Jul 21, 2018 4:46:21 PM | 14
instead of mic, pl likes 'globalist corporate bankster elites.' i can't see the difference frankly...

@13 ben... on the one hand i agree - another empire puppet, but on another level he isn't... now, just what is intentional and what isn't is hard to say.. see virgiles quote @1.. is that the voice of an empire puppet? well - maybe it is and he is fooling his base and plans to start ww3 sometime soon... why would he want to piss off the globalist corporate bankster elites - or mic as others refer to it here? okay.. maybe he isn't going to, but whatever one wants to say about trump, i think the most outstanding thing about him is his unpredictability and the fact he doesn't appear to give a shit what the msm - that brianwashing channel - thinks.. he does his own thing and for that - i admire him.. i still think he is a creep, but i admire that aspect of his.. he does lead, even if one doesn't like his style..

c1ue , Jul 21, 2018 4:48:02 PM | 15
Friends close and enemies closer?
Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 4:49:01 PM | 16
Curtis @7: "When Trump announced the Goldman boys in his group..."

And last week we read that Goldman Sachs' profits rose 44% since Trump took up (part time) residence in the White House.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure. And dontcha know, GS is now part of the "resistance" against the globalists! lol

et Al , Jul 21, 2018 4:56:45 PM | 17
Two things I keep in mind:

1: Actions, not words.

2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But I come back to the voter. Part of the reason O-Bomber and the Dems were elected was due to US public weariness of W's non-stop wars after pronouncing 'Mission Accomplished'.

Part of the reason Trump got in (apart from it was a change election) was the same. The Borg wants what the Borg wants, but if Trump and his base is the symptom, and Trump is neutered, what will voters do? The Dems aren't offering anything compelling apart anti-Trump guff.

Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Surely the Borg understand this?

jsn , Jul 21, 2018 4:56:45 PM | 18
Other than the nasty, superior tone, I agree with Ivan @13, would love to see Sessions discover a pair.
Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 5:03:06 PM | 19
Ivan @12

Mark Blyth is one of my favorite economists. He coined the great phrase, that once the 0.01% screw us bad enough, "The Hamptons is not a defensible position."

But to imagine that Trump is all alone with just his family is to be blind to the big money interests that have propped him up and promoted him at least since the Rothschilds (who are never to be called "globalists") pumped $billions into his failing real estate and gambling businesses back in the 1980s.

Mercers. Adelson. Princes (including the de Vos branch). It goes on and on.

ben , Jul 21, 2018 5:04:46 PM | 20
james @ said in part:"even if one doesn't like his style.."

IMO "his style", is nothing more, nothing less than distraction. Everything of any substance he's done has benefited the giant corporate forms he serves.

"Globalists" are nothing more than the huge multi-national corporations. Through their massive profits they buy the politicians like DJT and others that do their bidding. It's not rocket science. They now own the U$A.

When DJT and his minions propose ANYTHING that benefits the working classes, maybe I'll change my mind, but, as of now, that hasn't happened.

james , Jul 21, 2018 5:05:43 PM | 21
@18 jsn - ivan @12 spoken like a typical jack ass American - talking to other Americans and probably thinks this is an American website too.... the freak could start by getting up to speed..
james , Jul 21, 2018 5:07:31 PM | 22
@20 ben... trump talking with putin and suggesting that peace would be a good thing is a start! But i hear what you are saying.. Watch peoples actions, not their words.. fully concur..
Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 21, 2018 5:15:40 PM | 23
Nice appraisal, b.
I'm still in Recovery Mode after the shock of reading Pat Lang's "Political Appointees who should be fired" musings. I expected to be waiting for Trump's 2nd term before any serious slime-removal began. But PL makes a persuasive case that time's a-wasting and Trump needs to grab a fire hose ASAP and flush some muck from the stables, now.
xor , Jul 21, 2018 5:17:59 PM | 24
" The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. "

I bet Donald John Trump being such a douchebag bigot will go for Iran (or else Venezuela) just like his Republican predecessor went for Iraq. To be honest I don't believe Trump will go for Iran but the "shadow government" (if I can call it like that) will effectively go for a hot war with Iran. USA presidents are just some nice faces on a plutocratic system who need to sell policies to the masses and make them feel they have a say.

" Trump does not buy the nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. " Imagine he does believe it and says it out loud. "Dear US citizens, the Russians have tampered with our beloved free and fair democratic voting system so now you have me!" Of course there was no Russian meddling. But if it were so, who would ever admit it?

Trump is being given way too much credit. If Russia would have flown all their jets home right after the fake chemical attack in eastern Ghouta, Damascus and the rest of Syrian government controlled areas would lay in rubles by American bombs with jihadi scum committing the most unimaginable atrocities.

Babyl-on , Jul 21, 2018 5:21:59 PM | 25
The whole idea of splitting Russia and China sure, maybe 20 years ago but those days are long gone. The two nations now have deep wide and strategic agreements and interests. Besides, what does the US have to offer? ease sanctions wow how kind. A project to split them can only fail.

On another point, it has been my understanding that Pentagon policy sinse WWII assumed war with one would mean war with the other even when they were at odds.

Sasha , Jul 21, 2018 5:24:30 PM | 26
@Daniel,

You are right, this is a reality TV intended to try to implant in the US a Nazi regime through a military junta. As soon as they have tested that people has become increasingly aware that everything remains the same, they are willing to throw the American people against each other as a last resort to impose the so pursued martial law which will allow cutting all rights and liberties at root, to be able to requisition funds, at whatever price the US workers would have to pay, and go after the needed wars, for US continuing hegemony, against Iran, Russia and China....

This is why Trump is playing the card of opposing the DS policies and the others the role of fighting back to the limit of asking his impeachment, so as enrage his followers enough to get them rising in arms....In fact there are some "alt-media" just calling for this online at unison....These was the outcome wished since the beginning of the election campaign and such aggressive stance by Trump and Nazi and KKK followers, and this is what lays behind the attack and intends of slamming and undermining every and each US institutions, so as that people gets enraged and disoriented enough, unable to trust the government or any of its agencies, and this way easy to fall into chaos and the arms of extremists armed gangs...

That the US is calling for a genuine revolution of the people to the shouts does not mean that this one in the making has anything to do with genuine US people at all. I bet that it is the MIC ( which Pat Lang denies existing, btw...!!!) which directs the scene from behind...

Just found this video posted at other blog in which a man tells it as it is...This is the perception of the people around the muslim world...( and no muslim as well ), also increasingly aware...and they know it....Notice that the message Sheik Sudair is advancing follows the same script than Trump and his, at least part, administration....But so as that not permeate anybody any more...

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6pmgla

Jackrabbit , Jul 21, 2018 5:24:42 PM | 27
et Al @17: But I come back to the voter.

LOL! Do you really think the US is a democracy? Do you think a real "outsider" populist can be elected via the money-centered US election process? Do you think Obama kept his campaign promises? Do think Trump has? (Prosecute "crooked" Hillary? Eliminated Obamacare "on day one"? Build a wall (and have Mexico pay for it)? Drained the swamp? Pull US troops out of the Middle East?)

Consider: The US is NOT a democracy and "the borg" controls the narrative AND the counter-narrative. Obama and Trump were selected and made into the most appealing choice ("lesser evil").

=

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

- Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes
Babyl-on , Jul 21, 2018 5:25:05 PM | 28
I just want to say that the phrase "cold war" or "new cold war" has far outlived its usefulness and meaning. If there is an indecisive battle and the sides return to base then it becomes a cold war it just has no meaning in relation to current events. That was then this is now.
Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 5:43:49 PM | 30
James @9.

Well, I have to say there is no better person than Karen Shakhnazarov to promote the standard narrative of our first Reality TV Show President to a Russia audience. He is, after all a famous TV and film director who brags about being able to sway huge masses of people to do his bidding.

And he presented quite a performance. He had few, if any actual evidences to back up his soliloquy, but he presented it with the force of a true believer.

I would have liked to hear the rebuttals of the other guests, but they don't seem to be online.

For no matter who is promoting it, I find the standard narrative to be specious. Trump is not, and never was an "outsider." He is not opposing the PTSB, but enriching them.

I don't care what he, or anyone says; I watch what they actually do. Within days of this press conference, Trump OK'd another $200 million in military aid for the neo-nazis we planted on Russia's border.

I don't know why some in Russian media promote the US MSM narrative about this "war" between Trump and "the establishment" and "Deep State." I want to keep believing that President Putin is acting in the best interests of the Russian people and their allies.

Perhaps they believe that promoting the narrative gives Trump some room to actually execute the policies which I think Shakhnazarov is correct in saying the US public backs.

But all I see is Trump executing the policies of the 0.01% sponsors of the US duopoly.

gogaijin , Jul 21, 2018 5:43:58 PM | 31
I'm not sure that the borg haven't already won long ago. The hysterical verbal attacks against Trump by the MSM and the swamp are worrying, but I'm starting to notice a similarity between this and Trump's own rhetoric. Trump's "fire and fury," his attacks on journalists, European allies, and "very unfair trade" make a lot of people uncomfortable.

The US political circus has been cranked up to maximum volume. The question is whether there are any real actions happening to justify this noise.

Trump's public opponents have offered endless predictions of doom and gloom which have not come to pass. Pulling out of the Iran deal and the climate deal, the nomination of BK for SCOTUS, and the tariffs have all been condemned but we are still waiting to see how these situations play out.

The Trump administration's internal dissenters have cried about his gestures toward peace and nonintervention, at the same time the "defense" spending and the drone strikes continue as strong as ever.

I would like to see Trump fire some people, but I'm not sure it's necessary (from Trump's perspective) because I'm not sure that the level of conflict is as serious as what is portrayed. Same thing with impeachment. It won't happen, because pretty soon the people would realize that their lot hasn't improved, that Trump wasn't the problem, and the MSM and the swamp would end up with even less credibliity. And if one president can be impeached, the calls for impeachment will continue with the next president and the next...

Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 5:56:50 PM | 33
xor @24, "Of course there was no Russian meddling. But if it were so, who would ever admit it?"

Actually, The Donald has said publicly on several occasions that the accepts the story that Russia meddled in our election. He just says (as did the Republican committee) that they didn't change the results.

I believe they're keeping that story alive so they can impose even more draconian restrictions on voting, and install even more opaque election systems so future rigging is even less obvious.

VietnamVet , Jul 21, 2018 5:58:22 PM | 34
Thanks, this is an important post. The coup will be a success when Dissidents are labeled Russian Collaborators and the internet goes black. Even if Donald Trump doesn't resign or isn't impeached, the splintering apart will continue. Money making chaos is spreading across Europe and North America. The counter is to restore government by and for the people and secure borders.
veto , Jul 21, 2018 6:14:27 PM | 35
Who is actually in charge over there, among the Borg? And how much in charge? They cannot function yet as the collective electronic mind of science fiction, can they?

Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? That looks very much like an act of desperation. There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason?

Who are the 'globalists' actually and which is their chain of command? Which positions do Soros, Bezos, CIA-MI6 have? What is the role of Mossad?

As it appears, after the ascendance of Trump, the actors are not sure themselves anymore about any of this, that is about who is in charge, or in particular about how much authority and insurance their actual real-life handlers do possess and vouch for. They waver, in the case of media hysterically so.

"The Intelligence Community", in particular CIA, is a central executive force in the circus, in collaboration with MI6 and the obedient assets in the NATO sphere, but they have grown so incompetent due to incessant politicizing and sycophantism that they are perhaps little more a paper tiger by now? If this fact, with the help of Trump and allies, would be perceived clearer by the political classes of the USA, much good would be the result.

Ghost Ship , Jul 21, 2018 6:17:35 PM | 36
Nah, Trump shouldn't sack them yet but give them more rope to hang themselves.

The only thing he must do is beef up his security detail with some really mean mofos. Spetsnaz or Hezbollah main force might be best but would be politically unacceptable. I suspect he could get enough ex-US SF volunteers willing to die for him to ensure his safety when the Washington Borg goes postal as they will in the next year or so when it dawns on them how completely Trump has fucked them over. The last week or so has done much to convince me that Trump is a revolutionary.

james , Jul 21, 2018 6:22:45 PM | 37
@29 ivan.. you're a bit of a lun - short for lunatic.. henceforth, i am skipping your inanities..

@30 daniel.. i hear what you are saying.. he was and probably still is, a real estate developer.. he dreams trump towers around the world.. but, he was never a politician until very recently.. that he won the election came as a surprise to many.. yes - he had powerful backing - just how much he owes to that, i don't know.. but it is a plutocracy as i see it.. he has very little wiggle room.. he is also a live wire and unpredictable.. i can't think of a president who was this off script, forthright, ignorant and on and on the characteristics go.. but i don't see him towing the line exactly... so, maybe i am wrong on trump..

as for the interview, yes - would have been nice to hear some of the other guests rebut his comments.. the host did a very small bit, but that wasn't much... yes - the guy is in entertainment - he shares that with trump, lol... but the guy wasn't fickle.. i find trump quite capricious..

regarding your last line - i am not so sure.. it looks dicey to me and he is creating a lot of uncertainty with the countries - europe - that typically go along with everything the usa says.. maybe his stirring up stuff is a part of his plan, but he doesn't seem to have a genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly.. i know one when i see one, lol... he is more of an outsider then an insider as i see it, but time will tell.. obviously people and politicians have to be a bit of both to move forward..as with so much - a simple black and white breakdown is impossible as i see it..

et Al , Jul 21, 2018 6:30:48 PM | 38
@17 Jackrabbit

I don't know what the United States is. A quilt? ;)

Trump simply shouldn't have been elected in the first place if the system of political filtration was working properly. The Borg appears to have done some deft footwork since it became clear he was a serious contender and prepared for him becoming President. The Christopher Steele Dossier, courtesy of the UK, looks like just one strand of this.

I'm just not ready to call it. I don't know what will happen. Traditionally it takes two terms for a President to leave a clear mark, but I don't know if this applies anymore.

I'm also wary of treating the voter as an easily managed moron as much of the media and many pols do. I think that is an error. There will be fallout.

My head is pessimist, my heart it optimist. Does not compute.

Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 6:32:17 PM | 39
Sasha @26. That's an amazing video! Thanks. The people are awakening.

Frank Zappa observed 30 or 40 years ago that the facade of "democracy" in the US will be dropped whenever it becomes expedient to do so. And that facade became a lot thinner 3 days after "the event that changed everything."

The US has been under a form of "Martial Law" since President Bush II signed Executive Order 13223 on September 14, 2001.

Exactly what this EO established is classified, but even the changes since 9/11 that are public are horrifying. No more habeas corpus. US military permitted to police the streets. "Kill lists" of US citizens, even on US territory. Imagine what powers are still classified!

Since then, every year, each President has extended it for another year. President Trump extended, and expanded it last year , giving him the authority to recall into service any "retired member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or RegularMarine Corps."

This is in addition to Trump's EO on December 21, giving Steven Mnuchin the authority to confiscate any and all private property.

Starting with some posts at 4-Chan, some in the "alt-right" were claiming that the purpose of this power to confiscate private property is Trump's "4-D Chess Move" to eviscerate the Clinton "Deep State" Globalists.

That 4-Chan thread evolved into "Q" and QAnon which are serving to keep Trump fans chasing squirrels, and ignoring what this Administration is actually doing.

NemesisCalling , Jul 21, 2018 6:45:07 PM | 41
Oh, dear lord.

b has the courage (finally) to admit that passing a summary judgment against Trump at this juncture is absurd and would exhibit symptoms of TDS and immediately people are here to remind us (program us) into thinking that this is all theatre and there is no daylight btw Obama and Trump.

Bullshit.

No one in their right-fucking mind would willingly drag themselves through the festering piles of all possible mammalian fecal matter that DJT has had to endure since the start of his presidency. You're gonna tell me that he didn't mind that they were going to drag his philandering ass through the mud so that his YOUNG BOY and family would know what kind of a real piece of garbage this two-timer is? You're going to tell me that he willfully signed on for death threats and to be publically shamed and turned on by all his orchestrated advisor-elections?

For what? So he could sell more steaks post-presidency or build towers in Pyongyang?

So this is all theater and it doesn't even matter, huh?

Poor DJT. The loneliest dumbass in the world right now. His wife even "shooed" his hand away on camera at a tarmac meet-and-greet. Gosh...who wouldn't sign up for that?!

And surely he must really be having a lot of fun backstage sniggering at all the gullibles in his deplorable army. Gosh, do I feel like a twit.

Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 6:50:00 PM | 42
gogaijin @31.

I wouldn't say "the borg have won," because that means the game is over. I'd say this borg are in power, and are playing us with awesome finesse.

But I still believe that once enough of us see through the deceptions, and unite to take them down, that we can beat them. The real PTSB are a tiny percentage. Additionally, they have a few percent of enforcers (cops/militaries/paramilitaries). And a few more percent who believe that they're benefiting from this borg-dominance enough to support it.

But it really won't take that many dedicated revolutionaries to topple their house of cards. Once we convince even a significant minority of the enforcers to refuse orders and stand with us, I expect their rule will fall quickly, as it has in other instances.

Ash , Jul 21, 2018 7:04:30 PM | 43
Ben @20: said "When DJT and his minions propose ANYTHING that benefits the working classes, maybe I'll change my mind, but, as of now, that hasn't happened."

I'd have thought that proposing peace with Russia, rather than risking nuclear war with them as his would-be deposers seemingly want, is a policy that benefits the working classes.

Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 7:15:17 PM | 45
James @37.

You seem to have good instincts, but continue to fall back into the MSM narratives.

"i can't think of a president who was this off script,"

Have you seen the script? I haven't. I just watch what his Administration actually does. The only change in US policies have been escalations of the worst and stripping of the better ones.

"he doesn't seem to have a genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly"

Yep. That is precisely what we see our First Realty TV Show President doing. Especially through those Tweets that we're told he writes, his character is all those things you say. But again, what is his Administration actually doing?

" but time will tell.. "

We're almost halfway through his (first) term, and what have we seen? We've seen war escalated. We're up to one bomb every 12 minutes! That's 3x as many as Obama and 6x as many as Bush II. We now have unknown thousands of regular troops occupying more than 1/3 of the sovereign state of Syria, replacing a few hundred Special Ops guys Obama had.

We're still working to overturn countries that displease the 0.01%/globalists/elites/Deep State/borg or whatever one wants to call them. Within weeks of his Administration floating the idea that we may need to send troops into Venezuela, we welcome their neighbor, Colombia into NATO. Article V anyone?

Continuing to "wait and see" benefits whom?

Really, you do see it. You're just letting yourself get swept up into the squirrel cage. Almost everyone out there is. Heck, even our beloved b is chasing that squirrel today.

But you see it, and several barflies are describing it quite well.

jsn , Jul 21, 2018 7:21:26 PM | 46
For some reason my screen confused 12&13, it still reads that way on my monitor while the numbers shift one on my hand held. It was Ivan's content with which I agreed while not liking his tone.
NemesisCalling , Jul 21, 2018 7:24:16 PM | 47
@39 Daniel

As far as I could tell, the EO to confiscate property is to mitigate the loss of funds/assets "instantaneously" transferred by bad guys to unreachable destinations by the US Treasury. It is a way to beat tipping off confiscations with a warrant. The people affected by this EO would still have recourse to prove their legitimate and lawful holdings of those assets.

Daniel, the Federal Gov't already has the law on its side to confiscate your private property: your gold. Please provide more than this paltry EO to prove DJT's fascist-cred.

ben , Jul 21, 2018 7:27:07 PM | 48
Ash @ 43: If me and my family owed mega-money to a group of billionaires, I'd kiss a little ass also.

I don't believe anyone on these threads has intimated that peace with Russia is a bad idea, it's DJT's motives that are in question..

ben , Jul 21, 2018 7:38:46 PM | 49
For Ash @ 43: An excerpt from a Times article..

"Because many American banks wouldn't lend money to Trump's debt-soaked company, he had to look elsewhere, like Russia. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. said in 2008, specifically mentioning projects in SoHo and Dubai.

Trump could clear up this issue by releasing his tax returns. That he has not, unlike every other modern presidential candidate, means that he deserves no benefit of the doubt. The fairest assumption is that he has Russian business ties he wants to keep hidden.

Full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/trumps-russia-motives.html

Peter AU 1 , Jul 21, 2018 7:42:26 PM | 50
ben 49

By the looks of the war that has been going on in the US that involves the intelligence agencies, if there was dirt in trumps tax returns or any other part of his business career, it would have been 'leaked'. There would have been no need for a fictional 'dossier'.

YY , Jul 21, 2018 7:45:38 PM | 51
US to alert public to foreign operations targeting Americans

The question should be whether the US would alert the US public of domestic operations, disguised "cleverly", by keyboards and spoof IP's as foreign, especially Russian entities. The best cover for US intelligence, particularly if politically motivated and even if it is for testing purposes, is to hide behind Russian identities if only to stay out of legal problems. The argument that every country hacks and steals, so therefore no big deal, misses the most obvious reasons of motivation. Elements of US intelligence would and logically should have the biggest motivations to meddle in US politics. Seriously, if you were Pootin, would you really be interested in getting involved in US electoral politics? I'd run the other way.

ben , Jul 21, 2018 7:56:23 PM | 52
@ 50: True that Peter, but, DJT could end the speculation by just releasing his tax returns

Secrecy always breeds speculation...

V , Jul 21, 2018 7:58:06 PM | 53
The people you see are marionettes; the people you don't see are pulling the strings.
If you don't know who's running the marionettes, you can't stop the show...
les7 , Jul 21, 2018 8:03:44 PM | 54
I never cease to be amazed...

Trump and Deep state... what is it about NA people who analyse NA politics/power that they almost always resort to dualisms?

Recently (a couple years ago) in N. Syria there were 4 or 5 different factions all supported by rival power centers in the US, all fighting each other - ignoring their stated enemy - the SAA, and fighting each other in order to gain points back in Washington!

It is meaningless to talk about either the US, the US government, the US military, The Corporate world, etc, as if they are single actors. Even the bankers will at times square off against each other.

Before Obama, each president had a relative stable configuration of power-factions backing him (in exchange for special access to the public trough). With Obama, they all were all at the trough, each of them trying to elbow another couple groups out of the way. That is why there was little ideological coherance to what he actual did legislatively (other than buying off the faction-flavor of the day for a limited bounce in the polls). Still, the factions gave nominal assent to Obama as an icon of US power.

With Trump, the factions that under Obama consolidated their control over a sector of power (Pentagon, Neo-Cons, CIA, Special Ops, Media, Tech/Silicon Valley, Finance, Oil, Health Care, DHS/FBI, State, EPA, etc) have come out from the shadows and fight for dominance. Why at this time? Is it the perception of pending collapse that propels them? If so they hasten their own end.

Trump's antics (ie Verbal welcome to Putin while immediately sending 200 million of offensive arms to Ukraine) are all a smokescreen, distraction from the real changes to law that benefit the elite and punish the wage earner. Don't listen to what he says, or what the media says he says, or what the media says about him. It is all a con.

Look at what is done. By way of example look at the world military scene. Trump talks withdrawl. What did he do?

- highest budget ever for the Pentagon, more than they asked for!
- more US troops on the ground in Syria
- more US funds for Ukraine
- more US/Nato forces & $costs on the border with Russia
- more confrontation with China in the south China sea
- more US involvement in Yemen
- expanded special ops role in Africa
- expanded economic-military role against Venezuela

Notice too that each of those actions benefits a different power faction
- Pentagon budget rewards republican/conservative supporters
- Syria rewards the Neo-cons/Israel, while controlling EU access to ME energy.
- Nato patrols in Estonia etc play to the anti-Russia MSM and the US as world policeman meme.
- Confronting China is all about US dollar dominance - which is why the trade war will evolve into a currency war
- US involvement in Yemen is about supporting the Saudi's
- Like Big Pharma, special ops get a whole continent to play games in & test their toys.
- Venezuela is ultimately about controlling the worlds second largest oil resource.

My point is that like many presidents before him, Trump actually controls very little. What he does control is rapidly being eroded by both his actions and the actions of others. The net effect invariably benefits US elites and penalizes all others.


viviana , Jul 21, 2018 8:06:07 PM | 55
Karen Shakhnazarov, Vladimir Soloviev, 17.07.2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZqIdZK91Og

james , Jul 21, 2018 8:13:11 PM | 56
@41 nemesis calling.. lol.. good post! thanks..

@45 daniel.. maybe so.. i dunno.. i can tell you i don't partake of any msm, so my sources are limited, lol.. lets use syria as an example.. how has it worked out since trump has been in power? now, how much of that is trumps doing, or as a consequence of russia and irans doing and etc. etc.? i don't know if i see it, but it seems to me trump, or the usa - are not in the same position they were around the time trump got the presidency... i don't doubt more bombs and drones are being released... i am not sure how much of that falls at trumps doorstep.. i would like it if he stopped the madness on yemen, thanks saudi arabia.. he seems partly paralyzed with regard to ksa, but i too liked the video that @26 sasha linked to..

as for continuing to wait and see... i don't know what other options i have! i don't believe waxing eloquent on moa is going to make any difference! i am happy to consider others ideas and explore the possibilities.. no one so far as i know has made a convincing argument that trump is the consummate insider... i think he is more of a mix of both.. i guess that is the basis for my wait and see approach here..


@49 ben.. that is the constant insinuation on trump - needed money so he went to russia... what if we find out he got it from the mercers, sheldon adelson, the rothchilds, ksa, israel and etc etc? it is only that he could get it from russia that gets repeated ad nauseam in the msm.. i have a problem with that..

james , Jul 21, 2018 8:16:42 PM | 57
@55 viviana... thanks, but it is in russian with no english subtitles.. that is the video both daniel and i would like to see more fully and that grieved shared on a previous thread - but only part of it.. if an english translation comes available, let us know.. thanks.
Schmoe , Jul 21, 2018 8:20:20 PM | 58
Did I read this correctly? Fire Mattis and keep Bolton? How someone can be so perceptive in their foreign policy thoughts but so off the reservation on US politics is incredible.
ben , Jul 21, 2018 8:23:46 PM | 59
james @ 56: I say again, if DJT just released his tax returns, the speculation, at least about his financial situation, would go away..

les7 @ 54 said:"The net effect invariably benefits US elites and penalizes all others."

There's the bottom line on DJT. Thanks for the summation les.

Jackrabbit , Jul 21, 2018 8:24:12 PM | 60
NemesisCalling @41:
... immediately people are here to remind us (program us) into thinking that this is all theatre and there is no daylight btw Obama and Trump .

Allow me to clarify. It's true that Trump isn't "like" Obama as in facing the same issues and obstacles. It would be foolish to make that claim.

Instead, what Daniel and I (and I think ben and a few others) have pointed out is that they both follow a similar faux populist political model. They make populist appeals (which appears genuine because we are told they are "outsiders") but govern for the benefit of the establishment.

= = = = = =

hopehely @44:

It is kinda double negative . :-D

Yes. And just how a native speaker would say it.

= = = = = =

ben @49:

The fairest assumption is that he has Russian business ties he wants to keep hidden.

No. There are many other possibilities.

>> Doesn't want crazed antifa/anti-Russians to attack his business interests

>> Israeli, Saudi, Quatari, Ukranian investors?

CarlD , Jul 21, 2018 8:25:17 PM | 61
It is certainly an act of great courage for a POTUS to go against the PTB. The Kennedy's fate pops into ones mind.

Standing up against his party's opinion, against the MSM narratives is truly a
remarkable thing.

We live in doxocracy and what governments or leaders do normally is create news that will entail a reaction from the masses that will implore the government to do exactly what the Government wanted to do in the first place.

IN other words, as Rove says, the (empire) government creates a reality that the people gets to study and this entails a reaction which favours the entity taking the action it wanted to take.

Say for example you want dictatorial powers, you create 9/11 and you get to have all the dictatorial powers you dreamed off with the blessing and the urgings of the oppressed.

All PsOTUS since G.W.Bush have been granted absolute power by acts of Congress through the war on terror legislation.

So, Trump can arrest anybody he wants without any process in any form, sequester anybody he wants to, kill anyone who stands in his way, all this absolutely legally. The legislation authorises it. Nobody in and out of the US is above it or beyond what Congress has adopted. He can seize any property, any assets of anyone including and not limited to the Rockefellers et al and all the banksters.

To do this he only needs a loyal battallion commander.

So the swamp is planning a coup? DT can act swiftly and in his one night of the long knives do away with his critics, detractors, pursuers, the Clintons, the Soroses etc.

He and his loyalists must prepare a list of enemies and in one night round all of them up including the newspapers and TV editors, broadcasters et al.

DT's night of the long knives. He might not have the courage to do it. but it's either him or them.

He has the Congress legislation to back him up. He only needs to prepare a good Speech to the Nation afterwards.

Pft , Jul 21, 2018 8:28:33 PM | 62
People believe what they want to believe. Trump of course has many personal business reasons to want sanctions removed from Russia since quite of lot of money looted from Russia and the FSU ended up in his pocket by way of loans or investments in his projects. Tracing this money puts his Empire at risk. He is what they call "Kompromat" in Russia, so he must do the bidding of the Cold War forces. To say he is sabatoged by people he himself appointed is curious.

Part of the reason for all this is the drying up of capital flight from Russia and FSU since 2005 or so. Over a trillion USD flowed into Eurodollar accounts from 1990-2005 and much of it ended up in the US as multiples of this as these dollars in offshore banks were loaned 10-20 times this amount to the US and European clients/banks. Some of it flowed directly into US via these tax havens, legally or otherwise. This huge source of cash fueled asset inflation in that period and when it dried up we had the Great Recession starting in 2006 -2007, and coincidentally that was shortly after Browder was kicked out of Russia

Browder may be an MI6/CIA/Mossad agent that helped facilitate and track this looting in partnership with the Israeli Safra who owned the Republican Bank of New York and was said to be Mossad/Mafia connected. At the same time Hermitage Capital began operations Safras bank was selling up to 1 billion dollars a day in 100 dollar bills to Russian "entities" and flying it to Russia in what was called the "Money Plane". This obviously was with the support of the Fed Reserve and Clinton administration which helped to get Yeltsin reelected with IMF money. Funny how billions of that IMF money still ended up getting sent to the Bank of New York and Safras Republican Bank before Safra blew the whistle as he neared a deal to sell his bank and Hermitage holdings to the notorious HSBC

He was killed days after agreeing to sell under mysterious circumstances (fire) in Monaco despite using a top security company that used ex-Mossad agents, similar to the company he used in Moscow to protect his "Money Plane" and Browder. Someone was obviously unhappy about his blowing the whistle. Perhaps Semyon Mogilevitch, who was implicated and is reportedly the top Don of the Russian mafia

Trumps ex-partner Felix Sater and a number of tenants in the Trump Tower have been connected to Semyon Mogilevitch

So anyways , now the Fed and ECB plan to end the QE of the last 8 years and must find a way to replace toxic assets on the balance sheet with quality assets . Otherwise the next crash, and they seem to happen every 10 -11 years now, will be a whopper.

Thats where Browder and the Magnitsky Act come in. Cold War II besides propping up the MIC and replacing the fizzling GWOT may be an excuse to seize assets to prop up the Fed

Putin however might like to recover some of those assets from enemy oligarchs in exile for Russia and himself, and must protect the oligarchs in his camp who have a lot to lose, not to mention the RCB , Gazprom and oil companies who keep a lot of reserves /assets offshore . Thats why he has requested interviews with Browder associates and officials that know about such transfers so he can recover them, or at least provide some leverage as protection


Putin like Trump has his own Deep State he must satisfy.

From this link

https://thesaker.is/no-5th-column-in-the-kremlin-think-again/

"Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled) faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes "(neo)liberal" economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly forcing him into (neo)liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called "patriotic media" is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding blood........

Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money. Big financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or obfuscate some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media backing WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid, rabidly pro-Israel propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii Satanovsky, Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.

And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: "there is no 5th column in Russia!! None!! Never!!"

This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the USA which denies the existence of a "deep state" or the US "Israel Lobby".

And yet, many (most?) people in the USA and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that they are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them."

Jackrabbit , Jul 21, 2018 8:33:01 PM | 63
Peter AU 1 @50:
By the looks of the war that has been going on in the US that involves the intelligence agencies, if there was dirt in trumps tax returns or any other part of his business career, it would have been 'leaked' .

Good point!

It actually helps to make the case that Trump is part of the establishment. They protect his business interests by not leaking his tax returns and other info.

This is an insight akin to when Qanon started promoting war with Irran.

= = = = = =

les7 @54: It is all a con.

Good summary.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 21, 2018 8:36:03 PM | 64
Trump and the people behind realize that to be a great power in the coming era, the US must once again become a manufacturing power. This I believe is behind Trump's push, tarrifs and so forth, to rebuild US manufacturing. He is pushing for a lower US dollar which means imported items will be more expensive compared to domestically produced goods.
although there is a lot of automation in todays manufacturing, this overall effort will create a lot of jobs within the US.
In looking into domestic oil production in the US, one field is held up from expanding output until a second pipeline is completed. Trucking the oil out in the interim was also a problem as US trucking is now very busy and in short supply with all sectors in the US.
This is far more than giving money to banks trickle down crap. It is physical rebuilding of US domestic manufacturing capability.
Circe , Jul 21, 2018 8:40:39 PM | 65
@1

Trump wants peace my ass! What about IRAAAAAN??? Did you all conveniently forget about his obsession with Iran, or is everyone back on the Trump juice?

_________________

He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real threat to the American (economic) supremacy.

To neutralize China in any sense is a fool's errand and failed mission from the get-go.

China is a threat to the Empire? And that's a bad thing?...exactly why???

I, for one, will not compromise my soul, and sell out Iran and China and the well-being of this planet for a fantasy peace with Russia that will never last or come to fruition with the devious, duplicitous Zionist American Empire.

Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 8:49:42 PM | 66
Trump's tax forms.

I ridiculed the "Show Us Your Tax Forms" protests as diversionary and useless. He's not going to listen to a bunch of "liberals" and his fans have already accepted he's not releasing them.

But let us remember that he promised his fans several times during the campaign that he would release them. He made up the excuse of being audited, but he (or his handlers) felt it necessary to make that promise.

Yet he hasn't. Why? Is it because he's so shy about his wealth? Doesn't want to rub in our faces how much income he makes? Hardly.

It should be pretty clear there's stuff in there he doesn't want to make public. Chances are, it's stuff that might turn off some of his fan base (because Trump haters gonna hate no matter what).

So, the point that the "Deep State" hasn't leaked them came up. That's absolutely true, and should tell us something.

It tells us that this "Deep State" has chosen not to hurt Trump by releasing them. Maybe there really is this "war" the MSM shows us daily, and they're waiting for the right time. Or maybe, this "war" is a psyop.

Daniel , Jul 21, 2018 9:03:56 PM | 67
Thanks James @56 for a reasoned and reasonable reply.

First, we are all enmeshed in the MSM narrative even if we don't read or watch MSM outlets. Even here at MoA, we are given samples of them, and discuss their meaning. In fact, personally exposing oneself to the MSM directly may give one a better idea of what narratives they're trying to sell.

What's happened in Syria since Trump came in is that SAA and its allies have retaken most of the south, and the US has firmly militarily taken the north, while NATO ally Turkey has conquered significant portions along their border.

What's happened is the US has killed as many as 200 Russians for daring to get too close to the US proxy fighters on "their" side of the country. That's separate from the at least 4 times the US has bombed Syrian forces, and the Syrian jet it shot down.

By some accounts, the US coalition killed 40,000 civilians in "liberating" Raqqa, while firing more artillery shells than any time in the past 1/2 century. We've established about 12 military bases.

Which all boils down to an escalation of Obama's war, with the apparent admission that the "regime change" failed (which even during Obama's reign, was an on again/off again issue).

But I grant you that you and I are not in positions to do much about any of this. You could try to affect your government, and i mine, but we know we have no influence. So, perhaps just accepting that sitting back and watching the horror show is all we can do anyway.

Peace to you and yours.

[Jul 21, 2018] The Trump-Putin summit Russophrenia explained

Notable quotes:
"... When Trump himself calls the establishment's attitude toward Russia a " rigged witch hunt ," the question must arise: What is going on ..."
"... China is the world's second-largest economy and the top US creditor. It owns 19% of the US debt, more than any other nation. China's military expenditures are almost four times Russia's. Most experts agree that China is about to displace the US as the world's largest and most influential economy. Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's chief geopolitical foe is hard to grasp. ..."
Jul 21, 2018 | www.atimes.com

As expected, the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki produced a media circus across the Atlantic. Western commentators were hell-bent on insulting President Donald Trump as a traitor and denigrating President Vladimir Putin as an " autocrat ," "dictator" and the "enemy" of the free world, the United States in particular.

Never mind that Putin is an elected president and the whole of Russia is dreaming about normalizing relations with the United States. Never mind that with all Robert Mueller's indictments there's a long way to go to make a case for a Trump/Putin conspiracy. The point is, Putin has become the Western media's devil incarnate, and Trump the same media's favorite whipping boy.

In one astute observation, Western media exhibit a "Russophrenia" – " a condition where the sufferer believes Russia is both about to collapse, and take over the world ."

When Trump himself calls the establishment's attitude toward Russia a " rigged witch hunt ," the question must arise: What is going on and why does Russia have the honor of being singled out in a world of dozens of real autocrats who hate the West and murder their political opponents?

Yes, Russia is a big country with nuclear weapons, which allows it to shoot above its weight in international politics. Yes, it openly supported the pro-Russian referendum in Crimea and annexed the peninsula soon thereafter. And yes, it does provide military support to the pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. But given all the secessionist movements supported by outside forces across the world, none of this (save nuclear weapons) is remarkable enough to merit the special treatment.

At the same time, be it in politics or in the economy, Russia's real impact on the United States is minuscule. Hacking or not, nobody can seriously claim that Moscow could sway the outcome of the US presidential elections.

Russia does not make it to the list of the top 10 economies in the world, trailing South Korea and Canada. The value of US goods exports to Russia in 2017 was less than US$7 billion, while goods imports from Russia were valued at slightly more than $17 billion. The total trade turnover was barely above 0.1% of the US gross domestic product.

China is the world's second-largest economy and the top US creditor. It owns 19% of the US debt, more than any other nation. China's military expenditures are almost four times Russia's. Most experts agree that China is about to displace the US as the world's largest and most influential economy. Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's chief geopolitical foe is hard to grasp.

Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's chief geopolitical foe is hard to grasp. It is also hard to grasp the intensity of vilification of either Putin or Trump in Western media

It is also hard to grasp the intensity of vilification of either Putin or Trump in Western media. The Obama-era director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, calls the summit " nothing short of treasonous " – an accusation never applied to Trump's admittedly one-sided concessions to Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post talks of appeasement . The Daily Mirror calls Trump " Putin's poodle ." The New York Times has muddied itself enough to carry a cartoon depicting the two leaders as gay lovers .

Such a level of hostility was not even demonstrated against the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. It is clearly unimaginable with regards to Communist Party-led China or even one-man-ruled North Korea. Yet it is acceptable and encouraged with respect to the third-rate capitalist country that Russia has now become.

And it is here, perhaps, where the key to the puzzle lies. It is not wise to hurl street-level insults at a country that is your real geopolitical competitor and has enough power to make you regret your behavior. That was the case with the USSR yesterday, and this is the case with the People's Republic of China today.

The ideological challenge presented to freewheeling capitalist individualism by stern communist collectivism also helped to maintain a modicum of respect throughout the Cold War years. It was only when Russia went capitalist, and conspicuously failed to advance into the ranks of the top economies, that former respect gave way to contempt. It was only after Russia abandoned its communist ethics that it became subject to the Western media hooliganism exemplified by The New York Times' distasteful satire.

Western hatred of Putin cannot be explained by Crimea, or Donbass, or the alleged poisoning of four individuals of no interest to the Kremlin by a military-grade nerve toxin with a recognizably "Russian" signature. It can be explained by one thing only – Russia's successful opposition to the US world-domination machine.

Were Russia still a Soviet socialist state, this hatred could yet be complemented by respect. But a capitalist Russia trying to oppose the world's leading capitalist nation, while falling ever further behind in trade and economy – such a Russia can only elicit hatred complemented with contempt. Which makes for ever more vitriolic Russophrenia.

[Jul 21, 2018] The John Brennans of the world and the lib-Dem-media-neocon mob of which he is a member now routinely traffic in hyperventilating accusations of treason, have forfeited any claim to credibility or respect.

Jul 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Gerard July 20, 2018 at 11:00 am

We're at a point now where it's really difficult to have an intelligent conversation, a serious discussion, a rational debate about this stuff.

The reason being that the John Brennans of the world and the lib-Dem-media-neocon mob of which he is a member, which now routinely traffic in hyperventilating accusations of treason, have forfeited any claim to credibility or respect.

Having concocted the conspiracy-fantasy of Trump being a puppet of Putin and having contrived a farcical criminal investigation of imaginary "collusion," that same mob staged the latest ludicrous meltdown -- over Trump's bumbling, stumbling press conference in Helsinki with the Evil Monster Putin.

The only appropriate response now to people like John Brennan and his cabal of fools is sarcasm, mockery, and contempt. They are beyond the reach of reason or evidence or facts. Indeed, they have zero interest in evidence or facts. They simply emote and spew.

The main question in my mind is this: are the John Brennans of the world really stupid enough to believe their vicious nonsense or are they so hopelessly dishonest and lacking in conscience that they propagate poisonous falsehoods for the simple reason they know it advances their political agenda of delegitimizing Trump's presidency.

I'm guessing more the second than the first.

And if in the process, they whip up an atmosphere of venomous hysteria and damage U.S.-Russia relations to the point where scholars like Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer call the environment as dangerous as that which existed at the time of the U.S.-Soviet Cuban missile crisis and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves their Doomsday Clock to two minutes before midnight (as recently happened) well, you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, right?

Honest to God, the dimension and character of this vast circus of corruption and lies is breathtaking. It's downright freaking biblical.

[Jul 21, 2018] Either Trump Fires These People Or The Borg Will Have Won

Notable quotes:
"... The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: ..."
"... Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. ..."
"... Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. ..."
"... The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. ..."
"... Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy. ..."
Jul 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a (virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda.

One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far still does not add up to the disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed.

The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies:

[P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country.

His 'isolationist' economic policies make Trump an enemy of the globalists :

Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder.

The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons.

Trump does not buy the nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy.

Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy.

This week was a prelude to the coup against Trump :

Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a "traitor" who had "committed high crimes" in holding a friendly summit with Putin.

It can't get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire political and media establishment in the US as a "treasonous" enemy of the state.

Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: "If you work for Trump, quit now".

Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John Kelly rallied others against him:

According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election.

Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed interview for that:

The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director's team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and was comfortable talking with her.

Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump's judgment -- such as the president's decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides present beyond interpreters -- and revealing the rift between the president and the intelligence community.

FBI Director Wray also undermined his boss' position:

FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a "straight shooter," and said the Russia investigation is no "witch hunt."

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat remained active.

A day latter Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his president's policy:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement about new military aid to Ukraine:

"Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its illegal occupation of Ukraine. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations with the U.S. vision for global security and stability."

Pat Lang thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wary and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who is overseeing the Mueller investigation.

My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter stage.

But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'.

The U.S. has the legislative and the judicative as a counterweight to the president who leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for him.

Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the lawful policy directives of their higher up.

All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies. But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating their policies to him.

It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work 'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these people or the borg will have won.

[Jul 21, 2018] The Intelligence Community , in particular CIA, is a central executive force in the circus, in collaboration with MI6 and the obedient assets in the NATO sphere, but they have grown so incompetent due to incessant politicizing and sycophantism that they are perhaps little more a paper tiger by now?

Notable quotes:
"... Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? ..."
"... There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason? ..."
Jul 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

veto , Jul 21, 2018 6:14:27 PM | 35

Who is actually in charge over there, among the Borg? And how much in charge? They cannot function yet as the collective electronic mind of science fiction, can they?

Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? That looks very much like an act of desperation. There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason?

Who are the 'globalists' actually and which is their chain of command? Which positions do Soros, Bezos, CIA-MI6 have? What is the role of Mossad?

As it appears, after the ascendance of Trump, the actors are not sure themselves anymore about any of this, that is about who is in charge, or in particular about how much authority and insurance their actual real-life handlers do possess and vouch for. They waver, in the case of media hysterically so.

"The Intelligence Community", in particular CIA, is a central executive force in the circus, in collaboration with MI6 and the obedient assets in the NATO sphere, but they have grown so incompetent due to incessant politicizing and sycophantism that they are perhaps little more a paper tiger by now? If this fact, with the help of Trump and allies, would be perceived clearer by the political classes of the USA, much good would be the result.

[Jul 21, 2018] "Fun experiment: of those old enough, how many today who believe the "Trump is a Russian asset" story, in 2003 believed the Iraq has WMD story? 'Cause the source who lied to you in 2003, the intel community, is your same source today."

Jul 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

BobS July 20, 2018 at 3:43 pm

"Fun experiment: of those old enough, how many today who believe the "Trump is a Russian asset" story, in 2003 believed the Iraq has WMD story? 'Cause the source who lied to you in 2003, the intel community, is your same source today."

Growing up as I did in the Nixon/Vietnam era, I developed a skepticism of the 'official' story, something that served me well through Iran contra, incubator babies being tossed to the floor, and WMD's (a skepticism reinforced at the time by Scott Ritter, among others). As I recall, the WMD story was less a failure of intelligence as much as an administration insisting on so-called 'stovepiped' intelligence to sell their war to an American public through a mostly compliant MSM.
Regardless, my conclusion that Trump is a "Russian asset" is a result of my belief that Trump- who has yet to disclose the financial information that would disprove that belief- is reliant on Russian money, some or all of it organized crime related, to sustain his 'empire', and that there is significant overlap between the Russian mob and the Russian government.
His actions as president haven't done anything to dispel me of my belief that he is a 'Russian asset', including his traitorous behavior this past week.

[Jul 21, 2018] Solomon Climb Down From The Summit Of Hostile Propaganda Zero Hedge

Jul 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Solomon: Climb Down From The Summit Of Hostile Propaganda

by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/20/2018 - 22:25 7 SHARES Authored by Norman Solomon via TruthDig.com,

Throughout the day before the summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: "Just by Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead." The Sunday headline was in harmony with the tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia's President Vladimir Putin is "an implacably hostile foreign adversary."

Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme. Mainline U.S. journalists and top Democrats often bait President Donald Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her tweet Sunday night: "Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?"

A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not give it a second thought -- and that makes it all the more hazardous. After President George W. Bush declared "You're either with us or against us," many Americans gradually realized what was wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.

Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro -- "the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition," in the words of Wikipedia. The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).

Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way. But other selectively fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and Russia as an angelic victim. Those governments and their conformist media outlets are relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist I.F. Stone observed long ago, "All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed." In other words: don't trust, verify.

Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia's borders since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the brazen U.S. intervention in Russia's pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government's 2002 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases overseas -- in contrast to Russia's nine.

For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last week by The Nation magazine:

"No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false."

The initial 26 signers of the open letter " Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security " included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame, activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F. Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)

Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from a petition already signed by 45,000 people . The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now "vulnerable to would-be hackers based anywhere" -- and for taking "concrete steps to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers."

We need a major shift in the U.S. approach toward Russia. Clearly the needed shift won't be initiated by the Republican or Democratic leaders in Congress; it must come from Americans who make their voices heard. The lives -- and even existence -- of future generations are at stake in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.

Many of the petition's grassroots signers have posted comments along with their names. Here are a few of my favorites:

* From Nevada: " We all share the same planet! We better learn how to do it safely or face the consequences of blowing ourselves up! "

* From New Mexico: "The earth will not survive a nuclear war. The weapons we have today are able to cause much more destruction than those of previous eras. We must find a way to common ground."

* From Massachusetts: " It is imperative that we take steps to protect the sanctity of our elections and to prevent nuclear war anywhere on the earth ."

* From Kentucky: "Secure elections are a fundamental part of a democratic system. But this could become meaningless in the event of thermonuclear war."

* From California: " There is only madness and hubris in talk of belligerence toward others, especially when we have such dangerous weapons and human error has almost led to our annihilation already more than once in the past half-century ."

Yet a wide array of media outlets, notably the "Russiagate"-obsessed network MSNBC , keeps egging on progressives to climb toward peaks of anti-Russian jingoism . The line of march is often in virtual lockstep with GOP hyper-hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The incessant drumbeat is in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."

Meanwhile, as Dr. King said, "We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation."

Zorba's idea Fri, 07/20/2018 - 22:38 Permalink

My Father in law is one of the last of the Iwo Jima Marines...he is still of sound mind, enough to say, it takes far more courage for a man to solve a conflict peacefully then to end it violently. What sickness lies in the hearts and minds of these people beating the drums of war is beyond me, especially knowing none of them would ever risk their own lives. Add that to your definition of Tyranny.

[Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax

Highly recommended!
So British were involved in fabricating of 'Guccifer 2.0' persona. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata' of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the 'WP.' ..."
"... 'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.' ..."
"... As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security', which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London underground, perhaps? ..."
"... The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment for the office. ..."
"... He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May. ..."
"... However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on the 'Lawfare' site: ..."
"... Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but before and after. ..."
"... Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual "Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test. ..."
"... One quick way to know their bias is the AC test. Google their name plus "Atlantic Council". Ridd fails badly. ..."
"... The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues. The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive. Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer, when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be 100 to the 50th power. ..."
"... There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note. ..."
"... It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda. ..."
"... What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats. ..."
"... I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous. ..."
"... You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia. ..."
"... Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition), is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain. ..."
"... I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British! ..."
"... So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

As some commenters on SST seem still to have difficulty grasping that the presence of 'metadata' alluding to 'Iron Felix' in the 'Guccifer 2.0' material is strong evidence that the GRU were being framed over a leak, rather than that they were responsible for a hack, an update on the British end of the conspiracy seems in order.

If you look at the 'Lawfare' blog, in which a key figure is James Comey's crony Benjamin Wittes, you will find a long piece published last Friday, entitled 'Russia Indictment 2.0: What to Make of Mueller's Hacking Indictment.'

Among the authors, in addition to Wittes himself, is the sometime GCHQ employee Matt Tait. It appears that the former head of that organisation, the Blairite 'trusty' Robert Hannigan, who must know where a good few skeletons are buried, is a figure of some moment in the conspiracy.

(See https://www.lawfareblog.com... .)

It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata' of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the 'WP.'

The story was picked up the following day in a report on the 'Ars Technica' site, and Tait's own account appeared on the 'Lawfare' site, to which he has been a regular contributor, on 28 July.

(See https://arstechnica.com/inf... ; https://www.lawfareblog.com... .)

According to the CV provided in conjunction with the new article:

'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'

As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security', which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London underground, perhaps?

(See https://beta.companieshouse... .)

Actually, there has been a recent update in the records. Somewhat prematurely perhaps, there is an entry dated 24 July 2018, entitled 'Final Gazette dissolved via compulsory strike-off. This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.'

The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment for the office.

He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May.

It is, of course, possible that at the time Tait set up the company he was genuinely intending to try to make a go of a consultancy, and simply got sidetracked by other opportunities.

However – speaking from experience – people who have set up small 'one man band' companies to market skills learnt in large organisations, and then go back into such organisations, commonly think it worth their while to spend the minimal amount of time required to file the documentation required to keep the company alive.

If one sees any realistic prospect that one may either want to or need to go back into the big wide world again, this is the sensible course of action: particularly now when, with the internet, filing the relevant documentation takes about half an hour a year, and costs a trivial sum.

However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on the 'Lawfare' site:

'Bobby Chesney is the Charles I. Francis Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas School of Law. He also serves as the Director of UT-Austin's interdisciplinary research center the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. His scholarship encompasses a wide range of issues relating to national security and the law, including detention, targeting, prosecution, covert action, and the state secrets privilege; most of it is posted here. Along with Ben Wittes and Jack Goldsmith, he is one of the co-founders of the blog.'

(See https://www.lawfareblog.com... .)

Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'

(See https://foreignpolicy.com/2... .)

If anyone wants to grasp what the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, General Valery Gerasimov, was actually saying in the crucial February 2013 article which Galeotti was discussing, and how his thinking has developed subsequently, the place to look is, as so often, the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth.

Informed discussions by Charles Bartles and Roger McDermott are at https://www.armyupress.army... ; http://www.worldinwar.eu/wp... ; and https://jamestown.org/progr... .

In relation to the ongoing attempt to frame the GRU, it is material that, in his 2013 piece, Gerasimov harks back to two pivotal figures in the arguments of the interwar years. Of these, Georgy Isserson, the Jewish doctor's son from Kaunas who became a Civil War 'political commissar' and then a key associate of Mikhail Tukhachevsky, was the great pioneer theorist of 'deep operations.'

The ideas of the other, Aleksandr Svechin, the former Tsarist 'genstabist', born in Odessa into an ethnically Russian military family, who was the key opponent of Tukhachevky and Isserson in the arguments of the 'Twenties, provided key parts of the intellectual basis of the Gorbachev-era 'new thinking.'

The 'Ars Technica' article in which Tait's claims were initially disseminated opened:

'We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 – the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it – left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.'

In his 2013 article, Gerasimov harks back to the catastrophe which overcame the Red Army in June 1941. Ironically, this was the product of the Stalinist leadership's disregard of the cautions produced not only by Svechin, but by Isserson. In regard to the latter, the article remarks that:

'The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the General Staff Academy.'

As it happens, while both Svechin and Tukhachevsky were shot by the heirs of 'Felix Edmundovich', the sentence of death on Isserson was commuted, and he spent the war in prison and labour camps, while others used his ideas to devastating effect against the Germans.

Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but before and after.

Using this criterion as a 'filter', the obvious candidates are traditional Anglo-Saxon 'Russophobes', like Sir Richard Dearlove and Christopher Steele, or the 'insulted and injured' of the erstwhile Russian and Soviet empires, so many of them from the 'borderlands', of the type of Victoria Nuland, or the various Poles, Ukrainians and Balts and Jews who have had so much influence on American policy.

(I should note that other Jews, not only in Russia, but outside, including in Israel, think quite differently, in particular as they are very well aware, as Isserson would have been, of the extent to which 'borderlands' nationalists were enthusiastic collaborators with the Germans in the 'Final Solution'. On this, there is a large and growing academic literature.)

It is not particularly surprising that many of the victims of the Russian and Soviet empires have enjoyed seeing the tables turned, and getting their own back. But it is rather far from clear that this makes for good intelligence or sound policy. We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide .

blue peacock , 2 days ago
How does the objective truth get disclosed in an environment of extreme deceit by so many parties?

How to trust western intelligence when they have such a long and sordid track record of deceit, lies and propaganda? At the same time there is such a long history of Russian and Chinese intelligence and information operations against the west.

Then there is the nexus among the highest levels of US law enforcement and intelligence as well as political elites in both parties and key individuals in the media complex.

We are living in a hall of mirrors and it seems the trend is towards confirmation bias in information consumption.

richardstevenhack , 2 days ago
Excellent post, especially the debunking of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' which I always thought was more hand-waving and Russian mind-reading.

It's important to realize that there are a number of people in the infosec community who have biases against Russia, just as there are in the general population. Then there are more cautious people, who recognize the difficulty in attributing a hack to any specific person absent solid, incontrovertible, non-circumstantial and non-spoofable (and preferably offline) evidence.

Tait doesn't appear to be one of the latter. Thomas Rid would be another. There are others.

Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual "Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test.

There are also a number of companies in infosec who rely on latching onto a particular strain of hacker, the more publicly exploitable for PR purposes the better, as a means of keeping the company name in front of potential high-profile and highly billable clients. CrowdStrike and its Russia obsession isn't the only one that's been tagged with that propensity.

Mandiant could be referred to as the "Chinese, all the time" company, for example. Richard Bejtlich was at Fireeye and the became Chief Security Officer when they acquired Mandiant. He spent quite a bit of effort on his blog warning about the Chinese military buildup as a huge threat to the US. He's former USAF so perhaps that's not surprising.

Bottom line: Confirmation bias is a real thing.

David Blake -> richardstevenhack , 5 hours ago
One quick way to know their bias is the AC test. Google their name plus "Atlantic Council". Ridd fails badly.
Barbara Ann , 2 days ago
Glad David's comment has been reproduced as a post in its own right, this is a critically important topic. IMO Matt Tait plays the role of midwife in this conspiracy. His Twitter thread

View Hide

mlnw , 2 days ago
The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues. The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive. Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer, when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be 100 to the 50th power.

As for the crude trace fingerprints (e.g. the referencing of Dzerzinsky), one of the Wikileaks data dumps (Vault 7 Marble) during a period when Assange was negotiating with the Administration - there were two at the time (Vault 7 Marble and Vault 7 Grasshopper), the release of which apparently enraged Mike Pompeo- was designed to obfuscate, fabricate and frame countries such as Russia, Iran or North Korea by pretending to be the target country, including in the use of target's alphabet and language.

VIPs has written numerous articles on this in Consortium News. See also the report by Patrick Lawrence Smith in The Nation at: https://www.thenation.com/a... . (It was apparently so hot at the time- and disputed by several other VIPs members- that The Nation sought an independent assessment by third party, though those comments were easily addressed and dismissed in seriatim by Binney in an annex to the article.)

Binney has explained his forensic analysis and conclusions at numerous forums, and in a sit-down with Secretary Pompeo in October, 2017- though Mueller, the FBI, and mainstream and some of the alternative press seem either deaf, dumb and blind to it all, or interested in discrediting the study. The irony is, I'd venture to guess, that Binney, with his 40 years of experience, including as Technical Director and technical guru at the NSA, is, even in retirement, more sophisticated in these matters than any one at the Agency, or the FBI, or CIA, or certainly, the Congressional Intelligence Committees. So, it is astounding that any or all of them could have, but did not, invite him to testify as an expert.

Moreover, the NSA has a record of every transmission, and also would have it on backup files. And, the FBI has been sitting on Seth Rich's computer and his communications with Wikileaks, and presumably has a report that it has not released. And of course, as Trump asked in his press conference, where's the DNC server, any or all of which would put this question to rest.

A recent interview with Binney can be found at:

Play Hide
mlnw -> mlnw , 2 hours ago
The last clause of the first paragraph should have said: "according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be one over 100 to the 50th power
Jack -> David Habakkuk , a day ago
David

There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note.

We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright criminality through obfuscation and obstruction in the case of the meddling in the 2016 election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media channels.

It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda.

What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats.

Fred -> Jack , a day ago
Jack,

"Yet no one was held to account"

That was one of the changes being hoped for when Obama was first elected. Instead we got little, except for things such as bailed out bankers and the IRS scandal which lasted until the end of his 2nd term. The panic from the left over the 2016 election issues the are still going on is that the expected candidate isn't in office and they are being exposed. Whether they get prosecuted is another story.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/...

TTG , a day ago
I think Matt Tait, David Habakkuk and many others are reading far more into this Dzerzinsky thing than what it warrants. The government dependent ID cards used by my family while I was working as a clandestine case officer overseas were signed by Robert Ludlum. Intelligence officers often have an odd sense of humor.

On a different note, I fully endorse David Habakkuk's recommendation of the writings of Bartles, McDermott and many others at the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth. They are top notch. I learned a lot from Tim Thomas many years ago.

richardstevenhack -> TTG , a day ago
I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous.

I believe there is a phrase going something like "an attempt to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

Publius Tacitus -> TTG , a day ago
TTG,

You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia.

smoothieX12 . , a day ago
Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed.

Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition), is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain.

ancient archer , a day ago
I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British!

So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax.

This needs to be looked at in more detail by the alternative media and well informed commentators like the host of this site.

[Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

Highly recommended!
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12.

In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."

But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.

Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.

Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. He's an overlord, having risen "to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position in that division."

As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community Philip Haney's IC any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others. Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.

Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.

A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"?

As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr. Strzok.

Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.

The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.

As one wag noted , not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."

The latest pillorying heaped upon the president by the permanent establishment has it that, "Trump chose to stand with Vladimir Putin, instead of the American People." Trump, to be precise, had the temerity to "openly question his own intelligence agencies' firm finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S."

Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.

That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars.

And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help shape FBI counterterrorism training.

The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."

Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire stipulated that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60 transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI," wrote the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."

While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."

Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of " Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa " (2011) & " The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016). She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube

[Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Looks like MIC is a cancel of the society for which there is no cure....
While this jeremiad raises several valid point the key to understanding the situation should be understanding of the split of the Us elite into two camp with Democratic party (representing interests of Wall Street) and large part of intelligence communality fighting to neoliberal status quo and Pentagon, some part of old money, part of trade unions (especially rank and file members) and a pert of Republican Party (representing interests of the military) realizing that neoliberalism came to the natural end and it is time for change which includes downsizing of the American empire.
This bitter internal struggle in which neoliberals so far have an upper hand over Trump administration and forced him into retreat.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia. ..."
"... The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect. ..."
"... Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant. ..."
"... They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. ..."
"... The Supply-Side Revolution ..."
"... When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care." ..."
"... Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War. ..."
"... Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. ..."
"... There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief. ..."
"... The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. ..."
"... Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. ..."
"... What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is. ..."
"... The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. ..."
"... As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton. ..."
"... So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged. ..."
"... Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned. ..."
"... Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. ..."
"... It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

The US Democratic Party is determined to take the world to thermo-nuclear war rather than to admit that Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election fair and square. The Democratic Party was totally corrupted by the Clinton Regime, and now it is totally insane. Leaders of the Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, my former co-author in the New York Times, have responded in a non-Democratic way to the first step President Trump has taken to reduce the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia that the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes created between the two superpowers.

Yes, Russia is a superpower. Russian weapons are so superior to the junk produced by the waste-filled US military/security complex that lives high off the hog on the insouciant American taxpayer that it is questionable if the US is even a second class military power. If the insane neoconservatives, such as Max Boot, William Kristol, and the rest of the neocon scum get their way, the US, the UK, and Europe will be a radioactive ruin for thousands of years.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives, declared that out of fear of some undefined retribution from Putin, a dossier on Trump perhaps, the President of the United States sold out the American people to Russia because he wants to make peace: "It begs the question, what does Vladimir Putin, what do the Russians have on Donald Trump -- personally, politically and financially that he should behave in such a manner?" The "such a manner" Pelosi is speaking about is making peace instead of war.

To be clear, the Democratic Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives has accused Donald Trump of high treason against the United States. There is no outcry against this blatantly false accusation, totally devoid of evidence. The presstitute media instead of protesting this attempt at a coup against the President of the United States, trumpet the accusation as self-evident truth. Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia.

Here is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) repeating Pelosi's false accusation: "Millions of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump." If you don't believe that this is orchestrated between Pelosi and Schumer, you are stupid beyond belief.

Here is disgraced Obama CIA director John Brennan, a leader of the fake Russiagate campaign against President Trump in order to prevent Trump from making peace with Russia and, thus, by making the world safer, threatening the massive, unjustified budget of the military/security complex: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"

Here are many more: https://www.infowars.com/meltdown-left-seething-over-trump-putin-summit/

And here is more from the CIA bought-and-paid-for BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812

NOTICE THAT NOT ONE WESTERN MEDIA SOURCE IS CELEBRATING AND THANKING TRUMP AND PUTIN FOR EASING THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED TENSIONS THAT WERE LEADING TO NUCLEAR WAR. HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?

The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect.

Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients, and the recipients regard it as worth protecting.

Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant.

They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. Trump can be assassinated or overthrown in a political coup for selling out America to Russia, as members of both political parties claim and as the media trumpets endlessly. Putin can be easily assassinated by the CIA operatives that the Russian government stupidly permits to operate throughout Russia in NGOs and Western/US owned media and among the Atlanticist Integrationists, Washington's Firth Column inside Russia serving Washington's purposes. These Russian traitors serve in Putin's own government!

ORDER IT NOW

Americans are so unaware that they have no idea of the risk that President Trump is taking by challenging the US military security complex. For example, during the last half of the 1970s I was a member of the US Senate staff. I was working together with a staffer of the US Republican Senator from California, S. I. Hayakawa, to advance understanding of a supply-side economic policy cure to the stagflation that threatened the US budget's ability to meet its obligations. Republican Senators Hatch, Roth, and Hayakawa were trying to introduce a supply-side economic policy as a cure for the stagflation that was threatening the US economy with failure. The Democrats, who later in the Senate led the way to a supply-side policy, were, at this time, opposed (see Paul Craig Roberts, The Supply-Side Revolution , Harvard University Press, 1984). The Democrats claimed that the policy would worsen the budget deficit, the only time in those days Democrats cared about the budget deficit. The Democrats said that they would support the tax rate reductions if the Republicans would support offsetting cuts in the budget to support a balanced budget. This was a ploy to put Republicans on the spot for taking away some groups' handouts in order "to cut tax rates for the rich."

The supply-side policy did not require budget cuts, but in order to demonstrate the Democrats lack of sincerety, Hayakawa's aid and I had our senators introduce a series of budget cuts together with tax cuts that, on a static revenue basis (not counting tax revenue feedbacks from the incentives of the lower tax rates) kept the budget even, and the Democrats voted against them every time.

When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care."

My emergence from The Matrix began with Thurmond's pat on my shoulder. It grew with my time at the Wall Street Journal when I learned that some truthful things simply could not be said. In the Treasury I experienced how those outside interests opposed to a president's policy marshall their forces and the media that they own to block it. Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War.

Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. Trump, like Reagan, was an exception, and it is the exceptions that accumulate the ire of the corrupt leftwing, bought off with money, and the ire of the media, concentrated into small tight ownership groups indebted to those who permitted the illegal concentration of a once independent and diverse American media that once served, on occasion, as a watchdog over government. The rightwing, wrapped in the flag, dismisses all truth as "anti-American."

If Putin, Lavrov, the Russian government, the traitorous Russian Fifth Column -- the Atlanticist Integrationists -- the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans think that any peace or consideration can come out of America, they are insane. Their delusions are setting themselves up for destruction. There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief.

The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party.

President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. And Trump cannot indict Hillary for her numerous unquestionable crimes in plain view of everyone, or Comey or Brennan, who declares Trump "to be wholly in the pocket of Putin," for trying to overthrow the elected president of the United States. Trump cannot have the Secret Service question the likes of Pelosi and Schumer and McCain and Lindsey Graham for false accusations that encourage assassination of the President of the United States.

Trump cannot even trust the Secret Service, which accumulated evidence suggests was complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.

If Putin and Lavrov, so anxious to be friends of Washington, let their guards down, they are history.

As I said above, Russiagate is an orchestratration to prevent peace between the US and Russia. Leading military/security complex experts, including the person who provided the CIA's daily briefing of the President of the United States for many years, and the person who devised the spy program for the National Security Agency, have proven conclusively that Russiagate is a hoax designed for the purpose of preventing President Trump from normalizing relations between the US and Russia, which has the power to destroy the entirety of the Western World at will.

Here is the report from the retired security professionals who, unlike those still in office, cannot be fired and deprived of a careet for telling the truth: https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2018/07/15/memo-to-the-president-ahead-of-mondays-summit/

Here is what the clued-in Russian Defense Minister Shoigu has to say about the aggressive actions of the West against the Russian homeland: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/13/defense-minister-shoigu-on-moscow-vision-security-problems.html

If Putin doesn't listen to him, Russia is in the trash can of history.

Keep in mind that no media informs you better than my website. If my website goes down, you will be left in darkness. No valid information comes from the US government or the Western presstitutes. If you sit in front of the TV screen watching the Western media, you are brainwashed beyond all hope. Not even I can rescue you. Nor God himself.

Americans, and indeed the Russians themselves, are incapable of realizing it, but there is a chance that Trump will be overthrown and a Western assault will be launched against the handful of countries that insist on sovereignty.

I doubt that few of the Americans who elected Trump will be taken in by the anti-Trump propagana, but they are not organized and have no armed power. The police, militarized by George W. Bush and Obama, will be set against them. The rebellions will be local and suppressed by every violation of the US Constitution by the private powers that rule Washington, as always has been the case with rebellions in America.

In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus. Today there are no countries less free than the United States of America.

Why do the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists want to join an unfree Western world? Are they that brainwashed by Western Propaganda?

If Putin listens to these deluded fools, Putin will destroy Russia.

There is something wrong with Russian perception of Washington. Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. The Russian government somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, believes that Washington's hegemony is negotiable. (Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

nagra , July 20, 2018 at 4:46 am GMT
is big question even if Trump wants peace at all. Trump has shown his real face on the very beginning when he said that they are going to talk about "his friend" Xi, making Putin very uncomfortable and throwing some worms in Russia~China relationship in front of cameras for all to see

Trump came to the meeting in hope to impress Putin with his cowboy arrogance, He now says that he'll be Putin's worst enemy ( if he don't bow to him I guess : ). all Trump cares about is his ego, nothing else too sweat mouthed sleazy person

Sparkon , July 20, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT
Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
RobinG , July 20, 2018 at 5:10 am GMT
@geokat62

Okay then! Cue the real story of [lying filth] Bill Browder, a film by Andrei Nekrasov. Watch and share before it disappears!

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/lQ3qEwX66pIL/

The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes

Ludwig Watzal , Website July 20, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT
What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is.

The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. Trump is portrayed by these crooks as a "traitor." In the US, traitors usefully deserve death. If these political Mafiosi don't bring down Trump "legally," they will hire a kind of Lee Harvey Oswald who "shot" JFK.

As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton.

Let's wait and see what happens in the upcoming mid-term elections. If the Dems win both Houses of Congress, Trump is done. The obstructionists will have the upper hand. If they can't remove him from office "legally," there will be a hitman out there somewhere.

RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , July 20, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
President smugly making peace with the Russian nation that was supposed to be the evil enemy in a 3rd and final brother war to devastate the white race beyond recovery.

Little upstart in the Democrat party making left wing politics less palatable to the masses with her heavy handed socialist rhetoric. All while preaching BDS and anti-Israel sentiment too, representing Frankenstein's CultMarx monster turning on it's creator.

And fewer and fewer people on all sides buying what the American Pravda is selling with each passing day. The resulting hysteria is both par for the course and downright delectable.

jilles dykstra , July 20, 2018 at 7:24 am GMT
" Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. " My idea is that many in Russia understand quite well, this is why they demonstrate Russia's military capabilities frequently. Why does Putin support Assad and Syria ? Not because he likes these countries, but because he understands that if these countries also get the USA yoke the position of Russia and China deteriorate.

Putin is careful not to give USA public opinion more 'reason' to fear Russia. Already a few years ago something fell into the E part of the Mediterranean. It was asserted that Russia had intercepted a USA missile fired from Spain to Syria. USA and Israel declared that an excercise had been held. Putin said nothing.

Despite all that NATO does at Russia's borders Putin does not let himself be provoked. MH17, I suppose Putin knows quite well what happened, Russia has radar and satelites, yet Putin never gave the Russian view.

So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged.

Tsar Nicholas , July 20, 2018 at 7:48 am GMT
Another fine piece from PCR. It is a shame that trolls have caused him to avoid comments.
NoseytheDuke , July 20, 2018 at 8:03 am GMT
Good to see PCR accepting comments again. It's not just the Dumbocruds, it's the Rupuglicunts too. Follow the money, it's coming from the same sources. Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned.
Anonymous [337] Disclaimer , July 20, 2018 at 8:20 am GMT

Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?
The Democrats say he is

The Democrats -- and their wholly-owned MSM -- will call Trump any name that'll stick. It means little. Even if Trump got everything he wanted on immigration, that particular toothpaste is already out of the tube and unless we send back some of the millions of illegal third-world squatters we've no hope of recovering the United States of America.

If you want to talk treason, you need look no further than the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, whereby the plan was laid to replace the population of this nation with third-world refuse, which guaranteed cheap labor for GOP capitalists and endless political support for Democrat traitors.

Oh yeah, it's going swimmingly.

Robert Magill , July 20, 2018 at 9:36 am GMT
Fact 1: Russia's Defense Dept. IS a defense dept. Our alleged Defense Dept. is a War Dept. Nuff said.
Fact 2: Don't invade Russia.
Fact 3: Don't invade Russia.
RobertMagill.wordpress.com
Biff , July 20, 2018 at 9:47 am GMT

HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?

Money

Moi , July 20, 2018 at 11:08 am GMT
@Tsar Nicholas

For a country that cares little about morality, it really does not matter whether Trump, Hillary, Obama or anyone else is the leader.

geokat62 , July 20, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
@RobinG

As the saying goes "timing is everything." I have to admit I was incredulous that you were somehow able to link to a functioning version of the Nekrosov film. I've been trying to get my hands on that documentary for the last few years, but to no avail. I finally managed to read a comment on another blog that recommended that people who were interested in viewing the film could do so by reaching out to the producer to request a personalized link, after which you had to request a password from another individual affiliated with the film.

I managed to do all of that a few weeks ago and was able to watch the video on Vimeo for the full 2 hours. It was riveting, to say the least. After viewing it again, I thought about making it available to others. Due to the pressures by Browder and his lawyers, however, Nekrosov was prevented from making his film available to a wider audience. He got around this limitation by making it available for private viewing only. And to prevent a private viewer from uploading it onto the internet he cleverly placed a watermark on each film, indicating the owner of each copy of the video by displaying a number on the screen. I was surprised to see the version you linked to indeed has this watermark shown on the screen. Somehow, this did not deter the individual tied to that number from uploading it and being the one identified as doing so. That said, I'm glad the film is more widely available as it should be viewed by as many people as possible so that they can realize what a despicable liar Browder really is and how the passage of The Magnitsky Act was a travesty of justice which must be reversed.

Reactionary Utopian , July 20, 2018 at 11:35 am GMT
"Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients, and the recipients regard it as worth protecting."

Tens of thousands of years. At one count per second, 31,687 years and a few months.

Sally Snyder , July 20, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT
Here is an interesting look at how the anti-Russian narrative began in the United States and who really rigged the 2016 U.S. election:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-genesis-of-russian-interference.html

Main Street America is being manipulated into believing that Russia is the enemy, giving Washington a complete...

Jake , July 20, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
"In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus."

True. That is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. That is what the WASP Empire delivers, and it does so to destroy more conservative national and local cultures so their peoples are tossed into the melting pot and reduced into a goop easy to rule.

Oliver Cromwell taking Jewish money, allying with Jews so he would have the funds to wage permanent war against the vast, vast majority of non-WASP whites within his reach: that is the definition of WASP culture; that picture tells you what it always will do.

nagra , July 20, 2018 at 12:14 pm GMT
@RobinG

to everyone who make such movies

make something serious about Obama and Hillary destroying whole African country of Libya killing Colonel Gaddafi on the street, which is greatest war crime in the 21st century so far or, Bill Clinton bombing Bosnian Serbs '95 opening the door to jihadis to continue behead people in the middle of the Europe or, Bill Clinton and Nato bombing Serbia '99 to give "Kosovo" independence killing many civilian and destroying infrastructure on purpose or Madeline Albright confessing killing half of million Iraqi kids on the camera or, Bush and or Bushes or those such Bill Browder are just small dirty fish who in comparison is almost not worth filming I appreciate the effort but get seriously real if you are about to get truth to people

annamaria , July 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
@Ludwig Watzal

"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi "

What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller: " it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.

There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia." http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html

The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the untouchables, unlike Assange: https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html

Ilyana_Rozumova , July 20, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
Trump and Putin made a mistake. I do not understand how it could have happened. They should have issued communiqué that they have agreed to work toward peace and relieve tensions and suppress conflicts around the world. (I do not have a time for now to write more.) (sorry)
Carroll Price , July 20, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

Don't give FDR too much credit. He didn't approve the Normandy invasion until well after Russia had destroyed the German army.

Zogby , July 20, 2018 at 12:36 pm GMT
If Rosenstein & Mueller had done what they did with the publication of the indictments a few days before the summit -- and were North Koreans -- they'd be in front of a firing squad within 24 hours. Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. This is not a strength of democracy.

The US today is like Venezuela was shortly after Maduro was elected (by a narrow margin) -- after Chavez's death -- and before violence eventually broke out. The losing opposition refused to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.

Or after Morsi was elected in Egypt and before the military coup. The victory was narrow, the opposition refused the to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.

Or maybe like Bush vs Gore. Bush was kinda saved by 9/11 which completely changed the atmosphere.

Who knows what will happen. It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor.

Russ , July 20, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
@Sparkon

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3975-deep-state-delirium

Brennan, the Communist. The linked article begins with that and proceeds from there in a first-rate deep-state summary.

Den Lille Abe , July 20, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War. We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever.

The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new Apartheid state.

Harold Smith , July 20, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"

Wait; what?

From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions, to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government," etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response.

If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia?

Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown. If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.

Mike P , July 20, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and silly.

AnonFromTN , July 20, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the pattern.
Anonymous [166] Disclaimer , July 20, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Den Lille Abe

Don't blame all Americans. Forty-eight percent of us voted for Trump; it is very likely that more than half of the rest voted for Hellary only with great reluctance, owing largely to the unprecedented campaign of vilification directed at Trump. The point is: a very large majority of people in this country are nowhere near as insane as the media and elites are -- in fact, we're still nowhere near insane enough for their taste!

[Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal ..."
"... By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and power remains safe and sound. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

k9disc on Wed, 07/18/2018 - 11:12pm

Fake News = 21st Century Conspiracy Theory Fake News is the 21st century version of Conspiracy Theory.

It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows for simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without examination.

divineorder on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 5:58am
Yes, and then...

@edg @k9disc

Fake News allows for simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without examination.

and then they use that as justification for MIC actions.

The 'outrage' is fake. The focus on 'fake news' is fake news.

It's actually about defending the corporate media's monopoly on producing fake news serving elite state-corporate interests. https://t.co/uunJF9lj5r

-- Media Lens (@medialens) July 19, 2018

Here's an ad about COCs (PDF) from 1942. They're used for tanning leather, in soaps and perfumes, as insect repellents, for dying cloth, as antiseptics, and for many, many other commercial and industrial purposes.

Damn those Syrian butchers for dropping perfume on civilians!

Fake News is the 21st century version of Conspiracy Theory.

It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows for simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without examination.

Cant Stop the M... on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 11:10am
@The Voice In the Wilderness In the dim reaches of

@The Voice In the Wilderness In the dim reaches of pre-history, when Walter Cronkite was reporting, a real journalist wouldn't report that someone launched a chemical weapons attack unless the journalist had at least two credible, independent sources providing solid evidence that the story was true. Newspaper editors and television producers knew their reputations were on the line and that their competitors would make sure the egg on their face stuck if they reported something blatantly wrong.

Nowadays, there are no competitors, because journalists and news outlets are mostly hanging out together in one big cheery cartel, every member of which will defend every other member to protect the reputation of the whole. The goal is not to outdo competitors and gain more eyeballs or a greater distribution or greater authority over public opinion. The goal is to defend the status quo by any means necessary, while somehow maintaining the credibility of the press.

But no, they shouldn't have published a story that Assad had launched a chemical weapons attack unless they had a significant amount of solid evidence that it was true.

I have a hard time understanding how people can even begin to credit this crap, given how close it is to what they told us about Saddam Hussein. But it's actually even worse, because at least Hussein did, at one time, use chemical weapons on the Kurds. I mean, at least he did it once, even if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction ready to aim at Israel, or the Saudis, or the U.S.

#7
It was big news. But failure to report it as false with just as much (or more) attention and timing was journalistic malpractice. They should have been outraged to have been conned into spreading false propaganda. IF they were legitimate journalists.

The Voice In th... on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 6:00pm
That was then, this is now.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
I don't know that anyone waits for confirmation anymore. And the two sources could be the CIA and VOA or one of their tame journalists.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. After they all jumped on Saddam's WMD one can hardly compare them with Cronkite.

I do remember web blogs asking to please wait for the UN inspectors report. When that report did come out, anyone with integrity, even if not a professional journalist, would have highlighted that report and retracted the original and not figuratively bury it on page 56.

But we are substantially together on this. They reported is as fact not as an unsubstantiated claim.

fakenews on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 7:02am
I know FakeNews when I see it.

Chomsky's Five News Filters: A little dated but a good starting point.

Peace
FN

lotlizard on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 8:15am
Regrettably fails to name a huge part of Flak and the Enforcers

@fakenews
namely big, opinion-policing non-profits and their lobbyists and followers, ranging from religious denominations, to AIPAC and the NRA, to the ADL and SPLC.

[Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

Highly recommended!
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12.

In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."

But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.

Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.

Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. He's an overlord, having risen "to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position in that division."

As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community Philip Haney's IC any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others. Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.

Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.

A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"?

As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr. Strzok.

Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.

The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.

As one wag noted , not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."

The latest pillorying heaped upon the president by the permanent establishment has it that, "Trump chose to stand with Vladimir Putin, instead of the American People." Trump, to be precise, had the temerity to "openly question his own intelligence agencies' firm finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S."

Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.

That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars.

And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help shape FBI counterterrorism training.

The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."

Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire stipulated that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60 transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI," wrote the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."

While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."

Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of " Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa " (2011) & " The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016). She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube

[Jul 20, 2018] Su-30 Coming to Iran Elite Russian Fighters in Iranian Hands Set be a Game Changer for the Middle East

Jul 20, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Garry Compton • 21 days ago ,

So Iran has no offensive air force or any Nukes but the Israelis with their air superiority and nukes are making Iran - enemy #1. How very - American - of them.

Marko Garry Compton • 21 days ago ,

" The Anglo-Zion Art of War "

1) Sweet-talk the enemy into disarming.

2) Attack the enemy.

JPH Marko • 21 days ago ,

Omitted steps:
3) Sodomize with a bayonet and murder the leader
4) Have a good laugh while stating "We came, We saw, he died!".

[Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax

Highly recommended!
So British were involved in fabricating of 'Guccifer 2.0' persona. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata' of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the 'WP.' ..."
"... 'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.' ..."
"... As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security', which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London underground, perhaps? ..."
"... The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment for the office. ..."
"... He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May. ..."
"... However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on the 'Lawfare' site: ..."
"... Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but before and after. ..."
"... Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual "Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test. ..."
"... One quick way to know their bias is the AC test. Google their name plus "Atlantic Council". Ridd fails badly. ..."
"... The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues. The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive. Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer, when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be 100 to the 50th power. ..."
"... There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note. ..."
"... It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda. ..."
"... What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats. ..."
"... I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous. ..."
"... You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia. ..."
"... Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition), is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain. ..."
"... I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British! ..."
"... So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

As some commenters on SST seem still to have difficulty grasping that the presence of 'metadata' alluding to 'Iron Felix' in the 'Guccifer 2.0' material is strong evidence that the GRU were being framed over a leak, rather than that they were responsible for a hack, an update on the British end of the conspiracy seems in order.

If you look at the 'Lawfare' blog, in which a key figure is James Comey's crony Benjamin Wittes, you will find a long piece published last Friday, entitled 'Russia Indictment 2.0: What to Make of Mueller's Hacking Indictment.'

Among the authors, in addition to Wittes himself, is the sometime GCHQ employee Matt Tait. It appears that the former head of that organisation, the Blairite 'trusty' Robert Hannigan, who must know where a good few skeletons are buried, is a figure of some moment in the conspiracy.

(See https://www.lawfareblog.com... .)

It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata' of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the 'WP.'

The story was picked up the following day in a report on the 'Ars Technica' site, and Tait's own account appeared on the 'Lawfare' site, to which he has been a regular contributor, on 28 July.

(See https://arstechnica.com/inf... ; https://www.lawfareblog.com... .)

According to the CV provided in conjunction with the new article:

'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'

As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security', which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London underground, perhaps?

(See https://beta.companieshouse... .)

Actually, there has been a recent update in the records. Somewhat prematurely perhaps, there is an entry dated 24 July 2018, entitled 'Final Gazette dissolved via compulsory strike-off. This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.'

The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment for the office.

He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May.

It is, of course, possible that at the time Tait set up the company he was genuinely intending to try to make a go of a consultancy, and simply got sidetracked by other opportunities.

However – speaking from experience – people who have set up small 'one man band' companies to market skills learnt in large organisations, and then go back into such organisations, commonly think it worth their while to spend the minimal amount of time required to file the documentation required to keep the company alive.

If one sees any realistic prospect that one may either want to or need to go back into the big wide world again, this is the sensible course of action: particularly now when, with the internet, filing the relevant documentation takes about half an hour a year, and costs a trivial sum.

However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on the 'Lawfare' site:

'Bobby Chesney is the Charles I. Francis Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas School of Law. He also serves as the Director of UT-Austin's interdisciplinary research center the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. His scholarship encompasses a wide range of issues relating to national security and the law, including detention, targeting, prosecution, covert action, and the state secrets privilege; most of it is posted here. Along with Ben Wittes and Jack Goldsmith, he is one of the co-founders of the blog.'

(See https://www.lawfareblog.com... .)

Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'

(See https://foreignpolicy.com/2... .)

If anyone wants to grasp what the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, General Valery Gerasimov, was actually saying in the crucial February 2013 article which Galeotti was discussing, and how his thinking has developed subsequently, the place to look is, as so often, the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth.

Informed discussions by Charles Bartles and Roger McDermott are at https://www.armyupress.army... ; http://www.worldinwar.eu/wp... ; and https://jamestown.org/progr... .

In relation to the ongoing attempt to frame the GRU, it is material that, in his 2013 piece, Gerasimov harks back to two pivotal figures in the arguments of the interwar years. Of these, Georgy Isserson, the Jewish doctor's son from Kaunas who became a Civil War 'political commissar' and then a key associate of Mikhail Tukhachevsky, was the great pioneer theorist of 'deep operations.'

The ideas of the other, Aleksandr Svechin, the former Tsarist 'genstabist', born in Odessa into an ethnically Russian military family, who was the key opponent of Tukhachevky and Isserson in the arguments of the 'Twenties, provided key parts of the intellectual basis of the Gorbachev-era 'new thinking.'

The 'Ars Technica' article in which Tait's claims were initially disseminated opened:

'We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 – the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it – left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.'

In his 2013 article, Gerasimov harks back to the catastrophe which overcame the Red Army in June 1941. Ironically, this was the product of the Stalinist leadership's disregard of the cautions produced not only by Svechin, but by Isserson. In regard to the latter, the article remarks that:

'The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the General Staff Academy.'

As it happens, while both Svechin and Tukhachevsky were shot by the heirs of 'Felix Edmundovich', the sentence of death on Isserson was commuted, and he spent the war in prison and labour camps, while others used his ideas to devastating effect against the Germans.

Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but before and after.

Using this criterion as a 'filter', the obvious candidates are traditional Anglo-Saxon 'Russophobes', like Sir Richard Dearlove and Christopher Steele, or the 'insulted and injured' of the erstwhile Russian and Soviet empires, so many of them from the 'borderlands', of the type of Victoria Nuland, or the various Poles, Ukrainians and Balts and Jews who have had so much influence on American policy.

(I should note that other Jews, not only in Russia, but outside, including in Israel, think quite differently, in particular as they are very well aware, as Isserson would have been, of the extent to which 'borderlands' nationalists were enthusiastic collaborators with the Germans in the 'Final Solution'. On this, there is a large and growing academic literature.)

It is not particularly surprising that many of the victims of the Russian and Soviet empires have enjoyed seeing the tables turned, and getting their own back. But it is rather far from clear that this makes for good intelligence or sound policy. We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide .

blue peacock , 2 days ago
How does the objective truth get disclosed in an environment of extreme deceit by so many parties?

How to trust western intelligence when they have such a long and sordid track record of deceit, lies and propaganda? At the same time there is such a long history of Russian and Chinese intelligence and information operations against the west.

Then there is the nexus among the highest levels of US law enforcement and intelligence as well as political elites in both parties and key individuals in the media complex.

We are living in a hall of mirrors and it seems the trend is towards confirmation bias in information consumption.

richardstevenhack , 2 days ago
Excellent post, especially the debunking of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' which I always thought was more hand-waving and Russian mind-reading.

It's important to realize that there are a number of people in the infosec community who have biases against Russia, just as there are in the general population. Then there are more cautious people, who recognize the difficulty in attributing a hack to any specific person absent solid, incontrovertible, non-circumstantial and non-spoofable (and preferably offline) evidence.

Tait doesn't appear to be one of the latter. Thomas Rid would be another. There are others.

Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual "Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test.

There are also a number of companies in infosec who rely on latching onto a particular strain of hacker, the more publicly exploitable for PR purposes the better, as a means of keeping the company name in front of potential high-profile and highly billable clients. CrowdStrike and its Russia obsession isn't the only one that's been tagged with that propensity.

Mandiant could be referred to as the "Chinese, all the time" company, for example. Richard Bejtlich was at Fireeye and the became Chief Security Officer when they acquired Mandiant. He spent quite a bit of effort on his blog warning about the Chinese military buildup as a huge threat to the US. He's former USAF so perhaps that's not surprising.

Bottom line: Confirmation bias is a real thing.

David Blake -> richardstevenhack , 5 hours ago
One quick way to know their bias is the AC test. Google their name plus "Atlantic Council". Ridd fails badly.
Barbara Ann , 2 days ago
Glad David's comment has been reproduced as a post in its own right, this is a critically important topic. IMO Matt Tait plays the role of midwife in this conspiracy. His Twitter thread

View Hide

mlnw , 2 days ago
The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues. The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive. Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer, when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be 100 to the 50th power.

As for the crude trace fingerprints (e.g. the referencing of Dzerzinsky), one of the Wikileaks data dumps (Vault 7 Marble) during a period when Assange was negotiating with the Administration - there were two at the time (Vault 7 Marble and Vault 7 Grasshopper), the release of which apparently enraged Mike Pompeo- was designed to obfuscate, fabricate and frame countries such as Russia, Iran or North Korea by pretending to be the target country, including in the use of target's alphabet and language.

VIPs has written numerous articles on this in Consortium News. See also the report by Patrick Lawrence Smith in The Nation at: https://www.thenation.com/a... . (It was apparently so hot at the time- and disputed by several other VIPs members- that The Nation sought an independent assessment by third party, though those comments were easily addressed and dismissed in seriatim by Binney in an annex to the article.)

Binney has explained his forensic analysis and conclusions at numerous forums, and in a sit-down with Secretary Pompeo in October, 2017- though Mueller, the FBI, and mainstream and some of the alternative press seem either deaf, dumb and blind to it all, or interested in discrediting the study. The irony is, I'd venture to guess, that Binney, with his 40 years of experience, including as Technical Director and technical guru at the NSA, is, even in retirement, more sophisticated in these matters than any one at the Agency, or the FBI, or CIA, or certainly, the Congressional Intelligence Committees. So, it is astounding that any or all of them could have, but did not, invite him to testify as an expert.

Moreover, the NSA has a record of every transmission, and also would have it on backup files. And, the FBI has been sitting on Seth Rich's computer and his communications with Wikileaks, and presumably has a report that it has not released. And of course, as Trump asked in his press conference, where's the DNC server, any or all of which would put this question to rest.

A recent interview with Binney can be found at:

Play Hide
mlnw -> mlnw , 2 hours ago
The last clause of the first paragraph should have said: "according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be one over 100 to the 50th power
Jack -> David Habakkuk , a day ago
David

There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note.

We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright criminality through obfuscation and obstruction in the case of the meddling in the 2016 election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media channels.

It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda.

What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats.

Fred -> Jack , a day ago
Jack,

"Yet no one was held to account"

That was one of the changes being hoped for when Obama was first elected. Instead we got little, except for things such as bailed out bankers and the IRS scandal which lasted until the end of his 2nd term. The panic from the left over the 2016 election issues the are still going on is that the expected candidate isn't in office and they are being exposed. Whether they get prosecuted is another story.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/...

TTG , a day ago
I think Matt Tait, David Habakkuk and many others are reading far more into this Dzerzinsky thing than what it warrants. The government dependent ID cards used by my family while I was working as a clandestine case officer overseas were signed by Robert Ludlum. Intelligence officers often have an odd sense of humor.

On a different note, I fully endorse David Habakkuk's recommendation of the writings of Bartles, McDermott and many others at the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth. They are top notch. I learned a lot from Tim Thomas many years ago.

richardstevenhack -> TTG , a day ago
I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous.

I believe there is a phrase going something like "an attempt to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

Publius Tacitus -> TTG , a day ago
TTG,

You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia.

smoothieX12 . , a day ago
Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed.

Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition), is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain.

ancient archer , a day ago
I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British!

So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax.

This needs to be looked at in more detail by the alternative media and well informed commentators like the host of this site.

[Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

Highly recommended!
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12.

In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."

But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.

Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.

Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. He's an overlord, having risen "to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position in that division."

As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community Philip Haney's IC any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others. Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.

Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.

A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"?

As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr. Strzok.

Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.

The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.

As one wag noted , not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."

The latest pillorying heaped upon the president by the permanent establishment has it that, "Trump chose to stand with Vladimir Putin, instead of the American People." Trump, to be precise, had the temerity to "openly question his own intelligence agencies' firm finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S."

Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.

That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars.

And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help shape FBI counterterrorism training.

The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."

Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire stipulated that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60 transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI," wrote the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."

While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."

Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of " Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa " (2011) & " The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016). She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube

[Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Looks like MIC is a cancel of the society for which there is no cure....
While this jeremiad raises several valid point the key to understanding the situation should be understanding of the split of the Us elite into two camp with Democratic party (representing interests of Wall Street) and large part of intelligence communality fighting to neoliberal status quo and Pentagon, some part of old money, part of trade unions (especially rank and file members) and a pert of Republican Party (representing interests of the military) realizing that neoliberalism came to the natural end and it is time for change which includes downsizing of the American empire.
This bitter internal struggle in which neoliberals so far have an upper hand over Trump administration and forced him into retreat.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia. ..."
"... The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect. ..."
"... Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant. ..."
"... They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. ..."
"... The Supply-Side Revolution ..."
"... When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care." ..."
"... Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War. ..."
"... Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. ..."
"... There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief. ..."
"... The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. ..."
"... Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. ..."
"... What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is. ..."
"... The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. ..."
"... As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton. ..."
"... So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged. ..."
"... Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned. ..."
"... Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. ..."
"... It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

The US Democratic Party is determined to take the world to thermo-nuclear war rather than to admit that Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election fair and square. The Democratic Party was totally corrupted by the Clinton Regime, and now it is totally insane. Leaders of the Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, my former co-author in the New York Times, have responded in a non-Democratic way to the first step President Trump has taken to reduce the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia that the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes created between the two superpowers.

Yes, Russia is a superpower. Russian weapons are so superior to the junk produced by the waste-filled US military/security complex that lives high off the hog on the insouciant American taxpayer that it is questionable if the US is even a second class military power. If the insane neoconservatives, such as Max Boot, William Kristol, and the rest of the neocon scum get their way, the US, the UK, and Europe will be a radioactive ruin for thousands of years.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives, declared that out of fear of some undefined retribution from Putin, a dossier on Trump perhaps, the President of the United States sold out the American people to Russia because he wants to make peace: "It begs the question, what does Vladimir Putin, what do the Russians have on Donald Trump -- personally, politically and financially that he should behave in such a manner?" The "such a manner" Pelosi is speaking about is making peace instead of war.

To be clear, the Democratic Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives has accused Donald Trump of high treason against the United States. There is no outcry against this blatantly false accusation, totally devoid of evidence. The presstitute media instead of protesting this attempt at a coup against the President of the United States, trumpet the accusation as self-evident truth. Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia.

Here is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) repeating Pelosi's false accusation: "Millions of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump." If you don't believe that this is orchestrated between Pelosi and Schumer, you are stupid beyond belief.

Here is disgraced Obama CIA director John Brennan, a leader of the fake Russiagate campaign against President Trump in order to prevent Trump from making peace with Russia and, thus, by making the world safer, threatening the massive, unjustified budget of the military/security complex: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"

Here are many more: https://www.infowars.com/meltdown-left-seething-over-trump-putin-summit/

And here is more from the CIA bought-and-paid-for BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812

NOTICE THAT NOT ONE WESTERN MEDIA SOURCE IS CELEBRATING AND THANKING TRUMP AND PUTIN FOR EASING THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED TENSIONS THAT WERE LEADING TO NUCLEAR WAR. HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?

The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect.

Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients, and the recipients regard it as worth protecting.

Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant.

They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. Trump can be assassinated or overthrown in a political coup for selling out America to Russia, as members of both political parties claim and as the media trumpets endlessly. Putin can be easily assassinated by the CIA operatives that the Russian government stupidly permits to operate throughout Russia in NGOs and Western/US owned media and among the Atlanticist Integrationists, Washington's Firth Column inside Russia serving Washington's purposes. These Russian traitors serve in Putin's own government!

ORDER IT NOW

Americans are so unaware that they have no idea of the risk that President Trump is taking by challenging the US military security complex. For example, during the last half of the 1970s I was a member of the US Senate staff. I was working together with a staffer of the US Republican Senator from California, S. I. Hayakawa, to advance understanding of a supply-side economic policy cure to the stagflation that threatened the US budget's ability to meet its obligations. Republican Senators Hatch, Roth, and Hayakawa were trying to introduce a supply-side economic policy as a cure for the stagflation that was threatening the US economy with failure. The Democrats, who later in the Senate led the way to a supply-side policy, were, at this time, opposed (see Paul Craig Roberts, The Supply-Side Revolution , Harvard University Press, 1984). The Democrats claimed that the policy would worsen the budget deficit, the only time in those days Democrats cared about the budget deficit. The Democrats said that they would support the tax rate reductions if the Republicans would support offsetting cuts in the budget to support a balanced budget. This was a ploy to put Republicans on the spot for taking away some groups' handouts in order "to cut tax rates for the rich."

The supply-side policy did not require budget cuts, but in order to demonstrate the Democrats lack of sincerety, Hayakawa's aid and I had our senators introduce a series of budget cuts together with tax cuts that, on a static revenue basis (not counting tax revenue feedbacks from the incentives of the lower tax rates) kept the budget even, and the Democrats voted against them every time.

When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care."

My emergence from The Matrix began with Thurmond's pat on my shoulder. It grew with my time at the Wall Street Journal when I learned that some truthful things simply could not be said. In the Treasury I experienced how those outside interests opposed to a president's policy marshall their forces and the media that they own to block it. Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War.

Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. Trump, like Reagan, was an exception, and it is the exceptions that accumulate the ire of the corrupt leftwing, bought off with money, and the ire of the media, concentrated into small tight ownership groups indebted to those who permitted the illegal concentration of a once independent and diverse American media that once served, on occasion, as a watchdog over government. The rightwing, wrapped in the flag, dismisses all truth as "anti-American."

If Putin, Lavrov, the Russian government, the traitorous Russian Fifth Column -- the Atlanticist Integrationists -- the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans think that any peace or consideration can come out of America, they are insane. Their delusions are setting themselves up for destruction. There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief.

The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party.

President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. And Trump cannot indict Hillary for her numerous unquestionable crimes in plain view of everyone, or Comey or Brennan, who declares Trump "to be wholly in the pocket of Putin," for trying to overthrow the elected president of the United States. Trump cannot have the Secret Service question the likes of Pelosi and Schumer and McCain and Lindsey Graham for false accusations that encourage assassination of the President of the United States.

Trump cannot even trust the Secret Service, which accumulated evidence suggests was complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.

If Putin and Lavrov, so anxious to be friends of Washington, let their guards down, they are history.

As I said above, Russiagate is an orchestratration to prevent peace between the US and Russia. Leading military/security complex experts, including the person who provided the CIA's daily briefing of the President of the United States for many years, and the person who devised the spy program for the National Security Agency, have proven conclusively that Russiagate is a hoax designed for the purpose of preventing President Trump from normalizing relations between the US and Russia, which has the power to destroy the entirety of the Western World at will.

Here is the report from the retired security professionals who, unlike those still in office, cannot be fired and deprived of a careet for telling the truth: https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2018/07/15/memo-to-the-president-ahead-of-mondays-summit/

Here is what the clued-in Russian Defense Minister Shoigu has to say about the aggressive actions of the West against the Russian homeland: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/13/defense-minister-shoigu-on-moscow-vision-security-problems.html

If Putin doesn't listen to him, Russia is in the trash can of history.

Keep in mind that no media informs you better than my website. If my website goes down, you will be left in darkness. No valid information comes from the US government or the Western presstitutes. If you sit in front of the TV screen watching the Western media, you are brainwashed beyond all hope. Not even I can rescue you. Nor God himself.

Americans, and indeed the Russians themselves, are incapable of realizing it, but there is a chance that Trump will be overthrown and a Western assault will be launched against the handful of countries that insist on sovereignty.

I doubt that few of the Americans who elected Trump will be taken in by the anti-Trump propagana, but they are not organized and have no armed power. The police, militarized by George W. Bush and Obama, will be set against them. The rebellions will be local and suppressed by every violation of the US Constitution by the private powers that rule Washington, as always has been the case with rebellions in America.

In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus. Today there are no countries less free than the United States of America.

Why do the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists want to join an unfree Western world? Are they that brainwashed by Western Propaganda?

If Putin listens to these deluded fools, Putin will destroy Russia.

There is something wrong with Russian perception of Washington. Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. The Russian government somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, believes that Washington's hegemony is negotiable. (Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

nagra , July 20, 2018 at 4:46 am GMT
is big question even if Trump wants peace at all. Trump has shown his real face on the very beginning when he said that they are going to talk about "his friend" Xi, making Putin very uncomfortable and throwing some worms in Russia~China relationship in front of cameras for all to see

Trump came to the meeting in hope to impress Putin with his cowboy arrogance, He now says that he'll be Putin's worst enemy ( if he don't bow to him I guess : ). all Trump cares about is his ego, nothing else too sweat mouthed sleazy person

Sparkon , July 20, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT
Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
RobinG , July 20, 2018 at 5:10 am GMT
@geokat62

Okay then! Cue the real story of [lying filth] Bill Browder, a film by Andrei Nekrasov. Watch and share before it disappears!

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/lQ3qEwX66pIL/

The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes

Ludwig Watzal , Website July 20, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT
What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is.

The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. Trump is portrayed by these crooks as a "traitor." In the US, traitors usefully deserve death. If these political Mafiosi don't bring down Trump "legally," they will hire a kind of Lee Harvey Oswald who "shot" JFK.

As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton.

Let's wait and see what happens in the upcoming mid-term elections. If the Dems win both Houses of Congress, Trump is done. The obstructionists will have the upper hand. If they can't remove him from office "legally," there will be a hitman out there somewhere.

RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , July 20, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
President smugly making peace with the Russian nation that was supposed to be the evil enemy in a 3rd and final brother war to devastate the white race beyond recovery.

Little upstart in the Democrat party making left wing politics less palatable to the masses with her heavy handed socialist rhetoric. All while preaching BDS and anti-Israel sentiment too, representing Frankenstein's CultMarx monster turning on it's creator.

And fewer and fewer people on all sides buying what the American Pravda is selling with each passing day. The resulting hysteria is both par for the course and downright delectable.

jilles dykstra , July 20, 2018 at 7:24 am GMT
" Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. " My idea is that many in Russia understand quite well, this is why they demonstrate Russia's military capabilities frequently. Why does Putin support Assad and Syria ? Not because he likes these countries, but because he understands that if these countries also get the USA yoke the position of Russia and China deteriorate.

Putin is careful not to give USA public opinion more 'reason' to fear Russia. Already a few years ago something fell into the E part of the Mediterranean. It was asserted that Russia had intercepted a USA missile fired from Spain to Syria. USA and Israel declared that an excercise had been held. Putin said nothing.

Despite all that NATO does at Russia's borders Putin does not let himself be provoked. MH17, I suppose Putin knows quite well what happened, Russia has radar and satelites, yet Putin never gave the Russian view.

So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged.

Tsar Nicholas , July 20, 2018 at 7:48 am GMT
Another fine piece from PCR. It is a shame that trolls have caused him to avoid comments.
NoseytheDuke , July 20, 2018 at 8:03 am GMT
Good to see PCR accepting comments again. It's not just the Dumbocruds, it's the Rupuglicunts too. Follow the money, it's coming from the same sources. Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned.
Anonymous [337] Disclaimer , July 20, 2018 at 8:20 am GMT

Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?
The Democrats say he is

The Democrats -- and their wholly-owned MSM -- will call Trump any name that'll stick. It means little. Even if Trump got everything he wanted on immigration, that particular toothpaste is already out of the tube and unless we send back some of the millions of illegal third-world squatters we've no hope of recovering the United States of America.

If you want to talk treason, you need look no further than the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, whereby the plan was laid to replace the population of this nation with third-world refuse, which guaranteed cheap labor for GOP capitalists and endless political support for Democrat traitors.

Oh yeah, it's going swimmingly.

Robert Magill , July 20, 2018 at 9:36 am GMT
Fact 1: Russia's Defense Dept. IS a defense dept. Our alleged Defense Dept. is a War Dept. Nuff said.
Fact 2: Don't invade Russia.
Fact 3: Don't invade Russia.
RobertMagill.wordpress.com
Biff , July 20, 2018 at 9:47 am GMT

HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?

Money

Moi , July 20, 2018 at 11:08 am GMT
@Tsar Nicholas

For a country that cares little about morality, it really does not matter whether Trump, Hillary, Obama or anyone else is the leader.

geokat62 , July 20, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
@RobinG

As the saying goes "timing is everything." I have to admit I was incredulous that you were somehow able to link to a functioning version of the Nekrosov film. I've been trying to get my hands on that documentary for the last few years, but to no avail. I finally managed to read a comment on another blog that recommended that people who were interested in viewing the film could do so by reaching out to the producer to request a personalized link, after which you had to request a password from another individual affiliated with the film.

I managed to do all of that a few weeks ago and was able to watch the video on Vimeo for the full 2 hours. It was riveting, to say the least. After viewing it again, I thought about making it available to others. Due to the pressures by Browder and his lawyers, however, Nekrosov was prevented from making his film available to a wider audience. He got around this limitation by making it available for private viewing only. And to prevent a private viewer from uploading it onto the internet he cleverly placed a watermark on each film, indicating the owner of each copy of the video by displaying a number on the screen. I was surprised to see the version you linked to indeed has this watermark shown on the screen. Somehow, this did not deter the individual tied to that number from uploading it and being the one identified as doing so. That said, I'm glad the film is more widely available as it should be viewed by as many people as possible so that they can realize what a despicable liar Browder really is and how the passage of The Magnitsky Act was a travesty of justice which must be reversed.

Reactionary Utopian , July 20, 2018 at 11:35 am GMT
"Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients, and the recipients regard it as worth protecting."

Tens of thousands of years. At one count per second, 31,687 years and a few months.

Sally Snyder , July 20, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT
Here is an interesting look at how the anti-Russian narrative began in the United States and who really rigged the 2016 U.S. election:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-genesis-of-russian-interference.html

Main Street America is being manipulated into believing that Russia is the enemy, giving Washington a complete...

Jake , July 20, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
"In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus."

True. That is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. That is what the WASP Empire delivers, and it does so to destroy more conservative national and local cultures so their peoples are tossed into the melting pot and reduced into a goop easy to rule.

Oliver Cromwell taking Jewish money, allying with Jews so he would have the funds to wage permanent war against the vast, vast majority of non-WASP whites within his reach: that is the definition of WASP culture; that picture tells you what it always will do.

nagra , July 20, 2018 at 12:14 pm GMT
@RobinG

to everyone who make such movies

make something serious about Obama and Hillary destroying whole African country of Libya killing Colonel Gaddafi on the street, which is greatest war crime in the 21st century so far or, Bill Clinton bombing Bosnian Serbs '95 opening the door to jihadis to continue behead people in the middle of the Europe or, Bill Clinton and Nato bombing Serbia '99 to give "Kosovo" independence killing many civilian and destroying infrastructure on purpose or Madeline Albright confessing killing half of million Iraqi kids on the camera or, Bush and or Bushes or those such Bill Browder are just small dirty fish who in comparison is almost not worth filming I appreciate the effort but get seriously real if you are about to get truth to people

annamaria , July 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
@Ludwig Watzal

"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi "

What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller: " it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.

There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia." http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html

The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the untouchables, unlike Assange: https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html

Ilyana_Rozumova , July 20, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
Trump and Putin made a mistake. I do not understand how it could have happened. They should have issued communiqué that they have agreed to work toward peace and relieve tensions and suppress conflicts around the world. (I do not have a time for now to write more.) (sorry)
Carroll Price , July 20, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

Don't give FDR too much credit. He didn't approve the Normandy invasion until well after Russia had destroyed the German army.

Zogby , July 20, 2018 at 12:36 pm GMT
If Rosenstein & Mueller had done what they did with the publication of the indictments a few days before the summit -- and were North Koreans -- they'd be in front of a firing squad within 24 hours. Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. This is not a strength of democracy.

The US today is like Venezuela was shortly after Maduro was elected (by a narrow margin) -- after Chavez's death -- and before violence eventually broke out. The losing opposition refused to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.

Or after Morsi was elected in Egypt and before the military coup. The victory was narrow, the opposition refused the to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.

Or maybe like Bush vs Gore. Bush was kinda saved by 9/11 which completely changed the atmosphere.

Who knows what will happen. It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor.

Russ , July 20, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
@Sparkon

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3975-deep-state-delirium

Brennan, the Communist. The linked article begins with that and proceeds from there in a first-rate deep-state summary.

Den Lille Abe , July 20, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War. We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever.

The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new Apartheid state.

Harold Smith , July 20, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"

Wait; what?

From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions, to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government," etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response.

If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia?

Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown. If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.

Mike P , July 20, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and silly.

AnonFromTN , July 20, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the pattern.
Anonymous [166] Disclaimer , July 20, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Den Lille Abe

Don't blame all Americans. Forty-eight percent of us voted for Trump; it is very likely that more than half of the rest voted for Hellary only with great reluctance, owing largely to the unprecedented campaign of vilification directed at Trump. The point is: a very large majority of people in this country are nowhere near as insane as the media and elites are -- in fact, we're still nowhere near insane enough for their taste!

[Jul 20, 2018] John Brennan, Melting Down and Covering Up by Peter Van Buren

Notable quotes:
"... It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of "resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on, promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018. ..."
"... But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times ..."
"... On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin." ..."
"... Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged. ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
"... Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That mouth has to cover his ass. ..."
"... Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election. ..."
"... Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two administrations. ..."
"... Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire. One way or another, the empire will strike back." ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... . Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

He accuses Trump of treason. But what's his bluster really about?

• It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of "resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on, promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018.

But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times puff piece sweeps all that away as a "troubling inheritance."

On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin."

Because it is 2018, Brennan was never asked to explain exactly how a press conference exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution sets for impeachment, nor was he asked to lay a few cards on the table showing what Putin has on Trump. No, Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged.

Brennan slithers alongside those like Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker who said Trump is controlled by Russia, columnists in the New York Times who called him a traitor, an article (which is fast becoming the Zapruder film of Russiagate) in New York Magazine echoing former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke in speculating that Trump met Putin as his handler, and another former intelligence officer warning that "we're on the cusp of losing the constitutional republic forever."

Brennan's bleating has the interesting side effect of directing attention away from who was watching the front door as the Russians walked in to cause what one MSNBC analyst described as a mix of Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht. During the 2016 election, Brennan was head of the CIA. His evil twin, James Clapper, who also coughs up Trump attacks for nickels these days, was director of national intelligence. James Comey headed the FBI, following Robert Mueller into the job. Yet the noise from that crowd has become so loud as to drown out any questions about where they were when they had the duty to stop the Russians in the first place.

The excuse that "everybody believed Hillary would win" is in itself an example of collusion: things that now rise to treason, if not acts of war, didn't matter then because Clinton's victory would sweep them all under the rug. Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That mouth has to cover his ass.

Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election. Remember how recounts were called for amid (fake) allegations of vote tampering? Constitutional scholars proposed various Hail Mary Electoral College scenarios to unseat Trump. Lawsuits claimed the Emoluments Clause made it illegal for Trump to even assume office. The media set itself the goal of impeaching the president. On cue, leaks poured out implying the Trump campaign worked with the Russian government. It is now a rare day when the top stories are not apocalyptic, rocketed from Raw Story to the Huffington Post to the New York Times . Brennan, meanwhile, fans the media's flames with a knowing wink that says "You wait and see. Soon it's Mueller time."

Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two administrations.

The IRS, meanwhile, has watched Trump for decades (they've seen the tax docs), as have Democratic and Republican opposition researchers, the New Jersey Gaming Commission, and various New York City real estate bodies. Multiple KGB/FSB agents have defected and not said a word. The whole Soviet Union has collapsed since the day that some claim Trump first became a Russian asset. Why haven't the FBI, CIA, and NSA cottoned to anything in the intervening years? Why are we waiting on Mueller Year Two?

If Trump is under Russian influence, he is the most dangerous man in American history. So why isn't Washington on fire? Why hasn't Mueller indicted someone for treason? If this is Pearl Harbor, why is the investigation moving at the pace of a mortgage application? Why is everyone allowing a Russian asset placed in charge of the American nuclear arsenal to stay in power even one more minute?

You'd think Brennan would be saying it is time to postpone chasing the indictments of Russian military officers that will never see the inside of a courtroom, stop wasting months on decades-old financial crimes unconnected to the Trump campaign, and quit delaying the real stuff over a clumsy series of perjury cases. "Patriots: Where are you???" Brennan asked in a recent tweet. Where indeed?

Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire. One way or another, the empire will strike back." James Clapper is confirming reports that Trump was shown evidence of Putin's election attacks and did nothing. Congressman Steve Cohen asked, "Where are our military folks? The Commander-in-Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"

Treason, traitor, coup, the empire striking back -- those are just words, Third World stuff, clickbait, right? So the more pedestrian answer must then be correct. The lessons of Whitewater and Benghazi learned, maybe the point is not to build an atmosphere of crisis leading to something undemocratic, but just to have a perpetual investigation, tickled to life as needed politically.

Because, maybe, deep down, Brennan (Clapper, Hayden, Comey, and Mueller) really do know that this is all like flying saucers and cell phone cameras. At some point, the whole alien conspiracy meme fell apart because somehow when everyone had a camera with them 24/7/365, there were no more sightings and we had to admit that our fears had gotten the best of us. The threat was inside us all along. It is now, too.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell.

[Jul 20, 2018] Su-30 Coming to Iran Elite Russian Fighters in Iranian Hands Set be a Game Changer for the Middle East

Jul 20, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Garry Compton • 21 days ago ,

So Iran has no offensive air force or any Nukes but the Israelis with their air superiority and nukes are making Iran - enemy #1. How very - American - of them.

Marko Garry Compton • 21 days ago ,

" The Anglo-Zion Art of War "

1) Sweet-talk the enemy into disarming.

2) Attack the enemy.

JPH Marko • 21 days ago ,

Omitted steps:
3) Sodomize with a bayonet and murder the leader
4) Have a good laugh while stating "We came, We saw, he died!".

[Jul 20, 2018] 'Make them pariahs': how shaming Trump aides became a resistance tactic by Sam Wolfson

Hat tip to caucus99percent.com
Notable quotes:
"... @snoopydawg ..."
"... @gulfgal98 ..."
"... The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

After another week saw leading Republicans accosted in public places, many on the left are arguing that harassment is legitimate

The day after Sarah Sanders was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, Maxine Waters, the representative for the California 43rd who has become a leader of the anti-Trump resistance within Congress, addressed a rally in Los Angeles. Up until that point, national Democratic leaders had mostly urged respectful protest in response to the Trump administration.

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up," she said to cheers from the crowd. "And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome any more, anywhere."

In the days that followed, other leading Democrats, among them Nancy Pelosi and David Axelrod, distanced themselves from the comments and called for civility. Trump personally attacked Waters, calling her an "extraordinarily low IQ person". But Waters gave voice, and perhaps legitimacy, to what has become a prominent form of activism since Trump took office: accosting members of his team in public places.

Over the weekend, Steve Bannon was called "a piece of trash" by a heckler at a bookstore; a bartender gave Stephen Miller the middle finger, apparently causing Miller to throw away $80 of sushi he'd just bought in disgust; and Mitch McConnell was chased out of a restaurant in Kentucky by protesters, who followed him to this car yelling "turtle head" and "we know where you live".

These follow similar encounters for other members of Trump's top team. The homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, was confronted by protesters chanting "shame" while she ate at a Mexican restaurant. Last week, Scott Pruitt was accosted by Kristin Mink while he was eating lunch. Mink, a teacher, held her two-year-old child as she asked him to resign "before your scandals push you out". Days later, Pruitt did resign, and although he was probably asked to do so by Trump, in his letter he cited "the unrelenting attacks on me" as his reason for leaving.

After each case, the merits of such an approach have been debated – many have called for civility or argued that protesters leave themselves open to attack if they pursue Trump-like techniques. There has been some consensus that encounters like Mink's, which are eloquent and non-aggressive, are more acceptable than when protesters chant personal attacks or use threatening language

... ... ...

Submitted by edg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 2:08pm
If you stand with Markos ... @Wink

... you don't stand with most of C99 and most of progressive society. He is wrong, on this and many other things. Where was his (and your) outrage when Obama was droning American citizens, destroying Libya and creating Europe's current refugee crisis, and helping Saudi Arabia wreak havoc on Houthi civilians? How many pies did he throw then? How many Obama administration officials did he publicly shame?

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 1:37pm Would that have gone for shaming members of Obama's @Wink

administration too? He did many of the same things that Trump is doing to immigrants. He deported more of them then any president including 56% of them who hadn't committed any crimes. How about shaming them for his drone policies, killing 3 Americans without due process, bombing wedding parties and then the people who came to their rescue? Or the many, many other things he and his admin members did that were absolutely heinous?

Should we have done that to the people in the Bush administration too or how far back should we have been shaming people who worked in a president's administration?

Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to pass Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?


Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 5:49pm

where it stops @snoopydawg

Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to pass Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?

Where it should -- with the non-voluntarily-complicit.

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 9:50pm When political life is reduced to @Wink

the publicly harassing, embarrssing, and running off the oposition then we're really fucked. Or do you seriousy think those tactics won't be repaid in kind?

on public shaming.
#7
Especially in public restaurants.
There is no better way to protest this admin than to shame them in a public place, confront them while they attempt to swallow a bite of pork chop.

up 0 users have voted. --

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa Submitted by gulfgal98 on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 12:00pm Critical thinking skills seem to be non-existent over there.

Again, Markos and his staff refuse to discuss policy from a positive perspective. Instead, they focus their readers on the outrage de jour and tribalism. The entire purpose of that site is a massive propaganda push designed to keep us divided. And the narrative they keep pushing are not only divisive, but extremely dangerous.

I rarely go there any more, mostly because I would like to keep as many of my remaining brain cells intact. But when I have visited that place, it is a very frightening place to see how Markos (post purge) has herded the remaining members into a small corral, all of them nodding in agreement with whatever gruel Markos and his front pagers are serving up. Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 6:29pm Daily Kos should change its name to @gulfgal98

The Daily Tabloid. Or The Daily Gossip because of some of the topics covered there. The new McCarthyism will destroy this country even more:

BAR Book Forum: Jeremy Kuzmarov's and John Marciano's "The Russians are Coming, Again"
"The American people have been constantly manipulated and made to fear the Russian threat when it is the United States that has been the aggressive power."

In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This week's featured authors are Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano . Kuzmarov is Jay P. Walker Assistant Professor of American History, University of Tulsa. Marciano is Professor Emeritus at SUNY Cortland. Their book is The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce.

Roberto Sirvent: How can your book help BAR readers understand the current political and social climate?

Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano: Our book provides a historical perspective on contemporary affairs by showing how the Russo-phobia that has been prevalent in our political discourse over the last four to five years has deep and long historical roots, and has often been used by government leaders to turn public attention away from domestic inequalities by channeling societal resources towards the military sector. During the early Cold War, a period of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism and the Cold War.The Korean War brought on huge military budgets that have never left us and an expansion of the U.S. overseas military base network. These policies were underlain by exaggerated views about the Soviet Union which were stoked by political elites, who had worked for companies that reaped enormous profit from the permanent warfare state. The same forces are behind the renewed efforts to demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin and exaggerate the Russian threat, with serious adverse consequences for society that have already been evident. The consequences include a revitalization of the arms race, waging of proxy wars, and a further poisoning of the domestic political culture through the reinvigoration of a McCarthyist discourse and tactics.

"During the early Cold War, a period of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism and the Cold War."

More: https://www.blackagendareport.com/bar-book-forum-jeremy-kuzmarovs-and-john-marcianos-russians-are-coming-again up

[Jul 20, 2018] If GRU list is not authentic this will backfire as conditions of working of US diplomats in Moscow will be became much worse. There might be some other forms of revenge. If the GRU list is authentic, it exposes the USA ability to penetrate that organization, leading to Moscow tightening up security to the detriment of American intelligence by Philip Giraldi

The "Deep state" honchos who created this indictment have a working assumption that the USA remain a sole superpower and that everything is permitted, even if this is a provocation/false flag operation conducted solely for internal consumption. That might be the assumption that is no longer true.
Notable quotes:
"... The document itself also provides no information on how the Russian officers and their positions were identified, which suggests that it could have been a US hack or agent in place, either run by CIA or NSA, that came up with a list of those individuals connected to GRU cyber operations. That would be information involving sources and methods, codeword protected material beyond Top Secret. ..."
"... Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly includes the GRU, operates. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The quote was extracted from: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity The Establishment Strikes Back

... ... ...

The document itself also provides no information on how the Russian officers and their positions were identified, which suggests that it could have been a US hack or agent in place, either run by CIA or NSA, that came up with a list of those individuals connected to GRU cyber operations. That would be information involving sources and methods, codeword protected material beyond Top Secret.

If the GRU list is authentic, it would expose US ability to penetrate that organization, leading to Moscow tightening up security to the detriment of American intelligence. But it might alternatively be suggested that the drafters needed a group of plausible Russians and used a generic list provided by either CIA or NSA to come up with the culprits and then used those identities and the detailed information regarding them to provide credibility to their account. What they did not do, however, is provide the actual evidence connecting the individuals to the "hack/interference" or to connect the same to the Russian government. If the information in the indictment is completely accurate, which may not be the case, there is some suggestion that alleged Moscow linked proxies may have deliberately sought to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton to favor Bernie Sanders, but absolutely no evidence that they did anything to help Donald Trump.

Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly includes the GRU, operates. If there had been a large-scale Kremlin sanctioned plan to disrupt the US election, it would not be run by twelve identifiable GRU officers working with what appears to be only limited cover and resources. If the facts are correct, the activity might have been a routine probing, collecting and selective dissemination of information effort that all intelligence agencies engage in. The United States does so routinely in many countries, interfering in elections worldwide, far more than Russia with its limited resources, and even carrying out regime change.

If the Kremlin's objective were truly to undermine American democracy, a task that is already being undertaken very ably by the GOP and Democrats, hundreds of officers would be involved, all working under deep cover and operating securely out of dispersed sites. And no one involved would be using computers connected to networks that could be penetrated to enable personal identification or discovery of the ultimate source of the activity. Everyone would be working in alias on stand-alone machines and the transmission of information would be done using cut-outs to break any chain of custody. A cut-out might consist of using thumb drives to transmit information from one computer to another, for example. There would be no sending or receiving of information by channels that could be identified by NSA or CIA and compromised.

So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a loss to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together of the leaders of the world's two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

[Jul 20, 2018] US diplomats act like imperial governors riding roughshod over sovereignty of

Notable quotes:
"... pronunciamentos ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from RT . ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

national governments by John Laughland

July 19, 2018

On the world's Grand Chessboard, the US is fighting for control and influence. And there are countries where its ambassadors are perceived more as imperial governors than simple channels of communication.

At the height of the Maidan protests in Kiev in early 2014, a conversation was leaked between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the then-Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland. The conversation gained notoriety because Nuland said to Pyatt, "F**k the EU" and the recording was almost instantly available on Youtube .

More shocking than Nuland's bad language, however, was what the conversation was about. The US government officials were discussing how to put their men into power in Ukraine - which of the three then opposition factions would dominate, who would take the lead (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) and who would be excluded (Vladimir Klitschko). At the time of this conversation, early February 2014, their enemy Viktor Yanukovych was still president. The leaked recording proved that the US and its Kiev embassy were actively involved in a regime change operation. The composition of the post-Maidan government corresponded exactly with US plans.

What few people knew at the time was that such levels of control over the composition of foreign governments had become standard practice for US embassies all over the world. As I could see on my very numerous travels around the Balkans in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the US ambassador was treated by the political class and the media in those countries not as the officially accredited representative of a foreign government but instead as an imperial governor whose pronunciamentos were more important than those of the national government.

This has been going on for decades, although the levels of control exercised by the United States increased as it rushed to fill the political vacuum created by the collapse of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe after 1989. In earlier times, such control, especially regime change operations, had to be conducted either covertly, as with the overthrow of Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953, or by financing and arming an anti-government militia, such as in Nicaragua and elsewhere in central and South America, or by encouraging the army itself, most famously in Chile in 1973. There is a huge body of literature on this vast subject (for the coup against Mosaddegh, see especially "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer, 2003) and there is no possibility of denying that such operations took place. Indeed, former CIA director, James Woolsey, recently admitted that they continue to this day.

Many of the ambassadors who engineered or attempted regime change operations in Eastern Europe and the former USSR had cut their teeth in Latin America in 1980s and 1990s. One of them, Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, even boasted in a letter to The Guardian in 2001 that he was doing the same thing in Minsk as he had done in Managua. He wrote: "As regards parallels between Nicaragua in 1989-90 and Belarus today, I plead guilty. Our objective and to some degree methodology are the same."

Kozak did not mention that he also played a key role in the overthrow of General Noriega in Panama in 1989 but he is far from alone. The experience accumulated by the Americans during the Cold War, including in major European countries like Italy where US interference was key to preventing Communist victories in elections, spawned a whole generation of Kermit Roosevelts (the architect of the coup against Mosaddegh) who have made their careers over decades in the State Department. Some names, such as that of Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia who made no secret of his opposition to the president of the state to which he was accredited, will be familiar to RT readers.

Two years after the violent overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, which he helped coordinate, Geoffrey Pyatt was appointed US ambassador to Greece. He remains in that post to this day - which is why some are asking whether his hand might be behind last week's expulsion of Russian diplomats from Athens. Greece and Russia have customarily had good relations but they differ on the Macedonian issue. Now, the Greek government headed by the "pseudo-Euroskeptic" Alexis Tsipras, claims that four Russian diplomats were engaged in covert operations in Greece to lobby against forcing Macedonia to change its official name.
Like almost every other political issue these days, this relatively arcane one is regarded through the distorting prism of alleged Russian " interference ": any decision which does not consolidate the power of American-dominated supranational structures like the US or the EU is now routinely attributed to all-pervasive Russian influence, as if all dissidents were foreign agents. Western discussion of this subject now resembles the paranoia of the old Soviet regime, and of its satellites in Eastern Europe, which similarly attacked anti-Communists for being "fifth columnists" - the very phrase used by a prominent European politician last month to lambast all his enemies as Russian stooges.

US influence is suspected in this case between Greece and Macedonia because the Americans are pushing to bring the whole of the Balkan peninsula under Western control. This has been policy for nearly thirty years - at least since the Yugoslav wars led to a US-brokered peace deal in Bosnia in 1995. In recent years the tempo has quickened, with the accession of Montenegro to NATO last year leaving only Macedonia and Serbia as missing pieces of the puzzle. The Greek victory over the name of Macedonia removes the last obstacle to that country's accession to NATO and other "Euro-Atlantic structures" like the EU and soon only Serbia will be left. Will she last long?

One of the most notorious anecdotes of the Second World War was told by Churchill. While in Moscow in 1944, he and Stalin divided up Eastern Europe and the Balkans into spheres of influence, putting percentage figures to show the respective weight of the West and the USSR - 10:90 in Greece, 50:50 Yugoslavia, 25:75 in Bulgaria, and so on. Churchill recalls how this so-called Percentages Agreement was concluded in a few minutes, and how he scribbled a note of their verbal agreement on a piece of paper which Stalin glanced at for a second and then ticked off. Churchill wrote, "It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down."

Churchill then reflected that it might seem cynical to decide the fate of millions of people in such an offhand manner. Later generations have generally agreed with his self-criticism. Today's West would certainly never conclude such an agreement - but not because of any squeamishness or lack of cynicism on its part. Instead, the West, especially the US, could not conclude any agreement because in every case the only acceptable outcome would be 100% influence for itself. That is what Geoffrey Pyatt and his colleagues spend their entire careers trying to achieve - and, to a large extent, they succeed.

Reprinted with permission from RT .

[Jul 20, 2018] Trump Stays Defiant Amid a Foreign Policy Establishment Gone Mad The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Trump Stays Defiant Amid a Foreign Policy Establishment Gone Mad By Patrick J. Buchanan • July 20, 2018, 12:01 AM

lev radin / Shutterstock.com "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which presidents can be impeached.

And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.

Trump's refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin's claim at Helsinki that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton's campaign has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former director of the CIA.

Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia's hacking of the DNC "an act of war" comparable to Pearl Harbor.

The New York Times ran a story on the many now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.

Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: "Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"

Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.

Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a "conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy" have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream, today it is the establishment itself bawling "Treason!"

What explains the hysteria?

The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is hard to credit. Like the boy who cried "Wolf!" they have cried "Fascist!" too many times to be taken seriously.

A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR's concentration camps for Japanese Americans.

Other commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.

If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the levers of power ever again.

Using Occam's razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America's elites have been driven over the edge by Trump's successes and their failures to block him.

Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.

Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along with Vladimir Putin.

"Over our dead bodies!" the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.

Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin's poodle, fascist, demagogue, traitor, Nazi.

Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders whether the haters are considering the impact of the words they so casually use. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs far less toxic than this.

The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president's enemies, but the depth of their determination to destroy him.

They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted, and prosecuted, and the agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.

Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance: "The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war," he tweeted. "They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I'll probably have a good relationship with Putin."

Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin's pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.

Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.

Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country.

Yet should he attempt to carry out his agenda -- to get out of Syria, pull troops from Germany, and take a second look at NATO's Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never heard of -- he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.

This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.

By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most: irrelevance.

For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Jul 20, 2018] Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller

Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , July 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal

"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi "

What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller: " it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.

There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia." http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html

The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the untouchables, unlike Assange: https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html

[Jul 20, 2018] The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM

This is a war propaganda. Plain and simple. Looks like MIC like cancel is destroying this country like it destroyed the USSR.
Notable quotes:
"... They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War. We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever. ..."
"... From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions, to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government," etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response. ..."
"... If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia? ..."
"... Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and silly. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Den Lille Abe , July 20, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT

The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War. We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever.

The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new Apartheid state.

Harold Smith , July 20, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"

Wait; what?

From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions, to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government," etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response.

If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia?

Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown. If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.

Mike P , July 20, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and silly.

AnonFromTN , July 20, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the pattern.
AnonFromTN , July 20, 2018 at 4:30 pm GMT
@Dillon Sweeny

You mean, s/he/it is a self-parody? The US MSM, State Department, Congress, and Administration all became self-parodies lately. It would have been funny if it weren't so sad.

[Jul 20, 2018] Russophobia is running amok in this country

Jul 20, 2018 | twitter.com

VICE News ‏ Verified account @ vicenews Jul 17

There's a small but vocal group of American scholars who say that anti-Russian hysteria is on the rise. We met with two of them to hear their admittedly unpopular case for the rightness of Russia.

(via @HBO ) pic.twitter.com/sm6pmhmEkO

-- VICE News (@vicenews) July 17, 2018

[Jul 20, 2018] Tucker Carlson The Cold War Is Over. The World Has Changed. Time To Rethink America's Alliances

Highly recommended!
Hat tip to 'Russiagate' - Attack On Our Values Or Power Of War Propaganda by The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Notable quotes:
"... "The people yelling the loudest about how the Russians are our greatest enemy and Trump is their puppet happen to be the very same people who have been mismanaging our foreign policy for the past two decades, the people who invaded Iraq and wouldn't admit it was a mistake, the people who killed Muammar Gaddafi for no obvious reason and prolonged the horrible Syrian civil war and then threw open the borders of Europe, the ones still defending the pointless Afghan conflict and even now planning brand-new disasters around the world in Lebanon, Iran and, yes, in Russia," Carlson explained. ..."
Jul 20, 2018 | www.realclearpolitics.com

On Tuesday's broadcast of his FOX News show, Tucker Carlson delivered a monologue on Trump's critics hate the idea of rethinking or correcting any of the countless blunders they've made over the years. On the big questions, Trump is indisputably right: The Cold War is over. The world has changed. It is time to rethink America's alliances, and act in our own interests for once, Carlson said.

"The people yelling the loudest about how the Russians are our greatest enemy and Trump is their puppet happen to be the very same people who have been mismanaging our foreign policy for the past two decades, the people who invaded Iraq and wouldn't admit it was a mistake, the people who killed Muammar Gaddafi for no obvious reason and prolonged the horrible Syrian civil war and then threw open the borders of Europe, the ones still defending the pointless Afghan conflict and even now planning brand-new disasters around the world in Lebanon, Iran and, yes, in Russia," Carlson explained.

"These are people who've made America weaker and poor and sadder, the group whose failures got Trump elected in the first place," he said. "You'd think by this late date they would be discredited completely and unemployable, wearing uniforms and picking up trash by the side of the turnpike somewhere, but, no, they're not."

[Jul 19, 2018] Trump-Putin summit induced the neoliberal ruling classes hysteria or How to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism

So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia. ..."
"... And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment ..."
"... In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Extracted from: Trump's Treasonous Traitor Summit or How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism by CJ Hopkins

So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.

The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian Gestapo.

The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.

And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.

In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular baby concentration camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled brains of Western liberals, but given the imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).

[Jul 19, 2018] Putin Asked Trump Permission to Interrogate Obama's Ambassador

Notable quotes:
"... McFaul: "Russia made the whole story up." Typical projection. And Browder only became a critic of Putin (the russian justice system) after his criminal enterprise was uncovered. ..."
"... As a "red blooded, Bible believing American", one who has served under oath, and know the duties and penalties, I suggest it's perhaps the best "diplomatic move" seen since Mr. Putin took up the Secretary of State's offer, took Syria's chemical weapons, and took up truly ridding the Nation of terrorists, both those of Saudi, and those my own government made. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | russia-insider.com

This is pure brilliance on Russia's part. It wont happen, but it draws attention to the Browder story, and discredits McFaul by association. Very smart. Update : It appears Michael McFaul is really getting nervous, tweeting like a teenager on meth tonight:

"I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy US indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented by Putin"

me title=

With The White House flip-flopping back and forth on what was actually said - and meant to be said - in Helsinki, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dropped the latest tape-bomb to blow the establishment's mind during to today's press conference.

Sanders reported that President Trump is open to a proposal from Vladimir Putin to let Russian authorities question the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul .

While Trump reportedly made no commitments to Putin, the Russian president offered to allow Special Counsel Robert Mueller to observe interrogations of the 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week for hacking Democratic Party email accounts.

Trump called it an "interesting idea" and an "incredible offer" at the news conference.

Sanders left the press corps dangling by concluding that:

"The president will work with his team and we'll let you know if there's an announcement on that front."

As The Hill reports, Russia state-owned outlet RT reported that Russia wanted to question McFaul and the author of the so-called Steele dossier, Christopher Steele, among others in its investigation into American financier Bill Browder.

Browder is a prominent critic of Putin who lobbied on behalf of the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions against Russia.

McFaul has denounced the possibility of his being questioned by Russian officials, and has called on Trump to condemn the proposal .

"Putin has been harassing me for a long time," McFaul said on Twitter on Wednesday.

"That he now wants to arrest me, however, takes it to a new level. I expect my government to defend me and my colleagues in public and private ."

And went on...

Does he seem nervous to you?

Source: Zero Hedge Putin Asked Trump Permission to Interrogate Obama's Ambassador This is pure brilliance on Russia's part. It wont happen, but it draws attention to the Browder story, and discredits McFaul by association. Very smart. Tyler Durden 11 hours ago | 1,727 41 MORE: Politics Update : It appears Michael McFaul is really getting nervous, tweeting like a teenager on meth tonight:

"I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy US indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented by Putin"

With The White House flip-flopping back and forth on what was actually said - and meant to be said - in Helsinki, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dropped the latest tape-bomb to blow the establishment's mind during to today's press conference.

Sanders reported that President Trump is open to a proposal from Vladimir Putin to let Russian authorities question the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul .

While Trump reportedly made no commitments to Putin, the Russian president offered to allow Special Counsel Robert Mueller to observe interrogations of the 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week for hacking Democratic Party email accounts.

Trump called it an "interesting idea" and an "incredible offer" at the news conference.

Sanders left the press corps dangling by concluding that:

"The president will work with his team and we'll let you know if there's an announcement on that front."

As The Hill reports, Russia state-owned outlet RT reported that Russia wanted to question McFaul and the author of the so-called Steele dossier, Christopher Steele, among others in its investigation into American financier Bill Browder.

Browder is a prominent critic of Putin who lobbied on behalf of the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions against Russia.

McFaul has denounced the possibility of his being questioned by Russian officials, and has called on Trump to condemn the proposal .

"Putin has been harassing me for a long time," McFaul said on Twitter on Wednesday.

"That he now wants to arrest me, however, takes it to a new level. I expect my government to defend me and my colleagues in public and private ."

And went on... Does he seem nervous to you?

Source: Zero Hedge

ole • 11 hours ago ,

McFaul: "Russia made the whole story up." Typical projection. And Browder only became a critic of Putin (the russian justice system) after his criminal enterprise was uncovered.

mis dos centavos • 11 hours ago ,

Considering McFaul is just another Pyatt, all his 'Russia made up" nonsense is hardly worth an afterthought. He's in dirt up to his ears.

mis dos centavos mis dos centavos • 11 hours ago ,

Only reason he couldn't get to square one pulling off a Pyatt was because he had no banderite fascist-style goon squads in Russia under his command.

mis dos centavos mis dos centavos • 11 hours ago ,

Think about that one, Mr. McFoul. It's not only Russia that can read you like a book.

mis dos centavos mis dos centavos • 9 hours ago ,

I did like this one review of your insightful book, Mr. McFoul. If I send you the review, will you sign it? I'd be honored. Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin By Michael McFaul, Cornell University Press, 2001
http://exiledonline.com/mik...

This book is a four-hundred page testimonial to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American Russia-watching mafia. In its pages, Michael McFaul condemns himself again and again with staggering non-sequiturs, self-serving lies, crude misrepresentations of his own past and the recent history of Russia, and repeated failures to meet even the most basic standards of academic rigor.

tom • 11 hours ago ,

Mr McFaul seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of law and a justice system. If he is indicted by the Russian courts and required for questioning, why is that any different from Russian "suspects" being indicted by US courts and required for questioning? Until the justice system has made its inquiries and run its course, no one can know for sure whether Mr McFaul is guilty of crimes or not. So why does he demand total immunity from justice in such a peremptory, entitled way?

Surely it can't be because he feels that Americans are in any way "superior", "exceptional", or immune from justice? Surely Mr McFaul isn't a crude common-or-garden racist? Surely...?

jsinton tom • 8 hours ago ,

The rub here is the ambassador enjoys diplomatic immunity from prosecution for events that might have occurred during his tenure in Moscow from Russian courts. If the Trump DOJ decides he should face the music then he has no immunity.

Bad boy!! Otto!! tom • 6 hours ago ,

Your third question answers your second question almost perfectly. Because he feels that Americans are in every way "superior", "exceptional", and should be immune from justice, no matter how heinous the crimes they have committed. There fixed it for ya. :-)

Brian Eggar • 5 hours ago ,

What a circus and what a lot of clowns. As they say, nobody is above the law or at least they shouldn't be. I would say that Mr McFaul does protest too much and judging by his rattled statements appears that he has something to hide. Getting back to basics where is the $400K and how did it get there and did any go missing on the way?

David James • 7 hours ago ,

Bonobo Administration exempt from Law, Prosecution or scrutiny---via the CIA.

Truth • 11 hours ago ,

McFaul is a bag boy shabbos goy for the Jooz that are trying to re-steal (1917, 1991, 2014) Russian wealth. Browder was a discarded Rothschild foreskin.

Constantine BMWA1 • 6 hours ago ,

Earl Browder was lauding Soviet Russia and its successes. He didn't fleece the Russian people. His grandson is a parasite that hates Russia and has siphoned his ill-gotten gains from the country. No comparison.

Kjell Hasthi • 8 hours ago ,

The interesting side of the story is Trump can say yes as president. Not much Michael McFaul can do then? It will turn MSM Media upside down. Btw. NSA can give tips to the Russians about what to ask. They know everything. Assad probably would also like to question McCain regarding illegal stay in Syria

Tommy Jensen Kjell Hasthi • 5 hours ago ,

What I like most of all is Trump´s comment "an interesting idea and an incredible offer". ha ha ha ha ha ha. It will probably not be possible to realize, but it shows Trump is not stupid at all.

Merijn • 10 hours ago ,

Pay Back Time: Puppeticians will be taken out... One at the time...the Longer the Fun will Last...Russia just make all their Lies Visible... it is a very Strong Weapon... People are Tired and fed up with Liars, Traitors & Deceivers... Yesterday they caught our Foreign Minister Blok with some nice Statements...He's like a gut-Shot animal at the moment...one more Trick and He is Exit....just keep an eye on him...

https://www.aljazeera.com/n...
Stef Blok... You are a complete idiot... take your stuff and Buzz Off...the IMF or the European Union always can use Some Retarded Ex-Puppeticians Like You...

Ray Douglas • 4 hours ago ,

I wouldn't advise Trump to go to Dallas.

Koroviev,Behemoth&Woland LLP • 5 hours ago ,

View Hide

Snowglobe • 20 minutes ago ,

Lee Stranahan Exposes Bill Browder, The Man Mentioned By Putin In Helsinki Summit Play Hide

Solzhenitsyn fan • an hour ago ,

Putin is not 8 Dan for nothing! Absolutely brilliant!

In the news:
https://www.smh.com.au/worl...

"Trump invited Putin to Washington for summit: White House". Washington: President Donald Trump invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to Washington for a summit in the northern autumn. "In Helsinki, @POTUS agreed to ongoing working level dialogue between the two security council staffs," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a tweet on Thursday. "President Trump asked @AmbJohnBolton to invite President Putin to Washington in the fall and those discussions are already underway.

Sanders announced the invitation less than an hour after the Republican-led Senate effectively rebuked President Donald Trump for considering Russia's request to question US officials, giving voice to growing unease over the president's relationship with Putin following their summit in Helsinki on Monday...

Bobbie Taylor • an hour ago ,

Russia should be allowed to question McFaul. We should honor the treaty. Unfortunately, the intelligence agencies have more power than the president at this point. They want to assassinate him.

Haut • 4 hours ago ,

Everything about this guy just smells, Foul Lol

John McClain • 4 hours ago ,

As a "red blooded, Bible believing American", one who has served under oath, and know the duties and penalties, I suggest it's perhaps the best "diplomatic move" seen since Mr. Putin took up the Secretary of State's offer, took Syria's chemical weapons, and took up truly ridding the Nation of terrorists, both those of Saudi, and those my own government made.

I was afraid for a bit, Syria was going to be broken, and I've served beside Syrian Army in Beirut, I respect them highly, consider them among the best professionals, as the world can easily see they are, and I hate what a criminal cadre are doing to my Country, while we enjoy our sit/coms and beer, and eat snacks and get fat.

God Bless Russia and President Putin, "it take's a man to make a man", is an old saying, and the same is true for Nations, I expect.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC, USA

Snowglobe • 4 hours ago ,

LOL! Thank you Mr. Putin! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Keep poking these idiots with a stick. :-)

Tommy Jensen Lycan Thrope • 5 hours ago ,

There is only one solution for uncle Sam.
View Hide

Maria Angelica Brunell Solar Lycan Thrope • 4 hours ago ,

You did not understand the proposal. Russian police interrogates the indicted Russian officials, and Mueller and team can be given permission to enter Russia and watch the interrogations. American police interrogates Browder and accomplices, and Russian police can be given permission to enter the US and watch the proceedings. Completely fair and transparent, according to existing Treaty between the 2 countries. Nobody can be extradited, because there is no extradition treaty between the countries.

Leon • 6 hours ago ,

If Russia is doing killing and poisoning, how come Soros and Browder are not killed, if anybody deserves - here are two biggest criminals and both of them are Joos.

[Jul 19, 2018] America Overrules Trump No Peace with Russia by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept. ..."
"... American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries. ..."
"... The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene ..."
"... There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship. ..."
"... There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is "normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact. ..."
"... A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate. Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept.

American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries. The only way that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea can reach an agreement with Washington is to become vassals like the UK, all of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia.

The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene. Putin is incorrect that US-Russian relations are being held hostage to an internal US political struggle between the two parties. The Republicans are just as insane and just as hostile to President Trump's effort to improve American-Russian relations as the Democrats, as Donald Jeffries reminds us .

The American rightwing is just as opposed as the leftwing. Only a few experts, such as Stephen Cohen and Amb. Jack Matlock , President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, have spoken out in support of Trump's attempt to reduce the dangerous tensions between the nuclear powers. Only a few pundits have explained the actual facts and the stakes.

There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship. Not for any other reason.

There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is "normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact.

A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate. Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true.

[Jul 19, 2018] The Russian US Election Meddling Big Lie Won't Die by Stephen Lendman

Notable quotes:
"... Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in America's deep state playbook. ..."
"... Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim. ..."
"... Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington. Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in America's deep state playbook.

Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim.

Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia meddled in America's political process – nothing.

Yet an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed most Americans believe the Russia did it Big Lie. A months earlier Gallup poll showed three-fourths of Americans view Vladimir Putin unfavorably.

Americans are easy marks to be fooled. No matter how many times they were deceived before, they're easily manipulated to believe most anything drummed into their minds by the power of repetitious propaganda – fed them through through the major media megaphone – in lockstep with the official falsified narrative.

America's dominant media serve as a propaganda platform for US imperial and monied interests – acting as agents of deception, betraying their readers and viewers time and again instead of informing them responsibly.

CNN presstitute Poppy Harlow played a clip on air of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asking Putin in Helsinki the following question:

"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"

Putin said: "Yes," he wanted Trump to win "because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal," as translated from his Russian language response.

Here's the precise translation of his remark:

"Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the need to normalize US-Russia relations," adding:

"Isn't it natural to have sympathy towards a man who wants to restore relations with your country? That's normal."

Putin did not address the fabricated official narrative notion that he directed his officials to help Trump win. Yet CNN's Harlow claimed otherwise, falsely claiming he ordered Kremlin officials to help Trump triumph over Hillary.

He did nothing of the kind or say it, nor did any other Kremlin officials. No evidence proves otherwise – nothing but baseless accusations supported only by the power of deceptive propaganda.

Time and again, CNN, the NYT, and rest of America's dominant media prove themselves untrustworthy.

They consistently abandon journalism the way it's supposed to be, notably on geopolitical issues, especially on war and peace and anything about Russia.

After rejecting, or at least doubting, the official narrative about alleged Russian meddling in the US political process to aid his election, Trump backtracked post-Helsinki – capitulating to deep state power.

First in the White House, he said he misspoke abroad – then on CBS News Wednesday night, saying it's "true," deplorably adding:

Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, and he "would" hold Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible for the interference – that didn't occur, he failed to stress.

Here's his verbatim exchange with CBS anchor Jeff Glor :

GLOR: "You say you agree with US intelligence that Russia meddled in the election in 2016."

TRUMP: "Yeah and I've said that before, Jeff. I have said that numerous times before, and I would say that is true, yeah."

GLOR: "But you haven't condemned Putin, specifically. Do you hold him personally responsible?"

TRUMP: "Well, I would, because he's in charge of the country. Just like I consider myself to be responsible for things that happen in this country. So certainly as the leader of a country you would have to hold him responsible, yes."

GLOR: "What did you say to him?"

TRUMP: "Very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling. We can't have any of that – now look. We're also living in a grown-up world."

"Will a strong statement – you know – President Obama supposedly made a strong statement. Nobody heard it."

"What they did hear is a statement he made to Putin's very close friend. And that statement was not acceptable. Didn't get very much play relatively speaking. But that statement was not acceptable."

"But I let him know we can't have this. We're not going to have it, and that's the way it's going to be."

There you have it – Trump capitulating to America's deep state over Russia on national television.

From day one in power, he caved to the national security state, Wall Street, and other monied interests over popular ones.

The sole redeeming part of his agenda was wanting improved relations with Russia and Vladimir Putin personally – preferring peace over possible confrontation, wanting the threat of nuclear war defused.

Despite tweeting post-Helsinki that he and Putin "got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match," his remarks on CBS News showed he'll continue dirty US business as usual toward Russia.

Anything positive from summit talks appears abandoned by capitulating to deep state power controlling him and his agenda.

Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington. Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies.

Will Americans go along with sacrificing vital freedoms for greater security from invented enemies – losing both? Will US belligerent confrontation with Russia inevitably follow? Will mushroom-shaped denouement eventually kill us all?

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org ( Home – Stephen Lendman ). Contact at [email protected] .

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html "

[Jul 19, 2018] Iraqi protesters blame 'bad government, bad roads, bad people' by Patrick Cockburn

Notable quotes:
"... The Independent ..."
"... Read the first piece in Patrick Cockburn's latest series, 'Catastrophic drought threatens Iraq as major dams in surrounding countries cut off water to its great rivers', here . ..."
"... Part II, 'For this Iraqi tribe massacred by Isis, fear of the group's return is a constant reality', here ..."
"... Part III, 'After series of calamitous defeats, is Isis about to lose its last town?', here . ..."
"... Part III, 'Iraq unrest: Chaos reigns in the country even Saddam Hussein 'found difficult to rule', here. ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

"The people want an end to the parties," chanted protesters, adapting a famous slogan of the Arab Spring , as they stormed the governor's office and the international airport in the Shia holy city of Najaf.

Part of the wave of demonstrations sweeping across central and southern Iraq, they demanded jobs, electricity, water and an end to the mass theft of Iraq's oil wealth by the political parties.

Beginning on 8 July, the protests are the biggest and most prolonged in a country where anti-government action has usually taken the form of armed insurgency.

The demonstrations are taking place in the heartlands of the Shia majority, reflecting their outrage at living on top of some of the world's largest oilfields, but seeing their families barely survive in squalor and poverty.

The protests began in Basra, Iraq's third largest city which is at the centre of 70 per cent of its oil production. A hand-written placard held up by one demonstrator neatly expresses popular frustration. It read:

"2,500,000 barrels daily
Price of each barrel = $70
2,500,000 x $70 = zero !!
Sorry Pythagoras, we are in Basra"

The protests quickly spread to eight other provinces, including Najaf, Kerbala, Nasariya and Amara.

In several places, the offices of the Dawa Party, to which the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi belongs, were burned or attacked, along with those of parties whom people blame for looting oil revenues worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the 15 years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

As the situation deteriorated, Mr Abadi flew to Basra on 13 July, promising to make $3bn available to improve services and provide more jobs. After he left, his hotel was invaded by protesters.

The credibility of almost all Iraqi politicians is at a low ebb, the acute feeling of disillusionment illustrated by the low 44.5 per cent turnout in the parliamentary election on 12 May that produced no outright winner.

The poll was unexpectedly topped by the Sairoun movement of the populist nationalist cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who has encouraged his followers to start protests against government corruption and lack of services since 2015.

The Sadrists, who emphasised their socially and economically progressive programme by allying themselves with the Iraqi Communist Party in the election, are playing a role in the current protests.

The demonstrations are also backed by the prestigious Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. At ground level, political activists and tribal leaders have set up a joint committee called "the Coordination Board for Peaceful Protests and Demonstrations in Basra", its purpose being to produce a list of demands, unite the protest movement, and keep their actions non-violent.

"The ends don't justify the means," says the committee in a statement. "Let us, being oppressed, not lead to the oppression of others."

A list of 17 demands is headed by one asking for a government timetable for supplying water and electricity, both of which are short at a time of year when the temperature sometime exceeds 50C, making it one of the hottest places on earth.

Local people claim that the last time that the port city of Basra, once called the Venice of the Gulf, had an adequate supply of drinking water was in 1982. Iran had been supplying some extra electricity, but has cut this back because of its own needs and failure of Iraq to pay on time.

The second demand of the protesters is for jobs with "priority to the competent sons of Basra", the discharge of foreign labourers and employment for a quarter of people living in the oilfields.

Lack of jobs is a source of continuing complaint all over Iraq. Much of its oil income already goes on paying 4.5 million state employees, but between 400,000 and 420,000 young people enter the workforce every year with little prospects of employment.

Anger towards the entire political class is intense because it is seen as a kleptocratic group which syphoned off money in return for contracts that existed only on paper and produced no new power plants, bridges or roads.

Political parties are at the centre of this corruption because they choose ministries, according to their share of the vote in elections or their sectarian affiliation, which they then treat as cash cows and sources of patronage and contracts.

Plundering like this and handing out of jobs to unqualified people means that many government institutions have become incapable of performing any useful function.

Radical reform is difficult because the whole system is saturated by corruption and incompetence. Technocrats without party backing who are parachuted into ministries become isolated and ineffective.

One party leader told The Independent that he thought that the best that could be done "would be to insist that the parties appoint properly qualified people to top jobs."

The defeat of Isis in 2017 with the recapture of Mosul means that Iraqis are no longer absorbed in keeping their families safe so they have they have more time to consider "corruption" – a word they use not just to mean bribery but the parasitic nature of the government system as a whole.

There is a general mood of cynicism and dissatisfaction with the way things are run.

"Bad government, bad roads, bad weather, bad people," exclaimed one Iraqi friend driving on an ill-maintained road.

Corrupt motives are ascribed to everything that happens: a series of unexplained fires in Baghdad in June were being ascribed to government employees stealing from state depots and then concealing their crime by setting fire to the building and destroying it.

Given that the Iraqi security forces are primarily recruited from the areas in which the protests are taking place, the government will need to be careful about the degree of repression it can use safely.

Some eight protesters have been killed so far by the police , who are using rubber bullets, water cannon and rubber hoses to beat people.

ORDER IT NOW

The armed forces have been placed on high alert. Three regiments of the elite Counter-Terrorism Service, which led the attack on Mosul and is highly regarded and well disciplined, has been ordered south to cope with protests and away from places where there is still residual activity by Isis.

The protests are largely spontaneous, but the Sadrists, whose offices have not been attacked by crowds, want to put pressure on Mr Abadi, Dawa and other parties to form a coalition government with a reform programme.

Many protesters express anti-Tehran slogans, tearing up pictures of Iranian spiritual leaders such as Ayatollah Khomeini and the current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. They blame Iran for supporting corrupt parties and governments in Iraq.

Protesters have so far escalated their actions slowly, gathering at the entrances to the major oil and gas facilities, but not disrupting the 3.6 million barrel a day production. If this happens, it would affect a significant portion of world crude output.

Iraq's corrupt and dysfunctional governing system may be too set in its profitable ways to be reformed, but, if the ruling elite wants to survive, it must give ordinary Iraqi a larger share of the oil revenue cake.

Read the first piece in Patrick Cockburn's latest series, 'Catastrophic drought threatens Iraq as major dams in surrounding countries cut off water to its great rivers', here .

Part II, 'For this Iraqi tribe massacred by Isis, fear of the group's return is a constant reality', here

Part III, 'After series of calamitous defeats, is Isis about to lose its last town?', here .

Part III, 'Iraq unrest: Chaos reigns in the country even Saddam Hussein 'found difficult to rule', here.

Echoes of History , July 18, 2018 at 2:59 am GMT

The ratio of people to cake is too big.
PJ London , July 18, 2018 at 8:46 pm GMT
"Oh for the good old days when Saddam was running things."
Johann Ricke , July 19, 2018 at 12:23 am GMT
@PJ London

"Oh for the good old days when Saddam was running things."

Electricity production in Iraq overall is superior to what it was during Saddam's rule. But availability is not 24/365, which is presumably what they're demanding:

Prewar Baghdad had electricity 16 to 24 hours per day and was favored for distribution. The remainder of Iraq received 4–8 hours of electricity per day.[6] Post war, Baghdad no longer has priority and therefore both Baghdad and the country as a whole received on average 15.5 hours of electricity per day as of February 2010.[7]

If they want some facsimile of Saddam's rule back, they could easily elect the Sunni Arab parties to power. Which they haven't. Demonstrations were rare during Saddam's reign because he killed the opposition and consigned those he did not kill to Abu Ghraib, where they were raped and/or beaten to within an inch of their lives.

Shiites were unhappy with American occupation because they thought the only thing keeping them from becoming a Shiite version of Saudi Arabia, economically-speaking was an American plot to steal their oil and sow division in the country. After GI's left, they discovered, through ISIS's long record of victories, that Sunni Arabs really, really don't like being ruled by Shiites, and that Iraq's Sunni Arabs really are better at military endeavors than the Shiites or the Kurds. They are fortunate that Uncle Sam came to their rescue, yet again.

It's becoming clear that the Iraq's Shiite Arabs and Kurds could never have lifted the Sunni Arab foot from their necks by their own efforts. The question is whether their history books will ever reflect this truth.

[Jul 19, 2018] Two Keywords For US Imperialism Justification And Plausibility

Notable quotes:
"... Naturally, these are excuses meant to be peddled in the international arena. There is no justification for bombing a nation, completely destroying its services and infrastructure, and killing tens of thousands of its innocent people. ..."
"... But US imperialism works like a steam-roller. The artful fabrication of a humanitarian cause gives the green light to rain down bombs to save the poor and downtrodden civilians. All this is possible thanks to the nauseating and false media rhetoric that creates the ideal conditions needed to justify the horrible war crime that is aggression against a sovereign nation. ..."
"... In more recent times, this strategy of war based on (spurious) justifications has added a new type of ploy that is much more subtle and suitable for imperialist ends. Since Washington has lost the ability to decide the situation on the ground in different war theaters like in Iraq and Syria, it settles for sowing chaos and destruction. ..."
"... This is done through the employment of plausible deniability, which helps mask covert operations. An example can be seen in Syria, where Washington arms the Free Syrian Army (FSA), an insurgency group labelled "moderate rebels", but these weapons somehow seem to find their way into the hands of Al Nusra and Daesh. This situation has been going on for years, with Washington using Daesh and Al Nusra to fight against Assad, being able to plausible deny doing so by professing to be only arming the moderate rebels and not the extremist terrorists. ..."
"... Clearly we are facing an obvious case of plausible deniabIlity. The United States claims to be arming only the "rebels" in its efforts to remove Assad, but in reality these rebels do not exist and are merely different acronyms for various Islamist extremists. It is therefore natural that the arms given to the rebels will wind up in the hands of ISIS or Al Nusra. On the rare occasions that journalists enquire as to how US weapons have ended up in the hands of Daesh or Al Nusra, US authorities can plausibly deny that they are intentionally arming any extremist groups. ..."
"... Clearly there is no justification, or any plausible denial, that can exonerate the United States from the seventy-year attempt to consolidate its power over other countries or prevent them from pursuing foreign policies independently of Washington. But what is increasingly noticeable is how, thanks to more and more good reporting from alternative news sources, the justifications for war and plausible denials carry less and less credibility with the wider population. ..."
"... The new perspective provided by the alternative media is ripping apart the lies of the past regarding Iraq, Syria, Yemen or Donbass, showing as fabrications the justifications used to drop bombs, kill civilians, subjugate entire populations in order to advance the US geopolitical goals. ..."
"... The three examples of Iraq, Libya and Obama himself represent the greatest expression of American deception, namely, the portrayal of the US as fighting for a noble cause, sacrificing itself for the sake of humanity in order to confront and overcome tyranny . But reality paints a different picture, showing the US as the bringer of chaos and destruction. It is the revelation of these lies more than anything else that can accelerate the global awakening and complete the rejection of imperialism that relies on false justifications and plausible denials to succeed. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

07/19/2018 Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Observing the behavior of the United States over recent decades, it becomes clear that the American establishment has always relied on two fundamental factors to justify choices in foreign policy.

We have been accustomed in recent years to humanitarian interventions being justified on the assumption that the United States and the West were in some way intervening militarily in the interests of defending innocent civilians from brutal dictators. This justification for armed intervention has either been the key factor or the direct cause for the expansion of US imperialism.

The use of the media as an instrument of war – with lies, artfully constructed stories, intentional omissions, and targeted disinformation – has helped US imperialism to justify armed interventions abroad.

There is always some sort of justification, rationale or pretext offered when Washington intervenes to bring about conflict. These excuses were showcased in Yugoslavia in 1999, in Afghanistan in 2002, in Iraq in 2003, and in Libya in 2011. With Yugoslavia and Libya, the lie of protecting human rights was the justification offered to the public. The September 11, 2001 attacks were used to justify attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003, pointing the finger of blame at these countries. The war on terror in general offered a perfect justification for bringing about chaos in every corner of the world.

Naturally, these are excuses meant to be peddled in the international arena. There is no justification for bombing a nation, completely destroying its services and infrastructure, and killing tens of thousands of its innocent people.

But US imperialism works like a steam-roller. The artful fabrication of a humanitarian cause gives the green light to rain down bombs to save the poor and downtrodden civilians. All this is possible thanks to the nauseating and false media rhetoric that creates the ideal conditions needed to justify the horrible war crime that is aggression against a sovereign nation.

Such justifications constitute some of the most deceptive and aggressive imperialist tools employed by the Euro-American power conglomerate to impose its unipolar vision of international relations and strong-arm those seeking a new path in international relations. The objective is to disrupt (with bombs and propaganda) the vision these countries have of fixing the corrupt and sickening world order guided by Washington.

In more recent times, this strategy of war based on (spurious) justifications has added a new type of ploy that is much more subtle and suitable for imperialist ends. Since Washington has lost the ability to decide the situation on the ground in different war theaters like in Iraq and Syria, it settles for sowing chaos and destruction.

This is done through the employment of plausible deniability, which helps mask covert operations. An example can be seen in Syria, where Washington arms the Free Syrian Army (FSA), an insurgency group labelled "moderate rebels", but these weapons somehow seem to find their way into the hands of Al Nusra and Daesh. This situation has been going on for years, with Washington using Daesh and Al Nusra to fight against Assad, being able to plausible deny doing so by professing to be only arming the moderate rebels and not the extremist terrorists.

Clearly we are facing an obvious case of plausible deniabIlity. The United States claims to be arming only the "rebels" in its efforts to remove Assad, but in reality these rebels do not exist and are merely different acronyms for various Islamist extremists. It is therefore natural that the arms given to the rebels will wind up in the hands of ISIS or Al Nusra. On the rare occasions that journalists enquire as to how US weapons have ended up in the hands of Daesh or Al Nusra, US authorities can plausibly deny that they are intentionally arming any extremist groups.

Plausible deniability and justifications for war are two manifestations of the hallucinatory world in which we live, based on conjurations rather than reality. No newspaper or journalist questions whether the justification given for war is legitimate. No newspaper wonders whether Iraq really was linked to Al Qaeda, preferring instead to repeat US propaganda. No one bothers to dig and ask whether the FSA is just an acronym like the SDF and therefore another way of plausibly denying and covering for America's illegal involvement in Syria.

Clearly there is no justification, or any plausible denial, that can exonerate the United States from the seventy-year attempt to consolidate its power over other countries or prevent them from pursuing foreign policies independently of Washington. But what is increasingly noticeable is how, thanks to more and more good reporting from alternative news sources, the justifications for war and plausible denials carry less and less credibility with the wider population.

Decades of lies and omissions have convinced the European and American populations that the press is probably more interested in protecting the interests of its management and owners than it is in revealing the truth. As a result, the alternative press, online media, and alternative giants like CGTN, RT, TeleSUR and PressTV widen their audience simply by exposing how the Western media's packaged truth only aims to justify the deployment of Western troops to foreign countries, or provide plausible deniability for their less palatable covert operations.

The new perspective provided by the alternative media is ripping apart the lies of the past regarding Iraq, Syria, Yemen or Donbass, showing as fabrications the justifications used to drop bombs, kill civilians, subjugate entire populations in order to advance the US geopolitical goals.

The world population is increasingly better informed thanks to widespread Internet access and a growing thirst for news. This phenomenon is beginning to gain steam as the deceptions of the mainstream media are increasingly being called out with every passing day. CNN, The New York Times , Al Jazeera, the BBC, and many other broadcasters and newspapers have for many years shown European, American and Middle Eastern populations a partial, falsified and manipulated version of reality for the purposes of justifying criminal actions and providing plausible-denial cover to enable the sneaky killing of even more innocents.

As the chickens are coming home to roost, more and more old statements made by US officials are revisited and measured against new facts on the ground. Obama's words about how the US never gave weapons to ISIS are today contradicted by evidence of the perverse flow of weapons from the US and her allies to Daesh terrorists. In the same way, Clinton's celebration over Gaddafi's death ("We came, we saw, he died"), or Madeleine Albright's justification of the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of US sanctions, as well as them bombings from 1991 to 2003, are coming back to haunt them. All these lies are exposed years later, delivering a devastating blow to the Western establishment's credibility.

The three examples of Iraq, Libya and Obama himself represent the greatest expression of American deception, namely, the portrayal of the US as fighting for a noble cause, sacrificing itself for the sake of humanity in order to confront and overcome tyranny . But reality paints a different picture, showing the US as the bringer of chaos and destruction. It is the revelation of these lies more than anything else that can accelerate the global awakening and complete the rejection of imperialism that relies on false justifications and plausible denials to succeed.

With the credibility of their previous arguments shot to pieces, the corporate media find themselves with the now practically impossible task of attempting to deceive a woke population that can no longer be fooled as easily as in the past. People are fed up with war and the lies that are offered to justify them, and they are starting to understand the techniques and keywords employed to justify US Imperial policies.

powow -> NidStyles Thu, 07/19/2018 - 01:02 Permalink

Every EMPIRE has its Achilles's heel. The US Empire is no different .

Chupacabra-322 Thu, 07/19/2018 - 00:25 Permalink

And Plausible Deniability = The Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths in the Operational Division of the CIA.

To Hell In A H Thu, 07/19/2018 - 01:33 Permalink

The USSA and its imperial buddies France and the UK basically conduct their foreign affairs like this...

The excuse for bombing Iraq, after 9/11 made this obvious to many Americans. The only Americans who refused to see at first, was the flag waving, porch sitting, GOP blind patriot, who was used and abused by a system, who took advantage of their naivety of the world at large. Remember Freedom Fries? lol

Giant Meteor -> To Hell In A H Thu, 07/19/2018 - 03:33 Permalink

"Get down to Disney World in Florida," "Take your families and enjoy life, the way WE want it to be enjoyed." George W Bush, shortly after the event known as 911.

"Foreign policy" of course defended his remarks, as have many other's over the years. The rationale being, "You can't let the terrorists win." And if folks stop shopping and going to disneyland .... or working two, three part time jerbs, or stopped foolishly going into debt, for shit they neither needed, nor could afford .. ahhh, buy no worries. That crisis was still a few years off ... Yeah, guess what, the terrorists won. But as it turns out, the terrorists to fear most would become the homegrown terrorists, within the nations own government, it's institutions, and of course the FIRE sector, international banks, bankers and corporations, their heads, whom now own and rule the the joint completely ...

Yes soccer moms, those whom you blindly put your faith in, due to your inability to think rationally, as it turns out, were merely fighting for THEIR way of life, not yours, as you had foolishly hoped, you know, for the children, the children who were and are used like so much chaff, and cannon fodder, things, beasts for future debt extraction, and early dying. Meat for the meat grinder .. defending lies, liars, thieves, charlatans, grifters, and two bit con men. Untruths, injustice, the new American way ..

One one has to consider, ponder, if these words were ever to be spoken, "Heh, wasn't it great in the good old days, in the time of our collective insanity!"

Lost in translation Thu, 07/19/2018 - 02:10 Permalink

US Military is a spent force. It can't begin any new wars with any realistic hope of victory.

Perhaps the true goal is to destroy it over time, and replace it with mercenary armies loyal to a wealthy warlord.

Eric Prince, for example.

[Jul 19, 2018] Putin wants Trump to extradite McFaul -- the architect of White color revolutioon (2011-2012) in Russia

Jul 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Noah172 July 19, 2018 at 1:31 am

A US prosecutor just indicted Russian government officials for alleged espionage, so Putin trolls back by asking to see McFaul.

Mueller asked for this. The left asked for this.

Even during the Stalin era, the Soviet government never had the audacity to try to arrest US government officials

No, they just recruited American officials as spies. That was better?

And, again, Mueller wants Russian officials arrested.

We need to try to understand how people in other countries see us, even bad people, not because we agree with them, but because we can't conduct intelligent foreign policy by thinking everybody in the world sees things the way Americans ("educated" cosmopolitan Americans) do.

Noah172 , says: July 19, 2018 at 1:59 am
Duke Leto wrote:

This isn't going to end well. How is this not the greatest scandal in American history? We have a Manchurian candidate in the White House!

Who just tried to shame Germany into canceling the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. And browbeat NATO members into increasing their defense spending. And armed Ukraine.

[Jul 19, 2018] Yes, We Should Call Them Imperialists by Paul Gottfried

Notable quotes:
"... Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory. Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example , has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
"... The belief that the U.S. is a supremely good nation founded on universal principles has consequences that go well beyond electoral politics. Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated talk radio host and co-owner of the website Townhall.com, extols American exceptionalism, which he says springs from American values. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Neoconservatives like Max Boot are fooling themselves if they think imposing 'values' on the rest of the world isn't a matter of empire.

Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the provocative title The Virtue of Nationalism , I encountered a distinction drawn by the late Charles Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the editors of the Weekly Standard , for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the U.S. actively spread its own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said, he and those who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to accuse them of "imperialism."

Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory. Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example , has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation.

The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's response (which I suspect would have been more devastating had Hazony not been afraid of losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?

Certainly the use of protectorates to increase the influence of Western powers in the non-Western world goes back a long time. As far back as the Peloponnesian War, rival Greek city-states tried to impose their constitutional arrangements on weaker Greek societies as a way of managing them politically. According to Xenophon, when the Athenians then surrendered to the Spartan commander Lysander in 403 BC, they had two conditions imposed on them: taking down their great wall ( kathairein ta makra teixe ) and installing a regime that looked like the Spartan one. Thus is arguing that territory has to be annexed outright in order for it to become part of an American empire so utterly unconvincing.

One reason the views offered by Krauthammer and Boot did not elicit more widespread criticism -- and have enjoyed enthusiastic favor among Republicans for decades, culminating in the oratorical wonders of George W. Bush -- may have been the embrace of another neoconservative doctrine: "American exceptionalism." The belief that the U.S. is a supremely good nation founded on universal principles has consequences that go well beyond electoral politics. Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated talk radio host and co-owner of the website Townhall.com, extols American exceptionalism, which he says springs from American values.

Those values have "universal applicability," according to Prager, and are "eminently exportable." Glenn Beck has taken up the same theme of "American exceptionalism" as an exportable "idea " that is meant for everyone on the planet. The "ideas" or "values" in question are variously defined by the neoconservative media as "human rights," "universal equality," or just making sure everyone lives like us. Whatever it is, we are told that to withhold it from the rest of the human race would be uncharitable. Our efforts to bring it to others therefore cannot be dismissed as "imperialism" any more than the Spanish government of the 16th century thought it was doing wrong by forcing its religion on indigenous people in the Americas.

Although I'm hardly a fan of his political views, former president Barack Obama once said something that I thought was self-evident but that offended even members of his own party. According to Obama, "Americans believe they're exceptional. But the Brits and Greeks believe they're special too." Obama was merely observing that it's okay for others to believe they're special, even if they're not Americans imbued with "the idea." Yet his statement was received with such uproar that he felt compelled to backtrack. Speaking later at West Point, he made it clear that "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being." This from someone whom Fox News assures us hated America and spent every minute of his presidency denying our greatness! (And, yes, I've heard the rejoinder to this: Obama was only pretending to believe in the creed he dutifully recited.)

It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both morally superior and less dangerous than ethnically defined societies because we advocate a "value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race. But this is hardly a recipe for peace as opposed to what Krauthammer called a "value-driven" relationship with the rest of the world. Australian journalist Douglas Murray, in his intended encomium Neoconservatism: Why We Need It , tries to praise his subjects but ends up describing a kind of global democratic jihadism. While Douglas admits that "socially, economically, and philosophically" neoconservatism differs from traditional conservatism, he insists that it's something better. He commends neoconservatives for wishing to convert the world to "values." Their primary goal, according to Murray, is the "erasing [of] tyrannies and [the] spreading [of] democracy," an arduous task that requires "interventionism, nation-building, and many of the other difficulties that had long concerned traditional conservatives."

Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building. The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give it.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .

[Jul 19, 2018] Lawmakers, Media Look to Undermine US-Russia Detente by Jason Ditz

Notable quotes:
"... That's because US hostility toward Russia being what it is, there is an incredible amount of bipartisan comfort with continuing that acrimony. Trump faced condemnations for even attending the summit, and more still for getting out of it without picking a fight with Putin. ..."
"... Media coverage of the summit was uniformly negative, parroting disputed allegations of election meddling. ..."
"... Allegations of meddling in the 2016 election have become "unquestionable" in the mainstream, both as a talking point and as a justification for picking new fights with Russia. ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Congress looks to counter Trump's diplomatic overtures with hostile actions

Monday's summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended with a relatively modest press conference. Things went well, by both leaders' accounts, and it represented a small but significant attempt at improving bilateral relations from their recent lows.

Deals were said to have been reached on cooperation on some fronts. Putin says he even told President Trump he intends to extend the New START nuclear treaty that is set to expire in 2021. But don't expect any positive coverage of the talks in the press, let alone any votes of encouragement from the US Congress.

That's because US hostility toward Russia being what it is, there is an incredible amount of bipartisan comfort with continuing that acrimony. Trump faced condemnations for even attending the summit, and more still for getting out of it without picking a fight with Putin.

Media coverage of the summit was uniformly negative, parroting disputed allegations of election meddling. Fox News' Chris Wallace interviewed Vladimir Putin, and failing to get Putin to admit to anything, reporters praised Wallace for " giving Putin the grilling Trump won't ."

Lawmakers were, of course, lining up to go after Trump over the summit. But now that the summit is over, their attention has shifted to trying to pass legislation that would attempt to undermine whatever modest progress toward a rapprochement Trump can be said to have made.

Speaker Paul Ryan termed Russia "a menacing government," and Congress is considering more sanctions, more hearings, and potentially even some non-binding resolutions endorsing the intelligence community's allegations against Russia. Which is really the center of most of the efforts to stop diplomatic progress. Allegations of meddling in the 2016 election have become "unquestionable" in the mainstream, both as a talking point and as a justification for picking new fights with Russia.

Trump has long expressed interest in improving ties with Russia, and this summit was actually one of his first real opportunities at doing so. Yet it will be difficult for this progress to have any permanence with everyone else so united in undermining it.

[Jul 19, 2018] Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far by Thomas Knapp

Notable quotes:
"... They secured and and announced the indictments "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States." ..."
"... That language is from 1799's Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953). Its constitutionality is suspect and no one has ever been indicted under it in the 219 years since its passage. Rosenstein and Mueller aren't likely to be the first two, and may not even technically have violated its letter. But I'd be hard put to name a more obvious, intentional, or flagrant act in violation of its spirit. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | original.antiwar.com
Friday the 13th is presumably always someone's unlucky day. Just whose may not be obvious at the time, but I suspect that "Russiagate" special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein already regret picking Friday, July 13 to announce the indictments of 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges relating to an embarrassing 2016 leak of Democratic National Committee emails. They should.

Legally, the indictments are of almost no value. Those indicted will never be extradited to the US for trial, and the case that an external "hack" – as opposed to an internal DNC leak – even occurred is weak at best, if for no other reason than that the DNC denied the FBI access to its servers, instead commissioning a private "cybersecurity analysis" to reach the conclusion it wanted reached before hectoring government investigators to join that conclusion.

Diplomatically, on the other hand, the indictments and the timing of the announcement were a veritable pipe bomb, thrown into preparations for a scheduled Helsinki summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

House Republicans, already incensed with Rosenstein over his attempts to stonewall their probe into the Democratic Party's use of the FBI as a proprietary political hit squad, are planning a renewed effort to impeach him. If he goes down, Mueller likely does as well. And at this point, it would take a heck of an actor to argue with a straight face that the effort is unjustified.

Their timing was clearly intentional. Their intent was transparently political. Mueller and Rosenstein were attempting to hijack the Trump-Putin summit for the purpose of depriving Trump of any possible "wins" that might come out of it.

They secured and and announced the indictments "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States."

That language is from 1799's Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953). Its constitutionality is suspect and no one has ever been indicted under it in the 219 years since its passage. Rosenstein and Mueller aren't likely to be the first two, and may not even technically have violated its letter. But I'd be hard put to name a more obvious, intentional, or flagrant act in violation of its spirit.

Rosenstein and Mueller are attempting to conduct foreign policy by special prosecutor, a way of doing things found nowhere in the US Constitution. Impeachment or firing should be the least of their worries. I'm guessing that there are laws other than the Logan Act that could, and should, be invoked to have them fitted for orange coveralls and leg irons pending an appointment with a judge.

That they even have defenders is proof positive that some of Trump's most prominent opponents consider "rule of law" a quaint and empty concept – a useful slogan, nothing more – even as they continually, casually, and hypocritically invoke it whenever they think doing so might politically disadvantage him.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

[Jul 19, 2018] Trump-Putin summit induced the neoliberal ruling classes hysteria or How to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism

So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia. ..."
"... And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment ..."
"... In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Extracted from: Trump's Treasonous Traitor Summit or How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism by CJ Hopkins

So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.

The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian Gestapo.

The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.

And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.

In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular baby concentration camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled brains of Western liberals, but given the imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).

[Jul 19, 2018] MIC is afread to lose money because of Trump policies by Lara Seligman

Jul 19, 2018 | foreignpolicy.com

Orgiginal title: Trump's 'America First' Policy Could Leave U.S. Defense Industry Behind

Those measures and the resulting uncertainty are prompting some European countries to go their own way on major industry projects, including the development of a next-generation fighter jet, potentially leaving U.S. firms behind.

"I think it is forcing Europe together in ways that have unanticipated consequences for the U.S. defense industry," said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners.

The aerospace and defense industry is a huge driver of U.S. jobs and economic growth. In 2017 alone, it generated $865 billion, supporting 2.4 million high-paying American jobs. The industry produced a positive trade balance of $86 billion in 2017, the largest of any U.S. industry, which reduced the country's trade deficit by 10 percent.

It is also an important component of U.S. foreign policy. Arms sales are key to strengthening security partnerships and improving military cooperation with allies.

"Partners who procure American weaponry are more capable of fighting alongside us and ultimately more capable of protecting themselves with fewer American boots on the ground," Peter Navarro, the White House director of trade policy, said during an April press conference.

So it came as no surprise when the Trump administration announced the decision to send a large delegation to help sell U.S. products at Farnborough, including top officials such as Navarro. The administration also used the opportunity to roll out the Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy, also known as the "Buy America" plan, an initiative to improve U.S. arms transfer processes and increase the competitiveness of U.S.-made products.

But the U.S. government showing at Farnborough was disappointing from the start of the weeklong exhibition Monday. Navarro pulled out at the last minute, as did Ellen Lord, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer; Heidi Grant, the U.S. Air Force's head of international affairs; and other U.S. government officials. At the show itself, only five U.S. military aircraft appeared on static display in the Defense Department corral that normally showcases products built for the armed services by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other U.S. defense giants.

[Jul 19, 2018] The Magnitsky Hoax by Philip Giraldi

A more serious question is: Was Browder MI6 agent or not? His conversion from the US to UK citizenship is highly unusual.
Notable quotes:
"... "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes," ..."
"... Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Jun 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

... I had the privilege of attending the first by invitation only screening of a documentary "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes," produced by Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov. The documentary had been blocked in Europe through lawsuits filed by some of the parties linked to the prevailing narrative but the Newseum in Washington eventually proved willing to permit rental of a viewing room in spite of threats coming from the same individuals to sue to stop the showing.

Nekrasov by his own account had intended to do a documentary honoring Magnitsky and his employers as champions for human rights within an increasing fragile Russian democracy. He had previously produced documentaries highly critical of Russian actions in Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine, and also regarding the assassinations of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London as well as of journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Moscow. He has been critical of Vladimir Putin personally and was not regarded as someone who was friendly to the regime, quite the contrary. Some of his work has been banned in Russia.

After his documentary was completed using actors to play the various real-life personalities involved and was being edited Nekrasov returned to some issues that had come up during the interviews made during the filming. The documentary records how he sought clarification of what he was reading and hearing but one question inevitably led to another.

The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder, who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party, William Browder studied economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.

From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.

He left Salomon in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the loans-for-shares scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.

Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In his book Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.

As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully, made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during and since that time, though there have been skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman, always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different, which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.

Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly after he had a heart attack. A subsequent investigation ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.

Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer, which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.

Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.

In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used to carry out the deception.

To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided. It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.

Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right, though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain, Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what the consequences of proposed action might be.

One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing to explain himself at times and he has avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube running away from a server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.

A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov documentary at the Newseum but it is not clear if any of them actually bothered to attend, demonstrating once again how America's legislature operates inside a bubble of willful ignorance of its own making. Nor was the event reported in the local "newspaper of record" the Washington Post , which has been consistently hostile to Russia on its editorial and news pages.

A serious effort that a friend of mine described as "hell breaking loose" was also made to disrupt the question and answer session that followed the viewing of the film, with a handful of clearly coordinated hecklers interrupting and making it impossible for others to speak. The organized intruders, who may have gained entry using invitations that were sent to congressmen, suggested that someone at least considers this game being played out to have very high stakes.

The point is that neither Nekrasov nor Browder should be taken at their word. Either or both might be lying and the motivation to make mischief is very high if even a portion of the stolen $230 million is still floating around and available. And by the same measure, no Congressman or even the President should trust the established narrative, particularly if they persist in their hypocritical conceit that global human

Notheroldguy , August 8, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT

Gee, I know G. was a spook of some kind and I always read his articles wherever they turn up.. but how could he get this wrong unless on purpose: Magnitsky was no lawyer. He was an accountant and he was a co-conspirator in the frauds being perpetrated that resulted in the charges. He died alright but there is some shading to the thesis that the fraudsters had him bumped off because they knew he was a weak link. They bribed somebody in the prison to deny him medical care. Hey, much like they did to Milosevic knowing they couldn't convict him of their trumped up charges. Why would G. get wrong such a simple thing to determine? Hmm. I wonder..
anon Disclaimer , August 8, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT
Why would you continue the falsehood of calling Magnitsky a lawyer? He was not a lawyer. Ever. He is and was an accountant and will remain that until Judgement Day. On the other other hand, calling him a lawyer is perhaps an even greater insult than calling him an accountant.

[Jul 19, 2018] Strzokgate is a documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the US democratic process

Probably not so much to short-circuit democratic process that was short-circuited long before them, but clearly they acted as the guardians of the neoliberal state.
Which confirm the iron law of oligarchy in the most direct way: not only the elite gradually escapes all the democratic control, they use their power as oranized minority to defend the status quo, not stopping at the most dirty dirty methods.
Jan 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Extracted from: The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate, by Ray McGovern - The Unz Review by Ray McGovern

Russia-gate is becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the end of this article.)

Despite his former job as chief of the FBI's counterintelligence section, Strzok had the naive notion that texting on FBI phones could not be traced. Strzok must have slept through "Surity 101." Or perhaps he was busy texting during that class. Girlfriend Page cannot be happy at being misled by his assurance that using office phones would be a secure way to conduct their affair(s).

It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest of us. However, for the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost 10,000 messages does incalculably more damage than that.

We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State.

... ... ...

Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity."

[Jul 19, 2018] Rather than yell at the top of one's lungs "Fake News" when they read a mainstream or alternative media story, and immediately discount everything, people ought look CRITICALLY at the facts, consider any bias, read other sources on the issue, and then draw their own conclusions

Notable quotes:
"... And those who are crying "fake news" the most often and the most loudly and using that phrase to discredit anything they do not want to rebut with actual information -- those people are the most suspect. Just like those who cry "conspiracy theory" whenever they see a hypothesis that they do not want to have investigated and want to derail. ..."
"... It would not surprise me at all to learn that both of these phrases were cooked up in some corner of Langley to use to get control of the media. ..."
"... Instead of "dissidents" being labeled schizophrenic and sent to psychiatric wards, as in the USSR, they are labeled as conspiracy theorists and purveyors of "fake news" and the effect is about the same, minus the cost of upkeep in a ward. ..."
Jul 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Skeptikal , August 7, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT

@Corvinus

"Rather than yell at the top of one's lungs "Fake News" when they read a mainstream or alternative media story, and immediately discount everything, people ought look CRITICALLY at the facts, consider any bias, read other sources on the issue, and then draw their own conclusions."

Absolutely. And those who are crying "fake news" the most often and the most loudly and using that phrase to discredit anything they do not want to rebut with actual information -- those people are the most suspect. Just like those who cry "conspiracy theory" whenever they see a hypothesis that they do not want to have investigated and want to derail.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that both of these phrases were cooked up in some corner of Langley to use to get control of the media.

Instead of "dissidents" being labeled schizophrenic and sent to psychiatric wards, as in the USSR, they are labeled as conspiracy theorists and purveyors of "fake news" and the effect is about the same, minus the cost of upkeep in a ward.

[Jul 19, 2018] Lies About Putin and Syria by Ilana Mercer

Jul 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

On just about every issue, in 2016, candidate Trump ran in opposition to Sen. Lindsey Graham. Donald Trump won the presidency; Lindsey Graham quit the race with a near-zero popularity, as reflected in the polls.

The People certainly loathe the senator from South Carolina. A poll conducted subsequently found that Graham was among the least popular senators.

No wonder. Graham is reliably wrong about most things.

But being both misguided and despised have done nothing to diminish Sen. Graham's popularity with Big Media, left and right. Thus were his pronouncements accorded the customary reverence, during a July 10 segment, on Fox News' "The Story."

Which is when he told anchor Martha MacCallum that, "Putin is not doing anything good in Syria."

Then again, Lindsey is being consistent. The revival of "one of the world's oldest Christian communities," in Syria , is not something the senator we've come to know and loathe would celebrate.

It's true. "A new Syria is emerging from the rubble of war," reports The Economist, a magazine which is every bit as liberal and Russophobic as Graham and his political soul mate, John McCain, but whose correspondents on the ground -- in Aleppo, Damascus and Homs -- have a far greater fidelity to the truth than the terrible two.

"In Homs, the Christian quarter is reviving. Churches have been lavishly restored; a large crucifix hangs over the main street." 'Groom of Heaven,' proclaims a billboard featuring a photo of a Christian soldier killed in the seven-year conflict. And, in their sermons, Orthodox patriarchs praise Mr. Assad for saving the Christian communities."

Don't tell the ailing McCain. It'll only make him miserable, but thanks to Putin, Assad "now controls Syria's spine, from Aleppo in the north to Damascus in the south -- what French colonists once called la Syrie utile (useful Syria). The rebels are confined to pockets along the southern and northern borders."

"Homs, like all of the cities recaptured by the government, now belongs mostly to Syria's victorious minorities: Christians, Shias and Alawites (an esoteric offshoot of Shia Islam from which Mr. Assad hails). These groups banded together against the rebels, who are nearly all Sunni, and chased them out of the cities." (" How a victorious Bashar al-Assad is changing Syria ," The Economist, June 28, 2018.)

A Christian teacher in Homs rejoices, for she no longer must live alongside neighbors "who overnight called you a kafir (infidel)."

The teacher's venom is directed at John McCain's beloved "rebels." Internet selfies abound of McCain mixing it up with leading Sunni "rebels," against whom Putin and Bashar al-Assad were doing battle. Who knows? McCain may even have taken a pic with the infamous "rebel" who decapitated Syrian Franciscan monk Father Francois Murad .

Ignoramuses McCain and Graham had both urged the US to send weapons to the "rebels" -- even as it transpired that the lovelies with whom McCain was cavorting on his sojourns in Syria liked to feast on the lungs of their pro-Assad enemies. A devotee of multiculturalism, Lindsey could probably explain the idiosyncratic cultural symbolism of such savagery.

Infested as it is by globalist ideologues, the permanent establishment of American foreign policy refuses to consider regional, religious, local, even tribal, dynamics in the Middle East. In particular, that the "good" guys in Syria -- a relative term -- are not the Islamist "rebels," with whom the senior Republican senator from Arizona was forever frolicking; but the secular Alawites.

You likely didn't know that Alawites like al-Assad also "flinch at Shia evangelizing. 'We don't pray, don't fast [during Ramadan] and drink alcohol,' says one."

Under Putin's protection, the more civilized Alawite minority (read higher IQ), which has governed Syria since 1966, is in charge again. Duly, reports the anti-Assad Economist, "Government departments are functioning. electricity and water supplies are more reliable than in much of the Middle East. Officials predict that next year's natural-gas production will surpass pre-war levels. The railway from Damascus to Aleppo might resume operations this summer. The National Museum in Damascus, which locked up its prized antiquities for protection, is preparing to reopen to the public."

Good thinking. The "rebels" would have blown Syria's prized antiquities to smithereens.

Given that Islamists are not in charge, the specter of men leaving their women and fleeing Syria has had an upside. Syrian women dominate the workforce. Why, they're even working as "plumbers, taxi-drivers and bartenders." Had Sen. Graham, his friends the "rebels," and their Sunni state sponsors won -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- would this be possible? Turkey is currently sheltering "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a group linked to al-Qaeda, and other Sunni rebels."

Aligned against the Christian-Shia-Alawite alliance are Israel and America, too. They've formed a protective perimeter around rebel holdouts.

Before the breakthrough, when Sunni rebels were gaining ground, Syria's "women donned headscarves," and "non-Muslim businessmen bowed to demands from Sunni employees for prayer rooms. But as the war swung their way, minorities regained their confidence." "Christian women in Aleppo [now] show their cleavage, the internet is unrestricted and social-media apps allow for unfettered communication. Students in cafés openly criticize the regime."

Contra the robotic sloganeering from Lindsey, Nikki Haley and the political establishment, Russia has been pushing Bashar al-Assad to open up Syria's political process and allow for the revival of "multiparty politics."

Alas, the once bitten Assad is twice shy. His attempts, a decade ago, to liberalize Syrian politics resulted in the ascendancy of Sunni fundamentalism, aka Lindsey Grahamnesty's rebels. (The nickname is for the Republican senator's laissez-faire immigration policies, stateside.)

As has Russia called "for foreign forces to leave Syria," Iran's included. Iran commands 80,000 Shia militiamen in Syria. "Skirmishes between the [Iranian] militias and Syrian troops have resulted in scores of deaths. Having defeated Sunni Islamists, army officers say they have no wish to succumb to Shia ones."

It all boils down to national sovereignty. So as to survive the onslaught of the Sunni fundamentalist majority, the endangered Alawite minority formed an alliance with the Iranian Shia, also a minority among the Ummah. Now, civilized and secular Syrians want their country back. In fact, many Syrian "Sunnis prefer Mr. Assad's secular rule to that of Islamist rebels."

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of " Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa " (2011) & " The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016). She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube

[Jul 19, 2018] Peter van Buren on Trump-Russia Hysteria by Scott

Notable quotes:
"... We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash ; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; LibertyStickers.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott . ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | scotthorton.org

Peter van Buren discusses the media reaction to President Trump's recent meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He compares the entire story of Russian collusion to the birther conspiracy movement , in that swaths of Americans have been swept up in a campaign against the president with very little real evidence presented to support the claims. Van Buren argues that the divisiveness about Trump being a Russian agent is harmful for the country, and at this point Robert Mueller and the intelligence community need to "put up or shut up" -- either present the clear evidence that Trump worked with the Russians, or admit that there is no such evidence. He goes on to discuss the DNC email leak, Hillary Clinton's private email server, and the recent indictment of 12 Russian operatives.

Discussed on the show:

Peter Van Buren worked for 24 years at the Department of State including a year in Iraq. He is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and the novel Hooper's War . He is now a contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash ; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; LibertyStickers.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott .

Check out Scott's Patreon page.

[Jul 18, 2018] The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Neoliberal Coin

Notable quotes:
"... There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all kinds. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin by Dan Corjescu

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.

-- Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"

There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all kinds.

This situation was even more pronounced in "non-aligned" Yugoslavia who for years had maintained CIA and American and West European business contacts.

In effect, the "cold war" witnessed a rapid convergence between the economic and power interests of both Western and Communist elites.

The "Communists" (in name only of course) quickly realized the economic benefits available to them through at times open at times clandestine cooperation with Western business/criminal interests.

Eventually, Communist elites realized that they had an unprecedented economic opportunity on their hands: state privatization made possible, in part, with active Western participation.

For them, "Freedom" meant the freedom to get rich beyond their wildest dreams.

And the 1990's were just that. A paradise for thieving on an unimaginable scale all under the rubric of the rebirth of "capitalism and freedom".

The true outcome of that decade was that the old communist elites not only retained their social and political power behind the scenes; they also were able to enrich themselves beyond anything the communist dictatorships could ever hope to offer them in the past.

Yes, the price was to give up imperial, national, and ideological ambitions. But it was a very small price to pay; since the East European elites had ceased to believe in any of those things years earlier.

The only firm belief they still held was the economic betterment of themselves and their families through the acquisition by any means of as many asset classes as possible. In effect, they became the mirror image of their "enemy" the "imperialist capitalist West".

This was not a case of historical dialectics but historical convergence. What appeared as a world divided was actually a world waiting to be made whole through the basest of criminal business activity.

But being clever thieves they knew how to hide themselves and their doings behind superficially morally impeccable figures such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Wałęsa, to name just a few. These "dissidents" would be the faces they would use to make a good part of the world believe that 1989 was a narrative of freedom and not outright pubic theft which it was.

Yes, people in the east, even in Russia, are freer now than they were. But it should never be forgotten that the events of 1989/1990 were not even remotely about those revolutionary dreams.

It was about something much more mundane and sordid. It was about greed. It was about the maintenance of power. And finally it was about money.

How deep has the Western nexus of power and wealth gone into the heart of the East? So far indeed that one can easily question to what extent a country like Russia is truly a "national" state anymore and rather just a territory open to exploitation by both local and global elites.

For that matter, we can ask the same question about the USA.

... ... ...

[Jul 18, 2018] The US public has been fed up with the corruption and disastrous policies of the US government for quite a while. I mean, 10 years ago we elected a black(ish) man with a Muslim name for criizzacks! How desperate were we to do that in the middle of the "Clash of Civilizations" Global War OF Terror?

Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Daniel , Jul 17, 2018 10:45:37 PM | 176

Activist Potato @164, well Obama was on record saying that they stood by and watched ISIS grown, and take ever more territory and expected it would weaken the Syrian government, leading to "Mission Accomplished." Even if he did want to prevent Trump from being (s)elected, that would be a hard hill to fight for.


The US public has been fed up with the corruption and disastrous policies of the US government for quite a while. I mean, 10 years ago we elected a black(ish) man with a Muslim name for criizzacks! How desperate were we to do that in the middle of the "Clash of Civilizations" Global War OF Terror?

By the time they were planning out the 2016 (s)election, it should have been clear to anyone that the US was going to vote for real change. It turns out that a good number were so desperate that they said they'd vote for the New York City conman, knowing he was horrible, simply because they thought they were throwing a monkey wrench into "the system."

So, what did they give us? A woman who was not only the most hated and mistrusted candidate in history (until The Donald), but also the very symbol of "more of the same." Then, some how, "leaked" or "hacked" documents came out showing she was even more criminal and corrupt that most had thought. And they came out at just the right time to make a good number of those who were willing to hold their noses and vote for her to refuse to.

Meanwhile, the MSM filled the airwaves with everything Trump such that they sucked the oxygen out of the room for anyone else. And the MSM insisted Trump was "an outsider," and showed us every way possible that "the Establishment" didn't want to let him "win."

I came to see the whole operation as a brilliant psyop about the time of the Party Conventions. I was so sucked into the drama of the DNC stealing the nomination from Sanders that I allowed myself to be sucked right along (as I believe I was meant to be).


But after a year and a half of watching the only changes in US policy have been to escalate the worst of them, and rape the 99% with even greater fury, it takes a special kind of faith to still believe that Trump was ever an "outsider" and that the "establishment" is anything except thrilled with how it's going. Hell, even failed "news" organizations like the NY Times and MSDNC are in boon times again!

And the brilliant irony of it all is that they're making bank on telling us how much they hate what's making them rich! LOL!

Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 17, 2018 10:21:56 PM | 173
As for Trump, the same case is true. He represents the part of America which is realizing it is loosing its sole superpower status. Had Hillary Clinton won in 2016 (which could have happened -- Trump only won because of American system's technicalities) , the cauldron that is today's USA social fabric would've only gathered even more pressure, triggering an even deeper crisis in 2020.
Posted by: vk | Jul 17, 2018 2:09:39 PM | 80

That's the sort of fuzzy logic I was whingeing about in the comment to which this codswallop is purporting to be a response. Team Trump was fully aware of the 'technicalities' and ran a campaign designed to capitalise on them. Not only did they figure out how to maximise the potential advantage of focusing on the Electoral College, Trump campaigned his arse off 7 days a week.

Hillary the "consummate professional insider", on the other hand ran a lazy lacklustre campaign. The over-arching feature of Her public gatherings was that they were little more than an invitation to bask in Hillary's reflected Radiance. So not only did Trump win the race, his victory was enhanced by Hillary's stupidity and chronic self-absorption.

Circe , Jul 17, 2018 8:39:28 PM | 163
@149

The problem is everyone is stuck in the "lesser over greater evil" construct and that's what makes the American Zionist-influenced duopoly so powerful. Trump is part of that failed system that Americans are so dependent on and that always leads to the same place. People should fight this lesser vs greater evil construct, even if Americans are too stupid at this time to get out of it. It means they'd have to choose outside the box, outside the media's choices example Fox and other Rightist outlets for Trump. CNN, MSNBC - Hillary, but the media is all Zionist run and specializes in the brainwash on both sides. It's all part of the same sham. The duopoly.

It starts with primaries for representatives and choosing a candidate that demonstrates independence and integrity; especially those that the media wants to ignore; that's not beholden to special interests or financed by Zionists.

Most importantly when America goes wrong and it's royally f...cked up right now, the rest of the world, the web has to push back against their ignorance and their stupid choices, because those choices hurt others as much as they hurt them only they're still too brainwashed to see it. Americans had the right idea to turn on the establishment, but Trump was the perfect Zionist anti-establishment decoy, a fraud, a pretender just like Obama was for the Left.

In the past election, the only viable contender was Bernie who got railroaded by Democratic Zionists like Wasserman and Podesta. I think Bernie was more authentic than the two evils, Hillary and Trump, and although his Zionist roots are always a concern; he was run out precisely because he was a rogue Jew and Zionists couldn't trust him. He wasn't in the pocket of Zionist financiers although he was running with the Democrats, but in the current status quo he had no choice but to use the Democratic Party as a means to an end and they did him in. If Hillary were not on the ticket who knows what could have been. He was a start in the right direction away from the Zionist financed duopoly.

[Jul 18, 2018] US Media is Losing Its Mind Over Trump-Putin Press Conference

Notable quotes:
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... was no longer online ..."
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Consortiumnews Volume 24, Number 199 -- –Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995 -- –July 18, 2018

US Media is Losing Its Mind Over Trump-Putin Press Conference July 16, 2018 • 316 Comments

The media's mania over Trump's Helsinki performance and the so-called Russia-gate scandal reached new depths on Monday, says Joe Lauria

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

The reaction of the U.S. establishment media and several political leaders to President Donald Trump's press conference after his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday has been stunning.

Writing in The Atlantic , James Fallows said :

" There are exactly two possible explanations for the shameful performance the world witnessed on Monday, from a serving American president.

Either Donald Trump is flat-out an agent of Russian interests -- maybe witting, maybe unwitting, from fear of blackmail, in hope of future deals, out of manly respect for Vladimir Putin, out of gratitude for Russia's help during the election, out of pathetic inability to see beyond his 306 electoral votes. Whatever the exact mixture of motives might be, it doesn't really matter.

Or he is so profoundly ignorant, insecure, and narcissistic that he did not realize that, at every step, he was advancing the line that Putin hoped he would advance, and the line that the American intelligence, defense, and law-enforcement agencies most dreaded.

Conscious tool. Useful idiot. Those are the choices, though both are possibly true, so that the main question is the proportions never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another country over those of his own government and people."

As soon as the press conference ended CNN cut to its panel with these words from TV personality Anderson Cooper: "You have been watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit in front of a Russian leader, surely, that I've ever seen."

David Gergen, who for years has gotten away with portraying himself on TV as an impartial political sage, then told CNN viewers:

" I've never heard an American President talk that way but I think it is especially true that when he's with someone like Putin, who is a thug, a world-class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests of his own institutions that he runs, that he's in charge of the federal government, he's in charge of these intelligence agencies, and he basically dismisses them and retreats into this, we've heard it before, but on the international stage to talk about Hillary Clinton's computer server "

" It's embarrassing," interjected Cooper.

" It's embarrassing," agreed Gergen.

Cooper: "Most disgraceful performance by a US president."

White House correspondent Jim Acosta, ostensibly an objective reporter, then gave his opinion: "I think that sums it up nicely. This is the president of the United States essentially taking the word of the Russian president over his own intelligence community. It was astonishing, just astonishing to be in the room with the U.S. president and the Russian president on this critical question of election interference, and to retreat back to these talking points about DNC servers and Hillary Clinton's emails when he had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he didn't do it."

In other words Trump should just shut up and not question a questionable indictment, which Acosta, like nearly all the media, treat as a conviction.

The Media's Handlers

The media's handlers were even worse than their assets. Former CIA director John Brennan tweeted : "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors,.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"

Here's where the Republican Patriots are, Brennan: " That's how a press conference sounds when an Asset stands next to his Handler," former RNC Chairman Michael Steele tweeted.

Representative Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, said on Twitter: " As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am deeply troubled by President Trump's defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia. Russia poses a grave threat to our national security."

All these were reactions to Trump expressing skepticism about the U.S. indictment on Friday of 12 Russian intelligence agents for allegedly interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election while he was standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki.

" I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump said. "I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."

The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, of stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage the candidacy of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with the clear intention of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so.

Over the weekend Michael Smerconish on CNN actually said the indictments proved that Russia had committed a "terrorist attack" against the United States. This is in line with many pundits who are comparing this indictment, that will most likely never produce any evidence, to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. The danger inherent in that thinking is clear.

Putin said the allegations are "utter nonsense, just like [Trump] recently mentioned." He added: "The final conclusion in this kind of dispute can only be delivered by a trial, by the court. Not by the executive, by the law enforcement." He could have added not by the media.

Trump reasonably questioned why the FBI never examined the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee to see whether there was a hack and who may have done it. Instead a private company, CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic Party studied the server and within a day blamed Russia on very dubious grounds.

" Why haven't they taken the server?" Trump asked. "Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee? I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?"

But being a poor communicator, Trump then mentioned Clinton's missing emails, allowing the media to conflate the two different servers, and be easily dismissed as Gergen did.

At the press conference, Putin offered to allow American investigators from the team of special counsel Robert Mueller, who put the indictment together, to travel to Russia and take part in interviews with the 12 accused Russian agents. He also offered to set up a joint cyber-security group to examine the evidence and asked that in return Russia be allowed to question persons of interest to Moscow in the United States.

" Let's discuss the specific issues and not use the Russia and U.S. relationship as a loose change for this internal political struggle," Putin said.

On CNN, Christiane Amanpour called Putin's clear offer "obfuscation."

Even if Trump agreed to this reasonable proposal it seems highly unlikely that his Justice Department will go along with it. Examination of whatever evidence they have to back up the indictment is not what the DOJ is after. As I wrote about the indictments in detail on Friday:

" The extremely remote possibility of convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception of Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations, presented as though it is established fact. Once that impression is settled into the public consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished."

Still No 'Collusion'

The summit begins. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

The indictments did not include any members of Trump's campaign team for "colluding" with the alleged Russian hacking effort, which has been a core allegation throughout the two years of the so-called Russia-gate scandal. Those allegations are routinely reported in U.S. media as established fact, though there is still no evidence of collusion.

Trump emphasised that point in the press conference. "There was no collusion at all," he said forcefully. "Everybody knows it."

On this point corporate media has been more deluded than normal as they clutch for straws to prove the collusion theory. As one example of many across the media with the same theme, a New York Times story on Friday , headlined, "Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening?," said Russia may have absurdly responded to Trump's call at 10:30 a.m. on July 27, 2016 to hack Clinton's private email server because it was "on or about" that day that Russia allegedly first made an attempt to hack Clinton's personal emails, according to the indictment, which makes no connection between the two events.

If Russia is indeed guilty of remotely hacking the emails it would have had no evident need of assistance from anyone on the Trump team, let alone a public call from Trump on national TV to commence the operation.

More importantly, as Twitter handle "Representative Press" pointed out: "Trump's July 27, 2016 call to find the missing 30,000 emails could not be a 'call to hack Clinton's server' because at that point it was no longer online . Long before Trump's statement, Clinton had already turned over her email server to the U.S. Department of Justice." Either the indictment was talking about different servers or it is being intentionally misleading when it says "on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office."

This crucial fact alone, that Clinton had turned over the server in 2015 so that no hack was possible, makes it impossible that Trump's TV call could be seen as collusion. Only a desperate person would see it otherwise.

But there is a simple explanation why establishment journalists are in unison in their dominant Russian narrative: it is career suicide to question it.

As Samuel Johnson said as far back as 1745: "The greatest part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they are in fashion since vanity and credulity cooperate in its favour."

Importance of US-Russia Relations

Trump said the unproven allegation of collusion "has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers in the world. We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous what's going on with the probe."

The American president said the U.S. has been "foolish" not to attempt dialogue with Russia before, to cooperate on a range of issues.

"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct," Trump said. "Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."

This main reason for summits between Russian and American leaders was also ignored: to use diplomacy to reduce dangerous tensions. "I really think the world wants to see us get along," Trump said. "We are the two great nuclear powers. We have 90 percent of the nuclear. And that's not a good thing, it's a bad thing."

Preventing good relations between the two countries appears to be the heart of the matter for U.S. intelligence and their media assets. So Trump was vilified for even trying.

Ignoring the Rest of the Story

Obsessed as they are with the "interference" story, the media virtually ignored the other crucial issues that came up at the summit, such as the Middle East.

Trump sort of thanked Russia for its efforts to defeat ISIS. "When you look at all of the progress that's been made in certain sections with the eradication of ISIS, about 98 percent, 99 percent there, and other things that have taken place that we have done and that, frankly, Russia has helped us with in certain respects," he said.

Trump here is falsely taking credit, as he has before, for defeating ISIS with only some "help" from Russia. In Iraq the U.S. led the way against ISIS coordinating the Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. But in the separate war against ISIS in Syria, Russia, the Syrian Arab Army, Kurdish forces, Iranian troops and Hizbullah militias were almost entirely responsible for ISIS' defeat.

A grand deal? (Photo: Sputnik)

Also on Syria, Trump appeared to endorse what is being reported as a deal between Russia and Israel in which Israel would accept Bashar al-Assad remaining as Syrian president, while Russia would work on Iran to get it to remove its forces away from the northern Golan Heights, which Israel illegally considers its border with Syria.

After a meeting in Moscow last week with Putin, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he accepted Assad remaining in power.

" President Putin also is helping Israel," Trump said at the press conference. "We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly."

Trump also said that the U.S. and Russian militaries were coordinating in Syria, but he did not go as far as saying that they had agreed to fight together there, which has been a longstanding proposal of Putin's dating back to September 2015, just before Moscow intervened militarily in the country.

" Our militaries have gotten along probably better than our political leaders for years," Trump said. "Our militaries do get along very well. They do coordinate in Syria and other places."

Trump said Russia and the U.S. should cooperate in humanitarian assistance in Syria.

" If we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter and on a humanitarian basis that's what the word was, a humanitarian basis," he said. "I think both of us would be very interested in doing that."

Putin said he had agreed on Sunday with French President Emmanuel Macron on a joint effort with Europe to deliver humanitarian aid. "On our behalf, we will provide military cargo aircraft to deliver humanitarian cargo. Today, I brought up this issue with President Trump. I think there's plenty of things to look into," Putin said.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

17563

Tags: Anderson Cooper Benjamin Netanyahu CNN Donald Trump Joe Lauria Media New York Times Robert Mueller Russia Russiagate Vladimir Putin

Post navigation ← Memo to the President Ahead of Monday's Summit Climb Down From the Summit of Hostile Propaganda → 316 comments for "US Media is Losing Its Mind Over Trump-Putin Press Conference"

Show Comments

Gary Weglarz , July 18, 2018 at 1:06 am

I'm really hard pressed to come up with anything to be optimistic about given the dire nature of our current global and national predicaments combined with the bat-sheet crazy nature of our current version of the mass psyche. About the only bright spot I can find is that it is really encouraging to read the overall high quality of the comments here at CN, which suggest that I can look forward to taking part in some wonderful future conversations in "the camps."

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 9:36 pm

new Reuters poll: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-voters/majority-of-americans-think-trump-mishandling-russia-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1K72T1?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 10:15 pm

What an unbelievably slanted poll.

"The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 1,011 registered voters throughout the United States, including 453 Republicans and 399 Democrats. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 4 percentage points."

Independents/anaffiliated make up more than 42% of the registered voters currently in the USA.

irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 pm

"medium = Social / source = Twitter"

Babyl-on , July 17, 2018 at 9:35 pm

I think we should take heart that they are such a small group – loud yes, they have the corporate press, but it is not a big group and they have already lost the narrative. This has to be the end for them, they have no political support for impeachment after all this screeching articles can't even get introduced mostly the "resistance" isn't even trying – they know they don't have evidence.

The scream these words TREASON and COLLUSION but they are powerless politically to do anything. So a "treasonous" president goes on. Clearly they are at their wits end their heads have actually exploded. The powerful "liberal" cabal which has run Washington for decades is disintegrating before there very eyes. Clinton is the witch – Trump is the water.

A , July 17, 2018 at 11:33 pm

Okay , I get it, I will go down , but I am not going down by the orange shit head. You guys win, you wanted your Cheeto to give us some love, and tax breaks , favorable trade deals, get rid of people like me , be besties with Russia, kill everyone from central America. Cool. You guys win. I hope you are happy , apparently you have achieved what you wanted.

Jessika , July 17, 2018 at 8:45 pm

Thanks, Drew and Realist, i just read Finian Cunningham's essay at Information Clearing House. Yes, this is indeed scary. It does appear a coup is being planned. All the more reason for us to speak up. The thought of Mike Pence is scarier than Trump.

willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm

I was a Sanders supporter and donor who voted for Trump because he promised diplomacy, whereas Hillary wanted a no-fly zone in Syria, and her proven track record of supporting illegal regime change in Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Ukraine and Syria. She was a faux progressive and ultimate racist in that she has the blood of countless brown people (mostly women and children) on her hands. What is really scary and disheartening is that the pro-WW3 propaganda seems to be working if the reader comments from the NYT and WaPo are accurate gauges of public perception. The verdict of commenters in corporate media websites is unanimous: Trump is a traitor for committing the crime of détente. Consortium news readers are informed because we search truth in alternative media. I hope it's not naïve to believe we are the silent majority and most Americans still possess the common sense and critical thinking skills necessary to see through the hysteria even if they don't venture to sites like Consortium news.

AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 10:19 pm

Don't worry yourself too much. The highest rated MSM news shows only garner about 1.2 million viewers. That's far less than 1% of the American population.
The MSM fancy themselves what they have not been in decades; Relevant.

Jessika , July 17, 2018 at 7:44 pm

That was good, mrbt (not enough vowels for me). Yes, we are in a jalopy headed for a cliff. Instead we get a cliffhanger with this Mueller intel fiasco. I misspoke with the bank bailout, of course, it was 2009 just after Obama got into office; he told those banksters, "I'm the only one between you and the pitchforks". Now it seems like we're on a roller coaster ready to jump the track!

mrtmbrnmn , July 17, 2018 at 7:33 pm

This disgraceful and obscene display of pants-wetting by the MSM over the Trump-Putin meeting and press conference was pre-planned and essentially pre-scripted to advance the deep state regime change op against Trump (and ultimately Putin). I was trying to imagine these journalistic malpracticers prepped to embarrass and humiliate Obama in a similar setting by asking questions like: "Mr Obama, which do you prefer, watermelon or chicken bones?"

It is clear beyond doubt that we are helpless passengers in the back seat of the out of control jalopy that is America, barreling helter skelter down the highway bound to hell and total collapse. The Dementedcrats need to get off the crack pipe and the unconscionable CIA thug John Brennan might benefit from a frontal lobotomy to get him to chill out.

irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm

the best description i've read of this insanity is : 'the MSM is (p-faced) drunk on its own p . . . " with appreciation to the commentor who wrote that !

It sounds like Lisa Page is, unlike Strzok (remember him, from late last week ?) cooperatively providing information which might implicate China as the 'party which got the 30,000 emails'. Perhaps this is what Trump & Putin talked about ? In which case, The Donald's walking back his press conference comments may be only a temporary feint. If true, Lisa will need excellent protection and a new name !

irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:38 pm

Link to above :

https://truepundit.com/fbi-lisa-page-dimes-out-top-fbi-officials-during-classified-house-testimony-bureau-bosses-covered-up-evidence-china-hacked-hillarys-top-secret-emails/

If true, that would make a nice hangover for the MSM !

Jessika , July 17, 2018 at 7:29 pm

Something big may be in the works, as Stephen says. Now Veterans Today says that a move on Iran by the US was discussed at Helsinki, and they think that Putin would capitulate in some sort of trade-off -- what, to get off their backs? Putin is much smarter than that. Zero Hedge just reports that Russia has dumped all their US Treasury bonds, further stating that Russia's close ties to China indicate a trial run on the market preparatory to China dumping their pile, too. What many feel the big event is really another economic meltdown, as nothing was done in the 2008 Obama crisis except bail out the banks, which went right back to their chicanery. The western Deep State always sets up for war to divert attention from internal crisis.

Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm

I get far more concerned when the press, intelligence agencies and various other DC gangsters lavish praise on Trump. Judging by their reactions, it seems likely that Trump must have actually brought us closer to peace.

Jessika , July 17, 2018 at 6:46 pm

Stephen J, excellent verse as usual, "Blame It On Putin". It was reported that "the lights went out" in the White House when Trump did his U-turn on Russian election meddling. Was that supposed to be symbolic of something?

Stephen J. , July 17, 2018 at 7:06 pm

Thanks Jessika. I believe something big is in the works. The powers that be have had things their own way for so long. The corporate media monopoly are their mouthpieces and are barking like dogs in a frenzy in case they lose their bones. The bones being the millions dead from planned wars and blood soaked profits that attained to the corporate cannibals. Enemies are needed to continue the corrupt system. The War Criminals are getting desperate, the gangsters war is just starting. Unfortunately we are all Prisoners of "Democracy"
https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html

Antiwar7 , July 17, 2018 at 6:22 pm

David Gergen says Trump acts "against his [Trump's] own country's interests of his own institutions [including] these intelligence agencies."

There's the rub, isn't it? The interests of our country and of those institutions: are they the same?

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm

Also worth, sorry for broken record but, using Trump's unique "awfulness" as justification for vigilante-style "trial in the press" or manipulated/propagandized "public opinion" there's a deep deep antidemocratic anti-due process or rule-of-law desperation here which has had "liberal" (or "illiberal") precedent we've already seen in "political correctness" and #metoo (emanating from the "progressive camp" often justified by the awfulness / despicable-ness of those they despise.

This is a very very sad devolution (or arguably the unmasking) of the Democratic Party (I vote the latter).

mike k , July 17, 2018 at 6:13 pm

Trump mumbled some sort of half maybe apology about questioning Russian meddling. But he will contradict that apology just as quickly. They are really having trouble pinning this guy down on anything. His enemies want to nail him, but he just keeps moving. For a fat guy, he is pretty nimble.

Jessika , July 17, 2018 at 5:52 pm

Now, Trump says he misspoke and "accepts US intel on Russian election meddling"! I guess he got anothet 'trip to the woodshed', as Skip Scott has often said. James Howard Kunstler is right, it's a "Clusterfuck Nation". Well, the Russians are smart enough never to trust the US.

irina , July 17, 2018 at 9:49 pm

He got the truth out first and for that I have to give him kudos.
He probably knew backtracking and its attendant issues was
Inevitable. Very nice that power went out while he said he misspoke.

as WaPo itself says, "Truth Dies in Darkness".

Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:18 pm

Look, this is getting frightening.

Never in my lifetime have I witnessed a group think/mob mentality like what's occurring over Russiagate and the overriding Russophobia fueling it all. This is washing over virtually all planks of the political spectrum. We just had a damaged and awful president try to do one of the very few things he actually gets right: make rapprochement with Moscow; he was subsequently browbeaten, smeared and viciously attacked by every single mainstream Western media outlet on the planet. Not just news media, but also the entertainment media are completely on board -- Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Maddow, etc.

To say one kind word about Putin or the modicum of detente that Trump just unsuccessfully tried to pull off is to be mocked, ridiculed, scoffed at and laughed at by liberal leaning friends, colleagues and acquaintances.

The militarist-corporate propaganda during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War pales in comparison to this new and scary McCarthyism that has permeated everything.

I'm 47 y.o. and never experienced anything like this.

The liberal intelligentsia who are falling for this and propagating this have some of the hottest places in heII waiting for them.

Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 5:31 pm

If you think the overwhelming majority of the US cares about what the press and politicians think, then I would suggest you spend less time with Democrats. I dont agree with many Republican platforms, but on the reliability of media, they are far more prescient than the Democrats. I wonder if it is because they have more first-hand knowledge than the Democrats because they tend to send their kids to the meat grinder oil, wars more frequently than Democrats.

Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:40 pm

The best thing we have going right now Deniz is the cynical and skeptical attitude of much the hardworking American population.

The Russians certainly aren't the ones who foisted this unconscionable inequality on the U.S. population, nor was it the Russians who caused the American heartland to deteriorate into a wasteland of service sector employment and Oxy dependence. It wasn't Putin who mired recent American college grads in deplorable debt in the range of $30,000 to $400,000, nor was it Putin who demanded that millions of Americans go without adequate healthcare coverage.

It's economic inequality and it's political enablers who are stalking the towns and cities of America, not the Russian military.

John P , July 17, 2018 at 6:37 pm

That is the real problem, so why arn't kids, their parents and the poor out on the streets like those of my generation during the Vietnam war stiring things up. Is it social media which kills the urge to go out and protest and make yourself heard? Get the money and business influence out of modern day politics, Raise hell !

irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:15 pm

There was a DRAFT during the Vietnam war. That made a huge difference.
And, I think we were actually better informed than today's young people.
Bringing the war live into people's living rooms was New Thing back then,
and we paid attention. Now, we are habituated and just tune out bad news,
unless it happens to be a domestic shooting spree or other home turf stuff.

willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:36 pm

Irina below is right. The draft was the difference. People would wake up and engage if we had the draft. We have an economic draft today. It's the only option for poor and lower class kids who will never afford college. It's unfortunate that identity politics doesn't include the socioeconomic bias of targeting of poor kids being used as cannon fodder

irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:12 pm

And moreover, the draft was based on a birthdate lottery.

All in the luck of the draw. (And of course, economic standing
since there were college deferments, etc. etc.)

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:49 pm

I'm 71, Drew, and can tell you that the darkest days of the Vietnam War were not as scary. Our power structure has taken McCarthyism as practiced during the Korean Conflict and doubled down on it, directing its kinetics at the office of the presidency. This is as close to a civil war or an actual coup d'etat that I have ever seen, much more divisive and explosive than Nixon and Watergate. Someone claiming authority they do not have may soon make a move against Trump. They've stirred up enough hate by the mob to mask their motives.

Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 6:02 pm

Thanks for kicking some historical info to this Gen Xer. You make some very interesting (and quite scary) points.

Over at 'Information Clearing House' the always excellent Finian Cunningham has just penned a dynamite and trenchant essay on a possible pending coup against Trump.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 6:32 pm

Thanks. I always read your spot-on posts at the ICH website, Drew.

Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 8:36 pm

Thanks Realist.

In solidarity,

Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI

Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 7:13 pm

Yes. This excellent article by Finian Cunningham really nails it.

Monoloco , July 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm

Trump derangement syndrome is so powerful, it turns liberals into neocons.

KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:27 pm

Drew your absolutely correct, this is a unprecedented groupthink & dangerous propaganda on a scale that's never existed before! It's mass hysteria on steroids! And all because of the simple fact that Trump, a man who was never supposed to win the Election over the anointed candidate, crooked Hillary Clinton occurred! Trump must be removed by a slow motion coup by any means possible? Whether it's by undermining his authority or belittering his character. If that doesn't work they will take the JFK removal method? As Stalin stated, death is the solution to all problems, no man, no problem? It's frightening where all this fake Russiagate nonsense is going to lead us, it's almost as if they want to start the next great extinction event by starting WW3 & a Nuclear War with Russia? The arrogance of America & its Deepstate, Propagandist MSM & political system is going to be the death of us all!

Miranda Keefe , July 17, 2018 at 4:58 pm

I guess Trump is now caving into the Deep State and the media.

Maybe he's afraid if he doesn't he'll die of a 'heart attack'- no way they'd do it with a bullet from a patsy- they don't want him to be a martyr.

https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/10155975560905950/?t=20

Banger , July 17, 2018 at 4:08 pm

I don't know that to say. Whatever was left of the republic is either gone or doomed. If we have a mainstream media that is so nakedly attempting a coup d'état or calling for one with such universal fury based on little evidence and just embroidering one myth over another then I will have to just focus my energy elsewhere. My comrades on most of the left have, despite decades of proof that the media is deeply dishonest and constantly howling for one war after another the only hope is to batten down the hatches and just survive the next decade through local efforts. The sad part is I oppose many of Trump's policies but this isn't about policies–this is about re-invigorating American militarism and imperialism.

I've been around a lot of crises but nothing like this madness.

Stephen J. , July 17, 2018 at 3:53 pm

As usual the "media impostors" and propaganda pushers blame Putin.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
January 10, 2017
"Blame It" On Putin

There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
"Blame it" on Putin

The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an "aggressor"
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, "Blame it" on Putin.

The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They "Blame it" on Putin

Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They "Blame it" on Putin

The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that "their democracy" is "lost in transmission"
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They "Blame it" on Putin

One loose canon talks and babbles of "an act of war"
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
"Blame it" on Putin

There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, "Blame it" on Putin
[more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:46 pm

This just in: (NYT headline / top of page)

Trump Backtracks on Russian Meddling
Under Fire, He Says He Accepts U.S. Intelligence Reports

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm

and then
Guardian:

Trump flips – then flips again – a day after downplaying Russian interference
President says he supports US intelligence consensus on 2016 election – but then says 'it could be other people also'

(oh, nevermind)

Miranda Keefe , July 17, 2018 at 5:39 pm

I heard him say that. He meant that Russia did it and others could also have been involved.

Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm

Perhaps New York magazine has it right? "The president isn't a traitor: He's just constitutionally incapable of processing simple information, or prioritizing the national interest above his own egoistic desires." or more maybe New York's earlier article from last week suggesting Trumpkin has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987 is true.

One thing's for sure: Trumpkin borrowed 100's of millions from shady Russian bankers and other oligarchs, some of whom seem to have laundered a bunch of money through Trump's real estate holdings by buying condos for dollars on the penny. If you foliks don't see that as being at least somewhat on the same level as Dick Cheney holding those un-exercised Halliburton stock options at the time Haliburton was servicing the Iraq invasion

michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:06 pm

Or Hillary exchanging access to the State department for donations

Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:40 pm

"Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits."

https://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm

Profiting from the death and destruction of a heinous war of aggression that Cheney himself played a key role in instigating can in no way be compared with shady business dealings. I harbour disdain for shady businessmen who cheat property owners, honest contractors or workers. But that type of wrongdoing pales in comparison to the wicked malfeasance of Cheney (or the Bush family for that matter).

Before you "process" any more simple "information" from New York magazine Will, I suggest you take note of the GIGO truism and check yourself for leakage.

Jerry Alatalo , July 17, 2018 at 3:28 pm

It seems President Lenin Moreno of Ecuador might have the perfect solution for his "problem" in London.

Free Julian Assange, Allow him to walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy with all the proper rights available for any innocent man or woman on Earth.

Immediately upon Mr. Assange's exit, allow William (Bill) Browder to enter and occupy the same room at the Ecuadorian Embassy – whereupon Mr. Browder will reside at that address until July 2024, punished under the identical treatment and conditions as Julian Assange.

"Problem solved" – President Moreno!

David Otness , July 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm

Not much to say but the USA has gone bat-shit cray-cray.
I'm going to be delighted to be excised from many so-called "friends" – friends of mob mentality.
The US media and Intel complex have induced a national psychosis and a likely Constitutional crisis.
Keep yer powder dry.

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:04 pm

I'd guess half the country considers this -- in the end -- just more partisan theatrics sad to suspect that they actually are the "sane ones" It's ennui versus cynicism as to which is more deadly .

KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm

The scary thing is, Americans second amendment right to bear arms against enemies both domestic & foreign! There's a Edward Abbey saying that a days "a Patriot must always be ready to defend his Country against his Govt"! How long will it be before American citizens reach a tipping point where they recognise that it's enemies are its own domestic leaders & institutions such as the false corporate propagandist MSM & corrupt Politicians in both Republican & Democratic Parties who are undermining & sabotaging their human rights as free people! How long will it be before they say enough's enough we can't stomach this anymore?

Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm

In the Odyssey a witch-goddess named Circe turned Odysseus' men into pigs. I think Trump is a modern day sorcerer. In the GOP primaries he turned his more intelligent and more experienced competitors into incoherent cartoon characters. He has done the same to the entire Democratic establishment, and he has done it to the entire mainstream press. There is no effective opposition because politicians and the media have become stark-raving mad – wild swine, just as dangerous as the monster they oppose. We are in America's darkest hour and only half the blame goes to the vulgarian in the White House.

The Ministry of Truth has declared that seeking détente with Russia is an act of treason. And peace is war. Long live Oceania!

jsinton , July 17, 2018 at 6:14 pm

I love it.

BobS , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm

The POTUS stood on foreign soil and announced to the world that the leader of one of our historical adversaries was more credible than the US intelligence services.
If it walks like a traitorous duck, and quacks like a traitorous duck, ..

anon , July 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm

Then it is a traitorous troll.

Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm

That's rich! Do please grace us with an explanation as to why "credible" is an adjective aptly applied to either the FBI or the CIA.

Dario Zuddu , July 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm

Excellent piece. Fortunately, there is still someone here retaining sanity.
The only thing I have to add is that, most regrettably, it is not only the media and opportunistic politicians that have lost their minds on this matter.
Large segments of the public appear to have too.
Just take a look at the readers' comments on the very same type of press coverage that is indicted by Mr. Lauria.
They overwhelmingly level the same one sided, unbalanced, shallow, wrong-headed and hysterical attacks on Trump as the press articles they comment – and for the same completely questionable reasons.
Accusations of Trump "surrendering to Putin", being a "traitor" for siding with Russia instead of the US intelligence community (on a totally unproven matter, by the way; and since when the US intelligence community is necessarily more reliable than foreign leaders on these matters?) are the norm in the readers' comment (as well as in the mostly recommended ones).
Incredibly, the same public that lambasted at the intelligence community for its appalling record on Iraq, now does not even want to consider that same community's obvious self interest in Russia-bashing.
In the USA, who stands the most to loose from a possible pacification of foreign relations with the biggest military counterpart, i.e., well, Russia?
This question just rings as troubling now as it did at the onset of the cold war.
Yet, nobody seems to wonder it.

Banger , July 17, 2018 at 4:23 pm

It's just over for those of us on the old left. The Orwellian nature of the media has taken hold and we are powerless against it. We have a population utterly uncurious of facts or history, logic or science, rationality or erudition. It's over. People want to belong, want to share their anger at whatever enemy there is no matter how ludicrous is that threat from the enemy. This is how the oligarch has decided to use Trump's election–first to divide us on tribal grounds and second to invent some enemy that uses all the mythology of Hollywood villains with Russian accents. It's working and it means the oligarchs are unassailable and now are able to control public opinion with a bunch of gestures on the screen and the population will bark on command. Goebbels is, somewhere, cackling with delight.

We will be lucky if we avoid war, fortunately the professional military understands the situation much better than the civilian leaders and have put brakes on our drift into permanent major war everywhere.

Paula Densnow , July 17, 2018 at 2:19 pm

The US media tries to browbeat Trump into saying that he stole the 2016 election with the help of Putin, and when he refuses to do that, they call him a traitor.
We live in an insane asylum.

Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:31 pm

No, trump is clearly a traitor.

Beard681 , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 pm

To who? The military industrial complex? Bill Browder who renounced his citizenship to avoid Taxes? Certainly not average US people for whom Russia poses no credible threat.

Robin Harper , July 17, 2018 at 10:31 pm

Gee, if this is all made up, explain this: (And keep in mind, to get an indictment, you MUST have proof.)

The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller's probe:

Total of indictments (so far) – 35.

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.

2) Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.

3) Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, and false statements -- all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He's pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.

4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort's longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller's team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a "Russian troll farm," and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency's employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who's currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort's pending case this year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia's military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats' emails in 2016.

Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians:
Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty

No, Trump didn't 'steal' the election. The presidency was handed to him – by Putin.

skipNclair , July 17, 2018 at 2:01 pm

The US media lost its mind long ago.

didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 pm

What has happened on this trip of President Trump is simple. The axis Washington-EU/NATO has been thrown under the bus., It has been replaced by the axis Washington-Moscow. Whether that is a cause to rejoice remains to be seen. Rejoicing now is wildly premature. Axes can break.
There will be expectations of better lives by the Russian people. What if that does not happen? There have been far more uprisings and revolutions in Russian history than in ours.

lizzie dw , July 17, 2018 at 1:34 pm

To respond to one commenter's suggestion that the US get rid of the electoral college; if one looked at the map of the US on post-election morning, one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue. If we went the "popular vote" route, every president would be elected by the coastal states because that is where most of the people live. The coastal population does not represent the country. In my opinion, since we want to have a representative government we need the electoral college so that each state gets to vote. The people in each state can direct the vote of their state.

didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:51 pm

Sorry Lizzie. The population of all states represent our nation. That is why the vote count, while it does not elect the President and Vice President, is not wholly without meaning. Governing totally against the views of the majority of voters implies that they are wrong and stupid. That is my view. It is also arrogant.

strngr-tgthr , July 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm

Thanks you! The MAJORITY should ALWAYS rule. There should be no acceptions especially for President of the United States. Too few people speak this TRUTH! In this day an age there is no reason to have any system or institutions in place that does not speak for the MAJORITY! Electoral College down!

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 2:52 pm

Never heard of the "tyranny of the majority", eh? It's a genuine problem with democracy it's quite possible that many issues would never have reached majority status -- slavery would never have been abolished (so much fuss about a regional "peculiar institutution"),

""The notion of the tyranny of the majority was popularised by the 19th century political thinkers Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). It refers to a situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged minority through the democratic process.""

The vote of far too many would be rendered irrelevant if there were no proportional representation mechanism in place too much of those disenfranchised by the elimination of the electoral college are already amongst the have-nots of our country, at the further hungry end of income inequality (some do better than other by providing "services" -- vacation homes/destinations and cheap labor -- to the oligarchs. -- those coasts are where the money and jobs are wealth

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:08 pm

handy maps . Trump won 85% of the land mass .
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html

JoeD , July 17, 2018 at 3:12 pm

The electoral college DOES NOT prevent the "tyranny of the majority" because you do not have equal voting. If every state cast the same number of votes then you have equal voting. Because each state has different number of electoral votes based on their populations, candidates can spend their time in a few states while ignoring others.

A national popular vote restores equality

A national popular vote means 3rd party candidates can win because there is no more electoral strategy or asinine argument of red state / blue state.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:12 pm

We've never had such a system, wise guy. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, based on states' rights, not one man one vote. Moreover, judges are not elected but appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. Having the president chosen by the Congress, as is done in all parliamentary systems, would be "tidier" ("fairer?") than the present system, but we've lived with this mess since 1789 and several times have been governed by a "minority president" without the world coming to an end. The rules were no excuse for a coup d'etat then, nor are they now.

michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:22 pm

The Constitution allows Amendments to change with changing times. The vote has been given to free men without property, freed slaves and women. More than 10% of Presidents did not win the plurality of votes. If people truly want their votes to count more, they can work to amend the Constitution, or vote with their feet and move to states where their votes count more.
A much bigger issue is the lack of proportional voting practiced by most real Democracies around the world. Gerrymandering districts can result in the party getting the least votes (of the two) in a state still winning the most representatives. Proportional voting would eliminate this problem, but was outlawed by LBJ in favor of first-past-the-post, winner takes all Districts.

Jim in NH , July 17, 2018 at 3:18 pm

Sorry, Didi, but our federal constitutional republican form of government is neither stupid nor arrogant.

It is a well designed construct that binds together the entire nation, not only the people but the states, into an organic being. The electoral college consciously factors in the fact that we are a union of states, not only a union of "demos" (people). That is why the "New Jersey plan" at the Federal Convention was a high point in your high school civics class. The states are intended to mean something in our federal republican form of government.

Indeed, for those who view the massive growth of our federal government into an imperial hegemon over the past century or so, it is no small coincidence that the balance constructed by the founders was tipped in favor of Washington, and BIG MONEY, by the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1912. That amemdment (for the popular election of Senators instead of their being appointed by state legislatures as written in the constitution) inexorably led to the growth of our imperial state; immediately thereafter came the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, enactment of a the personal income tax to replace import tariff's to fund the federal government, our engagement in WW 1, and increasing alliance with the British Empire that lasts today in our "special relationship", the NATO alliance, and the Anglo American hegemon.

It is also no coincidence that the root source of "Russia-gate" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a sustained effort by British Intelligence, in cahoots with US deep state intelligence that works not for the people of the US but for the Anglo-American empire of western capital centered on Wall Street and the medieval City of London. That is why the "golden shower dossier" was written by a British intelligence officer (Steele), that the basis for the deep state rat Strzok to spy on Trump was an Australian "diplomat" (read spy) Downer, friend of the globalist Clintons, and US deep state intelligence operatives attempted entrapment of Trump campaign supporters (such as by Stefan Halper, an Mi-6 and CIA asset).

The entire attack to undermine the results of the Electoral College triumph of Donald Trump is directed by Anglo-American deep intelligence assets, working for the globalist western capitalist cabal, that cannot permit a mere president to alter their globalist plans; ergo, deep state rats Brennan and 10 hand picked analysts come up with "Russian collusion", unleasigh Mueller (protector of the Whitey Bulger Winter Hill Gang), Strzok, Rosenstein, etc. to to find a basis to neuter, if not impeach, the constitutionally elected President.

Indeed, Pres. Washington foresaw such an eventuality of foreign influence tainting our Republic; see his Farewell Address at Paragraphs 32-39. Indeed, his prescience amazing; read these warnings:

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite
nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which
is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained,
and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it
gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of
a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or
foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened
and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of
seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards
a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence
to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another
cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on
the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its
tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."

Indeed, if any nation can be found to be interfering in our domestic politics and seeking to influence the actions of the President, or more precisely to have him removed from power, it's not Russia, its the United Kingdom.

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm

Interesting, thank you. I will read up on the 17th. I've blamed the "federalization" of politics for a lot of the apparent decline in citizen interest in Democracy as state and local influence "on people's lives" seemed to have been ceded over to the fed not entirely a bad thing (when it comes to civil rights, equal opportunity and federal funding for stuff states could never afford) still, I think something encouraged a complacent electorate even if the educational values of unions (voting for your interests rather than against) signifies.

backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm

Jim in NH – brilliant post! Thank you. Everybody should read it.

Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 pm

If three million more voted for Hillary than Trump, then majority of voters are wrong and stupid. Good thing the Electoral College saved us from ourselves.

Dave P. , July 18, 2018 at 1:26 am

A very good observation indeed.

BobS , July 17, 2018 at 2:42 pm

" one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue."
Right, "only the coasts". The ones where nearly 50% of the US population live.

irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:09 pm

And that 50% mostly live in big cities which would not survive long
without the rural areas which provide the resources to support them.

Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:09 pm

They actually think food comes from the supermarket Irina.

irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:17 pm

And you buy it with EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards.

JoeD , July 17, 2018 at 3:06 pm

The coasts were not blue. Clinton got the west coast. Trump won most of the east: FL, GA, SC, NC and they split Maine. Trump won 30 out of 50 states. There were also less people who voted in 2016 than did in 2012 and in 2008.

So it does not follow Clinton would win if there was a National Popular vote.

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:22 pm

It's actually worse than it appears on a state-by-state map Clinton won densely populated areas of California, but on a precinct by precinct map https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/is-this-the-ultimate-2016-presidential-election-map/521622/ (note says map was an "amateur effort" but there may be others) ..

Our electoral system(s) have very serious problems voter access (and apathy) and gerrymandering probably top the list, but that "neoliberal income inequality" appears to color/overlay everything

Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 1:33 pm

Great article and commentary CN, many thanks. There is an excellent comment by Craig Murray at his site and one should not miss the commentary there either

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/detente-bad-cold-war-good/#tc-comment-title

Jamie , July 17, 2018 at 1:20 pm

Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They voted a Russian bribery hag Hillary and now go far-right John Birch in drumming up war with Russia -- just because Trump hurt their feelings by beating Hillary. Sad!

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 12:42 pm

couple of polls .
from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-prri-republican-democratic-voter/565328/
appears to be at 68% for democrats, / 22% for Republicans

from Gallop (H/T Dave Sirota Twitter): https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx (bit unsure of unsure of date, looks like May 2018) (doesn't reach full integer)

I was impressed on the eve of 2016 election how ineffective Clinton's constant beating on Obama's drum wrt to Russia-Russia-Russia had been I don't remember the polls but the numbers for "major concern" iirc were low, around maybe 12% (after months and months)

I think the media is drunk on their own piss . I remember feeling frustrated when Gore (who had a better case for "stolen electoin" imho) walked away my suspicion is that on completion of the Mueller inquiry this is going backfire badly . even if Manafort gets decades in prison for money laundering

Anon , July 17, 2018 at 12:22 pm

Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a "Danger to America" or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?

Glenn Greenwald and another thoughtful dude, Joe Cirincione. All substance and strong disagreements without shouting or personal attacks.

Greenwald:

I also think that that last point that Joe made is actually an important one, and it does put people like me into a difficult position, which is, you know, on the one hand, of course I don't think that Donald Trump is well intentioned and is going to have the diplomatic skill to negotiate complicated new agreements of trade and of arms control with very sophisticated regimes like the one in North Korea, or at least complicated regimes in North Korea, or in Russia. On the other hand, as we've been discussing, unfortunately, he's the only game in town. There is nobody else who's saying that we ought to question NATO. Democrats, when you say we ought to question NATO, act like you've committed blasphemy. There is nobody else talking about tariffs and the unfairness of free trade agreements, except for a couple of fringe people within the Democratic Party. Just like this week, when he said that the European Union was a foe, what he said was something that for a long time on the left was really kind of just uncontroversial orthodoxy, which is that of course the European Union is an economic competitor of the U.S., and a lot of what their trade practices are do harm the American worker. We put up barriers against Chinese products entering the U.S., and yet the EU buys them and then sells them into the U.S., indirectly helping China circumvent those barriers in a way that directly harms U.S. workers. This is something that people like Robert Reich and Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders have been talking about for a long time. So it does make it very difficult when the only person who's raising these kinds of issues and talking about these things-we need to get along better with Russia and China, we need to reform these old, archaic, destructive institutions-is a megalomaniac, somebody who's completely devoid of any positive human virtue, which is Donald Trump. So it puts you in the position of kind of trying to agree with him, while knowing that he's really not going to be able to do anything about those in a positive way.

On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable being aligned with people like Bill Kristol and David Frum and all of those Bush-era hawks who are now the best friends of MSNBC and the Democratic Party, either, because they're not well intentioned, either. And so, what I try and do is use Donald Trump and the kind of shifting alliances, that we started off by talking about, to open up a lot of the debates, that will remain closed if you only look at U.S. politics through the prism of the 2016 election and Republicans versus Democrats. And I think the most important point is the one that, as I said, Joe made just this week, which is that until the Democratic Party figures out-and this is true not just of Democrats but of center-left parties all throughout Europe and here in Brazil-until they figure out how again to reconnect, not with the highly educated class and the rich and the metropolitan enclaves, but with the working class of these countries, that feel trampled on and ignored, and for that reason are turning to demagogues, we're going to have more Donald Trumps and worse Donald Trumps, not just in the United States, but throughout the world. And that is, for me, the greatest problem that we face politically

Democracy Now

Part One – There's an intro of about 2 min before debate starts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK_D4yaTae4

Part Two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1iq_c3AyGs

TIEDE , July 17, 2018 at 11:03 am

This is the best article I've read on the topic, hands down.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:38 am

No question about that, TIEDE, but considering the pitifully low standards applied to what emanates from the wreckage of the American mass media, Mr. Lauria really didn't have much competition to beat. Of course, no matter how deserved, he will not be winning any Pulitzers, since mediocre groupthink, especially of the warmongering variety, is the new standard of excellence in American letters.

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm

As others have noted, it "treason" isn't impeachable, what is? If not now, when?

Should we go off and invade Somalia in retaliation? The anti-Trump/Democrats are undermining their own credibility -- not to mention the press, whose credibility might reach nosedive if they still had much of an audience .

More ridiculous than GWB after 09/11 . which reminds me that Trump keeps reminding me of want-to-share-a-beer-with GWB but stupider and with less "fund of knowledge"

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:26 pm

And how are these "others" defining "treason?" Whatever they say it is, and without any evidence that it genuinely occurred? This is not a case of treason, it is a case of attempted mob rule, like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The vile media acts as the bull horn of the seditionists, they show some insurrectionists making a hullabaloo on your television screen, and the coup plotters point and say, "see, it's treason, off with his head!" Meanwhile, your government has been stolen yet again because some insiders didn't like the results.

michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:42 pm

To have treason you must have a declared war and a declared enemy. If you look at the list of people convicted of treason in the US, there are what, a dozen?
The President has broad powers of foreign policy (and immigration) which may be a bad thing, but I applaud Trump's peace overtures to North Korea and Russia as well as Obama's (reviled by many of the same warmongers) deal with Iran. Unfortunately all these deals are President-specific and undercut by un-elected Intelligence agencies with agendas of their own, and politicians taking money from the MIC and foreign lobbyists with war profiteering agendas. No one can believe a President no matter how well meaning and sincere. Clinton abrogated Reagan's deal with Gorbachev, almost destroying Russia, as did Obama reneging on the deal with Gaddafi, destroying Libya. Clearly the best option is to build up a cache of nuclear arms and to use them if necessary to protect sovereignty.

gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am

At least Cooper used a small window – there haven't been many U.S. Russia summits – but Fallows? Uh, 9/11 and the Saudis anyone? More evidence there than Russian collusion and three Presidents – including Trump – have given that a pass.

Jessika , July 17, 2018 at 10:50 am

Treason-schmeason, Dave! You don't seem to know much about the real history of the US government, only the manufactured one of the powers in charge. Pick up a copy of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick's book "The Untold History of the United States".

As for the vaunted democracy these talking bobbleheads and puppet politicians go on about, we don't hear them speaking about lobbying, do we, or Citizens United or McCutcheon vs Buckley decisions of the Supreme Court? It's not even the Electoral College that skews the vote and takes democracy out of the citizens' decisions -- it's lobbying, which is legalized fraud and bribery. No, they go on and on about Russia, Russia, Russia, all to make sure folks look somewhere else while they continue the hijacking.

Dave , July 17, 2018 at 10:35 am

What is amazing is how you and so many GOP are actually defending Russia! This was treason!

Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am

What is amazing is the extent that the Democrats are lied to, and the extent that they believe those lies. I am awestruck by the complete and utter brainwashing of a democratic, educated country by the CIA. Getting Republicans, who are inclined to think negatively of foreigners is one thing, but Liberal Democrats, who profess to believe in education and equality becoming the brown shirts, it never occurred to me that was possible.

By the way, i am speaking as a former Democrat, Obama voter.

gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:58 am

Yes, it is quite frightening. I think Trump is dangerously inept but reading the intelligence report on Russia released Jan., 2017 was the most frightened I have ever been as an American. It provided no evidence (apparently keeping things top secret is more important than alleged election tampering which should give cause to thought right there) and instead laid out a game plan for attacking dissenters of U.S. foreign policy.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:18 am

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I am one too, but it seems the country must be full of former Democrats (and thoroughly disillusioned Obama voters), or at least we should be if we want to survive over the long term. Hillary was just another pack of lies (and threatened violence) too far, which is why she lost. Had NOTHING to do with Russians hacking elections, influencing the vote or stealing our democracy. That is simply the revisionist bullshit in the aftermath of her self-inflicted debacle, as she persists in dragging down the party, the country and maybe the world out of self-centered petulance.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:24 am

Unless you are trying to be sarcastic, Dave, you added an extraneous letter to the word you should really want. What Mr. Lauria has written here is pure "reason," not "treason." Go back and consider all the relevant issues again, this time accurately.

Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm

I guess Dave forgot that our intelligence agencies have lied us into war in the past.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm

And YOU are prosecuting Russia on what EVIDENCE? None! That is madness and the ticket to war. You are just the sort of pawn to make Goebbels tremble with delight, Dave.

Samuel , July 18, 2018 at 12:34 am

I am not American but like so many out there, am concerned by what is going on in your once beautiful country. It amazes to realize that people have chosen to bury truth and reason for hatred's sake. How can one hope to build a secure, prosperous democracy based on a fraudulent lie? If one can pick a leaf from the Iraqi war it is that one should never believe unquestioningly everything that comes from the intelligence community. That deception resulted in perhaps millions dead. This time round it might result in billions dead including Americans. Is that what people like Dave want? Could this be a secret conspiracy to bring destruction to the entire universe? To what ends?

David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:00 am

Trump's actual treason:
-- turning environmental policy over to the biggest polluters
-- turning financial regulation over to parasitic elites
-- turning education policy over to anti-public, pro-charter grifters
-- turning the FCC over to the big telecoms
-- turning the Iran-nuke deal over to Netanyahu

What gets Trump called a traitor by the Beltway blob:
-- wanting to talk with Russia, and holding a Soviet/Russia summit just like every president since FDR

Wotta country!

Karen , July 17, 2018 at 11:06 am

Exactly!

BrianS , July 17, 2018 at 7:54 pm

Don't relish the me too, or "same here" moniker, but: Exactly!

mike k , July 17, 2018 at 9:39 am

The enemies of Peace, having failed to prevent the Putin/Trump summit, are now busy saying that it was a disaster, and that it was meaningless – two seemingly discordant observations. The real religion of America is WAR. Anything that smacks of peace is Heresy!

David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 am

"The stories of how North Korea is now violating an imaginary pledge by Kim to Trump in Singapore are even more outrageous, because big media had previously peddled the opposite line: that Kim at the Singapore Summit made no firm commitment to give up his nuclear weapons and that the 'agreement' in Singapore was the weakest of any thus far."

-- Gareth Porter

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/13/the-medias-brazen-dishonesty-about-north-korean-nuclear-violations/

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:02 am

Yeah. The lunatics would have the world believe that Trump was a cowardly traitor because he didn't i) berate President Putin to his face for rigging the election in his favor (as did the impertinent network goon Chris Wallace whom Putin totally pwned, though absolutely unbeknownst to the American jingoist corp) and ii) summarily declare war on the Russian Federation to cap everyone's day of fun and games. Insults and war seem to be what the imbeciles so passionately want. I wish I could give them their suicidal war that didn't involve me, my relatives, friends and other innocent bystanders, but that's not how it works and they will eagerly take us all down if given the chance. We are seeing war fever sweep across a crazed nation led astray by the worst demagogues to come down the pike since the "Greatest Generation" got an invite from Uncle Sam to Hitler's big dance. Everybody is a flag waving blood-lusting maniac, from the corporate boardrooms, to the residue of what is left skulking around the fake newsrooms, to the cocky stand-up comedians now inhabiting every late night channel spewing trash and attitude without having the first clue. Must be as invigorating as sucking in the cordite-perfumed air of Berlin circa 1939. The pity is that this time the glorious experience will be so short once the rockets are launched. Almost seems a waste to squander the experience on a bunch of lame brains who probably assume they can get their ticket price back if they don't fully enjoy the show.

Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 1:35 pm

Realist, As always, your comments are stunningly accurate, and have literary flavor as well. It is really getting there as you have described.

As Gore Vidal wrote long ago, this brainwashing started long time ago during the nineteenth century when they started inoculating the innocent American population against socialism and all that, the ideas which were sweeping across Europe in that century. Here we are now, it is almost a crazed Nation. My wife reads L.A. Times religiously and being a Hillary fan has been watching CNN, MSNBC, Judy Woodruff and other channels like these.

It is not going to end up pretty, the atmosphere is frightening.

Doran Zeigler , July 17, 2018 at 9:32 am

I consider my politics as beyond progressive, and I am definitely not a Trump cheerleader, but I must say that this article by Consortium News is by far the most balanced and fair article I have read on the Trump/Putin press conference. Did the Russians hack Clinton's emails? Most likely. Were the hacks responsible for Clinton's defeat -- not on your life. Hillary offered nothing other than the same old tired rhetoric and hostilities toward Russia. She basically defeated herself.

The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by three million should dispel any notion that the Russian hacks were effective. What this does say is that we should get rid of the antiquated and unfair Electoral College. The press conference was not the venue to grill or attempt to embarrass Putin, besides, Putin could hurl those same accusations at the US for not only interfering in the Ukraine election, but also contributing millions of dollars to it. Putin, if he wanted, could point to NATO creeping up to Russian borders when NATO had promised years ago not to go beyond unified Germany. The Russians have a multitude of complaints, but are more diplomatic than the provocative Americans and would rather not solve these problems in the press.

Is Trump a bumbler -- no doubt. The conference was not the place to air America's dirty laundry or bring up his usual complaints. All of this hoopla is a dog and pony show, a theatrical media event to distract the American people from their real problems like a collapsing economy made worse by Trump's tariffs, like the bloated military budget, the horrific income inequality, the rise of poverty, and an endless stream of worsening problems of which neither party has a solution. It is the old sleight of the hand trick -- watch the hand I wave in front of you face, but pay no attention to the hand that is stealing you blind.

I am at least happy to see a media outlet that has broken from the pack of running lemmings that are not heading for a cliff, but are running in a small circle.

Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm

Where is the evidence that Russia, rather than an insider like Seth Rich, released the emails?

Assange has all but verbally confirmed it was Seth Rich, not Russia.

Zinny , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 pm

Begs the question; Why doesn't the NSA either confirm or deny the download?

michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:50 pm

Why doesn't Mueller offer Assange immunity to testify? Sounds like Mueller may offer the Podestas (Manafort's partners in crime in the Ukraine) immunity to testify against Manafort.

TragiCom , July 17, 2018 at 9:28 am

You'd be forgiven if you thought Brennan's rant was an episode from 'Who is America'!!

Brennan & co. behaving absolutely like unaccountable gangsters. Very dangerous gangsters. Nuclear armed gangsters.

Herman , July 17, 2018 at 9:25 am

"The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, of stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage the candidacy of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with the clear intention of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so."

The most blatant and desperate effort to date to sabotage détente, any effort to cooperate on crucial issues. The media and its sources are hysterical but scary as hell. Using words like treason without a peep from the media or anyone in Washington is also scary as hell.

Didn't watch much of the news but curious about CNN, turned it on to watch Blitzer and Rand Paul exchange. Last question do you trust our security folks or Putin. The patriots versus the devil. Rand Paul ignored it and earlier pointed to our less than Simon pure history of trying to meddle in elections. Hell we ran the campaign of the greatest thief in Russian history, Yeltsin.

Bottom line, folks will do anything to stop the President's efforts to improve relations with Russia. It began before the inauguration and has not let up since.

There is reason to use the word treason but it is not Trump's.

Nancy , July 17, 2018 at 11:12 am

It's a bizarre world when Donald Trump is actually the voice of reason in the USA. The corporate media (including our "public" networks) are running around with their hair on fire at the thought of the two nuclear nations having a rational relationship. Why can't the public see the insanity of what's going on?

michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm

Sedition is the more accurate word for those in the Intelligence agencies seeking a soft coup.

richard vajs , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am

The US Media lost its mind about two years ago. After all this time they are still trying to change the 2016 election. It was plain then – a dirt-bag vs. a fool. The US Media had a dog in that fight – the dirt-bag. What is driving them insane is that the "fool" has survived their best efforts to destroy him – should have been easy, but it is not. So the insane manipulators are going for the throat now – TREASON. It is all ridiculous – America has deep economic problems that need to be addressed, namely the terminal income inequality that exists. Killing the fool and re-elevating the dirt-bag will accomplish nothing but give the U S Media and the elites they represent another fifteen minute stroll on the decks of the Titanic

Charron , July 17, 2018 at 8:24 am

The corporate press has been shocked that President Trump would not believe the findings of his own intelligence. Never once has anyone in the Corporate press ever noted that out intelligence sources, the CIA in particular lied when they said Iraq had WMDS. It was a terrible lie. And even if you prefer to believe that the intelligence community had merely made a mistake, our invasion cost us over 3trillion dollars, cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, and ended up causing the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and has ignited the middle east, resulting in the rise of ISIS. But no one in the corporate press sees fit to even mention the fact that the CIA claimed were a "slam dunk." Nor has anyone in the corporate press mentioned the fact that James Come, when he was in the FBI, who headed up the Anthrax investigation fingered the wrong man, though he had said when questioned if he had the right man, said he was absolutely certain that Hatfiield was the man who spread the Anthrax. The government settled the false charges against Hatfiled for 5.82 million, as it turned out a fellow named ivans. P.S. Robert Mueller was the head of the FBI during most of the investigation. And let me make this clear, I also think Trump is a scoundrel, but the members of our corporate press are scoundrels too.

gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 am

That the parroted information that got us into Iraq was a lie was widely reported and the intelligence debunked in independent media at the time. There was no mistake. The information was out there but went ignored by the mainstream media. But it goes back further. Yugoslavia, the first Gulf War erroneous reporting on such issues has been consistent at CNN.

AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 3:18 pm

You could not be more wrong about the Anthrax.
Comey and co. ignored a material witness in that case (me) that caught Hatfill snooping around my house in November of 2001. Approx. a month and a half after I received an anthrax letter. Mr Comey's Anthrax investigation was no such thing. It was just like Hillary's email investigation. It was a "matter" not an investigation.
An investigation would have included having agents pay a visit to the man (me) that gave them Hatfill's last name 7 months before his name became public. I was able to do that b/c I when I caught him snooping around my house he was arrogant enough to wear his army jacket. Guess what is on your army jacket? Your last name.
MR. Comey's Anthrax matter also ignored when I informed the FBI that Ottillie Lundgren and Cathy Nugyen had posted on the same internet message board at the same time and to the same article that I did.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller lied then and are lying now.

For kicks and giggles you can hear Hatfill admit that he was in North Carolina at the time I caught him snooping around my house in NC here .
https://youtu.be/fSfcIh1WCdg?t=1640

Mike , July 17, 2018 at 8:01 am

"The queen of diamonds the queen of diamonds"

padre , July 17, 2018 at 7:41 am

You ain't seen nothing yet, wait till your allies come tot their senses!

Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 7:38 am

Who is Bill Browder and what was his role in the election and the new cold war? A very incomplete answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgPQZCkkMZo (38:00-48:00)

Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 12:58 pm

Well now I feel silly. I just saw the ZeroHedge piece and understand that Robert Parry wrote often about Browder, so presumably most visitors of this site are familiar with the name. I'll have to look for those articles. Is Browder in the same league as Soros?

Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 1:25 pm

Webb: "Trump and Putin are closing in on this Brennan/Browder gang; that's why you had that incredible reaction from Brennan "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjvVeS_vPQw

Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 1:32 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRFy-hoFsck

Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 6:46 am

Stephen Cohen: Relations between US and Russia more dangerous than ever before, including during Cuba Crisis. (!!)

(starting ca. 5:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0UiEYK7Es4

Wendi , July 17, 2018 at 3:47 am

Ditto what (almost) everyone else says.

Putin tried to make the point that private citizens are not the state in a country. A private citizen doesn't speak official government words.
Russian billionaires perhaps poured money into election campaigns. If so, the head of state is not to blame, nor is the crime done by authority of the government.
Putin said Browder evaded Russian taxes and laundered $1.2 bn into USA, and moved one-third = $400 mn to Clinton's campaign.
Netted him $800 mn. With one-eighth of that Browder bribed Congress to enact Magnitsky (sp) proclamation to spur sanctions.

Russia filed criminal warrants with US under the 1999 treaty (Putin cited) to question Browder and bring charges; unlawfully ignoring them, US violated treaty.

Browder money 'meddling' in 2016 campaigns is NOT 'Putin dunnit' and NOT 'Kremlin dunnit' and NOT 'Russia dunnit.' Only truthfully, 'Russian Browder dunnit.'

In reflection, is Warren Buffett the US Gov't or are his actions the USG acting? Whatabout Bezos, is he USG Authority?; he owns the WashPost. Sulzberger, Mercers, Kochs, Murdoch(!), frickin Bill Kristol, Rash Lamebrain, Bloomberg, Bill Gates fer gawdsakes -- are they 'America' or 'the President/Administration?'
Is what's good for Mary Barra's security good for our National Security? No, no, and see this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/sun-valley-conference-2018-attendees-photos-2018-7#youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki-is-already-decked-out-in-a-sun-valley-2018-hat-2

Trump's right for peace, but deplorable (almost) every other way.

If he did 'collude and conspire' that seems the least of his crimes. Impeach him for being morally unfit. Cripes, he was named in Florida court indictments as co-defendant against charges of rape and abuse of 13- and 14-yo girls; his partner Jeffrey Epstein was convicted and did time. Forget Russia, Trump's is a sex pervert, racist, and fascist -- unfit for office.
https://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-secrets-that-could-bring-down-trump

No link but find July 10 item at ClubOrlov.com titled, Taking Refuge in Insanity. It may be solace for Joe, in a way, and moreover a general understanding of media cohort insanity.
If understanding is possible.

And MOST I stopped to say Thank You, thank you Joe Lauria. Your work brought me deep relief and it's refreshing.
_____

PS, I predict the 12 indicted Russians do get their day in US courtroom to defend themselves with lawyers rightfully allowed to question (Mueller's) prosecution witnesses and testimony, and to present defense , and (Mueller's) prosecution loses there.

PPS, any rich moneybags domestic or foreign who aimed to spend in 2016 to hurt Hillary or help Donald be elected,
put all the money into Bernie's campaign: split the left vote and the rightist candidate skulks into office. Vice versa, Dems in 2020 may prop up a Republican candidate on the left of Trump; split the R's vote between soft and hard rightwingers.

exiled off mainstreet , July 17, 2018 at 2:25 am

Who are the traitors? Those who seek war with a nuclear power or those who wish to solve the problems. What about Browder's $400,000,000 to the Clinton campaign. Putin wouldn't make such a statement if there were nothing to back it up, though Mueller is willing to lay unsubstantiated charges which go against proven evidence that the DNC leak was from a thumb drive, not internet transmission. In any event, why is it so bad that the crimes of the DNC were revealed? I guess the truth is dangerous to the yankee form of "managed democracy."

Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 2:10 am

I don't know if it's true or not, but I once read that Nicholas II actually ordered the de-mobilization of the Russian army on the eve of WWI, but that his order was ignored by his subordinates who were eager for war. Trump in his interview with Hannity implies at one point that he doesn't have full control over the military -- that the belligerent rhetoric has been having practical and dangerous consequences. Frightening. Starting at ca. min. 5. https://youtu.be/dRMW4knpiUo

Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:22 am

Just for sh*ts & giggles, try listening to prophecy preachers like Bro. Stair at http://www.overcomerministry.org (Do NOT belive them!) Such folks have radically different assumptions. Listening will clear your intellectual pallette, so to say.

David G , July 17, 2018 at 1:11 am

Others may not feel the connection strongly, but watching today's (yesterday's now) media meltdown flashed me back to the day of Colin Powell's Iraqi WMD presentation to the U.N.

I watched that live, and even at the time – before the specific fabrications were exposed – it was such a self-evidently lame effort that I was genuinely surprised and confused when all the media people instantly hailed the its supposedly irresistible power in making the case for the coming war. And it's not like I went into the day with such a high opinion of the corporate media.

As with Trump in Helsinki, it was clear the media was activating a pre-arranged narrative (approval then, opprobrium now) rather than genuinely reacting to what they had seen and heard.

Jared , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am

That is an excellent assesment.
That is the dumbfound aspect the blatantly preconceived and coordinated attack on the public dialog.
I feel certain the media is being required to sacrifice its reputation for the purpose of distracting the public from some issue. I dont thing the anderson coopers realise that this is the purpose they belive they are simply acting as political assasins of the enemy.
Maybe is niave of me but is it possible this is simply to defray discussion of dnc communications and dnc conspiring by which they pretty much destroyed the democratic brand? Of course there are also the globalists concern with nationalism and populism and mic with concern fear of outbreak of peace.

gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:23 am

The average journalist, mostly print but even regional TV, statistically makes less money than school teachers. It's quite different at the national TV level. They are paid ridiculously well and maybe coincidentally (maybe not) removed from the ground work among the masses. The system has rewarded them so there is natural bias toward the status quo (something that exists to a degree in objective journalism to begin with). They likely aren't aware but they are hired and keep their jobs based on questions they are not likely to ask. It's corporate America. Just as in low level administrative job hiring at large companies, blandness and safe get the jobs.

Chumpsky , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm

"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."

A page taken out of JFK's playbook.

No wonder the democrats/MSM/Deep State are so disturbed and ready to shoot the messenger. He's encroaching on their sanctified turf!

Jean , July 16, 2018 at 11:43 pm

Actually they now work for those who killed JFK

The ironies never end

David G , July 17, 2018 at 12:25 am

The full Trump quote, as it appears above:

"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."

Question for those who have seen the video: were these prepared remarks, or were they spontaneous?

I appreciate them either way, but if Trump crafted those lines on the fly I really might have to give the cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing shitgibbon (thank you, Scotland!) a fresh look.

Nora De Groote , July 17, 2018 at 3:44 am

I was thinking the exact same thing when reading that quote. That doesn't seem like his rhetoric at all. The "good thing bad thing" is where you have his level of "eloquence" again. Regardless, even if he had to memorize the statement beforehand, he still scored in my book.

Vivian O'Blivion , July 17, 2018 at 7:10 am

"cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing, shitgibbon" as a Scotsman I can only apologise for my compatriots sickeningly sycophantic language. We are normally less diplomatic in our appraisals. In Scotland, if you hear the word "f**k", it's just to let you know a noun is coming.

Zim , July 17, 2018 at 9:00 am

It's hard to believe that statement came out of Trumps mouth. But I believe it to be spot on.

Tom Van Meurs , July 17, 2018 at 2:38 am

To Chumpsky : A very courageous statement of Trump! He is no fool . You can't tell a bonk from its cover,

David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:12 pm

Lauria: "The media's handlers were even worse than their assets."

Zing! Props to you, Joe.

David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm

I haven't read the article or the comments yet, but I want to chime in now:

I've been watching MSNBC on and off all day, and the summit has clearly caused their brains (already in parlous condition) to completely liquefy.

"Treason! Worse than Watergate *and* 9/11!!"

Demented.

tom , July 17, 2018 at 10:07 am

+1

Lois Gagnon , July 16, 2018 at 10:38 pm

Once again, the hypocrisy of the media is on full display. Every president including this one pays total fealty to the criminal state of Israel which we know has interfered in the US political process, not to mention sinking a US naval vessel. But heaven forbid there be diplomatic talks with Putin who has bent over backwards to accommodate the US when he can. So far all he's gotten is sand kicked in his face.

The behavior of the media and its fellow juvenile delinquents in Washington are an embarrassment. They are without realizing it, making Trump look presidential. You can't make this sh*t up.

mike k , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm

The Evil Monsters destroying our world with their greed and violence are being flushed into the open. But will the brainwashed masses be able to see this? That is the crucial test that humanity faces at this time. The Rulers will go all out to spin this in their favor, and if that fails, they will probably try to assassinate this dangerous man, President Donald Trump.

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm

Meanwhile, while everyone is focused on Trump and Putin's summit, the real power of collusion is hard at work.

https://ahtribune.com/us/israelgate/2369-useful-idiot-trump.html

I'm posting this, because while it's appropriate we talk at length about the disgraceful reception Trump got for his trying to wage peace, we should not lose sight to what country is using the U.S, as it's useful idiot.

Besides that, an article such as what Phil Giradi wrote should not go unnoticed thank you once again MSM for being the jerks you are. Did the MSM ever hear of the word 'reporting'? Thank you Joe Lauria & the Parry family for being here when we need you the most. I don't know what I'd do without the Consortium. Hey kudos to you too Robert Parry, your still number one with me.

Joe Tedesky , July 17, 2018 at 9:14 am

Moonofalabama has the strategy right.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/07/helsinki-talks-how-trump-tries-to-rebalance-the-global-triangle.html#more

Joe Tedesky , July 17, 2018 at 9:17 am

Surprisingly Professor Coke, says this

https://www.juancole.com/2018/07/shocked-bromance-netanyahu.html

Howard Mettee , July 16, 2018 at 10:09 pm

Thank you Joe,

For trying to restore a note of sanity and balance in the crucible of journalistic/political dialogue between Russia and the US centers of power, where we sense the truth will be lost in white hot bombast, and the accepted narrative of reality will be decided by the heads pushing the correct emotional buttons to fit their nationalistic needs, and their needs for continued employment. Who can forget the last time all 17 intelligence services were of one mind on weapons of mass destruction – that turned out to be nonexistent! Let's hope we can catch our breath before we trip into a patriotic war that destroys civilization.

John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:20 pm

Excuse me, but the intelligence service was turned upside down by Bush and his team inserting their own officials to sensor what was released. The Agencies were very upset that the truth wasn't coming out, and you had the Valerie Plame incident also.
From Slate: "Trump and Putin Met in Helsinki's Hall of Mirrors. Here Are the Highlights." ends with the following:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
On a related note, Rob Goldstone, the British publicist who set up that Trump Tower meeting by promising Trump's son that it was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," just tweeted that Putin had lied earlier in the day when he said he did not know that Trump would be in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant.
Rob Goldstone @GoldstoneRob
President Putin just stated that he had no idea Donald Trump was in Moscow in 2013. I know for sure that he did and tell the full story in my soon to be released book "Pop Stars, Pageants & Presidents: How an Email Trumped My Life"
1:16 PM – Jul 16, 2018
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
There may not have been collusion but I think we can say there probably was interference, voting machines and misinformation spread by agents throughout the social communications media of today. And Putin did admit late, that he was for Trump not Hillary.

If there was funding from Russia to the Democrats as some say, and Putin is truthful that he preferred Trump then why did they give money to the Democrats? Was it to designed to undermine Hillary through its exposure.

Others complain about the timing of the 12 Russian agents, but that was no different from the timing of the Hillary email story release shortly before the election.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 am

"Putin Stole the Election" is fantasy fiction, just like "Obama is a Kenyan" was.

Typingperson , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 am

So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries like Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?

If lawfully using a govt server, Hillary"s emails would be subject to FOIA petitions. By USA citizen taxpayers and reporters. Her emails as Sec of State are the property of the American people, who paid her salary. That's what people still don't get.

She used a private server to keep secret the illegal, pay-to-play arms deals–in return for payola bucks to Clinton Foundation.

And Obama turned a blind eye for 4 years. His specialty: Suck-up talking while turning a blind eye.

To Hillary"s incompetence and murderous corruption, to his weekly drone-murders, and to accelerated deportation of innocent immigrants–and ICE separating parents from kids.

While starting 5 new wars on top of Iraq and Afghanistan–including ongoing genocide of Yemen.

Obama was a good boy for the deep state / war profiteers. And he collected his $60M "book contract." Bribe.

Bill , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm

"So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries like Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?"

How is that different from Trumpkin or Bush doing much the same thing?

Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:50 am

Maybe it doesn't make sense because Russia never really worked for either side.

Ron Johnson , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am

Tracing who, exactly, did the hacking is always difficult because the evidence left behind is usually impossible to trace. In the case of the hacking or attempted hacking of certain states' data, the only evidence that it was the Russians came from Russian language characters in the code. Slam dunk, right? Well no, since our CIA/NSA admitted to using exactly such techniques to misdirect researchers away from their own hacking.

If you read deeper into the story of how the Russians funded Clinton, you'll find that it was not the Russian government. Putin pointed out that the money was made 'illegally' in Russia and sent out of the country 'illegally', ending up in Clinton's campaign.

There are a number of differences between the indictments of the Russians and the release of information in the Hillary e-mail investigation. First, there is no chance the Russians will ever end up in a U.S. court so it is an indictment with no future. Second, Comey, a supporter of Hillary, made the announcement and subsequently cleared her, probably to save his own career because the field office that was doing the investigating was about to go public with his dereliction of duty in the Clinton investigation. Subsequent investigations have revealed how the highly politicized FBI and DOJ went out of their way to protect Clinton. Mueller's indictments, on the other hand, are just pure political malfeasance.

John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 pm

Zhu Ba Jie, I never said that Russia influnced the results of the election. It probably didn't. But what I do think is that the Russians are probably laughing at how didvided America has become. Neoliberalism which caters to busines rather than liberalism which caters to the people and the country as a whole is destroying society. People need to get on the streets and voice their concerns, Get together and form rallies like those who spoke out against the Vietnam War.
Is it social media that makes people babble and rave rather than be active out there getting the much needed attention?
Gather fo support a greener world, a fairer more benevolent world. To get local economies going putting money in needy people's pockets is far better than trickle down or financing and support for big business. The poor will spend it locally and that's good.
Get out there and make a stir. Trump ain't going to help you. Get rid of PACs, superPACs and other big donor money pots for a start start. Bernie Sanders and now some new young people are seeing the light. Get in there and help them along. Get out on the streets and shout for change!
Throw away the smart phone and get marching!

John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:34 pm

Also, Ron Johnson , I'm not American, I didn't know the full story of the mob money and Hillary. My choice was Bernie Sanders never Hillary or Trump. My fear is, the way things are going, it's like the period between the great wars and the effects of poverty and big business. Support for the needy and the busting up of big business were two steps which helped the world climb out of the mire. Perhaps we need to add robotics to the list. People need work and a purpose.

Larry Gates , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm

Donald Trump is a vile human being, and I disagree with 98% of what he says and does, but today he was right and everyone else was wrong. I've been on a trip in my car most of the day, listening to public radio. It was an endless orgy of misinformation and deep-state propaganda. PRI was as insane and dangerous as Fox News on a really bad day. I'm starting to think that nuclear war is a more immanent danger than global warming. It isn't just Rachel Maddow who has gone off the deep end. It is the entire national media. What kind of country have we become? Pray for peace.

strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 10:45 pm

Larry – Don't buy the Trump CoolAid He is completely wrecking are world order. Last month was Kim, this month was Putin and now this! Look:

White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-direct-negotiations.html

He is meeting with all the dictators of the world now! Guaranteed he will have Assad at the White House before we can get him impeached. This is 100% out of Putin's play book. He is a trader to American Values. Never have we sunk so low, dissing are true allies and honoring thugs, killers and despots! 110% vile!

Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm

Do you mean like Pinochet, Somoza, Galtieri, Rios Montt, Suharto, Mobuto, shall I go on?

Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:02 pm

And it is about time there are direct talks with the Taliban. The U.S. has lost in Afghanistan. It has to try to get something out of it.

strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm

We are in Afghanistan for woman's rights! "Hillary: justified by the desire to emancipate Afghan women." And we have all seen the concern that Trump has for woman (Billy Bush – Babies at the Border, shall I go on?) 120% vile!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/20/hillary-clinton-afghan-women-taliban

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 3:54 am

You are totally deluded, Mr. Man Without Vowels in His Name, if you think we are in Afghanistan to promote women's rights. I'm sure you still faithfully watch the Jay Leno Show to stay apprised of Mrs. Leno's featured assessment of that crusade. Ranking light years ahead of your purported reason for the last 17 years of war in the Hindu Kush are i) the planned oil and gas pipelines*, ii) the proven deposits of rare earth elements essential to modern electronic devices, and iii) the immediate proximity to Iran, Russia, China and Pakistan giving Washington the ability to raise hell from its many military bases in Afghanistan on a moment's notice (all part of Obama's infamous "Pivot to Asia," which implied far more than a new cadre of Peace Corp workers–more like, we can buy any locals we need with the pallets of Franklins we now air drop on a routine schedule).

* Read "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden" by Brisard and Dasquie, it's still relevant 17 years later, while Hillary's "feminist" credentials remain completely irrelevant.

Gene Poole , July 17, 2018 at 5:48 am

An analysis of this contributor's writing style reports a 98.3% likelihood that he/she is Donald Trump.

Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 8:04 am

The United States has been "honoring thugs, killers, and despots" at least since Allen Dulles became the director of the CIA in the 1940s. America is an expansive empire, controlled by our corporate oligarchy. It's all about their money and power. They talk about human rights, but that is just a cover for their greed. Much of Trump's foreign policy is bad, but it is simply a logical continuation of the foreign policies of Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Negotiations with Putin is a step in the right direction and the Orange Beast deserves credit for it. It looks to me like it is you, not me that has swallowed the Kool-Aid.

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:02 am

The Taliban, in the last week – 10 days, has said they will not negotiate as long as the USA occupies Afghanistan This was abbreviated in most headlines to say that the Taliban refuse to negotiate.

The Americans have launched the "time to negotiate with the Taliban" trial balloon before -- "tragically" coming to nothing.

We (USA) interfere when the Baghdad government attempts their own negotiations. (or simply do things that encourage retaliatory attacks) . Now ISIS in the mix.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:47 am

We've become a theater state. A powerful performance is what matters.

Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:08 am

Indeed. The histrionics of the last 48 hours have been beyond belief and credulity. The hardcore news-as-scandal-addicted will stay tuned, but I lost respect for some "stars" of the news in ways that won't be forgotten I keep expecting Maddow to either use hand puppets or present "crime reenactment" videos, along with her other show-and-tell visual aids.

BBC is just as bad in terms of prejudice but at least present a professional facade .DW and France 24 are alternatives as is the (much too short, almost every hour on the hour) RT headline news. RT's interview and talk shows are excellent and quite sober. It's not that they aren't slanted, they're just not insulting to the audience.

HiggBo , July 17, 2018 at 10:10 am

Maybe now you will think about the things these very same people said about him. Maybe they arent true either.
Hint: The vast majority arent.

Deniz , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm

They are losing their minds over Putins announcement of the $400 milion that was transferred Clinton through Browder.

michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:01 am

Seems Hillary learned a lot from Chinagate (where the Clintons paid the illegal donations from a foreign nation back AFTER winning the Election). And China only received military technology, offshored jobs and permanent favored nation trading status in return. Win-win.
You can be sure Hillary will claim that $400 million, if ever traced to her despite bleach bitting all her records, was for the Clinton Foundation Campaign and it was just an inadvertent mixup.

PuddinNTain , July 16, 2018 at 9:54 pm

Thank you for this reasoned piece amidst a plethora of madness. Most of my friends and colleagues who identify as Democrats, liberals, progressives, haters of Trump, etc, people I have the most in common with, politically speaking, have completely lost their freaking minds over this stuff. Critical thinking? Who needs it! Mueller and the intelligence community have surely seen the light since the "Iraq has WMDs" days.
Exactly when did the intelligence community, the sellers of lies and perpetrators of regime change world-wide, become a friend to the American people?

Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm

"He had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy,.."

What democracy? 99% of the candidates' campaigns have been almost completely funded by Wall Street, the blood thirsty giant defense contractors, or paranoid and hegemonic Zionist sociopaths.

It's been proven in a recent academic study by Princeton political scientists (and long lamented before these guys got on the case by such luminaries as Michael Parents, S. Wollin, James Petras, N. Chomsky, Vidal, Hedges) that the American citizenry has absolutely no influence whatsoever regarding poltico-economic decisions that emanate from Washington, they're drowned out by big business and the imperialist ruling elites.

So I ask this warmongering Russophobic talking head once again: what democracy? What democracy do you speak of? The same democracy that mires millions of newly college grads with $30,000 to $500,000 in student loan debt, or the same democracy that's witnessing close to 50% of the entire population living close to the poverty level, or that has tens of millions of its denizens without adequate healthcare coverage

Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:55 pm

typo: such luminaries as Michael Parenti, S. Wollin, James Petras

The editor regrets the error.

John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:26 pm

Trump ain't going to help you on that one. You need to get together with others work to get rid of PACs and Super PACs. In most western countries they wouldn't be allowed.

Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 am

The political parties are also corrupt, taking donations fed back directly or indirectly from government funding of contractors. These are extensive rackets supported by half the population, who have never worked for anything but a political gang operation, and really believe in gangs.

michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:11 am

Why are you bringing up "ponies" that we will never have, when Hillary's private club (or so the judge ruled when Bernie's supporters tried to fight their fraud, saying private clubs can do what they please, particularly picking potential presidents) was hacked into by those supercompetent Russians? Much akin to the Nigerian guy who's been trying to help me collect money from some dead rich relative I didn't know I had. Still waiting, but I'm sure if this was a fraud Mueller and our Intelligence agencies would be all over it, just like Hillary's Private Club, the DNC. The Russians didn't steal any money from Hillary, as far as I know, or there would have been War!

gcw919 , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm

These media "pundits" are truly an embarrassment. They become apoplectic about "possible" Russian hacking in our elections, but one can search in vain for their comments about our own interference in Ukrainian politics, and many other countries around the globe. (eg, Victoria Nuland, Hillary's pit bull, gloating about the US spending $5 billion in "support" of Ukrainian democracy). Its as if real concerns, such as nuclear annihilation, or catastrophic climate change, were afterthoughts. We are certainly living in mystifying times.

Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 10:16 pm

I think the same thing. The whole "election meddling" hoopla, even if it was true, pales to insignificance in light of what we are actually doing.

We have a base – a military base – in Syria. We weren't invited. We didn't get permission to set up a base. But we set up a military base in another country while announcing that that country's leader "must go." And now – with a total absence of evidence – we have the gall to condemn Russia for "meddling in our democracy."

What is wrong with these people? Can't they see the utter hypocrisy in it all?

AZ_bob , July 16, 2018 at 11:29 pm

I tell people all the time, if Russia did put their thumb on the scale, then hey – I guess "What Goes Around, Comes Around" huh? If you CAN'T take it, DON'T dish it out. Quite simple, really

irina , July 17, 2018 at 1:28 am

The US media's hysterical (in the unfunny sense) response to "Russian meddling"
is very like the husband who catches his wife cheating on him and goes totally postal,
although he himself has been cheating on her ever since their courting days . . .

Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:53 am

No they don't see the hypocrisy. A large percentage of the population suffers from a severe Irony Deficiency and that can't be cured.

Layne , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am

I beat my head against the wall with the very same question! Thanks for sharing..

Tristan , July 16, 2018 at 9:26 pm

Thank you for doing the real journalism needed for readers to gain perspective and understanding. It is important to call out propaganda in the face of facts. One thing that stands out significantly is the statement by Trump, "I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics." Even if only partially pursued, the goal of peace is indeed a very worthy endeavor. In fact, this is one of the first times in recent memory that a US president has used the word "Peace".

I don't like the majority of what the Trump administration is doing, it is important to stick to the facts and support efforts that could lead to a reduction of the tensions and hostility which dominate current US / Russia relations.

F. G. Sanford , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm

"A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world."

I could hear in the inflection of that sentence the profoundly courageous and confidently certain voice of John F. Kennedy. Gergen, Amanpour, Cooper, Cheney, Brennan, Clapper and the rest of them be damned. The usual suspects, the bought and paid-for mouthpieces of the "deep state" raised their reptilian ire in the expected reprehensible fashion. War is what keeps them on the "payroll", and they'll tell any lie it takes to keep those checks rolling in. Despicable. It seems likely that their vitriol may stem as much from fear of exposure as anything else.

I think President Trump gave a laudable and compelling performance. It's a tragedy that this article will probably not get the circulation it deserves. Thanks to Joe Lauria for having the guts to write it.

Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:43 pm

Amen.

jaycee , July 16, 2018 at 10:15 pm

Cheers. I noticed the same JFK echo in that sentence.

Brennan and the whole lot of those pundits sound exactly like the paleolithic right from the 50s and 60s, the ones who insisted MLK was a communist and were so effectively personified by Sterling Hayden in the Dr Strangelove film.

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm

Here ya go F.G. your on par with Paul Craig Roberts.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/16/is-president-trump-a-traitor-because-he-wants-peace-with-russia/

Enjoy my man. Joe

Dave P. , July 16, 2018 at 11:52 pm

Yes. I agree completely.

W. R. Knight , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm

I recall about 16 years ago when the U.S. media almost unanimously reported, with absolute certainty, that Saddam Hussein was harboring numerous weapons of mass destruction. I also recall their fervent calls for regime change because Hussein was a threat to our national security. There were a few voices who spoke against it, but they were drowned out by MSM. It would appear that U.S. media is adamantly against anyone who is opposed to war. Is it because war is so profitable for the media, or is it because war is so profitable for their masters?

Jessika , July 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm

Hey, Johnmichael, you must know that the US is headed by an oligarchy, UK too, France, etc. What runs the world is banks and multinational corporations. The US could actually be called a corporatocracy, because the people have very little say in their government. Yes, media bashers do bash media when they lie because they are supposed to ferret out facts but they don't, they serve their money masters. They all use "Goebbels style" messaging, Putin the least, i notice. It's a western script.

Steve , July 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm

Everything the Main Stream media says about Trump applies ten times over to themselves, the presstitutes that they are useful Idiots of the Corrupt New World Order.

Bob In Portland , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm

A look at Mueller's career will go far in explaining why Mueller is handling this and what he won't see while investigating:

https://caucus99percent.com/content/what-mueller-wont-find

If you haven't read this, please do.

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm

I did Bob, and I'm encouraging more to read it. Joe

Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 am

Bob – Yes, I have read the article about Mueller's career.

backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 5:08 am

Bob in Portland – excellent read! Thank you. Mueller is like a fixer, a sweeper, someone who cleans up and, as you said, moves investigations away from the CIA.

"He knew where to look and where not to look."

No doubt he's a valuable asset to the Deep State. Not a nice man.

Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:39 am

Great work!

Yes, Mueller's a master of misdirection. Was it Parry who noted (likely others as well) that reporting is now less about lying than deliberate omission. Hard to fact-check what ain't there (vs. a lie which lays out data which can be tested) Knowledge IS power: we are not to have knowledge.

Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 9:34 am

Thanks to all in this thread. I filed this statement recently here, and it was edited out. I'll try again because it's appropriate.

A relatively vibrant Press was modified violently in the days and weeks following November 22, 1963. Some careers were enhanced, some lives were lost. If some contemporary student of History or Journalism wanted to study the decline of American Democracy they might begin by reading all of the linked article below about a Journalist named Penn Jones

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKjonesP.htm

W. R. Knight , July 16, 2018 at 8:59 pm

As much as I loathe Trump, I have to admit this is one time I agree with him. No matter how much Trump screws up, the simple fact is that no one is 100% wrong, and it's important to recognize when they are not wrong.

I don't agree that the Russians are our enemy. I don't believe they are our friends, but there's a large gap between an enemy and a friend and I place the Russians somewhere in that gap. I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database, but that doesn't rise above my threshold of significance and certainly doesn't hold a candle to all the U.S. interference in the politics of most of the world's nations (which includes deposing democratically elected presidents). And finally, I don't believe in gunboat diplomacy and I agree that it's better to talk with the Russians than it is to beat the war drums and seek more confrontation.

Having said that, I deplore Trump's behavior toward our European, Canadian and Mexican friends, and his domestic policies are the worst of any in the last 100 years. But as much as I deplore this buffoon, I believe that he is right in attempting to normalize relations with Russia.

Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm

"I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database,"

Well, you should, because there is zero evidence of a Russian hack.
On what basis in the world do you so confidently assert that you "do not deny" something that is untrue?
The evidence is of an inside leak.
Please, learn the difference between the two, a hack and a leak.

Nancy , July 17, 2018 at 11:38 am

Another indication of the insidious power of the media over common sense.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 3:22 am

Of course it is entirely within the interests of America to have free and friendly relations with Russia. Why? Not only because peace beats the hell out of war, especially the nuclear variety, but because we, along with the rest of the world, need Russia's vast resources in a planet rapidly being depleted of everything essential to modern technology. If they don't sell their products to the West on the open market because Washington thinks it can steal them after some kind of "regime change," all those essential goodies will go to China, India and the other peoples of the East whom we look down upon, and are also fixing to mess with.

From all I have gleaned, Russia has always aspired to be a part of the West, ever since Peter the Great opened Russia to Europe, but Washington thinks that being a member of team West means being a totally subservient vassal to it and only it. Look at how shamelessly Washington has abused the interests of the EU in its efforts to subjugate Russia. There is mostly one party that threatens the future of Western prosperity and moral values: the United States, or rather its government. Its motives are uncontested power and greed to benefit its small clique of decadent aristocrats.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm

Why would anyone believe the Liars' Club (the CIA) about anything? Their successes are more shameful than their failures.

Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:43 am

Ah, but successes and failures are not ours to judge, no, it is for the ruling elite to judge, and given that their power and wealth has but steadily increased it is safe to say, under their measuring, that the CIA has been quite successful.

Johnmichael2 , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm

Putin brilliantly heads an Oligarchy. Trump obsequiously admires Putin because he too, by all of his actions to date, aspires to the same power. To all of you media bashers, who are on a very strange campaign of denial, don't forget that Trump and his Goebbels style messaging received prime time from the electronic media throughout the campaign and was probably key to the win.

The real Deep State is the multinational world order of capitalism, which doesn't care what type of government it owns. Yet CN seems totally oblivious to their existence. If the media is to blame for anything, it is that their coverage tends to be controlled by ratings; in other words, by money, and the Deep State controls the money.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:52 pm

The US has oligarchic since 1789.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:53 pm

Goebbels was far smarter and articulate than Trump.

Danny , July 17, 2018 at 9:57 pm

the free $2B from the same media now screeching for his head? (Fox excepted) the 35-40 minutes dedicated to his empty podium while Sanders talked? I have some REALLY bad news for you 'bout who was behind that

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

Jessika , July 16, 2018 at 8:44 pm

I highly recommend reading James Howard Kunstler's piece on Russia Insider, "Idiotic Russia Meddling Hoax Kept Alive by Trump-Putin Summit". On his blog 'Clusterfuck Nation' he titles it "12 Ham Sandwiches with Russian Dressing". Kunstler is a great cynicist humorist called a dystopian by the NYT. This piece he just published is one of the best and will undoubtedly be picked up by others. Has a funny cartoon on Russia Insider for a musical based on the Mueller never-ending saga. At least it's a few cynical laughs for this sorry affair.

Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 10:00 pm

https://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/1200xauto/public/russia_follies_mueller_trump_hillary-1024x751_0.jpg?itok=mrheD4D_

Lester D , July 16, 2018 at 8:41 pm

Mass hysteria is a frightening spectacle to behold. The power with which it grips the minds of virtually everyone is beyond belief. As I watched the media coverage of Helsinki unfold, it seemed the media minions were perceptibly working themselves into a collective frenzy, a totally berserk, bonkers group who were bidding the price of tulips up to a million each. The ironic aspect of all this to me is that even if the commie bastards did what we say they did would it have made any difference? And if indeed it was they who hacked HC's "personal" email files and made them available to Wikileaks, I'm glad as Hell they did.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:56 pm

It would not make any difference. We Americans are to blame for our own follies and mistakes.

KiwiAntz , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm

It's Washington & the MSM's mass hysteria, not the common folk who couldn't give a rats ass about this lunacy? Ask the ordinary citizen in the US or Worldwide what they care about? It's not the never ending Russiagate BS spewed out by the MSM or corrupt DEMS! It's about, how will my Family be housed, Fed, & cared for! How will I support myself & my Family's needs & wants! THATS WHAT WE CARE ABOUT, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FAKE RUSSIAGATE NONSENSE & it's BS! But what do these MSM idiots know, they think their smarter than those who voted for change & are getting that with Mr Trump!

David G , July 17, 2018 at 12:01 am

Right on, Lester D.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:39 pm

I'm starting to get hopeful about Trump after a lot of doubts.
Whatever his limitations, he at least has some common sense. This is something we would never have seen happen with Crooked Hillary Clinton, ever. Somebody had to listen to Putin, who actually has quite a lot of sensible things to say about this, and is a very intelligent and articulate politician.
Given enough time, Trump might actually figure things out in Washington before he leaves office and sees all the treasonous forces in the permanent security state. I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump in '16 but if he listens to Putin and gives peace a chance, this will mend all cracks with me.
Maybe they should put up a fence around CNN headquarters and call in a battalion of psychs to provide mental health treatments to the war profiteers and talking heads.
I voted for peace. I want to see peace. Kudos to Trump and Putin for bringing an oasis of sanity to the world. Nuclear war is bad for our kids. I am very relieved to see this happening. Even General Eisenhower could not buck the Military Industrial Complex in 1959 when he tried to reach detente with Khrushchev. Trump will go down in history as a great president if he can pull this off.

mike k , July 16, 2018 at 8:38 pm

The incredible ugliness of the media, spy agencies, military figures, and politicians is unfortunately only the tip of a huge iceberg. Underneath all that is the deep state oligarchs, who are willing to sacrifice billions of lives and the very continuation of life on our precious planet – just to fulfill their insatiable greed for wealth and power. These evil monsters are the real enemies of Humanity.

Lolita , July 16, 2018 at 8:29 pm

Not only the U.S. Media, but also the Canadian, French, British etc that is, the agitprop tools for NATOland/Soros, ready for selective and well rehearsed indignation, on cue.

Frances , July 16, 2018 at 10:06 pm

Yes, Australian media and politicians too.

Lolita , July 17, 2018 at 12:17 am

Tonight CBC The National managed to invite a "balanced" panel to discuss the Trump-Putin press conference: a researcher from Stratfor and a journalist from the Washington Post!!!! LOL

Lolita , July 17, 2018 at 5:32 pm

And when CBC's narrative and their fake-debate in the National is challenged in the comment section the CBC sycophants know only one action:

"Your account has been banned until 10/15/2018. Reason: We have banned this account for 90 days because we believe it is in violation of our Terms of Use, specifically repeated off-topic comments, uncivil comments, and personal attacks. For more information, please visit: http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/submissions.html ."

All of this to mask political censorship
In my last posts, I quoted Joe Lauria and they did not like it one bit:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

Good Bye ICIJ

KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 2:16 am

And add NZ's Media to that shameful list of Propagandists telling lies & expecting us to belithis tripe!

Mike Lamb , July 16, 2018 at 8:23 pm

The calls of President Trump being a traitor mimic those of the calls that President Eisenhower was a traitor back in the 1950s.
But what can you expect from the cult followers of the former Goldwater girl who have done their best to turn the Party of Gene McCarthy into the Party of Joe McCarthy?

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:59 pm

Dems have GOP lite for a long time, at least since Reagan.

Pandas4peace , July 16, 2018 at 8:22 pm

Americans need to turn off their damn television sets.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm

I canceled my cable subscription three months ago and haven't missed it one bit.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:53 am

One needs to keep apprised of the lies that the enemies of humanity so effectively spread through their propaganda in order to counter them.

Besides, if you ever need a good emetic, there is always the opportunity to tune in Rachel Maddow until your stomach upchucks its contents.

Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:51 am

Ha ha! The Rachel Maddow weight loss program!

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:01 pm

Good idea. I quit watching regularly in the '70s. But does make one somewhat alienated from everyone else.

Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:32 pm

Actually I have Direct TV and for a change I can tune in to channel 321 RT America and listen to some real news instead of the 24-hr fake news on the rest of the channels.

Skip Scott , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am

Last night I blocked CNN on the TV where I am currently forced to reside. I am the only one with the p/w to unblock it. Take that CNN!!!

Jessika , July 16, 2018 at 8:13 pm

Well said, as always, Realist, but the scary part is to read the vitriolic anti-Trump responses indicating the 'liberals' would actually rather risk war! I just read a few of them and honestly wonder if there's any hope for this country, maybe we will have to take some harsh lessons that will be meted out. They do not realize that they are assisting in bringing down every one of us with their hate. The controllers who play them love it.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:47 pm

The danger is that they will bring their war hysteria into the next election and get someone elected that is even worse than Hillary would have been.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:02 pm

I'm not convinced that anyone is control. "Time and chance come to them all."

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:46 am

My, how we have come full circle, Jessika. So, now it's the "liberals" who would rather be "dead" than "red?" That used to be the far right John Birchers back in my youth. (Not that anyone anywhere on the planet is a genuine "communist" any longer, not even in Cuba or North Korea.) I just wish there was some mechanism to allow them to self-immolate without killing or harming the rest of us nearly 8 billion human beings. They have some potent demons colonizing what passes for their minds. Perhaps they could use a convincing exorcist to drive the Hillary entity out of their system.

Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am

All comes in cycles. Dixiecrats, anyone?

Brad Owen , July 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm

EXACTLY. Actually, FDR was the "Bernie Sanders" of his day, and completely turned the Party upside down with his "New Deal for the forgotten man" (Labor and farmers). The traditional D-Party was the party of southern plantation aristocracy and their money handlers on Wall Street, and the original R-Party contained the fire-breathing radicals within its ranks.

jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:10 pm

It is my understanding that Russia and US are holding approximately 90% of nuclear weapons worldwide. In a sane world, The US media should be commending Trump for trying to reach an agreement regarding denuclearization with Putin. Nonetheless, Trump is being grilled for doing what almost the entire planet is seeking: a world free of nuclear weapons. Indubitably, US national media are very busy undermining Trump's efforts to reduce the scorch of nuclear war. Do the US media think that in a nuclear exchange humans will survive? We will all lose.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:54 pm

No, the elites on both sides of the political spectrum are living in a mythical Hollywood rich man's fantasy world believing that the worst that can happen to them is they will retreat to their luxury underground cities and live out the nuclear war, communicating with their nuclear subs, while the rest of us paeons fry. They don't care about us, at all. They are congenital psychopaths.
It sounds crazy because it is, and it is hard for the rest of us to believe they could be so foolish. They are fatally misguided in their beliefs that this would ever work and be good for them.

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:34 pm

I think your right. Joe

Jean wyman , July 16, 2018 at 9:53 pm

Good comment Jose. In answer to your observations, I'd pose a question: what was Obusha thinking when he proposed a 3TRILLION dollar upgrade of America's nukes? Who exactly was it that he was placating and that T-rump isn't.

Skip Scott , July 16, 2018 at 8:09 pm

When the talking heads said that Trump trusted Putin more than his own Intelligence Agencies, I screamed at the TV, "ME TOO!". I can think of no clearer sign that the CIA is still embedded with the MSM. Discussion of the history of our Intelligence Community in both the near and distant past, and it's utter lack of trustworthiness, is a forbidden topic. My only hope is that enough people actually listened to what Putin said, instead of the talking heads' rantings, and saw for themselves that Putin is a rational and fair-minded leader. The near hysteria of Anderson Cooper and his ilk is a sure sign that their grip on the narrative is slipping.

jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm

I concur with your post. Personally, I rather listen to Putin than the US national media. You are correct to assert that "Putin is a rational and fair-minded leader" You would have to be mentally retarded to pay any heed to US national media that have proven to be a tool of those controlling the livers of power. Well done, Skip.

Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 9:04 pm

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:07 pm

Anderson Cooper, the grandson of Gloria Vanderbilt, and great-grandson of robber baron railroad mogul Cornelius Vanderbilt is CIA trained in Operation Mockingbird.
https://youtu.be/w8NTLVOjas8

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm

I said that once, and got booed out of the room. Joe

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:28 pm

Skip I hear ya, but allow me to tell you what I saw, and heard today. So after Trump made his remarks about trusting, or not trusting, certain intelligence data, I while driving in my car heard callers calling in to the local talk show. The callers who expressed themselves the way we do on this comment board were berated by the callers who thought this kind of talk (like we here on CN talk) was treasonous by all known treasonous standards. The callers who sounded like we do here were labeled as their being crazed Trump supporters, and yet all of them said of how they don't even necessarily like Trump, but right is right and left is now warmongering. None of the other opposing callers bought this denial of Trump, as they just fluffed it off, as Trump supporters hiding behind whatever it was their suppose to be hiding behind. Facts are painfully ignored, especially when it comes to analyzing Trump.

I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. The discontent is about where we were back during the Vietnam years, as the only thing missing are the peace marchs. This time our civil war will be fought strictly on a social level, aided by an instigating MSM, as division messes up any real citizen advocacy as the citizen may require to straighten out any of this disconnection of their society or that's at least the way I see it.

We citizens are officially at war with each other. We will all look back upon this period of our evolvement, and laugh over the Facebook censorship, and dream of a time when it was merely just about politics, and taxes. We are moving in a direction where the National Security Deep State is beating up an outsider maverick, and this maverick is now in the Deep States crosshairs. It's darn strange, and I swear if something awful were to happen to President Trump that the MSM would encourage us Americans to make Trump's ugly fate a new national holiday . I think there are many among this Deep State cabal who still celebrate with joy the sad happenings of November 22nd, 1963.

The empire is finally going down, and we are all witnessing it first hand. Joe

Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 4:14 am

"I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. . . ."

Good observation Joe. It already started happening some time back in our home. A truce was reached with a compromise that my wife would not watch CNN, MSNBC . . . when I am around the house and I will not read CN and make comments, at least when she is around. This morning my wife went to our retired neighbor's house to watch these channels with her. Both of them have been feeling today as if some tragedy has happened.

That is what this two years of Russia Gate hysteria fueled by the Media and Politicians has done to the people. Today was probably the worst day; they are really messing up the population. It is even worse than those cold war days of 1950's which I have read about. And there is no end in sight.

Joe Tedesky , July 17, 2018 at 9:02 am

Dave I swear we live in the same house. Joe

Tristan , July 16, 2018 at 9:34 pm

Aye aye! Well put, I concur.

Lyle Courtsal , July 16, 2018 at 8:09 pm

Killary had a crap platform. That is why she lost. If the platform was something progressives could support, then people would come out and vote for her. Her record of dependability is crap; just a double talking republican liar. No good. That's why she lost. I didn't vote for her and won't vote for her if she is forced on us again. Lyle Courtsal http://www.3mpub.com

jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:20 pm

You are correct Lyle about Hillary's lost. I would like to add the following:Vladimir Putin has not meddled in the US election, Hillary Clinton has. Leaked emails reveal that the popular socialist Bernie Sanders had his chance of becoming president stolen from him by Hillary Clinton and her associates at the Democratic National Committee. If defrauding democracy is worth going to war over, certainly it is worth going to jail over. Millions of Americans had their votes stolen.

Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:34 pm

Yes, I listened to some of her campaign speeches, and they were embarrassingly awful, and empty of ideas except inciting horror of "Le Trump"! She was truly pathetic in her confidence that she was in the in-group, addressing others in the "in-group," thus not needing to actually campaign.
Recently Hillary was awarded the Radcliffe medal, and she spoke at Radcliffe Day. I was horrified that she was given this honor. I heard that she read from a Teleprompter. That indicates to me that she was and is indeed not physically up to the challenges of the office, quite apart from her many other deficits.

Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 am

I wouldn't vote for a mass murderer. If you cannot fundamentally be for peace then all else, no matter how wonderful it sounds (it could be) has nowhere to anchor.

John V. Walsh , July 16, 2018 at 8:05 pm

Great column.
There is no doubt that the Summit moved us away from confrontation with Russia which holds the grave danger of going nuclear.
Bravo for Trump and the brave words he spoke.
Now it is up to us.
If we wish the process to continue which these meetings with Putin initiated, let us raise our voices in support.
If we wish to let the neocons, "Deep State," Dem and GOP elites to stop the process, let us stay silent.

Dan Kuhn , July 16, 2018 at 8:05 pm

I read the New York times and the comments to the editorial. This is my comment.

The comments here sound like a lynch mob working themselves into a frenzy to hang someone. Proof? Who needs any dang proof. Clapper the guy who admitted lying to Congress under oath said Trump was guilty and thats good enough for the people who commented here. The Intelligence Agencies that lied to get the USA to invade Iraq with their WMD claims say he is guilty, well that must be proof then.
This goes to show that Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. But a whole nation suckered into believing this nonsence about Russia having Trump elected with not one shred of evidence presented? Even Barnum would have been shocked and surprised at that one.

Dan Kuhn , July 16, 2018 at 8:06 pm

Sorry the reply was to a story on the front page.

backwardsevolution , July 16, 2018 at 8:29 pm

Good comment, Dan Kuhn.

Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:27 am

Well, I guess that influential people on the inside figure that the "reign of terror" worked out so well in effecting regime change during the French Revolution that they'd give it another go approximately two centuries later approximately a hundred years after the Bolshevik Revolution, so maybe this is a natural phenomenon with a periodicity of about 100 years. Perhaps Hillary thinks she's gonna pick up the pieces as the next Napoleon after the revolution burns itself out. More like her fate will be as the next Robespierre, hoisted on her own guillotine.

Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:11 am

Yes, the cycle is tied to the controlling currency, the USD in current day form. That control is rapidly slipping away. The crooks are pulling the fire alarms in the bank and running out the back door and the public is looking for safety from the crooks' army (MSM, "authority figures" etc.).

George , July 16, 2018 at 8:00 pm

There is nothing left to say.
The summit only leaves one to speculate.

Realist , July 16, 2018 at 7:57 pm

It would seem that there is not a single independent, unbought, honest, objective journalist left working for the corporate mass media in America. They are all mere puppets delivering the propaganda and fake analysis demanded of them by the oligarchy that owns them. It's absolutely stunning how lock-step they all are in maintaining the false narrative cooked up by the careless and arrogant tyrants who threw away a sure thing (Hillary's coronation) by pressing too hard to give her what they thought was the biggest patsy (Trump) in the clown show called the presidential election. They were so confident they actually allowed the ballots to be counted and have been scrambling to undo the results using every possible mechanism and pretext ever since. If there is one thing the American people can count on in the future, it is that no election will ever again be semi-free, fair and not rock-solid rigged with the contrived results agreed upon months before the charade of elections ever goes on.

A rational mind might say, well, give us more reasonable candidates, those in tune with the problems of the voters (mostly caused by government), and give us more of them, more parties, more platforms, more options. That is exactly what they intend to avoid. They tried to force feed us Hillary as the only acceptable figure running for the position, but enough people saw through that and chose the fellow they wanted us to abhor after they deliberately built him up to help the despised Hillary. Now absolutely every loyal apparatchik in the elite establishment, and most especially the media–the essential propagandists, are working 24/7 for regime change in Washington, what they perceive as the necessary first step towards regime change in Moscow and later Beijing. Only then will the NWO–in which they give all the orders and control everything and everybody–be complete.

I tell you, the reach of their tentacles and the uniformity of response amongst their minions is impressive in a most foreboding way. They will brook NO peaceful co-existence with any geopolitical "partners" or competitors and will not give even the slightest iota of respect to our own elected leader, not even to his office out of formal courtesy. Rather than "going high" when he "goes low," they choose to up the ante in ad hominem insults and political thuggery. The power structure in this country has become irretrievably warmongering neo-con and ruthlessly imperialistic. The most catastrophic consequence will be to see the dissolution of civilisation itself as the myriad of environmental, population and resource crises hit the planet full on as the century unfolds, for thuggery, tyranny and simplistic political slogans are not the solutions for escaping the impending bottleneck with an actual future still remaining for humanity.

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:42 pm

Hey Realist you brought back memories of the 2016 presidential election to when Trump was given 4.9 billion dollars worth of free air time (JP Sottile quoted the 4.9). As it has been written about of how early on the Clinton campaign thought Trump was the best to run up against, because who in their right mind would take the Trumpster serious, was the go to mindset among the DNCer's. So the MSM turned on the cameras at Trump rallies believing that given enough rope that Trump would hang himself. The backlash that came from this, was mind boggling on many levels. One no one likes Hillary, number two no one likes the MSM. So with that the MSM, and Hillary's bend strategy was what loss the election for the Democrats, and oh yeah then there's Bernie.

I don't think in total we Americans are all living on the same planet. Joe

Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:55 pm

I am absolutely appalled by the behavior of the American media. They are acting like Trump is a disgrace to the country but the MSM is a disgrace to journalism.

I don't even like Trump but – to me – he is coming out better in this exchange.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:17 pm

Excellent statement.

Sam F , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm

Indeed the US mass media are no more than propagandists for the arrogant tyrants of its government. But despite US bluster and economic arm-twisting, educated people know that BRICS cannot be dominated so imperialism is theater not policy. Over 20-40 years, the US can only choose cooperation or self-embargo. Few educated people believe the recycled hysteria of invisible threats.

The enmity of the PTB toward Russia and Korea always starts with and returns to the Mideast and centers upon Israel, which controls the US mass media and both political parties, and thereby appoints the politicians who control the military budget and agenda. Indeed "no election will ever again be semi-free." The MIC is large and will attack small countries anywhere, but it is the servant of Israel.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 2:22 am

People who complain aboutIsrael somehow never mention Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, etc.

Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 6:26 am

Thank you for mentioning those; I did not have room in that comment.
Israel also substantially controls the Christian z leaders.

Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 4:28 am

Wow! Great comments Realist.

j michael king , July 16, 2018 at 7:54 pm

I thought Mueller was playing politics to announce the indictments of 12 Russians mere hours before Trump met Putin more and more I'm losing faith in Mueller and the Democrats who have damn near destroyed their party themselves

Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:17 am

If the fact that the Dems managed to undermine the people's choice for president (Sanders) isn't enough to convince you that the Dems are destroyed then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm almost certain that the CIA had a hand in that: consider their infiltration into the MSM (ensuring that Sanders was not talked about). Not only was the CIA involved in trying to derail Trump, but it was active in preempting Sanders. For sure, having meddling in BOTH parties would likely bring out real pitch forks: when it's just one party it's easy to use the other party to offset the anger. Joe, if you're reading these comments (still), I'd love to get your take on this "theory."

jean , July 16, 2018 at 7:52 pm

I never imagined I would cheer on Trump ..but that took guts .

Don DeBar , July 16, 2018 at 7:52 pm

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018955906690584576

robira , July 16, 2018 at 7:27 pm

Thanks for this report, Mr. Lauria; you're certainly of stronger mettle than me. I would not have withstood the noxious exhalations of the US newsmedia (which itself now openly includes newly "retired" intelligence agents as commentators) you've described in this article; the anecdotes alone almost had me hurling my phone across the room.
Thank you for performing a valuable public service with this report. Peace.

Gary Weglarz , July 16, 2018 at 7:21 pm

Welcome to what passes for "reality" in 2018 America. If the stakes for humanity were not so frightfully high these bizarre, slapstick, nonsense comments from the MSM talking heads would be knee-slapping hilarious in their total off the charts lunacy and patent absurdity. What can one say? Wow – off the freaking charts! You simply can't make this stuff up! Words are inadequate in an age of mass delusion posing as sanity!

Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 7:34 pm

I think your words "total off the charts lunacy and patent absurdity" are as adequate as they come in this situation.

Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:42 pm

Not only absurd, though, but also deeply isulting, treasonous, really horrendous that our national-level journalists arrogate to themselves the right to diss, insult, accuse, charge, condemn, vilify, etc. the president of the United States. I don't like trump either, I hate waht he is doing in Israel, supporting the rabid Zionists there and here. BUT, standing up to the media and intelligence onslaught took guts, and he came out of the meeting looking pretty good, I think. The meeting also gave Putin an opportunity to score a few points for reason, thus an international platform he might otherwise not have had.

I LOVE the Putin points re Browder $$$ (rather, rubles) to Hillary. I do so hope that this topic is taken up and richly sucked and considered and tasted and finally chewed and swallowed and digested and the real . . . finally is delivered to the AMerican people regarding Hill's $$$ shenanigans. If that happens it could point once again to an investigation of her emails and those of her assistant Huma Abedin. Remember her? When do we get the full investigation of this very compromised woman?

James , July 16, 2018 at 11:25 pm

Well said.

Jessika , July 16, 2018 at 7:16 pm

What, did Trump say that, Gregory? I am impressed, if he did!

Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 7:30 pm

By the CNN video of the entire press conference, Trump says this at the 13:54 mark.

And for a complete transcript of the presser:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/transcript-trump-putin-press-conference-in-helsinki/

Jessika , July 16, 2018 at 7:14 pm

Yes, it is critical to support Trump's talks with Putin and not let these Deep State agents control.

Jessika , July 16, 2018 at 7:05 pm

These people have no shame, as they take their massive paychecks for lying to keep the fools in line. Well, thanks to websites like this one and others, there aren't so many fools anymore. They are pathetic, and days of Cronkite, Murrow et al who reported news objectively are dead and buried.

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:38 pm

Probably they believe their own nonsense, at least when they say. Much as crooked preachers do.

Jean , July 16, 2018 at 10:30 pm

Cronkite wasn't so objective, Jessika. He was pretty bought into the glory of our Viet nam adventuring until the war protesters (whom he did not represent objectively either) opened Amerika's eyes.

mike k , July 16, 2018 at 7:01 pm

FOR ONCE, I AM PROUD TO STAND WITH OUR PRESIDENT.

irina , July 16, 2018 at 7:17 pm

Roger That.

Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:14 pm

Ditto

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:21 pm

Me, too. An act of extraordinary political courage.

mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:59 pm

That took guts, Mr. Trump. I didn't know you had it in you. Congratulations for standing up to your (deadly) opponents. They are now showing themselves to be the evil scum they really are.

Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 6:57 pm

There is one small problem with this article. While I trust Consortium News far more than the New York Times, there are those who trust the latter. And the article is far too long for those who already believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia. A shorter article by Consortium News with a one two punch is what is needed.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm

Oh, go pound sand, would you?

Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm

People don't change their minds because of rational arguments. Russiagate will go on, in spite of logic and evidence, much as Birther nonsense does.

mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:54 pm

I just listened to NBC nightly news, and CNN. They are screaming treason! And the end of America! They are absolutely aghast that Trump is making peace moves with Putin. Doesn't he know that America is a Warfare State?? To talk peace is against everything we hold sacred. Beware Mr. Trump, the CIA hit squads will be champing at the bit to field one of their "lone assassins on you". Pray for the Donald not being gunned down for doing the right thing (for once).

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:37 pm

I still fear someone will do the president harm as a result of this. Trump is taking chances with the mafia that runs this shadow permanent government, given this level of hysteria. They just have too much at stake. They are used to getting their way. I hope I'm wrong. The last time a president took on the entire establishment to this extent was JFK. I wish I could be more optimistic.

Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:44 pm

"They are screaming treason! "

How dare they???
they are the treasonous ones.
These crazed zombies are terrifying.

Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 6:52 pm

"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of politics."

Bravo Mr. President.

Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:27 pm

Great quote Gregory. Joe

Bruce Dickson , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm

A JFK-worthy quote, that.

And, to quote its deliverer, "Who would think..?"

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:23 pm

That one statement will go down in history, mark my words.

Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:40 pm

"never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another country over those of his own government and people."

Really? You obviously haven't been paying attention to the US's obeisance to Israel. I can think of no other country that puts another country's wishes ahead of their own the way the US does with Israel.

"he had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he didn't do it."

And he was wise not to do so. The United States has far more blatantly interfered with Russian elections than what the idiots in our alphabet soup of intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of now. The reason you call Putin a thug is not because he is one but because he won't let you get away with that kind of crap. Putin has made it clear that American regime change is off the table and he intends to see to it that it stays off the table.

Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 7:30 pm

""never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another country over those of his own government and people.""

Is that why he wants NATO to beef up? Is that why he complained about Germany's energy dependence on Russia?

He is not putting Putin above the American people. He is just not accepting the lies told by the FBI which is really pretty much still controlled by Obama.

JesseJean , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm

Bravo, Jeff!

David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:34 pm

If the allegations are true – of GRU officers successfully phishing for HRC campaign dirt from Chairman Podesta's emails – then the officers are guilty as charged. As I understand it, this was the avenue through which Wikileaks obtained the content of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs. That confirmation of what most already suspected to be true – that Hillary had been pledging fealty to Wall Street bankers at the expense of the people – probably contributed to Hillary's defeat at the polls. So, I say "more power to 'em". Those officers show common cause with the common man and woman in America. Hillary was never going to release those transcripts on her own!

And that same phishing – if true – was certainly no "terrorist attack" or "act of war' or other hyperbolic nonsense like "the undermining of democracy in America". We have no democracy – only an oligarchy – much like the Russians under Boris Yeltsin. Maybe the phishing undermined oligarchy here, which would be a good thing. Oligarchy is at the heart of the cruel neo-liberal order which tyrannizes the people.

Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:42 pm

Julian Assange has consistently said he did not get the files from Russia. Assange has yet to be caught in a lie. The US is a serial liar and doesn't even look embarrassed when caught in a lie.

David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:49 pm

Thanks Jeff, maybe I don't understand the transfers to Wikileaks very well. I wonder if the FBI/Justice Department really knows, like they say they do.

LarcoMarco , July 16, 2018 at 7:41 pm

Well, if DNC's servers and Hillarious' stealth servers and Podesta's email were hacked, the NSA has Hooverd up all the evidence (if it exists). The Dumpster should demand this material be revealed and also demand disclosure of proof that RussiaGate is more than Deep State designs.

Frederike , July 16, 2018 at 7:58 pm

Something must be done to release Assange! Trump: do something.

backwardsevolution , July 16, 2018 at 8:57 pm

Frederike – I think Trump will release Assange. Patience.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm

911 ushered in the post-truth era.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:25 pm

Maybe they got the information because Hillary took home classified documents and recklessly-knowingly exposed them to hackers in her private basement server?

Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:56 pm

"If the allegations are true". Well we probably will never find out will we. Putin was shrewd to offer to have Mueller and his investigators come to Russia to investigate the indited GRU officers and offering full cooperation with Russian Law enforcement. Putin and Trump both know that Mueller will make every excuse in the book of why that can't happen. Mueller must be craping his pants wondering if he will somehow be forced to take his investigation to Russia and have it publically exposed for the fraud that it is.

backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 3:42 pm

Freedom lover – yes, what a great move by Putin! "Come on, let's work together to get to the bottom of this." Mueller must just be dying! Unfortunately, Trump is really in danger now.

Alcuin , July 16, 2018 at 6:04 pm

Why no mention of the most explosive claim at the press conference? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/putin-blows-apart-russia-collusion-probe-says-russian-group-gave-400000000-to-hillary-clinton-video/

Alcuin , July 16, 2018 at 6:21 pm

"I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people." Translation: He has little confidence in Obama and Bush intelligence people. Good for him.

JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:32 pm

Wow, that was explosive! Just imagine how bad things would be right now if someone other than Putin were in charge of Russia. We should count ourselves as lucky.

[Jul 18, 2018] Let's See Who's Bluffing in the Criminal Case Against the Russians The American Conservative

Jul 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

It was a remarkable moment in a remarkable press conference. President Donald Trump had just finished a controversial summit meeting in Helsinki with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, and the two were talking to the media . Jeff Mason, a political affairs reporter with Reuters, stood up and asked Putin a question pulled straight out of the day's headlines: "Will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand jury?"

The "12 Russian officials" Mason spoke of were military intelligence officers accused of carrying out a series of cyberattacks against various American-based computer networks (including those belonging to the Democratic National Committee), the theft of emails and other data, and the release of a significant portion of this information to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The names and organizational affiliations of these 12 officers were contained in a detailed 29-page indictment prepared by special prosecutor Robert Mueller, and subsequently made public by Assistant Attorney General Rob Rosenstein on July 13 -- a mere three days prior to the Helsinki summit.

Vladimir Putin responded, "We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty, that dates back to 1999, the mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently."

Putin then discussed the relationship between this agreement -- the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty -- and the Mueller indictment. "This treaty has specific legal procedures," Putin noted, that "we can offer the appropriate commission headed by special attorney Mueller. He can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal and official request to us so that we would interrogate, we would hold the questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes and our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States."

Trump Calls Off Cold War II Ron and Rand Paul Call Out Foreign Policy Hysteria

In the uproar that followed the Trump-Putin press conference , the exchange between Mason and Putin was largely forgotten amidst invective over Trump's seeming public capitulation on the issue of election interference. "Today's press conference in Helsinki," Senator John McCain observed afterwards in a typical comment, "was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory."

It took an interview with Putin after the summit concluded , conducted by Fox News's Chris Wallace, to bring the specific issue of the 12 indicted Russians back to the forefront and give it context. From Putin's perspective, this indictment and the way it was handled by the United States was a political act. "It's the internal political games of the United States. Don't make the relationship between Russia and the United States -- don't hold it hostage of this internal political struggle. And it's quite clear to me that this is used in the internal political struggle, and it's nothing to be proud of for American democracy, to use such dirty methods in the political rivalry."

Regarding the indicted 12, Putin reiterated the points he had made earlier to Jeff Mason. "We -- with the United States -- we have a treaty for assistance in criminal cases, an existing treaty that exists from 1999. It's still in force, and it works sufficiently. Why wouldn't Special Counsel Mueller send us an official request within the framework of this agreement? Our investigators will be acting in accordance with this treaty. They will question each individual that the American partners are suspecting of something. Why not a single request was filed? Nobody sent us a single formal letter, a formal request."

There is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia, which makes all the calls for Trump to demand the extradition of the 12 Russians little more than a continuation of the "internal political games" Putin alluded to in his interview. There is, however, the treaty that Putin referenced at both the press conference and during the Wallace interview.

Signed in Moscow on June 17, 1999, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty calls for the "prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes" by both parties "in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty where the conduct that is the subject of the request constitutes a crime under the laws of both Parties."

It should be noted that the indicted 12 have not violated any Russian laws. But the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty doesn't close the door on cooperation in this matter. Rather, the treaty notes that "The Requested Party may, in its discretion, also provide legal assistance where the conduct that is the subject of the request would not constitute a crime under the laws of the Requested Party."

It specifically precludes the process of cooperating from inferring a right "on the part of any other persons to obtain evidence, to have evidence excluded, or to impede the execution of a request." In short, if the United States were to avail itself of the treaty's terms, Russia would not be able to use its cooperation as a vehicle to disrupt any legal proceedings underway in the U.S.

The legal assistance that the treaty facilitates is not inconsequential. Through it, the requesting party can, among other things, obtain testimony and statements from designated persons; receive documents, records, and other items; and arrange the transfer of persons in custody for testimony on the territory of the requesting party.

If the indictment of the 12 Russians wasn't the "dirty method" used in a domestic American "political rivalry" that Putin described, one would imagine that Assistant Attorney General Rob Rosenstein would have availed himself of the opportunity to gather additional evidence regarding the alleged crimes. He would also have, at the very least, made a request to have these officers appear in court in the United States to face the charges put forward in the indictment. The treaty specifically identifies the attorney general of the United States "or persons designated by the Attorney General" as the "Central Authority" for treaty implementation. Given the fact that Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters pertaining to the investigation by the Department of Justice into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the person empowered to act is Rosenstein.

There are several grounds under the treaty for denying requested legal assistance, including anything that might prejudice "the security or other essential interests of the Requested Party." However, it also requires that the reasons for the any denial of requested assistance be put in writing. Moreover, prior to denying a request, the Requested Party "shall consult with the Central Authority of the Requesting Party to consider whether legal assistance can be given subject to such conditions as it deems necessary. If the Requesting Party accepts legal assistance subject to these conditions, it shall comply with the conditions."

By twice raising the treaty in the context of the 12 Russians, Putin has clearly signaled that Russia would be prepared to proceed along these lines.

If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia to either put up or shut up.

Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War .

Rob July 17, 2018 at 11:03 pm

Very cogent analysis. Putin, who's incredibly well briefed, knew exactly what he was offering, and thought that by doing so, would force the DoJ/Mueller to either take him up on his offer or otherwise display the overt politicism of the indictments. But the American anti-Trump mindhive is so completely addled, they of course miss the point entirely. The absence of reason among the anti-Trump/anti-Russia collective is truly something to behold – it's scary.
Janek , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:29 pm
The request V. Putin proposed and Scot Ritter writes about, if send to Russia, would be equivalent to 'go and whistle' and would be treated the same way the Russians treat the requests from Poland to return the remains of the Polish plane that crashed in controversial and strange circumstances near Smolensk on April 10, 2010. They, the Russians, did not return the remains of the plane up until today and the place where the plane crashed they bulldozed the ground and paved with very thick layer of concrete.

Such request would only give the Russians propaganda tools to delay and dilute any responsibility from the Russian side and at the end they would blame the USA for the whole mess with no end to their investigation, because they would investigate until the US investigators would drop dead. Anybody who seriously thinks about V.

Putin offer to investigate anything with Russia should first have his head examined by a very good, objective, and politically neutral head specialist.

b. , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:50 pm
"If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia to either put up or shut up.

Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump."

That was one long-winded way of recognizing that Putin just told the US biparty establishment behind the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria to put up or shut up.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 18, 2018 at 2:57 am
I don't think that Pres Putin has anything to lose here.

"ARTICLE 4 DENIAL OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE

The Central Authority of the Requested Party may deny legal assistance if:

(1) the request relates to a crime under military law that is not a crime under general criminal law;

(2) the execution of the request would prejudice the security or other essential interests of the Requested Party; or "whether accurate or not the treaty permits a denial of request, if said requests threaten Russian security."

Almost by definition, an investigation interrogation by the US of the personnel in question because said questioning might very well stray into other areas , unrelated to the hacking charge. Now Pres. Putin has played two cards: a treaty is in place that deals with criminal matters between the two states and surely must have known that and should have already made the formal requests in conjunction with the treaty or he didn't know either way, the rush to embarrass the president may very well backfire. As almost everything about this investigation has.

Realist , says: July 18, 2018 at 3:16 am
"The DOJ should call his bluff."

Right! That's not going to happen .the DOJ has no proof .their indictment was a ploy to queer any deal with Russia. Anybody that believes anything the 'intelligence' agencies say, without proof, is an idiot.

[Jul 18, 2018] Russiagate A CIA Concocted Hoax. Trump Knows It By Stephen Lendman

Notable quotes:
"... No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections. ..."
"... Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for anything, he said: ..."
"... Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago. ..."
"... VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections.

Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for anything, he said:

"I hold both countries responsible (for dismal bilateral relations). I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish And I think we're all to blame."

Regarding election meddling, he said:

"There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it. And people are being brought out to the fore. So far that I know, virtually none of it related to the campaign. And they're going to have to try really hard to find somebody that did relate to the campaign."

"My people came to me and some others (T)hey think it's Russia President Putin said it's not Russia. I will say this: I dont see any reason why it would be."

" President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."

Trump is wrong about most things, not this. No evidence, nothing, proves Russian meddling in the US political process.

If it existed, it would have been revealed long ago. It never was and never will be because there's nothing credible to reveal, Big Lies alone.

Trump's above remarks were in Helsinki. In response to a raging Russophobic firestorm of criticism back home, he backtracked from his above comments, saying he misspoke abroad.

He accepts the intelligence community's claim about Russian US election meddling – knowing it didn't occur.

Russiagate was cooked up by Obama's thuggish Russophobic CIA director John Brennan , media keeping the Big Lie alive.

DNC/John Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked – an indisputable fact media scoundrels suppress to their disgrace.

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray earlier explained that

"(t)he source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all," adding:

"I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in Washington."

"The source of these emails (came) from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington, not to Moscow."

"WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from any proxy of the Russian government. It's simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert attention from the content of the material" and its true source.

The Big Lie alone matters when it's the official narrative. The Russian meddling hoax and mythical Kremlin threat to US security are central to maintaining adversarial relations with America's key invented enemy.

It's vital to unjustifiably justifying the nation's global empire of bases, its outrageous amount of military spending, its belligerence toward all sovereign independent states, its endless wars of aggression, its scorn for world peace and stability, its neoliberal harshness to pay for it all, along with transferring the nation's wealth from ordinary people to its privileged class.

America's deeply corrupted political process is far too debauched to fix, rigged to serve wealth, power and privilege exclusively, at war on humanity at home and abroad.

It's a tyrannical plutocracy and oligarchy, a police state, not a democracy, a cesspool of criminality, inequity and injustice, run by sinister dark forces – monied interests and bipartisan self-serving political scoundrels, wicked beyond redemption, threatening humanity's survival.

Today is the most perilous time in world history. What's going on should terrify everyone everywhere.

Washington's rage for global dominance, its military madness, its unparalleled recklessness, threatens world peace, stability, and survival.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

[Jul 18, 2018] Ron and Rand Paul Call Out Foreign Policy Hysteria by Jack Hunter

Notable quotes:
"... New York Magazine ..."
"... Manchurian Candidate ..."
"... Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition. ..."
"... When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created " blowback " that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative. It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically. ..."
"... "It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in our world." ..."
"... "Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia." ..."
"... Jack Hunter is the former political editor of ..."
"... co-authored the 2011 book ..."
"... with Senator Rand Paul. ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Ron and Rand Paul Call Out Foreign Policy Hysteria And like his father, the senator found himself on the wrong end of the media mob this week.

When Mitt Romney called Russia America's " number one geopolitical foe " during the 2012 election campaign, Barack Obama mocked him: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." Vice President Joe Biden dismissed Romney as a "Cold War holdover." Hillary Clinton said Romney was "looking backward." John Kerry said "Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV ."

Romney's Russia warning came at a time when Republicans were eager to exploit President Obama's hot mic comments to Russian president Dmitri Medvedev where he promised " more flexibility " on missile defense issues after the election. Romney, to the delight of Republican hawks and neoconservatives , was eager to portray Obama as capitulating , weak , and dangerous . For his part, Obama, who once vowed to " reset " U.S.-Russia relations, painted Romney as outdated for disparaging diplomacy.

But that was then. This week the Cold War seemed to be back in full force for many former Obama supporters, as President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the wake of 12 Russian agents being indicted for allegedly meddling in the 2016 election.

Democrats have joined forces with Republican hawks and neoconservatives to declare Trump " weak " for engaging Russia. One MSNBC pundit said Trump's NATO criticisms were the president " doing Vladimir Putin's bidding ." New York Magazine 's Jonathan Chait went full Alex Jones when he suggested that Trump may have been a Putin agent since 1987 -- a Manchurian Candidate -esque spin reminiscent of the original Red Scare . #TraitorTrump even trended on Twitter.

In the midst of this hysteria, Senator Rand Paul was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling.

"They're not going to admit it in the same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian elections or the Russian election," Paul replied . "So all countries that can spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they try." Paul insisted that U.S. and Russian meddling are not "morally equivalent," but said we must still take into account that both nations do this.

That's when "Rand Paul" began trending on Twitter.

"Rand Paul is on TV delivering line after line of Kremlin narrative, and it is absolutely stunning to watch," read one tweet with nearly 5,000 likes. Another tweet, just as popular, said , "Between McConnell hiding election interference and Rand Paul defending it, looks like Russia's already annexed Kentucky." A Raw Story headline on Paul's CNN interview read, " Stunned Jake Tapper explains why NATO exists to a Russia-defending Rand Paul ."

But was Paul really "defending" Russia? Was he even defending Russian meddling in U.S. elections? Or was he merely trying to pierce through the hysteria and portray American-Russian relations in a more accurate and comprehensive context -- something partisans left and right won't do and the mainstream media is too lazy to attempt?

Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition.

When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created " blowback " that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

No one in the GOP wanted to hear what Ron Paul had to say because it challenged and largely rebutted Republicans' entire political identity at the time. Paul was roundly denounced. FrontPageMag's David Horowitz called him a " disgrace ." RedState banned all Paul supporters. The American Conservative 's Jim Antle would recall in 2012: "The optics were poor: a little-known congressman was standing against the GOP frontrunner on an issue where 90 percent of the party likely disagreed with him . Support for the war was not only nearly unanimous within the GOP, but bipartisan."

Rand Paul now poses a similar challenge to Russia-obsessed Democrats. Contra Jake Tapper sagely explaining "why NATO exists" to a supposedly ignoramus Paul, as the liberal Raw Story headline framed it, here's what the senator actually said:

There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative. It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically.

Do you think Jake Tapper Googled "George Kennan"? That's about as likely as Giuliani Googling "blowback."

"It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in our world."

As for Russian spying -- was Paul just blindly defending that, too? Or did he make an important point in noting both sides do it?

"Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the New York Times reported in February. "But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view."

The Times continued: "'If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,' said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States 'absolutely' has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, 'and I hope we keep doing it.'"

The U.S. will no doubt keep meddling in foreign elections. Russia will do the same, just as it did during the Obama administration and years prior . The cries against diplomacy and for war will ebb, flow, flip, and flop, depending on who sits in the White House and how it makes the screaming partisans feel. Many Democrats who view Trump's diplomacy with Russia as dangerous would have embraced it (and did) under Obama. Many Republicans who hail Trump's diplomatic efforts wouldn't have done so were he a Democrat. President Hillary Clinton could be having the same meeting with Putin and most Democrats would be fine with it, Russian meddling or no meddling.

So many headlines attempted to portray Paul as the partisan hack on Sunday when the opposite is actually true. It's the left, including much of the media, that's now turned hawkish towards Russia for largely partisan reasons, while Paul was making the same realist foreign policy arguments regarding NATO and U.S.-Russia relations long before the Trump presidency.

Responding to Romney's anti-Russia, anti-Obama comments in 2012, Thomas de Waal, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the New York Times , "There's a whole school of thought that Russia is one you need to work with to solve other problems in the world, rather than being the problem." Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia."

But think they won't and sabers they'll rattle, as yesterday's villains become today's heroes and vice versa.

Just ask Mitt Romney .

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.

Come On July 17, 2018 at 1:51 am

There's the elephant in the room, of course. Nobody seems to want to touch it yet, but everybody knows that Israeli meddling in US elections puts Russian meddling in the shade. Still, it's fascinating watching the reporting and waiting to see who will break the silence.

In the meantime, wake me up when there's something called "the Russia-American Political Action Committee" in DC. Wake me up when US politicians vie to win its favor, as they vie to win the favor of AIPAC, and win the huge financial contributions that result from getting its support. Wake me up when Russian oligarchs contribute even a fraction of what Israel donors like Sheldon Adelson already contribute to US political campaigns – and wake me up when they get results like an American president moving the US embassy to Jerusalem or an America president sending American troops to stand between Israel and its enemies Russia may have moved a few thousand votes here or there, but Israel gets American politicians to send America's children to die in Middle East wars. At the moment, Russia can only dream of meddling with that degree of success.

Yep – American elections have been corrupted by foreign countries for a long time. Russia's only problem is that it hasn't learned who to pay off, and how much. Next time Mr. Netanyahu visits Mr. Putin (and he visits him fairly often), he can give him a few pointers. And then Mr. Putin will be invited to give speeches to joint sessions of Congress. Just like Mr. Netanyahu. And freshmen US congressmen will be frog-marched to Russia for instructions, just like they're already frog-marched to Israel.

cynthia , says: July 17, 2018 at 7:50 am
President Trump took a slice out of the Military Industrial Complex yesterday. John McCain and war mongers went crazy. The SWAMP IS ANGRY!
connecticut farmer , says: July 17, 2018 at 8:26 am
Russia has been engaging in international espionage dating back at least to Peter the Great. As such, they play the game as well as, or possibly better, than anyone. They, like we, will do what is necessary-even to the point of injecting themselves in the internal affairs of another country–if they deem it in their interest to do so or, as the cliche has it, "in the interest of state". Not very nice but–that's the way the game is played.

Thank you, Rand Paul and Mr. Hunter, for injecting some much needed sanity into this debate.

Youknowho , says: July 17, 2018 at 8:49 am
I said it before, and I will repeat it here:

There is no need to demonize the Russians. Their country has national interests and goals. If they are patriots, the Russians will seek to advance those interests and goals.

We also have interests and goals, and if we are patriots, we seek to advance them (though we disagree on what our real interests are and what our goals should be).

When our interests concide with that of Russia we collaborate. When they clash, we seek to undermine each other.

The Russians seem to have been doing it, as their interests now clash with ours. Nothing to be worked out about. That's how the game is played.

Which does not mean that we should defend ourselves strenuously from such undermining. And the President is precisely tasked with defending this country and advance its interests. This he seems to be unable to do.

Do not hate the Russians. Do not demonize them. But be aware of what they are doing, because we are NOT in a Kumbayah moment with them.

Andy Johnson , says: July 17, 2018 at 8:56 am
Well done, Mr. Hunter. It's a shame that the Pauls' position on foreign policy is not shared by ostensibly "libertarian" commentators who value DC cocktail parties above all principles.
Johann , says: July 17, 2018 at 10:27 am
The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ movement.
David Smith , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:08 am
The real problem with Russia is that it exists, and it is too big for us to control. The real problem with Putin is that he is the first strong leader Russia has had since the fall of the Soviet Union, and he is messing up our plans for world hegemony.

As one who grew up during the Cold War (the real one) and lived through the whole thing (the Iron Curtain, the Warsaw Pact, the crushing of Hungary, communists behind every door and under every bed), I find it very hard to take all the current hysteria about Russia very seriously.

connecticut farmer , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:19 am
@Youknowwho

Sane, reasonable comments. Totally agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, since we live in a 3-ring media circus, so few people will listen or pay heed. In a world possibly even more dangerous than any time since the Cold War, the act of demonizing one of the two greatest nuclear powers on earth is surely madness.

General Manager , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:26 am
CNN etc. headlines are not even thinly veiled editorials against Trump. Not related to just publishing the news. But telling readers how to think. Mainstream media has an M&M type coating. Remove the outer shell and you find the good old boys and girls as ever-lurking and ever vigilant Neocon Nation pushing their one and only agenda on the American people. They are insatiable as long as they do not do the fighting and dying. Stay tough Trump and realize short of complete capitulation you cannot satisfy these people.
Ryszard Ewiak , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:37 am
Donald Trump took a step towards peace. Of course, not everyone likes this. As can be seen, Donald Trump has many enemies, even among Republicans. They want war. These are people dangerous to America and the world.

What is better: peace with Russia, or a global nuclear war?

The Book of Revelation warns: "And another horse, fiery red, came out, and the one who rode it was granted permission to take peace from the earth, so that people would butcher one another, and he was given a huge sword." (6:4) "The great sword" – what does it mean?

Jesus gave many important details: "Terrors [φοβητρα] both [τε] and [και] unusual phenomena [σημεια – unusual occurrences, transcending the common course of nature] from [απ] sky [ουρανου] powerful [μεγαλα] will be [εσται]." (Luke 21:11)

Some ancient manuscripts contain the words "and frosts" [και χειμωνες] (we call this today "nuclear winter"), and in Mark 13:8 "and disorders" [και ταραχαι] (in the sense of confusion and chaos). There will be also significant tremors, food shortages and epidemics along the length and breadth of the regions as a result of using this weapon.

This weapon will also cause climate change, catastrophic drought and global famine. (cf. Revelation 6:5, 6)

So here we have a complete picture of the consequences of the global nuclear war. Is there any sense in speeding up this war?

Angolo , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:38 am
Trump's "treason"? What a laugh.

He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and foreign policy officials during the Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a declining nuclear and regional power, as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit.

I'm glad to see adults in the room, at long last. The Sixties are over, baby. Good riddance.

Countme-a-Demon , says: July 17, 2018 at 11:44 am
"Of course the Paul's are right as they always are."

Always?

"A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a pedophile and "lying socialist satyr".[2][15] These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."[2][16][17] During the 2008 and 2012 presidential election campaigns, Paul and his supporters said that the passages denouncing King were not a reflection of Paul's own views because he considers King a "hero".[18][19][20″

That last sentence is a hoot. Talk about "hysteria", but, go ahead, repeat Paul's lies that he knew nothing about his own newsletter.

Johann:

"The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ movement."

Do fake news much?

https://medium.com/@FreisinnigeZtg/did-the-kremlin-support-ron-paul-in-2008-f6b6ca4b58f9

Like the NRA, The American Conservative needs to open "The Russian Conservative" chapters in Putin's conservative Russia to protect Putin's murderous government.

It could be that the "Left", whatever that is in addlepated minds, merely desires a little real politik in our relations with relations with Putin's Russia.

It's hard to tell the difference between ex-KGB Putin and ex-republicans like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

The latter two make "full of crap" seem mild praise.

Clifford , says: July 17, 2018 at 12:08 pm
You lost me at "Ron Paul." Sorry.
Reader , says: July 17, 2018 at 12:17 pm
Off the top of my head, a few egregious examples in which the US government has "meddled" in other countries during the last 100 years:

Mexico (Woodrow Wilson had thousands of US troops occupying Mexico until calling them back to "meddle" in Europe's War to End All Wars, setting the stage for an even worse war 20 years later.)

Russia (Woodrow Wilson used the US military to "meddle" in the Russian revolution after the War to End All Wars.)

Korea (undeclared war)

Vietnam (undeclared war)

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and much of the rest of Central and South America.

Iran (helped overthrow its government in the 1950s and install the Shah of Iran, setting the stage for the Iranian revolution.)

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt.

Yemen (huge humanitarian disaster as I write this. US government fully supporting head-chopping Saudi Arabians in their campaign to starve, sicken and blow to bits hundreds of thousands of people. Support includes US planes in-flight fueling of Saudi fighter/bomber jets.)

And let us not forget the enormous "meddling" in numerous US government elections and policy debates by . . . Israel.

Good Reason , says: July 17, 2018 at 1:19 pm
I vote with Angolo's comment:

"He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and foreign policy officials during the Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a declining nuclear and regional power, as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit."

It's important to understand what the US intelligence community is calling "interference in our election." There has been no accusation that the Russians hacked into our electronic voting and changed results. Rather, they did what we have done in other countries–the Russians ran an influence campaign. They bought ads and created bots to spread the word. This is so utterly tame . . . there is nothing out of the ordinary US playbook here.

Hacking the DNC server and revealing underhanded DNC doings? Hey, that's on the DNC for being both venal and incompetent.

anonymous , says: July 17, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Anybody in 1962 shouting wild paranoid conspiracy theories about

THERE ARE RUSSIAN SPIES EVERYWHERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA

These people in 1962 would be (correctly) dismissed as Right Wing conspiracy kooks, now it's just standard Lib Dems, RINOs, Neo Conservatives and fake news lying press.

We commissioned this Farstar comics with this theme – I mean like who in 2018 is really scared that Russians like Anna Kournikova are going to take over America –

Who's in bed with the Russians?

I wish that was me!

https://goo.gl/images/3HbsbS

b. , says: July 17, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Unfortunately, Rand Paul is acting, but not on principle or in good faith. If he really wanted to stand against manufactured hysteria, he would not accept the US "intelligence" agency claims and refer to their record – e.g. on Iraq and before regarding stability of the Soviet Union – he would question the staggering difficulties of attribution and forensics for networked, digital attacks (the main reason why any claims about who hacked whom have to be read with skepticism), he would point to the corruption of our foreign politics by Saudi and Israeli interests and money within the Trump-Kushner clan, and both parties, and he would compare the alleged – and allegedly ineffectual – attempts to influence an already ridiculous election to the very real, pervasive and corrupting impact of GOP voter disenfranchisement and bipartisan gerrymandering in service of incumbents and their networks.

Rand Paul is the man who was going to stand against the Haspel appointment. He is a phoney, but he serves as a weather vane for niche politicians on how the winds are turning.

You can find the same token opposition here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/11/russia-nato-editorials-debates/36799277/

Nothing about New START, no word about how George Bush made a promise that might have been in bad faith, how Gorbachev was foolish enough to accept it, and how Bill Clinton broke it across the board, and piled on by targeting Serbia in the Balkan conflict. Kennan did not refer to the Ukraine on his missive.

If Rand Paul is our last best hope, we are in deep trouble.

Kurt Gayle , says: July 17, 2018 at 2:41 pm
Jack Hunter " Senator Rand Paul was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling."

(0:01) TAPPER: 48 hours ago the US government, the Trump administration, said the top Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a massive hack to affect the US election. How much do you want President Trump to try to hold Putin accountable for that?

PAUL: I think really we mistake our response if we think it's about accountability from the Russians. They're another country. They're going to spy on us. They do spy on us. They're going to interfere in our elections. We also do the same. Dov Levin at Carnegie Mellon studied this over about a 50-year period in the last century and found 81 times that the US interfered in other countries' elections. So we all do it. What we need to do is to make sure that our electoral process is protected. And I think because this has gotten partisan and it's all about partisan politics we have forgotten that really the most important thing is the integrity of our election. And there are things we can do and things that I've advocated: Making sure it's decentralized all the way down to the precinct level; making sure we don't store all the data in one place, even for a state, and that there's a back-up way so that someone in a precinct can say, 'Two thousand people signed in, this was the vote tally I sent to headquarters.' There's a lot of ways that we can back-up our election. Advertising, things like that, it's tricky. Can we restrict the Russians? We might be able to in some ways, but I think at the bottom line we wanted the Russians to admit it. They're not going to admit it in the same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian elections or the Russian elections. So all countries that can spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they try."

TAPPER: It sounds as though you are saying that the United States has done the equivalent of what the Russians did in the 2016 election, and it might sound to some viewers that you're offering that statement as an excuse for what the Russians did.

PAUL: No, what I would say is it's not morally equivalent, but I think in their mind it is. And I think it's important to know in your adversary's mind the way that they perceive things. I do think that they react to our interference in both their elections. One of the reasons they really didn't like Hillary Clinton is they found her responsible for some of the activity by the US in their elections under the Obama administration. So I'm not saying it's justified

TAPPER: But surely, Senator Paul, the United States has never done what the Russians did.

PAUL: I'm not saying they're equivalent, or morally equivalent, but I am saying that this is the way that the Russians respond. So if you want to know how we have better diplomacy, or better reactions, we have to know their response. But it's not just interference in elections that I think has caused this nationalism in Russia. Also, I think part of the reason is is we promised them when James Baker, at the end when Germany reunified, we promised them that we wouldn't go one inch eastward of Germany with NATO, and we've crept up on the borders, and we still have neocons in both parties who want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO.

That's very, very provocative and it has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this. In 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction, he said, if you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin, basically.

George Kennan predicted the rise of Putin in 1998. And so we have to understand that for every action we have, there is a reaction. And it's a big mistake for us -- not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything that Russia does is justified – but if we don't realize that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in the world (3:38)

Coupon Cutter , says: July 17, 2018 at 3:32 pm
It's pretty weird to read articles about "meddling" in US elections and not see the word "Israel" anywhere.

How much pro-Russia money was spent on "meddling" in 2016? How much pro-Israel money was spent "meddling" in 2016?

[Jul 18, 2018] Syria and geopolitics of oil

Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Jul 17, 2018 6:46:40 PM | 141

Daniel,

It is noticeable that Trump's US attack any Syrian forces coming too close to US occupied zones of al Tanf and Dier Ezzor. Also Trumps takeover of the Deir Ezzor oilfields where US forces simply set up bases or forward posts in the ISIS occupied area.

Under Trump, US has set up a number of new bases in Syria. On the other hand, no concern about Afrin and Manbij. The Deir Ezzor area is Arab tribes and this and al Hasakah (Kurd/Arab?) is the top end of the Persian Gulf/Mesopotamia oil field.

US now controls al Hasakah and half of Deir Ezzor province. The have been ongoing efforts by the US under Trump to take Al Bukamal. US has a base just south of Al Bukamal in Iraq. US bases are now thick throughout Mesopotamia, with more being built.

Also a new base being installed in Kuwait.

The US controls the Arab shore of the Persian gulf, it now has many bases in Iraq and Syria. The only thing missing is the oil rich strip of Iran running alongside the Persian gulf and Mesopotamia.

[Jul 18, 2018] This two part, excellent documentary on Russia in the 90's is all about VVP and Major Russian Jewish Oligarch Boris Berezovsky

Jul 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Unknown User -> Billy the Poet Mon, 07/16/2018 - 19:31 Permalink

Berezovsky's Daughter Speaks Out: British Intelligence Killed Former Asset to Prevent Him Leaking

Conscious Reviver -> Unknown User Mon, 07/16/2018 - 20:18 Permalink

This two part, excellent documentary on Russia in the 90's is all about VVP and Major Russian Jewish Oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Boris took over the Kremlin. Boris shot himself in the foot, but wound up saving Russia when he picked Putin to succeed alchoholic Yeltsin. Putin took the country back.

Larry Summers, Harvard Jew American oligarch led the rape and looting of Russia.

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (1/2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Cl8lSv9Is#

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (2/2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2nNtynZAiI

Killdo -> Conscious Reviver Mon, 07/16/2018 - 22:32 Permalink

also described in Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine- the rise of the disaster capitalism

[Jul 18, 2018] Fox News post Summit interview with Putin.

Jul 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Boing_Snap -> Not Too Important Mon, 07/16/2018 - 21:35 Permalink

Fox News post Summit interview with Putin.

https://youtu.be/rHY8yG4mVzs

Conscious Reviver -> IridiumRebel Mon, 07/16/2018 - 20:07 Permalink

Great, informative, entertaining documentary on Russia in the 90's.

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (1/2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Cl8lSv9Is#

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (2/2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2nNtynZAiI

nmewn -> Not Too Important Mon, 07/16/2018 - 18:19 Permalink

Podesta failing to register as a foreign agent for Russia, Browder greasing the palms of the Klintons with "illicit cash" purloined from Russia...lol...oh man, this is really getting interesting!

Ahem...and just where in the world is...Mr.Mifsud? ;-)

[Jul 18, 2018] After the press conference the usual anti-Trump operatives went ballistic

Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

After the press conference the usual anti-Trump operatives went ballistic:

John O. Brennan @JohnBrennan - 15:52 UTC - 16 Jul 2018

Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

Senator John McCain released a scathing statement :

... "President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.
...
"No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are -- a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. ...

These imbeciles do not understand the realism behind Trump's grand policy. Trump knows the heartland theory of Halford John Mackinder. He understands that Russia is the core of the Eurasian landmass. That landmass, when politically united, can rule the world. A naval power, the U.S. now as the UK before it, can never defeat it. Trump's opponents do not get what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor of President Carter, explained in his book The Grant Chessboard (pdf). They do not understand why Henry Kissinger advised Trump to let go of Crimea.

Trump himself professed his view (vid) of the big picture and of relations with Russia in a 2015 press conference:

"I know Putin. And I tell you that we can get along with Putin. Putin has no respect for President Obama. Big Problem, big problem. And you know Russia has been driven - you know I always heard, for years I have heard - one of the worst things that can happen to our country, is when Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together - with the big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's a horrible thing for this country. We have made them friends because of incompetent leadership. I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin- okay? And I mean where we have the strength. I don't think we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very well. I really believe that. I think we would get along with a lot of countries that we don't get along with today. And that we would be a lot richer for it than we are today.
It took 45 years, not 20 as Kissinger foresaw, to rebalance the U.S. position.

After the Cold War the U.S. thought it had won the big ideological competition of the twentieth century. In its exuberance of the 'unilateral moment' it did everything possible to antagonize Russia. Against its promises it extended NATO to Russia's border. It wanted to be the peerless supreme power of the world. At the same time it invited China into the World Trade Organisation and thereby enabled its explosive economic growth. This unbalanced policy took its toll. The U.S. lost industrial capacity to China and at the same time drove Russia into China's hands. Playing the global hegemon turned out to be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the U.S. economy and its people have since seen little to no gains. Trump wants to revert this situation by rebalancing towards Russia while opposing China's growing might.

Not everyone shares that perspective. As security advisor to Jimmy Carter Brzezinski continued the Nixon/Kissinger policy towards China. The 'one China policy', disregarding Taiwan for better relations with Beijing, was his work. His view is still that the U.S. should ally with China against Russia:

"It is not in our interest to antagonize Beijing. It is much better for American interests to have the Chinese work closely with us, thereby forcing the Russians to follow suit if they don't want to be left out in the cold. That constellation gives the U.S. the unique ability to reach out across the world with collective political influence."

But why would China join such a scheme? Brzezinski's view of Russia was always clouded. His family of minor nobles has its roots in Galicia, now in west-Ukraine. They were driven from Poland when the Soviets extended their realm into the middle of Europe. To him Russia will always be the antagonist.

Kissinger's view is more realistic. He sees that the U.S. must be more balanced in its relations :

[I]n the emerging multipolar order, Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States.

Kissinger is again working to divide Russia from China . But this time around it is Russia that needs to be elevated, that needs to become a friend.

Trump is following Kissinger's view. He wants good relations with Russia to separate Russia from China. He (rightly) sees China as the bigger long term (economic) danger to the United States. That is the reason why he, immediately after his election , started to beef up the relations with Taiwan and continues to do so. ( Listen to Peter Lee for the details). That is the reason why he tries to snatch North Korea from China's hands. That is the reason why he makes nice with Putin.

It is not likely that Trump will manage to pull Russia out of its profitable alliance with China. It is true that China's activities, especially in the Central Asian -stans, are a long term danger to Russia. China's demographic and economic power is far greater than Russia's. But the U.S. has never been faithful in its relations with Russia. It would take decades to regain its trust. China on the other hand stands to its commitments. China is not interested in conquering the 'heartland'. It has bigger fish to fry in south-east Asia, Africa and elsewhere. It is not in its interest to antagonize Russia.

The maximum Trump can possibly achieve is to neutralize Russia while he attempts to tackle China's growing economic might via tariffs, sanctions and by cuddling Taiwan, Japan and other countries with anti-Chinese agendas.

The U.S. blew its 'unilateral moment'. Instead of making friends with Russia it drove it into China's hands. Hegemonic globalization and unilateral wars proved to be too expensive. The U.S. people received no gains from it. That is why they elected Trump.

Trump is doing his best to correct the situation. For the foreseeable future the world will end up with three power centers. Anglo-America, Russia and China. (An aging and disunited Europe will flap in the winds.) These power centers will never wage direct war against each other, but will tussle at the peripheries. Korea, Iran and the Ukraine will be centers of these conflicts. Interests in Central Asia, South America and Africa will also play a role.

Trump understands the big picture. To 'Make America Great Again' he needs to tackle China and to prevent a deeper Chinese-Russian alliance. It's the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals who do not get it. They are still stuck in Brzezinski's Cold War view of Russia. They still believe that economic globalization, which helped China to regain its historic might, is the one and true path to follow. They do not perceive at all the damage they have done to the American electorate.

For now Trump's view is winning. But the lunatic reactions to the press conference show that the powers against him are still strong. They will sabotage him wherever possible. The big danger for now is that their view of the world might again raise to power.

Posted by b on July 17, 2018 at 07:41 AM | Permalink Jen , Jul 17, 2018 8:54:40 AM | 8

BTW it is worthwhile to keep in mind that back in 2001, Russia and China signed a treaty of friendship in which, among other things, both nations renounced all and any territorial designs on one another's territory. This meant that China would have renounced any claims on parts of Primorsky Kray in the Russian Far East along the Amur River, that used to be part of the old Ming and Qing empires.

The text of this treaty can be read at this link:
http://www.chinese-embassy.no/eng/dtxw/t110017.htm

There is one significant paragraphy to be noted:
Neither party will join any alliance or group that harms the other's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity. Neither of them will conclude such treaties with any third party, or allow a third country to use its territory to harm the other's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.

Well ... there goes any attempt by Trump to prise apart Russian and Chinese friendship.

Tom Welsh , Jul 17, 2018 8:56:16 AM | 9
"Playing the global hegemon turned out to be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the U.S. economy and its people have since seen little to no gains".

To continue the theme: "People? We don't need no stinkin' people". US government has long been directed towards the enrichment of a tiny clique of the super-rich and powerful. It is nothing more than a bloodsucking parasite on the USA itself.

[Jul 18, 2018] President Trump Holds a Joint Press Conference with the President of the Russian Federation

Youtube video.
Jul 18, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Jimmy Stone , 21 hours ago

I guess it was a successful meeting. What was all this news in some American news outlets, that it was going to be and is disaster? Unfortunately here in New Zealand we get our international news from cnn abc and BBC. Luckily I search for truth and go online to watch the full uncut interview. Nice coverage.

BarbaraL Lowell , 1 day ago

"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of politics". Will any media have the guts and gusto that President Trump has to make this quote the headline? Or will they once again focus on the size of his hands or the color of his skin? I pray people wake up and celebrate the gravitas of this man.

Mary Hernandez , 1 day ago

Russia did nothing to help President Trump get elected PERIOD. We the American people voted him in PERIOD.

Bogdan Haotic , 1 day ago

God Bless the U.S.A and Russia

flewjewcoop , 1 day ago (edited)

I am growing proud to be an American again, President Trump. Thank you for your service and God bless you... along with the Russian people and their fine leader.

anthony k , 1 day ago

As a foreign observer, I can honestly claim, that this press conference between both leaders, was a very productive and successful conference. Well done to both presidents!

MegaBizzar , 1 day ago

The Elite Factions are not going to be happy about this.

Oli , 1 day ago

Browder and his business associates who have not paid taxes in the USA or Russia acquired 400 million dollars illegally and gave it to Hillary Clinton! No wonder the leftist didn't want this meeting to happen. They didn't want to be exposed

Vaniecia Ferguson , 1 day ago

I would have loved to seen the expressions on the faces of the media, and the Democrats and Mueller when Putin put it out there that there is a way to get the facts of who hacked the DNC/DCCC servers out there, and also a legal treaty that can allow the indicted people to be investigated, and Muellers team to be able to be present!! lol.... they really havent wanted the American public to know that there is a way to actually prove there isnt any proof!

Jeffery Jangala , 1 day ago

WooooHooooooooooo! Putin just called Mueller and Rosenstein on their BS!

Takoui Souvadjian , 1 day ago

So obvious that media and deep state and radicals on the left are protesting in a very exaggerated way after the presser. Notice lots of hastags against POTUS but no hasthags on the most important developments at the presser = $400 million to Hillary campaign from Russia. Folks, embrace this President. The better he makes America, the worst the attacks get. Just the fact that a US reporter ask such a file question against his President, in front of Putin and other foreign reporters is a disgrace and should be regarded as the utmost of treasonous acts. God bless your President. Defend him. Protect him. He could have very easily sided with the witch hunt but he chose to stay neutral knowing that cooperation with Putin is more important than looking good to the ridiculous media who would have vilified him in any way he answered that ridiculous question. Vote republican and make 2018 a victory for the right

Atlantean Sage , 21 hours ago

Russia is the 'enemy' only because Russia has thrown off the Jewish Mafia death grip around its throat ! The Jewish owned media and big finance are picking on Russia because they can't FLEECE Russia anymore !!!

Arm America , 1 day ago

That was a fantastic interview and both President Trump and President Putin did a great job. We Americans want PEACE ... But the disgusting MSM that are the enemies of America and the world do all they can to cause discord and trouble. We 'see' through their bullshit and despise them. All NORMAL people want to live in PEACE and God Bless President Trump and President Putin for working together to achieve that!!! #MAGA #TRUMP2020

warprat , 1 day ago

I was a Democrat for 30ys. Bernie was cheated and I voted for Trump. I didn't expect much from him. But he has shown himself to be an incredible man from day one, when he ripped up the TTP. An incredible President... God bless you Mr. President and keep you and your family safe. #WalkAway

System Servers , 1 day ago (edited)

So which country gets to arrest Soros? Didn't HRC break some Russian laws so she can be extradited and end up in a Russian prison? Will Russia sue the DNC for slander? Was the DNC's pet Pakistani working for Pakistani intelligence? These are the important questions nobody asked.

[Jul 18, 2018] Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception Alex Krainer: with review by The Saker

Aug 18, 2017 | thesaker.is
The Saker:
Today I want to introduce you to a book whose importance simply cannot be overstated: The Killing of William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception by Alex Krainer. I consider that book as a *must read* for any person trying to understand modern Russia and where the new Cold War with Russia came from.
Most of you must have heard of the Magnitsky Act or even maybe of William Browder himself. You probably know that Browder was a British businessman who founded Hermitage Capital Management investment fund which Sergei Magnitsky represented as a lawyer and auditor. Finally, you must have heard that Magnitsky died (was killed) in a Russian jail while Browder was placed by the Russian government on a black list and denied entry. For the vast majority of you, that is probably as much thought as you ever gave this topic and I have to confess that this is also true for me. I never bothered really researching this issue because I knew the context so well that this, by itself, gave me a quasi-certitude that I knew what had happened. Still, when I read this book I was amazed at the fantastically detailed account Krainer provides to what is really an amazing story.
In his book Alex Krainer offers us the truth and truly shows us how deep the rabbit hole goes....
The Vineyard of the Saker
Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception – Alex Krainer: with review by The Saker The Saker

See also

As Congress still swoons over the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky narrative, Western political and media leaders refuse to let their people view a documentary that debunks the fable, reports Robert Parry.
Consortium News (Updated Aug. 4, 2017)
A Blacklisted Film and the New Cold War
Robert Parry

[Jul 18, 2018] Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary s/CIA s manipulation of US politics via the Browder investigation, the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie can also loop into the mix

Jul 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Boing_Snap -> eclectic syncretist Tue, 07/17/2018 - 09:43 Permalink

Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US politics via the Browder investigation, the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie can also loop into the mix.

Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people are now seeing the light, only the people with skin the game or those far too controlled through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.

Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this far.

"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources."
― Edward L. Bernays , Propaganda

[Jul 18, 2018] How Trump Tries To Rebalance The Global Triangle

Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

The reactions of the U.S. polite to yesterday's press conference of President Trump and President Putin are highly amusing. The media are losing their mind . Apparently it was Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin and 9/11 all in one day. War will commence tomorrow. But against whom?

Behind the panic lie competing views of Grand Strategy .

Rereading the transcript of the 45 minutes long press conference (vid) I find it rather boring. Trump did not say anything that he had not said before. There was little mention of what the two presidents had really talked about and what they agreed upon. Later on Putin said that the meeting was more substantive than he expected . As the two spoke alone there will be few if any leaks. To understand what happened we will have to wait and see how the situations in the various conflict areas, in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, will now develop.

The 'liberal' side of the U.S. did its best to prevent the summit. The recent Mueller indictment was timed to sabotage the talks. Before the meeting in Helsinki the New York Times retweeted its three weeks old homophobic comic flick that shows Trump and Putin as lovers. It is truly a disgrace for the Grey Lady to publish such trash. After the press conference the usual anti-Trump operatives went ballistic:

John O. Brennan @JohnBrennan - 15:52 UTC - 16 Jul 2018

Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

Senator John McCain released a scathing statement :

... "President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.
...
"No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are -- a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. ...

These imbeciles do not understand the realism behind Trump's grand policy. Trump knows the heartland theory of Halford John Mackinder. He understands that Russia is the core of the Eurasian landmass. That landmass, when politically united, can rule the world. A naval power, the U.S. now as the UK before it, can never defeat it. Trump's opponents do not get what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor of President Carter, explained in his book The Grant Chessboard (pdf). They do not understand why Henry Kissinger advised Trump to let go of Crimea.

Trump himself professed his view (vid) of the big picture and of relations with Russia in a 2015 press conference:

"I know Putin. And I tell you that we can get along with Putin. Putin has no respect for President Obama. Big Problem, big problem. And you know Russia has been driven - you know I always heard, for years I have heard - one of the worst things that can happen to our country, is when Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together - with the big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's a horrible thing for this country. We have made them friends because of incompetent leadership. I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin- okay? And I mean where we have the strength. I don't think we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very well. I really believe that. I think we would get along with a lot of countries that we don't get along with today. And that we would be a lot richer for it than we are today.

There are three great geographic power-centers in the world. The Anglo-American transatlantic one which is often called 'the west'. Mackinder's heartland, which is essentially Russia as the core of the Eurasian landmass, and China, which historically rules over Asia. Any alliance of two of those power-centers can determine the fate of the world.

Kissinger's and Nixon's biggest political success was to separate China from the Soviet Union. That did not make China an ally of the United States, but it broke the Chinese-Soviet alliance. It put the U.S. into a premier position, a first among equals. But even then Kissinger already foresaw the need to balance back to Russia:

On Feb. 14, 1972, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger met to discuss Nixon's upcoming trip to China. Kissinger, who had already taken his secret trip to China to begin Nixon's historic opening to Beijing, expressed the view that compared with the Russians, the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period."

Kissinger then observed that " in 20 years your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese ." He argued that the United States, as it sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing, needed "to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.

It took 45 years, not 20 as Kissinger foresaw, to rebalance the U.S. position.

After the Cold War the U.S. thought it had won the big ideological competition of the twentieth century. In its exuberance of the 'unilateral moment' it did everything possible to antagonize Russia. Against its promises it extended NATO to Russia's border. It wanted to be the peerless supreme power of the world. At the same time it invited China into the World Trade Organisation and thereby enabled its explosive economic growth. This unbalanced policy took its toll. The U.S. lost industrial capacity to China and at the same time drove Russia into China's hands. Playing the global hegemon turned out to be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the U.S. economy and its people have since seen little to no gains. Trump wants to revert this situation by rebalancing towards Russia while opposing China's growing might.

Not everyone shares that perspective. As security advisor to Jimmy Carter Brzezinski continued the Nixon/Kissinger policy towards China. The 'one China policy', disregarding Taiwan for better relations with Beijing, was his work. His view is still that the U.S. should ally with China against Russia:

"It is not in our interest to antagonize Beijing. It is much better for American interests to have the Chinese work closely with us, thereby forcing the Russians to follow suit if they don't want to be left out in the cold. That constellation gives the U.S. the unique ability to reach out across the world with collective political influence."

But why would China join such a scheme? Brzezinski's view of Russia was always clouded. His family of minor nobles has its roots in Galicia, now in west-Ukraine. They were driven from Poland when the Soviets extended their realm into the middle of Europe. To him Russia will always be the antagonist.

Kissinger's view is more realistic. He sees that the U.S. must be more balanced in its relations :

[I]n the emerging multipolar order, Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States.

Kissinger is again working to divide Russia from China . But this time around it is Russia that needs to be elevated, that needs to become a friend.

Trump is following Kissinger's view. He wants good relations with Russia to separate Russia from China. He (rightly) sees China as the bigger long term (economic) danger to the United States. That is the reason why he, immediately after his election , started to beef up the relations with Taiwan and continues to do so. ( Listen to Peter Lee for the details). That is the reason why he tries to snatch North Korea from China's hands. That is the reason why he makes nice with Putin.

It is not likely that Trump will manage to pull Russia out of its profitable alliance with China. It is true that China's activities, especially in the Central Asian -stans, are a long term danger to Russia. China's demographic and economic power is far greater than Russia's. But the U.S. has never been faithful in its relations with Russia. It would take decades to regain its trust. China on the other hand stands to its commitments. China is not interested in conquering the 'heartland'. It has bigger fish to fry in south-east Asia, Africa and elsewhere. It is not in its interest to antagonize Russia.

The maximum Trump can possibly achieve is to neutralize Russia while he attempts to tackle China's growing economic might via tariffs, sanctions and by cuddling Taiwan, Japan and other countries with anti-Chinese agendas.

The U.S. blew its 'unilateral moment'. Instead of making friends with Russia it drove it into China's hands. Hegemonic globalization and unilateral wars proved to be too expensive. The U.S. people received no gains from it. That is why they elected Trump.

Trump is doing his best to correct the situation. For the foreseeable future the world will end up with three power centers. Anglo-America, Russia and China. (An aging and disunited Europe will flap in the winds.) These power centers will never wage direct war against each other, but will tussle at the peripheries. Korea, Iran and the Ukraine will be centers of these conflicts. Interests in Central Asia, South America and Africa will also play a role.

Trump understands the big picture. To 'Make America Great Again' he needs to tackle China and to prevent a deeper Chinese-Russian alliance. It's the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals who do not get it. They are still stuck in Brzezinski's Cold War view of Russia. They still believe that economic globalization, which helped China to regain its historic might, is the one and true path to follow. They do not perceive at all the damage they have done to the American electorate.

For now Trump's view is winning. But the lunatic reactions to the press conference show that the powers against him are still strong. They will sabotage him wherever possible. The big danger for now is that their view of the world might again raise to power.

Posted by b on July 17, 2018 at 07:41 AM | Permalink

James and , Jul 17, 2018 8:06:37 AM | 3

Russia would be dumb to dump China.
Americas political establishment is not in line with Trump, the establishment need Russia as the enemy and that's not going to change. There are many who actually believe Russia is the enemy

Trump will go back to America be beaten up by friends and enemies and conform to thie establishment view.

Putin who has gone through 4 presidents should know better?

Jen , Jul 17, 2018 8:15:41 AM | 4
If indeed Trump's strategy is to separate Russia from China, and to surround China on its eastern and southeastern seaboard with hostile states that could potentially cut off China's maritime trade links with SE Asia and countries beyond the Indian Ocean, then one wonders whether Trump would also consider cutting off any and all ties with Ukraine, and leave that country to drown in its own Nazified stupidity once Russia cuts off all gas transit through Ukrainian territory in 2019. After all, Ukraine was only useful to the Americans as long as it could hold onto Crimea and Sevastopol.

At the rate Ukraine is going, it may not be an independent state with secure borders within the next five years. The most Nazified western parts of the country (the historic Galicia and Volhynia) will almost certainly go to Poland; one is curious to know how a resurgent nationalist Poland will deal with the spiritual descendants of Stepan Bandera, Yaroslav Stetsko and their followers who tortured and butchered hundreds of thousands of Poles as well as Jews. Zakarpatska Oblast will go to Hungary and Bukovina to Romania. Kherson and Odessa Oblasts are likely to stampede over to Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts to form an enlarged Novorussia. What's left of rump Ukraine surrounding Kiev (if that's not taken by Poland as well) will be an economic backwater swamp fit only to host barracks of NATO soldiers in the hope they'll spend money patronising brothels and pole-dancing clubs.

V , Jul 17, 2018 8:21:49 AM | 5
Well, if Trump pulls this off, against the deep state, I'll be truly impressed.
But, at this point I'm thinking the deep state is looking at how to end him.
He's a loose cannon on the deck of a sinking ship...
And world peace is not on the agenda.
NemesisCalling , Jul 17, 2018 8:28:14 AM | 6
Great work, b. I will read this again when I have the chance.

An interesting question/theory develops with this newfound Russia-engagement:

Does Russia have more in common with the US than China and does Russia really want to see the US economy go down in flames?

I would say no to the latter and yes to the former. I wouldn't say that Russia would ever betray the east and China, but Putin is in a strange position now where he is holding all the cards...could Russia get rich and grow in power off business with the US? Why would Putin emotionally harbor illwill towards Americans when it appears a seachange is taking place?

[Jul 18, 2018] Everyone messes with everyone in their elections around the world. My first question is why is the media on both sides still pounding the American public with the Russia did it bullhorn. What exactly does Russia gain ? They're 9 times smaller than NATO. China has the most to gain.

Jul 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

I am Groot -> ThePhantom Mon, 07/16/2018 - 19:15 Permalink

Everyone messes with everyone in their elections around the world. My first question is why is the media on both sides still pounding the American public with the "Russia did it" bullhorn. What exactly does Russia gain ? They're 9 times smaller than NATO. China has the most to gain.

The Ukrainians were working with Hillary against Trump. The Deep State has the ability to make every act of espionage look like Russia did it. The DNC didn't turn over their server to the FBI. The Awan server disappeared too. Something smells terrible, like Kankles Huma hole.

ThePhantom -> I am Groot Mon, 07/16/2018 - 19:26 Permalink

jesus they can accuse you of being a putin puppet if you don't... and how do you defend yourself.. "how dare you insult every branch of our intelligence agencies"( and the lying james clapper!!!! )how dare you...?

MrBoompi -> I am Groot Mon, 07/16/2018 - 22:30 Permalink

Hey Groot, I think these countries hack and spy on each other 24/7. It's bullshit. They appoint a special prosecutor and with the exceptions of the BS Flynn and Manafort charges the only others he's charged are non-americans. Nothing about the elephant in the room, the billion dollar + money laundering schemes and treason of the Obama/Clinton and their lackeys.

[Jul 18, 2018] A strong stench of a false flag operation

Jul 18, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

likbez , July 17, 2018 at 1:43 am

Looks like it was actually China which implemented forwarding of all 30K email to controlled by them account. See sic_semper_tyrannis blog for details. This is a bombshell revelation, if true,

For debunking of the information presented in the indictment see

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictment-ignores-evidence-in-the-public-domain/

To me Mueller fiction sounds like a second rate Crowdstrike "security porn" -- a bragging about non-existent capabilities.

And I agree that the "Le Carre level of details" with names (which are obviously classified) are extremely suspicious. It also invites a nasty retaliation, because it breaks de-facto mode of work of intelligence agencies with each other and undermines any remnant of trust (if such exists in respect to CIA; it probably existed for NSA).

As sessions were encrypted so to decode them you need to steal SSH key, or break SSH encryption. Both are not very realistic, and, if realistic, disclosing such NSA capabilities greatly damages those capabilities.

Also Guccifer 2.0 Internet personality looks more and more to me like a false flag operation with the specific goal to implicate Russians. Mueller is actually pretty adept in operating in such created for specific purpose "parallel reality" due to specifics of his career. So nothing new here. Just a strong stench of a false flag operation

Another weak point is the use of CCcleaner. This is not how professionals from state intelligence agencies operate. Any Flame-style exfiltration software (and Flame was pioneered by the USA ;-) has those capabilities built-in, so exposing your activities in Windows logs is just completely stupid.

[Jul 18, 2018] Clinging to Collusion Why Evidence Will Probably Never Be Produced in the Indictments of 'Russian Agents'

Notable quotes:
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

... ... ...

The Russian government on Friday strongly denied the charges. In a statement, the Foreign Ministry called the indictments "a shameful farce" that was not backed up by any evidence. "Obviously, the goal of this 'mud-slinging' is to spoil the atmosphere before the Russian-American summit," the statement said.

The Ministry added that the 12 named Russians were not agents of the GRU.

" When you dig into this indictment there are huge problems, starting with how in the world did they identify 12 Russian intelligence officers with the GRU?" said former CIA analyst Larry Johnson in an interview with Consortium News. Johnson pointed out that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was not allowed to take part in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on alleged interference by the GRU. Only hand-picked analysts from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA were involved.

" The experts in the intelligence community on the GRU is the Defense Intelligence Agency and they were not allowed to clear on that document," Johnson said.

" When you look at the level of detail about what [the indictment is] claiming, there is no other public source of information on this, and it was not obtained through U.S. law enforcement submitting warrants and getting affidavits to conduct research in Russia, so it's clearly intelligence information from the NSA, most likely," Johnson said.

CrowdStrike's Role

The indictment makes clear any evidence of an alleged hack of the DNC and DCCC computers did not come from the FBI, which was never given access to the computers by the DNC, but instead from the private firm CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC. It is referred to as Company 1 in the indictment.

" Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May 2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company ("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions," the indictment says.

Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank.

The indictment doesn't mention it, but within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian "fingerprints" in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia in the hack.

CrowdStrike claimed the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike's conclusion about Russian "fingerprints" resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely sloppy or amateur hackers -- or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians.

One of CrowdStrike's founders has ties to the anti-Russian Atlantic Council raising questions of political bias. And the software it used to determine Russia's alleged involvement in the DNC hack, was later proved to be faulty in a high-profile case in Ukraine, reported by the Voice of America.

The indictment then is based at least partially on evidence produced by an interested private company, rather than the FBI.

Evidence Likely Never to be Seen

Other apparent sources for information in the indictment are intelligence agencies, which normally create hurdles in a criminal prosecution.

" In this indictment there is detail after detail whose only source could be intelligence, yet you don't use intelligence in documents like this because if these defendants decide to challenge this in court, it opens the U.S. to having to expose sources and methods," Johnson said.

If the U.S. invoked the states secret privilege so that classified evidence could not be revealed in court a conviction before a civilian jury would be jeopardized.

Such a trial is extremely unlikely however. That makes the indictment essentially a political and not a legal document because it is almost inconceivable that the U.S. government will have to present any evidence in court to back up its charges. This is simply because of the extreme unlikelihood that arrests of Russians living in Russia will ever be made.

In this way it is similar to the indictment earlier this year of the Internet Research Agency of St. Petersburg, Russia, a private click bait company that was alleged to have interfered in the 2016 election by buying social media ads and staging political rallies for both Clinton and Trump. It seemed that no evidence would ever have to back up the indictment because there would never be arrests in the case.

But Special Counsel Robert Mueller was stunned when lawyers for the internet company showed up in Washington demanding discovery in the case. That caused Mueller to scramble and demand a delay in the first hearing, which was rejected by a federal judge. Mueller is now battling to keep so-called sensitive material out of court.

In both the IRA case and Friday's indictments, the extremely remote possibility of convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception of Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations, presented as though it is established fact. Once that impression is settled into the public consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished.

For instance, the Times routinely dispenses with the adjective "alleged" and reports the matter as though it is already established fact. It called Friday's indictments, which are only unproven charges, "the most detailed accusation by the American government to date of the [not alleged] Russian government's interference in the 2016 election, and it includes a litany of [not alleged] brazen Russian subterfuge operations meant to foment chaos in the months before Election Day."

GRU Named as WikiLeak's Source

The indictment claims that GRU agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, (who says he is a Romanian hacker) stole the Democratic documents and later emailed a link to them to WikiLeaks, named as "Organization 1." No charges were brought against WikiLeaks on Friday.

Assange: Denied Russia was his source. (CNBC screenshot)

" After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled 'wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg,'" the indictment says. "The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had 'the 1Gb or so archive' and would make a release of the stolen documents' this week.'"

WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange, who is in exile in the Ecuador embassy in London, has long denied that he got the emails from any government. Instead Assange has suggested that his source was a disgruntled Democratic Party worker, Seth Rich, whose murder on the streets of Washington in July 2016 has never been solved.

On Friday, WikiLeaks did not repeat the denial that a government was its source. Instead it tweeted: "Interesting timing choice by DoJ today (right before Trump-Putin meet), announcing indictments against 12 alleged Russian intelligence officers for allegedly releasing info through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0."

Assange has had all communication with the outside world shut off by the Ecuadorian government two months ago.

Since the indictments were announced, WikiLeaks has not addressed the charge that GRU agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, were its source. WikiLeaks' policy is to refuse to disclose any information about its sources. WikiLeaks' denial that the Russian government gave them the emails could be based on its belief that Guccifer 2.0 was who he said he was, and not what the U.S. indictments allege.

Those indictments claim that the Russian military intelligence agents adopted the personas of both Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks to publish the Democratic Party documents online, before the Russian agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, allegedly supplied WikiLeaks.

The emails, which the indictment does not say are untrue, damaged the Clinton campaign. They revealed, for instance, that the campaign and the Democratic Party worked to deny the nomination to Clinton's Democratic Party primary challenger Bernie Sanders.

The indictments also say that the Russian agents purchased the use of a computer server in Arizona, using bitcoin to hide their financial transactions. The Arizona server was used to receive the hacked emails from the servers of the Democratic Party and the chairman of Clinton's campaign, the indictment alleges. If true it would mean the transfer of the emails took place within the United States, rather than overseas, presumably to Russia.

Some members of the Veterans' Intelligence Professionals for Sanity argue that metadata evidence points to a local download from the Democratic computers, in other words a leak, rather than a hack. They write the NSA would have evidence of a hack and, unlike this indictment, could make the evidence public: " Given NSA's extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked. The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods."

That argument was either ignored or dismissed by Mueller's team.

The Geopolitical Context

US enabled Yeltsin's reelection.

It is not only allies of Trump, as the Times thinks, who believe the timing of the indictments, indeed the entire Russia-gate scandal, is intended to prevent Trump from pursuing detente with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump said of the indictments that, "I think that really hurts our country and it really hurts our relationship with Russia. I think that we would have a chance to have a very good relationship with Russia and a very good chance -- a very good relationship with President Putin."

There certainly appear to be powerful forces in the U.S. that want to stop that.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin and Russian oligarchs to asset strip virtually the entire country, impoverishing the population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned on New Year's Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics.

That inflamed American hawks whose desire is to install another Yeltsin-like figure and resume U.S. exploitation of Russia's vast natural and financial resources. To advance that cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000 troops on Russia's borders.

In 2014, the Obama administration helped orchestrate a coup that toppled the elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists to overthrow a secular Russian ally in Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate appears to have been used not only to explain away Clinton's defeat but to stop Trump -- possibly via impeachment or by inflicting severe political damage -- because he talks about cooperation with Russia.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

Mary V , July 15, 2018 at 9:39 pm

They can't allow Assange to speak now, because if he should decide to reveal that Seth Rich was the leaker, that would create a whole new set of circumstances. Incredible article, Joe.

Jerry Alatalo , July 15, 2018 at 3:13 pm

Real estate mogul Leona Helmsley is remembered for infamously stating, "Rich people don't pay taxes. Taxes are for the little people."

Similarly, "Rich people hide evidence (real – or alleged (non-existent) for criminal or propaganda purposes) under the umbrella of 'national security'. Evidence is for the little people."

And the great war between truth and lies moves forward

Hank , July 15, 2018 at 9:51 am

As with the last indictment of 'Russian hackers' these GRU officers should retain an American attorney who can then demand Mueller hand over whatever evidence he has (aka: discovery). Last time that happened Mueller was forced to refuse (because he had none). That was embarrassing for Mueller and you'd think he would've learned his lesson not to try the gimmick again. You'd think.

Sam F , July 15, 2018 at 9:07 am

The entire Russia-gate invention is a diversion from Israel-gate, the control of US elections and mass media by zionists. That is the story here, not silly disputes over who did what to reveal DNC emails.

Red_Dog , July 15, 2018 at 8:03 am

1. Lauria is correct when he says, "Some members of the Veterans' Intelligence Professionals for Sanity argue that metadata evidence points to a local download from the Democratic computers, in other words a leak, rather than a hack." But he fails to give the full story. William Binney and some members of the VIPS wrote a memo stating that computer data showed that the files were downloaded locally to a flash drive because of transmission speeds. This memo was challenged in a separate memo by Thomas Drake and other members of the VIPS. To try and resolve the problem The Nation hired an independent computer expert, Nathanial Freitas, to analyze the memos and date. He concluded that the data did fit the Binney analysis. But it also fit several other possibilities that used remote access. So the data could not be used to prove that the files were locally downloaded. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/

2. Perhaps the most important part of the indictments is not in the Lauria article. 500,000 voters had their data stolen and, because most state-local voter systems are running on outdated and dilapidated computers, it may be impossible to tell if other systems had been hacked. Unfortunately, very few people are considering this part of the indictment. It means that if we want a fair election in 2018 paper ballots should be used. In any case all voting systems must be auditable.

3. Finally, the level of detail and attribution in the indictments indicates to me that the NSA and CIA were consulted. And it was worth providing this detail because of the incredible threat our country is under. The fact that we can now track down hacks with such precision should give others pause.

Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 8:18 am

I think you are jumping to a false conclusion about the "level of detail". The NSA and the CIA have now had enough time to cut the entire indictment out of whole cloth. Are we supposed to trust their so called "evidence" at this point, when the entire RussiaGate theater of the absurd was created to cover their ass and hamstring detente with Russia?

Piotr Berman , July 15, 2018 at 5:11 pm

I did not read the indictment, so I do not know if the level of detail rose to heights exhibited by Gen. Colin Powell in his famous "white powder vial" speech. Today we know that the white powder he showed to the entire world could be indeed harmful, as the baby powder of Johnson and Johnson was revealed to have traces of asbestos. But then again, it could be genuinely harmless.

On top of that, Innocence Project revealed that surprising number of successful prosecutions leading to the death penalty were based on hoaxes. For example, the "culprit" was implicated by his blood being found on a seat of the escape car, however when the defense examined the vial of the sentenced person blood that was in police possession, it had DNA of two people -- some blood was removed (presumably, splashed in the escape car) and to mask it, blood of another person was added. This is stuff done without any political motivation, just to get good number of solved cases -- the race and prior criminal record of the "culprit" probably being the bonus.

Creating compelling narratives is what prosecutors do for living. I hope that more often than not these narratives are true, but a true professional is not bound by such constraints.

j. D. D. , July 15, 2018 at 7:44 am

Thank you for a thorough and damning report on the indicttments by the cowardly and thuggish Mueller who, as the author notes, is confident that they nevr be answered in a court of law. Moreover, with all the hullabaloo attached to Robert Mueller's stunt, the fact remains that the DNC and John Podesta emails revealed a stunning and irrefutable truth: Hillary Clinton and the DNC were rigging the election against her Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. However, I would add two aspects which place into context the timing of Mueller's publicity stunt. First, that it came on the heels of embattled FBI Agent Peter Strzok's appearance before a joint House hearing on Thursday at which Strzok claimed that the Republicans on the House Judiciary and Government Oversight Committees were doing "Putin's work" by continuing to examine the British and Obama Administration/Democratic Party origins of Russiagate. Strzok's charge, obviously choreographed with Congressional Democrats, wasendlessly cycled in the news media. The Democrats otherwise sought to obstruct the discredited FBI agent's testimony by any and all means necessary to the delight of the "resist" social media universe. While the Justice Department's independent IG found that Strzok's prioritization of the Trump Russiagate investigation over the Clinton email investigation was not free from bias, an inconvenient fact largely glossed over in Thursday's staged event, it noted that Strzok and his mistress, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe counsel, Lisa Page, exchanged daily texts vowing to stop Trump's election, disparaging Trump's s supporters, and declaring themselves the saviors of the nation from the current President. The third element,of this assault on the prospect of peace was meant to cooincide with Trump's visit to the UK, i.e.the discovery of a bottle or vial of the so-called Novichok nerve agent allegedly used to poison former British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The bottle was discovered at the home of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess in Amesbury, England. The British went on an international rampage around the March 4, 2018, Skripal poisoning claiming Putin was conducting a murder of a long-retired British spy on British territory in some form of retaliaton, demanding war-like sanctions against Russia. When their claims failed to achieve substantive credibility, even with the British bioweapons lab, Porton Down, Rowley and Sturgess appeared as new victims of the nerve gas poisoning on June 30th and Sturgess subsequently died. The British press is filled with the imputation that the found vial will somehow be traceable back to Russia, a fact which eluded the original Skripal hoax Yet despite all of this, it appears that the desperate attempt of Mueller and his allies in the US and British intel community to block or ruin the Helsinki summit lack the suficient credibiltiy to succeed.

Gary Weglarz , July 15, 2018 at 1:19 am

I guess I'm showing my age with this comment, but our military & intelligence communities, our politicians and our corporate media's non-stop, fact-free, free-association, paranoid delusional drivel about "Russian election interference" has all the solidity, yet none of the charm, of a bad acid trip circa 1972. Offered the choice I'd certainly opt for the bad acid flashback – especially given what is actually at stake in terms of the prospects for human survival if this absurd and dangerous nonsense continues. The institutions of the West have shown themselves to be completely, totally and utterly corrupt! To bear witness to such complete corruption is absolutely breathtaking! Expecting anything rational, ethical, fact-based or simply honest to emanate from any of our Western institutions at this point requires an almost child-like level of trust – or – lacking that – a willingness to enter into and embrace the world of these mad delusions and their purveyors!

Bjorn Jensen , July 15, 2018 at 12:52 am

This is worth reading as a summary of grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor's case presentatation and the proposal for indictment through the summary of evidence either oral or via documents.

I think it is important to remember that grand juries are comprised of ordinary citizens and are independent of the courts.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1261/Grand-Jury-Screening-procedures.html

Sam F , July 15, 2018 at 9:02 am

Yes, this era of total corruption of the US government is unprecedented.
The disputes between one corrupt branch and another condemn them all.

mrtmbrnmn , July 15, 2018 at 12:09 am

This is not breaking news anymore, but worth repeating:

The odious NY Times inadvertently stepped on its own shtick (and everyone else's) when it front-paged the FBI's "Operation Hurricane Crossfire" against the Trump campaign. This whole farcedy was conceived as a rolling scheme to regime change Putin when Hillary ascended the throne, with Trump as merely a mug and patsy. When the moo-cow Hillary lost, the plan had to be repurposed to uckfay with Putin AND regime change Trump. If it looks like a Federal crime, smells like a Federal crime and quacks like a Federal crime, well You be the judge. There are so many organs of the Federal Gov and the MSM in on this criminal conspiracy, they are going to need a new wing at Gitmo to house all these scoundrels

Nabi , July 14, 2018 at 10:40 pm

Great right up to the last few paragraphs. Too hard for a logical conservative to swallow that the prime reason we have troops (small assets at that) near the Russia border is because of the greed of Wall Street. Up 'til then not a bad piece.

Joe Lauria , July 14, 2018 at 11:10 pm

Nabi, I suggest you read War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler if you think such a thing is unheard of.

https://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated-ebook/dp/B00P8OEFFY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531624171&sr=8-1&keywords=war+is+a+racket+smedley+butler

Mary V , July 15, 2018 at 9:54 pm

Everyone should read "War is a Racket".

Alcuin , July 15, 2018 at 3:01 am

Yes, greed of Wall Street. And perhaps this is the most important motive. But many former Warsaw Pact countries (or at least the ruling classes and opinion makers in those countries) wanted to become members of NATO because they apparently feared, perhaps not without reason, Russian domination in the future. And there's also the sheer libido dominandi of some people in Washington, not exclusively neoconservatives. So greed, fear, and love of power.

bobzz , July 14, 2018 at 10:08 pm

In all likelihood, we'll never know who killed Seth Rich who probably leaked the emails. The CIA did not have time to create patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, or Sirhan Sirhan. So RIP Rich.

jsinton , July 14, 2018 at 9:28 pm

Wouldn't it be a hoot if the alleged GRU agents decide to defend themselves in court against the indictments and demand discovery evidence?

Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 8:01 am

The problem with that is that you'd be buying into a stage play that the Deep State players get to direct. Let's not forget about the abilities detailed in the Vault 7 releases. Unfortunately it is just as Karl Rove has stated: they can create "reality" now, and they've had plenty of time to "create" their asses off.

jsinton , July 15, 2018 at 11:41 am

Did you not hear about the St Petersburg click-bait operation that Mueller indicted with great fanfare back in February? Well, the 13 Russians sent lawyers to answer the indictment and plead not guilty, much to the shock of Mueller and the investigation. The problem is when you indict someone, they now have the right to examine the EVIDENCE against them . a process know as "discovery". Mueller has been trying to suppress the evidence in that case ever since. Will the GRU agents send a lawyer? I'd be laughing if they did.

Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 12:12 pm

Yes, I recall the click-bait operation and the demand for discovery, and Mueller's being caught by surprise. This time will be a little different:
"Seemingly overlooked by most, Rosenstein said the indictment will now be passed-off (code word for "buried") to the DOJ National Security Division." The public will never even get to see any evidence due to "National Security".

This indictment is nothing but a propaganda ploy timed to undermine the Helsinki summit.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/13/rosenstein-delivers-indictments-for-12-russians-then-buries-in-lock-box-of-doj-national-security-division/#more-151777

rosemerry , July 14, 2018 at 4:04 pm

Considering the actions of the USA elsewhere,and the accepted, even encouraged, interference by Israel in all elections in the USA (as Chuck Schumer knows very well!), the whole process is a complete put-up job. Since the emails were true, and Wikileaks is reputed to keep to valid reports, the emphasis on finding a suitable scapegoat for the election of DJT is to steer people away from the genuine actions now destroying the USA.

fred54 , July 14, 2018 at 3:11 pm

They won't have to arrest and extradite the Russians because they will show up in court just like the two indicted Russians did back in May. Mueller had a heart attack and asked the Judge to deny the defendants right in discovery to see the evidence. He thought the Russians wouldn't show and he'd get his judgement exparte without having to produce the non-existent evidence. The Russians knew the evidence didn't exist just like in this latest lie on the part of Mueller where there is no evidence. The judge denied the motion and Mueller had no choice to quietly drop the charges. The same thing will happen here. Only this time the Russians aren't going to be so sanguine.

GM , July 14, 2018 at 7:02 pm

i don't believe that's accurate. Last I heard the judge agreed to deny the defendant discovery to the bulk of the prosecution's purported evidence based on Mueller's fatuous assertions of "national security", though he added that it is temporary and subject to change in the future.

D3F1ANT , July 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm

Democrat smoke and mirrors. Sad that it's worked for so long. This entire Russia collusion fantasy has blown up in their faces though. Not only has it failed spectacularly it's exposed the depth and scope of their corrution and the insidious way in which they've coopted critical components of the Federal government to their exclusive service–at taxpayer expense (DOJ/FBI)! It really is staggering. Especially since its allowed to continue even now!

jsinton , July 15, 2018 at 9:00 pm

Not to mention the credibility of the Deep-State MSM apparatus, which has exposed itself at purveyors of propaganda without investigation

Jeff Harrison , July 14, 2018 at 11:57 am

A couple of things occur to me. One. Have the Russian government respond to the indictments with discovery as occurred with the other inane indictments that Mueller produced. Two. Have Putin respond to the Democrat's demands by demanding the same from the US. On the one hand, the US only has alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election. On the other, Russia has proof of US meddling in essentially every Russian election since the collapse of the old SovU. The US won't like this. It was absolutely hilarious when that blonde bubble head of a State Department spokeswoman complained about VOA, RFE, etc being required to register as foreign agents only to be told by Russia to take RT off the foreign agent list. The Russians could also repay the favor by indicting Americans who interfered in Russian elections. They could start with Slick Willie.

Bob In Portland , July 14, 2018 at 11:41 am

To understand for whom Robert Swan Mueller works for, look at his record. Here: https://caucus99percent.com/content/what-mueller-wont-find

alley cat , July 14, 2018 at 11:07 am

In 1745, Samuel Johnson published a commentary entitled Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth :

"Thus the doctrine of witchcraft was very powerfully inculcated; and as the greatest part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they are in fashion, it cannot be doubted but this persuasion made a rapid progress, since vanity and credulity cooperate in its favor. The infection soon reached the Parliament, who, in the first year of King James, made a law, by which it was enacted, Chapter XII: That "if any person shall use any invocation or conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit; 2. or shall consult, covenant with, entertain, employ, feed or reward any evil or cursed spirit to or for any intent or purpose; 3. or take up any dead man, woman or child out of the grave, –or the skin, bone, or any part of the dead person, to be employed or used in any manner of witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; 4. or shall use, practice, or exercise any sort of witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; 5. whereby any person shall be destroyed, killed, wasted, consumed, pined, or lamed in any part of the body; 6. that every such person being convicted shall suffer death."

"Thus, in the time of Shakespeare, was the doctrine of witchcraft at once established by law and by the fashion, and it became not only unpolite, but criminal, to doubt it; and as prodigies are always seen in proportion as they are expected, witches were every day discovered and multiplied so fast in some places that Bishop Hall mentions a village in Lancashire where their number was greater than that of the houses."

From Through the Looking Glass , by Lewis Carroll:

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Two quick comments on the Russiagate hoax:
1. Julian Assange has always refused to compromise his sources, but did the next best thing by offering a $20,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of Seth Rich's killer(s). There's only one possible reason he would do this.
2. The truth of the leaked information has never been challenged. For those who insist on believing in witches and Russiagate, the 12 Russian defendants are guilty only of defending U.S. democracy, since the content of Clinton's emails helped save the U.S. from a Clinton presidency.

O Society , July 15, 2018 at 7:38 pm

Here you are. Wrote it this afternoon. Thanks for the inspiration!

https://opensociet.org/2018/07/15/russiagate-through-the-lookinglass/

Tom Roche , July 14, 2018 at 10:43 am

Excellent article, but it could be improved by including a link to the indictment text: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download . It's a 29-page PDF, but it's double-spaced with large margins, so only requires a few minutes to read.

[Jul 18, 2018] Mueller Grand Jury Indictment Does Not Prove Russia Hacked DNC caucus99percent

Notable quotes:
"... @chuckutzman ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Mueller Grand Jury Indictment Does Not Prove Russia Hacked DNC Steven D on Tue, 07/17/2018 - 1:37pm

="username">detroitmechworks
I'd disagree, since it's one singular action. @chuckutzman While the PTB want to think of it as OOOH, 12 indictments, when he actually just got one group of people to agree with him. Not even ALL of them. Just most of them. And he could get rid of any he didn't think were going to agree with him. Because of course he fucking can.

Ugh, I'll go with my own BS stories than the government's rather boring line of same old shit.

[Jul 18, 2018] Considerable evidence points to Guccifer 2,0 as being an affiliate of the DNC

Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Mark F. McCarty , July 14, 2018 at 9:48 am

At the crux of the indictment is an outright absurdity – Assange announced that he would be releasing Clinton-related material on June 10th, 2016, whereas the indictment claims that Guccifer 2.0 gave him access to the DNC emails on July 14th. Moreover, considerable evidence points to Guccifer 2,0 as being an affiliate of the DNC.

https://medium.com/@markfmccarty/muellers-new-indictment-do-the-feds-take-us-for-idiots-5406ef955406

https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/8yri14/julian_assange_crowdstrike_and_the_russian_hack/

http://g-2.space/

[Jul 18, 2018] Mish Mass Hysteria

Mish - Six Questions: (1) Is this a trial or a witch hunt? (2) Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars? (3) Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved? (4) Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence? (5) Even if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected otherwise? (6) Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?
Notable quotes:
"... Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well. ..."
"... The United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat this as though it's some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive ..."
"... And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we're simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush's former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism. ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Congratulations to President Trump for an Excellent Summit with Putin spawned numerous some I could not tell if they were sarcastic or not.

For example, reader Brian stated " There is zero doubt now that Putin stole the election from Hillary. So much so that she MUST be given the nomination again in 2020. All potential challengers must step aside. To refuse her the 2020 nomination would be evidence of traitorous activities with Putin."'

I congratulated Brian for brilliant sarcasm but he piled on. It now seems he was serious. Mainstream media, the Left an the Right were in general condemnation. Numerous cries of treason emerged from the Left and the Right (see the above link)

It Happened - No Trial Necessary

A friend I highly respect commented " There is simply no question that they did it. You can legitimately claim that it's not important or that there has been no tie to Trump shown. On the Russians' side, they can say, screw off, we were pursuing our interests. But you can't take the view it did not happen. It happened. "

There is a question who did it. Indictments are just that, not proof.

The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously thought we could control him.

They Are All Liars

It's a mystery why anyone would believe these proven liars. That does not mean I believe Putin either. They are all capable liars. Let's step back from the absurd points of view to reality.

US Meddling

The US tries to influence elections in other countries and has a history of assisting the forcible overthrow of governments we don't like.

All of the above are massive disasters of US meddling. They are all actions of war, non-declared, and illegal. I cannot and do not condone such actions even if they were legal.

911 and ISIS resulted from US meddling. The migration crisis in the EU is a direct consequence of US meddling. The Iranian revolution was a direct consequence of US meddling.Now we are pissing and moaning that Russia spent a few million dollars on Tweets to steal the election. Please be serious.

Let's Assume

Let's assume for one second the DNC hack was Russia-based. Is there a reason to not be thankful for evidence that Hillary conspired to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination? Pity Hillary? We are supposed to pity Hillary? The outrage from the Right is amazing. It's pretty obvious Senator John McCain wanted her to win. Neither faced a war or military intervention they disapproved of.

Common Sense

Let's move on to a common sense position from Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept.

  1. Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a "Danger to America" or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?
  2. Greenwald vs. Cirincione: Should Trump Have Canceled Summit After U.S. Indictment of Russian Agents?

Greenwald vs. Joe Cirincione

​GLENN GREENWALD : In 2007, during the Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama was asked whether he would meet with the leaders of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Iran without preconditions. He said he would. Hillary Clinton said she wouldn't, because it would be used as a propaganda tool for repressive dictators. And liberals celebrated Obama. It was one of his greatest moments and one of the things that I think helped him to win the Democratic nomination, based on the theory that it's always better to meet with leaders, even if they're repressive, than to isolate them or to ignore them. In 1987, when President Reagan decided that he wanted to meet with Soviet leaders, the far right took out ads against him that sounded very much just like what we just heard from Joe, accusing him of being a useful idiot to Soviet and Kremlin propaganda, of legitimizing Russian aggression and domestic repression at home.

GLENN GREENWALD : It is true that Putin is an authoritarian and is domestically repressive. That's true of many of the closest allies of the United States, as well, who are even far more repressive, including ones that fund most of the think tanks in D.C., such as the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. And I think the most important issue is the one that we just heard, which is that 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons are in the hands of two countries -- the United States and Russia -- and having them speak and get along is much better than having them isolate one another and increase the risk of not just intentional conflict, but misperception and miscommunication, as well.

​ JOE CIRINCIONE : Right. Let's be clear. Glenn, there's nothing wrong with meeting. I agree with you. Leaders should meet, and we should be negotiating with our foes, with those people we disagree with. We're better off when we do that. And the kind of attacks you saw on Barack Obama were absolutely uncalled for, and you're right to condemn those.

​ JOE CIRINCIONE : What I'm worried about is this president meeting with this leader of Russia and what they're going to do. That's what's so wrong about this summit coming now, when you have Donald Trump, who just attacked the NATO alliance, who calls our European allies foes, who turns a blind eye to what his director of national intelligence called the warning lights that are blinking red. About what? About Russian interference in our elections. So you just had a leader of Russia, Putin, a skilled tactician, a skilled strategist, interfere in a U.S. election. To what? To help elect Donald Trump.

GLENN GREENWALD : I think this kind of rhetoric is so unbelievably unhinged, the idea that the phishing links sent to John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee are the greatest threat to American democracy in decades. People are now talking about it as though it's on par with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that the lights are blinking red, in terms of the threat level. This is lunacy, this kind of talk. I spent years reading through the most top-secret documents of the NSA, and I can tell you that not only do they send phishing links to Russian agencies of every type continuously on a daily basis, but do far more aggressive interference in the cybersecurity of every single country than Russia is accused of having done during the 2016 election. To characterize this as some kind of grave existential threat to American democracy is exactly the kind of rhetoric that we heard throughout the Bush-Cheney administration about what al-Qaeda was like .

JOE CIRINCIONE : Why does Donald Trump feel that he has to meet alone with Putin? What is going on there? I mean, that -- when Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, at least he had George Shultz with him. The two of them, you know, were meeting with Gorbachev and his foreign minister at the time. This is -- it's deeply disturbing. It makes you feel that Trump is hiding something, that he is either trying to make a deal with Putin, reporting something to Putin. I tell you, I know U.S. intelligence officials -- I'm probably going right into Glenn's wheelhouse here. But U.S. intelligence officials are concerned about what Donald Trump might be revealing to the Russian leader, the way he revealed classified information to the Russian foreign minister when he met privately with him in the Oval Office at the beginning of his term. No, I don't like it one bit.

GLENN GREENWALD : I continue to be incredibly frustrated by the claim that we hear over and over, and that we just heard from Joe, that Donald Trump does everything that Vladimir Putin wants, and that if he were a paid agent of the Russian government, there'd be -- he would be doing nothing different. I just went through the entire list of actions that Donald Trump has taken and statements that he has made that are legitimately adverse to the interest of the Russian government, that Barack Obama specifically refused to do, despite bipartisan demands that he do them, exactly because he didn't want to provoke more tensions between the United States and Russia.

Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well.

So is expelling Russian diplomats and imposing serious sanctions on oligarchs that are close to the Putin regime. You can go down the list, over and over and over, in the 18 months that he's been in office, and see all the things that Donald Trump has done that is adverse, in serious ways, to the interests of Vladimir Putin, including ones that President Obama refused to do. So, this film, this movie fairytale, that I know is really exciting -- it's like international intrigue and blackmail, like the Russians have something over Trump; it's like a Manchurian candidate; it's from like the 1970s thrillers that we all watched -- is inane -- you know, with all due respect to Joe. I mean, it's -- but it's in the climate, because it's so contrary to what it is that we're seeing. Now, this idea of meeting alone with Vladimir Putin, the only way that you would find that concerning is if you believed all that.

JOE CIRINCIONE : So, Trump knew that this indictment was coming down, before he went to Europe, and still he never says a word about it. What he does is continue his attacks on our alliances, i.e. he continues his attacks on our free press, he continues his attacks on FBI agents who were just doing their job, and supports this 10-hour show hearing that the House of Representatives had. It's really unbelievable that Trump is doing these things and never says one word about it. He still has not said a word about those indictments.

GLENN GREENWALD : That's because the reality is -- and I don't know if Donald Trump knows this or doesn't know this, has stumbled into the truth or what -- but the reality is that what the Russians did in 2016 is absolutely not aberrational or unusual in any way. The United -- I'm sorry to say this, but it's absolutely true. The United States and Russia have been interfering in one another's domestic politics for since at least the end of World War II, to say nothing of what they do in far more extreme ways to the internal politics of other countries. Noam Chomsky was on this very program several months ago, and he talked about how the entire world is laughing at this indignation from the United States -- "How dare you interfere in our democracy!" -- when the United States not only has continuously in the past done, but continues to do far more extreme interference in the internal politics of all kinds of countries, including Russia .

GLENN GREENWALD : The United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat this as though it's some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive .

GLENN GREENWALD : It wasn't just Hillary Clinton in 2016 who lost this election. The entire Democratic Party has collapsed as a national political force over the last decade. They've lost control of the Senate and of the House and of multiple statehouses and governorships. They're decimated as a national political force. And the reason is exactly what Joe said. They become the party of international globalization. They're associated with Silicon Valley and Wall Street billionaires and corporate interests, and have almost no connection to the working class. And that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails. And I think that until we put this in perspective, about what Russia did in 2016 and the reality that the U.S. does that sort of thing all the time to Russia and so many other countries, we're going to just not have the conversation that we need to be having about what these international institutions, that are so sacred -- NATO and free trade and international trade organizations -- have done to people all over the world, and the reason they're turning to demagogues and right-wing extremists because of what these institutions have done to them. That's the conversation we need to be having, but we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on Vladimir Putin. And that, to me, is even more dangerous for our long-term prospects than this belligerence that's in the air about how we ought to look at Moscow.

Indictments and First Year Law

Mish : I now wish to return to a statement my friend made regarding the idea " No question Russia did it ".

From Glenn Greenwald

As far as the indictments from Mueller are concerned, it's certainly the most specific accounting yet that we've gotten of what the U.S. government claims the Russian government did in 2016. But it's extremely important to remember what every first-year law student will tell you, which is that an indictment is nothing more than the assertions of a prosecutor unaccompanied by evidence. The evidence won't be presented until a trial or until Robert Mueller actually issues a report to Congress.

And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we're simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush's former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism.

But even if the Russians did everything that Robert Mueller claims in that indictment that they did, in the scheme of what the U.S. and the Russians do to one another and other countries, I think to say that this is somehow something that we should treat as a grave threat, that should mean that we don't talk to them or that we treat them as an enemy, is really irrational and really quite dangerous.

Mish - Six Questions

  1. Is this a trial or a witch hunt?
  2. Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars?
  3. Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved?
  4. Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence?
  5. Even if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected otherwise?
  6. Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?

Irrational and Dangerous

I don't know about you, but I have no reason to believe known liars and hypocrites. I disagree with Trump all the time, in fact, more often than not. The amount of venom on Trump over this is staggering. Adding a missing word, I stand by my previous statement: " Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise."

If you disagree please provide examples. The only two I can come up with are Pearl Harbor and 911. In both, the US was directly attacked. For rebuttal purposes I offer Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Iran, WWI, treatment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and McCarthyism. Greenwald accurately assesses the situation as "really irrational and really quite dangerous." Indeed. And if indictments and accusations were crimes, we wouldn't need a jury.

Free This -> clymer Tue, 07/17/2018 - 07:25 Permalink

No bitch here but you, bulgars!

If the DNC servers were hacked, they are evidence, where is the fucking evidence now? At the bottom of the Hudson River with concrete shoes that's where! Where are the Anwan servers, Podesta's, Wieners....where are Hillary's emails?

Fuck this is getting out of hand. All of the top spooks in the alphabet agencies are complicit, DOJ too, right up to the skinny faggot in the rainbow house!

Getting close to the time for some real fucking justice in America!

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Here is an update to the map I posted yesterday about where not to be, not sure I agree one way or the other, you decide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn5Io6mZqXM

And Preper Nurse on wild medcines:

Don't forget to watch "Lifesaving Advice From Dirty Rotten Survival's Dave Canterbury" I posted yesterday, of all watch that.

One way to zero in iron sights on your AR-15:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=934LFFsC5Dw

And my all time favorite Uncle Ted, baby, what an interview, a must watch as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5NelZNtw_U

freedommusic -> HockeyFool Tue, 07/17/2018 - 07:37 Permalink

Rule 101 of the upside down - project un to others the crimes that YOU commit...

eclectic syncretist -> 847328_3527 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 09:09 Permalink

Even if it were found to be true that Russia (and not Seth Rich) was the source of the info that revealed to the American people (and the world) that the DNC conspired to rig its own primary election, my response would be one of gratitude for shining a light on the cockroaches.

Laowei Gweilo -> Miskondukt Tue, 07/17/2018 - 09:35 Permalink

the zeal with which MSN and especially CNN Wolf Blitzer now defend the 'Intelligence Community' as a singular infallible flawless entity is incredible ...

... in the context of the war they waged on that very same 'Intelligence Community' in light of it being wrong about WMD in Iraq

... or the Snowden-gate about it spying on Americans.

most two-faced biased blindly-agended-based manipulative thing I've ever seen on CNN

inosent -> Snaffew Tue, 07/17/2018 - 10:48 Permalink

Russian hack? hahaha, as if. Everybody knows it was an inside job. That sort of thing with all the emails is inside -> Seth Rich is a good place to look.

BESIDES! LET'S NOT FORGET ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THOSE EMAILS!!!

This guy in the article above that says Hellary "must" be given the nomination because Russia 'hacked' the election. Great! I'll be very happy to see that nasty bitch go down a second time, based on the substance of her twisted, hypocritical, and consummately evil character.

Super Sleuth -> css1971 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 13:55 Permalink

BILL BROWDER: The CIA Asset and Neocon Zionist Who Was Used to Restart the Cold War with Russia

---

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=101126

" Deep State agent Bill Browder operated at the very nexus of the
U.S. and U.K. Intelligence Communities that conspired to produce
both the fake Russiagate and very real Spygate ."

-- Intelligence Analyst & Former Military Officer

janus -> Super Sleuth Tue, 07/17/2018 - 15:24 Permalink

***It is a tale, full of sound and fury, told by idiots, signifying nothing***

how can we be expected to take any of this shit seriously?

-- avowed globalist-communists opposed to any nation's sovereignty, repulsed at the faintest wiff of patriotism scolding us for our lack of patriotism?

-- political parties, intelligence agencies, the media and much of the judiciary attempting to undermine the democratic process for over a year and a half, delegitamize a Presidency, vilify half the nation, stoke the flames of enmity...now they kvetch about our skepticism?

no, langley, we do not trust you. no, media, your agitprop has no currency.

of all the reasons for hillary's defeat, no one ever mentions the fact that she campaigned on a platform of war...WWIII, no less. starting in May/June of 2016, cankles started pounding the war drums. in a scenario so stale and overused as to threadbare, the left initiated the process of demonizing russia and russians.

Trump supporters are not only pro-American, they/we are anti-war. forever spinning in a manic and frenzied swirl of hysterics, the left often loses sight of this...but as much is to be expected, in that the left doesn't think, they instead parrot the tropes fed to them on a daily basis, forever unable to assemble the fragments of these disparate priorities into a cogent whole. but if they were able to arrange this mess into coherence, the image would terrify them with its ghastliness. the left openly and earnestly serves the forces of evil -- in fact, they are the forces of evil. they depend on the idiocy and credulity of their minions to keep this reality obscured. fortunately for the left, their supporters are sufficiently dull and benighted to keep the truth forever blighted.

maybe we should play the victoria nuland tapes again...as a refresher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk

we not only interfered with Ukranian/Russian politics, we overtly overthrew a democratically elected government, attempted to provoke Russia to respond militarily, started a civil war in the Ukraine, (downed a commercial airliner in a disgusting FF), funded and trained Nazis and left the nation in shambles. these are the same people calling Trump a traitor. these are the same forces who demand faith and fidelity.

it's gone...no one trusts (((you))) anymore...we know you're nothing but a bunch of bloodthristy satanists...your time is in eclipse, the more you struggle, the tighter the constraints.

"fuck the EU (for balking at WWIII)" Victoria Nuland, Clinton apparatchik, globalists, communist, satanist, kike.

janus

I Am Jack's Ma -> MoreSun Tue, 07/17/2018 - 14:44 Permalink

Zionists are a large part of the problem (and remember what Biden said) but not at all the whole problem. Don't hyperfocus - the 'Deep State' is chock full of non-Jewish warmongers and traitors. In fact the top traitors are guys like Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Clinton, Obama, and Strozk.

Creative_Destruct -> King of Ruperts Land Tue, 07/17/2018 - 10:23 Permalink

" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously thought we could control him."

YUP! AMEN.

It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas during the Vietnam war, and at the start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the case.

And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an Oligarchy:

https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/

Radical Marijuana -> HopefulCynical Tue, 07/17/2018 - 12:34 Permalink

"Marxists" ???

Follow the money to its source.

There is nothing in either the dictionary definition of "Marxism," nor the social facts, which justifies using that label for the ruling classes, the pyramidion people of the globalized social pyramid systems.

The root of the runaway "mass hysteria" is the long history of the control over the public money supplies being captured by the best organized gangsters, the banksters. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence regarding how that happened. See Excellent Videos on Money Systems .

Some of that evidence indicates some of those banksters were behind the promotion of messianic Marxism through the Russian Revolution which resulted in the Soviet Union. (Less compelling evidence indicates similar factors were at play in the later Chinese Revolution.)

The original Marxism was relatively scientific, for its time and place in history. However, it was messianic Marxism which became the ideologies of so-called "communist" movements, all of which necessarily ended up being dominated by their own kinds of best available professional hypocrites, resulting in even steeper social pyramid systems than previously.

It is RIDICULOUS to label the banksters as "Marxists." The comment posted above by HopefulCynical only begins to make some sense AFTER one substitutes some label which refers to the banksters , rather than to some ideologies which those banksters used to covertly advance their overall agenda.

Ideologies which become publicly significant are always systems of organized lies, which operate robberies. There is actually only one political system: organized crime. Therefore, contemporary geopolitical events make more sense after one recognizes who are the best organized gangsters , which are dominating civilization, including dominating the mass media's public presentation of those events.

While President Trump is correctly presenting the degree to which the mainstream media is based on "fake news," President Trump deliberately does not engage in deeper analysis of that phrase "fake news," but rather, used his oratory skill to capture that phrase, and thereby turn it against those who originally intended to use that phrase against President Trump.

The comment above by HopefulCynical was overwhelmingly up-voted by its readers. Tragically, the indicates the degree to which so many people want to believe in bullshit.

"The Marxists who've run America (and the rest of the world) into the ground for so many decades ..."

It was NOT "Marxists," but rather the banksters, who've run America (and the rest of the world) ... for so many decades. In particular, since 1971, when the American Dollar lost its last connection with the material world, after the last vestiges of money backed by precious metals were cut, the banksters have been able to astronomically amplify their frauds, as enforced by governments, to become about exponentially more fraudulent.

That about exponentially increasing fraudulence, as demonstrated by debt slavery systems generating numbers which have become debt insanities, is at the root of the runaway manifestation of "mass hysteria" in America (and the rest of the world.)

The debt slavery systems were made and maintained by the international bankers, as the best organized gangsters, the banksters, whose persistent and prolonged participation in the funding of all aspects of the political processes (including schooling and mass media) has resulted in the public powers of government being primarily used to back up the privatized interests of big banks, and the big corporations that grew up around those big banks being able to issue the public money supplies out of nothing as debts.

Those real social facts do NOT correspond to the dictionary definition of Marxism, nor to any other goofy ideologies which were popularized to conceal the real social facts, and permit public discussion of those facts to be drowned under the bullshit of false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals.

There continues to be a lot of awful nonsense presented in articles and comments published on Zero Hedge , because of the degree to which the authors of those like to continue to believe in their favourite kinds of impossible ideals, by mislabeling what they do not like in erroneous ways, which ignore both the actual facts and definitions of those labels.

BANKSTERS' "psychopathic dreams of total control" require that it will be possible for systems based on being able to enforce frauds can continue to become about exponentially more fraudulent. However, endless exponential growth is absolutely impossible.

Rising popular awareness and resistance to the banksters is manifesting through various political movements. However, so far, those movements continue to mostly be forms of controlled "opposition." Anyone who continues to misuse the labels such as "capitalism versus communism," or abuses the label "Marxist," etc., is still actually a form of controlled "opposition," because of the degree to which their thinking and communication is still based on taking for granted the biggest bullies' bullshit, which has become the banksters' bullshit .

After the banksters kicked the shit out of Russia during the 20th Century, Russia has returned having learned something from those experiences. The results are that Russia is slightly more able and willing to advance its national interests against the international banksters. That is the main reason why Russia is being demonized by those who are still almost totally the banksters' puppets.

President Trump appears to be a relative anomaly, whose social successfulness was based on the apparently increasing anomalies, due to the systems based on enforced frauds becoming about exponentially more fraudulent. It was that diffuse awareness of mass media propaganda being systematic lying, serving the interests of the owners of those mass media, that was one of the factors which enabled President Trump to win the election.

Some of his most significant campaign promises were to diminish the demonization of Russia, and thereby diminish the threat of war with weapons of mass destruction spinning out of control, which continues to potentially be the greatest of threats, which are somewhat under human control, but which look like those are going more and more out of control.

However, in my opinion, President Trump tends to NOT go beyond superficially correct analysis of the accumulating apparent anomalies, whose root causes are the systems of enforced frauds being amplified by about exponentially advancing technologies to become about exponentially more fraudulent, which factors are at the root of the accumulating "mass hysteria."

The best overall ways to approach understanding current geopolitical events are that the excessively successful applications of the methods of organized crime through the political processes are resulting in civilization manifesting runaway criminal insanities, which situation is so serious that people who attempt to reduce that insanity are attacked by those who want to increase that insanity.

The deeper reasons for the underlying issues are that there must be some death control systems, precisely because endless exponential growth is absolutely impossible, and therefore, death control systems develop to stop that happening, which drives those death control systems to become murder systems which maximize maliciousness.

The longer term consequences of the social successfulness of maximized maliciousness are that the biggest bullies' bullshit almost totally dominates civilization, including the layers of controlled "opposition" that surround the central core of the best organized gangsters, which have become the banksters . Hence, most of those who believe that they are "resisting" continue to think and communicate in ways which still take for granted most of that bullshit .

VWAndy -> Radical Marijuana Tue, 07/17/2018 - 12:57 Permalink

Yep. These false ideologies are just cover stories to keep people from focusing on the corruption.

Turns out Hypocrisy is the only form of government we have ever known.

[Jul 18, 2018] This indictment is nearly identical to the Jan. 6, 2017 ODNI Report, which came from a handful of unnamed analysts from the CIA and FBI. There is very little new information in well over a year. Right there, this raises red flags. Who were these analysts?

Looks like both Rosenstein and Mueller are pawn in a larger game...
Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com
Pandas4peace , July 14, 2018 at 8:40 am

Two points:
1. This indictment is nearly identical to the Jan. 6, 2017 ODNI Report, which came from a handful of unnamed analysts from the CIA and FBI. There is very little new information in well over a year. Right there, this raises red flags. Who were these analysts?

2. Did Mueller/Rosenstein consult with any foreign policy advisors? Does meddling in the president's national security affairs put the country at ris?

It's a dangerous game and a slippery slope. For the sake of the country, they better be right.

[Jul 18, 2018] Mueller should be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. The timing of this is an illegal attempt to interfere with Foreign Policy.

Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

O Society July 14, 2018 at 6:20 am Rosenstein makes the announcement. 8 minutes into this video he states:
There are no allegations in the indictment any American knew they were in contact with Russians or with a Russian operation,
any American committed a crime in relation to this,
or that the operation changed or influenced the election.

http://youtu.be/mYXCsxf9TsE

Fist thoughts:
If there is no allegation (evidence) the operation influenced the election, then why do we care about any of this?
Seems odd no Americans did anything worthy of investigating. Exonerating the DNC/ DCCC of all wrong doing?
How does Rosenstein (or anyone in the FBI) know Russians did this "hack" without having access to examine the DNC computers? Are we going by what CrowdStrike says they found? John McCarthy , July 14, 2018 at 5:08 am

Mueller should be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. The timing of this is an illegal attempt to interfere with Foreign Policy.

Mike Lamb , July 14, 2018 at 6:12 am

Right on!
Apparently Mueller couldn't get a U-2 to fly over Russia and get shot down (which in 1960 scuttled a summit between President Eisenhower and Soviet Premier Khrushchev).

[Jul 18, 2018] Fugitive Cop Says He's Behind the DNC Leaks

Notable quotes:
"... Webb (for what it's worth): "They're really not Trump's Russians; they're really not Putin's Russians -- they're really Rosenstein and Comey's Russians." ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Marko , July 14, 2018 at 6:40 am

How coincidental that just the day before the announcement of the indictments , The Daily Beast published an extensive hit-piece on John Mark Dougan , who has admitted setting up the DCLeaks website that was used to release some of the earlier leaks :

"Fugitive Cop Says He's Behind the DNC Leaks. It's His Latest Hoax. A Florida cop turned hacker who fled to Russia to escape the FBI claims Seth Rich leaked him DNC documents. But his story is full of holes."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fugitive-cop-says-hes-behind-the-dnc-leaks-its-his-latest-hoax?ref=scroll

Also , True Pundit suspects some of the language used in the indictments was cribbed from a related lawsuit filed by George Webb :

"Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist's Lawsuit Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ's Big Splash Appears Fabricated"

https://truepundit.com/mueller-plagiarizes-right-wing-youtube-journalists-lawsuit-against-podesta-in-new-russian-indictments-dojs-big-splash-appears-fabricated/

Gen Dao , July 14, 2018 at 8:09 am

George Webb is not a right-winger. He is a Bernie supporter. LOL. Still, the similarity of the wording suggests that the indictment is meant not only as an attempt to bolster the Russiagate fiction but also to defend Hillary and Podesta against charges of corruption, rigging the Dem primary, and incompetence and perhaps allow Hillary to run in 2020 or at lease to choose who the Dem candidate will be. It is also, of course, meant to sabotage detente with Russia and damage both Trump and Bernie Sanders. Sanders is probably regarded as even more dangerous than Trump by the deep state and by the corrupt, no-talent leaders of the pathetic Dem party -- just look at Shumer's ridiculous and unpatriotic demand that Trump cancel the summit. The current Dem leaders have absolutely nothing positive to offer the American people in terms of foreign policy and do nothing but repeat neocon nonsense, but the deep state supports the Dems at the moment because they want to see Trump impeached and Bernie make a fool of himself by criticizing Russia with no evidence. Bernie lost a lot of support with his recent uninformed Russophobic statement. The strong implied focus on defending Podesta and by further implication Hillary, obvious from the similarities with the Webb lawsuit, shows the real aim of the indictments. As Lauria points out, it's all for internal consumption. But there are several apparent contradictions in the indictment, and those contradictions will be no doubt be pointed out in the coming days by computer experts, so this indictment may have no lasting effect outside of people who are already True Believers in Russiagate. Even so, the failure to interview Assange and Craig Murray is truly shocking and disappointing.

Alcuin , July 14, 2018 at 10:49 am

George Webb has talked with Bill Binney and despite being somewhat eccentric should not be dismissed out of hand. He is rumored to be former Mossad. From his videos of the last three days (days 15, 16, 17) it appears that he thinks Russian-born hackers living in the USA were indeed involved, but that they were not working for the Russian government but rather for various Americans (including well-known American politicians), concentrating on economic espionage.

Remember that Assange when questioned repeatedly emphasized that that the emails did not come from Russian "state" actors. Putin recently seems to have wanted to imply the same point.
According to Webb the hackers received their training from Russian military intelligence.
Webb also ties the hacking and espionage to the wider picture of pipeline politics in Europe and the Middle East. Even if Webb is wrong, or if he represents Israeli interests, it's an interesting view that is worth investigating.

Alcuin , July 16, 2018 at 2:18 am

Webb (for what it's worth): "They're really not Trump's Russians; they're really not Putin's Russians -- they're really Rosenstein and Comey's Russians."

Ben , July 14, 2018 at 8:13 am

Forensic analysis from forensicator:

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/
http://g-2.space/

His analysis of the metadata indicates the information was copied to a USB.

[Jul 18, 2018] The Publicly Available Evidence Doesn't Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election

Notable quotes:
"... Crowdstrike's Danger Close report , which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian government, the IISS whose data they misused, and the builder of the military app that they claimed was compromised. ..."
"... The Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic that used different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed, analyst judgment, contextual information). The line that connected the "actors" who sent out the spearphishing email to various electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment) and included the words "probably within"; meaning that this was not a communications intercept. ..."
"... There are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the fact that no government agency actually did the forensics work. It was done by a company with strong ties to the Clinton campaign and an economic incentive to blame foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was either flimsy or non-existent. ..."
"... Does any of this mean that the Russian government didn't do it? No. It only means that there is insufficient public evidence to say that it did. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | medium.com

Three days ago, the Washington Post ran this article by Philip Bump  --  " Here's the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election ".

This gist of the article was, since we can't know what the classified evidence is that supports the U.S. government's finding in favor of Russian government intereference, there is plenty of public evidence which should convince us.

Bump is wrong about that. The public evidence isn't enough to identify Russian government involvement, or even identify the nationality of the hackers involved. That doesn't mean that the Russian government isn't responsible. It means that we don't know enough to say who is responsible based solely on the publicly known evidence, including classified evidence that's been leaked.

Here's a recap:

The X-Agent malware used against the DNC is not exclusive to Russia. The source code has been acquired by at least one Ukrainian hacker group and one European cybersecurity company, which means that others have it as well. "Exclusive use" is a myth that responsible cybersecurity companies need to stop using as proof of attribution.

The various attacks attributed to the GRU were a comedy of errors ; not the actions of a sophisticated adversary.

The FBI/DHS Grizzly Steppe report was a disaster ( here , here , here , and here ).

Crowdstrike's Danger Close report , which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian government, the IISS whose data they misused, and the builder of the military app that they claimed was compromised.

The Arizona and Illinois attacks against electoral databases that were blamed on the Russian government were actually conducted by English-speaking hackers .

The Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic that used different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed, analyst judgment, contextual information). The line that connected the "actors" who sent out the spearphishing email to various electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment) and included the words "probably within"; meaning that this was not a communications intercept.

There are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the fact that no government agency actually did the forensics work. It was done by a company with strong ties to the Clinton campaign and an economic incentive to blame foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was either flimsy or non-existent.

Does any of this mean that the Russian government didn't do it? No. It only means that there is insufficient public evidence to say that it did.

[Jul 18, 2018] The neoliberal elite and MSM turned the majority of Western liberals into paranoid McCarthyite fanatics denouncing anyone who questions the honesty of the US Intelligence Community as a "traitor," and seeing Russians and Nazis coming out of the woodwork

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Extracted from: Trump's Treasonous Traitor Summit or How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism by CJ Hopkins

On the morning of the summit, Charles M. Blow, maestro of alliteration and subtlety, in The New York Times (which, we must remember, holds itself to the highest journalistic standards and in no way resembles a rabble-rousing tabloid), published this impassioned piece entitled " Trump, Treasonous Traitor ," accusing the President of "betraying the nation," and basically demanding that he be tried for treason. "America is under attack," Blow announces, "and its president absolutely refuses to defend it."

If Mother Jones ' David Corn has his way, Senator Rand Paul, who Corn denounces as "a traitor," would also be taken outside and shot for the crime of noting that the Attack on America® Russia allegedly perpetrated is fairly standard clandestine behavior, engaged in by most developed nations, including the United States of America, whose history of election interference, coup-fomenting, assassinations, and other, more hamfisted forms of regime change is common knowledge, or at least it was, until the ruling classes and the corporate media turned the majority of Western liberals into paranoid McCarthyite fanatics denouncing anyone who questions the honesty of the US Intelligence Community as a "traitor," and seeing Russians and Nazis coming out of the woodwork.

[Jul 18, 2018] The Russian elite realized that they could lose their money and houses anytime – not in godless Putin's Russia, but in the free West, where they had preferred to look for refuge. The Magnitsky Act paved the road to the Cyprus confiscation of Russian deposits, to post-Crimean sanctions and to a full-fledged Cold War by Israel Shamir

Notable quotes:
"... The New Republic ..."
"... The documents had been doubted for some linguistic reasons discussed by Gilbert Doctorow who comes to a reasonable conclusion: "Bill Browder['s] intensity and the time he was devoting to anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behaviour of a top level international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the time, no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not surprise us, as he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers with strong ties in the intelligence community. ..."
"... Perhaps he outlived his usefulness, Mr Browder did. He started the Cold war, now is the time to keep it in its healthy limits and to avoid a nuclear disaster or rapid armaments race. This is the task we may hope will be entertained by the next US President, Mr Donald Trump. ..."
June 20, 2016 | www.unz.com

Chapeau, Mr Browder! Hats off for this incredible man. Last month, he succeeded in stopping a film screening in the European parliament and took off a few articles from American web sites. This week, he turned the only US screening of a film critical to his version of events into a ruckus . No freedom of speech for his enemies! His lawyers prowl around and issue summons to whoever digs in his sordid affairs. His hacks re-wrote his Wikipedia entry, expunging even discussions of the topic: despite hundreds of edits, nothing survived but the official version. Only a few powerful men succeed purifying their record to such an extent. Still, good fortune (a notoriously flighty lady) is about to desert Mr Browder.

Who is this extremely influential man? A businessman, a politician, a spy? The American-born Jewish tycoon William Browder, says The Jewish Chronicle , considers himself Putin's Number One enemy. For him, Putin is "no friend of the Jews", "cold-blooded killer" and even "criminal dictator who is not too different from Hitler, Mussolini or Gadhafi". More to a point, Browder is the man who contributed most to the new cold war between the West and Russia. The roots were there, still he made them blossom. If the US and Russia haven't yet exchanged nuclear salvos, do not blame Browder: he tried. For a valid reason, too: he was hit by cruel Hitler-like Mr Putin into his most susceptible spot, namely his pocket. Or was there even a better reason?

Browder, a grandson of the US Communist leader, came to Russia at its weakest point after the Soviet collapse, and grabbed an enormous fortune by opaque financial transactions. Such fortunes are not amassed by the pure of spirit. He was a ruthless man who did as much as any oligarch to enrich himself.

Eventually he ran afoul of Mr Putin, who was (and is) very tolerant of oligarchs as long as they play by the rules. The oligarchs would not be oligarchs if they would found that an easy condition. Some of them tried to fight back: Khodorkovsky landed in jail, Berezovsky and Gusinsky went to exile. Browder had a special position: he was the only Jewish oligarch in Russia who never bothered to acquire the Russian citizenship. He was barred from returning to Russia, and his companies were audited and found wanting.

As you'd expect, huge tax evasion was discovered. Browder thought that as long as he sucked up to Putin, he'd get away with bloody murder, let alone tax evasion. He was mistaken. Putin is nobody's fool. Flatterers do not get a free ride in Putin's Russia. And Browder became too big for his boots.

It turned out that he did two unforgivable things. Russians were afraid the foreigners would buy all their assets for a song, using favourable exchange rates and lack of native capital, as had happened in the Baltic states and other ex-Communist East European countries. In order to avoid that, shares of Russian blue-chip companies (Gazprom and suchlike) were traded among Russian citizens only. Foreigners had to pay much more. Browder bought many such shares via Russian frontmen, and he was close to getting control over Russian oil and gas. Putin suspected that he had acted in the interests of big foreign oil companies, trying to repeat the feat of Mr Khodorkovsky.

His second mistake was being too greedy. Russian taxation is very low; but Browder did not want to pay even this low tax. He hired Mr Magnitsky, an experienced auditor, who used loopholes in the Russian tax code in order to avoid taxes altogether. Magnitsky established dummy companies based in tax-free zones of Russia, such as pastoral Kalmykia, small, Buddhist, and autonomous. Their tax-free status had been granted in order to improve their economy and reduce unemployment; however, Browder's companies did not contribute to economy and did not employ people; they were paper dummies swiftly bankrupted by the owner.

Another Magnitsky trick was to form companies fronted by handicapped people who were also freed from paying tax. In the film, some of these persons, often illiterate and of limited intelligence, told the filmmaker of signing papers they could not read and of being paid a little money for the millions passing through their account.

(Mr Browder does not deny these accusations; he says there is nothing criminal in trying to avoid taxes. You can read about Browder and Magnitsky tricks here and here , and learn of the ways they attacked companies using minority shareholders and many other neat schemes.)

Eventually Magnitsky's schemes were discovered and he was arrested. Ten months later, in 2009, he died in jail. By that time, his patron Mr Browder was abroad, and he began his campaign against Russia hoping to regain his lost assets. He claimed Mr Magnitsky had been his lawyer, who discovered misdeeds and the outright thievery of government officials, and was imprisoned and tortured to death for this discovery.

The US Congress rushed in the Magnitsky Act, the first salvo of the Cold War Two. By this act, any Russian person could be found responsible for Mr Magnitsky's untimely death and for misappropriation of Browder's assets. His properties could be seized, bank accounts frozen – without any legal process or representation. This act upset the Russians, who allegedly had kept a cool $500 billion in the Western banks, so tit for tat started, and it goes to this very day.

The actual effect of the Magnitsky Act was minimal: some twenty million dollars frozen and a few dozen not-very-important people were barred from visiting the US. Its psychological effect was much greater: the Russian elite realized that they could lose their money and houses anytime – not in godless Putin's Russia, but in the free West, where they had preferred to look for refuge. The Magnitsky Act paved the road to the Cyprus confiscation of Russian deposits, to post-Crimean sanctions and to a full-fledged Cold War.

This was painful for Russia, as the first adolescent disillusionment in its love affair with the West, and rather healthy, in my view. A spot of cold war (very cold, plenty of ice please) is good for ordinary people, while its opposite, a Russian-American alliance, is good for the elites. The worst times for ordinary Russian people were 1988-2001, when Russians were in love with the US. The oligarchs stole everything there was to steal and sold it to the West for pennies. They bought villas in Florida while Russia fell apart. That was bad time for everybody: the US invaded Panama and Afghanistan unopposed, Iraq was sanctioned to death, Yugoslavia was bombed and broken to pieces.

As the Cold War came back, some normalcy was restored: the Russians stopped the US from destroying Syria, and Russian officials learned to love Sochi instead of Miami. For this reason alone, Browder can be counted as a part of the power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good. The Russian government, however, did not enjoy the cold shower.

The Russians denied any wrongdoing or even political reasons for dealing with Browder. They say Magnitsky was not a lawyer, just an auditor and a tax code expert. They say that he was arrested and tried for his tax avoidance schemes, and he died of natural causes while in jail. Nobody listened to them, until they demanded that Browder testify under oath. He refused. For two years lawyers tried to give him a summons , but he was a quick runner. There are funny videos showing Browder running away from summons.

Some good sense began to seep into American minds. The New Republic wondered : if Browder was indeed the victim of persecution in Russia and had enlisted the U.S. justice system to right the balance, why was he so reluctant to offer his sworn testimony in an American courtroom?

Enter Mr Andrey Nekrasov , a Russian dissident filmmaker. He made a few films considered to be highly critical of Russian government. He alleged the FSB blew up houses in Moscow in order to justify the Chechnya war. He condemned the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, and had been given a medal by Georgian authorities. He did not doubt the official Western version of Browder-Magnitsky affair, and decided to make a film about the noble American businessman and the brave Russian lawyer fighting for human rights. The European organisations and parliamentarians provided the budget for the film. They also expected the film to denounce Putin and glorify Magnitsky, the martyr.

However, while making the film, Mr Nekrasov had his Road to Damascus moment. He realised that the whole narrative was hinging on the unsubstantiated words of Mr Browder. After painstaking research, he came to some totally different conclusions, and in his version, Browder was a cheat who run afoul of law, while Magnitsky was his sidekick in those crimes.

Nekrasov discovered an interview Magnitsky gave in his jail. In this interview, the accountant said he was afraid Browder would kill him to prevent him from denouncing Browder, and would make him his scapegoat. It turned out Browder tried to bribe the journalist who made the interview to have these words expunged. Browder was the main beneficiary of the accountant's death, realised Nekrasov, while his investigators were satisfied with Magnitsky's collaboration with them.

Nekrasov could not find any evidence that Magnitsky tried to investigate the misdeeds of government officials. He was too busy covering his own tax evasion. And instead of fitting his preconceived notions, Nekrasov made the film about what he learned. ( Here are some details of Nekrasov's film)

While the screening in the EU Parliament was been stopped by the powerful Mr Browder, in Washington DC the men are made of sterner stuff. Despite Browder's threats the film was screened , presented by the best contemporary American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who is 80 if a day, and still going strong. One has to recognise that the US is second to none for freedom of speech on the globe.

What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians. The Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by Browder's structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the Magnitsky Act.

Much bigger sums were transferred via good services of Brothers Ziff, mega-rich Jewish American businessmen, said the researchers in two articles published on the Veteran News Network and in The Huffington Post .

These two articles were taken off the sites very fast under pressure of Browder's lawyers, but they are available in the cache. They disclose the chief beneficiary of Browder's generosity. This is Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland. He was the engine behind Magnitsky Act legislation to such an extent that the Act has been often called the Cardin List . Cardin is a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton, also a cold warrior of good standing. More to a point, Cardin is a prominent member of Israel Lobby.

Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and international crime. Almost all involved figures appear to be Jewish, not only Browder, Brothers Ziff and Ben Cardin. Even his enemy, the beneficiary of the scam that (according to Browder) took over his Russian assets is another Jewish businessman Dennis Katsiv (he had been partly exonerated by a New York court as is well described in this thoughtful piece).

Browder began his way to riches under the patronage of a very rich and very crooked Robert Maxwell, a Czech-born Jewish businessman who assumed a Scots name. Maxwell stole a few million dollars from his company pension fund before dying in mysterious circumstances on board of his yacht in the Atlantic. It was claimed by a member of Israeli Military Intelligence, Ari Ben Menashe, that Maxwell had been a Mossad agent for years, and he also said Maxwell tipped the Israelis about Israeli whistle-blower Mordecai Vanunu. Vanunu was kidnapped and spent many years in Israeli jails.

Geoffrey Goodman wrote Maxwell "was almost certainly being used as – and using himself as – a two-way intelligence conduit [between East and West]. This arrangement included passing intelligence to the Israeli secret forces with whom he became increasingly involved towards the end of his life."

After Maxwell, Browder switched allegiance to Edmond Safra, a very rich Jewish banker of Lebanese origin, who also played East vs West. Safra provided him with working capital for his investment fund. Safra's bank has been the unlikely place where the IMF loan of four billion dollars to Russia had been transferred -- and disappeared. The Russian authorities say that Browder has been involved in this "crime of the century," next to Safra. The banker's name has been connected to Mossad: increasingly fearful for his life, Safra surrounded himself by Mossad-trained gunmen. This did not help him: he died a horrible death in his bathroom when his villa was torched by one of the guards.

The third Jewish oligarch on Browder's way was Boris Berezovsky, the king-maker of Yeltsin's Russia. He also died in his bathroom (which seems to be a constant feature); apparently he committed suicide. Berezovsky had been a politically active man; he supported every anti-Putin force in Russia. However, a few months before his death, he asked for permission to return to Russia, and some negotiations went on between him and Russian authorities.

His chief of security Sergey Sokolov came to Russia and purportedly brought with him some documents his late master prepared for his return. These documents allege that Browder had been an agent of Western intelligence services, of the CIA to begin with, and of MI6 in following years. He was given a code name Solomon, as he worked for Salomon Brothers. His financial activity was just a cover for his true intentions, that is to collect political and economic data on Russia, and to carry out economic war on Russia. This revelation has been made in the Russia-1 TV channel documentary Browder Effect , (broadcasted 13.04.2016), asserting that Browder was not after money at all, and his activities in Russia, beside being very profitable, had a political angle.

The documents had been doubted for some linguistic reasons discussed by Gilbert Doctorow who comes to a reasonable conclusion: "Bill Browder['s] intensity and the time he was devoting to anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behaviour of a top level international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the time, no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence agencies. Whatever the final verdict may be on the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect," it raises questions about Browder that should have been asked years ago in mainstream Western media if journalists were paying attention. Yevgeny Popov deserves credit for highlighting those questions, even if his documents demand further investigation before we come to definitive answers".

We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not surprise us, as he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers with strong ties in the intelligence community.

Perhaps he outlived his usefulness, Mr Browder did. He started the Cold war, now is the time to keep it in its healthy limits and to avoid a nuclear disaster or rapid armaments race. This is the task we may hope will be entertained by the next US President, Mr Donald Trump.

This article was first published in The Unz Review .

JL , June 20, 2016 at 9:14 am GMT

" Browder was not after money at all " Uh, no. Browder was notorious for his greed and obsession with money. This is someone who had a program that calculated his personal net worth online and would check it no less than every half hour.

Think Gordon Gekko but too cheap to even buy a decent suit. While there may have been some intelligence connections somewhere along the way, as the article states, he went political only when his honey pot was removed. Without Russia, his fund management business quickly tanked.

AmericaFirstNow , Website June 20, 2016 at 10:54 am GMT
US pushing a Zionist PNAC Neocon agenda vs Russia: http://america-hijacked.com/2014/02/24/us-has-neocon-agenda-in-ukraine-russia-analyst/

http://tinyurl.com/neoconmeddling

annamaria , June 20, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT
@Kiza

This is priceless: "We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not surprise us, as he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers with strong ties in the intelligence community."

Could Mr. Browder hope for a better end of life than Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky? And what would be the fate of Mr. Cardin, the famous congressional prostitute? http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/?p=3742#.V2fRqzc5FCo

"Israel's Agent of Influence: Senator Ben Cardin shows how it's done:"

"So who does Cardin actually represent? I would suggest that he fits the mold of the classic agent of influence in that his allegiance to the United States is constrained by his greater loyalty to a foreign nation."

Israel Shamir , June 20, 2016 at 5:17 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

In Russia, everybody criticises Putin. No danger at all. Andrey Nekrasov was a foremost critic of Putin, made him no harm. Russia has as much freedom of speech as Europe; still less than the US.

Oscar Peterson , June 20, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT
Incredible–well, not really–that our mainstream media resolutely refuses to print, much less discuss, the two main pieces of information here:

1. Browder was the one who gained most from Magnitsky's death as evidenced by the interview in which the latter asserted a fear of being killed by Browder.

2. Nekrasov, the film's director, has a history of making films very critical of Putin and the Russian government and state.

US media coverage either omits any mention of these two points or buries allusions to them in the article. The NYT piece on Browder's attempt to block the film's screening at the Newseum in Washington was filed in the "Europe" section of the paper.

Freedom of speech is under assault in the West and, again and again, we see the common denominator of these despicable efforts to suppress key information.

JL , June 21, 2016 at 7:52 am GMT
How funny to hear people question Browder's Jewishness, in the Unz comments section of all places. Lest there be any doubt, he, himself, very much identified as being a Jew, to the extent that he had a Mezuzah on his office doorway and hired only Jewish employees.

Concerning Magnitsky's indeed unusual posthumous trial, this was actually at the behest of his own mother who refused to sign the legal papers closing the criminal case due to his death. This is usually a mere formality. However, the Russian legal system is a stickler for the letter of the law and so the trial went ahead. His mother's motivation was unclear, though it probably had something to do with extra publicity.

tbraton , June 21, 2016 at 2:41 pm GMT
When I first became aware of Mr. Browder a number of years ago, I was curious about his name, since I was aware of Earl Browder, the former head of the American Communist Party when I was growing up. After I subsequently learned of the familial connection, I was highly amused to discover the leap from Communist to capitalist in three generations. But then I recalled that Dr. Armand Hammer, eventually the controlling shareholder of Occidental Petroleum, had a father who was also a doctor, an emigrant from Odessa, and a founder of the Communist Party U.S.A. That was a mere two generations to make the leap from Communist to capitalist.

A few years ago I happened to read an amusing memoir of the girl who was my date to my high school prom but who went on to achieve a modest fame and acquaintance with many prominent Americans and foreigners. (I am being intentionally vague.) When I was dating her in high school and college, I operated under the false assumption that her mother (whom I met) was Jewish and her natural father (whom I never met); I met her stepfather, who was Jewish) was Catholic, which I thought was kind of cool, since I was totally nonreligious. You can imagine my disappointment to learn nearly a half century later that both of her natural parents were Jewish. Elsewhere in her memoir, my friend referred to her mother's sister, who was a member of the Communist Party and got caught up in the Hollywood blacklist and lost her job. (That was the first I heard of it, btw.) Things turned out well for her since she hooked up with and married a wealthy Jewish doctor, who left her a sizable fortune when he died. She eventually moved to Israel where she found nirvana, marrying a much younger man and enjoying late in life "fantastic sex." So, it appears that what motivates many young Communists is the dream of becoming fantastically wealthy and enjoying life as a plutocrat, not the BS of improving life for the downtrodden. If I weren't such a natural skeptic, I would have been very disillusioned, but not as much as I was to discover late in life that her father was Jewish and not Catholic. Apologies to all those women I dated in my 20′s and 30′s whom I regaled with the story of my half-Jewish, half-Catholic prom date.

Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , Website June 21, 2016 at 7:03 pm GMT

For two years lawyers tried to give him a summons, but he was a quick runner. There are funny videos showing Browder running away from summons.

I thoroughly enjoyed the video:-)

Seraphim , June 22, 2016 at 2:08 am GMT
@tbraton

It became tedious to evoke the murky relations of Bolshevism with the Jewish bank cartel in the financing of Lenin, Trotsky &Co by Jacob Schiff ("a banker who grew up in House of Rothschild Frankfurt, monopolized American rail system, funded the Rockefellers through First City Bank, ADL and the NAACP. Schiff's granddaughter married Al Gore's Son" From his base on Wall Street, he was the foremost Jewish leader from 1880 to 1920 in what later became known as the "Schiff era", grappling with all major Jewish issues and problems of the day, including the plight of Russian Jews under the Tsar, American and international anti-semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism" – per Wikipedia), and Warburg ("Paul Warburg was a planner for the U.S. Federal Reserve System which is a collection of private banks, and attended as American representative, the Treaty of Versailles conference, where his brother Max was on the German side of the bargaining table" by Wiki). One can see why Lenin was 'permitted' to pass through Germany!

Schiff financed the Japanese for their attack on Russia ("He extended loans to the Empire of Japan in the amount of $200 million, through Kuhn, Loeb & Co Schiff saw this loan as a means of answering, on behalf of the Jewish people, the anti-Semitic actions of the Russian Empire, specifically the then-recent Kishinev pogrom"), the 1905 Revolution and the 1917 Revolution. "In addition to his famous loan to Japan, Schiff financed loans to many other nations, including those that would come to comprise the Central Powers Schiff made sure none of the funds from his loans ever went to the Russian Empire, which he felt oppressed Jewish people. When the Russian Empire fell in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression of Jews would end. He formally repealed the impediments within his firm against lending to Russia". It's true that Communist Russia quickly opened the door for foreign investment (NEP) and the looting of Russia.

When Stalin tried to reduce USSR's dependence on foreign investments, he became instantly the monster. It is remarkable that America stood behind Trotsky in the case of the so-called "Show Trials" (The Dewey Commission).

Particularly interesting is that (per Wikipedia);

"Some ten years later, the Dewey Commission was cited in great detail, when in an open letter to the British press dated 25 February 1946, written by George Orwell and signed by Arthur Koestler, C. E. M. Joad, Frank Horrabin, George Padmore, Julian Symons, H. G. Wells, F. A. Ridley, C. A. Smith and John Baird, among others, it was suggested that the Nuremberg Trials then underway were an invaluable opportunity for establishing "historical truth and bearing upon the political integrity" of figures of international standing. Specifically, they called for Rudolf Hess to be interrogated about his alleged meeting with Trotsky and that the Gestapo records then in the hands of Allied experts be examined for any proof of any "liaison between the Nazi Party or State and Trotsky or the other old Bolshevik leaders indicted at the Moscow trials "

tbraton , June 23, 2016 at 12:33 am GMT
@tbraton

BTW I wonder how many people, including posters here, are aware that the U.S., under President Wilson, sent a military expedition to Russia after the Communist takeover there in 1917 and kept them there for about a year and a half.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

When I was in college in the early 60′s, I bought a paperback of George Kennan's "Russia and the West, Under Lenin and Stalin" (hardcover ed. 1961), the first book of Kennan that I read, and was startled to learn of our military invasion of Russia at the end of WWI and after, something I didn't remember being taught in high school American history a few years earlier. That was about 50 years ago. This past year I got around to reading A. Scott Berg's much acclaimed biography, "Wilson." I didn't remember reading anything in that biography re Wilson's commitment of military forces to Russia. I have just reviewed the index and found one obscure reference to "military intervention in Russia" (p. 590 of hardcover ed.) and George Kennan.

More important, I reviewed the Bibliography and found no reference to George Kennan's "Russia and the West, Under Lenin and Stalin." I don't know what to make of the gross omission by a highly-regarded biographer, but it is clear that an effort has been made to downplay this aspect of Wilson's policy, for reasons that escape me.

Kiza , June 23, 2016 at 1:52 am GMT
@tbraton

Maybe because I was educated in a different country I was very well aware of this item of information. It was not only the US, then most of the Western countries from both sides of WW1, including Britain, France, Italy, then also Czechoslovakia (Austria-Hungary), Japan, Germany and so on, which sent troops to Russia on the side of Belaya Gvardiya fighting the Lenin's Bolsheviks, even whilst WW1 was still ongoing.

They fought with Belaya Gvardiya in Siberia, Ukraine and Crimea (part of Russia, not part of Ukraine until 1953 when given to Ukraine by the Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev).

This is possibly the best reference about this second, less well known, part of WW1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement

The US contingent was supposed to support the Siberain Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Army but shipped back without fighting.

Sam Shama , June 23, 2016 at 1:56 am GMT
@tbraton

Fascinating, thank you. Reading more, I find that Wilson was motivated to safeguard almost a billion dollars in armaments and equipment [including railway cars] given to Russia by the U.S in the hopes of Russia prevailing over the Central Powers and thereafter adopting the capitalist model.

Alas the men and hardware [including frozen machine guns] did not hit the right wavelength with the Siberian winter.

Anatoly Karlin , June 23, 2016 at 2:41 am GMT
@Quartermaster

Just ask Khodorkovsky.

Why don't you ask the ECHR while you're at it?

Seraphim , June 23, 2016 at 5:47 am GMT
Many of us are aware of the 'Allied Intervention in the Russian civil war' which occured in the aftermath of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk while the Entante was still at war with Germany. The chaos which ensued as a result of the misguided policies of the HLH (Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Hoffman), especially the 'Napoleonic complex' of Ludendorff compounded by the greedy desires of many petty German 'Fuersten' for crowns in the East, determined the Allies to intervene, motivated by the following considerations:
- prevent the German or Bolshevik capture of Allied material stockpiles in Arkhangelsk
- mount an attack helping the Czechoslovak Legions stranded on the Trans-Siberian Railroad
– resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with help from the Czechoslovak Legions and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force of local citizens and stop the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.

Now, this is news only for graduates of American schools where history is no more taught. The Wikipedia entry ('Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War') would have been sufficient (for beginners) to set the record straight:

"Severely short of troops to spare, the British and French requested that President Wilson provide American soldiers for the campaign. In July 1918, against the advice of the United States Department of War, Wilson agreed to the limited participation of 5,000 United States Army troops in the campaign. This force, which became known as the "American North Russia Expeditionary Force" (a.k.a. the Polar Bear Expedition) were sent to Arkhangelsk while another 8,000 soldiers, organised as the American Expeditionary Force Siberia, were shipped to Vladivostok from the Philippines and from Camp Fremont in California. That same month, the Canadian government agreed to the British government's request to command and provide most of the soldiers for a combined British Empire force, which also included Australian and Indian troops. Some of this force was the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force; another part was the North Russia Intervention. A Royal Navy squadron was sent to the Baltic under Rear-Admiral Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair. This force consisted of modern C-class cruisers and V- and W-class destroyers. In December 1918, Sinclair sailed into Estonian and Latvian ports, sending in troops and supplies, and promising to attack the Bolsheviks "as far as my guns can reach". In January 1919, he was succeeded in command by Rear-Admiral Walter Cowan.
The Japanese, concerned about their northern border, sent the largest military force, numbering about 70,000. They desired the establishment of a buffer state in Siberia, and the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff viewed the situation in Russia as an opportunity for settling Japan's "northern problem". The Japanese government was also intensely hostile to communism.
The Italians created the special "Corpo di Spedizione" with Alpini troops sent from Italy and ex-POWs of Italian ethnicity from the former Austro-Hungarian army who were recruited to the Italian Legione Redenta. They were initially based in the Italian Concession in Tientsin and numbered about 2,500.
Romania, Greece, Poland, China, and Serbia also sent contingents in support of the intervention."
All these troops have been involved, in a way or another, in the Russian Civil War, but by 1920 all have been withdrawn. Only the Japanese stayed in the Maritime Provinces of the Russian Far East until 1922 and in northern Sakhalin until 1925.

There is obviously no space here to talk about the 'Treaty of Rapallo' between Russia and Germany of 1922 and of the 'Genoa Conference' held in Genoa in 1922, where "the representatives of 34 countries gathered to discuss global economic problems following World War I. The purpose was to formulate strategies to rebuild central and eastern Europe, particularly Russia, after the war, and also to negotiate a relationship between European capitalist economies, and the new Russian Bolshevik regime". These were signals for the introduction of NEP (New Economic Policy) and the policy of 'concessions' which was, in Lenin's terms " a strategic retreat from socialism".
Anyhow, I think that a BA is a minimum requirement in order to gain a modicum of understanding of these problems. For sure Wikipedia is not sufficient.

tbraton , June 28, 2016 at 3:31 pm GMT
@Kiza

There is no question the involvement of U.S. troops in Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is downplayed in the U.S. As I noted, the issue wasn't touched on in my high school history class, and I was surprised to learn of our military involvement in Russia's civil war only when I went to college and bought the small paperback of Kennan's "Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin." In fact, I have a one-volume history of the U.S. written by one of the U.S.'s leading historians, Samuel Eliot Morison, who was the highly acclaimed biographer of Christopher Columbus and John Paul Jones and a long-time professor of history at Harvard. He was also the author of the highly acclaimed "History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II," a 15-volume effort. In his "The Oxford History of the American People" (1965, 1122 pages, ending with the 1963 assassination of JFK), he states briefly at p. 878 that "President Wilson went along [with efforts of France and Britain to overthrow the Bolsheviks] to the extent of sending a small American force to Archangel, ostensibly to prevent a cache of military supplies reaching Germany, and participating in a Japanese-directed invasion of Siberia, to see that Japan did not go too far." Rather cryptic reference to a somewhat small military involvement that lasted for more than a year and a half, but, in defense of Morison, his history was a one-volume affair (published by the Oxford University Press) and the American involvement in Russia had no effect on the Russian Revolution, other than to sour the relationship between the new Communist government and the U.S., which did not diplomatically recognize the new regime until FDR became President in 1933.

A. Scott Berg has no such defense. His detailed biography of Wilson runs to 743 pages, and he makes no reference at all to the U.S. military contingent that was sent to Russia in 1918 by Wilson and remained there for more than a year and a half. You would think that Berg could have added a few brief sentences alluding to the military expeditionary force and a brief summary of its impact, but not a word. This from an author who discusses the infamous "Palmer raids" at the end of the Wilson Administration and the bombs which set off those raids. I am just puzzled about the omission and fail to see what agenda is being served, other than it highlights the utter hypocrisy of Wilson with his vaunted "Fourteen Points," which impliedly called for respect of international borders. Wilson was also the hypocrite who won reelection in a close race in 1916 running on a campaign that "he kept us out of war" and the declared war against Germany a month after he was reinaugurated in March 1917.

BilDing , August 2, 2017 at 2:58 am GMT
Alternate title

Benefits of Friends in High Places

Clinton has Congress in a frenzy over a Russian illusion.
Browder has Congress in a frenzy over a Russian illusion.

Is it little wonder that real America has been taken to the cleaners over the past 4 decades?

Robert Magill , August 3, 2017 at 10:00 am GMT

BTW I wonder how many people, including posters here, are aware that the U.S., under President Wilson, sent a military expedition to Russia after the Communist takeover there in 1917 and kept them there for about a year and a half.

Actually this 'invasion' was to help stabilize Russia during the revolution and to block Japan in the far east. Russia and the US had been good friends and allies since we helped Russia during the Crimean War, and with the purchase of Alaska and they had helped us during the US Civil War.
Harry Truman put an end to all that 'good neighbor policy" when he needed a scapegoat to launch the National Security State and prevent another depression. On it goes.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

TheJester , August 4, 2017 at 10:38 am GMT
Seems like the entire Browder/Magnitsky hustle is nothing more than Jews protecting Jews in a kind of international crime syndicate. When found out, they even have the network in place to control the narrative about their crimes to the point that trying to hold them accountable quickly morphs into a fundamental violation of their human rights.

"What do you mean you can't rip off a country's assets and hide the loot in offshore accounts? What do you do when you see a $10 bill laying in the street? You take it, of course! What else is a person suppose to do? When opportunity strikes, you make the best of it."

Browder and Magnitshy . How history repeats itself! I recall reading that something similar happened in the Weimar Republic when Germany was stripped of its assets after WWI. Indeed, even then there was an ((( international syndicate ))) in place to control the narrative and protect the shysters.

Don bass , August 4, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"""Meaning, Putin gets a healthy cut. If he doesn't get a piece of the action, you will suddenly be found to have evaded taxes, or worse. And, heaven forfend, if you decided to use your wealth to oppose Putin politically, just as Khodorkovsky."""
What evidence do you have for this libellous allegation?? These assertions are made habitually in the western media. However this article on Browder demonstrates who are the parties making such claims and why.

Hibernian , August 5, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT
@Uebersetzer

We're talking about his grandson, an international businessman active in Russia at one time. The WASP grandfather who eventually became CPUSA chief married a Jewish woman and their mathematician son was the international businessman grandson's father.

Try to get your facts straight before you call everybody and his brother a Nazi.

n230099 , August 6, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT
@Kiza

"The most interesting, previously unknown, detail to me in this article was that Browder's grandfather was the leader of the US Communist Party. "

That's funny. The first thing I thought upon seeing the name and the topic was "oh good grief could it be?'

Kiza , August 10, 2017 at 3:48 am GMT
@Skeptikal

Being English speaking and brought up in the Anglo-world but with good understanding of Russia through Communism, made this Jewish Godfather much more damaging to Russia than the other forced Jewish emigres: Berezovsky, Gusinsky and Khodorovsky.

Browder's ties with Mossad and CIA make him a prototypical Deep-Stater, spreading Anglo-Zionist dominance of the World (Globalism) and getting personally rich in the process. If the Anglo-Zionists manage to bring down Russia (say, kill Putin) then Browder could become the Paul Bremer III of Russia (perhaps titled William Browder I).

Jacques , Website September 10, 2017 at 8:26 am GMT
There a book, a merciless, factual excoriation of the Browder Hoax: The Killing of William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception by Alex Krainer

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-William-Browder-Deconstructing-Dangerous-ebook/dp/B074TJ5LCK/

Fran800 , February 9, 2018 at 4:38 am GMT
@NewModelArmy

Earl Browder, born into a Kansas Methodist farm family became the head of the Communist party in the U.S. in the 30′s, probably for idealistic reasons. As a Communist, he became an atheist. He went to Russia and married a Russian Jewish woman. Their son, Felix, raised as a Jew by his mother, became a mathematician. Felix Browder married a Jewish woman and their son is the William Browder, subject of this article. William Browder is thus 3/4 Jewish. His one grandfather, from whom he got his name, was born a Christian gentile, but chucked it up to become a Communist leader. Through marriage to Jewish women, his grandson, William, is a ruthless capitalist Jewish oligarch who contributed to scavenging the decaying body of the former Soviet Union.

Sean , July 18, 2018 at 5:26 am GMT

intensity and the time he was devoting to anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behaviour of a top level international businessman.

The writer does not know much about the business world, does he? Browder is still looking to get paid off, and businessmen can be motivated by vengeance (Warren Buffet included). Anyway, Mr. Browder seems far too focused on his wallet and effective an operator on that account to have been directed by MI6.

There is this myth that secret intelligence agents are more competent than lesser mortals (such as policemen). I like reading memoirs and novels about spys as much as anyone, but rich, tax dodging/philanthropic and litigious people like Browder are the real 007s of this world. I dare say there are a few holes in his story.

AnonFromTN , July 18, 2018 at 2:33 pm GMT
I can only tell Mr. Shamir that if he had stolen as much money as Browder, he'd be untouchable, too. Look at any dollar bill. It says "IN GOD WE TRUST". This is THE God Americans trust in. All the other gods are subject to freedom of religion.
HBM , July 18, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
@TheJester

Exactly right. Looting Russia– and later working to destroy it for objecting -- is their YHWH-given right. The Jewish criminality and evil Browder embodies is of so great a magnitude that it's difficult for a decent person to process such a creature.

Svigor , July 18, 2018 at 3:29 pm GMT
Funny, I heard (((Big Media's))) glowing take on Browder the other day and figured he must be a piece of shit. I don't base conclusions on such hunches, of course, so I guess I'll have to read the article and check around.

But it's funny how race-realism, countersemitism, and hatred of (((Big Media))) have such predictive power.

[Jul 18, 2018] National (In)Security by Rajan Menon

Notable quotes:
"... $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America ..."
"... Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America ..."
"... , is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He is the author, most recently, of ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

So effectively has the Beltway establishment captured the concept of national security that, for most of us, it automatically conjures up images of terrorist groups, cyber warriors, or "rogue states." To ward off such foes, the United States maintains a historically unprecedented constellation of military bases abroad and, since 9/11, has waged wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere that have gobbled up nearly $4.8 trillion . The 2018 Pentagon budget already totals $647 billion -- four times what China, second in global military spending, shells out and more than the next 12 countries combined, seven of them American allies. For good measure, Donald Trump has added an additional $200 billion to projected defense expenditures through 2019.

Yet to hear the hawks tell it, the United States has never been less secure. So much for bang for the buck.

For millions of Americans, however, the greatest threat to their day-to-day security isn't terrorism or North Korea, Iran, Russia, or China. It's internal -- and economic. That's particularly true for the 12.7% of Americans (43.1 million of them) classified as poor by the government's criteria : an income below $12,140 for a one-person household, $16,460 for a family of two, and so on until you get to the princely sum of $42,380 for a family of eight.

Savings aren't much help either: a third of Americans have no savings at all and another third have less than $1,000 in the bank. Little wonder that families struggling to cover the cost of food alone increased from 11% (36 million) in 2007 to 14% (48 million) in 2014.

The Working Poor

Unemployment can certainly contribute to being poor, but millions of Americans endure poverty when they have full-time jobs or even hold down more than one job. The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that there are 8.6 million "working poor," defined by the government as people who live below the poverty line despite being employed at least 27 weeks a year. Their economic insecurity doesn't register in our society, partly because working and being poor don't seem to go together in the minds of many Americans -- and unemployment has fallen reasonably steadily. After approaching 10% in 2009, it's now at only 4% .

Help from the government? Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare " reform " program , concocted in partnership with congressional Republicans, imposed time limits on government assistance, while tightening eligibility criteria for it. So, as Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer show in their disturbing book, $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America , many who desperately need help don't even bother to apply. And things will only get worse in the age of Trump. His 2019 budget includes deep cuts in a raft of anti-poverty programs.

Anyone seeking a visceral sense of the hardships such Americans endure should read Barbara Ehrenreich's 2001 book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America . It's a gripping account of what she learned when, posing as a "homemaker" with no special skills, she worked for two years in various low-wage jobs, relying solely on her earnings to support herself. The book brims with stories about people who had jobs but, out of necessity, slept in rent-by-the-week fleabag motels, flophouses, or even in their cars, subsisting on vending machine snacks for lunch, hot dogs and instant noodles for dinner , and forgoing basic dental care or health checkups. Those who managed to get permanent housing would choose poor, low-rent neighborhoods close to work because they often couldn't afford a car. To maintain even such a barebones lifestyle, many worked more than one job.

Though politicians prattle on about how times have changed for the better, Ehrenreich's book still provides a remarkably accurate picture of America's working poor. Over the past decade the proportion of people who exhausted their monthly paychecks just to pay for life's essentials actually increased from 31% to 38%. In 2013, 71% of the families that had children and used food pantries run by Feeding America, the largest private organization helping the hungry, included at least one person who had worked during the previous year. And in America's big cities , chiefly because of a widening gap between rent and wages, thousands of working poor remain homeless , sleeping in shelters, on the streets, or in their vehicles, sometimes along with their families. In New York City, no outlier when it comes to homelessness among the working poor, in a third of the families with children that use homeless shelters at least one adult held a job.

The Wages of Poverty

The working poor cluster in certain occupations. They are salespeople in retail stores, servers or preparers of fast food, custodial staff, hotel workers, and caregivers for children or the elderly. Many make less than $10 an hour and lack any leverage, union or otherwise, to press for raises. In fact, the percentage of unionized workers in such jobs remains in the single digits -- and in retail and food preparation, it's under 4.5%. That's hardly surprising, given that private sector union membership has fallen by 50% since 1983 to only 6.7% of the workforce.

Low-wage employers like it that way and -- Walmart being the poster child for this -- work diligently to make it ever harder for employees to join unions. As a result, they rarely find themselves under any real pressure to increase wages, which, adjusted for inflation, have stood still or even decreased since the late 1970s. When employment is " at-will ," workers may be fired or the terms of their work amended on the whim of a company and without the slightest explanation. Walmart announced this year that it would hike its hourly wage to $11 and that's welcome news. But this had nothing to do with collective bargaining; it was a response to the drop in the unemployment rate, cash flows from the Trump tax cut for corporations (which saved Walmart as much as $2 billion ), an increase in minimum wages in a number of states, and pay increases by an arch competitor, Target. It was also accompanied by the shutdown of 63 of Walmart's Sam's Club stores, which meant layoffs for 10,000 workers. In short, the balance of power almost always favors the employer, seldom the employee.

As a result, though the United States has a per-capita income of $59,500 and is among the wealthiest countries in the world, 12.7% of Americans (that's 43.1 million people), officially are impoverished. And that's generally considered a significant undercount. The Census Bureau establishes the poverty rate by figuring out an annual no-frills family food budget, multiplying it by three, adjusting it for household size, and pegging it to the Consumer Price Index. That, many economists believe, is a woefully inadequate way of estimating poverty. Food prices haven't risen dramatically over the past 20 years, but the cost of other necessities like medical care (especially if you lack insurance) and housing have: 10.5% and 11.8% respectively between 2013 and 2017 compared to an only 5.5% increase for food.

Include housing and medical expenses in the equation and you get the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM), published by the Census Bureau since 2011. It reveals that a larger number of Americans are poor: 14% or 45 million in 2016.

Dismal Data

For a fuller picture of American (in)security, however, it's necessary to delve deeper into the relevant data, starting with hourly wages, which are the way more than 58% of adult workers are paid. The good news: only 1.8 million , or 2.3% of them, subsist at or below minimum wage. The not-so-good news: one-third of all workers earn less than $12 an hour and 42% earn less than $15. That's $24,960 and $31,200 a year. Imagine raising a family on such incomes, figuring in the cost of food, rent, childcare, car payments (since a car is often a necessity simply to get to a job in a country with inadequate public transportation), and medical costs.

The problem facing the working poor isn't just low wages, but the widening gap between wages and rising prices. The government has increased the hourly federal minimum wage more than 20 times since it was set at 25 cents under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Between 2007 and 2009 it rose to $7.25, but over the past decade that sum lost nearly 10% of its purchasing power to inflation, which means that, in 2018, someone would have to work 41 additional days to make the equivalent of the 2009 minimum wage.

Workers in the lowest 20% have lost the most ground, their inflation-adjusted wages falling by nearly 1% between 1979 and 2016, compared to a 24.7% increase for the top 20%. This can't be explained by lackluster productivity since, between 1985 and 2015, it outstripped pay raises, often substantially, in every economic sector except mining.

Yes, states can mandate higher minimum wages and 29 have, but 21 have not, leaving many low-wage workers struggling to cover the costs of two essentials in particular: health care and housing.

Even when it comes to jobs that offer health insurance, employers have been shifting ever more of its cost onto their workers through higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, as well as by requiring them to cover more of the premiums. The percentage of workers who paid at least 10% of their earnings to cover such costs -- not counting premiums -- doubled between 2003 and 2014.

This helps explain why, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , only 11% of workers in the bottom 10% of wage earners even enrolled in workplace healthcare plans in 2016 (compared to 72% in the top 10%). As a restaurant server who makes $2.13 an hour before tips -- and whose husband earns $9 an hour at Walmart -- put it , after paying the rent, "it's either put food in the house or buy insurance."

The Affordable Care Act, or ACA (aka Obamacare), provided subsidies to help people with low incomes cover the cost of insurance premiums, but workers with employer-supplied healthcare, no matter how low their wages, weren't covered by it. Now, of course, President Trump , congressional Republicans , and a Supreme Court in which right-wing justices are going to be even more influential will be intent on poleaxing the ACA.

It's housing, though, that takes the biggest bite out of the paychecks of low-wage workers. The majority of them are renters. Ownership remains for many a pipe dream. According to a Harvard study , between 2001 and 2016, renters who made $30,000-$50,000 a year and paid more than a third of their earnings to landlords (the threshold for qualifying as "rent burdened") increased from 37% to 50%. For those making only $15,000, that figure rose to 83%.

In other words, in an ever more unequal America, the number of low-income workers struggling to pay their rent has surged. As the Harvard analysis shows, this is, in part, because the number of affluent renters (with incomes of $100,000 or more) has leapt and, in city after city, they're driving the demand for, and building of, new rental units. As a result, the high-end share of new rental construction soared from a third to nearly two-thirds of all units between 2001 and 2016. Not surprisingly, new low-income rental units dropped from two-fifths to one-fifth of the total and, as the pressure on renters rose, so did rents for even those modest dwellings. On top of that, in places like New York City , where demand from the wealthy shapes the housing market, landlords have found ways -- some within the law, others not -- to get rid of low-income tenants.

Public housing and housing vouchers are supposed to make housing affordable to low-income households, but the supply of public housing hasn't remotely matched demand. Consequently, waiting lists are long and people in need languish for years before getting a shot -- if they ever do. Only a quarter of those who qualify for such assistance receive it. As for those vouchers, getting them is hard to begin with because of the massive mismatch between available funding for the program and the demand for the help it provides. And then come the other challenges : finding landlords willing to accept vouchers or rentals that are reasonably close to work and not in neighborhoods euphemistically labelled " distressed ."

The bottom line: more than 75% of "at-risk" renters (those for whom the cost of rent exceeds 30% or more of their earnings) do not receive assistance from the government. The real "risk" for them is becoming homeless, which means relying on shelters or family and friends willing to take them in.

President Trump's proposed budget cuts will make life even harder for low-income workers seeking affordable housing. His 2019 budget proposal slashes $6.8 billion (14.2%) from the resources of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) by, among other things, scrapping housing vouchers and assistance to low-income families struggling to pay heating bills. The president also seeks to slash funds for the upkeep of public housing by nearly 50%. In addition, the deficits that his rich-come-first tax "reform" bill is virtually guaranteed to produce will undoubtedly set the stage for yet more cuts in the future. In other words, in what's becoming the United States of Inequality, the very phrases "low-income workers" and "affordable housing" have ceased to go together.

None of this seems to have troubled HUD Secretary Ben Carson who happily ordered a $31,000 dining room set for his office suite at the taxpayers' expense, even as he visited new public housing units to make sure that they weren't too comfortable (lest the poor settle in for long stays). Carson has declared that it's time to stop believing the problems of this society can be fixed merely by having the government throw extra money at them -- unless, apparently, the dining room accoutrements of superbureaucrats aren't up to snuff.

Money Talks

The levels of poverty and economic inequality that prevail in America are not intrinsic to either capitalism or globalization. Most other wealthy market economies in the 36-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have done far better than the United States in reducing them without sacrificing innovation or creating government-run economies.

Take the poverty gap, which the OECD defines as the difference between a country's official poverty line and the average income of those who fall below it. The United States has the second largest poverty gap among wealthy countries; only Italy does worse.

Child poverty ? In the World Economic Forum's ranking of 41 countries -- from best to worst -- the U.S. placed 35th. Child poverty has declined in the United States since 2010, but a Columbia University report estimates that 19% of American kids (13.7 million) nevertheless lived in families with incomes below the official poverty line in 2016. If you add in the number of kids in low-income households, that number increases to 41%.

As for infant mortality , according to the government's own Centers for Disease Control, the U.S., with 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, has the absolute worst record among wealthy countries. (Finland and Japan do best with 2.3.)

And when it comes to the distribution of wealth, among the OECD countries only Turkey, Chile, and Mexico do worse than the U.S.

It's time to rethink the American national security state with its annual trillion-dollar budget. For tens of millions of Americans, the source of deep workaday insecurity isn't the standard roster of foreign enemies, but an ever-more entrenched system of inequality, still growing , that stacks the political deck against the least well-off Americans. They lack the bucks to hire big-time lobbyists. They can't write lavish checks to candidates running for public office or fund PACs. They have no way of manipulating the myriad influence-generating networks that the elite uses to shape taxation and spending policies. They are up against a system in which money truly does talk -- and that's the voice they don't have. Welcome to the United States of Inequality.

Rajan Menon, a TomDispatch regular , is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He is the author, most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention .

ThreeCranes , July 16, 2018 at 1:56 am GMT

"the United States has a per-capita income of $59,500 and is among the wealthiest countries in the world"

"and 42% earn less than $15. That's ..$31,200 a year."

Something doesn't add up. There is no way that the per capita income of the United States is $59,500.

Ahh, upon clicking the link, I see it is the mean. Meaning it's meaningless.

anon [266] Disclaimer , July 16, 2018 at 2:56 am GMT
But Rajan ,the American can always " honor the military " at the fast food drive through, even send a few pennies for the Wounded Warrior Project ,in addition to buying lotteries, and writing the tithe to the Mega Churches seeking blessing for the military men and women in uniform . They can sing with Trump"Make America Great Again " . They can come out of the woodshed to support wars , say things against Mexican, listen to FOX,and gather around Prospect park to celebrate birthdays , hop into a bus and continue texting to update the status on social media . They can nod with MSNBC that they have the best freedom that any corner of the world can afford . They if white can claim being discriminated by Asian Americans,if black by Mexicans,if Latinos by whites .
Now it seems they could feel proud of the ability to guide China UK and Brazil/Argentina do the right things .
Carlton Meyer , Website July 16, 2018 at 4:32 am GMT
Why do these experts fail to understand that our national security budget is twice that of the Department of Defense? It is no secret, POGO runs a tally showing it's twice as much:

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/defense-budget/2018/americas-national-security-budget-nearing-1-trillion.html

For example, nuclear weapons are not included in our "defense budget" but eat up more than half of the budget for our Dept of Energy!

This author also fails to explain that mass immigration is the primary cause of stagnant wages for the working poor. From my blog:

Jul 16, 2018 – Illegal Immigration Replaced Slave Labor

In past blog posts, I explained how illegal immigration is a form of slave labor. It seems powerful people explained this to former President George W. Bush, but didn't tell him not to repeat it in public and that Americans no longer pick cotton by hand. As a result, Bush said this during a speech earlier this year:

"There are people willing to do jobs that Americans won't do. Americans don't want to pick cotton at 105 degrees, but there are people who want put food on their family's tables and are willing to do that. We ought to say thank you and welcome them."

https://www.apnews.com/fb98faa8f69b4135a9a866e0b61a6593/George-W.-Bush-says-Russia-meddled-in-2016-US-election

Bush failed to note that millionaires pay only $10 an hour with no benefits for these tough jobs, yet most field workers are US citizens or green card holders. Illegals are hired to hold down wages and deter unions and strikes. If they would pay $20 an hour, plenty of Americans would show up to work. Most Americans don't know that millions of white Americans once picked cotton by hand, and picked more than Blacks or Mexicans.

peterAUS , July 16, 2018 at 5:20 am GMT
Articles like this pop up here every now and then.
Something doesn't compute.

If the situation is as grim as the article says, why so many people do their best to immigrate into USA?

Why more, just Westerners, try to immigrate into USA then Americans into those, just Western, countries?

I've known some Americans around here where I live.
I've known many more locals who've gone to live in USA, let alone tried to get to live in USA.

Something simply does not compute.

A simple question for an American:
If a person is prudent and sensible, is it really that hard to get by, unemployed, there?

Now, in similar topic an American did explain, some time ago, that there are so many ways to help those unemployed/underpaid. That the social security net isn't worse, but actually overall better, then in other Western countries.
Plus, of course, opportunities.

Again, all that data from the article I can't challenge. What doesn't make sense is net migration, just within Western sphere.

I do know some people, several dozen I guess, who live in USA. They have been doing quite well. From a bus driver to a top medical professional.

Anyone cares to shed some light there ?

Biff , July 16, 2018 at 6:07 am GMT

For a fuller picture of American (in)security, however, it's necessary to delve deeper into the relevant data, starting with hourly wages, which are the way more than 58% of adult workers are paid. The good news: only 1.8 million, or 2.3% of them, subsist at or below minimum wage. The not-so-good news: one-third of all workers earn less than $12 an hour and 42% earn less than $15. That's $24,960 and $31,200 a year. Imagine raising a family on such incomes, figuring in the cost of food, rent, childcare, car payments (since a car is often a necessity simply to get to a job in a country with inadequate public transportation), and medical costs.

You forgot another expense poor communities have – governmental extraction forces GEF. Local law enforcement target the poor with the many petty offenses(they've purposely invented) to extract money for expanding and maintaining of their extortion racket. This no secret or conspiracy theory, for they readily admit to it. They target the poor because they understand that the poor do not have resources(lawyers, guns, and money) to fight back. They target the poor because they're poor, and the poor understand this as just another bill to pay – another added expense of living in their community.

Another indirect expense that makes all Americans a lot less rich – insurance. Everything that moves and everything that doesn't is at least singular insured or often double or tripled insured. Property is a good example of how one entity can be insured three times over by the owner, renter, contractor, sub-contractor. Your body is another example of how things "must be insured" ; no surprise when Obama care came along to do just that.

jilles dykstra , July 16, 2018 at 7:09 am GMT
Trump makes clear statements, I too like them.
For me the USA is a third world country, the exceptions are oversized cars and gated communities.
On one of my visits to the USA I was asked if a child could be medically treated in the Netherlands, the choice for the parents was letting the child die, or sell their house.
In the Netherlands we have treatments that cost several hundred thousands of euro's per year, paid for by our medical care system.
Per person we pay about € 100 per month.
Pensions, the same.
Though the EU is busy destroying the best pension systems in the world, those of the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, this has not yet succeeded.
A disaster as the ENRON pension fund cannot happen here.
The USA is a great country to live in if you're rich.
And, of course, if you're willing to have the illusion that the poor have only themselves to blame for being poor.
USA society, terrible, in my opinion, 19th century, a moneycracy.
Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned for the military industrial complex, do not have the impression that anything changed since then.
Stripes Duncan , July 16, 2018 at 7:24 am GMT
What percentage of the population growth of the United States since 1965 has been a result of immigrants and their descendants?

You cannot discuss the subject of this article without asking this question. It's at the very center of the issue.

H. T. , July 16, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMT
3 weeks after the US-NATO FAILED coup attempt in Georgia (more than 2000 died), the petrodollar [i.e., the banks) "crashed" (and Bush gave more than additional weapons [for more than $1 Billion) to Sakashviili] .

Moreover, as Mr Kucinich explain, massive transfers occurred between certain banks :

ALSO, a must: The Truth About Glass-Steagall

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-truth-about-glass-steagall/

anon [228] Disclaimer , July 16, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

The USA is a great country to live in if you're rich."

And if you hold large number of slaves known as immigrants from Central and S America
Immigrants serve same purpose the slaves did . It balances the poor middle class white's rage that can tilt the anger and hatred against the rich ( mostly white ).

This situation goes right into the creation of US It missed the social and political and religious changes of 18 th and 19 the centuries which gave birth to pre 2000 political system and social systems of EU .

Implosion of Soviet lent more credence to the economic-political system of USA because the blind and the deaf evaluated it for teh blind and the deaf who missed the success of the system on the back of African Latin American and Asian poor newly independent ) confused ) countries. Those countries provided the ingredients- moral ,economic,emotional , – to the working white class . It b;bolstered their hatred dismissive attitude to the foreigners and cemented their love for a hateful system that hurt actually the interest of the middle class and poor whites but gave them a sense of connection ,belonging,and partnerships through color language and religion- all are false .
This is the same mindset that glues the the untouchables and the poor Hindus to the RSS- BJP – Brahmanical system of oppression

[Jul 18, 2018] Here is Rachel Maddow interviewing Victoria Nuland -- the architect of Euromaydan color revolution in Ukraine

Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2018 at 10:00 pm

Here is Rachel Maddow interviewing Victoria Nuland . now they bring out the big guns.

https://www.sott.net/article/391038-Rachel-Maddow-taps-meddle-and-collusion-expert-Victoria-Nuland-for-tips-on-Trump-Putin-puppetry

Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2018 at 11:31 pm

Rachel is disgusting. She brings on the architect of a coup as an expert? Was she always a NeoCon and just upset with W. because he was not on the Blue Team?

[Jul 18, 2018] That information was no more the private property of the DNC and Clinton Campaign than a plan to rob a bank belongs to the robbers. Isn't that so, Mr. Mueller?

Jul 18, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

ill-gotten goods are undeserving of protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.

It's been imputed that the Russians did this to damage the reputation of Hillary Clinton. To take the alleged damage to reputation angle to its conclusion, truth is an entirely sufficient defense to any charge of libel. What was revealed by an alleged hack was the truth, something that is entirely lacking in the rest of this affair.

As for the alleged theft and public release of email, ill-gotten goods are undeserving of protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.

The Russian GRU is accused of revealing that the people who run the DNC and Clinton campaign committee colluded with each other to steal the nomination. The allegedly hacked emails show what they really did and thought during the fraudulent nomination of Hillary Clinton. It might be argued, that whomever revealed the truth actually did a public service for the American people. An odd sort of "act of war," that.

Finally, individual officials and military officers have a limited immunity and are not normally indicted by foreign states for intelligence activities such as electronic surveillance and hacking across borders. That is where the element of harm comes in. The only real precedent for this is the Rainbow Warrior case. In 1985, French intelligence officers blew up and sank a Greenpeace ship by that name anchored in Auckland, NZ harbour, killing a passenger, a Dutch photographer. A UN arbitrator held in that case the French agents were not immune under customary international law to prosecution in a New Zealand court and could be individually tried and jailed, but only because of the death of the victim as part of "a criminal act of violence against property in New Zealand . . . done without regard for innocent civilians." Greenpeace was additionally awarded damages in the UK under international Maritime Law because the vessel was a British-flagged ship.

Also bear in mind, the US and UK both provide immunity to their own intelligence officers and law enforcement officers for hacking and related computer crimes committed against foreign powers. The UK takes that a step further and exempts police officers for domestic hacking:

See, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/15/intelligence-officers-ha...

This is a dangerous precedent, and the likely result is to ignite retaliation and further exacerbate U.S.-Russian tensions. The entire staffs of the NSA, GCHQ and GRU could be similarly "prosecuted," but what will that accomplish? Even if every word of the indictment is fact, the indictment itself violates the norms of international law and this latest "Russiagate" escalation by Mueller seems intended to ratchet up the New Cold War.

That is why "Russiagate" is a legal sham, in my opinion. Even if the alleged Russian hack of the DNC email actually happened as claimed, and even if the hack was with bad intent, there was no real crime or harm in the release of that information. That information was no more the private property of the DNC and Clinton Campaign than a plan to rob a bank belongs to the robbers. Isn't that so, Mr. Mueller?

[Jul 18, 2018] Tomorrow, I am going to get in contact with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and tell him that I have found the real people behind the hacking of the 2016 US election and they aren't Russian they are Chinese!

Jul 18, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The Rev Kev , July 16, 2018 at 8:25 am

Tomorrow, I am going to get in contact with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and tell him that I have found the real people behind the hacking of the 2016 US election and they aren't Russian – they are Chinese! I am prepared to give names and so to give everybody the scoop, here they are-

Li Keqiang, Zhang Dejiang, Yu Zhengsheng, Zhou Qiang, Cao Jianming, Li Yuanchao, Han Zheng, Sun Chunlan, Hu Chunhua and Liu He.

They are all real names of real Chinese government officials but unfortunately, as they are Chinese, they cannot be extradited out of China in the same way that Russians can't be extradited out of Russia. And like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, I have no real proof that they did it and cannot bring them to a US court for trial so you will all have to take my word for it so we're cool, right?

[Jul 18, 2018] Has Mueller Caught the Hackers

Notable quotes:
"... Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk are clever, privileged boys who have always been able, to bamboozle their way out of a jam. So we have this scary, claptrap yarn about twelve ethereal "Russian Agents" ((1) Boris (2) Natashia (3) ..) who, being in Russia, can never be extradited or interrogated. Therefore, the narrative can be endlessly developed. The only constraint is the imagination of the second-rate story writers. An ongoing serial wow ..."
"... Credit to Isikoff for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is indignant that Mate ain't buying what he's selling. ..."
"... The Guardian ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

clarky90 , July 16, 2018 at 8:14 am

Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk are clever, privileged boys who have always been able, to bamboozle their way out of a jam. So we have this scary, claptrap yarn about twelve ethereal "Russian Agents" ((1) Boris (2) Natashia (3) ..) who, being in Russia, can never be extradited or interrogated. Therefore, the narrative can be endlessly developed. The only constraint is the imagination of the second-rate story writers. An ongoing serial wow

I believe that Seth Rich was the leaker. What are the FBI/CIA/DOJ doing to investigate Seth's murder? Not much.

However, the FBI/CIA/DOJ, ARE consumed with The Hunting of the Russian Snark ."It's a Snark!" was the sound that first came to their ears,
And seemed almost too good to be true.
Then followed a torrent of laughter and cheers:
Then the ominous words "It's a Boo -- "

Then, silence. Some fancied they heard in the air
A weary and wandering sigh
That sounded like "-jum!" but the others declare
It was only a breeze that went by.

They hunted till darkness came on, but they found
Not a button, or feather, or mark,
By which they could tell that they stood on the ground
Where the Baker had met with the Snark.

In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away --
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43909/the-hunting-of-the-snark

I have watched Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk testifying over the last months. Creeps. I wouldn't leave a pet Labradoodle in their care, much less entrust them with the defense of "Our" Democracy

DJG , July 16, 2018 at 8:20 am

An important point:

AARON MATE: I have no idea. Whoever it is, I think Guccifer is very sloppy. And given how sophisticated we're told Russian military intelligence is supposed to be, they didn't do a very good job of covering their tracks.

Maté makes an excellent observation here. Further, if you go to Guccifer's site, his style is U.S. hipster English. It is possible that the Russians are that adept at U.S. hipster English, or have suborned some hipster from Brooklyn, or, maybe, that Guccifer is an American who has some other agenda.

Interestingly, in all of this hacking, we haven't heard what happened to Hillary Clinton's 30,000 yoga e-mails, which would be a masterpiece of contemplation of yoga, on the level of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. We read repeated allegations that the Clinton Family server was hacked. How is it that the injured party here is only the Democratic National Committee?

And how many of these dangerous Russians will be extradited to the U S of A? You can't have a finding of fact without a trial, and conveniently for aggrieved people like Isikoff, there isn't going to be a trial.

Quanka , July 16, 2018 at 8:47 am

Aaron Mate does a fine job in this interview of pushing back against unproven claims. No hysteria, no yelling. But point by point he just takes Isikoff to task, calmly. He even manages two separate digs without staking a high moral ground: Isikoff's own previous reporting on (lack of) WMD, and a clip from a lying Robert Mueller in front of congress in 2003.

So I was very impressed with this interview. As someone who's taught myself the read the lies in the MSM this was a clinic in how to get a major journalist (Isikoff) to make concessions that essentially wipe out his argument without getting into a yelling match.

JohnnyGL , July 16, 2018 at 1:48 pm

He's done some of the best reporting on this story that I can recall. Credit to Isikoff for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is indignant that Mate ain't buying what he's selling.

It kills me that the only 'evidence' supporting Russia-gate is the public statements and testimony of a bunch of high level government officials that are 1) proven liars and 2) have reason to believe they'll never be held to account for these lies.

If you saw Strzok's testimony the other day, you'd have seen a number of Dems absolutely willing to lay down in front of oncoming traffic to 'protect' the FBI. If my reps were that dedicated to protecting me from the horror of facing a series of probing questions, I'd feel pretty comfortable that I was untouchable, too!

Brooklin Bridge , July 16, 2018 at 5:08 pm

Credit to Isikoff for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is indignant that Mate ain't buying what he's selling.

Good catch! I noticed this also, though I'm not as sure it's to Isikoff's credit. Mate has positively ripped to shreds at least one other Isikoff like stooge (Luke Harding of The Guardian ) in this interview: https://therealnews.com/stories/wheres-the-collusion-2 which really makes one wonder why Isikoff accepted such a challenge. (I include the link for the benefit of others – it looks like you are already aware of it). After all, he has basically nothing the other one didn't have other than perhaps a conviction he knows some secret alchemy that: when lies reach a certain volume, or quantity, or momentum, they miraculously transform to truth.

If anything, I suspect Isikoff is simply as full of himself as Luke Harding. Their basic argument (it must be true because of the sheer volume and detail of all the allegations) is exactly the same with Isikoff only having the advantage of yet another heaping helping of allegation pudding that he knows full well will never see the light of verification.

As an aside, did you notice Isikoff's sour sign off? I think he was quite aware Mate had served him some serious egg on the chin and was none too happy about it. Just my take on it.

[Jul 18, 2018] Mueller's Latest Indictment Contradicts Evidence In The Public Domain Disobedient Media

Notable quotes:
"... NOTE: There will likely be various amendments made to this article over the next 24 hours. ..."
"... So, in fairness, there is actually circumstantial evidence to suggest an overlap as Guccifer 2.0 clearly had Podesta's emails and it looks like the spearphishing attack used to snare Podesta's emails was identical to one that was attributed to the acquisition of emails published by DCLeaks. ..."
"... (NOTE: CrowdStrike decided to start investigating the NGP-VAN breach within a week of Podesta's emails being acquired, three months after the December 2015 incident) ..."
"... (using the publicly accessible default server in France) ..."
"... (in which he used ":)" at a far higher frequency) ..."
"... (in one of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone saving one of Guccifer 2.0's documents after the documents had being manipulated in the Russian timezones!) ..."
"... (which was actually inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle with). ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | disobedientmedia.com

July 15, 2018 July 15, 2018 Adam Carter

NOTE: There will likely be various amendments made to this article over the next 24 hours.

On July 13th, 2018, an indictment was filed by Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III.

This author is responding to the indictment because it features claims about Guccifer 2.0 that are inconsistent with what has been discovered about the persona, including the following:

The first piece of malware at the DNC identified by Crowdstrike as relating to "Fancy Bear," was compiled on 25 April, 2016. This used a C2 (command and control) IP address that, for the purposes of the APT group, had been inoperable for over a year. It was useful mostly as a signature for attributing it to "Fancy Bear."

Two additional pieces of malware were discovered at the DNC attributed to the same APT group. These were compiled on 5 May 2016 and 10 May 2016 while Robert Johnston was working with the DNC on CrowdStrike's behalf to counter the intrusion reported at the end of April and install Falcon.

References to the evidence covering all of this are available in the article: " Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears & Malware Mimicry ".

This could be inferred from a number of things. DCLeaks was re-registered on 19 April 2016, however, what they published included Republicans and individuals that were not connected to the DNC. In fact, DCLeaks didn't start publishing anything relating to Clinton campaign staff until June/July 2016. There was also the fact that the daily frequency of emails in the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks increased dramatically from around 19 April 2016 , however, this wasn't indicative of the start of hacking activity but rather caused by a 30 day email retention policy combined with the fact that the emails were acquired between May 19th and May 25th.

There has been no technical evidence produced by those who had access to the DNC network demonstrating files were being manipulated or that malware was engaging in activity prior to this and by CrowdStrike's own admissions, many of the devices at the DNC were wiped in June. As such, it's unclear where this may have come from.

There's an issue here with the conflation of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. Why would Guccifer 2.0 have had an account at DCLeaks with which he had restricted access and could only manage a subset of the leaks (and only those relating to the DNC) while DCLeaks featured leaks covering those unconnected to and even opposing the DNC?

It also appears there may have been an effort to have people perceive Guccifer 2.0 as being associated with someone that claimed to have root access to DCLeaks too, however, this could only be demonstrated through the use of multimedia props.

It makes no sense that the GRU would have even used Guccifer 2.0 in the manner we now know he operated – it only caused any harm to Trump and served to undermine leaks due to the deliberate placement of Russian metadata that would give a false perception of Russians mishandling those documents (including the Trump research document found in Podesta's emails).

However, there is one interesting thing that does connect Podesta being phished with DCLeaks. As spotted by Stephen McIntyre – the syntax in the spearphishing emails for both Podesta and Rhinehart (whose leaked emails were published at DCLeaks) were identical .

So, in fairness, there is actually circumstantial evidence to suggest an overlap as Guccifer 2.0 clearly had Podesta's emails and it looks like the spearphishing attack used to snare Podesta's emails was identical to one that was attributed to the acquisition of emails published by DCLeaks.

Is there a reason for ambiguity when referencing WikiLeaks?

While he clearly had access to the Podesta emails (NOTE: CrowdStrike decided to start investigating the NGP-VAN breach within a week of Podesta's emails being acquired, three months after the December 2015 incident) , Guccifer 2.0 used those materials to fabricate evidence on 15 June 2016 implicating Russians and which, coincidentally appeared to support (but ultimately helped refute) multiple assertions made by CrowdStrike that the Trump Opposition report (actually sourced from Podesta's emails) was targeted by Guccifer 2.0 at the DNC in April 2016 – and that the theft of this specific file from the DNC – which, again, could not have been stolen from the DNC – had set off the " first alarm " indicating a security breach.

On 6 July 2016, Guccifer 2.0 released a batch of documents that were exclusively attachments to DNC emails that would later be released by WikiLeaks.

Guccifer 2.0 certainly didn't make a genuine effort to "conceal a Russian identity," far from it. The persona made decisions that would leave behind a demonstrable trail of Russian-themed breadcrumbs, examples include:

How have these identities been connected to the respective GRU officers? This query applies to additional identities mentioned throughout the indictment.

Where have these pseudonyms been cited in any of the research or evidence published in the past two years? Most seem to be new and were never referenced by the firms specifically investigated the relevant phishing campaigns in the past.

Unfortunately, the indictment itself provides no reference for us to ascertain what the individual attributions are based on.

We already know "X-Agent" has been used by Ukrainian hackers and its source code has been in the wild since 2013, it's entirely feasible others have acquired it's source code too.

How do we know for sure Morgachev was developing a version of it and that this is related to the DNC?

Again, everything found on Google relating to "blablabla1234565" is in relation to the indictment, where were these details during the past 2 years, where have they come from and how has X-Agent development/monitoring been traced back to this individual?

It's unlikely technical evidence of his testing was left behind in deployed malware.

Again, "Djangomagicdev" appears to be new .

There is a "realblatr" profile at https://djangopackages.org/profiles/realblatr/ but this doesn't indicate anything relevant to this and other results for "realblatr" seem to be about the indictment.

We know that whoever had the Podesta emails had far more damaging content on Hillary than that produced by Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks and we know Guccifer 2.0 had access to Podesta's emails. If it was the GRU and they wanted to harm Hillary, they had FAR better material do that with than what they chose to release.

DCLeaks featured leaks from those that were not involved in the US presidential election. Guccifer 2.0 only released content relating to the Democratic party and only content that was of little harm to the DNC leadership and Clinton's campaign.

Yandex.com is the domain usually given to people outside of Russia that use the Yandex service, in Russia it's yandex.ru by default.

This was something covered by Jeffrey Carr in " The Yandex Domain Problem ".

These started to appear in July, though it's still unclear how/why it was these individuals responsible.

[Jul 18, 2018] If Putin's people have wanted to "undermine our democracy", they must be enjoying a good laugh. Because Mueller and his team are doing a far better job of that than anything alleged in the indictment could have done.

Notable quotes:
"... I have read the entire indictment, more than once. As a lawyer, I suspect that little to none of what it asserts about supposed illegal activities could possibly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt according to the rules of evidence (unless some judge decides that actual evidence need not be presented, on "national-security" grounds, in which event the whole case would be exposed as nothing but a "show trial" or "kangaroo court"). The indictment appears to be little more than political theater, timed to embarrass Trump and Putin. Even Mueller cannot expect that there will ever be an actual trial of the defendants he has named. ..."
"... Even Stalin's show trials (to use a "Russian" analogy) were more credible than what Mueller has produced in the two indictments of Russians which he has obtained so far. ..."
"... More revealing is that the FBI supposedly is able to break through a maze of computer obfuscation and backtrack a highly convoluted e-conspiracy to named individuals in one of the (if not the) premier espionage outfits in the world -- the GRU -- but finds itself helpless in case after case in tracking down various perpetrators of "ransom ware" who have done significant economic damage to Americans over the last several years. How can one believe both of these observations to be true? ..."
"... Also, the indictment claims that the FBI has also broken through the maze of "anonymity" surrounding transactions in bitcoin (and apparently some other e-currencies). If this is true, that selling point for such currencies has now been exposed as hype. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Edwin Vieira , July 14, 2018 at 11:18 pm

I have read the entire indictment, more than once. As a lawyer, I suspect that little to none of what it asserts about supposed illegal activities could possibly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt according to the rules of evidence (unless some judge decides that actual evidence need not be presented, on "national-security" grounds, in which event the whole case would be exposed as nothing but a "show trial" or "kangaroo court"). The indictment appears to be little more than political theater, timed to embarrass Trump and Putin. Even Mueller cannot expect that there will ever be an actual trial of the defendants he has named.

If Putin's people have wanted to "undermine our democracy", they must be enjoying a good laugh. Because Mueller and his team are doing a far better job of that than anything alleged in the indictment could have done. Mueller is making "our democracy" the laughing stock of the entire thinking world with this drivel. Even Stalin's show trials (to use a "Russian" analogy) were more credible than what Mueller has produced in the two indictments of Russians which he has obtained so far.

More revealing is that the FBI supposedly is able to break through a maze of computer obfuscation and backtrack a highly convoluted e-conspiracy to named individuals in one of the (if not the) premier espionage outfits in the world -- the GRU -- but finds itself helpless in case after case in tracking down various perpetrators of "ransom ware" who have done significant economic damage to Americans over the last several years. How can one believe both of these observations to be true?

Also, the indictment claims that the FBI has also broken through the maze of "anonymity" surrounding transactions in bitcoin (and apparently some other e-currencies). If this is true, that selling point for such currencies has now been exposed as hype. Will the bitcoin market now react (as it should) in a violently negative manner? If it does not, would that not be a further indication that knowledgeable people consider the indictment fatuous?

[Jul 18, 2018] Many young Iranians may be thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence and with a concerted Israeli/US propaganda effort may attempt to climb through. I guess if they do, they will find themselves in a paddock similar to Ukraine named Rump Iran.

Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Jul 17, 2018 7:17:12 PM | 148

Karlorf1
Under its religious leadership, Islamic Iran appears a very tolerant society that has been under constant attack. From what I have read, a number of the religious laws concerning society are not rigidly enforced allowing a reasonable amount of freedom.
What may be happening now though is that after growing up in the religious environment but watching western television, many young people may be thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence and with a concerted Israeli/US propaganda effort may attempt to climb through. I guess if they do, they will find themselves in a paddock similar to Ukraine named Rump Iran.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 17, 2018 7:25:46 PM | 151
I have watched Khamenei speak (subtitles) on world affairs and read transcripts. He is very similar to Nasrallah, Assad, and Putin in his understanding of the world.

[Jul 18, 2018] Page confirmed China penetration of Hillary bathroom server e-mail.

Notable quotes:
"... Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings, revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed FBI sources.

Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another bureau-wide cover up.

The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.

The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.

And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America's boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary's treasure trove of classified and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.

And a public revelation of that magnitude -- publicizing that a communist world power intercepted Hillary's sensitive and top secret emails -- would have derailed Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn't simply because it was concealed." True Pundit

------------

A woman scorned? Maybe, but Page has done a real job on these malefactors. And, who knows how many other penetrations of various kinds there were in Clinton's reign as SecState?

"You mean like with a towel?" Clinton mocked a reporter with that question when asked if her servers had been wiped clean. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions. pl

https://truepundit.com/fbi-lisa-page-dimes-out-top-fbi-officials-during-classified-house-testimony-bureau-bosses-covered-up-evidence-china-hacked-hillarys-top-secret-emails/

richardstevenhack , 8 hours ago

Putin offered to allow Mueller's team to go to Russia and interrogate the suspects in the Mueller indictment provided 1) that Russian investigators could sit in on the interrogations, and 2) that the US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US.

This would be done until the existing treaty which allows the US and Russia to cooperate in criminal investigation cases.

Vladimir Putin just made an unexpected offer to Mueller's team
http://theduran.com/vladimi...

Quote:

Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I will look into it.

So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.

For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate, hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some
crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They can be present at questioning.

In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

End Quote

Putin then proceeds to stick it to Hillary Clinton with the bombshell accusation that Bill Browder - possibly with the assistance of US intelligence agencies - contributed a whopping $400 million dollars to Clinton's election campaign!

Quote:

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that $400 million claim.] Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid
reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

End Quote

This article mentions the above and provides background information on Browder and the US Magnitsky Act which he finagled Congress into passing which were the original Russian sanctions.

Putin Bombshell: US Intelligence Funneled $400 Million to Clinton Campaign From Russia
https://russia-insider.com/...

Despite Putin's claim that this was "off the top of his head", I'd say this was a calculated response to the Mueller indictment as well as a calculated attack on Hillary Clinton and the US intelligence agencies who were clearly in support of her election campaign. Frankly, it's brilliant. It forces Mueller to "put up or shut up" just as much as the company which challenged the previous indictment over Russian ads.

Lillll -> richardstevenhack , 4 hours ago
"US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US."

The example would be a good one, except, the US has no power to allow anybody to investigate Bill Browder (grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, btw) because Browder gave up his US citizenship, it is said, to avoid paying taxes

Andrey Subbotin -> richardstevenhack , 5 hours ago
Putin since then stated that he misspoke and the number was $400K not 400 million
Valissa Rauhallinen -> Eric Newhill , 4 hours ago
Skepticism is always prudent when it comes to any news source.

Regarding the issue of "trust"... Putin himself said that he and Trump shouldn't be basing their discussions on trust of each other. While I trust Putin to be skillful and strategic that doesn't mean I trust all of his words. After all, he is a politician and a powerful leader. Respect is the key here, not trust.

From a transcript http://time.com/5339848/don...
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As to who is to be believed and to who's not to be believed, you can trust no one if you take this.

Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation.

We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful.
-----------------

Of course both countries spy on each other and engage in various forms of cyber warfare, as do many other countries. It's business as usual. That's why the Mueller investigation is bullshit. It doesn't acknowledge that most basic fact of geopolitics. It posits Russia as the only bad actor in the relationship. I was very pleased that Trump acknowledge that both sides created the issues the countries have with each other, though of course the Borg and their media puppets went wild over that.

Trump and Putin both have excellent trolling skills. I very much enjoy this aspect of the great Game!

Though perhaps Putin botched his trolling of Hillary by getting the number wrong. Or may be he pulled a Trump maneuver and purposely gave the wrong number to force reporters to research it and post the correction.

VietnamVet , 5 hours ago
Let's see if "China hacked Clinton's server and got the 30,000 e-mails" goes mainstream. This would nail the Borg dead. What has been peculiar about the last four years is that there are concerted proxy operations to take down the Iranian and Russian governments to get at their resources at the risk of crashing the world economy; let alone, a nuclear war that would destroy the earth. But, nothing against China other than bleating about freedom of passage in South China Sea. China is #2 and rising by all criteria. It is restoring its ancient Imperial power to rule the civilized world. Europe has much more in common with Russia. Over the centuries they keep battling the Kremlin over Crimea.
Jack , 2 hours ago
. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.

Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki.

I don't get why President Trump does not declassify the documents that the DOJ are withholding from Congress rather than tweet "witch hunt".

[Jul 18, 2018] It is hard to reconcile the fact that "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired Hillarys 30,000+ "missing" emails with the fact that the US "defense" budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year

Notable quotes:
"... There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI. ..."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

It is hard to reconcile this, "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails" with that, "the US "defense" budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year."

There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI.

Posted by: Anya | Jul 17, 2018 7:06:41 PM | 147

[Jul 17, 2018] Doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully confront *evil*

Notable quotes:
"... Still, doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully confront *evil*? Doesn't evil-fighting-evil and destroying a worse-evil leave a little less evil in this world? ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe | Jul 17, 2018 6:25:12 PM | 135

...You can't put lipstick on an American fascist pig only because he pretends detente with Russia. It's tantamount to selling one's soul for an illusion. It's tantamount to treason if you live anywhere except in the U.S. OR Israel! And even if you live in the U.S. you are enabling the 1% and Zionist power.

That's it. I'm tired of Trumpgod can do no wrong when everything he stands for is wrong. Get the snow out of your eyes!

Guerrero | Jul 17, 2018 7:21:47 PM | 149

Circe @135

For sure I am in agreement: the "Trumpgod" is a shamanistic construction of a demoralized population.

Still, doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully confront *evil*? Doesn't evil-fighting-evil and destroying a worse-evil leave a little less evil in this world?

If that is how this Universe really works, and one has only force to work with, in the material realm, Donald Trump would seem well enough suited to the role of either lesser or greater-evil; either-way, hopefully leading-to dimunition of error, self-deception, and suffering of the children of Eve and Adam.

Activist Potato , Jul 17, 2018 9:13:30 PM | 164

@149 Guerrero said: "Still, doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully
confront *evil*?"

Not often one sees metaphysics enter the realm of geo-political debate in this or any political forum. But, heck, why not? The unseen forces guiding the survival instincts of the universe (of which the Earth is a part) may indeed be at work. Trump - whatever one sees in him - seems to be the man for the times. Paradigms are bending, cracking, the conversation is changing.

I'll never forget the shock in the MSM, almost to the point of stupefaction, at Trump accusing Obama during the election campaign of being the "founder of ISIS."

What was even more amazing was how weak Obama's response was. I don't think anybody posting here would disagree that ISIS was Obama's baby - whether through adoption or progeny.

But what serious candidate for President before Trump would ever say such a thing publicly - even if he knew it to be true? Whether by design or through blundering, boorish idiocy born of whatever flaws and motives you want to ascribe to him, Trump is very boisterously upsetting the political apple cart and with it the entire world order.

If it is indeed for show as the world elites close their grip on the people of the planet - it is quite a show. But I don't think so...

[Jul 17, 2018] Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers. the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.

Jul 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

MoreFreedom -> 847328_3527 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

... that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails ... the conversation we need to be having [about lies/corruption from the deep state and powerful actors acting against US citizens interests, and decline of institutions that support US citizens' freedom], but we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on Vladimir Putin.

I agree with Mish on all this, including " Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise" though he doesn't qualify/define "Left and Right" as the Left and Right establishment aka. the Uniparty. The statement wouldn't have applied to say the Left and Right establishment that existed when our founders created the country and were united to create a government that defends our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness with an extremely limited (by today's standards) government. You don't see the Freedom Caucus getting hysterical about Trump's meeting Putin.

Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers. the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.

Farqued Up -> 847328_3527 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 15:12 Permalink

I've never been enthralled with Neil Cavuto due to considering him inferior as a host on things financial. Today he just crapped in his mess kit with me. He has to be dirty, the way he was defending the wonderful intelligence "community" of the USA, and was hinting that treason may not be a strong assessment of Trump with Putin. He is a real POS along with girly-man Shepard Smith. Not one criticism of any Cabalist about graft and corruption, and especially no mention of the uranium to Russia by Obama's and Hillary's REAL treason.

I repeat, all of you goofy imbeciles, Trump is sucking you down into the depths of embarrassment once the hammer drops. I expected the fruity Smith but must admit the Cavuto stupidity is a bit of a surprise. Someone has pics of that dumb fuck in a compromising situation.

[Jul 17, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis Editorial - China hacked Clinton s e-mail

This is a real bombshell, if true.
Jul 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Editorial - China hacked Clinton's e-mail I have some inside information.

Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.

That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.

Strzok was told that by the Intelligence Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl

Valissa Rauhallinen , an hour ago

Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!

Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.

White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.

The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in 2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.

The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------

Bring home the troops!

Jay M , 2 hours ago
Glad to hear we are vassals of China and others. That multipolar world must have been part of someone's 13 dim chess?
Harlan Easley , 3 hours ago
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
Mark McCarty , 3 hours ago
So China was the "non-Russian foreign power" that Gohmert referred to when interrogating Strozok. Veeeery interesting!
Fred S , 4 hours ago
To ask the obvious question: when did the IC inform President Obama?

[Jul 17, 2018] All the post WWII wars were done in the same way: demonizing leaders, defending democracy , false flag ops.

Jul 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

silver140 -> Free This Tue, 07/17/2018 - 13:59 Permalink

Within minutes MSM had the theme to broadcast. It was from their puppet masters in the FBI/CIA. They're told what to say. There's no doubt about that now.

Also, there's no doubt that they are pushing for war with Russia, within months or a few years, depending on what happens to Trump.

The Russians will know this now. All the post WWII wars were done in the same way: demonizing leaders, "defending democracy", false flag ops. But this present push is for the end game of killing the host; which is the life strategy of the parasitoid. The complete destruction of humanity and total ecocide.

The parasitoid corporate fascists are now in full control of the media and their disease vector politicians/bureaucrats, not just in the US but the EU/NATO as well.

A parasitoid is an organism that lives in close association with its host and at the host's expense, and which sooner or later kills it. Parasitoidism is one of six major evolutionary strategies within parasitism . Parasitoidism is distinguished by the fatal prognosis for the host, which makes the strategy close to predation .

In epidemiology , a disease vector is any agent that carries and transmits an infectious pathogen into another living organism; [1] [2]

[Jul 17, 2018] Doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully confront *evil*

Notable quotes:
"... Still, doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully confront *evil*? Doesn't evil-fighting-evil and destroying a worse-evil leave a little less evil in this world? ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe | Jul 17, 2018 6:25:12 PM | 135

...You can't put lipstick on an American fascist pig only because he pretends detente with Russia. It's tantamount to selling one's soul for an illusion. It's tantamount to treason if you live anywhere except in the U.S. OR Israel! And even if you live in the U.S. you are enabling the 1% and Zionist power.

That's it. I'm tired of Trumpgod can do no wrong when everything he stands for is wrong. Get the snow out of your eyes!

Guerrero | Jul 17, 2018 7:21:47 PM | 149

Circe @135

For sure I am in agreement: the "Trumpgod" is a shamanistic construction of a demoralized population.

Still, doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully confront *evil*? Doesn't evil-fighting-evil and destroying a worse-evil leave a little less evil in this world?

If that is how this Universe really works, and one has only force to work with, in the material realm, Donald Trump would seem well enough suited to the role of either lesser or greater-evil; either-way, hopefully leading-to dimunition of error, self-deception, and suffering of the children of Eve and Adam.

Activist Potato , Jul 17, 2018 9:13:30 PM | 164

@149 Guerrero said: "Still, doesn't the Universe work in such a way that *good* is constitutionally unable to successfully
confront *evil*?"

Not often one sees metaphysics enter the realm of geo-political debate in this or any political forum. But, heck, why not? The unseen forces guiding the survival instincts of the universe (of which the Earth is a part) may indeed be at work. Trump - whatever one sees in him - seems to be the man for the times. Paradigms are bending, cracking, the conversation is changing.

I'll never forget the shock in the MSM, almost to the point of stupefaction, at Trump accusing Obama during the election campaign of being the "founder of ISIS."

What was even more amazing was how weak Obama's response was. I don't think anybody posting here would disagree that ISIS was Obama's baby - whether through adoption or progeny.

But what serious candidate for President before Trump would ever say such a thing publicly - even if he knew it to be true? Whether by design or through blundering, boorish idiocy born of whatever flaws and motives you want to ascribe to him, Trump is very boisterously upsetting the political apple cart and with it the entire world order.

If it is indeed for show as the world elites close their grip on the people of the planet - it is quite a show. But I don't think so...

[Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.

Highly recommended!
Jul 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

NumNutt -> 847328_3527 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 11:41 Permalink

I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?

[Jul 17, 2018] MSNBC kept showing the headline, Former CIA Director Calls Trump Treasonous , yet they didn t use Brennan s name. Plus all the guests they had on were intel officers who either served under Obama, Mueller, or both

Notable quotes:
"... Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's "main" consultant on these matters: ..."
"... Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of the people all of the time they would simply be out of work. ..."
"... The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but the communist alternative they used had a life of its own. ..."
"... When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment. ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Space_Cowboy -> 1 Alabama Tue, 07/17/2018 - 13:52 Permalink

I posted this in another ZH article, but wanted to spread awareness about these matters:

I cracked up when MSNBC kept showing the headline, "Former CIA Director Calls Trump Treasonous", yet they didn't use Brennan's name. Plus all the "guests" they had on were intel officers who either served under Obama, Mueller, or both. Definitely attempted CYA going on.

Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's "main" consultant on these matters:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/07/the-right-or-wrong-exp

Meanwhile, not to get off topic but.....

... ... ...

chunga -> Occams_Razor_Trader Tue, 07/17/2018 - 08:28 Permalink

Today would be a great day for Sessions to come out of his slumber. His name is Bill Browder.

FBaggins -> NidStyles Tue, 07/17/2018 - 11:48 Permalink

Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of the people all of the time they would simply be out of work.

The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but the communist alternative they used had a life of its own.

When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment.

Remember, how the US-Anglo-Zionist establishment reacted to the ousting of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the end of Western control of Iranian oil and gas. That nation has been on the hit list ever since.

Trump is either not sincere in dealing with Putin and the US-led axis will pull something off very shortly, or he is doing something quite revolutionary and wants rapprochement.

I Am Jack's Ma -> freedommusic Tue, 07/17/2018 - 14:38 Permalink

worth a read...

Paranoia May Destroy Ya' – The Collective Response From the Co-Conspirators

I didn't vote for Trump. His handling of the Iran deal, Palestine and regurgitation of Likudnik talking points, many of his appointments... these aren't America First positions. They smack of Adelson and Bibi and using the MEK to foment moar regime change should trouble everyone.

However, I always conceded that he was better than Hillary. I almost voted for GJ but live in MA so why bother.

But he has my vote next time.

This isn't about Trump anymore - it's about the ability of a shadow government to undo elections with fisa and intel abuse and with the help of a controlled, CIA-minded legacy media.

I also think these 'deep state' types are determined to get major wars going, and determined to keep flooding the country with debt serfs and cannon fodder all while attacking our sovereignty and promoting endless wars that benefit the banks and MIC.

I think we are in an incredibly dangerous time and that Brennan and Clapper need to be indicted and arrested for sedition ASAP.

Ditto Hillary, and others, including Obama.

In simple terms its the Republic versus the Empire, and if you support the Republic, I don't care if we deeply disagree on lots of other stuff - I am on your side.

And if the Left marches on Washington as some are calling for, I think patriots need to go out and meet them with a peaceful show of our numbers.

Enough.

[Jul 17, 2018] Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers. the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.

Jul 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

MoreFreedom -> 847328_3527 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

... that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails ... the conversation we need to be having [about lies/corruption from the deep state and powerful actors acting against US citizens interests, and decline of institutions that support US citizens' freedom], but we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on Vladimir Putin.

I agree with Mish on all this, including " Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise" though he doesn't qualify/define "Left and Right" as the Left and Right establishment aka. the Uniparty. The statement wouldn't have applied to say the Left and Right establishment that existed when our founders created the country and were united to create a government that defends our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness with an extremely limited (by today's standards) government. You don't see the Freedom Caucus getting hysterical about Trump's meeting Putin.

Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers. the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.

Farqued Up -> 847328_3527 Tue, 07/17/2018 - 15:12 Permalink

I've never been enthralled with Neil Cavuto due to considering him inferior as a host on things financial. Today he just crapped in his mess kit with me. He has to be dirty, the way he was defending the wonderful intelligence "community" of the USA, and was hinting that treason may not be a strong assessment of Trump with Putin. He is a real POS along with girly-man Shepard Smith. Not one criticism of any Cabalist about graft and corruption, and especially no mention of the uranium to Russia by Obama's and Hillary's REAL treason.

I repeat, all of you goofy imbeciles, Trump is sucking you down into the depths of embarrassment once the hammer drops. I expected the fruity Smith but must admit the Cavuto stupidity is a bit of a surprise. Someone has pics of that dumb fuck in a compromising situation.

[Jul 17, 2018] Trump meets Putin officially in a summit: he's called traitor. By media. So what do we call Russia's opp filing into US embassy 2012 an election year ?

Jul 17, 2018 | moonofalabama.org

brian | Jul 17, 2018 5:51:31 PM | 127

its the BBC! and they claim:

James Cook
‏Verified account @BBCJamesCook
3h3 hours ago

BREAKING Under intense pressure, accused of treachery, President Trump now says he accepts the conclusion of US intelligence that Russia 'meddled' in the US election. A lot of damage has already been done though.

----------
however....

Trump meets Putin officially in a summit: he's called traitor. By media. So what do we call Russia's opp filing into US embassy 2012 an election year ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j9FfX0B8ujA

isn't that treason ? Isn't Navalny a traitor as well for his US support ?

[Jul 17, 2018] Mueller's Indictment Isn't Worth Squat by Jacob G. Hornberger

Jul 16, 2018 | www.fff.org

I sure wish the mainstream media and all those critics of Donald Trump had had better civics teachers in high school. If they had, they would understand that special counsel Robert Mueller's indictment against those Russian officials for supposedly illegally meddling in America's presidential election doesn't mean squat. Instead, the media and the Trump critics have accepted the indictment as proof, even conclusive proof, that the Russians really did do what Mueller is charging them with doing.

Of course, it's not really Mueller's indictment. It's a federal grand jury that has returned the indictment. But, in reality, it's Mueller's indictment. He drafts it up and the grand jury dutifully signs whatever he presents to them. As the old legal adage goes, prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

A prosecutor can say whatever he wants in an indictment. It's not sworn to. Neither the prosecutor nor the grand jury can be prosecuted for perjury or false allegations in an indictment.

In this particular case, the matter is even more problematic because Mueller knows that those Russian officials who he has indicted will never be brought to trial. That's because there is no reasonable possibility that the Russian government would ever turn them over to the U.S. government. That means that Mueller knows that whatever he says in that indictment is never going to be tested in a court of law. He can say whatever he wants in that indictment knowing full well that he will never be required to prove it.

If only the mainstream media and the Trump critics would just attend one single criminal case, they would learn that criminal indictments don't mean squat and are not evidence of anything. Here is what judges always tell juries, in one way or another, in criminal cases:

An indictment is not evidence; it is simply the formal notice to the defendants of the charges against each of them. The mere fact of an indictment raises no suspicion of guilty. The government has the burden to prove the charges against the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt, and that burden stays with the government from start to finish. The defendants have no burden or obligation to prove anything at all. They are presumed innocent. The defendants started this trial with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against them, and the law presumes that they are each innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with each defendant unless and until the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty.

Is that the standard that the mainstream media and Trump critics are applying in response to the Mueller indictment? Are you kidding? They are applying the standard that is used in communist and other totalitarian regimes. They are pointing to the accusation as proof that those Russian officials really are guilty! After all, their argument goes, if they weren't guilty, former FBI Director Mueller would never have secured an indictment against them.

Anyway, everybody knows that the Russians are guilty because America's deep state -- i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA -- say they are. What more proof does anyone need than that? What even needs a trial? Case closed! Grab them, take them to Gitmo, torture them, and hang them!

Pardon me, but I thought the special counsel was appointed to determine whether President Trump somehow illegally "colluded" with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton for president. What's Mueller doing wasting time and money indicting Russian officials who he knows will never stand trial? Isn't it time for Mueller to put up or shut up with respect to President Trump and let the Justice Department handle other criminal prosecutions?

Maybe it's just a coincidence that Mueller announced his indictment on the eve of Trump's meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Or maybe not.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. deep state has done everything it can to gin up another Cold War with Russia. Recall that at the end of the Cold War in 1989, the U.S. deep state was caught flat-footed. They had fully expected the Cold War to last forever, which would guarantee ever-increasing budgets for the deep state and its army of bureaucrats, contractors, and subcontractors.

In fact, people were talking about a "peace dividend," which would have entailed deep cuts in expenditures for the military-industrial complex, which was President Eisenhower's term for the deep state. That threw all elements of the deep state into a full-blown panic.

That's when they went into the Middle East and began poking hornet's nests, knowing full well that their violent and destructive interventionism would produce terrorist blowback. It did and the terrorist blowback was then used as the excuse for continuing out of control deep-state expenditures in order to "keep us safe" from the enemies that their interventionism was producing. In fact, it's probably worth mentioning that Russia's supposed hacking of some email accounts pales to insignificance compared to massive U.S. interventionism, including the destruction of democratic regimes, in the political affairs of other countries since the advent of the U.S. deep state, including bribery, kidnappings, assassinations, coups, embargoes, sanctions, and invasions.

At the same time they were intervening in the Middle East, they never gave up hope of revitalizing the Cold War crisis environment with Russia. That is what NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, including the hope of absorbing Ukraine into NATO, was all about. The U.S. deep state knew that the closer NATO got to Russia's border, the more likely it would be that Russia would have to respond. When Russia finally did respond by taking over Crimea, before the U.S. deep state could, U.S. officials responded predictably: "We are shocked -- shocked! -- at this act of aggression, which shows that Russia is preparing to attack and invade Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Germany, France, and undoubtedly even the United States.

It's really just a repeat of the fears that the U.S. deep state inculcated into the American people throughout the Cold War, as a way to get Americans to support the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security or deep states. The only thing missing is the communist part: Instead of the Reds coming to get us, it's now just Putin and the Russkies.

What nonsense. Mueller should do the country a favor and shut down his ridiculous and ridiculously expensive investigation. No matter how much one might dislike Donald Trump, the fact is that he won the election, fair and square, and Hillary Clinton lost it. Accept it. Deal with it. Wait until the 2020 election to try to oust Trump from office. Time to shut down all the regime-change operations, including those of the U.S. deep state.

Share This Article

(0)

This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context . Send him email .

[Jul 17, 2018] The Mueller Indictments and the Trump-Putin Summit Triumph of the Deep State by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... Did the Russian government seek to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections? It's certainly possible, however we don't know. None of the Justice Department's assertions have been tested in a court of law, as is thankfully required by our legal system. It is not enough to make an allegation, as Mueller has done. You have to prove it. ..."
"... That is why we should be very suspicious of these new indictments. Mueller knows he will never have to defend his assertions in a court of law so he can make any allegation he wants. ..."
"... It is interesting that one of the Russian companies indicted by Mueller earlier this year surprised the world by actually entering a "not guilty" plea and demanding to see Mueller's evidence. The Special Counsel proceeded to file several motions to delay the hand-over of his evidence. What does Mueller have to hide? ..."
"... Meanwhile, why is no one talking about the estimated 100 elections the US government has meddled in since World War II? Maybe we need to get our own house in order? ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

July 17, 2018 The term "deep state" has been so overused in the past few years that it may seem meaningless. It has become standard practice to label one's political adversaries as representing the "deep state" as a way of avoiding the defense of one's positions. President Trump has often blamed the "deep state" for his political troubles. Trump supporters have created big conspiracies involving the "deep state" to explain why the president places neocons in key positions or fails to fulfill his campaign promises.

But the "deep state" is no vast and secret conspiracy theory. The deep state is real, it operates out in the open, and it is far from monolithic. The deep state is simply the permanent, unelected government that continues to expand its power regardless of how Americans vote.

There are factions of the deep state that are pleased with President Trump's policies, and in fact we might say that President Trump represents some factions of the deep state.

Other factions of the deep state are determined to undermine any of President Trump's actions they perceive as threatening. Any move toward peace with Russia is surely something they feel to be threatening. There are hundreds of billions of reasons – otherwise known as dollars – why the Beltway military-industrial complex is terrified of peace breaking out with Russia and will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

That is why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's indictment on Friday of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for allegedly interfering in the 2016 US presidential election should immediately raise some very serious questions.

First the obvious: after more than a year of investigations which have publicly revealed zero collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, why drop this bombshell of an allegation at the end of the news cycle on the last business day before the historic Trump/Putin meeting in Helsinki? The indictment could not have been announced a month ago or in two weeks? Is it not suspicious that now no one is talking about reducing tensions with Russia but is all of a sudden – thanks to Special Counsel Robert Mueller – talking about increasing tensions?

Unfortunately most Americans don't seem to understand that indictments are not evidence. In fact they are often evidence-free, as is this indictment.

Did the Russian government seek to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections? It's certainly possible, however we don't know. None of the Justice Department's assertions have been tested in a court of law, as is thankfully required by our legal system. It is not enough to make an allegation, as Mueller has done. You have to prove it.

That is why we should be very suspicious of these new indictments. Mueller knows he will never have to defend his assertions in a court of law so he can make any allegation he wants.

It is interesting that one of the Russian companies indicted by Mueller earlier this year surprised the world by actually entering a "not guilty" plea and demanding to see Mueller's evidence. The Special Counsel proceeded to file several motions to delay the hand-over of his evidence. What does Mueller have to hide?

Meanwhile, why is no one talking about the estimated 100 elections the US government has meddled in since World War II? Maybe we need to get our own house in order?

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity .

[Jul 17, 2018] IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus

Putin statement about $400 million 'donation' to Hillary Clinton by MI6-connected Bill Browder in his Helsinki presser is obviously of great interest. This has given some new insights into the DNC false flag operation dynamics.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI would get info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info directly. ..."
"... IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol. ..."
"... What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means to do this. ..."
Jul 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Keith Harbaugh , a day ago

PT, regarding your questions: "How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers", "what is the source of the information?",
"how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?", I believe the answers are implicit in the first part of this news article:

"The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S." By Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger and Scott Shane, New York Times , 2016-12-13.

It describes in considerable detail how, STARTING IN SEPTEMBER 2015, the FBI tried strenuously to alert the DNC to the fact that it was being hacked by Russia, but the DNC, remarkably, chose to ignore these warnings.

Here's how the article begins:

When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally [ sic! ], to the help desk.

His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named "the Dukes," a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government's best-protected networks.

BTW, I sincerely thank TTG for providing this link in one of his previous comments.

TTG -> Keith Harbaugh , 8 hours ago
Keith et al,

The FBI warned the DNC of the Dukes (aka APT29, Cozy Bear) in September 2015. These are the hackers that the Dutch AIVD penetrated and warned the NSA in real time when they attacked Pentagon systems in 2015. Their goal seemed to be intelligence collection as one would expect as the Dutch said they are affiliated with the SVR.

The Fancy Bear hackers (aka APT28) are the ones referred to in the recent indictment of the GRU officers. They penetrated the DNC systems in April 2016 and weren't discovered until CrowdStrike identified them. They're the ones who took data and released it through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks as part of a coordinated information operation (IO). I'm not at all surprised that the GRU would lead this IO as a military operation. The FBI would get info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info directly. There is absolutely no need to take physical possession of the servers.

The detail of some of the GRU officers' online activity indicates their computers were penetrated by US or allied IC/LEA much like the Dutch AIVD penetrated the FSB computers. This was probably a main source for much of the indictment's evidence. That the IC would release information about this penetration for this indictment is extraordinary. Normally this stuff never sees the light of day. It sets the precedent for the release of further such intelligence information in future indictments.

Likbez -> TTG
TTG,

IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol.

What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means to do this.

Now we also see a DNC motivation of keeping the content of affected servers from FBI eyes -- Browder money.

[Jul 17, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis Editorial - China hacked Clinton s e-mail

This is a real bombshell, if true.
Jul 17, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Editorial - China hacked Clinton's e-mail I have some inside information.

Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.

That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.

Strzok was told that by the Intelligence Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl

Valissa Rauhallinen , an hour ago

Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!

Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.

White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.

The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in 2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.

The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------

Bring home the troops!

Jay M , 2 hours ago
Glad to hear we are vassals of China and others. That multipolar world must have been part of someone's 13 dim chess?
Harlan Easley , 3 hours ago
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
Mark McCarty , 3 hours ago
So China was the "non-Russian foreign power" that Gohmert referred to when interrogating Strozok. Veeeery interesting!
Fred S , 4 hours ago
To ask the obvious question: when did the IC inform President Obama?

[Jul 16, 2018] It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller

Notable quotes:
"... Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2018 at 10:05 pm

Read Scott Bennett's letter to President Trump . it will make you think.

https://ahtribune.com/us/israelgate/2358-dov-zakheim.html

Joe Tedesky , July 15, 2018 at 12:04 pm

"Part of my mission was to investigate, discover, and expose all acts of "waste, fraud, and abuse" by Terrorist Financing Operations Director Dov Zakheim who was my senior supervisor. It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller." Scott Bennett

Gregory Herr , July 15, 2018 at 11:49 pm

Double WOW. Great catch Joe.

"Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel."

[Jul 16, 2018] When Did Russia Become an Adversary by Gary Leupp

Notable quotes:
"... decisive point. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

July 16, 2018
"Russia is an adversary." How many times have we heard this lately? Perhaps in some schoolmarmish reminder from a CNN, MSNBC or Fox anchor. Everybody's just supposed to know this. But when did it become received wisdom?

How many times did we hear that Russia was an adversary in the 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin ruled over the Russian Federation, presiding over a bleak decade of economic downward spiral, banning the Communist Party (1991-93), bombarding the Duma building in 1993 during a constitutional crisis, colluding with the U.S. to fix the 1996 Russian presidential election, tolerating repeated U.S./NATO interventions in former Russian ally Yugoslavia from 1994 to 1999, welcoming Harvard Business School advisors to Moscow to reform the Russian economy?

(Oops, I must remind myself that my current university students were for the most part born in the late 90s. So they might not remember hearing much about Russia at all.)

Actually we didn't as I recall hear anything at all about enmity with Russia.

Russia had gone from being the hulking Eurasian brown bear of the Cold War era to the cuddly teddy bear of a drunken buffoon, Boris Yeltsin. Russia was not an enemy but a pathetic foil, the other superpower experiencing abject defeat as the U.S. asserted "full-spectrum dominance" during the "American Century" of the 2000s, an object of amusement by those crowing over the U.S.'s (imagined) victory in the Cold War.

Russia was not an adversary when, following the 9/11 attacks, Yeltsin's successor Vladimir Putin offered NATO a transport route through Russia to supply the alliance in its Afghan War. I don't recall hearing any official announcement to the effect that Russia had been judged an adversary at that point -- by anyone I respect, anyway.

Was it in June 1999 when the Russian Army moved to secure Pristina Airport in Kosovo, at the end of NATO's aggressive campaign in the Serbian province? This incident strikes me not as a provocation but as a measured move and pointed statement to NATO (the anti-Soviet military alliance that refuses to fold as the Warsaw Pact did in 1990, and which has increasingly become a tool of U.S. imperialism) that Russia too retains historical interests in the Balkans.

The fact that Russia opposed the cruelly absurd Rambouillet ultimatum followed by the NATO war on Serbia did not make Russia my enemy; I absolutely agreed that the war was wrong. My adversary was Madeleine Albright, who wanted war in Kosovo and delighted in the result (an independent country of Kosovo, a failed state wrenched illegally from Serbia, a drugs hub and ceter of human trafficking scheduled for NATO admission).

Did Russia become an adversary in 2008, when (after the U.S. had recognized Kosovo's independence, as a thing needing no justification because it was as Condi Rice put it "sui generis") Russia went ahead and recognized two separatist republics in what had been the Georgian SSR, South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Did it become such when Russia briefly invaded Georgia, where a poathetic U.S. puppet (Mikhail Saakashvili) brought to power during the "color revolution" (Rose Revolution) of 2003 emboldened by a promise of foture NATO membership provoked Russian forces stationed in South Ossetia?

Recall how at the time Sen. John McCain said, "We are all Georgians now" and called for military aid to Georgia. (McCain's always been clear on who the enemy was, and while you might suppose that his extreme militarist views would have wholly discredited him, he is every news anchor's ideal, the ultimate U.S. patriot and war hero.) But the Bush administration declined to provoke Russia; had not Bush seen into Putin's soul, the soul of a man deeply concerned about the interests of his country?

Enter the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state intent on arranging a "reset" of the bilateral relationship. But the expansion of NATO to include Albania and Croatia was not helpful. Nor was the campaign, waged by the "National Foundation for Democracy" and other foreign NGOs in Ukraine, to topple the elected president Viktor Yanukovych (an opponent of Ukraine's NATO entry) and replace him with one that would join the anti-Russian alliance.

In February 2014 a coup plainly conceptualized in Washington, amply documented by intercepted calls between Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, succeeded in toppling Yanukovych, who fled to Russia. Ethnic Russians who dominate in the eastern Donbas region predictably rebelled against the fascist-tinged new Kiev government. Russia predictably annexed (re-annexed) Crimea to insure its continued control over its bases.

Look at the map. Look at how big Russia is. Look at where it has naval bases. Russia is not like the U.S. with coasts dotted with naval bases. It has some on the Baltic Sea, one in Vladivostok on the Pacific, Murmansk on the Barents Sea in the far north. The Black Sea Fleet present in Crimea from the 1770s is important to what any objective professor of international relations would call "Russian national security." Of course the Russians were angry and concerned.

That I think was the decisive point. Yes, February 2014. The relentless drive of the U.S. to complete the expansion of NATO, to integrate the largest nation on the European continent, which some neocons call "the crown jewel" into the alliance, using in this case the cause of "the Ukrainian people's European aspirations" failed . It invited an immediate, decisive Russian response. An investment of $ 5 billion and preposterous interventions such as the visits of Nuland, John McCain and Lindsey Graham to the Maidan Square in Kiev had produced a new government of dubious legitimacy as well as a frozen conflict.

Russia became an "adversary" because it refused to accept massive U.S. intervention in the politics of a neighboring country more closely integrated into Russian history and civilization that Mexico is integrated into the U.S. in such respects. It's an adversary because it opposes NATO, which is to say, it resists its own military encirclement. As any U.S. leadership would under similar circumstances. (Imagine an existing Russia-centered military pact including most of Central America, Cuba and Venzuela moving to include Mexico. The "Monroe Doctrine" forbids colonization and the establishment of military bases by Old World powers in the New World. But the U.S. expects Russia to accept NATO bases on its very borders. And no TV journalist bothers to raise this, or think historically, critically, comparatively.)

But don't expect cable commentators to dwell on NATO. No, Putin is hostile to the west because he hates liberal democracy, the value of the free ballot, human rights. He just wants to divide Europe, supporting nationalists over mainstream parties. He wants to disrupt democracies like the Grinch wanted to spoil Christmas. It's not a matter of attributing him a particular ideology like Marxism. He's just evil, and you, dear viewer, are supposed to realize that.

* * * *

The basis of Kantian ethics is Matthew 7:2. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. The U.S. is -- through NATO expansion, provocations of Russia, application of sanctions of Russia and demand for allies' participation in them -- subjecting its one-time (Yeltsin-era) "partner" to insulting treatment.

NATO announces expansion. Moscow complains, asks "Why?" NATO responds: "Don't worry. This is not directed at you." Russia replies: "Of course it's directed against us. Don't be silly."

In its long history, Russia has been attacked from eastern or central Europe many times (as well as from the Caucasus in southern Europe). German crusader knights invaded in 1242. Lithuania invaded in the fourteenth century, when the Lithuanian state was greater than Muscovy. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century there were multiple invasions from Sweden and/or Poland. Napoleon invaded between 1798 and 1815; Tolstoy's War and Peace chronicles this epic conflict. Probably around 400,000 civiian casualties. In 1940 the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia that took eleven million soldiers' lives and those of 26 million civilians.

What has the U.S. experienced comparable to these invasions? How well can a brainwashed North American understand the problem of securing borders, not against poor immigrants, but against invasion? How many are equipped, by education, media, and political discourse, to understand geopolitics from the point of view of Russians?

(I do not mean to suggest that Russians have a common view; Russia is a civil society and debates rage. But my sense is that Russians of many different stripes see NATO as frightening and threatening and will support the regime in resisting its expansion. As they and all of us should.)

The summit is imminent. I would hope that Putin in Helsinki says, "Look, let's agree state-sponsored hacking and surveillance, as conducted by many governments, are big problems. Let us work to resolve these issues. I'm just glad you were elected, not Hillary, because she was horrible. Look what she did in Libya and Syria. You seem sincere about improving relations but we're concerned about apparent divisions in your staff since we keep getting conflicting messages .

"In Syria we want a stable secular (not religiously-based) regime. We think the Syrian Arab Army is the best guarantor of stability and the defeat of ISIL and other al-Qaeda spin-offs. We understand your desire to continue to confront ISIL in northeastern Syria, such as it is, and although our Damascus ally condemns it as a violation of Syrian sovereignty we have been cooperating with you off and on against ISIL -- even though in Sept. 2016 you sabotaged an agreement with us to coordinate strikes when you attacked Deir Ezzor killing 100 of our Syrian allies.

"We want to facilitate the departure of your forces as you've indicated you want to accomplish. As for arranging Iranian departure, we do not control Iran and the Iranians have made it clear they will withdraw advisors from Syria and Iraq only at their governments' request. I our view they have played a positive role against ISIL and other al-Qaeda factions and spin-offs. We do not agree with your vilification of Iran and indeed will be expanding commercial and military ties. We urge you not to pressure your allies to cut all trade ties with Iran; we and the Chinese will profit in any case.

"On Ukraine, you know, Russia will never return Crimea to Ukraine. You must please decide whether you want to sanction us forever for something that is not going to change, or do what Condi Rice did in 2008 (recognize a sui generis ) and reset the U.S.-Russian relationship as loser Hillary could not do. We can make a deal about concrete implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

"We are still very interested in an Exxon-Gasprom deal on Arctic oil drilling, the one Rex Tillerson was negotiating when the sanctions were applied in 2014. Of course we want a Trump Tower eventually. Why can't we be friends?

"Let's announce U.S. full participation in the Astana negotiations with Syria, Turkey, Iran and Russia to facilitate inter-Syrian dialogue to produce a peace settlement and new elections, and in the Minsk talks between Russia, Ukraine, the Ukrainian opposition, and European parties. And maybe an agreement not to expand NATO to include Ukraine or Georgia. That will show the world tensions are declining an enhance your prospects for that Nobel Peace prize you so deserve."

May flattery make Putin a friend. He is not my adversary, or this country's adversary. He's the adversary of those who, in their desire to topple Trump on any basis whatsoever, are happy to mentally leapfrog back to the McCarthy era, trash their object of disdain as a Russian puppet and even demand that Trump cancel his summit because of a suspiciously time Mueller Investigation announcement of more Russian indictments.

Russophobia has proven as strong as "anticommunism" as a persistent, unquestioned force in this country at this critical time. Both its strength and stupidity are frightening. If Trump's uniquely odd presidency sees the possibility of rapprochement with Russia -- smothered by the traditional wise and evil councilors -- -we might as well have Goldwater Girl Clinton in the White House, labeling Putin Hitler and likening Crimea to the Sudetenland.

[Jul 16, 2018] WATCH Mueller s Horrifying Corruption Just Got Exposed – Should He Be Fired

Both individuals are sociopaths, but Mueller is even less trustworthy than Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together." ..."
"... Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case. ..."
"... Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job. ..."
"... Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning. ..."
"... Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.teaparty.org

President Trump's lawyers believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller is overstepping his bounds in his investigation into Russian interference in the election. Now, Trump's lawyers are compiling a list of Mueller's numerous conflicts of interest, The Washington Post reported.

Judge Jeanine Pirro perfectly explains one of Mueller's largest conflicts of interests–his close relationship with the former FBI director James Comey.

... ... ...

"The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together."

As Pirro explained, one of Robert Mueller's primary tasks is to determine whether President Trump obstructed justice when he fired James Comey.

However, Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case.

Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job.

Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning.

Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings.

Now, Comey's old friend Mueller is taking over the mission Comey started in November–to impeach President Trump.

We cannot let this witch hunt continue. We need to stand with our duly elected President and let him know that he has our trust. Trump is the first president in a long time to put America first. He is no foreign agent.

www.angrypatriotmovement.com/muellers-corruption-exposed/

[Jul 16, 2018] America's Russia Derangement Syndrome by Publius Tacitus

Jul 16, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Watching the various media commentary on Russia and Vladimir Putin I am beyond stunned by the ignorance, insanity and stupidity that grips the vast multitude of talking heads and so-called reporters as they opine on the upcoming summit. The memes are simple:

You got the drift. Now let us get back to reality.

Putin and Russia will welcome improved relationships with the West, especially the United States. But they will not sell out their soul and they will not acquiesce to our lies. Here is one simple truth and reality that lurks in the background--despite all of our chest thumping about Russia involvement in Syria, we are in daily coordination with the Russian military on deconflicting air space and upcoming ground operations. This does not get covered in the media therefore it does not exist within the consciousness of the American public.

Russia is appropriately and correctly leery of the United States and its sanctimonious bullshit. Consider the uproar here over "Russian meddling." The U.S. has a long and blood soaked history of intervening in other countries and ousting elected leaders. Prominent on that list are Iran, Guatemala, Chile and Vietnam. Our protests against alleged Russian meddling are like a whore protesting the fact that a high school cheerleader lost her virginity on prom night.

The Russians have not forgotten our role in developing and launching the Stuxnet virus in 2010. Although it was supposed to only target the Iranian nuclear reactors, it infected the Russian Space Station and a Russian nuclear plant . The ground truth is that the United States, through the activities of the CIA, the NSA and the Department of Defense, has the largest, most robust computer network operations aka hacking activity, in the world. We live in the biggest damn glass house.

Syria? We, the United States, along with the Brits, the Turks, the Saudis and the Qataris, funded, organized and armed Islamic extremists in Syria. We were giving arms to terrorists. It was the Russians who intervened to stablize the Syrian regime and turn the tables on all of the rebel groups. We are just sore damn losers. We were out fought and out thought by Russia in Syria and have been loath to admit the facts.

How about the question of foreign intervention? Let's put Syria to the side. The U.S. has a far more disgraceful, shameful history on this point. Since December of 1989, we have invaded Panama, Iraq (twice), Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria. At the same time we have broken our promise to the Russians to not expand NATO into the former member of the Soviet Union. In fact, U.S. and British intelligence operatives played a crucial (albeit covert role) in organizing the Euromaidan:

a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine , which began on the night of 21 November 2013 with public protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti ("Independence Square") in Kiev . The protests were sparked by the Ukrainian government's decision to suspend the signing of an association agreement with the European Union , instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union .

These protest led ultimately to the ouster of the democratically and legally elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych. In stark contrast to the alleged meddling of Russia in our 2016 election, the United States actually succeeded in helping oust an elected President. Vladimir Putin has not forgotten that fact.

The Deep State keeps harping on the "Russian invasion" of Crimea. As I noted in my previous piece, Nato, A Naked Emperor , the Russians did not invade. There was a referendum. I am sure that Putin will point out the fact that the United States continues to "lease" Guatanamo Bay in Cuba without the legitimacy of an election. The Cubans want us out but we insist that we have a legal right to be there. Unlike Crimea, which historically was part of Russia, we have no historic claim to Cuba other than our own greed.

The Deep State also wants Trump to get the Russians to do something about Iran. Do not be surprised if Vladimir Putin takes time to explain to Donald that Iran's rise in the Middle East is not because of Russian support. Nope. It is a direct consequence of the U.S. 2003 invasion of Iraq.

How about future cooperation? The Russians already are playing Lyft driver for U.S. astronauts as they ferrying us to and from the Space Station. On the nuclear front, Putin withdrew in 2016 from a treaty , on the disposal of plutonium, in anger over the U.S. breaking of its promise to not grow NATO and increase military exercises on Russias border. Putin does not have alzheimer's. He is not going to back off on this point.

At the core of the U.S. mythology about Russia is the lingering resentment of how the Soviets treated Jews in the former Soviet Union and our self-delusion that we, the United States, defeated the Nazis. The largest tank battle in history was not the Battle of the Bulge. It was Kursk and that was led by a Russian General. The West has refused to acknowledge the critical role that Russia played in defeating the Nazis. Without the incredible stands at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, the West probably would have lost the war and we would be living under a true fascist regime.

History is not a strong suit for Americans. Embarrassing ignorance is our currency. And we our flush with that cash.

[Jul 16, 2018] Big Oil s has a long history of compromising national security for profit

Notable quotes:
"... How different is it really from the past 70+ years (since that 45' meeting between FDR and the then ruler of KSA), and especially since the "oil shocks" of the 1970's ? The Trumpians are little more direct and crude in their wording, but that is really the only difference I see. ..."
"... Putin's announcement after Turkey's shooting down of a Russian jet that Turkey has been systematically facilitating ISIS oil sales illustrates how the terror-entity has become a figleaf to justify military action. ..."
"... As INSURGEintelligence has previously reported, there is significant evidence that high-level elements of Turkish government and intelligence agencies have covertly sponsored Islamist terrorist groups in Syria, including ISIS, and that this has involved permitting black market oil sales. ..."
"... Why, however, did Vladimir Putin wait until the murder of a Russian pilot before announcing Russia's possession of intelligence on Turkish state-sponsorship of ISIS? ..."
"... There can be little doubt that Putin had previously been more interested in protecting Russian relations with Turkey as an emerging gas transshipment hub to Europe, under which he and Erdogan planned to build the multibillion Russia-Turkey gas pipeline, Turkish Stream  --  now suspended after the recent diplomatic furore. ..."
"... It has become increasingly clear that the US-led coalition strategy is aimed primarily at containment of the group's territorial ambitions within Syria. ..."
"... In this context, as Russia and Iran consolidate their hold on Syria through the Assad regime  --  staking the claim to Syria's untapped resources in the Mediterranean  --  the acceleration of Western military action offers both a carrot and a stick: the carrot aims to threaten the Assad regime into a political accommodation that capitulates to Western regional energy designs; the stick aims to replace him with a more compliant entity comprised of rebel forces backed by Western allies, the Gulf states and Turkey, whilst containing the most virulent faction, ISIS. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 | Jul 2, 2018 1:17:16 AM | 28

The Saudi's. Interesting watching them agree to whatever Trump wants. The most recent one was Trump telling them to raise oil output. The Saudi's now are very pro zionist and will back them against the Sunni Palestinians no matter what. If Trumps tells them to pay for a US war or occupation they pay. If they are told to by lots of useless junk from the US MIC, they buy it and manage to pull a twisted smile when Trump turns the screws about billions being peanuts.

Seems very much like KSA is now an expendable asset for the US, and their only chance of survival is a lot of 'yes sir, how high sir'.

Philippe , Jul 2, 2018 2:01:24 AM | 30

@ Peter AU 1 | Jul 2, 2018 1:17:16 AM | 28

How different is it really from the past 70+ years (since that 45' meeting between FDR and the then ruler of KSA), and especially since the "oil shocks" of the 1970's ? The Trumpians are little more direct and crude in their wording, but that is really the only difference I see.

Posted by: Peter L. | Jul 1, 2018 11:21:17 PM | 23

Look no further than the first sentence of the text you quote. It has been documented a few times, including in the Intercept, that there were some very serious money flows towards a certain foundation run by the family of the named person. Money flows that originated in the Gulf. Money flows that were related to what happened in Libia.

Daniel , Jul 2, 2018 2:30:17 AM | 32
Peter AU1, KSA has been a client state of the US ever since FDR muscled in on Great Britain's deal in 1845.
somebody , Jul 2, 2018 10:52:45 AM | 43
That would have something to do with Big Oil's long history of compromising national security for profit

Russia effectively dried up oil deliveries by ISIS from Syria and Iraq via Turkey .

This here is Nafez Ahmeed on what went on when splitting up Syria was considered feasible.

Putin's announcement after Turkey's shooting down of a Russian jet that Turkey has been systematically facilitating ISIS oil sales illustrates how the terror-entity has become a figleaf to justify military action.

As INSURGEintelligence has previously reported, there is significant evidence that high-level elements of Turkish government and intelligence agencies have covertly sponsored Islamist terrorist groups in Syria, including ISIS, and that this has involved permitting black market oil sales.

Why, however, did Vladimir Putin wait until the murder of a Russian pilot before announcing Russia's possession of intelligence on Turkish state-sponsorship of ISIS?

There can be little doubt that Putin had previously been more interested in protecting Russian relations with Turkey as an emerging gas transshipment hub to Europe, under which he and Erdogan planned to build the multibillion Russia-Turkey gas pipeline, Turkish Stream  --  now suspended after the recent diplomatic furore.

US, British and French military operations have been similarly inconsistent, inexplicably failing to shut down ISIS supply lines through Turkey, failing to bomb critical ISIS oil infrastructure including vast convoys of trucks transporting black market oil, and refusing to arm the most effective and secular Kurdish ground forces combating ISIS.

It has become increasingly clear that the US-led coalition strategy is aimed primarily at containment of the group's territorial ambitions within Syria.

....

As Russia expands its military presence in the region in the name of fighting ISIS, the US, Britain and France are now scrambling to ensure they retain a military foothold in Syria  --  an effort to position themselves to make the most of a post-conflict environment. As the US Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook put it:

"Most of the international investors who pulled out of Syria following the deterioration of the safety and security situation throughout the country are expected to remain so until the military and political conflicts are resolved."

In this context, as Russia and Iran consolidate their hold on Syria through the Assad regime  --  staking the claim to Syria's untapped resources in the Mediterranean  --  the acceleration of Western military action offers both a carrot and a stick: the carrot aims to threaten the Assad regime into a political accommodation that capitulates to Western regional energy designs; the stick aims to replace him with a more compliant entity comprised of rebel forces backed by Western allies, the Gulf states and Turkey, whilst containing the most virulent faction, ISIS.

[Jul 16, 2018] A Trump Foreign Policy by Dimitri K. Simes

Generally weak article which ignores the possibility of alliance of Russia and China (as well as alienation of EU) which means the death of the USA superpower status "really soon". But it contains a couple of interesting observations about the value of "the bull in the China shop" foreign policy.
Jun 20, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Paradoxically, while many governments increasingly appear to view the United States as a formidable superpower that they cannot easily cross or ignore, many of the same governments see the administration as erratic, unable to evaluate situations objectively, and prone to personalizing relations with foreign leaders and countries -- even in dealing with other major powers. To these governments, the United States seems capricious and offers few tangible incentives for accommodating American preferences. This is an obstacle for Trump in accomplishing his international objectives.

As a candidate, Trump did not include Russia on his list of the top challenges to the United States, despite increasingly widespread establishment perceptions of Russia as an adversary. With Russia's gdp around 10 percent of America's and its conventional forces far from a match for NATO, Trump had good reasons to wonder why a country that Obama described as an economically-weak regional power should become an organizing principle of America's security policy.

This raised an inevitable question about NATO: was it a necessary instrument to protect American security or a Cold War–era organization that had outlived its original purpose to contain Soviet expansionism? If the Europeans were so afraid of Russia, why were they spending so little on defense compared to the United States, and why were so few European nations prepared to meet NATO's stated defense spending goal of at least 2 percent of gdp? Since NATO was no longer relevant to the fundamental challenges candidate Trump saw to America, was it a sacred cow rather than a powerful vehicle to protect American interests? Was America quietly being taken for a ride by European allies while becoming increasingly enmeshed in European conflicts of little importance to the United States?

George Washington counseled against steps that would "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice." The fact that America has a commitment to defend NATO allies need not imply a parallel commitment to support their every venture. Europeans certainly feel no such obligation to America, as demonstrated by their lack of support for America's commitment to Israel, including at the United Nations. Trump appeared intuitively to see this asymmetry and to turn a skeptical ear toward virtuous language that obscured limited help for Washington and its priorities. He likewise seemed to dismiss assertions of superior values from governments building a supranational bureaucracy that constrains businesses and limits freedoms.

The problem with Trump's foreign policy rhetoric as a candidate and, at times, as president is that he poses good questions more often than he provides adequate answers. Trump has exposed himself to legitimate criticism because he often seems prepared to risk important relationships without clear gains. Mexico can be a troubling partner, but it is also an essential one. The combination of geography, extensive trade and millions of Americans of Mexican heritage requires approaching any revision of U.S.-Mexican relations with great finesse -- something in short supply in rhetoric that ranged from condescending (or worse) references to Mexican immigrants to unrealistic calls for an impenetrable Mexican-funded border wall. America's relations with its European allies are likewise important to U.S. security, as are partnerships with key governments in the Middle East. Simplistic rhetoric -- whether about Mexican immigration, Islamic terrorism or the flaws of our European allies -- can turn off millions of American voters. It is also highly divisive and, as a result, is an obstacle to Trump's effort to reform American foreign policy and to "Make America Great Again."

Trump's treatment of Russia has become a special problem that has handicapped the first part of his presidency. The president is not responsible for the habits of the foreign policy establishment and mainstream media in building up Russia as a threat while treating it like a helpless giant, a trend that began well before the 2016 presidential campaign. Nor is the president responsible for the numerous and demonstrable flaws in Russian foreign policy and domestic governance or the fact that Moscow tends to deny every accusation, whether over its military involvement in eastern Ukraine, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, attacks on government opponents at home and abroad, and most importantly, interference in U.S. and various European elections.

... ... ...

Fortunately, the administration's ill-defined foreign policy has thus far caused no irreparable damage. As leader of the world's only multidimensional superpower, Trump has shown that ignoring him carries considerable risks and potentially high costs. Practically every nation in the world remains interested in a constructive relationship with the United States. Conversely, nobody is eager to be America's enemy. As a result, with the right mix of hard and soft power coupled with skillful diplomacy, Trump can still achieve major successes.

... ... ...

Russia appears open to a negotiated end to the conflict in the Donbass region, which it is unprepared to annex and is weary of supporting financially. What Russia wants is a reliable formula to postpone Ukraine's NATO membership, something few alliance members support soon anyway, and to win a measure of autonomy for the separatist regions in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Moving forward, the Kremlin's early infatuation with Trump is definitely over. Notwithstanding Moscow's diminished expectations, Russian officials retain a healthy respect for his unpredictability and determination. And judging from their public complaints over slow U.S. follow through on Trump's proposal for a summit with Putin, they still appear eager to engage the Trump administration.

... ... ....

In his rhetoric, President Trump has clearly identified China as a top issue. This is less apparent in the administration's strategic planning. In practice, our relations with a rising China are both a paramount challenge to the United States and the most important factor in sustaining U.S. global leadership at an acceptable cost.

Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest.

[Jul 16, 2018] Excellent Russian Analysis of Upcoming Trump - Putin Helsinki Meeting from Russian TV's New York Correspondent

Jul 16, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Our correspondent Valentin Bogdanov is reporting from the USA.

Part of Americans which opposes Donald Trump is afraid to leave him face-to-face with Vladimir Putin. However, the American president himself shows confidence in Great Falls, VA while meeting with his supporters 1,5 weeks before the summit. The head of the White House is going to get along with the Russian leader despite ill tongues.

Donald Trump: "Now they're discussing the meeting with Putin. Like, Putin is ready for the meeting, but will Trump be ready for it? Trust me, it will be just fine. We'll do it. Fake news, bad people."

These bad people also got at American congressmen who had recently visited Russia. Headed by Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, they were almost labeled as Moscow's agent of influence.

John Brennan, CIA director (2013-2017 ): "This is alarming: first, it should have been a bipartisan delegation. It's unclear if the American media will go and will be allowed to attend the talk behind closed doors. Have we forgotten what the Russians did to the 2016 elections? Have we forgotten about the Crimea? Unfortunately, there is no John McCain, who would tell his Republican colleagues that that's not the right way to maintain the US national security."

People like Brennan dream that the upcoming bilateral meeting in Helsinki looked like last year's APEC summit in Danang, Vietnam, where Putin and Trump only met on their way to photographing. They shook hands and exchanged several phrases.

Frightened by his own environment, Trump did not dare to have a long conversation with the Russian president, although he had intended to hold a fruitful meeting. Now, the head of the White House got his own way. He wants to talk to the Russian president behind closed doors face-to-face, without aides.

John McLaughlin, CIA former Deputy Director : "As a former intelligence officer, I can say that President Trump is a recruiter's dream. He's completely transparent with his public statements and tweets. You can easily find out what he's not satisfied with, his desires, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Usually, one has to study a person deeply to learn such things, but he presents it all by himself. Of course, Putin is a seasoned intelligence officer."

As a venue, Finnish Helsingin Sanomat named the Presidential Palace. Built at the beginning of the XIX century, it used to be the residence of Russian emperors. It is in this that Trump's opponents see a bad token. Russia will allegedly play almost at home.

"Putin is going to be in high spirits after the exciting World Cup in Moscow He will enjoy a considerable advantage at the summit."

Malcolm Nance, MSNBC analyst: "Yes, he's going to play home, and it's his advantage. What is strange is that President Trump sent messages to our NATO allies, severely criticizing their contribution to the Alliance. He somehow adopted the Russian paradigm that NATO is a threat to Russia, that NATO is to be dissolved, that NATO members don't pay fees."

The US president will arrive in Helsinki from Brussels from the summit of the North Atlantic Alliance. Trump still succeeded to improve the discipline of NATO members. 26 out of 28 member states agreed to increase their contributions to the defense budget despite their resentment. But it is not enough for Trump. According to the US president, Europe continues to bite the hand that protects it, and Germany is the worst of all.

Donald Trump: "We're paying from 70 to 90% to protect Europe, and it's normal. Of course, they're outdoing us not only in trade, they made it impossible for us to have business in Europe. Then they come here to sell their Mercedes' and BMWs. The trade deficit with the EU is $151 billion. And they're killing us with NATO. We contribute 4% of the GDP, while Germany, the EU strongest country, pays only 1%."

It is now clear that the trade war, which Trump, in fact, declared to his allies, was only a curtain-raiser for an even larger battle. Having imposed this week 25% tariffs on imports from China worth $34 billion, the head of the White House opened a new front of the world trade battle. In such an old-fashioned way, the US administration is trying to bridge the $ 500-billion gap in the trade balance with China.

It is old-fashioned as the response of Beijing was predictable, that is, tit-for-tat and immediate. The rules of trade that Trump rewrites by virtue of power, as well as his desire to meet with Putin face-to-face, may only surprise those who missed the American president's election agenda.

Even if he hasn't made America great again, with only 47% of the US population being proud of being Americans, Trump increases his chances to remain in power.

He hasn't ridden so high since the beginning of his presidency.

[Jul 16, 2018] The Racial Realignment of American Politics by Patrick McDermott

He completely misses the role of nationalism is the opposition to neoliberalism.
Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

The idea that demography is political destiny is not new. Peter Brimelow and Edwin Rubenstein warned of its dangers in the pages of National Review in the 1990s. Steve Sailer later argued that Republicans would fare better by targeting white voters. The problem with these observations was not their accuracy, but their audience. The GOP establishment and donor elites had little interest in such thinking until Donald Trump's breakthrough in 2016. But what happens when Trump leaves office? Will the GOP return to its old ways, as Trump's former chief of staff Reince Priebus has predicted ? The answer is almost certainly no. The reasons have little to do with the GOP elite, however, whose views have not substantially changed. They instead have everything to do with what is happening in the other party. As Brimelow and Rubenstein recently pointed out in VDARE (and as I did at American Renaissance ), while the nation is not expected to reach majority-minority status until 2045 , the Democratic Party is already approaching that historic milestone. The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible. The developments that are unfolding before our eyes are not a fluke, but the beginning of a new political realignment in the United States that is increasingly focused on race. The Emerging Majority-Minority Party While warnings of brewing demographic trouble were being ignored by the establishment right, they received a better reception on the left. In 2004, Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority that triumphantly predicted that demographic change would soon produce a "new progressive era." The theory's predictive powers waxed and waned over the years, but after Trump's 2016 election Teixeira and another coauthor, Peter Leyden, insisted that Democrats would soon sweep away an increasingly irrelevant GOP and forcibly impose their will, much as had already happened in California. These arguments have a glaring weakness, however. They assumed that Democrats would continue to draw the same level of support from white voters. Instead, many have been fleeing to the GOP. Throughout the 20 th Century, Democrats had won the presidency only by winning or keeping it close among these voters. Barack Obama was the first to break this pattern, defeating John McCain in 2008 while losing the white vote by 12 percent . Four years later he beat Mitt Romney while losing it by 20 percent . Hillary Clinton lost the white vote in 2016 by a similar 20-point margin . This loss of white support, coupled with the continued demographic change of the country, has helped push the Democratic Party toward majority-minority status. Since 1992, the white share of the Democratic presidential vote has dropped an average of about one percent per year. At its current rate, it could tip to majority-minority status by 2020. It will occur no later than 2024. The political consequences of this shift are already apparent. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination with the overwhelming backing of black voters. Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in 2016 with similar black and Latino support . This year's state elections have continued the trend, with minority candidates winning Democratic gubernatorial nominations in Georgia , Texas , New Mexico , and Maryland , with another likely win in Arizona later this year. This sudden surge in minority candidates is not an indicator of increased open mindedness, but of demographic change. While the national Democratic Party is only just approaching majority-minority status, in much of the nation it is already there.

Nonwhite Polarization

While the demographic trend of the Democratic Party seems clear enough – as does its leftward drift and increased embrace of minority candidates – it is still possible to argue that the nation's politics will not divide along racial lines. The most obvious alternative is that both parties will compete for minority votes and both will experience demographic change in an increasingly multiracial nation. Could this happen? Black voters seem least likely to change. They already routinely provide Democrats with 90 percent of their votes. They are the backbone of the party, with a former president, nearly 50 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and numerous mayors in major American cities among their ranks. Given the Democratic Party's steadfast commitment to black issues such as affirmative action and Black Lives Matter, few are likely to be won over by the occasional attempts at Republican outreach . Latinos also typically support Democrats in presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin, but they have been a more serious target for Republicans, including President George W. Bush , his acolyte Karl Rove , authors of the GOP autopsy released after Mitt Romney's 2012 loss, and occasional writers in National Review . Some have observed that many Latinos value whiteness and are more likely to self-identify as white the longer they have been in the country. In fact, some Latinos are white , particularly those from Latin America's leadership class . Others have reported on substantial hostility that exists between Latinos and blacks that may make them more likely to see whites as natural allies. There are several problems with these arguments. The most important are persistent race-based IQ differences that will keep most mestizos (who are the bulk of Latino immigrants) trapped at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum regardless of their racial identification. Arguments that they will assimilate like their European predecessors fail to explain why racial hierarchies have persisted in their home nations for hundreds of years. These inequalities probably explain the high levels of Hispanic support for government programs that are likely to keep most of them tied to the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. Although Asians also support Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin, they seem potentially more promising . Unlike America's black and Latino populations, East Asians (such as Japanese and Chinese) have IQs that may be slightly higher than that of white Americans on average. Moreover, affirmative action policies backed by Democrats typically work to their detriment . However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower . Finally, no matter what their nationality, Asians are generally unsympathetic to whites who want to restrict nonwhite immigration. Unsurprisingly, all of these reasons have contributed to Asians moving away from the Republican Party, not toward it. Some argue that Republicans have no choice but to accept demographic change and move left to gain minority support. The GOP may well move left in ways that are acceptable to its white working class base and help it with white moderates – such as protecting Social Security and Medicare. But it will never win a bidding war with Democrats for their base of minority voters, nor would the GOP base let it try.

White Polarization

White polarization is the mirror image of nonwhite polarization and its causes are similar. Numerous scholars have cited genetics as a basis for reciprocal altruism among closely-related kin and hostility toward outsiders among humans and in the animal kingdom in general. This ethnocentrism is instinctual, present among babies , and whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface. Academics sometimes argue that positive direct contact is a promising strategy for overcoming racial differences, but research has shown that the negative effects are more powerful – something a cursory glance at crime statistics would confirm. Rampant white flight and segregation in neighborhoods , schools , and personal relationships provide the most definitive evidence on the negative influence of direct contact. Its impact on voting is also well established, particularly for whites and blacks. The shift of white Southerners away from the Democratic Party after civil rights legislation was enacted in the 1960s was almost immediate and has remained strong ever since. White flight produced similar political advantages for Republicans in suburbs across the country during this period. Their advantage has softened since then, but primarily because the suburbs have become less white , not less segregated . White voting is similarly affected by proximity to Hispanics. White flight and segregation are a constant in heavily Latino areas in both liberal and conservative states. The resulting political backlash in places like California and Arizona has been well-documented and confirmed by academic research . Support for President Trump has also been shown to be highly correlated with white identity and opposition to immigration. These trends are expected to become stronger over time. Experimental research has shown that growing white awareness of demographic change makes them more conservative , less favorably disposed to minorities, and feel greater attachment to other whites. The effects are heightened the more whites think they are threatened . The associated ideological effects are just as important. The influence of ideology is obvious in socially conservative states like North Dakota and Kansas . However, the Democrats' growing leftward tilt has become an issue even in liberal states like those in New England, many of which now regularly elect Republicans as governors . In fact, liberal Massachusetts has had just one Democratic governor in the past quarter century. The power of leftist ideology to drive whites together may reach its zenith if Democrats resume their attack on segregation in neighborhoods and schools. De facto segregation has protected white liberals from the consequences of their voting decisions for years. If Democrats are returned to power, however, they appear ready to touch this electoral third rail .

International Lessons

Further evidence of racial polarization can be found by looking abroad. Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations – everywhere and throughout history . More recently, 64 percent of all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines . Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic polarization . Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide. Race-based identity politics are just a lower form of ethnic conflict. Like ethnic conflict more generally, the strength of such politics depends on the level of ethnic diversity and corresponding racial polarization. In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role . Politics and parties that are explicitly ethnically-based usually do not appear until much later, when a nation has become more diverse and has begun to suffer extreme racial polarization. Such politics have been shown to produce substantial ethnic favoritism . Their appearance is often a prelude to civil war or partition . The United States has not reached this stage, but its future can be seen in other nations that are further down the road. One example is Brazil. While the United States will not become majority-minority until 2045, Brazil reached that milestone in 2010 . For much of the 20 th Century, Brazil viewed itself as a harmonious racial democracy and a model for the rest of the world, but this image has been tarnished in recent years. The nation's changing demographics demonstrated their power with the election of Lula da Silva in 2002 and his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff, in 2010. Support for these two presidents – both members of the leftist Workers Party – was concentrated in the largely black northern half of the country, while opposition was concentrated in the mostly white south . Their victories depended on the nation's changing demographics. Once elected, they rewarded their black supporters with substantial expansions of affirmative action and a new cash transfer system, called Bolsa Família, which disproportionately benefitted Afro-Brazilians. Since then, Brazil's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse . Rousseff was impeached after a massive corruption scandal in 2016. Crime has exploded . Black activists now deride the notion of " racial democracy " and have become more militant on racial issues. An explicitly black political party has also appeared. This has corresponded with a similar backlash in the white population. The leading candidate for the presidential election this year is Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes referred to as the Trump of the Tropics . A white separatist movement called the South is My Country is drawing substantial support. Brazilians are reportedly losing faith in democracy and becoming more receptive to military rule .

Changing Our Destiny

The preponderance of the evidence – domestic, international, historical, and scientific – suggests that American politics will continue to polarize along racial and ethnic lines. At least in the short term, Republicans will benefit as white voters flee from the other party. But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?

Various elements of the GOP establishment , including the business elite and pro-immigration donors like the Koch brothers , continue to hold substantial power within the party. Reince Priebus probably echoed their views when he said , "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and a traditional platform."

Such status quo thinking ignores too much. There are numerous signs that the party is changing. Trump's popularity within his own party is the second highest among all presidents since World War II, trailing only George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Congressional Never Trumpers like Bob Corker , Jeff Flake , and Mark Sanford have been defeated or stepped aside. Prominent columnists , analysts , and at least one former GOP leader are now declaring it Trump's party.

These changes are not solely about Trump, however. There were signs of change before his arrival. Eric Cantor's primary defeat in 2014 was widely attributed to softness on immigration, which met furious grassroots opposition . Moreover, if Trump's rise were merely a one-off event, we would not be seeing the simultaneous rise of nationalist movements in Europe, which is facing its own immigration crisis .

The more likely answer is that these changes reflect something more powerful than any individual, even the president of the United States. The same survival instinct that is present in all living creatures still burns brightly within the world's European peoples. Trump was not the cause, but a consequence – and we will not go gently into the night.

Patrick McDermott ( email him ) is a political analyst in Washington, DC.

Dale , June 30, 2018 at 4:15 am GMT

If the author was famous, he would be attacked relentlessly.

Cogent analysis of the current GOP.

The centralized state model is falling apart.

Jim Christian , June 30, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT

This ethnocentrism is instinctual, observable even among babies. Whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface.

Even the most vile race-virtuosos' ethnocentric instincts boil to the surface in the flight to "good schools" for their children. The "Good schools" rationale works for them. Gets them away from the city, away from those awful Blacks. It was always diversity for thee. The closest most liberals get to diversity is the Hispanic housekeeper. Because the Blacks, you know, they steal the liquor/silver/Waterford". Heard variations of this a million times..

mark green , June 30, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
Brilliant synthesis. Excellent article. Patrick McDermott hits it out of the ballpark, noting correctly that ethnocentrism is "instinctual". So true. So obvious. And this suppressed truth is just the tip of the iceberg. America lives under 'intellectual occupation'.

But the hardening scientific facts involving race, kinship, and phenotype are testament to the hollowness of 'anti-racist' rhetoric and ideologies that dominate so much of the American landscape.

These liberal creeds pretend to repudiate (all) 'racism' and bigotry, but in political fact, they strategically target only white Americans. This makes these lofty 'values' not only disingenuous but unfair and destructive.

Highfalutin (but bogus) liberalism has come to play a diabolical role. It undermines white cohesion and white solidarity. Meanwhile, from high above, irreversible demographic changes are being orchestrated.

MacDermott correctly observes that the West's unsought ethno-racial transformation is what's behind the reinvigoration of white identity in Europe and America. This at least is good news.

Says MacDermott:

"Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations -- everywhere and throughout history. More recently, 64 percent of all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic polarization. Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide."

Very true. Very important. And while MacDermott avoids mentioning a more obvious example, the most persistent expression of this phenomena can be seen in Israel/Palestine, where allegedly 'Semitic' Jews are doing whatever it takes to keep their lesser (Semitic) cousins at arms length–in this case, in the caged ghettos of Gaza and the West Bank.

Undue and uncompromising Jewish influence in Zio-America is allowing this race-born outrage to continue. Sadly, Israeli savagery routinely receives Zio-Washington's unconditional blessing, trillion-dollar subsidy, and unflinching diplomatic cover.

But besides the disputed territory and Israel's untouchable political power, what nourishes the endless Israel/Palestine impasse?

Jewish 'exceptionalism' is one key motivator.

The Chosen people are convinced that they are born vastly superior to their Semitic cousins.

Thus, strict segregation is required for the assurance of 'Jewish (genetic) continuity'. This objective however requires steadfast cruelty since the natives are still restless and rebelling.

Supremacism means never having to say you're sorry. This is especially true since, ironically, peace between Jews and Arabs could potentially lead to increased Jewish 'outmarriage' in Israel and consequently, the gradual reduction in Israeli (Jewish) IQ and Jewish 'exceptionalism' (supremacy).

Over time, potential genetic intermingling would very possibly undermine Jewish magnificence and therefore, Jewish cohesion. This could then translate into a loss of Jewish solidarity and 'community'. It's possible.

This downturn could subsequently affect Jewish wealth and power, and that is certainly not an outcome that the Jewish community desires.

Leaders of the global Jewish community are smart enough to envision this scenario and to prevent it from happening. They use The Holocaust (and it's potential re-0currance) as an all-purpose excuse. But it's phony. Self-segregation is a sacred, ancient Jewish value. Thus the glamorization of interracial romance is directed only at the goyim, as is the message of Open Borders. Just turn on your TV. It's there constantly.

These 'liberal, democratic' messages however are never advocated in Israel, nor are they directed at young Jews via Israeli TV, news, entertainment or education.

You will never see glamorous depictions of Jewish/Arab miscegenation on Israeli television, even though black/white 'family formation' on Jewish-owned mass media in America is ubiquitous.

Hostile US elites (Jews) apparently want non-Jewish whites to become mixed, brown. This racial objective however is anathema to Jewish values. It's strictly for the goyim.

Meanwhile, whites in America are not permitted to think or hold values like Israeli Jews, or to even express similar preferences inside the civilization that they and their forefathers created. This speaks volumes about the lack of freedom in America. Yes, we live under intellectual occupation.

For many Israeli Jews (the dominant thinking goes) strict segregation–if not active warfare–is the only sure way to maintain 'hafrada' (separation) for Jews in Israel since they are surrounded by tens of millions of similar-looking but 'unexceptional' Arabs.

Unlike America, walls (and segregation) remain sacred in Israel. But not here.

It's racist!

Iberiano , June 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm GMT
In fact, some Latinos are white, particularly those from Latin America's leadership class

I think the reality is, Latinos/Hispanics simply form lines like any group would do. I am white, all my fellow Hispanic friends are white, and we consider ourselves essentially an ethnicity within Whiteness, just like Italians, or high-caste French Creoles, White Persians, Lebanese or Jordanians.

The easiest way to tell if an "ethnic" is conservative or republican (outside of obvious virtue signalers), is to ask yourself, " Is this person white ?". Other than famous actors and political types that have the luxury being "liberal" (e.g. Salma Hayek) every day Hispanics, Persians and Arabs that are white, act, do and think, like every day White Anglo-Saxons, Germanics and Nordics–for the most part (obviously IQ plays a part). Don't get me wrong, there is a difference in IQ and mindset in the particulars between a Norman and a (white-ish) Sicilian, some IQ, some cultural, but if and when a civil war comes–no one will have ANY problem knowing where they and others stand and belong.

SunBakedSuburb , June 30, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
Reince Priebus: "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and traditional platform."

And that would be U.S. hegemony and market fundamentalism? Unlikely and unattractive. U.S. military dominance starves our society and enriches the national security state and the rogue regimes in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Market fundamentalism does not take into account human frailty, and would produce widespread desperation.

What can be gleaned from Mr. McDermott's instructive article is that, like it or not, identity needs to be included in the political lexicon of working class and middle class whites. Elite whites continue to cede power to blacks and browns in politics and business as the slide into Idiocracy accelerates. This is an opportunity for disaffected whites from the Democratic Party and Republican Trump supporters to form a coalition.

densa , June 30, 2018 at 7:00 pm GMT

The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible.

When Ted Kennedy was pushing the 1965 opening of our borders to atone for racism, he made repeated assurances that we would not end up where we ended up. He said the level of immigration would remain the same, the ethnic mix would not inundate America with immigrants from any particular place or nation, that the ethnic pattern of America would not be changed, and that we wouldn't have something crazy like a million immigrants a year, certainly not poor ones who would place a burden on citizens.

When Reagan's amnesty happened, again promises where made that we could and would keep our country. Now, it looks like Brazil is our future.

Elections are already being decided by racial votes of minorities, which aren't considered racist by that half of America that eagerly anticipates our demise. What a rude surprise they are in for when they discover they are still white and will be honorary deplorables once they no longer have political power.

But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?

Ha, Derbyshire doesn't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.

Fidelios Automata , June 30, 2018 at 7:37 pm GMT
Regarding my home state of Arizona, that 66% figure is an interesting anomaly. Except for my fellow writers, most of the white folks I know are pretty conservative. Many secretly supported Trump or voted Libertarian in protest of the lousy mainstream choices. Perhaps this is a reflection of white flight from California.
obwandiyag , June 30, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
You dense "scientific" racists can't see the forest for the trees, as is always the case. The importance of this election has nothing to do with demographics. But you wouldn't know that because all you want to do is scream raceracerace all de liblong day.

No. The importance of this race is that Ocasio-Cortez is "a strikingly perfect candidate, both in policy positions and refusal to take corporate money. She fits the identity politics profile without once using identity politics virtue-signaling to cover for lousy policies. This is shattering to the Clintonista crowd, who are spinning like tops."

Grow up.

WorkingClass , June 30, 2018 at 10:46 pm GMT
Post Imperial America will balkanize. There is plenty of room for four or more new republics. At least one of them will be white.
Seamus Padraig , June 30, 2018 at 10:59 pm GMT
@Jim Christian

Exactly. Whenever liberals ask 'How are the schools?', what they really mean is, 'How black are the schools?' Their hypocrisy is nauseating.

Seamus Padraig , June 30, 2018 at 11:01 pm GMT

However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower.

Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers? Those aren't typically low-IQ professions. Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain? Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?

In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role.

Yup. That's probably why the Democratic Party traded class war for race war.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 12:44 am GMT

Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers?

The advance guard in the US was the professional elite. Not so in the UK. Subcontinentals are much closer, or even below, average there. Even here, motel owners may outnumber doctors, scientists, and computer programmers combined.

Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain?

Yes.

And it's worse in Canada.

Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?

There are a billion more people in India than in the US. Do the arithmetic.

George , July 1, 2018 at 2:57 am GMT
Extremely low turnout led to Ocasio-Cortez Victory.

On Magical Thinking VS Sober Analysis of the Ocasio-Cortez Victory in NY

https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny

obwandiyag , July 1, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
OK. I'll make it simple for you because your understanding doesn't extend beyond simple.

Ocasio-Cortez is a very good candidate, and, unless she is co-opted–which, 99 out of a 100 (notice my use of "statistics," I mean damned lies, you statistics-worshipers) is the chance she will be–she is a hundred times better than Crowley the Clintonite hack. Racists are really stupid. They vote against their own interests, just like all "conservatives."

blank-misgivings , July 1, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
The author throws around 'left' and 'right' as if they transparently applied in the case of ethnic politics. I would argue that it has been the economic 'right' that has relentlessly pursued diversity of populations – quite arguably for millennia, and certainly in the last 50 years. Some sane economic leftists realize this, although they are an endangered and shrinking group.

However if it is the right that is the main mover in favor of diversity (empire preferred to nation state for the easier control of labor), I'm not sure what solutions there are. Whites voting for the Republican Party is not a long time viable solution since the owners of that party have fundamentally different interests than the white working class (as leftists have correctly pointed out over and over).

Brabantian , Website July 1, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
Quite a superbly-sourced and compellingly-argued article here from Patrick McDermott, extraordinarily well-done even by Unz standards

This article gives a very important snapshot of the USA political scene as a whole, one of the best I've read in some time

Thanks both to Mr McDermott and to Ron Unz for posting this, look forward to more from this author

jeppo , July 1, 2018 at 1:14 pm GMT
Ocasio's victory is a nightmare for the Democrats. The Leftist media is touting her as the future of the party, but her platform makes Obama look like a rightwing extremist.

- Federal Jobs Guarantee
- Medicare for All
- Tuition-free public college
- Reduce prisons by 50%
- Defund ICE

But the real poison pill is her unwavering support for the Palestinians. I'm not making a value judgment on this or any other of her policies, but if the GOP can tag the next Democratic presidential candidate with Ocasio's worldview, then expect a Trumpslide in 2020.

What do the (((brains))) and (((primary funders))) behind the Democratic party think of this rising star? Here are some choice quotes from NY Jewish Week:

To some, the stunning victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an outspoken critic of Israel, over 10-term Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-Queens-Bronx), an Israel supporter, in Tuesday's Democratic primary is seen as another nail in the coffin of Democratic support for the Jewish state.

"If she maintains her anti-Israel stance, she will be a one-term wonder," predicted George Arzt, a New York political operative. "I don't think you can have someone with those views in New York City. If she moderates, she could win again. If she doesn't, there will be massive opposition to her -- maybe even a cross-over candidate from the Latino community with pro-Israel views."

Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he sees Ocasio-Cortez's overwhelming victory -- she won with 57.5 percent of the vote -- as "another step in the ongoing divorce proceedings between the pro-Israel community and the Democratic Party."

Jeff Wiesenfeld, a former aide to both Republican and Democratic elected officials, said he read Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter and Facebook postings and said she has voiced opinions that are "downright hostile to Israel."

After 60 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military in May while attempting to breach the fence along the Israel-Gaza border, Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter: "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protestors. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore."

"We have never stepped into a situation in New York City in which a member of Congress starts out hostile to us," he added. "This is a new frontier."

"While Jewish Democrats support much of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's domestic policy agenda, we disagree with her past statement regarding Israel, as well as her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel," it added. "In the coming days and months, we hope to learn more about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's views, but at the moment, her position on Israel is not in line with our values."

http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/ocasio-cortezs-israel-views-seen-as-troubling/

What will Jewish Democrats do if the Ocasio/DSA platform becomes mainstream in the Democratic party? Join up with the anti-Trump neocons and vote for a third party? While the Republicans can win nationwide elections without Jewish money and votes, there's no evidence that the Democrats can, at least not yet.

Another factor in Ocasio's surprise victory, as so delicately pointed out by the noted political analyst Andrew Anglin, is that:

"Furthermore, people want to f*ck her."

No shit. Her good looks and likeable personality mean that she's likely in the media spotlight to stay, no matter how much the MSM (((gatekeepers))) might want to shield the general public from her, ahem, "problematic" views.

As an aside, I believe her nationwide appeal is enhanced by her complete lack of the godawful, ear-grating Nuyorican accent so commonplace among her co-ethnics. In fact she speaks with a general American accent with barely even a hint of New Yorkese. I don't know if this is part of a generalized homogenization of regional accents throughout the country, or if she affects this dialect for personal and/or political reasons. Either way, it only adds to her appeal.

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, then Donald Trump will start looking more and more like the moderate adult in the room compared to the infantile, gibsmedat, tantrum-throwers on the far left. Which is terrible news for the Clintonite, corporate bloodsucker wing of the Dems, but fantastic news for the rest of us.

Gordo , July 1, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
@mark green

You are correct.

obwandiyag , July 1, 2018 at 4:57 pm GMT
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them. You have no understanding whatsoever about the mood of the current polity.
jeppo , July 1, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT
@obwandiyag

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.

So what you're saying is that if there's one thing Trump supporters secretly want more than anything else, it's to abolish ICE. Yeah, no.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
@blank-misgivings

Leftism is concerned with power, period.

Economics is just a tool to that end. When identity looked to be more productive, they pivoted quite gracefully.

Welfare bureaucrats derive their power from the poor, not the working, and there are many more poor abroad than at home. Creating a welfare state thus creates a giant constituency for importing more poor, and poorer.

One of the credos of realism has been "There are no angels, so set the devils against one another." As pie-in-the-sky as economists can be, they're closer to the truth on this one than the pro-regulation forces, who assume, by definition, that the regulators will be angels.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@jeppo

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.

So what you're saying is that if there's one thing Trump supporters secretly want more than anything else, it's to abolish ICE. Yeah, no.

This might be true in the Bronx, but what about the other 3,030 or so counties in the US?

llloyd , Website July 2, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
Americans, at least Unz reviewers, lump all Hispanic speakers into one category. Does Cortez even speak Spanish, except for her ethnic purposes? More important, a Puerto Rican origin is both Creole and Roman Catholic. That puts them in a category all their own. She has no love for Israel because her background did not come under the influence of the Christian Zionist Churches. Her black origins make her atavistically side with the Palestinians.
obwandiyag , July 2, 2018 at 4:08 am GMT
You have no clue about "Trump supporters." For your information, they will vote for anyone who shakes things up. Their second choice after Trump was Sanders. These are facts. Read 'em and weep.
Mishra , July 2, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@obwandiyag

The Establishment wants to pretend that these voters don't exist. Even though they tipped the election. Along with most people (even here) they want to keep everything in neat boxes labelled Right vs Left, Rep vs Dem, etc etc. Spares them the 'vexation of thinking'.

Mishra , July 2, 2018 at 4:49 am GMT

The Democratic Party IS Tipping!

Replace "The Democratic Party" with "America" and replace "IS Tipping!" with "HAS TIPPED" and you'll be much nearer the truth.

Ron Unz , July 2, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
Actually, I have a quite contrary view of the political implications of these shifts in racial demographics. For those interested, here's a link to a long article I published a few years ago on this same exact topic:

http://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/

[Jul 16, 2018] I kept waiting for the day RussiaGate most perople reslize that ot was a neocon farce

Money quote: "This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs [scam]" And people fell for it."
The cat fight between two factions of the US elite would be funny, if it was not so dangerous.
Notable quotes:
"... The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering? ..."
"... We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on. ..."
"... You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. ..."
"... Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from Brennan. ..."
"... While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions. Trump doesn't push back. ..."
"... Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something ..."
"... @lizzyh7 ..."
"... What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen and shattered on Washington steps. ..."
"... Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States. ..."
"... What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first Mueller indicted. ..."
"... The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means. ..."
"... Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | caucus99percent.com
all with no evidence

The FBI never examined the DNC server. And even if they had, we learned from the vault 7 wikileaks that the CIA can leave evidence of any country they choose when they hack into a system. I can't believe my normally rational friends can be so brainwashed as to buy into the whole Russiagate narrative. T-rump has caused them to lose their ability to think.

Risen has a piece up on the intercept that convinces me he's a CIA mouthpiece...
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/13/indictment-of-russian-intelligence-o...

Aaron Mate continues his rounds with Russiagate cheerleader Michael Isikoff (video or text)
https://therealnews.com/stories/has-mueller-caught-the-hackers

The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering?

We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on.

Jimmy accuse people of thinking with their lizard brains...I fear he is right.

snoopydawg on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 1:05pm Well done!
You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. As to what Russia is accused of doing Obama, Brennan and others have stated that no votes were changed from Hillary to Trump no were any voting machines hacked. Funny thing about that though. 3 states have said that they did see signs of some entity trying to hack into their state's voting data bases but it came from the DHS. Not a foreign country.

Could it be that Mueller is acknowledging something important here without stating it? There is no real victim in "Russiagate." So, where is the crime? Was anyone harmed? No. Was a U.S. Navy battleship resting at anchor blown up? No, again. Not a scratch to anything except the reputations of those who were shown to have rigged the Democratic primaries so that the DNC Chair's favored candidate won.

Putin said that he would welcome the US investigation into those 12 military officers if the US would send someone to interview them in Russia since the two countries have a treaty to do just that. Will anyone take him up on that offer? Anyone? Bueller?

After Trump's meeting with Putin neocons are doubling down and accusing Trump of doing all kinds of shady things.

Mueller indictments strengthen case that Trump's win was stolen. What's new? a) Strong possibility Russians monkeyed w/ voter rolls, affecting the 11/8/16 outcome and b) Trump's fall strategy may have been driven by stolen Democratic analytics. My column: https://t.co/io2B8Nhjs7

-- Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) July 15, 2018

Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from Brennan.

Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

-- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 16, 2018

A few other tweets from the joint press conference.

I'm pretty sure that no one will ask Putin a follow up question about what he meant by this.

While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions. Trump doesn't push back. pic.twitter.com/dDt2TTV24E

-- Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 16, 2018

Debunked? I don't see that this was debunked. In fact I don't remember anyone ever talking about the content of the emails that showed that the primary was rigged.

Asked if he believes US intel agencies or Putin about Russia's interference in the 2016 election, Trump immediately starts pushing debunked DNC & Hillary conspiracy theories.

"I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump says, affirming he believes Putin's denials. pic.twitter.com/uciAoRxbxA

-- Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 16, 2018

????

PUTIN doesn't deny having blackmail material on Trump

"When Trump was in Moscow back then, I didn't even know that he was there. I treat him with utmost respect, but back then when he was private person, a businessman, nobody informed me"

Trump ends presser by bashing the FBI pic.twitter.com/Zc2hXRd0BS

-- Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 16, 2018

One more idiot heard from.

Worth stating this as clearly as possible:

What we saw *today* was collusion. Trump's refusal to treat Russian sabotage of our democracy as the crime that it is encourages Putin to keep it up. https://t.co/9OTDPQUmpW pic.twitter.com/efyNriYSwy

-- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) July 16, 2018

Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something ....

snoopydawg on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 5:53pm
Ditto, lizzy

@lizzyh7

I kept waiting for the day Russia Gate exploded and became known for the farce it is. I really wanted to see Rachel's reaction and see how she would explain to her viewers that she had just made everything up. But now I'm don't think that is going to happen. The PTB have invested to much into it and they won't let their agendas be derailed. This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs." And people fell for it.

leveymg on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 1:45pm
Convergence theory

What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen and shattered on Washington steps.

Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States.

What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first Mueller indicted.

The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means.

k9disc on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 2:09pm
American Perestroika. Our Oligarchs Will Hollow US Out the Same way

Any move Left and the Oligarchs will light the match and start the firesale. We're zombie consumers at this point in time anyway.

k9disc on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 2:30pm
I Smell a Coup Coming. And If That Happens, We're All Going to

see Martial Law. With a capital M and capital L.

Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts.

I could see Civil War in weeks. Completely terrifying.

Alligator Ed on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 3:42pm
On point with your comment is how Pompeo gamed HRC

@detroitmechworks He ostensibly went to seek advice on how to do his confirmation hearing for SOS. What actually happened is the Medusa told him who to retain and what policies to pursue. Pompeo had no intention of adopting her policies (except Neocon points) but he got valuable clues as to Clinton allies in the DOS. He then began purging them. Stupid HRC! But I hope she runs in 2020.

[Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case. ..."
"... we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them. ..."
"... Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail. ..."
"... William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

07/16/2018

Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday's joint press conference with President Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million )should be $400K) in illegally earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British financier Bill Browder - at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said "accompanied and guided these transactions."

Browder made billions in Russia during the 90's. In December, a Moscow court sentenced Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder's associates of illegally earning over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton. After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller's team to come to Russia for their investigation - as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to investigate in the U.S., Putin said this:

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case.

It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was illegal. So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them.

From a report we noted in February by Philip Giraldi of The Strategic Culture Foundation :

Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert Parry both think that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder, a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities trading.

Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional "expert testimony" contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British citizen.

Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.

Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail.

Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.

William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico.

Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly ran away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath.

Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen operating in what was a wild west business environment.

My question is, "Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the vitally important US-Russia relationship?" The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir reports that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major force behind the Magnitsky Act.

[Jul 16, 2018] When Did Russia Become an Adversary by Gary Leupp

Notable quotes:
"... decisive point. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

July 16, 2018
"Russia is an adversary." How many times have we heard this lately? Perhaps in some schoolmarmish reminder from a CNN, MSNBC or Fox anchor. Everybody's just supposed to know this. But when did it become received wisdom?

How many times did we hear that Russia was an adversary in the 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin ruled over the Russian Federation, presiding over a bleak decade of economic downward spiral, banning the Communist Party (1991-93), bombarding the Duma building in 1993 during a constitutional crisis, colluding with the U.S. to fix the 1996 Russian presidential election, tolerating repeated U.S./NATO interventions in former Russian ally Yugoslavia from 1994 to 1999, welcoming Harvard Business School advisors to Moscow to reform the Russian economy?

(Oops, I must remind myself that my current university students were for the most part born in the late 90s. So they might not remember hearing much about Russia at all.)

Actually we didn't as I recall hear anything at all about enmity with Russia.

Russia had gone from being the hulking Eurasian brown bear of the Cold War era to the cuddly teddy bear of a drunken buffoon, Boris Yeltsin. Russia was not an enemy but a pathetic foil, the other superpower experiencing abject defeat as the U.S. asserted "full-spectrum dominance" during the "American Century" of the 2000s, an object of amusement by those crowing over the U.S.'s (imagined) victory in the Cold War.

Russia was not an adversary when, following the 9/11 attacks, Yeltsin's successor Vladimir Putin offered NATO a transport route through Russia to supply the alliance in its Afghan War. I don't recall hearing any official announcement to the effect that Russia had been judged an adversary at that point -- by anyone I respect, anyway.

Was it in June 1999 when the Russian Army moved to secure Pristina Airport in Kosovo, at the end of NATO's aggressive campaign in the Serbian province? This incident strikes me not as a provocation but as a measured move and pointed statement to NATO (the anti-Soviet military alliance that refuses to fold as the Warsaw Pact did in 1990, and which has increasingly become a tool of U.S. imperialism) that Russia too retains historical interests in the Balkans.

The fact that Russia opposed the cruelly absurd Rambouillet ultimatum followed by the NATO war on Serbia did not make Russia my enemy; I absolutely agreed that the war was wrong. My adversary was Madeleine Albright, who wanted war in Kosovo and delighted in the result (an independent country of Kosovo, a failed state wrenched illegally from Serbia, a drugs hub and ceter of human trafficking scheduled for NATO admission).

Did Russia become an adversary in 2008, when (after the U.S. had recognized Kosovo's independence, as a thing needing no justification because it was as Condi Rice put it "sui generis") Russia went ahead and recognized two separatist republics in what had been the Georgian SSR, South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Did it become such when Russia briefly invaded Georgia, where a poathetic U.S. puppet (Mikhail Saakashvili) brought to power during the "color revolution" (Rose Revolution) of 2003 emboldened by a promise of foture NATO membership provoked Russian forces stationed in South Ossetia?

Recall how at the time Sen. John McCain said, "We are all Georgians now" and called for military aid to Georgia. (McCain's always been clear on who the enemy was, and while you might suppose that his extreme militarist views would have wholly discredited him, he is every news anchor's ideal, the ultimate U.S. patriot and war hero.) But the Bush administration declined to provoke Russia; had not Bush seen into Putin's soul, the soul of a man deeply concerned about the interests of his country?

Enter the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state intent on arranging a "reset" of the bilateral relationship. But the expansion of NATO to include Albania and Croatia was not helpful. Nor was the campaign, waged by the "National Foundation for Democracy" and other foreign NGOs in Ukraine, to topple the elected president Viktor Yanukovych (an opponent of Ukraine's NATO entry) and replace him with one that would join the anti-Russian alliance.

In February 2014 a coup plainly conceptualized in Washington, amply documented by intercepted calls between Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, succeeded in toppling Yanukovych, who fled to Russia. Ethnic Russians who dominate in the eastern Donbas region predictably rebelled against the fascist-tinged new Kiev government. Russia predictably annexed (re-annexed) Crimea to insure its continued control over its bases.

Look at the map. Look at how big Russia is. Look at where it has naval bases. Russia is not like the U.S. with coasts dotted with naval bases. It has some on the Baltic Sea, one in Vladivostok on the Pacific, Murmansk on the Barents Sea in the far north. The Black Sea Fleet present in Crimea from the 1770s is important to what any objective professor of international relations would call "Russian national security." Of course the Russians were angry and concerned.

That I think was the decisive point. Yes, February 2014. The relentless drive of the U.S. to complete the expansion of NATO, to integrate the largest nation on the European continent, which some neocons call "the crown jewel" into the alliance, using in this case the cause of "the Ukrainian people's European aspirations" failed . It invited an immediate, decisive Russian response. An investment of $ 5 billion and preposterous interventions such as the visits of Nuland, John McCain and Lindsey Graham to the Maidan Square in Kiev had produced a new government of dubious legitimacy as well as a frozen conflict.

Russia became an "adversary" because it refused to accept massive U.S. intervention in the politics of a neighboring country more closely integrated into Russian history and civilization that Mexico is integrated into the U.S. in such respects. It's an adversary because it opposes NATO, which is to say, it resists its own military encirclement. As any U.S. leadership would under similar circumstances. (Imagine an existing Russia-centered military pact including most of Central America, Cuba and Venzuela moving to include Mexico. The "Monroe Doctrine" forbids colonization and the establishment of military bases by Old World powers in the New World. But the U.S. expects Russia to accept NATO bases on its very borders. And no TV journalist bothers to raise this, or think historically, critically, comparatively.)

But don't expect cable commentators to dwell on NATO. No, Putin is hostile to the west because he hates liberal democracy, the value of the free ballot, human rights. He just wants to divide Europe, supporting nationalists over mainstream parties. He wants to disrupt democracies like the Grinch wanted to spoil Christmas. It's not a matter of attributing him a particular ideology like Marxism. He's just evil, and you, dear viewer, are supposed to realize that.

* * * *

The basis of Kantian ethics is Matthew 7:2. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. The U.S. is -- through NATO expansion, provocations of Russia, application of sanctions of Russia and demand for allies' participation in them -- subjecting its one-time (Yeltsin-era) "partner" to insulting treatment.

NATO announces expansion. Moscow complains, asks "Why?" NATO responds: "Don't worry. This is not directed at you." Russia replies: "Of course it's directed against us. Don't be silly."

In its long history, Russia has been attacked from eastern or central Europe many times (as well as from the Caucasus in southern Europe). German crusader knights invaded in 1242. Lithuania invaded in the fourteenth century, when the Lithuanian state was greater than Muscovy. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century there were multiple invasions from Sweden and/or Poland. Napoleon invaded between 1798 and 1815; Tolstoy's War and Peace chronicles this epic conflict. Probably around 400,000 civiian casualties. In 1940 the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia that took eleven million soldiers' lives and those of 26 million civilians.

What has the U.S. experienced comparable to these invasions? How well can a brainwashed North American understand the problem of securing borders, not against poor immigrants, but against invasion? How many are equipped, by education, media, and political discourse, to understand geopolitics from the point of view of Russians?

(I do not mean to suggest that Russians have a common view; Russia is a civil society and debates rage. But my sense is that Russians of many different stripes see NATO as frightening and threatening and will support the regime in resisting its expansion. As they and all of us should.)

The summit is imminent. I would hope that Putin in Helsinki says, "Look, let's agree state-sponsored hacking and surveillance, as conducted by many governments, are big problems. Let us work to resolve these issues. I'm just glad you were elected, not Hillary, because she was horrible. Look what she did in Libya and Syria. You seem sincere about improving relations but we're concerned about apparent divisions in your staff since we keep getting conflicting messages .

"In Syria we want a stable secular (not religiously-based) regime. We think the Syrian Arab Army is the best guarantor of stability and the defeat of ISIL and other al-Qaeda spin-offs. We understand your desire to continue to confront ISIL in northeastern Syria, such as it is, and although our Damascus ally condemns it as a violation of Syrian sovereignty we have been cooperating with you off and on against ISIL -- even though in Sept. 2016 you sabotaged an agreement with us to coordinate strikes when you attacked Deir Ezzor killing 100 of our Syrian allies.

"We want to facilitate the departure of your forces as you've indicated you want to accomplish. As for arranging Iranian departure, we do not control Iran and the Iranians have made it clear they will withdraw advisors from Syria and Iraq only at their governments' request. I our view they have played a positive role against ISIL and other al-Qaeda factions and spin-offs. We do not agree with your vilification of Iran and indeed will be expanding commercial and military ties. We urge you not to pressure your allies to cut all trade ties with Iran; we and the Chinese will profit in any case.

"On Ukraine, you know, Russia will never return Crimea to Ukraine. You must please decide whether you want to sanction us forever for something that is not going to change, or do what Condi Rice did in 2008 (recognize a sui generis ) and reset the U.S.-Russian relationship as loser Hillary could not do. We can make a deal about concrete implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

"We are still very interested in an Exxon-Gasprom deal on Arctic oil drilling, the one Rex Tillerson was negotiating when the sanctions were applied in 2014. Of course we want a Trump Tower eventually. Why can't we be friends?

"Let's announce U.S. full participation in the Astana negotiations with Syria, Turkey, Iran and Russia to facilitate inter-Syrian dialogue to produce a peace settlement and new elections, and in the Minsk talks between Russia, Ukraine, the Ukrainian opposition, and European parties. And maybe an agreement not to expand NATO to include Ukraine or Georgia. That will show the world tensions are declining an enhance your prospects for that Nobel Peace prize you so deserve."

May flattery make Putin a friend. He is not my adversary, or this country's adversary. He's the adversary of those who, in their desire to topple Trump on any basis whatsoever, are happy to mentally leapfrog back to the McCarthy era, trash their object of disdain as a Russian puppet and even demand that Trump cancel his summit because of a suspiciously time Mueller Investigation announcement of more Russian indictments.

Russophobia has proven as strong as "anticommunism" as a persistent, unquestioned force in this country at this critical time. Both its strength and stupidity are frightening. If Trump's uniquely odd presidency sees the possibility of rapprochement with Russia -- smothered by the traditional wise and evil councilors -- -we might as well have Goldwater Girl Clinton in the White House, labeling Putin Hitler and likening Crimea to the Sudetenland.

[Jul 16, 2018] What is the journalism equivalent for 'regulatory capture'

Notable quotes:
"... The Dems. and journalists are jumping all over themselves to fawn over the intelligence services as the defenders of democracy. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Louis Fyne , July 16, 2018 at 9:15 am

The Dems. and journalists are jumping all over themselves to fawn over the intelligence services as the defenders of democracy.

What is the journalism equivalent for 'regulatory capture'?

And even assuming that everything in the indictments are 100% true, then the DNC were grossly negligent in handling their communications. And Clinton too, with her email server. And the Obama administration for letting this happen.

Arizona Slim , July 16, 2018 at 12:48 pm

I just finished reading Donna Brazile's book, Hacks .

According to Brazile, the DNC's IT department was alerted by the FBI. This was back in 2015 when a G-man called the DNC headquarters and was transferred to the DNC's help desk, which had been outsourced to a Chicago-based company called The MIS Department. And, you guessed it, this company had connections to Obama.

Well, it gets worse. The help desk guy who answered the phone thought it was a crank call. And, after a cursory examination of the DNC computer network, he concluded that there was no hack.

[Jul 16, 2018] Politicas around the "12 Russiand" whi leike 12 Spartens prevent Hillary corronation divedes media along partican lines again.

Notable quotes:
"... as Isikoff says, "everything the US government says is a lie, or is concocted, or is made up out of 'whole cloth'." Even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report blames the Russians for interference. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

RWood , July 16, 2018 at 10:29 am

This surprise (to me):
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/13/indictment-of-russian-intelligence-operatives-should-quell-harebrained-conspiracy-theories-on-dnc-hack/
My!
and this reply, substantiated (for me) by its source:
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/14/clinging-to-collusion-why-evidence-will-probably-never-be-produced-in-the-indictments-of-russian-agents/
and this:
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/07/14/five-things-that-would-make-the-ciacnn-russia-narrative-more-believable/
with this most recent:
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/15/memo-to-the-president-ahead-of-mondays-summit/

Blue Pilgrim , July 16, 2018 at 10:34 am

This is obviously more horse poop, timed to mess up the Trump-Putin summit. Hardly worth time to pay any attention to.
I could read about this, or I can read a nifty book I found in PDF format,
https://kalamkopi.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/utsa-patnaik-the-agrarian-question-in-the-neoliberal-era.pdf
The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry
Utsa Patnaik and Sam Moyo with Issa G. Shivji

Read chapters 4 and 5 so far -- very good stuff. Talks about the fallacy of Ricardo's 'comparative advantage' concept.
It was worth including in a link in my comments at
https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/07/us-senator-duma-mp-and-ukraine-mp-agree-sanctions-useless/
US Senator, Duma MP, and Ukraine MP agree: Sanctions useless

What do you think I'll spend my time doing? (And also finding other material from Utsa Patnaik.) No, the deep state does not want people reading about these neoliberal and imperialist frauds, but wants to distract them from understanding what it is really up to. Let them keep their fairy tales or tell them to the mystified -- I'm going to keep exploring the reality.

rps , July 16, 2018 at 11:15 am

Mueller the ultimate connoisseur of ham sandwiches. How's the indictment of three Russian companies coming along? Federal judge slaps Robert Mueller with humiliating fact check in courtroom over massive 'error' :
U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked one of Concord's attorneys, Eric Dubelier, if he was also representing Concord Catering. They were not because the company did not exist during the time period Mueller alleges, Dubelier said.

"What about Concord Catering? The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to -- do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?" the judge asked. Dubelier responded: "We're not. And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."

"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government.

Yawn I'm waiting for Mueller to take the fifth prior to indicting foreign interference of Christopher Steele- former British M16 spy, for the Steele dossier during a presidential election. Oh lest not we forget who the players were and who funded that too .

edmondo , July 16, 2018 at 11:57 am

Now that Mueller has solved the mystery of the Russians "hijacking" an election that the Democrats wanted to hijack, maybe he could turn his attention to helping OJ find out who killed Nicole and Ron. The National Enquirer is now our newspaper of record. Adios America. 200 years wasn't a bad run but it's over

Wukchumni , July 16, 2018 at 12:15 pm

Whose hacking the hackers?

(with apologies to Juvenal )

redleg , July 16, 2018 at 12:18 pm

Indictments for hacking the election?

Until there's a call for changing the vote tabulation system to something secure and public, DOJ can indict every single person in Russia and its nothing but tilting at windmills. It doesn't address the problem at all.
WMD in 2003 = Remember the Maine in 1898 = Russia Russia Russia.

Disturbed Voter , July 16, 2018 at 12:34 pm

Since we know that CIA has tools to make hacks look like it came from any suspect source, and this technology has been leaked (after the DNC problem though) we will never know anything true about this, not the public, not the prosecutors. They don't have the technical ability, if anyone has, at this point, to distinguish a real from a fake hack.

I wouldn't be surprised now, if the Russians did the hacking, because they were paid by the Clintons to do it. Certainly the NSA and GCHQ has it all too.

Ashburn , July 16, 2018 at 1:37 pm

I don't get why so many commenters are willing to see some grand conspiracy behind charges that the Russians tried to influence the voting public against Hillary. It make perfect sense to me that they wouldn't want such a warmonger in the White House. If you haven't read the full indictment I urge you to. It is an incredibly detailed document. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/80-netyksho-et-al-indictment/ba0521c1eef869deecbe/optimized/full.pdf?action=click&module=Intentional&pgtype=Article

I certainly believe that many folks would like to use this Russian meddling to advance a neocon agenda and start a new cold war, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that Russians might have done this. The US certainly does it (and far worse). Israel certainly meddles in our elections as do the Saudis, most likely. So does the Supreme Court, as do the Republicans with their gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. I believe that is what the Left should be protesting, not joining in to the belief that this is all some giant frame-up of Putin and Russia.

I've been a cautious skeptic about this whole collusion issue up to now, but after reading the latest indictment it seems to me that Mueller is very close to closing the ring on Trump. Perhaps I'm wrong but I find it hard to believe that Mueller, after a lifetime of mostly very honorable public service, would join in to such a conspiracy. I find it easy to believe Trump and Co. would.

Pat , July 16, 2018 at 2:24 pm

I can't comment for others, but frankly I have two reasons for not believing "The Russians Did It!" boondoggle.

1st: Of Course Russia was using the technology available to them to influence the election. So was Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, France, Great Britain, etc. Any major nation whose intelligence services were not 'hacking' into our system, using Facebook, and every other claim against Russia was not doing their job. The idea that this was limited to Russia, and untenable to any other nation is BS on its face. Just like the idea that we aren't doing it everywhere else is. It is the job of our intelligence community to either shut down intelligence breeches. I'm amazed at the everyone who looks at the stories put out about this who doesn't recognize the level of incompetence of the CIA, FBI, NIS, etc.

2nd: The more that has come out about the so-called hacks has made it clear that the DNC was largely responsible for being an open sieve. And most of the most the items that were most damaging to Clinton and the Democrats were, well true, and frankly items that our so-called free press should have been hunting down if they weren't so captured.

3rd: This truly only became a problem when Clinton wasn't running away with the polls. The breathless announcement with the Bull about the 17 different agencies when it was a organization that speaks for the 17 agencies that reported it. Once again what was the Coast Guard intelligence service doing investigating a hack of DNC servers? It was all PR again. There still wasn't all that much concern on any one's part because no one was really worried about the actual election. What were the agencies and the DNC doing to secure things?

4th: The hysteria involved in this hit high gear when Clinton lost because she and her campaign was incompetent. They had to find an excuse besides Clinton being intensely disliked by almost half the country, her campaign being stupid and the policies of the Democratic Party being disliked. They didn't lose all those state houses and governorships and both Houses of Congress because of the Russians, but the Presidency, nope that was because of interference.

IOW, sure there was interference, interference that no one much cared about until the guy willing to upset the apple cart got elected. And the interference that everyone recognizes was the one that supports further Military action beloved by our NeoCon/NeoLiberal political class and the MIC. Gosh. Recognizing the overwhelming finger of Israel on our political system (including with Trump) isn't being addressed at all.

It is like not recognizing that Clinton was treated differently for actual illegal activity regarding her security breeches at State, but pretending she was cleared. All show and little actual concern for the problems at hand.

redleg , July 16, 2018 at 2:51 pm

Excellent.

Saudi, Israeli, corporate interference is OK, but not alleged Russian interference.

Election tampering/hacking in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2016 is OK only if it wasn't the Russians.

Blue Pilgrim , July 16, 2018 at 4:57 pm

There was a preference by Putin and many others, Russians and other nationalities, for Trump based on, as Putin said, Clinton wanting to start a war (she said she would do a 'no fly zone' in Syria) and Trump wanting normal relations -- but that was not tampering or hacking. Also, as Putin said, he would deal with whoever was elected, it could not be predicted with confidence what either would do when in office, and it is Russian policy not to interfere with the sovereignty of other countries. Some Russians preferred Trump and some Clinton, like most everyone in the world. Most everyone would have preferred Sanders if the primary hadn't been rigged against him.

Just having a preference is not the same as tampering, or everyone who voted could be accused of tampering or hacking by casting his/her vote. I don't Russia had anything to do with swaying the election, and it is only just now, going on two years after, that Putin even let it be known he preferred Trump and normalization of relations over Clinton and war. Putin is diplomatic but he plays it straight.

ChrisPacific , July 16, 2018 at 5:52 pm

Isikoff's responses made me curious so I went and looked it up (PBS has it as well). It's a bit under 30 pages long and relatively easy to read. I encourage anyone following the story to do so.

Of all the Russia theories, the bit about the Russians being behind the DNC e-mail hack has always seemed the most credible to me, if only because they were apparently able to convince Trump of it when they presented the evidence to him. The indictment is very detailed and implies the existence of considerable hard evidence that would have been used to create it. There are names, dates and times, aliases, specific servers and tasks performed on them, and so on. Either Mueller is going all in on a bluff or he actually has this stuff. The former would be very risky because there is so much detail in the indictment that he would rapidly need to put up or shut up in order to maintain any kind of credibility in court. If he tried to handwave then it would all fall apart like a house of cards. I don't completely rule it out (especially given that they did exactly that for the Iraq WMDs) but in this case I think a legal challenge from one of the accused would expose things pretty quickly. It will be interesting to see whether anyone does that.

So suppose it's true and Mueller has the evidence. That would mean that agents of the Russian military were involved in the DNC server hacks. That's it. There have to date been no claims from the intelligence community that the election itself was compromised, and the only dirt on the Trump campaign was from the discredited Steele dossier. I think this falls within the realm of things that big countries do all the time (the US probably did something similar to obtain the evidence referenced in the indictment). It might have been a bit more serious because it was politically sensitive material during an election campaign, which likely merited some kind of response (Obama's "I told the Russians to cut it out" would seem appropriate). "OMG the Russians stole our democracy!" is a hysterical overreaction.

The other thing is that the activities described in the indictment are nothing particularly special or unusual. There are bad actors out there doing this kind of thing all the time, and the DNC would be a high value target. Having a robust security policy and ensuring it was followed would have been enough to thwart pretty much all of it. The real story here is that DNC security practices were sloppy enough to allow this to happen. The fact that it was the Russians that ended up doing it (if it was) is almost incidental.

JTMcPhee , July 16, 2018 at 7:21 pm

The "real story" behind all the current brouhaha and kayfabe, is that the DNC is a vastly corrupt, organized mob (sorry, the court said they are a "private club or association), their candidate was and is an evil POS, and they played not hardball but dirty tricks all the way through the 2016 campaign. They are the ones who make a mockery of 'democracy," however loosely it might be defined, and the electoral process. And one little piece of the rot has fortuitously been uncovered, all those emails and the existence of that "public-private partnership" server and the rest.

(If it was) the Russians, and not some little person, maybe an unpaid intern, within the DNC, with a residue of conscience, or just building some credit with the potential prosecutorial futures Trying to lay it off as just a failure of the DNC to "have a robust security policy, what do they call it, "gaslighting?"

travy , July 16, 2018 at 2:21 pm

i value this site and community but you guys have a real blind spot on this russia issue and i hope you'll own up to it when the truth is known. i hate the current milquetoast dems as much as anyone but if you can't smell the rot on this story or see that something big is lurking under the surface, then you are willfully blind in my opinion.

Brooklin Bridge , July 16, 2018 at 3:55 pm

Of course that's always possible (blind spots), but do you have any particular reasons or evidence you can point to or link to that support your accusation? Is your opinion based on the "overwhelming detail" in the current indictment? Doesn't it bother you that these allegations (for they ARE only allegations) will likely never have to be proven since the possibility of getting the 12 Russians extradited to the US is virtually nil (meaning no trial where the facts must be presented)? Doesn't the timing of this indictment also strike you as suspicious?

travy , July 16, 2018 at 5:52 pm

i don't want to start a scrum but i'll just say i find chait's recent piece, marcy wheeler and tpm's coverage very convincing. too many "innocent explanations" don't add up when taken as a whole and trump's behavior surrounding russia is simply troubling. also, too, he's pretty clearly a money launderer and criminal with ties to russian money. pile on me if you will but we'll have to agree to disagree until more facts come out

Duke of Prunes , July 16, 2018 at 6:48 pm

Help me out, please. What has Trump done that is so beneficial to Russia? I'm asking a serious question and not trolling whatsoever. I can't follow all of the news, and maybe I have a blind spot and missed where Trump sold us out to the Russians. All these people are convinced that "Russia has something on Trump". How are they leveraging this something?

What is Trump doing to the benefit of Russia and the detriment of the USA? If it benefits both, IMHO, then it doesn't necessarily require Russian leverage.

Brooklin Bridge , July 16, 2018 at 7:53 pm
No pile on :-).
Angry Panda , July 16, 2018 at 5:12 pm

Well this wasn't very insightful. Was it.

From the get-go there are two questions that I haven't seen anyone address. This is before you get to any "substantive" bits of the indictment, or of the whole Evil Russian Hacker scandal.

1. Why GRU. WHY GRU.

GRU is the Russian military intelligence agency reporting to the General Staff. While it has many different units and functions, the common denominator is that these have something to do with MILITARY intelligence or activities. Battlefield intelligence, counter-terrorism units, special forces, saboteurs, et cetera.

Meanwhile, the Russians also have the SVR – "Service of Foreign Intelligence" – which is what the foreign intelligence departments of the KGB were folded into in the 1990s (the domestic departments went into the FSB – hence creating a CIA-FBI type duality). Although much of the structure is classified, the SVR does have an entire department dedicated to "information systems".

In principle, an operation against a political target with the view of affecting a political process should involve the SVR – not the GRU. It, in fact, makes absolutely no sense for the GRU to get involved in this, as hacking Podesta's Gmail has no discernible military intelligence objective. And yet, the only acronym various US publications (and indictments) have been pushing since 2017 is the GRU while the SVR does not exist?

This continues to perplex me.

2. Technically speaking, the GRU operates under a very heavy classification regime. Meaning the names of their operatives themselves are classified information. And yet, here we have an indictment with not less than a dozen names.

Which means that either the US has infiltrated the GRU top to bottom and sideways, and Mueller is somehow not gun shy to reveal this fact to the world – or someone is making stuff up. Unless someone wants to point out to me some other explanation for a dozen classified – top secret and all that – names showing up in a public US document

-- -

But hey, I am not a professional journalist, so what do I know about asking questions.

Ashburn , July 16, 2018 at 5:30 pm

My fear is that many on the Left are jumping into a rabbit hole where, as Isikoff says, "everything the US government says is a lie, or is concocted, or is made up out of 'whole cloth'." Even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report blames the Russians for interference. This from Charles Blow's column in today's NYT:

As a May report from the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee pointed out:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/russia-inquiry

"In 2016, cyber actors affiliated with the Russian Government conducted an unprecedented, coordinated cyber campaign against state election infrastructure. Russian actors scanned databases for vulnerabilities, attempted intrusions, and in a small number of cases successfully penetrated a voter registration database. This activity was part of a larger campaign to prepare to undermine confidence in the voting process."

Rather than be distracted with whether Mueller and DOJ and the Intel Community is making it all up let's wait and see what the special counsel ultimately finds and the evidence he produces to support it. In the meantime, the Left should be shining the light on our own, well documented, interference in other countries' elections, our illegal regime change operations and calling out the neocons and their fellow travelers for trying to start a new Cold War with Russia.

[Jul 16, 2018] Christopher Steele got "fired from the fbi," and isikoff, claiming he didn't do nuthin' "wrong," apparently got a book deal

Jul 16, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Katniss Everdeen , July 16, 2018 at 8:55 am

isikoff has been in on this from the git go. (Remember judy miller?)

He's the one who wrote a "yahoo" article, after talking to christopher steele of dossier fame, that was cited as "confirmation" of the dossier "evidence" when it was used to get a fisa warrant on Carter Paige to justify the Trump campaign "wiretapping" that "never happened."

christopher steele got "fired from the fbi," and isikoff, claiming he didn't do nuthin' "wrong," apparently got a book deal. He now seems to have decided that his mission in life is advocating for nuclear war with Russia because john podesta got sucked in by a phishing email and gave away his password which was, in perfect keeping with the stupidity of it all, "password."

[Jul 16, 2018] Indictment of 12 Russians: Under the Shiny Wrapping, a Political Act by Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter is not buying this,: "this indictment would ever go to trial. It simply couldn't survive the discovery to which any competent defense would subject the government's assertions." This clearly was a political act by neocons.
Rosenstein and Mueller claim that 12 Russians like 12 Spartan manage to keep Hillary from the coronation is questionable political backstabbing at best, the act of sedition at worst.
Notable quotes:
"... Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States' ability to conduct critical affairs of state -- in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president's political foes for him to cancel the summit with Putin -- or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the indictment -- is a direct result of Rosenstein's decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

... ... ...

While the impeachment of Rosenstein is highly unlikely and the likelihood of the FBI being found guilty of its investigations being corrupted by individual bias is equally slim, in the world of politics, perception creates its own reality and the Mueller investigation had been taking a public beating for some time. By releasing an indictment predicated upon the operating assertion that 12 named Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a series of cyberattacks that resulted in information being stolen from computer servers belonging to the Democratic Party, and then facilitated the release of this information in a manner designed to do damage to the candidacy of Clinton, Rosenstein sought to silence once and for all the voices that have attacked him, along with the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Mueller investigation, as a participant in a partisan plot against the president.

There is one major problem with the indictment, however: It doesn't prove that which it asserts. True, it provides a compelling narrative that reads like a spy novel, and there is no doubt in my mind that many of the technical details related to the timing and functioning of the malware described within are accurate. But the leap of logic that takes the reader from the inner workings of the servers of the Democratic Party to the offices of Russian intelligence officers in Moscow is not backed up by anything that demonstrates how these connections were made.

That's the point of an indictment, however -- it doesn't exist to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to provide only enough information to demonstrate probable cause. No one would, or could, be convicted at trial from the information contained in the indictment alone. For that to happen, the government would have to produce the specific evidence linking the hacks to the named Russians, and provide details on how this evidence was collected, and by whom. In short, the government would have to be willing to reveal some of the most sensitive sources and methods of intelligence collection by the U.S. intelligence community and expose, and therefore ruin, the careers of those who collected this information. This is something the government has never been willing to do, and there is much doubt that if, for some odd reason, the Russians agreed to send one or more of these named intelligence officers to the United States to answer the indictment, this indictment would ever go to trial. It simply couldn't survive the discovery to which any competent defense would subject the government's assertions.

Robert Mueller knew this when he drafted the indictment, and Rob Rosenstein knew this when he presented it to the public. The assertions set forth in the indictment, while cloaked in the trappings of American justice, have nothing to do with actual justice or the rule of law; they cannot, and will never, be proved in a court of law. However, by releasing them in a manner that suggests that the government is willing to proceed to trial, a perception is created that implies that they can withstand the scrutiny necessary to prevail at trial.

And as we know, perception is its own reality.

Despite Rosenstein's assertions to the contrary, the decision to release the indictment of the 12 named Russian military intelligence officers was an act of partisan warfare designed to tip the scale of public opinion against the supporters of President Trump, and in favor of those who oppose him politically, Democrat and Republican alike. Based upon the media coverage since Rosenstein's press conference, it appears that in this he has been wildly successful.

But is the indictment factually correct? The biggest clue that Mueller and Rosenstein have crafted a criminal espionage narrative from whole cloth comes from none other than the very intelligence agency whose work would preclude Rosenstein's indictment from ever going to trial: the National Security Agency. In June 2017 the online investigative journal The Intercept referenced a highly classified document from the NSA titled "Spear-Phishing Campaign TTPs Used Against U.S. And Foreign Government Political Entities." It's a highly technical document, derived from collection sources and methods the NSA has classified at the Top Secret/SI (i.e., Special Intelligence) level. This document was meant for internal consumption, not public release. As such, the drafters could be honest about what they knew and what they didn't know -- unlike those in the Mueller investigation who drafted the aforementioned indictment.

A cursory comparison of the leaked NSA document and the indictment presented by Rosenstein suggests that the events described in Count 11 of the indictment pertaining to an effort to penetrate state and county election offices responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. presidential election are precisely the events captured in the NSA document. While the indictment links the identity of a named Russian intelligence officer, Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, to specific actions detailed therein, the NSA document is much more circumspect. In a diagram supporting the text report, the NSA document specifically states that the organizational ties between the unnamed operators involved in the actions described and an organizational entity, Unit 74455, affiliated with Russian military intelligence is a product of the judgment of an analyst and not fact.

If we take this piece of information to its logical conclusion, then the Mueller indictment has taken detailed data related to hacking operations directed against various American political entities and shoehorned it into what amounts to little more than the organizational chart of a military intelligence unit assessed -- but not known -- to have overseen the operations described. This is a far cry from the kind of incontrovertible proof that Mueller's team suggests exists to support its indictment of the 12 named Russian intelligence officers.

If this is indeed the case, then the indictment, as presented, is a politically motivated fraud. Mueller doesn't know the identities of those involved in the hacking operations he describes -- because the intelligence analysts who put the case together don't know those names. If this case were to go to trial, the indictment would be dismissed in the preliminary hearing phase for insufficient evidence, even if the government were willing to lay out the totality of its case -- which, because of classification reasons, it would never do.

But the purpose of the indictment wasn't to bring to justice the perpetrators of a crime against the American people; it was to manipulate public opinion.

And therein lies the rub.

The timing of the release of the Mueller indictment unleashed a storm of political backlash directed at President Trump, and specifically at his scheduled July 16 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. This summit was never popular with the president's political opponents, given the current state of affairs between Russia and the U.S., dominated as they are by events in Syria and Ukraine, perceived Russian threats against the northern flank of NATO, allegations of election meddling in the U.S. and Europe, and Russia's nuclear arsenal. On that last point, critics claim Russia's arsenal is irresponsibly expanding, operated in violation of existing arms control agreements, and is being used to underpin foreign policy objectives through the use of nuclear blackmail.

President Trump has publicly stated that it is his fervent desire that relations with Russia can be improved and that he views the Helsinki summit as an appropriate venue for initiating a process that could facilitate such an outcome. It is the president's sole prerogative to formulate and implement foreign and national security policy on behalf of the American people. While his political critics are free to criticize this policy, they cannot undermine it without running afoul of sedition laws.

Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States' ability to conduct critical affairs of state -- in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president's political foes for him to cancel the summit with Putin -- or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the indictment -- is a direct result of Rosenstein's decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia.

This indictment, by any other name, is a political act, and should be treated as such by the American people and the media.

[Jul 16, 2018] It's Trump vs the War Party by Justin Raimondo

Jul 16, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

July 16, 2018

"This isn't about Trump, his personality, or his other policies. It's about whether a bunch of unelected bureaucrats are going to be granted a veto power over who sits in that chair in the Oval Office" 7 hours ago | 2,546 75 MORE: Politics If there was ever any doubt that the Russia-gate hoax is a scheme by the War Party to salvage their bankrupt foreign policy, and depose a democratically-elected President, then Robert Mueller's indictment of twelve alleged GRU agents for "interfering" in the 2016 election settles the matter once and for all. Are we supposed to believe it was just a coincidence that the indictment was made public just as Trump was about to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki?

An indictment of twelve individuals who will never contest the charges, and which will not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law – to whom is it addressed? Not to any jury, but to the court of public opinion. It is, in short, pure propaganda, meant to sabotage Trump's Helsinki peace initiative before it has even convened.

Yet the brazenness of this borderline treason is what makes it so ineffective. The American people aren't stupid: to the extent that they're paying attention to this Beltway comic opera they can figure out the motives and meaning of Mueller's accusations without too much difficulty.

The indictment reads like a fourth-rate spy thriller: we are treated to alleged "real time" transcripts of Boris and Natasha in action, draining the DNC's email system as well as our precious bodily fluids. This material, perhaps supplied by the National Security Agency, contains no evidence that links either Russia or the named individuals to the actions depicted in the transcripts. We just have to take Mueller's word for it.

What Mueller is counting on is that the defendants will never show up in court. If they did, following the example of representatives of the indicted Internet Research Agency – accused of running Facebook ads on Russia's behalf – Mueller would have to provide real evidence of the defendant's guilt. In that case, the indictment would have to be dropped, because the alleged evidence is classified.

Ominously, the indictment points to unnamed US individuals alleged to have collaborated with supposed Russian agents: Roger Stone has been identified as one of them, and no doubt others have been targeted by the special prosecutor's office. Anyone who thought the anti-Russian inquisition would be content with mini-big fish Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort, and the little tadpoles they'd managed to corral, is about to be proven dead wrong. This fishing expedition has barely begun.

The whole shoddy affair is meant to distract attention away from the President's ambitious foreign policy initiatives, the twin diplomatic outreach campaigns to two of our old cold war enemies. These efforts demonstrate the overarching significance of the President's "America First" foreign policy: Trump means to abandon the old cold war structures. In their place he means to build a new so-called international order, one that is not overseen by any one "superpower" but that is self-regulating, like the market order that has brought unparalleled prosperity to this country and to the world.

That's the big picture. Focusing in on specifics, what is likely to come out of this summit is:

· A settlement of the Syrian conflict as a prelude to US withdrawal.

· An agreement to renew and revitalize the INF treaty, which is in danger of being nullified, and the initiation of new joint efforts to limit nuclear weapons.

· An acknowledgment of the need to normalize Russo-American relations in the interest of world peace.

I might add that efforts to trace and capture "rogue" nukes, perhaps left over from the immediate post-Soviet collapse, should also be on the agenda.

The disgusting – and depressing – response of the Democrats to the Helsinki summit has been a concerted campaign to cancel it. Yes, that's how myopic and in thrall to the Deep State these flunkies are: world peace, who cares ? Never mind that we're still on hair-trigger alert, with our nukes aimed at their cities and their nukes targeting ours. The slightest anomaly could spark a nuclear exchange – the end of the world, the extinction of human life, and probably of most life, for quite some time to come.

And yet -- what does the survival of the human race matter next to the question of how and why Hillary Clinton was denied her rightful place in history? I mean, really !

The American people are not blaming Russia for their problems. They don't want conflict with the Kremlin, they don't care about Ukraine, and the question of sanctions never comes up at the dinner table of ordinary Americans. That's why Russia-gate and the war propaganda coming out of the neocon and liberal thinktanks has had little effect on public opinion, in marked contrast to its dominance of elite discourse inside the Beltway bubble.

This latest effort to discredit the President's peace project and sabotage a summit with a foreign leader underscores the battle lines in this country. On one side is the Deep State, with its self-interested globalist leadership so invested in our interventionist foreign policy that even Trump's limited (albeit surprisingly radical) critique poses a deadly threat to their power. On the other side is Trump, the outsider, who often has to work against and around his own government in order to pursue his preferred policies.

Yet this isn't about Trump, his personality, or his other policies. It's about whether a bunch of unelected bureaucrats are going to be granted a veto power over who sits in that chair in the Oval Office. It's as simple as that.

I know what side I'm on. Do you?

Source: Antiwar.com

[Jul 16, 2018] Is it just me, or does Dimitri Alperovitch look like a guy who's making p*rn movies in a van that drives all round the city?

Alperovich is a specialist on special flavor of porn -- security porn...
Jul 16, 2018 | consortiumnews.com
O Society , July 14, 2018 at 8:29 am

Is it just me, or does Dimitri Alperovitch look like a guy who's making p*rn movies in a van that drives all round the city?

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/dmitri.jpg

[Jul 16, 2018] It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller

Notable quotes:
"... Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2018 at 10:05 pm

Read Scott Bennett's letter to President Trump . it will make you think.

https://ahtribune.com/us/israelgate/2358-dov-zakheim.html

Joe Tedesky , July 15, 2018 at 12:04 pm

"Part of my mission was to investigate, discover, and expose all acts of "waste, fraud, and abuse" by Terrorist Financing Operations Director Dov Zakheim who was my senior supervisor. It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller." Scott Bennett

Gregory Herr , July 15, 2018 at 11:49 pm

Double WOW. Great catch Joe.

"Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel."

[Jul 16, 2018] This is all about freako psychopaths and their money, nothing more: lot's of blackmail to keep the gravy train running

Debsisdead provides some consideration why the level of Mueller investigation is so low and finding are so pathetic...
Notable quotes:
"... I'm always gobsmacked at the cognitive dissonance of those who on the one hand shout that the American empire is on its last legs but as they do that they also claim that America's dumb as a rock alphabet intelligence agencies are successfully developing incredibly arcane and complicated strategies that would require having foresight to the point of omnipotence to successfully manage the plot/s. ..."
"... All that despite the fact that the known measurable outcomes that these agencies and their 'pointy end' the American military do deliver in conflicts mostly of their design and instigation reveal a miserable success rate of I would say, less than 1 in 10. ..."
"... That nonsense just does not compute. Yes they are violent crooks, but they are stupid violent crooks who cannot succeed at the simplest plan much less the intricate tactics outlined by so many here. ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

a bee , Jul 15, 2018 10:42:53 AM | 164

this is all about freako psychopaths and their money, nothing more. lot's of blackmail to keep the gravy train running

they cannot charge the Russians with what they have actually done due to a lot of these little deep state sh%$ts would go to jail and possibly branches of government shut down if it ever came out what the various "kompromats" were that the Russians targeted

the Russians are offensive and no innocents, however the US Gov is just disgusting

Debsisdead , Jul 15, 2018 12:50:07 PM | 166
I'm always gobsmacked at the cognitive dissonance of those who on the one hand shout that the American empire is on its last legs but as they do that they also claim that America's dumb as a rock alphabet intelligence agencies are successfully developing incredibly arcane and complicated strategies that would require having foresight to the point of omnipotence to successfully manage the plot/s.

All that despite the fact that the known measurable outcomes that these agencies and their 'pointy end' the American military do deliver in conflicts mostly of their design and instigation reveal a miserable success rate of I would say, less than 1 in 10.

That nonsense just does not compute. Yes they are violent crooks, but they are stupid violent crooks who cannot succeed at the simplest plan much less the intricate tactics outlined by so many here.

Once people begin believing the DC airheads' nonsense posturing , they may as well pack their bags, throw in the towel and take off for parts unknown because falling for scumbag tosh indicates an inability to accurately perceive the world - just the same as these DC derps, but with less naked self interest on display.

[Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. ..."
"... Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did with the false narratives advanced in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

As we just discussed , some major news stories have recently dropped about what a horrible horrifying menace the Russian Federation is to the world , and as always I have nothing to offer the breathless pundits on CNN and MSNBC but my completely unsatisfied skepticism. My skepticism of the official Russia narrative remains so completely unsatisfied that if mainstream media were my husband I would already be cheating on it with my yoga instructor.

I do not believe the establishment Russia narrative. I do not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016 election. I do not believe the Russian government did any election rigging for Trump to collude with. This is not because I believe Vladimir Putin is some kind of blueberry-picking girl scout, and it certainly isn't because I think the Russian government is unwilling or incapable of meddling in the affairs of other nations to some extent when it suits them. It is simply because I am aware that the US intelligence community lies constantly as a matter of policy, and because I understand how the burden of proof works.

At this time, I see no reason to espouse any belief system which embraces as true the assertion that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections in any meaningful way, or that it presents a unique and urgent threat to the world which must be aggressively dealt with. But all the establishment mouthpieces tell me that I must necessarily embrace these assertions as known, irrefutable fact. Here are five things that would have to change in order for that to happen:

1. Proof of a hacking conspiracy to elect Trump.

The first step to getting a heretic like myself aboard the Russia hysteria train would be the existence of publicly available evidence of the claims made about election meddling in 2016, which rises to the level required in a post-Iraq invasion world. So far, that burden of proof for Russian hacking allegations has not come anywhere remotely close to being met.

How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did with the false narratives advanced in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence.

2. Proof that election meddling actually influenced the election in a meaningful way.

Even if Russian hackers did exfiltrate Democratic party emails and give them to WikiLeaks, if it didn't affect the election, who cares? That's a single-day, second-page story at best, meriting nothing beyond a "Hmm, interesting, turns out Russia tried and failed to influence the US election," followed by a shrug and moving on to something that actually matters.

After it has been thoroughly proven that Russia meddled in the elections in a meaningful way, it must then be established that that meddling had an actual impact on the election results.

3. Some reason to believe Russian election meddling was unwarranted and unacceptable.

The US government, by a very wide margin , interferes in the elections of other countries far, far more than any other government on earth does. The US government's own data shows that it has deliberately meddled in the elections of 81 foreign governments between 1946 and 2000, including Russia in the nineties. This is public knowledge. A former CIA Director cracked jokes about it on Fox News earlier this year.

If I'm going to abandon my skepticism and accept the Gospel According to Maddow, after meaningful, concrete election interference has been clearly established I'm going to need a very convincing reason to believe that it is somehow wrong or improper for a government to attempt to respond in kind to the undisputed single worst offender of this exact offense. It makes no sense for the United States to actively create an environment in which election interference is something that governments do to one another, and then cry like a spanked child when its election is interfered with by one of the very governments whose elections the US recently meddled in.

This is nonsense. America being far and away the worst election meddler on the planet makes it a fair target for election meddling by not just Russia, but every country in the world. It is very obviously moral and acceptable for any government on earth to interfere in America's elections as long as it remains the world's worst offender in that area. In order for Russia to be in the wrong if it interfered in America's elections, some very convincing argument I've not yet heard will have to be made to support that case.

4. Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.

If all the Russians did was simply show Americans emails of Democratic Party officials talking to one another and circulate some MSM articles as claimed in the ridiculous Russian troll farm allegations , that's nothing to get upset about. If anything, Americans should be upset that they had to hear about Democratic Party corruption through the grapevine instead of having light shed on it by the American officials whose job it is to do so. Complaints about election meddling is only valid if that election meddling isn't comprised of truth and facts.

5. A valid reason to believe escalated tensions between two nuclear superpowers are worthwhile.

After it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia did indeed meddle in the US elections in a meaningful way, and after it has then been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia actually influenced election results in a significant way, and after the case has been clearly made that it was bad and wrong for Russia to do this instead of fair and reasonable, and after it has been clearly proven that the election meddling went beyond simply telling Americans the truth about their government, the question then becomes what, if anything, should be done about it?

If you look at the actions that this administration has taken over the last year and a half, the answer to that question appears to be harsh sanctions, NATO expansionism, selling arms to Ukraine, throwing out diplomats, increasing military presence along Russia's border, a Nuclear Posture Review which is much more aggressive toward Russia, repeatedly bombing Syria, and just generally creating more and more opportunities for something to go catastrophically wrong with one of the two nations' aging, outdated nuclear arsenals, setting off a chain of events from which there is no turning back and no surviving.

And the pundits and politicians keep pushing for more and more escalations, at this very moment braying with one voice that Trump must aggressively confront Putin about Mueller's indictments or withdraw from the peace talks. But is it worth it? Is it worth risking the life of every terrestrial organism to, what? What specifically would be gained that makes increasing the risk of nuclear catastrophe worthwhile? Making sure nobody interferes in America's fake elections? I'd need to see a very clear and specific case made, with a 'pros' and 'cons' list and "THE POTENTIAL DEATH OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING" written in big red letters at the top of the 'cons' column.

Rallying the world to cut off Russia from the world stage and cripple its economy has been been a goal of the US power establishment since the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there's no reason to believe that even the people who are making the claims against Russia actually believe them. The goal is crippling Russia to handicap China , and ultimately to shore up global hegemony for the US-centralized empire by preventing the rise of any rival superpowers. The sociopathic alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies who control that empire are willing to threaten nuclear confrontation in order to ensure their continued dominance. All of their actions against Russia since 2016 have had everything to do with establishing long-term planetary dominance and nothing whatsoever to do with election meddling.

Those five things would need to happen before I'd be willing to jump aboard the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" train. Until then I'll just keep pointing to the total lack of evidence and how very, very far the CIA/CNN Russia narrative is from credibility.

* * *

Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so the best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

[Jul 16, 2018] WATCH Mueller s Horrifying Corruption Just Got Exposed – Should He Be Fired

Both individuals are sociopaths, but Mueller is even less trustworthy than Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together." ..."
"... Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case. ..."
"... Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job. ..."
"... Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning. ..."
"... Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.teaparty.org

President Trump's lawyers believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller is overstepping his bounds in his investigation into Russian interference in the election. Now, Trump's lawyers are compiling a list of Mueller's numerous conflicts of interest, The Washington Post reported.

Judge Jeanine Pirro perfectly explains one of Mueller's largest conflicts of interests–his close relationship with the former FBI director James Comey.

... ... ...

"The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together."

As Pirro explained, one of Robert Mueller's primary tasks is to determine whether President Trump obstructed justice when he fired James Comey.

However, Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case.

Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job.

Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning.

Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings.

Now, Comey's old friend Mueller is taking over the mission Comey started in November–to impeach President Trump.

We cannot let this witch hunt continue. We need to stand with our duly elected President and let him know that he has our trust. Trump is the first president in a long time to put America first. He is no foreign agent.

www.angrypatriotmovement.com/muellers-corruption-exposed/

[Jul 16, 2018] A Trump Foreign Policy by Dimitri K. Simes

Generally weak article which ignores the possibility of alliance of Russia and China (as well as alienation of EU) which means the death of the USA superpower status "really soon". But it contains a couple of interesting observations about the value of "the bull in the China shop" foreign policy.
Jun 20, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Paradoxically, while many governments increasingly appear to view the United States as a formidable superpower that they cannot easily cross or ignore, many of the same governments see the administration as erratic, unable to evaluate situations objectively, and prone to personalizing relations with foreign leaders and countries -- even in dealing with other major powers. To these governments, the United States seems capricious and offers few tangible incentives for accommodating American preferences. This is an obstacle for Trump in accomplishing his international objectives.

As a candidate, Trump did not include Russia on his list of the top challenges to the United States, despite increasingly widespread establishment perceptions of Russia as an adversary. With Russia's gdp around 10 percent of America's and its conventional forces far from a match for NATO, Trump had good reasons to wonder why a country that Obama described as an economically-weak regional power should become an organizing principle of America's security policy.

This raised an inevitable question about NATO: was it a necessary instrument to protect American security or a Cold War–era organization that had outlived its original purpose to contain Soviet expansionism? If the Europeans were so afraid of Russia, why were they spending so little on defense compared to the United States, and why were so few European nations prepared to meet NATO's stated defense spending goal of at least 2 percent of gdp? Since NATO was no longer relevant to the fundamental challenges candidate Trump saw to America, was it a sacred cow rather than a powerful vehicle to protect American interests? Was America quietly being taken for a ride by European allies while becoming increasingly enmeshed in European conflicts of little importance to the United States?

George Washington counseled against steps that would "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice." The fact that America has a commitment to defend NATO allies need not imply a parallel commitment to support their every venture. Europeans certainly feel no such obligation to America, as demonstrated by their lack of support for America's commitment to Israel, including at the United Nations. Trump appeared intuitively to see this asymmetry and to turn a skeptical ear toward virtuous language that obscured limited help for Washington and its priorities. He likewise seemed to dismiss assertions of superior values from governments building a supranational bureaucracy that constrains businesses and limits freedoms.

The problem with Trump's foreign policy rhetoric as a candidate and, at times, as president is that he poses good questions more often than he provides adequate answers. Trump has exposed himself to legitimate criticism because he often seems prepared to risk important relationships without clear gains. Mexico can be a troubling partner, but it is also an essential one. The combination of geography, extensive trade and millions of Americans of Mexican heritage requires approaching any revision of U.S.-Mexican relations with great finesse -- something in short supply in rhetoric that ranged from condescending (or worse) references to Mexican immigrants to unrealistic calls for an impenetrable Mexican-funded border wall. America's relations with its European allies are likewise important to U.S. security, as are partnerships with key governments in the Middle East. Simplistic rhetoric -- whether about Mexican immigration, Islamic terrorism or the flaws of our European allies -- can turn off millions of American voters. It is also highly divisive and, as a result, is an obstacle to Trump's effort to reform American foreign policy and to "Make America Great Again."

Trump's treatment of Russia has become a special problem that has handicapped the first part of his presidency. The president is not responsible for the habits of the foreign policy establishment and mainstream media in building up Russia as a threat while treating it like a helpless giant, a trend that began well before the 2016 presidential campaign. Nor is the president responsible for the numerous and demonstrable flaws in Russian foreign policy and domestic governance or the fact that Moscow tends to deny every accusation, whether over its military involvement in eastern Ukraine, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, attacks on government opponents at home and abroad, and most importantly, interference in U.S. and various European elections.

... ... ...

Fortunately, the administration's ill-defined foreign policy has thus far caused no irreparable damage. As leader of the world's only multidimensional superpower, Trump has shown that ignoring him carries considerable risks and potentially high costs. Practically every nation in the world remains interested in a constructive relationship with the United States. Conversely, nobody is eager to be America's enemy. As a result, with the right mix of hard and soft power coupled with skillful diplomacy, Trump can still achieve major successes.

... ... ...

Russia appears open to a negotiated end to the conflict in the Donbass region, which it is unprepared to annex and is weary of supporting financially. What Russia wants is a reliable formula to postpone Ukraine's NATO membership, something few alliance members support soon anyway, and to win a measure of autonomy for the separatist regions in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Moving forward, the Kremlin's early infatuation with Trump is definitely over. Notwithstanding Moscow's diminished expectations, Russian officials retain a healthy respect for his unpredictability and determination. And judging from their public complaints over slow U.S. follow through on Trump's proposal for a summit with Putin, they still appear eager to engage the Trump administration.

... ... ....

In his rhetoric, President Trump has clearly identified China as a top issue. This is less apparent in the administration's strategic planning. In practice, our relations with a rising China are both a paramount challenge to the United States and the most important factor in sustaining U.S. global leadership at an acceptable cost.

Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest.

[Jul 16, 2018] The West Is Past

Notable quotes:
"... Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that. ..."
"... Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers' it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles. ..."
"... Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue, the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my best friend'. ..."
"... Agreed! But what will the US psychopaths do to maintain their grip when they realize they are really losing it? Nuclear war? ..."
"... Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but it is well worth the wait. ..."
Jun 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

G-7 summits are supposed to symbolize "the west", its unity and its power. The summits pretended to set policy directions for the world. We are happy to see that they are dead.

Trump was obviously not inclined to compromise.

Before attending the summit Trump trolled his colleagues by inviting Russia to rejoin the G-7/G-8 format without conditions. Russia had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland. Merkel, who had negotiated the Minsk agreement with Russia, was furious. She wants to use such an invitation as an element of future negotiations. (It is stupid talk. Russia is not interested in rejoining the G-7/G-8 format.)

There are now many fields where the U.S. and its allies disagree: climate change, the Iran deal, trade are only the major ones.

Before leaving the summit Trump again used Mafia language against everyone else:

As he prepared to depart early from the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Canada, to head to Singapore ahead of his planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump delivered an ultimatum to foreign leaders, demanding that their countries reduce trade barriers for the U.S. or risk losing market access to the world's largest economy.

"They have no choice. I'll be honest with you, they have no choice," Trump told reporters at a news conference, adding that companies and jobs had left the U.S. to escape trade barriers abroad. "We're going to fix that situation. And if it's not fixed, then we're not going to deal with these countries. "

The row at the G-7 meeting was in stark contrast to the more important other meeting that happened today, the 18th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China:

Dazzling against the city skyline of Qingdao, fireworks lit up the faces of guests who traveled across the vast Eurasian continent to the coast of the Yellow Sea for the 18th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, on Saturday night.

It is the first such summit since the organization's expansion in June 2017 when India and Pakistan joined as full members.

...

The Shanghai Spirit of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit of common development , was stated in the Charter of the SCO, a comprehensive regional organization founded in 2001 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and later expanded to eight member states.

This weekend Xi will chair the summit for the first time as Chinese president, which is attended by leaders of other SCO member states and four observer states, as well as chiefs of various international organizations.

...

The SCO has grown to be an organization covering over 60 percent of the Eurasian landmass, nearly half the world's population and over 20 percent of global GDP.

Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that.

Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers' it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles.

Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue, the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my best friend'.

The 'west' has lost in Eurasia.

The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big. Trump is off to Singapore to meet Kim Yong-un. Unlike Trump North Korea's supreme leader will be well prepared. It is likely that he will run rings around Trump during the negotiations. If Trump tries to bully him like he bullies his 'allies', Kim will pack up and leave. Unlike the U.S. 'allies' he has no need to bow to Trump. China and Russia have his back. They are now the powers that can lead the world.

The 'west' is past. The future is in the east.

Posted by b on June 9, 2018 at 03:14 PM | Permalink

Kelli , Jun 9, 2018 3:37:22 PM | 1

Agreed! But what will the US psychopaths do to maintain their grip when they realize they are really losing it? Nuclear war?
Laguerre , Jun 9, 2018 3:44:17 PM | 2
Yeah, I was just thinking that. Trump is running full-speed into isolation. It's an ancient policy, which recalls the 1920s. What does America need of the outside world? Good question.

I would think we will hear in the not too distant future of a European replacement of the US exchange systems, such as VISA. The Americans have become too unreliable. Obviously the Russians and Chinese do have their own systems, but that won't do for the EU.

Independence is going to be forced, and the consequences will be permanent.

Babyl-on , Jun 9, 2018 3:53:27 PM | 5

Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but it is well worth the wait.

Last year during the border standoff with India they had on strident Indian voices arguing the Indian position every day. Imagine if CNN had on Mexican reps regarding the wall - never happen.

Harry Law , Jun 9, 2018 3:59:37 PM | 6
Because Iran was under sanctions levied by the United Nations earlier, it was blocked from admission as a new member of the Shanghai Cooperation Council [SCO]. The SCO stated that any country under UN sanctions could not be admitted. After the UN sanctions were lifted, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced its support for Iran's full membership in SCO during a state visit to Iran in January 2016.Iran must join the SCO ASAP it is also a military alliance and should prepare itself for a big effort at regime change by the US and lackeys. The moral of the story unless they hang together, the US will hang them separately.
ashley albanese , Jun 9, 2018 4:01:15 PM | 7
Well, China as the text books say was always ' half the human story' - only eclipsed by Western connivance in the 1860's .I remember my father argueing with high ranking Australian government and commercial figures in 1970.

My father argued Australia needed to find its own voice with China and Chinese policy . They replied sneeringly '' Ralph , their just red communists and will never amount to anything ' . Shortly thereafter Nixon flew to Beijing and my father sat back in his living room with a sardonic look on his face !

Scotch Bingeington , Jun 9, 2018 4:05:14 PM | 8
Interesting picture! Judging by his posture, Japan's Prime Minister Abe seems to back Trump's position.

By the way, Mr. Abe doesn't look Japanese to me, he rather has a striking resemblance to a certain Bavarian actor - one Max Griesser .

Laguerre , Jun 9, 2018 4:13:18 PM | 9
You may like Freedland's article yesterday, which unusually I agreed with, that in fact Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem? Why give away the honour to NK of a one-to-one with the US president? I'd be surprised if NK surrenders, when they know what will happen if they do.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/08/trump-master-negotiator-meeting-kim-jong-un-art-of-deal

Madderhatter67 , Jun 9, 2018 4:18:15 PM | 10
They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.
Red Ryder , Jun 9, 2018 4:25:57 PM | 11
"President Putin is the leader of a great country who is influential around the world," Xi said. "He is my best, most intimate friend." Xi promised Russia and China would increase their coordination in the international arena.

Putin expressed his thanks for the honor and said he saw it as an "evaluation" of his nation's efforts to strengthen its relationship with its southern neighbor.

"This is an indication of the special attention and respect on which our mutual national interests are based, the interests of our peoples and, of course, our personal friendship," Putin said.

http://www.newsweek.com/putin-my-best-most-intimate-friend-chinese-president-xi-says-967531

This is not going missed by the West.

But it is unstoppable. The range of integrating projects the Chinese and Russians are working on is more than strategic.

They are forcing a massive shift in economics that is impossible for the US and EU to maintain as competitors.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806091065269583-putin-xi-summit-takeaways/

The Double Helix is ascending.

Peter AU 1 , Jun 9, 2018 4:34:45 PM | 12
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time. In cold war 1.0, Soviet Union was the main enemy of the US and China was split away from the Soviet Union. In this war, Trump sees China's economy as the main threat to the US and is trying but failing to pull Russia away from China.
Lea , Jun 9, 2018 4:45:07 PM | 13
Posted by: Madderhatter67 | Jun 9, 2018 4:18:15 PM | 10
They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.

If winning the Cold War is about vanquishing communism, they flat out lost. Because, while they were concentrating on the end of the USSR and celebrating, China was going up and up and up. They never saw her coming, yet to this day and for the foreseeable future, China is a socialist, Marxist country.

So the new, desperate Western spin is to try to argue that China has "succumbed" to capitalism. Yeah, right, a country where all the private companies have to have members of the CPC on their board and hand over enough shares to the state to grant it veto powers, not to mention the Central bank and all its major companies are state-owned... Lol.

les7 , Jun 9, 2018 4:49:57 PM | 14
"The 'west' is past. The future is in the east."

Wow... such grandiose conclusions...

After the collapse of the USSR the consensus - even of the alt-media (what little of it existed) was that a new American century was on the way and the whole world would be better off for it. A decade later in 2003 the consensus (post 'shock & awe' Gulf War 2) was that America had the ability to re-structure the Asian /African world and that it would all be for good.

15 years later we are all sick of the fruit of that delusion. So we look to another power to save us... Do we understand nothing?

Without the accountability of multi-polarity, Western supreme power all became security-obsessed privilege, self-aggrandizement, blatant plunder and total disregard for moral value and life. Power corrupts - it knows no exceptions.

If the West is truly dead, the East will be no different.

Laguerre , Jun 9, 2018 4:55:53 PM | 15
re 12
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time.
Thought of a moment to annoy the Europeans. It is obvious that Trump was pissed off about having to attend, and left at the earliest opportunity. The Europeans heard that, and will draw the inevitable conclusions.
Quentin , Jun 9, 2018 4:57:21 PM | 16
Lea @ 13 Socialist, Marxist, Capitalist, what does it matter: it seems to work for China, at least for the time being. It's success makes me think that a bit more government control of corporations might not be such a bad thing.
Grieved , Jun 9, 2018 5:00:44 PM | 17
The summit with Kim will be fascinating to observe. In my view, NK has finessed the US and the Trump administration to a degree I would not have thought possible, even from native US insiders. To do it long range from the other side of the world speaks to me a lot about the power of Asia, and the clarity of view from there.

I agree with Laguerre @9 that Trump is a terrible negotiator (forgive that I didn't read the Guardian piece). I would take this much further and say that all the US institutions themselves are culturally crippled in terms of understanding what's happening in the ascendancy of Asia. All of their negotiation is feeble, because their grasp on their own true position is based on yesterday's view of their power. You cannot go into negotiation without knowing what you hold.

Every day, I become more confident in the ability of the elder nations to put the young western empires to rest without their being triggered into death spasms.

Red Ryder @11 - I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to render the enemy powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked. Russia as the other half of the Double Helix mesmerizes the west with weaponry while China undercuts the ground. Both countries are fully at war, and winning, while unseeing commenters complain that it's time for them to "do something." How superb the silk rope drawn so softly around the throat.

It's a beautiful play. I very much hope - and truly expect - that we can all survive to be able to sit back and admire it as the years unfold.

psychohistorian , Jun 9, 2018 5:05:30 PM | 18
I have a small quibble with b's wording but thank him for following and reporting on our evolving world.

b's words:"

The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.

"

My rewording:

The global elite have their US puppet acting like a schoolyard bully who beat up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.

The West is trying to consolidate power and control while they still have some ghost of a chance. How they hold countries after this global divorce will be interesting.

At his time the West has little to offer humanistically except its vice grip on most economic interaction and the tools including banking underpinning the "system". The elite have deluded the public in the West for centuries about private finance behind the scenes of all/most conflict......pointing to other religions but never their own.

It sure is getting interesting. IMO, the two Koreas are going to announce a reconciliation that requires the removal of America military forces/bases et al, which fits in with the fake nationalism efforts of Trump.

Jen , Jun 9, 2018 5:09:16 PM | 19
That the US and the EU and their respective camps are at loggerheads over trade and perhaps other economic issues should not (I hope) lead readers to assume that one side has the interests of the public it represents uppermost in mind. As the US and the Anglosphere is dominated by one set of neoliberals, so Germany and the lackey EU nations following Berlin are dominated by another set of neoliberals in thrall to an export-led mercantilist ideology. Just as the elites in charge of US power structures are only interested in enriching themselves, the same can be said for those in charge of power structures in Europe. Whether under the US or the EU, the public suffers.

Notice that Germany benefits from being the major economic power in the EU while its fellow EU nations around the Atlantic and Mediterranean rim flail under a huge debt (and Greece is being punished back into the impoverished colonial status it held under Nazi German occupation) and eastern European EU members are following suit running their economies into the ground and having to beg NATO into setting up bases in their territories to attract money. At the same time German workers are becoming poorer, they are not benefiting from Berlin's economic policies, they are not reproducing fast enough so Berlin needs to bring in more foreign workers in the guise of "refugees" to prop up factories and keep wages low.

@ Madderhatter67: The US did not win the Cold War because the Cold War was only ever a propaganda front for the secret war waged by US / UK elites against Russia and China to dominate and rob these nations and their neighbours of their natural resources.

Grieved , Jun 9, 2018 5:12:25 PM | 20
@5 Babyl-on

Thanks for the nod to CGTN. For any who care, I searched out its YouTube channel and it produces a huge daily output in English:

https://www.youtube.com/user/CCTVNEWSbeijing/videos

I've recently added Vesti News to my news for the same reason, a large daily feed of short clips of the Russian view, in English:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa8MaD6gQscto_Nq1i49iew/videos

I've never been a TV watcher, especially not for news, but I'm enjoying these tastes and flavors of this burgeoning century.

james , Jun 9, 2018 5:20:12 PM | 21
thanks b - and for the laugh with the marjorie and homer pic for comparison!

i think this parallel you draw is a good one.. the west is certainly floundering... i am not sure how global finance responds here... i can't imagine the 1% being on the wrong side of a bet on the direction of things here either..

@6 harry law.. did iran make it into the sco? it sounds like it did.. good!

@14 les7.. regarding your last line - i tend to agree with that viewpoint..

@19 jen... do you think it will be somehow different if the power shifts to russia/china? i guess i am not so sanguine over power, regardless of who holds it.

Wess County , Jun 9, 2018 5:23:01 PM | 22
Very well put, only issue that as to be dealt with is all those Stan Countries, they are a hibernating and breeding ground for Terrorists and Arms dealers , who don't care who they sell arms to and how they get them to rogue regimes.
Zanon , Jun 9, 2018 5:28:02 PM | 23
Its quite funny how Trump wrecked that meeting.

Trump could talk about Russia but who cares, he cant be trusted, hes totally unreliable and hopefully Russia sees that.

Zanon , Jun 9, 2018 5:29:13 PM | 24
at the same time Trump is a king, just look at how the pathetic western states STAND AROUND HIM begging him basically on all kinds of things!
Laguerre , Jun 9, 2018 5:57:10 PM | 25
re Grieved 17
I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to render the enemy powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked.
I do think you're exaggerating there.

China's past history has been one of a country very contented with itself, much like the US, because defended geographically by vast deserts. A longer history, so some foreigners did traverse the deserts.

The Chinese exported their products by foreign ships (Arabo-Persian) arriving at Canton, and buying cargoes, or camel caravans arriving in the north and buying silk. The Chinese themselves did not travel abroad very much, and so didn't know very much about surrounding countries, or the rest of the world. There was a fleet of Chinese junks which arrived in the Gulf in the 14th century, but it was the only one.

Today's situation is not so different. There are Chinese interventions in Africa, but their diplomacy is pretty ham-fisted. The Belt-and-Road initiative is in fact intended to bring up to speed Central Asian countries like Tajikistan. Fine, Tajikistan needs it, but it's not world-changing.

The rail freight from Beijing to Frankfurt works better as an intermediate between sea and air freight, but essentially it is what has always happened - foreigners export Chinese products. The Chinese don't know how to run a foreign policy.

bjd , Jun 9, 2018 5:58:01 PM | 26
I am surprised nobody here remarked on the pontifically present John Bolton.

This was about Iran, I am pretty sure.

bjd , Jun 9, 2018 6:02:20 PM | 27
I note, by the way, that in the second photo, the two persons holding a paper are not on the same page .

Talk about symbolism.

bjd , Jun 9, 2018 6:07:30 PM | 28
Have a closer look and you'll see that in the first photo, John Bolton is talking (Trump is silent and sitting there like 'Il Duce').

Bolton is talking to Macron, who is looking straight at Bolton.

In the second photo, Merkel is looking at Bolton, who is probably speaking at that moment.

Tell me this is not about Iran.

michaelj72 , Jun 9, 2018 6:26:40 PM | 29
hopehely at @4

"OK, so, is Japan 'east' or 'west'?"

from their body language, I would say that Japan is surely 'with' Trump and the US, but that's only because that arch-reactionary Abe is in power.....and when he goes, and go he will, there will be a big period of adjustment...some day.

Villainesse , Jun 9, 2018 6:26:46 PM | 30
The scambastic Trump could be inclined to make a slightly more fair deal in Singapore just to make a deal, but he is going extra early (no jet lag) and will be controlled by Pompeo with his 'Grim Reaper' CIA-dog/warhawk/translator/born & raised S. Korean with multiple relations in their South KCIA (NIS) and cabinet leadership, Andrew Kim (born Kim Sung-hyun). Kim's purpose will be to control Trump's spontaneaous decision making, inform him on what he reads as N. Korea's intent, and give baseline hawkish color to the translations for his own hawkish viewpoint.
annie , Jun 9, 2018 6:29:13 PM | 31
bjd, bolton is trump's overseer, making sure he doesn't step out of line.

Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem?

Laguerre, you have it backwards. the embassy move, the iran deal, and the appointment of bolton are all concessions trump made, as payback for adelson's millions to both the gop and his campaign. possibly also has a little something to do cambridge analytica, honey traps or whatever.

Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East policy

The imprint of the 84-year-old's political passions is seen in an array of Donald Trump's more controversial decisions, including violating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and appointing the ultra-hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser.

......The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a "shadow National Security Council" advising Bolton

Jen , Jun 9, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 32
James @ 21: I think one should always be a bit suspicious of those who hold power, especially those who find themselves holding the uppermost hand in power as a result of victory in war (whether in the form of actual military combat, trade war or other wars in soft power).

Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping may be fine but will their successors know not to abuse the power they may gain from the New Silk Road projects encompassing Eurasia and Africa?

hopehely , Jun 9, 2018 6:38:17 PM | 33
Posted by: bjd | Jun 9, 2018 6:02:20 PM | 27
I note, by the way, that in the second photo, the two persons holding a paper are not on the same page.

Talk about symbolism.

In that pic, is that Miller lurking from behind?

Red Ryder , Jun 9, 2018 6:42:03 PM | 34
@29, bjd,

Of course, it is about Iran. It's the Iranian deal that the EU needs to continue. They benefit as the biggest vendors to Iran. They want to get inside that developing 70 million person market, also.

Bolton wants regime change. The EU knows that will be worse than Iraq. And economically, the EU will be in the dumps for 2 decades if there's another war they are forced to join. And they will be forced to join. They cannot say No to the Hegemon.

The EU 2, Germany and France, are at a historic moment of truth.

They could have a great future with Russia, China, Iran, the BRICS, SCO, OBOR and EAEU or they could be crippled by the Empire.

John Gilberts , Jun 9, 2018 7:01:17 PM | 35
Excellent analysis as always. Here's the muck CBC is reporting on the summit.

Canada Rejects Trump's Call to Let Russia Back Into G-7

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-russia-g7-canada-1.4697655

"...But Canada, which pushed for Russia to get the boot in 2014, is not onside. 'Russia was invited to be part of this club and I think that was a very wise initiation, and an invitation full of goodwill,'[FM Chrystia Freeland] she told reporters at the summit. 'Russia, however, made clear that it had no interest in behaving according to the rules of Western democracies..."

Glad to hear it...

michaelj72 , Jun 9, 2018 7:15:43 PM | 36
it's kind of wonderful to see all these imperialist and former neo-colonial powers fighting among themselves.

unfortunately, like the old African proverb goes, when the elephants fight it's the grass and small animals that suffer.

I see no reason for optimism for the peoples of europe at this point, as the stranglehold of the Trioka is perhaps as strong as ever, and hundreds of millions of people are suffering; the people simply have to get organized at all levels and take back their sovereignty at least as a start

WorldBLee , Jun 9, 2018 7:17:31 PM | 37
The US still has the power of the dollar in its arsenal. The UK and EU, and any nation that deals with Wall Street, are addicted to US investment in dollars. Since the EU is run by the banks, and western banks can't function with the dollar, any statements by the EU that they're going to avoid US sanctions over Iran are meaningless.

The equation is essentially this: you can have your sovereignty or you can have the benefits of the dollar that make your 1% very rich. You can't have both. Since the EU is ruled by the 1% banker/investor class they will forestall any attempts to regain sovereignty by the people. In a sense, Europe is like Russia 10-15 years ago, thinking that the US is the key to the golden calf. Russia learned the hard way they needed to establish some independence (although to this day Russia doesn't have nearly the financial independence one might hope), and China saw from Russia's example they needed to do so as well. This led them to team up on many economic initiatives while seeking to reduce the dominance of the dollar.

Perhaps someday Europe will learn this lesson. But as long as the EU exists, I kind of doubt it. The EU-crats will cry and criticize Trump but the bankers love US money too much to let them actually do anything serious.

Ghost Ship , Jun 9, 2018 7:20:38 PM | 38
Paul Krugman is tweeting that this is all happening because Trump doesn't understand Value-Added Tax !

This is not an endorsement of Krugman who is trying to blame it on Putin.

rexl , Jun 9, 2018 7:56:05 PM | 39
If the West is dead and the East is the future, then why are so many Chinese buying houses and living part time in Canada, Australia, and the USA? Why is there so much emphasis put on Western education facilities by Asians?
Winston , Jun 9, 2018 8:02:05 PM | 40
I'm sure Trump doesn't understand VAT.

Most Americans don't no matter how much explanation I go into.

They insist its a tariff or duty,which its not.

I've given up trying to explain its a sales tax on all,paying at customs is merely a cash flow issue for the importer.A reclaimable input on his VAT return,did it many times myself.

Sabine , Jun 9, 2018 8:11:53 PM | 41
there is no west nor east.

there is only a bunch of paid of administrators running the countries and the corporations that pay them.

Trumps quid pro quo is deals that benefit his family. I don't thinks he cares one bit about the GOP and how the party fundraises. He cares about advancing his family and keeping the loot.

maybe we should realize that the concepts of east and west, as much as neo liberalism or neo conservatism or any other moniker that we could apply to loot and steal - legally and without shame under the guise of trade - are concepts of the past.

the future is for the strongest, irrespective of their origins or philosophy. we are burning this planet down with a vengeance and we - the people - are to numerous and too expensive to keep.

while we debate and some even chuckle with delight as to how the west is treated by trump, or how much the west deserves to be made redundant and all hail the Russians and the Chinese - the king is dead, long live the king - it is us who dies in the wars, it is our children that are being kidnapped and locked up in prison when arriving on the border seeking asylum, it is us who will watch the women in our live die in childbirth because of lack of medical care, it is us who will die of black lung, hunger, thirst and general malice.

and while we gossip, they laugh all the way to the bank.

NemesisCalling , Jun 9, 2018 8:24:56 PM | 42
b, we have no doubt that the North Korean leadership is ready for the Americans and know the score with a rising Eurasia and a sinking NATO. However, your last assumption of Kim being more than ready to go toe-to-toe with DJT smacks of some of the worst tendencies of many posters here who are ready to venerate Kim without him ever even making formal address of more than a few words to a) his people, 2) his allies, or D) even the world. This is a laughable assumption from you and it would be like having the most beautifully-made garment handy for a long while, desperate for anyone to come along so you could fling it on them to prove they were the most amazing supreme leader in all the world!

This is not to say I do not want the NoKos to succeed in their endeavors of getting a fair deal...hardly: I think they will succeed eventually because they are shrewd. But this is an attempt to squash the unbelievably propagandistic (or naive) attempts to place the mantle of imperviousness, all-knowingness, utterly-innocentness, and insurmountably-cleverousness onto the boy that would be king. DJT could eat a boy like Kim for breakfast if left alone from their advisors.

CE , Jun 9, 2018 8:26:35 PM | 43
Interesting that this happens in June. Because it reminds me of this classic little fun ditty:

Death in June - Death of the West

ben , Jun 9, 2018 8:33:09 PM | 44
Sabine @ 41 said:"there is no west nor east.

"there is only a bunch of paid of administrators running the countries and the corporations that pay them"

And this"and while we gossip, they laugh all the way to the bank."

I would tend to agree, but I'm hoping b's right in his assessment, the empire and her minions very badly need a comeuppance..

dh , Jun 9, 2018 8:45:10 PM | 45
Trump is very dependent on his base. He knows them well. At risk of hitting a discordant note I suspect a lot of his fans are happy seeing him sock it to the goddamn ch*nks and euro faggots.
Daniel , Jun 9, 2018 8:46:57 PM | 46
It's a big weekend. G7, SCO, Bilderberg, NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels and the huge NATO "Drills" including the Baltic States and for the first time, Israel.

Oh, and the US called on NATO to add 30 land battalions, 30 air fighter squadrons, and 30 naval ships to "counter Russian aggression."

The AZW Empire is not giving up its plans.

karlof1 , Jun 9, 2018 8:47:27 PM | 47
I predicted it would become the G6+1 and so it has. Trump told his staffers NOT to sign the Joint Communique, which I believe is a first.

On the issue of power and the BRI , the linked item is a trove of info as it focuses on perhaps the most problematic region of the SCO/BRI.

If Europe is to break free from the Outlaw US Empire, Merkel must be jettisoned and independent-minded leaders must take control of Germany and EU. I'm not at all surprised with how events went in Canada. However, I see the Policy as the Bully, not Trump, the policy still being the attempt to gain Full Spectrum Domination. What's most important, IMO, is this spectacle will not go unnoticed by the rest of the world. The Outlaw US Empire cannot make it any plainer that it's the primary enemy state of all except the Zionist Abomination. I think Abe wonders why he's there and not in Qingdao.

Although this item focuses on Kashmir , it should be read after the longer article linked above. There's little news as of yet coming from Qingdao other than who's cooking what and sideline meets. I expect more coming out beginning Monday. Of course, Kim-Trump begins now, it being the 10th in Singapore already.

bevin , Jun 9, 2018 10:26:24 PM | 48
The difference between the two projects- the western Empire and the Eurasian schemes exemplified by OBOR- is that the former, as 500 years of experience teaches us, relies on ethnic divisions, wars and competition while the latter requires peace and co-operation.

In a sense that answers Jen @ 32. It really doesn't matter who runs the governments of China and Russia, provided that they can prevent the imperialists from distracting them into rivalry. It was that which, thanks to plenty of stupidity on both sides, gave rise to the tensions of which Nixon and Kissinger took advantage.

Had the USSR and China ironed out their small differences on the sixties- and Vietnam gave them a perfect excuse to do so, history would have been very different and probably much less bloody.

The truth is that, as b asserts, the SCO is already much more important than the G7- America and the Six Dwarfs. How much more important is shown by the role of Freeland (the neo-Nazi Ukrainian apologist) in insisting on holding the line against Russia's re-admission to a club that it almost certainly does not want to rejoin.

Trump may not be a 'good negotiator' but he has a position of relative strength vis a vis the rest of the G7 who cannot negotiate because they do as they are told. If they won't do what Trump tells them to do they will be on the lookout for someone else to give them orders-they have no idea of independence or sovereignty. Just watch most of them scuttle back to Brussels for ideas, or set up back channels to Moscow- once a puppet always a puppet.

karlof1 , Jun 9, 2018 11:57:39 PM | 49
The Sino-Soviet Split occurred while Stalin was still alive--he refused to allow the Chinese to develop "Communism with Chinese Characteristics" just like any other European Orientalist. And as the Monthly Review article I linked, the Chinese must beware of becoming/being seen as Imperialistic in their zeal to push BRI--Imperialist behavior will kill the Win-Win concept as it will revert to just another Zero-sum Game.
Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 10, 2018 12:20:55 AM | 50
One of the factors which has been killing the 'Democratic' West is that its bribed & blackmailed leaders have alienated themselves from The People whose views they were elected to represent.

No-one living in a so-called democracy is prepared to tolerate a leader who spends too much time praising, and making excuses for, the crimes of the racist-supremacist Zionist Abomination (h/t karlof1) and its Piece Process in Palestine. It can be persuasively argued that embrace of and fealty to the Z.A. is the only factor which Western Leaders have in common. And it's neither a coincidence nor happenstance.

ben , Jun 10, 2018 12:40:15 AM | 51
Hoarsewhisperer @ 50 said:" Piece Process in Palestine."

Nice word play. I'm assuming the "piece" word is referring to the Israelis taking the Palestinian's lands one piece at a time..

Debsisdead , Jun 10, 2018 12:51:14 AM | 52
Grrr! I still don't get why so many humans believe anything good comes from chucking aside one greedy oppressive arsehole then replacing it with another. Sure the SCO has a founding document laden with flowery words and seemingly wonderful concepts but I say "So what" check out the UN charter or the amerikan constitution and you'll find the same.

These issues of justice & equity cannot be fixed by swapping bosses because every society has its share of pathologically fucked up greedies who have the means and lack of empathy to destroy anything and everyone in their lust for whatever it is they imagine they need.

We have to accept that will never change and that trying to purge the planet of those types just creates more of them from within the structure most successful in effecting the swap.

I know I sound like a scratched disc but the only fix that could hope to work is one that smashes the conglomerations into tiny shards, reducing the world to thousands of small self governing entities; sure some places will still end up being taken over by low self esteem motivated arseholes, but not only will they not be able to do as much damage, arseholes stand out in a small society where more 'normal' humans interact with them - currently all the pr1cks coagulate in spots such as the G7 and few non-pr1cks ever get close enough to see them for what they are. A low count on the old degrees of seperation register makes it much more difficult for the scum to rise. Making sure that no chunk is sufficiently big to force its will on another would also be vital.

That won't fix everything, but who outside some totally screwed up anal regressive would want that anyway? I just want to live in a world where no one cops it like the entire Yemeni population currently is. I see no benefit in moving the horror from Yemen to Uigar-land or whatever place the new bosses decide should be their fun palace of hate, murder and misery.

The Congo and/or Nigeria another coupla sites of misery for money. Timor Leste aka East Timor, now that the Portuguese expats in the form of the man with the Nobel stamp of obeisance to the monied Jose Ramos Horta have done over the locals, something Xanana Gusmão always said could happen. Horta's arseholeness made the wealthiest nation in the world (divide resources by population) riven by poverty, lack of health and education services plus of course old favourite, racist oppression. Check out these kids here untroubled by issues like getting a decent phone signal or their ranking on Twitch - wondering where their next decent feed is coming from is prolly their most pressing issue.

Swapping SCO for G7 will do SFA for them or anyone else unlucky enough to be living on top of whatever the current 'must have' is deemed to be.

Anyone who imagines that it could is delusional.

karlof1 , Jun 10, 2018 12:55:44 AM | 53
Official SCO Conference site .

Humanity either learns how to live with itself on an equal basis or it will perish; it's really that simple. The likes of the Outlaw US Empire, its NATO vassals and the Zionist Abomination are shining examples of what MUST be exorcised for ever more.

[Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

Highly recommended!
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
Jul 12, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook. It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.

Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.

Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich, not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.

And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.

I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination, but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.

I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.

I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.

But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.

What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties. But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.

Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State. Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.

Which brings us to the courts.

There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?

Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966, three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world. You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.

Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K. Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong, coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.

When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.

One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's "terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.

I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return to Patty Hearst shortly.

Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.

Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.

For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.

Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly be circumstantial.

There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew gave them the warning.

There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.

That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.

He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas. One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton. At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.

Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was prosecuted at Huffman.

Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.

Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.

Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.

A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search. For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.

***

It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.

I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump, like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there. Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.

When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.

There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence. "Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above the law.""

When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.

Wow! Where did you get all those facts about Mueller.

That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.

I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.

Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.

My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.

detroitmechworks on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 3:15pm
It's almost become a parody of a dystopia...

The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_ (role-playing_game)

Seriously though, so much of this makes absolute sense if you just abandon the concept that democracy has any play whatsoever in our society.

So with that in mind, a little music from the era, and a little self parody as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LR4XNqrqxrU?modestbranding=0&html5=1&rel=0&autoplay=0&wmode=opaque&loop=0&controls=1&autohide=0&showinfo=0&theme=dark&color=red&enablejsapi=0

arendt on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:36pm
In my hatred of role-playing games, I missed Paranoia

@detroitmechworks

Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.

It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.

LOL.

The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_ (role-playing_game)

Seriously though, so much of this makes absolute sense if you just abandon the concept that democracy has any play whatsoever in our society.

So with that in mind, a little music from the era, and a little self parody as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LR4XNqrqxrU?modestbranding=0&html5=1&rel=0&autoplay=0&wmode=opaque&loop=0&controls=1&autohide=0&showinfo=0&theme=dark&color=red&enablejsapi=0

detroitmechworks on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:48pm
West End Games had a lot of incredible hits...

@arendt even considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.

Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.

Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...

#3

Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.

It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.

LOL.

Linda Wood on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 3:19pm
Brilliant and wonderful essay!

Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:

Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...

Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...

Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...

For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out, the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.

arendt on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 4:48pm
Some relevant quotes from Hannah Arendt

The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies" like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4

"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation of objective developments.

The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

ggersh on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:32pm
And Mr. transparency was O himself

@arendt

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies" like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4

"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation of objective developments.

The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

on the cusp on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:13pm
This is the most interesting essay I have read here.

Bravo, Bob.

ggersh on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:36pm
Great story!!!

Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we?

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:45pm
Outstanding

Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?

Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down."

Good to see you writing here again, Bob.

Snode on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:52pm
Wow!

This awesome. I knew about Colleen Rowley, but the rest.....2 things, what about Comey? and Bush1 being in Dallas the day of the JFK assassination?

CS in AZ on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:02pm
Wow, thank you

I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.

But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.

Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 7:04pm
Here's some history of another creep who has found redemption

from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.

Joe posted this link that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."

Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.

Wink on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:56pm
It's relatively safe to

conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:21pm
Mueller doesn't want to show the Russians his evidence

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

Deja on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:46pm
A Red list?

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

snoopydawg on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:49am
Who knows?

@Deja

It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents, but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.

Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're blatantly lying in their statements.

Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround Russia's borders.

The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.

#13 #13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

snoopydawg on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 2:40am
Heh. This is being spun differently over on ToP

@snoopydawg

This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted, but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..

It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than you are.

If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference, so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and spying.

Oops. From the article ..

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges.

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

Wink on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 6:08pm
Well, it gets everyone

off the hook.
@snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:30pm
Well of course it was a PR stunt!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog

Deja on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:49pm
Now I want to see it too

@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin. It's ridiculous.

As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog

mimi on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 1:08am
I need to print this out and hang it at my bedside

because I believe it will be gone in its digital format in no time. Thank You for writing this out. You did good. Thank you.

GreyWolf on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:57pm
Bookmarked (with two separate archives)

@mimi This page is also at:archive.org archive.is because I believe it will be gone in its digital format in no time.

Thank You for writing this out. You did good. Thank you.

gulfgal98 on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 7:16pm
One of the best and most complete essays

I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.

Thank you again for such an outstanding essay!

[Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

Highly recommended!
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
Jul 12, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook. It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.

Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.

Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich, not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.

And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.

I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination, but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.

I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.

I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.

But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.

What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties. But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.

Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State. Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.

Which brings us to the courts.

There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?

Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966, three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world. You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.

Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K. Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong, coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.

When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.

One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's "terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.

I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return to Patty Hearst shortly.

Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.

Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.

For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.

Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly be circumstantial.

There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew gave them the warning.

There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.

That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.

He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas. One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton. At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.

Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was prosecuted at Huffman.

Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.

Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.

Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.

A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search. For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.

***

It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.

I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump, like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there. Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.

When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.

There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence. "Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above the law.""

When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.

Wow! Where did you get all those facts about Mueller.

That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.

I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.

Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.

My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.

detroitmechworks on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 3:15pm
It's almost become a parody of a dystopia...

The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_ (role-playing_game)

Seriously though, so much of this makes absolute sense if you just abandon the concept that democracy has any play whatsoever in our society.

So with that in mind, a little music from the era, and a little self parody as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LR4XNqrqxrU?modestbranding=0&html5=1&rel=0&autoplay=0&wmode=opaque&loop=0&controls=1&autohide=0&showinfo=0&theme=dark&color=red&enablejsapi=0

arendt on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:36pm
In my hatred of role-playing games, I missed Paranoia

@detroitmechworks

Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.

It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.

LOL.

The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_ (role-playing_game)

Seriously though, so much of this makes absolute sense if you just abandon the concept that democracy has any play whatsoever in our society.

So with that in mind, a little music from the era, and a little self parody as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LR4XNqrqxrU?modestbranding=0&html5=1&rel=0&autoplay=0&wmode=opaque&loop=0&controls=1&autohide=0&showinfo=0&theme=dark&color=red&enablejsapi=0

detroitmechworks on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:48pm
West End Games had a lot of incredible hits...

@arendt even considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.

Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.

Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...

#3

Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.

It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.

LOL.

Linda Wood on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 3:19pm
Brilliant and wonderful essay!

Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:

Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...

Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...

Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...

For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out, the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.

arendt on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 4:48pm
Some relevant quotes from Hannah Arendt

The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies" like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4

"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation of objective developments.

The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

ggersh on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:32pm
And Mr. transparency was O himself

@arendt

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies" like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4

"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation of objective developments.

The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

on the cusp on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:13pm
This is the most interesting essay I have read here.

Bravo, Bob.

ggersh on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:36pm
Great story!!!

Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we?

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:45pm
Outstanding

Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?

Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down."

Good to see you writing here again, Bob.

Snode on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:52pm
Wow!

This awesome. I knew about Colleen Rowley, but the rest.....2 things, what about Comey? and Bush1 being in Dallas the day of the JFK assassination?

CS in AZ on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:02pm
Wow, thank you

I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.

But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.

Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 7:04pm
Here's some history of another creep who has found redemption

from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.

Joe posted this link that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."

Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.

Wink on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:56pm
It's relatively safe to

conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:21pm
Mueller doesn't want to show the Russians his evidence

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

Deja on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:46pm
A Red list?

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

snoopydawg on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:49am
Who knows?

@Deja

It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents, but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.

Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're blatantly lying in their statements.

Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround Russia's borders.

The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.

#13 #13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

snoopydawg on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 2:40am
Heh. This is being spun differently over on ToP

@snoopydawg

This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted, but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..

It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than you are.

If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference, so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and spying.

Oops. From the article ..

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges.

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

Wink on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 6:08pm
Well, it gets everyone

off the hook.
@snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:30pm
Well of course it was a PR stunt!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog

Deja on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:49pm
Now I want to see it too

@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin. It's ridiculous.

As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog

mimi on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 1:08am
I need to print this out and hang it at my bedside

because I believe it will be gone in its digital format in no time. Thank You for writing this out. You did good. Thank you.

GreyWolf on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:57pm
Bookmarked (with two separate archives)

@mimi This page is also at:archive.org archive.is because I believe it will be gone in its digital format in no time.

Thank You for writing this out. You did good. Thank you.

gulfgal98 on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 7:16pm
One of the best and most complete essays

I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.

Thank you again for such an outstanding essay!

[Jul 15, 2018] Effect of the US TV on a parrot

Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [739] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT

Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs with their machetes.

We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wYcqmOzk&id=3B43263DD48F82D1FEC205044FBE66DCDA30A42F&thid=OIP.wYcqmOzkZCrNMrWlfuDUigHaJu&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.occidentaldissent.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f06%2frussians-out.jpg&exph=1280&expw=974&q=occidental+dissent+farstar&simid=607993335092480560

[Jul 15, 2018] Effect of the US TV on a parrot

Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [739] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT

Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs with their machetes.

We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wYcqmOzk&id=3B43263DD48F82D1FEC205044FBE66DCDA30A42F&thid=OIP.wYcqmOzkZCrNMrWlfuDUigHaJu&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.occidentaldissent.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f06%2frussians-out.jpg&exph=1280&expw=974&q=occidental+dissent+farstar&simid=607993335092480560

[Jul 15, 2018] Anglos don't value direct warfare, so they don't care if another military has better tech. Anglos realized a long time ago it is much less costly to just play divide and conquer to defeat a more powerful adversary by getting other countries to do the fighting.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [298] Disclaimer , July 15, 2018 at 12:58 am GMT

The Saker is missing the point of Anglo Warfare. Anglos don't value direct warfare, so they don't care if another military has better tech. Anglos realized a long time ago it is much less costly to just play divide and conquer to defeat a more powerful adversary by getting other countries to do the fighting.

Hence trying to tarpit Russia in Syria which Putin wisely did not fall for.

The Anglo-Zionist Empire would be foolish to directly confront Russia, so they won't. Instead they will seek to economically strangle Russia and turn close allies against her such as Ukraine.

This is something Russias weapons cannot protect itself with.

Kiza , July 15, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
I am very busy at the moment and have little time to comment. However, I did read the Saker's review of Martyanov's book and its comments. My small insight is that a son of a Soviet sovok and a son of White-Russian are cooperating. I always wanted for this to happen, but I still find it amazing and most significant. For me, it is a good explanation why modern Russia is so successful compared with US and Soviet Union. The Russians are mostly at peace with their 20th century history and look towards the future. Opposite to this, as the generals usually fight the previous war, US still fights a country which does not exist any more. The new Russian challenge is to fight the fifth column of the Russian Liberals, the lovers of the West, exemplified by Anatoly Elliot Karlin-Higgins, the customary Jewish ideologues with forked tongues.

My apology for using the disparaging word sovok, which I read for the first time in disparaging comments by the above mentioned big BSer.

Finally, it would be interesting if the current Russian and Chinese weapons development would initiate a weapons race which would help crush the already precarious US and Western financial system. It is not that US military spending is a problem as a percentage of GDP, but its further increase at this time could be the straw which broke camel's back. In my mind, Saker and Martyanov with their writing, as well as the Russian civilian and military leadership with their public statements, show an honest wish to deter the West from attacking Russia. But the unintended effect on somebody bound on world-supremacy will be to spend even more (as inefficiently as before) to gain back the supremacy. As I have written many times before, the only possible solution for the preservation of humanity is the financial collapse of the US/West .

Or maybe it is a bit like with the most recent US Presidential Election, the Russians win with either of the two terrible candidates winning. If US chase them in military technology development, they go bankrupt. If US do not chase them, they cannot attack Russia and China any more. Shaking down "the allies" for more money is already seriously destabilising the political order of the West. The overall direction of things is obvious.

Kiza , July 15, 2018 at 1:21 am GMT
@The Alarmist

Communication satellites were mentioned in the article, that is not LEO since the Motorola's Iridium died. Most if not all US military communication satellites are in the geo-sync orbit 36,000 km away. Any decent ASAT system would be targeting both GPS in LEO and C3 satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

[Jul 15, 2018] Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives would undermine US imperial rule. ..."
"... Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, dubbed 'the Lobby'. ..."
"... Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance Washington's quest for uncontested world domination. ..."
"... Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its companies to be frozen out of the Iran market. ..."
"... Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have links with five continents. ..."
"... Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate, in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again. However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure, which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more apposite slogan. ..."
May 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies.

The question of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific political direction?

Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.

We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.

In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain; and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take reprisals.

Trump's Strategic Framework

The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives would undermine US imperial rule.

Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran

Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.

Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.

Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy.

Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah.

The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, dubbed 'the Lobby'.

Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch.

Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by sanctions.

Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China

Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.

Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of hostility.

However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved inspectors.

Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program.

Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance monitored quarterly by the US.

Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and restrictions on Chinese goods and services. Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis.

Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and dominate the Asian and world economy.

Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.

Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed!

Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies.

His military intervention will inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately losing war.

Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US collaborators.

The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Tel Aviv's bombing will lead to counter-attacks in Israel.

Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.

Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction.

Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for exports to the US.

China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia.

China has greater resilience and capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic power house.

Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world depression.

Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from China.

Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China.

Kim will offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal, Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.

Conclusion

Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.

Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have links with five continents.

Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions.

Trump is heading for defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the process.

Epilogue

Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate, in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so.

Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia.

Nixon successfully promoted peaceful co-existence.

Trump is a master of defeats.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 9:00 am GMT

Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea

The Deep State told him to.

Gordo , May 15, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT

industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations)

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed!

Trump has no agenda of his own.

Per/Norway , May 15, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction."

indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the question.

The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the two fleet standard had to lowered to one fleet.

Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was lowered to one and half. What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria. In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East. Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975

The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the powder keg that had been standing for a long time.
Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII.

But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'. I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:06 am GMT
@Per/Norway

I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu.
The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.

Franklin Ryckaert , May 16, 2018 at 9:59 am GMT
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again. However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure, which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more apposite slogan.
Kirt , May 16, 2018 at 10:59 am GMT
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
JoaoAlfaiate , May 16, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
You haven't convinced me he isn't a psychopath.
Joe Hide , May 16, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.
N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup" took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.
A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing, agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting for Russia in Syria, etc. etc. Xi of China has pretty impressive credentials but this post is overly long anyway.
RESULTS CANT MORE THAN WORDS!
TT , May 16, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
@Gordo

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

• Agree: CalDre

I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things, ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous whining.

When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as it did for WTO & Globalization now.

Of course any moronic comments about only China is esponaging US IPR & rise purely due to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.

[Jul 15, 2018] Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB thump drive.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jared Eliot , Next New Comment July 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm GMT

Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB thump drive. The bombshells in Robert Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers, hackers of DNC server, put a damper on Trump's one on one visit with Putin.

[Jul 15, 2018] Trump Marches Onward and Downward, by James Petras - The Unz Review

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [317] Disclaimer , Next New Comment July 14, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT

Impact of transferring govt from public domain into private ownership

Oligarch/Pharaoh (TLD) massive wealth, personally owned
Private Corps (PC) (doing govt jobs, or possessing a govt monopoly or power)
Slave Drivers (SD) ( elected by the public to run the govt)
Public (P) ( those forced to accept only recourse is to vote & pay)

After Slave driver elected, discovers must answer to PC, not P, the voters.
PC = derive large % of corporate income from one of the following classes
A. private contractors doing govt jobs (banking, energy, private mercenary
armies, whatever, domestic or foreign or military contractors & 1 Oligarch/ Pharaoh who live in different places in the world). Please note PC layer collective contributions (advertising $s) support the privately owned media; enables them to collectively promote:hide, accelerate:retard programs as needed to adjust the behaviors and attitudes of the public.
Whole segments of the global economy belong to one or a few enterprises in each class of PCs. Substantial economic power and most political power hb transferred into private hands. Private corporations now have or control whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world, they can now operate transparent to (invisible or visible to) and independent of the politics of any nation. For example the exclusive right to produce electric power and to build the infrastructure to deliver that power to homes and businesses is domestic in nature, but if you look carefully you will see the same pharaohs or oligarchs own them. The patent that prevents all others from competing in the computer operating system market makes it possible for one corporation to control every computer in the world. Patents on search engine technology makes it possible for one privately owned, oligarch controlled corporation to determines whose website is find-able and whose website is not, to collect personal data on everyone worldwide, and to deny those who do not agree with the Oligarch.
Note: Privatized govt d/n care who the people elect. because all decisions and political power belongs to the oligarchs. Elected who fail to support the Oligarchs do not get re elected? The decisions, laws and use of govt resources are no longer in the hands of the voting public or their elected representatives.

Garbage collection example:

City A: 1,000,000 collection stops/month, govt runs garbage; price/ stop = $9/mo.

Total revenue = total cost ($9/stop X 12 mo X 1,000,000 = $108,000,000

Privatise Garbage collection (City grants franchise to corporation A)

Corporation A raises the price from $9/stop to $10/stop:

Total revenue = $10/stop X 12 mo X 1,000,000 stops =$120,000,000
less: Total cost = $ 9/stop X 12 mo X 1,000,000 stops=$108,000,000
Profit the franchise gave to the Franchise owner = $ 12,000,000
means each person in City A was forced to give
one of the private oligarch owned corporations
$12/yr from their pocket.

ACTOR TRUMP has done one thing: Trump has tried to changed which corporations are to be the recipients of the privatization deals. Putin and Trump both realize they need to counter the up and coming Indian, Iranian, and Chinese intrusion into the corporate markets their constituencies have traditionally enjoyed monopoly powers in. The deal with Putin is about the getting the CIA backed LNG business off Putin's back, but it is a problem for Trump, because wall street and London have invested heavily in the LNG. LNG explains why Bush, jr entered the White house, why 9/11 was produced, and why Iraq was invaded, the gas lines to Europe at the Ukraine were taken over politically, Why Turkey was a big player early on in the Syrian invasion, why Libya was obliterated, why the Morsey teams in Egypt were destroyed, and why the CIA invented ISIS invasion into Syria, why the Saudis have agreed to wipe Yemen of the map and raise production by 1,000,000 bbls/day when the world has already a gut of oil and why Oligarchs in Iran and Russia have been sanctioned.

But the unmentioned player in all of this, is those who, pledge their allegiance to Israel?

So what does the article say?

[Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case, the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State Department. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

veritas semper vincit , Jul 14, 2018 5:07:00 PM | 103

As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case, the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State Department.

I have new posts and new portraits at my sites:

-Givi, the hero of Donbass

-Asma al -Assad

-Houthi fighters

https://me582.wordpress.com/
https://artisticexpressions394454247.wordpress.com/

[Jul 15, 2018] Effect of the US TV on a parrot

Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [739] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT

Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs with their machetes.

We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wYcqmOzk&id=3B43263DD48F82D1FEC205044FBE66DCDA30A42F&thid=OIP.wYcqmOzkZCrNMrWlfuDUigHaJu&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.occidentaldissent.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f06%2frussians-out.jpg&exph=1280&expw=974&q=occidental+dissent+farstar&simid=607993335092480560

[Jul 15, 2018] How Presidents Are Broken in by the Deep State by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... the first week when they get the full classified briefings that are carefully prepared both to inform and to enhance the value of the agency doing the briefing. In the case of the Central Intelligence Agency, the most secret clandestine operations are revealed in power point to convince the new chief executive that the intelligence community is keeping the nation safe. The Pentagon for its part unveils flashy new weapons systems either about to come on line or being planned to demonstrate its ability to deter aggression from any source. ..."
Jun 22, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

"The systematic attempts to get the president on one's side inevitably are more successful with chief executives lacking experience in government as they have nothing to measure the power points they are seeing against"

I recall how a friend of mine who once served as a senior Pentagon intelligence briefer described what he called "breaking in" a new president. Today, incoming presidents receive some intelligence briefings so that they do not land in office on a cold January day totally unprepared for what awaits them. But generally speaking, the real surprises are unveiled during the first week when they get the full classified briefings that are carefully prepared both to inform and to enhance the value of the agency doing the briefing. In the case of the Central Intelligence Agency, the most secret clandestine operations are revealed in power point to convince the new chief executive that the intelligence community is keeping the nation safe. The Pentagon for its part unveils flashy new weapons systems either about to come on line or being planned to demonstrate its ability to deter aggression from any source.

The thinking is that if you get the new president on board in his first few days he will be yours forever, signing off on budget increases year after year while also providing political cover when things go wrong. While the Defense Department and intelligence community benefit from the process and are frequently able to get the president's ear because they are able to unveil some sensational "secrets," other government agencies also competing for dollars do not have that appeal and do not do so well. State Department, for example, rarely makes much of an impression because its work is basically prosaic.

The systematic attempts to get the president on one's side inevitably are more successful with chief executives lacking experience in government as they have nothing to measure the power points they are seeing against. President George H. W. Bush, emerging from years spent as a naval officer, a congressman and CIA Director, is unlikely to have been much influenced by a briefing. President Bill Clinton, harboring a negative perception about CIA, did not even see his Director James Woolsey for over a year. But, on balance, most new presidents are willing to be seduced by the inside-the-Beltway establishment as represented by the Pentagon and the intelligence community.

Donald Trump in particular appears to have succumbed, deferring to generals and intelligence chiefs much more often than not, but he has also taken the message of American omnipotence too much to heart. Trump, with no military or government experience, defers to the national security advocates without any sense of the hard reality that all actions have consequences.

The Pentagon is still planning for a military parade in Washington on Veterans' Day in November, a huge waste of resources that will do little more than stroke the presidential ego. And the open admiration for the armed forces makes it easy for Trump to think first of using weapons and coercion instead of diplomacy, to launch cruise missiles and endorse an admitted torturer as the new CIA Chief. The president is very much wedded to the idea that the United States can go it alone if necessary and the rules that constrain other nations need not apply, a very dangerous conceit.

There have been several ominous developments in Syria, which could bring the U.S. nose-to-nose with Russian forces in the country. A recent Israeli airstrike , initially credited to Washington, appears to have killed 52 Syrian soldiers. There have also been rumors in Washington that the Administration is preparing for something "big" in Syria, possibly related to warnings from the Pentagon that Syrian forces have been threatening the unilaterally declared "de-escalation zone" in the country's southeast. This suggests that the U.S. will block attempts by the government in Damascus to regain control of areas until recently dominated by terrorists. Trump has also quietly restored funding to the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group much loved by Hollywood and Congress.

All of these steps in Syria serve no real American interest. More ominously, Trump has now revealed that he has ordered the Pentagon to create a military Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces. He explained " Our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space."

How other nations will adapt to American rule over outer space and the planets is difficult to predict, but if the past seventeen years of Washington's assertion of its supremacy are anything to go by, the result will be very, very bad. And it is quite unsettling to also observe that a nation that clearly cannot provide access to decent health care for its citizens is now aspiring to turn the moon into a fortified bastion.

Source: Strategic Culture

[Jul 15, 2018] Deep State Sideswipes Helsinki Summit With Mueller Indictments by Tom Luongo

Notable quotes:
"... "In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington D.C. coverups...this is a desperate move by Mueller...this does nothing at all to strengthen Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel" ..."
"... Tom is a regular contributor not only here at Russia Insider but also at Seeking Alpha and Newsmax . Check out his blog, Gold Goats 'n Guns and please support his work through his Patreon where he also publishes his monthly investment newsletter. ..."
"... isolationist, conspiracy theorist, nativist and racist ..."
"... Please support my work by joining my Patreon. ..."
Jul 14, 2018 | russia-insider.com

"In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington D.C. coverups...this is a desperate move by Mueller...this does nothing at all to strengthen Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel"

Tom is a regular contributor not only here at Russia Insider but also at Seeking Alpha and Newsmax . Check out his blog, Gold Goats 'n Guns and please support his work through his Patreon where he also publishes his monthly investment newsletter.

So, imagine my shock, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted twelve Russian intelligence officers on the eve of a summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Despite his oh-so-earnest protestations to the contrary, Rod Rosenstein, of all people, knows there are no coincidences in politics.

Trump is on a search and destroy mission all across Europe right now attacking the pillars of the post-WWII institutional order.

While in Washington, Congress devolved into an episode of Jerry Springer during the Peter Strzok hearings yesterday. Both Strzok and Rosenstein have literally destroyed their credibility by stonewalling Congress over the investigations into Hillary Clinton's email server, which, conveniently Mueller now has enough information to take to the Grand Jury.

In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington D.C. coverups. Both Strzok and Rosenstein know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is completely compromised and can do nothing to stop them from obstructing investigations and turning our justice system into something worse than farce.

And why do I think this is a desperate move by Mueller? Because the indictments go out of their way to preclude any Americans having any involvement in these 'hacking events' at all.

So, this does nothing at all to strengthen Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel.

On the other hand, it does a bang-up job of shifting the news cycle away from Trump's heavy-handed but effective steam-rolling Germany and the UK over NATO spending, energy policy and Brexit.

Trump continues, in his circuitous way, to stick a fork in the eye of the globalists whose water politicians like Angela Merkel and Theresa May have carried for years.

Now with Trump prepared to sit down with Putin and potentially hammer out a major agreement on many outstanding issues like Syria, arms control, NATO's purpose, energy policy and terrorism the Deep State/Globalist/Davos Crowd needed something to saddle him with to prevent this from happening.

The reasoning will be (if not already out there as I write this) that Trump would be a traitor for sitting down with Putin after these indictments.

These indictments are not of some Russian private citizens Internet trolls like the last batch. These are Russian military intelligence officers. And the irony of this, of course, is that the intelligence officers involved in collating and disseminating demonstrably false information about Trump which led to all this in the first place hail from the country that Trump is currently visiting, the U.K.

So, the trap is set for the Democrats, Never Trumpers and media to hang Trump next week with whatever agreement he signs with Putin. In fact, at this point Trump could shoot Putin in the face with a concealed Derringer and they'd say he killed Putin to shut him up.

There is no rationality left to this circus. And that's what these indictments represent.

This is not about right and wrong, it never was. It is, was and always will be about maintaining power. If this week shows people anything it should show just how far these powerful people will go to maintain that power, pelf and privilege.

Because winning isn't everything, it's the only thing in politics. Unfortunately, for them, people all over the West are getting tired of it. And the more they smirk, shuck, jive and cry "Point of Order!" the angrier the people will get.

As one of my savvy subscribers said to me this morning, the Strzok hearings are brilliant. They are shifting the Overton Window so far away from the status quo that it will never shift back to where it was.

I'm sure Mueller, et.al. are thinking they are so smart in doing this today. Just like Angela Merkel continues to think she's survived the challenge to her power and Theresa May hers.

They think they've managed these crises.

They haven't. All they are doing is ensuring the next opportunity the people get to rise up against them at the ballot box the worse it will be for them. And if the ballot box doesn't work, then pitchforks and torches come out.

It is the way of things. It has happened before and it will happen again.

Those in power and their quislings in the media and the legislatures continue to decry this growing sense of unfairness as dangerous. Terms like isolationist, conspiracy theorist, nativist and racist are all used as bludgeons to shame people for feeling outraged at the corruption they see with their own eyes.

The problem for people like Strzok, Rosenstein and Mueller is that they are simply expendable pawns. And when the time is right they will be sacrificed to ensure the real perpetrators walk without a scratch.

Please support my work by joining my Patreon.

[Jul 15, 2018] CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon.

Notable quotes:
"... They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better. ..."
"... That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all. ..."
"... So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government. ..."
"... In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion. ..."
"... In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money. ..."
"... CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon. ..."
"... n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content. ..."
"... Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tom Zychowski , Jul 15, 2018 1:53:43 AM | 137

Another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact. I remember when MSM in EU dismissed as conspiracy theory Assange and Wikileaks claims the secret indictment is being prepared for Assange and that warrant for Julian would be issued immediately upon arriving in Sweden for pre trial interview as accused ? No, as a person of interest.

Now, after this recent indictment we know for a fact that Assange was or will be indicted for treason regardless of fact that statute does not apply to him as non US citizen.

Returning to this phony indictment and baseless accusation contained in it.

The same wild accusation as in 2017 CIA report and the same utter lack of any shred of evidence whatsoever as pointed out by former CIA, NSA directors and agents whistleblowers who back then demanded hard evidences of hacking (trace routing log) as these would not in anyway have disclosed any classified information or methods of collection by doing so.

They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better.

That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all.

So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government.

In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion.

In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money.

CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon.

I n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content.

Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once.

What is going on with the Mueller indictments is open public demonstration of how US court system is submissive to political control and expediences and serves solely as a political tool in class war and in this case psychological class warfare aimed exactly in sowing divisions among population along phony partisan or Identity politics lines exactly what they accused Putin of doing.

Like Hitler shouting murder while he was murdering Jews , as Israel shouting murder while IDF is murdering Palestinians, not Mueller shouting treason, collusion, attack on democracy while while doing the same or worse.

[Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia." ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from Decameron

FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in 2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying about it.

Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.

Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection. Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice, selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department, FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.

And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.

Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.

... ... ...

Congressional hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTAlUormPA

Gohmert on Fox: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5808969622001/?#sp=show-clips

Pat Lang Mod , 24 minutes ago

So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
James Thomas , 9 hours ago
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious about the mechanics.
Pat Lang Mod -> James Thomas , 42 minutes ago
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance. Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.

[Jul 15, 2018] It is amazing to see the detail with which the US supposedly knows of the names and actions of cyber spy organizations personnel in Russia

FBI did not have the evidence, as they were pushed aside and not allowed to look into it. Crowdstrike was hired by DNC (read Clinton family) and handles (or more correctly botched)the investigation. No evidence from Crowdstrike is probably admissible in court as they are clearly played the role Clinton family pawns. NSA can't have such a detailed evidence because of encryption. So where did it came from? CIA?
The accusations are worded different this time around. No more of "we assess" like the last time. Direct Le Carre style of fiction ;-)
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Curtis, Jul 14, 2018 3:38:00 PM | 92

It is amazing to see the detail with which the US supposedly knows of the names and actions of cyber spy organizations personnel in Russia. If not the NSA, why not the Mossad cyber units? They have a lot of skill and connections with telecom eqpt and companies. Are these the only spearfishers to be indicted? And did any go into team Trump?

But don't look at other things like how stupid team Clinton is with cyber security whether HRC's handling of classified emails with her private server or her campaign's handling of important matters. And what of the comment of those emails.

Our MSM told us not to look. These things only lead to more uncomfortable questions and tend to drag us into the morass ... while they do ... what?

[Jul 15, 2018] Mueller as a new Alan Dulles in Warren Commission: 's indictments are not just fraudulent, but easily discoverable as such (as they are plagiarized). I'm frankly baffled as to why, even if Mueller felt compelled to fabricate something to blow up Trump's meeting with Putin, he'd go this route

Mueller is a CIA man in FBI and always was.
Notable quotes:
"... The rising power of China and Russia has been a threat to US power for some time, no matter if its the US globalists trying their useless hegemon crap to stop them or the US nationalists that have scrapped the old hegemonic empire. The nationalists are more dangerous as their thinking is not confined to the box of the last era. ..."
"... They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better. ..."
"... That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all. ..."
"... So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government. ..."
"... In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion. ..."
"... In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money. ..."
"... CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon. ..."
"... n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content. ..."
"... Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Guerrero , Jul 14, 2018 10:50:07 PM | 126

The Mueller investigation started with a script allegedly authored by Sergei Skripal; two tall blonde moscow hotel-room prostitutes peeing on obama's bed; this is genius.

However the hoax unravelled; (the tale was too thin and needed filling out because Trump had not even been impeached according to Peter Strozk's dungeon master's original plan.)

The love story of Dawn and Charlie is not Skripal's best work, yet we sense that the hand of the master is there somewhere, and look forward to the next episode of his new novela.

V , Jul 14, 2018 11:38:46 PM | 130
mauisurfer | Jul 14, 2018 11:03:02 PM | 129

Adam Curtis' Bitter Lake, is a facinating look, about how we arrived at our present.

anti_republocrat , Jul 15, 2018 12:17:53 AM | 131
In part, this indictment is preparation to drop charges in the Concord Management case, which will make discovery in the Concord case moot. If they issued these indictments after dropping the charges in Concord Management, it would be too obvious that this is just a replacementfor those charges. Won't it be fun if one of the Russians indicted patriotically volunteers to travel to the use and likewise demands discovery?

Of course, we're all aware that William Binney has analyzed the metadata of the files and concluded that their transfer was too rapid to have occurred over the internet and must have been downloaded to a USB drive.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 15, 2018 12:56:36 AM | 133

The rising power of China and Russia has been a threat to US power for some time, no matter if its the US globalists trying their useless hegemon crap to stop them or the US nationalists that have scrapped the old hegemonic empire. The nationalists are more dangerous as their thinking is not confined to the box of the last era.
Tom Zychowski , Jul 15, 2018 1:53:43 AM | 137
Another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact. I remember when MSM in EU dismissed as conspiracy theory Assange and Wikileaks claims the secret indictment is being prepared for Assange and that warrant for Julian would be issued immediately upon arriving in Sweden for pre trial interview as accused ? No, as a person of interest.

Now, after this recent indictment we know for a fact that Assange was or will be indicted for treason regardless of fact that statute does not apply to him as non US citizen.

Returning to this phony indictment and baseless accusation contained in it.

The same wild accusation as in 2017 CIA report and the same utter lack of any shred of evidence whatsoever as pointed out by former CIA, NSA directors and agents whistleblowers who back then demanded hard evidences of hacking (trace routing log) as these would not in anyway have disclosed any classified information or methods of collection by doing so.

They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better.

That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all.

So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government.

In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion.

In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money.

CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon.

I n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content.

Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once.

What is going on with the Mueller indictments is open public demonstration of how US court system is submissive to political control and expediences and serves solely as a political tool in class war and in this case psychological class warfare aimed exactly in sowing divisions among population along phony partisan or Identity politics lines exactly what they accused Putin of doing.

Like Hitler shouting murder while he was murdering Jews , as Israel shouting murder while IDF is murdering Palestinians, not Mueller shouting treason, collusion, attack on democracy while while doing the same or worse.

Pft , Jul 15, 2018 3:15:20 AM | 142
Interesting article here on Mr "Cover It Up " Mueller

https://caucus99percent.com/content/what-mueller-wont-find

Might want to rethink that "straight and arrow"

Kind of like Dulles being appointed to the Warren Commision


Peter AU 1 , Jul 15, 2018 5:09:14 AM | 144
On Mueller it's worth watching the congressional hearings. The shit he is trying to keep covered will come out there.
fairleft , Jul 15, 2018 6:34:53 AM | 146
Let's get real here. I don't know if it was part of the original indictment, but there are now claims that the government, using secret and likely illegal NSA surveillance, _has_ been able to show a 'trail' from the Russian officers to Guccifer 2.0 and then on to Wikileaks. Is this true or just more claims without evidence? U.S. indictments show technical evidence for Russian hacking accusations
metamars , Jul 15, 2018 8:58:22 AM | 156
Regarding @146, I think I get it now. Mueller can claim anything he wants in this indictment, including pseudofacts generated through illegal international data collection, because he knows he will never be asked to present such evidence in a court of law.

Posted by: fairleft | Jul 15, 2018 7:50:08 AM | 149

Mueller's indictments are not just fraudulent, but easily discoverable as such (as they are plagiarized). I'm frankly baffled as to why, even if Mueller felt compelled to fabricate something to blow up Trump's meeting with Putin, he'd go this route.

(TRUMP RELATED) (SUGGESTION BOX TRUMP) Truepundit.com: Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist's Lawsuit Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ's Big Splash Appears Fabricated https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald_GoodAndBad/comments/8z1eql/trump_related_suggestion_box_trump_truepunditcom/

This rabbit hole is very deep, indeed.....

[Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
Mar 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
216 SHARES

FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.

Sources told Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in 2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing happened. "

In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement.

The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.

It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending anti-Trump text messages to his mistress - downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."

Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.

18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law.

In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep. Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."

"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.

By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely careless" language.

The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume" of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.

Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:

W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.

In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.

Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.

And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.

[Jul 15, 2018] If history is any precedent, empires without economic foundations, sooner or later crumble, especially when rising regional powers are capable of replacing them.

Notable quotes:
"... No doubt that the globalized elite want Friedman's "World is Flat" concept – profit maximizing world markets, world production, stateless corporations, free movement of labour and capital (without troublesome national identities) represented by an exclusive and vastly wealthy rootless elite ruling over a global worker hive. The "Empire" is only the military/enforcement side of this, with sanctions/wars against dissidents. ..."
"... Trump is in the strange situation of having been elected to fight the Empire while needing elite Imperial support to stay in his job. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , Next New Comment

July 14, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT

If history is any precedent, empires without economic foundations, sooner or later crumble, especially when rising regional powers are capable of replacing them.

This is worth repeating. Empire and wars are expensive. For example the British world trade network was doing fine until the "Imperial" idea came along with wars and economic failure. The US is doing even worse in trying to fight its Imperial wars on credit.

The result is that Trump faces the real prospects of a decline in exports and popular electoral support – especially from those adversely affected by declining markets and deep cuts in health, education and the environment.

He may well be blindsided by a candidate who actually implements Trump's own election platform 1) no more wars 2) domestic infrastructure spending 3) stopping mass immigration 4) draining the swamp. Trumps electoral weakness is that didn't follow through on his promises.

The electoral oligarchy and the mass media will force him to retreat from the trade wars and surrender to the globalizing elites.

No doubt that the globalized elite want Friedman's "World is Flat" concept – profit maximizing world markets, world production, stateless corporations, free movement of labour and capital (without troublesome national identities) represented by an exclusive and vastly wealthy rootless elite ruling over a global worker hive. The "Empire" is only the military/enforcement side of this, with sanctions/wars against dissidents.

Trump is in the strange situation of having been elected to fight the Empire while needing elite Imperial support to stay in his job.

[Jul 15, 2018] Russia studying possible oil-for-goods deal with Iran - Novak

Jul 15, 2018 | uk.reuters.com

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Friday that a deal under which Russia would provide goods to Iran in exchange for oil is still possible.

Russia is studying all legal issues related to the possible deal, he said.

[Jul 15, 2018] Anglos don't value direct warfare, so they don't care if another military has better tech. Anglos realized a long time ago it is much less costly to just play divide and conquer to defeat a more powerful adversary by getting other countries to do the fighting.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [298] Disclaimer , July 15, 2018 at 12:58 am GMT

The Saker is missing the point of Anglo Warfare. Anglos don't value direct warfare, so they don't care if another military has better tech. Anglos realized a long time ago it is much less costly to just play divide and conquer to defeat a more powerful adversary by getting other countries to do the fighting.

Hence trying to tarpit Russia in Syria which Putin wisely did not fall for.

The Anglo-Zionist Empire would be foolish to directly confront Russia, so they won't. Instead they will seek to economically strangle Russia and turn close allies against her such as Ukraine.

This is something Russias weapons cannot protect itself with.

Kiza , July 15, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
I am very busy at the moment and have little time to comment. However, I did read the Saker's review of Martyanov's book and its comments. My small insight is that a son of a Soviet sovok and a son of White-Russian are cooperating. I always wanted for this to happen, but I still find it amazing and most significant. For me, it is a good explanation why modern Russia is so successful compared with US and Soviet Union. The Russians are mostly at peace with their 20th century history and look towards the future. Opposite to this, as the generals usually fight the previous war, US still fights a country which does not exist any more. The new Russian challenge is to fight the fifth column of the Russian Liberals, the lovers of the West, exemplified by Anatoly Elliot Karlin-Higgins, the customary Jewish ideologues with forked tongues.

My apology for using the disparaging word sovok, which I read for the first time in disparaging comments by the above mentioned big BSer.

Finally, it would be interesting if the current Russian and Chinese weapons development would initiate a weapons race which would help crush the already precarious US and Western financial system. It is not that US military spending is a problem as a percentage of GDP, but its further increase at this time could be the straw which broke camel's back. In my mind, Saker and Martyanov with their writing, as well as the Russian civilian and military leadership with their public statements, show an honest wish to deter the West from attacking Russia. But the unintended effect on somebody bound on world-supremacy will be to spend even more (as inefficiently as before) to gain back the supremacy. As I have written many times before, the only possible solution for the preservation of humanity is the financial collapse of the US/West .

Or maybe it is a bit like with the most recent US Presidential Election, the Russians win with either of the two terrible candidates winning. If US chase them in military technology development, they go bankrupt. If US do not chase them, they cannot attack Russia and China any more. Shaking down "the allies" for more money is already seriously destabilising the political order of the West. The overall direction of things is obvious.

Kiza , July 15, 2018 at 1:21 am GMT
@The Alarmist

Communication satellites were mentioned in the article, that is not LEO since the Motorola's Iridium died. Most if not all US military communication satellites are in the geo-sync orbit 36,000 km away. Any decent ASAT system would be targeting both GPS in LEO and C3 satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

[Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok testifies, reveals partisan warfare (VIDEO)

Jul 15, 2018 | theduran.com

Vox News reported on this as well, calling the event a "ridiculous circus."

FBI agent Peter Strzok' s testimony before Congress on Thursday collapsed into a full-on partisan circus , with Republican and Democratic members shouting at each other, House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte threatening to hold Strzok in contempt, and Democrats staging an over-the-top political stunt

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Strzok exchanged a series of text messages with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having an affair, that were critical of Trump. In one particularly controversial exchange, Page texted Strzok that she was worried Trump might win. "No. No, he won't. We'll stop it," Strzok reassured her.

Trump and many of his Republican allies have seized on these text messages as proof of anti-Trump bias in the FBI and to discredit the Mueller probe -- the investigation Trump calls a " Rigged Witch Hunt ."

His appearance before a joint session of the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees on Thursday was the first time he had publicly testified before Congress since the revelations about his texts.

It was bound to be a contentious hearing -- and so far, it has been.

Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, immediately accused Reps. Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chair of the House Oversight Committee, of deliberately trying to interfere with the special counsel investigation after Mueller obtained five guilty pleas from people associated with the Trump campaign in recent months.

And Cummings brought along some pretty spectacular signs to make the point.

As he spoke, Democratic staffers held huge signs with the names and photos of the five people affiliated with the Trump campaign who have already pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe: former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, London lawyer Alexander van der Zwaan, and Richard Pinedo, a California man who committed identity theft as part of the Russian election interference campaign.

Republicans first objected to the sign-holding, but seemed to back off when Democrats asked them to cite which rules the signs violated. The signs stayed up as Cummings listed what Flynn et al had pleaded guilty to and slammed Republicans for interfering with the advancement of the Trump-Russia probe.

As the hearing continued, lawmakers fought over what kinds of questions Strzok should be obligated to answer.

Gowdy's very first question for Strzok -- about how many witnesses he had interviewed in the opening days of Russia probe -- sparked a huge debate . Strzok responded that he was not permitted to answer the question based on instructions from the FBI. Then Goodlatte threatened to hold Strzok in contempt for not answering the question.

"Mr. Strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question," Goodlatte said.

Democratic lawmakers interrupted Goodlatte and objected loudly in defense of Strzok.

"This demand puts Mr. Strzok in an impossible position," Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, responded. "If we have a problem with this policy we should take it up with the FBI, not badger Mr. Strzok."

Strzok then asked to speak to the FBI general counsel before answering the question.

When Goodlatte responded that Strzok could only consult "with your own counsel," that set off another testy exchange. Per CNN :

At one point, Strzok suggested that his removal from the special counsel's Russia investigation was driven by optics. "It is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias it was done based on the appearance," Strzok said, adding that he "didn't appreciate" the way Gowdy was framing the issue.

Gowdy replied, "I don't give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok."

"I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016," Gowdy added.

The stakes are high here, which may explain the tense nature of the hearing. If Strzok's defense of his past actions is received well by the public, he could potentially deal a serious blow to the power of right-wing narratives about FBI corruption.

But if he comes off looking bad it will do damage to the credibility of the Mueller probe -- and Mueller's ability to investigate the full extent of Trumpworld's relationship with Russia.

[Jul 15, 2018] COLLUSION Peter Strzok reveals THREE different versions of the 'Trump Dossier'

Notable quotes:
"... Via Strategic Culture ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | theduran.com

The salacious "Trump Dossier" that was spread as an amazing example of "fake news" being treated as real, received a further blow to its own credibility by none other than FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok on Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee hearing. Fox News notes that Mr. Strzok indicated that there was not one dossier, but three variations of this document – one held by Senator John McCain, a second by Mother Jones writer David Corn, and Fusion GPS owner Glenn Simpson.

Fox goes on to say:

Rudy Giuliani on Thursday slammed the "totally phony" Russia probe after anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok refused to identify the individuals who apparently handed the bureau three different copies of the salacious Trump dossier.

"Isn't that called collusion or conspiracy to gin up a totally inappropriate, totally illegally wire based on national security? And doesn't it taint the entire Russian probe?" Giuliani told Fox News' Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle."

"That's a disgrace, [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller should be ashamed of himself. Those Democrats trying to protect that liar, Strzok, should be ashamed of themselves. And every FBI agent I know wants to see this guy drummed out of the bureau," he said.

Giuliani said the dossier led to fake news and the "national intelligence wiretap" of the Trump campaign officials.

"So how much of it is infecting the investigation today? We may never know, which is why I think the investigation is totally phony," he added.

The inquiry into the dossier occurred during a fiery exchange earlier between Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Strzok, who appeared before a joint House committee about his role in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Jordan pressed Strzok about an email he sent to his colleagues, including FBI lawyer Lisa Page with whom he had an extramarital affair, indicating that he has seen different versions of the infamous Trump dossier from three different sources.

Jordan said he had the email the he sent to Page and several others with the subject: "BuzzFeed is about to accomplish the dossier."

"It says this, ' Comparing now the set is only identical to what (Sen. John) McCain had, parentheses, it has differences from what was given to us by (Mother Jones' David) Corn and (Fusion GPS founder Glenn) Simpson. ' Did you write all that?" Jordan asked.

Strzok refused to answer and declined to confirm whether there were three copies of the dossier the FBI had its hands on , saying he can't answer under the directive of the bureau.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/vkjnjZW8WkA?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Related Topics: Rudy Giuliani 'Trump dossier' Laura Ingraham Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson Trey Gowdy Peter Strzok Jim Jordan David Corn Up Next

Peter Strzok testifies, reveals partisan warfare (VIDEO) Don't Miss

For some Western leaders, the Cold War never ended Continue Reading Advertisement You may like

Comments Latest Greece folds to deep state demands, expels Russian diplomats over meddling (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 54.

Published

6 mins ago

on

July 15, 2018 By

Alex Christoforou Ahead of the NATO summit, Alexis Tsipras made an unprecedented move to expel two Russian diplomats and bar the entry of two others Russian diplomats to Greece.

The claim that Tsipras' radical left government cites in its expulsion is the tried and true Russia meddling narrative. The SYRIZA Greek government claims alleged "Russian meddling" in an attempt to foment opposition to the "historic" name deal between Athens and Skopje, a deal which coincidently paves the way for FYROM to join NATO.

A little creativity would have been nice, but in this specific case Alexis Tsipras decided to just go with the canned, Deep State script known as "Russian meddling" in order to guarantee that his very unpopular name deal with FYROM goes through the rigged approval process.

The fact that a government as corrupt as Greece's SYRIZA is now suddenly issuing expulsions for bribery is ironic to say the least.

Did Tsipras cut off his nose to please his EU/NATO paymaster to spite Greece's face?

The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Greece's recent expulsion of Russian diplomats, in what is clearly a Deep State orchestrated maneuver to drive a wedge between two countries that have had traditionally close ties, while fitting another piece into NATO's geopolitical puzzle to engulf the balkan states.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran's YouTube Channel.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/o2cbwNn6ejo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Continue Reading Latest Hidden agenda behind Greece's unfriendly move against Russia

On July 11, Greece said it would expel two Russian diplomats and barred the entry of two others.

Published

18 hours ago

on

July 14, 2018 By

Arkady Savitsky Geoffrey Pyatt, former US ambassador to Ukraine and current US ambassador to Greece. The formal reason is alleged meddling in an attempt to foment opposition to the "historic" name deal between Athens and Skopje paving the way for Macedonia's NATO membership. Moscow said it would respond in kind.

Nothing like this ever happened before. The relations between the two countries have traditionally been warm. This year Moscow and Athens mark the 190th anniversary of diplomatic relations and the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Hellenic Republic. They have signed over 50 treaties and agreements.

The Greek people's positive attitude towards Russia is well known . It had been widely believed that Athens trusted Moscow more than Brussels. Russian ambassador to Athens Andrey Maslov has recently described Greece "as a reliable partner". More than one million Russian tourists are expected to visit Greece this year.

Unlike the majority of other Western countries, Greece rejected the British request to expel Russian diplomats in the wake of London's claims of Moscow's involvement in the Skripal poisoning . It's also among the few NATO members to have Russian weapons in the armed forces' inventory, including S-300 air defense systems.

The Greek Kathimerini daily's report offers details on the matter. It's not so important what exactly happened or if the sources cited are reliable enough to believe them. The information is too scarce anyway for making any conclusions. New Democracy's shadow Foreign Minister Giorgos Koumoutsakos on July 12 criticized the lack of information from the government on the rift between Greece and Russia.

Such things happen from time to time and if the relations are good, the differences can be ironed out behind the scenes without much ado. There is always a hidden agenda behind making such scoops leaked into media. Nothing comes from nothing. And timing is never accidental.

Spy scandals never come out of the blue. For instance, the news about the expulsion coincided with the NATO summit in Brussels demonstrating Greece's solidarity with the allies. It was also the time preparations for a visit of Russian FM Sergey Lavrov to Greece were in full swing. Now it's not known whether the visit will take place.

Kathimerini says the relationship started to gradually worsen behind the scenes about a couple of years ago. What happened back then? Geoffrey Pyatt assumed office as US Ambassador to Greece. Before the assignment he had served as ambassador to Ukraine in 2013-2016 at the time of Euromaidan – the events the US took active part in. He almost openly contributed into the Russia-Ukraine rift. Now it's the turn of Greece. The ambassador has already warned Athens about the "malign influence of Russia". He remains true to himself.

During the two years, Greece has not been opposing the anti-Russia sanctions as vigorously and resolutely as Italy or Hungary. None of the planned energy or other economic projects has come into fruition.

Greece is involved in the EastMed sea gas project along with Cyprus, Italy and Israel. The country is also viewed by the United States as a potential customer for American LNG exports, especially after it modernized its port facilities near Pireaus. Greece plans to build a floating storage terminal for LNG in Alexandroupoli. Economy always shapes foreign policy. Evidently, Greece is not interested in cheap Russian gas coming to Europe via the North Stream pipelines. Neither is the United States.

The scandal may be a straw for Greece to catch at as the heavily indebted nation is balancing on the brink of financial crisis. Athens needs relief deals to restructure the debt. It makes it dependent on the US-controlled IMF and the EU (Germany is the largest lender) to bail it out. Under the circumstances, it cannot be politically independent. As opposition to the austerity measures is growing, the government needs a "meddling scandal" to distract the people from everyday life woes.

President Trump has promised Prime Minister Tsipras large investments into economy. The United States is the sixth-largest foreign investor in that country. Addressing the American-Hellenic Chamber of Commerce annual New Year's event in Athens, Geoffrey Pyatt expressed his optimism that 2018 would be a year of recovery for Greece, while all the more US investors are seeking ways to collaborate with Greek enterprises.

The extension of the agreement for the use of the US naval base in Souda Bay, Crete, the only deep-water port in southern Europe and the Mediterranean able to accommodate American aircraft carriers, is a topic for talks. Upgrading of the Greek fleet of F-16 fighters is also on the agenda. The US is ready to make it a relief deal.

Its military is reportedly harboring thoughts about developing in Greece a regional alternative to the use of the crucial Incirlik base in Turkey. The relationship between Turkey and the West continues to deteriorate. Greece sees it as a chance to boost its importance for the US in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa.

Propaganda also has a role to play. For instance, Russia is blamed by Western media for harboring nefarious plans to hinder the possible agreement between Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the UK to reunify the island. It is also accused of meddling in Macedonia. As usual, one story is invented after another to be spread around by Western media outlets.

A day after expelling diplomats, Greece said it wants to turn a page seeking good relations with Moscow. Russia has no desire to seriously deteriorate the relationship but it will retaliate as it always does. It will also keep in mind that the Greek government is playing its own games and Russia is supposed to a part of it. Greece is also used by those it depends on.

National sovereignty happened to be too costly for Athens. Normal bilateral relations may be preserved but things like trust and sincerity will be missing. Games change and governments come and go but friendly relations between the peoples remain. The provocation committed by the Greek government cannot change the reality. 63% of Greeks hold a favorable view of Russia. This relationship is too strong to be ruined outside pressure.

Via Strategic Culture Continue Reading Latest Trump CRUSHES 'fake news' Jim Acosta and CNN in the UK (VIDEO)

During a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May, US President Donald Trump refuses to take a question from CNN reporter Jim Acosta in a hilarious jab, rightly calling CNN "fake news."

Published

19 hours ago

on

July 14, 2018 By

Vladimir Rodzianko Earlier in the press conference, Trump called out CNN after receiving a question from NBC News reporter Hallie Jackson. Trump said NBC is "possibly worse than CNN." Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

ACOSTA : "Mr. President, since you attacked CNN, can I ask you a question?"

TRUMP : "[FOX News correspondent] John Roberts go ahead."

ACOSTA : "Can I ask you a question?"

TRUMP : "No."

TRUMP : "CNN is fake news. I don't take questions from CNN. CNN is fake news. I don't take questions from CNN."

Acosta brought the press conference to a halt insisting that the U.S. president take his question. Trump tried to move things along by calling on Roberts again.

TRUMP : "John Roberts from FOX, let's go to a real network."

Trump continued after the press conference in a tweet:

So funny! I just checked out Fake News CNN, for the first time in a long time (they are dying in the ratings), to see if they covered my takedown yesterday of Jim Acosta (actually a nice guy). They didn't! But they did say I already lost in my meeting with Putin. Fake News

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2018

Watch: CNN really HATES being called 'fake news'

Subscribe to The Duran's YouTube channel and never miss a video!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/sgx1RuAY7cA?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Continue Reading JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal... Validating payment information... Waiting for PayPal... Advertisement Latest 6 mins ago Greece folds to deep state demands, expels Russian diplomats over meddling (Video) Latest 18 hours ago Hidden agenda behind Greece's unfriendly move against Russia Latest 19 hours ago Trump CRUSHES 'fake news' Jim Acosta and CNN in the UK (VIDEO) Latest 2 days ago Peter Strzok testifies, reveals partisan warfare (VIDEO) Latest 2 days ago COLLUSION: Peter Strzok reveals THREE different versions of the 'Trump Dossier' Latest 1 week ago Syria is calling its people home Latest 1 week ago Deconstructing British anti-Russian propaganda: the parallel universe of the BBC

[Jul 15, 2018] Question to Rosenstein: Why did you hide the fact that Peter Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends?

Jul 15, 2018 | theduran.com
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went before Congress to testify on the DOJ's role in the DNC email hacks.

According to Zerohedge , a visibly frustrated Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) unleashed on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray during Congressional testimony on Thursday, lashing out at FBI agent Peter Strzok's bias against Donald Trump while investigating him – before telling Rosenstein that the ongoing Russia investigation is tearing the country apart.

Representative Jim Jordan pressed Rosenstein on a variety of issues (via Zerohedge ) .

– Slow document delivery from the DOJ

– "Why did you hide the fact that Peter Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends?" (The original judge in Mike Flynn case)

– "Did you threaten staffers on the House Intelligence committee?"

– Peter Strzok's Wednesday testimony which FBI attorneys repeatedly muzzled

Rosenstein refused to say whether or not any member of the Obama administration tried to undermine Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris analyze the heated back and forth between the Assistant AG and Rep. Gowdy and Rep. Jordan.

As Zerohedge rightly puts it: "In short, GOP sabre rattling was met with smug indignancy as a visibly annoyed and very confident Rosenstein batted their questions away like gnats."

"Why'd you tell Mr. Strozk not to answer our questions yesterday, Mr. Rosenstein?" -Jim Jordan

-- Jordan Rachel (@TheJordanRachel) June 28, 2018

Complete exchange between Rep. @Jim_Jordan and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Rosenstein: "Your use of this to attack me personally is wrong."

Jordan: "It's not personal." pic.twitter.com/kR0ornT5Gs

-- CSPAN (@cspan) June 28, 2018

Trey Gowdy transcript below

For Peter Strzok – at precisely the same time that Bob Mueller was appointed – precisely the same time, Peter Strzok was talking about his "unfinished business" and how he needed to fix and finish it so Donald Trump did not become President. He was talking about impeachment within three days of special counsel Mueller being appointed!

Three days! That's even quicker than MSNBC and the Democrats were talking about impeaching him. Within three days, the lead FBI agent is talking about impeaching the president.

We're two years into this investigation, we're a year and a half into the presidency. We're over a year into the special counsel. You have a counterintelligence investigation that's become public. You have a criminal investigation that's become political. You have more bias than I have ever seen manifest in a law enforcement officer in the 20 years I used to do it for a living. And four other DOJ employees who had manifest animus towards the person they were supposed to be neutrally and detachedly investigating.

More than 60 Democrats have already voted to proceed with impeachment before Bob Mueller has found a single solitary damn thing! More than 60 have voted to move forward with impeachment! And he hasn't presented his first finding!

Russia attacked this country, they should be the target. But Russia isn't being hurt by this investigation right now, we are. This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided. We've seen the bias. We need to see the evidence.

If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the American people.

There's an old saying: "Justice delayed is justice denied." I think right now that all of us are being denied.

[Jul 15, 2018] Election promises are always face in a neoliberal empire. They are always elements of bait and switch game with electorate

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon

This is one of the reasons Americans of all colors and stripes will not receive the the benefits of the powers of economic equality, transparency, literal meanings of the health of the economy and economic freedom.

Because they will remain blinded by partisan worship of the presidents. We agree with Obama's criticism of big banks or of Bush's conducts of the war. We agree with Trump's criticism of the wars raging in the ME . We agree with his take on illegal immigrants. Instead of holding their feet to the fire, we condone, ignore, and then come out in support of them when they fail miserably and intentionally on other vital areas or when they go against the election promises.

We believe he shits about economy coming out of FOX CNN MSNBC NYT NY POST because we worship the candidates they support or don't support , or because the support or don't support our views on other areas .

American economy has been growing without the accompanying growth of the worker's compensation for 45 years . Nothing new . Presidents have no role for the existing condition of the economy . Presidents may claim some success down the line years after presidency is over . Our economic knowledge is doled out by the same psychopaths who dole us out the knowledge and the faith about wars and about other countries from the unclean perches of the media . Yes its a handout Its a dole because we have all along built up our world view and our view of US as told by these guys dictated to us and shoved down us . The folks whose income have suffered and hours have increased don't have the time or the brains to explore and verify . They are just happy to know that they heard this "Trust but verify " and heard this " make America Great Again " . They are happy to go to war because a lesbian was killed in Uganda or in Syria or a girl was raped in Libya or gas was smelt in Dara and Hara , Sara Bara and Laora - just throw some names any name, and these folks will lend their names and sign up .

This is the underlying mindset and the intellectual foundation which explain our deepest attachment to liar like Obama and to Trump. Combined with helplessness ,this experience of reality can be disorienting and can lead to Stockholm Syndrome .

If this president wants no immigration to EU, he should stop supporting France's exploitation and military adventures in Africa, stop adding to war efforts in ME and will pay the restitution for ravaging those countries . He should focus on US and stop talking about EU's immigration.

jilles dykstra , Next New Comment July 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm GMT

" If this president wants no immigration to EU, he should stop supporting France's exploitation and military adventures in Africa, stop adding to war efforts in ME and will pay the restitution for ravaging those countries. He should focus on US and stop talking about EU's immigration. "

THE great cause of migrants coming to Europe is the USA, the wars in and destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria Mali, as far as I know hardly anyone comes from Mali to us. Sudan was split by the USA, oil, the USA is building a drone base in Nigeria, oil again...

Possibly Brussels now understands that an attack on Iran will cause a new flood of migrants, Netanyahu has been warned. A new flood is the deadsure end of the EU.

[Jul 15, 2018] Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives would undermine US imperial rule. ..."
"... Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, dubbed 'the Lobby'. ..."
"... Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance Washington's quest for uncontested world domination. ..."
"... Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its companies to be frozen out of the Iran market. ..."
"... Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have links with five continents. ..."
"... Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate, in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again. However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure, which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more apposite slogan. ..."
May 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies.

The question of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific political direction?

Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.

We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.

In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain; and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take reprisals.

Trump's Strategic Framework

The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives would undermine US imperial rule.

Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran

Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.

Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.

Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy.

Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah.

The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, dubbed 'the Lobby'.

Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch.

Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by sanctions.

Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China

Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.

Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of hostility.

However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved inspectors.

Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program.

Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance monitored quarterly by the US.

Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and restrictions on Chinese goods and services. Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis.

Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and dominate the Asian and world economy.

Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.

Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed!

Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies.

His military intervention will inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately losing war.

Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US collaborators.

The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Tel Aviv's bombing will lead to counter-attacks in Israel.

Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.

Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction.

Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for exports to the US.

China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia.

China has greater resilience and capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic power house.

Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world depression.

Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from China.

Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China.

Kim will offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal, Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.

Conclusion

Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.

Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have links with five continents.

Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions.

Trump is heading for defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the process.

Epilogue

Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate, in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so.

Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia.

Nixon successfully promoted peaceful co-existence.

Trump is a master of defeats.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 9:00 am GMT

Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea

The Deep State told him to.

Gordo , May 15, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT

industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations)

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed!

Trump has no agenda of his own.

Per/Norway , May 15, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction."

indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the question.

The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the two fleet standard had to lowered to one fleet.

Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was lowered to one and half. What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria. In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East. Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975

The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the powder keg that had been standing for a long time.
Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII.

But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'. I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:06 am GMT
@Per/Norway

I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu.
The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.

Franklin Ryckaert , May 16, 2018 at 9:59 am GMT
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again. However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure, which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more apposite slogan.
Kirt , May 16, 2018 at 10:59 am GMT
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
JoaoAlfaiate , May 16, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
You haven't convinced me he isn't a psychopath.
Joe Hide , May 16, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.
N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup" took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.
A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing, agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting for Russia in Syria, etc. etc. Xi of China has pretty impressive credentials but this post is overly long anyway.
RESULTS CANT MORE THAN WORDS!
TT , May 16, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
@Gordo

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

• Agree: CalDre

I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things, ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous whining.

When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as it did for WTO & Globalization now.

Of course any moronic comments about only China is esponaging US IPR & rise purely due to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.

[Jul 15, 2018] Russia says U.S. indictment over election meddling is groundless

Jul 15, 2018 | uk.reuters.com

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's foreign ministry said there was no evidence the 12 people indicted by the United States on Friday were linked to military intelligence or hacking into the computer networks of the U.S. Democratic party.

The U.S. indictment named 12 Russian officers and indicted them on charges of hacking the computer networks of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her party.

The Russian ministry said the indictment was meant to damage the atmosphere before the summit between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday.

Reporting by Denis Pinchuk; Editing by Andrew Heavens Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[Jul 15, 2018] 'Breitbart News' And 'Infowars' Under FBI Investigation For Ties To Russia

Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zanon , Jul 14, 2018 10:50:41 AM | 78

Also, I think this will become focus sooner or later, perhaps even MoA will be attacked and we who comment here:

'Breitbart News' And 'Infowars' Under FBI Investigation For Ties To Russia
https://www.good.is/articles/info-wars-under-fbi-investigation

lysias , Jul 14, 2018 11:45:50 AM | 79
Lee Stranahan, a host on a Radio SPUTNIK Show, and a former reporter for BREITBART, has said on air that people have told him that the FBI has been questioning them about him. He says he thinks that it is possible that he may be indicted.
Daniel , Jul 14, 2018 3:54:04 PM | 97
Zanon @78

Both Breitbart and Alex Jones are Zionist propaganda and disinformation creations. Any "threats" to them by "the Deep State" are subterfuge.

Oh look! Another Squirrel!

[Jul 15, 2018] Mueller has politicized the Special Prosecutor and the timing is obviously meant to hamstring Trump in Helsinki

Notable quotes:
"... Exactly what I was thinking, he can create multiple indictments and nothing will get to court, he's knows that. What this really is, is a giant PSYOP, crazy propaganda going on in front of us. And how many people protest? Nothing but a witch hunt as Trump have pointed out. ..."
"... I am sure Mueller could create a collusion indictment too, there is no stop against these lying neocons. After all, this is the same guy that was part of the Iraq WMD lies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqTZF6nyCY ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anunnaki , Jul 14, 2018 9:58:55 AM | 75

'Creepiest person in America': Peter Strzok's bizarre congressional testimony goes viral

Mueller has politicized the Special Prosecutor and the timing is obviously meant to hamstring Trump in Helsinki

Trump should listen to Vlad: the dogs bark but the caravan rolls on

Bob In Portland , Jul 14, 2018 12:08:33 PM | 81
To understand Mueller, look at his career in the Justice Department:

https://caucus99percent.com/content/what-mueller-wont-find

Zanon , Jul 14, 2018 10:21:28 AM | 76
@V 74

Exactly what I was thinking, he can create multiple indictments and nothing will get to court, he's knows that. What this really is, is a giant PSYOP, crazy propaganda going on in front of us. And how many people protest? Nothing but a witch hunt as Trump have pointed out.

I am sure Mueller could create a collusion indictment too, there is no stop against these lying neocons. After all, this is the same guy that was part of the Iraq WMD lies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqTZF6nyCY

[Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
Jul 15, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives today that, rather than confirming the case of "Russian meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the major oddities:

  1. How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access to the servers/computers?
  2. Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when, according to the indictment, they completely and utterly failed to stop the "hacks?"
  3. Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator?

Please go read the indictment ( here ) for yourself. I have taken the time to put together a timeline based on the indictment and other information already on the public record. Here is the bottomline--if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the DNC, why did it take US officials more than six months to stop the activity? The statement of "facts" contained in the indictment also raise another troubling issue--what is the source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?

Here is the timeline:

18 April 2016--The Russians hacked into the DNC using DCCC computers and installed malware on the network. (p. 10, para 26)

22 April 2016--The GRU (Russian military intelligence) compressed gigabytes of data using X-tunnel and moved it to a GRU computer located in ILLINOIS. (p. 11, para 26a)

28 April 2016--The Russians stole documents from the DCCC and moved them on to the computer in Illinois. (p. 11, para 26b).

Late April - 5 May 2016--DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity. That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a formerfederal prosecutor who handled computer crime cases, called Henry, whom he has known for many years. ( Ellen Nakashima's 14 June Washington Post article ) (see p. 12, para 32 of th

13 May 2016--The Russians deleted logs and files from a DNC computer. (p. 11, para 31)

25 May - 1 June 2016--the Russians hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from DNC employees. (p. 11, para 29).

8 June 2016--DCLeaks.com set up, allegedly by the GRU (no proof offered). Also created Facebook and Twitter accounts (pp. 13-14, paras. 35, 38, 39)

10 June 2016--Ultimately, the [Crowdstrike] teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10 , all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office. ( Esquire Magazine offers a different timeline )

22 June 2016--Wikileaks contacts Guccier 2.0 stating, "send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing."

14 July 2016--The GRU, under the guise of Guccifer 2.0, sent Wikileaks an attachment with an encrypted file that explained how to access an online archive of "stolen" documents.

15 August 2016--Guccifer, alleged to be the GRU, has email exchange with Roger Stone.

22 July 2016--Wikileaks publishes 40,000 plus emails (note, the Indictment INCORRECTLY states that the number was 20,000).

September 2016--The GRU obtained access to a DNC server hosted by a third party and took "data analytics" info. (p. 13, para 34)

October 2016--A functioning Linux-based version of X-agent remained on the DNC server until October. (p. 12, para 32)

Another great curiosity is the timing of the announcement of the indictments. Why today? There was no urgency. No one was on the verge of fleeing the United States. All of the defendants are in Russia and beyond our reach.

A careful read of the indictment reveals a level of detail that could only have been obtained from intelligence sources (which means that information would be invalidated if the defendants ever decide to challenge the indictment) or it was provided by an unreliable third party.

I was shocked to discover, thanks to the indictment, how inept Crowdstrike was in this entire process. Not only did more than 30 days lapse before they attempted to shutdown the Russian hacking by installing new software and issuing new email passwords, but their so-called security fix left the Russians running an operation until October 2016. How can you be considered a credible cyber security company yet fail to shutdown the alleged Russian intrusion? It does not make sense.

The most glaring deficit in the indictment is the lack of supporting evidence to back up the charges levied in the indictment. How do we know that computer files were erased if the FBI did not have access to the computers and the servers? How do we know the names of the 12 Russian GRU officers? The Russians do not publish directories of secret organizations. Where did this information come from?

It would appear that the release of the indictment today was a deliberate political act designed to detract and distract from the Trump visit to the UK and to put pressure on him to confront Vladimir Putin. I have heard from many of my former colleagues who are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.

Posted at 11:26 PM in As The Borg Turns , Publius Tacitus , Russia , Russiagate | Permalink

David Habakkuk , 9 hours ago

PT and all,

A report appeared yesterday on the 'True Pundit' site entitled 'Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist's Lawsuit Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ's Big Splash Appears Fabricated.'

(See https://truepundit.com/muel... .)

According to the report:

''George Webb sued John Podesta in 2017, along with other elected and public officials including Justice Department personnel but today, exact language, accusations and content from Webb's suit appeared in the Justice Department's indictment. Beyond strange.

'Mueller swiped Webb's hacking allegations against Imran Awan and simply flipped them -- almost word for word – and made the exact allegations against Russian operatives.'

The reference is to a class action brought last November against John Podesta and others by one George Webb Sweigert and so far anonymous others against John Podesta and others.

The complaint by Sweigert is at https://www.classaction.org... .

A record to the proceedings to date is at https://www.pacermonitor.co... .

It has long seemed to me that it is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in relation to the activities of the Awans. However, I do not feel able to take an informed view on whether the 'True Pundit' report and the material presented by Sweigert reflect accurate information fed by discontented insiders, genuine 'fake news', or some combination of both.

I would be most interested in what others make of this.

Artemesia -> David Habakkuk , 7 hours ago
Steven Wasserman, Brother of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to Oversee Awan Family Investigation Jul 27, 2017 https://squawker.org/all/st...

Louie Gohmert, June 5, 2018

"'We need someone assigned to the Awan case that will protect congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family... for heavens sake, we need someone in the FBI to step up and do their job'"

www.c-span.org/video/?c4733...

In his opening remarks, Gohmert, a former prosecutor, argued that Rosenstein was "disqualified from being able to select or name" a special counsel because he had counseled Trump on the matter; therefore, Rosenstein would be a material witness.

Barbara Ann -> David Habakkuk , 8 hours ago
The truepundit article is fake news IMO. The only 'plagiarism' cited in it is the use of a domain name similar to the Dems fundraiser site; actblue.com . The class action against Podesta alleges the domain was set up by Awan and the DOJ indictment alleges it was set up by the GRU. Having now read them both, aside from references to 'spearphishing' - a well know hacking technique - I cannot see another example of significant repeat language.
Valissa Rauhallinen -> Barbara Ann , 5 hours ago
Thanks for researching! My eyes glaze over whenever I try to read thru generally boring legal docs. Since I had not encountered Truepundit before, I read some of the other articles on their front page and realized it's a conservative news site. There are more and more of those lately. Much needed as a balance to the mostly liberal MSM. I put on my "skeptical spectacles" for both.
OhGodI'veWastedMyLifeOnline , 12 hours ago
My educated guess as to the answer to your three questions is the same as you imply: 1. everything they have they have through hearsay from Crowdstrike. 2. See #1. 3. Wikileaks is the only party who would actually respond to the indictment and seek discovery, so leaving them out means they're not in danger of actually having to produce any evidence.
Valissa Rauhallinen , 6 hours ago
The timing of this announcement illustrates how badly the deep state desires to sabotage Trump's plan to improve US-Russia relations. Since they have been playing the Russia card for so long with no real results and to the detriment of their credibility, the urge to try to obstruct Trump at the 11th hour must have been overwhelming.

Between Trumps experience dealing with shady characters in his prior career (esp the casino industry) and what he has no doubt learned about his enemies in the borg since getting elected, I'm guessing he has contingency plans. And if not, he has great Road Runner-like instincts :)

Catapulta

Play Hide
Walrus , 19 hours ago
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Mueller, Rosenstein and others are a stalking horse for a complete reorganization of the DOJ and FBI. By that I mean it appears to now be beyond reasonable doubt that the above have demonstrated that they are highly political organizations, dripping with partisan agendas.

The question then becomes "how can justice be blind in the USA in the face of incontrovertible evidence it ain't?". To me that sounds like a call to action for President Trump.

Bill H -> Walrus , 9 hours ago
I suspect it is more a case of ineptitude than political bias. They were charged with finding meddling, so they are finding meddling by using imagination rather than evidence. Can you imagine the uproar if they were to conclude a two-year investigation by saying, "Sorry, we found nothing" at the end? We don't have to imagine, since that's what happened after the Clinton email investigation.
EEngineer -> Walrus , 5 hours ago
I think you could be right. If any agreements are made at the Helsinki summit, Trump will have to reign in the deep state to implement them. I've been wondering why there hasn't been a complete house cleaning at DOJ and FBI yet. Perhaps Trump is waiting for them to "jump the shark" so blatantly that when it finally comes it will be seen as the end of their long farce by everyone but the true believers, who by that point will be seen as delusional by the general public. Trump is the master of the game of perception. If he pulls it off the Democrats get crushed this fall. If not, we get president Pence next spring. Game on.
Michael Stojanovic , 7 hours ago
I think Rosenstein is bucking to be fired by Trump. This will then allow the Democrats, to claim obstruction of justice, justifying impeachment. ( Assumption being the Democrats win control of Congress and Senate ) He's been deeply provocative giving ample reason for said dismissal, Trump has resisted up until now. As long as he resists the temptation Congress will eventually impeach Rosenstein. As this article went to print documents for his impeachment are being drawn up for release on Monday possibly, of course subject to politics. ( Please edit the link if you feel it's inappropriate ) https://www.zerohedge.com/n...
Eric Newhill , 18 hours ago
PT,
Please excuse me if this is a far out idiotic thought re the timing of the indictment, but doesn't this at least possibly give Putin some power over Trump? Putin could threaten Trump with having one of the accused "confess" to the hacking per a "collusion" agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign. If that happened, Trump would be promptly impeached. It would be a whirlwind circus.
Barbara Ann -> Eric Newhill , 10 hours ago
Spot on. The DOJ has just provided the best kompromat on Trump (regardless of any factual basis to it) that Putin could ever hope for.
Eric Newhill -> Barbara Ann , 5 hours ago
Thx for the confirmation. Sometimes I "war game" these things over a couple of Scotches. I come up with all sorts of notions, but this one seemed reasonable.
blue peacock , 8 hours ago
Few observations and questions:

1. How did Mueller arrive at his conclusions? There is no exposition of that in the indictment.
2. Has Mueller established a precedent? Wouldn't other countries use this indictment as an example to indict NSA and other US intelligence personnel for conducting "normal" intelligence activities.
3. Rosenstein in his press conference reiterated what is written in the indictment that no US person was involved, and that it did not change the outcome of the election. Does that imply that Mueller & the DOJ are stating that there was no collusion between the Russian government & the Trump campaign? If that is the case what is the remit of the Mueller special counsel?
4. Why is this indictment handed over to DOJ NSD for prosecution rather than Mueller taking it to the court? Isn't the DOJ NSD implicated in the FISA abuse being investigated by IG Horowitz?
5. The Russian intelligence agents are innocent until convicted by a court. An indictment is only the prosecution's story. In this case the prosecution has yet to provide the level of evidence required for a conviction.
6. As is the case with the Russian trolls indicted by Mueller, these agents could ostensibly hire counsel and cause Mueller much embarrassment by requesting evidentiary discovery. Mueller is now backtracking on the Russian troll case as he either has no evidence to back the indictment or is unwilling to provide defense counsel with the same which means the prosecution goes no where.
7. Was this indictment primarily a political document for the TDS afflicted media and people at large? Are Mueller and the Deep Staters assuming that this indictment goes no where as the Russians will not contest the indictment, so it is a cost free, politically beneficial indictment?

Patrick Armstrong , 9 hours ago
My personal favourite part is this one :"All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation
intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the
Russian military." Mueller & Co haven't a clue.
Felix -> Patrick Armstrong , 6 hours ago
Beyond that, I admittedly found this domain name interesting. Russians seem to have a lot of humor.

linuxkrnl.net

Michael Stojanovic -> Patrick Armstrong , 7 hours ago
No trial, no disputing the narrative. Purely propaganda. Although that completely backfire previously.
Felix -> Patrick Armstrong , 8 hours ago
I agree. But Tump has?
mourjou , 14 hours ago
For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?

I believe the NSA records and stores metadata for all Internet traffic, so the FBI asked the NSA for whatever the NSA has for the DNC/DCCC computers then excluded legitimate sources/destinations for the data before analyzing the rest. Once you have loaded all the data into a database, it's not difficult.

I have heard from many of my former colleagues who are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.

The GRU is part of the military so Putin should order one or two "over the top" to "attack" the Mueller organization. Russia should be able to afford the best defense lawyers in the United States and should be able to circumvent all and any Treasury Dept. attempts to block any funding.

DianaLC , 16 hours ago
Thank you.

I thought immediately that Rosentstein's announcement of this indictment was strangely timed. Your analysis indicates it was put together hurriedly. Therefore, my first thought was that perhaps Rosenstein was attempting to prevent Trump from meeting with Putin, as many of the opposition media have suggested Trump should not meet with Putin because of the announcement of the indictment. After all, they say a POTUS should not hang around with the likes of Putin.

However, most anyone who has followed Trump lately would guess that Trump would not change his planned schedule and would surely keep his schedule and would indeed confront Putin about the indictment.

Then, if that is what they were hoping, it puts Trump in a spot. If Putin denies the entire story and provides Trump with a plausible denial and Trump then wants to investigate further, Trump could be accused of doing what the opposition has claimed all along--"colluding." with the baddest Russian of all.

I think Trump would not be stupid enough to accept either Rosensteein's story or Putin's denial without investigating.

It's Rosentstein's word against the Russians' word in that case, and Trump is caught in the middle and in the same place he's been all along.

I do hope one or all of the accused do ask for a trial. No way, however, would I look forward to that media circus for weeks and weeks.

I personally felt the story was made up when Grucifer was mentioned and purported to be Russian. I thought it convenient that the Russians in America who had been first reported as harmlessly trying to meddle while in the U.S. would be back in Russia and accused just now. Our FBI is truly inept if that is the case. They let the Boston bombers get away with their attack. They let the Pulse night club jihadist get away with his, and they let the "professional school shooter" fulfill his destiny.

There are so many tangled webs from those who have practiced to deceive that we are faced with never finding the truth in our lifetimes.

My only hope for relief from this now, strangely,Lisa Page. I do hope she has been burned badly enough by being stupid enough to become involved with a married co-worker, who is obviously in love with only himself, that she somehow provides us some answers.

I know that I will surely be happier when this horror story is over.

Johnboy4546 , 17 hours ago
If the 12 indicted are actually Russian military intelligence officers then wouldn't it be a simple matter for their superior to order them to front up and demand their day in court?

Sure, there is a risk that they will be convicted, but spooks willingly undertake far more hazardous missions than this. A promise could be made that if they are found guilty the Russian government will move heaven and earth to arrange a spy-swap to get them back and a fabulous recompense for their trouble, so the reward is worth the risk.

Honestly, the prosecutor showed terrible judgement when he included Concord Management in a previous indictment, only to see that company's lawyer calling his bluff. He appears to be under the impression that naming only Russian persons and not Russian companies will prevent that from happening again.

Pretty big risk that his confidence is misplaced.

Pat Lang Mod -> Johnboy4546 , 10 hours ago
yes
akaPatience , 17 hours ago
Thank you PT for your analysis and commentary on this subject.

It seems this indictment is similar to the indictment filed earlier this year against the Russian astroturfers. And in that instance, one of the companies charged is defending itself in US court. Not only that, it opted to exercise its right to a speedy trial!!!

From what I've read, the Mueller team was totally caught off guard since it didn't expect any of the Russians to mount a defense. According to Andrew McCarthy at National Review who's been diligently commenting on the Mueller probe and related matters, the special counsel's team made the mistake of filing the indictment when it was evidently unprepared to go to trial. Mueller's team has consequently asked for delays because it can't produce the DISCOVERY that the defendant has a right to review. I don't know what the latest news is about the case but at one point the Mueller team provided a HUGE cache of internet postings allegedly made by the defendant BUT THEY WERE IN RUSSIAN. How on earth did that influence American voters?

EEngineer , 19 hours ago
Desperation. Fair bet the MSM starts calling Trump's summit with Putin treason by the end of next week.
Bill H -> EEngineer , 9 hours ago
Overcome by events. They already are, and the event in question hasn't even happened yet. They are also claiming the this indictment "proves" treason by Trump, even though it does not even suggest that Trump was involved.
im cotton -> Bill H , 5 hours ago
One can only imagine the reaction if Trump were to announce US curtailing support of planned Nato maneuvers on the "eastern front".
Timothy Hagios , 2 hours ago
Are these even real people? Because that's one way to keep them from showing up in court...
richardstevenhack , 3 hours ago
It's complete drivel (the indictment, that is.)

They waited TWO YEARS to produce this "evidence" - which is without evidence, merely assertions.? That in itself condemns it to complete hogwash.

As for the NSA, they could have produced this stuff at any time in the last two years without compromising any "methods and sources" since we all know since Snowden and Binney how much they capture and retain. Instead, they had only "moderate confidence" of Russian "meddling" in the January, 2017, "assessment."

They allegedly had to rely on the Dutch to penetrate the hackers? And that story was hogwash from the get-go.

As for how they "know" that certain files were erased, that could have come from the "certified true images" provided by CrowdStrike to the FBI - but since CrowdStrike is utterly compromised due to the anti-Russian status of its CEO, that's worthless "evidence."

If Wikileaks was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, then why did James Clapper expend effort trying to shut down the DoJ negotiations with Assange who offered "technical evidence" that would prove the Russians had nothing to do with the Wikileaks DNC emails?

Sincerely hope Sy Hersh gets his hands on an actual copy of that FBI Seth Rich report, because if he does, the FBI and the DoJ are going down. Literally everyone in top management of those agencies (and likely at CIA as well, and possibly NSA) will be up on charges and headed to jail for actual treason.

They have no choice now but to go all in on this stuff because otherwise everyone involved is going to jail.

PeterVE , 3 hours ago
You missed the obvious corollary: CrowdStrike is obviously a subsidiary of the GRU. Clever moves disguised as bumbling incompetence!
I second the motion to have one of the Russians "volunteer" to come to the US to clear his name, except that the poor guy will probably end up in Gitmo.
Felix , 7 hours ago
Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator?

Great Collage:

View Hide
Barbara Ann , 7 hours ago
Good work PT

The Witchfinder General has excelled himself this time. Would I be correct in concluding that more sources & methods have been burnt here? "KOVALEV deleted his search history" for example is intel that has to have come from inside a GRU computer, assuming it is true of course.

I'd also just like to highlight that a significant part of this indictment is dedicated to the involvement of both Wikileaks and Bitcoin. It appears to me that a secondary aim here is to bolster Congressional support to outlaw both.

Felix -> Barbara Ann , 5 hours ago
BA, you don't delete your 'search history' occasionally? Maybe even using ccleaner?
Kelli K , 9 hours ago
So, the DOJ is operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party in politicking against the President and Congress controlled by the other party. Is this correct?

How else is one to read this indictment, its coordination with the Democratic leadership ("he must pull out of the Putin meeting" squawk), and the "unrelated" matter of attacking Rep. Jordan about 25 year old "abuse" charges dating from his time at OSU? Who was responsible for those "untraceable" attacks-the MSM, the DOJ, the Democratic Party? Is there any light between these institutions at this point? The attack seems to have been successfully fought off, and Jordan is now parrying with a direct attack at Rosenstein.

The pace of all this is dizzying. Is anyone else wondering where it leads to?

FarNorthSolitude , 9 hours ago
Crowdstrike is the weak link in all this. A recap of their next op - trying to pin another hack on the Russians that failed badly -

https://medium.com/@REEL_IC...

Mike Ring , 10 hours ago
By indicting foreign intelligence agents has the USA crossed a line so that now USA intelligence agents are fair game in the courts of foreign lands?
Looking at this deception over the past few years I have always believed its a game of tit-for-tat where the USA hands are not clean either and that there was a mutual understanding amongst parties that there is a limit to retribution.

[Jul 15, 2018] The FBI still hasn't even looked at the DNC's computer or server, but Mueller's indicted 12 Russians for 'hacking' them.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

John Anthony La Pietra , Jul 14, 2018 5:56:13 PM | 107

Just saw a would-be meme on my Facebook feed . . . to the general effect that the FBI still hasn't even looked at the DNC's computer or server, but Mueller's indicted 12 Russians for 'hacking' them.

Of course, there is that old quote from a New York state judge that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. (Which also reminds me of a riddle: Why is a ham sandwich better than perfect happiness? Well, nothing is better than perfect happiness, right? -- and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. . . .)

[Jul 15, 2018] The sheer arrogance of the yankee presumption to issue such an indictment is breathtaking

Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

exiled off mainstreet , Jul 14, 2018 6:54:10 PM | 109

The sheer arrogance of the yankee presumption to issue such an indictment is breathtaking. As soon as the summit is over, why shouldn't Russia issue an indictment of the yankee agents involved in subverting their country? Italy has already, in the past, under governments more to the liking of the yankee regime, charged CIA agents for crimes committed in that country. Since I am sure the yankees favoured those cinque stella and the Lega defeated in the past election, why shouldn't Italy issue a similar indictment?

The yankees are relying on their hegemony to insulate themselves from the consequences of their own much more unambiguous much more provable acts of subversion. After the imperium declines, which is inevitable, this indictment provides an analogous precedent for any of the former satellites to rise up and smite the yankee aggressors with similar indictments. Perhaps they should also ignore diplomatic immunity to snag those agents acting within the country.

The indictment, meanwhile, since it is obviously aimed at preventing the Trump administration from achieving its foreign policy goals, is arguably an act of treason, particularly since no real proof is offered and the allegations are trivial and/or absurd. According to the concepts of the Nuremberg four power trial, since the indictment is intended to provide support for elements within the yankee regime favouring aggressive war, it also renders Mueller, Rosenstein and their operatives factually guilty of war crimes.

[Jul 15, 2018] The blame Russia game is very much a sub-rosa contemp. war between corporate + mafia-like factions for control of parts of the NWO.

Clinton criminal family vs whom?
Notable quotes:
"... The obvious plan in a potentially so-called 'multipolar' World is to ally with the third power -- it is weaker than the second, and in any case it is more congenial, and ultimately most important! it is Energy-Land rich. ..."
"... IMHO personal interests don't weigh heavily here (as some have suggested) however the Tillerson - Oil axis was and remains a supreme consideration (minus Tillerson.) ..."
"... The blame Russia game is very much a sub-rosa contemp. war between corporate + mafia-like factions for control of parts of the NWO. BOA and power-sharing (in the W) is now very vulnerable, or is even being destroyed, (even NATO is at risk!), everyone is scrambling, therefore the over-the-top moves and fights. ..."
"... Any evidence blaming Russia is good to go - the aim is: a) to convince the public, who will absorb some headlines and 'hate' Russia even more, b) to re-assure the players on the anti-R side, we are doing it, and the public is on our side, etc. having the most powerful propaganda organ(S) is a guarantee of the ultimate 'win' it is said so they make up things out of whole cloth. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Noirette , Jul 14, 2018 12:15:24 PM | 82

IMO Trump isn't trying to achieve anything more than to negotiate an agreement that is favorable to USA/NATO. The Deep State would be happy if an acceptable agreement could be reached as it would split Russia from China. Jackrabbit at 13.

I suppose Jackr means achieving 'nothing specific' (e.g. Iran's future role in Syria, etc.), .. OK. Second part IMHO, Trump was/is trying to organise the New World Order (as the old order, set up at Bretton Woods, is dead or dying) and he means to ensure or create a 'favorable' position for the US. The obvious plan in a potentially so-called 'multipolar' World is to ally with the third power -- it is weaker than the second, and in any case it is more congenial, and ultimately most important! it is Energy-Land rich.

IMHO personal interests don't weigh heavily here (as some have suggested) however the Tillerson - Oil axis was and remains a supreme consideration (minus Tillerson.)

One reason, not mentioned, for Trump's pro-Russia stance is that his base is pro-R and détente or even strong cooperation with Russia was a heavily implied electoral promise. Russians are White and they are Orthodox, Christians of a kind (in the popular US imagination..) and Putin is seen as a strong, competent and 'savvy' leader. 90% of evangelicals in the US voted for Trump for ex. (Catch the Boers (white) in S Africa wanting to emigrate to Russia..see news.) Nothing slant-eyed about the Russkies! (apologies to sensitive US souls on 'race' issue - i am not up to date re PC speech.)

DT's seeming 'ban' of Muslims (the entry / visa hoopla, hardly an attack that provoked deaths) also satisfied the base and was a strong and direct jab at the support, payment for and exploitation of islamists (Muslim brotherhood / mercenary forces / terrorists etc. Killed off and still feared by Russia on their turf )

Russia always makes positive noises about the presumed / known winner of the US elections. This worked fine with Bush (remember Georgie glommed Putin's soul), was difficult with Obama (a secret muslim, not a US citizen, it was said, etc.), link, but a sure fire thing with Trump, as Putin-Russia knew DT would win (imho.)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-usa/russias-putin-makes-warm-overtures-to-obama-idUSTRE4B328D20081204

The blame Russia game is very much a sub-rosa contemp. war between corporate + mafia-like factions for control of parts of the NWO. BOA and power-sharing (in the W) is now very vulnerable, or is even being destroyed, (even NATO is at risk!), everyone is scrambling, therefore the over-the-top moves and fights.

Any evidence blaming Russia is good to go - the aim is: a) to convince the public, who will absorb some headlines and 'hate' Russia even more, b) to re-assure the players on the anti-R side, we are doing it, and the public is on our side, etc. having the most powerful propaganda organ(S) is a guarantee of the ultimate 'win' it is said so they make up things out of whole cloth.

[Jul 15, 2018] Word searches in the inditement suggest that it is iether a false flag operation or Russians are completely incompetent.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Curtis , Jul 14, 2018 3:54:13 PM | 98

Read the Indictment: Its HILARIOUS!


The high point of FBI incompetence:

- Page 14 and 15: This is hilariously stupid! These Russian super spy agents on June 15, 2016, 4:19 MOSCOW TIME and they DID NOT HACK, BUT LOGGED INTO the DNC server and spent 37 minutes to search for files or that included words (that is for the techo's out there, they "grep") for the following words:
* some hundred sheets
* some hundreds of sheets
* dcleaks
* illuminati
* широко известный перевод (meaning: widely known translation)
* worldwide known
* think twice about
* company's competence

So what kind of super spies, and super hackers would use "some hundred sheets" and "some hundreds of sheets" as two separate searches. Every computer geek knows that if you don't waste time to do virtually two identical searches like those. Who ever did these searches (after they logged in!) knows nothing about searching. The whole tech. world knows if you are going to do hacking, you use things like Linux grep/sed tools and you wouldn't waste your time doing pointless duplicitous searches. Why doesn't FBI state what tools were used, every is logged, or it should be. Thus this person whom ever it was, was naive.

So here is the big one! Foreign hackers are looking for about people talking about the Illuminati! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Another stupid one! Russian hackers searching DNC files for RUSSIAN STRINGS This is turning into a circus.

So you mean to tell me Russian hackers that logged into a computer (that is they didn't hacked, the FBI stated as much), are looking about for files about nonsensical matter including Russian Word Strings. You can't even make this stuff up. THE FBI ARE CLOWNS!!!

So it goes on page 15 and 16, that these search words to comprise the breathtaking proof that the culprit then was to admit these words:

Worldwide known cyber security company XXXX announced that the DNC servers have been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups. I'm very please the company appreciated my skill highly . Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it?

I guess XXXX Customers should think twice about company's competence.

F*** the illuminati and their conspiracies

And when did this happen? Some 2 hours later, at 7:02pm.

So think about this! They wrote that paragraph AFTER the search! So how do you search for something in 37 minutes that you don't know it exists, and with such meaningless words to write a bragging paragraph, that was supposedly ON the DNC server itself! Meaning, the person who logged in knew it existed and quickly went looking for where it was to extract it, and then use later as to frame the Russians!

Look at the time line. The FBI only found that it was a DNC employee that logged in, looking for something that shouldn't exist in anyway on his server, unless of course he wrote it himself, and that was to use it frame the Russians. Remember that paragraph was ON THE DNC Server!!!!

The FBI are morons! This indictment will be thrown out quick smart, and the FBI should be brought up on charges of aiding and abetting a crime!


Posted by: Dorian | Jul 13, 2018 4:19:03 PM | 9

Dorian 9
Yeah. That part was funny, too. Why would they launch some oddball searches and then later use those same words in a post at WordPress? It's like they were trying to get caught ... unless something else is going on.

[Jul 15, 2018] Deep State Head Rod Rosenstein Debunked By Former NSA Head Bill Binney

"The only thing worse than fake news is, fake indictments."
Notable quotes:
"... Was Pissgate gray-snatched, Russian-speaking/Russian-writing, garage ham radio-operating Nellie Ohr the head of the Russian hackers? ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.infowars.com

Rod Rosenstein had a press conference on July 13th, 2018 where he broke the news that 12 Russians were being indicted for hacking into the DNC server. This was all debunked by former NSA and father of the surveillance state Bill Binney.

https://youtu.be/ae9v-1WBMu8

https://youtu.be/1Q_aW_YVbX4

[Jul 15, 2018] There is that old quote from a New York state judge that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich

Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

John Anthony La Pietra , Jul 14, 2018 5:56:13 PM | 107

Just saw a would-be meme on my Facebook feed . . . to the general effect that the FBI still hasn't even looked at the DNC's computer or server, but Mueller's indicted 12 Russians for 'hacking' them.

Of course, there is that old quote from a New York state judge that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. (Which also reminds me of a riddle: Why is a ham sandwich better than perfect happiness? Well, nothing is better than perfect happiness, right? -- and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. . . .)

[Jul 15, 2018] Mueller shout "Oh look! A squirrel! Gotta go chase that squirrel! "

Notable quotes:
"... Yes, this indictment is an obvious poison pill meant to ruin or postpone the summit. Chuck Shumer immediately called for cancelling the summit after Rod Rosenstein made his indictment announcement. ..."
"... Also consider that the House was just about to impeach Rod Rosenstein for obstruction. He has refused to release evidence to Congress regarding the FBI and it's motivations during the Hillary email investigation and also the Russiagate investigation. ..."
"... Item 38 of the Indictment claims that the "Alice Donovan" persona - which as a journalist submitted articles to CounterPunch and other sites - was used by the alleged Conspirators to set up a DCLeaks Facebook page in June 2016. ..."
"... While I anticipate the MSM Russophobes have already declared a slam dunk, the question, in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf) will actually even ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family demonstrations to "attach" to). ..."
"... The DNC "resistance" has promised that if Mueller is fired, there will be thousands in the street ... Forcing Trump to cancel Helsinki would be an impressive wielding of "power" (numbers) they claim to have ... If they make no effort (my guess), well, that would be predictable ... ..."
"... So we're to believe that the Russian CIA does not have any access to English speaking translators and that when it wants to write a fake email in English as part of an elaborate plot against the United States, it uses Google? This sounds much more like the actions of a lone rogue hacker or small group of private hackers than the action of the secret intelligence agency of a major power. ..."
"... ""SERVERS The hackers used a server in AZ but then ran that through a server "overseas." The hackers leased a DCCC computer in Illinois. The use of infrastructure within the US suggests much of the hot air around transfer times -- one of the key attempts to debunk the hack -- is just that, hot air."" https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/13/the-russian-hack/ . ..."
"... it would have been impossible had the alleged victims not been idiotically, criminally negligent in handling their email accounts. What's more, it's incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party apparatus are willing to reveal how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless they were in reacting to it. ..."
"... Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was either rather innocuous or confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem political and media establishment had pre-anointed HRC). Anyone who believes that the "Deep State" is some cabal of demonic masterminds is a giant fool. The best and brightest in DC are cack-handed sociopathic gangsters of middling intelligence and no imagination . ..."
"... It does appear that the whole Russian influence/DNC-Gluccifer/etc. stuff is bullshit. Just like the Trump dossier, White Helmets, Assange rape allegations, Skripal poisoning by Russia, and more. Sickening. ..."
"... It occurred to me that while HRC was Secretary of State, one reason to run her business on private servers was to avoid exposing her mix of private/public activities to open view. The same factor would apply at the DNC. Not that the DOS would have state-of-the-art tech security, but playing outside the field leads to depending on savvy conspirators or naive duds for your operations. So, in order to keep things quiet, Crowdstrike is the provider of cover. I would not want to be the provider of record for the Clinton gang or the DNC. Total fail. Although, Podesta was an idiot to be phished. ..."
"... One side of the current indictment scenario that could play into Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin, is that trashing the opposite party prior to negotiations is Trump's modus operandi. ..."
"... On the other hand, this entire kerfuffle has diverted attention away from those individuals, industries and countries that absolutely did collude with both Candidates, and absolutely did influence not just the election, but also US policies ever since. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

ger , Jul 13, 2018 6:30:09 PM | 26

Cost $95,000 to pull off this 'conspiracy' to interfere in the 2016 presidential election? Less than took in by Clinton at a single Wall Street Banker cocktail party. Seriously, you Russian folks need to understand, it will take at least a billion to rig an election in America ... we don't come cheap.

Yonatan , Jul 13, 2018 6:43:47 PM | 27

The whole thing relies on the Russians not turning up for their day in court - because discovery will be a bitch.
Zanon , Jul 13, 2018 6:47:15 PM | 28
mike k

Correct, he obviously is fed up with this bs witch hunt, he wont give in to deepstate nor MSM now even though he will say he raised this issue with Putin and so forth.

George Lane , Jul 13, 2018 6:47:37 PM | 29
Hope the indicted sue for discovery.
Librul , Jul 13, 2018 7:01:20 PM | 30
Yes, this indictment is an obvious poison pill meant to ruin or postpone the summit. Chuck Shumer immediately called for cancelling the summit after Rod Rosenstein made his indictment announcement.

Also consider that the House was just about to impeach Rod Rosenstein for obstruction. He has refused to release evidence to Congress regarding the FBI and it's motivations during the Hillary email investigation and also the Russiagate investigation.

Now if the House starts impeachment proceedings they will be seen as trying to impeach a person that just indicted 12 Russians. In other words, they will be seen as protecting Russians.

Jason , Jul 13, 2018 7:19:34 PM | 31
11 - I'd like to see VIPS respond to this line by line, it looks ridiculous from first glance but I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to comment further. Is there any chance that Assange could prove the source was an internal leak through a release without losing face? My immediate reaction is that they really played them selves out on this one, its too flimsy of a production; but than I said the same thing about every chemical attack in Syria, Skribals, etc, etc.
uncle tungsten , Jul 13, 2018 7:23:11 PM | 32
Thank you Dorian @9 I loved your rant and can absolutely sympathise with your astonishment. The FBI is clueless and ridiculous and so it should be. The more I follow this Mueller and Rosenstein circus, the more I see them as Putin's senior agents in the USA. This latest leak looks to me to be an attempt to do Putin's bidding to derail any meaningful meeting with the President of the USA. (Not saying that there can ever be a "meaningful meeting with any USA President") Who in their right mind wants to meet with a lying, thieving yankee? let alone make a deal with one!

I say Mueller and Rosenstein are Putin's puppets and the whole damn circus is designed for ridicule. But then I might be way too far down the rabbit hole to see clearly.

karlof1 , Jul 13, 2018 7:23:55 PM | 33
Yes, this was certainly for the domestic audience as we have Sanders jumping on the wagon declaring the indictment a guilty verdict:

""We must speak with one voice in making clear to Vladimir Putin: 'We will not allow you to interfere in our democratic processes or those of our allies,'" Sanders wrote in a tweet on Friday."

Gee, I seem to recall the HRC Campaign and the DNC doing far more proven damage to the electoral process than anything Russia's allegedly done. Where was Sanders denouncement of HRC and the DNC then?! Clearly, even more than in 2016, Bernie Sanders is a gigantic fraud every bit as disgusting as HRC, perhaps even more so given the number of people deluded by his actions. People like him a big part of the problem and have no part in the solution.

Perimetr , Jul 13, 2018 7:32:56 PM | 34
agree with karlofi @33, Sanders is a just a tool for the MIC
Jackrabbit , Jul 13, 2018 7:38:25 PM | 35
karlof1 and Perimeter

Yup! He is controlled opposition. An empty suit. A tool.

jayc , Jul 13, 2018 7:40:09 PM | 36
Item 38 of the Indictment claims that the "Alice Donovan" persona - which as a journalist submitted articles to CounterPunch and other sites - was used by the alleged Conspirators to set up a DCLeaks Facebook page in June 2016.
Daniel , Jul 13, 2018 7:41:05 PM | 37
b exclaims: "Note: The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other 'cool' internet 'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use."

YES!

One of the things that rings my irony alarm is that the sort of "right wing" "Liberty Movement" crowd has been warning for decades now of the One World Government plans for a "cashless society." They feared that all transactions would be done via computer entries, which the NWO could manipulate to either prevent a dissident from being able to buy something, track every purchase, or simply to steal all of anyone's money.

And now, many of those same Liberty Movement voices are out there selling BitCoin, etc.... and selling it HARD.

This same Liberty Movement has been totally freaked out about the "Jack-Booted Thugs" of the Police State for decades, too. Some USAmericans might even remember G. Gordon Liddy telling his Radio Show followers to "go for headshots" when the coppers come (because the police started wearing body armor).

And now, those same folks are cheering on the Pigs cracking skulls of Black Lives Matter and anti-Trump hysterics. In fact, the LM is upset that more illegal surveillance, unwarranted searches and extrajudicial killings aren't being done.

It still looks to me like the PTSB are tearing us apart.

Susan Sunflower , Jul 13, 2018 8:10:48 PM | 38
While I anticipate the MSM Russophobes have already declared a slam dunk, the question, in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf) will actually even ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family demonstrations to "attach" to).

The DNC "resistance" has promised that if Mueller is fired, there will be thousands in the street ... Forcing Trump to cancel Helsinki would be an impressive wielding of "power" (numbers) they claim to have ... If they make no effort (my guess), well, that would be predictable ...

Daniel , Jul 13, 2018 8:12:47 PM | 39
As the most interesting man in the world, I don't always agree with Jackrabbit, but when I do, I am in complete concurrence with:

Jackrabbit @13

(an obscure in joke for those drunk on these) )

Daniel , Jul 13, 2018 8:25:10 PM | 40
A big yes to Emily Dickinson @19

Does anyone know if these latest charges are still based on that CrowdStrike "report?"

That is, DNC refused to let FBI have access to their servers so that FBI could run their own forensics. All previous IC claims have been based on CrowdStrike claims.

Did FBI finally get ahold of those servers, and if so, could they possibly still have had such evidence on them? Weren't they professionally scrubbed years ago?

John555 , Jul 13, 2018 8:34:12 PM | 41
See Item 41 in the indictment. "On or about June 15th 2016, the 'Conspirators ...' looked up certain words and phrases on Google Translate, phrases which were later used by "Guccifer 2.0".

So we're to believe that the Russian CIA does not have any access to English speaking translators and that when it wants to write a fake email in English as part of an elaborate plot against the United States, it uses Google? This sounds much more like the actions of a lone rogue hacker or small group of private hackers than the action of the secret intelligence agency of a major power.

Susan Sunflower , Jul 13, 2018 8:39:19 PM | 42
I have read that the indictment says that different offices/locations were targeted, so no.
""SERVERS The hackers used a server in AZ but then ran that through a server "overseas." The hackers leased a DCCC computer in Illinois. The use of infrastructure within the US suggests much of the hot air around transfer times -- one of the key attempts to debunk the hack -- is just that, hot air."" https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/13/the-russian-hack/ .

about Crowdstrike:

CROWDSTRIKE
The indictment describes Crowdstrike's efforts to oust the hackers, but notes that a Linux based version of X-Agent remained on DNC's network until October 2016.

Part of the "big reveal" (with apparent date discrepancies) is that "the hackers" had a lot of targets over a long period of time.

I still think Trump was joking when he suggested "the Russians" could help him out by finding the missing (HRC deleted) e-mails not recovered / found during the server investigation .... poppycock ... but his "joke" was leapt on at the time and (embarassingly) is claimed to be a "smoking gun" or "trigger" for the hacking.

Yeah, there seems to be very very little there there

Daniel , Jul 13, 2018 8:47:23 PM | 43
jayc @38

I posted the following in response to Debsisdead wondering what was going on at CounterPunch.

Then there was that whole thing where they were publishing articles written by an avatar going by the name of Alice Donovan. I don't know what to make that whole thing. I will say that some of her articles did discuss inconvenient truths that the MSM tries to play up as "conspiracy theories" (eg. Obama Administration sent weapons to Syria that ISIL received). But, she also wrote really bizarre stuff indicating she was not whom she claimed to be.

For any who care: Democratic Party organ, "Think Progress" on the Alice scandal: https://thinkprogress.org/why-did-so-many-alternative-media-outlets-publish-russian-propaganda-a8f22773bc50/

CounterPunch's mea culpa: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/25/go-ask-alice-the-curious-case-of-alice-donovan-2/

So, what's happened to CounterPunch since the Cockburn Dynasty splintered? I don't know, but it's weird.

Daniel , Jul 13, 2018 8:53:12 PM | 44
Susan Sunflower @38 ponders:

"...the question, in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf) will actually even ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family demonstrations to "attach" to)."

I've been assigned to a 'Two Minutes Hate" for Saturday morning. ;-)

Almand , Jul 13, 2018 9:21:37 PM | 45
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the ruthless and perfidious Russian intel services to have actually done this, but it would have been impossible had the alleged victims not been idiotically, criminally negligent in handling their email accounts. What's more, it's incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party apparatus are willing to reveal how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless they were in reacting to it.

Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was either rather innocuous or confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem political and media establishment had pre-anointed HRC). Anyone who believes that the "Deep State" is some cabal of demonic masterminds is a giant fool. The best and brightest in DC are cack-handed sociopathic gangsters of middling intelligence and no imagination .

And even if this accusation is true, they have yet to find any actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, which is the entire (official anyway) point of the investigation. They have yet to prove that there was any effect on the outcome of the election. If the Russians are guilty of hacking they will deny, if they are innocent they will deny. This is Whitewater Redux, where flimsy allegation of criminal activity is used to dig and dig and dig until they find something juicy that can be used to prosecute. Ironic!

If Mueller is so sure the 12 intelligence officers are guilty and Putin is so sure they are innocent, he ought to fly them to DC to stand trial. Professional courtesy from one secret policeman to another.

Merlin2 , Jul 13, 2018 9:26:32 PM | 46
Check out this great recap and article:

https://medium.com/@markfmccarty/muellers-new-indictment-do-the-feds-take-us-for-idiots-5406ef955406

The indictment flies in the face of the great research of the meta data carried out by the Forensicator and Adam Carter. Which practically proves the leaks were a download from the US.

The article above has many links referring to that research and the backdrop.

I - and everyone else here - agree that this pathetic "indictment" is an act of complete desperation, designed to fool the foolables.

ben , Jul 13, 2018 9:32:26 PM | 47
Hello, more theater, meanwhile, more devolution in protections for the working classes, and mother earth.
imo , Jul 13, 2018 9:47:18 PM | 48
Re: "The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other 'cool' internet 'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use."

Wise counsel, imo.

Jackrabbit , Jul 13, 2018 9:52:58 PM | 49
Merlin2

Great link. Thanks.

It does appear that the whole Russian influence/DNC-Gluccifer/etc. stuff is bullshit. Just like the Trump dossier, White Helmets, Assange rape allegations, Skripal poisoning by Russia, and more. Sickening.

daffyDuct , Jul 13, 2018 10:02:02 PM | 50
Trisha at 1

To clarify, the following is from Rosenstein's announcement, not the indictment.

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result. The special counsel's investigation is ongoing and there will be no comments on the special counsel at this time.""

Stumpy , Jul 13, 2018 10:08:16 PM | 51
@45 Almand

What's more, it's incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party apparatus are willing to reveal how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless they were in reacting to it. Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was either rather innocuous or confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem political and media establishment had pre-anointed HRC)

Exactly. It occurred to me that while HRC was Secretary of State, one reason to run her business on private servers was to avoid exposing her mix of private/public activities to open view. The same factor would apply at the DNC. Not that the DOS would have state-of-the-art tech security, but playing outside the field leads to depending on savvy conspirators or naive duds for your operations. So, in order to keep things quiet, Crowdstrike is the provider of cover. I would not want to be the provider of record for the Clinton gang or the DNC. Total fail. Although, Podesta was an idiot to be phished.

One side of the current indictment scenario that could play into Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin, is that trashing the opposite party prior to negotiations is Trump's modus operandi. See his comments re: Brexit a day ago, then the gushing with May over the special nature of their most special of special relationships. What looks like a dagger to the back by Rosenstein, while the boss was out of town, will likely get chuckles at the summit.

Virgile , Jul 13, 2018 10:11:41 PM | 52
Trump knows very well that this "Breaking News" is meant to disrupt the meeting with Putin. Trump hates Mueller, so I guess he will briefly mentioned the 'crime' to Putin who will ask for tangible proofs and Trump will throw the request to Mueller and pass to another more important issue. Trump does care about been criticized for that, he know that he would be criticized anyway.,
Daniel , Jul 13, 2018 10:30:09 PM | 53
Almand @45

"And even if this accusation is true, they have yet to find any actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, which is the entire (official anyway) point of the investigation. They have yet to prove that there was any effect on the outcome of the election. "

Yep. On the other hand, this entire kerfuffle has diverted attention away from those individuals, industries and countries that absolutely did collude with both Candidates, and absolutely did influence not just the election, but also US policies ever since.

Oh look! A squirrel! Gotta go chase that squirrel!

Peter AU 1 , Jul 13, 2018 10:35:27 PM | 54
Trump will most likely just let the Russia dunnit garbage run. It doesn't bother him or slow him down in any way, it is a thorn in the side for Russia, and gives Trump media cover while setting up energy dominance.
To Trump, Russia is a competitor in the energy business.
Pft , Jul 13, 2018 10:42:23 PM | 55
So everyone got what they wanted. Trump can claim he has been proven free of collusion with Russia. Dems and neocons can claim they were right that Russia did it, even though the indictment lacks any proof of this.

Trump can use indictments to justify his backtracking on his campaign promises to improve relations with Russia , and justify continued sanctions, increase military spending, push NATO allies to buy more from American weapons dealers, and push EU members to block Russian gas lines

Meanwhile the real elephant in the room continues to be ignored and control both parties, influence elections, dictate foreign policy and economic decisions , disseminate fake news to alter public perceptions, etc....

As they say, the "winning" continues.

Mark McCarty , Jul 13, 2018 10:43:47 PM | 56
The indictment is evident BS - see my comments:

https://medium.com/@markfmccarty/muellers-new-indictment-do-the-feds-take-us-for-idiots-5406ef955406

V , Jul 13, 2018 10:46:32 PM | 57
The distractions abound: Look, a squirrel...
Yeah, Right , Jul 13, 2018 11:04:24 PM | 58
Well, heck, the list of defendants is itself proof that Mueller is desperate that this case never comes before a court.

How do I know that?

Easy. His previous indictment named persons AND companies, which allowed Concord Management to surprise everyone by demanding its day in court.

This time around he has only indicted individuals.
He pointedly does not indicted any companies.

This means that a Russian individual has to put their freedom at risk by taking up the challenge, and Mueller obviously believes that nobody will be willing to do that.

I think he is going to be proved wrong yet again.

I predict that one or more of those defendants does, indeed, step foot on US soil and demands to be put on trial, and this is going to shake the Mueller investigation to its core.

The reason I am confident that this will happen is that
a) it is likely that at least one of those defendants does indeed work for Russian intelligence, and
b) Russian intelligence knows full well that Mueller has nothing and is bluffing

So they will take that person aside and say: Boris/Dimitry/Ivan/baby, go over there and call their bluff. If they fold then you come home and live like a king. If they convict you then sit tight and we'll arrange a spy-swap, then you come home and live like a king. What do you say?

ben , Jul 13, 2018 11:24:56 PM | 59
Let's not take a look at the U$A's corrupt and horribly broken "election" systems, suppression of voters, and outright bought and paid for "representatives". That, would be too much trouble..

The REAL culprits are Americans...

Guerrero , Jul 13, 2018 11:45:29 PM | 60
George Steele penned many a masterful dossier, some extraordinarily clever counterfeit
handwritten memoirs, and a pot-boiling John LaCarre spin-off cold-war spy-novel or two.

Steel's drinking has paralyzed his brain; he can't think of anything, he lauds Skripal's
brilliant descriptions of the two russian prostitutes peeing on barak obama's hotel bed.

WHAT does Skripal do for a living? he writes. Sergei sees himself as a new dostoyevski !

I agree with those who have argued that whole the Skripal meme is Hillary's gang goofing
on the Brits. This pee-pee dossier is THE evidentiary source of the Mueller investigation

Yeah the Rowdy Lion has blocked and bearded Russia historically, that's why they make
great patsies for the Yankees whose criminal minds can not get over losing that election!

Put yourself in the place of a maniac primed to be a coddled goddess President of the USA

¿Wouldn't YOU call reliable old insider George Steele (not knowing the man is ossified)?

Once the gang realized that Steele's brain was fried, they could not let Sergei Skripal die.

MadMax2 , Jul 14, 2018 4:18:45 AM | 61
The always sober Prof. Stephen Cohen warned this would happen on the 11/07, and so it came to pass. He picked these guys like a dirty nose. The Mueller investigation needs to be shut down, the cloak of what it is pretending to be has fallen off.

***

Summitgate and the Campaign vs. 'Peace'
Not surprisingly, Trump's meetings with NATO and Putin are being portrayed as ominous events by Russiagaters.
By Stephen F. Cohen

Excerpt


Also not surprisingly, and unlike in the past, mainstream media have found little place for serious discussion of today's dangerous conflicts between Washington and Moscow: regarding nuclear-weapons-imitation treaties, cyber-warfare, Syria, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Black Sea region, even Afghanistan. It's easy to imagine how Trump and Putin could agree on conflict-reduction and cooperation in all of these realms. But considering the traducing by the Post, Times, and Maddow of a group of senators who visited Moscow around July 4, it's much harder to see how the defamed Trump could implement such "peace deals." (There is a long history of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage summits and other détente-like initiatives. Indeed, a few such attempts have been evident in recent months and more may lie ahead.)

https://www.thenation.com/article/summitgate-campaign-vs-peace/


ralphieboy , Jul 14, 2018 4:43:18 AM | 62
This is just another small and incremental step.

There is nothing illegal in and of itself about influencing an election in a foreign country. Unless doing so is in violation of other laws, such as hacking or violating campaign financing laws.

And it is most certainly illegal for people to collude with foreign nationals to interfere in an election, and I suspect that Mueller's next step will be to connect these 12 indicted Russians with members of the Trump campaign.

Mueller is proceeding very slowly and keeping his cards close to his chest, he knows that any case he presents has to be fully free of flaws or contradictions as it will be attacked from all sides.

Shakesvshav , Jul 14, 2018 5:43:42 AM | 63
William Binney has already debunked all this and has now commented further (excuse the source): https://www.infowars.com/deep-state-head-rod-rosenstein-debunked-by-former-nsa-head-bill-binney/
jadez , Jul 14, 2018 6:37:20 AM | 64
the comments here range from delusional to outright psychotic

Trump has no ability to outsmart anyone let alone Putin.....take a look at north Korea...where he declared the threat of nuclear war was over....he mouths a few slogans and fools try to spin and interpret for the masses of fools what he is talking about.

his choice of staff and advisors were so comical they have all been removed and in their place are the lowest slime of any swamp..reflecting the attitudes and racism of their leader who seeks only to enrich himself which he has been doing through foreign affairs....now with Russia where there is still enthusiasm for america....and where he gets a lot of cash...he seeks to cozy up to Putin at the expense of NATO partners where he deflects his ignorance by creating distraction.....again relying on others to explain.

if you all don't think Mueller is developing a real case because he doesn't expose it while seeking indictments...that is your choice...but don't go on from there to assert it someone makes the idiocy of Trump legitimate...it does not!

V , Jul 14, 2018 6:40:13 AM | 65
"They" really don't want Trump talking to Putin. Since they can't stop it; sabotage the meeting. This harkens back to the Gary Powers shoot down... That one worked.
V , Jul 14, 2018 6:44:56 AM | 66
#64
In your hate/vitriol lingers blindness. Given a relatively short time, we'll see...
Den Lille Abe , Jul 14, 2018 7:03:16 AM | 67
It's hilarious really! But also frightening. As Dorian pointed out, nobody doing "hacking" are that amateurish, and certainly not the Russians or Chinese for that matter. It pobably the clods in Cheltenham that are responsible, it bears all the marks of failure, so its probably British.
Den Lille Abe , Jul 14, 2018 7:08:16 AM | 68
Look a squirrel, its foaming at the mouth! Run, you fools, run!!
Den Lille Abe , Jul 14, 2018 7:15:46 AM | 69
I think the Russians got me last night! I woke up this morning, with tremors and shaking, not feeling well at at all. I was not foaming at the mouth, but I did have a greenish tinge to the skin and i looked bad in the mirror. I am sure it is Novichok.

How did the Russians know that i would buy that particular single malt! They probably spied, and knew I would get an Oban and they poisoned me. If I do not comment again, know, that I too have fallen victim to their devious games. In the meantime I will try to self medicate with a stout or too. Pray for me. Donations accepted BTW.

V , Jul 14, 2018 7:16:22 AM | 70
# 68
Squirrel? Where, what kind, what are its politics?
Is it Russian? ;-)

[Jul 15, 2018] Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB thump drive.

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jared Eliot , Next New Comment July 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm GMT

Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB thump drive. The bombshells in Robert Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers, hackers of DNC server, put a damper on Trump's one on one visit with Putin.

[Jul 15, 2018] Trump Marches Onward and Downward, by James Petras - The Unz Review

Jul 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , Next New Comment July 14, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT

@Jared Eliot

Well, you start by blurting out a secret about DNC hack: there was no hack, there was a leak, but the leaker Seth Rich was conveniently killed during "botched robbery". Guess who ordered this murder? Obviously, it couldn't have been someone low in the food chain, as the "investigation" of Seth Rich murder is going exactly nowhere in two years. The Dems via Mueller just keep whipping the dead horse of "Russiagate" out of desperation.

But next you undermine your credibility claiming that Putin installed Trump. Unfortunately for Putin, he does not have the resources to do that. Ludicrous sums allegedly spent by mysterious Russians bandied about by Mueller's "investigation" show that Putin did not have the money to affect the billion-dollar show that the US presidential elections have become. Of course, corrupt mad witch, who outspent Trump 2:1 and still lost, would like to blame someone other than herself, but her story is dead in the water. The Dems betrayed their own electorate, white working-class people, and lost it forever. The fringe groups they gained cannot offset that loss.

Trump won the elections not because he was so good, but because his opponent was utterly repulsive. However, in contrast to Obama and the witch, Trump shows some street smarts: he prefers to make deals with strong competitors, rather than fight them and sustain huge losses.

BTW, you forgot that Trump's inclination to make deals includes China, which is certainly not Christian. Basically, his is a common-sense approach that even an average Joe can understand. Hence the hysterics of establishment-owned Dems and Republicans. So, I'd say God bless common sense and the people possessing it.

[Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case, the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State Department. ..."
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

veritas semper vincit , Jul 14, 2018 5:07:00 PM | 103

As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case, the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State Department.

I have new posts and new portraits at my sites:

-Givi, the hero of Donbass

-Asma al -Assad

-Houthi fighters

https://me582.wordpress.com/
https://artisticexpressions394454247.wordpress.com/

[Jul 14, 2018] McMaken The Military Is A Jobs Program... For Immigrants Many Others

Jul 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:45 12 SHARES Authored Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

On the matter of immigration, even many commentators who support ease of migration also oppose the extension of government benefits to immigrants.

The idea, of course, is that free movement of labor is fine, but taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize it. As a matter of policy, many also find it prudent that immigrants ought to be economically self sufficient before being offered citizenship. Switzerland, for instance, makes it harder to pursue citizenship while receiving social benefits.

This discussion often centers around officially recognized "welfare" and social-benefits programs such as TANF and Medicaid. But it is also recognized that taxpayer-funded benefits exist in the form of public schooling, free clinics, and other in-kind benefits.

But there is another taxpayer-supporter program that subsidizes immigration as well: the US military.

Government Employment for Immigrants

Last week, the AP began reporting that " the US Army is quietly discharging Immigrant recruits ."

Translation: the US government has begun laying off immigrants from taxpayer-funded government jobs.

It's unclear how many of these jobs have been employed, but according to the Department of Homeland security, "[s]ince Oct. 1, 2002, USCIS has naturalized 102,266 members of the military ."

The Military as a Jobs Program

Immigrants, of course, aren't the only people who benefit from government jobs funded through military programs.

The military has long served as a jobs programs helpful in mopping up excess labor and padding employment numbers. As Robert Reich noted in 2011 , as the US was still coming out of the 2009 recession:

And without our military jobs program personal incomes would be dropping faster. The Commerce Department reported Monday the only major metro areas where both net earnings and personal incomes rose last year were San Antonio, Texas, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. -- because all three have high concentrations of military and federal jobs.

He's right. While the private sector must cut back and re-arrange labor and capital to deal with the new economic realities post-recession, government jobs rarely go away.

Because of this, Reich concludes "America's biggest -- and only major -- jobs program is the U.S. military."

Reich doesn't think this is a bad thing. He only highlights the military's role as a de facto jobs program in order to call for more de jure jobs programs supported by federal funding.

Given the political popularity of the military, however, it's always easy to protect funding for the military jobs programs than for any other potential jobs programs. All the Pentagon has to do is assure Congress that every single military job is absolutely essential, and Congress will force taxpayers to cough up the funding.

Back during the debate over sequestration, for example, the Pentagon routinely warned Congress that any cutbacks in military funding would lead to major jobs losses, bringing devastation to the economy.

In other words, even the Pentagon treats the military like a jobs program when it's politically useful.

Benefits for enlisted people go well beyond what can be seen in the raw numbers of total employed. As Kelley Vlahos points out at The American Conservative , military personnel receive extra hazard pay "even though they are far from any fighting or real danger." And then there is the "Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CZTE) program which exempts enlisted and officers from paying federal taxes in these 45 designated countries. Again, they get the tax break -- which accounted for about $3.6 billion in tax savings for personnel in 2009 (the combat pay cost taxpayers $790 million in 2009)– whether they are really in danger or not."

There's also evidence that military personnel receive higher pay in the military than do their private-sector counterparts with similar levels of education and training.

Nor do the benefits of military spending go only to enlisted people. The Pentagon has long pointed to its spending on civilian jobs in many communities, including manufacturing jobs and white-collar technical jobs.

This, of course, has long been politically useful for the Pentagon as well, since as political scientist Rebecca Thorpe has shown in her book The American Warfare State , communities that rely heavily on Pentagon-funded employment are sure to send Congressmen to Washington who will make sure the taxpayer dollars keep flowing to Pentagon programs.

Whether you're talking to Robert Reich or some Pentagon lobbyist on Capitol Hill, the conclusion is clear: the military is both a jobs program and a stimulus program. Cut military spending at your peril!

Military Spending Destroys Private Sector Jobs

The rub, however, is that military spending doesn't actually improve the economy. And much the money spent on military employment would be best spent on the private, voluntary economy.

This has long been recognized by political scientist Seymour Melman who has discussed the need for "economic conversion," or converting military spending into other forms of spending. Melman observes :

Since we know that matter and energy located in Place A cannot be simultaneously located in Place B, we must understand that the resources used up on military account thereby represent a preemption of resources from civilian needs of every conceivable kind.

Here, Melman is simply describing in his own way what Murray Rothbard explained in Man, Economy, and State . Namely, government spending distorts the economy as badly as taxation -- driving up prices for the private sector, and withdrawing resources from private sector use.

Ellen Brown further explains :

The military actually destroys jobs in the civilian economy. The higher profits from cost-plus military manufacturing cause manufacturers to abandon more competitive civilian endeavors; and the permanent war economy takes engineers, capital and resources away from civilian production.

But, as a classic case of "the seen" vs. "the unseen," it's easy to point to jobs created by military spending. How many jobs were lost as a result of that same spending? That remains unseen, and thus politically irrelevant.

Military fan boys will of course assure us that every single military job and every single dollar spent on the military is absolutely essential. It's all the service of "fighting for freedom." For instance, Mitchell Blatt writes , in the context of immigrant recruits, "I'm not worried about the country or origin of those who are fighting to defend us. What matters is that our military is as strong as it can be." The idea at work here is that the US military is a lean machine, doing only what is necessary to get the job done, and as cost effectively as possible. Thus, hiring the "best" labor, from whatever source is absolutely essential.

This, however, rather strains the bounds of credibility. The US military is more expensive than the next eight largest militaries combined . The US's navy is ten times larger than the next largest navy. The US's air force is the largest in the world, and the second largest air force belongs, not to a foreign country, but to the US Navy.

Yet, we're supposed to believe that any cuts will imperil the "readiness" of the US military.

Cut Spending for Citizens and Non-Citizens Alike

My intent here is not to pick on immigrants specifically. The case of military layoffs for immigrants simply helps to illustrate a couple of important points: government jobs with the military constitute of form of taxpayer-funded subsidy for immigrants. And secondly, the US military acts as a job program, not just for immigrants but for many native-born Americans.

In truth, layoffs in the military sector ought to be far more widespread, and hardly limited to immigrants. The Trump Administration is wrong when it suggests that the positions now held by immigrant recruits ought to be filled by American-born recruits. Those positions should be left unfilled. Permanently.

cougar_w Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:53 Permalink

No you retarded fuck, the military is a taxpayer-funed merc army supporting the overseas hegemonic goals of American-style Corporatism . That the military is full of the sons and daughters of poor people is only because rich whites won't send their trustfund babies to kill brown people for oil.

Smedley Butler, 1935: " War is a Racket "

How anyone still gets this wrong is symptomatic of too much inbreeding.

Expendable Container -> cougar_w Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:58 Permalink

The military is a taxpayer-funded merc army supporting Isra hell's goals none of which benefit the US.

cougar_w -> Expendable Container Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:12 Permalink

No, asshole. It's about money. About cash and gold. Profit. Markets. Growth. About cheap or free resources. Access to labor. New customers.

War makes companies rich, it might be the ONLY way they can get rich. War is waged when GM wants to sell trucks to the Pentagon. When Boeing wants to sell jets. When MIT wants money for arms research. When NATO wants a reason to exist. The dogs of war are loosed when oil gets tight. When countries won't "accept our cultural freedoms". When trade agreements aren't enough to open up new markets.

Isreal has fleeting nothing to do with it, except maybe when war aligns with their perceived need for hegemony in their own sphere. But by loading all this on Isreal you encourage others to miss the real fox in the henhouse. You could wipe Isreal off the Earth tomorrow and still have wars for profit for a thousand years to come.

This nation was born in war. It has practiced war since that day and will be at war with the rest of the world until humans are killed to the last and the last ounce of profit from war is had.

TeethVillage88s -> cougar_w Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:08 Permalink

or from systematic corruption of all US Institutions and the politicization of all US Institutions... you need a job, you want to work here, you say this, and you do this, ... tow the line, no politics, no whistleblowing,... and we won't blackball your ass from the industry... got it... u got debts, keep ur nose clean!

Idiocracy's Not Sure Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:56 Permalink

the US military has slacking pay.

Quantify -> Idiocracy's Not Sure Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:58 Permalink

Yes the pay sucks but you get more done before 8am than most people do in a week. But seriously its a pretty good gig in the long run. Medical care a decent retirement system, travel a chance to meet and integrate with different cultures and kill them...its pretty cool.

AudiDoug Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:17 Permalink

Excluding a small percentage, the military is much like the DMV. We have a cartoon vision of all enlisted being GI Joe, ready to grab a gun and fight evil. This in not the case at all. Most positions are very simple, repetitive bureaucratic positions. Really is a giant Jobs program to keep people busy.

Debt Slave Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:22 Permalink

"The idea at work here is that the US military is a lean machine, doing only what is necessary to get the job done, and as cost effectively as possible."

Then why are we still in Afghanistan?

No need to answer, the question is rhetorical.

DingleBarryObummer Fri, 07/13/2018 - 18:59 Permalink

Support our B̶a̶n̶k̶s̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ Troops!

[Jul 14, 2018] Trump Marches Onward and Downward, by James Petras - The Unz Review

Jul 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Journalists, academics, pundits and experts have ignored the complexity of President Trump's impact on the state of the US Empire.

To properly assess the geopolitical configuration of power, we will consider the military, economic, political and diplomatic advances and setbacks of the Trump regime in Latin America, the European Union and Asia (including the Middle East).

Secondly, we will examine the time frame – the shifting direction of the present configuration of forces.

We will conclude by discussing how the influence and results of foreign policy shape domestic political power.

Background to President Trump's Empire Building

First and foremost, we must take account of the fact that much of Trump's policies build on and reflect the policies of his predecessors, namely Presidents Bush and Obama.

The US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were started by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, The US bombings of Libya and the destruction and uprooting of millions of Africans was inaugurated by Obama.

The expulsion of millions of Central American and Mexican immigrants from the US was common practice prior to Trump.

In brief President Trump continued , and in some cases exacerbated, the socio-economic and military policies, of his predecessors. In a few areas Trump reversed policies, as was the case with Obama's Nuclear Agreement with Iran.

The successes and failures of Trump's empire building policies cannot be attributed solely to his regime. Nevertheless, President Trump must be held responsible for the current state of the empire and its direction.

President Trump Marches Forward in Latin America

President Trump has built upon and extended US imperial victories throughout most of Latin America. Satellite regimes are in place in Brazil thanks largely to judicial-legislative coup which overthrew President elect Dilma Rousseff. The puppet regime of Michel Temer has privatized the economy, embraced Trump's dominance and aligned with efforts to overthrow Venezuela's government.

Similarly, Trump inherited from Obama the present client regimes in Argentina (President Mauricio Macri), Peru (President Martin Vizcarra) ,Honduras (President Hernandez) Paraguay (President Cartes), Chile (President Piñera), Ecuador (President Moreno), and most of the ruling elites in Central America and the Caribbean. Trump has added to the list current efforts to overthrow the Daniel Ortega regime in Nicaragua.

Under President Trump, Washington succeeded in reversing relations with Cuba and the so-called peace accord in Colombia between the guerrillas and the Juan Manuel Santos regime. In July 2018, Trump succeeded in backing the accession to power of Ivan Duque a protégé of the far-right party of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia. President Obama's reversal of center-left regimes via coups have been consolidated and expanded by Trump with the important exception of Mexico.

Trump partially reversed Obama's opening of relations with Cuba and threatens to militarily invade Venezuela.

Trump's imperial empire in Latin America is, for the most part, inherited and largely sustained . . . for now.

But there are several crucial caveats.

Mexico's new President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is likely to pursue independent and progressive foreign and domestic policies, renegotiating NAFTA, oil contracts and border disputes.

Secondly, Brazil and Argentina's neo-liberal economic policies are in deep crises and the incumbent puppet regimes are economically unstable, face mass social opposition and likely will suffer electoral defeats in 2018.

Thirdly, Venezuela and Cuba have successfully resisted economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Militarily, President Trump retains US military bases in Colombia and has incorporated Bogata into NATO and he has secured military operations in Argentina and Ecuador.

The biggest challenge to Trump's empire building in Latin America is in the all-important economic realm .

Trump has failed to gain ground in trade, investment and raw materials in the face of competition with China.

Despite the political and military subordination of Latin American regimes to Washington, the bulk of their trade ties are with China. Moreover, Brazil and Argentina will increase their agro-exports to China in line with Beijing's trade tariffs on US exports. In the so-called trade war not a single Latin American client state has sided with the US. On the contrary, all are taking advantage of Washington's loss of the China market to enhance their exports.

Clearly the US does not exercise 'hegemony' over Latin America's trading relations.

Worse still, Trump's dumping of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and threats to withdraw from NAFTA have reduced Washington's leverage over Latin America and Asia.

Trump's boasts and claims of dominance over Latin America is largely a product of his predecessors' imperial policies.

At most, Trump's policies have hardened the far right, which however, is weakening politically and economically and has provoked the rise of the left to power in Mexico and increased opposition in Colombia, Brazil and Argentina.

In sum the Trump regime's empire building retain decided influence in Latin America but faces major challenges – and reversals.

Trump in Asia: One Step Forward, Two Step Backward

Washington has gained prestige for its diplomatic overtures to North Korea but is losing the trade war with the world's second greatest power, China.

China, faced with Trump's economic war, has diversified its trading partners thus undermining key US agro-business enterprises.

China has implemented tariffs on: canola, soybeans, corn, cotton, pork and beef.

Moreover, China has replaced the US as the main trading partner throughout Asia.

While Japan, South Korea and Australia provide military bases for the US they are eager to replace Washington's export to China.

Moreover, China's multi-billion dollar, Belt and Road Initiative has secured sixty-eight nations as partners, with the prominent absence of the self-excluded USA.

US economic sanctions against Iran have failed to undermine the governments' oil exports , while banking transactions and imports of manufacturing and service products are replaced by China, Russia , India and most of Asia. All of whom will increase their trade with Teheran.

In the Middle East and South Asia, the US can no longer count on clients or allies except for Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, the Saudi's rejected Trump's demand to increase oil production to lower oil prices for US consumers.

Israel is a 'loyal ally' to Washington when it suits their own economic advantages and hegemonic aspirations. For example, Israel has continued to expand ties with Russia even in violation of US sanctions.

Pakistan, Myanmar and Cambodia have moved closer to China as a result of increasing financial and infrastructure aid.

ORDER IT NOW

In balance, the US continues to exercise military dominance in Asia via its bases in South Korea, Japan and Australia. However, it is losing economic influence and presence in the rest of Asia. If history is any precedent, imperial empires without economic foundations, sooner or later crumble, especially when rising regional powers are capable of replacing them.

The European Union and Trump's Empire: Partner, Client or Rival?

The European Union (EU) is the largest market in the world and yet remains a political and military dependency of Washington.

The EU has suffered from its lack of an independent foreign policy – its reliance on NATO, a US subsidiary is one of the main reasons.

President Trump has exploited the EU's weakness to defy its policies on several strategic issues, ranging from the Paris Agreement on climate change, to the nuclear agreement with Iran, to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Trump's tariff on EU exports is the latest and most provocative effort to defy and dominate the region.

Moreover, the EU is increasingly divided over immigration, the UK departure (Brexit), as well as the economic and political and economic split between Germany , Italy and Poland.

In effect the Trump regime can no longer count on a powerful unified alliance at its behest,in its quest for a global empire.

Rather, under Trump, the US seeks to secure economic supremacy and supreme political-military dominance.

President Trump demands that the EU countries double their military budgets in order to increase the Pentagon's arms spending.

As a result of the divisions and hostilities between the US and EU, President' Trump's imperial policies have adopted a contradictory strategy of enhancing economic protectionism with overtures to 'enemy' Russia. By adopting the nationalist slogan, "Making America Strong" by 'Making the EU Weak' it appears Trump pursues nationalist slogans to promote imperial goals.

Domestic Growth and Imperial Decline

To date, mid 2018, Trump is riding a wave of domestic growth of the economy, trade and employment.

Critics claim that this is a short-lived conjuncture which faces powerful counter-currents. They argue that the trade war and decline of the overseas markets of China, the EU, Mexico, Canada and elsewhere will provoke a decline of the US.

Trump's strategic gamble is that the US trade war will succeed in opening China's market while reducing China's exports. Trump hopes US MNC will relocate to the US and increase jobs and exports. So far this is a pipe dream.

Moreover, the corporate tax windfall has not been accompanied with a decrease in inequalities and increases in wages.

The result is that Trump faces the real prospects of a decline in exports and popular electoral support – especially from those adversely affected by declining markets and deep cuts in health, education and the environment.

Political Consequences of 'America First' in a Corporate Setting

Trump's nationalist economic policies are highly unlikely to enhance empire building ; on the contrary, the trade war will force the major corporate tax beneficiaries to turn against Trump. Their overseas trade links with the EU, North America and China will cause them to turn against Trump.

Empire building trumps America First. Without an economic empire the US will lack the means to secure the markets necessary to stimulate local exports and production.

Conclusion

President Trump has benefited, and to some extent, succeeded in temporarily gaining dominance in Latin America, expanding the domestic economy and imposing demands on China, the EU and North America.

Nevertheless, his policies have undermined allies, antagonized competitors and provoked retaliation. All of which increases the economic cost of running an empire.

Trump has failed to provide viable substitutes for the EU and China markets. Nor has he secured the markets of his remaining clients in Latin America. The notion that Trump can build 'national capitalism in one country' is a chimera. At most it would require intensive exploitation of US labor and high rates of investment, sacrificing profits and salaries. The electoral oligarchy and the mass media will force him to retreat from the trade wars and surrender to the globalizing elites.

Per/Norway , July 13, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT

"To date, mid 2018, Trump is riding a wave of fake domestic growth of the economy, trade and faked employment numbers."
i fixed it for you.
are you trying to tell me you actually believe the numbers coming out of washington dc?
i dont believe you are so daft tbh.
anon [118] Disclaimer , July 14, 2018 at 4:38 am GMT
I actually disagree quite a bit with this article. I believe our losses in trade due to the sanctions is temporary, long term we will have much to gain. Economists have always contended that there are winners and losers to globalization, same goes for the trade war, there will be winners and losers, but it's all temporary. Short term maybe the farmers will lose while the manufacturers will fare better. In the long run however the US will have much more to gain in all sectors.

This is a game of chickens, ultimately it's all about who needs who more . We are still at a position where the EU and China need us much more than we need them, thanks to decades of bad management from these governments that created an export dependency. The tide is turning however and I think it's fortuitous that Trump sees this and seizes the moment before it's too late for the US, before we become so weak and other countries become so strong that we can no longer change the terms of the trade. There is a method to Trump's madness. I think we will win this tariff war in the not too distant future. China will buckle long before we will.

The best thing Trump ever said to the EU was this: How about we all have ZERO tariffs? Our EU "allies" and China all gasped because they know it's unthinkable, they all have their own constituents to protect through tariffs. Trump was absolutely right. Either we all have ZERO tariffs or we all have equal tariffs. It's about Effing time a US president finally has the balls to stand up for America. Go President Trump!!

Tony Lawless , July 14, 2018 at 5:05 am GMT
Petras doesn't get Trump at all.
Trump is trying to DOWNSIZE the US Empire, recognizing that it is financially unsustainable. He has decided to put America First.
nagra , July 14, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
USA can't live on printing money forever and ever to bully anyone else with its military "power".

Instead of good hope Trump ended up as greedy arrogant cowboy who still thinks that USA's word is the heaviest law to obey in Solar system, at least.

USA will have civil war in the near future, they like it or not.
Not that I wish them such catastrophe but what goes around comes around.

Let's hope that Trump after meeting with Putin will completely drop greed, arrogance and cowboy~ism.

Otherwise USA is toasted.

jilles dykstra , July 14, 2018 at 7:32 am GMT
The USA is pretty much autarcic.
The cost of the USA empire is tremendous, more than 800 military bases all over the world.
Britain already before 1914 was financially unable to sustain its empire, two world wars completely disintegrated the empire, made the British poor and caused an influx of migrants.
If Trump knows and understands all these things, I do not know, but what he does suggests it.
As to the EU, an illusion.
There is no political or cultural Europa, there are some 28 or more different nations and cultures.
The ideological basis of the EU is that it brings peace, by subjugating the evil Germans, who caused two world wars and perpetrated the holocaust.
In my opinion the Germans were, and, through continuing propaganda, are still the victims, the holocaust has been discussed here more than enough.
The weird thing is that the EU is the opposite of what it was meant to be: encapsulating Germany.
The real capital of the EU is Berlin, with kaiserin Merkel, trying to create better Germans through large scale immigration.
Merkel now has manoevred herself also into an impossible position with two other projects, closing nuclear power stations all of a sudden, thus building coal electric plants, and pretending reducing CO2 emission, at the same time needing more Russian gas.
Trump blackmails Germany with its exports to the USA, export always having been the Achilles heel of Germany.
As with all megalomane projects, they fail.
The EU is falling apart, migration not the cause, just the fuse in the powder keg that the EU always was.
These are interesting times, someone deliberately dissolving an empire, and a fake empire dissolving
sarz , July 14, 2018 at 7:45 am GMT
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/18/is-wrecking-ball-trump-undermining-america-global-clout-let-hope-so.html

The points made by Petras, that he would attribute entirely to Trump's huge incompetence, are also noted by James Jatras. Jatras at least concedes that Trump might be bringing down the empire deliberately -- and in that case there could be no one he could share his plans with.

Trump is on the face of it a poisonous shabbos goy, and we have a duty to keep calling him on it. Still, we have to keep some small part of our minds ready to acknowledge the opposite, something almost unimaginably heroic.

Milton , July 14, 2018 at 9:11 am GMT
Trump is a Freemason, ceremonial President. Every President since JFK has been a fake, ceremonial President. The Presidents since JFK don't actually hold real power or authority. They are cheerleaders for the Deep State. Trump even said as much during the campaign saying he would be a better cheerleader than Obama. Israel and the MIC/Deep State control America, not the President or Congress. Hopefully Putin is not fooled by the theatrics, but then again with Putin's groveling before Natanyahoo, I'm not sure there's much hope in the present crisis.
RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , July 14, 2018 at 9:32 am GMT
Regime! Empire! Imperial! Supremacy! Dominance! REEEE!

Calm down, James.

We're making a hard course correction away from one world governments and back towards autonomy. That involves the deliberate compartmentalization of nations with (ethno)nationalism as a bulwark against the spread of globalism. And Europe's coming along for the ride because we both need each other as allies for what is to come. Needless to say, the divorce is going to get very ugly.

Honestly though, you make it sound so bad, like we've been derailed from the road to utopia by Trump or something. All he's really done is given us back the ability to voice our own self-interests after Cultural Marxism stripped us of it with the better part of a century's worth of social engineering. And in doing so, ensured that if Western Civilization is going down anytime soon, it's going to have to be with a bang and not the originally planned whimper.

Milton , July 14, 2018 at 10:08 am GMT
@RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965

Meanwhile in the real world, Trump continues to give millions in foreign aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia while homeless vets rot on the rotting streets and millions of hard-working blue-collar Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

Sadly, Trump has turned out to be a Neocon puppet. Whether he was their boy all along or has been compromised by them, same difference at this point.

[Jul 14, 2018] Rediscovering the Art of Diplomacy With Vladimir Putin by Ted Galen Carpenter

As a personality and politician Trump is infinitely smaller then Putin. So the only trump card he has is "imperial arrogance".
Also Trump is severely constrained by what he do or offer by the Deep State, especially intelligence agencies which have semi-autonomous power in the USA and are no longer under direct control of the government, representing a shadow government by itself. Brennan attempt to unseat Trump is just one recent example.
He also has a full of neocons cabinet now. Just Pompeo is very dangerous neocon indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives. ..."
"... If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place. Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. ..."
"... even more than he did with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former. ..."
"... Some of Washington's existing demands are manifestly unrealistic . Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly a response to the clumsy and provocative actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. ..."
"... With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the next year. ..."
"... In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations) success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy. ..."
Jul 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives. The upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin affords an opportunity to relearn the requirements of effective diplomacy. If handled poorly, though, it will underscore the adverse consequences of Washington's rigid approach to world affairs.

Too many American politicians, pundits, and foreign policy operatives seem to believe that when dealing with an adversary, diplomacy should consist of issuing a laundry list of demands, including manifestly unrealistic ones, without offering even a hint of meaningful concessions. Critics of Trump's summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un epitomized that attitude. Some of them excoriated the president just for his willingness to accord Kim implicit equal status by approving a bilateral meeting. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi groused that President Trump "elevated North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving the regime's status quo."

Others grudgingly conceded that the summit theoretically might have been an appropriate move, but argued that Washington should have demanded major substantive and irreversible North Korean steps toward denuclearization in exchange for such a prestigious meeting. In other words, they wanted North Korea's capitulation on the central issue before Trump even agreed to a summit. Critics were furious that such a capitulation was not at least enshrined in the joint statement emerging from the meeting. And if that hardline stance was not enough, they insisted that Trump should have made North Korea's human rights record a feature of the negotiations. Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne asserted that "our wrongful indifference to human rights in the past should not be used as an excuse to justify apologias for dictatorships in our time."

For Peace With Putin, End America's Pointless Wars
Xi Jinping's Great Leap Backward

The lack of realism such positions exhibit is breathtaking. If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place. Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. And the consequences flowing from the course they favored would have been the perpetuation, if not escalation, of alarming tensions on the Korean Peninsula. By spurning their advice, Trump secured a worthwhile change in the dynamics of the U.S.-North Korean relationship. The rapprochement may yet falter, since there are still extremely serious disagreements between the two countries, but the summit was a beneficial reset that has reduced the danger of a catastrophic military confrontation. Because he focused on the achievable, Trump secured a modest, but constructive, gain both for the United States and the East Asian region.

The president has an opportunity for an even more important success in his upcoming summit with Putin. But even more than he did with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former.

Some of Washington's existing demands are manifestly unrealistic . Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly a response to the clumsy and provocative actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. Given the stakes involved, Russia is no more likely to withdraw from Crimea than Israel is likely to return the Golan Heights to Syria or Turkey return occupied northern Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus. Persisting in an utterly unattainable demand regarding Crimea before U.S. and EU sanctions against Russia will be lifted is pointless.

Inducing the Kremlin to reduce and phase out its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine is more achievable. Indeed, despite the hysterical allegations that appear periodically in the Western press, Russia's backing of the insurgents has been quite limited and is far less than constituting an "invasion." Putin shows little stomach for making Ukraine an arena for a full-fledged confrontation with the West.

A similar situation exists with respect to Syria. The Kremlin clearly wishes to see Bashar al-Assad remain in power, and given the extreme Islamist orientation of many of Assad's opponents, that is not an outrageous position. Nevertheless, Putin has avoided establishing a large-scale Russian military, especially ground force, presence in that country. He apparently wishes to confine Moscow's role to protecting its naval base at Tartus and assisting Assad's military efforts with Russian air power . There appears to be an opportunity for Washington to gain assurances from the Kremlin that its involvement in Syria will not escalate and might even recede gradually.

To secure such goals, though, the U.S. would need to offer some appealing concessions to Putin. In exchange for ending Russian support of Ukrainian secessionists and confirming Moscow's toleration of the anti-Russian regime in Kiev, Trump should be willing to sign an agreement pledging that the United States will neither propose not endorse NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia . NATO's previous waves of enlargement right up to Russia's border were a key factor in the deterioration of the West's relations with Moscow. It is time to end that provocation. In addition to that concession, Trump should pledge that NATO military exercises (war games) in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea will come to an end. In exchange, the United States ought to insist that Russian forces end their provocative deployments in Kaliningrad and along Russia's frontier with NATO members.

With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the next year. Those moves would tacitly accept Russia as the leading foreign power in terms of influence in Syria. Such a concession is a simple recognition of reality . Syria is barely 600 miles from Russia's border; it is 6,000 miles from the American homeland. Moscow's interests are understandably more central than America's, given that geographic factor alone.

In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations) success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs.

[Jul 14, 2018] Is Washington Playing Iran's Useful Idiot in Syria The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Damascus and Moscow welcomed Iran's critical contribution to defeating the opposition and giving Washington and its allies a diplomatic bloody nose in the bargain. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledges that Iran's presence in Syria -- at the invitation of the regime -- is legitimate and that it would be "unrealistic" to demand its ouster. ..."
"... But instead of viewing the end of the war as an opportunity to lessen Iran's value to the regime and to reduce its footprint in the country, Washington is continuing heedlessly with failed policies created for an environment that no longer exists. As long as the fighting continues and the regime's efforts to reassert sovereignty over the entire country are frustrated by U.S. deployments in the northeast and southeast, Iran's military presence in the country is secure. Likewise, Washington shows no sign of reconsidering international sanctions against the regime, which also forces Syria into the arms of Tehran. ..."
"... A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter. ..."
"... Confronted with the disintegration of its diplomatic and military strategy, the Trump administration is reduced to playing spoiler, obstructing the inevitable restoration of the regime's sovereignty over the country and continuing the punishing sanctions that have removed the battered but resilient Syrian private sector from international capital and commercial markets. This policy fails on two fronts -- it creates more gratuitous misery for the Syrian people and it undermines the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence in the country. Indeed, continuing to pursue the current policies will leave the U.S. isolated among friends (Jordan and Israel) as well as frenemy Russia, and will postpone rather than speed the day that Iran leaves Syria. ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Washington has been on the offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran for close to half a century. Largely as a result, Iran, a rounding error in the superpower sweepstakes, has gone from strength to strength, challenging American power throughout the region, most notably in Iraq and Syria.

U.S.-led regime change in Iraq created Tehran's historic opportunity to return to Baghdad for the first time since the creation of the Ottoman caliphate in the 15th century. This unscripted but entirely predictable outcome was no mean feat, all the more so for being the opposite of what Washington intended.

The Bush administration knew that it no longer wanted Saddam in the chair, but could not think beyond this one, giant, uncharted leap into the future. Iran has a far greater and more lasting interest in the affairs of its neighbor and often bitter enemy. As a consequence, the mullahs are playing a far longer, and more successful, game.

The legacy of unintended consequences continues to define Washington's policy towards Iraq a generation after the first Gulf War ended. And so too with Syria. In both countries, U.S. shortcomings have created a historic opportunity for Iran to enhance its influence in Arab arenas that when not actively hostile to it (Iraq) are at best lukewarm (Syria).

Are al-Qaeda Affiliates Fighting Alongside U.S. Rebels in Syria's South? How U.S. Iran Policy Hurts Iran and America

When asked about Syria's relationship with Iran, Farouk Shara'a, longtime foreign minister and vice president, once explained to a mutual friend, "You don't have to love the woman you are sleeping with."

Syria has been in bed with Iran for decades. Saddam's war against Iran in the '80s, the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most recently the war against the Assad regime in Syria, have conspired to throw these two unlikely allies into a cold embrace.

Washington has been oblivious to this essentially ambivalent Syrian attitude towards Iran, and remains equally so to the opportunities it creates to reduce Iran's footprint in postwar Syria. Now that the war is winding down, the value of Iran's military contribution to Syria is declining. In parallel, Syria's interest in reducing the power of its erstwhile Iranian and Russian friends over its destiny increases.

Damascus and Moscow welcomed Iran's critical contribution to defeating the opposition and giving Washington and its allies a diplomatic bloody nose in the bargain. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledges that Iran's presence in Syria -- at the invitation of the regime -- is legitimate and that it would be "unrealistic" to demand its ouster.

But while Iran's wartime contribution proved critical to victory, neither Assad nor Putin was displeased to distance Iranian-backed elements from the recent battle front in the south. Neither has an interest in enabling Tehran to pursue a postwar Syrian agenda towards Lebanon and Israel. Nor is either enamored with Iran's continuing efforts to reshape the Syrian military in its image. On these important issues, Iran stands all but alone against an invisible, de facto coalition that includes Washington and the EU alongside Israel, Moscow, and the Assad regime itself.

But instead of viewing the end of the war as an opportunity to lessen Iran's value to the regime and to reduce its footprint in the country, Washington is continuing heedlessly with failed policies created for an environment that no longer exists. As long as the fighting continues and the regime's efforts to reassert sovereignty over the entire country are frustrated by U.S. deployments in the northeast and southeast, Iran's military presence in the country is secure. Likewise, Washington shows no sign of reconsidering international sanctions against the regime, which also forces Syria into the arms of Tehran.

A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter.

Apart from the lingering campaign against ISIS, in every other respect the U.S. effort in Syria is imploding. Washington under Obama and now Trump has been forced to uneasily acknowledge the regime's staying power. It has now been reduced to bickering over the details of Syrian constitutional reform in the postwar era, a waste of time if ever there was one. Lately, the U.S. secretary of state, from his respected perch, has personally threatened Iran's key military strategist and architect of its advances in Iraq and Syria, Qassem Sulemani, a sure sign that the policymaking process at State is frozen.

In the field, Washington has ignominiously abandoned allies in the southern front. And in the northeast, the Kurds have embarked on the road back to Damascus, imperiling Washington's deployment there.

Confronted with the disintegration of its diplomatic and military strategy, the Trump administration is reduced to playing spoiler, obstructing the inevitable restoration of the regime's sovereignty over the country and continuing the punishing sanctions that have removed the battered but resilient Syrian private sector from international capital and commercial markets. This policy fails on two fronts -- it creates more gratuitous misery for the Syrian people and it undermines the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence in the country. Indeed, continuing to pursue the current policies will leave the U.S. isolated among friends (Jordan and Israel) as well as frenemy Russia, and will postpone rather than speed the day that Iran leaves Syria.

Geoffrey Aronson is chairman and co-founder of The Mortons Group and a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute.

Janwaar Bibi July 12, 2018 at 11:24 pm

A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter.

US foreign policy is controlled by the Israeli lobby and to a lesser extent, by the Saudi lobby. The illegal and unprovoked attacks by the US on Iraq, Libya and Syria were done at the behest of these lobbies. The only country that has benefited from all this bloodshed is Israel, which now dominates the Middle East.

Since this obvious truth cannot be said out aloud, we need to pretend we don't know who is behind all the mayhem in the Middle East, like this pointless article does.

Procivic , , July 13, 2018 at 12:55 am
The writer can't see the forest for the trees. Successive U.S. administrations have behaved irresponsibly to enhance Israel's position in the guise of bring "democracy" to the region. Washington's failures have created ongoing misery in Iraq, a failed state in Libya and the destruction of the ancient land of Syria.

The U.S. continues to
pretend it had no role in the creation of the huge refugee problem that followed its interventions in Libya and Syria.

No lessons learned, the folly is being played out daily in Yemen where the Pentagon is leading the a campaign of death and destruction alongside its "democratic" allies, the Salman clan of Arabia and the sheikhs of the Persian Gulf minnow petrostates.

Genesee Hike , , July 13, 2018 at 8:11 am
"the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence "

I've yet to see a compelling reason for this "stated objective". If you want to argue that it's an American interest because the Israel Lobby wants it, well, OK, there are politicians who can be bribed to do Israel's will, but no real American would agree.

One of these days an American president will make an "opening to Iran" as Nixon once made one to China. Surely we can bury the hatchet with Iran for the sake of a grand bargain that accomplishes America's one real interest in the Middle East, which is to free ourselves of the various parasites who entangle us in their messes, and get the hell out of there. Some of us hoped that Trump might be that president, but it wasn't meant to be.

Krzysztof Hołubicki , , July 13, 2018 at 8:59 am
As far as Procivic and Genesee Hike comments are concerned -- they are perfectly right and down to the point.
the piper will be paid , , July 13, 2018 at 11:36 am
"The U.S. continues to
pretend it had no role in the creation of the huge refugee problem that followed its interventions in Libya and Syria."

Which is ridiculous. When you bomb, invade, and arm insurgencies in people's countries, a lot of people run away. Everybody knows that.

In the case of our bombing, invading, and/or arming insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, a lot of people ran away.

Millions ran into Turkey. Millions more ran through Turkey into Greece and then up through the Balkans into other NATO countries. And still more came up from Africa and sailed away from the shores of ruined Libya to our NATO allies Italy, Spain, and France.

We did this. Everybody knows we did it. It's absurd to deny it. What's worse is that many of the allies destabilized by the refugees warned or even begged us not to start those wars. With no American interest at stake, no real risk assessment, and no exit strategy formulated, we did it anyway.

Sid Finster , , July 13, 2018 at 12:07 pm
Much simpler explanation: For decades, the United States has been the loyal servant of Israel, and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia, faithfully carrying out its masters' every dictate.

As an unintended consequence of Israeli/Saudi policy, Iran has grown much stronger.

The only reason that the US foreign policy establishment is rushing headlong into a war with Iran is because Israel and Saudi Arabia are terrified of the Iran that they have created.

[Jul 14, 2018] Trump Marches Onward and Downward, by James Petras - The Unz Review

Jul 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Journalists, academics, pundits and experts have ignored the complexity of President Trump's impact on the state of the US Empire.

To properly assess the geopolitical configuration of power, we will consider the military, economic, political and diplomatic advances and setbacks of the Trump regime in Latin America, the European Union and Asia (including the Middle East).

Secondly, we will examine the time frame – the shifting direction of the present configuration of forces.

We will conclude by discussing how the influence and results of foreign policy shape domestic political power.

Background to President Trump's Empire Building

First and foremost, we must take account of the fact that much of Trump's policies build on and reflect the policies of his predecessors, namely Presidents Bush and Obama.

The US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were started by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, The US bombings of Libya and the destruction and uprooting of millions of Africans was inaugurated by Obama.

The expulsion of millions of Central American and Mexican immigrants from the US was common practice prior to Trump.

In brief President Trump continued , and in some cases exacerbated, the socio-economic and military policies, of his predecessors. In a few areas Trump reversed policies, as was the case with Obama's Nuclear Agreement with Iran.

The successes and failures of Trump's empire building policies cannot be attributed solely to his regime. Nevertheless, President Trump must be held responsible for the current state of the empire and its direction.

President Trump Marches Forward in Latin America

President Trump has built upon and extended US imperial victories throughout most of Latin America. Satellite regimes are in place in Brazil thanks largely to judicial-legislative coup which overthrew President elect Dilma Rousseff. The puppet regime of Michel Temer has privatized the economy, embraced Trump's dominance and aligned with efforts to overthrow Venezuela's government.

Similarly, Trump inherited from Obama the present client regimes in Argentina (President Mauricio Macri), Peru (President Martin Vizcarra) ,Honduras (President Hernandez) Paraguay (President Cartes), Chile (President Piñera), Ecuador (President Moreno), and most of the ruling elites in Central America and the Caribbean. Trump has added to the list current efforts to overthrow the Daniel Ortega regime in Nicaragua.

Under President Trump, Washington succeeded in reversing relations with Cuba and the so-called peace accord in Colombia between the guerrillas and the Juan Manuel Santos regime. In July 2018, Trump succeeded in backing the accession to power of Ivan Duque a protégé of the far-right party of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia. President Obama's reversal of center-left regimes via coups have been consolidated and expanded by Trump with the important exception of Mexico.

Trump partially reversed Obama's opening of relations with Cuba and threatens to militarily invade Venezuela.

Trump's imperial empire in Latin America is, for the most part, inherited and largely sustained . . . for now.

But there are several crucial caveats.

Mexico's new President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is likely to pursue independent and progressive foreign and domestic policies, renegotiating NAFTA, oil contracts and border disputes.

Secondly, Brazil and Argentina's neo-liberal economic policies are in deep crises and the incumbent puppet regimes are economically unstable, face mass social opposition and likely will suffer electoral defeats in 2018.

Thirdly, Venezuela and Cuba have successfully resisted economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Militarily, President Trump retains US military bases in Colombia and has incorporated Bogata into NATO and he has secured military operations in Argentina and Ecuador.

The biggest challenge to Trump's empire building in Latin America is in the all-important economic realm .

Trump has failed to gain ground in trade, investment and raw materials in the face of competition with China.

Despite the political and military subordination of Latin American regimes to Washington, the bulk of their trade ties are with China. Moreover, Brazil and Argentina will increase their agro-exports to China in line with Beijing's trade tariffs on US exports. In the so-called trade war not a single Latin American client state has sided with the US. On the contrary, all are taking advantage of Washington's loss of the China market to enhance their exports.

Clearly the US does not exercise 'hegemony' over Latin America's trading relations.

Worse still, Trump's dumping of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and threats to withdraw from NAFTA have reduced Washington's leverage over Latin America and Asia.

Trump's boasts and claims of dominance over Latin America is largely a product of his predecessors' imperial policies.

At most, Trump's policies have hardened the far right, which however, is weakening politically and economically and has provoked the rise of the left to power in Mexico and increased opposition in Colombia, Brazil and Argentina.

In sum the Trump regime's empire building retain decided influence in Latin America but faces major challenges – and reversals.

Trump in Asia: One Step Forward, Two Step Backward

Washington has gained prestige for its diplomatic overtures to North Korea but is losing the trade war with the world's second greatest power, China.

China, faced with Trump's economic war, has diversified its trading partners thus undermining key US agro-business enterprises.

China has implemented tariffs on: canola, soybeans, corn, cotton, pork and beef.

Moreover, China has replaced the US as the main trading partner throughout Asia.

While Japan, South Korea and Australia provide military bases for the US they are eager to replace Washington's export to China.

Moreover, China's multi-billion dollar, Belt and Road Initiative has secured sixty-eight nations as partners, with the prominent absence of the self-excluded USA.

US economic sanctions against Iran have failed to undermine the governments' oil exports , while banking transactions and imports of manufacturing and service products are replaced by China, Russia , India and most of Asia. All of whom will increase their trade with Teheran.

In the Middle East and South Asia, the US can no longer count on clients or allies except for Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, the Saudi's rejected Trump's demand to increase oil production to lower oil prices for US consumers.

Israel is a 'loyal ally' to Washington when it suits their own economic advantages and hegemonic aspirations. For example, Israel has continued to expand ties with Russia even in violation of US sanctions.

Pakistan, Myanmar and Cambodia have moved closer to China as a result of increasing financial and infrastructure aid.

ORDER IT NOW

In balance, the US continues to exercise military dominance in Asia via its bases in South Korea, Japan and Australia. However, it is losing economic influence and presence in the rest of Asia. If history is any precedent, imperial empires without economic foundations, sooner or later crumble, especially when rising regional powers are capable of replacing them.

The European Union and Trump's Empire: Partner, Client or Rival?

The European Union (EU) is the largest market in the world and yet remains a political and military dependency of Washington.

The EU has suffered from its lack of an independent foreign policy – its reliance on NATO, a US subsidiary is one of the main reasons.

President Trump has exploited the EU's weakness to defy its policies on several strategic issues, ranging from the Paris Agreement on climate change, to the nuclear agreement with Iran, to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Trump's tariff on EU exports is the latest and most provocative effort to defy and dominate the region.

Moreover, the EU is increasingly divided over immigration, the UK departure (Brexit), as well as the economic and political and economic split between Germany , Italy and Poland.

In effect the Trump regime can no longer count on a powerful unified alliance at its behest,in its quest for a global empire.

Rather, under Trump, the US seeks to secure economic supremacy and supreme political-military dominance.

President Trump demands that the EU countries double their military budgets in order to increase the Pentagon's arms spending.

As a result of the divisions and hostilities between the US and EU, President' Trump's imperial policies have adopted a contradictory strategy of enhancing economic protectionism with overtures to 'enemy' Russia. By adopting the nationalist slogan, "Making America Strong" by 'Making the EU Weak' it appears Trump pursues nationalist slogans to promote imperial goals.

Domestic Growth and Imperial Decline

To date, mid 2018, Trump is riding a wave of domestic growth of the economy, trade and employment.

Critics claim that this is a short-lived conjuncture which faces powerful counter-currents. They argue that the trade war and decline of the overseas markets of China, the EU, Mexico, Canada and elsewhere will provoke a decline of the US.

Trump's strategic gamble is that the US trade war will succeed in opening China's market while reducing China's exports. Trump hopes US MNC will relocate to the US and increase jobs and exports. So far this is a pipe dream.

Moreover, the corporate tax windfall has not been accompanied with a decrease in inequalities and increases in wages.

The result is that Trump faces the real prospects of a decline in exports and popular electoral support – especially from those adversely affected by declining markets and deep cuts in health, education and the environment.

Political Consequences of 'America First' in a Corporate Setting

Trump's nationalist economic policies are highly unlikely to enhance empire building ; on the contrary, the trade war will force the major corporate tax beneficiaries to turn against Trump. Their overseas trade links with the EU, North America and China will cause them to turn against Trump.

Empire building trumps America First. Without an economic empire the US will lack the means to secure the markets necessary to stimulate local exports and production.

Conclusion

President Trump has benefited, and to some extent, succeeded in temporarily gaining dominance in Latin America, expanding the domestic economy and imposing demands on China, the EU and North America.

Nevertheless, his policies have undermined allies, antagonized competitors and provoked retaliation. All of which increases the economic cost of running an empire.

Trump has failed to provide viable substitutes for the EU and China markets. Nor has he secured the markets of his remaining clients in Latin America. The notion that Trump can build 'national capitalism in one country' is a chimera. At most it would require intensive exploitation of US labor and high rates of investment, sacrificing profits and salaries. The electoral oligarchy and the mass media will force him to retreat from the trade wars and surrender to the globalizing elites.

Per/Norway , July 13, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT

"To date, mid 2018, Trump is riding a wave of fake domestic growth of the economy, trade and faked employment numbers."
i fixed it for you.
are you trying to tell me you actually believe the numbers coming out of washington dc?
i dont believe you are so daft tbh.
anon [118] Disclaimer , July 14, 2018 at 4:38 am GMT
I actually disagree quite a bit with this article. I believe our losses in trade due to the sanctions is temporary, long term we will have much to gain. Economists have always contended that there are winners and losers to globalization, same goes for the trade war, there will be winners and losers, but it's all temporary. Short term maybe the farmers will lose while the manufacturers will fare better. In the long run however the US will have much more to gain in all sectors.

This is a game of chickens, ultimately it's all about who needs who more . We are still at a position where the EU and China need us much more than we need them, thanks to decades of bad management from these governments that created an export dependency. The tide is turning however and I think it's fortuitous that Trump sees this and seizes the moment before it's too late for the US, before we become so weak and other countries become so strong that we can no longer change the terms of the trade. There is a method to Trump's madness. I think we will win this tariff war in the not too distant future. China will buckle long before we will.

The best thing Trump ever said to the EU was this: How about we all have ZERO tariffs? Our EU "allies" and China all gasped because they know it's unthinkable, they all have their own constituents to protect through tariffs. Trump was absolutely right. Either we all have ZERO tariffs or we all have equal tariffs. It's about Effing time a US president finally has the balls to stand up for America. Go President Trump!!

Tony Lawless , July 14, 2018 at 5:05 am GMT
Petras doesn't get Trump at all.
Trump is trying to DOWNSIZE the US Empire, recognizing that it is financially unsustainable. He has decided to put America First.
nagra , July 14, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
USA can't live on printing money forever and ever to bully anyone else with its military "power".

Instead of good hope Trump ended up as greedy arrogant cowboy who still thinks that USA's word is the heaviest law to obey in Solar system, at least.

USA will have civil war in the near future, they like it or not.
Not that I wish them such catastrophe but what goes around comes around.

Let's hope that Trump after meeting with Putin will completely drop greed, arrogance and cowboy~ism.

Otherwise USA is toasted.

jilles dykstra , July 14, 2018 at 7:32 am GMT
The USA is pretty much autarcic.
The cost of the USA empire is tremendous, more than 800 military bases all over the world.
Britain already before 1914 was financially unable to sustain its empire, two world wars completely disintegrated the empire, made the British poor and caused an influx of migrants.
If Trump knows and understands all these things, I do not know, but what he does suggests it.
As to the EU, an illusion.
There is no political or cultural Europa, there are some 28 or more different nations and cultures.
The ideological basis of the EU is that it brings peace, by subjugating the evil Germans, who caused two world wars and perpetrated the holocaust.
In my opinion the Germans were, and, through continuing propaganda, are still the victims, the holocaust has been discussed here more than enough.
The weird thing is that the EU is the opposite of what it was meant to be: encapsulating Germany.
The real capital of the EU is Berlin, with kaiserin Merkel, trying to create better Germans through large scale immigration.
Merkel now has manoevred herself also into an impossible position with two other projects, closing nuclear power stations all of a sudden, thus building coal electric plants, and pretending reducing CO2 emission, at the same time needing more Russian gas.
Trump blackmails Germany with its exports to the USA, export always having been the Achilles heel of Germany.
As with all megalomane projects, they fail.
The EU is falling apart, migration not the cause, just the fuse in the powder keg that the EU always was.
These are interesting times, someone deliberately dissolving an empire, and a fake empire dissolving
sarz , July 14, 2018 at 7:45 am GMT
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/18/is-wrecking-ball-trump-undermining-america-global-clout-let-hope-so.html

The points made by Petras, that he would attribute entirely to Trump's huge incompetence, are also noted by James Jatras. Jatras at least concedes that Trump might be bringing down the empire deliberately -- and in that case there could be no one he could share his plans with.

Trump is on the face of it a poisonous shabbos goy, and we have a duty to keep calling him on it. Still, we have to keep some small part of our minds ready to acknowledge the opposite, something almost unimaginably heroic.

Milton , July 14, 2018 at 9:11 am GMT
Trump is a Freemason, ceremonial President. Every President since JFK has been a fake, ceremonial President. The Presidents since JFK don't actually hold real power or authority. They are cheerleaders for the Deep State. Trump even said as much during the campaign saying he would be a better cheerleader than Obama. Israel and the MIC/Deep State control America, not the President or Congress. Hopefully Putin is not fooled by the theatrics, but then again with Putin's groveling before Natanyahoo, I'm not sure there's much hope in the present crisis.
RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , July 14, 2018 at 9:32 am GMT
Regime! Empire! Imperial! Supremacy! Dominance! REEEE!

Calm down, James.

We're making a hard course correction away from one world governments and back towards autonomy. That involves the deliberate compartmentalization of nations with (ethno)nationalism as a bulwark against the spread of globalism. And Europe's coming along for the ride because we both need each other as allies for what is to come. Needless to say, the divorce is going to get very ugly.

Honestly though, you make it sound so bad, like we've been derailed from the road to utopia by Trump or something. All he's really done is given us back the ability to voice our own self-interests after Cultural Marxism stripped us of it with the better part of a century's worth of social engineering. And in doing so, ensured that if Western Civilization is going down anytime soon, it's going to have to be with a bang and not the originally planned whimper.

Milton , July 14, 2018 at 10:08 am GMT
@RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965

Meanwhile in the real world, Trump continues to give millions in foreign aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia while homeless vets rot on the rotting streets and millions of hard-working blue-collar Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

Sadly, Trump has turned out to be a Neocon puppet. Whether he was their boy all along or has been compromised by them, same difference at this point.

[Jul 14, 2018] Rediscovering the Art of Diplomacy With Vladimir Putin by Ted Galen Carpenter

As a personality and politician Trump is infinitely smaller then Putin. So the only trump card he has is "imperial arrogance".
Also Trump is severely constrained by what he do or offer by the Deep State, especially intelligence agencies which have semi-autonomous power in the USA and are no longer under direct control of the government, representing a shadow government by itself. Brennan attempt to unseat Trump is just one recent example.
He also has a full of neocons cabinet now. Just Pompeo is very dangerous neocon indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives. ..."
"... If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place. Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. ..."
"... even more than he did with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former. ..."
"... Some of Washington's existing demands are manifestly unrealistic . Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly a response to the clumsy and provocative actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. ..."
"... With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the next year. ..."
"... In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations) success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy. ..."
Jul 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives. The upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin affords an opportunity to relearn the requirements of effective diplomacy. If handled poorly, though, it will underscore the adverse consequences of Washington's rigid approach to world affairs.

Too many American politicians, pundits, and foreign policy operatives seem to believe that when dealing with an adversary, diplomacy should consist of issuing a laundry list of demands, including manifestly unrealistic ones, without offering even a hint of meaningful concessions. Critics of Trump's summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un epitomized that attitude. Some of them excoriated the president just for his willingness to accord Kim implicit equal status by approving a bilateral meeting. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi groused that President Trump "elevated North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving the regime's status quo."

Others grudgingly conceded that the summit theoretically might have been an appropriate move, but argued that Washington should have demanded major substantive and irreversible North Korean steps toward denuclearization in exchange for such a prestigious meeting. In other words, they wanted North Korea's capitulation on the central issue before Trump even agreed to a summit. Critics were furious that such a capitulation was not at least enshrined in the joint statement emerging from the meeting. And if that hardline stance was not enough, they insisted that Trump should have made North Korea's human rights record a feature of the negotiations. Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne asserted that "our wrongful indifference to human rights in the past should not be used as an excuse to justify apologias for dictatorships in our time."

For Peace With Putin, End America's Pointless Wars
Xi Jinping's Great Leap Backward

The lack of realism such positions exhibit is breathtaking. If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place. Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. And the consequences flowing from the course they favored would have been the perpetuation, if not escalation, of alarming tensions on the Korean Peninsula. By spurning their advice, Trump secured a worthwhile change in the dynamics of the U.S.-North Korean relationship. The rapprochement may yet falter, since there are still extremely serious disagreements between the two countries, but the summit was a beneficial reset that has reduced the danger of a catastrophic military confrontation. Because he focused on the achievable, Trump secured a modest, but constructive, gain both for the United States and the East Asian region.

The president has an opportunity for an even more important success in his upcoming summit with Putin. But even more than he did with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former.

Some of Washington's existing demands are manifestly unrealistic . Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly a response to the clumsy and provocative actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. Given the stakes involved, Russia is no more likely to withdraw from Crimea than Israel is likely to return the Golan Heights to Syria or Turkey return occupied northern Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus. Persisting in an utterly unattainable demand regarding Crimea before U.S. and EU sanctions against Russia will be lifted is pointless.

Inducing the Kremlin to reduce and phase out its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine is more achievable. Indeed, despite the hysterical allegations that appear periodically in the Western press, Russia's backing of the insurgents has been quite limited and is far less than constituting an "invasion." Putin shows little stomach for making Ukraine an arena for a full-fledged confrontation with the West.

A similar situation exists with respect to Syria. The Kremlin clearly wishes to see Bashar al-Assad remain in power, and given the extreme Islamist orientation of many of Assad's opponents, that is not an outrageous position. Nevertheless, Putin has avoided establishing a large-scale Russian military, especially ground force, presence in that country. He apparently wishes to confine Moscow's role to protecting its naval base at Tartus and assisting Assad's military efforts with Russian air power . There appears to be an opportunity for Washington to gain assurances from the Kremlin that its involvement in Syria will not escalate and might even recede gradually.

To secure such goals, though, the U.S. would need to offer some appealing concessions to Putin. In exchange for ending Russian support of Ukrainian secessionists and confirming Moscow's toleration of the anti-Russian regime in Kiev, Trump should be willing to sign an agreement pledging that the United States will neither propose not endorse NATO membership for Ukraine or Georgia . NATO's previous waves of enlargement right up to Russia's border were a key factor in the deterioration of the West's relations with Moscow. It is time to end that provocation. In addition to that concession, Trump should pledge that NATO military exercises (war games) in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea will come to an end. In exchange, the United States ought to insist that Russian forces end their provocative deployments in Kaliningrad and along Russia's frontier with NATO members.

With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the next year. Those moves would tacitly accept Russia as the leading foreign power in terms of influence in Syria. Such a concession is a simple recognition of reality . Syria is barely 600 miles from Russia's border; it is 6,000 miles from the American homeland. Moscow's interests are understandably more central than America's, given that geographic factor alone.

In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations) success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs.

[Jul 14, 2018] Is Washington Playing Iran's Useful Idiot in Syria The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Damascus and Moscow welcomed Iran's critical contribution to defeating the opposition and giving Washington and its allies a diplomatic bloody nose in the bargain. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledges that Iran's presence in Syria -- at the invitation of the regime -- is legitimate and that it would be "unrealistic" to demand its ouster. ..."
"... But instead of viewing the end of the war as an opportunity to lessen Iran's value to the regime and to reduce its footprint in the country, Washington is continuing heedlessly with failed policies created for an environment that no longer exists. As long as the fighting continues and the regime's efforts to reassert sovereignty over the entire country are frustrated by U.S. deployments in the northeast and southeast, Iran's military presence in the country is secure. Likewise, Washington shows no sign of reconsidering international sanctions against the regime, which also forces Syria into the arms of Tehran. ..."
"... A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter. ..."
"... Confronted with the disintegration of its diplomatic and military strategy, the Trump administration is reduced to playing spoiler, obstructing the inevitable restoration of the regime's sovereignty over the country and continuing the punishing sanctions that have removed the battered but resilient Syrian private sector from international capital and commercial markets. This policy fails on two fronts -- it creates more gratuitous misery for the Syrian people and it undermines the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence in the country. Indeed, continuing to pursue the current policies will leave the U.S. isolated among friends (Jordan and Israel) as well as frenemy Russia, and will postpone rather than speed the day that Iran leaves Syria. ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Washington has been on the offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran for close to half a century. Largely as a result, Iran, a rounding error in the superpower sweepstakes, has gone from strength to strength, challenging American power throughout the region, most notably in Iraq and Syria.

U.S.-led regime change in Iraq created Tehran's historic opportunity to return to Baghdad for the first time since the creation of the Ottoman caliphate in the 15th century. This unscripted but entirely predictable outcome was no mean feat, all the more so for being the opposite of what Washington intended.

The Bush administration knew that it no longer wanted Saddam in the chair, but could not think beyond this one, giant, uncharted leap into the future. Iran has a far greater and more lasting interest in the affairs of its neighbor and often bitter enemy. As a consequence, the mullahs are playing a far longer, and more successful, game.

The legacy of unintended consequences continues to define Washington's policy towards Iraq a generation after the first Gulf War ended. And so too with Syria. In both countries, U.S. shortcomings have created a historic opportunity for Iran to enhance its influence in Arab arenas that when not actively hostile to it (Iraq) are at best lukewarm (Syria).

Are al-Qaeda Affiliates Fighting Alongside U.S. Rebels in Syria's South? How U.S. Iran Policy Hurts Iran and America

When asked about Syria's relationship with Iran, Farouk Shara'a, longtime foreign minister and vice president, once explained to a mutual friend, "You don't have to love the woman you are sleeping with."

Syria has been in bed with Iran for decades. Saddam's war against Iran in the '80s, the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most recently the war against the Assad regime in Syria, have conspired to throw these two unlikely allies into a cold embrace.

Washington has been oblivious to this essentially ambivalent Syrian attitude towards Iran, and remains equally so to the opportunities it creates to reduce Iran's footprint in postwar Syria. Now that the war is winding down, the value of Iran's military contribution to Syria is declining. In parallel, Syria's interest in reducing the power of its erstwhile Iranian and Russian friends over its destiny increases.

Damascus and Moscow welcomed Iran's critical contribution to defeating the opposition and giving Washington and its allies a diplomatic bloody nose in the bargain. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledges that Iran's presence in Syria -- at the invitation of the regime -- is legitimate and that it would be "unrealistic" to demand its ouster.

But while Iran's wartime contribution proved critical to victory, neither Assad nor Putin was displeased to distance Iranian-backed elements from the recent battle front in the south. Neither has an interest in enabling Tehran to pursue a postwar Syrian agenda towards Lebanon and Israel. Nor is either enamored with Iran's continuing efforts to reshape the Syrian military in its image. On these important issues, Iran stands all but alone against an invisible, de facto coalition that includes Washington and the EU alongside Israel, Moscow, and the Assad regime itself.

But instead of viewing the end of the war as an opportunity to lessen Iran's value to the regime and to reduce its footprint in the country, Washington is continuing heedlessly with failed policies created for an environment that no longer exists. As long as the fighting continues and the regime's efforts to reassert sovereignty over the entire country are frustrated by U.S. deployments in the northeast and southeast, Iran's military presence in the country is secure. Likewise, Washington shows no sign of reconsidering international sanctions against the regime, which also forces Syria into the arms of Tehran.

A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter.

Apart from the lingering campaign against ISIS, in every other respect the U.S. effort in Syria is imploding. Washington under Obama and now Trump has been forced to uneasily acknowledge the regime's staying power. It has now been reduced to bickering over the details of Syrian constitutional reform in the postwar era, a waste of time if ever there was one. Lately, the U.S. secretary of state, from his respected perch, has personally threatened Iran's key military strategist and architect of its advances in Iraq and Syria, Qassem Sulemani, a sure sign that the policymaking process at State is frozen.

In the field, Washington has ignominiously abandoned allies in the southern front. And in the northeast, the Kurds have embarked on the road back to Damascus, imperiling Washington's deployment there.

Confronted with the disintegration of its diplomatic and military strategy, the Trump administration is reduced to playing spoiler, obstructing the inevitable restoration of the regime's sovereignty over the country and continuing the punishing sanctions that have removed the battered but resilient Syrian private sector from international capital and commercial markets. This policy fails on two fronts -- it creates more gratuitous misery for the Syrian people and it undermines the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence in the country. Indeed, continuing to pursue the current policies will leave the U.S. isolated among friends (Jordan and Israel) as well as frenemy Russia, and will postpone rather than speed the day that Iran leaves Syria.

Geoffrey Aronson is chairman and co-founder of The Mortons Group and a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute.

Janwaar Bibi July 12, 2018 at 11:24 pm

A colorblind appraisal of the effects of U.S. policy in Iraq and now Syria would suggest that Washington is either brilliantly in cahoots with Iran to the latter's benefit or is being outplayed by weaker but more clear-eyed players. My vote goes squarely to the latter.

US foreign policy is controlled by the Israeli lobby and to a lesser extent, by the Saudi lobby. The illegal and unprovoked attacks by the US on Iraq, Libya and Syria were done at the behest of these lobbies. The only country that has benefited from all this bloodshed is Israel, which now dominates the Middle East.

Since this obvious truth cannot be said out aloud, we need to pretend we don't know who is behind all the mayhem in the Middle East, like this pointless article does.

Procivic , , July 13, 2018 at 12:55 am
The writer can't see the forest for the trees. Successive U.S. administrations have behaved irresponsibly to enhance Israel's position in the guise of bring "democracy" to the region. Washington's failures have created ongoing misery in Iraq, a failed state in Libya and the destruction of the ancient land of Syria.

The U.S. continues to
pretend it had no role in the creation of the huge refugee problem that followed its interventions in Libya and Syria.

No lessons learned, the folly is being played out daily in Yemen where the Pentagon is leading the a campaign of death and destruction alongside its "democratic" allies, the Salman clan of Arabia and the sheikhs of the Persian Gulf minnow petrostates.

Genesee Hike , , July 13, 2018 at 8:11 am
"the stated U.S. objective of reducing and removing Iranian and Hezbollah influence "

I've yet to see a compelling reason for this "stated objective". If you want to argue that it's an American interest because the Israel Lobby wants it, well, OK, there are politicians who can be bribed to do Israel's will, but no real American would agree.

One of these days an American president will make an "opening to Iran" as Nixon once made one to China. Surely we can bury the hatchet with Iran for the sake of a grand bargain that accomplishes America's one real interest in the Middle East, which is to free ourselves of the various parasites who entangle us in their messes, and get the hell out of there. Some of us hoped that Trump might be that president, but it wasn't meant to be.

Krzysztof Hołubicki , , July 13, 2018 at 8:59 am
As far as Procivic and Genesee Hike comments are concerned -- they are perfectly right and down to the point.
the piper will be paid , , July 13, 2018 at 11:36 am
"The U.S. continues to
pretend it had no role in the creation of the huge refugee problem that followed its interventions in Libya and Syria."

Which is ridiculous. When you bomb, invade, and arm insurgencies in people's countries, a lot of people run away. Everybody knows that.

In the case of our bombing, invading, and/or arming insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, a lot of people ran away.

Millions ran into Turkey. Millions more ran through Turkey into Greece and then up through the Balkans into other NATO countries. And still more came up from Africa and sailed away from the shores of ruined Libya to our NATO allies Italy, Spain, and France.

We did this. Everybody knows we did it. It's absurd to deny it. What's worse is that many of the allies destabilized by the refugees warned or even begged us not to start those wars. With no American interest at stake, no real risk assessment, and no exit strategy formulated, we did it anyway.

Sid Finster , , July 13, 2018 at 12:07 pm
Much simpler explanation: For decades, the United States has been the loyal servant of Israel, and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia, faithfully carrying out its masters' every dictate.

As an unintended consequence of Israeli/Saudi policy, Iran has grown much stronger.

The only reason that the US foreign policy establishment is rushing headlong into a war with Iran is because Israel and Saudi Arabia are terrified of the Iran that they have created.

[Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

Highly recommended!
Looks like another Steele dossier and it has Brennan fingertips all over. Looks like another exercise in creation of a parallel reality. The content of the document implies that malware was installed in GRU computers and those computers were monitored 24/7 by CIA. The documents describes both GNU officers and DNC employees as unsophisticated idiots. DNC employees who who should undergo some basic security training were easily deceived by fishing emails from a foreign country. And a good practice is to disable hotlinks in emails.
I always suspected that Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag operation to hide the leak of DNC documents. If this is true this was really sophisticated false flag.
BTW GRU is military intelligence unit, so to hack into civil computers is kind of out of their main sphere of activities. They also should be aware about NSA capabilities of intercepting the traffic.
I especially like the following tidbit: "On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner." This is how third rate hackers (wannabes) behave.
Link to the original document: https://www.scribd.com/document/383793520/Netyksho-Et-Al-Indictment#fullscreen&from_embed
First of all the investigation of DNC was botched by hiring a private, connected to Democratic Party security company (Crowdstrike), so no data from it are acceptable in court. FBI did not have any access to the data.
Which means that Mueller is a patsy of more powerful forces
How about speed of download that proved to be excessive for Internet connection? Nothing is said about Dmitri Alperovitch role is all this investigation, which completely discredit all that results? See for example diuscusstion at Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear And, again, the question is: Was Guccifer 2.0 in itself a USA false flag operation ?
Looks like Mueller is acting as an operative of Democratic Party. Could not dig up enough dirt on Trump, so he now saddled his beloved horse, trying to provoke Russia to respond.
And this John Le Carre style details about individuals supposedly involved. Probably were provided by CIA ;-)
Jul 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

... ... ...

4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee ("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.

5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.

6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."

7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization Iй), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government The Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around November 2016.

8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection, the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United States, and paid for this infrastructure using cryptocurrency.

... ... ...

13. Defendant ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV (Лукашсв Алексей Викторович) was a Senior Lieutenant in the Russian military assigned to ANTONOV's department within Unit 26165. LUKASHEV used various online personas, including "Den Katenberg" and "Yuliana Martynova." In on around 2016, LUKASHEV sent spcarphisliing emails to members of the Clinton Campaign and affiliated individuals, including the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.

14. Defendant SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV (Моргачев Сергей Александрович) was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. MORGACHEV oversaw a department within Unit 26165 dedicated to developing and managing malware, including a hacking tool used by the GRU known as "X-Agent." During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, MORGACHEV supervised the co-conspirators who developed and monitored the X-Agent malware implanted on those computers.

15. Defendant NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK (Козачек Николай Юрьевич) was a Lieutenant Captain in the Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. KOZACHEK used a variety of monikers, including "kazak" and "blablablal234565 " KOZACHEK developed, customized, and monitored X-Agent malware used to hack the DCCC and DNC networks beginning in or around April 2016.

16. Defendant PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV (Ершов Павел Вячеславович) was a Russian military officer assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. In or around 2016, YERSHOV assisted KOZACHEK and other co-conspirators in testing and customizing X-Agent malware before actual deployment and use.

17. Defendant ARTEM ANDREYEVICH MALYSHEV (Малышев Арт е м Андреевич) was a Second Lieutenant in the Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. MALYSIIEV used a variety of monikers, including "djangomagicdev" and "realblatr." In or around 2016, MALYSHEV monitored X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC networks.

18. Defendant ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK (Осадчук Александр В ладимирович) was a Colonel in the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455. Unit 74455 was located at 22 Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the 'Tower." Unit 74455 assisted in the release of stolen documents through the DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas, the promotion of those releases, and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media accounts operated by the GRU.

19. Defendant ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN (Потемкин Алексей Александрович) was an officer in the Russian military assigned to Unit 74455. POTEMKIN was a supervisor in a department within Unit 7445f responsible for the administration of computer infrastructure used in cyber operations. Infrastructure and social media accounts administered by POTEMKIN'S department were used, among other things, to assist in the release of stolen documents through the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 0 personas.

21, ANTONOV, BADIN, YKRMAKOV, LUKASHEV, and their co-conspiratore targeted victims using a technique known as spearphishing to steal victims' passwords or otherwise gain access to their computers. Beginning by at least March 2016, the Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.

a. For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. LUKASHEV used the account "John356gh" at an online service that abbreviated lengthy website addresses (referred to as a "URL-shortcning service"). LIJKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email, which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the a security notification from Google (a technique known as "spoofing"), instructing the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions wore followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman's email account, which consisted of over 50,000 emails.

Starting on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators sent spearphishing emails to the personal accounts of other individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including its campaign manager and a senior foreign policy advisor. On or about March 25, 2016, LUKASHEV used the same john356gh account to mask additional links included in spearphishing emails sent to numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including Victims 1 and 2. LUKASliEV sent these emails from the Russia-based email account [email protected] that he spoofed to appear to be from Google. On or about March 28,2016, YERMAKOV researched the names of Victims 1 and 2 and their association with Clinton on various social media sites. Through their spearphishing operations, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators successfully stole email credentials and thousands of emails from numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. Many of these stolen emails. Including those from Victims 1 and 2, were later released by the Conspirators through DCLeaks.

On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishipg emails, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled "hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx " In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers to a GRU-crcatcd website.

22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-
party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.

Hacking into the DCCC Network

23. Beginning in or around March 2016, the Conspirators, in addition to their spearphishing efforts, researched the DCCC and DNC computer networks to identify technical specifications and vulnerabilities.

  1. For example, beginning on or about March 15,2016, YERMAKOV ran a technical query for the DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
  2. On or about the same day, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-source information about the DNC network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton.
  3. On or about April 7. 2016. YKRMAKOV ran я technical query for the DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.

24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network. Once they gained access, they installed and managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.

a. On or about April 12,2016. the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a I )CCC On or about April 12,2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ('"DCCC Employee 1") to access the DCCC network. DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email from the Conspirators on or about April 6,2016, and entered her password after clicking on the link.

b. Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, which allowed them to monitor individual employees' computer activity, steal passwords, and maintain access to the DCCC network.

c. X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims' computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server as their "AMS" panel. KOZACHEK, MALYSHEV, and their со-conspirators logged into the AMS panel to use X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. 'Ibe keylog function allowed the Conspirators to capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators to take pictures of the DCCC employees' computer screens.

d. For example, on or about April 14, 2016, the Conspirators repeatedly activated X-Agent's keylog and screensiot functions to surveil DCCC Employee 1's computer activity over the course of eight hours. During that time, the Conspirators captured DCCC Employee 1 's communications with co-workers and the passwords she entered while working on fundraising and voter outreach projects. Similarly, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agcnt's keylog and screenshot functions to capture the discussions of another DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee 2") about the DCCC's finances, as well as her individual banking information and other personal topics.

25. On or about April 19, 2016, KOZAC1IEK, YERSIIOV, and their co-conspirators remotely configured an overseas computer to relay communications between X-Agent malware and the AMS panel and then tested X-Agent's ability to connect to this computer. The Conspirators referred to this computer as a "middle server." The middle server acted as a proxy to obscure the connection between malware at the DCCC and the Conspirators' AMS panel. On or about April 20, 2016, the Conspirators directed X-Agent malware on the DCCC computers to connect to this middle server and receive directions from the Conspirators.

Hacking into the DNC Network

26. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators hacked into the DNC's computers through their access to the DCCC network. The Conspirators then installed and managed different types of malware (as they did in the DCCC network) to explore the DNC network and steal documents, a. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions to steal credentials of a DCCC employee who was authorized
to access the DNC network. The Conspirators hacked into the DNC network from the DCCC network using stolen credentials. By in or around June 2016, they gained access to approximately thirty-three DNC computers.

In or around April 2016, the Conspirators installed X Agent malware on tho DNC network, including the same versions installed on the DCCC network.
MALYSHEV and his co-conspifators monitored the X-Agent malware from the AMS panel and captured data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.

Theft of DCCC and DNC Documents

27. The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, on or about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that included "hillary," "cruz," and "trump." The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders, including "Benghazi Investigations." The Conspirators targeted computers containing information such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections.

28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as "X-Tunncl," to move the stolen documents cutside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.

a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.

b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.

29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.

30. On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS software on die server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.

31. During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks by Intentionally deleting logs and computer flies. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the Conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel, including the login history. Efforts to Remain on the X'CC and PNC Networks

32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May 2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company ("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1 took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux-based version of X-Agent, programmed to communicate with the GRU-registercd domain linuxkml.net, remained on the DNC network until in or around October 2016.

33. In response to Company Ts efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain access to the DCCC and DNC networks.

a. Oil 01 about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-sourcc information about Company 1 and its reporting on X-Agent and X-Tunnel. On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.
b. On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com

On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
domain.
On or about June 20, 2016, after Company 1 had disabled X-Agent on the DCCC
network, the Conspirators spent ever seven hours unsuccessfully trying to connect
to X-Agent. The Conspirators also tried to access the DCCC network using
previously stolen credentials.

34. In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or "snapshots," of the DNC's eloud-based systems using the
cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Stolen Documents Released through DCLcaks

35. More than a month before the release of any documents, the Conspirators constructed the online persona DCLeaks to release and publicize stolen election-related documents. On or about April 19, 2016, after attempting to register the domain clcctionleaks.com, the Conspirators registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymizcd the registrant. The funds used to pay for the dcleaks.com domain originated from an online cryptocutrrecy service that the Conspirators also used to fund the lease of a virtual private server registered with the operational email account [email protected]. The dirbinsaabol email account was also used to register the john356gh URL-shortening account used by LUKASHEV to spearphish the Clinton Campaign chairman and other campaign-related individuals.

36. On or about June 8,2016, the Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which they used to release stolen emails. Before it shut down in or around March 2017, the site received over one million page views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks was started by a group of "American hacktivists," when in fact it was started by the Conspirators.

37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from individuals affiliated with the Republican Party.

38. On or about June 8,2016, and at approximately the same time that the dcleaks.com website was launched, the Conspirators created a DCLeaks Facebook page using a preexisting social media account under the fictitious name "Alice Donovan." In addition to the DCLeaks Facebook page, the Conspirators used other social media accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. persons such as "Jason Scott" and "Richard Gingrey" to promote the DCLeaks website. The Conspirators accessed these accounts from computers managed by POTEMKFN and his co-conspirators.

39. On or about June 8, 2016, the Conspirators created the Twitter account @dcleaks_. The Conspirators operated the @dclcaks_ Twitter account from the same computer used for other efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, the Conspirators used the same computer to operate the Twitter account @BaltimorcIsWhr, through which they encouraged U.S. audiences to "[j]oin our flash mob" opposing Clinton and to post images with the hashtag #BlacksAgainstHillary.

Stolen Documents Released through Guccifer 2.0

40. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC -- through Company 1 -- publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. In response, the Conspirators created the online persona Guccifer 2.0 and falsely claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker to undermine the allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion.
41. On or about June 15,2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for certain words and phrases, including:

Search terms

42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0 published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had searched for earlier that day (bolded below):

Worldwide known cyber security company [Company 1] announced that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by
"sophisticated" hacker groups.

I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) [...]

Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking
into DNC's network. [...]

Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it? [...]

I guess [Company 1] customers should think twice about company's competence.

F[***J the Illuminati and their conspiracies! МШШ F[***]

[Company 1] !!!!!!!!

43. Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to release documents through WordPrcss that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain individuals.

a. On or about August 15,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent. On or about August 22,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.

On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement. The reporter responded by discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their release.

44. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. TVump, "thank u for writing back... do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in the docs i posted?" On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, "please tell me if i can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me." On or about September 9,2016, the Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online and asked the person, "what do u think of the info on the tunout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign." The person responded, "[p]retty standard."

45. The Conspirators conducted operations as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks using overlapping computer infrastructure and financing.

a. For example, between on or about March 14, 2016 and April 28. 2016, the Conspirators used the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network ("VPN") account and to lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server to host the dcleaks.com website.

On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifcr_2 Twitter account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from
the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks.

On or about June 27, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S. reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from "Hillary Clinton's staff." The Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected portion of dc.eaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1 bу LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and thier co-conspirators in or around March 2016.

46. On or about January 12,2017, the Conspirators published a statement on the Guccifer 2.0 WordPrcss blog, falsely claiming that the intrusions and release of stolen documents had "totally no relation to the Russian government"

Use of Organization 1

47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

a. On or about Juno 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to "[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok... i see." Organization I explained, "we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting "

b After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled "wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained Instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had "the 1Gb or so archive" and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week."

48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not disclose Guccifer 2.0's role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25,2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.

49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents mat had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

... ... ...

[Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

Highly recommended!
Looks like another Steele dossier and it has Brennan fingertips all over. Looks like another exercise in creation of a parallel reality. The content of the document implies that malware was installed in GRU computers and those computers were monitored 24/7 by CIA. The documents describes both GNU officers and DNC employees as unsophisticated idiots. DNC employees who who should undergo some basic security training were easily deceived by fishing emails from a foreign country. And a good practice is to disable hotlinks in emails.
I always suspected that Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag operation to hide the leak of DNC documents. If this is true this was really sophisticated false flag.
BTW GRU is military intelligence unit, so to hack into civil computers is kind of out of their main sphere of activities. They also should be aware about NSA capabilities of intercepting the traffic.
I especially like the following tidbit: "On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner." This is how third rate hackers (wannabes) behave.
Link to the original document: https://www.scribd.com/document/383793520/Netyksho-Et-Al-Indictment#fullscreen&from_embed
First of all the investigation of DNC was botched by hiring a private, connected to Democratic Party security company (Crowdstrike), so no data from it are acceptable in court. FBI did not have any access to the data.
Which means that Mueller is a patsy of more powerful forces
How about speed of download that proved to be excessive for Internet connection? Nothing is said about Dmitri Alperovitch role is all this investigation, which completely discredit all that results? See for example diuscusstion at Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear And, again, the question is: Was Guccifer 2.0 in itself a USA false flag operation ?
Looks like Mueller is acting as an operative of Democratic Party. Could not dig up enough dirt on Trump, so he now saddled his beloved horse, trying to provoke Russia to respond.
And this John Le Carre style details about individuals supposedly involved. Probably were provided by CIA ;-)
Jul 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

... ... ...

4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee ("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.

5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.

6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."

7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization Iй), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government The Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around November 2016.

8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection, the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United States, and paid for this infrastructure using cryptocurrency.

... ... ...

13. Defendant ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV (Лукашсв Алексей Викторович) was a Senior Lieutenant in the Russian military assigned to ANTONOV's department within Unit 26165. LUKASHEV used various online personas, including "Den Katenberg" and "Yuliana Martynova." In on around 2016, LUKASHEV sent spcarphisliing emails to members of the Clinton Campaign and affiliated individuals, including the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.

14. Defendant SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV (Моргачев Сергей Александрович) was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. MORGACHEV oversaw a department within Unit 26165 dedicated to developing and managing malware, including a hacking tool used by the GRU known as "X-Agent." During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, MORGACHEV supervised the co-conspirators who developed and monitored the X-Agent malware implanted on those computers.

15. Defendant NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK (Козачек Николай Юрьевич) was a Lieutenant Captain in the Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. KOZACHEK used a variety of monikers, including "kazak" and "blablablal234565 " KOZACHEK developed, customized, and monitored X-Agent malware used to hack the DCCC and DNC networks beginning in or around April 2016.

16. Defendant PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV (Ершов Павел Вячеславович) was a Russian military officer assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. In or around 2016, YERSHOV assisted KOZACHEK and other co-conspirators in testing and customizing X-Agent malware before actual deployment and use.

17. Defendant ARTEM ANDREYEVICH MALYSHEV (Малышев Арт е м Андреевич) was a Second Lieutenant in the Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. MALYSIIEV used a variety of monikers, including "djangomagicdev" and "realblatr." In or around 2016, MALYSHEV monitored X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC networks.

18. Defendant ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK (Осадчук Александр В ладимирович) was a Colonel in the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455. Unit 74455 was located at 22 Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the 'Tower." Unit 74455 assisted in the release of stolen documents through the DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas, the promotion of those releases, and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media accounts operated by the GRU.

19. Defendant ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN (Потемкин Алексей Александрович) was an officer in the Russian military assigned to Unit 74455. POTEMKIN was a supervisor in a department within Unit 7445f responsible for the administration of computer infrastructure used in cyber operations. Infrastructure and social media accounts administered by POTEMKIN'S department were used, among other things, to assist in the release of stolen documents through the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 0 personas.

21, ANTONOV, BADIN, YKRMAKOV, LUKASHEV, and their co-conspiratore targeted victims using a technique known as spearphishing to steal victims' passwords or otherwise gain access to their computers. Beginning by at least March 2016, the Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.

a. For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. LUKASHEV used the account "John356gh" at an online service that abbreviated lengthy website addresses (referred to as a "URL-shortcning service"). LIJKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email, which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the a security notification from Google (a technique known as "spoofing"), instructing the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions wore followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman's email account, which consisted of over 50,000 emails.

Starting on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators sent spearphishing emails to the personal accounts of other individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including its campaign manager and a senior foreign policy advisor. On or about March 25, 2016, LUKASHEV used the same john356gh account to mask additional links included in spearphishing emails sent to numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including Victims 1 and 2. LUKASliEV sent these emails from the Russia-based email account [email protected] that he spoofed to appear to be from Google. On or about March 28,2016, YERMAKOV researched the names of Victims 1 and 2 and their association with Clinton on various social media sites. Through their spearphishing operations, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators successfully stole email credentials and thousands of emails from numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. Many of these stolen emails. Including those from Victims 1 and 2, were later released by the Conspirators through DCLeaks.

On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishipg emails, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled "hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx " In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers to a GRU-crcatcd website.

22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-
party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.

Hacking into the DCCC Network

23. Beginning in or around March 2016, the Conspirators, in addition to their spearphishing efforts, researched the DCCC and DNC computer networks to identify technical specifications and vulnerabilities.

  1. For example, beginning on or about March 15,2016, YERMAKOV ran a technical query for the DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
  2. On or about the same day, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-source information about the DNC network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton.
  3. On or about April 7. 2016. YKRMAKOV ran я technical query for the DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.

24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network. Once they gained access, they installed and managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.

a. On or about April 12,2016. the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a I )CCC On or about April 12,2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ('"DCCC Employee 1") to access the DCCC network. DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email from the Conspirators on or about April 6,2016, and entered her password after clicking on the link.

b. Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, which allowed them to monitor individual employees' computer activity, steal passwords, and maintain access to the DCCC network.

c. X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims' computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server as their "AMS" panel. KOZACHEK, MALYSHEV, and their со-conspirators logged into the AMS panel to use X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. 'Ibe keylog function allowed the Conspirators to capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators to take pictures of the DCCC employees' computer screens.

d. For example, on or about April 14, 2016, the Conspirators repeatedly activated X-Agent's keylog and screensiot functions to surveil DCCC Employee 1's computer activity over the course of eight hours. During that time, the Conspirators captured DCCC Employee 1 's communications with co-workers and the passwords she entered while working on fundraising and voter outreach projects. Similarly, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agcnt's keylog and screenshot functions to capture the discussions of another DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee 2") about the DCCC's finances, as well as her individual banking information and other personal topics.

25. On or about April 19, 2016, KOZAC1IEK, YERSIIOV, and their co-conspirators remotely configured an overseas computer to relay communications between X-Agent malware and the AMS panel and then tested X-Agent's ability to connect to this computer. The Conspirators referred to this computer as a "middle server." The middle server acted as a proxy to obscure the connection between malware at the DCCC and the Conspirators' AMS panel. On or about April 20, 2016, the Conspirators directed X-Agent malware on the DCCC computers to connect to this middle server and receive directions from the Conspirators.

Hacking into the DNC Network

26. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators hacked into the DNC's computers through their access to the DCCC network. The Conspirators then installed and managed different types of malware (as they did in the DCCC network) to explore the DNC network and steal documents, a. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions to steal credentials of a DCCC employee who was authorized
to access the DNC network. The Conspirators hacked into the DNC network from the DCCC network using stolen credentials. By in or around June 2016, they gained access to approximately thirty-three DNC computers.

In or around April 2016, the Conspirators installed X Agent malware on tho DNC network, including the same versions installed on the DCCC network.
MALYSHEV and his co-conspifators monitored the X-Agent malware from the AMS panel and captured data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.

Theft of DCCC and DNC Documents

27. The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, on or about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that included "hillary," "cruz," and "trump." The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders, including "Benghazi Investigations." The Conspirators targeted computers containing information such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections.

28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as "X-Tunncl," to move the stolen documents cutside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.

a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.

b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.

29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.

30. On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS software on die server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.

31. During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks by Intentionally deleting logs and computer flies. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the Conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel, including the login history. Efforts to Remain on the X'CC and PNC Networks

32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May 2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company ("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1 took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux-based version of X-Agent, programmed to communicate with the GRU-registercd domain linuxkml.net, remained on the DNC network until in or around October 2016.

33. In response to Company Ts efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain access to the DCCC and DNC networks.

a. Oil 01 about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-sourcc information about Company 1 and its reporting on X-Agent and X-Tunnel. On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.
b. On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com

On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
domain.
On or about June 20, 2016, after Company 1 had disabled X-Agent on the DCCC
network, the Conspirators spent ever seven hours unsuccessfully trying to connect
to X-Agent. The Conspirators also tried to access the DCCC network using
previously stolen credentials.

34. In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or "snapshots," of the DNC's eloud-based systems using the
cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Stolen Documents Released through DCLcaks

35. More than a month before the release of any documents, the Conspirators constructed the online persona DCLeaks to release and publicize stolen election-related documents. On or about April 19, 2016, after attempting to register the domain clcctionleaks.com, the Conspirators registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymizcd the registrant. The funds used to pay for the dcleaks.com domain originated from an online cryptocutrrecy service that the Conspirators also used to fund the lease of a virtual private server registered with the operational email account [email protected]. The dirbinsaabol email account was also used to register the john356gh URL-shortening account used by LUKASHEV to spearphish the Clinton Campaign chairman and other campaign-related individuals.

36. On or about June 8,2016, the Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which they used to release stolen emails. Before it shut down in or around March 2017, the site received over one million page views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks was started by a group of "American hacktivists," when in fact it was started by the Conspirators.

37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from individuals affiliated with the Republican Party.

38. On or about June 8,2016, and at approximately the same time that the dcleaks.com website was launched, the Conspirators created a DCLeaks Facebook page using a preexisting social media account under the fictitious name "Alice Donovan." In addition to the DCLeaks Facebook page, the Conspirators used other social media accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. persons such as "Jason Scott" and "Richard Gingrey" to promote the DCLeaks website. The Conspirators accessed these accounts from computers managed by POTEMKFN and his co-conspirators.

39. On or about June 8, 2016, the Conspirators created the Twitter account @dcleaks_. The Conspirators operated the @dclcaks_ Twitter account from the same computer used for other efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, the Conspirators used the same computer to operate the Twitter account @BaltimorcIsWhr, through which they encouraged U.S. audiences to "[j]oin our flash mob" opposing Clinton and to post images with the hashtag #BlacksAgainstHillary.

Stolen Documents Released through Guccifer 2.0

40. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC -- through Company 1 -- publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. In response, the Conspirators created the online persona Guccifer 2.0 and falsely claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker to undermine the allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion.
41. On or about June 15,2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for certain words and phrases, including:

Search terms

42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0 published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had searched for earlier that day (bolded below):

Worldwide known cyber security company [Company 1] announced that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by
"sophisticated" hacker groups.

I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) [...]

Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking
into DNC's network. [...]

Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it? [...]

I guess [Company 1] customers should think twice about company's competence.

F[***J the Illuminati and their conspiracies! МШШ F[***]

[Company 1] !!!!!!!!

43. Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to release documents through WordPrcss that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain individuals.

a. On or about August 15,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent. On or about August 22,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.

On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement. The reporter responded by discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their release.

44. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. TVump, "thank u for writing back... do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in the docs i posted?" On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, "please tell me if i can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me." On or about September 9,2016, the Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online and asked the person, "what do u think of the info on the tunout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign." The person responded, "[p]retty standard."

45. The Conspirators conducted operations as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks using overlapping computer infrastructure and financing.

a. For example, between on or about March 14, 2016 and April 28. 2016, the Conspirators used the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network ("VPN") account and to lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server to host the dcleaks.com website.

On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifcr_2 Twitter account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from
the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks.

On or about June 27, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S. reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from "Hillary Clinton's staff." The Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected portion of dc.eaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1 bу LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and thier co-conspirators in or around March 2016.

46. On or about January 12,2017, the Conspirators published a statement on the Guccifer 2.0 WordPrcss blog, falsely claiming that the intrusions and release of stolen documents had "totally no relation to the Russian government"

Use of Organization 1

47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

a. On or about Juno 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to "[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok... i see." Organization I explained, "we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting "

b After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled "wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained Instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had "the 1Gb or so archive" and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week."

48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not disclose Guccifer 2.0's role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25,2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.

49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents mat had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

... ... ...

[Jul 13, 2018] Brennan insinuations are related to attempts to preserve the American empire

Notable quotes:
"... When one believes that patriotism and defense of empire must be synonymous, and that skepticism of international conflict implies sympathy with a foreign power, it is easy to see why someone would seek out the most nefarious answer. ..."
"... But when one is an empire, the indispensable nation, rules just don't apply to it like they do to other, lesser countries. "He [Rohrabacher] is widely suspected of having an ulterior motive." What Chait means is his cocktail party peers widely suspect it. ..."
"... But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order imposed at the point of a gun. ..."
"... Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc. ..."
"... It's like a prostitute getting out from under her John and complaining in all seriousness about who a man is looking at her legs. It's positively bizarre. ..."
"... Posting Trump as a decision maker is making fun of the global deplorables as being dull. He is an insider joke, as Hillary, in case someone might misfire. ..."
"... As for Brennan, corporate animals as Brennan do strictly nothing that is grounded in original thought, has any kind of career risk, requires physical courage. Corpses keeping corpses warm. Ah, what a time in history to be a journalist, an artesan of linear fairy and horror. How far away from any meaningfulness. The middle classes, digging their own demise. ..."
"... In fact, the crooked Russians Trump knows are small fry among the CIA agents that looted Russia under CIA's puppet ruler Yeltsin. Felix Sater bragged about it, till they shut him up. Trump aided Russian capital flight by helping Russian crooks and traitors launder their money in real estate (because you don't get to be president without running lots of errands for CIA.) It is a truism that the best oppo is slightly distorted tales of the candidate's dirty work for CIA. That way party dupes foam at the mouth demonizing their enemy figurehead and forget about CIA, who runs them all. ..."
"... As for John Brennan, the walking conspiracy machine, he is the godfather of the U.S. intelligence (civilian) war against outsider Trump. ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

The former intelligence official Chait trots out as an example is John O. Brennan, who has gone on the record saying there is something fishy about the Trump-Russia relationship that might even breach on treasonous. "While the fact that the former CIA director has espoused this theory hardly proves it, perhaps we should give more credence to the possibility that Brennan is making these extraordinary charges of treason and blackmail at the highest levels of government because he knows something we don't." Contrary to that impression, Brennan's statements should make one very skeptical. Or at least that's the logical conclusion of anyone outside the establishment groupthink previously described. If the former CIA director knows something the public doesn't, why has no action been taken? If there is solid, irrefutable evidence that Donald Trump has been compromised by a foreign power, why is John Brennan keeping it secret? Congress should be alerted, and Vice President Pence sworn in under the Twenty-fifth Amendment. But in two years since the original start of the investigation, Brennan has presented no such evidence. In fact, using Brennan as the example shows how blind one can be when only seeing life through the establishment paradigm. As CIA director, John Brennan not only provided a real-guard defense of torture , but oversaw U.S. military aid to Syrian jihadists allied with Al-Qaeda. If Donald Trump is a traitor to his country, what does that make Brennan and his aiding and abetting of America's sworn enemy? The actions of the Obama administration are widely sourced and admitted by public officials, but Chait pays no mind. That's because people like Chait don't see crimes committed in defense of the empire as real crimes.

Chait opens his chronology in the year 1987, when Donald Trump both visited Moscow on a business trip and began voicing open political sentiments. Trump's comments focused on the United States' relationship with its allies, saying Americans were getting a raw deal. "The safest assumption is that it's entirely coincidental that Trump launched a national campaign, with himself as spokesman, built around themes that dovetailed closely with Soviet foreign-policy goals shortly after his Moscow stay." Chait is nothing short of duplicitous here, admitting that the whole premise reaches nothing above coincidental while simultaneously trying to poison the waters. As Trump said, why shouldn't countries that can afford to defend themselves do so? Why does the burden fall on the American taxpayer to defend the economically rich people of Germany and Japan? The answer, Chait says, is to defend the "liberal international order" of the postwar era. An order that requires U.S. military domination of the planet. Having other countries defend themselves would take away from U.S. preeminence, and most importantly, U.S. power. The idea of Americans protecting America only would at first glance to be the logical, even pro-American answer. But it is certainly the anti-hegemony answer, and to Chait that puts it in the category of a pro-Soviet goal.

In a single sentence, Chait tries to both summarize and dismiss the downturn in Russian-American relations that accelerated during Barack Obama's second term. "During the Obama administration, Russia grew more estranged from the United States as its aggressive behavior toward its neighbors triggered hostile responses from NATO." Perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect Chait to detail Russian relations with the West over the past 25 years, such as NATO expansion eastward in contradiction to previous promises , the U.S. withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, or the 2008 Russo-Georgian War with violence initiated by the latter . But to not only ignore the February 2014 coup in Ukraine that initiated recent hostilities between the U.S. and Russia, but to also put the blame on the latter's "aggressive behavior," is at best laughable and at worst dishonest. In February of 2014 the democratically elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the United States government, an event Chait and his peers do their best to forget . Russia's subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula (containing the Russian naval base at Sevastopol) was a wholly reactive measure. To say the recent estrangement was triggered by anything else than western aggressive behavior is factually inaccurate.

A deep-dive into Paul Manafort's past relationships fills the middle of the article, along with Chait's biased perceptions. "This much was clear in March 2016: The person [Manafort] who managed the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine was now also managing the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate in the United States." What makes Donald Trump pro-Russian? "Well I hope that we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear, I've been saying it for years. I think it's a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good relationships with Russia. That's very important," says the President. Donald Trump has not proposed any kind of military alliance with Russia, giving it financial aid of any kind, or granting it favored-nation status. Simply to want "good" relations with a country is enough to be pro-Russian, in Chait's characterization. Does that make Trump pro-any country he doesn't wish to bomb? Is Donald Trump equally pro-Peruvian, pro-Nepalese, and pro-Tanzanian as he is pro-Russian? Shouldn't it be the proper view of the United States to try to have good working relations with all foreign powers, especially if that power has thousands of stockpiled nuclear weapons? A better description of that view would be pro-American .

It is important to emphasize and explain these seemingly small choices of language because of how much they reveal of Chait's worldview. When one believes that patriotism and defense of empire must be synonymous, and that skepticism of international conflict implies sympathy with a foreign power, it is easy to see why someone would seek out the most nefarious answer. Chait is willing to overlook obvious, mundane explanations to imply Trump has committed wrong because to Chait, he already has by opposing the international order's chosen script. "It is possible to construct an innocent explanation for all the lying and skulduggery [sic], but it is not the most obvious explanation. More likely, collusion between the Russians and the Trump administration has continued beyond the campaign." Or, perhaps, politics is naturally a game for liars and the political world is specially made to house them. "Why would Manafort, who has a law degree from Georgetown and years of experience around white-collar crime, behave like this? Of all those in Trump's camp, he is the furthest thing from a true believer, and he lacks any long-standing personal ties to the president or his family, so what incentive does he have to spend most or all of his remaining years in prison rather than betray Trump?" The most obvious answer would seem to be that there is nothing to betray; if there is no grand conspiracy of Russian collusion, Manafort has not spilled the beans for any reason more inexplicable than there is nothing to spill. Or if that's too boring, there's always the answer Chait is giddy to suggest. "One way to make sense of his behavior is the possibility that Manafort is keeping his mouth shut because he's afraid of being killed." Creativity knows no bounds.

Chait seeks comfort in those who might be even further down the establishment paradigm than he is. He describes an exchange between House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in the summer of 2016 where they joke about Trump and California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher being on Russian President Vladimir Putin's payroll. While criticizing the GOP leaders' joke as in bad taste, he describes the foreign policy positions taken by Rohrabacher. He once again uses the phrase "pro-Russian" to describe them, falling into the same verbal trap as before. Of interest, Chait mentions Rohrabacher's denouncement of U.S. opposition to the Crimean annexation as "hypocrisy" considering America's foreign policy. The implication is that this is some sort of hokum, but it is nothing more than showing American self-awareness. Verbal reproaches to Russia by the U.S. government are drown out by the facts, including the overthrow of the Ukrainian government just days before Russian actions in Crimea, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq which stands to this day as the biggest crime of the 21 st century. But when one is an empire, the indispensable nation, rules just don't apply to it like they do to other, lesser countries. "He [Rohrabacher] is widely suspected of having an ulterior motive." What Chait means is his cocktail party peers widely suspect it.

What follows is a description of Trump's actions as President regarding Russia, which seem to belie Chait's point of a special closeness. Trump was apparently "apoplectic" when political realities compelled him to sign new sanctions on Russia in the summer of 2017. Since those sanctions ran counter to the explicit platform Trump campaigned and won on, that would seem to be a normal reaction to any policy reversal. Trump says he thinks Russia should be allowed back into the G7. The idea that a geopolitical power player that approaches nuclear parity with the United States should be involved in such a global forum doesn't require further explanation. During that G7 conference Trump expressed the belief that Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia because the people there speak Russian. He's not wrong; the people of Crimea are ethnically Russian, speak the language, and culturally identify with Russia proper. The people of Crimea should have the right to vote in a fair, internationally monitored referendum on whether to be a part of Ukraine or Russia. That's the right of self-determination, an American goal if there ever was one. Chait says Putin engineered the end of the U.S.-South Korea military exercises during the recent negotiations with North Korea. Such an insinuation, outright ignoring the months of talks that have been taking place between North and South Korea, the stated goals of the Moon Jae-in administration, and South Korean public opinion, is naïve to the highest degree. That sort of western-centric view, that the United States is always the decision maker, is further proof of the establishment imperialistic mindset Chait has written his entire article from. He concludes with the foreboding note that Trump is about to meet with Putin in a special summit next month. Somehow Trump meeting with Putin 19 months into his presidential term is scandalous, while George Bush meeting Putin 5 months into his term, and Barack Obama 6 months into his term (in Moscow no less!) garnered so such suspicious coverage.

Chait, to his credit, almost makes it through the entire article without pulling out one of the most overused, most debunked storylines of "Russiagate." The storyline that anyone who says Russia was not behind the 2016 Democratic National Committee hack (or leak ) is " contradicting the conclusion of every U.S. intelligence agency." That conclusion was reached not by the U.S. intelligence community but handpicked analysts from only four of seventeen agencies. "But who is bending the president's ear to split the Western alliance and placate Russia? His motive for these foreign-policy moves is obviously strong enough in his mind to be worth prolonging an investigation he is desperate to terminate." It cannot be that good relations with Russia is self-evidently beneficial to the United States, or that Donald Trump is a genuine believer in that policy. Jonathan Chait is so enamored with established Washington foreign policy that no disagreement can be anything other than odious.

To reiterate, Jonathan Chait is not convinced that what he wrote is the truth. He admits that there is no conclusive evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian intelligence asset in 1987 or any other year. But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order imposed at the point of a gun. The biases of his language towards permanent military hegemony run through his writing. This leads to the discoloring or even misrepresentation of the facts.

Hunter DeRensis is a senior at George Mason University majoring in History and minoring in Public Policy & Administration. You can follow him on Twitter [@HunterDeRensis]

Miro23 , July 12, 2018 at 5:14 am GMT

But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order imposed at the point of a gun.

He's channeling Lenin/Trotsky:

But what they were convinced about was the utility of the Bolshevik led soviet world order imposed at the point of a gun.

Same people, same totalitarianism, same repression – the difference is that the U.S. totalitarians don't quite yet have the absolute power they need to liquidate the "Deplorables".

Colin Wright , Website July 12, 2018 at 6:04 am GMT
The truly absurd thing about all this is that people profess concern about Russia influencing our poloitical process. If she does, it's in various ways so haphazard, trivial, marginal, and ineffectual as to verge on the illusory.

Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc.

It's like a prostitute getting out from under her John and complaining in all seriousness about who a man is looking at her legs. It's positively bizarre.

If only Russian influence was all we had to worry about. Let's get that Israeli implant out of our cerebral cortex -- then think about whether that Russian fungus on our toenail really is a problem.

Biff , July 12, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT
@Colin Wright

Doesn't the story of the little boy who cried wolf apply here?

Yes, but point being that this seems to be the consensus among the many factions – mostly of the left (aka soft neoliberals --NNB) , and the retarded left(those who think the Democratic Party has their back, known as RL – Retarded Left). But some on the hard right are on board too.

As many contrary, but not mainstream, articles have pointed out – it's faith based, like a religion. No hard evidence is ever needed, and that is why it keeps getting more cult-like the more time goes by. Soon there will be a condition named for all the nonbelievers, and medications prescribed.

Biff , July 12, 2018 at 7:11 am GMT
@Colin Wright

Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc.

It would be interesting to see a poll of how many Americans really understand that? 1% maybe? I don't know, but that's the rub – how effective the corporate owned media has over the mass mentality of their captive audience.

jilles dykstra , July 12, 2018 at 7:17 am GMT
Yesterday evening, here in the Netherlands, I saw a former Obama adviser interviewed, who complained about the Atlantic alliance having been built up in 70 years destroyed in a few days.
Knowing nothing about history and obvious facts seems to be the rule these days.
Until 1917 Europe had intensive trade with Russia.
Why not resume this trade ?
m___ , July 12, 2018 at 8:07 am GMT

Potatoe times.

Meaning, since there is nothing much to write about in the heat of the Northern hemisphere, anything goes. A classic example of inducing irrelevant thought in braindeads. Trump, true or not? Well, Trump does not matter.

Posting Trump as a decision maker is making fun of the global deplorables as being dull. He is an insider joke, as Hillary, in case someone might misfire.

As for Brennan, corporate animals as Brennan do strictly nothing that is grounded in original thought, has any kind of career risk, requires physical courage. Corpses keeping corpses warm. Ah, what a time in history to be a journalist, an artesan of linear fairy and horror. How far away from any meaningfulness. The middle classes, digging their own demise.

This summer will see more then usual "snatch a bone" and have the pack run with it. Amen.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 12, 2018 at 9:08 am GMT
Trump visits unsteady, dilapidated Moscow in 1987. He notices that the USSR is not the all-powerful mega-threat it may have been in the 70s.

Trump also visits various glistening European capitals and notices the much higher level of development.

He then reads that America is paying for the defence of Europe against the USSR. He notices that this doesn't make sense. Europe has more than enough capacity to defend itself. America might better spend that money elsewhere.

Two decades later New York Times writer insinuates that Trump could be a sleeper Soviet agent for coming to this conclusion. Even though Trump was proven right by events.

Sally Snyder , July 12, 2018 at 11:30 am GMT
Here is an interesting historical look at how the United States responded when it believed that Russia/the USSR was using propaganda against Washington:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-united-states-and-russia-propaganda.html

Apparently, it's okay for Washington to lie about Russia but not the other way around.

peterike , July 12, 2018 at 1:30 pm GMT
I really didn't read very far in this. But let's stop and end with Chait's comment:

"Russia was already broadcasting its strong preference for Trump through the media."

Well hmmm. Considering that Hillary was all but declaring war on Russia and an even-bet to get us into a shooting war with them, and considering that nearly all the other Republicans were members of NeoCon incorporated, and considering that Jewish media hysteria about Russia was ramping up by the day, and considering that Trump was the ONLY candidate poking holes in the NeoCon narrative, then Russia would have been pretty stupid NOT to prefer Trump.

Yeah, I might prefer the candidate who was far and away the least likely to drop nuclear bombs on my nation too.

Eighthman , July 12, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
It's simply amazing how such extreme story telling is allowed to avoid the fact that the US is wasting its resources on pointless conflicts thruout the world while the nation decays.

Also surprising? The fact that supposedly sane political and military leaders can continue to demand ever more conventional military spending based on a fantasy that war with China/Russia wouldn't go nuclear.

Where are the liberals with any principles? Or is that a contradiction in terms? Why not support Trump against the warmongers and fix the country instead?

Julia , July 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
The linchpin of the TrumpRussianSpy!!1! notion is identifying the Russian mafiya with the Russian government. Every crooked Russian gets the epithet Putin-linked, close to Putin, or some variant.

In its purest form you see Amy Knight writing in CIA house organ Daily Beast, "The real question is where does the Russian criminal state end and the criminal underworld begin, and how do they work together in what amounts to a new murder incorporated?" This is classic projection by CIA. It's CIA that recruits every kind of organized crime as agents and cutouts. They project this trait onto the entire Russian state.

In fact, the crooked Russians Trump knows are small fry among the CIA agents that looted Russia under CIA's puppet ruler Yeltsin. Felix Sater bragged about it, till they shut him up. Trump aided Russian capital flight by helping Russian crooks and traitors launder their money in real estate (because you don't get to be president without running lots of errands for CIA.) It is a truism that the best oppo is slightly distorted tales of the candidate's dirty work for CIA. That way party dupes foam at the mouth demonizing their enemy figurehead and forget about CIA, who runs them all.

nickels , July 12, 2018 at 3:04 pm GMT
A demoralized people (like the US) will believe anything.

It is pretty sickening to live through such a time, however.

Anon [277] Disclaimer , July 12, 2018 at 3:10 pm GMT
"As CIA director, John Brennan not only provided a real-guard defense of torture, but oversaw U.S. military aid to Syrian jihadists allied with Al-Qaeda. If Donald Trump is a traitor to his country, what does that make Brennan and his aiding and abetting of America's sworn enemy? "

Alinsky/Clinton rule: Always accuse your opponent of what YOU are doing.

... ... ...

anon [317] Disclaimer , July 12, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT
@DD

Why does no one believe the signals intelligence arms of USA allies, even if they say they stumbled upon communications between the Trump campaign and Russia (as far back as 2015) and became concerned enough to alert their US counterparts?

I respond to your question with an observation.. the intelligence arms of most of the nations are interlocked globally. The so called Intelligence groups have done so many regime changes, false flag operations, tv fake interviews, and contributed to so much false and misleading and war attitude generating propaganda, that no one believes . If an intelligence group were to say it was raining outside, those outsiders interested to know, would have to go look for themselves.

As long as leaders of nations, elected, military, contractor, or bureaucrat operate in secret, make people who work for them sign NDAs, criminalize truth speaking whistle blowers, operate as super top secret projects, redirect public socially needed money to fund war machines, use technology and access to spy on people, or threaten the lives or well being of human beings who happened to live in a nation that is unfriendly, for no apparent or valid public stated reason, no reasonable person will ever believe the signal intelligence arms of USA or its allies.. Colin Powell comes to mind! Secrecy, intentional falsity, 24/7 surveillance, controlled, limited and gated access to knowledge or information, and silence maintained when the facts should have been make known, has produced a "public enemy at large" response.

if these agencies presented a hungry angry wolf in plain view, most people would wonder "what is it" in disguise. One of the first rules in taking over a nation, is to prevent those who lead from being heard. So not having reliable information constitutes a very dangerous situation, but it is one that cannot be easily remedied until 9/11, Holocaust, and all kinds of global events are completely and fully disclosed, and those responsible held accountable.

Eighthman , July 12, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT
@utu

It was a speech given to veterans before the election in which she nearly promised military confrontation with Russia in response to supposed cyber attacks. Shown on YouTube, ignored by MSM.

SunBakedSuburb , July 12, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

"Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics "

Yep. It is also third rail to discuss how Israel and Saudi Arabia often work in tandem to influence U.S. foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has the mountain of cash; Israel has the Mossad. Jeffrey Epstein is an example of this influence operation at work. As for John Brennan, the walking conspiracy machine, he is the godfather of the U.S. intelligence (civilian) war against outsider Trump.

[Jul 13, 2018] Liberals' Trump-Russia fever dreams have reached parody status by Matthew

Jul 13, 2018 | theweek.com

Walther

July 10, 2018

Does Jonathan Chait know about Basil, I wonder?

If, like me, you were impressed by the magisterial comprehensiveness of a chart that accompanied New York 's cover story , in which Chait outlined his theory that President Trump has been an agent of the Russian government since 1987, you might assume that he cannot have missed this crucial personage and is sitting on the info until more becomes clear.

Noble as his intentions might seem, I am not so sure that the revelations can wait this long. Allow me, in the interest of national security, to rehearse the facts. On April 5, 2013, more than two years before he announced his candidacy for the presidency, Donald Trump made a cryptic reply to a tweet from an account with the handle @_Mickey_Mouse. "Thanks Basil," the then-businessman wrote. Unfortunately the tweet to which our future president was responding seems to have disappeared, along with any information about the account's provenance. Whoever this "Basil" was, he seems to have covered his tracks exceedingly well.

But not well enough. Consider the clues that remain in plain sight. "Basil" is, of course, a Westernized version of "Vasily," one of the most common Russian male first names. St. Basil, who has given his name to the cathedral that is the single most iconic piece of Russian architecture, is also the patron saint of Russia and a popular symbol of reactionary nationalism. A Kremlin operative, of course, would be careful not to select a Twitter handle easily associated with his employer; he would pick something anodyne and American-sounding. What could answer better to these descriptions than a cartoon character who helped to win World War II? If only, you might be thinking, Trump himself were more careful, he would have avoided using this operative's actual codename in a public forum.

But this is a misapprehension. If there is anything we have learned about the pattern of Trump-Russia collusion and the antics of the coterie of online nationalists, white supremacists, anime Nazis, and 4chan memers, it is that they cannot resist making their little in-jokes and dropping seemingly clever references into their communications. Consider the wider significance of the date of Trump's tweet. On April 5, in the Year of Our Lord 1242, the great Russian general Alexander Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Knights at Lake Pepius in the famous Battle of the Ice, an event of enormous significance for nationalists who see the knights as representative of a proto-liberal globalizing tendency already present in the European culture of the Middle Ages.

But why that day in 2013, of all years? What is the significance of that gap of some 771 years? Please. To the uninitiated layman this no doubt seems baffling. To someone who understands the tech-obsessed culture of online neoreactionary pranksters, it is an obvious (and somewhat amusing) throwback. As any programmer knows, 771 is the code page used in DOS to produce text in the Russian alphabet. It is, in other words, a retro racist joke, the kind of thing whose importance would no doubt have been lost on Trump himself while seeming hugely important (and absolutely hilarious) to "Basil."

But all of this is a distraction from the real question of what exactly Trump and Basil were discussing. Alas, it may be a long time indeed before most of us know, but that doesn't mean Bob Mueller doesn't already. It appears that Basil's account has been suspended by Twitter, which may be the result of a subpoena. It is possible that sources close to Mueller have told Chait that it would be for the best if Basil, whose communications with the president and other Kremlin-linked Twitter accounts are in the process of being recovered and analyzed, remained a secret for the time being. On the other hand, it is possible that this exchange has escaped both Chait's and Mueller's attention, in which case I draw attention to it here in the hope of a little-noticed but obvious example of collusion -- one more piece in the giant, seemingly unsolvable puzzle.

I give voice to the above lunatic fancy, which I was able to concoct with almost minimal effort in a matter of about 30 seconds with the use of Twitter, Google, and Wikipedia, in the hope of reminding readers how easy it is to put together a plausible-sounding hypothesis if you are already convinced of certain premises. In this case, that premise is the fact that despite the lack of any real evidence, there exists or existed a high-level conspiracy between Trump and various members of his 2016 campaign and various agents of the Russian government, up to and potentially including Vladimir Putin himself, to elect Trump president of the United States two years ago.

This premise has been widely adopted and reiterated in American media on the basis of a six degrees of Kevin Bacon-like game involving persons as unlikely as a model who once had an affair with an oligarch who was acquainted with a former Soviet-era ambassador who knows the president of Ukraine, for whom Paul Manafort once did lobbying many years before his brief employment by the Trump campaign (phew), and by the appellation of vague but sinister-sounding adjectives ("Kremlin-linked," "Russia-backed").

Add to this perfervid climate of speculation people's concerns about the species of online nerd culture known as the "alt-right" and you can pretty much accuse anybody who has ever had anything to do with Trump of anything. A week before Chait's article appeared, thousands of persons became convinced that a hitherto-unnoticed press release from the Department of Homeland Security was actually a coded neo-Nazi message because the brief declarative sentence in the headline reminded some observers of a racist slogan that also contains 14 words and because in one statistic used in the story the natural number 88, which is associated with admirers of Adolf Hitler, appeared. Did I mention that, like neo-Nazism, which, has its so-called "14 words," the press release also contained 14 of what could be considered points, although only 13 of them appear alongside typographical bullets? Even MSNBC's Chris Hayes, a vociferously anti-Trump but otherwise level-headed journalist, briefly fell for this nonsense.

The easy flow of ill-gotten Russian money into the economies of Western Europe and the United States is one of the great unsung evils of the post-Cold War era. The oligarchs do not particularly care who does their dirty laundry or sells them luxury apartments. This is why it would be just as easy , if not in fact easier , to make a chart like Chait's showing the connections between Hillary Clinton, Russian business interests, and the Kremlin. Barack Obama's insistence to Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" after the 2012 election is, considered out of context, subject to the least generous or responsible interpretation, far more sinister than anything of which Trump or anyone in his circles has been accused. But the truth is that none of these connections are especially significant. We are all connected somehow to Russia, just as we are all complicit in the spoliation of the Third World and the abuse of indigenous peoples because we all buy products made abroad and use the internet and own stock.

More Perspectives Ryan Cooper Trump vs. the West Damon Linker How conservative media taught Trump to trash NATO

Likewise, there is so much information available about so many people that it has never been easier to insinuate connections and intentions and conspiracies into meaningless coincidences. Imagine what Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney who unsuccessfully prosecuted an area businessman for his supposed involvement in a nonexistent conspiracy to assassinate President John K. Kennedy, would have been able to accomplish with the resources of the internet at his disposal. The ease with which we can access information has made it easier than ever for semi-intelligent persons to concoct lurid stories. It should also make it easier for those of us who are sensible to dismiss them out of hand.

This is why I do not think it is worth calling New York magazine irresponsible for publishing conspiracy theories. Bores and scolds might suggest that at a time when the president seems to be getting away with painting any media outlet that criticizes him as "fake news," it might be a good idea to stick to facts and leave this kind of thing to ResistanceHole . I disagree. New York has no duty to its readers except that of entertainment. If squinting to try to tell the difference between the red line connecting two oligarchs and the green one linking an unknown Florida-based GOP hack to a longtime party donor is your idea of fun, knock yourself out. But don't pretend that what you're reading is journalism.

[Jul 13, 2018] Trump, Putin, Marine Le Pen, the AfD, and a variety of other globalist-hating Hitler-alikes form "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary States" (the "AARS ) conspired to disband the European Union and NATO by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Here it comes, the moment we've been waiting for, when Trump and Putin meet in Helsinki to officially launch the Destruction of Democracy, and very possibly the Apocalypse itself. That's right, folks, once again, it appears we're looking at the end of everything, because according to the corporate media, on July 16, 2018, Trump is probably going to disband NATO so that Putin can invade the Baltic states, then Germany, then the rest of Europe, and then presumably order an all-out thermonuclear strike on the United States, which will pretty much end civilization as we know it. Or perhaps the plan is to do away with NATO, withdraw all American troops from Poland , let Putin rape and pillage Western Europe, and then have North Korea nuke both coasts of the US mainland (and Canada, of course) so that a Putin-Nazified Middle Amerika will have carte blanche to exterminate the Mexicans and make women wear those "Handmaid" costumes, or some other ridiculously paranoid scenario, possibly involving Susan Sarandon as some kind of Putin-Nazi triple agent.

Tragically, the global neoliberal establishment is completely powerless to stop Trump and Putin from carrying out this evil scheme (whatever it turns out to be in the end), because even the US Intelligence Community has to obey the law, after all, and not do anything sneaky, or unethical, not even with the fate of democracy at stake. No, unlike the Russians, who go around blatantly poisoning people with novichok oatmeal more or less whenever they like, the global capitalist ruling classes' hands are tied by their own integrity. All they can do is watch in horror as these two Hitlerian megalomaniacs destroy their entire global empire and establish a thousand-year Putin-Nazi Reich.

Thank God at least the corporate media are raising their collective voices in protest. In a recent piece in The Washington Post , Max Bergmann of the Center for American Progress warns that "this is a summit about appeasement, and we should be terrified that Trump is going to sell out America and its allies." According to Bergmann, Trump might "accidentally" share state secrets with Putin, or promise to reduce support for our freedom-loving Ukrainian Nazis , or stop trying to overthrow the Syrian government so that Syria, with the help of Russia and Iran, can launch a sneak attack on Israel and drive "the Jews" into the sea. Worse still, Bergmann speculates, he might make "secret agreements" with Putin without telling the editors of The Washington Post , which God help us all if that ever happened.

Not to be out-apocalypsed by The Post , Roger Cohen of The New York Times published a full-blown dystopian vision wherein Trump, Putin, Marine Le Pen, the AfD, and a variety of other globalist-hating Hitler-alikes form "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary States" (the "AARS"), disband the European Union and NATO, impose international martial law, and start ethnically cleansing the West of immigrants. Matteo Salvini and Horst Seehofer, decked out in full Putin-Nazi regalia, personally supervise the genocidal purges, which frightened Europeans come to support after Putin's irresistible "fake news" bots brainwash them into believing that a little Russian girl named "Tatiana" has been abducted by Moroccan migrants off a beach along the Costa del Sol.

... ... ...

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[Jul 13, 2018] Trump in a SAG actor, with decades of experience in professional entertainment though, so he knows how to play to his audience.

Jul 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Daniel , Jul 11, 2018 9:05:59 PM | 51

Curtis @35

Another theory is that Trump is just like every other spokesmodel for the US part of the AZ Empire.

He in a SAG actor, with decades of experience in professional entertainment though, so he knows how to play to his audience. They love the sh*t out of him, even as he sticks it to them harder and harder.

[Jul 13, 2018] Mueller Indicts 12 Russian Intel Officers Just Days Before Summit by Jason Ditz

Notable quotes:
"... Indictment fuels new calls to cancel Trump-Putin summit ..."
"... Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) demanded substantial changes to the summit saying that complaining to Putin about the indictments needs to be the focus of the entire summit, and that Putin and Trump should never be allowed to be alone in a room during the meeting. ..."
"... Warner was one of the few to not call for the talks to be cancelled outright, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) saying the meeting needed to be cancelled "now," and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) saying that even shaking Putin's hand would be "a moment of historic cowardice." ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | news.antiwar.com
Indictment fuels new calls to cancel Trump-Putin summit

On Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 12 Russian GRU officers. The 12 are accused of conspiring to hack Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC computers to leak information ahead of the 2016 election.

This was the second substantial set of indictments coming out of the investigation. In February, the Justice Department indicted 13 other "conspirators" claiming that they had stolen the identities of US citizens to manipulate the campaigns. Russia has denied all the charges.

While indictments aren't surprising, as a chance to try to show that the investigation in progressing, the timing is extremely unfortunate, to the point that it must raise suspicions . The indictment, after all, comes just days before President Trump is to hold a summit with Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

Trump was already facing bipartisan opposition to having a summit with Putin at all, based on the allegations of election meddling. The indictments are adding fuel to the fire, sparking more calls from opponents of diplomacy to pull out of the summit at the last minute.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) demanded substantial changes to the summit saying that complaining to Putin about the indictments needs to be the focus of the entire summit, and that Putin and Trump should never be allowed to be alone in a room during the meeting.

Warner was one of the few to not call for the talks to be cancelled outright, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) saying the meeting needed to be cancelled "now," and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) saying that even shaking Putin's hand would be "a moment of historic cowardice."

Of course, these lawmakers were all attacking the summit long before these indictments dropped, and this simply is the new excuse for opposing the plan. With the growing sense that the Mueller investigation is designed to just keep going, there is also concern it's going to keep being used as a source of excuses to not talk to Russia.

[Jul 13, 2018] No Evidence In Mueller's Indictment Of 12 Russians - Release Now May Sabotage Upcoming Summit

Jul 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

No Evidence In Mueller's Indictment Of 12 Russians - Release Now May Sabotage Upcoming Summit

The Special counsel Robert Mueller issued an indictment (pdf, 29 pages) against 12 Russian people alleged to be officers or personal of the Russian Military Intelligence Service GRU. The people, claims the indictment, work for an operational (26165) and a technical (74455) subunit of the GRU.

A Grand Jury in Washington DC issued 11 charges which are described and annotated below. A short assessment follows.

The first charge is for a "Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States" by stealing emails and leaking them. The indictment claims that the GRU units sent spearfishing emails to the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party organizations DNC and DCCC. They used these to get access to email boxes of John Podesta and other people. They are also accused of installing spyware (X-agent) on DNC computers and of exfiltrating emails and other data from them. The emails were distributed and published by the online personas DCLeaks, Guccifer II and later through Wikileaks. The indictment claims that DCLeaks and Guccifer II were impersonations by the GRU. Wikileaks, "organization 1" in the indictment, is implicated but so far not accused.

Note: There is a different Grand Jury for the long brewing case against Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Assange has denied that the emails he published came from a Russian source. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador, said that he received the emails on a trip to Washington DC and transported them to Wikileaks.

The indictment describes in some detail how various rented computers and several domain names were used to access the DNC and DCCC computers. The description is broadly plausible but there is little if any supporting evidence.

Charge 2 to 9 of the indictment are about "Aggravated Identity Theft" for using usernames and passwords for the personal email accounts of others.

Charge 10 is about a "Conspiracy to Launder Money". This was allegedly done "through a web of transaction structured to capitalize on the perceived anonymity of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin". It is alleged that the accused mined bitcoins, channeled these through dozens of accounts and transactions and then used them to rent servers, virtual private network access and domain names used in the operation.

Note : The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other 'cool' internet 'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use.

Cont. reading: No Evidence In Mueller's Indictment Of 12 Russians - Release Now May Sabotage Upcoming Summit

Posted by b at 02:39 PM | Comments (25)

Comments

Trisha Driscoll , Jul 13, 2018 3:10:56 PM | 1

From the end of the indictment:

"There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election."

Just another nothing-burger.

CD Waller , Jul 13, 2018 3:15:27 PM | 2
Such a convoluted tale in fact authored by the NSA?. Most of what the Russians are accused of can be attributed to the NSA activities.
As Putin pointed out when the accusations were first made, no matter who is elected, US policies remain the same. There is no motivation for RUssia to interfere.
Zanon , Jul 13, 2018 3:24:51 PM | 3
Russian FM: No Evidence Indicted Hackers Linked to Military Intelligence, aims to destroy mood for Trump and Putin meeting
https://sptnkne.ws/jaPw

Deep state doing everything to stop the talks and a good result from it.

Pnyx , Jul 13, 2018 3:46:35 PM | 4
Obviously a desperate move to torpedo the Helsinki meeting. Given that the indicted lot is in Russia the judicial consequences will be nill.

By the way B, what do you say about the Novi-bottle found in a house surely searched over and over? What took the searchers about ten days to found it?

Ken , Jul 13, 2018 3:50:03 PM | 5
One small point. Craig Murray has said he met with one of the individuals who were involved with the DNC email release. Although he's been somewhat hazy on it, on the Scott Horton radio show, Murray said the emails were already in the possession of Wikileaks before he met with the individual involved.
https://scotthorton.org/?powerpress_pinw=23500-podcast
karlof1 , Jul 13, 2018 4:01:39 PM | 6
Good job by Concord Management to challenge the previous bullshit. That makes it likely these charges will also be challenged. The best thing you can do when someone living in a glass house accuses you of doing something is to force them to expose themselves to the entire world via evidentiary discovery; and as with the first case, it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. This ought to be seen as the equivalent of Novichok/Skripal debacle in UK, which I trust people continue to follow Craig Murray's reporting .

As we've seen, the number of Big Lies produced that end up driving policy has dramatically increased since the USSR's disillusion, while trillions of dollars are stolen from taxpayers and given to the global .01%--OWS clearly aimed at the heart of the beast. The indictment will further roil domestic chaos within the Outlaw US Empire making solidarity more difficult to obtain.

Meanwhile in other legal news, Assange has won a court order demanding he be unmolested as he goes from Ecuadorian Embassy to airport for his flight into Asylum. Bet the UK doesn't obey this ruling either further making it a Banana Republic.

WorldBLee , Jul 13, 2018 4:04:27 PM | 7
Same ol' Deep State playbook, preaching to the converted while having little effect on anything else. This will give Rachel Maddow many hours of profitable air time as she and her ilk require no evidence.

However, ordinary people with lazy minds will see the headlines and think they're true and there will be more pressure NOT to have any productive, mutually beneficial discussions with Russia, so mission accomplished for Mueller, I guess. Anything to keep people from realizing that Hillary was a horrible, corrupt, dangerous candidate who kept herself from winning the election (which was easily winnable for the Democrats going in) all on her own.

Babyl-on , Jul 13, 2018 4:05:44 PM | 8
How much hot and stinking air can an Empire blow before it blows itself out? Sadly, no doubt, much more.

They have lost the narrative and don't even know it, they go on with Putin the Poisoner and Russia did it and they keep it up because they have no choice and they live in fear because we don't believe them any more.

This is good for us - we are making progress.

Dorian , Jul 13, 2018 4:19:03 PM | 9
Read the Indictment: Its HILARIOUS!


The high point of FBI incompetence:

- Page 14 and 15: This is hilariously stupid! These Russian super spy agents on June 15, 2016, 4:19 MOSCOW TIME and they DID NOT HACK, BUT LOGGED INTO the DNC server and spent 37 minutes to search for files or that included words (that is for the techo's out there, they "grep") for the following words:
* some hundred sheets
* some hundreds of sheets
* dcleaks
* illuminati
* широко известный перевод (meaning: widely known translation)
* worldwide known
* think twice about
* company's competence

So what kind of super spies, and super hackers would use "some hundred sheets" and "some hundreds of sheets" as two separate searches. Every computer geek knows that if you don't waste time to do virtually two identical searches like those. Who ever did these searches (after they logged in!) knows nothing about searching. The whole tech. world knows if you are going to do hacking, you use things like Linux grep/sed tools and you wouldn't waste your time doing pointless duplicitous searches. Why doesn't FBI state what tools were used, every is logged, or it should be. Thus this person whom ever it was, was naive.

So here is the big one! Foreign hackers are looking for about people talking about the Illuminati! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Another stupid one! Russian hackers searching DNC files for RUSSIAN STRINGS This is turning into a circus.

So you mean to tell me Russian hackers that logged into a computer (that is they didn't hacked, the FBI stated as much), are looking about for files about nonsensical matter including Russian Word Strings. You can't even make this stuff up. THE FBI ARE CLOWNS!!!

So it goes on page 15 and 16, that these search words to comprise the breathtaking proof that the culprit then was to admit these words:

Worldwide known cyber security company XXXX announced that the DNC servers have been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups. I'm very please the company appreciated my skill highly . Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it?

I guess XXXX Customers should think twice about company's competence.

F*** the illuminati and their conspiracies

And when did this happen? Some 2 hours later, at 7:02pm.

So think about this! They wrote that paragraph AFTER the search! So how do you search for something in 37 minutes that you don't know it exists, and with such meaningless words to write a bragging paragraph, that was supposedly ON the DNC server itself! Meaning, the person who logged in knew it existed and quickly went looking for where it was to extract it, and then use later as to frame the Russians!

Look at the time line. The FBI only found that it was a DNC employee that logged in, looking for something that shouldn't exist in anyway on his server, unless of course he wrote it himself, and that was to use it frame the Russians. Remember that paragraph was ON THE DNC Server!!!!

The FBI are morons! This indictment will be thrown out quick smart, and the FBI should be brought up on charges of aiding and abetting a crime!


jayc , Jul 13, 2018 4:41:19 PM | 10
So obviously timed to meddle with the Trump-Putin meeting. The United States and its 5 Eyes partners intercept and store the emails of everyone on the planet, and throws a hissy fit over the alleged same treatment. No doubt the politicians and media personalities will ascend their soapboxes to play wounded victims. What a farce. Sad that the public, to a degree, has now been trained to confuse mere allegations with established fact.
John Zelnicker , Jul 13, 2018 4:43:15 PM | 11
The evidence that the DNC hacks were a local download by someone with legitimate access is persuasive as shown by the group of former intel professionals who analyzed the metadata. John Podesta's email was hacked by a phishing email that convinced him to give up his password. Any half-competent hacker could pull this off, so blaming the Russians is pure speculation. But, it is consistent with the attempts to blame Russia for the incompetence and corruption of the Clinton campaign.

The social media efforts by the Internet Research Agency, besides being mostly a commercial effort as b has shown, are also a rather insignificant portion of the billions of messages and posts that are posted daily. That these could have had any significant effect is really stretching the point.

All that being said, I'm still not convinced that Russian intelligence did nothing at all to attempt to influence the election. Certainly, the US has interfered with many elections all over the world going back decades, one of the most egregious being our interference in the Russian elections of 1991. So, there is no logical reason to believe that the Russians are not doing the same thing.

In addition, I believe that Trump has commercial and financial reasons for being as friendly as possible with Putin, i.e., Trump Tower Moscow. Trump is not particularly interested in the politics or diplomacy of detente with Russia (which I would support, in general), he is purely transactional in his approach and seems to have no interest other than being the center of attention on media and making as much money as he can.

Dorian , Jul 13, 2018 4:58:30 PM | 12
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is clear that the FBI in an act of desperation, tried to hoodwink the public and the world, with a false flag operation to blame the Russians for DNC incompetence and criminal behaviour by Hillary Clinton.

In this attempt of a cover up and foolish attempt of technical miss direction, they have been caught red handed in gross malfeasance and high crimes.

President Putin should be made immediately aware of this attempt (if he hasn't been already), and should take Trump to task on these grave crimes and attempts of sedition and outright treason by US personnel in attempt to trigger a war with Russia.

Under US Code 2381, whomever owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death , or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

This treasonous behaviour by the FBI and DNC, should be investigated by Military Court. And those responsible for attempt to start a war, with another super power, should be held to the fullest account of US Code 2381. Attempting to precipitate a war, is a war crime and those guilty should face a military court and held to highest punishment available, namely, execution by firing squad.

High office demands high responsibility. If we do not hold government officials, especially officials of the Executive Branch of the USA, then we are allowing a government, like what is happening Washington DC today, to become a rouge nation. These evil merchants of death, must face prosecution for their hatred, bigotry and lust for war. Warmongers must not be tolerated in government. And the FBI and DNC have now shown absolutely they are prepared to lie, however incompetently, to protect the warmongers and evil doers in government.

This act by the FBI is an act of treason: US Code 2381 must now be applied to all those part of this treason.

Jackrabbit , Jul 13, 2018 5:00:15 PM | 13
b: The detente with Russia which U.S. president Donald Trump tries to achieve will now be more difficult to implement and to sustain.

-

IMO Trump isn't trying to achieve anything more than to negotiate an agreement that is favorable to USA/NATO. The Deep State would be happy if an acceptable agreement could be reached as it would split Russia from China.

AFAICT, the depiction of Trump as pro-Russian is a fantasy concocted by Hillary-Obama and their deep-state flunkies.

The entire anti-Russia campaign serves two purposes:

1) distraction
- from illegal wars, CIA color revolutions, Syrian occupation, etc.
what has been done is many times worse than temporarily separating families at the border

- from an undemocratic political system
Hillary's collusion with DNC against Sanders and the overall failure of the Democratic Party to represent the people

2) negotiation
Trump is the 'good cop' to the anti-Russian deep-state 'bad cop'
Rick Sterling , Jul 13, 2018 5:00:53 PM | 14
Yes, this "indictment" is truly pathetic.
1) According to Mueller the "infrastructure" cost "over $95000" obtained by "money laundering" using bitcoin etc.. Wow. It does not cost much to threaten "US democracy".
2) "Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program Ccleaner". I wonder if they used the free version of CCleaner or the premium version available for $35. Another dubious if not laughable accusation.
Patrick Armstrong , Jul 13, 2018 5:10:51 PM | 15
As I understand it the GRU does not do these things -- it's pure military intelligence. The Russian intelligence services are 1) very (very) good 2) born in real war. So they don't run little independent operations like hacking US politics just for fun.
That struck me right from the get-go. The hacking would have been done by Служба специальной связи и информации (Special Service of Communications and Information ie their NSA/CSE/GCHQ) which is now owned by Федеральная служба охраны (Federal Protection Service). No way would military intelligence have run this.
In Russia int/security organs are not quasi-independent agencies that do what they want.
Sasha , Jul 13, 2018 5:15:27 PM | 16
2) negotiation

Trump is the 'good cop' to the anti-Russian deep-state 'bad cop'

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2018 5:00:15 PM | 13

Exactly, he is going to test the Russian aims to overcome more bullying either in Syria itself, even after offering to withdraw, or, better, and most probably, in Afghanistan

marcyincny , Jul 13, 2018 5:28:05 PM | 17
The whole thing is horrifying, that government agencies can be so inept while having so much power. It's one thing when they try to apply it to individuals thousands of miles away but to think they operate this way in regard to US citizens. And it just gets worse...
Winston , Jul 13, 2018 5:30:53 PM | 18
Sasha
Not much of an offer, the occupation is untenable with Pakistan in the SCO camp.
Trump has no chips to offer except Crimea.Putin/Xi may offer a face saving way out of Afghanistan and Syria, but even the venue shows who the supplicant is.
You have to be exceptional not to see that is is far more than symbolic that the mountain
has to go to Mohamed.Trump wanted DC or Vienna.
Emily Dickinson , Jul 13, 2018 5:36:31 PM | 19
This may have some connection to Ken @5:

Paragraph 47 of the indictment -- regarding "Organization 1," presumably Wikileaks -- cites intercepted messages showing that Guccifer 2.0 engaged in "failed attempts" to deliver the docs to Organization 1 "starting in late June 2016." The problem is that Assange had announced on June 12, 2016 that Wikileaks already had such documents. Given his history, it is simply beyond belief that Assange would rely on a promise of unvetted docs.

Moreover, that June 12, 2016 announcement was just two days before the Crowstrike news story of Russian hacking (June 14), followed by the debut of Guccifer 2.0 (June 15). Independent analysts have long suggested that the latter events were a ploy by partisans (Clintonites and their national security state supporters) trying to get ahead of the Wikileaks release by tainting the source of any such documents as Russian.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

The greatest threat to mankind is the ability of otherwise intelligent people to believe unfounded absurd nonsense. Without critical thinking and diversity of opinion the window to the truth becomes opaque.

Posted by: Dick , Jul 13, 2018 5:51:39 PM | 20

The greatest threat to mankind is the ability of otherwise intelligent people to believe unfounded absurd nonsense. Without critical thinking and diversity of opinion the window to the truth becomes opaque.

Posted by: Dick | Jul 13, 2018 5:51:39 PM | 20 /div

mike k , Jul 13, 2018 5:52:39 PM | 21
Trump should just refuse to discuss this nonsense with Putin or anyone else. Don't take the bait. Do your deals with Putin, and ignore the kibitzers. Of course Donald has trouble keeping his mouth shut.
Anya , Jul 13, 2018 5:52:54 PM | 22
Mueller messed up the proven information on the illegal access to the DNC (and congressional) computers by Awan family and the alleged trolling by the alleged Russian spies.
If Mueller has any worries about nationals security, he must investigate Wasserman and Clinton.
By the way, the Awans were never cleared for having to access the classified information. Almost 30 congressional computers had been compromised, and the classified information obtained, by the fraudsters on the US government payroll.
karlof1 , Jul 13, 2018 5:53:56 PM | 23
Must laud Dorian for his enthusiasm @12, but any such trial would be conducted in a Federal Court. Of course, since its inception, the FBI's played both sides of the legality street, and it's quite obvious that Obama's Justice Department and its FBI agency obstructed justice with the entire Clinton/Server fiasco in 2016 and has continued to do so.

As for Russia trying to sway a US presidential election, IMO they're telling the truth that they don't since they can't hope to compete with all the corrupt interests actually doing so, like AIPAC and the US Chamber of Commerce. Hell, US policy interferes in US elections when monies sent to Zionistan get recycled into the election cycle through AIPAC or other sources. What was HRC's Pay-to-Play Foundation if not a method to influence the election? Dozens of good books are written about the influence of Big Money on US elections at every level, yet an extremely "conservative" Supreme Court said all that Big Money's just another form of speech, so say all you want.

Essentially, all levels of US government and elections have become more corrupt annually since 1866 and the result is today's indictments, providing ever more proof that they're under Oligarchical control. And unfortunately for the rest of the planet, it's up to the USA's citizenry to resolve the problem--really, some of us actually do try. Sadly, we lack the presence of a US Embassy to train and finance our Color Revolution as is done within every other nation.

curious2 , Jul 13, 2018 6:07:08 PM | 24
@11
Re: phishing attack on Podesta email

You said "Any half-competent hacker could pull this off. "

Don't you mean "any totally incompetent kiddie-scripter could cut/paste a phishing attack from the dark net, and pull this off , provided the recipient was dumb enough to respond"?

Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 13, 2018 6:09:11 PM | 25
Imo Trump went into the Prez campaign with his eyes wide open. How else does one explain his (seemingly premature) drain the Swamp declaration? I understand from the multitude of Trump docos I've recorded since the campaign began that He had been contemplating the notion of running for POTUS for at least a decade before he decided to dive in. So he's had at least 10 years to investigate The Swamp, find its flaws and weaknesses, and work out whether he would be able to find and recruit powerful 'Patriots' willing to lend a hand when (not if) the going (for a lone wolf) gets tough.

He'll turn this latest slice of Intellectual Pygmy-ism to his advantage. One really obvious way to do so would be to "prove" that no time should be wasted in getting as close as possible to 'dangerous' Putin, as soon as possible. And who better to do that than... Ta Da! MAGA Trump!

Trump seems to have explored every possibility and evolved umpteen solutions to each. The Swamp is going to regret trying to outsmart him.

[Jul 13, 2018] NATO's Crisis and the Trans-Atlantic Conflict by Jan Oberg

Notable quotes:
"... common security ..."
"... rapproachment and Ostpolitik ..."
"... Jan Oberg is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research in Lund, Sweden. ..."
Jul 13, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

July 11, 2018 When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw Pact disappeared, a few of us argued that the appropriate response would be to close down NATO and develop a new all-European peace system and a policy for conflict-handling to replace the predominantly military security thinking that had dominated during the First Cold War.

I had a particular reason for arguing that at the time. As part of the research I did for my PhD (1981) on Denmark's defence and security policy in a global perspective, I had interviewed a small number of middle-level civilian and military personnel at NATO's HQ in Brussels. They all basically told me the same three things – remember this was the late 1970s, or about 10 years before the Cold War ended:

– My parents' belong to a generation that knows what war is, we are here at NATO to prevent a repetition (war prevention goal – which is not the same as peace, but let that pass).

– NATO is for the maintenance of peace, not for war, and the most important thing is Art 5 in our Treaty: If one member is attacked, all shall come to its rescue – "all for one and one for all" (the defensive principle, the musketeer pledge).

– The only – only – reason, NATO exists today is the presence and nature of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact (raison d'etre, existential argument – however a little strange, perhaps, in that the Warsaw Pact was established in 1955, NATO in 1949 – but defining the world in such terms that my own profession seems utterly important is nothing new to human beings).

Western leaders – that is, until one of the worst, Bill Clinton, took over in 1994 – showed statesmanship and told Gorbachev that they would not expand NATO an inch and that the divided Germany would be neutral if unified. There was no talk of closing NATO in those circles, however – nobody who took Gorbachev intellectually sound and visionary idea about a new European House seriously.

No, they had won the Cold War. The Soviet Union had lost and became a militarily a dwarf in comparison to what it had been. And that wasn't that strong either: The Warsaw Pact's military expenditures varied between 60 and 80% per cent of those of NATO and it vastly inferior in terms of technological quality, innovation capacity and discipline – but stronger in quantities, e.g. the number of tanks.

The 2nd Cold War

We're in Cold War 2 – of course not a repetition because of all the differences between that world and today's. Ten of the former Warsaw Pact countries are now full NATO members, neutral states back then like Sweden and Austria have abolished that – wise – policy. And, mind you, the military expenditures of Russia – one country facing NATO's 29 – are 8 per cent of NATO – yes, you got it right: Eight per cent of NATOs military expenditures in spite of all the propaganda about Russia and Putin representing an existential threat to Europe and the US if not the whole world. Who said disinformation was used only by Russia?

The Clinton Administration decided to not give a damn about the promises made and started the expansion of NATO in 1994, the new (humanitarian!!) interventionism in Yugoslavia – devoid of knowledge about its complexities, of common sense and without a UN Security Council mandate and one gross violation of international law after the other including the bombing of Serbia to carve out a forever-failed state, Kosovo state – the second Albanian state in Europe. Oh Crimea, what a crime in comparison!

And then came, one-by-one, incrementally – the new NATO members right up under the skirts of Russia in total defiance of its history psychology and legitimate near-abroad security perceptions.

The wisdom of softer borders and neutrals, of dialogue and confidence-building – like Finland that started the OSCE , like Sweden under Palme that started common security and Germany under Brandt that started rapproachment and Ostpolitik etc – a ll gone today.

Imagine a Russia-led alliance with 12 times more military than the US making Mexico and Canada new members. Sure, Washington would love it.

Facts, analyses, intellectual understanding went out of the window long ago – in Western mainstream media and politics, from Right to Left too, the latter believing in humanitarian intervention and human rights advocates flying F-16.

We're living in dangerous times because facts, knowledge, science and common sense play virtually no role anymore. And because the peace discourse has disappeared decades ago.

Today's Western security policy managers are anti-intellectuals, seemingly unaware of their moral responsibilities and under much less control than when Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech in 1961 warned the world and the US itself about the MIC – the Military-Industrial Complex. (Bless him for doing so and curse those who never listened but made it a cancer on Western civilisation).

99% of these security managers would not be able to offer an intellectually decent definition of concepts such as deterrence, defensive/offensive, conflict-resolution, or peace. They don't write books.

But – at least some of them have a button close to them with which they can kill millions.

Today we are facing a Western militarist cancer in which policies are run by, not the MIC, but the MIMAC – the Military-Industrial-MEDIA-ACADEMIC Complex. And it is de facto out of any democratic control.

Enemies are invented and marketed, one after the other, and the new WMD – Weapons of Mass Deception – consists marketing companies, military academies, militaries in civilian institute, military corporations influencing/steering media narratives, social media censorship (Facebook and Google) etc. (Say Syria since 2011 ).

By and large this is what explains all the wars, in the Middle East in particular, all the millions dead and wounded, all the hatred, terrorism (which thanks to the idiotic U.S. Global War on Terror since 9/11 2001 has boosted the number of dead and wounded in political terror acts from about 1 100 to 32 000.

The inverse proportionality between intellectual and military capacity is in and of itself the largest threat to humanity's survival.

So is the absence – or woefully inadequate power – of a vibrant public dialogue about peace, social peace actions and peace policies. No government has peace advisers, no government even thinks of matching peace research with military research investment and no government has a peace policy or minister. Don't even know that such things might be a good idea.

The discourse, as I said, is non-existing. Militarism – the Juggernaut – has no brakes. And, so, we're in the Second Cold War that more knowledgeable and responsible people would have avoided.

NATO crisis indicators

People talk far too much about Trump, the person(ality). And far too little about the system that brought him on stage and runs him to a large extent – as large as anyone can run Trump. Remember, Kennedy was killed some time after a revolutionary speech about a new world peace order.

The day we talk as much about MIMAC as we talk about Trump and his sex life or Tweets, there might be some hope – but don't expect it in media and a Western, Christian culture that is obsessed with individuals and individual morality and hardly can spell the word structure . MIMAC is a structure and not exactly benign – but did you ever hear about it in the mainstream press?

1. Since 1989, the West – not Russia – has destroyed the importance of international law; it began in Yugoslavia – probably the richest event since 1989 in terms of consequences for that country, the region, Europe and the world.

2. We got a Middle East destroyed beyond repair – physically, economically (e.g. sanctions), culturally and in terms of fomenting terrorism.

3. We got a US unilateralism, US First, helter-skelter policy that sees, consistently, the world out there as its enemies – one way or the other – NATO allies, Russia, China, Middle Eastern leaders, North Korea – and whose main contribution to the rest of the world is: threats, trade wars, sanctions, bad words, arms trade to authoritarian allies like Saudi Arabia that is not exactly a democracy but now the third largest military spender, larger than Russia.

4. We got a Turkey, NATO's second largest military power, basically having departed, contributed heavily to the destruction of Syria, have US nukes stored on its territory, is becoming more and more authoritarian (hardly compatible with NATO's defence of democracy) and makes deal after deal with arch-enemy Russia. In other words, a very serious problem for NATO.

5. We got a NATO that has done nothing under its seemingly brainwashed Secretary-General Stoltenberg – once a highly respected Norwegian PM with a humanist family background – speaking like a US ventriloquist's dummy about how good all the confrontational, expansive initiatives are – all legitimated with the same three mantras: Security, Stabiliy and Peace – none of which will ever appear with those policy kinds of initiatives.

6. We now get a Trump Administration that tries – for God knows which time the last 4-5 decades – to sell the argument that "the Europeans ought to pay more"! The magic formula is "2 per cent of GNP" – without the slightest analysis of threats or opportunities! If a country does well in general, the alliance will get more military? Asn vice-versa? Intellectually, this is nonsense, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with security and peace.

Furthermore, anyone knowing just a little about these matters are perfectly aware that the US is in Europe for the sake of the US itself, not for the blue-eyed people of Europe. Europe has always been and remains the forward defence area of the American territory and it is in Europe the war shall be fought, not on US territory. Therefore also the Ballistic Missile Defence in Europ – shooting down whatever retaliatory missile Moscow might fire in response to a US attack upon it – and shoot it down over Europe.

Every single forward deployment, every new NATO member is today much much less secure than before. Why? Because when you join an alliance and make the borders hard – there is no way to avoid that Russian military defensive preparation for the eventuality of an attack upon it, will target every single of these countries. Simple military logic – any NATO general would do the same if situated in a Russian military planning unit.

7. We got a NATO that – running out of raison d'etre with the end of the First Cold War – tries to reinvent itself. Read its Treaty here that states that it shall adhere to the UN Charter and solve conflict by peaceful means, support democracy and freedom and international NATO is today a criminal organisation in the sense that it consistently violates everything it was founded to work for. Even works against it own fine priciples!

8. Since the 1990s, NATO member states have violated international law and its own Charter which states that it pertains to Europe and North America. What does NATO do, then, with a new office in Kuwait, with commitments way outside its member territories, with formalised cooperation with the Gulf States with a Danish ambassador there as a go-between?

9. Finally, and most importantly, NATO members have invested trillions of dollars on increasing their security. How come we are now in a new Cold War? How come everybody is talking about the need for even larger investments in this one type of security, the military? How come such a well-endowed alliance can feel threatened – and lack a genuine trust-building and cooperative policy with its old-time enemy, Russia? How come that NATO members' War on Terror has only produced much more terror? How come the democracy and freedom NATO shall protect seem to be in crisis too? Why all these wars, destroyed countries and refugees problems – instead of peace by peaceful means and much more peaceful world?

Something is wrong. Very very wrong. With NATO.

NATO is what its members make it: Change it completely or dissolve it

You may now think that I mix "NATO, the alliance" with "NATO members" above. True! There comes a time when a Club that once had noble purposes falls apart because of its members' reckless, immoral and constitution-violating behaviour. The centre simply doesn't hold. There comes a time when you cannot healthily maintain a figleaf distinction between the organisation and its members. Call it compromised, corruption, de-moralization or decay and think, for instance, of the Swedish Academy .

NATO turns 70 next year. Age is not itself an argument for or against anything. The UN is even older and its Charter is still the most important governments have ever signed.

But NATO members, lead by the U.S., have undermined the organisation and all the noble principles it once stood for. (Also by having nuclear weapons which are not mentioned in the Treaty but militates against any concept of peace by peaceful means). In particular, since the end of the First Cold War, its net contribution to the world has become negative, destructive. NATO today stands for North Atlantic Treaty Obsolescence.

In conclusion, crap NATO as we know it!

Let's use the anniversary to discuss how it can survive in a completely new shape and avoid the fate of its then beloved enemy, the Warsaw Pact – without which it should have been heavily reformed or closed down about 30 years ago. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Jan Oberg

Jan Oberg is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research in Lund, Sweden.

[Jul 12, 2018] Challenging Chait s Paradigm by Hunter DeRensis

Jul 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

But to not only ignore the February 2014 coup in Ukraine that initiated recent hostilities between the U.S. and Russia, but to also put the blame on the latter's "aggressive behavior," is at best laughable and at worst dishonest. In February of 2014 the democratically elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the United States government, an event Chait and his peers do their best to forget . Russia's subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula (containing the Russian naval base at Sevastopol) was a wholly reactive measure. To say the recent estrangement was triggered by anything else than western aggressive behavior is factually inaccurate.

Quartermaster , July 12, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT

But to not only ignore the February 2014 coup in Ukraine that initiated recent hostilities between the U.S. and Russia, but to also put the blame on the latter's "aggressive behavior," is at best laughable and at worst dishonest.

You lost me at that point. There was no coup in 2014. That's simply a Putinist lie. Yanukovich ran when he was going to be brought to book for the murders he ordered on the Maidan. He was interviewed last year and was completely evasive when it came to questions about the killings he ordered. He's now a fugitive from justice and was righteously removed from office when he ran for asylum in Russia.

It's long past time for idiots like yourself to get the facts and quit parroting Putin's lies.

hyperbola , Next New Comment July 12, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Why I Quit the Democratic Party Yesterday

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-I-Quit-the-Democratic-by-Eric-Zuesse-Congress-Democrats_Congress-Republican-GOP_Democracy_Democrats-DNC-140815-725.html

I left the Democratic Party yesterday, because I cannot support the first American President who ever installed anywhere in the world a nazi regime -- it has never happened before, not even under a Republican President; and, until Obama, I had always assumed that if it ever would happen, it could come only under a Republican President, never under any Democratic one. But I was wrong -- mortifyingly wrong -- because Barack Obama did this in Ukraine (see here and here for the evidence); he is the first-ever U.S. President to install a nazi regime anywhere, and so I wrote to my Representative seeking Obama's impeachment by the Democrats in Congress; and, yesterday, that person, a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, told me that, notwithstanding Barack Obama's having unquestionably done this, this Democratic Representative will not introduce on the floor of the U.S. House (which is the only place where a bill of impeachment can be introduced) a bill of impeachment against this -- what is the appropriate term for such a person, if not a -- nazi U.S. President. (That's nazi as an ideology, racist fascist, not as a party designation, which is merely a party's name.) Simply because Obama calls himself a 'Democrat,' that Representative in the House will not introduce a bill to impeach him. There was no argument on the facts; the facts weren't at issue here at all; it's just that Obama calls himself a 'Democrat.' That's all ..

Ukraine's Pres. Poroshenko Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was a Coup

http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup.html

Participants in 2014 Ukrainian coup confess

http://washingtonsblog.com/2017/11/participants-2014-ukrainian-cup-confess.html

.. The Italian newspaper Il Giornale, and Italian Mediaset Matrix TV, Chanel 5, issued, on November 15th, confessions by a few of the snipers who on 20 February 2014 fired down into the crowd of "Maidan" demonstrators and police, in order "to sow chaos," as they say that they had been instructed to do.

The Georgian mercenary Alexander Revazishvilli said: "Everyone started shooting two or three shots at a time. It went on for fifteen, twenty minutes. We had no choice. We were ordered to shoot both on the police and the demonstrators, without any difference." This account is entirely consistent with the leaked phone-conversation on 26 February 2014 in which Urmas Paet, the investigator whom the EU had assigned to determine whom to blame for the snipers and their massive bloodshed during the overthrow, informed the EU's Foreign Affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, that the anti-Yanukovych, pro-U.S. and pro-EU side, were to blame, and that Paet had just been informed of this by Petro Poroshenko (who shortly thereafter became elected as Ukraine's figurehead President). Paet said: ..

Oliver Stone Exposes US Coup d'etat In Ukraine

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/17/oliver-stone-exposes-us-coup-detat-ukraine/

How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine

https://countercurrents.org/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-perpetrated-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine/

[Jul 12, 2018] Are The Russia-Gate Fanatics Crazy, Or Just Cynical by Justin Raimondo

Jul 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

The kookification of the "mainstream" continues, with none other than Jonathan Chait – the most conventional sort of boring corporate liberal – producing an unhinged diatribe purporting to prove that Donald Trump has been a Russian agent since 1987 – and that his path to the presidency was paved by his Russian handlers, who were planning it all along. And not to be outdone, formerly rational person Marcy Wheeler, whose investigations as "emptywheel" won her some renown, is now claiming that she not only has definitive proof of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin, but that, as a result, she was forced to turn one of her sources into the FBI for some vague cloak-and-dagger-ish reason.

I looked in on the Chait production, and came upon his reiteration of the Alfa Bank computer link – this was a story, you'll recall, that claimed there was a stream of communications between this "Kremlin-connected" bank and the Trump organization. This, we were told, was almost certainly Vladimir Putin sending instructions to his zombie-agents in the Trump White House. Yes, this was actually the story, backed up by several computer "experts" – except it turned out to be advertising spam . Chait repeats this story, adding it on top of the several dozen other conspiracy factoids he throws in the mix – but without mentioning that the computer signals were simply ad-bots. On the basis of this, and a string of other "interactions" with Russians, we are supposed to believe that the omnipotent Russian intelligence agencies hatched a plot 30 years ago to put Trump into the White House. This is a conspiracy theory that's so shoddy and far-fetched that not even Alex Jones would touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Which brings us to an interesting question: do these people really believe their own craziness?

In some instances, it's pure psychopathology. That's the case, I believe, for Marcy Wheeler, Louise Mensch, and the more active online Twitter-paranoids. These people have been so shocked by the unexpected – the election of Trump – that they have been forced into a dubious mental state bordering on insanity.

However, in the case of Jonathan Chait, it's pure viciousness and cynicism. He even says of his own theory that it's "unlikely but possible." It's just a show for the suckers. The same is true for most of the other journalists who have enlisted in #TheResistance and given up any pretense at objectivity: they are simply doing what they do best, and that is taking dictation from their spookish sources. The treatment of Russia-gate in the media parallels precisely what occurred with Iraq's storied "weapons of mass destruction" – reporters are taking it all on faith, and they don't even necessarily believe it. Thus the biggest hoax since Piltdown Man is reported as "fact." And of course all this is coming to the fore as Trump takes on NATO and our European "allies."

For anti-interventionists, Trump's trip to Europe could not be more timely or enlightening. He went to the NATO meeting with a few admonitory tweets up front , complaining that America pays far more than a fair share of the alliance's monetary costs, and no sooner does he get off the plane than he notes that for all the anti-Russian rhetoric coming out of our allies, the Germans are cuddling up to the Russians on the energy front with the Nord Stream II pipeline. Merkel shot back that Germany is, after all, an independent country and can do what it likes. True, but then why the weird contradiction between claiming that Russia is a military threat and also setting up the mechanism of energy dependence?

Before getting on the plane for his European sojourn, the President reiterated his longstanding position:

"We pay far too much and they pay far too little. The United States is spending far more on NATO than any other country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable."

And the cost is not just measured in monetary terms: there's also the incalculable cost of risking war, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which obligates us to come to the aid of a NATO ally that's under attack, or at least that claims to be under attack. In which case, the government of tiny Montenegro, with a population of a bit over half a million, could declare that the Russians are trying to pull off a coup, and US troops would be in country "defending" it against an incursion that may not even exist.

Take a look at the Euro-weenies squirming in their seats at that "bilateral breakfast," which was turned into a lecture by the President about why the burden of empire should not fall only on our shoulders. Pompeo and Kay Bailey Hutchinson don't look happy, either, but that's just too bad, now isn't it? The President is speaking truth to the once high-and-mighty – and more power to him!

Meanwhile, the main event is going to be in Helsinki: NATO is just a sideshow. After all, militarily the alliance is really nothing but the United States and a few Brits: the Europeans carry little actual weight. The really serious business will take place with Putin, although there is a relentless propaganda campaign in progress to prevent Trump from making the Helsinki summit a success.

What must be addressed in Helsinki is the backsliding of both countries when it comes to preventing a nuclear catastrophe. The program to find and secure loose nukes, which became a problem after the breakup of the Soviet Union, needs to be renewed, in addition to the mutual disarmament agreements that have fallen by the wayside , with the US and the Russians re-arming . As tensions between Washington and Moscow rise, the possibility of a nuclear conflict increases, along with the chances of an accidenta l nuclear exchange. The nuclear death machine is on automatic, with all kinds of scenarios where it could be set off by something other than an enemy attack : a terrorist strike in Washington, D.C., or anywhere, involving nuclear material, or simply a computer software glitch. Americans would be horrified to learn just how close we are to an extinction event.

The Trump-haters would rather the President fail than give him credit for securing the peace. They would much prefer to wage a new cold war with Russia than put an end to the horrific threat of utter annihilation that's cast a dark shadow over the world for all this time. In preferring universal ruin to the vindication of their enemies, they fit the very definition of what it means to be evil.

Trump is out to transform US foreign policy by – finally! – recognizing the reality that's been in place since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The old structures that served us when Communism was thought to be a threat to Europe are no longer functional, and haven't been for quite some time. NATO today is nothing but a gigantic subsidy to two major beneficiaries: our European "allies" and the big arms manufacturers such as Boeing, Raytheon, etc. The current arrangements allow the European welfare states to huddle under the US nuclear shield while dispensing all kinds of goodies to their citizens. It's quite a racket for all concerned: as NATO countries must continually update their military equipment to meet rising standards, American taxpayers are footing most of the bill.

Whether Trump succeeds in getting the incubus of NATO off our backs, or not, this outmoded institution is bound to wither away no matter who is in the White House, for the simple reason that it no longer serves any useful purpose. Those howls of outrage you're hearing are all coming from self-interested parties being cut off from the gravy train – and, as such, all that noise should be music to our ears. Tags Politics War Conflict Commercial Banks Commercial Aircraft Manufacturing Oil Related Services and Equipment - NEC Aerospace & Defense - NEC

Comments Vote up! 27 Vote down! 3

GunnyG Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:45 Permalink

Unhinged loons all. The only collusion seems to be between the Magic Nigger and Putin along with Hellery and Mueller and Uranium One.

President Obama : "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev : "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

jm -> GunnyG Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:46 Permalink

We're over it.

Dickweed Wang -> jm Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:48 Permalink

More projection from the left . . . accusing Trump of the very thing(s) they themselves are guilty of. It's really getting obvious.

Automatic Choke -> Dickweed Wang Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:53 Permalink

I have a good friend. Intelligent, usually quite well balanced, but a bad case of TDS. She keeps falling back on "where there is smoke there must be fire....we keep hearing about Russia and Trump, so it must be true."

I have yet to point out to her that is precisely what was behind Goering's philosophy of "tell a lie often enough and people will believe it to be true". After all, she is also jewish, and the Goering reference might make her head explode.

Billy the Poet -> Automatic Choke Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:55 Permalink

Have you shown her the Steele dossier which lists Kremlin agents and Russian spies as sources A, B, C and G?

DingleBarryObummer -> Billy the Poet Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:58 Permalink

let's get some Likud/Chabad Lubavitch-gate articles

Boing_Snap -> DingleBarryObummer Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:23 Permalink

RussiaGate was spawned as Trump was calling her out for her crimes, the ties to the Uranium One scam were obvious and public. So in typical fashion she paints her opponent with the the false brush of her crimes to deflect the reality.

Besides the MI6 need to smear the Russians was first on the agenda anyway, can't have the Russians looking good on anything.

lazarusturtle -> Boing_Snap Thu, 07/12/2018 - 19:05 Permalink

Thank Q for exposing all the closet zionists. When you replace the word "Russiagate" with "Israelgate", then all the 'fire & fury' over the Trump presidency actually starts to make sense.

MillionDollarButter -> lazarusturtle Thu, 07/12/2018 - 20:25 Permalink

To the new owners of ZH. Everyone knows what's up.

TBT or not TBT -> MillionDollarButter Thu, 07/12/2018 - 20:56 Permalink

Crazy OR cynical? Embrace the healing power of and.

Rapunzal -> DingleBarryObummer Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:23 Permalink

No it's just a hollow divide and conquer meme, to keep the sheeple arguing about nonsense and keep the flow of fake news at a high level. Don't give the sheeple a moment of a break, they might start to think for themselves.

WallHoo -> Rapunzal Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:34 Permalink

Come on rapu dont say that,you can do better!!

Life rule number one if someone supports something beyond reason that means that they benefit from it.

Nature_Boy_Wooooo -> Automatic Choke Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:56 Permalink

I think deep down these people know it's nonsense, they just hate Trump so much they feel the need to be dishonest just to try and hurt him.

It blows my mind because these are the same people who would have a meltdown if a prosecutor went after a black man with these tactics. Somehow they feel that a malicious prosecution is acceptable just this one time.

stant -> Automatic Choke Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:00 Permalink

the tribe has a cult following. the crack pipe has second hand smoke

Consuelo -> Automatic Choke Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:05 Permalink

Ancient hatred of ethnic Russians from the old Khazarian empire, now known as 'Ukraine'...

It is no wonder, nor surprise that Khazarian cockroaches who infest the halls of U.S. foreign policy are apoplectic regarding any warming of common-sense relations with Russia.

Consuelo -> Automatic Choke Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:05 Permalink

Dup.

Is-Be -> Automatic Choke Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:13 Permalink

Her head will explode with Guilt.

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Tell_the_Truth_and_Shame_the_De

TeamDepends -> jm Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:51 Permalink

Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder induced hysteria. So, crazy. And yet, many are some of the most cynical creatures you'll ever meet- true misanthropes. So there's that.

lookslikecraptome -> TeamDepends Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:03 Permalink

how about something interesting.You know about dick eater McAffe and the crypto world.We all know the dem/lib shit about Russia and Trump is already complete bullshit.

Boing_Snap -> TeamDepends Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:30 Permalink

Yes, the Libtards that think they're smarter than everyone else are the most trapped by their ego.

Present fact, logic and reasonable discourse and these geniuses lose their sheet and produce fallacy, fake news, and eventually run away from the conversation or end up in tears.

Funny and sad at the same time.

I Am Jack's Ma -> jm Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:28 Permalink

The anti-Russia hysteria comes from all over the Left as well as parts of the Right...

But as with Chait, Mensch, Kristol, Appelbaum, Gessen and on and on and on you find Jews wildly over-represented in the Putin bashing (which is one thing - he's a politician in bed with some bad hombres and not at all above criticism) and Russia itself.

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/hating-russia-is-a-full-time-job/

new game -> GunnyG Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:09 Permalink

i was just up at a lake in northern mn and there was two loons going nutso on the lake! guess what i was thinking?

lol...

it was pretty cool. it was like a spat on the water, or a sexual experience. don't know cept they were making a hell-of-a-lot of cool sounds...

GunnyG -> new game Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:22 Permalink

The Americanus Liberalum Loonicus does not make cool sounds. It screeches, mewls, whines, and bitches and moans.

esum -> GunnyG Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:40 Permalink

DEMS/LIBTARDS

suk ya dick for a dolla

N0TME -> GunnyG Thu, 07/12/2018 - 19:32 Permalink

I have a question. Why is this still an issue?

I thought it was over.

LawsofPhysics Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:48 Permalink

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Get in line comrade!

1 Alabama -> LawsofPhysics Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:25 Permalink

ignorance is also bliss, far from strength

LawsofPhysics -> 1 Alabama Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:33 Permalink

Still nothing useful to add and completely ignorant of history...

expected.

louiedafag -> LawsofPhysics Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:00 Permalink

small is big. big is small.

Biggy Small

NukeChinaNow -> LawsofPhysics Thu, 07/12/2018 - 21:17 Permalink

Sexual deviance is pride.

Infanticide is choice.

Invader is undocumented migrant.

It's a hell of a LONG list the evil bastards have going-to try to destroy western civilization with cutesy little names to deflect from the truth about what they REALLY support.

But hey, what do I know?

I'm sure there are a lot people who can easily add to my list. Have at it.

attah-boy-Luther Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:48 Permalink

only ones that believe russsia-gate rev.1.0/2.0/3.0 etc are:

______________________________________________

Copy and paste and fill-in!

cheech_wizard -> attah-boy-Luther Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:54 Permalink

only ones that believe russsia-gate rev.1.0/2.0/3.0 etc are:

Congressman Adam Schiff-for-brains -or- the thoroughly rabid idiots over on Democratic Underground

Copy and paste and fill-in!

What did I win?

TeamDepends -> cheech_wizard Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:17 Permalink

A Full Del Monte from Stormy Daniels and parting gifts.

shovelhead -> TeamDepends Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:30 Permalink

Is that a melon salad?

Consuelo -> cheech_wizard Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:07 Permalink

Doesn't Schiff have some Epstein to diddle with at the Pizza joint...?

Lost in translation Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:49 Permalink

I'll take demonically-possessed for $800, Alex.

TeamDepends -> Lost in translation Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:20 Permalink

Bingo! Communism is merely thinly-veiled Luciferianism. Take the Alinskyites, please.

1 Alabama -> Lost in translation Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:27 Permalink

What is the U.S. gvt?

geno Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:49 Permalink

Meanwhile look at this "elite" Russian military tech FAILURE..:

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-int

geno -> geno Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:50 Permalink

I actually like Russia and hope for a good relationship with them, but the US must fail and Russia is the best cheer-leading on this site has become unbearable.

Billy the Poet -> geno Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:59 Permalink

I see lots of folks here who want both the US and Russia to succeed. That's one of the reasons we support the President and his policy of peace, commerce and honest friendship with old Cold War enemies. It's not 1949/1950 anymore.

chestergimli -> Billy the Poet Thu, 07/12/2018 - 19:04 Permalink

I'd like to see them get together with CHIna and do the Jews in.

Is-Be -> geno Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:23 Permalink

Get it through your thick skull,

Just because Russia exists, does not imply any action is required from the USA.

As the ancient and venerable ancestral religions of Asatru and Vanatru say, "There are many ways of Being in the world, and this is natural and Good".

Tend to the mote in your own eye.

cheech_wizard -> geno Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:58 Permalink

So the Russians realized that US equipment is crap and can be handled by what they already have.

No real surprise there. U.S. military equipment is in many cases relying on electronic components from the 70's and 80's rather than upgrading their electronic systems.

new game -> cheech_wizard Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:16 Permalink

grift and graft has succeeded in making the military a pork barrel of overprice inferior stuffs.

quantity but not quality. sooooo many problems associated with uuuuuge budgets..

don't know where to go-just so many issues that could be solve by shrinkage.

half it and see what happens for strters...

shovelhead -> cheech_wizard Thu, 07/12/2018 - 17:40 Permalink

Russia won't waste money on an impractical design that's really not worth the enormous cost? Why, that's crazy.

Instead of spending millions to make a pen write in 0 G, they use a 2 cent pencil?

Barbarians.

Is-Be -> cheech_wizard Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:29 Permalink

US. military equipment is in many cases relying on electronic components from the 70's and 80's rather than upgrading their electronic systems.

That's a surprisingly pertinent observation.

So where did the $21 TRILLION dollars that Catherine Austin Fitts found missing Go, if not into weapons upgrades?

That sort of coin buys you a whole new civilization.

Incredulity is not an argument.

dietrolldietroll Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:49 Permalink

Crazy, cynical, moronic. Yeah.

GoHillary2016 Thu, 07/12/2018 - 16:50 Permalink

they are very similar to Trump fanatics, they will believe any crazy shit.

Is-Be -> GoHillary2016 Thu, 07/12/2018 - 18:30 Permalink

If you say so, it must be true, O great Oracle.

[Jul 12, 2018] Mueller again asks for delay in Flynn sentencing by Morgan Chalfant

Jun 29, 2018 | thehill.com

Special counsel Robert Mueller is again asking for a delay in the sentencing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to court documents filed Friday.

The special counsel and attorneys for Flynn are asking for two more months before scheduling his sentencing, requesting to file another status report by Aug. 24.

"Due to the status of the Special Counsel's investigation, the parties do not believe that this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time," states a joint status report filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday.

This is the third time that prosecutors have asked to delay sentencing for Flynn, who pleaded guilty in December to lying to FBI agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

... ... ...

[Jul 11, 2018] Pompeo's Breathtaking Arrogance by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do. ..."
"... I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know ..."
"... What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him. ..."
"... It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it. ..."
"... No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo gave an interview to Sky News Arabia this week in which he made some remarkable statements:

Well, Iran needs to get out of Syria. They have no business there. There's no reason for them to be there. There's been Iranian influence there for a long time. Iranian forces, Iranian militias must leave the country.

If Iran has no business in Syria, the U.S. certainly doesn't have any business keeping troops there. Leave aside the absurdity of the statement that the ally of a government has no business supporting that government in a war, and just consider the breathtaking hypocrisy of this statement coming from a U.S. official.

The U.S. is engaged in hostilities in at least a half dozen countries around the world and attacks other governments at will. Our government has been actively supporting the Saudi-led attack on Yemen for more than three years, and we have had U.S. force operating illegally in Syrian territory and airspace for almost four. It is the height of arrogance and folly to issue this ultimatum. The U.S. has no right or authority to make such a demand, and the administration should be focused instead on withdrawing our forces from wars that we have no business fighting or supporting.

b. July 11, 2018 at 1:40 pm

Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do.
Mark Thomason , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:34 pm
I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know.
Kent , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Larison,

What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him.

watching in wonder , says: July 11, 2018 at 3:11 pm
It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it.

No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion.

[Jul 11, 2018] National security means making sure the investments of the oligarchy are secured by the nation. Gen. Smedley Butler had it right 80 years ago.

Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Fran Macadam , June 27, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT

National security means making sure the investments of the oligarchy are secured by the nation. Gen. Smedley Butler had it right 80 years ago.

[Jul 11, 2018] War is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite of peace

Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Steve3455 , June 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the clergyman who defied the German Nazi regime and got executed for his resistance, once observed that "war is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite of peace." I might also add it is the opposite of freedom and civilization as well, because both require trust.

[Jul 11, 2018] Why Trump's Iran Isolation Plan May Backfire by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil? ..."
"... Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never. ..."
"... Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond. ..."
"... Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies. ..."
"... In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

President Trump is finding that his threats and heated rhetoric do not always have the effect he wishes. As his Administration warns countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November or risk punishment by the United States, a nervous international oil market is pushing prices ever higher, threatening the economic prosperity he claims credit for. President Trump's response has been to demand that OPEC boost its oil production by two million barrels per day to calm markets and bring prices down.

Perhaps no one told him that Iran was a founding member of OPEC?

When President Trump Tweeted last week that Saudi Arabia agreed to begin pumping additional oil to make up for the removal of Iran from the international markets, the Saudis very quickly corrected him, saying that while they could increase capacity if needed, no promise to do so had been made.

The truth is, if the rest of the world followed Trump's demands and returned to sanctions and boycotting Iranian oil, some 2.7 million barrels per day currently supplied by Iran would be very difficult to make up elsewhere. Venezuela, which has enormous reserves but is also suffering under, among other problems, crippling US sanctions, is shrinking out of the world oil market.

Iraq has not recovered its oil production capacity since its "liberation" by the US in 2003 and the al-Qaeda and ISIS insurgencies that followed it.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that "a complete shutdown of Iranian sales could push oil prices above $120 a barrel if Saudi Arabia can't keep up." Would that crash the US economy? Perhaps. Is Trump willing to risk it?

President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil?

At the end, China, Russia, and others are not only unlikely to follow Trump's demands that Iran again be isolated: they in fact stand to benefit from Trump's bellicosity toward Iran. One Chinese refiner has just announced that it would cancel orders of US crude and instead turn to Iran for supplies. How many others might follow and what might it mean?

Ironically, President Trump's "get tough" approach to Iran may end up benefitting Washington's named adversaries Russia and China – perhaps even Iran. The wisest approach is unfortunately the least likely at this point: back off from regime change, back off from war-footing, back off from sanctions. Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring this advice may be higher than he imagined.

Vidi , July 10, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT

Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring [the advice to back off from Iran] may be higher than he imagined.

Perhaps he's counting on not being President by then. Another case of IBGYBG (I'll be gone, you'll be gone), an attitude that seems to be infecting bankers, Wall Street, and the rest of the U.S. élite lately. A cataclysm is coming, and they can see it.

mark green , July 10, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT
Why is Zio-America treating Iran with such hostility?

Iran and Israel are locked in a vicious cold war. Their animosities date back to mythical antiquity. One alleged episode is even celebrated in the Jewish celebration of 'Purim'.

Take a look at the breathtaking insight that Gilad Atzmon has to offer about Purim:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/03/from-esther-to-aipac/

In any case, Iran and Israel's antipathies for one another shouldn't concern superpower America. Except that it does.

Like American television, Washington happens to be Israeli-held territory. Haven't you heard?

This is why Zio-Washington invariably sides with Israel in all of its disputes, even when 1) Israel is the aggressor, 2) even when Israel is slaughtering powerless civilians who are protesting their subjugation, and 3) even when US interests are not at stake or even in play. And this uniform deference from Washington is thoroughly bipartisan. It is 'business as usual'. It's basically unanimous. Both Parties. No dissent.

Many just call it 'US Mideast policy'. Ironclad. 'Unshakable'. But don't laugh or smirk. Doing so might be seen as 'anti-Semitic'.

Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never.

These rigid policies help explain how Crypto-Israelis in America – using Washington as their proxy – have successfully brought the US into Israel's cold war against Iran.

Zionist operatives have not only orchestrated the decades-long freeze of billions of dollars in Iranian assets that belong to the Iranian people, but they have launched a global (and crypto-Zionist) 'Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions' campaign against the relatively peaceful nation of Iran.

Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond.

Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies.

Politicians who dare question this phenomena – or who wander off the Zionist plantation in Washington – tend to disappear. Rapidly. Journalists, too.

In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD.

Due to Israeli influence here, Americans are not only actively supporting various Zionist war efforts, but they are also paying billions more for their gasoline since Zionists have managed to prohibit the purchase Iranian oil throughout the West. These economic 'choices' are what Americans unwittingly make – even though the 'average Joe' remains totally unaware of them.

Indeed, even though Iran wants to be a trading partner with America and bring its oil onto the world market, Zio-Washington says 'NO!' US consumers be damned. The Iranian people be damned.

This is not the first time that US economic interests have taken a back seat to Israel's. Please recall the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Zio-Washington's intervention on behalf of Israel during that conflict, the ensuing Arab oil embargo, and the disastrous recession that followed.

But Zio-America never turned it back on Israel, even though American citizens never had the opportunity to determine their allies or policies one way or another. US support of Israel is mandatory. It's been this way since LBJ.

Today, Israel is maneuvering Zio-Washington to do to Iran what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria; namely, spread destabilization and impose 'creative destruction' upon all nations that pose any long-term threat to the Zionist State.

[Jul 11, 2018] Angry Bear " Bombing for Votes Public opinion shifts during the Iraq war and implications for future conflicts by Jeff Soplop

Jul 09, 2018 | angrybearblog.com
Politics US/Global Economics by Jeff Soplop

Bombing for Votes: Public opinion shifts during the Iraq war and implications for future conflicts

Despite the recent summit in Singapore, which mostly made for good television and little substance, North Korea appears to be quickly ignoring any promises -- whether implicit, explicit, or imagined -- made to President Trump to dismantle its nuclear program. In Iran, Trump's decision to withdraw from the six-party nuclear deal and the re-imposition of sanctions has created a possibility that Iran will resume pursuing a nuclear weapon of its own. The common thread between Iran and North Korea, of course, is the continued march of nuclear proliferation and, with it, an elevated chance of the US initiating armed conflict as a means to slow or stop such proliferation.

In this post, I'm not going to speculate how probable armed conflict with either Iran or North Korea might be (although I might take a shot at it in a future post). Instead, I'm interested in what the public reaction to such a conflict would be and how it would affect support for Trump, especially in the run up to an election.

To estimate public reaction, it's useful to consider how the public mood shifted throughout the course of the Iraq war. Even 15 years after it started, the Iraq war continues to be divisive. As shown in the chart below from Pew Research , when the Iraq invasion was first launched in March, 2003 a large majority of the country supported it as the "right decision." By early 2005, however, that support eroded and has remained relatively stable since then.

Similar to the start of the Iraq war, other research has shown a public "rally around the flag" effect at the outset of military action. One study , for example, looked at 41 US foreign policy crises and found the average effect was a boost of 1.4 percentage points to the president's approval rating. But, when the military action was large enough to merit front-page coverage by the New York Times, that effect jumped by another 8 percentage points, representing a significant lift for any president.

Considering these examples, a president with a low approval rating might be tempted to initiate an armed conflict in the run-up to an election as a way to shore up public support, at least temporarily. Given Trump's lack of scruples about any action that might in some way benefit him, such a scenario is within the realm of possibility for the 2018 midterm elections or the 2020 presidential election.

Research on the influence of major events on presidential approval ratings, however, shows that the public reaction to armed conflict cannot be taken for granted. A research paper recently published in Presidential Studies Quarterly looked at how approval ratings fluctuated over the course of George W. Bush's presidency and analyzed the causes of those fluctuations. The authors reasoned that Bush's presidency was ideal for studying presidential support because it was so eventful -- the September 11 th terrorist attacks happened during his first year in office, then Bush initiated large-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Great Recession started toward the end of his presidency.

To examine factors that influenced Bush's public support, they modeled his approval rating based on environmental variables (unemployment, inflation, consumer confidence, battle deaths), major event variables (9/11 attacks, Iraq invasion, market crash), and ordinary event variables (positive and negative news coverage of international and domestic events). The environmental variables were weighted based on Gallup's monthly Most Important Problem poll , which allows the model to consider the importance of these variables' salience in the public mindset. (For those who are interested, they used a Newey-West estimator to build the model to account for heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation in the errors.)

After creating the model, they grouped the independent variables into three categories: economic, war, and terror. These categories allowed the authors to examine the impact of each on Bush's approval rating over the course of his presidency, shown in the chart below.

The results in the chart provide interesting insights that challenge some conventional wisdom. Economic status is often considered one of the most important factors in presidential approval but -- according to this study, at least -- for Bush, the economy was almost a non-factor until the very end of his presidency when the Great Recession started. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Bush's response to them, including bombing Afghanistan, provided an initially huge boost to his approval. But that jump faded almost entirely within a year. The beginning of the Iraq war, by contrast, provided only a very small, short-term boost to Bush's approval ratings, which quickly turned into a large negative that continued to weigh down his ratings for the remainder of his term. By examining the model variables, it's clear that troop casualty reports had a particularly significant negative impact within the war category.

Based on these results, the study's authors concluded that it is the salience of events that matters as much or more than the events themselves. When 9/11 happened, people wanted security and rewarded Bush for taking decisive action that made them feel safer. When the Iraq war started, the effects of war weariness kicked in fairly quickly and people wanted fewer causalities and peace. When the Great Recession began, people forgot about everything else and looked to their own economic prospects.

With those lessons in mind, initiating an armed conflict with Iran or North Korea would be a high-risk approach to boosting public support in the run-up to an election. Both countries have powerful militaries and any conflict could quickly lead to high casualty numbers. While no military action would be risk free, an engineered conflict with a target that could be attacked with minimal threat to US troops, such as Syria or Yemen, could induce a short-term rallying effect. As elections approach later this year and in 2020, keep your eyes on those and other "soft" targets to see if the president tries to bomb his way to his desired outcome.

  1. Joel , July 9, 2018 6:59 am

    I'm expecting some sort of Reichstag fire event.

Daniel Becker , July 9, 2018 4:58 pm

All true, though I speculate a draft would change things. Which is why we have an "all volunteer" military. Those that like the military and war learned well. Unfortunately, it makes for a defense force that no longer reflects the population which I do not think is good.

[Jul 11, 2018] Senator McConnell always conjures the image and mannerisms of Colonel Sanders (ala Kentucky Fried Chicken)

Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Incitatus , June 30, 2018 at 8:17 pm GMT

@Sam Shama

Sam,

'Senator McConnell' always conjures the image and mannerisms of Colonel Sanders (ala Kentucky Fried Chicken). White planter suit, broad-brimmed hat, weak-chin goatee and unconvincing sales pitch.

Then again, beardless Mitch looks more like Toby Turtle, and what he delivers is rarely worth a bucket of greasy chicken.

[Jul 11, 2018] Pompeo's Breathtaking Arrogance by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do. ..."
"... I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know ..."
"... What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him. ..."
"... It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it. ..."
"... No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo gave an interview to Sky News Arabia this week in which he made some remarkable statements:

Well, Iran needs to get out of Syria. They have no business there. There's no reason for them to be there. There's been Iranian influence there for a long time. Iranian forces, Iranian militias must leave the country.

If Iran has no business in Syria, the U.S. certainly doesn't have any business keeping troops there. Leave aside the absurdity of the statement that the ally of a government has no business supporting that government in a war, and just consider the breathtaking hypocrisy of this statement coming from a U.S. official.

The U.S. is engaged in hostilities in at least a half dozen countries around the world and attacks other governments at will. Our government has been actively supporting the Saudi-led attack on Yemen for more than three years, and we have had U.S. force operating illegally in Syrian territory and airspace for almost four. It is the height of arrogance and folly to issue this ultimatum. The U.S. has no right or authority to make such a demand, and the administration should be focused instead on withdrawing our forces from wars that we have no business fighting or supporting.

b. July 11, 2018 at 1:40 pm

Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do.
Mark Thomason , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:34 pm
I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know.
Kent , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Larison,

What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him.

watching in wonder , says: July 11, 2018 at 3:11 pm
It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it.

No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion.

[Jul 11, 2018] National security means making sure the investments of the oligarchy are secured by the nation. Gen. Smedley Butler had it right 80 years ago.

Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Fran Macadam , June 27, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT

National security means making sure the investments of the oligarchy are secured by the nation. Gen. Smedley Butler had it right 80 years ago.

[Jul 11, 2018] War is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite of peace

Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Steve3455 , June 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the clergyman who defied the German Nazi regime and got executed for his resistance, once observed that "war is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite of peace." I might also add it is the opposite of freedom and civilization as well, because both require trust.

[Jul 11, 2018] Why Trump's Iran Isolation Plan May Backfire by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil? ..."
"... Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never. ..."
"... Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond. ..."
"... Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies. ..."
"... In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

President Trump is finding that his threats and heated rhetoric do not always have the effect he wishes. As his Administration warns countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November or risk punishment by the United States, a nervous international oil market is pushing prices ever higher, threatening the economic prosperity he claims credit for. President Trump's response has been to demand that OPEC boost its oil production by two million barrels per day to calm markets and bring prices down.

Perhaps no one told him that Iran was a founding member of OPEC?

When President Trump Tweeted last week that Saudi Arabia agreed to begin pumping additional oil to make up for the removal of Iran from the international markets, the Saudis very quickly corrected him, saying that while they could increase capacity if needed, no promise to do so had been made.

The truth is, if the rest of the world followed Trump's demands and returned to sanctions and boycotting Iranian oil, some 2.7 million barrels per day currently supplied by Iran would be very difficult to make up elsewhere. Venezuela, which has enormous reserves but is also suffering under, among other problems, crippling US sanctions, is shrinking out of the world oil market.

Iraq has not recovered its oil production capacity since its "liberation" by the US in 2003 and the al-Qaeda and ISIS insurgencies that followed it.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that "a complete shutdown of Iranian sales could push oil prices above $120 a barrel if Saudi Arabia can't keep up." Would that crash the US economy? Perhaps. Is Trump willing to risk it?

President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil?

At the end, China, Russia, and others are not only unlikely to follow Trump's demands that Iran again be isolated: they in fact stand to benefit from Trump's bellicosity toward Iran. One Chinese refiner has just announced that it would cancel orders of US crude and instead turn to Iran for supplies. How many others might follow and what might it mean?

Ironically, President Trump's "get tough" approach to Iran may end up benefitting Washington's named adversaries Russia and China – perhaps even Iran. The wisest approach is unfortunately the least likely at this point: back off from regime change, back off from war-footing, back off from sanctions. Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring this advice may be higher than he imagined.

Vidi , July 10, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT

Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring [the advice to back off from Iran] may be higher than he imagined.

Perhaps he's counting on not being President by then. Another case of IBGYBG (I'll be gone, you'll be gone), an attitude that seems to be infecting bankers, Wall Street, and the rest of the U.S. élite lately. A cataclysm is coming, and they can see it.

mark green , July 10, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT
Why is Zio-America treating Iran with such hostility?

Iran and Israel are locked in a vicious cold war. Their animosities date back to mythical antiquity. One alleged episode is even celebrated in the Jewish celebration of 'Purim'.

Take a look at the breathtaking insight that Gilad Atzmon has to offer about Purim:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/03/from-esther-to-aipac/

In any case, Iran and Israel's antipathies for one another shouldn't concern superpower America. Except that it does.

Like American television, Washington happens to be Israeli-held territory. Haven't you heard?

This is why Zio-Washington invariably sides with Israel in all of its disputes, even when 1) Israel is the aggressor, 2) even when Israel is slaughtering powerless civilians who are protesting their subjugation, and 3) even when US interests are not at stake or even in play. And this uniform deference from Washington is thoroughly bipartisan. It is 'business as usual'. It's basically unanimous. Both Parties. No dissent.

Many just call it 'US Mideast policy'. Ironclad. 'Unshakable'. But don't laugh or smirk. Doing so might be seen as 'anti-Semitic'.

Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never.

These rigid policies help explain how Crypto-Israelis in America – using Washington as their proxy – have successfully brought the US into Israel's cold war against Iran.

Zionist operatives have not only orchestrated the decades-long freeze of billions of dollars in Iranian assets that belong to the Iranian people, but they have launched a global (and crypto-Zionist) 'Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions' campaign against the relatively peaceful nation of Iran.

Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond.

Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies.

Politicians who dare question this phenomena – or who wander off the Zionist plantation in Washington – tend to disappear. Rapidly. Journalists, too.

In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD.

Due to Israeli influence here, Americans are not only actively supporting various Zionist war efforts, but they are also paying billions more for their gasoline since Zionists have managed to prohibit the purchase Iranian oil throughout the West. These economic 'choices' are what Americans unwittingly make – even though the 'average Joe' remains totally unaware of them.

Indeed, even though Iran wants to be a trading partner with America and bring its oil onto the world market, Zio-Washington says 'NO!' US consumers be damned. The Iranian people be damned.

This is not the first time that US economic interests have taken a back seat to Israel's. Please recall the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Zio-Washington's intervention on behalf of Israel during that conflict, the ensuing Arab oil embargo, and the disastrous recession that followed.

But Zio-America never turned it back on Israel, even though American citizens never had the opportunity to determine their allies or policies one way or another. US support of Israel is mandatory. It's been this way since LBJ.

Today, Israel is maneuvering Zio-Washington to do to Iran what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria; namely, spread destabilization and impose 'creative destruction' upon all nations that pose any long-term threat to the Zionist State.

[Jul 11, 2018] Angry Bear " Bombing for Votes Public opinion shifts during the Iraq war and implications for future conflicts by Jeff Soplop

Jul 09, 2018 | angrybearblog.com
Politics US/Global Economics by Jeff Soplop

Bombing for Votes: Public opinion shifts during the Iraq war and implications for future conflicts

Despite the recent summit in Singapore, which mostly made for good television and little substance, North Korea appears to be quickly ignoring any promises -- whether implicit, explicit, or imagined -- made to President Trump to dismantle its nuclear program. In Iran, Trump's decision to withdraw from the six-party nuclear deal and the re-imposition of sanctions has created a possibility that Iran will resume pursuing a nuclear weapon of its own. The common thread between Iran and North Korea, of course, is the continued march of nuclear proliferation and, with it, an elevated chance of the US initiating armed conflict as a means to slow or stop such proliferation.

In this post, I'm not going to speculate how probable armed conflict with either Iran or North Korea might be (although I might take a shot at it in a future post). Instead, I'm interested in what the public reaction to such a conflict would be and how it would affect support for Trump, especially in the run up to an election.

To estimate public reaction, it's useful to consider how the public mood shifted throughout the course of the Iraq war. Even 15 years after it started, the Iraq war continues to be divisive. As shown in the chart below from Pew Research , when the Iraq invasion was first launched in March, 2003 a large majority of the country supported it as the "right decision." By early 2005, however, that support eroded and has remained relatively stable since then.

Similar to the start of the Iraq war, other research has shown a public "rally around the flag" effect at the outset of military action. One study , for example, looked at 41 US foreign policy crises and found the average effect was a boost of 1.4 percentage points to the president's approval rating. But, when the military action was large enough to merit front-page coverage by the New York Times, that effect jumped by another 8 percentage points, representing a significant lift for any president.

Considering these examples, a president with a low approval rating might be tempted to initiate an armed conflict in the run-up to an election as a way to shore up public support, at least temporarily. Given Trump's lack of scruples about any action that might in some way benefit him, such a scenario is within the realm of possibility for the 2018 midterm elections or the 2020 presidential election.

Research on the influence of major events on presidential approval ratings, however, shows that the public reaction to armed conflict cannot be taken for granted. A research paper recently published in Presidential Studies Quarterly looked at how approval ratings fluctuated over the course of George W. Bush's presidency and analyzed the causes of those fluctuations. The authors reasoned that Bush's presidency was ideal for studying presidential support because it was so eventful -- the September 11 th terrorist attacks happened during his first year in office, then Bush initiated large-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Great Recession started toward the end of his presidency.

To examine factors that influenced Bush's public support, they modeled his approval rating based on environmental variables (unemployment, inflation, consumer confidence, battle deaths), major event variables (9/11 attacks, Iraq invasion, market crash), and ordinary event variables (positive and negative news coverage of international and domestic events). The environmental variables were weighted based on Gallup's monthly Most Important Problem poll , which allows the model to consider the importance of these variables' salience in the public mindset. (For those who are interested, they used a Newey-West estimator to build the model to account for heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation in the errors.)

After creating the model, they grouped the independent variables into three categories: economic, war, and terror. These categories allowed the authors to examine the impact of each on Bush's approval rating over the course of his presidency, shown in the chart below.

The results in the chart provide interesting insights that challenge some conventional wisdom. Economic status is often considered one of the most important factors in presidential approval but -- according to this study, at least -- for Bush, the economy was almost a non-factor until the very end of his presidency when the Great Recession started. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Bush's response to them, including bombing Afghanistan, provided an initially huge boost to his approval. But that jump faded almost entirely within a year. The beginning of the Iraq war, by contrast, provided only a very small, short-term boost to Bush's approval ratings, which quickly turned into a large negative that continued to weigh down his ratings for the remainder of his term. By examining the model variables, it's clear that troop casualty reports had a particularly significant negative impact within the war category.

Based on these results, the study's authors concluded that it is the salience of events that matters as much or more than the events themselves. When 9/11 happened, people wanted security and rewarded Bush for taking decisive action that made them feel safer. When the Iraq war started, the effects of war weariness kicked in fairly quickly and people wanted fewer causalities and peace. When the Great Recession began, people forgot about everything else and looked to their own economic prospects.

With those lessons in mind, initiating an armed conflict with Iran or North Korea would be a high-risk approach to boosting public support in the run-up to an election. Both countries have powerful militaries and any conflict could quickly lead to high casualty numbers. While no military action would be risk free, an engineered conflict with a target that could be attacked with minimal threat to US troops, such as Syria or Yemen, could induce a short-term rallying effect. As elections approach later this year and in 2020, keep your eyes on those and other "soft" targets to see if the president tries to bomb his way to his desired outcome.

  1. Joel , July 9, 2018 6:59 am

    I'm expecting some sort of Reichstag fire event.

Daniel Becker , July 9, 2018 4:58 pm

All true, though I speculate a draft would change things. Which is why we have an "all volunteer" military. Those that like the military and war learned well. Unfortunately, it makes for a defense force that no longer reflects the population which I do not think is good.

[Jul 11, 2018] Trump Slams NATO Pay 2 percent Of GDP IMMEDIATELY Or Even 4 percent

NATO is tool of the US empire. "Fuck EU" is a famous, expressed by Nuland ( who was US rep in NATO) slogan. So raising spending is the way to improve the US btrade balance with EU.
Jan 11, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

President Trump is, rightly, stirring the pot in Europe today, reportedly demanding that NATO leaders increase their defense spending targets from 2 to 4% , according to the Bulgarian president.

"President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target – 4%," Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to Reuters, citing BNR public radio.

"NATO is not a bourse a which one can buy security. But yes, on the other hand, President Trump is right, as each country should build its effective capabilities, and the unwillingness with which Bulgaria spends money on defense is obvious."

As a reminder, US only spends 3.57% of GDP (which is the most), and as one French official noted, "it wasn't a demand, rather just a mention.".

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders confirmed that:

"During the president's remarks today at the NATO summit, he suggested that countries not only meet their commitment of 2 per cent of their GDP on defence spending, but that they increase it to 4 per cent," Sanders said after the closed-door meeting of NATO leaders.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was reluctant to endorse such a move.

"I will focus on what we have agreed and we have agreed that we committed to the pledge increasing defense spending to 2 percent," he told reporters. "And let's start with that. We have a way to go."

"We do have disagreements, but most importantly, we have decisions that are pushing this alliance forward and making us stronger," Stoltenberg said.

"At the end of the day, we all agree that North America and Europe are safer together."

And then President Trump doubled-down on his earlier shot at Germany:

"Germany, as far as I'm concerned, is captive to Russia because it's getting so much of its energy from Russia," Trump told NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in a fiery on-camera exchange that was among the harshest in the history of the post-World War II alliance.

"We have to talk about the billions and billions of dollars that's being paid to the country we're supposed to be protecting you against," Trump said, referring to European purchases of Russian natural gas.

blasting "What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy?"

Trump then returned to the broader NATO membership, asking "Why are their only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe's protection, then loses billions on Trade."

Trump ended with ALL CAPS: " Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025. " As a reminder, NATO members agreed in 2014 to spend at least 2 percent of their respective GDP on defense by 2024. The goals are also for each country's own defense budget, not payments into the alliance.

One glance at the current spending levels and it is clear that Trump is right.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Still, it all seems smiles in Brussels for now...

Jayda1850 Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:10 Permalink

Trump has the MIC's dick so far up his ass that it is coming out of his mouth.

HankPaulson -> Jayda1850 Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:11 Permalink

Wait - isn't the master supposed to pay the servants?!

skbull44 -> IridiumRebel Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

'Defense' spending....Making the MIC great again.

https://olduvai.ca

Looney -> skbull44 Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:16 Permalink

If Trump wants to sell more military hardware to the European deadbeats, he should stop nagging them to death and, instead, promptly pull out of NATO.

Their militaries are almost non-existent and when they lose the Article V Umbrella, they will come crawling, lining up around the block, and begging us to sell our hardware to them.

Germany, France, and the UK do have a few shitty planes, tanks, and ships, but it would take 15-20 years to mass-produce them.

We've been resting on our laurels since the fall of the Berlin Wall and our hardware ain't much better than theirs – we just happen to have a lot of it.

So, Donald, pull the fuck out – show them (and us) that you can actually WALK AWAY. Pretty please with a dingleberry on top? ;-)

Looney

Rapunzal -> silverer Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:29 Permalink

All wars are bankers wars. The Cold War was fake and only created by both sides to control their population and tax them. Listen to US colonel who delivered all US military patents and the nuclear bomb to Stalin. Those decisions are made by a few, very powerful.

macholatte -> Drater Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:29 Permalink

Fuck the EU!

- Victoria Nuland-Kagan

luckylongshot -> IronSights on'um Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:24 Permalink

Seems to be a development of his idea that Mexico should pay for the wall to keep illegal immigrants out of the US. This version is that the EU should pay for the costs of the US bullying and interfering in other countries affairs even though it only benefits Israel.

Case in point the middle east where thanks to Israeli US meddling the EU has been saddled with dealing with the refugees. Now Trump wants the EU to pick up the costs of the US military meddling as well. Classis symptoms of a screw loose.

Drater -> IridiumRebel Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:26 Permalink

If you like your NATO you can keep your NATO...

farflungstar -> Muroluvmi Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:16 Permalink

Yep fuck NATO let EU pay for their own defense against a ginned up imaginary enemy.

TheRideNeverEnds -> farflungstar Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:25 Permalink

What is NATO supposed to be defending against anyway? The USSR fell a generation ago and the current threat is third world Muslims flooding into the west but they welcome that.

I could see maybe if NATO was sinking ships in the med and gunning down packs of invaders at the borders to Europe they would have a place but they are doing exactly the opposite of this.

Winston Churchill -> Md4 Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:30 Permalink

Only the Balts and Poland want to be US occupied territory and they don't want pay for the occupation either if

it means having to buy overpriced MIC junk.

Trump is trying to dissolve NATO, but just how will that pass the Senate ?

I wonder what 'his' generals think about it.

Rothbardian in -> Petrodollar Sy Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:29 Permalink

Is alpha code for narcissistic idiot?

JuliaS -> GunnyG Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:45 Permalink

The problem is that many countries in Eastern Europe are useless economically. Without being played like pawns by militant imperialists they cannot survive. So they accepts bribes from the West and from the East, pretending they haven't made up their mind as to which side they want to be on. And the truth is - they're on the side of money.

They don't care if there are radar stations or missile silos installed on their soil. They don't care even about becoming a potential target in case a war breaks out. All they want is to extort maximum buck out of rivaling factions. Some NATO members can afford to disband the organizations. For smaller players it's a cash cow and a source of employment. Without NATO they would be non-competitive economically.

optimator -> Umh Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:16 Permalink

Perhaps you know? Does the Germany still pay for the occupation forces and does that count as part of their military budget?

Umh -> optimator Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:45 Permalink

You got my curiousity going... US bases in Germany are...
- leased out from Germany to US rent-free
- any improvements/extensions during US tenure paid by US
- PX sales exempt from German VAT
- when a base or other facility is closed, the property is returned to Germany as is.

arby63 -> optimator Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:47 Permalink

What's not to know? Ever served in any military? It's all self evident in Europe for sure. The U.S. has simply been biding time. Our over-priced bases are a waste of time. The land war preparations of NATO are extinct for now.

Things change over time but technology has changed warfare. This world doesn't need another war. Sure, it's easy to gang up on the U.S. for ventures into the Middle East but any nation would do the same.

When is the last time ZH ran an article about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Conveniently forgotten? It wasn't that long ago.

Md4 -> Umh Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:27 Permalink

The U.S. isn't in Europe solely because of NATO...

optimator Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:13 Permalink

How many of those countries will now consider spending more, but for their indigenous aircraft. Oh, and cancelling, finally, thej boondoggle of the F-35. Saab Grippen costs less and is made for European skies.

optimator -> economessed Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:18 Permalink

"Guns will make us powerful, butter will only make us fat".

H. W. Goring

CoCosAB Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:15 Permalink

mutTrump just wants to boost the SALES of weapons from american manufacturers.

FUCK NATO! Just a WASTE of FIAT CURRENCY and other RESOURCES!

medium giraffe Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:22 Permalink

As NATO is a tool of the American Empire, I'm somewhat bemused to see American opinion manipulated toward seeing it as 'unfair'. Please, by all means, disband the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation, and perhaps that other tool of American Imperialism - the UN- too.

Zorba's idea -> medium giraffe Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:36 Permalink

Which America are you referring to? Seems like NATO is more aligned with the .01%r's/CIA/CFR/NWO etc. clans. I for one would welcome the NATO divorce, except like the rest of the 99.9%, I ain't in the Empire club.

medium giraffe -> Zorba's idea Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:47 Permalink

Well, whoever runs the Evil Empire. Darth Soros, probably. Crying about having to pay for Europeans is at odds with the realisation that keeping this shitshow alive past the cold war was the Empire's fucking idea in the first place. If you don't think it's the Empire's party, why are STANAG standards lead by the US?

arby63 Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:27 Permalink

The United States IS NATO. He has it all right. The economics of NATO are self-evident to anyone possessing the skills of 1st grade mathematics.

Times have changed. The charm of a post WWII world is a distant memory. It is without argument that the United States has been taken for granted since probably 1960. Life goes on and we enter the turbulent 70's. The U.S. is still carrying the NATO weight for another 40 years.

NATO is probably somewhat an irrelevant throwback to another time. Some alliances are natural so they won't necessarily "go away" with reductions of U.S. contributions.

The real problem with NATO is the uniquely "European" problem with filling everything with over-paid bureaucrats. Therein lies the rub.

Sandmann -> arby63 Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:29 Permalink

NATO is how the US keeps its Empire. Boston Tea Party was because Colonists did not pay for defence but made money building warships for British Empire.......they wanted a free ride

ToSoft4Truth Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:23 Permalink

Rearrange a few names:

Goodfellas: Fuck You, Pay Me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48

Dead Indiana Sky Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:50 Permalink

Where is the mention of the US reducing spending in equal proportion to the other countries increases? LULZ

therover Wed, 07/11/2018 - 13:50 Permalink

Why is Trump stating nations should pay more ?

Why doesn't the US just pay less ?

Pay the average percentage...nothing more.

If Trump is suggesting each nation pay 4% of GDP, and the US currently pays 3.6%, then the US is going to pay MORE ?

WTF ?

[Jul 11, 2018] Pompeo's Breathtaking Arrogance by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do. ..."
"... I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know ..."
"... What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him. ..."
"... It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it. ..."
"... No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo gave an interview to Sky News Arabia this week in which he made some remarkable statements:

Well, Iran needs to get out of Syria. They have no business there. There's no reason for them to be there. There's been Iranian influence there for a long time. Iranian forces, Iranian militias must leave the country.

If Iran has no business in Syria, the U.S. certainly doesn't have any business keeping troops there. Leave aside the absurdity of the statement that the ally of a government has no business supporting that government in a war, and just consider the breathtaking hypocrisy of this statement coming from a U.S. official.

The U.S. is engaged in hostilities in at least a half dozen countries around the world and attacks other governments at will. Our government has been actively supporting the Saudi-led attack on Yemen for more than three years, and we have had U.S. force operating illegally in Syrian territory and airspace for almost four. It is the height of arrogance and folly to issue this ultimatum. The U.S. has no right or authority to make such a demand, and the administration should be focused instead on withdrawing our forces from wars that we have no business fighting or supporting.

b. July 11, 2018 at 1:40 pm

Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do.
Mark Thomason , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:34 pm
I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know.
Kent , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Larison,

What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him.

watching in wonder , says: July 11, 2018 at 3:11 pm
It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it.

No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion.

[Jul 10, 2018] A Neoconservative Plan for Punishing Iran, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... It is indeed disturbing that the abandonment of the rule of law by the Trump Administration and its allies in the media has meant that Washington is resorting more and more to sanctions as an extreme form of punishment in order to enforce its geopolitical demands. ..."
"... From neocons' perspective, Iran is guilty twice. First, just like much bigger and stronger Russia and China, it refuses to toe the line of Washington Politburo. Second, unlike Saudi Arabia, it refuses to toe the Israeli line, as well. However, neocons will be frustrated for two reasons: 1. Russia and China won't sell out Iran; 2. Neither Israel, nor even the US can succeed in war of aggression against it. So, neocons have two options: either keep gnashing their teeth impotently, or spur the US or Israel on to suicide. They are afraid of both options. Hence the hysterics. ..."
"... An intriguing development in the recent popular unrest in Iran has been the appearance of demonstrators shouting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi. It is not clear to me to whom these referred, whether the cy-devant Crown Prince (son of the late shah) or his grandfather, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty. At any rate there seems to be the revival of some monarchist sentiment, perhaps reflecting a sense that however authoritarian he may have been, the late shah was less oppressive than the current theocracy. ..."
"... I don't believe Russian control clique harbors any delusions on the future prospects of Russia if it continues to yield and withdraw. Making a geopolitical stand in Ukraine, Syria and a bit under-the-counter, in Serbia, points towards it. There is a large difference between letting Iran carry Syria and call the shots there, and allowing Iran to be annihilated by Russia's eternal enemies. ..."
"... Trump did promise to end PCPOA, which he has done, but he also promised to put an end to useless wars in the Middle East, which he has not done. He is now listening to neocon advisers, to include Giuliani, Haley and Bolton, who are telling him what needs to be done to bring about regime change in Iran. ..."
"... There are endless examples in history of military allies who turned up to help, never left and ended up as the colonial power. ..."
"... Watch Lavrov's speech from last week, in which he points out that Iran was invited by the legitimate, recognized government of Syria. Please share a citation showing a Syrian official saying that they want Iran to leave or have requested Iran to leave. Hezbollah and Iran will help Syria recover every inch of Syrian territory, including the Golan Heights. The imbalance in power is disappearing as Syria, Hezbollah and Iran increase the numbers, accuracy and range of their missile arsenals. This, combined with the improved AD of the Syrians, due mostly to Russian cooperation, spells the sweet ending of the Israeli impunity. Israeli attack jets will continue to fall from the sky, and the response to attacks on Syria will be more missile attacks on military targets in the Golan Heights. ..."
"... the intention is ultimately to destroy Iran and replace it with a compliant puppet like they have in most of Europe and the USA. ..."
"... No, Israel did it because they don't want the Iranians there for their own reasons. They are lucky that the Syrians and Russians also don't want them to remain. There is a temporary confluence of interest. I assume the Iranians have gotten the message. ..."
"... The saddest part of all this is that Trump is working so hard to please Israel by hurting the ancient enemy of the Jews, the Persians, and in return gets called a Nazi by the Jewish, which is to say mainstream, media who work tirelessly to undermine him and his government. So if he attacks Iran, he's a Nazi. If he doesn't attack Iran, he's also a Nazi. If he's going to be a Nazi anyway, why not just save all that American blood and money and leave Iran alone? ..."
"... The advantage in looking at US – Iran history is you will then understand that all of it has been nothing but the brain farts of the ever changing interest of ever changing ideologues in ever changing administrations. If stupidity carried a death sentence the US would be six feet under. ..."
Jul 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Oddly, the White House seems unaware of the fact that Iran is neither Libya nor Iraq. It has a strong and historic national identity that means that it does and will resist being bullied by outside powers, including the "leader of the free world" United States. The neocon and pro-Israel script that has evidently taken control of Trump pushes all the wrong buttons as it basically employs an increasing number and severity of sanctions to seek to wreck the economy and create discord in Iran that will eventually bring people out into the streets in large numbers. That means in practice using not only sanctions that selectively targeting "bad guys" like the Revolutionary Guards but also benign institutions that exist to maintain social stability inside the country.

Reports from inside Iran suggest that the renewed and additional sanctions are already hurting the Iranian people while at the same time having little impact on the government commitment to remain in Syria, which is the principal bone of contention at the moment vis-à-vis the joint U.S./Israeli/Saudi grossly exaggerated and self-serving assessment of what Iran may or may not be doing to destabilize the Middle East.

Two organizations which have recently come under sustained attack by the neocons and their allies are the "Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order" (EIKO) and its associated Barakat Foundation. The EIKO's principal mission is to help poor families in Iran and to perform other charitable works, but it has been assailed as a major economic resource controlled by the Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's office, which misrepresents how the foundation is organized and functions.

Leading the charge against EIKO, inevitably, has been renowned neocon Canadian import and Iranophobe Mark Dubowitz , Chief Executive of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), who has described how the Iranian leadership controls a vast business empire which must be targeted with U.S. sanctions to punish the government and strip it of the resources available to make mischief.

This campaign, spearheaded by Dubowitz and his associate Saeed Ghasseminejad, has been going on since Trump was elected, with the folks at FDD confident they had a friend in the White House.

Other outlets in the pro-neocon-inclined and friendly to Israel media have also picked up on the theme that Iran must be the target of what amounts to economic warfare. The National Interest recently ran an article advocating the imposition of oil sanctions on Iran in general while also targeting EIKO in particular in order to "change Iran's behavior," which is presumed by the authors to be very bad though without any real explanation of why that is so.

And the U.S. Congress is also in on the act. As is nearly always the case, the U.S. House of Representative's Oversight and Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on National Security sought expert testimony on how to punish Iran but only looked for speakers who were inclined to take a hard line. They received that kind of enlightenment from the FDD's own Richard Goldberg, who is hardly a disinterested observer on the subject.

Goldberg begins by making his case for bipartisan ire directed against Tehran, gushing about how "[he] had the privilege to work with many talented people – Democrats and Republicans – who shared a passion for keeping America and our allies safe from the long list of threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Together, we put forward numerous bipartisan bills to increase the pressure on Iran. It is my sincere hope that we can find a way to resuscitate the bipartisan spirit that once infused this important national security issue."

Goldberg, who is a bit vague on exactly what kind of "long list of threats" Iran represents, was senior foreign policy adviser to Israel-firster hawk former Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. He celebrates in his FDD bio how "[he] was instrumental in the deployment of a U.S. missile defense radar to the Negev Desert – the first-ever full-time deployment of U.S. forces in Israel. In the Senate, Rich emerged as a leading architect of the toughest sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was the lead Republican negotiator for three rounds of sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran, the SWIFT financial messaging service and entire sectors of the Iranian economy."

There has been some pushback against the war-by-sanctions approach currently being advanced by the Trump Administration. Robert Fontina of Counterpunch has rejected the depiction of EIKO as anything but a charitable foundation. The truth is that EIKO engages in major social projects, including rural poverty alleviation, empowering women, home and school building, and provision of healthcare. American sanctions against it and similar entities hit ordinary Iranians' lives by producing food insecurity while also restricting the supplies of needed medications. Ahmad Noroozi of the Barakat Foundation claims that numerous Iranians have already been affected by U.S.-initiated sanctions directed against his country, restricting access to cancer treatments and other pharmaceuticals. And it is all aimed at fomenting social unrest and ultimately regime change.

Iranian writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich , no friend of the Iranian government, has declared that American sanctions directed against the Iranian economy and people are little more than "sanctioned terrorism." Her assessment is undeniably correct.

It is indeed disturbing that the abandonment of the rule of law by the Trump Administration and its allies in the media has meant that Washington is resorting more and more to sanctions as an extreme form of punishment in order to enforce its geopolitical demands. Countries that oppose Washington's policies are now routinely subjected to financial and trade penalties. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have recently been joined by Russia and Syria as targets of the U.S. Treasury Department. Even America's European allies and friends are being threatened if they seek to buy Iranian oil or cooperate with Russian energy initiatives.

The sad fact is that the pretense of U.S. global leadership now consists of a basket of new "rules" that are both arbitrary and basically illegal supported by pretexts that are essentially fabricated. Consider the frequent fallacious designation of Iran as "the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism" and the repeated false assertions from U.S. and Israeli government sources that Tehran is secretly building a nuclear bomb. Trump has become effectively the mouthpiece of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, with the latter calling the shots. Shortly after Trump had announced American withdrawal from JCPOA, Israel mounted a series of deadly air strikes against Syria, specifically targeting Iranian military personnel present by invitation in the country to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. It was an incident that could have rapidly escalated into a broader war, which was clearly the Israeli intention.

There are deadly consequences to following the Israeli and Saudi lead into a possible major war with Iran. If sanctions produce desperation inside Iran, an apparent breakdown in order could easily invite a hypocritical U.S. and Israeli "humanitarian" intervention, possibly escalating into an international conflict, something that the White House appears to not understand. As is often the case, the Trump Administration has not developed sufficient maturity to appreciate that if one pushes hard against a certain country or group of countries there will be an equally strong reaction, and the results might not be pretty. Punishing the Iranian people without any real understanding of what might emerge in pursuit of nebulous political objectives just might not be a good idea.

Jake , July 10, 2018 at 4:17 am GMT

The Saudis don't care what comes next in Iran, as long as Shia Islam is battered into submission. The Israelis don't care as long as what comes next is subservient to Israel. The US wants only that Iran bows to the WASP Empire, the Anglo-Zionist Empire.

All 3 would be happy with Satan Jr ruling Iran with the brutality of Stalin times Pol Pot and the sexual morality of the North American Man Boy Love Association, as long as Satan Jr is anti-Shia and pro-Saudi, pro-Israeli, and pro-WASP.

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
From neocons' perspective, Iran is guilty twice. First, just like much bigger and stronger Russia and China, it refuses to toe the line of Washington Politburo. Second, unlike Saudi Arabia, it refuses to toe the Israeli line, as well. However, neocons will be frustrated for two reasons: 1. Russia and China won't sell out Iran; 2. Neither Israel, nor even the US can succeed in war of aggression against it. So, neocons have two options: either keep gnashing their teeth impotently, or spur the US or Israel on to suicide. They are afraid of both options. Hence the hysterics.
Talha , July 10, 2018 at 5:13 am GMT
@Jake

Sounds about right. What a crazy alliance.

Peace.

Peter Tazumal , Website July 10, 2018 at 5:15 am GMT
First will come the false flag attacks Iranian govt gassing its own people, the pictures of dying children, old people, then the proxies will follow mass demonstrations in Iran, strikes, hunger, carbombs, and massacres,,,,Human Rights Watch, Amnesty international, and the European parliament will push for Nato, and the UN to respond, France will be the first out demanding in the UN Security Council swift actions against Iran to prevent a new Holocauts, Nicky Haley (US-UN) will support the measure fully. NO need for verification the AP, CNN, CBS, BBC already reporting fake stories as facts. The key for Iran will be to rally its population not to enter into a Iran vrs. its own people narrative. Iranian people must hold it together with mass public support of its govt an MILITARY. Israel will stay in the shadows intensely working undercover from Syria, Irak, Turkey, even launching air attacks on Iran while denying any involment absolutely etc. If Iran is attacked they must build alliances with Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, and activate Irans proxies abroad. Will Russia side with Iran? what about the Chinese? both actively trading with Israel to overcome ironically USA sanctions trigger by the AIPAC. Both China, Russia are the wild cards maybe? The bloodbath will start, tye USA will deploy its troops already in Jordan, Syria, the name, the word Israel will disappeared from any news cast, then the NBC, Dsicovery Channel, CNN, National Geography will run marathon specials bout evil Iran, the new Nazis, and the news about the coming Holocaust the new prophecies of Nostradamus peredicting that Israel must not be abandoned..etc. The outcome of the WWIII will decide the future of the MEast, with/out Palestine vrs. Greater Israel, will Israel become the energy, HUB for Europe and hence enslave the European economies??? will the Saudis become a proxy state for Israel Can the USA afford another costly long protracted war in the Globe??will americans WAKE up, will the military be overexpanded, .A new global REalignmnet of the a new global order what will it look like ?? WHO wins/loses???
FKA Max , Website July 10, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT
@Jake

Pro-Vatican not pro-WASP it's an anti-WASP alliance.

Erik Prince and the Case for Active, Documented Collusion Against Iran

The Intercept
Published on Jun 2, 2018
Jeremy Scahill breaks down the Trump Tower meeting Blackwater founder Erik Prince set up with a representative of the Saudi and Emirati royals and an Israeli who runs propaganda and media manipulation operations.

There is one major common link that runs through the agenda of all the participants in this Trump Tower meeting, and it is one which has gotten very little attention. And that is their shared hatred of Iran and their desire for regime change.

We shouldn't force everything into the box of Russia, Russia, Russia, especially when the evidence is so overwhelming that there are also motives relating to Iran that may explain part of the agenda that these nations and Erik Prince were pushing when they embarked on a campaign to secretly support Donald Trump's election.

Very important information to be aware of in this context:

Jorjani's connection in/with the White House was probably the (Catholic) Bannon-Gorka-Flynn nexus, plus people like Erik Prince were probably in the mix, too. I think they wanted to hostilely take over the Alt Right, but then were probably distracted by the entire Russian collusion delusion drama, and left Jorjani high and dry

– https://www.unz.com/forum/undercover-with-the-alt-right/#comment-2015468

https://altright.com/2017/09/21/the-departure-of-jason-jorjani/

Jason has always strongly identified with what he calls the Iranian Renaissance movement. Jason informed us that, after Charlottesville, he had been given an ultimatum: leave the Alt-Right or leave the Iranian resistance. It reveals much that Jason preferred the interests of a Middle Eastern country over a movement that represents the identities of White people in America and Europe. As his strange airing of dirty laundry reveals, he valued the Alt-Right as a means of advancing Iran.

The Iranian Renaissance is an attempt to de-Islamify Iran and return it to its Aryan and even Zoroastrian roots, making the country a staunch ally of Europe and identitarian movements. Laudable . . . quixotic . . . perhaps dangerously de-stabilizing . . . I ultimately find this movement utterly dispensable to our broader goals. My personal instincts are towards realism, and I would have no qualm with European states having diplomatic, respectful relations with the current Iranian regime. Haven't we had enough "regime change" in the Middle East to fill a lifetime?

– https://www.unz.com/forum/undercover-with-the-alt-right/#comment-2015987

Crawfurdmuir , July 10, 2018 at 6:07 am GMT
An intriguing development in the recent popular unrest in Iran has been the appearance of demonstrators shouting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi. It is not clear to me to whom these referred, whether the cy-devant Crown Prince (son of the late shah) or his grandfather, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty. At any rate there seems to be the revival of some monarchist sentiment, perhaps reflecting a sense that however authoritarian he may have been, the late shah was less oppressive than the current theocracy.

If a parallel could be drawn between the late shah and any other historical ruler, it would have to be Charles I. Khomeini was the parallel to Cromwell, and the present government of mullahs and crazed militiamen parallels that of the Protectorate after Oliver's death.

Were our government as adept as that of Louis XIV was in the 17th century, it would identify a senior officer in the Iranian military to play the role of Monck, get him to overthrow the mullahs, and restore Reza II to the Peacock Throne, as Monck restored Charles II.

The U.S. foreign policy establishment have not, it seems to me, considered the usefulness of constitutional monarchy as a stabilising force in a new parliamentary democracy. The late king of Afghanistan offered to go to that poor country after the Taliban government were deposed, to convene a loya jirga (tribal council) to work out some settlement that might return the region to some sort of peace and order. He was well enough respected to have succeeded, but his offer was rebuffed. A friend of mine asked some people he knew at the State Department why. They responded, essentially, that "we don't do monarchies." The foreign policy establishment instead installed its candidate, Karzai. We know how that worked out.

jilles dykstra , July 10, 2018 at 7:10 am GMT
@utu

What is Russia supposed to get in return ? Something like half the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, a few Silk Worm missiles are enough to sink a few tankers, and western life grinds to a halt.

jilles dykstra , July 10, 2018 at 7:12 am GMT
@Jake

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel exist only because of USA support, politically, militarily, and, in the Israeli case, also financially.

Epigon , July 10, 2018 at 7:22 am GMT
@utu

Russia will.

I don't believe Russian control clique harbors any delusions on the future prospects of Russia if it continues to yield and withdraw. Making a geopolitical stand in Ukraine, Syria and a bit under-the-counter, in Serbia, points towards it. There is a large difference between letting Iran carry Syria and call the shots there, and allowing Iran to be annihilated by Russia's eternal enemies.

Besides, China is overly reliant on economic cooperation with the West to pursue a confrontationist policy regarding Iran or any other distant issue in the world, as a matter of fact.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 7:35 am GMT

Israel mounted a series of deadly air strikes against Syria, specifically targeting Iranian military personnel present by invitation in the country to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. It was an incident that could have rapidly escalated into a broader war, which was clearly the Israeli intention.

Israeli intention was clearly to ensure that the Iranians don't stay in Syria after the government wins the civil war. Other supporters of the Iranian withdrawal include Russia and Assad's government itself.

There are endless examples in history of military allies who turned up to help, never left and ended up as the colonial power. Does Giraldi recognize that the Iranian government is not one you would want having military dominance over your country?

Also, you refer to America refusing to trade with Iran, a country that calls America "Satan", as "terrorism". Is it always "terrorism" when you refuse to trade with someone? Or is it only "terrorism" on the basis of some sort of who whom thing? Are there rules for determining it? I'm asking for a friend?

mark green , July 10, 2018 at 8:36 am GMT
Bolton, Dubowitz, Israel, Giuliani, Miller, Israel, Kirk, Pompeo, Haley, Israel, Trump, etc etc.

Bottom line: Israel wants Iran taken down. Washington obeys.

defab , July 10, 2018 at 10:31 am GMT
The neocon and Israeli script has not taken control of Trump at all. Trump promised Israel a war with Iran if he were elected president and he is in the process of making good on his promise.
Philip Giraldi , July 10, 2018 at 10:46 am GMT
@defab

Not correct defab – Trump did promise to end PCPOA, which he has done, but he also promised to put an end to useless wars in the Middle East, which he has not done. He is now listening to neocon advisers, to include Giuliani, Haley and Bolton, who are telling him what needs to be done to bring about regime change in Iran.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

I sometimes wonder if the Teheran regime would love to be attacked with atomic bombs, THE excuse for literally wiping Israel off the map.

You're insane.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 10:55 am GMT
@Philip Giraldi

He's started no new wars and he seems to me to be trying to finish/leave those started under previous administrations.

This is pretty good. What would you do?

Winifred , July 10, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT
@Crawfurdmuir

As Ron Paul has pointed out, isn't it more likely that the pro-Shah rhetoric of the demonstrators is simply a giveaway sign of the Washington/CIA script they're following?

The Alarmist , July 10, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
Question is, after nearly two decades of constant war, will the US military forces have the stomach for another invasion and occupation, replete with IEDs and terrorist resistance? Can the US simply topple the govt and leave a mess behind? What's the game plan?
Talha , July 10, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

Other supporters of the Iranian withdrawal include Russia and Assad's government itself.

So the Syrian government asked Israel to run air sorties over its territory? You know kind of like it has asked Russia to.

Do Israelis know what is best for Syria's future better than Syrians?

I'm also asking for a friend.

Peace.

Johnny Rico , July 10, 2018 at 11:15 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

Sure. If by Western life you mean that in China. What do you think would happen to life in Iran were that rather simplistic arrangement to come about?

Here lies the true importance of Pax Americana and the main unspoken mission of the US military. Maintain the stable flow of Middle Eastern crude exports to the world and stable ship-born commerce.

The United States itself gets very little of its energy supplied from the Gulf. But Europe and Asia are dependent on this – and therefore peace.

A month-long closure of the Straits would have little dramatic consequence in the US. the amount of oil in pipelines, on tankers, in refineries, and in storage would dampen any short term effects. Panic can be managed

A nuclear strike on Ras Tanura is a different story.

But life in Iran? What do you think would happen to life in Iran were Tehran to carry out its threats?

padre , July 10, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
You keep amazing me! What a hypocrisy, when you march with god on your side, your president makes his oath on the bible, it is great, but when somebody else does some similar thing it is outrageous! Who do you think you are?
NoseytheDuke , July 10, 2018 at 11:32 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

There are endless examples in history of military allies who turned up to help, never left and ended up as the colonial power.

The USA?

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
@Talha

I didn't say any of that.

Frankie P , July 10, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
@mark green

Mark,

Washington obeys when the objective is realistic. I'm of the opinion that the costs and risks involved in taking Iran down are too high. It could cause the implosion of the global economy, the beginning of the collapse of the house of cards. Stirring up some protests in Iran will do nothing. A military attack on Iran will result in the fall of Israel, missile attacks on American bases in the region, and most certainly the closing of the Strait of Hormuz.

(((They))) are powerful, but certainly not omnipotent.

Frankie P

Crawfurdmuir , July 10, 2018 at 11:53 am GMT
@Winifred

As Ron Paul has pointed out, isn't it more likely that the pro-Shah rhetoric of the demonstrators is simply a giveaway sign of the Washington/CIA script they're following?

That might be reasonable if there were any evidence of a serious effort by Washington or the CIA to restore the Iranian monarchy. There isn't any, as far as I'vd been able to tell. The CIA and other elements of the deep state don't turn on a dime, and to all appearances they were all in favor of Obama's capitulation to the regime of the mullahs. I doubt that the Trump administration could orchestrate anti-government demonstrations in Iran no matter how hard it tried.

Frankie P , July 10, 2018 at 12:02 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Tyrion,

Watch Lavrov's speech from last week, in which he points out that Iran was invited by the legitimate, recognized government of Syria. Please share a citation showing a Syrian official saying that they want Iran to leave or have requested Iran to leave. Hezbollah and Iran will help Syria recover every inch of Syrian territory, including the Golan Heights. The imbalance in power is disappearing as Syria, Hezbollah and Iran increase the numbers, accuracy and range of their missile arsenals. This, combined with the improved AD of the Syrians, due mostly to Russian cooperation, spells the sweet ending of the Israeli impunity. Israeli attack jets will continue to fall from the sky, and the response to attacks on Syria will be more missile attacks on military targets in the Golan Heights.

neutral , July 10, 2018 at 12:17 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

No the intention is ultimately to destroy Iran and replace it with a compliant puppet like they have in most of Europe and the USA.

DESERT FOX , July 10, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
Zionists have complete control of the U.S. gov and are using the U.S. to fight Israels wars and so the war against Iran is a done deal as any country Israel wants destroyed the U.S. does Israels bidding.

Proof of Israels control of the U.S. gov is Israels and the zionist controlled deep states attack on 911 and the murder of 3000 Americans and Israel got away with it, that is control in spades.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Frankie P

If you were Assad and you had finally regained full control of Syria, would you want the Iranian military to become too comfortable in your country?

Talha , July 10, 2018 at 1:25 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

OK cool – but you made it sound like Israel bombed Iranian targets in Syria out of the goodness of their hearts because they care about Syrian sovereignty. Sorry if I misread it, carry on. Peace.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Talha

No, Israel did it because they don't want the Iranians there for their own reasons. They are lucky that the Syrians and Russians also don't want them to remain. There is a temporary confluence of interest. I assume the Iranians have gotten the message.

Z-man , July 10, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@FKA Max

I don't know about pro Vatican but definitely anti Christian. A pox on Neochoens!

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:30 pm GMT
@utu

That's a wet dream of Israel. But it won't happen. The elites which support Putin in Russia and Xi in China understand that they are in a besieged fortress situation: a breach of any gate means that the fortress falls to the enemy. They won't sell out even inconsequential places like Syria, Venezuela, or North Korea. Not because they are nice or heroic, but because of correctly understood self-interest.

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I don't know. Iran certainly needs nukes, as the comparison of the fates of Saddam and Ghaddafi, neither of whom had WMDs, with that of Un, who has nukes, clearly shows. Nukes are the only thing that can deter the US aggression against Iran, as the US never attacks anyone who has WMDs. After all, cowardice is the only quality of the US elites that is good for humankind.

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:38 pm GMT
@Clyde

You mean, as opposed to squeaky clean elites of the US and its vassals? LOL.

Z-man , July 10, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
I'm still holding out hope for Trump. I'm thinking, to keep his Zionist flanks at bay he continues with his bellicose words while really being less war mongering, like he's been on Korea. A cynical stance by Trump keeping Neochoens and shit libs like the Hollywood Elite off balanced in their attacks on him, since they're all Israeli firsters. Then again I could be overestimating his political savvy however his lastest statement* on NATO, the EU and Vladimir has made me feel good.

*Trump: Putin summit 'may be easier' than NATO, UK visit Speaking to reporters before departing the White House for the meetings in Europe, Trump said, "Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all." Ya gotta love the guy as he's making the Cabal squirm.

edNels , July 10, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

The Neo con dream is to get rid of Iran because it blocks the way for the incremental escalation of ISIS style asymmetric proxy forces to leap ahead and progress the Grand Chessboard scenario up into Central Asia, and Russia, and stop the Silk Road. Put the kibosh on that whole unwanted side show Silk Road don't make money for GM , or maybe it does, go figure.

Johnny Smoggins , July 10, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT
The saddest part of all this is that Trump is working so hard to please Israel by hurting the ancient enemy of the Jews, the Persians, and in return gets called a Nazi by the Jewish, which is to say mainstream, media who work tirelessly to undermine him and his government. So if he attacks Iran, he's a Nazi. If he doesn't attack Iran, he's also a Nazi. If he's going to be a Nazi anyway, why not just save all that American blood and money and leave Iran alone?
renfro , July 10, 2018 at 5:39 pm GMT
The advantage in looking at US – Iran history is you will then understand that all of it has been nothing but the brain farts of the ever changing interest of ever changing ideologues in ever changing administrations. If stupidity carried a death sentence the US would be six feet under.

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Iran&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Iran

700 events found.
49 entities found.

James Brown , July 10, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Johnny Smoggins

"So if he attacks Iran, he's a Nazi. If he doesn't attack Iran, he's also a Nazi."

If doesn't attack Iran, he probably won't finish his mandate. He will be impeached.

If he attacks, he will be a war president. A " great president". He will be re-elected. Like Bush Jr.

American people love their "commander in chief".

Z-man , July 10, 2018 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Johnny Smoggins

Like I said, I hope he's playing both sides against the middle and make a lot of noise vis a vis Iran but not attacking it. But we shall see, there are a lot of rabid dogs in his administration, Bolton, Miller, Haley and even 'meathead'* Pompeo. Hopefully the Zio-cons don't have total control.

*Small 'm' as opposed to big 'M', Meathead Rob Reiner, LOL!!!

Jake , July 10, 2018 at 5:59 pm GMT
@Talha

That is true, but you must stress that each exists first because of the British Empire. And you must stress that the CIA, the Mossad, and the Saudi General Intelligence Secretary are all children of British secret service.

It is also essential to know that SAVAK, the Shah's secret police organization, was founded by both branches of WASP secret service, Brit and American.

By the start of the 19th century. the philo-Semitism that is central to WASP culture – due to the Judaizing heresy that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism – had long left its specific religious origin and become more broadly cultural. With the deepening interest in all things 'exotic' and 'oriental,' it began to move from simply gravitating to backing Jews and Jewish notions against whatever rather obviously even seemed like it might be some remnant of Christendom. And that movement made a growing number of WASP Elites by the dawn of Victorianism pro-Arabic and pro-Islam.

WASP culture has never lost any of its defining pro-Semitism, but the way the pro-Semitism has been expressed has altered. Since the 19th century, it has meant a battle within the WASP Elites between those who are pro-Jewish and those who are pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic.

The alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia is the ultimate wet dream of WASP Elites, because it represents peace and total cooperation between the two camps of philo-Semitism within WASP culture.

Greg Bacon , Website July 10, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT
There's more to our trade war with China than Tubby the Grifter tweeting MAGA. China is being punished by tariffs because they are still buying oil from Iran. Trump is doing this to please our Overlord, Israel and to hell with the consequences for Americans.

My fantasy is that one day, Americans wake up and realize who is our worst enemy. And it's not Russia or China or some Islamic nation. Does 'Lucky Larry' Silverstein own any more asbestos-laden skyscrapers?

nagra , July 10, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
Iran is 'Islamic Republic' after all and as much I despise western foreign policy Iran is not so innocent in the whole game nor they are some 'freedom fighters https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201807091066183920-irgc-commander-anti-israel-remarks/
Virgile , July 10, 2018 at 6:22 pm GMT
While Trump is succumbing to the neocons pressures to protect Israel by weakening Iran , Syria, Hezbollah, he has no intention to go to war. Trump is not Bush. He wants business deals, not war. So in appearance he is following the neocons in the ME, but he is not in the rest of the world: North Korea is a good example of Trump's view of the world: Money and business. There is no money to be made in wars anymore ( "Keep the Iraqi oil fields") Quite the contrary , there is money to waste. Therefore Trump will not use 'diplomacy' or 'sticks to solve issues, he will use economical 'carrots' in a one to one deal.

Trumpo hates 'democratic groups, UN, EU, NAFTA, JCOA ,TAP, UNHCR etc. He wants to deal one to one, so he needs to torpedo these groups in any way possible.

The Middle East big peace plan for Palestine and Israel is all about economical carrots.. The trouble is that some countries do not respond to carrots, such as Iran or Syria. Then he needs to use sticks to weaken them. That is what we see with the Iran sanctions. Contrary to North Korea, Iran is no threat to the USA. It is a threat to the USA's ally, Israel.

Therefore Trump accepts the neocon pressure with the aim of weakening Iran so it stops been a threat to Israel and to accept to make business deals with the USA and not with France and Germany. Trump has no intention to push for a regime change either in Iran or North Korea.

Contrary to Bush, Trump prefers using big carrots and small sticks!

peterAUS , July 10, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT

If sanctions produce desperation inside Iran, an apparent breakdown in order could easily invite a hypocritical U.S. and Israeli "humanitarian" intervention, possibly escalating into an international conflict, something that the White House appears to not understand.

What is not to understand? The author is engaged in wishful thinking. Conflict with Iran is exactly what Washington wants, for several reasons. Several. There is a pattern here. Once a month we get into regurgitating the same old about the topic. Makes sense, in a peculiar way.

renfro , July 10, 2018 at 6:35 pm GMT

for keeping America and our allies safe from the long list of threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran

Such a joke.

Notice that none of the neos ever say exactly what those 'threats' are but make dummies believe that Iran is going to nuke the US.

peterAUS , July 10, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Can the US simply topple the govt and leave a mess behind? What's the game plan?

Yes.

What's the game plan?

You already know what it is: " .topple the govt and leave a mess behind".

peterAUS , July 10, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

Yup.

In any confrontation with Iran blocking of Hormuz will be a focal point from both sides. Most people around believe Iran can do it and use it as advantage in the conflict. A main advantage even. I don't believe Iran can block the Hormuz and, well, as you say:

But life in Iran? What do you think would happen to life in Iran were Tehran to carry out its threats?

On a serious note, it feels as most posters here pushing for strong Iranian response live nice middle class lives. Last time they had anything violent done to them was, I feel, some time in high school. They also obey all the laws, dutifully pay taxes, trudge in their jobs all in all just being nice citizens of The Empire. And, the same types are quite happy to, ahm, cheer Iranian people to suffer the onslaught of US military might. Feels interesting . In a hypocritical way, of sort.

Art , July 10, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT

Reports from inside Iran suggest that the renewed and additional sanctions are already hurting the Iranian people while at the same time having little impact on the government commitment to remain in Syria, which is the principal bone of contention at the moment vis-à-vis the joint U.S./Israeli/Saudi grossly exaggerated and self-serving assessment of what Iran may or may not be doing to destabilize the Middle East.

Trump is going to blow up Iran for the Jews and the Saudis. There is no other way to look at this.

He is going to turn the CIA loose on Iran. He is going to start bloody insurrections by pitting neighbor against neighbor – he is going to starve people – he is going to deny them medicine – he may even bomb them. He plans to hurt 60,000,000 people. WHY? Is this what America is all about? Have we learned nothing from blowing up Iraq?

He does this to benefit other ideologies than Western Christianity – he does this for Zionism and Wahhabism – both are anti-Christian. They are two of the most backwards apartheid tribal movements on the planet – both perpetuating ancient old tribalism, the worst remnants of our primordial past. The most advanced nation on the planet, the indispensable one, the exceptional one – is saving two of the worst of humanity. How totally perverted.

Trump says Iran (a country of minorities), is guilty of defending people who are being attacked by Jews and Saudis – Lebanon and Syria. Both countries are also made up of minorities. Zionism and Wahhabism are attacking all three of those minority nations.

Iran is on the side of the minority good guys. Trump and the US deep state government, are on the side of the single tribe bad guys – the attackers of the weak.

Thanks to the Jew control of America, we are helping the moneyed militarily strong against the weak.

Our government's values are upside down. We must get the Jews out of our government.

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

anon [266] Disclaimer , July 10, 2018 at 7:35 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Satan is a religious term a religious idea . Why shall America advancing various secular non religious ideas will take umbrage at Iran for saying "Satan" ? Not long ago Jews were called Christ -Killer and called Shylock ,even anti Christ. America has various choicest reserved words for Iran (most of them are supplied by the Shylock 's fellow traveler .
By the way "satan " has not killed anybody but the practices of the Godly America has hurt killed destroyed large section of Iranian population.

Israel intention?? Iran knows well what the intention has been since days of Rabin from 1995- to use America against Iran by using words like 'Satan" and other default lies and falsehood . Will it move out of Syria? Hey but this the best chance of Israel to attack Iran and kill engineers scientists and declare all out war against Iran . Israel doesn't have to fly 1000 miles.

Oh I get it . Israel wants America does it!

Why not if Iraq-job could be delegated to USA wth full Zionist supervision , why not Iran.

Again if USA can come to Kuwait at the invitation of Kuwait, Iran can do same in Syria.

anon [266] Disclaimer , July 10, 2018 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

No I won't But if S Korea can keep, Kuwait can keep , Syria I guess can . Alternative is Libya and the 24 hour non stop hand wringing by the Western elite bastards in the media and government and International court and Think thanks lamenting : " what else can you do for these animals? We did everything but they won't stop killing each other"

anon [107] Disclaimer , July 10, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Art

He is going to turn the CIA loose on Iran. He is going to start bloody insurrections by pitting neighbor against neighbor – he is going to starve people – he is going to deny them medicine – he may even bomb them. He plans to hurt 60,000,000 people. WHY? Is this what America is all about? Have we learned nothing from blowing up Iraq?

goshes, that sounds so "Judea Declares War On Germany"

[Jul 10, 2018] Why Congress Should Not Honor One of the Most Notorious Doping Cheats of All Time The Nation

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... National Enquirer ..."
Jul 10, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Why Congress Should Not Honor One of the Most Notorious Doping Cheats of All Time | The Nation n international sports-doping bill -- the first of its kind criminalizing sports doping for international competitions -- named the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act was introduced in the US House of Representatives on June 12. The subject matter is highly relevant because sports doping is an important international problem with geopolitical implications. The name is disconcerting, however, because Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov has admitted to being one of the biggest enablers of sports doping in history. Why, then, would the US Congress consider honoring him?

Perhaps the main reason for this development is the influence of The New York Times . Congressional representatives, like so many, have been exposed to continuing and distorted Times coverage on this subject. That coverage has now been exposed as selective by two lengthy opinions of the respected Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that were published on April 23, 2018, and, not coincidentally, that received only minimal coverage by the Times . What distinguished these CAS opinions is that, for the first time, in the CAS hearings Rodchenkov was confronted by his accusers with cross-examination. The results of that cross-examination tell a very different story from that related by the Times in the past two years.

Publication by The New York Times of an unverified front-page interview based on a highly questionable informant is a formula for trouble, which is an apt word to describe the May 13, 2016, article -- "An Insider in Sochi Tells How Russia Beat Doping Tests" -- on alleged Russian state-sponsored doping. Exacerbating the problem was the companion lead article in the sports section with a headline worthy of the National Enquirer : "Russia's Open Secret Is Whispered No More." The trouble became apparent almost two years later, with the publication of the CAS opinions mentioned above and the scant coverage of those opinions by the Times . This combination of distorted coverage and lack of coverage have had significant athletic and geopolitical repercussions: detracting from the Rio and PyeongChang Olympic Games and demonizing one country, Russia, for what is in fact an international doping problem. The result is an impediment to the solution of that doping problem and a worsening of the new cold-war atmosphere that now permeates relations between the West and Russia.

Such is the power of the Times that it generated worldwide headlines out of something that had been reported six months before its front-page, multi-column lead article. In November 2015, a three-person so-called Independent Commission (IC) appointed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) concluded, relying in part on witnesses who demanded anonymity, that there had been systematic doping involving Russian Olympic and Paralympic athletes. No ban of Russia resulted from the IC Report.

According to the IC Report, at the center of the story was the then–director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory, Rodchenkov, who the IC found was "at the heart of the positive drug test cover-up." The IC Report made some statements about him that would give any reasonable person pause about his reliability as a witness, including "The IC finds that that Dir. Rodchenkov's statements regarding the destruction of the [1417 urine] samples are not credible" and "Director Rodchenkov was also an integral part of the conspiracy to extort money from athletes in order to cover up positive doping test results." The Times article states that Rodchenkov denies extortion, despite evidence to the contrary that at least two Russian athletes gave to the IC.

Not surprisingly, once Rodchenkov became subject to criminal charges in Russia, he was forced to resign from his position and fled to the United States. What was surprising, in light of the negatives about Rodchenkov in the IC Report and his previous opposition to it, was that the Times published its prominent and sensational interview of him, stating that , despite the fact that "Rodchenkov's account could not be independently verified it was consistent with the broad findings" of the IC Report. As noted above, the IC Report was anything but a ringing endorsement of Rodchenkov. Although Rodchenkov was now supportive of the IC Report, his change of heart -- like that of many informants -- got him a valuable reward: placement in the US Witness Protection Program.

Further illustrating the power of the Times , four days after the publication of this sensationalized and unverified article, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) ordered another WADA investigation because the IOC considered Rodchenkov's "spectacular revelations" to the Times "very detailed and very worrying." This new investigation became the so-called "Independent Person" Report, the independent person (IP) being a Canadian law professor named Richard McLaren.

How independent the IP really was, however, is questionable because he was one of the three authors of the IC Report, and the likelihood that he would disagree with himself was slim to none. Echoing the Times , the IP considered Rodchenkov's changed testimony, which now supported the IC Report, credible.

The IP finished his new report, which covers numerous athletes over multiple years, in only 57 days. One explanation for this extraordinary speed on such a complex report is that he questioned no Russian officials. Although some might have wondered about the lack of balance caused by this failure, his report was greeted with great fanfare by the Times and by international media, which did not question -- despite vehement denials by Russia and the Russian athletes -- the IP's conclusion of Russian state-sponsored doping based on, as McLaren later put it, "immutable facts." The report -- despite, as described below, its fatal flaws -- ultimately led to the banning of hundreds of Russian Olympic and Paralympic athletes, from Rio and PyeongChang combined, without hearings to prove their individual guilt. No such ban of a great world power's athletes had occurred since Germany and Japan were banned from the 1948 Olympics.

The chaos in the Olympic movement since 2016 caused by these bans has been the subject of numerous headlines chronicling the often inconsistent banning and unbanning of Russian athletes by the IOC and the various international sports-governing organizations. Part of the reason for the chaos is that the Court of Arbitration for Sport -- the highest court for international sports matters -- had not yet weighed in with definitive decisions that included a critical element of due process: the cross-examination of Rodchenkov and McLaren. When that process finally started, based on a joint hearing of the doping cases of 39 Russian Winter Olympic athletes occurring just weeks before the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics, 27 of the bans were overturned completely and 12 were partially overturned.

This was major news, although at this point -- February 1, 2018 -- because of the imminence of the PyeongChang Olympics, the CAS issued just a media release, rather than reasoned decisions. The Times duly reported this development on the same day it occurred. Despite the great majority of favorable results for the Russian athletes, the Times report noted, with some self-congratulatory editorialization, that the "case against Russia was largely built on the bombshell testimony of the former head of its drug testing laboratory, Grigory Rodchenkov."

[Jul 10, 2018] A Neoconservative Plan for Punishing Iran, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... It is indeed disturbing that the abandonment of the rule of law by the Trump Administration and its allies in the media has meant that Washington is resorting more and more to sanctions as an extreme form of punishment in order to enforce its geopolitical demands. ..."
"... From neocons' perspective, Iran is guilty twice. First, just like much bigger and stronger Russia and China, it refuses to toe the line of Washington Politburo. Second, unlike Saudi Arabia, it refuses to toe the Israeli line, as well. However, neocons will be frustrated for two reasons: 1. Russia and China won't sell out Iran; 2. Neither Israel, nor even the US can succeed in war of aggression against it. So, neocons have two options: either keep gnashing their teeth impotently, or spur the US or Israel on to suicide. They are afraid of both options. Hence the hysterics. ..."
"... An intriguing development in the recent popular unrest in Iran has been the appearance of demonstrators shouting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi. It is not clear to me to whom these referred, whether the cy-devant Crown Prince (son of the late shah) or his grandfather, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty. At any rate there seems to be the revival of some monarchist sentiment, perhaps reflecting a sense that however authoritarian he may have been, the late shah was less oppressive than the current theocracy. ..."
"... I don't believe Russian control clique harbors any delusions on the future prospects of Russia if it continues to yield and withdraw. Making a geopolitical stand in Ukraine, Syria and a bit under-the-counter, in Serbia, points towards it. There is a large difference between letting Iran carry Syria and call the shots there, and allowing Iran to be annihilated by Russia's eternal enemies. ..."
"... Trump did promise to end PCPOA, which he has done, but he also promised to put an end to useless wars in the Middle East, which he has not done. He is now listening to neocon advisers, to include Giuliani, Haley and Bolton, who are telling him what needs to be done to bring about regime change in Iran. ..."
"... There are endless examples in history of military allies who turned up to help, never left and ended up as the colonial power. ..."
"... Watch Lavrov's speech from last week, in which he points out that Iran was invited by the legitimate, recognized government of Syria. Please share a citation showing a Syrian official saying that they want Iran to leave or have requested Iran to leave. Hezbollah and Iran will help Syria recover every inch of Syrian territory, including the Golan Heights. The imbalance in power is disappearing as Syria, Hezbollah and Iran increase the numbers, accuracy and range of their missile arsenals. This, combined with the improved AD of the Syrians, due mostly to Russian cooperation, spells the sweet ending of the Israeli impunity. Israeli attack jets will continue to fall from the sky, and the response to attacks on Syria will be more missile attacks on military targets in the Golan Heights. ..."
"... the intention is ultimately to destroy Iran and replace it with a compliant puppet like they have in most of Europe and the USA. ..."
"... No, Israel did it because they don't want the Iranians there for their own reasons. They are lucky that the Syrians and Russians also don't want them to remain. There is a temporary confluence of interest. I assume the Iranians have gotten the message. ..."
"... The saddest part of all this is that Trump is working so hard to please Israel by hurting the ancient enemy of the Jews, the Persians, and in return gets called a Nazi by the Jewish, which is to say mainstream, media who work tirelessly to undermine him and his government. So if he attacks Iran, he's a Nazi. If he doesn't attack Iran, he's also a Nazi. If he's going to be a Nazi anyway, why not just save all that American blood and money and leave Iran alone? ..."
"... The advantage in looking at US – Iran history is you will then understand that all of it has been nothing but the brain farts of the ever changing interest of ever changing ideologues in ever changing administrations. If stupidity carried a death sentence the US would be six feet under. ..."
Jul 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Oddly, the White House seems unaware of the fact that Iran is neither Libya nor Iraq. It has a strong and historic national identity that means that it does and will resist being bullied by outside powers, including the "leader of the free world" United States. The neocon and pro-Israel script that has evidently taken control of Trump pushes all the wrong buttons as it basically employs an increasing number and severity of sanctions to seek to wreck the economy and create discord in Iran that will eventually bring people out into the streets in large numbers. That means in practice using not only sanctions that selectively targeting "bad guys" like the Revolutionary Guards but also benign institutions that exist to maintain social stability inside the country.

Reports from inside Iran suggest that the renewed and additional sanctions are already hurting the Iranian people while at the same time having little impact on the government commitment to remain in Syria, which is the principal bone of contention at the moment vis-à-vis the joint U.S./Israeli/Saudi grossly exaggerated and self-serving assessment of what Iran may or may not be doing to destabilize the Middle East.

Two organizations which have recently come under sustained attack by the neocons and their allies are the "Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order" (EIKO) and its associated Barakat Foundation. The EIKO's principal mission is to help poor families in Iran and to perform other charitable works, but it has been assailed as a major economic resource controlled by the Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's office, which misrepresents how the foundation is organized and functions.

Leading the charge against EIKO, inevitably, has been renowned neocon Canadian import and Iranophobe Mark Dubowitz , Chief Executive of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), who has described how the Iranian leadership controls a vast business empire which must be targeted with U.S. sanctions to punish the government and strip it of the resources available to make mischief.

This campaign, spearheaded by Dubowitz and his associate Saeed Ghasseminejad, has been going on since Trump was elected, with the folks at FDD confident they had a friend in the White House.

Other outlets in the pro-neocon-inclined and friendly to Israel media have also picked up on the theme that Iran must be the target of what amounts to economic warfare. The National Interest recently ran an article advocating the imposition of oil sanctions on Iran in general while also targeting EIKO in particular in order to "change Iran's behavior," which is presumed by the authors to be very bad though without any real explanation of why that is so.

And the U.S. Congress is also in on the act. As is nearly always the case, the U.S. House of Representative's Oversight and Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on National Security sought expert testimony on how to punish Iran but only looked for speakers who were inclined to take a hard line. They received that kind of enlightenment from the FDD's own Richard Goldberg, who is hardly a disinterested observer on the subject.

Goldberg begins by making his case for bipartisan ire directed against Tehran, gushing about how "[he] had the privilege to work with many talented people – Democrats and Republicans – who shared a passion for keeping America and our allies safe from the long list of threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Together, we put forward numerous bipartisan bills to increase the pressure on Iran. It is my sincere hope that we can find a way to resuscitate the bipartisan spirit that once infused this important national security issue."

Goldberg, who is a bit vague on exactly what kind of "long list of threats" Iran represents, was senior foreign policy adviser to Israel-firster hawk former Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. He celebrates in his FDD bio how "[he] was instrumental in the deployment of a U.S. missile defense radar to the Negev Desert – the first-ever full-time deployment of U.S. forces in Israel. In the Senate, Rich emerged as a leading architect of the toughest sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was the lead Republican negotiator for three rounds of sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran, the SWIFT financial messaging service and entire sectors of the Iranian economy."

There has been some pushback against the war-by-sanctions approach currently being advanced by the Trump Administration. Robert Fontina of Counterpunch has rejected the depiction of EIKO as anything but a charitable foundation. The truth is that EIKO engages in major social projects, including rural poverty alleviation, empowering women, home and school building, and provision of healthcare. American sanctions against it and similar entities hit ordinary Iranians' lives by producing food insecurity while also restricting the supplies of needed medications. Ahmad Noroozi of the Barakat Foundation claims that numerous Iranians have already been affected by U.S.-initiated sanctions directed against his country, restricting access to cancer treatments and other pharmaceuticals. And it is all aimed at fomenting social unrest and ultimately regime change.

Iranian writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich , no friend of the Iranian government, has declared that American sanctions directed against the Iranian economy and people are little more than "sanctioned terrorism." Her assessment is undeniably correct.

It is indeed disturbing that the abandonment of the rule of law by the Trump Administration and its allies in the media has meant that Washington is resorting more and more to sanctions as an extreme form of punishment in order to enforce its geopolitical demands. Countries that oppose Washington's policies are now routinely subjected to financial and trade penalties. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have recently been joined by Russia and Syria as targets of the U.S. Treasury Department. Even America's European allies and friends are being threatened if they seek to buy Iranian oil or cooperate with Russian energy initiatives.

The sad fact is that the pretense of U.S. global leadership now consists of a basket of new "rules" that are both arbitrary and basically illegal supported by pretexts that are essentially fabricated. Consider the frequent fallacious designation of Iran as "the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism" and the repeated false assertions from U.S. and Israeli government sources that Tehran is secretly building a nuclear bomb. Trump has become effectively the mouthpiece of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, with the latter calling the shots. Shortly after Trump had announced American withdrawal from JCPOA, Israel mounted a series of deadly air strikes against Syria, specifically targeting Iranian military personnel present by invitation in the country to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. It was an incident that could have rapidly escalated into a broader war, which was clearly the Israeli intention.

There are deadly consequences to following the Israeli and Saudi lead into a possible major war with Iran. If sanctions produce desperation inside Iran, an apparent breakdown in order could easily invite a hypocritical U.S. and Israeli "humanitarian" intervention, possibly escalating into an international conflict, something that the White House appears to not understand. As is often the case, the Trump Administration has not developed sufficient maturity to appreciate that if one pushes hard against a certain country or group of countries there will be an equally strong reaction, and the results might not be pretty. Punishing the Iranian people without any real understanding of what might emerge in pursuit of nebulous political objectives just might not be a good idea.

Jake , July 10, 2018 at 4:17 am GMT

The Saudis don't care what comes next in Iran, as long as Shia Islam is battered into submission. The Israelis don't care as long as what comes next is subservient to Israel. The US wants only that Iran bows to the WASP Empire, the Anglo-Zionist Empire.

All 3 would be happy with Satan Jr ruling Iran with the brutality of Stalin times Pol Pot and the sexual morality of the North American Man Boy Love Association, as long as Satan Jr is anti-Shia and pro-Saudi, pro-Israeli, and pro-WASP.

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
From neocons' perspective, Iran is guilty twice. First, just like much bigger and stronger Russia and China, it refuses to toe the line of Washington Politburo. Second, unlike Saudi Arabia, it refuses to toe the Israeli line, as well. However, neocons will be frustrated for two reasons: 1. Russia and China won't sell out Iran; 2. Neither Israel, nor even the US can succeed in war of aggression against it. So, neocons have two options: either keep gnashing their teeth impotently, or spur the US or Israel on to suicide. They are afraid of both options. Hence the hysterics.
Talha , July 10, 2018 at 5:13 am GMT
@Jake

Sounds about right. What a crazy alliance.

Peace.

Peter Tazumal , Website July 10, 2018 at 5:15 am GMT
First will come the false flag attacks Iranian govt gassing its own people, the pictures of dying children, old people, then the proxies will follow mass demonstrations in Iran, strikes, hunger, carbombs, and massacres,,,,Human Rights Watch, Amnesty international, and the European parliament will push for Nato, and the UN to respond, France will be the first out demanding in the UN Security Council swift actions against Iran to prevent a new Holocauts, Nicky Haley (US-UN) will support the measure fully. NO need for verification the AP, CNN, CBS, BBC already reporting fake stories as facts. The key for Iran will be to rally its population not to enter into a Iran vrs. its own people narrative. Iranian people must hold it together with mass public support of its govt an MILITARY. Israel will stay in the shadows intensely working undercover from Syria, Irak, Turkey, even launching air attacks on Iran while denying any involment absolutely etc. If Iran is attacked they must build alliances with Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, and activate Irans proxies abroad. Will Russia side with Iran? what about the Chinese? both actively trading with Israel to overcome ironically USA sanctions trigger by the AIPAC. Both China, Russia are the wild cards maybe? The bloodbath will start, tye USA will deploy its troops already in Jordan, Syria, the name, the word Israel will disappeared from any news cast, then the NBC, Dsicovery Channel, CNN, National Geography will run marathon specials bout evil Iran, the new Nazis, and the news about the coming Holocaust the new prophecies of Nostradamus peredicting that Israel must not be abandoned..etc. The outcome of the WWIII will decide the future of the MEast, with/out Palestine vrs. Greater Israel, will Israel become the energy, HUB for Europe and hence enslave the European economies??? will the Saudis become a proxy state for Israel Can the USA afford another costly long protracted war in the Globe??will americans WAKE up, will the military be overexpanded, .A new global REalignmnet of the a new global order what will it look like ?? WHO wins/loses???
FKA Max , Website July 10, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT
@Jake

Pro-Vatican not pro-WASP it's an anti-WASP alliance.

Erik Prince and the Case for Active, Documented Collusion Against Iran

The Intercept
Published on Jun 2, 2018
Jeremy Scahill breaks down the Trump Tower meeting Blackwater founder Erik Prince set up with a representative of the Saudi and Emirati royals and an Israeli who runs propaganda and media manipulation operations.

There is one major common link that runs through the agenda of all the participants in this Trump Tower meeting, and it is one which has gotten very little attention. And that is their shared hatred of Iran and their desire for regime change.

We shouldn't force everything into the box of Russia, Russia, Russia, especially when the evidence is so overwhelming that there are also motives relating to Iran that may explain part of the agenda that these nations and Erik Prince were pushing when they embarked on a campaign to secretly support Donald Trump's election.

Very important information to be aware of in this context:

Jorjani's connection in/with the White House was probably the (Catholic) Bannon-Gorka-Flynn nexus, plus people like Erik Prince were probably in the mix, too. I think they wanted to hostilely take over the Alt Right, but then were probably distracted by the entire Russian collusion delusion drama, and left Jorjani high and dry

– https://www.unz.com/forum/undercover-with-the-alt-right/#comment-2015468

https://altright.com/2017/09/21/the-departure-of-jason-jorjani/

Jason has always strongly identified with what he calls the Iranian Renaissance movement. Jason informed us that, after Charlottesville, he had been given an ultimatum: leave the Alt-Right or leave the Iranian resistance. It reveals much that Jason preferred the interests of a Middle Eastern country over a movement that represents the identities of White people in America and Europe. As his strange airing of dirty laundry reveals, he valued the Alt-Right as a means of advancing Iran.

The Iranian Renaissance is an attempt to de-Islamify Iran and return it to its Aryan and even Zoroastrian roots, making the country a staunch ally of Europe and identitarian movements. Laudable . . . quixotic . . . perhaps dangerously de-stabilizing . . . I ultimately find this movement utterly dispensable to our broader goals. My personal instincts are towards realism, and I would have no qualm with European states having diplomatic, respectful relations with the current Iranian regime. Haven't we had enough "regime change" in the Middle East to fill a lifetime?

– https://www.unz.com/forum/undercover-with-the-alt-right/#comment-2015987

Crawfurdmuir , July 10, 2018 at 6:07 am GMT
An intriguing development in the recent popular unrest in Iran has been the appearance of demonstrators shouting slogans in support of Reza Pahlavi. It is not clear to me to whom these referred, whether the cy-devant Crown Prince (son of the late shah) or his grandfather, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty. At any rate there seems to be the revival of some monarchist sentiment, perhaps reflecting a sense that however authoritarian he may have been, the late shah was less oppressive than the current theocracy.

If a parallel could be drawn between the late shah and any other historical ruler, it would have to be Charles I. Khomeini was the parallel to Cromwell, and the present government of mullahs and crazed militiamen parallels that of the Protectorate after Oliver's death.

Were our government as adept as that of Louis XIV was in the 17th century, it would identify a senior officer in the Iranian military to play the role of Monck, get him to overthrow the mullahs, and restore Reza II to the Peacock Throne, as Monck restored Charles II.

The U.S. foreign policy establishment have not, it seems to me, considered the usefulness of constitutional monarchy as a stabilising force in a new parliamentary democracy. The late king of Afghanistan offered to go to that poor country after the Taliban government were deposed, to convene a loya jirga (tribal council) to work out some settlement that might return the region to some sort of peace and order. He was well enough respected to have succeeded, but his offer was rebuffed. A friend of mine asked some people he knew at the State Department why. They responded, essentially, that "we don't do monarchies." The foreign policy establishment instead installed its candidate, Karzai. We know how that worked out.

jilles dykstra , July 10, 2018 at 7:10 am GMT
@utu

What is Russia supposed to get in return ? Something like half the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, a few Silk Worm missiles are enough to sink a few tankers, and western life grinds to a halt.

jilles dykstra , July 10, 2018 at 7:12 am GMT
@Jake

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel exist only because of USA support, politically, militarily, and, in the Israeli case, also financially.

Epigon , July 10, 2018 at 7:22 am GMT
@utu

Russia will.

I don't believe Russian control clique harbors any delusions on the future prospects of Russia if it continues to yield and withdraw. Making a geopolitical stand in Ukraine, Syria and a bit under-the-counter, in Serbia, points towards it. There is a large difference between letting Iran carry Syria and call the shots there, and allowing Iran to be annihilated by Russia's eternal enemies.

Besides, China is overly reliant on economic cooperation with the West to pursue a confrontationist policy regarding Iran or any other distant issue in the world, as a matter of fact.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 7:35 am GMT

Israel mounted a series of deadly air strikes against Syria, specifically targeting Iranian military personnel present by invitation in the country to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. It was an incident that could have rapidly escalated into a broader war, which was clearly the Israeli intention.

Israeli intention was clearly to ensure that the Iranians don't stay in Syria after the government wins the civil war. Other supporters of the Iranian withdrawal include Russia and Assad's government itself.

There are endless examples in history of military allies who turned up to help, never left and ended up as the colonial power. Does Giraldi recognize that the Iranian government is not one you would want having military dominance over your country?

Also, you refer to America refusing to trade with Iran, a country that calls America "Satan", as "terrorism". Is it always "terrorism" when you refuse to trade with someone? Or is it only "terrorism" on the basis of some sort of who whom thing? Are there rules for determining it? I'm asking for a friend?

mark green , July 10, 2018 at 8:36 am GMT
Bolton, Dubowitz, Israel, Giuliani, Miller, Israel, Kirk, Pompeo, Haley, Israel, Trump, etc etc.

Bottom line: Israel wants Iran taken down. Washington obeys.

defab , July 10, 2018 at 10:31 am GMT
The neocon and Israeli script has not taken control of Trump at all. Trump promised Israel a war with Iran if he were elected president and he is in the process of making good on his promise.
Philip Giraldi , July 10, 2018 at 10:46 am GMT
@defab

Not correct defab – Trump did promise to end PCPOA, which he has done, but he also promised to put an end to useless wars in the Middle East, which he has not done. He is now listening to neocon advisers, to include Giuliani, Haley and Bolton, who are telling him what needs to be done to bring about regime change in Iran.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

I sometimes wonder if the Teheran regime would love to be attacked with atomic bombs, THE excuse for literally wiping Israel off the map.

You're insane.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 10:55 am GMT
@Philip Giraldi

He's started no new wars and he seems to me to be trying to finish/leave those started under previous administrations.

This is pretty good. What would you do?

Winifred , July 10, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT
@Crawfurdmuir

As Ron Paul has pointed out, isn't it more likely that the pro-Shah rhetoric of the demonstrators is simply a giveaway sign of the Washington/CIA script they're following?

The Alarmist , July 10, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
Question is, after nearly two decades of constant war, will the US military forces have the stomach for another invasion and occupation, replete with IEDs and terrorist resistance? Can the US simply topple the govt and leave a mess behind? What's the game plan?
Talha , July 10, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

Other supporters of the Iranian withdrawal include Russia and Assad's government itself.

So the Syrian government asked Israel to run air sorties over its territory? You know kind of like it has asked Russia to.

Do Israelis know what is best for Syria's future better than Syrians?

I'm also asking for a friend.

Peace.

Johnny Rico , July 10, 2018 at 11:15 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

Sure. If by Western life you mean that in China. What do you think would happen to life in Iran were that rather simplistic arrangement to come about?

Here lies the true importance of Pax Americana and the main unspoken mission of the US military. Maintain the stable flow of Middle Eastern crude exports to the world and stable ship-born commerce.

The United States itself gets very little of its energy supplied from the Gulf. But Europe and Asia are dependent on this – and therefore peace.

A month-long closure of the Straits would have little dramatic consequence in the US. the amount of oil in pipelines, on tankers, in refineries, and in storage would dampen any short term effects. Panic can be managed

A nuclear strike on Ras Tanura is a different story.

But life in Iran? What do you think would happen to life in Iran were Tehran to carry out its threats?

padre , July 10, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
You keep amazing me! What a hypocrisy, when you march with god on your side, your president makes his oath on the bible, it is great, but when somebody else does some similar thing it is outrageous! Who do you think you are?
NoseytheDuke , July 10, 2018 at 11:32 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

There are endless examples in history of military allies who turned up to help, never left and ended up as the colonial power.

The USA?

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
@Talha

I didn't say any of that.

Frankie P , July 10, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
@mark green

Mark,

Washington obeys when the objective is realistic. I'm of the opinion that the costs and risks involved in taking Iran down are too high. It could cause the implosion of the global economy, the beginning of the collapse of the house of cards. Stirring up some protests in Iran will do nothing. A military attack on Iran will result in the fall of Israel, missile attacks on American bases in the region, and most certainly the closing of the Strait of Hormuz.

(((They))) are powerful, but certainly not omnipotent.

Frankie P

Crawfurdmuir , July 10, 2018 at 11:53 am GMT
@Winifred

As Ron Paul has pointed out, isn't it more likely that the pro-Shah rhetoric of the demonstrators is simply a giveaway sign of the Washington/CIA script they're following?

That might be reasonable if there were any evidence of a serious effort by Washington or the CIA to restore the Iranian monarchy. There isn't any, as far as I'vd been able to tell. The CIA and other elements of the deep state don't turn on a dime, and to all appearances they were all in favor of Obama's capitulation to the regime of the mullahs. I doubt that the Trump administration could orchestrate anti-government demonstrations in Iran no matter how hard it tried.

Frankie P , July 10, 2018 at 12:02 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Tyrion,

Watch Lavrov's speech from last week, in which he points out that Iran was invited by the legitimate, recognized government of Syria. Please share a citation showing a Syrian official saying that they want Iran to leave or have requested Iran to leave. Hezbollah and Iran will help Syria recover every inch of Syrian territory, including the Golan Heights. The imbalance in power is disappearing as Syria, Hezbollah and Iran increase the numbers, accuracy and range of their missile arsenals. This, combined with the improved AD of the Syrians, due mostly to Russian cooperation, spells the sweet ending of the Israeli impunity. Israeli attack jets will continue to fall from the sky, and the response to attacks on Syria will be more missile attacks on military targets in the Golan Heights.

neutral , July 10, 2018 at 12:17 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

No the intention is ultimately to destroy Iran and replace it with a compliant puppet like they have in most of Europe and the USA.

DESERT FOX , July 10, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
Zionists have complete control of the U.S. gov and are using the U.S. to fight Israels wars and so the war against Iran is a done deal as any country Israel wants destroyed the U.S. does Israels bidding.

Proof of Israels control of the U.S. gov is Israels and the zionist controlled deep states attack on 911 and the murder of 3000 Americans and Israel got away with it, that is control in spades.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Frankie P

If you were Assad and you had finally regained full control of Syria, would you want the Iranian military to become too comfortable in your country?

Talha , July 10, 2018 at 1:25 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

OK cool – but you made it sound like Israel bombed Iranian targets in Syria out of the goodness of their hearts because they care about Syrian sovereignty. Sorry if I misread it, carry on. Peace.

Tyrion 2 , Website July 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Talha

No, Israel did it because they don't want the Iranians there for their own reasons. They are lucky that the Syrians and Russians also don't want them to remain. There is a temporary confluence of interest. I assume the Iranians have gotten the message.

Z-man , July 10, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@FKA Max

I don't know about pro Vatican but definitely anti Christian. A pox on Neochoens!

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:30 pm GMT
@utu

That's a wet dream of Israel. But it won't happen. The elites which support Putin in Russia and Xi in China understand that they are in a besieged fortress situation: a breach of any gate means that the fortress falls to the enemy. They won't sell out even inconsequential places like Syria, Venezuela, or North Korea. Not because they are nice or heroic, but because of correctly understood self-interest.

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I don't know. Iran certainly needs nukes, as the comparison of the fates of Saddam and Ghaddafi, neither of whom had WMDs, with that of Un, who has nukes, clearly shows. Nukes are the only thing that can deter the US aggression against Iran, as the US never attacks anyone who has WMDs. After all, cowardice is the only quality of the US elites that is good for humankind.

AnonFromTN , July 10, 2018 at 4:38 pm GMT
@Clyde

You mean, as opposed to squeaky clean elites of the US and its vassals? LOL.

Z-man , July 10, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
I'm still holding out hope for Trump. I'm thinking, to keep his Zionist flanks at bay he continues with his bellicose words while really being less war mongering, like he's been on Korea. A cynical stance by Trump keeping Neochoens and shit libs like the Hollywood Elite off balanced in their attacks on him, since they're all Israeli firsters. Then again I could be overestimating his political savvy however his lastest statement* on NATO, the EU and Vladimir has made me feel good.

*Trump: Putin summit 'may be easier' than NATO, UK visit Speaking to reporters before departing the White House for the meetings in Europe, Trump said, "Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all." Ya gotta love the guy as he's making the Cabal squirm.

edNels , July 10, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

The Neo con dream is to get rid of Iran because it blocks the way for the incremental escalation of ISIS style asymmetric proxy forces to leap ahead and progress the Grand Chessboard scenario up into Central Asia, and Russia, and stop the Silk Road. Put the kibosh on that whole unwanted side show Silk Road don't make money for GM , or maybe it does, go figure.

Johnny Smoggins , July 10, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT
The saddest part of all this is that Trump is working so hard to please Israel by hurting the ancient enemy of the Jews, the Persians, and in return gets called a Nazi by the Jewish, which is to say mainstream, media who work tirelessly to undermine him and his government. So if he attacks Iran, he's a Nazi. If he doesn't attack Iran, he's also a Nazi. If he's going to be a Nazi anyway, why not just save all that American blood and money and leave Iran alone?
renfro , July 10, 2018 at 5:39 pm GMT
The advantage in looking at US – Iran history is you will then understand that all of it has been nothing but the brain farts of the ever changing interest of ever changing ideologues in ever changing administrations. If stupidity carried a death sentence the US would be six feet under.

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Iran&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Iran

700 events found.
49 entities found.

James Brown , July 10, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Johnny Smoggins

"So if he attacks Iran, he's a Nazi. If he doesn't attack Iran, he's also a Nazi."

If doesn't attack Iran, he probably won't finish his mandate. He will be impeached.

If he attacks, he will be a war president. A " great president". He will be re-elected. Like Bush Jr.

American people love their "commander in chief".

Z-man , July 10, 2018 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Johnny Smoggins

Like I said, I hope he's playing both sides against the middle and make a lot of noise vis a vis Iran but not attacking it. But we shall see, there are a lot of rabid dogs in his administration, Bolton, Miller, Haley and even 'meathead'* Pompeo. Hopefully the Zio-cons don't have total control.

*Small 'm' as opposed to big 'M', Meathead Rob Reiner, LOL!!!

Jake , July 10, 2018 at 5:59 pm GMT
@Talha

That is true, but you must stress that each exists first because of the British Empire. And you must stress that the CIA, the Mossad, and the Saudi General Intelligence Secretary are all children of British secret service.

It is also essential to know that SAVAK, the Shah's secret police organization, was founded by both branches of WASP secret service, Brit and American.

By the start of the 19th century. the philo-Semitism that is central to WASP culture – due to the Judaizing heresy that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism – had long left its specific religious origin and become more broadly cultural. With the deepening interest in all things 'exotic' and 'oriental,' it began to move from simply gravitating to backing Jews and Jewish notions against whatever rather obviously even seemed like it might be some remnant of Christendom. And that movement made a growing number of WASP Elites by the dawn of Victorianism pro-Arabic and pro-Islam.

WASP culture has never lost any of its defining pro-Semitism, but the way the pro-Semitism has been expressed has altered. Since the 19th century, it has meant a battle within the WASP Elites between those who are pro-Jewish and those who are pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic.

The alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia is the ultimate wet dream of WASP Elites, because it represents peace and total cooperation between the two camps of philo-Semitism within WASP culture.

Greg Bacon , Website July 10, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT
There's more to our trade war with China than Tubby the Grifter tweeting MAGA. China is being punished by tariffs because they are still buying oil from Iran. Trump is doing this to please our Overlord, Israel and to hell with the consequences for Americans.

My fantasy is that one day, Americans wake up and realize who is our worst enemy. And it's not Russia or China or some Islamic nation. Does 'Lucky Larry' Silverstein own any more asbestos-laden skyscrapers?

nagra , July 10, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
Iran is 'Islamic Republic' after all and as much I despise western foreign policy Iran is not so innocent in the whole game nor they are some 'freedom fighters https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201807091066183920-irgc-commander-anti-israel-remarks/
Virgile , July 10, 2018 at 6:22 pm GMT
While Trump is succumbing to the neocons pressures to protect Israel by weakening Iran , Syria, Hezbollah, he has no intention to go to war. Trump is not Bush. He wants business deals, not war. So in appearance he is following the neocons in the ME, but he is not in the rest of the world: North Korea is a good example of Trump's view of the world: Money and business. There is no money to be made in wars anymore ( "Keep the Iraqi oil fields") Quite the contrary , there is money to waste. Therefore Trump will not use 'diplomacy' or 'sticks to solve issues, he will use economical 'carrots' in a one to one deal.

Trumpo hates 'democratic groups, UN, EU, NAFTA, JCOA ,TAP, UNHCR etc. He wants to deal one to one, so he needs to torpedo these groups in any way possible.

The Middle East big peace plan for Palestine and Israel is all about economical carrots.. The trouble is that some countries do not respond to carrots, such as Iran or Syria. Then he needs to use sticks to weaken them. That is what we see with the Iran sanctions. Contrary to North Korea, Iran is no threat to the USA. It is a threat to the USA's ally, Israel.

Therefore Trump accepts the neocon pressure with the aim of weakening Iran so it stops been a threat to Israel and to accept to make business deals with the USA and not with France and Germany. Trump has no intention to push for a regime change either in Iran or North Korea.

Contrary to Bush, Trump prefers using big carrots and small sticks!

peterAUS , July 10, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT

If sanctions produce desperation inside Iran, an apparent breakdown in order could easily invite a hypocritical U.S. and Israeli "humanitarian" intervention, possibly escalating into an international conflict, something that the White House appears to not understand.

What is not to understand? The author is engaged in wishful thinking. Conflict with Iran is exactly what Washington wants, for several reasons. Several. There is a pattern here. Once a month we get into regurgitating the same old about the topic. Makes sense, in a peculiar way.

renfro , July 10, 2018 at 6:35 pm GMT

for keeping America and our allies safe from the long list of threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran

Such a joke.

Notice that none of the neos ever say exactly what those 'threats' are but make dummies believe that Iran is going to nuke the US.

peterAUS , July 10, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Can the US simply topple the govt and leave a mess behind? What's the game plan?

Yes.

What's the game plan?

You already know what it is: " .topple the govt and leave a mess behind".

peterAUS , July 10, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

Yup.

In any confrontation with Iran blocking of Hormuz will be a focal point from both sides. Most people around believe Iran can do it and use it as advantage in the conflict. A main advantage even. I don't believe Iran can block the Hormuz and, well, as you say:

But life in Iran? What do you think would happen to life in Iran were Tehran to carry out its threats?

On a serious note, it feels as most posters here pushing for strong Iranian response live nice middle class lives. Last time they had anything violent done to them was, I feel, some time in high school. They also obey all the laws, dutifully pay taxes, trudge in their jobs all in all just being nice citizens of The Empire. And, the same types are quite happy to, ahm, cheer Iranian people to suffer the onslaught of US military might. Feels interesting . In a hypocritical way, of sort.

Art , July 10, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT

Reports from inside Iran suggest that the renewed and additional sanctions are already hurting the Iranian people while at the same time having little impact on the government commitment to remain in Syria, which is the principal bone of contention at the moment vis-à-vis the joint U.S./Israeli/Saudi grossly exaggerated and self-serving assessment of what Iran may or may not be doing to destabilize the Middle East.

Trump is going to blow up Iran for the Jews and the Saudis. There is no other way to look at this.

He is going to turn the CIA loose on Iran. He is going to start bloody insurrections by pitting neighbor against neighbor – he is going to starve people – he is going to deny them medicine – he may even bomb them. He plans to hurt 60,000,000 people. WHY? Is this what America is all about? Have we learned nothing from blowing up Iraq?

He does this to benefit other ideologies than Western Christianity – he does this for Zionism and Wahhabism – both are anti-Christian. They are two of the most backwards apartheid tribal movements on the planet – both perpetuating ancient old tribalism, the worst remnants of our primordial past. The most advanced nation on the planet, the indispensable one, the exceptional one – is saving two of the worst of humanity. How totally perverted.

Trump says Iran (a country of minorities), is guilty of defending people who are being attacked by Jews and Saudis – Lebanon and Syria. Both countries are also made up of minorities. Zionism and Wahhabism are attacking all three of those minority nations.

Iran is on the side of the minority good guys. Trump and the US deep state government, are on the side of the single tribe bad guys – the attackers of the weak.

Thanks to the Jew control of America, we are helping the moneyed militarily strong against the weak.

Our government's values are upside down. We must get the Jews out of our government.

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

anon [266] Disclaimer , July 10, 2018 at 7:35 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

Satan is a religious term a religious idea . Why shall America advancing various secular non religious ideas will take umbrage at Iran for saying "Satan" ? Not long ago Jews were called Christ -Killer and called Shylock ,even anti Christ. America has various choicest reserved words for Iran (most of them are supplied by the Shylock 's fellow traveler .
By the way "satan " has not killed anybody but the practices of the Godly America has hurt killed destroyed large section of Iranian population.

Israel intention?? Iran knows well what the intention has been since days of Rabin from 1995- to use America against Iran by using words like 'Satan" and other default lies and falsehood . Will it move out of Syria? Hey but this the best chance of Israel to attack Iran and kill engineers scientists and declare all out war against Iran . Israel doesn't have to fly 1000 miles.

Oh I get it . Israel wants America does it!

Why not if Iraq-job could be delegated to USA wth full Zionist supervision , why not Iran.

Again if USA can come to Kuwait at the invitation of Kuwait, Iran can do same in Syria.

anon [266] Disclaimer , July 10, 2018 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

No I won't But if S Korea can keep, Kuwait can keep , Syria I guess can . Alternative is Libya and the 24 hour non stop hand wringing by the Western elite bastards in the media and government and International court and Think thanks lamenting : " what else can you do for these animals? We did everything but they won't stop killing each other"

anon [107] Disclaimer , July 10, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Art

He is going to turn the CIA loose on Iran. He is going to start bloody insurrections by pitting neighbor against neighbor – he is going to starve people – he is going to deny them medicine – he may even bomb them. He plans to hurt 60,000,000 people. WHY? Is this what America is all about? Have we learned nothing from blowing up Iraq?

goshes, that sounds so "Judea Declares War On Germany"

[Jul 09, 2018] The CIA s return to the bad old days, when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders

Notable quotes:
"... IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/ ..."
"... Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

redmudhooch , July 3, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT

IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/

Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations."

Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.

... ... ...

[Jul 09, 2018] On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking Rachel Corrie pancakes to celebrate the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ParadiseNow Giraldi always says what needs to be said. Excellent article.

Speaking of the news that evaporates--"The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media"--and of the stories that disappear an hour or so after they are posted...

I've never come across anyone in the US who had seen or heard of the story that popped up on my monitor one day while working in a newsroom in Los Angeles, a headline piece by the BBC stating that the California legislature in Sacramento had just passed a resolution apologizing to Mel Gibson for the treatment he was subjected to after his drunken comments were illegally relayed to the press. The article also reported that legislation was passed increasing fines and jail penalties in California for anyone who illegally gave or sold arrest information to the media.

The story had some serious bearing on our immediate market as numerous celebrities' private medical information etc were being illegally gathered and sold to news outlets. I brought it to the attention of my (Jewish) chief editor who read the article, thanked me for the heads up, then completely ignored it.

Shortly after the piece just evaporated from the BBC site, and to this day I can find no trace of it in their archives.

On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes' to celebrate the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.

Jmaie , July 4, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT

I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes'

Here's my take as a (non-Jewish) American.

My sympathies are with the Palestinians with regards to trying somehow to estabilsh sustainable territorial boundaries. IMHO Israel is clearly stealing land by building settlements in the West Bank. But given the ad-hoc nature of the current borders and the intent of the various parties, , God/Allah knows how this can be reasonably adjudicated.

I am ambivalent with regards to the plight of those in Gaza, Egypt is certainly in a position to help. The southern border is after all under their control.

Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part) seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation.

Both parties seem to regard the other as filth, undeserving of human compassion. How we move forward from here is beyond my ability to guess.

Arab neighbors seem to view refugees as pawns to be kept in squalor for their own political aims.

It seems like (and this is my own reading from afar) Hamas uses the "right of return" as an issue to turn gullible Palestinian youth into canon fodder. It's been 75 years and Israel is stronger than ever. Time to wake up and smell the coffee

There is so damn much much fault on both sides .

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up .

jilles dykstra , July 4, 2018 at 6:31 am GMT
@Jmaie

" Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part) seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation. "

What do you suggest the inmates of the Gaza concentration camp can do to get attention to their plight ?
The only way seems to be to provoke Israel into some retaliatory action.
Netanyahu is as stupid as Hitler, who let himself be provoked by Poland.
And indeed, both sides see the other as dirt.

jilles dykstra , July 4, 2018 at 6:40 am GMT
@CCR

They did drive the Palestinians out...

Jabotinski in 1923 saw it well 'just force will make Palestinians give up their lands'. But he did not foresee that they never really would give up.

What he also did not foresee that the ethnic cleansing would cause a growth of the number of Palestinians. As far as I can see Israel has no long time strategy for dealing with the Palestinian problem.

Trying to convince the great majority of the world's countries in the UN Assembly that they're all wrong, and Israel right, lunacy.

byrresheim , July 4, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
@Jmaie

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up .

Thank you for unmasking yourself in the last sentence

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT
@Jmaie

New Zionist shill on the block, 'jmaie'

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up

Buddy, you really are FILTH.

[Jul 09, 2018] Syria in Perspective Fabricating Incidents to Incriminate The Syrian Government. Peter Ford Global Research - Centre for Res

Notable quotes:
"... Statement by Peter Ford , British Ambassador to Syria, 2003-6, Representative of the Commissioner General of UNRWA, 2006-14 ..."
"... Peter Ford will also be speaking at Imperialism on trial, a series of speaking events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom ( July 2018). For details see below at foot of article. ..."
"... 'we visited 44 sites and interviewed 112 civilian residents' ..."
"... '[they] launched air strikes on buildings full of civilians using wide area effect munitions ' ..."
"... 'we found no information indicating that fighters were present' ..."
"... 'they used unguided mortars and unguided artillery' ..."
"... 'there is strong evidence that the attacks violated international law' ..."
"... 'they fired projectiles above houses photos showed burning elements coming into contact with civilian buildings'. ..."
"... 'people hiding in basements were terrified' 'hundreds were killed and thousands injured' ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Syria in Perspective: Fabricating Incidents to Incriminate The Syrian Government. Peter Ford 38th UN Human Rights Council : Side event organised by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Geneva 27 June 2018 By Peter Ford Global Research, July 04, 2018 Patreon 3 July 2018 Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: Media Disinformation , US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: SYRIA

Statement by Peter Ford , British Ambassador to Syria, 2003-6, Representative of the Commissioner General of UNRWA, 2006-14

Peter Ford will also be speaking at Imperialism on trial, a series of speaking events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom ( July 2018). For details see below at foot of article.

***

The objective of this meeting is to show Syria in perspective. That is, Syria as she really is after eight years of war, not as she is almost universally portrayed in the West.

A brave stand by the Commission of Inquiry on Syria over alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma

I shall look at the broad picture, but I want to zero in by dealing with the report presented yesterday by the Commission on Syria.

I am not going to endorse that report but I want to begin by congratulating the Commission for standing firm and refusing to make premature pronouncements about the alleged use of prohibited weapons in Douma.

In doing so the Commission obviously angered those in the US administration and elsewhere who are impatient to see the West bombing its way to regime change in Syria. Hence the petulant leaks to the New York Times of a rejected earlier draft of the Commission report, and hysterical accusations against the Commission.

The body which actually has prime responsibility for determining what occurred or did not occur in Douma is the OPCW. Its investigations are not yet complete. Perhaps worried that the outcome might not be what Washington wants, the US administration had clearly been pinning high hopes on the Commission for producing a report which would suit the administration's purpose of retrospectively justifying the illegal US/UK/French bombing of Syria in April – and more importantly, of conditioning opinion for the next, bigger aggression.

Conditioning Western opinion for the next aggression

Make no mistake, conditioning opinion for the next Western air strikes is crucial for the coming phase of the Syria conflict.

Imagine that today you are a leader of one of the armed groups, in Deraa, say. You have seen how gullible Western governments and media are.

You have seen how easy it is to fabricate incidents to incriminate the Syrian government . You don't even need to stage a false flag operation, that is one where you yourself use chemical weapons in order to pin the blame on Assad. You did that in 2013 only the former Commissioner, Carla Del Ponte, to veer off message by stating that there was strong and concrete evidence that the rebels had stocks of sarin and had used it.

The UN hierarchy intervened quickly to row back on what Carla Del Ponte had blurted out. So you, the jihadi leader, felt confident in staging more false flag incidents, as with the Khan Sheykhoun incident in April 2017. You knew that the OPCW inspectors would not actually visit the site, because your jihadi forces made sure it was unsafe. You knew that that – incredible as it may seem – would not stand in the way of the inspectors, in violation of their own protocols, accepting as genuine ground samples, photographs and other evidence provided by your auxiliaries, the White Helmets. You knew the inspectors would not demand biological samples.

You were worried when some of your coached witnesses in an excess of zeal presented themselves to hospitals too early and were logged as being treated even before Asad's planes had left Sheyrat air base. The inspectors, however, relegated this killer fact to an appendix to their report. It was of course ignored.

Douma was a bigger challenge because you, the jihadi leader, left it so late that the inspectors were actually able to visit the site. But you were confident that your Western paymasters would bomb Asad without waiting for the investigation. And then when the investigation, delayed by the bombing, was finally about to get under way it was a simple matter to engineer more delay and deterioration of evidence by having your sleeper cells left behind fire a few shots. You knew the West would blame Russia and Asad. You knew also that even though the Russians found the people seen in the key video of the incident and had them recount here in Europe the true story of what happened, the Western media would prefer to believe you, the accomplice of Al Qaida.

Pentagon acting as Al Qaida air wing

You really cannot believe your luck. You have lost the war but here is the Pentagon willing to act as Al Qaida's air wing as long as you just provide them with a credible staged incident.

To get the US, UK and France to go to war, a lower standard of evidence is needed than it takes to get a conviction for a parking ticket.

After Douma Western leaders swore that next time the gloves would be off, and reports emerged that Plan A for Douma had been to target Asad himself and his command centres, though the Russians nixed that. So what do you, the jihadi commander, do now? Well obviously you start planning the next fake attack. You would be a fool not to.

Thus , my friends, a repeat of Douma is fated to occur. Unless, that is, sufficient doubt emerges about the Douma charade, the Douma hoax, to give Western governments pause in assuming that their public opinions will swallow a repeat dose and allow them to risk a much more serious confrontation with Russia and Iran.

Against the background of that likely scenario, we see what a crucial service the Commission has performed by refusing to join in the conditioning of opinion by pronouncing on Douma.

Siege warfare is not the unique vice of the Syrian government

Enough praise for the Commission. Now for some caveats

I quote:

'we visited 44 sites and interviewed 112 civilian residents'

'[they] launched air strikes on buildings full of civilians using wide area effect munitions '

'we found no information indicating that fighters were present'

'they used unguided mortars and unguided artillery'

'there is strong evidence that the attacks violated international law'

'they fired projectiles above houses photos showed burning elements coming into contact with civilian buildings'.

'people hiding in basements were terrified' 'hundreds were killed and thousands injured'

Horrendous, yes? Shocking, yes?

These are quotes not from the Commission report but from the Amnesty International report on the siege of Raqqa by the Coalition. They put into its right context the Commission's report on the siege of Douma.

But while the Commission apparently want to indict Syrian leaders for war crimes, those who conducted the siege of Raqqa, reported on by the Commission in an earlier report, are just gently admonished for not taking enough precautions.

It is remarkable that the Commission have ignored the Amnesty International report in their latest offering, even though Amnesty International called for international investigation and action.

Crimes of aggression

Other issues are also ignored.

The Commission is mandated to investigate not only human rights law but also 'abuses and violations of international law (HRC 21/26)'. The crime of aggression is such a violation, indictable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Commission cannot trespass on the territory of the OPCW, as it has done, damagingly, in earlier reports, producing the endlessly cited factoid that there have been 34 chemical weapons attacks since 2013, while on the other hand timidly ignoring issues arising under the purview of the Rome Statute.

The unprovoked attacks by the US, UK and France on Syria following the liberation of Douma are barely given a mention in the latest report.

Other acts of illegality are ignored.

Is it not a violation of international law to give immense military, financial and propaganda support to armed groups operating in the territory of a member state of the UN?

Is it not a violation to establish without permission military bases on the territory of a member state? The US has several thousand troops in Syria, and does not even attempt to justify their presence in terms of international law. British forces are present too, and the British government ludicrously tries to justify their presence on the far fetched grounds that they are protecting Iraq against ISIS.

Is it not a violation to use military force to prevent the forces or allied forces of a member state from taking control of state oil assets, and to kill scores if not hundreds in the process, as occurred in the vicinity of Deir Ez Zor?

Is it not a violation of international law to occupy a pocket of a state's territory, 55 kilometres deep, as at Al Tanf on Syria's border with Iraq, and shamelessly proclaim a readiness to use military force to prevent that state's forces' from entering in order to root out jihadis being rebadged, equipped and trained behind American shields?

Is it not a violation of international law to invade Syrian territory as Turkey has done, and to establish a de facto occupation authority?

Is it not a violation of international law to dispose of part of a state's territory as Turkey and the US have purported to do over the district of Manbij, and to connive at keeping out the forces of the lawful government?

Is it not a violation to bomb alleged sites of chemical weapons which had been recently inspected by OPCW inspectors and found to give no grounds for concern?

Is it not a violation to direct unilateral coercive measures against a state without any international mandate to do so?

And finally, is it not a breach of international law for Israel to launch more than a hundred unprovoked bombing raids on Syria, some hundreds of kilometres away from Israel?

The Commission pass over in embarrassed silence all these very serious violations.

Forced displacement

The Commission's report makes much of alleged forced displacement. This is a classic example of misleading framing.

What the Syrian government has done in terms of negotiating terms for local surrenders could equally be framed as humane treatment of a vanquished foe, offering them a choice between staying in the locality and accepting government jurisdiction, or leaving with their families for another destination controlled by their fellow insurgents. So excellent was this choice that the Coalition used the same procedure at the end of the siege of Raqqa, allowing thousands of ISIS fighters to escape.

I am afraid that on this count the Commission have been dupes of opposition propaganda.

Two possible futures for Syria

I shall conclude by taking a forward look at where Syria is heading.

There are basically two possible futures for Syria.

Spoiler strategy of the West

First there is the future as the Western powers are trying to shape it.

At the moment the US and its satellites realise that Asad has the military upper hand and will be hard to dislodge just by military means. They have therefore a multi-pronged spoiler strategy:

Prevent Asad regaining control of the North East, with its important oil and gas assets.

Try to hamper trade and communications across the border with Iraq, by actions which include refraining from crushing ISIS in its remaining redoubts, from where it can remain a thorn in the Syrian government's side

Use sanctions to keep the Syrian economy weak

Prevent international aid for reconstruction from reaching Syria

Keep Syria depopulated by discouraging return of refugees to Syria

Use the Geneva negotiations and the fiction of 'transition' to claw back in the negotiating chamber what has been lost on the battlefield

Weaken Syria militarily by securing with Israeli assistance withdrawal of Iran and its allies

Stand by ready to cripple government forces using the pretext of a chemical weapon attack

This future has no vision for what might occur if the strategy succeeds. No conception of what would fill the void if Asad was toppled. As with Iraq, the West wreaks destruction and hopes for the best.

A military solution

The second future is this:

The gradual recovery of the entirety of Syrian territory under the present government. A major step forward is being made currently in the South. That will leave just the North and North East. Talks are already under way with the Kurds. The status quo in these areas is unsustainable and the Kurds know it. The Kurds need Syrian government protection against Turkey. Some changes in the constitution will bring the Kurds on board.

The Idlib campaign to bring that area under the government control may be brutal but can only have one outcome.

Essentially what we shall see is a military solution. With the recovery of the South the Syrian government will control areas where 80% of Syrians live. All the pious talk about there only possibly being a political solution is just that, pious talk . Essentially what we shall see is a return to the status quo ante, with some modification for the Kurds.

This is the perspective I think is the most likely to prevail for Syria, and the one desired by most, war weary Syrians. The war will have been waged on Syria, primarily from outside, for nothing.

Western powers, get used to it.

Stop trying to delay the inevitable and prolonging the agony.

Featuring Peter Ford (former UK Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain), Eva Bartlett (investigative journalist), Professor Peter Kuznick (Co-Author with Oliver Stone , Untold History of the United States), Adam Garrie , (Director, Eurasia Future), Ken Livingstone (Former Mayor of London), Rev Andrew Ashdown (Doctoral Research Student in 'Christian-Muslim relations in Syria'), Catherine Shakdown (goepolitical analyst and writer) and more!

This series of events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom offers an alternative narrative on global politics and war, to that presented by the mainstream media.

Imperialism on Trial – July 2018 Anti-Syrian Blame Game Escalates: Who is Behind Killings of Civilians? UK Tour Dates: London – Tuesday July 10 Bloomsbury Baptist Church 235 Shaftesbury Ave. 7:00 PM – 10:00 PM BST [Doors open at 6:15] Eva Barlett, Peter Kuznick, Peter Ford, Adam Garrie, Rev Andrew Ashdown https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-on-trial-tickets-47772122705?aff=es2 London – Wednesday July 11 Bloomsbury Baptist Church 235 Shaftesbury Ave. 7:00 PM – 10:00 PM BST [Doors open at 6:15] Eva Bartlett, Peter Kuznick, Peter Ford, Neil Clark, Adam Garrie https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-on-trial-tickets-47281318697 Birmingham – Thursday July 12 Quaker Meeting House 40 Bull Street 6:45 – 9:15 BST [Doors open at 6:15] Eva Bartlett, Peter Kuznick, Ken Livingstone, Peter Ford, Catherine Shakdam https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-on-trial-tickets-47282457102 Liverpool – Sunday July 15 Liverpool Irish Centre 6 Boundary Lane 7:00-10:30PM BST [Doors open at 6:30] Eva Bartlett, Peter Ford, Peter Kuznick, Dan Glazebrook, Gerry Maclochlainn. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-ontrial-tickets-47282789095 Manchester – Monday July 16 Manchester Irish Centre 1 Irish Town Way 7:00 – 10:30PM BST [Doors open at 6:30] Eva Bartlett, Dan Glazebrook, Gerry Maclochlainn, Michael Pike, Rev Andrew Ashdown https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-on-trial-tickets-47283231418 The original source of this article is Patreon Copyright © Peter Ford , Patreon , 2018

[Jul 09, 2018] Senate Intelligence Committee Prostitutes Itself In Behalf Of Russiagate, by Paul Craig Roberts

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Are you stupid enough to believe that American voters elected Trump president because Vladimir Putin influenced them to vote for Russia's candidate? The US Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee is that stupid. This collection of nitwits actually produced a report that a few ads allegedly placed online on Putin's instructions, ads that did not cost one-hundredth of one percent of the huge sum spent by the candidates themselves, both national committees and everyone else, were decisive in influencing voters who never saw the ads in the first place or read or responded to tweets.

That a Senate Committee would expect anyone to believe such a far-fetched story shows that the Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee has no respect whatsoever for the people who elected President Trump, or, for that matter, for anyone else at home or abroad.

This Senate report is the most incredible bullshit I have every encountered in my life. There is no evidence whatsoever in the report. Only assertions. And most of these are based on "open-source" internet postings by trolls and bots financed by the military/security complex and Democratic Party.

What the report actually tells us is that no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has enough intelligence or integrity to serve in the US Senate. It is the Senate Intelligence Committee that is a disgrace to America and to the entire human race.

RT has great fun with the collection of nitwits that comprise the Senate Intelligence Committee: https://www.rt.com/usa/431661-senate-intelligence-assessment-russia/

On this Fourth of July, how can anyone be a Proud American?

[Jul 09, 2018] 'Pay Up You NATO Deadbeats or Else!' by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else? ..."
"... In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US. ..."
"... Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China! ..."
"... At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US) hegemony. It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in order to justify its own existence. ..."
Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

`We are the schmucks' thundered President Donald Trump, using a favorite New York City Yiddish term for penis. The object of Trump's wrath at his Make America Great Again' rally in Great Falls, Montana was the craven, stingy European members of NATO, only 16 of 22 members are on budget for their US-commanded military spending. Trump wants them to spend much more.

Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else?

Equally bad, according to Trump, is that the US runs a whopping trade deficit with the European Union which is busy shipping high-end cars and fine wines to the US. The wicked foreigners don't buy enough Amerian bourbon, corn and terribly abused pigs.

Trump is quite right that America's NATO allies, particularly Germany and Canada, don't spend enough on defense. Germany is reported to have less than twenty operational tanks. Canada's armed forces appear to be smaller than the New York City police department.

But the Europeans ask, 'defense against whom?' The Soviet Union was a huge threat back in the Cold War when the mighty Red Army had 55,000 tanks pointed West. Today, Russia's land and navel power has evaporated. Russia has perhaps 5,500 main battle tanks in active service and a similar number in storage, a far cry from its armored juggernaut of the Cold War.

More important, Russia's military budget for 2018 was only $61 billion, actually down 17% from last year. That's 4.3% of GDP. Russia is facing hard economic times. Russia has slipped to third place in military spending after the US, China and Saudi Arabia. The US and its wealthy allies account for two thirds of world military spending. In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.

In addition, Russia must defend a vast territory from the Baltic to the Pacific. The US is fortunate in having Mexico and Canada as neighbors. Russia has North Korea, China, India, the Mideast and NATO to watch. As with its naval forces, Russia's armies are too far apart to lend one another mutual support. Two vulnerable rail lines are Russia's main land link between European Russia and its Pacific Far East.

Trump's supplemental military budget boost this year of $54 billion is almost as large as Russia's entire 2018 military budget. As for Trump's claim that Europe is not paying its fair share of NATO expenses, note that that Britain and France combined together spend more on their military forces than Russia.

ORDER IT NOW

In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US.

Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China!

These essentials of war have been seriously neglected in favor of buying fancy weapons. But such weapons need spares, electronics, fuel depots, missiles and thousands of essential parts. As former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld observed, 'you go to war with what you have.' Neither side has enough. A war would likely peter out in days after supplies were exhausted. Besides, no side can afford to replace $100 million jet fighters or $5 million apiece tanks after a war, however brief.

President Trump has learned about war from Fox TV. Europeans have learned from real experience and don't want any more.

Robert Magill , July 7, 2018 at 11:42 pm GMT

The last time the US put troops into action in North Korea, China lashed out and drove us back South. In retaliation we dropped more tonnage of bombs and napalm on the North than was used in the entire Pacific War.

Why would anyone think the same thing cannot happen again? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/we-are-a-very-modern-and-enlightened-species-and-we-can-prove-it/

Giuseppe , July 8, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT

In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.

Disband NATO already. The USSR is gone and Russia has no revanchist plans. Our military spending on the defense of Europe only frees their budgets for social programs like medical care and college education.

And what have we gotten for spending the nation's wealth on blowing up the Greater Middle East, killing a million plus civilians and displacing millions more? Rusting cities, crumbling infrastructure, a school system that can't compete with even that of India American Exceptionalism indeed. Exceptionally deluded.

Bill Pilgrim , July 9, 2018 at 6:37 am GMT
At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US) hegemony. It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in order to justify its own existence.
Bill Pilgrim , July 9, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
Here's a former UK ambassador:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/no-need-for-nato/

[Jul 09, 2018] American Pravda Post-War France and Post-War Germany, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Unconditional Hatred ..."
"... Daily Telegraph ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

The author of Unconditional Hatred was Captain Russell Grenfell, a British naval officer who had served with distinction in the First World War, and later helped direct the Royal Navy Staff College, while publishing six highly-regarded books on naval strategy and serving as the Naval Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph . Grenfell recognized that great quantities of extreme propaganda almost inevitably accompany any major war, but with several years having passed since the close of hostilities, he was growing concerned that unless an antidote were soon widely applied, the lingering poison of such wartime exaggerations might threaten the future peace of Europe.

His considerable historical erudition and his reserved academic tone shine through in this fascinating volume, which focuses primarily upon the events of the two world wars, but often contains digressions into the Napoleonic conflicts or even earlier ones. One of the intriguing aspects of his discussion is that much of the anti-German propaganda he seeks to debunk would today be considered so absurd and ridiculous it has been almost entirely forgotten, while much of the extremely hostile picture we currently have of Hitler's Germany receives almost no mention whatsoever, possibly because it had not yet been established or was then still considered too outlandish for anyone to take seriously. Among other matters, he reports with considerable disapproval that leading British newspapers had carried headlined articles about the horrific tortures that were being inflicted upon German prisoners at war crimes trials in order to coerce all sorts of dubious confessions out of them.

Some of Grenfell's casual claims do raise doubts about various aspects of our conventional picture of German occupation policies. He notes numerous stories in the British press of former French "slave-laborers" who later organized friendly post-war reunions with their erstwhile German employers. He also states that in 1940 those same British papers had reported the absolutely exemplary behavior of German soldiers toward French civilians, though after terroristic attacks by Communist underground forces provoked reprisals, relations often grew much worse.

Most importantly, he points out that the huge Allied strategic bombing campaign against French cities and industry had killed huge numbers of civilians, probably far more than had ever died at German hands, and thereby provoked a great deal of hatred as an inevitable consequence. At Normandy he and other British officers had been warned to remain very cautious among any French civilians they encountered for fear they might be subject to deadly attacks.

Although Grenfell's content and tone strike me as exceptionally even-handed and objective, others surely viewed his text in a very different light. The Devin-Adair jacket-flap notes that no British publisher was willing to accept the manuscript, and when the book appeared no major American reviewer recognized its existence. Even more ominously, Grenfell is described as having been hard at work on a sequel when he suddenly died in 1954 of unknown causes, and his lengthy obituary in the London Times gives his age as 62. With the copyright having long lapsed, I am pleased to include this important volume in my collection of HTML Books so that those interested can easily read it and decide for themselves.

... ... ...

Assuming these numbers are even remotely correct, the implications are quite remarkable. The toll of the human catastrophe experienced in post-war Germany would certainly rank among the greatest in modern peacetime history, far exceeding the deaths that occurred during the Ukrainian Famine of the early 1930s and possibly even approaching the wholly unintentional losses during Mao's Great Leap Forward of 1959-61. Furthermore, the post-war German losses would vastly outrank either of these other unfortunate events in percentage terms and this would remain true even if the Bacque's estimates are considerably reduced. Yet I doubt if even a small fraction of one percent of Americans are today aware of this enormous human calamity. Presumably memories are much stronger in Germany itself, but given the growing legal crackdown on discordant views in that unfortunate country, I suspect that anyone who discusses the topic too energetically risks immediate imprisonment.

To a considerable extent, this historical ignorance has been heavily fostered by our governments, often using underhanded or even nefarious means. Just like in the old decaying USSR, much of the current political legitimacy of today's American government and its various European vassal-states is founded upon a particular narrative history of World War II, and challenging that narrative might produce dire political consequences. Bacque credibly relates some of the apparent efforts to dissuade any major newspaper or magazine from running articles discussing the startling findings of his first book, thereby imposing a "blackout" aimed at absolutely minimizing any media coverage. Such measures seem to have been quite effective, since until eight or nine years ago, I'm not sure I had ever heard a word of these shocking ideas, and I have certainly never seen them seriously discussed in any of the numerous newspapers or magazines that I have carefully read over the last three decades.

Even illegal means were employed to hinder the efforts of this solitary, determined scholar. At times, Bacque's phone-lines were tapped, his mail intercepted, and his research materials surreptitiously copied, while his access to some official archives was blocked. Some of the elderly eyewitnesses who personally corroborated his analysis received threatening notes and had their property vandalized.

Related Reading:

Unconditional Hatred by Captain Russell Grenfell France: The Tragic Years, 1939-1947 by Sisley Huddleston The High Cost of Vengeance by Freda Utley Gruesome Harvest by Ralph Franklin Keeling The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving Our American Pravda

[Jul 09, 2018] MH17 and Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which was established to oversee and investigate complaints from victims of wars and armed conflict in relation to crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other like offences as recognized under International Law.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ALCvA , July 9, 2018 at 5:11 am GMT

I don't know what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 nor do I know what happed to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 on 8 March 2014. Except that my suspicion is aroused that there is a connection with these events and the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which was established to oversee and investigate complaints from victims of wars and armed conflict in relation to crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other like offences as recognized under International Law.

In November 2011 the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.

In May 2012 after hearing testimony for a week from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counsellors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture. The tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

In November 2013, the tribunal convicted State of Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people and convicted former Israeli general Amos Yaron for crimes against humanity and genocide for his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

Thus, my conspiratorial mind suspects that there is a connection between the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal's convictions and the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370/MAS370 and Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.

The problem is that the convictions by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunals are little known and were never reported by the mainstream media.

Kees van der Pijl , Website July 9, 2018 at 6:35 am GMT
@ALCvA

I also have this in the book, with the same details, and after a discussion that also includes Malaysia's arms purchases in Russia, I write 'But we should be reminded that we are looking at a 'systems event', a conditional structure of great complexity, in which even factors that are highly unlikely to have been the cause (such as punishing Malaysia or killing Putin) may yet have played a role, at some point, in overcoming moral or other barriers.'

jilles dykstra , July 9, 2018 at 6:41 am GMT
" However, irrespective of the actual perpetrator, and whether it was an intentional act or an accident, there is no doubt about the West's intent to exploit the event to the maximum. "

The key sentence.
Dutch vice first minister Asscher at the time of the disaster was on vacation in the south of France.
This fool, in a Dutch tv show, explained the need for secrecy, in the afternoon of the day of the MH17 disaster prime minister Rutte called Asscher on his mobile, and asked him to call back on a land line 'so that the Russians could not listen in'.
Until now no Dutch people's representative dared to ask Rutte what was so secret then that the Russians had tobe prevented from listening in.
The only thing I can think of is that Rutte told Asscher 'we want the Russians to get the blame'.

It is interesting to see how the MH17 propaganda follows the example of the holocaust propaganda.
Monuments, remembrances, accusations, but never any concrete facts.
One might also say 'follows the Sept 11 propaganda'.
As a USA politician said 'MH17 is the Dutch Sept 11′.

I did not read the article carefully, so I do not know if it mentions that suspect Ukraine is part of the investigation organisation, or that Ukraine spied on the investigation.

But the essential question remains, except for an accident, why would Russia shoot down a passenger plane ?
Putin is not stupid, he does not do things that just harm him.

jilles dykstra , July 9, 2018 at 6:51 am GMT
@ALCvA

In a Dutch talkshow the chairman of the Dutch airline pilots organisation Benno Baksteen mentioned casually that aboard MH370 there were two groups of Chinese technicians specialised in making planes invisible for radar.
Nowhere in the media this was picked up, Benno Baksteen never again was on tv, and, as far as I know, he's no longer chairman.
My theory on MH17: control of the plane was taken from the crew from outside, this is possible since early 2001.
It was directed direction Antarctica, until is crashed, lack of fuel.
The second pilot tried to use his mobile phone to make contact, however, this is not possible, a passenger plane flies simply to fast, there was a connection, but before he could say anything the plane was too far away.
Also one of the Sept 11 problems.
So, following the old question 'who benefitted', it is clear for me who the suspect is.

Wizard of Oz , July 9, 2018 at 9:04 am GMT
@anon

Indeed, after noting the Marxistish approach I wondered how reliable he would be on key facts if tested. It wasn't encouraging to find him writing that the Dutch Safety Board's report could be "conveniently [sic] dismissed". As the critical account of a presentation by him that I shall post below notes he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Dutch Safety Board's technical investigation and report and the Joint Investigation Team's work on the criminal aspects of the case. That is pretty elementary and leaves him looking like someone who could only wave his hands when it is pointed out that the DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named.

He seems to be a retired professor keen to be noticed so his air fares will be paid and his book with a title which also mentions MH17 will sell.

Anyway here is a useful critique slightly truncated from

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/

showing pretty well what a BS artist the author is

What happened to flight MH17?

Presentation van Kees van der Pijl on Ukraine and MH17
Posted on September 23, 2017 by admin in Uncategorized // 4 Comments

jilles dykstra , July 9, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

" DSB made a compelling case that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile fired by someone not named. "
A weird compelling case.
They say they know who did it, a Russian officer, name and photograph have been publicised here, but they've been unable to ask him why he did it.
Any normal criminal investigation begins with motive, here at the end the motive still is lacking.
I am not in the least convinced.
The motive, except when it was an accident, lies in the west, the Netherlands objected most to sanctions.
About a possible accident, Ukraine seems to have misused overflying passenger planes as shield for its bombers.
But, the Ukrainian pilot said to have shot down MH17 committed suicide.
If he did it, he did what a fighter pilot on a illegal mission would have done, target the cockpit from behind, no possibility of an emergency signal.
If it was a BUK, it did what a fighter pilot would have done.
But a BUk flies vertical at a speed of 4500 kmh, a passenger plane at some 900.
Why did not the BUK hit from beneath ?
All in all, indeed a very compelling case, as the murder of Kennedy, Sept 11, Diana, etc

Tom Welsh , July 9, 2018 at 11:55 am GMT
"In February 2016 that assertion had still been dismissed as unfit for evidence by the Dutch chief prosecutor on the JIT, Fred Westerbeke, in a letter to victims' relatives. How can it possibly have become the core component of the case for the prosecution two years and two months later?"

That is extremely puzzling – indeed, inexplicable – if you believe that the object of the exercise is to determine the truth and to see justice done. But it isn't.

As long ago as Plato's "Politeia" ("Republic"), a widely-held view was that "justice is the will of the stronger", as Thrasybulos argues in that dialogue. As far as I can see, that is still the most popular view, and it is certainly the one supported by Western governments. (The Skripal affair is another prominent case in point: the UK government declared who was guilty without the tedious formalities of investigation, indictment, and trial).

The real object of the Western elites – as embodied in the statements of their servants in government and the media – is to control public opinion. In this endeavour, precise accuracy, consistency and objective truth are not only unnecessary hindrances – they are positive handicaps. The purpose is to imprint on the dim public consciousness some desired certainties, such as that Russia is aggressive and barbarous, that Mr Putin is a wicked soulless murderer, and so on.

That is not done by proving a case to courtroom standards. It is done by loudly repeating memorable and emotional slogans, over and over, until everyone vaguely internalizes them and anyone who dares to disagree is attacked for disloyalty.

Hence the change in value of the Bellingcat assertions referred to by the quoted passage is not only unsurprising – it is exactly what we should expect. Yesterday's completely unproven allegation is today's generally known fact.

FB , July 9, 2018 at 11:56 am GMT
Wow what a tremendous article from a bona fide scholar

I have not yet seen anywhere such an accurate and succinct overview of the geopolitical history of the post-1991 era anywhere

There is something that is not clear though the author mentions a 'land for gas' deal discussed by Putin and Merkel on the sidelines of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil

' Its tentative provisions included normalising the status of Crimea in exchange for a massive economic rehabilitation plan and a gas price rebate for Ukraine '

I have no idea what this actually means an 'economic rehabilitation plan for whom ? and what does 'normalization' of Crimea's status mean recognition of Crimea's rejoining the Russian Federation ?

I look forward to reading the author's book

[Jul 09, 2018] Pompeo's "Unilateral Gangster Mindset" Transcript of DPRK Statement Regarding North Korea U.S. High-level Talks in Pyongyang

Jul 09, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

The accusation of "Unilateral Gangster Mindset" is not directed against President Trump. It refers specifically to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Ponpeo. The Statement confirms: "We still cherish our good faith in President Trump."

[Jul 09, 2018] Some feelings toward Wall Street

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rurik , September 9, 2015 at 12:09 am GMT

@Jim

"More than 1/2 of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means."

Utter nonsense.

Jews own the Federal Reserve Bank and can hit some keys on their computer and create a few trillion Federal Reserve notes just like *that* .

They've been injecting hundreds of billion$ into Jewish dominated Wall Street for decades if not longer. Especially since the 2008 mass-looting of the American tax-slave. The big banks like Goldman Sachs and Chase are all dominated by Jews, just like the Treasury. The cash flows to other well connected Jews and gentiles, but Jews are MASSSIVELY over-represented as the recipients of the swindled lucre.

It was rabbi Dov Zakheim who was the comptroller of the Pentagon when over two trillion went missing. Do you suppose that cash ended up in the coffers of Presbyterian churches or injected into the economy of Appalachia?

When some yeshiva decides they need a few tens of thousands or more for 'security'. especially following 911, where 'lucky' Larry Silverstein collected his billions, they go to the Treasury.

Madoff, Scott Rothstein. others.. are just the tip of the iceberg.

But the big one is the Federal Reserve Bank where they and they alone have their own counterfeiting machine, and one thing you can say about Jews, is that they look after their own.

There are very many hard working and intelligent Jews who earn their money, and they deserve our admiration. But there is also a lot of graft and fraud and downright treason to the success of many of them. The scum at Goldman Sachs and guys like Jon Corzine high on the list.

tbraton , September 9, 2015 at 1:35 am GMT
@Rurik

"The scum at Goldman Sachs and guys like Jon Corzine high on the list."

I would not argue over your point that Jon Corzine is scum, but I would argue with your insinuation that he is Jewish (otherwise why mention him in a paragraph dealing with Jews). He's not. He's Protestant.

[Jul 09, 2018] July 4th and What It Really Means for Us by Boyd D. Cathey

Later "eqality of means" was replaced by "equality of opportunity". Still huge discrepancy in wealth typical for neoliberalism is socially destructive. And election of Trump was partially a reaction on neoliberalism dominance for the last 40 ears.
"... The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, "created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality." ..."
"... by our own maximum possibilities and potential ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, "created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality." ..."
"... by our own maximum possibilities and potential ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

For many Americans the Declaration of Independence is a fundamental text that tells the world who we are as a people. It is a distillation of American belief and purpose. Pundits and commentators, left and right, never cease reminding us that America is a new nation, "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Almost as important as a symbol of American belief is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It is not incorrect to see a link between these two documents, as Lincoln intentionally placed his short peroration in the context of a particular reading of the Declaration.

Lincoln bases his concept of the creation of the American nation in philosophical principles he sees enunciated in 1776, and in particular on an emphasis on the idea of "equality." The problem is that this interpretation, which forms the philosophical base of both the dominant "movement conservatism" today -- neoconservatism -- and the neo-Marxist multicultural Left, is basically false.

... ... ...

Although those authors employed the phrase "all men are created equal," and certainly that is why Lincoln made direct reference to it, a careful analysis of the Declaration does not confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in those few words. Contextually, the authors at Philadelphia were asserting their historic -- and equal -- rights as Englishmen before the Crown, which had, they believed, been violated and usurped by the British government, and it was to parliament that the Declaration was primarily directed.

The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, "created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality."

Rather, from a traditionally-Christian viewpoint, each of us is born into this world with different levels of intelligence, in different areas of expertise; physically, some are stronger or heavier, others are slight and smaller; some learn foreign languages and write beautiful prose; others become fantastic athletes or scientists. Social customs and traditions, property holding, and individual initiative -- each of these factors further discriminate as we continue in life.

None of this means that we are any less or more valued in the judgment of God, Who judges us based on our own, very unique capabilities. God measures us by ourselves, by our own maximum possibilities and potential , not by those of anyone else -- that is, whether we use our own, individual talents to the very fullest (recall the Parable of the Talents in the Gospel of St. Matthew).

... ... ...

Echoes of History , July 6, 2018 at 5:52 am GMT

"All men are created equal" is a simply a rhetorical argument against the "divine right of kings" used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government, where men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a "fasces" to form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no standing army.

Which is why there are fascist symbols throughout the US government, including in the US Senate. Watch CSPAN if you don't believe me. See those fasces?

And do study what the Founders said more. Like the author of the term "all men are created equal." He wrote in the same document:

" the merciless Indian Savages " -- Declaration of Independence

Does that sound like he thought whites and Indians were equal? Nope.

He also wrote:

"Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography)

Does that sound like he thought blacks and whites were equal? Nope.

So stop spouting false Leftist propaganda about what the term "all men are created equal" means. All it does is make you sound extremely uninformed.

Echoes of History , July 6, 2018 at 6:14 am GMT
@Dr. Doom

Yes, there is still an America, living and breathing, somewhat piled-on by Fake Americans at the moment. Don't give up on the Comeback Kid . You do not want to be as bitter and wrong as the defeatist Never Trumper" Cuckservatives. The Fake Americans will have to go back. Just like the Fake Europeans are already going back. Viktor Orban called Italy's decision to turn away rescue ship a "great moment." And the pendulum is just beginning to swing. The trend is your friend. Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

Wizard of Oz , July 6, 2018 at 8:16 am GMT
@Dan Hayes

Thank you for mentioning Jaffa. I had to look him up. Only Wikipedia so far but I found something of interest that you might like to comment on. Mention is made of Lincoln rejecting the Douglas arguments for states's rights on the ground that (majoritarian) democracy should not be allowed to enslave anyone. Is it possible to say that America's original sin of slavery ensured that there was an insoluble problem left behind by the original constitution makers plus the extension of the franchise to all adult white males?

Anon [294] Disclaimer , July 6, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
"..a careful analysis of the Declaration does not confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in those few words. Contextually, the authors at Philadelphia were asserting their historic -- and equal -- rights as Englishmen before the Crown, which had, they believed, been violated and usurped by the British government,.."

Thank you Mr Cathey. As a non American, I was always puzzled by the obvious falsehood of the statement "all men created equal" -- particularly in a nation that still legalized slavery -- and how it could still be repeated ad nauseaum. Interesting, how one victorious man and one victorious teaching can have such profound consequences for the way people live and think generations later.

'All men are created equal' is almost the opposite of that other common mistake, 'no pity for the weak'. Yet both lead to oppressive regimes. A true anthropology will lead to different healthy political systems. A twisted one, always to repressive institutions.

Crawfurdmuir , Next New Comment July 6, 2018 at 4:52 pm GMT

@Echoes of History

"All men are created equal" is a simply a rhetorical argument against the "divine right of kings" used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government, where men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a "fasces" to form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no standing army.

My take is a little different, but not incompatible with yours.

The Declaration's assertion is "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "

So, to begin with, this is not a claim that all men are created equal in ability or character. The Founders recognized that they were not, and that ordinary social and economic inequalities, due to innate differences in ability or character, were natural, normal, and inevitable. The Declaration is first and foremost a legal document. It claims equality of rights – a legal claim, not a sociological, anthropological, or psychological one. Moreover, the rights are unalienable – that is, they cannot be alienated – sold, bartered, or given away – because someone entitled to them shall have moved from old England to the New World.

The grievance of the colonists was that taxes – the stamp tax, the tea tax, etc. – had been imposed upon them by the parliament at Westminster, an assembly in which they were not represented. Hence the slogan, "no taxation without representation." It was a principle based in the main non-religious issue of the English civil war (1642-1649). Charles I had attempted to levy "ship money" by royal prerogative, without the consent of Parliament. Unlike previous levies, which had been confined to coastal towns and were raised only in time of war, he did so in peacetime and extended the tax to inland areas. This provoked strong resistance; some local officials refused assistance to collection of the tax. The Petition of Right, written by Sir Edward Coke, complained:

Your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament.

Extra-parliamentary taxation was effectively ended by the Long Parliament of 1640. After the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689, it was formally prohibited by the English Bill of Rights.

All of this history was much more familiar to the Founders in 1776 than it is to Americans today. The point of the claim that "all men are created equal" was simply to argue that Englishmen, under English law, were equally entitled to representation in any assembly that levied taxes on them, whether they were resident in England or in its colonies.

The argument for levying taxes on the colonies was that they were needed to pay for the defense of the colonies during what we call the French and Indian War, which was in fact just the North American theatre of what in Europe is known as the Seven Years' War. That they may have been needed for this purpose was not in dispute. Englishmen in England were taxed to pay for the Seven Years' War, but they were represented in the Parliament that levied the tax. Americans were not. From their point of view the taxes levied on them were as objectionable as ship money had been to the people of England in the time of Charles I.

The Declaration is therefore a sort of American version of the Petition of Right. Jefferson was an admirer of Coke and undoubtedly saw the parallel. His high-flown language about equality was meant to make the case against George III on behalf of English subjects in North America in the same way that Coke's Petition of Right made the case against Charles I on behalf of English subjects in England. The colonists' objection was that English subjects, wheresoever domiciled within English jurisdiction, should have equal rights under English law.

Jefferson never intended to proclaim the equality of negro slaves or "Indian savages" with free whites. Jefferson's observations in his Notes on the State of Virginia make quite clear that he did not believe them to be equals with whites in ability or character. The Indians he regards as primitives, having some admirable and some frightful qualities, but above all, as formidable enemies. He despairs of the intelligence of blacks; he faults black slavery because it brings out lamentable tendencies of laziness and petty tyranny among whites. These remarks are striking for their candor and have the ring of truth even today.

Russ , Next New Comment July 6, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
I appreciate Mr. Cathey's work here. On Tuesday the 3rd, one of the many overemployed sycophants in the executive ranks of the corporation which employs me deemed it necessary to bulk-email all of us peons with the message of how vital diversity and inclusion are to proper celebration of the 4th. Right -- because reserving mid-January through February for the blacks, March for women or Hispanics (I forget which), and June for the tutti-fruttis isn't nearly enough

[Jul 09, 2018] Chinese Refiner Halts US Oil Purchases, May Use Iran Oil Instead

Jul 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
With the US and China contemplating their next moves in what is now officially a trade war, a parallel narrative is developing in the world of energy where Asian oil refiners are racing to secure crude supplies in anticipation of an escalating trade war between the US and China, even as Trump demands all US allies cut Iran oil exports to zero by November 4 following sanctions aimed at shutting the country out of oil markets.

Concerned that the situation will deteriorate before it gets better, Asian refiners are moving swiftly to secure supplies with South Korea leading the way. Under pressure from Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil, according to sources, even as it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China tit-for-tat on trade.

"As South Korea's economy heavily relies on trade, it won't be good for South Korea if the global economic slowdown happens because of a trade dispute between U.S and China," said Lee Dal-seok, senior researcher at the Korea Energy Economic Institute (KEEI).

Meanwhile, Chinese state media has unleashed a full-on propaganda blitzkrieg , slamming Trump's government as a "gang of hoodlums", with officials vowing retaliation, while the chairman of Sinochem just become China's official leader of the anti-Trump resistance, quoting Michelle Obama's famous slogan " when they go low, we go high. " Standing in the line of fire are U.S. crude supplies to China, which have surged from virtually zero before 2017 to 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) in July.

Representing a modest 5% of China's overall crude imports, these supplies are worth $1 billion a month at current prices - a figure that seems certain to fall should a duty be implemented . While U.S. crude oil is not on the list of 545 products the Chinese government has said it would immediately retaliate with in response to American duties, China has threatened a 25% duty on imports of U.S. crude which is listed as a U.S. product that will receive an import tariff at an unspecified later date.

And amid an escalating tit-for-tat war between Trump and Xi in which neither leader is even remotely close to crying uncle, industry participants expect the tariff to be levied, a move which would make future purchases of US oil uneconomical for Chinese importers.

"The Chinese have to do the tit-for-tat, they have to retaliate ," said John Driscoll, director of consultancy JTD Energy, adding that cutting U.S. crude imports was a means "of retaliating (against) the U.S. in a very substantial way".

In an alarming sign for Washington, and a welcome development for Iran, some locals have decided not to see which way the dice may fall.

According to Japan Times , in a harbinger of what's to come, an executive from China's Dongming Petrochemical Group, an independent refiner from Shandong province, said his refinery had already cancelled U.S. crude orders .

"We expect the Chinese government to impose tariffs on (U.S.) crude," the unnamed executive said. " We will switch to either Middle East or West African supplies ," he said.

Driscoll said China may even replace American oil with crude from Iran. " They (Chinese importers) are not going to be intimidated, or swayed by U.S. sanctions."

Oil consultancy FGE agrees, noting that China is unlikely to heed President Trump's warning to stop buying oil from Iran. While as much as 2.3 million barrels a day of crude from the Persian Gulf state at risk per Trump's sanctions, the White House has yet to get responses from China, while India or Turkey have already hinted they would defy Trump and keep importing Iranian oil. Together three three nations make up about 60 percent of the Persian Gulf state's exports.

... ... ...

beemasters -> divingengineer Sun, 07/08/2018 - 19:50 Permalink

"Meanwhile, Chinese state media has unleashed a full-on propaganda blitzkrieg, slamming Trump's government as a "gang of hoodlums""

And how's that a propaganda?
Oh, Trump was just following Bibi's order on Iran issue. Got it.

DingleBarryObummer -> 2banana Sun, 07/08/2018 - 20:11 Permalink

Did you even READ the article?

Yes it looks like he did.

Under pressure from Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil, according to sources, even as it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China tit-for-tat on trade.

[Jul 09, 2018] My own observation is that most of the projected U.S./Russian and U.S./Chinese confrontations would involve very extended lines of communication in the case of U.S. forces.

Notable quotes:
"... On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs. ..."
"... An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else. ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , July 5, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic

On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs.

An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else.

[Jul 09, 2018] Another bait and switch ?

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

geokat62 , July 3, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT

Here's an interesting tidbit about AOC:

Newly popular Democratic politician hero and nominee for a seat in the U.S. Congress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used to have these words on her website:

A Peace Economy

"Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the Legislative body, not the President. Yet, most of these acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. Alex believes that we must end the forever war by bringing our troops home and ending the air strikes and bombings that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and occupation throughout the world."

Now they're gone. Asked about it on Twitter, she replied:

"Hey! Looking into this. Nothing malicious! Site is supporter-run so things happen -- we'll get to the bottom of it."

https://alethonews.com/2018/06/30/why-it-matters-that-peace-is-gone-from-ocasio-cortez-website/

It'll be interesting to see if these words ever reappear. I'll keep you posted if and when that happens.

ISmellBagels , July 3, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez will/can maintain her position on Israeli crimes. Public figures have a long history of backpedaling after getting the riot act read to them from the hebrew masters.
Carroll Price , July 6, 2018 at 6:09 pm GMT
@ISmellBagels

Like all other honest inexperienced upstarts, she'll spend the rest of her political life on her knees. begging forgiveness.

[Jul 09, 2018] WPOP fielded by the Unv of Maryland might be preferable to the polls like Pew

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , July 3, 2018 at 10:18 pm GMT

@FKA Max

If people want to use polls I suggest they use the gold standard WPOP fielded by the Unv of Maryland instead of polls like Pew which are funded by the Pew Charitable Trust , which is basically a 'Think Tank" that then presents its polls to congress trying to affect political decisions on issues. People need to be wary of what is an 'opinion maker' instead of just an opinion taker.

Here is a more detailed accurate picture ..bear in mind also that evans are only 10% of the population and other factors like party affiliation affect their views. One also has to wonder "IF" the evans as well as the other public were exposed to the real story on Israel and not the slanted version of the US med how that would affect the numbers.

http://worldpublicopinion.net/what-americans-especially-evangelicals-think-about-israel-and-the-middle-east/

What Americans (especially Evangelicals) think about Israel and the Middle East
Evangicals, International Action, Israel, Middle East / North Africa, Views on Countries/Regions December 4, 2015,

A new poll shows that in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overall, an overwhelming 77% of Evangelical Republicans want the United States to lean toward Israel as compared to 29% to Americans overall and 36% of non-Evangelical Republicans.

In contrast 66% of all Americans and 60% of Non-Evangelical Republicans want the United States to lean toward neither side .

This pattern holds on other aspects of US policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If the UN Security Council considers endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state, only 26% of all Americans and 38% of non-Evangelical Republicans favor the US voting against it. However six in ten Evangelical Republicans say that the US should vote against it, thus vetoing the move.

Evangelical Republicans also differ in that they pay far more attention to a candidate's position on Israel. When considering which candidate to vote for in Congress or for president just 26% of all Americans and 33% of non-Evangelical Republicans say they consider the candidates position on Israel a lot. Among Evangelical Republicans 64% say they consider it a lot.
Views of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also vary dramatically. Among the general public just 32 percent have a favorable view of Netanyahu, as do 47 percent of non-Evangelical Republicans. Favorable views rise to 66% among Evangelicals.
When asked, in an open-ended question, to name a national leader they most admire 22 percent of Republican Evangelicals chose Netanyahu, far more than any other leader.
Among Non-Evangelical Republicans 9 percent named Netanyahu and 6 percent for the public as a whole.
Evangelical Republicans represent 23% of all Republicans and 10% of the general population.
"There are of course partisan differences on Middle East policy in American public attitudes, but what's most striking is that much of the differences between Republicans and the national total disappears once one sets aside Evangelical Republicans, who constitute 10% of all Americans " said Shibley Telhami, the poll's principal investigator. "The Israel issue in American politics is seen to have become principally a Republican issue, but in fact, our results show, it's principally the issue of Evangelical Republicans."

One possible explanation for Evangelical Republicans' attitudes is their religious views. Sixty-six percent of Evangelical Republicans say that for the rapture or Second Coming to occur it is essential for current-day Israel to include all the land they believe was promised to Biblical Israel in the Old Testament, with 35% holding this view strongly.
The poll was sponsored by the Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland, and conducted in cooperation with the University's Program for Public Consultation, and released at the Brookings Institution. It was fielded by Nielsen Scarborough November 4-11, 2015, among a nationally representative sample of online panelists of 875, plus an oversample of Evangelicals/Born-Again Christians of 863. The margin of error is 3-4%.
Other Select Findings:
Overall, twice as many Americans say the Israeli government has too much influence (37%) than say too little influence (18%), while a plurality (44%) say it's the right level. Among Democrats, about half (49%) say Israel has too much influence, compared with 14% who say Israel has too little influence, and 36% who say it's the right level; Among Republicans, slightly more people say that Israel has too much influence (25%) than say it has too little influence (22%) with a slight majority (52%) saying it's the right level. The percentage of people who think that Israel has too little influence increases with age: 8% of 18-24 year olds feel this way in contrast to 17% of 25-44 year olds, 20% of 45-64 year olds, and 22% of those who are 65 years of age and older.
Given five options to explain the escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence the largest number–31%–attributes it to the absence of serious peace diplomacy, while 26% blame continued Israeli occupation and settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the same number blame Palestinian extremists. Only 6% each blame Israeli extremists and Palestinian authority ineffectiveness
Concerns about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are driven more by considerations related to human right and international law than US interests. Offered five options to explain their concern, the largest number -- 47%– say human rights or international law, while 32% say America's interest. Thirteen percent say cite religious beliefs, while 8% express concern for Israel's interests .

Overall, 37% of Americans (and 49% of Democrats) recommend punitive measures against Israel over its settlement policy (27% recommend economic sanctions, and 10% recommend taking more serious action); 31% recommend that the U.S. limits its opposition to words, 27% recommend that the U.S. do nothing.
American views of Muslims are strikingly partisan. While 67% of Democrats express favorable views of Muslims, only 41% of Republicans do.
73% of Evangelicals say that world events will turn against Israel the closer we get to the rapture or end and 78% say that the unfolding violence across the Middle East is a sign that the end times are nearer.

renfro , July 3, 2018 at 10:24 pm GMT
@renfro

A look at what the public says Trump should do.


When asked whether Trump should lean toward Israel toward Israel or Palestine or Neither

http://worldpublicopinion.net/palestine-and-israel-in-the-shadow-of-the-election-what-do-americans-want-obama-and-trump-to-do/

Favor Israel

Repubs – 56%
Dems – 17%
Independents – 29%

Favor Neither Israel or Palestine

Repubs – 42%
Dems -69%
Independents- 66%

[Jul 09, 2018] Israel supported Al Qaeda in Syria: Former Mossad Chief

Notable quotes:
"... that Israel provided "tactical" assistance to Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, throughout the Syrian civil war. ..."
"... The fact that Halevy chose the Qatari government-funded Al Jazeera to make his revelation is even more noteworthy considering the fact that Qatar is also a major financial supporter of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria. ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

redmudhooch , July 5, 2018 at 9:14 pm GMT

Israel: Our # 1 ally! Don't forget that! No matter how many American goyim they murder! No matter how many billions they leech out of us while we can't even afford health care or decent education for goyim chilluns! Number 1!

Israel supported Al Qaeda in Syria: Former Mossad Chief

https://www.timesheadline.com/world/israel-supported-al-qaeda-syria-former-mossad-chief-7229.html

Special Report. In an interview with the Qatar-based news network Al Jazeera, Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad confirmed what many in the Middle East and around the world already surmised: that Israel provided "tactical" assistance to Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, throughout the Syrian civil war.

The fact that Halevy chose the Qatari government-funded Al Jazeera to make his revelation is even more noteworthy considering the fact that Qatar is also a major financial supporter of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria.

Reports from UN observers in the Golan Heights confirmed regular contact between Israel Defense Force officers and armed Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State terrorists at the Syrian-Israeli border.

... ... ...

Halevy said it was "humane" for Israel to provide medical assistance to wounded Syrian terrorists but that such "humaneness" would never be extended to Shi'a Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon who have been fighting against the Sunni jihadist terrorists in Syria. Israel's "humaneness" was also shown for all the world to see in Gaza, where it murdered hundreds of children, old men, and women in incessant bombing attacks on highly populated areas.

annamaria , July 6, 2018 at 3:21 pm GMT
@Momus

"Jewish IDF medics are treating and saving the lives of Syrian civilians "
Are you serious? There are documented instances of Israeli saving the lives of ISIS -- the anti-civilian power unleashed by the US/Israel machinations in the Middle East. This has been accepted even by the US brass. http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/2016/12/heres-us-israel-al-qaeda-isis-work-together-syria/
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, on a border with Russia, the Kagans/Banderites putsch in Kiev have produced the results that should be of interest for the 52 main Jewish organizations in the US as well as for sanctimonious Israel that continues extracting reparations for the WWII-related "special" Jewish sufferings: https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/07/ukraine-abducts-journalists-to-exchange-for-terrorists/
"On July 5th, Kiev announced that it is willing to expand the list of prisoners that Ukraine is ready to exchange for Ukrainians being held in Russia. Among those intended for exchange is the coordinator of the Volunteers of Victory movement, Elena Yurevich (Odnovol), arrested for organizing a Victory Day celebration outlawed by Ukrainian authorities. "

[Jul 09, 2018] Heated Debate: Kevork Almassian vs. FSA opposition representatives

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

@SolontoCroesus

"TTG", one of SST's trusted writers, posted this report that you didn't read in NYTimes or hear on C Span:
Carrots and Sticks in Syria - TTG 03 Jul 2018
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/carrots-and-sticks-in-syria-ttg.html

. . . possible diplomatic breakthrough in southwest Syria. The core of this breakthrough was and remains an intense effort to speed peace negotiations between Damascus and various opposing forces in Syria. It was key to the SAA's recent successes in reducing the eastern Ghouta, Homs and even the Yarmouk refugee camp pockets. The same methodology has enabled the rapid recent success in Daraa. This effort is spearheaded by the Russian Reconciliation Center based at Khmeimim Air Base in Latakia. In addition to pushing peace deals, it coordinates relief aid to newly reconciled areas.

This carrot of reconciliation would not be effective without the stout stick which the SAA has become. We are all familiar with the formidable Tiger Force and the growing list of their combat successes. That success is being reinforced and replicated throughout the SAA by the Russians. Units are being reorganized and re-equipped along the Russian Army model without destroying what the Syrians themselves built over years of painful combat experience. Units raised independently of the SAA, including those trained and advised by the IRGC and Iranian Green Berets, will be folded into the SAA. This is also happening with some former rebels who have reconciled with Damascus. We could learn something from this experience given how we screwed the pooch with the Iraqi and Afghani armies. . . .

there's more at SST
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/carrots-and-sticks-in-syria-ttg.html

Three days ago, Pat Lang passed along reports from Haaretz and Almasdar that "Israel accepts Syrian control up to the UNDOF Line"

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/httpswwwalmasdarnewscomarticleisrael-wants-only-syrian-pro-govt-forces-near-border-haaretz.html

but you probably heard that from Jake Tapper. Or Sean Hannity.

RobinG , July 5, 2018 at 12:21 am GMT

Speaking of Syria:

Osama Abo Zayd , Former Spokesman of the Free Syrian Army former Syrian opposition chief negotiator at the Astana talks.
Kevork Almassian , founder of SyrianaAnalysis and Syrian Analyst.
Danny Makki , a freelance journalist and commentator on the Syria conflict, specialising in Syria's relations with Russia and Iran.
Yahya al-Aridi , Spokesman for the Syrian Negotiation Commission.

Heated Debate: Kevork Almassian vs. FSA & opposition representatives

[Jul 09, 2018] anarchyst

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: July 3, 2018 at 11:23 pm GMT 500 Words John McCain was a traitor and collaborator, while being held captive. He was given preferential treatment, due to the fact that his captors felt he was 'royalty', due to his family 'connections'.
His "shoot down" was self-induced, as he DISOBEYED ORDERS and flew well below the 'floor', getting himself shot down. There were several other jets on that particular mission and HE was the only one shot down, because the others obeyed their orders!
His ENTIRE life has been one of disrespect of orders and authority, believing himself bullet-proof, due to his 'family name' and his dad and grand dad being HIGH ranking Navy Admirals!
His 'nickname' in his HS yearbook was "Punk" and he displayed that behavior as he went on to the USNA, where he robbed someone, more deserving, of a slot in his class, due to the 'influence' of his father.
He SHOULD have been expelled, several times, but the folks at USNA did not want to go up against dad. He graduated FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM in his class . . but STILL ended up going to Pensacola for flight training!! His classmates who actually 'made the grade' were aghast when he showed up down there.
His flight grades were well below acceptable and he should have been run out of there too . . he was an ABYSMAL aviator . . crashing on base leg at Corpus for carrier qualification training. . he had been out drinking the night before and FELL ASLEEP after turning base leg and 'configuring' for landing . . he crashed 'wings level' and straight ahead into Corpus Bay.
He destroyed two other A/C after arriving in the Fleet . . before being shot down.
His nickname in Hanoi was "Songbird". . due to the information he willingly gave his captors. . tactical stuff. .like 'routes, altitudes', etc., that our guys used to fly from the boat to their targets and he got several aviators shot down and killed. He recorded 32+ propaganda bits (a la Tokyo Rose) to be played for our enlisted troops . . to undermine their moral.
The bogus 'story' about not coming home early, when he could have, is just common sense. He KNEW he would have been 'court-martialed' IF he had accepted any kind of early release, based upon his 'family connections'.
After his release, his Navy 'flying career' SHOULD have been over, based upon his permanent injuries, but, his dad intimidated a flight surgeon and he wrongly got back his flight medical status, when ANYONE else would NOT have 'passed' with his 'condition'. He was 'awarded' the position of XO at the Navy's largest training squadron, VA-174 at NAS Cecil and when the CO moved on, he was 'selected', over MANY more qualified officers, to become CO. .he used his position as XO and CO to take young (junior) female pilots on X-Country flights and screwed their brains out.
THAT is ILLEGAL in the military and he SHOULD have been convicted at Court Martial for 'fraternization' . .INSTEAD . .daddy got him moved out of the squadron and put in charge of the Navy's "Liaison" in DC . . along with a VERY early promotion to Captain . . the rest, as they say, is history.
John McCain is a scum bag . . a DISGRACE to the uniform he wore and his spots did not change when he became a politician!
As an aside, John McCain's admiral "daddy" was instrumental in the cover-up of the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5) in 1967. Maybe "the apple didn't fall far from the tree". Read More Agree: Cloak And Dagger

[Jul 09, 2018] I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski Writing apparently as a patriotic & principled American military veteran, RVBlake said:
"I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity."

Hi RVBlake,

Above, neither do I!

Nonetheless, a sincere thanks for your "higher" service to our very sick society & your having honorably called the U.S. Navy's attack upon the defenseless Iranian passenger airplane what it really was -- an "atrocity."

Around the year 2006, I do recall a dreaded sense of shame when faux "war hero," Senator John McCain, modified the popular Beach Boys song lyric to "Barbara Ann," and to the delight of his Zio indoctrinated political supporters (at a rally), he fiendishly intoned, "Bomb, bomb Iran!"

Fyi, RVBlake, a few months ago, author & U.S. military veteran, Philip Giraldi, wrote a great U.R. article about our "Zionized military."

On Independence Day Eve, you will ever more so appreciate P.G.'s higher service to our country. Thanks again!

[Jul 09, 2018] Charles Krauthammer: Finally they are hitting targets power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports, television transmitters that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Robjil , July 5, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT

@MacNucc11

Yes, you are correct about that. The Yugoslav attack was on March 24, 1999. It was three weeks later than the last Purim – March 3 – Shushan Purim (walled city Purim – Jerusalem). Erev Purim (Eve of Purim) March 1 and March 2 – Purim. It wasn't exactly on the date of Purim as the middle east attacks in 1991 – Iraq, 2003 Iraq and 2011 Libya. But near enough to it for the Neocons.

Charles Krauthammer, a neocon who recently died, wanted civilians to be attacked in Yugoslavia in the 1999 NATO attack and he got his wish. This is his lovely quote.
"Finally they are hitting targets – power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports, television transmitters – that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby."

The'Balkan Action Committee' formed during the NATO 1999 attack on Yugoslavia consisted of neocons who lobbied hard for war against Yugoslavia. Committee members included these neocons – Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld – three men would later lobby again for another war in Iraq.

[Jul 09, 2018] The CIA s return to the bad old days, when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders

Notable quotes:
"... IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/ ..."
"... Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

redmudhooch , July 3, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT

IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/

Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations."

Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.

... ... ...

[Jul 09, 2018] "Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , September 11, 2015 at 9:21 am GMT

"Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.

An affidavit sworn at the time of the arrest says that, between August 19 and August 28, Mr Goldberg "distributed information pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence".

US Attorney Lee Bentley III, said Goldberg instructed a confidential source how to make a bomb similar to two used in the Boston Marathon bombings two years ago that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

"Goldberg further admitted that he believed the information would create a genuine bomb," Agent Berry alleged.

In the leadup to an exhibition in Garland, Texas, at which pictures of the Prophet Mohammed were to be displayed, "Australi Witness" tweeted the event's address and reposted a tweet urging people to go there with "weapons, bombs or with knifes".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-is-jihadist-is-actually-an-jewish-american-troll-20150911-gjk852.html#ixzz3lQ8fY9YK
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

Deduction , September 11, 2015 at 10:24 am GMT
@KA

Yes, Jews can be evil little sh*ts just like Muslims and indeed anyone can. It is the trend that matters, as nothing is all or nothing, but I repeat myself!

Anyway, I've got a question for you KA, to see if you can be consistent and whether you possess the supposedly stereotypical Middle Eastern shame mindset of all or nothing.

I'm a British anti-imperialist and I firmly believe that millions of British people should not start moving to Arab and Muslims countries and colonise them.

As I am an anti-imperialist I also believe that millions of Arabs and Muslims should not be allowed to move to Britain and furthermore that those who have already come here should go home.

Do you agree with me? Are you a consistent anti-imperialist? Or are you just playing for your team to win and conquer all?

[Jul 09, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis Pompeo s prospects outlook from a 40-year Pyongyang watcher

Jul 09, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

I am not a never Trumper or even anti-Trump but IMO he is headed for a fall in North Korea. He and Pompeo seem to be overly convinced of the effect of the magnetism of their personalities. Trump's self image ill equips him to deal with the sheer stubbornness of the inhabitants of a political theocracy and Pompeo suffers people poorly whom he thinks inferior to him in intellect. He hides that well behind a surface masked in affability.

Have the Chinese sabotaged the deal? They probably have done that, seeking to maintain control of this dependency while teaching Trump a lesson. Two birds with one stone is always good.

Trump is accustomed to making deals that are executed in trenches when the initial attempt to hustle the "partner" into giving it all up fails. IMO he will fall back to that method of operation. What will be the effect on Mikey? It will be nothing good. Trump does not tolerate failure in his zillim "flunkies." They are all just tools to him, to be discarded if they do not meet his expectations.

He will be particularly incensed because the Europeans may be encouraged in their resistance. pl

http://www.atimes.com/pompeos-prospects-outlook-from-a-40-year-pyongyang-watcher/

EEngineer , 6 hours ago

Zillim? Don't get the reference but the tone is clear enough...

I think the Singapore summit and everything leading up to it was mostly just good political theater. The game is still wide open and nothing of substance has happened yet. Turning up the heat just made reducing it back to normal seem like cooling off.

Pat Lang Mod -> EEngineer , 5 hours ago
"Zillim?" Saudi term for the hirelings who stand around respectfully until the prince takes note of them.
Jack , 6 hours ago
Sir

"Have the Chinese sabotaged the deal? They probably have done that,...."

In my lay opinion you are spot on. This is precisely what is happening I believe since North Korea is a Chinese pawn in the trade contest between Xi and Trump. The question is how much further the trade dispute escalates and where the North Korea deal card gets played.

im cotton -> Jack , 3 hours ago
I don't know if you are correct or not, but a very interesting and thought provoking take on the situation in terms of trade, thanks.

[Jul 09, 2018] Jul 2, 2018 - Peace Lover Trump? by Carlton Meyer

Jul 09, 2018 | www.g2mil.com

It was nice to see Trump's sudden return to sanity by holding talks with North Korea. I never understood why he accepted psychopaths like Bolton into his office. One could be cynical (or realistic) and realize that Zionists don't give a damn about Korea, Iran is their target. Trump can secure peacenik creds and free up forces to focus on Iran. Others note that South Korea's president walked crossed the DMZ to hug North Korea's leader, and probably told Trump that he can do this with or without him. The neocons realized they need to give peace a chance or get dropped from the game.

It's a puzzle, but so far it's good news, especially since it showed that never-Trumpers prefer world war rather than congratulating Trump for peace. We didn't give up anything. I've taken part in these war games. South Korean land and airspace is so crowded that war games there are unrealistic and stupid. Our military is better off practicing elsewhere. The Deep State is in shock and counterattacked. Trump's peace effort was widely denounced by their corporate media, and fake news has just appeared from "anonymous intelligence sources" that North Korea is suddenly increasing production of nuclear material.

Hopefully, Trump will push ahead and learn that he can pull thousands of non-combat GIs out of South Korea to save a couple billion dollars a year and actually improve our combat readiness in Korea! Don't fall for lies that keeping troops in Korea saves the USA money because of contributions from South Korea. It costs a lot more money to maintain equipment and soldiers on the other side of the world, and to pay GIs thousands of dollars a month to live off base. South Korea does not pay any of these costs. Its contributions are paying land rent and base construction payments to South Koreans and bogus contributions like forgiving import fees, income taxes, and on-base sales taxes for American GIs. G2mil published these detailed proposals to cut military fat in Korea over the past few years:

Pull Aircraft and Airmen Out of Osan - now in a kill zone

Close Chinhae Tomorrow - it commands nothing

Cut Army Fat in Korea - 8th Army and Daegu

Withdraw from DMZ Bases - as ordered

[Jul 09, 2018] Pancake theory weakness: It is impossible that floors above break floors below and continue breaking them up to the ground level. If the floors below disintegrate, then the floors above also disintegrate.

Notable quotes:
"... normally you do not get steelbars to 400 Celsius because heat escapes by conduction and radiation ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 5:28 am GMT

@Momus

Momus writes:
"Showproof of your masters degree in engineering please.

Of course it was a gravitational collapse. The footage shows the section above the damaged, weakened, fire affected area coming down first in both.

What do you think happened?
Nanothermite toting Mossad suicide demolition gremlins entered the building after the planes hit and set up?"

Consider your proposal of pancaking floors. Either the floors do not disintegrate to dust and we find a pack of floors on top of each other in Ground Zero. This we know was not found. Or the floors hitting each other disintegrate to dust. In that case the floors from up disintegrate the floors from down, but the floors from down also disintegrate the floors from up and the collapse stops inn the middle of the building as the floors above that drop on the floors below have all disintegrated to dust. There is equal reaction to action, so it is impossible that floors above break floors below and continue breaking them up to the ground level. If the floors below disintegrate, then the floors above also disintegrate.

There are photos and videos of the collapse. Both may be false, but they are presented by the official story as authentic, so let us assume they are authentic. In these photos heavy material is pushed sideways and even up. It cannot happen in a gravitation collapse. Gravitation pulls things down only. No fires damaged the lower floors, they should have pancaked because of being hit by floors above, but as said, pancaking either gives a stack of floors or all disintegrate to dust and the collapse stops. The former case did not happen, no stack of floors was found.

There were high explosives and thermite, maybe as nanothermite. The building was wired for demolition before the event. A Mossad team arrived to the place before the plane came, the dancing Palestinians. Something hit the buildings, maybe planes, maybe drones with missiles. Later the buildings were pulled in a bit unconventional way. Doors to the roof were blocked for a better effect and more dead. A passport of a Muslim hijacker was conveniently found, so the news knew immediately who did it. Osama bin Laden first denied having done the attack. Then the USA went to destroy Iraq, which had irritated a country in the region. Something like this happened.

I will not post any diplomas on a forum. Take my word on this: High School 1976, ave 9.7/10, conscript 1976-77, Started studies Fall 1977 in the University of Helsinki (UH math). and in Helsinki Univ. Techn (HUT EE). Diplomas: BS Nov 1979 from UH, MS Dec 1979 from UH grade: eximia, MS EE Feb 1981 HUT with honors, that is 2.5 years for two master degrees. Phil.Lis,(=PhD 3.cycle) 1985 from UH, Doctor of Phil.(PhD) 1988 from UH, Docent (=habilitation, adj.prof) HUT 1997, Docent NDU 2011. Professor for 13 years in three universities in communication and military technology. 10 years of research/development outside academia. 10 years prof. in the defence forces. This should be enough to equal any ex-navy guy who got a degree in Philosophy and stopped before making a PhD and calls others wackadoodles.

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Wizard writes:
"Well, if the explanation for the second tower to be hit coming down first was amended to note that there was the weight of many more floors above the point of impact would you still use the word "idiotic"? How otherwise do you explain the timing? I presume you don't think each plane hit at exactly the levels which some plotters had relied on????"

The timing of a controlled demolition is determined by the person pressing the button. It does not need any technical explanation.

I discard the gravitational fall theory for a number of reasons. Here are three, but there are more:
1) the extremely temperatures long time after 9/11. I remember well when these were told in the news in my country, it was long before any 911Truthers proposed controlled demolition. High temperatures long after the event are best explained by very high temperatures just after the event, which suggests thermite, or something similar causing very high temperatures, 3000 Celsius or so.
2) Throwing material sideways and up is impossible for gravitation. The videos and photos may be falsified, but if so, they were falsified by the ones proposing the official explanation. The collapse in the videos does not at all resemble a gravitational fall, which you can see e.g. in icebergs.
3) The pancaking theory is false. I did read the paper by Bazant and a student. The equations are fine, the values set to them are not fine. I agree with 911Truthers concerning Bazant's article.

I do not indeed think the planes hit exactly on planned places, I also do not think the planes caused the collapse. I also find your suggestion for timing very odd: if fires had weakened the steel and that caused the collapse of one floor, then it is completely irrelevant how many stores were above the level. The time would be determined by the time to heat the steel to the point that is loses strength. The time would likely be different in different towers, but mainly because isolation material would be differently thorn, the fuel would be in different places and so on. The weight above the floor would not much matter since before the collapse the structure can keep it up, and if the temperature rises enough then it cannot. Fire can bring down a building, but the way it came down looks very suspicious. It looks like a fountain throwing material up.

I would still use the word "idiotic" for any suggestion that the fall was by gravitation. I would also use the same word for your elaboration of the suggestion by the timing consideration, though in some other topics I acknowledge the reason and knowledge in your comments. And I especially liked the news that one hijacker's passport landed on the ground so nicely and that Mossad had a team videoing the event before the plane hit the tower. Both things are so typical for a gravitational collapse but only in the USA.

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 1:32 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Wizard wrote:
"I don't suppose there is any area of science or engineering where I can claim more to you but I do know enough to prep an expert witness and I am not convinced you can justify your denial that an extra 1000 tons or so on top of a weakened area would be unrelated to time taken for collapse. Let me put it this way: if the steel structures which had to cease supporting the building above had reached through heat a point where it had lost 75 per cent of the original strength maybe 2 X tons of potential energy would be needed to cause collapse whereas only X tons would be needed if, through further heating, 90 per cent had been lost."

You might well convince the jury in a court room, but I do not think engineers would buy this argument, because they would naturally agree with what you said but then they would continue to estimate the time between these two events. If you get the steel bars to 400 Celsius, when it still has not lost any of its strength, it will not take long to get it to 650 Celsius when half of the strength has gone. Try heating lead, it is the easiest metal to try at home. For a long time nothing happens, but when lead starts to soften it very soon melts.

The trick is to get those steelbars to 425 Celsius when they start to soften. To get them so hot you need a major fire in the building lasting for a long time, but once you already have this major fire, the temperature of the steel easily rises close to 1000 Celsius, which is the burning temperature of jet fuel and office fires. Why would it not rise, if it rose so high?

That is, normally you do not get steelbars to 400 Celsius because heat escapes by conduction and radiation , but if you got the conditions that put in heat in faster than it gets out (it is hot everywhere, heat cannot escape), the temperature of the steel will rise very fast. Think about the lead example. It takes a long time to get it to soften, since the heat conducts to the whole piece. You have to rise the temperature of all your lead to the softening point, but then it is all hot and heat cannot escape to cooler places, so it fast gets hotter.

Wizard of Oz , July 6, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@j2

Thank you witness

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Or let me put it another way. 911Truthers say (I have not check, but nobody has denied) that only 4 steel frame skyscrapers in all times have collapsed because of fire (3 in 9/11 and one in Brazil 2018) and many of these buildings burned long. It means that the steel frame in the other buildings never softened, did not reach 500-700 Celsius, because heating steel the heat escapes unless the beams are very thin. You get a heat gradient, but if you put in less heat than can escape.

It is like pouring water to a bowl with a hole in the bottom. If you pour less than can go out, it just does not fill. But if you pour faster, then the water level rises and it rises quite fast. So, you need a major fire to get the steel to 425 Celsius when it starts to soften, but if you get it there, you must be putting in more heat than can go out and therefore the steel temperature will rise fast to the temperature of your fire. There should not be much time between steel starting to soften and steel losing 50% of its strength.

There are measurements that the steel in WTC buildings did not get to high enough temperatures to lose enough strength. But my main argument was that what determines how high the steel temperature goes is how badly thorn is heat isolation and how big are the fires. These things should have been different in the towers and they do not depend on how many stores were above the plane (or something).

There are too many things wrong with the official 9/11 story. It cannot be defended outside a kangaroo court.

[Jul 09, 2018] The myth of Jewish "superintellegnce" as a part of Zionism set of myths

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

bj , July 4, 2018 at 10:34 pm GMT

@j2

"As this is the reason, there are twice as many Jews above some range, like 151, than non-Jewish whites, which is what Terman found. "

Jew IQ is largely a myth established by marketing and media control, starting with the Einstein brand. The myth is necessary to justify and conceal Jewish tribal nepotism as the main factor establishing dominance of a hostile elite in host nations. The question has been examined in numerous locations easily found with a search engine.

https://archive.org/stream/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein_djvu.txt

"If Jews are 2% of US population, that is 7 million Jews. 117,000 of them have IQs above 140.

If there are 190 million non-Hispanic Whites in America, 730,000 of them have IQs above 140."

https://greyenlightenment.com/vox-day-v-jordan-peterson-on-jewish-iq/

There are approximately six times as many white Americans with IQ above 140, as there are Jews with IQ above 140. No, Jewish intelligence does not account for their dominance in academia, media, and government. It must be Jew priviledge, not Jew IQ that justifies their right to rule the goyim.

[Jul 09, 2018] Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , September 13, 2015 at 1:28 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

(Sigh.) Sorry you don't notice that I'm not engaging.

Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

[Jul 09, 2018] Senate Intelligence Committee Prostitutes Itself In Behalf Of Russiagate, by Paul Craig Roberts

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Are you stupid enough to believe that American voters elected Trump president because Vladimir Putin influenced them to vote for Russia's candidate? The US Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee is that stupid. This collection of nitwits actually produced a report that a few ads allegedly placed online on Putin's instructions, ads that did not cost one-hundredth of one percent of the huge sum spent by the candidates themselves, both national committees and everyone else, were decisive in influencing voters who never saw the ads in the first place or read or responded to tweets.

That a Senate Committee would expect anyone to believe such a far-fetched story shows that the Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee has no respect whatsoever for the people who elected President Trump, or, for that matter, for anyone else at home or abroad.

This Senate report is the most incredible bullshit I have every encountered in my life. There is no evidence whatsoever in the report. Only assertions. And most of these are based on "open-source" internet postings by trolls and bots financed by the military/security complex and Democratic Party.

What the report actually tells us is that no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has enough intelligence or integrity to serve in the US Senate. It is the Senate Intelligence Committee that is a disgrace to America and to the entire human race.

RT has great fun with the collection of nitwits that comprise the Senate Intelligence Committee: https://www.rt.com/usa/431661-senate-intelligence-assessment-russia/

On this Fourth of July, how can anyone be a Proud American?

[Jul 09, 2018] 'Pay Up You NATO Deadbeats or Else!' by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else? ..."
"... In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US. ..."
"... Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China! ..."
"... At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US) hegemony. It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in order to justify its own existence. ..."
Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

`We are the schmucks' thundered President Donald Trump, using a favorite New York City Yiddish term for penis. The object of Trump's wrath at his Make America Great Again' rally in Great Falls, Montana was the craven, stingy European members of NATO, only 16 of 22 members are on budget for their US-commanded military spending. Trump wants them to spend much more.

Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else?

Equally bad, according to Trump, is that the US runs a whopping trade deficit with the European Union which is busy shipping high-end cars and fine wines to the US. The wicked foreigners don't buy enough Amerian bourbon, corn and terribly abused pigs.

Trump is quite right that America's NATO allies, particularly Germany and Canada, don't spend enough on defense. Germany is reported to have less than twenty operational tanks. Canada's armed forces appear to be smaller than the New York City police department.

But the Europeans ask, 'defense against whom?' The Soviet Union was a huge threat back in the Cold War when the mighty Red Army had 55,000 tanks pointed West. Today, Russia's land and navel power has evaporated. Russia has perhaps 5,500 main battle tanks in active service and a similar number in storage, a far cry from its armored juggernaut of the Cold War.

More important, Russia's military budget for 2018 was only $61 billion, actually down 17% from last year. That's 4.3% of GDP. Russia is facing hard economic times. Russia has slipped to third place in military spending after the US, China and Saudi Arabia. The US and its wealthy allies account for two thirds of world military spending. In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.

In addition, Russia must defend a vast territory from the Baltic to the Pacific. The US is fortunate in having Mexico and Canada as neighbors. Russia has North Korea, China, India, the Mideast and NATO to watch. As with its naval forces, Russia's armies are too far apart to lend one another mutual support. Two vulnerable rail lines are Russia's main land link between European Russia and its Pacific Far East.

Trump's supplemental military budget boost this year of $54 billion is almost as large as Russia's entire 2018 military budget. As for Trump's claim that Europe is not paying its fair share of NATO expenses, note that that Britain and France combined together spend more on their military forces than Russia.

ORDER IT NOW

In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US.

Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China!

These essentials of war have been seriously neglected in favor of buying fancy weapons. But such weapons need spares, electronics, fuel depots, missiles and thousands of essential parts. As former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld observed, 'you go to war with what you have.' Neither side has enough. A war would likely peter out in days after supplies were exhausted. Besides, no side can afford to replace $100 million jet fighters or $5 million apiece tanks after a war, however brief.

President Trump has learned about war from Fox TV. Europeans have learned from real experience and don't want any more.

Robert Magill , July 7, 2018 at 11:42 pm GMT

The last time the US put troops into action in North Korea, China lashed out and drove us back South. In retaliation we dropped more tonnage of bombs and napalm on the North than was used in the entire Pacific War.

Why would anyone think the same thing cannot happen again? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/we-are-a-very-modern-and-enlightened-species-and-we-can-prove-it/

Giuseppe , July 8, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT

In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.

Disband NATO already. The USSR is gone and Russia has no revanchist plans. Our military spending on the defense of Europe only frees their budgets for social programs like medical care and college education.

And what have we gotten for spending the nation's wealth on blowing up the Greater Middle East, killing a million plus civilians and displacing millions more? Rusting cities, crumbling infrastructure, a school system that can't compete with even that of India American Exceptionalism indeed. Exceptionally deluded.

Bill Pilgrim , July 9, 2018 at 6:37 am GMT
At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US) hegemony. It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in order to justify its own existence.
Bill Pilgrim , July 9, 2018 at 6:49 am GMT
Here's a former UK ambassador:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/no-need-for-nato/

[Jul 09, 2018] Leaked Chinese Memo Warns Of Thucydides Trap

Jul 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

According to Bank of America's Mike Hartnett , the "trade war" of 2018 should be recognized for what it really is: the first stage of a new arms race between the US & China to reach national superiority in technology over the longer-term via Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Hypersonic Warplanes, Electronic Vehicles, Robotics, and Cyber-Security.

This is hardly a secret, as the China strategy is laid out in its "Made in China 2025" blueprint: It aims to transform "China's industrial base" into a "smart manufacturing" powerhouse via increase competitiveness and eroding of tech leadership of industrial trading rivals, e.g. Germany, USA, South Korea; this is precisely what Peter Navarro has been raging against and hoping to intercept China's ascent early on when it's still feasible.

The China First strategy will be met head-on by an America First strategy. Hence the "arms race" in tech spending which in both countries is intimately linked with defense spending. Note military spending by the US and China is forecast by the IMF to rise substantially in coming decades, but the stunner is that by 2050, China is set to overtake the US, spending $4tn on its military while the US is $1 trillion less, or $3tn.

This means that some time around 2038, roughly two decades from now, China will surpass the US in military spending, and become the world's dominant superpower not only in population and economic growth - China is set to overtake the US economy by no later than 2032 - but in military strength and global influence as well. And, as Thucydides Trap clearly lays out , that kind of unprecedented superpower transition - one in which the world's reserve currency moves from state A to state B - always takes place in the context of a war.

Which explains BofA's long-term strategic recommendation: " We believe investors should thus own global defense, tech & cybersecurity stocks, particularly companies seen as "national security champions" over the next 10-year s ."

And in April , an unclassified 50-page transcript on Advance Policy Questions warned that Beijing has the capability and capacity to control the South China Sea "in all scenarios short of war with the United States."

In written testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Davidson said China is seeking "a long-term strategy to reduce the U.S. access and influence in the region," which he claims the U.S. must maintain its critical military assets in the area. He views China as "no longer a rising power," but rather a "great power and peer competitor to the United States in the region." Adm. Davidson agreed with President Trump's recent assessment on China, calling the country a "rival."

In response to questions about how the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea should handle the increased military presence in the region. Adm. Davidson advocated for a sustained U.S. military approach, with the increased investment in new high-tech weaponry.

"US operations in the South China Sea -- to include freedom of navigation operations -- must remain regular and routine. In my view, any decrease in air or maritime presence would likely reinvigorate PRC expansion."

And in regards to the type of weapons, Adm. Davidson outlined some critical technologies for immediate investment:

" A more effective Joint Force requires sustained investment in the following critical areas: undersea warfare, critical munitions stockpiles, standoff weapons (Air-Air, Air-Surface, Surface-Surface, Anti-Ship), intermediate range cruise missiles, low cost / high capacity cruise missile defense, hypersonic weapons, air and surface lift capacity, cyber capabilities, air-air refueling capacity, and resilient communication and navigation systems. "

Adm. Davidson's testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, provided us with the much-needed knowledge that American exceptionalism is quickly deteriorating in the South China Sea after more than seventy years of control. The transcript reveals how America's military will continue to drain the taxpayers, as it will need an increasing amount of investments and military assets in the Eastern Hemisphere to protect whatever control it has left. The clash of exceptionalism between Beijing and Washington is well underway, will war come next?

Vote up! 35 Vote down! 54

Harry Lightning -> peopledontwanttruth Fri, 07/06/2018 - 17:17 Permalink

I am waiting for the typical response from the anti Jew ZH crowd, to the effect that there won't be a wart in China until Jews want authentic Chinese food on Sunday nights rather than the American Chinese food.

More to the point, this article is informative but looks at the trees without considering the forest. China has a number of problems ahead in the not too distant future that will sink their battleships and ruin their plans for an expanded military that can fight wars.

First of all, they are in the early stages of seeing their export empire get scaled back considerably. First the tariffs will take a bite out of their income, then the inevitable global recession, which will be as deep if not deeper than in 2009 and last longer as Central Banks don't have the bullets this time to save the financial system. On top of that, production costs inside China have been rising so much that their huge price advantage over developed countries is shrinking to the point where outsourcing to China does not return an adequate enough amount of profit to justify the outsourcing. In addition, China has some very large debts to the external world, and the accruing interest over time will take a progressively larger bite out of Chinese profits in the future.

And then, in the final analysis, China's size precludes it from getting involved in a war. Because of their huge population, the only way to defeat the Chinese at war is to nuke the rice out of them. As there are so many delivery systems that can deliver nuclear payloads today, the Chinese will not be able to defend against such an attack, and the results would be horrific.

The Chinese are practical people who have little history as war mongers. Its totally out of their character to be acting in such a militaristic way. They are doing it to play the part of the up and coming global power who uses its economic might to project a military strength. Its all for show. The Chinese do not want a large scale military war with a significant world power, and they will not cause such to happen. The best course for China is to take its export profits and start developing the interior of its country.

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 -> Harry Lightning Fri, 07/06/2018 - 17:25 Permalink

I agree, this article doesn't discuss the increasing fragility of the Chinese market. A great deal of fraud and government manipulation underlies the Chinese economy, including debts which are much greater than those of the US. Throw in leverage that is based, oftentimes, on nothing.

And there is always the Mandate of Heaven. Empires rise and fall based on that and no Chinese leader, not even the commies, ignore that.

Jim in MN -> HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Fri, 07/06/2018 - 17:41 Permalink

I always said, we'll only know when China enters a real economic slump when we see the smoke rising from the cities on the satellite pics.

inosent -> Jim in MN Fri, 07/06/2018 - 17:59 Permalink

From a purely military and strategic point of view, the USA is extremely vulnerable. It doesn't matter how much money Trump flushes down the toilet to the mega corp war machine, what is missing is a unified nation, under God (let's call it the Highest Good that each person seeks in all good faith on a daily basis). This nation is badly divided, and considerably weakened by the third world invasion. The niggas, la raza, antifa, the luciferians, the asians, they won't show up to fight, nor will the fairies and all their homosexual behaviorist sympathizers. And neither will the feminists and social justice warriors, and nor will the rank and file of the demonrat party. And neither will the hollyscum freaks, and all their sycophantic off shoots.

Did I miss anybody?

This nation has no soul. It is a place inhabited by narcissists, nihilists, the decadent and self indulgent, the immoral, and blasphemous, lovers of self and disloyal to everything and everyone except their carnal appetite.

The nation is overrun by the psychologically insane (definitely from a foreign power's point of view, whose mouths are drooling at the prospect of taking the nation for their own), and a government that promotes the insanity.

The only ppl left that might fight will be the handful of hired mercenaries already on the payroll, but they are only a few in number compared to the 2 billion Chinese. What's left of who else might fight are ppl who hate the government because it is a satanic institution riddled with jews who control it and wish for its total annihilation.

You can't save a country like this from an external attack.

And the US has no allies. Push come to shove, all those 'allies' will just step away and watch the destruction of the USA from afar. The jew can find another 'New York' to infest, or, like they did in Poland, made nice with Hitler once they saw Hitler was the man of the hour - the jew will do the same with the Chinese.

In a country where its own declaration of independence is determined to be 'hate speech' by an American corporation, where the nation is so weak as to not obliterate this corporation (fakebook), you tell me, exactly where is the core strength of the nation to defend itself?

I don't see it.

Don't be surprised to wake up one day to nukes and other sorts of bombs and missiles. Hated by all, totally divided within, controlled by lucifer, the USA is ripe for the picking - low lying fruit.

Rapunzal -> inosent Fri, 07/06/2018 - 18:12 Permalink

All wars are bankers wars.

Tarzan -> Manthong Fri, 07/06/2018 - 21:43 Permalink

Which explains BofA's long-term strategic recommendation: " We believe investors should thus own global defense, tech & cybersecurity stocks, particularly companies seen as "national security champions" over the next 10-year s ."

The Bankers recommend you send them your money, so you can pay for their war. Isn't that nice of them.

MoreFreedom -> spanish inquisition Fri, 07/06/2018 - 21:35 Permalink

Historically Japan is China's rival. The US spends about 2.8X more on the military, but it's being wasted meddling in oppressive countries civil wars. Our economy (if Chinese numbers are believable) is about 60% bigger than China's. And as others have said, there's a lot of corruption and debt in China. They also have their MIC. But most importantly, I don't believe Xi wants to get into a war, especially with the US. It's too destructive, and they prefer to win in the economic marketplace.

Best Satan in Town -> MoreFreedom Sat, 07/07/2018 - 00:00 Permalink

Maybe the US's military spending is completely wasteful, but maybe it isn't. What if the reason for our invasion of middle eastern countries served a vital national interest (at least, in the empire's eyes) such that they were able to shore up support for the current global monetary paradigm (the petrodollar) and also do the bidding of Israel in the Middle East? I mean, we must remember back in the early aughts when Saddam threatened to stop accepting dollars and instead accept euros and also gold I believe. This was back when the US was much more feared and respected. We did this to ourselves to some degree, but also it is the cycle of empire. Nothing is the same forever.

As bad as we may think the US's global leadership is (and I'm not making any apologies for it) imagine when China assumes this position how they would act? The world under Chinese global governance would probably be much more authoritarian and much less free. The US is trying to continue the last vestiges of it's republican heritage at home while practicing Empire abroad. Hoping to keep the current global system intact. History shows us that this is a losing battle. I believe that the US will always be a great power if it's constituted the same as it is now. Maybe after the mantle of world hegemony is passed, the US will revert back to how it was pre-WW2. By all accounts, economically, socially, in terms of technological innovation, we were the envy of the world and everybody wanted to be part of it. I would love to see us return back to that state.

Alex Lemas -> Rapunzal Fri, 07/06/2018 - 19:44 Permalink

Or as Sydney Riley said, "all wars start in the board rooms of banks".

mkkby -> wafm Fri, 07/06/2018 - 22:55 Permalink

China's economy is fragile. Just the TALK of tariffs has brought their stock market down 25%. US still at record highs. Look how every little tick up or down in their currency causes instability. Yet simpletons here think they can just wave their hands and become the reserve currency. It's nuts.

China is still a turd world country with a few showcase modern cities. They still have 600 million dirt poor slaves working for a daily bowl of rice.

If they upgrade their military, in 2 decades they might challenge japan or south korea. Right now either of them would stomp china flat without US help. And Trump is on to their tricks. The trade war will bring back not only the jobs, but the investment capital that they need for modernization. China fucked up bigly by being too greedy and arrogant. Now they will see their world domination dreams fade away.

COSMOS -> mkkby Sat, 07/07/2018 - 00:35 Permalink

Stock market shmarket, given the multicultural genetic crap flushing the USA down the drain, my money is on the Chinese long term. They have staying power of a few thousand year history.

the artist -> Buckaroo Banzai Fri, 07/06/2018 - 22:00 Permalink

Bush-Clinton-Obama were happy to sell out to the Chinese. That party is now over. There is a new crew in charge. I don't know all the players besides USA and Russia but China is not invited.

The name of the game now is tech isolation of the Dragon.

atlas_crumbles -> inosent Fri, 07/06/2018 - 18:50 Permalink

I feel the same way. Trump being elected has only bought a little more time.

rtb61 -> freedommusic Fri, 07/06/2018 - 22:01 Permalink

Would those leaks have been anything like the US leaks, not so leaky. Leaks a way of making a public statement, whilst neither confirming nor denying the content of that statement.

The way for the government of China to issue a warning, without issuing a warning. No joke the game they play is one of autocrats, they have no qualms about taking out corporate leaders, they are not a part of government in an espionage assassination sense.

Many main land China businesses will have little problem with paying bounties on the random deaths of US troops when the US interferes with their business via criminal methods, fake terrorism et al. It will get pretty messy and the message from China, yeah they know the US will not attack them but use terrorist like tactics to damage them and they have no qualms about engaging in similar tactics (not the government, just corporate executives who know the government will not act against them unless they fuck up in a big way).

They know more about what is going on in the US deep state and US shadow government, than those entities realise. Always keep in mind, the punishment for failure at the high end of town in China, is to be executed for corruption, no fucking about, that is what they do to their own, how do you think they will treat others. They know, they absolutely know, the US will not attack directly, as a result the endless yapping dog screams about attacking (played that card way, way too often) and when it comes to a dirty war, China will win because they will target the real heads of the snake, not the sellout empty suit politicians or equally worthless political appointees.

Honestly I am kind of comfortable with the various psychopaths in suits running corporations 'er' sanctioning each other (as long as they avoid collateral damage), US executives travelling abroad will need to be quite careful if they are playing attack China game for global domination, the only thing they will end up dominating is a very tiny plot of land. The Chinese are very skilled herbalists be careful what you eat.

economicmorphine -> falconflight Fri, 07/06/2018 - 20:28 Permalink

A society that never existed. America's great strength has always been (and still is) geography. We have the best farmland in the world and its dissected by a river system that allows us to ship production anywhere. We have an ocean to the east, and ocean to the west, Canada (the ultimate beta country) to the north and Mexico (dirt poor and reliant on us) to the south. Freedom was the most useful concept in the history of the world. Tell the serfs they own the land and they'll work their asses off to make it better. When they do, we'll take it back. I'm not wrong...

Ajax-1 -> Smerf Fri, 07/06/2018 - 22:44 Permalink

The USA is no longer a sovereign nation. It is now little more than an economic trade zone for the Globalist Cabal.

DemandSider -> inosent Fri, 07/06/2018 - 23:49 Permalink

This isn't about who's nicer or least war prone. Countries act in their own best interests, except The Anglo countries, which run chronic trade debt for their parasitic banking sectors. Since so much of the world depends on The American export market, they will align with The U.S. The PRC won't buy their manufactured goods. If the author believes Europe and East Asia will align with The PRC in a war, he has little experience with East Asian people, and he ignores NATO.

wafm -> Harry Lightning Fri, 07/06/2018 - 21:32 Permalink

whilst I agree on a lot of what you say about China, you'd have to offset this with a state of the union analysis - what is so great about the decaying US imperium and its zero crumbling infrastructure... on the subject of debt, well the US has it all - domesric, national, personal to the extent that unless it can carry on printing the dollar, it more or less will collapse instantly. And this is really where the danger is, I agree that China is definitely not interested in a war - never has been. But Washington on the other hand is fast approaching the point where war is the only option...

I pray this doesn't happen but on the other hand, Washington will need to be brought to heel one way or another for the world to become normal again. And for this, you can count on China to deliver some strikes the likes of which America has never seen if it comes to that. Destruction of major american cities will very quickly bring America down if this war scenario unfolds. Because america has never seen war on its own turf, it will be totally unable to cope.

Chartsky -> Harry Lightning Fri, 07/06/2018 - 23:54 Permalink

I'm disappointed.

Is this kind of misleading and sensational headline what's known as "click bait?"

The documents do NOT say "war is unavoidable" as per the headline.

Instead, the leaked documents say that at least someone in China believes a strong military is the best way to " escape the obsession that war is unavoidable between an emerging power and a ruling hegemony".

[Jul 09, 2018] My own observation is that most of the projected U.S./Russian and U.S./Chinese confrontations would involve very extended lines of communication in the case of U.S. forces.

Notable quotes:
"... On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs. ..."
"... An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else. ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , July 5, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic

On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs.

An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else.

[Jul 09, 2018] CIA Plots Iran Coup Partners With Terrorist Group

Jul 06, 2018 | www.antiwar.com

The Iranian (People's Mojahedin) MeK had been on the US terrorism list for more than 15 years until Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to remove them from the list in 2012. They've killed plenty of Americans, including high-ranking US military officers. Now the CIA, along with neoconservatives and many US politicians, has embraced the MeK as the best "democratic" alternative to Iran's current government. Did you know the "former" terrorist MeK paid current Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao $50,000 for a five minute speech in 2015? Crazy? Her husband is the Senate Majority Leader. In Washington that's money well-spent. The CIA's incredibly stupid plan for Iranian regime change in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:

[Jul 09, 2018] anarchyst

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: July 3, 2018 at 11:23 pm GMT 500 Words John McCain was a traitor and collaborator, while being held captive. He was given preferential treatment, due to the fact that his captors felt he was 'royalty', due to his family 'connections'.
His "shoot down" was self-induced, as he DISOBEYED ORDERS and flew well below the 'floor', getting himself shot down. There were several other jets on that particular mission and HE was the only one shot down, because the others obeyed their orders!
His ENTIRE life has been one of disrespect of orders and authority, believing himself bullet-proof, due to his 'family name' and his dad and grand dad being HIGH ranking Navy Admirals!
His 'nickname' in his HS yearbook was "Punk" and he displayed that behavior as he went on to the USNA, where he robbed someone, more deserving, of a slot in his class, due to the 'influence' of his father.
He SHOULD have been expelled, several times, but the folks at USNA did not want to go up against dad. He graduated FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM in his class . . but STILL ended up going to Pensacola for flight training!! His classmates who actually 'made the grade' were aghast when he showed up down there.
His flight grades were well below acceptable and he should have been run out of there too . . he was an ABYSMAL aviator . . crashing on base leg at Corpus for carrier qualification training. . he had been out drinking the night before and FELL ASLEEP after turning base leg and 'configuring' for landing . . he crashed 'wings level' and straight ahead into Corpus Bay.
He destroyed two other A/C after arriving in the Fleet . . before being shot down.
His nickname in Hanoi was "Songbird". . due to the information he willingly gave his captors. . tactical stuff. .like 'routes, altitudes', etc., that our guys used to fly from the boat to their targets and he got several aviators shot down and killed. He recorded 32+ propaganda bits (a la Tokyo Rose) to be played for our enlisted troops . . to undermine their moral.
The bogus 'story' about not coming home early, when he could have, is just common sense. He KNEW he would have been 'court-martialed' IF he had accepted any kind of early release, based upon his 'family connections'.
After his release, his Navy 'flying career' SHOULD have been over, based upon his permanent injuries, but, his dad intimidated a flight surgeon and he wrongly got back his flight medical status, when ANYONE else would NOT have 'passed' with his 'condition'. He was 'awarded' the position of XO at the Navy's largest training squadron, VA-174 at NAS Cecil and when the CO moved on, he was 'selected', over MANY more qualified officers, to become CO. .he used his position as XO and CO to take young (junior) female pilots on X-Country flights and screwed their brains out.
THAT is ILLEGAL in the military and he SHOULD have been convicted at Court Martial for 'fraternization' . .INSTEAD . .daddy got him moved out of the squadron and put in charge of the Navy's "Liaison" in DC . . along with a VERY early promotion to Captain . . the rest, as they say, is history.
John McCain is a scum bag . . a DISGRACE to the uniform he wore and his spots did not change when he became a politician!
As an aside, John McCain's admiral "daddy" was instrumental in the cover-up of the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5) in 1967. Maybe "the apple didn't fall far from the tree". Read More Agree: Cloak And Dagger

[Jul 09, 2018] I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski Writing apparently as a patriotic & principled American military veteran, RVBlake said:
"I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity."

Hi RVBlake,

Above, neither do I!

Nonetheless, a sincere thanks for your "higher" service to our very sick society & your having honorably called the U.S. Navy's attack upon the defenseless Iranian passenger airplane what it really was -- an "atrocity."

Around the year 2006, I do recall a dreaded sense of shame when faux "war hero," Senator John McCain, modified the popular Beach Boys song lyric to "Barbara Ann," and to the delight of his Zio indoctrinated political supporters (at a rally), he fiendishly intoned, "Bomb, bomb Iran!"

Fyi, RVBlake, a few months ago, author & U.S. military veteran, Philip Giraldi, wrote a great U.R. article about our "Zionized military."

On Independence Day Eve, you will ever more so appreciate P.G.'s higher service to our country. Thanks again!

[Jul 09, 2018] Charles Krauthammer: Finally they are hitting targets power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports, television transmitters that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Robjil , July 5, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT

@MacNucc11

Yes, you are correct about that. The Yugoslav attack was on March 24, 1999. It was three weeks later than the last Purim – March 3 – Shushan Purim (walled city Purim – Jerusalem). Erev Purim (Eve of Purim) March 1 and March 2 – Purim. It wasn't exactly on the date of Purim as the middle east attacks in 1991 – Iraq, 2003 Iraq and 2011 Libya. But near enough to it for the Neocons.

Charles Krauthammer, a neocon who recently died, wanted civilians to be attacked in Yugoslavia in the 1999 NATO attack and he got his wish. This is his lovely quote.
"Finally they are hitting targets – power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports, television transmitters – that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby."

The'Balkan Action Committee' formed during the NATO 1999 attack on Yugoslavia consisted of neocons who lobbied hard for war against Yugoslavia. Committee members included these neocons – Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld – three men would later lobby again for another war in Iraq.

[Jul 09, 2018] Seymour Hersh on 'fantasy' of White House's bin Laden assassination tale

See also Great Minds-Seymour Hersh - Bin Laden- A Prisoner of War. It Was a Hit... - YouTube
Jul 09, 2018 | www.youtube.com

In an exclusive interview, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh talks about his recent report on the assassination of Osama bin Laden, what the Obama administration will not let the public know and the holes in the presented narrative. Watch the interview with RT's Anya Parampil.

Hang The Bankers , 3 years ago

Bin Laden was dead well before then. Lies upon lies.

Mitt Notned , 3 years ago

Shoot, Bin Laden died in a cave in Tora Bora 14 years ago or something from kidney failure. This raid was fake, fake, fake. For one thing, a dessert people have a tradition of burial at sea? Come on. Footage used of Bin Laden was all old, and he was yellow from kidney failure in the late 1990's. The most of the SEAL team was wiped out in what can only be called a murder by proxy, as they were sent into a known hot zone with a crappy helo. Coverup. I don't trust anything in the government or the MSM, Watch the Corbett Report from yesterday to see how we operate. Sickening.

lansing street blues , 3 years ago (edited)

Sheesh....more lies and deceit. Didn't Benazir Bhutto say he died in 2001? And look what happened to her...and Seal Team 6. Murderous bastards

InfiniteFreeThinkers , 3 years ago (edited)

"Obama did authorize a raid to get Bin Laden and the American SEAL Team Six DID fly into Pakistan and killed Bin Laden and after that everything is simply not true" WTF Hersh? OBL been dead since 2001 or so. I hope he's just mistaken w/ his 'sources' and not being an intentional gatekeeper!

elmo2you , 3 years ago (edited)

I just can't shake the confusion of how much this man sounds and looks like a mix of Alan Alda (M*A*S*H) and Hickok45. As for the story, if true then all parts of the US government that were involved in this deserve no better than what Bin Laden got. As for all the people shouting that Bin Laden was already dead, maybe you should all check your sources, for the info that this conclusion was based on is not all that reliable/credible either. This version of events now put forward by Hesh makes more sense than most other theories so far. At least to those who actually know some about what is happening on the world theatre away from the public eye. The White House can deny all they want, the net will eventually close around them.

Amir Fahmi , 3 years ago

Israel propaganda is fantasy.

JohnPavilonis , 3 years ago

Will the real Slim Shady please stand up... please stand up... please stand up... Bin Laden died many years ago!!!! Many many... Years ago!!!

[Jul 09, 2018] "Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , September 11, 2015 at 9:21 am GMT

"Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.

An affidavit sworn at the time of the arrest says that, between August 19 and August 28, Mr Goldberg "distributed information pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence".

US Attorney Lee Bentley III, said Goldberg instructed a confidential source how to make a bomb similar to two used in the Boston Marathon bombings two years ago that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

"Goldberg further admitted that he believed the information would create a genuine bomb," Agent Berry alleged.

In the leadup to an exhibition in Garland, Texas, at which pictures of the Prophet Mohammed were to be displayed, "Australi Witness" tweeted the event's address and reposted a tweet urging people to go there with "weapons, bombs or with knifes".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-is-jihadist-is-actually-an-jewish-american-troll-20150911-gjk852.html#ixzz3lQ8fY9YK
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

Deduction , September 11, 2015 at 10:24 am GMT
@KA

Yes, Jews can be evil little sh*ts just like Muslims and indeed anyone can. It is the trend that matters, as nothing is all or nothing, but I repeat myself!

Anyway, I've got a question for you KA, to see if you can be consistent and whether you possess the supposedly stereotypical Middle Eastern shame mindset of all or nothing.

I'm a British anti-imperialist and I firmly believe that millions of British people should not start moving to Arab and Muslims countries and colonise them.

As I am an anti-imperialist I also believe that millions of Arabs and Muslims should not be allowed to move to Britain and furthermore that those who have already come here should go home.

Do you agree with me? Are you a consistent anti-imperialist? Or are you just playing for your team to win and conquer all?

[Jul 09, 2018] The myth of Jewish "superintellegnce" as a part of Zionism set of myths

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

bj , July 4, 2018 at 10:34 pm GMT

@j2

"As this is the reason, there are twice as many Jews above some range, like 151, than non-Jewish whites, which is what Terman found. "

Jew IQ is largely a myth established by marketing and media control, starting with the Einstein brand. The myth is necessary to justify and conceal Jewish tribal nepotism as the main factor establishing dominance of a hostile elite in host nations. The question has been examined in numerous locations easily found with a search engine.

https://archive.org/stream/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein_djvu.txt

"If Jews are 2% of US population, that is 7 million Jews. 117,000 of them have IQs above 140.

If there are 190 million non-Hispanic Whites in America, 730,000 of them have IQs above 140."

https://greyenlightenment.com/vox-day-v-jordan-peterson-on-jewish-iq/

There are approximately six times as many white Americans with IQ above 140, as there are Jews with IQ above 140. No, Jewish intelligence does not account for their dominance in academia, media, and government. It must be Jew priviledge, not Jew IQ that justifies their right to rule the goyim.

[Jul 09, 2018] Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , September 13, 2015 at 1:28 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

(Sigh.) Sorry you don't notice that I'm not engaging.

Gilad Atzmon: The Cognitive Elite of Jewish History

[Jul 09, 2018] On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking Rachel Corrie pancakes to celebrate the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.

Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

ParadiseNow Giraldi always says what needs to be said. Excellent article.

Speaking of the news that evaporates--"The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media"--and of the stories that disappear an hour or so after they are posted...

I've never come across anyone in the US who had seen or heard of the story that popped up on my monitor one day while working in a newsroom in Los Angeles, a headline piece by the BBC stating that the California legislature in Sacramento had just passed a resolution apologizing to Mel Gibson for the treatment he was subjected to after his drunken comments were illegally relayed to the press. The article also reported that legislation was passed increasing fines and jail penalties in California for anyone who illegally gave or sold arrest information to the media.

The story had some serious bearing on our immediate market as numerous celebrities' private medical information etc were being illegally gathered and sold to news outlets. I brought it to the attention of my (Jewish) chief editor who read the article, thanked me for the heads up, then completely ignored it.

Shortly after the piece just evaporated from the BBC site, and to this day I can find no trace of it in their archives.

On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes' to celebrate the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.

Jmaie , July 4, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT

I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes'

Here's my take as a (non-Jewish) American.

My sympathies are with the Palestinians with regards to trying somehow to estabilsh sustainable territorial boundaries. IMHO Israel is clearly stealing land by building settlements in the West Bank. But given the ad-hoc nature of the current borders and the intent of the various parties, , God/Allah knows how this can be reasonably adjudicated.

I am ambivalent with regards to the plight of those in Gaza, Egypt is certainly in a position to help. The southern border is after all under their control.

Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part) seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation.

Both parties seem to regard the other as filth, undeserving of human compassion. How we move forward from here is beyond my ability to guess.

Arab neighbors seem to view refugees as pawns to be kept in squalor for their own political aims.

It seems like (and this is my own reading from afar) Hamas uses the "right of return" as an issue to turn gullible Palestinian youth into canon fodder. It's been 75 years and Israel is stronger than ever. Time to wake up and smell the coffee

There is so damn much much fault on both sides .

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up .

jilles dykstra , July 4, 2018 at 6:31 am GMT
@Jmaie

" Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part) seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation. "

What do you suggest the inmates of the Gaza concentration camp can do to get attention to their plight ?
The only way seems to be to provoke Israel into some retaliatory action.
Netanyahu is as stupid as Hitler, who let himself be provoked by Poland.
And indeed, both sides see the other as dirt.

jilles dykstra , July 4, 2018 at 6:40 am GMT
@CCR

They did drive the Palestinians out...

Jabotinski in 1923 saw it well 'just force will make Palestinians give up their lands'. But he did not foresee that they never really would give up.

What he also did not foresee that the ethnic cleansing would cause a growth of the number of Palestinians. As far as I can see Israel has no long time strategy for dealing with the Palestinian problem.

Trying to convince the great majority of the world's countries in the UN Assembly that they're all wrong, and Israel right, lunacy.

byrresheim , July 4, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
@Jmaie

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up .

Thank you for unmasking yourself in the last sentence

L.K , July 4, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT
@Jmaie

New Zionist shill on the block, 'jmaie'

Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish I'd thought the joke up

Buddy, you really are FILTH.

[Jul 08, 2018] Russia Joins The Global Trade War

Notable quotes:
"... Reuters reports ..."
"... "The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines, rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the ministry. ..."
"... "The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have to pay in the U.S. ..."
"... The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the WTO rules," he said. ..."
Jul 08, 2018 | oilprice.com

Whether this is a coordinated response is unclear - and certainly on a much smaller scale - but Bloomberg reports that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree this morning imposing higher tariffs on U.S. products in retaliation for U.S. duties on metals imports, according to Economy Ministry statement.

Reuters reports that Russia's additional duties will apply to imports of fiber optics, equipment for road construction, oil and gas industry, metal processing and mining, according to an economy ministry statement.

Russia will impose duties on goods which have Russian-made substitutes, Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin is quoted as saying in the statement.

"The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines, rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the ministry.

"The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have to pay in the U.S.

The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the WTO rules," he said. Russia will be able to compensate for the remaining part in three years since the introduction of the U.S. duties or after approval of the WTO dispute settlement body if it finds the U.S. restrictions violating the organization's rules, the ministry said.

Makes you wonder how long Russia will stay with WTO - just like Trump - if this is all the response "you're allowed."

Shots fired...

[Jul 08, 2018] A 29-year-old clerical employee in the Escondido City Manager's Office was forced out of his job this week after city officials learned he operates an anti-Semitic website and is active in a movement that blames Jews for the 9/11 terror attacks

Jul 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , September 13, 2015 at 2:06 am GMT

Ex-city worker runs anti-Semitic website
Man quits Escondido job after being told be fired or resign

By J. Harry Jones | 6:05 p.m. Sept. 10, 2015

ESCONDIDO -- A 29-year-old clerical employee in the Escondido City Manager's Office was forced out of his job this week after city officials learned he operates an anti-Semitic website and is active in a movement that blames Jews for the 9/11 terror attacks. --

City officials said they were unaware at the time that Friend is an outspoken blogger and contributor to several white supremacist publications. --

"(I thought) it was inevitable that my political and historical views would become known to the city," he said in an email to the Union-Tribune. "I thought that their knowledge of my writing, publishing, and speaking activities, as well as the political and historical perspective I openly espouse, would ultimately result in my termination."

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/10/escondido-fired-city-manager-office-anti-Semitic/

FREEDOM OF SPEECH gets a different accent I guess depending on the contents

[Jul 08, 2018] American Exceptionalism = National Narcissism

Jul 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Minnesota Mary , September 8, 2015 at 8:40 pm GMT

@Moi

American Exceptionalism = National Narcissism. Same with Jewish Exceptionalism. Both lead to hubris which will be the undoing of America and Israel.

[Jul 08, 2018] Russia Joins The Global Trade War

Notable quotes:
"... Reuters reports ..."
"... "The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines, rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the ministry. ..."
"... "The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have to pay in the U.S. ..."
"... The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the WTO rules," he said. ..."
Jul 08, 2018 | oilprice.com

Whether this is a coordinated response is unclear - and certainly on a much smaller scale - but Bloomberg reports that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree this morning imposing higher tariffs on U.S. products in retaliation for U.S. duties on metals imports, according to Economy Ministry statement.

Reuters reports that Russia's additional duties will apply to imports of fiber optics, equipment for road construction, oil and gas industry, metal processing and mining, according to an economy ministry statement.

Russia will impose duties on goods which have Russian-made substitutes, Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin is quoted as saying in the statement.

"The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines, rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the ministry.

"The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have to pay in the U.S.

The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the WTO rules," he said. Russia will be able to compensate for the remaining part in three years since the introduction of the U.S. duties or after approval of the WTO dispute settlement body if it finds the U.S. restrictions violating the organization's rules, the ministry said.

Makes you wonder how long Russia will stay with WTO - just like Trump - if this is all the response "you're allowed."

Shots fired...

[Jul 08, 2018] NBC Hires News Faker

Jul 08, 2018 | www.g2mil.com

Jul 4, 2018

In my last post, I mentioned the fake news that suddenly appeared to undermine President Trump's peace effort with North Korea. I now learn the sole source of this "news" is Ken Dilanian, the former national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He was fired for having a "collaborative relationship" with the CIA . Ken Dilanian was publicly fired from a major newspaper for inventing fake news in collaboration with the CIA, yet was hired by NBC News! Now NBC allows him to write national security articles citing unnamed intelligence sources! The worst part is that dozens of other corporate news organizations cite his NBC stories. If they insist on repeating fake news, they should print this disclaimer at the beginning of his articles:

Warning: This writer was fired by the Los Angeles Times for producing fake news in secret cooperation with the CIA.

[Jul 08, 2018] francis scott

Jul 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kayman Fri, 07/06/2018 - 21:36 Permalink Speaking of history from comic books, when someone says "war mongers", one is not referring to the civil strife that occurs during the internecine violence between landsmen, cousins and distant tribes, if one of these minority groups of citizens is tired of you being in control and wants to be in control; not you .

This is the way the CIA set it up in Syria in 2011. The CIA disguised as Syrian rebels tried to make it look like a group of then tried and clearly failed to change the regime in Damascus. To replace Assad with for a new, beholden leader who would allow the US to keep fucking up the lives of those people unfortunate enough to live near where the West's greatest reserves of other nation's crude oil is buried.

There can not be too many deaths of innocents to prevent the US from it's crusade to demonstrate its exceptional ethics and morality. Ask Madeleine Albright. "The deaths of innocent children are the bricks and mortar of the Holy American Empire.

[Jul 08, 2018] How The United Kingdom Became A Police State

Jul 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Sat, 07/07/2018 - 07:00 107 SHARES Authored by Neema Parvini via The Mises Institute,

This article will demonstrate how the United Kingdom has steadily become a police state over the past twenty years, weaponizing its institutions against the people and employing Orwellian techniques to stop the public from seeing the truth . It will demonstrate, contrary to official narratives, that both overall levels of crime and violent crime have been increasing, not decreasing, as the size of the state in the UK has gotten bigger. It will also expose how the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010, deliberately obscured real crime data with estimated crime rates based on survey data as opposed to the real numbers. I will demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion perpetuated by progressive myths, life was much safer in Britain during the era of classical laissez-faire from the 1850s to 1911.

In his 10 years in power from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair passed an astonishing 26,849 laws in total, an average of 2,663 per year or 7.5 a day. The Labour Party continued this madness under Gordon Brown who broke the record in 2008 by passing 2,823 new laws, a 6% increase on even his megalomaniac predecessor. In 2010, Labour's last year in power before handing over the reigns to the Blairite social radical, David Cameron, there was a 54% surge in privacy cases brought against public bodies, and the Cabinet were refusing freedom of information requests at a rate of 51%. The vast number of new laws under Labour does not count the 2,100 new regulations the EU passed in 2006 alone, which apparently is average for them.

Many of these vast changes under Blair and Brown were in the area of criminal law. By 2008, Labour had created more than 3,600 new offences. Many of these, naturally, were red-tape regulations. To give you an idea:

There are many more. However, there were also some more serious breaches of civil liberty.

One common tactic of the Blair government was to use a moral panic to pass radical new legislation. For example, in 2006, he passed the Terrorism Act that overturned habeas corpus and gave the British police the right to detain anyone for any reason for 90 days. At the time, this got widespread public support because of the recent 7/7 bombings in London. This means that, in the UK, the police can arrest you without you necessarily having committed a crime if they can brand your activities as "terrorist" or "extremist." Although these laws were ostensibly brought about to combat Islamic terrorism, the ever-expanding definitions of "far right" and "extremist" demonstrate how they can be weaponised against the British people.

Another area in which the Labour government used moral panic cynically to overturn longstanding common law principles was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which they used to eliminate the double jeopardy rule and, as per the MacPherson report, to put an end to colour-blind policing.

Recently there have been an increased number of cases in which the British state has encroached on civil liberties in a near-openly tyrannical way. The Count Dankula case, for example, in which a man was arrested for "hate speech," then tried and made to pay a fine for telling off-colour jokes about the Nazis on Youtube. Then there was the young woman who was found guilty of being "grossly offensive" for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Instagram account. And, most recently, the political activist Tommy Robinson was arrested and tried in mere hours for recording outside a courtroom. In each of these cases, despite some protests against the legal rulings, the media broadly sided with the courts, citing the technicalities of the law – in the former two cases section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (another Blair special) – and brand anyone who would protest "far right" or "extremist."

"Gaslighting" is a word from the world of psychology; it is a technique of manipulation to achieve power. Here are eleven warning signs:

  1. They tell blatant lies.
  2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
  3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
  4. They wear you down over time.
  5. Their actions do not match their words.
  6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
  7. They know confusion weakens people.
  8. They project.
  9. They try to align people against you.
  10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
  11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

The British state has become increasingly Orwellian in its gaslighting of the British public since at least 1997 with near-total complicity from the media. In a recent article for Quillette , I argued that this has been the case in both Britain and the USA for years.

This has especially been the case in the area of crime. During a period in which both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have become increasingly statist and interventionist on both an economic and civil level, we have been continually told that one of the positive effects of ever-increasing government control is that society is becoming more peaceful. This is the narrative, for example, of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined . In 2005, The Guardian told us that since 1995 overall crime had decreased by 44%. Almost a decade later the same publication wondered out loud what could be causing the continued decline in crime rates in the UK. And just a few years after that, they had changed their tune completely decrying sudden increases in violent crime and blaming this on cuts in police numbers. In the first few months of 2018, the shocking increases in instances of violent crime in Sadiq Khan's London, which in the past year has seen rises of 31.3% in knife crime, 78% in acid attacks, 70% in youth homicides, 33.4% in robberies, 18.7% in burglaries, 33.9% in theft and 30% in child sex crime. But this story told by The Guardian – of a general trend down in crime over the past twenty years followed by a sudden and inexplicable spike – is simply not true, as I will demonstrate in this paper.

In 1997, Tony Blair famously ran on a platform of being 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'. Unfortunately for him, the reality of empirical crime data had stubbornly refused to comply with his anointed vision through his first years in power. "New Labour" were famous for the efficiency of their propaganda machine. American readers will no doubt be aware of Mr. Blair's complicity in making exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" in the run up to the war in Iraq, but few readers – British, American, or otherwise – will know that the Blair government was also lying about the extent of crime in Britain. The Labour Party, who were so much about media perceptions and political spin, needed to find a way to show on paper that their "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" agenda was making good on its promise. So, in 2003, Tony Blair permanently changed the way crime is reported in the UK by introducing the National Crime Recording Standard' (NCRS). Up until that point, crime in the UK was reported using hard data drawn from actual arrests and convictions from the police. However, from that point onwards, the official statistics were to be drawn from the British Crime Survey which estimates crime based on a survey of 50,000 people aged 16 or over. This works much like how television companies produce estimates for their show ratings. So that means that the statistics you see quoted in newspapers like The Guardian are not hard figures, but estimates drawn from surveys. Whatever the merits of this method, it produced a graph for the Blair government that looked like this:

This change ostensibly came about because – as part of the "tough on the causes of crime" part of their pledge, Labour wanted to count victims as opposed to the total number of offenders. Of course, this takes a huge number of crimes out of the data. For example, as it was introduced in 2003, because only over 16-year olds could be interviewed, crimes against minors were not registered in the official statistics. Also, because interviews had to take place in private properties, street crime habitually would not show up in these numbers. Of course, so-called "victimless" crimes – fraud or online crime – do not show up in this data either. Once you start to account for some of these caveats, it becomes more obvious why this extraordinary change in methodology would produce a downwards trend in the data. In fact, it was explicitly designed so that, because of these changes, it could not be compared with numbers before 2002.

In 2007, Ken Pease and Graham Farrell estimated that the survey data could be underestimating violent crime by as much as 82%, with the real number of victims closer to 4.4 million than 2.4 million. This massive margin of error means that the real crime rate becomes a matter for debate as opposed to a question of hard evidence. It seems to me that this was a deliberate choice by the Blair government. Hence, we now find the BBC wondering about what the real crime rate might be. And this is where the true extent of the Orwellian nightmare of the Blair and Gordon Brown years dawns: by making the crime rate an estimate neither political party can reliably point to the facts, and it always becomes a question of one difficult to substantiate narrative against another. "Post-truth" did not start with Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump – Tony Blair was doing it from the minute he stepped into office.

However, real numbers of convicted offenders are still recorded and kept, although they are somewhat difficult to obtain. In the run-up to the 2010 British election, Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, requested the real numbers from the House of Commons library which duly produced a series of independent reports. Incidentally, once the leader of the Tories, David Cameron, became prime minister in 2010, Chris Grayling became the Secretary for Justice and, to my knowledge, was happy to let this little detail slide and continue with the survey-based methodology. It is funny how power can change the incentives for action.

In any case, the numbers that Grayling requested are damning for anyone who claims that either overall crime or violent crime decreased in the UK between 1997 and 2010.

The population of the UK was about 58 million people in 1997. In 2008, that had increased to 62 million, an increase of 6.87%. In that same period male violent crime convictions in England and Wales increased by around 63.92% from 49,153 in 1997 to 80,574 in 2008. So violent crime convictions increased by more than ten times the growth of the population.

Increases like this can been seen across virtually every category of crime. Convictions for persons under 18, for example, increased by 60.18% from 12,806 in 1997 to 20,513 in 2008, in keeping with the average increase in violent crime, this is ten times the rate of population growth in the same period. Knife crime practically doubled during the Blair years, from 3,360 offenders in 1997 to 6,368 in 2008. In 1998 there were 5,542 robberies, in 2008 there were 8,475. From the year 2000 to 2008, the total number of arrests for any offence went up from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, an increase of about 17%.

For the claim to be true that violent crime went down 44% during the 00s in the UK, it would have to be at a time when violent crime convictions went up 64%. For the claim to be true that overall crime went down in from 1997 to 2008, it would have to be at a time when overall convictions for crime went up by 17%. Both claims seem extraordinary: how could there be a rise in convictions without a corresponding increase in crime? The methodology that measures victims through estimates from survey data clearly is not getting this correct.

If we use recorded convictions in this way, as opposed to estimates, we can make meaningful comparisons to the past as Peter Hitchens does in The Abolition of Liberty . As we have seen, the total number of convictions in England and Wales for 2008 was around 1.47 million for a population of 62 million people, around 2.25% of the population. According to Hitchens the comparable number in 1861 at the height of laissez-faire was 88,000 for a population of 20,066,224, or around 0.44% of the population. In 1911, before Leviathan and the welfare state had really had a chance to grow, the number was 97,000 for a population of 36,075,269, or around 0.27% of the population. The claim that crime has risen because of government cuts to the numbers of police also cannot stand since in 1911 there were 51,203 officers whereas by 2009 there were 144,353 officers. The increase in police officers from 1911 to 2009 therefore is 181.92% compared with an increase of 71.86% in total population. So the size of the repressive apparatuses of the state have increased greatly, and with it the total number of criminals.

It is clear that with less personal freedom and a bigger and more invasive state comes less personal responsibility and greater lawlessness. It is also clear that as the British state has become more top-down in orientation than in its common-law past, it has levied increased coercive legislative power against the British people it supposedly serves. The state is now behaving in an openly Orwellian manner with near-explicit contempt for the public.

beemasters -> cossack55 Sat, 07/07/2018 - 07:10 Permalink

Sadly, it's much worse...it's UK Police Pedophilia Protection Network State.

Police whistleblower John Wedger on child sex abuse cover ups within the establishment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un8yn8djvZ4

eforce -> Arnold Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:04 Permalink

People seem to mistake monarchy for a police state, unlike in a democracy a monarchy doesn't need to pretend it's the sole ruler of the land and can therefore allow its 'subjects' more liberty in return and even has a vested interest in the well being of the subject so that not only can they be productive but can also defend the monarch (hence be armed) as well.

The more democratic the UK has become the more liberty it has lost.

Heros -> eforce Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:24 Permalink

The Rothschilds bought Reuters and UPI in the late 1800's. Jews, for centuries, have owned most publishing houses. Freemasons used to have special books printed up for its members.

After Napoleon, Rothschild said "give me control of a nations money supply, and I care no who sits on the thrown". The point is that (((BBC))) has been under kosher management since its inception.

Really, perception management is about controlling those who control the others. The Elites. And the jews have invaded London and interbred with British nobility for centuries. These people ran British media right down to BBC for over a century, and through Judaism the owned the British Elites.

The poor working British stiff never had a prayer. Boer War, Opium Wars, WWI, WWII, and how many others? All to advance Judaism on behalf of Jewish owners.

England has become a police state because that is what its owners want.

Shemp 4 Victory -> max2205 Sat, 07/07/2018 - 09:27 Permalink

It becomes clear why Boorish Johnson and Sea Hag Theresa May were desperately warning UK football fans away from attending the World Cup. There was a risk that the carefully constructed Russia-as-evil-empire narrative would collapse before the eyes of each fan that made the trip. That is exactly what has been happening.

UK's Gary Neville praises World Cup and host Russia
https://www.rt.com/sport/431540-russia-gary-neville-world-cup/

'If you stayed home you're a mug!' England fans on 'unbelievable' Russia World Cup trip
https://www.rt.com/sport/431632-russia-amazing-england-fans-world-cup/

'Football the winner, scoundrels the losers': England fans berate Boris Johnson after World Cup win
https://www.rt.com/sport/431660-boris-johnson-england-world-cup/

It should then come as no surprise that, as the anti-Russia narrative began to crumble, there was a need to reanimate the novichok chimera. Note well that the Return of the Son of Novichok incident comes not only just before the dreaded Trump-Putin summit, but also just after the release of a certain report by Britain's parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. Although the Committee's inquiry faced substantial obstruction and stonewalling, the report was able to determine that, despite years of outright lying about it, the UK government gleefully participated in the torture and rendition program initiated by the Dick Cheney regime.

Blair and Brown Governments Gory with Torture
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/06/blair-and-brown-governm

British Parliament Confirms 'Conspiracy Theory' - Torture and Renditions Continue
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/06/british-parliament-confirms-conspi

The lump beneath the carpet under which the UK government has been sweeping its own criminality has grown too large to ignore.

"Aww, I still keep sweepin' and sweepin', and there's still too many feet."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX6ZLTFwSaw

Mareka -> eforce Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:49 Permalink

The leadership of every nation in Europe are globalist puppets.

The Brexit vote was 2 years ago and the British government is just now starting to work out the details of what permissions they might negotiate with Brussels.

Sovereign nation you dipshits.

Permissions are not needed.

Our parents generation planned executed and exited WWII in 48 months.

J S Bach -> Mareka Sat, 07/07/2018 - 09:17 Permalink

I think The UK "became" an Orwellian state when George Orwell was writing his prescient novels back in the 1940s. He saw then how his once great country had already fallen under the thrall of its (((hidden satanic usury rulers))). Even the main traitor in "1984" was Emmanuel Goldstein. Do ya think old Georgie was trying to tell us something?

StarGate -> J S Bach Sat, 07/07/2018 - 09:26 Permalink

Orwell was a member of the secret British spy system in Burma and saw some of the future plans for the peeps then wrote about it as a "fictional state" of fully controlled automaton people.

Oldwood -> JRobby Sat, 07/07/2018 - 07:56 Permalink

The key to creating a police state is creating the DEMAND for a police state. Allow an influx of conflicting cultures, especially those overtly hostile, and then allow chaos to reign. People will vote all day for a police state to restore ORDER.

WE LIKE ORDER

waspwench -> Expendable Container Sat, 07/07/2018 - 15:00 Permalink

Expendable...: yours is a very interesting comment.

If these carefully selected young people are the brightest and the best how come hardly any of them fail to fall into the trap? How come so few of them realize that they are being used? How come so few of them have any loyalty to their own nations? How come they do not realize that what they are doing will lead to the enslavement not only of their own people but also of themselves and their children? One must presume that they are promised wealth and power and sell out, but Wilson, for example, never became wealthy. OTOH are even the most intelligent among us so susceptible to indoctrination?

There must be some incredibly effective incentive, or some incredibly effective threat, which can subvert them.

Expendable Container -> waspwench Sat, 07/07/2018 - 19:05 Permalink

Young minds are impressionable and easily manipulated by satanic seductive coersion. Yet both Dr Kitty Little (UK) and G Edward Griffin (US) rejected their indoctrination and EXPOSED it publicly so no doubt others rejected it too. (But their efforts and others, are censored by MSM).

Clearly there are many deviant personalities that are FLATTERED by their SPECIALNESS in being an 'elite group' ABOVE the rest of us 'plebs' and some selected 'idealists' who swallow the "end of all wars if we have a global government" meme.

Its not so surprising - look how corrupt the whole of US Congress/Senate is. Not one of them UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. And all of them SUBMIT TO ISRAEL, and bow and scrape to satanyahoo, and ensure Americans' good young men DIE for The Greater Israel Project (of expansionism and supremasism).

DemandSider -> Stu Elsample Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:25 Permalink

Having no 1st Amendment right to free speech, or constitutional separation of church and state doesn't help. Then, again, we seem to be headed down the same path, at a more leisurely pace,

Obama has used Espionage Act more than all previous administrations

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper

kellys_eye -> css1971 Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:34 Permalink

You're right. It's down to the quality of the people.

Bullshit. Once again it's the MEDIA..... working in conjunction with the establishment/Globalists to LIE, CHEAT, DECEIVE and generally fuck everyone over.

It can't be long before someone considers taking the media 'out' in a Charlie Hebdo fashion for they sure as hell don't deserve any support from the people. Fake news, failure to report on issues that really effect people (child abuse), instigating unrest (Russia, poison gas etc), unquestioning support for Government policies (pro-EU, pro-immigration etc). And I haven't even touched on specific US-related issues..... FFS.

Yeah, the politicians have a lot to answer for but the media have NO EXCUSE for kowtowing to these traitors let alone pushing their twisted agenda. They either get with the 'populists' uprising or they set themself up for a fall. So, all you media outlets out there - what's it to be?

Fuckers.

Chief Joesph Sat, 07/07/2018 - 07:23 Permalink

Since the Great British Empire evaporated in 1931, under the Statute of Westminster, Great Britain wanted to be more like its bastard child America, a police state. Just ask any Brit today if America is just "Great". The only thing left to ask the British, when will they become America's 51st state?(That should humiliate them even more).

shovelhead -> fulliautomatix Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:53 Permalink

Decay implies weakness. The ability of the State to easily erode civil rights makes clear that is not the case. If you describe 'politics of fear' to mean agitating the public to want more repressive laws to feel 'safe' then you could be correct.

Allowing the true levels of crime to be known would simply expose that these more repressive laws are not having the promised effect. Quite the opposite effect because of other causes. You can probably figure out what they are.

Cardinal Fang Sat, 07/07/2018 - 09:51 Permalink

I'm no Leftie, but Britain became a police state because their internal apparatus for colonial repression had nothing to do, no one to suppress after the end of colonialism, and more recently the end of 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland and the end of the IRA, sontheyvturned these tools of repression on their own people which is the way Empires alwaays die.

This is History, this is reality, this is the explanation.

The only difference from the past, that unlike the Gladiator and other memes, there is no exile, there is no place to go to retire and wait out the bastards.

ThrowAwayYourTV Sat, 07/07/2018 - 11:03 Permalink

Because you must, by all means keep the people under control.

THE SEVEN RULES OF RUNNING A PEOPLE FARM

(1)They must always feel helpless.

(2) They must always be entertaining themselves.

(3) They must always be excited and amused.

(4) They must always be shopping.

(5)They must always be eating.

(6)They must always be frightened.

And (7) They must always be thinking about something besides what is real.

Festus Sat, 07/07/2018 - 09:51 Permalink

And this from the peoples that gave the world Magna Carta, brought civilization to much of the world, ended the fascism of the National Socialist German Workers' Party of the 1930's and did the most to end human slavery.

Sadly, you get what you vote for and there were good reasons that voting was initially a privilege granted only to those with a stake in the outcome.

[Jul 08, 2018] Correctly Defining Modern Zionism by Brett Redmayne-Titley

Looks like that author mixes Zionism with neoliberalism. Critique of Zionism here is mixes with critique of neoliberalism and that makes the whole piece unconvincing.
Some points made are interesting, though.
Notable quotes:
"... "Anti-Semitism." ..."
"... we are losing! ..."
"... " All the world suffers from the user of the Jews, their monopoly and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty especially working people and the very poor." ..."
"... "All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths." ..."
"... -the Kol Nidrei. ..."
"... "In violent opposition to all this sphere of [positive], Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. Most, if not all, of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new."- Winston Churchill. ..."
"... "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people . It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in ..."
"... " For in Palestine, we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting with wishes of the [Palestinians]. And Zionism (is) of far profounder[sic] import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who inhabit this ancient land." ..."
"... "Possession is 9/10ths of the law." ..."
"... " America is a Golden Calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left Why? This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."- I sraeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu ..."
"... "Israel First" and "Corporations First." ..."
"... Consider the fate of former US Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel who, long ago during Obama's presidency had the audacity, just prior to leaving for Tel Aviv, to say that he was first and foremost an America and would put American interests before that of Israel, adding that, ""The political reality is that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." ..."
"... Once Hagel returned to the exceptional nation from Tel Aviv he was, due to his president being now under Zionist control, summarily fired. ..."
"... "suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left " ..."
"... without a request by either of the two moving parties. ..."
"... "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law". ..."
"... Federalist Society (FS). ..."
"... "Never has there been a collusion like the one between the U.S. and Israel. It suggests another word and that is "immunity." It has a moral immunity, a cultural immunity, a geopolitical immunity, a legal immunity, and certainly a media immunity. All the talk of Iran and nuclear weapons is without any reference to the biggest nuclear power in the Middle East. [Israel] " ..."
"... get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land " ..."
"... which further illustrated how endemic this doctrine of linking criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism has become. ..."
"... Did her example die with her? ..."
"... If you torture the numbers long enough, they will say whatever you want," ..."
"... Are they wrong? ..."
"... The House Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously passed a measure on Thursday that ..."
"... it never gives back! ..."
"... Zionists are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of what remains of our world. ..."
"... then he is a Zionist. ..."
"... moral obligation ..."
"... then, she a Zionist. ..."
"... understood hypocrisy ..."
"... then, they are Zionists. ..."
"... knowingly prioritizes ..."
"... ignores the scriptures ..."
"... and their hearts- ..."
"... wilfully choose to do nothing ..."
"... clear conscience ..."
"... temptation to protest ..."
"... allow themselves ..."
"... "God, Forgive me." ..."
"... Too God Damned Late! ..."
"... Zionism cannot be understood outside the context of late 19th century European nationalism. The purpose of Zionism is to build a "normal" country of Jews in the Land of Israel, accepted by and at peace with it's Arab neighbors. The idea is to replace assimilation of individual Jews with the assimilation of the entire Jewish nation. ..."
"... Most Jews of course support Israel and they still practice mutual help, which causes the same problems as always: they were an endogamous and fast growing population trying to promote their group interests and seeing others as enemies. Jews in Israel face the problems of an occupation force: as they are confronted by asymmetric resistance, they are forced to do what they are doing, and that is the strategy of the resistance. ..."
"... Additionally there is Talmud with its different treatment of Jews and non-Jews, it makes things only worse. The actions Israel must make turn it into a pariah state. ..."
"... Zionism was, and is, a farcical and bloodthirsty imitation of the 19th-century German nationalism. ..."
Jul 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

There is much that the civilized world does not understand about modern Zionism. Today, the definitions of being Jewish, Israeli or Zionist are, to most people, analogous. They are not.

Indoctrinated into submitting to this incorrect, singular and collective definition, solely due to Zionism's false claim of a direct religious link to Judaism, hence the objective, critical world cowers at the similarly incorrect, but inevitable charge of "Anti-Semitism." This false charge has too often caused the political and journalistic demise of too many. Thus the world is scared away from exercising one's full mental faculties, such faculties of conscience that would normally rise-up in collective reaction and outrage.

The result, instead, has been worldwide apathy. This inaction towards the daily Zionist violations of the fundamental laws of the conscience of man has become the designed result. In the battle against the expansion of the many forms of worldwide Zionism, take note we are losing!

For the outraged world to confidently and factually respond against the broad brush of the charge of Anti-Semitism, one used continually and routinely to mask all discussion of Israeli and Zionist crimes, it is essential to understand what today defines "modern" Zionism, for here our fight for conscience begins. In reality, Zionism is an a-religious scourge that uses a singular excuse to justify its existence and its collective actions, an excuse- a hypocrisy- routinely missing in factual discussion and rarely understood by world Jewry as well. Here is what can be accurately described as the root of Zionist thought.

This fundamental is a prayer. It has been debated, reviled, cast out and reborn in repeated cycles by the most senior Jewish theologians over the past two thousand years. Most of the growing horrors of our world- past and present- can be summed up and exemplified within this single prayer, Jewish in creation, yet today exclusively Zionist in its modern use. Yes, one single self-serving, rarely mentioned, prayer that, when considered correctly is today the metaphor, if not the personification and the excuse, for all the moral ills that allow for the suffering across the world today. This metaphoric prayer transcends all religions. It is the propagation of a malignancy- now seemingly endemic- within a growing portion of humankind. Much worse, this fundamental provides for the wilful individual rotting of one's mind, one's conscience, and one's soul.

This unconscionable prayer's name? The Kol Nidrei.

Of, Zionism Past: Saying a Prayer for Zionism.

Zionism is not a recent ideology. The name is. In the 1890s, Theodor Herzl infused Zionism- the quest for a nation of Israel- with an expanded ideology that lead to the First Zionist Congress at Basel in 1897, which created the World Zionist Organization (WZO). Long ago cast-out from Judea since AD 70, by Roman emperor, Titus, and in seeming finality by Hadrian- who renamed the whole region Syria Palestinia in 135 AD- due to the Zionist Jew's growing dominance of that small piece of the Roman Empire. Sadly, this happened repeatedly throughout history on multiple occasions by multiple other countries, and for centuries Judaism was repeatedly without a host country.

Unfortunately for the whole of world Jewry, at many points throughout history, like in Judea, their quest for a country was attempted via the ascension of powerful Jewish interests progressively gaining control over established nations and afflicting societal crimes that violated the conscience of the leaders of their host nations. As an example, in 1604 AD Catholic Pope Clement VIII proclaimed:

" All the world suffers from the user of the Jews, their monopoly and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty especially working people and the very poor."

Here, Clement VIII- like many world leaders past and present- was inaccurate in his statement, for he, too, did not understand Zionism nor have a separate definition for it, and so made the oft-repeated mistake of associating all Jews together and therefore collectively demonizing the entire religion and all its followers instead.

Then, as is the case today with modern Zionism, the vast majority of world Jewry had committed no crime and deserved no charge, yet due to the actions of the few Jews who wilfully worked towards hegemonic sedition from within their host country of the time, Clement VIII cast-out all Jews in reaction. What Clement VIII failed to understand was that there was indeed a difference within this one religion to be noted: a difference that was not Judaism; it was- even back then- Zionism which excused its advocacy of the societal hypocrisy by citing within the minds of certain Jews, the Kol Nidrei.

By extension, the unjustifiable horrors of the Holocaust inflicted on Jews were a similar collective demonization by the German Third Reich of all Jews as their reaction to the practices of the very few; those who had violated the boundaries of the societal conscience of Germany and their own Torah.

However, the Germans who committed the resultant atrocities based solely on one's affiliation with Judaism were unknowingly guilty of exactly the same failure of personal conscience that ignored the fundamental tenets of their own religious Catholicism and their bible. Together, these two subsets of religion within one society had one inherent amoral similarity: a failure of personal conscience, one that deliberately ignored or excused away their own religion's prohibition against their barbaric crimes against the norms of society.

Known or not by name, theirs was each an individual use of an unjustifiable rationale; one that allowed their afflicted minds to strangely turn Evil into Good, Devil into God, and Wrong into Right. Today, this lapse of conscience is no longer peculiar to any one religion, but, when considered correctly, is indeed purely Zionist. To understand worldwide Zionism is to correctly understand the Kol Nidrei.

"All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."
-the Kol Nidrei.

The Kol Nidrei, ("All Vows") often misspelt Kol Nidre, was not originally a prayer, but a declaration offered during Rosh Hashana, the start of the Jewish new year. In "modern" Judaism it is now being delivered as a prayer and has so grown in prominence during the last sixty years that it is now delivered at the commencement of Judaism's holiest yearly event of Passover.

The internal philosophical Judaic controversy over whether the Kol Nidrei should be allowed to be included in Jewish services has been argued, pro-or-con, for centuries by the most pre-eminent Judaic scholars, most of whom vehemently opposed its inclusion and banned it repeatedly. Their fundamental concern: How can the Jewish religion flourish if it violates the most fundamental tenet of human conscience?: Adherence to Right vs. the temptation of Wrong.

This question was succinctly answered over the centuries as the Kol Nidrei rightly fell from grace or was subsequently reinstated by new Zionist elements of society. Historical examination of the Kol Nidrei shows the polarity between the demand for the proper benevolence offered in the original Judaism of the Torah verses the post-Torah books of the Talmud, which contain rationales supported in part by this one single all-excusing prayer that is the fundamental malady, if not the definition, of modern Zionism.

... ... ...

Thus viewed correctly, Zionism is not a religion, nor is it part of Judaism. It is a political tool of expediency and far more comparable to the western created Daesh/ ISIS. Both use a self-serving created form of an ostensibly beneficent religion, Muslim or Judaic, as an alternate rendition of that religion that excuses away a person's obvious factual sins against one's true religious dogma and one's own conscience.

In the ages-old religious argument of whether mankind is born good or evil, as is shown in the daily newsreels of the continued and growing horrors against true humanity, Zionism, like Saudi Wahhabism, has made an a-religious and hypocritical choice to honour the later.

Zionism First Defined: A Conquest of Country.

"In violent opposition to all this sphere of [positive], Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. Most, if not all, of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new."- Winston Churchill.

When the Israeli Zionists, in 1948, achieved their goal of attaining the nation of Israel, theirs was a victory that had already shown, over the previous thirty years, their methods and goals of new world hegemony to come. The Zionist inspired Balfour agreement was not, as claimed, merely the guarantee of carving Israel out of existing Palestine: It was a bribe.

On Nov. 7, 1917, Lord Lionel Walter Rothchild, arguably the leading Zionist financial and political asset in Britain and America, due to his families multi-national banking interests, guaranteed UK foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour and the British Government -- then losing WW I desperately- that he would bring American military might to their side in exchange for its ceding Palestine. This led to the signing of the Balfour Agreement, the entry of American troops under false premises and the agreed upon genocide and enforced relocation of the Palestinians. Said Balfour publicly:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people . It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine " [Emph. Added]

But, here, Balfour lied, having himself succumbed to Zionist influence within his own failure of conscience and personal religious hypocrisy. This was clearly shown when he privately, and far more truthfully, stated:

" For in Palestine, we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting with wishes of the [Palestinians]. And Zionism (is) of far profounder[sic] import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who inhabit this ancient land."

This pro-Zionist and fully exclusionary mindset is continued in the horrors perpetrated against Palestinians and other nations to this day. Consider the past three months of this current year alone. Over 150 Palestinians have been slaughtered on their own land and almost 5,000 wounded because of related IDF approved genocidal target practice. Meanwhile, at the same time, nearly 4,500 new illegal settlements have also been recently approved on the occupied West Bank. Soon, reportedly, the US will approve the Israeli seizure of the entire Golan Heights. For within Zionism's mental adherence to the Kol Nidrei is a further incorrect Talmudic influenced hegemonic adage which is used repeatedly as Israeli foreign policy, "Possession is 9/10ths of the law."

Today, Palestine is a sliver of it's 1917 boundaries. Over ninety-five percent has been purchased, coerced, annexed, destroyed or stolen by Israeli Zionists. Not satisfied yet, the deplorable conditions imposed by Israel on the remaining Palestinians are deliberate attempts at further genocide designed to finish their two thousand year project in their favour.

Expanding Zionism: From Palestine to America.

" America is a Golden Calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left Why? This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."- I sraeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel and its Zionist minions control America. Completely. American nationalism and populism have been steadily changed since the establishment of Israel to an agenda today of "Israel First" and "Corporations First." This is true for any aspiring US politician as well as in the mind of the average American voter. Worse, this current national endemic result is not limited only to America.

In the post-Palestine era after 1947, Zionists were not content with finally having their own nation of Israel. Their new nation would not have resulted without the pressure exerted on the United Nation's members by the American government which ultimately produced, on Nov 27, 1947, UN resolution 181. As with the many previous host nations over the previous centuries that provided sanctuary to the Jewish faith, the Zionist sub-set within American politics began to further their power beyond the Israeli borders. Hence, Israel began the strengthening of its political control of the US Congress and its individual politicians. This, of course, is seen by the unapologetic decisions, platform and control exerted by AIPAC ( the American Israeli Political Affairs Committee) which is undeniably the foremost political action interest within the US Congress. This is documented thoroughly in the 2006 academic work, "The Israel Lobby," by University of Chicago and Harvard University professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Despite this carefully researched, referenced and footnoted study, and the fact that Mearsheimer is a Jew, both were publicly excoriated as being anti-Semites.

It is well established that both houses of the US Congress care not for the concerns of their voters once they have been placated every two or six years in order to be re-elected and return to primarily pleasing Zionist interests. Looking at US foreign policy alone, today the questionable moniker of, "Dual Loyalty," is used to justify growing Israeli involvement in US military leadership and access by Israeli Zionists within the US government. In foreign policy, America's military always marches to a Zionist tune that has little or no bearing on US national security, yet it's politicians always avoid answering the question: "why?"

As shown repeatedly, from the 2015 Gaza war atrocities onto the granting of Jerusalem as the US denoted Israeli capital, followed by the anticipated subsequent slaughter of the few remaining indigenous Palestinians, if America is not invading on behalf of Israel or its Zionist brethren, such as Saudi Arabia destroying Yemen, it is re-supplying Zionist vassals with weapons or voting only for Zionist interests against UN resolutions and worldwide calls for of peace and sanity. Are not "Neo-Conservatism" and "American Exceptionalism" really the results of the inherent self-serving message of the Kol Nidrei applied to US nationalism and re-branded as national security-not as Zionism- for the dulled American mind?

Consider the fate of former US Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel who, long ago during Obama's presidency had the audacity, just prior to leaving for Tel Aviv, to say that he was first and foremost an America and would put American interests before that of Israel, adding that, ""The political reality is that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." Hagel later apologised for the use of the term "Jewish lobby", saying he should have said "pro-Israel lobby", but Hagel did not back down over his comments. He also continued to question the duplicity in US foreign and military policy that did not directly support American interests first. Being a former US senator (1997- 2008) from Nebraska, Hagel was sincere in his pro-American statements, so sincere in fact that he was hypocritically cast out by Obama, who had, during his 2008 campaign, similarly opposed the, "unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel." Once Hagel returned to the exceptional nation from Tel Aviv he was, due to his president being now under Zionist control, summarily fired.

Military control, however, is only one of the many facets of Zionist control within American society and is certainly not necessarily Jewish. Here we see what the true goal of Zionism is within American society and that it does indeed clearly intend to, "suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left "

From Health Care to Education, Social Services to Corporatization, life expectancy to retirement, America is in decline and Americans are in denial, too scared at being charged with anti-Semitism to take note of the obvious facts. Zionism is destroying their country, piece by piece, but they, unlike Hagel, Thomas, Mearsheimer and Walt, have been indoctrinated that any criticism will be denoted as anti-Semitic and/or disloyal to America. This only accelerates the decline while emboldening the sociopaths who do run their country without any concern for public well-being.

As shown in in a 2015 study by Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University , those who run American government almost completely ignore providing any benefits that might help their voters.

Gilens and Page tabulated more than 20 years of congressional voting data to answer the question: Does the US government represent the people? They drew several conclusions, particularly that, "The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all because purchasing political influence is 100% legal." Those benefiting from congressional votes in the House and the Senate were almost exclusively the interests of corporate dominance, profit and greed, not the growing needs of the citizens. This is, and always has been throughout history, a peculiar trait of Zionism, since it features a type of greed so severe that it transcends human conscience and any obligation to society. In doing so, this abrogation of duty by politicians is very much in keeping with the tenets and political hypocrisy espoused by the Kol Nidrei.

Only in America are corporations legally treated as live human beings, but these newly created humans, as expected, have no conscience at all. The Zionist mind of the corporation has shown that it controls Congress as well as the US Supreme Court. Further, in the mind of the Zionist, all social services including education need to be privatized and its finances under their control, if not completely eliminated.

When the US Supreme Court made the case of Citizen's United v F.E.C. the law of the land, few took the time to understand the real insidious nature of this historic and divisive Supreme Court decision.

Thirty-five year Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, did.

In a twenty-three page Dissenting Opinion and using strong words very rarely written within the collegial confines of the court, Stevens railed against Citizen's United and its likely results. As Stevens pointed out, the politically and corporately controlled court under brand new Chief Justice, John Roberts, violated the time-honoured legal concept of Stare Decisis . This was an extremely unusual move that saw the court take-up for its subsequent divisive decision a standing appellate court decision, without a request by either of the two moving parties. Stevens also argued that the Court addressed a question not raised by the litigants, and that the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law".

Further, incoming Chief Justice, John Roberts, who ordered the case brought before the court anyway, threw the majority of his own written legal precedents on corporations in the rubbish bin of time in order to strangely join the majority opinion. Those are only a few of the problems with the creation of Citizen's United, but here, again, Roberts and the 5-4 majority (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) found a way to mentally and morally approve what was their own understood violation of law, if not a violation of conscience. Of course, this was in keeping with the mental hypocrisy of the Kol Nidrei. No, they did not likely know it by name, but those in the majority knew that they were indeed sacrificing their legal acumen, the US constitution and their moral obligation to the higher a authority of modern Zionism.

This cadre of Zionist thought within the Supreme Court is fully admitted by these modern day Pharisees of American jurisprudence who willingly brandish their personal attachment to the Federalist Society (FS). Current card carrying members members include Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. This organization supports rolling back civil liberties, imperial wars, free-wheeling laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism, along with ending New Deal/Great Society social programs. It's also against reproductive choice, government regulations, labour rights, environmental protections, and justice for unwanted aliens.

This accusation that Federalist doctrine is controlling and creating the laws of the land was further confirmed this past week as this Supreme Court certified bigotry against one religion (Muslim) by allowing Trump's pro-Israel travel ban. On the same day, the same court gutted what little remains of the American unions and the political influence of working voters via collective bargaining. As shown by the Page and Gilens study, Unions are also anathema to corporate interests and this week national Unions joined the Muslim world in being prohibited from helping social change against Zionist influence.

This was a big win for Zionism which abhors the nations of the Muslim world that it cannot control and was clearly shown in the list of countries that were banned. The countries which do not support American expansionism nor Zionism were all banned, while one of the most barbaric Muslim nations, Saudi Arabia, was exempt because their country's leadership has been willing to suck on America's and Israel's teat.

US healthcare, despite being the most expensive per capita in the world, is measured, not by success in prevention, but by the nation's operating table mortality rates, infant mortality rates and rising insurance rates, all of which are some of the worst in the developed world. Despite these foibles of American capitalist Zionism, HMO profits are also at historically high levels as are its administrative fees which exceed 20% compared to just over 2% in the UK's vaunted NHS.

Pharmaceutical companies wine and dine doctors and politicians with a manipulative budget of over $1.2 billion per year. As a result, no longer is the FDA the ultimate arbiter of new drugs being brought to market since it allows and accepts verbatim the self-serving clinical trials of the drug companies that create these drugs. Many, as shown clearly on US television advertising, have a laundry list of side effects. Despite this, these drugs are approved and the doctor's, with few exceptions, happily prostitute their Hypocratic Oath and scientific fact in order to serve up these tainted drugs to their unsuspecting and trusting patients.

These and many other prescription drugs, despite being offered in many other countries, are always the most expensive in America. When many Americans who realized that Canada and Mexico offered the same drugs at a far lesser price, they took their prescriptions over the border to save money. However, once Big Pharma realized it no longer had a captured market, it used its powerful and paid for lobby in congress to effect legislation making it a felony criminal offence similar to smuggling for anyone to save money on their prescriptions by traveling. Not a peep was heard from doctors nationally, nor from congress who had, of course, also sold their professional souls already. This week, the Financial Times reported that Pfizer, the largest drug company in the US, has now further raised prices on 100 products. These price hikes were announced just weeks after President Trump claimed that US drug companies would soon announce "massive" voluntary price cuts .

As a reaction, certain municipalities and healthcare clinics have used cooperative buying to lower prices to their patients, but dutifully the FDA is already attempting to make this practice illegal as well.

Yearly, American education teaches Americans to be ignorant and not to think, much less develop an informed, fact-based opinion. Less and less federal funding goes to public education and the poor test scores show America in 38 th position of developed nations worldwide in mathematics and 17 th overall. This poor performance has led to the advent of private charter schools.

As championed by US Education Secretary, Betsy De Voss, who is decidedly Zionist within her stated public comments about fixing public education, already world geography and critical thinking are rarely taught and history is so heavily skewed as to be revisionist. This is shown by too many Americans still believing that modern day Russia and the long dismembered Soviet Union remain unchanged and an identical threat as well as their failure to be able to find their own nation on a globe. This myopic narrow-mindedness has left most Americans with no interest in discerning the truth about the remaining world around them, but an illogical enthusiasm for US expansionism and "thermonuclear war."

Americans are not stupid, but they are indeed extraordinarily ignorant. An ignorant populace increasingly has no desire for divining the truth of world events and so routinely turns to their singular news source for the "facts" that they hold as indisputable. To this end, in America most journalists prostitute their necessary role as the vanguards of society. This is easily evidenced by the fact that over 90% of all traditional media sources ( TV, Radio, Newspaper) are owned and managed by just six huge corporate interests that have an all too similar editorial slant that favours a Zionist agenda. 20th-century American writer, Truman Capote, in a 1968 Playboy interview, assailed "the Zionist mafia" of his time that has since only increased its monopolizing of the news publishing industry today.

Reaffirming the current condition of journalism, this past week during a public speech in support of Julian Assange, award-winning, career journalist and documentary film maker, John Pilger commented on today's Zionist media editorial control, saying,

"Never has there been a collusion like the one between the U.S. and Israel. It suggests another word and that is "immunity." It has a moral immunity, a cultural immunity, a geopolitical immunity, a legal immunity, and certainly a media immunity. All the talk of Iran and nuclear weapons is without any reference to the biggest nuclear power in the Middle East. [Israel] "

Indeed. With critical thinking substantially suppressed in America, and the media proffering virtually no criticism of Israel, nor Zionist crimes against society, the supposed journalists of the 4th Estate and First Amendment are mostly willing propagandists.

Or else.

Scared into submission while offering only as one sided Zionist agenda, and bribed with lucrative contracts and benefits, no US mainstream journalist will risk the likely connected charge of anti-Semitism. Virtually none will stand-up, respect their conscience and do a proper job of reporting on journalism's control, and societal connection to, Zionism. In the minds of many, however, remains the sudden and tragic demise of the most senior White House correspondent in press history, Helen Thomas. Her crime: Stating what every member of the press already knew to be true, but did not have the guts to say themselves.

While chatting privately during of a Washington, DC cocktail party, Thomas said that Israel should, " get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land " Then, as today, this sent of howls of outrage that she or anyone would audaciously state the truth, even in private. Hence, Thomas, her fifty-seven years as a White House correspondent and her exemplary dedication to a high standard of news reporting were gone from public view within 48 hours, when Hearst publications dutifully fired her in order to placate the Zionist outrage against the truth of this matter. She was, of course, speaking about Zionists, not Jews, yet she was charged with Anti-Semitism, a capital crime, and summarily convicted.

Not one US journalist publicly came to Helen Thomas' defence which further illustrated how endemic this doctrine of linking criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism has become.

Helen Thomas, like the facts, truth and example of courage she represented, died less than two years later.

Did her example die with her?

Pre-Modern Zionism: Buying the Stairway to Heaven?

"New York is the city of privilege. Here is the seat of the Invisible Power represented by the allied forces of finance and industry. This Invisible Government is reactionary, sinister, unscrupulous, mercenary, and sordid. It is wanting in national ideals and devoid of conscience . . . This kind of government must be scourged and destroyed."

-William Jennings Bryant ( three-time DNC presidential candidate)

Before modern Zionism took a hold on America there once was a religious mandate to wilfully provide for the less fortunate. Because of the scriptures, if not an ultimate fear of God, many of society's super-wealthy of that by-gone era did substantially contribute to serving the societies around them. This was shown in the construction of libraries, museums, universities, hospitals, endowments, social services and church social programs paid for by oligarchs such as Carnegie, Roosevelt, Blair, Morgan, Getty, Mellon and Tufts. Some of these men, knowing the capitalist crimes they had perpetrated on the path to their riches, were certainly buying their own "Stairway to Heaven." Try as they might, none could deny in their minds the unavoidable final decision that would befall them all come "Judgement Day."

Today, no such religious obligation exists. Any such religious requirements have long since been replaced by the tenets of the Kol Nidrei that allows for, and excuses away, the pure selfishness of Zionism's influence.

By comparison, as a positive example of these too long-ignored religious requirements of societal ethics in business, take Charles William (C.W.) Post and Will Keith (W.K.) Kellogg . These were the breakfast cereal barons of the late 19th century and became very wealthy men indeed. Post was a Christian, Kellogg a Seventh Day Adventist. Both believed and practised the concept that an employee was an asset to be propagated for the good of the company and the good of the worker.

Both Post and Kellogg headquartered their growing empires in Battle Creek, MI. Here they needed a massive workforce, while thousands in pre-industrial and post-depression America needed jobs. Believing that both owner and worker could benefit from their collective endeavours, Post and Kellogg built thousands of modest houses near the factories for the workers, many of which exist today. These houses were sold to the workers at cost and the owners provided credit terms so favourable that workers could pay them off to full ownership on the 30 hour work week that both Post and Kellogg believed to be part of this mutual bargain. Company stores bought their goods at wholesale prices and passed this discount along to the worker. Retirement benefits were guaranteed to all long-standing employees, the majority of whom stayed that long.

As a result, the community of Battle Creek- until the advent of NAFTA and monopoly- flourished, as did both the companies and their profits. At the onset of the 1929 Great Depression, Battle Creek became a sought-after final destination for the many unemployed "two-tankers"- those with just enough money remaining for, not one, but two tanks of gas for their cars- who came up from the southern states seeking work.

With both the owners and the workers prospering, neither Kellogg nor Post had the need to buy their own stairway to heaven, nor prostitute their conscience. They did not know it, but they had not succumbed to the mindset of the Kol Nidrei and did not care to become Zionists, for they chose to honour what their conscience and their religion told them was right and, thus, ignore what they knew to be wrong.

Contrast this socially correct example of religious discipline with a quite different memory from the same time period, one that still wafts in the air across the hills and surrounding green valleys of Merthyr Tydfil in Southern Wales, UK. Here, in what was, for more than a century, iron and coal country, the name and the odour of the infamous steelworks owner, Robert Thompson Crawshay, remains to this day in the minds and on the lips of the local Welsh.

Crawshay typified the many all-powerful industrialist owners of America and Britain in the times when the value of a workhorse far exceeded the value of the human worker. Employees were expendable as was evidenced by the horrible living and working conditions and the massive amount of workplace injuries and fatalities to which the owners, like Crawshay, could not have cared less. Despite being a routine church-goer himself, the list of the societal horrors inflicted on the workers and their families by Crawshay was a long one indeed.

He was born rich, lived that way and died in luxury, and he wanted to let the impoverished community outside his walled estate know it. When Crawshay had a new mansion built in Merthyr he also built a tall four-sided clock tower, but the side facing the workers and the ironworks was left blank. When one year the workers organized a strike, rather than negotiating a settlement with them he closed the entire ironworks and every other business in the town, thus putting everyone, including support trades and other manufacturing in nearby towns, out of work. This fomented dissent in the already starving community and the breaking of the strike. Crawshay also built homes and company stores for his workers, but the homes were on loan at his pleasure and he charged exorbitant rents as he did inflated prices at his stores. This kept the workers forever in debt and indentured to him and his factories.

To further show his personal power over all who lived in his domain, on the eve of a worker's wedding day Crawshay would often have the driver of his two-horse black carriage deliver him to the doorstep of the groom. He would then provide him with an ultimatum: allow him to be the first to deflower the man's betrothed that very night, or lose his job and be blackballed from working in all other nearby locations on the very day of his wedding. To cross Crawshay then, or at any time, was to be "sacked," with the local Crawshay foreman knocking unannounced on one's door of an evening, holding a single used burlap sack for the victim to carry out everything and what little he and his family owned, forthwith, while two Crawshay goons attended to the sacking.

As a staunch Protestant Crawshay knew that his actions were not supported by his bible, his God, nor his conscience, yet he carried on, relishing in his unchecked power and the hatred towards him by the whole town. No, Crawshay did not know the correct definition of his crimes, but he, too, was inherently a Zionist within his own mind. So conscious was Crawshay of his demonstrative and deliberate earthly violations that when he died in 1879 he commissioned a massive horizontal gravestone made of one piece of 16-inch thick granite to cover over his entire grave so that no one would dig up his remains and scatter his God-forsaken corpse to winds or to the hogs.

Yes, Crawshay was, in practice, a Zionist. Today, the capitalist malady exhibited by Crawshay has returned to the factories, sweatshops, and service sector jobs that offer no benefits, retirement or future for workers or families worldwide. The return of the mindset of Crawshay has infected the many corporate religious hypocrites of the today's new industrial age, regardless of religion. Humanity has been cast out. Zionism has returned beginning in America.

The state of America today is already deplorably Zionist in its lack of societal or moral concern. While the US government uses the Zionist economic mantra," If you torture the numbers long enough, they will say whatever you want," in order to brandish its touted lies of purported success, the reported 3.8% unemployment rate does not bare scrutiny with real unemployment actually at 21.4% according to Shadowstats economist John Williams.

The Trump regime and GOP-controlled Congress- like the Federalists on the Supreme Court- want New Deal/Great Society programs eliminated altogether via de-funding or privatization, giving Wall Street and other corporate predators new profit centers to pillage at the expense of the grievously harmed working people, particularly the nation's most vulnerable.

Most US workers are underemployed in future-less part-time or temp jobs because millions of full-time ones that include benefits and retirement no longer exist – lost by offshoring to low-wage countries by corporate Zionist who do not care about their own society that spawned their own business successes. They only care about continued profit. As a further example, this past Tuesday, June 19, Republican House members introduced an FY 2019 budget proposal, calling for $5.4 trillion in mandatory social service spending cuts over the next decade yet they strangely demanded even more defence spending and further tax cuts for the rich and not a penny more for the poor and the indigent. Major cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are prioritized over the next decade – $537 billion and $1.5 trillion respectively- and another $5 billion per year from Social Security and additional cuts from other social programs.

Such is the mind of the corporate and political Zionist in America, today. Robert Thompson Crawshay would have been most supportive of seeing thie return to the amoral conscience of the corporate Zionist. For in his mind, as in the minds of today's corporate Zionists, admission beyond the Pearly Gates is just a matter of buying the Stairway to Heaven.

Are they wrong?

Modernizing Zionism: A Claim to One's Mind and Soul.

Like Crawshay, who failed to heed his bible's teachings in favour of a Zionist-like selfishness and quest for power and more money, seemingly all the major religions today are also similarly affected by a wilful ignorance of conscience.

This week it was reported that, for the first time ever, at the exclusively pro-Zionist gathering of the Bilderberg Group summit the Secretary of State of the Catholic church, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, will be attending from Rome. It is not likely that he will be tutoring this Zionist coven on any of his own religion's twelve commandments, but more likely he will tutored by them on the need for reviewing the spirit of the Kol Nidrei for inclusion as Catholicism's new thirteenth.

By extension, over the last twenty-plus years the advent of the religious duplicity known as the " Christian Zionist" has also manifested itself behind too many American pulpits that spout a deliberately pro- Israel mantra to their parishioners. This hypocrisy was by design of the Israeli Zionists that these supposed Christian ministers now actually serve. Virtually all of them have accepted all-expense-paid junkets to Israel and Jerusalem and thus been indoctrinated with a pro-Zionist / anti- Muslim philosophy that they have been convinced is integral to Judaism and Christianity. This has served Israel well, with the Christian Zionist being blinded into the actual giving of his mind and his religion over to Zionism while parishioners attempt to appease their chosen God in favour of a very different God.

Modern Zionism has even managed to take over a religion that is specifically anti-war, anti-greed, anti-poverty and pro-peace and love. Is it not Zionism further personified when we, the civilized world, behold the daily television spectacle of religious hypocrisy which shows, before our very eyes, the crimson and saffron-colored velvet robes, shaved-heads and be-sandaled Buddhist monks who, incredibly, are now brandishing AK-47 rifles and shooting, when not burning, innocent Rohingha? Yes. They too are not correctly serving their God. They have replaced their true religion with their own bastardized version, one that favours the mantra of the Kol Nidrei over that of non-violence and peace. Thus, they are not Buddhists. They, too, have become .Zionists.

However, what took place in America during the past seventy years since the Kol Nidrei returned is the working model and example of Zionist hegemony as seen across the globe in most countries today. This modern goal is not just a hegemony that attempts to control new country, it is one that seeks to, and results in, forcing, not merely a change in national allegiance in favour of Israel, but worse, it demands a change within one's mind, as personified by the Kol Nedrei, that is beyond Judaism, yet penetrates all religions and morals.

War, selfishness, greed, and avarice are now seemingly endemic in the conscience of society worldwide. This is the great crime of the Zionists: creating a world that now subliminally and unknowingly abrogates its conscience to the religiously hypocritical agenda of the Kol Nidrei. For those of proper religious and/or moral virtue, the concept of the Kol Nidrei, whether defined or not, is naturally abhorrent. For those with a pro-Zionist predisposition, justification of their personal crimes of conscience are too easily excused. Personal success at any cost is the modern mantra. Once sprinkled with the cerebral Zionist pixie-dust of the Kol Nidrei's pervasive influence, any primary concern towards proper humanity becomes tertiary at best.

The crimes of Zionism, via this deliberate cross-societal indoctrination of the Kol Nidrei, go far beyond the bartered religion of Judaism. Many of the required societal elements, such as nationalism, political parties, military defence, education, journalism, medicine, banking, industry, manufacturing and respect for knowledge are similarly degraded by this immoral plague against conscience and society.

The Zionist is wrong in thinking that the whole world beyond America is similarly and completely afflicted with this terminal lapse of conscience. Increased opposition to Israel and Zionism in cities across the globes show that those of true conscience understand their adversary very well. But not necessarily by name.

Zionism's answer to this growing opposition uses the creation of ignorance and apathy as it weapon in forcing the false accusation of anti-Semitism on all who dare to correctly attack its philosophy, its goals and results. But for those who do rarely stand up and state what is obvious, their resistance, free will and minds have now been made illegal.

Take the recent Israeli efforts to make photographing and reporting on any IDF crime against humanity a mandatory prison sentence of 5-10 years. Aside from attempting to further hide their crimes, the Zionist mind wishes to force a new choice of prison vs. conscience on those who would rise to a normal societal standard.

Floating through the US House is another legal challenge to one's free will and thoughts that seeks to challenge any opposition on college campuses in America that would criticize, via peaceful protest, the crimes of the Zionist Israelis. This bill, if successful, would require a full administrative investigation- paid for at public expense- of any campus protest against Israel and of those involved in the new crime of free will and conscious thought. Of course, any similar protests by Zionists are not to be investigated, only those that would attempt to blaspheme against their demonstrative examples of moral turpitude.

Further, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously passed a measure on Thursday that will allow the president to financially and criminally punish any corporation that elects to follow a moral compass and divest of, or not do business, with Israel. Rep. Ed Royce , (R-Calif.), introduced and then modified the text of the bill called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The unconstitutionality of such legislation should be obvious, yet considering the coven of Zionist minded Federalists on the Supreme Court, the chance of this becoming binding law would seem likely.

It was also revealed this week that three previous presidents, and now Trump, had signed a letter authored by Israel that promised they would never to mention publicly the widely known fact that Israel is indeed to only Mid East nuclear power, nor its reported 200 plus nuclear missiles. Reportedly, Trump was not aware of this requirement of ascension to the presidency, but sign it he did, so the Zionist goal of " Nuclear Ambiguity" continues as US condoned nuclear hypocrisy.

Faced with this legalized Zionism, the far greater crime is that the once rational minds of the vast majority of the world are now willing to prostitute their own minds into apathy, or worse, accept this societal influenza in exchange for buying-in to a decidedly personal agenda that ignores the needs of all others. Hence, more than ever before rational humans of all religions- as we see with the Christian Zionists, Industrialists, Buddhists and world leaders across almost all ethnicities, are volunteering to sell their souls merely for the desire a few more shekels. For these rewards, they ignore all else and have, too often, sold their souls.

For Zionism takes it never gives back!

Zionism Today: America's No.1 Export.

As modern Zionism has methodically taken over Palestine and America, so it has done to a vast portion of the world. Today, there are almost no world leaders who put their allegiance to their own countrymen before that of their Zionist masters. The game plan of Zionist hegemony towards political leaders, country, mind and opposition are just as complete in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Britain, Japan, South Korea, etc.,al. For those who have not bitten from their immoral fruit, the Zionist offers only one other choice: financial degradation and internal civil war! This is shown in the few countries that resist a Zionist agenda such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia and others. These countries have been the targets of Zionist propaganda- via American foreign policy- which demands regime change and war.

Take Britain for example and its upstart parliamentary leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. Despite being Jewish himself, the unabashed "Friends of Israel" coalition within the UK parliament, knowing which side their own bread is buttered on, have attacked Corbyn as being an anti-Semite. On face value this is claimed to be the result of his public and well-articulated support of Palestine and his condemnation in the press of IDF war crimes. But this is not Corbyn's true threat to the Zionists who are buried in parliaments around the world and are rarely exposed by the Zionist controlled world press. No. His true crime is that he offers hope to the many Brits who have suffered years of unjustified austerity at the hands of the Zionist European Union that has, like their American brethren, imposed years of increased funding for hypothetical war at the expense of any social obligations.

Corbyn is possibly the only true socialist leader in the world- one with a track record of standing up for his voters and not surrendering his leadership nor his conscience to the influence of the Zionists. Corbyn not only speaks for a growing majority in the UK, he speaks for the much more powerful interests in Britain that would like to see a return to the policies of True Labour, not the New Labour that was bastardized into existence by the Zionist former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, an indoctrination that seemed almost complete until the rise to power of Corbyn as a true populist Champion. What most fail to observe within Corbyn's rise is that he has successfully weathered not one but two attempts by the Zionist controlled traitors within his own party to oust him as leader. Despite these attempts, Corbyn has emerged unscathed and more popular than ever, and this strongly indicates the power base behind the scenes that wants to see him bring a return to a socialist Britain.

He is also the sole example to a world desperately looking for a leader to follow in their own fight for a return to proper society in their own nations.

This, of course, is anathema to everything the Zionists stand for and for what control they have gained since Maggie Thatcher morphed into John Major, who hatched into Gordon Brown, who then spawned Tony Blair who allowed for the rise of David Cameron and Theresa May, but whose chrysalis has now been crushed under the boot of this rising populism lead by Corbyn.

At the seat of European Zionist control, Brussels, the EU is too busy crushing Zionist opposition in Greece, Italy, Spain/ Catalonia and Brexit to devote their full attention, yet, to Corbyn. Few realize that creation of the EU, from its inception to its current form of unelected economic and social control over 27 once-sovereign nations was,in reality, spawned, propagated, institutionalized and brought to power by the American Zionists looking to further their centralized national control using the pre-existing American model.

The American model of "United" states or nations had, far before 1999, become a tool to prioritize a Zionist agenda over that of the public. Once the Zionist banking interests had succeeded in adding central monetary control to the EU via its emulation of the US Federal Reserve Bank, the interests of the twenty-eight nations were reduced to the interests of the corporation, never more the voter.

Then, there is the IMF. As the foremost tool for turning sovereign nations into Zionist debt slaves, the IMF has used its coercion to force nations across the globe into accepting massive loan packages of US dollars that are more than fully secured by the pledging of national assets that the Zionist business interests covet. The results of this tactical plunder is shown by the fact that the IMF currently holds the third largest gold reserves in the world, all of which was provided as ransom from the countries it afflicted. It has also inflicted massive economic and environmental disasters of staggering proportions on its host nations whose Zionist inspired leadership sought to do a deal with the devil, one that helped their pockets, but not their nation, their people, nor their long term future.

In his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," John Perkins details the way the IMF forces countries to take on these unpayable loan packages and how the IMF uses this as a wedge to seed its hegemony, austerity, misery and political upheaval- in the name of "progress"- on so much of the unsuspecting world. Greece, is of course, the poster child for these results where a treasonous Alexis Tsipras, as Prime Minister, has now sold off most of the public assets to private corporate interests, has destroyed the national social obligations to his countrymen, and has made Greece a vassal state of the EU, yet he still has made barely a dent in the massive debt obligations to the Troika; the EU, IMF and World Bank.

Still, they want more.

The societal results today, as predicted by the previous results of the American model, have been almost worldwide in its austerity imposed on the poor, massive increases in military armaments purchases, elimination of democracy and democratic results, restrictions of existing civil rights and social services, an ever growing refugee crisis and the autocratic political control of Europe and most of the world by a selected or unelected coven of Zionists who have already sold their own souls for personal power and riches.

In destroying the nation of Greece, theirs is not just a message to the Greeks from the Zionists who run the EU and the Troika. It was a message to all the other nations and peoples of the world: Resistance is futile!

Or, is it?!

Zionism's "Final Solution" Are You a Zionist?!

Yes, when considered in its many worldwide manifestations the true definition of Zionism is much broader and seemingly all encompassing. Once its incorrect attachment to Judaism is accurately debunked, Zionism's degradations of the cornerstones of civilization and its goal towards a subliminal personal adherence to selfishness, greed, and the immoral can be correctly defined in summation by the single all-serving excuse offered by the Kol Nidrei.

But the "Final solution" of Zionism is much worse.For the final goal of Zionism is to take away your human desire to resist.

Truly, Zionism's greatest success has been in indoctrinating the opposition conscience of the remaining world into acquiescence, apathy and failure. Zionism would not have achieved its world threatening level of power had the morals of society already risen up en mass against the crimes of Israeli and Zionist expansion. So far, our world has allowed this to be our current societal condition. Hence we are losing!

As clearly shown, the world is awash in the mindset of the Zionist. Virtually all aspects of civilization are now steeped in the subtle manipulative and hypocritical tenets of the Zionist- not Jewish- Kol Nidrei. This infection of the conscience is certainly spreading worldwide and, whether one knows it by name, this infection has become increasingly systemically endemic. As done so many times through history, Zionism and Zionists must be cast out again from world society.

Across the world, as shown, examples of the horrors of Zionism are not at all limited to the barbarism that is ongoing in Palestine. As suggested in a previous article, "The Good Friday Massacre : World, We Are All Palestinians Now," we, the remaining civilized world, must quickly awaken to the knowledge that we are apathetically existing in an ever-growing cage of Zionist control while to cage door is quickly closing. It is time to understand Zionists are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of what remains of our world.

When the politician ignores his conscience , the will of the voters, his duty to country, and his oath of office in favour of supporting a foreign interest then he is a Zionist.
When the journalist casts aside her moral obligation and wilfully crafts preposterous pro- Israeli articles that distort and belie the truth, while deliberately leaving out the horrors of Israeli war crimes and worldwide influence- thus prostituting the true tenets of objective reporting then, she a Zionist.

When doctors, lawyers and teachers, use understood hypocrisy to justify allowing personal interests and money to come before their obligation to their charges within the society they serve then, they are Zionists.

When the professional athlete knowingly prioritizes continued riches and fame before his obligation to the people whose accolades made him wealthy and fails to use his media power to stand-up against or take a knee in opposition to the injustices he or she sees

then, those athletes are Zionists.

When the Preacher, Rabbi, Imam, Priest, Monk or Holy Father ignores the scriptures of their particular religion and does not thunder a call from the pulpit for the immoral factions within their religion to be ejected then, that man of God is a Zionist.

But, the most critical manifestations that defines modern Zionism are those within society who know in their own minds and conscience- and their hearts- that their own world, and that of human kind, is being destroyed, yet they wilfully choose to do nothing in opposition. Those of the moral world who do see the social hegemony of Zionism before very eyes, yet fail to be disgusted to the point of action. Men and women of clear conscience whomerely pass quiet comment rather than shaking their fists in proper outrage. People whose temptation to protest is too easily calmed by the next media distraction

when those of the civilized world allow themselves to become too scared and apathetic to disconnect Zionism from Judaism and scream at, throw back and laugh-off the erroneous accusation of Ant-Semitism and, then, demand that modern Zionism be removed completely from our world's society for the good, for the future, for the very existence of mankind then, sadly, they too have been, thus, similarly afflicted. And so, yes

they, too, have become Zionist.

Epitaph For Zionism- The Day of Judgement.

On a warm summer's day in mid-Wales, while wandering the hills of the old iron town of Merthyr, a hiker might suddenly be almost overcome by the unmistakable stench of human urine.

It is the grave of Robert Thompson Crawshay.

Long since dead, the memory of this scourge, a man who ignored his religion, his society and his conscience, is still, and will forever be, firmly in the minds of the Welsh. The grave is surrounded by a picketed wrought iron fence, made in his iron works and designed to keep the actions of those of outrage and conscience at bay. So sits his massive flat gravestone, a single, one-line epitaph inscribed at the top. His grave, today, remains as an unintended testament to this man, and all men, who hypocritically defiled their own religious obligations..

Yes, here on this slowly decaying plot, during the many decades past and many more to come, a fence will not be enough to restrict those who respect the true value of mankind and are not so easily put off. Acting on their own continued outrage against what this man once did, and still does, stand for, here they climb that fence. Here, they consciously stand in defiance on his gravestone, a marker that seeks to cover-over the crimes of one man against mankind.

Here. they stare down at the final words of a man so foul that those of conscience, true morals and memory, to this day, have only one possible choice to make.

So, every summer's day they do not forget, deliberately climbing that spiked fence to stand atop of this oligarch and wilfully emptying their bladders all over this villain of humanity. Thus, they leave their mark, their opinion and their personal statement here to waft through the air as the smell of ongoing resistance all over Crawshay's one line epitaph.

Far too many in our world today, like Crawshay, assume that they will somehow, despite their crimes, purchase their own stairway to heaven. For all of his money, his mansions and his final one line, desperate epitaph- carved forever at the head of the massive granite slab- these words could not, would not, and forever will not, sanctify or turn all the Wrongs into Right.

Yes, Crawshay was indeed a Zionist. Like all Zionists, he assumed that atonement for his crimes– such as others pray for using the the Kol Nidrei- could be easily absolved by scrawling his own final prayer to God.

On that gravestone, in 12-inch chiselled letters, is a simple one line epitaph his own final prayer, his desperate demand, for ultimate absolution.
"God, Forgive me." cries out Crawshay, in the finality of his life on hard, unforgiving stone.

For an unconscionable man like Crawshay, it was, then Too God Damned Late!

About the Author: Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk

Of Related Interest

Greasy William , July 8, 2018 at 4:38 am GMT

Zionism cannot be understood outside the context of late 19th century European nationalism. The purpose of Zionism is to build a "normal" country of Jews in the Land of Israel, accepted by and at peace with it's Arab neighbors. The idea is to replace assimilation of individual Jews with the assimilation of the entire Jewish nation.

Clearly this ideology violates the Torah. The Torah commands us to physically destroy the Arabs and anyone else who challenges us and four us to expand our borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Temple must be rebuilt, sacrifices must be resumed and Israel must return to being a theocratic monarchy led by somebody from King David's line.

Peace with the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Iranians? Impossible because we are clearly commanded to annihilate those nations. What about the Iraqis, Egyptians and Saudis then? No, because they also currently occupy land that rightfully belongs to us.

As for the rest of the Arab/Islamic world, when they pay reparations to us and agree to send us an annual tribute in perpetuity and then recognize us as G-d's chosen people and the rightful rulers of the entirety of the Land, then we shall grant them peace. These terms, however, are in final form and non negotiable.

geokat62 , July 8, 2018 at 5:06 am GMT

When the politician ignores his conscience, the will of the voters, his duty to country, and his oath of office in favour of supporting a foreign interest then he is a Zionist .

FIFY

When the politician ignores his conscience, the will of the voters, his duty to country, and his oath of office in favour of supporting a foreign interest then he is a traitor .

utu , July 8, 2018 at 6:50 am GMT
True Torah Jews: The Real Reason that Netanyahu and Israeli Leader's Claim to Speak for All Jews (Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro)

https://youtu.be/E4_1dfp3tAM

j2 , July 8, 2018 at 6:58 am GMT
I will comment this as I have for the last ten years tried to get to the bottom of this "conspiracy".

About the conspiracy:

The New World was an idea of the Enlightenment, replacement of the Old Regime by democracy and capitalism, later by socialism and communism. This idea was promoted by a secret society, Freemasons, later by Communists and other secret societies which did not want communism. Jews were not yet active in this movement, they had a niche as kings people, a separate class. They did not fit into the new world, so they either had to assimilate or to move to some place. As they did not want to assimilate, and they had the tendency of mutual help, proto-Zionists started preparing the transfer of Jews to Palestine already 1840ies.

Those proto-Zionists included Freemasons, some bankers and so on, and it is this group that become to rule the world in a short time, and it is the new form of this group that are the globalists wanting to unify the world and get immigrants and all that. They do not include Masons anymore, but one can identify some organizations working for these goals. To get the non-assimilating Jews out of the new world, they needed Zionism.

Herzl's Zionism and modern Anti-Semitism were created by this group about the same time for this exact purpose. Israel was their creation. The logic behind the new world is to create one world, free market, no religion,.. (just like Imagine of John Lennon or the Masonry dream) But there has to be a ruling class, maybe secret.

In Communism it was the party, UK/US Freemasons possibly saw it as WASPs, maybe it is an ethnic group here. I do not know, these models change and such groups can be infiltrated unless they are closed and endogamous.

About the Jews:

Most Jews of course support Israel and they still practice mutual help, which causes the same problems as always: they were an endogamous and fast growing population trying to promote their group interests and seeing others as enemies. Jews in Israel face the problems of an occupation force: as they are confronted by asymmetric resistance, they are forced to do what they are doing, and that is the strategy of the resistance.

Additionally there is Talmud with its different treatment of Jews and non-Jews, it makes things only worse. The actions Israel must make turn it into a pariah state. The strategy of the resistance may or may not lead to a success.

American Jews support Israel, which is natural as Jews should support Jews. Christian Zionists support Israel, as they read the Bible in that way, the Jews as God's nation. Yet, neither of these groups are the globalists who run the world. Jews, including Zionists, are a cover for the ruling group: resistance is posed as antisemitism. It is the same as was with Freemasonry. Most Freemasons did not make revolutions, it was Memphis and Mizraim, but they acted as a cover: any opposition to the revolutionary Masonry was ridiculed as conspiracy theories and normal Masons insisted that they are innocent, as they were, but they just covered up those lodges which were not at all innocent. Jews have the same role: opposition to those who do all this that must be opposed is presented as opposition to the Jews and Israel and dubbed antisemitism.

Maybe I am wrong in this view that there are two different groups, but historically taken, it was not the Jews who started this development to the new world. Jews are called the lesser cousins in the Protocols and in Joly's Dialogues Machiavelli is a group of evil men, who have taken the ways of the Jews, that is, it was not ethnic Jews at that time (Mizraim members were mostly Catholic, though some were crypto: Frankists and so on).

jilles dykstra , July 8, 2018 at 7:30 am GMT
'Committed no crime'.
If anyone knows the definition of crime in international politics, I'd like to hear it.
Lewis Mumford, 'The city in history, Its origins, its transformations and its prospects', London, 1991, 1961 writes that the judaic rules were meant to cause separation from non jews, and maximum growth of population, in itself no crimes.
I'm reading on the European fourth and fifth centuries, cannot say that judaism's efforts for power were worse than those described.

Anyhow, Rome in the first century CE twice sent powerful armies to Palestine to subjugate jewry, in how far these armies were sent because jews were suspected of being implicated in the murder of the Roman emperor, I'm not sure.

If christianity indeed was created by Paul as secret agent of the Roman emperor, to underrmine judaism, an interesting theory. The copper Dead Sea scroll describes where the jewish treasure was hidden, I'm inclined to think that what is described was real, the Jerusalem temple was very rich. Michael Grant, 'The Jews in the Roman World', 1973, New York

After the west, in any case on the surface, became christian, with the pope as highest authority, jews became a nuisance: they made clear that the pope was not almighty, kings liked to use the jews for tax gathering etc., the pope could not interfere. As jews were excluded from many professions, often also forbidden to own land of houses, it is not suprising that some of them lent themselves to shady practices of kings etc.

What went wrong, in my view, is that jews, not all of them, of course, assimilated insufficiently after the got equal rights in the 19th century. Katz writes 'the expectation that jews would disappear through assimilation was not fullfilled, on the contrary, jews became more visible'.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA. One of the factors Katz mentioned for success was 'close economic cooperation'.

And so, after 1870 in the unified Germany, antisemitism emerged. Antisemitism is not antijudaism, as the anti sentiment after 1870 was also against non religious jews. Zionism, in my view, no more than a reaction to antisemitism.

The creation of Israel, the most stupid thing jews ever did, my idea. Zionism is seen by many as the same as judaism, Israel advertises the worst aspects of jewish culture. Israel can only exist through jewish power in the USA, and wars by the USA. Israel may be the third military power in the world, as the British said 'one can do a lot with bayonets, except sit on them'.

Bardon Kaldian , July 8, 2018 at 7:58 am GMT
A very stream-of-consciousness & confusing text. As for myself, I'm all for Zionism with consequences, similar to Arthur Koestler. Let's see..

1. Jews are religious-cultural-historical people. Wherever they settled, they remained an isolated group.

2. Europe, if you wish, is a state of mind: first during Greco-Roman cultural sphere & then during long centuries of Christianity. Jews remained the only tolerated Middle Eastern group in Europe, a group that, mostly, did not assimilate (Muslims and others were booted).

3. in Muslim & Eastern cultural spheres (Iran, Ottomans, Arabs,..) Jews were just one among co-existing cultural groups because Islamic world did not developed as Europe: the nations & nation-states (language, territory, customs, law, culture, history,..) became in past 500-800 years primal foci of loyalty of European peoples. Jews did not fit in.

4. during 19th-20th C Theodor Herzl was a shrewd observer. He clearly saw that most Jews were Europeanized, but still alien Middle-Eastern historical people living among various, different European peoples. Zionist idea was a realist admission that Jews in Europe remained a separate nation, whether they lived in Italy, Germany, France or Russia. Of course, this does not apply to assimilated, not just acculturated Jews: Jews simply cease to be Jews when they lose their ethnic religious identity & fully embrace different cultural-identity matrix. Was Karl Marx a Jew? No, he was a German of Jewish descent.

5. after establishment of Israel, Jews got their nation-state. But, many diaspora Jews continued with their anti-national culture war against western nations, while extolling Israel as a Jewish nation. Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways. It can't be multiculturalism & anti-nationalism for thee (US, France, Poland, Italy,..) & nationalism for me (Israel).

6. contemporary BDS crowd is mostly composed of home-grown far leftists, ideological progeny of the 1960s counter-culture & New Left, and various anti-Jewish racial & religious groups (Muslims, Africans..-who historically don't belong to Europe). Pro-Palestinian, pro-Muslim & pro-3rd world rhetoric is absurdity for most sane whites (Europeans & North Americans). They're not worried about fully integrated co-nationals of Jewish origin; they're annoyed by Zionist Jews who behave like accepted, but still alien & sometimes hostile group; and they're extremely inimical toward unassimilable racial & cultural aliens (blacks, Muslims, Asians, )

For most Europeans & Europe-derived peoples (at least the mentally sane majority)- they want to get rid of all- Asians, blacks, self-conscious Middle Easterners these guys don't belong here. It is not a continuation of some Jewish obsession, but a simple admission: sorry guys, you're not my people. You got your home somewhere in the East & go there. We may trade with all you Israelis, Turks, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Nigerians, .but good fences make good neighbors.

mcohen , July 8, 2018 at 9:08 am GMT
Robert crawshay is the reason the Palestinians are suffering.he was a low down hootchie cootchie and the welsh have no jobs and kol nidrei is to blame
Tyrion 2 , Website July 8, 2018 at 10:06 am GMT
This is some serious rambling nonsense. It touches on myriad subjects and manages to get them all wrong.

Example: the absurd fake quote from Netanyahu.

RealAmerican , July 8, 2018 at 11:01 am GMT
In sum, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and its army is the most moral army in the world. Indeed, Israel was founded to be a shining light onto humanity, illuminating how a state should function vis a vis its citizens and its neighbors. Both learned and unlearned know that to be so. To elaborate is no avail, and unquestionably anti-semitic.
Heros , July 8, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
A very good article on Zionism that addresses the JQ straight on. Unfortunately, I think it is off target by trying to equate the greed and madness for power of Crayshaw, and jews in general, with Zionism. He never really links Crawshays' actions to Kol Nidrei, it is more of a association through a high correlation of depravity and greed.

By confining his definition of Jewish Power be to a subset of Zionism, he provides "good jews" far too much wiggle room to disassociate themselves from their people actions, often when they themselves are citizens of Israel.

... ... ...

dearieme , July 8, 2018 at 11:45 am GMT
"Long ago cast-out from Judea since AD 70, by Roman emperor, Titus ..": but that's simply untrue, a yarn invented centuries after 70AD. They were banned from living in Jerusalem, sure, but that was after the second revolt, not the first. Nor were they ever expelled from Palestine. Plain didn't happen.

Being on the losing side of a revolt against Rome must be grim but expulsion was not one of the punishments. For a start, why would the Romans expel those Jews who took no part in the revolt? When else did Rome expel a whole population as a punishment? Why is there no record of this punishment of the Jews? Even Josephus makes no mention of this purported exile. Pah! It's baloney.

Rugged Pyrrhus , July 8, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
Why the maximalism, bro? You make a great case against Zionism, and then conflate it with the Federalist Society's support of "rolling back civil liberties, imperial wars, free-wheeling laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism, along with ending New Deal/Great Society social programs", and their stance "against reproductive choice, government regulations, labour rights, environmental protections, and justice for unwanted aliens."

I happen to love laissez-faire capitalism, and the thought of ending New Deal/Great Society social programs tickles me pink.

Does that make me a Zionist catspaw?

Some of us think the term "reproductive rights" is a euphemism for "child murder", and "government regulations, labour rights, environmental protections, and justice for unwanted (illegal) aliens" are subjectively defined terms, to say the least.

I would have read the whole thing, but after that you devolved into Counterpunchian logorrhea, and I just aint got the time.

Anonymous [117] Disclaimer , July 8, 2018 at 1:16 pm GMT
After the fake quote supposedly from Netanyahu (lol at least spell his name correctly next time) I kept pressing page down and it kept going. Amazing. Why does Unz publish these idiotic schizoid rants?
jilles dykstra , July 8, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@dearieme

The diaspora began maybe two centuries BCE. Why, I never saw an explanation. Of course, the destruction of the temple etc. increased it

James Brown , July 8, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
"He(Jeremy Corbyn) is also the sole example to a world desperately looking for a leader to follow in their own fight for a return to proper society in their own nations."

Not a very good example IMHO. Better example is the former PM of Malaysia and again PM of Malaysia recently elected at the young age of 92. Mahathir Mohamad is a well known "anti-semite" which of course means is an enemy of the "Zionist international mafia."

Jeremy Corbyn, if elected, will be the new Alexis Tsipras. Why ? Because as everyone knows, if the "Zionist international mafia" have complete control of the USA, it is obvious that they also have complete control of GB. Corbyn like Tsipras, will do as told.

More: As a leader of opposition, Jeremy Corbyn never had the courage to call a cat a cat. He has never called the former PM and a well known zionist-Tony Bair- a war criminal.

Most British people and Labour members believe that TB is a war criminal. Even today, the blairites (Zionists) still control the Labour Party. How credible that someone that doesn't control his own party, will control Britain's deep state ?

"Thus viewed correctly, Zionism is not a religion, nor is it part of Judaism".

This seems to be, according to Gilad Atzmon wishful thinking from the writer and "Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, probably the most eloquent Torah Jew spokesperson".

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/10/9/judaism-zionism-and-conflation

Otherwise, an excellent piece.

annamaria , July 8, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
@Greasy William

"Zionism cannot be understood outside the context of late 19th century European nationalism."
– Sure.
"National Socialism, more commonly known as Nazism, subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or "inferior" races." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Replace Nazism with Zionism: " Zionism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism The Zionism aimed to unite all Jews living in historically Jewish territory, as well as gain additional lands for Jewish expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or "inferior" races."

– Close your holocaust museums already. The worst among the Jews have plagiarized the German nationalism' ideas to create the monstrosity of indecent, dishonorable, inhuman, immoral, and obnoxious imitation (forgery), Zionism. The forgery has been flourishing thanks to the deeply-dishonest talmudic traditions married to tribal solidarity.

The talmudic lunatics have been destroying each and very safe haven throughout Europe and now in the US. Your Polish bastard Bibi and the Moldovan thug Avi can try on taking all possible poses and mannerism of "distinguished" men -- this will not help. They are thugs.
Zionism is a dangerous cancerous growth on western civilization. Would not it be great if your lot collectively disappear from the cultural centers of the EU and the US?

Your problem is, the Zionists cannot coexist with the Zionists. The article explains, why.

Echoes of History , July 8, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

Same sex is the only choice the Jewish Rabbi Jezus allows in Jewheaven.

"When Jewgod raises people to life, they won't marry. They will be like the Jewangels in Jewheaven." (((Matthew 22:30)))

That perversion alone is reason enough to refuse any offer of a Jew to save you to his Jewish utopia. Yet you fall for this degenerate storytelling hook, line, and sinker!

P.S. That verse is but one of many anti-family, anti-normal sex teachings of the Jewish Rabbi Jezus. JESUS' ANTI-FAMILY VALUES http://www.usbible.com/Jesus/jesus_family.htm

annamaria , July 8, 2018 at 4:13 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

"Zionism, in my view, no more than a reaction to antisemitism." – The above paper's focus is on a specific prayer:

"All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."
-the Kol Nidrei.

The Kol Nidrei, ("All Vows") often misspelt Kol Nidre, was not originally a prayer, but a declaration offered during Rosh Hashana, the start of the Jewish new year. In "modern" Judaism it is now being delivered as a prayer and has so grown in prominence during the last sixty years that it is now delivered at the commencement of Judaism's holiest yearly event of Passover."

– It was not "antisemitism" but the anti-talmudism reaction towards the indecency and treachery of a certain segment of the Jewish populace.
Zionism was, and is, a farcical and bloodthirsty imitation of the 19th-century German nationalism.

[Jul 07, 2018] When the country is in US crosshears the elite of this country should better washet out: color revolutions has thier own dynamic and after they are lauchend it is more difficult to stop them that to at the very begnning. Also in such cases, as EuroMaydan has shown, an importnat role is played by turncoats with the goverment

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , July 4, 2018 at 2:54 am GMT

US and Israel are attempting to use internal pressure within Iran yet again with the intent of sparking enough strife for a regime change:

Indeed a high level joint US-Israeli "working group" has been meeting for months with just this goal in mind as Axios confirms in a bombshell new report: "Israel and the United States formed a joint working group a few months ago that is focused on internal efforts to encourage protests within Iran and pressure the country's government."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-03/us-and-israel-form-working-group-overthrow-iran-government

[Jul 07, 2018] ChuckOrloski

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: July 3, 2018 at 1:02 pm GMT 200 Words Hi Phil,

In your article posted here two (2) weeks ago at U.R., fyi, the enthusiastic & angry commenter "Harbinger" hit hard & perhaps unfairly at the articulate & well meaning dissident commenter "Art."

Harbinger's key contribution was the absolute futility of using the ultra-corrupt & omnipresent Jewish (ZUSA) political system to change it for America's benefit.

We all recall a percentage of Americans having hope & faith in Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Nonetheless, anxious to rise in ZUS presidential standing, Rand found it necessary to visit the Jerusalem's Western (Wailing) Wall, & wearing a yarmulke. A.k.a., the necessity for kissing the correct ass.

This year, Rand Paul cast the decisive vote to confirm warmongering Zionist Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. (Zigh)

Acknowledging impotent defeatism inherent in Harbinger's & my position, I am sincerely open for all criticism here.

P.S. Today is the 30th anniversary of the ZUS's barbaric shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, the Vincennes. 290 casualties! 66 children. US Navy guided missile Commander, William Rogers, was cleared of any wrongdoing & awarded America's "Legion of Merit" medal.
A question, my U.R. Brothers. Does anyone here recall any Congressional or Executive branch outrage?

RVBlake , July 3, 2018 at 5:25 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski

That happened in 1988. I was active duty military then and the unit used to receive the "Navy Times", a newspaper for members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the atrocity.

ChuckOrloski , July 3, 2018 at 6:46 pm GMT
@RVBlake

Writing apparently as a patriotic & principled American military veteran, RVBlake said:
"I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity."

Hi RVBlake,

Above, neither do I!

Nonetheless, a sincere thanks for your "higher" service to our very sick society & your having honorably called the U.S. Navy's attack upon the defenseless Iranian passenger airplane what it really was -- an "atrocity."

Around the year 2006, I do recall a dreaded sense of shame when faux "war hero," Senator John McCain, modified the popular Beach Boys song lyric to "Barbara Ann," and to the delight of his Zio indoctrinated political supporters (at a rally), he fiendishly intoned, "Bomb, bomb Iran!"

Fyi, RVBlake, a few months ago, author & U.S. military veteran, Philip Giraldi, wrote a great U.R. article about our "Zionized military."

On Independence Day Eve, you will ever more so appreciate P.G.'s higher service to our country. Thanks again!

RVBlake , July 3, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Thank you. The only reason I ever read The American Conservative years ago was Phil Giraldi. I was astounded when I learned he worked for the CIA. Speaking of atrocities, this may not qualify, but days after the Gulf War, in '91, there was a local luncheon given for the officers stationed at various units in the city, Savannah, GA. I didn't attend, as usual, but the lieutenant with whom I shared an office did, and she informed me of the festivities. After lunch, apparently they set up a projector and began showing live footage of the Highway of Death, the road from Kuwait to Iraq, filled with fleeing, terrified Iraqi soldiers on their way home, with no taste for combat. My colleague told me of the laughter that filled the luncheon room at the sight of the Americans bombing and littering the Highway with the mangled remains of the Iraqis. It was nauseating to hear of this reaction.

ChuckOrloski , July 4, 2018 at 12:17 am GMT
@RVBlake

Hi RVBlake,

I disdain U.S. military officers who would assemble and laugh at live footage from the "Highway of Death."

Fyi, I am the only son (child) of the late WWII veteran, P.F.C. Charles Orloski, Sr. Wounded by Japanese mortar fire during Leyte combat, my father spoke proudly about having fought Japs / Nips. Fowler & Williams truck driver, a patriotic Teamster, my Dad was also grateful for Harry Truman's nuclear bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki because it "saved American soldier lives."

Fyi, in August 1970, drafted, I entered Basic Training at Fort Polk, La. and also did 11-Bravo A.I T. in North Fort (Polk).

Incredibly, the antiwar movement was active among "Fresh Meat" inside barracks but every soldier was indoctrinated to hate what Springsteen rather flippantly described (in song) as the "Yellow Man."

While marching along toward "Tigerland," every recruit had to sing, "I wannabe an Airborne Ranger, I wanna live a life of danger, & I wanna kill some Charlie Cong."
Except the gung-ho and "Grunts" who desired officer promotion "bars," most of the guys in my Company just wanted to smoke, fuck, & go home.

At present, I hate how the George H.W. Bush administration easily managed to make average Americans "get over" their hesitancy about the unnecessary, immoral, & deadly Vietnam War and proceed to dust Islamics Republican Guard in what Patrick Buchanan called a "Turkey Shoot" & where General Schwarzkopf became a heroic conqueror, household name.

By the time of the infamous W. Bush Zionist presidency, the all volunteer ZUS Army was indoctrinated to hate and want to kill Muslims, a.k.a., those "ragheads" who did 9/11 & have WMD's.

Taking target practice at the Koran, shooting & tossing Muzzies into river, raiding Iraqi mosques, and "non-combatant" prisoner torture became S.O.P., rules-of-engagement.

(Zigh) NFL's Pat Tillman was going-ho once.

And poor (& pregnant?) Private Lyndie England? She never got a distinguished service medal for her role at Abu Ghraib & I really wonder what she'll be doing tomorrow, Fourth of July.

I'll try & stop yapping now, RVBlake. Summarized, I support the basic soldier who wants to believe in an honorable America. And not the ZUS War Criminals, Pentagon Chiefs of Staff, & M.I.C. contractors who collectively "drum-up" global work opportunities.

Fyi, nine total years service, stateside, discharged in 1979, Specialist 4, Pennsylvania Army Reserves National Guard.
(zzZigh) I did not fight the "Yellow Man, but come Winter 2001, & employed by a Syracuse, NY-based private corporation, I did many bizarre Haz-Mat emergency responses to White Powder (Anthrax) threats in eastern Pennsylvania.

Some incidents were gut-busting laughers for the Field Technicians and me!

Thanks for patience, RV.

[Jul 07, 2018] Correcting the historical record is not being a "fanboy" of anyone. The teaching and interpretation of history has far reaching consequences for the people, and its precisely the distortion and falsification of said history which leads to its mass manipulation

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rogue

Umm, do you lack reading comprehension skills?

I have not the slightest interest in debating you or anyone else at UR regarding the Holocaust, whether it's genuine or the biggest scam ever pulled, or maybe something in between. Does the truth on this and other events like 9/11 matter? For sure. But it's not the point I'm making.

What I'm pointing out is that you often preface your Codoh web address with "level playing field, no name calling" which implies, at least, that you are trying to approach the Holocaust and the JQ/Israel wider issues without prejudice or obvious bias.

However you lose no opportunity to slag off Jews no matter what the discussion or context is about. Their looks, intelligence, well kinda everything.

That's the point I'm making and nowt else. So don't waste your time getting back to me with the likes of "Aha! You can't refute my Codoh arguments!"

That Jews are not entirely the oppressed innocents depicted in endless propaganda, I'm well aware of.

FWIW, I've been looking at revisionist stuff for several years. But one thing I always treat with caution on WW2 revision is that most revisionists seem to be fanboys of Hitler. Michael Hoffman also doesn't believe in the Holocaust but he got flack for saying Hitler was disastrous for Germany.

Anyway, I'm not hostile to your endless Codoh references; I find it quite amusing.

Mulegino1 , July 5, 2018 at 3:41 pm GMT

Correcting the historical record is not being a "fanboy" of anyone. The teaching and interpretation of history has far reaching consequences for the people, and its precisely the distortion and falsification of said history which leads to its mass manipulation .

The current establishment supported mythology is that of the good war against the evil Hitler, who was the most wicked man in history and the German nation that he and his followers held in hypnotic trance committed history's greatest crime. Hitler alone bore the enormous preponderance of guilt in the beginning of history's greatest and most destructive war. As a result, a coalition of the righteous coalesced around the banners of freedom and "liberation." and "saved the world" from this unique and all encompassing evil, primarily by "liberating" the European people and saving the Jews from total extermination.

Applied to any other historical time frame, the last narrative would sound like the plot for a bad Hollywood movie. But for the former enemies of National Socialist Germany , this Manichean legend serves as the foundation for the current Atlanticist-Zionist hegemony over much of the globe. Every time a leader emerges that seeks political independence and financial sovereignty for his people, the situation is a new Munich, the leader is the next "Hitler" and those who oppose him are the new, prescient and brave Churchill and FDR. It has become a geopolitical recurring rite of hegemony.

For those who have bothered to study the matter in any depth it has not been too much of a chore to figure out that Hitler, while no boy scout or saint, never had any intention to murder all of the Jews of Europe. He did not desire perpetual wars of conquest, only territorial readjustments. He was not even particularly bellicose, and desired the construction of a "national socialist state of the first order" wherein the people he governed would enjoy a decent standard of living and a dignified peace with their European neighbors. Hitler made numerous offers of disarmament agreements to both France and Britain, all of which were rebuffed except the Anglo-German Naval Agreement which gave Great Britain a considerable advantage in warship tonnage. His initial "territorial grabs" all involved territory ripped from Germany in the Versailles Agreement, and not all of that, since he kept to his agreement with Italy regarding South Tyrol and made no demands on France for the return of Alsace Lorraine. Hitler's initial policy regarding Danzig and the Corridor were much more conciliatory than that of his Weimar predecessors.

Many serious historians now acknowledge that Hitler does not bear sole or even primary responsibility for the war, which appears to have been foisted upon Germany by the British War party, international Zionist elements and Germanophobes and closet communists in the FDR administration- primarily for economic and financial reasons.

The modern establishment view is that Hitler "seduced" the German masses into becoming his blind followers by his hypnotic oratory.- as if Weimar Germany was not undergoing mass unemployment, starvation, demoralization and outright degradation- Berlin was the sex capital of Europe, for God's sake! What bow tied bourgeois politician were the Germans going to turn to to save them from from economic and social despair and starvation? Hitler's economic recovery speaks for itself.

[Jul 07, 2018] Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War.

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , July 5, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT

@SolontoCroesus

These look interesting:

A recent book that summarize and adds to Quigley's work and exposes how WWI was a lie set up by the secret elites working in broad daylight is Hidden History.

It shows how the elites worked with the media and the UK weapons industry to demonize Germany.

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War.

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307

After starting a deadly but profitable war and dragging the US into it, the victorious powers held the Paris Peace Conference in the year 1919.
This was the birth of "internationalist society" & Atlanticism.

The Emergence of International Society in the 1920s

https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-International-Society-1920s/dp/1107021138

[Jul 07, 2018] All social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Dissident X , July 5, 2018 at 2:23 am GMT

@bj

thank you for your comment.

I should like to cite several passages from Yuval Harari's excellent book, " Sapiens ":

p.210: " all social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures.
two distinct criteria:
1. Religions hold that there is a superhuman order, which is not the product of human whims or agreements.
2. Based on this superhuman order, religion establishes norms and values that it considers binding. "
p. 195 It's for your own good : " Evolution has made Homo sapiens. like other social mammals, a xenophobic creature. Sapiens instinctively divide humanity into two parts, 'we' and 'they'. We are people like you and me, who share our language, religion and customs. We are all responsible for each other, but not responsible for them. We were always distinct from them, we owe them nothing. We don't want to see any of them in our territory, and we don't care an iota what happens in their territory. They are barely even human. "

p. 228 The Worship of Man : " if we take into consideration natural-law religions, then modernity turns out to be an age of intense religious fervour, unparalleled missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history. The modern age has witnessed the rise of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism, and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If a religion is a system of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order, then Soviet Communism was no less a religion than Islam. "

p. 242 Blind Clio : " Ever more scholars see cultures as a kind of mental infection or parasite, with humans as its unwitting host. Organic parasites, such as viruses, live inside the body of their host. They multiply and spread from one host to the other, feeding off their hosts, weakening them, and sometimes killing them. As long as the hosts live long enough to pass along the parasite, it cares little about the condition of its host. In just this fashion, cultural ideas live inside the minds of humans. They multiply and spread from one host to another, occasionally weakening the host and sometimes even killing them. – can compel a human to dedicate his or her life to spreading that idea, even at the price of death. The human dies, but the idea spreads. . Successful cultures are those that excel in reproducing their memes, irrespective of the costs and benefits to their human hosts. Similar arguments are common in the social sciences, under the aegis of game theory. Game theory explains how in multi-player systems, views and behaviour patterns that harm all players nevertheless manage to take root and spread. "

[Jul 07, 2018] When the country is in US crosshears the elite of this country should better washet out: color revolutions has thier own dynamic and after they are lauchend it is more difficult to stop them that to at the very begnning. Also in such cases, as EuroMaydan has shown, an importnat role is played by turncoats with the goverment

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

tac , July 4, 2018 at 2:54 am GMT

US and Israel are attempting to use internal pressure within Iran yet again with the intent of sparking enough strife for a regime change:

Indeed a high level joint US-Israeli "working group" has been meeting for months with just this goal in mind as Axios confirms in a bombshell new report: "Israel and the United States formed a joint working group a few months ago that is focused on internal efforts to encourage protests within Iran and pressure the country's government."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-03/us-and-israel-form-working-group-overthrow-iran-government

[Jul 07, 2018] All social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures

Jul 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Dissident X , July 5, 2018 at 2:23 am GMT

@bj

thank you for your comment.

I should like to cite several passages from Yuval Harari's excellent book, " Sapiens ":

p.210: " all social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures.
two distinct criteria:
1. Religions hold that there is a superhuman order, which is not the product of human whims or agreements.
2. Based on this superhuman order, religion establishes norms and values that it considers binding. "
p. 195 It's for your own good : " Evolution has made Homo sapiens. like other social mammals, a xenophobic creature. Sapiens instinctively divide humanity into two parts, 'we' and 'they'. We are people like you and me, who share our language, religion and customs. We are all responsible for each other, but not responsible for them. We were always distinct from them, we owe them nothing. We don't want to see any of them in our territory, and we don't care an iota what happens in their territory. They are barely even human. "

p. 228 The Worship of Man : " if we take into consideration natural-law religions, then modernity turns out to be an age of intense religious fervour, unparalleled missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history. The modern age has witnessed the rise of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism, and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If a religion is a system of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order, then Soviet Communism was no less a religion than Islam. "

p. 242 Blind Clio : " Ever more scholars see cultures as a kind of mental infection or parasite, with humans as its unwitting host. Organic parasites, such as viruses, live inside the body of their host. They multiply and spread from one host to the other, feeding off their hosts, weakening them, and sometimes killing them. As long as the hosts live long enough to pass along the parasite, it cares little about the condition of its host. In just this fashion, cultural ideas live inside the minds of humans. They multiply and spread from one host to another, occasionally weakening the host and sometimes even killing them. – can compel a human to dedicate his or her life to spreading that idea, even at the price of death. The human dies, but the idea spreads. . Successful cultures are those that excel in reproducing their memes, irrespective of the costs and benefits to their human hosts. Similar arguments are common in the social sciences, under the aegis of game theory. Game theory explains how in multi-player systems, views and behaviour patterns that harm all players nevertheless manage to take root and spread. "

[Jul 06, 2018] The crisis of neoliberal society and American Empire is systemic and neocons are only are only one, however important, part of that.

Notable quotes:
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body politic is, this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it wouldn't have been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a massive corruption in the highest echelons of power.

Agree entirely -- a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of liberalism as a whole.

The crisis is systemic and Jews are only one, however important, part of that. In the end, Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this in purely psychiatric terms -- he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have suspicion about what some of those are. Just an example.

[Jul 06, 2018] Ralph Peters is a nice example of the nuttiest neocons around

The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)
Notable quotes:
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum. ..."
"... Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA ..."
"... He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained ..."
"... Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments. ..."
"... Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally left the Fox News network in March 2018 )

When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum.

Carlton Meyer , Website June 14, 2018 at 4:50 am GMT

Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.

He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained:

https://fredoneverything.org/dulce-et-decorum-est-if-someone-else-has-to-do-it/

Mikhail , Website June 14, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer

Peters has been hardcore anti-Russian and anti-Serb. His views are quite collapsible. Regarding one of his mass media appearances

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/17/dnc-kiev-regime-collusion-isnt-americas-best-interests.html

Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments.

Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS. You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.

Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions.

Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early 1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.

Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.

During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries.

Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia.

Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.

Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.

[Jul 06, 2018] If Ukraine drifts into chaos, its neighbors, being aware of its history of extreme violence and atrocity are preparing themselves for the spillover

So far Ukrainian society holds well and I see no signs that it will collapse soon. Economics in dismal shape though...
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Erebus , June 16, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT

Look up Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:

I did, and as usual Ishenko takes an oblique approach that shines a light into obscure but critical corners.

What an eye opener this one is.

Not sure how much was lost in translation, but if I understood correctly the Russians are massing forces in the Western District, not because they fear an attack from NATO, or plan to attack Europe but to rescue Europe from a conflagration that will be sparked in Ukraine. That it was drifting into failed state status is well known, but that a religious war is in the offing was utterly unknown to me, and I suspect to most others here.

That in turn shines a light on why Poland and the Baltics are begging for US/NATO troops as well, and at least partially why US/NATO is delivering. As Ukraine drifts into chaos, its neighbours, being aware of its history of extreme violence and atrocity are preparing themselves for the spillover. They have no desire to relive the decade+ blood orgy that erupted in the middle of the 20th C centred on Ukraine (where, IMHO, the real Holocaust happened).

Overwhelming force applied at an overwhelming pace is the best way of dealing with such an outbreak, and the Russians are the only party able to deliver. US/NATO forces can be expected to roar around in their APCs avoiding trouble and then claim credit in accordance with Western military tradition. Meanwhile, the Russians will go into mopping up the leftovers.

Makes a lot of sense if Ishchenko's read of the situation is right. It probably has a bigger impact on Dunford's and Gerasimov's meeting than the USM "going home".

Whew!
PS: Yes, I was aware of the Russian central bank selling off its USTs. With the Petro-Yuan and Western sanctions now in full swing, it really doesn't need $100B's worth to manage its U$ denominated imports.

[Jul 06, 2018] The argument for creationism as far as I've heard it posited, is that our earth was 'seeded' with the DNA molecule, (as presumably other planets throughout the universe were as well), and that this was done by some intelligent (or otherwise deliberate) agent. (G0d?)

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

foolisholdman , June 15, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

An argument that people use against the spontaneous occurrence of life is that there is almost zero chance of the right amino acids joining up. Anyone who has worked with string and cables knows that they have a quite extraordinary, almost uncanny, ability to get tangled up together. Before life happened, there were no bacteria to destroy emerging complexes of amino acids. (It has been shown that inorganic materials given the sort of conditions that the newly born planet would have had, can give rise to amino acids.) Also "almost zero chance" taken an almost infinite number of times over a very long period, adds up to a quite good chance.

Rurik , June 15, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

I enjoy reading your posts, AnonTN,

the probability of an emergence of any protein by chance is virtually nil.

probability

that's a tricky word, eh?

from what I've glimmered, it isn't proteins or even amino acids that people wonder over their original emergence by chance, but rather the (miraculous) DNA molecule itself.

How did those four amino acids arrange themselves in just that way?

The structure seems positively preternatural, and when it comes to the probability of such an 'accident', how likely was that?

The argument for creationism as far as I've heard it posited, is that our earth was 'seeded' with the DNA molecule, (as presumably other planets throughout the universe were as well), and that this was done by some intelligent (or otherwise deliberate) agent. (G0d?)

When you look at the DNA molecule, and ponder its probability, what is the likelihood that it sprang from the ooze by happenstance?

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMT
@Rurik

Tell you what, you almost hit the nail on the head. The four bases of DNA could have appeared by chance in the primordial soup, got linked to deoxyribose and phosphates, and even got connected in various sequences. The hardest thing to explain is how the system that converts DNA to messenger RNA and especially the one that then translates RNA sequence into protein sequence (ribosomes with the supply of transfer RNAs for different codons and amino acids) emerged. I am not aware of any good model explaining that. My point is that hypothesizing that this was designed by some intelligent agency does not solve the problem: next you need to explain how that agency emerged. The answer that this agency (say, God) is eternal is essentially cheating: this answer would suffice for ribosomes, but it would be just as unsatisfying for a logically thinking person.

[Jul 06, 2018] I am pretty sure without WWII there would be no 1991.

Notable quotes:
"... While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sergey Krieger , June 16, 2018 at 6:12 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Compared to modern western leaders Kruschev was rather good leader and Brezhnev is downright genius. I was and am actually fond of Dear Leonid Iliich. So I believe it is not a matter of social political organization but systematic and probably human feature.

The West has been producing non entities, idiots and morons at the top with unerring consistency. It is just that conditions in the West are far more forgiving than in Russia. Also we have not mentioned destruction and suffering caused by war in ussr somewhat lagging in few aspects of life standards. Socialism slogan is from everyone by their abilities to everyone for their contribution.

Hence obviously hardworking and better contributing people should be rewarded especially like in Stalin times via glorifying and promoting them to higher status. Stahanov movement comes to mind.

I think Stalin genius is underappreciated. Regarding weapons manufacturing I believe it was a matter of great patriotic war shock.

That war in every respect has caused great damage to us including probably due to huge loss of Tim and best human material laying foundation for further problems. Stalin wasted 8-10 years of his life to first win the war and then rebuild the country. Imagine no war. I am pretty sure there would be no 1991.

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system.

Materially the people in some Western countries lived better than the Soviet people. However, the difference was ~2-3-fold at best, not 10+-fold as many in the USSR believed, and there were (and are) very few countries with higher living standards than Russia. As far as psychological wellbeing is concerned, the USSR compared to the West even better, except for the people with excellent education and willingness to work hard, like me. That's the PR campaign Soviet authorities lost to their peril: the support of better intellectually equipped and the most active people.

I agree that nobody, even the laziest and most useless, should go hungry today, but the difference between what those get and what hard-working people get should be many-fold. Otherwise, the society provides disincentive for the people who can contribute, dragging itself down.
Also, USSR should have paid more attention to the production of consumer goods, even if it meant fewer tanks and artillery pieces. It's policies made all these tanks useless, anyway, not to mention that today these tanks and other military hardware is used against Russia by former "brothers" (with "bothers" like that, who needs enemies).

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

I agree that the people who went to college in Soviet times are better educated and more creative than recent graduates. I am pretty sure that recent successes of Russian MIC are largely due to the Soviet legacy. We'll see what happens next, as "effective managers" they are cranking out now are totally useless in real life.

[Jul 06, 2018] Putin conversion from atheist to a believer

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz

My personal opinion: it is exactly "Paris is worth a mass" conversion. It is based on Putin's actions, which suggest a very pragmatic (you can say cynical) person, who has the benefits of his country in mind (rather, who believes that benefits for his country are the best benefits for him). I could be wrong, though.

EugeneGur , June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
@Frankie P

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity.

No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his least attractive features.

Thankfully that chapter of history is over

It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.

The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is -- to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song -- is more alive than the living. The Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.

It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet standards -- culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does -- the Soviet Union will live one.

[Jul 06, 2018] An interesting variation of anti-Putin propaganda in blogs

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

@Quartermaster While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russian army usually outperform Russian economy

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Cyrano , June 15, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT

Why (Oh Why) do they hate the Russians so much? Let me try to answer that question. Most armies in history were created for the purpose of enriching the host country by looting foreign lands. US are bucking that trend – they have an army that's looting mostly the host country for enriching the same army and those who support it (domestically).

Also, the best armies in history usually belonged to whoever happened to be the economic powerhouse at the moment – examples are too many to list them all – ancient Rome, Great Britain 16-19 century, France 19 century, Germany 19-20 century.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course – Genghis Khan – the Mongols hardly an economic powerhouse, yet a number one military power of its time.

Then we come to Russia. I don't know when exactly Russia underwent the Genghis Khanisation process, but it's apparent that they did and it served them well throughout their history. Meaning that their army usually outperforms their economy, and that's what's driving the west mad at least since Napoleon's times.

They think that Russia doesn't deserve to be a powerhouse like they are thanks to their military, because they believe that other than their military, the Russians are culturally, economically, civilizationally, and yes – even genetically inferior to the west.

Tough luck, chums. I have one answer to that: Maybe it's not Russia's fault that militarily they have always managed to outperform the west. Maybe the fault lies with you. How can you blame Russia for the fact that your armies suck? But, as they say in the US – you got to support the troops.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews and noble Russian Orthodox Christians.

Notable quotes:
"... Vladimir Putin is NO historian and his fascination with Solzhenitsyn is not a healthy one. Nobody denies the role of Jews (positive, as well as negative) in Russian History but Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews and noble Russian Orthodox Christians. In fact, it is infinitely more complex. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT

@Rurik

...Moreover, Vladimir Putin is NO historian and his fascination with Solzhenitsyn is not a healthy one. Nobody denies the role of Jews (positive, as well as negative) in Russian History but Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews and noble Russian Orthodox Christians. In fact, it is infinitely more complex.

But if you want to view it as one unstoppable Jewish juggernaut against Christ-loving Russians, who am I to suggest to you otherwise.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russia, the Neoconservatives, and the Real Issues Involved by Boyd D. Cathey

So Boyd D. Cathey claims that the main reason of anti-russian hysteria is that Russia represents an obstacle to establishing global US domninance -- a global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post ..."
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard ..."
"... Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils ..."
"... Two Hundred Years Together ..."
"... The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, ..."
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
"... as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com
155 Comments Reply

Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes) adopted new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.

The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.

That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.

One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top legislation.

Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons & Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges "the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally left the Fox News network in March 2018 )

When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .

Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media. Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum ).

Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip Giraldi and Robert Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin.

For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.

Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the commentary ]

Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish persecution for the Neocons.

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!

Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped "has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has, understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time allies such as Syria.

Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors and allies?

More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received.

But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.

[Jul 06, 2018] Svidomite (Ukrainian nationalist anti-Russian view) has gotten greater academic play in US russian studies

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website June 16, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

You mean this chap?

http://russialist.org/francis-a-boyle-nyt-obit-on-dick-pipes/

An accurate contrast from what was written about Pipes by Jacob Helibrunn in The National Interest and Ira Straus in JRL.

The there's this leftist BS:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/richard-pipes-cold-war-russian-revolution (JRL Promoted)

The late Richard Pipes wasn't incorrect in his assertion that the image of a foreign intervention on the side of the Russian Civil War era Whites is a matter that has been quite bloated from reality.

The Germans did more for the Reds than just transport Lenin from Zurich to Petrograd. There was also the concerted soft power anti-White/pro-Red left activism in the West, as well as some other matters mentioned in these non-JRL promoted pieces:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/

https://www.eurasiareview.com/23032017-reexamining-russias-past-analysis/

The Jacobin piece linked at the very top of this note makes some broad inaccuracies on the Russian Civil War era violence. There was plenty of such on the side of the Reds, which BTW adversely affected a good number of Jews.

Towards the end of the Russian Civil War, the more objective of historians on this issue note that the Whites had noticeably maintained a better discipline of its forces concerning the issues of looting and violence. A hypothetical White victory wasn't destine for a Nazi/Nazi light scenario. One notes the exiled manner of many Whites including Anton Denikin and Peter Wrangel.

The pogroms against the Jews in Russian Civil War era Ukraine happened before the Whites established a primary base there. These pogroms included involvement from the forces loyal to Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petliura, as well as some locals.

Much of the historical accounting on this subject says that Petliura's forces were the most violent among Russian Civil War era combatants against the Jews. In more recent years, there seems to be an increase of claims stating differently -- which appear a blend of questionably biased views from some on the left and others (not necessarily on the left) taking an anti-White/pro-Petliura stance.

I'm not sure how pro-White Pipes was as suggested by the leftist author of the above linked Jacobin piece. I recall Pipes saying rather rather derisively that US based Russian studies programs had at one time been more influenced by the Whites. Whatever the degree of that being true has declined as the svidomite (Ukrainian nationalist anti-Russian view) has gotten greater academic play (Motyl, Kuzio, et al), mixed in with the leftist and JRL court appointed Russia friendly syndromes.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russian "neoliberals" both grant-supported and ones that are not is a separate animal altogether

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US, regardless of their language proficiency.

Here, I have to politely disagree since Russian "liberals" both grant-supported and ones that are not is a separate animal altogether. Firs, most of them, grants or no grants, are the real deal, they got grants because they are the real deal, not the other way around, and causality in this case really matters. I don't need even to know if Mr. Nekrasov or Gozman are grant-eaters, their hatred of everything Russian is palpable. The only weaker feeling than hatred they have is contempt. This cannot be hidden -- it shines through. They do it for the idea and grants are just a bonus. It all goes back to Russian "Westerners" and liberals about whom Tyutchev (IIRC) left a profound paragraph.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this. My point is, all these "ideological Russia-haters" eat at least three times a day, and they are used to eating well (no McDonalds burgers for them, they prefer filet mignon). Yes, there is a long history of fights between "Westerners" and "Slavophiles" in Russia, going even before Tyutchev. However, being a "Westerner" one does not have to be a traitor. For example, Peter the Great was a "Westerner", yet he was clearly a Russian patriot (even though he was not quite Russian by blood). Whereas all this scum are traitors. In the US they would be compelled by the law to register as foreign agents.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 8:02 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

We are talking about the same thing with different words. My point is simply that there are whores who do it for money and there are whores who do it for both money and pleasure.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money

Notable quotes:
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.

However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. The greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who wanted to loot the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended loot.

[Jul 06, 2018] Pathological lust for political power which afflicted so many is in itself a good indication of a borderline disorder.

Notable quotes:
"... Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian language. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 5:20 pm GMT

@EugeneGur

It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.

It is not "misunderstood"–it is a complete caricature which now blows into the faces of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some exceptions merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian language.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US, regardless of their language proficiency.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 5:46 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money.

Very true but they are multidimensional and only some of them are not crazy, Ralph Peters, Max Boot or many other rabid Russophobes are genuinely mad. Enough to take a look at their reactions and behavior, I omit here a complete military-political delirium they propagate, which in itself a fruit of a sick imagination.

So it is both for very many of them. After the death of Richard Pipes I received communications from person who studied under him, this person has Ph.D in history, he describes him going completely mad, from going hi pitch in his voice, almost screaming, to sweating profusely, once the word Russia and Russians were uttered.

The hatred of Russia was palpable. Guess what, Pipes was hailed as America's greatest "Russia scholar". It is never one thing. Moreover, pathological lust for political power which afflicted so many is in itself a good indication of a borderline disorder.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash we are repeatedly getting.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 6:34 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash we are repeatedly getting.

Combined West and its "electoral" and educational institutions completely stopped production of real statesmen already in 1970s. We saw last pool of real statesmen depart the scene with Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. Current Western so called "elites" do not even qualify for the term mediocrity. Many of then are simply degenerate such as European Greens or American, so called, Left, albeit the nominal Right also doesn't shine with any traces of intellect.

[Jul 06, 2018] I am pretty sure without WWII there would be no 1991.

Notable quotes:
"... While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sergey Krieger , June 16, 2018 at 6:12 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

Compared to modern western leaders Kruschev was rather good leader and Brezhnev is downright genius. I was and am actually fond of Dear Leonid Iliich. So I believe it is not a matter of social political organization but systematic and probably human feature.

The West has been producing non entities, idiots and morons at the top with unerring consistency. It is just that conditions in the West are far more forgiving than in Russia. Also we have not mentioned destruction and suffering caused by war in ussr somewhat lagging in few aspects of life standards. Socialism slogan is from everyone by their abilities to everyone for their contribution.

Hence obviously hardworking and better contributing people should be rewarded especially like in Stalin times via glorifying and promoting them to higher status. Stahanov movement comes to mind.

I think Stalin genius is underappreciated. Regarding weapons manufacturing I believe it was a matter of great patriotic war shock.

That war in every respect has caused great damage to us including probably due to huge loss of Tim and best human material laying foundation for further problems. Stalin wasted 8-10 years of his life to first win the war and then rebuild the country. Imagine no war. I am pretty sure there would be no 1991.

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system.

Materially the people in some Western countries lived better than the Soviet people. However, the difference was ~2-3-fold at best, not 10+-fold as many in the USSR believed, and there were (and are) very few countries with higher living standards than Russia. As far as psychological wellbeing is concerned, the USSR compared to the West even better, except for the people with excellent education and willingness to work hard, like me. That's the PR campaign Soviet authorities lost to their peril: the support of better intellectually equipped and the most active people.

I agree that nobody, even the laziest and most useless, should go hungry today, but the difference between what those get and what hard-working people get should be many-fold. Otherwise, the society provides disincentive for the people who can contribute, dragging itself down.
Also, USSR should have paid more attention to the production of consumer goods, even if it meant fewer tanks and artillery pieces. It's policies made all these tanks useless, anyway, not to mention that today these tanks and other military hardware is used against Russia by former "brothers" (with "bothers" like that, who needs enemies).

AnonFromTN , June 16, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

I agree that the people who went to college in Soviet times are better educated and more creative than recent graduates. I am pretty sure that recent successes of Russian MIC are largely due to the Soviet legacy. We'll see what happens next, as "effective managers" they are cranking out now are totally useless in real life.

[Jul 06, 2018] Putin conversion from atheist to a believer

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz

My personal opinion: it is exactly "Paris is worth a mass" conversion. It is based on Putin's actions, which suggest a very pragmatic (you can say cynical) person, who has the benefits of his country in mind (rather, who believes that benefits for his country are the best benefits for him). I could be wrong, though.

EugeneGur , June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
@Frankie P

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity.

No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his least attractive features.

Thankfully that chapter of history is over

It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.

The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is -- to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song -- is more alive than the living. The Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.

It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet standards -- culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does -- the Soviet Union will live one.

[Jul 06, 2018] An interesting variation of anti-Putin propaganda in blogs

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

@Quartermaster While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russian army usually outperform Russian economy

Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Cyrano , June 15, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT

Why (Oh Why) do they hate the Russians so much? Let me try to answer that question. Most armies in history were created for the purpose of enriching the host country by looting foreign lands. US are bucking that trend – they have an army that's looting mostly the host country for enriching the same army and those who support it (domestically).

Also, the best armies in history usually belonged to whoever happened to be the economic powerhouse at the moment – examples are too many to list them all – ancient Rome, Great Britain 16-19 century, France 19 century, Germany 19-20 century.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course – Genghis Khan – the Mongols hardly an economic powerhouse, yet a number one military power of its time.

Then we come to Russia. I don't know when exactly Russia underwent the Genghis Khanisation process, but it's apparent that they did and it served them well throughout their history. Meaning that their army usually outperforms their economy, and that's what's driving the west mad at least since Napoleon's times.

They think that Russia doesn't deserve to be a powerhouse like they are thanks to their military, because they believe that other than their military, the Russians are culturally, economically, civilizationally, and yes – even genetically inferior to the west.

Tough luck, chums. I have one answer to that: Maybe it's not Russia's fault that militarily they have always managed to outperform the west. Maybe the fault lies with you. How can you blame Russia for the fact that your armies suck? But, as they say in the US – you got to support the troops.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russia, the Neoconservatives, and the Real Issues Involved by Boyd D. Cathey

So Boyd D. Cathey claims that the main reason of anti-russian hysteria is that Russia represents an obstacle to establishing global US domninance -- a global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post ..."
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard ..."
"... Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils ..."
"... Two Hundred Years Together ..."
"... The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, ..."
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
"... as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com
155 Comments Reply

Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes) adopted new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.

The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.

That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.

One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top legislation.

Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons & Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges "the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally left the Fox News network in March 2018 )

When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .

Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media. Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum ).

Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip Giraldi and Robert Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin.

For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.

Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the commentary ]

Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish persecution for the Neocons.

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!

Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped "has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has, understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time allies such as Syria.

Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors and allies?

More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received.

But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.

[Jul 06, 2018] I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption.

I a way communism was a new religion and extermination of non-believers are typical for religious wars.
The emergence of neoliberalism was a death sentence for Soviet communism. In this sense the USA did won the Cold War. The triumph of neoliberalism over communism was complete. The USSR elite changes sides and became turncoats.
Communism as practiced by the Soviets was nether a sustainable ideology, not a sustainable political system. As such it was doomed as any quasi theocratic state is doomed. It can' convert itself into something else. So the collapse was inevitable although efforts of "collective West" to speed up this collapse by manipulating oil prices and withholding critical technologies should not be underestimated. As well as bribing key players which by some estimates cost the USA one billion in cash.
Also in 90th the level of degeneration of Soviet elite was staggering and that open a way for neocons. The country was in deep cultural, ideological and political crisis. West supported nationalist movements became important shadow players in several of former USSR republics. Supported by Soros foundation among others. I always wonder about the level of connections between Soros and CIA.
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sergey Krieger , June 15, 2018 at 9:25 am GMT

@AnonFromTN

I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption. It was first attempt at moving humanity towards next step in social evolution and it did not happen under the best conditions. It happened in the country ridden with accumulated problems from previous regime mishandling the country for a couple of centuries with those issues coming to a head and after so much pressure it resulted in massive eruption of violence which would have been even worse without Bolsheviks as it would lead to Russia disintegration and Russian state death., There would have happened something similar to modern Ukraine. Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime.
Current Russian regime got bad roots and I do not believe anything good will come out of these bad roots. The system is freakish and rotten at the core. It care s not for people. Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this. Bolsheviks when they started made their intentions rather obvious in destroyed and poor country. They assured real human rights while current system removed those rights and there is no guarantees that we as a soviet citizen used to enjoy. Obviously things were not perfect. They never are.

Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake.

I also wonder what do you think of spontaneous life appearance? I read some books on this issue including Dawkins' and Behe, but considering your experience and professional background it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Communism (at least as implemented in the USSR) had its severe faults. The main of these was that they built a loser-oriented society: no matter how little you contribute, you get quite a bit, with inevitable other side of this coin – no matter how much you contribute, you don't get much more. People are quite different, and a difference in compensation on the order of 5-10-fold would be appropriate. Naturally, the difference on the order of 50-500-fold, like in current Russia or the "liberal" West, is thievery, pure and simple: advantageously born or smarter people without conscience robbing regular folks blind, and using their control of MSM to convince suckers that any other system is for losers. On top of that, some (party numenclatura) were a lot more equal than others (to borrow Orwell's expression). There were also tactical blunders: Soviet authorities did not allow most citizens to travel and work abroad, where they could find out for themselves that huge material advantage of the West is a propaganda myth. In fact, in material terms Russians now live much better then Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, not to mention the majority of Eastern European countries. In the USSR this myth festered and eventually lead to the downfall of the USSR, as there were no serious forces ready to defend it from traitors at the top, who just wanted to steal more than the party rules allowed them. I remember believing in that myth until I got my personal experience working in the US. Here I learned how true is the American folk wisdom that "there is no such thing as a free lunch" and "free cheese is only in the mousetrap".

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

However, Soviet education system was way superior to American, and possibly better than in many European countries (I have no personal experience there). I know for a fact that Soviet school gave a lot better education than the school in the US, even though the US spends enormous amounts of money on schools, much more than USSR did per pupil. The difference in college education was huge in the USSR and is huge in the US. I know that Moscow State or Phystech gave education that was not worse, possibly better than Harvard, Yale, Caltech, UPenn, and other best schools in the US. But most colleges in the USSR were way below MSU level. Similarly, most colleges in the US aren't worth the name, and only 2% of US college students attend really good schools. However, I remember that when we graduated from Biofak MSU, which trained the students mostly to do research, I had a feeling that they taught us to swim but never put water into the pool. After moving to the US (I did not lie to pretend being a persecuted refugee, I found a job via mail and went to work) within months of working in the lab I got a reputation of a star post-doc, a "go to" person in anything related to molecular biology and biochemistry. Besides, it became my unofficial duty to fix the scintillation counter, which was regularly screwed up by the Italian post-docs working in another lab. So, I published many strong papers as a post-doc, found my independent position after 4 years, and got my first NIH RO1 grant a year later.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe. I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level). I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR. Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress. On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Finally, life. As a biochemist, I see no other option than the idea that life appeared spontaneously. The best book about evolution is Dawkins' "The blind watchmaker". People who don't know even elementary biology would tell you that the probability of an emergence of any protein by chance is virtually nil. That is true, but no protein emerged that way. Proteins consist of parts, sequence motifs and domains, each much smaller than the whole thing. Modern proteins (ours and bacterial alike – we all evolved for billions of years) emerged as combinations of these parts. You can find the same domain or sequence motif in dozens, sometimes hundreds, of proteins, attesting to the combinatorial nature of evolution of complex things. When you mutagenize your protein and look at the sequence, you can see how protein families evolved in the sequence of nucleotides (most amino acids can be encoded by many, up to 6, different codons, which makes the evolution clearly traceable). Our ribosomes (machines that make proteins by translating messenger RNA sequence) are a lot bigger and slower than ribosomes in eubacteria, yet we have those better and more efficient ribosomes in mitochondria (plants also have them in chloroplasts). Creationists can't explain this, but this is just the result of eukaryotic cell being a symbiosis of anaerobic archaebacteria with "bad" ribosomes and aerobic eubacteria with better ribosomes, that became mitochondria and chloroplasts. There are many other clear traces of evolution (constantly developing antibiotic resistance of disease-causing bacteria being one of the most obvious), but the funniest argument for evolution I know is this: "Bush junior is the best argument against intelligent design: nobody intelligent would ever design that".

[Jul 06, 2018] If Ukraine drifts into chaos, its neighbors, being aware of its history of extreme violence and atrocity are preparing themselves for the spillover

So far Ukrainian society holds well and I see no signs that it will collapse soon. Economics in dismal shape though...
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Erebus , June 16, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT

Look up Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:

I did, and as usual Ishenko takes an oblique approach that shines a light into obscure but critical corners.

What an eye opener this one is.

Not sure how much was lost in translation, but if I understood correctly the Russians are massing forces in the Western District, not because they fear an attack from NATO, or plan to attack Europe but to rescue Europe from a conflagration that will be sparked in Ukraine. That it was drifting into failed state status is well known, but that a religious war is in the offing was utterly unknown to me, and I suspect to most others here.

That in turn shines a light on why Poland and the Baltics are begging for US/NATO troops as well, and at least partially why US/NATO is delivering. As Ukraine drifts into chaos, its neighbours, being aware of its history of extreme violence and atrocity are preparing themselves for the spillover. They have no desire to relive the decade+ blood orgy that erupted in the middle of the 20th C centred on Ukraine (where, IMHO, the real Holocaust happened).

Overwhelming force applied at an overwhelming pace is the best way of dealing with such an outbreak, and the Russians are the only party able to deliver. US/NATO forces can be expected to roar around in their APCs avoiding trouble and then claim credit in accordance with Western military tradition. Meanwhile, the Russians will go into mopping up the leftovers.

Makes a lot of sense if Ishchenko's read of the situation is right. It probably has a bigger impact on Dunford's and Gerasimov's meeting than the USM "going home".

Whew!
PS: Yes, I was aware of the Russian central bank selling off its USTs. With the Petro-Yuan and Western sanctions now in full swing, it really doesn't need $100B's worth to manage its U$ denominated imports.

[Jul 06, 2018] Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money

Notable quotes:
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.

However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. The greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who wanted to loot the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended loot.

[Jul 06, 2018] The crisis of neoliberal society and American Empire is systemic and neocons are only are only one, however important, part of that.

Notable quotes:
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 15, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT

@AnonFromTN

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body politic is, this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it wouldn't have been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a massive corruption in the highest echelons of power.

Agree entirely -- a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of liberalism as a whole.

The crisis is systemic and Jews are only one, however important, part of that. In the end, Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this in purely psychiatric terms -- he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have suspicion about what some of those are. Just an example.

[Jul 06, 2018] New PNAC formed. Called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI)

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons & Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges "the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm GMT

My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:

10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with practical programs grounded in fact and reason.

Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)

ah, so it was Dubya all along!

what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!

So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !

sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!

The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,

what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and catastrophic expense of America and the American people.

I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?

Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the ZUSA?

Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?

[Jul 06, 2018] Are terms "neocon" and "Jew" synonyms

They are not. Lobbing for MIC does not require to be Jewish, although many Jews are talented propagandists. Neocons and Zionists are more closely related, with Zionists being a subset of Neocons
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [965] Disclaimer , June 17, 2018 at 8:06 pm GMT

@Jake

The "deep state" has always existed everywhere, and always will. It's a feature, not a bug, depending on whether its interests coincide with the people's, or not. For example, many of the Romanovs were installed via "deep state" palace coups.

But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews" instead?

From the article:

>Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI) leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.

Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and about those Brits, I found it really interesting to know that all of the Royal Family's men are circumcised, and it's not done medically as in the USA, it's done by a Rabbi.

_at_ Quartermaster

>done in Ukraine

That was done by the USA. One of the primary architects of it was Victoria Nuland. She's Jewish, in case you were wondering.

Rurik , June 18, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT

But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews" instead?

no, because the worst neocons are Gentiles

And I say worst, because at least the Jews are doing what they consider to be 'best for the Jews', as they foment war, and loot the US treasury of billions of dollars every year to benefit their tribe.

Whereas the Gentile neocons are serving the Jewish supremacists at the direct of their own tribe and nation.

Scum like Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, George Will, the entire membership of the GOP in good standing with 'conservative Inc., Paul Ryan deserves a mention of his own, John McCain and Lindsey, and all the rest of the rotten neocon Gentiles, who're far, far worse human beings than Max Boot or William Kristol.

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
@Rurik

no, because the worst neocons are Gentiles

Bingo! It is this self-evident and simple fact which many are afraid to face.

Rurik , June 18, 2018 at 3:08 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

this is perhaps the most contemptible man alive. (even possibly edging out McCain!)

listen how at 1:38 -- 1:42 he advocates taking out all of Syria's defenses, which would of course lead to the utter destabilization and ultimate carving up of Syria.

what this POS doesn't mention is that he, (and Dick Cheney and other Gentile scum) are on the strategic board of Genie Energy, which is poised to make trillions of dollars pumping oil out of Syria's Golan Heights. Which today is universally considered Syrian territory. But if Assad falls, then that all changes in a heartbeat.

also look at him at 51 seconds in, drooling over the planned destruction of Lebanon by the ZUS.

here he admits that he's an investor in 'energy and national security matters'

can you imagine a rich man advocating for the slaughter of untold innocents, including American service men and women, in order to illegally and immorally steal a nations territory so that he could profit by it with a few shekels more?

There aren't words..

He also was part of John McCain's presidential campaign.

The Jewish neocons are babes in the woods when it comes to the raw, treasonous evil of men like Woolsey.

youp , June 24, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT
All of the verbage to tell us what we already know? That the alliance between the soft neoliberal, the media and the neocons is all about the Jewish supremacist agenda.

That is to use the might of the US against those who oppose the plan for Greater Israel to dominate the world thru endless wars and financial manipulation.

To destroy the entire Middle East to steal land, to control the political process in ALL the countries on Earth particularly the West.

Look at the fake media ownership, the journalists, the "comics" , the sports owners, academia. All jewish controlled and financed.
Putin is in the way. He's lucky to be alive still.

[Jul 06, 2018] It used to be that the only things one could be certain of were "death taxes." Now of course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies parroted by MSM all over the West.

Jul 06, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Gary Weglarz , July 5, 2018 at 1:01 pm

It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live in.

From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun.

They can and do provide fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated -- just as it has for the last 500+ years.

[Jul 06, 2018] Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State

Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. that's why Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains in propaganda and Hollywood movies.
Jul 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 7:22 am GMT

To me it is all quite simple. FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and a smaller Britain. Stalin had other ideas.

Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government, in my view. Deep State still tries to impose this world government.

Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons are back'.

Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.

The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingness to realise that it could no longer maintain the empire. This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standards became too expensive, the one fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.

Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half. What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria. Alas, seldom in history did reason rule. If it will in the present USA, I doubt it.

Parbes , June 14, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT

The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world, but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.

Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.

Jake , June 14, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."

And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.

The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities.

That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and World War 2.

What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.

But the original alliance is the same.

You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon problem without also solving the WASP problem.

DESERT FOX , June 14, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since 1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.

Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist communists.

The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Jake

From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.

Cyrano , June 14, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25 years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence" budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's their incompetence.
AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 6:51 pm GMT
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading. Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse "righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right" and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot and resent being thwarted from stealing even more.

Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to be exposed as a king with no clothes by various countries switching the trade to their own currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the US dollar and US government debt. The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain, like all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about inevitable course of history.

redmudhooch , June 14, 2018 at 7:56 pm GMT
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best. Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria

Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-14/russia-warns-credible-information-impending-staged-chemical-attack-syria

White House Tied to Terrorists, Trump Authorizes $6.6M in Aid to White Helmets

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/06/14/white-house-tied-to-terrorists-trump-authorizes-6-6m-in-aid-to-white-helmets/

Starvation Holocaust in Yemen.

Yemen – The Starvation Siege Has Begun

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/06/the-starvation-siege-on-yemen-has-begun.html#more

By the time the American people realize that the war on terror was designed for them to be the final victim, it will be too late.

AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Rurik

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

See comment 51:

The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 10:43 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.

some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white men), and the working class is languishing.

It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way, profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them that are being exploited.

The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey

no argument there!

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.

India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places) are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those respective lands.

Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their countries are reduced to shitholes.

If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India, then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.

As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi Arabia, respectively.

The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal hatred.

It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.

It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like the last Zio-century.

That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation behind the wars.

The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of pure, raw, insatiable greed.

Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.

The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two pillars of Satanic iniquity.

I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.

This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet look at how they abase themselves

[Jul 06, 2018] Corporate Media's About-Face on Ukraine's Neo-Nazis by Daniel Lazare

Notable quotes:
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Zhydobanderivets ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... Le Monde Diplomatique ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
Jul 05, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Corporate Media's About-Face on Ukraine's Neo-Nazis July 5, 2018 • 59 Comments

U.S. corporate media spent years dismissing the role of neo-Nazis in Ukraine's 2014 coup but it is suddenly going through a conversion, as Daniel Lazare reports.

By Daniel Lazare
Special to Consortium News

Last month a freelance journalist named Joshua Cohen published an article in The Washington Post about the Ukraine's growing neo-Nazi threat. Despite a gratuitous swipe at Russia for allegedly exaggerating the problem (which it hasn't), the piece was fairly accurate.

Entitled "Ukraine's ultra-right militias are challenging the government to a showdown," it said that fascists have gone on a rampage while the ruling clique in Kiev closes its eyes for the most part and prays that the problem somehow goes away on its own.

Thus, a group calling itself C14 (for the fourteen-word ultra-right motto, "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children") not only beat up a socialist politician and celebrated Hitler's birthday by stabbing an antiwar activist, but bragged about it on its website. Other ultra-nationalists, Cohen says, have stormed the Lvov and Kiev city councils and "assaulted or disrupted" art exhibits, anti-fascist demos, peace and gay-rights events, and a Victory Day parade commemorating the victory over Hitler in 1945.

Yet nothing has happened to stop this. President Petro Poroshenko could order a crackdown, but hasn't for reasons that should be obvious. The U.S.-backed "Euromaidan" uprising not only drove out former president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, who had won an OSCE-certified election, but tore the country in two, precisely because ultra-rightists like C14 were in the lead.

When resistance to the U.S.-backed coup broke out in Crimea and parts of the country's largely Russian-speaking east, the base of Yanukovych voters, civil war ensued. But because the Ukrainian army had all but collapsed, the new, coup government had no one to rely on other than the neo-fascists who had helped propel it to power.

So an alliance was hatched between pro-western oligarchs at the top – Forbes puts Poroshenko's net worth at a cool $1 billion – and neo-Nazi enforcers at the bottom. Fascists may not be popular. Indeed, Dmytro Yarosh, the fire-breathing leader of a white-power coalition known as Right Sector, received less than one percent of the vote when he ran for president in May 2014.

But the state is so weak and riddled with so many ultra-rightists in key positions – Andriy Parubiy, founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine, is speaker of the parliament, while ultra-rightist Arsen Avakov is minister of the interior – that the path before them is clear and unobstructed. As Cohen points out, the result is government passivity on one hand and a rising tide of ultra-right violence on the other. In the earlier stages of the civil war, for instance, the rightwing extremists burned more than 40 people alive in a labor union building in Odessa, a horrific incident downplayed by Western media.

Cohen's article may have Washington Post readers scratching their heads for the simple reason that the paper has long said the opposite. Since Euromaidan, the Post has toed the official Washington line that Vladimir Putin has exaggerated the role of the radical right in order to discredit the anti-Yanukovych revolt and legitimize his own alleged interference.

Sure, anti-Yanukovych forces had festooned the Kiev town hall with a white supremacist banner, a Confederate flag , and a giant image of Stepan Bandera , a Nazi collaborator whose forces killed thousands of Jews during the German occupation and as many as 100,000 Poles. And yes, they staged a 15,000-strong torchlight parade in Bandera's honor and scrawled an SS symbol on a toppled statue of Lenin. They also destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who had fought on what Bandera supporters regard as the wrong side of World War II, that is, with the Soviets and against the Axis.

But so-called responsible, mainstream journalists are supposed to avert their eyes to avoid being tarred as a " useful idiot " whom Putin supposedly employs to advance his "anti-American agenda." Ten days after Yanukovych's departure, the Post dutifully assured its readers that Russian reports of "hooligans and fascists" had "no basis in reality."

A week or so later, it said "the new government, though peppered with right-wing politicians, is led primarily by moderate, pro-European politicians." A few weeks after that, it described Bandera as no more than "controversial" and quoted a Kiev businessman as saying: "The Russians want to call him a fascist, but I feel he was a hero for our country. Putin is using him to try to divide us."

Thus, the Post and other corporate media continued to do its duty by attacking Putin for plainly saying "the forces backing Ukraine's government in Kiev are fascists and neo-Nazis." But who was wrong ?

The New York Times was no better. It assailed Russia for hurling "harsh epithets" like "neo-Nazi," and blamed the Russian leader for "scaremongering" by attributing Yanukovych's ouster to "nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites." The Guardian 's Luke Harding – a leading Putin basher – said of the far-right Svoboda Party:

"Over the past decade the party appears to have mellowed, eschewing xenophobia, academic commentators suggest. On Monday, the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, said he had been 'positively impressed' by Svoboda's evolution in opposition and by its behavior in the Rada, Ukraine's parliament. 'They have demonstrated their democratic bona fides,' the ambassador asserted."

This is the party whose founder, Oleh Tyahnybok, said in a 2004 speech that "a Moscow-Jewish mafia" was running the Ukraine and that Bandera's followers "fought against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other enemies who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state." Had the leopard really changed its spots, according to Pyatt? Or was it simply a matter of America not giving a damn as long as Svoboda joined the fight to encircle Russia and advance NATO's drive to the east?

As someone named Marx once observed , "Who you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?" As far as Ukraine was concerned, the answer for the corporate press came from the U.S. State Department. If Foggy Bottom said that Ukrainian neo-Nazism was a figment of Russia's imagination, then that's what it was, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Someday, historians will look back on Euromaidan Ukraine as one of the looniest periods in western journalism – except, of course, for all the ones that have followed. But if one had to choose the looniest story of all, one that best reflects the abject toadyism of the reporting classes, it would have to be "Why Jews and Ukrainians Have Become Unlikely Allies," a 1,400-word article that ran on the Post -owned Foreign Policy website in May 2014. Four years later, it stands as a model of how not to write about an all-important political crisis.

Cohen's Conversion

Tyahnybok: 'Moscow-Jewish mafia' is running Ukraine.

The piece begins with the usual hand-wringing about Svoboda and Right Sector and expresses remorse that the latter still venerates the "controversial" Bandera, whose followers "fought on the side of the Nazis from 1944 until the end of World War II." (Actually, they welcomed the Germans from the start and, despite rocky relations with the Slav-hating Nazis, continued to work with them throughout the occupation.)

But then it gets down to business by asserting that as bad as Ukrainian nationalists may be, Russia is doubly worse. "Despite the substantial presence of right wing nationalists on the Maidan during the revolution," it says, "many in Ukraine's Jewish community resent being used by Putin in his propaganda war." The proof is an open letter signed by 21 Ukrainian Jewish leaders asserting that the real danger was Moscow.

"We know that the political opposition consists of various groups, including some that are nationalistic," the letter declared. "But even the most marginal of them do not demonstrate anti-Semitism or other forms of xenophobia. And we certainly know that our very few nationalists are well-controlled by civil society and the new Ukrainian government – which is more than can be said for the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security services."

This was music to Washington's ears. But if neo-Nazis are free of "anti-Semitism or other forms of xenophobia," how does one explain the white-power symbols in the Kiev town hall? If nationalists were "very few" in number, why did journalists need to explain them away? If Russian security forces really encouraged neo-Nazis, where were the torchlight parades and portraits of Bandera-like collaborators hanging from public buildings in Moscow?

The article might have noted that Josef Zissels, the Jewish community leader who organized the letter, is a provocative figure who has long maintained close relations with Ukraine's far right. A self-styled Zhydobanderivets – a word that roughly translates as "Kike follower of Bandera" – he has since infuriated other Jewish leaders by criticizing California Congressman Ro Khanna for sending a letter to the State Department asking that pressure be brought on the governments of Poland and Ukraine to combat Holocaust revisionism in their countries.

Forty-one Jewish leaders were so angry, in fact, that they sent out a letter of their own thanking Khannna for his efforts, expressing "deep concern at the rise of anti-Semitic incidents and expressions of xenophobia and intolerance, including attacks on Roma communities," and "strongly proclaim[ing] that Mr. Iosif Zissels and the organization VAAD do not represent the Jews of Ukraine." A Jewish community leader in Russia was so outraged by the pro-Bandera apologetics of Zissels and a Ukrainian-Jewish oligarch named Igor Kolomoisky that he said he wanted to hang both men "in Dnepropetrovsk in front of the Golden Rose Synagogue until they stop breathing."

So Foreign Policy used a highly dubious source to whitewash Ukraine's growing neo-Nazi presence and absolve it of anti-Semitism. As crimes against the truth go, this is surely one of the worst. But now that the problem has gotten too big for even the corporate media to ignore, overnight muckrakers like Joshua Cohen are seeing to it that getting away with such offenses will no longer be so easy. Before his abrupt about-face, the author of that misleading Foreign Policy piece was Joshua Cohen.

Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites as Jacobin and The American Conservative .

If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

mike k , July 6, 2018 at 4:49 pm

The leaders of Israel who sell weapons to the Nazis in Ukraine, are no better than those Nazis.

Susan Sunflower , July 6, 2018 at 1:37 pm

for those having Alice In Wonderland whiplash, yes the USA was funding the Ukranian neonazis Azov Brigade before Congress banned the funding in March 2018.

https://therealnews.com/columns/the-us-is-arming-and-assisting-neo-nazis-in-ukraine-while-congress-debates-prohibition

which of course does not mean that others are not funding them and/or funding or simply "arming" their friends and allies

https://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine/24876

same old "syrian playbook" wrt to enemy-of-my-memory bull .

rosemerry , July 6, 2018 at 10:12 am

The two-hour documentary "Putin" shows in an interview Pres. Putin explaining his government's cooperating with the Western- supported Ukrainian government for four years (because they were neighbors and had many links) which he considered normal behavior. However, once the 2014 election brought in a more "Moscow-friendly" team to govern Ukraine, the USA began its plans to overthrow it and we see all the consequences shown in this article.

Francis Lee , July 6, 2018 at 7:53 am

Ukraine: Fascism's toe-hold in Europe.

The tacit support given by the centre-left to the installation of the regime in Kiev should give them cause for concern writes Frank.

Politics in the Ukraine can only be understood by reference to its history and ethnic and cultural make-up – a make-up criss-crossed by lasting and entrenched ethnic, cultural and political differences. The country has long been split into the northern and western Ukraine, where Ukrainian is the official and everyday lingua franca, and the more industrialised regions of the east and south where a mixture of Russian speaking Ukrainians and ethnic Russians reside. Additionally, there has long been Hungarian and Romanian settlement in the west of the country, and a particularly important Polish presence, whose unofficial capital, Lviv, was once the Polish city of Lwow. The Russian Orthodox Church is the predominant form of Christianity in the East, whilst in the west the Christian tradition tends towards Roman Catholicism.

Politically the Eastern and Southern Oblasts (Regions) which includes the cities and centres of heavy industry, Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe, Nikolayev, Kherson, Simferopol and Odessa, have tended to tilt towards Russia whilst the western regions have had a more western orientation. This has traditionally been reflected in the electoral division of the country. There is no party which can be considered 'national' in this respect, except ironically, the old Communist party, which of course is now banned. The major regional parties have been the Fatherland party of Yulia Tymoshenko (since renamed) and the former head of government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk as well as the ultra-nationalists predominantly in the west of the country, and the deposed Victor Yanukovich's Party of the Regions in the East (now defunct) along with its junior partner in the coalition, the Ukrainian Communist Party.

However, what is new since the coup in February 2014 there has been the emergence from the shadows of ultra-nationalist (fascist) parties and movements, with both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary (i.e.,military) wings. In the main 'Svoboda' or Freedom Party, and the paramilitaries of 'Right Sector' (Fuhrer: Dimitry Yarosh) who spearheaded the coup in Kiev; these have been joined or changed their names to inter alia the Radical Party, and Patriots of the Ukraine; this in addition to the punitive right-wing militias, such as the Azov Regiment responsible for numerous atrocities in the Don Bas.

Suffice it to say, however, that these political movements and parties did not emerge from nowhere.
This far-right tradition has been historically very strong in the western Ukraine. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was first established in 1929 and brought together, war veterans, student fraternities, far-right groups and various other disoriented socially and political flotsam and jetsam under its banner. The OUN took its ideological position from the writings of one, Dymtro Dontsov, who, like Mussolini had been a socialist, and who was instrumental in creating an indigenous Ukrainian fascism based upon the usual mish-mash of writings and theories including Friedrich Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Charles Maurras. Dontsov also translated the works of Hitler and Mussolini into Ukrainian.

The OUN was committed to ethnic purity, and relied on violence, assassination and terrorism, not least against other Ukrainians, to achieve its goal of a totalitarian and homogeneous nation-state. Assorted enemies and impediments to this goal were Communists, Russians, Poles, and of course – Jews. Strongly oriented toward the Axis powers OUN founder Evhen Konovalets (1891-1938) stated that his movement was ''waging war against mixed marriages'', with Poles, Russians and Jews, the latter which he described as ''foes of our national rebirth''. Indeed, rabid anti-Semitism has been a leitmotif in the history of Ukrainian fascism, which we will return to below.

Konovelts himself was assassinated by a KGB hit-man in 1938 after which the movement split into two wings: (OUN-m) under Andrii Melnyk and, more importantly for our purposes (OUN-b) under Stepan Bandera. Both wings committed to a new fascist Europe. Upon the German invasion in June 1941, the OUN-b attempted to establish a Ukrainian satellite state loyal to Nazi Germany. Stepan Lenkavs'kyi the then chief propagandist of the OUN-b 'government' advocated the physical destruction of Ukrainian Jewry. OUN-b's 'Prime Minister' Yaroslav Stets'ko, and deputy to Bandera supported, ''the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the like.''

During the early days of the rapid German advance into the Soviet Union there were some 140 pogroms in the western Ukraine claiming the lives of between 13000-35000 people (Untermensch, in fascist terminology). In 1943-1944 OUN-b and its armed wing the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrainska povstanska armia – UPA) carried out large scale ethnic cleansing resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands; this was a particularly gruesome affair in Volhynia where some 90000 Poles and thousands of Jews were murdered. The campaign of the UPA continued well into the 1950s until it was virtually wiped out by the Soviet forces.

It should be said that during this early period Bandera himself had been incarcerated by the German authorities up until his release in 1944, since unlike Bandera they were not enamoured of an independent Ukrainian state but wanted total control. Bandera was only released at this late date since the German high command was endeavouring to build up a pro-German Ukrainian quisling military force to hold up the remorseless advance of the Red Army. Also pursuant to this it is also worth noting that during this period the 14th Galizian Waffen SS Division, a military Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by Heinrich Himmler, was formed to fight the Soviet forces, and yet another being the Nachtingal brigade; (1) this unit was integrated into the 14th Galizian in due course. It is also interesting to note, that every year, and up to 2014 commemoration ceremony including veterans of this unit takes place with a march through Lviv in an evening torchlight parade – genuine Nazi pastiche. The flag of this unit is not dissimilar to the Peugeot logo, the standing lion, and can be seen at ultra-nationalist rallies as well as football matches involving Lviv Karparti FC. There are also numerous statues of Bandera across Ukraine, and since the 2014 coup even street names bearing the same name. Significantly the UPA have now received political rehabilitation from the Kiev Junta, with Bandera declared a hero of the Ukraine and the UPA rebranded as 'freedom fighters.' One particularly splendid statue of Bandera stands proudly in Lviv and is usually adorned with flowers.

Other novel attractions the capital of Banderestan include 'Jewish themed restaurants' one such is Kryivka (Hideout or Lurking Hole) where guests have a choice of dishes and whose dinning walls are decorated with larger than life portraits of Bandera, the toilet with Russian and Jewish anecdotes. At another Jewish themed restaurant guests are offered black hats of the sort worn by Hasidim. The menu lists no prices for the dishes; instead, one is required to haggle over highly inflated prices ''in the Jewish fashion''. Yes, it's all good clean fun in Lviv. Anti-Semitism also sells. Out of 19 book vendors on the streets of central Lviv, 16 were openly selling anti-Semitic literature. About 70% of the anti-Semitic publications in Ukraine are being published by and educational institution called MUAP (The Inter-Regional Academy of Personnel Management). MAUP is a large, well-connected and increasingly powerful organization funded from outside anti-Semite sources, and also connected to White Supremacist groups in the USA and to the David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

(It is one of the ironies of history that if the Zionists in AIPAC and the Washington neo-con think tanks, and the Labour Party Friends of Israel, were so concerned about anti-Semitism, they might try looking for it in Lviv. They wouldn't have to search very far.)
Present day neo-Nazi groupings in Ukraine – Svoboda (Freedom) party and Right Sector – have been the direct descendants from the prior ideological cesspool. Heading Svoboda is Oleh Tyahnybok. Although these are separate organizations Tyahnybok's deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda's official wing and neo-Nazi militias like Right Sector. The Social-Nationalist party as it was formerly known chose as its logo an amended version of the Wolfsangel, a symbol used by many SS divisions on the Eastern front during the war who in 2004 a celebration of the OUN-UPA, stated in 2004, that ''they fought against the Muscovite, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.'' And further that ''Ukraine was ruled by a Muscovite-Jewish mafia.'' Tyahnybok came under pressure from the then President, Yuschenko, to retract his inflammatory statements, which he did, but he then retracted the retraction!

Given the fact that Svoboda was, apart from its stamping grounds in the west, making little national electoral headway, it was essential to clean up its image and deny its Nazi past. But this was always going to be difficult since the members of such groups cannot help the unscripted outbursts and faux pas which they tend to make and which reveals their true colours. For example, following the conviction and sentencing of John Demjanjuk to five years in jail for his role as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at the Sobibor death camp, Tyahnybok travelled to Germany and met up with Demjanjuk's lawyer, presenting the death camp guard as a hero, a victim of persecution ''who is fighting for truth''.
And so it goes on. We can therefore infer that this organization is inveterate fascist. More disturbing Svoboda has links with the so-called Alliance of National European Movements, which includes: Nationaldemokraterna of Sweden, Front Nationale of France, Fiamma Tricolore in Italy, the Hungarian Jobbik and the Belgian National Front. More importantly Svoboda held several ministerial portfolios in the Kiev administration, and Right Sector swaggers around Kiev streets with impunity, and/or are being drafted into a National Guard to deal with the separatist movements in the east, or to beat down anyone who doesn't conform to their Ayran racial and political ideals.

One would have thought that this mutating revolution in the Ukraine would have drawn attention of the centre-left to the fact that fascism had gained a vital beachhead in Europe, and that the danger signals should be flashing. But not a bit of it; a perusal of the Guardian newspaper quickly reveals that their chief concern has been with a non-existent 'Russian threat'. One of their reporters – or old friend, Luke Harding -described Right Sector as an ''eccentric group of people with unpleasant right-wing views.'' Priceless! This must rank as the political understatement of the century. In fact, the Guardian was simply reiterating the US-imposed neo-conservative foreign policy. But naturally, this is par for the course.

(1) The Nachtingal brigade, which was later incorporated into the SS Galizien, took part in a three-day massacre of the Jewish population of Lvov (now Lviv) from 30 June 1941. Roman Shukhevych was the commander of the Nachtingal and later, in 1943, became commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the "Banderivtsy", or UPA/UIA[5] ), armed henchmen of the fascist Stepan Bandera, who after the war pretended that they had fought both Nazis and Communists. Members of the division are also accused of having murdered some 800 residents of the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka and 44 civilians in the village of Ch?aniów.

Paolo , July 6, 2018 at 7:11 am

Just for the record: the Ukrainians hailed the Nazis as liberators after the Soviets had let millions of Ukrainians die of hunger in the thirties, a sort of "genocide" that goes under the name of Holodomor and has officially been recognized by western Parlaments only a few decades ago. In eastern Ukraine there were no more inhabitants after the Holodomor, and the Russians imported hundreds of thousand peasants from Russia to get agriculture working again.

The problems of Ukraine are so deep that fomenting regime change there was a most idiotic thing to do. Sooner or later the problems will explode, and it will be tough shit. Whoever helped this regime change should be locked up in some high security jail as far as possible.

Garrett Connelly , July 6, 2018 at 9:52 am

The big lie is 180° opposite of reality repeated over and over using free corporate propaganda.

vinnieoh , July 5, 2018 at 3:15 pm

Still scratching my head at the electric last line of Mr. Lazare's piece. I'm mean, I'm used to "official" organs like WaPo and NYT publishing whatever narrative is most helpful to whatever pieces are being moved on the chessboard, but for the same "freelance journalist" to have written both the earlier Foreign Policy piece and the recent WaPo piece is a puzzle to me.

Does Joshua Cohen just write stuff that goes with the flow (at any particular moment) and has a good chance of being published (and consequently of himself being paid)?

Or did this person really have an epiphany, and the scales fell from his eyes? I suspect a third explanation though what that may be eludes me. One thing is for sure, as a Trump/Putin meeting gets closer, expect more false "official" narratives concerning both Ukraine and Syria.

robjira , July 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm

https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/11/documentary-ukraine-on-fire-2016/

For anyone who hasn't watched this film yet.

Seamus Padraig , July 5, 2018 at 2:05 pm

'The U.S.-backed "Euromaidan" uprising not only drove out former president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, who had won an OSCE-certified election, but tore the country in two, precisely because ultra-rightists like C14 were in the lead But if one had to choose the looniest story of all, one that best reflects the abject toadyism of the reporting classes, it would have to be "Why Jews and Ukrainians Have Become Unlikely Allies," a 1,400-word article that ran on the Post-owned Foreign Policy website in May 2014.'

Here's the thing though: however weird it may sound, there actually DOES seem to exist some sort of tacit alliance between (some, not all) Jews and Ukrainian Nazis. Even if their ultimate goals are completely at odds–the Nazis hate the EU, but the Jews mostly want to join it–they nearly always seem to work together against Russia. It has even been maintained that the Azov Battalion (one of the all-volunteer Neo-Nazi militias fighting against the Donbass rebels) was entirely financed for a time by Jewish oligarch Ihor Kholomoisky, at least until he did something to piss Poroshenko off and got sacked from his post as governor of Dniepropetrovsk. And in the beginning, Jews who tried to point out that Neo-Nazi groups were involved in overthrowing Yanukovych, like Dr. Stephen Cohen, were roundly denounced a 'Russia apologists' just for stating facts.

But now that Washington's whole Ukraine project has gone south, I guess the Nazis, having outlived their usefulness, are, as usual, to be the fall-guys and take all the blame.

Anna , July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm

yeh, the Kaganat of Nuland has many veils.
The most stunning aspect of the banderite putsch in Kiev was the dead silence of nazi-hunters from Wiesenthal Center, the always oh-so-sensitive ADL, the main 52 (fifty-two!) American Jewish organizations, and the overall docility and compliance of the "righteous" Israel with the banderite-neo-Nazi ideology by Kagans-selected power structures in Ukraine.
Mr. Kolomojsky, a financier of neo-nazi battalion Azov, is still an Israeli citizen.
Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, the main machinator of the regime change in Kiev, has not been ostracized by the Jewish Community at large.
The deeply amoral and bloodthirsty Carl Gerschman from NED, who has been the main cheerleader for the putsch and for the installing the banderite-friendly government in Kiev, has not been ostracized by the Jewish Community at large either. What a stench!
https://medium.com/@gmochannel/us-staged-a-coup-in-ukraine-brief-history-and-facts-898c6d0007d6

Pft , July 5, 2018 at 9:07 pm

Yeah. The prime minister and many of the top oligarchs are Jewish. Relations between Ukraine and Israel seem quite good despite the UNSC vote that the US abstained on regarding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, perhaps reminded by Stalin doing the same to them in the 1920's.

As for relations with the neo nazis I remember before WWII that Zionists in Palestine cooperated with Nazis who sent German Jews to Palestine in return for the purchase of German goods which were being boycotted by Jews in the west

I suspect most Americans don't know Ukrainian history. The early years of Bolshevik rule were quite brutal and over 10 million rural Christians lost their lives in Ukraine over their policies .Solzhenitsyn 200 years can shed some light on the roots of the anti-Semitism among the peasants that developed in the 20's-30's and no doubt has been passed on.

Robert , July 6, 2018 at 4:24 pm

I've thought about this myself and have concluded that a fair number of Jewish organizations and institutions in the Ukraine were receiving a small portion of the US State Department funding allocated to the Ukraine each year of $200-250 million, totaling $5 billion since 1992. In return for this rather small (by US standards) outlay to a broad spectrum of NGOs, private educational and religious institutions, and political groups, the US purchased an enormous amount of influence. Most of the members of these groups were unaware of this US support, as the funds were funneled through individual leaders who were tasked to influence opinion, organize demonstrations and petitions, and write letters to the press and government members. Scholarships to the US and Canada were offered to promising youth to ensure continuity of support. For this reason, most Jewish and other groups operating in Ukraine have, until recently and only with reluctance, been willing to deviate from the official US "story". Thus, they knowingly (at least as far as their leadership was concerned) supported an overtly US-led neo-Nazi coup.

mike , July 5, 2018 at 1:24 pm

Makes sense that Josh Cohen is a former U.S. Agency for International Development project officer involved in managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union. Isn't that really what this is all about? Putin gets elected and takes charge of the economy, jailing corrupt oligarchs and putting the kibosh on said reform projects sponsored by us in care of Jeffrey Sachs et al. As Russia tries to reassert its sovereignty the US gets miffed and retaliates.

It's a lot of fun until someone loses an eye.

Tom Hall , July 5, 2018 at 1:21 pm

The Electronic Intifada has just posted an article by Asa Winstanley detailing how Israel, among others, has been supplying the Ukrainian Azov Battalion with military arms. It's well worth reading.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine/24876

The next time you hear a pro-Israel mouthpiece sounding off about purported antisemitism in the British Labour Party, or in pro-Palestinine activist circles in the U.S., invite them to consider Israel's policy -- and that of the U.S. as well as friendly European states -- of direct military sponsorship of textbook Nazism in Ukraine. Jews are being menaced and beaten in the streets of Kiev by armed bands who celebrate their historical persecution, while thugs like Avigdor Lieberman sit cordially with officials representing that regime. But then, such warm relations between Zionists and anti-Semites is an old story.

Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Interesting. Anyone with two brains to rub together knows that the US, to the best of it's ability, has been surrounding Russia with compliant right wing governments, usually dictators, but we've gotten better at manipulating elections to get reliable puppet government. The bad news is that it is a full time job to stay on top of that.

Gary Weglarz , July 5, 2018 at 1:01 pm

It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live in. From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun. They can and do provide fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated – just as it has for the last 500+ years.

irina , July 5, 2018 at 2:06 pm

It's not just the media. The late night talk show hosts are doing their bit too, as I heard last night on a Jimmy Kimmel rerun (of a recent show). Can't remember the context as I was doing the dishes, but did hear him say the usual "Russian illegally annexed Crimea" standard phrase, immediately followed by "and then invaded Ukraine". The latter just casually tossed off as a given. People hear these memes constantly repeated and, regardless of their veracity (suspect to say the least) it becomes part of their worldview.

Who is behind the political preaching of hosts like Jimmy Kimmel ? Inquiring minds want to know !

Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:43 pm

You know what irina, seeing these late night talk shows go all crazy over Putin makes me think of the Zio-Media executives, and where their allegiance to power resides. Joe

Devil's Advocate , July 5, 2018 at 2:48 pm

I would assume you'd have to look at who owns the media source in question. Kimmel's show is on ABC, which is partly owned by Disney. Follow the money chain of those 2 parent companies, and you have your answer.

Gary Weglarz , July 5, 2018 at 6:28 pm

irina – I quite agree. The same is true of the former Daily Show crew members who now have their own shows. Several have shown themselves to be quite the little imperialist war mongers when it comes to gleefully repeating the CIA sponsored Syrian regime change and Russiagate propaganda. Samantha Bee & John Oliver kept triggering my gag reflex with their propaganda lines until I found a simple but effective solution and stopped watching them altogether. We have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in the U.S. One can chose to either get one's "pro-war regime change propaganda" delivered with barely concealed racism and misogyny from Fox News, or instead opt for hearing the same nonsense delivered with pretentious blather and catchy jazz interludes at PBS. American democracy is all about having "choices."

Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 7:57 pm

I quite agree. I knew the minute that they started calling RT a propaganda outlet that, in fact, the USG was running a full scale propaganda operation. I don't know if I simply wasn't paying enough attention or if they have, in fact ramped the operation up, but I can hardly read any MSM outlet's output without calling bullshit on it.

irina , July 6, 2018 at 2:55 am

Jimmy Kimmel actually used to be funny and there is a really good clip (somewhere on youtube no doubt) of him reading a 'doctored' Dr. Seuss
book to The Donald (a live guest) during his primary candidacy.

But since The Donald's election Kimmel has opened almost every show with 'ten minutes hate' segment on The Donald. I still watch (or at least listen) occasionally because I want to know what is being fed to The Public.

You are absolutely right though, "we have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in the US". The average person maybe has 30 minutes to devote to the news, between getting home and having dinner; they watch some sort of news show and think they are 'informed'. But it actually takes MANY hours and a knowledge of alternative websites to even begin to piece together an approximation of what might, in reality, be going on.

The Russians used to say that, at least they knew they were being propagandized.

Unfortunately, probably due to 'American Exceptionalism', most Americans think the MSM is bringing them 'the truth'. But nothing could be further from The Truth.

Peter H , July 6, 2018 at 10:41 am

I can't count the number of times I've had to turn off Colbert's Late Show for his Russian/Putin bashing BS. So disappointing. That's a rule in my house now. The first mention of Russia and off it goes.

Drew Hunkins , July 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm

Likewise, the corporate militarist-Zio media should eventually have to concede someday that the current Syrian "rebels" are little more than ruthless sociopathic Saudi-Zio-Washington intel agency supported mercenary terrorists.

Folks in the know knew very early on that much of the Kiev putschists and violent invaders of Eastern Ukraine were neo-Nazi types bent on eradicating the last vestiges of Russian social and ethnic solidarity.

It's really truly remarkable when one steps back to think about it all. These are the depraved groups the crypto-fascists, the Wall Street militarist imperialists, and Zionists have embedded themselves with: bloodthirsty Takfiri mercenary terrorists and neo-Nazis.

Bob Van Noy , July 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm

Each time I see an article like this I'm reminded of the videos of Zbigniew Brzezinski's early meetings with the Mujahideen and his manipulation of cultures on The Grand Chessboard or "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" a totally absurd assumption and the natural outcome of that absurdity, is blowback which this article again addresses. Our "boots on the ground" end up paying the price of this kind of supposed intellectualism. Shameful. Thank you Drew Hunkins.

Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm

Bob the old saying if I got right is the company you keep is what you become. We have truly loss our way, and Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the biggest reasons we have become the predators of this dying green earth. All this for the profit, as all mankind must yield to the power of the dollar. Sad. Joe

MBeaver , July 6, 2018 at 5:03 am

One would think we had learned from Vietnam. Instead the "peace loving" liberals do everything to destabilize whole region for nothing and then send soldiers in who die for their messed up agenda.

JWalters , July 5, 2018 at 7:16 pm

It is truly remarkable. A lot of the behind-the-scenes magic is explained in "War Profiteers and Israel's Bank" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
.

[Jul 05, 2018] SNAFU! Dr. Phillip Karber on the Russian Way of War (MUST WATCH VIDEO!!!!)

If we assume that this is true: "Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely poor shape by the time 2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental incompetence by Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun far reaching military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia."
Then Ukrainian armed forces should drastically improve after several years of fighting.
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were. ..."
"... Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME. https://foreignpolicy.com/2... ..."
Jul 05, 2018 | www.snafu-solomon.com
Thundarr the Barbarian • 15 minutes ago

If the Obama administration ordered Ukraine not to fight for Crimea on the assumption they could force Russia to give it back via sanctions, they miscalculated badly.

The Russians believe Crimea rightfully belongs to them and they saw control of it as vital to their national security. There were some serious shenanigans going on in Kiev, which the Russians interpreted as an American engineered coup. The Russians reacted to what they believed was a major threat to their national security. The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were.

There is no way the Russians will ever give up Crimea, especially under pressure from the US, NATO and the EU. No Russian politician could do that and hope to survive. Besides, the Russians have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to endure suffering and hardships much greater than the capacity of Western nations to endure and the sanctions showed that Russia was far less vulnerable to pressure than Western politicians assumed.

Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely poor shape by the time 2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental incompetence by Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun far reaching military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia. SurfaceBook • 4 hours ago I disagree with mr kerber's assesment on Crimean ops being the largest air assault in history. Operation Market Garden in WW2 was the largest Air assault involving divisions of paratroopers from US/UK/Poland into german occupied drop zones (in conjuction with a land assault forcing it's way to Arnhem).

One other curiousity , Washington 'ordered' Ukraine ? a sovereign nation under orders ? just who is in charge of ukraine at that time ? see more

Thundarr the Barbarian SurfaceBook • 2 hours ago

To answer your question: Victoria Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs during the Obama administration. In other words, she was the American proconsul for Eastern Europe.

ignatzthecat • 6 hours ago

Bottom line? "The Fog of War".........All these scenarios mean nothing after the first "shot" is fired. If any US "enemy" cannot crush US air power they are finished from the gitgo. Not a fan of our foreign policies but we can "crush" the enemy; we just can't "rule" them.

Distiller • 9 hours ago

Would really like to hear the other side. Where does he get his information from? The Ukrainians? All this Russia-is-evil-and-scheming-to-do-more-evil is ... slightly over the top. I don't say it's impossible that Russian regular troops have been involved in Donbas but he makes it sound like Unternehmen Zitadelle

BSmitty • 13 hours ago

IMHO, beware taking too many lessons away from this conflict. The Ukranian's don't have anything close to the SEAD/DEAD/EW/airpower capability of the US. What worked against their aviation won't necessarily work against ours. Once mid-high altitude air defenses are down, enemy jammers will have a short lifespan.

His comments that even light infantry should have the means to get away when under attack, and sufficient armor to counter attack point to the inadequacies of Army IBCTs (Infantry, not "Interim").

IMHO, IBCTs should have 100% vehicular mobility, and have the option of attaching an independent tank battalion. Cobbling together random HMMWVs from div/corps just seems silly. Make vehicles part of the core TOE. see more

DOnT4 BSmitty • 6 hours ago

You are assuming that we are working within our own timeline. Yes with enough time and blood, we can peal back their defense network with airpower. The question is, who buys us that time?

Russians (and the Chinese) ground forces trained to fight in contested airspace. The US Army assumes we have it.

utahbob62 • 14 hours ago

Sol, Thanks for posting the link and asking for discussion. One thing that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up is how much of this is being shared with the PLA and worse the DPRK? They are pretty smart and probility can figure lots of this out on their own. Is there any PLA observers up front with the RuFA or exchanging TTPs in an AAR? Or professional papers and presentations at staff school level or higher? I am just a grunt and red leg, but how does the EW and fires part impact the navy? A step is being taken: http://soldiersystems.net/2... I wonder when this is part of OPFOR at NTC or 29 Palms? see more

Solomon Mod utahbob62 • 14 hours ago

NO! thank you for sharing !!!!! this is like getting a seat at the Army War College and getting to hear what is never shared with the troops or the public.

to be honest what i heard in that video was downright shocking. i won't say scary cause i won't be facing that shit but if i was i'd be beyond concerned.

to answer your question you can bet your last dollar that the Chinese are getting briefings on this. you can bet that they're not only studying the above vid but getting info from the subject matter experts in Russia.

this guy is senior but i would so love to hear an assessment of Marine Corps chances if war were to break out in Norway or surrounding countries (we still have the flank). how would a Marine Expeditionary Brigade standup to those type tactics. we're talking about a lighter formation than the US Army equivalent but with integrated air.

oh and a side note. as much as i think the US Army and Marine Corps would be in a hurtlocker can you imagine what would happen to any of our European allies if they were somehow isolated and attacked?

my only regret about this whole thing is that i wanted to sit back and drink in serious conversation about this video. instead i'm getting the usual trolling. i can tolerate that on the majority of subjects i cover here but this one is different. i wanted to hear from serious individuals doing serious thinking about what the Dr presented.

such is life. if you run across anything else PLEASE send it. i find this fascinating!

Deckard Rick • 15 hours ago T

he slide at 12.44 is also interesting it shows Russia's "desire" for "friendly relations" with the west and its neighbours. But i guess like in the cold war there is no shortage of naives that think that Russia understands anything else but sanctions or force. see more

spinfight Deckard Rick • 13 hours ago

Very true but defenses still have to be credible. It's pretty clear that a European military would get squashed like a bug.

Remington Steele • 16 hours ago

Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME. https://foreignpolicy.com/2...

Deckard Rick • 16 hours ago

My conclusions -- Western/ US allies/Nato armies will need to have:

- integrated air defence at every level from platoon to regimental.(manpads, spaag,
- mass fire/steel rain capabilities cheap and heavy MLRS also MLRS launched antiradiation missiles)
the israelis launched AGM Shrikes with boosters from trucks to target Syrian Radars
- Field Army EW sigint/elint/jamming/defense capabilities
- EW munitions (currently russia has tube artillery launched jammers don't know about the US or NATO)
- Small and light SPGs like the Gvozdika

spinfight Nuno Gomes 16 hours ago
Whilst I agree Russia does tend to export it's kit extensively. Also some of the potential uses such as GPS jamming drones, could be more than merely inconvenient on very small budgets.

[Jul 05, 2018] Putin-Phobia, the Only Bipartisan Game in Town by Doug Bandow

Jul 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Few issues generate a bipartisan response in Washington. President Donald Trump's upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is one.

Democrats who once pressed for détente with the Soviet Union act as if Trump will be giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Neoconservatives and other Republican hawks are equally horrified, having pressed for something close to war with Moscow since the latter's annexation of Crimea in 2014. Both sides act as if the Soviet Union has been reborn and Cold War has restarted.

Russia's critics present a long bill of requirements to be met before they would relax sanctions or otherwise improve relations. Putin could save time by agreeing to be an American vassal.

Topping everyone's list is Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was outrageous. Protecting the integrity of our democratic system is a vital interest, even if the American people sometimes treat candidates with contempt. Before joining the administration National Security Adviser John Bolton even called Russian meddling "a casus belli , a true act of war."

Washington Melts Down Over Prospect of Trump-Putin Meeting America the Hyperpowerful

Yet Washington has promiscuously meddled in other nations' elections. Carnegie Mellon's Dov H. Levin figured that between 1946 and 2000 the U.S. government interfered with 81 foreign contests, including the 1996 Russian poll. Retired U.S. intelligence officers freely admit that Washington has routinely sought to influence other nations' elections.

Yes, of course, Americans are the good guys and favor politicians and parties that the other peoples would vote for if only they better understood their own interests -- as we naturally do. Unfortunately, foreign governments don't see Uncle Sam as a Vestal Virgin acting on behalf of mankind. Indeed, Washington typically promotes outcomes more advantageous to, well, Washington. Perhaps Trump and Putin could make a bilateral commitment to stay out of other nations' elections.

Another reason to shun Russia, argued Senator Rob Portman, is because "Russia still occupies Crimea and continues to fuel a violent conflict in eastern Ukraine." Moscow annexed Crimea after a U.S.-backed street putsch ousted the elected but highly corrupt Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The territory historically was Russian, turned over to Ukraine most likely as part of a political bargain in the power struggle following Joseph Stalin's death. A majority of Crimeans probably wanted to return to Russia. However, the annexation was lawless.

Rather like America's dismemberment of Serbia, detaching Kosovo after mighty NATO entered the final civil war growing out of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Naturally, the U.S. again had right on its side -- it always does! -- which obviously negated any obligations created by international law. Ever-virtuous Washington even ignored the post-victory ethnic cleansing by Albanian Kosovars

Still, this makes Washington's complaints about Russia seem just a bit hypocritical: do as we say, not as we do. In August 2008 John McCain expressed outrage over Russia's war with Georgia, exclaiming: "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Apparently he forgot that five years before the U.S. invaded Iraq, with McCain's passionate support. Here, too, the two presidents could agree to mutual forbearance.

Worse is the conflict in the Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, between the Ukrainian army and separatists backed by Russia. Casualty estimates vary widely, but are in the thousands. Moscow successfully weakened Kiev and prevented its accession to NATO. However, that offers neither legal nor moral justification for underwriting armed revolt.

Alas, the U.S. again comes to Russia with unclean hands. Washington is supporting the brutal war by Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates against Yemen. Area specialists agree that the conflict started as just another violent episode in a country which has suffered civil strife and war for decades. The Houthis, a tribal/ethnic/religious militia, joined with their long-time enemy, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to oust his successor, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi attacked to reinstall a pliable regime and win economic control. The U.S. joined the aggressors . At least Russia could claim national security was at stake, since it feared Ukraine might join NATO.

The "coalition" attack turned the Yemeni conflict into a sectarian fight, forced the Houthis to seek Iranian aid, and allowed Tehran to bleed its Gulf rivals at little cost. Human rights groups agree that the vast majority of civilian deaths and bulk of destruction have been caused by Saudi and Emirati bombing, with Washington's direct assistance. The humanitarian crisis includes a massive cholera epidemic. The security consequences include empowering al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps the U.S. and Russian governments could commit to jointly forgo supporting war for frivolous causes.

Human carnage and physical destruction are widespread in Syria. It will take years to rebuild homes and communities; the hundreds of thousands of dead can never be replaced. Yet Moscow has gone all out to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. The Heritage Foundation's Luke Coffey and Alexis Mrachek demand that Moscow end its support for Assad "and demonstrate a genuine willingness to work with the international community to bring a political end to the Syrian civil war." The American Enterprise Institute's Leon Aron urged "a true Russian withdrawal from Syria, specifically ceding control of the Hmeymim airbase and dismantling recent expansions to the Tartus naval facility."

But the U.S. is in no position to complain. Washington's intervention has been disastrous, first discouraging a negotiated settlement, then promoting largely non-existent moderate insurgents, backing radicals, including the al-Qaeda affiliate (remember 9/11!?) against Assad, simultaneously allying with Kurds and Turks, and taking over the fight against the Islamic State even though virtually everyone in the Mideast had reason to oppose the group.

At least Russia, invited by the recognized government, had a reason to be there. Moscow's alliance with Syria dates back to the Cold War and poses no threat to America, which is allied with Israel, the Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt. Washington also possesses military facilities in Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates. For most Middle Eastern countries Moscow is primarily a bargaining chip to extort more benefits from America. Trump could propose that both countries withdraw from Syria.

Coffey and Mracek also express outrage that Moscow "has weaponized its natural gas exports to Europe, turning off the tap when countries dare go against its wishes." Russia's customers should not fear coercion via cut-off. Of course, the U.S. never uses its economic power for political ends. Other than to routinely impose economic sanctions on a variety of nations on its naughty list. And to penalize not only American firms, but businesses from every other nation .

Indeed, the Trump administration is insisting that every company in every country stop doing business with Iran. The U.S. government will bar violators from the U.S. market or impose ruinous fines on them. The Trump administration plans to sanction even its European allies, those most vulnerable to Russian energy politics. Which suggests a modus vivendi that America's friends likely would applaud: both Washington and Moscow could promise not to take advantage of other nations' economic vulnerabilities for political ends.

Cyberwar is a variant of economic conflict. Heritage's Mracek cited "the calamitous cyberattack, NotPetya," as "part of Russia's effort to destabilize Ukraine even further than in the past." Yes, a criminal act. Of course, much the same could be said of Stuxnet, which was thought to be a joint American-Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear program. And there are reports of U.S. attempts to similarly hamper North Korean missile development. Some consider such direct attacks on other governments to be akin to acts of war. Would Washington join Moscow in a pledge to become a good cyber citizen?

Virtually everyone challenges Russia on human rights. Moscow falls far short, with Putin's control of the media, manipulation of the electoral process, and violence against those perceived as regime enemies. In this regard, at least, America is far better.

But many U.S. allies similarly fail this test. For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has created an authoritarian state retaining merely the forms of democracy. Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has constructed a tyranny more brutal than that of Hosni Mubarak. Saudi Arabia's monarchy allows neither religious nor political freedom, and has grown more repressive under Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. It is not just Trump who remains largely silent about such assaults on people's basic liberties. So do many of the president's critics, who express horror that he would deal with such a man as Putin.

Moscow will not be an easy partner for the U.S. Explaining that "nobody wanted to listen to us" before he took over, in March Putin declared: "You hear us now!" Compromise is inevitable, but requires respect for both nations' interests. A starting point could be returning the two nations' embassies to full strength and addressing arms control, such as the faltering Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and soon-expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. A larger understanding based on NATO ending alliance expansion in return for Russia withdrawing from the conflict in the Donbas would be worth pursuing.

Neither the U.S. nor the Russian Federation can afford to allow their relations to deteriorate into another Cold War. Russia is too important on too many issues, including acting as a counterweight to China, the most serious geopolitical challenge to the U.S. Hopefully the upcoming summit will begin the difficult process of rebuilding a working relationship between Washington and Moscow.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

[Jul 05, 2018] America Celebrates Lateral Move From Monarchy To Corporate Rule by Caitlin Johnstone

That's all right and indignation is well deserved, but what is the alternative? Is Sanders program a real alternative or he just served as a sheepdog for Hillary.
The Iron law of oligarchy is a serious constrain that suggest that the socialist system degenerate to oligarchical system really quick and as such is not a viable option.
The USSR experience tells us a lot about how the process of degeneration of "revolutionary elite" once started logically leads to neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... The elite class secured its stance as British Rule 2.0 by throwing their money behind politicians who they knew would advance their interests, whether those interests are in ensuring that the arms and munitions they manufacture get used frequently, the expansion of predatory trade policies, keeping tax loopholes open and keeping taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy very low, deregulating corporations and banks, or enabling underhanded Wall Street practices which hurt the many for the benefit of the few. ..."
"... Buckley v. Valeo ..."
"... First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ..."
"... Citizens United v. FEC ..."
"... So if you've ever wondered why seemingly common sense matters like a living wage and healthcare as a right consistently get shot down by your government, this is why. In order to rule you as King George ruled you, the oligarchs need to make sure most of America is toiling just to keep its head above water. Progressives were able to mount an intimidating insurgency using tiny 27-dollar donations on 2016; imagine what they could do if ordinary working Americans were being paid their fair share of the U.S. economy? ..."
"... The oligarchs can keep that from happening by continually escalating income inequality. They use their massive political power to repress the minimum wage, to undermine the power of unions ..."
"... America is a corporatist oligarchy dressed in drag doing a bad impression of a bipartisan democracy. Sometimes it doesn't even keep its wig on; a recent party at the Hamptons saw Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway and Charles Koch mixing it up with Chuck Schumer and George Soros. ..."
"... When they're not dining on champagne and rare fillet together, these people pretend to be locked in a vicious partisan battle that is "tearing the nation apart," but at Lally Weymouth's annual Southampton summer party the act stops and the oligarchs frolic together like children. ..."
"... This commentary was originally published on ..."
"... The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were NOT inclusive documents. Both of these papers were written by, and for rich landowners. Slavers, in short. The writers did not believe that 'the people' were intelligent enough to contribute to government. The 'Founding Fathers' comprised the original oligarchy. ..."
"... America was formed/founded by White men seeking fame, fortune and power outside the existing European political power structure. From its' beginning, it has been a nation of migrants seeking this kind of fortune ..."
"... You can talk all you want about political systems, which is better or how to corral the oligarchs who rule America, but what I've described is America and the world will never have peace or prosperity until the American Empire ends and the whole world can then celebrate American Independence Day – the Day when the rest of the world is Independent from the Evil Empire. ..."
"... Hard to have a Fourth of July celebration when your Bill of Rights and Constitution have been Trashed. ..."
"... Marxists (and much of the broader. "Left") have always maintained that the capitalist mode of production – and the bourgeois-democratic political superstructure it necessitates – represented an immense revolutionary achievement in the course of human development. ..."
"... Casting aside the last vestiges of the feudal system, particularly hereditary monarchy and titles of nobility, was critical to the eventual move toward a more equitable system of political economy. ..."
"... The reactionary system of corporate rule that we see today is a result of the bourgeoisie and capitalist system having (long) outlived their historically progressive role. However, that does not minimize the fact that in relation to the prior system (I.e. feudalism and monarchy), the US capitalist bourgeois-democratic form of political economy was a great achievement. ..."
"... "Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Major General Smedley Butler ..."
"... I can't disagree with this articles premise that capitalism has it's flaws but I also contend that socialism has just as sordid a track record with it's own set of oligarchs. ..."
"... The United States did not win independence from George III. Since 1689 the UK/Great Britain has been a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. (Now go look that up to see what it means.) That means that Parliament does not answer to the monarch. Period. ..."
"... George III was America's eighteenth century Putin. Someone they blame for all their problems, but who is not actually responsible for any of them. Americans, like their precious Second Amendment will not grow up and move on. ..."
"... The establishment of the Central Bank in City-of-London in 1694 or thereabouts, when William of Orange crossed the English Chanel, along with his retinue of immigrant Venetian banksters from the Netherlands, is the one pertinent fact worth remembering. ..."
"... Whether one envisages the traditional concept of royalty with precious stones-studded crowns and all the "royal" trapping, pomp and circumstance or multi-billionaire corporate tax-evading mega-moguls, the groups are essentially the same. Wealth inequality on Earth, ironically and sadly, has grown while so-called "royalty" as a visible phenomenon has slowly diminished. The problems associated with record concentration of wealth on Earth have grown in equal proportion, to the point where people are starting to consider newer, potentially more beneficial economic thought and viable alternative systems. ..."
Jul 05, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Americans celebrate their independence 242 years ago today from Britain with little thought it seems about who rules them now, comments Caitlin Johnstone.

Today America celebrates its liberation from the shackles of the British Crown and the beginning of its transition into corporatist oligarchy, which is a lot like celebrating your lateral promotion from housekeeping to laundry staff. Fireworks will be set off, hot dogs will be consumed, and a strange yellow concoction known as Mountain Dew will be imbibed by patriotic high-fiving Yankees eager to celebrate their hard-fought freedom to funnel their taxes into corporate welfare instead of to the King.

Spark up a bottle rocket for me, America! In trouncing King George's red-coated goon squad, you made it possible for the donor class to slowly buy up more and more control of your shiny new government, allowing for a system of rule determined not by royal bloodlines, but by wealth bloodlines. Now instead of your national affairs being determined by some gilded schmuck across the pond, they are determined by the billionaire owners of multinational corporations and banks. These oligarchs have shored up their rule to such an extent that congressional candidates who outspend their opponents are almost certain to win , and a 2014 Princeton study found that ordinary Americans have no influence whatsoever over the behavior of their government while the will of the wealthy has a direct influence on US policy and legislation.

The elite class secured its stance as British Rule 2.0 by throwing their money behind politicians who they knew would advance their interests, whether those interests are in ensuring that the arms and munitions they manufacture get used frequently, the expansion of predatory trade policies, keeping tax loopholes open and keeping taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy very low, deregulating corporations and banks, or enabling underhanded Wall Street practices which hurt the many for the benefit of the few. The existence of legalized bribery and corporate lobbying as illustrated in the video above have enabled the plutocrats to buy up the Legislative and Executive branches of the US government, and with these in their pockets they were eventually able to get the Judicial branch as well since justices are appointed and approved by the other two. Now having secured all three branches in a system of checks and balances theoretically designed to prevent totalitarian rule, the billionaire class has successfully secured totalitarian rule.

By tilting the elections of congressmen and presidents in such a way as to install a corporatist Supreme Court bench, the oligarchs successfully got legislation passed which further secured and expanded their rule with decisions like 1976's Buckley v. Valeo , 1978's First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , and 2010's Citizens United v. FEC . This has had the effect of creating a nation wherein money equals power, which has in turn had the effect of creating a system wherein the ruling class is, in a very real way, incentivized to try and keep everyone else poor in order to maintain its rule.

George III: Like today's rulers of America, he didn't give up without a fight. (National Portrait Gallery, London.)

Just as King George didn't give up rule of the New World colonies without a knock-down, drag-out fight, King George 2.0 has no intention of relinquishing its rule either. The oligarchs have been fighting to keep their power, and, in the money-equals-power system that they have built for themselves, this necessarily means keeping you from having money. Just as King George's kingship would have meant nothing if everybody was King, the oligarchs won't be oligarchs anymore if ordinary Americans are ever able to secure enough money for themselves to begin influencing their government within its current money-equals-power paradigm.

So if you've ever wondered why seemingly common sense matters like a living wage and healthcare as a right consistently get shot down by your government, this is why. In order to rule you as King George ruled you, the oligarchs need to make sure most of America is toiling just to keep its head above water. Progressives were able to mount an intimidating insurgency using tiny 27-dollar donations on 2016; imagine what they could do if ordinary working Americans were being paid their fair share of the U.S. economy?

The oligarchs can keep that from happening by continually escalating income inequality. They use their massive political power to repress the minimum wage, to undermine the power of unions , and to continually pull more and more energy away from socialist programs and toward the corporate deregulation of neoliberalism. If you don't depend on running the rat race for some corporate boss in order for your family to have health insurance, you're suddenly free to innovate, create, and become an economically powerful entrepreneur yourself.

America is a corporatist oligarchy dressed in drag doing a bad impression of a bipartisan democracy. Sometimes it doesn't even keep its wig on; a recent party at the Hamptons saw Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway and Charles Koch mixing it up with Chuck Schumer and George Soros.

When they're not dining on champagne and rare fillet together, these people pretend to be locked in a vicious partisan battle that is "tearing the nation apart," but at Lally Weymouth's annual Southampton summer party the act stops and the oligarchs frolic together like children.

1776 turned out to be nothing other than a transition from one form of exploitative rule to another, but who knows? Maybe a year in the not-too-distant future will see America celebrating a real Independence Day.

This commentary was originally published on Medium.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium . Follow her work on Facebook , Twitter , or her website . She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . This article was re-published with permission.

Al Pinto , July 5, 2018 at 12:06 pm

@Jean

"Just a reminder; Sanders would have won if not for the hated Hillary"

Even if he did, it would not have made a difference; the POTUS does not make laws, Congress does, at least on paper

Just remember, Bernie did endorse RHC at the DNC. That probably had been the play all along during the primary. Sanders to woo in all of the "dissenters" and then turn them over to RHC, under the "unity" umbrella against Trump.

I still "Feel the Burn", the burn of the rigged system, don't you?

rgl , July 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm

The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were NOT inclusive documents. Both of these papers were written by, and for rich landowners. Slavers, in short. The writers did not believe that 'the people' were intelligent enough to contribute to government. The 'Founding Fathers' comprised the original oligarchy.

Money (land and slaves) was the basis of political power in the 17th century. Funny that. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Ergo Sum , July 5, 2018 at 7:32 am

@Jean

Just a reminder; Sanders would have won if not for the hated Hillary"

It would not have made any difference, even if he did. The POTUS does not make laws, Congress does.

You should not forget that Sanders endorsed RHC at the DNC. His purpose during the primary has been to channel all of democrats with social, economic and political dissatisfaction to Hillary at the end. "Feel The Burn", the burn of the rigged system. It is another example of how the rigged system allows minor uprising to flourish for a while, and then crush it at the end by the perceived front-runner of the movement. The movement is dead, voters are further disillusioned that enforces the viewpoint of there's nothing that peaceful action can do to change the system. This results in even less people showing up at the voting booth to cast their votes, that the rigged system loves; it does not need to disenfranchise voters and easier to predetermine the outcome any of the upcoming elections.

Happy Birthday America, the home of the free and the brave You are free to rig the system, if you are brave enough

Tom , July 5, 2018 at 5:58 am

America was formed/founded by White men seeking fame, fortune and power outside the existing European political power structure. From its' beginning, it has been a nation of migrants seeking this kind of fortune – bugger those damn savages that get in the way of this greed and desire to take land, resources and culture away from America's native inhabitants. And so it began this way and has continued unabated for more than the life of the nation which began in 1776 – more than 240 years of expansionism, colonization and subjugation of those less powerful – too take away the land and resources of not just the native American Indians, but later the peoples of Cuba, Philippines, Japan, China and on to the World Wars, late 20th century wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and on and on an on – continuous warfare and expansionism of the American Empire to take away land, resources and power of the native inhabitants of every nation the US targets for regime change or conquest.

You can talk all you want about political systems, which is better or how to corral the oligarchs who rule America, but what I've described is America and the world will never have peace or prosperity until the American Empire ends and the whole world can then celebrate American Independence Day – the Day when the rest of the world is Independent from the Evil Empire.

GMC , July 5, 2018 at 5:17 am

Hard to have a Fourth of July celebration when your Bill of Rights and Constitution have been Trashed.

Anonymous , July 5, 2018 at 3:43 am

Marxists (and much of the broader. "Left") have always maintained that the capitalist mode of production – and the bourgeois-democratic political superstructure it necessitates – represented an immense revolutionary achievement in the course of human development.

Anonymous , July 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm

Casting aside the last vestiges of the feudal system, particularly hereditary monarchy and titles of nobility, was critical to the eventual move toward a more equitable system of political economy.

The reactionary system of corporate rule that we see today is a result of the bourgeoisie and capitalist system having (long) outlived their historically progressive role. However, that does not minimize the fact that in relation to the prior system (I.e. feudalism and monarchy), the US capitalist bourgeois-democratic form of political economy was a great achievement.

Mukadi , July 4, 2018 at 10:24 pm

July 4 Is Matrix Reinforcement Day

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/03/tomorrow-is-matrix-reinforcement-day/

Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 12:02 am

"Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Major General Smedley Butler

Good on you Mukadi for posting this link. PCR did a great analogy of our American war culture. Joe

Jessika , July 4, 2018 at 9:49 pm

It's a knee-jerk celebration, anyway, for the most part. The citizens are told to celebrate, so they celebrate. Just like Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's Day, the Fourth of July is a day to generate money. The firecrackers are popping right now, a worship of the warship that the US has become.

Susan Lee Schwartz , July 4, 2018 at 9:47 pm

Caitlin, I just finished reading an article that I think you would love. "The Birth of Predatory Capitalism "at Eudaimonia and Co: https://eand.co/how-predatory-capitalism-imploded-the-future-6a6396b8f2fc

Herman , July 4, 2018 at 8:37 pm

Much of my time is spent reading commentary that I agree with and articles I agree with. Something to consider for the website, descriptive articles yes but more prescriptive ones. For example, articles by people who have ideas for change, addressing important policy questions like taxation, health insurance, technology stuff like robotics and how to spread its benefits. and of course, reform of the process of selecting and electing our leaders. Just a thought.

Kenny , July 4, 2018 at 5:43 pm

I can't disagree with this articles premise that capitalism has it's flaws but I also contend that socialism has just as sordid a track record with it's own set of oligarchs.

Jerry Alatalo , July 4, 2018 at 4:41 pm

Horrendous global economic conditions require new economic thinking that improves the health and well-being of the most number of people. Economist and author Henry George (1839-1897) nailed it decades ago in his multi-million copy, bestselling 1879 book "Progress and Poverty" – the "single tax" or land value tax.

Consortium News would do humanity a great service by bringing the writings of Henry George economic philosophy advocates to readers and CN's massive group of supporters around the world. For example, an excellent guest writer suggestion is Henry George expert, confirmed enthusiast, and author of many books on the subject, Mr. Fred Harrison.

System-wide implementation of Henry George economic principles addresses the real concerns raised by Caitlin Johnstone and so many others in this time of unprecedented wealth inequality, faulty economics, the new royals called corporate oligarchs, seeming endless war, and the great societal problems manifested as a consequence.

Peace.

Drew Hunkins , July 4, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Jefferson was very old when he first saw the fledgling stages of early corporate power, they called them "moneyed incorporations" or something like that. Jefferson warned that these new "moneyed incorporations" had the potential power to undermine everything the revolution accomplished.

John2o2o , July 4, 2018 at 4:18 pm

Sigh. I know I'm probably wasting my time saying this as Caitlin's groupies will not tolerate criticism of their anointed one.

The United States did not win independence from George III. Since 1689 the UK/Great Britain has been a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. (Now go look that up to see what it means.) That means that Parliament does not answer to the monarch. Period.

"In the Kingdom of England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, although limits on the power of the monarch ('a limited monarchy') are much older than that (see Magna Carta). At the same time, in Scotland the Convention of Estates enacted the Claim of Right Act 1689, which placed similar limits on the Scottish monarchy." wikipedia.

George III was America's eighteenth century Putin. Someone they blame for all their problems, but who is not actually responsible for any of them. Americans, like their precious Second Amendment will not grow up and move on.

I know it suits some of you to believe that somehow the royals are super powerful, but they are not. They don't call the shots and haven't done so now for over 300 years.

Joe Lauria , July 4, 2018 at 4:43 pm

"War began in 1775 and was prolonged in 1779, *at the king's insistence,* to prevent copycat protests elsewhere. The British defeat in 1781 prompted North to resign. In 1783, North and the prominent Whig politician Fox formed a coalition government. Their plans to reform the East India Company gave George the chance to regain popularity. He *forced the bill's defeat* in Parliament, and the two resigned. In their place George *appointed* William Pitt the Younger."

George blocked legislation and he appointed the first minister, i.e. he had power over parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/george_iii_king.shtml

cal , July 4, 2018 at 6:17 pm

The Continental Congress was primarily frustrated with Parliament, a resent that had been brewing since the conclusion of the Seven Years War. But, at the same time, royalist enthusiasm had been budding, with an increasing obsession within the colonies of being faithful servants of the crown. Thus, the Congress styled their petitions to the monarch, hoping he would quash his evil ministers, with George III being the hoped for "patriot king". When George attacked the colonies, and began efforts to crackdown on political unrest, the otherwise unpopular and extreme option of independence became feasible. George was not an absolute monarch or a tyrant, but he did have significant power, and he could, if he played parliamentary politics well enough, get his way. The Glorious Revolution did not disempower the monarchy or firmly establish parliamentary power, both of these phenomena began both before and after the events of 1688.

Brad Owen , July 5, 2018 at 4:20 am

The establishment of the Central Bank in City-of-London in 1694 or thereabouts, when William of Orange crossed the English Chanel, along with his retinue of immigrant Venetian banksters from the Netherlands, is the one pertinent fact worth remembering.

THIS is what the Founders actually declared their independence from, establishing the National Bank in the process (which was shut down relatively quickly thereafter, by agents loyal to City-of-London Central Bank). Independence has been a farce from the beginning and we never had our Republic, let alone keeping it, as Benjamin Franklin had warned us would be the problem.

We've had a phony Republic based on the model supplied by Venice (and established by Venetian "Dutch Masters" in The Netherlands in the 17th century) throughout the Medieval/Renaissance eras. It is the same old, ongoing, Citizens' Republic vs Oligarchs' Empire fight that Western Civilzation inherited from Roman times.

Jerry Alatalo , July 4, 2018 at 4:04 pm

Whether one envisages the traditional concept of royalty with precious stones-studded crowns and all the "royal" trapping, pomp and circumstance or multi-billionaire corporate tax-evading mega-moguls, the groups are essentially the same. Wealth inequality on Earth, ironically and sadly, has grown while so-called "royalty" as a visible phenomenon has slowly diminished. The problems associated with record concentration of wealth on Earth have grown in equal proportion, to the point where people are starting to consider newer, potentially more beneficial economic thought and viable alternative systems.

The ideas of economist and author of "Progress and Poverty" – HENRY GEORGE (1839-1897) "Single tax" proponent (or "land value tax") – are both disappointingly under-discussed and under-appreciated, while offering precisely the economic alternative for effectively dealing with today's orthodox economy-centric global, societal problems. People might take the time in researching Henry George's ideas when they understand (only one of many benefits) that implementation of Georgist economic principles means no more income tax taken out of their paychecks

Consortium News (CN) is the perfect platform for support of Henry George economic thought and raising awareness of an idea whose time may just have arrived. We might suggest Consortium News publish the writings of Henry George expert and author of many books on the subject Mr. Fred Harrison, who would likely happily provide his impressive writings for free.

We might also suggest the many millions of men and women from all regions of the Earth reading Consortium News consider finding out more on Henry George economic thought, do the researching, then understand the economic philosophy's virtually immeasurable, positive and transforming potential.

Source information search suggestion: Henry George School of Social Science.

Peace.

[Jul 05, 2018] We are an empire now

The problem is that the logic of neoliberalism dictates the necessary of converting the USA into empire and maintaining this empire at the expense of well-being and standard of living of US citizens. It is necessary to enforce globalization and Washington consensus.
Crash in the empire façade are now painted off with Russophobia...
Jul 05, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Gary Weglarz , July 4, 2018 at 11:55 am

An excellent analysis of the sordid mess we euphemistically refer to as our vaunted -- "democracy." Given the total control of information through MSM, combined with oligarchic attempts to censor and essentially "disappear" dissenting voices in alternative media, the vast majority of Americans are tethered to domestic and global "realities" by a very thin thread indeed. Americans and Westerners in general are lost in a matrix -like propaganda system of the like the world has never before seen. We've essentially replaced the mythic "divine right of kings" and the "infallibility of the pope" with the equally mythic divine "rights of corporations" and the infallibility of the "invisible hand of the market." Strange how that "invisible hand" can always be found wrapped tightly around the throats of the world's poor everywhere and anywhere.

Challenging these myth systems with truthful counter-narratives is as heretical today as it was a thousand years ago in the West, while those oligarchic controlled institutions enforcing our current myth systems are just as greedy, violent, amoral and blood thirsty as they were during the height of the Holy Inquisition. The myths have changed, but the dynamics of absolute power through the control of societal myth systems remains unchanged. As Derrick Jensen has pointed out most Americans can more easily imagine the end of the world than they can imagine the end of capitalism. This is "brain-washing" of the highest order indeed.

Lois Gagnon , July 4, 2018 at 5:19 pm

Well put. Changing the narrative has to be our highest priority.

zhenry , July 4, 2018 at 10:50 pm

Should add 'Divine right and infallibility over a world nobody can live in.

David Stevenson - Progressive Soup , July 4, 2018 at 11:51 am

Reminds me of The Who song : "Won't Get Fooled Again !"

"Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss".

"And parking on the left is now parking on the right".

Rob , July 4, 2018 at 11:31 am

It's good to see Caitlin and her no holds barred writing back on Consortium News. Her hard hitting analyses are usually spot-on.

rosemerry , July 4, 2018 at 11:18 am

Many important rights were fought for and won by earlier generations, and I think it was Ralph Nader who said that none have been won since 1970. Earnings for all but the rich have stagnated, long-established rights have been cast aside by the "courts of law", national and State.

As well as Jeffrey Clements' "Corporations are not People" and his fight for the repeal of "Citizens' United" (what happened to this surge of people power?) there is an excellent book by historian Nancy MacLean "Democracy in Chains" which traces the movement to deny rights to the people, except a select few, right up to the election of Donald J Trump. It is clear, fast-paced, well- referenced and very chilling. The last chapter, 'Get Ready' needs to be taken seriously by us all.

hetro , July 4, 2018 at 10:10 am

Now reading Ralph Nader's Crashing the Party, 2002, an account of his run for the presidency in 2000. Very enjoyable read. Things were very much as described by Caitlin back then, and have only gotten worse. I do fear that glib comments on "democracy as failed" have the wrong term in the phrase. It's plutocracy that has failed, not democracy. Then again democracy requires a lot of work, including thinking and assessing, and continually working to improve the concept. The forefathers got the project started. A capitalist system that encourages hedonism is not going to help much. From Nader's book I have been receiving, oddly, encouragement, in all the people he mentions who wanted change back then, and still do. I am grateful for Nader and Caitlin for expressing the reality of capitalism run amok so very effectively. I hope these efforts will influence further thinking.

Sam F , July 4, 2018 at 7:02 am

Caitlin refreshingly overlooks the distractions of US history between monarchy and oligarchy, the (1) early-federal-period unity around defense concerns, (2) pre-civil-war period of failed congressional debate, and (3) early-industrial emergence of the middle class. These should be ignored, because US history consists of failure of institutions and failure to fix them, and only distracted from the rise of oligarchy to prevent reform.

If democracy is ever restored in the US, it must be stabilized by amendments to protect elections and mass media debate from economic power, better checks and balances within the government branches, purging the corrupt judiciary and Congress, monitoring of government officials for corruption, and regulation of business so that oligarchic bullies and scammers do not rise to control economic power.

Only then can literature, media, education, and public interaction encourage moral community, and only then can public debate find the moral policies that honor the rights of all persons and seek justice for all.

Babyl-on , July 4, 2018 at 8:07 am

"Democracy" is an utter failure. You point this out clearly. Yet, it seems no progressive can accept that -- democracy is an utter failure.

The idea that the system of "democracy" is some sort of holy system, immutable and sacred is completely false. This is not the "end times" of history social and cultural evolution is taking place other systems are proving in the real world they can do a far better job of supporting their citizens than "democracy" ever has, not to mention that imperialism itself is under threat from these other systems -- while every powerful "democracy" has been imperialist.

We live in a multi-polar world now, the US no longer is the "global power" . The US is not #1 in anything but slaughter. This is what "democracy" has done sense August 6,1945 SLAUGHTERED INNOCENT PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR 2.600+ DAYS with plans to continue indefinitely. I would not wish "democracy" on my worst enemy.

Deep and fundamental changes are taking place the ideas of the Enlightenment were deeply flawed and have broken down, new ideas from other cultures are gaining in strength and showing their value to people everywhere.

I'd just like to point out that over the 73+ years of US slaughter of tens of millions of innocent people were accompanied by "elections" every two years -- so the democratic people of the US fully supported this continuous slaughter as being in their best interests (we kill "over there" in war -- but we kill at home too stimulated by deeply and systemically held racism.)

This slaughter machine we call government must be fully and completely dismantled, the great fortunes must be broken up -- no ashes -- no Phoenix.

Sam F , July 4, 2018 at 9:08 am

The problem is not democracy (the recognition that all humans have equal rights) but how democracy is structured; I noted some corrections needed.

The governments of China and Russia are variants of democracy with advantages and problems. The democracies of Scandinavia work better in part for cultural reasons. But it is not difficult to do far better than ours and be democratic: the problem is getting there.

Bob Van Noy , July 4, 2018 at 9:05 am

"If democracy is ever restored in the US,". Sam F.

Thank you, so true.

Our contemporary problem as Citizens, as Sam F. duly notes, is a totally failed democracy. The graphic accompanying this excellent piece is also appropriate, as it too describes our total lack of input as supposed Citizens.

It will be necessary to publicly demonstrate how America Failed, make specific accusations, and design an alternative, something not possible with our current failed state. In other words, a Truth and Reconciliation environment where the failures can adequately and freely be presented and responsibility assigned.

Bob Van Noy , July 4, 2018 at 9:16 am

Readers might enjoy this terrific reading list by Ralph Nader

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/07/03/recommendations-engrossing-summer-reading-and-viewing

Sam F , July 4, 2018 at 2:36 pm

Yes, demonstration of the failures of US democracy is the essential first step to public understanding, along with public study of potential solutions, so that steps can be taken when the public is sufficiently aroused, to restore democracy.

alley cat , July 4, 2018 at 6:51 am

We separated church and state, abolished slavery, and granted suffrage to women. Each of those advances in human rights was fought tooth, nail, and claw by tyrants and oligarchs.

Today's a good day to recall the famous words of one of the most courageous and eloquent of American patriots, Frederick Douglass, in a speech he gave on West India emancipation in 1857: "If there is no struggle there is no progress . . . . Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

And those wrongs include the wrongs we allow our government to impose on other peoples as well as on ourselves, as Martin Luther King declared in his Riverside Church speech in 1967: "I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."

Silly Me , July 4, 2018 at 9:47 am

Actually, the problem is that the unity of those in power and the peasants broke when the underlying ideology stopped functioning. These days, peasant are offered nothing, not the American Dream, not even a place in Heaven, for their sacrifice.

All those "advances" you mention were a one-way street to this end.

There is no ideal form of government. Democracy is a scam, and possibly the most expensive form of government, but Aristotle's "good king" functions only if the ideology works.(Aristotle despised democracy as the rule of the mob and the Constitution was theoretically meant to prevent that, but with hardly any of the Constitution left, one has to choose between corporate masters and mob rule. Oh, well, that is not even a choice, because the mob has been divided and compartmentalized.)

No revolution has ever succeeded that started from the bottom. For a successful revolution, you need to convince your rulers that giving you handouts is good for them. The more they give, the more they can take back. Unfortunately, they have already destroyed America and are abandoning it in droves, but they are not yet done with the planet.

MarB , July 4, 2018 at 11:36 pm

"not even a place in Heaven, for their sacrifice"
just the heartless illusory promise of endless vacuous consumption accompanied by the requisite endless diversion from reality.

Miranda Keefe , July 4, 2018 at 5:27 am

You know how conservatives like to pass legislation that does something that is against the interests of the people but they at the same time like to name that legislation with a name that is the exact opposite of what they are doing? So for instance legislation that would make it less likely to have clean air by letting corporations regulate themselves on air pollution is called "The Clean Air Act."

Well, this usage of Double-Speak is much older that George Orwell. You can find it in the writing of Thomas Jefferson that was signed by a bunch of plutocrats on July 4, 1776.

I'm talking about, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It would be laughable ironic if it wasn't so tragic that a main reason so many of these plutocrats signed this document was because the British had proclaimed that all slaves of those in rebellion were free. Slaves were running away and joining the British cause.

Another tragic reality is that another reason these plutocrats signed is because they had bought vast tracts of land west of the Alleghenies cheaply and expected to make a fortune selling it at high prices to lower class farmers desperate for land. They'd done this with no consideration for the people actually living on this land as they had for millennia and without any compensation to them. Instead states far away declared they owned this land and then sold it to the plutocrats. But the British had put a stop to it, saying that land was reserved for the tribes who lived there. These plutocrats were furious that the British were keeping them from becoming even richer as if the native people who'd never signed away their land mattered like they did.

These 'founding fathers' were all hypocrites signing that document. They didn't believe all men were really equal. They didn't believe that Black Americans had a God given unalienable right to liberty. They didn't believe that Native Americans had a God given unalienable to the pursuit of happiness or even to life.

Plus they said that this was declaration to become independent of Britain was something the people were doing. They didn't bother to consult the people. The reality is one third of the people were loyal and one third were neutral and only one third wanted to be independent. A lot of these loyal people fled north to Canada as soon as they could when it became the clear the 'patriots' were winning. That was a flood of immigrants in the 1780s.

The final irony is that they claimed they were taking this action because of George's unfair taxation. Guess what. The Tea Act that sparked revolt with the Boston Tea Party a few years earlier actually lowered taxes. Yes. It lowered taxes. But the plutocrats were upset because it also created a monopoly in the tea trade giving it to Londoners, leaving them out. They lied that it was about regular people being upset that they had to pay high taxes when what they were really upset about was that they didn't get the contract that would have made them richer.

But the bamboozled those regular poor folk to join their Continental Army and paid them in IOUs. How did they plan on paying those IOUs? Well, by the various states raising taxes. Unfortunately for those poor vets they didn't get paid at first and they couldn't pay their taxes unless they sold their IOUs for pennies on the dollar to rich speculators- the very same plutocrats who declared Independence because of taxes. Then they'd get paid the full amount of the IOUs.

This scenario sounds exactly like the one in the document I quoted above from the Declaration, which purports that in that situation the people have a god given duty to rebel and change the government. What did these patriotic founding fathers do? They raised funds to buy a mercenary army to go and squash these rebels. They they broke the law to create a new constitution, filled with more Double-Speak about "We the People" and "general Welfare" and "Blessings of Liberty," that created a stronger central government with the power to tax and a standing army so such rebellion could never happen again.

Who am I talking about? I'm talking about Jefferson who was a slave owner. I'm talking about Adams who despised the idea of the 'rabble' and the 'mob' and as President passed laws to put in jail anyone who printed anything that was against his presidency. I'm talking about Washington who was "mortified beyond expression" about the rebels and declared that "mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own Government." I'm talking about Franklin whose view of natives was ""If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means." If you don't know, 'extirpate' means 'to root out and destroy.'

Think on this. If the British had won, there would have been no native genocide in the Ohio Country. Instead it might have been like Manitoba, where natives and settlers became one people and got their own province. If the British had won then slavery would have been outlawed in America when it was in the British Empire in 1833.

Maybe there's a reason Canada is a kinder nation with universal single payer healthcare and legal marijuana and it gave sanctuary to USA draft dodgers? Maybe because it wasn't created like George Carlin tells us the USA was.

"This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free. Am I right? A group of slave owners who wanted to be free, so they killed a lot of white English people in order to continue owning their black African people so they could wipe out the rest of the red Indian people and move West and steal the rest of the land from the brown Mexican people giving them a place to take off and drop their nuclear weapons on the yellow Japanese people. You know what the motto of this country ought to be? 'You give us a color- we'll wipe it out.'"

Joe Tedesky , July 4, 2018 at 6:46 pm

Wow Miranda you hit it out of the ball yard with your comment, well done. It is hard for America to reconcile all of its myths, as I've often quoted my beloved departed mother who always said, one lie only leads to another lie until the truth jumps up and bites you in the ass your spot on commentary is a fantastic beginning to a readers journey towards them learning the truth. Thanks Miranda, you taught me something new today. Joe

Miranda Keefe , July 4, 2018 at 8:40 pm

Thanks, Joe.

Most of the stuff I summarized is explained in better depth in a series of articles by Danny Sjursen over on Truthdig called "American History for Truthdiggers."

Also having read Zinn's history is helpful. Plus I'm a big fan of Carlin. Do miss him. Not just his insight, but his cadence, which seemed to be flowing through me on that post.

Joe Tedesky , July 4, 2018 at 9:27 pm

Miranda your inspirational heroes are certainly appropriate for analyzing today's current events. I like Major Daniel Sjursen for he is a soldier who has learned from his experiences, and he doesn't sell the same old fluff we are used too. All in all you Miranda crafted this piece of fine commentary, and you should be congratulated for how you interpret what you have learned . and look at you now, your teaching all of us to be critical thinkers when appraising our nation's policies. Good post. Joe

Kalen , July 4, 2018 at 4:55 am

Few historical facts:

The counterrevolutionary US constitution of 1789 was nothing but a ploy for rich and powerful British aristocracy and oligarchy to wrestle their absolute control back and return to past regime of 1776 but this time sans King and with collective despotism instead, calling the whole revolutionary experiment they instigated themselves dead as too democratic threatening their profits from slavery.

It was British aristocracy and oligarchy with interest in American colonies who concocted "American Revolution" in order to steal land given them as a privilege by English King and hence avoid paying taxes considered by British government at that time. And shocked and dismayed by unexpected rise of social conscientiousness of poor/landless colonists who supposed to exhibit animal like qualities and not maturity of citizen, they pulled the plug and killed the American experiment in 1789 via illegal constitutional convection once for all.

It took them so long [13 years] since they had to think hard how to camouflage the "old" system of "collective" monarchy based on medieval fiefdoms [dropped names like colonies replaced by a term states that delegate some limited prerogatives to a states' GSE, a corporation domiciled on a strip of land called D.C., the only area that this GSE called Federal Government really directly controls] under propaganda of supposedly Greek and Roman democratic tradition that bombastic neo- classical monstrosities of Federal buildings suppose to convey.

Americans, It is time to remember Declaration of Independence, 1776 that states:
..But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Corporate despotism reigns supreme, it is time to sharpen pitchforks as is duty of free citizenry as demanded by Declaration of Independence.

OlyaPola , July 4, 2018 at 4:18 am

"America Celebrates Lateral Move From Monarchy To Corporate Rule"

The move was linear within the linear paradigm of class societies using a similar mix of coercion including ideological tools for sustainabilty, obfuscated by the transition from "divine right of kings" modified by the "Glorious Revolution of 1688" to "We the people hold these truths to be self-evident", the assay of the amalgam of coercive tools remaining within the linear.

A lateral (qualitative) change is required to transcend "capitalism" and the misnamed "The United States of America" and why reform is self-defeating since it is also linear and hence facilitates the continued immersion in iterations of modulated status-quo ante and hence precludes lateral change.

Sam F , July 4, 2018 at 7:24 am

I interpret your "reform is self-defeating" to mean evolutionary or incremental reform, which as you note relies on existing powers, and therefore maintains oligarchy.

Even revolutions seldom do much better, because they are opposed by economic or external powers. A revolution would have worked in the US, having no major external powers, if it reformed economic power, but is not feasible against our totalitarian state.

Only the extreme conditions of poverty by external embargo, military defeats discrediting the warmongers, and rising gangsterism and corruption will bring enough anger among the middle class, probably 40-60 years hence. See Mexico, and we are not there yet. Meanwhile we pretend that fashion reforms lead somewhere.

OlyaPola , July 5, 2018 at 2:21 am

"Only the extreme conditions of poverty by external embargo, military defeats discrediting the warmongers, and rising gangsterism and corruption will bring enough anger among the middle class, probably 40-60 years hence."

One of the aspects of "exceptionalism" is to seek to assign significance to self that others do not assign to you.
Such hubris affords strategic opportunities for others.

Agency is a type of interaction and can be minimised through non-emulated interaction the process being accelerated through lateral modes of interaction perceived by opponents as linear (emulated) interaction -- which in some measure describes the trajectory of transcending the Soviet Union by the Russian Federation with the complicity of "The United States of America" facilitated by hubris such as the end of history and full spectrum dominance.

In such a scenario what the inhabitants of "The United States of America" do is of lesser import, a process accelerated by their self-absorption.

If the

Sam F , July 5, 2018 at 8:10 am

You appear to be saying that a fifth column effects more serious reforms, moving toward a parallel branch of history while seeming to effect lesser reforms. (Your usage of "lateral" suggests move toward greater reform, while in the article it refers to movement to something no better.)

OlyaPola , July 5, 2018 at 9:28 am

"a fifth column effects more serious reforms"

No, that is an integration within the opponents' linear paradigm.

If you need an example take a sample from a useful fool's blog http://www.thesaker.is who frames in 5th, 6th and nth columns, not necessarily newspaper columns, and generally bad people, evil doers and assorted rascals -- a passion play facilitating deflection, deflection and/or "children's crusades", although children generally have a lesser propensity to be rendered useful fools and why they require "socialisation" to get with the team.

"Your usage of "lateral" suggests move toward greater reform".

That is also an integration within the opponents' paradigm.

Lateral is qualitative change facilitated by fission -- a qualitative transcendence.

Ideology is akin to a swimming pool; when you start to emerge you still carry drop-lets.

Among the ideological notions with more resilient half-lives are "intuition", "beliefs", "framing" and "methods".

Some wish to remain in the present linear paradigm through "spheres of influence" which is presented as and constitutes "reform" thereby facilitating a mutation of the bacilli, not a transcendence.

"while in the article it refers to movement to something no better.)"

Spectators tend to ponder what is, some spectators bridging doubt by belief to attain pre-judgements.

Spectators also often conflate comment with agency to maintain the comfort zone of not expanding their definition of agency.

Practitioners test what is to formulate how to's which throughout the process are subjected to rigorous evaluation/modulation.

Spectating is a process described by Mr. Rove's observation which I paraphrase.

"We are an Empire now.
We create our own reality.
You react to our reality
And whilst you do so
We create another reality
To which you react"

Ergo immersion in iterations of the opponents linear paradigm.

Mr. Rove also observed the reducing scope and half-life of this process namely

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the one's you should concentrate on"

Blogs illustrate both observations of Mr. Rove.

Consequently practitioners normally do not "agree" with spectators' framing, including definition assigned to words, hopes and wishes but use the the spectators' hopes and wishes to transcend them, afforded the opportunities to do so by the spectators frames of "plausible belief", thereby adding the complicity of the spectators to the fissile material, since blogs are akin to petri-dishes wherein commentators add to "the culture" minimising unnecessary action by practitioners whilst "hiding" in open sight, although some commentators share hypotheses that others can test if so minded and others can iterate the process of bridging doubt by belief to attain pre-judgements and self-affirmation.

Chumpsky , July 4, 2018 at 2:09 am

Another brilliant analysis by Caitlin. "America is a corporatist oligarchy dressed in drag doing a bad impression of a bipartisan democracy."

It would be useful to show how the "elite class" has manipulated our monetary system to advance their nefarious agenda. Robbery or transfer of wealth via inflation to control the political economy has been di rigeur since the creation of the Federal Reserve, which is not federal but a private chartered monopoly. All political distortions can be traced to this seditious injustice to American labor as well as the Hamiltonian monetary principles of our founders.

[Jul 05, 2018] SNAFU! Dr. Phillip Karber on the Russian Way of War (MUST WATCH VIDEO!!!!)

If we assume that this is true: "Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely poor shape by the time 2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental incompetence by Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun far reaching military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia."
Then Ukrainian armed forces should drastically improve after several years of fighting.
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were. ..."
"... Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME. https://foreignpolicy.com/2... ..."
Jul 05, 2018 | www.snafu-solomon.com
Thundarr the Barbarian • 15 minutes ago

If the Obama administration ordered Ukraine not to fight for Crimea on the assumption they could force Russia to give it back via sanctions, they miscalculated badly.

The Russians believe Crimea rightfully belongs to them and they saw control of it as vital to their national security. There were some serious shenanigans going on in Kiev, which the Russians interpreted as an American engineered coup. The Russians reacted to what they believed was a major threat to their national security. The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were.

There is no way the Russians will ever give up Crimea, especially under pressure from the US, NATO and the EU. No Russian politician could do that and hope to survive. Besides, the Russians have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to endure suffering and hardships much greater than the capacity of Western nations to endure and the sanctions showed that Russia was far less vulnerable to pressure than Western politicians assumed.

Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely poor shape by the time 2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental incompetence by Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun far reaching military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia. SurfaceBook • 4 hours ago I disagree with mr kerber's assesment on Crimean ops being the largest air assault in history. Operation Market Garden in WW2 was the largest Air assault involving divisions of paratroopers from US/UK/Poland into german occupied drop zones (in conjuction with a land assault forcing it's way to Arnhem).

One other curiousity , Washington 'ordered' Ukraine ? a sovereign nation under orders ? just who is in charge of ukraine at that time ? see more

Thundarr the Barbarian SurfaceBook • 2 hours ago

To answer your question: Victoria Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs during the Obama administration. In other words, she was the American proconsul for Eastern Europe.

ignatzthecat • 6 hours ago

Bottom line? "The Fog of War".........All these scenarios mean nothing after the first "shot" is fired. If any US "enemy" cannot crush US air power they are finished from the gitgo. Not a fan of our foreign policies but we can "crush" the enemy; we just can't "rule" them.

Distiller • 9 hours ago

Would really like to hear the other side. Where does he get his information from? The Ukrainians? All this Russia-is-evil-and-scheming-to-do-more-evil is ... slightly over the top. I don't say it's impossible that Russian regular troops have been involved in Donbas but he makes it sound like Unternehmen Zitadelle

BSmitty • 13 hours ago

IMHO, beware taking too many lessons away from this conflict. The Ukranian's don't have anything close to the SEAD/DEAD/EW/airpower capability of the US. What worked against their aviation won't necessarily work against ours. Once mid-high altitude air defenses are down, enemy jammers will have a short lifespan.

His comments that even light infantry should have the means to get away when under attack, and sufficient armor to counter attack point to the inadequacies of Army IBCTs (Infantry, not "Interim").

IMHO, IBCTs should have 100% vehicular mobility, and have the option of attaching an independent tank battalion. Cobbling together random HMMWVs from div/corps just seems silly. Make vehicles part of the core TOE. see more

DOnT4 BSmitty • 6 hours ago

You are assuming that we are working within our own timeline. Yes with enough time and blood, we can peal back their defense network with airpower. The question is, who buys us that time?

Russians (and the Chinese) ground forces trained to fight in contested airspace. The US Army assumes we have it.

utahbob62 • 14 hours ago

Sol, Thanks for posting the link and asking for discussion. One thing that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up is how much of this is being shared with the PLA and worse the DPRK? They are pretty smart and probility can figure lots of this out on their own. Is there any PLA observers up front with the RuFA or exchanging TTPs in an AAR? Or professional papers and presentations at staff school level or higher? I am just a grunt and red leg, but how does the EW and fires part impact the navy? A step is being taken: http://soldiersystems.net/2... I wonder when this is part of OPFOR at NTC or 29 Palms? see more

Solomon Mod utahbob62 • 14 hours ago

NO! thank you for sharing !!!!! this is like getting a seat at the Army War College and getting to hear what is never shared with the troops or the public.

to be honest what i heard in that video was downright shocking. i won't say scary cause i won't be facing that shit but if i was i'd be beyond concerned.

to answer your question you can bet your last dollar that the Chinese are getting briefings on this. you can bet that they're not only studying the above vid but getting info from the subject matter experts in Russia.

this guy is senior but i would so love to hear an assessment of Marine Corps chances if war were to break out in Norway or surrounding countries (we still have the flank). how would a Marine Expeditionary Brigade standup to those type tactics. we're talking about a lighter formation than the US Army equivalent but with integrated air.

oh and a side note. as much as i think the US Army and Marine Corps would be in a hurtlocker can you imagine what would happen to any of our European allies if they were somehow isolated and attacked?

my only regret about this whole thing is that i wanted to sit back and drink in serious conversation about this video. instead i'm getting the usual trolling. i can tolerate that on the majority of subjects i cover here but this one is different. i wanted to hear from serious individuals doing serious thinking about what the Dr presented.

such is life. if you run across anything else PLEASE send it. i find this fascinating!

Deckard Rick • 15 hours ago T

he slide at 12.44 is also interesting it shows Russia's "desire" for "friendly relations" with the west and its neighbours. But i guess like in the cold war there is no shortage of naives that think that Russia understands anything else but sanctions or force. see more

spinfight Deckard Rick • 13 hours ago

Very true but defenses still have to be credible. It's pretty clear that a European military would get squashed like a bug.

Remington Steele • 16 hours ago

Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME. https://foreignpolicy.com/2...

Deckard Rick • 16 hours ago

My conclusions -- Western/ US allies/Nato armies will need to have:

- integrated air defence at every level from platoon to regimental.(manpads, spaag,
- mass fire/steel rain capabilities cheap and heavy MLRS also MLRS launched antiradiation missiles)
the israelis launched AGM Shrikes with boosters from trucks to target Syrian Radars
- Field Army EW sigint/elint/jamming/defense capabilities
- EW munitions (currently russia has tube artillery launched jammers don't know about the US or NATO)
- Small and light SPGs like the Gvozdika

spinfight Nuno Gomes 16 hours ago
Whilst I agree Russia does tend to export it's kit extensively. Also some of the potential uses such as GPS jamming drones, could be more than merely inconvenient on very small budgets.

[Jul 05, 2018] The Birth of Predatory Capitalism by Umair

Yes neoliberalism is deeply predatory. Still is survives as a social system for let's say 40 years (1987-2017) and probably will survive another 20-30 years. And what is coming might be worse. If Trump signify turn to "national neoliberalism" the next step from it might some kind of neofascism.
Notable quotes:
"... But financialization didn't just have a direct cost  --  no value being created, just men in shiny suits betting pebbles on who'd blink first. It also had an opportunity cost. As finance grew to be a larger and larger share of the economy, so the wind got sucked out of the sails of the "real economy", as American economists put it, which simply means people doing the work that actually does create value  --  teachers, nurses, engineers, artisans, bakers, small-town factories, and so on. Think about it simply: the more money that was burned up in speculating, the less that was available for making things of genuine value. So the incomes of all these people  --  those in the "real economy"  --  began to stagnate. New schools and hospitals and energy grids and so on weren't built  --  all the money was going towards speculating on the backs the old ones, sometimes, often, on their failures. A black hole was growing at the heart of the economy  --  but according to pundits, it was the sun itself. Everything was upside down. The bets were indeed about to all go south at once  --  only no one knew understood how or why yet. ..."
"... The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were "offshored." That's a polite way to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact  --  and send jobs there. That way, you wouldn't have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies, even  --  you could make everything in that one sweatshop. ..."
"... We're used to thinking that offshoring "took" jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler  --  and more ruinous. They blew apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang effect happened. ..."
"... Managers began stripping away benefits of every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the "at-will job" and the "zero-hours contract" were created  --  social contracts that were only "jobs" in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility, or opportunity. People who didn't have benefits could now be fired on a whim  --  and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk of what, precisely? ..."
"... Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south, who'd take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety ..."
"... So in had to step governments. They bailed out the banks  --  but didn't "restructure" them, which is to say, fire their managers, wash out their shareholders, and sell off the bad loans and bets. They just threw money at them ..."
"... What does a bankrupt have to do? Liquidate. So governments began to slash investment in social systems of all kinds. Healthcare systems, pension systems, insurance systems, media and energy systems. This was the fourth step in the birth of predatory capitalism: austerity. ..."
"... The only thing keeping the real economy going at this point was investment by the government  --  after all, the speculators were speculating, not investing for the long run. It was governments that were effectively keeping economies afloat, by providing a floor for income, by anchoring economies with a vast pool of stable, safe, real, secure jobs, and investing dollars back in societies short of them. And yet, at the precise moment that governments needed to create more of precisely that, they did just the opposite. ..."
"... It's the once prosperous but now imploded middle which turns on the classes, ethnicities, groups, below it. The people who expected and felt entitled to lives of safety and security and stability  --  who anticipated being at the top of a tidy little hierarchy, the boss of this or that, the chieftain of that or this, but now find themselves adrift and unmoored in a collapsing society, powerless. ..."
"... Predatory capitalism imploding into strange, new forms of old diseases of the body politic ..."
Jul 05, 2018 | eand.co

A (successful) American politician who cries: Neo-nazis in the Bundestag . The extreme right rising in Italy . Poland's authoritarians purging its Supreme Court .

How did we get here? To a world where the forces of intolerance and indecency are on the rise, and those of decency, wisdom, and civilization are waning? Is something like a new Dark Age falling?

I think it has everything to do with predatory capitalism, and so I want to tell you a story. Of how it came to be born, in four steps, which span three decades.

During the 2000s, the economy of the rich world underwent something like a phase transition. It became "financialized", as the jargon goes  --  which simply means that finance came to make up a greater and greater share of the economy. Hedge funds and investment banks and shady financial vehicles of all kinds went from a modest portion of the economy, to making up a huge chunk of it  --  around half, in some countries.

Now, what was "financialization" for? What were all these bankers, hedge fund managers, investors, and so on, doing? The answer is: nothing. Nothing of value, anyways. They were simply placing bets with each other. Bets on bets on bets, meta-bets. Economists, who have something like an inferiority complex, envious of swashbuckling bankers, bought their marketing pitch hog, line, and sinker: "we're going to reduce risk! Everyone will benefit!" But no such thing was happening  --  and anyone could see it. Risk was being massively amplified, in fact, because every time a speculator made a billion dollar bet with another, they were both betting with the same pool of money, essentially. Whose money? It wasn't theirs  --  it was everyone's. Pensions, savings, bank accounts, earnings, retirement funds. All that being bet on bets on bets on bets which amounted to nothing. But what if all the bets went south at once?

First, I want you to really understand that what was happening was a zero-sum game, where one had to lose for another to win. Imagine there are three of us, in a little stone age tribe, with a hundred pebbles each. We spend all day every day finding new ways to lend pebbles to each other, to bet them on who'll blink first, or even bets on those bets, and so on. In our little economy, does anyone ever end up better off? Does anyone, for example, discover antibiotics, or even invent the wheel? Nope. We're just fools, who'll never accomplish, learn, or create anything, sitting around playing a zero-sum game, in which no real value is ever created. The pebbles never become anything more valuable, like, for example, books, symphonies, knowledge, or medicine. All that is exactly what was happening during the phase of financialization.

But financialization didn't just have a direct cost  --  no value being created, just men in shiny suits betting pebbles on who'd blink first. It also had an opportunity cost. As finance grew to be a larger and larger share of the economy, so the wind got sucked out of the sails of the "real economy", as American economists put it, which simply means people doing the work that actually does create value  --  teachers, nurses, engineers, artisans, bakers, small-town factories, and so on. Think about it simply: the more money that was burned up in speculating, the less that was available for making things of genuine value. So the incomes of all these people  --  those in the "real economy"  --  began to stagnate. New schools and hospitals and energy grids and so on weren't built  --  all the money was going towards speculating on the backs the old ones, sometimes, often, on their failures. A black hole was growing at the heart of the economy  --  but according to pundits, it was the sun itself. Everything was upside down. The bets were indeed about to all go south at once  --  only no one knew understood how or why yet.

How was the real economy to survive, then? Another hidden effect of financialization was super-concentration  --  the second force in the rise of predatory capitalism. Mom-and-pop capitalism is a healthy and beautiful thing, an economy of a million little shops, bakeries, artisans  --  but it takes only a modest attachment to a profit motive. But thanks to the rise of massive, global speculation, only aggressive quarterly profit-maximization was allowed. CEO earnings were hitched to share prices, and your share price only went up if your earnings did, relentlessly, illogicaly, crazily, every single quarter, instead of stabilizing at a happy, gentle amount  --  and so the only way left, in the end, to achieve it, was to build titanic monopolies, which could squeeze people for every dime. Once the economy had Macy's, JC Penney, K-Mart, Toys-R-Us and Sears. Now it has Walmart. The story was repeated across every single industry. Amazon, Google, Apple. A new age of monopoly arose.

But monopolies had an effect, too. The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were "offshored." That's a polite way to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact  --  and send jobs there. That way, you wouldn't have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies, even  --  you could make everything in that one sweatshop.

We're used to thinking that offshoring "took" jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler  --  and more ruinous. They blew apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang effect happened. The machine discovered that it could do in rich countries what it had done in poor ones  --  and so it began stripping away everything that made a job "a job." Because the economy was increasingly composed of monopolies, giant companies, banks, and investors had the power to do so with impunity. Speculators began raiding pension funds. Managers began stripping away benefits of every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the "at-will job" and the "zero-hours contract" were created  --  social contracts that were only "jobs" in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility, or opportunity. People who didn't have benefits could now be fired on a whim  --  and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk of what, precisely?

Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south, who'd take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety, all those people for whom "a job" now meant something more like "a temporary soul-crushing way to avoid destitution." They're the ones who'd be fired, instantly, lose what little savings they had, have their already dwindling incomes slashed, be ruined.

And then the bets went bad. As bets tend to do, when you make too many of them, on foolish things. What had the speculators been betting with each other on? As it turns out, largely on property prices. But people without the stable jobs that had kept such a huge property bubble going didn't have growing incomes anymore. Property prices couldn't keep rising. Bang! The financial system fell like a row of dominoes. It turned out that everyone had bet property prices would go on rising  --  and on the other side of that bet was everyone else. All of them had been betting on the same thing  --  "we all bet prices will keep rising forever!" The losses were so vast, and so widespread, that the whole global financial system buckled. The banks didn't have the money to pay each other for these foolish bets  --  how could they have? Each one had bet the whole house on the same thing, and they all would have gone bankrupt to each other. LOL  --  do you see the fatal stupidity of it all yet?

So in had to step governments. They bailed out the banks  --  but didn't "restructure" them, which is to say, fire their managers, wash out their shareholders, and sell off the bad loans and bets. They just threw money at them  --  and took those bad bets onto the nation's books, instead. It was the most foolish decision since the Great Depression. Why?

Well, now governments had trillions in  --  pow!  --  sudden debt. What were they to do? How would they pay it off? Now, you might think that Presidents are very intelligent people, but unfortunately, they are just politicians. And so instead of doing what they should have done  --  printing money, simply cancelling each others' debts to each other, which were for fictional speculation anyways  --  they decided that they were "broke". Bankrupt, even  --  even though a country can't go bankrupt, anymore than you could if you could print your own currency at home, and spend it everywhere.

What does a bankrupt have to do? Liquidate. So governments began to slash investment in social systems of all kinds. Healthcare systems, pension systems, insurance systems, media and energy systems. This was the fourth step in the birth of predatory capitalism: austerity.

But people's incomes were already dwindling, thanks to the first three steps  --  as jobs not just disappeared in quantity, but also imploded in quality, as monopolies grew in power, and as pointless, destructive, zero-sum speculation sucked the life out of the real economy. The only thing keeping the real economy going at this point was investment by the government  --  after all, the speculators were speculating, not investing for the long run. It was governments that were effectively keeping economies afloat, by providing a floor for income, by anchoring economies with a vast pool of stable, safe, real, secure jobs, and investing dollars back in societies short of them. And yet, at the precise moment that governments needed to create more of precisely that, they did just the opposite.

Snap! Economies broke like twigs. The people formerly known as the middle class had been caught in between the pincers of these four forces  --  financialization, monopoly, the implosion of the job, and austerity. Together, they shattered what was left of rich economies  --  to the point that today, incomes are stagnant across the rich world, even in much vaunted Scandinavia, while living standards are falling in many rich countries, like the US and UK.

What do people do as hardship begins to bite  --  especially those who expected comfortable, easy lives? They become reactionary, lashing out violently. They seek safety in the arms of demagogues. That doesn't mean, as American pundits naively think, that "poor people become authoritarians!" Quite the opposite.

It's the once prosperous but now imploded middle which turns on the classes, ethnicities, groups, below it. The people who expected and felt entitled to lives of safety and security and stability  --  who anticipated being at the top of a tidy little hierarchy, the boss of this or that, the chieftain of that or this, but now find themselves adrift and unmoored in a collapsing society, powerless.

That gap between expectation and reality is what ruinous. They retain a desperate need to be atop a hierarchy, to be above someone, the entitled imploded middles  --  and what has happened in history, time and again, is that they turn to those who promise them just that superiority, by turning on those below them. Even if, especially if, it is in the extreme, irrational, yet perfectly logical form of supremacy and dominion over the weak, the despised, and the impure.

And that is what all today's reactionary, extremist movements  --   which I call the Faction  --  really are. Predatory capitalism imploding into strange, new forms of old diseases of the body politic -- ultrauthoritarianism, theosupremacism, kleptofascism, neofeudalism, biodominionism, hatriarchy, technotalitarianism, novel and lethal forms of ruin for a new dark age.

And so here we are, you and I. On the cusp of that age. A time where the shadows in human hearts shine as black and blinding as midnight. And once again, it is the folly and hubris of wise men that led us here.

Umair
July 2018

[Jul 05, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis What happened to the signers

Jul 05, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
What happened to the signers?

"Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War.

These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags." "What really happened?"

------------

I had a lot of ancestors in that war, some Continentals, some militia. One man in Boston raised his own regiment of militia at his own expense. He commanded it throughout the war. A lot of these soldiers were old broke down grunts by the end, They made new lives for themselves. I revere their memory. pl

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DOCUMENTS/the_signers.html

blue peacock , 19 hours ago

"All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured."

They were men of character. They were willing to lose everything for their convictions and beliefs. These are men to be revered. Thank you Col. Lang for remembering them.

IMO, as a people we no longer have this character. We have allowed big & bigger government over the decades who have usurped our sovereignty and essential liberty through mass surveillance, civil forfeiture, state secrets doctrine as the cornerstone of deceit, and now the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence for domestic political purposes.

TTG , 12 hours ago
These were indeed hard and principled men. I offer the example of one of the founding fathers of my hometown. Gideon Hotchkiss was a new light Puritan receiving a commission as an ensign in a Waterbury militia company in November 1756. He was at Saratoga in August 1757 when he wrote home about "the melancholy news of our upper fort" referring to the loss of Fort William Henry and the ensuing massacre. In July 1758 he took part in the battle of Fort Carillon as a lieutenant. He served another year as a captain in 1760 along with two of his sons.

Leading up to the War of Independence, he served on the local committee of inspection. He sent two sons and a grandson to serve in the war and organized a troop of light horse cavalry to respond to British incursions such as the raids on Woodbridge and Danbury. After the fall harvests were completed, his company of veterans served through the winter months when they were most needed.

Once while working in his fields, he heard the sound of battle to the south. He mounted his horse and, along with a servant boy, rode to meet the British at Westville, north of New Haven. His servant was struck by a cannon ball. Gideon placed the boy's body in a concealed place, sent his horse back to his farm and joined the battle. This was the British raid on New Haven in July 1779. He was sixty-three years old at the time.

After the War, he was appointed deacon of the church of Columbia Parish, now Prospect. One of his many sons became a Methodist minister. This Puritan deacon first disowned his son, but he soon forgave and embraced him. One of Gideon's descendants moved to the Shenandoah Valley. He was Jedediah Hotchkiss, cartographer and staff officer to General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

richardstevenhack , 14 hours ago
Speaking of the signers, only three lived to see America's 50th Anniversary. Thomas Jefferson was unable to attend a reunion organized by the mayor of Washington, and this article provides the full text of his letter of RSVP.

Read What Thomas Jefferson Wrote on America's 50th Birthday
http://www.thetruthaboutgun...

Quote:

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. these are grounds of hope for others."

End Quote

It also cites this list of Jefferson quotes on the right to bear arms:

Thomas Jefferson on The Right To Bear Arms
https://www.nraila.org/arti...

[Jul 04, 2018] No Need For Nato - Craig Murray

Jul 04, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

A NATO summit approaches that brings Donald Trump to Europe and then on to these shores, and brings the usual clamour for more of the taxpayers' money to be given to arms manufacturers.

Yet NATO is a demonstrably useless institution. It's largest ever active military deployment, for 12 years in Afghanistan, resulted in military defeat throughout 80% of the country, the installation of a pocket regime whose scrip does not run further than you can throw the scrip, and a vast outflow of heroin to finance the criminal underworld throughout NATO countries. In invading Afghanistan and boosting the heroin warlords, NATO countries destabilised themselves

NATO's second biggest military operation ever was the attack on Libya, where NATO carried out an incredible 14,200 bombing sorties using high explosive munitions and devastated Libya's infrastructure and entire cities. Here is Sirte after NATO "liberation".

The direct result of the devastation of Libya and destruction of its government infrastructure has been the massive untrammelled exodus of migrants, especially from West Africa, through Libya and across the Mediterranean on boats. This has not only led to the appalling exploitation and tragic death of many migrants, it has fundamentally weakened the governments and indeed governing public ethos of European NATO member states and led to a right wing populist surge throughout much of the EU.

In short, in destroying Libya, NATO members destabilised themselves The direct result of NATO's destruction of Libya.

Now NATO is focusing once more on the original "threat" it was supposed to combat, a Russian invasion of Western Europe.

Russia has absolutely no intention of invading Western Europe. The very notion is ludicrous. It does not require NATO to deter a threat that does not exist.

Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia alone have a combined GNP as big as Russia. On a purchasing power parity basis, if you add in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania those Eastern states still match Russia economically. On a PPP basis, the combined GDP of all NATO states is 12 times that of Russia.

Russia does have disproportionate military power for its size – but not that much. Russia's defence spending is one sixth that of NATO defence spending, though it is slightly more efficient because, despite corruption, less of Russia's defence spending goes into the pockets of arms company shareholders, lobbyists, politicians and other fatcats than happens in the West. But that cannot outweigh Russia's massive economic disadvantage. Nothing can. Russia is very well placed to defend itself, but in no position to attack major powers.

Russia's foreign policy successes – in Crimea, Syria and Georgia – have been based not on massive military strength – the NATO powers far outweigh Russia there – but simply on much better statecraft. And NATO, for all the trillions western taxpayers spend on it, has been unable to do anything about it, despite the fact that Russian actions in Crimea and Georgia have been illegal in international law.

In fact if anybody has not worked out by now that our famed nuclear arsenal is a chocolate teapot, then they have not been paying attention. In none of the recent foreign policy crises – including the North Korean nuclearisation issue – nobody, anywhere, ever has mentioned Trident missiles as part of the solution. They are utterly worthless.

The threat of a Russian attack on NATO itself is non-existent. The EU is not officially a military alliance but the idea that any part of EU territory could be subject to invasion without the rest of the EU reacting is a political impossibility. It is very plain that Vladimir Putin's policy is to reincorporate into Russia those bordering pockets of ethnic Russians in former Soviet states. But this has been approached piecemeal and avoiding major confrontation. There is no practical threat to the Baltic states whose security is already de facto guaranteed by EU membership.

So NATO's role of defence against Russia is otiose, and its wider military adventures have been a total disaster.

Finally, a thought about China. I cannot think of a parallel to China these last two decades, where any country in history has obtained so much economic pre-eminence in the World and shown so very little interest in military expansion. The invasion of Tibet occurred before China's economic flowering, and the South China Sea dispute is hardly the invasion of Iraq. I do not claim any expertise in Chinese culture or thought, but they appear to realise that dominance can be achieved by more subtle means than the sword. It is going to be a fascinating few decades as China rapidly overtakes the USA in the superpower stakes.

[Jul 04, 2018] Britain can't handle the truth so it uses "attack dogs" jornalists to discredit Mr/ Lavron. She failed miserably

This is like a chess party in real with this British journalist carefully prepared traps and polished ability to misinterpret the statements. Fascinating watch. Lavrow proved to be on the top of the game, despite severe disadvantages of not knowing what he will be asked.
Levett Prins comment is brilliant "''Are you accusing the British government of a cover-up of this incident?'' (Skripal) ... Was waiting for Lavrov to say ''Yes, it is highly likely''
Notable quotes:
"... No shortage of shameless journalists these days. I am sure this woman isn't stupid but probably she willingly accepted to carryout slanderous line of questioning in return for some money. The foreign minister totally schooled her. ..."
Jun 29, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Exclusive Channel 4 News interview with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He accuses Britain of 'extermination of the evidence' in the Skripal poisoning and of 'all kinds of tricks' to change the rules of the OPCW.

(Click to subscribe for more Channel 4 News videos.

https://www.youtube.com/channel4news?... )

He described that as a 'violation' of the chemical weapons convention and said that if the OPCW was not repaired 'the days of the OPCW would be counted, at least it would not remain as a universal organisation'

Levett Prins , 4 days ago (edited)

''Are you accusing the British government of a cover-up of this incident?'' (Skripal) ... Was waiting for Lavrov to say ''Yes, it is highly likely''

TheFreedomCycle , 3 days ago

The BS, smarmy so called journo interview was as embarrassingly short of fact and proper technique as compared with Lavrov's usual master classic diplomacy and truth telling. Having been part of this circus called British MSM journalism many years ago I see now just a cesspit of gutter process measly condoning and supporting the Western Gov narrative. No 4th estate this

Sam Which , 4 days ago

Is it just me or is her go to technique in any interview to completely misinterpret statements and then asks shitty gotcha questions based on her complete lack of understanding of what he is saying? A good interviewer holds their interviewee to account for what they say. not make up a complete competing narrative to what the person in front of them has just said and then battle that fictional ghost.

Ant Laud , 4 days ago

As Foreign Ministers go this ones pretty sharp

aligzanduh , 4 days ago

Usual venomous charade masquerading as journalism. Really childish questions and disrespectful framing. In other words a promotion awaits her!

Cabronosidad , 4 days ago

Oh dear! Kathy Newman wearing her dunce hat again. Embarrassing.

Stevie Gilbert , 4 days ago

Channel 4 news, bias propaganda machine, just as bad as the BBC, I can't watch it anymore, credability lost, goodbye Channel 4 news

TheC0mmnMann , 4 days ago

Bravo Mr. Lavrov.

poofendorf , 4 days ago

Totally outclassed her. Made her look like an imbecile.

zeitgeist , 4 days ago

C4 thumbnail "we dont like anybody" the guy was saying they keep professional state level relations between countries and C4 prints this pugnacious bs without the context? how does this not break any press laws? not that more laws are the answer theyd have a field day with their 1984 fake news label

e v , 4 days ago (edited)

What he actually talks about: diplomacy and foreign relations aren't about who you "like" and don't "like" - they're about pragmatism and interests. Video thumbnail: "We don't like anybody" This is just clickbait spin. And it doesn't help anyone.

Carlo Slats , 4 days ago

Lovely phrase somewhere around the 30th minute: The 'highly likely'- attitude.. :D

Vincent Rodriguez , 3 days ago

Let's face it, the UK is a postmodern neo-Marxist shithole, which is completely falling apart. It went passed the point of no return and now it's only a matter of time until it collapses completely.

Jermaine Charles , 3 days ago

these journalists are so embarrassing to watch. they always sadly try to interview Putin and Lavrov with these silly/fictional/propaganda questions and look stupid after!!!

titus02906 , 3 days ago

You know, as Americans, we find it hilarious that outlets like BBC and Channel 4 are considered legitimate outlets while RT is accused of being a propaganda outlet. The interviewer here proves the hypocrisy when Lavrov talks about the migrant exit provided by NATO's bombing of Libya and the interviewer accuses Russia's involvement in Syria for creating the refugee crisis. We remember - Lavrov is correct: Russia, which had, like us, a few advisers in place prior to this point, announced full-blown intervention in mid- to late August, 2015, and the full-blown intervention began in September, 2015. Those images of hundreds of thousands of migrants tramping through the Balkans, Hungary and Austria were from June-August, 2015. So, the interviewer was dutifully repeating a government propaganda line that Russia is causing the migrant crisis by intervening in Syria when the largest migrant flow preceded Russia's intervention in Syria. And of course, that propaganda line completely ignores our own State Department's statements encouraging the "Arab Spring" which made messes from which Libya, Syria and Egypt have never fully recovered. Egypt has a major problem in Sinai. Libya and Syria are complete messes. Tunisia, where it all started, has economic problems exacerbated by the attacks on tourists. The Yemen situation was part of it all, and the U.N. is projecting 18 million dead from starvation, never mind the cholera epidemic. Yes, indeed, we in the West are bringing freedom and happiness everywhere, aren't we? We learned nothing from the Soviet Union's peaceful collapse after 75 years (with no whole-hearted attempts at "regime change") and nothing from our failed experiments in "spreading democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as for the "meddling" question, well, isn't that a "When did you stop beating your wife, sir?" question.

G Engborie , 3 days ago

Kathy Newman - clearly biased. All she has is propaganda and conspiracy theories. Almost all western journalists are like this. This has serious implications for democratic societies where unbiased professional media are a pillar of democracy, keeping their people informed and able to make considered voting decisions. To me, every time they do this sort of interview, Russia looks like the good guy and the West look wicked, twisted and broken. My heart goes to Russia. They have TRUTH on their side.

Rex The Younger , 3 days ago

Christ this is a socking attempted hit piece from C4 news here. anyone with a brain can see what is happening. if you actually listen to Lavrov here he talks nothing but common sense. the thumbnail for this video is also some blatant propaganda. he never said that in the context it is presented. I am pleased people are seeing the real Russia via the world cup.

johnrb88 , 2 days ago (edited)

Cathy Newman is resolutely upholding the highest journalistic standards and ethics......of the Spanish Inquistion. The stranglehold over the media by the corrupted establishment is simply shameful. Lavrov is the patron saint of patience.

ValExperimenter , 3 days ago

Kathy you really should research before you interview, The OPCW press release on khan cheykun reads like something from the character Sir Humphry in yes minister. In the field of chemistry there is no need to rely on credibility.

g nolan , 3 days ago

Lavrov is to be taken seriously as a diplomat and a thinker. His English is most skillful and it will take a much more qualified person this young lady to lay bare his shortcomings.

Alejandro Rodriguez , 2 days ago

I thought Cathy Newman was inept, or incompetent at her job and had some contempt for her... after watching this I realize she just has no care for truth at all or for journalism. She was clearly just pushing her government's agenda while pretending to be a tough interviewer. No respect for this lady any longer. This interview was painful to watch because you could tell she wasn't listening to anything Lavrov was saying and was just waiting for an opening to launch an accusation, regardless of evidence or facts. Sad

D dicin , 3 days ago

Lavrov is hugely impressive here. I buy his side of the argument.

Fahed Sayed , 3 days ago (edited)

No shortage of shameless journalists these days. I am sure this woman isn't stupid but probably she willingly accepted to carryout slanderous line of questioning in return for some money. The foreign minister totally schooled her.

Yama Zakura , 3 days ago

Everything is fine, but unfortunately he probably just forgot to respond to this - 5:20 - "a government responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens ... a gas-killing animal ..." - that this is also a gross exaggeration based on made-up stories spun up by venal media.

Anikita Asphodelev , 4 days ago

Cruise missile and drone killing animals sponsoring msm "journalists" to challenge reality and to promote their sick warmongering propaganda narratives. Disgusting.

Steven Wilson , 4 days ago

I'm amazed this British so called reporter...Doesn't know the United States under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton...Started the coup in Syria...and Armed the terrorists with fully automatic weapons... Tow missiles and every weapon they could... to overthrow the Syrian Government. Why doesn't this woman know this before she asks misleading questions?

Mitch F , 4 days ago

Winner 2018 Tinfoil-hat Award: Channel 4 News's Kathy Newman for bringing propaganda, fake news, and "false narratives" to entirely new levels. During Newman's 34-minute interview with Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov, Newman aggressively parrots phony, dangerous accusations/representations and pushes "fake news media speaking points" intended to demonize Russia. Shockingly, Newman presents no backup, no facts, and no EVIDENCE whatsoever. Boris Johnson and Theresa May's new rule: "Guilty before trial because we said so, now sit down and shut up!", risible.

Yeni Kool , 3 days ago

I must admit, love watching these Fake Media prostitutes interview FM Lavrov, they won't present facts.. They think we the public are morons and we believe everything they say!! Thanks you BBC and C4 for showing us the people how stupid you really are.. Keep it up !

martin02031958 , 3 days ago

This is not journalism but failing effort of a propagandist's manipulation. But she simply fails outplay him. He is a top diplomat for more than 20 years; she is ridiculous trying to press him.

knowledge share , 4 days ago

The British is NOT just guilty of a cover up it was the BRITISH STATE who are 100% responsible for the Salisbury con.

knowledge share , 4 days ago

President Putin and FM Lavrov are obsessed with stability they are allergic to chaos. The notion that they promote chaos is insane.

EVZYL , 3 days ago (edited)

What a naive interviewer. Totally out of her depth, regurgitating CNN & BBC propaganda.

fight me gook yecciiss , 10 hours ago

People like this woman are completely empty. I mean that literally empty. Her assignment is to ask a sequence of questions try and cause the other person to get angry or emotional by asking provocative questions. These creatures don't understand the concept of gender. Nationality. Borders. Etc. They are psychopaths. Lavrov understands who they are that is why he can manoeuvre around her

Schlomo Weissbergman-Goldsteinwitz, Ph.D. , 2 days ago

Cathy has been trained quite well. There are, however, a couple of moments where she hams it up a bit too much. Overall, I give the performance a 7 out of 10.

G Hossain , 1 day ago

30:25 all her arguments are rebutted in one sentence.

Citizen X , 2 days ago (edited)

A World order were the Americans are sitting as the Leader at the end of the table. There will be only Chaos and endless wars !

gerald geaf , 2 days ago

Professionalism is DEAD in the West. Cathy Griffin is supposed to be a senior and experienced journalist but her questions - both avenue and phrasing - seem like a school leaver who is doing apprenticeship in reporting(not even journalism)

John Correa , 4 days ago

Wow. When you have as an interviewee someone like Sergei Lavrov, you really need to prepare your interviewer or try to get someone really knowledgeable about the matters to be discussed. This was like having a heavyweight on a ring with a newbie to boxing. Anyway, thanks to Channel 4 for the interview.

SmellMyKKPP , 21 hours ago

Lavrov is probably the best well known diplomat alive today

Roni Taylor , 4 days ago

Kudos to Cathy Newman for letting him speak! His well-informed and thoughtful views are valuable to anyone wishing to expand their own understanding, even if their initial questions are probably as asinine as these. The spasiba was a nice touch, too. Kudos also to Channel 4 for posting the full interview.

Christopher Barclay , 2 days ago

Lavrov only just controlled himself when responding to Newman's ridiculous question about Russia benefitting from the 'chaos' of Britain leaving the EU. Does she know a failed state when she sees one? Do France and Germany really need Britain to stop Europe from descending to the state of Somalia? Has the US really benefitted from the chaos that is Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan? (If your answer to the last question is 'yes', fair enough, but you are arguing that actual US foreign policy is very different to that which is publicly stated and I doubt poor little Cathy could get her head around that).

Bye Bye , 2 days ago

The brass necked bare faced audacity of 'Cathy dishonest Newman.' (In no particular order) reads notes, adopts an accusatory and dismissive head tilted eyes narrowed posture, then asks a Channel 4 gem, "Is Russia afraid of the truth."

Mark Time , 2 days ago

She got totally owned! Well done Mr Lavrov and well done to all the commentators below. Nice to see that so many people are recognising the government run MSM for what it is....a lie factory. Spread the word to all .....

James Grech , 2 days ago

Here's a straight talking politician who works his socks off for his country, put him next to his British counterpart you can clearly see who is dishonest.

Angelo , 8 hours ago

Sergey not only shows up 'Strawman' Newman as a plain and simple moron as Peterson did for overtly programming the public for a gender war, Sergey does far more and exposes the full breadth of her treachery, her being a ruthless lame stream actual war propagandist. This proud feminist woman, this virtue signalling warmongress is at once trying to divide society against itself and simultaneously pushing it into wars. Ephialtes of Trachis would be proud.

Poncenby Smithe , 1 day ago

Is Kathy Newman really the gibbering idiot she appears to be, or merely a nasty piece of work? I imagine the answer lies somewhere in between. Either way could you please find someone less aesthetically unpleasant to represent you the woman looks like a demented reptile.

CHAS1422 , 4 days ago

The immediate presumption is Bashar Assad is evil because "he kills his own people". Then she dismisses the historical context. How myopic. The insurgency in Syria has everything to do with history. The Jihadists are inspired bu the resurrection of the Islamic Caliphate. That is their inspiration, not Jeffersonian Democracy. There is a civil war and in order to fight, you must kill the enemy.

[Jul 04, 2018] Secret U.S. Wars Endanger Africa

Notable quotes:
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
Jul 04, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Secret U.S. Wars Endanger Africa

Under the pretense of waging their 'war of terror' U.S. Special Forces use lots of money and murky legal authorities to worm themselves into the intestines of Africa. Their secret action is likely to lead to more instability and is endangering the peoples of Africa and their governments.

In a recent interview Seymour Hersh spoke (@2:50m) about U.S. military operations in Africa:

"We have a big special forces community that are active particular in Africa, in lot of places. I think the public knows very little about it. I don't think my president has been briefed on it. I think he isn't interested in it or just doesn't know about it. I know there is concern among some people in the military, high up in the military, in the government, in Washington: 'What are these guys doing? Who is in control?' There is a lack of control among the special forces. Many of them are driven with the idea that they are in a crusade. That they are the Knights of Malta fighting the infidels in the 14th century or 13th century. I mean that's really crazy stuff. So when I hear in the military, what the special operations command says about Mali: 'Here is what happened when four guys died and how.' I am sorry but I think there is much more to the story, there is much more to our presence there, but it is very hard to get that stuff."

The U.S. has only few of its regular military stationed in Africa. But there are plenty of U.S. special forces there, mostly working in secret. They are supposed to be under control of AFRICOM, the imperial U.S. command for that continent.

In 2007 Moon of Alabama commentator b real wrote a three part series, Understanding AFRICOM: A Contextual Reading of Empire's New Combatant Command , which documents how and why AFRICOM came about:

In early February 2007 the White House finally announced a presidential directive to establish by September 2008 a new unified combatant command with an area of responsibility (AOR) solely dedicated to the African continent.
...
The U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) will replace the AOR for each of three other geographic combatant commands (there are now a total of six) currently tasked with portions of the second-largest continent, with the small exception of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) retaining AOR for Egypt. Further details on operations have not been made public apart from the usual basic press briefings and the formation of a transition team, though it is not a mystery to identify what role AFRICOM will play in both the U.S. and Africa's future.

Africa is huge with a relatively small population of 1.2 billion, less than India or China. Its 54 countries have various kinds of natural wealth. Next to oil, gas and uranium there are all types of strategic minerals and metals, from cobalt needed for rechargeable batteries to rare earth elements used in electronics.

... ... ...

karlof1 , Jul 3, 2018 1:04:12 PM | 7

What's being done in Africa was already done in Latin America, although the "process" down South isn't done yet. Again, as is noted, this is all about attaining access to critical resources, which is stated Outlaw US Empire policy since 1947. The overall Latin American experience is well documented in Eduardo Galeano's Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent . I see the 19th century's Scramble for Africa being replayed, although that actually began in the late 1970s via the IMF's neocolonial Structural Adjustment Policies which most of Africa still struggles to overcome. Much growling's been done in English over China's economic projection into Africa as it overturns the IMF/World Bank monopoly on neocolonial activities--although it should be noted that China is very outspoken about its efforts are not aimed at achieving classical colonial dependency over its partners. Fortunately, the Outlaw US Empire provided a glimpse of what's in store with its destruction of Libya, which even the most corrupt African leaders cannot ignore.
fastfreddy , Jul 3, 2018 1:41:47 PM | 9
Perhaps 20 years ago or more, China built a great bridge in Costa Rica which linked a remote peninsula with the mainland. In exchange, China got fishing rights. China then proceeded to slaughter as many sharks as possible. They cut off the fins and tossed the carcasses into the sea. This created an environmental and ecological situation.

There is always a trade-off of some kind. No matter which parties are involved. The Art of The Deal.

Of course, at least they got a bridge instead of mercenaries run amok or a coup.

karlof1 , Jul 3, 2018 3:40:24 PM | 13
fastfreddy @9--

Which China :

"The Taiwanese mafia dominate the shark finning industry in Costa Rica, although Indonesian gangs also have a foothold in the market.[3] The Taiwanese and Indonesian mafia operate private docks in the Puntarenas area, notably Inversiones Cruz Dock and Harezan Dock and several others where some 95% of all catches are brought in, transported by truck to San José and flown mostly to Hong Kong.[3] According to the Costa Rican customs adviser Omar Jiminez, at least three boats full of shark fins enter the ports in Puntarenas every week.[7]

Kaohsiung in Taiwan is one of the biggest ports in the world for importing shark fins. They are brought in from overseas and are placed out to dry in the sun on residential rooftops near the port."

Given the fact that the Kuomintang and its leader Chiang Kai-shek were described as "gangsters" by several high ranking US officials--Generals Marshall and Stillwell--during and after WW2, it's no surprise that it's Taiwan's Mafia in cahoots with other regional mafias that's involved in the blatant violation of law within Costa Rica and the corrupting of its police forces.

As the linked article shows, "sharkfinning" long predates the construction of the bridge mentioned and is likely unrelated to that illegal practice.

b real , Jul 3, 2018 5:45:09 PM | 14
thanks b for keeping this story in the public eye - coincidence or not i just so happen to be on the continent for july and starting to see what i can gather from my limited sources - haven't been able to follow the situation with the attention available at the time i'll have to revisit my earlier article and follow up on what i was learning then as i get settled in

on the way here via dubai i did read a congressional research rpt that brought up DOD's use of dubai forces stationed in africa for training others. no doubt there are other new "allies" pulled into that nowadays in addition to the usual powers and wannabes. and zim after mugabe is probably a good case study to further understand africom

china's big push into the continent has been in effect for nearly two decades now so i'm hoping to get a better feel for how that's played out thus far - always been a contentious presence where i am now but quite established based on the land acquisitions, amount of one-stop shops, and grocery offerings even at the one chain store i've already popped in.

Jen , Jul 3, 2018 7:06:55 PM | 15
To Karlof1 @ 13 and everyone who posted replies to Pretzel Attack in the previous comments forum:

I just found that Taiwan has been in cahoots with more than just various regional mafias in the years after WW2.

Summary by Aaron Zaidel of "Inside the League: The Shocking Exposé of how Terrorists, Nazis and Latin American Death Squads have Infiltrated the World Anti-communist League" by Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson, New York: Dood, Mead & Co., 1986.
http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357L/357Lsum_s2_AndersonAnderson.html

This paper is a summary of the first three chapters of the book, Inside the League, by Scott Anderson and Jon Anderson. The purpose of this book is to expose how leaders of the Nazis and other fascist organizations around the world have changed their allegiances from organizations of terrorism and genocide in their home countries to the more the politically popular World Anti- Communist League. This league was founded in 1966 as a public relations organization for the government of Taiwan and South Korea. They soon adopted methods of unconventional warfare including "assassinations, death squads, and sabotage through out the world." (Anderson, 11). All of these are methods adopted from the Nazis. Anderson makes the claim that many Eastern Europeans who participated in the holocaust were recruited into high intelligence positions in the United States and England. They changed their rhetoric from complaints of a Communist, Jewish, Freemason conspiracy to buzz words like anti- Bolshevism and anti- Communism to appear respectable.

One example is the story of Chirila Ciuntu, one of the leaders of the Iron Guard. When the Chairman of the Iron Guard was murdered, most of the members fled for the safety of Nazi Germany. Chirila however, went underground with some of his closest followers in Romania. When the Nazis drove the King of Romania out of the country Chirila was free to go on a killing spree in an attempt to rid Romania of the Jews. Members of the Iron Guard took to the streets to torture and then murder every Jew they could find. When the Romanians rebelled and killed many members of the Iron Guard, the Nazis came and helped many of the leaders escape, including Chirila. They were placed under protective custody and given the privileges of a German officer.

Another example is Yaroslav Stetsko, the founder of the Orgnization of the Ukranian Nationalists. The Nazis saw Ukraine as important allies because of their strong racism against ethnic Poles, Russians, and Jews. In 1941 Germany and Ukraine invaded Russia to the delight of the peasants who were under the control of Stalin's regime. It took little time however, for them to figure out that they were no better off under Hitler and Stetsko. Shortly thereafter, Stetsko declared the creation of the Ukranian State and named himself the ruler. The Nazis were alarmed by this and put him under quarantine. Anderson makes the claim that while under quarantine Stetsko continued to run concentration camps resulting in the execution of 100,000 Jews. However, in his official biography he details escapes form German concentration camps and is now generally perceived as a victim of the Nazis. Today Stetsko is a major player in the World Anti- Communist League and has brought his ruthless tactic form the WWII day with him.

Both Chirila and Stetsko are now leaders in the World Anti- Communist League. They are only two of the many cases of fascists that did not disappear from the political arena after the war. They continue to belong to an anti- Semitic organization, only now they have the front of anti- communist. These are not the only two cases of former leaders of mass genocide, covering their tracks and joining the World Anti- Communist League, only two of the more interesting cases the book mentions. This phenomenon has taken place with numerous people in the World Anti- Communist League.

In more recent history, Stetsko met with Ronald Regan at the White House to urge the U.S. to take a stronger stand against the Kremlin. Chirila now lives in Canada and is still politically active with the World Anti- Communist League. Because of their ability to hide their political past and their current agenda, and their ability to keep a clean reputation for the World Anti- communist League, " people like Chirila Ciuntu, who helped the slaughter of "Communist Jews' 45 years ago, can sit down in the same room with an Italian fascist who killed 'Reds' 10 years ago and with a Salvadorian who is killing subversives now." (Anderson, 54)

Short biographies of Yaroslav Stetsko at these links show the close connection between Taiwan and former followers of the OUN (Bandera faction):
https://www.geni.com/people/Yaroslav-Stetsko/6000000001168417042
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CS%5CT%5CStetskoYaroslav.htm

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Pft , Jul 3, 2018 7:46:35 PM | 17
The world anti communist league was a CIA established group. CIA works with mafia all over the world. Every country has some mafia elements. To imply this group is affiliated with the government of Taiwan today is Chinese propaganda.

When CKS allowed the creation of the group 50 years ago the US had a significant military and intelligence presence on the Island, same as South Korea where the group was set up soon after. Both countries were basically dependants of the US at the time and supporting the US in the war in Vietnam against the Communists. While the group still maintains an office in Taipei its daily affairs are run out of Seoul and the group is pretty much global and includes many non Asians

Peter AU 1 , Jul 3, 2018 8:12:43 PM | 18
Jen's post @15 reminded me of this (CP was the first article that came up in the search)

"The occasion was a speech given by a representative of Abbott, Craig Kelly MP. Being in Japan, Abbott had delegated the task of congratulating members of the Australian Croatian community in Sydney on Croatian independence attained in April 10. This was more than a bit awkward, given that April 10 was the date of the establishment of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ceased to exist under Axis rule in 1941. If ever you wanted to back some unsavoury company, you couldn't do much better than officials and sympathisers of the NDH.

Speaking at the Croatian Club in Sydney on April 13, Kelly's words were noted in the Australian Croatian weekly Boca KroPress: "On behalf of the Prime Minister, who is in Japan, I'm conveying his greetings and good wishes on the occasion of the celebration of the 10th of April to you and all Croats in Australia, and those in Croatia." The report also notes the presence of 200 Croats, various Australian politicians and a Ukrainian diplomat."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/21/tony-abbott-the-ndh-and-australias-fascist-affair/

ben , Jul 3, 2018 9:07:25 PM | 19
From the above article:

"To counter China the U.S. is using its 'regime change' tools and secret military operations instead of economic cooperation."

Bout' says it all. More "Full Spectrum Dominance" at the behest of the new 4th Reich.

business uber alles...

Tom in AZ , Jul 3, 2018 9:58:08 PM | 21
16 @ Wendy Davis

I have been reading Marcy Wheeler for over a decade, and b for at least two-three years. I think both are valuable bookmarks for anyone.
b hasn't seen the 'proof' of her views and fair enough. We will see when the investigations are done. That does not mean they aren't true. And it certainly does not mean the she isn't telling the truth about her personal knowledge and the threats to her, and for anyone to bemoan that without being in possession of the facts may want to examine their own assumptions.

Now, my own opinions and assumptions. My feelings about any accusations about any Russian meddling in American politics (for the record, I am an American, living in America) without acknowledging the USA's relentless meddling in the politics of almost every nation on earth for the last 70+ years is just blind, bleating by the ignorant. Which Marcy, and b, are most certainly not in my opinion. That doesn't mean they can't disagree on the facts as they see them, and I venture to say that both would change their view on something as the facts dictate.

My own feelings about this entire 'Russian meddling' in our elections would be moot if we spent any time at all trying to make the system more secure. Not black box, no paper trail machines. Not automatic purging of voter rolls because people throw political mailings in the trash. Not elimination polling stations in areas where a particular party knows they won't win. And counting paper ballots in public, and no disposing of the ballots before they can be challenged for a recount. Shut up about 'voter fraud' and start prosecuting election fraud.Then, come and talk to me about meddling in America's elections. It may start with an R in these cases, but it is certainly not Russia. Also, if you want to win an election for president, then campaign in every state. Every time.

Jen , Jul 3, 2018 10:58:57 PM | 23
Pft @ 17:

Where in my comment @ 15 am I referring to Chinese propaganda?

Geni.com is based in California. The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine is based in Edmonton (Alberta) and Toronto (Ontario), both in Canada. The link to the summary of the Andersons' book is based in Texas. Both Scott and Jon Lee Anderson are also American. All the information on Stetsko and his association with the World Anti-Communist League I found can be Googled. The League's Wikipedia entry states that Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kaishek) as President of the Republic of China aka Taiwan was a co-founder of the Asian Pacific League for Freedom and Democracy in 1954. THe APLFD later became the World Anti-Communist League in 1966.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_League_for_Freedom_and_Democracy

Chipnik , Jul 3, 2018 11:34:53 PM | 24
I read, and I don't know whether it's true or not, but one of Obama's first acts was to create AfriCom, and that same week, the government of Nigeria nationalized all the lands and resources out from under the people, exactly like Cheney and then Clinton did in Afghanistan, writing the Afghan National Minerals and Petroleum Acts IN ENGLISH, IN NOVEMBER 2001, in the US, before putting Karzai in as EXECUTOR (President) instead of Prime Minister, because the Executive can wield that nationalization power.

Karzai took Cheney's bribes, took Clinton's $B bribes, then leased the resources to India and China instead, lol. All of which to say, US mercs have been trooping around Africa since Rhodesia, and they're just hired guns for some cartel.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 3, 2018 11:44:09 PM | 25
24
I have been looking to see if the US move into Africa was connected to the pivot to Asia Pacific.
Rand corp put together a strategy for a naval blockade/siege on China, but the real move may be a blockade of the resources China needs.

[Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

Highly recommended!
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Recently came across the following article written by F. William Engdahl in 1996 which might be of interest to some here:

The secret financial network behind "wizard" George Soros

The last page of the above article can be found here:

Soros's looting of Ibero-America

Posted by: integer | Jul 2, 2018 4:49:45 AM | 35

[Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

Highly recommended!
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Recently came across the following article written by F. William Engdahl in 1996 which might be of interest to some here:

The secret financial network behind "wizard" George Soros

The last page of the above article can be found here:

Soros's looting of Ibero-America

Posted by: integer | Jul 2, 2018 4:49:45 AM | 35

[Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to us." ..."
"... I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was: ..."
"... To steal the nationalized oil ..."
"... To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver. ..."
"... To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF. ..."
"... I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there. Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter L. | Jul 1, 2018 11:21:17 PM | 23

Hello There! I'm curious to know if any readers have comments about a recent Sy Hersh interview. In response to a question about Russian interference in the last US presidential election Hersh replied:

"I have been reporting something, I've been watching something since 2011 in Libya, when we had a secretary of state that later ran for president, and I will tell you: Some stories take a long time. And I don't know quite how to package it. I don't know how much to say about it. I assure you that there's no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC, Podesta e-mails. That did not happen. I can say that.

I can also say Russia learned other things about what was going on in Libya with us and instead of blowing -- [. . . lots cut out here before returning to the topic . . . ] The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to us."

The full text is at the Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2018/06/27/intercepted-live-from-brooklyn-with-sy-hersh-mariame-kaba-lee-gelernt-and-narcy/

Does anyone have any comments on what Sy Hersh is discussing? Who is he talking about?

Daniel , Jul 2, 2018 2:24:48 AM | 31
Peter L. @23

I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was:

  1. To steal the nationalized oil
  2. To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver.
  3. To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF.

I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there. Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped.

If I come up with more after listening, I'll post again.

[Jul 03, 2018] Corruption Allegations are one of the classic tools in the color revolution toolbox

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I guess the CIA couldn't credibly stop AMLO from winning the election by popular vote and that major mass-media confidently plans to set on fire: paper bag after bag of ca-ca, on the front steps of Los Pinos whilst cooking-up virulent "anti-corruption" impeachment against the new president, a la Lula in Brazil. ..."
"... "Corruption Allegations" are one of the tools in the toolbox. It's how that evil Harper came to power in Canada. He's still lurking among the other nefarious vampires intent on destroying the commons. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Guerrero | Jul 2, 2018 1:44:41 PM | 50

@ fastfreddy

I wonder why it appears that the USA did not sufficiently meddle in the Mex. election. Typically the US heavily involves itself to ensure a compliant austerity type is elected.

Lopez Obredor was robbed of the Presidency in 2006; there was a prolonged organized popular protest.

I guess the CIA couldn't credibly stop AMLO from winning the election by popular vote and that major mass-media confidently plans to set on fire: paper bag after bag of ca-ca, on the front steps of Los Pinos whilst cooking-up virulent "anti-corruption" impeachment against the new president, a la Lula in Brazil.

fastfreddy , Jul 2, 2018 2:06:24 PM | 51

I remember that now. Same Obredor of 2006 who was expected to win at that time. There were USA instigated riots and a USA instigated vote recount too, IIRC.

Yes, I suppose they intend to Lula him - Which will begin very soon.

"Corruption Allegations" are one of the tools in the toolbox. It's how that evil Harper came to power in Canada. He's still lurking among the other nefarious vampires intent on destroying the commons.

[Jul 03, 2018] The role of diaspora might be as destructive in Ukraine as it was in Iraq and Iran

Notable quotes:
"... The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jul 2, 2018 4:37:58 AM | 37

There was a distinct change earlier this year, after the second US fusillade of cruise missiles, and the Israeli bombing of "Iranian" bases in Syria.

We were all expecting further military action, but nothing happened, in particular no more Israeli action, although Iranian forces in Syria were hardly damaged.

Instead they started muttering about subversion of the Iranian state from the inside, which is what b is writing about here. That was a big sign that the all-out assault on Iran has been called off.

Why? Evidently because the military say no. The scenario was the same as the one back in 2012, the last time we thought to see Israeli aircraft getting permission from Saudi to do their bombing runs on Iran, but it didn't happen then, because the Israeli military were saying no. Evidently the position hasn't changed, I was relieved to discover, although the propagandists claimed the plan is all worked out now, and Iran has little defence.

Well, internal subversion of the regime, then. Hasn't the US been attempting to do precisely that for 40 years now, ever since the revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979? What are the conditions which mean that they are going to succeed now, when they've failed for 40 years?

The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority.

I don't want to get into a historical disquisition (which in any case I've said before), but the reason this works is that there's history behind it - I'm pretty sure that the original Islamisation of Iran (I don't mean the Arab conquest, but the conversion of the country) was a popular revolt against the pre-Islamic nationalist aristocracy, who didn't pay any taxes. The present-day Iranian exiles attach themselves strongly to that old nationalist aristocracy, including most academics of Iranian origin in western universities. They don't seem to notice that the class they admire grindingly oppressed the poor, such that it led to a revolution.

sorry for that rant, as Debs would say.

[Jul 03, 2018] Is reconsiliation still possible?

Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

currently having an online debate about conditions in the crimea, specifically alleged russian oppression of crimeans in 2018, but also conditions leading up to the initial referendum (my opponents claim annexation or conquest, and cite a freedom house survey to back it up--from what i can see freedom house is fully funded by the us govt). my understanding is the us fomented the coup in ukraine, along with nato, as opposed to the ukrainian people rebelling against a russian puppet, which is the us line i believe. any articles or sources detailing the us role in all this, or rebutting claims that crimeans are being terrified into silence in 2018 about russian oppression, would be appreciated.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Jul 1, 2018 2:05:08 PM | 3

somebody , Jul 1, 2018 4:01:34 PM | 5

3 Just quoting "Western" mainstream sources:

BBC?

"Ethnic Russians in the majority, Tartars and Ukrainians in the minority."

Carnegie?

About half of the respondents admit to having been taken by surprise by Russia's actions in 2014. Interestingly, there is agreement among the Crimean population, including the Crimean Tatars, that successive Ukrainian governments had neglected the region. Roughly one third of respondents pointed to this neglect as the main cause of the developments in 2014. ... The majority of survey respondents agree with the statement that the different ethnic groups in Crimea currently live peacefully side by side. Twenty percent disagree "fully" or "rather" with this statement, thereby indicating both an uncertainty and unease with the situation at the moment that reaches beyond the Crimean Tatar share of the population (about 12 percent). This result is mirrored in the reaction to the ban on the main political Crimean Tatar organization, the Mejlis, by the Russian authorities: 20 percent "fully" or "rather" disagreed with this step, compared to 80 percent endorsing this policy. ... The survey clearly spells out the severe disruption of links to the rest of Ukraine, limited travel to other parts of Russia, the absence of personal international reference points, and a near-complete integration into the Russian media sphere.

This combination makes any change in the opinions of the majority of the Crimean population on the annexation unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, it is also clear that the Crimean population's high expectations in the Russian economy and trust in Russian (but not Crimean) institutions needs to be carefully managed by Moscow in view of the already strained financial situation of the majority of the Crimean population.

Compare to Ukraine

The authors are also cautious about drawing overly-optimistic conclusions about the present time: "The risk of conflict emerging within Ukrainian society and growing serious remains, based on noticeable differences among residents of different regions about the further geopolitical direction the country should move in. There are also serious problems connected to restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity and the model of coexistence with those living in the regions that are currently occupied, how to reach reconciliation and mutual understanding." ...

Joining the EU remains a strong desire among a majority of Ukrainians. In September 2016, 51% of those surveyed by the Rating Group put integration with the EU ahead of joining Russia's Customs Union or some other association. Still, in Rating's September 2015 survey, 57% of Ukrainians did so, and in September 2014, 59% did. This noticeable decline could be the result of a number of factors. For one thing, the Association Agreement did not have a noticeable impact on the standard of living of most Ukrainians. Many Ukrainians are also upset at what they see as the European Union's limp response to Russia's aggression against their country. And the way the granting of a visa-free regime to the EU has been dragged out for years and the obvious internal squabbles among the Union's members have also left their imprint on Ukrainians.

Ukraine is a very diverse country. Trump coming to an agreement with Putin that eases tensions instead of agreeing/dividing on spheres of influence would be their best hope.

PavewayIV , Jul 1, 2018 6:26:14 PM | 8
pretzelattack@3 re: "...rebutting claims that crimeans are being terrified into silence in 2018 about russian oppression."

I honestly have not heard anything about actual oppression - just that some Ukrainians and Tartars are still - today - not terribly happy with the secession/annexation/transfer. Acts of civil disobedience were generally individual, "I don't want to be part of Russia and I'm not signing these papers or paying taxes," kind of thing. I know any polls of Crimeans are noted to be terribly flawed - neither the pro-Russian nor the pro-Ukraine people trust anyone taking polls. They'll not answer or give an answer that seems to agree with whatever 'side' the pollster might be from.

I can't see how this issue could be fairly considered without at least an acknowledgement that in 1954, 1.1 million people in Crimea woke up one day to find they were now citizens of the Ukraine SSR. No polls, no vote, no discussion and no terribly good reasons.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 6:27:35 PM | 9
Pretzel Attack @ 3:

If you need sources to back up your argument that the US helped to foment the Maidan uprising that overthrew the Yanukovych government, here are a couple that feature a video and a transcript of a phone conversation.

Information CLearing House: Victoria Nuland [former US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe during Obama administration] Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian "Democratic Institutions"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm

The article includes the video of the speech Nuland gave to the Washington press corp in December 2013 in which she talks about "investing" the $5 billion.

A transcript of the phone call between Nuland and the then US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who to select for the post-Yanukovych government in Kiev at this Global Research link:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-eu-clash-on-how-to-install-a-puppet-regime-in-ukraine-victoria-nuland/5367794

This is the famous phone call in which Nuland utters her most memorable lines: "Yats [Yatsenyuk] is the guy [for deputy prime minister]" and "Fuck the EU".

-----

I have also found details of the Korsun massacre incident that occurred on 20 February 2014. I had known about this massacre but in a hazy way and had thought only a few people had been killed. However this incident is much more grave and this was the stimulus for the Crimeans to organise their independence referendum and break away from Ukraine.

Eight buses of Crimean supporters of the Yanukovych government were returning to Crimea when the convoy was ambushed by Nazi thugs (who had known of the convoy's movements in advance). The thugs ordered everyone off the buses, beat them up and tortured them. Several people were killed.

More details of the Korsun incident at this Fort Russ link:
https://www.fort-russ.com/2015/02/korsun-massacre-anniversary-what-really/

karlof1 , Jul 1, 2018 6:47:59 PM | 10
Crimeans are very pleased about their reaffiliation with Russia. To say otherwise is to lie, pure and simple.
dh , Jul 1, 2018 6:51:06 PM | 11
@3 You can add this to Jen @9...

"Americans prepared very seriously and thoroughly for their entrance into Crimea, – said a member of the Federation Council Committee on defense and security, Dmitry Sablin. – A year before the events on Maidan in Kiev, they made repair estimates of a number of buildings in Sevastopol and in Simferopol, where they planned to house the headquarters and intelligence units. Military airfields and garrisons, which then belonged to Ukraine, they considered as their own military installations and even sent instructions for their conversion to NATO standards. In the plans of the U.S. military April 2014 was the start time of upgrades in Crimea. It seemed to them that the issue has been settled. But the referendum had thrown off their plans, and on March 18, Crimea became Russian again, where the overseas guests were no longer welcome. Americans later themselves acknowledged that the Russians outplayed them on all counts. Well, and from helplessness imposed sanctions -- as a revenge for Crimea".

https://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/how-russia-ruined-american-plans-in/

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 7:02:07 PM | 12
Pretzel Attack @ 3:

Here's a Russia Insight documentary in which survivors of the Korsun massacre help re-enact the incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ummUo7DEEzM

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 7:08:28 PM | 13
Pretzel Attack @ 3

You can add this to DH @ 11:

Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine
Solicitation Number: N33191-13-R-1240
Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Location: NAVFAC Europe and Southwest Asia
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

This is the tender put out by the US Navy to invite private companies to propose renovation plans for a school for naval officers' children in the military base in Sevastopol.

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 7:08:28 PM | 13 Daniel , Jul 1, 2018 7:40:45 PM | 14
Sabine @6: On political/national/ethnic determinations.

It is a messy situation. I had thought one of the reasons we hate the Nazis is because ethno-nationalism is evil. And yet, most of the West's leaders fully support Israel, and the AZ Empire is promoting Kurdish ethno-states in Iraq and Syria (though not in Turkey, where 50% of all Kurds live).

We were all ready to accept a referendum that would have seen Scotland secede from Great Britain, and yet when people in regions of 1991 Ukraine resisted the Western-fomented coup in 2014, and voted to secede, we are told they are terrorists to be crushed.

Most of the national borders in the Middle East and Africa were created by an elite in Great Britain and Europe, which divided families and crammed together enemies, creating the inevitable century of turmoil. And yet, here most of us support the sovereignty of some of those artificially-created neocolonial states.

Messy.

Personally, I believe in the right to self-determination. If a group of people in a region choose to form, or dissolve, or maintain, or expand a political entity, then they should be allowed to. Such decisions should be made by the will of those people only.

What I see as illegitimate is people from outside that region interfering to force their will on others.

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 8:42:46 PM | 17
Pretzel Attack @ 3:

I keep finding juicy things for you!

Here is a link to a documentary "Crimea for Dummies" by Los Angeles-based film-maker Miguel Francis Santiago in 2014. Watch it and judge for yourself whether Crimeans seem genuinely happy at being part of Russia again.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/06/17/sunday-screening-crimea-for-dummies-2014/

MFS also travelled to the Donbass and made a documentary about his journey there. I saw the documentary a couple of years ago and from memory I believe he met Givi, one of the Donbass military commanders. Givi died in early 2017 when a missile hit his office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukQgVoTnAuE

Daniel , Jul 1, 2018 9:32:44 PM | 19
Jen. Thanks for the great links on the Ukraine situation. Oliver Stone created a stunning documentary, that is the best on the subject I've seen: "Ukraine on Fire"

Unfortunately, it appears to be banned or at lest heavily censored within the US. I saw it on RT.

I found a version with foreign language over-dubbing which my ear finds difficult. But it does have CC in English.

Grieved , Jul 2, 2018 12:08:00 AM | 25
@3 pretzelattack

I second all of the very valuable responses made to you, but no story of Crimea would be complete without Crimea. The Way Home. Documentary by Andrey Kondrashev

I've seen several uploads of this documentary, which was made in 2015. But the resolution of this version is superb. I recommend it for everyone actually, and I'm happy to say that it's being hosted on the Vesti News channel - which is worth exploring in its own right.

This is the definitive story told from the inside of the people of Crimea forming a resistance force to take their land back from Ukraine. It was already happening but the Korsun massacre detailed above by commenters was the galvanizing point that showed the Crimeans that Kiev was coming to massacre it also, unless it resisted. And as everyone knew, Crimea was hated most of all, and its suffering would be far worse than that of Donbass.

Kondrashev is a popular Russian news commentator, and he interviews Putin extensively in the film. This was made one year after the Crimea restoration to Russia, after the events of that time, coordinated by Putin, were de-classified.

The documentary is a dramatic and stirring work. You will be totally in love with with Crimea and the Russian people by the end of it. And you will understand how the Maidan was a US color revolution in classical style. Your heart will jump when you see the snipers kill the hard-pressed Berkut. And it's a true story, made from real footage, and with parts reenacted by the actual people.

When the polite green men show up, in the very nick of time, you may find yourself weeping with gladness.

[Jul 03, 2018] Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere

Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website June 30, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT

@FKA Max

National identity in USSR was important. Well, it is always important and yes, there was latent antisemitism (or whatever it is called) in some spheres of Soviet life. Not as big, though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to listen.

AnonFromTN , July 2, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere. Antisemitsm was by ~90% the myth created by these people. One example I know first-hand: in my year at the school of Biology in the best and most privileged Moscow State University about 20-25% of students were Jewish or half-Jewish, whereas Jews constituted 2-3% of the USSR population.

[Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

Highly recommended!
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Recently came across the following article written by F. William Engdahl in 1996 which might be of interest to some here:

The secret financial network behind "wizard" George Soros

The last page of the above article can be found here:

Soros's looting of Ibero-America

Posted by: integer | Jul 2, 2018 4:49:45 AM | 35

[Jul 03, 2018] No one actually has to act against US shale - it s something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long been commented upon

Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved , Jul 1, 2018 11:31:44 PM | 30

@24 Peter AU 1

I encourage you to give the Escobar article a second reading. I just did to make sure I knew what it was saying. I think karlof1 is making the right points from it.

The collaboration between Saudia Arabia and Russia is a very small part of the article, and no one disputes that this collaboration is occurring. Russia may even be part of OPEC soon, if it chooses. The relationship works against the US but it's not specifically made for this reason. Read Adam Garrie's take on this to see that the moves into OPEC by Russia in recent years are clearly from its own interest as a hugely major supplier, and that Saudi Arabia needs Russia: The New Russia-Saudi Partnership Has Riyadh's US Ally Over a Barrel

I just skimmed it a third time and I don't see Escobar saying anywhere that the Saudi-Russia relationship is to kill US shale. He does say that both Russia and Iran are interested in countering it. I think the point here is that all serious oil producers with profitable reserves take alarm at the US shale oil because it's hard to say that it's a real commodity with an inbuilt profitability. It's a short-term entry into the market that can serve to disrupt the market temporarily, but it has no staying power. I suspect most nations would prefer it simply not intrude.

No one actually has to act against US shale - it's something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long been commented upon. Escobar's point that the US shale is largely a myth is not a new concept. At best the reserve will deplete within 15 years, and that's at best - along the way it will destroy the US potable water table. And its intrinsic value is far from clear, since the entire industry is dubiously financed using relatively free Federal Reserve money. As Escobar points out, many call $100 per barrel the profit threshold for shale - that's a ludicrously high bar for profitability in the oil world.

Much of Escobar's article was about the relationship between Russia and Iran, and it served also as a very good primer in world oil and petro-currency numbers. I found it pretty sound.

In fact, I recommend it to those who may be interested: How the Iran sanctions drama intersects with OPEC-plus

[Jul 03, 2018] Clearly the reason for the Trump-Putin summit should be obvious to all by now

Notable quotes:
"... You don't need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves. ..."
"... Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be. ..."
"... Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees. ..."
"... A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks. ..."
"... Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump. Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating. ..."
"... The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Julian , Jul 1, 2018 1:02:37 PM | 4

Clearly the reason for the Trump-Putin summit should be obvious to all by now

Trump to Putin: We will give you Syria & NordStream II. And in return all we ask is that you stand aside from Iran.

What will Putin do?

And what about the Ukrainian Elections coming up???

Surely Putin has to demand more to stand aside from Iran. Crimea for starters.

PutinToTrump , Jul 1, 2018 1:32:09 PM | 6

We already have Syria and the Crimea.
You don't need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves.
Šabaniri , Jul 1, 2018 2:02:23 PM | 7
@4, Syria is not Trump's to give. They already lost it.

Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be.

So - Trump has nothing and you think he will be given head of a Russian neigboor, SCO ally, fellow Empire target?
No way.

Yonatan , Jul 1, 2018 4:33:10 PM | 11
Julian @4

Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees.

Also Crimea is non-negotiable for Russia. It is Russian territory irrespective of what happens.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 1, 2018 11:14:41 PM | 27
Julian 26

A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks.

bevin , Jul 1, 2018 11:22:39 PM | 28
Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump. Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating.

Incidentally it is very easy and probably wise to promise the US, in June, not to buy oil in November. It costs nothing and fits into bazaar bargaining strategies.

The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast.

[Jul 03, 2018] Is reconsiliation still possible?

Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

currently having an online debate about conditions in the crimea, specifically alleged russian oppression of crimeans in 2018, but also conditions leading up to the initial referendum (my opponents claim annexation or conquest, and cite a freedom house survey to back it up--from what i can see freedom house is fully funded by the us govt). my understanding is the us fomented the coup in ukraine, along with nato, as opposed to the ukrainian people rebelling against a russian puppet, which is the us line i believe. any articles or sources detailing the us role in all this, or rebutting claims that crimeans are being terrified into silence in 2018 about russian oppression, would be appreciated.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Jul 1, 2018 2:05:08 PM | 3

somebody , Jul 1, 2018 4:01:34 PM | 5

3 Just quoting "Western" mainstream sources:

BBC?

"Ethnic Russians in the majority, Tartars and Ukrainians in the minority."

Carnegie?

About half of the respondents admit to having been taken by surprise by Russia's actions in 2014. Interestingly, there is agreement among the Crimean population, including the Crimean Tatars, that successive Ukrainian governments had neglected the region. Roughly one third of respondents pointed to this neglect as the main cause of the developments in 2014. ... The majority of survey respondents agree with the statement that the different ethnic groups in Crimea currently live peacefully side by side. Twenty percent disagree "fully" or "rather" with this statement, thereby indicating both an uncertainty and unease with the situation at the moment that reaches beyond the Crimean Tatar share of the population (about 12 percent). This result is mirrored in the reaction to the ban on the main political Crimean Tatar organization, the Mejlis, by the Russian authorities: 20 percent "fully" or "rather" disagreed with this step, compared to 80 percent endorsing this policy. ... The survey clearly spells out the severe disruption of links to the rest of Ukraine, limited travel to other parts of Russia, the absence of personal international reference points, and a near-complete integration into the Russian media sphere.

This combination makes any change in the opinions of the majority of the Crimean population on the annexation unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, it is also clear that the Crimean population's high expectations in the Russian economy and trust in Russian (but not Crimean) institutions needs to be carefully managed by Moscow in view of the already strained financial situation of the majority of the Crimean population.

Compare to Ukraine

The authors are also cautious about drawing overly-optimistic conclusions about the present time: "The risk of conflict emerging within Ukrainian society and growing serious remains, based on noticeable differences among residents of different regions about the further geopolitical direction the country should move in. There are also serious problems connected to restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity and the model of coexistence with those living in the regions that are currently occupied, how to reach reconciliation and mutual understanding." ...

Joining the EU remains a strong desire among a majority of Ukrainians. In September 2016, 51% of those surveyed by the Rating Group put integration with the EU ahead of joining Russia's Customs Union or some other association. Still, in Rating's September 2015 survey, 57% of Ukrainians did so, and in September 2014, 59% did. This noticeable decline could be the result of a number of factors. For one thing, the Association Agreement did not have a noticeable impact on the standard of living of most Ukrainians. Many Ukrainians are also upset at what they see as the European Union's limp response to Russia's aggression against their country. And the way the granting of a visa-free regime to the EU has been dragged out for years and the obvious internal squabbles among the Union's members have also left their imprint on Ukrainians.

Ukraine is a very diverse country. Trump coming to an agreement with Putin that eases tensions instead of agreeing/dividing on spheres of influence would be their best hope.

PavewayIV , Jul 1, 2018 6:26:14 PM | 8
pretzelattack@3 re: "...rebutting claims that crimeans are being terrified into silence in 2018 about russian oppression."

I honestly have not heard anything about actual oppression - just that some Ukrainians and Tartars are still - today - not terribly happy with the secession/annexation/transfer. Acts of civil disobedience were generally individual, "I don't want to be part of Russia and I'm not signing these papers or paying taxes," kind of thing. I know any polls of Crimeans are noted to be terribly flawed - neither the pro-Russian nor the pro-Ukraine people trust anyone taking polls. They'll not answer or give an answer that seems to agree with whatever 'side' the pollster might be from.

I can't see how this issue could be fairly considered without at least an acknowledgement that in 1954, 1.1 million people in Crimea woke up one day to find they were now citizens of the Ukraine SSR. No polls, no vote, no discussion and no terribly good reasons.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 6:27:35 PM | 9
Pretzel Attack @ 3:

If you need sources to back up your argument that the US helped to foment the Maidan uprising that overthrew the Yanukovych government, here are a couple that feature a video and a transcript of a phone conversation.

Information CLearing House: Victoria Nuland [former US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe during Obama administration] Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian "Democratic Institutions"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm

The article includes the video of the speech Nuland gave to the Washington press corp in December 2013 in which she talks about "investing" the $5 billion.

A transcript of the phone call between Nuland and the then US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who to select for the post-Yanukovych government in Kiev at this Global Research link:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-eu-clash-on-how-to-install-a-puppet-regime-in-ukraine-victoria-nuland/5367794

This is the famous phone call in which Nuland utters her most memorable lines: "Yats [Yatsenyuk] is the guy [for deputy prime minister]" and "Fuck the EU".

-----

I have also found details of the Korsun massacre incident that occurred on 20 February 2014. I had known about this massacre but in a hazy way and had thought only a few people had been killed. However this incident is much more grave and this was the stimulus for the Crimeans to organise their independence referendum and break away from Ukraine.

Eight buses of Crimean supporters of the Yanukovych government were returning to Crimea when the convoy was ambushed by Nazi thugs (who had known of the convoy's movements in advance). The thugs ordered everyone off the buses, beat them up and tortured them. Several people were killed.

More details of the Korsun incident at this Fort Russ link:
https://www.fort-russ.com/2015/02/korsun-massacre-anniversary-what-really/

karlof1 , Jul 1, 2018 6:47:59 PM | 10
Crimeans are very pleased about their reaffiliation with Russia. To say otherwise is to lie, pure and simple.
dh , Jul 1, 2018 6:51:06 PM | 11
@3 You can add this to Jen @9...

"Americans prepared very seriously and thoroughly for their entrance into Crimea, – said a member of the Federation Council Committee on defense and security, Dmitry Sablin. – A year before the events on Maidan in Kiev, they made repair estimates of a number of buildings in Sevastopol and in Simferopol, where they planned to house the headquarters and intelligence units. Military airfields and garrisons, which then belonged to Ukraine, they considered as their own military installations and even sent instructions for their conversion to NATO standards. In the plans of the U.S. military April 2014 was the start time of upgrades in Crimea. It seemed to them that the issue has been settled. But the referendum had thrown off their plans, and on March 18, Crimea became Russian again, where the overseas guests were no longer welcome. Americans later themselves acknowledged that the Russians outplayed them on all counts. Well, and from helplessness imposed sanctions -- as a revenge for Crimea".

https://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/how-russia-ruined-american-plans-in/

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 7:02:07 PM | 12
Pretzel Attack @ 3:

Here's a Russia Insight documentary in which survivors of the Korsun massacre help re-enact the incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ummUo7DEEzM

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 7:08:28 PM | 13
Pretzel Attack @ 3

You can add this to DH @ 11:

Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine
Solicitation Number: N33191-13-R-1240
Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Location: NAVFAC Europe and Southwest Asia
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb&tab=core&_cview=1

This is the tender put out by the US Navy to invite private companies to propose renovation plans for a school for naval officers' children in the military base in Sevastopol.

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 7:08:28 PM | 13 Daniel , Jul 1, 2018 7:40:45 PM | 14
Sabine @6: On political/national/ethnic determinations.

It is a messy situation. I had thought one of the reasons we hate the Nazis is because ethno-nationalism is evil. And yet, most of the West's leaders fully support Israel, and the AZ Empire is promoting Kurdish ethno-states in Iraq and Syria (though not in Turkey, where 50% of all Kurds live).

We were all ready to accept a referendum that would have seen Scotland secede from Great Britain, and yet when people in regions of 1991 Ukraine resisted the Western-fomented coup in 2014, and voted to secede, we are told they are terrorists to be crushed.

Most of the national borders in the Middle East and Africa were created by an elite in Great Britain and Europe, which divided families and crammed together enemies, creating the inevitable century of turmoil. And yet, here most of us support the sovereignty of some of those artificially-created neocolonial states.

Messy.

Personally, I believe in the right to self-determination. If a group of people in a region choose to form, or dissolve, or maintain, or expand a political entity, then they should be allowed to. Such decisions should be made by the will of those people only.

What I see as illegitimate is people from outside that region interfering to force their will on others.

Jen , Jul 1, 2018 8:42:46 PM | 17
Pretzel Attack @ 3:

I keep finding juicy things for you!

Here is a link to a documentary "Crimea for Dummies" by Los Angeles-based film-maker Miguel Francis Santiago in 2014. Watch it and judge for yourself whether Crimeans seem genuinely happy at being part of Russia again.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/06/17/sunday-screening-crimea-for-dummies-2014/

MFS also travelled to the Donbass and made a documentary about his journey there. I saw the documentary a couple of years ago and from memory I believe he met Givi, one of the Donbass military commanders. Givi died in early 2017 when a missile hit his office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukQgVoTnAuE

Daniel , Jul 1, 2018 9:32:44 PM | 19
Jen. Thanks for the great links on the Ukraine situation. Oliver Stone created a stunning documentary, that is the best on the subject I've seen: "Ukraine on Fire"

Unfortunately, it appears to be banned or at lest heavily censored within the US. I saw it on RT.

I found a version with foreign language over-dubbing which my ear finds difficult. But it does have CC in English.

Grieved , Jul 2, 2018 12:08:00 AM | 25
@3 pretzelattack

I second all of the very valuable responses made to you, but no story of Crimea would be complete without Crimea. The Way Home. Documentary by Andrey Kondrashev

I've seen several uploads of this documentary, which was made in 2015. But the resolution of this version is superb. I recommend it for everyone actually, and I'm happy to say that it's being hosted on the Vesti News channel - which is worth exploring in its own right.

This is the definitive story told from the inside of the people of Crimea forming a resistance force to take their land back from Ukraine. It was already happening but the Korsun massacre detailed above by commenters was the galvanizing point that showed the Crimeans that Kiev was coming to massacre it also, unless it resisted. And as everyone knew, Crimea was hated most of all, and its suffering would be far worse than that of Donbass.

Kondrashev is a popular Russian news commentator, and he interviews Putin extensively in the film. This was made one year after the Crimea restoration to Russia, after the events of that time, coordinated by Putin, were de-classified.

The documentary is a dramatic and stirring work. You will be totally in love with with Crimea and the Russian people by the end of it. And you will understand how the Maidan was a US color revolution in classical style. Your heart will jump when you see the snipers kill the hard-pressed Berkut. And it's a true story, made from real footage, and with parts reenacted by the actual people.

When the polite green men show up, in the very nick of time, you may find yourself weeping with gladness.

[Jul 03, 2018] The role of diaspora might be as destructive in Ukraine as it was in Iraq and Iran

Notable quotes:
"... The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jul 2, 2018 4:37:58 AM | 37

There was a distinct change earlier this year, after the second US fusillade of cruise missiles, and the Israeli bombing of "Iranian" bases in Syria.

We were all expecting further military action, but nothing happened, in particular no more Israeli action, although Iranian forces in Syria were hardly damaged.

Instead they started muttering about subversion of the Iranian state from the inside, which is what b is writing about here. That was a big sign that the all-out assault on Iran has been called off.

Why? Evidently because the military say no. The scenario was the same as the one back in 2012, the last time we thought to see Israeli aircraft getting permission from Saudi to do their bombing runs on Iran, but it didn't happen then, because the Israeli military were saying no. Evidently the position hasn't changed, I was relieved to discover, although the propagandists claimed the plan is all worked out now, and Iran has little defence.

Well, internal subversion of the regime, then. Hasn't the US been attempting to do precisely that for 40 years now, ever since the revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979? What are the conditions which mean that they are going to succeed now, when they've failed for 40 years?

The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority.

I don't want to get into a historical disquisition (which in any case I've said before), but the reason this works is that there's history behind it - I'm pretty sure that the original Islamisation of Iran (I don't mean the Arab conquest, but the conversion of the country) was a popular revolt against the pre-Islamic nationalist aristocracy, who didn't pay any taxes. The present-day Iranian exiles attach themselves strongly to that old nationalist aristocracy, including most academics of Iranian origin in western universities. They don't seem to notice that the class they admire grindingly oppressed the poor, such that it led to a revolution.

sorry for that rant, as Debs would say.

[Jul 03, 2018] Guerrero

Jul 03, 2018 | mexico-nostalgia.net

| Jul 2, 2018 2:12:08 PM | 52

[Jul 03, 2018] Well, internal subversion of the regime, is an old already tried game. Hasn't the US been attempting to do precisely that for 40 years now, ever since the revolution overthrew the Shah

The thing that changed is the size of Iran population. there might be a "population bomb" in Iran similar to one that detonated in Syria, which allow forming militant opposition to government with the support of some regions or section of population, financed by and armed by the West. Essentially replay of Syrian scenario.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Julian , Jul 2, 2018 4:23:26 AM | 36

Re: Posted by: Ian | Jul 1, 2018 11:31:23 PM | 29

When I say military action I'm suggesting strikes. No invasion - simply not feasible. A rain of tomahawks onto various Iranian military strikes.

This is also why Russia might be tempted not to intervene.

The question immediately becomes, how does Iran respond? Particularly if all these strikes are launched from far-off US assets? Ships in the Arabian Sea and planes from Diego Garcia, Europe or even further afield.

Strikes designed to degrade Iranian military capabilities without perhaps rising to a level of prompting a full-throated Iranian military response.

I might add - these strikes would not be launched from any US military assets in UAE or Saudi Arabia, or Israel for that matter - meaning striking back against these targets would carry certain risks. Ie, Russia might say to Iran, only strike back against whoever carried out these strikes, not regional enemies who didn't take part in them.

See how the game is played?

Plausible deniability. "Rules" of Engagement. Etc. Etc.

Iran would be in a very difficult position with any response against UAE/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait being painted as aggression by the wider media.

Do you have any doubt this is how it would be sold?

Laguerre , Jul 2, 2018 4:37:58 AM | 37
There was a distinct change earlier this year, after the second US fusillade of cruise missiles, and the Israeli bombing of "Iranian" bases in Syria.

We were all expecting further military action, but nothing happened, in particular no more Israeli action, although Iranian forces in Syria were hardly damaged.

Instead they started muttering about subversion of the Iranian state from the inside, which is what b is writing about here. That was a big sign that the all-out assault on Iran has been called off.

Why? Evidently because the military say no. The scenario was the same as the one back in 2012, the last time we thought to see Israeli aircraft getting permission from Saudi to do their bombing runs on Iran, but it didn't happen then, because the Israeli military were saying no. Evidently the position hasn't changed, I was relieved to discover, although the propagandists claimed the plan is all worked out now, and Iran has little defence.

Well, internal subversion of the regime, then. Hasn't the US been attempting to do precisely that for 40 years now, ever since the revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979? What are the conditions which mean that they are going to succeed now, when they've failed for 40 years?

The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority.

I don't want to get into a historical disquisition (which in any case I've said before), but the reason this works is that there's history behind it - I'm pretty sure that the original Islamisation of Iran (I don't mean the Arab conquest, but the conversion of the country) was a popular revolt against the pre-Islamic nationalist aristocracy, who didn't pay any taxes. The present-day Iranian exiles attach themselves strongly to that old nationalist aristocracy, including most academics of Iranian origin in western universities. They don't seem to notice that the class they admire grindingly oppressed the poor, such that it led to a revolution.

sorry for that rant, as Debs would say.

[Jul 03, 2018] On The Path To Failure - US Attempts Violent Regime Change In Iran

Notable quotes:
"... Does anybody see a pattern? Pattern similar to Libya, Syria, Ukraine or even Yugoslavia. And I am not talking about US brutal and deadly regime change policy as it is obvious but that those country leaders and ruling class seem to never learn how insidious those suppose deals agreements are not only that they never meant to be really implemented as often they were meritless baseless promises like Iran deal of abandoning nukes Iran never had or Ukraine promise of joining EU that was phony. And deals hardly benefit population at large but included clandestine guarantees of western support for factions of local oligarchy. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

In early 2014 we remarked on Color Revolution by Force in Syria and Ukraine:

Accompanying the demonstrations and illegal occupations of government buildings are in both cases brutal, criminal attacks on the police and other government forces. In Syria the violence "muscle" part was done by foreign financed Jihadists while neo-nazi gangs are used in the Ukraine. The demonstrations and the attacks on the state are planned and go together. There is nothing "peaceful" in demonstrations that are only the public-relations cover for attacks on the state. But the foreign politicians and media immediately utter "concerns" and threats over completely normal government responses to them. It is a scam to justify "western" "support" for the demonstrators and to further the violence.

The aim is "regime change" of legitimate governments by small minorities. Should the "regime" resist to that the alternative of destroying the state and the whole society is also wholeheartedly accepted.

We have since seen similar CIA operations in Venezuela and most recently in Nicaragua . The same concept is used to attack Iran. In December peaceful economic protests were hijacked by violent elements. Last night a similar attempt occurred:

Sayed Mousavi @SayedMousavi7 - 22:17 UTC - 30 Jun 2018

Khoramshar water shortage protest turned violent tonight.
What we know:
- At least 2 protesters shot, possibly by getting close to military zones
- Mobs set 2 museums on fire (reports)
- 1 hour of calm
- No base takeovers (anti-regime journos have claimed)
- Armed bike is suspicious

The scene with the "armed bike" in the video attached to the above tweet can be seen better in another video . It shows two "peaceful protesters" on a motorcycle shooting at police with an automatic gun. The shooter is hit and falls off. Another "peaceful protester" picks up the gun and continues shooting.


via Sayed Mousavi - bigger

A year ago the CIA created a new mission center to attack Iran :

The Iran Mission Center will bring together analysts, operations personnel and specialists from across the CIA to bring to bear the range of the agency's capabilities, including covert action .
...
To lead the new group, Mr. Pompeo picked a veteran intelligence officer, Michael D'Andrea, who recently oversaw the agency's program of lethal drone strikes ...
...
Mr. D'Andrea, a former director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, is known among peers as a demanding but effective manager, and a convert to Islam who works long hours. Some U.S. officials have expressed concern over what they perceive as his aggressive stance toward Iran .

The tool the U.S. is using in Iran are operatives of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a terror cult that has been fighting with Saddam's Iraq against Iran and is despised by the Iranian people. When the U.S. was kicked out of Iraq it transferred the MEK camps from Iraq to Albania where the cult is now training its terrorists .

Yesterday a conference of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a political umbrella controlled by the MEK, was held in Paris. One of the well paid guest speakers was Donald Trump's lawyer Rudi Giuliani. He acknowledged U.S. involvement in the protests in Iran:

"Those protests [in Iran] are not happening spontaneously. They are happening because of many of our people in Albania and many of our people here and throughout the world."

The MEK is just a front group, trained by Mossad and financed with U.S. and Saudi money. It is not backed by Iranian people. Only half of the attendees of the conference were Iranians at all:

The other half consisted of an assortment of bored-looking Poles, Czechs, Slovakians, Germans and Syrians who responded to a Facebook campaign promising travel, food and accommodation to Paris for a mere €25.

These "color revolution by force" regime change protests are only one of the tools the U.S. is using to destroy Iran.

Trump wants to end all oil exports from Iran to starve the country of foreign currencies. Iran's biggest customers are Europe, India and China. The big Europe oil companies have already folded under Trump's pressure, India followed and China has still to decide if it wants to take a (costly) stand. Trump is pressing Saudi Arabia to increase its oil supplies to replace the Iranian oil that can no longer reach the world market.

Making Iranians poorer is thought to lead to an uprising and regime change. But it is doubtful that such will work. The identity of the Islamic Republic is quite strong. It is more likely that the Iranian people will pull together and accept the hardship while asymmetric Iranian operations slowly destroy the U.S.'s policies. Saudi oil ports are quite vulnerable targets ...

Within the Trump administration Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton are the biggest proponents of regime change in Tehran:

Bolton views the demonstrations that have broken out in Iran in recent months over the state of the country's economy as an indication of the regime's weakness. He has told Trump that increased U.S. pressure could lead to the regime's collapse.

One person who recently spoke with senior White House officials on the subject summarized Bolton view in the words: "One little kick and they're done."

Secretary of Defense Mattis is said to be opposed to regime change in Iran. He fears that such an effort might lead to a larger Middle East war. Trump will likely fire him soon. Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist billionaire who financed Trump's campaign, paid Bolton and supports Netanyahoo, will have Trump ears. He demands regime change in Iran no matter what.

Regime change in Iran is not just a Trump administration project. The support for the MEK nutters is bipartisan. Several Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi , also spoke at the MEK conference in Paris. The neo-conservative lunatics are established in both parties. Here is Obama's ambassador to Russia who tried and failed to implement regime change there:

Michael McFaul @McFaul - 18:21 UTC - 30 Jun 2018
A democratic Iran not only would free Iranians from repressive theocracy but produce closer ties between our two countries; real security, economic, and moral benefits for both Iranians and Americans.

To which the father of the neocons responded:

Bill Kristol @BillKristol - 18:29 UTC - 30 Jun 2018
Bill Kristol Retweeted Michael McFaul
Very true. And great to see a bipartisan consensus for regime change in Iran! (It would be happily ironic if, totally inadvertently, tough sanctions followed by the JCPOA followed by withdrawal from the deal caused so much whiplash that the regime crumbled.)

Surely, the U.S. will be welcome in Tehran with candy and flowers (not). Such neo-conservative "moral benefit" nonsense has already led to the disaster of the war on Iraq. Iran is several times larger. It has a quite modern economy, effective proxy forces and very significant allies. Any attempt to defeat it militarily will be a hopeless endeavor.

The U.S. has only weak allies in the Middle East. Should a conflict with Iran become hot it would have its hands full with trying to save them from falling apart.

For now we can expect more protests in Iran that will be hijacked in an attempt to create a "revolution". There will be U.S. directed proxy attacks by Kurdish and Baluchi forces on iran's borders. The economic pressure within Iran will increase further.

But all these efforts are likely to fail. Since its Islamic revolution in 1979 every U.S. attempt to damage Iran or its allies has led to the opposite effect. Every time Iran emerged stronger than before. It is likely that the current attempt will have a similar result.

Posted by b on July 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

Jose Garcia , Jul 1, 2018 12:40:10 PM | 1

They can use proxies all they want. For such a large country, ground troops will be needed. The US will never learn. They think one or two guys with automatic weapons will change it overnight. It will amount to nothing and will be such a disaster. As a post note: how's those corruption charges going for Bibi? Any day now, or what?
Cycloben , Jul 1, 2018 12:59:58 PM | 3
For what it's worth, Turkey will continue to buy Iranian crudes. So I guess China will not be the only one. Also, I'll see where Trump takes his trade war with China. Buying Iranian crudes will probably be a qualitative retaliation.
che , Jul 1, 2018 2:52:47 PM | 9
U.S. policy is pure unabridged International crime, the so called lawyer of Trump's openly admits to prosecutable crimes. These crimes are spelled out in detail in the UN Charter. The US congress has ratified the UN Charter making these laws also domestic Law. Beyond advocating and abetting Murder which is a crime all by itself, which all these people are openly advocating, supporting and all bread crumbs lead directly back to them ( the people mentioned here in this piece ), the International crime of advocating the violent overthrow of a national government is a crime that if not punishable by the UN toothless dog, then the US Congress is obligated to enforce it as the Charter has become for all practical purposes US law. Additionally of course unilateral Sanctions are a very similar serious violation of the UN Charter. How in the Hell these people escape prosecution is quite a clever trick, the World and everybody in it needs to stand up and vocally condemn U.S. policies, and that is happening, as the condemnation grows louder and more frequent, the Uncle Sam snake will hopefully slither back into it's hole.
Kalen , Jul 1, 2018 5:22:09 PM | 14
Does anybody see a pattern? Pattern similar to Libya, Syria, Ukraine or even Yugoslavia. And I am not talking about US brutal and deadly regime change policy as it is obvious but that those country leaders and ruling class seem to never learn how insidious those suppose deals agreements are not only that they never meant to be really implemented as often they were meritless baseless promises like Iran deal of abandoning nukes Iran never had or Ukraine promise of joining EU that was phony. And deals hardly benefit population at large but included clandestine guarantees of western support for factions of local oligarchy.

And that was real aim of the agreement sowing corruption and political division , after cutting off economy and create crisis they offered deals aimed at fracturing ruling elite by politics of division and financial reward or penalty and when internal divisions seems settled and internal economic/ political deals are made after filthy compromises for private gain, US breaks the deal causing internal regime blaming game that exposes behind the backs of the people rotten dealings and betrayals weaken previously strong popular support of leadership and after that hiring militant western paid proxies using rage of population and diminishing political control of fractured establishment unleash of violence of chaos and economic depression.

After the deal trust of Iranian people to leadership and that includes political and religious leadership was shuttered and due to greed of ruling elites it is going into submission to US via palace coup regime change or collapse into isolation and pure dictatorship and terror and Russia and China meek response to Western belligerence contributed to Iran situation.

While western imperial aggression is in driver of the events one cannot ignore significant contributions of local oligarchy abetting the situation because of they greed and hunger for power while people have no say, nobody really supports they interests exactly as it is in the west.

Winston , Jul 1, 2018 6:11:39 PM | 17
Iran is not negotiable. The success of the BRI depends on it being free of the empire's influence. You either control both Afghanistan and Pakistan together, or Iran alone to throttle eurasia. With Pakistan now in the SCO camp a US move is logical, psychopathic and doomed
to failure.Neither Russia or China will stand idly by.

You can bet the farm on it.

jayc , Jul 1, 2018 9:20:20 PM | 23
Not only is America's mainstream media generally awful, the quality of information provided by their think tanks is often poor.

Here's the Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and Senior Fellow from the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution on the mind set of the Iranian people:

"But Iranians are wildly nationalistic and have been steeped in an especially conspiratorial interpretation of the role of the United States and other great powers in their own history. The 1953 coup, in which America and Britain expedited the downfall of a populist prime minister, has been assimilated as an article of faith about U.S. meddling and its counterproductive consequences."

"expedited the downfall..." ?? that's some serious self-delusional scholarship.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/22/the-trump-administrations-plan-b-on-iran-is-no-plan-at-all/

[Jul 03, 2018] Trump's "Infrastructure" Plan: Pump Up the Pentagon by William Hartung

Notable quotes:
"... Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base," identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. ..."
Jul 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Other than shouting about building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of Donald Trump's most frequently proclaimed promises on the 2016 campaign trail was the launching of a half-trillion-dollar plan to repair America's crumbling infrastructure (employing large numbers of workers in the process). Eighteen months into his administration, no credible proposal for anything near that scale has been made. To the extent that the Trump administration has a plan at all for public investment, it involves pumping up Pentagon spending, not investing in roads, bridges, transportation, better Internet access, or other pressing needs of the civilian economy.

Not that President Trump hasn't talked about investing in infrastructure. Last February, he even proposed a scheme that, he claimed, would boost the country's infrastructure with $1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade. With a typical dose of hyperbole, he described it as "the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American history."

Analysts from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania -- Trump's alma mater -- beg to differ. They note that the plan actually involves only $200 billion in direct federal investment, less than one-seventh of the total promised. According to Wharton's experts, much of the extra spending, supposedly leveraged from the private sector as well as state and local governments, will never materialize. In addition, were such a plan launched, it would, they suggest, fall short of its goal by a cool trillion dollars. In the end, the spending levels Trump is proposing would have "little to no impact" on the nation's gross domestic product. To add insult to injury, the president has exerted next to no effort to get even this anemic proposal through Congress, where it's now dead in the water .

There is, however, one area of federal investment on which Trump and the Congress have worked overtime with remarkable unanimity to increase spending: the Pentagon, which is slated to receive more than $6 trillion over the next decade. This year alone increases will bring total spending on the Pentagon and related agencies (like the Department of Energy where work on nuclear warheads takes place) to $716 billion . That $6-trillion, 10-year figure represents more than 30 times as much direct spending as the president's $200 billion infrastructure plan.

In reality, Pentagon spending is the Trump administration's substitute for a true infrastructure program and it's guaranteed to deliver public investments, but neglect just about every area of greatest civilian need from roads to water treatment facilities.

The Pentagon's Covert Industrial Policy

One reason the Trump administration has chosen to pump money into the Pentagon is that it's the path of least political resistance in Washington. A combination of fear, ideology, and influence peddling radically skews "debate" there in favor of military outlays above all else. Fear -- whether of terrorism, Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea -- provides one pillar of support for the habitual overfunding of the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state (which in these years has had a combined trillion-dollar annual budget). In addition, it's generally accepted in Washington that being tagged "soft on defense" is the equivalent of political suicide, particularly for Democrats. Add to that the millions of dollars spent by the weapons industry on lobbying and campaign contributions, its routine practice of hiring former Pentagon and military officials, and the way it strategically places defense-related jobs in key states and districts, and it's easy to see how the president and Congress might turn to arms spending as the basis for a covert industrial policy.

The Trump plan builds on the Pentagon's already prominent role in the economy. By now, it's the largest landowner in the country, the biggest institutional consumer of fossil fuels, the most significant source of funds for advanced government research and development, and a major investor in the manufacturing sector. As it happens, though, expanding the Pentagon's economic role is the least efficient way to boost jobs, innovation, and economic growth.

Unfortunately, there is no organized lobby or accepted bipartisan rationale for domestic funding that can come close to matching the levers of influence that the Pentagon and the arms industry have at their command. This only increases the difficulty Congress has when it comes to investing in infrastructure, clean energy, education, or other direct paths toward increasing employment and economic growth.

Former congressman Barney Frank once labeled the penchant for using the Pentagon as the government's main economic tool "weaponized Keynesianism" after economist John Maynard Keynes's theory that government spending should pick up the slack in investment when private-sector spending is insufficient to support full employment. Currently, of course, the official unemployment rate is low by historical standards. However, key localities and constituencies , including the industrial Midwest, rural areas, and urban ones with significant numbers of black and Hispanic workers, have largely been left behind. In addition, millions of "discouraged workers" who want a job but have given up actively looking for one aren't even counted in the official unemployment figures, wage growth has been stagnant for years, and the inequality gap between the 1% and the rest of America is already in Gilded Age territory.

Such economic distress was crucial to Donald Trump's rise to power. In campaign 2016, of course, he endlessly denounced unfair trade agreements, immigrants, and corporate flight as key factors in the plight of what became a significant part of his political base: downwardly mobile and displaced industrial workers (or those who feared that this might be their future fate).

The Trump Difference

Although insufficient, increases in defense manufacturing and construction can help areas where employment in civilian manufacturing has been lagging. Even as it's expanded, however, defense spending has come to play an ever-smaller role in the U.S. economy, falling from 8%-10% of the gross domestic product in the 1950s and 1960s to under 4% today. Still, it remains crucial to the economic base in defense-dependent locales like southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington state. Such places, in turn, play an outsized political role in Washington because their congressional representatives tend to cluster on the armed services, defense appropriations, and other key committees, and because of their significance on the electoral map.

A long-awaited Trump administration "defense industrial base" study should be considered a tip-off that the president and his key officials see Pentagon spending as the way to economincally prime the pump. Note, as a start, that the study was overseen not by a defense official but by the president's economics and trade czar, Peter Navarro, whose formal title is White House director of trade and industrial policy. A main aim of the study is to find a way to bolster smaller defense firms that subcontract to giants like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin.

Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base," identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. The CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, one of the defense lobby's most powerful trade groups, underscored Navarro's point when, in July 2017, he insisted that "our industry's contributions to U.S. national security and economic well-being can't be taken for granted." (He failed to explain how an industry that absorbs more than $300 billion per year in Pentagon contracts could ever be "taken for granted.")

Trump's defense-industrial-base policy tracks closely with proposals put forward by Daniel Goure of the military-contractor-funded Lexington Institute in a December 2016 article titled "How Trump Can Invest in Infrastructure and Make America Great Again." Goure's main point: that Trump should make military investments -- like building naval shipyards and ammunition plants -- part and parcel of his infrastructure plan. In doing so, he caught the essence of the arms industry's case regarding the salutary effects of defense spending on the economy:

"Every major military activity, whether production of a new weapons system, sustainment of an existing one or support for the troops, is imbedded in a web of economic activities and supports an array of businesses. These include not only major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, but a host of middle-tier and even mom-and-pop businesses. Money spent at the top ripples through the economy. Most of it is spent not on unique defense items, but on products and services that have commercial markets too."

What Goure's analysis neglects, however, is not just that every government investment stimulates multiple sectors of the economy, but that virtually any other kind would have a greater ripple effect on employment and economic growth than military spending does. Underwritten by the defense industry, his analysis is yet another example of how the arms lobby has distorted economic policy and debate in this country.

These days, it seems as if there's nothing the military won't get involved in. Take another recent set of "security" expenditures in what has already become a billion-dollar-plus business: building and maintaining detention centers for children, mainly unaccompanied minors from Central America, caught up in the Trump administration's brutal security crackdown on the U.S.-Mexico border. One company, Southwest Key, has already received a $955 million government contract to work on such facilities. Among the other beneficiaries is the major defense contractor General Dynamics , normally known for making tanks, ballistic-missile-firing submarines, and the like, not ordinarily ideal qualifications for taking care of children.

Last but not least, President Trump has worked overtime to tout his promotion of U.S. arms sales as a jobs program. In a May 2018 meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House (with reporters in attendance), he typically brandished a map that laid out just where U.S. jobs from Saudi arms sales would be located. Not coincidentally, many of them would be in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida that had provided him with his margin of victory in the 2016 elections. Trump had already crowed about such Saudi deals as a source of "jobs, jobs, jobs" during his May 2017 visit to Riyadh, that country's capital. And he claimed on one occasion -- against all evidence -- that his deals with the Saudi regime for arms and other equipment could create "millions of jobs."

The Trump administration's decision to blatantly put jobs and economic benefits for U.S. corporations above human rights considerations and strategic concerns is likely to have disastrous consequences. Its continued sales of bombs and other weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for example, allows them to go on prosecuting a brutal war in Yemen that has already killed thousands of civilians and put millions more at risk of death from famine and disease. In addition to being morally reprehensible, such an approach could turn untold numbers of Yemenis and others across the Middle East into U.S. enemies -- a high price to pay for a few thousand jobs in the arms sector.

Pentagon Spending Versus a Real Infrastructure Plan

While the Trump administration's Pentagon spending will infuse new money into the economy, it's certainly a misguided way to spur economic growth. As University of Massachusetts economist Heidi Garrett-Peltier has demonstrated , when it comes to creating jobs, military spending lags far behind investment in civilian infrastructure, clean energy, health care, or education. Nonetheless, the administration is moving full speed ahead with its military-driven planning.

In addition, Trump's approach will prove hopeless when it comes to addressing the fast-multiplying problems of the country's ailing infrastructure. The $683 billion extra that the administration proposes putting into Pentagon spending over the next 10 years pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars the American Society of Civil Engineers claims are needed to modernize U.S. infrastructure. Nor will all of that Pentagon increase even be directed toward construction or manufacturing activities (not to speak of basic infrastructural needs like roads and bridges). A significant chunk of it will, for instance, be dedicated to paying the salaries of the military's massive cadre of civilian and military personnel or health care and other benefits.

In their study, the civil engineers suggest that failing to engage in a major infrastructure program could cost the economy $4 trillion and 2.5 million jobs by 2025, something no Pentagon pump-priming could begin to offset. In other words, using the Pentagon as America's main conduit for public investment will prove a woeful approach when it comes to the health of the larger society.

One era in which government spending did directly stimulate increased growth, infrastructural development, and the creation of well-paying jobs was the 1950s, a period for which Donald Trump is visibly nostalgic . For him, those years were evidently the last in which America was truly "great." Many things were deeply wrong with the country in the fifties -- from rampant racism, sexism, and the denial of basic human rights to McCarthyite witch hunts -- but on the economic front the government did indeed play a positive role.

In those years, public investment went far beyond Pentagon spending, which President Dwight Eisenhower (of " military-industrial complex " fame) actually tried to rein in. It was civilian investments -- from the G.I. Bill to increased incentives for housing construction to the building of an interstate highway system -- that contributed in crucial ways to the economic boom of that era. Whatever its failures and drawbacks, including the ways in which African-Americans and other minorities were grossly under-represented when it came to sharing the benefits, the Eisenhower investment strategy did boost the overall economy in a fashion the Trump plan never will.

The notion that the Pentagon can play a primary role in boosting employment to any significant degree is largely a myth that serves the needs of the military-industrial complex, not American workers or Donald Trump's base. Until the political gridlock in Washington that prevents large-scale new civilian investments of just about any sort is broken, however, the Pentagon will continue to seem like the only game in town. And we will all pay a price for those skewed priorities, in both blood and treasure.

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex .

[Jul 03, 2018] Donald Trump has been business partners with George Soros in at least $6 Billion in properties for more than a decade before his candidacy. They were even codefendants in a RICO suit (organized crime, as in the Jewish Mafia).

Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

integer @35. Not a fan of George Soros? Ready to peak into the rabbit hole?

Donald Trump has been business partners with George Soros in at least $6 Billion in properties for more than a decade before his candidacy. They were even codefendants in a RICO suit (organized crime, as in the Jewish Mafia).

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-28/news/0410280265_1_donald-trump-soros-fund-management-blackacre-institutional-capital-management

http://www.pionline.com/article/20081009/ONLINE/810099993/developer-sues-soros-fortress-cerberus

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/realestate/commercial/the-kushner-companies-deal-for-666-fifth-avenue-avoids-foreclosure.html

After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Trump's new Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin ran OneWest Bank in CA. Guess who he worked for? George frigging Soros.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/07/22/john-paulson-and-george-soros-score-big-selling-onewest-bank-for-3-4-billion/#32e7ee635ab0

So, Trump is partners with infamous globalist atheist George Soros, Orthodox Jews, Islamic Extremists, Goldman Sachs and GHW Bush's Carlyle Group.

And one more morsel to ponder. The CEO of CNN (portrayed as rabidly anti-Trump) is one of a long list of Globalist Zionists who have been Trump supporters for decades.

http://nojeveje.net/2017/01/23/trumps-jewish-elite-mafia-5-dancing-israelis/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RplnqsLas0g

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 2, 2018 4:05:48 PM | 55

[Jul 03, 2018] It seems that the political trend in central Europe is away from multi-culturalism. Hungary wants to maintain its culture.

Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

ab initio , Jul 1, 2018 6:24:20 PM | 7

What is happening in Germany? Is "open borders" that Merkel has championed on its last legs? It seems that the CSU is worried about the coming elections in Bavaria where AfD might do much better than expected. Just as the outcome of the Italian elections was for a government coalition opposed to illegal economic immigration under the guise of asylum for political persecution.

Hungarian foreign minister in an interview with a snowflake BBC reporter. It seems that the political trend in central Europe is away from multi-culturalism. Hungary wants to maintain its culture.

https://youtu.be/q8itF62yIJg

This seems like the same contention between the Democrats who want "open borders" and "catch & release" while Trump wants to deport all illegals.

[Jun 28, 2018] What is John Bolton s role in Trump s ME drama?

With Mueller Trump is on a very short leash indeed, so I doubt that he has great freedom of maneuver.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War. ..."
"... John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is! ..."
"... People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed. ..."
"... Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc. ..."
"... Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time. ..."
"... My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced. ..."
"... A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit. ..."
Jun 28, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

(editorial)

On a gestalt basis it seems to me from all the bits and pieces of information and rumor that DJT is attempting "The Deal of the Century!" (an episode or two of his soon to be award winning series on the subject of "The Greatest President.")

Russian cooperation in this is clearly needed. Trump is blessedly lacking in ideological fervor. His Deplorable base is also a bit short on ideology being focused on wages, prices, taxes and other everyday living issues. Their patriotism expresses itself in devotion to the flag and the anthem and a willingness to serve in the armed forces, something increasingly absent in the "resistance."

Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War.

John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is!

Trumps is IMO trying for a grand ME bargain to be achieved with Russian help:

  1. Peace in Syria in the context of abandonment of regime change. Trump the pragmatist recognizes that the R+6 forces have won the civil war and, therefore he wishes to accept the sunk costs of previous American ineptitude in Syria and to walk away. US Embassy Amman has signaled to the FSA rebels in SW Syria that they should not expect the US to defend them. This is a traditional American stab in the back for guerrilla allies but the warning indicates to me that some group in the US Government (probably the CIA) has enough conscience to want to give warning. As soon as that warning was issued the rate of surrenders to the SAA rose.
  2. The US has thus made it clear that the SAA and Russian forces in Syria have a free hand in the SW and it seems that Israeli air and missile attacks are unlikely against the SW offensive. This has been insured through a Russian mandate that Hizbullah and IRGC dominated Shia militias stay out of the fight in Deraa and Quneitra Provinces.
  3. The Egyptians have been talking to Hamas about their willingness to enter into a hudna (religiously sanctioned truce) with Israel. Hamas has frequently offered this before. Such truces are renewable and are often for 10 years. Kushner's team thinks it has attained Natanyahhu's support for this. The deal would supposedly include; a Gaza-Egyptian industrial zone in the area of Raffa, an airport, a seaport. In return Hamas would be expected to police the truce from their side of the border. People on SST who have deep access in Israel doubt the sincerity of apparent Israeli assent, but there is little doubt I think that DJT considers this part of the Grand Bargain he is attempting to forge.

Nowhere in any of this is anything concerning Iran and I assume that regime change remains the policy. Nor is there anything about Saudi Arabia and the UAE's mercenary manned war in Yemen. Ah, well, pilgrims, everything in its time. pl

Sid Finster , 9 hours ago

People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed.
Don Bacon , 9 hours ago
Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc.
Pat Lang Mod -> Don Bacon , 9 hours ago
I suppose you mean the US Armed Forces, not the US Army.
Don Bacon -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
No, I mean the Army is especially invested in Europe and has been. I attended C&GSC at the peak of Vietnam and in exercises they were still mostly concerned with the Fulda Gap, division trains, etc. Big Army. Similar to how Army is going now, back to their roots so to speak. Even when they claimed they were short of funds, they found a way to send forces to Europe based on the claims that after Crimea, Russia was (and is) a threat to. . .the U.S.?

Peace with Russia would be a severe blow to Army especially with the shift to Indo-Pacific which involves Navy and Marines, and Army not much. I know Army was greatly involved with island operations in WWII, but China is not Japan regarding imperialism, IMO, and anyhow island invasions are not popular in Army.

So I look for a beefed up "Russia threat" campaign to counter Trump, and insider Bolton to be a big part of it.

Terra Cotta Woolpuller -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
Good analysis of the political implications of having Bolton establishing a summit as it worked with Pompeo. Always keep your friends close and your enemies closer good way to clean up the nest of venomous asps.
Michael Stojanovic , 9 hours ago
Qatar/Turkey may be an impediment/wild card, given it's Muslim brotherhood connections and leanings and strong backing for Hamas.
Pat Lang Mod -> Michael Stojanovic , 8 hours ago
It seems that Hamas has agreed.
Michael Stojanovic -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
Gen Sisi must have made an offer too good to resist. We know the House of Saud will finance it. Are they going to political legitimatize Hamas, turn Gaza in a statelet ? Perhaps Hamas sees, or is being threaten with the money spigot being turned off ? The only way to get money will be their share of offshore Natural Gas ? All for Hamas perhaps ? Nothing buys peace faster then lining a whole lot of pockets. With more money and Airports and a Shipping port, opens dangerous doors. Is Israel ready for that ? How will that be monitored ? So many damn questions. This may prove more problematic then the status quo, in the long run. Something does have to be done, the conditions in Gaza are unacceptable.
smoothieX12 . , 10 hours ago
Excellent analysis. In related news, a week or so ago semi-official Russian Vzglyad made a first media shot across the bow for Iran in which it stressed that the manner of Iran's "presence" in Syria is a complicating factor.
Babak Makkinejad -> smoothieX12 . , 9 hours ago
Russia cannot dislodge Iran out of Syria. And why should she try? And to what purpose?

Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?

smoothieX12 . -> Babak Makkinejad , 8 hours ago
Russia doesn't want to "dislodge" Iran from Syria but she needs Iran out of the border area with Israel. This is the key to a new arrangement, including, in the long run, Iran's security.

Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?

First two are important but are not clear and present danger for Russia for a number of reasons. Militarization of space is more important now. The last point, however, is extremely important because either there will be some kind of new geopolitical arrangement or we will see probability of a global military conflict grow exponentially.

Babak Makkinejad -> smoothieX12 . , 7 hours ago
Iranians do not need to be at the border area. All they need is to deploy their true and tested method of arming Syria with tens of thousands of precision rockets aimed at Haifa and Tel-Aviv. It worked for North Koreans.

No global peace is in the works.

Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time.

smoothieX12 . -> Babak Makkinejad , 5 hours ago
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there
was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be
different this time.

It must be different, plus I disagree with historic parallel--two entirely different paradigms both in warfare, geopolitical balance and media.

Barbara Ann , 10 hours ago
Well I certainly wish The Greatest President luck. Who knows, I'm done underestimating the guy.

My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced.

The point of maximum danger appears to be at hand, given your characterization of the Daraa op as "betting the farm". Today's grant of new powers to the OPCW to apportion blame (designed to side-step the Russian veto at the UNSC) now means this body can effectively determine casus belli . Let us pray the OPCW will not have reason to exercise its new powers in Syria.

Tony , 11 hours ago
Let the hand wringing begin...
https://www.bbc.com/news/wo...
EEngineer , 12 hours ago
A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit.

On topic #2. If the SAA isn't feeling it's oats by now, forcing them fight a major battle that culminates a campaign by themselves would seem to be the ideal way to exorcise any remaining self doubts and engender a lasting esprit de corps. Stupid is what stupid does... Once these guys finish up in the SW and head east enforce it'll be show time.

[Jun 28, 2018] How America's Wars Fund Inequality at Home by Stephanie Savell

Notable quotes:
"... The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new Gilded Age , reminiscent of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century. ..."
"... Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts. ..."
"... However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and the moneys that go into the expanding national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else from infrastructure investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%. ..."
Jun 28, 2018 | www.tomdispatch.com

Credit-Card Wars
Today's War-Financing Strategies Will Only Increase Inequality
By Stephanie Savell

In the name of the fight against terrorism, the United States is currently waging " credit-card wars " in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Never before has this country relied so heavily on deficit spending to pay for its conflicts. The consequences are expected to be ruinous for the long-term fiscal health of the U.S., but they go far beyond the economic. Massive levels of war-related debt will have lasting repercussions of all sorts. One potentially devastating effect, a new study finds, will be more societal inequality.

In other words, the staggering costs of the longest war in American history -- almost 17 years running, since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 -- are being deferred to the future. In the process, the government is contributing to this country's skyrocketing income inequality.

Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent $5.6 trillion on its war on terror, according to the Costs of War Project, which I co-direct, at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs . This is a far higher number than the Pentagon's $1.5 trillion estimate, which only counts expenses for what are known as "overseas contingency operations," or OCO -- that is, a pot of supplemental money, outside the regular annual budget, dedicated to funding wartime operations. The $5.6 trillion figure, on the other hand, includes not just what the U.S. has spent on overseas military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, but also portions of Homeland Security spending related to counterterrorism on American soil, and future obligations to care for wounded or traumatized post-9/11 military veterans. The financial burden of the post-9/11 wars across the Greater Middle East -- and still spreading , through Africa and other regions -- is far larger than most Americans recognize.

During prior wars, the U.S. adjusted its budget accordingly by, among other options, raising taxes to pay for its conflicts. Not so since 2001, when President George W. Bush launched the "Global War on Terror." Instead, the country has accumulated a staggering amount of debt. Even if Washington stopped spending on its wars tomorrow, it will still, thanks to those conflicts, owe more than $8 trillion in interest alone by the 2050s.

Putting the Gilded Age to Shame

It's hard to fathom what that enormous level of debt will do to our economy and society. A new Costs of War study by political scientist and historian Rosella Capella Zielinski offers initial clues about its impact here. She takes a look at how the U.S. has paid for its conflicts from the War of 1812 through the two World Wars and Vietnam to the present war on terror. While a range of taxes, bond sales, and other mechanisms were used to raise funds to fight such conflicts, no financial strategy has relied so exclusively on borrowing -- until this century. Her study also explores how each type of war financing has affected inequality levels in this country in the aftermath of those conflicts.

The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new Gilded Age , reminiscent of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century.

Capella Zielinski carefully breaks down what effects the methods used to pay for various wars have had on subsequent levels of social inequality. During the Civil War, for example, the government relied primarily on loans from private donors. After that war was over, the American people had to pay those loans back with interest, which proved a bonanza for financial elites, primarily in the North. Those wealthy lenders became wealthier still and everyone else, whose taxes reimbursed them, poorer.

In contrast, during World War I, the government launched a war-bond campaign that targeted low-income people. War savings stamps were offered for as little as 25 cents and war savings certificates in denominations starting at $25. Anyone who could make a small down payment could buy a war bond for $50 and cover the rest of what was owed in installments. In this way, the war effort promoted savings and, in its wake, a striking number of low-income Americans were repaid with interest, decreasing the inequality levels of that era.

Taxation strategies have varied quite significantly in various war periods as well. During World War II, for instance, the government raised tax rates five times between 1940 and 1944, levying progressively steeper ones on higher income brackets (up to 65% on incomes over $1 million). As a result, though government debt was substantial in the aftermath of a global struggle fought on many fronts, the impact on low-income Americans could have been far worse. In contrast, the Vietnam War era began with a tax cut and, in the aftermath of that disastrous conflict, the U.S. had to deal with unprecedented levels of inflation. Low-income households bore the brunt of those higher costs, leading to greater inequality.

Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts.

In other words, in this century, Washington has combined the domestic borrowing patterns of the Civil War with the tax cuts of the Vietnam era. That means one predictable thing: a rise in inequality in a country in which the income inequality gap is already heading for record territory.

Just to add to the future burden of it all, this is the first time government wartime borrowing has relied so heavily on foreign debt. Though there is no way of knowing how this will affect inequality here in the long run, one thing is already obvious: it will transfer wealth outside the country.

Economist Linda Bilmes has argued that there's another new factor involved in Washington's budgeting of today's wars. In every other major American conflict, after an initial period, war expenditures were incorporated into the regular defense budget. Since 2001, however, the war on terror has been funded mainly by supplemental appropriations (those Overseas Contingency Operations funds), subject to very little oversight. Think of the OCO as a slush fund that insures one thing: the true impact of this era's war funding won't hit until far later since such appropriations are exempt from spending caps and don't have to be offset elsewhere in the budget.

According to Bilmes, "This process is less transparent, less accountable, and has rendered the cost of the wars far less visible." As a measure of the invisible impact of war funding in Washington and elsewhere, she calculates that, while the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense discussed war financing in 79% of its hearings during the Vietnam era, since 9/11, there have been similar mentions at only 17% of such hearings. For its part, the Senate Finance Committee has discussed war-funding strategy in a thoroughgoing way only once in almost 17 years.

Hidden Tradeoffs and Deferred Costs

The effect of this century's unprecedented budgetary measures is that, for the most part, the American people don't feel the financial weight of the wars their government is waging -- or rather, they feel it, but don't recognize it for what it is. This corresponds remarkably well with the wars themselves, fought by a non-draft military in distant lands and largely ignored in this country (at least since the vast public demonstrations against the coming invasion of Iraq ended in the spring of 2003). The blowback from those wars, the way they are coming home, has also been ignored, financially and otherwise.

However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and the moneys that go into the expanding national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else from infrastructure investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%.

How exactly does this trade-off work? The National Priorities Project explains it well. Every year the federal government negotiates levels of discretionary spending (as distinct from mandatory spending, which largely consists of Social Security and Medicare). In 2001, there were fewer discretionary funds allocated to defense than to non-defense programs, but the ensuing war on terror dramatically inflated military spending relative to other parts of the budget. In 2017, military and national security spending accounted for 53% of discretionary spending. The 2018 congressionally approved omnibus spending package allocates $700 billion for the military and $591 billion for non-military purposes, leaving that proportion about the same. (Keep in mind, that those totals don't even include all the money flowing into that Overseas Contingency Operations fund). President Trump's proposals for future spending, if accepted by Congress, would ensure that, by 2023, the proportion of military spending would soar to 65% .

In other words, the rise in war-related military expenditures entails losses for other areas of federal funding. Pick your issue: crumbling bridges, racial justice, housing, healthcare, education, climate change -- and it's all being affected by how much this country spends on war.

Nonetheless, thanks to its credit-card version of war financing, the government has effectively deferred most of the financial costs of its unending conflicts to the future. This, in turn, contributes to how detached most Americans tend to feel from the very fact that their country is now eternally at war. Political scientist and policy analyst Sarah Kreps argues that Americans become invested in how a war is being conducted only when they're asked to pay for it. In her examination of the history of the financing of American wars, she writes , "The visibility and intrusiveness of taxes are exactly what make individuals scrutinize the service for which the resources are being used." If there were war taxes today, their unpopularity would undoubtedly lead Americans to question the costs and consequences of their country's wars in ways now missing from today's public conversation.

Pressing for a real war budget, though, is not only a mechanism to alert Americans to the effects (on them) of the wars their government is fighting. It is also a potential lever through which citizens could affect the country's foreign policy and pressure elected officials to bring those wars to an end. Some civic groups and activists from across the political spectrum have indeed been pushing to reduce the Pentagon budget, bloated by war, corruption , and fear-mongering . They are, however, up against both the power of an ascendant military-industrial complex and wars that have been organized, in their funding and in so many other ways, not to be noticed.

Those who care about this country's economic future would be remiss not to include today's war financing strategy among the country's most urgent fiscal challenges. Anyone interested in improving American democracy and the well-being of its people should begin by connecting the budgetary dots. The more money this country spends on military activities, the more public coffers will be depleted by war-related interest payments and the less public funding there will be for anything else. In short, it's time for Americans worried about living in a country whose inequality gap could soon surpass that of the Gilded Age to begin paying real attention to our " credit-card wars ."

Stephanie Savell, a TomDispatch regular , is co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs . An anthropologist, she conducts research on security and civic engagement in Brazil and in the U.S. She co-authored The Civic Imagination: Making a Difference in American Political Life .

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Books, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , and John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands .

Copyright 2018 Stephanie Savell

[Jun 28, 2018] If Putin's behavior in the near abroad makes him a "thug," what can we say about Bush, Obama and Trump?

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

JoaoAlfaiate , June 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT

@Quartermaster

" Putin has invaded Ukraine, stealing the Crimea, and attempting to gain a land bridge by backing a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment."

Of course Russia has strategic interests in the Ukraine and the the Crimea is virtually 100% Russian speaking. The Russians remember WW2 and the 20 million Russian dead inflicted upon them by western Europeans.

If Putin's behavior in the near abroad makes him a "thug," what can we say about Bush, Obama and Trump?

Bragadocious , June 5, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT
I find it interesting how while the neocons demonize Putin and are trying to start WW3, Netanyahu and Putin seem to get along fine. This suggests that the neocons really have something else in mind besides towing the Israeli line. Namely, keeping the American public in a state of confusion and acquiescence and ensuring the endless flow of weapons to their favorite ethnostate.
Curmudgeon , June 5, 2018 at 3:23 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Putin is just another thug that has imperial desires and is willing to steal his people blind to realize them.

Other than reliable sources like John Brennan, James Clapper, the New York Times and the Washington Post , I presume you have evidence to share of this

Putin has invaded Ukraine,

and this.

stealing the Crimea

Two referenda are "stealing"?

a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment.

Well, the dead people in Donbas, and their families, would probably disagree it was fake, particularly since the victim of the US coup d'etat (with its mercenaries) and rightful President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, was from Donbas. As for the allegations of Russian troops and equipment, I return to my request for evidence.

Russian troops shot down MH-17. deal with it.

Yup, and Assad gassed his own people, so did Saddam, six kajillion were gassed in a 2 car garage located next to crematoria at Auschwitz using explosive bug spray, and the Easter Bunny leaves chocolate eggs at my house every year.

[Jun 28, 2018] More trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , June 5, 2018 at 7:42 am GMT

Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.

Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.

What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.

The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show...

The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
- more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater

Anon [411] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 9:18 am GMT
You seem to be obsessed with neocons, jews etc. Russia is arch-nemesis of the West long before them. Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or Knight Templars.

Since Western Capitalism arose, Russia stands as anti-system to the West. As a model of decent society that is possible without usury, exploitation, violence, enslaving and pillaging other nations – i.e. outside imperialism-colonialism model. Powers that control the West live in constant fear since with mighty Russia their time is always limited, and their power is finite.

Jake , June 5, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Anon

"Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or Knight Templars."

They were.

Of course, the Freemasons also penetrated Russia under Peter the Great and were necessary to all revolutionary activity in the Russian Empire from at least the 1820s.

[Jun 28, 2018] At War With Ourselves The Domestic Consequences of Foreign Policies

Notable quotes:
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... In 2015, suicides accounted for over 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the most common method by which people take their own lives. ..."
"... When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well. ..."
"... "Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide, not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I write about." ..."
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
Jun 28, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

At War With Ourselves: The Domestic Consequences of Foreign Policies June 25, 2018 • 72 Comments

There is a direct connection between gun violence and suicide rates in the United States and America's aggressive foreign policy, argues Will Porter.

How America's Gun Violence Epidemic May Have Roots in Overseas War Zones

By Will Porter
Special to Consortium News

In recent months a string of school shootings in the United States has rekindled the debate over gun violence, its causes and what can be done to stop it. But amid endless talk of school shootings and AR-15s, a large piece of the puzzle has been left conspicuously absent from the debate.

Contrary to the notion that mass murderers are at the heart of America's gun violence problem, data from recent years reveals that the majority of gun deaths are self-inflicted.

In 2015, suicides accounted for over 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the most common method by which people take their own lives.

While the causes of America's suicide-driven gun epidemic are complex and myriad, it's clear that one group contributes to the statistics above all others: military veterans.

Beyond the Physical

According to a 2016 study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs, on average some 20 veterans commit suicide every single day, making them among the most prone to take their own lives compared to people working in other professions. Though they comprise under 9 percent of the American population, veterans accounted for 18 percent of suicides in the U.S. in 2014.

When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) accounts for some of the physiological effects of trauma, the "fight-or-flight" response, but the distinct mental, moral and spiritual anguish experienced by many veterans and other victims of trauma has been termed " moral injury ."

A better understanding of that concept and the self-harm it motivates could go a long way toward explaining, and ultimately solving, America's suicide epidemic.

"Moral injury looks beyond the physical and asks who we are as people," Peter Van Buren, a former State Department Foreign Service officer, said in an interview. "It says that we know right from wrong, and that when we violate right and wrong, we injure ourselves. We leave a scar on ourselves, the same as if we poked ourselves with a knife."

While not a veteran himself, during his tenure with the Foreign Service Van Buren served for one year alongside American soldiers at a forward operating base in Iraq. His experiences there would stick with him for life.

"Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide, not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I write about."

Van Buren: A profound sense of guilt.

After retiring from the Foreign Service, Van Buren began research for his novel " Hooper's War ," a fictional account set in WWII Japan. The book centers on American veteran, Nate Hooper, and explores the psychological costs paid by those who survive a war. Van Buren said if he set the book in the past, he thought he could better explore the subject matter without the baggage of current-day politics.

In his research, Van Buren interviewed Japanese civilians who were children at the time of the conflict and found surprising parallels with the soldiers he served with in Iraq. Post-war guilt, he found, does not only afflict the combatants who fight and carry out grisly acts of violence, but civilians caught in the crossfire as well.

For many, merely living through a conflict when others did not is cause for significant distress, a condition known as "survivor's guilt."

"In talking with them I heard so many echoes of what I'd heard from the soldiers in Iraq, and so many echoes of what I felt myself, this profound sense of guilt," Van Buren said.

'We Killed Them'

Whether it was something a soldier did, saw or failed to prevent, feelings of guilt can leave a permanent mark on veterans after they come home.

Brian Ellison, a combat veteran who served under the National Guard in Iraq in 2004, said he's still troubled by his wartime experiences.

Stationed at a small, under protected maintenance garage in the town of ad-Diwaniyah in a southeastern province of Iraq, Ellison said his unit was attacked on a daily basis.

"From the day we got there, we would get attacked every night like clockwork -- mortars, RPGs," Ellison said. "We had no protection; we had no weapons systems on the base."

On one night in April of 2004, after a successful mission to obtain ammunition for the base's few heavy weapons, Ellison's unit was ready to hit back.

"So we got some rounds for the Mark 19 [a belt-fed automatic grenade launcher] and we basically used it as field artillery, shot it up in the air and lobbed it in," Ellison said. "Finally on the last night we were able to get them to stop shooting, but that was because we killed 5 of them. At the time this was something I was proud of. We were like 'We got them, we got our revenge.'"

U.S. military poster. (Health.mil)

"In retrospect, it's like here's this foreign army, and we're in their neighborhood," Ellison said. "They're defending their neighborhood, but they're the bad guys and we're the good guys, and we killed them. I think about stuff like that a lot."

Despite his guilt, Ellison said he was able to sort through the negative feelings by speaking openly and honestly about his experiences and actions. Some veterans have a harder time, however, including one of Ellison's closest friends.

"He ended up going overseas like five times," Ellison said. "Now he's retired and he can't even deal with people. He can't deal with people, it's sad. He was this funny guy, everybody's friend, easy to get along with, now he's a recluse. It's really weird to see somebody like that. He had three young kids and a happy personality, now he's broken."

In addition to the problems created in their personal relationships, the morally injured also often turn to self-destructive habits to cope with their despair.

"In the process of trying to shut this sound off in your head -- this voice of conscience -- many people turn to drugs and alcohol as a way of shutting that voice up, at least temporarily," Van Buren said. "You hope at some point it shuts up permanently . . . Unfortunately, I think that many people do look for the permanent silence of suicide as a way of escaping these feelings."

A Hero's Welcome?

By now most are familiar with the practice of celebrating veterans as heroes upon their return from war, but few realize what psychological consequences such apparently benevolent gestures can have.

"I think the healthiest thing a vet can do is to come to terms with reality," Ellison said. "It's so easy to get swept up -- when we came home off the plane, there was a crowd of people cheering for us. I just remember feeling dirty. I felt like 'I don't want you to cheer for us,' but at the same time it's comforting. It's a weird dynamic. Like, I could just put this horror out of my mind and pretend we were heroes."

"But the terrible part is that, behind that there's reality," Ellison said. "Behind that, we know what we were doing; we know that we weren't fighting for freedom. So when somebody clings onto this 'we were heroes' thing, I think that's bad for them. They have to be struggling with it internally. I really believe that's one of the biggest things that contributes to people committing suicide. They're not able to talk about it, not able to bring it to the forefront and come to terms with it."

Unclear Solution

According to the 2016 VA study, 70 percent of veterans who commit suicide are not regular users of VA services.

The Department of Veteran Affairs was set up in 1930 to handle medical care, benefits and burials for veterans, but some 87 years later, the department is plagued by scandal and mismanagement. Long wait times, common to many government-managed healthcare systems, discourage veterans from seeking the department's assistance, especially those with urgent psychiatric needs.

An independent review was carried out in 2014 by the VA's Inspector General, Richard Griffin, which found that at one Arizona VA facility, 1,700 veterans were on wait lists, waiting an average of 115 days before getting an initial appointment.

"People don't generally seek medical help because the [VA] system is so inefficient and ineffective; everyone feels like it's a waste of time," said a retired senior non-commissioned officer in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) who wished to remain anonymous.

"The system is so bad, even within the SOF world where I work, that I avoid going at all costs," the retired officer said. "I try to get my guys to civilian hospitals so that they can get quality healthcare instead of military healthcare."

Beyond institutions, however, both Ellison and Van Buren agreed that speaking openly about their experiences has been a major step on their road back to normalcy. Open dialogue, then, is not only one way for veterans and other victims of trauma to heal, it may ultimately be the key to solving America's epidemic of gun violence.

The factors contributing to mass murders, school shootings and private crime are, no doubt, important to study, but so long as suicide is left out of the public discourse on guns, genuine solutions may always be just out of reach.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/puAJcGfIq7U?feature=oembed

Will Porter is a journalist who specializes in U.S. foreign policy and Middle East affairs. He writes for the Libertarian Institute and tweets at @WKPancap.

If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

[Jun 28, 2018] The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary

Jun 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

A more constructive new on neocons is as well-paid MIC lobbyists. The fact that many Jews are talented lobbyists can explain the concentration of this particular nationality far better, although initially neocons really were mostly turn coat Trotskyites.

Greg Bacon , Website June 5, 2018 at 10:30 am GMT

The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary.

Sounds very similar to another nation that rules over the USA and uses our military for their private merc army, Israel, who claims they have a divine right to Palestine and can kill as many Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians as they want.
After all, their G-d declared them to be his pet project and you don't want to go against G-d, do you?

Not all Jews are neocons, but damn near every neocon is a Jew.

RebelWriter , June 5, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@Anonymous

Irving Krystol, the "Godfather of Neoconservatism," is just one example. If you search YouTube you can find a Brian Lamb Booknotes episode where he interviews Krystol about this book, "Neoconservatism; an Autobiography."

He admits in this interview, as well as in the book, that he and most of the early neocons were former Trotskyites.

gsjackson , June 5, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@Anonymous

The first generation of neocons -- Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, Gertrude Himmelfarb, etc. Maybe Norman Podhoretz, but he was always more of a 'main chance' guy.

The rallying cry of world revolution has filtered down after a fashion to their heirs. It's still all war all the time. And at the end of the day, when the wars have subdued the planet, who will be chosen to grasp the reins of world government? One guess.

Florin N , June 5, 2018 at 1:57 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

Read this re the origin of the neocon movement:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html

It was and is Jewish and Zionist at its core, without any question.

Wilton was a highly respected journalist whose claims seem to be reflexted in statements by various, and equally maligned/suppressed writers of the time.

https://archive.org/details/TheRulersOfRussia-AmericanEdition-ByRevDenisFahey

Of course, any source is immediately decried as 'anti-Semitic' which is a neat way to avoid the question of the truth of the matter

Tarheel American , June 5, 2018 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Anonymous

It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They used to trumpet it, though.

There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals themselves celebrating their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, et al were communists.

Moreover, they were communists of the international revolution variety–the flavor known as Trotskyism.

Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:"

"I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)"

Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of neocons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html

Here's a good PBS movie lauding these "intellectuals:"

http://www.pbs.org/arguing/about.html

Colin Wright , Website June 5, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Florin N

'Read this re the origin of the neocon movement '

To some extent you're mistaking your target here.

I'll readily agree the neo-cons amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel.

On the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and Bolshevism should be checked.

Colin Wright , Website June 5, 2018 at 4:30 pm GMT
@Crawfurdmuir

This is an irritating aspect of it all.

On the one hand, it has lately become common to hide the Judaism of various figures; 'I wonder if he's Jewish' can turn into quite a hunt.

On the other hand, some parties seem to label all and sundry as 'Jews.'

Speaking for myself, I wish I just didn't care. Certainly as of twenty years ago, I could have honestly said I didn't. However, Israel and the fact of our support for her, and the fact that most Jews ultimately support Israel to one degree or another, make the question relevant.

jack daniels , June 5, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism on the part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to the Jewish fear that the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European Communism.

The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues, since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they aren't too keen on Catholicism either.

It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism. I hope this taboo is successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as the only Christian power left in the world.

[Jun 28, 2018] Did Senator Warner and Comey 'Collude' on Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails. ..."
"... If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its key findings with supporting data. ..."
"... Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers? (Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out. ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Did Sen. Warner and Comey 'Collude' on Russia-gate? June 27, 2018 • 68 Comments

The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains.

By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News

An explosive report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday's edition of The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing "technical evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]" in the controversial leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.

A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials would have given Assange "limited immunity" to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit through redactions "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," according to Solomon, who cited "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate investigators." Solomon even provided a copy of the draft immunity deal with Assange.

But Comey's intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal, Solomon says, quoting "multiple sources." With the prospective agreement thrown into serious doubt, Assange "unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare capabilities for a long time to come." These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service."

Solomon's report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.

Assange: Came close to a deal with the U.S. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)

The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails.

If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak.

The greater risk to Warner and Comey apparently would have been if Assange provided evidence that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.

Missteps and Stand Down

In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange's pro bono attorney who acted as the intermediary in the talks, asked Warner if the Senate Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other issues. Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner's stoking of Russia-gate.

Warner contacted Comey and, invoking his name, instructed Waldman to "stand down and end the discussions with Assange," Waldman told Solomon. The "stand down" instruction "did happen," according to another of Solomon's sources with good access to Warner. However, Waldman's counterpart attorney David Laufman , an accomplished federal prosecutor picked by the Justice Departent to work the government side of the CIA-Assange fledgling deal, told Waldman, "That's B.S. You're not standing down, and neither am I."

But the damage had been done. When word of the original stand-down order reached WikiLeaks, trust evaporated, putting an end to two months of what Waldman called "constructive, principled discussions that included the Department of Justice."

The two sides had come within inches of sealing the deal. Writing to Laufman on March 28, 2017, Waldman gave him Assange's offer to discuss "risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA documents in WikiLeaks' possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in hostile jurisdictions," in return for "an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement."

On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.

Misfeasance or Malfeasance

Comey: Ordered an end to talks with Assange.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, has repeatedly called attention to its conclusion that the DNC emails were leaked -- not "hacked" by Russia or anyone else (and, later, our suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to speak).

In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its key findings with supporting data.

Two month later , VIPS published the results of follow-up experiments conducted to test the conclusions reached in July.

Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers? (Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out.

Asked on January 10, 2017 by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey replied : "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's involved, so it's the best evidence."

At that point, Burr and Warner let Comey down easy. Hence, it should come as no surprise that, according to one of John Solomon's sources, Sen. Warner (who is co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) kept Sen. Burr apprised of his intervention into the negotiation with Assange, leading to its collapse.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and prepared and briefed, one-on-one, the President's Daily Brief from 1981 to 1985.

If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

[Jun 28, 2018] China's Port In Sri Lanka's Is Good Business - The NYT's Report On It Is Propaganda

Jun 28, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Babyl-on , Jun 27, 2018 10:01:20 AM | 9

China and the B&R have been topics of interest to me for a while, B&R I have follow from its first announcement in 2013. (I have often found it curious that B&R and the US Imperial "Pivot to Asia" announced by Obama came so close together in time.)

I think it is a mistaken point of view that accuses China of "economic imperialism." The big problem with Western analysis, in my view, is that it assumes a zero sum game, a game where trade is a weapon in hegemonic zero sum game of monopoly control of markets. China does not seek hegemony commercially or in any other way. China has no interest - as does the Imperial US - to take over the world. Building a community of common destiny is not "Imperial."

I would urge everyone to spend time watching the comment and analysis shows on CGTN - compare them to CNN and you'll see the Chinese "censored" news is so much more informative and offers a wider range of views.

We already live in a multi-polar world, China is very important, so is Russia and India. If you read the international press the impression you get is that all these countries plus Europe and even Canada now are trying to trade and get along while they all have to manage the burden of the US military interventions and aggression, the world's biggest problem for the vast majority of the 7+ billion people, over half of global land mass is not trade it is how to manage the threats of the Imperial US. Today without question the SCO is more important than the G7-6-8 but of course it is almost impossible to find coverage about the organization even in the most progressive of press outlets.

The so called left in the West needs to get over its elevation of democracy to that of a timeless law of nature (there is no such thing)- that "free speech" supposedly suppressed in China negates China bringing 700+ million people out of poverty, something no nation or culture has ever achieved in human history.

Please at least try to find some survey courses on Chinese history, nothing in it would suggest China has any interest what-so-ever in Western style Imperialism. China spent thousands of years focusing on uniting China from the 56+ ethnic groups that make up modern China not project power elsewhere.

Progressives are still living in a unipolar world they seem to know almost nothing about China especially, but Russia, India and more. The progressive view is limited to zero sum geopolitical hegemony much of its analysis is based on analysis of Zbigniew Brzezinski in the 70s and 80s.

China and the rest of the world has a far different view of Central Asia as a place of commerce and trade, not territory essential to global domination as Brzezinski calculated.

I hope to see more China coverage here and everywhere, covering China opens thought to question long held underlying assumptions.

There is no god - there is lust for power. No creator "endowed" us with "rights" or anything else - we have them and something better "The Will to Power" without mystical permission.

psychohistorian , Jun 27, 2018 10:58:14 AM | 10
Thanks for the posting b about ongoing NYT propaganda

Another perspective on this is that China focuses on economic infrastructure while I read that other Sri Lanka debt is for cricket stadium and such.

[Jun 28, 2018] What is John Bolton s role in Trump s ME drama?

With Mueller Trump is on a very short leash indeed, so I doubt that he has great freedom of maneuver.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War. ..."
"... John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is! ..."
"... People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed. ..."
"... Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc. ..."
"... Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time. ..."
"... My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced. ..."
"... A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit. ..."
Jun 28, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

(editorial)

On a gestalt basis it seems to me from all the bits and pieces of information and rumor that DJT is attempting "The Deal of the Century!" (an episode or two of his soon to be award winning series on the subject of "The Greatest President.")

Russian cooperation in this is clearly needed. Trump is blessedly lacking in ideological fervor. His Deplorable base is also a bit short on ideology being focused on wages, prices, taxes and other everyday living issues. Their patriotism expresses itself in devotion to the flag and the anthem and a willingness to serve in the armed forces, something increasingly absent in the "resistance."

Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War.

John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is!

Trumps is IMO trying for a grand ME bargain to be achieved with Russian help:

  1. Peace in Syria in the context of abandonment of regime change. Trump the pragmatist recognizes that the R+6 forces have won the civil war and, therefore he wishes to accept the sunk costs of previous American ineptitude in Syria and to walk away. US Embassy Amman has signaled to the FSA rebels in SW Syria that they should not expect the US to defend them. This is a traditional American stab in the back for guerrilla allies but the warning indicates to me that some group in the US Government (probably the CIA) has enough conscience to want to give warning. As soon as that warning was issued the rate of surrenders to the SAA rose.
  2. The US has thus made it clear that the SAA and Russian forces in Syria have a free hand in the SW and it seems that Israeli air and missile attacks are unlikely against the SW offensive. This has been insured through a Russian mandate that Hizbullah and IRGC dominated Shia militias stay out of the fight in Deraa and Quneitra Provinces.
  3. The Egyptians have been talking to Hamas about their willingness to enter into a hudna (religiously sanctioned truce) with Israel. Hamas has frequently offered this before. Such truces are renewable and are often for 10 years. Kushner's team thinks it has attained Natanyahhu's support for this. The deal would supposedly include; a Gaza-Egyptian industrial zone in the area of Raffa, an airport, a seaport. In return Hamas would be expected to police the truce from their side of the border. People on SST who have deep access in Israel doubt the sincerity of apparent Israeli assent, but there is little doubt I think that DJT considers this part of the Grand Bargain he is attempting to forge.

Nowhere in any of this is anything concerning Iran and I assume that regime change remains the policy. Nor is there anything about Saudi Arabia and the UAE's mercenary manned war in Yemen. Ah, well, pilgrims, everything in its time. pl

Sid Finster , 9 hours ago

People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed.
Don Bacon , 9 hours ago
Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc.
Pat Lang Mod -> Don Bacon , 9 hours ago
I suppose you mean the US Armed Forces, not the US Army.
Don Bacon -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
No, I mean the Army is especially invested in Europe and has been. I attended C&GSC at the peak of Vietnam and in exercises they were still mostly concerned with the Fulda Gap, division trains, etc. Big Army. Similar to how Army is going now, back to their roots so to speak. Even when they claimed they were short of funds, they found a way to send forces to Europe based on the claims that after Crimea, Russia was (and is) a threat to. . .the U.S.?

Peace with Russia would be a severe blow to Army especially with the shift to Indo-Pacific which involves Navy and Marines, and Army not much. I know Army was greatly involved with island operations in WWII, but China is not Japan regarding imperialism, IMO, and anyhow island invasions are not popular in Army.

So I look for a beefed up "Russia threat" campaign to counter Trump, and insider Bolton to be a big part of it.

Terra Cotta Woolpuller -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
Good analysis of the political implications of having Bolton establishing a summit as it worked with Pompeo. Always keep your friends close and your enemies closer good way to clean up the nest of venomous asps.
Michael Stojanovic , 9 hours ago
Qatar/Turkey may be an impediment/wild card, given it's Muslim brotherhood connections and leanings and strong backing for Hamas.
Pat Lang Mod -> Michael Stojanovic , 8 hours ago
It seems that Hamas has agreed.
Michael Stojanovic -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
Gen Sisi must have made an offer too good to resist. We know the House of Saud will finance it. Are they going to political legitimatize Hamas, turn Gaza in a statelet ? Perhaps Hamas sees, or is being threaten with the money spigot being turned off ? The only way to get money will be their share of offshore Natural Gas ? All for Hamas perhaps ? Nothing buys peace faster then lining a whole lot of pockets. With more money and Airports and a Shipping port, opens dangerous doors. Is Israel ready for that ? How will that be monitored ? So many damn questions. This may prove more problematic then the status quo, in the long run. Something does have to be done, the conditions in Gaza are unacceptable.
smoothieX12 . , 10 hours ago
Excellent analysis. In related news, a week or so ago semi-official Russian Vzglyad made a first media shot across the bow for Iran in which it stressed that the manner of Iran's "presence" in Syria is a complicating factor.
Babak Makkinejad -> smoothieX12 . , 9 hours ago
Russia cannot dislodge Iran out of Syria. And why should she try? And to what purpose?

Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?

smoothieX12 . -> Babak Makkinejad , 8 hours ago
Russia doesn't want to "dislodge" Iran from Syria but she needs Iran out of the border area with Israel. This is the key to a new arrangement, including, in the long run, Iran's security.

Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?

First two are important but are not clear and present danger for Russia for a number of reasons. Militarization of space is more important now. The last point, however, is extremely important because either there will be some kind of new geopolitical arrangement or we will see probability of a global military conflict grow exponentially.

Babak Makkinejad -> smoothieX12 . , 7 hours ago
Iranians do not need to be at the border area. All they need is to deploy their true and tested method of arming Syria with tens of thousands of precision rockets aimed at Haifa and Tel-Aviv. It worked for North Koreans.

No global peace is in the works.

Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time.

smoothieX12 . -> Babak Makkinejad , 5 hours ago
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there
was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be
different this time.

It must be different, plus I disagree with historic parallel--two entirely different paradigms both in warfare, geopolitical balance and media.

Barbara Ann , 10 hours ago
Well I certainly wish The Greatest President luck. Who knows, I'm done underestimating the guy.

My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced.

The point of maximum danger appears to be at hand, given your characterization of the Daraa op as "betting the farm". Today's grant of new powers to the OPCW to apportion blame (designed to side-step the Russian veto at the UNSC) now means this body can effectively determine casus belli . Let us pray the OPCW will not have reason to exercise its new powers in Syria.

Tony , 11 hours ago
Let the hand wringing begin...
https://www.bbc.com/news/wo...
EEngineer , 12 hours ago
A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit.

On topic #2. If the SAA isn't feeling it's oats by now, forcing them fight a major battle that culminates a campaign by themselves would seem to be the ideal way to exorcise any remaining self doubts and engender a lasting esprit de corps. Stupid is what stupid does... Once these guys finish up in the SW and head east enforce it'll be show time.

[Jun 27, 2018] Putin is rather philo-semitic

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

JohnnyD , June 5, 2018 at 8:08 pm GMT

I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic. As evident by his friendship with Roman Abramovich, Putin is ok with Jewish oligarchs, as long as they play by his rules ( http://www.unz.com/isteve/israel-admits-a-refugee ). Also, despite being allies with Syria and Iran, Putin has always been on relatively good terms with Israel and its leaders, especially Avigdor Lieberman.

Stephen Sniegoski has an excellent article about Putin's relationship with Israel ( https://www.unz.com/article/russia-and-israel-the-unmentioned-relationship/ ).

Furthermore, Russia has its own laws against Holocaust Denial ( https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/ ).

Ironically, Mark Weber, whose work Mr. Giraldi links to, could be arrested in Putin's Russia. Thus, the idea that Putin is hostile to Jewish interests is absurd.

renfro , June 6, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@JohnnyD

I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic

and

Furthermore, Russia has its own laws against Holocaust Denial ( https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/ ).

First, Putin is a pragmatist and nationalist ..Russia is his only favoritism.

Second, due to Jewish narcissism they think the law was all about them. It wasn't. It doesn't mention the holocaust. It says :

'Denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two"

This was Putin's "Polish Lite' law ..i.e ..divorcing Russia from any crimes during WWII and throwing all blame on the Nazis for any war crimes . 'like' killing Jews. Its his 'balancing act' after also condemning anti-Islam attitudes .

Putin is nipping in the bud any and all ethnic attitudes that could cause the same domestic and political 'unrest' that is now rampant in Europe and the US.

Which is why he also did this: .no 'ethnic ' or 'foreign' agents are going to get a foothold in Russia .

Russia Deports Israeli Rabbi, Second Deportation of Chabad Rabbi in 2017
For the second time this year, Russian authorities have ordered out of the country a foreign Chabad rabbi who had lived there for years.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/russia-deports-israeli-rabbi-second-deportation-of-chabad-rabbi-in-2017-1.5474750

"This week, a Moscow district court ordered Yosef Khersonsky, an Israeli who heads one of the capital's communities, to leave the Russian Federation in connection with his "setting up without permission a for-profit foreign entity," the RIA Novosti news agency reported. The court did not specify the nature of the entity.
In its ruling against Ari Edelkopf, the Krasnodar Court of Appeals accepted the determination of a Sochi tribunal that Edelkopf, who had been working as Chabad's emissary to the city, was a threat to national security
Approximately half of the 70 rabbis working for the Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia are foreign. At least eight of them have been denied permission to work in Russia over the past decade, Gorin told JTA in March
Under legislation from 2012 that imposed major limitations on the work of groups with foreign funding, a Jewish charitable group from Ryazan, near Moscow, was flagged in 2015 by the Justice Ministry as a "foreign agent" over its funding from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and its reproduction in a newsletter of political op-eds that appeared in the L'chaim Jewish weekly
Last year, a court in Sverdlovsk convicted a teacher, Semen Tykman, of inciting hatred among students at his Chabad school against Germans and propagating the idea of Jewish superiority. Authorities raided his school and another one in 2015, confiscating textbooks, which some Russian Jews suggested was to create a semblance of equivalence with Russia's crackdown on radical Islam.

[Jun 27, 2018] Disclaimer

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 5, 2018 at 8:29 pm GMT 800 Words The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and ironic.

Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.

Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture. Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on 'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.

But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)

Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant and even hostile to the Universal Faith.

Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and 'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. This egotism among Jews makes them both universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God; Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception but tribal in contract(to Jews).

Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism, it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania, it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity -- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx & Lenin stood for common workers -- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism, vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in the Current Year.

'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia, think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.

[Jun 27, 2018] How Washington Has Lost Its Way

This is a very superficial view. Israeli interests are taken into account as long as they are coincide with interests of military-industrial complex and the Us imperial/neoliberal foreign policy agenda. There is some flexibility, of course, and Israel might be able in certain cases do push more, but for example to say that invasion of Iraq was done due to Israeli lobbying would be inaccurate. yes neocons in the US government were active, but that main reason was access to oil which considered with Israeli geopolitical ambitions in the region.
Jun 27, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

One might well think that the only serious foreign policy imperative of the Donald Trump administration is to defend Israel. A president elected because he promised to put United States' interests first has turned out to be little different than his predecessors, bowing to the power of various lobbies and constituencies to carry out their wishes while simultaneously pretending to be serving poorly defined policies to promote the security and well-being of the American people.

Israel possesses, to be sure, the most powerful foreign policy lobby operating not only in the United States but as well in Western Europe and Australasia. When Israel makes its incessant demands, politicians from Washington to Canberra and Wellington pause to listen. In Britain, fully 80% of Conservative parliamentarians are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

Israel benefits from a large, influential and wealthy community of diaspora Jews that is willing to do its bidding and which also possesses easy access to the media and to politicians, many of whom are more than willing to be corrupted by money. This has led to the creation of an "Israeli narrative," most particularly in the United States, which glamorizes the state of Israel through the incessant reiteration of expressions like "the only democracy in the Middle East" and "America's best friend and closest ally," both of which assertions are completely false.

It should surprise no one that the Trump administration is packed with Israel-firsters from top to bottom. Those who deal with Israel directly – Ambassador David Friedman, Chief Middle East Negotiator Jason Greenblatt, and Special Envoy and son-in-law Jared Kushner are all Orthodox Jews with long standing ties to Israel and its leadership. They are major financial supporters of Israeli "charities," to include projects on the occupied West Bank, which are both illegal under international law and contrary to long established U.S. policy. It would seem, without being too hyperbolic, that Israeli interests are at least as important to them as are the American interests that they ostensibly represent and are being paid by the taxpayer to support.

Within the White House, there is virtually no pushback against Israeli pretensions even when American interests are being damaged. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly voiced his support of the Jewish state and his animosity towards that state's enemy of choice Iran. National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time neoconservative, has never distanced himself in any way from complete identification with the policies being promoted by Israel and its increasingly right wing and racist governments. Donald Trump himself has declared that he will be the best president for Israel ever, a pledge that he has worked to honor by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in spite of the damage that it does to actual regional American interests.

But the most vocal advocate for Israel within the Administration is Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who has consistently taken the hardest of all possible lines against Israel's claimed enemies while also fully endorsing the most brutal actions undertaken by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Haley's most recent action reveals that the United States has truly lost its sense of direction and moral compass. If one were religious, it might be suggested that it has lost its soul.

Haley's most recent foray into her own style of what she might refer to as statesmanship came on June 1 st . Kuwait had brought a resolution to the United Nations Security Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to help protect the people of Gaza, who were being bombed, gassed and shot dead by Israeli Army sniper fire. Nikki Haley, however, was thinking of something quite different, a resolution she had drafted to denounce Hamas for the alleged volleys of rockets that were launched into adjacent Israeli controlled areas in response to the Israeli gunfire and bombings. Votes on the two resolutions followed, with Haley failing to obtain any votes on her resolution except her own.

Haley again voted alone when she vetoed the Kuwaiti resolution to protect the Palestinian people. And it was not Haley's first such bit of unilateralism. She had walked out of a previous Security Council meeting on Israel's killing of Palestinian protesters as a deliberate insult to their representative who had risen to begin to speak. Haley unfortunately represents America. America the home of the free and brave? Bullshit.

Tags: Israel

[Jun 27, 2018] Iranian condensate will most likely replace US condensate to China as much as possible.

Jun 27, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Kolbeinh x Ignored says: 06/27/2018 at 4:57 am

From the Bloomberg article: "The U.S. plans to speak with the governments of Turkey, India and China, all of which import Iranian oil, about finding other supplies."

Iranian condensate will most likely replace US condensate to China as much as possible. China is the key to if/when this harsh "embargo" of Iran will ease. They have the strength to stand up against the US and then others will follow suit (e.g. India). A barter system (goods vs. goods trade) or payment in yuan could probably be a good enough way to avoid american banking sanctions. But if China wants to stand up against US at this point is uncertain. If this strangling of Iran is highly successful, it is hard to see the rewards. A high oil price that will be the tipping point for the global economy in the wrong direction or indirectly (hopefully not directly – who needs another war now?) overthrow the Iranian government and thus the creation of new political problems in the country; a repeat of the Iraq experience almost. I almost forgot that there is the nuclear issue there as well, maybe that is also a driver

  1. Boomer II 06/26/2018 at 10:16 pm Reply

[Jun 27, 2018] Putin is rather philo-semitic

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

JohnnyD , June 5, 2018 at 8:08 pm GMT

I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic. As evident by his friendship with Roman Abramovich, Putin is ok with Jewish oligarchs, as long as they play by his rules ( http://www.unz.com/isteve/israel-admits-a-refugee ). Also, despite being allies with Syria and Iran, Putin has always been on relatively good terms with Israel and its leaders, especially Avigdor Lieberman.

Stephen Sniegoski has an excellent article about Putin's relationship with Israel ( https://www.unz.com/article/russia-and-israel-the-unmentioned-relationship/ ).

Furthermore, Russia has its own laws against Holocaust Denial ( https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/ ).

Ironically, Mark Weber, whose work Mr. Giraldi links to, could be arrested in Putin's Russia. Thus, the idea that Putin is hostile to Jewish interests is absurd.

renfro , June 6, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@JohnnyD

I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic

and

Furthermore, Russia has its own laws against Holocaust Denial ( https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/ ).

First, Putin is a pragmatist and nationalist ..Russia is his only favoritism.

Second, due to Jewish narcissism they think the law was all about them. It wasn't. It doesn't mention the holocaust. It says :

'Denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two"

This was Putin's "Polish Lite' law ..i.e ..divorcing Russia from any crimes during WWII and throwing all blame on the Nazis for any war crimes . 'like' killing Jews. Its his 'balancing act' after also condemning anti-Islam attitudes .

Putin is nipping in the bud any and all ethnic attitudes that could cause the same domestic and political 'unrest' that is now rampant in Europe and the US.

Which is why he also did this: .no 'ethnic ' or 'foreign' agents are going to get a foothold in Russia .

Russia Deports Israeli Rabbi, Second Deportation of Chabad Rabbi in 2017
For the second time this year, Russian authorities have ordered out of the country a foreign Chabad rabbi who had lived there for years.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/russia-deports-israeli-rabbi-second-deportation-of-chabad-rabbi-in-2017-1.5474750

"This week, a Moscow district court ordered Yosef Khersonsky, an Israeli who heads one of the capital's communities, to leave the Russian Federation in connection with his "setting up without permission a for-profit foreign entity," the RIA Novosti news agency reported. The court did not specify the nature of the entity.
In its ruling against Ari Edelkopf, the Krasnodar Court of Appeals accepted the determination of a Sochi tribunal that Edelkopf, who had been working as Chabad's emissary to the city, was a threat to national security
Approximately half of the 70 rabbis working for the Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia are foreign. At least eight of them have been denied permission to work in Russia over the past decade, Gorin told JTA in March
Under legislation from 2012 that imposed major limitations on the work of groups with foreign funding, a Jewish charitable group from Ryazan, near Moscow, was flagged in 2015 by the Justice Ministry as a "foreign agent" over its funding from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and its reproduction in a newsletter of political op-eds that appeared in the L'chaim Jewish weekly
Last year, a court in Sverdlovsk convicted a teacher, Semen Tykman, of inciting hatred among students at his Chabad school against Germans and propagating the idea of Jewish superiority. Authorities raided his school and another one in 2015, confiscating textbooks, which some Russian Jews suggested was to create a semblance of equivalence with Russia's crackdown on radical Islam.

[Jun 27, 2018] WADA informer Rodchenkov 'attempted suicide' in Washington - source

Jun 27, 2018 | theduran.com

Reports have come in that WADA informer Rodchenkov, who fled Russia after allegedly committing crimes, has 'attempted suicide' in Washington.

You may remember Grigory Rodchenkov as the erstwhile head of Russia's Olympic anti-doping lab, before he resigned under shame, and fled to Washington, where he made his accusations of "state-sponsored doping" against the Russian Olympic committee.

His accusations, however, were DEMOLISHED by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), who ruled that Grigory Rodchenkov's evidence against Russian athletes was "hearsay with limited probative value."

Now, sources say that Rodchenkov has attempted suicide, Sputnik reports :
In 2016, Rodchenkov told The New York Times that at least 15 Russian Olympic medalists were part of an alleged state-run doping program, and his testimony served as a basis for the WADA independent commission's report on doping in Russian athletics. However, later he retracted a major part of his accusations against the Russian athletes. According to a source within the US law enforcement services, the informant tried to commit suicide on June 19 in his apartment in New York city.

[Jun 27, 2018] Just An Intimate Conversation Strzok Explains Anti-Trump Texts During Closed Door Testimony

No questions were asked about Brennan role in opening Russiagate witch hunt...
Jun 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation over anti-Trump bias, appeared before a closed door session in front of two House committees on Wednesday, where he tried to explain anti-Trump text exchanges with his FBI mistress as " Just an intimate conversation between intimate friends, " according to Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee , quoting Strzok's description of the controversial messages.

While Jackson Lee gladly accepted Strzok's answer, Republican Mark Meadows of North Carolina wasn't buying it:

While Jackson Lee said she believed Strzok's account that his "intimate" messages didn't reflect political bias in his work, Republican Representative Mark Meadows said, " None of my concerns about political bias have been alleviated based on what I've heard so far ." - Bloomberg

" If you have intimate personal conversations between two people, that normally would show the intent more so than perhaps something that would be said out in public ," said Meadows.

Meadows said that some of the questions on Wednesday revolved around "who knew what when - and what was the genesis of the Russia collusion investigation," into Trump's campaign.

Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL) wasn't buying it either, as Sara Carter details : " It was a waste -- Strzok is full of it and he kept hiding behind [the] classified information excuse."

Others had similarly disappointed reactions: Freedom Caucus & Judiciary Committee member, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) attended today's deposition and reacted to Strzok's testimony, telling the Sean Hannity Radio Show, that " I am shocked at the lack of curiosity with Robert Mueller. I mean Sean, if you were in Mueller's shoes, and you had found these text messages, I would think that you would want to ask whether or not they impacted the investigative decisions that were made, whether there was bias, whether there was contact with other members of the FBI regarding the investigation and where it was going and who was making the critical judgment calls," the Florida Congressman said. " I just cannot believe the lack of curiosity on the part of Robert Mueller. It was the strongest reaction I had today from Peter Strzok's testimony."

* * *

Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page - known as the FBI "lovebirds" - harbored extreme political bias for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump while actively involved in cases against each candidate during the 2016 US election.

Their raging hatred of Donald Trump was discovered in a trove of over 50,000 texts between Strzok and Page which were discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. While Strzok was relegated to the HR department and marched out of his FBI office in mid-June, Page tendered her resignation in May.

In one of the most controversial text exchanges - perhaps because the DOJ withheld it until it came to light in the Inspector Genera's report, Page asks Strzok whether Trump will ever become President:

Page: "(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

Strzok: "No. No he's not. We'll stop it. "

After the Inspector Genera's report came out in mid-June, President Trump tweeted: "The IG Report totally destroys James Comey and all of his minions including the great lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who started the disgraceful Witch Hunt against so many innocent people."

The Judiciary Committee will be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Thursday to discuss the OIG report. Moreover, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio is expected to bring a House floor vote demanding that the DOJ turn over documents.

Also Thursday, a Republican resolution demanding that Rosenstein and the Justice Department turn over more internal documents is expected to be brought to the House floor for a vote. It will be a test of how widely Republicans back the push by party conservatives to probe inner workings of the FBI and Justice Department and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the continuing Russia probe. - Bloomberg

"All we are asking for are documents we deserve to get -- and they are giving us the finger," said Jordan.

Meanwhile, every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to protest Jordan's resolution on "emergency bias," as they say that it shows the committee "has been hijacked by its most extreme majority members at the expense of upholding longstanding committee rules and minority rights."

It was not exactly clear how Congress asking the DOJ to see documents related to a massive political scandal constitute a hijacking.

wadalt -> Bill of Rights Wed, 06/27/2018 - 18:54 Permalink

Strzok = SMALL Fish = Distraction

because they refuse to catch the

BIG FISH = DEEP STATE

cankles' server -> Fish Gone Bad Wed, 06/27/2018 - 19:05 Permalink

I'm not happy with the closed door, but at least they have him on the record when the still classified emails start appearing in two months.

Even though Strzok is a key player in the Russian entrapment conspiracy, he'll flip faster than a nevertrump republican.

Seasmoke Wed, 06/27/2018 - 18:55 Permalink

No one ever mentions how fucking stupid the FBI idiots must be to have ever text this stupidity with each other. These people are overpaid clowns. Get rid of them ALL.

[Jun 27, 2018] Immigration Western Wars and Imperial Exploitation Uproot Millions by James Petras

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions to emigrate is overlooked is wars.

In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness of the trade union and solidarity movements.

We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.

Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration

The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood, housing and communities and undermining there security.

As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.

Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.

Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the West.

Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the Gulf states and Iran.

Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.

The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class turned anti-immigrant.

Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.

Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.

Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America

US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 – 2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.

The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.

US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants to the US.

The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US 'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.

The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or across the border.

US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.

Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.

Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.

Conclusion

Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.

The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international law.

To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client terrorists.

ORDER IT NOW

Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.

The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical social democracy.

[Jun 27, 2018] How Washington Has Lost Its Way

This is a very superficial view. Israeli interests are taken into account as long as they are coincide with interests of military-industrial complex and the Us imperial/neoliberal foreign policy agenda. There is some flexibility, of course, and Israel might be able in certain cases do push more, but for example to say that invasion of Iraq was done due to Israeli lobbying would be inaccurate. yes neocons in the US government were active, but that main reason was access to oil which considered with Israeli geopolitical ambitions in the region.
Jun 27, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

One might well think that the only serious foreign policy imperative of the Donald Trump administration is to defend Israel. A president elected because he promised to put United States' interests first has turned out to be little different than his predecessors, bowing to the power of various lobbies and constituencies to carry out their wishes while simultaneously pretending to be serving poorly defined policies to promote the security and well-being of the American people.

Israel possesses, to be sure, the most powerful foreign policy lobby operating not only in the United States but as well in Western Europe and Australasia. When Israel makes its incessant demands, politicians from Washington to Canberra and Wellington pause to listen. In Britain, fully 80% of Conservative parliamentarians are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

Israel benefits from a large, influential and wealthy community of diaspora Jews that is willing to do its bidding and which also possesses easy access to the media and to politicians, many of whom are more than willing to be corrupted by money. This has led to the creation of an "Israeli narrative," most particularly in the United States, which glamorizes the state of Israel through the incessant reiteration of expressions like "the only democracy in the Middle East" and "America's best friend and closest ally," both of which assertions are completely false.

It should surprise no one that the Trump administration is packed with Israel-firsters from top to bottom. Those who deal with Israel directly – Ambassador David Friedman, Chief Middle East Negotiator Jason Greenblatt, and Special Envoy and son-in-law Jared Kushner are all Orthodox Jews with long standing ties to Israel and its leadership. They are major financial supporters of Israeli "charities," to include projects on the occupied West Bank, which are both illegal under international law and contrary to long established U.S. policy. It would seem, without being too hyperbolic, that Israeli interests are at least as important to them as are the American interests that they ostensibly represent and are being paid by the taxpayer to support.

Within the White House, there is virtually no pushback against Israeli pretensions even when American interests are being damaged. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly voiced his support of the Jewish state and his animosity towards that state's enemy of choice Iran. National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time neoconservative, has never distanced himself in any way from complete identification with the policies being promoted by Israel and its increasingly right wing and racist governments. Donald Trump himself has declared that he will be the best president for Israel ever, a pledge that he has worked to honor by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in spite of the damage that it does to actual regional American interests.

But the most vocal advocate for Israel within the Administration is Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who has consistently taken the hardest of all possible lines against Israel's claimed enemies while also fully endorsing the most brutal actions undertaken by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Haley's most recent action reveals that the United States has truly lost its sense of direction and moral compass. If one were religious, it might be suggested that it has lost its soul.

Haley's most recent foray into her own style of what she might refer to as statesmanship came on June 1 st . Kuwait had brought a resolution to the United Nations Security Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to help protect the people of Gaza, who were being bombed, gassed and shot dead by Israeli Army sniper fire. Nikki Haley, however, was thinking of something quite different, a resolution she had drafted to denounce Hamas for the alleged volleys of rockets that were launched into adjacent Israeli controlled areas in response to the Israeli gunfire and bombings. Votes on the two resolutions followed, with Haley failing to obtain any votes on her resolution except her own.

Haley again voted alone when she vetoed the Kuwaiti resolution to protect the Palestinian people. And it was not Haley's first such bit of unilateralism. She had walked out of a previous Security Council meeting on Israel's killing of Palestinian protesters as a deliberate insult to their representative who had risen to begin to speak. Haley unfortunately represents America. America the home of the free and brave? Bullshit.

Tags: Israel

[Jun 27, 2018] Disclaimer

Notable quotes:
"... Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor. ..."
"... Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians ..."
"... Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets, undercutting our Ruling Class's cut. ..."
"... Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative. Leftists beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. ..."
"... With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire. ..."
"... as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela ..."
"... The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach. ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

June 5, 2018 at 4:03 pm GMT • 200 Words There are probably five big reasons for all the Russia hate:

1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor.

2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians .

3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It isn't just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are having an end-of-life crisis.

4. Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets, undercutting our Ruling Class's cut.

5. Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative. Leftists beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. Back when Russia started their anti-gay thing, American leftists went nuts on them. Of course, Saudi Arabia is much worse but we didn't hear anything about them because they aren't white and being critical in such a case would be waycist.

AnonFromTN , June 5, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT

With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire.

It is in the best interests of the US as a country to maintain good working relationship with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic prosperity and to solve complex international problems.

However, as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela .

The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach.

[Jun 27, 2018] Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Che Guava , June 5, 2018 at 5:39 pm GMT

@Tarheel American

I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the various western Trot. groups at the time.

It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it was only of claimed affilliates to the nonsenical 'Fourth Internatiaoal'.

Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.

Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU, cabinets in many European nations, etc.

Even without that, the chart and attached notes are bizarre enough.

The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not understanding the content at all.

Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are like those of the worst cult religionists.

I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundrd metres from my house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until recently. no more. I would buy it at times.

Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.

[Jun 27, 2018] Space Command is About to Launch! by Philip Giraldi

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

I thought that perhaps I had tuned into John Oliver or to Saturday Night Live in error, but no doubt about it, there was an unmistakable President Donald Trump speaking before an audience at the National Space Council. He was saying that on his own presidential authority "I'm hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. We are going to have the Air Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal."

Before signing Space Policy Directive 3 mandating the change and abruptly departing, Trump went on to explain that "My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's greatest space-faring nation. The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space."

The Air Force, which already has a Space Command, will no doubt object to the new arrangement, preferring instead to roll the expanded responsibilities and money into its already existing framework. Secretary of Defense James Mattis is also reported to be against the expansion, explaining in a speech last year that "The creation of an independent Space Corps, with the corresponding institutional growth and budget implications, does not address our nation's fiscal problems in a responsive manner."

And Donald Trump will have to get over a couple of bureaucratic hurdles to get his nifty new interstellar command up and running. First of all, it will require an Act of Congress to create a new branch of the military. That might not be difficult to do as the expansion is being packaged as "national security," which Republicans will support reflexively and Democrats will also get behind not wanting to appear weak before the elections in November. And both parties will also be willing to line up to benefit from the political contributions coming from defense contractors as well as the creation of new military support facilities providing jobs in congressional districts.

And then there is the money, alluded to by Mattis. Start-up funding a new, coequal military branch would mean a huge increase in the defense budget. As long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency and the treasury can print money without any real backing it is possible to ride the wave, but there are currently significant challenges to the dollars survival in that role. If its supremacy ends, there goes the economy taking the unrestrained government spending with it and sinking the Space Command together with much, much more.

Major defense contractors, all of whom were present to hear Trump's speech, were immediately seen to be drooling over the prospect of a new cash cow. And at the Pentagon champagne corks were popping at the thought of a couple of hundred new flag officer positions that will have to be invented and filled as well as the full complement of civilians to staff the bureaucracy. And think of the uniforms that will have to be distinct from those used by the other branches of the service, maybe copying those formerly in vogue on the Starship Enterprise or as seen in the movie Starship Troopers.

The reality is that the United States does indeed have a major national security interest in protecting its network of satellites in orbit as well as related infrastructure, but there is still quite a lot in the Trump remarks that is disturbing. Trump is basically saying two things. The first is that he will be weaponizing outer space and the second is that he is doing so because he intends for the United States to become dominant in that domain. It is a complete ass-backwards approach to the problem of potential development of threats coming from beyond the atmosphere. Instead of arming outer space, Washington should be working with other countries that have capabilities in that region to demilitarize exploration and both commercial and government exploitation. Everyone has an interest in not allowing outer space to become the next site for an arms race, though admittedly working with other countries does not appear to be something that the Trump Administration enters into lightly. Or at all.

And Trump should also abandon his insistence that the United States develop "dominance" in space. The use of such language is a red flag that will make any agreement with countries like Russia and China impossible to achieve. It virtually guarantees that there will be a competition among a number of nations to develop and deploy killer satellites employing lasers and other advanced electronic jamming technologies to protect their own outer space infrastructure.

Trump appears to have internalized a viewpoint that sees the United States as surrounded by threats but able to emerge victorious by being hyper-aggressive on all fronts. It is a posture that might unnerve opponents and bring some success in the short term but which ultimately will create a genuine threat as the rest of the world lines up against Washington. That day might be coming if one goes by the reaction to recent U.S. votes in the United Nations and Trump's behavior at G-7 are anything to go by.

No one in his right mind would allow Trump to dominate outer space based on Washington's track record of irresponsible leadership since 9/11. It has wrecked the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, killing possibly as many as 4 million Muslims in so doing. It has bullied allies into joining its projects in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria while also disparaging foreign governments and entering into trade wars. It has bankrupted itself in all but name, systematically dismantled the rights of its own citizens, and has become a rogue nation by virtually every measure.

And when you have firmly established the principle that might makes right and all the universe is at the disposal of Washington, what comes next? Antarctica and the arctic region are by some accounts rich in natural resources. Will we Americans be seeing an Antarctic Command with a mandate to dominate the polar regions to enhance national security? Stay tuned.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

[Jun 27, 2018] Russia's Nuclear Doctrine Is Being Distorted Once Again

Notable quotes:
"... The adage from the past that everyone could relate to -- "A nuclear war cannot be unleashed, because there will be no winners" -- is now absent from the political statements that are being heard. It is clear that forces have taken the upper hand on Capitol Hill that are still incapable of imagining the consequences of a nuclear Armageddon. Such a path, even if this scenario proves unlikely, will inevitably lead to a potential undermining of the already fragile non-proliferation regime and a breakdown in the negotiations on establishing control over nuclear facilities, which -- and this is not news -- very few countries are taking part in at the present time. ..."
"... For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by Washington, in the interests of preserving global stability. In order to achieve this goal, the strategic guidelines for inflicting a first "preemptive and preventive" nuclear strike, as well as the continuing premise of "unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence," which have remained unchanged since 1945, must be completely eliminated from American nuclear strategies. ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
It seems odd that the US still does not understand the basic tenets of Russia's nuclear posture. And it must be said that this is not the first time that Western analysts have taken such an unprofessional approach. This has become especially glaring in the run-up to the next NATO summit, which will take place July 11-12 in Brussels.

On the other hand, the newest US nuclear doctrine , which was approved last February, specifies 14 justifications for the use of nuclear weapons, including "low-yield" warheads, which is how US arms experts classify nuclear warheads of 5.0-6.5 kilotons and below. These are precisely the sea- and air-launched warheads the Pentagon intends to utilize in accordance with its new concept of "escalating to de-escalate." Under that theory, low-yield nuclear warheads can be employed by US nuclear forces on an increasing scale in a variety of regional conflicts, with the aim of "de-escalating" them, which might be accomplished with the help of a nuclear first strike.

This practice could cause a chain reaction in the use of nuclear weapons, involving not only "low-yield" warheads, but also more powerful nuclear explosives.

The practice being described -- the potential use of low-yield nuclear weapons, which is a real fixation for the current US administration and is being discussed with increasing frequency in the US -- suggests that America's military and political leaders are committed to dramatically lowering the minimum threshold for their use and expanding the list of acceptable reasons to utilize them under real-world conditions.

The adage from the past that everyone could relate to -- "A nuclear war cannot be unleashed, because there will be no winners" -- is now absent from the political statements that are being heard. It is clear that forces have taken the upper hand on Capitol Hill that are still incapable of imagining the consequences of a nuclear Armageddon. Such a path, even if this scenario proves unlikely, will inevitably lead to a potential undermining of the already fragile non-proliferation regime and a breakdown in the negotiations on establishing control over nuclear facilities, which -- and this is not news -- very few countries are taking part in at the present time.

For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by Washington, in the interests of preserving global stability. In order to achieve this goal, the strategic guidelines for inflicting a first "preemptive and preventive" nuclear strike, as well as the continuing premise of "unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence," which have remained unchanged since 1945, must be completely eliminated from American nuclear strategies.

These are not ultimatums, as someone defending US nuclear policy has already tried to portray them. This is a completely natural, logical, and sensible step, which would no doubt be positively received all over the world.

LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:08 Permalink

You'd think after three generations of this shit people would realize it's all just about the MIC making more money and gaining more power.

07564111 -> LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:17 Permalink

This has nothing at all to do with money and power.

Justin Case -> LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:18 Permalink

That is what it's all about. MIC Oligarchs getting rich. Vietnam was a business not a war. The MIC insiders made a fortune off that fake war.

For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by Washington, in the interests of preserving global instability. That instability keeps murican arms dealers in business.

Empire doesn't like sovereign countries. Brits still have that empire mentality, the upper crust's shit don't stink.

beijing expat -> LetThemEatRand Wed, 06/27/2018 - 00:19 Permalink

It's neocon hubris. They are desperate to nuke someone. Of course the counter strategy is very simple; escalate to the brink and leave Washington with 2 choices: BTFO or die. These people are stupid and will eventually get us all killed for nothing.

[Jun 26, 2018] Donetsk and how it was founded by 19th-century Welsh engineer industrialist John Hughes, after whom it was originally named Yuzovka.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mark2 @ 81, Daniel @ 82:

I am halfway through watching a film of US actor Peter von Berg travelling through the Donetsk People's Republic and meeting Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko and various others to find out how the Donetsk rebels are creating a socialist state under a situation of war. The film is as much an implicit criticism of US society (and by extension, Western capitalist society generally) as it is an investigation of the reality on the ground on Donetsk, ignored by the Western MSM.

Von Berg visits a greenhouse farm growing tomatoes, a hospital and a factory among other places he travels to (including the capital, of course) in the DPR.

There is even a short history of the city of Donetsk and how it was founded by 19th-century Welsh engineer industrialist John Hughes, after whom it was originally named Yuzovka.

https://www.therussophile.org/watch-nyc-to-donetsk-back-a-new-film.html/

Posted by: Jen | Jun 25, 2018 7:06:44 PM | 89

[Jun 26, 2018] Someone Finally Asked the Obama Administration to Own Up to America's Support of Terrorists in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... That people honestly think the Kenyan actually controlled the Pentagon & CIA is disturbing. Although of course he was a very willful participant in the CIA's Middle East color revolution known as the Arab Spring, he was merely a happy-to-oblige puppet in regards to the greater project underfoot. ..."
Jun 26, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Rhodes has been described as being so trusted and close to Obama that he was "in the room" for almost every foreign policy decision of significance that Obama made during his eight years in office. While the Intercept interview is worth listening to in full, it's the segment on Syria that caught our attention.

Rhodes with Obama

In spite of Rhodes trying to dance around the issue, he sheepishly answers in the affirmative when Mehdi Hasan asks the following question about supporting jihadists in Syria :

Did you intervene too much in Syria? Because the CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding and arming anti-Assad rebels , a lot of those arms, as you know, ended up in the hands of jihadist groups, some even in the hands of ISIS.

Your critics would say you exacerbated that proxy war in Syria; you prolonged the conflict in Syria; you ended up bolstering jihadists.

Rhodes initially rambles about his book and "second guessing" Syria policy in avoidance of the question. But Hasan pulls him back with the following: " Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms."

The two spar over Hasan's charge of "bolstering jihadists" in the following key section of the interview , at the end of which Rhodes reluctantly answers "yeah..." -- but while trying to pass ultimate blame onto US allies Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (similar to what Vice President Biden did in a 2014 speech ):

MH: Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms. You know, the U.S. was heavily involved in that war with the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks.

BR: Well, I was going to say: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi.

MH: You were in there as well.

BR: Yeah, but, the fact of the matter is that once it kind of devolved into kind of a sectarian-based civil war with different sides fighting for their perceived survival, I think we, the ability to bring that type of situation to close, and part of what I wrestled with in the book is the limits of our ability to pull a lever and make killing like that stop once it's underway.

To our knowledge this is the only time a major media organization has directly asked a high ranking foreign policy adviser from the Obama administration to own up to the years long White House support to jihadists in Syria .

Though the interview was published Friday, its significance went without notice or comment in the mainstream media over the weekend (perhaps predictably). Instead, what did circulate was a Newsweek article mocking "conspiracy theories" surrounding the rapid rise of ISIS, including the following :

President Donald Trump has done little to dispel the myth of direct American support for ISIS since he took office. On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump claimed -- without providing any evidence -- that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-founded the group and that ISIS "honors" the former president.

Of course, the truth is a bit more nuanced than that , as Trump himself elsewhere seemed to acknowledge, and which ultimately led to the president reportedly shutting down the CIA's covert Syrian regime change program in the summer of 2017 while complaining to aides about the shocking brutality of the CIA-trained "rebels".

Meanwhile, mainstream media has been content to float the falsehood that President Obama's legacy is that he "stayed out" of Syria , instead merely approving some negligible level of aid to so-called "moderate" rebels who were fighting both Assad and (supposedly) the Islamic State. Rhodes has himself in prior interviews attempted to portray Obama as wisely staying "on the sidelines" in Syria .

But as we've pointed out many times over the years, this narrative ignores and seeks to whitewash possibly the largest CIA covert program in history , started by Obama, which armed and funded a jihadist insurgency bent of overthrowing Assad to the tune of $1 billion a year (one-fifteenth of the CIA's publicly known budget according to leaked Edward Snowden documents revealed by the Washington Post ).

It also ignores the well established fact, documented in both US intelligence reports and authenticated battlefield footage , that ISIS and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) jointly fought under a single US-backed command structure during the early years of the war in Syria, even as late as throughout 2013 -- something confirmed by University of Oklahoma professor Joshua Landis, widely considered to be the world's foremost expert on Syria .

me title=

Syria experts, as well as a New York Times report which largely passed without notice, verified the below footage from 2013 showing then US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford working closely with a "rebel" leader who exercised operational command over known ISIS terrorists (Ambassador Ford has since acknowledged the relationship to McClatchy News ):

https://www.youtube.com/embed/yGaSghFK0nI

This latest Ben Rhodes non-denial-cum-sheepish-affirmation on the Obama White House's arming jihadists in Syria follows previous bombshell reporting by Mehdi Hasan from 2015.

As host of Al Jazeera's Head to Head, Hasan asked the former head of Pentagon intelligence under Obama, General Michael Flynn, who is to blame for the rise of ISIS ? (the August 2015 interview was significantly prior to Flynn joining Trump's campaign).

Hasan presented Flynn with the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) declassified memo revealing Washington support to al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists in Syria in order to counter both Assad and Iran. Flynn affirmed Hasan's charge that it was "a willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood...".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/y1oEoCRkLRI

Soon after, The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the shocking contents of the Flynn interview:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vFu9sZylUKY

It will be interesting to see years from now which "narrative" concerning Obama's legacy in the Syrian conflict future historians choose to emphasize.

Obama the president who "stayed out" and "on the sidelines" in Syria? Or Obama the president whose decisions fueled the rise of the most brutal terrorist organization the world has ever seen?

* * *

Below is the relevant excerpt covering Syria from the 26-minute Intercept interview with Obama deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes [bold emphasis ours].

The audio is available here -- Mehdi Hasan begins questioning Rhodes about Syria and ISIS at the 19-minute mark.

Mehdi Hasan: My guest today was at President Obama's side every step of the way over the course of those two terms in office. Ben Rhodes joined the Obama election campaign in 2007 as a foreign-policy speechwriter, when he was just 29, and rose to become a deputy national-security adviser at the White House, who was so intellectually and ideologically close to his boss that he was often described as having a mind-meld with Obama.

Ben, who currently works at the Obama Foundation, has written a new book, "The World as It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House." And earlier this week I interviewed him about Obama's rather contentious foreign policy record

MH: But Ben, here's what I don't get, if you're saying this about Afghanistan and prolonged conflict, all of which I don't disagree with what you're saying. How do you, then, explain Syria? Because you've been criticized a lot. I've been listening to your interviews on the book tour; you talk about in the book about how you were criticized for not doing enough on Syria. I remember being an event in D.C. a couple years ago where Syrian opposition members were berating you for not doing enough at an event, and you often were the public face who came out and defended Obama. I want to come to the other direction and say: Did you intervene too much in Syria? Because the CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding and arming anti-Assad rebels , a lot of those arms, as you know, ended up in the hands of jihadist groups, some even in the hands of ISIS. Your critics would say you exacerbated that proxy war in Syria; you prolonged the conflict in Syria; you ended up bolstering jihadists.

Ben Rhodes: Well, what I try to do in the book is, you know, essentially raise -- all the second guessing on Syria tends to be not what you expressed, Mehdi, but the notion that we should've taken military action.

MH: Yes.

BR: What I do in the book is I try to look back at 2011 and 2012, was there a diplomatic window that we missed or that we, in some ways, escalated its closure by pivoting to the call for Assad to go -- which obviously I believe should happen, I believe Assad has been a terrible leader for Syria and has brutalized his people -- but, you know, was there a diplomatic initiative that could have been taken to try to avert or at least minimize the extent of the civil war. Because, you know, what ended up happening essentially there is, you know, we were probably too optimistic that, you know, after Mubarak went and Ben Ali and eventually Saleh and Gaddafi, that you would have a situation where Assad would go. And, you know, not factoring in enough the assistance he was going to get from Russia and Iran, combined with his own nihilism, and how that could lead him to survive. So I do look back at that potentially missed diplomatic opportunity.

On the support of the opposition, you know, I don't know that I would give us that much agency. There are a lot of people putting arms into Syria, funding all sorts of --

MH : Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms. You know, the U.S. was heavily involved in that war with the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks.

BR: Well, I was going to say: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi.

MH: You were in there as well.

BR: Yeah, but, the fact of the matter is that once it kind of devolved into kind of a sectarian-based civil war with different sides fighting for their perceived survival, I think we, the ability to bring that type of situation to close, and part of what I wrestled with in the book is the limits of our ability to pull a lever and make killing like that stop once it's underway.

So that's why I still look to that initial opening window. I also describe, there was a slight absurdity in the fact that we were debating options to provide military support to the opposition at the same time that we were deciding to designate al-Nusra, a big chunk of that opposition, as a terrorist organization. So there was kind of a schizophrenia that's inherent in a lot of U.S. foreign policy that came to a head in Syria.

MH: That's a very good word, especially to describe Syria policy

Source: Zero Hedge

[Jun 26, 2018] No drama Obama

Jun 26, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 26, 2018 6:55:46 PM | 15

Bart Hansen @13--

Obama became a criminal when he failed to have BushCo arrested once he was inaugurated for their many very major crimes, and it went downhill for him from thereon.

Once again, Alastair Crooke provides a thought provoking article: "The Beginning of the End of the Bilderberg Era," which isn't actually about Bilderbergers per se, but about Trump's attempts to sustain what remains of the Unipolar Moment. Europe proves to be the major actor in the drama:

"And it is here that the paradigm shifts in Europe come into play. It is not, I repeat not because Europe can be expected to show leadership or to 'do' much, but rather because the apophatic discourse of 'saying the unsayable' is spreading to Europe."

And then there's Iran, which is again being spasmed by its uptight portion of the populous that has no more patience with sanctions--fortunately, it's a rather small fraction. The Tehran Times article I linked @11 shows just how important Iran is within OPEC and the larger world.

And then there's Turkey with a new boss that's the same as the old boss but without as much power as he just wielded as Pepe Escobar explores post-election . Yet again, Europe's the mirror:

"For the EU's political leaders, the only accepted narrative is blanket, hysterical condemnation of "illiberal democracies" distorted by personal rule, xenophobia and suppression of free speech. And that also applies to the strongmen in Hungary, Austria, Serbia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

"These EU leaders and the institutions that support them – political parties, academia, mainstream media – simply can't understand how and why their bubble does not reflect what voters really think and feel.

"Instead, we have irrelevant intellectuals mourning the erosion of the lofty Western mission civilisatrice (civilizing mission), investing in a philosophical maelstrom of historical and even biblical references to catalog their angst."

I wonder if Escobar and Crooke have ever met?

[Jun 26, 2018] One theory is the American Empire is simply an extension of the British Empire.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: Pft | Jun 25, 2018 7:38:08 PM | 93

One theory is the American Empire is simply an extension of the British Empire. The City of London saw they would eventually need to move its powerbase to the larger and richer New Israel at the time. They saw that the development and expansion of America was a massive project best left in the hand of colonists without being micromanaged from across the Atlantic. They held back financing and convinced the King to let it go and that by controlling trade they would suffer no great loss in doing so.

It took some time to consolidate power in the US using agents of the City in America and the war of 1812, Civil War , Lincoln and McKinley assassinations were all part of keeping the US on track and later recovering it. By 1901 when they got their man Teddy Roosevelt in after snuffing McKinley , they were well on their way to fulfilling the late Cecil Rhodes dream to recover America.

From 1913-1922 we saw the establishment of the Fed, Bernays Propaganda, Tavistock Institute and its US branches and the creation of the CFR which was a Round Table entity to harmonize policy with the British group. , Thus they seized control of the US money, foreign policy , culture and politics. The Balfour Declaration united Wall Street and the City of London with a common goal of political Zionism and establishment of a new operating base in the Oil Rich region that surrounds Israel. Oil was the New Gold and unlike the metallic Gold ran the engines of War, and the Empire wanted more control of it.

At this time a little known company named the AIC (acronym backward is CIA) called the
American International Corporation came into being. Little is known about them but they were basically a private CIA engaged globally and made up of many of the leading bankers and industialists to finance and complete infrastructure projects in Russia, China, Latin American and elsewhere. I suspect they had a hand in spreading the empires tentacles globally before handing over operations to government and CIA under their supervision

The Bolshevik Revolution in this period was funded by those in the City and Wall Street. It was known at the time that another Great War was needed to achieve their goals. Communism- Fascism, Zionism-anti semitism would provide the kindle and fuel for this. The City and Wall Street plunged the world into a Great Depression and created the BIS which would divert the resources from UK, Europe and US to build up Hitlers Germany which had been converted into a Mad Dog thanks to the Versailles Treaty, just as Keynes predicted and exactly as planned.

After the war, the British Empire became the Anglo American Empire and the City of London and Wall Street became more or less equal partners. Israel, UN, IMF and World Bank were a done deal and would provide useful new tools for the NWO. While they lost their resource rich colonies the City replaced them with Tax Havens which these countries would flood with Petrodollars, also known as Eurodollars , completely outside the control of the Fed allowing the City to maintain its power over US currency should the Fed stray. The tax havens would fund covert operations that the CIA and other intelligence agencies depend on, and allow pretend enemies who are needed to get large military budgets to circumvent sanctions, as well as allow the super rich to avoid taxes. Much more profitable than the old colonies which were expensive to run and maintain control

In the post WWII era, American Generals, Fed Chairmen and Presidents get knighted by the crown (actually the City of London and not the symbolic Queen).

So maybe the US is simply a crypto Commonwealth nation that provides the financial and military muscle for the Crown in the City and its sister Israel.

[Jun 26, 2018] The USA has always been an Empire since its inception -- an Empire doesn't need to extend overseas, like Spain, Portugal, UK, France. The USA began as a limited Continental Empire, then expanded to Continental in size like Russia and China, although the latter two didn't result from implantation.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Guerrero @66--

The Outlaw US Empire has always been an Empire since its inception--an Empire doesn't need to extend overseas, like Spain, Portugal, UK, France. The USA began as a limited Continental Empire, then expanded to Continental in size like Russia and China, although the latter two didn't result from implantation.

I'd like to know your source for this statement of yours: "Interestingly, the reform movements coming about in the balance of the 19th Century were also corrupt in their essence." There was only one nationwide reform movement from 1875-1900, which is known as The Populist Movement and was squeaky clean versus the Ds and Rs. There was quite a lot of corruption during Lincoln's administration, too, mostly thanks to the Civil War.

Have you read The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber, Empire as a Way of Life by William Appleman Williams, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard, or The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 and The Politics of War by Gabriel Kolko? They provide a primer so you can find an answer to your question.

No, the Outlaw US Empire was certainly the result of Globalization and participated in several imperialist wars well before its Civil War--Globalism being the imperialistic aspects of Globalization which actually began prior to 1492 with Portugal's many voyages of discovery. 1494's Treaty of Tordesillas is the first document establishing Globalism; its affects still effect us today.

None of my response is meant to be construed as hostile. Rather, it's clear you want to learn more about the Outlaw US Empire beast and what motivated its elite to try and conquer the planet, which is my own lifelong study. Knowing how we got to this point provides us with a guide as to how to retreat from Overseas Empire. As always, the problem with learning anything worthwhile is having the time and resources. I hope we'll enter into a productive discourse on this topic given its central importance to most of what b likes to focus upon with his postings.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 25, 2018 3:41:59 PM | 70

karlof1 , Jun 25, 2018 4:03:29 PM | 73

PavewayIV @68--

At least we know who comprised most of the original Deep State as they were all present in Philadelphia designing the coup known as the US Constitution. Later we can follow the membership of the Federalist Party, then the Whigs. When the Whigs dissolved is when most of the Deep State went underground. IMO, Polk was the first neocon president; but to my knowledge, no author's written about him in that manner. Bertram Gross's Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America has several ToEs delineating the structure of power within the Federal government parts of which constitute the Deep State. IMO, the two tools we were given that are now kaput require another tool to put them back into working order--Solidarity. The ferment of mass protest will help as well--anything they cannot control or buy.

Daniel , Jun 25, 2018 4:27:37 PM | 74
karlof1 @70. I agree that the US was an Empire from its founding. Tommy Jefferson bought from the French colonialists the land of people not French, doubling the size of the US (in an act which he himself wrote was probably unconstitutional, but too good a deal to pass up). Tommy sent Lewis and Clarke to document the rest of the continent that the Founders clearly always planned to possess. They were not shy in telling the locals that the "Great White Chief" in Washington was "the new boss."

A few years later, the Monroe Doctrine made clear to "the Old World" that the US considered the entire Western Hemisphere its "sphere of influence," and has jealously and viciously defended that claim ever since.

Yes, some US historians see the "Spanish/American War" as the first truly imperialist venture. But the tens of millions of Indians (the term preferred by most Native Americans I've known) would beg to differ. As would the competing empires of Great Britain, Spain and even the Dutch - each of which fled before the sword of USAmerican Empire long before 1896.

Guerrero , Jun 25, 2018 4:39:26 PM | 75
Karlofi@70 Another of my favorite commentators in this space:
"Interestingly, the reform movements coming about in the balance of the 19th Century were also corrupt in their essence."

I wasn't thinking of the Populist movement, rather to congressional political-positioning around the boondoggle government-jobs industry run by the republican party bosses in the US Grant administration onward.

...it is a truism that the conquest of power and office generally changes, vitiates, a political movement. Leaders and officers of the party, were they ever so sincerely committed to a "popular" or "leveler's" or "agrarian" program, are now affected deeply by the dazzling advantages and priveliges of official position, by the need for retaining these at all costs, and the haunting fear of losing them.

Politicos Matthew Josephson

Karlofi asks: "Have you read The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber, Empire as a Way of Life by William Appleman Williams, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard, or The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 and The Politics of War by Gabriel Kolko?"

I have read quite a few history books but none of those you have mentioned -yet! Thanks.

Daniel , Jun 25, 2018 4:43:49 PM | 76
karlof1 @73
"IMO, Polk was the first neocon president; but to my knowledge, no author's written about him in that manner."

Interesting framing. He was certainly a President of expanding Empire. Like Tommy Jefferson before him, he doubled the size of the US. I'm especially taken by his failed attempt to buy what is now the US Southwest from Mexico, and so we had a false flag/hoax attack at the contested border of TX/Mexico, and voila! We'll just have it all, thank you very much.

And then, in the absurd Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the US agreed to pay to Mexico restitutions that were LESS than the original offer. But, crucially, because of that token payment for what would become New Mexico, Arizona, California and much of Nevada and Colorado, US writers and historians were able to claim "we are not an empire . thank God!"

For your Monday Musical Memory-enhancement, I present David Rovics' magnificent Saint Patrick's Battalion about that Mexican/American War.

[Jun 26, 2018] Donetsk and how it was founded by 19th-century Welsh engineer industrialist John Hughes, after whom it was originally named Yuzovka.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mark2 @ 81, Daniel @ 82:

I am halfway through watching a film of US actor Peter von Berg travelling through the Donetsk People's Republic and meeting Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko and various others to find out how the Donetsk rebels are creating a socialist state under a situation of war. The film is as much an implicit criticism of US society (and by extension, Western capitalist society generally) as it is an investigation of the reality on the ground on Donetsk, ignored by the Western MSM.

Von Berg visits a greenhouse farm growing tomatoes, a hospital and a factory among other places he travels to (including the capital, of course) in the DPR.

There is even a short history of the city of Donetsk and how it was founded by 19th-century Welsh engineer industrialist John Hughes, after whom it was originally named Yuzovka.

https://www.therussophile.org/watch-nyc-to-donetsk-back-a-new-film.html/

Posted by: Jen | Jun 25, 2018 7:06:44 PM | 89

[Jun 26, 2018] How Many Turncoats Make a Coverup? Adam Waldman, Julian Assange, Oleg Deripaska and Luke Harding by John Helmer

Teh author stated: "The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence fabrication scheme hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including journalists in Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers dossier ; the sequel can be followed here . "
Jun 26, 2018 | johnhelmer.net

By John Helmer, Moscow

Over weeks and months of last year, Adam Waldman (lead image, left), a Washington lobbyist with ties to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, tried to lure Julian Assange (second from left) into making incriminating admissions to benefit the Democrats' campaign alleging Russian collusion in Clinton's defeat by President Donald Trump. Assange tried to use Waldman for a deal with the US Department of Justice, exchanging an offer to withhold disclosure of classified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents and trade other secrets, some Russian, in exchange for a grant of immunity from US prosecution.

At the same time, Oleg Deripaska (third from left), the oligarch in control of the Russian aluminium industry, paid Waldman to offer US prosecutors information about the Trump election campaign manager Paul Manafort and others connected to the Trump campaign, including Russians, in exchange for a US Government promise not to impose sanctions on Deripaska. Last week Luke Harding (right), a reporter for the Guardian, a London newspaper, sold the story of Waldman's meetings with Assange and Deripaska as a conspiracy to advance a scheme by President Vladimir Putin to control the US Government.

Four plotters; more than four schemes; money in Waldman's and Harding's pockets; not a shred of truth.

The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence fabrication scheme hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including journalists in Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers dossier ; the sequel can be followed here .

The story of Deripaska's engagement of Waldman as his lobbyist with Hillary Clinton at the State Department and other officials in the Obama Administration has been running for nine years. Deripaska's payments to Waldman have averaged half a million dollars a year; that's a total to date of about $5 million. The failure of every one of Waldman's operations on Deripaska's behalf can be read at this click .

A semi-annual report of Waldman's lobbying activities for Deripaska is required to be disclosed by the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); the record is accessible at the FARA unit of the Justice Department in Washington. For example, details of which US officials Waldman met and what he wanted them to do for Deripaska were accessible in the FARA filings for 2011 here .

Since then the filings can be followed at six-monthly intervals through December 15, 2017. In last December's filing Waldman claimed to the Justice Department that, among the purposes of Deripaska's engagement, he was being paid for selecting animal welfare charities and promotion of a Russian vaccine for ebola.


Source: https://www.fara.gov/docs/5934-Supplemental-Statement-20171221-17.pdf

Waldman claims on his company website that "Endeavor acts as a core member of its Client's [Deripaska] holding company executive team, and is the sole representative of its Client's myriad interests before the U.S. government." Today the FARA dossier on Waldman's Russian clients shows this:


Source: https://efile.fara.gov/ When Waldman registered himself as lobbying for the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, he was doing Deripaska's bidding; Lavrov usually does .

This means that Waldman's registration as Deripaska's agent in Washington remains active and he continues to be paid, even though the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ordered all US individuals and institutions to cease doing business with Deripaska and his companies from April 6.


Source: https://efile.fara.gov/pls/apex/f?p=181:130:6521116159904::NO::P130_CNTRY:RU

The US Treasury did not sanction Deripaska for supporting animal welfare and an ebola vaccine. The reasons for Deripaska's sanction, according to the Treasury, were that "having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, a senior official of the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the energy sector of the Russian Federation economy. Deripaska has said that he does not separate himself from the Russian state. He has also acknowledged possessing a Russian diplomatic passport, and claims to have represented the Russian government in other countries. Deripaska has been investigated for money laundering, and has been accused of threatening the lives of business rivals, illegally wiretapping a government official, and taking part in extortion and racketeering. There are also allegations that Deripaska bribed a government official, ordered the murder of a businessman, and had links to a Russian organized crime group." For more on the US action against Deripaska, read this .

Waldman has sidestepped the ban on taking money from Deripaska by changing his registration from Endeavor Group -- a lobbying company covered by the OFAC sanction – to "Endeavor Law Firm PC". That's a one-man company whose only employee is Waldman; it isn't mentioned by the Endeavor Group's website. As a law firm acting for Deripaska, Waldman isn't banned by the new sanction.

In February of this year the Murdoch media reported that on Deripaska's instructions, Waldman was attempting to arrange appearances before the US Senate Intelligence Committee for Deripaska and for Christopher Steele, one of the authors of the Golden Showers dossier. Both of them wanted the Democratic minority on the committee to issue the invitations and secure advance undertakings in writing from the Committee, including immunity from US prosecution .

Waldman's telephone texts were exchanged with Senator Mark Warner, a former governor of Virginia; Democratic Party runner for president; and at present vice-chairman of the Intelligence Committee. The messages were leaked by Republicans in Congress to the Murdoch media, and then confirmed by Warner himself.

Read the Waldman-Warner series in full .

Deripaska, Waldman told Warner, was trying to negotiate his testimony at the Intelligence Committee against Manafort and the Trump presidential campaign in exchange for protection from US Government sanctions. Exactly what Deripaska told Waldman he was ready to tell the Senate Committee about Russian Government involvement with Manafort and the Trump election campaign has not been disclosed because Waldman failed to get any concession for Deripaska from either the Senators or from the Justice Department officials whom he was lobbying at the same time.

Interpreting the series, a Fox News reporter claimed: "Over the course of four months between February and May 2017, Warner and Waldman also exchanged dozens of [telephone] texts about possible testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Deripaska, Waldman's primary Russian billionaire client .In the dozens of text messages between February 2017 and May 2017, Waldman also talked to Warner about getting Deripaska to cooperate with the intelligence committee. There have been reports that Deripaska, who has sued Manafort over a failed business deal, has information to share about the former Trump aide. In May 2017, the Senate and House intelligence committees decided not to give Deripaska legal immunity in exchange for testimony to the panels. The text messages between Warner and Waldman appeared to stop that month." Trump responded by tweeting: "All tied into Crooked Hillary."


Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele

For the full story of Deripaska's relationship with Manafort, read this .

Assange was first mentioned by Waldman in a message to Warner on February 15, 2017. By then, according to Ecuadorian Embassy meeting logs exposed only now, Waldman had met Assange three times in January, and was planning to meet him again in March. Waldman told Warner that for this he was acting "pro bono"; that's to say, Assange wasn't paying Waldman's bill. To protect himself, Waldman also claimed that if US officials, including Warner, didn't appreciate the value of Waldman's negotiations with Assange, he would stop them. In retrospect, Waldman continued meeting Assange for another nine months. Waldman's trips to London and his expenses there for at least some of those occasions were charged to other clients of Waldman's.

EXCERPTS FROM THE WALDMAN-WARNER TEXT SERIES


Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/

The significance of Waldman's messages about Assange were ignored in the US at the time of their first release because US reporters were focused on Waldman's Russian connexion, and the potential for damage the reporters believed this might do to Trump. Likewise, Waldman's reports of what Assange told him have been ignored in the London media until the Guardian revealed the Ecuadorian government reports on Assange and the visit logs. The Guardian's purpose, like the earlier Murdoch media reporting, was to find a Kremlin connection.

In retrospect, the Waldman-Warner texts reveal that it was Assange's intention to use Waldman to make a connection, not to the Kremlin, but to the US Government, trading Wikileaks for Assange's freedom. Assange was requesting, so Waldman told Warner, safe passage to Washington and release from threats of US prosecution in return for information regarding "future leaks" and a promise not "to do something catastrophic for the dems, Obama, CIA and national security". Waldman wrote that to Warner on February 16, 2017, adding: "I hope someone will consider getting him to the US to ameliorate the damage".

On March 7, 2017, Wikileaks released publicly what Assange had already described to Waldman. This was the start of publication of the CIA's Vault-7 and Vault-8 files. The files, claimed Wikileaks, were "the largest ever publication of confidential documents by the agency." They revealed the extent, cost and penetration, inside the US as well as globally, of CIA cyber-warfare operations of many kinds, including hacker attacks which the CIA created as false flags, making them appear to originate from Russian sources.

"Since 2001," Wikileaks announced , "the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force -- its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other 'weaponized' malware."

Assange was quoted in the Wikileaks release as saying: "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of 'Year Zero' goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."

This was what Assange had told Waldman, days earlier, was the "something catastrophic" he was planning. But Assange told Waldman more. He was willing to deal if the Justice Department would agree to a quid pro quo. Waldman's messages to Warner confirm this; they also reveal that Waldman got no swift response from Justice Department officials, so he asked Warner for his help. Assange then started his slow release of the Vault-7 archive, one week at a time:


Source: https://wikileaks.org/+-Intelligence-+.html

Assange's last publication in the CIA Vault series was on November 9. Waldman's last meetings with Assange were in the same month.

What exactly were the terms Assange asked Waldman to trade with the Justice Department and Warner's Intelligence Committee? Was he telling Waldman that he would stop the release of more CIA Vault-7 documents in return for immunity from prosecution? Did he reveal to Waldman enough information for the CIA and Justice Department to identify the source of the CIA documents?

Last week, on June 18, the US Attorney's office in Manhattan announced that it had indicted a former CIA software engineer, Joshua Schulte (right), as the source of the Wikileaks releases. Read the 14-page indictment here . Schulte, 29, had worked in the CIA's Engineering Development Group, which designed the hacking tools used by its Center for Cyber Intelligence. In late 2016, he left the Agency and moved to New York to work for Bloomberg. The prosecutors have charged thirteen counts against Schulte; nine of them relate to the Wikileaks releases, and carry a total of 90 years' imprisonment on conviction. Schulte has pleaded not guilty.

Bloomberg has reported Schulte's indictment and court appearance, noting that after he left the CIA in November 2016 he "worked briefly for Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, leaving the company in March 2017." Bloomberg has not been charged with gaining unlawful advantage from Schulte's expertise. US media reporting the Schulte charges claim his disclosures were one of the worst losses of classified documents in the CIA's history. Earlier document releases through Wikileaks by Edward Snowden in 2013 came for the most part from the National Security Agency (NSA), for which Snowden had been a contractor. He has been charged by US prosecutors with espionage, and been granted asylum in Russia.

Wikileaks isn't named in the Schulte indictment; instead, it is referred to as "Organization-1 which posted the Classified Information online". Schulte, the court papers imply, obtained the classified information during 2016, in the months leading up to his departure from the CIA in November of that year. Two months later Assange had the files, because he told Waldman about them during their January meetings.

By the time in March, when Assange started publishing from Vault-7, investigators from the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had already identified Schulte as their suspect. In last week's court papers it is revealed that Schulte was first interrogated by the FBI within days of the first Wikileaks publication.

Source: https://static01.nyt.com/files/

How did the FBI find its way so swiftly to Schulte? Had Waldman's contacts with the Justice Department in February, relaying what Assange had told him, helped pinpoint Schulte as the Wikileaks source?

Assange's current barrister in London is Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers . She and a press spokesman, Elina Gibbons-Plowright, were asked to clarify the meetings between Waldman and Assange which had taken place in 2017. In addition to multiple telephone-calls to their offices, the questions were recorded on Robinson's answer-phone and emailed. She and Gibbons-Plowright were initially reluctant to respond.


Julian Assange and Jennifer Robinson during London court proceedings in 2011. Assange took refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in June 2012; he was granted diplomatic asylum by the Ecuador Government in August 2012, and Ecuadorian citizenship in December 2017. US threats to have the UK Government arrest him and extradite him have been renewed by the Schulte indictment of last week.

Then on Friday Robinson replied by email: "Mr Assange is cut off from phone and internet, and is only permitted legal visits, so the only way I can put your questions to him is to physically go into the embassy. I have no scheduled visits until next week. I trust you understand the difficulties of his current circumstances and the impact of this in terms of ability to provide comment and will acknowledge this in however you report this story."

I replied: "The Waldman-Assange meetings commenced, with your knowledge and counsel for your client, more than a year ago. The SMS texts were published four months ago. Consequently, the questions are for you to answer. You will know that Mr Waldman purports to be the one-man employee of the Endeavor Law Firm PC, as well as the principal of Endeavor Group, a lobbying firm. You knew that he and Mr Assange discussed matters of law and proposals for the US Department of Justice."

The questions for Robinson were: 1. After meeting with Mr Assange in mid-February 2017, Mr Waldman sent an SMS to Senator Mark Warner saying Mr Assange wanted "safe passage from the USG to discuss the past and future leaks". Please explain what "safe passage" meant then. 2. In February Mr Assange told Mr Waldman that he was planning "something catastrophic for the dems, Obama, CIA and national security" – was that the Vault 7 disclosure? 3. Mr Waldman also quoted Mr Assange as saying he wanted to go to the US "to ameliorate the damage" – what did Mr Assange mean by "ameliorate the damage"? 4. Mr Waldman says Mr Assange agreed to "serious and important concessions" for Mr Waldman to take directly to the US Department of Justice and discuss with those officials. What were these concessions? 5. Within hours or days of the first Wikileaks publication of the Vault 7 files, the FBI went to interview Joshua Schulte. Did Mr Assange give Mr Waldman information or promise information about Mr Schulte to help the FBI and CIA to identify him as a source for the Vault 7 files?

Robinson has not answered.

In Washington Waldman hides from email and telephone contact. His website contact email address is secured behind a password barrier set up in Germany. His office telephone number 202-715-0966 provides an extension number 1006 for Waldman, but no message can be left on the answer-phone. Waldman himself does not pick up during office hours. Neither is there an office receptionist. The telephone directory number, like the email address, is a blind.

Questions were sent to Waldman's personal email address, which he has used to communicate with me in the past. Waldman was asked to "clarify what were the client relationships and purposes you held out to Mr Assange which the latter believed to be in his interest to pursue as often with you as he appears to have done?" Waldman refuses to answer.

Harding, a Guardian correspondent in Moscow between 2007 and 2011, reported last week that "US intelligence agencies concluded with 'high confidence' last year, in an unclassified intelligence assessment, that the Kremlin shared hacked emails with WikiLeaks that undermined Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign as part of its effort to sway the 2016 election in favour of Donald Trump." For identification of the faults of the US intelligence agency report, read this .

For months after the election in November 2016, Harding has suggested by innuendo, the visits Waldman made to Assange from January to November 2017 – ten reportedly counted from secret logs obtained from the Ecuadorian Government -- indicate that Waldman, Assange and Deripaska were scheming to advance Russian interests in the defeat of the Democratic Party campaign against Trump.

"It is not clear why Waldman went to the WikiLeaks founder or whether the meetings had any connection to the Russian billionaire, who is now subject to US sanctions", Harding reported, then drawing his own conclusion: "But the disclosure is likely to raise further questions about the extent and nature of Assange's alleged ties to Russia." This was Harding's cue for the answer he has already decided – Waldman was Assange's back-channel to the Kremlin. In November 2017, Harding had published a book with this conclusion in the title, "Collusion – How Russia [sic] Helped [sic] Trump [sic] Win the White House". The Latin qualifier has been added to identify the innuendoes for which Harding has reported no conclusive evidence.


The headline claims the Ecuadorian surveillance reports on Assange count nine visits by Waldman. In Harding's text, he reports three Waldman visits to Assange in January 2017; two in March; three in April; and two in November. If accurately counted, they add up to ten. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/ The Waldman telephone texts to Senator Warner which have been published start in February 2017, and refer to contact with Assange which Waldman had had already. In March, when Waldman met Assange twice, he told Warner he had "convinced him to make serious and important concessions and am discussing those w/DOJ [with US Department of Justice]."

The web and print displays of the story don't provide evidence for the reported connection between Deripaska and Assange on which Harding sets store. Assange refused to reply to the questions Harding had sent him; Waldman and Deripaska likewise.

Harding believes Assange met Waldman as a go-between through Deripaska to Moscow. It did not occur to Harding that Assange was negotiating with Waldman for a deal with Washington.

[Jun 26, 2018] This banking and finance cartel (which, as you say, is interlocked with big oil, the military/industrial, big tech, etc.) forms the core of what are called the 'Globalists', an international financial elite that use their wealth to exert political control over as much of the world as possible.

Notable quotes:
"... This banking and finance cartel (which, as you say, is interlocked with big oil, the military/industrial, big tech, etc.) forms the core of what are called the 'Globalists', an international financial elite that use their wealth to exert political control over as much of the world as possible. In addition to the banking families, the 'Globalists' include any number of extremely wealthy people, (Industrialists, Tech Entrepreneurs, Middle-East Sheiks, Saudi Royals, and Nouveaux Riches such as Soros, Ukranian and Russian Oligarchs, etc.). The 'Globalists' directly control virtually all Western NGOs (Soros), think tanks and major media. ..."
Jun 26, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Re Reading Recommendations

Thanks, everyone, for all the book recommendations – several I had not read. I would add "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, "The Shame of the Cities" by Lincoln Steffens, and "Who Will Tell the People" by William Greider, and in that order.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Jun 25, 2018 5:01:26 PM | 78

dh-mtl , Jun 25, 2018 5:01:46 PM | 79

Noirette@62,

I agree with your points, but would like to build on them a bit.

The 'Banking and Finance' cartel behind the U.S. deep state is said to consist of eight families, half American and half European. (The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families, Dean Henderson, Global Research, May 19, 2016)

This banking and finance cartel (which, as you say, is interlocked with big oil, the military/industrial, big tech, etc.) forms the core of what are called the 'Globalists', an international financial elite that use their wealth to exert political control over as much of the world as possible. In addition to the banking families, the 'Globalists' include any number of extremely wealthy people, (Industrialists, Tech Entrepreneurs, Middle-East Sheiks, Saudi Royals, and Nouveaux Riches such as Soros, Ukranian and Russian Oligarchs, etc.). The 'Globalists' directly control virtually all Western NGOs (Soros), think tanks and major media.

The 'Globalists' control not only the U.S. Deep State, but also the European Union structures. They also have purchased a large number of politicians throughout the Western World. Through this control they have stripped sovereignty from both the U.S. and Europe, and converted them into effective 'Oligarchic Dictatorships'. These dictatorships are set-up for the benefit of the 'Globalists' themselves, and have little interest in the well-being of their citizens. This is seen in the impoverishment and societal collapse rapidly progressing in both the U.S. and Europe.

Globalization is the 'Globalists' project of Global Governance, which effectively strips nation-states of their sovereignty (and democracy) and transfers it to 'Global Institutions' (IMF, World Bank, International Trade Agreements, U.N., Climate Agreements, etc.), enforced by U.S. military might.

The 'Project for a New American Century' was the 'Globalists' blueprint to 'Globalize' over the parts of the world that they did not already control. Almost all current and recent international conflicts, from the Middle-Eastern Wars, to Ukraine, the Korean crisis, the cornering of Russian and Obama's 'Pivot to Asia' are all related to this project.

Unfortunately for the 'Globalists', Global Governance is extremely harmful to citizens that are subject to it. That is why we see 'populism/nationalism' rising throughout the U.S. and Europe, in an attempt to block the stripping of these citizens' democracy, their nations' sovereignty and their personal security and well-being.

I believe that President Trump is part of this populism/nationalism movement, and almost all of his actions can be interpreted as an attempt to counter Globalization, to restore U.S. sovereignty and to redevelop the U.S. economy, which has been devastated over the past four decades by the 'Globalist' elites.

karlof1 , Jun 25, 2018 5:54:42 PM | 83
AntiSpin @78, et al--

I second those 3!! Greider's Secrets of the Temple is a good primer on The Fed. The Age of Federalism by Elkins and McKitrick documents the first undeclared war of too many, this one with France during its revolutionary period prior to Napoleon. The Seminoles and other Floridian tribes were used as proxies to force the Spanish out of the Floridas; and too many forget that Louisiana was Spanish before its very short ownership by France. Jefferson's purchase and dispatch of Lewis and Clarke educated him as to the wide-open, unregulated nature of the Executive under the 1787 Constitution, which represents the current plague on our planet today.

But the initial germ beyond Tordesillas of a continent spanning empire was the brain child of one Richard Hakluyt whose ideas for planting North America infected many other English elites. His idea was incorporated into the Charter for the Virginia Company--it went all the way to the as yet undiscovered boundary of the Pacific Ocean. This slide shows the continental extent of the charters grated Virginia and New England.

One last book endorsement for two of Bernard Bailyn's many works: The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson . If you have a good university library close by, it ought to have the entire work, Pamphlets of the American Revolution , from which Ideological Origins was just the introduction.

One of my research methods was to find an author whose authority I trust, like Bailyn, then read everything he wrote since I can't have him tutor me--and follow his footnotes to where he got his information. Sure, that leads to a very extensive reading list; but if you're going to become a historian, reading lots of books and journals is what you do. Same thing with Chomsky; all his works are rife with footnotes. And don't just read the radical or leftist historians; you must read the Court Historians too and thus discover their many omissions--we all know history's manipulated, but that's not sufficient: just how and why are necessary.

frances , Jun 25, 2018 7:08:16 PM | 90
reply to:Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 25, 2018 5:01:46 PM | 79
"The 'Project for a New American Century' was the 'Globalists' blueprint to 'Globalize' over the parts of the world that they did not already control."
I agree, their plan is to open up the Schengen region to ALL of Africa destroying/diluting all allegiance to nations in Europe under the 2018 Marrakesh Declaration (ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/20180503_declaration-and-action-plan-marrakesh_en.pdf) signed by the EU and 40 African nations thereby ushering in the return of feudalism under UN 2050 plan.
Well worth a read if you are not familiar with it, it will chill your blood, chilled mine anyway.

[Jun 25, 2018] Comment on "Trump and "National Neoliberalism""

Jun 25, 2018 | triplecrisis.com
  1. Thomas Williams says: November 30, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Sasha:

    Got my Economics Degree in 1971 – when they still taught the stuff. Maybe I shouldn't, but I still go nuts when educated writers like yourself distort the origins of Fascism. It was a three legged stool consisting of government, industry and labor. Taking care of the working class was a key element. Also, being socialist, it was not market oriented. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite with it's 'lump of labor' and unregulated markets. It arose in defense of the crushing fist of western capitalism and, had it not been taken over by dictators, might have done the world a lot of good. Other than that you wrote a nice piece. Keep it up

[Jun 25, 2018] Are al-Qaeda Affiliates Fighting Alongside US Rebels in Syria's South?

Jun 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

DARAA, Syria – At first glance, all appears calm in this southern Syrian city where protests first broke out seven years ago. Residents mill around shops in preparation for the evening Iftar meal when they break their daily fast during the holy month of Ramadan.

But the tension is nonetheless palpable in this now government-controlled city. A few weeks ago, Russian-brokered reconciliation talks in southern Syria fell apart when Western-backed militants rejected a negotiated peace.

Whether there will now be a full-on battle for the south or not, visits last week to Syria's three southern governorates, Daraa, Quneitra, and Suweida, reveal a startling possibility: al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise -- the Nusra Front -- appears to be deeply entrenched alongside these U.S.-backed militants in key, strategic towns and villages scattered throughout the south.

U.S. media and think tanks obfuscate this fact by referring to all opposition fighters as "rebels" or "moderates." Take a look at their maps and you only see three colors: red for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, green for opposition forces, black for ISIS.

No More Utopian Dreams on Syria War Without a Rationale

So then, where is the Nusra Front, long considered by Western pundits to be one of the most potent fighting forces against the SAA? Have they simply -- and conveniently -- been erased from the Syrian battle map?

Discussions with Syrian military experts, analysts, and opposition fighters during my trip revealed that Nusra is alive and kicking in the southern battlefields. The map below specifically identifies areas in the south controlled by Nusra, but there are many more locations that do not appear where Nusra is present and shares power with other militants.

Despite its U.S. and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra has been openly fighting alongside the "Southern Front," a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded by a U.S.-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC).

Specifics about the MOC aren't easy to come by, but sources inside Syria -- both opposition fighters and Syrian military brass (past and present) -- suggest the command center consists of the U.S., UK, France, Jordan, Israel, and some Persian Gulf states.

They say the MOC supplies funds, weapons, salaries, intel, and training to the 54 militias, many of which consist of a mere 200 or so fighters that are further broken down into smaller groups, some only a few dozen strong.

SAA General Ahmad al-Issa, a commander for the frontline in Daraa, says the MOC is a U.S.-led operation that controls the movements of Southern Front "terrorists" and is highly influenced by Israel's strategic goals in the south of Syria -- one of which is to seize control of its bordering areas to create a "buffer" inside Syrian territories.

How does he know this? Issa says his information comes from a cross-section of sources, including reconciled/captured militants and intel from the MOC itself. The general cites MOC's own rulebook for militants as an example of its Israel-centricity: "One, never threaten or approach any Israeli border in any way. Two, protect the borders with (Israeli-occupied) Golan so no one can enter Israel."

To illustrate the MOC's control over southern militants, Issa cites further regulations: "three, never take any military action before clearing with MOC first. Four, if the MOC asks groups to attack or stop, they must do so."

What happens if these rules are not upheld? "They will get their salaries cut," says Issa.

The armed opposition groups supported by the MOC are mostly affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), itself an ill-defined, highly fungible group of militants who have changed names and affiliations with frequency during the Syrian conflict.

Over the course of the war, the FSA has fought alongside the Nusra Front and ISIS -- some have even joined them. Today, despite efforts to whitewash the FSA and Southern Front as "non-sectarian" and non-extremist , factions like the Yarmouk Army, Mu'tazz Billah Brigade, Salah al-Din Division, Fajr al-Islam Brigade, Fallujah al-Houran Brigade, the Bunyan al-Marsous grouping, Saifollah al-Masloul Brigade, and others are currently occupying keys areas in Daraa in cooperation with the Nusra Front.

None of this is news to American policymakers. Even before the MOC was established in February 2014, Nusra militants were fronting vital military maneuvers for the FSA. As one Daraa opposition activist explains: "The FSA and al-Nusra join together for operations but they have an agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don't want to frighten Jordan or the West . Operations that were really carried out by al-Nusra are publicly presented by the FSA as their own."

Efforts to conceal the depth of cooperation between Nusra and the FSA go right to the top. Says one FSA commander in Daraa: "In many battles, al-Nusra takes part, but we don't tell the (MOC) operations room about it."

It's highly doubtful that the U.S. military remains unaware of this. The Americans operate on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis with regard to FSA-Nusra cooperation. In a 2015 interview with this reporter , CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why Pentagon-vetted fighters' weapons were showing up in Nusra hands. Raines responded: " We don't 'command and control' these forces -- we only 'train and enable' them. Who they say they're allying with, that's their business."

In practice, the U.S. doesn't appear to mind the Nusra affiliation -- regardless of the fact that the group is a terror organization -- as long as the job gets done.

U.S. arms have been seen in Nusra's possession for many years now, including highly valued TOW missiles , which were game-changing weapons in the Syrian military theater. When American weapons end up in al-Qaeda hands during the first or second year of a conflict, one assumes simple errors in judgment. When the problem persists after seven years, however, it starts to look like there's a policy in place to look the other way.

It's also not difficult to grasp why U.S. maps patently ignore evidence of Nusra embedded among U.S.-supported militias. The group, after all, is exempt from ceasefires, viewed as a fair target for military strikes at all times.

In December 2015, UN Security Council Resolution 2254 called for "Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da'esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council" (emphasis added). Furthermore, the resolution makes clear that ceasefires "will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities."

This essentially means that the Syrian army and its allies can tear apart any areas in the south of Syria where Nusra fighters -- and "entities associated" with it -- are based. In effect, international law provides a free hand for a Syrian military assault against U.S.-backed militias co-located with Nusra, and undermines the ability of their foreign sponsors to take retaliatory measures.

That's why the Nusra Front doesn't show up on U.S. maps.

In an interview last week, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad blamed the sudden breakdown of southern reconciliation efforts on "Israeli and American interference," which he says "put pressure on the terrorists in that area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution."

Today, the Israeli border area with Syria is dotted with Nusra and ISIS encampments, which Israel clearly prefers over the Syrian army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies. The Wall Street Journal even reported last year that Israel was secretly providing funding for salaries, food, fuel, and munitions to militants across its border.

In early June, two former Islamist FSA members (one of them also a former Nusra fighter) in Beit Jinn -- a strategic area bordering Syria, Lebanon, and Israel -- told me that Israel had been paying their militia's salaries for a year before a reconciliation deal was struck with the Syrian government. "Every month Israel would send us $200,000 to keep fighting," one revealed. "Our leaders were following the outside countries. We were supported by MOC, they kept supporting us till the last minute," he said.

Earlier that day, in the village of Hadar in the Syrian Golan, members of the Druze community described a bloody Nusra attack last November that killed 17: "All the people here saw how Israel helped Nusra terrorists that day. They covered them with live fire from the hilltops to help Nusra take over Hadar. And at the end of the fights, Israel takes in the injured Nusra fighters and provides them with medical services," says Marwan Tawil, a local English teacher.

"The ceasefire line (Syrian-Israeli border) is 65 kilometers between here to Jordan, and only this area is under the control of the SAA," explains Hadar's mayor. "Sixty kilometers is with Nusra and Israel and only the other five are under the SAA."

Israel is so heavily vested in keeping Syria and its allies away from its borders, it has actively bolstered al-Qaeda and other extremists in Syria's southern theater. As Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon famously explained in 2016, "In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State." To justify their interventions in the battle ahead, the U.S. and Israel claim that Iranian and Hezbollah forces are present in the south, yet on the ground in Daraa and Quneitra, there is no visible sight of either.

Multiple sources confirm this in Daraa, and insist that that there are only a handful of Hezbollah advisors -- not fighters -- in the entire governorate.

So why the spin? "This is a public diplomacy effort to make the West look like they've forced Iran and Hezbollah out of the south," explains General Issa.

The U.S., Israel, and their allies cannot win this southern fight. They can only prolong the insecurity for a while before the SAA decides to launch a military campaign against the 54-plus-militias-Nusra occupying the south of Syria. The end result is likely to be a negotiated settlement peppered with a few "soft battles" to eject the more hardline militants.

As one SAA soldier on the scene in Daraa tells me: "Fifty-four factions in a small area shows weakness more than it shows strength." And their cooperation with the Nusra Front just makes the targets on their backs even larger.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics based in Beirut.

[Jun 24, 2018] This very convenient enemy Vladimir Putin; if he does not exits, he should be invented

Notable quotes:
"... Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared to the US/NATO. ..."
"... Who wants to go to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly ! ..."
"... So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates" enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing). ..."
Jun 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

animalogic , June 24, 2018 at 8:44 am GMT

I thank the author for his timely apology. At this critical juncture we must be wise to these Slavic wiles.

Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared to the US/NATO.

No, Russia/Putin's guile is at the level of 3D chess. Everyone knows that behind such obvious inadequacy lies a Cujo- like bear, taunt, ready to spring at an instinctively guileless US . And, let's be honest here, the US deserves a better enemy than a bunch of shabby "terrorists". There's something just so common about these ". "terrorists". Who wants to go to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly !

Can you imagine Ellen doing an interview with him ? No !

So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates" enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing).

Only trouble is all this does tend to cast aspersions on such a great German/American as Mr Hitler, who, 70 years ago did such sterling work combating the Russia/communist Evil .

[Jun 24, 2018] The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.

Jun 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

Bro Methylene , May 21, 2017 at 2:18 am GMT

@Sean

What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians, journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's like speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)

Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.

The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.

[Jun 24, 2018] Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles and norms of international law

Jun 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

Hier ist die Nadel , June 22, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT

Hey uh, not to torque your cognitive dissonance, I know you have a lot of Democrat Party revolutionary self-criticism sessions to go through, but when Putinhitlernazi takes over, we get all our human rights, not just the niggardly hind-tit worthless US Bill of Rights that DHS revoked. The Putinhitlernazi constitution prohibits the bad-faith phony rights the US government screws us with. And the Putinhitlernazi constitution lets us go over the head of the government to the international human rights authorities if we get no satisfaction at home.

Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles and norms of international law. Ratified international treaties supersede any domestic legislation stipulating otherwise. Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person and citizen are directly applicable. That prohibits bad-faith tricks like the US pulls, declaring "non-self executing" treaties, making legally-void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article 46(3) gives citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms if all available internal means of legal redress are exhausted.

So where can I sign up for the Putinhitlernazi waffle SS commandos? I wanna overthrow this shitcrap crapshit USA and get my rights.

[Jun 24, 2018] American Empire Demands a Caesar by Bruce Fein

Notable quotes:
"... Process ..."
Jun 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump is hardly our first emperor. The warfare state has been trampling the Constitution for a long time. Credit: Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock The United States has adorned its president with extravagance that makes Roman emperors appear frugal by comparison. And such visible signs of the deification of our president are complemented by legal doctrines that echo Richard Nixon's once discredited claim to David Frost: "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

These extra-constitutional developments reflect the transformation of the United States from a republic, whose glory was liberty and whose rule of law was king, to an empire, whose glory is global dominion and whose president is law. The Constitution's architects would be shocked to learn that contemporary presidents play prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to any person on the planet deemed a threat to national security on the basis of secret, untested evidence known only to the White House.

An empire demands a Caesar and blind obedience from its citizens. World leadership through the global projection of military force cannot be exercised with checks and balances and a separation of powers that arrests speed and invites debate. Napoleon lectured: "Nothing in war is more important than unity of command . Better one bad general than two good ones." And Lord Tennyson, saluting the British Empire, versified in The Charge of the Light Brigade :

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"

Was there a man dismayed?

Not though the soldier knew

Someone had blundered.

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

As justice requires the appearance of justice, a Caesar requires the appearance of a Caesar. Thus is the president protected by platoons of Secret Service agents. The White House, by closing previously open avenues through the heart of the capital and shielding the president from citizen detractors, has become a castle. The White House staff has expanded and aggrandized power at the expense of Cabinet officials confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Debate, encouraged by the separation of powers, is superfluous where support for empire is underwritten by the multi-trillion-dollar military-industrial-counterterrorism complex, as it is in the United States. The Republican and Democratic parties are unified behind at least seven ongoing unconstitutional presidential wars and climbing trillion-dollar national security budgets.

Our warfare state has given birth to subsidiary surveillance, crony capitalism, and a welfare state. Congress and the judicial branch have become largely sound and fury, signifying nothing. The Constitution's separation of powers is atrophying.

The life of the law is not justice but genuflections to power. It manufactures doctrines that honor the power principle that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. When the configuration of power changes, the law adapts accordingly. The adaptations may not be instantaneous, but they are inexorable. This is not surprising. Judges are not born like Athena from the head of Zeus. They are selected through a political process that vets them for compatibility with the views of their political benefactors. Benjamin Cardozo observed in The Nature of the Judicial Process : "The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by."

The United States has become the largest and most actively garrisoned empire in history, built up by World War II and the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union. Our empire has, among other things, approximately 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, over 240,000 active duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories , de facto or de jure commitments to defend 70 countries, and presidential wars as belligerents or co-belligerents in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The president has by necessity become a Caesar irrespective of whether the occupant of the White House possesses recessive or dominant genes. The law has adapted accordingly, destroying the Constitution like a wrecking ball.

At present, the president with impunity initiates war in violation of the Declare War Clause; kills American citizens in violation of the Due Process Clause; engages in indiscriminate surveillance his own citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment; substitutes executive agreements for treaties to circumvent the requirements of Senate ratifications by two-thirds majorities in violation of the Treaty Clause; substitutes executive orders for legislation in violation of Article I, section 1; issues presidential signing statements indistinguishable from line-item vetoes in violation of the Presentment Clause; wields vast standard-less delegations of legislative authority in violation of the Constitution's separation of powers; brandishes a state secrets privilege to block judicial redress for unconstitutional executive action in violation of due process; refuses submission to congressional oversight in violation of the congressional power of inquiry; and declines to defend defensible duly enacted laws in violation of the Take Care Clause.

The Constitution will be reborn only if the American people reject their Empire in favor of a republic where individual liberty is the summum bonum. The odds of that happening are not good.

Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan and counsel to the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. He is a partner in the law firm of Fein & DelValle PLLC.

[Jun 24, 2018] Treason To What I'm With The Russians, They Hate Us Less Than The Media Does!, by James Kirkpatrick - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Olbermann: Yates An 'American Hero," Trump A 'Traitor,' ..."
"... 'Trump is a traitor!' Protester forcefully removed from president's Harrisburg rally ..."
"... Michael Moore to Trump: 'Vacate you Russian traitor ..."
"... Indecision 5768 ..."
"... , The Daily Show ..."
"... Maher: I want Democrats to say "You're Either With Us Or With The Russians ..."
"... Breitbart, ..."
"... Bill Maher on Israel, uncut and uncensored ..."
"... Jewish Journal, ..."
"... on election day itself. ..."
"... Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support ..."
"... Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure ..."
"... Wikileaks, Sputnik etc. ..."
"... The Hard Road For Putin ..."
"... Welcome to Weimerica ..."
Jun 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

James Kirkpatrick May 15, 2017 2,000 Words 192 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments

List of Bookmarks Technically, this is flag desecration--but Olbermann has hate America for years.

"Traitor!" screamed Keith Olbermann after Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, though Olbermann himself was calling for Comey's resignation months ago . [ Olbermann: Yates An 'American Hero," Trump A 'Traitor,' by Amber Athey, Daily Caller, May 9, 2017] Protesters scream the president is a "traitor" at public rallies [ 'Trump is a traitor!' Protester forcefully removed from president's Harrisburg rally , by Christian Alexanderson, PennLive, April 29, 2017]. Michael Moore has been calling Trump a "Russian traitor" practically since he was inaugurated [ Michael Moore to Trump: 'Vacate you Russian traitor , by Nikita Vladimirov, The Hill, February 14, 2017].

Of course, this begs an obvious question. Traitor to what? In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos , history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?

The open celebration of what any other generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully self-discrediting is the Russian "interference" narrative. John Harington famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia isn't very powerful within our government and society.

In contrast, our government and media seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile actions by foreign governments against the United States, but celebrate them.

Consider:

To criticize any of these countries, or to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters in this country, is political death. Of course, that is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.

Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual loyalty would be a massive improvement.

The only reason we can't call men like these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever considered themselves Americans in any meaningful way. What could be more ridiculous than considering Chuck Schumer "a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?

Or take certain Main Stream Media figures. Bill Maher wants to Democrats to ask if you are with "us or the Russians". [ Maher: I want Democrats to say "You're Either With Us Or With The Russians ," by Ian Hanchett, Breitbart, May 12, 2017] Maher naturally delights in Open Borders for America and the replacement of our own population, but has spoken in the past about how "Israel faces the problem of becoming a minority Jewish state within their own country". [ Bill Maher on Israel, uncut and uncensored , by Danielle Berrin, Jewish Journal, November 29, 2017]

It's not double loyalty; that would be giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.

I'm with the Russians.

After all, "treason" requires not just providing "aid and comfort" to a foreign nation, but to an enemy. Why exactly is Russia an enemy of the United States ?

It's not Russia which makes claims on our territory . It's not Russia which funds extremist networks. It's not Russia which is deliberately sending terrorists into the West.

Of course, there is a Trump associate who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that. The main focus of the investigation into "Russian collusion" is focusing on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem to be to be increasingly extreme and anti-European Turkey of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn even wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey on election day itself. [ Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support , by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November 8, 2016]

As Turkey is quite openly facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian websites [ Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure , WND, February 14, 2017]. The MSM is utterly indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated to destroying General Flynn personally.

Part of it simply could be the defense industry and the "Deep State" need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and power. As it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.

The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat. Russia is funding, or at least is tied to, several alternative media sources such as RT, possibly Wikileaks, Sputnik etc. Contrary to MSM claims, RT is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there is at least a slightly different point of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night comedy show, network news broadcast, cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [ The Hard Road For Putin , by Gregory Hood, Radix, July 22, 2014].

There is also an undeniable, and openly articulated , sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members of the media. Russians are hated both as a specific ethnos and as a white nation which does not seem to be fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class, consists of various forms of degeneracy. [ Welcome to Weimerica , by Ryan Landry, Daily Caller, May 5, 2017]. John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill" we are not.

It's not just idiotic but obscene that the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing the American identity now demand Middle America rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War nostalgia. Needless to say, these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist and killing millions of Orthodox Christians.

For immigration patriots, it's especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity is a result of mass immigration. And immigration is more important than every other issue for two reasons.

Ignoring immigration ensures no problem can ever be solved; indeed that every problem consistently gets worse.

To take just one example, Americans are sent all over the world to die because "we have to fight them there so they don't come here"; and then our government goes out of its way to bring terrorists here . And of course, as more problems are imported, the managerial class obtains more power to govern social relations and its own power grows . This is why it is hard to believe those who support Open Borders are actually working to defend the national interest in good faith.

But the second reason is even more important:

And even citizenship means nothing, The MSM constantly promotes Jose Antonio Vargas and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags not just as "Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.

It's a strange definition of patriotism where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason" but banning the American flag in public schools because it might offend Mexicans is government policy .

Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea of "American" identity -- that of a "proposition" or "universal" nation which exists only to fight a global struggle for equality [ Superpowers , by James Kirkpatrick, NPI, June 24, 2013].

But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"

Actually, you can. If you are part of the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans who actually think of this country as a real nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way the only people left out of what it means to be a modern "American." To consider America a particular place with a specific culture and history that not everyone in the world can join simply by existing is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world can be an "American," except, you know, actual Americans.

This is why the MSM is insistent that the governing philosophy of " America First ," which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead something subversive and dangerous .

The hard truth is that "our" rulers aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat to our independence.

And this isn't an unprecedented circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia, Carl von Clausewitz violated his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces in the hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying Prussia; it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia that would unite all of Germany.

The same situation applies today. Today, those actively pursuing the destruction of my people, culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't even concede those are enemies at all.

Our enemies are in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.

The real America is under occupation – and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country. We elected Donald Trump because we thought he could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation so we could have a country once again.

The attempt to destroy the President has ripped the mask off the forces behind this occupation . And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy his administration, dispossess our people, and destroy our country.

Because in the end, "treason" to the occupation is loyalty to America.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)

Mulegino1 , May 16, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT

I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.

Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders.

[Jun 24, 2018] dfordoom

Jun 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: Website May 21, 2017 at 3:18 am GMT 200 Words @Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays.

Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.

"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience to even elaborate thereon.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia.

Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show

I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.

I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?

It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions about global Marxism.

dfordoom , Website May 21, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

@ThereisaGod

The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives

I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a heretical communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way are they actual communists?

annamaria , May 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT
@dfordoom

"I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.

Aaron8765 , May 21, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT
We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error.
Aaron8765 , May 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT
@geokat62

I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren 'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have married outside our religion of birth.

Aaron8765 , May 21, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.

Aaron8765 , May 21, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50′s he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.

Corvinus , May 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

"Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this."

False characterization.

"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not."

It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the purposeful destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed into promoting these concepts. Except you are conveniently discounting this important fact human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of people have made decisions of their own accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies for a host of reasons. You are a snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering our youth. Let us assume that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there would be some other group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination and mind control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of the masses.

"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism."

That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a particular group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You have every liberty to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind" have the freedom to question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those protections are put in place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as "racism" and "hate speech"? It's a ruse.

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

annamaria , May 21, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Aaron8765

Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/

"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families"

neutral , May 21, 2017 at 5:47 pm GMT
@Aaron8765

have married outside our religion of birth

That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a religious one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of Israel defines what a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the Nuremberg race acts that defined what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will claim they are using it for those fleeing oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were correct in their definitions.

CanSpeccy , Website May 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT
@Aaron8765

Re: Kantorowicz

Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly) for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a tenure-track appointment, that I abandoned after three days.

The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable to conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For Jews, it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a religion that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges the Jews to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.

Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically Jewish interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of suspicion, fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they ran much of Hollywood , were among the principal peddlers of porn in America , had massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout to determine who holds many of the other seats in Congress .

None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and an American-firster.

Eagle Eye , May 21, 2017 at 9:00 pm GMT
@annamaria

WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national importance to Israel?

Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation.

Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.

One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.

First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea. Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.

annamaria , May 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT
@Eagle Eye

"Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?

Rurik , Website May 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT
@annamaria

First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years.

yep

also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.

As was the Lavon affair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.

Corvinus , May 22, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

"and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."

You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons, the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""

The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field.

annamaria , May 22, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT
"Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

http://theduran.com/heres-why-saudi-arabia-and-israel-are-allies-in-all-but-name/

"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."

Eagle Eye , May 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
@annamaria

The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very simply:

What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and naval attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?

You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli false-flag operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.

The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.

This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.

Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple visual identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote possibility of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.

Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out what actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude involves at a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept completely secret.

The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian targets, but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.

Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined air-sea attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual observation is unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.

So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?

Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military leadership, the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major and indeed mortal threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to risk a major rift with the U.S. to eliminate the threat.

How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred either pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because the local command went rogue.

Eagle Eye , May 22, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT
@Rurik

as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them

This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.

Eagle Eye , May 23, 2017 at 2:45 am GMT
@annamaria

(1) I said that "reading between the lines," one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of course, such efforts (if they indeed took place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would be kept top secret even years later.

(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined air/sea attack on the USS Liberty.

The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War trying to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.

CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing high-grade intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.

If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of radar by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.

QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt, other Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?

annamaria , May 23, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT
@Eagle Eye

as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction.

Rurik , Website May 23, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?

that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to sink the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.

and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly, murderous treason.

not to mention the controlled kosher msm

Eagle Eye , May 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT
@annamaria

You still haven't answered the question:

What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

Thank you.

Rurik , Website May 23, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..

What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US- Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what was going on. Duh.

explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of people have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by Israel and be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.

We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were called back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not once, but twice.

So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely never know.

Hope that helps eagle

annamaria , May 23, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

Why don't you look closely into the present to understand the past?

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/23/truth-has-become-un-american/

"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."

Eagle Eye , May 24, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Rurik

So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely never know.

This interpretation is at least internally consistent. It is also consistent with my earlier observation that nobody could seriously claim that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

Putting the known factors together, we are left with two viable hypotheses as to the Israelis' reason for sinking the USS Liberty:

(1) To eliminate a mortal threat to Israel's national security in a time of war, e.g. because the USS Liberty was feeding intelligence information to Egypt and the Arabs.

(2) As an intentional false flag operation, with express (or at least hinted) support from the Pentagon for the purpose of publicly "justifying" a U.S. war against Egypt. This would necessarily mean that the sailors and staff on the USS Liberty were intentionally betrayed and sacrificed by Johnson and McNamara.

In either case, the Israeli leadership would have been painfully aware that it could NOT mislead the U.S. as to its authorship of the attack, whatever the Pentagon or Israel might later say in public later.

CanSpeccy , Website May 24, 2017 at 12:39 am GMT
@Rurik

A graphic account here by US naval veteran and survivor, Phil Tourney :

"Jet aircrafts came in firing and strafing our ship," he said. "Within minutes they took out hundreds of antennae and all of our .450-caliber machine guns. We were defenseless."

But all those aboard were not without hope. Utilizing true American ingenuity and never giving up their fighting spirit, Tourney described a miraculous effort.

"About half-an-hour into the attack," he said, "one of our men stretched a long wire so that we could transmit a message to the Sixth Fleet: 'Under Attack by Unmarked Fighters. Send Help.' A number of ships received this SOS, and soon Capt. Joseph Tully of the USS Saratoga ordered planes to rescue us."

However, in an act that goes well beyond betrayal into the realm of full-fledged treason, Tourney laid out how Liberty became a ship without a country.

"Defense Secretary Robert McNamara contacted the Saratoga and recalled the fighters, telling them not to aid our ship," he said. "But, showing true courage, Tully re-launched the jets, without authorization . . . After the second set of fighter jets were dispatched, the president of the United States -- Lyndon Johnson -- personally recalled them," said Tourney.

Tourney says Johnson told Tully: "I don't give a [expletive] if that ship goes to the bottom and every sailor is lost. We will not embarrass our ally, Israel."

A day or two later as Liberty limped toward a port in Malta, Adm. Isaac Kidd assembled the survivors in small groups and, after removing his stars, demanded to know what occurred.

After learning the truth, a red-faced Kidd pinned his stars back on his uniform and said, "If any of you ever repeat a word, I'll make sure you end up in the penitentiary, or worse," Tourney said.

Eagle Eye , May 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism

It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American Revolution, and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they were perceived by the educated class in the colonies.

The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier ages, are neither here nor there for these purposes.

[Jun 24, 2018] Was the Marketplace of Ideas Politically Hijacked -

Notable quotes:
"... A Stigler Center panel examines the influence of Big Five tech firms over political discourse and the marketplace of ideas. ..."
"... "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." ..."
"... "We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community." ..."
"... "Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect the process of competition." ..."
"... "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world." ..."
Jun 24, 2018 | promarket.org

Was the Marketplace of Ideas "Politically Hijacked"? Posted on June 21, 2018 by Asher Schechter

A Stigler Center panel examines the influence of Big Five tech firms over political discourse and the marketplace of ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/c0E15ka446M

At one point during Mark Zuckerberg's Senate hearing in April , the Facebook CEO had the following peculiar exchange with Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC):

Graham: But you, as a company, welcome regulation?

Zuckerberg: I think, if it's the right regulation, then yes.

Graham: You think the Europeans had it right?

Zuckerberg: I think that they get things right.

Graham: . So would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry?

Zuckerberg: Absolutely.

Graham: Okay. Would you submit to us some proposed regulations?

Zuckerberg: Yes. And I'll have my team follow up with you so, that way, we can have this discussion across the different categories where I think that this discussion needs to happen.

Graham: Look forward to it.

This telling bit of dialogue was part of an overall pattern: the hearing was meant to hold Facebook (and Zuckerberg himself, as the company's founder, CEO, and de facto single ruler ) accountable for the mishandling of millions of people's private data. Yet one after another , the senators were asking an evasive Zuckerberg if he would be willing to endorse their bills and proposals to regulate Facebook. This mode of questioning repeated itself (to a somewhat lesser extent) during the House's tougher questioning of Zuckerberg the following day.

Needless to say, most company CEOs grilled by Congress following a major scandal that impacts millions of people and possibly the very nature of American democracy are not usually treated in this way -- as private regulators almost on equal footing with Congress.

Facebook, however, is not a typical company. As a recent Vox piece noted, with its vast reach of more than two billion users worldwide, Facebook is more akin to a government or a "powerful sovereign," with Zuckerberg -- due to his unusual level of control over it -- being the "key lawgiver." Zuckerberg acknowledged as much himself when he said, in a much-quoted moment of candor , that "in a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company." More than other technology companies, he added, Facebook is "really setting policies."

The notion that corporations can become so powerful that they are able to act as a "form of private government" (to quote Zephyr Teachout ) has long been part of the antitrust literature. Indeed, as the Open Market Institute's Barry Lynn and Matt Stoller recently noted during a panel at the Stigler Center's Digital Platforms and Concentration antitrust conference, it is deeply rooted in the rich tradition of antimonopoly in America.

That digital platforms are major political players has also been well documented . Once disdainful of politics, in the past two years Google, Facebook, and Amazon have dramatically ramped up their lobbying efforts, as the public and media backlash against their social, economic, and political power intensified. Google, which enjoyed unprecedented access to the Obama White House, is now the biggest lobbyist in Washington, with other tech platforms not far behind.

Market power begetting political power is not new in itself. As the participants of the Stigler panel noted, it is the immense power that concentrated digital intermediaries like Google and Facebook wield over digital markets, human interaction and the marketplace of ideas, particularly when it comes to the distribution of political information, that presents a unique challenge. As Lina Khan (also of Open Markets) recently noted , the current landscape of Internet media is one in which a handful of companies "are basically acting as private regulators, as private governments, over the dissemination and organization of information in a way that is totally unchecked by the public."

The latter part, at least, seems to be changing rapidly, as Americans (and millions more worldwide) grapple with ongoing revelations showing the profound impact that digital monopolies have on political opinions and outcomes, in the US and across the world. As Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD) said during Zuckerberg's House hearing in April: "Facebook is becoming a self-regulated superstructure for political discourse."

Left to right: Scott Cleland, Ellen Goodman, Matt Stoller, Barry Lynn, Guy Rolnik

The exact nature of tech platforms' political power, its roots, and how to best deal with it -- all questions debated during the Stigler Center panel -- are complex and varied. But the key question seems rather simple. As Sarbanes put it during the same Congressional hearing: "Are we, the people, going to regulate our political dialogue, or are you, Mark Zuckerberg, going to end up regulating the political discourse? ״

A Private Regulator of Speech

Facebook, said Rutgers Law School professor Ellen Goodman, operates as a private speech regulator. As such, much like public governments, it "privileges some [forms of] speech over others." Unlike governments, however, which as regulators of speech purport to support public good, Facebook has adopted a "First Amendment-like radical libertarianism" through which it has so far refused to differentiate between "high- and low-quality information, truth or falsity, responsible and irresponsible press."

Facebook, famously, argues that it is not a media company, but a technology company. "It's not a player, it's not a [referee], it's just the engineer who made the field," said Goodman, the co-director of the Rutgers Institute for Information Policy & Law. The purpose of Facebook's "First Amendment rhetoric," she noted, is "to maximize data flow on its platform," but by doing so, "it implies, or even says explicitly, that it's standing in the shoes of the government."

Facebook and other platforms, said Goodman, have benefited from the process of deregulation and budget cuts to public media -- a process that has predated the Internet, and led to Washington essentially "giving up" on media policy. The government effectively "exempted these platforms from the kind of ordinary regulation that other information intermediaries were subjected to." With "platforms in the shoes of government, [and] government out of media policy," the concentration of platform power over information flows was allowed to continue undisturbed.

The problem, however, is that much like fellow FAANGs Amazon and Google, Facebook is not just an impartial governor, but a market participant interested in "monopolizing the time of its users," with a strong incentive to privilege its own products and business model that "eviscerates journalism."

"It also tunes its algorithm to favor certain kinds of speech and certain speakers," added Goodman. "There's almost no transparency, save for what it selectively, elliptically, and sometimes misleadingly posts on its blog."

"People Live in Fear"

In a seminal 1979 essay on what he termed the "political content" of antitrust, former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky argued that "political values," such as "the fear that excessive concentration of economic power will foster anti-democratic political pressures," should be incorporated into antitrust enforcement. In recent years, this view has been echoed by a growing number of antitrust scholars , who argue that the way antitrust enforcement has been conducted in the US for the past 40 years -- solely through the prism of "consumer welfare" -- is ill equipped to deal with the new threats posed by digital platforms.

The Unites States, remarked Lynn during the panel, was born "out of rebellion against concentrated power, the British East India Company." The original purpose of antimonopoly in America, said Lynn, was the protection of personal liberty from concentrated economic and political power: "to give everybody the ability to manage their own property in the ways that they see fit, manage their own lives in the way that they see fit. To be truly independent of everybody else. To not be anybody else's puppet." Liberty and democracy, he added, "are functions of antimonopoly."

A state in which Facebook and Google wield enormous influence over the flow of information -- where, to quote a recent piece by Wired 's Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein, "every publisher knows that, at best, they are sharecroppers on Facebook's massive industrial farm" -- is antithetical to this ethos, said Lynn, and is firmly rooted in the "absolute, complete failure" of antitrust in the United States. "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." These digital intermediaries, he added, are "using their power in ways that are directly threatening our most fundamental liberties and our democracy."

"Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company."

The blame for the outsize influence that Facebook and other digital platforms have over the political discourse, said Lynn, rests squarely on the shoulders of the antitrust community: "For 200 years in this country, antimonopoly was designed to create freedom from masters. In 1981, when we got rid of our traditional antimonopoly and replaced it with consumer welfare, we created a system that has given freedom to master."

In today's concentrated media landscape, he contended, "people live in fear. We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community."

"We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community."

Lynn went on to quote from Thompson and Vogelstein's Wired piece: "The social network is roughly 200 times more valuable than the Times . And journalists know that the man who owns the farm has the leverage. If Facebook wanted to, it could quietly turn any number of dials that would harm a publisher -- by manipulating its traffic, its ad network, or its readers."

"This was hidden in the middle of the article," said Lynn. "[Thompson], as a journalist, felt obliged to put this out there He was crying out to the people in this community, in the antitrust community. He's saying 'protect me, the publisher, the editor of this magazine. Protect me, the reporter. Please make sure that I have the independence to do my work.'"

The "Code of Silence" Has Been Broken

Recent changes to Facebook's newsfeed have caused referral traffic from Facebook to media companies' websites to sharply decline , once again raising concerns about the significant impact that the company has on the media industry. The satirical news site The Onion , for instance, has launched a public war against Facebook, calling it "an unwanted interloper between The Onion and our audience." "We have 6,572,949 followers on Facebook who receive an ever-decreasing amount of the content we publish on the network," the site's editor-in-chief, Chad Nackers, told Business Insider .

The backlash by major news outlets and politicians across the political spectrum against the power of Facebook and other tech platforms as de facto regulators of speech on the Internet is a new phenomenon, said Guy Rolnik, a Clinical Associate Professor for Strategic Management at the University of Chicago Booth school of Business, during the panel. Until not too long ago, he said, Internet monopolies were the "darlings of the news media." Less than a year ago , he noted, Zuckerberg was even touted by several media outlets as a viable presidential candidate. "The idea that a person who has unprecedented private control over personal data and the public discourse at large would also be the president of the United States was totally in the realm and perimeter of what is legitimate," he said.

What has changed? "In many ways, what has changed is that many people associate Facebook today with the election of Donald Trump. This is why we see so much focus on those issues that were very salient and important for years," Rolnik maintained. Trump's election, and Facebook's role in the lead-up to it, broke the "code of silence."

Nevertheless, newsrooms today, he said, still do everything in their power "to make sure that everything is shareable on Facebook." In the words of Thompson and Vogelstein, they are still "sharecroppers on Facebook's massive industrial farm."

Google has "Politically Hijacked the US Antitrust Enforcement Process"

Scott Cleland, president of the consultancy firm Precursor LLC and former deputy US coordinator for international communications and information policy in the George HW Bush administration, has long warned that concentration among digital platforms will negatively impact the US economy and society at large.

In 2007, Cleland testified before the Senate on the then-proposed Google-DoubleClick merger, calling upon antitrust enforcers to block the merger and warning that lax antitrust enforcement (of the kind that ultimately led the Google-DoubleClick merger to be approved) would allow Google to become the "ultimate Internet gatekeeper" and the "online-advertising bottleneck provider picking content winners and losers" -- both of which came true. In 2011, he published the book Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc . , in which he warned readers of Google's surveillance-based business model and its "unprecedented centralization of power over the world's information."

During the conference, Cleland presented a new white paper entitled " Rejecting the Google School of No-Antitrust: Fake Consumer Welfare Standard " in which he argues that Alphabet/Google has "politically hijacked the US antitrust enforcement process from 2013 to 2018."

US antitrust enforcers, he said, were initially "very tough" on Google during the first years of the George W. Bush administration. Between 2008 and 2012, both the Bush II and Obama administrations brought "strong and consistent antitrust scrutiny and enforcement to Google." Then, in 2013, the Federal Trade Commission decided to drop its case against the company, despite the conclusion of its staff that Google had used anticompetitive tactics. Following Obama's reelection, which Google at the time was credited with delivering, antitrust enforcement against Big Tech firms essentially ceased. "They shut down all those investigations and they did nothing for the last five years. DOJ went from very active -- four or five major antitrust actions -- to nothing. Crickets."

Back then, Google and Facebook were still "fiercely competing," he said. Google was going after Facebook's territory with Google Plus, and Facebook countered by going after Google search with Yahoo and Bing. But then, in 2014, something happened: the large tech firms "mysteriously stopped competing."

"Yahoo returned to working with Google. Apple dropped Bing for Siri and moved to Google search. Apple and Microsoft dropped their patent suits, and then Microsoft and Google made peace after scratching each other's eyes out. Google went from 70 percent share of search and search advertising in the PC market to 95 percent of that in both of those markets today," said Cleland.

What happened? Cleland points to the what he calls the "Google School of No-Antitrust," a narrative with which according to him Google had been trying to "influence public opinion, the media, elected and government officials, and US and state antitrust enforcers, to make the public believe Google (and other Internet platforms) have no antitrust risk or liability, because they offer free innovative products and services, and to make conservatives believe that the Google School of No-Antitrust and the Chicago School's consumer welfare standard and application are the same, when they are not."

Google, he asserted, "not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect the process of competition." It did so, he argued, by "politically hijacking the most important market, which is information."

"Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect the process of competition."

Cleland, who identifies as a free market conservative, argued that the current Internet is far from a free market. "Who thinks it's a good idea that all of the world's information goes through one bottleneck?" he asked, adding that "all the bad things that you're seeing right now are the result of policy."

One such policy is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provided Internet companies with legal immunity for the content their users generated or shared and is often credited with enabling the creation of the Internet as we know it today. Cleland sees Section 230 as "market structuring" and has compared it to the libertarian concept of creating artificial islands outside any governmental territory, known as " seasteading ."

"Section 230 says -- I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it says -- that US policy recognizes that the Internet is a free market that should be unfettered by federal and state regulations," said Cleland. "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world."

"Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world."

Much of today's problems regarding the conduct of digital platforms, he said, results from this policy. "Twenty-two years ago, we as a nation immunized all interactive computer services from any civil liability. We said, 'It is OK. There is no accountability, no responsibility for you looking the other way, when your platform or things that are going on on your platform harm others.'"

Section 230, he maintained, "basically created 21 st -century robber barons. Those guys know they have the full weight of the government. If they go to court, they're going to win, and they have almost all the time."

Antitrust Is "One Part of the Answer"

When it comes to addressing these threats to free speech and democratic discourse, said Goodman, antitrust is only "one part of the answer." The other part, she asserted, is regulation.

"The First Amendment that we have, that we know and love today," she said, "was not born in 1789 in Philadelphia. It developed in the latter part of the 20th century against a particular set of industrial and social practices that mitigated some of the costs of free speech and spread the benefits."

Lawmakers and policymakers, she argued, should "retrieve and resuscitate the vocabulary of media policy," focusing on three core values: "freedom of mind and autonomy; non-market values of diversity and localism/community; and a concept of the public interest and fiduciary responsibility."

Whenever someone makes an argument for using antitrust or regulation as a way to structure markets of information, Stoller cautioned, there are those who will argue that this amounts to censorship. When asked how to avoid censorship when discussing the use government power over speech, Goodman was conflicted: "There is no way around that. There's a real tension here between absolute liberty of speech and controls on speech," she said. We cannot have this whole conference with us fantasizing about various regulatory possibilities that involve use restrictions -- limits on the flow of data, limits on the collection of data -- without acknowledging that under our First Amendment doctrine right now, probably none of that passes muster."

However, Goodman pointed to the Northwest Ordinance as a possible roadmap. "Nobody would say, or maybe they did, that [the Northwest Ordinance ] was an anti-private property rule. It was structuring the market so that more people could own property. That's what the history of media regulation in this country has been: structuring speech markets so that more people can speak."

Disclaimer: The ProMarket blog is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty. For more information, please visit ProMarket Blog Policy .

[Jun 24, 2018] This very convenient enemy Vladimir Putin; if he does not exits, he should be invented

Notable quotes:
"... Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared to the US/NATO. ..."
"... Who wants to go to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly ! ..."
"... So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates" enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing). ..."
Jun 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

animalogic , June 24, 2018 at 8:44 am GMT

I thank the author for his timely apology. At this critical juncture we must be wise to these Slavic wiles.

Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared to the US/NATO.

No, Russia/Putin's guile is at the level of 3D chess. Everyone knows that behind such obvious inadequacy lies a Cujo- like bear, taunt, ready to spring at an instinctively guileless US . And, let's be honest here, the US deserves a better enemy than a bunch of shabby "terrorists". There's something just so common about these ". "terrorists". Who wants to go to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly !

Can you imagine Ellen doing an interview with him ? No !

So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates" enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing).

Only trouble is all this does tend to cast aspersions on such a great German/American as Mr Hitler, who, 70 years ago did such sterling work combating the Russia/communist Evil .

[Jun 24, 2018] It is interesting to note that the anti-system parties of Europe, such as those in control in Hungary and Austria, seem to take more leftwing positions on issues other than immigration than sell-out former Socialist parties which have degenerated into the politically correct portion of the anti-russian neo-liberal centre.

Jun 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

exiled off mainstreet , June 22, 2018 at 1:16 am GMT

The Red Tory thing is interesting. I can see what "anon" (comment No. 5) is driving at, though the use of the word fascism is freighted with the eventual barbaric outcome of the Nazi project, as well as the outgrowths of western guilt for allowing it to proceed which in many instances such as political correctness and toleration of Nazi-like tactics by descendents of Nazi victims, have resulted in a new version of fascism.

It is interesting to note that the anti-system parties of Europe, such as those in control in Hungary and Austria, seem to take more leftwing positions on issues other than immigration than sell-out former Socialist parties which have degenerated into the politically correct portion of the anti-russian neo-liberal centre. Even the term "anti-system" is associated with the Nazi movement during Weimar but fits with the situation in the western world today. Thus, Le Pen, Orban and the Austrian government are more reliable at protecting workers' rights than the sell-out centre, and the cinque stelle (I hope I'm not that far off in spelling) can coalesce with the Lega, which also takes positions to the left of the corrupt centre in areas other than immigration. On immigration itself, here in Canada or in the US where everybody is eventually an immigrant other than the first nation remnant, it is hard to be totally anti-immigrant, but it is understandable in Europe where historic ethnicities are in some danger and where the results of the destabilisation of Africa and the Middle East by the yankee imperium and the Israelis is the root cause of the immigration problem.

As a final statement, I agree with the writer and say mea culpa mea maxima culpa as far as his anti or really pro- Putin-Nazi viewpoint is expressed.

[Jun 23, 2018] Comey And Lynch Will Be Subpoenaed By Senate Unless Feinstein Obstructs

Notable quotes:
"... Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation. ..."
"... Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director George H.W. Bush ( Ray Cline denied the spying took place). ..."
"... Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton." Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." - The Federalist ..."
Jun 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says he'll issue subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, but the panel's top Democrat Dianne Feinstein (CA) has to agree to it per committee rules. Grassley also said he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.

"I will want to subpoena him," Grassley said of Comey during an appearance on C-SPAN's Newsmakers ."

The Iowan added that committee rules require that he and Feinstein "agree to it, and at this point I can't tell you if she would agree to it. But if she will, yeah, then we will subpoena . " - Politico

Feinstein may be hesitant to sign on, as she says she thinks Comey acted in good faith - which means she thinks Congress shouldn't have a crack at questioning a key figure in the largest political scandal in modern history.

"While I disagree with his actions, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Comey acted in bad faith or that he lied about any of his actions," said Feinstein during a Monday Judiciary panel hearing. Former Feinstein staffer and FBI investigator Dan Jones, meanwhile, continues to work with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS on a $50 million investigation privately funded by George Soros and other "wealthy donors" to continue the investigation into Donald Trump.

Also recall that Feinstein leaked Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson's Congressional testimony in January.

Comey skipped out on appearing before Grassley's committee this week following the June 14 release of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's (OIG) report on FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation - which dinged Comey for being "insubordinate" and showing poor judgement. Horowitz is conducting a separate investigation into the FBI's counterintelligence operation on the Trump campaign, including allegations of FISA surveillance abuse.

Maybe Comey also decided to bail after Horowitz admitted on Monday that he's under a separate investigation for mishandling classified information after leaking a memo to the press documenting what he felt was President Trump obstructing the FBI's probe into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn - which was conducted by the FBI under dubious circumstances, and for which evidence may have been tampered with .

Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Loretta Lynch, on the other hand , was dinged in the IG report over an "ambiguous" incomplete recusal from the Clinton email "matter" despite a clandestine 30-minute "tarmac" meeting with Bill Clinton one week before the FBI exonerated Hillary Clinton .

All part of the bigger picture...

Despite IG Horowitz ultimately concluding that pro-Clinton / anti-Trump bias among the FBI's top brass did not make its way into the Clinton email investigation, his report revealed alarming facts about FBI officials handling parallel investigations into each candidate who received vastly different treatment.

For starters, it's clear that the FBI rushed to wrap up the Clinton email investigation before the election, while at the same time the agency launched an open-ended counterintelligence operation against those in Trump's orbit.

We also know that opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton was used by the FBI to justify surveilling the Trump campaign - while new facts point to a multi-pronged campaign of espionage and deceit spanning several continents, governments and agencies which was deployed at the highest levels in an effort to undermine Donald Trump before and after the 2016 U.S. election.

Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation.

Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director George H.W. Bush ( Ray Cline denied the spying took place).

From 2012 - 2017, the Pentagon under Obama awarded Halper over $1 million in "research" contracts - nearly half of which was awarded during the 2016 US election .

Award ID Recipient Name Start Date End Date Amount Awarding Agency
HQ003416P0148 HALPER, STEFAN 9/26/2016 3/29/2018 $411,575 Department of Defense
HQ003415C0100 HALPER, STEFAN 9/24/2015 9/27/2016 $244,960 Department of Defense
HQ003414C0076 HALPER, STEFAN 7/29/2014 7/31/2015 $204,000 Department of Defense
HQ003412C0039 HALPER, STEFAN 5/30/2012 5/29/2013 $197,626 Department of Defense

Then there's the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud - a key witness in the Mueller investigation who disappeared last fall , and who told Trump aide George Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos would drunkenly repeat the rumor to seasoned Australian diplomat (and Clinton ally ) Alexander Downer in a London Bar, only to be construed by the FBI as potential collusion in order to justify their counterintelligence operation against Trump.

And just Monday Trump advisor Roger Stone said that a second FBI informant , Henry Greenberg, tried to entrap the Trump campaign with an offer to sell dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange for $2 million.

While the entire mosaic of events is multi-faceted and requires perhaps the world's biggest corkboard - here's a basic timeline of various espionage or other spycraft conducted against the Trump campaign.

April 26, 2016 - Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud - who told an Italian newspaper in November he's a member of the Clinton Foundation , passed a rumor to Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton." Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." - The Federalist

May 10, 2016 - Papadopoulos tells this to former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged " drunken barroom admission ."

Late May, 2016 - Roger Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton

July 2016 - FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one of many encounters.

July 31, 2016 - the FBI officially launches operation Crossfire Hurricane , the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

September, 2016 - Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.

While the FBI has yet to find any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, they were able to use information Mifsud planted with Papadopoulos to launch a counterintelligence operation .

And as new facts and revelations continue to emerge, and IG Horowitz continues to unravel the FBI's counterintelligence operation on Donald Trump, several rank-and-file FBI employees say they want Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and testify against Comey and Andrew McCabe.

Funny - for two "innocent" people, Comey and Lynch want the exact opposite!

Tags Politics

Comments

Theosebes Goodfellow -> sabaj49 Fri, 06/22/2018 - 12:00 Permalink

~Grassley also said he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.~

Screw you, Chuck. No one gets immunity. Stay the fuck out of what should be the business of a federal criminal grand jury. Diane has enough trouble of her own with the leaky aide.

And maybe you forgot this:

Embattled FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has reportedly stiffed the House Intelligence Committee who expected him to testify on Tuesday.

BandGap -> nmewn Fri, 06/22/2018 - 11:22 Permalink

No, I think she will. They have the goods on her for leaking like a sieve through her aide and on to the entry level Pulitzer Prize media whore (remember, they raided the newspaper. The goods are still there).

Rumor has it there is a subpoena waiting for DiFi out there. It would be best if she complied.

DosZap -> nmewn Fri, 06/22/2018 - 12:15 Permalink

She's won by a landslide against other Dems, IF she refuses she JUST vindicates their GUILT.

Even a DemoNrat could see that.

Quantify -> Stan522 Fri, 06/22/2018 - 10:45 Permalink

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States , conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States , or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808 ; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII , § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148 .)

Jdillinger -> Quantify Fri, 06/22/2018 - 14:36 Permalink

We don't need Commey and Lynch questioned by those losers on Capitol Hill, that is a waste of money and time. What is required is a DOJ inquiry, or better yet, a special council for the HRC Mail Server and Corruption in the Meuller probe.

I am normally against a special council, but in this case the DOJ is clearly biased. They should get to the bottom of the crimes committed by hillery on her mail server including realated crime transacted on the server like uranium one. That is what the FBI would do to us, and they should be no different. Equal protection under the law means equal punishment under the law as well.

An additional special council should be formed to get to the bottom of the FISA warrant to used for surveillance on the Trump team and find out if there was any malfeasance obtaining those warrants. This would also bring up the question of whether the meuller probe obstructed justice by obscuring exonerating evidence that the probe was established with junk evidence.

If a good prosecutor was used, there is enough evidence in the public forum now to throw a bunch of the obama administration in prison for political corruption and the higher echelon members of the FBI in jail for bribery. That's right, the FBI can't take gifts, even if the media are offering them. This is corruption of the highest order and our country will not survive this if it is not prosecuted properly.

IF WE WANT THE SWAMP DRAINED PEOPLE HAVE TO GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE TO PUT THE FEAR OF GOD AND THE PEOPLE BACK INTO BUTEAUCRATS.

[Jun 22, 2018] Everything You Need to Know About the Inspector General's Report

Jun 22, 2018 | larouchepac.com

https://youtu.be/HCNhEwEK40Y

The best thirty minutes from Inspector General Michael Horowitz's testimony to the House and Senate earlier this week.

[Jun 22, 2018] IG confirms Comey under investigation over memo handling by Brooke Singman

Jun 22, 2018 | www.foxnews.com

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed publicly Monday that his office is investigating James Comey for his handling of classified information as part of memos he shared documenting discussions with President Trump.

The inspector general's comments confirmed reports dating back to April that the ex-FBI director was facing scrutiny, amid revelations that at least two of the memos he shared with his friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman, contained information now deemed classified.

The confirmation came during Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Horowitz and FBI Director Christopher Wray testified on the findings in the IG's report on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.

"We received a referral on that from the FBI," Horowitz said, in response to questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about the Comey memos. "We are handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete and consistent with the law and rules." Comey, back in April, confirmed to Fox News' Bret Baier that the IG's office had interviewed him with regard to the memos, but downplayed the questions over classified information as "frivolous" -- saying the real issue was whether he complied with internal policies.

Grassley, though, told Horowitz on Monday, "I don't happen to think that is frivolous."

Comey, in testimony before Congress last year, acknowledged he shared the memos with the intention of leaking to the press and spurring the appointment of a special counsel.

In April, Fox News initially learned that Horowitz was looking into whether classified information was given to unauthorized sources as part of a broader review of Comey's communications outside the bureau -- including media contact.

Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, denied that sharing the memos with his legal team constituted a leak of classified information. Instead, he compared the process to keeping "a diary."

"I didn't consider it part of an FBI file," Comey said. "It was my personal aide-memoire I always thought of it as mine."

In his testimony last year before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said he made the decision to document the interactions in a way that would not trigger security classification.

But in seven Comey memos handed over to Congress in April, eight of the 15 pages had redactions under classified exceptions.

[Jun 22, 2018] Close All the Military Bases by Michael J. Ard

Jun 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Anthropologist David Vine spent several years visiting and investigating U.S military bases abroad. To put it mildly, he disapproves of what he found. In his sweeping critique, Base Nation , Vine concludes that Washington's extensive network of foreign bases -- he claims there are about 800 of them -- causes friction with erstwhile American allies, costs way too much money, underwrites dictatorships, pollutes the environment, and morally compromises the country. Far from providing an important strategic deterrent, the bases actually undermine our security. To remedy this immense travesty, Vine calls for Washington to bring the troops back home.

If nothing else, Base Nation is a timely book. The issue of our expensive foreign commitments has taken center stage in this presidential election. Vine probably finds it ironic that most of the criticism is coming from Donald Trump.

Our extensive foreign-base network is probably an issue that we can't ignore for long. Today, there seems more urgency to look at these long-term base commitments and examine what we are really getting out of them. So, for raising the issue, I say, "Thank you for your service, Mr. Vine."

But it is a shame that Base Nation , which could have made a strong contribution to this debate, ends up making a heavy-handed and somewhat unreliable case against and the U.S. military and U.S. foreign policy in general. His sweeping indictments detract from the importance of his initial focus, our overextended base network.

There are some positives. Vine stands on firm ground when he details how inefficient the base system often is. In fact, this is an issue that the federal government has been addressing, albeit slowly and haltingly. Budget realities are solving the problem; many bases are being shuttered and their functions consolidated into others. Vine thinks that overseas bases cost us at least $71 billion a year; maybe closer to $100-200 billion. In one of the more persuasive sections of the book, he explains how he made these calculations, which follow to some extent an important 2013 study from the RAND Corporation. That it is difficult coming up with any precise figures on overseas base spending suggests that we probably need to take a harder look at how taxpayer money is being used.

Likewise, Vine raises valid criticisms about how many bases were constructed by either displacing native populations, as the British did for our benefit at the Indian Ocean atoll Diego Garcia, or by marginalizing the locals, as we allegedly have done at Okinawa in Japan. He highlights the environmental damage done by U.S. military ordnance, although I think it unfair that he ignores the more scrupulous attendance to the environment that we find in today's armed forces. And Vine is right that having many young and bored men based far from home probably doesn't elevate the morals of the local, host population.

But Vine simply fails to persuade in other parts of his critique. His fundamental distrust of the military leads him to accept unquestioningly every dubious charge against it. He also tends to be less than discriminating in some of his sourcing and characterization of events. These problems undermine the overall credibility of his reporting.

Part of the problem with Base Nation is definitional. Vine's definition of a base -- "any place, facility or installation used regularly for military purposes, of any kind" -- is far too broad. Even temporary assignments with host governments get defined as "bases." This leads him to estimate that there are at minimum 686 bases, with 800 being "a good estimate." Why the need to inflate the numbers?

Vine's foreign-base maps, though compelling to look at, appear a bit suspect in light of his expanded definition. What's that big star in Greenland? That's Thule Air Station, a Danish base, where we have about 100 personnel. And the other one in Ascension Island? That's a small satellite-monitoring station, run by the British. What's that dot in Cairo? Oh, it's a medical-research facility. These are hardly the footprints of overweening imperialism.

Likewise, he identifies many bases in Africa. To debunk the official position that we have one permanent base there -- in Djibouti, rented from the French -- plus a few drone sites, Vine relies on dodgy research from Nick Turse, a noted anti-military critic who thinks that the Pentagon runs a hidden African empire.

Along similar lines, Vine believes the U.S. maintains an extensive, secret base system in Latin America. We have one permanent base in the region, Cuba's Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). Once all the al-Qaeda prisoners are gone, GTMO's main function will return to fleet training and disaster response for the Caribbean. In addition, we have one arrangement in Soto Cano Air Field in Honduras, which hosts a squadron of helicopters engaged in counternarcotic operations. How does this base destabilize Central America, as Vine suggests? You got me.

Soto Cano is featured in one of the more tendentious chapters, which reveals Vine's method. In discussing the base, he strongly suggests the U.S. military there conspired with the Honduran Army during the "coup" against President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. He quotes a local activist insisting the U.S. was behind the coup, and then leaves it at that. In fact, the U.S. government firmly opposed removing the anti-American Zelaya, slapped sanctions on Honduras, and negotiated for months to have Zelaya brought back into Honduras. Suggesting the U.S. military backed the coup is, well, baseless.

Many of Vine's scattershot charges are of a similar nature. He accuses the U.S. Navy of being in bed with the mob in Naples because, allegedly, it rents housing from landlords who may have mob connections. He blames the military for the red-light districts around foreign bases, like in South Korea, as if it directly created them. In another context, he claims, based on one professor's opinion, that the U.S. Naval Academy fosters a rampant rape culture, and so on.

Toward the end of the book, Vine challenges those who believe the bases are providing valuable deterrence to "prove it." I'm not sure I can prove it to his satisfaction, but regarding Korean-peninsula security, some experts point to our strong presence there as deterring both sides from overreacting. And regarding Iraq, it seems evident that leaving without any U.S. military presence destabilized the country. Many of our operations with foreign militaries in Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia have a strong humanitarian focus. It is disconcerting that he dedicates no space to these important, stabilizing missions that are often enabled by our forward base deployment.

But Vine never demonstrates his main point: that the bases themselves are destabilizing. The countries with our largest base presence -- Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Japan -- are all prosperous, peaceful democracies. As for the local protests at our foreign military bases that occasionally happen, these seem no more problematic than what occurs, certainly more often, at our many embassies abroad. Should we withdraw our diplomatic missions too?

As for bases destabilizing the developing world, Vine overplays the U.S.-imperialism angle and fails to appreciate how much control even a weaker government has over its own sovereignty. Little Honduras could kick us out of Soto Cano tomorrow; we have an agreement that could end at any time. Ecuador refused to renew our lease at Manta Air Base in 2008; we left without much fuss. The Philippines in 1992 changed its constitution to prohibit foreign bases, forcing us to leave Subic Bay. Now Manila, feeling threatened by China over the South China Sea island disputes, is inviting us back. The Filipinos mustn't feel our presence too destabilizing.

Given Vine's criticism of our large base footprint, you would think he'd approve of the Pentagon's recent plans on lowering its profile with its "lily pad" strategy -- bilaterally negotiated, pre-staged locations that might enable a future deployment. Surely this approach would alleviate the problems of the large, permanent bases Vine so painstakingly sights? But, somewhat illogically, he objects to this "light footprint" approach as a new sign of encroaching imperialism, not of gradual U.S. realignment and withdrawal.

Even if he doesn't make a strong case in Base Nation , in the long run, Vine probably will get his wish. It is hard to imagine that an extensive military base network in Europe and East Asia, the outcome of our victory in World War II and justified by Cold War strategy, will still make sense a few decades down the road. Changes are already in the wind. A new strategy for U.S. foreign policy and military power projection will doubtless be shaped largely by budget exigencies and shifts in our allies' regional security priorities.

Michael J. Ard, a former naval officer and U.S. government analyst, works in the security field and lectures on international security at Rice University.

Fran Macadam July 15, 2016 at 9:20 am

Our critic seems to have some serious cognitive dissonance going on in his avoidance of recognizing the imperial project that undergirds circling the world with U.S. military power projection.
Rossbach , says: July 15, 2016 at 9:57 am
Fran Macadam is right. The bases and the problems they create are incidental to the policy that engendered. Our nation went from a policy of intermittent imperialism after 1898 to one of permanent imperialism after 1941.

Unless we ditch the empire and return to our correct status as an independent republic, we will suffer the fate of all previous empires.

An Agrarian , says: July 15, 2016 at 10:29 am
If we grant that our global commitments are burdensome, why not take the argument in a reasonable direction. As we remember from the days of BRAC, closing bases is like pulling eye teeth, so let's focus on narrowing this argument down to what may be feasible: End NATO, remove our unwelcome forces from the Middle East, and shutter the bases where we're not wanted (e.g. AFRICOM, Okinawa) and where leases are due to expire. We need to walk our projection back from the borders of China & Russia. Even a minimal plan of this sort would require a decade to accomplish. Ultimately we need a master, strategic foreign policy vision that walks back our global projection this debate goes nowhere without that. Unfortunately neither GOP or Democrat parties offer this vision. No need to wring our hands over a "Close All the Bases" debate until we're back to Constitutional governance and foreign policy, and are rid of the military-industrial complex. And the odds of that are ?
LouisM , says: July 15, 2016 at 12:45 pm
Our Founding Fathers never wanted or would have allowed foreign military bases. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to building a navy but John Adams built a navy and Jefferson used it to stop muslim barbarians from enslaving the crews of US merchant ships.

I cannot fathom why the US needs basis throughout the world. Id much rather have a strong Philipines, Japan and Taiwan for us to partner with than vassal states that spend nothing for their own defense and put the entire burden the their alliance on the US. How many shades is that from colonialism or parasitism? Not that far in my book.

Europe is a fine example of parasitism. Today Europe expects its protector to be the US, it has shifted all its resources to social programs and as a result it cannot even defend its borders from unarmed migrants much less from a hostile aggressor.

So what is the strategy to contain Russia and China by being in Central Asia, to contain Europe by constraining it with NATO, to constrain Asia via China, Japan, Philipines, Vietnam, etc.

Im not a fan. The US is spending so much money maintaining these military alliances and using US money and jobs to bribe compliance that our nation is going bankrupt and our infrastructure is 3rd world. If these truly are competitor nations the wiser approach would be to have a strong 1st world infrastructure, a strong economy, strong education and employment and expansion into Mexico, Central America and South America. Nowhere else in the world is a nation capable of dominating an entire continent from aggressor competing nations. Nowhere else in the world is a nation capable of dominating an entire portion of the globe. Instead of growing North, Central and South America we are constraining the rest of the globe. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible but one can only shake a bottle of champagne for so long and expect the bottle to constrain the carbonation. Eventually the cork will pop and the declining debtor power will be brought down to size with years of animous for holding others back.

JWJ , says: July 15, 2016 at 2:42 pm
" causes friction with erstwhile American allies, costs way too much money, underwrites dictatorships, pollutes the environment, and morally compromises the country."

Nowhere in this article is there mention of what I would hope to be the primary purpose of a forward base.
Does it truly help the US military defend the US (and I would include projections of power that deter bad actors)?
If yes, then sod off to the wanker David Vine

Commenter Man , says: July 15, 2016 at 11:13 pm
This is a jobs and profits program all around. So there will be plenty of opposition to reducing the bases.
Fran Macadam , says: July 16, 2016 at 8:14 am
Our elites run roughshod over other peoples, and the American people can't constrain them either. At least we know who the "real" Americans are. L'etat, it is them.
bacon , says: July 16, 2016 at 9:03 pm
It shouldn't be a surprise that others piggyback on our defense spending. Why would they not? From our point of view, who pays, says, and since we insist on saying wherever we can, we've got to pay.

I have frequently wondered how costs of this sort of thing are calculated. Do the taxes military families pay get deducted from the cost? Given at least some of them would be unemployed in today's economy, do benefits they would have get deducted? Does the money they spend in local economies in the US when not deployed get factored in some way? What about the taxes the corporations which provide goods and services to the military pay, and that their employees pay? It would seem almost impossible to arrive at an accurate cost figure.

Guest , says: July 18, 2016 at 12:39 am
"Does it truly help the US military defend the US (and I would include projections of power that deter bad actors)?
If yes, then sod off to the wanker David Vine"

Using that logic, you wouldn't mind Russia or China setting up a military base in Mexico or Cuba to deter the US (a proven 'bad actor') right??

[Jun 22, 2018] Mexico Readies for Revolt Against Neoliberalism

Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Michael J. Ard is a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Western Hemisphere and the author of ..."
"... ." He teaches international relations at Rice University's Master of Global Affairs program. ..."
Jun 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Like a Dos Equis ad, Mexico is "keeping it interesante ." On July 1, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the veteran left-wing politician known as AMLO, will likely win Mexico's presidential election , to the horror of policy analysts, U.S. government officials, and the Mexican business community. As head of the upstart National Regeneration Movement (MORENA, the Spanish acronym, also means "dark skin"), AMLO pledges to make Mexico self-sufficient on food, halt foreign investment in the oil industry, and grant amnesty to drug traffickers. AMLO hates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) -- although he's promised to stay in it for now -- and "the Wall" even more.

Washington's days of having a predictable and compliant partner in Mexico may be over.

This election is likely to radically transform Mexican politics. MORENA is surging in the polls and may give AMLO a strong legislative bloc. Nationalist-minded legislators from other parties could also defect to his agenda. That would cause a major Mexican political realignment, under which for the next six years it could be governed by a self-described "revolutionary nationalist" ruling coalition. It makes sense: Mexico's neoliberal era had to end sooner or later. AMLO's longtime critique of an unfair economy and a complacent and unresponsive political system has finally resonated.

What accounts for this sudden turnaround? Several factors have aligned in AMLO's favor. Start with AMLO's opponents, who, in a time of change, represent continuity, splitting the neoliberal vote in Mexico's "winner-take-all" system. The conservative National Action Party (PAN), his strongest competitor, diluted its solid brand by running in coalition with two leftist parties. The ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) selected a well-qualified former finance minister who is out of his depth as a campaigner. That's left the once-powerful PRI mailing this campaign in, and AMLO siphoning up its traditional voters.

A Destitute Mexico: Is That What We Want? Why We Want Immigrants Who Add Value

Insecurity and corruption, according to polls , are the top issues for Mexican voters, and on these AMLO scores well. Especially on managing corruption and crime, Mexico's political elite have appeared notoriously inept. The former head of the state oil company PEMEX, a close ally of President Enrique Peña Nieto, has been credibly accused of taking up to $10 million in bribes to approve contracts from the corrupt Brazilian construction company Odebrecht. Several governors have been indicted for racketeering and graft; one even went on the lam and was arrested in Guatemala. Recently, Mexico's 12-year campaign to corral drug trafficking organizations fell apart, and violence skyrocketed. Twenty-eight thousand Mexicans were murdered last year, and political candidates are being physically attacked. Meanwhile, drug trafficking gangs ("cartels") are placing parts of the country off limits.

Then there's President Trump, who has treated Mexico as a problem and not as a partner by insisting that it fund his humiliating border wall. When asked in 2015 by Wall Street Journal editors if he thought the U.S. should promote stability and economic growth in Mexico, he replied, "I don't care about Mexico honestly. I really don't care about Mexico." Trump has bolstered AMLO's long-held view that Mexico has relied on the United States for too long. On the campaign trail, AMLO has vowed to put Trump "in his place."

Still, these more immediate causes don't entirely explain AMLO's impending success. At a deeper level, AMLO seems to be Mexico's answer to Samuel Huntington's key "who are we?" question on national identity. AMLO's MORENA explicitly seeks to revive the abandoned ideals of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920): anti-imperialism, defense of national resources, equality, and the protection of peasant rights. Tellingly, AMLO cites as his heroes two successful presidents who propelled Mexico forward: Benito Juarez, the black-clad Zapotec Indian who defeated the French-backed 19th-century "empire," and Lazaro Cardenas, the former revolutionary general who nationalized the oil industry and built the modern Mexican state.

Despite his populism, AMLO hasn't always been an outsider. He started his political career during the 1980s, when the PRI was still was Mexico's governing party. But he soon saw the changes happening in his rural native state of Tabasco, when the oil boom pushed out the farming and fishing industry. AMLO dissented from the PRI's decision to liberalize the economy and joined the opposition in 1988.

Led by Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who was president from 1988 to 1994, the country embarked on a strict neoliberal development path and internationalist agenda, reversing its program of statist economics and authoritarian governance. Its ruling politicians sold state industries, embraced market reforms, let the peso float, and joined the North American Free Trade Agreement. Over the last several years, Mexico City has even permitted greater American involvement in its war against drug traffickers. Under Peña Nieto, Mexico finally allowed its oil industry to permit foreign investment.

In truth, these reforms worked well enough: Mexico democratized and developed into a solidly middle-income country with steady economic growth. Net immigration into the United States has come to a halt. Security issues were messy, but unlikely to destabilize the country.

These reforms represented a big win for Washington. If American intervention was needed for the occasional peso crisis or drug trafficker menace, we were happy to oblige. Mexico made a difficult partner at times, but on the policy side, it was where Washington wanted it to be.

But the cost of these changes may have been Mexico's identity, its sense of self. Returning to Huntington, his "The Clash of Civilizations?" article described Mexico as a state "torn" between its economic future and political and cultural past. After a top advisor to President Salinas described the sweeping changes the government was making, Huntington remarked, "It seems to me that basically you want to change Mexico from a Latin American country into a North American country." Salinas looked at him with surprise and exclaimed: "Exactly! That's precisely what we are trying to do, but of course we could never say so publicly."

AMLO and his followers have brooded about these radical changes for years. To this day, he refers to the arch-neoliberal Salinas simply as El Innombrable -- he that cannot be named. Neoliberalism launched AMLO not just on a political career but on a personal crusade to bring the country back to its former ideals.

When AMLO won the Mexico City mayorship in 2000, he built up a national political base and became a burr in the saddle of President Vicente Fox, who had embraced the liberal reforms of the formerly ruling PRI. AMLO criticized Fox relentlessly, and in retaliation, Fox attempted to have him legally prohibited from running for president in 2006.

This clumsy effort failed, giving AMLO a boost. But he narrowly lost the contest to the PAN's Felipe Calderon, whose campaign linked AMLO with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez. Embittered in defeat, AMLO immediately claimed the voting was rigged against him. AMLO and his raucous followers held protests for months and even formed a parallel government. He may have lost in 2006, but he solidified his position as the leader of Mexico's alternative left.

AMLO's anti-system stance has given weight to the claim that he'd be another Chavez. The comparison seems invidious, as the late comandante of Venezuela, an avowed Marxist and coup plotter, crushed democratic institutions, set up a socialist economy, and in general drove what had been a prosperous South American country into the ground. AMLO, an authentic democrat, appears less megalomaniacal and more rules-focused, more the romantic reactionary than the revolutionary radical.

Still, many of the same forces that propelled Chavez are driving AMLO now. Like Chavez, AMLO is coming to power after a period of neoliberal reform and perceived intractable corruption. Like Chavez, AMLO enjoys an almost mystical bond with his nation's poorer classes. And very much like Chavez, AMLO is instinctively, but probably not irreversibly, anti-American in outlook.

How these characteristics will play out with AMLO in power is hard to predict. The two main parties won't be behind him, but many of their followers might. All of those alienated by neoliberalism, the perceived kowtowing to Washington, the surrender of economic resources to foreign companies and the free market, will flock to his banner. It is remarkable how some former members of the right-of-center National Action Party and the PRI have backed his campaign.

Some of AMLO's policy proposals seem less the stuff of hard leftism than nostalgic nationalism. He focuses heavily on national development for industry and agriculture aimed at self-reliance and reducing imports. He proposes holding referendums on the enacted legislation, a move to broaden democracy, which would require constitutional reform. He seeks to raise the minimum wage, but refreshingly pledges "no new taxes."

AMLO loves to wax nostalgic about Mexico's strong state traditions and will almost certainly attempt to restore the waning power of the Mexican presidency as an anti-corruption pulpit. In the tradition of newly inaugurated Mexican presidents, he'll probably look to prosecute a node of corruption in Mexican society: a prominent businessman or politician, rather than a labor union like his predecessors.

Much of the progress the United States has made with Mexico on security cooperation will probably be jeopardized. It's hard to believe that AMLO will endorse the close relations that the DEA, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community have forged with their Mexican counterparts in the war on drugs. The extradition of the notorious drug kingpin Joaquin el Chapo Guzman to the U.S. in 2017 will probably be the high watermark in the relationship. It is doubtful that AMLO will permit more high-profile extraditions. President Trump's disdain for a close relationship that has taken us decades to build may come back to haunt us.

But a poor relationship between Washington and Mexico City doesn't have to be inevitable. Despite the rhetoric, the flamboyant American billionaire has much in common with the austere Mexican populist. Both countries have too many common interests to go down separate paths. The question is: does AMLO have to build the bomb to get Trump to care about Mexico?

Michael J. Ard is a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Western Hemisphere and the author of "An Eternal Struggle: The Role of the National Action Party in Mexico's Democratic Transition ." He teaches international relations at Rice University's Master of Global Affairs program.

Youknowho June 21, 2018 at 7:30 am

Another diplomatic triumph of Trump

And just because they are similar do not expect that they might agree. Expect them to antagonize each other to play to their bases.

Carlos , says: June 21, 2018 at 10:52 am
That's just the thing, AMLO isn't "an authentic democrat." He founded MORENA so he could keep his presidential aspirations going; he's indistinguishable from the party. After losing in 2006, he notoriously said "to hell with institutions." His followers won't admit this, but his platform is as diluted as the rest: he's taken in suspects of corruption and has allied himself with both a very "conservative" party (the small, evangelical PES) and Mexico's hard leftists.
Hibernian , says: June 21, 2018 at 9:20 pm
"Washington's days of having a predictable and compliant partner in Mexico may be over."

What about Mexico's days of having a predictable and compliant partner in Washington?

[Jun 22, 2018] Obama cyber chief confirms 'stand down' order against Russian cyberattacks

Looks like Fox and Free Beacon are part of the Deep state as they repeat the Deep State memo that DNC was hacked, not that information was leaked by an insider and then false flag was performed by intelligence agencies to attribute it to Russia.
Jun 22, 2018 | www.foxnews.com

Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian cyberattacks during the 2016 election.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks.

Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"

"That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting but the larger context is something that we can discuss in the classified session," Daniel said. "But I can say there were many concerns about how many people were involved in the development of the options so the decision at that point was to neck down the number of people that were involved in our ongoing response options. It's not accurate to say all activities ceased at that point. "

Daniel and his team were tasked in developing options to Russia's cyberattacks on the United States. Russian hacked the Democratic National Committee servers in 2015 and into voter registration systems of several U.S. states in 2016.

[Jun 21, 2018] Britain In Panic As Trump-Putin Summit Looms : all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Jun 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Alexander Mercouris via TheDuran.com,

Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...

Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations for the summit.

The Kremlin's confirmation of John Bolton's visit was given today by President Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov

As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.

Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.

It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video ), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long favoured.

One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.

In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the obsessive quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.

As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still contains comments like these

Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special criticism.

The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to an already colourful week." .

A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding: "It would be a highly negative thing to do."

Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.

I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald Trump.

In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper.

I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence.

As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow.

A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly the opposite outcome which some people in London want.

That however looks to be what they are facing.

[Jun 21, 2018] Cocaine Cowboys

Jun 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dan | Jun 21, 2018 3:59:00 PM | 5

Pertaining to your question about evidence of CIA and other deep state forces using cash from illicit drug sales, b, if you have time check out a wiked documentary series called "Cocaine Cowboys".

The first is a glimpse into how things got started in Miami, and is more of entertainment value than anything else. The second, however, describes exactly how the CIA introduced and established a massive crack cocaine market in California. It has a lot to do with the Ollie North "Iran Contra affair", and how the CIA was allowed to circumvent the traditional begathon for money from congress.

In fact back in the day it was public knowledge. Only congress remained blind.

Our joint favorite reporter, who passed away recently, wrote about it extensively. God bless Parry. W. Bush pardoned Ollie North, by the way. I am always blown away by the fact these assholes keep straight faces.

[Jun 21, 2018] Britain In Panic As Trump-Putin Summit Looms : all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Jun 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Alexander Mercouris via TheDuran.com,

Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...

Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations for the summit.

The Kremlin's confirmation of John Bolton's visit was given today by President Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov

As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.

Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.

It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video ), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long favoured.

One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.

In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the obsessive quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.

As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still contains comments like these

Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special criticism.

The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to an already colourful week." .

A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding: "It would be a highly negative thing to do."

Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.

I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald Trump.

In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper.

I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence.

As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow.

A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly the opposite outcome which some people in London want.

That however looks to be what they are facing.

[Jun 21, 2018] The neoliberal agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... the progressive left has been destroyed. All that's left is the Democratic Party which CALLS ITSELF "progressive" but actually acts in a way that undermines progressive ideals. ..."
"... Both Obama and Trump are faux populists. Both were probably thrust upon us in very slick operations. Proof? In hindsight, their political opponents (McCain, Hillary) were so flawed as to be ridiculous, especially because they were each the very embodiment of an establishment that most people KNOW works against them. In our current, money-driven political system electing a real progressive is virtually impossible. ..."
Jun 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit | Jun 21, 2018 10:16:05 PM | 34

Fernando, Almand

You may be interested to know:

Civil Rights Attorney Asked Obama To Close Migrant "Baby Jails" In 2015

Why The "Abject Silence" From The Left About Child Migrant Detentions Under Obama?

This shows how hypocritical and partisan the left is in the U.S. That's because the progressive left has been destroyed. All that's left is the Democratic Party which CALLS ITSELF "progressive" but actually acts in a way that undermines progressive ideals.

karlof1 is right. Revolutions happen from the bottom up. Not by electing those who have been selected to run for office. Both Obama and Trump are faux populists. Both were probably thrust upon us in very slick operations. Proof? In hindsight, their political opponents (McCain, Hillary) were so flawed as to be ridiculous, especially because they were each the very embodiment of an establishment that most people KNOW works against them. In our current, money-driven political system electing a real progressive is virtually impossible.

The establishment agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:

  1. neo-feudalism : low taxes on the wealthy and roll-back of social programs;
  2. legal usury : very low interest rates for best credit / very high interest rates to ordinary people;
  3. neolib taking of the commons ; Example from the neolib Sith Lord himself: Obamaland Fiasco Worsens
    A presidential library became Obamaland... The center will not be a presidential library because Obama's archives and documents won't be there there and it won't be federally run.

    [Furthermore] The taxpayer bill for the Obama Center to be built on Chicago's Southside is now $224 million, not $172 million as initially reported, and it's certainly not privately funded as initially promised.

  4. global hegemony via massive spending on military & spying; It's for the children. No, not YOUR children.
  5. divisive politics to keep lower classes occupied; Let's talk about bathrooms and statues and "rocketman".
  6. militarized police & massive propaganda . You are now a consumer of government services not a citizen. Have a nice day.

[Jun 21, 2018] Neocons, Zionists and Evangelicals

Jun 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 | Jun 21, 2018 10:00:27 PM | 33

Bible clutchers. Last time I looked AIPAC in the US consisted of roughly half Israeli's or Jews and half protestant evangelicals. A few years back I read the stats on the religion of US voters by percentage. I think that showed close to 25% of US voters evangelicals.

While looking for those stats to provide a link, I ran onto this WP article on the Trump election and ecumenicals. According to the article, 20% of US voters are evangelicals. That is a huge zionist voting block and the majority voted for Trump.

[Jun 21, 2018] Cocaine Cowboys

Jun 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dan | Jun 21, 2018 3:59:00 PM | 5

Pertaining to your question about evidence of CIA and other deep state forces using cash from illicit drug sales, b, if you have time check out a wiked documentary series called "Cocaine Cowboys".

The first is a glimpse into how things got started in Miami, and is more of entertainment value than anything else. The second, however, describes exactly how the CIA introduced and established a massive crack cocaine market in California. It has a lot to do with the Ollie North "Iran Contra affair", and how the CIA was allowed to circumvent the traditional begathon for money from congress.

In fact back in the day it was public knowledge. Only congress remained blind.

Our joint favorite reporter, who passed away recently, wrote about it extensively. God bless Parry. W. Bush pardoned Ollie North, by the way. I am always blown away by the fact these assholes keep straight faces.

[Jun 21, 2018] US interventions vs Russia interventions

Notable quotes:
"... The attributions of attacks to countries are very shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation. ..."
Jun 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mark2 , Jun 21, 2018 2:44:25 PM | 2

Could someone remind me the amount of country's America have invaded since the last world war 30 - 40 , I here'd. Compared to Russia 5-8 ? Russia is in Syria by invitation to deal with rebels/terrorist's .America is now threatening both. Despite being there to attempt a regime change. Just who do they think they are ? The sooner they are stopped the better and the easier.
karlof1 , Jun 21, 2018 3:13:44 PM | 3
Mark2 @2--

Russia intervened nowhere; the USSR intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In 1993, Yeltsin's cabal intervened in Russia to preserve Bush's and Clinton's New World Order. USSR was invited into Afghanistan; Outlaw US Empire wasn't. An incomplete list from William Blum's Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II . A graphic map based on Blum's book.

ben , Jun 21, 2018 5:31:23 PM | 14
Mark2@ 2: Here ya' go Mark:)

https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

karlof1 , Jun 21, 2018 5:32:52 PM | 15
Yesterday, Putin met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Unfortunately, the Kremlin's recap of the meeting's currently incomplete, but what is recorded is instructive:

"Of course, we look at the Russian Federation as a founder of the United Nations and as a permanent member of the Security Council, but I would say that at the present moment we look at the Russian Federation as an indispensable element of the creation of a new multipolar world.

"To be entirely frank, these are not easy times for multilateralism and not easy times for the UN. And I think that after the Cold War and after a short period of unipolar world we are still struggling to find a way to have a structured, multipolar world with multilateral governmental institutions that can work. And this is something that worries me a lot and is something in which, I believe, the Russian Federation has a unique role to play."

Considering many think Guterres just an agent for the Outlaw US Empire, maybe his cited words will cause a reassessment. I'd like to know what followed. Apparently there was some discussion about Korea and the economic initiatives being openly discussed since RoK President Moon will arrive in Russia tomorrow.

Lavrov met with Guterres today, and his opening remarks shine a bit more light on what was discussed:

"As emphasised by President Putin, we have invariably supported, support, and will continue to support the UN, this unique universal organisation. We think highly of your intention, Mr Secretary-General, to raise the profile of the United Nations in world affairs, particularly in settling regional conflicts. As you noted yourself at the meeting in the Kremlin yesterday, this is largely dependent on the general state of the international system as a whole and the UN member states' readiness to act collectively, jointly, rather than unilaterally, and to pursue the goals enshrined in the UN Charter rather than self-centred,[sic] immediate aims.

"We note that you have consistently advocated the pooling of efforts by major players to deal with world problems. This is the logic of the UN Charter, specifically its clauses on the creation and powers of the UN Security Council. I hope that based on the values we share we will be able to successfully continue cooperation in the interests of solving international problems."

Lots of emphasis on the absolute necessity of making the UN Charter whole again and not allowing any one nation to make a mockery of it by pursuing its "self-centered, immediate aims."

Mark2 , Jun 21, 2018 5:54:25 PM | 18
Ben @ 14
Thanks Ben. Yep that's what l thought reality would look like, that's my sanity safe for a while longer. Remember we are not alone!
Zanon @ 12
That is a perfect example of 'fake news' we can spot it here ! Or are we here now msm!
pantaraxia , Jun 21, 2018 6:06:38 PM | 20
@2 Mark2 'Could someone remind me the amount of country's America have invaded since the last world war '

Perhaps as relevant a question is how many countries are presently enjoying the beneficence of U.S. military operations?

According to Seymour Hersh in a recent interview on Democracy Now: " The United States is conducting war in 76 countries now."

Seymour Hersh on Torture at Abu Ghraib & Secret U.S. Assassination Programs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRvLZ6y4PxM

This confirms a recent statement by Sen. Bernie Sanders: "meanwhile we are "fighting terrorism" in some 76 countries...'

The Jimmy Dore Show - Bernie's Amazing Foreign Policy Smackdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmcMzCIEV8Y

karlof1 , Jun 21, 2018 6:19:58 PM | 21
I'd Like this made into a poster ! From Southfront's reporting about a RICO lawsuit filed against Clinton and Co. Quite the charge sheet, although it lacks several crimes.
Mark2 , Jun 21, 2018 6:36:55 PM | 22
Pantaraxia @ 20
Wow that doubles what I was already shocked about ! And then of course there's the comercal operations destablising country's using greed as a weapon. Plus the banks, I'm sure South Africa would have been a real success if they'd kept the banking curuption out. Time for immoral capitalism to fall.
Also don't you just hate victim blaming.There that's me done. Grrr
S , Jun 21, 2018 9:49:05 PM | 32
@b: I know you're just one man and can't do everything, but it would be wonderful if you could cover the history of hacking accusations against Russia. No one lays out a sequence of events better than you.

Just yesterday, another accusation has been leveled against Russia by the head of Germany's BfV intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen: German intelligence sees Russia behind hack of energy firms - media report (Reuters). It's a serious accusation, and one would expect a serious proof. However, no proof has been given except that "it fits the Russian modus operandi". Also, the fact that the alleged attack has been named "Berserk Bear" by some unknown Western analyst. Apparently, that's enough proof by today's standards.

There is a critical lack of independent thinking and skepticism in the international computer security circles nowadays. The attributions of attacks to countries are very shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation.

[Jun 21, 2018] Russia to impose countermeasures to Trump s metals tariffs

Jun 21, 2018 | theduran.com

Russia to impose countermeasures to Trump's metals tariffs Meanwhile, Trump thinks he's bolstering America's national security

by Frank Sellers June 20, 2018, 11:45 645 Views

[Jun 21, 2018] Mad Dog Mattis, the destroyer of Raqqa, frets about losing moral authority by Finian Cunningham

Notable quotes:
"... "shake and bake" ..."
"... For Mattis to lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting Washington. ..."
"... Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's "actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals." ..."
"... It is classic "in denial" ..."
"... "What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with," ..."
"... "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of its own criminal foreign conduct." ..."
"... "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen." ..."
"... Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of sociopaths." ..."
Jun 20, 2018 | www.rt.com

Jun 20, 2018, RT Op-ed The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

It's parallel universe time when US Pentagon chief James 'Mad Dog' Mattis complains that America's "moral authority" is being undermined by others – specifically Russian leader Vladimir Putin. This is the ex-Marine general who gained his ruthless reputation from when illegally occupying US troops razed the Iraqi city of Fallujah in the 2004-2005 using "shake and bake" bombardment of inhabitants with banned white phosphorus incendiaries.

A repeat of those war crimes happened again last year under Mattis' watch as Pentagon chief when US warplanes obliterated the Syrian city of Raqqa, killing thousands of civilians. Even the pro-US Human Rights Watch abhorred the repeated use of white phosphorus during that campaign to "liberate" Raqqa, supposedly from jihadists.

These are but two examples from dense archives of US war crimes committed over several decades, from its illegal intervention in Syria to Libya, from Iraq to Vietnam, back to the Korean War in the early 1950s when American carpet bombing killed millions of innocent civilians.

For Mattis to lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting Washington.

According to Mattis, the problem of America's diminishing global reputation has nothing to do with US misconduct – even though the evidence is replete to prove that systematic misconduct. No, the problem, according to him, is that Russia's Putin is somehow sneakily undermining Washington's moral authority.

Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's "actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."

The US Secretary of Defense doesn't elaborate on how he thinks Russia is achieving this dastardly plot to demean America. It is simply asserted as fact. This has been a theme recycled over and over by officials in Washington and Brussels, other Western government leaders and of course NATO and its affiliated think-tanks. All of which has been dutifully peddled by Western news media.

It is classic "in denial" thinking. The general loss of legitimacy and authority by Western governments is supposedly nothing to do with their own inherent failures and transgressions, from bankrupt austerity economics, to deteriorating social conditions, to illegal US-led wars and the repercussions of blowback terrorism and mass migration of refugees.

Oh no. What the ruling elites are trying to do is shift the blame from their own culpability on to others, principally Russia. American political analyst Randy Martin says that Mattis' latest remarks show a form of collective delusion among Western political establishments and their aligned mainstream news media.

"What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with," says Martin. "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of its own criminal foreign conduct."

Read more This is America: Outrage at Trump is phony, US leaders have praised dictators for decades

The analyst added: "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen."

Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of sociopaths."

This week, three headline-making issues speak volumes about America's declining moral authority.

... ... ...

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

[Jun 20, 2018] Never underestimate what a man will do to keep a good-paying job.

Jun 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

dr kill , June 20, 2018 at 4:46 am GMT

@ChrisZ

Never underestimate what a man will do to keep a good-paying job.

[Jun 20, 2018] Updating Orwell by Steve Sailer

Notable quotes:
"... Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign. Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there. ..."
"... Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party #Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump. ..."
"... Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone. ..."
"... You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the opinion sections and then log off. ..."
"... I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable journalism. ..."
"... The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell.. ..."
"... If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50. ..."
"... Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift, Waugh. ..."
"... I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again. ..."
"... Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective. ..."
"... As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz', because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle. ..."
Jun 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

From George Orwell's "Inside the Whale," 1940, on the mental atmosphere of English writers in 1937 (slightly updated):

By 2018 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Establishment thought had narrowed down to 'anti-Trumpism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature directed against Russia and the politicians supposedly friendly to Russia was pouring from the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in America was not such Twitter spats as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds on Instagram, but the immediate reappearance in respectable circles of the mental atmosphere of the McCarthy Era. The very people who for 65 years had sniggered over their own superiority to Kremlin hysteria were the ones who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1950. All the familiar wartime idiocies, spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Trumpist?), the retailing of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never happened.

Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their hysteria.

Anon7 , June 19, 2018 at 3:51 pm GMT

Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone. Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign. Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
Anon7 , June 19, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone. Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign. Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
Steve Sailer , Website June 19, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
Here's the original:

By 1937 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Left-wing thought had narrowed down to 'anti-Fascism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature directed against Germany and the politicians supposedly friendly to Germany was pouring from the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in Spain was not such violence as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds behind the lines, but the immediate reappearance in left-wing circles of the mental atmosphere of the Great War. The very people who for twenty years had sniggered over their own superiority to war hysteria were the ones who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1915. All the familiar wartime idiocies, spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Fascist?), the retailing of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never happened.

Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta , June 19, 2018 at 4:13 pm GMT
Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party #Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump.
anony-mouse , June 19, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT
Don't a lot of people here use war talk like 'invasion' to describe migrants? That's excepting the many WWIII-ers here:

http://www.unz.com/proberts/ten-days-before-the-end-of-the-world/

People of all types seem to like talking about war regardless of how peaceful things are. Human nature?

Luke Lea , June 19, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
Nice job. We need a new nickname for this updated form of corporate speech.
bored identity , June 19, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a cosmopoliethnocentric. Boot with cleats stamping on a host's face – forever:

... ... ...

Neuday , June 19, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@anony-mouse

Invading and colonizing a country is an act of war, regardless of a media-owning fifth column. Things are not peaceful.

Charles Pewitt , June 19, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Anon7

I like the acting ability of the Welsh guy tormenting the English guy from the Burton/Hurt version of 1984. John Hurt could have done a great O'Brien and Richard Burton could have done a smashing Winston Smith.

Did The Eurythmic's got memory-holed from 1984?

DoublePlusGood:

Charles Pewitt , June 19, 2018 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Steve Sailer

...Orwell and Boxer and Whites Without College Degrees from 2017:

I know what happened to Boxer -- Russian working class -- the work horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm. Boxer busted his arse building the farm back up to snuff after it had undergone the revolution and other problems. The pigs -- Stalinists -- rewarded Boxer by carting him away to the glue factory. Poor Boxer finally realized he was going to the glue factory while in the truck, but he was so exhausted from his labors in working on the farm that he didn't have enough strength to kick the truck to pieces to escape.

Whites Without College Degrees(WWCDs) are the new Boxer of the present day. The Stalinists are now the Globalizers. The Globalizers have decided that all the hard work and all the soldiering over generations by the WWCDs will be rewarded with deliberate attacks and sneaky ways to harm them. From mass immigration to de-industrialization to hooking the WWCDs on drugs, the Globalizer pigs have used every trick in the book to destroy Whites Without Colllege Degrees. Two academics have described this demographic phenomenom as the WHITE DEATH.

Flip , June 19, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
@Anon7

Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.

You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the opinion sections and then log off.

ChrisZ , June 19, 2018 at 6:29 pm GMT
@Anon7

I agree with your observation, Anon7.

Somehow, though, the Left persuaded itself early on that "1984″ was a prophecy of the Trump Era. IIRC the book actually saw a jump in sales, and a stage adaptation was mounted in New York.

I was thinking along your lines (and as yet unaware of the above-mentioned trends) when I saw someone reading it on a commuter train. I cautiously passed a word to him thinking I might be making contact with a fellow Rightist; but was quickly disabused of the notion when he responded with some "resistance" B.S., in the nasally whine typical of the species.

Anon7 , June 19, 2018 at 8:50 pm GMT
@Flip

I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable journalism.

The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell..

Reg Cæsar , June 19, 2018 at 9:52 pm GMT
Yes, most Britons would agree that Orwell needs updating: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." He sounds awfully American here.
Reg Cæsar , June 19, 2018 at 10:00 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck

Orwell was a committed socialist

If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50.

Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift, Waugh.

Gordo , June 19, 2018 at 10:27 pm GMT

Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their hysteria.

Descendants of the same people. Intellectually and often genetically.

Dan Hayes , June 19, 2018 at 11:39 pm GMT
@Reg Cæsar

Reg Caesar: Lord Kenneth Clark summed it all best in Civilisation : Like all great wits he was a violent conservative.

ChrisZ , June 20, 2018 at 12:10 am GMT
@Reg Cæsar

Reg, I thought Norm MacDonald's "gay 'pride'" bit (featured on an earlier thread here) was pretty Aristophanean.

J1234 , June 20, 2018 at 1:33 am GMT

Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their hysteria.

This is true, and then some. Just as today, the mainstream media was in on promoting the leftist agenda, though maybe to a lesser degree. Here's the New York Times' obituary (or, more accurately, eulogy) for Joseph Stalin back in 1953. Yes, they acknowledge some of his murderous tendencies, but it seems hard for them to condemn such a great guy for such a minor flaw. The headline reads, Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia Into Mighty Socialist State . That's the tone of the the whole article, generally speaking. It's hard for them to conceal their reverence.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1221.html

Anon [381] Disclaimer , June 20, 2018 at 1:54 am GMT
David French, National Review: Israel Has the Right and Obligation to Defend Its Border with Deadly Force

By David French
May 15, 2018 2:41 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/israel-has-right-obligation-defend-border-with-deadly-force/

David French, National Review:

Now Is the Time, Congress -- End Family Separation
By David French

June 18, 2018 5:20 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/family-separation-immigration-congress-end-it/

Anon [381] Disclaimer , June 20, 2018 at 1:58 am GMT
BTW

The EU is attempting to surreptitiously ban criticism of the Ruling Class using some copyright/link tax nonsense that will essentially ban memes and expose anonymous critics. The mask slips ever more.

Charles Erwin Wilson II , June 20, 2018 at 1:59 am GMT
@Anon7

Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.

True. But then they do not know that they are Robespierre.

Ozymandias , June 20, 2018 at 2:06 am GMT
OT: Geraldo just invented a new word on Hannity; "THIS IS NOT HYSTERICA! America." He's wrong of course. This is Hysterica.
Charles Erwin Wilson II , June 20, 2018 at 2:10 am GMT
@Reg Cæsar

If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart.

Wrong.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. –Winston Churchill

John Pepple , June 20, 2018 at 3:44 am GMT
@Steve Sailer

And just two years later, the anti-fascist rhetoric was completely reversed and became anti-anti-fascist with the Nazi-Soviet pact. And two years after that, it went back to being anti-fascist when Hitler broke the pact.

dr kill , June 20, 2018 at 4:46 am GMT
@ChrisZ

Never underestimate what a man will do to keep a good-paying job.

Anonymous [427] Disclaimer , June 20, 2018 at 5:17 am GMT
@Anon

Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.

sb , June 20, 2018 at 9:55 am GMT
@Reg Cæsar

Quite
Orwell was clearly moving to the right being very anti Communist ( and fellow travellers ) but at all times he was first and foremost an English nationalist . Certainly he was no supporter of Left solidarity

In his time perhaps it was still maybe just possible to consider oneself to be of the left and to be a nationalist. That era has long finished.

Isidore the Farmer , June 20, 2018 at 1:31 pm GMT
I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again.

The left is getting more skilled at it, too, and is significantly helped by the suppression of right-wing accounts on social media platforms since November 2016. Trayvon was an early example of this, and they have only gotten better at using the tactics. The propaganda is often a mix of true and false components.

Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective.

As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz', because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle.

[Jun 19, 2018] Counterdrug Programs Come With Increased Drug Production - Where Does The Money Go

Notable quotes:
"... Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value" of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however; because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket. ..."
"... b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets if nothing else. ..."
"... I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution. ..."
"... I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia. For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight" placed on the bank. ..."
"... John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." ..."
"... Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of drugs into the nation. His investigation was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until 911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some manner. ..."
"... Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there. ..."
"... I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel, soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5 billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 / 2014. ..."
"... This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the planet. ..."
"... And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia. ..."
"... Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA. He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe. Read him if you want the real facts. ..."
Jun 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Jun 18, 2018 1:30:38 PM | 2

thanks b... the speculation has always been in my mind anyway - that the money is controlled by the cia... covert money for covert projects and on and on it goes...
LXV , Jun 18, 2018 1:47:36 PM | 3
b wrote: "I am not aware of any sound evidence that shows that the CIA reaped financial profits from drug dealing."

Define 'sound evidence, b... For some, it's a kilo of stash; for others (like myself), it's suffice with the testimony of (suicided) insiders, like Gary Webb (RIP).

ben , Jun 18, 2018 2:06:01 PM | 4
james @ 2 said:" covert money for covert projects and on and on it goes..."

Yes, and what they don't spend on "projects", goes to their minions and sycophants..

ken , Jun 18, 2018 2:16:06 PM | 5
The Taliban curtailed the poppy growing without any problem. Shortly after the US invasion under the guise of capturing OBL. Almost 18 years later, long after the death of OBL (in reality and in US military BS) the poppy production has increased exponentially. There are Pics of US military personnel walking through poppy fields.
Other than drug production there is no need for the US to be in Afghanistan except maybe to use it as a launching platform to attack Iran. Drugs are an excellent source for funding black ops.

Not only is the US allowing the production, considering how easy it would be for them to kill the crops, and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West.

librul , Jun 18, 2018 3:16:16 PM | 11

b says the efforts appear counterproductive. Here is why:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/afghanistan-the-making-of-a-narco-state-20141204#

If you understand the Afghan government as a narco state, then the fact that opium production has actually increased –while the U.S. spent billions on counternarcotics efforts and troop numbers surged – starts to make sense. A completely failed state – Afghanistan in 2001 – can't really thrive in the drug trade. Traffickers have no reason to pay off a toothless government or a nonexistent police force. In such a libertarian paradise, freelance actors – like Saleem, the heroin cook – flourish.

But as the government builds capacity, officials can start to demand a cut. It's not that there's a grand conspiracy at the center of government, but rather that, in the absence of accountability and the rule of law, officials start to orient themselves around a powerful political economy. Big drug barons with links to the government take over the trade. People who don't pay, or who fall out with government officials, might find themselves killed or arrested.

In this light, U.S. counternarcotics programs, which have cost nearly $8 billion to date, and the Afghan state-building project in general, are perversely part of the explanation for the growing government involvement in the drug trade. Even the newly rebuilt Afghan Air Force has been investigated by the U.S. military for alleged trafficking. In many places, the surge had the effect of wresting opium revenue from the Taliban and handing it to government officials. For example, in Helmand's Garmsir District, which sits on key trafficking routes between the rest of the province and Baramcha, a big Marine offensive in 2011 finally pushed out the Taliban and handed the district back to the Afghan government. The result? The police began taking a cut from those drug routes. "There are families, as in Mafia-style, that have the trade carved up between them, and when some outsider tries to get in on it, they serve him up as a success for drug interdiction," one Western official who worked in Garmsir told me.

I just luv-ed this next paragraph. Glad I wasn't sipping Coca Cola
while I read it. Would have chortled cola out my nose!

Here is government BS-speak at it's vacuous best (enjoy):

The U.S. government, for its part, acknowledged that there are no quick solutions at hand. "The U.S. interagency is developing an updated counternarcotics strategy for Afghanistan," says Jen Psaki, the State Department's spokeswoman. "These are long-term efforts that build the foundation for eventual reductions in opium harvests."
Chris G , Jun 18, 2018 4:04:03 PM | 14
Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value" of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however; because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket.
WorldBLee , Jun 18, 2018 4:08:12 PM | 15
b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets if nothing else.
Daniel , Jun 18, 2018 4:32:10 PM | 17
I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution.

I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia. For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight" placed on the bank.

Daniel , Jun 18, 2018 4:37:37 PM | 18
John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
karlof1 , Jun 18, 2018 5:29:48 PM | 20
Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of drugs into the nation. His investigation was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until 911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some manner.

The CIA is the planet's #1 Terrorist Organization, and it has all 3 types of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's often hard to determine which poses a greater threat to humanity: The CIA or its parent the Outlaw US Empire. If humanity's to have any chance at a viable future, both the CIA and its Imperial parent must be destroyed for their many crimes.

Ornot , Jun 18, 2018 5:49:10 PM | 21
Seymore Hersh first (to my knowledge) first looked at CIA drug links when people exited buildings not using the stairs.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/10/archives/family-plans-to-sue-cia-over-suicide-in-drug-test-family-planning.html

That CIA was experimenting with narcotics as a tool seemed to have metasticised into something else during the Air America years, which in turn seems to have morphed via Barry Seal (& Gary Webb's investigation)and the Cocaine Coyboys onward into Silk Airways (famed by weapons to Syria scandal) -
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cockburn-white.html

https://www.globalresearch.ca/oliver-north-worked-with-cocaine-traffickers-to-arm-terrorists-now-hell-be-president-of-the-national-rifle-association-nra/5640431
Whatever the post WWII period there seems to be a airline moving illicit product(s) across borders and a rouge militia force hook up. While powder is not as convertable as say Bitcoin, it leaves no paper trail.

Good luck with the research - its a long dark deep rabbit hole, leading to many fingers in many pies.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2009/03/investigative-reporter-seymour-hersh-describes-executive-assassination-ring

Eugene , Jun 18, 2018 6:36:02 PM | 23
Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there.

Addicts were given small sums to deposit in the banks, by the thousands, which didn't draw attention. A lot of the money was sent to the U.S. to buy "American Muscle Cars", which were then shipped back to the E.U. and resold again.

Pakistan was also a transit country where the "Labs" were first set up to process the opium to heroin. How time fly's when having fun. Addiction to "drugs" isn't the only addiction nor the addicts involved either. Only one leaf in the book of the minds of those who believe they are doing the right thing.

Jen , Jun 18, 2018 6:54:58 PM | 26
I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel, soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5 billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 / 2014.

Also a big portion of the counternarcotics dosh must be going to teams of people digging up and burning opium and also to teams of people planting new opium seeds in the areas where the first lot of opium was eradicated later on. Similar to stories people used to hear about what supposedly happened during the 1930s Great Depression, when teams of people were employed to dig ditches and then other teams of people were employed to fill up the ditches which would be dug up again at a later time.

This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the planet.

frances , Jun 18, 2018 7:06:21 PM | 28
reply to:
".. and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West."
Posted by: ken | Jun 18, 2018 2:16:06 PM | 5

And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia.

oldenyoung , Jun 18, 2018 7:08:31 PM | 29
The level of US "counter-narcotic" investment seems to be about right to support the GROWTH of the narcotics industry...not the otherway around...its black and its dirty

regards

OY

Mark2 , Jun 18, 2018 7:14:33 PM | 30
Every comment on this post is like a fine champagne of reality. how do people get by with out wanting to know the truth. keep the comments coming I need more! Brilliant links. The doors of perception just opened for me. Who the hell runs our TVs stations that they can turn a blind I to this lot.
-------
I to find great strength in music, to find the truth. For me it is reggae any group in society that has sufferd what we discuss on this site for 300 years, but have survived got stronger and put it to music, I feel needs listening to!!!
Daniel Bruno , Jun 18, 2018 7:51:32 PM | 32
The "War on Drugs" was conceived to put black people in jail en masse as Jim Crow came to an end. Nixon's aides admitted this. Read "The New Jim Crow" for the full story. Marijuana laws were first introduced in the early 20th century as a tool to arrest and deport Mexicans from the American southwest. Google it.

The bullshit "War on Drugs" is as phony as the bullshit "War on Terror" in the wake of 3 skyscrapers that were demolished and collapsed at freefall speed.

The real money is to be made in the bullshit wars spawned by these 2 hoaxes that boggle the mind in their scope.

Basically, these two cornerstones of American domestic and foreign policy are frauds of biblical proportions.

An empire built on these foundations will come crashing down as fast as WTC 7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

0use4msm , Jun 18, 2018 8:35:04 PM | 33
"O my, cocaine" is an anagram of "CIA economy".

Various Contra-cocaine type operations of un/controlled shipments of drugs existed in the early 1990s, some of which existed in order to arm Bosnia (local fighters and foreign mujahideen), thereby undermining the UN's arms embargo of former Yugoslav states.

Between 1988 and 1992, 22 tons of cocaine was brought into the US via Venezuela by a team consisting of Mark McFarlin (head of the CIA's counter-narcotics center), Jim Campbell (the CIA's chief of station in Venezuela) and General Guillén (head of the Venezuelan National Guard in the pre-Chavez era).
Anti-Drug Unit of C.I.A. Sent Ton of Cocaine to U.S. in 1990

At roughly the same time Albanian mobsters had built a heroin smuggling network for the purpose of illegally supplying arms to the Bosnian mujahideen.
Drugs Paying for Conflict in Europe

In the summer of 1991, Dutch drug lord Klaas Bruinsma, who had connections with members of the Dutch elite (corporate and royal), the Colombian Cali cartel and the Yugoslav mafia, was assassinated by either former cop Martin Hoogland (possibly working for intelligence), or the Yugoslav mobster Branco Marianovic. In that same summer, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 713 (the Yugoslav arms embargo), and soon after elements within Dutch customs and police, in cooperation with Bruinsma's business heirs/infiltrators, started the controlled shipment of large amounts of cocaine (estimated 25,000 kilo) and hashish (estimated 500,000 kilo) under the name "Operation Delta". The customs officials involved in Operation Delta were most likely protected by their boss Fred Teeven, later rewarded by given the job of State Secretary for Security and Justice. Mabel Wisse-Smit, daughter of a top banker (possibly drug money launderer) and future sister-in-law of the current Dutch king, was first the lover of drug lord Bruinsma (until his assassination, possibly she was sent to spy on him) and then the lover of Wall St. banker Mohamed Sacirbey (Bosnia's ambassador to UN in 1992, Bosnia's foreign minister in 1995). Wisse-Smit (later a George Soros protégé) co-founded the Dutch charity foundation War Child, which was used as a cover for arms lobbying during the Bosnia war, and she is reported by Bosnian media to have been involved in a specific arms deal with Egypt.

Red Ryder , Jun 18, 2018 8:41:17 PM | 34
Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA. He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe. Read him if you want the real facts.
Curtis , Jun 18, 2018 9:44:25 PM | 36
It's good to know so many are well informed on this. I've read Rupert/Webb's stuff and have Dark Alliance. There's a good movie/documentary out there about Webb but I can't recall the name right now. Levine wrote about his undercover work in South American being thwarted by the CIA. And Bo Gritz was trying to set up a deal where the US would buy up Khun Sa's opium before it could be distributed but the USG wasn't interested. The amazing thing about the Afghan ramp up in supply was seeing pictures of US soldiers patrolling in the middle of poppy fields. Meanwhile at home, congress takes bribes (lobbying efforts) to help protect the legal drug pushers from prosecution by the DEA shoving millions of pills across the country. A friend's term for this kind of thing is "racket science."
Lozion , Jun 18, 2018 9:56:06 PM | 37
@36 "Kill the messenger" with Jeremy Renner..
Pft , Jun 18, 2018 9:59:20 PM | 38
Red Ryder@34

Yeah, his updated edition is a must read. They do not handle the money directly, they let the guerillas/rebels/revolutionaries handle that as a reward and provide protection from legal authorities and access to markets using various agencies and mafia at both ends of the supply-distribution chain. The dollars from the drugs pay for the weapons and support. The profits go into nameless offshore Eurodollar accounts which then flow into London and Wall Street as eurodollar loans in many multiples of the deposits (not to be confused with the euro) to speculate in various markets and drive up asset prices. When the Taliban shut down opium production we had the Dot.com crash (coincidence?). 100 billion a year can generate 1 trillion in dollars for speculators, and that was sorely missed (along with Clinton running a surplus instead of a deficit)

There is so much evidence that in many places where they were or are engaged that drug flows in the region increased and production increased in those areas known for growing the stuff. Like any organization only those with a need to know have an idea and the majority are clean and without information

psychohistorian , Jun 18, 2018 10:11:18 PM | 39
While we are discussing history of the War on Drugs another example of a major consumer organization (at the time of print) being turned into a vacuous shell....

Licit and Illicit Drugs is a 1972 book on recreational drug use by medical writer Edward M. Brecher and the editors of Consumer Reports.

The WIkipedia summary
"
The book describes the effects and risks of psychoactive drugs which were common in contemporary use for recreational and nonmedical purposes.[2] The New York Times paraphrased some major arguments from the book, saying "'Drug-free' treatment of heroin addiction almost never works", "Nicotine can be as tough to beat as heroin", and "Good or bad, marijuana is here to stay. The billions spent to fight it are wasted dollars."[3] The book identifies marijuana as the most popular drug after tobacco, alcohol, and nicotine.[4] A reviewer for the Journal of the American Medical Association summarized it by saying that "Brecher holds that the division of drugs into licit and illicit categories is medically irrational and rooted mainly in historical and sociological factors."[5]
"

Daniel , Jun 18, 2018 10:52:53 PM | 40
karlof1. Amazing that you knew Mike. And yes, the willful ignorance is horribly frustrating.

The way I see it, almost all "Westerners" are willfully ignorant. We all must know that the only way we live to the "standards" we do is because of the plunder of both our colonial past and neoliberal present. But most choose to look aside.

For those who haven't seen it, please spend 17 minutes to see Mallence Bart-Williams give an incredible talk.

Alogon , Jun 19, 2018 12:58:19 AM | 41
I have nothing to add to this except to say great article b and excellent comments from posters.

[Jun 19, 2018] Will the Real Donald Trump Please Stand Up by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats. ..."
"... Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior. ..."
"... Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. ..."
"... And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left." ..."
"... There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists. ..."
"... In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work. ..."
"... The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. ..."
"... And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't. ..."
"... Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty. ..."
"... Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities. ..."
Jun 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

I had coffee with a foreign friend a week ago. The subject of Donald Trump inevitably came up and my friend said that he was torn between describing Trump as a genius or as an idiot, but was inclined to lean towards genius. He explained that Trump was willy-nilly establishing a new world order that will succeed the institutionally exhausted post-World War 2 financial and political arrangements that more-or-less established U.S. hegemony over the "free world." The Bretton Woods agreement and the founding of the United Nations institutionalized the spread of liberal democracy and free trade, creating a new, post war international order under the firm control of the United States with the American dollar as the benchmark currency. Trump is now rejecting what has become an increasingly dominant global world order in favor of returning to a nineteenth century style nationalism that has become popular as countries struggle to retain their cultural and political identifies. Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats.

Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior.

Inevitably, I have other friends who follow foreign policy closely that have various interpretations of the Trump phenomenon. One sees the respectful meeting with Kim Jong-un of North Korea as a bit of brilliant statesmanship, potentially breaking a sixty-five year logjam and possibly opening the door to further discussions that might well avert a nuclear war. And the week also brought a Trump welcome suggestion that Russia should be asked to rejoin the G-7 group of major industrialized democracies, which also has to be seen as a positive step. There has also been talk of a Russia-U.S. summit similar to that with North Korea to iron out differences, an initiative that was first suggested by Trump and then agreed to by Russian President Vladimir Putin. There will inevitably be powerful resistance to such an arrangement coming primarily from the U.S. media and from Congress, but Donald Trump seems to fancy the prospect and it just might take place.

One good friend even puts a positive spin on Trump's insulting behavior towards America's traditional allies at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada. She observes that Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. And the military costs exacerbate some genuine serious trade imbalances that damage the U.S. economy. If Trumpism prevails, G-7 will become a forum for discussions of trade and economic relations and will become less a club of nations aligned military against Russia and, eventually, China. As she put it, changing its constituency would be a triumph of "mercantilism" over "imperialism." The now pointless NATO alliance might well find itself without much support if the members actually have to fully fund it proportionate to their GDPs and could easily fade away, which would be a blessing for everyone.

My objection to nearly all the arguments being made in favor or opposed to what occurred in Singapore last week is that the summit is being seen out of context, as is the outreach to Russia at G-7. Those who are in some cases violently opposed to the outcome of the talks with North Korea are, to be sure, sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, where they hate anything he does and spin their responses to cast him in the most negative terms possible. Some others who choose to see daylight in spite of the essential emptiness of the "agreement" are perhaps being overly optimistic while likewise ignoring what else is going on.

And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists.

And then there is also Donald Trump's recent renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of dealing with the potential problem. Indeed, Trump has been prepared to use military force on impulse, even when there is no clear casus belli. In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work.

The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. In Latin America, Washington has backed off from détente with Cuba and has been periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. In Europe, it is engaged in aggressive war games on the Russian borders, most recently in Norway and Poland. The Administration has ordered increased involvement in Somalia and has special ops units operating – and dying – worldwide. Overall, it is hardly a return to the Garden of Eden.

And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't.

Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty.

Mishra , June 19, 2018 at 4:11 am GMT

The Establishment (which includes both major political parties) is furious that Trump may be defusing the (very real) nuclear threat from Kim for the price of a few plane tickets and dinners, while the Establishment was gung-ho for throwing away a few trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and our nation's once-good reputation in the process of neutralizing Saddam Hussein, who didn't even have any nukes to begin with. Yep, they're sore all right.
Kirt , June 19, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities.

[Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years, the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American leaders that their own power had its limits. ..."
"... This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do, places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after a fashion, "contained." ..."
"... In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows"). ..."
"... The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels. ..."
Jun 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Engelhardt via The Asia Times,

Think of it as the all-American version of the human comedy: a great power that eternally knows what the world needs and offers copious advice with a tone deafness that would be humorous, if it weren't so grim.

If you look, you can find examples of this just about anywhere. Here, for instance, is a passage in The New York Times from a piece on the topsy-turvy Trumpian negotiations that preceded the Singapore summit. "The Americans and South Koreans," wrote reporter Motoko Rich, "want to persuade the North that continuing to funnel most of the country's resources into its military and nuclear programs shortchanges its citizens' economic well-being. But the North does not see the two as mutually exclusive."

Think about that for a moment. The US has, of course, embarked on a trillion-dollar-plus upgrade of its already massive nuclear arsenal (and that's before the cost overruns even begin). Its Congress and president have for years proved eager to sink at least a trillion dollars annually into the budget of the national security state (a figure that's still rising and outpaces by far that of any other power on the planet), while its own infrastructure sags and crumbles. And yet it finds the impoverished North Koreans puzzling when they, too, follow such an extreme path.

"Clueless" is not a word Americans ordinarily apply to themselves as a country, a people, or a government. Yet how applicable it is.

And when it comes to cluelessness, there's another, far stranger path the United States has been following since at least the George W Bush moment that couldn't be more consequential and yet somehow remains the least noticed of all. On this subject, Americans don't have a clue. In fact, if you could put the United States on a psychiatrist's couch, this might be the place to start.

America contained

In a way, it's the oldest story on Earth: the rise and fall of empires. And note the plural there. It was never – not until recently at least – "empire," always "empires." Since the 15th century, when the fleets of the first European imperial powers broke into the larger world with subjugation in mind, it was invariably a contest of many. There were at least three or sometimes significantly more imperial powers rising and contesting for dominance or slowly falling from it.

This was, by definition, the history of great powers on this planet: the challenging rise, the challenged decline. Think of it for so many centuries as the essential narrative of history, the story of how it all happened until at least 1945, when just two "superpowers," the United States and the Soviet Union, found themselves facing off on a global scale.

Of the two, the US was always stronger, more powerful, and far wealthier. It theoretically feared the Russian Bear, the Evil Empire , which it worked assiduously to " contain " behind that famed Iron Curtain and whose adherents in the US, always modest in number, were subjected to a mania of fear and suppression.

However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years, the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American leaders that their own power had its limits.

This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do, places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after a fashion, "contained."

In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows").

The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels.

That was the situation until December 1991 when, at the end of a centuries-long imperial race for power (and the never-ending arms race that went with it), there was just one gigantic power left standing on Planet Earth. It told you something about the thinking then that, when the Soviet Union imploded, the initial reaction in Washington wasn't triumphalism (though that came soon enough) but utter shock, a disbelieving sense that something no one had expected, predicted, or even imagined had nonetheless happened. To that very moment, Washington had continued to plan for a two-superpower world until the end of time.

America uncontained

Soon enough, though, the Washington elite came to see what happened as, in the phrase of the moment, " the end of history ." Given the wreckage of the Soviet Union, it seemed that an ultimate victory had been won by the very country its politicians would soon come to call "the last superpower," the " indispensable " nation, the " exceptional " state, a land great beyond imagining (until, at least, Donald Trump hit the campaign trail with a slogan that implied greatness wasn't all-American any more).

In reality, there were a variety of paths open to the "last superpower" at that moment. There was even, however briefly, talk of a "peace dividend" – of the possibility that, in a world without contesting superpowers, taxpayer dollars might once again be invested not in the sinews of war-making but of peacemaking (particularly in infrastructure and the well-being of the country's citizens).

Such talk, however, lasted only a year or two and always in a minor key before being relegated to Washington's attic. Instead, with only a few rickety "rogue" states left to deal with – like gulp North Korea, Iraq and Iran – that money never actually headed home, and neither did the thinking that went with it.

Consider it the good fortune of the geopolitical dreamers soon to take the reins in Washington that the first Gulf War of 1990-1991, which ended less than a year before the Soviet Union collapsed, prepared the way for quite a different style of thinking. That instant victory led to a new kind of militarized dreaming in which a highly tech-savvy military, like the one that had driven Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in such short order, would be capable of doing anything on a planet without serious opposition.

And yet, from the beginning, there were signs suggesting a far grimmer future. To take but one infamous example, Americans still remember the Black Hawk Down moment of 1993 when the world's greatest military fell victim to a Somali warlord and local militias and found itself incapable of imposing its will on one of the least impressive not-quite-states on the planet (a place still frustrating that military a quarter-century later).

In that post-1991 world, however, few in Washington even considered that the 20th century had loosed another phenomenon on the world, that of insurgent national liberation movements, generally leftist rebellions, across what had been the colonial world – the very world of competing empires now being tucked into the history books – and it hadn't gone away. In the 21st century, such insurgent movements, now largely religious, or terror-based, or both, would turn out to offer a grim new version of containment to the last superpower.

Unchaining the indispensable nation

On September 11, 2001, a canny global jihadist by the name of Osama bin Laden sent his air force (four hijacked US passenger jets) and his precision weaponry (19 suicidal, mainly Saudi followers) against three iconic targets in the American pantheon: the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and undoubtedly the Capitol or the White House (neither of which was hit because one of those jets crashed in a field in Pennsylvania). In doing so, in a sense bin Laden not only loosed a literal hell on Earth, but unchained the last superpower.

William Shakespeare would have had a word for what followed: hubris. But give the top officials of the Bush administration (and the neocons who supported them) a break. There had never been a moment like it: a moment of one. A single great power left alone, triumphant, on planet Earth. Just one superpower – wealthy beyond compare, its increasingly high-tech military unmatched, its only true rival in a state of collapse – had now been challenged by a small jihadist group.

To president Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, and the rest of their crew, it seemed like nothing short of a heaven-sent opportunity. As they came out of the shock of 9/11, of that " Pearl Harbor of the 21st century ," it was as if they had found a magic formula in the ruins of those iconic buildings for the ultimate control of the planet. As secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld would instruct an aide at the Pentagon that day, "Go massive. Sweep it up. Things related and not."

Within days, things related and not were indeed being swept up. The country was almost instantly said to be "at war," and soon that conflict even had a name, the Global War on Terror. Nor was that war to be against just al-Qaeda, or even one country, an Afghanistan largely ruled by the Taliban. More than 60 countries said to have "terror networks" of various sorts found themselves almost instantly in the administration's potential gunsights. And that was just to be the beginning of it all.

In October 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was launched. In the spring of 2003, the invasion of Iraq followed, and those were only the initial steps in what was increasingly envisioned as the imposition of a Pax Americana on the Greater Middle East.

There could be no doubt, for instance, that Iran and Syria, too, would soon go the way of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's top officials had been nursing just such dreams since, in 1997, many of them formed a think-tank (the first ever to enter the White House) called the Project for the New American Century and began to write out what were then the fantasies of figures nowhere near power. By 2003, they were power itself and their dreams, if anything, had grown even more grandiose.

In addition to imagining a political Pax Republicana in the United States, they truly dreamed of a future planetary Pax Americana in which, for the first time in history, a single power would, in some fashion, control the whole works, the Earth itself.

And this wasn't to be a passing matter either. The Bush administration's "unilateralism" rested on a conviction that it could actually create a future in which no country or even bloc of countries would ever come close to matching or challenging US military power. The administration's National Security Strategy of 2002 put the matter bluntly: The US was to "build and maintain" a military, in the phrase of the moment, " beyond challenge ."

They had little doubt that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up, destructive force on Earth, hostile states would be "shocked and awed" by a simple demonstration of its power, while friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well. After all, as Bush said at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the US military was "the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known."

Though there was much talk at the time about the "liberation" of Afghanistan and then Iraq, at least in their imaginations the true country being liberated was the planet's lone superpower. Although the Bush administration was officially considered a "conservative" one, its key officials were geopolitical dreamers of the first order and their vision of the world was the very opposite of conservative. It harkened back to nothing and looked forward to everything.

It was radical in ways that should have, but didn't, take the American public's breath away; radical in ways that had never been seen before.

Shock and awe for the last superpower

Think of what those officials did in the post-9/11 moment as the ultimate act of greed. They tried to swallow a whole planet. They were determined to make it a planet of one in a way that had never before been seriously imagined.

It was, to say the least, a vision of madness. Even in a moment when it truly did seem – to them at least – that all constraints had been taken off, an administration of genuine conservatives might have hesitated. Its top officials might, at least, have approached the post-Soviet situation with a modicum of caution and modesty.

But not George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and pals. In the face of what seemed like the ultimate in possibilities they proved clueless when it came to the possibility that anything on Earth might have a shot at containing them.

Even among their critics, who could have imagined then that, more than 16 years later, having faced only lightly armed enemies of various sorts, still wealthy beyond compare, still with a military funded in a way the next seven countries couldn't cumulatively match, the United States would have won literally nothing?

Who could have imagined that, unlike so many preceding imperial powers (including the US of the earlier Cold War era), it would have been able to establish control over nothing at all; that, instead, from Afghanistan to Syria, Iraq deep into Africa, it would find itself in a state of " infinite war " and utter frustration on a planet filled with ever more failed states , destroyed cities , displaced people , and right-wing "populist" governments, including the one in Washington?

Who could have imagined that, with a peace dividend no longer faintly conceivable, this country would have found itself not just in decline, but – a new term is needed to catch the essence of this curious moment – in what might be called self-decline?

Yes, a new power, China, is finally rising – and doing so on a planet that seems itself to be going down . Here, then, is a conclusion that might be drawn from the quarter-century-plus in which America was both unchained and largely alone.

The Earth is admittedly a small orb in a vast universe, but the history of this century so far suggests one reality about which America's rulers proved utterly clueless: After so many hundreds of years of imperial struggle, this planet still remains too big, too disparate, too ornery to be controlled by a single power. What the Bush administration did was simply take one gulp too many and the result has been a kind of national (and planetary) indigestion.

Despite what it looked like in Washington once upon a time, the disappearance of the Soviet Union proved to be no gift at all, but a disaster of the first order. It removed all sense of limits from America's political class and led to a tale of greed on a planetary scale. In the process, it also set the US on a path to self-decline.

The history of greed in our time has yet to be written, but what a story it will someday make. In it, the greed of those geopolitical dreamers will intersect with the greed of an ever wealthier, ever more gilded 1%, of the billionaires who were preparing to swallow whole the political system of that last superpower and grab so much of the wealth of the planet, leaving so little for others.

Whether you're talking about the urge to control the planet militarily or financially, what took place in these years could, in the end, result in ruin of a historic kind. To use a favored phrase from the Bush years, one of these days we Americans may be facing little short of "regime change" on a planetary scale. And what a piece of shock and awe that's likely to prove to be.

All of us, of course, now live on the planet Bush's boys tried to swallow whole. They left us in a world of infinite war, infinite harm, and in Donald Trump's America where cluelessness has been raised to a new power.

[Jun 19, 2018] Counterdrug Programs Come With Increased Drug Production - Where Does The Money Go

Notable quotes:
"... Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value" of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however; because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket. ..."
"... b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets if nothing else. ..."
"... I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution. ..."
"... I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia. For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight" placed on the bank. ..."
"... John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." ..."
"... Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of drugs into the nation. His investigation was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until 911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some manner. ..."
"... Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there. ..."
"... I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel, soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5 billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 / 2014. ..."
"... This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the planet. ..."
"... And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia. ..."
"... Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA. He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe. Read him if you want the real facts. ..."
Jun 19, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Jun 18, 2018 1:30:38 PM | 2

thanks b... the speculation has always been in my mind anyway - that the money is controlled by the cia... covert money for covert projects and on and on it goes...
LXV , Jun 18, 2018 1:47:36 PM | 3
b wrote: "I am not aware of any sound evidence that shows that the CIA reaped financial profits from drug dealing."

Define 'sound evidence, b... For some, it's a kilo of stash; for others (like myself), it's suffice with the testimony of (suicided) insiders, like Gary Webb (RIP).

ben , Jun 18, 2018 2:06:01 PM | 4
james @ 2 said:" covert money for covert projects and on and on it goes..."

Yes, and what they don't spend on "projects", goes to their minions and sycophants..

ken , Jun 18, 2018 2:16:06 PM | 5
The Taliban curtailed the poppy growing without any problem. Shortly after the US invasion under the guise of capturing OBL. Almost 18 years later, long after the death of OBL (in reality and in US military BS) the poppy production has increased exponentially. There are Pics of US military personnel walking through poppy fields.
Other than drug production there is no need for the US to be in Afghanistan except maybe to use it as a launching platform to attack Iran. Drugs are an excellent source for funding black ops.

Not only is the US allowing the production, considering how easy it would be for them to kill the crops, and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West.

librul , Jun 18, 2018 3:16:16 PM | 11

b says the efforts appear counterproductive. Here is why:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/afghanistan-the-making-of-a-narco-state-20141204#

If you understand the Afghan government as a narco state, then the fact that opium production has actually increased –while the U.S. spent billions on counternarcotics efforts and troop numbers surged – starts to make sense. A completely failed state – Afghanistan in 2001 – can't really thrive in the drug trade. Traffickers have no reason to pay off a toothless government or a nonexistent police force. In such a libertarian paradise, freelance actors – like Saleem, the heroin cook – flourish.

But as the government builds capacity, officials can start to demand a cut. It's not that there's a grand conspiracy at the center of government, but rather that, in the absence of accountability and the rule of law, officials start to orient themselves around a powerful political economy. Big drug barons with links to the government take over the trade. People who don't pay, or who fall out with government officials, might find themselves killed or arrested.

In this light, U.S. counternarcotics programs, which have cost nearly $8 billion to date, and the Afghan state-building project in general, are perversely part of the explanation for the growing government involvement in the drug trade. Even the newly rebuilt Afghan Air Force has been investigated by the U.S. military for alleged trafficking. In many places, the surge had the effect of wresting opium revenue from the Taliban and handing it to government officials. For example, in Helmand's Garmsir District, which sits on key trafficking routes between the rest of the province and Baramcha, a big Marine offensive in 2011 finally pushed out the Taliban and handed the district back to the Afghan government. The result? The police began taking a cut from those drug routes. "There are families, as in Mafia-style, that have the trade carved up between them, and when some outsider tries to get in on it, they serve him up as a success for drug interdiction," one Western official who worked in Garmsir told me.

I just luv-ed this next paragraph. Glad I wasn't sipping Coca Cola
while I read it. Would have chortled cola out my nose!

Here is government BS-speak at it's vacuous best (enjoy):

The U.S. government, for its part, acknowledged that there are no quick solutions at hand. "The U.S. interagency is developing an updated counternarcotics strategy for Afghanistan," says Jen Psaki, the State Department's spokeswoman. "These are long-term efforts that build the foundation for eventual reductions in opium harvests."
Chris G , Jun 18, 2018 4:04:03 PM | 14
Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value" of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however; because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket.
WorldBLee , Jun 18, 2018 4:08:12 PM | 15
b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets if nothing else.
Daniel , Jun 18, 2018 4:32:10 PM | 17
I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution.

I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia. For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight" placed on the bank.

Daniel , Jun 18, 2018 4:37:37 PM | 18
John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
karlof1 , Jun 18, 2018 5:29:48 PM | 20
Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of drugs into the nation. His investigation was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until 911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some manner.

The CIA is the planet's #1 Terrorist Organization, and it has all 3 types of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's often hard to determine which poses a greater threat to humanity: The CIA or its parent the Outlaw US Empire. If humanity's to have any chance at a viable future, both the CIA and its Imperial parent must be destroyed for their many crimes.

Ornot , Jun 18, 2018 5:49:10 PM | 21
Seymore Hersh first (to my knowledge) first looked at CIA drug links when people exited buildings not using the stairs.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/10/archives/family-plans-to-sue-cia-over-suicide-in-drug-test-family-planning.html

That CIA was experimenting with narcotics as a tool seemed to have metasticised into something else during the Air America years, which in turn seems to have morphed via Barry Seal (& Gary Webb's investigation)and the Cocaine Coyboys onward into Silk Airways (famed by weapons to Syria scandal) -
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cockburn-white.html

https://www.globalresearch.ca/oliver-north-worked-with-cocaine-traffickers-to-arm-terrorists-now-hell-be-president-of-the-national-rifle-association-nra/5640431
Whatever the post WWII period there seems to be a airline moving illicit product(s) across borders and a rouge militia force hook up. While powder is not as convertable as say Bitcoin, it leaves no paper trail.

Good luck with the research - its a long dark deep rabbit hole, leading to many fingers in many pies.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2009/03/investigative-reporter-seymour-hersh-describes-executive-assassination-ring

Eugene , Jun 18, 2018 6:36:02 PM | 23
Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there.

Addicts were given small sums to deposit in the banks, by the thousands, which didn't draw attention. A lot of the money was sent to the U.S. to buy "American Muscle Cars", which were then shipped back to the E.U. and resold again.

Pakistan was also a transit country where the "Labs" were first set up to process the opium to heroin. How time fly's when having fun. Addiction to "drugs" isn't the only addiction nor the addicts involved either. Only one leaf in the book of the minds of those who believe they are doing the right thing.

Jen , Jun 18, 2018 6:54:58 PM | 26
I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel, soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5 billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 / 2014.

Also a big portion of the counternarcotics dosh must be going to teams of people digging up and burning opium and also to teams of people planting new opium seeds in the areas where the first lot of opium was eradicated later on. Similar to stories people used to hear about what supposedly happened during the 1930s Great Depression, when teams of people were employed to dig ditches and then other teams of people were employed to fill up the ditches which would be dug up again at a later time.

This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the planet.

frances , Jun 18, 2018 7:06:21 PM | 28
reply to:
".. and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West."
Posted by: ken | Jun 18, 2018 2:16:06 PM | 5

And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia.

oldenyoung , Jun 18, 2018 7:08:31 PM | 29
The level of US "counter-narcotic" investment seems to be about right to support the GROWTH of the narcotics industry...not the otherway around...its black and its dirty

regards

OY

Mark2 , Jun 18, 2018 7:14:33 PM | 30
Every comment on this post is like a fine champagne of reality. how do people get by with out wanting to know the truth. keep the comments coming I need more! Brilliant links. The doors of perception just opened for me. Who the hell runs our TVs stations that they can turn a blind I to this lot.
-------
I to find great strength in music, to find the truth. For me it is reggae any group in society that has sufferd what we discuss on this site for 300 years, but have survived got stronger and put it to music, I feel needs listening to!!!
Daniel Bruno , Jun 18, 2018 7:51:32 PM | 32
The "War on Drugs" was conceived to put black people in jail en masse as Jim Crow came to an end. Nixon's aides admitted this. Read "The New Jim Crow" for the full story. Marijuana laws were first introduced in the early 20th century as a tool to arrest and deport Mexicans from the American southwest. Google it.

The bullshit "War on Drugs" is as phony as the bullshit "War on Terror" in the wake of 3 skyscrapers that were demolished and collapsed at freefall speed.

The real money is to be made in the bullshit wars spawned by these 2 hoaxes that boggle the mind in their scope.

Basically, these two cornerstones of American domestic and foreign policy are frauds of biblical proportions.

An empire built on these foundations will come crashing down as fast as WTC 7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

0use4msm , Jun 18, 2018 8:35:04 PM | 33
"O my, cocaine" is an anagram of "CIA economy".

Various Contra-cocaine type operations of un/controlled shipments of drugs existed in the early 1990s, some of which existed in order to arm Bosnia (local fighters and foreign mujahideen), thereby undermining the UN's arms embargo of former Yugoslav states.

Between 1988 and 1992, 22 tons of cocaine was brought into the US via Venezuela by a team consisting of Mark McFarlin (head of the CIA's counter-narcotics center), Jim Campbell (the CIA's chief of station in Venezuela) and General Guillén (head of the Venezuelan National Guard in the pre-Chavez era).
Anti-Drug Unit of C.I.A. Sent Ton of Cocaine to U.S. in 1990

At roughly the same time Albanian mobsters had built a heroin smuggling network for the purpose of illegally supplying arms to the Bosnian mujahideen.
Drugs Paying for Conflict in Europe

In the summer of 1991, Dutch drug lord Klaas Bruinsma, who had connections with members of the Dutch elite (corporate and royal), the Colombian Cali cartel and the Yugoslav mafia, was assassinated by either former cop Martin Hoogland (possibly working for intelligence), or the Yugoslav mobster Branco Marianovic. In that same summer, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 713 (the Yugoslav arms embargo), and soon after elements within Dutch customs and police, in cooperation with Bruinsma's business heirs/infiltrators, started the controlled shipment of large amounts of cocaine (estimated 25,000 kilo) and hashish (estimated 500,000 kilo) under the name "Operation Delta". The customs officials involved in Operation Delta were most likely protected by their boss Fred Teeven, later rewarded by given the job of State Secretary for Security and Justice. Mabel Wisse-Smit, daughter of a top banker (possibly drug money launderer) and future sister-in-law of the current Dutch king, was first the lover of drug lord Bruinsma (until his assassination, possibly she was sent to spy on him) and then the lover of Wall St. banker Mohamed Sacirbey (Bosnia's ambassador to UN in 1992, Bosnia's foreign minister in 1995). Wisse-Smit (later a George Soros protégé) co-founded the Dutch charity foundation War Child, which was used as a cover for arms lobbying during the Bosnia war, and she is reported by Bosnian media to have been involved in a specific arms deal with Egypt.

Red Ryder , Jun 18, 2018 8:41:17 PM | 34
Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA. He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe. Read him if you want the real facts.
Curtis , Jun 18, 2018 9:44:25 PM | 36
It's good to know so many are well informed on this. I've read Rupert/Webb's stuff and have Dark Alliance. There's a good movie/documentary out there about Webb but I can't recall the name right now. Levine wrote about his undercover work in South American being thwarted by the CIA. And Bo Gritz was trying to set up a deal where the US would buy up Khun Sa's opium before it could be distributed but the USG wasn't interested. The amazing thing about the Afghan ramp up in supply was seeing pictures of US soldiers patrolling in the middle of poppy fields. Meanwhile at home, congress takes bribes (lobbying efforts) to help protect the legal drug pushers from prosecution by the DEA shoving millions of pills across the country. A friend's term for this kind of thing is "racket science."
Lozion , Jun 18, 2018 9:56:06 PM | 37
@36 "Kill the messenger" with Jeremy Renner..
Pft , Jun 18, 2018 9:59:20 PM | 38
Red Ryder@34

Yeah, his updated edition is a must read. They do not handle the money directly, they let the guerillas/rebels/revolutionaries handle that as a reward and provide protection from legal authorities and access to markets using various agencies and mafia at both ends of the supply-distribution chain. The dollars from the drugs pay for the weapons and support. The profits go into nameless offshore Eurodollar accounts which then flow into London and Wall Street as eurodollar loans in many multiples of the deposits (not to be confused with the euro) to speculate in various markets and drive up asset prices. When the Taliban shut down opium production we had the Dot.com crash (coincidence?). 100 billion a year can generate 1 trillion in dollars for speculators, and that was sorely missed (along with Clinton running a surplus instead of a deficit)

There is so much evidence that in many places where they were or are engaged that drug flows in the region increased and production increased in those areas known for growing the stuff. Like any organization only those with a need to know have an idea and the majority are clean and without information

psychohistorian , Jun 18, 2018 10:11:18 PM | 39
While we are discussing history of the War on Drugs another example of a major consumer organization (at the time of print) being turned into a vacuous shell....

Licit and Illicit Drugs is a 1972 book on recreational drug use by medical writer Edward M. Brecher and the editors of Consumer Reports.

The WIkipedia summary
"
The book describes the effects and risks of psychoactive drugs which were common in contemporary use for recreational and nonmedical purposes.[2] The New York Times paraphrased some major arguments from the book, saying "'Drug-free' treatment of heroin addiction almost never works", "Nicotine can be as tough to beat as heroin", and "Good or bad, marijuana is here to stay. The billions spent to fight it are wasted dollars."[3] The book identifies marijuana as the most popular drug after tobacco, alcohol, and nicotine.[4] A reviewer for the Journal of the American Medical Association summarized it by saying that "Brecher holds that the division of drugs into licit and illicit categories is medically irrational and rooted mainly in historical and sociological factors."[5]
"

Daniel , Jun 18, 2018 10:52:53 PM | 40
karlof1. Amazing that you knew Mike. And yes, the willful ignorance is horribly frustrating.

The way I see it, almost all "Westerners" are willfully ignorant. We all must know that the only way we live to the "standards" we do is because of the plunder of both our colonial past and neoliberal present. But most choose to look aside.

For those who haven't seen it, please spend 17 minutes to see Mallence Bart-Williams give an incredible talk.

Alogon , Jun 19, 2018 12:58:19 AM | 41
I have nothing to add to this except to say great article b and excellent comments from posters.

[Jun 19, 2018] DOJ Indicts Vault 7 Leak Suspect; WikiLeaks Release Was Largest Breach In CIA History Zero Hedge

Jun 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

A 29-year-old former CIA computer engineer, Joshua Adam Schulte, was indicted Monday by the Department of Justice on charges of masterminding the largest leak of classified information in the spy agency's history .

Schulte, who created malware for the U.S. Government to break into adversaries computers, has been sitting in jail since his August 24, 2017 arrest on unrelated charges of posessing and transporting child pornography - which was discovered in a search of his New York apartment after Schulte was named as the prime suspect in the cyber-breach one week after WikiLeaks published the "Vault 7" series of classified files. Schulte was arrested and jailed on the child porn charges while the DOJ ostensibly built their case leading to Monday's additional charges.

[I]nstead of charging Mr. Schulte in the breach, referred to as the Vault 7 leak, prosecutors charged him last August with possessing child pornography, saying agents had found 10,000 illicit images on a server he created as a business in 2009 while studying at the University of Texas at Austin.

Court papers quote messages from Mr. Schulte that suggest he was aware of the encrypted images of children being molested by adults on his computer, though he advised one user, "Just don't put anything too illegal on there." - New York Times

Monday's DOJ announcement adds new charges related to stealing classified national defense information from the Central Intelligence Agency in 2016 and transmitting it to WikiLeaks ("Organization-1").

The Vault 7 release - a series of 24 documents which began to publish on March 7, 2017 - reveal that the CIA had a wide variety of tools to use against adversaries, including the ability to "spoof" its malware to appear as though it was created by a foreign intelligence agency , as well as the ability to take control of Samsung Smart TV's and surveil a target using a "Fake Off" mode in which they appear to be powered down while eavesdropping.

The CIA's hand crafted hacking techniques pose a problem for the agency. Each technique it has created forms a "fingerprint" that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity .

...

The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.

With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from .

UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques . - WikiLeaks

Schulte previously worked for the NSA before joining the CIA, then "left the intelligence community in 2016 and took a job in the private sector," according to a statement reviewed in May by The Washington Post .

Schulte also claimed that he reported "incompetent management and bureaucracy" at the CIA to that agency's inspector general as well as a congressional oversight committee. That painted him as a disgruntled employee, he said, and when he left the CIA in 2016, suspicion fell upon him as "the only one to have recently departed [the CIA engineering group] on poor terms," Schulte wrote. - WaPo

Part of that investigation, reported WaPo, has been analyzing whether the Tor network - which allows internet users to hide their location (in theory) "was used in transmitting classified information."

In other hearings in Schulte's case, prosecutors have alleged that he used Tor at his New York apartment, but they have provided no evidence that he did so to disclose classified information. Schulte's attorneys have said that Tor is used for all kinds of communications and have maintained that he played no role in the Vault 7 leaks. - WaPo

Schulte says he's innocent: " Due to these unfortunate coincidences the FBI ultimately made the snap judgment that I was guilty of the leaks and targeted me," Schulte said. He launched Facebook and GoFundMe pages to raise money for his defense, which despite a $50 million goal, has yet to r eceive a single donation.

me name=

The Post noted in May, the Vault 7 release was one of the most significant leaks in the CIA's history , "exposing secret cyberweapons and spying techniques that might be used against the United States, according to current and former intelligence officials."

The CIA's toy chest includes:

"The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion, --- but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages."

me title=

me title=

me title=

"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.

In addition to its operations in Langley, Virginia the CIA also uses the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt as a covert base for its hackers covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

CIA hackers operating out of the Frankfurt consulate ( "Center for Cyber Intelligence Europe" or CCIE) are given diplomatic ("black") passports and State Department cover.

These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.

CIA hackers developed successful attacks against most well known anti-virus programs. These are documented in AV defeats , Personal Security Products , Detecting and defeating PSPs and PSP/Debugger/RE Avoidance . For example, Comodo was defeated by CIA malware placing itself in the Window's "Recycle Bin" . While Comodo 6.x has a "Gaping Hole of DOOM" .

You can see the entire Vault7 release here .

A DOJ statement involving the Vault7 charges reads:

"Joshua Schulte, a former employee of the CIA, allegedly used his access at the agency to transmit classified material to an outside organization . During the course of this investigation, federal agents also discovered alleged child pornography in Schulte's New York City residence ," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman.

On March 7, 2017, Organization-1 released on the Internet classified national defense material belonging to the CIA (the "Classified Information"). In 2016, SCHULTE, who was then employed by the CIA, stole the Classified Information from a computer network at the CIA and later transmitted it to Organization-1. SCHULTE also intentionally caused damage without authorization to a CIA computer system by granting himself unauthorized access to the system, deleting records of his activities, and denying others access to the system . SCHULTE subsequently made material false statements to FBI agents concerning his conduct at the CIA.

Schulte faces 135 years in prison if convicted on all 13 charges:

  1. Illegal Gathering of National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(b) and 2
  2. Illegal Transmission of Lawfully Possessed National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and 2
  3. Illegal Transmission of Unlawfully Possessed National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e) and 2
  4. Unauthorized Access to a Computer To Obtain Classified Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(1) and 2
  5. Theft of Government Property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2
  6. Unauthorized Access of a Computer to Obtain Information from a Department or Agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2) and 2
  7. Causing Transmission of a Harmful Computer Program, Information, Code, or Command, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5) and 2
  8. Making False Statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2
  9. Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 2
  10. Receipt of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B), (b)(1), and 2
  11. Possession of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), and 2
  12. Transportation of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)
  13. Criminal Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1)

Billy the Poet -> Anarchyteez Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:50 Permalink

So Schulte was framed for kiddie porn because he released information about how the CIA can frame innocent people for computer crime.

A Sentinel -> Billy the Poet Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:59 Permalink

That seems very likely.

Seems like everyone has kiddy porn magically appear and get discovered after they piss off the deep state bastards.

And the best part is that it's probably just the deep state operatives' own private pedo collections that they use to frame anyone who they don't like.

A Sentinel -> CrabbyR Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:46 Permalink

I was thinking about the advancement of the technology necessary for that. They can do perfect fake stills already.

My thought is that you will soon need to film yourself 24/7 (with timestamps, shared with a blockchain-like verifiably) so that you can disprove fake video evidence by having a filmed alibi.

CrabbyR -> A Sentinel Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:07 Permalink

good point but creepy to think it can get that bad

peopledontwanttruth -> Anarchyteez Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:50 Permalink

Funny how all these whistleblowers are being held for child pornography until trial.

But we have evidence of government officials and Hollyweird being involved in this perversion and they walk among us

secretargentman -> peopledontwanttruth Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

Those kiddy porn charges are extremely suspect, IMO.

chunga -> secretargentman Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:12 Permalink

It's so utterly predictable.

The funny* thing is I believe gov, particularly upper levels, is chock full of pedophiles.

* It isn't funny, my contempt for the US gov grows practically by the hour.

A Sentinel -> chunga Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:42 Permalink

I said pretty much the same. I further speculated that it was their own porn that they use for framing operations.

SybilDefense -> A Sentinel Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:33 Permalink

Ironically, every single ex gov whistle blower (/pedophile) has the exact same kiddie porn data on their secret server (hidden in plane view at the apartment). Joe CIA probably has a zip drive preloaded with titled data sets like "Podesta's Greatest Hits", "Hillary's Honey bunnies" or "Willy go to the zoo". Like the mix tapes you used to make for a new gal you were trying to date. Depending upon the mood of the agent in charge, 10,000 images of Weiner's "Warm Pizza" playlist magically appear on the server in 3-2-1... Gotcha!

These false fingerprint tactics were all over the trump accusations which started the whole Russia Russia Russia ordeal. And the Russia ordeal was conceptualized in a paid report to Podesta by the Bensenson Group called the Salvage Program when it was appearant that Trump could possible win and the DNC needed ideas on how to throw the voters off at the polls. Russia is coming /Red dawn was #1 or #2 on the list of 7 recommended ploys. The final one was crazy.. If Trump appeared to win the election, imagery of Jesus and an Alien Invasion was to be projected into the skies to cause mass panic and create a demand for free zanex to be handed out to the panic stricken.

Don't forget Black Lives Matters. That was idea #4 of this Bensenson report, to create civil unrest and a race war. Notice how BLM and Antifa manically disappeared after Nov 4. All a ploy by the Dems & the deep state to remain in control of the countrys power.

Back to the topic at hand. Its a wonder he didn't get Seth Riched. Too many porn servers and we will begin to question the legitimacy. Oh wait...

You won't find any kiddie porn on Hillary's or DeNiros laptop. Oh its there. You just will never ever hear about it.

cankles' server -> holdbuysell Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:57 Permalink

The Vault 7 release - a series of 24 documents which began to publish on March 7, 2017 - reveal that the CIA had a wide variety of tools to use against adversaries, including the ability to "spoof" its malware to appear as though it was created by a foreign intelligence agency ....

It probably can spoof child porn as well.

Is he charged with copyright infringement for pirating child porn?

BGO Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:43 Permalink

The intel community sure has a knack for sussing out purveyors of child pornography. It's probably just a coincidence govt agencies and child pornography are inextricably linked.

Never One Roach -> BGO Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:44 Permalink

Sounds like he may be a friend of Uncle Joe Biden whom we know is "very, very friendly" with the children.

NotBuyingIt -> BGO Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:09 Permalink

It's very easy for a criminal spook to plant child porn on some poor slob's machine - especially when they want to keep him on the hook to sink his ass for something bigger in the future. Who knows... this guy may have done some shit but I'm willing to bet he was entirely targeted by these IC assholes. Facing 135 years in prison... yet that baggy ass cunt Hillary walks free...

DoctorFix -> BGO Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:18 Permalink

Funny how they always seem to have a "sting" operation in progress when there's anyone the DC rats want to destroy but strangely, or not, silent as the grave when one of the special people are fingered.

MadHatt Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:43 Permalink

Transportation of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)

Uhh... what? He stole CIA child porn?

navy62802 -> MadHatt Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:30 Permalink

Nah ... that's the shit they planted on him for an excuse to make an arrest.

MadHatt -> navy62802 Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:29 Permalink

If he stole all their hacking apps, wouldn't that be enough to arrest him?

Never One Roach Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:44 Permalink

That list of federal crimes is almost as long as Comey's list of Hillary Clinton's federal crimes.

_triplesix_ Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:46 Permalink

Of all these things the C_A can do, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that planting CP on a computer of someone you don't like would be a piece of cake, comparatively speaking.

_triplesix_ Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:46 Permalink

Of all these things the C_A can do, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that planting CP on a computer of someone you don't like would be a piece of cake, comparatively speaking.

Giant Meteor -> _triplesix_ Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

It probably comes standard now buried within systems, like a sleeper cell. Just waiting for the right infraction and trigger to be pulled ..

PigMan Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:50 Permalink

Did he also leak that the CIA's favorite tactic is to plant kiddie porn on their targets computer?

ConnectingTheDots Mon, 06/18/2018 - 22:56 Permalink

The alphabet agencies would never hack someone's computer.

The alphabet agencies would never spy on US citizens (at least not wittingly)

The alphabet agencies would never plant physical evidence.

The alphabet agencies would never lie under oath.

The alphabet agencies would never have an agenda.

The alphabet agencies would never provide the media with false information.

/s

Chupacabra-322 Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:14 Permalink

The "Spoofing" or Digital Finger Print & Parallel Construction tools that can be used against Governments, Individuals, enemies & adversaries are Chilling.

The CIA can not only hack into anything -- they can download any "evidence" they want onto your phone or computer. Child pornography, national secrets, you name it. Then they can blackmail you, threatening prosecution for whatever crap they have planted, then "found" on your computer. They can also "spoof" the source of such downloads -- for instance, if they want to "prove" that something on your computer (or Donald Trump's computer) came from a "Russian source" -- they can spoof the IP address of a Russian source.

The take-away: no digital evidence the CIA or NSA produces on any subject whatsoever can be trusted. No digital evidence should be acceptable in any case where the government has an interest, because they have the complete ability to fabricate and implant any evidence on any iphone or computer. And worse: they have intentionally created these digital vulnerabilities and pushed them onto the whole world via Microsoft and Google. Government has long been at war with liberty, claiming that we need to give up liberty to be secure. Now we learn that they have been deliberately sabotaging our security, in order to augment their own power. Time to shut down the CIA and all the other spy agencies. They're not keeping us free OR secure, and they're doing it deliberately. Their main function nowadays seems to be lying us into wars against countries that never attacked us, and had no plans to do so.

The Echelon Computer System Catch Everything

The Flagging goes to Notify the Appropriate Alphabet,,,...Key Words Phrases...Algorithms,...It all gets sucked up and chewed on and spat out to the surmised computed correct departments...That simple.

Effective immediately defund, Eliminate & Supeona it's Agents, Officials & Dept. Heads in regard to the Mass Surveillance, Global Espionage Spying network & monitoring of a President Elect by aforementioned Agencies & former President Obama, AG Lynch & DIA James Clapper, CIA John Breanan.

#SethRich

#Vault7

#UMBRAGE

ZIRPdiggler -> Chupacabra-322 Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:29 Permalink

Since 911, they've been "protecting" the shit out of us. "protecting" away every last fiber of liberty. Was watching some fact-based media about the CIA's failed plan to install Yeltsin's successor via a Wallstreet banking cartel bet (see, LTCM implosion). The ultimate objectives were to rape and loot post-Soviet Russian resources and enforce regime change. It's such a tired playbook at this point. Who DOESNT know about this sort of affront? Apparently even nobel prize economists cant prevent a nation from failing lol. The ultimate in vanity; our gubmint and its' shadow controllers.

moobra Mon, 06/18/2018 - 23:45 Permalink

This is because people who are smart enough to write walware for the CIA send messages in the clear about child porn and are too dumb to encrypt images with a key that would take the lifetime of the universe to break.

Next his mother will be found to have a tax problem and his brother's credit rating zeroed out.

Meanwhile Comey will be found to have been "careless".

ZIRPdiggler Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:05 Permalink

Yeah I don't believe for a second that this guy had anything to do with child porn. Not like Obama and his hotdogs or Clintons at pedo island, or how bout uncle pervie podesta? go after them, goons and spooks. They (intelligence agencies) falsely accuse people of exactly what they are ass-deep in. loses credibility with me when the CIA clowns or NSA fuck ups accuse anyone of child porn; especially one of their former employees who is 'disgruntled'. LOL. another spook railroad job done on a whistleblower. fuck the CIA and all 17 alphabet agencies who spy on us 24/7. Just ask, if you want to snoop on me. I may even tell you what I'm up to because I have nothing that I would hide since, I don't give a shit about you or whether you approve of what I am doing.

AGuy -> ZIRPdiggler Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:36 Permalink

"Yeah I don't believe for a second that this guy had anything to do with child porn."

Speculation by my part: He was running a Tor server, and the porn originated from other Tor users. If that is the case ( it would be easy for law enforcement to just assume it was his) law enforcement enjoys a quick and easy case.

rgraf Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:05 Permalink

They shouldn't be spying, and they shouldn't keep any secrets from the populace. If they weren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.

ZIRPdiggler -> rgraf Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:09 Permalink

It really doesn't matter if someone wants to hide. That is their right. Only Nazi's like our spy agencies would use the old Gestapo line, "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Or better yet, you should let me turn your life upside down if you have nothing to hide. " Bullshit! It's none of their fucking business. How bout that? Spooks and secret clowns CAN and DO frame anybody for whatever or murder whomever they wish. So why WOULDNT people be afraid when government goons start sticking their big snouts into their lives??? They can ruin your life for the sake of convenience. Zee Furor is not pleased with your attitude, comrade.

Blue Steel 309 Tue, 06/19/2018 - 00:53 Permalink

Vault 7 proves that most digital evidence should be inadmissible in court, yet I don't see anyone publishing articles about this problem.

[Jun 18, 2018] The next year the strategic position of Ukraine might get worse

Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , June 16, 2018 at 12:24 am GMT

If Kiev wants to attack Donbas they better hurry. After World Cup, and definitely next year when the pipelines bypassing Ukraine will be ready, Ukraine's strategic situation will get worse. We are in a transition phase: sh..t happened in 2013-15 that is impossible to undo, but there were fortunately constraints on all sides that prevented a meltdown. In a year or two most of those constraints will be gone.

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid – there are forces in Europe, in all countries, who want a confrontation with Russia. Any event, real or fake, will be used to escalate. West cannot lose this one without another fight. And if they sit on their hands, they will eventually lose with a disillusioned Ukraine and slowly disintegrating EU. Populist energy needs to be re-directed eastward, and for that a more aggressive policy is required. This is not pessimism, there simply is no way for EU elite to climb down. How could UK make up with Russia without looking like complete idiots? Or Macron and Merkel? The hostility is at this point inherent in the situation – what started out as a badly thought-out attempt to get some quick goodies (bases in Crimea, Nato expansion, sell weapons) has evolved into a real death spiral.

We are one Franz Ferdinand moment away from a catastrophe. Let's enjoy the games while we still can. Trump knows this, so he is trying desperately to organize a summit or send some messages of conciliation. But he is powerless and it might be too late for that. Hubris never dissipates, it requires a disaster and an elite turnover to cure hubris.

Mattheus , June 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events. He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario, it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
byrresheim , June 16, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
As long as the Author keeps talking about Ukronazis, we know that he is not at all prepared to see any problems on the Russian side at all.

Which serves devalue his argument, even if there are a lot of valid points otherwise.

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
@Philip Owen

I don't think you realize that armies need supplies. To break into Donbas cities would be hard enough, but to re-supply them would be impossible. Civilians would mostly evacuate, so there would be little to 'hide in'. Kiev cannot win militarily as long as Russia opposes it. Russia can always blast their bases from air, or with missiles. Don't kid yourself, if Russia has the will, they will prevail.

Since you mentioned 2014, there was a perfect opportunity for Maidanistas to avoid this. All they had to do was to be friendly and accommodating to its Russian minority. Offer them autonomy, re-assure them, promise that trade and ties with Russia would continue. Kiev did the exact opposite, an extremely bad tactic. US kept on telling them to cool it, that one doesn't win by attacking before ready. But in Kiev emotions prevailed, and so we are where we are.

Sooner or later a more accommodating government in Kiev will try the 'let bygones be bygones' tactic on Russia. If we are lucky enough to make it that far.

[Jun 18, 2018] ASSAD US and Israeli intervention prevents reconciliation in Syria (Interview) by Frank Sellers

Notable quotes:
"... Assad is adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay ..."
"... For the Americans, there is a general principle they follow in dealing with any problem in the world. The only price they ask for is absolute hegemony, regardless of the issue and the place. Of course, we shall never provide that price; otherwise we wouldn't have fought this war for years . We have been fighting for the independence of Syrian decision-making, for the Syrian homeland, and for the unity of Syrian territory. As for Iran in particular, let me be very clear: the Syrian-Iranian relationship is a strategic one not subject to a deal in the south or in the north. This relationship, in terms of its implications and results on the ground, is linked to the present and future of the region ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | theduran.com

Assad is adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad revealed in a recent interview with Iranian media al-Alam TV that attempts at achieving non military resolutions to conflicts inside Syria via reconciliation is being actively prevented by intervention from Israel and the US. He is adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay. Video of the interview is furnished below in English, courtesy of Press TV , followed by a transcript obtained from Syria 360 Internationalist News Agency . Added emphasis on certain statements is mine.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RbLONDCe3Ro

13 June، 2018
Damascus, SANA

President Bashar al-Assad affirmed that the Syrian south is in front of two options; reconciliation or liberation by force, indicating that at this point, there are no concrete results for a simple reason which is Israeli and American interference, for they put pressure on the terrorists in that area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution.

The President added in an interview given to Iran's Al-ALAM TV that the Syrian-Iranian relation is strategic not subject to a deal and it is linked to the present and future of the region , affirming that neither Syria nor Iran has floated this relationship on the international political bazaar for it to be subject to haggling.

President al-Assad affirmed that since the beginning of the war, particularly when it started to have a clear military nature on the southern front in particular, the Israelis used to shell Syrian forces continuously, and consequently provide direct support to the terrorists. Israeli artillery and aircraft are the terrorists' artillery and aircraft Despite Israeli support to the terrorists, we have been doing our job, and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas within the limits of its capabilities. So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty we shall carry out.

Following the full text of the interview;

Question 1: Mr. President, there are many issues which we will talk about, but in the light of the victories you have achieved, the main focus remains the south of Syria. What's happening exactly, or what is the nature of what is happening in the south of Syria?

President Assad: To put it simply, after the liberation of al-Ghouta, it was suggested that we should move south. We were faced with two options, as is the case in all other areas in Syria: reconciliation or liberation by force. At this point, the Russians suggested the possibility of giving reconciliation an opportunity, similar to what happened in other areas, in order to restore the situation that prevailed before 2011. In other words, for the Syrian Army to be deployed in that area, which is an area of confrontation with the Zionist enemy. And of course the terrorists should leave the area. This proposition suits us. Up till now, there are no concrete results for a simple reason which is Israeli and American interference; for they put pressure on the terrorists in that area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution . That is how the situation stands now.

Question 2: So, it hasn't been decided whether to move towards a military operation or towards reconciliation?

President Assad: No, contacts are still ongoing between the Russians, the Americans, and the Israelis, while nobody is communicating with the terrorists, because they are mere tools, and they implement what their masters decide ultimately. This is what happened, i.e. there was an opportunity to reach reconciliation, but the American and Israeli interference prevented that possibility .

Question 3: Of course, this is the reality there. But on the other hand, there are those who talk about many things taking place in the south. Mr. President, is there a certain deal, what is the price? Is there really a price for concluding this deal in the south? Let me talk frankly about the issue of getting the Iranians to leave the southern region in return for al-Tanf, for example. What did the Americans demand, or let's say, what was the price the Americans asked to approve the reconciliation process in the south?

President Assad: For the Americans, there is a general principle they follow in dealing with any problem in the world. The only price they ask for is absolute hegemony, regardless of the issue and the place. Of course, we shall never provide that price; otherwise we wouldn't have fought this war for years . We have been fighting for the independence of Syrian decision-making, for the Syrian homeland, and for the unity of Syrian territory. As for Iran in particular, let me be very clear: the Syrian-Iranian relationship is a strategic one not subject to a deal in the south or in the north. This relationship, in terms of its implications and results on the ground, is linked to the present and future of the region. Consequently, it is not subject to the price tags of the international bazaar. Neither Syria nor Iran has floated this relationship on the international political bazaar for it to be subject to haggling. The proposition was made by the Israelis with the objective of provoking and embarrassing Iran. At the same time, this comes in line with the international propaganda campaign launched against Iran regarding the nuclear file. It is not a separate issue; for everything happening now is linked to Iran in order to create an international position against it. As for us in Syria, the decision concerning our land is an exclusively Syrian decision. We are fighting the same battle, and when we have a decision concerning Iran, we will talk about it with the Iranians and not with any other party .

Question 4: Of course, we will talk more about Iran and in more detail, but since we are talking about the southern front, let's explore it further. Practically, in the same context, there is the MOC which hasn't stopped its operations since the beginning of the war on Syria about eight years ago. It is working and is still active, and is directly linked to the Israelis. But we have noticed recently that it has been reactivated, and there are more communications. Mr. President, does this mean that the Syrian state is practically moving towards a military decisive action in the south regardless of the consequences, whether things reach a stalemate or not? Is a decisive action in the cards for the Syrian leadership?

President Assad: No, MOC has nothing to do with this decision. MOC has been linked to the presence and the role of the terrorists since the beginning of the war on Syria. That's why it existed: in order to lead them militarily. Consequently, the continued existence of this operations room means the continuation of the role given to these terrorists, i.e. they are equipped and prepared to carry out more terrorist acts. MOC is linked to the terrorists and not to the role of the Syrian state. Our role has nothing to do with it. Our decision has been clear from the beginning: we will liberate all Syrian lands. As to when to move south, north, east, or west, this is a purely military issue. But regardless of MOC, we have moved towards the south and we are giving the political process a chance. If that doesn't succeed, we have no other option but to liberate it by force.

Question 5: But there is a confrontation in the south, and the issue is not limited geographically to Syria in the larger political sense. There are the Americans, the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, and Hezbollah. All these parties are there in the area. What does that mean? How are you going to deal with this?

President Assad: You are talking about two axes: one supporting terrorism, and represented by the US, Israel, and some flunkies in the region including some Arab and non-Arab states, and an anti-terrorist axis. The first axis supports terrorism and seeks hegemony, while the second axis seeks independence. So, there can be only one result for this confrontation, i.e. the victory of one of these axes. At least, as far as the anti-terrorist axis is concerned, it will not give up the process of cleaning Syria and the region of terrorism and will not give up on the unity of Syrian territory .

As to the other axis, will it change as a result of the reality on the ground? Let's wait and see. But in terms of substance and convictions, it will not change, while in terms of the political practices dictated by reality and the facts on the ground, it might.

Question 6: Will the Americans leave al-Tanf?

President Assad: The Americans say they are ready, but everyone knows that the Americans are historically professional liars in politics. So why should we believe them? Also, we have to wait and see.

Question 7: Mr. President, what's happening now in Jordan? Is it linked to what's happening on the southern front in particular, i.e. is it linked to what is being plotted in that region, in your view?

President Assad: In fact, the only information we have is what we hear in the media. In any case, we wish Jordan stability, not chaos, because the latter will have a negative impact on us.

Question 8: Since we are talking about the south, let's close this file. Mr. President, what would make the Israeli occupation agree to the return of the Syrian Army to the borders, i.e. a return to the situation which existed at the beginning of 2011, after seven years of repeated Zionist attempts, directly and indirectly, to undermine the Syrian state, the regime in Syria, and stability in Syria. Why would it agree now to the return of the Syrian Army to the borders and to the occupied Golan?

President Assad: Certainly, neither conviction, morality, nor international law means anything to the Israelis. Since the beginning of the war, particularly when it started to have a clear military nature on the southern front in particular, the Israelis used to shell Syrian forces continuously, and consequently provide direct support to the terrorists. Israeli artillery and aircraft are the terrorists' artillery and aircraft. That applies to Jabhat al-Nusra of course . Nothing is going to change this Israeli approach. As far as we are concerned, Israel's approval had no role at all. Despite Israeli support to the terrorists, we have been doing our job, and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas within the limits of its capabilities. So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty we shall carry out.

Question 9: So, a return of the Syrian Army is better than having resistance in the Golan, for instance?

President Assad: For the Israelis?

Journalist: Yes.

President Assad: I think the two options are bad for the Israelis. Both of them are bad. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah has repeatedly talked about Syria's relationship with the resistance and a Syrian role in the resistance. So, how would the Israelis choose between two bad things for them?

Question 10: As you said, Mr. President, Israel has financed, supported, and more dangerously was capable of enlisting a large number of Syrians, some of whom were treated inside occupied Palestine. They talked about it. In the future, how would you deal with this large number of Israeli agents? Maybe some of them were misled and Israel might have exploited the financial and living conditions of some; and some have chosen to side with the Israelis. How would you deal with them in the future?

President Assad: This is true; we cannot put everyone in the same basket. There are different reasons for moving in this wrong direction; and these people have wronged the homeland and every Syrian citizen. Ultimately, they are the children of this homeland, and we all bear responsibility for this problem, not only those who have done wrong. When crime, for instance, becomes widespread in a certain country, the whole society bears responsibility for this crime, not only the security agencies or the criminals themselves. The first thing that should be done is to accommodate these people. Second, we need to address the root causes which led to this case of weak patriotism. The causes here are many and complicated, and the scope of this interview doesn't allow for all of them to be mentioned.

Question 11: In the same context, while you are talking about restoring the Syrian air defense systems and confronting the Zionist occupation, statements have been made by leaders of the Israeli entity that they will strike at the depth of Syrian territory. How would you deal with that situation, particularly that balance has been achieved recently, i.e. balance between Israeli aggressions and Syrian responses?

President Assad: Basically, we haven't stopped responding. First of all, we haven't stopped fighting terrorists, and at the same time we haven't stopped responding to Israeli aggression within the capabilities available to us, militarily and technically. Moreover, the more these capabilities improve; the response will be better and higher. But in fact the strongest response to Israel now is to strike the Israeli army existing in Syria which consists practically of the terrorists .

Journalist: You consider them an Israeli army?

President Assad: Of course, for they are acting clearly and starkly in Israel's interest. The first acts they carried out were attacks against the air defense systems. What is the link between air defense systems and the terrorists acting as infantry on the ground? This was an Israeli order. It was an Israeli-American order because it is the same thing. So, they are Israel's army inside Syria; and the first strike against Israel, politically, militarily, and in every other area, is to strike Israel's terrorists inside Syria, whether they belong to ISIS, al-Nusra, or the other groups linked to the Israeli plan and strategy.

Journalist: If Israel escalates, are you prepared to respond more forcefully?

President Assad: This is what's happening. It is escalating, and we are responding. Ultimately, we are fighting the war within the capabilities available to us, and we are doing our best within these capabilities. A response does not need a political decision. I stress that responding or not responding is not a political decision. It is a national decision, and it was taken from day one. But implementing this decision depends on what we can do militarily and not politically.

Question 12: In terms of capabilities, there is one issue in the media which we are always following, i.e. the S300 Russian missiles. Russia says, "We will deliver these missiles", and then says, "We will not deliver them", which means that the issue is not clear. What is happening exactly? Why this Russian hesitation, in your view, in delivering the S300 missiles to Syria, while some other countries have been seeking S400, i.e. they are ahead of us in this regard.

President Assad: You know that military action and military considerations are part of political considerations. Consequently, a statement, even if it is of a military nature, carries at the same time political messages. So, why did the Russians say that they want to send or not send? This is a statement that the Russians should be asked about because it might be part of their political tactics. As to the military aspect of the statement, which concerns Syria, it's not our custom to talk about the weapon which will be delivered or not delivered. The evidence was that the weapons used in response to the last two aggressions, the tripartite aggression and after that the Israeli aggression, were not announced by Syria. We traditionally do not announce cases of a technical military nature.

Journalist: So, even the nature of the response is not linked to the issue of the S300 missiles?

President Assad: No. The same applies. Even if the S300 missiles will be provided or not provided, we will not say that they were delivered to Syria. A weapon is used when it must be used.

Journalist: Is there a possibility that you have developed certain weapons?

President Assad: This remains a possibility. In any case, the result is the same: weapons shouldn't be talked about until they are used. Weapons announce themselves only when they are used.

Question 13: Mr. President, let's return to the political aspect, since we are talking about the southern front. Regarding the general situation, in light of all that has been achieved on the Syrian arena today, the most prominent actor is the tripartite alliance, or what is being called the tripartite alliance. I mean Syria, Iran, and Russia. What is the nature of this alliance? Is it a temporary alliance, in the sense that it is linked to fighting terrorism or to certain developments on the Syrian arena? Recently, we have started to see – or let's say some have focused on certain points in order to show – a certain fracture in this alliance. What is your take on that and what is the actual reality of this alliance?

President Assad: If we talk first about the Syrian-Iranian part, for 40 years, and in the different conditions that the Middle East region has gone through, this alliance remained solid. So, there is no reason to say that it is temporary or otherwise. The new element in the war on Syria is the Russian element, and that's why this tripartite alliance came into existence. Our relationship with Russia is now about seven decades old. Despite the fluctuations and the fall of the Soviet Union, the rule of President Yeltsin, and the deterioration of these relations to a large degree for us, it has never reached the stage of reversing this relationship with Syria. Russia continued to deal with Syria as a friendly state, and we have imported everything from Russia, including weapons, during the different stages of the sanctions imposed on Syria. It is not in the nature of the Russians to build temporary or self-serving alliances or to sell out on relations in order to get deals done. The relationship is definitely a strategic one, but the political statements allowed for these speculations.

These statements also aim at sending messages in different directions. Maybe, sometimes the language or the choice of particular terminology might not be helpful and might take the statement in a different direction at odds with the content of the statement. This happens from time to time. However, these statements shouldn't be taken out of context: the Russian view of the relationship with Iran is a strategic one. As for Syria, the Russians do not interfere in Syrian affairs. If they have a certain opinion, they raise it with us and say that in the end, the decision is that of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people. This is a constant principle for Russia. Therefore, the alliance is a strategic one, and if there are differences, such differences happen within the Syrian state, and you see differences within the Iranian state and within the Russian state. It is natural for us to differ on daily tactical details, for why conduct a dialogue if we agree on everything? We meet extensively in order to reach agreement.

Journalist: So, this tripartite alliance is being consolidated.

President Assad: Of course. This is dictated by reality, interest, and international changes that make it necessary for this alliance to be consolidated. As long as the other axis supports terrorism, and as long as we, together with Iran and Russia, feel the danger of terrorism, not only in Syria, but also on all these countries and on the whole world, and as long as Syria, Iran, and Russia realize the importance of abiding by international law, these facts make the existence of this alliance necessary.

Question 14: But there are those who say that Syria will get a price if the Iranians leave Syrian territories. Is there a certain political, moral, or military price in this regard?

President Assad: As I said in the beginning, as long as this relationship is not floated in the bazaar, they cannot offer a price, and the answer will be clear. That's why they don't dare suggest this price. This issue was raised by different countries, including Saudi Arabia for instance, at the beginning of the war, and not only at the beginning, but at different stages. The proposition was that if Syria cut its relationship with Iran, the situation in Syria will be normal. This principle is basically rejected by us.

Journalist: So, there were initiatives, so to speak, made in this regard by Saudi Arabia.

President Assad: During the war?

Journalist: Yes.

President Assad: Of course, more than once, and in a clear manner.

Journalist: Directly?

President Assad: Directly. The relationship with Iran was the basis for every proposition; and Saudi Arabia's position on this subject is public. I'm not revealing a secret.

Question 15: An issue is raised, whether in Syria, Iran, or Lebanon, about the nature of Iranian presence in Syria. Some call them Iranian advisors. Even the Syrian Foreign Minister used the same term. At the same time, we notice that there are Iranian martyrs. Frankly, Mr. President, what is the nature of Iranian presence in Syria now?

President Assad: The term adviser is sometimes used in a broad manner, i.e. these advisers have been with us, through the longstanding relationship with Iran, even before the war, because the military relationship is close. When a military formation moves to a fighting position, the adviser becomes a fighter. So, the word can be used in different senses. There are certainly Iranian advisers in Syria, and there are groups of Iranian volunteers who came to Syria, and they are led by Iranian officers. Iran has fought with and defended the Syrian people. It offered blood. That's why when we say "advisers" this is a generic term, but this doesn't mean that we are ashamed of any Iranian presence, even if it is official. But we use the word "advisers" because there are no regular Iranian fighting units in Syria.

Journalist: Full formations.

President Assad: Exactly. There are no battalions, or brigades, or divisions. First, we can't hide them, and then why should we be ashamed of that? When we invited the Russians legally to come to Syria, we were not ashamed of that. And if there were an Iranian formation, we would announce it, because such relations need agreements between the two states endorsed by parliaments. Such relations cannot be concealed.

Journalist: And you invited Iranian advisers to come?

President Assad: Of course, from the beginning we invited the Iranians, and then we invited the Russians. We needed the support of these countries, and they answered the call.

Journalist: Mr. President, you said more than once that there are no Iranian bases in Syria.

President Assad: That's correct.

Journalist: Why there are no Iranian bases, while we notice that there are a number of Russian bases?

President Assad: There's nothing that prevents the existence of such bases as long as Iran is an ally as is Russia.

Journalist: This means that if Iran requested the existence of such bases, you would agree?

President Assad: If we ask. We will ask them to agree. I mean that we could ask for the existence of such forces to support us. Iran has never asked and does not have an interest except in fighting terrorism. But the evolution of the war made it necessary to develop the nature of this presence.

This happened as far as the Russians are concerned. In the beginning, Russian support, like Iranian support, was different from what it is today. The support for terrorism has developed internationally and globally when the Syrian Army confronted those terrorists, and with that Russian and Iranian military presence developed. At a certain stage, we found – with the Russians of course – that the existence of air bases was necessary to provide air support to the Syrian Army. And now, if we find, in cooperation, coordination, or dialogue with the Iranians, that there is a need for Iranian military bases, we will not hesitate. But now, Iranian support in its present form is good and effective.

Question 16: Why haven't you visited Iran so far, although you visited Russia more than once?

President Assad: That's correct. In fact, there was a scheduled visit to Iran a few months ago, and it was postponed and not cancelled. It was postponed because of an emergency in Syria related to the development of battles. There is certainly no reason which prevents such a visit, and I'll visit Iran hopefully soon on the earliest opportunity. This is natural, but the issue is logistic, no more, no less.

Question 17: Mr. President, I move to another file. Last week, it was the Jerusalem International Day, and the Palestinian cause is going through its most difficult stages. We are talking about the "deal of the century", and moving the American Embassy to occupied Jerusalem. What do you have to say about Palestine? Is Syria still capable of supporting the Palestine cause? Basically, wasn't one of the most important objectives of the war on Syria to get Syria out of the axis of resistance and to prevent it from supporting resistance, whether in Lebanon or Palestine?

President Assad: The Palestine context, since 1948 up till now, has been a complicated one, because the regional context is complicated. Of course, it is complicated because the colonial West, which is particularly supportive of Israel, has always created elements which aim at one single thing. First, to drive to desperation the Arab citizen who is historically attached to the cause of Palestine and who has always considered it a pan-Arab cause that touched him even on the national level.

The other objective has been to distract the Arab peoples together with states or societies in general to marginal causes so that they do not have time to think about Israel. And they have succeeded to a great extent, most recently through the so-called Arab spring which has aimed at destroying the political, military, and psychological infrastructure of Arab societies.

Nevertheless, recent development have proven that the Arab people is still conscientiously attached to the cause of Palestine. As for Syria – since it has been part of these plots to undermine the Arab condition in general – first, for Syria to support the cause of Palestine, it should first of all destroy the Israeli army in Syria. Restoring stability in Syria, striking terrorism, and foiling the Israeli plot in Syria is certainly part of supporting the cause of Palestine. The support might be indirect with direct consequences, but these direct consequences are linked to the internal Palestinian condition. We shouldn't forget that the Palestinians are divided between groups which resist Israel and are genuinely linked to the cause of Palestine, and other groups which are against the resistance and support surrenderist and defeatist peace, while there are other groups which use resistance as a title in order to achieve their political objectives under the slogan of religion. This is of course the Muslim Brotherhood's approach.

Question 18: Are you prepared to offer whatever the resistance asks of you, whether in the form of political, military, or any other form of support?

President Assad: Politically, we haven't changed. The Palestinian question for us is still as it was ten years ago and decades ago. It hasn't changed. As to what we can offer, this has to do with two things: first, Syria's current capabilities; and there's no doubt that the priority is given now to cleaning Syria of terrorism. Second, it has to do with the Palestinian condition and the parties with which we can deal within the Palestinian arena.

Question 19: Since we are talking about resistance, there is the other side. In addition to some countries which stood beside Syria in fighting terrorism, there was also a role played by the resistance in Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah, which provided a great deal and contributed to fighting terrorism. What do you say, Mr. President, to resistance fighters and families of martyrs and the wounded?

President Assad: When all these groups of resistance get together to defend Syrian soil and Syrian citizens, including the Lebanese resistance and the brothers who came from Iraq some of whom reproached me for not mentioning them by name, I take this opportunity to stress that there are brothers from Iraq to whom we give the same weight of any resistance fighter who came from any other country.

There are also the families of resistance fighters who came from Iran and sacrificed their blood in Syria. We should put all these in the same basket next to the Syrian martyrs, fighters, and their families. To those I say that all the letters, the words, the sentences, and the whole of literature are much less than a single drop of blood. Therefore, words are of a much lesser value than what they have offered. What's more important is what history will write about them.

In fact, when we talk about writing history, we need to highlight that history needs a strategy and needs tactics, but the fact remains that strategy without implementation on the ground has no value. It remains mere thought which we might include in books and essays. But the reality is that these individuals in these countries, this group of resistance fighters, not politics, write history. I would like to use the answer to this question to express to them all my love, respect, and appreciation, and my reverence to the fighters, the wounded, and martyrs, and to all their families who are courage incarnated and who sent these individuals to Syria to defend it and fight terrorism, so that these families become models of morality and principles for present and future generations.

Question 20: Have you asked Hezbollah to leave Syria? A few days ago His Eminence Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah talked about this issue and said that nobody can get us out of Syria unless the Syrian leadership asked us to do so.

President Assad: The battle is long and ongoing. When we talk about this tripartite alliance – and if we consider it a quadruple alliance when we add Hezbollah, we talk about the tripartite alliance in terms of the states included, but in the end Hezbollah is a basic element in this war – the battle is long, and the need for these military forces will continue for a long time. When there is a need, and when Hezbollah, Iran, or others believe that terrorism has been eliminated, they will tell us that they want to go home. As Sayyed Hasan said, they have families and daily interests, which is normal, but it is still early to talk about this subject.

Question 21: Up till now, there are still areas under the control of terrorism and areas under occupation. At the same time, regretfully, some Arab countries, and here I am talking particularly about Saudi Arabia, announced that it is ready to send forcers to Syria. On the other hand, a few days ago popular tribal units were formed to resist occupation. Are these really popular resistance units? Do they receive support from the Syrian government? Does this mean that the army cannot liberate those areas, and that's why it is asking for the help of the tribes? What is the nature of this issue?

President Assad: There are different forms of this resistance which appeared a few years ago. In the beginning they were fighting ISIS before they started to fight the occupiers. They were against ISIS in the central and eastern regions, and there were cases where they appeared in other regions which were not given media coverage and about which we hear sometimes through information and indications.

Now, this situation has started to expand. So, it's not one single case. There are a number of cases which might be individual sometimes, or in the form of small groups not affiliated to an organization. In any case, our position as a state has been from the beginning to support any act of resistance, whether against terrorists or against occupying forces, regardless of their nationality, i.e. American, French, Turkish, or Israeli. We support these resistance forces based on our national role as a government.

Question 22: What about Saudi Arabia and sending Saudi forces to Syria?

President Assad: First, when we talk about a state, we should assume that such a state can take decisions independently. That's why we will not talk about the role of Saudi Arabia. You better ask me about the American decision on this issue.

Question 23: On the other hand, there are a number of Arab countries which we talk about and which had a role or contributed to the role or to the destruction of Syria. These countries are now trying to get to Syria through the reconstruction process. What do you say in this regard, particularly that these countries are the ones which have capital and huge financial power? How are you going to deal with that?

President Assad: Reconstruction in Syria is not a cause for concern for us. It needs two factors: first, the human factor which is more important than the financial factor. When a country like Syria possesses the human factor, the financial cost will be less when it comes to reconstruction. This is self-evident, and we possess all these factors despite the fact that many competent and qualified Syrians have immigrated because of the war.

But we still have the capability to start reconstruction. And the evidence is clear now, for the state is moving forward and reconstruction has begun. As to money, the Syrian people have financial capabilities, capital, most of which is not in Syria, but outside Syria. But there is capital waiting for reconstruction to begin, so it will begin investing. On the other hand, there are the friendly countries which have capabilities and have the desire; and we have the desire to have them participate in reconstruction, so that they benefit and we Syrians benefit from this process. In the end, we do not need those countries and we will never allow them to be part of reconstruction.

Journalist: Never?

President Assad: Absolutely.

Journalist: Not even if there was a need in this regard, I mean in terms of financial resources?

President Assad: Financial resources are not everything. As I said, this is available. There are different sources in the world and in Syria for capital.

Question 24: With these tough years, we are talking about the legendary steadfastness of the Syrian Army, the Syrian people, the Armed Forces. If you wanted to talk about two cases, the most difficult case or incident that you have encountered during these years, and on the other hand the best and most beautiful case.

President Assad: It is natural, at the heart of the military battle, for the best and worst cases to be linked to the development of the military battle. If I say that the worst cases were when terrorists used to control a certain area, this is self-evident, but it is related more to specific battles, particularly when the area is strategic or the city is big with a large population. Consequently, the impact will be much greater psychologically and in terms of morale.

But there was an ongoing situation which we are still living and we must think about: when a martyr or a group of martyrs fall, and this is ongoing on a weekly basis for us, we must think that a family lost a dear one who cannot be compensated. He might be compensated by achieving victory at a certain stage, but on the family, psychological and human level, you cannot compensate a dear one lost to a certain family, or maybe a friend. This is a very painful situation which we have lived and continue to live. This will not stop until the war itself stops. But there were painful cases at the beginning of the war, when you see this huge lack of patriotism. They were perhaps a minority, but a large minority, of individuals who were prepared to sell the homeland and trade it together with their principles, if they had ones, in return for money or a certain interest, in addition to a certain percentage of extremism.

On the other hand, there were victories, particularly when victories started in the city of al-Qsair in 2013, and culminated in the city of Aleppo in 2016, that was the beginning of the major victories. That was followed by Deir Ezzor, and today we are living the joy of liberating Damascus and its countryside. This is a situation we have all lived through, and you were with us, and I am sure you feel the same joy.

Question 25: Have you felt tired at a certain moment? Have you felt hesitant at a certain moment, in light of all the decisions you have taken, have you ever, even for a moment, thought of leaving? Haven't you said to yourself: let me save my family and resign, as some people did at a certain point in time?

President Assad: This question might be raised in a personal manner. When I am faced with a personal situation as an individual, I might feel despair after a few months. I might feel tired or bored or I might want to move to a different situation, or give up. That is possible.

Journalist: As an individual?

President Assad: Of course, as an individual, but the case you are proposing is not personal, it is national. Imagine yourself in a different condition, perhaps building something on your own. You feel tired, but when you see a large number of people helping you build it and share the same determination, you forget the tiredness.

Now we are in a national situation. We are talking about millions of Syrians. When you see a shell striking and victims falling anywhere in Syria, you feel frustrated. But when you see life being restored to the same area after one hour, your psychological condition changes. When you see that the electricity worker, the oil worker, the teacher, the employee, are moving side by side with fighters, moving without despair and without tiredness, how can you feel tired? This is a collective condition not related to me as a person. It has to do with our human condition when we are together as a society. How do we live? This defines whether you are tired or not. Would the Syrian society have arrived at this stage of despair and surrender, I would certainly have been with it. I would have surrendered because I do not have the necessary elements for steadfastness. This is self-evident.

Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for giving us this opportunity, and for your candidness in answering these questions. Thank you very much.

[Jun 18, 2018] The most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election

Notable quotes:
"... "The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW ..."
"... The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy. ..."
"... I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election. ..."
"... I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization. ..."
"... Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination". ..."
"... there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau. ..."
"... What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened! ..."
"... The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC. ..."
"... Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates). ..."
"... jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way. ..."
"... The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking. ..."
"... Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

cka2nd

June 14, 2018 at 11:54 pm
"a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau"

Which is what the FBI looked like at the time and over the last two years, the anti-Clinton faction seeming to be centered in New York, and the anti-Trump faction in, what, D.C.?

Erik , says: June 15, 2018 at 3:12 am
This report merely provides more talking points for politicians. And, talk they will. IG Michael Horowitz had a specific mandate. It was to investigate "violations of criminal and civil law." It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations.

This report makes no allegations of criminal activity. As such, it can only be read as exonerating those under investigation, of same. The ultimate remedy for "breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations" is termination of employment. And, Comey has already been fired. The rest is irrelevant and/or superfluous.

Joe the Plutocrat , says: June 15, 2018 at 7:51 am
Agreed. the report sheds light on some truly incompetent (and unprofessional, inappropriate behavior). Disagree – the 'deep state' is behind this. perhaps the most depressing aspect of this circus is the realization there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Obama administration. there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Clinton campaign.

There was incompetence and malfeasance in the DoJ, there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Trump campaign, and there is a whole lot of incompetence and malfeasance in the current administration. see where this is going? "malfeasance" recognized and leveraged by "foreign actors" (some other 'deep state' as it were) demonstrates competence in terms of their job(s).

I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which "Puddy" and "Elaine" meet with a priest to discuss their relationship and its impact on their eternal lives – with Puddy being Christian and Elaine not. the priest says, "oh that's easy, you're both going to hell "

midtown , says: June 15, 2018 at 8:37 am
The overt bias exhibited by FBI agents was shocking.
SDS , says: June 15, 2018 at 8:39 am
"It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election."

SO we are expected to believe the FBI, et. al; never played a role before? Spare me

"The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW

connecticut farmer , says: June 15, 2018 at 8:53 am
Way funny, this! And all the time we've been looking for enemies abroad-in this case the Rooshians-the real enemy was right in our own backyard. The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy.
Will Harrington , says: June 15, 2018 at 9:29 am
If you are going to have a deep state, and in a large nation, it does seem necessary, then it should be a meritocracy. Clearly the system of recruiting high level officials from certain Ivy League schools does not result in a meritocracy.
MM , says: June 15, 2018 at 10:24 am

Erik: "It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations." Well, he did, and thank goodness. I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election.

If that's not political bias, then we need another word for it. Political consideration in the outcome of a criminal probe.

Think about that if it had been a GOP candidate, what would the progressives be saying about the same behavior?

Centralist , says: June 15, 2018 at 11:06 am
I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization.
Scott , says: June 15, 2018 at 1:05 pm
What I find amusing is the emphasis on texts between Strzok and Page. They sure were sloppy in using govt cell phones for their texting. However, at the end of the day, their texts were the equivalent of pillow talk. What's the remedy? Everybody wear a wire to bed to trap people in the act of gossiping? Does anybody think that these casual conversations go on all the time. There is no group of people more cynical that law enforcement people.

At the end of the day, people did their jobs and prevented their opinions from the proper execution of their jobs.

Johann , says: June 15, 2018 at 1:43 pm
Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination".
connecticut farmer , says: June 15, 2018 at 1:45 pm
H. Clinton squirreled away over 30 thousand emails into a private server. I am reliably informed that if any other federal employee pulled a move like that they would have been fired, with loss of pension and possible jail time in as much as this is grand jury fodder. Not ol' Hillary though.

People do tend to notice these things.

Fred , says: June 15, 2018 at 2:18 pm
"There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. "

More fake news – there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau.

eheter , says: June 15, 2018 at 8:54 pm
Michael Kenny
June 15, 2018 at 11:29 am
The important point is that Trump has no need to worry about any of this if he really is as innocent as he claims. In fact, infiltrated informers, wiretaps etc. are a godsend to Trump if he's innocent because they prove that innocence. Thus, Trump's making such a fuss about these things is a tacit admission of guilt.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

Yes, of course. Because if someone spied on you looking for a crime of which you were innocent, you'd be totally ok with it and would keep quiet. Only someone who's guilty of a crime would speak up being spied upon.

smh

Gandydancer , says: June 16, 2018 at 12:34 am
"There is only to argue whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau."

What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened!

To believe Horowitz' conclusions about lack of bias in decision making you have to be as willfully reluctant to connect the dots as he is. And I'm not, nor should you be.

Gerald Arcuri , says: June 16, 2018 at 2:41 pm
The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC.
Patricus , says: June 16, 2018 at 10:03 pm
Those Russians are so clever. They trained agents for a lifetime to master accents of rural Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin then duped the bible thumping gun lovers into rejecting her highness Hillary. The immense Russian powers are extraordinary when one considers the Russian economy is smaller than Texas.

But seriously, we had eight years of a Democratic president and people had enough and chose a Republican even though he was outspent. That is the consistent pattern. After Trump another Democrat will move into the White House.

mike , says: June 17, 2018 at 8:45 am
Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates).

A cosmic ignorance radiates from these email exchanges. These agents appear to have been dropped here from another planet. They not only seem to have been disconnected from or to have forgotten the Civilisation that gave birth to the society in which they live, but they seem never to have had any knowledge or awareness of it in the first place.

(Reading between the lines, deducing their "principles" from their mentality, one could confidently conclude that these adolescents truly believe that State is God and Marx is His prophet.)

Winston , says: June 17, 2018 at 11:04 am
"seems less competent than we originally feared"

They're going to get away with it with no adequately serious repercussions meaning they're competent enough, aren't they? That also means they won't be properly deterred and will simply do it better next time.

MM , says: June 17, 2018 at 12:23 pm
jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way.

The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking.

If you're going to fault the FBI, you can't then not fault Secretary Clinton. The two go hand-in-hand, and she comes first in the chain of event.

Case closed. Though she didn't get her just desserts in court, at least she received political justice. 🙂

MM , says: June 17, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.

Anybody?

[Jun 18, 2018] Real Takeaway The FBI Influenced the Election of a President by Peter Van Buren

In a way we now can talk about Intelligence Industrial complex
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. ..."
"... In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications. ..."
"... Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm ..."
"... Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation." ..."
"... Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton. ..."
"... Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements." ..."
"... In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn. ..."
"... One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. ..."
"... The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job. ..."
"... the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on. ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
June 15, 2018 The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared.

It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI's Clinton email investigation really means.

While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this: the FBI influenced the election of a president.

In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who previously worked on the 2012 study of "Fast and Furious"), opened his probe into the FBI's Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the presidential campaign. Horowitz's focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding Russiagate.

In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications.

Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation."

The report also criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts "brought discredit" to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one exchange that read, "Page: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: "No. No he's not. We'll stop it." Another Strzok document stated "we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least one secret message."

Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton.

Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements."

But at the end of it all, the details really don't matter, because the report broadly found no political bias, no purposeful efforts or strategy to sway the election. In aviation disaster terms, it was all pilot error. Like an accident of sorts, as opposed to the pilot boarding drunk, but the plane crashed and killed 300 people either way.

The report is already being welcomed by Democrats -- who feel Comey shattered Clinton's chances of winning the election by reopening the email probe just days before the election -- and by Republicans, who feel Comey let Clinton off easy. Many are now celebrating it was only gross incompetence, unethical behavior, serial bad judgment, and insubordination that led the FBI to help determine the election. No Constitutional crisis.

A lot of details in those 568 pages to yet fully parse, but at first glance there is not much worthy of prosecution (though Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he will review the report for possible prosecutions and IG Horowitz will testify in front of Congress on Monday and may reveal more information.) Each side will point to the IG's conclusion of "no bias" to shut down calls for this or that in a tsunami of blaming each other. In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn.

One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. As justification for firing Comey, the White House initially pointed to an earlier Justice Department memo criticizing Comey for many of the same actions now highlighted by the IG (Trump later added concerns about the handling of Russiagate.) The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job.

It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on.

The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. But even if one fully accepts the IG report's conclusion that all this -- and there's a lot -- was not intentional, at a minimum it makes clear to those watching ahead of 2020 what tools are available and the impact they can have. While we continue to look for the bad guy abroad, we have already met the enemy and he is us.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .

[Jun 18, 2018] The next year the strategic position of Ukraine might get worse

Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , June 16, 2018 at 12:24 am GMT

If Kiev wants to attack Donbas they better hurry. After World Cup, and definitely next year when the pipelines bypassing Ukraine will be ready, Ukraine's strategic situation will get worse. We are in a transition phase: sh..t happened in 2013-15 that is impossible to undo, but there were fortunately constraints on all sides that prevented a meltdown. In a year or two most of those constraints will be gone.

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid – there are forces in Europe, in all countries, who want a confrontation with Russia. Any event, real or fake, will be used to escalate. West cannot lose this one without another fight. And if they sit on their hands, they will eventually lose with a disillusioned Ukraine and slowly disintegrating EU. Populist energy needs to be re-directed eastward, and for that a more aggressive policy is required. This is not pessimism, there simply is no way for EU elite to climb down. How could UK make up with Russia without looking like complete idiots? Or Macron and Merkel? The hostility is at this point inherent in the situation – what started out as a badly thought-out attempt to get some quick goodies (bases in Crimea, Nato expansion, sell weapons) has evolved into a real death spiral.

We are one Franz Ferdinand moment away from a catastrophe. Let's enjoy the games while we still can. Trump knows this, so he is trying desperately to organize a summit or send some messages of conciliation. But he is powerless and it might be too late for that. Hubris never dissipates, it requires a disaster and an elite turnover to cure hubris.

Mattheus , June 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events. He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario, it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
byrresheim , June 16, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
As long as the Author keeps talking about Ukronazis, we know that he is not at all prepared to see any problems on the Russian side at all.

Which serves devalue his argument, even if there are a lot of valid points otherwise.

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
@Philip Owen

I don't think you realize that armies need supplies. To break into Donbas cities would be hard enough, but to re-supply them would be impossible. Civilians would mostly evacuate, so there would be little to 'hide in'. Kiev cannot win militarily as long as Russia opposes it. Russia can always blast their bases from air, or with missiles. Don't kid yourself, if Russia has the will, they will prevail.

Since you mentioned 2014, there was a perfect opportunity for Maidanistas to avoid this. All they had to do was to be friendly and accommodating to its Russian minority. Offer them autonomy, re-assure them, promise that trade and ties with Russia would continue. Kiev did the exact opposite, an extremely bad tactic. US kept on telling them to cool it, that one doesn't win by attacking before ready. But in Kiev emotions prevailed, and so we are where we are.

Sooner or later a more accommodating government in Kiev will try the 'let bygones be bygones' tactic on Russia. If we are lucky enough to make it that far.

[Jun 18, 2018] Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted.

Notable quotes:
"... Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow. ..."
"... Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted. ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

John Wright , , June 17, 2018 at 10:54 am

You wrote:

> Unlike Obama who played up his anti-Iraq War vote.

Obama was not in the US Senate at the time to vote.

From https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/obamas-war-stance-revisited/

"The rally featured a pointed anti-war speech from Obama, then a fairly anonymous state lawmaker, who deemed the impending Iraq engagement 'a dumb war.'"

The political entertainer Obama gave a number of speeches advocating transparency in government, advocating for financial reform and even mentioned "we tortured some folks" decrying torture.

Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow.

Obama's Illinois anti-war speech served him well, as he could milk this "anti-war" stance for years while running military actions as President.

Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted.

Bernie Sanders actually DID vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq

[Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone

Highly recommended!
The current anti-Russian hysteria is the attempt to unite the society which become hostile to neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever, and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. ..."
"... In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world. ..."
"... All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog" get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake? ..."
"... As we've been discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that. ..."
"... It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing. Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff. ..."
"... You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care. ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | caitlinjohnstone.com

At a graduation ceremony for the US Naval War College (barf), US Secretary of Defense James Mattis asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin "aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority," and that "his actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."

This would be the same James Mattis who's been overseeing the war crime s committed by America's armed forces during their illegal occupation of Syria. This would be the same United States of America that was born of the genocide of indigenous tribes and the labor of African slaves, which slaughtered millions in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Libya and Syria for no legitimate reason, which is partnered with Ukrainian Nazis , jihadist factions in Syria and Iranian terror cultists , which supports 73 percent of the world's dictators , which interferes constantly in the electoral processes of other countries as a matter of policy, which stages coups around the world , which has encircled the globe with military bases , whose FBI still targets black civil rights activists for persecution to this very day , which routinely enters into undeclared wars of aggression against noncompliant governments to advance plutocratic interests , which remains the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on human beings after doing so completely needlessly in Japan, and which is functionally a corporatist oligarchy with no meaningful "democratic model" in place at all .

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8JdurtVYp2E

A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever, and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. If you accept the idea that the exchange is anything close to 50/50, with Russia giving back more or less what it's getting and simply protecting its own interests from the interests of geopolitical rivals, it no longer makes any sense to view Putin as a leader who poses a unique threat to the world. If you accept the idea that the west is actually being far more aggressive and antagonistic toward Russia than Russia is being toward the west, it gets even more laughable.

In order to believe that the US has anything resembling "moral authority" you have to shove your head so far into the sand you get lava burns, but that really is what is needed to keep western anti-Russia hysteria going. None of the things the Russian government has been accused of doing (let alone the very legitimate questions about whether or not they even did all of them) merit anything but an indifferent shrug when compared with the unforgivable evils that America's unelected power establishment has been inflicting upon the world, so they need to weave a narrative about "moral authority" in order to give those accusations meaning and relevance. And, since the notion of America having moral authority is contradicted by all facts in evidence, that narrative is necessarily woven of threads of fantasy and denial.

Establishment anti-Russia hysteria is all narrative, no substance. It's sustained by the talking heads of plutocrat-owned western media making the same unanimous assertions over and over again in authoritative, confident-sounding tones of voice without presenting any evidence or engaging with the reality of what Russia or its rivals are actually doing. The only reason American liberals believe that Putin is a dangerous boogieman who has taken over their government, but don't believe for example that America is ruled by a baby-eating pedophile cabal, is because the Jake Tappers and Rachel Maddows have told them to believe one conspiracy theory and not the other. They could have employed the exact same strategy with any other wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy narrative and had just as much success.

In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world.

Of equal interest to the Defense Secretary's "moral authority" gibberish is his claim that Putin's actions "are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."

I mean, like what? So Russia isn't challenging America militarily and isn't taking any actions to attempt to, but it's trying to, what, hurt America's feelings? All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog" get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake?

I'm just playing. Actually, when Mattis says that the Russian government is trying to "undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals," he is saying that Moscow is interrupting the lies that Americans are being told about their government by the plutocrat-owned media. As we've been discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that.

More and more, the threads of the establishment narrative are ceasing to be unconsciously absorbed and are being increasingly consciously examined instead. This development has ultimately nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with our species moving out of its old relationship with mental narrative as it approaches evolve-or-die time in our challenging new world. I am greatly encouraged by what I am seeing.

* * *

Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018

This is so right on that it is scary. The only problem, while more are questioning, is the fact that the majority of Americans actually believe the bullshit that people like Mattis says. And, with a nickname like Mad Dog, it's a wonder that he hasn't been put down yet.

Even today I had to deal with a typical American – 'swallow-it-hook-line-and-sinker' – idiot.

"The stock market is honest and above board.' 'All immigrants don't belong here.' 'It's fine if the government violates your civil rights' 'Oh and immigrants don't have any.'

I could go on, but I learned long ago to say my piece and move on. For some people, there is no changing their minds, nor even opening them up to considering the truth. There are the descendants of those who were protested against in the 1960s. The 'My country right or wrong' people. Most likely they never had the balls, as children, to speak back to their parents, when those adults were in the wrong. I always wondered whether intellectual blindness is a learned trait. I'm pretty sure that it must be.

William / June 17, 2018
Much or most of what you write about the American narrative is true. However, you weave it into a narrative that ignores central historical facts and themes. Examples; Russia's behavior in Poland after WW2, the Hungarian revolution, the Check invasion and oppression, the take over of Manchuria in the last weeks of WW2.

Stalin killing 20-40 million of his own people, Chechnya, the Korean war, the Berlin wall. Not to mention recent assassinations of its own citizens. Yes, America has done cruel and horrific things in many countries, but it pales to what the Russians have done throughout the ages. It would be akin to comparing what the Nazis did to what the French underground did in response. Both killed, both did things that were horrific, but the French did it in response and not nearly in the same magnitude. Historical contrast is very important when viewing these issues. It is very easy to criticize one's own country but balance is called for. Was Russia justified in taking Crimea, perhaps, but then was Hitler justified in taking the Sudetenland?

JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
What Lee Yates just did there is a beautiful example of Advantageous Comparison defense in Bandera's Moral Disengagement Theory. Yes, the US is morally bankrupt, but so what? The Soviets or Hitler or somebody else was worse. Sorry, that is bullshit.

What did the US overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran have to do with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Nothing. And he brings up Russian Crimea, which voted 95% to rejoin Russia, an example of democracy in action.

william / June 17, 2018
The so what is this: when dealing with monsters one has to stoop as low to defend against it. What happened in Iran was Brittain's provocation. They approached Eisenhower once previously and he refused to intervene. It was only after they convinced him that it was a Russian plot to take over the oil fields that he relented. So yes it was wrong and even monstrous but put in the historical perspective at the time, it made sense. At that time, France was in danger of collapsing and with it the rest of Europe. I am of Middle Eastern ethnicity so I too am sensitive to Western colonialization of the region. However, things are not always as simple as we would like them to be.
I really enjoy when people lower themselves to using vulgarities because they disagree with a point of view-most flattering and intelligent.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Just more evasive moral disengagement. So the Dulles boys finally duped Ike into giving the green light to the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh installing a bloodthirsty tyrant that ended up destabilizing the Middle East for the next 50years and running, based on the pretext of Russia hysteria.

Was it true the Russians were really going to take over the oilfields? I never heard that story before. I doubt it very much. History teaches a different lesson. Mossadegh had the temerity to want to share oil profits with the Iranian people who owned it. Thats too much democracy for any country.

Just like Truman was tricked into Korea. Or Johnson was duped into Vietnam.

And so how do you explain why the CIA overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala beginning a reign of terror with genocude lasting 50 years against unarmed peasant villages? East Timor? Chile? Brazil and Argentina? Greece? Angola?

This is just more Advantageous Comparison to justify moral bankruptcy. Sorry, sometimes things are as simple as they look.

No I respectfully disagree. If these seem like difficult moral choices to you, I pity you.

JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Although I must apologize for not recognizing your rank as a cut above the usual G-7 troll with your knowledge of the advanced techniques of argument for moral disengagement, defending your country against the indefensible. Tough job that calls for an expert.

You must be one of those G-12 trolls called to fill in for overtime duty on fathers day. I'm sorry your wife and kids are going to be missing you today. You can make it up to them tomorrow.

William / June 18, 2018
Funny thing, I agree that the overthrow was wrong, and horrible. I also think it was wrong and perhaps criminal when we invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of my relatives were killed by tyrants in the Middle East and much of what has happened there is ugly. But again, I do not stoop to personal disparagement. It has no place in honest debate. Same tactic used by the deplorable . Trump and McCarthy for that matter, and of course, now you. As for Mossadegh, he was truly a statesman. England owned the oil fields and he went to the UN to mediate the purchase of the oil fields at market value. The English refused and tried to convince Eisenhower that it was a Russian plot. He tried again and finally Eisenhower relented, wrongly I might add. But do remember, that Eisenhower also stopped the English and French when they wanted to invade Egypt to take over the Suez.
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
Thank You, JRGJRG. I did not know that I knew that much philosophy. What I said was more in light of current events circa the 1990s. Our "bankers" went to Russia and "helped" them get capitalism. Well they got it, and now their gangsters/bankers are just as wealthy and sophisticated as ours, or more so. Politically, I cannot really blame Putin for holding a grudge about our meddling in Russia and general promotion of Boris Yeltsin. Still I doubt that he would make it easy for us to install another Yeltsin or buy all of Russia's resources either, so why would we make it easy for him to meddle in our country, or do what we do overseas?
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
This is what you're doing, even if you don't recognize it. If you understand this you will begin to understand the errors of your own ways. This is how totalitarianship develops. Read and learn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_disengagement

Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
Take off the blinders and fully explain how the U.S. genocide of native Americans – and the ongoing horrific treatment of them – pales in comparison to anything except, possibly, the unnecessary dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan.

Sorry, but your dissertation of an excuse just doesn't cut the mustard – or maybe your mother never told you that two wrongs don't make a right. Or in the case of the U.S., dozens of never ending wrongs. Unless you really open your eyes and mind and understand the truth, you will never come off as anything more than an apologist for the top 1/10th of the top 1%.

Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This was a reply to William, but comes off looking as an original comment and criticism of Caity, with whom I am in complete agreement on todays article.
jrgjrg / June 18, 2018
Not just the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, but remember that Gen. LeMay firebombed every city in Japan before the bombs were dropped, causing at least another half million deaths. Robert MacNamara said in an interview that if the US had lost the Second World War they both would have been tried as war criminals, and it would be right. See:

https://player.vimeo.com/video/149799416

AriusArmenian / June 17, 2018
Always impressed by Caitlin driving a bulldozer through lying narratives. We need more Caitlin's; we need an antiwar mass movement of Caitlin's. But the antiwar movement is very weak and it is divided against itself.

In the 1990's there was a coming together of the Chronicles paleoconservatives and the CounterPunch progressives against the US/NATO attack on Yugoslavia. But today Thomas Fleming and Chronicles have retreated and those controlling CounterPunch have explicitly rejected an alliance with the 'right' against the US march to war.

I wish I could share the Caitlin enthusiasm for the future but I am depressed and fearful for the future. The US public is asleep. The US is gearing up for war in Europe and Asia. Starting with Clinton each president has murdered about a million souls. They are gearing up for a bigger war in the MENA and even Eastern Europe with Iran as the major target and will likely claim another million+.

From Jungian psychology I learned that unless the opposites come close together change (a birth out of the tyranny of the status quo) will not happen. The elites in control of the US use the fake dialectic of the major two parties to keep us apart. Those in charge of each pole of the fake dialectic derive power from defending it against the 'other' and see alliance with the 'other' as a diminution of their power (a good example is those in control of CounterPunch arguing against antiwar alliance with the 'right'; that they are captured by their power drive is plain to see).

Liberals (neolibs) and many progressives have walked straight into a trap set by the CIA that engineered a Cold War v2. They knew the neocons would come along. The CIA, Wall Street, military, NSA are marching to war. They thirst for their holy war. They are the supremacist 'exceptional and indispensable' while the rest of the world is unexceptional and dispensable.

If the left and right do not come together in an antiwar alliance then how can the warmongering trajectory of the US change?

geoffreyskoll / June 17, 2018
It's just like you, Caitlin, to bring up such quibbles as genocide, slavery, torture, and a few others too minor to even mention. We're talking IDEALS here. You know like complete global domination, slavish catering to the most exploitive class in human history–the stuff that makes America great!
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
I agree that the U.S. is Imperialist and has been for a long time. However, it is false that Russia opposes the US kleptocracy or represents anything other than the same bankster/gangsters that run the West. They came into the fold after the end of the Soviet Union, and there they remain, probably not too happy about it, but neither are we right. The elites from all over launder money, hide wealth enjoy power and luxury beyond our imagination. A small spat between them is death sentence for the rest of us, but they will make up and enjoy their stolen wealth again.

The moral authority that the West or USA enjoys is a hollow thing, much like Christianity at the height of the Church's power. But the words are still there maybe some day a true believer will come along and do something about them.

ger / June 17, 2018
Forgive me, I could not get beyond the 'undermine America's moral authority'. I take it, Mattis means the 'moral authority' to starve the Yemenis to death and deny them medicine while they are dying . aided by our French Poodle and a mad woman from the Isles! Or maybe the 'moral authority' of Albright when she said killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children 'was worth it'. Or maybe it was 'moral authority' of Clinton, giggling over the sadist murder of Kaddafi. Some how, as an American I don't feel 'moral authority' , all I feel is the pain of inhumanity.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No, no, no, you're still not getting it. Let me explain it to you. It means the authority of the autocrats to determine what's moral for you. They themselves are above morality, like Nietzsche taught, remember? Authoritarianism.

Now do you understand?

elkojohn / June 17, 2018
As was hinted at by the FBI-IG report, neither political party in the criminal U.S. government is complying with law (domestic nor international). The U.S. government system is an organized crime syndicate of liars, thieves and murders. The ruling class and the inside players of the secret government consider the common folk to be deplorable, trailer-park trash.

That's the mind-set of the "holier-than-thou" professionals working inside the U.S. government. Whatever trust, loyalty and respect citizens had for this government has been completely squandered – and voters (not Putin) gave the FU finger to the status quo by electing Trump.

The treasonous, seditious, murdering 2-party dictatorship has absolutely NO ONE to blame but themselves. The time has come to eliminate and defund the secret espionage agencies that run our government, – and which have morphed into crime syndicates. Ditto the two political parties. Until we see all the top level law-breakers in jail (i.e., Clinton, Bush, Obama), until we witness 2/3's of the House and the Senate being purged and replaced, until we witness the complete dismantling of the FED, until we witness ALL military bases around the world being closed and our troops brought home, until we witness the M-I-C's budget cut down to 1/4th and used ONLY for national protection, until we witness a purge of the CIA/FBI cartel, until we witness manufacturing being restored to this country, until we witness the USA cutting all special interest lobbying (in particular, Israel and Saudi Arabia), until we witness the break-up of the death grip that Wall St. and the banking monopoly has on our economy, until we witness the full restoration of the "rule of law" in our government, – until then, it will be the absolute, open, in-your-face, tyrannical, 24/7, lawlessness of the U.S. government that destroys this nation.

So I disagree with James Mattis, that the U.S. holds the moral high ground.

jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. They're playing the "I'm rubber and you're glue" game. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
Mattis didn't realise how well he described Trump. When you look at what Trump's regime has done since taking office last year, it 'trumps' [pun intended] Putin's efforts, such as they are, by a mile. Putin could never hope to achieve so much in such a short time, if that's what he wanted to do.

It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing. Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff.

All one has to do is change a few names in the narrative – replace Putin with Trump, Russia / China with USA. That's it. Easy.

jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying he/they use it as a defense, but that they don't realize how close it is to what it (the USA) is doing.

Believe me, I have no respect for Mattis & that mob, nor Putin for that matter. None of them deserve respect.

I agree with you on the dirty rotten lying, too. They do know they are lying, but don't know how close to the truth it is when applied to them.

jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No worries. We are in the "post-truth era." That sounds crazy, I know. The plutocrats are discussing this exact topic this year at the Bilderberg Conference.

[Jun 17, 2018] Ukraine as reflection of USA. When masters fall out their men get the clout by Mark Kravets

Dec 26, 2017 | medium.com

So-called Ukrainian 'maidans' have bored the world community to death. And the public has been taking the protests currently under way in Kiev for no more than traditional autumn and winter open-air parties, similar to the Parisian 'fire shows'. Meanwhile, much more significant confrontation has been taking place in Kiev, alongside with the circus of ex-president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili. An inner conflict between two anticorruption and power-wielding departments of the country is long overdue. In their relations with the media, both representatives of those organizations and members of various Verkhovna Rada fractions have been describing specific processes that are taking place in Ukraine as 'Makhnovshchina' or a war of all against all, literally speaking.

After returning from the international anti-corruption forum organized by the U.S. State Department, Nazar Holodnitsky, head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) of Ukraine, stated in an interview to TSN , the Ukrainian TV channel, that a standoff of law enforcement agencies may escalate into a war harmful to entire Ukraine. Thus, a conflict between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO) has evolved into a hybrid war with interrogations involving physical and mental pressure and mutual accusations of all sorts of evils. Delegates of both sides have simultaneously visited their U.S. sponsors and come back comforted with just another assurance of '1000% support'.

Such confrontation of the government institutions raises eyebrows, I must say. State Department has publicly been sympathized with both the corruption fighters and the General Prosecutor's Office upon condition of the settlement of conflict by legal means and punishment of officials guilty of criminal charges. Meanwhile, the FBI has also been drawn in this undeclared war. In June 2016, the FBI and NABU adopted the Memorandum of Understanding, which allows the FBI to assist NABU and SAP in the matter of investigations and implementation of anti-corruption actions. The Bureau's special agents and analysts have been working in NABU on a temporary rotational basis.

The mere presence of the FBI suggests an idea about another U.S. security service which has been standing invisibly by in Ukraine, since it gained independence. This is the CIA, a classic rival of the FBI. The very secret visit in 2014 of the former Central Intelligence Agency chief John O. Brennan preceded the beginning of active hostilities in Ukraine. The CIA stood behind the appointment of the recent Kiev government. It had also protected the acting president of the country from rivals, up to a certain time. For instance, they conduced to the resignation of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former rather ambitious Prime Minister of Ukraine who was in conflict with Petro Poroshenko and running for his post.

That helps explain the real cause of furious intransigence of NABU and the General Prosecutor's Office throwing wild accusations at each other. They have virtually been used by power-wielding structures and political forces of another state for a showdown. A never-ending internal fighting in the American national security environment has become the talk of the town being eventually accreted with new dirty wash. It seems that it has become more acute, with the passing of time.

For example, the FBI dealt a hard blow to the CIA bringing 12-count charges including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, false statements, and other against Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chairman and his business associate, Richard Gates. His other partner, Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager was involved as well. Manafort was renowned for his associations with the CIA and for consulting the Party of Regions which was led by Victor Yanukovych. It became clear who was he FBI's source of such detailed and valuable data after the statements by Artem Sytnyk , Director of NABU and Serhiy Leshchenko , a Ukrainian MP.

Nevertheless, the CIA won at this stage of confrontation, because Trump came to power. Even support to the current President of the USA prior to the elections wasn't of much assistance to the FBI Director Comey.

History has witnessed a number of episodes when Ukraine was a stage for showdown by political forces from other countries. It never ended peacefully. As far back as in the XVII century Ukrainian territory had become a theatre of operations owing to the bloody strife between Polish hetmans (high military commanders in the Army of the Kingdom of Poland) of Ukrainian and Cossack origin. As a result, lands of the Zaporizhian Host voluntarily pledged allegiance to Russia.

During World War II the Ukrainian people suffered much harder. At that time the Third Reich was intensely seeking for ways to weaken the USSR, even before it invaded Poland in 1939. It was decided to use the ancient divide-and rule tactics proven by Julius Caesar, involving gradual tearing away of territories with malcontent population. Ukraine was considered the most prospective area for fomenting disaffection.

However, there also was both ideological and political discord among the highest ranks of the Third Reich. Thus, Alfred Rosenberg, the main ideologue of Nazism, along with admiral Wilhelm Canaris (who was accused of 'spiritual instigation' of a plot against Hitler) were planning the establishment of Ukrainian buffer state controlled by the Third Reich. Using such promises they managed to recruit Andriy Melnyk, a central figure in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), and notorious Stepan Bandera who, just like Mr. Yatsenyuk, was striving to lead the government in independent Ukrainian state. If the second one kept clinging to his aims all the time, Melnyk was good at matching to desires of his sponsors from Hitler's surrounding. When Himmler and Koch didn't recognize Rosenberg's ideas and wanted to weaken his power in the National Socialist Worker's Party, Melnyk was quick to assure them of his willingness to cooperate on any terms, especially when they let him know that Fuhrer didn't like the idea of a Ukrainian buffer state.

It is a paradox that those relations that had developed both within various branches of OUN-UPA and the Third Reich senior ranks coordinating them were similar to the recent situation in Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalist leaders were used not only for German purposes, but also for elimination of competitors in power. For instance, Rosenberg, after all, had to abandon his point of view. Many of his influential followers resigned just like chief Comey did to the delight of chief Pompeo, this May. Although NABU, the organization most thoroughly maintaining a steady U.S. course prepared for Ukraine, has been successfully continuing investigations, digging into Poroshenko who fell into disfavor for his poor record. And here you are, Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a close acquaintance of the U.S. president's national security advisor McMaster and Secretary of Defense Mattis has indirectly supported Saakashvili's demonstration. In September, Saakashvili hanged out happily with contenders of the recent president in future election Valentyn Nalyvaichenko and Andriy Sadoviy, in Lviv. Now a big friend of Senator McCain Yulia Timoshenko and a number of Verkhovna Rada MPs endorse him.

This mess of warring parties seems to be disordered and extremely headachy. The situation has been much worse for the number of competing forces and foreign organizations standing behind them in Ukraine was much greater during the Third Reich and it continues to be so at present. The recent Ukrainian bellum omnium contra omnes has been a reflection of competitive battle between various security and governmental agencies in the USA.

A single distinct and unequivocal fact is that being a neighbour of such a huge state as Russia, Ukraine was always suffering from those who wish to weaken that influential country. Over and over again throughout Ukrainian history the country was exploited, with nationalist sentiments artificially ignited and false promises made. Even 'humane' Rosenberg's scheme ascribed Ukraine the role of a mere supplier of raw materials and a buffer state between Germany and Eastern Slavic countries without any right to independence.

As such, the USA regards Ukraine as an administered territory which is useful for strategic and economic aims. They skillfully manipulate Kiev government with carrot and stick. Undesirable Ukrainian political puppet might be branded as corrupt and replaced by more manageable nominee, at any time. There is always a possibility to initiate another blood shedding Maidan with oppressions and civil war, in case of urgency. Today's Ukraine is no freer than it was in 1941, during the invasion of Nazi Germany. Melnyks, banderas, hetmans skoropadskies have been replaced by new 'heroes', who never changed their essence. For evanescent promises and artificially inflated ambitions they've been tearing the country apart without mercy either to each other, or their countrymen. Meanwhile, the world community has been watching with approval the beacon of democracy vigorously setting things to order in 'dark and ignorant' Ukraine. Each of them thinking, 'Better them than me.'

[Jun 17, 2018] As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

m___ , June 17, 2018 at 9:24 am GMT

@mikkkkas

Dramatic shift in analysis of Saker,

As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other, territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.

Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.

As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible actors as Putin, Trump, Xi (affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot be anything more then policing.

To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse, after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior). No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.

Honest writing of Saker.

How good are these supranational, corporatacracy (another commenter), "globally organized elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough. Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods. It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual fate.

War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity, migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans. Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub, that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plague if not.

[Jun 17, 2018] Optimism Caitlin Johnstone

Notable quotes:
"... The Rachel Maddow Show ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | caitlinjohnstone.com

I'm not sure how far up the military-industrial complex's ass one's head needs to be to think that one single step toward peace is a gigantic take-all-the-chips win for the impoverished North Korea, but many of Trump's political enemies are taking it even further.

Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to make it more difficult for Trump to withdraw US troops from South Korea, because while you can always count on Capitol Hill to make it incredibly easy for a president to deploy military personnel around the globe, giving that same office the power to bring troops home is a completely different matter.

Surprising no one, MSNBC's cartoon children's program The Rachel Maddow Show took home the trophy for jaw-dropping, shark-jumping ridiculousness with an eighteen-minute Alex Jones impression claiming that the chief architect of the Korean negotiations was none other than (and if you can't guess whose name I'm going to write once we get out of these parentheses I deeply envy your ignorance on this matter) Vladimir Putin.

[Jun 17, 2018] Can the EU become a partner for Russia by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... comprador elite ..."
"... The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for Russia and the future does look rather bleak. ..."
"... They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense ..."
"... either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

First, there is no "EU", at least not in political terms . More crucially, there is no "EU foreign policy". Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the "EU" does not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless the so-called "EU" has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise considering that even the so-called "EU leader" or "EU heavyweight" – Germany – only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The undeniable fact is that the so-called "EU foreign policy" has gone against the vital interests of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.

Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US . Forget about those fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and " force multipliers ": command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European (I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red, white and blue as it gets. Forget about the "Eurocorps" or any other so-called "European armies" – it's all hot air, like Trudeau's recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will let that happen? I sure don't! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more US troops on their soil, not less and they are all pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion , hence the need for more and bigger military exercises close to the Russian border . And just to cover all its bases, NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America .

Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships with Russia . They include:

  1. Unpopular governments which need to explain their own failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman . A good example is how the Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia. Or the British with their "Brexit". The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a "Russian interference" in case the election results don't turn out to be what they need.
  2. Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly back down from it. Best examples: the UK and Merkel. But since most (but not all) EU states did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British "highly likely" and in the name of "solidarity", they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy. There is no way they are simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
  3. EU prostitutes : states whose only policy is to serve the US against Russia. These states compete against each other in the most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of "most faithful and willing loyal servant of the US". The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars ). True, now that EU subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they know that the only place where they can still get money is the US. So don't expect them to change their tune anytime soon (even if Bulgaria has already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it ).
  4. Governments who want to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political party/movement to be "paid by the Kremlin" and representing Russian interests. The best example is France and how it treated the National Front. I would argue that most EU states are, in one way or another, working on creating a "national security state" because they do realize (correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).

Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a powerful anti-russophobic force . Why? Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany (and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about "Russia being an aggressor" which "does not comply with the Mink Agreements", North Stream is going ahead! Yes, money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these sanctions. Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have. This is why for years now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.

Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated , by the way. We have clearly seen that these days when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it was the Europeans who said "nope!". To the extend that there is a "EU position" (even a very demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe. So when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say "no". By the way, for all the Trump's statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more sanctions on Russia .

The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this . Again, the best example of this is the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6 reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia needs the G7 (she really doesn't!). Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally joined at the hip. Just think of mob "families" who can even have "wars" against each other, but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all mobsters prey upon.

The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe . There is a very high probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia (DNR/LRN). I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis will lose. The only question is this: to whom will they lose:

I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not happen. Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie military and "dobrobat" death squads) and maybe Putin's recent not-so-veiled threat about " grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood " will have the needed effect. But what will happen even if this attack does not take place? The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state. Whatever scenario you find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame Russia.

The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe. It is becoming pretty clear that the US is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones. Right now, the US and the "good terrorists" have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving "bad terrorists" into "good ones". This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower. Furthermore, Russia is now reporting that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) "good terrorists" to – you guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians. And why not? It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again? At the very least, it would give the US another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even if they fail again, facts don't matter here). And make no mistake, a US "victory" in Syria (or in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek's excellent article on this topic here ). And, again, Russia will be blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be attacked. As I wrote already many times, this is far from over . Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other ) but my personal opinion is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye. And if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all quickly and obediently fall in line ("solidarity", remember?).

The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for Russia and the future does look rather bleak.

One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg summit and the Parliamentary Forum. However, I believe that neither of these events was really centered around Europe at all, but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert Doctorow on this topic here ). Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about the "isolation" of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while Russia and China are having tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire with. So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal "economic block" in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all (especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).

Conclusion :

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission. Vladimir Putin put it best when he said " They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense ".

However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will, engage with individual EU member states. There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and Italy, or the UK and Austria. Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also non-viable. Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types and not the kind of Europe the European people need. In fact, I would even argue that the EU is the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent. Thus Russia should use her resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. These are all entities which seek to undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia. Again, Putin put it best when he recently declared that " either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia ".

Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous to any country wanting to be truly sovereign. If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple. Instead, Russia needs to engage those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called " the Europe of fatherlands ". Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall. Sooner rather than later, one by one, European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia. Only if the people of Europe succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe. A prosperous Europe " from the Atlantic to the Urals " is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European elites replaced by sovereignists.

The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and the same enemy: they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly, treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire. This is why pushing the issue of "true sovereignty" (and national traditional values) is, I believe, the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire. This will be a long struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.

peterAUS , June 17, 2018 at 12:54 am GMT

The usual Saker, but, there are a couple of not bad snippets:

The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella.

They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense".

As for this:

If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple.

can't wait

Mattheus , June 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events. He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario, it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
renfro , June 17, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT
@Beckow

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid

Bullshit. try to keep up with whats actually happening.

U.S. Is Trying to Kill Major Gas Deal Between Russia and Germany By Tom O'Connor On 5/18/18 at 2:41 PM (http://www.newsweek.com/us-trying-kill-major-gas-deal-between-russia-germany-934603

The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would threaten the security of its European allies.

Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to the Associated Press.

Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 – A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that

JR , June 17, 2018 at 7:55 am GMT
EU clueless?

http://www.imi-online.de/2015/06/26/expansion-assoziation-konfrontation/

Yes, the EU is immoral , imperialistic megalomaniac but definitely not clueless.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706.html

Kiza , June 17, 2018 at 8:18 am GMT
@Beckow

Excellent comment as usual Beckow, I could have typed the same. In fact, I have been commenting online since 1992 that neither EU, nor most European states can be friends of Russia. This was based on how those treated Yugoslavia/Serbia during the recent Balkan wars that the same entities helped initiate. Because Serbia is Russia without nuclear weapons. Russia would have gotten exactly the same treatment (Barbarossa 2) as Yugoslavia if it did not have them. Nobody expected Russia to recover so quickly from Yeltsin and even develop the world leading stand-off weapons on a budget. This is the only reason that Barbarossa 2 will never happen. But they cannot stop hoping for a US-lead miracle.

Yet, the economic interest is there and if China and Russia manage to economically integrate Europe and Asia, then the Euro-doggies will stop yapping and biting at the Russian heels and will fall in line. What else could one expect from such pathetic shameless trash? Give the One-Road another 15 years and watch this unfurle.

Finally, although I believed that Ukronazis would attack Novorussians, I now think that Ukraine may have run out of suicidal dumb maniacs. It is much cheaper to make noise and beat your Galician chest then to engage the enemy protected by Russia. Ukraine is, unfortunately, already a total economic basket case, plus all One-Road plans circumvent it (as MH17 should have, due to instability). Will there ever be a better example than Ukraine of the benevolent influence of the Anglo-Zionist on a country?

The Anglo-Zionists versus OneRoad.
For more information disregard the dumb title and watch this Pepe Escobar interview: http://thesaker.is/interview-of-pepe-escobar-the-world-is-waiting-for-the-apocalypse-if-there-is-a-conflict-between-america-and-russia/
I watched his other interviews and it is interesting how Pepe is not so open when interviewed by the Westerners.

m___ , June 17, 2018 at 9:24 am GMT
@mikkkkas

Dramatic shift in analysis of Saker,

As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other, territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.

Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.

As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand(Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible actors as Putin, Trump, Xi(affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot be anything more then policing.

To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse, after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior). No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.

Honest writing of Saker.

How good are these supranational, corporatacracy(another commenter), "globally organized elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough. Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods. It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual fate.

War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity, migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans. Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub, that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plage if not.

jilles dykstra , June 17, 2018 at 9:56 am GMT
@Quartermaster

The CIA seems to have spent five billion $ in Ukraine.
Who wants to incorporate Ukraine in the west therefore is not clear, the USA, NATO or EU, or all of them ?
In any case, many in Europe see Putin just as an honest gas supplier.
Trump's gas is much more expensive.

Heros , June 17, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT

The usual Saker

Definitely. He stays well within the Judeo-Overton window. He is kosher, so to speak. Sure, like Alex Jones, he will make the occasional slap at Israel or Zionism, but he will not verge outside of the window's "Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil" or the holy 6 million martyrs. I also have never read any of his work where he delves into 9/11, and what it means about everything that has happened since.

You have three "not bad snippets" that I don't really agree with:

The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe.

It is not that they don't give a damn, it is that they take their orders from a higher source. Euro-serfs see the coerced passage of Lisbon and Maastricht, the ongoing 3rd world invasion, the restriction of free speech, the increasing criminality, the ECB destruction and removal of elected officials in Greece and Italy. They know it is a sham, they just don't understand why, because they are constantly being lied to. Saker is not helping here.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella.

Saker is not willing to tell us exactly who this entity is. He is not going to take us outside of the Judeo-Overton window.

They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense

With this dog whistle he is treading on thin ice. Sure, "their problems" could describe past crimes like Maidan that may be catching up with them, but it could also cover such things as Gaza, the Liberty, the King David Hotel, or even the targeting of Nagasaki in 1945. As usual though, he won't confront the serpent.

Jake , June 17, 2018 at 11:26 am GMT
"At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus Greece)."

That nails it as well as it can be done, though I'd say that some states are far more equal than others and add Germany to the UK in that category.

Jake , June 17, 2018 at 11:57 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

Yes, but also while allowing Germany to dominate the EU in every way, especially economically to the detriment of other EU states.

Miro23 , June 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT

The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars).

Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with "historic enemy" Russia?

There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.

bj , June 17, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
@Heros

"targeting of Nagasaki in 1945″ ..

"For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945, when the bomb was dropped over the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan."

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-very-un-christian-nagasaki-bomb/

annamaria , June 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Hey, Quartermaster, why don't you tell us more about the amazing progress achieved by Ukraine after the Kagans-sponsored revolution of 2014? For instance, you could tell us (proudly?) about the rise of neo-Nazi power in Ukraine and about certain Kolomojsky, the Ukrainian/Israeli thug, and his financing of the Azov battalion.
The EU countries put people in prison for questioning the tight official narrative/numbers of holocaust biz.

The same AngloZionist "elites" are content with the desecration of Jewish cemeteries in Ukraine by the local neo-Nazis: http://www.stalkerzone.org/banderists-came-ukraine-march-center-odessa/

"Antisemitic Hate Crimes Thrive in Ukraine:" https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/04/21/antisemitic-hate-crimes-thrive-in-ukraine/
"Symbols of the 1st Galician SS Division are not considered to be Nazi symbols in Ukraine:" http://eu.eot.su/2017/05/20/symbols-of-the-1st-galician-ss-division-are-not-considered-to-be-nazi-symbols-in-ukraine/
"The roots of fascism in Ukraine: From Nazi collaboration to Maidan:" http://liberationschool.org/the-roots-of-fascism-in-ukraine/

annamaria , June 17, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
@byrresheim

What is wrong with using the word "Ukronazis?" How would you name the happy warriors beholden to the memory of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)?

http://liberationschool.org/the-roots-of-fascism-in-ukraine/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/

"The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.
The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign and united State and a new order in the whole world.

Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@renfro

We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

[Jun 17, 2018] Mr. Trump Attacks Aluminum, Russia Attacks The Debt by Tom Luongo

Notable quotes:
"... The net result will be more of the aluminum market will flow through the Yuan rather than the dollar, neatly avoiding sanctions and any future threats. Because with the insanity caused by the overnight chaos in April, any aluminum supplier/consumer will be wary of another such edict from the naked Emperor in D.C. ..."
"... Rusal will be one of the main beneficiaries since Russian banks are already sanctioned. ..."
"... Abusing your customers is never a winning marketplace strategy and that's exactly what Trump's sanctions policy is doing, abusing customers of the dollar. Trust has been the dollar's strongest attribute for a long time now and it is the primary reason why it has dominated trade and reserves. ..."
"... But there is a limit to how much your customers will take. And Trump is pushing well beyond that limit. And when the benefits of using the dollar are eclipsed by the liabilities, people will naturally shift away from it. ..."
"... Putin has and will use future mini-crises like this to further clean up the rot left over from the Yeltsin years, like Deripaska, while building a Russia insulated from future attacks like this. ..."
"... The struggle for most Americans regarding this issue is the fact that the Ministry of Truth has always told us "Russia Bad!" while "US Good!". The Ole good guy vs bad guy paradigm. I grew up in the 80's and am very familiar with that paradigm. I am an American through and through but our government has become the most corrupt bunch of whoring thieves on the planet. ..."
"... True Americans have awakened to realize the power of our corrupt government lies in the dollar hegemony. True Americans hate it, and hate the power and control it wields in our own lives. We see it at work around the world. We see DC squeeze our lives to subsidize it's world empire. An empire is seeks to maintain for various reasons that are debated regularly. ..."
"... The USA is drunk on power with their dollar as they see it as invincible. It will be their own undoing. The world is eager and preparing to drop/run/destroy the dollar. One day they'll all lick their wounds take their losses and forget the dollar completely. ..."
"... The US will have to do one of the hardest things in the history of the nation. She'll have to stop LYING to herself! All those recommending weaponization of the petrodollar, are charlatans. The USA cannot get through restructuring via antagonism, that only tightens the economic noose. ..."
"... What is needed, is bankruptcy protection, via honest cooperation with the emergent economic powers in the East. This comes with a price, retrenchment of imperium. This in turn, requires sobriety that, the game while not completely lost, as in national decomposition, is nevertheless, unwinnable, as in rebuilding can only follow retrenchment. ..."
"... Exceptionalism Delenda Est!... ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Luongo,

Looking at the unfolding trade war between Donald Trump and the world the phrase that should come to mind is "One good turn deserves another."

In the case of the insane sanctions on Oleg Deripaska and Russian Aluminum giant, Rusal, back in April, we finally got some clarity as to how Russia can and will respond to future events.

In yesterday's Treasury International Capital (TIC) report, we saw clearly that Russia activated its nearly $100 billion in U.S. Treasury debt to buy dollars in April.

More than $47 billion in U.S. debt was dumped into the market to cover the chaos engendered by Trump's overnight diktat for the world to stop doing business with Rusal.

Also of note, U.S. ally Japan continues to shed Treasuries at around 8-10 billion per month. Ireland dumped $17 billion and Luxembourg nearly $8 billion.

While China dropped $5 billion this is noise, ultimately as its holdings of U.S. debt have been stable for over a year now. What is interesting is Belgium, the home of Euroclear, seeing a $12 billion inflow. Likely that's where some of the Russian-held debt was traded to.

The Russians likely sold from their balance on reserve with the Federal Reserve. Here's the latest iteration of the chart I keep for just such an occasion.

Rusal's shares and bonds went bidless but the damage wasn't contained there as major Russian banks like VTB and Sberbank were hit hard as well. So, while Rusal didn't have much in the way of dollar-denominated debt. It did have major dollar-related obligations as accounts receivable on its balance sheet because of the sheer size of its trade conducted in dollars.

And that's why there was such an outflow from Russia's stock of Treasuries. But, here's the thing. It didn't matter one whit. Why? It didn't undermine Russia's Foreign Exchange Reserves.

No Dip in Russia's Foreign Exchange Reserves During Rusal Crisis

Russia just sold Treasuries into the market, raised dollars and swapped out Rusal's bonds, holding them as collateral for a Repo.

The Bank of Russia Intervened to keep Rusal and Other Banks Solvent by Dumping U.S. Treasuries

This went on for most of the month and into May. Zerohedge's reporting on this leads the way.

This mass dumping of U.S. debt caused the long end of the U.S. yield curve to blow out past significant resistance points, like the 10 year pushing above 3.05% in sympathy with the Fed's policy to dry up dollar liquidity. If this first-order analysis by Zerohedge is correct, then we can assume Russia has been holding a lot of long-dated Treasuries versus say China which we know has shortened up the average maturity of their massive bond portfolio.

In times past we may have not seen such a massive dump of U.S. debt by Russia. They may have simply sold dollars directly or swapped euros or yuan for them. But, these are different times. Trump has taken the use of sanctions to a level that hasn't been seen before.

Putin is the master of parallel aggression. You take an action against Russia, he will generally hit you back along some other vector.

In this case it was a direct confrontation to Trump's bringing the full weight of U.S. financial dominance down on its rivals and allies, who are all heavily exposed to Rusal's market position.

Russia is not out of the water with this situation which is why Oleg Deripaska, the majority owner of Rusal and the one targeted by the Trump administration, is looking still to find ways to satisfy the U.S.'s demands on this issue.

Putin's Pivot

But, don't think this isn't working to Putin's advantage as Deripaska is not one of his supposed favored oligarchs. This report from Bloomberg spelled out the situation well back in April.

As for Deripaska, he will get help from the Russian government again. {which he did, see above} Rusal has warned that the sanctions might mean a default on a portion of its debt. That's most likely to happen to its more than $1 billion in dollar-denominated debt. But, as ever, the company's biggest creditors are Russian state banks, and the Kremlin will keep Rusal solvent one way or another as it reorients toward Asian markets. It won't be a huge headache for Putin: He's seen worse, including with Rusal during the financial crisis.

And that's the most important part.

Once the current positions are wound down and the aluminum market adjusts to the new reality of U.S. hyper-aggression to restart an industry we really don't need (smelting aluminum? really?) just to satisfy Trump's outdated views on trade (which they are MAGA-pedes) Rusal's business will not be so U.S.-centric.

And therefore the world will become less exposed, over time, to the depredations of U.S. financial attack. I told you before that China has responded to this by issuing new yuan-denominated futures contracts for industrial metals.

Why do you think they did that?

Will it create pain in the short-term? Yes. Europe will experience even more of this as will Asia.

Will a lot of companies fear being sanctioned and fined by the U.S. for doing business with Rusal? Yes. It's happening now. Will this exacerbate underlying economic conditions in Europe? Of course.

But, if Deripaska submits, like it looks like he will, then the aluminum market will calm down and Trump's sanctions will look silly.

Sanctions Bite Both Ways

The net result will be more of the aluminum market will flow through the Yuan rather than the dollar, neatly avoiding sanctions and any future threats. Because with the insanity caused by the overnight chaos in April, any aluminum supplier/consumer will be wary of another such edict from the naked Emperor in D.C.

And, as such, they will diversify the currencies they buy and sell aluminum in. It won't be a sea change overnight. Those least exposed will jump ship first. Rusal will be one of the main beneficiaries since Russian banks are already sanctioned.

But it will be a trend, that once started will gain steam.

China can and will tie convertibility of its futures contracts to gold through the Shanghai exchange to allay worries about getting money out of the country.

Abusing your customers is never a winning marketplace strategy and that's exactly what Trump's sanctions policy is doing, abusing customers of the dollar. Trust has been the dollar's strongest attribute for a long time now and it is the primary reason why it has dominated trade and reserves.

But there is a limit to how much your customers will take. And Trump is pushing well beyond that limit. And when the benefits of using the dollar are eclipsed by the liabilities, people will naturally shift away from it.

Look at the TIC chart above and note the total. This is a $6.3 trillion synthetic short position against the dollar. He's inviting countries to dump treasuries to defend their currencies as the dollar strengthens while shifting their primary materials buying to the biggest rival's currency.

This is why Russia continues to run a very tight financial ship while it leads the charge away from the dollar. It's inviting customers into the ruble with both a strong national balance sheet and relatively higher interest rates. This has the U.S. fuming.

Putin has and will use future mini-crises like this to further clean up the rot left over from the Yeltsin years, like Deripaska, while building a Russia insulated from future attacks like this.

Remember, even the U.S. has limits. It cannot sanction people for refusing to trade in dollars. Even the U.S. doesn't have that power. It can try but it will fail. New systems, new banks, new institutions can always be created.

PrayingMantis -> cowdiddly Sun, 06/17/2018 - 09:24 Permalink

... " ... in the case of the insane sanctions on Oleg Deripaska and Russian Aluminum giant, Rusal, back in April, we finally got some clarity as to how Russia can and will respond to future events .. . " ...

... most recently, Trump had been focusing on protecting steel and "aluminum" on world trading ... could there be an underlying reason behind these sanctions? ... who is Trump really protecting here? ...

... let's follow the money ... these links might let us connect the (((dots))) ...

... >>> http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/specials/MetalWarehousing.pdf (REUTERS/REUTERS STaff

Should the London Metal Exchange allow Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Glencore to own aluminium warehouses even as they trade the metal?
GOLDMAN'S NEW MONEY MACHINE: WAREHOUSES ) ...

... >>> http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20141120/NEWS01/141129992/senate-report-metro-detroit-warehouses-gave-goldman-sachs-influence

... (Senate report: Metro Detroit warehouses gave Goldman Sachs influence over aluminum pricing ) ...

... >>> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/goldmans-secret-cash-cow-detroit-warehouses-full-metal/337401/ ... (Goldman's Secret Cash Cow: Detroit Warehouses Full of Metal ) ...

... >>> http://www.demos.org/blog/11/21/14/following-money-how-goldman-sachs-manipulates-commodity-prices ... (Following the Money: How Goldman Sachs Manipulates Commodity Prices ) ...

... why aluminum? ... why not any other commodities?

... ever wonder what Trump is up to now to please his talmudic Rothschild banksters overlords?

... you be the judge ....

bshirley1968 -> PrayingMantis Sun, 06/17/2018 - 10:21 Permalink

The struggle for most Americans regarding this issue is the fact that the Ministry of Truth has always told us "Russia Bad!" while "US Good!". The Ole good guy vs bad guy paradigm. I grew up in the 80's and am very familiar with that paradigm. I am an American through and through but our government has become the most corrupt bunch of whoring thieves on the planet.

True Americans have awakened to realize the power of our corrupt government lies in the dollar hegemony. True Americans hate it, and hate the power and control it wields in our own lives. We see it at work around the world. We see DC squeeze our lives to subsidize it's world empire. An empire is seeks to maintain for various reasons that are debated regularly.

The rub comes when we see that the only force capable of standing up to this corrupt empire is a country that we have been told all our lives is evil. Russia wasn't always the communist soviet union.....and is no longer that today. But in the minds of many Americans that is all that it will ever be. Russia has the resources, military, intelligence, and skill to control it's own destiny. It has everything it needs to tell the US empire, "No!" I respect that....admire that.....cheer that....and wish them success in their stand. For those of us looking for a way to bust the evil cabal now running our own country, Russia's rebellion of US dominance is a ray of hope. It's not that we don't love our own country or want to be Russians, but we don't care about supporting a world empire that requires wars, taxes, and a strategy that strip us of our individual sovereignty by contaminating our country with people that don't belong here and will never think like an American.

People need to put aside their "fan-boy" biases, drop the blind loyalty, and start dealing with reality. We are not rooting for Putin and Russia, rather we are rooting for the downfall of thus evil banking cartel that is slowly killing us all and taking more and more of our freedoms. To those of you that say that will cause pain and we STILL have the greatest country on earth, I say, somethings are worth the pain.....and we can be a lot better. We have got to change direction....and the sooner we get off this road of empire destruction, the better.

Raisin Hail -> PrayingMantis Sun, 06/17/2018 - 12:40 Permalink

Maybe it is because The Aluminum Company of America (formerly ALCOA now Arconic an others) is going broke. Check out their stock price for the last 10 years or so. Are they still part of the DOW Index? Bonehead move to include them years ago.

are we there yet -> Raisin Hail Sun, 06/17/2018 - 13:26 Permalink

If the US dollar weakens, then the US exports and jobs go up, while US imports go down.

Demologos -> Escrava Isaura Sun, 06/17/2018 - 10:04 Permalink

Trump is worth what, a couple of billion? And those assets are encumbered by a lot of debt held by US banks. That does not an oligarch make. When it comes to US oligarchs, Trump is a piker compared to the massive family trusts that can move markets and voting results.

... ... ...

PrivetHedge -> Demologos Sun, 06/17/2018 - 13:05 Permalink

Trump is worth exactly the debt that the Israeli Sheldon Adelson holds over him IIRC. Far from being independent he is owned by America's biggest parasite and enemy: Israel.

peopledontwanttruth -> 07564111 Sun, 06/17/2018 - 09:24 Permalink

The USA is drunk on power with their dollar as they see it as invincible. It will be their own undoing. The world is eager and preparing to drop/run/destroy the dollar. One day they'll all lick their wounds take their losses and forget the dollar completely.

The USA and Israel aka banksters will start WWIII to prove literally they will destroy the world if need be instead of lose their power over mankind

Scipio Africanuz -> Ambrose Bierce Sun, 06/17/2018 - 10:16 Permalink

The US will have to do one of the hardest things in the history of the nation. She'll have to stop LYING to herself! All those recommending weaponization of the petrodollar, are charlatans. The USA cannot get through restructuring via antagonism, that only tightens the economic noose.

What is needed, is bankruptcy protection, via honest cooperation with the emergent economic powers in the East. This comes with a price, retrenchment of imperium. This in turn, requires sobriety that, the game while not completely lost, as in national decomposition, is nevertheless, unwinnable, as in rebuilding can only follow retrenchment.

Now, US policy wonks must be imbibing some real potent hallucinogens, to be unable to see what's right in front of their noses that, no matter the strategy, if it's not one of cooperation, the game is forfeit! The only strategy that helps the US retain great power status, is one whereby clear eyed, hard nosed assessment of assets and liabilities, are carried out.

The East is helping the USA buy time, the exceptionalists are once again, squandering the opportunity, just like they did in 91. They somehow believe the US military can change the trajectory of events. This is not possible any longer except humanity signs up for civilizational extinction.

To cut a long story short, it's time to declare mea culpa, and request a recalibration of goals, objectives, tactics, and critically, strategy. The strategy going forward? Honest cooperation to resolve issues that are creating global tensions, foremost amongst them, the one where the West gets to live like kings, at the expense of billions. This is the major issue, and it cannot be resolved without humility on the part of the West, and indemnity on the part of victims.

Humanity will only move forward through forgiveness, which cannot be activated without contrition.

Exceptionalism Delenda Est!...

You Only Live Twice Sun, 06/17/2018 - 08:19 Permalink

If Russia is selling Treasuries, it may be ahead of the market selling to prevent losses down the road. There is a shift happening not just with Russia as the long-standing bankers like the Rothschilds, etc. have been also selling their UST holdings and moving the money to Asia as per their reports for the last year.

The other thing to watch is the Vienna OPEC meeting later this month. The Saudis and Russia have now setup a long-term partnership to control the Oil market, including speculation on the markets as of today's press, so a discussion of abandoning the Petrodollar may not be off the table as there are portions of that deal that have been announced as secretive and this may be part of the plan.

[Jun 17, 2018] After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes

Notable quotes:
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT

... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.

My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm GMT

@Kiza

Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they get weaker over time.

There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming more united in the process.

Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.

And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).

On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.

[Jun 17, 2018] On Polish Russophobia

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , June 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT

The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars).

Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with "historic enemy" Russia?

There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.

[Jun 17, 2018] Ukraine as reflection of USA. When masters fall out their men get the clout by Mark Kravets

Dec 26, 2017 | medium.com

So-called Ukrainian 'maidans' have bored the world community to death. And the public has been taking the protests currently under way in Kiev for no more than traditional autumn and winter open-air parties, similar to the Parisian 'fire shows'. Meanwhile, much more significant confrontation has been taking place in Kiev, alongside with the circus of ex-president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili. An inner conflict between two anticorruption and power-wielding departments of the country is long overdue. In their relations with the media, both representatives of those organizations and members of various Verkhovna Rada fractions have been describing specific processes that are taking place in Ukraine as 'Makhnovshchina' or a war of all against all, literally speaking.

After returning from the international anti-corruption forum organized by the U.S. State Department, Nazar Holodnitsky, head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) of Ukraine, stated in an interview to TSN , the Ukrainian TV channel, that a standoff of law enforcement agencies may escalate into a war harmful to entire Ukraine. Thus, a conflict between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO) has evolved into a hybrid war with interrogations involving physical and mental pressure and mutual accusations of all sorts of evils. Delegates of both sides have simultaneously visited their U.S. sponsors and come back comforted with just another assurance of '1000% support'.

Such confrontation of the government institutions raises eyebrows, I must say. State Department has publicly been sympathized with both the corruption fighters and the General Prosecutor's Office upon condition of the settlement of conflict by legal means and punishment of officials guilty of criminal charges. Meanwhile, the FBI has also been drawn in this undeclared war. In June 2016, the FBI and NABU adopted the Memorandum of Understanding, which allows the FBI to assist NABU and SAP in the matter of investigations and implementation of anti-corruption actions. The Bureau's special agents and analysts have been working in NABU on a temporary rotational basis.

The mere presence of the FBI suggests an idea about another U.S. security service which has been standing invisibly by in Ukraine, since it gained independence. This is the CIA, a classic rival of the FBI. The very secret visit in 2014 of the former Central Intelligence Agency chief John O. Brennan preceded the beginning of active hostilities in Ukraine. The CIA stood behind the appointment of the recent Kiev government. It had also protected the acting president of the country from rivals, up to a certain time. For instance, they conduced to the resignation of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former rather ambitious Prime Minister of Ukraine who was in conflict with Petro Poroshenko and running for his post.

That helps explain the real cause of furious intransigence of NABU and the General Prosecutor's Office throwing wild accusations at each other. They have virtually been used by power-wielding structures and political forces of another state for a showdown. A never-ending internal fighting in the American national security environment has become the talk of the town being eventually accreted with new dirty wash. It seems that it has become more acute, with the passing of time.

For example, the FBI dealt a hard blow to the CIA bringing 12-count charges including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, false statements, and other against Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chairman and his business associate, Richard Gates. His other partner, Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager was involved as well. Manafort was renowned for his associations with the CIA and for consulting the Party of Regions which was led by Victor Yanukovych. It became clear who was he FBI's source of such detailed and valuable data after the statements by Artem Sytnyk , Director of NABU and Serhiy Leshchenko , a Ukrainian MP.

Nevertheless, the CIA won at this stage of confrontation, because Trump came to power. Even support to the current President of the USA prior to the elections wasn't of much assistance to the FBI Director Comey.

History has witnessed a number of episodes when Ukraine was a stage for showdown by political forces from other countries. It never ended peacefully. As far back as in the XVII century Ukrainian territory had become a theatre of operations owing to the bloody strife between Polish hetmans (high military commanders in the Army of the Kingdom of Poland) of Ukrainian and Cossack origin. As a result, lands of the Zaporizhian Host voluntarily pledged allegiance to Russia.

During World War II the Ukrainian people suffered much harder. At that time the Third Reich was intensely seeking for ways to weaken the USSR, even before it invaded Poland in 1939. It was decided to use the ancient divide-and rule tactics proven by Julius Caesar, involving gradual tearing away of territories with malcontent population. Ukraine was considered the most prospective area for fomenting disaffection.

However, there also was both ideological and political discord among the highest ranks of the Third Reich. Thus, Alfred Rosenberg, the main ideologue of Nazism, along with admiral Wilhelm Canaris (who was accused of 'spiritual instigation' of a plot against Hitler) were planning the establishment of Ukrainian buffer state controlled by the Third Reich. Using such promises they managed to recruit Andriy Melnyk, a central figure in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), and notorious Stepan Bandera who, just like Mr. Yatsenyuk, was striving to lead the government in independent Ukrainian state. If the second one kept clinging to his aims all the time, Melnyk was good at matching to desires of his sponsors from Hitler's surrounding. When Himmler and Koch didn't recognize Rosenberg's ideas and wanted to weaken his power in the National Socialist Worker's Party, Melnyk was quick to assure them of his willingness to cooperate on any terms, especially when they let him know that Fuhrer didn't like the idea of a Ukrainian buffer state.

It is a paradox that those relations that had developed both within various branches of OUN-UPA and the Third Reich senior ranks coordinating them were similar to the recent situation in Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalist leaders were used not only for German purposes, but also for elimination of competitors in power. For instance, Rosenberg, after all, had to abandon his point of view. Many of his influential followers resigned just like chief Comey did to the delight of chief Pompeo, this May. Although NABU, the organization most thoroughly maintaining a steady U.S. course prepared for Ukraine, has been successfully continuing investigations, digging into Poroshenko who fell into disfavor for his poor record. And here you are, Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a close acquaintance of the U.S. president's national security advisor McMaster and Secretary of Defense Mattis has indirectly supported Saakashvili's demonstration. In September, Saakashvili hanged out happily with contenders of the recent president in future election Valentyn Nalyvaichenko and Andriy Sadoviy, in Lviv. Now a big friend of Senator McCain Yulia Timoshenko and a number of Verkhovna Rada MPs endorse him.

This mess of warring parties seems to be disordered and extremely headachy. The situation has been much worse for the number of competing forces and foreign organizations standing behind them in Ukraine was much greater during the Third Reich and it continues to be so at present. The recent Ukrainian bellum omnium contra omnes has been a reflection of competitive battle between various security and governmental agencies in the USA.

A single distinct and unequivocal fact is that being a neighbour of such a huge state as Russia, Ukraine was always suffering from those who wish to weaken that influential country. Over and over again throughout Ukrainian history the country was exploited, with nationalist sentiments artificially ignited and false promises made. Even 'humane' Rosenberg's scheme ascribed Ukraine the role of a mere supplier of raw materials and a buffer state between Germany and Eastern Slavic countries without any right to independence.

As such, the USA regards Ukraine as an administered territory which is useful for strategic and economic aims. They skillfully manipulate Kiev government with carrot and stick. Undesirable Ukrainian political puppet might be branded as corrupt and replaced by more manageable nominee, at any time. There is always a possibility to initiate another blood shedding Maidan with oppressions and civil war, in case of urgency. Today's Ukraine is no freer than it was in 1941, during the invasion of Nazi Germany. Melnyks, banderas, hetmans skoropadskies have been replaced by new 'heroes', who never changed their essence. For evanescent promises and artificially inflated ambitions they've been tearing the country apart without mercy either to each other, or their countrymen. Meanwhile, the world community has been watching with approval the beacon of democracy vigorously setting things to order in 'dark and ignorant' Ukraine. Each of them thinking, 'Better them than me.'

[Jun 17, 2018] In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German policy against the CSU even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations.

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , June 17, 2018 at 11:16 am GMT

http://www.achgut.com/artikel/wir_truemmerfrauen_nach_dem_merkelsturz

Im Bundestag kämpfen Merkel und ihre Treuesten derweil darum, ihre Anti-Deutschland-Politik unter anderem gegen die CSU durchzusetzen -- sogar in der CDU gibt es erste Mutige, die sich daran erinnern, wer sie bezahlt und wem sie eigentlich verpflichtet sind.

Rough translation:

" In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German policy against the CSU -- even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations. "

There are German rumours that Merkel will fall this week.

Historians from time to time write how curious it is that apparently unrelated events in different parts of the world change history.

I wonder if the Trump election with the realisation, long overdue, in Germany, that the migrants are a burden in stead of a contribution to the economy, may combine to Merkel's fall,in her wake maybe the implosion of the EU, and the end of the euro.

It was Merkel who prevented Greece leaving the euro.

[Jun 16, 2018] Putin and orthodox religion

Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Frankie P

It is completely unnecessary and foolish to bring up and try to argue about the faith of another man, especially by superimposing one's own views onto the matter. It's clear that you believe it is impossible or highly unlikely to have high intelligence and be a true believer, but to me that is neither here nor there.

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity. Yes! Russia's history and the levers of power were wrenched away from its traditional Orthodox roots by those intent on revenge, those with a mad desire to unite the world under the banner of international communism, bringing about (so they hoped and continue to hope) the birth of their messiah. Thankfully that chapter of history is over, but it's not over for the chosen: intent on revenge on Russia, just as they are forever intent on their innocence in all historical matters, they have moved on and rooted themselves into another host: the USA. They will be smacked down and put in their place again, but I hesitate to estimate the scheduling. The main question is how many human lives will they end through their machinations before the smack down.

Frankie P

EugeneGur , June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT

@Frankie P

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity.

No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his least attractive features.

Thankfully that chapter of history is over

It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.

The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is – to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song – is more alive than the living. The Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.

It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet standards – culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does – the Soviet Union will live one.

[Jun 16, 2018] The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain

Rumors about the death of the US global neoliberal empire are probably slightly exaggerated. Trump did damaged it, but the neoliberal system proved to be really resilient in 2008 and might prove this again.
Notable quotes:
"... The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader. ..."
"... However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family. ..."
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition. ..."
Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT

@Rurik

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.

The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

See comment 51:

The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 10:43 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.

some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white men), and the working class is languishing. It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way, profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them that are being exploited.

The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey

no argument there!

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.

India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places) are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those respective lands. Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their countries are reduced to shitholes.

If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India, then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.

As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi Arabia, respectively.

The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal hatred.

It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.

It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like the last Zio-century.

That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation behind the wars.

The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of pure, raw, insatiable greed.

Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.

The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two pillars of Satanic iniquity.

I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.

This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet look at how they abase themselves

[Jun 15, 2018] President Barack Obama gave Mueller original ten-year term a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."

Jun 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

francis scott Fri, 06/15/2018 - 19:34 Permalink

...Robert Mueller, who was Director of the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4, 2013. In those 12 years as Director, he served as Obama's FBI Director for 5 years, from Jan. 2009 until Sept. 2013. "President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."

He knows where every unconstitutional skeleton in both Baby Bush and Barack Obama's is buried...

[Jun 15, 2018] Putin, Donbass, emigration of Ukranians to Russia and US neocons foreign policy

An interesting point about refugees and emigration of Ukrainians to Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president. ..."
"... During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
"... Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton. ..."
"... the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance. ..."
Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website June 14, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer

Peters has been hardcore anti-Russian and anti-Serb. His views are quite collapsible. Regarding one of his mass media appearances

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/17/dnc-kiev-regime-collusion-isnt-americas-best-interests.html

Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments.

Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS. You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.

Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions.

Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early 1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.

Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.

During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries.

Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia.

Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.

Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.

Steve in Greensboro , June 14, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
@Rurik

I suppose many of us saw the Tucker with Max Boot. Boot seemed unhinged, really emotionally overwrought by Tucker raising commonsensical challenges to his neocon orthodoxy. Sad, angry man.

[Jun 15, 2018] The West, not Putin, organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county

The "collective West" clearly pursued its own goals in Ukraine, and the last thing they were concerned was well being of Ukraine people. Russia also viewed Ukraine mainly from the position of its own interests, although being isolated they provided somewhat better terms for economic cooperation, just to counter influence of the EU and the USA.
The USA wanted the Ukraine to became yet another Baltic republic as a part of its geopolitical efforts of encircling Russia and, if possible, installing another Yeltsin-style comprador government. EU wanted a market for its good and to exclude Russia from using Ukrainian resources as well as the leverage to get better prices for Russian natural resources.
So the Ukrainian people got on the receiving end of those efforts and paid a huge price. Was it unavoidable or not is difficult to say. May be less bloodshed was possible but economic decimation of Ukraine and conversion it into a debt slave was in the cards, and probably was not avoidable. It just occurred faster and the drop of the standard of living went deeper that in other circumstance.
For all his corruption and thugishness Yanukovich tried to play Russia against the West and get some concession from both. Now such a policy is impossible as the country de-facto lost independence as happens with any debt-slave.
So the conflict in Donbass became important for Poroshenko government as the mean of uniting people, who became disillusioned in the results of EuroMaydan and pointing to Russia as a scapegoat for all their difficulties. In a way Poroshenko now needs Donbass conflict to survive politically.
Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Quartermaster , June 14, 2018 at 12:37 pm GMT

While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. "

What did he do there ?
And what did the CIA do there ?

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

[Jun 15, 2018] President Barack Obama gave Mueller original ten-year term a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."

Jun 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

francis scott Fri, 06/15/2018 - 19:34 Permalink

...Robert Mueller, who was Director of the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4, 2013. In those 12 years as Director, he served as Obama's FBI Director for 5 years, from Jan. 2009 until Sept. 2013. "President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."

He knows where every unconstitutional skeleton in both Baby Bush and Barack Obama's is buried...

[Jun 15, 2018] Putin, Donbass, emigration of Ukranians to Russia and US neocons foreign policy

An interesting point about refugees and emigration of Ukrainians to Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president. ..."
"... During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
"... Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton. ..."
"... the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance. ..."
Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website June 14, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer

Peters has been hardcore anti-Russian and anti-Serb. His views are quite collapsible. Regarding one of his mass media appearances

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/17/dnc-kiev-regime-collusion-isnt-americas-best-interests.html

Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments.

Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS. You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.

Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions.

Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early 1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.

Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.

During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries.

Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia.

Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.

Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.

Steve in Greensboro , June 14, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
@Rurik

I suppose many of us saw the Tucker with Max Boot. Boot seemed unhinged, really emotionally overwrought by Tucker raising commonsensical challenges to his neocon orthodoxy. Sad, angry man.

[Jun 15, 2018] Ralph Peters as one of the nuttiest neocons around. But as far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson

Notable quotes:
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... JRL promoted a recent Kirchick piece: http://russialist.org/newswatch-the-soviet-roots-of-invoking-fears-about-world-war-iii-brookings-james-kirchick/ The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.) ..."
"... A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of "lazy". ..."
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. ..."
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
"... Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. ..."
"... The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. ..."
Jun 15, 2018 | www.g2mil.com
AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Rurik

The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)

ah, so it was Dubya all along! What a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage! So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KhlRzZj7HG8/SylVO1ygOeI/AAAAAAAAQ1s/2ms5qnctt4Y/s320/Dubya+phone.jpg

sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!

The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel - at the direct and catastrophic expense of America and the American people.

I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?

Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the ZUSA?

Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition. The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

See comment 51:

The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.

Carlton Meyer says: • Website June 14, 2018 at 4:50 am GMT

Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.

He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained:

https://fredoneverything.org/dulce-et-decorum-est-if-someone-else-has-to-do-it/

Mikhail says: • Website June 14, 2018 at 6:18 am GMT
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's wrong with the coverage.

Regarding this excerpt:

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

JRL promoted a recent Kirchick piece: http://russialist.org/newswatch-the-soviet-roots-of-invoking-fears-about-world-war-iii-brookings-james-kirchick/ The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)

A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of "lazy".

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Andrei Martyanov
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.
As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body politic is, this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it wouldn't have been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a massive corruption in the highest echelons of power.

Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. The crisis is systemic and Jews are only one, however important, part of that. In the end, Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this in purely psychiatric terms -- he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have suspicion about what some of those are. Just an example.

Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.

However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money.

Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job.

The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. The greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who wanted to loot the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended loot.

[Jun 15, 2018] IG Report Confirms Obama Lied About Hillary Email Server

Images removed...
Jun 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Thursday's DOJ Inspector General report covering the Obama DOJ/FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation confirms a bombshell that had previously been hinted at through WikiLeaks disclosures:

Obama lied when he said in 2015 that he learned of Hillary Clinton's private email server through a New York Times report.

Specifically, Obama told CBS News the following a March 7, 2015 report:

President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.

' The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,' the president told Plante. - CBS

The OIG report reveals this was a lie . A footnote on page 89 reads " President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account "

What's more, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok told the Inspector General that the top brass of the agency wrestled over whether or not to include Obama's involvement in Clinton's exoneration statement - and that former FBI Director James Comey knew Obama had lied :

"A paragraph [in Comey's "exoneration" statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton's server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton's use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary, " the IG report reads. " This reference later was changed to 'another senior government official,' and ultimately was omitted ."

My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? -Peter Strzok

We already knew all of this though...

In October of 2016, a round of emails released by WikiLeaks featured an email from top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills reacting Obama's statement that he didn't know about Obama's server - writing to John Podesta "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov"

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest later claimed that Obama was simply "not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," and that "The President, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office exchange emails with his Secretary of State."

The Washington Examiner , meanwhile, reported in October 2016 that FBI agents "revealed in notes from their closed investigative file that Obama communicated with Clinton on her private server using a pseudonym . "

Chupacabra-322 -> JimmyJones Fri, 06/15/2018 - 20:24 Permalink

@ Jimmy,

The ramifications of what the World is witnessing are Gargantuan to say the least.

"Clinton, Obama might have be labeled Democrat but their Foreign Policy was 100% percent neocon"

Suffice it to, say, you can add Bush Senior, Jr to you list & the last 30 years of a Globalist Foreign Policy.

We're at a National Emergency & Constitutional Crises.

"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier, I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Brennan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know much about the Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."

"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Brennan doing this? Because Brennan knows that the Dossier was his case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John Brennan started a Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified. John Brennan is going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."

"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show you that Brennan has run from this Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen to how he emphasizes on the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck Todd:"

Audio Played.

https://www.bongino.com/may-16-2018-ep-721-police-state-liberals-are-us

Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath John Brennan admits the Fake Dossier Played:

"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...President Obama & President Elect Trump."

-Former CIA Director John Brennan.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=45IEzp2uTCo

Absolute, Complete, Open, in your Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness.

MK ULTRA Alpha -> Chupacabra-322 Fri, 06/15/2018 - 22:06 Permalink

It was Brennan, Obama and Clapper. I can remember when Obama said we were going after the Russians for election interference. It became so big, the Homeland Security director said he would have to federalize elections, then the push back-out cry from states shut that down.

Brennan has always worked with Obama in political dirty tricks operations, Brennan worked for the Obama election campaign, providing political intelligence.

Clapper created his own intelligence network. He conducted political dirty tricks to damage Trump before and after. The secret wars conducted by the CIA, involved Clinton, Brennan, Clapper and Obama, I remember when Obama was asked when he was on his way to the UN to be crowned president of the world, he said the secret wars was "smart war". Nobel Prize winning Obama, conducted genocide smart war on the Christians of Syria, killing over 500K using Brennan CIA funded by Saudi and Qatar money. Look at what they have done, and how the MSM spewed lies to hide and are still hiding the crimes. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt? Why?

Clinton, Brennan, Obama, Clapper is the center of the Russian collusion narrative, it's a coordinated plan to prevent Trump from being president, and when it was known Trump would be president, to sabotage Trump by destroying the last vestige of relations with Russia and to accuse Trump of campaign collusion with the Russians, knowingly using false information paid for by Clinton, coordinated with operatives of MI6. Who made the contacts with MI6, and the UK GHQ, the NSA of the UK? Clapper. Also remember McCain hand carrying the false data, the Steele Dossier to the FBI? How sick was that? McCain is lower than dog shit and can't vote on his death bed, thus why won't he resign for health reasons to allow his vote to be used to help rebuild the nation? It's because he's mentally ill and wants to do as much damage, working with the communist, to this nation as possible, ask anyone who is for this nation.

The extent of the criminal activity is so great, it can't see the light of day, it would cause a civil war to take down the last administration. The precedence for Obama crimes were Bush II crimes, it was a continuation. The Bush II imperial presidency, created the foundation, the huge intelligence apparatus created by Bush II, the Homeland Security police state, all built by Bush II, was expanded and used against the American people. Not the terrorist the extreme corrupt media brainwashed into everyone to submit to the state and to give up our rights.

The reason Clapper and Brennan are giving the most delusional analysis to confuse the truth is they know they are guilty so they must take Trump down to survive. Obama is quite because he knows he is guilty, and more questions of real crimes are coming out. Clinton, she's taunting everyone and believes she will be able to have revenge on the American people through a long term plan to use the Clinton Foundation billions to build her revenge socialist communist homosexual reform of the American people. They plan on buying the government through more manipulation of the vote and political campaigns, money rules and the Clinton's have the money to rule America.

That's where we are, the Clinton Foundation is a racketeering operation, most all of the money was acquired illegally. If it wasn't for loans provided by the Clinton Foundation, the DNC wouldn't have been able to run the election campaign.

francis_the_wo -> JimmyJones Fri, 06/15/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

"The redacted material was just removed"

And guess who did that redacting?

Oh, that would be one Rod Rosenstein.

The same Rod Rosenstein who is very much implicated of wrongdoing regarding his (illegal and unnecessary) appointment of a Special Counsel.

In other words, Rod's got a conflict of interest in redacting a document that implicates him in conflicts of interest.

You can't make this stuff up.....

Expendable Container -> Keyser Fri, 06/15/2018 - 21:11 Permalink

Have a listen to this Greg Hunter/USA Watchdog interview with Dr David Janda. He's a courageous individual and he addresses Zero Hedge commenters specifically in parts. Here's what he says about all this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri-Ngj8QoE

francis_the_wo -> Keyser Fri, 06/15/2018 - 21:48 Permalink

"but his name was removed from the IG report and replaced with "government agent"..."

Correction: I believe you mean Comey's exoneration speech. The IG report (which is referenced above in the article we are commenting on) did just the opposite and clearly stated that Obama emailed the wicked wench.

"The IG report was a whitewash, nothing about clinton herself".

I'm surprised to read that here on ZH. I've not been spending much time in the comments section here lately, but hadn't realized that things had gotten this bad. ZHers used to be more aware.

The IG was not a whitewash. It is loaded with absolute bombshells. We're talking game-changing-save-the-republic bombshells. There are tons of findings that will likely end up in criminal charges.

But, see, that's the point. IG's do not make criminal charges. They investigate internal processes. They can share their findings or coordinate with actual US Attorney Generals, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL DETERMINATIONS!

What's nice is, is that this is exactly what is happening. Horowitz has been working side by side with Huber, who is actually an AUSAG, and who has already convened at least one grand jury (meaning criminal charges are likely).

"no one implicated other than underlings and it's obvious that Horowitz is on the deep state team"

The key to getting kingpins is to get his underlings first and have them turn on the kingpins to save their own skin.

I disagree with your conclusions on Horowitz. I think he is exactly what his reputation says he is: a rigidly straight arrow who is narrowly focused on his holy mission to preserve the proper procedures in his blessed Bureau of Matters. This makes him a White Hat in this whole saga.

Sorry if I picked on you with my reply, but I just think this story is so important to get right, particularly in light of how blatantly untruthful CNN and the MSM are being (even more blatant than normal).

When the real bombshell hits, a lot of our fellow Americans are going to be very confused as their entire worldview is shaken. It is our job to make that as painless as possible, and setting expectations based on what is actually happening/going to happen is a huge step towards that worthy goal.

[Jun 15, 2018] Lies and contradictions pile up on Ukraine's faked murder of Babchenko

By Clara Weiss 4 June 2018
Notable quotes:
"... Financial Times ..."
"... the Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit. ..."
Jun 15, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Six days after the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) revealed that it had staged the supposed murder of the anti-Kremlin journalist Arkady Babchenko, the Ukrainian government continues to seek to exploit the case for the anti-Russia campaign even as contradictions and lies concerning the state operation pile up. (See: " The New York Times and the murder that wasn't ")

Last Tuesday, the Ukrainian and Western press was filled with media reports about the killing of Babchenko in Kiev. The journalist, who supported the US-backed far-right coup in Kiev in early 2014 and the war of the Kiev regime in eastern Ukraine against pro-Russian separatists, had fled Russia in early 2017 after receiving death threats.

Ukrainian officials and Western media outlets, including the New York Times , immediately rushed to blame the killing of Babchenko on Russia. Yet in a stunning turn of events on Wednesday, Babchenko and the head of the Ukrainian Secret Service held a press conference to announce that the murder had been staged in a "special operation" allegedly designed to disclose a murderous plot against Babchenko by the Russian secret service, the FSB.

At the press conference, Babchenko described how he had faked his fall, put on a T-shirt that had been shot through to show bullet wounds, and was then covered in pig's blood. His wife found him lying on the floor and called the ambulance. He was pronounced dead in the ambulance and brought to a morgue where he started to watch news coverage of his alleged murder.

The story since presented by the SBU to justify the faked murder and describe the alleged Russian plot to kill Babchenko resembles a poorly written spy novel, filled with glaring inconsistencies and blatant lies.

Only two suspects have been identified by the SBU. Boris German is allegedly the man tasked by the Russian FSB to kill Babchenko. He is the executive director of the Ukrainian-German weapon manufacturer Schmeisser. There have been reports, but no official confirmation, that he was in fact working for Ukrainian counterintelligence.

The hit man allegedly hired by German is Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk, who had previously fought in the civil war in eastern Ukraine for the fascist Right Sector on the side of the Kiev regime. No explanation has been offered for why Tsimbalyuk, by all appearance an ardent Ukrainian nationalist and opponent of Russia who has described the killing of Russian soldiers as "an act of mercy," decided to change sides to kill Babchenko.

The Ukrainian general prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, said that the staging of the murder led to the disclosure by the suspect of a list of 30 names of journalists whom Russia planned to kill in Ukraine. This number has since been revised upward, to 47. German was supposedly also tasked to stockpile secret weapons caches throughout Ukraine. How all of these plots were connected and how they were to be executed by a handful of people has not been explained.

The SBU also published as proof of Russian involvement the "dossier" the Russian FSB had allegedly compiled on Babchenko for his "killer." Yet, as the journal meduza has pointed out, almost the entire biography of Babchenko in the dossier was copied from Babchenko's Wikipedia article, while all other information had been published by Babchenko himself on various social media platforms.

The dossier included no information about Babchenko's phone number or address in Kiev, both of which would have been important for the "killer" and easy for any secret service to obtain. The only private information in the dossier was Babchenko's registered Moscow address and his Russian identification and passport numbers, all of which could have been (and in all likelihood were) revealed by Babchenko to the SBU, but appear to be of no immediate use to a hired killer in Ukraine.

These contradictions are in addition to more minor lies in the Ukrainian government's account. For instance, Babchenko, in a very dramatic gesture, apologized to his wife at the press conference last Wednesday for having made her believe that he was dead. Yet on Thursday it was revealed that his wife had been in on the plot.

The Ukrainian government has not revealed whether it was aware that the killing had been faked when it declared that Russia was to blame for Babchenko's "murder."

Babchenko and the Ukrainian government have staunchly defended the media hoax and continue to seek to use it to whip up the campaign against Russia.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko hailed the staged murder as a "brilliant operation" and said on Ukraine television, "The whole world saw the real face of our enemy It is not Ukraine you should condemn, but Russia."

He promised that Babchenko and his family would receive around-the-clock protection, arguing that "Moscow would hardly calm down" and that the Ukrainian secret services were growing stronger in "fighting Russian aggression."

The advisor to the Interior Ministry Anton Gerashchenko wrote on Facebook: "Even Sherlock Holmes successfully used the method of faking his own death to effectively investigate difficult and complicated crimes, however painful that may have been for his relatives and for Dr. Watson."

Babchenko, who worked for the Russian army in both Chechen wars in the 1990s, posted a series of vulgar and aggressive comments on Facebook to denounce his critics. In one post, he pledged "to die at 96 while dancing on Putin's grave."

Responding to criticism in the British press, he wrote: "Dear British press, will you please go fuck yourselves. If you want to do something useful, you can give me a British passport and British sanctuary. Then you will have earned the right to lecture me on how I should save myself and my family. Fucking smart arses!"

He also wrote: "I wish all these moralisers could be in the same situation -- let them show their adherence to the principles of their high morals and die proudly holding their heads high without misleading the media."

Babchenko's boss at the Crimean Tatar television network ATR, Ayder Muzhdabayev, described the journalist's critics to Al Jazeera as "vermin." Muzhdabayev had been the first to report on Babchenko's alleged death last Tuesday.

Several pro-Western Russian journalists who are close to the liberal opposition have published op-eds defending Babchenko. However, a few voices also raised concerns.

An editorial by Pavel Kanygin in the pro-liberal Novaya Gazeta argued that Babchenko had "died as a journalist by breaking professional ethics and engaging in an unprecedented collaboration with secret services." Another op-ed in the same newspaper ridiculed the operation as a "parody" on Soviet spy novels and films.

The Russian business daily Vedomosti , which is associated with the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal , wrote in an editorial that the Babchenko operation had "blurred the border between truth and fiction" and would lead to more distrust in the media.

Similarly, numerous opinion pieces in Western outlets such as the Guardian and the German Spiegel , which have been heavily involved in the anti-Russia and anti-Putin campaign, raised concerns about the Babchenko operation and its consequences for the credibility of the media. The Guardian noted that "by faking Babchenko's murder, Ukraine has smeared itself," and that it had "handed Russia a massive propaganda victory."

The New York Times ran an article on Sunday as an exercise in damage control that was headlined "Faked Killing of a Putin Critic Can't Get Much Murkier. And Yet It Does."

Numerous Western politicians, including German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, have also criticized how the Ukrainian government handled the case.

Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit.

[Jun 14, 2018] Turley Comey Can No Longer Hide Destruction Caused At FBI

Notable quotes:
"... Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted. ..."
Jun 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

James Comey once described his position in the Clinton investigation as being the victim of a "500-year flood." The point of the analogy was that he was unwittingly carried away by events rather than directly causing much of the damage to the FBI. His "500-year flood" just collided with the 500-page report of the Justice Department inspector general (IG) Michael Horowitz.

The IG sinks Comey's narrative with a finding that he "deviated" from Justice Department rules and acted in open insubordination.

Rather than portraying Comey as carried away by his biblical flood, the report finds that he was the destructive force behind the controversy. The import of the report can be summed up in Comeyesque terms as the distinction between flotsam and jetsam. Comey portrayed the broken rules as mere flotsam, or debris that floats away after a shipwreck. The IG report suggests that this was really a case of jetsam, or rules intentionally tossed over the side by Comey to lighten his load. Comey's jetsam included rules protecting the integrity and professionalism of his agency, as represented by his public comments on the Clinton investigation.

The IG report concludes, "While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice."

The report will leave many unsatisfied and undeterred. Comey went from a persona non grata to a patron saint for many Clinton supporters. Comey, who has made millions of dollars with a tell-all book portraying himself as the paragon of "ethical leadership," continues to maintain that he would take precisely the same actions again.

Ironically, Comey, fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , former FBI agent Peter Strzok and others, by their actions, just made it more difficult for special counsel Robert Mueller to prosecute Trump for obstruction. There is now a comprehensive conclusion by career investigators that Comey violated core agency rules and undermined the integrity of the FBI. In other words, there was ample reason to fire James Comey.

Had Trump fired Comey immediately upon taking office, there would be little question about his conduct warranting such termination. Instead, Trump waited to fire him and proceeded to make damaging statements about how the Russian investigation was on his mind at the time, as well as telling Russian diplomats the day after that the firing took "pressure off" him. Nevertheless, Mueller will have to acknowledge that there were solid, if not overwhelming, grounds to fire Comey.

To use the Comey firing now in an obstruction case, Mueller will have to assume that the firing of an "insubordinate" official was done for the wrong reason. Horowitz faced precisely this same problem in his review and refused to make such assumptions about Comey and others. The IG report found additional emails showing a political bias against Trump and again featuring the relationship of Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. In one exchange, Page again sought reassurance from Strzok, who was a critical player in the investigations of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump , that Trump is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails "potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations." This includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton investigation. The IG states that "[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this decision by Strzok was free from bias."

However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not "find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions." Thus, there was bias reflected in the statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey's own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about his motives.

Many of us who have criticized Comey in the past, including former Republican and Democratic Justice Department officials, have not alleged a political bias. As noted by the IG report, Comey's actions did not benefit the FBI or Justice Department but, rather, caused untold harm to those institutions. The actions benefited Comey as he tried to lighten his load in heading into a new administration. It was the same motive that led Comey to improperly remove FBI memos and then leak information to the media after he was fired by Trump. It was jetsam thrown overboard intentionally by Comey to save himself, not his agency.

The Horowitz report is characteristically balanced. It finds evidence of political bias among key FBI officials against Trump and criticizes officials in giving the investigation of Trump priority over the investigation of Clinton. However, it could not find conclusive evidence that such political bias was the sole reason for the actions taken in the investigation. The question is whether those supporting the inspector general in reaching such conclusions would support the same approach by the special counsel when the subject is not Comey but Trump.

GeezerGeek -> pc_babe Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:20 Permalink

Comey is simply two-legged pond scum. He did what he thought would preserve his privileged position. No way a POS like him would go against the wishes of Barry, Loretta and Hillary. The question I have is this: were those three acting in concert to beat Trump or did Barry direct Jimmy to do in Hillary with that late-stage reopening of the inquiry? Barry would have hated to have Hillary replace him, because - if she actually lived through it - she would probably have reduced him to a minor historical footnote. His ego couldn't handle that. Heck, I wouldn't even exclude the possibility that Bubba's meeting with Loretta, perhaps including a phone call with Barry, was about keeping Hillary out of the White House. It might have cramped Bubba's style, being first dude and all and under close scrutiny.

Keyser -> GeezerGeek Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:22 Permalink

Although damning in many respects, the IG's report falls short in identifying prosecutable actions on the part of FbI / DoJ officials... There may be some firings, but that's about it...

Comey will get to skate with the $$$ from his book tour / Trump bashing tour, Stroczk and Page sail off into the sunset and likely go to work for some Dim think tank, the rank and file all go back to work thinking, phew, that one was close...

McCabe is going to be the poster child that gets the stick, while at the same time the underlying bias in these two agencies will continue unabated...

Stan522 -> Handful of Dust Thu, 06/14/2018 - 23:07 Permalink

This report whitewashed the worst crimes.... The OIG reports recommendations and what they chose to ignore is reminiscing of Comey's now infamous indictment and exoneration of Hillary Clinton from that 2016 press conference.

The deep state is still calling the shots.....

MK ULTRA Alpha -> y3maxx Thu, 06/14/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

The FBI takes bribes from the media for secret insider information and used the media connections for disinformation to twist the narrative for Clinton. Hundreds of interactions with MSM, bribes being handed out. These jerks must feel their power to be the unnamed sources, looks like they've dug their own grave. Literally hundreds of contacts, recorded bribes and an extreme close relation with CNN and New York Times. This is the source of all the disinformation, lies, rumors and destruction to our nation. The FBI is the enemy with their unlawful alliance with communist and homosexuals in the media. I wonder how many FBI agents are communist and homosexuals?

The key in all this is the political slush fund of over a $100 billion which everyone ignores, the Clinton Foundation will make or break politicians for a corrupt elitist communist agenda for the next generation. It's being protected from investigation because of the previous crimes of Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and who knows how many others. The Clinton Foundation was bribed by foreigners for access, favors and the plan to use the money to take over the US government.

Uranium One is just one covert operation which ensnares all of these opportunist. The Haitian relief money, remember Bush II sat right next to Clinton stating the reason or his purpose was to prevent the Haitian money from being stolen. That was on national full throated MSM. Are there murders connected to the Clinton Foundation? Considering Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz most likely ordered an FBI agent to look into Seth Rich, Pakistanis infiltrating the highest level of leadership, Iranian cocaine smuggling network the FBI was prepared to take down stopped by Obama because it would interfere with the Iran nuke deal. None of this is being added to the equation, incredible FBI and overall government corruption.

It's worse than a swamp, it's an army aligned against us with no honor, decency or even allegiance to this nation, only their gang, allegiance to an organization, a gang covering up to continue to do the same. Each agency of the federal government is of this culture, the break down in this country is apart of every aspect of the government.

How can anyone say we have a country anymore?

LaugherNYC -> pc_babe Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:24 Permalink

Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted.

Slow-walking an investigation resulting in no charges being filed despite clear evidence of multiple crimes -- I would call THAT clear obstruction. McCabe and Comey have conspired to try to dump this on Strzok. It would be funny if it weren't so despicable.

junction -> Captain Nemo d Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:19 Permalink

What can you expect from Comey, paid $7 million a year by HSBC, the bank that laundered some $12 billion in narco trafficker (read CIA proxy) narcotic money? Lock him up in SuperMax in a narrow cell next to jewboy Rosenstein.i

Tarzan -> Zorba's idea Thu, 06/14/2018 - 22:19 Permalink

The thing is, Trump was his boss, and if he decided the Russia coup was a waste of FBI time, he has every right to fire the head of the FBI, for continuing to waist time and money, purposely trying to undermine the election.

Remember, this is before there was a special counsel, and if after a year of investigating there's no there there, there sure as shit wasn't anything back then to investigate!

There is nothing illegal about the President telling Comey to knock it off, or else.

He should tell the press what they want to here. Of course the phony Russia scam played a part in getting Comey fired, rightfully so. Then stand with his fist in the air shouting Fuck the Prestitutes!

For a year now, they've been in a search for something, anything, to investigate.

He should fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller, TODAY, and watch their heads explode!

Tarzan -> Captain Nemo d Thu, 06/14/2018 - 22:36 Permalink

There is an evil intent in all this, beyond the obvious.

Many believe WWG1WGA means, "Where we go one we go all".

A Ponzi always collapses the minute it stops growing, it's a 100% certainty. From the start, ~100 years ago, the Oligarchs who gathered on Jekyll Island knew that their debt money would grow right up to the day it suddenly collapsed, and planned it with all it's allure, hooks, and traps, to consume everything, before that day, so that all would be in the same boat when it collapses. They planned it to fail from the start. It's a mutual suicide Trap, set up to consume the world, consolidate power, then collapse all the Nation's currencies in one fail swoop!

For in a single hour such fabulous wealth has been destroyed!

They'll have their grand New World Order, and a knew single currency waiting in the wings, to rescue the useful idiots from the disaster they've planned.

They'll attempt to number us all, track everything, and dictate how you buy and sell - through them of course. But not just what you buy with, but what you buy, who you buy from, how much you buy, and how much you will pay!

That is their plan. How far they'll get nobody knows. I suspect they'll fail miserably, but the truth is, they're already a long way down this road.

Implied Violins -> Captain Nemo d Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:58 Permalink

FUCK this "Q" bullshit. Anyone still bowing to this crap needs to read these articles and get their head on straight:

https://steemkr.com/qanon/@elizbethleavos/steemit-only-article-opinion-why-independent-media-voices-are-questioning-the-q-persona
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/28/wikileaks-calls-qanon-a-likely-pied-piper-operation/

It's just fourth generation warfare, meant to keep our butts on the couch because "someone else is doing the work".

NOT.

swamp Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:17 Permalink

It did not just impact perception. It factually altered the FBI protocol. Comey was high on power of co-running the deep state and subverting justice and the Constitution. This is high treason, covering high crimes and attempting to unseat Trump at every juncture.

Winston Churchill -> Joebloinvestor Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:42 Permalink

The FBI isn't and you still think J.Edgar was an aberration ? The FBI is the swamps gamekeeper, nurturing the critters, weeding out the weak, until only the foulest and strongest they can be unleashed on us. Take two red pills and report back in the morning.

Cabreado Thu, 06/14/2018 - 21:44 Permalink

When Comey, Lynch, Clinton et al do not find their way to prison... the DOJ is still broken, as is Congress charged with oversight... and so then,

the Rule of Law is still broken. And so then what traitors and criminals are next... when half the People do not give a damn.

AsEasyAsPi Thu, 06/14/2018 - 22:06 Permalink

Fidelity: Strzock and Page

Bravery: Comey, "I was afwaid of Trump"

Integrity: Comey, Ohr, Strzock, McCabe, Page, Rosenstein, Mueller............

Yeeeeah right.

[Jun 14, 2018] Abuse of sanctions

Jun 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

As I pointed out in my last comment on the previous Korea thread, only the UNSC sanctions are legal--Outlaw US Empire sanctions have no legal force outside its borders and can be freely ignored. It's entirely possible Russia will use its position as UNSC President this month to introduce a resolution canceling or greatly scaling back UNSC sanctions.

That almost the entire Imperial Establishment has given the Finger to the entire affair isn't being ignored by the rest of the world, the EU in particular.

Although short, the Global Times link I provided has useful information as does the Black Agenda Report item I linked to in my comment previous to my last on that thread.

I very much approve of b's linking what was just accomplished with the NPT and hope other writers pick it up and help further broadcast his very important point.

As for 100% denuclearization of Korea, lots of nuclear power plants will need to be replaced and decommissioned, and that will likely take several decades to attain.

One can hope that an historical movement's begun to finally decolonize those nations occupied by the Outlaw US Empire upon WW2's end. Admittedly, the Asian nations will find such a process much easier than those in Europe. I doubt I'll live to see it, but somehow I can't find any reason for Germany to continue being occupied in 2045, a full century after the end of WW2. But if Germany is to become free, it cannot afford any more Merkels.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 14, 2018 3:28:49 PM | 4

[Jun 13, 2018] The military mind (editorial comment)

Jun 13, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

nightsticker -> Pat Lang , 2 hours ago

Col Lang,

Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...

".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".

Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.

[Jun 13, 2018] The Roots of Argentina's Surprise Crisis

The root is neoliberal government that came to power in 2015
Notable quotes:
"... Why is any of this still "surprising" ..."
"... Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term "ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now. ..."
"... Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little hope. Keynes' BANCOR was the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible. ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Synoia , June 13, 2018 at 10:25 am

Early measures included the removal of exchange-rate and capital controls

How does a county manage what it does not control?

ChrisAtRU , June 13, 2018 at 1:28 pm

Exactly see Trilemma .

Scott1 , June 13, 2018 at 6:34 pm

Thanks for the link. I will be spending some time thinking of what Argentina would best employ as best practices from where it is.
Would they be best off if they stopped issuing such high paying bonds? Should they pay them all off and stop with it. It does appear to me that issuing bond after bond is one of the single most dangerous things you can do.
It would appear to me to be a superior practice to sell what you produce for the best price you can get on the open markets and dictate the value of your currency.
I'll have to do some more study here.
Again, thanks for the link.

Lorenzo , June 13, 2018 at 6:31 pm

You're uttering the discourse of the most recalcitrant neo-liberal cum austerity-fundamentalists around.

The US doesn't tax soybean exports. Argentina needs to maximize its exports to earn foreign exchange.'

it's misleading to say the least to draw a comparison between how the US handles soybean exports and Argentina does it. They're around a quarter of the latter's exports, barely a hundredth of the latter's.

The US will never have forex issues, Argentina does have them, and they are very serious. You make it as if simply exporting commodities will fill the country's economy with USD, while in truth those dollars will be neatly parked in tax heavens. Eliminating tax and controls over Argentina's biggest exports -agricultural commodities- is in practice as if these commodities were produced not in this country but in some foreign territory over which only the very few who hold most of the land are sovereign. Which is what the current administration has been doing for the past two years.

You also make it as if the current situation where the value of the peso is given over completely to whatever short-term speculators feel like doing with it whenever LEBACs are due is more desirable than the capital controls imposed by the previous government. These prevented the hurtful rapid rise we're seeing in the exchange rate and reduced the negative consequences of the fiscal deficit thus allowing significant investment in and expansion of the real economy.

Addressing the fiscal deficit through increased value added and income tax is something that clearly benefits the owner over the working class and depresses private consumption. I can only sarcastically wonder who would want such a thing.

I don't feel the need or the duty to defend the previous government, but victimization of the Sociedad Rural is something I just lack the words to condemn strongly enough

ChrisAtRU , June 13, 2018 at 9:15 pm

NP. You're welcome. See my comment below. Unfortunately, the only way to win this game is not to play (by the vulture established rules).

Mickey Hickey , June 13, 2018 at 4:24 pm

Argentina is probably the most self sufficient country on earth. It has everything, fertile land that produces an abundance of wheat, barley, oats, rye, wine grapes. As well as oil, gas. uranium, silver, gold, lead, copper, zinc. Foreigners are well aware of the wealth in Argentina and are more than willing to lend to Argentinian governments and companies. This is why Cristina Kirchner refused to give in to the US vulture funds as it dissuaded foreigners from believing that reckless lending would always be rewarded. Macri ponied up, restarting the old familiar economic doom cycle. As always its the old dog for the long road and the pup for the puddle. Macri is now in a place that he chose, the puddle. As long as foreig lenders remain reckless Argentina will remain mired in the mud, well short of its potential. I was last there in 2008 when the country was booming. When I heard of Macri's plan to pay the vulture funds I knew they were headed for disaster. This is just the beginning.

JTMcPhee , June 13, 2018 at 5:39 pm

Those "foreign lenders" can't be called "reckless." Some, maybe most among them always seem to profit from the looting, whether by "bailouts" or "backstops" from governments like the US that for "geopolitical reasons" facilitate that lending, or by extortion after the first-round lenders (who know the risks, of course -- they are big boys and girls after all) have been forestalled.

Call them "wreckers," maybe. Like early denizens of the Florida Keys, and other places, who set fires or put up lamps that resembled lighthouses to lure passing ships onto the sands and rocks where their cargoes and the valuables of their drowned passengers and crews could be stripped.

Wayne Harris , June 13, 2018 at 4:54 pm

"so-called vulture funds"?

ChrisAtRU , June 13, 2018 at 8:33 pm

"so-called" Laughable

ChrisAtRU , June 13, 2018 at 6:37 pm

Why is any of this still "surprising" to anyone?! Most countries in the world (non G7/G8) are forced to go into foreign debt in order to pursue their "development" initiatives. They are told they can export themselves out of trouble but the "free trade" (more like unfair trade!) mantra puts them at a distinct disadvantage – "unequal exchange" was the term Marx used for it.

Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term "ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now.

Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little hope. Keynes' BANCOR was the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible.

[Jun 13, 2018] Sanction Trump not Bourbon

Highly recommended!
The term "national neoliberalism" should probably be adopted as the most succinct term for Trump economic policy
Notable quotes:
"... To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. ..."
"... But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world. ..."
"... The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion. ..."
Jun 10, 2018 | angrybearblog.com
likbez, June 10, 2018 2:26 am

Trump behavior at Canadian G7 meeting was boorish, but it is logical and is consistent which his previous stance on globalization: he rejects neoliberal globalization.

Sasha Breger Bush proposed the term "national neoliberalism" to depict the transition from "classic neoliberalism" which has been started with the election of Trump.

I think the term really catches the essence of the election of Trump. and should probably be adopted as a succinct description of Trump economic policy.

The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see himself as a global citizen.

Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading network. In other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized system (this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization trends around the world).

I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape of U.S. allies and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.

See https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/12/24/trump-and-national-neoliberalism

He elaborated on this in his more recent article ( http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2018/0118breger-bush.html )

But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic.

Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States.

To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance.

But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans.

JackD, June 10, 2018 9:58 am

@Likbez: "Sure, President Trump, etc" is your important sentence. It is the immediate need. First things, first.

ilsm, June 10, 2018 3:12 pm

In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world.

Trump is not tearing apart NATO anyone not earning money is a PNAC think tanks knows NATO has become an aggression against Russia with similar intent as Hitler.

Grabbing Sevastopol and aiding Russians in territory occupied by Kyiv are [bold] defensive moves. The threat of Chinese islands in the South China Sea is the US Navy super carriers intimidations has no career raiding Hainan.

rps, June 10, 2018 7:42 pm

I was curious if Yglesias is a Canadian since his editorial sided with the G7 leaders stance against Trump's fair-trade often labelled as 'protectionism' of USA industries. He's a New Yorker as I pondered what's his stake in this political tirade against Trump's pro-America versus anti-globalist policies?

It appears that the media has glided over the fact Trump had suggested to the other G7 leaders that all trade barriers, including tariffs and subsidies, be eliminated, ""You go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy free." Protectionist Canadian PM Trudeau howled at a press conference after Trump had left on his way to Singapore. Why? Is it because Trudeau is committed to the welfare of Canadians and their industries? How dare the president of the USA- in turn, advocate for citizenry and country as does his G7 counterparts for their countries.

The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion.

More fun & facts:

US citizens and their jobs were swindled with cheaper foreign goods flooding American businesses and stores as good manufacturing jobs headed overseas. Jobs that created the middle class and all their earned benefits and standard of living decreased/disappeared quickly with NAFTA and the WTO.

Concisely, trade deficits destroyed the middle class, the working class, blue collar, and in turn, increased poverty and homelessness. Destroyed small town anywhere in the USA with manufacturing and jobs fleeing overseas in search of cheap labor. Go travel across the USA and see the boarded up towns, walk the streets of Flint Michigan, Detroit, Martinsville Virginia, Gary Indiana, Freeport Il, etc. Throw a dart at a USA map and you'll hit a town devastated by 'free' to lose your job trade. In 2014, 2.3 million job losses due to trade with China. Job losses in the millions have been slowly replaced with 'service' jobs and/or $8.00 an hour part-time no benefits workers as the new norm.

Remember when Walmart's original slogan was "Buy American"? Sam Walton before he died, was big on "Buy American," and it appeared in signs in the stores and on TV ads. His heirs quickly changed it to "Buy Chinese" destroying the american dream and small town USA.

Yet Yglesias' preference is all for the unbalanced trade with our G7 frenemies and punishing a president who chooses fair trade practices to ensure US jobs for American citizens. Makes me wonder who or what Yglesias truly advocates for, the NWO or the country of origin on his passport?

"What we must do is this: revise our tariff on the basis of a reciprocal exchange of goods, allowing other Nations to buy and to pay for our goods by sending us such of their goods as will not seriously throw any of our industries out of balance Such objectives as these three, restoring farmers' buying power, relief to the small banks and home-owners and a reconstructed tariff policy, are only a part of ten or a dozen vital factors. But they seem to be beyond the concern of a national administration which can think in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the top down rather than permanent relief from the bottom up. It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way. It has waited until something has cracked and then at the last moment has sought to prevent total collapse.

It is high time to get back to fundamentals. It is high time to admit with courage that we are in the midst of an emergency at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to meet it." "The Forgotten Man" speech, 1937. Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Since Clinton signed NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO, American jobs and industry left our shores seeking the lowest common denominator- cheap slave labor. To paraphrase FDR into the late 20th and early 21st century, "Clinton and his successors concern of their national administrations thought in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the top down rather than permanent relief from the bottom up.It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way."

Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:16 pm

Nothing personally Rps, but you do not get Triffin Dilemma and global reserve currency. Please no more NAFTA obsession when no jobs left with that deal and exports excelerated. The global reserve currency and booming financial markets create a surplus in services over goods. It also creates the need for a goods deficit to stabilize the financial system. You cannot wave a wand and cure something that cannot be cured. You need a major depression to rebalance and drive capital from america.

Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:19 pm

Likbez, Neoliberalism IS American. Trump is pro-East Asia

[Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

Highly recommended!
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
Apr 26, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain, France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.

Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States.

False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.

The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.

The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely" Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA.

The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.

Tags: CIA

[Jun 13, 2018] The Nationalism Versus Globalism Battles Yet to Come

Notable quotes:
"... By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US contribution would also rise! ..."
"... Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really understanding who his adversary's are. ..."
"... Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because of the decisions American industrial leaders have made. ..."
"... The USA has a trade surplus with Canada. Trump lied about that. ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Credit: Andrew Cline/Shutterstock

At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as "the piggy bank that everybody is robbing."

After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that's what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One."

In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank: "Why should I, as President of the United States, allow countries to continue to make Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades [while] the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on Trade?"

To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are a good place to begin.

Our elites see America as an "indispensable nation," the premiere world power whose ordained duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal world order.

They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the future of the planet.

Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free-ride on our defense efforts as they engage in trade practices that enrich their own peoples at America's expense.

Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind America's back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national ends.

The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.

Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in goods than we sold to the world.

A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.

We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.

Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people are still with him on putting America first.

Yet he faces some serious obstacles.

What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the mid-1970s?

Americans are indeed carrying the lion's share of the load of the defense of the West, and of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South Korea and Japan.

But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?

Ike's secretary of state John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an "agonizing reappraisal" of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies if they did not contribute more money and troops.

Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed, when the Cold War ended, our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on even more allies since the Soviet Empire fell.

If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense that Trump demands, or accept the tariffs America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland, and Germany, and let the Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?

This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected seems at hand.

Trump promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay out of Mideast wars and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.

That's what America voted for.

Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign, even within his own party.

Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has imposed and threatening retaliation. Free-trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the cost of the items U.S. companies make abroad and then ships back to the United States.

The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump's critical tests have yet to come.

And our exasperated president senses this.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

Bradley June 12, 2018 at 6:10 am

America spends 3 times as much on defense as its allies because it is addicted to military spending. The solution is not to pressure other countries to acquire the same addiction. The solution is for America cut its own military spending.

This is just another example of America trying to "export" its domestic issues. Quit blaming foreigners and deal with your issues.

Joe the Plutocrat , says: June 12, 2018 at 6:58 am
"A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down. We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century." never imagined I'd say this, but you are absolutely correct. of course you neglect to acknowledge, Trump himself is an "elite" and a "globalist". the fact his "game" is real estate, as opposed to governance is more of a semantic distinction than ideological. debt-fueled consumerism drives real estate just as it drives globalism. this is nothing new. add to this the pathological narcissism and the ability to leverage moral bankruptcy as he has the tax codes and bankruptcy laws, and voila, just another globalist in populist clothing. as I have maintained all along, he is not so much anti-establishment as he is an establishment of one – he simply thrives in a different type of swamp and favors a smaller oligarchy/plutocracy. and of course, there is the big news out of Singapore/Korea, but again, much of the 'spin' or upside cited in a denuclearized Korean peninsula involves the opportunity for North Korea to join the globalists at the globalists' table. one can only wonder if there will be Ivanka's handbags will be made in Panmunjom, and if Kim Jong Un will stay at the Trump hotel in DC? either way, you are correct he is the candidate the American people, and the globalists "elected".
JonF , says: June 12, 2018 at 8:35 am
One problem with Trump's rant: the US enjoys a small trade surplus with Canada.

Would someone please get this president some hard facts and drill him on them for however long it takes top get them fixed in his mind before he goes off half-cocked with any more nonsense?

Michael Kenny , says: June 12, 2018 at 10:36 am
As always, Mr Buchanan sets out his personal agenda and then claims that Trump promised to implement it if elected. The more Trump backs away from globalised free trade (if that's what he's really doing), the more that suits the EU. The "core value" of the EU is a large internal market protected by a high tariff wall. Globalization was rammed down an unwilling EU's throat by the US in the Reagan years and only the British elite ever really believed in it. As for NATO, nobody now believes that the US will honor its commitments, no matter how much Europe pays, so logically, the European members are concentrating their additional expenditure on an independent European defense system, which, needless to say, the US is trying to obstruct.

By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US contribution would also rise!

Kent , says: June 12, 2018 at 11:17 am
Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really understanding who his adversary's are.

Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because of the decisions American industrial leaders have made.

Secondly, there is absolutely no threat to NATO from Russia or Putin. Europe could slash its already meager defense budget with only beneficial consequences. The same with Japan and S. Korea. None of these countries need US military help. There are no real military threats to these countries. US military spending has never been about defending other countries. It is about enriching the shareholders of American military contractors.

So here is the real world: The United States has established a "liberal rules-based global order" that allows wealthy American and European commercial interests to benefit mightily from trade, and property and resource control in foreign countries. And this order is maintained by US military power. That is why the US is "the one indispensable nation". We are the nation that is allowed to break the order, to be the bully, in order for the rules-based order to even exist. That's why we are beating up on countries that try to live outside of this order like Iran, NK, Venezuela, Russia and everyone else who don't fall in line.

So Donald Trump is fighting against the power elite of the United States, he just doesn't understand that. He is fighting against the most powerful people in the world, people who are well represented by both political parties. He can win this fight if he lets the average American on to this reality. And then leads them properly to a better, more balanced world. But I suspect that he would be assassinated if he tried.

bacon , says: June 12, 2018 at 11:26 am
In re NATO and other oversea DOD spending, the old saying "who pays, says" has a corollary. Who wants to say has to pay. The US, since WWII, has wanted, insisted, on being in charge of everything we touch. This costs a lot, not to mention it often doesn't work the way we want. It would be easy enough to stop spending all this money. The Pentagon and the military-industrial complex would have a conniption and those whose defense bills we've been paying would complain to high heaven, but Trump seems intent on trashing all those alliances anyway and also on spending more money on defense than even the Pentagon thinks they need.
GregR , says: June 12, 2018 at 11:31 am
Trade deficits don't work the way you think they work. In todays economy the traditional measures of deficits don't actually tell us much about what is going on.

Do you know what China does with that $350b trade surplus? A huge percentage of it is rolled back immediately into US Treasury bonds because we are the only issuer of credit in sufficient amounts and of suitable stability for them to buy. All of that deficit spending Trump and the Republicans in congress passed last year is being financed by the very trade imbalance that Trump is trying to eliminate.

But trade imbalances really don't tell us much about the flow of money. Most of the imbalance is created by US companies that have built factories in China to sell goods back to the US, then repatriate money back to the US in the form of dividends or stock buy backs (which are not counted in the trade balance at all).

At best trade balances tell us very little meaningful about what is really going on, but can be wildly deceptive. At worst they are an easy tool, for demogogs who have zero understanding of what is going on, to inflame other uninformed people to justify trade wars.

One Guy , says: June 12, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Interesting the things that Buchanan ignores (on purpose?). The USA has a trade surplus with Canada. Trump lied about that. There's nothing wrong with the USA spending less money to defend other countries. Trump doesn't have to insult our allies to do that.
Jim Houghton , says: June 12, 2018 at 1:49 pm
"Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable."

You give him more credit than he deserves. What he does understand is that while we're being the world's piggy bank, the American taxpayer is being the Military-Industrial Complex's piggy-bank and that's just fine with him. As it is with most members of Congress.

John S , says: June 12, 2018 at 1:56 pm
" our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe "

Mr. Buchanan, like Trump, does not understand how NATO is funded. All NATO members have been paying their dues. In fact, many pay a greater proportion relative to GDP per capita than the U.S. does. Defense budgets are a different matter entirely.

Sam Bufalini , says: June 12, 2018 at 2:14 pm
Remind me again, who just raised the U.S. deficit by more than a $1 trillion over the next 10 years?
S , says: June 12, 2018 at 3:19 pm
This entire article seems to reduce complex issues into simple arithmetic. Economics and job creation is about much more than balance of payments both the author and the US president don't seem to realise this. Very shallow article.
Sean , says: June 12, 2018 at 5:35 pm
America has a trade surplus with Canada, but seems determined to rub it in.

Some background. As the glaciers retreated south at the end of the ice age, they scraped away Canada's topsoil and deposited it in America. Rural Canada has little arable areas; it's beef and dairy by necessity. Costs are high and there are ten Americans to every Canadian hence the subsidy. America subsidizes it's agriculture $55 billion annually.

Mia , says: June 12, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Great, if we're upset about having to protect our allies in the Pacific, let's change the Japanese constitution to allow them to have a real military again to defend themselves and give the South Koreans nukes to balance out the power situation between them and the Norks/ Chinese. (Why is it so little is ever said about China being a nuclear power?) This whole fantasy of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is so naive it's laughable. If nukes exist, there will never be any permanent guarantee of anything, and other countries will just keep getting the bomb without our permission, like Pakistan and China. The genie is out of the bottle, so time to be brutally realistic about what we face and what can be done. We can whine all we want to about how it's not our responsibility, but then we expect other countries to be hobbled and still somehow face enemy powers.
LouisM , says: June 12, 2018 at 9:24 pm
Lets take a look at the growing list of nations shifting to the right (nationalism and populism) -The Czech, Slovak and Slovenia Republics Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, the US.

Nations shifting this year to the right (nationalism and populism) -Austria, Bavaria and Italy

Nations leaning to the right and leaning toward joining the VISEGRAD -Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece

AS YOU CAN SEE THE PILLARS OF MARXIST / SOCIALIST / COMMUNIST OPEN BORDERS EUROPE/EU ARE BEING TAKEN DOWN. THE FIGHT WILL BE WITH FRANCE, GERMANY, BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, BRITAIN, SWEDEN AND THE UNELECTED EU SUPERSTATE. RIGHT NOW THE FIGHT IS WITH THE POOR SOUTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPEAN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS BUT EVENTUALLY IT WILL REACH A TIPPING POINT WHERE IT BECOMES AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT BUT ITS ONLY AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT FOR THE LEFT AS THE EU REACHES THE TIPPING POINT AND THE POWER SHIFTS TO THE RIGHT.

[Jun 13, 2018] The military mind (editorial comment)

Jun 13, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

nightsticker -> Pat Lang , 2 hours ago

Col Lang,

Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...

".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".

Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.

[Jun 13, 2018] If Only We'd Listened To Ike... - Inside The Deep State

Jun 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Kevin Paul,

Many Trump supporters, and even some on the left, like to talk about the "Deep State" secretly having complete control of our government, thus rendering our elected leaders to be nothing more than meaningless figureheads. Let's investigate.

Long before the term 'Deep State' became popular, the term "Military Industrial Complex" was coined by President Dwight Eisenhower.

He gave his now famous Military Industrial Complex (MIC) speech on Jan 17, 1961.

During his ominous farewell, Ike mentioned that the US was only just past the halfway point of the century and we had already seen 4 major wars. He then went on to talk about how the MIC was now a major sector of the economy. Eisenhower then went on to warn Americans about the "undue influence" the MIC has on our government. He warned that the MIC has massive lobbying power and the ability to press for unnecessary wars and armaments we would not really need, all just to funnel money to their coffers.

Jump to Ike's warning about the "unwarranted influence... by the Military-Industrial Complex" at 8:41

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OyBNmecVtdU

His warning though proven correct, was sadly not heeded. Within a few years JFK was assassinated shortly after giving his "Secret government speech" warning the American people about "secret governments and secret organizations that sought to have undue control of the government.

JFK was in his grave for less than 9-months before Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a series of outlandish lies about a fictitious attack on a US naval ship that never happened, which caused the US to enter the Vietnam war.

President Johnson lied his way into a war with North Vietnam and within less than a year would joke that "maybe the attack never happened". By the time the war ended in 1973, Johnson's bundle of lies had killed 2.45 million people.

The MIC however, saw the Vietnam war as a great victory and a template for the future success to their objectives. Ever since the Vietnam War, the MIC has urged the government to enter into as many ambiguous and unwinnable wars as possible, since unwinnable wars are also never-ending. Never-ending wars equate to never-ending revenue streams for the war industry.

Eisenhower warned us about the concept of one particular industry taking control of our government, but sadly his predictions fell of deaf ears.

Since Eisenhower's time several other over "Industrial Complexes" have followed the MIC example and taken control of our government to suit their needs as well. Their objective is to buy out politicians in order to control the purse strings of Congress and they have been highly successful.

The list of these ÏC industries includes, but is not limited to the companies below:

1. The Drug Industrial Complex. (DIC)

The prescription drug industry has massive control of our government and our health care system. A recent Mayo Clinic study concluded that 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug.

The most tragic example is opioids, though similar arguments can also be made in reference to the anti-depressant epidemic, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

The sicker America is, the better it is for the DIC.

The drug lobby is 8x larger than the gun lobby and is indirectly responsible for the deaths of between 59.000 and 65,000 people in 2016 alone, but if we dig deeper, that number could easily be 2 or 3 times higher, Since deaths related to opioids from infection related to opioid related infections are extremely common Anti-depressants are being prescribed 400% more than they were in the 1990's. They are commonly prescribed to adolescent women and we live up to the name "Prozac Nation" when we realize that 1 in 5 women between the ages of 40 and 59 are taking antidepressants. The list of other prescription medicines to enhance the DIC revenue streams is extensive.

There are two primary industrial complex rules when it comes to prescription drug centric treatment:

Firstly, no curing is allowed, ever. Treatment of conditions with temporary benefits is allowed, but healing is not permissible, since it interrupts revenue streams.

And second, any and all "natural" or homeopathic treatment whether it be related to diet, supplements vitamins, anti-oxidants or physical exercise/meditation should all be relegated to "quackery." Doctors who do not adhere to the prescription drug method of treating patients should also be referred to as adherents to "quackery" and should be reprimanded, fined and in extreme cases have their medical licenses revoked.

2. Real Estate Industrial Complex. (RIC)

Goal: Keep housing prices rising as much as possible, year after year after year.

How this is implemented: Endorse the borrowing of money to entice people into buying excessively large homes in order to promote the "dream" of home ownership. Once people buy into this scheme, they are then saddled with massive home taxes to their city and the burden of the taxes utilities that go along with owning an excessively large home. Stigmatize anyone who is over the age of 25 and lives in the same domicile as a parent or grandparent.

Make sure all media channels repeat over and over incessantly that high real estate prices are "signs of a great economy," while ignoring the crippling effect high home prices have on working class families who can barely pay their mortgage.

3. College Industrial Complex (CIC)

The average tuition in 1971-1972 was $1832.00 and now it is officially over $31,000.00.

There are over 60 colleges and universities where the tuition has already exceeded $60,000.00 per/year.

A college education used to be something that people saved and paid cash for, but now there has been a cultural shift where students are expected to take out loans that are often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain a college degree.
Why is this all so expensive? When we look at our universities and colleges, we see an obsession with elaborate new buildings and sports stadiums, more than actual learning.

There are several emerging/innovative ideas to make a college education better, faster and far more affordable. Such concepts probably won't take hold until the inevitable collapse of the entire educational system takes place.

4. Health Insurance Industrial Complex (HIC)

Much of the US healthcare system is now governed by the "Healthcare Affordability Act" passed by the Obama administration in 2010.

The HIC proved how powerful they were when Congress was not allowed to read the legislation before voting for it, publicly displaying that the HIC who wrote the bill behind closed doors is more powerful than Congress itself.

What transparent public committees were behind this important legislation?

In reality, there was no transparency at all, this is stated clear as day by Healthcare Affordability Act primary architect Jonathan Gruber stated: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

The Speaker of the House at the time was Nancy Pelosi, who famously said from the leadership podium as House Speaker: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'

Our elected officials were not allowed to read the most important legislation of the past 30 years before voting for or against it. There is no greater testimony to the level of dysfunction in Congress than the Healthcare Affordability Act, formed by secret committees and then not allowing Congress to read it before voting.

* * *

Let's think back to 1961 when Eisenhower warned us about what would become the Vietnam War. The American people's ignoring his warning caused arms manufacturers and big business to assume nearly complete control of US government.

If we had listened to Ike, millions of people would not have died in the wars of the last 57 years and we would have trillions of dollars less in debt. Perhaps we still have time to heed his warning before our entire country collapses under the weight of corruption, crippling debt and never-ending wars, let's hope so.

* * *

Kevin Paul is the founder of Alternativemediahub.com, which refers to itself as "The megaphone of independent journalism." Born in MA, he came within 2% of winning the R party nomination to oppose Ted Kennedy in 2006 and holds degrees in business and political science.

[Jun 12, 2018] With Trump-Kim Summit Hours Away, Iran Has Warning For North Korea Zero Hedge

Jun 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

"The US has a history of sabotage, violation and withdrawal with respect to bilateral and multilateral international commitments." Iran's Foreign Ministry is urging Pyongyang to "exercise complete vigilance" when the 34-year-old Kim negotiates with the 71-year-old Real Estate tycoon who literally wrote a book on making deals.

Kim Jong-un should watch out for Trump's "America First" agenda and Washington's tendency to "betray international agreements and unilaterally withdraw from them," said a spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, Bahram Qassemi .

"Tehran believes that the North Korean government should be quite vigilant as the US by nature could not be judged in an optimistic way," Qassemi added.

"The US has a history of sabotage, violation and withdrawal with respect to bilateral and multilateral international commitments," the spokesman said.

Trump pulled out of the 2015 Iran deal on May 8 - calling it an "unacceptable" and "defective" arrangement.

He also pulled out of the 2015 Paris climate deal - and is stoking international tensions over a current trade war that has caused Britain, Germany and France to reassess the transatlantic bond. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire wondered if Europe should continue to be "vassals who obey decisions taken by the United States."

Trump imposed tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, while Mexico and Canada were hit with similar tariffs on June 1. He refused to endorse the joint communique during the G7 summit in Quebec - calling the hose, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, "very dishonest and weak."

The EU says it will retaliate.

PrayingMantis -> ravolla Mon, 06/11/2018 - 20:17 Permalink

... the Iranians, I'm quite sure, are hinting about this "conference" held more than 10 years ago as reported by the "Saker" ... and this conference was "planning" a war with Iran, but perhaps the "agreement" with Iran (nullified recently by Trump) got in the way ... and now, it would be too late for the empire to strike Iran, having Russia, China and, perhaps other countries, supporting Iran ...

... the excerpt below is from this link >>> https://thesaker.is/trump-goes-full-shabbos-goy/ ... note: McCain & Guliani's attendance ...

... " ... This topic, the AngloZionist plans of war against Iran, has been what made me write my very first post on my newly created blog 10 years ago . Today, I want to reproduce that post in full. Here it is:

Where the Empire meets to plan the next war

Take a guess: where would the Empire's puppeteers meet to finalize and coordinate their plans to attack Iran?

Washington? New York? London? NATO HQ in Brussels? Davos?

Nope.

In Herzilia. Never heard of that place?

The Israeli city of Herzliya is named after Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, and it has hosted a meeting of the Empire's Who's Who over the past several days at the yearly conference of the Herzilia Institute for Policy and Stragegy. For a while, Herzilia truly became the see of the Empire's inner core of heavy hitters.

(Non-Israeli) speakers included:

Jose Maria Aznar Former Prime Minister of Spain, Matthew Bronfman, Chair of the Budget and Finance Commission, World Jewish Congress, and member of the World Jewish Congress Steering Committee, Amb. Nicholas Burns US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Prof. Alan Dershowitz Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Senator John Edwards Head of the One America Committee and candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Gordon England US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Marvin C. Feuer Director of Policy and Government Affairs, AIPAC, Newt Gingrich Former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rudolph Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York City and candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, General the Lord Charles Guthrie of Craigiebank GCB LVO OBE. Former Chief of the Defense Staff and Chief of the General Staff of the British Army, Amb. Dr. Richard Haass President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Stephen E. Herbits Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress, Amb. Dr. Robert Hunter President of the Atlantic Treaty Association and Former U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO. Senior Advisor at the RAND Corporation in Washington (also serves as Chairman of the Council for a Community of Democracies, Senior International Consultant to Lockheed Martin Overseas Corporation), Amb. Dr. Richard H. Jones United States Ambassador to Israel (also served as the Secretary of State's Senior Advisor and Coordinator for Iraq Policy), Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman Director, Israel and Middle East Office, American Jewish Committee (also served in the IDF Intelligence Directorate for over 25 years), Christian Leffler Deputy Chief of Staff of the European Commissioner for External Relations and Director for Middle East and Southern Mediterranean, European Commission, The Hon. Peter Mackay Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Senator John McCain U.S. Senator (R) from Arizona and candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Dr. Edward L. Morse Chief Energy Economist, Lehman Brothers, Dr. Rolf Mützenich Member of the German Federal Parliament (SPD) and member of the Committee on Foreign Policy of the Bundestag (and Board Member of the "Germany-Iran Society"), Torkel L. Patterson President of Raytheon International, Inc., Richard Perle Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (previously served as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy), Amb. Thomas R. Pickering Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (previously served as Senior Vice President of Boeing), Jack Rosen Chairman of the American Jewish Congress (and member of the Executive Committee of AIPAC and of the Council on Foreign Relations), Stanley O. Roth Vice President for Asia, International Relations of the Boeing Company (member of the Council on Foreign Relations), James Woolsey Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and many others.

Pretty much the entire Israeli "Defence" establishment (why does nobody call it "Aggression establishment?) was present too.

Not bad for a "conference"?!

Of course, the main topic at the conference was the upcoming war with Iran. Richard Perle, the "Prince of Darkness", delivered the keynote and conclusion: "If the Israeli government comes to the conclusion that it has no choice but to take action, the reaction of the U.S. will be the belief in the vitality that this action must succeed, even if the U.S. needs to act with Israel in the current American administration".

Noticed anything funny in his words? It's the "world only superpower" which will have the "belief" (?) in the action of a local country and, if needed, act with it. Not the other way around. Makes one wonder which of the two is the world only superpower, does it not?

Anyway – if anyone has ANY doubts left that the Empire will totally ignore the will of the American people as expressed in the last election and strike at Iran, this conference should settle the issue.

Juggernaut x2 -> ikemike Mon, 06/11/2018 - 19:03 Permalink

Gaddafi and Saddam are just a couple of examples of how much you can trust the Zio Snakes of America.

Rudog -> Juggernaut x2 Mon, 06/11/2018 - 19:07 Permalink

We only steal land for freedom, and we use love bullets, and love bombs.

Miner -> gzcekkyret Mon, 06/11/2018 - 20:21 Permalink

North Korea doesn't need this warning. They've experienced it. We promised to build them non-proliferation reactors in exchange for de-nuclearization in the 90's, but Congress never funded it.

That's my country. hoo-rah.

Chief Joesph Mon, 06/11/2018 - 19:09 Permalink

Yeah, just ask any Native American Indian about the treaties the U.S. had ever signed and reneged on. From 1778 to 1904, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the US government. The list of treaties can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties .

Iran is very right in what it says, the U.S. is not a country to be trusted. And to think that the U.S. will be anymore honest with North Korea! It will never happen.

tsog Mon, 06/11/2018 - 19:26 Permalink

"But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangmen and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had -- power."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

[Jun 11, 2018] Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse - YouTube

Mixture of interesting although almost irrelevant information about personalities such as Gorbachov and his wife (viewed over rose glasses) with some idiotic statements. Avoid.
The collapse of the USSR was the collapse of the society which ideology (Marxism-leninism) collapsed and replacement it with neoliberalism. Neoliberal counterrevolution.
Also the economics of the USSR was a war economics. Part of it was due to the threat from the West and embargo on high tech. Part due to own military-industrial complex. Agriculture was a failure. The net result was deterioration of he standard of living in 80th. People because seduced by western consumerism and elite was seduced by neoliberal ideology. So neoliberal revolution (counter-revolution) logically followed
Jun 11, 2018 | www.youtube.com

April 5, 2017
In this lecture, William Taubman, professor of Political Science at Amherst College and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author, sheds a light on how Mihail Gorbachev undermined the Soviet system in pursuit of his dream of the democratized country.

Scorpius , 6 months ago

The West will always hate Russia. Because the Soviet Union destroyed the colonial world order where the rules of the West. Despotism of the "white man" was destroyed, and enslaved peoples of Africa, Asia, Islamic world, Latin America was released. In the 19th century, the West ruled the world, now only n their historical lands. Russia has caused considerable damage to Western domination.

Lord pikkasso , 5 months ago

Why USSR collapsed according to America, Fake news. The USSR empire collapsed for the same reasons that European empires collapsed. The American empire has been in decline for a while now and will eventually collapsed too.

UserNameMandatory , 4 months ago

Good for insight into Gorbachev. That's all.

Michelle Rice , 3 months ago

Brezhnev started the ball rolling , USSR was already a sinking ship when Gorbachev took over , he was the fall guy !!!!

Daniel Wong , 1 month ago

The USSR was doomed to collapse. It is a totally corrupted union, with selfish leaders who lived in luxury while the people lived in poverty. However, it devoted its resources to military development. No extra resources were given to production of consumer goods and foods for the people. Its union comprises many countries with different races and cultures, which could never be reconciled. Its collapse is just a matter of time, and could not blame Gorbachev.

[Jun 11, 2018] Is Putin Is Freeing Europe, One Country At A Time by J

Jun 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Marine Le Pen says Putin is liberating Europe, and she's right. Le Pen, says she sees signs of what in her opinion is the beginning of Europe's liberation. Soaring popularity of right-of-center forces in several European nations, coupled with Putin's meeting with Austrian Chancellor Kurz during his visit to Vienna. "The world today is making a choice different from that made over the past 30 years. It is going to be a genuine peaceful and democratic revolution, a turn away from savage globalization, universal free exchange and immigration. It will be a turn towards protection," she stated. "Italy, Hungary, Austria - we are witnesses to the beginning of the liberation of Europe!" In her opinion, in Europe there should be no place for supra-national entities whose decisions would outweigh those made by national governments.

Five-Star party supporters gather for a rally in Piazza del Popolo two days before the March 4 elections in downtown Rome. Italian voters delivered a shock to Europe not felt since the UK's Brexit vote in June 2016. Two populist parties came out on top: The NATO/EU-skeptic Five-Star Movement took home over 32 percent, of the vote while the right-wing Lega party garnered a surprising 17 percent. The fact that both parties have called for better relations with Russia led immediately to the seemingly inevitable accusation that it was the Kremlin, not Italian voters, who was ultimately responsible for the outcome. Two populist parties won big time in Italy, favoring Putin.

What's Putin's secret?

Putin turned towards the most unlikely of sources, an American think tank based in Oakland, the Independent Institute -- whose founding member of their Board of Advisors, is Lawrence Kudlow (who now serves as Director of the National Economic Council under President Trump), had detailed how the tax cut policies of Democratic Party President John Kennedy, and Republican Party President Ronald Reagan saved the American economy during some of its most dangerous economic times, that Mr. Kudlow described about in his 2016 book entitled "JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity".

Putin has restored Russia's economic health using Kennedy/Reagan tax cut policies. In 2001, a mere 18 months after Putin assumed the mantle of pulling Russia out of the toilet that the Globalist had tried to create, Putin pushed through the Duma an American style flat tax rate giving the Russian citizenry and businesses the lowest tax rates in the world. Such a move by Putin has been hailed by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D, and whose Russia's Christian leadership has declared as a miracle of God.

Russia's economy today:

When you combine the two, this means that every man, woman, and child in the U.S. now owes $933,000 each. Thanks to the Borg, POTUS Trump has a mighty job to reverse their economic lunacy.

Putin has put Russia's flag firmly planted in Traditional Christianity, which is what POTUS Trump is restoring in the U.S. the Christian principles of Home, Family, and Love of Nation. The vile Borg/Globalist/Deep State have tried to use identity politics in hopes of dividing Russia's citizens against each other and their nation -- and has failed thanks to Putin. POTUS Trump has followed in Putin's footsteps returning the power of the government and economic prosperity back to the people where it rightfully belongs. That is why the Borg/Globalist/Deep State are in such a tizzy, they have been shown for what they really are, enemies of both the U.S. and Russia, and mankind.

The Borg/Globalist/Deep State need to understand that their old order is over, that is what was shown at the G7. The populist wave first ignited by Putin, and now championed by Trump, is sweeping across the Western World capturing the attention of freedom-seeking Greece, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Slovenia.

Patrick Armstrong , a day ago

I wouldn't give the credit to Putin: he may present an example, but I don't see any of this as being his doing. It's the failure of the old system that's doing it. In short, the West (like the USSR in the Brezhnev time) just doesn't work. People are coming to realise it.
English Outsider , a day ago
"The populist wave first ignited by Putin, and now championed by Trump, is sweeping across the Western World capturing the attention of freedom-seeking Greece, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Slovenia. "

With great respect, I believe it is not the case that Putin ignited a populist wave. In England I don't think that can be said. That is also so in the US. I find it difficult to believe that what Marine Le Pen said can be taken as evidence that Putin ignited a populist wave in France. In Germany - well, the Colonel's German correspondents could speak on that. I believe it is true most "populist" movements have a more realistic outlook on Russia and many would welcome good relations, but that is common sense rather than an ideological or political stance that owes anything to Putin.

The consciousness that we in the West have lost a good deal by rejecting "Traditional Values" is as far as I can see on the rise. But there's a lot of nonsense talked about traditional values, as if they constituted some rarified value system that we have to painfully re-discover. It is rather the assault on our values by doctrinaire ideologues that is abnormal. Remove that assault and normality returns of itself. It cannot be imposed by the politicians, and in fact in such matters the politicians would do well to simply get out of the way. It's a novel concept today, but in the cases where there are matters of Faith, values, and morality that need a communal approach, we should tell the politicians what we want, rather than allowing politicians, progressive or "populist" or traditional or of any other stripe, to tell us what we ought to want.

It should also be remembered that Faith, values and morality are continually evolving and that that evolution is best kept as far as possible away from the politicians. I think Putin's got the sense to realise that. Most Western politicians haven't. Speaking figuratively, we don't need to import a Putin to run such matters for us. We simply need to get ourselves some half-way decent politicians and thereby run matters for ourselves.

On ecclesiastical matters, the relationship between the Russian establishment and the Orthodox Church is sui generis and can have little relevance to us in the West.

On foreign policy it is true that Putin's approach to foreign policy is very different from the current Western approach. We don't know whether that's merely because he's in a weak defensive position or whether his statements on foreign policy are genuine. But it they're genuine (as I personally believe they are) so what? We shouldn't need a foreign statesman, no matter how personable, to tell us that in the modern world wholesale murder and destabilisation should not be used as a means of pursuing our interests.

J - all this sounds a little hostile to Putin but I can assure you it's not. Putin is a great statesman and the Russians are lucky he came along. To go further than that and to suggest he offers us or ever offered us a solution to our own problems is I believe unrealistic. Our problems can only be solved by us.

DenLilleAbe , a day ago
I strongly disagree. Look what GB has become, and it will only grow worse. Inequality like in the US, homeless and jobless to match, people relying on food banks to get by, and zero hour contracts, healthcare system crumbling and worst of all: inept , arrogant useless politicians, all very wealthy.
Naked unabated capitalism and deregulation at its worst.
The populist parties here on the continent appeals to the lowest denominator, they all need an enemy :immigrants!
Herman Göring explained it well at his trial (Read his comments from the trial)
The Populist have done the same.
English Outsider -> DenLilleAbe , 10 hours ago
"The populist parties here on the continent appeals to the lowest denominator, they all need an enemy :immigrants!"

1. We already have a common enemy. By "we" I mean all of us, immigrants, non-immigrants, and those who don't know who they are. That common enemy is the interest group loosely called the "crony classes" that runs our politics and that is currently engaged in running our respective economies into the ground.

If we squabble among ourselves, as your comment implies we do, then it's divide et impera and we lose.

2. It is a serious mistake to believe that concern over mass immigration implies hostility to immigrants themselves. In fact mass immigration is just as disadvantageous for the immigrants and for the countries they come from as it is for non-immigrants. Would you really like to be a Ukrainian immigrant in Poland? Wouldn't you prefer it if the Ukraine were still a fit place to live in and you could prosper at home? Even more is that the case for the Syrians.

3. It is cant to assert that we must promote mass immigration for humanitarian reasons. The argument does not stand up to a moment's inspection. Such cant aside, you'll find the arguments advanced for mass immigration are economic arguments. We need more health workers and the like. The talk in the most successful of the large Western economies, Germany, is always "We have a declining population. Who will look after us when we're old if we don't import more care workers?"

The use of cheap imported labour to solve problems wealthy Western countries should be able to solve for themselves is not a humanitarian project. As I have been permitted to argue before in these pages, it is simply a modern adaptation of the previous indentured labour system. It is profitable for some in the crony classes. It is not profitable in any sense for the rest of us.

4. If we are truly concerned for the welfare of those who do not live in our countries - and we certainly ought to be - then let's put our hands in our pockets and give them some genuine help! Not fake help that benefits neither them nor us.

In short, DenLilleAbe, we've been sold a pup on mass immigration. One doesn't have to be a "populist" to see through the scam. Even we Deplorables can.

Valissa Rauhallinen -> English Outsider , 5 hours ago
EO, as it is local to you I am curious what your thoughts are about Tommy Robinson and the #FreeTommyRobinson movement. I just learned about him recently and am trying to understand the background. How serious a problem are these immigrant "grooming gangs" and is it true that the UK gov't is downplaying the rape issue out of PC concerns? I was shocked by the media gag on the Robinson story. Seemed like overkill if there is no truth to his allegations against the gov't.
ultramaris -> DenLilleAbe , 14 hours ago
The enemy of the European populists isn't "immigrants". At best, it would be "immigration" - the deregulated chaotic phenomenon. That's what people are against, and rightly so.

But, in fact, wherever populist have actually won elections, the main points of the campaign have been social and economic - see Hungary or Italy. It's the EU and the Brussels-doctrine that have won them the elections. Same for Brexit.

As far I know, the only populist to have put immigration and identitarianism forth was Marine Le Pen, and she failed miserably in the second turn, especially the debate against Macron.

It's, unsurprisingly, the bread and butter that people care most about. The strawman of xenophobia is put forth by the Borg, especially the morally libertine wing, aka the left, to cover for their abandonment of any labour, social or economic difference with the economically liberal wing, aka the right.

Babak Makkinejad -> ultramaris , 9 hours ago
I think European are quite familiar with the history of earlier episodes of Barbarian Invasions in Europe - that many historians blame for the demise of the Roman Empire - and wish to avoid its repetition.
Babak Makkinejad , a day ago
EU is legally predicated on NATO. Unless a country leaves NATO, that country is not Free, as you would say.

Italy?

Will they have the courage and the fortitude to leave the Euro and start printing the Lira again?

I seriously doubt it.

Look at Greecee, they sold their sovereignty for trade beads.

James Thomas -> Babak Makkinejad , a day ago
Babak
The Borg will certainly do everything in its power to stop the disintegration of the Eurozone, but I'm not sure that the Italians will be willing to live with youth unemployment of 40% forever. If either Greece, Italy, or Spain leave the EMU I am confident that they will see an economic upturn within 16 months - then the EMU is doomed.
Sid Finster -> James Thomas , 7 hours ago
Since when did voters start to matter?

Witness the ECB response to Greece's vote on OXI Day. They cut Greek banks off from liquidity until the Greek government capitulated.

The Greek vote was a clear majority with strong turnout to reject the ECB terms. In response, Europe simply took off the mask, so to speak.

Babak Makkinejad -> James Thomas , a day ago
I do not think they have it in them to leave, specially Spain. They would be leaving America, the highest exponent of their civilization. Neither the Flesh nor the Spirit would be so willing.
Sid Finster -> Babak Makkinejad , 7 hours ago
It would require a lot of short and medium term discomfort, and Europe wants nothing more than to go comfortably into that good night.
Babak Makkinejad -> Sid Finster , 6 hours ago
Comfort is one thing. But I think mentally they are not prepared to say "No" to the United States; US enjoys great prestige in Europe and they won't abandon their anchor.

I mean, if they reject US and what she stands for, then what is left in Europe but Christianity?

Pat Lang Mod , a day ago
J- This piece needs citations to support statements by LePen, etc.
smoothieX12 . , 4 hours ago
Putin has restored Russia's economic health using Kennedy/Reagan tax cut policies.

Sorry to disagree in such a dramatic fashion but it was nothing like Kennedy, let alone Reagan. It also had very little to do with taxation it did, however, have everything to do with stopping "privatization" (or robbery) and the start of nationalization of strategic industries. Russia IS NOT the United States in any cultural-economic sense. Not even close.

dilbertdogbert , a day ago
I love the Kendedy Reagan Tax Cuts and how wonderful they were. I kinda remember the Reagan era as that was when my sweet, kind, gentle and very intelligent wife passed all 4 sections of the CPA exam in one sitting and achieved an award for her high score. I also remember how Bill Clinton's tax increase destroyed the American economy. Then came G.W.Bush's tax cuts that saved America. Then that Obama guy raised taxes again and drove America into a Deep Recession. Thank God for Mr. Trump's tax cuts.
Bill Herschel , a day ago
If the trends described are accurate, a big if, then the causes ascribed are only among a set of possible causes. Certainly, you will admit there are others. If the ship of state founders, it may well be because other causes were not sought out diligently enough.

Trump assumes the mantle of Saint Ronald? Thank God.

richardstevenhack , a day ago
I personally find Russia's relapse into Orthodox Christianity and the US rise of fundamentalist Christianity to be appalling. Religion is one of humanity's worst curses.

The only "religions" - more properly described as :"spiritual philosophies" - which I recommend are Chinese Taoism and Zen Buddhism (as opposed to "orthodox" Buddhism.)

Also, I wouldn't be celebrating the "end of the old order" until it actually has ended without destroying everyone in the process.

Babak Makkinejad -> richardstevenhack , a day ago
How debased the message of the Prophets must have become that we should look to Taoist Thought and Zen Budhism for moral and spiritual guidence and succor!

Neither Taoist Thought, nor Budhism in all its forms, nor any of the multitudes of sects and schools of Hinduism ever showed a concern for any thing other than the "salvation" of one single individual. Concern for the other man, actual physical material charity is non existent in them. Billions and billions of Bodhisattvas always supply worthless spiritual charity while neglecting feeding or clothing the wretched human being that needs actual physical help.

Every evil that has afflicted East Asians in historical times may be traced back to this absence of the Prophetc Tradition that began in Western Asia 8600 years ago by the Great Zoroaster.

Your own political position, discernible through your comments, critically is informed by the 3 and a half year long ministry of Jesus, the Blessed Son of Mary.

ultramaris -> Babak Makkinejad , 14 hours ago
Not only that, but in rational terms there is simply no comparison.

To mention but Scholastic thought, that's thousands and thousands of years of philosophy going back to Plato and Aristotle. That's a level of rational thought that goes far beyond pretty much anything produced today and eclipses the platitudes and quizzes of the Zen sayings.

This allure of the exotic religion or spirituality is probably is akin to the phenomenon of telescopic philanthropy described by Dickens.

richardstevenhack -> ultramaris , 8 hours ago
While I don't necessarily agree with every point of either Taoism or Zen, your comment clearly shows a complete lack of comprehension of what Zen "quizzes" are actually about.

Also, Plato lived around 2,400 years ago which is not "thousands and thousands".

Babak Makkinejad -> ultramaris , 9 hours ago
Indeed.

I was thinking the other day that we are now in possession of the technology to destroy, once and for all, the Wheel of Samsara - just explode a few dozen hydrogen bombs in the oceans and the atmosphere of the Earth to make it sterile for ever and ever.

Once all life is extinguished on Earth, surely those souls cannot get reincarnated and the Wheel of Samsara would no longer operate.

The creation of hydrogen bomb, therefore, is of greatest spiritual significance to Hinduism and Buddhism.

I wonder when they will start putting effigies of Edward Teller in Kali Temples - or in Shin-Tao shrines.

Eric Newhill -> Babak Makkinejad , 4 hours ago
Sorry Babak, that won't do it. The departed still have physical bodies - although a much more rarified material (think along the lines of photons are still material to help understand). They are also still very much attached to the physical dimensions because physical matter is merely a form of thought in the universal mind of God and the souls he created and those souls are bound to the physical realm until such time that they have transcended the karma and mentality that brought them into the physical in the first place; which can take many lifetimes and dedication to truth and knowledge. So we can blow up the earth and its inhabitants, toxify it or damage it in other ways and the souls will just build a new earth to inhabit and work through the thoughts and energies that created it. Yes. I have consulted God on this several times.
richardstevenhack -> Babak Makkinejad , 18 hours ago
Debased is how I would describe the prophets, yes. Which is probably why the more ancient civilizations of Asia have rarely had any.
Pat Lang Mod -> richardstevenhack , 18 hours ago
Did you consult with God as to whether the prophets are "debased?"
richardstevenhack -> Pat Lang , 8 hours ago
I consulted with me, who is the only person I consult on such matters (although I do read a fair amount about such matters.)

For example, I know that Saul of Tarsus was a Roman double agent who founded the Christian doctrine and that he was denounced by Jesus' own brother and run out of town under Roman escort to avoid being killed by Jesus' followers.

Jesus (assuming he actually lived) was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion, still less one that would persecute his own people for two thousand years.

Kind of makes Christianity a bit of a fraud from the get-go.

Babak Makkinejad -> richardstevenhack , 7 hours ago
Yes, indeed.

Any Believer could easily discern in your account that God works in mysterious ways, causing a cynical double agent to become His Instrumentality to alter History and create a new religion.

smoothieX12 . -> richardstevenhack , 3 hours ago
Russia's relapse into Orthodox Christianity

Russia didn't "relapse" into Orthodox Christianity since majority of Russians are either agnostics, atheists or Orthodox mostly in form. Tradition also plays huge role and that is why manifestations of Russian Orthodox aesthetics are so prevalent--it is normal for a nation which grew out of Orthodoxy and minded that even in Soviet times, however unofficially. This is not to mention a major pagan element in Russian culture which is also present. In general, Russian spirituality is much more complex than religiosity as one may observe things during mammoth Immortal Regiment marches.

FarNorthSolitude -> richardstevenhack , 7 hours ago
Science shows that humans are adept at copying and rely on a massive transfer of cultural traditions to define ideas, values, and actions and this shapes the capacity for logic, thought process, and various behaviors. These capacities vary tremendously between cultural traditions. People will faithfully copy errors or obviously unnecessary actions when taught. Given the low iq of the majority, "innovations" introduced are usually wrong or of low quality but again are faithfully copied. Chimps have been shown to be more creative and with better short term memory whereas humans have sacrificed some of that to be able to rapidly copy. Most have little incentive or ability to think about what they have copied and are more robotic than fully human.

I think the case is clear that much of western progress and science has roots in the deep self reflection, critical examination, and mysticism of religious thought about how the world works - cosmologies, theologies, and attempts to understand the workings of nature. Even our self concepts, soul, mind, spirit, self/other as separate from the tribes or natural forces, egoism, etc originate from religious thought and people working to understand the relationship between God and mankind.

But then, of course, it all gets packaged for cultural transmission, doctrines get introduced, and original thinkers need to break through all that. My point is though that some cultural transmissions create a rich soil for thought and innovation, and some make it very difficult.

I believe that ground zero for the west isn't the Greeks. The Greeks copied much from the Persians but like most people claim it as their own, and much of the culture they copied originated in the thought of Zoroaster. He defined a world view of right/wrong, good/evil, where good thoughts, deeds, and actions are important vs. a world in which people are subject to the whim of the gods. Dualism formed a basis that evolved into the objective observation, the dualism of observer/ objective universe of science.

Russia's preservation of Orthodox Christianity, which has a beautiful mystic core, keeps alive the foundation on which the west, and science was built. I can see no way of comparing the Orthodox to fundamental christianity which is shamanistic, and isn't even a relapse - it is the re-emergence of a more primitive and animistic worldview. It is like lumping the stone age and 21st century together and saying they are the same.

Humanism and the enlightenment sprang from a deeply religious society. Unfortunately our culture has devolved away from the enlightenment towards a mushy sentimentalism that elevates and values "feelings" over everything else and debases the rational mind. Liberal new age or fundamentalism - both are tribal and animistic and anti-science as they are at the core anti-religion and both are busy chopping away the very roots that created greatness and neither can sustain it. As a minor example - Russia has as many stem students as the US with half the population

A couple of starting points if interested -

Babak Makkinejad -> FarNorthSolitude , 4 hours ago
Thank you for your kind words about Ancient Persians as well as Zoroaster.

In my opinion, the Zoroastrian religion is the only one extant in which the extinction of Human Race would actually be a disaster for God himself and not just one consequence of his inscrutable will.

Bálint Somkuti , a day ago
Sir,

we in Hungary are under pressure for our "populist tendencies" since. 2010, after ousting our versions of liberals (democrats).

That was way before Mr Trump has even thought of becoming No. 1.

And Mr. Putin only became our """liberator""" after all attempts to reconcile with the Borg EU leadership were in vain,

LeaNder , a day ago
ok, maybe we should link Putin's interview with Austria's public channnel ORF too?

Soaring popularity of right-of-center
forces in several European nations, coupled with Putin's meeting with
Austrian Chancellor Kurz during his visit to Vienna.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events...

LeaNder , a day ago
Paul Robinson offers a comparable topic. Observing the:

International Forum for the Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow. Soft Power

https://irrussianality.word...

The very moment post 1945 Europe chose to embrace the so-called "liberal democracy" as the only viable form of rule it turned into self-perpetuating elitist regime. Logic was impeccable – if the Liberalism as the ideology is the best thing that happened to the Humanity, therefore it must be maintained at all costs. Democratic process presents a danger to the liberalism, because gives a chance for non-liberal political forces to get to the power. Therefore, democracy must be eliminated. In the bourgeois democracies of the West it is ludicrously easy to accomplish – as could be gleamed from the name, only people with money are your lucky ticket into the politics. They are "the people" who rule. And international capital is the biggest Man of them all.

The "so-called liberal democracy" is usually termed neo-liberalism, if used as fighting term. What's the idea behind the we-are-the-people takeover from the right? A more sunny future?

English Outsider -> LeaNder , a day ago
Great quote, LeaNder. You come up with some lovely stuff. But what's all this about a "we-are-the-people takeover from the right?". Left and right have virtually no meaning any more. As for a more sunny future, that's in the lap of the gods. But if we bestir ourselves we might just avoid a more dismal one.
LeaNder -> English Outsider , 6 hours ago
"we-are-the-people takeover from the right?".

Our host, Pat Lang, at one point called it a counterrevolution, makes a lot of sense.

Ingolf Eide -> LeaNder , a day ago
LeaNder, I think you should make it clear that this quote is not from Paul Robinson's article. It's part of a long comment by Lyttenburgh.
LeaNder -> Ingolf Eide , 6 hours ago
It isn't the the third paragraph of Paul Robinson's report? By the way?
LeaNder -> Ingolf Eide , 6 hours ago
Yes, I may have taken David Habakkuk's advice that there is often more wisdom in the comment section beneath the article then in the article itself one step to far? ...

But yes, considering Lyttenbourg, who surfaced here too. ... We seem to be able to cross national frontiers via the arts, or the history of culture, but beyond that for me he had the initial instinctive feel and touch of national pride. You would need to go back to one of TTG's heavily contested contributions to Russia Gate to understand. My struggles should still show there.

[Jun 11, 2018] Stephen Kotkin Sphere of Influence I - The Gift of Geopolitics How Worlds are Made, and Unmade - YouTube

When discussing Russia Kotkin look like primitive and naive provincial. which most the US scholars are. He was unable to mention neoliberalism even once. Which completely discredit his as a scholar.
As one commenter quipped: "Insane introductory joke." If this is a professor, then US universities political department are just cheap propaganda outlets.
Jun 11, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Redžep , 10 months ago (edited)

Such a true agent of US hegemony and global capitalism - regardless of which oligarchic dynasty is in power in DC. But still, I can always personally respect a white Jewish liberal who can praise the Bolshevik revolution like Kotkin did in Stalin Vol. I.

Peter Knopfler , 1 year ago

USA WAR ECONOMY a 2 party system owned by one large military that says, "Full spectrum domination" we own the land,sea,air,cyber and outer space. We own the world. USA regime boots on the ground in over 150 countries large military bases 1000 spread around the world. USA owns United NATIONS and NATO pays most of the budget, pays to be the boss. However Europe military occupied by USA and silent hatred for USA keeps growing, brewing. Germany and Japan still USA regime military outposts. USA regime largest weapon sales always first to kill, nukes ,napalm, depleted Uranium, agent orange, cluster bombs, DRONE kills that flood Europe with refugees and fear. Thanks AMERICA.

Count Rufus , 6 months ago

Americans boast how they brought Soviet Union down. Only to form European Union under their nose. Lol. ..good job. Europe generally dislikes USA and has enough of US

aviomaster , 2 months ago

why all this ? A close relationship between Moscow and Europe would remove the rationale for America's military role in NATO and thereby its political influence in Europe. The US is prepared to plunge Europe into a war with Russia in order for Washington to preserve its hegemony over the transatlantic axis. The key issues are the prevention of Russia and Europe developing closer trade and political ties - stemming primarily from a vast trade in energy fuels; and, secondly, the survival of the American dollar as the world's reserve currency.

[Jun 11, 2018] Crimea and who won the cold War

Russia collapsed because its elite changed side and adopted neoliberalism. So the US did won the cold war, not question about it. Yeltsin and Russian constitution was the equivalent a signing of capitulation. And economic devastation the followed is equitant of full and unconditional capitulation.
Jun 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Besides being good and observant on a given topic (G7-SCO summits), the article in passing fixed two important facts, to which I drew attention.

(1) "...Russia had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland ".

(2) "...Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War ".

Good to see here an accurate and correct wordings, not some usual [western] propaganda stamps aka "annexation of Crimea" or "occupied Crimea".
Good to see an adult and sober estimation of the event.
One might like or don't like it, but Crimea joined Russia in full accordance with international law.
A precedent for this appeared when the West recognized a separation of Kosovo from Serbia.
A [West's] decision on Kosovo clearly stated a primacy of the right of nations to self-determination over the territorial integrity of state.
At that time, Russia was warning that recognizing Kosovo the West opens the Pandora's box, and that possible results in the future can be regrettable and dangerous.
As usual, western elites were not listening. Well, they got a result in 2014.

Btw, one might notice that since 2014 no one (first of all Ukraine) ever tried to start a trial against Russia because of Crimea.
They could, for example, appeal to the ICC or ECHR. Why not?
If there would be any violations (from Russian side), the court, of course, would clearly state "Russia is guilty here, here and here..".
But no one ever appealed to the ICC or ECHR (or any other court\institution).
Because they know they will fail in court, since Russia did not violate any laws\norms of the international law.
That's why all they can do is just to scream about "Russian aggression" and "annexation of Crimea".

Btw, that's interesting (and very characteristic) - Ukrainian Nazi regime did not refuse to use courts to argue with a Russian company "Gazprom" on gas prices and other stuff. But they're refuse to use courts to dispute a legitimacy of Crimea's status.

-

The myth that US had 'won' the Cold War is another interesting moment. First of all, because the Cold War was not over. It's easy to prove by concrete facts. To name just a few:

  1. NATO was not dissolved and continued to expand to the East even after 1991, when the USSR collapsed.
  2. Russia still was under sanctions ("Jackson-Vanik amendment", repealed only in 2012) even after 1991, when the USSR collapsed.
  3. The West (in particular, the US) widely supported separatist sentiments & terrorists on Russian Caucasus in 90-es/early 2000-es.
  4. The US' meddling into a Russian elections (well-known story of 1996 President elections in Russia).
  5. NATO\US aggression against Yugoslavia in late 90-es, completely ignoring Russia's opinion & concern. Not mentioning bombardment of Saraevo in the middle of 90-es, again, ignoring Russia's opinion & concern.

The Cold War was never finished. In 90-es it was just transferred into some kind of a "lightened form", since Russia was weakened (but not defeated) by the collapse of USSR, therefore it was no need for the West to 'try hard' against Russia. Since 2000-es (unilateral withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty in 2002, aggression against Iraq in 2003 etc.) the Cold War "woke up" and was steadily increasing till our days.

That's why the US did not win the Cold War - you can't be a winner in the unfinished, continuous process. The results of WWII is a good example to compare (for Russia it's 1941-1945 war). There were concrete winners and there clearly was a side who lost the war. Those who lost the war signed a concrete documents, signed a capitulation. All these documents are official documents, they have a concrete names, signatures, dates, conditions etc.

So what's with "victory in Cold War"? Any concrete date of "victory"? Maybe there's some concrete documents signed by Russia (where the country admitts it lost the "Cold War")? Maybe some conditions for the "losing side" (that it must completely disarm, abandon the army, let foreign troops enter its territory or change its constitution etc.)? Maybe Russia lost its place\role in UNSC, and in the United Nations on the whole? Maybe there were some 'obligations' of Russia regarding a "winner side"?

For all questions the answer is no.

The problem is that from some moment the US unilaterally started to think they 'won' a Cold War (though, i repeat, the Cold War was not over, and Russia never admitted it lost any war). Some kind of a voluntary delusion, self-deception.
This gave birth to the unprecedented level of arrogance and impudence of the US leadership.
This arrogance and impudence now is the main factor of unstability of the worldorder.

-

The article itself is well written and observant, though i maybe disagree with some moments.
For example, that A.Merkel wished to use a suggestion to Russia to come back into G8 as a possible trump card\reward.
Of course, Merkel is not Otto von Bismarck or Helmut Kohl, but even with her level of political mastery i don't think she's SO naive\stupid to think this weak proposal to Russia would work.

Also, in my opinion a statement that "the West is Past" is too much.
It would be unreasonable to deny the West still have a lot advantages and impressive achievements - education, technologies, market, good & developed medicine, science, clever and qualified people, strong economics...
Plus, must not forget the West still control the main world media, and, in fact, form an everyday news agenda - i.e. controls the minds of most people.
I would say the West (the western political system, elites) is in serious crisis now - that's obvious, yes.
But i wouldn't say "the West is Past".

--

@ Madderhatter67, #10


They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.
Explained above in detail why you're wrong.

The US did not win the Cold War. It is a myth that they themselves came up with and sincerely believed in.

Posted by: alaff | Jun 11, 2018 9:22:36 AM | 109

[Jun 11, 2018] Is it any wonder why the G6+1 is becoming irrelevant?

Jun 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Here's point 13 of the Joint Communique issued by the G6+1 as provided by Southfront. How many BigLies can you find?

13. We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing behaviour to undermine democratic systems and its support of the Syrian regime. We condemn the attack using a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury, United Kingdom. We share and agree with the United Kingdom's assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation was responsible for the attack, and that there is no plausible alternative explanation. We urge Russia to live up to its international obligations, as well as its responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to uphold international peace and security. Notwithstanding, we will continue to engage with Russia on addressing regional crises and global challenges, where it is in our interests. We reiterate our condemnation of the illegal annexation of Crimea and reaffirm our enduring support for Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its internationally-recognized borders. We maintain our commitment to assisting Ukraine in implementing its ambitious and necessary reform agenda. We recall that the continuation of sanctions is clearly linked to Russia's failure to demonstrate complete implementation of its commitments in the Minsk Agreements and respect for Ukraine's sovereignty and we fully support the efforts within the Normandy Format and of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for a solution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Should its actions so require, we also stand ready to take further restrictive measures in order to increase costs on Russia. We remain committed to support Russian civil society and to engage and invest in people-to-people contact.

Is it any wonder why the G6+1 is becoming irrelevant?

james @89--

Your concerns were aired at the SCO by "Tajik President Emomali Rahmon spoke about the need to use environmentally friendly technology to enhance self-sufficiency and sustainable development across the SCO." Furthermore, Both Putin and Xi have taken the lead at SCO in calling for sustainable development, which means taking environmental impacts into the economic equation and not treating the environment as an unaffected externality as the West has always done. Since 2013, China's been #1 in solar production and implementation. I invite you to go to the Yandex search engine, type in China solar then select images to see some of the immense installations already constructed. FYI, China sees its air pollution problem as a form of poverty which must be eliminated if China is to become a truly prosperous nation as planned by 2025. Plus there's the pan-Asian philosophical outlook of humanity being within Nature and needing to remain in balance versus the Western credo of being set apart above Nature to become its master.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 10, 2018 4:50:49 PM | 89

[Jun 11, 2018] The Silk Road fundamentally threatens British American power, which has depended on using the oceans to divide and rule the world

Jun 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

To my surprise, it seems that the majority of veteran MoA commenters are died in the wool anarchists. A main thrust of comments on this article ostensibly about the infighting and decadence of the G7 was to cast stones at the Silk Road.

Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping may be fine but will their successors know not to abuse the power they may gain from the New Silk Road projects encompassing Eurasia and Africa? (Jen, 32)

or

If the West is dead and the East is the future, then why are so many Chinese buying houses and living part time in Canada, Australia, and the USA? Why is there so much emphasis put on Western education facilities by Asians? (rexl, 39)

or

I still don't get why so many humans believe anything good comes from chucking aside one greedy oppressive arsehole then replacing it with another. Sure the SCO has a founding document laden with flowery words and seemingly wonderful concepts but I say "So what" check out the UN charter or the amerikan constitution and you'll find the same .Swapping SCO for G7 will do SFA for them or anyone else unlucky enough to be living on top of whatever the current 'must have' is deemed to be. Anyone who imagines that it could is delusional. (Debsisdead, 52)

The Silk Road fundamentally threatens British American power, which has depended on using the oceans to divide and rule the world, to the point of giving free mandate to pirates (kind of Daesh, v1, if I'm not mistaken - though similar atrocities were committed in licenses to kill either Buffalo or Indians in the American West), by rebranding them as privateers ( 1540 to 1812 ).

Unlike anything which the G7, the US or the EU are proposing, the Silk Road really has potential to improve the lives of billions.

  1. Relatively free trade among neighboring and distant countries yet with relatively efficient transportation distances (distances are substantial but for the most part are not South China to NYC).
  2. Low cost of transportation ( rail is the least polluting of all major means of transportation). Sea freight seems to compete but there are many hidden factors in ocean pollution (waste and toxic dumping, tanker accidents, etc). Rail is at least four times more efficient and less polluting than road (see table 19 on p. 30 of the PDF linked above).
  3. Bringing previously landlocked countries development and trade opportunities.
  4. No easy way to bring military to bear on the weakest. US/British ocean based imperialism means that there are no countries to cross between San Diego and the Philippines or Portmouth and Argentina. In land wars, each country across across which a belligerent powers seeks transport troops or material has to accede to the movement. Hence the value of the EU and NATO to the US - we can no longer refuse military transports (I believe Austria tries, Czech Republic tried and failed).
  5. Sets up an alternative structure. The average age of poster/reader at MofA seems relatively high (we seem to be in our forties-fifties) so most of us will remember the so-called Cold War. It was a fantastic period for most of the world (South America was not spared the American lash, some countries in Eastern Europe still justifiably lament Soviet oppression. The tale of the tape leads to a different story though: Soviet casualties in satellites vs Imperialist (American) casualties in Satellites (1).

What mattered was that in a world with multiple hegemons, the West had to treat its workers well, maintain a free press and generally make living conditions appealing enough that no country would be attempted to follow the Yugoslavian route. It's no accident that Yugoslavia was the first victim of Pax Americana after the end of the Cold War.

No matter how you cut it, unless you are a British or US Imperialist (please take the Opium Wars, the North American Indian Genocide, the destruction of the Philippines, annihilation of the Maoris, the suppression of continental India and the rape of Africa on your conscience first), the Silk Road is a great benefit to Asia and Europe, facilitating trade and creating a two polar system. That two polar system will take us back to where we were before 1989: our would-be masters have to mind their manners and tread very carefully lest we switch sides. The Canadians and the Mexicans will remain more or less trapped. With a bit of luck they might enjoy the same benefits as the native US population as internal revolution will become a danger again.

Balance of power is the key to equal relations and a healthy middle class. Alas, the poor always suffer.

-----------

(1) Approximate casualties in repression of satrapies:

I'm omitting Viet Nam 1955-1975 (3 million+), Korea 1950-1953 (2.5million+), Philippines 1899-1902 (1 million+), Afghanistan (30000+, only violent deaths ) as wars rather than straight repression of satraps or outside of the period of interest (Cold War).

Post-Cold War, the US Imperialism has conducted the following punitive operations:

I note that the estimates of casualties for Imperialist (US) actions tend to ignore deaths among the displaced. Their invasions usually lead to many millions displaced (ethnic conflict fanned, whole parts of a country made unliveable via depleted uranium) so casualty estimates (Yugoslavia, Libya, Yemen are ridiculously low). The Iraq War received more attention so the statistics are more comprehensive if controversial with ( guess who ) consistently lobbying down the numbers.

It's worth noting that the US underestimates its own combat losses, really counting only killed and battlefield injuries. That's not nearly enough:

However, as of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who participated in War, have been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. About 30% of the 700,000 men and women who served in U.S. forces during the Gulf War still suffer an array of serious symptoms whose causes are not fully understood.

Is it the depleted uranium or perhaps the psychological stress of murdering defenceless people (surrendered soldiers or simple civilians)? I don't know but would like to know why so many deployed US military end up as invalids.

Uncoy | Jun 10, 2018 10:10:26 AM | 78

et Al , Jun 10, 2018 11:34:13 AM | 79

Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires - in my opinion.

Up to 1999, the West looked unassailable. Then the attack on Serbia happened. It showed the limits of war on the 'cheap', i.e. bombing from the air but nothing to hold ground or willingness to risk soldiers lives. The Yugoslav army was expected to cower and run from 'shock and awe', the politicians to surrender 'after a few days of bombing'.

78 days later NATO had failed, the Yugoslav army unbeaten, but the axe fell from Moscow.

This snatching of victory from the jaws of defeat was not taken as a warning of the shifting sands that the 1999 attack showed. Rather, there was a brief mopping of brows before the self-congratulation and memory management kicked in and like a football match, a victory is still a victory, however they got their. If there were any lessons were learned, they were kept out of sight and thus quickly forgotten for all but a few.

1999 showed that effective resistance was possible. Others took note. The attack on Afghanistan was the tipping point of the cascade. Not that I would deny the obvious importance of other actors since on building blocks of resistance since, the trend has clearly been there, such as the developing world's refusal to accept the west's demands of fully opening up their markets in return for some beans at the Doha round of world trade talks, let alone the financial crisis.

That we are here now, is not a great surprise. How 'we' got here has been a real rock and roll ride over the bodies of many innocents. Their blood stains the souls of those involved and their cheerleaders and there is still a price to be paid.

The west is still working though the Kubler-Ross 'Five Stages of Grief' and it will take a long time to come to terms with reality as many of the greenhorns in the early 1990s are now in senior positions, not to mention that the multi-polar world is a fact and negotiation on a more equal level is all that remains. It might all still go wrong...

P.S. For those who ascribe to the 'Putin weak, Israel stooge etc.' rubbish, the Saker recently did a decent piece entitled 'Is Putin really ready to "ditch" Iran?'

fairleft , Jun 10, 2018 11:58:27 AM | 80
hopehely @4: Japan is most likely to follow the big EU countries, who for now will stay loyal to the US-centered financial/military duopoly of power.

I don't think (over the next 10-20 years) the vast expansion of the China export market will overcome the power of the financial borg and the military-industrial complex, both within Japan and throughout the 'West'. The 'people' need to do that, but they are weak.

[Jun 11, 2018] International law means so very little when there is a political agenda.

Jun 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

craigsummers | Jun 10, 2018 8:16:02 AM | 69

Before attending the summit Trump trolled his colleagues by inviting Russia to rejoin the G-7/G-8 format without conditions. Russia had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland . Merkel, who had negotiated the Minsk agreement with Russia, was furious. She wants to use such an invitation as an element of future negotiations. (It is stupid attempt. Russia is not interested in rejoining the G-7/G-8 format.

First of all, in 1991, a majority of Crimeans opted to join Ukraine (independence). So much for the motherland! Secondly, Russia recognized Crimea as a part of Ukraine when they signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Thirdly, Russia illegally invaded Crimea to secure the peninsula. Putin lied when he said there was no invasion. Murdered journalist and Russian politician, Boris Nemtsov, describes in his well sourced work on the Russian war in Ukraine exactly how the referendum in Crimea came about ("Putin. War"):

As for how "voluntary" the return [of Crimea] was, Igor Girkin, the former Defense Minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, recounted on January 22, 2015, on the program "Polit-Ring," broadcast by the online channel Neyromir-TV.

By his own account, Girkin arrived in Crimea on February 21, 2014. "I did not see any support from organizers of state power in Simferopol, where I was located. The militia gathered the deputies [of the Supreme Soviet of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea], I don't know how else to say it. It was to force them into the building, so they would adopt it (a decision on conducting the referendum on the entrance of Crimea to the Russian Federation) ." We 23 note that the events described by Girkin (Strelkov) took place on February 27, 2014, immediately after a number of strategic objectives had been taken over by Russian Special Forces on the night of February 26- 27, including the parliament building, where, at gunpoint , with no media present and without the video broadcast of sessions as specified by law, the deputies supposedly voted to hold a referendum.

It's always interesting how international law means so very little when there is a political agenda.

Don Karlos , Jun 10, 2018 8:45:53 AM | 70
@70

Politicking aside, this is just 3/3 factually incorrect

(1) In 1991, Crimea was part of Ukrainian SSR. Referendum result was a vote for the Crimea to become an autonomous republic as part of USSR (in present terms that means independence from Ukraine, not from Russia). (Another all-USSR referendum of 1991 vote was for the preserving the USSR, 70 % yes) (2) There is not a single word in Budapest memorandum specifically on Crimea. It uses vague non-enforceable language (' reaffirm commitment' etc). It does talk about respect for 'existing territory of Ukraine', however this territory is nowhere defined. (+In any case, at present time international affairs are not conducted strictly to the letter of international laws in general) (3) large number of troops were there already on the Russian Navy bases, by prior arrangements. There was no 'invasion'. Subsequent referendum of 2014 on the whole was an adequate reflection of how people on the ground felt.

[Jun 11, 2018] I think it wise to examine what Trump's outbursts at and beyond the G6+1 are based upon--his understanding of Economic Nationalism

Jun 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Jun 11, 2018 12:06:47 PM | 111

As we await info on Kim-Trump, I think it wise to examine what Trump's outbursts at and beyond the G6+1 are based upon--his understanding of Economic Nationalism. Fortunately, we have an excellent, recent, Valdai Club paper addressing the topic that's not too technical or lengthy. The author references two important papers by Lavrov and Putin that ought to be read afterwards. Lavrov's is the elder and ought to be first. Putin's Belt & Road International Forum Address, 2017 provides an excellent example of the methods outlined in the first paper.

I could certainly add more, but IMO these provide an excellent basis for comprehending Trump's motivations as he's clearly reacting to the Russian and Chinese initiatives. Furthermore, one can discover why Russia now holds the EU at arms length while Putin's "I told you so" reminder had to sting just a bit.

Then to recap it all, I highly suggest reading Pepe Escobar's excellent article I linked to yesterday higher up in the thread.

[Jun 10, 2018] Bernard Lewis The Bush Administration's Court Intellectual by Gilbert T. Sewall

Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... American Scholar ..."
Jun 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli partisan.

I encountered the late Bernard Lewis (1916-2018) during the 1990s culture wars, when historians and educators met full-frontal multiculturalism, a thematic force beginning to reshape U.S. and world history curricula in schools and colleges.

The two of us shared early, firsthand experience with Islamist disinformation campaigns on and off campus. Using sympathetic academics, curriculum officers, and educational publishers as tools, Muslim activists were seeking to rewrite Islamic history in textbooks and state and national standards.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, created in 1994, was complaining of anti-Muslim "bigotry," "racial profiling," "institutional racism," and "fear-mongering," while trying to popularize the word "Islamophobia," and stoking the spirit of ethnic injustice and prejudice in Washington politics.

Lewis and I were of different generations, he a charming academic magnifico long associated with Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study. He had just retired from teaching and was widely regarded as the nation's most influential scholar of Islam. "Islam has Allah," he said sardonically at the time. "We've got multiculturalism."

Washington's Pax Americana Cartel Christopher Columbus: At the Center of the Culture War

Long before I met him, Lewis had alerted those who were listening to rising friction between the Islamic world and the West. This was, in his mind, the outcome of Islam's centuries-long decline and failure to embrace modernity. In thinking this way, Lewis had earned the fury of the professor and Palestinian activist Edward Said at Columbia University, who wrote Orientalism in 1978.

Said's influential book cast previous Western studies of the Near and Middle East as Eurocentric, romantic, prejudiced, and racist. For Said, orientalism was an intellectual means to justify Western conquest and empire. Bernard Lewis's outlook epitomized this approach and interpretation. Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate student Barack Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and geopolitics as president.

For some years, Lewis had warned of the ancient feuds between the West and Islam: in 1990 he'd forecast a coming "clash of civilizations" in Atlantic magazine, a phrase subsequently popularized by Harvard professor Samuel E. Huntington.

Throughout his long career, Lewis warned that Western guilt over its conquests and past was not collateral. "In the Muslim world there are no such inhibitions," Lewis once observed. "They are very conscious of their identity. They know who they are and what they are and what they want, a quality which we seem to have lost to a very large extent. This is a source of strength in the one, of weakness in the other."

Other examples of Lewis's controversial, persuasive observations include:

During the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Lewis suddenly gained immense political influence, love-bombed by White House neocons Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, and other policymakers to a degree that preyed on the old man's vanity and love of the spotlight.

Anti-war feeling in official Washington then was unpopular. Among Republicans and Democrats alike, to assert that Israel and oil were parts of the equation appeared uncouth. Insisted the neocons and White House: the aim of the war was to bring democratic government and regional order to the Mideast. Rescued from despotism, Iraqis would cheer invasion, Lewis and his allies claimed, as Afghanis welcomed relief from Taliban fundamentalists.

In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect, had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also revealed that Lewis had long been politically involved with Israel and a confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon.

"Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis's diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test," the Journal proclaimed.

And so it has gone. After 15 years of many hard-to-follow shifts in policy and force, with vast human and materiel costs, some analysts look upon U.S. policy in Iraq and the Mideast as a geopolitical disaster, still in shambles and not soon to improve.

In other eyes Lewis stands guilty of devising a sophistic rationale to advance Israel's security at the expense of U.S. national interests. In 2006, Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer accused Lewis of consciously providing intellectual varnish to an Israel-centered policy group inside the George W. Bush administration that was taking charge of Mideast policies. The same year, Lewis's reckless alarmism on Iranian nukes on behalf of Israeli interests drew wide ridicule and contempt.

A committed Zionist, Lewis conceived of Israel as an essential part of Western civilization and an island of freedom in the Mideast. Though, acutely aware of Islam's nature and history, he must have had doubts about the capacity to impose democracy through force. Later, he stated unconvincingly that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the facts of the matter point in another direction.

Lewis thus leaves a mixed legacy. It is a shame that he shelved his learned critiques and compromised his scholarly stature late in life to pursue situational geopolitics. With his role as a government advisor before the Iraq war, academic Arabists widely took to calling Lewis "the Great Satan," whereas Edward Said's favored position in academic circles is almost uncontested.

Yet few dispute that Lewis was profoundly knowledgeable of his subject. His view that Islamic fundamentalism fails all liberal tests of toleration, cross-cultural cooperation, gender equality, gay rights, and freedom of conscience still holds. Most Islamic authorities consider separation of church and state either absurd or evil. They seek to punish free inquiry, blasphemy, and apostasy. Moreover, it is their obligation to do so under holy law. Wearing multicultural blinders, contemporary European and American progressives pretend none of this is so. As has been demonstrated since 2015, Europe provides opportunities for territorial expansion, as do open-borders politics in the U.S. and Canada.

In 1990, long before his Washington adventures, Lewis wrote in the American Scholar , "We live in a time when great efforts are being made to falsify the record of the past and to make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties, and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been."

On and off campus, Islamists today use Western progressive politics and ecumenical dreams to further their holy struggle.

Lewis would point out that this force is completely understandable; in fact, it is a sacred duty. What would disturb him more is that in the name of diversity, Western intellectuals and journalists, government and corporate officials, and even military generals have eagerly cooperated.

Gilbert T. Sewall is co-author of After Hiroshima: The United States Since 1945 and editor of The Eighties: A Reader .

Ray Steinberg June 8, 2018 at 12:56 am

Why the long spiel when this article could have conveyed its thesis in the single line:

"Among Republicans and Democrats alike, to assert that Israel and oil were parts of the equation appeared uncouth "

Fayez Abedaziz , says: June 8, 2018 at 2:10 am
This article is exactly what this so-called intellectual Lewis is:
opinion.
All that's said by this Lewis guy is his opinion and his goal was hatred of Islam, therefore, he wanted it to then have people follow along with hatred for arabs and Palestinians.
This was, of course, because then, people would keep supporting Israel!
How 'bout that?
Who are we kidding?
When talking about the history of this nation or that religion, Lewis offers mostly his opinion and takes whatever event out of context to try to prove all this anti-Islam
rubbish. There are nations that have a majority of people of the Moslem religion, that have different systems of government and so, we have free voting, and had for decades, in Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and so on.
Pakistan and Turkey had female Prime Ministers decade ago how 'bout that! And so did Indonesia, the nation most populated by Moslems, in the word, and so did Senegal, in Africa.
These nations are thousands of miles apart, with different languages and cultures.
What is not pointed out, but I will, since I know, is that whenever there was turmoil in an election in a mostly Moslem populated nation, why it was the meddling by the U.S. covertly and with bribes and trouble making.
Like when the CIA did that in Iran in 1953 after a fellow, Mosaddegh was freely elected and he was stopped and the dictator Shah was put in.
The U.S. constantly either installed or supported anti-democratic leaders in the Middle East and Asia.
By the way, that's how you put the subject of Edward Said- that he was a professor and a Palestinian activist? That's it?
How come you didn't tell us readers that he is a Christian?
Lewis knows no more about the makings, origins or history of religions that do many dozens of thousands of professors in the U.S. alone.
But, he has been is given a lot of media, and still is, because he is liked by the neo-cons. Also, I know more than Lewis did.
dig what I'm saying
undertakings , says: June 8, 2018 at 6:12 am
"In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect, had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also revealed that Lewis had long been politically involved with Israel and a confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon."

In laymen's terms, Lewis was an Israeli operative working the academic beat. His American citizenship meant about as much to him as his earlier British citizenship had, a matter of convenience, nothing more. Stripped of the spurious Ivy League gloss, his "scholarship" was tendentious; it served to advance a political agenda and was consistently tainted by his entanglements with politicians and political institutions. Circa 2018 it reads as badly dated, often wrong, and generally wrong-headed.

I see he died a few weeks ago. Good riddance. "Intellectual father of the Iraq War" isn't the epitaph of a decent human being.

Saint Kyrillos , says: June 8, 2018 at 8:00 am
The consensus I'm aware of is that Obama's foreign policy was just a continuation of the foreign policy pursued by Bush during his second term. How does Obama continuing the foreign policy positions of Bush, who was influenced by Lewis, indicate that Obama's views on the middle east were influenced by Said? It should similarly be noted that while academics are practically universal in siding with Said over Lewis, they did not universally support him against other orientalists. While I'm likely butchering his claims, I seem to recall that Robert Irwin criticized Said's Orientalism for focusing too much on Bernard Lewis, ignoring the work of German orientalists who would complicate Said's claims about the West's portrayal of the middle east.
George Hoffman , says: June 8, 2018 at 9:23 am
I admire his spirited defense of the Western canon in literature and culture based upon Judeo-Christian values. But he lost me when he joined forces with the campaign to blacklist Professors John Meanshimer and Steven Walt with their book The Israel Lobby. The book originally was an article that was expanded into their book. But because of the blacklist against them, they coildn't ge their critique published in America and had to go to The London Review of Books. And of course the article was smeared as anti-Semitic because it was critical of the Israeli lobby (namely AIPAC) and its influence over our foreign policy.
mrscracker , says: June 8, 2018 at 9:53 am
"He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli partisan."
*****************
I'm missing how vanity & supporting Israel are connected?
polistra , says: June 8, 2018 at 10:51 am
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and trained it. Our purpose was not to defang Islam but to superfang it, so we could have a new enemy to justify ever-increasing budgets and power for Deepstate.

Now that we've switched back to Russia as the official enemy, our focus on Islam is fading.

Frank Healy , says: June 8, 2018 at 11:46 am
Saying that Lewis fell prey to vanity is easier than saying he, like the rest of the neocons, was a hypocritical ethnic chauvinist.

In other words:

"Ethnic chauvinism is a sin and a great evil, or evidence of dangerous mental illness, except for the Zionists who you need to support uncritically and unconditionally."

Myron Hudson , says: June 8, 2018 at 1:04 pm
One thing to remember about zionists is that many of the christian ones are expecting to trigger the second coming once certain things come to pass and this includes geography in that region. I grew up with that. Anyway, to them it's not reckless, it's speeding the prophecy along to its rightful end.
ed , says: June 8, 2018 at 2:20 pm
Lewis' so-called analysis and historiography was politicized and deeply flawed, so much so that he showed himself to be a bigot against Arabs and Armenians – he was a scholar of Turkish history, who had been, wined, dined, bought and sold, and corrupted by the Turkish and Israeli governments to serves as their genocide denialist- and of Islam, and anything else Middle Eastern, that did not serve Israel's interests. He offered himself to the neocons as a willing academic and did much damage by 'legitimizing' their bogus 'war on terror'.
He should not be allowed to rest in peace or escape accountability in the judgment of history.
EliteCommInc. , says: June 8, 2018 at 5:54 pm
i guess is the question . . . to decipher the depth and scope that islam poses to the US.

There are just not that many non-Muslims shooting people over cartoons, and insults in the name of god. I have some very fine relational dynamics with muslims, but on occasion, i can't help but wonder which one is going take me out because i don't use the term honorable when I say mohammed's name.

The Nt doesn't even advocate throwing stones at people who steal my coat, I am supposed to offer up the other.

Janwaar Bibi , says: June 8, 2018 at 7:10 pm
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and trained it.

Islamic fundamentalism blighted and extinguished the lives of millions of Armenians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others in the first half of the 20th century, long before dumb Westerners funded it or armed it. The fact that people in the West are clueless about this history does not mean it did not happen.

BillWAF , says: June 9, 2018 at 2:21 am
Obama had an English class with Said as an undergrad at Columbia. So did Leon Wieseltier years earlier, as did many other Columbia students. Interestingly enough, Wiesaltier remained an aggressive zionist. The claim that Said had any effect upon Obama's foreign policy ideas; policies; or actions is profoundly silly.

To support your claim that "Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate student Barack Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and geopolitics as president," you need a great deal more evidence. Currently, you have none.

Donald , says: June 9, 2018 at 3:01 pm
Cheer up Janwaar -- most of us are clueless about fascist Hindus and Buddhists as well.
Philly guy , says: June 9, 2018 at 3:04 pm
Islamic fundamentalism was created and funded by Israel and the US to compete with the then Marxist PLO and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.You thought Marxist terrorism was problematic,look at Islamic terrorism.

[Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism by Sasha Breger Bush

Highly recommended!
This is prophetic article, no question about it. "National neoliberalism" and interesting term.
Notable quotes:
"... Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. ..."
"... By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism. But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives, appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism differs most starkly from its European cousins. ..."
Dec 24, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
Originally published by Dollars & Sense

And why the world is about to get much more dangerous The election of Donald Trump "represents a triumph of neoliberal thinking and values." (Photo: Carlo Allegri/ Reuters) Many writers and pundits are currently framing Trump's election in terms of a dispossessed and disenfranchised white, male working class, unsatisfied with neoliberal globalization and the insecurity and hardship it has unleashed -- particularly across regions of the United States that were formerly manufacturing powerhouses (like the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, four states believed to have cost Hillary Clinton the election). While there is much truth to this perspective and substantial empirical evidence to support it, it would be a mistake to see Trump's election wholly in these terms.

"What Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state."

Trump's election is in some ways a neoliberal apex, an event that portends the completion of the U.S. government's capture by wealthy corporate interests. While in my opinion Trump's election does not signal the beginning of a rapid descent into European-style fascism, it appears to be a key stage in the ongoing process of American democratic disintegration. American democracy has been under attack from large and wealthy corporate interests for a long time, with this process accelerating and gaining strength over the period of neoliberal globalization (roughly the early 1970s to the present). This time period is associated with the rise of powerful multinational corporations with economic and political might that rivals that of many national governments.

In terms of the political consequences of these trends in the U.S., certain thinkers have argued that the U.S. political system is not democratic at all, but rather an "inverted totalitarian" system. Political commentator Chris Hedges notes: "Inverted totalitarianism is different from classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in the faceless anonymity of the corporate state." Citing the American political theorist Sheldon Wolin, Hedges continues, "Unlike the Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing social programs for the working class and poor, inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor, reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an insecure workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers." Our inverted totalitarian system is one that retains the trappings of a democratic system -- e.g. it retains the appearance of loyalty to "the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press, [and] the independence of the judiciary" -- all the while undermining the capacity of citizens to substantively participate and exert power over the system.

In my view, what Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state. Trump gives inverted totalitarianism a persona and a face, and perhaps marks the beginning of a transformation from inverted totalitarianism to totalitarianism proper. In spite of this, it makes no sense to me to call the system toward which we are heading (that is, if we do not stand up and resist with all our might right this second) "fascism" or to make too close comparisons to the Nazis. Whatever totalitarian nightmare is on our horizon, it will be uniquely American. And it will bear a striking resemblance to the corporate oriented system we've been living in for decades. Indeed, if the pre-Trump system of inverted totalitarianism solidified in the context of global neoliberalism, the period we are entering now seems likely to be one characterized by what I call "national neoliberalism."

Trump's Election Doesn't Mean the End of Neoliberalism

Trump's election represents a triumph of neoliberal thinking and values. Perhaps most importantly, we should all keep in mind the fact that Americans just elected a businessman to the presidency. In spite of his Wall Street background and billionaire status, Trump successfully cast himself as the "anti-establishment" candidate. This configuration -- in which a top-one-percenter real estate tycoon is accepted as a political "outsider" -- is a hallmark of neoliberal thinking. The fundamental opposition between market and government is a central dichotomy in the neoliberal narrative. In electing Trump, American voters are reproducing this narrative, creating an ideological cover for the closer connections between business and the state that are in store moving forward (indeed, Trump is already using the apparatus of the U.S. federal government to promote his own business interests). As states and markets further fuse in coming years, this representation of Trump and his administration -- as being anti-government -- will help immunize his administration from accusations of too-cozy relationships with big business. Trump's attempts to "drain the swamp" by imposing Congressional term limits and constraints on lobbying activities by former political officials will also help to hide this relationship. (Has anyone else noticed that Trump only addresses half of the "revolving door," i.e., he plans to limit the lobbying of former politicians, but not the political roles of businessmen?)

"Whatever totalitarian nightmare is on our horizon, it will be uniquely American."

Trump's Contract with the American Voter, his plan for the first 100 days in office, discusses policies and programs many of which are consistent with neoliberal thinking. (I understand the term "neoliberalism" to emphasize at its core the importance of private property rights, market-based social organization, and the dangers of government intervention in the economy.) Trump's plan redirects the activities of the U.S. government along the lines touted by neoliberal "market fundamentalists" like Milton Friedman, who advocate limiting government's role to market-supportive functions like national defense (defense stocks are doing very well since the election) and domestic law and order (Trump's proposals have a lot to do with altering immigration policy to "restore security"). Trump also plans to use government monies to revitalize physical infrastructure and create jobs. Other government functions, for example, health care provision and education as well as protecting the environment and public lands, are open for privatization and defunding in Trump's agenda. Under Trump, the scope of federal government activities will narrow, likely to infrastructure, national defense, and domestic policing and surveillance, even if overall government spending increases (as bond markets are predicting).

Trump also seems content to take neoliberal advice in regard to business regulation (less is best) and the role of the private sector in regulating itself (industry insiders understand regulatory needs better than public officials). Trump's plan for the first 100 days specifies "a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated." As of the time of this writing, his selection of cabinet appointees illustrate a broad willingness to appoint businesspeople to government posts. As of mid-December 2016, a Goldman Sachs veteran, Steven Mnuchin, has been appointed Secretary of the Treasury; billionaire investor Wilbur Ross has been appointed Secretary of Commerce; fossil fuel industry supporter and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has been appointed as EPA administrator; and fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder has been appointed as Secretary of Labor. Trump's business council is staffed by the CEOs of major U.S. corporations including JP Morgan Chase, IBM and General Motors. To be fair, the "revolving door" between government and industry has been perpetuated by many of Trump's predecessors, with Trump poised to continue the tradition. But this is not to say that neoliberalism will continue going in a "business as usual" fashion. The world is about to get much more dangerous, and this has serious implications for patterns of global trade and investment.

Trump's Election Does Mean the End of Globalism

The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see himself as a global citizen. Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading network. In other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized system (this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization trends around the world). I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape of U.S. allies and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.

Trump's Contract with the American Voter outlines several policies that will make it more expensive and riskier to do business abroad. All of these need not occur; I think that even one or two of these changes will be sufficient to alter expectations in business communities about the benefits of certain cross-border economic relationships. Pulling the United States out of the TPP, along with threats to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement and attempts to renegotiate NAFTA, is already signaling to other countries that we are not interested in international cooperation and collaboration. A crackdown on foreign trading abuses will prompt retaliation. Labelling China a currency manipulator will sour relations between the two countries and prompt retaliation by China. As Trump goes forward with his anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, he will alienate the United States' traditional allies in Europe (at least until Europe elects its own nationalist and xenophobic leaders) and communities across the Global South. The U.S. election has already undermined performance in emerging markets, and bigoted rhetoric and policy will only increase anti-American sentiment in struggling economies populated largely by people of color. Add to this the risk of conflict posed by any number of the following: his antagonizing China, allying with Russia, deploying ground troops to stop ISIS, and pulling out of the Korean DMZ, among other initiatives that seem likely to contribute to a more confrontational and violent international arena. All of this is to say that Trump will not have to intervene directly in the affairs of business in order to nationalize it. The new global landscape of conflict and risk, combined with elevated domestic spending on infrastructure and security, will bring U.S. business and investment back home nonetheless.

National Neoliberalism and State-Market Relations

Fascist states are corporatist in nature, a state of affairs marked by a fusion of state and business functions and interests, with an often significant role for labor interests as well. In the fascist states on the European continent in the 1930s and 1940s -- systems that fall under the umbrella of "national socialism" -- the overwhelming power of the state characterized this tripartite relationship. Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. in regard to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (as well as Stalinist Russia), "The state was conceived as the main center of power, providing the leverage necessary for the mobilization and reconstruction of society".

By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism. But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives, appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism differs most starkly from its European cousins.

Of course it helps that much of the fusion of state and market in the United States is already complete, what with decades of revolving doors and privatization initiatives spanning the military, police, prison, healthcare and educational sectors, among others. It will not take much to further cement the relationship. © 2018 Dollars & Sense

Sasha Breger Bush is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado–Denver and author of Derivatives and Development: A Political Economy of Global Finance, Farming, and Poverty (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

[Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism, Revisited by Sasha Breger Bush

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor will they ensure a freer and more just future. ..."
Jun 10, 2018 | www.dollarsandsense.org

This article is from Dollars & Sense : Real World Economics, available at http://www.dollarsandsense.org

Last winter, in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election, I wrote an article for Dollars & Sense in which I argued that Trump's election represented a transition toward "national neoliberalism" in the United States ("Trump and National Neoliberalism: Trump's ascendance means the end of globalism -- but not of neoliberalism," January/February 2017).

I argued that this emergent state of affairs would be marked by a completion of the takeover of the U.S. government by corporate interests. I saw the election of Trump -- a top one-percenter and real estate tycoon firmly rooted in the culture and logic of big business, who has somehow convinced many Americans that he is an anti-establishment "outsider" -- as an "unmasking" of the corporate state, a revelation of the ongoing merger between state and market that has arguably been ongoing since the 1970s. In short, I envisioned a movement away from "global neoliberalism," a state of affairs characterized by the increasing preeminence of transnational corporate capital in a relatively open global political-economic system, and towards "national neoliberalism," a state of affairs in which transnational corporate dominance is cemented in the context of an ever more fragmented and dangerous global system.

About ten years ago, political theorist Sheldon Wolin published Democracy Incorporated , diagnosing American democracy with a potentially fatal corporate disease. Referring to the specter of "inverted totalitarianism," Wolin writes in his preface:

Primarily it represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry. Unlike the classic forms of totalitarianism [e.g. Germany, Italy], which openly boasted of their intentions to force their societies into preconceived totality, inverted totalitarianism is not expressly conceptualized as an ideology or objectified in public policy. Typically it is furthered by power-holders and citizens who often seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions. There is a certain heedlessness, an inability to take seriously the extent to which a pattern of consequences may take shape without having been preconceived. Wolin paints a picture of a gradual process of change in which many different actors, some wealthy and powerful and others not, unwittingly push the country's politics, bit by bit in piecemeal fashion, towards an undemocratic, corporate-controlled end. Many of these actors may have good intentions. Many of them may see themselves as champions of the people. Many of them may actually speak out against the very interests that they in other ways empower.

This framework for thinking about the plight of the United States, which has for me been legitimated over and over again during Trump's first year in office, conditions how I think about President Trump and the Republican Party, and how I think about our opportunities for nonviolent social transformation, freedom, and social justice. It's hard not to point to President Trump and blame him for our problems. He is a bigot who has struck out at immigrants, Muslims, Arabs, African-Americans, Mexicans, women, LGBT people, and disabled people. He lacks the basic knowledge of politics and foreign policy that are a necessary condition for competent leadership. He picked up a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan in December 2016, disrupting relations with China, and called North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un "short" and "fat." He is a paranoid and narcissistic demagogue who has scorned and marginalized journalists, and made the terms "fake news" and "alternative facts" household words. He is a corrupt businessman who is using the levers of power that he controls to enrich Big Business, as well as his cronies, his friends, and himself. I could go on.

It's also hard not to point to Republicans in Congress. After the election, there was hope that the "never Trump" Republicans would win out and that Trump's agenda would be blocked. This has not happened. While some in Congress, like Senators McCain (R-Ariz.), Corker (R-Tenn.), Collins (R-Maine), Flake (R-Ariz.) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) have defied Trump in certain contexts (e.g. on foreign policy), on many issues congressional Republicans have simply fallen in line (e.g. with tax reform). Today, the Republican Party is often discussed by liberals in the same breath as Trump, with everyone hoping for good news in 2018 and 2020.

But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans.

President Obama presided over the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a process that President Trump is continuing. As William Hartung recently reported in Mother Jones , "There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the massive U.S. arsenal: It has more to do with the power and profits of weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic considerations." President Obama also helped corporations get richer and more powerful in other ways. He negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal that, if Trump had not withdrawn us, would have expanded U.S. corporate access to overseas markets and given multinational corporates new policy leverage over governments (via investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms). (See Robin Brand, "Remembering the 'Tokyo No'," Dollars & Sense , January/February 2015.) In 2012, as he was running for his second term, Obama proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 28%, not much different from the bill just passed by Congress. He also lobbied Congress for the $700 billion Wall Street bailouts after the Great Recession, continuing on the policy path set by his Republican predecessor, President Bush. (Obama received huge campaign contributions from finance, insurance, and real estate.) In terms of income inequality, CNBC had to reluctantly conclude that the gap widened under Obama, in spite of all his powerful rhetoric about equity and equality.

President Clinton negotiated and signed NAFTA into law, a trade agreement that created hardship for millions of American manufacturing workers and farmers, and generated large profits for multinational industrial and agricultural corporations. Clinton also pushed for welfare reform, signing into law a "workfare" system that required recipients to meet strict job and employment related conditions. Millions of people became ineligible for payments under the new system, and poverty increased especially among households in which members were long-term unemployed. Clinton's 1997 tax proposal advocated cutting estate taxes and capital gains taxes, and did not favor lower-income Americans. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted, "Analyses by the Treasury Department indicate that when fully in effect, the Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes about the same amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent combined. This is an unusual characteristic for a tax plan proposed by a Democratic President."

All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor will they ensure a freer and more just future.

I plan to support third-party candidates at the ballot box in coming years, in the hopes of contributing to the creation of a new kind of political infrastructure that can help us to unmake the corporate state.

SASHA BREGER-BUSH is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado–Denver.

[Jun 10, 2018] Some display a weird obsession with colonialism. In reality everyone's self-serving; the form changes but at the end of the day, that's nature. And evidently the West, whatever foibles it has, should at least make an effort to survive

Jun 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

GammaRay , June 9, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT

@Daniel Chieh

There is no universal, global brotherhood of "nationalist, right-wing, anti-SJW" values as you seem to be trying to imply. The western far-right/alt-right is entirely self-serving and their appeals to some kind of global nationalistic ideology is basically just a thin facade that they promote in order to help generate support for their own self-serving agenda. The only reason that the western far-right wants to reach out for allies right now is because they are on the ropes and in a position of weakness; if the western far-right was instead in a position of strength then they would not hesitate to put their boot on your neck. You are quite naive if you don't think otherwise.

As an long time observer of the western far-right; its very clear that at the end of the day, it is not principles that they care about, it is only themselves. That in itself would be fine if they were upfront about it, however the problem is that they insist on being very deceptive about their true motives. As I have said in this post, and so many others; why is it that the far-right wants to postulate about "rights" and "fairness" when it comes to the preservation of the white race, but then when it comes to any other ethnic group on earth that has been negatively impacted by western colonialism the far-right just tells them to go fuck themselves? This tells you all you need to know about how the far-right really feels about its so called vaunted principles regarding racial/cultural preservation. They believe in it for themselves yes, but will be more than willing to compromise this belief when it comes to any others. You are missing the forest for the trees if you insist on adhering to notions of abstract jointly-held values at the expense of basic strategic interests; this is something I guarantee you is not lost on the western far-right.

You also assume that SJWism is going to spread to east asia and negatively affect the culture there in the same way that it has in the west. Is this or is this not the primary motivation why you seek an alliance with the western far-right? Have I understood your motive correctly? Going on the assumption that this is actually your motive; then why haven't you taken into account the fact that culturally and genetically speaking, east asians simply think differently than whites do? There is no reason to believe that SJWism is going to run as rampantly in east asia as it has in the west. It will gain a foothold that is for sure, but it won't gain the same kind of traction that it has in the west. Ideologies cannot completely change the essential natures of people, if this was the case then the alt-right (based on racial determinism) would not exist in the first place. Anyways this is a moot point; if the west fully declines then it would be unable to export its leftist ideals anyways, so I don't see what you're mad about.

Once again, to reiterate my original point. It is absurd for POC to assume that the western far-right in any way, shape or form represents their interests or at the very least is a neutral entity towards them. It is true that POC is a clumsy, extremely general term, but in this context it functions perfectly. The western far-right worldview is basically encapsulated as "whites vs all others"; therefore within this context, a pan non-white concept like POC is useful for working within such a stark, extremist ideological framework. What is playing out in the west right now is basically the west struggling with its own past actions; highly conscientious POC need to sit on the sidelines, shutup and let this play out on its own. There is no need to take sides here, the west made its own bed, let it sleep in it, this has nothing to do with POC.

GammaRay , June 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Most of us are against both 'invite the world' and 'invade the world'.

Im an old hand on the internet far-right/alt-right scene; what you said is generally true except with a major caveat. The alt-right is against invading the world only when it doesn't result in any net gain for the west. The alt-right doesn't actually have a principled stance against colonization/invading other countries; rather they are only against invading other countries when it inconveniences them, but when it happens to benefit them, they are fully supportive of all kinds of invasions. This is probably one of the things that disgusts me most about the alt-right is how they lack any kind of true, consistent moral foundation but like to act as if they do.

Its not really a useful argument to ask if something is really a grassroots thing or not. You could apply that same line of reasoning to anything to the extent where it could obscure the true reality of an event. Is globalization due to the actions of a jewish ruling class? Perhaps. But many on the alt-right still blame jews in general because they understand that there is something in jewish culture that is sympathetic to the globalization project overall. The same thing applies to western colonization as well. Regardless of what the western ruling class chose to do, there was an eager, sympathetic and compliant population which enabled western colonization to happen. If the population was not enthusiastic about the colonization project then the broad and thorough scale of european colonization would have been impossible otherwise.

The very act of colonizing and expansion is something that speaks to the very soul of western man. Most on the far-right fully agree with this sentiment btw and this is something that you see them say over and over. Simply trying to deflect all the blame on the ruling class and absolve the people actually carrying out actions is pretty disingenuous. The reality is, both the ruling class and its subjects are both equally culpable for european colonization. More importantly, I want to add that while colonialism may not have originated as a grassroots movement, it certainly had (and continues to have) grassroots support (especially among the far-right). Which is something that is equally important to consider (and equally damning as well)

Daniel Chieh , June 9, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
@GammaRay

You have a weird obsession with colonialism. Everyone's self-serving; the form changes but at the end of the day, that's nature.

You're just as self-serving, except that you've apparently have a global image of "POC" being united for some reason. And evidently the West, which for whatever foibles it has, shouldn't at least make an effort to survive?

God, that's stupid.

Misanthropy is the true answer.

GammaRay , June 9, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
@Daniel Chieh

Lol, you couldn't address any of my points, that's why you just throw everything out and take potshots at me.

The modern world, and nearly everything that unz.com is about ultimately goes back to colonialism. You could equally say that the writers on unz.com have a weird obsession with immigration/globalization. Likewise, I could equally say that you have some weird obsession with leftism. You see how flawed your logic is?

No, im not being self-serving here. I know that my usage of the term POC triggered your anti-left/anti-SJW sensibilities, but you're reading too much into the usage of a word. The term POC was used because it was appropriate for the context (as I explained in my reply to you and you conveniently ignored), not because I have an extreme left political orientation.

Once again, to reiterate my original point. It is absurd for POC to assume that the western far-right in any way, shape or form represents their interests or at the very least is a neutral entity towards them. It is true that POC is a clumsy, extremely general term, but in this context it functions perfectly. The western far-right worldview is basically encapsulated as "whites vs all others"; therefore within this context, a pan non-white concept like POC is useful for working within such a stark, extremist ideological framework. What is playing out in the west right now is basically the west struggling with its own past actions; highly conscientious POC need to sit on the sidelines, shutup and let this play out on its own. There is no need to take sides here, the west made its own bed, let it sleep in it, this has nothing to do with POC.

As for the west trying to make some effort to survive; I had never claimed that it should not. In fact I never made any argument to that effect in any of my comments on this article. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong . Since you seem so sure of your position, quote and paste where I clearly made an argument to the effect of the west should just give up and stop trying to survive. I'll be waiting.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Clearly I have been making the argument that POC (I hope you get triggered by this) need to stop trying to prop up the west by rubbing shoulders with the alt-right and should instead sit back and watch things play out. This is not their fight. Making this argument is completely different than what you were trying to imply I was saying.

God, that's stupid

Daniel Chieh , June 9, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
@GammaRay

As I've said before, I give as much effort to a reply as I think a person deserves. Obviously you're not one of them, in no small part because of your insane fetish with "colonialism" – which I barely could care for.

Indeed, colonialism can be plenty helpful for improving the condition of a population objectively, which is surprising given that its goal is traditionally extractive but when the native elite is so incompetent or even more extractive of their population, then it is a net benefit to the population.

Not that I really care; I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with conquest. At the end of the day, competition is the means to determine which values and memes of humanity survive and by removing violence completely as a method, it leads to warping of the population.

I'm descended from mandarins; I have a pretty clear line of family history as far back as the Yuan. We've done beautiful things – marvelous terraced farms, canals that remain to this day, and a slew of impressive artwork. We've done terrible things – kept generations of illiterate serfs and bondsmen. "European colonialism" may hurt us, but the Cultural Revolution did a lot more damage and almost wiped us out. And we've invaded Vietnam, and I don't regret it: Annam, the peaceful south. Had the Ming held it, had it remained Chinese, its hard to argue that it would not be wealthier and more beautiful than it is now.

So no, I don't feel anything in common with your so-called POC. And your rants about colonialism only irritate me further. There are many terrible things in life and the world. And often, they are also beautiful and glorious things.

GammaRay , June 9, 2018 at 8:41 pm GMT
@Daniel Chieh

LOL. This is hilarious, keep backtracking. You obviously care because you bothered to reply in the first place. Tellingly, you were unable to address the most cogent points in the argument that I brought up against you in my previous replies and instead prefer to dissemble about something that has nothing to do with the original point of discussion. Don't think I didn't notice the (clumsy) sleight of hand. You try to act as if you're above replying to me but really the problem is that you're unable to argue against the points that I made. Its really that simple. If you were able to disprove my arguments then you would already be doing that instead of talking in circles about it.

Ethically speaking, colonialism is wrong. Doesnt matter who does it, white black or yellow. That being said, I understand the dark parts of human nature and why colonialism happens. Time and time again, I have clearly stated how the crux of my argument is the hypocrisy of the far-right when it comes to the topic of colonialism, not so much the act of colonialism itself. That's it. And I couldn't make my point any clearer. The onus falls on you, and not on I to correctly perceive this point. My problem is not that the west colonized the world (shit happens), my problem is that the far right wants to celebrate and condone colonialism (hence celebrate the historical destruction of other races and cultures) while simultaneously wanting to complain about their own racial displacement and cultural destruction (ironically brought about by globalization which in turn was brought about through western colonialism in the first place). The far-right has a major ideological consistency here which it is either blind to, or willfully ignores. I'm sorry but the western far-right can't have its cake and eat it too. It needs to clearly decide how they feel about the ethics of colonization and then take a principled and consistent stance on it.

Regardless, both in the comments for this post, and for the entirety of my posting history, my stance regarding colonization has been the same. It is you that has misunderstood it due to your faulty reading comprehension, and anybody who doubts my words is perfectly free to read my prior comments in this thread as well as look through my comment history as well. Therefore, the thrust of your reply completely misses the mark. I suspect however that your misunderstanding was intentional considering how clearly I made my point regarding colonialism in all of my posts. Regardless, why should anyone take what you have to say seriously when you have already demonstrated a clear tendency for poor reading comprehension or willful misperception? Don't forget about this:

You're just as self-serving, except that you've apparently have a global image of "POC" being united for some reason. And evidently the West, which for whatever foibles it has, shouldn't at least make an effort to survive?

God, that's stupid.

As for the west trying to make some effort to survive; I had never claimed that it should not. In fact I never made any argument to that effect in any of my comments on this article. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong . Since you seem so sure of your position, quote and paste where I clearly made an argument to the effect of the west should just give up and stop trying to survive. I'll be waiting.

I'm still waiting for you to clearly provide proof of your assertion that I implied the west should just give up; which in fact I never wrote anything to the effect of that, but in your rush to debunk me, you obviously missed that. The alt-right always prides itself on relying strictly on the facts, so please live up to this ethos. Everything I wrote is an open book, either prove your assertions or admit that you can't.

So no, I don't feel anything in common with your so-called POC. And your rants about colonialism only irritate me further. There are many terrible things in life and the world. And often, they are also beautiful and glorious things.

Nor do you have to feel anything in common with so-called POC. Do you think I care what you feel? You vastly overestimate your own importance. Remember, it was you who went out of you way to start up this dialogue with me, not I . I'm glad that my "rants" regarding colonialism irritate you. That being said, if they irritate you so much, instead of responding to them, please ignore them from now on. You are aware that you are not obligated to reply to anything I write, right?

GammaRay , June 9, 2018 at 8:41 pm GMT
@Daniel Chieh

True! There are many terrible things in life and the world, and also there are many glorious and beautiful things as well. I think it is beautiful that the west has lived at the expense of others for so long, and now we are reaching a point where everything that the west has done is now catching up with it in unexpected ways. It turns out the the universe has a sense of humor afterall. What goes up, must come down. This applies to all races and all civilizations. As humans, we must seek to live in harmony with each other, and not simply exploit and kill one another. There is beauty in seeking to rise above such primitive impulses, and if possible acting with understanding and compassion towards our fellow man. That is truly the meaning of "being civilized".

Truly I do not harbor ill-will against the west because it is western, rather I harbor ill-will towards the west because of its past actions and present attitudes. This is why I specifically target the far-right (because of their present attitudes about the west's past actions), as opposed to attacking all western people. I especially have a soft-spot for westerners that are able to genuinely feel remorse about the past. I strongly believe in the concept of forgiveness and letting things go, provided that the sentiment is genuine and mutual. Actually on that topic; even indifference is an acceptable emotion. I think its stupid to morally hold westerners to past events when even they are indifferent about their own racial/cultural future. I only stick it to the far-right because they automatically incur higher moral/ethical standards for themselves to meet when they want to start talking about the importance of having moral rights for racial/cultural survival.

That being said, the west has a tremendous amount of momentum from its past actions gathered against it; so it doesn't really matter how I feel, the west will still have to deal with everything that is happening to it and what is going to happen to it in the future. Nothing you say or do will impact this in any way, so you might as well enjoy the ride instead of complaining that I am pointing out inconvenient truths which harm your delicate sensibilities. Ironically those who complain most about fragile SJW snowflakes are those who get triggered the easiest themselves

In fact, looking at your history, you are a rare breed: you are a genuine, unironic anti-white crusader. You actually think there is something uniquely evil about "white people" and talk without any sense of contradiction that you have "extensive experience of white people."

The mind boggles.

It was a mistake to give you any time at all.

This is actually a lie what you have written. For your convenience, and for the convenience of anybody reading, I have provided the quote of what I had originally written which you are referring to:

GammaRay says:
April 29, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz

This is an interesting question and definitely worth looking into. That being said, I do not buy into the reasoning that an exploding british population is the only or even major reason behind colonization. From learning about european culture, and understanding the general weltanschauung of white people, as well as from having extensive social experience with them; it is clearly evident to me that there is a strong extraversive, expansive component that exists in the white collective consciousness which under certain circumstances strongly compels them to colonize, displace and replace much more so than other races would do so under similar circumstances. What alt-righters/WN would call "ambition" and "drive", others might prefer to recognize it as "greed". Regardless of the semantic trivialities; it is clear that there is a strong internal drive within westerners that causes them to vigorously pursue both the physical and cultural colonization of "the other". This is not a negative or positive judgment though; it is merely intended to be understood as an objective observation.

What I had written clearly strives to be dispassionate and objective as opposed to the maniacal and frothing at the mouth anti-white diatribe that you are attempting to make it out to be.

Im sorry but the truth of the matter is that HBD is probably real; racial differences probably exist on a genetic level which influence the behavior and temperaments of different races and ethnic groups. The fact that whites are more likely to be domineering and have a tendency for colonizing "the other" does not make them evil; it is an impulse that can be channeled in both positive and negative ways. That being said, just because I bring up this inconvenient fact doesn't automatically make me racist or "anti-white". I am merely trying to work within a framework of reality, we have both multiple centuries of history to draw inferences from, as well as interpersonal anecdotal observations of white behavior both in real life as well as on the internet in spaces such as these. I don't think its very controversial that I am making observations based on noticing patterns. I mean, is noticing patterns illegal or something undesirable?

[Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
May 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate story, as Daniel Lazare explains.

Special to Consortium News

With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.

It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump.

The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin."

Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst).

In-Bred

A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor .

Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd.

Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign

In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.

As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.

Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.

The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

It Started Late 2015

The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland, Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents."

Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors. Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails."

This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York Times describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.

But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.

After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.

Was Papadopoulos Set Up?

Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.

On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise the Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."

One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau as well.

Page: Took Russia's side.

On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed " unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War.

Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.

On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke. In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty. "George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there, but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in Washington.

The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration.

Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws.

But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved. Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive – just $46,000 worth of Facebook ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with no particular slant at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under intense pressure to come up with anything at all.

The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day.

The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus "had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success."

Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape if you don't use it?

Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.

Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government.

Using it Anyway

Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.

Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security official who says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way."

But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."

Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, The New Yorker continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well, saying it's a "rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.

It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.

Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites as Jacobin and The American Conservative.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 4, 2018 at 6:36 am

Interesting technical detail.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/mueller-russia-troll-case-620653

Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.

But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on the advantage to the deep state. From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them becomes "collusion".

This stinks.

Realist , June 3, 2018 at 4:50 am

"Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white

I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet."

The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened.

backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm

Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.

I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S. multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its tariffs:

"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.

Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.

Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.

In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be slashed to zero from 6 percent before.

In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-tariffs/china-to-cut-import-tariffs-for-some-consumer-goods-from-most-favored-nations-idUSKCN1IW1PY

Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.

I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did.

Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am

"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm, the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in the eastern Mediterranean.

"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.

"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.

"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.

"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less disruptive' than Trump's.

"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016 elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine the Kremlin attempting."

Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html

CitizenOne , June 1, 2018 at 11:19 pm

Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump. Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations which ushered in the age of dark money.

When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.

What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were sucked dry.

What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead".

It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.

Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part.

What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.

The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House.

What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them of many dollars.

It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies.

So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.

In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been eliminated.

In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now face a new internal enemy.

That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their control of our nation. Here is a quote:

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am

Different journalist covering much the same ground:

http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/why-is-the-new-york-times-misleading-the-american-people-about-the-paid-informant-who-was-spying-on-the-trump-campaign/

"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery, and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened "Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors (including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am

Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line "and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain, then it is not reasonable to cry foul.

Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am

The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction). Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.

Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am

Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is president, not the evil Ruskies.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am

We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence. In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.

dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm

Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the smashing of the Sanders campaign.

Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.

robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am

Spot on, Seer.

michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm

Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.

Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm

Seth Rich

anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am

Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal affair).

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am

Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am

Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.

Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and "unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front." I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)

Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike) that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional (nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the "Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly flawed reportage?

I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White House.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm

You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks. Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer than the original.

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm

My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.

Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:

"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants, and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?

It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm

Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.

As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it, and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.

Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up, like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.

As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed, they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion with Russia.

This is the Swamp versus the People.

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm

Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the President.

Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.

I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him – anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the country is truly lost.

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm

Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether you like him and his questionable policies or not.

Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as hell.

michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm

When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a partisan operation.

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Michael – good point!

KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am

Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful & illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win? This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up, convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once & get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up & held to account for this treasonous behaviour?

Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm

Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:

"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/

Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'

Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm

In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.

dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am

Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.

Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than Watergate, IMO.

Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the NSA.

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email address during her whole tenure as SOS.

Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had just donated to their foundation.

Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses or their foundations? I think not.

The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for her crimes is a different matter.

F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm

If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at all. Not that she's innocent, mind you

Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am

I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little bit.

chris m , May 31, 2018 at 2:52 pm

the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called "Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40 years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.

i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.

of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial circles.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm

chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand. You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something, anything.

Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!

This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to take down a duly-elected President.

F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm

His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm

F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the plot. Risk of exposure costs money.

ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there, and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function. There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer. (Maybe another reader knows how?)

We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm

ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")

Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse. This will copy the link.

Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste", and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.

If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.

irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm

If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !

This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option, which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)

Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or your
computer crashes . . . )

ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm

Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it, but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm

ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together. Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do it every day and the world still goes on.

I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.

Good luck, ranney.

irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm

I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut & paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste' what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or (this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other possibilities too!

mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm

No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing more.

Gary Weglarz , May 31, 2018 at 1:57 pm

It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican" affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S. and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and others demonstrates.

One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation. You truly can't make this stuff up.

Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe going on.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm

Gary – great post.

irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm

Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.

Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm

This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco. Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.

Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm

So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they serving? How do they know what those interests are?

It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular – but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble more lies for money.

It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less than 20% of the US spend.

Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm

You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but they think that the whole world is theirs.

To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.

Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm

Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.

For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources.

Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".

But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".

Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.

https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/hudson_institute/

The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel neoconservative think tank in 2014.

In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.

In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent Russian fleet".

In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.

In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.

Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.

Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts, and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in Syria.

Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.

Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.

Herman , May 31, 2018 at 4:13 pm

"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."

And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per capita what is allocated to Israel's

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am

A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could create a lawless madness like Washington DC.

irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm

Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.

I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm

But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.

irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am

The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.

When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.

So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them. Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable for
how our funds are used !

Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm

this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing, if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects: 1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to take notice.

Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom.

In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.

For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.

JTRIG document: "The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations"
https://edwardsnowden.com/docs/doc/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf

In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.

Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in the UK and Israel but in many other countries."

Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is saving British lives."

Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."

The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er Sheva.

Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.

After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.

BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler, formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.

In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military deception operations.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm

Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm

Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of treason.

Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am

This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely, vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting communications in the US..

Secrecy kills.

Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am

Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people should be prosecuted for treason.

F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am

To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect "national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections, and prosecution will become inevitable.

Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is, if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't really afford that.

"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that happen.

Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm

The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)

It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people (electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes come with big risks.

David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm

My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any "collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole, sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is obviously phony.

But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct being exposed.

So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm fine with it.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am

My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.

Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm

it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.

Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm

There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.

On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.

In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with such ancillary matters.

The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on appeal.

Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do with the original warrant.

In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.

This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political infrastructure.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm

Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?

Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am

All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully "briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats (knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).

What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively nullified now.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am

Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of investigations beyond the remit He failed.

Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am

There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including two universities:

"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries, especially Italy and the United Kingdom.

Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."

Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian agent."

Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.

As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything wrong."

From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/05/26/the_maltese_phantom_of_russiagate_.html

David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:25 pm

I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still missing?

Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm

Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".

A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst – reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.

Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where should I have this [information]?"

Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about Clinton-related emails either.

In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.

According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."

Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am

" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""

Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is, that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am

The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.

We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for democracy is lost.

We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.

Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond slavery to oligarchy.

Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am

You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News. Joe

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm

My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass media.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am

The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with what they already had.

If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am

How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm

Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.

Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the greatest achievement of our times.

Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm

An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike, if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there could be more to go around. Joe

Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm

"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for democracy is lost.

We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference."

Good luck with that!!!

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm

Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.

john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am

The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump' (lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of the deep state.

Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am

I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered, but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am sure.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am

It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman, who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty years after the USSR.

Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am

"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."

Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous

Thank you Daniel Lazar.

Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am

The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long before we see evidence.

Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm

Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took Real Power.

In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight

Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure

Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm

Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power, which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security, deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line of oligarchy in any form.

Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available, and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success, because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.

SocraticGadfly , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 am

You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare , McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm

SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents. Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight. Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.

Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.

Herman , May 31, 2018 at 8:32 am

What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.

"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War

Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your health.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am

The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am

Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town on bringing down Trump.

"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you reason to carry out a phony investigation.

"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been kept alive.

These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election. None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."

I hope they see jail time for what they've done.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am

Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to ruin the Trump Presidency.

JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am

I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am

It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm Orbis.

Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm

Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it was published.

robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm

John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia = evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am

Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.

David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am

"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."

Not so.

Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to employ a question mark.)

I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.

Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm

Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.

Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013 worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the Trump transition team/administration.

Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:

In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.

And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.

David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm

Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.

My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page – maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).

Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.

So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:

"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.

He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the public see the truth.

That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for itself, to "undermine" an investigation.

And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to its reputation with the public and with Congress."

What do you bet he does?

RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am

I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , May 31, 2018 at 6:55 am

What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no one seems to ever say what it is.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am

RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the paring knife.

Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am

Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.

Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel, the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media. Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it, especially when directed at them.

Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late. All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it may well be far too late.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm

Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury. They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.

This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to them – they're dirty little fighters.

Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on – maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.

There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.

The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am

You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.

Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am

Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate has been one big Gish Gallop.

strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm

RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of this and they don't say that either.

John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am

What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?

You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?

It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of Jim Jones!

strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm

That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it has to do with Russia Gate.

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , May 31, 2018 at 4:53 am

Guccifer 2.0's American Fingerprints Reveal An Operation Made In The USA: https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/05/guccifer-2-0s-american-fingerprints-reveal-an-operation-made-in-the-usa/

[Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
Jun 09, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny . It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.

On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.

Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had to have been the Russians.

Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks. Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not exist.

WikiLeaks

It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the emails by blaming Russia for their release.

Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer' Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.

Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:

June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."

June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."

The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.

Enter Independent Investigators

A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts" who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5, 2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else.

Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016 for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics" principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)

One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May 31 published new evidence that the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not from Russia.

In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated , "We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."

Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.

"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]

Marbled

"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since .

"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'

"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use 'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text obfuscation.

"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."

A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version published in The Baltimore Sun

The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ]

We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.

"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? I can.'

New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published 16-minute interview last Friday.

In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24, 2017:

"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.

"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the President's Daily Brief.

ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am

"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."

Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.

The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security firms (Wikipedia):

cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of "Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear).

Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday, Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.

Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.

anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am

I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply."

CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm

There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.

In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.

Examples:

The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.

There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.

There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with Iraq.

The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in Vietnam.

The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and war was waged.

In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.

Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which enable global communication and commerce.

Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world events to justify military action?

Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.

Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags will happen for better or worse in any medium available.

susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm

I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral "highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.

The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another

https://www.blackagendareport.com/russia-gate-and-crisis-american-exceptionalism

(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed.

Gary Weglarz , June 8, 2018 at 11:08 am

Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.

Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm

I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7 releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

Realist , June 9, 2018 at 1:36 am

http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/dems-put-finishing-touches-on-one-party-surveillance-superstate/

Skip Scott , June 9, 2018 at 7:05 am

Mbob-

I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green, but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone tells you it is possible he might have won.

Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos) gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.

willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm

It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It was the Rooskies."

Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am

An earlier time line.

March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.

April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".

May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.

May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically e-mails.

June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.

It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably Intelligence services) for > 6 months.

Specific points.

On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the (presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?

There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the unlikely event that he went on to win.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being "Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest (more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.

Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm

Steven Halper?

Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am

I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing, though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this story.

MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm

"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"

Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not done?

strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am

MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18 minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and witness TAMPERING. A great American there!

Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am

strgr-tgther:

Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.

As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."

John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am

Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)

It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively, show.)

incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am

What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate, which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground – and it would have been published for all to read.

The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the facts?

As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page, McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say, what matters is the evidence.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles, and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm

The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse, bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms. Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in Washington.

Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am

"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."

You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17 sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential campaign and candidate.

strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm

/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY why. Stay tuned!!!

irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm

Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.

And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm

Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you, that's why she lost.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm

Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections. Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them "shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack trade.)

Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm

Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two: "we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time ago.

Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this will benefit all.

Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters, and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.

It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build out from there This is just a suggestion.

What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever attributed to Trump?

Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm

Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.

More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party debates! In a democracy! How dare they?

Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie artillery?

Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am

Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm

Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham.

Miranda Keefe , June 8, 2018 at 3:28 pm

MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not done?"

Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the Department of Justice.

I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016 presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.

That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself. The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via impeachment.

As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no democratic control.

The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the Constitution intended.

As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't happen.

F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm

There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!

No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!

Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!

Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!

They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!

Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!

That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!

Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!

She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!

But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!

There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!

Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!

There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!

Ray McGovern , June 8, 2018 at 1:03 am

BRAVO, F.G. and thanks.
Ray

Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:41 am

F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.

KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm

What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered & committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander & demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities & her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a crime they never committed?

Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm

Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams.

I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True elections are now impossible.

Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."

Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only they could realize it.

Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.

mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm

For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy.

And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the way the oligarchs do business.

John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am

Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known.

There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.

Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 10:44 am

Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH-

Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 10:47 am

" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.

Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm

Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?

So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill Gang!

jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm

If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.

Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm

Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you know they are lying.

john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm

I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.

Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm

I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.

My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?

Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news, meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.

In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for all?

Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm

Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn & Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying eyes?

Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm

Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes uninterrupted. Joe

F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm

Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about Freddy Fleitz!

Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm

That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!

Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am

We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution, etc.

[Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
May 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate story, as Daniel Lazare explains.

Special to Consortium News

With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.

It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump.

The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin."

Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst).

In-Bred

A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor .

Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd.

Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign

In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.

As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.

Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.

The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

It Started Late 2015

The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland, Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents."

Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors. Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails."

This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York Times describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.

But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.

After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.

Was Papadopoulos Set Up?

Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.

On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise the Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."

One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau as well.

Page: Took Russia's side.

On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed " unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War.

Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.

On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke. In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty. "George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there, but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in Washington.

The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration.

Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws.

But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved. Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive – just $46,000 worth of Facebook ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with no particular slant at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under intense pressure to come up with anything at all.

The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day.

The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus "had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success."

Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape if you don't use it?

Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.

Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government.

Using it Anyway

Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.

Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security official who says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way."

But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."

Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, The New Yorker continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well, saying it's a "rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.

It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.

Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites as Jacobin and The American Conservative.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 4, 2018 at 6:36 am

Interesting technical detail.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/mueller-russia-troll-case-620653

Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.

But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on the advantage to the deep state. From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them becomes "collusion".

This stinks.

Realist , June 3, 2018 at 4:50 am

"Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white

I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet."

The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened.

backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm

Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.

I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S. multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its tariffs:

"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.

Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.

Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.

In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be slashed to zero from 6 percent before.

In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-tariffs/china-to-cut-import-tariffs-for-some-consumer-goods-from-most-favored-nations-idUSKCN1IW1PY

Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.

I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did.

Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am

"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm, the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in the eastern Mediterranean.

"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.

"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.

"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.

"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less disruptive' than Trump's.

"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016 elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine the Kremlin attempting."

Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html

CitizenOne , June 1, 2018 at 11:19 pm

Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump. Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations which ushered in the age of dark money.

When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.

What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were sucked dry.

What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead".

It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.

Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part.

What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.

The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House.

What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them of many dollars.

It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies.

So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.

In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been eliminated.

In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now face a new internal enemy.

That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their control of our nation. Here is a quote:

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am

Different journalist covering much the same ground:

http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/why-is-the-new-york-times-misleading-the-american-people-about-the-paid-informant-who-was-spying-on-the-trump-campaign/

"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery, and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened "Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors (including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am

Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line "and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain, then it is not reasonable to cry foul.

Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am

The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction). Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.

Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am

Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is president, not the evil Ruskies.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am

We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence. In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.

dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm

Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the smashing of the Sanders campaign.

Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.

robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am

Spot on, Seer.

michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm

Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.

Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm

Seth Rich

anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am

Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal affair).

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am

Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am

Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.

Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and "unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front." I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)

Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike) that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional (nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the "Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly flawed reportage?

I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White House.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm

You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks. Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer than the original.

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm

My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.

Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:

"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants, and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?

It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm

Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.

As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it, and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.

Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up, like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.

As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed, they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion with Russia.

This is the Swamp versus the People.

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm

Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the President.

Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.

I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him – anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the country is truly lost.

Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm

Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether you like him and his questionable policies or not.

Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as hell.

michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm

When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a partisan operation.

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Michael – good point!

KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am

Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful & illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win? This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up, convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once & get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up & held to account for this treasonous behaviour?

Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm

Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:

"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/

Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'

Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm

In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.

dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am

Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.

Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than Watergate, IMO.

Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the NSA.

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email address during her whole tenure as SOS.

Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had just donated to their foundation.

Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses or their foundations? I think not.

The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for her crimes is a different matter.

F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm

If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at all. Not that she's innocent, mind you

Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am

I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little bit.

chris m , May 31, 2018 at 2:52 pm

the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called "Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40 years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.

i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.

of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial circles.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm

chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand. You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something, anything.

Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!

This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to take down a duly-elected President.

F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm

His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm

F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the plot. Risk of exposure costs money.

ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there, and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function. There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer. (Maybe another reader knows how?)

We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm

ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")

Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse. This will copy the link.

Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste", and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.

If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.

irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm

If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !

This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option, which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)

Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or your
computer crashes . . . )

ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm

Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it, but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.

backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm

ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together. Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do it every day and the world still goes on.

I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.

Good luck, ranney.

irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm

I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut & paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste' what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or (this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other possibilities too!

mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm

No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing more.

Gary Weglarz , May 31, 2018 at 1:57 pm

It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican" affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S. and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and others demonstrates.

One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation. You truly can't make this stuff up.

Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe going on.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm

Gary – great post.

irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm

Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.

Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm

This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco. Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.

Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm

So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they serving? How do they know what those interests are?

It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular – but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble more lies for money.

It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less than 20% of the US spend.

Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm

You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but they think that the whole world is theirs.

To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.

Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm

Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.

For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources.

Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".

But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".

Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.

https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/hudson_institute/

The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel neoconservative think tank in 2014.

In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.

In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent Russian fleet".

In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.

In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.

Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.

Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts, and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in Syria.

Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.

Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.

Herman , May 31, 2018 at 4:13 pm

"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."

And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per capita what is allocated to Israel's

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am

A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could create a lawless madness like Washington DC.

irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm

Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.

I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm

But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.

irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am

The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.

When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.

So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them. Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable for
how our funds are used !

Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm

this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing, if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects: 1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to take notice.

Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom.

In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.

For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.

JTRIG document: "The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations"
https://edwardsnowden.com/docs/doc/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf

In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.

Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in the UK and Israel but in many other countries."

Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is saving British lives."

Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."

The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er Sheva.

Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.

After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.

BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler, formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.

In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military deception operations.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm

Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm

Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of treason.

Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am

This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely, vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting communications in the US..

Secrecy kills.

Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am

Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people should be prosecuted for treason.

F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am

To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect "national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections, and prosecution will become inevitable.

Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is, if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't really afford that.

"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that happen.

Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm

The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)

It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people (electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes come with big risks.

David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm

My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any "collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole, sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is obviously phony.

But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct being exposed.

So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm fine with it.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am

My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.

Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm

it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.

Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm

There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.

On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.

In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with such ancillary matters.

The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on appeal.

Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do with the original warrant.

In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.

This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political infrastructure.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm

Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?

Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am

All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully "briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats (knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).

What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively nullified now.

Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am

Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of investigations beyond the remit He failed.

Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am

There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including two universities:

"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries, especially Italy and the United Kingdom.

Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."

Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian agent."

Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.

As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything wrong."

From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/05/26/the_maltese_phantom_of_russiagate_.html

David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:25 pm

I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still missing?

Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm

Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".

A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst – reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.

Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where should I have this [information]?"

Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about Clinton-related emails either.

In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.

According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."

Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am

" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""

Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is, that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am

The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.

We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for democracy is lost.

We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.

Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond slavery to oligarchy.

Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am

You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News. Joe

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm

My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass media.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am

The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with what they already had.

If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am

How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm

Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.

Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the greatest achievement of our times.

Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm

An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike, if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there could be more to go around. Joe

Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm

"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for democracy is lost.

We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference."

Good luck with that!!!

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm

Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.

john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am

The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump' (lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of the deep state.

Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am

I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered, but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am sure.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am

It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman, who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty years after the USSR.

Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am

"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."

Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous

Thank you Daniel Lazar.

Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am

The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long before we see evidence.

Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm

Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took Real Power.

In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight

Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure

Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm

Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power, which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security, deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line of oligarchy in any form.

Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available, and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success, because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.

SocraticGadfly , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 am

You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare , McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm

SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents. Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight. Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.

Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.

Herman , May 31, 2018 at 8:32 am

What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.

"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War

Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your health.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am

The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am

Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town on bringing down Trump.

"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you reason to carry out a phony investigation.

"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been kept alive.

These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election. None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."

I hope they see jail time for what they've done.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am

Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to ruin the Trump Presidency.

JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am

I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.

Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am

It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm Orbis.

Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm

Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it was published.

robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm

John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia = evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am

Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.

David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am

"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."

Not so.

Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to employ a question mark.)

I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.

Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm

Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.

Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013 worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the Trump transition team/administration.

Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:

In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.

And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.

David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm

Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.

My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page – maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).

Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.

So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:

"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.

He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the public see the truth.

That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for itself, to "undermine" an investigation.

And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to its reputation with the public and with Congress."

What do you bet he does?

RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am

I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , May 31, 2018 at 6:55 am

What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no one seems to ever say what it is.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am

RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the paring knife.

Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am

Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.

Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel, the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media. Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it, especially when directed at them.

Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late. All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it may well be far too late.

backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm

Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury. They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.

This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to them – they're dirty little fighters.

Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on – maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.

There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.

The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.

mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am

You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.

Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am

Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate has been one big Gish Gallop.

strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm

RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of this and they don't say that either.

John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am

What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?

You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?

It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of Jim Jones!

strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm

That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it has to do with Russia Gate.

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , May 31, 2018 at 4:53 am

Guccifer 2.0's American Fingerprints Reveal An Operation Made In The USA: https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/05/guccifer-2-0s-american-fingerprints-reveal-an-operation-made-in-the-usa/

[Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
Jun 09, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny . It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.

On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.

Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had to have been the Russians.

Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks. Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not exist.

WikiLeaks

It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the emails by blaming Russia for their release.

Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer' Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.

Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:

June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."

June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."

The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.

Enter Independent Investigators

A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts" who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5, 2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else.

Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016 for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics" principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)

One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May 31 published new evidence that the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not from Russia.

In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated , "We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."

Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.

"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]

Marbled

"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since .

"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'

"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use 'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text obfuscation.

"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."

A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version published in The Baltimore Sun

The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ]

We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.

"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? I can.'

New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published 16-minute interview last Friday.

In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24, 2017:

"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.

"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the President's Daily Brief.

ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am

"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."

Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.

The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security firms (Wikipedia):

cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of "Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear).

Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday, Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.

Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.

anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am

I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply."

CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm

There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.

In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.

Examples:

The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.

There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.

There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with Iraq.

The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in Vietnam.

The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and war was waged.

In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.

Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which enable global communication and commerce.

Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world events to justify military action?

Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.

Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags will happen for better or worse in any medium available.

susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm

I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral "highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.

The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another

https://www.blackagendareport.com/russia-gate-and-crisis-american-exceptionalism

(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed.

Gary Weglarz , June 8, 2018 at 11:08 am

Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.

Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm

I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7 releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

Realist , June 9, 2018 at 1:36 am

http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/dems-put-finishing-touches-on-one-party-surveillance-superstate/

Skip Scott , June 9, 2018 at 7:05 am

Mbob-

I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green, but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone tells you it is possible he might have won.

Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos) gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.

willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm

It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It was the Rooskies."

Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am

An earlier time line.

March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.

April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".

May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.

May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically e-mails.

June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.

It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably Intelligence services) for > 6 months.

Specific points.

On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the (presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?

There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the unlikely event that he went on to win.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being "Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest (more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.

Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm

Steven Halper?

Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am

I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing, though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this story.

MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm

"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"

Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not done?

strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am

MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18 minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and witness TAMPERING. A great American there!

Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am

strgr-tgther:

Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.

As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."

John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am

Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)

It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively, show.)

incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am

What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate, which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground – and it would have been published for all to read.

The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the facts?

As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page, McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say, what matters is the evidence.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles, and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm

The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse, bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms. Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in Washington.

Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am

"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."

You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17 sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential campaign and candidate.

strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm

/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY why. Stay tuned!!!

irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm

Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.

And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm

Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you, that's why she lost.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm

Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections. Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them "shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack trade.)

Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm

Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two: "we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time ago.

Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this will benefit all.

Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters, and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.

It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build out from there This is just a suggestion.

What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever attributed to Trump?

Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm

Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.

More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party debates! In a democracy! How dare they?

Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie artillery?

Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am

Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.

Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm

Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham.

Miranda Keefe , June 8, 2018 at 3:28 pm

MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not done?"

Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the Department of Justice.

I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016 presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.

That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself. The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via impeachment.

As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no democratic control.

The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the Constitution intended.

As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't happen.

F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm

There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!

No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!

Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!

Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!

They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!

Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!

That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!

Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!

She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!

But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!

There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!

Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!

There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!

Ray McGovern , June 8, 2018 at 1:03 am

BRAVO, F.G. and thanks.
Ray

Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:41 am

F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.

KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm

What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered & committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander & demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities & her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a crime they never committed?

Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm

Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams.

I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True elections are now impossible.

Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."

Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only they could realize it.

Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.

mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm

For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy.

And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the way the oligarchs do business.

John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am

Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known.

There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.

Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 10:44 am

Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH-

Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 10:47 am

" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.

Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm

Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?

So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill Gang!

jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm

If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.

Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm

Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you know they are lying.

john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm

I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.

Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm

I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.

My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?

Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news, meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.

In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for all?

Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm

Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn & Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying eyes?

Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm

Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes uninterrupted. Joe

F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm

Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about Freddy Fleitz!

Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm

That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!

Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am

We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution, etc.

[Jun 09, 2018] Hating on Putin by Jewish Owned Media - Update 2 NEWSWEEK, THE ECONOMIST, TIME

Images removed.
Notable quotes:
"... Charles is the founder and editor of Russia Insider . He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter and on Steemit . ..."
"... We will gradually be updating this post to include several collages representing about 15 publications. This one includes NEWSWEEK, TIME and THE ECONOMIST. Scroll down to see them all. ..."
Jun 09, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Charles is the founder and editor of Russia Insider . He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter and on Steemit .

We will gradually be updating this post to include several collages representing about 15 publications. This one includes NEWSWEEK, TIME and THE ECONOMIST. Scroll down to see them all.

UPDATE 2 , June 7: Newsweek is one of most shameful spreaders of vitriolic Putin hatred. It is a magazine which has gone from ownership by Katherine Graham's (Jewish) Washington Post Group, where it went bust, losing out to its long-time rival TIME, and has since been passed around by a string of shady owners. A Jewish electronics billionaire bought if from The Washington Post for $1.

Meanwhile, its anti-Russian rhetoric has steadily ratcheted up, to the point where it really does seem like it has just become a mouthpiece for US government agencies and / or Neocon zealots who enjoy working themselves into a frenzy over how evil Putin and Russia are.

It is the worst kind of trash journalism, epitomized by truly psychotic Putin haters Anna Nemtsova and Owen Matthews, both Jewish (Nemtsova is married to NY Times correspondent Andrew Higgins, another great spreader of deception about Russia). It's main reason for existence seems to be to churn out a relentless series of hit pieces against the Russian president. It is closely connected with the Daily Beast .

UPDATE 1 , June 2: Here is The Economist , which I personally think is the worst of the lot, because it has successfully cemented a reputation for excellent business coverage, inspiring a lot of trust from people in business who don't follow politics too closely and pretty much believe what they hear from trusted sources. It is definitely Jewish-owned, controlled by the Rothschild family. It's editors and writers are also largely Jewish. Their completely irresponsible and relentless demonization of Putin has been off the charts over the past 15 years.

We know. We watch who is saying what.

ORIGINAL POST , May 18, 2018:

A reader sent in cover collages for a whole bunch of magazines, and we will be publishing them as a series, updated in this post. The first is Time Magazine , a big-time liar when it comes to Russia.

Can Time be described as 'Jewish', in ownership or staff? Let's throw that one out to the comments section. Maybe someone can do some quick research and figure that out. I will update this article if any compelling info materializes, one way or the other.

In my article, It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo , I argued that the relentless demonization of Putin and Russia is largely a Jewish phenomenon, pushed very hard in Jewish-owned media, and most obsessively by Jewish journalists, and that this peculiarity warrants a balanced, public discussion. I think this reader sought to provide evidence backing up that assertion.

If we, as a society, want to unpack this endemic lying about Russia, we have to be able to discuss who is behind it, and why. This is not a complaint against Jews in general, just the small group of them who dominate our media, and mislead us so outrageously about Russia, and a lot of other things.

Stay tuned for more. We'll gradually update this post until they are all here.

When you see them all in one go, you realize something extraordinary is going on.

NEWSWEEK:

* *

THE ECONOMIST:

* *

TIME MAGAZINE

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider . It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons

[Jun 09, 2018] Russia s Maddening Patience - Why Doesn t She Strike Back When Attacked

Notable quotes:
"... Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... He is best known for his 2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon. ..."
"... He has a large following on the web, and on Patreon, and we urge you to support him there , as Russia Insider does. ..."
"... His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats for living on. He lives on a boat himself. ..."
"... If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at his archive of articles on RI . They are a real treasure, full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related. ..."
Jun 09, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Russia's Maddening Patience - Why Doesn't She Strike Back When Attacked? Russian behavior often mystifies Westerners - this is an excellent explanation from one of the best analysts out there. Highly recommended. Dmitry Orlov Fri, Jun 1, 2018 | 14,484 368 MORE: Politics Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area.

He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.

He is best known for his 2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon.

He has a large following on the web, and on Patreon, and we urge you to support him there , as Russia Insider does.

His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats for living on. He lives on a boat himself.

If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at his archive of articles on RI . They are a real treasure, full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related.

A lot of commentators noticed a curious fact: during the May 9 parade in the Red Square in Moscow, Putin appeared in the presence of Israeli prime minister Netanyahu. Around that same time, Israeli air force was firing rockets at Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria (lots of which the Syrian air defenses shot down) and the Syrians were firing back at Israeli positions on the Golan Heights (which are occupied Syrian territory, so it didn't count as an attack on Israel proper).

Why didn't Russia rise to the defense of its ally Syria? Moreover, there was talk of selling Russia's very powerful S-300 air defense system to Syria, and that offer was subsequently withdrawn. Is this really how an ally behaves?

Or take another example: relations between Russia and the Ukraine has been in a downward spiral ever since the 2014 Kiev putsch which overthrew the constitutional government. There is a festering sore of a military standoff in the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine, a constant drumbeat of Ukrainian provocations against Russia, and Russia has been saddled with economic and political sanctions by the US and the EU supposedly in response to the annexation of Crimea and the unsettled conflict in the Donbass that has claimed some ten thousand lives.

And yet the Ukraine's largest trading partner remains Russia. Not only does Russia continue to trade with the Ukraine, but it has also absorbed an exodus of economic refugees from the collapsed Ukrainian economy which numbers in the millions. Russia has resettled these refugees, allowed them to find work, and is allowing them to send money back to their relatives in the Ukraine. Also, Russia has declined to give political recognition to the two separatist republics in eastern Ukraine.

The only real stand Russia has taken with regard to the Ukraine is in claiming Crimea as its own. But this is more or less cut and dried: Crimea was part of Russia ever since 1783, and the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which occurred under Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, violated the constitution of the USSR that was in effect at the time.

Yet another example: the US, with the European Union acting as its obedient servant, have been imposing various kinds of sanctions on Russia ever since the Magnitsky Act in 2012 which was pushed through by the fantastically corrupt oligarch William Browder. These sanctions have been sometimes somewhat damaging, sometimes helpful (stimulating import replacement within Russia) and sometimes simply annoying. Russia is too big, too important and too powerful for anyone, even an entity as large as the US and the EU combined, to isolate it or to bend it to its will by imposing sanctions.

In some cases, there is a powerful boomerang effect that causes more pain for the sanctioners than the sanctioned. But Russia really hasn't done much in response -- other than working on import replacement and establishing trade relationships with other, friendlier nations. It could have actually hurt the US, for instance, by blocking the sale of titanium parts without which Boeing wouldn't be able to build its planes.

Or it could prohibit the sale of rocket engines to the US, and the US would then be unable to launch satellites. But Russia hasn't done any of that; instead, it just kept repeating that these sanctions are unproductive and unhelpful.

One more: in violation of agreements that Russia and the NATO nations have entered into, NATO has expanded all the way to the Russian border and has recently turned the tiny Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into a sort of militaristic playpen, holding military exercises right next to the Russian border, stationing thousands of troops there and training them to attack Russia.

Russia has complained about this, but has continued to trade with all of the countries involved. In particular, it has continued to supply the Baltic states with electricity and to use Baltic ports to ship out its products.

When recently Latvia banned the use of Russian in schools (a third of Latvia's population is Russian) and started violating the rights of Lithuanian Russians who tried fighting back against this affront, the Russians took even this blatant act of anti-Russian discrimination in stride. In Latvia, the lights are still on and the loaded Russian freight trains are still rolling in across the border.

"Why is that?" you might ask. "Why such a passive attitude against these numerous sleights, offenses and injuries?" It can't be said that Russia is too big to hurt. The sanctions in 2012 were a piffle, but in 2014 the Russian economy did take a hit (though mostly from lower energy prices, not from sanctions). The ruble lost half its value and Russia's poverty rate crept up. What's going on, then?

To understand that, you have to take a step back and look at the overall context.

• Russia is the largest country in the world in size, but certainly not in population. Its borders are very well defended, but they stretch over 61 thousand kilometers.

• The Russian Federation is Russian in name, but it includes over a hundred different nations, with ethnic Russians making up just over 80%, and with six other nations that are each over a million strong.

• It borders 16 sovereign states -- more than any other country -- including two maritime boundaries (with Japan and the US), and two more internationally unrecognized states (Abkhazia and South Ossetia).

• It has the largest diaspora in the world, with between 20 and 40 million Russians (depending on how you count them) living outside of Russia proper. The largest Russian community overseas is in the US at around 3 million.

• Russian peacekeeping troops have served in numerous countries around Russia itself and across the world -- Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Armenia, Transnistria, Tadjikistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Angola, Chad, Sierra Leone, Sudan -- and remain instrumental in keeping latent conflicts from escalating to war.

• Russia's huge landmass and enormous wealth in natural resources make it one of the main purveyors of economically essential products to the world, especially oil, gas, uranium and coal, which keep the lights on and the pipes from freezing in dozens of countries. No matter what goes wrong in international relations, it must remain a stable and reliable supplier.

In this environment, countering hostile (and mostly futile) gestures emanating from across the ocean with hostile (and mostly futile) gestures of one's own would be counterproductive: some people would get hurt, and there is some likelihood that they would be Russian.

Thus, part of the winning approach is to just muddle through, maintaining the best relations achievable with as many countries as possible, the neighbors especially, talking to every side in every conflict and trying to defuse it and carefully balancing the disparate interests of all involved. Russia has good relations with both Iran and Saudi Arabia, who are sworn enemies, and with both Syria and Israel, who are shooting at each other.

The other part of the winning approach to confronting an increasingly hostile outside world is to move in the direction of limited autarky; not closing itself off to the world, but taking measured steps to become relatively invulnerable to its vicissitudes. Russia is already self-sufficient in energy, making strides in becoming self-sufficient in food, and the next challenge is to reach self-sufficiency in technology and finance.

Viewed in this context, Russia's seeming failures to act forcefully turn out to be parts of a careful balancing act:

• Israelis bomb Syria while Netanyahu sits at a place of honor during the parade in Moscow. Syria strikes back by bombing its own territory in the Golan Heights. Then Russia decides not to sell the S-300 system to Syria. What just happened? Well, Israel just recognized Victory Day -- May 9th -- as its own national holiday. A third of Israelis are in fact Russian, and a lot of them felt very proud to be Russian that day, and took part in big parades that were broadcast on Russian television. In the face of a rising wave of antisemitism in Europe and with neo-Nazis running amok in the Ukraine, Russia and Israel stand united.

Then there is the fact that Israel doesn't like the fact that there are Iranians in Syria. It certainly has the right to feel that way, given the fact that the Iranians keep talking about how Israel should be destroyed. But Iranian presence in Syria is by invitation, so that's not Russia's concern. Having Israel bomb Syria isn't helpful to Russia, but this wasn't the first time and won't be the last.

Syria successfully shooting down Israeli missiles and then firing on Israelis in the Golan Heights was a new development, and an escalation, and escalations are always bad. Selling the S-300 system to the Syrians would have enabled Syria to shoot down anything in the air over all of Israel, and since they had just escalated, giving them the ability to escalate even further would seem to be wrong.

• The Ukraine continuously provokes Russia and violates the rights of the eight million Russians living there, and yet Russia remains the Ukraine's largest trading partner. What gives? Well, there is the unpleasant fact that the Ukraine is currently ruled by people who are, to use a very specific Russian term, "inadequate." It is an illegal, immensely corrupt regime that is supported by another regime that's across the ocean, which is, by the way, also rather "inadequate" -- headed by a ridiculous buffoon who is in turn being thwarted at every turn by an immensely corrupt "deep state."

But these are temporary facts, and in no way do they override the permanent fact that the Russians and the Ukrainians are essentially the same people (with the exception of a few tribes that mainly inhabit the west of the country that was for centuries a Central European no man's land -- next door to Transylvania, where the vampires come from).

The Russians and the Ukrainians are genetically indistinguishable, and there are numerous nations within Russia that are far more culturally different from the Russians than the Ukrainians. The winning strategy in this case is to avoid hurting the Ukraine, because it is already hurting itself quite enough, and because doing so would in essence just hurt some Russians.

Instead, it makes more sense to simply be patient and wait things out. Eventually, the people in the Ukraine will have had enough and will take matters into their own hands, throw the bums out together with their overseas handlers, and the relationship will eventually become more normal.

• On the Western sanctions , Russia has imposed some counter-sanctions, and they were clever ones. Russia banned various categories of food imports from the EU. This made it possible to ramp up food production within Russia and to move Russia toward self-sufficiency in food. Since within the EU farmers are politically quite powerful, this made US sanctions unpopular in Europe.

Add to this the fact that the US now wants to sanction Russian energy imports in Europe, forcing the Europeans to buy from the US, whose supplies are much more expensive and far less reliable, and you can see why the Europeans have by now had enough of Washington's meddling. Of course, having surrendered much of their sovereignty a long time ago, the Europeans face fantastic difficulties in trying to claw it back, but at least they are starting to think about it.

This is already a win for Russia: it needs independent, sovereign nations for neighbors, not a bunch of Washington's feckless vassals. As far as imposing countersanctions on the US itself, that would just cause some more economic damage without securing any political advantages.

• On NATO encroachment on Russian borders , anti-Russian slights by the Baltic midgets and NATO troops training to "attack Russia" -- well, frankly, the Russians are a little bit insulted, but they are not exactly afraid. Everybody knows that NATO is part of the American defense establishment racket. Its purpose is to steal boatloads of money, not to make weapons that work or to train armies that can fight. There is now quite a bit of NATO armor and manpower prepositioned in the Baltics, but not enough to actually invade Russia in any meaningful way.

And if they ever do, they will get lonely very quickly. You see, NATO armor doesn't fit under most bridges and can't move large distances over rough terrain like Russian armor can. It has to be transported to the field of battle by train or on flatbed trucks over federal highways. Or it has to be shipped in via deepwater ports.

So, all that Russia has to do is take out some bridges and some port facilities by launching rockets from pretty much anywhere, then kettle and destroy the relatively small contingent of invaders, and it will be game over. NATO knows this, and so all of this activity in the Baltics is just a way to funnel some money to the economically anemic and rapidly depopulating Baltic states.

They are suffering already; why hurt them more? As for the rights of the Russians in Latvia, one might think that they don't really mind having them violated -- or they'd be moving to Russia where there is plenty of room for them. They deserve lots of moral support, of course, but it's really their battle, not Russia's.

This doesn't make the most exciting reading in the world, but so be it. People search the internet for stories about dramatic turns of events, mostly because they are bored. It often happens that the most important developments fail to thrill, but this doesn't make them any less important. For example, Russia is reducing its defense spending, because it will soon be fully rearmed.

Can the US and NATO do the same? No! If they ever tried, the American defense establishment would get a new set of congressmen and senators voted in, and the profligate spending would resume forthwith. And so the Russians can just sit calmly, arms folded, and watch the US bankrupt itself.

That will certainly be a dramatic turn of events; you'll just have to wait for it.

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider . It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons

Hisham Saber John C Carleton • 7 days ago ,

The part about ' Israel and Russia ' stand together is wrong.

Putin is just displaying cold, hard, diplomacy, by hosting Netanyahu.

Netanyahu has been to Moscow 8 times in 3 years, obviously pleading and begging, sometimes demanding and shouting matches happen at the Kremlin, with Israeli officials losing it. Putin on the other hand has not visited Israel. So, its a total one-way street. Its Israel that needs , not Russia.

Israel offers Russia nothing at all. Even though a million Israeli's are of Russian origin, Russia has 20 million Muslim citizens. Iran and Russia, on the other hand, have very large trade agreements, in many fields, with Iran being a critical, integral, and indispensable part of the Chinese OR-OB initiative that Russia is also heavily into.

Iran is to become a full member in the many trade and financial organizations of Eurasia/Asia.

Israel, is a tiny apartheid state/outpost that is a warmonger hiding behind the U.S., Britain and France. While being in direct , blatant violation of 70 U.N. Resolutions, far too many conventions and civilized norms. Not exactly the country/outpost that Russia see's a mutually beneficial relationship with.

On the other hand, Russia, along with China and Iran are going to re-build Syria, and also Iraq. Russia stands to gain enormously from this. Russia is slated to build more nuclear reactors for Iran, while rail links and cultural exchanges are growing by leaps and bounds.

Israel offers Russia nothing. Israel shields criminal Russian Jews who looted the Russian people during the 1990's and refuses to hand them over to Russia for justice, or even return the money.

So, I'm afraid your wrong. Putin, his administration and the astute Russian people know who the global troublemakers are. They are the ones pushing for more and more sanctions, war talk and out-right lies and smear against Russia, Putin etc. They are international Jews, who operate from ' think tanks ' , columnists , moguls, government officials etc. Victoria Nuland, the author of the Ukraine debacle is Jewish. The Kiev junta is mostly Jewish.

And I firmly believe that Russians have not forgot about the bloody 20th century they had at the hands of Bolshevik Jews, and then the criminal Jewish vultures who descended on it when it was weak in the 90's.

ColMack Hisham Saber • 7 days ago ,

I am reminded of a press conference between Putin and Nuttygetpoo, and Putin quickly said ( As Nutty was having a mental seizure about ancient Persian and Judea)

that happened thousands of years ago it's our job to solve problems of the here and now

[Jun 09, 2018] Rotten to the Heart: Authoritarian Chickens Roosting at Home by Paul Street

Notable quotes:
"... insult to common human decency ..."
"... They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy ..."
"... going so far to the left ..."
"... climate crisi ..."
"... New York Timesapprovingly explains ..."
"... the two major political parties, in which we don't count ..."
"... inauthentic opposition ..."
"... our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ..."
"... In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , ..."
"... Help Street keep writing at https://www.paulstreet.org/subscribe/ ..."
Jun 08, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Yes, He's Awful

Much of what liberals say about Donald Trump and the chilling political moment the Trump presidency represents is true enough.

Trump really is the arch-authoritarian malignant narcissist that liberals say he is. Trump thinks he deserves to rule the nation like an absolute monarch or some ridiculous Banana Republic dictator. He believes he's above all the law, consistent with Louis XIV's dictum L'etat, C'est Moi ("the state is me"). The notion that Trump can pardon himself from any crime really is the height of imperial arrogance.

Trump really does value nothing but the advancement of his own wealth and image. There is no person, no principle, no higher loyalty he is not willing to sacrifice on the altar of self.

Trump really is the almost perfect embodiment of venal malevolence that liberals say he is. The idiotic military parade Trump has scheduled for the next Veterans Day is an exercise in proto-fascistic, Mussolini-like imperial-presidential self-adulation.

This racist and sexist beast befouls the nation and world with his ghastly, eco-cidal presence. The sooner he draws his last undeserved breath, the better for all living things (or maybe not: Mike Pence could be worse).

The Authoritarian and Inauthentic Opposition

Fine, but why does this despicable, orange-tinted insult to common human decency occupy the White House? He holds the most powerful office in the world because the Democratic Party has long been and remains what the late liberal-left Princeton political scientist Sheldon Wolin called the Inauthentic Opposition. "Should Democrats somehow be elected," Wolin prophesied in early 2008, they would do nothing to "alter significantly the direction of society" or "substantially revers[e] the drift rightwards. The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts," Wolin wrote, "points to the crucial fact that for the poor, minorities, the working class and anti-corporatists there is no opposition party working on their behalf." The corporatist Democrats would work to "marginalize any possible threat to the corporate allies of the Republicans."

Wolin called it. A nominal Democrat was elected president along with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008. What followed under Barack Obama (as under his Democratic presidential predecessor Bill Clinton ) – a different and possibly more dangerous kind of malignant narcissist – was the standard "elite" neoliberal manipulation of campaign populism and identity politics in service to the reigning big-money bankrollers and their global empire. Wall Street's control of Washington and the related imperial agenda of the "Pentagon System" were advanced more effectively by the nation's first Black president than they could have been by stiff and wealthy white Republicans like John McCain or Mitt Romney. The reigning U.S. system of corporate and imperial "inverted totalitarianism" (Wolin) was given a deadly, fake-democratic re-branding. The underlying "rightward drift" sharpened, fed by a widespread and easily Republican-exploited sense of popular abandonment and betrayal, as the Democrats depressed and demobilized their own purported popular base.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did nothing to correct that problem. Quite the opposite. With a colossal campaign finance war-chest fed not just by the usual Wall Street and Silicon Valley suspects but also by many traditionally Republican big money donors who were repelled by Trump's faux "populism," the transparently corporate establishmentarian candidate Clinton could barely deign to pretend to be a progressive. She ran almost completely on the argument that Trump was too terrible and unqualified to be president. Making candidate character and qualities her sole selling point was a critical and historic mistake given the angry and anti-establishment mood of the electorate and her own epic unpopularity. So was calling Trump's flyover county supporters a "basket of" racist and sexist " deplorables " in a sneering comment (one that accurately reflected her aristocratic "progressive"-neoliberal world view) to rich Manhattan campaign donors.

Authoritarianism? Single-Payer national health insurance had long been supported by most U.S.-Americans when Obama ascended to the White House. Who cared? Not the "radical socialist" Barack Obama. Like the Clintons before him, Obama coldly froze Single Payer advocates out of the health insurance policy debate. He worked with the leading drug and insurance corporations and their Wall Street backers to craft a richly corporatist "reform" that preserved those companies' power to write their super-profits into the obscenely exaggerated cost of American medical care.

As our greatest intellectual Noam Chomsky noted two years ago, Obama "punished more whistle-blowers than all previous presidents combined." The Obama administration repeatedly defended George W. Bush's position on behalf of indefinite detention, maintaining that prisoners (US-Americans included) in the US global "war on [of] terror" were not entitled to habeas corpus or protection from torture or execution. Obama carried overseas assassination (by drone and Special Forces) – execution (even of U.S. citizens) without trial or even formal charge – to new levels. Regarding Obama's drone assassination program, Chomsky wrote acidly about how "the [Obama] Justice Department explained that the constitutional guarantee of due process, tracing to Magna Carta, is now satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch alone. The constitutional lawyer in the White House agreed. King John (1199-1216) might have nodded with satisfaction."

Hillary Clinton's 2016 Vice Presidential ticket partner, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), is currently a leading sponsor of the " Forever AUMF 2018" (SJRes 59 ) (Authority for the Use of Military Force). As the ACLU's Renee Parsons explains , the measure would " eliminate Congress' sole, inviolate Constitutional authority 'to declare war.'" It "would remove Congress from its statutory authority as it transfers 'uninterrupted' authority on 'the use of all necessary and appropriate force' to one individual." That would garner another thumbs-up from King John.

Such examples are just tips of the richly bipartisan "deep state" iceberg of authoritarian class and imperial rule that lurks beneath the visible-state surface dramas of "our" so-called and oxymoronic "capitalist democracy." (See my book They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy for a more comprehensive account, just one of many studies [here's a recent one ] that document the eclipse of anything like democracy in New Gilded Age America)

The Democrats: Corrupt, not Feckless

The Democrats could well have won the 2016 election by running Bernie Sanders. Bernie would have tapped popular anger from the center-left, advancing a policy agenda and anti-plutocratic sentiments consistent with longstanding majority-progressive public opinion in the U.S. But so what? The Democratic nomination process was rigged against Sanders for some very good ruling-class reasons. As William Kaufman told Barbara Ehrenreich on Facebook last year, "The Democrats aren't feckless, inept, or stupid, unable to 'learn' what it takes to win. They are corrupt. They do not want to win with an authentically progressive program because it would threaten the economic interests of their main corporate donor base The Democrats know exactly what they're doing. They have a business model: sub-serving the interests of the corporate elite."

The reigning corporate Democrats would rather lose to the right, even to a proto-fascistic white nationalist and eco-exterminist right, than lose to the left, even to a mildly progressive social democratic left within their own party.

Among other things, Russiagate is the Inauthentic Opposition, following its business model, doing its job, working to cover its tracks by throwing the debacle of its corporatist politics down Orwell's memory hole and attributing its self-made defeat to Russia's allegedly powerful interference in our supposed democracy. Russiagate is meant to provide corporate Democrats cover not only for 2016 but also for 2018 and 2020. It advances a narrative that lets the Democrats continue nominating business-friendly neoliberal shills and imperialists who pretend to be progressive while they are owned by the nation's homegrown oligarchs. This year's crop of Democratic Congressional candidates is loaded with military and intelligence veterans, a reflection of the Democrats' determination to run as the true party of empire.

"Some Discipline and Pragmatism to the Oval Office"

Under the cover of Russiagate, the pinstripe politicos atop the nation's not-so leftmost major party seem to have the Sanders wing under control. Clintonite Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez purged progressive, Sanders Democrats from leading positions in the DNC last fall. Bernie-endorsed candidates have flailed in the Democrats' 2018 Congressional primaries . The not-so "socialist" Sanders' not-so revolutionary "political [though not social] revolution" seems largely spent, skewered on the fork of a major party electoral-industrial-complex it falsely promised to transform from within. In the Iowa Democratic gubernatorial primary last Tuesday, the progressive Democrat union member and "Our Revolution" candidate Cathy Glasson was trounced by the vapid and centrist but super-wealthy businessman Fred Hubbell, who self-financed his campaign with millions of dollars.

I recently watched a "liberal" morning CNN talking head salivate over the prospect of the Democrats running a billionaire business mogul who "shares the party's world view" – someone like the just-retired Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. The latte and cappuccino mogul recently and absurdly ripped the Democratic Party for " going so far to the left ." Sounding like a once-traditional Republican, Schultz elaborated :

"I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's realistic. I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises I think the greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future generations. The only way we're going to get out of that is we've got to grow the economy, in my view, 4 percent or greater. And then we have to go after entitlements."

How to pay for progressive policies long but irrelevantly supported by most U.S.-Americans ? With (to mention some other measures that have long been quaintly and trivially preferred by most U.S. citizens) seriously progressive taxation including a financial transaction tax and with a long-overdue transfer of taxpayer dollars from the bloated and monumentally mass-murderous Pentagon budget. There's nothing remotely mysterious about how we could fund Single Payer and green jobs programs that would help save the nation and (oh, by the way) the human race from the actual "greatest threat to the country" (and to the world): environmental catastrophe , fed by toxic capitalist "growth" (let's hit "4 percent of higher"!) and with the climate crisi s ("climate change" does not begin to capture to the gravity of the problem) in the lead.

Here's the accurate translation for "go after entitlements": (1) slash Social Security and Medicare further; (2) use the fiscal crisis created by arch-plutocratic tax cuts for the already absurdly rich and by the persistently gargantuan "defense" (empire) budget as an excuse to decimate further the already weak U.S. social safety net and to (in what promises to be an epic windfall for Wall Street) privatize the nation's old age insurance system. The real entitlement that matters most – the inherited oligarchic class rule and despotism of capital over workers, citizens, and ever more poisoned commons – remains untouched and is indeed expanded in coffee baron Schultz's glorious "liberal" agenda,

All of which is fairly consistent with the Wall Street- and corporate-friendly records and agenda of the Democratic Party during and between the ugly "neoliberal" years when a Georgia peanut farmer (deregulation leader Jimmy Carter) and two silver-tongued Ivy League law school graduates (NAFTA champion and public assistance-wrecker Bill Clinton and big bank bailout champion and Trans Pacific Partnership advocate Barack Obama) occupied the White House. I expect the dismal Democrats to nominate the longtime centrist politician Joe "Regular Guy" Biden (who claims he would have kicked Trump's ass in high school ) or the newly hatched faux-progressive Senator and former longtime prosecutor Kamala "Obama 2.0" Harris (D-CA), but, hey, why not go full corporate monty and try to put an actual full-on corporate CEO in the White House in the name of the Democratic Party's "liberal world view"? As the "liberal" New York Timesapprovingly explains :

"The election of Mr. Trump, a real estate developer and reality television personality, certainly opened that door of opportunity, making it clear that American voters were willing to elect a president with no prior government experience .American companies -- including Starbucks -- have become more political in recent years, wading into issues like immigration, gun rights and climate policy And at a moment when many voters say they are frustrated with partisan gridlock and ineffective government programs, some believe that an efficiency-minded business executive might bring some discipline and pragmatism to the Oval Office."

Besides Schultz, other corporate CEOs I've heard and read self-described liberals discuss as potentially desirable presidential candidates include Oprah Winfrey, Mark Cuban, Disney CEO Bob Iger, Facebook's spooky cult-leader Mark Zuckerberg, and even the JP Morgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon. What the Hell: why not drop the pretense of independence from the nation's corporate and financial dictatorship and run an actual corporate or financial chieftain for president?

That would be an act of oligarchic honesty on the part of the dismal dollar Dems. "I like the idea of Dimon," one left correspondent writes me: "maybe with him as a candidate people would finally wake up to the fact that the Democrats are the real problem." Don't hold your breath. "Because," another comrade tells me, "being a ruthless plutocrat is their world view."

"Trump is Terrible, So Let's Give Him More Spying and Killing Powers!"

What is the Democrats' leading cry? That the terrible Trump is truly terrible – and a tool of Russia. And, of course, the "terrible" part is all too terribly true – the Russia part not so much. But after you've bemoaned the terribleness of Trump for the ten thousandth time, are you ready to get serious about the systemic and richly bipartisan, oligarchic context within which Trump has emerged? "The Trump administration ," Chris Hedges reminded us on Truthdig two weeks ago, "did not rise like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy . The problem is not Trump," writes Hedges. "It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don't count " (emphasis added).

And if Trump is as much of a dangerous and authoritarian monster as liberal Democrats say he is (and he is), then why, pray tell, have most Democrats in Congress been willing to grant him record levels of military funding along with re-authorized and expanded warrantless surveillance and spying powers ? Why are Tim Kaine and other top Democrats ready to grant him (and his successors) a freaking "Forever AUMF"? Hello? What does that say about the not-so leftmost of the two reigning corporate parties? The glaring schizophrenia ("Trump is a monster, let's give him more war and spying powers!") is yet more proof that the Democrats are indeed an inauthentic opposition , committed to the same imperial and police state Trump heads today. They are merely waiting to put one of their ruling-class own atop the same exact and in fact richly bipartisan structures.

What Goes Around: "Trampling on the Helpless Abroad" Comes Home

A final matter concerns the problem of imperial chickens coming home to roost. Liberals don't like to hear it, but the ugly, richly documented historical fact of the matter is that their party of binary and tribal choice has long joined Republicans in backing and indeed crafting a U.S. foreign policy that has imposed authoritarian regimes (and profoundly undemocratic interventions including invasions and occupations) the world over . The roster of authoritarian and often-mass murderous governments the U.S. military and CIA and allied transnational business interests have backed, sometimes even helped create, with richly bipartisan support, is long indeed.

Last fall, Illinois Green Party leader Mike Whitney ran some fascinating numbers on the 49 nation-states that the right-wing "human rights" organization Freedom House identified as "dictatorships" in 2016. Leaving aside Freedom House's problematic inclusion of Russia, Cuba, and Iran on its list, the most remarkable thing about Whitney's research was his finding that the U.S. offered military assistance to 76 percent of these governments. (The only exceptions were Belarus, China, Central African Republic, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria.). "Most politically aware people," Whitney wrote:

"know of some of the more highly publicized instances examples of [U.S. support for foreign dictatorships], such as the tens of billions of dollars' worth of US military assistance provided to the beheading capital of the world, the misogynistic monarchy of Saudi Arabia, and the repressive military dictatorship now in power in Egypt apologists for our nation's imperialistic foreign policy try to rationalize such support, arguing that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are exceptions to the rule. But my survey demonstrates that our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ."

The Pentagon and State Department data Whitney used came from Fiscal Year 2015. It dated from the next-to-last year of the Obama administration, for which so many liberals recall with misplaced nostalgia. Freedom House's list should have included Honduras, ruled by a vicious right-wing government that Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped install in a June 2009 military coup .

The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. During the United States' blood-soaked invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Twain penned an imaginary history of the twentieth-century United States. "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home."

"Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows in his latest book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , the same basic process – internal U.S. repression informed and shaped by authoritarian and imperial practices abroad and justified by alleged external threats to the "homeland" – has recurred ever since. Today, the rise of an unprecedented global surveillance state overseen by the National Security Agency has cost the US the trust of many of its top global allies (under Bush43 and Obama44, not just under Trump45) while undermining civil liberties and democracy within as beyond the U.S.

"The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on our side.

Help Street keep writing at https://www.paulstreet.org/subscribe/

[Jun 09, 2018] What Goes Around: "Trampling on the Helpless Abroad" Comes Home

Notable quotes:
"... our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ..."
"... The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. ..."
"... "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home." ..."
"... "Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows in his latest book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , ..."
"... "The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on our side. ..."
Jun 09, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

A final matter concerns the problem of imperial chickens coming home to roost. Liberals don't like to hear it, but the ugly, richly documented historical fact of the matter is that their party of binary and tribal choice has long joined Republicans in backing and indeed crafting a U.S. foreign policy that has imposed authoritarian regimes (and profoundly undemocratic interventions including invasions and occupations) the world over . The roster of authoritarian and often-mass murderous governments the U.S. military and CIA and allied transnational business interests have backed, sometimes even helped create, with richly bipartisan support, is long indeed.

Last fall, Illinois Green Party leader Mike Whitney ran some fascinating numbers on the 49 nation-states that the right-wing "human rights" organization Freedom House identified as "dictatorships" in 2016. Leaving aside Freedom House's problematic inclusion of Russia, Cuba, and Iran on its list, the most remarkable thing about Whitney's research was his finding that the U.S. offered military assistance to 76 percent of these governments. (The only exceptions were Belarus, China, Central African Republic, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria.). "Most politically aware people," Whitney wrote:

"know of some of the more highly publicized instances examples of [U.S. support for foreign dictatorships], such as the tens of billions of dollars' worth of US military assistance provided to the beheading capital of the world, the misogynistic monarchy of Saudi Arabia, and the repressive military dictatorship now in power in Egypt apologists for our nation's imperialistic foreign policy try to rationalize such support, arguing that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are exceptions to the rule. But my survey demonstrates that our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ."

The Pentagon and State Department data Whitney used came from Fiscal Year 2015. It dated from the next-to-last year of the Obama administration, for which so many liberals recall with misplaced nostalgia. Freedom House's list should have included Honduras, ruled by a vicious right-wing government that Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped install in a June 2009 military coup .

The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. During the United States' blood-soaked invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Twain penned an imaginary history of the twentieth-century United States. "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home."

"Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows in his latest book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , the same basic process -- internal U.S. repression informed and shaped by authoritarian and imperial practices abroad and justified by alleged external threats to the "homeland" -- has recurred ever since. Today, the rise of an unprecedented global surveillance state overseen by the National Security Agency has cost the US the trust of many of its top global allies (under Bush43 and Obama44, not just under Trump45) while undermining civil liberties and democracy within as beyond the U.S.

"The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on our side.

Help Street keep writing at https://www.paulstreet.org/subscribe/

[Jun 09, 2018] Dems Put Finishing Touches on One-Party 'Surveillance Superstate' by Mike Whitney

Jun 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Whitney June 7, 2018 1,300 Words 5 Comments Reply

The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its progressive wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to compete with Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal politicians to center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader plan to rebuild the party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall Street, big business, and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should promote issues that are important to working people and replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more responsive to the needs of business. The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be depended on to implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors. Here's more background from Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site:

"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress .

it should be noted that there would be no comparable influx of Bernie Sanders supporters or other "left"-talking candidates in the event of a Democratic landslide. Only five of the 221 candidates reviewed in this study had links to Sanders or billed themselves as "progressive." None is likely to win the primary, let alone the general election." ("The CIA Democrats, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)

Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right functionaries who will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade policy, and supporting the foreign wars. This new wave of fiscally-conservative Democrats will execute their tasks in a party that serves as the political wing of the federal bureaucracy. Democrat leaders have long-abandoned the idea that a party should be a vehicle for political change. Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists and liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions that impact corporate profitability. Here's more on the Dems' attack on its liberal base from an article by Patrick Martin:

"The New Jersey Democratic Party establishment successfully imposed its choice in contested congressional nominations, brushing aside several candidates backed by Bernie Sanders and his Our Revolution group. Nearly every Sanders-backed candidate in other states -- for governor of Iowa and congressional seats in Iowa, Montana New Mexico and California -- suffered a similar fate." ("US primary elections in eight states confirm rightward shift by Democratic Party", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)

As a result "Only a handful of candidates running under the Bernie Sanders banner survived primaries held in six states on Tuesday. As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates endorsed by Our Revolution -- - had been declared winners." (USA Today)

Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon. Even so, Sanders role vis a vis the Democratic Party has always been a bit of a ruse. Here's how author Tom Hall sums it up:

"The major political function of Sanders' campaign is to divert the growing social discontent and hostility toward the existing system behind the Democratic Party, in order to contain and dissipate it. His supposedly 'socialist' campaign is an attempt to preempt and block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class." ("Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?", July 16, 2015), Tom Hall, World Socialist Web Site)

Sanders task will become increasingly more difficult as progressives realize that the Dems are building a party apparatus that sees activism as a fundamental threat to their strategic objective, which is to create a secure environment where business can flourish. Sanders has helped the party by seducing leftists with his fake liberalism, but he has undermined the aims of working people who need an independent organization to advance their own political agenda. As long as Sanders continues to sell his populist snake oil from a Democratic soapbox, liberals are going to continue to hope that the party can be transformed into an instrument for progressive change. The evidence, however, suggests the party is moving in the opposite direction. Here's more from Patrick Martin's:

"The Democratic Party's promotion of a large number of military-intelligence candidates for competitive districts represents an insurance policy for the US ruling elite. In the event of a major swing to the Democrats, the House of Representatives will receive an influx of new members drawn primarily from the national security apparatus, trusted servants of American imperialism The preponderance of national security operatives in the Democratic primaries sheds additional light on the nature of the Obama administration (which) marked the further ascendancy of the military-intelligence apparatus within the Democratic Party .

The Democratic Party is running in the congressional elections not only as the party that takes a tougher line on Russia, but as the party that enlists as its candidates and representatives those who have been directly responsible for waging war, both overt and covert, on behalf of American imperialism. .

The upper-middle-class layer that provides the "mass" base of the Democratic Party has moved drastically to the right over the past four decades, enriched by the stock market boom, consciously hostile to the working class, and enthusiastically supportive of the military-intelligence apparatus which, in the final analysis, guarantees its own social position against potential threats, both foreign and domestic. It is this social evolution that now finds expression on the surface of capitalist politics, in the rise of the military-intelligence "faction" to the leadership of the Democratic Party." ("The CIA Democrats", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)

The dramatic metamorphosis of the Democratic party hasn't taken place in a vacuum but in a fractious and politically-charged environment where elements within the intelligence community and law enforcement (FBI) are attempting to roll back the results of the 2016 presidential elections because their preferred candidate (Hillary Clinton) did not win. And while these agencies have not yet produced any hard evidence that their claims (of collusion with Russia) are true, there is mounting circumstantial evidence that senior-level officials at these agencies were actively trying to entrap members of the Trump campaign to justify more intrusive surveillance in the hopes of uncovering incriminating evidence that could be used in impeachment proceedings.

As more information surfaces, and we learn more about the "unmasking", wiretapping, National Security Letters, FISA warrants, paid informants and other surveillance abuses that were directed at the Trump campaign, we should think back to 2005 when the New York Times first reported that the National Security Agency had been eavesdropping on Americans inside the United States "without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying." ("Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts", New York Times) That incident was reported just 13 years ago and already we can see that the infrastructure for a permanent Orwellian police-state –that uses its extraordinary powers of surveillance to sabotage the democratic process and maintain its stranglehold on power– has already arisen in our midst. And while Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already being used against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and their military allies so they continue to prosecute their war against personal liberty and the American people.

SunBakedSuburb , June 7, 2018 at 9:50 pm GMT

"The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be depended on to implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors."

If by "regressive" you mean a move away from a mixed economy to a more fundamentalist market-based approach, then yeah, I would agree.

"Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists and liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions "

The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do with economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality. The cultural-Marxist troika.

" Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already being used against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and their military allies "

You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their warmongering in the liberal media. Currently the Democrats are inflamed with identity politics; more than likely this infection will continue to fester for another two election cycles. Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil war.

Anon [296] Disclaimer , June 7, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT
The Democrat party is a high-low coalition of the fringes. The ultra rich use the poor to attack the middle so they can distract everyone else from uniting and doing something like raising taxes on the rich or deporting minorities to democrat neighborhoods. So, it's not surprising that the high part of the coalition would strike back.

This only further strengthens my desire to see a secession movement. When statist democrats are in power, they will surely abuse this growing national security state to keep us down. It's time to break up the USSA ASAP before it's too late.

#secede

anon [372] Disclaimer , June 8, 2018 at 1:10 am GMT
"Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should promote issues that are important to working people."

Note to M. Whitney: the New Deal coalition is dead. Left/Progressives today despise working people. Didn't you get the memo? Working people are deplorable! Antifa, BLM, the Women's Studies Dept, the sex lobby, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore – they all hate working people.

"Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right functionaries who will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade policy, and supporting the foreign wars."

Note to M. Whitney: Progressives today love free trade and advocate war against Russia. Didn't you notice when pro-war progressives kicked you off the Counterpunch website? Today's Progressives love War! Punch the Nazi!

"Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon"

Note to M. Whitney: The progressive bandwagon exists solely for identity politics hysteria, and it is not derailed. Haven't you noticed the race and gender, baiting and slander bandwagon barreling down the highway? It's getting louder all the time.

Stop holding out hope that someday there will be a groundswell of progressives on the left who are on the side of the little guy. Progressives are an elite crowd of identity politics ideologues. Radical reformers are misanthropes – they don't like social norms because they don't like basic human nature. They will never like working stiffs. They will never care about 3rd world villagers getting bombed.
The fault line here is race and gender politics. You are on the right side on war and economic issues and you are on the wrong side on race/sex/gender issues. Don't blindly accept the dogma that differing group outcomes are caused by Bad White Males. Trust in facts and reason. Don't feel you have to grovel because you're white or male. Change your mind on these issues – it's called learning.

Reg Cæsar , June 8, 2018 at 3:09 am GMT
@SunBakedSuburb

identity politics brings only conflict, civil war

It brings power to its practitioners. Which is the whole point.

You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their warmongering in the liberal media

Why wouldn't they? Warmongering has been a "liberal" preoccupation for a century, since the income-taxing suffragist Wilson. Remember Bob Dole's "Kinsley gaffe" in the 1976 debate with Walter Mondale.

Reg Cæsar , June 8, 2018 at 3:13 am GMT
@anon

They will never care about 3rd world villagers getting bombed

They're the ones doing the bombing.

[Jun 09, 2018] The Brainwashing of the Israelis by Uri Avnery

Notable quotes:
"... One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very rare. ..."
"... What can be done to counter such brainwashing? Not much. ..."
"... First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine (even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?" ..."
"... The power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage. ..."
Jun 09, 2018 | original.antiwar.com
It's frightening. Unprincipled psychologists, in the service of a malignant regime, use sophisticated techniques in order to control the mind of a person from afar.

The term "brainwashing" was born in 1950. It is a Chinese word ("xinao", literally wash brain). Originally it served to describe a technique used – so it was claimed – by Chinese masterminds to manipulate the minds of American prisoners in the Korean War. They changed their unconscious mental processes and turned them into agents of sinister forces.

Many books and movies purported to show how this works. For example, the classic film "The Manchurian Candidate" shows how the communists take an American prisoner-of-war in the Korean war, an officer, manipulate his mind and give him an order to kill the US presidential candidate. The American officer does not know that he has been turned unconsciously into a communist agent. He does not remember the order given him under hypnosis and does not know that he acts accordingly.

This pilot is ridiculous, like most of the pseudo-scientific descriptions. In practice, it is much easier to manipulate the minds of people, individuals and collectives.

For example, the Nazi "propaganda". It was invented by Adolf Hitler himself. In his book, Mein Kampf , he describes how, as a soldier on the Western front in WWI, he witnessed the extremely successful British propaganda. The British dropped leaflets over the German trenches and shattered the soldiers' confidence in their leadership.

When Hitler came to power in Germany, he entrusted one of his faithful henchmen, Joseph Goebbels, with the creation of a Ministry of Propaganda. Goebbels turned propaganda into an art form. Among other means he turned all the German media – newspapers and the radio – into government agencies. In German that was called "Gleichschaltung" – connecting all components to one electric line. Thanks to this, Nazi Germany continued fighting long after it was clear that it had lost WWII.

One of the means was the disconnection of the German public from any other source of information. The official propaganda was blared from every medium. Listening to a foreign broadcast was a major crime, punished severely.

Thus it happened that the Germans still believed in their final victory – the Endsieg – even after the Soviets in the East and the Anglo-Saxons in the West had already crossed the borders into Germany.

Does it take a dictatorial regime – Nazi or Communist – to turn the media into a brainwashing machine? Common sense says that this is impossible in a democracy. Common sense is wrong.

It will be remembered that Hitler attained power by democratic means. Even now, fanatical nationalists are winning democratic elections in many countries. All their leaders are busy destroying the courts, stuffing the parliaments with useful idiots and – especially – turning the media into brainwashing instruments. In our country, too.

How is this done? It's quite simple, really: one has to suppress all other voices. One has to make sure that the citizen hears only one voice. One that repeats a few messages over and over, endlessly. This way the lie becomes truth.

In such a situation, the ordinary citizen becomes convinced that the official line is really their own personal opinion. This is an unconscious process. When one tells a citizen that they are brainwashed, they are deeply insulted.

This has been happening in Israel over the last few years. The citizen is not conscious that it is happening. He or she absorbs diverse newspapers, TV programs and radio broadcasts, and sees that all these media are freely arguing with each other and even quarreling with each other. The citizen is not conscious of the fact that on the one critical subject of our life – war and peace – all the media are "connected" to one singular line of brainwashing.

During the last few weeks we have been seeing a perfect example of this mechanism. The events on the Gaza Strip border have activated a mechanism of brainwashing that dictatorial regimes in the world can only envy.

Let's examine ourselves: what have we heard over the radio? What have we seen on TV? What did we read in the papers?

Within a few weeks more than a hundred human beings were shot dead, and many thousands were wounded by live fire. Why?

"We were forced to fire at them because they were storming the border fence". And indeed, did the Gazans themselves not proclaim their will to "return home" – meaning, to return to Israeli territory?

But on May 14, "Black Monday", 63 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead and over 1500 wounded by live fire. Every Israeli knows that this was necessary because the demonstrators stormed the fence and were about to swarm into Israel. Nobody paid attention to the simple fact that there was not a single photo showing such an occurrence. Not even one. In spite of the fact that on both sides of the fence there were hundreds of photographers, including Israeli army photographers, who filmed every single detail. Tens of thousands stormed, and not a single picture?

One should notice the use of the word "terror". It has turned into an adjective attached to everything. There are not just tunnels – they are all always "terror-tunnels". There are "terror-activists". There is "the Hamas terror-regime" and there are "terror-bases". Now there are "terror-kites".

Notice: not just "incendiary kites", or "destruction-kites", only "terror-kites". The same every day in all media. Someone has made the terminology decision. Of course, everyone who has the word "terror" attached to his name is "a son of death", as you say in biblical Hebrew. Another proud term of the brainwashing.

The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are "terrorists". (In Hebrew, a special term has been invented: "Mekhablim"). All of them? Of course, no question. Especially Hamas members. But Hamas is a political party, which has won democratic elections in all of Palestine. A civilian party which has indeed a military wing. But in our media all party members and supporters are "terrorists", sons of death. Of course.

The use of these terms, hundreds of times every day, clearly constitute brainwashing, without the citizens noticing it. They are getting used to the fact that all Gazans are terrorists, mekhablim. This is a process of dehumanization, the creation of Untermenschen in the Nazi lexicon. Their killing is allowed, even desirable.

In such an atmosphere, even abominable sentences pass unnoticed. For example, this week I heard on one of the TV news programs this sentence from the mouth of a military correspondent, speaking about the coming Gaza demonstration: "Iran wants dead demonstrators, and it seems that they will get them." One has to read this sentence twice to realize what it says: that the Israeli sharpshooters serve Iranian interests.

Or a sentence that is repeated again and again, even by respected commentators: "Iran wants to destroy the State of Israel". I don't know what 80 million Iranians want, nor does the writer. But the sentence itself is ridiculous. Israel is a nuclear power. How does one annihilate a nuclear power (with submarines that can launch nuclear devices in the hour of need). Are the Iranians ready to turn their country – one of the cradles of human civilization – into a graveyard and a desert?

Or a forecast "Friday another violent demonstration will take place". "Violent"? "Another"? There is no argument about the fact that all the demonstrations along the Gaza fence were completely nonviolent. The demonstrators did not shoot one single shot, when thousands of them were wounded by live fire, and more than a hundred killed. Yet the lie passes without comment.

Not a single one of the hundreds of TV news program presenters ever corrects such statements by correspondents. Because the directors, presenters, commentators and correspondents are themselves thoroughly brainwashed. The army spokesman knows the truth, of course, but he is a central cog in the brainwashing machine.

Events reached a climax with the murder of the 21-year-old female paramedic Razan Ashraf al-Najjar, when she was trying to save the life of a wounded demonstrator. The sharpshooter who shot her in the chest saw that she was a medic treating a wounded person. It was a clear war crime.

Was there a public outcry? Did the media demand an investigation? Did the media report this event in their page one headline? Did the Knesset observe a minute of silence? Nothing of the sort. A minor news item in some papers (by no means all). An excellent article by the admirable Amira Hass in Haaretz . And that's that.

A few days passed, and abroad there were outcries. The Argentine soccer team, with the admired Messi, canceled a friendly game against the Israeli team in Jerusalem.

The brainwashers realized that it was impossible not to react. So the army spokesman published a statement saying that an investigation had taken place. What did it discover? Ah, well. It was clearly established that nobody had shot Razan. She was hit by the ricochet of a bullet that had hit the ground far from her. That is such a blatant lie that even the army liar should be ashamed of producing it. It was accepted by the brainwashed public.

One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very rare.

What can be done to counter such brainwashing? Not much.

First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine (even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?"

If all the peace and human rights groups in Israel set up a joint center for information, which will be heard, perhaps the monopoly of official propaganda can be broken. Perhaps.

There is in the country a tiny band of commentators who are not afraid to tell the truth, even when this is considered treason. Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, and a few others. We must ensure that their voice is heard. They must be encouraged.

All the media must be pressured to present a variation of views on matters of war and peace, to let the "internal enemy" be heard, so that the citizen is able to form an opinion of their own.

The foreign media must be allowed free access to the sources of information, even when the foreign media are critical, "hostile" and "anti-Semitic". Friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace abroad must be encouraged to pressure the media in their homelands to publish the truth about what is happening here.

I don't like the word "must". But in this context, no other will do. The power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage.

The movie The Manchurian Candidate has a surprise ending: in the last minute, instead of killing the presidential candidate, the brainwashed man shoots the communist agent who was supposed to take his place.

Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli Knesset. Read other articles by Uri , or visit Uri's website .

[Jun 07, 2018] The Stupefying Mediocrity of Barack Obama by Chris Wright

Notable quotes:
"... Enlightenment Now ..."
"... type he represents ..."
"... The Destruction of Reason ..."
"... While the U.S. is certainly not Weimar Germany, and the risks of full-blown fascism are not as great now as they were then, one can see parallels. Just as the feckless, vacillating liberalism of Jimmy Carter ushered in the reactionary age of Reagan, so the vacillating liberalism of Obama prepared the way for the semi-fascism of Trump and the reinvigoration of white supremacy. (So much for Obama's supposed furtherance of the Civil Rights Movement. He is arguably one of the worst things to have happened to minorities since the end of Jim Crow.) You can't be neutral on a moving train. If you try, you're actually on the side of the reactionaries. ..."
Jun 07, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

... ... ...

"Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early," Obama sighed. The country hadn't been ready for the first black president and his lofty post-racial vision.

These quotations are all the evidence one needs to understand what goes on in the mind of someone like Barack Obama.

In fact, the last quotation is revealing enough in itself: it alone suggests the stupefying dimensions of Obama's megalomania. It is hardly news that Obama is a megalomaniac, but what is moderately more interesting is the contemptible and deluded nature of his megalomania. (In some cases, after all, egomania might be justified. I could forgive Noam Chomsky for being an egomaniac -- if he were one, which his self-effacing humility shows is far from the case.) Obama clearly sees himself as the culmination of the Civil Rights Movement -- he who participated in no sit-ins, no Freedom Rides, no boycotts or harrowing marches in the Deep South, who suffered no police brutality or nights in jail, who attended Harvard Law and has enjoyed an easy and privileged adulthood near or in the corridors of power. This man who has apparently never taken a courageous and unpopular moral stand in his life decided long ago that it was his historic role to bring the struggles of SNCC and the SCLC, of Ella Baker and Bob Moses, of A. Philip Randolph and Martin Luther King, Jr. to their fruition -- by sailing into the Oval Office on the wave of millions of idealistic supporters, tireless and selfless organizers. With his accession to power, and that of such moral visionaries as Lawrence Summers, Hillary Clinton, Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, Arne Duncan, Robert Gates, and Samantha Power, MLK's dream was at last realized.

Obama was continuing in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists when his administration deported more than three million undocumented immigrants and broke up tens of thousands of immigrant families. He was being an inspiring idealist when he permitted arms shipments to Israel in July and August 2014 in the midst of the Gaza slaughter -- because, as he said with characteristic eloquence and moral insight, "Israel has a right to defend itself" (against children and families consigned to desperate poverty in an open-air prison).

He was being far ahead of his time, a hero of both civil rights and enlightened globalism, when he presided over "the greatest disintegration of black wealth in recent memory" by doing nothing to halt the foreclosure crisis or hold anyone accountable for the damage it caused. Surely it was only irrational traditions of tribalism that got Trump elected, and not, say, the fact that Obama's administration was far more friendly to the banking sector than George H. W. Bush's was, as shown for instance by the (blatantly corrupt) hiring of financial firms' representatives to top positions in the Justice Department.

And it's only because the masses are stupid and prejudiced that they couldn't see the glorious benefits they would have received from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the few issues in which Obama seems genuinely to have been emotionally invested . What primitive tribalists they are to be worried about the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, the increase of prices for medicines, inadequate protection for the environment, and in general massive empowerment of corporations.

Taken together, the two quotes above that constituted Obama's initial explanation of Trump's victory -- 'we pushed too far' and 'I was too ahead of my time' -- also confirm the not very surprising fact that the moral issue of class doesn't exist for him, as (by definition) it doesn't exist for any centrist politician. Obama may have paid lip-service to it in his rhetoric, but what he cared about more was a threadbare type of identity politics, cultural inclusivity, symbols and spectacles of the post-racial, post-nationalist millennium, of which he saw himself as the great exemplar. If Trump was elected it can only be because people aren't ready for this millennium quite yet. But that doesn't affect Obama's own place in history: he is certain he'll be vindicated, indeed will be viewed as even more remarkable for having come too soon.

This perception of his probably also explains his general reluctance to publicly criticize Trump. He simply doesn't care enough to do so -- he has nothing like a deep outrage against the continuous injustices of Trumpian politics -- because his task has already been accomplished: he has written himself into the history books by being the U.S.'s first black president. That achievement is what matters, that and his eight years of (supposed) attempts to "heal the country's divides." Again, it's too bad the country wasn't ready for him, but that isn't his fault.

Thus, rather than getting involved in any thoroughgoing resistance to Trump -- which might exacerbate cultural divisions, horror of horrors, and wouldn't be decorous or "presidential" (for the powerful shouldn't criticize each other) -- the Obamas are now planning to produce shows on Netflix that will be unpolitical and "inspirational." This new project of theirs is symptomatic. Powerful people like to propagate "uplifting" stories, for anything else might prick their conscience, challenge the legitimacy of the social order from which they benefit, and inspire resistance movements. Better to focus on feel-good stories that reassure people about the essential justness of the world, or that inculcate the notion that anyone can improve their situation if they only try. This is the same reason that Bill Gates' new favorite book is Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now , which argues that things are far better now than they've ever been, so we should all be grateful.

I happened to watch a video recently in which Norman Finkelstein psychoanalyzed Obama , and his interpretation stuck with me. Not because the pathetic person who was being analyzed is of any intrinsic interest, but because the type he represents is always with us -- and will always be popular, and will always be morally and intellectually vacuous. Finkelstein had learned from reading David Garrow's biography that, as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama had a very conciliating style. Whenever arguments arose between the conservatives and the liberals he approached the problem in the same way: he took the interlocutors aside and said, "Don't get so excited, it's not such a big deal. Why are you getting so excited? There are bigger things in life." "Because for Obama," Finkelstein explains, "there was only one big deal in life: me . Everything else was just small change, except him."

That's the key. When your overriding value in life is self-glorification, what you tend to get is the moral cowardice and fecklessness of people like Obama, the Clintons, and, in truth, all centrist politicians. They'll do whatever they have to do to rise to power, so they can realize their "destiny" -- of being powerful. They'll always try to please "both sides" -- a binary notion that leaves out the genuine left, which is to say the interests of the large majority of people -- because that is the safest and surest road to power.

Which brings us to Obama's real legacy, as opposed to the one he imagines. The moment he committed himself to a life of pale centrism in a time of escalating social crisis, he determined what his place in history would be. I'm reminded of Georg Lukács's analysis of Germany's waffling liberal intelligentsia during the 1920s in his book The Destruction of Reason . The elite liberals of the Weimar Republic couldn't countenance fascism but wouldn't commit themselves to a decisive democratic program to resist it -- for they feared socialism even more than fascism -- so they ended up vacillating pathetically, criticizing mass democracy while on occasion semi-defending it, fecklessly counseling moderation, thereby enabling ultra-reaction.

While the U.S. is certainly not Weimar Germany, and the risks of full-blown fascism are not as great now as they were then, one can see parallels. Just as the feckless, vacillating liberalism of Jimmy Carter ushered in the reactionary age of Reagan, so the vacillating liberalism of Obama prepared the way for the semi-fascism of Trump and the reinvigoration of white supremacy. (So much for Obama's supposed furtherance of the Civil Rights Movement. He is arguably one of the worst things to have happened to minorities since the end of Jim Crow.) You can't be neutral on a moving train. If you try, you're actually on the side of the reactionaries.

Congratulations, Barack. You've written yourself into the history books. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Chris Wright Chris Wright has a Ph.D. in U.S. history from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and is the author of Notes of an Underground Humanist , Worker Cooperatives and Revolution: History and Possibilities in the United States , and Finding Our Compass: Reflections on a World in Crisis . His website is www.wrightswriting.com .

[Jun 07, 2018] DOJ Watchdog Finds Comey Defied Authority And Was Insubordinate Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely source of today's leafletting. ..."
Jun 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

DOJ Watchdog Finds Comey "Defied Authority" And Was "Insubordinate"

by Tyler Durden Wed, 06/06/2018 - 22:44 763 SHARES

The Department of Justice's internal watchdog has found that James Comey defied authority several times while he was director of the FBI, according to ABC , citing sources familiar with the draft of a highly anticipated OIG report on the FBI's conduct during the Clinton email investigation .

One source told ABC News that the draft report explicitly used the word "insubordinate" to describe Comey's behavior . Another source agreed with that characterization but could not confirm the use of the term.

In the draft report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal email server, the sources said. - ABC

President Trump complained on Tuesday of "numerous delays" in the release of the Inspector General's report, which some have accused of being slow walked or altered to minimize its impact on the FBI and DOJ.

"What is taking so long with the Inspector General's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery James Comey," Trump said on Twitter. "Hope report is not being changed and made weaker!"

"It's been almost a year and a half and it is time that Congress receives the IG report," said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who has been on the front lines of the battle against the DOJ and FBI's stonewalling of lawmakers requesting documentation. "This has gone on long enough and the American people's patience is wearing thin. We need accountability," said DeSantis.

Another congressional official, who's been fighting to obtain documents from the DOJ and FBI, said it is no surprise that they are putting pressure on Horowitz. According to the official, "They continue to slow roll documents, fail to adhere to congressional oversight and concern is growing that they will wait until summer and then turn over documents that are heavily redacted."

- Sara Carter

ABC reports that there is no indication Trump has seen - or will see - the draft of the report prior to its release. Inspector General Horowitz, however, could revise the draft report now that current and former officials have offered their responses to the report's conclusions, according to the sources.

The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe, according to sources . Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.

Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy , and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told. - ABC

During an April interview, Comey was asked by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos "If Attorney General Lynch had ordered you not to send the letter, would you have sent it?"

"No," replied Comey. "I believe in the chain of command."

Deputy Attorney General slammed Comey's letter to congress while recommending that Trump fire Comey last year - saying it "was wrong" for Comey "to usurp the Attorney General's authority" when he revealed in July 2016 that he would not be filing charges against Hillary Clinton or her aides (many of whom were granted immunity).

"It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement," Rosenstein wrote in a letter recommending that Comey be fired. "At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."

The draft OIG report dings Comey for not consulting with Lynch and other senior DOJ officials before making his announcement on national TV. Furthermore, while Comey said there was no "clear evidence" that Hillary Clinton "intended to violate" the law, he also said that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her "handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

And as we now know, Comey's senior counterintelligence team at the FBI made extensive edits to Clinton's exoneration letter, effectively decriminalizing her behavior .

"I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say," Comey said on live TV July 5, 2016.

By then, Lynch had taken the unusual step of publicly declaring she would accept the FBI's recommendations in the case, after an impromptu meeting with former president Bill Clinton sparked questions about her impartiality.

Comey has defended his decisions as director, insisting he was trying to protect the FBI from even further criticism and "didn't see that I had a choice." - ABC

"The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things, but ... I think given what I knew at the time, these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the institutions," Comey told ABC News. " I still think it was the right thing to do. "

Comey is currently on a tour promoting his new book, " A Higher Loyalty."

About that delay...

As many wonder just where the OIG report is after supposedly being "finished" for a while, the Washington Examiner 's Chief political correspondent, Byron York, offers some keen insight (tweeted before details of the draft were leaked):

• Byron York
A series of tweets on what to expect from the much-anticipated inspector general report on DOJ/FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation... 1/
10:42 AM - Jun 6, 2018

• Byron York

First, looks like it might be delayed yet again. Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a June 5 hearing to discuss IG report.

After delay, had to be rescheduled for next Monday, June 11.

Now looks like might be delayed again.
10:42 AM-Jun 6, 2018

• Byron York

Why delays? Feet are clearly being dragged. There are snags over classified information. Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information, interviewed new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about. 3/

10:43 AM-Jun6, 2018

Byron York

@ByronYork

Replying to @ByronYork

So, when IG report is finally released-looking like mid-June -- what will it cover? Don't know its conclusions, but here are some subjects you can expect to be reading about: 4/

10:43 AM-Jun 6, 2018

• Byron York

Expect discussion of 6/27/16 Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting on tarmac in Arizona. IG has done extensive investigation.

What was said? What were the intentions of those involved? Expect it to be covered carefully. 5/

10:44 AM-Jun 6, 2018

• Byron York

Expect discussion of James Comey's decision to begin drafting an exoneration memo for Hillary Clinton long before the FBI had even interviewed her, or at least a dozen other key figures in the case.

Also: Why hand out so much immunity? 6/
10:45 AM-Jun6, 2018

• Byron York

Expect discussion of Comey's intentions when he announced reopening of Clinton investigation on 10/28/16, shortly before election day. Democrats specifically asked IG to investigate that.

10:45 AM-Jun 6, 2018

• Byron York

Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on information? If so, why? What did Comey know? 8/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018

• Byron York

Expect discussion on rationale for Comey's controversial 7/5/16 statement announcing no charges would be filed against Clinton.

To say it was unorthodox would be an understatement. What was he doing? 9/

10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018

• Byron York

Expect discussion of Lynch's refusal to recuse herself from investigation or to appoint special counsel. Plus, look for discussion of why McCabe waited so long to recuse himself
even after public reporting of Clinton-related political contributions to his wife. 10/
10:47 AM-Jun6, 2018

• Byron York

Finally, don't expect to learn much new about McCabe 'lack of candor' situation re: leaks.

Not clear whether IG will reveal much beyond what has already been released in wake of McCabe firing. End/
10:48 AM-Jun 6, 2018

ejmoosa -> sheikurbootie Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:00 Permalink

Comey is an example of the "Peter Principle" for today's snowflake generation.

nope-1004 -> ejmoosa Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:05 Permalink

Comey to illustrate blasphemy by quoting scripture in 3, 2, 1.....

Joe Davola -> espirit Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:02 Permalink

Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information, interviewed new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about.

How many more new witnesses with new information will crawl out of the woodwork at the most opportune moment to delay releasing the report. I'm guessing they interviewed McCabe's hairdresser at Sport Clips to see which direction he combs.

Jack McGriff -> Joe Davola Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:05 Permalink

"Slippery" James Comey sounds about right ... branded for life now just like "Crooked" Hillary Clinton.

LMAO

Keyser -> Jack McGriff Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:12 Permalink

If the strongest language in this report to describe Comey's actions is merely "insubordinate" and "defied authority", then it's a big, fat, nothingburger... Not a GD thing is going to happen, lift rug, sweep vigorously...

Joe Davola -> Keyser Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:15 Permalink

If the blue team leaked this, then they're trying to get ahead of damaging information. If it's the red team, then you're right Keyser and a behind the scenes agreement has been reached letting both teams off the hook for some unleaked transgression.

GreatUncle -> Joe Davola Wed, 06/06/2018 - 14:20 Permalink

No matter what anybody wants I don't think there is a cat in hells chance of anybody being jailed.

Muddy1 -> Joe Davola Wed, 06/06/2018 - 14:27 Permalink

"Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on information"

I wouldn't sit on anything related to Weiner or his LAPtop.

Hippocratic Oaf -> Muddy1 Wed, 06/06/2018 - 14:58 Permalink

Nothing will happen. The corrupt will walk away with a hand-slap, write 3 books and retire multi-millionaires. The new normal.

Jim in MN -> Hippocratic Oaf Wed, 06/06/2018 - 15:05 Permalink

Expect NO discussion of Seth Rich.

DosZap -> espirit Wed, 06/06/2018 - 17:04 Permalink

POTUS can FIRE ANYONE in the DOJ, and THE FBI he wants to for ANY reason, HE doesn't even have to GIVE ONE!.

loveyajimbo -> DosZap Wed, 06/06/2018 - 23:33 Permalink

Then WTF is he thinking in keeping the corrupt maggot Sessions on as AG???

Joe Davola -> E.F. Mutton Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:16 Permalink

A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely source of today's leafletting.

1777 -> MasterPo Wed, 06/06/2018 - 15:38 Permalink

Nothing going to happen! Notta... Zilch... Zero... The swamp gets deeper! Enjoy.

The only thing that IS happening is more illegals running across the border. And more Debt pilling up! etc...etc...

Eeesh -> MasterPo Wed, 06/06/2018 - 23:48 Permalink

Your lips to God's ears! This is ridiculous! Insubordinate? That's it? 90% of the people in DC need a good wearing out with a belt! This politically correct nonsense has to end. Call it what it is you lily-livered pansies! It's treason and sedition. It's a den of snakes!

You want to see America bounce back as a strong and proud nation? START HANDING OUT REAL PUNISHMENT! Otherwise, it will be the same old sleazy crap over and over again.

Zerogenous_Zone -> Joe Davola Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:26 Permalink

agree...that's why we need to stay diligent and demand the proper dissemination of the impartial facts...

with McCabe seeking immunity...and Comey playing 'Patriot'...and Brennon being and old lair...and Clapper portraying all previous actions were 'honorable'...we have to ask ourselves a question...

who takes the fall, or who spills the beans?!

time to pop some corn and weave the rope!!

Joe Davola -> Zerogenous_Zone Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:42 Permalink

Anything I hear/see involving Clapper and Brennan I figure is a fictitious psyop. Brian Cox and Albert Finney already portrayed them in the Bourne films.

venturen -> Zerogenous_Zone Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

You know they had ONE BOSS.....who should be indicted.....OBAMA!

DosZap -> Zerogenous_Zone Wed, 06/06/2018 - 17:12 Permalink

SEVERAL Ex FBI agents and current FBI Agents are BEGGING to be subpoenaed, WHY hasn't this happened, THEY want this MESS OUT in the open, yet TRUMP does nothing?. I would have Congress do it asap, under OATH and with Criminal repercussions. Horowitz is a EUNUCH.

ParkAveFlasher -> ejmoosa Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:11 Permalink

Regarding "Peter Principle", you are assuming his ascendancy was based on competency.

homiegot -> ParkAveFlasher Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:21 Permalink

Peter Principle applies to the entire Federal government.

south40_dreams -> ParkAveFlasher Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:24 Permalink

He was a competent thug

ParkAveFlasher -> south40_dreams Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:27 Permalink

Right, I would say this is reverse Peter Principle.

Blankenstein -> south40_dreams Wed, 06/06/2018 - 15:28 Permalink

Exactly. That's why Lockheed Martin paid him $6 million a year. Does anyone think they hired him for his abilities as an attorney when he lacked any experience in corporate law? Then he went on to Ray Dalio's Bridgewater associates. Wonder how much they paid him there. What experience did he have for working as an attorney for a hedge fund?

Then he leaves these extremely lucrative jobs to go back to government at $170,00 a year.

Sounds legit.

Got The Wrong No -> ejmoosa Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:14 Permalink

I'd be insubordinate too if Satan's Slut Hillary was breathing hellfire down my neck. Comey probably likes living as much as the rest of us. Now that the noose is getting tighter, will he give up the slut???? Hopefully a few of these pukes will turn on her in unison. The Magical Homo will be tougher to snare.

Anunnaki -> Got The Wrong No Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:38 Permalink

Obama is more guilty. He knew the FISA warrant was bogus and did it any way. Even his wife, Mike, warned him their could be repercussions.

Per Ed Klein's book All Out War

Distant_Star -> ejmoosa Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:09 Permalink

The former ever-so-sanctimonious FBI Director, classified document leaker and Clinton water boy Jimmy Comey was "Insubordinate?" Who could have guessed? But remember, Trump fired the asswipe in order to "obstruct justice." Jail Jimmy without delay.

While we are on the subject, this shows you the type of "friends" that Saint Mueller keeps.

Posa -> ejmoosa Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

If reports are true, then IG Horowitz is fudging Coney-Lynch's real crimes; namely the events leading up to the July whitewash of Killary which include drafting the exoneration letter before interviewing Clinton, twisting the facts to decriminalize Clinton's offenses and pressuring FBI agents to alter reports regarding the Clinton investigation.

If the IG brushes past these matters, whatever else he says is worthless. Just tarnishes Comey's image a tad bit and will be forgotten.

chubbar -> ejmoosa • Wed, 06/06/2018 - 13:25 Permalink

This sounds like they are trying to decriminalize Comey's actions, not indict him. How the fuck does the headline equate to a criminal charge? Maybe they (OIG) are trying to let this asshole off the hook? What's he going to get? A severe tongue lashing because he was insubordinate?

[Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith

Highly recommended!
From comments: "Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries." But the problem with this statement is the dynamics of American Imperialism, which would not tolerate any government which is not a vassal.
Notable quotes:
"... Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality. Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example, the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but dangerous. ..."
"... When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs. ..."
"... For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is indispensable in analyzing world events. ..."
"... However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in Westphalian terms. ..."
"... Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive, idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of their own nations but that of the others. ..."
"... Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American companies and capitalists. ..."
"... The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood, from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions (Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard, too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence of the Emirs of Kuwait). ..."
"... An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank. ..."
"... What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for it to protect the nation. ..."
"... Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries. ..."
"... Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other, leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914. ..."
"... There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables). ..."
"... Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just and moral", which is an idealistic a notion. ..."
Jun 06, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Great power competition is everywhere these days -- in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea, North Korea. With the rise of China and the rejuvenation of Russian military power, realist thinking is suddenly back in vogue, as it should be.

Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality. Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example, the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but dangerous. The liberal idea that the UN can foster world order through international institutions is likewise naïve and perilous. Fantasy lands in art and literature can be wonderful divertissements , but using them as the basis for great nation's foreign policy can produce nightmares.

George W. Bush created a dream world in his mind where it seemed plausible for American military power to end "tyranny in our world." Tyranny, as anyone who has not slipped the bonds of reality knows, is rooted in the human soul and cannot be "ended." Tyranny can be checked and mitigated, but only through extraordinary effort and with the help of a rich tradition.

But it is always easier to assign oneself virtue based on self-applauding and unrealistic notions about world peace. When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs.

Too Many Foreign Policy Double Standards Hurt U.S. Credibility John Bolton: In Search of Carthage

Yet for all their sagacity, realist thinkers are not without their problems either. They tend to deny the moral nature of human beings and the role that this may play in world events. Because they have seen the great danger of moralistic idealism in foreign policy, they sometimes don't think morality should be considered at all. Realist theory has a cold, inhumane quality that makes it inattentive to the moral dimension of human existence.

The failure of realists to incorporate moral considerations into their thinking has made realism unpopular with the American people, who historically believe that their nation's foreign policy should have at least some moral content. They, after all, send their own boys and girls to war, and they would like to think that those sacrifices are not made for some mechanistic balance of power. They know that statesmen must often make cold calculations in the national interest, but surely somewhere in there must be right and wrong, as in all human endeavors.

Because some realists have adopted the philosophically untenable position that morality has no role in world affairs, many Americans have signed on with the moralists' disastrous crusades instead. The realists have the stronger policy case, but they have ceded the moral ground to the idealists.

Ironically, it may be the work of Henry Kissinger that can show realists an intellectual path toward restoring a sense of morality in foreign policy.

For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is indispensable in analyzing world events.

However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in Westphalian terms.

Kissinger also says that enlightened leaders must not only recognize the realities of power politics and the hard Machiavellian truths of international competition, but possess a certain moral quality that he calls "restraint." Without a willingness to restrain themselves and to act dispassionately, world leaders will be incapable of building an international order. When facing difficult challenges, enlightened diplomats and statesmen must have the moral courage to accept certain "limits of permissible action." Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a certain temperament and moral character can support the Westphalian model.

Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive, idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of their own nations but that of the others. Such a policy cannot be sketched out in the abstract in advance; it can emerge only through the moral leadership of genuine statesmen who act to find a specific solution in a set of complex, concrete circumstances. This is one of the great lessons of classical political philosophy: justice is not an abstraction but found concretely in the soul of the just man.

The answer to the question of what a just and moral foreign policy might look like is that it's the kind that truly just and moral, but also supremely realistic, statesmen will adopt. That such statesmen are rare is what has caused the great philosophers to lament that only the dead have seen the end of war.

William S. Smith is managing director and research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.

Youknowho June 4, 2018 at 11:12 pm

Please. Morality. And Henry Kissinger do not belong in the same sentence even if you have to break the rules of grammar for it.

Bangladesh, East Timor, Chile, are places where people would rise to accuse him if they were not dead thanks to him.

Janwaar Bibi , says: June 5, 2018 at 12:21 am
Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a certain temperament and moral character can support the Westphalian model.

1) In 1971, the government of Pakistan carried out a genocide of its Hindu minority in what is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Somewhere between 1 and 3 million Hindus were killed, and many thousands of Bengali Muslim leaders and intellectuals were murdered by the Pakistani regime.

Kissinger and Nixon supported Yahya Khan's government, and even shipped weapons to Pakistan while the genocide was going on.
From Gary Bass's article in the New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/looking-away-from-genocide

While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway, the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). Some ten million Bengali refugees fled to India, where untold numbers died in miserable conditions in refugee camps. Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States, and Richard Nixon and his national-security advisor, Henry Kissinger, resolutely supported its military dictatorship; they refused to impose pressure on Pakistan's generals to forestall further atrocities.

2) Kissinger was one of key organizers of the 1973 coup against the democratically elected Allende government in Chile. When Allende was elected, this moral stalwart told his staff "I don't see any reason why we should stand around and do nothing when a country goes communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of Chilean leftists, both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military imprisoned 40,000 political enemies in the National Stadium of Chile In October 1973, the Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated by the death squad, Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte).

The government arrested some 130,000 people in a three-year period; the dead and disappeared numbered thousands.

****************

Tom Lehrer once said that satire died when Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. Fortunately William Smith's article about Kissinger's "morality" shows that comedy is not yet dead, even if the comic relief is inadvertent.

cka2nd , says: June 5, 2018 at 12:51 am
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of MAJOR POWERS refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power."

Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American companies and capitalists.

The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood, from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions (Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard, too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence of the Emirs of Kuwait).

Would the realists have responded to the 2009 coup in Honduras with any more morality than Hilary Clinton did? Would the economic war upon Venezuela be any less damaging than it has been under Bush II, Obama or Trump? Yes, some of the realists would not have launched the invasion of Iraq, but would they have lifted the sanctions regime on Iraq? Would they have restrained the Saudis in Yemen?

An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank.

Wayne Lusvardi , says: June 5, 2018 at 1:42 am
Dr. Smith apparently has a misunderstanding about Machiavelli's realism being devoid of morality.

What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for it to protect the nation.

Example: Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan; Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in WW II because to warn them would have revealed that the Brits had cracked the German secret codes; and Pres. Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

This is in sharp contrast to statesmen (women) such as Hillary Clinton who used evil gratuitously by taking bribes from foreign nations to fund her foundation; or Pres. Bill Clinton who "wagged the dog" by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to divert attention away from a sex scandal.

Machiavelli was not anti-religious or anti-morality, contrary to pop explanations by liberal media, novels and academics (read Erica Benner's book Machiavelli's Ethics).

S , says: June 5, 2018 at 2:35 am
Henry Kissinger as a moral man? I really wish you had a better example to prove your valid point. The man who was responsible for the murder of millions in Indo China including the bombing of non combatant countries like Laos is hardly qualified to talk about morality of anything.
LouisM , says: June 5, 2018 at 7:30 am
Im not sure morality is even possible. I wonder if it ever was possible.

Everyone in the west is taught the values of multicultural and diversity while the rest of the world is still tribal. It is those tribes who we (US) considers allies which are controlling much of our foreign policy. The other constituency is just as old and its the monied class or the corporations whose only goal is to maintain and grow revenue.

Thank god we have domestic and international law which constrains our foreign policy to moral issues.

Christian Chuba , says: June 5, 2018 at 8:46 am
These terms get murky. Neocons are idealists but most definitely believe in great power competition and dominance. U.S. interests can only be protected if authoritarian regimes are replaced by pro-U.S. Democratic govts which is why we were so aggressive in expanding our influence in Eastern Europe, often through covert means and by force in the M.E. I never had much use for the term 'realism'.

Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries.

We have been brainwashed to consider him an offender in this model because of Ukraine but his response was a minimalist response to a crisis on his border. We go on crusades and experiment on other countries thousands of miles away from our shores.

Digitalwhatsup , says: June 5, 2018 at 8:48 am
Nothing can be said about power. All super powers need to work towards development of People.
Michael Kenny , says: June 5, 2018 at 10:39 am
Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other, leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914.

Westphalia was a slightly different situation. A 30-year, on again–off again, triangular German "civil war" between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, with much foreign interference, had reached a stalemate, which, in practice, amounted to a Catholic defeat. The only way out was to let everybody keep what they had and agree not to try to take more. It was forced forbearance rather than balance.

In Europe, at least, peace certainly depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power". The European Union is the modern expression of that principle.

That's why Putin's interferences in Ukraine's domestic affairs and his undisguised attempts to destroy the EU have set off alarm bells all across Europe and why US unwillingness to check his ambitions is making the EU the only viable option to ensure peace in Europe.

Donald , says: June 5, 2018 at 11:51 am
Kissinger is an extremely bad person to cite on the subject of morality in a realist foreign policy. John Quincey Adam's would be better. Coincidentally, TAC printed him on this very subject --

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/repository/she-goes-not-abroad-in-search-of-monsters-to-destroy/

Mark Thomason , says: June 5, 2018 at 11:51 am
"Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world"

It need not be that. The "vision thing" that Bush I famously did not do could well be a part of our national interest, one of the things coldly evaluated, and contributing to our strength when done correctly.

cka2nd , says: June 5, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Of Wayne Lusvardi's examples of "existential" emergencies for which evil can be done to "protect the nation," "Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan" is at best debatable given the evidence that the Japanese were willing to surrender as long as they could keep their emperor, and especially to keep the Soviets from declaring war on them, while "Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in WW II" is legitimate, in my opinion.

But "Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua" is laughable. American pride may have needed protection from the hostage "crisis," but the American nation certainly did not, as it was not threatened in any way. American foreign policy continued on its way, funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, backing the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese Stalinists who drove them from power in Cambodia, and buying off Egypt, so you can't even say that America's "standing in the world" particularly suffered from the hostage "crisis."

And as for "Pres. Bill Clinton who 'wagged the dog' by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to divert attention away from a sex scandal," I'll trump that shameful episode with Pres. Ronald Reagan invading Grenada two days after the Beirut barracks bombing.

cka2nd , says: June 5, 2018 at 2:00 pm
I think Christian Chuba is closer to the mark than Michael Kenny when it comes to Putin and Ukraine.
George Hoffman , says: June 5, 2018 at 2:36 pm
Our D.I. In basic training in his frustration to turn raw recruits into soldiers would raise his arms to the sky imploring the aid of the Commander-in-Chief in the heavens and holler, "Dear Lord, give'em books and all they do is eat'em!" That's the way I viewed William Smith's essay on the need for an infusion of a reconstituted morality in our foreign policy.

After basic training, I then served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, where I was confronted with the grim and brutal reality of that quagmire and learned that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. LBJ would come to regret calling South Vietnam President Ndo Dinh Diem the "Churchill of Asia." There lies the dilemma when idealism confronts reality.

More generally, I disagree with the centrality of the Westphalian concept of what constitutes a nation in the post-modern world. Smith mentions the influence of non-actors such as jihadists to alter our foreign policy goals but overlooks how corporations have also altered that concept with their doctrine of globalization for profits which undercuts national sovereignty established in Westphalia. Smith seems to be wandering between two worlds, "one dead / The other peerless to be born" as Mathew Arnold lamented in his poem "Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse."

Smith is trying to promote a revisionist history of the last fifty years just as Niall Ferguson did in the first volume of his authorized biography of Henry Kissinger as an idealist. Ferguson notes even Kissinger obviously knew the war was a lost cause after he did two fact-finding tours in South Vietnam early in the war but thought the war was still necessary to prosecute to save a vestige of our credibility as policeman to the world. Ken Burns also attempts a revisionist coup of the Vietnam War when he editorialized in his documentary that our fearless leaders prosecuted that war with the best intentions. So unfortunately, I view this essay as a current trend to to promote revisionism in our history of the last fifty years despite the contrary conclusions of the historical facts.

But as John Adams, a foundering father, once observed "facts are stubborn things."

Sisera , says: June 5, 2018 at 6:43 pm
@Christian Chuba:

I agree-Putin's response to our actions is often not even considered: The biggest flaw with realism that it's like a multivariate experiment -- with everyone having different variables they think to be relevant. For instance, Kissinger thought Vietnam would fall under Chinese influence under Communist NVA, yet he ignored the variable of ethnic rivalries between Chinese and Vietnamese. GWB ignored the variables of Iran -- how it would swoop in and nurture newly Shia Iraq..

There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables).

EliteCommInc. , says: June 5, 2018 at 8:22 pm
Vietnam: perhaps the only conflict fought on half of another of but minor, if any real benefit to the US. That with or without Sec. Kissinger is clear as day. As for quagmires -- it seems that all ward have them. Vietnam was a quagmire because our policy was one of protect and hold as opposed to invade and conquer -- an unfortunate choice. In the world of a realist, we should have killed any and all Vietcong, raced up to Hanoi and ended the matter.

'nough said.

I am not sure many here are reading the same article, because my take is that the author is claiming that Sec Kissinger was a realist -- practical – what needed to be done to accomplish task A -- morality doesn't enter into it. That explains why he found Pres Nixon's faith amusing. So all of the comments bemoaning the Sec lack of moral attend, only confirms the realists perspective.

Nonetheless,

I disagree with your version of the last seventeen years. it has not been orchestrated or led by realists. Quite the opposite. The rhetoric may be couched in all manner of idealism , but so was their application of force.

A realist would not give a lick aboy religious affiliation to the aims of regime chang, cpital market or democracy creation. The onlu factor that would have mattered is who was on board, or not in the way -- all challengers regardless of their faith, political agendas, personality, or concerned about symbols as nonsensical historical artifacts would moved aside by any means necessary. A realist so engaging such large opposition would decided the matter -- to utter destruction to complete compliance – period.

In fact, I will contend that these pseudo realists, were thwarted by their own bouts if idealist moral relativity and were the worst sort for the job at hand.

Buzz , says: June 5, 2018 at 9:30 pm
What a joke of an article, Kissinger as a moralist. He is one of the major war criminals of the second half of the 20th Century. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands if not millions on his hands, as others above have details. And not all foreigners. Lest we forget the part he played in Nixon's great lies about Vietnam that delayed a peace settlement to help Nixon get elected. 30,000 dead Americans later we got pretty much the same settlement. The author of this article has entered into the realm of the absurd.
Miguel , says: June 5, 2018 at 10:27 pm
Wow, I thought I wasn't ever going to read anything on economic war on Venezuela! Finally, even if it is from the comments.

There is an article about not to support/encourage a cup here, but obviously, when it is about the bad economic situation, only the leftish govenrments are blamed, as if Venezuela wasn't thoroughly dependet on debt.

Besides of that, even if that mention weren't thre, I agree and thanks most of the comments in this article.

Wayne Lusvardi , says: June 6, 2018 at 12:18 am
Reply to cka2nd:

Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just and moral", which is an idealistic a notion.

Bryan Hemming , says: June 6, 2018 at 9:03 am
If, as Samuel Johnson is reputed to have said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" then using Kissinger as an example of realism is the last refuge of a fantasist.

[Jun 06, 2018] >John Bolton is now part of the Cambridge Analytica scandal

Notable quotes:
"... There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters ..."
"... What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added. ..."
"... "That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration. ..."
Jun 06, 2018 | newrepublic.com

Speaking at CPAC in 2017, John Bolton boasted that his Super PAC's implementation of "advanced psychographic data" would help elect "filibuster majorities" in 2018. According to a New York Times report published on Friday, Bolton's Super PAC paid $1.2 million to Cambridge Analytica, the British firm that has come under scrutiny for its misuse of Facebook data to influence voters. Bolton's Super PAC, moreover, was heavily funded by the Mercer family, who gave millions to Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential campaign.

There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters. "The data and modeling Bolton's PAC received was derived from the Facebook data," Christopher Wylie, the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica turned whistleblower, told the Times . "We definitely told them about how we were doing it. We talked about it in conference calls, in meetings."

What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added.

"That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration.

[Jun 06, 2018] Was Comey trying to threaten Trump by telling about pee tape in Steele dossier, creation of which in fact was deeply connected with FBI and used by FBI to open wiretapping of Trump associates

Notable quotes:
"... Hopefully that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but only discuss one of those investigations in public . ..."
Jun 06, 2018 | newrepublic.com

A Higher Loyalty drops on Tuesday, but, in keeping with longstanding publishing tradition, the good bits have already been selectively leaked to outlets in advance. We've learned that the former FBI director compares Trump to a mafia boss , that Trump's "leadership is transactional, ego driven, and about personal loyalty," and that Comey admits that the widespread belief that Clinton would become president may have played a role in his decision to announce that the FBI was reopening an investigation into her use of a private email server less than two weeks before the election.

We also learn that Trump was obsessed with the "pee tape," the most salacious allegation in the infamous Steele Dossier. Comey writes that Trump "strongly denied the allegations, asking -- rhetorically, I assumed -- whether he seemed like a guy who needed the service of prostitutes. He then began discussing cases where women had accused him of sexual assault, a subject I had not raised. He mentioned a number of women, and seemed to have memorized their allegations."

Trump took the bait, sending out two tweets attacking Comey on Friday morning.

James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under OATH. He is a weak and.....

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 13, 2018

....untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI. His handling of the Crooked Hillary Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst "botch jobs" of history. It was my great honor to fire James Comey!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 13, 2018

But of course, Trump admitted, only days after Comey's dismissal, that he really fired Comey over the Russia investigation.

... ... ...

The Republicans are scared of James Comey.

The Republican National Committee just unveiled a new website, LyinComey.com , to counter whatever allegations the former FBI director levels against President Donald Trump in his new book, which goes on sale next week. As CNN reports, the RNC is also buying digital ads and sending talking points sent to GOP politicians. This counter-information campaign is a sign of how worried Republicans are about Comey's potential to inflict political damage -- and is wholly unconvincing.

For example, the RNC's Comey site says that he "stated under oath that he never posed as an anonymous source to leak information to the press," then notes that he "later testified that he 'asked a friend of [his] to share the content of the memo with a reporter.'" The presentation makes these two factual statements seem contradictory when they're not. Comey testified in a May 3, 2017, congressional hearing that he had never been an anonymous source; he told lawmakers the following June that he sent his bombshell memos to The New York Times through an intermediary only after his May 9 ouster.

Those memos laid the groundwork for allegations that Trump obstructed justice by firing the FBI director. "Comey may use his book tour to push the phony narrative that President Trump obstructed the Russia investigation," the website warns, citing Comey's testimony last June in which he said Trump never ordered him to halt the Russia investigation. The framing is somewhat misleading, since legal experts believe the obstruction question instead revolves around Comey's firing itself.

The website's release comes after Comey taped an interview with ABC News that's set to air on Sunday night. Axios quoted an unnamed source present during the interview who said that Comey "answered every question" posed to him. Hopefully that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but only discuss one of those investigations in public .

[Jun 06, 2018] Despite the fact that Trump folded, for the foreseeable future the Neocons will continue to focus their energy on trying to impeach Trump by the Saker

This article on almost a year old but thinks are developing as predicted. Which increases its value.
"... Since when did Trump become an expert on political science and world history anyway? Who does he think he is lecturing? Yet another US middle school classroom?! Does he not realize that a good number of the countries represented at the UN consider themselves Socialist?! Furthermore, while I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that Socialist and Communist ideas have often been a disaster in the 20th century, Socialism in the 21st century is an entirely different beast and the jury is still very much out on this issue, especially when considering the social, political, economic, ecological, psychological and even spiritual disaster Capitalism is now proving to be for much of the planet. Being the President of a country as dysfunctional as the US, Trump would be well-advised to tone down his arrogant pontifications about Socialism and maybe even open a book and read about it. ..."
"... My guess is that all they want is to send a clear messages to the Comprador elites running most countries that this is the "official ideology of the AngloZionist Empire" and if they want to remain in power they better toe the line even if nobody takes this stuff seriously. Yup, back to a 1980s Soviet kind of attitude towards propaganda: nobody cares what everybody else really thinks as long as everybody continues to pretend to believe the official propaganda. ..."
"... Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
"... Because, and make no mistake here, if the US cannot get anything constructive done any more, they retain a huge capability to disrupt, subvert, create chaos and the like. ..."
"... However, the US themselves are now the prime victim of a decapitated Presidency and a vindictive and generally out of control Neocon effort to prevent true American patriots to "get their country back" (as they say) and finally overthrow the regime in Washington DC. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... Since when did Trump become an expert on political science and world history anyway? Who does he think he is lecturing? Yet another US middle school classroom?! Does he not realize that a good number of the countries represented at the UN consider themselves Socialist?! Furthermore, while I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that Socialist and Communist ideas have often been a disaster in the 20th century, Socialism in the 21st century is an entirely different beast and the jury is still very much out on this issue, especially when considering the social, political, economic, ecological, psychological and even spiritual disaster Capitalism is now proving to be for much of the planet. Being the President of a country as dysfunctional as the US, Trump would be well-advised to tone down his arrogant pontifications about Socialism and maybe even open a book and read about it. ..."
"... we all know who Trump's puppet-masters are nowadays so we know what to expect ..."
"... Trump is now clearly fully endorsing that fairytale that "The West" (in which Trump now hilariously includes Poland!) has defeated Hitler and saved the world. The truth is that the Nazis were defeated by the Soviets and that all the efforts of the Poles, French, Brits and even Americans were but a minor (20% max) sideshow to the "real event" (Those who still might believe in this nonsense can simply read this ). Yet again, that the Americans would feel the need to appropriate for themselves somebody else's victory is, yet again, a clear sign of weakness. Do they expect the rest of the planet to buy into this nonsense? Probably not. ..."
"... My guess is that all they want is to send a clear messages to the Comprador elites running most countries that this is the "official ideology of the AngloZionist Empire" and if they want to remain in power they better toe the line even if nobody takes this stuff seriously. Yup, back to a 1980s Soviet kind of attitude towards propaganda: nobody cares what everybody else really thinks as long as everybody continues to pretend to believe the official propaganda. ..."
"... Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
"... Because, and make no mistake here, if the US cannot get anything constructive done any more, they retain a huge capability to disrupt, subvert, create chaos and the like. ..."
"... However, the US themselves are now the prime victim of a decapitated Presidency and a vindictive and generally out of control Neocon effort to prevent true American patriots to "get their country back" (as they say) and finally overthrow the regime in Washington DC. ..."
"... It appears that for the foreseeable future Trump will continue to focus his energy on beating Obama for the status of "worst President in US history" while the Neocons will continue to focus their energy on trying to impeach Trump ..."
"... I still maintain that the worst President in history (excluding possibly Woodrow Wilson) was Bill Clinton (strongly influenced, no doubt, by Hillary.) Sure, the 90′s were a great time in America, but Clinton's evil actions (signing NAFTA, the Crime Bill, ignoring Bin Laden, and repealing Glass-Steagall to name just a few) had not yet come to fruition. ..."
"... Consider that the scene he bought into is the product of 70 years of constant propaganda aimed at the American psyche and how successful that has been. ..."
"... Hillary would not have done anything different than Trump. Trump is a dumb shit sycophant of the Deep State just like Hillary. ..."
"... "Step by step the US is getting closer to a civil war" That pretty much says it all. All it will take is for US troops to get an unexpected butt kicking somewhere, sometime. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

Late this morning, outraged emails started pouring in. My correspondents reported "getting sick" and having their "heart ache". The cause of all that? They had just watched Trump's speech at the UN...

You can read the full (rush, not official) text here or watch the video here . Most of it is so vapid that I won't even bother posting the full thing. But there are a few interesting moments including those:

"We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been"

This short sentence contains the key to unlock the reason behind the fact that while the US military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at winning wars. Like most Americans, Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money "buys" you a better military. This is completely false, of course. If spending money was the key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the Pacific.

...then he suddenly decided to share this outright bizarre insight of his:

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.

Since when did Trump become an expert on political science and world history anyway? Who does he think he is lecturing? Yet another US middle school classroom?! Does he not realize that a good number of the countries represented at the UN consider themselves Socialist?! Furthermore, while I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that Socialist and Communist ideas have often been a disaster in the 20th century, Socialism in the 21st century is an entirely different beast and the jury is still very much out on this issue, especially when considering the social, political, economic, ecological, psychological and even spiritual disaster Capitalism is now proving to be for much of the planet. Being the President of a country as dysfunctional as the US, Trump would be well-advised to tone down his arrogant pontifications about Socialism and maybe even open a book and read about it.

I won't even bother discussing the comprehensively counter-factual nonsense Trump has spewed about Iran and Hezbollah, we all know who Trump's puppet-masters are nowadays so we know what to expect . Instead, I will conclude with this pearl from The Donald:

In remembering the great victory that led to this body's founding, we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil, also fought for the nations that they love. Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain.

Echoing the nonsense he spoke while in Poland, Trump is now clearly fully endorsing that fairytale that "The West" (in which Trump now hilariously includes Poland!) has defeated Hitler and saved the world. The truth is that the Nazis were defeated by the Soviets and that all the efforts of the Poles, French, Brits and even Americans were but a minor (20% max) sideshow to the "real event" (Those who still might believe in this nonsense can simply read this ). Yet again, that the Americans would feel the need to appropriate for themselves somebody else's victory is, yet again, a clear sign of weakness. Do they expect the rest of the planet to buy into this nonsense? Probably not.

My guess is that all they want is to send a clear messages to the Comprador elites running most countries that this is the "official ideology of the AngloZionist Empire" and if they want to remain in power they better toe the line even if nobody takes this stuff seriously. Yup, back to a 1980s Soviet kind of attitude towards propaganda: nobody cares what everybody else really thinks as long as everybody continues to pretend to believe the official propaganda.

[Sidebar: When my wife and I watched this pathetic speech we starting laughing about the fact that Trump was so obscenely bad that we (almost) begin to miss Obama. This is a standing joke in our family because when Obama came to power we (almost) began to miss Dubya. The reason why this is a joke is that when Dubya came to power we decided that there is no way anybody could possibly be worse than him. Oh boy where we wrong! Right now I am still not at the point were I would be missing Obama (that is asking for a lot from me!), but I will unapologetically admit that I am missing Dubya. I do. I really do. Maybe not the people around Dubya, he is the one who truly let the Neocon "crazies in the basement" creep out and occupy the Situation Room, but at least Dubya seemed to realize how utterly incompetent he was. Furthermore, Dubya was a heck of a lot dumber than Obama (in this context being stupid is a mitigating factor) and he sure did not have the truly galactic arrogance of Trump (intelligence-wise they are probably on par)].

In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the US. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done. Because, and make no mistake here, if the US cannot get anything constructive done any more, they retain a huge capability to disrupt, subvert, create chaos and the like.

But for as long as the US remains paralyzed this destructive potential remains mostly unused (and no matter how bad things look now, Hillary President would have been infinitely worse!). However, the US themselves are now the prime victim of a decapitated Presidency and a vindictive and generally out of control Neocon effort to prevent true American patriots to "get their country back" (as they say) and finally overthrow the regime in Washington DC.

Step by step the US is getting closer to a civil war and there is no hope in sight, at least for the time being. It appears that for the foreseeable future Trump will continue to focus his energy on beating Obama for the status of "worst President in US history" while the Neocons will continue to focus their energy on trying to impeach Trump , and maybe even trigger a civil war. The rest of us living here are in for some very tough times ahead. As they say in Florida when a hurricane comes barreling down on you "hunker down!".

Dan Hayes , September 19, 2017 at 11:36 pm GMT

The Saker,

Netanyahu has spoken, stating that Trump has given the boldest, most courageous UN speech that he has ever heard. Well that settles that with the prescient oracle rendering his definitive and omnipotent judgment!

FKA Max , Website September 20, 2017 at 2:02 am GMT

For What It's Worth, Trump Great On Immigration, Refugees At U.N. Today

http://www.vdare.com/posts/for-what-its-worth-trump-great-on-immigration-refugees-at-u-n-today

A lot of old friends didn't like President Trump's UN speech today because it didn't break cleanly with UniParty foreign policy! E.g. Paul Craig Roberts' comments here. But it did contain these revolutionary comments on immigration and refugee policy ! The latter especially significant because Trump has to set the quota for U.S. quota for refugees (actually expedited, subsidized, politically favored immigrants) in the next few days. Who knows what Trump will do! But Hillary would never even have said it
[...]
For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region.
[...]
For decades, the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western Hemisphere. We have learned that, over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries.

For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform, and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms.

For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.

peterAUS , September 20, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT

Disagree with most of the article, of course. Agree with these three:

The Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting .

No matter how bad things look now, Hillary President would have been infinitely worse!) ..

The rest of us living here are in for some very tough times ahead.

Fidelios Automata , September 20, 2017 at 3:13 am GMT

I still maintain that the worst President in history (excluding possibly Woodrow Wilson) was Bill Clinton (strongly influenced, no doubt, by Hillary.) Sure, the 90′s were a great time in America, but Clinton's evil actions (signing NAFTA, the Crime Bill, ignoring Bin Laden, and repealing Glass-Steagall to name just a few) had not yet come to fruition.

Robert Magill , September 20, 2017 at 3:40 am GMT

Assuming the keen political insight Trump exhibited to get himself the job he sought still exists, perhaps all this insane blather is proof it continues. Consider that the scene he bought into is the product of 70 years of constant propaganda aimed at the American psyche and how successful that has been.

Then imagine Trump feeding the ravenous American mindset for the status quo while actually working around it. Brilliant! Then again, if he truly means what he says, all is lost.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Realist , September 20, 2017 at 7:47 am GMT

@peterAUS

Hillary would not have done anything different than Trump. Trump is a dumb shit sycophant of the Deep State just like Hillary.

FKA Max , Website September 20, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT

@FKA Max

The speech was reportedly written by Stephen Miller, a.k.a. Darth Vader to many in the mainstream media,
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-strikingly-conventional-un-speech/2017/09/19/876cb41a-9d75-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?utm_term=.6df8b480a4d8

Thank you Stephen Miller! He must be reading Peter Singer:

International support for countries bearing the greatest refugee burden also makes economic sense: it costs Jordan about €3,000 ($3,350) to support one refugee for a year; in Germany, the cost is at least €12,000.
- http://www.unz.com/isteve/im-not-sure-why-but-this-headline-cracks-me-up/#comment-1746720
Another threat to the Church is the illegal immigration control movement. If this movement succeeds, and what is perceived by Latin Americans and other governments as an escape valve is shut off, these governments would logically say, "Our demographic course cannot continue." These governments would have little choice but to confront the Church and say, "If we are to survive as governments, then we must get serious about population growth control. Otherwise, we in Latin America are destined to become a sea of chaos. We, as Latin Americans, must make family planning and abortion services fully available and encourage their use." Turning off the valve to illegal immigration is therefore a serious threat to the power of the Church.
- http://www.unz.com/article/rule-or-ruin/#comment-1623864 This is Michael Anton on Trump's UN speech:

President Trump's Message: Make The United Nations Great

In fact, he's strengthened our alliances in meetings in Washington with key allies, by going to foreign capitals - the trip to France and the Bastille Day with America's oldest ally, with which the United States has in recent years had something of a rocky relationship – was strengthened enormously by that visit to Paris this year. And the president has, you know, both on a personal level and on an alliance level, really strengthened the alliance with France and with President Macron. In fact, he met with him yesterday and had a very, extremely positive and friendly meeting where they talked substantive business, but they also talked about the history of the alliance and reminisced a bit about the grandeur of that trip to Paris in July.

– http://www.npr.org/2017/09/19/552025707/president-trumps-message-make-the-united-nations-great

The French president's suggestion that African women are breeding like animals and must be restrained by an enlightened elite awakens primordial terrors in the hearts of the mainstream Left and Right.
[...]
If Europeans are replaced with Africans, Western Civilization will disappear. The choices are simple: The West, yes or no? The white race, yes or no? Our rulers have exhausted all other options.

– http://www.unz.com/article/trumps-warsaw-speech-and-the-real-clash-of-civilizations/#comment-1946225

Peter Singer on How Political Correctness Let African Population Growth Run Amok for a Generation

The outrage evoked by Macron's remark, however, appears to have little to do with its inaccuracy. Macron violated a taboo that has been in place since the International Conference on Population and Development, held under the auspices of the UN in Cairo in 1994. The conference adopted a Programme of Action that rejected a demographically driven approach to population policies, and instead focused on meeting the reproductive-health needs of individuals, especially women. Population targets were out; rights were in.

– http://www.unz.com/isteve/peter-singer-on-how-political-correctness-let-african-population-growth-run-amok-for-a-generation/

I would like to explain what led me to conclude that Emmanuel Macron has an "Alt Right" worldview.

– http://www.unz.com/article/collateral-damage/#comment-1955020

Don't lose hope
[...]
I shared this video here at the Unz Review before, but I would like to share it again, because it best encapsulates and captures what I personally associate with term "Alt Right"

– http://www.unz.com/article/the-system-revealed-antifa-virginia-politicians-and-police-work-together-to-shut-down-unitetheright/#comment-1967326

French army band medleys Daft Punk following Bastille Day parade

The Scalpel , Website September 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT

"Step by step the US is getting closer to a civil war" That pretty much says it all. All it will take is for US troops to get an unexpected butt kicking somewhere, sometime.

Studley , September 20, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT

Churchill himself, one of a long list of Anglo-genocidal killers (according to The Saker's last post) admitted that, "The Red Army tore the guts out of The Wehrmacht." Is this even in dispute?

In Russian thinking therefore, with only 20% contribution by American/UK Commonwealth forces, we subtract that, and this is the diplomatic question. Why would Stalin's T34s not have rolled up to The English Channel and installed compliant Communist regimes in France/Belgium/Holland as they did in Eastern Europe?

They did the same in North Korea by installing the grandfather (Kim Il-Sung) of this young 'Rocket Man' in 1945 at the conclusion of the fighting against Japan in the far-east.

[Jun 06, 2018] >John Bolton is now part of the Cambridge Analytica scandal

Notable quotes:
"... There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters ..."
"... What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added. ..."
"... "That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration. ..."
Jun 06, 2018 | newrepublic.com

Speaking at CPAC in 2017, John Bolton boasted that his Super PAC's implementation of "advanced psychographic data" would help elect "filibuster majorities" in 2018. According to a New York Times report published on Friday, Bolton's Super PAC paid $1.2 million to Cambridge Analytica, the British firm that has come under scrutiny for its misuse of Facebook data to influence voters. Bolton's Super PAC, moreover, was heavily funded by the Mercer family, who gave millions to Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential campaign.

There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters. "The data and modeling Bolton's PAC received was derived from the Facebook data," Christopher Wylie, the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica turned whistleblower, told the Times . "We definitely told them about how we were doing it. We talked about it in conference calls, in meetings."

What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added.

"That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration.

[Jun 06, 2018] Is fascism a logical next stage of the collapse of neoliberalism, like hapened in Waimar before?

Jun 06, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

quintal -> Alpo88 , 3 Jun 2018 15:56

Hi Alpo

Fascism is the word that most interests me when looking a the present trajectory in Australia

We're not there yet

And there's no one on the government benches who's a new Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini

But the next generation ..............

They make me uncomfortable. Some of the younger and as yet unheralded apparatchiks on the conservative fringe worry me. They're smart. Know the advertising and selling the message strategies. Have money and are well connected to the barons/oligarchs who pull the strings and they're ambitious.

Paradoxically a collapse of the Liberal Party will help them. In spite of it all we need a fiscally conservative, slightly socially conservative political movement in Australia but the drift to extremism is quite pronounced and profoundly worrying, especially in a time where climate change poses existential questions about our future.

This next election will not be a cakewalk. It'll be as bitterly fought as any in a generation and the consequences of a loss will be, for progressive forces, catastrophic.

cheers

Alpo88 , 3 Jun 2018 14:58
"Although people with low expectations are easier to con, fomenting cynicism about democracy comes at a long-term cost. Indeed, as the current crop of politicians is beginning to discover, people with low expectations feel they have nothing to lose."..... Yes, but that's part of the Devilish Plan: Why do you think that the Neoliberals and Conservatives spend so much time nurturing their relationship with both Police and the Army?.... They want to be sure that if their Neoliberal-Conservative project goes truly belly up, they will be the ones holding the guns.

Yes, it's sinister.... it's dangerous.... it's a time bomb, and we can only defuse it with the help of a majority of Australians waking up, standing up and Democratically vote against Fascism.

[Jun 06, 2018] Inverted totalitarism described by a Guardia commenter

Jun 06, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Bearmuchly, 3 Jun 2018 16:37

Despite the huge changes in communication in the last several decades and the ever increasing levels of education in our society, politics have failed to engage the vast majority and that cohort of the cynical, the alienated, the disinterested, the lazy, the simply care less continues to grow.

In the last decade the only cause that evoked passion and engaged a larger number, finally forcing our elected members to act was same sex marriage .....a crescendo that took years to generate.

With the complicity of our media and the decline of that part of education that teaches analysis, social psychology and political philosophy (let alone teaches about basic political structures and mechanisms) our level of disengagement from the political process appears to be at an all time high. The performance of our legislators has become increasingly unaccountable and purely self interested .... we have re-created the "political class" of pre-war times where alienation was based on a lack of education and awareness and a sense of inferiority and powerlessness DESPITE our vastly improved communication, access to information and educational standards (not to mention affluence).

Basically, we have "dumbed down" to the extent where passion and ideology in politics is now the preserve of fewer and fewer. In a democracy this trend is of massive concern and a threat to its sustainability.... it also completely suits those that are focused on concentrating power and wealth... the more that don't give a toss the less likely you are to be encumbered by limitations, social considerations, ethics and morality.

Until we re-engage far larger numbers into the political process, raise the levels of awareness of political thought and choices, stop dumbing down and re-inject some broader passion and participation into our political processes then vested interests will continue to dominate.....and democracy will become increasingly undemocratic !

[Jun 06, 2018] Nationalism is a decision-making tool as it always poses a question; what is good for this country ?

This is not true: this question "what is good for the country" very soon mutates to "what is good for nationalists"
Jun 06, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

DesignConstruct -> quintal , 3 Jun 2018 17:39

We need a Nationalist government, which will automatically see itself as the mortal enemy of the primary Internationalist (there used to be a song about that) force in the world today, and which affects us greatly in terms of resource exploitation: Globalisation, or what we used to call 'multi national corporations' or 'international capital'.

Nationalism is a decision-making tool as it always poses a question; what is good for this country ?

DesignConstruct -> Alpo88 , 3 Jun 2018 17:24
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/we-need-real-leadership-and-real-democracy-from-our-politicians/news-story/f37a3a3951aa78df86892c71166fdbb5

When/if he mentions de-Globalisation, an Aus-Indonesian defence alliance, citizen initiated referenda, and a Constitutional ban on donations and parties , then people may listen, however he cannot be accused of being too imaginative or bright. He is however advocating authoritarianism not fascism.

quintal -> DesignConstruct , 3 Jun 2018 17:16
Hi DC

I halfway agree

We're not there yet

But .......

Fascism doesn't require a state sanctioned religion or suppression of religion

That said the Catholicism/fundamentalist Christian bent of the present cabinet and the demonisation of any green beliefs is uncomfortably close to what you describe

And the nexus between big business and govern, the destruction of public institutions, the reduction in the capacity of media to report truth and the vitriolic attacks on opponenents are straws in an ill wind

Cheets

Alpo88 -> DesignConstruct , 3 Jun 2018 17:11
You are right, it's not "fascismmmmmmmmmmmmmm".... it's Fascism. Which brings back to my memory what Tom Elliott (the son of Liberal Party former president John Elliott) wrote in the Herald Sun on 6 February 2015: "It's time we temporarily suspended the democratic process and installed a benign dictatorship to make tough but necessary decisions."

[Jun 05, 2018] Emic and Etic Knowledge of Reform - Re-published 5 June 2018

Jun 05, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Emic" and Etic" Knowledge of Reform - Re-published 5 June 2018 Emic

"Once you get the genie out of the bottle, you cannot predict what will happen," says Mohamed Kamal, a political science professor at Cairo University and a member of the influential Policies Secretariat in the ruling National Democratic Party. "When you use a religious discourse, no one can counter your argument or argue against you," he says. "In that case, you'll be arguing against Islam and against the Koran. You'll no longer be a political opponent. Rather, you'll be an infidel."" Shadid

Salman Rushdie recently wrote that the time is ripe for a transforming "Reformation" within Islam. He said that the time had come for Muslims to see their revelation as occurring within history rather than above it. Rushdie is probably more directly interested in the possibility of this kind of Reform than most people since he has been the target of several "fatwas" declaring him to be outside Islam, an "apostate" and therefore not protected from the wrath of the Believers.

One might ask if his opinion in this matter is shared by many of the Believers, especially since the opinion is his. There have been any number of attempts in Islamic history to place Islam on a more "rationalist" and less "pietist" course. In the first centuries of Islam, one of the most powerful competing schools of philosophy, theology and law in the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad was that of the "Mu'taziliin" (my own peculiar transliteration). They sought to relate the message of the Revelation to the knowledge they had acquired of classical Hellenistic and Byzantine learning through their conquests. For a time they prospered, and there was at least one Caliph who was a member of their school of thinking. Then, the forces of reaction came to the fore, the "Mu'taziliin" were overthrown with much bloodshed, crucifixions, beheading etc, and "pietism" became the guiding force of Sunni Islam and has remained such to this day. Oddly enough, the thinking of the "Mu'taziliin" survives only among the Zaidi Shia of Yemen and in Indonesia. As I mentioned, there have any number of attempts at reform, some of them claiming large numbers of adherents, and having the protection of princes lucky enough to live beyond the reach of majority opinion. All of them failed in the end. As a result, Sunni Islam remains a faith so closely wedded to scripture, precedent and a consensus of conformity that it has changed little in form or doctrine in a thousand years. It is not surprising that pious Muslims still speak of the Crusades, they are still living in the mindset of that time. Some will argue that we are as well. I think not.

The recent American wars against what is euphemistically called "Islamic Extremism" have placed Islam under great stress. The survival and prosperity of the Islamic Community is always at the front of the minds of Muslims. The level of pressure and violence against Jihadis is seen by a lot of Muslims as something that threatens to spill over into a general hostility to Muslims. This frightens them. As a result, there is now great ferment among the 'Ulema (scholars) of the Sunni world to include such centers of fermentation as al-Azhar and al-Zeituna in Cairo and Tunis respectively. The relevant discussion there seek a new consensus (Ijma') centered around the question of what it means to be a Muslim in the 21st Century CE. What could be a more important question?

Are the "moderate" Islamists of the type described in this article also seekers for a "reasonable" answer to the same question or are they just "shamming" in order to reach power so that they can impose their constipated view of religion and law on the unfortunate inhabitants of Islamic countries? There are a lot of Islamists (both Sunni and Shia) who wear nice, Western clothes. A lot of them are "shamming." The goal of every Islamist I ever met was ultimately to impose Sharia law. Those of you who were trained in anthropology know the difference betwee "Emic," and Etic" knowledge. This distinction is particularly important in this case.

Let us not be so foolish as to believe what they say of themselves. Let us find the truth before we accept their words.

Pat Lang

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR2005080701000.html

[Jun 05, 2018] In Heated Interview, Putin Says Ask The State Department About Soros

Interview on Youtube: PUTIN EXCLUSIVE, FULL & UNEDITED Interview Of Russian President To Austrian TV
Jun 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Russian president Vladimir Putin gave a tense interview to Austria's ORF television channel which at times got so heated, he spoke in German to ask host Armin Wolf to let him finish his answers.

The interview was held ahead of Putin's Tuesday meeting with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache during a trip to Vienna, the first since Putin's March inauguration to his second consecutive term (and fourth term in total).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/dc8UHeeYXCs

After several interruptions by Wolf, Putin asked the host to "be patient," before switching to Wolf's mother tongue of German to ask him to put a cork in it. "Seien Sie so nett, lassen Sie mich etwas sagen (Please be so kind as to let me say something)," said Putin.

When the topic of troll farms came up, Putin said that Moscow "has nothing to do" with them, adding that claims by Western media that a single Russian businessman, Yevgeny Prigozhin, was able to influence the US election.

Prigozhin and Putin are associates, however Putin said he has no knowledge of his online activities. The Russian president then brought up George Soros as an example of the double standards being applied to those accused of meddling in foreign affairs.

" There are rumors circulating now that Mr. Soros is planning to make the Euro highly volatile, " Putin said quoted by RT. "Experts are already discussing this. Ask the [US] State Department why he is doing this. The State Department will say that it has nothing to do with them - rather it is Mr. Soros' private affair. With us, it is Mr. Prigozhin's private affair. This is my answer . Are you satisfied with it?"

* * *

MH17

Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17, which Russia has been recently blamed for. Russian experts "have been denied access to the investigation," said Putin, while Russia's arguments are "not taken into consideration" because nobody "is interested in hearing us out."

Ukraine, meanwhile, has been given access to the probe.

* * *

North Korea

On North Korea, Putin says that the prospect of a full-scale military conflict with Pyonyang would be "dreadful," considering that the two nations are neighbors - and some North Korean nuclear test sites are located near the Russian border.

Although Russia "pins great hopes on the personal meeting between [US] President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," the path to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is a "two-way road," Putin explained. " If the North Korean leader is backing up his intentions with practical actions, for example, giving up new tests of ballistic missiles, new nuclear tests, the other side should reciprocate in a tangible manner ," he said, calling regular US military drills in the area "counterproductive." - RT

* * *

Crimea

During perhaps the most heated moment in the interview, Putin was asked under what conditions Russia would hand Crimea back to Ukraine, to which the Russian president firmy stated: "There are no such conditions and there can never be."

Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia in a hotly contested 2014 vote that the West considers illegitimate and rigged. Putin stressed that the annexation happened after an "unconstitutional armed coup" in Kiev, and it was the Crimeans who decided their own fate.

"Crimea gained independence through the free will of the Crimeans, expressed in an open referendum, not as a result of an invasion by Russian forces." -Vladimir Putin

Following the annexation, Putin said "the first thing we did was increase our contingent to guard our Armed Forces, our military facilities, because we immediately saw that they were being threatened," adding that the mostly Russian population in Crimea " sensed danger, when trains started bringing aggressive nationalists there, when buses and personal vehicles were blocked, people naturally wanted to protect themselves. "

"The first thing that occurred was to restore the rights that Ukraine itself had issued by granting Crimea autonomy."

CTacitus Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:27 Permalink

Vote Patrick Little today CA

and f*ck Soros!

lester1 -> CTacitus Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:32 Permalink

Soros working with John Kerry's state Department?? Time for Mike Pompeo to do mass firings !

Shemp 4 Victory -> lester1 Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:36 Permalink

Full 53-minute interview with English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eombUQtyYiE

gmrpeabody -> Shemp 4 Victory Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:38 Permalink

At least Putin isn't afraid to call a spade a spade... (oh shit, I've stepped in it now)

besnook -> beemasters Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:53 Permalink

watching the full interview. i have noticed that Putin always shifts his posture when he wants to call someone a fucking idiot but restrains himself with more appropriate words. He never gets nervous or rattled...

silver140 -> besnook Tue, 06/05/2018 - 21:26 Permalink

I watched it too. If you compare his patient, methodical answers, based on fact (IMO) to those of every US/EU NATO leader, then you see why he is demonized by the parasitoid corporate fascists and their media. They covet Russia's resources and are desperate to control them, having brought us to the brink of nuclear war in threatening Russian with troops, weapons, war games and missiles on its border. Imagine what would have happened if the geography were the borders of the US and Canada and Mexico.

It is possible that Putin's patience will be taken as weakness, especially in Syria and Ukraine. At some point he will have to give an order to respond militarily, if he doesn't respond, then the parasitoid corporate fascists will commit a full scale military assault in an area of conflict of their choice.

A parasitoid is an organism that lives in close association with its host and at the host's expense, and which sooner or later kills it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid

RationalLuddite -> beemasters Tue, 06/05/2018 - 20:18 Permalink

Lord Jacob Rothchild HATES Putin. Just look at the Yukos Oil case in the London courts. Try to find (keeps getting scrubbed) online The Sunday Times article from November 2, 2003 "Rothschild is the New Power Behind Yukos" for a rare glimpse behind the curtain. Vladimir Vladimirovich took back for the state £8,000,000,000 of shares, thought to be the property of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, but actually it emerged were controlled by Lord Rothschild. This is just one Rothchild-1990s-theft-repatriated that we know of. There would be more i suspect.

DingleBarryObummer -> Deep Snorkeler Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:43 Permalink

I will give him this, he named the problem

Putin Blames "Ukrainians Or Jews" For Election Meddling: "Maybe The US Paid Them" | Zero Hedge

valerie24 -> Deep Snorkeler Tue, 06/05/2018 - 20:32 Permalink

The beauty of your comments shows that you are becoming a minority by the day. So many people are waking up to the idiocy of the propaganda spewed by you and your "highly educated" ilk - as I suppose you view yourself.

"America" is an Israeli colony "controlled" by mostly Jewish Zionists

Fixed it for you.

Endgame Napoleon -> Deep Snorkeler Tue, 06/05/2018 - 21:00 Permalink

Russian ads did not have anything to do with the election results. It was a minuscule number of ads, compared to what both of the campaigns ran. We all comment on foreign elections, and I am sure the people in those countries take it with a grain of salt, thinking we do not know what we are talking about.

I Am Jack's Ma -> Deep Snorkeler Tue, 06/05/2018 - 21:16 Permalink

Hey shitty Bukowski:

Take an hour - name every US news media organization which reaches at least 3 million people (a bit under 1% of the population and which are not:

1. owned, or

2. managed, or

3. very disproportionately staffed,

by Jews... who are about 2.5% of the population.

Since Jews are only 2.5% of the population, and 'Jews control the media' is, we are assured, a 'canard,' you should not need the full hour.

Endgame Napoleon -> Solio Tue, 06/05/2018 - 21:10 Permalink

We have a bunch of people in the USA who take quite an interest in saving the global people, while their own country is full of major underemployment, with another housing crisis of an even worse type than the one in 2008 mounting. Despite all of that, these Anericans sink all kinds of money into trying to control what happens in foreign countries. They think they can take on famines and dictators in countries with very different social structures, 8,000 miles away. Some of it is likely naively sincere and arising from a natural interest. It is also a common PR maneuver with money-motivated people, with everyone from rock stars to politicians getting pretty absorbed in what goes on in other countries for whatever reason. It is not without plausibility that a businessperson launched that ad campaign on his own.

Krink26 Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:30 Permalink

God damnit. A Russian is the only adult in the room. Freaking embaressing.

Chupacabra-322 Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:31 Permalink

Smartest thing Putin did was kick Sorros & his NGO's out of Russia.

cankles' server Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:41 Permalink

Putin's interviews with Oliver Stone were good despite Stone being a horrible interviewer.

I enjoyed this documentary of when the US sank a new Russia nuclear sub at the end of Clinton's term.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485755/?ref_=nv_sr_1

StheNine Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:43 Permalink

I like where this is going. The next few years could be quite interesting.

https://youtu.be/35_ztrvvlik

bh2 Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:48 Permalink

No wonder all US official assets are fully engaged to discourage Americans from listening to what foreign leaders actually say. We are to rely on our apparatchiks -- and their clerical assistants in the ever-trusty US press corp -- to tell us what they are "really" saying and doing.

The key word Putin uttered in this interview is that they do what is pragmatic . His political party specifically eschews any particular ideological basis for policy. That's rather novel, when you think about it. If that attitude were to sweep the world, it seems likely diplomacy would achieve a lot more tangible progress and require a lot less frequent fallback on primitive kinetic "negotiations".

AurorusBorealus -> bh2 Tue, 06/05/2018 - 20:00 Permalink

Yes. This is why Putin is the Otto von Bismarck of our times.

Consuelo Tue, 06/05/2018 - 19:58 Permalink

Say what you will about the man, but he speaks frankly and diplomatically.

Respect.

richsob Tue, 06/05/2018 - 20:11 Permalink

I don't trust Putin on much of anything but I LOVE the way he was handling himself during that interview. Cool as a cucumber. The man deserves credit for being that smooth. He is a master of the art of being interviewed.

VideoEng_NC Tue, 06/05/2018 - 20:21 Permalink

"...he said, calling regular US military drills in the area "counterproductive." - RT "

If this were a boxing match we would call this a solid Ali jab.

Edit: Actually should've said Cassius

JelloBeyonce Tue, 06/05/2018 - 20:34 Permalink

The handful of other
Russian elites present at Davos-among them the oligarchs Boris Berezovsky,
VladimirGusinsky, and MikhailKhodorkovsky, and the politician
Anatoly Chubais-watched in dismay, fearing a Communist takeover,
The American billionaire George Soros feared it too and reportedly tol
the bankers and businessmen over coffee, "Boys, your time is over,"
Chubais recalled, "I saw many of my good friends, presidents of maj
American companies, European companies, who were simply dancing
around Zyuganov, trying to catch his eye, peering at him. These were
the world's most powerful businessmen, with world-famous' names.
who with their entire appearance demonstrated that they were seeking
support of the future president of Russia, because it was clear to everyone
that Zyuganov was going to be the future president of Russia, an
now they needed to build a relationship with him. So, this shook me up!"

It was at this moment, according to Hoffman, that Chubais and the
Russian tycoons "decided on the spot to try and save Boris Yeltsin."
Chubais phoned Moscow to alert others to the situation. He then heI,
a press conference in which he denounced Zyuganov's "classic Cornmunist
lie" and warned that his election would "lead to bloodshed and
civil war." The oligarchs set aside differences and held several private
meetings in Davos hotel rooms, where they strategized over how to
defeat the Zyuganov threat. The result was the "Davos Pact": an agreement
between Chubais and the oligarchs that he would lead the anti-
Communist campaign and they would fund it-and him-generously.
The subsequent months saw a massive media offensive as "money
poured into advertising campaigns, into regional tours, into bribing
journalists"-all supported by the oligarchs (who owned the major TV
stations and newspapers) and orchestrated by Chubais. Yeltsin's subsequent
victory over Zyuganov later that summer changed the course of
Russia and can be traced back in part to the events that took place in
an otherwise sleepy alpine village that February.

Excerpted from "Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making"

FUCK SOROS, FUCK STALIN WANNABE PUTIN, FUCK TRUMP, FUCK CLINTONS, FUCK OBAMA, FUCK MCCAIN, FUCK 'EM ALL.......!

pana Tue, 06/05/2018 - 20:58 Permalink

My most favorite Putin moment. Expression on journalists face at the end is priceless.

"Putin laughs in face of journalists."

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-avast-brwsr001&hsimp=y

Avichi Tue, 06/05/2018 - 21:02 Permalink

At last some one with BALLS to take on the Mother Fucker SOROS , if the Sicilians do not finish the Italian job, Soros mother fucker already has pissed off the Italians.

Here mother fucker SOROS Italian already sent you a ULTIMATUM https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/pack-your-bags-italys-new-leaders-tell-

[Jun 05, 2018] Hating Russia is a Full-Time Job, by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as "American exceptionalism." Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you do not have a neocon. ..."
"... Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders. ..."
"... The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater ..."
"... Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to many Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable, weak infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial. ..."
"... The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future. Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology. But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow descend into a backwater across the Atlantic. ..."
"... Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:" "I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)" ..."
"... Here's a good PBS movie lauding these "intellectuals:" http://www.pbs.org/arguing/about.html ..."
"... There are probably five big reasons for all the Russia hate: ..."
"... 1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor. ..."
"... 2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians. ..."
"... 3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It isn't just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are having an end-of-life crisis. ..."
"... To some extent you're mistaking your target here. I'll readily agree the neo-cons amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel. On the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and Bolshevism should be checked. ..."
"... Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism ..."
"... For example a piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European Communism. ..."
"... The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues, since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they aren't too keen on Catholicism either. ..."
"... It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism ..."
"... my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback. ..."
"... I think that people can be inclined to claim that everyone they don't like is a Jew. I also think that while Jews were certainly disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks and the leftist revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century in general, these movements weren't overwhelmingly Jewish, nor even necessarily mostly Jewish except in the case of Hungary. ..."
"... With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire. It is in the best interests of the US as a country to maintain good working relationship with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic prosperity and to solve complex international problems. However, as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela. The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach. ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
First of all not all neocon are Jews and not all jews are neocons. neocons are first and foremost lobbyists for MIC. This job does not require any ethic component. but it is very attractive for intellectuals who are not good for anything else, including many Jewish intellectuals ( Max Boot is a nice example of this trend; Rephrasing Tucker Carlson remark we can say that he is a neocon because he does not want to paint houses ;-)
Also the role on Jews in Russia during Perestroika and the dissolution of the USSR was enhanced by the fact that they were one of the few with strong connection to relatives in the USA who emigrated earlier under the USA pressure and this they have larger financial resources to operate with which was of tremendous importance during privatization. It is unclear how many of them were simply puppets of foreign interests, not an independent players. For example William Browder was probably closely connected to MI6.
It would interesting to see on the USA in 30 years -- in 2050. I wish I would be one of those people who do understand what is going on and were the USA is moving. I am not. The worst outcome based on current trends is that in 30 years from now the USA might turn into a country similar to large Latin American countries: demographically messy and ungovernable, with weak infrastructure, but above all quasi-provincial. Looks like the the US neoliberal elite (including Silicon Valley techno-elite) now tenaciously cling to the idea of "world superpower" and at the core that means maintaining technology superiority along with the controlling oil and gas deposits, first of all in the Middle Easts (with Israel and Saudi help) as well as weakening and, possibly, dismembering of Russia and China as two dangerous competitors alliance between which is very undesirable outcome for the USA and can make the USA irrelevant for Europe. Euromaidan was an important step in this direction on Russia front, a bold and brilliant political move if you ask me. Poor Ukrainians do not understand how they were played.

Having just returned from a trip to Russia, I am pleased to report that the Russian people and the officialdom that I encountered displayed none of the vitriol towards Americans that I half expected as a response to the vilifying of Moscow and all its works that pervades the U.S. media and Establishment. To be sure, many Russians I spoke with were quick to criticize the Trump Administration for its hot and cold performance vis-à-vis the bilateral ties to Moscow while also expressing mystification over why the relationship had gone south so quickly, but this anger over foreign policy did not necessarily translate into contempt for the American people and way of life that characterized the Soviet period. At least not yet.

Somewhat to my surprise, ordinary Russians were also quick to openly criticize President Vladimir Putin for his autocratic tendencies and his willingness to continue to tolerate corruption, but everyone I spoke to also conceded that he had generally acted constructively and had greatly improved life for ordinary people. Putin remains wildly popular.

One question that came up frequently was "Who is driving the hostility towards Russia?" I responded that the answer is not so simple and there are a number of constituencies that, for one reason or another, need a powerful enemy to justify policies that would otherwise be unsustainable. Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund their campaigns. The media needs a good fearmongering story to help sell itself and the public also is accustomed to having a world in which terrible threats lurk just below the horizon, thereby increasing support for government control of everyday life to keep everyone "safe."

And then there are the neocons. As always, they are a distinct force for creative destruction, as they put it, certainly first in line with their hands out to get the funding of their no-expenses-spared foundations and think tanks, but also driven ideologically, which has made them the intellectual vanguard of the war party. They provide the palatable intellectual framework for America to take on the world, metaphorically speaking, and constitute the strike force that is always ready to appear on television talk shows or to be quoted in the media with an appropriate intelligent sounding one liner that can be used to justify the unthinkable. In return they are richly rewarded both with money and status.

The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as "American exceptionalism." Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you do not have a neocon.

The founding fathers of neoconism were New York Jewish "intellectuals" who evolved (or devolved) from being bomb throwing Trotskyites to "conservatives," a process they self-define as "idealism getting mugged by reality." The only reality is that they have always been faux conservatives, embracing a number of aggressive foreign policy and national security positions while also privately endorsing the standard Jewish liberal line on social issues. Neocon fanaticism on the issues that they do promote also suggests that more that a little of the Trotskyism remains in their character, hence their tenacity and ability to slither between the Democratic and Republican parties while also appearing comfortably on disparate media outlets considered to be either liberal or conservative, i.e. on both Fox news and MSNBC programs featuring the likes of Rachel Maddow.

... ... ...

jilles dykstra , June 5, 2018 at 7:42 am GMT
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y. describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.

WWII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.

Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders.

The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater

Beckow , June 5, 2018 at 2:28 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater

Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to many Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable, weak infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial.

The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future. Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology. But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow descend into a backwater across the Atlantic.

Tarheel American , June 5, 2018 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Anonymous

It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They used to trumpet it, though. There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals themselves celebrating their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, et al were communists. Moreover, they were communists of the international revolution variety -- the flavor known as Trotskyism.

Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:" "I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)"

Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of neocons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/01/GR2008020102389.html

Here's a good PBS movie lauding these "intellectuals:" http://www.pbs.org/arguing/about.html

nickels , June 5, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
I am currently reading "The Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky. Trying to understand this Trotsky neocon link better and to determine to what extent it makes sense. One connection is certain: (1) Trotsky was completely insane. (2) Neocons are completely insane.
Crawfurdmuir , June 5, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT

The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the cabal of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party was from the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder, grandfather of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously proclaiming his desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes.

Earl Browder was not, so far as I know, born a Jew. While living in the Soviet Union he married a Russian Jewess named Raisa Berkman. One of their sons, Felix, married another Jewess, Eva Tislowitz, and Bill Browder was their son. He is matrilineally Jewish.

Apart from this minor quibble, the description of Bill Browder's career seems quite accurate.

Anon [144] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 4:03 pm GMT
There are probably five big reasons for all the Russia hate:

1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor.

2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians.

3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It isn't just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are having an end-of-life crisis.

4. Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets, undercutting our Ruling Class's cut.

5. Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative. Leftists beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. Back when Russia started their anti-gay thing, American leftists went nuts on them. Of course, Saudi Arabia is much worse but we didn't hear anything about them because they aren't white and being critical in such a case would be waycist.

Colin Wright , Website June 5, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Florin N

'Read this re the origin of the neocon movement '

To some extent you're mistaking your target here. I'll readily agree the neo-cons amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel. On the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and Bolshevism should be checked.

jack daniels , June 5, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism on the part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to the Jewish fear that the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European Communism.

The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues, since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they aren't too keen on Catholicism either.

It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism . I hope this taboo is successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as the only Christian power left in the world.

geokat62 , June 5, 2018 at 5:29 pm GMT
@jack daniels

Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism on the part of gentiles.

Excellent insight.

Che Guava , June 5, 2018 at 5:39 pm GMT
@Tarheel American

I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the various western Trot. groups at the time.

It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it was only of claimed affiliates to the nonsensical 'Fourth International'.

Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.

Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU, cabinets in many European nations, etc. Even without that, the chart and attached notes are bizarre enough.

The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not understanding the content at all.

Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are like those of the worst cult religionists.

I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundred meters from my house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until recently. no more. I would buy it at times.

Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.

Colin Wright , Website June 5, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@Charlie M.

' That's not how research works. You're searching for a low figure which will magically be reliable, right?'

I think that people can be inclined to claim that everyone they don't like is a Jew. I also think that while Jews were certainly disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks and the leftist revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century in general, these movements weren't overwhelmingly Jewish, nor even necessarily mostly Jewish except in the case of Hungary.

Finally, I think the press tends to exaggerate, and that particularly in 1920, claiming that the Bolsheviks were Jews would have been a good way of vilifying the movement. After all, it remains one to this day.

So for all these reasons, while as I have said it is possible the figures are accurate, I don't think they should be accepted on faith.

It's all an interesting question. On the one hand, we have 'data' of dubious reliability. On the other hand, there's a decided reluctance among modern researchers to go into the question in detail.

geokat62 , June 5, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
Looks like Prof. Kevin MacDonald has freely endorsed this excellent article:
anon [317] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT
@Rational

responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism), but party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.

Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:

You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one); virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.

them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total votes 7 Voted for me 1 (myself only) I lose
divide by party D R D R D R R Total votes 7. Voted for me (republican votes) 4 I win

As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the outcome.

This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution intended to establish.

The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.

I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone can learn, understand and adopt.

Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a republican, it keeps the pharaoh options open.

jilles dykstra , June 5, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Anon

What I miss is USA fear that the European states, as they did before 1917, will resume trade with Russia. Contrary to popular opinion, the Dutch Golden Century was not golden by trade to east or west Indies, but because we were halfway between the Iberian peninsula and the Baltic Sea.

This fear, I fear, now is intensified by the China Russia Iran railway facilities, with the Khazakstan dry port. If the important European countries turn around, the USA will become an economic backwater.

Just yesterday USA ambassador Pete Hoekstra tries to sell us expensive USA gas, 20% more expensive, to punish Russia for MH17. Another statement that shows that Russia had no interest whatsoever in shooting down MH17.
Pete does not seem to understand that he's urging the Netherlands to punish itself.
I'm ashamed, Pete must be a Frysian, like me, w're supposed to be intelligent persons.

jack daniels , June 5, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
@John Baker

There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of Communism played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The role of Jews in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston Churchill in his 1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the 20s and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the terms of the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to involve at least the willingness to use force to remove the burden.

The democratic parties were insufficiently decisive and would likely have succumbed to Communist agitation or at best preserved a very unpleasant status quo. The weakness of Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and the material dimension. It demands the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual dimension of life.

Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in addition to the national need to escape from poverty. Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality!

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 7:02 pm GMT
@Colin Wright

Not only those two guys who made the claims. It was Churchill himself who made the same connection between Bolshevism and "international Jewry"

AnonFromTN , June 5, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT
With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire. It is in the best interests of the US as a country to maintain good working relationship with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic prosperity and to solve complex international problems. However, as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela. The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach.

[Jun 05, 2018] Is Democracy to Blame for Our Present Crisis by Alexander William Salter

Notable quotes:
"... Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is quickly discovering. ..."
"... John Adams warned that democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." ..."
"... James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ..."
"... Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred ..."
"... What we've got now is the tyranny of the ..."
"... minority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation. Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future policy. ..."
"... If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple: minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government, the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber stamp. ..."
"... One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity grows, the less self-governing it remains. ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is quickly discovering.

Something has gone wrong with America's political institutions. While the United States is, on the whole, competently governed, there are massive problems lurking just beneath the surface. This became obvious during the 2016 presidential election. Each party's nominee was odious to a large segment of the public; the only difference seemed to be whether it was an odious insurgent or an odious careerist. Almost two years on, things show little signs of improving.

What's to blame? One promising, though unpopular, answer is: democracy itself. When individuals act collectively in large groups and are not held responsible for the consequences of their behavior, decisions are unlikely to be reasonable or prudent. This design flaw in popular government was recognized by several Founding Fathers. John Adams warned that democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred : "It is one of the evils of democratical governments, that the people, not always seeing and frequently misled, must often feel before they can act right; but then evil of this nature seldom fail to work their own cure," Washington wrote. "It is to be lamented, nevertheless, that the remedies are so slow, and that those, who may wish to apply them seasonably are not attended to before they suffer in person, in interest and in reputation."

Is Democracy in a Death Spiral? Is Democracy to Blame for the Loneliness Epidemic?

Given these opinions, it is unsurprising that the U.S. Constitution contains so many other mechanisms for ensuring responsible government. Separation of powers and checks and balances are necessary to protect the people from themselves. To the extent our political institutions are deteriorating, the Founders' first instinct would be to look for constitutional changes, whether formal or informal, that have expanded the scope of democracy and entrusted to the electorate greater power than they can safely wield, and reverse them.

This theory is simple, elegant, and appealing. But it's missing a crucial detail.

American government is largely insulated from the tyranny of the majority. But at least since the New Deal, we've gone too far in the opposite direction. What we've got now is the tyranny of the minority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation. Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future policy.

But now we confront a puzzle: the rise of the permanent government did coincide with increased democratization. The administrative-managerial state, and its enablers in Congress, followed from creative reinterpretations of the Constitution that allowed voters to make decisions that the Ninth and Tenth amendments -- far and away the most ignored portion of the Bill of Rights -- should have forestalled. As it turns out, not only are both of these observations correct, they are causally related . Increasing the scope of popular government results in the loss of popular control.

If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple: minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government, the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber stamp.

The larger the electorate, and the more questions the electorate is asked to decide, the more important it is for the people who actually govern to take advantage of economies of scale in government. If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need for a behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing political projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become essential for technocratic experts and career politicians.

One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity grows, the less self-governing it remains. This is why an upsurge of populism won't cure what ails the body politic. It will either provoke the permanent and unaccountable government into tightening its grip, or those who actually hold the power will fan the flames of popular discontent, channeling that energy towards their continued growth and entrenchment. We have enough knowledge to make the diagnosis, but not to prescribe the treatment. Perhaps there is some comfort in knowing what political health looks like. G.K. Chesterton said it best in his insight about the relationship between democracy and self-governance:

The democratic contention is that government is not something analogous to playing the church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one's own love-letters or blowing one's own nose. These things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly . In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves

The first step towards renewed self-governance must be to reject the false dichotomy between populism and oligarchy. A sober assessment shows that they are one in the same.

Alexander William Salter is an assistant professor in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University. He is also the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTU's Free Market Institute. See more at his website: www.awsalter.com .

Steve Miller June 4, 2018 at 11:49 pm

This was going fine until the author decided to blame civil servants for our nation's problems. How about an electoral system that denies majority rule? A Congress that routinely votes against things the vast majority want? A system that vastly overpriveleges corporations and hands them billions while inequality grows to the point where the UN warns that our country resembles a third world kleptocracy? Nope, sez this guy. It's just because there are too many bureaucrats.
tz , , June 5, 2018 at 12:37 am
He avoids the 17th amendment which was one of the barriers to the mob, and the 19th that removed the power of individual states to set the terms of suffrage.
Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Katy Stanton could simply have moved to Wyoming.
It might be useful to only have property taxpayers vote.
And the problem is the left. When voters rejected Gay Marriage (57% in California!) or benefits for illegals, unelected and unaccountable judges reversed the popular will.
S , , June 5, 2018 at 3:38 am
I find your use of the word populism interesting. Inasmuch the word is generally used when the decisions of the populace is different from that which the technocrats or oligarchs would have made for them. The author being part of the technocratic elite thinks that he and his ilk know best. This entire article is just a lot of arguments in support of this false and self serving idea.
Realist , , June 5, 2018 at 5:11 am
When a populous isn't controlled by the electorate democracy is dead.
Rotunda , , June 5, 2018 at 5:47 am
The libertarian political philosopher Jason Brennan made small waves with his book "Against Democracy", published last year.
Voltaire's Ghost , , June 5, 2018 at 6:03 am
Making the federal government "small" will not solve the problems the author describes or really alludes to. The power vacum left by a receding federal government will just be occupied by an unaccountable corporate sector. The recent dismantling of Toys R Us by a spawn of Bain Capital is the most recent manifestation of the twisted and pathological thought process that calls itself "free market capitalism." A small federal government did not end child labor, fight the Depression, win WW II or pioneer space exploration. Conservatives love the mythology of a government "beast" that must be decapitated so that "Liberty" may reign. There are far more dangerous forces at work in American society that inhibit liberty and tax our personal treasuries than the federal government.
TJ Martin , , June 5, 2018 at 9:23 am
1) The US is not and never has been a ' democracy ' It is a Democratic Republic ' which is not the same as a ' democracy ' ( one person -- one vote period ) of which there is only one in the entire world . Switzerland

2) A large part of what has brought us to this point is the worn out well past its sell by Electoral College which not only no longer serves its intended purpose .

3) But the major reason why we're here to put it bluntly is the ' Collective Stupidity of America ' we've volitionally become : addled by celebrity , addicted to entertainment and consumed by conspiracy theory rather than researching the facts

cj , , June 5, 2018 at 9:41 am
The US has a democracy? Were'nt two of the last 3 presidents placed into office via a minority of the vote?

We have instead what Sheldon Wolin called a 'managed democracy'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_democracy

It's time to end the pretension that we live in a democracy. It maybe useful to claim so when the US is trying to open markets or control resources in 3rd world countries. It's at that time that we're 'spreading democracy'. Instead it's like spreading manure.

Jon , , June 5, 2018 at 9:43 am
The managerial state arose to quell the threat of class warfare. Ironically those who sought to organize the proletariat under a vision of class-based empowerment clamored for the same. The response over time was fighting fire with fire as the cliche goes becoming what the opposition has sought but only in a modified form.

If we were able to devise a way for distributive justice apart from building a bloated bureaucracy then perhaps this emergence of oligarchy could have been averted. What alternative(s) exist for an equitable distribution of wealth and income to ameliorate poverty? Openly competitive (so-called) markets? And the charity of faith-based communities? I think not.

Youknowho , , June 5, 2018 at 10:39 am
Democracy, like all systems requires maintenace. Bernard Shaw said that the flaw of pragmatism is that any system that is not completely idiotic will work PROVIDED THAT SOMEONE PUT EFFORT IN MAKING IT WORK.

We have come to think that Democracy is in automatic pilot, and does not require effort of our part See how many do not bother to vote or to inform themselves.

Democracy is a fine, shiny package with two caveats in it "Batteries not included" And "Some assembly required" FAilure to heed those leads to disaster.

TG , , June 5, 2018 at 12:21 pm
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. We don't have a democracy in any real way, so how can it have failed?

Despite massive propaganda of commission and omission, the majority of the American people don't want to waste trillions of dollars on endless pointless oversees wars. The public be damned: Trump was quickly beaten into submission and we are back to the status quo. The public doesn't want to give trillions of dollars to Wall Street while starving Main Street of capital. The public doesn't want an abusively high rate of immigration whose sole purpose is to flood the market for labor, driving wages down and profits up. And so on.

Oswald Spengler was right. " in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune."

JJ , , June 5, 2018 at 12:47 pm
"If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need for a behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing political projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become essential for technocratic experts and career politicians."

True, but this implies retarding government power as is will lead to an ultimate solution. It will not. The sober truth is that a massive centralized national government has been inevitable since the onset of the second world war or even beforehand with American intervention in the colonoal Phillippines and the Great War. Becoming an empire requires extensive power grabbing and becoming and maintaining a position as a world power requires constant flexing of that power. Maintaining such a large population, military, and foreign corps requires the massive public-works projects you speak of in order to keep the population content and foreign powers in check. Failure to do so leads to chaos and tragic disaster that would lead to such a nation a collapse in all existing institutions due to overcumbersome responsibilities. These cannot be left to the provinces/states due to the massive amounts of resources required to maintain such imperial ambitions along with the cold reality of state infighting and possible seperatist leanings.

If one wishes to end the power of the federal government as is, the goal is not to merely seek reform. The goal is to dismantle the empire; destroy the military might, isolate certain diplomatic relations, reduce rates of overseas trade and reduce the economy as a whole, and then finally disband and/or drastically reduce public security institutions such as the FBI, CIA, and their affiliates. As you well know, elites and the greater public alike consider these anathema.

However, if you wish to rush to this goal, keep in mind that dismantling the American empire will not necessarily lead to the end of oppression and world peace even in the short term. A power vacuum will open that the other world powers such as the Russian Federation and the PRC will rush to fill up. As long as the world remains so interconnected and imperialist ambitions are maintained by old and new world powers, even the smallest and most directly democratic states will not be able to become self-governing for long.

Chris in Appalachia , , June 5, 2018 at 12:59 pm
Well, when, statistically speaking, half of the population has an IQ of less than 100 (probably more than half now that USA has been invaded by the Third World) then a great number of people are uninformed and easily manipulated voters. That is one of the great fallacies of democracy.
Robert Charron , , June 5, 2018 at 2:38 pm
In an era when the word "democracy" is regarded as one of our deities to worship, this article is a breath of fresh air. Notice how we accuse the Russians of trying to undermine our hallowed "democracy." We really don't know what we mean when we use the term democracy, but it is a shibboleth that has a good, comforting sound. And this idea that we could extend our "democracy" by increasing the number of voters shows that we don't understand much at all. Brilliant insights.
Stephen J. , , June 5, 2018 at 2:40 pm
I believe we are prisoners of so-called "democracy"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"

Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and all kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[read more at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html

[Jun 05, 2018] FBI Agent In Charge Of Russiagate Operation And Clinton Email Matter To Testify Tuesday

Pictures removed...
Everything is so convoluted. Sometime I have impression that I am reading depiction of the operations of Meyer Lansky not a government agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a twitter thread about him last year and wrote about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines. ..."
"... So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it. ..."
"... Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior). ..."
"... In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up. ..."
"... Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation. ..."
"... Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it. ..."
"... Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application. ..."
"... Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position. ..."
"... With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities. ..."
"... Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work. ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
FBI Agent In Charge Of "Russiagate" Operation And Clinton Email "Matter" To Testify Tuesday

by Tyler Durden Mon, 06/04/2018 - 23:24 19 SHARES

FBI Counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, will sit down for a closed-door session with lawmakers on Tuesday, according to John Solomon of The Hill .

Priestap will be answering questions about the Hillary Clinton email case as well as the counterintelligence operation on the Trump campaign - both of which he oversaw . Priestap was the direct supervisor of Peter Strzok - the FBI agent whose anti-Trump / pro-Clinton bias was revealed after 50,000 text messages to his FBI-attorney mistress, Lisa Page, were discovered by the DOJ's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

All accounts say that Priestap is a cooperating witness . In other words, if there's one person who can confirm that the FBI counterintelligence operation on the Trump campaign was politically motivated - or that malfeasance occurred during the process, it's Bill Priestap.

Note how excited Solomon looks breaking the news of Priestap's testimony...

Solomon: "I think tomorrow is going to be a pivotal day. I think Congress is going to learn a lot of new information tomorrow during these interviews."

Dobbs: He is going to be speaking candidly about his employer, the FBI, and those who were running the agency during that period.

Solomon: He was very high up. Had a bird's-eye view of everything that went on in both of these investigations.

While the session will be closed-door, we imagine leaks will be forthcoming as seems to be standard operating procedure these days.

Just who is Bill Priestap really? The Conservative Treehouse presented an in-depth analysis in February. We recommend reading this before deciding on what size popcorn to buy:

***

The game is over. The jig is up. Victory is certain... the trench was ignited... the enemy funneled themselves into the valley... all bait was taken everything from here on out is simply mopping up the details. All suspicions confirmed.

Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative? All questions are answered.

Fughettaboudit.

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member Chris Stewart appeared on Fox News with Judge Jeanine Pirro, and didn't want to "make news" or spill the beans, but the unstated, between-the-lines, discussion was as subtle as a brick through a window. Judge Jeannie has been on the cusp of this for a few weeks.

Listen carefully around 2:30 , Judge Jeanine hits the bulls-eye; and listen to how Chris Stewart talks about not wanting to make news and is unsure what he can say on this...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wYJwLPzpaTw

...Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a twitter thread about him last year and wrote about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.

E.W. "Bill" Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation. He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk's direct boss. If anyone in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything about everything.

FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy Peter Strzok.

Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.

The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations. FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn't (according to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.

On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.

FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.* I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail . Again, notice how Comey doesn't use Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/HlXXZQgh72Y

FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate it.

Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence "Gang of Eight" of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight: Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an "insurance policy".

REMINDER – FBI Agent Strzok to FBI Attorney Page:

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it.

Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior).

At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.

In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.

Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation.

Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it.

Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.

Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn't happen. Heck, James Comey's own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete evidence of Priestap's importance. Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.

Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker.

Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan.

Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position.

The reason was obvious. Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey's testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he realized what was coming. Priestap is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC home; she comes from a family of money.

While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family and friends likely lean toward more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was happening around them. Bill Priestap had too much to lose and for what? With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities.

Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work.

Bill Priestap remains the Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations.

It's over.

I don't want to see this guy, or his family, compromised. This is probably the last I am ever going to write about him unless it's in the media bloodstream. I can't fathom the gauntlet of hatred and threats he is likely to face from the media and his former political social network if they recognize what's going on. BP is Deep-Throat x infinity nuf said.

The rest of this entire enterprise is just joyfully dragging out the timing of the investigative releases in order to inflict maximum political pain upon the party of those who will attempt to excuse the inexcusable.

Then comes the OIG Horowitz report.

[Jun 05, 2018] Mourning in America The Day RFK Was Shot in Los Angeles The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Charles F, McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter at @CFMcElwee . ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

America had dramatically changed since John F. Kennedy seduced voters with the promises of the New Frontier. A young family, the campaign jingles, the embrace of television, and the prospect of America's first Catholic president injected a sense of patriotic adrenaline into the 1960 campaign. There were "high hopes" for Jack and a sense of cultural validation for Catholics who remembered Al Smith's failed presidential bid in 1928. In 1960, the Everly Brothers and Bobby Darin crooned through the radio, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird proved a national sensation, and Americans flocked to movies like Spartacus in magnificent downtown theaters.

But the frivolity and innocence, however illusory, were shattered on November 22, 1963. Kennedy's assassination violently shifted America's cultural fault lines. One afternoon accelerated the nation's sociological maladies, intensified its political divisions, and evaporated its black-and-white contentment. Americans proceeded on a Technicolor path of disruption, one that had transformed the nation by the time of Bobby's announcement on March 16, 1968. It was that year when The Doors and Cream blasted from transistor radios, John Updike's Couples landed on the cover of Time , and 2001: A Space Odyssey played in new suburban cinemas. The country had experienced a dervish frenzy, and Bobby was fully aware of his nation's turbulent course.

The country was rocked by young students protesting a worsening war in Vietnam. Racial tension exploded and riots destroyed urban neighborhoods. America's political evolution forever altered its electoral geography. Bobby was embarking on a remarkable campaign that challenged the incumbent president, a man he despised for many years. But the source of this strife stemmed from the White House years of Bobby's brother. "While he defined his vision more concretely and compellingly than Jack had -- from ending a disastrous war and addressing the crisis in the cities to removing a sadly out-of-touch president -- he failed to point out that the war, the festering ghettos, and Lyndon Johnson were all part of Jack Kennedy's legacy," wrote Larry Tye in his biography of Bobby.

For the 1968 primary, Kennedy metamorphosed into a liberal figure with an economic populist message. Kennedy's belated entry turned into an audacious crusade, with the candidate addressing racial injustice, income inequality, and the failure of Vietnam. He balanced this message with themes touching upon free enterprise and law and order. Kennedy hoped to appeal to minorities and working-class whites. He quickly became a messianic figure, and the press embellished his New Democrat image. By late March, Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection during a televised address. Through his departure, Johnson worked to maintain control of the party machine by supporting Hubert Humphrey, his devoted Vice President. But in the following weeks, Kennedy built momentum as he challenged McCarthy in states like Indiana and Nebraska. His performance in both states, where anti-Catholic sentiments lingered, testified to Kennedy's favorable electoral position.

In April 4, Kennedy learned that the Rev. King had been assassinated. He relayed the civil rights leader's death in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis. His words helped spare Indianapolis from the riots that erupted in cities across the country, ultimately leading to nearly 40 people killed and over 2,000 injured. MLK's assassination served as an unsettling reminder to Kennedy's family, friends, campaign aides, and traveling press. During Kennedy's first campaign stop in Kansas, the press corps stopped at a restaurant where the legendary columnist Jimmy Breslin asked, "Do you think this guy has the stuff to go all the way?"

"Yes, of course he has the stuff to go all the way," replied Newsweek's John J. Lindsay. "But he's not going to go all the way. The reason is that somebody is going to shoot him. I know it and you know it. Just as sure as we're sitting here somebody is going to shoot him. He's out there now waiting for him. And, please God, I don't think we'll have a country after it."

Despite what happened in 1963, the Secret Service had yet to provide protection of presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees during the 1964 election or the 1968 primary. But all the signs were there that Kennedy needed protection. The frenzied crowds increased in size, taking a physical toll on the candidate. In one instance, "he was pulled so hard that he tumbled into the car door, splitting his lip and breaking a front tooth that required capping," writes Nye. "He ended up on a regimen of vitamins and antibiotics to fight fatigue and infection For most politicians, the challenge was to attract crowds; for Bobby, it was to survive them." In California, just 82 days after his announcement, Kennedy met the fate that so many feared.

♦♦♦

Bobby Kennedy was a complicated figure from a family that continues to engage America's imagination. In his autobiography, the novelist Philip Roth, who recently passed away, reflected on Kennedy's assassination:

He was by no means a political figure constructed on anything other than the human scale, and so, the night of his assassination and for days afterward, one felt witness to the violent cutting down not of a monumental force for justice and social change like King or the powerful embodiment of a people's massive misfortunes or a titan of religious potency but rather of a rival -- of a vital, imperfect, high-strung, egotistical, rivalrous, talented brother, who could be just as nasty as he was decent. The murder of a boyish politician of forty-two, a man so nakedly ambitious and virile, was a crime against ordinary human hope as well as against the claims of robust, independent appetite and, coming after the murders of President Kennedy at forty-six and Martin Luther King at thirty-nine, evoked the simplest, most familiar forms of despair.

For those schoolchildren and their parents in June 1968, Kennedy's campaign offered a sense of nostalgia. They remembered the exuberance of his brother's campaign, the optimism of his administration, and the possibilities of the 1960s. For the nation's large ethnic Catholic voting bloc, another Kennedy reminded them of that feeling of validation in the 1960 election. Of course, it had been a tumultuous decade for these voters. They lived in cities that had precipitously declined since JFK's campaign visits in 1960. Railroad stations ended passenger service, theaters closed, factories shuttered, and new highways offered an exodus to suburbia. As Catholics, they prayed for the conversion of Russia, adapted to Vatican II reforms, and adjusted to new parishes in the developing outskirts. Young draftees were shipped off to a catastrophic war, which only intensified their feelings of disillusionment. Their disenchantment raised questions about their sustained support for Democrats. Kennedy may have proved formidable for Nixon in the general election, but the Catholic vote was increasingly up for grabs.

Pat Buchanan understood this electoral opportunity for Republicans. In a 1971 memo, Buchanan argued that Catholics were the largest bloc of available Democratic voters for the GOP: "The fellows who join the K.of C. (Knights of Columbus), who make mass and communion every morning, who go on retreats, who join the Holy Name society, who fight against abortion in their legislatures, who send their kids to Catholic schools, who work on assembly lines and live in Polish, Irish, Italian and Catholic communities or who have headed to the suburbs -- these are the majority of Catholics; they are where our voters are."

In subsequent presidential elections, Catholic voters flocked to Democrats and Republicans. Their electoral preferences were driven by the issues of the moment and often by location. The geographical divide of our politics has only intensified. The 2016 presidential election encapsulated this trend. Voters in Appalachia and the Rust Belt overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump that year. Many of these voters previously supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012. In 1968, these voters likely appreciated Kennedy's campaign message. But the tragedy of the nation is now a loss of optimism -- the belief that tomorrow will be a better day. Americans are overwhelmed by ideological tension and socio-economic angst. The prosperity enjoyed by large metropolitan regions has not spilled over into the heartland. There is no nostalgia for 1968 because countless Americans understand that the nation has failed to address income inequality, job displacement, urban decline, and mass poverty. It was so long ago, but America did lose its innocence on November 22, 1963. Bobby Kennedy's death in 1968 served as a reminder that it would never return.

Charles F, McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter at @CFMcElwee .

[Jun 05, 2018] The Political Assassin Who Brought Down RFK

Notable quotes:
"... Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky. Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear weapon development. ..."
"... If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition, sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held 8 shots. So let's stop this charade. ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

More troublingly, Robert Kennedy's death occurred within five years of his elder brother's, and under similar circumstances. It is important to recall how unprecedented their deaths were to the generation who witnessed them. If time has removed the shock of the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, it should not obscure just how anomalous they are. Bad luck may be part of the mythos of the Kennedy family, but lightning does not strike the same place twice, and political assassinations are exceedingly rare in American history. Both Kennedy brothers hurled themselves into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time -- Israeli nationalism and anti-communism -- and both appeared to have paid a heavy price.

Miguel June 4, 2018 at 12:01 am

In the first place, I don't think that failure of Robert Kennedy had anything to do with a substantial limitation of the liberal world view, but with another concept, or argument:

The end cannot justify the means because it is the mean, which is a process, which conditionates the end, in itself only an outcome.

Robert Kennedy supported violence made by the Zionist movement, turned into a State, and if you ask me, it was that violence which -no pun intended- backfired against him.

Now, about the out balance between loyalty and allegiance homeland/nation, I think it should be looked at from Sirhan perspective. Yes, he had escaped from what, in his perspective, was zionist persecution, just to end in a country where that persecution was supported actively by some high profile politicians. I am not going to say that murder is right, but some how it had to feel for him as if that anti palestinian israely persecution had reappeared very near to his home.

From that point of view, he wasn't a refuge anymore; the country where he was living had become an acomplice of that persecution.

Maybe, if Robert Kennedy had considered a less bellicist way to support Israel, like sending military support without delivering neither the means nor the command decissions to the government of Israel, but keeping it in the hand of the U.S., who knows.

Pear Conference , says: June 4, 2018 at 8:25 am
This article doesn't quite try to justify Oswald's or Sirhan's actions. But it places them firmly in a political context rather than a criminal one.

It also suggests that JFK and RFK both went too far – that they "hurled themselves into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time" and thus bear a degree of responsibility for their own fates.

If we want to debate the merits of arming Israel, or undermining Cuba, then let's have that debate. But this is altogether the wrong way to frame it. I, for one, don't ever want the Overton window on such issues to be shifted by the acts, or even the potential acts, of an assassin.

TTT , says: June 4, 2018 at 9:05 am
Israel twice begged Jordan not to join the war that it was already fighting with Egypt and Syria – a war of aggression and genocide, where Nasser boasted of the impending total destruction of Israel, Egyptian state media spoke of a road from Tel Aviv to Cairo paved in Jewish skulls, and Israel's rabbinate consecrated national parks in case they had to be used for Jewish mass graves.

Sirhan Sirhan's entire identity was wrapped up in the frustrated need for Jewish servitude and inferiority, the bitterness that a second Holocaust had failed. He was exactly like the Klan cops in Philadelphia, Mississippi, murdering Freedom Riders who tried to deprive them of their most cherished resource: assured superiority over their traditional designated victim group.

JLF , says: June 4, 2018 at 10:16 am
Hinted at but ignored is another aspect by which 1968 presaged 2018. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy waited until after Gene McCarthy had challenged LBJ and LBJ had withdrawn from the race before entering. For many (most?) McCarthy backers, Kennedy was an opportunistic, privileged spoiler. In the same way, many of Bernie Sanders' supporters looked upon Hillary Clinton as the privileged spoiler of a Democratic Party establishment that had tried and failed to move the party to the right. The McGovern was followed by Carter, who was followed by Mondale, who was followed by Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. For Democrats, then, it's been fifty years of struggling to find a center, a struggle Republicans pretty much found in Ronald Reagan.
Donald , says: June 4, 2018 at 2:23 pm
The only way one can defend Israel's apartheid policies is by demonizing all of their victims. For examples, see TTT and Northern Observer.
mrscracker , says: June 4, 2018 at 2:27 pm
John Wilkes Booth was wrapped up in bitterness, defeat & a warped loyalty to his homeland, too. It's interesting I guess to examine assassins' motives, but to what point?
Sean , says: June 4, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky. Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear weapon development.
Going My Way , says: June 4, 2018 at 3:09 pm
Let the many who criticize TAC for not printing pro Israeli essays read this one. Also, read the numerous blogs supporting this thrust. The "small nation" phrase was a tip-off to the author's loyalties. I think this article is more worthy of the New York Times. Let us not forget June 8, 1967, is another anniversary, when the sophisticated and unmarked aircraft and PT boats using napalm of the author's "small nation" attacked the USS Liberty in international water, with complete disregard to the ship's American markings and large US flag. http://www.gtr5.com/ This event received scant coverage on P19 of the aforementioned NYT. "Small nation"; indeed!
TTT , says: June 4, 2018 at 4:01 pm
The only way one can defend Israel's apartheid policies is by demonizing all of their victims.

Sirhan Sirhan is Jordanian – a nation that was invented specifically to be an apartheid state with no Jews at all, forever closed to Jewish inhabitation or immigration. That is his view of normalcy. I'm sorry it's also yours.

Steve Naidamast , says: June 4, 2018 at 4:19 pm
This is pure bunk. The idea that Sirhan Sirhan was the assassin of RFK has been categorically disproven by the analysis of the fatal bullets, which none of came from Sirhan's gun. And RFKs friends and close advisors all knew that he had no love for Israel. Whatever he said in support of Israel was for the media purposes only.
General Manager , says: June 4, 2018 at 4:27 pm
Having worked in Jordan and watched Israelis do business and as tourists (Jewish shrines) there, I saw and heard no antisemitism. From my perspective, there seemed to be a positive relationship. Elat and Aqaba are like sister cities. In fact, there seemed to be high-level cooperation. Keep looking you will find bigotry to justify your positions.
Someone in the crowd , says: June 4, 2018 at 5:56 pm
I completely agree with Steve Naidamast. This article is indeed "pure bunk" because Sirhan Sirhan is a side story. That's why this article, with such an angle, should simply never have been published.
Banger , says: June 4, 2018 at 8:29 pm
If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition, sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held 8 shots. So let's stop this charade.
John Jeffery , says: June 4, 2018 at 9:49 pm
A laughably naive article which toes the CIA and Zionist line.
Donald , says: June 4, 2018 at 9:52 pm
TTT -- yo weren't just talking about Sirhan. I wasn't talking about him at all. I have no sympathy for people who practice terrorism, whether it is done by Palestinians, Jordanians, or the IDF.

[Jun 05, 2018] The Empire Is Crumbling, But Not Dead, and Desperate for War

Notable quotes:
"... the British have always used the Israeli right-wing, and the Saudi Royal family, to provoke divisions and, when necessary, to start wars. ..."
May 02, 2018 | larouchepac.com

Let us review: Every effort by the British to bring down the government of the United States under President Donald Trump has failed. MI6 agent Christopher Steele's dodgy dossier now stands exposed as the only basis for the launching of Trumpgate by the corrupt Obama intelligence team, and the perpetrators are themselves now facing criminal prosecution; the Skripal case has disappeared from the media, as the connections to the same Christopher Steele were coming to the fore; the Syrian chemical weapons fraud concocted by the British-run White Helmets has now been exposed internationally as a Nazi-like staged affair to justify a military assault. That assault, in which Trump was tricked into going along with the British and the French, effectively declared that the international law established after World War II, through the United Nations, to prevent another world war, was dead.

The Empire will not go quietly into the night. Bibi Netanyahu's antics -- claiming "proof" that Iran is still developing nuclear weapons -- is being ridiculed even by former Israeli intelligence officials as re-packaged news, already known by the IAEA, and proving nothing. But the British have always used the Israeli right-wing, and the Saudi Royal family, to provoke divisions and, when necessary, to start wars. With Trump having cooperated with Putin in defeating ISIS in Syria, and swearing that he wants to get the U.S. out of Syria altogether and "stop being the world's policeman," the British are desperately pulling every possible string to drag the U.S. into more wars.

The same situation exists in Ukraine. Poroshenko today launched his "Joint Forces" operation, consolidating the National Guard, the National Police, and the disparate neo-Nazi militias under central army control, committed to a military solution to the Donbas.

A new war in Syria or Ukraine could quickly explode into war with Russia, and a new world war, this time with nuclear weapons.

... ... ...

[Jun 05, 2018] Vladimir Zhirinovsky BLASTS American exceptionalism

What is true is the Hilter's Drang nach Osten was inspiured by the sucess of the US setteles.
Notable quotes:
"... Благодарю вас уважаемые коллеги! Спаси Господи! ..."
"... Specifically, he quoted from American senator and historian Albert Beveridge who said in 1897 : ..."
"... It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind? ..."
"... That was a quote from the speech of a famous American senator, the entire speech is honestly quite frightening. It could literally be taken out of Mien Kampf had the references to America simply be changed to Germany. Later in the speech, it goes on to say : ..."
"... Has the Almighty Father endowed us with gifts beyond our deserts, and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor ..."
"... Fellow-Americans, we are God's chosen people .. ..."
"... We cannot retreat from any soil where Providence has unfurled our banner ; ..."
"... One of the most interesting observations Zhirinovsky had, was that exceptionalism seems to come from ignorance of the world, and it does seem that anti-intellectualism, identity politics, and a special lack of cultural awareness has helped create this concept. For example, the speech about exceptionalism does not mention the French or the British, because early American exceptionalism was in its roots, not a Trans-Atlantic idea. It was formed by Anti-Monarchist people, who believed it was their destiny to defy the world's traditions, and establish their own utopia. As a result, Americans do this day often instinctively believe in how many "rights" they have, and how "free" their country is, compared to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Americans think Europe is dirty, the world is filled with good for nothing barbarians, that they gained supremacy, and that the US is the Land of Milk and Honey, Cannan, a Big Israel. ..."
"... This is true. Many Americans genuinely feel that their country is so advanced and safe, whereas the rest of the world is scary and dangerous. This often wrong, and in actually dangerous places, like some countries the US invaded, they often only became dangerous AFTER America came, and brought freedom and democracy. ..."
"... They often say this completely ignorant of the fact that MANY countries have a higher living standard than the US. For example, the US is not even in the TOP 10 countries by living standards , compiled by this non-profit. According to the United Nations Human Development Index, the US is ONLY in the tenth place. ..."
"... American exceptionalism, according to Zhirinovsky, inspired Hitler, and we all know what he felt about other people's rights. ..."
Jun 04, 2018 | theduran.com

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (a popular opposition party), appeared on the Russian evening news criticizing strongly American exceptionalism. It is worth noting briefly that Zhirinovsky leads an opposition party, and was the third most popular candidate in the Russian election.

Due to the fact he ran in the Russian election, he obviously ran against Putin, meaning Zhirinovsky is NOT for the record, a Kremlinbot these are the words of an opposition candidate, so the west should be careful what they wish for, when they wish for a different Russian leader.

Amercian exceptionalism is perhaps the greatest issue plaguing the American consciousness, and has been since the early days of manifest destiny. If anyone is wondering, that actually manifested itself, in the whole scale destruction of native American civilization, upon the bones of which America stands.

We've criticized American exceptionalism here at The Duran , because it's dangerous to the world, as well as to the rights of normal American civilians, who want to live in a peaceful earth, that hasn't been destroyed by the military-industrial complex. Exceptionalism creates in an individual, immense pride, not unlike that in Nazi Germany before the war, and as we've seen since the beginning, pride comes before the fall.

That is what I wrote in this article below , which was quoted here and here by major Russian news agencies. Благодарю вас уважаемые коллеги! Спаси Господи! That is thanks to YOUR readership by the way, and I am very grateful to everyone!

American Exceptionalism: Mike Pompeo says Americans must believe in the "essential rightness" of the USA

http://theduran.com/american-exceptionalism-mike-pompeo-says-americans-must-believe-in-the-essential-rightness-of-the-usa/embed/#?secret=FyNVVVCbMH

Zhirinovsky too noticed how exceptionalism inspired Hitler as well, in fact. Now, Vladimir Zhirinovsky weights in on exceptionalism:

Zhirinovsky was asked to comment on the American Idea of a "city on a hill", specifically, he was asked why many Americans feel this way. Zhirinovsky went back to history, which is one of the most forgotten yet most important fields of study, crucial to understanding everything in life. Specifically, he quoted from American senator and historian Albert Beveridge who said in 1897 :

It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind?

That was a quote from the speech of a famous American senator, the entire speech is honestly quite frightening. It could literally be taken out of Mien Kampf had the references to America simply be changed to Germany. Later in the speech, it goes on to say :

Has the Almighty Father endowed us with gifts beyond our deserts, and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor

[and close to the end it says:

Fellow-Americans, we are God's chosen people .. . We cannot retreat from any soil where Providence has unfurled our banner ; it is ours to save that soil for liberty and civilization. For liberty and civilization and God's promises fulfilled, the flag must henceforth be the symbol and the sign to all mankind.

This was written in 1897, and represents how deep-rooted and cult-like American Exceptionalism is, based on a pseudo-religious idea of the inherent superiority of a single nation.

One of the most interesting observations Zhirinovsky had, was that exceptionalism seems to come from ignorance of the world, and it does seem that anti-intellectualism, identity politics, and a special lack of cultural awareness has helped create this concept. For example, the speech about exceptionalism does not mention the French or the British, because early American exceptionalism was in its roots, not a Trans-Atlantic idea. It was formed by Anti-Monarchist people, who believed it was their destiny to defy the world's traditions, and establish their own utopia. As a result, Americans do this day often instinctively believe in how many "rights" they have, and how "free" their country is, compared to the rest of the world.

For example, Zhirinovsky said:

Americans think Europe is dirty, the world is filled with good for nothing barbarians, that they gained supremacy, and that the US is the Land of Milk and Honey, Cannan, a Big Israel.

This is true. Many Americans genuinely feel that their country is so advanced and safe, whereas the rest of the world is scary and dangerous. This often wrong, and in actually dangerous places, like some countries the US invaded, they often only became dangerous AFTER America came, and brought freedom and democracy.

It's not uncommon for Americans to talk about everything "over there", or "overseas" like its hell on earth, and for them to say "Thank God I live in America, I am so free and safe here."

They often say this completely ignorant of the fact that MANY countries have a higher living standard than the US. For example, the US is not even in the TOP 10 countries by living standards , compiled by this non-profit. According to the United Nations Human Development Index, the US is ONLY in the tenth place.

These are just simple examples from broader sources that know the real world.

Americans are perfectly within their rights to love their country. No one is arguing against this, nor does any peace-loving person want to take rights away from anyone else. The only issue is when one person, or group, believes they have the right to take away other people's rights.

American exceptionalism, according to Zhirinovsky, inspired Hitler, and we all know what he felt about other people's rights.

[Jun 04, 2018] Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin He Will Do His Job If You Let Him by Barbara Boyd

All this is an interesting information. But Trump folded long ago. So why they continues so relentlessly pursue him.
Some of the statements are iether naive, or incorrect, or both. For example: ""The Anglo-American response to this development can be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014, overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych, because he refused to turn his country into a western satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia. " also " We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American swamp circles by 2014, because of his Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions. He apparently chose the wrong side by fighting against a Nazi coup. The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine and were subject to the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant"
Notable quotes:
"... Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion. ..."
"... The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events. ..."
"... Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him. ..."
"... Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures, and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia. ..."
"... Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President. ..."
"... Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Service. ..."
"... What exactly was the relationship of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the other black propagandists operating against the President, together with their reporters, with the NED, the Information Warfare Initiative, NATO's Strategic Communications Service, and The Institute for Modern Russia in New York City, or other British or U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama Administration and subsequently? ..."
"... Steele and Orbis claim that the 17th memo, produced in December 2016, which referenced the salacious and disgusting claim that Trump engaged in perverse sexual activities at a Russian hotel, was solely produced to one David Kramer as a representative of John McCain, Senator John McCain himself, and a representative of the British security services. ..."
"... It has been widely reported that James Comey's FBI was also offering Steele and Orbis $50,000 or more at this point to corroborate aspects of the dodgy dossier smearing the President-elect. ..."
"... David Kramer is the former President of the CIA and NED quango, Freedom House, was a fellow of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, held State Department positions dedicated to Project Democracy and soft power coups in Russia and the former East Bloc, and presently serves as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership in Arizona. ..."
"... Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities, namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence. ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | https://larouchepac.com

by Barbara Boyd - [email protected] ·

View the PDF here , a leaflet advertising the dossier can be found here.

... ... ...

The Real Story: Issues of War, Peace, and the Future

Beginning with an announcement of President Xi Jinping, at a conference in Kazakhstan in July of 2013, China has set into motion an entirely new dynamic in the world, a new paradigm of cooperation between nation states, to build vital modern infrastructure allowing nations in the former "developing sector" to reach their full economic potentials.

Xi Jinping's vision of the New Silk Road or "One Belt, One Road" project has been endorsed by Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Russia and China are joining in projects which will fully develop the Eurasian landmass, creating a "new financial architecture" in the Asia-Pacific region.

On July 16, 2014, the BRICS group of nations meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, joined by the Latin American heads of state, agreed with Xi Jinping's proposal on the creation of an entirely new economic and financial system, representing a fundamental alternative to the casino economy of the present system of globalization.

The Anglo-American globalist system is based on maximized profit of the few, and the impoverishment of billions of people.

In the new paradigm, financing for joint great projects is to come from development banks, such as the newly created Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, ending dependence on such globalist institutions as the IMF or World Bank.

Globalization as administered by the IMF and World Bank is effectively a system of imperial debt slavery, keeping the nations dependent on their loans in primitive economic conditions, while their raw materials are looted.

As Prime Minister Narenda Modi from India remarked, "The BRICS is unique as an international institution.

In this first instance, it unifies a group of nations, not on the basis of their existing prosperity or common identities, but rather their future potentials.

The idea of the BRICS itself is thus aligned with the future.

" It is not incidental to this remark that Russia, China, and India have set future goals for space exploration, including most specifically exploration of the Moon and possible exploitation of Helium 3 on the Moon, which has the potential of finally realizing nuclear fusion power as a primary energy source powering the world.

China has made clear that no small part of this initiative is inspired by the work of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.

Many of the envisioned projects reflect long-standing proposals by Executive Intelligence Review and the Schiller Institute .

The methods employed echo the ideas of political economy first developed by Alexander Hamilton, and deployed by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt -- ideas uniquely developed and expanded by Lyndon LaRouche.

Xi Jinping has asked the United States to join this great venture, which could produce thousands of productive jobs and jump-start infrastructure projects in this country.

Obama adamantly refused Xi's offer, and did everything in his power to block and defeat the Chinese initiative.

President Trump has indicated an openness to the proposition.

These 2013-2014 events were and are a direct challenge to the British imperial system.

They directly challenge the monetary system which is the source of Anglo-American domination of the world.

They directly challenge fundamental British strategic policy extant since the days of Halford Mackinder.

Under the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, joined with Russia's Eurasian Union, Mackinder's "world island" of Eurasia and Africa will be developed, crisscrossed with new high-speed rail links, new cities, and vital modern infrastructure, based on the mutual benefit of all of the nation states existing there.

Under the British geopolitical model, this area of the world has been subjected to endless instability, war, and raw materials looting.

Xi Jinping has also attacked the geopolitical axioms by which the United States and the British have operated.

He proposes instead a model of "win-win" cooperation in which nation states collaborate for development based on the common aims of mankind.

The Anglo-American response to this development can be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014, overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych, because he refused to turn his country into a western satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia.

Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion.

The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events.

Think about former DNI Clapper's unhinged speech in Australia of June 7, 2017. Clapper ranted that it was in Putin's and Russia's "genes" to attack the United States. Since Trump pursues better relations and shared intelligence with Russia on terrorism, Clapper ranted, Watergate (where Richard Nixon committed proven crimes) paled in comparison to Russiagate (where both Clapper and Comey have testified that to date the President has committed no crimes). Clapper told the Aussies also to target China, accusing the Chinese, without any offer of proof, of meddling in Australia's elections.

Former FBI Director James Comey backed Clapper in his testimony on June 8, 2017, attempting to wax eloquent in response to Senator Joe Manchin, about how Putin exists with one purpose in mind -- to shred and dismember the United States. But China and Russia have completely outflanked these cretins, and the new paradigm is rapidly coming to life with "shovels in the ground" everywhere.

In response, the Anglo-American elites have absolutely nothing to offer the world except the same dying, decadent globalist "order." This explains why many in official Washington let loose their inner alien monster every time the President mentions a desire for better relations with Russia, or evinces his friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.

This is why Hillary Clinton has literally gone insane, raving like Lady Macbeth, and obsessing about Putin's "man-spreading." That is why, also, they would risk World War III rather than see the "Belt and Road," the New Silk Road, go forward with its "community of principle" idea of relations among nations.

What Did Trump Do?

Like LaRouche, Trump represents an existential challenge to the post-War British-dictated monetarist and imperial order.

In his campaign platform he called for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall banking separation.

This would end the casino economy which is about to blow up again -- the real economy never having recovered from the collapse of 2008.

He wants to build huge modern infrastructure and revitalize the manufacturing sector of the economy with modern manufacturing techniques.

He wants to return the United States to space exploration and the funding of fundamental science, recognizing the optimistic national morale which will result from that.

In his public speeches, Trump has repeatedly invoked what he understands as "The American System" of political economy, a concept developed and elaborated in recent history by only one man, Lyndon LaRouche.

This centers economic systems in nation states, rather than global institutions, and calls for harnessing the resources of the nation state to develop the economy to higher and higher levels of physical productivity and human culture.

While Trump has features in his version of the American System which LaRouche would not endorse as historically accurate or politically wise, even the use of the term, invoking Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, is a direct challenge to the free trade, small-government nostrums foisted on the United States by a parade of British agents during the Twentieth Century.

The British, up to this point, have been largely successful in burying the actual ideas of Alexander Hamilton and Franklin Roosevelt, and burying the fundamental advances in these ideas resulting from original discoveries by LaRouche.

Through deliberate miseducation of Americans, the British have made their economic theories and systems, against which Americans explicitly fought in our Revolution, appear to be universal laws of human behavior.

As his recent speech to the United Nations emphasized, Trump envisions a system of sovereign nations, each striving to develop and enrich their populations, engaged in cooperative trade relationships, reciprocal in nature and targeted for the benefit of each party.

His U.N.

speech echoed the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams, a policy which forbade our nation from "going abroad, seeking monsters to destroy." This is the very opposite of the imperial-gendarme, perpetual-war policy long favored by the British for the United States.

Trump's positive vision, under present circumstances, requires active collaboration with Russia and China.

To stop the coup, the President's team and his supporters must stop reacting defensively.

He must act on the aspects of his program -- Glass-Steagall, large scale infrastructure development funded by national banking mechanism devoted to that purpose, space exploration, fusion power development, and joining the "One Belt, One Road" program with China, which can actually save the economy and produce high paying jobs.

At the same time, they should look at the actual crimes involved in the coup which are already on the public record, investigate them -- including in the Congress -- and prosecute them.

With respect to Mueller, they should investigate his obstruction of the investigation into the crimes committed on 9/11, together with a full public unveiling of the Saudi and British role in international terrorism.

In aid of such an effort we present seven crimes implicated in the events in the coup against the President to date.

Seven Actual Crimes

The crimes outlined below make clear that a Special Counsel, not Robert Mueller, should be investigating the U.S.-British response to China's Belt and Road Initiative, beginning with the illegal coup in Ukraine which has resulted in the targeting of Paul Manafort.

In the British account of the American election, largely published in pieces in the Guardian, they began warning their American counterparts about the dangers of Donald Trump's accommodating views toward Putin and Russia in 2015.

These warnings were followed by the specific claim that the Democratic National Committee's servers had been hacked by the Russians as of July of 2015.

According to the British account, their American counterparts were slow to respond, although the FBI says it notified the DNC, which did nothing about the alleged Russian hack until June of 2016.

The obvious should be stated here.

If the British were developing dossiers on Trump and his associates as early as 2015, Trump and his associates were under surveillance as of that date or sooner by British GCHQ and/or the NSA.

We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American swamp circles by 2014, because of his Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions.

He apparently chose the wrong side by fighting against a Nazi coup.

The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine and were subject to the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant.

What was the FBI affidavit which justified the 2014 Manafort, Podesta FISA court surveillance warrant, and what was the British role in obtaining it? What role did the British play, including GCHQ and MI6, in the Manafort counterintelligence investigation? What were the British "concerns" about Trump communicated to U.S.

intelligence as early as 2015? What was the specific British warning about hacks of the DNC computer in July 2015? By December of 2015, according to James Clapper's dodgy January, 2017 report on alleged Russian meddling in the election, hundreds of paid Russian trolls associated with the St.

Petersburg, Russia, Internet Research Agency had begun to advocate for Trump's election.

At the same time, Michael Flynn attended a dinner at RT in Russia, sitting across the table from Putin.

Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him.

Is this the date when surveillance on Flynn actually began, or did it begin sooner? What was the British role in this surveillance? Carter Page has also been a subject in Mueller's Russiagate hysteria.

He apparently walked in to volunteer for the Trump campaign without any prior association with the President, and was disavowed by the campaign soon after.

He went to school in London, had a variety of business dealings in Russia, and had volunteered for the Trump campaign as a foreign policy advisor by simply walking in the door.

Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures, and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia.

Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President.

According to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, in September 2014, the British government created the 77th Brigade, a unit tasked with countering foreign propaganda, which worked with the U.S. military in Europe to interfere with websites considered to be distributing Russian propaganda. This project ultimately morphed into NATO's Strategic Communications Service, tasked with suppressing any news or person favorable to the Russian position concerning strategic topics, but particularly Ukraine. From its inception, the NATO Strategic Communications Service incorporated a service of the Atlantic Council, the Digital Forensics Service.

Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Service.

News about Russian trolls operating out of the IRA and poisoning the Western mind filled the British press in 2015. In line with this NATO project is the Information Warfare Initiative in the U.S., centered at the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis and founded by Washington Post neo-con Anne Applebaum. It is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. intelligence community, and has concentrated its attacks on the Russian broadcasters RT and Sputnik. 2

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uc-JTs2BkDw?wmode=opaque&controls=&rel=0 Watch LaRouchePAC's full interview of former CIA Officer Ray McGovern and the VIPS report.

William Binney has insisted from the first reference to Russian hacking as the source of the WikiLeaks Podesta/DNC documents, that if such an event had occurred, the NSA would have traced it and could say so with certainty. In their report, the VIPS point out that the CIA's "Marble Framework" program allows for obfuscation of cyberattacks and false flag attribution to other state actors. WikiLeaks has consistently claimed that the source of its dossier was an inside leak from the DNC, implying that Seth Rich, a DNC data management staffer who supported Bernie Sanders, was one of its sources.

Rich was murdered in July of 2016 in Washington, D.C., in a crime which remains unsolved at this date.

Congressman Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) recently met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, and states that he has evidence confirming that the WikiLeaks DNC/John Podesta email trove was the result of a leak, not a Russian hack.

(3). The Trump Tower Meeting -- Entrapping a Presidential Campaign

On June 9, 2016, a meeting took place in Trump Tower involving Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, at the time the campaign manager for the Trump Presidential campaign, Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and five other people. As opposed to media accounts, only one of the participants in the Trump Tower meeting was a Russian, the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. By all accounts provided by participants, the meeting was very short, and involved the Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress on certain Russians.

Many consider these 2012 sanctions to be the opening shot of the New Cold War. This meeting has attracted extensive attention from Special Counsel Mueller, as the media has painted it as a "smoking gun." The emails setting up the meeting do not reflect what actually happened at the meeting.

Instead, they bear all the marks of an intelligence-agency entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr., designed to fix the "Manchurian candidate" label on Trump early in the general election campaign. The emails setting up the meeting specifically offered "dirt" on Hillary Clinton to be provided by the Russian government itself.

On July 15, 2016, at the same time as the FBI was opening an investigation of the Russians for interfering in the U.S.election and of the Trump campaign for colluding with them, another British intelligence operative, Bill Browder, was filing a complaint with the U.S.

Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities, namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence.

Undoubtedly, by the time of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the British government's Trump file already included a full history of Donald Trump's sponsorship of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and its players, Trump's real estate dealings with Russians anywhere in the world, all of candidate Trump's conciliatory statements toward Russia, and complaints that campaign advisor Michael Flynn was soft on Russia, and a rebel against the U.S. intelligence establishment from within that establishment.

The file also included surveillance of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was considered an outright enemy of Anglo-American interests given his political work for the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions, and Trump's relationship with Felix Sater, a Russian-American and high level FBI informant. 3 The official British government file also probably included surveillance of apartments at Trump Tower associated with a then ongoing investigation of a Russian organized crime ring said to operate there and figures involved in the FIFA corruption investigation who also lived there. The FIFA investigation was worked by the FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Strike Force and Christopher Steele.

So, even before the Trump Tower meeting, we find following intelligence services in motion and attempting to concoct illicit dirt about Trump and Putin: British intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, the DNI and the CIA in the United States, the FBI, and NATO's Strategic Communications Service and its U.S. offshoots.

But wait, as they say in infomercial sales, that's not even close to all involved. According to Foreign Policy Magazine and others, on July 11, 2017, a hacker going by the name of "Johnnie Walker" published a trove of emails from the private account of Lieutenant Robert J.Otto, who is tasked to a secretive unit in the U.S.State Department focused on Russia. Newsweek magazine states that Otto is the nation's "foremost" intelligence guy concerning Russia. The emails have not been authenticated. However, they contain an email purported to be on the day of the Trump Tower meeting between Otto and Kyle Parker, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, featuring a picture of Russian attorney Natalia Velselnitskaya's house in Russia.

Parker credits himself as the actual author of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and a close friend of Bill Browder. Velselnitskaya claims that her children have been threatened as a result of her participation in a legal case questioning the bona fides of Bill Browder and the factual foundations of the Magnitsky Act. The picture of her house in this context suggests another level of intense surveillance directed at Trump Tower on the day of the meeting, and the possibility that threats to her family were actually governing Veselnitskaya's behavior.

The Set-Up

On June 3rd, Trump Jr.was emailed by publicist Ron Goldstone, a British national who operates out of the U.S., whose first career was as a British tabloid journalist. Goldstone's Facebook account appears to indicate that he is presently on a break from his businesses and on a world tour of gay bathhouses in which the proudly obese Goldstone takes pictures of himself wearing various strange hats and shirts in the company of young men.

Who is financing this tour apparently outside the reach of Grand Jury subpoenas? Goldstone has also been photographed with Kathy Griffin, who famously posted a picture of herself with President Trump's severed head. Goldstone emailed Donald Trump, Jr. that Aras Agalarov wanted Goldstone to set up a meeting with Trump, Jr. in which sensitive Russian government files about Hillary Clinton's dealings with Russia would be provided to the Trump campaign as a gesture of official Russian government support of the campaign. Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting. Goldstone is the publicist for Emin Agalarov, an Azerbarjani pop star. Aras Agalarov and his son Emin partnered with Trump for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The base of operations for the Agalarov family is the Moscow regional government, not Putin's Kremlin.

The actual twenty-minute meeting involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who did most of the speaking by all accounts; Rinat Akhmetshin, a well-known Washington D.C.-based lobbyist and American citizen; Ike Kaveladze, a U.S. citizen and vice-president at one of the Agalarov's companies; Ron Goldstone; and the translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, Anatoli Samochornov. Samochornov is also an American citizen who worked with Veselnitskaya frequently, since she does not speak English. He has also worked extensively for the FBI and the U.S. State Department.

Although Akhmetshin has been linked to Russian counterintelligence repeatedly in the news media, that all appears to be based on his bragging about his two-year stint in the Russian military as a young man.

The topic addressed by Veselnitskaya was the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, which resulted from a campaign conducted by violently anti-Putin British operative William Browder, allied with Senator John McCain and the D.C. public relations firm Ashcroft and Glover.

Any sound investigation about this meeting would focus on who, out of the small army of intelligence operatives watching this meeting, designed and implemented the clear entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr. for later use.

Since it was surveilled and recorded by multiple intelligence agencies tripping all over one another at the time, (you get the image of Keystone cops), why was it only surfaced as the "smoking gun" recently? Natalia Veselnitskaya had been paroled into the United States to serve as the Russian lawyer in a legal case in the Southern District of New York based solely on money-laundering allegations made by Bill Browder against her Russian clients.

At the time of the Trump Tower meeting, however, Veselnitskaya was traveling on a business visa issued by the U.S. Department of State after having been previously denied such a visa, and after efforts by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to prevent any free travel by her in the U.S. at all. Immigration attorneys I have spoken to describe this situation as extremely strange.

(4). Obama's Final Days In Office -- Insurrection Against the President-Elect, Felonious Leaks

In an apparent effort to influence the Electoral College vote following the election, the Obama Administration leaked a preliminary intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians had hacked the Democrats' computers and otherwise intervened to swing the election to Donald Trump.

According to the New York Times of March 1, 2017, Obama and his national security colleagues additionally spent the months after the election and prior to President Trump's inauguration dropping a trail of "leads" in official documents and leaking information, in the effort to delegitimize Trump and to continue their policies against Russia and China.

Certainly, there is a document trail on this process which appears to be confined to a period of a little over two months.

Evelyn Farkas, formerly of the Defense Department's Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Desk and the Atlantic Council, virtually admitted to MSNBC in March that she had participated in this process. This is where the illegal unmasking of names in FISA and E.O. 12333 surveillance occurred, when these crimes were committed. Samantha Power, the U.N. Ambassador, was reportedly involved in 260 unmasking requests bearing little relationship to her function. Other targets of the House Intelligence Committee concerning illegal unmasking and leaks include Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Ben Rhodes.

On December 15, 2016, DNI James Clapper signed new procedures allowing the NSA to distribute raw intercept data throughout the entire intelligence community. These procedures became official on January 3, 2017 when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off on them.

At issue is modification of secret procedures under E.O. 12333, deemed by Edward Snowden and others as the most significant authority for our present, completely unconstitutional surveillance state. Previously, the NSA was required to filter and redact information regarding U.S. citizens monitored in foreign counterintelligence activities. DNI Clapper had also implemented a cloud intelligence data platform accessible by all intelligence agencies, and obliterating many paper and digital access trails and safeguards.

Were these new procedures implemented in any way based on a desire to facilitate leaks and obscure their origin to future investigators?

(5). The January Blackmail/Extortion Attempt

On January 6, 2017, according to James Comey's June 8th Congressional testimony, the intelligence chiefs went to Trump Tower to present the Obama Administration's report on Russian hacking, hoping to convince the skeptical President-elect to abandon his campaign promise for better relations with Putin and Russia.

Following that briefing, in a pre-arranged move with the rest of Obama's intelligence directors, Comey cleared the room of everyone but himself and Trump.

He presented Trump with the Steele dossier's most salacious allegations, namely that Trump had engaged in sexually perverse acts with Russian prostitutes while visiting Moscow, and Putin had taped it. This is exactly what the infamous J.Edgar Hoover did -- blackmail Washington politicians with FBI dossiers, assuring them that he could protect them so long as they did as Hoover wished.

In fact, Comey described this as a "J.Edgar Hoover moment" in answers to questions by Senator Susan Collins on June 8th. Dick Morris describes the entire affair as "just about as close as you can get to a political assassination without holding a gun to the President's head." Trump appears to have demanded that the entirely fake dossier be investigated, and refused to back down in efforts to achieve better relations with Russia. In fact, Trump denounced the intelligence community publicly as acting like Nazis.

He also denounced the McCarthyite hysteria they were generating.

While Comey recorded the President-elect's responses on a classified computer moments after leaving him, Buzzfeed, which had frequently published raw Clinton/Obama "oppo" stories, published the December 2016 British/Clinton dodgy dossier in full.

The U.S.

intelligence community, particularly Obama's ghoulish grand inquisitor, CIA head John Brennan, proceeded to give it credibility by leaking that both President-elect Trump and President Obama had been briefed on its contents.

Publication of the Trump Russian sex allegations accompanied James Clapper's factless "official intelligence community assessment" that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta, and that they did so to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.

Put together by analysts "hand-picked" by the CIA's John Brennan, that assessment was backed by no actual evidence.

It has now been thoroughly debunked as "the hack that wasn't" by the analysis presented by the Veteran's Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

John Brennan subsequently explained to Congress and the public that he does not "do evidence."

The Democrats, the news media, and their Republican allies led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, went berserk over the factless Obama Administration "assessment," demanding special prosecutors and Congressional investigations, and sneering that "other shoes" were about to drop.

The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, having clearly lost it, claimed that Russia had committed an "act of war," presumably seeking to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

(6).

The President Calls Out Comey, Brennan et al.

for Wiretapping Him, They Lie About It To Congress

On March 4, 2017, after General Flynn was fired, and after a deluge of leaks of classified surveillance of members of Trump's transition and national defense teams, President Trump interrupted the entire fake media narrative by tweeting what had become obvious: that Obama had him "wiretapped" in Trump Tower prior to the election, and that what was happening to him reeked of McCarthyism.

The media, which had been publishing allegations about FISA warrants and intercepts of Trump or his associates for months, erupted in what has to be one the most shameless demonstrations of the Big Lie ever known.

They declared that Trump was offering wild claims with no evidence, essentially circling back on their very own reporting and labeling it, "fake news."

Now it has been revealed that FISA warrants existed on Paul Manafort from 2014 through some period in 2016, and from some period in 2016 through this year, conveniently omitting the period when he was Trump's campaign manager.

Manafort lives in Trump Tower, and was originally investigated under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his Ukraine activities.

It is fairly obvious that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was the subject of massive surveillance.

It is also abundantly clear from the leaks which occurred concerning contacts with the Russians by Trump's campaign officials and supporters, that the Trump Tower offices of his transition were subject to massive surveillance, either as the result of extant FISA warrants or under E.O.

12333.

James Comey and James Clapper were both asked directly in their appearances before Congressional Committees whether there was any evidence at all to substantiate the President's wiretapping claims.

Both of them gave emphatic answers that there was not, and went out of their respective ways to paint the President as a paranoid wacko.

So now, Robert Mueller is investigating the President of the United States for obstruction of justice, because he fired an FBI Director who lied to Congress.

Really?

(7).

The Comey Firing-Attempted Entrapment of the President

On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director Comey breathed new life into what was, by then, an insurrection which had run out of steam.

People were simply tired of Democrats, like Adam Schiff, 4 Schiff has a watermelon face combining features of the comic Charlie Brown and a Conehead; his personality is like the grasping and crazy personality of Peanuts cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt.

As a prosecutor it took him three tries to convict the hapless former FBI agent Richard Miller of espionage despite overwhelming and salacious evidence. trying on McCarthyite tinfoil hats before TV cameras and pontificating about the outrage du jour.

Comey, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, made it officially public, for the first time, that the FBI had been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election since July of 2016.

He opined that the FBI counterintelligence investigation (which had been leaking like a sieve since its instigation in July, without producing any verifiable facts about either Russian interference or Trump campaign collusion) could continue for many more months, if not years.

He refused to say whether the President himself was under investigation, despite the fact that he had told the President that he was not, and had told Congress the same thing behind closed doors.

Despite the daily press instructions about events which the public must view as scandalous (why scandalous was never explained), and highly publicized Congressional hearings concerning "Russia! Russia! Russia!" all of President Obama's men, at this late date, had only managed to arrange the human sacrifice of Michael Flynn for lying to the Vice-President about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. 5 Flynn's scalping itself was the result of the unmasking of Flynn's name and illegal leaks of same to the press as a result of classified surveillance.

This fact was obliterated by sensational press coverage of the hyperventilated visit of Obama Assistant Attorney General Sally Yates to the White House to warn, nonsensically, that Flynn had been "compromised" by the Russians because he lied to the Vice-President.

Exactly how this makes any sense at all we have not been told.

As Shakespeare's MacBeth intoned, "it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They had also generated ethics, foreign intelligence registration, and tax questions about their other Trump campaign targets -- typical of what happens when an entire life is put under a microscope, in a dedicated search for something, anything, that could be construed feasibly as wrongdoing.

Ask yourself, what have any of these people allegedly done? Spoken with the Russians? Talked about lifting sanctions imposed because Putin reacted to a coup Obama ran against the duly elected government of Ukraine? Lobbied on behalf of foreign governments? Really?

The actual testimony of Obama's intelligence officials before Congressional Committees, shorn of the media hype surrounding it, was that there was absolutely no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S.

elections.

In fact, on March 15, 2017, Comey himself had told Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein behind closed doors, that the President was not a target of his investigations, despite planted press stories to the contrary.

Comey had otherwise continually stone-walled Grassley concerning the Senator's persistent questions about the FBI's relationship to British operative Christopher Steele.

While unable to produce any saleable legal goods, the illicit investigations had significantly bogged down the President's political agenda, while fostering an increasingly toxic and divisive national political environment.

The strategy of official Washington, the Republicans who opposed the President's election, the Obama/Clinton Democratic establishment, and the intelligence agencies operating on behalf of British strategic policies and axioms is clear -- use complicit Republicans to trap the President in failed and obnoxious policies, such as the healthcare bill; hope that the President's silent majority remains exactly that -- silent; hope that some of the smelly stuff they are throwing up against the wall actually sticks; distract, distract, distract the President, and prevent him from working with Russia and China to develop the world, end wars, and implement the massive infrastructure and space exploration projects which will actually save our economy.

On May 3, 2017, Comey followed his March drama-queen performance before the House, with even more theatrical speechifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He bloviated that despite the fact that his unprecedented disclosures and handling of the Clinton email investigation may have impacted the election, and it made him nauseous, he, Mr.

Eagle Scout and True Crime Detective rolled into one, would do the same thing all over again.

He exaggerated the significance of the Anthony Weiner computer discovery by stating that it contained thousands of new Clinton emails, not previously produced, some of which were classified -- a statement the FBI had to subsequently correct.

As Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rightly argued, Comey violated numerous Justice Department regulations and ethical norms in his outrageous actions in the Clinton email investigation.

It is the Attorney General's job to prosecute cases -- to open and close them -- not that of the FBI.

At the same Senate Judiciary hearing, Comey refused to state publicly that President Trump was not under investigation, despite repeatedly assuring the President of that fact privately.

He knew this allowed the media and Democratic party "color revolution" to continue.

He refused to confirm that there was any investigation into the torrent of illegal classified leaks at the center of the media campaign.

On May 9th, President Trump fired Comey, setting the stage for Robert Mueller's appointment as Special Prosecutor.

At the center of Mueller's inquiry will be a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge against the President for firing James Comey, along with any so-called process crimes he can find during his investigation -- registration offenses under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, tax offenses, or false statements to FBI agents or Congress.

As he builds his case, Mueller will follow his standard playbook, putting unrelenting psychological pressure on those Trump loyalists he can implicate in the process crimes.

He will continue to target and investigate the President's family for similar offenses in order to destabilize the President himself.

He will continue the relentless demonization of the President, in order to ensure that neutral officials in Washington who witnessed key events will testify not according to the truth, but according to what they see as future career prospects.

Following his firing, Comey and friends leaked to the press notes which he had allegedly taken following most of his encounters with the President.

With each encounter, Comey's leaked account says, he returned to discuss what was said and its implications with a close circle of his FBI comrades.

He prepared for each encounter with the President based on "murder boards" conducted by his FBI colleagues.

In the course of their meetings, Comey says, the President asked for his loyalty, which Comey portrayed like the request of some mafia don in a bad Hollywood movie.

If it happened, such a request, in the context of what appeared to be an open insurrection against the President by the intelligence community, is hardly surprising.

The President denies that it happened.

On the day after the President fired Flynn, according to Comey, the President cleared the room and went one on one with him, expressing the "hope" that Comey could let the matter of Michael Flynn go.

Comey whines that he took the President's "hope" as an "order," giving rise to concerns about possible obstruction of justice.

This line of reasoning was thoroughly eviscerated by Senator James Risch in the Senate Judicary Committee hearing on June 8, 2017.

Senator Risch forced Comey to admit that Trump never ordered him to let the Flynn matter go, but only expressed a "hope" that he would do so, and no prosecution that Comey knew of ever went forward, based on someone expressing "hope" for something.

While the President denies he ever asked Comey to let the Flynn matter go, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and famed trial lawyer Alan Dershowitz writes that the President would be fully within his legal and constitutional prerogatives to order Comey to back off Flynn.

He could have simply told Comey, I am going to pardon Flynn.

So, it is clear by James Comey's own account that he was trying to set the President up, to entrap him -- an escapade which was "crudely" interrupted when the President fired him.

Again, confirming this, Comey told Senator Susan Collins in his testimony, that the reason why he did not stop the President from improper interactions, if he thought they were such, the reason he concealed the alleged improper and possibly illegal conduct from his superiors at the Justice Department, and the reason he did not resign, was because his encounters with the President were of "investigative interest" to the FBI.

Otherwise, Comey's leaks reveal a man so leery of even shaking the President's hand (or being photographed doing it) that once in January he tried to hide himself in the White House drapes in the hopes that Trump would not see him.

The problem for Robert Mueller's obstruction case, among others, is that both Comey and his Assistant Andrew McCabe have previously testified, under oath, to Congress that there was no pressure to end the FBI's investigations from anyone in the Trump Administration.

And, Comey confirmed in his testimony that prior to his firing, Trump was not under investigation for collusion with Russia, obstruction, or any other offense.

Further, Comey has proved that he is willing to violate professional norms and Justice Department regulations, if not laws, by leaking government documents.

The question is, what else was leaked by Comey and his FBI circle? Finally, we now know that Comey lied to or misled Congress about the "wiretaps" on Trump Tower -- the Manafort FISA warrants prove the case.

Senator Grassley has asked the FBI: Why, if you were wiretapping a close associate of the President, wouldn't you warn the President about him as is customarily done? The true answer is that the President himself was and is the target of an unprecedented and illegal coup-attempt conducted by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and the nation's laws.

Those familiar with the relationship between Comey and Robert Mueller describe them as "joined at the hip," "cut from the same cloth" (can't help thinking of the Union Jack), close personal friends, and mentor (Mueller) to mentee (Comey).

The problem with this relationship is that Department of Justice conflict guidelines specifically bar prosecutors (Mueller) from investigating issues where close friends (Comey) have a significant role, such as material witnesses.

Official Washington knows all of this and yet touts this investigation as somehow "independent," "apolitical," and "unconflicted."

Will You Help Us End This Coup?

So, now you know.

Since the election and before, we have been stuck in a very elaborate and dangerous British hoax, gambling the future of our nation in a cold coup against an elected president.

Actual crimes have been committed -- not by the President -- but against the President and the Constitution.

What has happened is that political differences, ideas, have been criminalized, the very danger most provisions of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights were explicitly designed to guard against.

We have shown you the prosecutorial robot named Robert Mueller, whom others have always pointed to shoot, and why he has been deployed to take out the President of the United States.

We have told you the real reasons why the President has been attacked by a foreign power, the British and their allies in our country.

We have shown you that many of the same people and methods were deployed on a smaller scale to deprive the world of the beautiful ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.

Now, at a point where this President, freed of Mueller and adequately advised, could join with China's Belt and Road and usher in a new renaissance for mankind, shouldn't we really, finally, win our future, this time?

[Jun 04, 2018] Russiagate Manipulating Globalization

Notable quotes:
"... These and other nefarious plans, such as fomenting color revolutions in Russia's near abroad (one recently came to fruition in tiny Armenia), can be all the more easily pursued that the public associates international money laundering and bank fraud with 'Russian oligarchs close to Putin." ..."
"... A comparison of the Russian population's standard of living then and now, as well as the country's defense capabilities compared with eighteen years ago should make clear that Vladimir Putin has been fulfilling his promises to the Russian people, who recently returned him to power for the fourth time. ..."
"... But while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the number of movers and shakers in Moscow. Inevitably, the oligarchs may move in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the US to link Putin with their criminal activities. ..."
"... Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online journal " New Eastern Outlook ". https://journal-neo.org/2018/06/01/russiagate-manipulating-globalization/ ..."
Jun 04, 2018 | journal-neo.org

Russiagate has revealed the ease with which globalization's rules can be exploited, overshadowing the world's real political and economic problems. And as long as audiences -- especially in the US -- are obsessed with the pursuit of political 'crimes', war crimes will continue unabated. I'm not saying that this situation was created deliberately, however it is impossible to deny that it has pushed the Iran Nuclear Treaty into a background where National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo can ensure that it is never revived, making way for eventual 'regime change' in Teheran, and making it less likely that North Korea's young leader will give up the weapons that forced the US to talk to him.

These and other nefarious plans, such as fomenting color revolutions in Russia's near abroad (one recently came to fruition in tiny Armenia), can be all the more easily pursued that the public associates international money laundering and bank fraud with 'Russian oligarchs close to Putin." Americans have never been told that when he came to power in 2000 on the back of state pilfering under 'our man in the Kremlin' Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin made a deal with those who had become 'oligarchs' via those privatizations: "You will be free to continue your games as long as you leave politics up to me."

Vladimir Putin has kept his part of the bargain, bringing Russia up to speed economically and militarily, but here's the thing: while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the ruling coterie. Inevitably, the oligarchs' business may bring them in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the US to link Putin with their criminal activities. A comparison of the Russian population's standard of living then and now, as well as the country's defense capabilities compared with eighteen years ago should make clear that Vladimir Putin has been fulfilling his promises to the Russian people, who recently returned him to power for the fourth time. (After being asked to take over the leadership of the country by an ailing Yeltsin in 1999, he was elected for the first time in 2000.) But while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the number of movers and shakers in Moscow. Inevitably, the oligarchs may move in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the US to link Putin with their criminal activities.

All those Russian names that are (with difficulty) coming out of the mouths of English-only American anchors have nothing to do with the war in Syria or the rebellion in eastern Ukraine, let alone the impending reunification of the Koreas after 65 years of a barbed-wire truce. They have to do with bank fraud and money laundering, which were once the realm of gangsters. What the Muller investigation has revealed is an international 'crime syndicate' whose claim to fame is its association with the President of the United States (and suggestions that is associated with the President of Russia).

But rather than being a strongman who uses his power for personal enrichment, such as for example Panama's President Noriega, Putin's relations with shady oligarchs are probably more like those of the Kennedy brothers, Jack and Robert, with Meyer Lansky and his cohorts based in pre-Castro Havana. (When, fifty years later, I read about the mob's 'interest' in the Cuban revolution, I realized with a shudder that they were lurking in Havana when I arrived there a week after the Kennedy assassination.)

Russiagate shows how far the US has regressed since the days of Camelot.

Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online journal " New Eastern Outlook ".
https://journal-neo.org/2018/06/01/russiagate-manipulating-globalization/

[Jun 04, 2018] US Regime Change and its Armies of "Garbage" by Tony Cartalucci,

Notable quotes:
"... Anger at repression is quelled under the military dictatorship – but the country's punk scene is turning the protest volume back up again. ..."
"... The provocative slogan, directed at junta leader Prayuth Chan-ocha, helped the event's Facebook page go viral, piquing the interest of pro-democracy activists and putting the small underground scene in the national spotlight. ..."
Jun 04, 2018 | journal-neo.org

America's "color revolutions" are polished by the Western media to portray opposition as daring heroes. However, the truth is far less flattering, and even compromising.

Had James Buchanan – writing for the Guardian in his article, " 'This country has no freedom!': how Thailand's punks are railing against the junta " – told the truth about who Kitikea 'Pure Punk' Kanpim was and the subculture of substance abuse and woman-beating he represented – the article likely would never have been published.

But telling the truth is not the business the Guardian is in – telling narratives that buttress the US-European corporate-driven agenda is. And the agenda for Thailand is regime change .

Just as the Western media sold the world tales of brutal terrorists representing "freedom" and "democracy" in nations like Libya and Syria in 2011 or right wing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine in 2014 – the Western media is rummaging through the lowest common denominator in Thai society to portray a fringe anti-government movement as a "popular uprising." To that end, Buchanan's article portrays drug-addled woman-beaters like Kanpim as disingenuously as he does Thailand's political crisis. His article claims:

Anger at repression is quelled under the military dictatorship – but the country's punk scene is turning the protest volume back up again.

It continued:

The provocative slogan, directed at junta leader Prayuth Chan-ocha, helped the event's Facebook page go viral, piquing the interest of pro-democracy activists and putting the small underground scene in the national spotlight.

Despite Prayuth Chan-ocha being Prime Minister of Thailand – the Western media has repeatedly used the slur "junta leader" to depict both the prime minister himself and the nation's government as a backwards 3rd world dictatorship.

Yet no mention is made of what precipitated the 2014 military coup in Thailand that brought both to power – not by Buchanan in the Guardian – and not anywhere else across the Western media.

Western Media's Contempt for Context

The previous government was headed by US-backed billionaire ex-prime minister, mass murderer, and now fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra via his own sister who openly ran as his proxy during 2011 elections. After coming to power in 2011, Shinawatra immediately began amending laws to grant himself and his political allies amnesty in a bid to return himself fully to power.

A vote-buying rice subsidy program that played a role in putting Shinawatra's political party into power also began unraveling . By 2014, nearly 1 million farmers were left unpaid with their rice stolen away to government warehouses. Protests swelled to over 1 million people on key days. In a bid to cling to power, Shinawatra deployed heavily armed militants to attack protesters across the country leaving over 20 dead.

These were the same armed militants who targeted and killed soldiers in 2010 triggering weeks of violence leaving nearly 100 dead in what Buchanan disingenuously called in his article a "military crackdown."

Shinawatra's government openly declared it did not recognize the court's authority. Police – loyal to Shinawatra who himself was a high-level police bureaucrat before becoming prime minister – refused to act. It was left to the military to intervene to restore the rule of law.Up until the week of the coup that finally removed Shinawatra from power – people were dying in the streets and farmers languished unpaid and in crippling poverty induced by the Shinawatra's corruption.

In this context, the coup would appear justified to most readers – which is precisely why this context is omitted in Buchanan's article and in articles all across the Western media.

The Woman-Beating "Freedom Fighter"

This brings us back to Buchanan's article and its attempt to portray Thailand's "punk scene" as a small but important part of the "widespread opposition" he claims exists. Friends close to Kitikea 'Pure Punk' Kanpim – admit that he suffers from a life of substance abuse – ranging from hard drugs and the abuse of prescription psychotropics, to alcohol and butane fumes. He is also prone to fits of abuse and violence – directed generally at his girlfriend. Local news stories have frequently covered his erratic and at times criminal behavior which police believe is associated with mental illness.

In one instance, Kanpim would punch his girlfriend in the face, knocking her to the ground before painfully grinding his Doc Martin boot on her forehead.

In other instances, his abuse has been caught on videos now circulating on social media including one where he is seen violently pulling his girlfriend's hair and grabbing her by the neck. Those in Kanpim's circle also regularly assault their girlfriends.

Abuse against women is rampant throughout what Buchanan calls Thailand's "punk subculture" – but what is actually considered by Thais as "Kaya Sangkom," or "garbage society" – for obvious reasons.

The only real common thread running through "garbage society" is abuse of oneself and of others and a complete inability to contribute positively to society. While Kanpim dresses in a style the less discerning could superficially consider "punk," he clearly falls under "Kaya Sangkom."Yet to write an article exposing vocal supporters of US-backed regime change in Thailand as drug-addled, woman-beating "garbage" would only prove critics of the opposition right – that efforts to rush elections in Thailand are being spearheaded by US-backed billionaire fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, his political machine, US-funded "students" and "NGOs," and anyone unsavory and undignified enough to join in – including Thai society's "garbage" for a chance in the Western media's spotlight.

Just as the Western media allied itself with the worst of Libyan, Syrian, or Ukrainian society – its alliance with the dregs of Thai society will eventually backfire as well.

Such people have proven themselves notoriously unreliable – often overwhelmed by the attention they have desperately craved their entire lives and now suddenly have – exposing their true nature in dramatic and often very public episodes of violence and criminality. So far – the Western media controls the narrative in nations like Thailand which lack their own English-language media to tell the other side of stories people like James Buchanan and the Guardian intentionally omit – awarding dishonesty with impunity in front of international audiences.

Yet just like in Libya, Syria – or more recently in Ukraine regarding the Babchenko hoax – where the West's lies have mounted and eventually backfired – the clock is ticking for people like James Buchanan and the "heroes" he is manufacturing in Southeast Asia's Thailand. The winds of truth will eventually blow, and when they do, they will take the credibility of those like Buchanan and their lies away with them.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook" .

[Jun 03, 2018] FBI Obama Paid MI6 To Fake Trump Dossier in order to justify wiretapping

The FBI has obtained 'indisputable evidence' that Obama-era CIA officials paid British spies to fabricate the Trump-Russia dossier in order to justify wiretapping the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him. ..."
"... It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset. ..."
"... The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House. ..."
Jun 03, 2018 | www.youtube.com

The U.K.'s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive "intelligence" allegedly linking Trump to Russia.

The sources believe that John Brennan and James Clapper used highly classified intelligence channels to create a trail of fake evidence linking Trump to Russia.

George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him.

It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset.

The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House.

"Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives..

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added."

[Jun 03, 2018] "We're taking names..." Ambassador Nikki Haley

Notable quotes:
"... In Hillary's defense, by this point she probably would have had a brain aneurism or tumor or whatever was causing the neurological ticks she exhibited and we would be stuck with her vice president, whose name I cant recall (and dont care) and the same neocons in the cabinet. ..."
turcopolier.typepad.com

"Washington is exerting pressure on Turkey to make it abandon the plans to purchase Russia S-400 Triumf state-of-the-art air defense systems. So far, Ankara stood tall refusing to bow. US Congress is already considering the proposals on halting US arms sales to that country." Korzun "Unlike Turkey, India is not a NATO ally but its desire to acquire the Triumf triggers a negative reaction in the US. American lawmakers not only express concern over the planned deal but also issue warnings that sensitive American military technology may be banned from being shared with India in future.

According to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, "There is a lot of concern in the US administration and Congress with the S-400." India's decision will be made final before the October Russia-India summit. During the informal talks in Sochi in May 2018, President Putin and Prime Minister Modi discussed the ways to get around the US potential sanctions when the deal goes through. Both countries have pledged to jointly create a plan to keep it out of CAATSA.

New Delhi has just concluded price talks on the S-400 deal with Moscow, saying it will go ahead, no matter what the US says or does. Those who follow the news on arms trade know well that India is interested in purchasing 22 American Predator Guardian drones for its Navy. It's also willing to acquire the weapon the US has not sold anyone so far: 80-100 Avenger (Predator C) armed drones for the Air Force. The price may be as high as $8 billion .

The F-16 production on Indian soil is also in doubt. All these projects are questioned as the US sticks to its guns implementing the "do it or else" policy. But it will hardly work with India, a nation known for its independent foreign policy. It has never bowed to any pressure from outside since its independence.

Iraq, Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, Morocco, Indonesia and Vietnam are among the countries threatened by sanctions if they go on with the plans to purchase Russian weapons. Many of them are particularly interested in the S-400." Korzun https://southfront.org/us-warns-india-not-to-buy-russian-weapons/

-------------

America leads the way! Or else. Well, folks the international situation would be at least this bad with the wandering basket case Hillary Clinton in charge. It appears that Israel is wasting American money by maintaining its own ambassador at the UN since they already have Nikki Haley. They should make her status official and save money.

Yesterday she vetoed Kuwait's draft resolution on Gaza and was joined by no other country on that. Then she offered a US resolution condemning Hamas for the Palestinian deaths on the Gaza border and was joined by none. Not even the usual European toadies would sign up to support that. Haley must be planning to run for president on the new Ziotrumpian Party ticket. The control wielded by the Zionists over Trump appears to be complete at this point.

I doubt if Trump really understands anything about the Middle East. His "thinking" appears to be a melange and reflection of the Grima Wormtongue murmurings of his family members, the flickering images on the Fox channels, (Hannity the Wise, Jack Keane and Stewart Varney) and his own lack of a reflective mind.

The Saudis get s big response from him as well. But, after all, they have disposable cash. They don't have as much as they did, but they still have a lot. That counts in the narrow world of The Art of the Deal." In the arms trade, the objective seems to be to dragoon all these countries into accepting their roles as satrapies of the Peacock Throne, Will that work? We will see.

The name of US Pacific Command has been changed to US Indo-Pacific Command. I don't quite see the significance of that unless it is accompanied by AOR boundary changes in the Unified Command Plan (UCP). pl

ISL , a day ago

Dear Colonel,

Equally telling is that we were not even joined by the Solomon Islands, which to me indicates that the US is not even bothering to try.

Russian AD has gotten really good advertising in Syria, but somehow, whereas the US THAAD did not even try to shoot down Kim's missile. I suppose that is what happens when supporting US industries is from fact-free marketing and strong-arming sales "or else" rather than having the best. Sad. very sad.

In Hillary's defense, by this point she probably would have had a brain aneurism or tumor or whatever was causing the neurological ticks she exhibited and we would be stuck with her vice president, whose name I cant recall (and dont care) and the same neocons in the cabinet.

La plus sa change

DenLilleAbe , 5 hours ago
America is acting stupid as usual. It is becoming a rule now.

The US did not win WWII the provided material and little else (Apologies to the servicemen who gave their life, eternal respect from a former soldier, your sacrifice is not forgotten) but neither are the 22 million Russians Who died in the great War. Largely forgotten by the MSM. 22 million. It is an unnatural figure, that most Americans cant even comprehend, its a figure that is offensive!!

Yanks fok off, you have never seen blood on your soil, but you will, it is just a matter of time, inequalities growing and all, you will. And we will do nothing. You brought 75 years of destruction on us, ordinary people, enjoy your palms.
Written as a former NATO officer.

mariner , 13 hours ago
An Indian perspective

'Realising CAATSA's potential for damaging relations with key partners like India, Secretary of Defence James Mattis has been campaigning for a national security waiver from CAATSA for key allies, including in recent testimony before the US Congress.

However, Democratic Congresspersons are virulently opposed to any waiver that might allow Mr Trump's administration to bypass CAATSA. The Republicans might be more open to the notion of a waiver for a small handful of countries, but they do not want to give Mr Trump a free hand on Russia either.'

http://ajaishukla.blogspot....

[Jun 03, 2018] Brabantian

Jun 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: Website June 2, 2018 at 10:33 am GMT 200 Words More black-pilling for Putin fanboys, such as Unz's Andrei 'the Saker' Raevsky -

Putin & Moscow denounce Iran for anti-Israeli activity From retired Indian Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, 'Russia Censures Iran' :

Close ties between Russia and Israel are sailing into full view it all does seem a cosy condominium between Putin and Netanyahu Extraordinary statements for an establishment think tank known to be close to the Kremlin:

The commentary contextualised Putin's recent call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syrian soil. It openly rapped the Iranians on the knuckle: "Iran's operations in Syria go far beyond fighting terrorists and are hardly welcomed by anyone within the region and beyond. This heightens tensions in Israel's relations with its bitter rivals Serving as a platform for fighting the 'Zionist' enemy is something Syria needs the least."

Key elements [according to the Kremlin-tied think tank]:
a) Russia holds Iran as responsible for ratcheting up tensions with Israel;
b) Russia thoroughly disapproves of Syria being turned into a turf for Iran's policy of 'Resistance' against Israel; and,
c) Moscow expects the Assad regime to distance itself from Iran's anti-Israeli activities.

[Jun 03, 2018] Amid Russiagate Hysteria, What Are The Facts

Jun 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Sat, 06/02/2018 - 18:45 Authored by Jack Matlock via The Nation,

We must end this Russophobic insanity...

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

That saying - often misattributed to Euripides - comes to mind most mornings when I pick up The New York Times and read the latest "Russiagate" headlines, which are frequently featured across two or three columns on the front page above the fold. This is an almost daily reminder of the hysteria that dominates our Congress and much of our media.

A glaring example, just one of many from recent months, arrived at my door on February 17. My outrage spiked when I opened to the Times' lead editorial : "Stop Letting the Russians Get Away With It, Mr. Trump." I had to ask myself:

"Did the Times' editors perform even the rudiments of due diligence before they climbed on their high horse in this long editorial, which excoriated 'Russia' (not individual Russians) for 'interference' in the election and demanded increased sanctions against Russia 'to protect American democracy'?"

It had never occurred to me that our admittedly dysfunctional political system is so weak, undeveloped, or diseased that inept internet trolls could damage it. If that is the case, we better look at a lot of other countries as well, not just Russia!

The New York Times, of course, is not the only offender. Their editorial attitude has been duplicated or exaggerated by most other media outlets in the United States, electronic and print. Unless there is a mass shooting in progress, it can be hard to find a discussion of anything else on CNN. Increasingly, both in Congress and in our media, it has been accepted as a fact that "Russia" interfered in the 2016 election.

So what are the facts?

  1. It is a fact that some Russians paid people to act as online trolls and bought advertisements on Facebook during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Most of these were taken from elsewhere, and they comprised a tiny fraction of all the advertisements purchased on Facebook during this period. This continued after the election and included organizing a demonstration against President-elect Trump.
  2. It is a fact that e-mails in the memory of the Democratic National Committee's computer were furnished to Wikileaks. The US intelligence agencies that issued the January 2017 report were confident that Russians hacked the e-mails and supplied them to Wikileaks, but offered no evidence to substantiate their claim. Even if one accepts that Russians were the perpetrators, however, the e-mails were genuine, as the US intelligence report certified. I have always thought that the truth was supposed to make us free, not degrade our democracy.
  3. It is a fact that the Russian government established a sophisticated television service (RT) that purveyed entertainment, news, and -- yes -- propaganda to foreign audiences, including those in the United States. Its audience is several magnitudes smaller than that of Fox News. Basically, its task is to picture Russia in more favorable light than has been available in Western media. There has been no analysis of its effect, if any, on voting in the United States. The January 2017 US intelligence report states at the outset, "We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election." Nevertheless, that report has been cited repeatedly by politicians and the media as having done so.
  4. It is a fact that many senior Russian officials (though not all, by any means) expressed a preference for Trump's candidacy. After all, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had compared President Putin to Hitler and had urged more active US military intervention abroad, while Trump had said it would be better to cooperate with Russia than to treat it as an enemy. It should not require the judgment of professional analysts to understand why many Russians would find Trump's statements more congenial than Clinton's. On a personal level, most of my Russian friends and contacts were dubious of Trump, but all resented the Clinton's Russophobic tone, as well as those made by Obama from 2014 onward. They considered Obama's public comment that "Russia doesn't make anything" a gratuitous insult (which it was), and were alarmed by Clinton's expressed desire to provide additional military support to the "moderates" in Syria. But the average Russian, and certainly the typical Putin administration official, understood Trump's comments as favoring improved relations, which they definitely favored.
  5. There is no evidence that Russian leaders thought Trump would win or that they could have a direct influence on the outcome. This is an allegation that has not been substantiated. The January 2017 report from the intelligence community actually states that Russian leaders, like most others, thought Clinton would be elected.
  6. There is no evidence that Russian activities had any tangible impact on the outcome of the election. Nobody seems to have done even a superficial study of the effect Russian actions actually had on the vote. The intelligence-community report, however, states explicitly, "the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying." Also both former FBI director James Comey and NSA director Mike Rogers have testified that there is no proof Russian activities had an effect on the vote count.
  7. There is also no evidence that there was direct coordination between the Trump campaign (hardly a well-organized effort) and Russian officials. The indictments brought by the special prosecutor so far are either for lying to the FBI or for offenses unrelated to the campaign such as money laundering or not registering as a foreign agent.

So, what is the most important fact regarding the 2016 US presidential election?

The most important fact, obscured in Russiagate hysteria, is that Americans elected Trump under the terms set forth in the Constitution. Americans created the Electoral College, which allows a candidate with the minority of popular votes to become president. Americans were those who gerrymandered electoral districts to rig them in favor of a given political party. The Supreme Court issued the infamous Citizens United decision that allows corporate financing of candidates for political office. (Hey, money talks and exercises freedom of speech; corporations are people!) Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic since it gives disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was American senators who established non-democratic procedures that allow minorities, even sometimes single senators, to block legislation or confirmation of appointments.

Now, that does not mean that Trump's presidency is good for the country just because Americans elected him. In my opinion, the 2016 presidential and congressional elections pose an imminent danger to the republic. They have created potential disasters that will severely try the checks and balances built into our Constitution. This is especially true since both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican Party, which itself represents fewer voters than the opposition party.

I did not personally vote for Trump, but I consider the charges that Russian actions interfered in the election, or - for that matter - damaged the quality of our democracy ludicrous, pathetic, and shameful.

" Ludicrous " because there is no logical reason to think that anything that the Russians did affected how people voted. In the past, when Soviet leaders tried to influence American elections, it backfired -- as foreign interference usually does everywhere. In 1984, Yuri Andropov, the then Soviet leader made preventing Ronald Reagan's reelection the second-most-important task of the KGB. (The first was to detect US plans for a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union.) Everything the Soviets did -- in painting Reagan out to be a warmonger while Andropov refused to negotiate on nuclear weapons -- helped Reagan win 49 out of 50 states.

" Pathetic " because it is clear that the Democratic Party lost the election. Yes, it won the popular vote, but presidents are not elected by popular vote. To blame someone else for one's own mistakes is a pathetic case of self-deception.

" Shameful " because it is an evasion of responsibility. It prevents the Democrats, and those Republicans who want responsible, fact-based government in Washington, from concentrating on practical ways to reduce the threat the Trump presidency poses to our political values and even to our future existence. After all, Trump would not be president if the Republican Party had not nominated him. He also is most unlikely to have won the Electoral College if the Democrats had nominated someone -- almost anyone -- other than the candidate they chose, or if that candidate had run a more competent campaign. I don't argue that any of this was fair, or rational, but then who is so naive as to assume that American politics are either fair or rational?

Instead of facing the facts and coping with the current reality, the Russiagate promoters in both the government and the media, are diverting our attention from the real threats.

I should add "dangerous" to those three adjectives. "Dangerous" because making an enemy of Russia, the other nuclear superpower -- yes, there are still two -- comes as close to political insanity as anything I can think of. Denying global warming may rank up there too in the long run, but only nuclear weapons pose, by their very existence in the quantities that are on station in Russia and the United States, an immediate threat to mankind -- not just to the United States and Russia and not just to "civilization." The sad, frequently forgotten fact is that since the creation of nuclear weapons, mankind has the capacity to destroy itself and join other extinct species.

In their first meeting, President Ronald Reagan and then General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." Both believed that simple and obvious truth and their conviction enabled them to set both countries on a course that ended the Cold War. We should think hard to determine how and why that simple and obvious truth has been ignored of late by the governments of both countries.

We must desist from our current Russophobic insanity and encourage Presidents Trump and Putin to restore cooperation in issues of nuclear safety, non-proliferation, control of nuclear materials, and nuclear-arms reduction. This is in the vital interest of both the United States and Russia. That is the central issue on which sane governments, and sane publics, would focus their attention. Vote up! 8 Vote down! 2

ebworthen Sat, 06/02/2018 - 18:47 Permalink

Witch hunt.

Stan522 -> ebworthen Sat, 06/02/2018 - 18:56 Permalink

The facts are whatever the media wants to make em....

[Jun 03, 2018] Real Assassin Arrested In Staged Kiev Hit Linked To Ukrainian Intelligence As Official Story Unravels Zero Hedge

Jun 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:15 37 SHARES

The Ukrainian government's staged assassination of anti-Putin journalist Arkady Babachenko has taken an even stranger turn, as evidence has emerged that his would-be "Russia-ordered" assassin and the man who supposedly hired him, both say they worked for Ukrainian counterintelligence, casting serious doubt on the official story.

To review, Ukrainian authorities announced last Tuesday that Babachenko had been assassinated after returning home from the store. On Wednesday, Babachenko appeared at a press conference with Ukrainian authorities who said that the faked assassination was an elaborate sting to bust an actual hit planned by Russia .

me title=

Only now we find that the hitman, Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk , is an outspoken critic of Russia who says he worked for Ukrainian counterintelligence - a claim Ukraine initially denied but later admitted to be true . Meanwhile the guy who supposedly hired Tsimbalyuk, Boris L. German, 50, also says he worked for Ukrainian counter-intelligence, a claim Ukraine denies as its immediately destroys the carefully scripted, if rapidly imploding, Ukrainian narrative meant to scapegoat Russia for what has been a "fake news" story of epic proportions, emerging from the one nation that not only was the biggest foreign donor to the Clinton foundation , but has made fake news propaganda into an art form.

Supposed "hitman" Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk
Boris German, suspected of organizing an attempted hit on anti-Putin Russian journalist Arkady Babachenko sits in a cage during trial in Kiev, Ukraine

The New York Times reports that Tsimbalyuk - a former Russia-hating priest was featured in a 10-minute documentary in January 2017 in which " he called killing members of the Russian-backed militias in eastern Ukraine "an act of mercy" , further calling into question why Russia would hire him for the supposed assassination in the first place.

Facebook pictures also reveal Tsimbalyuk wearing a Ukrainian ultranationalist uniform from "Right Sector," a group deemed to be neo-Nazis.

As even the Russophobic NY Times puts it:

Given such strong and publicly avowed enmity toward Russia, it is odd to say the least that Mr. Tsimbalyuk would be selected to carry out the contract killing of a prominent Kremlin critic .

German claims he took orders from Moscow businessman Vyacheslav Pivovarnik - who he says works for one of Putin's personal foundations.

Ukrainian officials also claim that German has a list of another 30 targets which Moscow wants to wipe out - something he claims he has since passed onto Kyiv.

Prosecutors claimed German had been given a down payment of $15,000, half what he was promised for carrying out the hit.

German said: 'I got a call from a longtime acquaintance who lives in Moscow, and in the process of communicating with him it turned out that he works for a Putin foundation precisely to orchestrate destabilization in Ukraine.' - Daily Mail

" Six months ago, my old acquaintance contacted me, an ex-citizen of Ukraine, now living in Moscow ," German told a Ukrainian court, adding " He works in a personal foundation of Putin's - and is in charge of organizing riots in Ukraine and planned acts of terror at the next presidential elections. He is called Vyacheslav Pivovarnik. This is not a fairy tale, there's nothing mystical here, everything has been proved."

German's lawyer Eugene Solodko wrote on Facebook that his client was an executive director of Ukrainian-German firm Schmeisser - the only non-state owned arms producer in the country.

Russia has denied German's claim, with a Putin spokesman saying "No such foundation exists in Russia. Any allegations about Russia's possible complicity in this staging is just mudslinging. They do not correspond to reality."

Meanwhile, senior Ukraine officials have been on the defensive since Wednesday, when the head of security services announced they had staged the death of Babchenko so they could track his would-be killers to Russian intelligence, a story the International Federation of Journalists slammed as idiotic, nonsensical and completely undermining Ukraine's credibility.

Comments Vote up! 12 Vote down! 0

StheNine Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:20 Permalink

So arrest a guy for a hit that didn't happen that was hyped with a fake death. Ok....

https://youtu.be/MpShLA-Y2AQ

LetThemEatRand -> StheNine Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:23 Permalink

In defense of the Ukranians, the bar has proven to be pretty low in terms of what the public will believe.

BlindMonkey -> LetThemEatRand Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:29 Permalink

I'm sure there is some dude in Langley pulling his hair out yelling "you fucking idiots! I taught you better than this!"

Leakanthrophy -> BlindMonkey Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

Victoria Nuland must be having multiple orgasms.

The cookie trained ukies did well.

el buitre -> Leakanthrophy Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:06 Permalink

I think that the Ukonazis must have been inspired by their friends at MI6's and their brilliant execution of the Skripal father and daughter hit. They needed Jihadi John Brennan to organize things for them, but he seems to be tied up at the moment. And the Thai Torturer is still getting comfortable in her new saddle. But I am confident that she will be able to execute both fake and real assassinations shortly.

MozartIII -> el buitre Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:19 Permalink

Just when you thought that the US had become a banana republic. The Ukrainian government, screws shit up as a US puppet that is beyond belief. Putin is laughing so hard that he won't sleep for days. Your right about Britain, they have been so influenced by Soros that they screw everything up as well.

Is this the year that the left falls into the bottomless pit? How can you screw everything up so bad and still live. Look at the left in the US, failure upon failure. Their media proclaims victory, yet know one believes them about anything. The corporations are keeping them afloat. Not for long!

Oh regional Indian -> MozartIII Sun, 06/03/2018 - 00:04 Permalink

The global comedy circus rolls on.

It's true though, the jews never were really creative in the first place (that is why there is no true innovation in the world, these fuckers hold tight purse strings).

It shows in their terribly scripted narratives...

gregga777 -> BlindMonkey Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

Say, how much was that so-called journalist paid to participate in the Ukro-Nazi's sheeit show?

RationalLuddite -> gregga777 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:48 Permalink

2 World Cup tickets. Not front row though as that could be too close for the next FF event's shrapnel ...

Jballsquared -> LetThemEatRand Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:39 Permalink

Dear Sam Bee,

i found your feckless cunts. They're in Ukraine with all the clintons dirty money.

Crimeans must be really bummed they aren't represented by these shitbags anymore.

bshirley1968 -> StheNine Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:27 Permalink

The arrest is an attempt to try and bring some legitimacy and damage control to a hilarious fiasco.

WTFUD -> bshirley1968 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:29 Permalink

Never let a good fiasco go to waste!

RationalLuddite -> bshirley1968 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:52 Permalink

Inspector Clouseau is looking positively aspirational at this point for the cabal proxy operatives ... Geeez Louise

Blue Steel 309 -> StheNine Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:38 Permalink

It's difficult to tell who is jewing who here. If anything these are all Mossad assets.

BarkingCat -> Blue Steel 309 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:59 Permalink

I am pretty sure that the guy named German is neither Russian nor Ukrainian and probably not German. His lineage is probably (((german))).

Blue Steel 309 -> BarkingCat Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:13 Permalink

All 3 in that top picture are confirmed chosenites.

LetThemEatRand Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:21 Permalink

The Ukranians' big mistake was not leaving the bad guy's passport at the fake murder site.

WTFUD -> LetThemEatRand Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:27 Permalink

This charade has all the hallmarks of a joint GCHQ/Ukraine Operation.

BlindMonkey -> WTFUD Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:30 Permalink

I thought this was CIA but I think you're right. This is a UK op by the same cracking team that gave you "I can't believe it's not Novichok!"

WTFUD -> BlindMonkey Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:34 Permalink

Yes, the level of incompetence is a huge tell.

khnum -> WTFUD Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:13 Permalink

or a Pink Panther movie

bh2 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:24 Permalink

Why are so many people so desperately trying to make Russia look bad and managing only to make themselves look like morons?

BarnacleBill -> bh2 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:44 Permalink

To be fair, I don't think they meant to make themselves look like morons...

gregga777 -> bh2 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:47 Permalink

Why are so many people so desperately trying to make Russia look bad and managing only to make themselves look like morons?

Uh, could it be because they are all maroons?

True Blue -> bh2 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 22:48 Permalink

Because they are morons. The short-bus crowd seems to think that every person on earth is as stupid as they; and that these are really smart, fiendishly clever plots that in reality are Scooby-Do level theatrics at best.

Wouldn't shock me if some Ken doll™ wearing a blue ascot tore off this guy's rubber mask to reveal Old Man Joe Biden who's scheme to set his idiot kid up with the biggest Porsche dealership in Europe was foiled by 'those damn kids.'

el buitre -> bh2 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:09 Permalink

I think its the fluoride in the water.

AGuy -> bh2 Sat, 06/02/2018 - 23:16 Permalink

"Why are so many people so desperately trying to make Russia look bad and managing only to make themselves look like morons?"

Public is even dumber. Just ask any joe or jane on the street. They think all this non-sense is caused by the Russians, Assad uses chemical weapons, etc

[Jun 03, 2018] Ukraine - The Babchenko Hoax Was Part Of A Corporate Raid

Jun 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ukraine - The Babchenko Hoax Was Part Of A Corporate Raid

The case of the death and resurrection of the Russian journalist Babchenko in Kiev is even more surreal than it seemed so far. According to Ukrainian sources and court documents the whole hoax was part of an attempt to raid and take over a private company.

Babchenko himself and the man who was hired to "kill" him had cooperated with the main branch of the Ukrainian national security service (SBU). The "operator", who is accused of having hired the "killer" for Russia, appeared in court. He claimed to have cooperated with the Ukrainian counter intelligence agency, which is side branch of the national security service. The accused "operator" is an executive of a private joint venture and has been under pressure over claims against his company. There are indications that the whole stunt may have been staged to get him "out of the way" to then take over the company he leads.

The suggestion is that high levels of the Ukrainian security services staged the whole affair not only to blame Russia but also for someone's personal gain.

In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open hostility against its people , came via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position. Babchenko found a job with ATR , a Crimean Tatar TV station. The fine-print on the ATR website says that it "was supported by the Media Development Fund of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine".

On May 29 the Ukrainian government claimed that Babchenko had been assassinated. As usual the death of a journalist hostile to Russia was used by NATO aligned media to blame Russia, the Kremlin and Putin. That there was zero evidence that Russia was involved did not matter at all. A photo of the allegedly killed Babchenko laying in his blood emerged.


Crisis actor Arkady Babchenko - bigger

The very next day the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko and the head of the National Security Service (SBU) Vasyl Grytsak (also written as Hrytsak) held a press conference and presented a very alive and happy Arkady Babchenko. He had not been shot at all. The whole hoax, it was explained, was launched to find the people behind an alleged assassination campaign originating in Russia. In this official version the Russians hired some Ukrainian "operator" who then hired the "killer" to assassinate Babchenko. The hired killer told the police about it and the hoax of Babchenko's death was staged to find the culprits behind the plot.

All those western "journalists" who had believed Ukrainian government claims without any evidence and wrote unfounded accusations against Russia were not amused. The Ukrainian government exposed them as the mere propaganda tools and fools they are. The "journalist" Babchenko himself, interviewed by Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky, comes off as a naive and rather dim light.

Yesterday the "hired killer", one Alexey Tsymbalyuk, went public . He is a Ukrainian nationalist who had fought against the the Russia supported entities in eastern Ukraine. He has since become an orthodox priest.

Cont. reading: Ukraine - The Babchenko Hoax Was Part Of A Corporate Raid

Den Lille Abe , Jun 1, 2018 12:48:46 PM | 1

Well done b, how the fok did you see that angle?
Nevertheless, the whole story defies imagination, I mean the scrips are wilder than a 3rd rate Hollywood flick, but maybe the Ukrainian Idiot unservices watch.
Ukraine has debased itself (Further) with this, the already known connections to the vile scumbag at Bellincat, Elliot Higgins, made people wary. Now they are not wary, but fully aware of the lies.
If we keep on being bombarded like this, eventually I will doubt who I am.
the pair , Jun 1, 2018 1:46:23 PM | 2
funny how the US/UK-established vassal puppet regime in ukraine closely resembles the ones in africa and south america. i guess you can export sociopathic ayn rand thinking anywhere and have it turn out roughly the same.

good work. it's always fun to be reminded what actual journalism looks like.

james , Jun 1, 2018 1:49:35 PM | 3
thanks b... that is pretty impressive how insane and whacked out all of these ukrainian nationals are, not to mention how they have succeeded in providing another example of how the msm at present is a real joke... i am sure the reporters are not impressed though.. the fact this story is as convoluted as it is tells me how messed up ukraine and the west are at this point.. all there attempts to smear and frame russia are looking very unstable at this point.. add this to the pile of bs that includes the white helmets, syrian defense, moderate headchoppers, and etc. etc.. i think the point is already passed where ordinary people don't trust the media as they might have in the past.. this story helps in that regard..
jsn , Jun 1, 2018 2:00:43 PM | 4
I don't believe a word of it, this is Banderastan Orthodox Easter.
Virgile , Jun 1, 2018 2:20:44 PM | 5
It is also possible that the Russian intelligence have cynically organized the fake murder affair with the aim of ridiculing and discrediting the western media and the western intelligence and their impatient leaders.
It could be Russia's revenge on the Skripal affair.
dh , Jun 1, 2018 2:21:27 PM | 6
The EU should get serious about admitting Ukraine to the club. It would mean much less paperwork for lonely European bachelors and there would be an immediate boom in the camouflage clothing and partially used military equipment business.

If only Poland could be a bit more reasonable about Galicia.

mbur , Jun 1, 2018 2:49:37 PM | 7
Am a bit confused. Was it Boris Herman the German who headed the joint venture who is referred to as 'German' in the following text? His fellow victims being SBU head Grytsak and the Prosecutor General Lutsenko? The bad guys being unnamed creditors..?
xor , Jun 1, 2018 2:51:43 PM | 8
Some insignificant imperfections:
line 5: ... As usual the death of a journalist hostile to Russia ...
line 27: ... the German (the count r y) company Schmeisser ...
line 45: ... was on l y one aspect ...

Other than that, another fine piece of investigative reporting!

Brendan , Jun 1, 2018 2:54:19 PM | 9

Another photo of Tsymbalyuk, posted by a Bellingcat guy. Even he's not hiding Tsymbalyuk's "Ukrainian nationalist" background .
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1002223184769437697/photo/1
karlof1 , Jun 1, 2018 2:54:41 PM | 10
What an excellent B movie plot! Turn it all into a screenplay and make some money b!
Rusty Pipes , Jun 1, 2018 3:18:06 PM | 11
b, perhaps you mean: "The SBU, he alleges, shook German down for some $70,000."
andrew , Jun 1, 2018 3:32:15 PM | 12
Virgile, it is hard to imagine how the Russians would have been able to involve the Ukrainian president, the head of the SBU and the prime minister among others. Those people made those choices themselves. If those people are all plants of the Russian SVR (foreign secret service) then they'd be mad to burn them in such a small scale plot and certainly not all at once.
et Al , Jun 1, 2018 3:56:53 PM | 13
Wheels within wheels? Yet more evidence that Ukraine has not left the 1990s unfortunately.

Meanwhile, Airbus is palming off old CHC H225 helicopters (that oil workers refuse to fly in after two catastrophic crashes killing everyone aboard) to the Ukraine.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ukraine-signs-55-unit-deal-with-airbus-helicopters-449103/

On the plus side, they will be used by ' ...a variety of security agencies, including the national police and border guard service.. ' so if they crash they'll mostly kill scum. Pardon my French. Who's paying for it?

b , Jun 1, 2018 3:57:57 PM | 14
@mbur Am a bit confused. Was it Boris Herman the German who headed the joint venture who is referred to as 'German' in the following text? His fellow victims being SBU head Grytsak and the Prosecutor General Lutsenko? The bad guys being unnamed creditors..?

Herman/German is the name of Boris (H and G are often interchangeable in translations from Russian). Boris is Ukrainian, not German (the country).

The SBU head seems to be on the side opposed to Boris German.

But I admit that I am not totally sure of that. I do not even know who is the bad guy here.

Who is really raiding the company? Boris, who is the executive who leads the company, or the former founder/creditor and his companions?

The case is confusing, the stories (not all are quoted above) contradict each other as do the various people telling them.

It seems clear the Boris German has been under SBU pressure for some time over the company and credit issue. Now he gets framed as a Russian asset by the SBU while he claims to have worked for the Ukrainian counter espionage department which is nominally part of the SBU but still a sort of separate service.

Here is a long, just published piece (in Russian) about his court appearance and what he said.
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/06/01/76667-organizator

If the SBU wanted him "off the street" to let someone else take over the company they got their wish fulfilled. The judge put him under 60 days pre-trial custody.

Mark2 , Jun 1, 2018 4:11:44 PM | 15
No thanks I 'm good! Think i'l sit this one out and Google Yemen.
radiator , Jun 1, 2018 4:50:24 PM | 16
@6 dh
The EU should get serious about admitting Ukraine to the club.

Definitely. An agreement like "full membership for a guaranteed intake/redistribution of 100.000 refuges per annum" would be my favourite option. Only for the fun of it, of course.

Jen , Jun 1, 2018 5:01:58 PM | 17
I am not sure that we can take Meduza.io's reporting all that seriously as its agenda is anti-Russian and, like Arkady Babchenko's Crimean Tatar TV station employer, receives some funding from the US or a US agency. Although I suppose that like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Meduza journalists do tell the truth occasionally so as to not to compete with the BBC as a complete propaganda nutcase outfit.

Whether the publicity given to the Babchenko hoax murder in deceiving a gullible Western news media will translate into success for the SBU in court is another thing. Boris Gherman may be in pre-trial detention (perhaps for his own safety) but if the court finds in his favour then what other stunt will the SBU try to pull off to shake him down? They can only pull off a successful hoax murder stunt once or twice before everyone outside Ukraine becomes suspicious and cynical.

Meanwhile real Russian journalists working in Ukraine, whether they support or don't support Russia, probably just found their jobs and their lives more endangered by the SBU than before.

Ukraine must be in really desperate straits to seize modest-sized industrial assets in the tens of thousands of US dollars, Mafia-style. It can't be long now before the country's economy and finances are put under direct control of the IMF if that organisation is to recover its loans.

ben , Jun 1, 2018 5:12:09 PM | 18
What's up with the second photo? A toy ray-gun, and a toy shotgun. WTF!!

What a circus, oh well, fits the times we live in.

Jen , Jun 1, 2018 5:13:40 PM | 19
et Al @ 13: It will be fun watching Nazis trying to fly those helioopters and crashing them. The downside is that if they crash in eastern Ukraine or near the border with Russia, you know who will get the blame.

EU taxpayers will probably have to foot the bill.

dh , Jun 1, 2018 5:31:52 PM | 20
@16 Something like that might be acceptable but it should include a clause whereby NATO agrees to get the Moskals out of Donbass.

The Babchenko story needs a new twist soon before it fades away like the Skripals.

And where is Victoria Nuland Kagan these days? Perhaps she has a plan.

Lochearn , Jun 1, 2018 6:11:30 PM | 21
Britain appears to be the must Russophobic country at the moment, while at least some of the U.S. elites appear to be more concerned about China. Guardian journalists Shaun Walker and Luke Harding have conducted a vicious campaign spanning years, and one suspects both are close to British intelligence (if you can call what they do intelligence). We know that English hatred of Russia goes back centuries, but there must be something else. Any opinions?
Jen , Jun 1, 2018 6:41:39 PM | 22
Radiator @ 16: You mean Ukraine should agree to accept Jabhat al Nusra, ISIS and other headchoppers currently holed up in Idlib once the Syrian Arab Army starts squeezing them into Turkey and Turkey in turn squeezes them into Europe?

Should be fun watching the Nazis and jihadis fight each other when they're supposed to be fighting the Donbass fighters.

Breadonwaters , Jun 1, 2018 6:48:51 PM | 23
Slightly off topic ( i apologize, but the various spellings and pronounciations of the actors in this storey are far too difficult for my poor Newfoundlander's tongue) ...i have been curious the last few years to find out:
"Who , if anyone, oversees the 'City of London'? I understand it has a special place due to history of england ....and it seems to me that all of the Financial whoremongers of the world set up shop in the 'City of London' to do their nefarious evil deeds ....but ...is there anyone actually in control of the 'City of London', other than the 'COL' itself?
PLease , anyone?
Piotr Berman , Jun 1, 2018 6:55:03 PM | 24
Ukraine must be in really desperate straits to seize modest-sized industrial assets in the tens of thousands of US dollars, Mafia-style. Posted by: Jen | Jun 1, 2018 5:01:58 PM | 17

We have tall tales explaining what happen, and the reality is too bizarre for some sensible explanation. Nevertheless, the mechanism behind "sizing modest-sized industrial assets" is not some nation-level policy, or even "SBU leadership", but most probably some personal feud. In a classic novel "Dead Souls" that take place "somewhere in Malorossia", written by Ukrainian born Gogol, the main character participated in a successful corrupt shakedown that unravelled wh one partner call another "popovich" = a son of Orthodox clergyman; the insult was probably in doubting membership to dvoryanstvo, the noble estate.

Corruption fosters something like feudal lord-vassal system, with patrons and clients, an insult to a client shows ill will to the patron, so disputes concerning smallish enterprises can percolate toward the top.

fast freddy , Jun 1, 2018 7:04:42 PM | 25
Very Good, well-reasoned and logical explanation, Piotr. Sounds about right for this caper.
Jack , Jun 1, 2018 7:04:58 PM | 26
Ha ha Shakespear comes to ming here.
What a load of plonkers.
Jack , Jun 1, 2018 7:08:13 PM | 27
So who were the real snipers in the Domain ???????????
uncle tungsten , Jun 1, 2018 8:05:42 PM | 28
Thank you b for a great morning read and laugh. Cynical laugh, that is.
@jen #17: "It can't be long now before the country's economy and finances are put under direct control of the IMF if that organisation is to recover its loans."

Thanks jen I appreciate your input here. The IMF is the mafia and they are in control in that they 'issue the permit' to minor oligarchs to steal in return for guaranteed arms purchases from the IMF primary backers. This is a deeply corrupted system and it is truly alarming.

I never did see a story on how those two enormous arms depots were destroyed in Ukraine but it must have seriously damaged the Ukrainian economy as they were all likely headed to the 'anti isis' fake war games in Africa or the ME.

Debsisdead , Jun 1, 2018 8:48:44 PM | 29
Oh well any people 40 and under or thereabouts who use this site would be smart to pick their corporation now, because this will be SOP if the evil arseholes prevail. Sovereign entities in the form of geographically defined nation states will take a back seat as Google goes to war with Instagram, snapchat with facebook in the hope that the former FB monolith can be separated from it's now dominant overlord, instagram .
Of course the fact that Google shareholders may have neighbors in their gated community whose hedge fund is big in Instagram will make everything piquant for the un-allied masses who like their grandparents never got around to 'registering' with any of the pr1cks.
WorldBLee , Jun 1, 2018 8:54:43 PM | 30
Not sure if these new assertions are credible or not, but either way this escapade is full up on crazy. When the west says that Ukraine has 'western values,' is this what they mean?
Pft , Jun 1, 2018 9:29:02 PM | 31
Breadonwaters.

City of London is run by a corporation of the same name and headed by the Lord Mayor who is elected by the corporations in the city

psychohistorian , Jun 1, 2018 9:45:59 PM | 32
@ Breadonwaters asking about the City of London

Pft's answer is as good as any.

Does Newfoundland support Trust Funds or their like? Ask yourself why there is not public reporting of the largest trust funds in our Western world....maybe the same reason you don't know who pulls the strings behind the COL curtain.

To the subject of this posting by b, I think about how many other "two-bit players" the elite have groomed for disruption of this, that or whatever is needed....public manipulation by any means and morals are for weaklings sort of attitude.

librul , Jun 1, 2018 10:19:22 PM | 33
"Dig a deeper hole" or "Go for the Big Lie"?

Which is more apropos?

'We found Russian hit-list of 47 people', Ukraine tells allies'

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-journalist/we-found-russian-hit-list-of-47-people-ukraine-tells-allies-idUSKCN1IX5SO


KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine, seeking to reassure its Western allies after faking the murder of a Russian dissident to thwart what it said was a plot on his life, told them on Friday its ruse led to the discovery of a hit-list of 47 people whom Russia planned to kill abroad.

Can we laugh yet?

Palloy , Jun 1, 2018 11:31:32 PM | 34
That article needs a 1 paragraph who-what-when-why-where overview before the detailed analysis starts, especially when the details are all so dubious.
S , Jun 1, 2018 11:55:27 PM | 35
In the video linked to by b, Poroshenko says:
Знаєш, просто серце сжимається, коли бачиш, як в редакціях телеканалів, як в офісах -- сьогодні я бачив реакцію -- я ж про це все знав, а ніхто в адміністрації про це не знав.

You know, it pained my heart when I saw how in the TV channels' newsrooms, in the offices -- I saw the reaction today -- you see, I knew everything about it, but nobody in the administration knew about it.

Brian , Jun 2, 2018 12:14:45 AM | 36
Acquaintance from Moscow who works for a 'Putin foundation'?!
Does that even make any sense ?
Jen , Jun 2, 2018 1:28:53 AM | 37
Breadonwaters @ 23:

You could always contact the City of London municipal government directly:
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/about-us/Pages/how-to-find-us.aspx

or you could read Nicolas Shaxson's book "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World"
http://treasureislands.org/the-book/

Uncle Tungsten @ 28:

My guess is that those army depots were deliberately allowed to deteriorate to the point where the munitions "spontaneously" combusted. The Ukrainians are probably treating them as write-offs, figuring that these can be replaced by free ammunition from the US, Canada or other countries if they (the Ukrainians, that is) jump up and down often enough and loudly enough about the encroaching Russian "menace".

Ross , Jun 2, 2018 4:58:49 AM | 38
@Breadonwaters | Jun 1, 2018 6:48:51 PM | 23

The earlier answers were not correct. The Corporation of the City of London is controlled by its 13 man (naturally!) board. This is known as 'The Crown'. People naturally assume that term applies to the monarch but this is not the case, it is one of the many passive deceptions played out on us. The Lord Mayor of the City is a ceremonial role rotated on an annual basis.

To show who is really in charge consider this. Once a year the Queen turns up at one of the City gates dressed in her ordinary clothes. She awaits the Mayor who comes out in his full ceremonial regalia including chain of office. The Queen bows, thens begs permission to enter the City. So who is sovereign there?

So there was not 'a' British empire as such, but two concurrent empires as the 'Crown colonies' were all directly owned by the City and not by 'Britain'.

There are many layers of deception played out on us by these evil entities, and the status of the City is one of them. It is an epicentre of evil in this world. Unsurprisingly we are not taught any of this stuff at school, and there has never been a BBC documentary on the matter.

I don't think I want to comment more on this ridiculous farce. It must be obvious to even the daftest Brexiteer (They are uniquely stupid) that Ukrainistan is "FAIL !!"
Even a bachelor myself :) I say thank you but NO! Off course there are decent people in Ukraine, as there are in the US, we just can't hear them. I have met people from all parts of the world and you can divide them in two: Arseholes and non-arseholes.
The arseholes we just send to Coventry, the non-arseholes are maybe not aligned with your political opinion, way of life etc. but they always are respectful about their non-alignment, as you should be to them.
I am a socialist, no a Socialist, and I have conservative friends, it is not a problem, to me at least.
But Ukraine, sigh, what to do.... Well there is a nice place, where there is nature in abundance, it is called Pripyat, so if we can export the remaining xx million neo-nazis to the US and Canada, it can all be a nature reserve, under joint EU-Russian control.
And the US and Canada will be happy, their people have come home, maybe even Israel could be persuaded to the same trick...
Imagine the Zio's would have free reign on a continent, they can fight or hold marches together.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe , Jun 2, 2018 5:43:45 AM | 39

I don't think I want to comment more on this ridiculous farce. It must be obvious to even the daftest Brexiteer (They are uniquely stupid) that Ukrainistan is "FAIL !!"
Even a bachelor myself :) I say thank you but NO! Off course there are decent people in Ukraine, as there are in the US, we just can't hear them. I have met people from all parts of the world and you can divide them in two: Arseholes and non-arseholes.
The arseholes we just send to Coventry, the non-arseholes are maybe not aligned with your political opinion, way of life etc. but they always are respectful about their non-alignment, as you should be to them.
I am a socialist, no a Socialist, and I have conservative friends, it is not a problem, to me at least.
But Ukraine, sigh, what to do.... Well there is a nice place, where there is nature in abundance, it is called Pripyat, so if we can export the remaining xx million neo-nazis to the US and Canada, it can all be a nature reserve, under joint EU-Russian control.
And the US and Canada will be happy, their people have come home, maybe even Israel could be persuaded to the same trick...
Imagine the Zio's would have free reign on a continent, they can fight or hold marches together.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Jun 2, 2018 5:43:45 AM | 39 /div

Den Lille Abe , Jun 2, 2018 5:51:29 AM | 40
On another note:
Denmark has had a May month with more than 350 hours of sun and almost warmest ever. Several counties prohibited garden watering.
Malmoe town in Sweden cautioning people not to use sprinklers on their lawns, the waterworks cant keep up in production. (Sweden has immense freshwater reserves, like Finland) and is a large country with only 10 million.
And Orangeturd in the WH says climate change is a hoax... I hope to see his Florida Trumpland in the swells of the Atlantic.
somebody , Jun 2, 2018 5:55:37 AM | 41
Posted by: Lochearn | Jun 1, 2018 6:11:30 PM | 21

Bill Browder will be one of the reasons.

Another Russian oligarchs made by neoliberal reforms in the 1990s Thomas Piketty

According to our estimates, the offshore assets alone held by wealthy Russians exceed one year of GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official financial assets held by Russian households. In other words, the natural wealth of the country, (which, let it be said in passing, would have done better to remain in the ground to limit global warming) has been massively exported abroad to sustain opaque structures enabling a minority to hold huge Russian and international financial assets. These rich Russians live between London, Monaco and Moscow: some have never left Russia and control their country via offshore entities. Numerous intermediaries and Western firms have also recouped large crumbs on the way and continue to do so today in sport and the media (sometimes this is referred to as philanthropy). The extent of the misappropriation of funds has no equal in history.

There has been an attempt to turn Russian emigres against Russia by threatening their capital - the sanctions basically warn oligarchs " not to be close to Putin ".

The case of oligarchs' "closeness to Putin" is less obvious. Any discussion of it should start with the term "oligarch," which, when it came into broad usage in Russia in the mid-1990s, referred to a group of people who had succeeded at state capture. The reason the Putin-era elite rejects the term is that the state turned the tables on those particular people. Essentially, it captured their assets without confiscating them.

Britains main industry is financial services. Of course they have the main problem if Russia is not playing by "the rules".

Over all, Russia is disappointing Western investors.

Like this

Western oil majors have been attempting to gain access to Russia's enormous oil reserves since the break-up of the Soviet Union, but have often found themselves stymied by local oligarchs and domestic politics.

Germany is different as they are not so much interested in financial services but business. And that business is seriously hit by sanctions not by the Russian state.

Rhisiart Gwilym , Jun 2, 2018 6:23:32 AM | 42
Regarding the City of London corruption cesspit: It's more apt to say that it runs Britain, rather then the British government controlling it. Think of it as the traditional world-looting centre of what's left of the English empire, still going strong, although the empire is just a fag-end of what it was, and the imperial military machine is a shrunken joke compared to its hey-day - but still killing people and destroying things overseas, and operating as an assistant attack-dog for the Anglozionist empire in its global looting operations, even now.

The City appears to operate as a handy top-of-the-range monetary and financial swindling and laundering centre for the USukiznato-axis powers (and indeed for freebooter gangsters from anywhere in the world, as long as they come with large sums of money in their hands; a leading centre for laundering global drugs-trade money, for example); with Frankfurt as a possible competitor, I suppose. It clarifies matters if you think of the City as a continuing loot-source for the small English-raj class, who are still the entrenched controllers of most of what goes or doesn't go in Britain; and think of the Conservative party in Paedominster (the London parliament) as the political-wing of the raj, in the 'democratic' politics theatre carried on there, solely to serve the rajistas' perceived interests.

The British tories and their various me-too clones in the other parties loathe like poison any hint of real, popular, glasnostic democracy, of course, and are in politics to make sure that it never takes hold in The Isles (Dáil Éireann in Eire being a rather unwelcome growth in that respect, especially as the island of Eire slides slowly towards re-unification; with the other rival national parliaments in The Isles, weak though they are currently, being seen as further irritating thorns in the English-raj class's flesh). One reason that Jeremy Corbyn and the grassroots support that he attracts are so loathed and so virulently traduced currently is because they represent a genuine upsetting threat to this centuries-old traditional arrangement. If JC makes it to Downing Street, expect to see coup d'etat scams set going to neutralise him one way or another, including lots of CoL shenanigans - though of course all done in the style of 'A Very British Coup' (qv).

Rancid , Jun 2, 2018 7:51:03 AM | 43
Dear oh dear, seems the Keystone Cops are still alive and well in the Ukraine. Excellent forensics on this latest insult to the intelligence, well for the minority in any case. I suppose Ukraine still has a ways to go to get as smooth as the West in its false flags, but we should in all fairness give a newcomer time to get up to speed. No doubt they will soon be BS-ing with the best of them.
Den Lille Abe , Jun 2, 2018 10:15:08 AM | 44
The British defending the free world: According to the Independent (prolly a lie) the Royal nave sent a destroyer and a heli to "escort" a Russian "naval" vessel through the Channel... WTF!!!!
The Channel, last I remembered is International Waterway, like the belts in Denmark, and everybody can pass. Russian need no foking escort or to be harassed, they have the right like anybody, to pass through.
The British are getting increasingly annoying, maybe I should ask my European MEP if they have found a final solution to "The British Problem" namely tell them to fok off.
They are continuously trying to set of Europe in another conflict it does not want. I say we go fighting, invade and start killing civvies in Birmingham and Chelsea and central London. We will start at Westminster.
These guys are mad they will get us in another war. Which we abhor.
Foking Tory dimwits, when is the people going to wake up? Their beer is thin, their women ugly, their climate awful, what makes them so docile?
Zanon , Jun 2, 2018 10:31:06 AM | 45
Den Lille Abe

Of course its true, they always does this of some dumb reason,
this is from 2016 for example,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKWThC9DsiY

V , Jun 2, 2018 10:31:19 AM | 46
Den Lille Abe | Jun 2, 2018 10:15:08 AM | 44
Their beer is thin, their women ugly, their climate awful, what makes them so docile?

Ignorance and a lack of critical thinking ability...

Petri Krohn , Jun 2, 2018 10:35:03 AM | 47
SUPPOSE SBU DID NOT SHOOT DOWN MH17

Would they still create fake video evidence just to "catch the real Russian BUK"?

Bob Ford , Jun 2, 2018 10:44:37 AM | 48
I can't wait to see the movie. This story has twists and turns worthy of a suspense thriller. For comic relief, we have the western "news" media, behaving like dunces in the midst of all this intrigue.
b , Jun 2, 2018 11:29:46 AM | 49
@jen @17 - I am not sure that we can take Meduza.io's reporting all that seriously as its agenda is anti-Russian

I am well aware that Meduza has an agenda but they do also provide valid news. I recently mused about this problem: On Sources And Information - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights .

I have counterchecked the Meduza piece I quoted. It is basically a copy of an Interfax report. The English Meduza version was simply easier to quote. The facts in it are also confirmed by the longer piece I linked in comment 14.

@BreadonWaters @23 - is there anyone actually in control of the 'City of London', other than the 'COL' itself?
PLease , anyone?

In 2011 George Monbiot (who is now basically an asshole) wrote an explanation of the 'City of London' status. A bunch of banks who actually can impose their will on Britain:
The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories.

@Piotr @24 - an excellent explanation.

@Palloy - That article needs a 1 paragraph who-what-when-why-where overview before the detailed analysis starts, especially when the details are all so dubious.

I have added a bit at the top but I am not sure it helps. This stuff is so unbelievably crazy that is difficult to summarize.

J Rob , Jun 2, 2018 11:35:23 AM | 50
Mark @ 15:
It's also spelled 'Hoogle'.
Mark2 , Jun 2, 2018 11:38:50 AM | 51
Den Lille Abe
You just described the fall of the Roman Empire and most other empires in history!
Ah there's hope yet! Cheered us all up no end. I'm with you bro.
Jihadi Colin , Jun 2, 2018 11:41:47 AM | 52
Here's my contribution to the discussion:

https://ragheadthefiendlyterrorist.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/one-fakers-death-in-ukranazistan/

Probably not too helpful, but I had fun drawing it.

Humbaba , Jun 2, 2018 11:45:01 AM | 53
The German company Schmeisser has denied that it has anything to do with the Ukrainian company Schmyser.
Winston , Jun 2, 2018 12:21:39 PM | 54
Corporation is old English for council,it used to be slang for working for the
council.It was the first enterprise zone in modern parlance to develop the core of London.
The original six Worshipfull Companies, or Trade Guilds own the CoL corporation.
It owns all the land within the CoL boundaries, its a landlord to the Banking scum,
not the scum itself.
As a member of one of the six Companies attending meetings at Guild Hall, its a combo
of a property managers conference/royal tea party.Hardly SPECTRE.
james , Jun 2, 2018 12:52:50 PM | 55
interesting how the conversation has spun over to the city of london.. i agree with the brief history @41 somebody offers.. also @42 Rhisiart Gwilym and Den Lille Abe's comments on this as well..

@52 jihadi.. nice artwork on the topic... thanks.

hopehely , Jun 2, 2018 1:03:10 PM | 56
Posted by: Winston | Jun 2, 2018 12:21:39 PM | 54
Corporation is old English for council,it used to be slang for working for the
council.

And council in Russian is soviet.
The original six Worshipfull Companies, or Trade Guilds own the CoL corporation.

The union of councils, eh? ;-)
Mark2 , Jun 2, 2018 4:43:26 PM | 57
In the interest of networking, useful ground roots reporting and being less dependent on this one fantastic site-Moa I'd suggest googling- '
Winter Oak Press. Totally different but heart in the right place !!!
Jen , Jun 2, 2018 5:49:59 PM | 58
B @ 49: Thanks for clarifying the source of Meduza.io's report.

Interestingly RT.com, quoting Ukranews.com, offers a different view: that Boris Gherman was framed for plotting a hit on Babchenko after he refused an offer of lenient treatment by law enforcement officers (for whatever he may have done or not done in the past, including the recent past) in return for testifying against someone else.
https://www.rt.com/news/428392-ukraine-fake-falling-appart/

"... According to ukranews.com, German was offered a deal by the investigators, who offered him leniency in exchange of testifying against a person who was not named by the officials. The source said he rejected the offer and also said the businessman works with arms procurement for the Ukrainian army.

Strana.ua said its source confirmed that German had connections in the arms business. It also added that he was apparently framed by the Ukrainian law enforcement, which offered him to take part in a sting operation.

"It was a clear set up, a provocation. Now the man, who came to him with the suggestion, has disappeared and the SBU claims he was working for the Russian intelligence, but they don't have any clear evidence to prove it," the source is cited as saying ..."

Ash , Jun 2, 2018 6:12:12 PM | 59
It was bad enough to have read the vile comments of the toxic troll calling itself 'Den Lille Abe' above, full of hateful, racist, mysogynist, terroristic and wannabe mass-murdering bile. Bad enough that he wants to massacre me and countless other civilians in Britain (actually we already have the UK state-backed ISIS trying to do that, thanks) but to see a whooping chorus of approval from many other posters was just too much to stomach.

It's bad enough to have to put up with a sinister cabal of warmongering scumbags running the West, with their corrupt and blackmailed presstitutes blaring out their lies, but when one of the few places I had hoped to hear a credible and intelligent opposition is sinking to this level I just despair. I really do.

How should I continue to persuade my countrymen to question the bellicosity of their rulers? By showing them the vicious poison of Den Lille Abe and its cheerleaders and saying "hey, these are my pals who are also opposing the empire?".

This creature and his supporters are as bad as the headchoppers themselves and their powerful sponsors. The pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

With a mass sentiment like this proudly on display I cannot continue to recommend this site to anyone, or link to it. I realise that the internet is full of repulsive cretins like Den Lille Abe, and that site owners are not responsible for some of the trash that is written under their articles, but filth like that surely can only harm the excellent work Mr B does (assuming he does not also agree with their position, and if he does I would be wracked with guilt for having financially supported him).

james , Jun 2, 2018 6:30:21 PM | 60
@59 ash.. i am curious.. what was the most challenging comment that den lille abe said that motivated you to say all this?
Mark2 , Jun 2, 2018 6:40:16 PM | 61
It's called empathy! It seems OK to distroy other people's country but not our own?
Self defence is not violence.
Tens of millions killed by the west. But when someone hypathticly points out a picture of your city being distroyed you suddenly wake up! You just got caught out. We are all equally important in this world. So please stay and help stop the madness.
dh , Jun 2, 2018 6:44:03 PM | 62
@59 I assume you are referring to Den Lille Abe's rather ignorant comment "Their beer is thin, their women ugly, their climate awful, what makes them so docile?".

I don't see a 'whooping chorus of approval'. I thought it was pretty stupid myself but anti-British sentiment runs deep here for some reason. I know a lot of people in the UK are very unhappy about the state of things. I guess they just aren't sure what to do about it. Perhaps DLA does have a point about docility but he could apply the same standard to Scandinavia.

Mark2 , Jun 2, 2018 6:44:44 PM | 63
Also may I ask your view on your own gov?and how you propose to stop there violence ?
hopehely , Jun 2, 2018 6:51:47 PM | 64
Posted by: dh | Jun 2, 2018 6:44:03 PM | 62
I don't see a 'whooping chorus of approval'.

Of course not. IMO their beer is not thin at all. It is actually pretty good.
dh , Jun 2, 2018 6:56:31 PM | 65
@62 The beer isn't bad at all and they import a lot anyway for fussy drinkers. The women do tend to run a little on the heavy side these days. And the climate can be awful which is why so many of them moved to Spain. That said I think DLA needs to reflect on his opinion.
Daniel , Jun 2, 2018 9:57:38 PM | 66
Off-Guardian has an excellent article, What if Babchenko had decided to stay "dead"?

A few quotes from it with my comments.

" at its deepest level, consensual reality is a fragile thing that can very easily have nothing to do with truth or fact or actual reality."

At its best - when no" special interests" are manipulating an entry - this describes Wikipedia.

" the issue was going to be "who did it?" not "was it even done?"

Not even. The whodoneit was already "answered" in the very unveiling of the "news." The issue was going to be "how are we - who are all goodness and light and truth and freedom - going to "bring justice" to the perp?"

"See how little it occurred to any of us, even those who make a habit of interrogating narratives, to ask whether or not it really happened."

And this is why I have been saying I have no reason to believe that the Skirpal poisoning ever really happened.

If they were meant to be dead, they'd almost certainly be dead.

If they were meant to survive, then why take the chance of actually poisoning them, regardless of what agent was allegedly used?

"Question More."

V , Jun 2, 2018 10:56:45 PM | 67
The west's grasp of reality is but a gossamer of what's real.
b does a pretty good job of keeping us grounded.
Walk barefoot on grass and dirt...
psychohistorian , Jun 2, 2018 11:53:24 PM | 68
ZH has a posting up now shown in the link below and followed with a couple of quotes....the writer likes "meanwhile..."

"Real" Assassin Arrested In Staged Kiev Hit Linked To Ukrainian Intelligence As Official Story Unravels

"
Meanwhile the guy who supposedly hired Tsimbalyuk, Boris L. German, 50, also says he worked for Ukrainian counter-intelligence, a claim Ukraine denies as its immediately destroys the carefully scripted, if rapidly imploding, Ukrainian narrative meant to scapegoat Russia for what has been a "fake news" story of epic proportions, emerging from the one nation that not only was the biggest foreign donor to the Clinton foundation , but has made fake news propaganda into an art form.
"
"
Meanwhile, senior Ukraine officials have been on the defensive since Wednesday, when the head of security services announced they had staged the death of Babchenko so they could track his would-be killers to Russian intelligence, a story the International Federation of Journalists slammed as idiotic, nonsensical and completely undermining Ukraine's credibility.
"

Debsisdead , Jun 3, 2018 12:50:40 AM | 69
Hiya it is a grey sunday afternoon here with the view out my back window over the back paddock obscured by a drizzle haze which is atypical for these parts where the weather at this time of year is either wet in a absolutely p1ssing down but warmish way, or dry, sunny and pink bits-shriveling cold.
I dunno what's up with that but the break from usual sunday arvo routines has given me time between the weekly family catch ups via voip to try and learn what howlingpixel a site I have been using in lieu of wikipedia is about.

I have learned sfa since a net search has only the site's own 'about' page which I will not consider; being as I never trust that sorta self serving nfo sharing.

Does anyone know any of howlingpixel's history - who runs it, pays for it etc?

V , Jun 3, 2018 1:17:51 AM | 70
Debsisdead | Jun 3, 2018 12:50:40 AM | 69

Never heard of it; but found this;

https://www.easycounter.com/report/howlingpixel.com

Cortes , Jun 3, 2018 3:13:15 AM | 71
Debsisdead @29

The corporate nightmare you outline has been depicted in the classic

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants

by Kornbluth and Pohl. The sequel, by Pohl alone, is logical.

Debsisdead , Jun 3, 2018 5:30:03 AM | 72
Posted by: V | Jun 3, 2018 1:17:51 AM | 70
Thanks V I had seen that as one of the few non howlingpixel references to howlingpixel I could find - it appears to be some sort of net traffic counter website.

Posted by: Cortes | Jun 3, 2018 3:13:15 AM | 71
There is nothing new under the sun eh. Although must give Pohl his due, the whimper that humankind seems likely to expire with, was much less predictable in 1953 than it is in 2018.
I'm still a little hopeful that the lack of common geographic proximity will make corporate entities more difficult to unite mugs behind than nation states have found when cranking up jingoism.

somebody , Jun 3, 2018 6:08:10 AM | 73
72
According to Wikipedia Howling Pixel is the mobile version of Wikipedia.

see Wikipedia mirrors and forks

V , Jun 3, 2018 6:13:13 AM | 74
somebody | Jun 3, 2018 6:08:10 AM | 73

That would be a good reason to steer clear of both sites, IMO.

craigsummers , Jun 3, 2018 8:50:13 AM | 75
In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open hostility against its people, came via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position.

You mean he was adversarial to the Russian government. That hardly makes him "hostile" to the Russian people, but that does put his life in danger. Just ask the six journalists from Novaya Gazeta murdered during Putin's rein.

Don Karlos , Jun 3, 2018 9:45:41 AM | 76
@craigsummers 75

Yes and no.

There is a major logical fallacy in using past criminal cases in justifying present fakes.

PS:

*Babchenko in Vilnus, 'Open Russia', 12 April 2018 "...the one who is responsible is not Putin's regime, but Russia", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGeiabB6kM , 4:50 and 9:00

*Just ask the six journalists, -who?
Anna Politkovskaya (well known/look up), Yury Shchekochikhin (illness and suspected poisoning, 'open verdict'); Baburova (journalist) and Markelov (lawyer, not journalist), killed by a neo-Nazi couple who were caught and sentenced for life; Estemirova, run into problems, kidnapped and killed in Chechnya. And number 6 is ?

Charles R , Jun 3, 2018 9:56:53 AM | 77
Why would the suspect have hired the same hitman all at once to carry out multiple crimes that were so different?

Ukraine's National Security Agency says Boris German (who was named the suspect in Babchenko's case on May 31) was instructed to do even more than have 30 people killed: he was also supposed to stockpile secret weapons caches throughout Ukraine. German's lawyer says his client is the executive director of the Ukrainian-German company "Schmeisser" -- the only private arms manufacturer in Ukraine.

This might explain why Boris German would have been selected to arrange the secret weapons caches, but it remains unclear why he would have been the man to entrust with the organization of 30 murders. These two crimes -- the murders and the secret weapons caches -- appear to be two separate projects.

From a Meduza piece suggested after the Meduza article b linked above (the 'went' link).

Has anyone seen more information about these weapons caches? Is it true that Schmeisser is the only 'private' arms manufacturer in the Ukraine?

If b's right that the interior logic of the assassination hoax is about ownership/control of the company, what is the point of the weapons caches accusation? Perhaps this also gives SBU cover to either "find" these weapons in the wrong hands or cover over/disavow past trades they don't want acknowledged. (Makes me think about Paddock in Vegas or the kid caught with all those guns in California who claimed to be with Omar Mateen and also set up... )

Or maybe this gives 'legal' cover to raid other places in search of those secreted weapons?

Charles R , Jun 3, 2018 10:07:25 AM | 78
Also, in the Zerohedge piece psychohistorian (~@68) linked, one picture shows Tsymbalyuk wearing a top with an embroidered swastika. The NYT article b linked above (the Russophobic link) is only willing to say that "some portray" Right Sector as neo-nazi.
Den Lille Abe , Jun 3, 2018 10:13:22 AM | 79
So Denmark now erects fences to keep swine fewer out of Denmark. Cool and good. (Germans are lax) but Trump is arriwing in London this summer? WTF Is fat piece of garbage to come in via the idiot British regulations ? He is....
Had he been my pig we would have had him this Christmas, he is growing stale now and too fat, only winter food is he good for. Gule ærter, Brunkål and so. Any pig will do for those courses.
Den Lille Abe , Jun 3, 2018 10:24:58 AM | 80
At Dh generally @ blah-blah

I don not live in the "paradise" called England, I live in Scandinavia. We are quite well off thank you. We have not got much room for you English serfs. :) There you got it. We do not respect you, because you have always voted "out". No foking go and die in obscurity.
Your idiot public shall bear the consequences as the Germans did in 1945, England is reduced to a two bit whore, I rejoice personally, as I have ancestors who died at Brit hands 200 years ago-and no repentance!! Germany paid repentance at least morally.
So please fok off. Accordinf to stats you will soon anyway. You are just taking up oxygen needed by other living stuff, snails etc.

Debsisdead , Jun 3, 2018 10:25:59 AM | 81
Posted by: somebody | Jun 3, 2018 6:08:10 AM | 73

It actually says " Like mobile version of Wikipedia" Then wikipedia rates it 'low/none'. It appears to be one of those reference sites which scrapes some wikipedia pages as well as other sources. I'm going to use it in preference to wikipedia esp for non-controversial stuff eg it had a list of cabinet members of the June 1 Italian Government before anywhere else (how I stumbled across it from a yandex search) until I know one way or another how objective it is. I don't wanna give wikipedia any page clicks at all after the Phillip Cross bizzo. If Howling Pixel is just as biased towards western propaganda I shall look for another source. We still don't know who funds it. I use an ad blocker so I dunno if it tries to pop at me - if it does, it doesn't whinge about the blocker.
In the end a reference source is still essential for background info.

Noirette , Jun 3, 2018 10:45:26 AM | 82
Ha ha, great exposé b. - it all just gets nuttier. one couldn't make this up and put it in a movie, no way.

Ukraine was the country that 'suffered' the most from the USSR dissolution. In terms of GDP per capita, population, health, 'democratic advances' (depending on definition some are no good etc.), schooling, flourishing culture, etc.

Why exactly idk, nor does anybody else imho, as there are dozens of partial explanations.

I favor the happenstance of a collection of particularly crazed and rapacious oligarchs; being 'rich and large' (thus a prey), and pehaps the East-West thing, in the sense that a partition into two federated quasi-states might have saved it. Ukr. was color-revolutionized Orange in 2004, a failure, always does great harm, and no doubt the failure infuriated the W powers.

Since then it has been mad-cap downhill, its territory subject to carving. Crimea retuned to Russia (ok), and in other circs. all would have been no prob. The Donbass is now a separate territory (subject to the foreign-directed GWOT from Kiev), terrible situation, in limbo, Russia cannot take it over and Kiev cannot re-integrate it, and it cannot become independent without *massive* outside support which nobody will provide. Galicia seems to be out of control of the Center as well. (Look up news articles.) In short, Ukraine provides a terrain for 'proxy wars' as it is large and rich.

and to date US and Germany (>..EU) have lost in Ukr. - Crimea and de facto the Donbass.

Bombing Yugoslavia, destroying and breaking it up sucessfully can't be repeated in Ukraine. Which leads to anger, disdain, and victim blaming, and in fine stasis for a while, and then abandonment. The IMF will continue to 'support' but they hate it.

bevin , Jun 3, 2018 1:42:26 PM | 83
"You mean he was adversarial to the Russian government. That hardly makes him "hostile" to the Russian people, but that does put his life in danger."craigsummers@75

He appears to have made himself unpopular by dancing on the graves of the Choir which was killed, en route to Syria, in a plane crash. Unpopular, that is, with most Russians, Putin and decent people everywhere.

"Just ask the six journalists from Novaya Gazeta murdered during Putin's rein."
Are they the source of your information?
How many dozens of journalists were killed, every month, when the US, through Yeltsin reined in Russia? In the past month we have seen three journalists and several medicos killed by Israel in Gaza, with the enthusiastic support of the US government.

[Jun 03, 2018] Poland Under the Jewish Messiah, by Israel Shamir - The Unz Review

Jun 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [411] Disclaimer , June 2, 2018 at 5:46 am GMT

@Dimitrij

Polack is, effectively, almost any Polish national who dances upon the official fairy-telling narrative of Polish state puppeteers. In that Marvelous Universe, Poland is a truly indispensable part of the West, for its glorious deeds of once Saving the Christendom in Vienna, and containing the Bear all other time.

In reality, it is a loser entity that 'Cannot Into Space' on many historic occasions – mostly from building multi-ethnic empire to invading Russia. Poles suffer from being surrounded by equally capable neighbors, Russians and Germans. Chopin is good, but he is neither Mozart nor Chaikovsky, and to have such genii, one has to build empire first, and then enjoy imperial music and literature.

For the West, Poland is an 'useful idiot' or a dupe, never treated as equal partner. In Western (Capitalist) division of nations labor Poles are The Exploited. They are 1) cannon fodder from Vienna to Monte-Cassino 2) theater of war and destruction to prevent Russians from entering and destroying True Europe 3) cheap labor or preferrable white slaves 4) one who pays for everything. Today, option 3 is fullfilled, others are selected by the the West. Poland is a still a resource, and will be consumed by the West on any pretext. To the East, there is a Big Brother that has its own resources.

We Russians used to treat the Polish identity illness, by capturing Warsaw many times. The prognosis is still grave. Dear Polish brethren, we have no other options for you. Stick with the West, keep your Catholic dreams and continue to perish. When you go critical, we may think of surgery again.

El Dato , June 2, 2018 at 7:11 am GMT

The US decided, by promulgating Act 447, that a Polish Jew has never been a citizen of Poland; he was a member of Jewry, and his property should revert to Jewry, not to the Goyish Polish state.

It is nice that the US issues laws that are supposed to have effect in other states; the slightly tipsy Galactus of Democracy is in his Heaven, all is right with the World.

It means that they can seize property of recently deceased ones in the Homeland and embiggen the Tribe, But how are they going to enforce it in Poland? Sanctions? Threats to move NATO out of Poland? No F-35 for you?

(Also, did the Scriptures say anything about when the Monstrously Swollen Jewish Messiah will meet Ultra-Confucius for a Battle at the End of Times?)

Tom Welsh , June 2, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
"Poland has no future as the forward base against Moscow "

That has to be the understatement of the century (so far).

Any place used as a "forward base against Moscow" will be flattened and incinerated.

As would American tanks about 30 seconds after they crossed the Russian border.

The King is A Fink , June 2, 2018 at 9:55 am GMT

The West pushed the Poles to rise against Germans in 1944, hoping to re-establish anti-Russian Poland once again, but did nothing when the rebels bled to death. (Well, not exactly nothing: they complained why Russian soldiers do not want to die for them).

Please do not forget the extraordinary role of the RAF and SAAF aircrews who flew supplies to the Home Army in Warsaw from bases in southern Italy. Many of them lost their lives and are buried in a Commonwealth cemetery in Krakow.

Romano , June 2, 2018 at 10:31 am GMT
Magnificent article . Pole troops even invaded Spain with Napoleon , those " catholic " Poles did not seem to feel bad for joining antichristian French revolutionary armies invading Catholic Spain .

Polish Pope John Paul II , Woytila , joined forces with Reagan and Thatcher , with the most wild anglosaxon imperialism , against the rest of the world . John Paul II , with his 27 year pontificate , left the Catholic Church devastated , the Catholic churches empty , the people faithless .

When Polacks , baltics , and other weirdo countries of eastern europe joined the EU I realized that the EU had no future .

Poland is a very sinister country , a factor of endless conflicts .

lavoisier , Website June 2, 2018 at 10:32 am GMT
This was fascinating and revealing.

To liken Jewry to a feudal order of obligations and ownership explains a lot about their collective behavior.

I hope the Polish people tell the United States to go to hell.

Perhaps there is little that we as Americans can do right now to stop the control freaks in our Zionist controlled government from behaving like ruthless feudal landlords, but I am hoping that the rest of the Western world removes the American boot off its neck and tells the US to -- - off.

[Jun 02, 2018] FBI Spying On Trump Started In London, Earlier Than Thought, New Texts Implicate Obama White House

Notable quotes:
"... Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill ..."
"... A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened. ..."
"... "We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. ..."
"... John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe." ..."
"... The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation ("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was spearheading the investigation. ..."
Jun 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
A new report from John Solomon of The Hill ties together several loose threads floating around over the genesis of the FBI/DOJ espionage operation against the Trump campaign, who was involved in the "setup" of campaign aides, and how text messages between FBI employees suggest that the Obama White House was not only aware of the operation - but possibly directing it .

Not only is the timeline moved up from the summer of 2016 to spring, Solomon provides clarification on early contacts between the players involved in DOJ/FBI sting and Trump campaign aides.

The bridge to the Russia investigation wasn't erected in Moscow during the summer of the 2016 election.

It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, where foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders reveal. These contacts in spring 2016 -- some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters -- occurred well before FBI headquarters authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.

The new timeline makes one wonder: Did the FBI follow its rules governing informants? - The Hill

" The revelation of purposeful contact initiated by alleged confidential human sources prior to any FBI investigation is troublesome ," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), an ally of President Trump and chairman of a House subcommittee that's taking an increasingly aggressive oversight role in the scandal, told me. " This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were they reporting to and why has the [Department of Justice] and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts ? "

Retired assistant FBI director for intelligence Kevin Brock also has questions. Brock supervised an agency update to their longstanding bureau rules governing the use of sources while working under then-director Robert Mueller. These rules prohibit the FBI from directing a human source to perform espionage on an American until a formal investigation has been opened - paperwork and all.

Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill

The Text Messages

A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened.

"We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. At the time, as John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe."

The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation ("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was spearheading the investigation.

"Went well, best we could have expected," Strzok texted Page after an Aug. 5, 2016, meeting. "Other than Liz quote 'the White House is running this.' " Page then texted to assure Strzok of a paper trail showing the FBI in charge: "We got emails that say otherwise."

[Jun 02, 2018] Obama used NSA FBI to spy on Trump veteran CIA officer

Notable quotes:
"... Let me just say this: the President used the word "wiretapping" but I think it was very clear to us that have been in the intelligence business, that this was a synonym for "surveillance". ..."
"... When I was in senior position in CIA's counterterrorism center, I had a deputy who was an FBI officer. An office in FBI HQ down in Washington had an FBI lead with a CIA deputy. There's a lot more cooperation than one would think. There are individuals that do assignments in each other's organisations to help foster levels of cooperation. I had members of NSA in my staff when I was at CIA, members of diplomatic security, members of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and it was run like a task force, so, there's a lot more cooperation than the media presents, they always think that there are these huge major battles between the organisations and that's rarely true. ..."
"... John Brennan is acting more like a political operative than a former director of CIA. ..."
Mar 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com

The mighty CIA has fallen victim to a major breach, with WikiLeaks revealing the true scope of the Agency's ability for cyber-espionage. Its tools seem to be aimed at ordinary citizens – your phone, your car, your TV, even your fridge can become an instrument of surveillance in the hands of the CIA. How does the CIA use these tools, and why do they need them in the first place?

And as WikiLeaks promises even more revelations, how is all of this going to shape the already tense relationship between new president and the intelligence community?

A man who has spent over two decades in the CIA's clandestine service – Gary Berntsen is on SophieCo.

Follow @SophieCo_RT

FULL TRANSCRIPT: https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/381...

Sophie Shevardnadze: Gary Berntsen, former CIA official, welcome to the show, great to have you with us. Now, Vault 7, a major batch of CIA docs revealed by Wikileaks uncovers the agency's cyber tools. We're talking about world's most powerful intelligence agency - how exactly did the CIA lose control of its arsenal of hacking weapons?

Gary Berntsen: First off, I'd like to say that the world has changed a lot in the last several decades, and people are communicating in many different ways and intelligence services, whether they be American or Russian, are covering these communications and their coverage of those communications has evolved. Without commenting on the specific validity of those tools, it was clear that the CIA was surely using contractors to be involved in this process, not just staff officers, and that individuals decided that they had problems with U.S. policy, and have leaked these things to Wikileaks. This is a large problem, for the U.S. community, but just as the U.S. is having problems, the Russia face similar problems. Just this week you had multiple members of the FSB charged with hacking as well, and they have been charged by the U.S. government. So both services who are competitors, face challenges as we've entered a new era of mass communications.

SS: So like you're saying, the leaker or leakers of the CIA docs is presumably a CIA contractor - should the agency be spending more effort on vetting its own officers? Is the process rigorous enough?

GB: Clearly. Look There have been individuals since the dawn of history. Espionage is the second oldest occupation, have conducted spying and espionage operations, and there have been people who have turned against their own side and worked for competitors and worked for those opposing the country or the group that they're working with. It's been a problem from the beginning, and it continues to be a problem, and the U.S. clearly is going to have to do a much better job at vetting those individuals who are given security clearances, without a doubt.

SS: The CIA studied the flaws in the software of devices like iPhones, Androids, Smart TVs, apps like Whatsapp that left them exposed to hacking, but didn't care about patching those up - so, in essence the agency chose to leave Americans vulnerable to cyberattacks, rather than protect them?

GB: I think you have to understand, in this world that we're operating and the number one target of our intelligence community are terrorists. Since the attacks of 9\11, 16 years ago, the obsession of the American intelligence community is to identify those planning terrorist attacks, collecting information on them and being able to defeat them. These individuals are using all these means of communication. I have spoken with many security services around the world, since my retirement back in 2005-2006, a lot of them have had problems covering the communications of somebody's very devices and programs that you've talked about - whether they be narcotraffickers or salafist jihadists, they are all piggybacking off of commercial communications. Therefore the need for modern intelligence services to sort of provide coverage of all means of communications. And there's a price that you pay for that.

SS: One of the most disturbing parts of the leaks is the "Weeping Angel" program - CIA hacking into Samsung Smart TVs to record what's going on even when the TV appears to be turned off. Why are the CIA's tools designed to penetrate devices used by ordinary Western citizens at home?

GB: Look, I wouldn't say it has anything to do with Western homes, because the CIA doesn't do technical operations against American citizens - that's prohibited by the law. If the CIA does anything in the U.S., it does it side-by-side with the FBI, and it does it according to FISA - the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act laws. It's gotta go to the judge to do those things. Those tools are used primarily against the individuals and terrorists that are targeting the U.S. or other foreign entities that we see as a significant threat to the U.S. national security, which is the normal functioning of any intelligence service.

SS: Just like you say, the CIA insists it never uses its investigative tools on American citizens in the US, but, we're wondering, exactly how many terrorist camps in the Middle East have Samsung Smart TVs to watch their favorite shows on? Does it seem like the CIA lost its direction?

GB: Plenty of them.

SS: Plenty?...

GB: I've travelled in the Middle East, Samsungs are sold everywhere. Sophie, Samsung TVs are sold all over the world. I've spent a lot of time in the Middle East, I've seen them in Afghanistan, I've seen them everywhere. So, any kind of devices that you can imagine, people are using everywhere. We're in a global economy now.

SS: The CIA has tools to hack iPhones - but they make up only around 15 % of the world's smartphone market. IPhones are not popular among terrorists, but they are among business and political elites - so are they the real target here?

GB: No. The CIA in relative terms to the size of the world is a small organisation. It is an organisation that has roughly 20 or more thousand people - it's not that large in terms of covering a planet with 7 billion people. We have significant threats to the U.S. and to the Western world. We live in an age of super-terrorism, we live in an age when individuals, small groups of people, can leverage technology at a lethal effect. The greatest threats to this planet are not just nuclear, they are bio. The U.S. needs to have as many tools as possible to defend itself against these threats, as does Russia want to have similar types of tools to defend itself. You too, Russian people have suffered from a number of terrible terrorist acts.

SS: Wikileaks suggest the CIA copied the hacking habits of other nations to create a fake electronic trace - why would the CIA need that?

GB: The CIA, as any intelligence service, would look to conduct coverage in the most unobtrusive fashion as possible. It is going to do its operations so that they can collect and collect again and again against terrorist organisations, where and whenever it can, because sometimes threats are not just static, they are continuous.

SS: You know this better, so enlighten me: does the he CIA have the authorisation to create the surveillance tools it had in the first place? Who gives it such authorisation?

GB: The CIA was created in 1947 by the National Security Act of the U.S. and does two different things - it does FI (foreign intelligence) collection and it does CA - covert action. Its rules for collection of intelligence were enshrined in the law that created it, the CIA Act 110, in 1949, but the covert action part of this, where it does active measures, when it gets involved in things - all of those are covered by law. The Presidential finding had to be written, it had to be presented to the President. The President's signs off on those things. Those things are then briefed to members of Congress, or the House Permanent Subcommittee for Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. We have a very rigorous process of review of the activities of our intelligence communities in the U.S.

SS: But you're talking about the activities in terms of operations. I'm just asking - does CIA need any authorisation or permission to create the tools it has in its arsenal? Or it can just go ahead

GB: Those tools and the creation of collection tools falls under the same laws that allowed the CIA to be established. And that was the 1949 Intelligence Act. And also, subsequently, the laws in 1975. Yes.

SS: So, the CIA programme names are quite colourful, sometimes wacky - "Weeping Angel", "Swamp Monkey", "Brutal Kangaroo" - is there a point to these, is there any logic, or are they completely random? I always wondered...

GB: There's absolutely no point to that, and it's random.

SS:Okay, so how do you come up with those names? Who like, one says: "Monkey" and another one says: "Kangaroo"?...

GB: I'm sure they are computer-generated.

SS: Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him during the campaign Could the CIA have actually spied on the president? It seems like the agency doesn't have the best relationship with Donald Trump - how far can they go?

GB: Let me just say this: the President used the word "wiretapping" but I think it was very clear to us that have been in the intelligence business, that this was a synonym for "surveillance". Because most people are on cellphones, people aren't using landlines anymore, so there's no "wiretapping", okay. These all fall under the Intelligence Surveillance Act, as I stated earlier, this thing existing in the U.S.. It was clear to President Trump and to those in his campaign, after they were elected, and they did a review back that the Obama Administration sought FISA authorisation to do surveillance of the Trump campaign in July and then in October. They were denied in July, they were given approval in October, and in October they did some types of surveillance of the Trump campaign. This is why the President, of course, tweeted, that he had been "wiretapped" - of course "wiretapping" being a synonym for the surveillance against his campaign, which was never heard of in the U.S. political history that I can remember, I can't recall any way of this being done. It's an outrage, and at the same time, Congressional hearings are going to be held and they are going to review all of these things, and they are going to find out exactly what happened and what was done. It's unclear right now, but all we do know - and it has been broken in the media that there were two efforts, and at the second one, the authorisation was given. That would never have been done by the CIA, because they don't do that sort of coverage in the U.S.. That would either be the FBI or the NSA, with legal authorities and those authorities the problem that the Trump administration had is they believed that the information from these things was distributed incorrectly. Any time an American - and this is according to the U.S. law - any time an American is on the wire in the U.S., their names got to be minimized from this and it clearly wasn't done and the Trump administration was put in a bad light because of this.

SS: If what you're saying is true, how does that fall under foreign intelligence? Is that more of the FBI-NSA expertise?

GB: It was FBI and NSA - it was clearly the FBI and the NSA that were involved, it would never have been the CIA doing that, they don't listen to telephones in the U.S., they read the product of other agencies that would provide those things, but clearly, there were individuals on those phone calls that they believed were foreign and were targeting those with potential communications with the Trump campaign. Let's be clear here - General Clapper, the DNI for President Obama, stated before he left office, that there was no, I repeat, no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. This has been something that has been dragged out again, and again, and again, by the media. This is a continuing drumbeat of the mainstream, left-wing media of the U.S., to paint the President in the poorest light, to attempt to discredit Donald Trump.

SS: With the intelligence agencies bringing down Trump's advisors like Michael Flynn - and you said the people behind that were Obama's loyalists - can we talk about the intelligence agencies being too independent from the White House, playing their own politics?

GB: I think part of the problem that we've seen during the handover of power from President Obama to President Trump was that there was a number of holdovers that went from political appointee to career status that had been placed in the NatSec apparatus and certain parts of the intelligence organisations. It is clear that President Trump and his team are determined to remove those people to make sure that there's a continuity of purpose and people aren't leaking information that would put the Administration into a negative light. That's the goal of the administration, to conduct itself consistent with the goals of securing the country from terrorism and other potential threats - whether they be counter-narcotics, or intelligence agencies trying to breach our you know, the information that we hold secure.

SS: Here's a bit of conspiracy theories - could it be that the domestic surveillance agencies like the NSA or the FBI orchestrated the Vault 7 leaks - to damage CIA, stop it from infringing on their turf?

GB :I really don't think so and that is conspiracy thinking. You have to understand something, in the intelligence communities in the U.S., whether it be the CIA and FBI, we've done a lot of cross-fertilizations. When I was in senior position in CIA's counterterrorism center, I had a deputy who was an FBI officer. An office in FBI HQ down in Washington had an FBI lead with a CIA deputy. There's a lot more cooperation than one would think. There are individuals that do assignments in each other's organisations to help foster levels of cooperation. I had members of NSA in my staff when I was at CIA, members of diplomatic security, members of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and it was run like a task force, so, there's a lot more cooperation than the media presents, they always think that there are these huge major battles between the organisations and that's rarely true.

SS: Generally speaking - is there rivalry between American intel agencies at all? Competition for resources, maybe?

GB: I think, sometimes, between the Bureau and the CIA - the CIA is the dominant agency abroad, and the FBI is the dominant agency in the U.S. What they do abroad, they frequently have to get cleared by us, what we do domestically, we have to get cleared by them, and sometimes there's some friction, but usually, we're able to work this out. It makes for great news, the CIA fighting FBI, but the reality is that there's a lot more cooperation than confrontation. We are all in the business of trying to secure the American homeland and American interests globally.

SS: I'm still thinking a lot about the whole point of having this hacking arsenal for the CIA since you talk on their behalf - the possibility to hack phones, computers, TVs and cars - if the actual terrorist attacks on US soil, like San Bernardino, Orlando are still missed?

GB: Look. There are hundreds of individuals, if not thousands, planning efforts against the U.S. at any time. It can be many-many things. And the U.S. security services, there's the CIA, the FBI, NSA - block many-many of these things, but it is impossible to stop them all. Remember, this is an open society here, in America, with 320 million people, here. We try to foster open economic system, we allow more immigration to America than all countries in the world combined. This is a great political experiment here, but it's also very difficult to police. There are times that the U.S. security services are going to fail. It's inevitable. We just have to try the best we can, do the best job that we can, while protecting the values that attract so many people to the U.S.

SS:The former CIA director John Brennan is saying Trump's order to temporarily ban travel from some Muslim states is not going to help fight terrorism in 'any significant way'. And the countries where the terrorists have previously come from - like Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, it's true - aren't on the list. So does he maybe have a point?

GB: John Brennan is acting more like a political operative than a former director of CIA. The countries that Mr. Trump had banned initially, or at least had put a partial, sort of a delay - where states like Somalia, Libya, the Sudan, Iran - places where we couldn't trust local vetting. Remember something, when someone immigrates to the U.S., we have what's called an "immigration packet": they may have to get a chest X-ray to make sure they don't bring any diseases with them, they have to have background check on any place they've ever lived, and in most of these places there are no security forces to do background checks on people that came from Damascus, because parts of Damascus are totally destroyed - there's been warfare. It is actually a very reasonable thing for President Trump to ask for delay in these areas. Look, the Crown-Prince, the Deputy Crown-Prince of Saudi Arabia was just in the United States and met with Donald Trump, and he said he didn't believe it was a "ban on Muslims". This was not a "ban on Muslims", it was an effort to slow down and to create more opportunity to vet those individuals coming from states where there's a preponderance of terrorist organisations operating. A reasonable step by President Trump, something he promised during the campaign, something he's fulfilling. But again, I repeat - America allows more immigration into the U.S., than all countries combined. So, we really don't need to be lectured on who we let in and who we don't let in.

SS: But I still wonder if the Crown-Prince would've had the same comment had Saudi Arabia been on that ban list. Anyways, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA

GB: Wait a second, Sophie - the Saudis have a reasonable form to police their society, and they provide accurate police checks. If they didn't create accurate police checks, we would've given the delay to them as well.

SS: Ok, I got your point. Now, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA and NSA chief, pointed out that the US intelligence enlists agents in the Muslim world with the promise of eventual emigration to America - is Trump's travel ban order going to hurt American intelligence gathering efforts in the Middle East?

GB: No, the question here - there were individuals that worked as translators for us in Afghanistan and Iraq and serving in such roles as translators, they were promised the ability to immigrate to the United States. Unfortunately, some of them were blocked in the first ban that was put down, because individuals who wrote that, didn't consider that. That has been considered in the re-write, that the Trump administration had submitted, which is now being attacked by a judge in Hawaii, and so it was taken into consideration, but the objective here was to help those that helped U.S. forces on the ground, especially those who were translators, in ground combat operations, where they risked their lives alongside American soldiers.

SS: You worked in Afghanistan - you were close to capturing Bin Laden back in 2001 - what kind of spying tools are actually used on the ground by the CIA to catch terrorists?

GB: The CIA as does any intelligence service in the world, is a human business. It's a business where we work with local security forces to strengthen their police and intelligence forces, we attempt to leverage them, we have our own people on the ground that speak the language, we're trying to help build transportation there. There's no "secret sauce" here. There's no super-technology that changes the country's ability to conduct intelligence collections or operations. In Afghanistan the greatest thing that the U.S. has is broad support and assistance to Afghan men and women across the country. We liberated half of the population, and for women were providing education, and when the people see what we were doing: trying to build schools, providing USAID projects - all of these things - this makes the population willing to work with and support the United States. Frequently, members of the insurgence groups will see this and sometimes they do actually cross the lines and cooperate with us. So, it's a full range of American political power, whether it's hard or soft, that is the strength of the American intelligence services - because people in the world actually believe - and correctly so - that American more than generally a force of good in the world.

SS: Gary, thank you so much for this interesting interview and insight into the world of the CIA. We've been talking to Gary Berntsen, former top CIA officer, veteran of the agency, talking about the politics of American intelligence in the Trump era. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.

GreenPizza:

Just thinking here in the light of how things are unfolding with the CIA I am wondering since Federal crimes are committed can the FBI investigate the CIA acting as America Federal Law Enforcement.

RedBlowDryer -> GreenPin

I think the US intelligent agencies are harming their country more than any enemy of the US.

CyanGrapes

There is a reason why JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA. This guy is lying.

PurpleWieghts

CIA needs hacking tools to make it look like it was carried out by another state simply for plausible deniability.

Carl Zaisser

a "force for good in the world"?...sounds like the American white hat-black hat myth...read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". This is a detailed litany of America's various kinds of interventions in multiple countries that cold hardly be described as "a force for good in the world"...a force for "America's values" (read with ironically), perhaps

Carl Zaisser

WHO is responsible for the outbreak of chaotic warfare in Libya and Syria?

Should we trust the Saudi vetting services...think of who the September 11 bombers were? Was there another reason they were not on Trump's banned countries list? Too big to mess with, i.e., oil and weapons sales?

GreenPin

Amazing how they justify their destructive behaviour in a way as they are serving America people and doing good around the wold. You can sugar count your crimes against humanity as much as you can, but the reality of today' human misery speaks for itself.

waterbearer

since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence

XXX

interesting, but begs the question "Can we really trust what this guy tells us?" If not, what parts can we trust, and what parts can't we?

XXX

You'd have to deconstruct his talking points and I don't know how that is done. Intelligence probably knows how to do that. I noticed he was becoming more zealous on hegemony and exceptionalism as the interview neared the end.

I agree. Bernsten is almost like-ably energetic, but he is, in the end, an uncompromising warrior of the empire.

XXX

if Trump is to be controlled--they gotta have some dirt--or threat against his family --it's how they operate---

XXX

Mr. Berntsen left out the very important NSC10/2 legislation, which gave the CIA free reign with deniability as the cover. This needs to be repealed. With this legislation, the CIA answers to no one, and goes around the world wrecking havoc with the governments and people where they like. We will never have peace until that legislation is repealed.

XXX

This is why interesting books to read about the history of the CIA.

XXX

I applaud former CIA and FBI Gary Bernstein for speaking out on the most powerful intelligence networks on the planet regarding their surveillance activities. Every nation needs intelligence to safeguard but if we go beyond the call of duty and get exposed .this leaves Pres Trump and his Adm with no option but to consider corrective measures with a visit to Langley etc.. Here again the failures of Liberalism are coming up in the wash for cleaning up.

XXX

Liberalism has not been running the country for the last 54 years. We have been under a coup government and just got used to it.

[Jun 02, 2018] Comey Grilled As Feds Seriously Consider Charging McCabe In Criminal Referral

Jun 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Federal investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office recently interviewed former FBI director James Comey as part of an ongoing probe into whether former FBI #2 Andrew McCabe broke the law when he lied to federal agents, reports the Washington Post .

Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office recently interviewed former FBI director James B. Comey as part of a probe into whether his deputy, Andrew McCabe, broke the law by lying to federal agents -- an indication the office is seriously considering whether McCabe should be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said. - Washington Po st

What makes the interview particularly interesting is that Comey and McCabe have given conflicting reports over the events leading up to McCabe's firing, with Comey calling his former deputy a liar in an April appearance on The View .

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a criminal referral for McCabe following a months-long probe which found that the former acting FBI Director leaked a self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath. McCabe was fired on March 16 after Horowitz found that he " had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. "

Specifically, McCabe was fired for lying about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal - just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation, at a time in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.

The WSJ article reads:

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.

...

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case .

So McCabe was found to have leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.

McCabe vs. Comey

Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office were likely to be keenly interested in Comey's version of whether or not he knew about McCabe's disclosure.

Comey and McCabe offered varying accounts of who authorized the disclosure for the article. They discussed the story the day after it was published, and Comey, according to the inspector general's report, told investigators McCabe "definitely did not tell me that he authorized" the disclosure . -WaPo

"I have a strong impression he conveyed to me 'it wasn't me boss.' And I don't think that was by saying those words, I think it was most likely by saying 'I don't know how this s--- gets in the media or why would people talk about this kind of thing,' words that I would fairly take as 'I, Andy, didn't do it,' " Comey said, according to the inspector general.

During an April appearance on ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty Loyalty, where he called McCabe a liar , and said he actually "ordered the [IG] report" which found McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several times.

Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have "confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.

" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "

Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.

"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so.

Following McCabe's firing, his attorney Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the disgraced Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .

" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.

McCabe vs. the DOJ

McCabe may also find himself at odds with the Department of Justice, as notes he kept allegedly detailing an interaction with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raise questions about a memo Rosenstein wrote justifying Comey's firing. While Rosenstein's memo took aim at Comey for his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation, McCabe's notes suggest that Trump told Rosenstein to point to the Russia investigation. Rosenstein's recommendation ultimately did not mention Russia.

McCabe's interactions with Rosenstein could complicate any potential prosecution of McCabe because Rosenstein would likely be involved in a final decision on filing charges. McCabe has argued that the Justice Department's actions against him, including his firing, are retaliatory for his work on the Russia investigation. -WaPo

As the Washington Post notes, lying to federal investigators can carry a five-year prison sentence - however McCabe says he did not intentionally mislead anyone. The Post also notes that while Comey's interview is significant, it does not indicated that prosecutors have reached any conclusions.

Lying to Comey might not itself be a crime. But the inspector general alleged McCabe misled investigators three other times.

He told agents from the FBI inspection division on May 9, 2017, that he had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who had, the inspector general alleged. McCabe similarly told inspector general investigators on July 28 that he was not aware of one of the FBI officials, lawyer Lisa Page, having been authorized to speak to reporters, and because he was not in Washington on the days she did so, he could not say what she was doing. McCabe later admitted he authorized Page to talk to reporters.

The inspector general also alleged that McCabe lied in a final conversation in November, claiming that he had told Comey he had authorized the disclosure and that he had not claimed otherwise to inspection division agents in May.

Michael Bromwich replied in a statement: "A little more than a month ago, we confirmed that we had been advised that a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office had been made regarding Mr. McCabe. We said at that time that we were confident that, unless there is inappropriate pressure from high levels of the Administration, the U.S. Attorney's Office would conclude that it should decline to prosecute. Our view has not changed.

He added that " leaks concerning specific investigative steps the US Attorney's Office has allegedly taken are extremely disturbing ."

Whatever Comey told federal investigators, we suspect it eventually boiled down to "McCabe didn't tell me," squarely placing responsibility for the leaks - and the lies, on McCabe's shoulders.

[Jun 01, 2018] Coups R US American regime changes and their aftermaths, from Hawaii to Libya (RT Doc)

May 29, 2018 | www.youtube.com

In March of 1951, Jacobo Arbenz came to power in Guatemala after having been resoundingly elected by the people. A little more than three years later, he was forced to resign in the midst of armed intervention. His reforms to redistribute unused land to poor peasants had fallen afoul of the United Fruit Company, which owned and warehoused vast tracts of Guatemalan land. The American corporation solicited the US government to overthrow the populist president and the Eisenhower administration delivered with the help of the Department of State and CIA, which happened to be led by the Dulles brothers, who had strong ties to the company. Arbenz' ousting put an end to democracy in Guatemala for decades and replaced it by military rule. A civil war followed several years later, resulting in the deaths of over 200,000 people. The country remains one of Latin America's most impoverished to this day.

And Guatemala is but one of a myriad of countries whose fates have been catastrophically dictated by America's imperialist interventions. In this film, American author, journalist, and academic Stephen Kinzer explores the formula and rationale the US uses to overthrow governments it doesn't like, as well as its real motives. As illustrated in Guatemala, Libya, and Hawaii, the people in places whose governments were toppled by US-engineered coups are still dealing with the aftermath many years later.

scavenger , 3 days ago (edited)

i love the way RT always provide a different perspective on US.

Sara Jacobs , 3 days ago

Oh it was intended. Current state of Libya was Intended.

Lefty Jones , 3 days ago

Meanwhile, we're pretending like Trump is some sort of prophet when it comes to NK, Syria, and Iran, even though it's so painfully obvious how thirsty this administration is for more regime change war. Excellent documentary. I'd love to see more things like this from RT.

Ahmed Salah , 3 days ago

American logic: We were libreating people from themselves.

Leda Blue , 3 days ago

Thanks RT, American scholars have been documenting this for decades, and one could add another 1000 hours of this insanity.

Pete fromtheIsland , 3 days ago

Oil worth of 1/3 TRILLION US dollar has been sold in yuan in the first 43 days of oil trading in Shanghai. Bye bye PetroDollar...soon the US with their failing economy and massive debt burden will not be able to sponsor regime change and terrorism in foreign countries.

poofendorf , 3 days ago

"If you don't like imperialism, you're a Putin puppet" -Gary Kasparov.

Kurt Boulter , 3 days ago (edited)

When RT produces a documentary about the hundred plus million of people killed by communism in the 20th century, I will start believing they are a real news outlet and not just a propaganda arm of Moscow. A REAL news organization is evenly critical of their masters as much as the rest of those whom they report on.

Atlanta Braves fan club MLB 18 the show , 3 days ago

China, America, U.N., England, African government and Germany and Russia are the real bullies globally. I see America as the modern day Roman empire. China is China. Russia is Russia. American government trying to rule all the world.

neighborhood socialist , 3 days ago

As Chomsky has said, American imperialism can be traced to the takeover of Cuba, Puerto Rico and Hawaii in the late 1890s. We've been an ever-expanding, unaccountable, unethical, imperialist empire ever since.

Norcanex S.G. LLC. , 3 days ago

The US being the asshole of the world is why no American feels comfortable having the US flag on their items when they travel the world!!!

scavenger , 3 days ago (edited)

i love the way RT always provide a different perspective on US.

Sara Jacobs , 3 days ago

Oh it was intended. Current state of Libya was Intended.

Triglav , 3 days ago

American occupant must leave Hawai.

Lefty Jones , 3 days ago

Meanwhile, we're pretending like Trump is some sort of prophet when it comes to NK, Syria, and Iran, even though it's so painfully obvious how thirsty this administration is for more regime change war. Excellent documentary. I'd love to see more things like this from RT.

Cush 1 , 3 days ago

Not clearing out why can't you say the word ...(genocide) bc that what you did,Kno wonder why America not stop isreal from committing genocide is bc they did it to indigenous ppl in America so why would they care what's going on in Palestine hmmmm

Ahmed Salah , 3 days ago

American logic: We were libreating people from themselves.

Leda Blue , 3 days ago

Thanks RT, American scholars have been documenting this for decades, and one could add another 1000 hours of this insanity.

Mohammed Diljam , 3 days ago

Where's Gaddafi's gold he wanted to sell all his oil in gold so who got his gold now I bet you it's the Federal Bank the Rothschild family

SsiolisP , 3 days ago

It's so sad to see a writer who has such an accurate and truly factual understanding of the US foreign "Regime Change" policy, but yet still believes that 9/11 was the blow back of US interventionism.

new era , 3 days ago

RT report more on Tommy Robinson.

reg83ny , 3 days ago

The 2nd beast of revelations who enslaved the whole world

rik indehood , 3 days ago

Those responsible for the death of Gaddafi were African leaders with the help of CIA America. These culpable African leaders are now paying the price with bokoharan, isis etc. The Americans are back in Zimbabwe, etc to do more in carving up of Africa again.

ALEKS X13 , 3 days ago

what have you done to serbia and kosovo? shame on you!

Pete fromtheIsland , 3 days ago

Oil worth of 1/3 TRILLION US dollar has been sold in yuan in the first 43 days of oil trading in Shanghai. Bye bye PetroDollar...soon the US with their failing economy and massive debt burden will not be able to sponsor regime change and terrorism in foreign countries.

poofendorf , 3 days ago

"If you don't like imperialism, you're a Putin puppet" -Gary Kasparov.

yonkers 1 , 3 days ago

When you look up regime russia shows up.

Tree_Hugger , 3 days ago

I resisted, and paid a price. It's a hard road because the people I wanted to spare from my participation don't know my history - They only know I'm a white American. What I'm trying to say is that it's not just the foreign or overseas people who are coerced and threatened into accepting American thuggery - It's also Americans who don't want to be part of the imperialism. The thugs hurt us too. When I was in Hawaii for several months I was constantly aware that the natives - Hawaiian, Asian - saw me in varying degrees as an invader imperialist. That's the legacy my government left for me, and I will never forgive all the war and harm. Some things can't be changed, so everyone should be cautious about what's done in their name.

Kurt Boulter , 3 days ago (edited)

When RT produces a documentary about the hundred plus million of people killed by communism in the 20th century, I will start believing they are a real news outlet and not just a propaganda arm of Moscow. A REAL news organization is evenly critical of their masters as much as the rest of those whom they report on.

Ryan Parker , 3 days ago

Thank you rt most people here in Hawaii don't have a clue even after seeing this there still in denial...

Flankymanga , 3 days ago

I can see America disintegrating just like the Soviet Union did... There is various secession sentiments that i did not even knew existed....

Atlanta Braves fan club MLB 18 the show , 3 days ago

China, America, U.N., England, African government and Germany and Russia are the real bullies globally. I see America as the modern day Roman empire. China is China. Russia is Russia. American government trying to rule all the world.

strategyveteran , 3 days ago

Lol and i thought news channels (RT) were supposed to be unbias

Candy Coat , 3 days ago

the saddest part is there is many many stories like this all true and were hidden from us all these years , while we were all celebrating how great and free we were this kind of dispictable scams and crimes by the ones we trusted were going on behind closed doors , we had no internet , we do now we are waking up ,a little too late when the damage is done

LOBO NEGRO , 3 days ago

And that's why millions of people migrated to the United States🇺🇸 during the 70s, 80s, 90s & they still coming because of what was done to them in the past. But don't worry... Jesus Christ will bring justice very soon☺

Jeff McKenney , 3 days ago

I hope Putin and the rest of the world knows there place and knows you will never win in a war against the United States of America we are the best and the strongest to ever live on this globe

Matt Lloyd , 3 days ago

This is so sad but oh so true I can't for the life of me understand how anyone in this oligarchy of a country can't see the evil at the top. Case in point if TRUMP is supposed to MAGA how is that possible with John Bolton by his side? John Bolton along with many many others like Clinton and Bush families need to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. Thanks to the overwhelming amount of brainwashing they use against us evil will never die. Americans will continue believing in this fake system because they have been indoctrinated to the point they no longer know how to critically think! Why would they critically think when they have the media to do it for them? Plus everyone is enslaved by a debt system working themselves too death with no time for thought of the big picture to even pop into their weak minds. So the evil tyrannical system will continue, until we truthers wake them up or lol we vote in someone for the people.... Which is a joke! Everyone claims they don't trust their government but yet they still believe in this obviously fake system built upon fake money. I love the United States and it truly could be much worse but this is the sad truth that will destroy it and in my opinion I'm certain the end is near for this country and possibly the world as we know it??? I hope and pray in wrong but???????????????

neighborhood socialist , 3 days ago

As Chomsky has said, American imperialism can be traced to the takeover of Cuba, Puerto Rico and Hawaii in the late 1890s. We've been an ever-expanding, unaccountable, unethical, imperialist empire ever since.

Norcanex S.G. LLC. , 3 days ago

The US being the asshole of the world is why no American feels comfortable having the US flag on their items when they travel the world!!!

scavenger , 3 days ago (edited)

i love the way RT always provide a different perspective on US.

Sara Jacobs , 3 days ago

Oh it was intended. Current state of Libya was Intended.

Triglav , 3 days ago

American occupant must leave Hawai.

Lefty Jones , 3 days ago

Meanwhile, we're pretending like Trump is some sort of prophet when it comes to NK, Syria, and Iran, even though it's so painfully obvious how thirsty this administration is for more regime change war. Excellent documentary. I'd love to see more things like this from RT.

Cush 1 , 3 days ago

Not clearing out why can't you say the word ...(genocide) bc that what you did,Kno wonder why America not stop isreal from committing genocide is bc they did it to indigenous ppl in America so why would they care what's going on in Palestine hmmmm

Ahmed Salah , 3 days ago

American logic: We were libreating people from themselves.

Leda Blue , 3 days ago

Thanks RT, American scholars have been documenting this for decades, and one could add another 1000 hours of this insanity.

Mohammed Diljam , 3 days ago

Where's Gaddafi's gold he wanted to sell all his oil in gold so who got his gold now I bet you it's the Federal Bank the Rothschild family

SsiolisP , 3 days ago

It's so sad to see a writer who has such an accurate and truly factual understanding of the US foreign "Regime Change" policy, but yet still believes that 9/11 was the blow back of US interventionism.

new era , 3 days ago

RT report more on Tommy Robinson.

reg83ny , 3 days ago

The 2nd beast of revelations who enslaved the whole world

rik indehood , 3 days ago

Those responsible for the death of Gaddafi were African leaders with the help of CIA America. These culpable African leaders are now paying the price with bokoharan, isis etc. The Americans are back in Zimbabwe, etc to do more in carving up of Africa again.

ALEKS X13 , 3 days ago

what have you done to serbia and kosovo? shame on you!

Pete fromtheIsland , 3 days ago

Oil worth of 1/3 TRILLION US dollar has been sold in yuan in the first 43 days of oil trading in Shanghai. Bye bye PetroDollar...soon the US with their failing economy and massive debt burden will not be able to sponsor regime change and terrorism in foreign countries.

poofendorf , 3 days ago

"If you don't like imperialism, you're a Putin puppet" -Gary Kasparov.

yonkers 1 , 3 days ago

When you look up regime russia shows up.

Tree_Hugger , 3 days ago

I resisted, and paid a price. It's a hard road because the people I wanted to spare from my participation don't know my history - They only know I'm a white American. What I'm trying to say is that it's not just the foreign or overseas people who are coerced and threatened into accepting American thuggery - It's also Americans who don't want to be part of the imperialism. The thugs hurt us too. When I was in Hawaii for several months I was constantly aware that the natives - Hawaiian, Asian - saw me in varying degrees as an invader imperialist. That's the legacy my government left for me, and I will never forgive all the war and harm. Some things can't be changed, so everyone should be cautious about what's done in their name.

Kurt Boulter , 3 days ago (edited)

When RT produces a documentary about the hundred plus million of people killed by communism in the 20th century, I will start believing they are a real news outlet and not just a propaganda arm of Moscow. A REAL news organization is evenly critical of their masters as much as the rest of those whom they report on.

Ryan Parker , 3 days ago

Thank you rt most people here in Hawaii don't have a clue even after seeing this there still in denial...

Flankymanga , 3 days ago

I can see America disintegrating just like the Soviet Union did... There is various secession sentiments that i did not even knew existed....

Atlanta Braves fan club MLB 18 the show , 3 days ago

China, America, U.N., England, African government and Germany and Russia are the real bullies globally. I see America as the modern day Roman empire. China is China. Russia is Russia. American government trying to rule all the world.

strategyveteran , 3 days ago

Lol and i thought news channels (RT) were supposed to be unbias

Candy Coat , 3 days ago

the saddest part is there is many many stories like this all true and were hidden from us all these years , while we were all celebrating how great and free we were this kind of dispictable scams and crimes by the ones we trusted were going on behind closed doors , we had no internet , we do now we are waking up ,a little too late when the damage is done

LOBO NEGRO , 3 days ago

And that's why millions of people migrated to the United States🇺🇸 during the 70s, 80s, 90s & they still coming because of what was done to them in the past. But don't worry... Jesus Christ will bring justice very soon☺

Jeff McKenney , 3 days ago

I hope Putin and the rest of the world knows there place and knows you will never win in a war against the United States of America we are the best and the strongest to ever live on this globe

tree70737 , 3 days ago (edited)

It's so sad RT can't make news without talking about the USA😂😂😂 Like they always say, you have to be doing something rite if they keep talking about you 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Atlanta Braves fan club MLB 18 the show , 3 days ago

No foreign governments attached on 9/11. It was BUSH and many American parties involved in taking down all those buildings and killing everyone they could to cover-up many countries bad investments and Bush's and Clinton family's crimes. We are killer's and pimps and mobsters in America. America SUCKS!!!! I'm American I can say this for now. We're going shortly into communism and going to hookup with communist China.

Matt Lloyd , 3 days ago

This is so sad but oh so true I can't for the life of me understand how anyone in this oligarchy of a country can't see the evil at the top. Case in point if TRUMP is supposed to MAGA how is that possible with John Bolton by his side? John Bolton along with many many others like Clinton and Bush families need to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. Thanks to the overwhelming amount of brainwashing they use against us evil will never die. Americans will continue believing in this fake system because they have been indoctrinated to the point they no longer know how to critically think! Why would they critically think when they have the media to do it for them? Plus everyone is enslaved by a debt system working themselves too death with no time for thought of the big picture to even pop into their weak minds. So the evil tyrannical system will continue, until we truthers wake them up or lol we vote in someone for the people.... Which is a joke! Everyone claims they don't trust their government but yet they still believe in this obviously fake system built upon fake money. I love the United States and it truly could be much worse but this is the sad truth that will destroy it and in my opinion I'm certain the end is near for this country and possibly the world as we know it??? I hope and pray in wrong but???????????????

Leda Blue , 3 days ago

Such bravery

xmeda , 3 days ago

Guy grabs remains of Grad missile and takes it in car, puts on seat, then goes to citty.. hmmmmm

Мухэммэд Харис , 2 days ago

Stupid Libyans deserve this chaos for supporting US. Once one of the most richest and prosperous nation in Africa now pile of rubble.

Juan Moreno , 3 days ago

la idea es ser el govierno de este pequeno planeta solo nesesita someter unos cuantos paises y el globo es de ellos alparecer en esto se esta trabajando 7 × 24

christian macri , 3 days ago

But but but... Russia collusion.!!.. they made Americans think about Hilary's crimes!!😲

Dragan Milivojević , 3 days ago

Former Yugoslavia, from 1992 and the warn in Bosnia and Croatia culminating with 78 days of bombing in 1999 and ocupation of Kosovo and Metohija province (still ongoing).

[May 30, 2018] US Sanctions On Iran The Unraveling Of Pax Americana Zero Hedge

May 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO EUROPEAN INVESTMENTS IN IRAN?

One practical issue is what is going to happen to European investments in Iran. The most high profile example is French energy company Total's investment in a giant Iran gasfield. Total said this month it would pull out of Iran and its development of the giant South Pars gasfield unless it is specifically protected from US penalties and related sanctions (see Financial Times article " Total threat to pull out of Iran dents EU hopes of saving accord ", May 17, 2018).

Obviously, some form of compromise may be negotiated. But if Washington takes a hard line, such as claiming US jurisdiction as regards dollar transfers between two sovereign countries as was the case in 2014 with the US$9 billion fine levied on French bank BNP, then a confrontation is seemingly inevitable and, as a result, a growing questioning of the US hegemony implied by the US dollar paper standard, a concern which has long been shared by both China and Russia.

QUESTIONING THE US' ROLE AS THE "ECONOMIC POLICEMAN OF THE PLANET"

In this respect, the most interesting reaction to the Iran issue since Donald Trump made his announcement on May 8 was that of the French finance minister Bruno Le Maire when he said on May 9 that it was not acceptable for the US to be the "economic policeman of the planet".

In this respect, France is the European country to watch since it has a history of being willing to stand up to Washington in the post-1945 world. That cannot really be said of Germany and certainly not of Britain.

POMPEO WARNS IRAN OF ESCALATING SANCTIONS

Staying on the subject of Iran, US Secretary of State and former CIA boss Mike Pompeo made an ultra-aggressive speech on Monday threatening Iran with escalating sanctions. In his first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State, Pompeo stated:

Sanctions are going back in full effect and new ones are coming This sting of sanctions will be painful if the regime does not change its course These will indeed end up being the strongest sanctions in history when we are complete.

The above rhetoric hardly suggests a willingness to compromise with the European position. The significance of all of the above is that Europe and the US remain on a collision course.

IRAN'S EXPORTS BOOMING SINCE SANCTIONS ENDED

The importance of Europe for Iran can be seen in the fact that Iran's exports to Europe have surged almost ninefold since the end of sanctions in January 2016.

Thus, Iran's exports to the EU have risen from US$1.3 billion in 2015 to US$11.4 billion in the 12 months to January, according to the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics (see following chart).

There is also of course the growing trade between Iran and China. Iran's total trade with China rose by 18%YoY to US$27.5 billion in the 12 months to January (see following chart). All this makes Iran a good example of the increasingly multipolar world where American influence or interests appear to be fading.

IRAN ANNUALIZED EXPORTS TO EU

Source: IMF – Direction of Trade Statistics

IRAN ANNUALIZED TOTAL TRADE WITH CHINA

Source: IMF – Direction of Trade Statistics

IRAN'S CURRENCY TAKES A HIT

Meanwhile, Iran's currency has been hit hard in recent months as a result of the uncertainty created by Trump's previous repeated earlier threats to pull out of the nuclear deal and now subsequent follow-through decision.

The rial has depreciated in the black market by 33% against the US dollar year-to-date (see following chart). This followed a period of comparative stability where the currency traded in a 13% range for two years, helped by the optimism created by the nuclear deal as well as by very high real interest rates . Iranian treasury bill yields peaked at 27% in early 2017 and bottomed at 16% late last year. They are now back at 19% as a result of the market pressure created by the threat of renewed American sanctions.

IRANIAN RIAL/US$ (INVERTED SCALE)

Note: Based on black market rate after Iran unified its dual exchange rates on 9 April. Source: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance, Bonbast.com

SUBSTANTIAL FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN IRAN

With a classic bullish emerging market demographic profile, in terms of a population of 80 million, 60% of whom are under the age of 35, Iran has, naturally, attracted a lot of foreign direct investment in recent years, most particularly following the 2015 nuclear deal.

The biggest of late was the previously mentioned Total's US$4.8 billion investment signed in July 2017. But Total says it has only invested under €40 million so far, according to the above mentioned FT article, which is precisely why the French company wants to know if it can get a specific waiver from the sanctions.

In terms of the aggregate data, Iran's actual FDI inflows surged by 64%YoY to US$3.37 biilion in 2016, according to United Nations data. While an Iranian government report published last year disclosed that Iran has approved US$11.8 billion in FDI during the 12 months to December 2016, with Spain and Germany accounting for US$3.2 billion and US$2.9 billion of that total respectively.

IRAN FDI INFLOWS

Source: UNCTAD World Investment Report 2017

WILL WE SEE A RETREAT FROM PAX AMERICANA?

The point, therefore, remains that a confrontation between the US and the Eurozone on this issue is potentially a landmark development in the retreat from Pax Americana.

But for now it is probably the case that most of Europe, in the spirit of appeasement, will be content to fudge the issue in the hope that Donald Trump may not be re-elected to the US presidency for a second term and life will return to "normal".

IRAN'S ECONOMY

Turning away from geopolitical issues, Iran's economy and financial markets spring some positive surprises. The country has an open capital account, while there is no tax on capital gains or dividends. The Tehran Stock Exchange celebrated its 50th anniversary last year.

But if FDI has been coming into the country in recent years, foreign portfolio investment activity has been much more limited, with estimates of only US$100 million invested in aggregate. This is the consequence in terms of equities of both a lack of inclusion in benchmark MSCI indices and, of course, of sanctions.

NO FOREIGN BANKS IN IRAN

There is still no foreign bank in Iran and therefore a lack of familiar custodians acceptable to international portfolio investors. Indeed, despite the 2015 nuclear deal, it is still not possible to use foreign credit cards to pay for hotel bills or any other transaction.

Foreign credit rating agencies are also absent which may not surprise given the three biggest are owned by the Americans. This is a pity for the Iranian Government given that, with minimal foreign currency debt and total government debt to GDP of only 35% of GDP, it would make a lot of sense to do a landmark sovereign bond issue. Total external debt is now only US$10.8 billion or just 2.5% of GDP, according to the Central Bank of Iran (see following chart).

... ... ...

[May 30, 2018] Visualizing The Imperial Logic Of US Foreign Policy Zero Hedge

May 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

David Sylvan and Stephen Majeski reveal the imperial logic behind US diplomatic and military interventions around the globe...

Source: Swiss Propaganda Research

Simple really!

gwar5 Tue, 05/29/2018 - 23:57 Permalink

So this geopolitical planning is unique To America? So... I would be shocked, shocked if China, Russia, or the Sunni/Shia diasporas had similar plans.

Trump is non-establishment, both party establishments want him gone. He was against the Iraq War. I haven't seen evidence he buys into expanding a US empire or joining a global one. Just another reason neocons want to get rid of him.

Shemp 4 Victory -> USA USA Tue, 05/29/2018 - 23:57 Permalink

The US is pretty good at the extortion business. Trust them, they know what they are doing.

And indeed, the US has developed more than anyone else the art of extorting the weak and farming the poor, a sure path to wealth.

Economics is just the bed time story told to cover the real game going on.

U4 eee aaa Wed, 05/30/2018 - 00:33 Permalink

It's even simpler than that summed up in a joke:

How can you tell it is two Americans sneaking around in your backyard?

There's a can of oil back there.

[May 29, 2018] On Memorial Day, Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service' The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. ..."
"... Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. ..."
"... A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. ..."
"... What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic . ..."
"... The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire. ..."
"... It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. ..."
"... But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. ..."
"... "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them." ..."
"... U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will. ..."
"... The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so? ..."
"... The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence. ..."
"... The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them. ..."
"... With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives. ..."
"... In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel. ..."
"... " instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there." ..."
"... Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor. ..."
"... According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one. ..."
May 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. From memes outlining the differences between Veterans, Armed Forces, and Memorial Day, to Fourth of July "safe space" declarations seemingly applied to all vets, the trend was everywhere. Thankfully, it seems now to have passed.

Memorial Day is, of course, for remembering the fallen, those who died in service to the nation. Veterans and their families remember their loved ones in ways they deem appropriate, and the state remembers, too, in a somber, serious manner.

This remembrance should in no way preclude the typical family barbecue and other customs associated with the traditional beginning of summer. National holidays are for remembering and celebrating, not guilt. Shaming those who fail to celebrate a holiday according to one's expectations is a bit like non-Christians feeling shame for skipping church: it shouldn't matter because the day means different things to different people. Having a day on the calendar demonstrates the national consensus about honoring sacrifice; anything more than that is a slow walk towards superficiality. President Bush stopped golfing during the Iraq war, but it didn't stop him from continuing it.

Instead, Memorial Day should engender conversation about our military and the gulf between those who serve and those who don't. The conversation shouldn't just be the military talking at civilians; it must be reciprocal. Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. This situation is lamentable because the aforementioned "mil-splaining" could only occur in a country so profoundly divided from its military as to misunderstand basic concepts such as the purpose of holidays. It's also striking how the most outspoken so-called "patriots" often have little connection to that which they so outlandishly support. Our "thank you for your service" culture is anathema to well-functioning civil-military relations.

After Multiple Deployments, Coming Home to a Changed Country The Best Way to Honor a Vet is With the Truth

The public owes its military more consideration, particularly in how the armed forces are deployed across the globe. Part of this is empathy: stop treating military members as an abstraction , as something that exists only to serve a national or increasingly political purpose. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are deserving of praise and support -- especially considering the burden they've carried -- but what they need more is an engaged public, one that's even willing to scrutinize the military . Because scrutiny necessitates engagement and hopefully understanding and reform.

But the civil-military divide goes both ways. Military members and veterans owe the public a better relationship as well. This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them. Open a dialogue: you might build a real connection . Better yet, volunteer to speak at a school or church: partly to explain your service, sure, but more so to show that military personnel are people, too, not just distant abstractions . Veterans are spread across the county and better able to interact with civilians than our largely cloistered active duty force. They shouldn't go to schools, churches, and civic organizations for the inevitable praise. They should go to educate, nurture relationships, and chip away at the civil-military divide.

Perhaps by questioning the fundamentals -- the "why" instead of the so often discussed "what" in military operations -- the public would be in a better position to demand action from a Congress that, heretofore, has largely abdicated serious oversight of foreign policy. Perhaps the public, instead of asking "what" we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan , could ask "why" there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there.

A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. Consumed by domestic strife and the emergence of nationalism , American foreign policy has wandered fecklessly since the end of the Cold War. While we can strike anywhere, this capability is wasted in search of a lasting peace.

What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic .

For America to dig its way out of its domestic and foreign troubles it must start with sobering analysis. For the civil-military dialogue, Memorial Day is as good a place to begin as any day. So this weekend, civilians should move beyond "Thank you for your service" and ask a vet about his or her service and lost comrades. Veterans, don't expect praise and don't lecture; speak with honesty and empathy, talk about what you've done and the conditions you've seen. You might be surprised what we can learn from each other.

John Q. Bolton is an Army officer who recently returned from Afghanistan. An Army aviator (AH-64D/E), he is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a 2005 graduate of West Point. The views presented here are his alone and not representative of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

12 Responses to On Memorial Day, Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service'

W May 28, 2018 at 4:03 am

(This reply was intended for an older article "http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-deep-unfairness-of-americas-all-volunteer-force" from 2017 but since the topics are kind of related, so )

The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire.

It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. Scrapping/re-constituting these frameworks would put the US on par with most other countries on earth sporting home-bound defense forces. Congressional authority/oversight would be reinvigorated, and acting under the auspices of the UN becomes a procedural impairment (sovereignty concerns and selfishness notwithstanding). A practical start would be lobbying for more base closures abroad, for those who feel strongly about this.

But there is a danger: nature abhors a vacuum.

The other thing, I am definitely for professionalism in militaries. Better to have one dedicated soldier than three squirmish kids dragged into the mud.

Aviel , says: May 28, 2018 at 4:07 am
Seems to me a universal draft would be the best way to say thank you. Under that scenario most wars would be avoided or resolved quickly as the cost would be political defeat. An all volunteer/mercenary force is blatantly unfair as virtually no kids of the wealthy fight, prohibitively expensive, as recruiting and retaining soldiers in these times is an uphill challenge, and dangerous as it encourages needless risk since only a tiny percentage of the voting population pay the price
Mark M. Pando , says: May 28, 2018 at 5:31 am
Sir: Thank you for your timely comments. I am a USN veteran and fully support the idea that communication has to be a two-way street between civilians and our military women and men. But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. Not having common experiences makes us all more foreign to one another which leads to isolation and platitudes such as "Thank you for your service." I have heard that comment many times, too, and after a while it comes across as: "better you than me." I know I am being cynical but I am also only human .
SteveM , says: May 28, 2018 at 7:54 am
Re: "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them."

U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will.

Thanking someone for signing up for the War Machine to wreck havoc on natives thousands of miles from American shores makes little sense.

The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so?

The U.S. military slaughters the Syrian army operating in their own country and we are supposed to thank them for "their service"? Military drone drivers who slaughter Yemeni wedding parties from comfortable installations in Florida and the operators on U.S. Navy ships who launch missiles into Syria based on bogus False Flag scenarios are "Warrior Heroes"?

The veterans we should be thanking are the ones who realized early on that they were being played for chumps by the war-mongers and got out. If John Q. Bolton has that understanding, why hasn't he gotten out?

The real "heroes" in America are the young people who get real jobs in the real economy providing real value to their fellow citizens.

The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence.

E.J. Smith , says: May 28, 2018 at 9:26 am
This is an excellent article. Memorial Day should call upon all Americans to ask some essential questions.

As an aside, The Washington Post ran an article today about the funeral of Spec. Conde who recently was killed in Afghanistan. The article spoke of Spec. Conde's motivations for serving, the events that led to his death, the funeral service, and the effect that his death at age 21 had and will have on his family and those who knew and loved him.

What struck me most about the article was how remote the funeral service and the family's grief seem from the rest of what is taking place in America. For example, there was an oblique reference to a funeral detail for a veteran who committed suicide that apparently no one attended.

The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them.

The vast majority of the American public go about their daily lives, seemingly insulated from the effects of our endless engagements. For example, Spec. Conde's death in Afghanistan did not even make the front page of our major media when it first happened. The death of four soldiers in Niger has faded from view.

With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives.

Stuart MacNee , says: May 28, 2018 at 1:39 pm
Thank you, Sir, for articulating my position. In 7 Second Soundbite format, "I Support the Troops, not the Policy that put them in harms way."
The military should never be deployed for political purposes. As a nation, we have willfully refused to learn anything from the lessons of Korea and Viet Nam.

Military service preserves the Ultimate Expression of America, "Question Authority!" (I recognize the Irony of suppressing it within it's ranks.) In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel.

Accept Officer Bolton's challenge. When you see me kneeling at the National Anthem, ask me why. [The Answer: I do it to show respect for those that have fallen at the hands of those who oppose the Values embodied in the American Flag.]

Rossbach , says: May 28, 2018 at 1:43 pm
" instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there."

Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor.

According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one.

Stephen J. , says: May 28, 2018 at 2:03 pm
Perhaps we need "our leaders" to do some war "Service."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009

"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?

Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed, destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? How could this be arranged? All the leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first. A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games .
[read more at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html

Keith Danish , says: May 28, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Good to know that not all John Boltons are insane.

[May 29, 2018] On Memorial Day, Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service' The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. ..."
"... Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. ..."
"... A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. ..."
"... What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic . ..."
"... The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire. ..."
"... It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. ..."
"... But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. ..."
"... "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them." ..."
"... U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will. ..."
"... The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so? ..."
"... The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence. ..."
"... The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them. ..."
"... With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives. ..."
"... In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel. ..."
"... " instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there." ..."
"... Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor. ..."
"... According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one. ..."
May 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. From memes outlining the differences between Veterans, Armed Forces, and Memorial Day, to Fourth of July "safe space" declarations seemingly applied to all vets, the trend was everywhere. Thankfully, it seems now to have passed.

Memorial Day is, of course, for remembering the fallen, those who died in service to the nation. Veterans and their families remember their loved ones in ways they deem appropriate, and the state remembers, too, in a somber, serious manner.

This remembrance should in no way preclude the typical family barbecue and other customs associated with the traditional beginning of summer. National holidays are for remembering and celebrating, not guilt. Shaming those who fail to celebrate a holiday according to one's expectations is a bit like non-Christians feeling shame for skipping church: it shouldn't matter because the day means different things to different people. Having a day on the calendar demonstrates the national consensus about honoring sacrifice; anything more than that is a slow walk towards superficiality. President Bush stopped golfing during the Iraq war, but it didn't stop him from continuing it.

Instead, Memorial Day should engender conversation about our military and the gulf between those who serve and those who don't. The conversation shouldn't just be the military talking at civilians; it must be reciprocal. Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. This situation is lamentable because the aforementioned "mil-splaining" could only occur in a country so profoundly divided from its military as to misunderstand basic concepts such as the purpose of holidays. It's also striking how the most outspoken so-called "patriots" often have little connection to that which they so outlandishly support. Our "thank you for your service" culture is anathema to well-functioning civil-military relations.

After Multiple Deployments, Coming Home to a Changed Country The Best Way to Honor a Vet is With the Truth

The public owes its military more consideration, particularly in how the armed forces are deployed across the globe. Part of this is empathy: stop treating military members as an abstraction , as something that exists only to serve a national or increasingly political purpose. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are deserving of praise and support -- especially considering the burden they've carried -- but what they need more is an engaged public, one that's even willing to scrutinize the military . Because scrutiny necessitates engagement and hopefully understanding and reform.

But the civil-military divide goes both ways. Military members and veterans owe the public a better relationship as well. This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them. Open a dialogue: you might build a real connection . Better yet, volunteer to speak at a school or church: partly to explain your service, sure, but more so to show that military personnel are people, too, not just distant abstractions . Veterans are spread across the county and better able to interact with civilians than our largely cloistered active duty force. They shouldn't go to schools, churches, and civic organizations for the inevitable praise. They should go to educate, nurture relationships, and chip away at the civil-military divide.

Perhaps by questioning the fundamentals -- the "why" instead of the so often discussed "what" in military operations -- the public would be in a better position to demand action from a Congress that, heretofore, has largely abdicated serious oversight of foreign policy. Perhaps the public, instead of asking "what" we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan , could ask "why" there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there.

A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. Consumed by domestic strife and the emergence of nationalism , American foreign policy has wandered fecklessly since the end of the Cold War. While we can strike anywhere, this capability is wasted in search of a lasting peace.

What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic .

For America to dig its way out of its domestic and foreign troubles it must start with sobering analysis. For the civil-military dialogue, Memorial Day is as good a place to begin as any day. So this weekend, civilians should move beyond "Thank you for your service" and ask a vet about his or her service and lost comrades. Veterans, don't expect praise and don't lecture; speak with honesty and empathy, talk about what you've done and the conditions you've seen. You might be surprised what we can learn from each other.

John Q. Bolton is an Army officer who recently returned from Afghanistan. An Army aviator (AH-64D/E), he is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a 2005 graduate of West Point. The views presented here are his alone and not representative of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

12 Responses to On Memorial Day, Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service'

W May 28, 2018 at 4:03 am

(This reply was intended for an older article "http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-deep-unfairness-of-americas-all-volunteer-force" from 2017 but since the topics are kind of related, so )

The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire.

It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. Scrapping/re-constituting these frameworks would put the US on par with most other countries on earth sporting home-bound defense forces. Congressional authority/oversight would be reinvigorated, and acting under the auspices of the UN becomes a procedural impairment (sovereignty concerns and selfishness notwithstanding). A practical start would be lobbying for more base closures abroad, for those who feel strongly about this.

But there is a danger: nature abhors a vacuum.

The other thing, I am definitely for professionalism in militaries. Better to have one dedicated soldier than three squirmish kids dragged into the mud.

Aviel , says: May 28, 2018 at 4:07 am
Seems to me a universal draft would be the best way to say thank you. Under that scenario most wars would be avoided or resolved quickly as the cost would be political defeat. An all volunteer/mercenary force is blatantly unfair as virtually no kids of the wealthy fight, prohibitively expensive, as recruiting and retaining soldiers in these times is an uphill challenge, and dangerous as it encourages needless risk since only a tiny percentage of the voting population pay the price
Mark M. Pando , says: May 28, 2018 at 5:31 am
Sir: Thank you for your timely comments. I am a USN veteran and fully support the idea that communication has to be a two-way street between civilians and our military women and men. But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. Not having common experiences makes us all more foreign to one another which leads to isolation and platitudes such as "Thank you for your service." I have heard that comment many times, too, and after a while it comes across as: "better you than me." I know I am being cynical but I am also only human .
SteveM , says: May 28, 2018 at 7:54 am
Re: "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them."

U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will.

Thanking someone for signing up for the War Machine to wreck havoc on natives thousands of miles from American shores makes little sense.

The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so?

The U.S. military slaughters the Syrian army operating in their own country and we are supposed to thank them for "their service"? Military drone drivers who slaughter Yemeni wedding parties from comfortable installations in Florida and the operators on U.S. Navy ships who launch missiles into Syria based on bogus False Flag scenarios are "Warrior Heroes"?

The veterans we should be thanking are the ones who realized early on that they were being played for chumps by the war-mongers and got out. If John Q. Bolton has that understanding, why hasn't he gotten out?

The real "heroes" in America are the young people who get real jobs in the real economy providing real value to their fellow citizens.

The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence.

E.J. Smith , says: May 28, 2018 at 9:26 am
This is an excellent article. Memorial Day should call upon all Americans to ask some essential questions.

As an aside, The Washington Post ran an article today about the funeral of Spec. Conde who recently was killed in Afghanistan. The article spoke of Spec. Conde's motivations for serving, the events that led to his death, the funeral service, and the effect that his death at age 21 had and will have on his family and those who knew and loved him.

What struck me most about the article was how remote the funeral service and the family's grief seem from the rest of what is taking place in America. For example, there was an oblique reference to a funeral detail for a veteran who committed suicide that apparently no one attended.

The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them.

The vast majority of the American public go about their daily lives, seemingly insulated from the effects of our endless engagements. For example, Spec. Conde's death in Afghanistan did not even make the front page of our major media when it first happened. The death of four soldiers in Niger has faded from view.

With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives.

Stuart MacNee , says: May 28, 2018 at 1:39 pm
Thank you, Sir, for articulating my position. In 7 Second Soundbite format, "I Support the Troops, not the Policy that put them in harms way."
The military should never be deployed for political purposes. As a nation, we have willfully refused to learn anything from the lessons of Korea and Viet Nam.

Military service preserves the Ultimate Expression of America, "Question Authority!" (I recognize the Irony of suppressing it within it's ranks.) In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel.

Accept Officer Bolton's challenge. When you see me kneeling at the National Anthem, ask me why. [The Answer: I do it to show respect for those that have fallen at the hands of those who oppose the Values embodied in the American Flag.]

Rossbach , says: May 28, 2018 at 1:43 pm
" instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there."

Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor.

According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one.

Stephen J. , says: May 28, 2018 at 2:03 pm
Perhaps we need "our leaders" to do some war "Service."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009

"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?

Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed, destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? How could this be arranged? All the leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first. A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games .
[read more at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html

Keith Danish , says: May 28, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Good to know that not all John Boltons are insane.

[May 29, 2018] Credible Report Alleges US Relocates ISIS from Syria and Iraq into Russia via Afghanistan

Notable quotes:
"... According to Russian and Chinese law enforcement agencies, militants fleeing by sea from Syria and Iraq follow a route from the Qasim port in the Pakistani city of Karachi to Peshawar, and are then distributed along the Nangarhar province in the east of the country. ..."
"... Since late 2017 the leaders of the Islamic State managed to transfer from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan an additional 500 foreign fighters, including more than two dozen women. A source in one of the Russian law enforcement agencies says: "All of them are also in the province of Nangarhar. They are citizens of Sudan, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan, France and so on." ..."
"... Movement of militants to the north is planned to be organized in two directions. In Tajikistan, the radicals will penetrate the provinces of Nuristan and Badakhshan, and to Turkmenistan - through the provinces of Farah, Ghor, Sari-Pul and Faryab. ..."
"... Governor of Nangarhar Province, Gulab Mangal ..."
"... personally oversees militant activities in the region. ..."
"... Mangal has a long-standing relationship with the US intelligence services. In particular, he fought against the Soviet forces during the Afghan campaign of the USSR. Immediately after the US invasion in 2001, he was appointed as the head of the local government of the Pashtuns, the people to which he belongs. Also, Mangal is loved by the Western press. Most of the publications in the major American and British media contain exceptionally positive information about him, and the BBC called him "the hope of Helmand province," which Mangal previously headed. ..."
"... According to the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan, in the near future the leadership of the Islamic State plans to expand the grouping by another 1.2 thousand militants. Most of them will also be located in the province, under the control of Gulab Mangal and his people. ..."
"... It is worth noting that the two largest US bases in Afghanistan are in the immediate vicinity of the Nangarhar province, which is hardly a coincidence. ..."
"... At the same time, the expert community points out that the pressure on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin ..."
"... is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as well as a number of other post-Soviet countries. ..."
"... " Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from Syria. Secondly, if the operation succeeds, a focus of instability will be created along the path of the One-Belt-One-Road project, which is designed to strengthen the economic and logistical integration of Eurasia. Afghanistan also borders Iran in the west, which opens a new front against Tehran. Starting with economic pressure through new sanctions, ending with "color revolutions" that will continue in the post-Soviet space, and direct aggression from American networks. Obviously, the United States did not seize Afghanistan, by rigging its military dictatorship there, in order to build democracy and civil society there. This is a springboard for the creation of terrorist networks, with the help of which the US is preparing an aggression against Iran and Russia." ..."
May 29, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

Eric ZUESSE | 26.05.2018 | WORLD / Middle East | FEATURED STORY Credible Report Alleges US Relocates ISIS from Syria and Iraq into Russia via Afghanistan

Katehon, a think-tank dedicated to the protection of nations' sovereignty against invasions and coups from abroad, headlined, on May 15th, "Special Services Agent: Attack on Russia Is Being Prepared" , and reported that [with editorial clarifications and links supplied by me in brackets]:

According to Russian and Chinese law enforcement agencies, militants fleeing by sea from Syria and Iraq follow a route from the Qasim port in the Pakistani city of Karachi to Peshawar, and are then distributed along the Nangarhar province in the east of the country.

Since late 2017 the leaders of the Islamic State managed to transfer from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan an additional 500 foreign fighters, including more than two dozen women. A source in one of the Russian law enforcement agencies says: "All of them are also in the province of Nangarhar. They are citizens of Sudan, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan, France and so on."

Movement of militants to the north is planned to be organized in two directions. In Tajikistan, the radicals will penetrate the provinces of Nuristan and Badakhshan, and to Turkmenistan - through the provinces of Farah, Ghor, Sari-Pul and Faryab.

Governor of Nangarhar Province, Gulab Mangal [ Wikipedia says of him , "After the American led invasion in 2001 , he was appointed a Regional Coordinator of the Constitutional Loya Jirga in Paktia"], personally oversees militant activities in the region.

Mangal has a long-standing relationship with the US intelligence services. In particular, he fought against the Soviet forces during the Afghan campaign of the USSR. Immediately after the US invasion in 2001, he was appointed as the head of the local government of the Pashtuns, the people to which he belongs. Also, Mangal is loved by the Western press. Most of the publications in the major American and British media contain exceptionally positive information about him, and the BBC called him "the hope of Helmand province," which Mangal previously headed.

According to the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan, in the near future the leadership of the Islamic State plans to expand the grouping by another 1.2 thousand militants. Most of them will also be located in the province, under the control of Gulab Mangal and his people.

It is worth noting that the two largest US bases in Afghanistan are in the immediate vicinity of the Nangarhar province, which is hardly a coincidence.

At the same time, the expert community points out that the pressure on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin [and here is more about him] is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as well as a number of other post-Soviet countries. [Korovin states]:

" Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from Syria. Secondly, if the operation succeeds, a focus of instability will be created along the path of the One-Belt-One-Road project, which is designed to strengthen the economic and logistical integration of Eurasia. Afghanistan also borders Iran in the west, which opens a new front against Tehran. Starting with economic pressure through new sanctions, ending with "color revolutions" that will continue in the post-Soviet space, and direct aggression from American networks. Obviously, the United States did not seize Afghanistan, by rigging its military dictatorship there, in order to build democracy and civil society there. This is a springboard for the creation of terrorist networks, with the help of which the US is preparing an aggression against Iran and Russia."

If this is true, then Trump is carrying through the plan that George Herbert Walker Bush initiated on the night of 24 February 1990 , to capture Russia, despite the termination of communism, the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact, and despite the Soviet Union's departure from Afghanistan in 1989 , a year before Bush's secret plan was initiated.

Peter Korzun, my colleague at the Strategic Culture Fundation, has presented a case that "Despite its recent claims to the contrary, the US is hunkering down in Syria for the long haul." He noted that: "Last month US forces were also reported to be building a new outpost at the al-Omar oil field in southeastern Deir ez-Zor. They were deployed to positions around the Conoco and al-Jafreh oil fields. On April 7, the area around the oil fields in Deir ez-Zor was declared a military zone by the US-led SDF . That group has already clashed with Syrian forces in the fight to control the province."

On 25 June 2017, I noted that in December 2016, "Obama and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria, in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use ISIS so as to bring down Assad." And "Trump has been continuing Obama's Policy" of supporting Al Qaeda and even sometimes ISIS in Syria so as to carve out Syria's oil-producing region as a separate US-controlled nation, in the event that America and the Sauds fail to replace Assad in all of Syria.

Perhaps the US, which clearly was not satisfied when the Soviet side ended its side of the Cold War in 1991, is going all the way to seek a hot-war victory against Russia. Pushing Russia this hard and this far and this long -- using even the "Putin stole Crimea" hoax and other such hoaxes to justify 'restoring' a Cold War which was actually supposed to have ended when the Soviet Union's communism did -- suggests that Russia might soon need to respond in a direct military way, taking America's war as the existential threat to Russian national sovereignty over Russia, that it is. The alternative -- Russian surrender to the US -- seems far less likely, even though taking the war to America would entail global annihilation. Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, has said many times -- and the Russian public seems to be overwhelmingly supportive of him in this -- that for the US to push much farther in this direction will result in nuclear war, and that the US must recognize this fact. Trump seems not to recognize it.

[May 29, 2018] The Saudi Lobby s Scheme to Destroy the Iran Deal by By William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman

May 23, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

They gave Obama their tepid approval, then poured millions into a three-year campaign to kill it -- and won.

By William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman • Benjamin Netanyahu's April 30 presentation accusing Iran of lying about its nuclear program was clearly aimed at a Western audience, and at one man in particular -- Donald Trump. Trump was already inclined to violate and exit the multi-party deal to block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, but Netanyahu's presentation offered a timely addition to the administration's rhetorical arsenal. His PowerPoint performance, filled with misleading assertions and stale information dressed up as new revelations, was referenced by Trump as part of the justification for abandoning the nuclear deal.

While this garnered headlines, another U.S. ally -- Saudi Arabia -- had been orchestrating a quieter but equally effective lobbying and public relations push to dismantle the deal. The Saudis' arguments were used just as much, if not more, by Trump in justifying his decision for the U.S. to walk away from a carefully crafted agreement that even some of his own military leaders had acknowledged was working.

The Saudi lobby's push began long before the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was formally announced on July 14, 2015. In fact, Saudi lobbyists had been working behind the scenes in the U.S. for years to ensure that the Kingdom's concerns were incorporated into any deal Washington would agree to with Iran -- if there was to be a deal at all.

In total, the Christian Science Monitor found that Saudi Arabia spent $11 million dollars on Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)-registered firms in 2015, and "much of this spending relates to Iran." They were also assembling former policymakers like Senator Norm Coleman, whose FARA disclosure mentions his work on "limiting Iranian nuclear capability." More recently, Coleman penned an op-ed in The Hill applauding Trump for leaving the deal without disclosing that he was being paid by the Saudi government.

Despite their strong opposition to any deal with Iran, however, many of the Saudis' concerns were ultimately addressed by the JCPOA, specifically their demands that "snapback" provisions be incorporated to quickly reinstitute sanctions if Iran violated the agreement and that inspectors have access to military and other suspect sites. Above all, the Saudis wanted an assurance that the deal would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The agreement provided this and President Obama guaranteed it. This led to what many had thought impossible -- Saudi Arabia supporting the Iran deal . Obama sealed the grudging support of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States in a May 2015 meeting at Camp David where he offered "reassurances" that the deal would not jeopardize their security, underscored by a promise to sell them even more weaponry.

But Saudi support for the deal was tepid and ephemeral at best. While publicly supporting it, the Saudis and their lobbyists in D.C. were quietly working to undermine it. Their arguments largely centered on two points: that the funds freed up by the deal would underwrite Iran's continued support for terrorist groups, and that the deal would do nothing to halt Iran's ballistic missile program.

While more than two dozen D.C. lobbying and public relations firms working for Saudi interests have registered under FARA since the U.S. agreed to the Iran deal, none has been more aggressively pushing these anti-Iran talking points than the MSLGroup (which acquired long-serving Saudi client Qorvis Communications in 2014). The MSLGroup, which has been paid more than $6 million dollars by the Saudis just since the U.S. agreed to the Iran deal, has distributed a variety of "informational materials" (formerly called propaganda ) on each of these topics, including a five-page fact sheet on " Iranian Aggression in Yemen ," and a press release on Iran being the " biggest state sponsor of terrorism ," among many others. And of course, the MSLGroup wasn't alone in spreading anti-Iran propaganda on behalf of the Saudi regime. For example, as recently as March 2018, the Glover Park Group distributed information on Iran's "region," and Hogan Lovells distributed " facts about the Houthis and Iran ," with a section on Iran's ballistic missiles.

With these talking points in hand, the Saudis saw an opportunity in the election of the neophyte Donald Trump to up the ante on Iran, and they invested heavily in courting him. Their efforts paid off handsomely as Trump made his first overseas visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, initially supported them in their spat with Qatar (until he learned the U.S. has a rather large military base in Qatar), kept U.S. military support and bombs flowing for a Saudi-led campaign in Yemen that has cost more than 10,000 civilians their lives, and agreed to sell them billions of dollars in additional U.S. weaponry of all sorts, from more munitions to a costly missile defense system. But Saudi Arabia still wanted more -- they wanted the U.S. out of the Iran deal.

While Saudi Arabia's most unlikely ally in this cause, Israel, took a very outspoken approach to move the president, which culminated in Netanyahu's misleading presentation, the Saudis used their well-financed lobbying machine to disseminate their message into the D.C. bloodstream. Their primary talking points found their way to the president's ears and became routine features of his justification for abandoning the deal. The White House statement justifying leaving the Iran deal is littered with Saudi lobby talking points, including that "The JCPOA failed to deal with the threat of Iran's missile program," and Iran "continues to fund terrorist proxies In Yemen, the regime has escalated the conflict and used the Houthis as a proxy to attack other nations." The president's remarks on the day he announced that the U.S. was abandoning the deal are also rife with language that could easily have been lifted from a Saudi-financed "fact sheet." In fact, Trump's second sentence, "the Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terrorism," is nearly verbatim off of an anti-Iran talking point distributed by the MSLGroup.

Why did the Saudis want the U.S. to abandon the Iran deal? A New York Times analysis identified what is probably the primary reason -- a fear that the deal would be the first step towards a U.S. rapprochement with Iran that would undermine the Saudi regime's power in the region in general and its campaign against Iran in particular. "Exiting the deal, with or without a plan, is fine with the Saudis," the Times wrote. "They see the accord as a dangerous distraction from the real problem of confronting Iran around the region -- a problem that Saudi Arabia believes will be solved only by leadership change in Iran."

Former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro underscored this point when he noted that the Saudis and their Gulf allies "believe they are in this existential conflict with the Iranian regime, and nuclear weapons are a small part of that conflict . If the deal opened an avenue for better relations between the United States and Iran, that would be a disaster for the Saudis," he said. "They need to ensure a motivation for American pressure against Iran that will last even after this administration."

One disquieting outcome of the trashing of the Iran nuclear deal is that Saudi Arabia has threatened to acquire a nuclear weapon of its own if the end of the agreement leads Iran to revive its program. This is not the first time Saudi leaders have made such threats. Just after Trump announced the U.S. would be leaving the deal, the Saudi foreign minister said that if Iran now builds a nuclear weapon his country "will do everything we can" to follow suit. So on top of its implications for increased conventional conflict in the region, the end of U.S. participation in the Iran deal could spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East -- an outcome that would have been far less likely if U.S. participation in the Iran deal had been maintained.

The potential for a Mideast nuclear arms race is yet another example of the disastrous consequences of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's reckless foreign policy, which includes everything from his regime's brutal, counterproductive intervention in Yemen, to the Saudi-led effort to impose a blockade on Qatar, to its promotion of regime change in Iran -- preferably carried out by the United States.

In the wake of the U.S. pullout from the Iran deal, we can expect the Saudi lobby, working in concert with administration allies ranging from Jared Kushner to newly appointed national security advisor John Bolton, to double down in its efforts to promote these ill-advised, dangerous directions for U.S. foreign policy in the region. Countering Riyadh's blatant influence peddling should be part of an expanded effort to distance the United States from its increasingly risky, counterproductive relationship with Saudi Arabia. If Mohammed bin Salman's aggressive policies -- and Saudi advocacy for them in Washington -- continue, Riyadh is one "friend" the United States should consider doing without.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and Ben Freeman directs the Center's Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative.

[May 29, 2018] The Urban-Rural Divide More Pronounced Than Ever

Notable quotes:
"... Why Liberalism Failed ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
May 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

These findings reminded me of the suggestion in Patrick Deneen's recently released Why Liberalism Failed that the political ideology of liberalism drives us apart, making us more lonely and polarized than ever. As Christine Emba writes in her Washington Post review of Deneen's book:

As liberalism has progressed, it has done so by ever more efficiently liberating each individual from "particular places, relationships, memberships, and even identities-unless they have been chosen, are worn lightly, and can be revised or abandoned at will." In the process, it has scoured anything that could hold stable meaning and connection from our modern landscape-culture has been disintegrated, family bonds devalued, connections to the past cut off, an understanding of the common good all but disappeared.

likbez

Our political differences are strengthening, with an increasing number of urban Americans moving further left and more than half of rural voters (54 percent)

There is actually no way to move to the left in the two party system installed in the USA. The Democratic Party is just another neoliberal party. Bill Clinton sold it to Wall Street long ago.

Neoliberalism uses identity wedge to split the voters into various groups which in turn are corralled into two camps representing on the federal level two almost identical militaristic, oligarchical parties to eliminate any threat to the status quo.

And they do very skillfully and successfully. Trump is just a minor deviation from the rule (or like Obama is the confirmation of the rule "change we can believe in" so to speak). And he did capitulate to neocons just two months after inauguration. While he was from the very beginning a "bastard neoliberal" -- neoliberal that denies the value of implicit coercion of neoliberal globalization in favor of open bullying of trade partners. Kind of "neoliberalism for a single exceptional country."

The current catfight between different oligarchic groups for power (Russiagate vs. Spygate ) might well be just a smoke screen for the coming crisis of neoliberalism in the USA, which is unable to lift the standard of living of the lower 80% of population, and neoliberal propaganda after 40 or so years lost its power, much like communist propaganda in the same time frame.

The tenacity with which Clinton-Obama wing of Democratic Party wants Trump to be removed is just a testament of the political power of neoliberals and neocons in the USA as they are merged with the "deep state." No deviations from the party line are allowed.

[May 28, 2018] Comey Friend Who Leaked FBI Memos Now Claims To Be His Attorney by Sean Davis

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records. ..."
"... The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny. ..."
"... Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey testified last June in response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey continued . "And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School," Comey responded . ..."
Jan 23, 2018 | thefederalist.com

Daniel Richman, the law professor who leaked classified FBI records to the media at Comey's request, refused to disclose when exactly he became Comey's attorney.

A friend of former FBI director James Comey who leaked sensitive FBI memos to The New York Times in the wake of Comey's firing in 2017 now claims to be Comey's personal attorney.

Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University , told The Federalist via phone on Tuesday afternoon that he was now personally representing Comey.

The revelation comes in the wake of news that Comey was interviewed by the special counsel's office last year.

According to The New York Times , the line of questioning from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller focused on memos that Comey wrote and later leaked after he was fired from his job by President Donald Trump.

A review of FBI policies governing the handling of sensitive government documents suggests Comey violated FBI policy by leaking the memos, which were produced on government time, using government equipment, and directly related to his official government responsibilities, according to Comey's own testimony before Congress .

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter to the Department of Justice on January 3 that at least one of the memos Comey provided to his friend was classified.

"My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security," Grassley wrote .

"The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified.

Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the 'SECRET' or 'CONFIDENTIAL' levels." "If it's true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information," Grassley noted in the letter.

Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records.

The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny.

Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey testified last June in response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey continued . "And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School," Comey responded .

Despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, Comey never characterized Richman as his attorney, nor did he suggest that his directions to Richman to leak the memos to the media were privileged attorney-client communications.

The news that Richman is now representing Comey raises questions about whether the special counsel may be investigating Comey and Richman for their roles in leaking classified information to the news media in order to get revenge on Trump for firing Comey.

The tactic of using attorney-client privilege to shield potentially illegal communications from law enforcement scrutiny is not a new one.

During the FBI investigation of then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton's potential mishandling of classified information, Cheryl Mills, one of Clinton's top government aides at the State Department, also claimed that she could not testify about her communications with Clinton on the matter because she was also serving as Clinton's personal attorney .

"I have nothing to say about any of this," Richman responded, when asked directly whether attorney-client privilege was being asserted in order to shield his communications with Comey regarding the deliberate leaking of classified documents to the media.

Richman was first licensed to practice law in the state of New York in 1986, according to public records , and his current law license in that state is valid through October 2018.

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

[May 28, 2018] Shatter Syria into small statelets is the neocons goal; It was also one of the original goals of Iraq invasion too

Notable quotes:
"... Shatter Syria and Iraq Into Many Small Pieces ..."
"... By WashingtonsBlog ..."
"... February 25, 2016 ..."
"... With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it. ..."
"... "[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again. ..."
"... "When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces – we ..."
"... dismantled their army ..."
"... , and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was ..."
"... , and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – ..."
"... electrical plants ..."
"... water facilities ..."
"... – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was ..."
"... , leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all. ..."
"... By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , Global Research, November 2006) ..."
www.defenddemocracy.press
Shatter Syria and Iraq Into Many Small Pieces

By WashingtonsBlog
February 25, 2016

... ... ...

Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu . As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism "

***

The paper set out a plan by which Israel would "shape its strategic environment", beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.

With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and "roll back" Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by "weaning" the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them", the paper concluded.

***

The leader of the "prominent opinion makers" who wrote it was Richard Perle – now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon . Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy .

***

Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy , August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security.

A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas Feith.

***

With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.

Read also: On Northern Syria Front Line, U.S. and Turkey Head Into Tense Face-off

(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people – including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the "Project for a New American Century".)

Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut – writes :

[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whether the chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in Washington and Tel Aviv .

***

One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet .

***

The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country's social matrix and physical infrastructure.

***

Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.

In short divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.

To those -- and I suspect there are still many out there -- for whom all this seems too neat or too conspiratorial , I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:

  1. a) the "Clean Break" manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996

and

  1. b) the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper generated by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of George Bush Junior to the White House, to the most exclusive sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.

To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents -- which speak, in the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel's "strategic environment" and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of US "forward bases" in the region .

To do so now, after the US's systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya -- two notably oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or out of government with more than passing interest in history -- , and after the its carefully calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media's deafening silence on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.

And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this part of the world.

Antiwar's Justin Raimondo notes :

Iraq's fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I pointed out again and again in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate states: the Shi'ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest, and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion. This was the War Party's real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are seeing today.

Read also: Waeponizing Humiliation

***

As I put it years ago :

"[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again.

"When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces – we dismantled their army , and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was pulverized , and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – roads , bridges , electrical plants , water facilities , museums , schools – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was dissolved , leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.

" What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized."

Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors were living in trees?

The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who have advanced Israeli interests – at America's expense – at every opportunity. In " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged to "break out" of Israel's alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of "regime change" across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the exception of Iran – and that one's still cooking on the back burner – this is precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic "victory" in Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these "rogue states" – Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party's target list.

( Indeed .)

And Michel Chossudovsky points out :

The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years .

What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the elimination of Iraq as a country .

This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.

Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines .

The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.

The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven "independent states" (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.

Read also: Statement from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations

The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers". (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East" By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , Global Research, November 2006)

Breaking Apart Syria

Similarly, Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate nation.

In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry allegedly wrote a book expressly calling for the break up of Syria:

All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units . Dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.

It is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated : Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.As Michel Chossudovsky points out :

Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.

In 2013, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas said :

Let them both [sides] bleed, haemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.

Indeed, in May 2015, one of the key architects of the Iraq war – John Bolton – said:

The Arabs divided between Sunnis and Shias – I think the Sunni Arabs are never going to agree to be in a state where the Shia outnumber them 3-1. That's what ISIS has been able to take advantage of.

I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical Islamists. What's left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the ayatollahs in Tehran. It's not anything we should try to aid.

In September 2015, Pentagon intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart said that he has "a tough time" seeing either Iraq or Syria really coming back together as sovereign nations.

Dan Sanchez noted last week:

In general, Israel ideally prefers regime changes that result in the installation of stable puppets. That is Plan A. But Plan B is to balkanize . Better to divide and conquer than to countenance a "rogue" (independent) neighbor.

So it is noteworthy that Israel is endorsing its Plan B for Syria just when its enemies are making it plain that Plan A (" Assad Must Go ") is not happening any time soon.

And SecState John Kerry confirmed just yesterday that "Plan B" is to break Syria up into different states.

[May 28, 2018] Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people s countries?

Memoria day is an anti-war holiday designed to remeber horrible number of Civil war dead. But now it is converted into something like glorification of militarism day.
Neocons are renegade Trotskyites 'aligned' with US imperialism and how fighting for "world neoliberal revolution". Pay for their revolutionary fervor is much better though.
Notable quotes:
"... Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage ruin the reputation of its architects? ..."
"... Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin. ..."
"... Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that. ..."
"... that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary, then Nat Review. ..."
"... It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating. ..."
"... It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing. ..."
"... Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies matters. ..."
"... Maybe Bronstein himself was a delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated by some internationalist idealism. ..."
"... A well known saying in left wing activist circles in the UK was "Never trust a Trot." ..."
"... Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with the exception of Mongols. ..."
May 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

mark green , May 6, 2018 at 6:06 am GMT

Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage ruin the reputation of its architects?

Not in the case of Trotsky. He was such a brilliant Jew!

Johan Meyer , May 6, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@mark green

Trotsky was not that competent militarily, and even tried to arrange a transfer of e.g. Czech troops to Vladivostok to allow them to fight on the western front, and allowed American inspections of German prisoners of war in a hope of forestalling the coming Allied invasion (through Siberia and the North). Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin.

Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that.

If we are to compare death tolls, we could look at the US and UK armies' intervention (and Canada's!), directly (1994, from Burundi, mainly to prevent Hutu civilians from fleeing), and, more importantly, via proxy (1990 to the present, using the Ugandan army, armed by the former armies, with constant supply flights until at least 1994) in Rwanda and later Congo-Kinshasa. Two million Hutu (Rwanda, 1994, from former Kagame Henchman, Eric Hakizimana) and five to ten million eastern Congolese (mainly in the Kivus), from that intervention alone. The intervention also included the assassination of Rwandan president Habyarimana, and of former Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi's first democratically elected president, deposed in a baTutsi (feudal aristocrat) coup likely sponsored by same western armies), mere days after the death threat by former US secretary of state for African affairs, Herman Cohen.

Haxo Angmark , Website May 7, 2018 at 1:30 am GMT
that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary, then Nat Review.
Uebersetzer , May 7, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT
It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating.

It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing.

Dave from Oz , May 7, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies matters.
PiltdownMan , May 8, 2018 at 4:18 am GMT

Obsessed with Stalin, the disciples of Leon Bronstein see betrayed revolutions everywhere

Lev Bronstein = Leon Trotsky.

Seraphim , May 8, 2018 at 5:37 am GMT
@The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.

Wasn't 'Trotskyism' 'aligned' with US imperialism from the very moment when he transported the Warburg-Schiff money to Russia to carry on the 'permanent revolution'?
And when Stalin cut Trotsky's crap who jumped to his defense? The Dewey "Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials". And who are the imperialist 'neo-cons' other than 'old Trotskyists'?

jilles dykstra , May 8, 2018 at 6:39 am GMT
I did not read about the suspicion that Bron(f)stein in reality was a German agent. What one reads in these two books does not make the suspicion go away

John W Wheeler-Bennett, 'Brest-Litovsk, The forgotten peace, March 1918', 1938, 1963, London
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918

Vojkan , May 8, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT
If they weren't so nefarious, the trotsies wouldn't be worth reading, let alone mentioning. Maybe Bronstein himself was a delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated by some internationalist idealism.

Neocons are jewish supremacists aided by corrupt to the core goyim, plain and simple. They do have in common with their guru one conviction, that the end justifies the means. That is the recipe of evil.

It's a pity that so many youth are misled still today in believing in the hoax that Trotskyism is somehow something moral. Trotsky was himself a murderer. Killing is immoral. It sometimes is necessary and cannot be avoided as with regards to the psychotic butchers who came from abroad to Syria and are known as ISIS but it is still immoral.

Normal people sense killing as immoral therefore psychopaths have to come up with stories such as Germans slaughtering Belgian babies with bayonets, Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, Serbs genociding Bosniaks or Albanians, Qadhafi readying for genocide in Benghazi, Assad pulling children's fingernails or gassing them, Iran being responsible for 9/11 etc, all in order to dehumanise the enemy of the moment and compel people to accept that killing "sub-humans" half way around the world is a moral act. It isn't. Period.

Unlike all those fake atrocities, Western and Saudi trained, armed and financed foreign terrorists in Syria did film themselves doing horrors. They videotaped themselves burning people alive, throwing people off building tops. They videotaped themselves beheading children. Assad didn't make those videos, ISIS did, to brag. Only mentally ill people can support those "rebels" against Assad. Yet, as a Christian, I don't consider killing them as moral, I consider it as necessary and unavoidable, but it is an act that mandates penitence.

Trotsies ignore those qualms and, whether real or alleged followers, are sick people. End of story.

animalogic , May 8, 2018 at 7:41 am GMT
@Dave from Oz

You're standing on solid ground, there Dave. I like to respond to holocaust discussion with the question: "the Jews and who else ?"

Thirdeye , May 8, 2018 at 7:58 am GMT
From Trotsky's doctrine of Permanent Revolution onward, the hallmark of Trotskyism has been a quest for intellectual purity in revolution – no contradictions allowed. No mixed economies under socialism. No pragmatic alliances. No consideration of national security. Stake everything on a worldwide wave of revolution. Every real-world tactical issue since 1939 has led to fracturing of the Trotskyist movement, generally into a "pure" faction and a "get something done" faction. International Socialists represented the "pure" faction after the 1939 split (after it spun off the forebears of the neoconservative movement). Its sole contribution of significance was as an intellectual incubator for Christopher Hitchens. More "pure" factions spun off in the early 1960s, which sooner or later degenerated into cults. Lyndon LaRouche made his mark leading one of the "pure" factions. The "get something done" faction made its mark as highly effective organizers of protests against the war in Vietnam but started chasing silly fads of the student New Left, trying unsuccessfully to connect them to a revolutionary strategy. Their "revolutionary" rationale for those movements blew up when they went in a decidedly bourgeois-aligned bureaucratic direction and became adjuncts to the Democratic Party. WSWS represents the revival of purist Trotskyism, which offers cogent critiques of the glorified left-liberal postmodernist "Trotskyism" of Louis Proyect and Socialist Alternative, but seems to choke on the question of what they themselves actually intend to accomplish.
jimmyriddle , May 8, 2018 at 9:29 am GMT
A well known saying in left wing activist circles in the UK was "Never trust a Trot."
Thirdeye , May 8, 2018 at 9:45 am GMT
@Seraphim

The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.

Thirdeye , May 8, 2018 at 10:00 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

If one wants to make the case that Trotsky was a German agent, they would have to explain his agitation for spreading the revolution into Germany. You could make a stronger case that George Washington was a French agent against Britain. Revolutions have tended to occur in the cracks and contradictions opened in the struggles between the great powers, including the revolutions in China and Vietnam.

James Brown , May 8, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
The problem is not that an ignorant, Tony McKenna, will still in 2018 be a Trotskyst , that is a defender of a mass murderer.

The problem is that the writer of this piece seems to believe that it is worth spending time writing an article about such an ignorant and irrelevant man. Maybe because he "writes well", which, she admires.

That one can "write well" and "speak well, as intellectuals do, but be a jerk, doesn't occur to Ms Johnson.

The problem is also because the writer herself, ignores how profoundly ignorant is Tony McKenna.

"Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality "

No, Revolutions are criminal enterprises. They always were and they always will be.
Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao were criminals.

The first European revolution – The French Revolution – was the first big lie and the first to put into practice the industrial killing of a people – People of Vendée – . The first EUropean Genocide was committed by the French revolutionaries.

It is not by chance that all major criminals (Lenine etc ) studied the French Revolution and would apply later in their countries the model that the French terrorists (Revolutionaries) applied to France.

Those who are interested in knowing the truth about the Franch Revolution (and all revolutions and why so called Trotskysts are a bunch of fools) should read Reynald Secher – A French Genocide: The Vendee.

"In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries"

Well, if one can write such nonsense, then when can admire Tony McKenna and waste time writing a silly article.

Parbes , May 8, 2018 at 11:46 am GMT
Great article! Thanks to Diana Johnstone for writing such a fine article which blows right out of the water so much of the BS being bandied about in relation to the Syrian War, Stalin, etc. Ms. Johnstone is a REAL intellectual. Wish there were more like her in the Anglosphere nowadays.
OpenYourEyes , May 8, 2018 at 12:02 pm GMT
President Asad is a doctor by profession. He is a family man and has raised a beautiful family. Prior to this Saudi Terrorist Revolution he rode his own car, at times taking his family shopping .hardly signs of a baby killer or a 'chemical animal'.
Jake , May 8, 2018 at 12:18 pm GMT
Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with the exception of Mongols.

Trotskyites and WASPs – who created the largest empire in world history – in bed together, with the evil House of Saud, could destroy civilization.

Joe Magarac , May 8, 2018 at 12:37 pm GMT
No more Stalin. No more USSR even. Yet the Trots are still objectively counterrevolutionary left deviationists after all these years.
Pindos , Website May 8, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
@Thirdeye

It served Jew interests – destroy Russians

nickels , May 8, 2018 at 1:35 pm GMT
Interesting.

I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative). The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements. My other theory is that they were a paychological projection of guilt from the collectivization murders, realized as more murders.

seeing-thru , May 8, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
Fools and idiots come in various shapes and sizes, as do socialists and wildlife. The zebra stands out from afar, its stripes give it away. Likewise, the Trotskyites stand out markedly in the fairly jumbled-up socialist landscape, given away by their towering stupidity and luminous obstinacy. Whenever some wretched poor, weak country is being bombed by the West, these useful idiots of empire jump up and down in merriment. Whenever a union anywhere is trying to extort more money for less work, these fools give their support. The burning down of churches and the spreading of atheism at gunpoint is another trait of theirs. Christian Socialists they hate with a special vengeance, taking their cue from Marx the great "visionary", whose vision was fairly deficient in many ways.

Stalin had Trot's head badgered-in, if I recall. Well, with a head as stupid as Trotsky's, half the world would be itching to bash it in. One of those good things that Stalin did, IMHO.

Moi , May 8, 2018 at 3:41 pm GMT
@OpenYourEyes

and although his country is poor, his wife shops in Paris.

Thirdeye , May 8, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
@Moi

Oh, the horror!

Shakesvshav , May 8, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
Trotsky was a liar conspiring with the Nazis and Japan. Grover Furr has published the evidence.
Thirdeye , May 8, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
@Pindos

It served Jew interests – destroy Russians

Then they could just as well have kept their money. Nicholas II was doing a fine job at that.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , May 8, 2018 at 4:45 pm GMT
@Moi

There are plenty of medium and low priced stores in Paris.

Seamus Padraig , May 8, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT
@OpenYourEyes

Prior to this Saudi Terrorist Revolution he rode his own car

Sometimes he still does. The following video of Pres. Assad driving his Honda was shot in E. Ghouta (Damascus) just this past March:

Seamus Padraig , May 8, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT
@nickels

The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.

That's exactly how I interpret Stalin's purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally–and the NKVD specifically–from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.

I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).

Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn't make sense is because he doesn't really want to talk about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin's purges, you first have to understand the context in which they took place.

ploni almoni , May 8, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT
Syrians have told me that Bashar al-Assad was a decent chap. But taking his family shopping could not be different from John McCain walking through Baghdad with one hundred soldiers around him and helicopters overhead to show how safe it was. If Bashar al-Assad "went shopping" in Damascus (instead of London or Paris) then two thousand plain clothes were also shopping with him. And for what would he "go shopping" in Damascus? Shopping for an illusion, that's what.
Joe Magarac , May 8, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Anyone seriously thinking Trotsky was conspiring with Nazis or Japan is seriously imbalanced.

That was the official Stalinist line during WWII.

Seamus Padraig , May 8, 2018 at 6:52 pm GMT
Bravo! Another ringer from Diana Johnstone.

"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." [ -Tony McKenna ]

This is like cursing the pizza store owner who gives 'protection' money to the mafia, without cursing the mafia which extorts him! As Johnstone later points out, back then Assad had little choice but to try and make his peace with Uncle Scam as best he could, since the USSR was no longer around to protect Syria.

McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?"

Ah yes: Louis Proyect. The one and only! It was he who recently defended the 'rebels' as proletarian Bolsheviks struggling for a new, socialist Syria:

"The Syrian rebels are generally drawn from the poor, rural and unrepresented majority of the population, the Arab version of John Steinbeck's Joad family. Despite the tendency of some on the left to see them as sectarians who rose up against a generous Baathist welfare state because it supported a different interpretation of who was the true successor to Muhammad, the revolutionary struggle in Syria was fueled by class hatred."

The Joads were jihadis? Who knew!

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/13/chemical-attacks-false-flags-and-the-fate-of-syria/

The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.

Which is why, once they reach a certain age and a certain level of burn-out, rather than simply give up on politics entirely, they usually tend to become neoconservatives , as did Chris Hitchens. For them, the Rockefeller/Rothschild 'new world order' is the next best thing to Trotsky's 'world revolution'.

AnonFromTN , May 8, 2018 at 7:10 pm GMT
The thing that escaped the author is that Trotskyism is a dead horse. The number of Trotskyists in any country is as close to zero as makes no difference. These deluded weirdos are outnumbered even by flat-Earthers.
Anon [198] Disclaimer , May 8, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Wasn't the small point of disagreement which should be top dog?

nickels , May 8, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@Seamus Padraig

I don't know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped in all the classic WASP institutions.

https://www.hoover.org/profiles/stephen-kotkin

Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just crazy.
Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone's personality you can bet you're reading propaganda.

If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.

Backwoods Bob , May 8, 2018 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Uebersetzer

Absolutely. Ghadafi was sodomized by bayonet and Clinton cackled over it with malicious glee.

The posing of Assad as some kind of monster is just lynch-mob rationalization. McKenna doesn't believe what he is saying any more than Stalin believed show trial confessions obtained under torture.

It's all the more pleasurable to these psychopaths that they cloak their crimes with phony virtue. Hence, putting Assad out there as this cartoon villian.

As if ISIS, who we fostered and nurtured, was any better? Or communist Kurds? My God how we forget each disaster from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria now the scorched-earth war and subsequent disease, etc.? These people thrive on death and mayhem.

Shakesvshav , May 8, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT
@nickels

I see you go for the comic book villain invented by Cold War propagandists like Robert Conquest.

unpc downunder , May 8, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
@Thirdeye

Excellent point. The global revolution socialists are hard core ideologies who put ideological purity over practical considerations. Hence their failure to achieve any kind of real world success. Wherever socialists have had some sustainable success it has been achieved by combining socialism with elements of nationalism and capitalism. The communist military successes in Russia, China and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism. The Chinese economic miracle has been achieved through state capitalism. The Scandinavian welfare state has depended on government support for big companies like Volvo and Nokia.

There are lessons here for English-speaking countries with their dogmatic attachment to liberal values like free trade, open borders and anti-nationalism.

Revoluteous , May 8, 2018 at 11:00 pm GMT
@James Brown

Eh No. The first *modern* European revolution was the American revolution, and it's not a joke. Fully European, of European people and European powers. All European powers indeed, UK, France, Spain, many German states, and so on. And French revolution was broadly more than Robespierre, it was UK, Spain, the German states, the Pope, the Austrian Empire, the many factions of the French people (if such concept had any sense then, in a territory only less than 25% spoke French), all of them were criminals, or only was Robespierre? Was criminal the previous kingdom, in a permanent basis of bloody wars and social injustice?

Maybe revolutions are simply a security valve, steaming a bit and that's all. By the way, the word itself goes back to Coppernicus, a revolution is a full orbit of a planet around the Sun. It ends where started.

The entire Human History is criminal, against Humankind itself and our own planet. We must understand, not look for criminals.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , May 8, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT
@MarkinLA

Mrs Kennedy bought all her clothes in Paris although she laundered then through an American manufacturer

Mrs Trump buys a lot of her clothes in Italy.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , May 8, 2018 at 11:10 pm GMT
@Moi

She has to, all the stores in Syria have been bombed.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , May 8, 2018 at 11:13 pm GMT
@Seamus Padraig

So many of the books about the revolution and USSR have been written by commie Jews. It's good to be sceptical about everything they write.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , May 8, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.

They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our "struggle" is multi millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.

In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , May 8, 2018 at 11:35 pm GMT
@James Brown

I'm very interested in the Vendeens. I have the memoirs of Renee Bourderau.
It's not a book. I got it from the library of Congress copying service and put the pages in a binder.

Loyola uni Los Angeles has a copy in their rare books section. UCLA and USC libraries have lots of books about it, many in English. The Lucius Green library at Stanford has many Vendean resistance books too

Quite a different story from the conventional Masonic enlightenment narrative. Our American Whiskey rebels were lucky they surrendered so quickly or they might have met the fate of the Vendeans. There used to be a website devoted to Renee Bourdereau maintained by some college history department.

jacques sheete , May 8, 2018 at 11:38 pm GMT

The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.

For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.

You nailed it.

nickels , May 9, 2018 at 12:02 am GMT
@Shakesvshav

I ordered:

Myths truth about 1937 Stalin s counter revolution Mify i pravda o 1937 gode Kontrrevolyutsiya Stalina (Russian)
by A. M. Burovski

Found this:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/20/stalin's-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

utu , May 9, 2018 at 12:03 am GMT
@nickels

projection of guilt

Come on, psychoanalyzing Stalin? Psychoanalysis can explain everything (X and not-X) that's why it has no explanatory power.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/understanding-stalin/380786/
In the contemporary West, we often assume that perpetrators of mass violence must be insane or irrational, but as Kotkin tells the story, Stalin was neither.

After reading few reviews of Koktin books I am ready to invest my time and effort to give him a chance.

Jesse James , May 9, 2018 at 12:41 am GMT
@Quartermaster

Trotsky was a danger to the survival USSR, because he was an internationalist as is the Israeli-allied globalist cabal that runs the USA. His differences with Stalin and the nationalists inside the Kremlin was not a small disagreement, as you assert. You must not have ever even picked up a book on the subject.

Seraphim , May 9, 2018 at 1:59 am GMT
@Quartermaster

Would you be surprised to learn that Lenin too was conspiring with the Japanese in 1904-5?
'Revolutionary defeatism' was a central tenet of his worldview and of Trotsky's too.

Mulegino1 , May 9, 2018 at 2:52 am GMT
As brutal as Stalin was, his rule was providential, in the sense that he saved Russian nationalism, culture, and spirituality from absolute destruction at the hands of the usual suspects' willing instrument, Lev Davidovich Bronstein.

Bronstein was an agent of the Jewish banking cabal headquartered in New York. He was financed primarily by Jacob Schiff of Kuehn and Loeb.

Trotsky and his acolytes desired the total destruction of Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.

Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians would never fight against the Germans and their allies for the cause of world revolution, but knew they would fight for their Russian motherland and its spiritual traditions and folkways. Stalin restored the patriarchate, opened up many churches, and commissioned the composition of the "Hymn of the Soviet Union" (now the Russian National Anthem with different lyrics) in the Orthodox chorale tradition; it would ultimately replace "The Internationale."

In the meantime, the almost entirely kosher Trotskyites became viciously anti-Soviet (actually anti-Russian) and pledged their temporary allegiance to their great American golem.

The origins of the Cold War (and today's Russia xenophobia) was- in my humble opinion- the great schism and struggle between the international rootless tool of Wall St. and his acolytes and the ruthless- but providential -Georgian autocrat.

Paw , May 9, 2018 at 3:10 am GMT
@Uebersetzer

This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions

Paw , May 9, 2018 at 3:11 am GMT
@Thirdeye

This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions

RobinG , May 9, 2018 at 3:13 am GMT
@Anon

The Trotskyists didn't leave America, they just morphed into Neocons (or so I've been told).

Paw , May 9, 2018 at 3:14 am GMT
@Thirdeye

Not only to German , but the German general Staff. And Lenin lived from robberies with murders .

Israel Shamir , May 9, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT
Louis Proyect – this is a vile scribe, who blackens the pages of the Counterpunch. A part of the Trotskyite gang that took over this once venerable magazine!
Hervé Fuyet , Website May 9, 2018 at 9:19 am GMT
Hervé Fuyet
Hello Diana,

I remember with emotion the old days, where in Minnesota, the Communist Party with me among others, and the Trotskyist of the WS with you, among others, if my memories are good, we were fighting inside the movement against the war from VietNam.

The Trotskyists said then that once peace is won, it would be necessary to work for the overthrow of the regime of "pro-Soviet revisionist HoChiMinh".

Even today, most of the troskysts (and CPF Eurocommunists for that matter) still deny the socialist character of China, Viet Nam, Cuba, North Korea, and so on.

And this is even more true since these countries are inscribing their economy in the continuity of Lenin's NEP!

We come to this fable of the end of History with "globalized capitalism", as we enter a multipolar world where the socialist countries (China, VietNam, North Korea, Cuba, Kerala ) in alliance with the BRICS non-imperialist, take over.

Have you evolved from Minnesota, or are you still a fellow traveler on the WS Trotskyite?

James Brown , May 9, 2018 at 11:27 am GMT
@Revoluteous

Maybe you're right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution Except that it wasn't really a Revolution. If we want to be precise, we should call it war for "Independence"/For Power.

What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the American Revolution.
Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide is an example how "revolutionary" (criminal), the American Elite were/are.

"The entire Human History is criminal" – It's false.

"We must understand, not look for criminals." Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions are made by criminals Not just Robespierre, of course.

Beefcake the Mighty , May 9, 2018 at 11:58 am GMT
@nickels

Excellent article.

James Brown , May 9, 2018 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Anon

Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls "Unsung Heroine".
In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)

Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their "République".

If you're interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He's one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he's almost unknown because he doesn't write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.

Revoluteous , May 9, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT
@James Brown

Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others. And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.

Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).

What I am trying to say it's maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier than French too. If none speaks about it's because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.

If you have such "accidents" you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal the "criminals". Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it's hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But, Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.

nickels , May 9, 2018 at 4:28 pm GMT
@utu

Kotkin's writing is readable and the details are interesting. But he appears to be a full on propagandist on the important details, like the Tsar, the Czech and Austrian conflicts, as well as the Stalin purges.

You tell me, a man who purges millions for no apparent reason (Kotkin gives none other than paranoia) isn't an implied psychopath?

Thirdeye , May 9, 2018 at 8:33 pm GMT
@Anon

Frankfurt School ideology replaced Marxism as the driving ideology of the American Left during the 1960s. Nominal Marxists tried to fudge that ideology into Marxism because they thought it would help to sell Marxism, but boy were they wrong! Marxist theory instead became a talisman for selling the various identitarian ideologies used to divide and weaken the working class – the exact opposite of what the opportunist-identitarian Marxists had anticipated. Their claims that identitarian movements were somehow akin to the anti-colonial nationalist movements of the postwar era were diametrically wrong. They became tools of the ruling class in their 40+ year neoliberal campaign to impose hyper-exploitive colonial conditions on the former imperial homelands. We are all Third World now.

Seamus Padraig , May 9, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
@nickels

The idea that Stalin was fighting a Jew-mafia takeover of the USSR has been put forth by several prominent Third Positionists, such as Francis Parker Yockey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey#Later_life_and_works

[May 28, 2018] Why You Should Read These Military Classics by Andrew J. Bacevich

May 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

There are, in my judgment, three great novels that explore American military life in the twentieth century. They are, in order of publication, Guard of Honor (1948) by James Gould Cozzens, From Here To Eternity (1951) by James Jones, and The Sand Pebbles (1962) by Richard McKenna.

The first is a book about airmen, set at a stateside air base during World War II. The second is a soldier's story, its setting Schofield Barracks in the territory of Hawaii on the eve of Pearl Harbor. In The Sand Pebbles, the focus is on sailors. It takes place in China during the 1920s when U.S. Navy gunboats patrolled the Yangtze River and its tributaries.

As far as I can tell, none of the three enjoys much of a following today. Despite winning the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, Guard of Honor has all but vanished. To the extent that the other two retain any cultural salience, they do so as movies, superb in the case of From Here to Eternity , colorful but mediocre in the case of The Sand Pebbles.

Yet for any American seeking an intimate account of military service, all three novels remain worth reading. Times change, as do uniforms, weapons, and tactics, but certain fundamentals of military life endure. Leaders and led see matters differently, nurse different expectations, and respond to different motivations. The perspective back at higher headquarters (or up on the bridge) differs from the way things look to those dealing with the challenges of a typical duty day. The biggest difference of all is between inside and outside -- between those in uniform and the civilians who necessarily inhabit another world. Each in his own way, Cozzens, Jones, and McKenna unpack those differences with sensitivity and insight.

Of the three, McKenna's novel in particular deserves revival, not only because of its impressive literary qualities, but because the story it tells has renewed relevance to the present day. It's a story about the role that foreign powers, including the United States, played in the emergence of modern China.

Prompted in part by the ostensible North Korean threat, but more broadly by the ongoing rise of China and uncertainty about China's ultimate ambitions, the American military establishment will almost inevitably be directing more of its attention toward East Asia in the coming years. To be sure, the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terrorism continues and appears unlikely to conclude anytime soon. Yet the character of that conflict is changing. Having come up short in its efforts to pacify the Islamic world, the United States is increasingly inclined to rely on proxies, generously supported by air power, to carry on the jihadist fight in preference to committing large numbers of U.S. troops. Almost imperceptibly, East Asia is encroaching upon and will eventually eclipse the Greater Middle East in the Pentagon's hierarchy of strategic priorities.

It's this reshuffling of Pentagon priorities that endows The Sand Pebbles with renewed significance. If past is prologue, McKenna's fictionalized account of actual events that occurred 90 years ago involving U.S. forces in China should provide context for anyone intent on employing American military power to check China today.

Of course, the armed forces of the United States have a long history of involvement in East Asia. Ever since 1898, when it liberated, occupied, and subsequently annexed the Philippines, the United States has maintained an enduring military presence in that part of the world.

To the extent that Americans are even dimly aware of what that presence has entailed, they probably think in terms of three 20th-century Asian wars: the first in the 1940s against Japan; the second during the 1950s in Korea; the third from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s in Vietnam. In each, whether as ally or adversary, China figured prominently.

Yet even before the attack on Pearl Harbor initiated the first of those wars, U.S. air, land, and naval forces had been active in and around China. Dreams of gaining access to a lucrative "China Market" numbered among the factors that persuaded the United States to annex the Philippines in the first place. In 1900, U.S. troops participated in the China Relief Expedition, a multilateral intervention mounted to suppress the so-called Boxer Rebellion, which sought to expel foreigners and end outside interference in Chinese affairs. The mission succeeded and the U.S. military stayed on. Army and Marine Corps units established garrisons in "treaty ports" such as Shanghai and Tientsin.

Decades earlier, the U.S. Navy had begun making periodic forays into China's inland waterways. In the early 20th century, employing small shallow-draft vessels captured from Spain in 1898, this presence became increasingly formalized. As American commercial and missionary interests in China grew, the Navy inaugurated what it called the Yangtze Patrol, with Congress appropriating funds to construct a flotilla of purpose-built gunboats for patrolling the river and its tributaries. Under the direction of COMYANGPAT back in Shanghai, small warships flying the Stars-and-Stripes sailed up and down the Yangtze's immense length to "protect American lives and property."

This is the story that McKenna, himself a YANGPAT veteran, recounts, focusing on a single fictional ship the U.S.S. San Pablo. Known as "Sand Pebbles," the few dozen sailors comprising the San Pablo's crew are all lifers. A rough bunch, their interests rarely extend beyond drinking and whoring. In 1920s China, an American sailor's modest paycheck provides ample funds for both pursuits.

Even afloat, life for the Sand Pebbles is more than agreeable. Onboard the San Pablo, an unofficial second crew consisting of local Chinese -- "contractors," we would call them today -- does the dirty work and the heavy lifting. The Americans stay topside, performing routines and rituals meant to convey an image of power and dominance.

San Pablo is a puny and lightly armed ship. Yet it exists to convey a big impression, thereby sustaining the privileged position that the United States and the other imperial powers enjoyed in China.

The revolutionary turmoil engulfing China in the 1920s necessarily challenged this proposition. Nationalist fervor gripped large parts of the population. Imperial privilege stoked popular resentment, which made San Pablo 's position increasingly untenable, even if the Sand Pebbles themselves were blind to what was coming. That their own eminently comfortable circumstances might be at risk was literally unimaginable.

McKenna's narrative describes how the world of the Sand Pebbles fell apart. His nominal protagonist is Jake Holman, a machinist mate with a mystical relationship to machinery. Jake loathes the spit-and-polish routine topside and wants nothing more than to remain below decks in the engine compartment, performing duties that on San Pablo white American sailors have long since ceased to do. In the eyes of his shipmates, therefore, Jake represents a threat to the division of labor that underwrites their comforts.

The ship's captain, one of only two commissioned officers assigned to San Pablo, likewise sees Jake as a threat to the status quo. To my mind, Lieutenant Collins is McKenna's most intriguing creation and the novel's true focal point. Although the Sand Pebbles are oblivious to how they may figure in some larger picture, for Collins the larger picture is a continuing preoccupation. He sees his little ship, the entire U.S. Navy, America's providential purpose, and the fate of Western civilization as all of a piece. Serious, sober, and dutiful, he is also something of a fanatic.

Collins dimly perceives that powerful forces within China pose a direct threat not only to the existing U.S. position there, but to his own worldview. Yet he considers the prospect of accommodating those forces as not only intolerable, but inconceivable. So in the book's culminating episode he leads Jake and several other Sand Pebbles on a symbolic but utterly futile gesture of resistance. Fancying that he is thereby salvaging his ship's honor (and his own as well), he succeeds merely in killing his own men.

I interpret McKenna as suggesting that there is no honor in denying reality. Only waste and needless sacrifice result. Today a national security establishment as blind to reality as Lieutenant Collins presides over futile gestures far more costly than those inflicted upon the Sand Pebbles. It's not fiction and it's happening right before our eyes.

So skip the movie. But read McKenna's book. And then reflect on its relevance to the present day.

Andrew J. Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large.

[May 28, 2018] >A Major Win for Trump's War Cabinet

Notable quotes:
"... by Melvin Goodman 25 May, 2018 ..."
"... * Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. His latest book is A Whistleblower at the CIA . (City Lights Publishers, 2017). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org . ..."
May 28, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

28/05/2018

by Melvin Goodman
25 May, 2018 President Donald Trump's abrupt decision to run away from a summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un should not be a surprise to anyone. The White House is encouraging the notion that China's Xi Jinping is to blame for souring the notion of a U.S.-North Korean summit and for toughening Kim Jong Un's negotiating position, and the mainstream media is doing its predictable best to validate such a self-serving explanation. In actual fact, the Trump administration was never prepared to discuss any issue that resembled arms control and disarmament, and national security adviser John Bolton, the formidable chairman of the new "war cabinet," was never agreeable to the idea of U.S.-North Korean diplomacy.

Any exercise in arms control and disarmament involves two sets of negotiations: first is the internal set within the administration itself; second is the external set with foreign counterparts. Typically, the internal negotiations within any administration is the tougher road. One of President John F. Kennedy's greatest successes was disciplining the Pentagon in 1963 in order to negotiate the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Over the past fifty years, there has never been an arms control and disarmament treaty that the Pentagon has welcomed.

President Richard Nixon and national security advisor Henry Kissinger were particularly skillful at disciplining the national security bureaucracy that found the civilian and uniformed military leaders of the Pentagon opposed to any arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. Nixon and Kissinger had to win the bureaucratic battles before garnering the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 1972. Nixon and Kissinger also knew how to prepare for summitry, which finds the Trump administration particularly clueless.

President Ronald Reagan learned important lessons in the 1980s when Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger and his senior advisor, Richard Perle, had to be defeated bureaucratically on the way to the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987. Weinberger and Perle were routed and ultimately resigned. It is not an exaggeration to say that the internal negotiations on the home front were just as difficult as the external negotiations with the Soviet Union. And in some ways, negotiating with Soviet leaders Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev was less problematic because they had a genuine interest in disarmament and they had more control over their military establishments than their U.S. rivals.

Read also: Bernie Sanders, Israel and Palestine

In the case of the U.S.-North Korean summit, which probably would not have led to North Korean denuclearization, there was a reasonable opportunity of arranging a serious deescalation of U.S. and North Korean military activities on the Korean peninsula. National security adviser Bolton has never shown any interest in deescalating military rivalries with any U.S. adversaries, and the general officers around President Trump are not prepared to reduce the U.S. military presence in South Korea or to temper U.S.-South Korean exercises that are so threatening to the North Koreans. Communist military doctrine views such exercises as a possible prelude to an actual attack.

Bolton is new to Trump's national security team, but he is clearly the major winner in this diplomatic setback. Other members of the team, including the Secretaries of State and Defense were not consulted prior to the sudden announcement on May 24, 2018, and there is no record of any deliberations at the National Security Council for preparations for an historic meeting with Kim Jong Un, let alone the possible trade offs in any disarmament discussion. In record time, Bolton has taken charge of the national security and foreign policies of the Trump administration, and has quietly built a neoconservative team of staffers at the NSC that will take hardline positions on all items on the international agenda.

Inside and outside government, Bolton has typically surrounded himself with a like-minded group of advisers and staffers who share his bellicose views and his bellicose manner that deprived him of any chance to gain congressional confirmation for a senior position in previous administrations. Bolton is already consulting with former members of the Pentagon's short-lived Office of Special Plans (OSP) that was responsible for falsifying intelligence in 2002-2003 to make the case for war against Iraq. In previous assignments at the United Nations and the Department of State for the Reagan and Bush administrations, Bolton had a well-earned reputation for falsifying intelligence on a variety of issues in order to justify hardline positions and to argue against arms control negotiations.

Read also: The Only Thing That Can Save Trump's Presidency Now Is War With North Korea

Any connection to OSP is particularly revealing because of the results of a study by the Pentagon's Inspector General that determined the office's major mission was to provide the White House with "intelligence" to make the case for war. According to the IG, David Wurmser was the creator of a provocative and specious Power Point presentation that linked Iraq and al Qaeda for which there was no credible evidence. The phony intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and possible Iraqi-al Qaeda links were the keys to making the case for war. Wurmser is now advising Bolton on staffing decisions at the NSC.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may not have been involved in the decision making to scuttle the summit, but it is noteworthy that his first selection of an important ambassadorial post was a senior uniformed officer and not a foreign service professional. One of Pompeo's first decisions as secretary of state was to select Admiral Harry Harris Jr. as ambassador to South Korea. It was predicted at the time that Harris would join Bolton and Pompeo in arguing against the pursuit of a diplomatic bargain with North Korea. Admiral Harris was well known for his hard line briefings over the years before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Obama administration actually issued a "gag order" on Harris prior to President Barack Obama's meetings with Xi Jinping.

The emergence of Bolton and the neoconservative staffing at the NSC points to more hardline decision making that will be influenced by cherry-picked data, unexamined assumptions, and an unwillingness to hold open debates on foreign policy options. President Trump survived his first foreign policy crisis in Syria last month because of the effective and moderating role played by Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Bolton's "success" in halting the diplomatic minuet between Washington and Pyongyang points to greater instability in the near term with U.S. allies as well as adversaries. And if Bolton's neoconservative allies dominate the debates at the NSC, there will be little room for Secretary of Defense Mattis to operate and more room for Bolton's pursuit of hardline foreign policies.

Read also: 1,400 US Mayors Just Slammed the White House for Risking Nuclear War With Russia

* Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. His latest book is A Whistleblower at the CIA . (City Lights Publishers, 2017). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org .

[May 27, 2018] The Code Name Crossfire Hurricane Undermines The FBI s Russia Story by Lee Smith

So Strzok was involved with this part of the story too. Strzokgate now has distinct British accent and probably was coordinated by CIA and MI6.
Harper was definitely acted like an "agent provocateur", whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate-or seem to corroborate-evidence that the FBI believed it already had in hand. It looks like among other things Halper was tasked with the attempt elaborate on the claims made in Steele's September 14 dossier memo: "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
London was the perfect place for such dirty games -- the territory where the agent knew he could operate safely.
"Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over the White House."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times' ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
"... Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta? ..."
May 27, 2018 | thefederalist.com

The New York Times' 4,000-word report last week on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign's possible ties to Russia revealed for the first time that the investigation was called "Crossfire Hurricane."

The name, explains the paper, refers to the Rolling Stones lyric "I was born in a crossfire hurricane," from the 1968 hit "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Mick Jagger, one of the songwriters, said the song was a "metaphor" for psychedelic-drug induced states. The other, Keith Richards, said it "refers to his being born amid the bombing and air raid sirens of Dartford, England, in 1943 during World War II."

Investigation names, say senior U.S. law enforcement officials, are designed to refer to facts, ideas, or people related to the investigation. Sometimes they're explicit, and other times playful or even allusive. So what did the Russia investigation have to do with World War II, psychedelic drugs, or Keith's childhood?

The answer may be found in the 1986 Penny Marshall film named after the song, "Jumpin' Jack Flash." In the Cold War-era comedy, a quirky bank officer played by Whoopi Goldberg comes to the aid of Jonathan Pryce, who plays a British spy being chased by the KGB.

The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is therefore most likely a reference to the former British spy whose allegedly Russian-sourced reports on the Trump team's alleged ties to Russia were used as evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Service Act secret warrant on Trump adviser Carter Page in October 2016: ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele.

Helping Spin a New Origin Story

It is hardly surprising that the Times refrained from exploring the meaning of the code name. The paper of record has apparently joined a campaign, spearheaded by the Department of Justice, FBI, and political operatives pushing the Trump-Russia collusion story, to minimize Steele's role in the Russia investigation.

After an October news report showed his dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, facts that further challenged the credibility of Steele's research, the FBI investigation's origin story shifted.

In December, The New York Times published a "scoop " on the new origin story. In the revised narrative, the probe didn't start with the Steele dossier at all. Rather, it began with an April 2016 meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud. The professor informed him that "he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had 'dirt' on Mrs. Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails.'"

Weeks later, Papadopoulos boasted to the Australian ambassador to London, Alexander Downer, that he was told the Russians had Clinton-related emails. Two months later, according to the Times , the Australians reported Papadopoulos' boasts to the FBI, and on July 31, 2016, the bureau began its investigation.

Further reinforcement of the new origin story came from congressional Democrats. A January 29 memo written by House Intelligence Committee minority staff under ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff further distances Steele from the opening of the investigation. "Christopher Steele's raw reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September."

Last week's major Times article echoes the Schiff memo. Steele's reports, according to the paper, reached the "Crossfire Hurricane team" "in mid-September."

Yet the new account of how the government spying campaign against Trump started is highly unlikely. According to the thousands of favorable press reports asserting his credibility, Steele was well-respected at the FBI for his work on a 2015 case that helped win indictments of more than a dozen officials working for soccer's international governing body, FIFA. In July 2016, Steele met with the agent he worked with on the FIFA case to show his early findings on the Trump team's ties to Russia.

The FBI took Steele's reporting on Trump's ties to Russia so seriously it was later used as evidence to monitor the electronic communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But, according to Schiff and the Times , the FBI somehow lost track of reports from a "credible" source who claimed to have information showing that the Republican candidate for president was compromised by a foreign government. That makes no sense.

The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is further evidence that the FBI's cover story is absurd. A reference to a movie about a British spy evading Russian spies behind enemy lines suggests the Steele dossier was always the core of the bureau's investigation into the Trump campaign.

Was Halper an Informant, Spy, Or Agent Provocateur?

Taken together with the other significant revelation from last Times story, the purpose and structure of Crossfire Hurricane may be coming into clearer focus. According to the Times story: "At least one government informant met several times with [Trump campaign advisers Carter] Page and [George] Papadopoulos, current and former officials said."

As we now know, the informant is Stefan Halper, a former classmate of Bill Clinton's at Oxford University who worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Halper is known for his good connections in intelligence circles. His father-in-law was Ray Cline , former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Halper is also reported to have led the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign team that collected intelligence on sitting U.S. President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy.

So what was Halper doing in this instance? He wasn't really a spy (a person who is generally tasked with stealing secrets) or an informant (a person who provides information about criminal activities from the inside). Rather, it seems he was more like an agent provocateur, whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate -- or seem to corroborate -- evidence that the bureau believed it already had in hand.

It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things.

Halper met with at least three Trump campaign advisers: Sam Clovis, Page, and George Papadopoulos. The latter two he met with in London, where Halper had reason to feel comfortable operating.

Halper's close contacts in the intelligence world weren't limited to the CIA. They also include foreign intelligence officials like Richard Dearlove , the former head of the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence service, MI6. According to a Washington Times report , Halper and Dearlove are partners in a UK consulting firm, Cambridge Security Initiative.

Dearlove is also close to Steele. According to the Washington Post , Dearlove met with Steele in the early fall of 2016, when his former charge shared his "worries" about what he'd found on the Trump campaign and "asked for his guidance."

London was therefore the perfect place for Halper to spring a trap -- outside the direct purview of the FBI, but on territory where he knew he could operate safely. It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things that corroborated the 35-page series of memos written by Steele -- the centerpiece of the Russiagate investigation -- in order to license a broader campaign of government spying against Trump and his associates in the middle of a presidential election.

Halper Reached Out to Trump Campaign Members

Chuck Ross's reporting in The Daily Caller provides invaluable details and insight. As Ross explained in The Daily Caller back in March, Halper emailed Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 with an invitation to write a research paper, for which he'd be paid $3,000, and a paid trip to London. According to Ross, "Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during the London trip," with one meeting scheduled for September 13 and another two days later.

Ross writes: "According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?' Papadopoulos told Halper he didn't know anything about emails or Russian hacking." It seems Halper was looking to elaborate on the claims made in Steele's September 14 dossier memo : "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."

Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true.

Had Papadopoulos confirmed that a shadowy Maltese academic had told him in April about Russians holding Clinton-related emails, presumably that would have entered the dossier as something like, "Trump campaign adviser PAPADOPOULOS confirms knowledge of Russian 'kompromat.'"

Another Trump campaign adviser Halper contacted was Page. They first met in Cambridge, England at a July 11, 2016 symposium. Halper's partner Dearlove spoke at the conference, which was held just days after Page had delivered a widely reported speech at the New Economic School in Moscow. According to another Ross article reporting on Page and Halper's interactions, the Trump adviser "recalls nothing of substance being discussed other than Halper's passing mention that he knew then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."

Page and Manafort both figure prominently in the Steele dossier's July 19 memos. According to the document , Manafort "was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." Page had also, according to the dossier, met with senior Kremlin officials -- a charge he later denied in his November 2, 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Evidently, he also gave Halper nothing to use in verifying the charges made against him.

Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over the White House.

Using Spy Powers on Political Opponents Is a Big Problem

That portions of the American national security apparatus would put their considerable powers -- surveillance, spying, legal pressure -- at the service of a partisan political campaign is a sign that something very big is broken in Washington. Our Founding Fathers would not be surprised to learn that the post-9/11 surveillance and spying apparatus built to protect Americans from al-Qaeda has now become a political tool that targets Americans for partisan purposes. That the rest of us are surprised is a sign that we have stopped taking the U.S. Constitution as seriously as we should.

The damage done to the American press is equally large. Since the November 2016 presidential election, a financially imperiled media industry gambled its remaining prestige on Russiagate. Yet after nearly a year and a half filled with thousands of stories feeding the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, last week still represented a landmark moment in American journalism. The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.

The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.

There are significant errors and misrepresentations in the article that the Times could've easily checked, if it weren't in such a hurry to hide the FBI and DOJ's crimes and abuses. Perhaps most significantly, the Times avoided asking the key questions that the article raised with its revelation that "at least one government informant" met with Trump campaign figures.

So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing?

Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta?

These questions are sure to be asked. What we know already is that the Times reporters did not ask them, because they do not bother to indicate that the officials interviewed for the story had declined to answer. That they did not ask these questions is evidence the Times is no longer a newspaper that sees its job as reporting the truth or holding high government officials responsible for their crimes. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.

[May 27, 2018] Putin: We're held hostage to political strife around Trump by IAN PHILLIPS

May 27, 2018 | www.yahoo.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday bemoaned troubled relations with the United States, saying Russia wants to improve them but is effectively held hostage by the disputes surrounding President Donald Trump.

Putin's comments in a meeting with top editors of international news agencies underlined how Russia's once-high hopes for improved relations under Trump have eroded. Although the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on Russia and expelled scores of its diplomats, Russian politicians generally portray Trump as blocked by domestic opposition from fulfilling his campaign promises of improving relations with Moscow.

Earlier in the day, speaking at an annual economic forum, Putin sharply criticized Trump's decision to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal, saying it could trigger dangerous instability.

The Russian leader said the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 agreement came even as the international nuclear watchdog confirmed that Tehran was fulfilling its obligations. "What should it be punished for, then?" Putin asked.

Trump's administration has demanded that Iran stop the enrichment of uranium and end its involvement in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Afghanistan in order to negotiate a new deal.

"If international agreements are revised every four years it would offer zero horizon for planning," Putin said. "It will create the atmosphere of nervousness and lack of trust."

In the meeting with editors, Putin declined to assess relations between Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, but said the United States should not try to take a hard line with the country.

"In order to talk about a full denuclearization of North Korea, I believe we should give North Korea a guarantee of their sovereignty and inviolability," the Russian president said. "I am deeply convinced that if you don't impose anything, if you don't behave aggressively and if you don't corner North Korea, the result that we need will be achieved faster than many would think, and at less cost."

Putin also expressed frustration at having little contact with Trump and faulted the investigation into whether there was collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia and whether Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election.

"We are hostages to this internal strife in the United States," Putin said. "I hope that it will end some day and the objective need for the development of Russian-American relationships will prevail."

At the economic forum, Putin also engaged in a tongue-in-cheek exchange with French President Emmanuel Macron, saying with a smile that Russia could help protect Europe if its rift with the U.S. widens over Iran.

"Don't you worry, we will help ensure your security," Putin said. Macron responded on a serious note that France and its allies could stand for themselves.

In his speech at the forum and during talks with Putin on Thursday, Macron called for closer ties between France and Russia despite their differences.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also spoke at the forum and called for closer cooperation with Russia.

The presence of Macron and Abe and their statements in favor of cooperation were important for Putin, indicating that the U.S.-led efforts to isolate Russia face increasing obstacles.

The U.S. and its allies have hit Russia with several waves of sanctions that badly hurt its economy.

Putin sharply criticized the sanctions, saying they signal "not just erosion but the dismantling of a system of multilateral cooperation that took decades to build."

Putin told the editors that he would observe constitutional term limits that would prevent him from running for a new term in 2024. However, some observers have suggested he might seek to have the constitution changed.

On tensions with Britain over allegations that Russia was behind the March poisoning of a Russian former spy in Britain, Putin said there should "either be a joint, full-value, objective investigation or simply stop talking about this subject because it doesn't lead to anything except worsening relations."

Russia has repeatedly demanded that Britain let it take part in investigating the case.

[May 27, 2018] The Code Name Crossfire Hurricane Undermines The FBI s Russia Story by Lee Smith

So Strzok was involved with this part of the story too. Strzokgate now has distinct British accent and probably was coordinated by CIA and MI6.
Harper was definitely acted like an "agent provocateur", whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate-or seem to corroborate-evidence that the FBI believed it already had in hand. It looks like among other things Halper was tasked with the attempt elaborate on the claims made in Steele's September 14 dossier memo: "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
London was the perfect place for such dirty games -- the territory where the agent knew he could operate safely.
"Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over the White House."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times' ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
"... Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta? ..."
May 27, 2018 | thefederalist.com

The New York Times' 4,000-word report last week on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign's possible ties to Russia revealed for the first time that the investigation was called "Crossfire Hurricane."

The name, explains the paper, refers to the Rolling Stones lyric "I was born in a crossfire hurricane," from the 1968 hit "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Mick Jagger, one of the songwriters, said the song was a "metaphor" for psychedelic-drug induced states. The other, Keith Richards, said it "refers to his being born amid the bombing and air raid sirens of Dartford, England, in 1943 during World War II."

Investigation names, say senior U.S. law enforcement officials, are designed to refer to facts, ideas, or people related to the investigation. Sometimes they're explicit, and other times playful or even allusive. So what did the Russia investigation have to do with World War II, psychedelic drugs, or Keith's childhood?

The answer may be found in the 1986 Penny Marshall film named after the song, "Jumpin' Jack Flash." In the Cold War-era comedy, a quirky bank officer played by Whoopi Goldberg comes to the aid of Jonathan Pryce, who plays a British spy being chased by the KGB.

The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is therefore most likely a reference to the former British spy whose allegedly Russian-sourced reports on the Trump team's alleged ties to Russia were used as evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Service Act secret warrant on Trump adviser Carter Page in October 2016: ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele.

Helping Spin a New Origin Story

It is hardly surprising that the Times refrained from exploring the meaning of the code name. The paper of record has apparently joined a campaign, spearheaded by the Department of Justice, FBI, and political operatives pushing the Trump-Russia collusion story, to minimize Steele's role in the Russia investigation.

After an October news report showed his dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, facts that further challenged the credibility of Steele's research, the FBI investigation's origin story shifted.

In December, The New York Times published a "scoop " on the new origin story. In the revised narrative, the probe didn't start with the Steele dossier at all. Rather, it began with an April 2016 meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud. The professor informed him that "he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had 'dirt' on Mrs. Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails.'"

Weeks later, Papadopoulos boasted to the Australian ambassador to London, Alexander Downer, that he was told the Russians had Clinton-related emails. Two months later, according to the Times , the Australians reported Papadopoulos' boasts to the FBI, and on July 31, 2016, the bureau began its investigation.

Further reinforcement of the new origin story came from congressional Democrats. A January 29 memo written by House Intelligence Committee minority staff under ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff further distances Steele from the opening of the investigation. "Christopher Steele's raw reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September."

Last week's major Times article echoes the Schiff memo. Steele's reports, according to the paper, reached the "Crossfire Hurricane team" "in mid-September."

Yet the new account of how the government spying campaign against Trump started is highly unlikely. According to the thousands of favorable press reports asserting his credibility, Steele was well-respected at the FBI for his work on a 2015 case that helped win indictments of more than a dozen officials working for soccer's international governing body, FIFA. In July 2016, Steele met with the agent he worked with on the FIFA case to show his early findings on the Trump team's ties to Russia.

The FBI took Steele's reporting on Trump's ties to Russia so seriously it was later used as evidence to monitor the electronic communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But, according to Schiff and the Times , the FBI somehow lost track of reports from a "credible" source who claimed to have information showing that the Republican candidate for president was compromised by a foreign government. That makes no sense.

The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is further evidence that the FBI's cover story is absurd. A reference to a movie about a British spy evading Russian spies behind enemy lines suggests the Steele dossier was always the core of the bureau's investigation into the Trump campaign.

Was Halper an Informant, Spy, Or Agent Provocateur?

Taken together with the other significant revelation from last Times story, the purpose and structure of Crossfire Hurricane may be coming into clearer focus. According to the Times story: "At least one government informant met several times with [Trump campaign advisers Carter] Page and [George] Papadopoulos, current and former officials said."

As we now know, the informant is Stefan Halper, a former classmate of Bill Clinton's at Oxford University who worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Halper is known for his good connections in intelligence circles. His father-in-law was Ray Cline , former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Halper is also reported to have led the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign team that collected intelligence on sitting U.S. President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy.

So what was Halper doing in this instance? He wasn't really a spy (a person who is generally tasked with stealing secrets) or an informant (a person who provides information about criminal activities from the inside). Rather, it seems he was more like an agent provocateur, whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate -- or seem to corroborate -- evidence that the bureau believed it already had in hand.

It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things.

Halper met with at least three Trump campaign advisers: Sam Clovis, Page, and George Papadopoulos. The latter two he met with in London, where Halper had reason to feel comfortable operating.

Halper's close contacts in the intelligence world weren't limited to the CIA. They also include foreign intelligence officials like Richard Dearlove , the former head of the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence service, MI6. According to a Washington Times report , Halper and Dearlove are partners in a UK consulting firm, Cambridge Security Initiative.

Dearlove is also close to Steele. According to the Washington Post , Dearlove met with Steele in the early fall of 2016, when his former charge shared his "worries" about what he'd found on the Trump campaign and "asked for his guidance."

London was therefore the perfect place for Halper to spring a trap -- outside the direct purview of the FBI, but on territory where he knew he could operate safely. It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things that corroborated the 35-page series of memos written by Steele -- the centerpiece of the Russiagate investigation -- in order to license a broader campaign of government spying against Trump and his associates in the middle of a presidential election.

Halper Reached Out to Trump Campaign Members

Chuck Ross's reporting in The Daily Caller provides invaluable details and insight. As Ross explained in The Daily Caller back in March, Halper emailed Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 with an invitation to write a research paper, for which he'd be paid $3,000, and a paid trip to London. According to Ross, "Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during the London trip," with one meeting scheduled for September 13 and another two days later.

Ross writes: "According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?' Papadopoulos told Halper he didn't know anything about emails or Russian hacking." It seems Halper was looking to elaborate on the claims made in Steele's September 14 dossier memo : "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."

Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true.

Had Papadopoulos confirmed that a shadowy Maltese academic had told him in April about Russians holding Clinton-related emails, presumably that would have entered the dossier as something like, "Trump campaign adviser PAPADOPOULOS confirms knowledge of Russian 'kompromat.'"

Another Trump campaign adviser Halper contacted was Page. They first met in Cambridge, England at a July 11, 2016 symposium. Halper's partner Dearlove spoke at the conference, which was held just days after Page had delivered a widely reported speech at the New Economic School in Moscow. According to another Ross article reporting on Page and Halper's interactions, the Trump adviser "recalls nothing of substance being discussed other than Halper's passing mention that he knew then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."

Page and Manafort both figure prominently in the Steele dossier's July 19 memos. According to the document , Manafort "was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." Page had also, according to the dossier, met with senior Kremlin officials -- a charge he later denied in his November 2, 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Evidently, he also gave Halper nothing to use in verifying the charges made against him.

Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over the White House.

Using Spy Powers on Political Opponents Is a Big Problem

That portions of the American national security apparatus would put their considerable powers -- surveillance, spying, legal pressure -- at the service of a partisan political campaign is a sign that something very big is broken in Washington. Our Founding Fathers would not be surprised to learn that the post-9/11 surveillance and spying apparatus built to protect Americans from al-Qaeda has now become a political tool that targets Americans for partisan purposes. That the rest of us are surprised is a sign that we have stopped taking the U.S. Constitution as seriously as we should.

The damage done to the American press is equally large. Since the November 2016 presidential election, a financially imperiled media industry gambled its remaining prestige on Russiagate. Yet after nearly a year and a half filled with thousands of stories feeding the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, last week still represented a landmark moment in American journalism. The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.

The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.

There are significant errors and misrepresentations in the article that the Times could've easily checked, if it weren't in such a hurry to hide the FBI and DOJ's crimes and abuses. Perhaps most significantly, the Times avoided asking the key questions that the article raised with its revelation that "at least one government informant" met with Trump campaign figures.

So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing?

Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta?

These questions are sure to be asked. What we know already is that the Times reporters did not ask them, because they do not bother to indicate that the officials interviewed for the story had declined to answer. That they did not ask these questions is evidence the Times is no longer a newspaper that sees its job as reporting the truth or holding high government officials responsible for their crimes. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.

[May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Paul Craig Roberts is right about dominance of neoliberal economics in Russia. But what is the alternative?
Notable quotes:
"... If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a helping hand. ..."
"... For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments. ..."
"... Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West. ..."
"... As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies. ..."
"... Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development. ..."
May 25, 2018 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

This is the lecture I would have given if I had been able to accept the invitation to address the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia this weekend.

Executive Summary:

From the standpoint of Russia's dilemma, this is an important column. Putin's partial impotence via-a-vis Washington is due to the grip that neoliberal economics exercises over the Russian government. Putin cannot break with the West, because he believes that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia's integration within the Western economy. That is what neoliberal economics tells the Russian economic and financial establishment.

Everyone should understand that I am not a pro-Russian anti-American. I am anti-war, especially nuclear war. My concern is that the inability of the Russian government to put its foot down is due to its belief that Russian development, despite all the talk about the Eurasian partnership and the Silk Road, is dependent on being integrated with the West. This totally erroneous belief prevents the Russian government from any decisive break with the West. Consequently, Putin continues to accept provocations in order to avoid a decisive break that would cut Russia off from the West. In Washington and the UK this is interpreted as a lack of resolve on Putin's part and encourages an escalation in provocations that will intensify until Russia's only option is surrender or war.

If the Russian government did not believe that it needed the West, the government could give stronger responses to provocations that would make clear that there are limits to what Russia will tolerate. It would also make Europe aware that its existence hangs in the balance. The combination of Trump abusing Europe and Europe's recognition of the threat to its own existence of its alignment with an aggressive Washington would break the Western alliance and NATO. But Putin cannot bring this about because he erroneously believes that Russia needs the West.

If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a helping hand.

In reality the helping hand was a grasping hand. The hand grasped Russian resources through privatization and gave control to American-friendly oligarchs. Russian economists had no clue about how financial capitalism in its neoliberal guise strips economies of their assets while loading them up with debt.

But worse happened. Russia's economists were brainwashed into an economic way of thinking that serves Western imperialism.

For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments.

Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West.

As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies.

Indeed, it is the Russian government's mistaken belief that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia being included as part of the West that has caused Putin to accept the provocations and humiliations that the West has heaped upon Russia. The lack of response to these provocations will eventually cause the Russian government to lose the support of the nationalist elements in Russia.

Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development.

Russian economists are so indoctrinated with neoliberal economics that they cannot even look to America to see how a once great economy has been completely destroyed by neoliberal economics.

The US has the largest public debt of any country in history. The US has the largest trade and budget deficits of any country in history. The US has 22 percent unemployment, which it hides by not counting among the unemployed millions of discouraged workers who, unable to find jobs, ceased looking for jobs and are arbitrarily excluded from the measure of unemployment. The US has a retired class that has been stripped of any interest payment on their savings for a decade, because it was more important to the Federal Reserve to bail out the bad loans of a handful of "banks too big to fail," banks that became too big to fail because of the deregulation fostered by neoliberal economics. By misrepresenting "free trade" and "globalism," neoliberal economics sent America's manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs abroad where wages were lower, thus boosting the incomes of owners at the expense of the incomes of US wage-earners, leaving Americans with the lowly paid domestic service jobs of a Third World country. Real median family income in the US has been stagnant for decades. The Federal Reserve recently reported that Americans are so poor that 41 percent of the population cannot raise $400 without selling personal possessions.

Young Americans, if they have university educations, begin life as debt slaves. Currently there are 44,200,000 Americans with student loan debt totalling $1,048,000,000,000 -- $1.48 trillion! https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/

In the US all 50 states have publicly supported universities where tuition is supposed to be nominal in order to encourage education. When I went to Georgia Tech, a premier engineering school, my annual tuition was less than $500. Loans were not needed and did not exist.

What happened? Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors' pay and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education. With so many of the well-paying jobs moved offshore by neoliberal economics, the jobs available cannot service the student loan debts. A large percentage of Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents, because their jobs do not pay enough to service their student loan debt and pay an apartment rent. Debt prevents them from living an independent existence.

In America the indebtedness of the population produced by neoliberal economics -- privatize, privatize, deregulate, deregulate, indebt, indebt -- prevents any economic growth as the American public has no discretionary income after debt service to drive the economy. In America the way cars, trucks, and SUVs are sold is via zero downpayment and seven years of loans. From the minute a vehicle is purchased, the loan obligation exceeds the value of the vehicle.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Meru, a dentist earning $225,000 annually, has $1,060,945.42 in student loan debt. He pays $1,589.97 monthly, which is not enough to cover the interest, much less reduce the principal. Consequently, his debt from seven years at the University of Southern California grows by $130 per day. In two decades, his loan balance will be $2 million. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975

If neoliberal economics does not work for America, why will it work for Russia? Neoliberal economics only works for oligarchs and their institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, who are bankrolled by the central bank to keep the economy partially afloat. Washington will agree to Russia being integrated into the Western system when Putin agrees to resurrect the Yeltsin-era practice of permitting Western financial institutions to strip Russia of her assets while loading her up with debt.

I could continue at length about the junk economics, to use Michael Hudson's term, that is neoliberal economics. The United States is failing because of it, and so will Russia.

John Bolton and the neocons should just relax. Neoliberal economics, which has the Russian financial interests, the Russian government and apparently Putin himself in its grip, will destroy Russia without war.

[May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... By Marcus Day and Kristina Betinis ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The panel showcased the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to 2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s. ..."
"... obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government: its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said. ..."
"... Read also: Is (or can be) the western Far (Hard) Right a friend of Russia? The Ukrainian Test ..."
"... To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a Cold War." ..."
"... Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice, deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American intervention in Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan. And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man, do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons and chaos." ..."
"... The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern -- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military strategy. ..."
www.defenddemocracy.press
By Marcus Day and Kristina Betinis
25 May 2018

The Northwestern University Buffett Institute for Global Studies hosted a roundtable event in the Chicago area on May 23 titled, "The Kremlin's Global Reach," moderated by Medill journalism professor and Washington Post veteran Peter Slevin. The panel showcased the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to 2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s.

Also present were political science professor Jordan Gans-Morse, public opinion pollster Dina Smeltz, lecturer and former US ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly and historian John Bushnell.

The event took place amid a steady escalation of US militarism against Syria, Iran and Russia. Just two days earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an ultimatum to Iran demanding a capitulation to the US in the face of additional sanctions. This followed on the heels of the Trump administration's scrapping of a nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 group, the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia. Earlier this month, the US relaunched a naval force, the Second Fleet, in the North Atlantic in preparation for military confrontation with Russia.

The political perspective of the event was clear from Slevin's opening questions: "What is to be done? How do you solve a problem like Vladimir Putin?"

Str obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government: its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said.

Read also: Is (or can be) the western Far (Hard) Right a friend of Russia? The Ukrainian Test

To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a Cold War."

In line with this reactionary narrative, Talbott presented the conflict between the US and Russia as one between "democracy" and "tyranny," while some of the other panelists admitted that is not the way the conflict is viewed in Russia and Europe.

Later, Talbott emphasized the challenge to US hegemony posed by the Balkans, particularly Serbia, citing their cultural and religious affinities with Russia. In 2015, Montenegro entered NATO.

Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice, deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American intervention in Ukrainian politics. "

A number of the panelists interrupted at this point, some laughing nervously, others strongly protesting.

Slevin, in concluding the discussion, posed the question of regime change in Russia, stating, "How does this end? How does Putin fall? Retire? Get replaced? What is the fate of Vladimir Putin?"

The main obstacle to regime change in Russia was, according to the panelists, the chaos it would inevitably unleash. Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan. And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man, do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons and chaos."

Read also: Breakdown in North Korea Talks Sounds Alarms on Capitol Hill

However, expressing the position of significant sections of the Democratic Party, aligned with the US state-military-intelligence apparatus, Talbott concluded, "Putin has presided over Russia in a way that is very, very much like the Soviet Union. That didn't work. This won't work. He will be an aberration. It would also help if we had a different president in the United States."

A notable feature of the event was its casual militarism. In introducing himself, Kelly noted that the US has recently provided both Georgia and Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank weaponry.

In line with the propaganda pumped out about the US media and political establishment, the panel speakers presented a picture of reality turned upside down: Russia was presented as an aggressive, expansionist power, and a growing threat to the American way of life. In fact, it is the US government and its imperialist allies which have increasingly encircled Russia via NATO expansion, crippled its economy with sanctions and sought to provoke a military conflict.

As US Defense Secretary James Mattis noted in releasing the Pentagon's new National Security Strategy, "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security."

Before the audience assembled by this national security institute, which appeared to include only a handful of undergraduate students, these leading political figures spoke more bluntly about imperialist foreign policy than they would normally do on national television or in supposedly democratic arenas like the US Congress.

The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern -- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military strategy.

Read also: Exxon Mobil Exits Joint Oil Ventures With Russia Due to Sanctions

At the time of the Buffett Institute's founding, university students and faculty protested the appointment as its head of former the US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, whose qualifications were based on military rank and bellicose politics, rather than any academic credentials. Northwestern faculty members charged that he "advocates instrumentalizing the humanities and social sciences research to advance US soft power."

The International Youth and Students for Social Equality are leading the opposition internationally to the transformation of colleges and universities into think tanks for imperialism and militarism. Contact the Socialist Equality Party to start an IYSSE chapter on your campus.

SOURCE www.wsws.org

[May 27, 2018] Turning on Russia by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould

Notable quotes:
"... By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould ..."
"... Copyright © 2018 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved. This article first appeared on Invisible History. ..."
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
May 27, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Turning on Russia 11/05/2018

In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould
April 29.2018

The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies. There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen, Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S. political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.

As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.

As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims, that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.

Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight – privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the robbery from beginning to end.

As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them, this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial, even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."

Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."

If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.' Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."

Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.

If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.

Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal, working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the world.

From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any and all opposition to their global dominion.

Pentagon Capitalism

Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.

"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late [neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.

From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.

Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American democracy."

But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop" Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces in Europe was too much."

In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of alliance unity."

In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.

Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."

Copyright © 2018 Fitzgerald & Gould All rights reserved. This article first appeared on Invisible History.

Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia

* Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com

Published at consortiumnews.com

[May 27, 2018] The FBI uses confidential informants So did the Cheka by pl

Notable quotes:
"... https://trevoraaronson.com/... ..."
May 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Who knew? Not me. The FBI does not discuss its operations with other agencies of the US Government. Period. I made liaison with the FBI on many occasions when I was with DIA and they were always careful to make it clear that whatever you might give them in the way of information they would give you exactly nothing in return. In retirement from government I have often observed the FBI working in support of DoJ in court cases.

It has always been my understanding that when the FBI investigated you they searched through records, listened to your telephone, read your E-mail and in the end interviewed you.

Now I learn that they also recruit "confidential sources" to speak to you about the subject of FBI interest WITHOUT bothering to inform you that they are going to tell the FBI what you said about things. Some of these "confidential sources" are employed by the FBI for long periods of time. The American professor now teaching at a UK university who was sent by the FBI to talk to several Trump campaign people was one such. Other "confidential sources" are recruited for a particular case Sometimes they are recruited from among the existing acquaintances or "friends" of the person targeted by the FBI. In other words if DoJ, the WH, or the Bureau (FBI) want to know what I, or anyone else, really says about a given topic, they can recruit someone I know using pressure, persuasion or money to "rat" me out.

Felix Dzerzhinsky would have been proud of their skills if they had been his men. pl

TTG , 41 minutes ago
Of course the FBI uses confidential informants. So does the DEA, ICE and every state and local LEA. It's a staple of every TV crime show and novel dealing with police. Every gangster, crook, drug dealer, pedophile, terrorist and spy is obsessed with the idea that some snitch is going to rat him out. The rest of us are rightfully incensed that this could possibly happen to us. There best be a solid paper trail behind every confidential informant used by all the various cops. And these paper trails need to be examined by IGs or others outside these users of confidential informants.

To those of us in the intelligence field rather than the LE field, the use of US Persons to inform on other US Persons is anathema. We are specifically prohibited from targeting US Persons without informing them of our USI affiliation except possibly under rare and specific circumstances. In those circumstances we have to call in the FBI. The NSA once found the targeting of US Persons to be beyond anathema. It was a mortal sin condemning one's soul to eternal damnation. That certainly changed after 9/11.

As far as the sharing of information with the FBI, CIA and even NSA goes, I had a very different experience than Colonel Lang when I was in DIA. In digital operations, we shared information on a daily basis. Our operations were often intertwined and interdependent. However, I doubt this extended beyond digital operations.

O rly , 2 hours ago
https://trevoraaronson.com/... the war on terror, for the FBI has been one giant entrapment free for all, fueled entirely on informants of dubious trustworthiness at best.

[May 25, 2018] The Simulation of Democracy, by C.J. Hopkins - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
May 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

One of the most complicated and frustrating aspects of operating a global capitalist empire is maintaining the fiction that it doesn't exist. Virtually every action you take has to be carefully recontextualized or otherwise spun for public consumption. Every time you want to bomb or invade some country to further your interests, you have to mount a whole PR campaign. You can't even appoint a sadistic torture freak to run your own coup-fomenting agency, or shoot a few thousand unarmed people you've imprisoned in a de facto ghetto, without having to do a big song and dance about "defending democracy" and "democratic values."

Naked despotism is so much simpler, not to mention more emotionally gratifying. Ruling an empire as a godlike dictator means never having to say you're sorry. You can torture and kill anyone you want, and conquer and exploit whichever countries you want, without having to explain yourself to anyone. Also, you get to have your humongous likeness muraled onto the walls of buildings, make people swear allegiance to you, and all that other cool dictator stuff.

Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams.

This is the devil's bargain modern capitalism made back in the 18th Century. In order to wrest power from the feudal aristocracies that had dominated the West throughout the Middle Ages, the bourgeoisie needed to sell the concept of "democracy" to the unwashed masses, who they needed both to staff their factories and, in some cases, to fight revolutionary wars, or depose and publicly guillotine monarchs. All that gobbledegook about taxes, tariffs, and the unwieldy structure of the feudal system was not the easiest sell to the peasantry. "Liberty" and "equality" went over much better. So "democracy" became their rallying cry, and, eventually, the official narrative of capitalism. The global capitalist ruling classes have been stuck with "democracy" ever since, or, more accurately, with the simulation of democracy.

The purpose of this simulation of democracy is not to generate fake democracy and pass it off as real democracy. Its purpose is to generate the concept of democracy , the only form in which democracy exists. It does this by casting a magic spell (which I'll do my best to demystify in a moment) that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist marketplace we Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society. An essentially democratic society. Not a fully fledged democratic society, but a society progressing toward "democracy" which it is, and simultaneously isn't.

Obviously, life under global capitalism is more democratic than under feudal despotism, not to mention more comfortable and entertaining. Capitalism isn't "evil" or "bad." It's a machine. Its fundamental function is to eliminate any and all despotic values and replace them with a single value, i.e., exchange value, determined by the market. This despotic-value-decoding machine is what freed us from the tyranny of kings and priests, which it did by subjecting us to the tyranny of capitalists and the meaningless value of the so-called free market, wherein everything is just another commodity toothpaste, cell phones, healthcare, food, education, cosmetics, et cetera. Despite that, only an idiot would argue that capitalism is not preferable to despotism, or that it hasn't increased our measure of freedom. So, yes, we have evolved toward democracy, if we're comparing modern capitalism to medieval feudalism.

The problem is that capitalism is never going to lead to actual democracy (i.e., government by and for the people). This is never going to happen. In fact, capitalism has already reached the limits of the freedom it can safely offer us. This freedom grants us the ability to make an ever-expanding variety of choices none of which have much to do with democracy. For example, Western consumers are free to work for whatever corporation they want, and to buy whatever products they want, and to assume as much debt as the market will allow to purchase a home wherever they want, and to worship whichever gods they want (as long as they conform their behavior to the values of capitalism and not their religion), and men can transform themselves into women, and white people can deem themselves African Americans, or Native Americans, or whatever they want, and anyone can mock or insult the President or the Queen of England on Facebook and Twitter, none of which freedoms were even imaginable, much less possible, under feudal despotism.

But this is as far as our "freedom" goes. The global capitalist ruling classes are never going to allow us to govern ourselves, not in any meaningful way. In fact, since the mid-1970s, they've been systematically dismantling the framework of social democracy throughout the West, and otherwise relentlessly privatizing everything. They've been doing this more slowly in Europe, where social democracy is more entrenched, but, make no mistake, American "society" is the model for our dystopian future. The ruling classes and their debt-enslaved servants, protected from the desperate masses by squads of hyper-militarized police, medicated in their sanitized enclaves, watching Westworld on Amazon Prime as their shares in private prisons rise and the forces of democracy defend their freedom by slaughtering men, women, and children in some faraway country they can't find on a map, and would never visit on vacation anyway this is where the USA already is, and where the rest of the West is headed.

Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined by sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there. The global capitalist ruling classes need the masses in the West to believe that they live in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and so on, and not in a global marketplace. Because, if it's all one global marketplace, with one big global labor force (which global corporations can exploit with impunity), and if it's one big global financial system (where the economies of supposed adversaries like China and the United States, or the European Union and Russia, are almost totally interdependent), then there is no United States of America, no United Kingdom, no France, no Germany or not as we're conditioned to perceive them. There is only the global capitalist empire, divided into "national" market territories, each performing slightly different administrative functions within the empire and those territories that have not yet surrendered their sovereignty and been absorbed into it. I think you know which those territories are.

But getting back to the simulation of democracy (the purpose of which is to prevent us from perceiving the world as I just suggested above), how that works is, we are all conditioned to believe we are living in these imperfect democracies, which are inexorably evolving toward "real" democracy but just haven't managed to get there quite yet. "Real" being the key word here, because there is no such thing as real democracy. There never has been, except among relatively small and homogenous groups of people. Like Baudrillard's Disneyland, "Western democracy" is presented to us as "imperfect" or "unfinished" (in other words, as a replica of "real democracy") in order to convince us that there exists such a thing as "real democracy," which we will achieve someday.

This is how simulations work. The replica does not exist to deceive us into believing it is the "real" thing. It exists to convince us that there is a "real" thing . In essence, it invokes the "real" thing by pretending to be a copy of it. Just as the images of God in church invoke the "god" of which they are copies (if only in the minds of the faithful), our imperfect replica of democracy invokes the concept of "real democracy" (which does not exist, and has never existed, beyond the level of tribes and bands).

This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really. Take out a twenty dollar bill, or a twenty Euro note, or your driver's license. They are utterly valueless, except as symbols, but no less powerful for being just symbols. Or look at some supposedly solid object under an electron microscope. Try this with a tablespoon. As that bald kid in The Matrix put it, you will "realize that there is no spoon" or, rather, that there is only the spoon we've created by believing that there is a spoon.

Look, I don't mean to get all spooky. What that kid (among various others throughout history) was trying to get us to understand is that we create reality, collectively, with symbols or we allow reality to be created for us. Our collective reality is also our religion, in that we live our lives and raise our children according to its precepts and values, regardless of whatever other rituals we may or may not engage in on the weekend. Western consumers, no matter whether nominally Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or of any other faith, live their lives and raise their children according to the values and rules of capitalism. Capitalism is our religion. Like every religion, it has a cosmology.

In the cosmology of global capitalism, "democracy" is capitalist heaven. We hear it preached about throughout our lives, we're surrounded by graven images of it, but we don't get to see it until we're dead. Attempting to storm its pearly gates, or to create the Kingdom of Democracy on Earth, is heresy, and is punishable by death. Denying its existence is blasphemy, for which the punishment is excommunication, and consignment to the City of Dis, where the lost souls shout back and forth at each other across the lower depths of the Internet, their infernal voices unheard by the faithful but, hey, don't take the word of an apostate like me. Go ahead, try it, and see what happens.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

animalogic , May 23, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT

Really good, amusing article.
Our replica of democracy is not to deceive us, but to convince us that there really IS an(unattainable) democracy. The promised land is always just beyond the horizon
SunBakedSuburb , May 23, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
"It does this by casting a magic spell that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist marketplace we Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society."

Yes. Consumer capitalism requires illusion and MK-ULTRA programs to function.

"We create reality, collectively, with symbols "

And those symbols, often repurposed from earlier iterations like the swastika, stem from ancient sources. Maybe the structure of our reality was designed years ago.

"This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really."

Yep. The narrow-focused rationalists who have degraded science into a religion will never accept that there is a sliver of magic and sorcery, originating from Kabbalistic practices, that operate as a higher level science, the mechanics of which non-initiates can't quantify.

Excellent, thought-provoking article.

Per/Norway , May 23, 2018 at 8:08 pm GMT
well written.
Speak Truth To Power , May 24, 2018 at 4:55 am GMT
I agree with much of what this columnist wrote. However this entire globalist criminal enterprise is rapidly crumbling. This is shown in the rise of patriotic/loyalist and Marxist parties in Europe and the Far Right and Far Left in the U.S. The globalist elite 0.001% empire of the banksters, crapitalists and fingerciers and their lackeys, knaves and varlets, along with their political prostitute puppets, is built on sand. These worthless cretins have loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the West, with massive, crushing debt. Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not sustainable. In addition they have off shored much of Western industry into Third World nations and flooded Western nations with Third World proles to hold down wages and depress living conditions. Reaction among the native Whites is building stronger by the day. At some point this volcano is going to blow. When it does all bets are off as to how much destruction will happen.

At this point the super rich and their banks and trans-national corporations can either gradually give way to democratic change and re-industrialize the West, discount all these debts, and stop this Third World invasion and begin swift repatriation of these interlopers and save much of their wealth and power or they will soon face armed revolution and civil/class/racial war in the streets. These worthless elites have fouled their own nests since they have left virtually no Western nation untouched by these triple evils of debt, immigration and de-industrialization. They either never learned the lessons of the French and Russian revolutions or believe it could not happen in the 21st Century to them. Either way it makes no difference. Globalism is crumbling and going the way of other evil isms: Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Imperialism, Colonialism, etc. Its days are numbered and the writing is on the wall. Meanwhile those nations not controlled by the Western White Collar Mafia, namely Russia and China, along with Iran and a few other Asian and Middle Eastern nations, are building up their economies and militaries and increasingly challenging the Western tyrants. We are definitely in for troubled times ahead. Always remember: Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable. Globalism has had its evil day and its black sun is setting. The only questions now are will it go peacefully and quietly or loudly and violently and what will replace it. I hope and pray something good and true.A new world order built that that is God and Christ and not man based with peace, prosperity, and justice for all in a natural order of things.

jilles dykstra , May 24, 2018 at 6:41 am GMT
Free movement of capital, in Europe since 1997, took away power from politicians.
The German Lafontaine made it clear.
He stated that when in Basel a German spoke to the bankers assembled there, blaming them, they clapped their hands.
One sees it in the terminology used, what in the good old days was called protectionism, a word suggesting something positive, now is trade war, definitely something bad.
It for me is the same as with privatisation of universal services, water, electricity, etc., neither privatising anything is good, also a state economy is not good, as the USSR made clear.
In the good old days in W European countries we had mixed exonomies, commercial enterprises for cars and jeans, state enterprise for electricity and public transport.
In my opinion a mixed world economy also is the best option, this means regulation of capital movement, to mention one thing.
gsjackson , May 24, 2018 at 6:43 am GMT
A little snapshot to illustrate the point. Standing in the passport control line at Newark Airport -- interminably, because of about 24 stations for checking people back in to the motherland, maybe five were manned. This was in mid-afternoon on a weekday, a time when many international flights were arriving. The wait was about an hour and a half.

While waiting, you get a superb view through the window of the Manhattan skyline, and might have occasion to think about all the swells in the financial sector whose ever-growing prosperity has sucked money not only out of the real economy of goods and services, but out of government as well, a point Michael Hudson often makes. E.g., cap those property taxes in California, but drive housing prices in California and interest rates sky high to transfer wealth out of the hands of home owners and governments, and into finance capital.

You can work yourself up into a pretty good lather thinking about this while you wait your turn at an under-funded passport control station.

renfro , May 24, 2018 at 7:37 am GMT
I would recommend this book to unz readers. I read it years ago and its basic premise becomes more observably true every year .and pertains to the US as well, something Chu didn't mention.

World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability

By Amy Chua
Category: World Politics | Economics | Management

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/27643/world-on-fire-by-amy-chua/9780385721868/

"Chua shows how in non-Western countries around the globe, free markets have concentrated starkly disproportionate wealth in the hands of a resented ethnic minority. These "market-dominant minorities" – Chinese in Southeast Asia, Croatians in the former Yugoslavia, whites in Latin America and South Africa, Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, Jews in post-communist Russia – become objects of violent hatred.
At the same time, democracy empowers the impoverished majority, unleashing ethnic demagoguery, confiscation, and sometimes genocidal revenge."

So maybe revolutions will be the new way of managing the world,

llloyd , Website May 24, 2018 at 9:51 am GMT
@Speak Truth To Power

An ex furniture salesman, now the Prime Minister of Israel would not agree. He thinks history has ended. Jerusalem is soon to be or already is the capital of the globalist world. Hate speech laws replace the sanctity of the Monarchs and Churches with the sanctity of Israel and identity politics. His lackeys have even taken away the freedom to shop via the criminalisation of BDS. Talpiot program has turned everything into a video game. He is either a genius or a complete fool. But I hope you are right and he is wrong. Another point. Democracy real and simulated only became fashionable a hundred years ago.

Daniil Adamov , May 24, 2018 at 11:05 am GMT
That's the first I've heard of "progressing towards democracy" as a major feature of the modern Western worldview (a la USSR progressing towards communism, I suppose). No, I've encountered such ideas before among pundits, but I don't think most people in America, say, believe that they currently don't live in a democracy but will later live in a "true" democracy. That seems like a rather exotic notion outside of very narrow intellectual circles.

Also, "as long as they conform their behavior to the values of capitalism and not their religion". But people are free to conform their behaviour to the values of their religion to a large extent. They're not free to violate the laws of what you'd call capitalist society. But that is not the same as being forced to conform to its values.

Jake , May 24, 2018 at 11:14 am GMT
Another CJ Hopkins must-read.

So how long before he is imprisoned alongside Julian Assange? Truth-telling is not allowed in Globalist Democracy.

Miro23 , May 24, 2018 at 11:26 am GMT

Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined by sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there.

But it can go wrong. The simulation was supposed to make Hillary Clinton President – but, in the event, it veered over to real Democracy and produced Trump.

Equally the Brexit vote was planned to fail – but that also turned in a real Democratic result with a majority for Brexit.

Simulated Democracy is a difficult process and it's probably due for more failures given the difficulty of controlling the modern flow of information.

Borsalino , May 24, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
Damn, Hopkins, you nailed it!
ScientistInHiding , May 24, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT
I suppose we are all going to spend the rest of our lives listening to bitter millenials rant about the evils of capitalism. After all, they could move out of their parent's basement if the government would force the banks to forgive all their student loans.

It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we see all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never existed) with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."

The only way to really solve the problem of government is make government irrelevant.

Ronald Thomas West , Website May 24, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
Well, CJ, If I were your political science professor, I'd fail your sorry ass for 'communist jargon' and 'Marxist jingoism' maybe that works fine if you're into looking for strokes when singing to the choir but it won't build alliances that accomplish anything. But maybe that's not your point, and the substance of your butt-hurt whining is about "I'm CJ Hopkins!" kinda like "I'm Rick James!"

Look dude, if you want to get down and dirty with your enemies, hit below the belt, and do it like this:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/11/29/whereas-the-enemy-of-your-friend-is-your-favorite-fk/

If you want to entertain, you do it like this:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/01/merge/

And like this:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/10/09/liberals/

^

DESERT FOX , May 24, 2018 at 12:44 pm GMT
The worlds elites have us mind controlled and financially controlled via the Zionist Fed that creates money out of thin air and then loans this money to our gov and we goyim and charge interest on this ether created money and there in lies the control for by their control over the money they control every thing.

In addition the Zionists fastened the IRS on we goyims and this IRS is a off shoot of the FED and so our money is sent to the Zionist bankers who own the FED to make sure we pay for the wars that the Zionists have arranged for we Americans and so this is a trap that has been laid by the central bankers which insures their dominance for ever and ever.

This system of control has been in existence since 1913 when the zionist bankers fastened the FED and the IRS on to the American people and the author of this article is exactly right, we are in a financial prison a prison without bars but a prison none the less.

In regards to voting as Stalin said ie it is not who votes that counts but who counts the votes.

Seamus Padraig , May 24, 2018 at 1:52 pm GMT

there is no such thing as real democracy. There never has been, except among relatively small and homogenous groups of people.

Yeah, like Sweden in the 50s.

ancient archer , May 24, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT
Best article I have read in a long long time.
Keep it up
manorchurch , May 24, 2018 at 2:16 pm GMT
@Speak Truth To Power

These worthless cretins have loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the West, with massive, crushing debt. Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not sustainable.

Any given iteration of the capitalism model is unsustainable by its very nature, of course. Any capitalist instantiation is self-exhausting, as capitalism eventually transfers all wealth (or some very large fraction) to the wealthy. ALL. At that point, that instance collapses at some rate determined by its state of monetization.

But not all wealth evaporates. After a financial collapse, a new zero-point establishes at or near "true value". The capitalism model reasserts, and continues. It may be inherent to the nature of Man.

manorchurch , May 24, 2018 at 2:18 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

Gee, Ron, usually you write something with some trace of substance.

TG , May 24, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
Well said!

'Democracy' is a scam that privatizes power, while socializing responsibility.

Reminds me of Oswald Spengler, though he is better read about than read, IMHO. From wikipedia: "Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media are the means through which money operates a democratic political system."

But one minor quibble: yes, for now, in the West, fake democracy is certainly better than old-style feudalism. But it doesn't have to be, and it doesn't have to stay that way. In many nominally capitalist and 'democratic' countries – like India, Bangladesh, etc. – half the population is chronically malnourished, the physical standard of living well below that of late medieval europe (!). Now that communism has been vanquished, capitalism has no need of a bargain of power for a decent standard of living, and the rich are moving towards dragging the entire world towards the Indian model of cheap-labor serfdom. Yes it can happen here.

redmudhooch , May 24, 2018 at 2:22 pm GMT
Citizens United isn't helping, brought to you by the corrupt Supreme Court. They're starting to push putting Ted Cruz in SCOTUS, that would be a huge mistake.

"Democracy" is a sham, the candidates are carefully pre-selected and promoted by the corrupt media, if that fails, the unelected delegates and super delegates can always void your vote.

This is why we only get Mitt Romneys, Clintons, Bushes, the same ol dirtbags out of millions of people.
Americans clearly want the homicidal wars to end, are the wars/occupations ending?
More Americans clearly are turning away from supporting Israel, does it matter?
Most Americans want mass immigration and illegal immigration stopped, is it stopping?

There is a petition to End the Federal Reserve scam, do any of the petitions go anywhere? Go sign it, lets find out .

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/petition-president-congress-remove-privately-owned-federal-reserve-our-central-bank

manorchurch , May 24, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
@Jake

So how long before he is imprisoned alongside Julian Assange? Truth-telling is not allowed in Globalist Democracy.

Long time. He circumspects skillfully. Besides, he uses a level of abstraction that few Inet denizens will understand.

Dagon Shield , May 24, 2018 at 2:37 pm GMT
The Mexican maid is the answer to our collective misery. What do I mean? Well! The white boys have given up on rebelling against the Empire (1% + 10% Jews and Whites with a small sprinkling of non-white goys) and da coloreds (Indians and Chinese) are too wrapped up in trying to prove their worth to the lost crackas while the niggas (Blacks et al) are simply too stupid to understand, let alone do anything about improving their lot. Alas, fear not! The unwelcome army of latinas from Central America, employed as caretakers will prove their worth by simply poisoning the whole perfidious lot, slowly. So, welcome to America, Guadalupe!
Justwondering , May 24, 2018 at 3:09 pm GMT
The suffocating hold that propaganda has on an uncritical public must rank as an historic coup for the ages. It is the modern version of the allegory of the cave. Simpletons are willing to die for their puppeteers in wars that serve no other purpose than to enrich their owners. But die for their masters they will. Yet there is a glaring contradiction in foreign wars and America's favorite pastime, regime change. The chances of "real" democracy, for instance, taking root in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Egypt are virtually non-existent. Worse still, they are simply not allowed. And any other countries that steer an independent course from American hegemony will suffer consequences -- regime change, economic sanctions or direct military action. Yet it is the public sold on its exceptionalism, living in a "real" democracy (confused with rampant consumerism and hedonism) that has so utterly failed to see -- and act, on these contradictions. Although the notion of "inching" toward "real" democracy may serve to pacify the public, with the ever growing militarization of the deep police state, true democracy will simply not be allowed to flourish. It is the only credible threat to rampant capitalism. What is significant is that the lumpen proletariat firmly believe that they live in a democracy. So change is rendered redundant in such a scenario.
m___ , May 24, 2018 at 3:20 pm GMT
Best expression of capitalism, religion, democracy as a Weltanschauung.

To fuse the totalitarian, univeral concept that paires so well to 98% of the world population we suggest consumerism.

Do not take for granted that our de facto global elites, and the mercenary middle-classes have a clear understandig where they are heading. There is cognitive dissonance in idea, method and projection of their in-group opportunism. Ethics being nothing more then superior opportunism. Smart, but ailing and failing a religion. In fact the theory proves the cognitive capacity of the authors.

Wally , May 24, 2018 at 3:51 pm GMT
@Per/Norway

said:
"well written"

Seriously?

The usual Marxist strawmen in play here by Hopkins.

What Hopkins describes is not "capitalism", yet he tries to excoriate capitalism.

Wally , May 24, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
@llloyd

said:
"Hate speech laws "

The ongoing debunking of the sacred yet impossible '6M Jews' is what is really driving so called "hate speech laws". What your told is merely the pretext.

Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.
And coming to your neighborhood.

discussion: https://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1858

Why is this happening you ask:

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

Only liars demand censorship.

http://www.codoh.com

manorchurch , May 24, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT
@Wally

What Hopkins describes is not "capitalism", yet he tries to excoriate capitalism.

True, but that's what the elites call it.

Stop complaining about terminology. You are so whiny.

densa , May 24, 2018 at 4:11 pm GMT
This is an elegant fleshing out of fashionable despair. Yes, self-rule is a myth. What does Hopkins recommend to replace it with? Is the aspiration of a democratic republic the problem, or is it money, media, and the subversion of power?

As flawed as our belief in democracy is, I haven't heard the better alternative. Just as some say we must go to Mars because we are destroying earth, I think we should take care of this earth as repairing and caring for it might be within our means. Instead of throwing democracy out, we should try and make it work.

For example, been reading about the rise of antibiotic resistant germs and industrial farming. The problem was long known, but there was no political will to do anything about it because the industry could lobby and also control regulators. In theory, the government worked for the greater good of all the people, but in practice it auctions us all to special interest.

Capitalists defend the current system by saying it's not really capitalism. Well, whatever it is, it came about because democracy was not actual but rather an ongoing auction of national interest to special interest.

It's a good article and makes a good case, but you will have to wait just a bit longer until us believers die off as you will not pry this democracy, our heritage and our best chance, from my cold hands.

bjondo , May 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@gsjackson

similar experience coming through Atlanta.
Want to create jobs? Coulda created 50 there. At least. And prevented missed flight connections. Obama time.

Wally , May 24, 2018 at 6:02 pm GMT
@manorchurch

Oh yeah, you're another whining Zionist who has been demolished by my 'holocaust' debunking information. Hurts don't it?

Your projection is noted. LOL

"If you can't say what you mean, then you can't mean what you say".

http://www.codoh.com

AaronB , May 24, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
I shall proudly call myself an idiot then, as I believe capitalism and democracy are both bad.

The only system capable of inspiring passion and loyalty is some form of feudalism – personal loyalty to a lord is a beautiful thing, noblesse oblige a beautiful thing, sacred kingship is a beautiful thing, the tradition of beautiful craftsmanship that arises when economic considerations are not uppermost is a beautiful thing, the standards of excellence that are natural to a system that recognizes hierarchy and inequality is a beautiful thing.

I also think personal freedom, and tolerance for eccentricity is far greater when the social system is firmly grounded. In a democracy where nothing is secure conformity of opinion and personality become urgent – to maintain even minimum stability.

Japan has retained elements of feudalism to this day yet is economically far more egalitarian than America – because when economics is the sole standard of value, the ambitious will gather all wealth into their hands.

Seeing the Japanese bow to each other – such a beautiful gesture.

Ronald Thomas West , Website May 24, 2018 at 6:14 pm GMT
@manorchurch

Yeah, I suppose I could have half tried but the self-righteous indignation (tone) puts me off. It's like Tom Englehardt, get people all tied up in some hopeless, helpless outrage that accomplishes precisely nothing, no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get something done. In any case CJ is in Berlin but I bet he wouldn't give a New York second's thought to risking his butt and work to put the German politicians nuts in a vise, but Hey! you never know, here's his chance, he can promote this:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/04/08/open-letter-to-die-linke/

Of my five years exile in Germany, two of those years were in Berlin and I can assure you the German political animal is an authentic coward, and Gregor Gysi of Die Linke is no exception, he'd go after CJ before he'd go after the NATO war criminals is my best bet. Maybe CJ has the balls to risk it?

Backwoods Bob , May 24, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
Marxist twaddle about "democracy", lol. As if the founders didn't warn us so strenuously about the tyranny of the majority.

Our government was formed not so that we could vote on what I am allowed to eat, but so that others would have no say in it.

The centralization of power and conformity across previously sovereign states now prohibits people from voting with their feet. The globalists are the next extension of the same tyranny.

We don't have limited governments and free markets. We have big brother government and a captured regulatory apparatus ensuring only large corporations can survive. Regulatory law is nowhere in the constitution and they dictate over subjects also not in the constitution.

I knew it was over when the US electorate was swooned over Iraqis having purple fingers voting "secret ballots". The candidates names were secret. But all you need to tell the sheeple is that they voted.

This piece is typical Marxist sleight of hand. To have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, you limit what the government can do. Then you have liberty. Self-rule.

exiled off mainstreet , May 24, 2018 at 7:02 pm GMT
Mr. Hopkins' article is an effective, accurate description of why and how things have declined into a sort of soft fascism during the last 40 years or so in particular.
The Scalpel , Website May 24, 2018 at 7:24 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

If you want to hijack someone else's article for the purpose of shameless self-promotion, do it like Ronald Thomas West lol.

The Scalpel , Website May 24, 2018 at 7:28 pm GMT
Democracy can easily be done on the individual level. There are plenty of resources for this. I am not my brother's keeper anyway. don't tell me there is no democracy – just people who want others to give it to them. Go all Thoreau on the world. Go off the grid, or Alaska, or an island somewhere. Democracy is not for pansies.
manorchurch , May 24, 2018 at 7:40 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get something done

Preceding "solution" is description, and descriptive explanation. The article is not intended as a set of solutions. It is a description and explanation.

Perhaps you have an axe to grind. Not my problem

HPLCguru , Website May 24, 2018 at 7:43 pm GMT
Excellent article with much needed humor. We no longer have a word for an economic system that supports human life. Hunting and gathering was early agriculture. Moving some rocks and dirt out of the way to get some obsidian was mining. Knocking rocks against the obsidian was early manufacturing. The excess from farms, mines and factories is what WAS called capital. We are supposed to believe that a farmer can't plant a seed without a loan! We are in the last stages of financialism. Since the word capitalism is useless how about "real stuffism"? I'm a physical scientist and I can guarantee that math and the physical world always ends financialism.
manorchurch , May 24, 2018 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Backwoods Bob

This piece is typical Marxist sleight of hand.

That line got me to laughing a lot harder than the rest of your bullshit, so I had to stop reading. Your comments are now relegated to the "Duuuuuuuhhhhhh .MARXISM!!!" bin.

Ronald Thomas West , Website May 24, 2018 at 8:36 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

Thanks for the promotion, here's one for CJ's 'democracy'

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/19/maison-de-lhistoire-de-france/

^

Cheery Bint , May 24, 2018 at 10:05 pm GMT
You could open up the scope of this post's valid point and say that it's not just democracy that's simulated here. Rights and rule of law are simulated too. Democracy, fetishized though it is, in degenerate ritual form, is a very small part of rights and rule of law (specifically, ICCPR Article 25, one article of one of nine core human rights instruments or about 100 total instruments in world-standard customary and conventional international law. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx )

Here's CIA telling you how the world works now.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/deep-state-swamp-monster-says-there-is-no-deep-state-f4c944e21533

This exchange is a really good catch. Latching on to the term deep state allows CIA to bat away a puffball question that avoids the real question. Their scripted answer to the scripted easy question: employees 'aimed at' the president's objectives and Amerca's objectives. This is clever first of all because it says objectives and not orders. It's a weaker formulation that the Pike-Committee era line, CIA works for the president. CIA is trying to evade the US commitment to command responsibility in the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Secondly, the DCI purports to interpret the president's objectives and proclaim America's objectives. Used to be State or NSC did that, subject to presidential directives or decision documents. Pompeo says CIA works for him. We're at the point Frank Zappa told us to expect: CIA's removing the stage set so we're sitting looking at the brick wall. Pompeo's telling you that CIA's in charge.

The hard question is: Does CIA have impunity in municipal law? The answer is yes, of course it does. It's there in black and white in the Central Intelligence Agency Act, the Houston memo, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the operational files exemption, and the political questions doctrine. If the DCI had no impunity the new DCI would be in prison. CIA is obligated to prosecute or extradite its torturers and murderers. Na ga happen. CIA has the arbitrary life-and-death power of a totalitarian state. CIA is beyond criminal. Its arbitrary suspension of non-derogable rights and jus cogens says, Law? Fuck law.

Miro23 , May 24, 2018 at 10:57 pm GMT
I agree that the US is the ultimate expression of materialism.

The original Pilgrim Fathers were looking for religious freedom, but later waves of immigrants came for economic opportunity, and the US was the first place that "Citizens" morphed into "Consumers".

Congressmen are bought and sold, and they're probably OK with that, along the lines that their vote has value, and they'll support whoever bids the highest (which isn't the electors back home).

Like AaronB says, the US (and West in general) has no spiritual foundation, and is just a cynical game of exploitation and corruption pretending to be "Democratic" . Real Democracy does exist, but it's not something that Americans would want to be involved with – it requires a high level of personal commitment and responsibility (probably obligatory), regular local public meetings, investment in studying issues, and the primacy of local decision making and voting over Federal power ( i.e. power residing at the lowest level possible – which in the US would be the County and State). In other words it's hard and time consuming work.

To take a parallel, the late Roman Empire was also a sink of absolute corruption and self interest that couldn't defend its frontiers and finally collapsed, first socially, then economically.

The spiritual Phoenix that rose out of its ashes was Christianity, with the barbarian invaders converting and building Christendom in Europe (Rome) and also in the Middle East (Byzantium). The early Christian communities in the Late Roman Empire were heavily persecuted but still recognized for their high level of morality, work ethic and "respectability", and in its last days (too late), the Empire actually adopted to Christianity through the conversion of Constantine.

A good but difficult source is Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians" https://www.amazon.com/PAGANS-CHRISTIANS-Robin-Lane-Fox/dp/0394554957/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527202127&sr=1-2&keywords=pagans+christians+lane+fox

Stonehands , May 24, 2018 at 11:01 pm GMT
@ScientistInHiding

It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we see all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never existed) with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."

You are on the right path, good observations.

Thinking people are aware of the fact that Moderns have permission not freedom.

Realist , May 24, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT
@Speak Truth To Power

Sadly your scenario is probably not viable.
A dream of the pipe variety.

Realist , May 24, 2018 at 11:12 pm GMT
Great article.
Stonehands , May 24, 2018 at 11:52 pm GMT
@manorchurch

Peckerwood you are a fine specimen of American Communism. Where were you indoctrinated- Columbia University or the New School?

76239 , Website May 25, 2018 at 12:53 am GMT
What a surprise another commie writer on economic issues on Unz! These economic pos articles resemble what you read in the NY times. Sheesh.

"Western consumers are free to buy whatever products they want"

Pure crap. Depending on the state you live in, think for a moment of all the restrictions, taxes and permission you must go through to own a car, buy gass, freon, herbicide. Pharmacy products, illegal drugs guns etc. A list a mile long. Anyone who describes the USA as a free market is plain wrong and has no idea about the problems we face.

Liberty and the free market are not part of the problem. They are part of the solution.

Switzerland, Singapore, and old Hong Kong to name a few examples are some of the wealthiest in the world because of low to no taxes and max economic freedom. Two of the three were crushed by ww2. Came back stronger than ever in 40 yrs or so.

manorchurch , May 25, 2018 at 1:17 am GMT
@Stonehands

Peckerwood you are a fine specimen of American Communism.

Pecker-putty, fuck off. You wouldn't know commanizm if it bit you in the ass.

Wally , May 25, 2018 at 1:21 am GMT
@AaronB

You won't see the Japanese opening their borders to low IQ illegal immigrants.

Ilya G Poimandres , May 25, 2018 at 2:00 am GMT
You only discuss democracy as some monolithic idea, with some idealised notion that 'real' democracy can only be tribal or small scale. This is not true.

Representative democracy = evolutionary autocracy and the right to shout. Laws and regulations, being made by representatives – and only representatives – remain purely autocratic in their creation and destruction.

Direct democracy – those tribes. Doesn't work for a society that has a huge population and needs a 'directing mind' as Aurelius likened the individuals' equivalent.

Semi-direct democracy – a combination of the power to create or strike law by both representatives (elected or selected), and the electorate. Switzerland has it (to a degree because of its media, just check the June 10th banking referendum propaganda machine), China approximates it because it polls its population on every level, decision and preference.

At the very least, the electorate should have power to strike laws made by representatives and rescind previously struck laws by representatives. This is only fair – people should have a process for declaring directly what laws they want to abide by. Representatives may not like it, but society is society, it should be able to make these choices, for good or bad.

Representative democracy – democracy in the spirit of the law, and autocracy in the letter of the law – is for the most part an autocracy, with a progressive dumbing down, frustration, and marginalisation of the electorate due to their practical lack of true power to change society.

Then there's the question of education and media, as you need a smart and well informed public with semi-direct much more than with representative. And preferably constitutionally enforced armed military neutrality, as herd behaviour often tends to violence.

Finally – revolutionary democracy: revolts against systems can often be democratic, if bloody, so build an effective system that considers the opinions and worries of the masses.

willieskull68 , May 25, 2018 at 2:02 am GMT
Three sentences and I was done; and a play wright living in Berlin. Berrrrlin Dude, lets do some history, Socialism sucks. But I do agree that my vote has been diluted to zero, by design.
Biff , May 25, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT
@Speak Truth To Power

A new world order built that that is God and Christ

Been there, done that, and it sucked! Anymore dumb ideas?

[May 24, 2018] Russia-gate distractions are perpetuated to divert attention from the reality of Israel's interference in American electoral politics and U.S. foreign policy

Notable quotes:
"... "Russiagate" was clearly a confabulation by Hillary herself, first to stop bleeding at the polls, later to explain away her loss at the ballot box. ..."
"... Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. ..."
"... "We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." [VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U ..."
"... Candidate Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, view of the war in Syria, and attitude about relations with Russia, were all stage-managed for the campaign. Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has received unconditional support from the Trump regime. 1000-percent Israel Firster Trump's purported erratic behavior is a managed propaganda script, as is the response from the loyal opposition. ..."
May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , May 19, 2018 at 1:05 pm

Russia-gate distractions are perpetuated to divert attention from the reality of Israel's interference in American electoral politics and U.S. foreign policy.

Of urgent concern is Trump's decision the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement on the nuclear program of Iran, which provokes a situation of extreme danger not only for the Middle East.

To understand the implications of such decision, taken under pressure by Israel that describes the agreement as "the surrender of the West to the axis of evil led by Iran", we must start from a precise fact: Israel has the Bomb, not Iran.

In "The Art of War" series for independent Pandora TV, political scientist Manlio Dinucci examines the threat posed by the Israeli nuclear arsenal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=549&v=Rh6OBut_bHk

For over fifty years, Israel has been producing nuclear weapons at the Dimona plant, built with the help mainly of France and the United States. It is not subject to inspections because Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, does not adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed fifty years ago.

Dinucci notes that Israeli nuclear forces are integrated into the NATO electronic system, within the framework of the "Individual Cooperation Program" with Israel, a country which, although not a member of the Alliance, has a permanent mission to NATO headquarters in Brussels.

According to the plan tested in the US-Israel Juniper Cobra 2018 exercise, US and NATO forces would come from Europe (especially from the bases in Italy) to support Israel in a war against Iran.

Ray McGovern , May 19, 2018 at 1:29 pm

Dan, excellent piece. thanks ray mcgovern

Realist , May 20, 2018 at 3:20 am

Trump was a total political naif before the campaign with no record or experience in cheating at that game, let alone with the Russians (who are also pikers in comparison to American meddlers)! "Russiagate" was clearly a confabulation by Hillary herself, first to stop bleeding at the polls, later to explain away her loss at the ballot box.

If your mechanism for nailing his hide to the wall is to prove that he has been a master criminal in money laundering, extortion, fraud, tax evasion and other proscribed activities in the business world, why, for the love of god, did you anti-Trumpsters not begin investigations on such things years ago? Mueller easily caught Manafort in his shady dealings with the Ukrainians, and found no connection to Trump. And why, in spite of your furious activity after the election, do your wells keep coming up dry? It's because your whole premise, based on Hillary's desperate accusations, is strictly ad hoc, without a real history or logical rationale.

Abe , May 19, 2018 at 12:06 pm

Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.

"We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." [VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U

After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015.

Candidate Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, view of the war in Syria, and attitude about relations with Russia, were all stage-managed for the campaign. Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has received unconditional support from the Trump regime. 1000-percent Israel Firster Trump's purported erratic behavior is a managed propaganda script, as is the response from the loyal opposition.

[May 24, 2018] I would think it is quite obvious why Mueller doesn't want to step on Israel's toes. They own us! Look at the power of people like Bill Browder, and what they are capable of accomplishing through Congress.

Bill Browder was actually MI6.
May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:22 am

ranney-

I would think it is quite obvious why Mueller doesn't want to step on Israel's toes. They own us! Look at the power of people like Bill Browder, and what they are capable of accomplishing through Congress. I was able to view Nekrasov's film "The Magnitsky Act, Behind the Scenes", and it was a big eye opener. If you're interested let me know. It takes a while to pursue, but is well worth the effort.

AIPAC is a HUGE player as well.

Drew Hunkins , May 19, 2018 at 5:11 pm

I'm so proud of Consortiumnews and 95% of the fine folks who post on this website. We were correct all along, the establishment that ridiculed, mocked or ignored us was wrong, period. We saw through the charade. Of course we all fully realize we'll never get a mea culpa.

I'm proud that during the initial hysteria way back in November/Dec. of 2016 the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel newspaper published the following letter of mine:

Dear editor: The absurd propaganda over Russia purportedly "hacking the election" is now reaching a fevered pitch. It's this type of group think that ultimately hardens into orthodoxy after it's repeated ad nauseam by all the "smart and most important people" in Washington and the mass media.

This hysteria we're witnessing is genuinely disconcerting. Like him or not, Donald Trump's recent riposte that 'these are the same hucksters who assured you that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction' was right on target. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but right here he's spot-on.

On one side is the small group of critical thinking citizens who haven't been brainwashed along with Trump and members of his administration and Julian Assange; while on the other side sits the entire mainstream press along with the Marco Rubio types, Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, Rachel Maddow, and much of the CIA who are peddling this outlandish notion that the Kremlin hacked the election.

What we're witnessing is a squalid demonstration of where intelligent critical thinking is among the public and Washington intelligentsia. That so many otherwise peace-loving and intelligent people are being manipulated on this issue has the potential to spiral out of control.

Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI

Then recently in Feb 2018 I had the following letter published in the Madison Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal newspapers:

Dear Editor: Since we all know -- at least the few of us who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid and are astute observers of the politico-economic scene -- that there's absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever pointing to the Kremlin hacking or interfering in the 2016 presidential election to favor Trump, this indicates there must be a faction of our elites that's wholly intent on propagating all this group think about Russia-gate.

I believe I've identified two of the key elements of our ruling class that are committed to this alarming Russophobic narrative:

1) The biggest purveyors and prevaricators are the establishment DNC along with Rachel Maddow, Masha Gessen (the nauseating intellectual muscle behind much of this) and the DNC sycophants at MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, NPR and WaPo. They simply cannot accept that they ran a repellent Wall Street warmongering candidate who lost to the deplorable Trump, of all people. Ergo, they must discredit and delegitimize the Trump election and presidency at all costs.

2) The careerist Washington militarists (both public and private entities) who make their promotions and budgets off the vilification of Putin and Moscow. These dangerous sociopaths were genuinely terrified when Trump advocated a rapprochement of sorts with Russia. One of the very, very few issues Trump actually got right.

That these two groups are coalescing on this fraudulent Russiagate baloney is putting the world on the brink of nuclear war. How long will Moscow continue to be a stoic punching bag in the face of all the Western disinformation and provocations?

Drew Hunkins
Madison

Very gratifying to be on the record. And I'm so happy that so many fellow CN enthusiasts were also on the record a long time ago.

Let's keep up the good fight.

Realist , May 20, 2018 at 2:54 am

That the newspapers actually printed them is the most remarkable thing. Most of us expressing Drew's point of view can't even get a post up on "mainstream" newspaper forums, since everything is now instantaneously moderated.

Yes, Wisconsin is a "liberal" blue state, but it also displays uncommon deviance from the herd when pressed by fantastical narratives, hence the abandonment of Clinton's candidacy. If the cheeseheads simply did as expected, Madam President would be leading the war effort right now and domestic turmoil might even be greater than it is. What a special prosecutor would be subpoenaing now would, in fact, be the emails of John Podesta and the DNC. The corruption of ALL the major players in American politics is so blatant it is just out there in plain sight.

Al Pinto , May 20, 2018 at 8:44 am

@Realist

"That the newspapers actually printed them is the most remarkable thing. Most of us expressing Drew's point of view can't even get a post up on "mainstream" newspaper forums, since everything is now instantaneously moderated."

While that's generally true

http://time.com/magazine/us/5280431/may-28th-2018-vol-191-no-20-u-s/

In my view, the article pretty much summarizes why HRC lost the election; nor, it's not the Russians:

"The frustrated, disillusioned Americans who voted for President Trump committed the ultimate act of rejecting the meritocrats – epitomized by the hardworking, always prepared, Yale Law – educated Hillary Clinton – in favor of an inexperienced, never-prepared, shoot-from-the-hip heir to a real estate fortune whose businesses had declared bankruptcy six times. He would "drain the swamp" in Washington, he promised. He would take the coal industry back to the greatness it had enjoyed 80 years before. He would rebuild the cities, block immigrants with a great wall, provide health care for all and make the country's infrastructure the envy of the world, while cutting everyone's taxes. Forty-six percent of those who voted figured that things were so bad, they might as well let him try."

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , May 20, 2018 at 3:46 pm

That Time magazine URL is to the front page, not to the quoted article. The correct URL is: http://time.com/magazine/us/5280431/may-28th-2018-vol-191-no-20-u-s/

[May 24, 2018] If they find out what we've done, we'll all hang

Notable quotes:
"... l suggest that Mr. Brennan, who loves to make comment about the process, get himself a good lawyer, not a good writer ..."
May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 4:13 pm

Daniel Lazare – good article.

"The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be contaminated by its preconceived beliefs. Objectivity fell by the wayside."

This part I cannot agree with, though. I do not think for one second that the FBI made an "error". The whole lot of them conspired to get Hillary Clinton exonerated of her email crimes, and then get her elected. They set out purposely and with intent to infiltrate Trump's campaign, spy on him, leak information and disparage him as much as humanely possible. Once he did get elected, they set out to impeach him any way they could. The media has been on side.

This was all done with "intent". They knew from the get-go that there was no Russian collusion. They made it up. Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the phony Steele dossier, although this information was not made apparent to the FISA Court.

This has all been an attempted coup to unseat the President of the United States. Criminal referrals have been made by Horowitz (the Inspector General). Heads are going to roll.

To paraphrase what Hillary said during the campaign: "If they find out what we've done, we'll all hang."

andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:29 am

Further more Conservatives and a leftie, (me) are convinced that the bad actors got busted using the NSA database in April 2016(look up Admiral Rodgers) and they needed a cover to keep spying on Trump and retro activly legitimize the NSA query abuse.

Read 70 page summary of FISA abust from judge Collier. .

backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 4:01 pm

Tucker Carlson's three-minute interview with Don Di Genova, former U.S. attorney:

"We know that Hillary Clinton was illegally exonerated. We knew that a year ago. We know that there was a substantial effort to frame the current President of the United States with crimes by infiltrating his campaign and then his administration with spies that the FBI had set upon them. We have learned that the crimes were committed by the FBI, senior members of the Department of Justice, John Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey and others associated with the Democratic Party, and that Donald Trump and his associates committed no crimes. [ ]

As of today, I understand that a referral for criminal prosecution has been made by Mr. Horowitz [Inspector General] to Mr. Huber, who is investigating the FISA leaks, the unmasking, the leaks of the unmasking, and everything we described tonight. Criminal referrals have already been made.

l suggest that Mr. Brennan, who loves to make comment about the process, get himself a good lawyer, not a good writer. [ ]

Yes, NBC News' consultant, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the most partisan hack leader of the CIA in history, needs a very, very good lawyer. [ ] Yes, a criminal lawyer. He doesn't need a 'slip and fall' lawyer, although he's going to slip and fall. He's going to be in front of a Grand Jury shortly."

backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 4:02 pm

Here's the link for the above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L76doZ6O_mM

[May 24, 2018] Rule of thumb: when you hear the DS media complex incessantly demonizing a foreign leader or country, it's just an exposition of its own guilt.

Forces which launched color revolution against Trump were trying to save neoliberalism, which was collapsing int he USA -- and defeat of Hillary is a clear sign of the collapse.
They succeeded into turning him into a puppet (he folded just two months after inaguration) and kept him oh a short leash sinse then, but they want to get rid of him completely as they feel that he can change sides again.
Russiagate is a smoke screen to hide internal problem which now are evident in the USA sociery and first of all huge level of unequlity. the latter is nagatively correlated with the political stability. This is essentially a neo-McCarthyism campaign, when the fact that the USA "imported" a lot of Nazi criminals was hidden by witch hunt for communists in the government. Which also help to destroy the US left for the next 60 years by branding them as Communists. Not that communists were saints (far form that), but this was pretty nasty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... As months turn into nearly two years and no slid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russia-gate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks, as Daniel Lazare explains. ..."
"... Page was not a spy pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it, helping the catch a couple of baddies. ..."
"... Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump's alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back that he's "partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are." Page replied that the Russians "are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess." Strzok heartily agreed: "f***ing conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I'm glad I'm on Team USA." ..."
May 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Originally from: Making Excuses for Russiagate By Daniel Lazare

As months turn into nearly two years and no slid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russia-gate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks, as Daniel Lazare explains.

The best evidence that Russia-gate is sinking beneath the waves is the way those pushing the pseudo-scandal are now busily covering their tracks. The Guardian complains that " as the inquiry has expanded and dominated the news agenda over the last year, the real issues of people's lives are in danger of being drowned out by obsessive cable television coverage of the Russia investigation" – as if The Guardian 's own coverage hasn't been every bit as obsessive as anything CNN has come up with.

The Washington Post , second to none when it comes to painting Putin as a real-life Lord Voldemort , now says that Special counsel Robert Mueller "faces a particular challenge maintaining the confidence of the citizenry" as his investigation enters its second year – although it's sticking to its guns that the problem is not the inquiry itself, but "the regular attacks he faces from President Trump, who has decried the probe as a 'witch hunt.'"

And then there's The New York Times , which this week devoted a 3,600-word front-page article to explain why the FBI had no choice but to launch an investigation into Trump's alleged Russian links and how, if anything, the inquiry wasn't aggressive enough. As the article puts it, "In terviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a review of documents show that the FBI was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known."

It's Nobody's Fault

The result is a late-breaking media chorus to the effect that it's not the fault of the FBI that the investigation has dragged on with so little to show for it; it's not the fault of Mueller either, and, most of all, it's not the fault of the corporate press, even though it's done little over the last two years than scream about Russia. It's not anyone's fault, evidently, but simply how the system works.

This is nonsense, and the gaping holes in the Times article show why.

The piece, written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos and entitled " Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation," is pretty much like everything else the Times has written on the subject, i.e. biased, misleading, and incomplete. Its main argument is that the FBI had no option but to step in because four Trump campaign aides had "obvious or suspected Russian ties."

' At Putin's Arm'

One was Michael Flynn, who would briefly serve as Donald Trump's national security adviser and who, according to the Times, "was paid $45,000 by the Russian government's media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin." Another was P aul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump's campaign chairman and was a source of concern because he had "lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence." A third was Carter Page, a Trump foreign-policy adviser who "was well known to the FBI" because "[h]e had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign."

The fourth was George Papadopoulos, a "young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton."

Seems incriminating, eh? But in each case the connection was more tenuous than the Times lets on. Flynn, for example, didn't dine "at the arm of the Russian president" at a now-famous December 2015 Moscow banquet honoring the Russian media outlet RT. He was merely at a table at which Putin happened to sit down for "m aybe five minutes, maybe twenty, tops," according to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein who was just a few chairs away. No words were exchanged, Stein says, and "[n]obody introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English spoke English."

The Manafort associate with the supposed Russian intelligence links turns out to be a Russian-Ukrainian translator named Konstantin Kilimnik who studied English at a Soviet military school and who vehemently denies any such connection . It seems that the Ukrainian authorities did investigate the allegations at one point but declined to press charges . So the connection is unproven.

Page Was No Spy

The same goes for Carter Page, who was not "recruited" by Russian intelligence, but, rather, approached by what he thought were Russian trade representatives at a January 2013 energy symposium in New York. When the FBI informed him five or six months later that it believed the men were intelligence agents, Page appears to have cooperated fully based on a federal indictment filed with the Southern District of New York. Thus, Page was not a spy pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it, helping the catch a couple of baddies.

As for Papadopoulos, who the Times suggests somehow got advance word that WikiLeaks was about to dump a treasure trove of Hillary Clinton emails, the article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000 State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. These were the emails that "the American people are sick and tired of hearing about," as Bernie Sanders put it . Instead of spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was referring to emails that were already in the news – a possibility the Times fails to discuss.

FBI 'Perplexed'

One could go on. But not only does the Times article get the details wrong, it paints the big picture in misleading tones as well. It says that the FBI was "perplexed" by such Trump antics as calling on Russia to release still more Clinton emails after WikiLeaks went public with its disclosure. The word suggests a disinterested observer who can't figure out what's going on. But it ignores how poisonous the atmosphere had become by that point and how everyone's mind was seemingly made up.

By July 2016, Clinton was striking out at Trump at every opportunity about his Russian ties – not because they were true, but because a candidate who had struggled to come up with a winning slogan had at last come across an issue that seemed to resonate with her fan base. Consequently, an intelligence report that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee "was a godsend," wrote Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in Shattered , their best-selling account of the Clinton campaign, because it was "hard evidence upon which Hillary could start to really build the case that Trump was actually in league with Moscow."

Not only did Clinton believe this, but her followers did as well, as did the corporate media and, evidently, the FBI. This is the takeaway from text messages that FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok exchanged with FBI staff attorney Lisa Page.

Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump's alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back that he's "partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are." Page replied that the Russians "are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess." Strzok heartily agreed: "f***ing conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I'm glad I'm on Team USA."

The F'ing Russian 'Savages'

This is the institutional bias that the Times doesn't dare mention. An agency whose top officials believe that "f***ing conniving cheating savages" are breaking down the door is one that is fairly guaranteed to construe evidence in the most negative, anti-Russian way possible while ignoring anything to the contrary. So what if Carter Page had cooperated with the FBI? What's important is that he had had contact with Russian intelligence at all, which was enough to render him suspicious in the bureau's eyes. Ditto Konstantin Kilimnik. So what if the Ukrainian authorities had declined to press charges? The fact that they had even looked was damning enough.

The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be contaminated by its preconceived beliefs. Objectivity fell by the wayside. The Times says that Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 agent whose infamous, DNC and Clinton camp paid-for opposition research dossier turned "golden showers" into a household term, struck the FBI as " highly credible" because he had "helped agents unravel complicated cases" in the past. Perhaps. But the real reason is that he told agents what they wanted to hear, which is that the "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" with the "[a]im, endorsed by PUTIN, [of] encourage[ing] splits and divisions in [the] western alliance" (which can be construed as a shrewd defensive move against a Western alliance massing troops on Russian borders.)

What else would one expect of people as "nasty" as these? In fact, the Steele dossier should have caused alarm bells to go off. How could Putin have possibly known five years before that Trump would be a viable presidential candidate? Why would high-level Kremlin officials share inside information with an ex-intelligence official thousands of miles away? Why would the dossier declare on one page that the Kremlin has offered Trump "various lucrative real estate development business deals" but then say on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business had gone nowhere and that he therefore "had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success"? Given that the dossier was little more than "oppo research" commissioned and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, why was it worthy of consideration at all?

The Rush to Believe

But all such questions disappeared amid the general rush to believe. The Times is right that the FBI slow-walked the investigation until Election Day. This is because agents assumed that Trump would lose and that therefore there was no need to rush. But when he didn't, the mood turned to one of panic and fury.

Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that " Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

The New Yorker reports that an ex-aide to John McCain hoped to persuade the senator to use the Steele dossier to force Trump to resign even before taking office. (The ex-aide denies that this was the case.)

When FBI Director James Comey personally confronted Trump with news of the dossier two weeks prior to inauguration, the Times says he " feared making this conversation a 'J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,' with the FBI presenting embarrassing information "to lord over a president-elect."

But that is precisely what happened. When someone – most likely CIA Director John Brennan, now a commentator with NBC News – leaked word of the meeting and Buzzfeed published the dossier four days later, the corporate media went wild. Trump was gravely wounded, while Adam Schiff, Democratic point man on the House Intelligence Committee, would subsequently trumpet the Steele dossier as the unvarnished truth . According to the Times account, Trump was unpersuaded by Comey's assurances that he was there to help. "Hours earlier," the paper says, " he debuted what would quickly become a favorite phrase: 'This is a political witch hunt.'"

The Times clearly regards the idea as preposterous on its face. But while Trump is wrong about many things, on this one subject he happens to be right. The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats have all gone off the deep end in search of a Russia connection that doesn't exist. They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame.

Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique, and his articles about the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites as Jacobin and The American Conservative.

andy--s , May 22, 2018 at 6:30 pm

rewind just a little .

If the FBI felt the clinton private server was a monumental nothing burger, then why was it necessary to open a counterintellegence investigation upon Papadopoulos using a National security letter(july 31 2016), and NOT investigate or bother even questioning the person who claimed to have access to Clinton emails until 9 months later?

News outlets inform us that the FBI 'informant' acted properly in their case, but fail to disclose that the FBI inherited a political investigation from fusion GPS, which only targeted Trump members whom they were interested in to find out whether Trump had them or knew someone who did. Chris Steele set up a honey pot for papadopoulos.

ANy news media that ommits the inheritance aspect and/or the down-playing of the hillary's emails prior to the possibility of Trump getting them is not telling the whole story.

When did it become the duty of the FBI to protect Hillary from blackmail if her emails were of no 'national security' value, as demonstrated by the conclusion of the server investigation.

Den Lille Abe , May 21, 2018 at 2:46 pm

American politics and media mostly resembles an asylum for rabid wild animals. Its even beyond psychopathy.
I wonder if some of these beings DNA wise classify as human beings.

Steve Hayes , May 21, 2018 at 10:42 am

If the US political media elite believe (as they claim they do) that meddling in the domestic politics of another country is wrong, illegal, an act of war, when will we see investigations into US meddling in the domestic politics of other countries. When will there be an investigation into the US conspiracy with the Ukrainian neo-Nazis to overthrow the elected government? Or the US support for jihadis in Syria? Or any of the many, many other cases of US meddling?

Arioch , May 22, 2018 at 7:11 am

US ruling elits are infected with exceptionalism=nazism.

They genuinely believe they can run subhuman nations as they wish and that is their "white burden".
They equally sincerely believe that the said subhuman nations dare not resist their America 1% masters guidance, in particular they dare not influence those masters as a mean to have a say in what the masters impose upon them

eric , May 22, 2018 at 7:00 pm

Could we all write our congressman and bring our troops home unyil we can understand what's been going on for more than the last twenty years .

Marko , May 21, 2018 at 1:46 am

Great article and comments. I find some satisfaction in seeing the MSM "making excuses" as it at least represents a tacit admission of their guilt in misinforming the public on this subject. A weak one , as even tacit admissions go , but more than we've seen for past abuses – Libya , Ukraine , Syria , 9/11 , etc.

Aside from that , just a short administrative note for Stranger Together : Please add me to your "de-friend" list. I assure you , I fully qualify. Thanks.

Robert , May 20, 2018 at 6:44 pm

What a pathetic waste of time and money (20,000,000) trying to perpetuate the rissiagate lie. Even worse, the powers that be are guilty of the very election meddling of many sovereign nations.

Russigate is nothing but a deep state distraction deflection strategy to provide cover for their own election meddling crimes.

Rule of thumb: when you hear the DS media complex incessantly demonizing a foreign leader or country, it's just an exposition of its own guilt.

KiwiAntz , May 20, 2018 at 7:23 am

The really sad thing about all this Russiagate nonsense is that there will be no apologies given to either Putin or Russia, once its confirmed that no evidence has been found of Russian interference & then this story will quietly disappear beneath the waves, as it seems to be starting now, before being confined to the scrap heap of History?

These scumbags who pushed this narrative get away scott free, without suffering any consequences from their falsehoods, having slandered & dragged Russia's reputation through the mud, permanently & maliciously destroying it & ramping up global tensions in the process? All because the out of touch Democratic Party & a evil, shameful woman called Hillary Clinton lost the election? Also, no apologies will be given to the American people as well, who have, for 12 mths, been subjected too a 24hr, 24/7, constant, MSM & Political, psychological operation of brainwashing propaganda & gaslighting, to promote cognitive dissonance in these citizens so that they question their own sanity, values & belief systems?

As many people have commented here, their real concerns such as inadequate healthcare, putting food on the table etc have been drowned out by all this Russiagate garbage!

That's the two real tragedies & outcome from these blantant, orchestrated lies by the Dems, to demonise Russia & apportion blame to others rather than looking at yourselves in the mirror?

Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:37 am

Great analogy KiwiAntz. You know a lot about how our American politics works, no doubt about it. You are right the real tragedy is to how no one will suffer any consequences for taking the American public down this road of international disruption, and on top of that for defaming a head of state of a foreign government. In fact if the Democrats get their way Mueller will receive a medal. This will be another moment in time where Washington will instill it's vision onto all that's good and right, as worldleaders and the American people will be ignored. There will be nothing to apologize for, as once again the DC Masters will set the narrative, and the world will roll it's eyes and go back to work. Arrogance becomes a virtue, and believe you me Washington has enough of that disgusting defect and more to go around to conduct hundreds of investigation and think nothing of it. Joe

Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 4:56 pm

KiwiAntz, Joe – Great posts.

"The really sad thing about all this Russiagate nonsense is that there will be no apologies given to either Putin or Russia, once its confirmed that no evidence has been found of Russian interference & then this story will quietly disappear beneath the waves, as it seems to be starting now, before being confined to the scrap heap of History?"

I don't believe this Russia Gate nonsense or similar malign fabrications against Russia are going to end unless The West's goal of complete domination of the world led by U.S. is abandoned, which – looking at what has been in play since 1991 – I don't think will happen.

"Also, no apologies will be given to the American people as well, who have, for 12 months, been subjected too a 24hr, 24/7, constant, MSM & Political, psychological operation of brainwashing propaganda & gaslighting, to promote cognitive dissonance in these citizens so that they question their own sanity, values & belief systems? "

This cognitive dissonance in a significant segment of population is going to be long lasting, and that is what I think its purpose was. The great damage done during the 1950's by McCarthyism and nuclear scare drum beating was very visible when I arrived here during mid 1960's. This time, with this constant 24/7 demonizing of Russia and Putin depicting them as evil enemies, with all these fabrications, lies, and other such garbage, for many years now, has done far more damage to the gullible American public than during 1950's.

I think this whole show going on in Washington is being orchestrated by the same Puppet-master, keeping the public in suspense deliberately. Both sides are in collusion. One day Trump makes a tweet like "We are going to withdraw from Syria", and public like us gets all optimistic for peace to prevail in the World. Next day the bombs, missiles are falling over Syria, Yemen or in Afghanistan. Both sides are beating up Russia, from different angles. Trump has fallen in line. He had no choice.

There was several articles some months ago about Central Asia. The link for one of these articles in Strategic Culture is below:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/06/us-isis-nexus-afghanistan-becomes-hot-topic.html

Joe, it seems like there is not goingto be peace in the World as some us always keep wishing for. But I still want to keep my optimism about a peaceful World.

Anna , May 20, 2018 at 5:33 pm

Don't forget the Skripal affair that -- surprise! -- made bare a connection between Skripal and the infamous Mr. Christopher Steele (and the M16). The stupidity of the affair can be explained only in the context of the aggression against Syria, a destruction of which is one of the goals of Oded Yinon plan for Geater Israel.
The Skripal affair in the UK and the White Helmets fraud in Douma have the same root. The puppet-masters exposed their life-size marionettes in the European Union countries when the marionettes have collectively risen to expel Russian diplomats. That was a geat Novichok story for the future historians!

KiwiAntz , May 20, 2018 at 6:29 pm

Great comments as usual Joe & Dave you may be right in that this Russiagate nonsense may not end exactly, but it's certainly winding down as the article has noted? I'm of the belief that everything that has a beginning, has & a ending, which maybe naive, but even McCathyism had a beginning an a ending as a comparison? You can't maintain BS & falsehoods indefinitely, its a proven fact! The Powers, who masterminded this operation know that this false narrative has a shelf life & that the Public can only stomach this BS, up to a point? The American people have reached that saturation point & hell, even the Fakestream media & their commentators have had a gutsful of this & going off script saying enough is enough & that too much time has been wasted on this crap? But then unapologetically, never acknowledging their complicity & role in publishing these falsehoods! One enormous positive can be taken out of all of this nonsense & that is, the American people are not as stupid as "THEY" (Deepstate & cronies) like to think they are & are extremely strong & resilient to the cognitive dissonance that have been subjected too? US Citizens & people of the World are waking up to what's really going on, thanks to the brutish presidency of D.Trump & the thuggish activities of the MIC & Intelligence States?

Dennis , May 20, 2018 at 6:50 pm

Funny that. A few days ago you were claiming that all United States of A**holes citizens were brainwashed. Now you are changing your mind I see. Now we all are "extremely strong & resilient to the cognitive dissonance that (we) have been subjected too". Or maybe you just enjoy ranting on comment boards! LOL

Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 7:07 pm

Dennis take it easy KiwiAntz always puts a context to his narrative. I've read some of those last comments of his, and if anything KiwiAntz sounds like a disgruntled American. Like most of us on this board. So when KiwiAntz does say something good about the American citizens let's not slap him down. You can say whatever you'd like Dennis it's a free country (kind of), but don't be to hard on KiwiAntz because he's one of us. Joe

Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm

Dave among the great comments made here today I suggest you scroll down and read CitizenOne, for CitizenOne captured the essence of our times fairly well, no change that to extremely well.

I'm a tad burned out, and throughly up to here, with this RussiaGate story. Although if we didn't have Russian interference to talk about, then who would we Americans blame for our declining empire? This is a result of a Washington where no one is held accountable, and where talking points are only meant to be a distraction away from what we should be discussing at length.

This obsession with Russia is self made, and is aimed at not only hurting Russia, or better said Putin, as its aim is to take our eyes off of who really is at fault for all of our debt, and wars of choice. This is how you cover up a lie, by using another lie in it's place. Like my mother always warned me Dave, 'one lie only leads to another lie until the truth jumps up and bites you in the ass'. In fact my mother distrusted almost all politicians.

So Dave while we pull our hair out of our heads, while hearing the MSM everyday breakdown into excruciating blabber another Presidential Tweet, or we hear words of encouragement (sarcasm here) of how Mueller is still valiantly pushing ahead with the Investigation, we hear very little about what else is going on with in regard to our planet. If peace did breakout, why would we even know it Dave?

Even sadder Dave are the American citizens who don't know, or research, the truth. This is the most dangerous element of all to consider, and that is an uninformed public votes in the person to run the most powerful nation on this once proud green earth with the biggest ever military apparatus the world has ever seen. Talk about the patients taking over the asylum. Seriously who in America isn't on meds, and getting their news from our corrupted MSM?

The MSM should be proud of themselves, for they have totally buffaloed the American public into oblivion.

Okay Dave. Joe

Dennis , May 20, 2018 at 8:56 pm

Joe, there is no "reply' button on your comment of 7.07pm. I guess why I don't take KiwiAntz comments seriously is that he just has a grab bag of cliches and generalizations that he strings together and thrashes out on his keyboard ad nausea. Mostly naive. Maybe he is disgruntled, and maybe he is an American. But I doubt it. More likely he sits in his mothers basement in a far away Isle reading rubbish on the internet.

His knowledge of Americans surely doesn't come from living and working in American communities, and interacting with everyday Americans. I am a Kiwi who has lived in Seattle for 45-years. My job has taken me to Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii and The Bahamas.

I have got to kinda' understand "America" and Americans" from first hand experience. Until you have done that your knowledge of the American psyche is superficial and academic. As I judge KiwiAntz's to be.

He also reminds me of the old saying.."Everybody knows how to run the ship but the Captain." I can tell you you from hard experience, once you get to be the Captain, things things turn out to be a whole lot more complex and one learns humility real fast.

[May 24, 2018] I think Mueller has "slow walked" this thing because he has to be careful of stepping on the wrong toes. As Abe has pointed out, a lot of RussiaGate is actually IsraelGate. But the while idea of Mueller investigation was "insurance": creation of the meachnism to keep Trump on neocon short leash, which succeeded beyond any expectations.

May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Skip Scott , May 20, 2018 at 7:56 am

Realist-

Yes, in this respect the Mueller investigation has done it's job perfectly. They just yank on Trump's leash whenever necessary. What will be interesting is how they manage to quash the referral for prosecution of Deep State players by I.G. Horowitz. Nunes has been a rogue player as well, and will need to be corralled. We hear nothings but "crickets" from the MSM regarding this with the exception of Fox, which is telling; but it has me wondering how and why Fox has gotten away with it.

Skip Scott , May 20, 2018 at 7:44 am

ranney-

I think Mueller has "slow walked" this thing because he has to be careful of stepping on the wrong toes. As Abe has pointed out, a lot of RussiaGate is actually IsraelGate. His questionable business dealings were with duel Russian/Israeli citizens. My guess is Mueller will have to settle for Trump's paying hush money to a porn star.

michael , May 20, 2018 at 10:05 am

While others in this thread have noted that the "Russian Investigation" is mostly for keeping Trump in line with the the neolib/ neocon agenda for WWIII, the pure partisanship of the Investigation (which would be more interesting and effective if not solely focused on Trump but rather any Americans interacting with Russia) suggests that Mueller's slow walking is to keep this issue out in front of the Public until the Midterm Elections.

The big question is whether the tone-deaf MSM will trash and demean Trump to the point that there is backlash, much as put him in office in the first place.

ranney , May 20, 2018 at 5:40 pm

Skip and Michael,
Thanks for your responses. Maybe you're right. Maybe Muller doesn't want to step on Israeli toes, but why not? And maybe the idea is to keep people worked up so they'll vote against Republicans in the 2018 elections, but I find it hard to think that Muller is that partisan for Democrats.
I wonder if the prevailing plan of the "dark state" is to keep Trump in, but with no power, since a Pence presidency could be worse than Trump – though at this point it's hard to see how. Whatever the plan and whatever we think we see going on is probably not what is actually happening. Hopefully we'll see a glimmer of the truth in six months.

[May 24, 2018] MSM misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame

Notable quotes:
"... " . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ." ..."
"... A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence ..."
"... " personally i blame clinton" Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another scapegoat-puppet. ..."
"... It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the division of the world into East and West. ..."
"... In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS. That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept. Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the republicans for the upcoming elections. ..."
May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

jsinton , May 19, 2018 at 8:49 am

Since day one, I felt the entire Russia-gate fiasco was horse excrement. It just never passed the smell test. My suspicions were confirmed day by day as Mueller came up with nothing. To my amazement, the MSM pushed the story to the limit with no objectivity, agenda driven, politically motivated, journalistic suicide. They've shown themselves as the propaganda outlets they always were, but we were loath to admit.

Robert Emmett , May 19, 2018 at 8:43 am

"They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame."

That may well be. And Robert Parry meticulously documented such a case. Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on and on and on it goes. That's the nature of a infectious culture of lies. The cultured medium explodes, escapes the lab and runs rampant, leaving those who initiated the whole mess to scramble in a mad attempt to "save face". It wouldn't surprise me if the H-ill-re eventually becomes the first, and last, U.S. woman CEO to drop the big one. If you sometimes hear a faint glug-glug-glug pulsing in your ears, that's the sound of U.S. circling the drain.

mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:03 am

Very well stated Robert. I like the virus metaphor for propaganda. It's like gossip -- spreading, infecting the gullible with lies .

Rob , May 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm

Excellent point. As you say, their work is done. The Russiagate meme is now firmly implanted in the minds of tens of millions of Americans, and nothing short of a public confession by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that they fabricated the story and fanned the flames in the media will dislodge it. I cannot envision any other means of killing this particular virus. All contrary facts and logic will be brushed aside as fake news created by Russian agents or stooges.

Dave P. , May 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm

Robert Emmet,

" . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ."

Yes. You have summarized it very well. That is how it is in our home too. My wife had been listening to this for some time, Russia, Russia, Russia, and Putin , Putin, evil Putin destroying our democracy, and so on on TV and in Newspapers, that it has gone into the subconscious now. And I read that they, the Ruling Power Structures have done the same to people in Western Europe too.

j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 7:54 am

While many of the particulars are correct regaring the paucity of evidence against associates of the President, the author misses two key points, upon which the entire Mueller coup operation rests. First, that the campaign against Trump started not in the Clinton campaign or anywhere related, but rather in London with British intelligence, as the Guardian itself has boasted. Not only did MI6's Steele prepare the document that formed the basis of the allegations of "collusion" but it is well known that GCHQ's Hannigan met personally with Brennan in the summer of 2016 to sound the alarm with a "not yet with it" US intel community. Second, the basis of the investigation itself hinges on the alleged "hacking" of the Clinton/DNC emailswhich showed her to be a craven puppet of Wall Street, released just prior to the Democratic Convention. That entire scenario, that the source of the infamous emails were a result of "Russian hacking," was conclusively and repeatedly demolished on this website by fomer top NSA analyst William Binney, and his cohorts at the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am

The Clinton campaign paid Steele to do his thing. Their operation against Trump began the day after his surprise victory.

backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:16 pm

Their operation began long before Trump's victory. It began in earnest just a few days after Hillary Clinton was wrongfully exonerated, way back in July of 2016.

voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:29 am

The funniest part of all this nonsense is that the democrats are going to keep this Illusion of RUSSIAGATE alive until the next elections!
So after the next loss in the upcoming elections we all know who to blame for another democratic loss, right?!

RnM , May 19, 2018 at 3:34 am

You paint a nearly hopeless picture, Mike.

Let us all trust that Mr. Trump, who, despite the intentions of the Totalitarians outed in Daniel Lazare's fine summary article, is the DULY ELECTED POTUS (by the common folk -- no one has made a serious demonstration of vote counting fraud, from my recollections), continues in office.

The American Experiment (in enlightened governance of, by, and for the governed) is in grave jeopardy. The enemy of the Enlightenment's fine accomplishment is Monotheism, which is the philosophical parent of Monarchy, which is the civic governing manifestation of said religious thought patterns.

Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 8:52 am

I'll suggest that the "American Experiment" is threatened by money power, more than religion, although many fundamentalists are deluded to support zionism. Religion is a problem where it rationalizes simplistic political views, but the root causes are ignorance and selfishness. Monotheism is not really the problem now that there are few monarchies. The Enlightenment, and enlightenment of individuals, has many enemies.

mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:12 am

The enemies of good government are the greedy and powerful oligarchs who hate democracy, and do everything to distort and destroy it. No need to drag monotheism into it.

RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:25 pm

My career was spent working with local rural politics. Good governance is by far imperiled by corrupt locals on the take.

Also, Stalin did his purging by setting up secret local committees of three, who fed him names through a beaurocratic pipeline. The Big Guy gets the blame (or credit), but the little fellas do the dirty work.

Sam F , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 pm

You are very right about local government corruption, which may have factions based upon tribal loyalties, but is caused by poor moral standards throughout our society. Most local officials are elected with little or no public knowledge of who they are, and as a result are mere low-end power-seekers who will abuse whatever power they can get.

David G , May 19, 2018 at 2:50 am

"[The NY Times] article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000 State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. Instead of spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was referring to emails that were already in the news -- a possibility the Times fails to discuss."

I've been shouting just this at my TV set (oddly, to little effect). And the same goes for other allegedly damning references to "Clinton emails" in connection with the infamous Trump Tower meeting and probably elsewhere.

Thanks to Daniel Lazare for pointing it out.

Adrian E. , May 19, 2018 at 4:29 am

A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence and some of which have officially been rejected by the officials that investigated the case (e.g. as far as France is concerned see https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-putin-says-attempts-contain-russia-wont-101117186.html ).

But unfortunately, there are many people who don't care about evidence and rational inquiry, and they prefer believing in evidencefree conspiracy theories that match their prejudices. One accusation that is not backed up by any evidence is used to making other accusations that are not based on evidence look more likely.

voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:49 am

:lol: " A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence " the good old PROPAGANDA ! It's alive and kicking

voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:47 am

Russia is in fact the only REAL EMPIRE in this world!

They hack and manipulate everything and everyone

Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:26 am

Have you checked the number of US overseas military bases recently?
Do you know why the US Congress is called "Israel-occupied territory?"
Don't you love -- love! -- MSM.

voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm

Hello Anna!

I know that my written sarcasm is very bad sorry about that! And yes I do love MainShitMedia! Their the best.

Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 7:08 am

Try defining "hacking an election." The term pretends that a few techies tampered machines. In the US the election machine makers do that, no doubt, but not likely elsewhere. The US has a very long history of manipulating elections throughout the world and in the US. Even while it pretends to be "promoting democracy" it is installing dictators and faking elections.

The ultimate election hack is allowing big money to control mass media and political campaigns, as in the US.
Only when we restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited contributions will we restore democracy.

Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 am

Washington and its media tools have hacked this guy's brain is what it amounts to.

They could tell the American public anything and have it believed, like, for instance, that the ideal gas law does not apply to inflated footballs in cold weather.

Realist , May 21, 2018 at 3:32 am

Correction: All your unfounded assertions are bogus. Just read this one simple piece that just came out for the accurate course of events.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-20/how-fbi-and-cia-restarted-cold-war-protect-themselves

David G , May 19, 2018 at 2:20 am

While I am fully on board with rubbishing Russia-gate as malignant nonsense, I do think it may be a mistake to rely too much on there turning out to be no nefarious nexus between Trump and Russia.

In Trump we have someone devoid of knowledge, sense, or character, an almost altogether wrong guy -- very much including his views on U.S. foreign policy -- who for some reason has a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and Putin (though, of course, he has mostly gone along with the anti-Russia Beltway consensus in his actions as president when pressured).

It's possibly it's just an isolated, unexplained instance of Trumpian sanity, but to me it's at least as likely to be the result of greed or fear, based on some grubby link to Russia that is as yet undisclosed.

J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:43 am

"who for some reason has a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and Putin".

Maybe the reason is that Putin is one of history's penultimate statesman who presents the strongest opposition to the global war/banking beast and last bastion of hope? Time magazine's Most Powerful Man of the Year (or something like that as I wouldn't be caught dead reading it.

So does that make Trump a puppet for Russia or a keen observer?

David G , May 19, 2018 at 11:54 am

Do you think Cheeto Dust really capable of appreciating Putin for the reasons you cite?

"Keen" isn't a word that springs to my mind when I think of Trump.

backwardsevolution , May 20, 2018 at 2:32 am

David G -- maybe you need to oil your springs. When you're trying to navigate your way through the swamp, you tend to notice capable players who are doing it and admire them for it.

Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:28 am

Let's begin with Uranium One and the $500.000 fee for a half-hour speech by Bill.

Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 pm

I am also a Green voter. When the choice became Hillary vs Donald that -- for me -- was the last straw. I de-registered as a Democrat and registered as a Green.

Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:32 am

Good for you Mike. I refuse to be a part of the "lesser of two evils" gambit any longer. Let's hope we can build a movement.

andrew , May 18, 2018 at 10:40 pm

the core accusations are
1. that the russians hacked the dnc, there is no evidence and no basis for this accusation. none.
2. that the russians spread a deadly fake news virus that was incredibly damaging to hillary's campaign. there is no evidence of this and it is a completely ridiculous idea if one just stops for a moment to contemplate the astronomical amount of fake news available at all times on the internet and television. what was the fake news lie that was so supremely effective? nobody knows. there wasn't one. there was for hillary unfortunately a real news truth about the dnc released by wikileaks but that was not from russians or a lie.
3. that the russians hacked the election. again absolutely no proof or evidence of this has been offered.

it is in fact a political witch hunt that has been incredibly destructive. it has distracted energy and attention away from real things that have happened. it has instigated proxy warfare with russia in syria. it has discredited journalism. it has made an honest man out of trump.

personally i blame clinton. this mendacious , self defeating , and bizarre ruse is so in keeping with so many of her and bill's greatest hits. these two people continue to damage the progressive movement . they won't go away it would seem. i hope after russiagate sputters to a stop the clintons will finally be finished.

David G , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 am

well said, andrew

RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:37 am

A Witch Hunt, alright! Not FOR a witch, but BY a witch.

J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:51 am

" personally i blame clinton" Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another scapegoat-puppet.

j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 11:41 am

Yes, all true but you fail to identify the cause, which goes well beyond naming Russia as an excuse for Hillary's defeat. It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the division of the world into East and West.

Jeff , May 19, 2018 at 11:59 am

Thanx, Andrew. You wrote the comment I was going to write. I do, however, have one nit. Russia-gate has not made an honest man out of Trump. Nothing could make an honest man out of Trump. He is nothing but an incompetent con artist whose real skill was getting people to lend him money after he had blown it all on bad deals and lousy management. I personally suspect that the connection between Trump and Russia is not with the Russian government but with the Russian oligarchs who are laundering their ill-gotten gains looting Russian state enterprises through Trump.

mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:28 pm

The slimy rats always indulge in phony alibis for their criminal tricks. They should be investigated and charged with falsely accusing an elected President, in order to unseat him. Anyone who votes for a "democrat" in the future is just a simple clueless idiot. Trump is a horrible President, but this does not justify the criminal conspiracy to unseat him through slander and innuendo lacking any evidence whatever. The appointment of a "special council" was meant to change the result of the presidential election, and nothing else.

mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm

If Trump were to be impeached on the basis of this phony witch hunt, it would be the end of whatever semblance we have of a democracy forever. The whole affair reminds me of the criminal removal of the President of Brazil recently.

Al Pinto , May 19, 2018 at 11:01 am

In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS. That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept. Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the republicans for the upcoming elections.

The results of the investigations, actual and/or fabricated, will be invaluable campaign material for the democrats. Especially with the help of the main stream media, it's going to very effective headlines to grab the limited attention that most people in the US have for politics

Sam F , May 18, 2018 at 10:10 pm

The Russia-gate hysteria worked fine as a distraction from Israel-gate. All of Hillary's top ten donors were zionists, and Trump appointed Goldman Sachs to run the economy. Not that KSA, the MIC, or WallSt et al lost any bribery chances.

Russia-gate also pressured Trump into the zionist camp. Just what Israel ordered. Of course the US mass media are almost entirely owned by zionists. Mission accomplished; time to backtrack; we never really said that.

[May 24, 2018] There are some [inconclusive] signs that anti-Russian hysteria is weakening in the USA. Still The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the Russians

Notable quotes:
"... Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI. The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news. ..."
"... Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it. ..."
"... I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super multi-million dollar lotto. ..."
"... The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7 anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia, and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking? ..."
"... No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals. ..."
May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Realist , May 20, 2018 at 3:44 am

It also seems that Yahoo also has the total (if not enthusiastic) support of Putin these days. Pretty tough to buck Israel and achieve peace in the Middle East when it has the full support of both the American Zionist oligarchs and the Russian Zionist oligarchs (who harbor most of their wealth in the West and represent the Atlanticist faction in Russia, in other words play for team USA) who probably comprise the largest and most influential power factions in both countries. No wonder AIPAC is the most powerful lobby whose existence is vehemently denied. If it comes to pass, World War III may essentially be fought because of perceived grievances by thin-skinned megalomaniacs like Adelson and Browder and their ability to wrap politicians around their pinkies using their billions in wealth. I think the Russians especially dislike being played by con-men like Browder, who gets full support from the bought-off American Congress.

voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 12:01 pm

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!

Here's the solution to your RUSSIA HYSTERIA!

https://youtu.be/M7M4y8jEn_s

Lawrence Magnuson , May 19, 2018 at 11:34 am

Excellent in the facts and your conclusions. It is difficult to imagine what you have done in so few words -- summarize so clearly what became a maze of groundless speculation early on only to end as major byzantine monument to almost nothing but empty accusation, political invective, widespread loose talk and media posturing/gossiping. You described, in the end, a failed circus of second-rate illusions.

Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am

The Times used to be a credible source of information. Now, I won't even read Times article unless it is on an issue in which I am very well versed. I simply don't want to be propagandized. And when I read an article in a matter in which I am well versed, I am often outraged at the slants and selective omissions.

Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:22 am

I have come to the conclusion that they are all bad, and that this constant pounding of Russia interference in our American political establishments is nonsense.

Whether it be Russia-Gate or Uranium One scandals, it always leads back to Russian collusion, or how Putin is hell bent on subverting American democracy. It's like the word come down from a Bilderberg high echelon get together where the supreme elite said, 'now you political puppies go fight amongst yourselves but remember Putin is our target'. After all Putin's handling of the Rothschild oligarchs is enough to get even the most least powerful leaders into hot water, let a lone the world's other nuclear super power. So Putin must go.

So while Palestinians this week died protesting their confinement, N Korea was insulted away from the negotiating table over a Gaddafi inspired threat, as Europeans looked for another currency to replace the U.S. Dollar, our American news media gave little time to those news stories, as it stayed stuck on Russia-Gate, or as FOX is attempting to do with their trying to launch a Hillary investigation into her poor use of computer servers added to her selling off uranium stock, we Americans are isolated by what really should matter. Please keep your eyes on the center ring, for what's around it doesn't matter, is the mantra.

What I'm saying, is that these scandals are in house fights, and that the MSM's circumventing of any real news, is just another way to dumb us Americans down. Not to say that investigating political chicanery isn't a priority, but should these investigations be so overwhelmingly reported over any or all other news? If you answered no to that, then should we next begin to wonder to what we are not being told, is exactly the very news we should be talking about?

phillip sawicki , May 19, 2018 at 2:02 pm

Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI. The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news.

It's possible, I suppose, that Mueller will come up with something before November, but there's no sense of inevitability. How could there be? Sixty three American citizens voted for Trump. Bad news for the country, bad news for Clinton, bad news for the MSM, bad news for the Deep State. Ironies abound.

Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 2:58 pm

The one comparison between 1973 and 2018, is that they have the exact same calendar dates. In my mind, the only thing WaterGate has in common with Russia-Gate is that the MSM likes to say that the two scandals are the same. And why not, when you are huckstering the news to sell insurance and pharmaceutical commercials?

WaterGate was of course a break in, and finding Nixon's involvement was key. Russia-Gate wasn't a break in, and as Mueller's Investigation is struggling to find Russian collusion, Mueller gives the impression that he's on to something, when eventually we find out he has nothing. I mean the WaterGate investigation started out with the knowledge that there was a break in, but the Russia-Gate investigation began with lots of allegations with no proof to be found. WaterGate didn't, at least in my opinion, start out as a fishing expedition, but the Russia-Gate Investigation was not only a fishing expedition in as much as it has been a deep sea fishing trip at its best.

You pointed out the voter support of Trump phillip but might I reference you to the many who didn't vote, or at least the bunches of voters who left the presidential pick a blank? America is broken phillip, every institution and every agency which operates inside of it is too. In my estimation to make it right we Americans will need to go back to starting from scratch. Let it begin!

backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 8:05 pm

Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it.

What is comparable to Watergate, but a hundred times worse, is what is trickling out now and what the media have gone out of their way to cover up -- the plot by James Comey and other members of the FBI, John Brennan and others in the CIA, Clapper, the Department of Justice (Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton) to overthrow a duly-elected President.

The Inspector General's report on the FBI and the Department of Justice's role in all of this is apparently damning. Some of these people may end up in jail.

I think Russiagate was invented because, as Hillary said, "If they find out what we've done, we'll all hang." She was trading favors with foreign governments in exchange for cash into the Clinton Foundation. That's why she was using a private server. She didn't want to use the government servers as they would have a back-up of her files, and when you're intent on stealing, the last thing you want is a "back-up" of your dirty dealings.

All of this Russiagate insanity has been one great big deflection away from the true crimes.

It looks like all of them are going to have a date with a Grand Jury.

Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:03 pm

I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super multi-million dollar lotto.

The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7 anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia, and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking?

I'm tired of the constant insinuating that Trump is a Putin puppet, as I'm also experiencing fatigue over Hillary's being continually left off the hook. Although even more so, I'm sick of all of them, I'm just venting over our sad state of us citizens being well informed.

Good to hear from you backwardsevolution. Joe

backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:48 pm

Joe Tedesky -- "Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking?"

Yes, you are so right, Joe, because those other issues are what the average American really cares about: the price of health care and housing, and whether they're going to be able to put food on the table.

Of course, had Donald Trump been colluding with the Russians, that certainly would have been of importance to the country, but they've been looking under every rock for almost two years now and haven't found anything. Well, Stormy Daniels did pop up, but, hey, Trump never professed to be an angel. All they've done is tied him up in knots and prevented him from dealing with the important issues. They have also left far too many Americans with the impression that he's a traitor when he's not, and by holding these charges above his head, they've probably pushed him into doing things that he wouldn't ordinarily have done.

If what I'm hearing about the Inspector General's report is anything close to the truth, then these people (the Deep State people I mentioned above) tried to overthrow a sitting President. These people are running a parallel government. That is very dangerous and will have to be dealt with severely, with criminal charges.

Hey, Joe, on that happy note, you have a good night.

Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 10:37 pm

I'm suffering from RussiaGate fatigue, like I said. I never bought into the Russian collusion thing. I'm more bothered by the forever nonsense the MSM has us on, where there is no closure. I mean you sit and listen to people like Rachel go through their hysterics and after 20 minutes per monologue she gives you nothing.

The Hillary crimes are frustrating because nothing comes of her getting to meet the hard justice she deserves. Seriously this evil witch starts a civil war withinside of our governments bureaucracy, and yet no one hears that much about it the way it's going down. On the other hand Donald Trump for mostly the bad of it, gets news coverage beyond what any America politician ever gets, and we're suppose to believe we are operating on normal.

No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals.

I might add Trump's Middle East policies among his other hard nosed geopolitical endeavors leaves me exhausted trying to figure him out. Hillary should no doubt be in jail, but here we are still on the down low and nothing seems to be working as it should.

Thanks, I do value your opinion. Joe

backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 11:38 pm

Joe Tedesky -- "I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals."

Yes, I agree. One good thing about Trump's presidency is that it has exposed the Deep State actors. These are the people who run the government, not the President, and it doesn't matter who is elected. If you don't play along, you're Kennedy'd! That's why so few good people ever vie for top positions; you get hammered.

Joe, the World Cup is coming and all is well! I'm going to knock off, watch some old videos, and get myself psyched up. Good talking to you, Joe, as always.

Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:06 am

Watergate was focussed. Iran-Contra was focussed. Underlings were convicted in both on charges directly related to the main issues. Nixon resigned and Reagan retired, the Congress not having the will to impeach him, which would have been politically unpopular. "Out-of-the-loop" Bushdaddy saved himself from later impeachment by pardoning some key cabinet members under Reagan (most notably Caspar Weinberger). In contrast, Whitewater blossomed into a full-blown fishing expedition, as has so-called Russiagate. Ken Starr didn't just investigate a land deal or management of the White House travel office, but went over the lives of both Clinton's with a fine tooth comb, eventually precipitating impeachment charges over a stained blue dress. Now, I suppose, the Clinton's and their Democratic adherents feel that turnabout is fair play, though it is undoubtedly just as divisive and destructive to the country as their go round. The woman has obviously been traumatized during her years in the public arena and in the aftermath of the election, but she does the country a great disservice by pushing her vendetta.

Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:09 am

The Clinton pass was always going to be a problem, and many people knew that going into the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign. This didn't stop Hillary though. Why, many here on this comment board wrote with good reason why the Clintons should remain in retirement, but oh no Hillary was going to run come hell or high water. Only a sociopath would overlook so many good reasons of why not to run.

Great perspective Realist. One would think you had a scientific mind . oh wait you do. Joe

Herman , May 19, 2018 at 9:09 am

As I'm sure others commenters on this site will note, those guilty of trying to create a lynch mob and encourage hysteria, will as with Iraq WMD's, emerge unscathed, even more honored for their service to America. And with and increasing number of Americans, we will feel more and more that you cant believe anything anymore and that is a disastrous position to be in for a nation.

mike k , May 19, 2018 at 9:59 am

Herman, it has always been a mistake to rely on belief without careful examination. Plato said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Discerning the truth is intellectual work -- something our false educational system does not teach us to do. Those who learn to sort things out and demand the real truth are mostly self-educated. To wake others up who have been taught to conform and accept authorities, is a lengthy and often thankless task. The tenacity with which many hold onto their false beliefs, is a formidable obstacle to creating a new and better society. I wish I knew a way to accomplish this awakening of our fellows, but I do not. We are left with the option of shortcuts, which are no better than new forms of propaganda to compete with those our subjects have already incorporated in their thinking and character. Following a new leader or movement seems the most one can expect from our brainwashed brothers and sisters

[May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry. ..."
"... We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military. ..."
"... The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own the megaphone. ..."
"... From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party) into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout we are now on the hook for. ..."
"... How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors. ..."
"... So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War. ..."
"... The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all. ..."
"... Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah, sure, whatever you say. ..."
"... It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line. ..."
"... Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the off shore industry is. ..."
"... I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats " ..."
"... Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. ..."
May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

CitizenOne May 20, 2018 at 1:32 am

The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy.

In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry.

We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military.

Trump won because the media cleaned up big time by playing the Super PACs for suckers just as deregulation of the big banks enabled them to clean up by merging savings banks with investment banks which moved all the savings banks deposits into risky investments.

There is a clear and present danger born out and evidenced by former economic collapses that the media and the big financial institutions will create public relations campaigns based on the mantra of deregulation to swindle Americans even further. They have a proven ability to use their power to persuade Americans that some other reason is responsible for the latest swindle.

The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own the megaphone.

From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party) into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout we are now on the hook for.

How many media/news organizations signed onto the Tea Party after the implosion of the banking industry and beat the drums to grant tax breaks for billionaires? All of them.

How many of the media corporations beat the drums to blame Russia for the election results which resulted in sanctions against Russia and a new Cold War with Russia which resulted in windfall profits for the defense industry? All of them.

How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors.

The facts are clear in all of these major failures of our free press to get it right. In every case the media have conspired to fool most of the people into believing the lies of the government and the financial sectors published by main stream press as facts which are giant falsehoods.

The result of this collaboration between the press and the wealth in our nation has been to deceive us and to lead us down paths that twist our understanding to a new understanding that benefits the wealthy in times of prosperity and in times of crisis.

So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War.

The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all.

Reply

backwardsevolution , May 20, 2018 at 5:16 pm

CitizenOne – "'They got it wrong' is a testament of their ability to fool us."

Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah, sure, whatever you say. They can't come out and inform us that they lied from the get-go because that would prove intent to deceive, so they cover up their tracks by saying they made an "error" whenever things fall apart, as they knew they would.

It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line.

Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 11:49 pm

Citizen One – Excellent post. Very informed comments indeed.

Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:15 am

Citizen One-

Great post. It reminded me of a joke I saw the other day:

"A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Partier and says, "look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

munchma quchi , May 19, 2018 at 11:51 pm

re: "Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer: " [You (the author) did not include a disclaimer. please remedy this.]

F. G. Sanford , May 20, 2018 at 9:39 am

Ms. Quchi,
I think the disclaimer said that intelligence assessments are based on sources, methods and interpretations and rely on raw data. It's raw, so it has to be properly marinated until it's fit for consumption. Addenda to the disclaimer indicate that the Intelligence Community will not accept outrageous conspiracy theories, noting specifically that, "They hate us for our freedom, and those weapons of mass destruction must be here somewhere." It's the standard "release from liability" which accompanies all official narratives. Kinda like eating tuna fish: It's pretty good once you get past the smell.

Chet Roman , May 20, 2018 at 11:35 am

Page 13 of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017
explains: "High confidence does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that show something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

robert e williamson jr , May 19, 2018 at 7:35 pm

Dan I really can not disagree with much you have to say here. Except there are a few things about this whole affair that bug the hell out of me. For instance the fact that the village idiot from new york spent over $400 million in cash the last 9 years before he ran for president.

Your effort here sounds quite a lot like whining about having nothing to report. Calm down these things take time. If Russia isn't to blame fine but Mueller is not talking and seems to be conducting himself very professionally.

Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the off shore industry is.

Trump like doing business with Russians during a time when Russian oligarchs were hiding the money they pulled from the Soviet coffers. I think it has gotten him in trouble.

Also interesting is the accounts of what has happen with the Inslaw / PROMIS case and Bill Hamilton. Was this software and early version of what CIA and NSA use to monitor the world now?

One last thing in your last paragraph here you claim the Dimocraps have gone off the deep end with the Russian Connection thing. Dan the dimocraps went off the deep end with their undying allegiance to Israel. And they do little damned else.

When this is finished if CIA allows the release of the Dogdamned files maybe we will learn what happened. Chill my brotha !

kntlt , May 20, 2018 at 6:14 pm

Listen to this man.

drC , May 19, 2018 at 7:27 pm

"The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats" have committed FAR MORE than a mere "crime against journalism". For kryssakes, this isn't a debating society at Yale! They have provoked international tensions, suspicions and distrust that have pushed the world far closer to the brink of a third world war, damaging national economies across the globe & negatively impacting the lives of millions.

jose , May 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm

I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats "

Since the US national media have been aware of the lack of solid evidence against Russia allege meddling case, they now want to pretend it has not been their fault. Their sheer dishonesty underscores their deviant reporting.

ranney , May 19, 2018 at 5:54 pm

Joe, Abe, Andrew, Sam, Mike,

You are all correct in blaming the MSM for ignoring Israel in all this and whitewashing the main cause of our problems in the middle east. I agree that Russia has not been interfering in our politics any more than virtually all the other countries in the world who have embassys here and things they want to "lobby" for. I believe spying is universal and the US does it more than most, but everyone does it including Russia (and UK, France Germany Israel, Ukraine and on and on for everyone on the map).

What I find increasingly strange is the fact that the MSM and just about everyone else is ignoring the fact that Trump did indeed have business with Russia. He was trying to get permission and financial backing for a Trump tower to be built in Moscow. and he had been trying for a while before he even thought of running for president. THAT is what his now indicted lawyer was doing initially, along with others in Trump's employ. That is why there is indeed evidence of contact with Russians during the pre- campaign and during the campaign as well. Trump didn't want to lose this lucrative deal which, also involves money laundering and other illegal, and/or shady dealings.
I can't figure out why Muller hasn't subpoenaed or somehow got hold of Trump's tax returns. I'm pretty sure he'd find all the crimes we need to impeach him.

Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. And I can't help but wonder why Muller is slow walking this whole investigation. I'm pretty sure he can see what I can see. Trump is a crooked, money launderer, ultra con man with his Trump towers and other ploys, and too dumb and ignorant of history and science to understand how dangerous the game he plays is to the world when he has the power of the presidency. But Muller knows that! So what else is really going on that explains why he has moved at snails pace to stop the damage?
Does anyone have a good guess at that? I'd really like to read it.

[May 23, 2018] Rank And File FBI Agents Sickened By Comey And McCabe Want To Come Forward And Testify Zero Hedge

May 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Several FBI agents would like Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and reveal dirt on former FBI Director James Comey and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, reports the Daily Caller , citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova.

" There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James] Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like [John] Brennan –who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday.

" They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify ."

DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent him in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside due to conflicts , has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by The Caller .

These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower , since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official explained to TheDC.

The subpoena is preferred, said diGenova, " because when you are subpoenaed, Congress then pays for your legal counsel and the subpoena protects [the agent] from any organizational retaliation . they are on their own as whistleblowers, they get no legal protection and there will be organizational retaliation against them."

DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have long represented government whistleblowers. Most recently, Toensing became council for William D. Campbell, the former CIA and FBI operative that was deeply embedded in the Russian uranium industry - only to be smeared by the Obama administration when he gathered evidence of two related bribery schemes involving Russian nuclear officials, an American trucking company, and efforts to route money to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) through an American lobbying firm in order to overcome regulatory hurdles, according to reports by The Hill and Circa .

diGenova told the Daily Caller that asking for a Congressional subpoena is "an intelligent approach to the situation given the vindictive nature of the bureau under Comey and McCabe . I have no idea how to read Chris Ray who is not a leader and who has disappeared from the public eye during this entire crisis. You know he may be cleaning house but if he's doing so, he's doing it very quietly."

"I don't blame them," added diGenova. " I don't blame the agents one bit. I think that the FBI is in a freefall . James Comey has destroyed the institution he claims to love. And it is beyond a doubt that it is going to take a decade to restore public confidence because of Comey and Clapper and Brennan and Obama and Lynch."

Meanwhile, the agent from the Washington field office says that rank and file FBI agents are "fed up" and desperately want the DOJ to take action, according to transcripts of the interview.

"Every special agent I have spoken to in the Washington Field Office wants to see McCabe prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They feel the same way about Comey," said the agent.

"The administrations are so politicized that any time a Special Agent comes forward as a whistleblower, they can expect to be thrown under the bus by leadership . Go against the Muslim Brotherhood, you're crushed. Go against the Clintons, you're crushed. The FBI has long been politicized to the detriment of national security and law enforcement."

The special agent added, " Activity that Congress is investigating is being stonewalled by leadership and rank-and-file FBI employees in the periphery are just doing their jobs . All Congress needs to do is subpoena involved personnel and they will tell you what they know. These are honest people. Leadership cannot stop anyone from responding to a subpoena. Those subpoenaed also get legal counsel provided by the government to represent them."

Meanwhile, the former Trump administration official who spoke with The Caller explained that the FBI's problems go way beyond Comey and McCabe.

" They know that it wasn't just Comey and McCabe in this case. That's too narrow a net to cast over these guys. There's a much broader corruption that seeped into the seventh floor at the bureau ."

" They ruined the credibility of the bureau and the technical ability of the bureau, so systemically, over the past several years, they're worried about their organizational reputation and their professional careers."

Subpoenas when?

[May 23, 2018] Why Canada Defends Ukrainian Fascism by Michael Jabara CARLEY

Notable quotes:
"... The Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany ..."
"... persona non grata ..."
"... Some Canadians harboured illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative parties ..."
"... Identity politics and Canadian multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev with torchlight parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and collaboration during World War II ..."
"... Any country sending representatives to Russia's celebration of the 70th anniversary of their victory against Adolf Hitler," ..."
"... in April 2015, "will be blacklisted by Ukraine." ..."
May 23, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

| 09.03.2018 | WORLD / Americas | FEATURED STORY

Canada has a reputation for being a relatively progressive state with universal, single-payer health care, various other social benefits, and strict gun laws, similar to many European countries but quite unlike the United States. It has managed to stay out of some American wars, for example, Vietnam and Iraq, portrayed itself as a neutral "peace keeper", pursuing a so-called policy of "multilateralism" and attempting from time to time to keep a little independent distance from the United States.

Behind this veneer of respectability lies a not so attractive reality of elite inattention to the defence of Canadian independence from the United States and intolerance toward the political and syndicalist left. Police repression against communist and left-wing unionists and other dissidents after World War I was widespread. Strong support for appeasement of Nazi Germany, overt or covert sympathy for fascism, especially in Québec, and hatred of the Soviet Union were widespread in Canada during the 1930s. The Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany. Mackenzie King and many others of the Canadian elite saw communism as a greater threat to Canada than fascism. As in Europe, the Canadian elite -- Liberal or Conservative did not matter -- was worried by the Spanish civil war (1936-1939). In Québec French public opinion under the influence of the Catholic Church hoped for fascist victory and the eradication of communism. In 1937 a Papal encyclical whipped up the Red Scare amongst French Canadian Catholics.

Rejection of Soviet offers of collective security against Hitler was the obverse side of appeasement. The fear of victory over Nazi Germany in alliance with the USSR was greater than the fear of defeat against fascism. Such thoughts were either openly expressed over dinner at the local gentleman's club or kept more discrete by people who did not want to reveal the extent of their sympathy for fascism.

The Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany

Even after the Nazi invasion of the USSR in June 1941, and the formation of the Grand Alliance against the Axis, there was strong reticence amongst the governing elite in Canada toward the Soviet Union. It was a shotgun marriage, a momentary arrangement with an undesirable partner, necessitated by the over-riding threat of the Nazi Wehrmacht. "If Hitler invaded Hell," Winston Churchill famously remarked, "I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Once Hitler was beaten, however, it would be back to business as usual. The Grand Alliance was a "truce", as some of my students have proposed to me, in a longer cold war between the west and the USSR. This struggle began in November 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd; it resumed after 1945 when the "truce", or if you like, the Grand Alliance, came to a sudden end.

This was no more evident than in Canada where elite hatred of communism was a homegrown commodity and not simply an American imitation. So it should hardly be a surprise that after 1945 the Canadian government -- Mackenzie King was still prime minister -- should open its doors to the immigration of approximately 34,000 "displaced persons", including thousands of Ukrainian fascists and Nazi collaborators , responsible for heinous war crimes in the Ukraine and Poland. These were veterans of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the Waffen SS Galicia and the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), all collaborators of Nazi Germany during World War II.

The most notorious of the Nazi collaborators who immigrated to Canada was Mykhailo Chomiak , a mid-level Nazi operative in Poland, who came under US protection at the end of the war and eventually made his way to Canada where he settled in Alberta. Had he been captured by the Red Army, he would quite likely have been hanged for collaboration with the enemy. In Canada however he prospered as a farmer. His grand-daughter is the "Ukrainian-Canadian" Chrystia Freeland, the present minister for external affairs. She is a well-known Russophobe, persona non grata in the Russian Federation, who long claimed her grandfather was a "victim" of World War II. Her claims to this effect have been demonstrated to be untrue by the Australian born journalist John Helmer , amongst many others.

In 1940 the Liberal government facilitated the creation of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress (UCC) , one of many organisations used to fight or marginalise the left in Canada, in this case amongst Canadian Ukrainians. The UCC is still around and appears to dominate the Ukrainian-Canadian community . Approximately 1.4 million people living in Canada claim full or partial Ukrainian descent though generally the latter. Most "Ukrainian-Canadians" were born in Canada; well more than half live in the western provinces. The vast majority has certainly never set foot in the Ukraine. It is this constituency on which the UCC depends to pursue its political agenda in Ottawa.

In 1940 the Liberal government facilitated the creation of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress (UCC) , one of many organisations used to fight or marginalise the left in Canada, in this case amongst Canadian Ukrainians. The UCC is still around and appears to dominate the Ukrainian-Canadian community . Approximately 1.4 million people living in Canada claim full or partial Ukrainian descent though generally the latter. Most "Ukrainian-Canadians" were born in Canada; well more than half live in the western provinces. The vast majority has certainly never set foot in the Ukraine. It is this constituency on which the UCC depends to pursue its political agenda in Ottawa.

The Harper government allowed fund raising for Pravyi Sektor , a Ukrainian fascist paramilitary group

There is no political opposition in the House of Commons to these policies. Even the New Democratic Party (NDP), that burnt out shell of Canadian social democracy, supported the Harper government, at the behest of Mr. Grod, a Ukrainian lobbyist who knows his way around Ottawa. In 2015 the UCC put a list of questions to party leaders, one of which was the following: "Does your party support listing the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic as terrorist organizations?" The Lugansk and Donetsk republics are of course anti-fascist resistance movements that emerged in reaction to the violent coup d'état in Kiev. They are most certainly not "terrorist" organisations, although they are subjected to daily bombardments against civilian areas by Kiev putschist forces. Nevertheless, the then NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, who would have agreed to almost anything to win power, answered in the affirmative. This must have been a moment of dismay for Canadians who still harboured illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative parties. How could it support a US/EU installed putschist regime which governs by intimidation and violence? In fact, it was a Conservative electoral strategy to obtain the votes of people of Ukrainian and East European descent by backing putschist Kiev and denouncing Russia. Mulcair was trying to outflank Harper on his right, but that did not work for he himself was outflanked on his left.

Some Canadians harboured illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative parties

In the 2015 federal elections the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, outwitted poor Mr. Mulcair and won the elections. The NDP suffered heavy electoral losses. Mulcair looked like someone who had made a Faustian bargain for nothing in return, and he lost a bid to remain as party leader. The Liberals campaigned on re-establishing better relations with the Russian Federation, but that promise did not hold up. The minister for external affairs, Stéphane Dion, tried to move forward on that line, but appears to have been stabbed in the back by Mr. Trudeau, with Ms. Freeland guiding his hand in the fatal blow. In early 2017 Dion was sacked and Freeland replaced him. That was the end of the Liberal promise to improve relations with the Russian government. Since then, under Freeland, Russian-Canadian relations have worsened.

The influential Mr. Grod appears to keep the Canadian government in his hip pocket. There are photographs of him side by side with Mr. Harper and then with Mr. Trudeau, with Ms. Freeland on his left. Mr. Grod has been a great success in backing putschist Kiev. Last summer Mr. Trudeau even issued a traditional Ukrainian fascist salute, "SlavaUkraini!" , to celebrate the anniversary of Ukrainian independence. The prime minister is a great believer in identity politics.

The latest gesture of the Canadian government is to approve $1.4 million as a three year grant to promote a "Holodomor National Awareness Tour". Ukrainian "nationalists" summon up the memory of the "Holodomor", a famine in the Ukraine in 1932-1933, deliberately launched by Stalin, they say, in order to emphasise their victimisation by Russia. According to the latest Stalin biographer, Steven Kotkin, there was indeed a famine in the USSR that affected various parts of the country, the Ukraine amongst other regions. Kazakhstan, not the Ukraine suffered most. Between five and seven million people died. Ten millions starved. "Nonetheless, the famine was not intentional. It resulted from Stalin's policies of forced collectivization ,"Kotkin writes, himself no advocate of the Soviet Union. Compulsion, peasant rebellion, bungling, mismanagement, drought, locust infestations, not targeting ethnicities, led to the catastrophe. "Similarly, there was no 'Ukrainian' famine," according to Kotkin, "the famine was [a] Soviet[-wide disaster]" ( Stalin , 2017, vol. 2, pp. 127-29). So the Liberal government is spending public funds to perpetuate a politically motivated myth to drum up hatred of Russia and to support putschist Kiev.

Identity politics and Canadian multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev with torchlight parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and collaboration during World War II

The Canadian government also recently renewed funding for a detachment of 200 "advisors" to train Ukrainian militias, along with twenty-three million dollars -- it is true a pittance by American standards -- for "non-lethal" military aid, justified by Ms. Freeland to defend Ukrainian "democracy". Truly, we live in a dystopian world where reality is turned on its head. Fascism is democracy; resistance to fascism is terrorism. Identity politics and Canadian multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev with torchlight parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and collaboration during World War II. " Any country sending representatives to Russia's celebration of the 70th anniversary of their victory against Adolf Hitler," warned putschist Kiev in April 2015, "will be blacklisted by Ukraine."

"The further a society drifts from the truth," George Orwell once said, "the more it will hate those that speak it." Well, here is one truth that Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Freeland will not want to hear, hate it or not: 42,000 Canadian soldiers, not to mention 27 million Soviet citizens, died during the war against the Axis. Memories must be fading, for now we have come to this pass, where our government is supporting a violent, racist regime in Kiev directly descended from that very enemy against which Canada and its allies fought during World War II.

[May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for. ..."
"... Presumably the op would have allowed HRC to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right? ..."
May 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

heath | May 22, 2018 11:28:05 AM | 8

Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for.

fastfreddy , May 22, 2018 11:46:23 AM | 11

Heath,

That's what I'm thinking. It is apparent the "The Mueller Investigation" is - firstly - a major distraction. It is also apparent that it doesn't make any headway, lead to any conclusions or indictments of any big fish.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

WJ , May 22, 2018 1:00:41 PM | 17
Re: Mueller. If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump.

Presumably the op would have allowed HRC to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right?

WJ , May 22, 2018 1:08:52 PM | 18
The other possibility being that the operation was demanded by Trump winning the Republican primary, as a kind of insurance policy. He being the only candidate who could not be predictably counted on to follow the anti-Putin hard liners in the Military-intelligence community, something needed to be done to ensure that, on the off chance that he won, the anti-Russian measures already being planned for would not be affected.

So it is perhaps unlikely that this op would have been necessary had, say, Jeb Bush or Rubio won the primary.

What made it necessary was the unknown quantity that Trump represented. This would mean, again, that the op was not so much partisan (Dem v Rep) as it was about ensuring continuity of military-intelligence decisions in face of relatively unknown entity. Had Bush won the R nomination, there would have been no op because the Bush family like the Clintons are down for whatever.

BraveNewWorld , May 22, 2018 1:25:22 PM | 20
If they shutdown Mueller you can expect a sudden gush of leaks like some one took a shot gun to a fire hose.

[May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

Highly recommended!
There is no question that Trump of over his head and folded early on, adopting the deep state foreign policy in even more militant incarnation the under Obama.
All those moves about "Russiagate" now is an empty sound or a cat fight of the faction of the US elite for contracts and sinecures in government.
Notable quotes:
"... Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal, immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc. ..."
"... From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the "deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like Mister Rogers? ..."
"... Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial "foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military adventurism for example? As far as I know, no. ..."
"... Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion. These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their screen. ..."
"... How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the first place. ..."
"... So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation" but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters, investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he loves the vacations, etc.? ..."
"... The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political theater. ..."
"... Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper. ..."
"... Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/ BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years, a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal. ..."
"... Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or challenge the establishment. ..."
"... If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them. ..."
"... In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level. ..."
"... Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very definition of a spy. ..."
"... The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them. ..."
"... Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began. ..."
"... That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition. ..."
May 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Originally from: Can We Call It a Coup Now, by Mike Whitney - The Unz Review

Svigor , May 20, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT

So, help me out here – the only reason the NYT is even reporting on this is because Congress was closing in on this turd's identity, right?

"F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign.

"Suspicious contacts" = Russians who talked to Trump's employees.

So the FISA surveillance, the national-security letters, the FBI informants and 18 months of relentless probing-harassment have all been justified on the basis of allegations about Russia hacking that may or may not have happened at all??

The one silver lining to all of this is that the GOP can to absolutely DRAG the Democrats about this in the next election. If the GOP is smart, they will not listen to a goddamn word coming out of the mouths of the Democrats or their (((Big Media))) mouthpieces during the 2020 election. They will not respond to a single point they have to make, except to call them hopelessly corrupt authoritarians who are unfit to govern until they come clean about their malfeasance and cut the rot from their ranks, and then spout their other talking points and drop the mic.

"According to people familiar with (General Michael) Flynn's visit to the intelligence seminar, the source was alarmed by the general's apparent closeness with a Russian woman who was also in attendance. The concern was strong enough that it prompted another person to pass on a warning to the American authorities that Mr. Flynn could be compromised by Russian intelligence, according to two people familiar with the matter."

*Facepalm*

These fucks are beyond parody now. We're literally ruled by corrupt morons, stooges, and degenerates.

"The cockblocking/penis-envy concern was enough for Stasi agents to follow up "

Renoman , May 20, 2018 at 10:03 pm GMT
I would be shocked if both political party's didn't have a myriad of spies in each other's campaigns dating back to Lincoln! Grow up people, there's a ton of money here.
Svigor , May 20, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/20/donald-trump-orders-justice-department-to-investigate-surveillance-of-trump-campaign/
anon [217] Disclaimer , May 22, 2018 at 4:30 am GMT
Rod Rosenstein is a traitorous weasel POS who never should've been appointed. Christopher Wray worked as a deputy to James Comey and is highly likely dirty and another deep state puppet. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, McConnell, Pompeo, John Kelly, Kirstjen Nielsen, Gina Haspel, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, all are deep state puppets. Why does Trump keep appointing more deep state puppets to take over from the other deep state puppets?

I cannot for the life of me understand why Jeff Sessions continues to stick up for Rosenstein the weasel. My only explanation is that this whole thing is a coup set up by Deep State and Mike Pence from the get go so Pence can be president, and Sessions is in on the coup to keep his job.

I did not know it was Rosenstein's memo that prompted Trump to fire James Comey. Trump needs to bring that out in the open and let everyone know Rosenstein set him up. This POS weasel needs to go to jail. As long as he's still in the DOJ no real investigation of deep state will ever take place. We've got the fox guarding the hen house.

Carlton Meyer , Website May 22, 2018 at 4:40 am GMT
An equally interesting article can be found here:

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/

It notes that all the corporate media knows it was Halper, but they obey the Deep State and refuse to report this, pretending that evil Republicans are trying to out an innocent FBI spy. Even today, their coverage is "alleged" informant. For some reason, NBC News was the only "mainstream" team to ignore this absurd BS and report his name as part of the biggest news story of the decade. Note that Halper is not a Democratic Party mole, but a Bush family mole.

Doesn't Mueller have the self-respect to end his witch hunt and crawl back under a rock?

Bombercommand , May 22, 2018 at 5:46 am GMT
A very strong move by President Trump. It is a fact that the FBI sent an informant, Mr. Halper, to gather information on the Trump campaign. The FBI can plead it was to gather info on alarming Russians, but the informant my gather other info just as easily. If the FBI can send one, Halper, they can just as easily send another, or more unknown informants. This RussiaGate nonsense has always been a matter to be tried in the court of public opinion, by innuendo. Therefore President Trump's investigation can use the "have you stopped beating your wife?" method. Every time the FBI says no to a question it looks like they are lying to cover something bigger. Informants have Control Officers, who write reports to superiors, the reports make reference to code words, places and dates. Reports generate memos and orders. Everything becomes fuel for innuendo and the only out the FBI will have is "We honestly thought .but no, we found nothing".
Wizard of Oz , May 22, 2018 at 7:17 am GMT
@Renoman

A point well made in qualification of the merits of the article. Surely the author knows on reflection that no political party or campaign is going to forgo the chance of getting inside information on what their opponents are up to, including crimes – and spying.

Wizard of Oz , May 22, 2018 at 7:25 am GMT
@anon

Since Trump could do some shuffling so as to appoint an Attorney-General who wouldn't recuse himself or get rid of Rosenstein by appointing him a judge, or ambassador just for example maybe it is best to assume that the President doesn't feel immediately threatened and is reasonably confident that he can find and time his countermeasures satisfactorily. It is hardly beyond belief that there are Trump moles in Mueller's army who are assuring him that his instinct is right: apparent witch hunting persecution by Mueller is actually a harmless distraction and so good for him until the time is right to blow it up.

animalogic , May 22, 2018 at 7:44 am GMT
Considered in its entirety, this Trump/Russia business is indeed turning into the political crime (& shame) of the century. Were someone who had died in the 50′s to suddenly resurrect, they would suffer the equivalent of a psychotic episode or a bad LSD trip.
Its mind boggling to anyone even vaguely conscious .
Mr Trump needs to clean house: politiclly difficult, yes, but Trump needs to visit a Lehman Bros' moment on the DOJ, CIA & FBI.
No doubt the above toxic agencies will (again) spew forth the magic word: "Russia-Russia-Russia" to render all opposition impotent.
One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice the stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and – finally – act .
The Alarmist , May 22, 2018 at 8:59 am GMT
@Svigor

Trump has surrounded himself with lifer Deep Staters who no doubt tell him that investigations and prosecutions will do grave harm to national security and, at the same time, would appear to be his own politically motivated witch hunt, the kind one sees only in third-world basket case countries, and that would reflect more poorly on him than on the actual cabal attempting to overthrow him and overturn his election.

But the actual collusion has become so obvious that he has to pull the trigger, because nobody else is going to. Sessions should have been all over this a year ago, but he too is a long-serving government employee, which suggests he is also of the swamp. As for Congress, a few brave souls, e.g. Nunes, have tried and have been exposed to withering fire from all sides.

Bob , May 22, 2018 at 11:00 am GMT
The purpose of the informant/spy was to "dirty" Page and Papadopoulos; to make them plausible suspects so that full use of the NSA database could be used on the Trump team both pre- and post-election and as far back in the past as they wanted to go. The warrants used on Page and Papadopoulos were counterintelligence warrants that allow using NSA resources on anyone "two hops" (two people) away from Page and Papadopoulos. "Two-hops" would easily include everyone near Trump even if Page and Papadopoulos had only minimal contact with the campaign. This is the heart of the crime. Page and Papadopoulos were used as place-holders to gather information on everyone near Trump. The informer was used to set those two up.
Ma Laoshi , May 22, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT
Trump posting something on Twitter isn't "fighting back"–it's venting steam. As the article correctly states, letting the DOJ investigate itself is a joke. So Trump needed a Special Counsel of his own, and he needed him right after his inauguration. It may be that Trump likes a dose of Russia Scare to push overpriced American weapons and LNG to clueless Europeans. It may be that he's found out (or at least his people have) that he needs Deep-State sleaze for his anti-Iran campaign. It may be that Trump well knows he's vulnerable on nepotism, old NY Mob ties, and oh yeah some sexual peccadilloes, so he better play along and color within the lines. Or it may simply be that Trump is a moron without the attention span for anything beyond venting on Twitter.

It doesn't really matter now, the ship has sailed, he's gone too far in with "Putin-Assad baby killers" to return to sanity now.

Harold Smith , May 22, 2018 at 1:39 pm GMT
"After 18 months of withering attacks and accusations, Donald Trump has decided to get up off the canvas and fight back."

If "they" are really out to "get" orange clown, why don't "they" go after him for his impeachable war crimes in Syria, for example? Why don't "they" at least bring a lawsuit against him for his illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation of Syria?

Generally speaking, when one party ostensibly dislikes another party, and apparently seeks to "get" that party, isn't there usually some kind of plausible, identifiable reason for the enmity?

Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal, immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc.

From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the "deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like Mister Rogers?

"In any event, Trump has decided to throw caution to the wind and go for broke. He's decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing them out into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny."

Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial "foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.

So how is anybody actually "[on] his back"?

anon [204] Disclaimer , May 22, 2018 at 1:49 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

3D chess, 4D chess or what is it up to now, 14D chess? Trumpistas have too much faith in their man. Trump is a businessman not a politician. He's in over his head. Just look at how easily he was goaded into canning James Comey that set off this whole sorry affair.

anon [204] Disclaimer , May 22, 2018 at 1:56 pm GMT
@animalogic

One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice the stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and – finally – act.

Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion. These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their screen. Most Americans are brain dead sheeple.

phil , May 22, 2018 at 2:34 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

"Has the "deep state" deployed a 'lone nut' against him? Apparently not. Is he being impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial 'foreign policy'? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.

So how is anybody actually '[on] his back'?"

Answer: the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him into a foreign policy that he did not want. He wanted an America First policy, but because of political blackmail and dishonest allegations about collusion with Russia, Trump has felt compelled to do what Zionists want in the Middle East. At home, massive legal immigration continues, there will be no mass deportations, and the border wall will not be built. The Democrats will be firmly entrenched after Trump is gone from the scene.

Harold Smith , May 22, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
@phil

"the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him into a foreign policy that he did not want. "

Or so goes the Trump apologists' claim. But that's pure unfounded speculation.

How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the first place.

So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation" but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters, investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he loves the vacations, etc.?

I think not. The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political theater.

John Q Public , May 22, 2018 at 3:29 pm GMT
"In an earlier version of this article I stated that the FBI planted a spy INSIDE the Trump campaign. This is not correct, which is why I asked editor Ron Unz to remove the article. The informant was not part of the Campaign but sought information from members of the Campaign."

Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's approaches were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits would have been spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper.

jeff davis , May 22, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Trump is head of the Executive Branch. The DoJ and FBI are part of the executive branch and subordinate to Trump. He can send 30-40 US Marshals to FBI headquarters, and to DoJ headquarters, and have them extract by force the necessary documents, and no one can say "boo!"

I wish he would.

The downside of course is that everyone in the media and in Congress would scream "tyrant!" So Trump currently is leaving them alone to continue digging their own grave with the Mueller/Russia witchunt, as the country moves towards the midterm elections.

Buzz Mohawk , May 22, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/ BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years, a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal.

Stefan Halper is one of the creepy-crawly things that have been living under the rock Donald Trump kicked over.

As Steve Sailer points out, Halper is the son-in-law of CIA man Ray. S. Cline, who was instrumental in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

redmudhooch , May 22, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT
Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or challenge the establishment.

9/11 and silence from both sides with regard to a real investigation into the biggest "terrorist" attack in US History, and the murder of 3000 Americans, this tells you who is in power, the people that pulled it off. Neither party supports a real investigation into this attack, they both work for the same people. The fact that the MSM still lies about it means they are also controlled by the goons. The FBI, CIA lies about it, and Muellers coverup of the crime tells you all of the "Intelligence" and "Law" enforcement agencies are also controlled by the same cabal.

Until they start telling the truth about 9/11, you can bet the same goons are still in charge, no matter who the president is, no matter which Democrat or Republican you elect, the shadow government, deep state are still calling the shots. If you do vote, vote 3rd party. The whole election system is rigged to keep out most anyone who might dare to challenge the establishment, thats why we only get lowlifes like Mitt Romney or the Cintons running for office year after year, out of millions of people the same dirtbags just won't go away.

Everything else is just noise, distractions from this reality. If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.

WorkingClass , May 22, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT
@Renoman

People who say nothing ever changes should read a history book.

Mike P , May 22, 2018 at 6:20 pm GMT

If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.

In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level.

anon [217] Disclaimer , May 22, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT
@John Q Public

Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's approaches were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits would have been spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper.

Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very definition of a spy.

anon [217] Disclaimer , May 22, 2018 at 7:17 pm GMT
@renfro

From the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/world/asia/trump-hotel-china-indonesia.html

Hatunggal Muda Siregar, a spokesman for MNC, said the theme park and the Trump properties are separate projects within the Lido development. The agreement with the Chinese company to build the theme park does not include any financing for the project, he said.

Mr. Trump's business dealings in Indonesia prompted scrutiny even before his inauguration, and he pledged not to embark on any new deals while in office. But the Trump Organization held onto the projects in Indonesia, saying the contracts with Mr. Hary were signed in 2015 and were binding.

Yet another nothing burger. This an old deal made before he even ran for president. The Chinese loan does not extend to building of the Trump properties. As the article repeatedly pointed out:

There isn't any evidence that the agreement with the construction company was intended to sway the Trump administration on any matters.

If there's no evidence, why report it at all? To give more ammo to people who are always for looking for any reason to disparage Trump, and only bother to read headlines.

Svigor , May 22, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT
NPR had a great piece on this today. Smarmy Ray Suarez interviewing several lying swamp creatures. The bullshit was neck-deep.
Ozymandias , May 22, 2018 at 9:11 pm GMT
"It's worth noting, that the current Russia investigation is based on the dubious claim that Russia hacked DNC computers."

Imran Awan is not Russian, he's a Paki. And he didn't need to hack the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz let him in and gave him the password. There, huge mystery solved.

Harold Smith , May 22, 2018 at 9:48 pm GMT
@anon

"Anyone who refers to Trump as 'orange clown' is obviously partisan to the point of not worth listening to."

You may be right about that; now that I think about it, it does seem too generous.

How about "teflon-don-the-con-man"; or, "the ignorant orange savage in the White House"? Of course there's always the Biblical description to fall back on: "the beast from the earth" (i.e. the second beast of Rev 13); will that work?

Theo Daio , May 22, 2018 at 9:58 pm GMT
Meanwhile, at the same time we also learn that there is evidence that there really was collusion between the Trump campaign and foreign powers that wanted to see it elected in return for favorable policies. But, the problem that the Deep State has is that the foreign powers were not the cartoon-pinup-all-purpose villan of the Russians. No, it was Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The point of all of this is that the United States is supposed to be a democracy which means that the government does what the people want it to do. The one thing that we are seeing is that nobody in Washington wants that. The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them.

But, it turns out Trump was off cutting deals with Israel and Saudi Arabia that now seem to have the USA headed straight into a disasterous war that was the last thing that voters wanted. The voters keep electing candidates who claim to be against these wars. The problem is that they whole bunch of them are a lot of liars, and the one and only thing they are truly against is democracy and letting the people have a say.

America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties.

SunBakedSuburb , May 22, 2018 at 9:59 pm GMT
"He's decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing them out into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny. It's a risky strategy "

It's the only strategy he can pursue. If he doesn't take the fight out into the open, where his enemies are vulnerable, they will bury him.

Akran Ahab , May 22, 2018 at 10:05 pm GMT
Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began.

It was a bit before the conventions when those emails leaked. Hillary certainly knew that they could be the death of her lifelong quest to see how much she could steal as President. If the Bernie voters were upset that the whole fake primary and caucus process had been rigged all along and refused to support Hillary, then she was done as a Presidential contender.

That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition.

TG , May 22, 2018 at 10:34 pm GMT
You know it's funny, all those 'conservatives' screaming that Edward Snowden is a traitor, that we should trust the US government to spy on us in secret because national security demands it, etc. Because only bad people have something to hide, right?

And now we begin to see exactly what it means when the central government can essentially spy on anyone for any reason not so wonderful after all, is it?

There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. I guess a civil libertarian is a national security hawk that's been spied on.

Per/Norway , May 22, 2018 at 11:22 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

I see your point, bread and circus for the people. I'm more worried about is Israel attacking Lebanon, tbh, dragging the entire ME in to the conflict ending up with trump/bibi and Erdogan stumbling us into a ww and/or financial breakdown.

renfro , May 22, 2018 at 11:56 pm GMT
@Theo Daio

America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties

Yes indeed we do. The Dems are using the corruption theme, but of course they are hypocrites also and don't live up to ethical standards either. Still, maybe an election platform based on ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID ..will open the eyes of some of our more mentally challenged voters.

Hate always works – Tump pretended he was going to drain the hateful deep state swamp to save his little people -- -so I guess the Dems can pretend they are going to kill the corrupt to save the little people.

Democrats Roll Out Anti-Corruption Message for 2018

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ /democrats_roll_out_anti-corruption_message_for&#8230 ;

1 day ago – Instead, Democrats are returning to an anti-corruption message that A decade later, Trump seized on a similar theme, directing voter ire at

renfro , May 23, 2018 at 12:19 am GMT
Mueller is the only admirable man in this mess. Trump's problem is he is for once up against an honest man, someone he cant threaten or bribe or bully.
Trump, as we say in the south, is white trash he is way out of his class with Mueller.

Mueller's investigation isn't going to 'wrap up' soon -- and Trump is still in peril

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-mueller-anniversary-20180516-story.html

Anyone paying attention over the last year knows Mueller will not yield to political pressure. His investigators haven't leaked; they have ignored vicious personal attacks; they haven't veered in the slightest from prosecutorial professionalism.

So to "wrap it up," Trump would have to make a move, but will he?

The president and his lawyers are strategizing about whether he will agree to be interviewed by Mueller, either voluntarily or under subpoena. If he were to refuse, as the current swing of the pendulum suggests, and then try to end the probe, he would only seem more guilty and undermine his support even among Republicans. If his refusal were to lead, as expected, to a court battle, we would expect the Supreme Court to settle the issue. Any move by Trump to preempt it would again only undermine his credibility.

In addition, the president and his circle are well aware of how fast the midterm election is approaching and what effect an attempt to fire Mueller could have on the outcome. They want to avoid any action that would help the Democrats flip the House. Such a shift would change every calculation, not least because a Democratic majority could move to impeach the president early next year.

Of course, Trump may calculate that he could get away with firing Mueller now, if he moved quickly and the Republican leadership rallied to his side. But it is equally possible that Congress would respond with legislation to reinstate Mueller. Again, the field of battle would shift to the courts.

Most importantly, even a successful ouster of Mueller would not derail the investigation at this point. Too much evidence has been gathered, and too many prosecutors, who have surely considered and planned for the contingency, stand ready to carry on. Should Trump try to shutter the entire special counsel's office, a much graver and politically and legally riskier act than firing Mueller or Rosenstein, other divisions in the Department of Justice, in particular the Southern District of New York, would also be ready to take up the charge.

The strength of all that evidence, the careful work done thus far, and the indictments already filed are the special counsel's protection against "witch hunt" tweets and protestations that the investigation is already over with nothing to show for it.

In the course of the past year, we've learned not to underestimate what Mueller knows and what bombshell he may have prepared. It may involve the Russians and the campaign, it may involve obstruction of justice, but there are other relevant threads as well: the true motive behind the Seychelles meeting between Trump associate Erik Prince and the head of a Russian wealth fund, the hacking of Democratic Party emails and its links to Trump political advisor Roger Stone, the recent sale of Russia's state owned oil company to Qatar.

Last week we discovered that Mueller was way ahead of us on the huge payments made to Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen for access to the president. We don't yet know what he's found out from cooperating witnesses, including Michael Flynn and Rick Gates, that might point directly at the president. And there is still the possibility that Paul Manafort or Cohen could decide to cooperate with the investigation.

None of these threads signals Trump's removal from office. A conviction in the Senate, no matter what happens in the midterm, would require a good number of Republicans to turn against the president, which seems remote absent a smoking gun that proves grave criminal conduct. But it is more than plausible that the probe and associated investigations will result in additional indictments of Trump associates -- including Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. -- and will leave Trump seriously wounded, an untenable candidate in 2020. Once he leaves office, his legal exposure, both civil and criminal, would skyrocket.

The "wrap it up" crowd is indulging in wishful thinking. The first anniversary of the Mueller investigation is unlikely to be the last.

Harry Litman teaches constitutional law at UC San Diego. He is a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general.

Carroll Price , May 23, 2018 at 12:38 am GMT
@Harold Smith

A brilliant summation of who Trump is and what he's always been – an opportunist, Manchurian Candidate. The Deep State has done it to us again.

Shemp the Greatest Stooge , May 23, 2018 at 12:44 am GMT
@renfro

Renfro, only admirable man. what a card! will not yield. stop it, you're killin me!

https://digwithin.net/2018/04/08/muellers-history/

Renfro, man, dig us up more of that funny shit.

[May 20, 2018] Missiles' Exchange Rate by Evgeniy Satanovskiy

Notable quotes:
"... Evgeniy Satanovskiy ; Originally appeared at VPK , translated by J.Hawk exclusively for SouthFront ..."
May 20, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com
Written by Evgeniy Satanovskiy ; Originally appeared at VPK , translated by J.Hawk exclusively for SouthFront

Washington's declaration of withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, which is something that President Trump threatened to do for a fairly long time, and the exchange of strikes between Iran and Israel, have become the focus of attention of the international media.

Incidentally, what's typical is that in spite of the possibility of escalation, a big Iran-Israel war, and especially a direct clash in Syria between the US and Russia and even US and Iran, are far from inevitable. An analysis of events suggests restraint on part of all concerned. It's no accident Iran fired not on the internationally recognized territory of Israel but the Golan Heights which nobody in the world officially considers part of Israel. And even then only military facilities were struck.

At the same time, the Tehran-Jerusalem conflict is far from exhausted, and it may evolve in several unpredictable directions. This includes the struggle for power and resources within the Iranian elite, where the military and security officials are openly opposed to President Rouhani's people. As far as the US violation of the Iran deal is concerned, Trump inflicted severe damage on "Atlantic solidarity." It can't be ruled out that his main goal was to subordinate NATO allies to Washington and undermine the EU's economic potential, both of which are unacceptable to European capitals.

The smoldering Iran-Israel confrontation in the meantime entered an active phase. On early morning of May 10, Al-Quds units launched rockets at military sites on Gola heights. This event followed weeks of gradual escalation of Israeli attacks against Iranian positions in Syria, including the May 9 strike on a supposed IRGC-linked facility in southern suburbs of Damascus. The initial Iranian and Syrian volley which consisted, according to the IDF, of at least 20 rockets, provoked a retaliation against targets in western Syria including around Damascus. IDF press service announced that it struck dozens of Al-Quds sites in Syria. They included Iranian intelligence units controlled by Al-Quds, its headquarters, military and logistical facilities, an Iranian military camp north of Damascus, Al-Quds weapons storage in the Damascus international airport, information systems linked to Al-Quds, outposts and observation points in the buffer zone. An Iranian launcher unleashing rockets against Israel was hit. Israeli aircraft also attacked Syrian air defense units which opened fire in spite of warnings.

US intelligence sources state that Israeli aircraft operated over the Lebanese airspace to minimize losses. IDF announced some Iranian rockets were intercepted by Iron Dome. Iranians delivered a significant response to the constant Iranian attacks, and that fact by itself means a new phase of the Syria war which is now additionally complicated by the Jerusalem-Tehran conflict. Moreover, Israel brought its forces on the Golan into full readiness some three days earlier, and the preparations included restoring bomb shelters there.

Prime Minister's Reconnaissance

Israel's PM Netanyahu arrived in Moscow with the clear goal of ascertaining Russia's position and the degree of its military involvement in the Iran-Israel confrontation in Syria. The main issue were Moscow's efforts to modernize Syria's air defenses which would greatly complicate future Israeli airstrikes and Russia's ability to deter Iran from future rocket strikes. But this kind of mediation is only possible if Israel were to abandon preventive airstrikes, which it's not about to do. But if Iranian rocket strikes are repeated, it might mean an IDF land operation on Israel's northern borders, leading to the possibility of a direct clash with Iranians and Lebanese.

On the other hand, Netanyahu's very visit to Moscow for the Victory Day, him walking by the side of President Vladimir Putin as part of the Immortal Regiment, was supposed to demonstrate the "closeness of positions." It was a signal to both Iran and the United States. PM's departure abroad, while his country was in full battle readiness due to the expected Iranian strike would have appeared odd if the Israeli leadership expected a serious war. However, the missile exchange was predictable. Right up until this latest escalation, both Israeli and US sources emphasized the growing likelihood of an Iranian military response. Tehran increased shipments of weapons and equipment to Syria, and warned more than once that Israeli strikes on its positions in Syria would not go unanswered.

Even so, Iran is inclined to avoid a big war with Israel, particularly since it's trying to strengthen its positions in Syria and preserve the strength of its own forces. Its most important priority is completing the suppression of anti-Assad enclaves in the central and southern parts of Syria which would shift the center of gravity of operations not toward Israel but toward Idlib and the regions east of Euphrates. That's where the question of Saudi presence in Syria will be decided, which is a more important priority for Iran, given its efforts to establish the "Shia Crescent", than the Israeli sector. Jerusalem is also not interested in a prolonged armed conflict with Tehran.

The Bomb and Rocket Show

Israel and Iran de-facto enacted an impressive show in the Syrian stage with the aim of communicating their political stances to the world community. The main issues are the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and its US abrogation, followed by political isolation of the US by its allies. This worries Israel. Netanyahu's demonstration of "intelligence documents" on the eve of Washington's withdrawal from JCPOA accusing Iran of cheating had no effect on the EU, which may ignore US sanctions. By provoking Iran, Israel sustained a high degree of tension which made defending JCPOA harder for the EU, due to Iran's "aggressive acts."

Strikes on Israeli targets were supposed to harden US positions, and provoke the US to enter into a direct confrontation with Syria and Iran. Experts believe that Israel is not prepared for an independent military campaign against Iran, which it demonstrated during the Obama years. That's what Pentagon counted on, hence the "calm" reaction from Washington. The US did not comment on the Al-Quds strikes on the IDF forward positions on the Golan and referred questions to Israeli government. This means diplomatic support.

Iran demonstrated to Europe possible consequences of the US withdrawal from JCPOA and negatively reacted to Israeli PM's growing "understanding" with Moscow. Several sources have indicated this action was backed by IRGC "hard-liners".

US analysts believe Iran and Israel are not about to expand their conflict at beyond the borders of Syria, but there is risk that their clashes may slip from under control. They suppose that the diplomatic approach to Moscow had no result. But it's extremely important for Israel not to cause a conflict with Russia in Syria, while maintaining close cooperation with the US and adopt a more aggressive stance toward Iran. The last round of strikes and counter-strikes represents a serious danger of escalation, giving Jerusalem an opening to pursue more active measures against Iran's presence in Syria. There is also a danger that Iran-Israel clashes will spread to Lebanon and potentially draw in Russia and the US.

In Syria's east, according to the Pentagon, there are more frequent clashes between US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Shia militias. Iranian and Syrian air defenses face the risk of confusing US coalition and Israeli aircraft. Pro-Iranian militants in Syria could strike US targets. Russia's priority in this situation is undoubtedly the de-escalation of Iran-Israel conflict, in view of the risks it poses to Russian forces and aims in Syria.

The US is also inclined in favor of de-escalation, in order to avoid being drawn into a full-scale combat in Syria, which Washington doesn't need. It's aim is to preserve a relative stability zone east of Euphrates, where political alternatives to Damascus may be established among the local Sunnis. This requires time and absence of local fighting. On the other hand, Israel's strikes draw away pro-Iran forces toward Syria's south, away from Eurphrates. But Israel is not prepared for a constant conflict on the Golan, in addition to Southern Lebanon and Gaza.

More concerns!

Political scientists' discussions in international media revolve around the following questions: will the US attack Iran? Will there be a big war? Will US actions lead to IRGC "hawks" coming to power in Iran, causing a resumption of the nuclear program? Will the region collapse into chaos that will be remotely controlled from the US, after it leaves from the Middle East and the Gulf region? Will the US force its will on the EU? What is Russia to do in this situation?

It seems Washington is not about to strike Iranian targets either in Iran or Syria. At least not during the period until November 4, which is the date of reimposition of sanctions on Iran -- the US is introducing sanctions so that it doesn't have to fight. All the more since their strikes don't solve anything, and can't influence anything. The center of gravity of US policy toward Iran is not military action, but rather attempts at economic strangulation in order to facilitate social ferment. Without the US, none of its allies will engage in a full-scale war with Iran.

This kind of conflict means that, apart from personnel and economic losses, Saudi Arabia and UAE will not be able to pursue the diversification of economy they proclaimed. This also applies to Israel, which wants to participate in the stand-off with Iran only jointly with the US, by incentivizing the US to exit JCPOA and launch a preventive strike. These steps have thus far been resisted by the Pentagon which is against any military operations until when pro-Iran forces openly attack US military presence in the region. This is the main guarantee that US will not strike Iran in the foreseeable future, in spite of all the rhetoric and prognoses made by Iranian leaders.

Iranians, Europeans, and Americans will seek ways to reach an acceptable compromise before November 4. Tehran will be in a waiting mode, without leaving JCPOA, and sound out EU positions. There are yet no grounds to believe IRGC "hawks" will come to power. Their last attempt to strengthen their positions in Iranian power structure during the recent social unrest was a failure. The ultraconservatives' leader and former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is still under house arrest. IRGC dissent was crushed by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who never allowed the IRGC, rather than the reformers, to seize the role of the dominant competitor to the clerics in the struggle for power in Iran. Instead, the reformers have grown stronger thanks to the clerics' efforts to use them against the security bloc.

As far as the EU is concerned, Rouhani's words are quite telling. He said the following in a phone conversation with Angela Merkel: "I call on the EU, in particular France, UK, and Germany, to adopt a firm position to guarantee Iranian interests within the signed agreement." This concerns the sale of oil, gas, and finance. Merkel confirmed Berlin is sticking to the agreement as long as Iran fulfills its obligations. She also spoke in favor of expanding the list of countries participating in the talks with Iran on its ballistic missile program, and on developments in the region, including in Syria and Yemen.

France's Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire commented on the US decision to abandon JCPOA and reimpose sanctions on radio station Europe 1: "It's time to shift from words to action from the point of view of economic sovereignty." Europe, according to Le Maire, should not be a US vassal. He said that he'll meet with his British and French counterparts in late May "to see what can be done in response to the US". He noted that EU already work on endowing Europe with financial instruments that would make it independent of the US. he reminded that in 1996 the Council of Europe adopted a resolution on protecting the union against extraterritorial sanctions. "This turns the US into an economic gendarme of the planet, and think it unacceptable," said Le Maire.

For Russia, any serious conflict in the Middle East is automatically to its long-term benefit, both economically (because Europe and Asia lose hydrocarbon sources which cannot be compensated by US LNG or fracked oil) and politically. It accentuates Russia's potential as a military superpower and a guarantor of borders of this or that country, not to mention its prospects for arms conflicts. The conflict moreover does not concern Russia directly, though it does signal the end of the unipolar world order.

This makes clear what Moscow ought to do: nothing other than what it's been doing so far. Hover above the fray, and bring to a logical conclusion its current policy in Syria. JCPOA is a matter for the US, EU, and the Arab world. Here the main tasks for the Russian diplomats is to say the right things and express concern. Other forms of diplomacy will be more effective, particularly the military-political one, as in Syria or Afghanistan. Russia won't be able to exploit EU's unhappiness with the US, or become a bridge between the EU and Iran, which is what some Russian experts are calling for.

In the first of the two, the relations with Russia are not as critical. US remains the key EU partner, in spite of differences on certain trade issues and JCPOA. The biggest factor here is the volume of economic losses caused by loyalty to Washington. Once the losses from Iran sanctions, aluminum, steel, and iron sanctions, the growth of own expenditures on defense, and the rest, start to exceed the volume of bilateral trade with the US, the degree of EU loyalty toward Washington will decline dramatically. Secondly, EU does not need Russia to organize its relations with Iran.

Trump is trying to re-establish Washington's total dominion over America's European, Arab allies. It's a strategy, not a tactic. Therefore it's pointless to talk about the US leaving the Middle East. They won't go anywhere as long as Russia is there. It's a matter of geopolitics. It's another matter that Trump, as a businessman, is first and foremost trying to finance US presence there at the expense of allies, and much of what he does is driven by that goal. Many experts don't consider that factor, and instead they try to explain his actions on the basis of political scientists' and diplomats' ideas and opinions on how international relations ought to be based, in accordance with "rules of the game" worked out by these same political scientists and diplomats.

Trump is not bound by tradition. He's an entrepreneur, of the adventurist variety. That's what brought him to power in spite of all the opposition and predictions to the contrary made even by leaders of the party in whose name he won. This victory convinced him he's on the right course, since it brings him desired results. He operates internationally as if it were a speculative business: raises and lowers stakes, bluffs, demolishes his partners' expectations, whenever he considers it beneficial.

Trump pays attention to nothing but the final result, and if it's something other than expected, he easily claims that's what he was after, and that's what the US needs, it's just that nobody realized it before. It's enough to remember the Qatar and "Arab Four" confrontation which he provoked, and from which he benefited by signing arms contracts with both sides and obtaining unprecedented financial commitments from them in spite of their sincere belief that each of the sides in the confrontation will get from Trump what they wanted. There is no doubt that even with Iran his goal is not the same as what he's publicizing.

Evgeniy Satanovskiy (President of the Middle East Institute), with materials from Yu. Shcheglovin

[May 20, 2018] Making sense of Russian political ambiguities by The Saker

Looks like Putin does not see alternative to neoliberalism... Also he need to provide for Russia a time to get from knees it was put by yeltzin regime. Russia is still very week economically in comparison with the alliance of US and EU. It does not have China advantage of hosting manufacturing of many high tech products.
Notable quotes:
"... to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. ..."
May 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Meh. I am personally unconvinced. How can Putin say that he wants serious reforms while keeping the exact same type of people in command? If indeed the Medvedev government did such a great job, then why is there any need for such major reforms? If Putin's power base is indeed, as I believe it to be, in the people, then why is he trying to appease the financial elites by catering to their interests and agenda? Most crucially, how can Russia free herself from the financial and economic grip of the Empire when the Empire's 5 th column agents are (re-)appointed to key positions? And in all of Russia was there really nobody more qualified than Mutko or Kudrin to appoint to these positions?

Of course, there always this "Putin knows something you don't" but I have always had a problem with that kind of logic which is essentially an open-ended universal cop-out. I hope that I am wrong, but to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. And I will gladly admit that I have yet to hear an explanation which would explain this, never mind offer one of my own.

On the external front, has Russia caved in to Israeli pressure? Ruslan Ostashko offers a very good analysis of why this is hardly the case: (I don't necessarily agree with his every conclusion, but he does make a very good case:

Yes, Netanyahu *did* with his repeated strikes on Syria, thumb his nose at Putin (that famous Israeli chutzpah at work for you!), and yes, Putin wining and dining Netanyahu was a painful sight and a PR-disaster. But on substance, did Israel get Russia to "betray Iran"? No, and not because the Russians are so heroically principled, but because Israel really has nothing to offer Russia. All Israel has is a powerful pro-Israel lobby inside Russia, that is true. But the more they use that lobby the more visible it becomes, the more questions at least Eurasian Sovereignists will ask.

The Israelis sure don't want to give the impression that the run Russia the way they run the US, and Netanyahu's reception in the Kremlin recently has already raised a lot of eyebrows and the impression that Putin caved in to the demands of this arrogant bastard are not helping Putin, to put it mildly. A lot of Russian analysts (Viktor Baranets, Maksim Shevchenko, Leonid Ivashev) wonder what kind of arguments Netanyahu used with Putin, and the list of possibilities is an outright uninspiring one.

Part five – another truism: there is a difference between excellent, good, average, bad and terrible

Even if the situation in Russia has changed for the worse, this is hardly a reason to engage in the usual "Putin sold out" hysteria or to declare that "Russia caved in". Even when things are bad, there is still a huge difference between bad and worse. As of right now, Putin is not only the best possible person to be the President of Russia, Russia also continues to be the objective leader of the resistance to the Empire. Again, the black-and-white "Hollywood" type of mindset entirely misses the dynamic nature of what is going on. For example, it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension.

For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition.

Much will depend on how the Russian economy will perform. If, courtesy of Trump's megalomaniacal policies towards Iran and the EU, Russia's economy receives a massive injection of funds (via high energy prices), then things will probably stabilize. But if the European leaders meekly cave in and join the sanctions against Iran and if the US succeeds in imposing even further sanctions on Russia, then the Medvedev government will face a serious crisis and the revival of the Russian economy promised by Putin will end up in an embarrassing failure and things could also go from bad to even worse.

... ... ...

For Hezbollah, Iran or Russia to defeat Israel, the US or the entire Empire, there is no need to plant a flag on the enemy's main symbolic building like what Soviet soldiers did in Germany. All they need to do to win is simply to survive because the other's sides survival is predicated upon their elimination, it's really that simple. Israel cannot claim victory as long as Hezbollah exists, the US cannot claim world Hegemony if Iran openly defies it, and the AngloZionist Empire cannot clain world hegemony over the our planet as long as the Russian civilizational realm openly challenges it. So while all the talk about the Iranians wanting to " wipe Israel off the map " is just a typical ziomedia invention, it is true that by their very existence Hezbollah, Iran and Russia do represent an existential threat to Israel, the US and the Empire .

This is the biggest and the fatal weakness of the AngloZionist Empire: its survival depends on the colonization or destruction of every other country out there. Every independent country, whether big and powerful, or small and weak, represents an unacceptable challenge to the hegemony of the "indispensable nation" and the "chosen people", which now try to rule over us all. This might well be the ultimate example of Hegelian dialectics at work in geopolitics: an Empire whose power generates it's own demise. Many empires have come and gone in history, but the globalized world we live in, this dialectical contradiction is tremendously potentialized by the finite conditions in which empires have to operate.

... ... ...

Right now Putin still has a lot of "credibility capital" left in spite of his recent mistakes. However, Putin recent decisions have raised a lot of unpleasant questions which must be answered and will so in time. In the meantime, as they say in the US, " hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and settle for anything in the middle ". The Scripture also warns us not to make idols of leaders: " Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men, in whom there is no safety " (Ps 145:3 LXX). The worldly evil we are fighting, today in the shape of the AngloZionist Empire, is but a manifestation of a much deeper, spiritual evil: " For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places " (Eph. 6:12). The young men and women from the Shia movement Amal got it right when they chose the name "Party of God" for their movement when they created Hezbollah in 1985. And Iran was right when it became an Islamic Republic: if we want to defeat the Empire we need to always let spiritual matters and moral crieria remain above any of our "pragmatic" worldly political considerations or national/ethnic loyalties: that is how we can defeat those who place a dollar value on absolutely everything they see in their narrow materialistic worldview.

Robert Magill , May 17, 2018 at 9:54 am GMT

A truly amazing article and the most amazing thing of all is the total lack of even one paragraph of the existence of China. This article could have been written, word for word, by a defender of the Empire and the China omission would have been identical.

The Key player on the world scene manages to wear the clock of invisibility like the Shadow of old time radio and movies. Quite a feat!
robertmagill.wordpress.com

m___ , May 17, 2018 at 10:12 am GMT

Second, each process carries within itself the seeds of its own contradiction. This is what makes processes dynamic.

"what makes processes dynamic", could it be "more then just linear"? Referring to changes of direction regardless of interaction(group dynamics) with other processes. Example: the Roman Empire process, growing then imploding?

Discard as pendantic in case.

Randal , May 17, 2018 at 3:00 pm GMT

Even the Pantsir which was recently destroyed by the Israelis (with the usual pro-Israeli PR campaign) was not even on combat alert: the unit was not even camouflaged and its crew was standing around and smoking. The Israelis are masters at making this look all very impressive and heroic, but in military terms, this is nonsense: they clearly hit a unit which was not even part of the action (whatever that "action" was).

Not sure how an AD unit can be "not part of the action" anywhere in any meaningful sense in the midst of an ongoing surge of strikes within a strategic campaign of air attacks such as Israel is waging against Syria.

Without knowing the context (how long had it been stationary and out of ammo/action, as it reportedly was at the time of the strike, and what was the context for the Israelis getting a missile through to it when it should have been covered by other operational defences), it's hard to know how much its loss should be put down to Syrian fault, and how much to Israeli/US technical competence or just to the vagaries of war.

But it certainly doesn't look good and that's of course why the Israelis are so keen to publicise it.

As for the Saker piece, as usual lots of good points and some not so good, but that's about all one can expect on such complex topics. Imo he's rather over-stating the case in excusing the Russian failure to halt the ongoing Israeli assault on Syria. Yes, Russia has no formal alliance with Syria or Iran committing it to defend them (and by the way these are attacks on Syria not just Iran, though occasionally they hit Iranian forces within Syria and allied with Syria – the claims of targeting just Iranian forces are Israeli propaganda to create a seeming pretext good enough for the pro-Israeli media in the US sphere). But to say there is no moral onus on Russia whatsoever to do so is simply overstating it – Iranians, Syrians and Russians are fighting side by side in Syria and that in itself creates some moral pressure not to stand by and watch your allies get butchered with impunity when you can do something about it.

But from a purely pragmatic point of view, failing to halt the Israeli attacks is damaging to Russia, on at least two counts. First, it unavoidably creates a perception of weakness and/or betrayal, and of unreliability and two-facedness. In a more concrete sense, though, the simple fact is that Iranian, Syrian and Russian interests are in fact fundamentally aligned in Syria and diametrically opposed to the Israeli objective, on the core issue, which is the survival and stabilisation of the Syrian state. Israeli impunity and the level of attacks it is now carrying out are incompatible with the goal of stabilising Syria, and will have to be stopped at some time if that goal is to be achieved.

If the Russian government thinks that by appeasing the Israelis it can somehow hope that they might be persuaded to slow down or halt the attacks, perhaps if the Iranians pull out, then the Russian government is profoundly naïve. Claims that the strikes are motivated by Iranian presence are pretexts, not reasons. If that pretext goes, another will be found. The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran as a regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it is under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order to gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and escalate its ongoing settler colonisation programs enabled by the US.

Those objectives are important enough that it isn't going to halt in pursuing them as a favour to Russia, no matter how meek and submissive the Russian government acts, but they are not important enough for Israel to face open conflict with a major power for them. Israel does these things because it can. When it is forcefully told that it can no longer do them, it will stop doing them.

One can certainly argue (and I have done so in the past) that the time isn't right for Russia to put a halt to Israeli attempts to destabilise the Syria government, though that argument grows increasingly threadbare. One cannot argue credibly, I think, that it will not be necessary to do so at some point soon.

ohmy , May 17, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
This is a very good interpretation of the recent events which have confused us all. Personally I think any and, all deals Putin has made with the Western Zionists have a short shelf life as, there seems to be no contract the West will honor short of complete capitulation.

Patience is a good thing here and,, Putin knows in the end Russia is the prize. So, I believe right now he is smart to play short ball with Washington and, Tel Aviv. There's a level of immaturity in guys like Netanyahu and, Trump. Let me just say, they have their egos to protect.
Saker, what do you know about AI as it relates to Tyler, anything? Is this a topic which can excite from you an article or, two?

Mega SCI dump , May 17, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
"the "New Russia" (as I like to call it) is not based on anything other than a Constitution written mostly by US advisors"

That's a bit harsh. Judging by what the Russian command structure has been seen to say and do, they are evidently based on rights and rule of law, not on the perverted US model but on black-letter customary and conventional international law. Russia dominates US performance in terms of human rights,

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

They took over from France as the world's most articulate advocate of rule of law, and did it better. In Syria they stressed pacific resolution of disputes, notably by brokering Syrian chemical weapons disarmament through OPCW. They also press-ganged a military staff committee and enforced UN Charter Article 47 at gunpoint, using all the megatonnage needed. Now they're the world's policeman, and they're not USA-style asshole cops. They're taking the role of international civil servants in the UN Charter's sense. That may be one reason why they're not consistently kicking US ass, as we would wish: Peace is the law. Friendly relations – it's the law, A/RES/25/2625.

Not that they're perfect examples of rights or law – the indicators show that in the specific respect of invitations to special procedures, they're about as bad as the USA, and that's pretty bad. And your point about double standards on Israeli impunity is very important. But their opposition to the West is not general, but meticulously grounded in law. Recall that they justified even a vital interest, Crimean accession, in terms of the Kosovo precedent set out by the ICJ.

Per/Norway , May 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Randal

the pantsir was being reloaded.. no rockets in the tubes, maybe that is how it was not part of the action;)
weapons without ammo cant do their intended operations as far as i know,,

Randal , May 17, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMT
@Per/Norway

Being out of ammo doesn't mean being "not part of the action". It means you should be either be being reloaded or getting under cover to reload, or be covered by other systems, or both.

Were the autocannons out of ammo as well? If it was running low on ammo shortly before, why wasn't it already on the move towards cover, since the S1 can reportedly fire on the move? If it was under such rapid and sustained attack that its ammo was exhausted in a saturation attack (and that of its covering systems as well, bearing in mind it was reportedly located at a major airbase), and it had no time to move or be reloaded before it was hit, then it absolutely was not "not part of the action".

I take no joy in pointing it out, but this was a clear defeat for the Syrian AD systems, however you explain it. It's not the end of the world – losses are inevitable in combat. Lessons can be learned. But it can't be airily dismissed as "not part of the action".

Malcolm Tucker , Website May 17, 2018 at 10:11 pm GMT
What "cancellation" of which promise to supply the S-300?? There never was any promise to do so to start with. There were only certain questions asked by the JMSM in certain time before the long-planned visit of Netanyahu on May, 9. The Russian generals had to give some sort of replies. An ambiguous ones. But the JMSM of course made a conclusion that Russia indeed is planning the sale. Fast-forward to 9th of May, Bibi comes/Bibi leaves, and the same JMSM would ask the new questions. To which Moscow obviously had to voice a denial. As a result – Bibi is a hero at home, while Putin was made look weak. http://www.ancreport.com/report/the-phantom-s-300/
Erebus , May 18, 2018 at 2:12 am GMT
@Randal

The photos I've seen indicate that the system (if really the same one) had indeed fired off its missiles and was ready to move as its hydraulic stabilizers had been retracted, and its radar panel folded. If the crew left the system uncamouflaged and were "standing around smoking", that can suggest a number of different possibilities. It may indicate a breakdown in discipline, but they may have been awaiting orders, or even had a mechanical breakdown en route to a new location. Likely a combination. Who knows?

So, maybe not "part of the action" in the sense that it was actively targeting/firing at incoming missiles, but definitely "part of the action" in the sense that it had been obviously doing just that moments before. If its missiles and auto-cannon had seen some successes, it may even be seen to have "won" rather than been part of a "clear defeat".

In any case, it seems that surprisingly little damage was done. The system was hit in the front cab area and looked eminently repairable in the photos.

The SAA has seen some discipline problems in the field, and since a number of the the general staff defected early in the war, a disjointed command & control system. Under Russian tutelage, they're vastly better today than they were 2 years ago, but perhaps not quite there yet. If the reports from late 2015 are to be believed, the Russians were very frustrated with how the SAA operated, and basically had to impose discipline by threatening, and then actually leaving.
My guess is that that's a large part of why the Russians are reluctant to provide potent weapons such as the S300. The political implications of using them can outweigh their military utility, and so must remain under strict control. If somebody starts shooting down US or IL jets at stand-off distances, things can get uncomfortably complex very quickly. The Russians don't need that to worry about along with everything else.

byrresheim , May 18, 2018 at 3:50 am GMT
Russia and Russians will have to come to terms with the fact they are disliked in large parts of Eastern Europe, with the possible exception of Serbia.

There are reasons for this, whether just or unjust.

The reaction to comment #1 which might be seen as sarcastic seems a case in point.

I am certain that unfortunate accidents like the coup in Ukraine might in the future be avoided by a bit more self-awareness and awareness of massive prejudices inherited from an often less than glorious past.

One has to see, however, that in the Ukrainian case, like in the Georgian case before, Russia acted swiftly and decisively to reach a position which might be considered better than the status quo ante before the Free West™ started its sheganigans. So perhaps the awareness exists and the contingency planning is in place?

That is why I still have more than a little hope for Syria and by extension christendom in Syria and Lebanon. All to often it is forgotten that these wars in Arabia are also wars against the christion minorities in Arabia.

Ronald Thomas West , Website May 19, 2018 at 6:42 am GMT
Well, this guy save me the trouble of commenting:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/05/the-saker-isnt-just-wrong-hes-irrelevant-putins-an-excellent-warrior/

Miro23 , May 19, 2018 at 7:57 am GMT
@Randal

The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran as a regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it is under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order to gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and escalate its ongoing settler colonization programs enabled by the US.

In fact it seems to go further. Planned Greater Israel expands territorially to include Jordan, Lebanon, most of Syria, western Iraq (oil producing regions), all the Gulf States, all northern Saudi Arabia (oil producing regions) and the Sinai and other parts of Egypt.

It's the Israeli Imperial dream of becoming a World Power and also controlling the world's oil supply, somewhat analogous to Hitler's dream of a German World Empire based on colonization of the East and a Greater Germany extending to the Urals.

Both are/were racist-Imperialist projects with the difference that the Germans tried to realize the dream using their own military (insufficient) while the Israelis are trying to do it using US forces.

How long the US plays along (or rather is intimidated into playing along) with this one sided project is an open question – and there's clearly the issue of how Israel is going to win these wars without troops on the ground. At least Hitler had most of his army in Russia and detailed plans for post-war ethnic German settlement.

The Americans aren't going to fight more large scale ground wars in the Middle East and Israeli/US proxy forces have failed – so that leaves the destruction of the Middle East from the air – which doesn't really further the Greater Israel project. Political control on the ground stays the same – generating even greater anti-Israeli/anti-American sentiment (if that is possible).

Russia correctly opts to keep clear of this mess, and there is only negative blowback for Israel and the United States – actually serving to isolate internally destabilize these countries.

Erebus , May 20, 2018 at 1:08 am GMT
@Randal

At the moment the Russians look either two-faced or weak (and perhaps they are both) in the face of Israel. That's not a look Russia can afford to have come to be their characterising feature, in the long run.

Yes, from certain perspectives it does indeed look like that, but I doubt many of us here are very aware of the calculi being used at the state level, and especially of Russia's. "Losing face" may be the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn.

There are some complex processes underway, involving a bewildering number of moving parts. "Russiagate" is imploding in the US at an accelerating rate, heading for a constitutional crisis. The 2 Koreas are cooking up a scheme between them (w/ support) to end the US' domination of the W. Pacific. More critical than all, in my view, is Trump's abrogation of the JCPOA. This has put the US on a trajectory at odds with its allies, and played directly into the hands of its adversaries. As evidence of the latter, Merkel and Putin have met 2x in May, and Germany's new foreign minister has also visited with Lavrov. It may well be the geo-political tipping point.

Remembering Obama's & Kerry's words at the the time the JCPOA was agreed
Obama in Aug '15:
"Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress's rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling We'd have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system trigger(ing) severe disruptions in our own economy and, by the way, rais(ing) questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. "
John Kerry, a few days later:
"If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, 'you're going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world. "

With the EU now agreeing to transact with Iran in EURs, Obama's & Kerry's words look to have been much more than hyperbole, "Losing face", in these circumstances may be nothing more than what you do as you play rope-a-dope while the big guy punches himself out.

We shall see what happens after the World Cup.

I think that's colouring current events more than we give it credit for. It's an opportune time for rogue nations to play games and throw tantrums, but I think a new set of rules will be introduced after the show is over.

Avery , May 20, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT
@Anon

{Maybe it would have been better if the Germans had defeated and occupied Russia and killed all the commies.}

Maybe it would have been much better for Nazis to have occupied whatever putrid swamp you are from and killed off pond scum like you.

Nazis invaded Soviet Union in order to exterminate the Slavic peoples, the supposed Untermenschen , take their fast, fertile lands, and populate them with the alleged "Master Race".

Except they turned out to be somewhat less than "Master", because those Untermenschen chased the pitiful remainders of the Nazi invaders all the way back to Berlin, and those Untermenschen Red Army soldiers pissed on the ashes of the supposed "Master Race" leader.

(Hitler's bloviations about Bolsheviks and all that was just a convenient excuse and to snow his military who might be less than enthusiastic about murdering civilians of SU.)

btw: it is not too late for youse and your buddies to put on your uniforms, polish up your jack-boots, grab your weapons .and invade Russia. Who know maybe youse will get lucky and will get a gift wrapped Sarmat express -delivered right to your address.

[May 20, 2018] Why the Empire Never Sleeps War Finance Made Easy, Part 3 by David Stockman

May 20, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Posted on May 18, 2018 May 16, 2018

Woodrow Wilson's Folly gave rise to more than the 1,000 year flood of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism and their state orchestrated campaigns of mass murder.

It also opened the door to massive, cheap war finance. And that baleful innovation has sustained the Empire long after Hitler and Stalin met their maker and the case for the Indispensable Nation had become ragged and threadbare.

In the context of American democracy – special interest dominated as it is – the greatest deterrents to imperial adventurism and war are the draft and taxes. Both bring home to the middle class voting public the cost of war in blood and treasure (theirs), and force politicians to justify the same in terms of tangible and compelling benefits to homeland security.

We leave the draft for another day, but do note that when the draft expired in 1970 what ended was not imperial wars – only middle class protests against them.

In fact, the Empire has learned to make do, happily, with essentially mercenary forces recruited from the left behind precincts of the rust belt and southeast and the opportunity deprived neighborhoods of urban America.

But even mercenaries, and the upkeep, infrastructure and weaponry of the expeditionary forces which they comprise, cost lots of money. And that would ordinarily be a giant problem for the Imperial City because the folks in the hinterlands have a deep and abiding allergy to high taxes.

As we explain below, however, Woodrow Wilson solved that problem, too, by drafting the printing press of the newly minted Federal Reserve for war finance duty.

So doing, he opened the Pandora's box of Federal debt monetization by permitting the Fed to own government debt – a step strictly forbidden by the stringent 1913 enabling statute drafted by the legendary maestro of sound money, Congressman Carter Glass.

Needless to say, as a political matter printing money is a lot easier than taxing the people. And that's especially true when the spending in question involves the machinations of Empire in distant lands spread about the planet at a time when citizens on the home front feel abused and over-taxed already.

To be sure, we happen to believe that the spending and tax burden on GDP could be far smaller than it is in the US today under a regime of true federalism, honest free markets and minimalist government intervention in social and economic life.

Still, compared to the rest of the developed world, the total US tax burden (Federal, state and local) is just 26% of GDP. That compares to an OECD average of 34% and upwards of 50% in many of the more "advanced" venues of European socialism (e.g. Belgium, France and Denmark).

Nevertheless, the voters abhor taxes – and the modern anti-tax GOP does not miss a beat in prosecuting the case for even lower extractions.

The upcoming FY 2019 is a quintessential expression of that sentiment. Federal taxes will clock in at just 16.5% of GDP – virtually the lowest rate in the last 40 years outside of deep recessions.

At the same time, the full cost of Empire will nearly tag a record $1 trillion including $700 billion for defense, $200 billion for Veterans – as well as security assistance and international ( $64 billion ) and debt service on past wars ( $36 billion ).

Needless to say, the square peg of Empire abroad and the Welfare State at home could never be pounded through the round hole of low taxes – that is, not without the lubricant of massive monetization of the public debt.

Had Wilson not opened the door to printing press finance of the War Machine, the "draft-effect" would have throttled the Empire long ago.

That's is to say, the crowding out by Uncle Sam and the resulting soaring bond yields would have mobilized the natural antiwar constituencies. We are referring especially to the nation's 15 million small businesses and 75 million homeowners, who would have felt the painful sting of high interest rates in their pocketbooks.

For that reason we now turn to Wilson's second abomination after Versailles and all its progeny. We refer to the transformation of the Federal Reserve from a passive "banker's bank" to an interventionist central bank knee-deep in Wall Street, government finance and macroeconomic management.

This, too, was a crucial historical hinge point because Carter Glass' 1913 act forbid the new Reserve banks from owning even a single dollar's worth of government debt.

To the contrary, they were empowered only to passively discount for cash good commercial credits and receivables (called "real bills") brought to the Fed's rediscount windows by member banks.

Accordingly, the legislative authors contemplated no open market interventions in government bond markets; no interactions with Wall Street dealers and bond market speculators; and provided no remit at all with respect to GDP growth, jobs, inflation, housing or all the rest of modern day monetary central planning targets.

In fact, Carter Glass' "banker's bank" didn't care whether the growth rate was positive 4%, negative 4% or anything in-between.

Its modest job was to channel liquidity into the banking system in response to the ebb and flow of commerce and production based on the very collateral ("real bills") generated by that economic activity on the free market.

Accordingly, jobs, growth and prosperity were to remain the unplanned outcome of millions of producers, consumers, investors, savers, entrepreneurs and speculators operating on the free market, not the business of the state.

But Wilson's war increased the national debt by 27X .

That's right. As of 1914 the public debt was just $1 billion or $11 per capita and amounted to less than 2% of GDP – a level which had been maintained since the Battle of Gettysburg.

But by the end of 1919, the public debt had mushroomed to $27 billion , including upwards of $10 billion re-loaned to the allies to enable them to continue the war.

There is not a snowball's chance in the hot place, of course, that this massive and virtually overnight eruption of Federal borrowing could have been financed out of domestic savings in the private market.

So the Fed's charter was fatefully changed owing to the exigencies of war to permit it to own government debt and to discount private loans collateralized by Treasury paper.

In due course, Wilson's famous and massive Liberty Bond drives became a glorified Ponzi scheme.

Patriotic Americans borrowed money from their local banks to buy war bonds and then pledged them as security. These hometown banks, in turn, then re-pledged their customer's collateral in order to borrow a like amount of funds from their regional Federal Reserve Bank.

Finally, the Reserve banks created the billions they loaned to their member hometown banks out of thin air, thereby pegging interest rates ultra-low for the duration of the war.

Thus, when Wilson was done preparing the world for the 1,000 year flood of totalitarianism, America also had an interventionist central bank.

And it was one now schooled in the art of interest rate pegging and rampant expansion of fiat credit anchored in government debt, not the self-regulating "real bills" (pledges of receivables and fished goods inventory) of commerce and trade.

Thus was borne in 1917-1919 both the rationale for Empire and the state instrumentalities needed finance it easily and on the cheap. That is, massive Warfare State spending without the inconvenience of high taxes on the people or the crowding out of business investment by high interest rates on the private market for savings.

By prolonging the war and massively increasing the level of debt and money printing on all sides, Wilson's folly also prevented a proper postwar resumption of the classical gold standard at the prewar parities.

And that was of epic consequence, too.

That's because this failure of "resumption" and the restoration of prewar currency parities against their historic weight in gold, in turn, paved the way for the breakdown of monetary order and world trade during the late 1920s, culminating in the British default on the gold standard in 1931.

As we chronicled in The Great Deformation , this monetary breakdown turned a standard postwar economic cleansing into the Great Depression, and a decade of protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbor currency manipulation and ultimately rearmament and statist dirigisme throughout much of the world.

In essence, the English and French governments had raised billions from their citizens on the solemn promise that it would be repaid at the prewar parities; that the war bonds were money good in gold.

But the combatant governments had printed too much fiat currency and generated roaring inflation during the war, including a 200% increase in the price level in England, 300% in France and far more in Germany.

Moreover, through domestic regimentation, heavy taxation and unfathomable combat destruction of economic assets, the belligerent governments had drastically impaired their own private economies.

As a result, the restoration of sound money and healthy capitalist economies would have required years of austerity and reinvestment.

But under foolish leadership of Winston Churchill in 1925, England attempted to re-peg the pound sterling to gold at the old prewar parity (which had been in place since 1719).

Yet the British government had no political will or capacity to reduce bloated wartime wages, costs and prices in a commensurate manner, or to live with the austerity and shrunken living standards that honest liquidation of its war debts required.

At the same time, France did the opposite. It ended up betraying its war time lenders, and re-pegged the Franc two years later at a drastically depreciated level.

This resulted in a spurt of beggar-thy-neighbor prosperity and the accumulation of pound sterling claims that would eventually blow-up the London money market and the sterling based "gold exchange standard" that the Bank of England and British Treasury had peddled as a poor man's way back on gold.

Yet under this "gold lite" contraption, France, Holland, Sweden and other surplus countries had accumulated huge amounts of sterling liabilities in lieu of settling their accounts in gold bullion – that is, they loaned billions to the British.

They did this on the promise and the confidence that the pound sterling would remain at $4.87 per dollar come hell or high water – just as it had for 200 years of peacetime before.

But British politicians betrayed their promises and their central bank creditors in September 1931 by suspending redemption and floating the pound. That shattered the parities, generated massive losses among Bank of England creditors and caused the decade-long struggle for resumption of an honest gold standard to fail.

Depressionary contraction of world trade, capital flows and capitalist enterprise inherently followed.

And on the American side of the Atlantic, in turn, another part of Wilson's due bill was called in.

By turning America overnight into the granary, arsenal and banker of the Entente, the US economy had been distorted, bloated and deformed into a giant, but unstable and unsustainable global exporter and creditor.

During the war years, for example, US exports increased by 4X and GDP soared from $40 billion to $90 billion. Incomes and land prices soared in the farm belt, and steel, chemical, machinery, munitions and ship construction boomed like never before – in substantial part because Uncle Sam essentially provided vendor finance to the bankrupt allies in desperate need of both military and civilian goods.

Under classic rules, there should have been a nasty correction after the war – as the world got back to honest money and sound finance. But it didn't happen because the newly unleashed Fed fueled an incredible boom on Wall Street and a massive junk bond market in foreign loans.

In today economic scale, the latter amounted to upwards of $2 trillion and, in effect, kept the war boom in exports and capital spending going right up until 1929. Accordingly, the great collapse of 1929-1932 was not a mysterious failure of capitalism; it was the delayed liquidation of Wilson's war boom.

After the crash, exports and capital spending plunged by 80% when the foreign junk bond binge ended in the face of massive defaults abroad; and that, in turn, led to a traumatic liquidation of industrial inventories and a collapse of credit fueled purchases of consumer durables like refrigerators and autos.

The latter, for example, dropped from 5 million to 1.5 million units per year after 1929.

In short, the Great Depression was a unique historical event owing to the vast financial deformations of the Great War – deformations which were drastically exaggerated by its prolongation from Wilson's intervention and the massive credit expansion unleashed by the Fed and Bank of England during and after the war.

Stated differently, the trauma of the 1930s was not the result of the inherent flaws or purported cyclical instabilities of free market capitalism; it was, instead, the delayed legacy of the financial carnage of the Great War and the failed 1920s efforts to restore the liberal order of sound money, open trade and unimpeded money and capital flows.

But this trauma was thoroughly misunderstood, and therefore gave rise to the curse of Keynesian economics in most parts of the world.

That took the form of war mobilization and rearmament in Nazi Germany, labor welfarism in England and France and New Deal public works boongoogles in the US. And everywhere it did unleash the politicians to meddle in virtually all aspects of economic life, culminating in the statist and crony capitalist leviathans that have emerged in this century.

Indeed, Thomas Woodrow Wilson is the father of most of the last century's ills. His grand crusade gave the world the curse of Stalin and Hitler, which, in turn, fostered the fallacy of the Indispensable Nation and gave rise to Imperial Washington and its destructive projects of global Empire.

Worst of all, his perversion of Carter Glass' "bankers' bank" made it possible to finance the Empire on the cheap and to nullify the natural antiwar constituency of middle class taxpayers.

That was Woodrow Wilson's worst sin of all.

And at length and after all these decades it has led straight to the crisis of Bubble Finance and Empire that loom dead ahead, as we will amplify in Part 4.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

Read more by David Stockman

[May 19, 2018] Trump Doesn't Have North Korea 'Cornered' by Daniel Larison

May 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

The larger problem with Thiessen's "analysis" is that it fails to grasp that North Korea's government won't accept the "offer" Trump is making because accepting it means giving up the one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise that the U.S. could ever make. Trump talked about giving Kim "very strong protections" if he agreed to get rid of the nuclear weapons, but there are no protections that the U.S. could offer that would be any stronger than the ones he currently possesses. Kim is coming to the summit as the leader of a nuclear-weapons state conducting talks at the highest level with the global superpower, and he isn't going to agree to give up that status in exchange for obviously worthless promises from Donald Trump. The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves into thinking that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the U.S. and its allies.

SF Bay May 18, 2018 at 11:14 pm

" The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves into thinking that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the U.S. and its allies."

This summit can really only go one way. Trump, ever the fool, will swagger in, offer nothing, bluster, and in the end be handed his hat. I don't think there's anyway to spin this as anything other than the poop storm that it is. No Nobel is Trump's future. Sad.

b. , says: May 19, 2018 at 10:50 am
"giving up the one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise that the U.S. could ever make"

It could be argued at this point that nuclear proliferation in a world of unipolar aggression might well be stabilizing not only whichever regimes the US decides to destabilize on a given day, but also the international order and even peace. Certainly, China's modest arsenal of minimum means of reprisal and Russia's outsized arsenal matching US folly warhead for warhead and warhead for interceptor demonstrate that US impunitivism is not even deterred by that. But Iraq was attacked precisely because Bush and his cronies were certain Saddam had no effective WMD deterrent – no nukes, everything else a desirable post-hoc justification.

Trump has the EU "cornered", and only fools will believe that this is to the benefit of the world, or even the US – unless the EU finally recognizes the magnitude of its "ally" problem, and their captive populations elect politicians that, for good or ill, will break with the US.

Trump has zero leverage over Iran and North Korea, not only because he is already committed to acts of aggression including all-out economical warfare and soon naval blockade, but also because both nations – and their backers in China and Russia – have long realized that any possible "appeasement" on their part will have as much impact on US conduct as EU "consultations" or South Korean "coordination" – now with a US theater commander as "ambassador". The Moon government has relegated itself to the bleachers as the welfare of South Korea is at stake because, just like the EU3, it does not dare question the unilateral "alliance" it has acquiesced to over decades.

We live in the age of a nation unhinged. But Guatemala, Paraguay and Romania are following from ahead, demonstrating that the US might be acting unilaterally, but not alone, and this "coalition of the unseemly eager" is, in terms of outcomes, no different from posturing collaborators in Germany, France and the UK, or the hapless hostages in South Korea.

Surely, Thiessen and Trump have the world outnumbered and surrounded. What could possibly go wrong, with leaders of such sparkling brilliance in charge?

b. , says: May 19, 2018 at 10:54 am
The most pathetic display here is the establishment biparty published opinion applauding Trump for pursuing the purest expression of Godfather Diplomacy, turned into farce. America's sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and racketeering aside – prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot make "offers they cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.
A. G. Phillbin , says: May 19, 2018 at 2:32 pm
@b.

America's sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and racketeering aside – prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot make "offers they cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.

Actually b., that was a horse's head on a pillow in "The Godfather." Were you thinking of Trump or Bolton when you wrote that?

Blimbax , says: May 19, 2018 at 6:24 pm
Speaking of horses, John Bolton is the south end of a north-bound horse.

[May 18, 2018] WSJ Asks Was Trump s Campaign Set Up

Notable quotes:
"... Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . . ..."
"... Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation? ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Wall Street Journal continues to counter the liberal mainstream media's anti-Trump-ness with Kimberly Strassel leading the charge , dropping uncomfortable truth-bombs in a forum that is hard for the establishment to shrug off as 'Alt-Right' or 'Nazi' or be 'punished' by search- and social-media-giants.

Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as "possible bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone - leftist and right - should consider ... (that's wishful thinking)...

1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.

2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.

3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That's on them

4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena . They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?

5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .

6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation?

7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.

8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u know you didn't.)

And now Strassel is asking "Was Trump's Campaign 'Set Up'?" At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."

Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.

But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI's actions.

Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened.

What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee's recent Russia report .

In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.

And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?

We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition research to the FBI.

The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any -- were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.

Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?

Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.

bowie28 -> One of We Permalink

Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine:

You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken?

Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?

Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?

Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper) or if he refuses to answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is will be escorted to his office to turn over all records gathered in the investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his findings and then is fired and all security clearances revoked.

Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to find evidence for your phony allegations with your top investigator on the job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars. You failed because there was no crime committed. Time to move on.

Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about. I think it's more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with Trump the day before being appointed as SC and this whole thing was nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their guy. This way they put all their attention and energy into this investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the midterms when Trump is fully vindicated by the guy all his enemies said was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on Mueller and every MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next morning.

The First Rule -> bowie28 Permalink

And no real justice is going to come until Trump cleans house at our corrupt and out of control DOJ; starting with Sessions and Rosenstein.

beemasters Richard Chesler

Has anyone seen or heard from Comey lately? May want to keep an eye out for him dangling from some branches somewhere...

Baron von Bud

Mollie Hemingway's piece on a similar vein in The Federalist. Cunts leak like a sieve to their collusional media scum, but woe-betied Congress getting access. Fuckers should be hanging from lamposts.

[May 18, 2018] WSJ Asks Was Trump's Campaign 'Set Up'

Notable quotes:
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Wall Street Journal continues to counter the liberal mainstream media's anti-Trump-ness with Kimberly Strassel leading the charge , dropping uncomfortable truth-bombs in a forum that is hard for the establishment to shrug off as 'Alt-Right' or 'Nazi' or be 'punished' by search- and social-media-giants.

Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as "possible bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone - leftist and right - should consider ... (that's wishful thinking)...

1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.

2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.

3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That's on them

4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena . They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?

5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .

6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation?

7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.

8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u know you didn't.)

And now Strassel is asking "Was Trump's Campaign 'Set Up'?" At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."

Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.

But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI's actions.

Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened.

What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee's recent Russia report .

In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.

And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?

We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition research to the FBI.

The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any -- were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.

Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?

Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.

bowie28 One of We Permalink

Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine:

You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken?

Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?

Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?

Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper) or if he refuses to answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is will be escorted to his office to turn over all records gathered in the investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his findings and then is fired and all security clearances revoked.

Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to find evidence for your phony allegations with your top investigator on the job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars. You failed because there was no crime committed. Time to move on.

Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about. I think it's more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with Trump the day before being appointed as SC and this whole thing was nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their guy. This way they put all their attention and energy into this investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the midterms when Trump is fully vindicated by the guy all his enemies said was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on Mueller and every MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next morning.

The First Rule bowie28 Permalink

And no real justice is going to come until Trump cleans house at our corrupt and out of control DOJ; starting with Sessions and Rosenstein.

beemasters Richard Chesler Permalink
Team_Huli beemasters Permalink Has anyone seen or heard from Comey lately? May want to keep an eye out for him dangling from some branches somewhere...

[May 18, 2018] IG Horowitz Finds FBI, DOJ Broke Law In Clinton Probe, Refers To Prosecutor For Criminal Charges

Notable quotes:
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As we reported on Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the Wall Street Journal .

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . - WSJ

Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."

Who is Huber?

As we reported in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .

While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel investigation ,"

Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator .

***

Who is Horowitz?

In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening, so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.

In short - Horowitz went to war with the Obama Administration to restore the OIG's powers - and didn't get them back until Trump took office.

Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.

What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it, he went to war ...

In March of 2015, Horowitz's office prepared a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.

After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450 - the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .

1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and documented.

TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii) January 3, 2018

See here for a complete overview of the OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big on public disclosure:

Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to be on the same page

Here's a preview:

https://twitter.com/DaveNYviii/status/939074607352614912

Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."

The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over $700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation, Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.

On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.

And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.

As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .

Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations , which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass legislation to force an the appointment.

And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.

After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "

Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017 letter forwarded to the Inspector General:

... ... ...

With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed Special Counsel.

IntercoursetheEU -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 05/17/2018 - 14:41 Permalink

"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution, including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."

Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi

nmewn -> putaipan Thu, 05/17/2018 - 19:21 Permalink

I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.

Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."

Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.

Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)

nmewn -> IridiumRebel Fri, 05/18/2018 - 06:19 Permalink

Absolutely.

There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat" Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from us until rooted out.

That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.

Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!

It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.

For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?

Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!

It's just friggin surreal sometimes.

G-R-U-N-T -> Newspeaktogo Thu, 05/17/2018 - 21:06 Permalink

"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "

Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame Trump and the American people.

Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???

Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!

Gardentoolnumber5 -> BigSwingingJohnson Thu, 05/17/2018 - 18:50 Permalink

As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.

jin187 -> IridiumRebel Fri, 05/18/2018 - 05:33 Permalink

NO ONE IS GOING TO JAIL OVER THIS.

Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.

[May 18, 2018] Guardian fake news. UK media tries to keep Skripal poisoning hoax alive (Video)

May 18, 2018 | theduran.com

Alex Christoforou with Alexander Mercouris discuss a recent Guardian post that claims 100 police have received psychological help after Salisbury attack.

Fake news, trying to create false connections between police psychological issues and a rather dubious UK poisoning false flag. Via The Guardian

Almost 100 Wiltshire police officers and staff have sought psychological support after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the Guardian can reveal.

Among those who have asked for help were officers who initially responded to the collapse of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, and those who were at or close to the various investigation sites in subsequent days and weeks.

Some reported feeling disorientated and anxious while others were concerned about the possible long-term health effects on the public.

While the Skripal poisoning story has faded from much of the mainstream media news cycle, as it was increasingly exposed as a complete hoax and embarrassment for the May government, the Guardian appears to be trying to resurrect "the Russians did" Novichok narrative.

Rick Oliver • 3 hours ago ,

It is about time your stupid leader and her clown were put on the stage to explain to all the world why they chose to defame the integrity of Russia in such an unbelievable set of circumstances that only children under the age of ten would not understand !! How can any Nation since this demonic happening , ever trust this self - centred Bozo from ever making a sensible judgement for the future of mankind !

louis robert • 13 hours ago ,

What a shameful staging! At the very least, try and respect children!... Keep them away from all that nonsense, Ms May!

André De Koning • an hour ago ,

UK has lost it completely and the Guardian has fallen prey to the CIA Mockingbird Operation (infiltration and manipulation of media). Used to be a good paper under Alan Rushbridger and protection of Snowden, Assange etc. Now it has lost it altogether with useless editorial board. The woman in charge must have something in common with Nikki Haley: incapable of nuance and irrationally convinced of her being right (without research lots of claims about Assad, Putin etc.).

Wesa F. André De Koning • 35 minutes ago ,

When ever I read such nonsense it always brings a smile as I think of what Clint Eastwood said in his summing up of Politicians and not in General.

[May 16, 2018] Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea by James Petras

Questionable but interesting. "Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again." Trump really believe like a typical bully. In case of tough resistance he folds and appologize. Otherwise he tries to press opooneent into complete submission.
Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch. ..."
"... Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. ..."
"... Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program. ..."
"... Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no longer a threat to US security. ..."
"... "Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday, Tillerson dropped this truth bomb: "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." Woof. ..."
May 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Introduction

For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies. The question of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific political direction? Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.

We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.

In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain; and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take reprisals.

Trump's Strategic Framework

The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives would undermine US imperial rule.

Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran

Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.

Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.

Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy.

Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah.

The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, dubbed 'the Lobby'.

Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch.

Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by sanctions.

Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China

Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.

Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of hostility.

However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved inspectors.

Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program.

Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance monitored quarterly by the US. Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and restrictions on Chinese goods and services.

Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis. Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and dominate the Asian and world economy.

Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.

Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed! Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies. His military intervention will inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately losing war.

Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US collaborators. The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Tel Aviv's bombing [of Iran] will lead to counter-attacks in Israel.

Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.

Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction.

Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for exports to the US. China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia. China has greater resilience and capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic power house.

Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world depression.

Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from China.

Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China. Kim will offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal, Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.

Conclusion

Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.

Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have links with five continents. Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions. Trump is heading for defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the process.

Epilogue

Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate, in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so.

Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia. Nixon successfully promoted peaceful co-existence.

Trump is a master of defeats.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 9:00 am GMT

Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea

The Deep State told him to.

Gordo , May 15, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT

industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations)

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT

Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed!

Trump has no agenda of his own.

Per/Norway , May 15, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic destruction."

indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..

Biff , May 16, 2018 at 5:18 am GMT

Tel Aviv's bombing will lead to counter-attacks in Israel.

?Who is going to do this bombing, and counter attacking?

Mark James , May 16, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT

Trump cannot dominate North Korea

You didn't have to be genius to see this coming. In fact, NK played Trump as expected. Anything else would have been gross negligence by their diplomatic negotiators. Getting Trump to speculate about a prospective Nobel (for himself) for bringing nuclear peace to the Pacific was baiting the hook nicely.

The US is now dealing from a position of weakness. Let's see what NK can extract in terms of keeping their weapons and gaining economic assistance in return for getting the meetings back on track.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the question.

The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the twe fleet standard had to lowered to one fleet.

Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was lowered to one and half. What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria.

In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East. Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975

The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the powder keg that had been standing for a long time. Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII. But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'.

I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.

jilles dykstra , May 16, 2018 at 7:06 am GMT
@Per/Norway

I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu. The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.

jacques sheete , May 16, 2018 at 7:52 am GMT

Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice.

Just as Wilson and FDR's, and their successor's regime change efforts were. At least they're consistent! Damn them all.

Franklin Ryckaert , May 16, 2018 at 9:59 am GMT
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant bully. To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again. However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure, which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more apposite slogan.
The Alarmist , May 16, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT
Wall Street collapsing will not cause a world depression, but will reflect the very real depression that will arise from huge disruptions to the US supply chain and energy costs and the knock-on effect that will have on the global economy.

A strike on Iran won't by itself be enough to cripple the US economy, but the loss of a single aircraft carrier might be enough of a pull on a thread that unravels the magical mantle of military force that currently holds the empire together and keeps the vassal-states in line to cause things to go pear-shaped quickly.

Proud_Srbin , May 16, 2018 at 10:30 am GMT
Nobody can accuse Donald of not being obedient executioner of tasks given by his Masters.
You don't have to be dark skinned to reside in Masters quarters, orange haired and white is ok too..
Kirt , May 16, 2018 at 10:59 am GMT
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
Escher , May 16, 2018 at 11:30 am GMT

Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and dominate the Asian and world economy.

On what basis does the author say that? Trump is smart enough to know that China is growing as an economic and military power, not declining. A fairly poorly (and likely hastily) written article.

Mike P , May 16, 2018 at 11:53 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

Buying time to do what? How do you think that time will work in his favour?

DESERT FOX , May 16, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
Trump is under the control of Zionists just as is the U.S. gov with Zionist dual citizens in control of every facet and has been since 1913 when the Zionists created the FED and the IRS.

Trump is like the Roman emperor Caligula and is a Trojan Horse for the Zionist agenda of a NWO and is continuing the tradition of the U.S. gov breaking its word about everything, just ask the native American Indians.

JoaoAlfaiate , May 16, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
You haven't convinced me he isn't a psychopath.
Quartermaster , May 16, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing. The agreement had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified. Our "allies" in Europe and Asia knew that and their reaction has not been nearly as negative as the author of this column has claimed.
Joe Hide , May 16, 2018 at 1:12 pm GMT
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.

N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup" took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.

A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing, agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting for Russia in Syria, etc. etc.

Xi of China has pretty impressive creditials but this post is overly long anyway. RESULTS COUNT MORE THAN WORDS!

TT , May 16, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
@Gordo

Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.

• Agree: CalDre

I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things, ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous whining.

When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as it did for WTO & Globalization now.

Of course any moronic comments about only China is espionaging US IPR & rise purely due to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.

padre , May 16, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
Well, he is not meeting with North Korea either, since Kim didn't chicken out, and is not that stupid as to offer his head on the plate! Bolton made sure of that.
TT , May 16, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
Hastily written article cobbled by bits of public info here & there without deep analysis.

1. Today NK declared they have indefinitely terminate all high level exchange with SK. If Trumps insisted on another Libya & Iraq defank & ending model advocate by Bolton, meeting with Trumps will be cancelled. Trumps needs the Korea peace credit to get his Nobel Prize, so as to booster his coming Nov election win. Kim has baited Trumps to put him in tight corner now, hence WH still insisting to go ahead prepare for the meeting.

If venue does changed to Beijing from Trumps' choice of Spore (Kim's cargo plane can't fly his limousine so far, also a risk of him as Spore is US vassal), we will see Kim has K.O. Trumps in another round. Kim will get to keep its nuke weapon until USM remove its Korea present, clear all sanctions, with UNSC guaranteed its safety. If Trumps has the meeting cancelled, then China can roll out its own play book as unchallenged leader in solving Korea crisis. Either way, Trumps will lost influence to China.

2. Trade war with China has exposed ZUS deep weakness in its brinkmanship when china retaliated with no compromise. Four most senior trade & treasury secs scrambled 10,000 miles to Beijing to seek detente, but return empty handed in 2 days with their ridiculous demands in hubris. Still China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no longer a threat to US security.

Btw, this author has wrongly written about the $100B trade tariff, its only $50B so far. Another additional $100B is only a empty threat ZUS dare not release to avoid China retaliation.

3. JCPOA cancelling is godsend move. First, EU with Germany & France having huge investments in Iran is crying loud that they have to be free from been ZUS vassal. If they caved in to ZUS sanction threat, then EU bosses – Macron & Merkel will face revolt from Europe business sector. China & Russia will be happy to pick up whatever investments in fire sales.

If EU decided to rebel & chart its own destiny with a little spine, then ZUS has lost its tight clutch over EU. EU has juz announced to trade Iran oil in Euro, hasten de-dollarization. The geopolitical game is changing tide. In either way of EU decision, China & Russia win.

Now Iran will continue to enjoy free trades with everyone except ZUS that it dislike most, & win moral high ground in international standing by keeping to JCPOA.

ZUS has juz ordered Trumps to shoot its own foot. It pay the high price of losing every credibility in international agreement, forced EU into seeking independency, have EU trade in Euro, with Iran, China & Russia all smiling.

jacques sheete , May 16, 2018 at 5:06 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Yes, but there is much more to your observation..

Of course, but I just wanted to make a point not write a book or even a PhD thesis. thanks for the supplementary material though. Your comments about oil are spot on as you know. The wars were about smashing some real competition.

Herald , May 16, 2018 at 5:18 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Please try and be serious, that sort of nonsense just won't do.

Vidi , May 16, 2018 at 8:06 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Somebody has to shovel the BS occasionally, to keep the smell down here. I guess it's my turn today, sigh.

The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing.

Then the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many of the major European countries must also be lying when they say that Iran is fully complying with the JCPOA.

The agreement had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified.

The United Nations Security Council endorsed the JCPOA; see UNSC resolution 2231. According to the UN treaty, UNSC resolutions are automatically the law of the land, even in the USA -- no Senate ratification needed.

jacques sheete , May 16, 2018 at 8:08 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Iran lied about what they were doing.

Citation, please.

Have you ever made a comment that was other than your mere and clearly biased opinion? Try it sometime; it would be interesting to see what evidence you provide to support such transparently erroneous ideas.

dkshaw , May 16, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Anyone who destroys a carrier is sure to face a nuclear attack, and nuclear war will ensue.

niteranger , May 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
Trump's only strategy is to do what Israel orders him to do. The Neocon Jews and their friends including the Jew In Chief of the White House Jared Kushner are running the show. You can easily see this in ... Niki Haley's presentation before the UN including walking out before the Palestinian Rep had a chance to speak.

Trump is up to his arms in shady deals with Jewish financiers of his properties and they will get what they want from him politically. It's Israel against the world and the US is nothing more than their war whore. More people will die for this strategy that comes from formerly Tel Aviv and now from the Magic Jewish Capital called Jerusalem.

renfro , May 16, 2018 at 11:25 pm GMT
Stars -- They're Just Like Us: Celebs outraged over Gaza are speaking out
US Politics Mondoweiss Editors on May 16, 2018

http://mondoweiss.net/

Some other examples:

New York City's Hip Hop station Hot 97's morning show, "Ebro in the Morning," dedicated an entire segment to yesterday's demonstration in Gaza where the two blasted Israel and President Donald Trump http://pic.twitter.com/43XIqhKFWZ

-- Gigi Hadid (@GiGiHadid) May 15, 2018
Hadid posted screen shots of Al Jazeera's coverage alongside an image of the Nakba with text written by a relative, "Almost One Million Palestinians were violently forced out of their country and never allowed back to Palestine. The Hadid family was amongst them and they fled in fear to Syria where they became refugees."

Why are these important? Because they have millions of followers on social media .because their audience and followers are the coming voter and leadership force .for better or worse ..and for Israel its the 'worse'. Gigi Hadid for instance has 9 million followers on twitter.

renfro , May 17, 2018 at 12:52 am GMT

Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president

This true. BUT ..'if' any criminal wrong doing by Trump before he was president is revealed in the course of the Russia investigation he can be indicted for that after he is out of office. IN ADDITION ..'if' any criminal wrong doing is revealed in Trump's businesses then any persons involved in it within his businesses including his sons or daughter can be indicted. And now, as they have no presidential protection.

imo .this is what Trump is most afraid of ..some criminal business like money laundering being exposed. not that Mueller will find Russian election collusion.

renfro , May 17, 2018 at 12:57 am GMT
Rex Tillerson just majorly trolled Donald Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/tillerson-trump-truth/

"Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday, Tillerson dropped this truth bomb: "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." Woof.
..

Why is this important? Because the graduating class of VMI selects its speakers so that tells you where the minds of the elite military schools are on Trumpism.

[May 15, 2018] Haley s Embarrassing Defense of the Gaza Massacre by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. ..."
May 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Nikki Haley's response to yesterday's massacre in Gaza is to engage in whataboutism:

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley slams Iran's "destabilizing conduct" amid Gaza protests https://t.co/QtArrPbJOq https://t.co/gC1niZnMiK

-- CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) May 15, 2018

The Trump administration's Iran obsession would almost be comical if it didn't have such a dangerous distorting effect on our foreign policy. Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. Whether she is busy whitewashing Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen or running interference for Israel after it massacres over 60 people, Haley's m.o. is to change the subject.

Haley also risibly claimed that Israel was acting with restraint yesterday:

"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today suggest they would be much less restrained," she said.

The ambassador's claim is absurd on its face, and it is an insult to the dozens of democratic states around the world that do not behave this way. Haley also ignores that there are no other states in the world that keep millions of people trapped in a blockaded enclave as Israel does with the inhabitants of Gaza. Not only would the vast majority of democratic governments not act as Israel's government has acted over the last few weeks, but none would have any need to confront massive protests from a population that has been deliberately starved and impoverished for more than a decade. The excessively violent response to the Gaza protests calls attention to the cruel policy of collective punishment imposed on all of the people living in Gaza, and there is no excuse for either of them.

[May 15, 2018] Why isn't putin helping syria defend herself from israeli attacks some answers from the commentariat at MoA by wendy davis

caucus99percent.com

This diary may be on the absurd side, but I know that this issue's bothered any number of us (including many tankies on Twitter), but this comment thread posits some opinions and offers many links to buttress arguments. Of course there were disagreements I haven't included, but not wanting to risk a wider war with Israel at this point, with so many dangers on Russia's borders makes sense to me. Can't say I've checked out more than a couple links

It really was disgusting it was to see Bibi with Putin at the V-day celebration in Moscow while the IDF was striking 'Iranian' (not so much) installations in Syria. Some say having Bibi there was by way of an object lesson: 'See what we've got?' I'm agnostic on that point, but I've grabbed these comments for your consideration and have just pasted them in raw with no quotations marks. Happy digging; dunno what a comment might on this PSA might include, but let's just see how it goes. They're out of time order, as I'd forgotten to Save the ones I'd grabbed early on, and have had to go back to copy more.

From Moon of Alabama's ' open thread' (2 pages of comments) on May 11:

..

Also not a good sign that President Putin re-nominated Medvedev (not the URL) as Prime Minister. The Saker lays out the rationale for this view.

Posted by: Trisha Driscoll | May 11, 2018

With regard to Medvedev. Let's just end this now.

Vesti news has a 10-minute clip showing the Duma in session to approve or disapprove Medvedev as Prime Minister. It's a great glimpse into the parliamentary side of things that we rarely see. Putin states that the social reforms he has called for and intends to carry out have been planned and examined with a fine tooth comb for a year and a half – by a team led by Medvedev. It makes sense to him, he says, that this same team would now carry these plans forward.

Can we not get beyond our own particular preferences of policy flavor and understand that Medvedev long ago ago gave up the Atlanticist affiliation – when, indeed, that option politically receded from his country's shores – and is simply a team player now, subservient to Russia and to Putin? And what he thinks in his own mind is nobody's business but his? He has no power outside of being a Prime Minister who effectuates Putin's vision.

And personally, I suspect he takes some satisfaction from doing this well. I don't care what transforms or redeems a man. I just care what fits the need of the moment. The hour produces the man, be he ever so tainted from former allegiances.

Medvedev's Tumultuous Confirmation Hearings (and of course, Zhirinovsky Calls for Reinstatement of Russian Monarchy)

pa..Vesti is cranking out so much Russian news and news shows now, in short clips with English subtitles – often half a dozen per day – that I've added it to my daily news scan. I reccomend the YouTube channel: Vesti News

Posted by: Grieved | May 11, 2018 8:50:47 PM | 71

Putin has done more to stop, blunt or block US military aggression than any other country.

He picked Syria to put Russian military up against US military. If he had not not done so, the Syrians that are still dying due to the terrorists and their sponsors would, along with hundreds of thousands of others have been dead in the jihadist takeover in 2015.

the Palestinians? What is the rest of the world doing about this? How many other countries deal with Israel. What is you country doing for the Palestinians.

There have been many proposed resolutions against Syria in the UN but US has vetoed them all. Israel can be brought into line only when US power is destroyed.

Many of the worlds conflicts that exist today can never be resolved until US power is destroyed as it is the US that keeps those conflicts as open wounds.

For Russia putting all their efforts into say Palestine or Yemen and the many other conflicts is like running around putting out spot fires rather than catching the arsonist.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 11, 2018 9:02:14 PM |

..

Korybko interprets Russian signals as message to Assad to "compromise," which I don't agree with at all as such a "demand" backwalks numerous previous statements about Syria by Russia, which isn't normal Kremlin behavior. In essence, Korybko's arguing that the relationship between Zionists and Russia is more important than Russia's relations with Syria, Iraq, and Iran–a huge misread on his part, IMO.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018

.

Strategic Culture's published a very powerful editorial. Teaser:

"The reckless, reprehensible behavior of the US towards international law, multilateralism and diplomacy – all of which it falsely projects onto Russia, China and others – is, or should be, a watershed moment for all of the world to recognize that such rogue conduct is intolerable and unacceptable.

"Either there is multilateral accord or there is not. Either there is a multipolar world as envisaged by a democracy of nations, or there is brutish hegemony of unipolar ambitions. The latter is not law-abiding. It is predicated on the brutish principle of "might is right". The world cannot afford such a hegemon for the sake of peace and survival."

It certainly echoes much of what's written by b and us Barflies.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018

Russia's catching a lot of blogger-flak regarding its failure to go to war with Israel. That's not smart.

Here's the probable scenario as I see it, keeping in mind that the #1 priority for Russia is its own political interests and its own security, which is true of every country.

There are three allies concerned with Syria led by Russia, and including Turkey and Iran. Three unlkely allies, actually. But they are trying to get along, with Russia's objective a return of Syria to full sovereignty of all its territory, and a cessation of hostilities, with a Russian military presence. It's not been easy but there has been progress and it looks like Russia and its allies will be successful.

Iran has that objective too, but also has a strong interest in aiding Hezbollah as a powerful anti-Israel force. That includes provisioning Hezbollah in Syria with ballistic missiles.

Russia (in my probable scenario) said to Iran don't do that. It endangers our chief interest in Syria which is to win the war against US/Israel and end the warfare. Don't do anything that endangers that. But Iran did it anyhow, and has paid a price which Syria shares. And as a part of that, Russia has taken no action against Israel because it expected this might happen, that's why Iran was cautioned. Iran thought it could do whatever it wanted in Syria and it got burned.

So I say to anti-Russia bloggers, wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 11, 2018

..

Here's what Putin said to Nuttyahoo according to Kremlin :

"Naturally, we will use your visit today to discuss bilateral relations and problems in the region. Unfortunately, the situation is very acute. I would like to express hope that you and I will not only manage to discuss, but also find solutions which will lead to a shift in the situation, and which will also allow us to find ways to resolve heated conflicts."

Putin's clearly aiming at de-escalation, while Nutty's all about escalating.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018

I used to admire Korybko enormously, and I thought him a brilliant talent. I don't know what's happened in the last few months. Every one of his articles seems to be a mis-read. He's chosen a view of reality that I think is wrong, and everything he extrapolates from that is off-kilter.

We all choose at what level down the rabbit hole we want to go, but whatever it is, our predictions should accord with subsequent events, or we can know it's an inaccurate ledge to perch on. Korybko keeps saying there's a hidden agenda and a secret union between Israel and Russia that makes all the rest of the Syria campaign a sham. He's become as unreliable as Paul Craig Roberts at reading the true balances, and as unreliable, it pains me to say, as the Saker appears at times lately. They all call for the sky to fall tomorrow, or else say that it already has and the fix is in, and resistance is futile.

Miracles abound. But everyone is so damn gloomy. Is it a new CIA manic-depression drug? Radio waves? Crazy.

Posted by: Grieved | May 11, 2018

.

Too many cast Putin as Tsar; he is not. National security issues are discussed and solved by a council of same name through consensus. Same with Foreign Relations. One aspect of Russia that differs greatly from almost every Western nation is the Russian government acts in the best interest of all Russians , not just a select nomenclatura as in Outlaw US Empire and UK.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018

During the course of the Ukraine war I, and I imagine many others, went through some of the feelings about Vladimir Putin that many people are expressing now. We grew impatient. We wanted Russia to go in and kick Porky's ass into the high heavens. We wanted the Chocolate King toasted. But Putin carried on with his minimalist strategy, his control over emotion and ego, his resource stinginess, providing just enough to the Donbas warriors, just enough. It was nail-biting and frustrating at times, but If Russia had gone into Ukraine, guns blazing (as Russia's enemies wanted) it would probably be bankrupt by now.

Scene change to Syria and we have the same minimum aircraft, troops, special forces Minimum but enough. Israel feels very strongly about the S-300. Putin and his generals have probably verified for themselves what they long suspected – that many products built by the US military industrials since the 1990s are pretty crap. Just look at the F-35 and the Boeing 787 "Dreamliner", which pilots and cabin crew refer to as the "binliner" due to its continuous faults. After a PHD on more-or-less this subject my humble self came to the same conclusion.

So do the Syrians really need the S-300 when they seem to be doing fine with what they have got? They could be beefed up with some Pantsirs and Buks. Why antagonize Israel needlessly? Why risk WWIII? Why risk Russia's World Cup – when sabotage and stealth are what the Israelis are best at? Why not just keep slipping Assad stuff that will keep the Israeli's guessing?

Posted by: Lochearn | May 11, 2018

.

@ Grieved who wrote: "Miracles abound. But everyone is so damn gloomy. Is it a new CIA manic-depression drug? Radio waves? Crazy."

The more the elite can rile the public with fear and anger against others the better their chances of manipulating events to their ends at least that is their plan and I am not seeing white flags yet.

Yes, we are in the middle of a watershed event for humanity where the real issue of whether a small elite continue to control the tools of finance is being fought as a battle between Israel et al and the rest of the world through Syria/Iran/??? That the issues are so intertwined and so misunderstood by the public is a human travesty that I attribute to brainwashing by the Western media.

The good thing about this situation is that we are in it because the old way is breaking down all around us and energy abounds for supporting structural change. For someone who has been watching and waiting for 40+ years, I am DAMN happy to see such an opportunity for human growth present itself in my lifetime.

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 11, 2018

@ 27

Peskov corrects :

May 11. /TASS/. The refusal to supply the S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria is not linked in any way with the recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Moscow, acting Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.

Peskov commented on a statement, which acting Russian Presidential Aide for Military and Technical Cooperation Vladimir Kozhin gave in an interview with the newspaper Izvestia.

"Technologically, it is absolutely incorrect to link this [Kozhin's words] with Netanyahu's visit because the interview was given before Netanyahu's visit," the acting Kremlin spokesman pointed out.

Russia has never announced such deliveries and only specified that it reserves the right in the wake of US-led airstrikes against Syria to do everything possible in this situation.

In an interview published on Friday, Kozhin said that Russia was not delivering the S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria and no talks had been underway on their delivery thus far.

As the acting Kremlin spokesman added, the Syrian army "has everything it needs."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on April 16 that Russia was ready to consider all necessary steps to reinforce Syria's defense capabilities, including the delivery of the S-300 systems.

Unlike the West, RF does not pre-announce. Just do it!

Do you think Putin is pleased about this?

Israeli Weapons Among Arms Handed Over to Syrian Army By Terrorists in Damascus

Oh, not just medical aid!

Posted by: Likklemore | May 11, 2018

..

Explanation of Russia's approach by Andrei Korybko. Russia is taking a balance-of-power approach, not a bloc approach, to Syria. Hence its ambiguous stances towards Turkey, Iran, and Israel. Beyond what is required to defeat the Takfiris and assure the stability of the Syrian government, the rest is negotiable. Putin does not want the situation between Iran and Israel to escalate, and to that end is seeking greater influence in Syria vis-a-vis Iran.

http://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/05/09/why-cry-its-great-news-that-trump-pulled-out-of-the-iran-deal/

..

Such a massive organized aggression has been inflicted on Syria, so much effort has been put into sujugating and destroying Syria, the Syrians have suffered so horribly. Years of economic warfare – sanctions, tens of thousands of mercenary madmen from dozens of countries deployed against Syria, entire cities destroyed, massive amounts of arms and financing provided to the madmen, global mass media disinformation deployed, oil stolen, thousands of US bombs dropped, continual Israeli attacks and subterfuge, NATO special forces deployed, massive mercenary underground construction project at Douma, false flags, Turkish aggression, Saudi complicity, and more.

And how do things stand, after seven years of this? Syrians are inspirational for their resistance, Syria is battered but winning, Russia's standing has risen as she has saved Syria, the mercenaries are largely eliminated or herded into specific areas; Israelis and Americans have lost yet more international standing, are more obviously outlaw regimes, and have lost self confidence; their military intimidation is more and more lacking in real authority. NATO is licking its wounds and is less cohesive, occupied Germany is showing signs of awakening, Turkey and the US are at odds, the British are a malicious joke, the Saudis are weaker, Iran and Lebanon are stronger, Iraqis despise the Americans, China is stronger.

Meanwhile, Russia too has been under US led economic warfare attack, and near global disinformation attack, and demonization. And yet she too is stronger in many ways than she was just a few years ago.

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | May 11, 2018

..

karlof1 @20

There's nothing in that statement that approves of Israel's attack. And informing Putin of a changed stance due to a perception that 'red lines' were crossed (red lines that would've been discussed weeks or months prior) would be positioned by Netanyahu as a courtesy ( when it is really just a sneaky attempt at battlefield advantage).

Here's a thought (not fully baked):the Russians have their eye on the ball. Those who are focused on Zionists as a problem for a West easily miss the fact that USA is a bigger problem for Russia than Israel. USA is the "power behind the throne". Zionists and neocons may manipulate that power but it is better for Russia to make an effort to separate Israel from the West. You catch more flies with honey.

If SCO becomes strong enough to offer meaningful security guarantees and Israel also has an opportunity to participate in lucrative economic opportunities in Eurasia then Israel might be enticed to end it's belligerent manipulation of US. It may require a new generation of leadership in Israel before that happens. Russia-China are playing long games.

Posted by: Jackrabbit

.

OJS:

So you run around spouting your hatred for Putin because he does not proclaim himself world policeman and and does not crap on about R2P. As he has said, he is not anybodies friend. He is the president of the Russian federation.

In this video I linked earlier, he plainly states his position on Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJnIsbo5uMs

Like it or not Putin recognizes and operates within International law and Russian law, and respects UN recognized borders. Putin, all the time he has been President has operated on the principle of evolution not revolution. He is not about to change now.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 11, 2018

The more the elite can rile the public with fear and anger against others the better their chances of manipulating events to their ends at least that is their plan and I am not seeing white flags yet.

Yes, we are in the middle of a watershed event for humanity where the real issue of whether a small elite continue to control the tools of finance is being fought as a battle between Israel et al and the rest of the world through Syria/Iran/??? That the issues are so intertwined and so misunderstood by the public is a human travesty that I attribute to brainwashing by the Western media.

The good thing about this situation is that we are in it because the old way is breaking down all around us and energy abounds for supporting structural change. For someone who has been watching and waiting for 40+ years, I am DAMN happy to see such an opportunity for human growth present itself in my lifetime.

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 11, 2018

*****************************************************

I'll add a few other things that may or may not be of interest:

'Who we are, why we're digging: Team probing Syrian war & Skripal poisoning case reveal all', the UK working group on Syria, propaganda, and media, via RT (with this video, 9:26)

[May 15, 2018] This is not 4% of GDP id misleading a more poroet figure is 30 percentof federal tax revenue or each third dollar collected

Or over 50% of the discretionary budget.
From reader comments: If I had my way, I would bring back the draft with NO college deferments. In fact, the sons and daughters of politicians would get called up first. Service in the IDF doesn't count. ... ... "Yes, but expand that. Mandate that we first enlist, train, and promptly deploy any children and grandchildren of all members of Congress, members of the President's Cabinet, federal judges, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the CEOs/CFOs/CIOs etc. of military companies (including Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and their ilk). "
This is a very large "sinecure"
At a deeper level, military forces are agents/enforcers for the elite. Its primary role is the providing expansion and the defense of the interests of the ruling elite against external and internal enemies. Without addressing the dominant social interests in the state, a focus on shringking the military budget is quite inadequate.
May 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Thorfinnsson , May 15, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT

I don't have a problem with 4% of GDP, but I have a big problem with what we're getting for our money.

A quarter million for a four-star general is fine, if the general is any good (almost none of them are by design). In theory a general is equivalent to a division manager in a Fortune 500 company, but COs in the US military have amazingly little power. They're not even free to hire and fire their own subordinates in most cases. So our senior officers are really paid generously to pretend they are great military commanders.

The average SAT score at West Point is only 1340 these days. Prior to the Vietnam War I believe West Point was academically competitive with Ivy League schools, or at least that's what Class of '68 veteran John T. Reed states.

The Naval Academy is 1322 and the Air Force Academy is 1370.

These aren't bad scores, but clearly these officers aren't elite academically.

The enlisted personnel seem adequate in quality thanks to the AFQT, other than women of course. They're overpaid compared to what is available for them in the private sector.

The pension system, in addition to being overly generous, has perverse incentives. As any service-member approaches that magical 20 year mark, any kind of independent thinking must disappear (which the military already does so much to eliminate). Want your fat pension? Better shut up and emulate your COs in every way possible. It should just be replaced with a Thrift Savings Plan (gov't equivalent of a 401k).

One sixth of the force consists of women. Every last one of them subtracts from the efficacy of the military.

One sixth of personnel are officers, which is far too many officers.

Then you have all the unnecessary EO officers, JAGs, and other political commissars.

I don't have an issue with the various recreational perks in the armed forces as they contribute to espirit de corps. The private sector could use more of this, honestly.

The GI Bill is also politically objectionable as we should not be giving money to The Enemy (colleges in this case).

LTDanKaffey , May 15, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
This is the price a mercantile republic pays for an all volunteer fighting force. When you have less than 5% of the population serving in the military and commitments all over the globe, then you need to be prepared to pay for those professional services (yes, the military is a profession like any other). If you're prepared to go back to a draft force, then we can start talking about changes to the pay and benefit system.

Personally, I think service of some kind, be it military or community, ought to be a requirement to vote. Service guarantees citizenship.

ChuckOrloski , May 15, 2018 at 3:06 pm GMT
Calling geokat, U.R. Research Specialist A-1!

Hi geo,

Maybe you can help me on the following ancillary matter? F.y.i., Mighty John Bolton passed on an opportunity to fight LBJ's atrocious war against communism, in Vietnam. As PreZident Trump's present Iranophobe-warmongering N.S.A. Adviser, I tried (but failed) to determine how much pay & "bennies" Bolton now gets from the bottomless Executive Branch feeding trough.

Can you help me here, geo?

ANON [285] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT
@SteveM

Same scam, different tactics. 40 years ago we lived in Annapolis, MD in the lowest tier of a then – New housing development concept. Our cramped townhouses were on the scrabble outer ring.

The most lavish houses were in the inner-ring, on a divided boulevard, extensively landscaped and maintained. At least 3/4 of those homes were owned by "Double-Dippers"– military retirees collecting military retirement pay while employed as civil servants in Federal gov, with defense contractor consulting on the side.

"Thank you for your service,"– in cash, if you please.

The Scalpel , Website May 15, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
@LTDanKaffey

I do not mind community service, but I object to military service and I do not want to vote. Voting gives legitimacy to a system that I oppose. I was born in the geographical area now ruled by the government of the United States of America. Perhaps, LT Dan, you would be in favor of a status such as non-citizen resident. I was born in this area by a quirk of fate, not any choice on my part. I do not usually agree with US government policy, nor do I want the US government to represent me or "protect" me. It would be just for me to pay less taxes since I do not desire and would gladly refuse most of the "services" the government provides, especially those noted in the above article.

E. Rekshun , May 15, 2018 at 3:30 pm GMT
Neither me, my father, my grandfather, nor my great grandmother served in the US Military, but one of the large defense contractors put bread on the table for four generations of my family. My 90-year old grandmother is still collecting my grandfather's pension from that firm and he's been dead for 30 years!
jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 3:47 pm GMT
@Anonymous

US is rich and the debt is high. Both can be true at the same time. But taxes are relatively low so if there is a government debt crisis paying down the debt would just involve raising taxes. Just look at GDP per capita US which is very high up there so I don't see how anyone can argue the US is not a very rich country.

Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who are very good at creating unbeatable new companies .etc., etc., etc .

Thanks for the laughs. You must be of the Maven-Krugman school of debt. You're all wrong, and it's obviously beyond your understanding that though you can fool almost all of the goyim almost all of the time, you can't fool all of us all the time.

However, please do keep trying!

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

AEN, thank you for your fine input, but I suspect you're throwing pearls to swine who don't even want to understand.

Even worse, when they claim that debt is good, they conveniently leave out the part about who it's good for.

We dumb goyim have repeatedly proven ourselves to be pretty easy marks, but some of us have a clue as to who's paying for it all, and its good to know that a few know who that would be, so thanks again.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT
@Verymuchalive

The only thing preventing complete bankruptcy is that the Dollar is the World's Reserve Currency -- for now.

Yup.

And "The Gweatist Generation" fought WW2 to defend worldwide freedom. I guess they forgot about the Bretton-Woods party.

We been had, I think.

RVBlake , May 15, 2018 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh

That was a jolting eye-catcher. So this general still receives a six-figure pension check!? I've often marveled at the moral fiber exhibited by these gilded peacocks, who, when faced with supporting criminal actions by their government, such as invading countries who've done us no harm, click their heels and proceed. Instead of taking an instant retirement, knowing their pensions are secure.

Achmed E. Newman , Website May 15, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@Thomm

AGREED

They'll find out how well a social-experiment disguised as a military force works in a real war with a country that American can't bully around.

LTDanKaffey , May 15, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

Absolutely in favor of a non-resident citizen.

You would still be required to pay some kind of lease or tax for the land which you occupy, but would otherwise be left alone. You would also be subject to the criminal laws of the jurisdiction you occupied. You would also pay taxes for any consumption that requires use of infrastructure or interstate commerce.

The United States is large enough that such an arrangement is still possible.

bjondo , May 15, 2018 at 4:16 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Over 50% of the discretionary budget. Like $$ going to the toxic Yid landfill, we don't know actual amounts.

Stonehands , May 15, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Anonymous

" US spends 4% of GDP on the military versus 2% in China, France, UK. That's high but considering how rich the US is, not unbearable. Weak article "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Every productive dollar that's ever existed has been flushed down the MIC rathole. The whole "budget "is an elaborate ruse to conceal the chains that bind you.
10's of trillions disappear with gleeful approval on a regular basis.

You sound like a typical brainwashed SHYSTER.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
You guys are two of my favorites.

But 405's second paragraph made it seem clear to me that he was trolling.

ohmy , Website May 15, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
Mr. Girard, buon giorno. You must be my elder. In '68 I was paid $96 plus $26 combat pay while in Nam.
Yea, things are out of control. Unfortunately, the store clerk you ran into the other day is representative of how the majority of "we the people" think. Hence, don't expect change anytime soon.
I have been a fan of yours for sometime now. Mostly at NEO, sometimes art Rense. I recently began accessing UNZ and was pleased to see your name in the list of contributors. Sadly I don't predict improvement in the majorities attitude. But, you do fine work, dom't quit just yet. As long as we can keep the internet affordable reality may trickle down. I believe the net is the reason the "fake news" moniker had to be. Sort if like "conspiracy theory". Same party owns both copyrights.
Keep your head up.
Joseph
jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
@Backwoods Bob

Foreign entanglements, searching for monsters to destroy, acting as the world police – this is the main problem.

Yooge problems for sure, but playing Sugar Daddy to Izzie-land is the biggest one of all in terms of dollars as well as moral capital, and it probably dwarfs welfare subsidies to "defense" corporations.

bjondo , May 15, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Love the Wall St innovations and Fed innovations and reasons to go to warssss. Broke the economy while stealing trillions. Did similar to Russia...

WorkingClass , May 15, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
When I joined the U.S. Army in 1965 my starting pay was slightly less than 100 dollars per month. Soldiers then were said to be "in the service". Today they are "in the military". Later in life I realized that I had been "in the service" of evil. Still later I learned that the love of money is the root of evil.

The American Dollar Dies in New York – a Satire from Uganda:

https://russia-insider.com/en/american-dollar-dies-new-york-satire-uganda/ri23421

ohmy , Website May 15, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Verymuchalive

JS, Since Rumsfeld admitted, the day before 911 when he helped murder 30 forensic accountants plus a handful of Naval Investigators, you are 1 of the few I ever heard mention the stolen money. Since the Clinton administration up to 2016 the number is now $21 $Trillions, from just 2 departments.

Check out Catherine Fitts @ solari.com

JackOH , May 15, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
@Backwoods Bob

BB, I personally know a couple who are around seventy, very healthy and active, who have parlayed multiple pension-qualifying careers between them in the armed forces, postal service, teaching, and county government, into astounding lifestyles. Harley motorcycle, Winnebago, big house, weekend cottage, cruises, the whole shebang.

They're very nice people, part of the local Puerto Rican ascendancy, first generation descendants of the Puerto Ricans recruited by the now defunct local steel mills back in the 1950s.

I'm sure it can be said they worked for what they got, but, still . . . you gotta wonder what's going on.

Anon [355] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
These 'hero' armed missionaries also get preferential treatment in state/government hiring.
SteveM , May 15, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Military spending has one virtue, it is constitutional as it fulfills one duty of the FedGov, one it has often shirked, defend the country.

Giraldi can whine all he likes, but the DOD is not an entitlement program, nor does the Pentagon get all it wants. It never has gotten all it wants, no matter how much Giraldi whines to the contrary.

I've never seen such a warped and delusional understanding of the voracious, insatiable, wasteful and corrupt National Security State presented so succinctly

P.S. I have a feeling that War Machine accounts have written Quatermaster a lot of checks over the years. I.e., he knows what side his bread is buttered on.

ohmy , Website May 15, 2018 at 5:00 pm GMT
@anon

anon, tell it like it is. Everyone should also know the debt servce cost to our budget is the interest Americans pay. What's 2% of 20 trillions? 40 billions? IDK l, but it's alot. Well that's the federal reserve *a private corp.) income estimate for the yeat, which the share holders, all 6 of them, pay no income tax.

Thorfinnsson , May 15, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

Still later I learned that the love of money is the root of evil.

No wonder you're WorkingClass .

Mike P , May 15, 2018 at 5:32 pm GMT
@ohmy

Since the Clinton administration up to 2016 the number is now $21 $Trillions, from just 2 departments.

Can you explain to me how that even works, technically? E.g. the DoD is supposed to have "stolen" a lot more money than its entire regular budget – how could they even lay their hands on such sums? What accounts did that money sit in before it was siphoned off, without anyone noticing?

Verymuchalive , May 15, 2018 at 5:33 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh

The US military are the equivalent of the Roman Empire's honestiores, or upper classes. As well as the benefits accruing from service, they had special legal treatment, like being exempt from judicial torture. So Arthur Lichte merely gets part of his pension docked for raping a woman. Nothing to see here , mate, move along. Even someone like Chelsea ( " They call her Natasha, but she looks like Elsie" ) Manning spends a mere 7 years in prison and gets the Defence Department to pay for "gender reassignment".

The point about judicial torture is important as America has recently revived the practice. Would Assange be waterboarded if they got hold of him ? Would he have met a fatal "accident" in custody?

Who knows ? But don't you even think about doing that to an American serviceman, even one as degenerate as Manning.

Jeff77450 , May 15, 2018 at 5:49 pm GMT
I wish pay & benefits had been "out of control" when I was in the army in the 1970s.
Anonymous [862] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

That wasn't a response. It was just name calling. So if you aren't convinced by my rebuttal it's certainly not because you had more intelligent analysis.

Anonymous [862] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

You use a lot of figures but not the appropriate statistics. What do big aggregate numbers like 200k in debt per family really mean?

I look at the percentage of tax revenue v. GDP compared to other first world countries. US is actually on the low side by this measure. That means it's possible to raise taxes and only moderately harm the economic growth engine. And no one has addressed the advantages the US economy has in particular having half of the world's Ashkenazim.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 6:05 pm GMT
@ohmy

Rumsfeld admitted, the day before 911 when he helped murder 30 forensic accountants plus a handful of Naval Investigators,

Thanks, it's nice to know that there are others who are wide awake. Trouble is, even those who have a clue can't even imagine the .0001% of it, I'm sure.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
@Mike P

What accounts did that money sit in before it was siphoned off, without anyone noticing?

We'll probably never know. The system is not exactly designed for transparency, and besides, guess where the missile, errr, "plane" hit the Penta-graft?

Wouldn't it be fun to ask Rummy the Smirking Dummy that question?

I bet this swinish character could provide a bit of insight with a little Nuremberg or Abu Ghraib style info gathering as well, and here's a partial rap sheet

Dov S. Zakheim was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4, 2001. Dr. Zakheim has previously served in a number of key positions in government and private business.

Most recently, he was corporate vice president of System Planning Corp., a technology, research and analysis firm based in Arlington, Va. He also served as chief executive officer of SPC International Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economic consulting. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he served as a senior foreign policy advisor to then-Governor Bush.

From 1985 until March 1987, Dr. Zakheim was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Planning and Resources in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy). In that capacity, he played an active role in the Department's system acquisition and strategic planning processes. Dr. Zakheim held a variety of other DoD posts from 1981 to 1985. Earlier, he was employed by the National Security and International Affairs Division of the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Zakheim has been a participant on a number of government, corporate, non-profit and charitable boards.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Zakheim.html

Charles Pewitt , May 15, 2018 at 6:12 pm GMT
The United States military is a giant jobs program, Giraldi! So what of it! Who cares. Conjure up those dollars out of thin air and let the troops have some loot. Did the Founding Fathers warn us about large standing armies in their writings and actions? Yes.

Did the Founding Fathers know that a large standing army would require a concentrated form of governmental power to collect the loot to pay for that army? Yes.

Did we just pass the 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta? Yes. Was the Magna Carta about standing armies and concentrated government power, among other things?

Were the Founding Fathers somewhat ungrateful to the British Empire for its efforts in the French and Indian War? Yes.

Would the Founding Fathers be surprised to find a Jew billionaire named Shelly Adelson controlling the use of the US military in the Middle East and West Asia? The cynical and smart ones wouldn't be surprised at all.

The GOP has the War budget and the US military and the Democrats have the public schools and many other government workers. The GOP always promises to spend more loot on the War budget and the US military and the Democrats always promise to spend more money on the public schools and other government programs.

Giraldi has written a CLUNKER of a blog post, folks!

Giraldi should write about mass immigration, monetary extremism and the impossibility of paying for the retirement of the baby boomers.

Mass Immigration: DEMOGRAPHY

Monetary Policy: DEBT

Baby Boomers: NATION WRECKERS

The American Empire is soon to go belly up in a manner similar to the upcoming demise of treasonous rat John McCain.

The WASP /JEW ruling class of the American Empire knows this. A pleasant consolation is that China, Japan and Europe are just as badly bankrupt as the American Empire is.

Raise the federal funds rate to 10 percent and implode the American Empire. Young people must no longer be saddled with massive unpayable debt and the unpayable retirement of the baby boomers. Pull the plug on the baby boomers now, and let the young people have a future.

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans will implode also. Use the nuclear deterrent and offshore balancing to keep global peace.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 6:22 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Giraldi can whine all he likes, but the DOD is not an entitlement program, nor does the Pentagon get all it wants.

If it isn't an entitlement program, then what would one look like? Do you know the meaning of "sinecure?"

You can whine about Giraldi all you want but he's right and yer wrong, and thank G-d that the Pantygon doesn't get all it wants. Can you explain whether it should and why?

PS: Read the comments regarding disabilities and retirement bennies and then get back to us.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 6:29 pm GMT
@JackOH

I'm sure it can be said they worked for what they got, but, still . . . you gotta wonder what's going on.

It's not called working, it's called "milking," but still they're pikers compared to the arms merchants, bankers and permanent "victim" crowd.

Rod1963 , May 15, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
@Anon

You really don't want affirmative action nurses looking after anymore than those Bombay specials that the VA hires as doctors. It's not a perk, it's just free.

The VA is a train wreck because of these people. No one wants to say squat because you have to point a finger at all the AA hires and that would get you labeled as a racist.

And oh they are paid, very, very well. The average RN makes over a $100k at the VA. I know private sector nurses who went to work for the VA because of the pay and bennies. Plus you can't get fired.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
@Anonymous

China has been reducing its holdings in US treasuries. What negative effect has this had so far on the US?

US and China kick off talks to avoid a trade war

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/03/news/economy/china-us-trade-talks-beijing-start/index.html

Just a minor coincidence, I'm sure, but stay tuned.

Rod1963 , May 15, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Verymuchalive

You do realize that "waterboarding" is part and parcel of SERE school in the military and has been for a very long time. It's where the Pentagon/CIA got idea of applying to a bunch of sand monkeys.

Anyone who is special ops gets waterboarded so are fighter pilots and the like. The MSM always neglects this fact.

Charles Pewitt , May 15, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
Dov Zakheim is a nasty Neo-Conservative Jew rat, that is widely known. Zakheim was one of the Neo-Conservative rats who helped to drag the US military into the Iraq War debacle. Seems Neo-Conservative rat boy Dov Zakheim also made himself a wealthy rat through his connections to the WASP / JEW ruling class of the American Empire.

But,

Let's not forget nasty Neo-Conservative Jew rat Michael Chertoff and his pal General Michael Hayden. Baby boomers Chertoff and Hayden have made out like bandits from their involvement in the Deep State of the American Empire. I say the baby boomers are an evil generation of nation wreckers. Tweets from 2015:

... ... ...

anon [217] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 6:56 pm GMT
At least half of our military bills should be sent to Israel. Practically all of our wars these days are on their behalf. The other half should be paid by a war tax. All those who support going to "necessary" wars overseas for "humanitarian" reasons or other will pay into this tax, starting with the neocons and the media (not just mainstream liberal media but many right wing neocon mouthpieces like National Review, Breitbart, DailyCaller).

Last but not least, any elected official who votes for or calls for war with any nation, from Trump to Pence, Nikki Haley, John McCain, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo et al. should fork out 100% of their salaries to pay for the war until it ends.

Anonymous [862] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

If you want to prove your point, then come up with a better rebuttal. If you just want to be a dumbass that's fine too.

Anonymous [862] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 7:03 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

What evidence is there that the trade discussion is based on China reducing treasury holdings rather than counter-tariffs on US agricultural goods and potentially in a number of other areas like education services (blocking Chinese families from sending kids to lower ranked US colleges)?

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT

America's Republican politicians complain that "entitlements," by which they mean pensions and medical care, are leading the country to bankruptcy even as they fatten the spending on the Pentagon, which now takes 12 percent of the overall budget.

The US military budget should be $100 billion .do what you can.

L.K , May 15, 2018 at 7:17 pm GMT
@Anonymous

"Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who are very good at creating unbeatable new companies. Just look at how the half the 40 riches entrepreneurs under 40 in the US according to Forbes are Jewish. Jews are producing so much innovation in the US that it offsets a lot of the problems like military spending at 4% of GDP and less productive sub-populations."

buhahHAHAHAHAHA .

another comedian, thanks for the laughs!

Thorfinnsson , May 15, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
@Verymuchalive

Average daily volume in the Treasury market is $500 billion, and the Federal Reserve System is authorized to create unlimited quantities of currency to purchase Treasuries (and other gov't securities) in any case.

This isn't the financial weapon of mass destruction people think it is.

The Chinese themselves know this, which is why they stopped adding to their position and have gradually reduced it.

A more effective strategy would be to focus financial firepower where the Federal Reserve isn't authorized to operate, such as the commercial paper market. Probably Congress itself would then act, but if you can buy enough seats for hard money dweebs you might be able to cause serious trouble.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~sternfin/mkacperc/public_html/commercial.pdf

Sparkon , May 15, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT

I'm sure the Roman Empire had some version of waterboarding.

The Roman Army's form of punishment was known as decimation , a word now commonly used by semi-literates to torture knowledgeable historians, philologists, and wordsmiths, including not a few Baby Boomers , who apparently know a lot more than you, and who also are smart enough to blame the guilty -- and not an entire generation -- for the misdeeds or evil gains of a relatively few assholes.

But I know subtle nuance like that must be difficult to understand for those who can paint -- or splatter -- only with a very broad brush.

ChuckOrloski , May 15, 2018 at 8:08 pm GMT
@Realist

As if remotely possible to do so, Realist recommended:
"The US military budget should be $100 billion .do what you can."

Hi (Sur)Realist,

A question. Above, who would meaningfully tell that to the ZUS Defense Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff, & the military contractors? Sheldon Adelson? Netanyahu? Take heart! I trust Peter Aus will appear & bring your do-gooder passion into practical reality. Thanks, nevertheless!

Verymuchalive , May 15, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT
@Charles Pewitt

You make my point for me.
As I said, Judicial Torture was used on humiliores, and, indeed, in European Inquisitorial Systems until the late C18th and early C19th.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Anonymous

A person or entity whose liabilities outweigh its assets, is not rich.

This is more true when the entity, like the US Fed Gov, has vastly more liabilities than physical assets, let alone readily marketable assets.

The fed gov has promised to pay more each year than it has recently taken in as revenue, and more than it has any realistic hope of generating anytime soon.

The fed gov is in hock more than 20 trillion in the books right now, and over 100 trillion projected forward.

Yeah the fed gov is rich.

Looking at average and median private-household net worth will not make the picture much rosier.

Stop lying or learn math.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 8:19 pm GMT
@Backwoods Bob

Commissaries, gyms, and hair salons on bases in the USA must end.

Pay the soldiers well, but have them live and try to get by in the same economy and world as their employers -- WE THE TAXPAYERS.

Also, require soldiers to live off base and pay their own housing (boosting their cash pay accordingly) OR start counting their housing as taxable income as it would be for the rest of us mere TAXPAYERS.

Charles Pewitt , May 15, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT
Evil baby boomers in Europe, England and the United States have been protected by the monetary extremism of the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank.

It is now time to financially liquidate the evil baby boomer generation. If the Federal Reserve Bank raised the federal funds rate to 10 percent, and the ECB and BoE raised interest rates similarly, the baby boomers in the USA, England and most of Europe would be financially busted. The baby boomers have been the generation that benefited the most from the monetary extremism of the last few decades, and especially since 2008.

The federal funds rate went over 20 percent in 1981, 10 percent now would wipe out the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate. Do it.

The baby boomers are an evil generation of nation-wreckers. Bill Clinton and George W Bush are prime examples of evil globalizer baby boomers.

Realist , May 15, 2018 at 8:24 pm GMT

Above, who would meaningfully tell that to the ZUS Defense Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff, & the military contractors?

A President with balls.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT
@anon

Tough shit that you don't like his tone. We don't like being systematically ripped off and told it's patriotic.

We should start either taxing the military employees' housing allowance OR require them to buy their own housing off-base. I'd be fine with increasing cash salary to make up for it. Let's get an honest number on what their salaries really are and then debate whether they get paid enough.

And by all means let's reform and reduce officer pensions. End this last-three-years calculation and require more than 20 years "service" to get half or more of one's salary as pension. They are desk jobs and they can and should work at least, say, THIRTY years before being able to retire st that level of pension and work elsewhere.

Military is a wasteful fraudulent untrustworthy bureaucracy like any other in the fed gov -- or worse because they get a free pass from a lot of people.

Thorfinnsson , May 15, 2018 at 8:42 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

The oil and gas resources alone owned by the federal government are worth some $200 trillion. Then there's the fact that the taxing authority of the federal government makes any fiscal deficit a matter of choice to begin with.

ChuckOrloski , May 15, 2018 at 8:46 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

Hi Jacques Sheete,

Am fairly sure you know about Donald Rumsfeld early political career, including his special assignment as an ambitious congressman, & on behalf of the A.Z.C.

If not, below I link ZUS Defense Secretary "Shit Happens" treasonous letter to Robert F. Kennedy.

http://www.israellobby.org/AZCDOJ/congress/default.asp

Be well, Jacques. Thanks!

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 8:46 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

And we need Russian equipment to get into space these days, apparently. That would be troublesome even if Russia were an ally, as perhaps they should be.

It's worse when our gov chooses to slander, threaten, sanction, and encircle the country on whom we are relying.

Imagine China refusing to sell us what we need AND Russia refusing to let us use or buy its space equipment.

For that matter, there's so much demand for oil and natural gas in India and China -- likely to keep increasing, too -- Russia eventually may be able to say "we will sell to anyone EXCEPT companies and facilities in the USA, and anyone caught reselling to the USA will join them on the blacklist." If Iran and, say, Venezuela or Nigeria did the same, watch out.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Deliberate dishonest distraction. Whether the DOD got as much as it wanted, it gets much more than our actual defense requires, and the people on the gravy train know it.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 9:12 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

The fact that defense is a specifically enumerated duty and power of the fed government, has nothing to do with the proper amount to spend on that function.

Money spent attacking countries that are not attacking us here in the USA, are not preparing for imminent attack on us here in the USA, and are not aiding those who are attacking or preparing to imminently attack us here in the USA is NOT part of that legitimate constitutional function.

Same with money spent defending Israel or Saudi Arabia, helping the saudis kill Yemenis in Yemen, helping islamists or anyone else overthrow the gov of Syria, etc.

Same with money spent defending (or controlling) Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, etc.

Calling that "whining" is not an argument. It suggests that you lack an honest, logical argument on this issue.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@Andele

The threat is the Mexicans we have allowed in, not any credible military threat from Mexico's armed forces.

Our military should be posted on the entire southern border with orders to kill all invaders who do not heed warnings to turn back. Add a minefield, barbed wire fencing where absent, and armed drones.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 9:17 pm GMT
@SteveM

He's a double-dipper with gov pensions. Double dipped in bullshit, apparently.

J.Ross , Website May 15, 2018 at 9:30 pm GMT
@Anon

The clothing allowance is for purchase, upkeep, and repair of uniforms. There is a bureaucratic mindset of having things clearly laid out which guarantees a lot of this spending, especially when the time preferences of new enlistees bears out the wisdom of having a specially set aside and clearly labeled clothing allowance. Many good critics with detailed grievamces skip over the governmental addiction to trying to solve reality with longer and longer rulebooks.

ChuckOrloski , May 15, 2018 at 9:47 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

Radical Center proposed: "Russia eventually may be able to say "we will sell to anyone EXCEPT companies and facilities in the USA, and anyone caught reselling to the USA will join them on the blacklist."

Hi Radical Center,

Speaking with utmost respect for your typical sound-thought, have you ever approached the issue from the Globalist's (ideal) "Radical Center" perspective where the planet's economic & military Superpowers decide how crude oil & natural gas sale & distribution is done?

A very serious "thanks," R.C.!

Per/Norway , May 15, 2018 at 10:05 pm GMT
@TheBoom

sad but true.

ChuckOrloski , May 15, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

Radical Center opined: "Our military should be posted on the entire southern border with orders to kill all invaders who do not heed warnings to turn back."

Hi Radical Center,

The biggest problem I have with the solution (above) is your having used, in error, the words, "Our military."

Were that the actual case, Jewish Lobbies, billionaire ZUS Jews, Congress, & PreZident Trump would be very pissed at Mr. Giraldi's for provocatively having the gall to use the description, "American military" in his article title.

Thanks again, Radical Center. By increment, you are getting there! So please simply consider dropping the word "Our"?

Like one of the Maven Shama's "old grey mares, "That ain't what it used to be."

anarchyst , May 15, 2018 at 10:49 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh

There are two standards one for enlisted personnel and the other for officers. During the Grenada situation some enlisted personnel and officers were caught attempting to ship captured AK-47 rifles back to the states. The enlisted personnel got "hard time" in Leavenworth while the officers got "letters of reprimand". Double standard, indeed.
I might have made the military a career, but the disparities in both facilities and treatment of officers vs. enlisted was a real turn-off. I completed my enlistment honorably and returned to civilian life.
It is my humble opinion (and personal observation) that the commissioned officer rank structure where there is concern for the enlisted troops ends with the rank of colonel. The general staff is more akin to political office than it is to serving in the military and taking care of their military subordinates.
As to "pay and allowances", when I was active duty (1969-1971) it was not much. In fact, at the time, those of us in uniform were looked down upon and blamed for the prosecution of the Vietnam conflict. Not only that, legislated job programs that were supposed to go to us Vietnam veterans never materialized.
Yes, the all-volunteer forced made it necessary to increase "pay and allowances" to relatively attractive levels.
If I had my way, I would bring back the draft with NO college deferments. In fact, the sons and daughters of politicians would get called up first. Service in the IDF doesn't count.

anarchyst , May 15, 2018 at 10:54 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

You are correct. The rest of the world that falls under the USA "defense umbrella" can afford extravagant social programs as they do not pay for their defense. In fact, WE are required to pay rent on foreign bases in which to place our troops.
If I had my way, all foreign troop deployments would stop. Those countries requesting our "protection" would have to pay for it.
Seems to me, that was one of President Trump's campaign promises–making foreign countries pay for their defense.

Rurik , May 15, 2018 at 10:59 pm GMT
@TheBoom

sad but true

Johnr , May 15, 2018 at 11:11 pm GMT
You sir are an American hating leftist. The military, until the left decided it was the government's job to provide cradel to grave care for everyone accounted for more than 75 percent of the federal budget. To complain that the military consumes 12 of the budget while Medicaid consumes 50 percent is a straw man. Having been an infantry man I can tell you that anyone who can do 20 or 30 years deserves a life long pension. Being a man is hard on the body.
JackOH , May 15, 2018 at 11:16 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

He's currently a court bailiff, a patronage job here, earning maybe in the low $30s. Plus, his 20-year Army pension, plus his 20+-year postal service pension. He's a high school grad. His wife is fully retired with a 20-year Army pension, and a teacher's pension with about 20 years in.

I'll take a wild guess their retirement income is no less than $100,000 a year in my very low-cost area.

A go-figure sort of deal. Not just double-dipping. More than that, as you and other folks here have said. It's a mentality, a mind-set. For some of the worst of those high-salary government folks, there are only three types of Americans: Bill Gates and other billionaires, government workers, and Americans who are too stupid to find a corporate or government milch cow.

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 11:18 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

You're right, of course. These days I try to always write and say "the US government" rather than "OUR government." I should have done the same with "US military."

RadicalCenter , May 15, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT
@anarchyst

Yes, but expand that.

Mandate that we first enlist, train, and promptly deploy any children and grandchildren of all members of Congress, members of the President's Cabinet, federal judges, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the CEOs/CFOs/CIOs etc. of military companies (including Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and their ilk).

I'd support enacting such a requirement today.

[May 15, 2018] The Ruinously Expensive American Military by Philip Giraldi

Looks like US military belong to the privileged class like it was in late Roman empire
Notable quotes:
"... This why career servicemen love the military, they are making 2-3 times more than comparable civilians, and they know it! Read my article if you are confused. Then many of these "retirees" leave at age 40 with nice retirement, then get a regular federal job, and put in for every minor ache and pain and get a thousand or more dollars each month in VA tax free "disability" pay. Sleep Apnea (aka snoring) is a popular disability to claim worth up to 50%. Some get 100% disability but you wouldn't know it if you met them, and still work for Uncle Sam full time! The LA Times reported that after Senator John McCain announced he was fit to run for President, he was getting military retirement, 100% tax free VA disability, his Senator pay and social security retirement! ..."
"... For me the pay and benefits aren't the core problem. We are paying to destabilize the world, kill US citizens, kill civilians, increase terror all for wars that don't benefit the American citizenry as a whole in any way. ..."
May 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Today's United States has 2,083,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen on active duty plus reserves. Now that the military is an all-volunteer rather than a conscript force, it is understandable that pay and benefits should be close to or equivalent to civilian pay scales. Currently, a sergeant first class with 10 years in service gets paid $3968 a month. A captain with ten years gets $6271. That amounts to $47,616 and $75,252 a year respectively plus healthcare, food, housing, cost of living increases and bonuses to include combat pay.

Though there are several options for retirement, generally speaking a soldier, sailor Marine or airman can retire after 20 years with half of his or her final "high three" pay as a pension, which means an 18-year-old who enlists right out of high school will be 38 and if he or she makes sergeant first class (E-7) he or she will be collecting $2338 a month or more for a rest of his or her life adjusted for cost of living,

Many Americans would be astonished at the pensions that general officers and admirals receive, particularly since 80% of them also land in "retirement" generously remunerated positions with defense contractors either in active positions soliciting new contracts from their former peers or sitting on boards. General David Petraeus, whom The Nation describes as the "general who lost two wars," pulls in a pension of $220,000 even though he was forced to resign as CIA Director due to passing classified information to his mistress. He is also chairman of a New York City based company KKR Global, which is part of a private equity firm Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts. He reportedly is paid in six figures plus bonuses for "oversee[ing] the institute's thought leadership platform focused on geopolitical and macro-economic trends, as well as environmental, social, and governance issues."

It apparently is difficult to take money away from general and flag officers. An Air Force four-star general named Arthur Lichte was reduced in rank to a two-star in 2017 after he was found guilty of having raped a lower ranking woman officer. His pension went down from $216,000 to $156,000 due to the reduction. Normally, however, America's 1,000 general and flag officers can look forward to comfortable retirements.

But on top of that rather generous bit of cash there are the considerable other benefits, as the old recruiting sergeants would put it, the "bennies." Military retirees can receive full tuition and expenses at a college or technical school if they choose to go back to school. This is why one sees so many ads for online universities on television – they are trolling for soldier dollars knowing that it's free money. The retiree will also have access to heavily subsidized medical care for him or herself plus family. The medical care is a significant bonus under the Tricare system, which describes itself on its website as "the gold standard for medical coverage, [that] is government managed health insurance." A friend who is retired recently had a hip replacement operation that would have cost $39,000 for only a few hundred dollars through Tricare.

What is significant is that even enlisted military personnel can start a second career on top of their pension, given that many of them are still in their thirties. Some that have security clearances can jump into highly paid jobs with defense contractors immediately while others also find places in the bureaucracy with the Department of Homeland Security. Working for the government twice is called "double dipping."

Some would argue that military personnel deserve what they get because the jobs are by their very nature dangerous, sometimes fatal. Indeed, the number of maimed and PTSD-afflicted soldiers returning from the endless wars is a national tragedy and caring for them should be a top priority. But the truth is that only a very small fraction, by some estimates far less than 20% of Army and Marine personnel in so-called "combat arms," ever are in danger. Air Force and Navy personnel rarely experience combat at all apart from bombing targets far below or launching cruise missiles against Syrians. It is true that given the volatile nature of war against insurgents in places like Afghanistan many soldiers in support roles can come under fire, but it is far from normal and most men and women in service never experience a gun fired in anger.

Some numbers-crunchers in the Pentagon have already raised the alarm that the current pay, benefits and retirement levels for military personnel is unsustainable if the United States continues its worldwide mission against terrorists and allegedly rogue regimes. And it is also unsustainable if the U.S. seeks to return to a constitutional arrangement whereby the nation is actually defended by its military, not subordinated to it and being bankrupted by its costs.

Thomm , May 15, 2018 at 4:25 am GMT

Wait, so this is a lefty Democrat blog now, where The Nation is cited favorably?

Our men in uniform, particularly the grunts, make sacrifices that the others don't make. Sure, some officers are corrupt and the military manages to manufacture demand for its expensive products, but this article goes way too far.

Anonymous [123] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 4:41 am GMT
US spends 4% of GDP on the military versus 2% in China, France, UK. That's high but considering how rich the US is, not unbearable. Weak article.
Cloak And Dagger , May 15, 2018 at 4:45 am GMT
This is how Rome fell.
Carlton Meyer , Website May 15, 2018 at 4:53 am GMT
Captains with just eight years in service rake in over $100,000 a year with nothing more than a four-year degree in history! Senior enlisted can also make over $100,000 a year with a high school diploma, plus free family health care and zero contributions to retirement. After just four years of service, a married GI is making more than the average American college graduate with 20 years of work experience! I wrote about this several years ago for those who still fall for the draft era "poor GI myth".

http://www.g2mil.com/pay.htm

Note our military spends billions of dollars on recruiting ads, but never mentions high pay. If they did, Congress may end the annual pay boost and lines would form at recruiting stations. Even most "experts" and reporters are confused because military lobbyists use the inflated ECI index (which includes increased health care and workers comp costs) rather than just wages, and pretend housing and food allowances are not income. Even the average military pilot earns twice a much as the average airline pilot, based on facts not Pentagon spin stories.

This why career servicemen love the military, they are making 2-3 times more than comparable civilians, and they know it! Read my article if you are confused. Then many of these "retirees" leave at age 40 with nice retirement, then get a regular federal job, and put in for every minor ache and pain and get a thousand or more dollars each month in VA tax free "disability" pay. Sleep Apnea (aka snoring) is a popular disability to claim worth up to 50%. Some get 100% disability but you wouldn't know it if you met them, and still work for Uncle Sam full time! The LA Times reported that after Senator John McCain announced he was fit to run for President, he was getting military retirement, 100% tax free VA disability, his Senator pay and social security retirement!

Now before some ignorant servicemen whine about those serving in combat zones or deployed on ships, note that fewer than 10% of GIs ever serve in a real combat zone, not the fake ones like Bahrain. They rate their pay, but not those working soft office jobs in Hawaii or San Diego or Florida. Keep in mind that we have a volunteer force, and our military must constant prune the career force since far too many want to stay in as long as possible. No one leaves because of poor pay, but because of political BS.

Dan Hayes , May 15, 2018 at 5:28 am GMT
@Thomm

Thomm:

I usually share your disdain for The Nation magazine. But in the vein of stopped clock correctness twice a day even it can sometimes be correct, witness its editor Steve Cohen's completely admirable efforts to lend sanity and substance to America's Russian foreign policy!

Backwoods Bob , May 15, 2018 at 6:42 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

I've seen articles decrying that first-year married privates are eligible for food stamps. Because their housing, medical, and the cost of living differential are not "income". They're living on more than twice the reported income. So yeah, they have arranged the pay precisely so that they are not subject to any income tax, and are in some cases eligible for food stamps.

They have rec vehicles they can check out, boats and four-wheelers, snowmobiles and etc., special parks and land reservations, scenic cabins they can stay at with trifling fees or are free. Ours has a golf course that must be staggering for upkeep. Gyms, facilities for parties and events – stuff you'd pay a lot for in the private sector. The subsidized shopping is still there, but is not the huge discount it was at one time, at the bases in this state.

The state gives them all kinds of benefits like instant residency for hunting and fishing. The stores give them discounts. Military appreciation days.

And frankly it isn't your STEM people, business and tech fields going into the military. Their next best alternatives are a pittance by comparison. For who you are getting, the quality of recruit, this is well paid.

I don't mind that so much as having three times the size we need to defend our borders, which is what we should be doing and no more. Foreign entanglements, searching for monsters to destroy, acting as the world police – this is the main problem.

CalDre , May 15, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
@Anonymous

4% of GDP, is it? Not sure about that but I do know it's 30% of federal tax revenue. Military spending is about $1 trillion, if you include all the various categories , per annum; whereas Federal receipts are about $3.3 trillion per annum.

So about 30% of all Federal tax receipts – 30% of the money stolen from me at gunpoint, which forces me to labor for months every year without pay – goes to corrupt contractors, murderers and war criminals to oppress and murder people and destroy property throughout the world in service to the Evil Empire, including, of course, Jew supremacist Israel.

So since you think it's so "bearable", you Evil Empire supporter, why don't you kindly give me back my 1 month of stolen labor every year to pay for your beloved Evil Empire's perpetual Campaign of Death, Oppression and Destruction?

LondonBob , May 15, 2018 at 7:19 am GMT
@Anonymous

Clearly is if you look at your debt to GDP and deficit.

Interesting because the US has its history as part of the English tradition of no standing armies, militias, all possible due to the favourable geography of having a strip of water, or moat as Shakespeare put it, to deter potential invaders. The US military really is a WWII and Cold War creation. That the US seems to be the only nation not have benefited from the end of the cold war dividend in reduced military spending is an impressive feat by lobbyists and neocon ideologues.

TheBoom , May 15, 2018 at 7:44 am GMT
For me the pay and benefits aren't the core problem. We are paying to destabilize the world, kill US citizens, kill civilians, increase terror all for wars that don't benefit the American citizenry as a whole in any way. At one time they might have been for corporations now they are for Israel.
Verymuchalive , May 15, 2018 at 8:22 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

You're spot on. By the Late Roman Empire, society was divided into 2 groups – the humiliores ( lower classes ) and the honestiores ( upper classes ). Soldiers belonged to the latter group, and most historians consider that the common soldier never had a higher status in any society.

History doesn't repeat itself exactly, but modern day America has largely followed the Roman route. Certainly, the sheer cost of the Roman Military was a factor in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The Roman soldier had a much more dangerous period of military service than the risk averse modern American military. Roman veterans certainly earned their benefits.

myself , May 15, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
One thing worth wondering about is:

What is the real "defense burden" (the percentage of our GDP spent on the military) sans bullshit accounting tricks and "reclassification" of expenses.

For example, if we used accounting methods as used in some of the more efficient, less bloated military establishments of our allies, what would be the actual cost to our economy of our defense spending?

For all we know, military expenditures may actually be back to Reagan Cold War percentage levels, or slightly more.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 9:27 am GMT
Article didn't mention the dependency allowance. I looked on military websites to find the amount but you have to be registered military to find the amount

There is a clothing allowance, why? And the military is heavily affirmative action Hispanic black and female I live near a big VA. Twice a day hundreds of VA employees drive right past my house. Almost all are black. I drive through the VA often. Most everyone I see is black except for the Indian immigrant Drs.

California vets get some kind of no down payment low interest mortgage. When they retire they can get a loan for $50,000 to use for setting up a business or buying rental property.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 10:40 am GMT
@Thomm

Our men in uniform, particularly the grunts, make sacrifices that the others don't make.

Based on my experience as a young kid, and observations as an old fart, I call BS on that unless "sacrifice" has acquired a new meaning on the street that I'm unaware of.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT
@Anonymous

US spends 4% of GDP on the military versus 2% in China, France, UK. That's high but considering how rich the US is, not unbearable. Weak article.

The US is rich? Living on borrowed, stolen and extorted money and we're rich? The US has become a huge third world strip mall republic, complete with an overstuffed and parasitic military, and you think we're rich?The whole murderous,mendacious, thieving, and morally and financially bankrupt enterprise is poor by any significant measure, so your "reasoning" is what's weak.

jacques sheete , May 15, 2018 at 10:56 am GMT
Rank 'Ol Rummie spoke the truth once and it happened one day before the towers were pulled.

Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon

"The adversary is closer to home; it's the Pentagon bureaucracy "

- Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001

PS: For those who don't know where the missile, err, "plane" hit the Pentagon on 9/11, do a tad of research and tell me, with a straight face, that it was some coincidence.

Verymuchalive , May 15, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT
@jacques sheete

Federal Debt $20 trillion, Accumulated Balance of Trade Deficit since 1990 $12 trillion ( unadjusted for inflation ). That's not even including State and Local Debt, never mind Private Debt.
The only thing preventing complete bankruptcy is that the Dollar is the World's Reserve Currency- for now. Once China and others start dumping US Treasury Bonds, that will be over.

Tbbh , May 15, 2018 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Backwoods Bob

Two of my friends own motorcycle dealerships in San Antonio. Gee. I wonder how they can sell so many, compared to dealers in towns without major military bases

Tbbh , May 15, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
@myself

We spend more than the next ten nations, COMBINED. To "defend ourselves" from goat herders that can't afford passports or air tickets. 800 bases scattered across the planet. But, thinking about it, folks like somalians have been invading the US OH. WAIT! Federal refugee programs have been importing somalis. NEVER MIND.

We fight them there so we can bring them here and put them on welfare/food stamps? Makes perfect sense.

DanFromCt , May 15, 2018 at 12:08 pm GMT
I was in the field and in a number of firefights during my year in Vietnam, 69 – 70, and I find the idea of some store or VA clerk thanking me for my service offensive as all get out because I know these well meaning strangers, who owe me nothing at all, are being played for fools to serve the interests of America's worst enemy, Israel and its American fifth column. I'm also disgusted by this new breed of soldier who's less any sort of manly patriot than a skin-headed, "muh brothers, muh mission" wind-up martinet who mistakes the vain daintiness of pumping iron as well as technical superiority's easy targets for manliness. As for the Pentagon, it's the mother of all bureaucracies whose leaders but for the costumes are no more warriors than the time-serving hacks in any other bloated bureaucracy, who couldn't care less, as the facts make clear, about sending young Americans to die and be maimed so the sons of their Israeli masters need not.
The Alarmist , May 15, 2018 at 12:12 pm GMT
I used to feel smug after jumping from the US military to banking in the knowledge that my starting pay was several multiples of my military pay and even outstripped that of the JCS heads who I served under.

Somewhere along the way, probably in the 2000s during the so-called War for Talent, Federal civilian and military pay got a significant uptick well in excess of what the KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, & Abilities) of these folks as measured by OPM and DoD, and there has been no looking back.

Giraldi might be right that the troops are overpaid, but that is just the tip of the iceberg that is the Military Industrial Security Academic Complex.

anon [846] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
Defense spending is allegedly 3.6% of GDP ($700B / $19,000B) but is actually over 5% if you factor in the hidden Defense spending. VA benefits, over $100B, nuclear arsenal covered under Dept of Energy (my favorite) over $30B, Defense portion of debt service over $100B, and other places that I'd have to dig up.

Defense spending is over 30% of the budget, the low ball 15% is only if you include social security and medicare which you should not because that is covered by dedicated payroll taxes. If payroll taxes were eliminated, those programs would go away but the budget deficit would not be impacted. This is a trick that defense consultants play to make Defense spending look smaller.

Defense spending is over 50% if you also discount our annual debt service, this is why the $1.3T featured $600B for domestic vs $700B for Defense.

I thought that singling out military pay was a tad mean spirited. Capping pensions that disproportionately benefit Generals who then go onto consulting jobs for Defense contractors and get paid positions on FOX might be a good idea but I didn't like the tone of this column.

No serious person who says they care about budget deficits can approach them without looking at Defense Spending.
- Chris Chuba

Johann , May 15, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT
One of the disturbing actions of the soldier worshipping conservatives is the Wounded Warrior scam which uses crippled and deformed GIs in ads aimed at the heartstrings of the American public. The fact that so many soldiers are returning from useless wars in dire condition should be the responsibility of the Department of Defense (War) and its Government which is responsible for the mayhem and violence in so many parts of the world not a subject for organized begging which often preys on the suffering of the young.
ChuckOrloski , May 15, 2018 at 12:44 pm GMT
Re; Mr. Giraldi's brave & unspoken words: "(ZUS military) Pay and benefits are way out of control"

With a long history of planning & implementation, below, presstv explains how radical "citizens" were headhunted & placed in control as to when & how our hallowed ZUS troop commanders do their Jewish job assignments.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/05/15/561763/Israel-gained-control-over-US-foreign-policy-by-placing-citizens-in-key-positions

Anonymous [405] Disclaimer , May 15, 2018 at 12:45 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

US is rich and the debt is high. Both can be true at the same time. But taxes are relatively low so if there is a government debt crisis paying down the debt would just involve raising taxes. Just look at GDP per capita US which is very high up there so I don't see how anyone can argue the US is not a very rich country.

Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who are very good at creating unbeatable new companies. Just look at how the half the 40 riches entrepreneurs under 40 in the US according to Forbes are Jewish. Jews are producing so much innovation in the US that it offsets a lot of the problems like military spending at 4% of GDP and less productive sub-populations.

JackOH , May 15, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
Good article, Phil. I served in the 1970s, tail end of Vietnam Stateside, and never heard a shot fired in anger. I am grateful for the G. I. benefits I received.

No institution in a representative democracy ought to be above measured criticism. I have a relative who volunteers at the local VA clinic, and there's some sketchy evidence that some patients with very good group health insurance benefits are working the system and getting VA treatment to avoid co-pays.

I personally found David Hackworth's criticism of the American military fairly persuasive. Deep bureaucratization, tunnel vision, advancing officers for their inoffensiveness and favor-currying chops, the whole mess.

Plus add the big three already mentioned by some folks above. (1) America's armed forces are a Petri dish for social engineering, (2) corruption, (3) the political mafia-zation of America's armed forces so that it's acting as a White House-directed quasi-mercenary "enforcer" for corporate interests and various other sovereign interests.

Tom Welsh , May 15, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
"An Air Force four-star general named Arthur Lichte was reduced in rank to a two-star in 2017 after he was found guilty of having raped a lower ranking woman officer".

You say he was ***reduced in rank*** for raping a female subordinate?

Why wasn't he given 50 lashes, a dishonourable discharge, and a prison sentence? Even a random civilian would get the prison sentence for rape. And for such a senior officer to commit a crime like that is, of course far, far worse.

DESERT FOX , May 15, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
Israel and their ziocons control every facet of the U.S. gov and have used the U.S. army as a proxy army of Israel to fight and die for Israel in the ME while they sit it out in their ivory towers in Tel Aviv and New York City and London.

To add to the tragedy millions of civilians have been killed in these wars for Israel in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Syria and Yemen and various other places through out the ME, and all of this carnage for Israel.

Just like the Roman empire where the rulers paraded their conquering armies through Rome , Trump wants to parade his Israeli proxy armies through D.C. and take their review as a Caligula. Trump is a puppet of the zionists and Netanyahu and his controllers the ROTHCHILDS ie the RED SHIELD which is dripping with Americans blood.

Orwell was right, the wars never end in OCEANIA and we have become Oceania, and all because of our zionist masters.

Achmed E. Newman , Website May 15, 2018 at 1:33 pm GMT
That was a very good article with lots of facts that I was unaware regarding the various forms of compensation. I have not been in the miltary. I will tell you that I have seen how things work on the procurement end, and that is the real shitshow, moneywise. The amount of wasted money in personnel involved in trying to micromanage a contractor, the "generation" of paperwork that must weigh 10X vehicle max-gross-weight in order to sign off on it, and other things, ruin the job for the technician or engineer in any company making stuff for the US military.

It's very easy to spend other people's money. Everyone besides Socialists and Commies probably learned all that during his kindergarten years .

(BTW, that last sentence of mine brought up the only one (little tiny) thing that I didn't like about the article. You KEEP USING "his and her", "he and she", etc. Enough of that crap, please, Mr. Giraldi. Unz is one of a number of place on-line on which one doesn't have to be PC. He can write as he pleases. The rest of your English is very professional, so why this?).

Anyway, great article, just the facts and honest opinion without any hyperbole. Regarding your very last paragraph, BTW, it's not just that the army is so costly, but if America ever had to defend itself from one of the countries we buy parts from, cough, China , cough, cough, that'll be a laugh. We are operating on borrowed money, as Jack S (#16) stated, AND foreign supply lines. We're number 1! Yeah!

Achmed E. Newman , Website May 15, 2018 at 1:45 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Among the lots of good comments on the thread so far, yours is kind of an outlier, to put it nicely. No, you cannot be both rich and in debt (6 – 7 X more than your yearly income) at the same time. . There are perhaps different definitions of broke that people or families may use for themselves.

1) Out of spending cash – got assets, but awaiting more income before any spending can resume. That's not too bad – it just shows lack of foresight or bad luck.

2) Broke even – got some assets, but owe the same amount – income is about the same as expenditures expected. There are lots like this – they need to buckle down, but will probably be OK.

3) Flat broke – can't borrow anymore due to bad payment history, even to friends and family – not enough income to pay expenditures or even on this.

4) Broke like the US Feral Government – borrowing 1/3 of the money for the $4,000,000,000,000 budget each year, as only 2/3 can be collected via personal income/corporate income/excise/etc. taxes (just look near the back of the IRS 1040 instructions – they're not hiding this stuff). Total debt of $20,000,000,000,000 is 5 X the budget each year and 6-7 X the income collected yearly. It is > 100 % of the total GDP. There is no coming out of this hole without financial pain for almost everyone but those with a Challenger or other large/medium-cabin business jet with precious metals stashed on an island or S. American/Oriental country with a runway on your compound with armed guards.

Just raise taxes? Fuck you too.

SteveM , May 15, 2018 at 2:09 pm GMT
@Thomm

Sure, some officers are corrupt

"some"? Har-Dee-Har-Har. What percentage of people who separate from the military claim a "service related disability"? With that designation they not only get the retirement benefit bump but also set-asides for government jobs and contracts as well. Based on the number of service related disability claims by veterans, the United States must have the most physically fragile fighting force on the planet.

And in this age of stupid perpetual wars, every "disabled veteran" is assumed have been shot up in the Middle East when if fact it's more likely they tripped on the steps on the way back from lunch at Fort Leavenworth. That erroneous assumption of a combat related disability is great for milking benefits from a sympathetic public.

And there's more. Sleep apnea claims as a service related disability by veterans have exploded. Same with PTSD.

https://www.veteranslawblog.org/sleep-apnea-va-disability-rating/

https://www.disabilitysecrets.com/resources/disability/veterans-disability/make-ptsd-claim-va.htm

The web is saturated with advice on how to game the military disability system.

A vet I knew laughed as he told me he got a disability award for his knee. Only that injury came from playing too much basketball at his U.S. base. Another "disabled veteran" I know does Cross Fit to stay in shape. His most dangerous deployment was to southern Europe where he met his wife. And yes, he advertises his disability on his business web site and does qualify for government contract set-asides.

Too bad for the taxpayers though. Since the military has been sanctified by the powerful Pentagon/MSM "Warrior-Hero" propaganda engine, challenging out of control military benefits is a political and social third rail.

SteveM , May 15, 2018 at 2:09 pm GMT
@Thomm

The web is saturated with advice on how to game the military disability system.

A vet I knew laughed as he told me he got a disability award for his knee. Only that injury came from playing too much basketball at his U.S. base. Another "disabled veteran" I know does Cross Fit to stay in shape. His most dangerous deployment was to southern Europe where he met his wife. And yes, he advertises his disability on his business web site and does qualify for government contract set-asides.

Too bad for the taxpayers though. Since the military has been sanctified by the powerful Pentagon/MSM "Warrior-Hero" propaganda engine, challenging out of control military benefits is a political and social third rail.

[May 15, 2018] Haley s Embarrassing Defense of the Gaza Massacre by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. ..."
May 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Nikki Haley's response to yesterday's massacre in Gaza is to engage in whataboutism:

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley slams Iran's "destabilizing conduct" amid Gaza protests https://t.co/QtArrPbJOq https://t.co/gC1niZnMiK

-- CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) May 15, 2018

The Trump administration's Iran obsession would almost be comical if it didn't have such a dangerous distorting effect on our foreign policy. Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. Whether she is busy whitewashing Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen or running interference for Israel after it massacres over 60 people, Haley's m.o. is to change the subject.

Haley also risibly claimed that Israel was acting with restraint yesterday:

"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today suggest they would be much less restrained," she said.

The ambassador's claim is absurd on its face, and it is an insult to the dozens of democratic states around the world that do not behave this way. Haley also ignores that there are no other states in the world that keep millions of people trapped in a blockaded enclave as Israel does with the inhabitants of Gaza. Not only would the vast majority of democratic governments not act as Israel's government has acted over the last few weeks, but none would have any need to confront massive protests from a population that has been deliberately starved and impoverished for more than a decade. The excessively violent response to the Gaza protests calls attention to the cruel policy of collective punishment imposed on all of the people living in Gaza, and there is no excuse for either of them.

[May 14, 2018] In an ongoing operation, the US imperialist hawks seek to wipe out the last Leftist govements in LA

May 14, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

In an ongoing operation, the US imperialist hawks seek to wipe out the last Leftist governments in Latin America Ten years ago, most of Latin America was governed by Center-Left progressive or even Leftist governments. For example, Cristina Fernandez in Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, and Lula da Silva in Brazil, just as an example. And Hugo Chavez, of course, in Venezuela. Since then, the so-called 'pink tide' has receded quite dramatically. Of these 10 governments that were Left of Center, only four remain. Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Vazquez in Uruguay, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. What happened? Some would argue that the US played an important role in at least some of these changes.

globinfo freexchange

Speaking to Greg Wilpert and the RealNews , Mark Weisbrot explains the impact of the Leftist or Center-Left governments on Latin America, as well as the US efforts to overthrow these governments and replace them by Rright-Wing puppet regimes. This is a struggle that has become common in a region that heavily suffers for decades by the US dirty interventions as it is considered the backyard of the US empire and the primary colonial field for the big US corporations:

If you look at the region as a whole, the poverty rate dropped from 44 to 28 percent. That was from around 2003-2013. And that was after the two decades prior where poverty had actually increased, there was no progress at all. So that was a huge change, and it was accomplished in different countries, in different ways.

There were large increases in public investment in Bolivia and Ecuador. In Brazil you had also some increase in public investment, big increases in the minimum wage. Every country did different things to help bring healthcare, and increase, in some countries, access to education. And there were a whole lot of reforms, changes in macroeconomic policy, getting rid of the IMF.

So there were a lot of different things that these governments did that prior governments were either unable, or unwilling to do to improve people's living standards during a period of higher economic growth, which they also contributed to.

When Right-Wing governments took over most of the continent you have different things that have changed.

One is, of course, they're implementing, as you would expect, Right-Wing reforms. Trying to cut pension system, the pension in Brazil. Passing a constitutional amendment which, even most economists in the world wouldn't support in Brazil, which prohibits the government from increasing spending beyond the rate of inflation. You have huge increases in utility prices in Argentina, laying off thousands of public sector workers. So, everywhere where the Right has come back, you do have some regressive changes.

The US has been involved in most of these countries in various ways. Obviously in Venezuela they've been involved since the coup in 2002, and they tried to overthrow the government and tried to help people topple the government on several occasions there.

In Brazil, they supported the coup against Dilma, the parliamentary coup. So, they didn't do that strongly, but they sent enough signals, for example, as the House was voting to impeach Dilma without actually presenting a crime that she committed. The head of the Foreign Relations Committee from the Senate came and met with the No3 official from the US State Department, Tom Shannon. And then, in August of that year, the Secretary of State, John Kerry, went down there and had a press conference with the Acting Foreign Minister, Jose Serra. And they talked about how great relations with the US were going to be before Dilma was actually removed from office. So these were ways of endorsing the coup.

The FBI, the Department of Justice contributed to the investigation that was instrumental in imprisoning Lula. What they did in that investigation we don't know exactly, but we do know enough about it to know that it wasn't a neutral investigation. That is, the investigation did end up decapitating the Workers' Party for now. First helping get rid of Dilma, but more importantly, or more substantially, in terms of its contribution, they helped put Lula in prison and prevent him from running for office.

In Paraguay, the US helped in the consolidation of that parliamentary coup by organizing within the Organization of American States.

In Haiti, in 2004, they took the president and put him on a rendition plane, and flew him out of the country. That was in broad daylight.

In Honduras, is probably the biggest role that the US has played, both in consolidating the military coup in 2009. Hillary Clinton acknowledged her role in making sure that President Zelaya, the democratically elected president, would not return to office, and then more recently, in November, they helped consolidate the results of an election which pretty much all observers regarded as stolen.

In Argentina, other branches of government were involved as well as the executive, but the executive cut off lending from multilateral development banks such as the Inter-American Development Bank, and tried to block loans at the World Bank, as well. And they restored everything as soon as the Right-Wing government was elected. And then, there was Judge Griesa in New York, who took over 90 percent of Argentina's creditors hostage in order to squeeze them so that the government would pay off the vulture funds. And this was very political, because he also lifted the injunction as soon as you had the Right-Wing government.

This is very important, because obviously it's not necessarily a conspiracy of all these branches of government. The legislative branch was involved in this as well, in the United States. But they all have the same mindset, and they're all trying to get rid of these Left governments, and they had a massive contribution. In Argentina, that did contribute to the downfall of Cristina Kirchner. It contributed to balance of payments problems that they had there. So this was important, and it's totally ignored in the United States.

You have intervention in Mexico, for example. US officials have already said how worried they are that AMLO, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who is the frontrunner in the upcoming election in July. And he's probably going to win, but they're already trying to undermine him, lobbying accusations of Russia involvement, which is the new trend. Of course, completely unsubstantiated.

In Venezuela they're doing something probably never done in the last 50 years, openly calling for a military coup, and actually a financial embargo they've put in place, and threatening even a worse embargo if they don't get rid of the current government. So that's a more aggressive form of intervention than you had even under the prior administrations.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nhNNi-kXE_4


As has been mentioned previously:

A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally, the constitutional coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the usual actions of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.

The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.

Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.

The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.

The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth, with a big overdose of exaggeration. The establishment parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.

Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's happening right now in debt colony, Greece.

[May 13, 2018] One Man s War: Bringing Iraq to the United States by Mark Wilkerson

Notable quotes:
"... A historically low percentage of our population -- less than half a percent -- actually serves in the military. Compare that to around 9% during the Vietnam War, and 12% during World War II. Remarkably few of us ever see combat, ever even know anyone who was in combat, ever get to hear firsthand stories of what went on or witness what life is like for such a returning veteran. Not surprisingly, America's wars now largely go on without us. There is no personal connection. Here in "the homeland" -- despite the overblown fears of "terrorism" -- it remains "peacetime." As a consequence, few of us are engaged by veterans' issues or the prospect -- essentially, the guarantee -- of more war in the American future. ..."
Jun 09, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

Memorial Day is over. You had your barbeque. Now, you can stop thinking about America's wars and the casualties from them for another year. As for me, I only wish it were so.

It's been Memorial Day for me ever since I first met Tomas Young. And in truth, it should have felt that way from the moment I hunkered down in Somalia in 1993 and the firing began. After all, we've been at war across the Greater Middle East ever since. But somehow it was Tomas who, in 2013, first brought my own experience in the US military home to me in ways I hadn't been able to do on my own.

That gravely wounded, living, breathing casualty of our second war in Iraq who wouldn't let go of life or stop thinking and critiquing America's never-ending warscape brought me so much closer to myself, so bear with me for a moment while I return to Mogadishu, the Somalian capital, and bring you -- and me -- closer to him.

Boom!

In that spring of 1993, I was a 22-year-old Army sergeant, newly married, and had just been dropped into a famine-ridden, war-torn country on the other side of the planet, a place I hadn't previously given a thought. I didn't know what hit me. I couldn't begin to take it in. That first day I remember sitting on my cot with a wet t-shirt draped over my head, chugging a bottle of water to counter the oppressive heat.

I'd trained for this -- a real mission -- for more than five years. I was a Black Hawk helicopter crew chief. Still, I had no idea what I was in for.

So much happened in Somalia in that " Black Hawk Down " year that foreshadowed America's fruitless wars of the twenty-first century across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, but you wouldn't have known it by me. That first day, sitting in a tent on the old Somali Air Force base in Baledogle, a couple of hours inland from the capital city of Mogadishu, I had a face-to-face encounter with a poisonous black mamba snake. Somehow it didn't register. Not really.

This is real , I kept telling myself in the six months I spent there, but in a way it wasn't or didn't seem to be.

After about a month, my unit moved to the airport in Mogadishu -- away from the snakes, scorpions, and bugs that infested Baledogle, but closer to dangers of a more human sort. Within a few weeks, I became used to the nightly rat-tat-tat of machine gun fire coming at us from the city. I watched the tracers streak by as we crouched behind our sandbagged fighting positions. We would return from missions to find bullet holes in the skin or rotor blades of our Black Hawk helicopters, or in one case a beer-can-sized hole that a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) round punched cleanly through the rear stabilizer without -- mercifully -- detonating.

And yet none of it felt like it was quite happening to me. I remember lying on my cot late at night, not far from the flight line full of Black Hawks and Cobras, hearing the drone of low-flying American AC-130 gunships firing overhead for hours on end. The first boom would come from the seaward side of the field as the gunship fired its M102 howitzer. A few seconds later, another boom would mark the round's arrival at its target across town, sometimes with secondary explosions as ammunition stores went up. Lying there, I remember thinking that those weren't the routine training rounds I'd heard a hundred times as they hit some random target in a desolate training area. They were landing on real targets, actual people.

Two other memorable boom s come to mind -- one as we waited in the back of a sun-baked supply truck, heading out on a volunteer mission to give inoculations to kids at a Somali orphanage. Boom . The ground shook to the sound of one of our Humvees and the four Army soldiers in it being blown apart by the sort of remote-controlled bomb that would become a commonplace of insurgents in America's twenty-first century wars. And a second, the loudest during my six months there, as a generator perhaps 20 feet from our tent exploded into flames from an incoming RPG round that found its target in the middle of the night.

This is real . I kept saying that to myself, but truthfully the more accurate word would have been surreal . The care packages I was receiving, the Tootsie Rolls and Cracker Jacks and letters from my wife back home telling me how much she missed me might as well have been from another planet.

Our helicopters flew daily reconnaissance missions ("Eyes over Mog" we called them) above the Somali capital. We did battle damage assessments, checking out pockmarked buildings the AC-130s had targeted the night before, or the shot-up safe house that Somali warlord Mohamed Aidid -- our operation's target (just as the US would target Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and the leaders of various terror groups) -- had reportedly been using as a control center. Once a beautiful mansion, it was now riddled with thousands of bullet holes and TOW missile craters.

We flew over Mogadishu's bustling marketplace, sometimes so low that the corrugated metal roofs of the stalls would blow off from our rotor wash. We were always looking for what we called "technicals" -- pick-up trucks with machine guns mounted in their beds -- to take out. Viewing that crowded marketplace through the sight of a ready-to-rock M-60 machine gun helped reinforce the message that all of this was beyond surreal.

Lives were ending violently here every day, and my own life, too, could have ended at any moment. Yet it was just about impossible to believe that all of a sudden I was in the middle of a violent set of incidents in a third-world hellhole, the sort of thing you might read about in the paper, or more likely, would never hear about at all. You'd never know about our near-nightly scrambles to our fighting positions behind a pile of sandbags, as the AK-47s cracked and the tracers flew overhead. It wouldn't even register as a blip in the news back home. In some bizarre way, I was there and it still wasn't registering.

A Soldier Just Like Me

Just days after returning home from Somalia, I (like so many others) watched the footage of dead American soldiers -- at least one a Black Hawk crew chief -- being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by cheering Somalis. For the first time, I found myself filled with a sense of dread, a profound that-could-have-been-me feeling. I imagined my mother looking at such a photo of me, of her dead son's body -- as someone's mother was undoubtedly doing.

If my interior landscape was beginning to shift in unsettling ways, if the war, my war, was finally starting to come home, I remained only minimally aware of it. My wife and I started a family, I got a civilian job, went to college in the evening using the GI Bill, and wrote a couple of books about music -- my refuge.

Still, after Somalia, I found myself drawn to stories about war. I reread Stephen Ambrose's blow-by-blow account of the D-Day landings, picked up Ron Kovic's Vietnam memoir, Born On The Fourth Of July , for the first time, and even read All Quiet On The Western Front . And all of them somehow floored me. But it wasn't until I watched Body of War , Phil Donahue's 2008 documentary about Iraq war veteran and antiwar activist Tomas Young, that something seemed truly different, that I simply couldn't shake the feeling it could have been me.

Tomas was a kid who had limited options -- just like me. He signed up for the military, at least in part, because he wanted to go to college -- just like me. Yes, just like so many other kids, too -- but above all, just like me.

He, too, was deployed to one of America's misbegotten wars in a later hellhole, and that's where our stories began to differ. Five days after his unit arrived in Iraq -- a place he deployed to grudgingly, never understanding why he was being sent there and not Afghanistan -- Tomas was shot, his spinal cord severed, and most of his body paralyzed. When he came home at age 24, he fought the natural urge to suffer in silence and instead spoke out against the war in Iraq. Body of War chronicled his first full year of very partial recovery and the blossoming of his antiwar activism.

Just a few weeks after the film's release, however, it all came crashing down. He suffered a pulmonary embolism and sank into a coma, awakening to find that he'd suffered a brain injury and lost much of the use of his hands and his ability to speak clearly. The ensuing years were filled with pain and debilitating health setbacks. By early 2013, he was in hospice care, suffering excruciating abdominal pain, without his colon, and on a feeding tube and a pain pump. Gaunt, withered, exhausted, he continued to agitate against America's never-ending war on terror from his bed, and finally wrote a " last letter " to former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, airing his grievances, which got significant media attention .

When I read it, I felt that he might have been me if I hadn't lucked out in Mogadishu two decades earlier. Maybe that's what made me reach out to him that April and tell him I wanted to learn more about what had happened to him in the years between Body of War and his last letter, about what it meant to go from being an antiwar agitator in a manual wheelchair to a bedridden quadriplegic on a feeding tube and under hospice care, planning to soon end his own life.

A Map of the Ravages of War

When I finally met Tomas, I realized how much he and I had in common: the same taste in music and books, the same urge to be a writer. We were both quick with the smart-ass comment and never made to be model soldiers because we liked to question things.

Each moment we spent together only connected us more deeply and brought me closer to the self that war had created in me, the self I had kept at such a distance all these years. I began writing his story because I felt compelled to show other Americans someone no different from them who had had his life, his reality, upended by one of our military adventures abroad, by deployment to a country so distant that it's an abstraction to most of us who, in these days of the All-Volunteer Army, don't have a personal connection either to the US military or to the wars it so regularly fights.

A historically low percentage of our population -- less than half a percent -- actually serves in the military. Compare that to around 9% during the Vietnam War, and 12% during World War II. Remarkably few of us ever see combat, ever even know anyone who was in combat, ever get to hear firsthand stories of what went on or witness what life is like for such a returning veteran. Not surprisingly, America's wars now largely go on without us. There is no personal connection. Here in "the homeland" -- despite the overblown fears of "terrorism" -- it remains "peacetime." As a consequence, few of us are engaged by veterans' issues or the prospect -- essentially, the guarantee -- of more war in the American future.

Tomas understood the importance of sharing the brutal fullness of his story. For him, there were to be no pulled punches. When I told him I wanted others to learn of his harrowing tale, of his version of the human cost of war, that I wanted to help him to tell that story, he responded that he had indeed wanted to write his own book. He'd scrapped the project because he could no longer write, and even Dragon voice-to-text software wouldn't work because his speech had become so degraded after the embolism struck.

Instead, he shared everything. Tomas and his wife, Claudia, opened their lives to me. I slept in their basement. During my periodic visits, he introduced me to an expansive mind in a shrunken world, a mind that wanted to range widely in a body mostly confined to a hospital bed, surrounded by books, magazines, and an array of tubing that delivered medications and removed bodily wastes in a darkened bedroom.

"I need to be fed," he said to me one day. "Do you want to see what that's like?" Then, he lifted his shirt and showed me the maze of tubing and scars on his body. It was a map of the ravages of war.

He was unflinchingly honest, sensing the importance of his story in a country where such experiences have become uncommon fare. Like his comic book heroes Batman and the Punisher, he wanted to make sure that no one would have to endure what he'd gone through.

An All-Too-Real Life and Surreal Wars

Tomas Young's war ended on the night before Veterans' Day 2014 when he passed away quietly in his sleep. His pain finally came to an end.

Body of War By Phil Donahue, Ellen Spiro, The Real News Network | Film Veterans, We're Sorry for How Our Country Treated You By The Daily Take Team, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed Veterans Urge Presidential Candidates to Say No to Militarism

The bullets that hit him in the streets of Baghdad in 2004 brought on more than a decade of agony and hardship, not only for him, but for his mother, his siblings, and his wife. Their suffering has yet to end.

Stories of the reality of war and its impact on this country are more crucial now than ever as America's wars seem only to multiply. Among us are more than 2.5 million veterans of our recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe it to them to read their accounts -- and an increasing number of them are out there -- and do our best to understand what they've been through, and what they continue to go through. Then perhaps we can use that knowledge not only to properly address their needs, but to properly debate and possibly -- like Tomas Young -- even protest America's ongoing wars.

It would have been perfectly understandable for Tomas to have faced the pain, frustration, and failing health of his final years privately and in silence, but that wasn't him. Instead, he made his story part of our American record. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here .

Mark Wilkerson spent eight years in the US Army as an AH-1 Cobra and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crew chief with the 3rd Infantry and 101st Airborne Divisions. He was deployed with the 101st to Somalia for six months in 1993. He is the author of Who Are You: The Life of Pete Townshend and co-wrote Pearl Jam Twenty . He has three children: Alex, Nick and Sam. He lives in Louisville, Kentucky, with his wife, Melissa. His latest book is Tomas Young's War (Haymarket Books).

[May 13, 2018] Trump's Penis Is It Presidential by Douglas Valentine

Notable quotes:
"... According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around. ..."
"... Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two prostitutes! ..."
May 11, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Donald Trump's sex life is nobody's business but his own. And maybe Melania's, if her Pre-Nuptial Agreement (PNA) stipulates that she can sue his fat ass for divorce and receive a huge percentage of his rumored wealth if he cheats on her, too often.

Like the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, signed with porn star Stormy Daniels (who had a quickie with Trump in 2006), prenups and private goon squads are standard fare for people of wealth.

But is Trump wealthy? And if so, where did he get his cash?

Some people say he laundered about $400 million in drug money for the Israeli Mafia's Russian franchise back in the early 1990's, in exchange for everything he ever wanted. I don't know if that's a fact. That's what I hear. People say it. Maybe somebody like Robert Mueller should investigate?

Fox News says the president isn't mobbed up, that everyone in New York City has to work with the Mafia if they want a hotel constructed on time. And that could be true.

But what is Truth? It's impossible to tell anymore.

The Truth could be that either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia is forcing Trump to do many terrible things he doesn't really want to do. Like deep-sixing the Iran deal. Somebody's fingerprints are all over that baby's behind. Maybe Michael Cohen knows? Somebody should ask him.

Trump is obviously a victim of either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia and its American franchise. You choose. But consider this: On the same day Trump scrapped the Iran deal, someone said that Russian billionaire Victor Vekselberg (who just happens to be Putin's BFF) wired $500,000 into a bank account that hatchet man Cohen (who doubles as Trump's real estate broker) set up for the purpose of issuing the $130,000 hush payment to Stormy Daniels.

I don't know if that's true. Sean Hannity says it isn't true. Rudy Giuliani says it might be true, and that it doesn't matter even if it is True, because people of wealth often set up shell companies to hide their business dealings from the Public Eye, which is their right as people of wealth.

According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around.

Another one of Trump's prerogatives as a person of wealth is the right to charge people money to play with him. Trump's business consultant, Michael Cohen (who may work for the Israeli Mafia, I don't know), funnels such "pay to play" money into the same bank accounts he, Cohen, uses to pay off the women Trump has casual and unsatisfactory (for them ) sex with.

BTW, I forgot to mention it, but Vekselberg's cousin, American citizen Andrew Intrater, donated $250,000 to Trump's inauguration fund.

Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two prostitutes!

Somebody in the Deep State (which, according to Hannity, is the code name for the Justice Department) knows about this, but let's it happen, because Trump is, after all, a person of wealth with certain rights to privacy.

... ... ...

Stormy, who whipped Trump's fat ass with a copy of Trump Magazine back in 2006, is an eyewitness to The Thing. When asked by Penthouse to compare his penis size to "his fingers," Daniels said, "I don't want to shame anybody."

... ... ...

[May 13, 2018] Trump's Penis Is It Presidential by Douglas Valentine

Notable quotes:
"... According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around. ..."
"... Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two prostitutes! ..."
May 11, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Donald Trump's sex life is nobody's business but his own. And maybe Melania's, if her Pre-Nuptial Agreement (PNA) stipulates that she can sue his fat ass for divorce and receive a huge percentage of his rumored wealth if he cheats on her, too often.

Like the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, signed with porn star Stormy Daniels (who had a quickie with Trump in 2006), prenups and private goon squads are standard fare for people of wealth.

But is Trump wealthy? And if so, where did he get his cash?

Some people say he laundered about $400 million in drug money for the Israeli Mafia's Russian franchise back in the early 1990's, in exchange for everything he ever wanted. I don't know if that's a fact. That's what I hear. People say it. Maybe somebody like Robert Mueller should investigate?

Fox News says the president isn't mobbed up, that everyone in New York City has to work with the Mafia if they want a hotel constructed on time. And that could be true.

But what is Truth? It's impossible to tell anymore.

The Truth could be that either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia is forcing Trump to do many terrible things he doesn't really want to do. Like deep-sixing the Iran deal. Somebody's fingerprints are all over that baby's behind. Maybe Michael Cohen knows? Somebody should ask him.

Trump is obviously a victim of either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia and its American franchise. You choose. But consider this: On the same day Trump scrapped the Iran deal, someone said that Russian billionaire Victor Vekselberg (who just happens to be Putin's BFF) wired $500,000 into a bank account that hatchet man Cohen (who doubles as Trump's real estate broker) set up for the purpose of issuing the $130,000 hush payment to Stormy Daniels.

I don't know if that's true. Sean Hannity says it isn't true. Rudy Giuliani says it might be true, and that it doesn't matter even if it is True, because people of wealth often set up shell companies to hide their business dealings from the Public Eye, which is their right as people of wealth.

According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around.

Another one of Trump's prerogatives as a person of wealth is the right to charge people money to play with him. Trump's business consultant, Michael Cohen (who may work for the Israeli Mafia, I don't know), funnels such "pay to play" money into the same bank accounts he, Cohen, uses to pay off the women Trump has casual and unsatisfactory (for them ) sex with.

BTW, I forgot to mention it, but Vekselberg's cousin, American citizen Andrew Intrater, donated $250,000 to Trump's inauguration fund.

Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two prostitutes!

Somebody in the Deep State (which, according to Hannity, is the code name for the Justice Department) knows about this, but let's it happen, because Trump is, after all, a person of wealth with certain rights to privacy.

... ... ...

Stormy, who whipped Trump's fat ass with a copy of Trump Magazine back in 2006, is an eyewitness to The Thing. When asked by Penthouse to compare his penis size to "his fingers," Daniels said, "I don't want to shame anybody."

... ... ...

[May 13, 2018] One Man s War: Bringing Iraq to the United States by Mark Wilkerson

Notable quotes:
"... A historically low percentage of our population -- less than half a percent -- actually serves in the military. Compare that to around 9% during the Vietnam War, and 12% during World War II. Remarkably few of us ever see combat, ever even know anyone who was in combat, ever get to hear firsthand stories of what went on or witness what life is like for such a returning veteran. Not surprisingly, America's wars now largely go on without us. There is no personal connection. Here in "the homeland" -- despite the overblown fears of "terrorism" -- it remains "peacetime." As a consequence, few of us are engaged by veterans' issues or the prospect -- essentially, the guarantee -- of more war in the American future. ..."
Jun 09, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

Memorial Day is over. You had your barbeque. Now, you can stop thinking about America's wars and the casualties from them for another year. As for me, I only wish it were so.

It's been Memorial Day for me ever since I first met Tomas Young. And in truth, it should have felt that way from the moment I hunkered down in Somalia in 1993 and the firing began. After all, we've been at war across the Greater Middle East ever since. But somehow it was Tomas who, in 2013, first brought my own experience in the US military home to me in ways I hadn't been able to do on my own.

That gravely wounded, living, breathing casualty of our second war in Iraq who wouldn't let go of life or stop thinking and critiquing America's never-ending warscape brought me so much closer to myself, so bear with me for a moment while I return to Mogadishu, the Somalian capital, and bring you -- and me -- closer to him.

Boom!

In that spring of 1993, I was a 22-year-old Army sergeant, newly married, and had just been dropped into a famine-ridden, war-torn country on the other side of the planet, a place I hadn't previously given a thought. I didn't know what hit me. I couldn't begin to take it in. That first day I remember sitting on my cot with a wet t-shirt draped over my head, chugging a bottle of water to counter the oppressive heat.

I'd trained for this -- a real mission -- for more than five years. I was a Black Hawk helicopter crew chief. Still, I had no idea what I was in for.

So much happened in Somalia in that " Black Hawk Down " year that foreshadowed America's fruitless wars of the twenty-first century across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, but you wouldn't have known it by me. That first day, sitting in a tent on the old Somali Air Force base in Baledogle, a couple of hours inland from the capital city of Mogadishu, I had a face-to-face encounter with a poisonous black mamba snake. Somehow it didn't register. Not really.

This is real , I kept telling myself in the six months I spent there, but in a way it wasn't or didn't seem to be.

After about a month, my unit moved to the airport in Mogadishu -- away from the snakes, scorpions, and bugs that infested Baledogle, but closer to dangers of a more human sort. Within a few weeks, I became used to the nightly rat-tat-tat of machine gun fire coming at us from the city. I watched the tracers streak by as we crouched behind our sandbagged fighting positions. We would return from missions to find bullet holes in the skin or rotor blades of our Black Hawk helicopters, or in one case a beer-can-sized hole that a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) round punched cleanly through the rear stabilizer without -- mercifully -- detonating.

And yet none of it felt like it was quite happening to me. I remember lying on my cot late at night, not far from the flight line full of Black Hawks and Cobras, hearing the drone of low-flying American AC-130 gunships firing overhead for hours on end. The first boom would come from the seaward side of the field as the gunship fired its M102 howitzer. A few seconds later, another boom would mark the round's arrival at its target across town, sometimes with secondary explosions as ammunition stores went up. Lying there, I remember thinking that those weren't the routine training rounds I'd heard a hundred times as they hit some random target in a desolate training area. They were landing on real targets, actual people.

Two other memorable boom s come to mind -- one as we waited in the back of a sun-baked supply truck, heading out on a volunteer mission to give inoculations to kids at a Somali orphanage. Boom . The ground shook to the sound of one of our Humvees and the four Army soldiers in it being blown apart by the sort of remote-controlled bomb that would become a commonplace of insurgents in America's twenty-first century wars. And a second, the loudest during my six months there, as a generator perhaps 20 feet from our tent exploded into flames from an incoming RPG round that found its target in the middle of the night.

This is real . I kept saying that to myself, but truthfully the more accurate word would have been surreal . The care packages I was receiving, the Tootsie Rolls and Cracker Jacks and letters from my wife back home telling me how much she missed me might as well have been from another planet.

Our helicopters flew daily reconnaissance missions ("Eyes over Mog" we called them) above the Somali capital. We did battle damage assessments, checking out pockmarked buildings the AC-130s had targeted the night before, or the shot-up safe house that Somali warlord Mohamed Aidid -- our operation's target (just as the US would target Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and the leaders of various terror groups) -- had reportedly been using as a control center. Once a beautiful mansion, it was now riddled with thousands of bullet holes and TOW missile craters.

We flew over Mogadishu's bustling marketplace, sometimes so low that the corrugated metal roofs of the stalls would blow off from our rotor wash. We were always looking for what we called "technicals" -- pick-up trucks with machine guns mounted in their beds -- to take out. Viewing that crowded marketplace through the sight of a ready-to-rock M-60 machine gun helped reinforce the message that all of this was beyond surreal.

Lives were ending violently here every day, and my own life, too, could have ended at any moment. Yet it was just about impossible to believe that all of a sudden I was in the middle of a violent set of incidents in a third-world hellhole, the sort of thing you might read about in the paper, or more likely, would never hear about at all. You'd never know about our near-nightly scrambles to our fighting positions behind a pile of sandbags, as the AK-47s cracked and the tracers flew overhead. It wouldn't even register as a blip in the news back home. In some bizarre way, I was there and it still wasn't registering.

A Soldier Just Like Me

Just days after returning home from Somalia, I (like so many others) watched the footage of dead American soldiers -- at least one a Black Hawk crew chief -- being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by cheering Somalis. For the first time, I found myself filled with a sense of dread, a profound that-could-have-been-me feeling. I imagined my mother looking at such a photo of me, of her dead son's body -- as someone's mother was undoubtedly doing.

If my interior landscape was beginning to shift in unsettling ways, if the war, my war, was finally starting to come home, I remained only minimally aware of it. My wife and I started a family, I got a civilian job, went to college in the evening using the GI Bill, and wrote a couple of books about music -- my refuge.

Still, after Somalia, I found myself drawn to stories about war. I reread Stephen Ambrose's blow-by-blow account of the D-Day landings, picked up Ron Kovic's Vietnam memoir, Born On The Fourth Of July , for the first time, and even read All Quiet On The Western Front . And all of them somehow floored me. But it wasn't until I watched Body of War , Phil Donahue's 2008 documentary about Iraq war veteran and antiwar activist Tomas Young, that something seemed truly different, that I simply couldn't shake the feeling it could have been me.

Tomas was a kid who had limited options -- just like me. He signed up for the military, at least in part, because he wanted to go to college -- just like me. Yes, just like so many other kids, too -- but above all, just like me.

He, too, was deployed to one of America's misbegotten wars in a later hellhole, and that's where our stories began to differ. Five days after his unit arrived in Iraq -- a place he deployed to grudgingly, never understanding why he was being sent there and not Afghanistan -- Tomas was shot, his spinal cord severed, and most of his body paralyzed. When he came home at age 24, he fought the natural urge to suffer in silence and instead spoke out against the war in Iraq. Body of War chronicled his first full year of very partial recovery and the blossoming of his antiwar activism.

Just a few weeks after the film's release, however, it all came crashing down. He suffered a pulmonary embolism and sank into a coma, awakening to find that he'd suffered a brain injury and lost much of the use of his hands and his ability to speak clearly. The ensuing years were filled with pain and debilitating health setbacks. By early 2013, he was in hospice care, suffering excruciating abdominal pain, without his colon, and on a feeding tube and a pain pump. Gaunt, withered, exhausted, he continued to agitate against America's never-ending war on terror from his bed, and finally wrote a " last letter " to former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, airing his grievances, which got significant media attention .

When I read it, I felt that he might have been me if I hadn't lucked out in Mogadishu two decades earlier. Maybe that's what made me reach out to him that April and tell him I wanted to learn more about what had happened to him in the years between Body of War and his last letter, about what it meant to go from being an antiwar agitator in a manual wheelchair to a bedridden quadriplegic on a feeding tube and under hospice care, planning to soon end his own life.

A Map of the Ravages of War

When I finally met Tomas, I realized how much he and I had in common: the same taste in music and books, the same urge to be a writer. We were both quick with the smart-ass comment and never made to be model soldiers because we liked to question things.

Each moment we spent together only connected us more deeply and brought me closer to the self that war had created in me, the self I had kept at such a distance all these years. I began writing his story because I felt compelled to show other Americans someone no different from them who had had his life, his reality, upended by one of our military adventures abroad, by deployment to a country so distant that it's an abstraction to most of us who, in these days of the All-Volunteer Army, don't have a personal connection either to the US military or to the wars it so regularly fights.

A historically low percentage of our population -- less than half a percent -- actually serves in the military. Compare that to around 9% during the Vietnam War, and 12% during World War II. Remarkably few of us ever see combat, ever even know anyone who was in combat, ever get to hear firsthand stories of what went on or witness what life is like for such a returning veteran. Not surprisingly, America's wars now largely go on without us. There is no personal connection. Here in "the homeland" -- despite the overblown fears of "terrorism" -- it remains "peacetime." As a consequence, few of us are engaged by veterans' issues or the prospect -- essentially, the guarantee -- of more war in the American future.

Tomas understood the importance of sharing the brutal fullness of his story. For him, there were to be no pulled punches. When I told him I wanted others to learn of his harrowing tale, of his version of the human cost of war, that I wanted to help him to tell that story, he responded that he had indeed wanted to write his own book. He'd scrapped the project because he could no longer write, and even Dragon voice-to-text software wouldn't work because his speech had become so degraded after the embolism struck.

Instead, he shared everything. Tomas and his wife, Claudia, opened their lives to me. I slept in their basement. During my periodic visits, he introduced me to an expansive mind in a shrunken world, a mind that wanted to range widely in a body mostly confined to a hospital bed, surrounded by books, magazines, and an array of tubing that delivered medications and removed bodily wastes in a darkened bedroom.

"I need to be fed," he said to me one day. "Do you want to see what that's like?" Then, he lifted his shirt and showed me the maze of tubing and scars on his body. It was a map of the ravages of war.

He was unflinchingly honest, sensing the importance of his story in a country where such experiences have become uncommon fare. Like his comic book heroes Batman and the Punisher, he wanted to make sure that no one would have to endure what he'd gone through.

An All-Too-Real Life and Surreal Wars

Tomas Young's war ended on the night before Veterans' Day 2014 when he passed away quietly in his sleep. His pain finally came to an end.

Body of War By Phil Donahue, Ellen Spiro, The Real News Network | Film Veterans, We're Sorry for How Our Country Treated You By The Daily Take Team, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed Veterans Urge Presidential Candidates to Say No to Militarism

The bullets that hit him in the streets of Baghdad in 2004 brought on more than a decade of agony and hardship, not only for him, but for his mother, his siblings, and his wife. Their suffering has yet to end.

Stories of the reality of war and its impact on this country are more crucial now than ever as America's wars seem only to multiply. Among us are more than 2.5 million veterans of our recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe it to them to read their accounts -- and an increasing number of them are out there -- and do our best to understand what they've been through, and what they continue to go through. Then perhaps we can use that knowledge not only to properly address their needs, but to properly debate and possibly -- like Tomas Young -- even protest America's ongoing wars.

It would have been perfectly understandable for Tomas to have faced the pain, frustration, and failing health of his final years privately and in silence, but that wasn't him. Instead, he made his story part of our American record. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here .

Mark Wilkerson spent eight years in the US Army as an AH-1 Cobra and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crew chief with the 3rd Infantry and 101st Airborne Divisions. He was deployed with the 101st to Somalia for six months in 1993. He is the author of Who Are You: The Life of Pete Townshend and co-wrote Pearl Jam Twenty . He has three children: Alex, Nick and Sam. He lives in Louisville, Kentucky, with his wife, Melissa. His latest book is Tomas Young's War (Haymarket Books).

[May 13, 2018] Xi Jinping The Emergence of Chinese Ultra-Nationalism by Sazzad Haider

Notable quotes:
"... Sazzad Haider is a writer and filmmaker living in Bangladesh. He edits The Diplomatic Journal. ..."
May 11, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Chinese leader Xi Jinping started his second term as President last month and delivered his speech with a nationalistic appeal stating China's desire to take up its "due place in the world." Xi seems to be taking the long way to achieve Chinese superiority all over the world. Xi began his new tenure in an ultra nationalistic manner rather than with a communist internationalist plea.

Prior to Xi's re-election, the Chinese Communist Party put "democratic weakness" aside as the Chinese parliament endorsed a new law including removing the restriction that had limited the presidency to two consecutive five-year terms. The Parliament justified the change as a necessity to line up the presidency with Xi's two other, more powerful, posts -- head of the party and of the military since they have no term limits.

The move was not unexpected; after his accession to power in 2012, Xi has chosen a rough, hard but consolidated long road to walk. His way has differed from the way of his last two predecessors. Xi's two precursors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao strictly followed the rule of collective leadership which was introduced by Deng Xiaoping to dilute the one man autocracy of the Mao Zedong era by including a restriction limiting the presidency to two consecutive five-year terms. Following the ending of Deng era, the power transforming processes were kept free from disturbance.

After his ascent in power, Xi Jinping turned away from the path of his two predecessors and wanted to be a Chinese thinker, pathfinder and philosopher like Mao Zedong.

In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping adopted the concept of OBOR as one of the greatest investment projects in the history of the planet. Similarly, the USA launched the Marshall Plan for reconstruction of Western Europe after the end of Second World War; the USA invested US$ 13 billion dollars which is roughly equivalent to US$ 130 billion in today's money. According to news media China has already invested $ 1 trillion in OBOR and several trillion is due to be invested over the next decade.

Chinese OBOR has the basic objective to gain both political and economic supremacy over western countries. Following the Chinese revolution China's leadership strongly denounced western capitalism and vowed to fight against US led "imperialism" & "expansionism". Mao Zedong, founder of modern China emerged as a great competitor to US led capitalistic leadership. He introduced and developed the three world theory. According to his theory, the first world comprises USA led western countries, second world consisting of Soviet Union and its allies and all countries of Asia except Japan, all countries of Africa & Latin America are in third world. Mao Zedong intended to be the pathfinder for the third world countries to struggle against western exploitation. Since the foundation of new China, the Chinese leadership feels comfortable working with "third world" countries against western dominance. China played a vital role in the Korean War and also in the Vietnam War against US expansionism. China also wanted to export revolution to all third world countries but they were not successful due to the lack of Chinese financial capacity or to avoid direct conflict with other countries. Therefore, China's effort to export revolution was aired on propaganda machinery rather than practically. As an example the Indian Maoist faction only got moral support from China in the mid 60s, when they campaigned for an armed struggle to grow a communist regime.

It seemed, the Chinese leadership was waiting for favorable circumstance and opportunity to establish a proletarian third world.

After the death of Mao Zedong the Chinese leadership has gradually shifted from the policy of exporting revolution towards exporting Chinese industrial products to third world countries. China also shifted from a controlled economy to a free market economy. Under the communist party leadership China turned into a capitalist country. China has the world's fastest-growing economy with average growth rates of 10% over 30 years. The economic success of China has developed a geopolitical ambition like Mao's to be a world player.

Now China is at its most prosperous in its history and present President Xi Jinping is the most powerful leader after Mao Zedong. Under Xi's leadership, China has promoted vigorous growth of military might and geopolitical influence. President Xi's aspiration is boosting China to gain the prime role on the stage of the global power game and to subdue US dominance. The rivalry between the USA and China is on a range of different issues such as the South China Sea, cyber security, trade disputes, human rights and intellectual property rights.

After attaining power, Shifting from the previous policy of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, Xi has introduced a nationalistic and aggressive stance in foreign policy regarding dealings with his counterparts. He is looking for geographical expansion of Chinese territory and increasing the Chinese influence all over the world. China already has claims over almost the entire South China Sea and its islands and reefs. The South China Sea is also claimed in part by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei. China has constructed three artificial islands in the South China Sea ignoring cries from its neighbors. Xi also took a very strong stance on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands issue with Japan and declared an Air defense identification Zone in the area. Along with Japan, the US has opposed the Chinese actions in the South China Sea.

Responding to US criticism, China was critical of the presence of the U.S. in Asia Pacific Ocean waters and the US "strategic pivot" to Asia.

"Matters in Asia ultimately must be taken care of by Asians. Asia's problems ultimately must be resolved by Asians and Asia's security ultimately must be protected by Asians", Xi told a regional conference in Shanghai on 21 May 2014. Indicating the USA's interference in Asia Xi called on Asian countries to unite and forge a way together, rather than get involved with third party powers. Subsequent to this, Xi announced his One Belt and One Road initiatives to persuade the world.

The 'One Belt, One Road (OBOR) consists of two routes-one overland "Silk Road Economic Belt", another "21 st -Century Maritime Silk Road" in an objective to link China economically to Europe through countries across Eurasia, Africa and the Indian Ocean. The land corridors are China-Mongolia-Russia; China-Central Asia-West Asia; the China-Indochina peninsula; China-Pakistan; and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar. The OBOR will integrate of the region into an interconnected economic area through building infrastructure, increasing cultural exchanges, and broadening trade. China is investing to build infrastructure such as railways, roads, ports, energy systems and telecommunications networks to implement OBOR. On the Maritime Silk Road, China will invest to improve efficiency and security of the major sea ports along the routes.

China's banks are providing massive funds for Chinese enterprise to construct infrastructure while the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will provide loans for other countries. AIIB has issued the first loans for Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Tajikistan. The Bank of China has clarified that the Renminbi (Chinese currency) will be the main trading and investment currency. Entering the Chinese Banks into new OBOR countries will promote the globalization of the Chinese economy. China also called upon Chinese expatriates to invest in OBOR projects.

The Chinese President has played his OBOR card when the USA, the prime competitor to China, got an egotistic and unpredictable President like Donald Trump. XI's OBOR initiatives are contending as the USA turns to isolationism and protectionism.

The USA and its allies are under threat of raising extreme nationalism and communalism. Donald Trump likes to appear as a nationalistic President rather than an international player. In the meantime, Donald trump decided to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty and ignore USA global responsibility. On the contrary Chinese President Xi asserted his eagerness to implement the Paris Climate treaty and intention to work with European leaders.

Emerging as European core ally, Xi also called for more Chinese responsibility for global issues.

Xi's stance on global affairs impacted positively on his OBOR initiatives. Now the relationship between China and Western Europe is at its highest level of cooperation since the Chinese revolution. Therefore China got a very positive response from Western Europe regarding OBOR initiatives.

So the conference on the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, which was held last May was participated in by representatives from all Western European countries including Swiss President Doris Leuthard, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni. Germany and France are not very enthusiastic about OBOR, but they look for business opportunities which would come from OBOR. In a nutshell, every country of the planet, even the USA private sector is keen to explore the cost and benefits of the enormously ambitious project. It is not surprising that the OBOR initiative has belted a wide range of countries from Asia and Africa to Europe and even South America.

Apart from heads of state, Executives of 61 international organizations attended the summit, including UN secretary general António Guterres, president of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim and managing director of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde.

Leaders of ASEAN Countries including Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, participated in the OBOR summit and not surprisingly that they moved aside from their dispute with China on the South China Sea.

However, OBOR have been criticized for dominating tiny economies through long-term control of infrastructures, natural resources and associated land assets. China may control the OBOR countries market, labor and exports through transferring Chinese-own production units to those countries. Some also doubt the efficiency of Chinese Banks. Another allegation is that in the context of security measures the Chinese Liberation Army could dominate all the geographical routes of OBOR area and could intervene in internal affairs.

On the other side of coin, the OBOR countries will benefit from Chinese investment much more than from World Bank or IMF loans. So, the OBOR initiative is universally welcomed by both developed and developing countries. The Developing countries (Mao's Third World) have huge demands for infrastructure development and required funding, which they can easily obtain from the OBOR fund. Therefore the developing countries are very positive when they analyze the objectives of OBOR.

Historically, the Chinese Dragon used to shock the world when it woke up from hibernation. It woke up in 1949 from opium addiction and the Chinese Revolution (the first Dragon of New China) surprised the world. Again the Chinese Dragon hibernated in the 1960s following Mao Zedong's cultural- revolution. During the Cultural Revolution Mao Zedong closed the Chinese door for 10 years but surprisingly he initiated opening the door for imperialist 'puppet-tiger' USA through 'ping-pong' diplomacy. His step was very significant for awaking the new Chinese-Dragon.

The whole world was astonished again when the Chinese manufacturing dragon, the second dragon occupied the global market in 1980s. Nowadays, nobody can ignore Chinese commodities for even a single day.

The third dragon is Xi's OBOR initiatives, the world is waiting for the outcome of OBOR, which has already commenced its journey and roams across all the continents and oceans of the planet.

Sazzad Haider is a writer and filmmaker living in Bangladesh. He edits The Diplomatic Journal.

[May 13, 2018] Confusion over Netanyahu visit to Moscow and Putin passivity over recurrent Israeli strikes of Syria territory

Notable quotes:
"... Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's. Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames. Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be. ..."
"... The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim 61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset. ..."
"... Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb. ..."
"... As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his blatant fear-mongering. ..."
May 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The Skripals will most likely never be allowed to talk, by The Saker - The Unz Review

There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and Bibi Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow, Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi Germany . How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria for a second time , while still in Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate to serve food to the Japanese Prime Minister in a specially made shoe ? The man is clearly batshit crazy (which in no way makes him less evil or dangerous). But it is the Russian reaction which is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. Unlike others, I have clearly said that it is not the Russian responsibility to "protect" Syria (or Iran) from the Israelis. But there is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and that Putin took it. For all my respect for Putin, this time he allowed Netanyahu to treat him just like Trump treated Macron. Except that in the case of Putin, he was so treated in his own capital. That makes it even worse.

[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly profound and true. He said " an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges, one has to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most people across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice is completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is becoming "too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us are absolutely terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will cost us all a terrible price.]

Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement. But being the megalomaniac that he is, and not to mention the spineless lackey of the Israel Lobby, Trump ignored all that and thereby created further tensions between the US and the rest of the world whom the US will now blackmail and bully to try to force it to support the US in its rabid subservience to Israel. As for the Israelis, their "sophisticated" "strategy" is primitive to the extreme: first get Trump to create maximal tensions with Iran, then attack the Iranians in Syria as visibly and arrogantly as possible, bait the Iranians into a retaliation, then bellow "OI VEY!!!" with your loudest voice, mention the Holocaust once or twice, toss in a "6 million people" figure, and get the US to attack Syria.

How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs (and cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?

Nonetheless, it appears undeniable that the Zionists have enough power to simultaneously force not one, but two (supposed) superpowers to cave into their demands. Not only that, they have the power to do that while also putting these two superpowers on a collision course against each other. At the very least, this shows two things: the United States has completely lost its sovereignty and is now an Israeli protectorate. As for Russia, well, she is doing comparatively better, but the full re-sovereignization the Russian people have voted for when they gave their overwhelming support to Putin will not happen. A comment I read on a Russian chat put it: "Путин кинул народ -- мы не за Медведева голосовали" or " Putin betrayed the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev ". I am not sure that "betrayed the people" is fair, but the fact that he has disappointed a lot of people is, I think, simply undeniable.

It is still way too early to reach any conclusions at this point, and there are still way too many unknown variables, but I will admit that I am very worried and that for the first time in 4 years I am having major doubts about a fundamental policy decision by Putin. I sure hope that I am wrong. We will find out relatively soon. I just hope that this will not be in the form of a major war.

animalogic , May 11, 2018 at 8:14 am GMT

Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.

PCR has maintained consistently that the West can not be trusted, that Russia's attempts at accommodation are taken as signs of weakness, acting only to embolden the West in its continuing vicious assaults.

Of course, Russia is playing for time: hoping that over time the strategic tables will increasing tip in its own & China's etc favour.
However, I suspect Saker & PCR are right: further submission will only lead to ever more vicious attacks. This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself internationally as the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via tariffs etc to retard, if not destroy its future economic development)

One might have a tiny mite of hope that the West might ultimately act sanely. However, with the Zionists now pulling all the strings sanity is over & out.

Momus , May 11, 2018 at 8:20 am GMT
Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for his efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.

Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with ICBM's?

Intelligent Dasein , Website May 11, 2018 at 9:45 am GMT
I've been
Intelligent Dasein , Website May 11, 2018 at 9:45 am GMT
I've been waiting to hear your take, Saker, since things are very bad indeed. I did not like what I saw happen on May 9th. Here is my very abbreviated take on it.

Bibi knows that he's pulled Trump fully into the Israeli orbit. He as much as told Putin he would attack Syria and dared him to do anything about it. If Putin responded with force, that would provide Israel and America with all the provocation they need to go all-in against Syria, Iran, and Russia, which is what the Ziocons were hoping to accomplish anyway. Putin, seeing all this and being the better man, can only sit back and take it. For now.

Bibi pissed in Putin's face and nobody could do a thing about it. But the whole world saw what happened and nobody with half a brain is on the side of the Israelis. I'm no longer upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience. The very hand of God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and treachery, and Putin will still be one of His chief instruments.

Robert Magill , May 11, 2018 at 10:01 am GMT

How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs (and cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?

Yes I can, Saker, you live among them.

Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement

.

See Club Orlov http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/ 5/10 regarding the 120+ billion of Iranian money we hold in dollars the dead broke US gets to keep by pulling out of the deal.

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/and-then-we-were-capitalists-or/

Rafael Martorell , May 11, 2018 at 10:23 am GMT
Good call. That is why we follow you Saker. It is the responsability of the american men to rebel and fix this goverment.

Im from cuba and the worst part here is that we have been delivered to be control and saked by people that we took the lunch from them when we where kids,in the school yard.

The Scalpel , Website May 11, 2018 at 11:32 am GMT
@utu

Agree. Putin seems to have rolled over and is crying uncle. Sad. Perhaps he is waiting until his new weapons are fully stockpiled before he makes any serious attempts to defend -- ultimately -- himself and his nation.

Without Russia putting some brakes on the Empire's unopposed oppressions, there is little hope for truth, justice, etc. in the world. There is no attempt to print the truth in national publications (that has been going on for a long time), and increasingly, little attempt to hide the fact that they are not printing the truth. The masses, instead of rebelling against obvious lies, seem to have internalized doublethink and do not have any significant impulse to rise up and defend their own interests. The propaganda is too thick, too strong, and too unopposed. Things look grim.

utu , May 11, 2018 at 11:45 am GMT
@Momus

Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with ICBM's?

I think that would be a good check of Israel's power that could stabilize the ME and return to the path of development that existed there still till early 1980s when the process of destabilization began which was a part of the Yinon plan. If Israel remains the absolutely dominant power people in ME countries will be allowed to live in Hobbesian chaotic world only where they will be encouraged to engage in ethnic and sectarian fighting forever.

Anatoly Karlin , Website May 11, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT

How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension.

Why not? Israel has been successfully expanding its territory, and getting two superpowers to cave into its demands (Saker's own words). That is pretty admirable in my book. This is certainly worth of both respect and admiration, even if one otherwise wishes to see Israel burn in a sea of atomic fire.

Anyhow, there's no reason for Russia to care. Increased American tensions with Iran will raise the price of oil. Also a reminder that the Kremlin couldn't care less about American murders of Russian mercenaries. So in what world will they concern themselves with Iranian ones.

A comment I read on a Russian chat put it: "Путин кинул народ -- мы не за Медведева голосовали" or "Putin betrayed the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev".

Ah yes, the сирийские братушки ("Syrian brothers"). Perhaps Western Russophiles consider them such, but few Russians do.

So The Saker is correct, Putin did not betray "his" people. (Well, he did, but that happened in 2014, not now).

utu , May 11, 2018 at 11:59 am GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

I'm no longer upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience. The very hand of God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and treachery, and Putin will still be one of His chief instruments.

This is your wishful thinking talking. You are still upset with Putin and you should be. May 9 parade with Netanyahu and bombing in Syria really looked very bad. To me it signified Putin's capitulation. At least it is the end game and Russia realized she was outplayed as she is apparently not ready to go all the way with the nuclear blackmail. Putin will stay put waiting for the stupid World Cup while Netanyahu will be escalating or some face saving measure will be found for Russia to withdraw from Syria or Russia will be invited to be a part of occupational government there.

Chinese looking from afar probably are disappointed but they never trusted Russian corrupt elite staying the course.

Passer by , May 11, 2018 at 6:20 pm GMT
Ex-Finance Minister Kudrin to head Accounts Chamber: http://tass.com/economy/1003887
anon [228] Disclaimer , May 11, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's. Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames. Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be.

But would these have changed the internal dynamics within US ? No It would not. US would still be going down the path it has been and that path would still be what it is today at home and abroad.

Social anarchy, takeover of Democrats by non-whites , takeover of GOP by religious militant and bipartisan tax cutting for pro big business will continue unhindered . Is it good? No. But good for the destruction of the country. That is good . ME without USA would then look like no different until Russia also faces the same fate that has happened to Wiemar Germany and Egyptian/ Persian in the historical past.

ME Shoa will have to wait for few more decades

M7 , May 12, 2018 at 1:14 am GMT
How about Putin showing Bibi what is in store for who harms Russia ? I can see Putin talking in symbols.
jim76 , May 12, 2018 at 1:38 am GMT
on another note after seeing shabas putin next to netanyahu holding picture of a commie terrorist commissar let me say Saker the "ukronazis" have the stalinist russians pegged right thank God they left Russia some hope for a jew free state
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/05/11/putin-backs-off-giving-syria-s-300-systems-after-netanyahu-meeting/

De-escalation!

Realist , May 12, 2018 at 8:19 am GMT
@animalogic

Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.

The problem isn't bending over backward .it's bending over forward.

Realist , May 12, 2018 at 8:22 am GMT
@Momus

Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for his efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.

Protecting Israel does nothing for the US.

El Dato , May 12, 2018 at 11:45 am GMT
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/11/american-saudi-arabia-weapons-deal-yemen-uae/

I wonder what Saudi Arabia and the UAE could want with 60'000 precision-guided munitions?

El Dato , May 12, 2018 at 12:21 pm GMT
Rather OT, but still. Probably worthy of Unz-topping:

The remarkable disappearing act of Israel's car-bombing campaign in Lebanon or: What we (do not) talk about when we talk about 'terrorism'

"With Sharon's backing, terrible things were done. I am no vegetarian, and I supported and even participated in some of the assassination operations Israel carried out. But we are speaking here about mass killing for killing's sake, to sow chaos and alarm, among civilians, too. Since when do we send donkeys carrying bombs to blow up in marketplaces?"

-- Mossad officer, quoted in Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations

Anomie.

AP , May 12, 2018 at 5:11 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Ukrainian president and prime-minister are both Jews

Poroshenko being (half-) Jewish is fake news. Allegedly his father was Jewish and changed his surname. Actually this is his father:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Порошенко,_Алексей_Иванович

The family originate from a Russian garrison-town on the Romanian border which had been populated by Ukrainians, Russian, Bulgarans, and no Jews.

There is even fake news that Parubiy is Jewish!

Both Poroshenko's parents are ethnic Ukrainians and he is an Orthodox Christian.

All the Ukrainian olygarchs, with the sole exception of Ahmetov, are Jews

Richest people in Ukraine:

Poroshenko -- Ukrainian
Akhmetov -- Tatar
Boholiubov -- Jewish
Tyhypko -- Ukrainian
Korban -- Jewish
Kosiuk -- Ukrainian
Zhevago -Russian
Novinsky -- Russian, major supporter of Russian Orthodox Church
Kolomoysky -- Jewish
Pinchuk -- Jewish
Tymoshenko- 1/2 Ukrainian, 1/4 Latvian, 1/4 Jewish (1/4 Jewish isn't Jewish)

So 4/11 are Jewish.

What is Russia's ratio?

Svigor , May 13, 2018 at 3:03 am GMT

[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly profound and true. He said "an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges, one has to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most people across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice is completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is becoming "too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us are absolutely terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will cost us all a terrible price.]

Add to that the Jews' other genocidal favorites; diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, and anti-nationalism-fur-de-goyim.

Of course, Saker and his fellow cucked "Russian nationalists" don't add them, which is part of the reason that I'm indifferent to Russian nationalists anymore.

Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement.

Let's just say I'm not taking flatheads' word on this one.

In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case.

Only took you like a thousand words to get around to the point; congratulations.

Svigor , May 13, 2018 at 3:08 am GMT
@animalogic

This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself internationally as the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via tariffs etc to retard, if not destroy its future economic development)

In reality the US strategy is now to be a bit less than a total globalist-run whorehouse. Which will probably be changed back with the next new president. China's main concern will be internal stability and security for the foreseeable future.

Svigor , May 13, 2018 at 3:13 am GMT
@Momus

Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with ICBM's?

Who among us wants to admit that the ship has kinda sailed, given Israeli and Pakistani nukes?

Biff , May 13, 2018 at 4:58 am GMT
@Momus

Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with ICBM's?

I would rather see Iran with nukes than Israel. The world would be a better place.

jilles dykstra , May 13, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
One indeed can admire how a few thousand jews wield such power. I consider the rest of jewry as their victims.
But then, why not admire Hitler, he was on his own.
In both cases, disaster struck.

Jews still do not see that the present situation in the USA resembles the Weimar Republic. Henry Ford knew this quite well 'in the end most Jewish enterprises fail through overconfidence'. Possibly the first time was when they were, as is asserted, implicated in the murder of the Roman emperor. Rome twice sent big armies to Palestine. If Rome also invented Christianity to undermine them, it remains an interesting theory.

Daisy , May 13, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

I am inclined to agree with you Putin is smarter and would not/cannot fall for the bait. I believe history will confirm that he will save the human race from total annihilation that we possibly face in months/years to come. I was hoping that Trump would also be a force for good but my view is changing as each day passes. I do not understand the subservient position that the US takes with Israel. Yes there is an aggressive Zionist faction who control America and yes nobody dares speak out against them but there must come a time when enough is enough. Unfortunately if Trump meant it when he said he would drain the swamp he has been prevented from doing so.

Sam J. , May 13, 2018 at 6:55 am GMT
I wouldn't be too hard on Putin. I have a whacked theory that the Jews see the control of the USA slipping. 9-11 was a huge screw up and more and more people know. They had talked of moving to India or China but I don't think that will work. Neither will allow the same stunts they have pulled around Whites. I think the psychopathic Jews are breed to be a parasite on the White Man and it will never work elsewhere. So they're fucked. What can they do? Well if you're a psychopath then the best thing to do would be to start a China/Russia vs. USA nuke war and while this goes on nuke the Europeans, Arabs and maybe a little germ warfare thrown in for good measure. You sit in the middle and hunker down then start over.

Now this may be completely crazy but psychopaths are crazy by most peoples definition and the above is perfectly logical. Maybe Putin doesn't think of it in directly these terms like I laid out but he can't help but notice that these animals are off, a lot. The Jews position gets worse every single day. They will have no luck at all disarming the Americans and the internet, despite their censorship, can;t be completely closed down. Their media platform is failing. No one believes what they say.

We should get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can but by any means necessary. Jewish populations upon moving into another territory are in no way distinguishable from a tribe of psychopaths over the long term. No one wants to live with psychopaths.

El Dato , May 13, 2018 at 7:10 am GMT
@Svigor

Let's just say I'm not taking flatheads' word on this one.

Reminder that this is the task of the IAEA.

Which sadly doesn't have the permission to check Israel's nuclear 'nads.

Monty Ahwazi , May 13, 2018 at 7:33 am GMT
Mr Saker,
I agree with your first part of the article and if I may add, Putin is a corrupt capitalist much like his brother in the US, Trump! They do love wealth and power so much that they both are prime targets for corruption by the wealthy Z's. Now that they both have become pawns and subservient to a third party, the Z's are dancing in street for taking control of the 2 superpowers! The one point that I'd disagree with is about your concerns of the 2 super powers having to come closer to a potential military conflict! Since a third party has taken control of the two superpowers the 2 countries are NOT allowed to challenge each other militarily because there's zero or even less than zero benefits for the real people who are in charge!
chris , May 13, 2018 at 9:09 am GMT
@yurivku

It was a real stab in the back for our allies and that's really hard to see.

I definitely see yours and the Saker's arguments in making this point, however, personally, it all looks to me like act 1 of a bigger play. Like Trump, Putin seems to make his concessions up front, but there must, by necessity be a payback concession somewhere down the road; if their allowed survival itself isn't the original concession already.

The nature of the understanding between Russia and Israel, which has not been covered anywhere in the news, must ultimately not be so difficult to determine for journalists investigating it, if such journalists actually existed.

None of them has any interest in covering this, however, because: the west can't deviate from the onslaught of Russian vilification; Russia, doesn't want to show its vulnerabilities and Israel doesn't want to show its power.

But I suspect some of this will come to light as the next phase of operations against Iran.

El Dato , May 13, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT
David Stockman got it:

https://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2018/05/11/the-deep-state-first-madness-on-both-ends-of-the-acela-corridor/

The mere threat of a military attack from the White House is madness because it arises from blatant lies that have absolutely nothing to do with US national security. Nor, for that matter, the security of any other country in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim 61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset.

Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb.

But that's where the whopper comes in. It amounts to the ridiculous postulate that Iran is so fiendishly evil that if it is involved in the nuclear fuel cycle in any way, shape or form -- presumably even just operating a uranium mine -- it is only a matter of months before it will have a bomb.

As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his blatant fear-mongering.

But maybe this will blow the top on the economic fiction that's been going on since at leads Greenspan:

And that gets us to the madness at the other end of the Acela Corridor. On a day in which there was no good news whatsoever -- except that defense spending will go ever higher making the impending yield shock even worse -- the stock market rose by another 1%.

There is no mystery as to why, however. Honest price discovery and the discounting of real world information was totally destroyed by the Fed's monetary central planners years ago.

The only thing the casino discounts today is the trading points on the hourly, daily and weekly stock charts, and the presumption that both the fiscal and central banking branches of the state stand ready to "stimulate" whenever a serious breach occurs on the charts.

Nothing could be more mistaken -- and for reasons we will amplify upon in Part 2.

But the spoiler alert is this: The private sector is now swamped under record and unsustainable debt in both the household and business sectors. By succumbing to the most incendiary Deep State meme of all -- the Iranian Nuke lie -- the Donald has now made a public debt catastrophe an absolute certainty.

Pat Pappano , May 13, 2018 at 9:42 am GMT
It looks like a smackdown following the announcement of the superweapons. My thought on Putin's gloating show was why not keep these weaponse developments secret. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't push it back in. One explanation may be that Putin thought he was in charge up to that point, but may have found out differently. I don't know if Russia has a Rothschild central bank. But agreed, it certainly looks bad. Plus Israel has hit Syria again. It all looks very bad.
Rabbitnexus , May 13, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
@Momus

Don't be ridiculous,. Most of us would trust Iran with nukes even if they wanted them, which they do not, before the Zionist terrorist state. As the Saker said. "How anybody can respect, never mind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomaniacal thugs (and cowards) than the Israelis. "

ussia's objectives in Syria are not identical to their own? Are they not students of history?

I can only imagine the negotiations that went on in Russia among Netanyahu and company and the Russian government. I'm certain that Russia made assurances that it would not provide S-300 systems. What did Netanyahu have to pay for that? Perhaps assurances that he would stop pushing the Americans to bomb Syrian positions? I don't know. You have an imagination. Think of what Putin wants that Netanyahu could provide.

animalogic , May 13, 2018 at 11:42 am GMT
@Wally

I congratulate Mr Roberts for his courage.
"We must take it on faith alone."
I also agree with all his references to Israel. I loathe people who demand acts of faith (or self induced stupidity)

Iris , May 13, 2018 at 11:45 am GMT
@Pat Pappano

Yours is a very relevant point.

Russia has a national, sovereign, bank , led by a very competent economist, Elvira Nabiulina.

However, Russia's economy is not a match to its military status. Russia's entire GDP is lower than South Korea's, and is only slightly over twice the Pentagon's budget.

I think this is one of the reasons why President Putin must tread carefully: Russia's economy and internal stability are very vulnerable to external economic and financial pressure.

[May 13, 2018] Russia goals in Syria vs Iran and Hezbollah goals

May 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Frankie P , May 13, 2018 at 11:00 am GMT

@utu

I am a supporter of the Resistance. I support resistance to American hegmony, the idea of a unipolar world with the rest of the nations following American dictates. I support resistance by American citizens against the ideas of American exceptionalism, ongoing foreign belligerence that benefits only the Military Industrial Complex and a certain "shitty little country in the Levant". I support resistance to the Zionist State, the ongoing crimes perpetrated by the Zionists against both the indigenous Palestinians in their own nation and against their neighboring Arab countries. I support American resistance to the stranglehold that supporters of Israel enjoy on the political system in the US.

Therefore, I support actors such as China and Russia in that they are cooperating to balance the unbridled hubris and exceptionalism of my country, providing a balance, a multi-polar future. Iran has become a lynchpin in this geopolitical competition, being positioned smack in the middle of a horizontal (OBOR/BRI initiative) and vertical (Russia's energy cooperation ideas) axis of the future.

I support Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (Hizbollah) in their desire to remain independent, complete nations while supporting the Palestinians and fighting against the Zionists.

I am not so naive, however, to imagine that all the components of the resistance have similar goals in specific areas, in this case the Syrian situation. It is more than curious to see people saying that Putin "sold out" Syria and Iran. Do you not consider that Putin is acting for the benefit of the Russian nation and Russian interests, and not for the benefit of the rest of the resistance and their program? Do you not realize that without the Russian action in support of the Assad administration, he would certainly have lost his nation, a nation that would currently be a destabilized basket case, a series of fragments falling under control of various Sunnite head choppers, Kurdish militias, and government remnants?

It is important to consider the objectives of the resistance players in Syria, both short- and long-term. Russia's objectives in Syria have been to keep the nation united and integrated, under the control of the current legitimate government until democratic elections can be held at some future date. Russia wants to prevent a radical Sunni movement from threatening its southern flank, sending activists to radicalize the Sunni populations in its Caucasus region. Another more recent objective of Russia in this long-term goal is to keep the Americans out of Syria as much as possible, hoping that the cessation of military action and the return of Syrian government control will lead to removal of all US troops.

The Russian goals do NOT include the destruction of the Zionist State, the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or the emancipation of the Palestinian people. It is very important to keep this in mind.

The goals of the providers of the boots on the ground that saved the Syrian government, namely Hizbollah, Iran, and the Iraqi Shiite militias, extend beyond the scope of the Russian goals, at least as far as long-term targets are concerned. These players certainly share the Russian goals of shoring up the Assad regime, destroying the Daesh forces, both mercenary and local, and returning Syria to the stable ally that it was. There are more goals for these forces, though, and these goals are clear for all to see.

Hizbollah wants the return of all Lebanese territory to Lebanon. Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria want the return of the Golan Heights to Syrian control. They rightfully see the stabilization of the situation in Syria, the massing of their forces, hardened, battle tested forces, as an excellent opportunity to engage Israel and take back territory.

They realize that the Syrian air defenses are much improved, and although Israel is still able to attack Syrian targets with impunity, there is more risk.

They have made plans and accumulated missiles, accurate, precision missiles that will be able to attack Israeli military positions in the Golan Heights, for example, the IDF electronic surveillance / EW positions on Mt. Hermon. These provide the Israelis with direct line-of-sight to most of the Damascus Plain. What would happen if Syria/Iran/Hizbollah used a precision missile strike to take out the Israeli's eyes, as well as the AD jammers and other equipment? All of these players also want a fair and just solution for the Palestinian people, the recovery of their ability to determine their own future on terms that are acceptable to them. I support these goals. I am not Putin.

Remember, an escalation in military action between the Israelis and the Syrian/Iranian/Hizbollah forces in southern Syria will be viewed by Russia as a greater risk for its own troops, and a greater chance that the US will interfere more forcefully in the country. The Russians want to avoid this. Do I like this? Of course not. Keep in mind my own views, and the forces of the resistance that I said that I support. Do I feel that the Russians sold out thier allies? No way. Do you really think that the generals of the IRGC and Hassan Nasrallah are unaware of the fact that R

[May 13, 2018] And interesting admission of the stress the neoliberlaism is under from Michael Hayden

Notable quotes:
"... Ex-NSA chief says Americans have been conned by Russia and Trump and should look to intel community for salvation. ..."
"... The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies, Michael Hayden, Penguin Press, 304 pages ..."
"... He warns that "the structures we rely on to prevent civil war and societal collapse are under stress." ..."
"... Simply put, Hayden's book is blowing 10 dog whistles at once. Arise ye patriots [of neoliberalism] of Langley and Fort Meade! ..."
"... The IC lost all trust after the Iraqi WMD lie. They'll never get it back. That doesn't mean Trump isn't a liar too. But it's not either/or. ..."
May 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Originally from: Can Michael Hayden Be This Blinded By Hate By Peter Van Buren

Ex-NSA chief says Americans have been conned by Russia and Trump and should look to intel community for salvation.

Former Director of the National Security Agency Michael Hayden. Gage Skidmore/Shutterstock The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies, Michael Hayden, Penguin Press, 304 pages

Former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden's new book The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies wants to be the manifesto behind an intelligence community coup. It ends up reading like outtakes from Dr. Strangelove .

Trump cannot discern truth from falsehood, Hayden says, and is the product of too much fact-free thinking, especially on social media ("computational propaganda" where people can "publish without credentials") where lies are deployed by the Russians to destroy the United States. Instead Hayden calls for artificial intelligence and a media truth-rating system to "purify our discourse" and help "defend it against inauthentic stimulation."

Hayden believes in the "fragility of civilization" as clearly as he believes there is a "FOX/Trump/RT" alliance in place to exploit it. Under Trump, "post-truth is pre-fascism, and to abandon facts is to abandon freedom." Hayden claims Trump has a "glandular aversion" to even thinking about how "Russia has been actively seeking to damage the fabric of American democracy."

Salvation, it would seem, depends on the intelligence community. Hayden makes clear, ominously quoting conversations with anonymous IC officers, that no one else is protecting America from these online threats to our precious bodily fluids . He warns that "the structures we rely on to prevent civil war and societal collapse are under stress." The IC on the other hand "pursues Enlightenment values [and] is essential not just to American safety but to American liberty."

Hayden recalls how he reminded a lad fresh to the IC to "protect yourself. And above all protect the institution. American still needs it." He has a bit of advice about the CIA: "We are accustomed to relying on their truth to protect us from foreign enemies. Now we may need their truth to save us from ourselves." The relationship between Trump and the IC, Hayden threatens, is "contentious, divisive, and unpredictable" in these "uncharted waters for the Republic."

Simply put, Hayden's book is blowing 10 dog whistles at once. Arise ye patriots [of neoliberalism] of Langley and Fort Meade!

Yet for all his emphasis on truth, Hayden is curiously lax in presenting actual evidence of the apocalypse. You are left to believe because Hayden says you must: paternalism at its best. Plus, to disbelieve is to side with Putin. The best we get are executive summary-like statements along the lines of "There is clear evidence of what I would call convergence, the convergence of a mutually reinforcing swirl of Presidential tweets and statements, Russian influenced social media, alt right websites and talk radio, Russian 'white' press like RT and even mainstream U.S. media like Fox News."

With that established, Hayden informs us that when the IC tried to warn Trump of the Russian plot, he "rejected a fact-based intel assessment because it was inconsistent with a preexisting world view or because it was politically inconvenient, the stuff of ideological authoritarianism not pragmatic democracy." Comrade, er, Candidate Trump, says Hayden matter-of-factly, "did sound a lot like Vladimir Putin." The two men, he declaims, are "Russian soulmates."

Hayden figures that if you've read this far into his polemic, he might as well just splurge the rest of his notes on you. Trump is "uninformed, lazy, dishonest, off the charts, rejects the premise objective reality even existed." He's fueled by Russian money (no evidence of this is presented in the book, Hayden says, because it's hidden in the tax returns, as if Line 42 on Trump's 1040 would read "Putin Black Funds $5 mil," and the IRS, which does have the returns, overlooked that).

Trump is an "unwitting agent" of Putin, which Hayden tells us in Russian is polezni durak , so you can see he knows his Cold War lingo. We hear how Wikileaks worked with the Russkies, how Trump Jr. worked with the Russkies, how the Russkies wormed their way into Tower so they could see the Big Board, how the whole brouhaha over #TakeAKnee was Russian meddling, and how Jill Stein existed to "bleed off votes from Clinton" -- every Mueller fan-fiction trope tumbling from the pages like crumbs left over from an earlier reader.

That's why The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies reads like as a polemic. But it also fails as a book.

There are pages of filler, jumbled blog post-like chapters about substate actors and global tectonics. Hayden writes in a recognizable style that might be called Bad Military, where everything must eventually be tied to some Big Idea, preferably with classical references Googled-up to add gravitas.

So it is not enough for Hayden to state Trump is a liar. He has to blame Trump for usurping the entire body of Western thought: "We are in a post-truth world, a world in which decisions are far more based upon emotion and preference. And that's an overturning of the Western way of thought since the Enlightenment." Bad things are Hobbesian; good things Jeffersonian, Madisonian, or Hamiltonian. People Hayden agrees with get adjectival modifiers before their names: the perceptive scholar ____, the iconic journalist ____, the legendary case officer ____. It makes for tiresome reading, like it's Sunday night edging 4 a.m. and you still have nine undergrad papers on the causes of the Civil War to grade.

Hayden is openly contemptuous of the American people, seeing them as brutes who need to be led around, either by the Russians, as he sees it now, or by the IC, as he wishes it to be. Proof of how dumb we are? Hayden cites a poll showing 83 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats don't believe the IC analysis that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when they damn well should. Further proof? Russian bots at work on Twitter influencing conservative minds by using the hashtags #God and #Benghazi.

In our odd times, Hayden is a Hero of the Resistance. Seemingly forgotten is that, as head of the NSA, he implemented blanket surveillance of American citizens in a rape of the Fourth Amendment, itself a product of the Enlightenment, justifying his unconstitutional actions with a mishmash of post-truth platitudes and still-secret legal findings. Hayden also supported torture during the War on Terror, but whatever.

This book-length swipe right for the IC leaves out the slam dunk work those agencies did on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Any concern about political motives inside the IC is swept away as "baseless." Gina Haspel , who oversaw the torture program, is an "inspired choice" to head CIA. Hayden writes for the rubes, proclaiming that the IC produces facts when in reality even good intel can only be assessments and ambiguous conclusions.

That people so readily overlook Hayden's sins simply because he rolls off snark against Trump speaks to our naiveté. That men like Hayden retain their security clearances while serving as authors and paid commentators to outlets like CNN speaks to how deep the roots of the Deep State reach. That some troubled Jack D. Ripper squirreled inside the IC might take this pablum seriously is frightening.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .

Jack May 9, 2018 at 11:09 pm

The "assault on intelligence" indeed.
Kent , says: May 10, 2018 at 6:39 am
The IC lost all trust after the Iraqi WMD lie. They'll never get it back. That doesn't mean Trump isn't a liar too. But it's not either/or.
Robert Hume , says: May 10, 2018 at 8:57 am
He's not blinded by hate. If you actually read the book, he describes his issues with Obama, Clinton and everyone else. The fact remains he outlined the truth: Trump is a bumbling fool who cannot distinguish truth fro fiction and is the most corrupt president ever to inhabit the oval office, and has no idea what he's doing.
Stephen J, , says: May 10, 2018 at 9:06 am
This interesting article states: Gina Haspel, who oversaw the torture program, is an 'inspired choice' to head CIA. Really, torture is used by gangsters and other underworld villains. Therefore, I ask based on the evidence against governments. "Are We Seeing Government by Gangsters"? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2018/03/are-we-seeing-government-by-gangsters.html
C. L. H. Daniels , says: May 10, 2018 at 10:00 am
The guy sounds like a certain Senator from Wisconsin:

"The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer – the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."

balconesfault , says: May 10, 2018 at 10:40 am
I've never been a fan of Hayden, and his current salvos against Trump aren't going to change that.

But "Trump cannot discern truth from falsehood, Hayden says, and is the product of too much fact-free thinking, especially on social media "

There's a serious rebuttal to this?

Kurt Gayle , says: May 10, 2018 at 10:43 am
Peter Van Buren reminds us all: "Seemingly forgotten is that, as head of the NSA, he implemented blanket surveillance of American citizens in a rape of the Fourth Amendment "

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[May 12, 2018] Bolton diplomacy: "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York." by B

Notable quotes:
"... John Bolton is a ruthless man : ..."
"... In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. ..."
"... Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you." ..."
"... John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office. ..."
May 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Originally from: MoA - Countdown To War On Iran

John Bolton is a ruthless man :

In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons].
...
Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."

Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you."

There was a pause.

"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

José Bustani successfully negotiated to get OPCW inspectors back into Iraq. They would have found nothing. That would have contradicted the U.S. propaganda campaign to wage war on Iraq. When Bustani did not leave voluntarily, the U.S. threatened to cut the OPCW's budget and "convinced" other countries in the executive council to kick him out .

John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office.

The U.S. administration, the neoconservatives and the media are running a remake (recommended) of the propaganda campaign they had launched to wage war on Iraq. This time the target is Iran:

As with Iraq, it's easier for Bolton and Netanyahu to achieve that goal if they discredit the current system of international inspections. Bolton has called the inspection efforts established by the Iran nuclear deal "fatally inadequate" and declared that "the International Atomic Energy Agency" is "likely missing significant Iranian [nuclear] facilities." In his 2015 speech to Congress attacking the Iran deal, Netanyahu insisted that "Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them."

Anyone who counters their propaganda must go. Bolton, who demands to bomb Iran , is back in charge. One of his natural targets is the IAEA which certifies that Iran sticks to the nuclear deal. It seems that Bolton succeeds with his machinations:

The chief of inspections at the U.N. nuclear watchdog has resigned suddenly, the agency said on Friday without giving a reason.

The departure of Tero Varjoranta comes at a sensitive time, three days after the United States announced it was quitting world powers' nuclear accord with Iran, raising questions as to whether Tehran will continue to comply with it.

Varjoranta, a Finn, had been a deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and head of its Department of Safeguards, which verifies countries' compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, since October 2013.

Another casualty is the State Department bureaucrat who certified Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal:

One of the State Department's top experts on nuclear proliferation resigned this week after President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, in what officials and analysts say is part of a worrying brain drain from public service generally over the past 18 months.

Richard Johnson, a career civil servant who served as acting assistant coordinator in State's Office of Iran Nuclear Implementation, had been involved in talks with countries that sought to salvage the deal in recent weeks, including Britain, France, and Germany -- an effort that ultimately failed.
...
The office Johnson led has gone from seven full-time staffers to none since Trump's inauguration.

The man who launched the war on Iraq now gets awards . Netanyahoo is agitating for war on Iran just like he agitated for war on Iraq. Shady groups of nutty "experts" peddle policy papers for 'regime change'. U.S. "allies" are put under pressure. With their willingness to "compromise" they actually further the prospect of war . When they insist on sticking to international rules malign actors prepare measures to break their resistance. All that is still just a "shaping operation", a preparation of the battlefield of public opinion. This buildup towards the war will likely take a year or two.

What is still needed is an event that pushes the U.S. public into war fever. The U.S. typically uses false-flag incidents - the Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Maine, the Anthrax murders - to create a psychological pseudo-rationale for war. An Israel lobbyist begs for one to launch war on Iran.

One wonders when and how a new 9/11 like incident, or another Anthrax scare, will take place. It will be the surest sign that the countdown to war on Iran has started.

Posted by b on May 12, 2018 at 06:35 AM | Permalink

glitch , May 12, 2018 7:15:41 PM | 132

John Bolton's a man? Does a coward who instigated others to fight get to be called a man? Likewise Cheney Bush Clinton Obama Trump Bibi etc etc etc.
Easy to be ruthless when others take the risks and pay the costs.
fairleft , May 12, 2018 7:12:43 AM | 4
isn't the same unity throughout the powers that be, particularly in the mainstream media, that there was when Bush was President. Trump through the hatred he generates theoughout the 'upper crust', makes it hard for many deep staters to get on board a war drive he would lead.

And as you said, b, Trump needs a real or false flag, one with many casualties, and something that won't fall apart from lack of evidence and a few days of rational scrutiny. Sounds like a job for the Saudi mercenaries, Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Peter AU 1 , May 12, 2018 7:14:53 AM | 5
People in high places are leaving due to team Trump threats.
Receiving mail from team trump employed black cube is no small thing. Kudos to you b for sticking with it.
Two thoughts on US going to war with Iran. 10 It will destroy the US or certainly the US empire and hegemony. 2) Iran needs plenty of help and respect during and after as they will destroy the US. Not physically, but they will destroy US power.
Gesine Hammerling , May 12, 2018 8:04:24 AM | 6
What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over and over again?
john wilson , May 12, 2018 8:06:41 AM | 7
The question we all want to know is, did Trump appoint lunatic Bolton entirely of his own volition, or was he forced to appoint this psychopath? The reach of the US deep state seems to be limitless. A curious thing happened the other day when someone in the US administration announced that America would no longer be funding the white helmets propaganda outfit. Over here in the UK parliament an opposition member of parliament was practically foaming at the mouth with rage and demanded of prime minister Mrs May that the UK would be continuing to fund the white helmets. When she assured him that the UK was fully behind the white helmets and that funding would remain in place, there was a cheer from around the house. I'm amazed that Bolton allowed the administration to cut off funding when even the UK idiots in parliament want to fund the propaganda arm of the head choppers.
somebody , May 12, 2018 8:16:55 AM | 8
Iran is quite safe. Regime change is possible in the US.
Jen , May 12, 2018 8:24:06 AM | 9
I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security Advisor: is his position part of the President's Executive Office and does he (Bolton, that is) have a department to answer to him and a budget? Is his position any more secure than, say, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State?
Ian , May 12, 2018 8:44:16 AM | 10
Gesine Hammerling @6:

Mementos from Epstein Island.

ralphieboy , May 12, 2018 8:52:43 AM | 11
The more that Trump is pushed into a corner by investigations of various scandals, the more he needs something to distract from them. A war in a far-off country would be the perfect thing to get people rallying around the President.
Ian , May 12, 2018 8:53:49 AM | 12
Jen @9:
From what I understand, Pompeo is much higher on the food chain. The SoS is in the line of succession; advisors are not. I believe the position is just a single individual with closer access to the POTUS.
Harry , May 12, 2018 8:59:01 AM | 13
I said it many times before, and I can safely repeat it again, there wont be a hot war with Iran. Entire NATO couldnt defeat Iran, and US would go alone (maybe Israel would piggyback few shots). It would end as catastrophe for US and de-facto end as the main superpower. Pentagon (and even CIA) are many things, but suicidally stupid isnt one of them, neither is Trump, or even Nutjobyahoo.

What we will see is more sanctions (to try to create civil unrest) and another "color revolution" endeavor, and it will fail too.

Anon , May 12, 2018 9:05:51 AM | 14
Harry

Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade, occupy it in my opinion.

john , May 12, 2018 9:11:27 AM | 15
Gesine Hammerling says:

What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over and over again

notwithstanding your ziocons , you got an hour and a half ?

Jen says:

I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security Advisor

maybe you should ask Condoleezza Rice?

somebody , May 12, 2018 9:12:09 AM | 16
14 " take out " ?
A P , May 12, 2018 9:12:42 AM | 17
Trump coopted by the neo-cons? Exactly what lever would they have on Trumpty Dumbdy that isn't already public knowledge? Misogyny, Philandering?... already tried that pussy-grabbing Stormy front. Financial improprieties? That Trump Inc. was/is a serial bankrupt corporation, even screwing low-income students and any building contractor it could?... Old news. That Trumpty Dumbdy is too stupid to read the full documentation presented to him, that he can't write/deliver a coherent, logical line of thought?... obvious from well before the day he officially declared his candidacy.

Trump (and his real estate "empire") was and is a product of the Rothschild cabal, and he was deliberately foisted on the US electorate to be the only one in the country Killary could beat... OOPS!

So we are now seeing Plan-B, where Trumpty is manipulated and browbeaten to shed the few shreds of intelligence and decency he still possessed. All the Deep State/Rothschild-enablers have to do is appeal to Trumpty's fragile ego, or Melania's emotional jags, and they are in control.

But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS openly attack Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show the likely course of events where the Zionists are allowed to carry on with the Yinon Plan. Syria is the line in the sand, despite Erdogan trying to play the US off Russia for historical gotcha gains. Don't forget, Erdogan owes his life to Putin, who ensured the US coup failed by targeting the rogue Turk jets tasked with shooting Erdogan's plane down... I'd bet the Turk pilots were told that if they even turned on their targeting systems, they would be shot down... self preservation is a strong deterrent.

Israel/Saudi on their own cannot withstand even Syria, Hizbolla and Iran directly, even if the russian military only backstopped the Syrian alliance. Ahe US public won't tolerate another Iraq debacle, as zero body bags landing at Edwards AFB is the limit. Let alone that Iran would be Iraq on steroids especially for the several 1,000 in the western Syria caldron. It's a big caldron right now, but with Russian-manned mobile S-400's/etc. protecting all Syrian, Iranian and possibly Iraqi airspace, those soldiers/mercenaries are sitting ducks after the first bomb lands in Iran.

Harry , May 12, 2018 9:13:12 AM | 18
@ Anon, first look up what type of strategy Iran has against US invasion, its literally impossible to take it out in 10 years, let alone in one day :)
morongobill , May 12, 2018 9:15:41 AM | 19
@14:"Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day"- highly doubt that.

Ian- agree but don't forget Kissinger and Nixon.

Robert Snefjella , May 12, 2018 9:18:08 AM | 20
Apologies if following musings are a bit disjointed.

American chronic hostility towards Iran, and long standing American economic and informational and low-level war gainst Iran, has an insane, out-of-touch with reality, ideological/mythological tinge/component to it. I won't try a broad psycho-analysis, or assemble many possible reasons why that might be.

But among those possible components there is a long standing implacable totalitarian bent to US power wielders, reflected in their ordained geo-political communications in the United States. The American economic sanctions and continuously variously hostile policy towards Cuba over more than half a century is an example. The former 'brothel dof the Caribbean' was apparently fine for the US, and the death squad ridden countries of Central America are quite acceptable, but Cuba out of the capitalist orbit? Cuba as attempting a different ideology, and approach: terrible recalcitrant. The very demon of the hemisphere.

In his revelatory book The Praetorian Guard, former CIA John Stockwell noted that as he was growing up, basically nobody questioned the prevailing American ideology and system. Real searching basic debate was absent. Within the context of a culture where freedom of speech is technically prioritized, lauded as an ideal, somehow self-censorship and discussion is limited to within-the-box of convention, thus discussion as scripted theatre, propaganda, dominated overwhelmingly.

No real debate, but what was repeated ad infinitum were messianic messages'we swear allegiance to the flag', we're number one, we're the free world, we're the good guys.

After the JFK coup d'etat, basically everything in American media became an exercise in controlling all political discourse and trying like crazy to make sure pretense prevailed. This was if anything accentuated after the 9/11 false flag treasonous mind-f**k.

There was also a deadly military doctrine adopted by the US after WW2, when segments of US power decided to go for global military domination, basically permanent war and war preparation. The cliche is that the first casualty of war is truth, but in the case of the United States, doubly so, as that train had already left the station.

The United States is a kind of astonishingly cautionary historical example of the deranged trajectory that dishonesty, pretense and censorship as normalized and dominant will ensure. So many natural advantages, but the external manifestation of the US became mass murder and subterfuge; internal problems of the US are festering, metastisizing, and tens of millions of Americans are deeply demoralized, anxiety ridden, emotion-related drug-medication-dependent.

Back to Iran. A few years ago while driving in the evening I turned on the car radio and the first words I heard from a (Jewish) talk show host on a Toronto station was the question: Do you think the Americans have the balls to nuke Iran? Really bizzarre sick question that apparently could be sent out glibly and sefely into the Canadian political discussion universe as an intellectual feat. And on numerous occasions for many years it has been commonplace in Canadian mass media to depict Iran in a hostile, negative light. And as German writer Udo Ulfkotte bravely told us before his untimely death, the CIA also influences and controls and thus contaminates much of European mass media communication.

So the American insanity and dishonesty and war mongering is playing itself out on a broad stage, (witness the truly crazy pathetic British government's behaviour of late) and crazy people do crazy things, so yah, Iran is still in the crosshairs. But there is a kind of desperate, fading, dated quality to the American obsession with 'evil Iran', and lies and make-believe and insanity cannot escape colliding with reality. The collision can make a helluva a mess, but at some point hopefully the pendulum swings towards a reassertion of sanity and decency and honesty.

How many times will Americans shoot themselves in the foot for Israel and fairy tales?

somebody , May 12, 2018 9:21:32 AM | 21
11 Yep, Reagan and Thatcher were there before. Reagan "was strong" in Grenada and Thatcher in the Falklands.

At present Pompeo seems to try to snatch North Korea from Russia and China .

Bolton seems to plan for war there, too .

I guess the US will have to get clear about their priorities.

ken , May 12, 2018 9:29:33 AM | 22
@ somebody.

"But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS openly attack Iran"

It appears Putin and Russia have decided to sit all this out. While Putin was enjoying the Victory Parade with Netanyahu,,, Netanyahu was bombing his ally Syria. Putin was all smiles and so far all we hear is crickets.

Putin will sell his S-400 systems to anyone that wants them EXCEPT Syria and all they want is the S-300.

I don't know what's going on but as far as Russia is concerned I wouldn't bank on their helping Iran.

China? China can be purchased like cloths on a rack.

No,,, I think it's pretty open right now for the US to attack Iran. Whether it can survive a war with Iran is doubtful,,, but that's never stopped them before.

Anon , May 12, 2018 9:31:07 AM | 23
somebody

Harry

Yes "take out" as I defined not through occupation/invasion but fighter jet strikes and/or from sea. That wont take more than 1 day for 3 top Nato nations.

Nev , May 12, 2018 9:37:59 AM | 24
I wonder what is going through the minds of Kim and the South Korean leadership. It is obvious that the US is not agreement capable. What sort of guarantees can the US provide. Even if China and Russia provide guarantees it may not be enough. Kim sees that if a deal is made, then the crippling sanctions could be reimposed or remain. Kim and his sister are not stupid.
Pft , May 12, 2018 9:56:51 AM | 25
Neocons and Bolton are Trotskyites. Permanent Revolutionists

The ruling elite never really knew how dumb people were until the internet and social media. With the help of Trumps supporter and Facebook investor Thiel and his company Palintir and Facebook to help them figure out all the data they collected, they know they can make the cattle believe anything without making it believable to anyone with an IQ under 120

The few that figure it out without being members of the cult are isolated and inconsequential.

Plato told us what he hoped would happen. Leo Straus who is the godfather of the neocons emphasized Platos Noble Lie which is behind all of todays fake news/history . Plato was heavily influenced by Irans Zoroastrianism

I believe elements behind the reformation in the 16th century and Sabbateans from the 17th century, Frankists , Freemasons and Jesuits from the 18 th century and Zionists , and Martinists and Marxists from the 19th century joined forces to create a NWO that is a Luciferian cult of Global Synachrists

The neocons are the latest manifestation of the Synarchists, and unfortunately for the world this means global terror much like the Rothschild back Trotsky hoped to accomplish in
the 20th century before being thwarted by Stalin. It also means the end of Religion as Neocons corrupt Protestant Christianity, in US and Across the Atlantic while CIA controlled Jesuit Pope Francis destroys Catholicism. Zionism and the Holocaust wiped out Torah believers and the GWOT and neocons are proceeding to destroy Islam after corrupting it with Islamism with help from the Saudi Arabias corrupt Wahhabism which has spread Islamic extremism along with US and Israel

For those who believe the US can be destroyed, you are in denial. There is no stopping the US/Israel//British/EU alliance. The only hope is that once the perpetual revolution is over that the philosopher kings described by Plato will be merciful. Unfortunately, given many of them are neo-malthusians who think most of humanity are worthless consumers of Gaias precious resources, i am not optimistic

Kalen , May 12, 2018 9:59:21 AM | 26
However you would define war US (Israel) and Iran is at war footing for decades, nothing new here, so I would not panic here that Bolton would do something.

It cannot be more clear that as much as Trump is a flaccid clown of ignorance and belligerence to cover up his tax evasion crimes from Muller, Bolton plays role of barking poodle that all, did not get anything done what global oligarchic interests tell him or he will be put down.

And Please do not compare Iran to Iraq especially after two Iraqi wars, Iran is in position to cause major damage to global oligarchic interests and hence there will be no escalation despite fire and fury rhetoric as it was in NK case, it is all about reintegration of Iranian oligarchy to global oligarchic country club and what we witness is negotiating of condition of selling out Iranians to neoliberal globalists and by that advance a step in isolating Russia to achieve the same purpose, surrender to globalism.

Also I do not see Netanyahu welcoming hundreds of Iranian missiles landing in Tel Aviv as Saddam only shot few Soviet museum item at Israel and back then all hit their however random targets. There would be no random targets this time so there would be death and vital damage, not to mention that Israel could loose Golan Height in the process. Also there is no way in hell for US to invade Iran, or gather 600k troops as it was in 1991 for one quarter Iran size Iraq.

I know that spreading fear brings clicks but here on this blog we know better than that.

Hoarsewhisperer , May 12, 2018 9:59:52 AM | 27
Don't underestimate Trump. He came to office on an audacious promise to drain The Swamp. It's a very specialized task. It was never going to be easy and I'm quite certain that he went in knowing that his first misjudgment would probably be his last. I don't know how to drain The Swamp but if Trump thinks he can then I do too. I've been pleasantly surprised at his ability to engage with senior officials on the World Stage and appear Presidential. Compared with bumbling fools like Ronny Raygun, Jimmy Carter and Dubya, Trump leaves them for dead in the "100% on the ball" stakes. Whilst I'm waiting, with fingers crossed, I console myself with the following thoughts:

1. Hillary would have been worse.
2. The non-people he wants to neutralise are the worst bunch of scum and arseholes on the planet.
3. Since he's the only person with a Swamp plan, we shouldn't be too picky about his timing and tactics.
4. Trump is an extremely clever individual.

james , May 12, 2018 10:04:17 AM | 28
thanks b... and thanks for the Atlantic article from peter beinart... i thought it was a good article.. here's a quote from it "More than 60 percent of Republicans, according to a March Pew Research Poll, think the United States was right to invade Iraq. George W. Bush's approval rating among Republicans, according to a January CNN poll, is 76 percent." and "It's rare to see non-Americans on political talk shows. That matters because non-Americans overwhelmingly think pulling out of the Iran deal is nuts. And non-Americans are more likely to raise fundamental questions about American nuclear policy -- like why America isn't pushing for inspections of Israel's nuclear program, and why America keeps demanding that other nations denuclearize while building ever more nuclear weapons of its own."

then you can read @20 Robert Snefjella post - thanks robert - and note the radio interview from toronto..

sorry to say, but this 'neo-con' term is a quick term to describe so much of what looks like the koolaid american citizens drink regularly.. and there is plenty of it to go around in canada too..

americans by and large look like a nation of idiots, spoon fed everything they know..

i tend to agree with harrys view @13... colour revolution will continue.. but unlike harry, i do believe the bombs will fall and we will enter some type of ww3 scenario.. the usa-israel are too much led by the neo con koolaid to step away from any of their ongoing insanity.. i just can't see the insanity stopping with rational, reasonable people having a say.. so, maybe i don't fully agree with harry other then in the short term..

ralphieboy , May 12, 2018 10:16:15 AM | 29
@ Hoarsewhisperer #11

I agree with your assessment that Trump is a very clever individual - when it comes to manipulating the media and distracting from his words and actions, but I disagree with every other assertion you have made and find that he has filled his administration with grifters and con artists that rival the days of Grant or Harding.

And if you have grown up in America under DACA and are about to be deported or are losing your health insurance coverage because key provisions of ACA have been overturned, just try reciting "Hillary would have been worse!"

Menschmaschine , May 12, 2018 10:17:56 AM | 30
Utter nonsense. The US and Israel are coward bullies. They will pounce when the odds are good, but they are quite rational about when they are not. There have been endless threats and sabre rattling by the US and Israel against Iran for decades, but they never followed through. They will most certainly not do so now, when the relative military position of Iran is better than ever. And this "crying wolf" article will join the the countless others written before on the junkpile of historical falsification...
Eric , May 12, 2018 10:28:56 AM | 31
There is a strong delusion that maintains its satanic grip on the "leadership" in DC.
The depiction of Mordor in Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Rings" series is very fitting in describing the present pure evil and absolute darkness of those who plan for war and destruction in the secret chambers in the upper echelons of our society.

What will stop the madness, death, and destruction that has rained down and continues to rain down on so many millions of hapless men, women, and children in the Middle East and abroad? Will it take a few US cities completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Americans vaporized before the insanity of US Empire is stopped?

I pray for peace for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I pray for a "great awakening" amongst the nations of the world to demand an end to the evil US/Zionist madness before it is too late.

Ian , May 12, 2018 10:31:16 AM | 32
Well, Bolton may be up to his usual tricks again. U.N. nuclear watchdog's inspections chief quits suddenly
Red Ryder , May 12, 2018 10:39:41 AM | 33
Any US attack on Iran will be by air, not ground. Though special ops will be inserted in the Afghan border provinces (where the last protests were the largest, fertile ground for insurgents).

Missiles of all kinds will fall on the regime, the military, the Quds, the militias.

And it will be huge, maybe the largest, heaviest attack ever. Once the air defenses are down, bombers will cover the major infrastructure sites with the heaviest bombing since Belgrade and Nam.

Only when the UNSC convenes, probably, no sooner than five or six days, will the attack slow or cease.

Iran will have been set back a few decades. That is the soft goal. The harder goal will be the insurgency and destabilization of the regime and final regime change.

It will take nothing special for this attack to happen. Trump has already made up his mind.

When it will happen is when the US and Israel feel they can suppress the Hezbollah missile threat. Until they have a workable plan for that, not much can happen on a large scale.

But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the sights of the Hegemon.

Ghost Ship , May 12, 2018 10:44:28 AM | 34
>>>> Anon | May 12, 2018 9:05:51 AM | 14
Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade, occupy it in my opinion.

Rubbish.

I assume you're referring to countries other than the United States. In which case, you do know that Germany has about half-a-dozen airworthy attack aircraft, the Royal Navy and France's aircraft carriers would require just about every ship in the other European navies to protect them and part of the reason the British and French begged the United States to intervene in Libya was because they'd run out of PGMs.

Give the European NATO countries a couple of years to build up their forces and force projection skills and European NATO might be in a position to bomb Iran, but as soon as they started building up their forces in the Gulf States, Iran could go to the UNSC to demand that this obvious aggression should be stopped and when FUKUS veto any resolution, Iran has carte blanche to launch preemptive strikes across the Persian Gulf. End of European NATO's war on Iran

And after the Iraq fiasco, I suspect the only country that would go to war without a UNSC resolution is the United States. Germany would almost certainly decide to sit it out, France most probably would and the UK would probably also sit it out.

Finally, even if the top 3 NATO countries did try to get away with a limited air attack, the best response for Iran would be to sink every ship in the Persian Gulf and go on doing so until the United States invades and becomes bogged down in a quagmire far worse than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Curtis , May 12, 2018 10:47:07 AM | 35
I have to agree with those who say a direct attack on Iran is imminent. Sure, some would love this to happen whether Yahoo or Bolton but for now will be happy to apply the "squeeze" of sanctions, ostracism/propaganda. The goal seems to have been to destroy and if not that, then to set the countries back ... under the thumb as it were.

Yes, the US with some assistance could rip Iran's military apart but not take over the country. A majority are somewhat satisfied with the theocratic setup. They know the history with the US/West. And how would Iran react? Long range attacks on Israel or much closer-to-home attacks on the Gulf States and the Saudis as well as blocking at Hormuz? Saddam lobbed a few Scuds at Israel and Riyadh but didn't have much. Iran has more and better missile tech ... which TPTB are going after now ... while Yahoo still pushes "nuclear programs" since he knows (like Iraq) there are no real weapons there.

lysander , May 12, 2018 10:54:54 AM | 36
The US will do everything possible to reimpose sanctions. Hence gaining control of the IAEA and inspection process. This is designed to offer the Europeans a face saving way to back down and submit to US will regarding sanctions. It will probably succeed. Europe, whether it likes it or not, is playing good cop in the game.

War, as in an actual US attack in Iran itself, is pretty much out if the question. A false flag designed to be blamed on Iran and big enough to warrant a war will be placed under enormous scrutiny. Not by the US MSM, of course, but by the rest of the world and the alternative media.

The fact is, before anyone can attack Iran, they have to win in Syria and it doesn't look like they are going to.

As far as sanctions, Iran's best bet may be to give the EU 3 weeks to prove its intent to confront the US (which is unlikely) Then Iran can resume its civilian nuclear development at the fastest possible pace, with the offer to discontinue once the US returns to the JCPOA.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 11:06:27 AM | 37
Peter Beinart, the author of the "As with Iraq" piece above, gets all wound up in the details of nuclear inspections and forgets that in 2003 he supported the misbegotten Iraq invasion and war because a (supposed) peaceful aftermath would help the people of Iraq, and so the people who oppose the war were wrong.
The truth is that liberalism has to try to harness American military power for its purposes because American tanks and bombs are often the only things that bring evil to heel. Opposing this war might have helped liberals retain their purity, but it would have done nothing for the people suffering under Saddam. If liberals are betrayed a second time in the Gulf, hawkish liberalism may well go into temporary eclipse. But one day we, and they, will need it again. . . here

That's akin to the position that Trump has taken on Iran.
In this effort, we stand in total solidarity with the Iranian regime's longest-suffering victims: its own people. The citizens of Iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and extremism of their leaders. The Iranian people long to -- and they just are longing, to reclaim their country's proud history, its culture, its civilization, its cooperation with its neighbors. . . here
Old Microbiologist , May 12, 2018 11:12:51 AM | 38
IMHO what we are seeing are the last ditch efforts of a failing nation. Russia isn't sitting it out but is taking a wait and see attitude. The same for China. All the bluster and twitter tweets in the world mean nothing until someone actually does something. Israel managed to shoot off a massive strike which at best was 50% effective. This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary. Russia cannot fight the US or Israel in Syria. They simply doesn't have the forces present. But, what they can do is push gently and make the FUKUS+I over-commit. Don't forget that the US is working at a current $22 Trillion of debt and these debacles are going to burn money faster than they can print. In the mean time Russia/China are creating an alternate economic system to bypass the petrodollar and especially the SWIFT banking. That is in place and perhaps we will see more countries deciding to bail on the dollar and join the growing crowd.

The US has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for sovereignty and has so far reneged on every treaty. This means that the US is at best an unreliable partner. The South Koreans have wised up seeing that the US is very willing to sacrifice the entire peninsula and every soul living there to kill off the DPNK. That should scare the bejeezus out of every nation friendly to the US anywhere in the world. They are losing friends so fast now it is scary. This only forces the inevitable and the US is going to have to bet the farm to try and keep the hegemony alive. It won't work and the US has the worst record of war fighting imaginable. They can't beat the goat-herders in Afghanistan for example over a span of now 17 years. Fighting a real military such as Iran would be impossible and especially if China throws in her weight. Iran is very important to China and to a lesser extent Russia as well. There is no danger of the US or NATO winning there. However, this could break the bank if it goes south. So, what we are seeing is an existential threat to the US in the form of rebellion against the dollar. Finally, we are seeing countries that have the weight of forces (nuclear) with serious resistance. It is for this reason we are not seeing a counter-attack against Israel. As Napoleon said "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself".

james , May 12, 2018 11:15:39 AM | 39
@37 don.. peter beinart in the articles states he was wrong on iraq and this previous movement..
A P , May 12, 2018 11:18:36 AM | 40
The two FUKUS mass missile attacks on Syria, as well as Israel's latest jab, were a test of the Russian systems and general Syrian ability to interdict said missiles. If the missiles can't get through even at such short range, it is obvious Israeli/FUKUS aircraft can't either. Attempting the same "air war" stunt in Iran will just give the US MIC a big boost replacing virtually every piece of hardware sent over Iran airspace.

Again, the US soldiers/mercenaries currently in eastern Syria are in a caldron-in-making. They can no longer count on escaping via land transport through Iraq or Turkey, and without any air support/transport, they are trapped. Does anyone think the US public will tolerate the Deep State sacrificing about 5,000 soldiers/mercenaries immediately after the bombing of Iran starts? The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?

Iran will not be the turkey-shoot Iraq was, Saddam was still under the delusion Rumsfeld's handshake gave him immunity from Deep State/Zionist machinations. Iran's leadership is under no such delusion, remembering the admitted 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah.

Putin and Assad know time is on their side, and the longer they can delay a major FUKUS/Israeli/Saudi offensive, the better prepared they are and the less effect Zionist propaganda has worldwide. The IDF murdering unarmed Palestinians using a Gandhiesque tactic of showing how venal Nuttyyahoo's regime is... like Britain in India... there is no way to make this slaughter seem justified, and attempting to keep it out of the public consciousness has not worked.

bevin , May 12, 2018 11:20:20 AM | 41
"But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the sights of the Hegemon."
That would be 'former Hegemon'.
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad, campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be low.
While everyone is watching Iran and Syria, the most important developments are those taking place in Korea, where some sort of peace agreement seems inevitable. And where anything short of war will mean an immense strengthening of the positions of Russia and China.Not least because Japan and Taiwan will be forced to adjust to the new reality.
In Korea... and in western Europe.
This is where the worst cracks in the US hegemonic facade are beginning to show: the logic of Eurasia and the illogic of Atlanticism are inescapable. The western european economies, including Germany's, France's and (the weakest link of all?) Italy's are dying for access to the eastern markets. Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
Those who rave against Putin's 'betrayal' understand nothing. It is necessary to lower the tension internationally in order for the tectonic movements, which are already well advanced, to settle.
Bolton and the warmongers depend on perpetuating war but all the momentum, internationally, is against war. The propaganda which has been their main weapon, is failing, their credibility is rapidly declining.
Outside Israel, the rump of the Saud family court which supports the Riyadh regime and the degenerated dregs of NATO trotskyism-inhabited by elderly, aethereal creatures who live in the Academy and know nothing of the world- the only people who want war are the speculators. And they are just as happy to have peace, anything that excites the market.
Those who claim that Iran could be defeated in a couple of days are, presumably, talking of nuclear weapons. Do they really believe that such an attack would not be deterred by Iran's allies?
A P , May 12, 2018 11:27:52 AM | 42
Trump is "clever", not intelligent. He is the personification of "bullshit baffles brains" methodology. Indications are he is marginally literate, as all info briefs have to be a couple pages at most and point form. It is obvious he has no patience to work through the finer details of complex situations, simply taking the position of whatever of his advisers can spread the BS in the most eloquent or forceful way.

But mostly whatever panders to his ego. Make Trumpty think he is being "the decider" (like Gerge W. Stupid) or that he is being the "tough guy" and he'll sign or say anything.

lysander , May 12, 2018 11:27:54 AM | 43
@ 33, It took NATO 73 days to bring Serbia down, and in the end it required trickery (promising Milosovich he can stay then color revolutionizing him out)

Serbia did not have the means to close the straights of Hormuz. Nor did it have a missile arsenal that could strike at several regional US bases. Nor could it destroy Saudi and Kuwaiti oil refineries. Nor did Serbia have several thousand US ground troops in easy reach.

Serbia also had the misfortune of being attacked during the weakest point in Russian history since the 1600s. Russia is quite certain to help Iran because it has a strong interest in Iran repelling a US attack. Even if you believe Russia is 100% cynical, they will have an enormously strong reason to see the US bogged down for a decade and bled white.

The Pentagon is aware of all of this and they aren't idiots. The fact is, the US was in a much better position to attack Iran in 2006 or 7, and they still didn't do it, because it was a terrible idea even back then. They will not do it now when it is a much worse idea.

Simply put, if attacking Iran were so easy, they would have done it a long, long time ago.

Now, attempts to destabilize and possibly preach rebellion to Iran's minorities, that they will do (without much success) But open war is a line they won't cross.

imo , May 12, 2018 11:30:30 AM | 44
@38 -- "This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary."

My reading is the S-300 has a range that would cover commercial airports in Tel-Aviv and it is probably too much risk for Putin to deliver these to Damascus in case an 'event' occurs and a civilian jet goes down. In any case, some suggest there are more effective equipment solutions for Syrian defense/response. Of course, in the wryly Russian way, Israeli destruction of "old" Pantsir S-1 systems simply opens up the rational and legal opportunity to provide a whole lot of 'new' updated replacement Pantsir S-1 systems. Background: https://sputniknews.com/military/201804171063644024-pantsir-top-facts/

psychohistorian , May 12, 2018 11:30:45 AM | 45
I think that the UN has always been mostly a circus court for empire....make it look like US is benevolent.

So now when the fig leaf comes off in public people are aghast. Empire only works like empire and when the wheels start to come off, the whole facade is exposed for the dog and pony show it has always been.

Will this be enough to change the world of global private finance? Iran, remember, refuses to become a member of the Western banking/elite cabal.

So just why might Trump be directed to attack Iran in his regular pompous manner. Is this a religious war we are fighting for Israel?

NO!!! It is all about the continuation of the Western form of social organization that has as its core religion the God of Mammon. Those at MoA who read me know that the God of Mammon that I write about have the tenets of private finance and property along with the rules of inheritance which has resulted in the elite of the past few centuries.

I continue to posit that all that is happening relates to that issue and the struggles around it not discussed in public for whatever reasons.

But carry on educating me and others about all the proxy shit going down and its relevance to how our society works....or doesn't........I want evolution and I want it this morning!!!!!!!

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 11:44:12 AM | 46
The coming "war on Iran" will be an excuse for all kinds of mischief. Some possibilities:
>> seizing western Iraq
further isolate Syria by blocking Iran-Syria land route

>> attack and occupation of Lebanon
to clear Hezbollah and allow for Israeli land grab up to Litani river (a goal previously expressed)

>> new round of terror attacks (from new/re-branded groups) focused on Syria, Iranian, and Russian interests (with a few attacks on the West to muddy the waters)
The psychological part of a war of attrition

>> intensified Ukraine-Russian frictions
full court press

>> ISIS expansion into Central Asia
accelerate what has already begun

>> Shut down of North Stream and Turk Stream
expect the 'cage match' with "recividist nations" to get nasty

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 11:45:50 AM | 47
Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as hoped? Or perhaps it is that they've figured out that there's nothing to do. SOHR, opposed to the Syrians, but with good telephone connections in Syria, has now come up with a list of a handful of Iranian dead. So I suppose a few Iranian camps were actually hit. But the only actual videoed strikes were against Syrians. It's what you'd call a nothing-burger, much like the 102 missile strike.

And this is the launch of a campaign against Iran?? Strange way of showing it. In my view, the US and Israel are so boxed in by their constraints, that it's very difficult to act decisively. No casualties, so no overflights of Syria, let alone Iran. No interruption of Gulf oil exports, as the Gulfies wouldn't like it. Gulf emirates not to be overturned. I'm sure I can think of some more....

imo , May 12, 2018 11:49:45 AM | 48
@40 -- "The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?"

More likely an unlearned repeat of 'rhyming' history with Trump playing Jimmy Carter and the "5,000 soldiers/mercenaries" playing the suckers (in summer heat). How's the Big 'D' going to negotiate that deal over the mid-terms?

But that was Democrat 'smart' -- perhaps this re-mix will be closer an up-scaled rerun of Reagan's Iran–Contra scandal? Who's playing Oliver North?

fairleft , May 12, 2018 11:51:49 AM | 49
Robert Snefjella | May 12, 2018 9:18:08 AM | 20

Another great post. Thank you. Implied I think in your musings is, 'What will people remember of the U.S.' in a hundred years? The 20th century popular music. Blues, Jazz, Rock 'n Roll, and Country & Western for starters.

Anon , May 12, 2018 11:57:18 AM | 50
Ghost ship

Completely nonsense.

When have UNSC ever done to stop aggression by the same states that commit the aggression?
The topic wouldnt even raised in the UNSC.
Of course Iran wont start a "preemptive" war. Not atleast since that will be a suicide mission for themselves.

Anon , May 12, 2018 12:00:07 PM | 51
Lysander

Russia wont do anything then (us attack on iran), just look how they treated previous US wars, everytime people have said the same that RUssia will help and repel an attack, it have never happend and will never happen.

lysander , May 12, 2018 12:03:32 PM | 52
At 51...uh, you do realize Russia has an expeditionary force that is actually fighting and keeping Syria alive as we post, right? Perhaps they are not fighting as much as you would like, but they are fighting and Syria continues to exist because of it. As regards Iran, if Iran falls the Syria falls and Russian bases will be gone. Fortunately for all, that won't happen.
NemesisCalling , May 12, 2018 12:11:36 PM | 53
It is difficult to say what kind of scope the false flag would need to be to rally public opinion at home for an Iranian incursion. In many ways, pre-9/11, the antiwar movement was much stronger as was shown by the rallies against leading up to the Iraqi invasion. And yet this couldn't forestall it.

OTOH, independent media has come a long way in its reach and so cries of "false flag" have already been sounded, and, by and large, I believe America is fatigued with the ME. It is doubly ironic that dems like Schumer have been crying foul against DJT for playing soft with NoKo. I know that the current dem/lib establishment has thrown its antiwar credentials out the window, in favor of color revolutions, freedom, and LGBTQUIOGDTFBJK rights to fornicate in public spaces, but, my god, I would never have imagined the globalists to be THAT stupid in their disregard for basic human needs the world over for soverignty and national pride.

People have touched on it before, but is this whole current theater just an old money vs. new money second showing? The return of the repressed, with the globalist/neolib model being rundowned and usurped by nationalist oligarchs? It would seem the DJT has chosen to err to the old money side to the betterment of the world. And I, for one, as an American would rather have my elites localized so we would actually have access to their asses when we decide to put a pitchfork up them. It is very difficult to get past TSA with weaponized peasant tools.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 12:13:00 PM | 54
Israel doesn't want war with Iran – it prefers crisis in Tehran . Anshel Pfeffer, Ha'aretz.

Israel's a bit late there then. The disturbances were at the beginning of the year. They're over now. The effect of the sanctions will be to swing people behind the regime, for the moment, at any rate.

Anon , May 12, 2018 12:30:10 PM | 55
lysander

No thats wrong too, Russia is not on a mission to save Syrians state, they are in Syria due takfiri threat. Nothing else, as we all see proof of past days...

As for your other statment, I am well sure that Syria have fallen long long before Iran (if they ever do that).

Lozion , May 12, 2018 12:44:53 PM | 56
@52 Lysander. I agree (btw never mind anon's trolling attempts). Simply put, the road to Tehran goes through Damascus and last I checked the Jasmine City was doing fine ;) If US/KSA/IL attempts a hot war on Iran it will only precipitate its fall..
Jose Garcia , May 12, 2018 12:55:54 PM | 57
Am reminded of the 3 Stooges, whenever I read about these warmongers, like " Bombs Away" Bolton. Moe tells a group of people, "We will fight till the last drop of.....", then points to Curly and finishes, "....your blood!" These bastards love war, but never are at the front line, fighting and dying along side our best. They sit at their plush offices and conference halls in the best hotels, sipping champagne and eating the best foods, making six or seven figure incomes. While our brothers, neighbors, fathers, sons, uncles die overseas, or come back a mental mess, and get crapped on by out government. What these no good for nothing rat bastards need is to experience the hell they unleash upon us and the rest of the world.
les7 , May 12, 2018 1:05:51 PM | 58
@32 thanks Ian for that link. good catch!
Rhisiart Gwilym , May 12, 2018 1:08:01 PM | 59
anon is clearly of the 'cakewalk', 'all be over by Christmas' school of strategic (lack of) intelligence. LOL!
john , May 12, 2018 1:09:24 PM | 60
NemesisCalling says:

I believe America is fatigued with the ME

i read this line a lot, from all spheres, and it always perplexes me. to be fatigued you'd have to be overwhelmed, inundated, and i'd wager that the ME and what's going on there hardly crosses the vast majority of minds in more than a peripheral way, you know, like beyond certain key words they hear on tv.

one thing's for sure though, the ME is most definitely fatigued with America!

james , May 12, 2018 1:16:32 PM | 61
@59 rhisiart... a broken clock is right twice a day!!

many fine posts, excluding the anons of moa, lol.. thanks..

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:20:52 PM | 62
Looks like there might not be a Coalition Of The Willing in any anti-Iran military operation. Quite the opposite, it's a further lessening of US world hegemony.
. . .Cartoon of Trump giving the middle finger Goodbye, Europe! in Der Spiegel.
Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:23:47 PM | 63
@ Ian 32
U.N. nuclear watchdog's inspections chief quits suddenly
The IAEA is not a UN agency.
Anon , May 12, 2018 1:30:35 PM | 64
Don Bacon

Dont bet on that,

May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201805121064380224-usa-uk-iran-sanctions-pressure/

WJ , May 12, 2018 1:31:06 PM | 65
Why are commentators assuming that, *if* the US does launch a war of aggression against Iran, it will do so in tandem with its NATO allies--and the UK, France, and Germany in particular? It is doubtful that these allies will even abide by the new US economic sanctions imposed upon Iran. Why think that they will be willing, or even politically able, to follow the US orders for war?

b is right that the neocons are setting up a replay of the 2001-2003 Iraq propaganda campaign. But the global and domestic conditions that enabled the success of that campaign no longer hold. The US is far weaker now than then; Iran is more powerful and unified than Iraq ever was; NATO countries have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade contracts in place or projected with Iran; Russia and China are far stronger. It just doesn't add up.

NemesisCalling , May 12, 2018 1:31:57 PM | 66
@60 john

I suppose what I was trying to say is that the narrative TPTB have spun over the last twenty years has gone beyond the realm of convoluted to the average American and now has completely unwound into chaos. It was only three years ago that we were being told about the surging threat of ISIS to Americans. Well...that didn't last long...and now they are back to Iran which the west knows very little about and really doesn't care to. Us Americans like the good guy/bad guy fight. But if you can't drum up a good enough backstory for the black hats, I'm afraid that the average American will simply change the channel.

That being said...a compelling backstory isn't really needed for pyschopaths to wage their war anyway.

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 1:33:28 PM | 67
Lorizon @56

I believe you are referring to Anon as troll.

"anon" (small 'a') makes valuable contributions.

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 1:34:39 PM | 68
Typo: Lozion
MIschi , May 12, 2018 1:35:05 PM | 69
Russia has probably delivered the S-300 to Syria but isn't saying.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201805111064353749-russia-s300-supplies-syria/

Also, Putin and Lavrov always talk to other parties that they aren't getting along with, hence Netanyahu's invitation to the Victory Day parade.

les7 , May 12, 2018 1:38:08 PM | 70
Several here ave wondered what kind of false flag could motivate the populace in NA and the EU to support an attack on Iran. May I propose one?

First stage - Israel (using the EW cover from AlTanf) bombs the Iranian nuclear plant. Radiation release threatens tens of thousands.

Second stage - Supposed 'Iranian' counter-attack sets oil tankers ablaze (For maximum PR effect do not sink them) in the Hormuz straights closing the gulf to shipments of Gulf sourced oil. Oil prices temporarily spike to over $200 a barrel,

Europe's supply of oil is cut drastically, industries world-wide are paralysed and the US (secure with its' supply sourced outside the gulf)is free to ride to the rescue - all while RUSSIA (and China) have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to oppose the aggression.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:39:56 PM | 71
bevin 41
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad, campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be low.
Yes, the US Army is demonstrably weak especially for any foreign invasion.

Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
And also China's BRI -- coming up June 28-- -- The China Germany BRI Summit 2018

As the first and third largest exporters globally, China and Germany will prove crucial drivers of trade along the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road. Together these form the Belt and Road Initiative, a landmark shift in the global economic order that will touch over 65 countries across four continents.
The China Germany BRI Summit 2018 will dispel myths on what the Belt and Road Initiative means for the world, tackle the challenges for global financial institutions and corporations looking to leverage the initiative, and identify the enormous opportunities in M&A, capital markets and trade finance. here .
ninel , May 12, 2018 1:42:37 PM | 72
Iran Breaks the Rules of Engagement: Israel Takes Its Revenge, and Syria and Iran Impose the Golan Equation, May 10 2018

https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-breaks-the-rules-of-engagement-israel-takes-its-revenge-and-syria-and-iran-impose-the-golan-equation/5640231

@ Anon 64
Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.

Posted by: Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM | 73

@ Anon 64
Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM | 73 /div

WJ , May 12, 2018 1:46:54 PM | 74
Don Bacon @71,

The extremely complex entanglement of Germany with (roughly) the NATO/EU alliance on the one hand and Russia/China on the other is a prime reason why I do not believe that Germany (which is by far the biggest economy in the EU) will be able to be strong armed or enticed into signing up with another Zionist driven US war of aggression with a country as major as Iran.

xpat , May 12, 2018 1:48:26 PM | 75
Re the possibility of a "united front" of western powers confronting Iran, the truth is that no one knows for certain at this point how it this will play out.

We have to remember the deafening silence of the western media during the obvious Skripjal-Ghouta fakery, so there's a good chance the US/Israel axis will again have a relatively free hand to concoct any number of escalating false flags, not all of which will stick, but some probably will. So that is a cause for concern re any future "coalition".

As for enforcing the sanctions, I've seen people argue both ways - that this is a bridge too far for Europe, and accepting it will both do too much economic damage and make Europe appear too obviously as US toadies; and OTOH, Europe will be blackmailed into knuckling under when confronted with illegal US fines and secondary sanctions.

wenlich , May 12, 2018 1:51:06 PM | 76
@59 Lysander

> Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as hoped?

This is all that needs to be noted about the absurdity of even the idea that the US regime is capable of attacking Iran.

This delusion appears to be the same type thinking as the "Generals Always Fight the Previous War" saying.

The days of the Israeli regime flying at will over countries bombing at will are over. And the days of the US regime parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a country and leisurely taking out its air defense network are long gone.

Russian air defense and electronic warfare tech are now being shown to be significantly superior to US regime offensive capabilities in real world combat. So much so that the most common reaction has been to try to rationalize the fact with crazy conspiracy theories about behind the scenes wink and nod agreements between the US regime and Russia.

Trump foolishly trying to attack Iran to distract from his political problems would end up as the first modern US regime leader who lost an aircraft carrier and ten dollar gas prices.

Israeli's were cowering in their sewers while their junk air defense network repeatedly failed to defend against a minor Syrian retaliatory barrage while Syrians in Damascus were cheering on their rooftops as their Russian air defense network knocked Israeli missiles from the sky.

Syria smacking down the Israeli regime is going to have Trump's military advisors sitting him down and giving him a hard dose of reality about the Israeli/Saudi/Neocon delusions about attacking Iran.

FB Ali , May 12, 2018 2:00:04 PM | 77
Old Microbiologist, @ #38, above has a good handle on the current situation in the region.

I agree with his views.

Ian , May 12, 2018 2:08:08 PM | 78
Don Bacon @63:

According to Reuters it is. :p

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:19:50 PM | 79
Pompeo(US) and Zarif(Iran) are currently making the diplomatic rounds, the former looking for a new & improved plan, and the latter emphasizing that the US never adhered to the old plan and united opposition to sanctions is in everyon'e best interest.
from the Iran statement:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has not only made explicit and official statements against the agreement in violation of its provisions, but has in practice also failed to implement U.S. practical – and not merely formal commitments under the JCPOA. The Islamic Republic of Iran has recorded these violations in numerous letters to the Joint Commission convened under the JCPOA, outlining the current U.S. Administration's bad faith and continuous violations of the accord. Thus Mr. Trump's latest action is not a new development but simply means the end of the obstructionist presence of the United States as a participant in the JCPOA. . . here

The apparent US line now, as before, is to "change the regime's malign behavior" which is ridiculous and thus doomed.
A P , May 12, 2018 2:22:57 PM | 80
@ MISchi 69: There have been Russian-operated S-400's in Syria for years. Even the US propaganda rags admit it is significant in reducing FUKUS attacks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537

http://www.janes.com/article/74500/second-russian-s-400-in-syria-confirmed

So just because Russia isn't giving the SAA S-300's doesn't mean Syria has no protection. The fact the updated S-200s and Pantsirs are doing the job reasonably well will give FUKUS and Israeli/Saudi military planners pause. Note that the cowardly Israeli jets attack from Lebanese or Jordanian airspace.

And Nuttyyahoo merely crashed the Victory Day festivities, and Putin is too gracious a host to kick Nutty out. But the body language between them was obvious, Putin was not happy to see Nutty trying to capitalize on Putin's good manners.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:29:46 PM | 81
@ Ian 77
According to Reuters it is.
Reuters doesn't take comments so I'm telling you (and others), if you don't mind, because you are misleading people with something that isn't true.
Don Wiscacho , May 12, 2018 2:29:47 PM | 82
As much as Bolton and his ilk would love to attack Iran, I have to disagree that a full-fledged war is likely. USrael will ratchet up tensions all they can, hoping that Iran will take the bait and actually respond, but the only way an actual war MAY be fought is with a massive false flag attack. However, it took a massive false flag attack to allow the neocons to invade Iraq, so said black op would have to be on that magnitude. Here's the thing though, the neocons seem to be getting worse at false flags and more over the world ain't buying them like they used to.
Sure you can get your European lackeys to sign up to a few sanctions, but will anyone actually support the utter tanking of the world economy? Because that will be the end result of war with Iran and behind closed doors everyone knows this. Look up the Millennial War Games simulation that pitted the US against Iran. And how did that $200 million exercise turn out? The US had to "refloat" its fleet in order to win. Using older Chinese anti- ship missiles the Iranians decimated US naval assets. The US hasn't developed counter measures against these while the Iranians have undoubtedly improved on these missiles. No matter what happens to its ground forces and population centers, shipping in the Persian Gulf will be shut down. That one action will raise the price of oil to over $200 a barrel overnight, possibly much higher. And with that the global economy will be left in tatters. Too many of the world's leaders understand this completely and simply will not go along with the US and line up against Iran like they did with Iraq.
Mischi , May 12, 2018 2:35:20 PM | 83
no, Netanyahu was invited. I read about it a week before the parade. Lavrov always says that you don't need to negotiate with your friends, but you do with your enemies. Hence the invite.

Like the Godfather said in the eponymous movie "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

Anon , May 12, 2018 2:38:30 PM | 84
Don Bacon

UKs military is of course far stronger than Iran,
we will see renewed sanctions against Iran and EU will be onboard and have already mentioned they "need" to pressure Iran more.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:40:47 PM | 85
The attacks on Iran will be only financial, not military, is my guess. The big news in the military sector is often on cyber attacks. Cyber will be a "new military front."

Financial is akin to cyber. No shooting. The military experts don't discuss financial, I guess because the U.S. is the only country capable of it, controlling world finance as it does. But a full-on sanctions regime on another small country like Iran could do a lot of damage and hurt a lot of people, as it did in Iraq previously. Sort of like what the U.S. did to Japan to precipitate the war in the Pacific, except Iran's reactions must be much more limited.

So the big question is Europe, and if it is able to legislate any significant counter-sanction laws that would encourage Iran-Europe business. France looks good on this, Germany is more significant.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 2:41:18 PM | 86
I do wish people would stop calling themselves Anon. It's very difficult to know which is which. It's easy enough to anonymise yourself with a distinctive handle. Maybe b should ban it as a handle.
Chipnik , May 12, 2018 2:56:50 PM | 87
60

Many years ago I got to hear Sir Edmond Hillary speak to the assembled students at my school, just a few years after his amazing climbing feat. No multimedia or lasers pointers or cheesy-brand tee-shirt cannons, ... just an electric performance by an incredible man that shaped my life, one foot at a time.

Several decades later, I watched SEH demonstrate Simple Green soap at REI. So incredibly sad. I'll never forget either presentation. The Man in the Moon had become another Soapy Salesman.

At the same time I first heard SEH speak, my father, an international businessman, brought home a Buddhist monk exchange student from Asia for the holiday. It was spellbinding to meet a bright and well-off monk, who knew all this amazing arcane reality, that we call the Wheel. It shaped my entire approach to the summit.

Several decades later, in fact, just recently, I watched a performance by a Tibetan monk troupe, after which they essentially begged for sponsors for the remaining exiled monks now starving in India by the 1000s. They are dying out, like the 1,000s, the 10,000s of aboriginal valley cultures that once walked the Earth.

Soapy Sales and Starving Monks, who only decades ago were both sitting on Top of the World. Kind of like everyone's experience, even John Bolton's, former UN ambassador, now a sleazy salesman-demonstrator for Death Inc, too proud to sell soap, or to busker for alms. He's pathetic.

So let me bring it on home.

A student of mine is a senior monk in Asia. His charge is to free the spirits of the just dead. Not the two monks chanting and incense and sprinkling with flower petal water in front of a cherished photo. No, he blesses the *dying*, the human roadkills from the reckless Chinese Escalades bombing through SEAsian commute traffic, the black and blue herion addicts with the needle still in their arm, bright red blood bubbling out of their noses, the raped, strangled, discarded and bloating young girls, dumped in the nearest rice paddy ditch.

He gets those calls. He never talks about his work, never shows the horror pictures or trashes the perps. He sends selfies, pics of meals, flowers and temples. So I asked him, doesn't this bother you at night, the carnal evil, the rape, the murder? Don't you wanna see justice done?

He said simply, we're all going to die, many of us soon, we have very little time away from the Wheel. We should spend every precious second of free time uplifting those who are below us, the poor, the infirm, the feeble, the indentured, the slave, ...because we're all gonna die as beggars some day. We should hold faith with the beggars.

Bolton is a sick fuck, in a pantheon of sick fucks. Why squander a nanosecond meditating on any of them? They are nothingness, the void. MoA seems to have a fascination with evil and death, and making Death's bit players into pop-idols. Selling a different brand of soap, I guess.

OJS , May 12, 2018 3:04:21 PM | 88

Israeli Air Force Strikes Gaza Strip, More Than 20 Missiles Fired

Israeli having free hands bombings not only Syria and in Gaza too. Syrians and Palestinians lives dun matter?

What if.... Regime changes in Syria and Iran will the killing stops?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-12/israeli-air-force-strikes-gaza-strip-more-20-missiles-fired

lysander , May 12, 2018 3:06:13 PM | 89
@70, les7

Closing Hormuz would likely be the Iranian response to a sustained bombing campaign. A single strike on a nuclear facility could elicit a missile strike on the attacking party (US, Isreal or both.) Or it could involve multiple attacks on vulnerable US troops in Iraq and Syria. Iran has several rungs in its escalation ladder. It doesn't have to jump to the top one all at once.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 3:07:58 PM | 90
re Don 84

Of course financial sanctions are the main, if not the only, US war-winning tactic available today. Mainly the control of the VISA and SWIFT exchange systems. But I'm not financially knowledgeable. It was one reason that Iran signed in 2015. I remember well, about 10 years ago, the husband of an Iranian student arriving with $20K (?) sewn into his overcoat, to pay for his wife's studies.

However, the US has used this tactic so often now, that people must be looking to ways of getting round the problem. I'm not quite sure how much success they may have had. People talk about Russia-China erecting a parallel to the SWIFT system. I hope this does happen, though it must be expensive. Non-US allies need it.

A P , May 12, 2018 3:36:24 PM | 91
@lLaguerre: Russia already has set up its version of SWIFT. As has China, as well as both agreeing to transactions in rubles/yuan first for petroleum, then recently for all other trade, to bypass the US$ SWIFT system. The US gets a "cut", every time a corporation/country converts from local currency to US$, then again when that same US$ cash is converted to the currency of the second trading partner. To avoid this, non-US countries keep US$ reserves to trade between themselves. This scam was set up at Bretton Woods after WW2 when the US economy was the only economy/industrial-base left unscathed.

https://www.rt.com/business/424108-russia-rostec-swift-alternative/

"In 2017, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, said at a meeting with President Vladimir Putin that Russia is ready for disconnection from SWIFT."

Cyril , May 12, 2018 3:36:53 PM | 92
Because of their large inertia, these things, when they get moving, cannot be stopped and proceed to the inevitable. The ziocons have pushed the boulder and it's starting to roll.

That is what a lot of panicky people said in 2013, that Obama's invasion of Syria was inevitable because Assad was gassing his people in Ghouta. It didn't happen. As it turned out, the "massive momemtum" was in the Zionist propangda, hoping to sucker the U.S. into the Middle East again.

Cyril , May 12, 2018 3:40:31 PM | 93
[Bolton:] "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

What an ass Bolton is. I hope Bustani replied with "We know where you live."

Lozion , May 12, 2018 3:47:06 PM | 94
@67/68 hence @85. Agreed, using anon as a handle only lowers the signal-to-noise ratio at MoA. This isnt Reddit nor should it become, IMO..
james , May 12, 2018 3:48:57 PM | 95
i think swift and bis are linked in with imf.. unfortunately i don't know how it all works, but russias central bank is part of imf.. the way imf is set up favours the developed countries over the developing countries.. they have some other tricks to keep control over it too, but i do believe it is tricky navigating moving away from it all, which is why the financial system is the first line of action to put other countries deemed out of line - into line.. some have tried to get the imf to change without success which is why i believe brics was working towards an alternative.. of course the b in brics went thru a type of regime change under a different facade and i am not sure where they are at with that at this moment in time...
WJ , May 12, 2018 3:50:46 PM | 96

Julian Assange
@JulianAssange
There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016 US presidential election:
(thread)
5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018


DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets

-- Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) May 11, 2018

A P , May 12, 2018 3:51:01 PM | 97
@MISchi: Israel may have been "invited", but only as a standard diplomatic courtesy, not as a "guest of honour" as the MSM and Hasbara would have us beleive. The US was probably invited too... and didn't have the grace to show up? The US and EU were for sure in 2014, but "boycotted" it over the US coup in Ukraine. Nuttyyahoo was just looking for MSM cover for the illegal bombing he knew was going to happen, making it look like Putin was "in on it".

I'd guess Putin is simply giving Nutty all the rope Nutty needs to hang himself in the court of world public opinion. When I see an official statement from Putin (or any Russian senior official) saying Putin gave any approval of Israel's past and present illegal incursions in Syria, let alone the illegal occupation of the Golan, I'll believe Nutty being at the Victory Parade was some sort of endorsement by Putin of Nutty's insanity.

karlof1 , May 12, 2018 4:01:47 PM | 98
I agree with Lysander's logic. Iran will not be attacked in the "normal" manner; it will be asymmetrical. The performance of not-so antiquated air defenses in Syria are the big game changer as Iran has those and its own S-300 version. Plus all those big stationary targets. Plus, I figure Bolton has a target on his back, as do other neocons--you don't murder over a million without creating some enemies. I see lots of bluster to foment as much chaos as possible to accentuate the asymmetrical impact. But as for an actual military assault, Bolton and company are a decade plus too late.

To negate the potential effect of another Operation Northwoods, I think it wise to pull up those old pdf docs and spread them around the world via social media--a move I'm frankly surprised has yet to be made--along with some additional contemporary context.

A P , May 12, 2018 4:03:42 PM | 99
@james: The Russian central bank is a member of the IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT system as are nearly every other central bank in the world. Not being "in" this club severely restricts the ability to do international trade. Russia and China are quietly spearheading the move to conduct international trade in local currencies, outside the US$-reserve-currency scam (sorry, system). Both Russia and China have set up alternative systems, which along with the SCO/AIIB offer participating countries a way to side-set US economic terrorism and sanctions. The Rothschilds may have managed to stall the BRICS for now, but that won't last long.
A P , May 12, 2018 4:04:38 PM | 100
sorry, should be "side-step".

[May 12, 2018] Why Is Israel Behaving Like Hitler's Germany by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz ..."
"... Prowokacja gliwicka ..."
"... Sender Gleiwitz ..."
May 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

I wonder what is the Hebrew for the word Gleiwitz?

The Gleiwitz incident (German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz ; Polish : Prowokacja gliwicka ) was a covert Nazi German attack on the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz on the night of 31 August 1939 (today Gliwice , Poland), widely regarded as a deceitful false flag operation staged along with some two dozen similar German incidents on the eve of the invasion of Poland leading up to World War II in Europe .

The Israeli missiles launched yesterday (Wednesday/Thursday) against Iranian military forces in Syria were real. My old "friend" TTG did an excellent job of documenting the timeline of the attack/retaliation ( see here ) in his latest twisted post. But it was a trumped up attack. A pretext for hitting Iranian forces. Iran did not initiate this action. Israel claims it was retaliating against an unprovoked Iranian missile/rocket strike in the Golan Heights. Israel had been planning this strike for several days. How do I know? I received the following message from a military buddy monitoring the situation last Monday. He wrote:

Looks like Israel is getting froggy. They're stepping up their non-kinetic ops against Syrian AND Russian tech...jamming the shit out of certain air defense systems.

Could be gearing up for a strike package, could just be trying to degrade the battle space air picture to support another objective or conceal a capability they're testing. Hard to tell at this point.

Now we know. They were prepping their strike against Iranian targets. I understand why Israel is terrified of having Iranian military personnel and equipment based in Syria. But launching weak-ass preemptive strikes, like Israel did yesterday, does nothing more than to arouse the furor of those unjustly attacked. Iran understands that revenge is a dish best served cold. They are not going to rush out and start thowing blind haymakers. They will hurt Israel and will make it count.

It is not a mere coincidence that Israel's bombing barrage came on the heels of Donald Trump's announcement that the United States was withdrawing from Obama's Iran deal. This was coordinated fully with Israel, who in turn decided to hit Iranian targets inside Syria. It was designed specifically to feed the meme that Iran is a rogue state.

But there is irony in this action. Israel used a ploy that Hitler's Nazi Germany wielded. Hitler and the Wehrmacht were keen on coming up with a casus belli for war against Poland. I grant you that the Nazi invasion of Poland is in another league from what Israel did in Syria against Iranians. But we should not ignore the possibility that Israel's unprovoked attacks are likely to spawn future retaliation by the Iranians. When that happens Israeli leaders will be under pressure to punch back. That means we will be traveling the road of tit-for-tat, which usually winds up in Escalation City and full blown war.

[May 12, 2018] Bolton diplomacy: "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York." by B

Notable quotes:
"... John Bolton is a ruthless man : ..."
"... In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. ..."
"... Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you." ..."
"... John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office. ..."
May 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Originally from: MoA - Countdown To War On Iran

John Bolton is a ruthless man :

In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons].
...
Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."

Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you."

There was a pause.

"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

José Bustani successfully negotiated to get OPCW inspectors back into Iraq. They would have found nothing. That would have contradicted the U.S. propaganda campaign to wage war on Iraq. When Bustani did not leave voluntarily, the U.S. threatened to cut the OPCW's budget and "convinced" other countries in the executive council to kick him out .

John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office.

The U.S. administration, the neoconservatives and the media are running a remake (recommended) of the propaganda campaign they had launched to wage war on Iraq. This time the target is Iran:

As with Iraq, it's easier for Bolton and Netanyahu to achieve that goal if they discredit the current system of international inspections. Bolton has called the inspection efforts established by the Iran nuclear deal "fatally inadequate" and declared that "the International Atomic Energy Agency" is "likely missing significant Iranian [nuclear] facilities." In his 2015 speech to Congress attacking the Iran deal, Netanyahu insisted that "Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them."

Anyone who counters their propaganda must go. Bolton, who demands to bomb Iran , is back in charge. One of his natural targets is the IAEA which certifies that Iran sticks to the nuclear deal. It seems that Bolton succeeds with his machinations:

The chief of inspections at the U.N. nuclear watchdog has resigned suddenly, the agency said on Friday without giving a reason.

The departure of Tero Varjoranta comes at a sensitive time, three days after the United States announced it was quitting world powers' nuclear accord with Iran, raising questions as to whether Tehran will continue to comply with it.

Varjoranta, a Finn, had been a deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and head of its Department of Safeguards, which verifies countries' compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, since October 2013.

Another casualty is the State Department bureaucrat who certified Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal:

One of the State Department's top experts on nuclear proliferation resigned this week after President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, in what officials and analysts say is part of a worrying brain drain from public service generally over the past 18 months.

Richard Johnson, a career civil servant who served as acting assistant coordinator in State's Office of Iran Nuclear Implementation, had been involved in talks with countries that sought to salvage the deal in recent weeks, including Britain, France, and Germany -- an effort that ultimately failed.
...
The office Johnson led has gone from seven full-time staffers to none since Trump's inauguration.

The man who launched the war on Iraq now gets awards . Netanyahoo is agitating for war on Iran just like he agitated for war on Iraq. Shady groups of nutty "experts" peddle policy papers for 'regime change'. U.S. "allies" are put under pressure. With their willingness to "compromise" they actually further the prospect of war . When they insist on sticking to international rules malign actors prepare measures to break their resistance. All that is still just a "shaping operation", a preparation of the battlefield of public opinion. This buildup towards the war will likely take a year or two.

What is still needed is an event that pushes the U.S. public into war fever. The U.S. typically uses false-flag incidents - the Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Maine, the Anthrax murders - to create a psychological pseudo-rationale for war. An Israel lobbyist begs for one to launch war on Iran.

One wonders when and how a new 9/11 like incident, or another Anthrax scare, will take place. It will be the surest sign that the countdown to war on Iran has started.

Posted by b on May 12, 2018 at 06:35 AM | Permalink

glitch , May 12, 2018 7:15:41 PM | 132

John Bolton's a man? Does a coward who instigated others to fight get to be called a man? Likewise Cheney Bush Clinton Obama Trump Bibi etc etc etc.
Easy to be ruthless when others take the risks and pay the costs.
fairleft , May 12, 2018 7:12:43 AM | 4
isn't the same unity throughout the powers that be, particularly in the mainstream media, that there was when Bush was President. Trump through the hatred he generates theoughout the 'upper crust', makes it hard for many deep staters to get on board a war drive he would lead.

And as you said, b, Trump needs a real or false flag, one with many casualties, and something that won't fall apart from lack of evidence and a few days of rational scrutiny. Sounds like a job for the Saudi mercenaries, Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Peter AU 1 , May 12, 2018 7:14:53 AM | 5
People in high places are leaving due to team Trump threats.
Receiving mail from team trump employed black cube is no small thing. Kudos to you b for sticking with it.
Two thoughts on US going to war with Iran. 10 It will destroy the US or certainly the US empire and hegemony. 2) Iran needs plenty of help and respect during and after as they will destroy the US. Not physically, but they will destroy US power.
Gesine Hammerling , May 12, 2018 8:04:24 AM | 6
What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over and over again?
john wilson , May 12, 2018 8:06:41 AM | 7
The question we all want to know is, did Trump appoint lunatic Bolton entirely of his own volition, or was he forced to appoint this psychopath? The reach of the US deep state seems to be limitless. A curious thing happened the other day when someone in the US administration announced that America would no longer be funding the white helmets propaganda outfit. Over here in the UK parliament an opposition member of parliament was practically foaming at the mouth with rage and demanded of prime minister Mrs May that the UK would be continuing to fund the white helmets. When she assured him that the UK was fully behind the white helmets and that funding would remain in place, there was a cheer from around the house. I'm amazed that Bolton allowed the administration to cut off funding when even the UK idiots in parliament want to fund the propaganda arm of the head choppers.
somebody , May 12, 2018 8:16:55 AM | 8
Iran is quite safe. Regime change is possible in the US.
Jen , May 12, 2018 8:24:06 AM | 9
I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security Advisor: is his position part of the President's Executive Office and does he (Bolton, that is) have a department to answer to him and a budget? Is his position any more secure than, say, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State?
Ian , May 12, 2018 8:44:16 AM | 10
Gesine Hammerling @6:

Mementos from Epstein Island.

ralphieboy , May 12, 2018 8:52:43 AM | 11
The more that Trump is pushed into a corner by investigations of various scandals, the more he needs something to distract from them. A war in a far-off country would be the perfect thing to get people rallying around the President.
Ian , May 12, 2018 8:53:49 AM | 12
Jen @9:
From what I understand, Pompeo is much higher on the food chain. The SoS is in the line of succession; advisors are not. I believe the position is just a single individual with closer access to the POTUS.
Harry , May 12, 2018 8:59:01 AM | 13
I said it many times before, and I can safely repeat it again, there wont be a hot war with Iran. Entire NATO couldnt defeat Iran, and US would go alone (maybe Israel would piggyback few shots). It would end as catastrophe for US and de-facto end as the main superpower. Pentagon (and even CIA) are many things, but suicidally stupid isnt one of them, neither is Trump, or even Nutjobyahoo.

What we will see is more sanctions (to try to create civil unrest) and another "color revolution" endeavor, and it will fail too.

Anon , May 12, 2018 9:05:51 AM | 14
Harry

Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade, occupy it in my opinion.

john , May 12, 2018 9:11:27 AM | 15
Gesine Hammerling says:

What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over and over again

notwithstanding your ziocons , you got an hour and a half ?

Jen says:

I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security Advisor

maybe you should ask Condoleezza Rice?

somebody , May 12, 2018 9:12:09 AM | 16
14 " take out " ?
A P , May 12, 2018 9:12:42 AM | 17
Trump coopted by the neo-cons? Exactly what lever would they have on Trumpty Dumbdy that isn't already public knowledge? Misogyny, Philandering?... already tried that pussy-grabbing Stormy front. Financial improprieties? That Trump Inc. was/is a serial bankrupt corporation, even screwing low-income students and any building contractor it could?... Old news. That Trumpty Dumbdy is too stupid to read the full documentation presented to him, that he can't write/deliver a coherent, logical line of thought?... obvious from well before the day he officially declared his candidacy.

Trump (and his real estate "empire") was and is a product of the Rothschild cabal, and he was deliberately foisted on the US electorate to be the only one in the country Killary could beat... OOPS!

So we are now seeing Plan-B, where Trumpty is manipulated and browbeaten to shed the few shreds of intelligence and decency he still possessed. All the Deep State/Rothschild-enablers have to do is appeal to Trumpty's fragile ego, or Melania's emotional jags, and they are in control.

But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS openly attack Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show the likely course of events where the Zionists are allowed to carry on with the Yinon Plan. Syria is the line in the sand, despite Erdogan trying to play the US off Russia for historical gotcha gains. Don't forget, Erdogan owes his life to Putin, who ensured the US coup failed by targeting the rogue Turk jets tasked with shooting Erdogan's plane down... I'd bet the Turk pilots were told that if they even turned on their targeting systems, they would be shot down... self preservation is a strong deterrent.

Israel/Saudi on their own cannot withstand even Syria, Hizbolla and Iran directly, even if the russian military only backstopped the Syrian alliance. Ahe US public won't tolerate another Iraq debacle, as zero body bags landing at Edwards AFB is the limit. Let alone that Iran would be Iraq on steroids especially for the several 1,000 in the western Syria caldron. It's a big caldron right now, but with Russian-manned mobile S-400's/etc. protecting all Syrian, Iranian and possibly Iraqi airspace, those soldiers/mercenaries are sitting ducks after the first bomb lands in Iran.

Harry , May 12, 2018 9:13:12 AM | 18
@ Anon, first look up what type of strategy Iran has against US invasion, its literally impossible to take it out in 10 years, let alone in one day :)
morongobill , May 12, 2018 9:15:41 AM | 19
@14:"Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day"- highly doubt that.

Ian- agree but don't forget Kissinger and Nixon.

Robert Snefjella , May 12, 2018 9:18:08 AM | 20
Apologies if following musings are a bit disjointed.

American chronic hostility towards Iran, and long standing American economic and informational and low-level war gainst Iran, has an insane, out-of-touch with reality, ideological/mythological tinge/component to it. I won't try a broad psycho-analysis, or assemble many possible reasons why that might be.

But among those possible components there is a long standing implacable totalitarian bent to US power wielders, reflected in their ordained geo-political communications in the United States. The American economic sanctions and continuously variously hostile policy towards Cuba over more than half a century is an example. The former 'brothel dof the Caribbean' was apparently fine for the US, and the death squad ridden countries of Central America are quite acceptable, but Cuba out of the capitalist orbit? Cuba as attempting a different ideology, and approach: terrible recalcitrant. The very demon of the hemisphere.

In his revelatory book The Praetorian Guard, former CIA John Stockwell noted that as he was growing up, basically nobody questioned the prevailing American ideology and system. Real searching basic debate was absent. Within the context of a culture where freedom of speech is technically prioritized, lauded as an ideal, somehow self-censorship and discussion is limited to within-the-box of convention, thus discussion as scripted theatre, propaganda, dominated overwhelmingly.

No real debate, but what was repeated ad infinitum were messianic messages'we swear allegiance to the flag', we're number one, we're the free world, we're the good guys.

After the JFK coup d'etat, basically everything in American media became an exercise in controlling all political discourse and trying like crazy to make sure pretense prevailed. This was if anything accentuated after the 9/11 false flag treasonous mind-f**k.

There was also a deadly military doctrine adopted by the US after WW2, when segments of US power decided to go for global military domination, basically permanent war and war preparation. The cliche is that the first casualty of war is truth, but in the case of the United States, doubly so, as that train had already left the station.

The United States is a kind of astonishingly cautionary historical example of the deranged trajectory that dishonesty, pretense and censorship as normalized and dominant will ensure. So many natural advantages, but the external manifestation of the US became mass murder and subterfuge; internal problems of the US are festering, metastisizing, and tens of millions of Americans are deeply demoralized, anxiety ridden, emotion-related drug-medication-dependent.

Back to Iran. A few years ago while driving in the evening I turned on the car radio and the first words I heard from a (Jewish) talk show host on a Toronto station was the question: Do you think the Americans have the balls to nuke Iran? Really bizzarre sick question that apparently could be sent out glibly and sefely into the Canadian political discussion universe as an intellectual feat. And on numerous occasions for many years it has been commonplace in Canadian mass media to depict Iran in a hostile, negative light. And as German writer Udo Ulfkotte bravely told us before his untimely death, the CIA also influences and controls and thus contaminates much of European mass media communication.

So the American insanity and dishonesty and war mongering is playing itself out on a broad stage, (witness the truly crazy pathetic British government's behaviour of late) and crazy people do crazy things, so yah, Iran is still in the crosshairs. But there is a kind of desperate, fading, dated quality to the American obsession with 'evil Iran', and lies and make-believe and insanity cannot escape colliding with reality. The collision can make a helluva a mess, but at some point hopefully the pendulum swings towards a reassertion of sanity and decency and honesty.

How many times will Americans shoot themselves in the foot for Israel and fairy tales?

somebody , May 12, 2018 9:21:32 AM | 21
11 Yep, Reagan and Thatcher were there before. Reagan "was strong" in Grenada and Thatcher in the Falklands.

At present Pompeo seems to try to snatch North Korea from Russia and China .

Bolton seems to plan for war there, too .

I guess the US will have to get clear about their priorities.

ken , May 12, 2018 9:29:33 AM | 22
@ somebody.

"But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS openly attack Iran"

It appears Putin and Russia have decided to sit all this out. While Putin was enjoying the Victory Parade with Netanyahu,,, Netanyahu was bombing his ally Syria. Putin was all smiles and so far all we hear is crickets.

Putin will sell his S-400 systems to anyone that wants them EXCEPT Syria and all they want is the S-300.

I don't know what's going on but as far as Russia is concerned I wouldn't bank on their helping Iran.

China? China can be purchased like cloths on a rack.

No,,, I think it's pretty open right now for the US to attack Iran. Whether it can survive a war with Iran is doubtful,,, but that's never stopped them before.

Anon , May 12, 2018 9:31:07 AM | 23
somebody

Harry

Yes "take out" as I defined not through occupation/invasion but fighter jet strikes and/or from sea. That wont take more than 1 day for 3 top Nato nations.

Nev , May 12, 2018 9:37:59 AM | 24
I wonder what is going through the minds of Kim and the South Korean leadership. It is obvious that the US is not agreement capable. What sort of guarantees can the US provide. Even if China and Russia provide guarantees it may not be enough. Kim sees that if a deal is made, then the crippling sanctions could be reimposed or remain. Kim and his sister are not stupid.
Pft , May 12, 2018 9:56:51 AM | 25
Neocons and Bolton are Trotskyites. Permanent Revolutionists

The ruling elite never really knew how dumb people were until the internet and social media. With the help of Trumps supporter and Facebook investor Thiel and his company Palintir and Facebook to help them figure out all the data they collected, they know they can make the cattle believe anything without making it believable to anyone with an IQ under 120

The few that figure it out without being members of the cult are isolated and inconsequential.

Plato told us what he hoped would happen. Leo Straus who is the godfather of the neocons emphasized Platos Noble Lie which is behind all of todays fake news/history . Plato was heavily influenced by Irans Zoroastrianism

I believe elements behind the reformation in the 16th century and Sabbateans from the 17th century, Frankists , Freemasons and Jesuits from the 18 th century and Zionists , and Martinists and Marxists from the 19th century joined forces to create a NWO that is a Luciferian cult of Global Synachrists

The neocons are the latest manifestation of the Synarchists, and unfortunately for the world this means global terror much like the Rothschild back Trotsky hoped to accomplish in
the 20th century before being thwarted by Stalin. It also means the end of Religion as Neocons corrupt Protestant Christianity, in US and Across the Atlantic while CIA controlled Jesuit Pope Francis destroys Catholicism. Zionism and the Holocaust wiped out Torah believers and the GWOT and neocons are proceeding to destroy Islam after corrupting it with Islamism with help from the Saudi Arabias corrupt Wahhabism which has spread Islamic extremism along with US and Israel

For those who believe the US can be destroyed, you are in denial. There is no stopping the US/Israel//British/EU alliance. The only hope is that once the perpetual revolution is over that the philosopher kings described by Plato will be merciful. Unfortunately, given many of them are neo-malthusians who think most of humanity are worthless consumers of Gaias precious resources, i am not optimistic

Kalen , May 12, 2018 9:59:21 AM | 26
However you would define war US (Israel) and Iran is at war footing for decades, nothing new here, so I would not panic here that Bolton would do something.

It cannot be more clear that as much as Trump is a flaccid clown of ignorance and belligerence to cover up his tax evasion crimes from Muller, Bolton plays role of barking poodle that all, did not get anything done what global oligarchic interests tell him or he will be put down.

And Please do not compare Iran to Iraq especially after two Iraqi wars, Iran is in position to cause major damage to global oligarchic interests and hence there will be no escalation despite fire and fury rhetoric as it was in NK case, it is all about reintegration of Iranian oligarchy to global oligarchic country club and what we witness is negotiating of condition of selling out Iranians to neoliberal globalists and by that advance a step in isolating Russia to achieve the same purpose, surrender to globalism.

Also I do not see Netanyahu welcoming hundreds of Iranian missiles landing in Tel Aviv as Saddam only shot few Soviet museum item at Israel and back then all hit their however random targets. There would be no random targets this time so there would be death and vital damage, not to mention that Israel could loose Golan Height in the process. Also there is no way in hell for US to invade Iran, or gather 600k troops as it was in 1991 for one quarter Iran size Iraq.

I know that spreading fear brings clicks but here on this blog we know better than that.

Hoarsewhisperer , May 12, 2018 9:59:52 AM | 27
Don't underestimate Trump. He came to office on an audacious promise to drain The Swamp. It's a very specialized task. It was never going to be easy and I'm quite certain that he went in knowing that his first misjudgment would probably be his last. I don't know how to drain The Swamp but if Trump thinks he can then I do too. I've been pleasantly surprised at his ability to engage with senior officials on the World Stage and appear Presidential. Compared with bumbling fools like Ronny Raygun, Jimmy Carter and Dubya, Trump leaves them for dead in the "100% on the ball" stakes. Whilst I'm waiting, with fingers crossed, I console myself with the following thoughts:

1. Hillary would have been worse.
2. The non-people he wants to neutralise are the worst bunch of scum and arseholes on the planet.
3. Since he's the only person with a Swamp plan, we shouldn't be too picky about his timing and tactics.
4. Trump is an extremely clever individual.

james , May 12, 2018 10:04:17 AM | 28
thanks b... and thanks for the Atlantic article from peter beinart... i thought it was a good article.. here's a quote from it "More than 60 percent of Republicans, according to a March Pew Research Poll, think the United States was right to invade Iraq. George W. Bush's approval rating among Republicans, according to a January CNN poll, is 76 percent." and "It's rare to see non-Americans on political talk shows. That matters because non-Americans overwhelmingly think pulling out of the Iran deal is nuts. And non-Americans are more likely to raise fundamental questions about American nuclear policy -- like why America isn't pushing for inspections of Israel's nuclear program, and why America keeps demanding that other nations denuclearize while building ever more nuclear weapons of its own."

then you can read @20 Robert Snefjella post - thanks robert - and note the radio interview from toronto..

sorry to say, but this 'neo-con' term is a quick term to describe so much of what looks like the koolaid american citizens drink regularly.. and there is plenty of it to go around in canada too..

americans by and large look like a nation of idiots, spoon fed everything they know..

i tend to agree with harrys view @13... colour revolution will continue.. but unlike harry, i do believe the bombs will fall and we will enter some type of ww3 scenario.. the usa-israel are too much led by the neo con koolaid to step away from any of their ongoing insanity.. i just can't see the insanity stopping with rational, reasonable people having a say.. so, maybe i don't fully agree with harry other then in the short term..

ralphieboy , May 12, 2018 10:16:15 AM | 29
@ Hoarsewhisperer #11

I agree with your assessment that Trump is a very clever individual - when it comes to manipulating the media and distracting from his words and actions, but I disagree with every other assertion you have made and find that he has filled his administration with grifters and con artists that rival the days of Grant or Harding.

And if you have grown up in America under DACA and are about to be deported or are losing your health insurance coverage because key provisions of ACA have been overturned, just try reciting "Hillary would have been worse!"

Menschmaschine , May 12, 2018 10:17:56 AM | 30
Utter nonsense. The US and Israel are coward bullies. They will pounce when the odds are good, but they are quite rational about when they are not. There have been endless threats and sabre rattling by the US and Israel against Iran for decades, but they never followed through. They will most certainly not do so now, when the relative military position of Iran is better than ever. And this "crying wolf" article will join the the countless others written before on the junkpile of historical falsification...
Eric , May 12, 2018 10:28:56 AM | 31
There is a strong delusion that maintains its satanic grip on the "leadership" in DC.
The depiction of Mordor in Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Rings" series is very fitting in describing the present pure evil and absolute darkness of those who plan for war and destruction in the secret chambers in the upper echelons of our society.

What will stop the madness, death, and destruction that has rained down and continues to rain down on so many millions of hapless men, women, and children in the Middle East and abroad? Will it take a few US cities completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Americans vaporized before the insanity of US Empire is stopped?

I pray for peace for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I pray for a "great awakening" amongst the nations of the world to demand an end to the evil US/Zionist madness before it is too late.

Ian , May 12, 2018 10:31:16 AM | 32
Well, Bolton may be up to his usual tricks again. U.N. nuclear watchdog's inspections chief quits suddenly
Red Ryder , May 12, 2018 10:39:41 AM | 33
Any US attack on Iran will be by air, not ground. Though special ops will be inserted in the Afghan border provinces (where the last protests were the largest, fertile ground for insurgents).

Missiles of all kinds will fall on the regime, the military, the Quds, the militias.

And it will be huge, maybe the largest, heaviest attack ever. Once the air defenses are down, bombers will cover the major infrastructure sites with the heaviest bombing since Belgrade and Nam.

Only when the UNSC convenes, probably, no sooner than five or six days, will the attack slow or cease.

Iran will have been set back a few decades. That is the soft goal. The harder goal will be the insurgency and destabilization of the regime and final regime change.

It will take nothing special for this attack to happen. Trump has already made up his mind.

When it will happen is when the US and Israel feel they can suppress the Hezbollah missile threat. Until they have a workable plan for that, not much can happen on a large scale.

But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the sights of the Hegemon.

Ghost Ship , May 12, 2018 10:44:28 AM | 34
>>>> Anon | May 12, 2018 9:05:51 AM | 14
Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade, occupy it in my opinion.

Rubbish.

I assume you're referring to countries other than the United States. In which case, you do know that Germany has about half-a-dozen airworthy attack aircraft, the Royal Navy and France's aircraft carriers would require just about every ship in the other European navies to protect them and part of the reason the British and French begged the United States to intervene in Libya was because they'd run out of PGMs.

Give the European NATO countries a couple of years to build up their forces and force projection skills and European NATO might be in a position to bomb Iran, but as soon as they started building up their forces in the Gulf States, Iran could go to the UNSC to demand that this obvious aggression should be stopped and when FUKUS veto any resolution, Iran has carte blanche to launch preemptive strikes across the Persian Gulf. End of European NATO's war on Iran

And after the Iraq fiasco, I suspect the only country that would go to war without a UNSC resolution is the United States. Germany would almost certainly decide to sit it out, France most probably would and the UK would probably also sit it out.

Finally, even if the top 3 NATO countries did try to get away with a limited air attack, the best response for Iran would be to sink every ship in the Persian Gulf and go on doing so until the United States invades and becomes bogged down in a quagmire far worse than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Curtis , May 12, 2018 10:47:07 AM | 35
I have to agree with those who say a direct attack on Iran is imminent. Sure, some would love this to happen whether Yahoo or Bolton but for now will be happy to apply the "squeeze" of sanctions, ostracism/propaganda. The goal seems to have been to destroy and if not that, then to set the countries back ... under the thumb as it were.

Yes, the US with some assistance could rip Iran's military apart but not take over the country. A majority are somewhat satisfied with the theocratic setup. They know the history with the US/West. And how would Iran react? Long range attacks on Israel or much closer-to-home attacks on the Gulf States and the Saudis as well as blocking at Hormuz? Saddam lobbed a few Scuds at Israel and Riyadh but didn't have much. Iran has more and better missile tech ... which TPTB are going after now ... while Yahoo still pushes "nuclear programs" since he knows (like Iraq) there are no real weapons there.

lysander , May 12, 2018 10:54:54 AM | 36
The US will do everything possible to reimpose sanctions. Hence gaining control of the IAEA and inspection process. This is designed to offer the Europeans a face saving way to back down and submit to US will regarding sanctions. It will probably succeed. Europe, whether it likes it or not, is playing good cop in the game.

War, as in an actual US attack in Iran itself, is pretty much out if the question. A false flag designed to be blamed on Iran and big enough to warrant a war will be placed under enormous scrutiny. Not by the US MSM, of course, but by the rest of the world and the alternative media.

The fact is, before anyone can attack Iran, they have to win in Syria and it doesn't look like they are going to.

As far as sanctions, Iran's best bet may be to give the EU 3 weeks to prove its intent to confront the US (which is unlikely) Then Iran can resume its civilian nuclear development at the fastest possible pace, with the offer to discontinue once the US returns to the JCPOA.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 11:06:27 AM | 37
Peter Beinart, the author of the "As with Iraq" piece above, gets all wound up in the details of nuclear inspections and forgets that in 2003 he supported the misbegotten Iraq invasion and war because a (supposed) peaceful aftermath would help the people of Iraq, and so the people who oppose the war were wrong.
The truth is that liberalism has to try to harness American military power for its purposes because American tanks and bombs are often the only things that bring evil to heel. Opposing this war might have helped liberals retain their purity, but it would have done nothing for the people suffering under Saddam. If liberals are betrayed a second time in the Gulf, hawkish liberalism may well go into temporary eclipse. But one day we, and they, will need it again. . . here

That's akin to the position that Trump has taken on Iran.
In this effort, we stand in total solidarity with the Iranian regime's longest-suffering victims: its own people. The citizens of Iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and extremism of their leaders. The Iranian people long to -- and they just are longing, to reclaim their country's proud history, its culture, its civilization, its cooperation with its neighbors. . . here
Old Microbiologist , May 12, 2018 11:12:51 AM | 38
IMHO what we are seeing are the last ditch efforts of a failing nation. Russia isn't sitting it out but is taking a wait and see attitude. The same for China. All the bluster and twitter tweets in the world mean nothing until someone actually does something. Israel managed to shoot off a massive strike which at best was 50% effective. This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary. Russia cannot fight the US or Israel in Syria. They simply doesn't have the forces present. But, what they can do is push gently and make the FUKUS+I over-commit. Don't forget that the US is working at a current $22 Trillion of debt and these debacles are going to burn money faster than they can print. In the mean time Russia/China are creating an alternate economic system to bypass the petrodollar and especially the SWIFT banking. That is in place and perhaps we will see more countries deciding to bail on the dollar and join the growing crowd.

The US has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for sovereignty and has so far reneged on every treaty. This means that the US is at best an unreliable partner. The South Koreans have wised up seeing that the US is very willing to sacrifice the entire peninsula and every soul living there to kill off the DPNK. That should scare the bejeezus out of every nation friendly to the US anywhere in the world. They are losing friends so fast now it is scary. This only forces the inevitable and the US is going to have to bet the farm to try and keep the hegemony alive. It won't work and the US has the worst record of war fighting imaginable. They can't beat the goat-herders in Afghanistan for example over a span of now 17 years. Fighting a real military such as Iran would be impossible and especially if China throws in her weight. Iran is very important to China and to a lesser extent Russia as well. There is no danger of the US or NATO winning there. However, this could break the bank if it goes south. So, what we are seeing is an existential threat to the US in the form of rebellion against the dollar. Finally, we are seeing countries that have the weight of forces (nuclear) with serious resistance. It is for this reason we are not seeing a counter-attack against Israel. As Napoleon said "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself".

james , May 12, 2018 11:15:39 AM | 39
@37 don.. peter beinart in the articles states he was wrong on iraq and this previous movement..
A P , May 12, 2018 11:18:36 AM | 40
The two FUKUS mass missile attacks on Syria, as well as Israel's latest jab, were a test of the Russian systems and general Syrian ability to interdict said missiles. If the missiles can't get through even at such short range, it is obvious Israeli/FUKUS aircraft can't either. Attempting the same "air war" stunt in Iran will just give the US MIC a big boost replacing virtually every piece of hardware sent over Iran airspace.

Again, the US soldiers/mercenaries currently in eastern Syria are in a caldron-in-making. They can no longer count on escaping via land transport through Iraq or Turkey, and without any air support/transport, they are trapped. Does anyone think the US public will tolerate the Deep State sacrificing about 5,000 soldiers/mercenaries immediately after the bombing of Iran starts? The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?

Iran will not be the turkey-shoot Iraq was, Saddam was still under the delusion Rumsfeld's handshake gave him immunity from Deep State/Zionist machinations. Iran's leadership is under no such delusion, remembering the admitted 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah.

Putin and Assad know time is on their side, and the longer they can delay a major FUKUS/Israeli/Saudi offensive, the better prepared they are and the less effect Zionist propaganda has worldwide. The IDF murdering unarmed Palestinians using a Gandhiesque tactic of showing how venal Nuttyyahoo's regime is... like Britain in India... there is no way to make this slaughter seem justified, and attempting to keep it out of the public consciousness has not worked.

bevin , May 12, 2018 11:20:20 AM | 41
"But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the sights of the Hegemon."
That would be 'former Hegemon'.
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad, campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be low.
While everyone is watching Iran and Syria, the most important developments are those taking place in Korea, where some sort of peace agreement seems inevitable. And where anything short of war will mean an immense strengthening of the positions of Russia and China.Not least because Japan and Taiwan will be forced to adjust to the new reality.
In Korea... and in western Europe.
This is where the worst cracks in the US hegemonic facade are beginning to show: the logic of Eurasia and the illogic of Atlanticism are inescapable. The western european economies, including Germany's, France's and (the weakest link of all?) Italy's are dying for access to the eastern markets. Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
Those who rave against Putin's 'betrayal' understand nothing. It is necessary to lower the tension internationally in order for the tectonic movements, which are already well advanced, to settle.
Bolton and the warmongers depend on perpetuating war but all the momentum, internationally, is against war. The propaganda which has been their main weapon, is failing, their credibility is rapidly declining.
Outside Israel, the rump of the Saud family court which supports the Riyadh regime and the degenerated dregs of NATO trotskyism-inhabited by elderly, aethereal creatures who live in the Academy and know nothing of the world- the only people who want war are the speculators. And they are just as happy to have peace, anything that excites the market.
Those who claim that Iran could be defeated in a couple of days are, presumably, talking of nuclear weapons. Do they really believe that such an attack would not be deterred by Iran's allies?
A P , May 12, 2018 11:27:52 AM | 42
Trump is "clever", not intelligent. He is the personification of "bullshit baffles brains" methodology. Indications are he is marginally literate, as all info briefs have to be a couple pages at most and point form. It is obvious he has no patience to work through the finer details of complex situations, simply taking the position of whatever of his advisers can spread the BS in the most eloquent or forceful way.

But mostly whatever panders to his ego. Make Trumpty think he is being "the decider" (like Gerge W. Stupid) or that he is being the "tough guy" and he'll sign or say anything.

lysander , May 12, 2018 11:27:54 AM | 43
@ 33, It took NATO 73 days to bring Serbia down, and in the end it required trickery (promising Milosovich he can stay then color revolutionizing him out)

Serbia did not have the means to close the straights of Hormuz. Nor did it have a missile arsenal that could strike at several regional US bases. Nor could it destroy Saudi and Kuwaiti oil refineries. Nor did Serbia have several thousand US ground troops in easy reach.

Serbia also had the misfortune of being attacked during the weakest point in Russian history since the 1600s. Russia is quite certain to help Iran because it has a strong interest in Iran repelling a US attack. Even if you believe Russia is 100% cynical, they will have an enormously strong reason to see the US bogged down for a decade and bled white.

The Pentagon is aware of all of this and they aren't idiots. The fact is, the US was in a much better position to attack Iran in 2006 or 7, and they still didn't do it, because it was a terrible idea even back then. They will not do it now when it is a much worse idea.

Simply put, if attacking Iran were so easy, they would have done it a long, long time ago.

Now, attempts to destabilize and possibly preach rebellion to Iran's minorities, that they will do (without much success) But open war is a line they won't cross.

imo , May 12, 2018 11:30:30 AM | 44
@38 -- "This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary."

My reading is the S-300 has a range that would cover commercial airports in Tel-Aviv and it is probably too much risk for Putin to deliver these to Damascus in case an 'event' occurs and a civilian jet goes down. In any case, some suggest there are more effective equipment solutions for Syrian defense/response. Of course, in the wryly Russian way, Israeli destruction of "old" Pantsir S-1 systems simply opens up the rational and legal opportunity to provide a whole lot of 'new' updated replacement Pantsir S-1 systems. Background: https://sputniknews.com/military/201804171063644024-pantsir-top-facts/

psychohistorian , May 12, 2018 11:30:45 AM | 45
I think that the UN has always been mostly a circus court for empire....make it look like US is benevolent.

So now when the fig leaf comes off in public people are aghast. Empire only works like empire and when the wheels start to come off, the whole facade is exposed for the dog and pony show it has always been.

Will this be enough to change the world of global private finance? Iran, remember, refuses to become a member of the Western banking/elite cabal.

So just why might Trump be directed to attack Iran in his regular pompous manner. Is this a religious war we are fighting for Israel?

NO!!! It is all about the continuation of the Western form of social organization that has as its core religion the God of Mammon. Those at MoA who read me know that the God of Mammon that I write about have the tenets of private finance and property along with the rules of inheritance which has resulted in the elite of the past few centuries.

I continue to posit that all that is happening relates to that issue and the struggles around it not discussed in public for whatever reasons.

But carry on educating me and others about all the proxy shit going down and its relevance to how our society works....or doesn't........I want evolution and I want it this morning!!!!!!!

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 11:44:12 AM | 46
The coming "war on Iran" will be an excuse for all kinds of mischief. Some possibilities:
>> seizing western Iraq
further isolate Syria by blocking Iran-Syria land route

>> attack and occupation of Lebanon
to clear Hezbollah and allow for Israeli land grab up to Litani river (a goal previously expressed)

>> new round of terror attacks (from new/re-branded groups) focused on Syria, Iranian, and Russian interests (with a few attacks on the West to muddy the waters)
The psychological part of a war of attrition

>> intensified Ukraine-Russian frictions
full court press

>> ISIS expansion into Central Asia
accelerate what has already begun

>> Shut down of North Stream and Turk Stream
expect the 'cage match' with "recividist nations" to get nasty

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 11:45:50 AM | 47
Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as hoped? Or perhaps it is that they've figured out that there's nothing to do. SOHR, opposed to the Syrians, but with good telephone connections in Syria, has now come up with a list of a handful of Iranian dead. So I suppose a few Iranian camps were actually hit. But the only actual videoed strikes were against Syrians. It's what you'd call a nothing-burger, much like the 102 missile strike.

And this is the launch of a campaign against Iran?? Strange way of showing it. In my view, the US and Israel are so boxed in by their constraints, that it's very difficult to act decisively. No casualties, so no overflights of Syria, let alone Iran. No interruption of Gulf oil exports, as the Gulfies wouldn't like it. Gulf emirates not to be overturned. I'm sure I can think of some more....

imo , May 12, 2018 11:49:45 AM | 48
@40 -- "The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?"

More likely an unlearned repeat of 'rhyming' history with Trump playing Jimmy Carter and the "5,000 soldiers/mercenaries" playing the suckers (in summer heat). How's the Big 'D' going to negotiate that deal over the mid-terms?

But that was Democrat 'smart' -- perhaps this re-mix will be closer an up-scaled rerun of Reagan's Iran–Contra scandal? Who's playing Oliver North?

fairleft , May 12, 2018 11:51:49 AM | 49
Robert Snefjella | May 12, 2018 9:18:08 AM | 20

Another great post. Thank you. Implied I think in your musings is, 'What will people remember of the U.S.' in a hundred years? The 20th century popular music. Blues, Jazz, Rock 'n Roll, and Country & Western for starters.

Anon , May 12, 2018 11:57:18 AM | 50
Ghost ship

Completely nonsense.

When have UNSC ever done to stop aggression by the same states that commit the aggression?
The topic wouldnt even raised in the UNSC.
Of course Iran wont start a "preemptive" war. Not atleast since that will be a suicide mission for themselves.

Anon , May 12, 2018 12:00:07 PM | 51
Lysander

Russia wont do anything then (us attack on iran), just look how they treated previous US wars, everytime people have said the same that RUssia will help and repel an attack, it have never happend and will never happen.

lysander , May 12, 2018 12:03:32 PM | 52
At 51...uh, you do realize Russia has an expeditionary force that is actually fighting and keeping Syria alive as we post, right? Perhaps they are not fighting as much as you would like, but they are fighting and Syria continues to exist because of it. As regards Iran, if Iran falls the Syria falls and Russian bases will be gone. Fortunately for all, that won't happen.
NemesisCalling , May 12, 2018 12:11:36 PM | 53
It is difficult to say what kind of scope the false flag would need to be to rally public opinion at home for an Iranian incursion. In many ways, pre-9/11, the antiwar movement was much stronger as was shown by the rallies against leading up to the Iraqi invasion. And yet this couldn't forestall it.

OTOH, independent media has come a long way in its reach and so cries of "false flag" have already been sounded, and, by and large, I believe America is fatigued with the ME. It is doubly ironic that dems like Schumer have been crying foul against DJT for playing soft with NoKo. I know that the current dem/lib establishment has thrown its antiwar credentials out the window, in favor of color revolutions, freedom, and LGBTQUIOGDTFBJK rights to fornicate in public spaces, but, my god, I would never have imagined the globalists to be THAT stupid in their disregard for basic human needs the world over for soverignty and national pride.

People have touched on it before, but is this whole current theater just an old money vs. new money second showing? The return of the repressed, with the globalist/neolib model being rundowned and usurped by nationalist oligarchs? It would seem the DJT has chosen to err to the old money side to the betterment of the world. And I, for one, as an American would rather have my elites localized so we would actually have access to their asses when we decide to put a pitchfork up them. It is very difficult to get past TSA with weaponized peasant tools.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 12:13:00 PM | 54
Israel doesn't want war with Iran – it prefers crisis in Tehran . Anshel Pfeffer, Ha'aretz.

Israel's a bit late there then. The disturbances were at the beginning of the year. They're over now. The effect of the sanctions will be to swing people behind the regime, for the moment, at any rate.

Anon , May 12, 2018 12:30:10 PM | 55
lysander

No thats wrong too, Russia is not on a mission to save Syrians state, they are in Syria due takfiri threat. Nothing else, as we all see proof of past days...

As for your other statment, I am well sure that Syria have fallen long long before Iran (if they ever do that).

Lozion , May 12, 2018 12:44:53 PM | 56
@52 Lysander. I agree (btw never mind anon's trolling attempts). Simply put, the road to Tehran goes through Damascus and last I checked the Jasmine City was doing fine ;) If US/KSA/IL attempts a hot war on Iran it will only precipitate its fall..
Jose Garcia , May 12, 2018 12:55:54 PM | 57
Am reminded of the 3 Stooges, whenever I read about these warmongers, like " Bombs Away" Bolton. Moe tells a group of people, "We will fight till the last drop of.....", then points to Curly and finishes, "....your blood!" These bastards love war, but never are at the front line, fighting and dying along side our best. They sit at their plush offices and conference halls in the best hotels, sipping champagne and eating the best foods, making six or seven figure incomes. While our brothers, neighbors, fathers, sons, uncles die overseas, or come back a mental mess, and get crapped on by out government. What these no good for nothing rat bastards need is to experience the hell they unleash upon us and the rest of the world.
les7 , May 12, 2018 1:05:51 PM | 58
@32 thanks Ian for that link. good catch!
Rhisiart Gwilym , May 12, 2018 1:08:01 PM | 59
anon is clearly of the 'cakewalk', 'all be over by Christmas' school of strategic (lack of) intelligence. LOL!
john , May 12, 2018 1:09:24 PM | 60
NemesisCalling says:

I believe America is fatigued with the ME

i read this line a lot, from all spheres, and it always perplexes me. to be fatigued you'd have to be overwhelmed, inundated, and i'd wager that the ME and what's going on there hardly crosses the vast majority of minds in more than a peripheral way, you know, like beyond certain key words they hear on tv.

one thing's for sure though, the ME is most definitely fatigued with America!

james , May 12, 2018 1:16:32 PM | 61
@59 rhisiart... a broken clock is right twice a day!!

many fine posts, excluding the anons of moa, lol.. thanks..

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:20:52 PM | 62
Looks like there might not be a Coalition Of The Willing in any anti-Iran military operation. Quite the opposite, it's a further lessening of US world hegemony.
. . .Cartoon of Trump giving the middle finger Goodbye, Europe! in Der Spiegel.
Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:23:47 PM | 63
@ Ian 32
U.N. nuclear watchdog's inspections chief quits suddenly
The IAEA is not a UN agency.
Anon , May 12, 2018 1:30:35 PM | 64
Don Bacon

Dont bet on that,

May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201805121064380224-usa-uk-iran-sanctions-pressure/

WJ , May 12, 2018 1:31:06 PM | 65
Why are commentators assuming that, *if* the US does launch a war of aggression against Iran, it will do so in tandem with its NATO allies--and the UK, France, and Germany in particular? It is doubtful that these allies will even abide by the new US economic sanctions imposed upon Iran. Why think that they will be willing, or even politically able, to follow the US orders for war?

b is right that the neocons are setting up a replay of the 2001-2003 Iraq propaganda campaign. But the global and domestic conditions that enabled the success of that campaign no longer hold. The US is far weaker now than then; Iran is more powerful and unified than Iraq ever was; NATO countries have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade contracts in place or projected with Iran; Russia and China are far stronger. It just doesn't add up.

NemesisCalling , May 12, 2018 1:31:57 PM | 66
@60 john

I suppose what I was trying to say is that the narrative TPTB have spun over the last twenty years has gone beyond the realm of convoluted to the average American and now has completely unwound into chaos. It was only three years ago that we were being told about the surging threat of ISIS to Americans. Well...that didn't last long...and now they are back to Iran which the west knows very little about and really doesn't care to. Us Americans like the good guy/bad guy fight. But if you can't drum up a good enough backstory for the black hats, I'm afraid that the average American will simply change the channel.

That being said...a compelling backstory isn't really needed for pyschopaths to wage their war anyway.

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 1:33:28 PM | 67
Lorizon @56

I believe you are referring to Anon as troll.

"anon" (small 'a') makes valuable contributions.

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 1:34:39 PM | 68
Typo: Lozion
MIschi , May 12, 2018 1:35:05 PM | 69
Russia has probably delivered the S-300 to Syria but isn't saying.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201805111064353749-russia-s300-supplies-syria/

Also, Putin and Lavrov always talk to other parties that they aren't getting along with, hence Netanyahu's invitation to the Victory Day parade.

les7 , May 12, 2018 1:38:08 PM | 70
Several here ave wondered what kind of false flag could motivate the populace in NA and the EU to support an attack on Iran. May I propose one?

First stage - Israel (using the EW cover from AlTanf) bombs the Iranian nuclear plant. Radiation release threatens tens of thousands.

Second stage - Supposed 'Iranian' counter-attack sets oil tankers ablaze (For maximum PR effect do not sink them) in the Hormuz straights closing the gulf to shipments of Gulf sourced oil. Oil prices temporarily spike to over $200 a barrel,

Europe's supply of oil is cut drastically, industries world-wide are paralysed and the US (secure with its' supply sourced outside the gulf)is free to ride to the rescue - all while RUSSIA (and China) have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to oppose the aggression.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:39:56 PM | 71
bevin 41
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad, campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be low.
Yes, the US Army is demonstrably weak especially for any foreign invasion.

Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
And also China's BRI -- coming up June 28-- -- The China Germany BRI Summit 2018

As the first and third largest exporters globally, China and Germany will prove crucial drivers of trade along the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road. Together these form the Belt and Road Initiative, a landmark shift in the global economic order that will touch over 65 countries across four continents.
The China Germany BRI Summit 2018 will dispel myths on what the Belt and Road Initiative means for the world, tackle the challenges for global financial institutions and corporations looking to leverage the initiative, and identify the enormous opportunities in M&A, capital markets and trade finance. here .
ninel , May 12, 2018 1:42:37 PM | 72
Iran Breaks the Rules of Engagement: Israel Takes Its Revenge, and Syria and Iran Impose the Golan Equation, May 10 2018

https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-breaks-the-rules-of-engagement-israel-takes-its-revenge-and-syria-and-iran-impose-the-golan-equation/5640231

@ Anon 64
Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.

Posted by: Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM | 73

@ Anon 64
Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM | 73 /div

WJ , May 12, 2018 1:46:54 PM | 74
Don Bacon @71,

The extremely complex entanglement of Germany with (roughly) the NATO/EU alliance on the one hand and Russia/China on the other is a prime reason why I do not believe that Germany (which is by far the biggest economy in the EU) will be able to be strong armed or enticed into signing up with another Zionist driven US war of aggression with a country as major as Iran.

xpat , May 12, 2018 1:48:26 PM | 75
Re the possibility of a "united front" of western powers confronting Iran, the truth is that no one knows for certain at this point how it this will play out.

We have to remember the deafening silence of the western media during the obvious Skripjal-Ghouta fakery, so there's a good chance the US/Israel axis will again have a relatively free hand to concoct any number of escalating false flags, not all of which will stick, but some probably will. So that is a cause for concern re any future "coalition".

As for enforcing the sanctions, I've seen people argue both ways - that this is a bridge too far for Europe, and accepting it will both do too much economic damage and make Europe appear too obviously as US toadies; and OTOH, Europe will be blackmailed into knuckling under when confronted with illegal US fines and secondary sanctions.

wenlich , May 12, 2018 1:51:06 PM | 76
@59 Lysander

> Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as hoped?

This is all that needs to be noted about the absurdity of even the idea that the US regime is capable of attacking Iran.

This delusion appears to be the same type thinking as the "Generals Always Fight the Previous War" saying.

The days of the Israeli regime flying at will over countries bombing at will are over. And the days of the US regime parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a country and leisurely taking out its air defense network are long gone.

Russian air defense and electronic warfare tech are now being shown to be significantly superior to US regime offensive capabilities in real world combat. So much so that the most common reaction has been to try to rationalize the fact with crazy conspiracy theories about behind the scenes wink and nod agreements between the US regime and Russia.

Trump foolishly trying to attack Iran to distract from his political problems would end up as the first modern US regime leader who lost an aircraft carrier and ten dollar gas prices.

Israeli's were cowering in their sewers while their junk air defense network repeatedly failed to defend against a minor Syrian retaliatory barrage while Syrians in Damascus were cheering on their rooftops as their Russian air defense network knocked Israeli missiles from the sky.

Syria smacking down the Israeli regime is going to have Trump's military advisors sitting him down and giving him a hard dose of reality about the Israeli/Saudi/Neocon delusions about attacking Iran.

FB Ali , May 12, 2018 2:00:04 PM | 77
Old Microbiologist, @ #38, above has a good handle on the current situation in the region.

I agree with his views.

Ian , May 12, 2018 2:08:08 PM | 78
Don Bacon @63:

According to Reuters it is. :p

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:19:50 PM | 79
Pompeo(US) and Zarif(Iran) are currently making the diplomatic rounds, the former looking for a new & improved plan, and the latter emphasizing that the US never adhered to the old plan and united opposition to sanctions is in everyon'e best interest.
from the Iran statement:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has not only made explicit and official statements against the agreement in violation of its provisions, but has in practice also failed to implement U.S. practical – and not merely formal commitments under the JCPOA. The Islamic Republic of Iran has recorded these violations in numerous letters to the Joint Commission convened under the JCPOA, outlining the current U.S. Administration's bad faith and continuous violations of the accord. Thus Mr. Trump's latest action is not a new development but simply means the end of the obstructionist presence of the United States as a participant in the JCPOA. . . here

The apparent US line now, as before, is to "change the regime's malign behavior" which is ridiculous and thus doomed.
A P , May 12, 2018 2:22:57 PM | 80
@ MISchi 69: There have been Russian-operated S-400's in Syria for years. Even the US propaganda rags admit it is significant in reducing FUKUS attacks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537

http://www.janes.com/article/74500/second-russian-s-400-in-syria-confirmed

So just because Russia isn't giving the SAA S-300's doesn't mean Syria has no protection. The fact the updated S-200s and Pantsirs are doing the job reasonably well will give FUKUS and Israeli/Saudi military planners pause. Note that the cowardly Israeli jets attack from Lebanese or Jordanian airspace.

And Nuttyyahoo merely crashed the Victory Day festivities, and Putin is too gracious a host to kick Nutty out. But the body language between them was obvious, Putin was not happy to see Nutty trying to capitalize on Putin's good manners.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:29:46 PM | 81
@ Ian 77
According to Reuters it is.
Reuters doesn't take comments so I'm telling you (and others), if you don't mind, because you are misleading people with something that isn't true.
Don Wiscacho , May 12, 2018 2:29:47 PM | 82
As much as Bolton and his ilk would love to attack Iran, I have to disagree that a full-fledged war is likely. USrael will ratchet up tensions all they can, hoping that Iran will take the bait and actually respond, but the only way an actual war MAY be fought is with a massive false flag attack. However, it took a massive false flag attack to allow the neocons to invade Iraq, so said black op would have to be on that magnitude. Here's the thing though, the neocons seem to be getting worse at false flags and more over the world ain't buying them like they used to.
Sure you can get your European lackeys to sign up to a few sanctions, but will anyone actually support the utter tanking of the world economy? Because that will be the end result of war with Iran and behind closed doors everyone knows this. Look up the Millennial War Games simulation that pitted the US against Iran. And how did that $200 million exercise turn out? The US had to "refloat" its fleet in order to win. Using older Chinese anti- ship missiles the Iranians decimated US naval assets. The US hasn't developed counter measures against these while the Iranians have undoubtedly improved on these missiles. No matter what happens to its ground forces and population centers, shipping in the Persian Gulf will be shut down. That one action will raise the price of oil to over $200 a barrel overnight, possibly much higher. And with that the global economy will be left in tatters. Too many of the world's leaders understand this completely and simply will not go along with the US and line up against Iran like they did with Iraq.
Mischi , May 12, 2018 2:35:20 PM | 83
no, Netanyahu was invited. I read about it a week before the parade. Lavrov always says that you don't need to negotiate with your friends, but you do with your enemies. Hence the invite.

Like the Godfather said in the eponymous movie "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

Anon , May 12, 2018 2:38:30 PM | 84
Don Bacon

UKs military is of course far stronger than Iran,
we will see renewed sanctions against Iran and EU will be onboard and have already mentioned they "need" to pressure Iran more.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:40:47 PM | 85
The attacks on Iran will be only financial, not military, is my guess. The big news in the military sector is often on cyber attacks. Cyber will be a "new military front."

Financial is akin to cyber. No shooting. The military experts don't discuss financial, I guess because the U.S. is the only country capable of it, controlling world finance as it does. But a full-on sanctions regime on another small country like Iran could do a lot of damage and hurt a lot of people, as it did in Iraq previously. Sort of like what the U.S. did to Japan to precipitate the war in the Pacific, except Iran's reactions must be much more limited.

So the big question is Europe, and if it is able to legislate any significant counter-sanction laws that would encourage Iran-Europe business. France looks good on this, Germany is more significant.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 2:41:18 PM | 86
I do wish people would stop calling themselves Anon. It's very difficult to know which is which. It's easy enough to anonymise yourself with a distinctive handle. Maybe b should ban it as a handle.
Chipnik , May 12, 2018 2:56:50 PM | 87
60

Many years ago I got to hear Sir Edmond Hillary speak to the assembled students at my school, just a few years after his amazing climbing feat. No multimedia or lasers pointers or cheesy-brand tee-shirt cannons, ... just an electric performance by an incredible man that shaped my life, one foot at a time.

Several decades later, I watched SEH demonstrate Simple Green soap at REI. So incredibly sad. I'll never forget either presentation. The Man in the Moon had become another Soapy Salesman.

At the same time I first heard SEH speak, my father, an international businessman, brought home a Buddhist monk exchange student from Asia for the holiday. It was spellbinding to meet a bright and well-off monk, who knew all this amazing arcane reality, that we call the Wheel. It shaped my entire approach to the summit.

Several decades later, in fact, just recently, I watched a performance by a Tibetan monk troupe, after which they essentially begged for sponsors for the remaining exiled monks now starving in India by the 1000s. They are dying out, like the 1,000s, the 10,000s of aboriginal valley cultures that once walked the Earth.

Soapy Sales and Starving Monks, who only decades ago were both sitting on Top of the World. Kind of like everyone's experience, even John Bolton's, former UN ambassador, now a sleazy salesman-demonstrator for Death Inc, too proud to sell soap, or to busker for alms. He's pathetic.

So let me bring it on home.

A student of mine is a senior monk in Asia. His charge is to free the spirits of the just dead. Not the two monks chanting and incense and sprinkling with flower petal water in front of a cherished photo. No, he blesses the *dying*, the human roadkills from the reckless Chinese Escalades bombing through SEAsian commute traffic, the black and blue herion addicts with the needle still in their arm, bright red blood bubbling out of their noses, the raped, strangled, discarded and bloating young girls, dumped in the nearest rice paddy ditch.

He gets those calls. He never talks about his work, never shows the horror pictures or trashes the perps. He sends selfies, pics of meals, flowers and temples. So I asked him, doesn't this bother you at night, the carnal evil, the rape, the murder? Don't you wanna see justice done?

He said simply, we're all going to die, many of us soon, we have very little time away from the Wheel. We should spend every precious second of free time uplifting those who are below us, the poor, the infirm, the feeble, the indentured, the slave, ...because we're all gonna die as beggars some day. We should hold faith with the beggars.

Bolton is a sick fuck, in a pantheon of sick fucks. Why squander a nanosecond meditating on any of them? They are nothingness, the void. MoA seems to have a fascination with evil and death, and making Death's bit players into pop-idols. Selling a different brand of soap, I guess.

OJS , May 12, 2018 3:04:21 PM | 88

Israeli Air Force Strikes Gaza Strip, More Than 20 Missiles Fired

Israeli having free hands bombings not only Syria and in Gaza too. Syrians and Palestinians lives dun matter?

What if.... Regime changes in Syria and Iran will the killing stops?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-12/israeli-air-force-strikes-gaza-strip-more-20-missiles-fired

lysander , May 12, 2018 3:06:13 PM | 89
@70, les7

Closing Hormuz would likely be the Iranian response to a sustained bombing campaign. A single strike on a nuclear facility could elicit a missile strike on the attacking party (US, Isreal or both.) Or it could involve multiple attacks on vulnerable US troops in Iraq and Syria. Iran has several rungs in its escalation ladder. It doesn't have to jump to the top one all at once.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 3:07:58 PM | 90
re Don 84

Of course financial sanctions are the main, if not the only, US war-winning tactic available today. Mainly the control of the VISA and SWIFT exchange systems. But I'm not financially knowledgeable. It was one reason that Iran signed in 2015. I remember well, about 10 years ago, the husband of an Iranian student arriving with $20K (?) sewn into his overcoat, to pay for his wife's studies.

However, the US has used this tactic so often now, that people must be looking to ways of getting round the problem. I'm not quite sure how much success they may have had. People talk about Russia-China erecting a parallel to the SWIFT system. I hope this does happen, though it must be expensive. Non-US allies need it.

A P , May 12, 2018 3:36:24 PM | 91
@lLaguerre: Russia already has set up its version of SWIFT. As has China, as well as both agreeing to transactions in rubles/yuan first for petroleum, then recently for all other trade, to bypass the US$ SWIFT system. The US gets a "cut", every time a corporation/country converts from local currency to US$, then again when that same US$ cash is converted to the currency of the second trading partner. To avoid this, non-US countries keep US$ reserves to trade between themselves. This scam was set up at Bretton Woods after WW2 when the US economy was the only economy/industrial-base left unscathed.

https://www.rt.com/business/424108-russia-rostec-swift-alternative/

"In 2017, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, said at a meeting with President Vladimir Putin that Russia is ready for disconnection from SWIFT."

Cyril , May 12, 2018 3:36:53 PM | 92
Because of their large inertia, these things, when they get moving, cannot be stopped and proceed to the inevitable. The ziocons have pushed the boulder and it's starting to roll.

That is what a lot of panicky people said in 2013, that Obama's invasion of Syria was inevitable because Assad was gassing his people in Ghouta. It didn't happen. As it turned out, the "massive momemtum" was in the Zionist propangda, hoping to sucker the U.S. into the Middle East again.

Cyril , May 12, 2018 3:40:31 PM | 93
[Bolton:] "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

What an ass Bolton is. I hope Bustani replied with "We know where you live."

Lozion , May 12, 2018 3:47:06 PM | 94
@67/68 hence @85. Agreed, using anon as a handle only lowers the signal-to-noise ratio at MoA. This isnt Reddit nor should it become, IMO..
james , May 12, 2018 3:48:57 PM | 95
i think swift and bis are linked in with imf.. unfortunately i don't know how it all works, but russias central bank is part of imf.. the way imf is set up favours the developed countries over the developing countries.. they have some other tricks to keep control over it too, but i do believe it is tricky navigating moving away from it all, which is why the financial system is the first line of action to put other countries deemed out of line - into line.. some have tried to get the imf to change without success which is why i believe brics was working towards an alternative.. of course the b in brics went thru a type of regime change under a different facade and i am not sure where they are at with that at this moment in time...
WJ , May 12, 2018 3:50:46 PM | 96

Julian Assange
@JulianAssange
There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016 US presidential election:
(thread)
5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018


DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets

-- Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) May 11, 2018

A P , May 12, 2018 3:51:01 PM | 97
@MISchi: Israel may have been "invited", but only as a standard diplomatic courtesy, not as a "guest of honour" as the MSM and Hasbara would have us beleive. The US was probably invited too... and didn't have the grace to show up? The US and EU were for sure in 2014, but "boycotted" it over the US coup in Ukraine. Nuttyyahoo was just looking for MSM cover for the illegal bombing he knew was going to happen, making it look like Putin was "in on it".

I'd guess Putin is simply giving Nutty all the rope Nutty needs to hang himself in the court of world public opinion. When I see an official statement from Putin (or any Russian senior official) saying Putin gave any approval of Israel's past and present illegal incursions in Syria, let alone the illegal occupation of the Golan, I'll believe Nutty being at the Victory Parade was some sort of endorsement by Putin of Nutty's insanity.

karlof1 , May 12, 2018 4:01:47 PM | 98
I agree with Lysander's logic. Iran will not be attacked in the "normal" manner; it will be asymmetrical. The performance of not-so antiquated air defenses in Syria are the big game changer as Iran has those and its own S-300 version. Plus all those big stationary targets. Plus, I figure Bolton has a target on his back, as do other neocons--you don't murder over a million without creating some enemies. I see lots of bluster to foment as much chaos as possible to accentuate the asymmetrical impact. But as for an actual military assault, Bolton and company are a decade plus too late.

To negate the potential effect of another Operation Northwoods, I think it wise to pull up those old pdf docs and spread them around the world via social media--a move I'm frankly surprised has yet to be made--along with some additional contemporary context.

A P , May 12, 2018 4:03:42 PM | 99
@james: The Russian central bank is a member of the IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT system as are nearly every other central bank in the world. Not being "in" this club severely restricts the ability to do international trade. Russia and China are quietly spearheading the move to conduct international trade in local currencies, outside the US$-reserve-currency scam (sorry, system). Both Russia and China have set up alternative systems, which along with the SCO/AIIB offer participating countries a way to side-set US economic terrorism and sanctions. The Rothschilds may have managed to stall the BRICS for now, but that won't last long.
A P , May 12, 2018 4:04:38 PM | 100
sorry, should be "side-step".

[May 11, 2018] Protecting Israel Is Their Full-Time Job by Philip Giraldi

It is unclear to what extent Israel is given unfairly favorable treatment and to what extent it is the most useful allies (along with KSA) of f the USA in the middle East securing energy supplies to the according to Carter doctrine,
Notable quotes:
"... The latest outrage against the First Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new hate speech law was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget. ..."
"... The legislation borrows from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" as anti-Semitic. ..."
"... While the State Department definition is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the states universities and educational institutions. ..."
"... The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons, a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature." ..."
"... Normally foreign governments have what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the U.S. with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs, suing in American courts. ..."
"... Indeed, it is far more plausible that Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior knowledge. ..."
"... But, of course, no one would be allowed to sue Israel in an American court. The 9/11 Commission failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports stamped. ..."
"... Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system. ..."
"... As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven. ..."
"... This is partly the explanation of "military capitalism" deployed rather recently in insider circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth. ..."
"... American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". ..."
"... There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited. ..."
"... Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity. ..."
May 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Time to question the loyalty of some legislators and judges

I have a number of times discussed how the U.S. and other governments have legislated and otherwise promoted Jewish and Israeli interests in ways that most people would find unacceptable if they were aware of what exactly has been going on. Here in the United States, special Medicare coverage and immigration status have been granted, often concealed in other legislation, to benefit holocaust survivors and Russian Jews seeking to emigrate. State legislatures and the U.S. Congress have meanwhile been working hard to pass legislation that blocks and even criminalizes the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) protests against Israeli behavior while universities have been banning anti-Israel demonstrators and groups on campus because they apparently are offensive to the sensitivities of some Jewish students.

The latest outrage against the First Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new hate speech law was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget.

The legislation borrows from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" as anti-Semitic.

While the State Department definition is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the states universities and educational institutions.

The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons, a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature."

Supporters of the Bill of Rights have been universally opposed to the bill, but pro-Israel groups have praised the initiative and are expecting a "new wave" of legislation all across the United States blocking any criticism of the self-described Jewish State. The Brandeis Center has enthused

"This bill gives South Carolina the tools to protect Jewish students' and all South Carolina students' right to a learning environment free of unlawful discrimination. We are hoping this momentous step will result in another national wave to, once and for all, begin defeating rising anti-Semitism."

Other states will undoubtedly follow the South Carolina lead, so it would appear that any criticism of Israel will become illegal in the public square if the many friends of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have their way. And they generally do get what they want from the federal level all the way down to the states and local communities, so be prepared.

Israel also is regularly exploiting the American legal system to punish countries that it has defined as its enemies. Its government sponsored lawfare organization called Shurat Hadin has initiated a number of lawsuits in U.S. courts to punish Palestinians and Iranians. Ironically, it is currently seeking to demonstrate that Hamas is committing war crimes in Gaza , where Israel has been using army snipers to kill unarmed demonstrators.

Other lawsuits filed on behalf of mostly Jewish Americans in U.S. courts seeking compensation from Iranians and Palestinians are also pending, with the tribunals in Manhattan particularly prone to being sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Last week, at the Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan, Judge George Daniels issued a default judgment relating to his 2011 determination that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to the hundreds of family members of victims who are named in the case. The judge ordered Iran to pay $6 billion in compensation – "$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per child, and $4,250,000 per sibling" to the families and estates of the deceased. A 4.96 annual interest rate will also be applied to the amount, starting from September 11, 2001 to the date of the judgement."

Normally foreign governments have what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the U.S. with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs, suing in American courts.

Though the lawsuit claimed, and Judge Daniels agreed, that Tehran had supported the 9/11 hijackers with training and other assistance, most authorities would question that judgement. Many would consider it to be ludicrous as Iranian Shi'ites were considered to be kill-on-sight heretics by al-Qaeda. The idea that Iran was somehow involved in 9/11 is in reality a ridiculous Israel Lobby contrivance that was first floated in 2015 by ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, a renowned Zionist stooge and conspiracy theorist who is viewed by many as not completely in possession of all his marbles.

Indeed, it is far more plausible that Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior knowledge.

But, of course, no one would be allowed to sue Israel in an American court. The 9/11 Commission failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports stamped.

In his Farewell Address President George Washington warned that

" a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot."

If one believes that deference to the special foreign interest of one powerful and wealthy segment of the population is appropriate in a democracy then I suppose the Jewish/Israeli pander has to be considered acceptable. I happen to believe that, as our first president so clearly articulated, it is not, particularly as much of the concession that Jews are somehow to be treated differently than the rest of the community due to their alleged victimhood contributes to a criticism-free ride for an Israel which is eagerly seeking a new war in the Middle East. It would be a war that the United States would inevitably get pulled into by Israel's friends in Congress and the media. It would also be catastrophic for all parties involved and it all starts with the belief that Israel should somehow be protected and its enemies punished while also being exempt from being made accountable for its actions.

Curmudgeon , May 8, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT

It's more than time to question, it's time to prosecute. If Alan Clemmons, or any other legislator, has gone to Israel, with any assistance from Israel financial or otherwise, then Clemmons (and others) have taken a bribe. Failure to prosecute, just as failure to enforce current immigration laws, is the road to anarchy.

As for Judge Daniels, I guess I could cut him some slack, given it's a default judgment, but that goes out the door if he was the judge that certified the case going forward in the first place. There is no prima facie evidence of Iran's involvement in 9/11, and therefore, false statements made in the statement of claim are a perversion of justice. A judge is supposed to rule on facts, not conjecture.

Brabantian , Website May 8, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT

75 years ago, people hid Jews to protect them from imprisonment and possible death by European-led jailers. Now in 2018, people are hiding Europeans to protect them from imprisonment and possible death by Jewish-led jailers

89-year-old Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel is right now being hunted by German police at the behest of Jewish groups, because she did not show up at prison a few days ago, to serve a two-year-jail sentence for questioning the official narrative of the Jewish killings in World War II It is recognised by Jews and others that at her age, the long jailing may kill her

The 'International Auschwitz Committee' says German police should use 'high pressure' to find this elderly woman and imprison her, even though it may kill her

And yet Jews who speak like this claim they do not understand why people develop antipathy to Jews It is in fact the International Auschwitz Committee which is 'inciting anti-semitism', as they inspire Germans to hide elderly people from Jews 'like Anne Frank was hidden from Germans'

However much Ursula Haverbeck might be in error in her historical opinions, this is appalling and shocking treatment of a grandmotherly woman soon to be 90 years of age sending her very possibly to death for her ideas regarding an era to which she is a living personal witness (Haverbeck was born in 1928, and will turn age 90 this 8 November)

This reminds of the case of a World War II Jewish witness, a rabbi's son, who was with the Russian advance troops who liberated places like Auschwitz, Joseph Ginzburg – Joseph G Burg, direct interrogator of Auschwitz and other camp survivors The fiercely anti-Nazi and very Jewish Burg, said the Holocaust was an exaggeration, a fraud fabricated by Zionists, he wrote books on this, & had many of those books burned by the modern West German government tho the old Bonn regime never had the stomach to jail rabbi's son Joseph Ginzburg (1908-90), despite his holocaust denial

MarkinLA , May 8, 2018 at 6:22 am GMT
OT but since it seems Israel first stooge Insane McCain is finally going to meet Satan. What I want to know is, has anybody announced how they intend to handle all the people who want to piss on his grave? Will there be a lottery, will there be those "take a number" machines, will it be first come first served or will there be some kind of contest, like writing an essay?
jilles dykstra , May 8, 2018 at 6:48 am GMT
On the day of Sept 11, when I still, of course, believed the Muslim terror attack story, I said to my wife 'just Israel benefits'. I simply could not see how these Muslim attacks benefitted Muslims. No idea, at the time, as Anatol Lieven also did not have at the end of the month, his article 'New Cold War' in the then still independent Guardian, that these attacks would be used to justify wars on Afghanistan and Iraq.

It was 2004 when Hollings made his famous speech, promising war to AIPAC for the jewish vote, 'that is politics'.

Mark James , May 8, 2018 at 7:00 am GMT
I'm convinced the neocons will not pull this off this time . After many years of war a passive public may be catching on. I expect the price of oil to jolt upwards this afternoon. When people begin asking why the answers need to be that our "ally" Israel keeps threatening war if they don't get their way and Trump doesn't tear up the P5+1 treaty.

If your member of congress is either gung-ho on treaty repeal or even worse, talking about Iran regime change like Rudi , https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trump-committed-to-iran-regime-change-giuliani-says-1.6055510 ,, tell him or her that we can and will do better and expect to vote accordingly.

animalogic , May 8, 2018 at 8:28 am GMT
@Brabantian

A 90 year old woman must "serve a two-year-jail sentence for questioning the official narrative of the Jewish killings in World War II "

This is surreal. Liberal democracy (what's left of it) down the rabbit hole. Imprisonment as a consequence of questioning history ? Yes, I know, Germany has its sensitivities, but should historical guilt excuse a vicious assault on core values & a vulnerable individual ?

m___ , May 8, 2018 at 8:34 am GMT
No context to the article that matters. Lost in deviations. The real issue: any transaction to and from Israel makes some Jewish and elite non Jewish Americans accessory. Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system.

As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven.

One must realize that when the dollar, as is happening looses part of it's reserve status(currently under way, partly global transactions start escaping the dollar accountability, thus leaving a smaller margin of cooking the books), there need to be a trustworthy insertion point into the Yuan, any digital currency, international financial markets, currency speculation for the elites of the West, evasion of embargos for the exeptionals.

This is partly the explanation of "military capitalism" deployed rather recently in insider circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth.

Israel is a Swiss knife for corporate international billionaires, no billionaires no Israel.

zendeviant , May 8, 2018 at 10:08 am GMT
Would the JASTA act open the way for litigation against Israel's involvement in 9/11? Of course, there would have to be a change in venue because the southern district of Manhattan is kind of evil's homecourt.

Might be just the right crack in the absurdity, to investigate, prosecute and sentence the perpetrators. I mean if they can go after a ninety year old woman, why not a geriatric Jerome Hauser, Dov Zakheim, etc?

Just spit-balling here, I'll go back to my observational pessimism

Tyrion 2 , May 8, 2018 at 10:51 am GMT
@Thomm

Or, it could just be that Unz believes in Aristotle's theory that adopting intellectual virtues is the best way to get to the truth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_virtue

anarchyst , May 8, 2018 at 11:01 am GMT
American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid".

This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents of a foreign government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of American law..

There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited.

Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.

Momus , May 8, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@anarchyst

The American Presidents Johnson and Nixon were satisfied with the Israeli explanation that they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the mid east. Successive administrations accept this declaration and are not interested in forcing them to join the IAEA.

Fair enough too given the history of their persecution and the massive contributions of Jewish brainpower to America's bomb project and many prior and subsequent, scientific, medical, legal and industrial efforts.

densa , May 8, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT
@Anonymous

I hope not. There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

Thanks to Giraldi and all the commenters here who want to see our government function on our behalf. Right now it's riddled with treason. Despite large majorities of both parties consistently identifying money as corrupting our politics, bribery became normalized in part so that Jewish politics could prosper. Now we no longer even expect our representative to pretend.

ChuckOrloski , May 8, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

Hi Bar Don Kaldian,

Below is a "crackpot" Israeli-commemoration that's way more than mere "irresponsible blabber."

https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/In-honor-of-Trump-Jerusalem-square-near-American-embassy-named-for-him-554752

[May 10, 2018] MoA - Blumenthal, Norton, Khalek - The Turncoats Deliver A Poor Excuse - by Daniel

May 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Blumenthal, Norton, Khalek - The Turncoats Deliver A Poor Excuse - by Daniel

by Daniel
lifted from a comment

... ... ...

He says he "didn't think it was going to become, you know, the 7-year devastating conflict that it became." That is apparent. Libya was already descending into the F-UK-US "Mission Accomplished" with NATO bombers warming up to finish the job. Perhaps Max's dad had assured him that Syria would follow the same pattern his emails with Hillary Clinton show he had helped plan and define in Libya.

BTW: Has he ever addressed his father's role in the destruction of the once most prosperous country on the African continent? I haven't read or heard anything from Max on Syd Blumenthal's pre-Qaddafi "removal" explanation that Libya had to be destroyed to:

  1. Steal their nationalized oil.
  2. Confiscate the hundreds of tons of gold and silver Libya held.
  3. Prevent Libya from establishing a gold-backed currency and pan-African development bank to compete with the US petro-dollar and IMF, and lift Africa out of neo-colonial subservience.

Yeah. Max was "pretty quiet on Libya and not really - didn't really make any coherent statements on that either."

That newspaper that Max publicly maligned and quit ("grandstanding" as he now says) "had taken an anti-imperialist agenda." Did that paper ever reject any articles Max wrote defending "the Syrian revolution"? I didn't think so. Who had "an agenda"? Because it sure sounds like it was Max who was so focused on his new book release and two upcoming book tours that at the least he abandoned journalistic values. Or did he fear that "being associated" with a paper that also published articles critical of "the revolution" could hurt book sales?

After all, he thought it was all going to be over soon anyway.

It would also be nice for Max to explain why, once he changed his position on Syria after Russia had helped turn the tide, he, Ben and Rania scrubbed all their anti-Syrian/pro-"rebel" posts from the internet without explanation. How Orwellian.

Cont. reading: Blumenthal, Norton, Khalek - The Turncoats Deliver A Poor Excuse - by Daniel

Posted by b at 03:54 PM | Comments (98)

karlof1 , May 9, 2018 4:25:05 PM | 1

Syria isn't the only topic Blumenthal wrote lies about. Him, his cohort mentioned here, and many other presstitutes destroyed their credibility to the point where no deed no matter how valorous can regain it for them--By their actions, they committed journalistic suicide.

It appears greed yet again trumped integrity. It's always for A Few Dollars More.

UserFriendly , May 9, 2018 4:29:17 PM | 2
My only concern is that if this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind and talking about it does that discourage anyone else from doing the same?

Richard C , May 9, 2018 4:43:06 PM | 3
They should apologise to those they maligned. But is a vilificatory focus on the insufficiency of their repentance really helping the anti-imperialist cause?

ben , May 9, 2018 4:43:14 PM | 4
@ 2: excellent point..

Blumenthal, and his vocal support for the Palestinian people deserves kudos. If he has changed his stance on the Syrian debacle, good. I don't know too many people who are always
prescient enough to get everything right from the get-go, so, even without an apology, he deserves credit for finally getting it right.

Anon , May 9, 2018 4:50:13 PM | 5
b you are really beggin for problems, isnt this the second time you attack Blumenthal? Those people are the least to be attacked like this.

All have been wrong some time, me, even yourself, why rub it in like this?

Laguerre , May 9, 2018 4:57:05 PM | 6
re 5
All have been wrong some time, me, even yourself, why rub it in like this?
Does that mean you now support Asad? Difficult to believe.

james , May 9, 2018 5:04:28 PM | 7
hey daniel! nice to see that post you did on the other thread getting highlighted here!! kudos..

Tobin Paz , May 9, 2018 5:06:20 PM | 8
I became familiar with Max Blumenthal through Democracy Now. His position on Syria was inexplicably appalling, but at least he had the decency to eventually call them out:

Democracy Now & guest slammed for backing 'neocon project of regime change in Syria'

Daniel , May 9, 2018 5:10:21 PM | 9
b. I'm genuinely honored that you chose to post a comment of mine. Thank you. And thank you for correcting my errors in spelling Al Akhbar and Ben Norton's actual surname.


Once I catch up on the "news," I'll be back to check comments.

Your mother , May 9, 2018 5:14:01 PM | 10
I was a follower of Max before the 2011 turmoil. I thought he was OK. He knew what was going around in Palestine and I was pretty sure he was an advocate for the better. I dont know what to think anymore. What is right and what is wrong. Can someone enlighten me :-(

Yul , May 9, 2018 5:14:18 PM | 11
@ Daniel

Thank you for putting down what most of us who have been following The Arab spring since Tunisia know about those 3 turncoats aka Triumvirate.

@ Anon #5

Speak for yourself. Those who do follow the ME knew and realised what was the goal back in Dara'a in February 2011. It has started since 1980's and Assad didn't want to be another b---h of the US. Colin Powell thought he could sway him with threats back in 2003 and then Robert Ford - so called Ambassador went on with his task when he got the job in Damascus together with Eric Chevallier who was MAN enough to realise what was happening.

Hoarsewhisperer , May 9, 2018 5:20:43 PM | 12
Posted by: Daniel | May 9, 2018 5:10:21 PM | 9
(Thanks to b for the recognition)

I agree with b. Your comment was thorough, well-articulated and verifiable.
...and flushed out some Moral Equivalence ideologues of the Thomas L Friedman variety.

George Lane , May 9, 2018 5:22:36 PM | 13
Black Agenda Report of course has got it right since day one since Blacks more than any other group know not to trust Western establishment narratives and discourses on human rights and humanitarian intervention. Their articles on Libya from 2011 are but one proof of this.

Margaret Kimberley's latest on Trump and Israel is excellent as always: here.

NOBTS , May 9, 2018 5:24:10 PM | 14
Oh please! The first attack on Max Blumenthal was embarrassing enough. Moon of Alabama is very fortunate to have gained as much respect as it has; it's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive tripe. By the way I'm also offended by the fact that someone presumed to edit my Nom de Comment "nationofbloodthirstysheep" when I made what I think was a useful comment on the Gulf of Scripal Incident. If I had wanted to post under the name" nation of sheep" I would have done so.

ToivoS , May 9, 2018 5:27:22 PM | 15
Max Blumenthal's support for the Palestians, especially those in Gaza, has been solid. As we all know Gaza is led by the Muslim Brotherhood. As we all should know is that it was the MB in Syria that began war against the Syrian government. It took about a year for Islamists mercenaries to arrive and begin to dominate the opposition to Assad's government. Of course, the Saudis and Qatar were financing the MB forces from the beginning.

I noticed that many westerners who were involved in Palestinian's struggle for their rights immediately backed the MB in Syria in the first year of the Syrian war. Recall how they came out and supported the MB when they seized the Yarmouk refugee camp in opposition to the Syrian government. Many good hearted, but absurdly naive, youthful people who supported the Palestians, came out and attacked Assad.

Max is one of those people. He is young and hopefully is capable of reform. We should accept his apology.

George Lane , May 9, 2018 5:27:39 PM | 16
I wasn't aware of Max Blumenthal saying "Alternet Grayzone is the only progressive outlet questioning the main line". I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect how these writers have changed their minds and are sticking to it, but this statement leaves a bad taste in the mouth, considering the outlets that have been questioning it since the beginning. Perhaps he meant "mainstream-alternative progressive outlets", or "foundation-funded independent outlets". Thanks b and Daniel for the background of which I was not aware.

james , May 9, 2018 5:43:14 PM | 17
@2 userfriendly and @5 anon...

it is one thing for them to be wrong and another for them to never acknowledge it.. it is kinda like bush 2 and his war on iraq... no acknowledgement and as obama used to say, instead of accountability we just have to move on.. bullshit.. these folks would do well to acknowledge when they are wrong.. i don't know that any of them have..

james , May 9, 2018 5:44:58 PM | 18
@15 toivo. but did max apologize for being wrong and attacking others for 4 or so years? i never caught sight of that..

James , May 9, 2018 5:47:54 PM | 19
Unlike what people believe this came to the benefit of Iran, Russia and China and only affected the US http://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/05/09/why-cry-its-great-news-that-trump-pulled-out-of-the-iran-deal/

Babyl-on , May 9, 2018 5:50:41 PM | 20
UserFriendly #2 and Richard C #3 -

I wish to identify myself with the remarks above.

This all sounds childish to me. Fixation on the degree of sincerity of an apology is for the playground. They had a view they changed their view from new evidence or by reflection or both. They may have done some harm by simply being human as we all can and do regularly, we humans being human and all.

NOBTS , May 9, 2018 5:55:12 PM | 21
These people fully acknowledged their error and were suitably contrite. One should bear in mind the fog of propaganda surrounding the so-called Arab spring; CIA Isis recruiters were very active in the pro-Palestinian movements. I actually knew some young people on the streets of Oakland and Berkeley who had been convinced that the Wahhabi Takfiris were a persecuted minority and were nearly swept away.

Laguerre , May 9, 2018 5:56:37 PM | 22
Let's be quite clear about this, even if it means going off-message. The Ba'thist regime is not very nice, but it's a million times better than a jihadi regime in Damascus. It's why Asad has retained the support of Syrians.

The Syrian students I know have been asked to repay their scholarships. Up to 300k euros. They can't and so are forced to remain refugees. Even the Alawites. It's not improbable that Asad will forgive them in the end, but suicides are in prospect. They could cope if it weren't for the war.

The war is going well, but hard on those conscripted. I wonder whether it isn't really a volunteer army now, after all the deaths. The hardened army is very small, but enough to knock off Ghouta, and enough to put a big hole in Idlib, some time ago. my opinion is that Idlib won't resist and will collapse, but we'll have to see.

ritzl , May 9, 2018 5:59:19 PM | 23
Thank you Daniel and b.

Peter Gose , May 9, 2018 6:00:39 PM | 24
While these three did get it wrong about Syria and may not have given the best explanations of what changed their minds, they actually come off as pretty contrite, more than I thought they would be capable of. The podcast is useful for exposing how the Syria issue has crippled the bds movement in North America and the role of gulf state money in that process. I look forward to what they have to say about the particularly insidious role of IS Trotskyism in destroying the anti-war movement in the anglophone world. Its fine to score points against these people for their very real past mistakes, but from an organizing point of view, what matters more is to understand the situation we're in now, and they are contributing. With formerly reliable outlets like Counterpunch getting worse on this issue with every passing day, it seems odd to be attacking those who have rectified their mistakes.

NOBTS , May 9, 2018 6:09:11 PM | 25
@24
"it seems odd to be attacking those who have rectified their mistakes. "
I certainly hope that it is just "odd". I would hate to have to think that the attacks were due to their relative effectiveness and the expanded reach of what they have to say. It's sad to consider that in the best case envy might be a motivation. The worst case is unthinkable.

karlof1 , May 9, 2018 6:09:49 PM | 26
Been a student of US History and its Empire since 1960s--50+ years--and I'm being told integrity no longer matters. Can someone tell me when the USA lost its integrity regarding its own basic law and the UN Charter it helped create, how hard it is to discover that fact, and why it matters? In our Orwellian Age, just how important is one's credibility, and why should we trust someone who sold hers/his for A Few Dollars More ?

Jonathan , May 9, 2018 6:26:19 PM | 27
@25 NOBTS,

Perhaps their heretofore "expanded reach" was dependent on their message of the moment's usefulness to the existing power structure and their willingness to sing on cue? It wouldn't be the first time political capital earned for good cause has been spent in favor of the enemy. Liberal "performative contrition" is meaningless. If those three have done it once, they'll do it again. They are now of no service to the people except as examples, and absolutely replaceable.

It's obvious you're trolling or shilling. Move on to your next assignment please.

dahoit , May 9, 2018 6:27:36 PM | 28
15;Hamas is a MB?egypt was under MB, since sisi had a strangle hold on goverment.

Jen , May 9, 2018 6:29:28 PM | 29
Thanks Daniel for your comment and to B who elevated it to a full post. Daniel's comment should serve as an inspiration to the rest of us!

While attacking Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Rania Khalek for their failure to apologise to people they had previously slandered on their podcast show may seem poor form, I think that what Daniel says and B adds is relevant information to consider "going forward", as the cliche goes, when next the trio cover another or a new Middle Eastern issue, or even revisit the situation in Syria if that should change. Will Blumenthal et al stand steadfast in their opinion or will they revert to supporting the forces trying to topple Assad if they sniff that the tide is turning against the SAA and its allies?

james , May 9, 2018 6:33:02 PM | 30
@29 jen.. i agree... it is worth reading daniels comment @163 in 'trump ends the nuclear deal' thread as well as @156 george lanes initial comments to this post of daniels too..

the pair , May 9, 2018 6:38:01 PM | 31
i usually try not to judge people by their family connections but blumenthal's dad is such a noxious neoliberal asshole it's hard to believe the apple could have fallen that far from the tree.

a lot of the so called "left" is also infected with the "every revolution is good cuz leaders are teh suck amirite?!?!?" disease. whether it's - as a great article i recently saw suggests - the residue of marxism or just teen angst writ large, they just assume any leader that isn't a 100% pinkwashed socialist-feminist-____ist should be overthrown by the "wisdom of the masses". too bad they fail to see the hands of the "elite" behind every protest and youtube meme.

this also explains the reflexive stupidity that oozes from western mouths every time putin is mentioned (because high approval ratings and legit election wins don't count if it's backwards gay-hating slavs).

while he and the others do write about israel, that falls into the "so you want a damn cookie?" category. opposing israel is opposing every foul part of human nature (especially historical european tendencies) distilled in one arid shithole of a colony pretending to be a country. his hissy fits about gilad atzmon aren't exactly profiles in courage either and offer a glimpse of the "third way" mentality he seems to have inherited from his father.

@14

BAR is indeed great. they have morals and convictions and they actually stick to them consistently. freedom rider is especially good and her recent piece on israel is as good or better than anything on mondoweiss or EI.

extra fun historical context:

the inhabitants of what is now called the GCC or gulf states or whatever were one of the heaviest users of african slaves during the slave trade. this included the barbary pirates that the US marines were basically created to destroy when they committed the dreadful sin of kidnapping white people from the southern beaches of europe. that's where the marine song comes from and the "shores of tripoli" and etc. so the marines have basically been killing muslims for hundreds of years.

as for why the arabian peninsula has so few black folks compared to the west: they castrated all the males. oddly, one slave helped the moors conquer spain (the term "moors" being that time's "muzzies").

Jackrabbit , May 9, 2018 6:52:47 PM | 32
UserFriendly @2: . . . If this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind . . .

Journos, pols, and other public figures that take strategic positions as it is convenient to them are deplorable.

Anyone that was honestly wrong would be contrite.

= = = =
Richard C @3: . . . Is a vilification focus . . . Really helping

Yes it is, especially for those taking strategic positions .

= = = =
Anon @5: All have been wrong some time . . .

Morons, trolls, and opportunists are right as often as a broken clock.

= = = =
NOBTS @14: . . . It's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive tripe

I guess you have no family or friends among the millions dead injured and displaced.

= = = =
Babyl-on @20: They had a view they changed their view . . . being human and all

Not good enough Babyl-on. As a long time patron of the bar I think you should see that more clearly than others.

= = = =
Peter Gose @24: . . . They actually come off as pretty contrite . . . And they are contributing

I always feel that it is best to explain your mistakes and not simply apologize. Very instructive and restores confidence. And if they were "burned" by being misinformed, they should be / would be vindictive toward those that misled them.

NOBTS , May 9, 2018 6:54:28 PM | 33
@27
So... it suits the existing power structure that these people should be speaking relatively truthfully at this point? If that's the case then I suppose the majority of Moon of Alabama's followers ( I contributed €50 by the way) would be in the same boat. The only way I can see this working out for the ruling elite is if being on the right side i.e. the left side, is totally marginal and pathetic, so thoroughly divided and conquered as to be irrelevant.

somebody , May 9, 2018 7:03:22 PM | 34
Posted by: ToivoS | May 9, 2018 5:27:22 PM | 15

The context you give is correct. There was an Obama Muslim Brotherhood strategy. Libya was part of it.

Observer , May 9, 2018 7:15:53 PM | 35
Breaking:

In major escalation, Israel attacks southern Syria as Putin has bromance with Bibi Netanyahu

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-09/explosions-reported-israel-syria-border-israel-activates-emergency-sirens

Curtis , May 9, 2018 7:17:00 PM | 36
I read Max's book Goliath recently. It's very damning of the rightward turn of the Israeli govt AND the Israeli people. People in the US are nowhere near as xenophobic as a majority of Israelis are now. I admit I had not paid much attention to support he would have had for the "Syrian rebels." But the point is to be made and it would be interesting to know of his thoughts on his father's actions with respect to Libya. Maybe Max realizes he's late to the party and is having a me too moment.

somebody 34
The Team Obama love affair with MB was obvious. I thought it interesting that the Egypt military put a stop to their plans once they achieved power there. They were useful for the initial protest violence in Syria until more support could arrive.

Bruce Lesnick , May 9, 2018 7:24:40 PM | 37
Not all who identify as Trotskyist support the bankrupt position on Syria promoted by the ISO and, originally, by Blumenthal et al. See https://socialistaction.org/2018/05/08/big-stake-in-syria-war-for-the-1-and-the-99/ by Socialist Action. Also other, earlier Syria articles on that site.

In a future piece, I will address what Trotsky stood for and use that criteria to differentiate among the various groups that call themselves Trotskyist today.

George Lane , May 9, 2018 7:40:12 PM | 38
Bruce @37, this is true. The proud Trotskyists at the WSWS are consistently anti-war and have called out several socialist organizations for being pro-NATO intervention in Libya and Syria. I find their philosophical positions woefully reductive and uninteresting (one of them told me once that both "analytic" and "continental" philosophy are "non-sense" and that the only true philosophy is Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism, and also that the Frankfurt school is the root of the perversion of Marxist philosophy), but nonetheless they do extremely admirable and important work in reporting on the ground in places like Amazon distribution centers or interviewing immigrant families terrorized by ICE. They have been speaking out loudly on Google censorship as well, which is laudable.

On this topic of pro-intervention leftists, see Whitney Webb's response to the open letter signed by Chomsky, Judith Butler, and others, calling for the humanitarian US military to save Rojava and "increase support for the SDF": here.

karlof1 , May 9, 2018 7:40:24 PM | 39
Thanks so much. The silence is deafening.

blues , May 9, 2018 7:44:05 PM | 40
Breaking:

It now appears as though a war may have broken out between Syria and Israel. Israel claims that "Iran" attacked it at the Syria/Israel border at the Golan Heights. See NOW (Syrian) News :

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en

fast freddy , May 9, 2018 7:56:56 PM | 41
Notwithstanding Israel's attack on Syria, minutes ago, it should be noted, IMHO, that Max Blumenthal is simply a "Limited Hangout". And in it for a "Few Dollars More". h/t Karlof1

foo , May 9, 2018 7:58:35 PM | 42
Kinda like re-branding progressives.

JTMcPhee , May 9, 2018 8:05:53 PM | 43
So I read in "Breaking News" that IRANIANS have fired TWENTY MISSILES AT THE HOLY SACRED LAND OF ISRAEL. Or so it is claimed, along with how the "Iron Dome" intercepted most of them. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/breaking-iranian-forces-fire-20-rockets-into-israel-iron-dome-defense-sytem-employed-video/

Query whether "Iron Dome" is maybe a bit of a fraud, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/528916/israeli-rocket-defense-system-is-failing-at-crucial-task-expert-analysts-say/ , or whether "the hand of YHWH" is involved in shielding the Israelites, who claim to be YHS}WH's Chosen People, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2717659/Hand-God-prevents-rocket-striking-target-Israeli-Iron-Dome-operator-says-sudden-gust-wind-blew-missile-sea-defence-failed.html .

So the Likudniks, who most resemble the Israelites from the first eight or nine books of the Torah, violent, deceitful, putting the Philistines to the sword, taking their land and cattle and enslaving their women and children, always falling away from the Commandments but always forgiven by YHWH, are building another brick BS box to add to the structure that will, if the dual-citizens that stand atop our Imperial government have their way, lead to some kind of "war on Iran."

I wonder what it feels like to get vaporized in a nuclear explosion... Expect it won't hurt for long -- less painful than having to watch as the Fokkers who own us slow-walk all of us into economic and environmental collapse, maybe quick-stepping now toward an answer to that neocon-naive question, "What good are all these wonderful weapons for if we never USE them?" C;mon, all you Revelation Believers and Armageddonists, GET IT OVER ALREADY, WILL YOU? THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING US!

I long ago rejected the notion that there will be some kind of retribution in some kind of "afterlife" where the people who are bast@rds and sh!ts in this life have to atone, somehow. Anyone who might be a candidate for eternity in the fiery lake obviously shares that disbelief. Fork 'em, if only we could reach them and stop them somehow...

james , May 9, 2018 8:39:28 PM | 44
no proof necessary when israel makes a claim... and it becomes front page news immediately in the west.. lap it up baby...

james , May 9, 2018 8:42:58 PM | 45
oh and let me aim a quote from pat lang - "Any sort of incident or provocation will be accepted by the US as causus belli." that is indeed how low the usa has sunk to...

UserFriendly , May 9, 2018 8:43:43 PM | 46
Sigh. You'd think that the left, whose only real power comes from solidarity, would be natural coalition builders, but they aren't. I feel like all I ever see is ideological purity tests and an eagerness to shun and expel people over differences rather than try and reach people where they are and work to change their views to match your own. It just gets me so depressed because the right does not have this problem at all; the bible thumpers showed up en mass for the pussy grabber. I'll just add this to my list of reasons not to procreate and to commit suicide before the climate change shit hits the fan.

james , May 9, 2018 8:44:59 PM | 47
am i the only idiot here who thinks the idea of iran lobbing some missiles into israel from the golan heights is like an oversized pack of lies? maybe i should take out a regular subscription to the times of israel to get the '''real'''news..

David G. , May 9, 2018 8:46:22 PM | 48
This makes no sense at all. I can't even tell what we are supposed to be getting so angry about. Is it that these three people sound insufficiently repentant? Is it their tone of voice we are judging? Or is it that they took too long to reach their current positions? Personally I couldn't care less, as long as today they're pushing the conversation in a positive direction. And I don't think there are many people out there communicating more effectively than Blumenthal and Norton.

james , May 9, 2018 8:47:19 PM | 49
@47 userfriendly... bullshit.. it isn't about left and right..it is a lot more nuanced then you make it out to be..

Michael Murry , May 9, 2018 8:54:39 PM | 50
For JTMcPhee @44 regarding those "Revelation Believers and Armageddonists" who tipped the Electoral College scales in the U.S., giving the world All-About-Him instead of You-Know-Her : sort of like a choice between Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun (or Hen).

Left Behind by Jesus

Jesus loves the rich, you know
Ask them, they will tell you so

Help the poor? Why that's a crime!
Best to work them overtime

Off the books, though, lest they say
That you owe them extra pay

Jesus loves those tax cuts, too
Just for some, though, not for you

See a poor kid that's a clerk?
Send him to Iraq to work

Jesus loves the army, see?
Just the place for you and me

Not the rich, though, they don't serve
What a thought! What perfect nerve!

If you think this life's a pain
Wait till Jesus comes again

Then on Armageddon Day
He will take the rich away

Sure, you thought that you'd go, too,
Not that you'd get one last screw

Just like your retirement
That the rich already spent

Jesus with the winners goes
Losers, though, just get the hose

What on earth would make you think
That your lord's shit doesn't stink?

After all he left you here
With the rich, so never fear

They'll upon your poor life piss
In the next life and in this

Jesus loves the rich, so there!
Don't complain it isn't fair

Jesus said to help themselves
Then he'd help them stock their shelves

So they did and he did, too
What has this to do with you?

Jesus loves the rich just fine
Why'd you think he pours their wine?

Jesus votes Republican
Ask them: they'll say "He's the One!"

Still a few loose coins around
That the rich have not yet found

Gotta go now, never mind
If you end up left behind

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2006

blues , May 9, 2018 9:00:48 PM | 51
>> UserFriendly | May 9, 2018 8:43:43 PM | 47

This "solidarity" concept is stupid. There are people who call themselves "leftists" who demand loyalty to Hillary. Um, no, we cannot have "solidarity" with Soros' minions. We never needed "solidarity" to begin with. No significant social movement ever really depended on "solidarity". We must think for ourselves, not just follow the party line.

Massinissa , May 9, 2018 9:01:03 PM | 52
@38 Wow, even the WSWS Trotskyists buy into that right wing shit about the Frankfurt School now? Man, that 'cultural marxism' conspiracy theory is so virulent even some Marxists believe it...

Kiza , May 9, 2018 9:15:03 PM | 53
The only surprising thing here is how many pro trolls jumped in the defense of the spent trio. The three have been used up, sacrificed by their owners and there is no going back. Most of the usual good commenters here understand this well - credibility is a bit like virginity - one can go onto an operating table to regain it, but it is never the same.

When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment. Internet is full of such.

George Lane , May 9, 2018 9:24:58 PM | 54
@38, Massinissa, yes they got a bit angry when I made that connection with right-wing libertarians and their Cultural Marxism argument about the Frankfurt school being the source of the downfall of Western civilization. To be fair, they would reject that whole argument as well, but they nonetheless hold the Frankfurt school to be a perversion of Marxist thinking to be rejected entirely, with no usefulness or value whatsoever.

jezabeel , May 9, 2018 9:27:33 PM | 55
I study and work with mental illness (mostly others' sometimes my own), and all I can say is, wow, Israel is a beautiful case. B.E.A.yoootiful!

Babyl-on , May 9, 2018 9:29:32 PM | 56
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists. I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?

>>> blues , May 9, 2018 9:00:48 PM | 52
Clinton? left? LOL Thats the best laugh I've had in awhile. I meant the actual left.

Posted by: UserFriendly | May 9, 2018 9:43:41 PM | 57

>>> blues | May 9, 2018 9:00:48 PM | 52
Clinton? left? LOL Thats the best laugh I've had in awhile. I meant the actual left.

Posted by: UserFriendly | May 9, 2018 9:43:41 PM | 57 /div

Jen , May 9, 2018 9:50:21 PM | 58
James @ 30: Thanks for the tip and also for your consistent support for my comments across the MoA comments forums.

blues , May 9, 2018 10:03:12 PM | 59
/~~~~~~~~~~
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists. I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?

Posted by: Babyl-on | May 9, 2018 9:29:32 PM | 57
\~~~~~~~~~~

As you "think further about all this", consider:

/~~~~~~~~~~
[....]

When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment. Internet is full of such.

Posted by: Kiza | May 9, 2018 9:15:03 PM | 54
\~~~~~~~~~~

Then ask: Is it really the case that "....many regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment"? Is that the case, or is it not? Because if it is, in fact, the case, then we must address it. I mean, it would be kind of stupid to just ignore that, right?

Well I have seen it several times with my own eyes. So as one of "we the consumers" I cannot just go and dismiss it as a "cat fight".

kooshy , May 9, 2018 10:06:31 PM | 60
I remember the first time Trump attacked Syrian forces was over a chocolate cake with chines president. Could this be the same treatment or a reply by Putin if he gave a green light to Syria they can reply in kind inside Israel, while Nuty is the guest of honor in Moscow?

Ikl , May 9, 2018 10:11:09 PM | 61
@kooshy
The ayrian government is not controlled by putin. They can choose to respond any way thry want to for the ongoing aggression and zionist invasion they dont need a "green light" from mosow you only need tosee how rt is covering the news to understand that russia has nothing to do with thi a

paul , May 9, 2018 10:21:22 PM | 62
I assume a commentator is controlled opposition until they prove otherwise.

blues , May 9, 2018 10:44:00 PM | 63
>> canthama | May 9, 2018 10:15:16 PM | 65

I don't assume a commenter is controlled opposition "until they prove otherwise". But for anyone named "Hal Turner" (the FBI's honeypot blogger), I have severe doubts to begin with.

WJ , May 9, 2018 10:46:09 PM | 64
UserFriendly @47,60,

What you say is true, sorry to say. One reason why it is true is that there has not been a viable American political left for at least a half century now and probably longer. There were some stirrings of legitimate left politics in a few of the civil rights groups (certainly not all) in the early 1960s, and for a long time the Black Panthers represented by far the healthiest left movement in the US since the 1920s-30s. But the mass potential for a real socialist politics came to an end, I think, with the assassination of King, and the local pockets of black nationalist resistance were bombed or shot or disappeared by FBI and police forces over the next decade. The remaining Vietnam anti-war movement was largely useless. Many of them are today the aging equestrians of the professional liberal #Resistance.

Occupy had some promise but was easily dissipated. The Democratic primaries demonstrated that a moderate social democrat could outearn corporate PAC financed tools via aattracting a huge number of small donations from people earning between 35K-100K (which is a *relatively* piss poor class of people, politically speaking). Some of this momentum carried over into socialist party gains and electoral victories in 2018, and in some states motivated a younger social democratic ("progressive" I suppose they call themselves) insurgency against Democratic Party empty suits. How lasting and successfull this development will prove to be is uncertain. My hope is that the 2020 Democratic primary season is much more destructive for internal party structure than that of 2016 was; ideally the party itself would implode, ceasing to exist altogether or remade entirely on an explicitly socialist, or at least social democratic platform, the #Resistance crew jumping over to the Republicans.

But I don't really expect any of this to happen.

WJ , May 9, 2018 11:27:13 PM | 65
NOBTS @69

Just go away. You are not going to fool anybody round here into taking you seriously with such comically C-grade troll phrases as "return to relevance" and "such a divisive post."

Robert Snefjella , May 9, 2018 11:31:25 PM | 66

From Ben Norton via the link given by b above ("this episode"):

"We have been criticized, mostly by people who I think have been somewhat unfair, but I think there are valid criticisms, in that early on in the conflict we were kind of knee jerk response supportive of the opposition out of the idea that this is like some progressive revolution against an evil authoritarian regime etc., you know believing a lot of those talking points which we now know are significantly more complex, if not just flat out false."

Charles Michael , May 9, 2018 11:35:30 PM | 67
to b:
are any reference to SST censured ?

Daniel , May 9, 2018 11:37:30 PM | 68
First, thanks to many MoA barflies for the kind words. I am far more often than not impressed with the knowledge and analytical abilities of those Bernhard has attracted to this site no doubt attracted by those same qualities in b. I have learned, and continue to learn much from y'all. So getting props from people I admire is really quite touching.

Most of the criticisms seem to be along the lines of 'we should not criticize people who change their minds lest we scare off others."

Of course we should encourage everyone to cut through the propaganda in every way we can. We are all swimming 24/7 in a 360 degree ocean of PR/Propaganda of a sort that Bernays and Goebbels could have only dreamt. I have no doubt that right this moment I hold some disinformation that was deliberately fed to me, and I hope that I am appreciative when someone else helps to lift a veil for me.

In fact, I have no doubt that some propaganda is designed for people like myself (and others here at MoA and elsewhere), whom the propagandists know are aware of their work, and so we are on the lookout for it. I'll return to that thought.

And when one has a breakthrough as profound as making a 180 degree turn on an issue so great as a war, I absolutely agree that we should welcome that person with warmth and love.

But I also believe we should be skeptical of EVERY journalist/opinion maker who has a substantial platform. For in all but the rarest of cases, the fact of having a substantial platform means having a substantial financial backing. Not all financial backing is dubious of course, but I think we all agree that critical thinking should always be engaged.

So, how should a journalist with a large following who is also a significant opinion maker handle reversing directions on a war? Should that person scrub all previous work from the internet, and just start writing the opposite?

Or should that person help others to have a similar epiphany (most especially those readers who had bought the product this journalist had been selling for the previous 5 years)? In teaching there is a method termed "guided discovery," whereby the teacher lays out a path for the students to use their own minds to come to the correct conclusion. I can think of no better time to use this method than when one is actually having that very same "discovery" process, or had just had it.

Max could have written articles revealing one piece of false propaganda after the other as he now says he and his cohorts did privately amongst themselves. Today, they complain that "leftists/progressives" attack them as "Assad apologists" and such. We all know that the first response to a new viewpoint that is opposite of one already deeply held is almost always rejection. And when the person presenting this new information had for years actually helped instill in the audience the opposite view, it's only normal for people to become suspect of the journalist's motives.

But that's not the path Max, (and Ben and Rania) chose. Was this a case of being a poor teacher, or something else possibly something a bit more sinister?

Let's consider other things in Max's record. ,

In an earlier comment, I described the disinformation in Max's book, "The 51 Day War" and in his characterization of fellow Jewish writer, Gilad Atzmon. At the least, as a journalist, Max should know better than to spread such incorrect and dangerous ideas.

And we cannot ignore that Max was amongst the first to blame a youtube video for the attack at the US Embassy Mission that killed Ambassador Stevens, his aid and later, two former Navy Seals (read: mercenaries). He wrote this even before the Obama Administration officially made that claim. How'd he know? And when his daddy sent Hillary Max's OpEd (and again Max's daddy had worked with Hillary Clinton in understanding why Libya had to be destroyed, and how to do that), Hillary wrote back,

"Your Max is a mitzvah!"

A Mitzvah is any one of the 613 Laws of Moses.

Another author Max vociferously and wrongly labels an "anti-Semite" and liar is Allison Weir. Everyone should read her in depth study of the origins of the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant, "Against Their Better Judgement" and frequent her website, ifamericansknew.org.

BTW: It was Max who coined the JSIL term for Israel which I frequently use. We can be critical of a source and still appreciative of useful and true information from that source. Even Controlled Opposition must reveal some true information not found in MSM in order to build the trust that allows them to then feed disinformation into our minds.

Check out this 4 minute video to see clearly how Max duplicitously slanders this good woman:

And here, Gilad explains quite well why he came to term Max an "anti-Zionism Zionist."


So, back to my earlier question, "what would a propaganda designed for people who already know the MSM is propaganda look like?" I think I may have provided at least one answer.

Chipnik , May 9, 2018 11:57:27 PM | 69
26

¿When the Kent State Cambodian War protesters were shot in the back by the Natiinal Guard?

¿When Billy Graham exorted 'Bomb the Gooks for Jesus!' at the Lincoln Memorial during those protests, and Time Magazine called him 'America's Preacher' while recently released tapes show Graham telling Nixon to nuke Hanoi??

¿When thr Hells Angels beat that guy to death at Altamont while the Stones were pleased to introduce themselves?

¿When has America NOT been a criminal enterprise?

Diana , May 10, 2018 12:07:46 AM | 70
I actually earned a degree in journalism, even though I went to an undistinguished university and was persecuted by the head of the department. I could never support myself as a journalist because unlike Max Blumenthal, I didn't have the resources to travel to other countries and just do journalism. I had to do something else to support myself. Nevertheless, I knew what was up in Syria the minute I saw that al Jazeera had started churning out anti-Assad propaganda: this was early in 2011, while Libya was still in turmoil. There is no excuse for anyone not to have paid attention to Libya--Thierry Meyssan barely escaped with his life after NATO put out an order to kill him! And there is no excuse for anyone to have seen Syria as anything else than an aggression by the U.S., NATO, the GCC and Israel. This is not about some naive kid (and Max Blumenthal is neither young nor naive) falling for romantic propaganda: it is about the son of a highly placed CIA employee who himself claims to be a journalist, and who was the closest advisor to Secretary of State Clinton on the Middle East. As Sidney Blumenthal's son, Max had the best education, a hell of a lot of exposure to the deep state, and is independently wealthy. With these privileges, why wasn't it him who was in Turkey reporting on the U.S., NATO and the World Health Organization sending weapons and terrorists into Syria? Why was it Serena Shim, someone that Turkey, with the nod of the CIA, could murder with impunity? And what is Blumenthal reporting on right now? Nothing that will risk his neck or his reputation, God forbid. Taking risks is for people like Shim, who lost her life, like Wassim Issa, who just lost both legs, like Vanessa Beeley, who has had her name dragged through the mud by FBI agent Sibel Edmonds and the entire British media establishment.

Porridge & Lager , May 10, 2018 12:13:48 AM | 71
The really funny thing here is you folks are ripping Blumenberg a new a**hole for "changing his mind" when you guys are so wrong about Syria. Blumenstock and his friends were closer to the truth before their conversion. That's right, the story you guys believe about Assad being a bit of a hard a** but a relatively benign dictator is pure fantasy.

The Syrian Ba'athist regime is renowned for its savage brutality against even suspected dissenters. How you people can explain away the well documented record of this violence says something about your echo chamber state of mind. And yes the Syrian government and its Russian patron target civilian areas and hospitals. Again, this is credibly documented. You are buying into a propaganda narrative. Vanessa Beeley, for example, is a Ba'athist stenographer who is not telling the whole story. Before you all start hollering, and throwing furniture let me ask how many Syrians post here? Right.

Nothing I can say will convince anyone to change their mind and that's okay because who am I and, besides, everyone here has the internet and knows how to use search. If you are brave or not completely brainwashed yet start with this article (you don't have to agree with everything in it) to get a sense of where your chosen narrative is at its weakest. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-debate-over-syria-has-reached-a-dead-end/
Have fun!

Chipnik , May 10, 2018 12:17:48 AM | 72
65

I wonder if Syria were to regain the Golan Heights of Syria and then blitzkreig beyond in a New 7 Day War, all the way to Haifa and beyond, whether the same Rabbinicals and Evangelicals who worship Zionism would defend Syria's right to 'the spoils of war' and then turn a blind eye as Syria blockades Haifa into a concentration camp the way Isreal has turned Gaza into one? Would they talk about Syrians being the New Chosen of Jaweh? Would they throw away their yarmulkels, and wear black and white Hezbullah scarves, just to be among the victors? Would Netanyahu be treated in the press like Arafat was treated, as a loser?

Andrew , May 10, 2018 12:19:11 AM | 73
#13 Thank you George.

Merlin2 , May 10, 2018 12:33:41 AM | 74
I tend to give thanks for small miracles, given the dire straights the world of journalism is in. Blessed are those who repent and at least max, Rhania and Ben appear to have sincerely repented the error of their early days, and max, in particular, has done some truly great work, exposing the Chemical false Flags and the White helmets for what they were and are. Sure, he and others stood on the shoulders of some braver and more perceptive souls such as Sharmine Narwani, Vanessa Beely and Eva Bartlett, among the very - so very - few who dared question the dominant narrative starting in 2011.

I also think that perhaps people don't realize just how difficult it was to be a western journalist/reporter and have any kind of career back in 2011/2012 while questioning the dominant narrative. Very very few did in the west, if truth be said. yes, there were Syrian connected reporters and opinionators like the Syrian perspective, MOA and a few, all too few, others. But one could count the English reporters of truth on one finger. Not just Syria, but also Libya and probably even Egypt. So, not everyone is super-brave from the get-go. not everyone has the analytic skills and integrity of "b", but then b is not stuck with writing for the Guardian, is he? And he and Ziad fadel hand Sharwani and those few others we heard from, many times did not earn their living from writing geopolitic (I think I need to add The Saker to the list. I believe I discovered him only in 2013 or so).

So, if some who first wandered in the desert got some kahunas later, it's definitely better than never. IMO, it's kind of small minded to excoriate those who failed to see the full picture back as it was happening. Me, I see the glass as half full rather than half empty, and as I sit here i can only wish for more converts to the truth. Say Monbiot of The Guardian? now, that would be nice, wouldn't it?

I also would like to remind people just how caught up so many western liberals were in the spectacle of the Arab Spring (that wasn't much in the end, and we should think long and hard about why that was so). We - as in many of us - projected our wishes upon the Arab millennials and students, but little did we do - as in any of us - to research the sad, tragic realities in their own countries. The dependence of Egypt on tourism for example all but doomed their spring to another long Winter. We, who have jobs and/or comfortable positions somewhere and/or comfortable enough retirement that allows some to post here (and post well and thoughtfully for many, which takes time and is definitely a luxury), how could we even imagine what it means to have so little that to lose that meager income from tourists is a catastrophe? In the end the majority of the Egyptians went for bread and butter or Sisi would not have prevailed (please don't read this as defense of the Sisi regime. It's just me trying to understand why the revolution in Egypt did not succeed). But all this happened back in 2011 to 2013, and Syria seemed like one more exclamation mark on some elusive "Arab Spring". Of course, it was no such thing but I only knew that from reading far more widely than most people do, and I wasn't a journalist trying to eke out a living either. As commenters we have the luxury of writing as we see fit, without fear of being fired. Anonymously too, most of us. But for reporters out in the open, I reckon it must have been a little harder.

Actually, I am trying to work up a little piece on the mysterious - and not so mysterious - reasons Syria became such a red line for writers of all kinds, that to cross it back in 2012-2015 meant vitriol in the mailbox and who knows what else. Sure it became easier in 2015 once the Russians stepped in, but I am trying to figure out why that was the case. What was so special about 2016, other than that was the year the russians really helped turn things around? and it was election season in the US too. Still, I am struglgling to wrap arms around this strange conundrum of why Syria?

Finally, speaking about red lines and daniel's comment. Gilad Atzmon is the most obvious case of a red line those who write in the open cannot cross. No matter how pro-palestinians and/or anti-zionists they are. Gilad is a lithmus test and has been for quite a while now. Just another somewhat strange phenomenon, and snother occasion for yet another piece (which I will write under still another name - for good reason. After all, the mere mention of the name Atzmon could be enough to get one kicked out of "polite' society....and I do like the free food and drinks served in those societies - now and then....).

Pespi , May 10, 2018 12:34:28 AM | 75
Cheers to b, and all the rest who opposed this war from the very start.

K.woods , May 10, 2018 12:55:21 AM | 76
This is not only suspiciously vindictive, it's a bore. Isn't there something more pernicious to explore than Max Blumenthal's lack of perfection? 1) The implication that he changes his positions for financial gain is laughable. If Max is trying to sell out, he's going about it all wrong. 2) He's under no obligation to explain his father's actions. 3) You seem to be implying that he was quiet about Libya because of his father's involvement. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a conflict of interest? 4) You don't like the name "Moderate Rebels?" Dude your writing for a website called "Moon Over Alabama" Let's just agree to judge on content rather than title.

Jackrabbit , May 10, 2018 1:00:45 AM | 77
Porridge & Lager

. . . will make you fat and dim-witted.

Assad's opposition has turned him into a hero, not us. He is a veritable paladin next to the Jihadi headchoppers that would take over if he fell.

And how has regime-change ever helped anyway? Toppling Saddam was a disaster for USA in terms of international standing, financial cost, and the end result (increased Iranian influence). Libya after Qaddafi is a nightmare where ISIS conducts slave auctions. Afghanistan's 18-year war is a quagmire of dumbfuckery so profound that it is only talked about in hushed terms when reauthorizations are needed. In Ukraine, the West 'won' a money pit.

james , May 10, 2018 1:08:32 AM | 78
@61 jen.. thanks.. i am happy you are here!

@73 daniel. your question "what would a propaganda designed for people who already know the MSM is propaganda look like?" - the intercept?

@76 diana.. good post.. thanks..

@80 merlin.. thanks for your post.. i am still conflicted on the arab spring.. on the one hand it seemed like a natural occurrence.. on the other hand it seems like the powers that be were waiting to take advantage of it too, especially in the case of syria...i suppose we could give max, ben and rania a pass based on the general view that the arab spring was upon the middle east and everyone knew what a brutal dictator assad was.. i think a few folks woke up during the ukraine shakedown 2014, and they might have got to thinking that indeed the yinon plan was still on track or that general clarks comments which i quote here were indeed relevant.. "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."

that arab spring thing seemed like good cover for any number of tricks, not to mention regime change.. i have a hard time buying into the thought that someone who is supposed to cultivate critical thinking would overlook this myself.. maybe investigative reporters are supposed to skip the critical thinking class? i don't buy that myself.. i relate more to diana's comment @76 and think that it is fair to criticize max and any other number of public journalists, or bloggers.. i do it with other posters here and i get it when folks do it with b, as a few have here on this thread, even if i don't agree with them in this instance..

thanks to the many commentators here that continue to give me greater insight to overcome the blind spots that i carry around without being fully or even partly aware of them.. it's ongoing..

psychohistorian , May 10, 2018 1:46:50 AM | 79
@ Daniel with the posting....congrats!

I agree with your assertions about the paid shills of our world....they are paid to get out in front of trains not of their creation and start a parade.

Your posting has brought a new "class" of trolls to MoA. Maybe we can open some of their minds and they will quit their day jobs.

guidoamm , May 10, 2018 2:10:45 AM | 80
@77

Although par for the course for most people, your short sightedness, your disregard for factual evidence and your sheer inability for critical evaluation is exasperating.

It is because of people like you that offer sustenance to a predatory and exploitative elite that we find ourselves in the bind we are in.

People like you have completely bought into the narrative of the ostensible benevolence of presumably democratic governments. People like you have completely been sold on the desirability of the centralization of power. People like you have gladly waded into the self defeating fable of the righteousness of centralized education.

It is people like you that happily cheer-on our elites as they gradually divest society of their labor and their wealth by lowering interest rates artificially.

It is people like you that merrily support our elites as they progressively reveal themselves to be mere enforcers for predatory financial interests

It is people like you that rejoice in the orgy of government profligacy that gradually weighs down the creativity, the productivity and the mere right to existence of individuals the world over.

It is people like you that revel in the self declared virtue of transnational political entities that, time and again, are caught abetting and often, colluding with retrograde, sanguinary individuals the world over.

You are a deluded soul. Either that, or you have an agenda.

RogerK , May 10, 2018 2:31:22 AM | 81

I know how hard it is for people to change their views, my self included. Sure you could say Max and Co. should have known better but what does that say about 99% of journalists on this planet who still firmly sticks with and probably believes the official NATO propaganda narrative?

I think having an article and debating this is both helpful and informative. However resorting to name calling like "turncoats" implies playing for a team. Tribalism and partisan hackery is something we should avoid at all costs. I've been accused of being a Putin lover and Assad lover by those who cling to the NATO narrative. The truth is I think both as assholes but I also understand the position they are in.

Is the Baath regime ideal? Fuck no. Would a Muslim brotherhood Regime be better? Highly doubtful. Would Al-Nusra or and ISIS Regime bet better? WTF? are you kidding me?? There is no black and white here, but some are much more gray that others. Same goes for journalists and people, none of us are without flaws. But the ability to change your mind and correct course is a good property especially in a journalist. This "no true Scotsman" mentality is a luxury we can't really afford in the fight against the onslaught of corporate pro WAR media.

Anon , May 10, 2018 2:54:01 AM | 82
Serious tribalism here, quite ugly to see, no criticism is allowed.

People that are wrong must apologize lol, I mean get off your high horse.

Also attacking Blumenthal, Khalek, Norton, its like a teenager trying to pick a fight with a bodybuilder, and those who play with fire is going to be burnt himself by the same smearing.

Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are.

uncle tungsten , May 10, 2018 4:58:10 AM | 83
Tobin Paz #8

Democracy Now, pleeeeease the white wash agency for USA exceptionalism and other crimes against humanity. Next you'll be quoting the Guardian. Reposting content from either of these two is like passing round used toilet paper for another try.

Tuyzentfloot , May 10, 2018 5:21:10 AM | 84
I can understand the alround eagerness to condemn. It's a standard pattern of putting the bar very high for others. It's as people have to demonstrate how good they are themselves by condemning others. Julian Assange is far from perfect as well but he has done a huge service.
I think it was perfectly normal for a progressives to support the demonstrations and rebellion against Assad. This fit in with the Arab Spring and there was a legitimate aspiration for more democracy. There was also a violent component from the start , and there were strong exhortations to avoid all negotiations and avoid all compromise because Assad certainly was going to fall. It's to Max Blumenthal's credit that he caught on to the component which was there from the start and which quickly started to dominate: the intent , mostly from outside, to destroy or degrade the state. I think Blumenthal has done very good work on many fronts and I respect him.

I do not appreciate how he bashes people who have not caught on. It does not necessarily get easier over time to change your mind. The amount of propaganda on the issue has also increased. Once you're on the outside it's easy, but it is also easy to underestimate how hard it is to change your mind from the inside.

I understood the nature of the conflict from the start. Therefore I'm much smarter than Blumenthal. He should listen to me.

I can believe that Blumenthal is obfuscating his change of mind. But I've known about his change of mind for a long time from interviews so I never even noticed the obfuscation.
It's not pretty. Ok. So it's not pretty.

C , May 10, 2018 6:31:21 AM | 85
Fantastic piece by Daniel, it's nice to see that some people have some standards. Both Norton and Blumenthal have lied about various issues, not just Syria, though the way Max, Ben and Rania all changed positions at the same time on Syria is highly shady. Same with the deletion without explanation of their past work on Syria, Libya etc. Max has helped his war profiteer, Clinton employee father sell lies on various issues, we should't be grateful that he(or they) rebranded on Syria after he already did so much damage. We should be skeptical as to why.

uncle tungsten , May 10, 2018 6:41:54 AM | 86
#76 Thank you Diana. Perspective is everything. Max B has never been a journalist IMHO, merely a propagandist for the permanent state.

psychohistorian , May 10, 2018 6:59:49 AM | 87
@ Anon who wrote: "Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are."

Unless you want to replace global private finance with totally sovereign finance you are not on my side. Are you on my side Anon? Do you think Max B is on my side ?

Take your obfuscating BS to some other blog you come in and say is misguided.

Jen , May 10, 2018 7:43:33 AM | 88
As C @ 91 says, the fact that Max Blumenthal et al experienced their Damascene moment (cough, cough) at about the same time is suspicious in itself. The timing of that moment too, with the Russian entry into the Syrian war in September 2015 and the turnabout in Syria's fortunes that started soon after, must also be considered. One might almost have guessed that Blumenthal, Norton and Khalek were planning and co-ordinating their move together, and looking for the right moment.

They must surely know that they are playing the role of gatekeepers in demarcating how far dissent from the official narrative about Syria is allowed to go. The fact that some commenters here have taken their contrition at face value and question or criticise others who have reservations about the depth of the trio's actions demonstrates the power of that role, and why some of us might be justified in doubting their motives for acting the way they have.

Diana , May 10, 2018 12:07:28 PM | 89
Until Max Blumenthal does something that truly threatens the powers that be, like Thierry Meyssan and Serena Shim, I will regard him as another Sibel Edmonds--a government infiltrator posing as a dissident. By the way, if anyone wants to know what really happened at the beginning of the invasion of Syria, read Thierry Meyssan's writings from Libya and Damascus at the time: "John McCain, conductor of the Arab Spring" is amazing. So is another one Thierry published on Voltaire, The rebirth of the Syrian Arab Army https://www.voltairenet.org/article190703.html

james , May 10, 2018 12:35:14 PM | 90
@83 uncle tungsten.. i agree strongly with you there!

Anon , May 10, 2018 1:01:47 PM | 91
If Blumenthal, Norton, Khalek must apologize for being wrong, maybe its time to apologize that you were wrong about Trump?

Rob , May 10, 2018 1:37:24 PM | 92
This pissing contest comes off very much like the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" in which members of the People's Front of Judea badmouth the Judean People's Front. The ultimate insult was to call anyone with a different opinion a "SPLITTER!" From my point of view, Max, Ben and Rania have their hearts in the right place. (Has no one heard their saber-like takes on Ukraine?) They are not the enemy. In "Brian's" time, it was Rome, and in our time it is the Western Empire. Let's all keep that in mind.

Piotr Berman , May 10, 2018 1:50:02 PM | 93
I agree with many posters here that the criticism of "prodigal children" of anti-imperialism should be measured. This is a political cause, and we are not assembling an elite force that can smash most entrenched enemies. Instead, we should strive to analyze the reality, spread the word and convert.

And we have to accept that we differ on many issues, and very often we differ with our own past position. Back when the issue was Kosovo intervention, I though that this is good idea. Now I know that "Beware the Greeks when they bring gifts [Trojan Horse, for those deficient in classics]" should get another corollary "beware imperialists when they care about human rights".

And it is not just vicarious imperialists or people who maintain civil relationship with members of Hamas who may wrongly generalize. Assuming that Muslim Brotherhood is always and everywhere a force of evil violates the good principle "location, location, location". Like Marxism, MB ideology has gamut of different trends, and it is a bit to its credit that in Syria it did such a miserable job, being outplayed by Salafist -- they do not do a good job as a warrior cult, they are actually too normal for that.

Piotr Berman , May 10, 2018 2:00:23 PM | 94
Anon @91: my sentiments exactly.

If moonofalabama has searchable archive, I was posting that it is immensely speculative that Trump is a lesser evil than Clinton, in particular, his consistent praise of Bolton puts under question mark all reasonable fragments of sentences that one could collect from his tweets and speeches. Domestically, the guy is a wrecking ball, internationally -- it is still a bit open issue, I hope for malignity mellowed by ineptitude, I mean, the outcome leave a chance for recovery. Then again, Clinton is much less smart than some think her to be, so the grounds for opposing her more than Trump were illusionary.

Rob , May 10, 2018 2:17:24 PM | 95
I meant to add to my previous post (92) that requiring absolute ideological purity has been deadly to the left ever since the left began. It is one of the main reasons why a broad-based leftwing movement has never taken hold and lasted. A pox on these sectarian ideological squabbles. If the left wants to win, it must put them aside once and for all.

lysias , May 10, 2018 2:21:42 PM | 96
Splintering the opposition is very much in the interest of the powers that be.

lysias , May 10, 2018 5:19:01 PM | 97
Malignity tempered by ineptitude. Sort of like how Victor Adler characterized Habsburg rule in Austria: "Despotismus gemildert durch Schlamperei."

Jackrabbit , May 10, 2018 8:13:37 PM | 98
Those who argue for leniency for Blumenthal and the others would have us overlook the MANY betrayals of other so-called progressives. Such betrayals are too frequent to be just a matter of 'bad apples' or 'bad judgement'.

These "turncoats" take strategic positions on issues to advance their career. Hillary, the "progressive that gets things done", and Obama, the "community organizer", are two notable examples. Another would be Bernie's 'sheepdog' betrayal of his Movement - even after it was clear that Hillary and the DNC had conspired against him. Such people slyly conflate progressive ideals with divisive identity politics. By throwing off the moral core of progressivism they advance the interests of TPTB. Their many loyal sycophants and apologists rush to defend the indefensible and try their best to muddy waters BUT WE KNOW THE GAME by now so fuck off! You can't piss down our backs and tell us it raining anymore.

'Progressive' pundits and journalists that become useful idiots instead of watchdogs are even worse because they claim to be truth-tellers. You don't get to lead the next parade after you've led people over a cliff.

[May 10, 2018] Trump Ends The Nuclear Deal With Iran - What s Next by B

Notable quotes:
"... Iran will largely stick to the nuclear deal if the EU effectively defends it and does not hinder Iranian deals with European companies. If the EU fails to do so the nuclear agreement will be null and void. Iran will leave the deal. The neoliberal Rouhani government that agreed to the deal will fall and the conservatives will be back. They will defend Iran's sovereignty at all costs. ..."
"... U.S. credibility has been seriously damaged. Its soft power is gone. Its hard power has shown to be inadequate in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Iran has not only new allies but gained in the Middle East because of U.S., Israeli and Saudi stupidity. The wars on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen have all strengthened Iran's position while it largely kept largely out of them. ..."
"... The U.S. position in Afghanistan is hopeless. ..."
"... There are some people in the Trump administration who will want to wage war on Iran. The Bush administration also had such plans. But any war gaming of a campaign against Iran ended badly for the U.S. and its allied states. The Gulf countries are extremely vulnerable. Their oil output could be shut down within days. That situation has not changed. The U.S. is now in a worse strategic position than it was after the invasion of Iraq. As long as somewhat sane people lead the Pentagon they will urge the White House not to launch such an endeavor. ..."
"... If EU had any sense, it would threaten total trade war against the US if they ever touched any EU firm over the Iran sanctions. The US has no legal basis for this, and it's time to make them pay for it - not only at UN and WTO levels, but by leveling economic sanctions against the USA as well. ..."
"... Trump is a neocon, no doubt about that, we must stop hoping/supporting this dangerous man. ..."
"... This deal was not a treaty with advice and consent by the Senate according to the Constitution. As long as some presidents ignore the Constitution and make agreements on their own with other countries, they shouldn't be surprised when other presidents nullify them. (Bush-43 did the same thing on Iraq withdrawal as Obama did with Iran nuclear.) ..."
"... Participation of the U.S. in this plan of action is now canceled, and U.S. sanctions on Iran will be enhanced. There will be no United Nations sanctions, and probably the other parties to the agreement will adhere to the plan's strictures while increasing ties with Iran. The Trump withdrawal in fact clarifies the U.S. position which was dismissive of the plan anyhow, with the U.S. not adhering to its terms under the new president. ..."
"... This change may not hurt Iran much, as other parties to the plan continue to adhere to it and compensate for the U.S. withdrawal by using foreign currencies in Iran trade, etc. The price of oil is increasing and there is increased demand for it. Iran's ties with Russia, China and India are stronger than ever, and the latter two are in great need of petroleum. The change also reduces U.S. influence in Europe and elsewhere, which is not a bad thing because it reduces U.S. world hegemony. ..."
"... Immediately after the Trump comedy, Netanyahu took the stage and babbled about nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles being developed in Iran for the use with nuclear warheads. Just poor coincidents: There was a general alarm on the Golan heights. When will the bombers take off? ..."
"... It needs clarifying - how can this be a 'withdrawal'? More like reneging on the agreement. Agreement incapable indeed. It's getting time for the world to unify and sanction the US, until it reforms its behaviour. Why not? ..."
"... Trump even made up that Iran supports al Qaeda, did you hear that?! Amazing, along with the fact that Iran wont be allowed to have ballistic missiles apparently. Its all pre-war Iraq 2003 again. ..."
"... The level of the American Presidency has been declining for years. It is entirely in the gutter now, the Moron in Chief, has hardly any vocabulary and what he has is used to express blatant lies. What a disgrace... ..."
"... I do not think that Trump is, ideologically-speaking, a neocon. I would not credit Trump with possessing any consistently held principles or views informing either his domestic or foreign policy decisions. He is an avaricious showman and so is unstable and yet at the same time easily manipulable. But it doesn't really matter what Trump "believes" at the end of the day as he is for better or/and worse not the one really in charge of policy and hasn't been, quite clearly, for at least a year. (He sometimes forgets this when tweeting but is always quite easily reminded afterwards.) Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Trump. ..."
"... My point is just that Trump has no grand vision of US foreign or domestic policy but rather a knack for identifying and exploiting the excluded rhetorical middle whereever it appears ..."
"... By the way, anybody who thinks that HRC if elected would not have pursued effectively the same course of action toward Iran has not been paying attention. It was not only plain as day that HRC while campaigning had to situate herself on the side of Obama's deal against Trump's bombastic denunciations of it for obvious political reasons. But the apparent "partisan" divide over the Iran deal was always only that. HRC was going to "distrust and verify" and always counted on Bibi coming through for her like he did for Trump. Neither SA nor Israel liked the Iran deal, and so the Iran deal was never going to last under HRC either, for SA and Israel are her base. I say this all lest the dangerous and self-defeating idiocy of Trump's withdrawal from the deal be misconstrued as a partisan issue or failing. In truth, the Iran deal was never meant to last in the first place. If you think it was, then I would propose you are still underestimating the sway that SA and Israel and their US arms sellers exercise over US foreign policy. ..."
"... There won't be any large war against Iran as this will lead to $ 200 oil price and possible break up of NATO. ..."
"... It will destroy the EU economically and put it at the mercy of Russia. It will put the world economy into depression too. ..."
"... Just listened to Trump's speech pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Sounded like something written by Bolton with help from Netanyahoo. ..."
"... Ruhani and his smiling FM are toast!!! They still claiming Iran will abide by the deal simply because the Europeans say so. They'll be hit with another stick soon by the EU. The EU is merely an extension of the US. They don't move without approval from Washington. Like Victoria Nuland will say, "f*ck the EU". Ruhani poured concrete into Arak nuclear plant on some flimsy promises from Obama. The "reformist" camp in Iran are politically DEAD now. ..."
"... First and foremost, IMO, this decision is not Trump's, his corporate masters tell him what he is to do. The empire's decisions are made by the so-called " deep state", which is nothing more than an alliance formed by global industries bent on global hegemony. ..."
"... the masochistic streak in EU is quite deep. They lived through delicious pain of multibillion fines imposed on their companies for whimsically identified sanction violations. Not imposing sanctions but tolerating such fine would be as bad as breaking the agreement with Iran. But doing something about it may require a positive action rather than vetoes than can be imposed by few holdouts. ..."
"... My prediction is that the EU will fold soon under US pressure. Russia/China will go back to using Iran as bargaining chip in dealing with the West. ..."
"... The US empire is a withering empire in decline. How easy do folks forget the centrifugal forces of history, and that as all empires, especially ones constructed based on artificiality, are doomed. This decision by Trump only hastens the disintegration of the US global footprint. Whether the US ruling class wants to admit it or not, we live in a transitional age that is in the shadows of the American empire. ..."
"... Given the current composition of Trump's foreign/defense policy team, it seems likely that the goal is an actual attack upon Iran. The warmongers are riding high in the saddle. One can only hope that our European allies make it clear that they will not support such an action, and that the U.S. and Israel will be on their own. ..."
"... To all those who claim that the United States is either currently or soon will be bankrupt, please stop. The U.S. government is not like a family or a privately owned business. That is because it controls its own currency and can create as much currency as it wants at any time it wants. Hence, bankruptcy is a logical impossibility. ..."
"... Not too big of a deal for Iran so long as China, Russia and some EU states ignore the sanctions. Seems like more of a ploy to get US voters on a war footing. I suspect the immediate objective is war in Syria by exaggerating the presence of Iranian forces there. With ISIS in Syria not a credible threat to get support for more many Americans will easily be led to believe Iran is a credible threat to Israel and the region. ..."
"... Thank you, it's the sort of reality that needs to be said. We, none of us, know what is going on within the very high level domain of politics; we don't have access. However, we can gather a great deal of general information and determine some broad ideas of outcomes. Never mind trying to be more manly than those in charge and declaring how you would take this action, shoot that plane, bomb this city. Step back and look at this broad playing field and consider what can be done while keep the body count to a minimum. Indeed, the USA is a zombie country (dead but doesn't know it yet). Yes, Israel is a little hole in the ground (you know, barrel full of fish sort of thing). ..."
"... I firmly believe that in an informal way Putin/Xi are working in the background to hold what they can together, let the US stumble on in it's death spiral and limit the damage as much as possible. If that means appearing to bend the knee so be it; the alternative is annihilation. ..."
May 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump Ends The Nuclear Deal With Iran - What's Next?

With a very belligerent speech Trump nixed the nuclear deal with Iran. He also lied a lot in it. Neither is a surprise. The United States only keeps agreements as long as they are to its short term advantage - just ask native Americans. One can never count on the U.S. to keep its word.

Trump will re-impose U.S. sanctions on Iran because:

Three European countries, Britain, France and Germany, were naive enough to think they could prevent this. The EU3 offered the U.S. to put additional sanctions on Iran for other pretended reason - ballistic missiles and the Iranian engagement in Syria. I was disgusted when I first read of the plan. It was obvious from the beginning that it would only discredit these countries AND fail.

Luckily Italy and some eastern European countries shot the effort down at the EU level. They were not willing to sacrifice their credibility over the issue. The nuclear agreement was signed and should be followed by all sides. They pointed out that there was no guarantee from Trump that any additional European effort would change his view.

Over the last weeks some last EU3 attempts to influence Trump were made. They were in vain :

On Friday, Pompeo organized a conference call with his three European counterparts. Sources who were briefed on the call told me Pompeo thanked the E3 for the efforts they had made since January to come up with a formula that will convince Trump not to pull out of the nuclear deal -- but made it clear the President wants to take a different direction.

...

After Trump's statement, the European powers want to issue a joint statement which will make it clear they are staying in the Iran deal in an attempt to prevent its collapse.

The sanctions Trump will reintroduce are not just limiting U.S. dealings with Iran, but will also penalize other countries. That will lead to a flurry of protective measures as at least some of those other countries will limit their exposure to U.S. rules and may even introduce counter sanctions:

"We are working on plans to protect the interests of European companies" Maja Kocijancic, EU spokeswoman for foreign affairs, told reporters in Brussel.

Iran will largely stick to the nuclear deal if the EU effectively defends it and does not hinder Iranian deals with European companies. If the EU fails to do so the nuclear agreement will be null and void. Iran will leave the deal. The neoliberal Rouhani government that agreed to the deal will fall and the conservatives will be back. They will defend Iran's sovereignty at all costs.

The U.S. seems to believe it can go back to the same position Obama had build up in the years before the nuclear deal. Iran was under UN sanctions and all countries, including China and Russia, held them up. The Iranian economy was in serious trouble. It needed to negotiate a way out. That situation will not come back.

U.S. credibility has been seriously damaged. Its soft power is gone. Its hard power has shown to be inadequate in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

China and Russia are both making huge deals with Iran and are now effectively its protectors . While they have no common ideology all three oppose a globalized world under exclusive "western" rules. They have the economic power, the population and resources to do so. Neither the U.S. nor Europe has come to terms with that.

Iran has not only new allies but gained in the Middle East because of U.S., Israeli and Saudi stupidity. The wars on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen have all strengthened Iran's position while it largely kept largely out of them. The recent election in Lebanon went well for the 'resistance' camp. Within Lebanon Hizbullah can no longer be challenged. The upcoming elections in Iraq will result in another Iran-friendly government. The Syrian army is winning the war waged against the country. The U.S. position in Afghanistan is hopeless. Saudi Arabia is now in a fight with the UAE over the war on Yemen. The GCC spat with Qatar is still unsolved.

While Israel wants to keep Iran as a boogeyman to divert attention from its genocidal campaign against Palestinians, it does not want a large war. Hizbullah in Lebanon has enough missiles to make modern life in Israel untenable. A war on Iran could easily end up with Tel Aviv in flames.

There are some people in the Trump administration who will want to wage war on Iran. The Bush administration also had such plans. But any war gaming of a campaign against Iran ended badly for the U.S. and its allied states. The Gulf countries are extremely vulnerable. Their oil output could be shut down within days. That situation has not changed. The U.S. is now in a worse strategic position than it was after the invasion of Iraq. As long as somewhat sane people lead the Pentagon they will urge the White House not to launch such an endeavor.

The U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal is a huge mistake. Defense Secretary Mattis spoke against it. Will Trump make an even bigger mistake despite the opinion of his military advisors? Will he wage war on Iran?

Clueless Joe , May 8, 2018 2:33:48 PM | 1

Ground operations on Iran mean immediate military intervention from China and Russia, neither of whom can afford to let the US take over that country - for strategic geographic and economic reasons. That was already clear to me back in 2003 when that idiot Perle stated he wanted to send the troops to Tehran; it's even more obvious now, after all that happened in Syria.

If EU had any sense, it would threaten total trade war against the US if they ever touched any EU firm over the Iran sanctions. The US has no legal basis for this, and it's time to make them pay for it - not only at UN and WTO levels, but by leveling economic sanctions against the USA as well.

gorlog , May 8, 2018 2:34:17 PM | 2
Congrats to the dimwitted MAGAClowns. Your dumb god emperor is nothing more than a humiliated little poodle for the Israeli and Saudi regimes. Europe, Russia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and China all just became a single unified block against the increasingly irrelevant American empire.
Anon , May 8, 2018 2:35:54 PM | 3
Jesus, the speech was filled with so many lies and innuedos and pure psychological disinformation tropes I had to write down every one not to forget them.. Speech was sounding as something Netanyahu had written for Trump. Which of course its all about, Israel. Lets see if the phony EU states stand against US sanctions or if they like the pathetic media, already paint Iran as the new enemy.

Trump is a neocon, no doubt about that, we must stop hoping/supporting this dangerous man.

Peter AU 1 , May 8, 2018 2:49:04 PM | 5
I watched the first minute or so of Trump's speech. Links every evil in the world to Iran. Big mistake for US. More than just a nail in the coffin of the US empire.
Don Bacon , May 8, 2018 2:50:38 PM | 6
The nuclear deal, for the United States, was an agreement by the previous president on a "plan of action" regarding restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities. This deal was not a treaty with advice and consent by the Senate according to the Constitution. As long as some presidents ignore the Constitution and make agreements on their own with other countries, they shouldn't be surprised when other presidents nullify them. (Bush-43 did the same thing on Iraq withdrawal as Obama did with Iran nuclear.)

Participation of the U.S. in this plan of action is now canceled, and U.S. sanctions on Iran will be enhanced. There will be no United Nations sanctions, and probably the other parties to the agreement will adhere to the plan's strictures while increasing ties with Iran. The Trump withdrawal in fact clarifies the U.S. position which was dismissive of the plan anyhow, with the U.S. not adhering to its terms under the new president.

This change may not hurt Iran much, as other parties to the plan continue to adhere to it and compensate for the U.S. withdrawal by using foreign currencies in Iran trade, etc. The price of oil is increasing and there is increased demand for it. Iran's ties with Russia, China and India are stronger than ever, and the latter two are in great need of petroleum. The change also reduces U.S. influence in Europe and elsewhere, which is not a bad thing because it reduces U.S. world hegemony.

gorlog , May 8, 2018 2:51:40 PM | 8
Europe is having none of the Trump clown show: Europe Stands Firm Against Trump's JCPOA Withdrawal – Vows to Uphold the Deal
Mogherini called the deal the property of the entire international community and not just a single nation

Trump - making America irrelevant.

Gesine Hammerling , May 8, 2018 2:51:45 PM | 9
Immediately after the Trump comedy, Netanyahu took the stage and babbled about nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles being developed in Iran for the use with nuclear warheads. Just poor coincidents: There was a general alarm on the Golan heights. When will the bombers take off?
Anon , May 8, 2018 2:52:40 PM | 10
It needs clarifying - how can this be a 'withdrawal'? More like reneging on the agreement. Agreement incapable indeed. It's getting time for the world to unify and sanction the US, until it reforms its behaviour. Why not?
Anon , May 8, 2018 2:56:01 PM | 11
Trump even made up that Iran supports al Qaeda, did you hear that?! Amazing, along with the fact that Iran wont be allowed to have ballistic missiles apparently. Its all pre-war Iraq 2003 again.
financial matters , May 8, 2018 2:56:37 PM | 12
I agree that Iranian strength has greatly increased and that US sanctions are counter productive. I also agree that an attack on Iran would likely be suicidal for Israel and another chance to show US impotence. I don't see it happening. My understanding is that Trump doesn't want to continue with the 90 day recertification process instituted by Congress. I think he is looking for something more permanent similar to Korea.

It reminds me of the US paying lip service to the Paris Accords but showing no real interest in effectively taking on climate change.

psychohistorian , May 8, 2018 2:56:50 PM | 13
Thanks for the posting b. Is the pot boiling yet? All the burners are on high so there is little excuse at this point. What inane event will trigger escalation further you ask. Take your pick of many. My favorite is for all the multi-polar world supporters to stop buying US Treasuries......I think we are building to that if we don't go the "conventional" war route.

This decision with Iran will hasten the use of China as a financial "center" globally and the trickle we see now could become a flood.....my hope and projection

Peter AU 1 , May 8, 2018 2:57:03 PM | 14
@NemesisCalling

The Brits, the the Australians after Australia became a federation, never signed treaties to be broken. B speaks of broken treaties rather than genocide which occurred in most nations Europeans of the day invaded.

In the ability to make and break treaties the US stands out, and has done so since its earliest days.

NZ - another Brit colony signed a treaty with the Maori's and largely held to it as far as I know.

Den Lille Abe , May 8, 2018 2:59:06 PM | 15
The level of the American Presidency has been declining for years. It is entirely in the gutter now, the Moron in Chief, has hardly any vocabulary and what he has is used to express blatant lies. What a disgrace...

I think it is an entirely defining moment for the EU's credibility now; if they abandon Iran the will loose a lot of goodwill and credibility around the world and jeopardize the whole European project, the trade war with the US has been in the making for a long time, the US wants to break the EU. Basically if the EU yields, it could very well disintegrate.

Lets take a trade war with them, if China and Russia does likewise, US economy is dead in the water. And so what, oh it will hurt, but the US will be bankrupt (it is already, they have not noticed).

Anon , May 8, 2018 2:59:53 PM | 16
Also, cant we stop this "Iran will attack if attacked by Israel, US" or even "Russia and China will attack US, Israel if they attack Iran".

Look at how West hit Syria. And nothing happened, it will be the same with Iran if Israel/US do anything militarily against them. Stop fooling yourself (you who have these irrational fantasies).

Formerly T-Bear , May 8, 2018 3:00:35 PM | 17
Well, it seems the fuck occupying the white house has just assured the 'mandate of heaven' has moved on. Iran must be placed under the Russian and Chinese nuclear umbrella. Period.

the pair , May 8, 2018 3:01:19 PM | 19
Always a good sign when a war criminal named "mad dog" is the voice of reason. Just saw trump's (probably written by kristol, frum or one of the israel firsters they share a brain with) speech and almost facepalmed myself into a coma. Between the 2nd grade vocabulary scare words ("lunatic!", "chaos!", etc) and his strategy of "let's write what the saudis do but then change it to 'iran' for my speech" it was like my intelligence was being roasted by don rickles and dave chapelle.

i hope - against the evidence - that trump is just using the "play insane to get your way" technique nixon made popular with his false nuke alerts and such. he acted batshit stupid about korea and they have united in their hatred of the round eyed psychopaths who would see then all reduced to ash to wage a pathetic "war" on china. maybe he's just that great at failing.

the next big thing might be whether the s-300s (-400s?) russia keeps teasing actually end up in syria and/or lebanon. Russia knows the road to Moscow runs through Tehran and hopefully any mild hint of a threat of an attack will be a bridge too far.

NemesisCalling , May 8, 2018 3:09:12 PM | 22
@15 peter au

I believe you are splitting hairs. Western nations interaction with native cultures has always been about naked force. Your inability to understand that the west, itself, has never relinquished this position except when retreating from open violent rebellion, shows that you, too, have a fixation with the US as a boogeyman. This will not serve us well when the US is brought to heel and then we shall wonder why the fundamental problems of globalism and neoliberalism have not subsided.

The history of the US in their treatment of natives was a very UNIQUE situation on a frontier much different than N. Africa or SE Asian colonies.

Passer by , May 8, 2018 3:15:24 PM | 25
Guys, i told you that Russia is getting owned by the sanctions and is waving the white flag. You did not believe that. But now Benjamin Netanyahu is a guest of honour for Russia's V Day, Medvedev was confirmed for PM, and even the Saker himself admits that "things look pretty bleak to me."

http://thesaker.is/medvedev-re-nomination-this-does-not-look-good/

Trump's approach of threatening others with huge consequences worked. It worked with N Korea, it worked with the China trade war, and it worked with Russia. Now he will do the same with Iran.

Anon , May 8, 2018 3:18:59 PM | 26
Passer by

Trump's approach of threatening others with huge consequences worked. It worked with N Korea, it worked with the China trade war, and it worked with Russia. Now he will do the same with Iran.

^^This is very true, maybe the ONLY reason in fact that define his foreign policy actions.

WJ , May 8, 2018 3:21:31 PM | 27
I do not think that Trump is, ideologically-speaking, a neocon. I would not credit Trump with possessing any consistently held principles or views informing either his domestic or foreign policy decisions. He is an avaricious showman and so is unstable and yet at the same time easily manipulable. But it doesn't really matter what Trump "believes" at the end of the day as he is for better or/and worse not the one really in charge of policy and hasn't been, quite clearly, for at least a year. (He sometimes forgets this when tweeting but is always quite easily reminded afterwards.) Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Trump.

I do not at all believe of Trump what some believed of Obama, that he really *wants* so much to do the right thing but just can't, because X or Y. That is all bullshit of course. My point is just that Trump has no grand vision of US foreign or domestic policy but rather a knack for identifying and exploiting the excluded rhetorical middle whereever it appears (as he did in the Republican primaries) while launching witty and insightful broadsides against his many enemies. He will be allowed to enrich the already rich and his family and friends (as all US presidents do), and will be given one or two symbolic foreign policy achievements to sell to his base before the 2020 elections, but any chance there was of him intentionally or accidentally stalling or redirecting the longstanding big picture plan of Israel, SA, and the US for the Middle East has been self-evidently contained for quite some time now. Not that he very deeply cares.

Jackrabbit , May 8, 2018 3:21:56 PM | 29
Why does everyone assume that "war with Iran" means war IN Iran and the Persian Gulf?

It is more likely to be an excuse for remaining in Syria and fighting Iranian forces there. At least at first. And possibly (probably!) expanding the fight to Lebanon.

Why does everyone assume that Israel will be forever cowered by Hez missiles?

Israel has complained about Iranian upgrades of Hez missiles. Israel is not likely to allow themselves to be checkmated. At some point (very soon, in all probability) Israel will bite the bullet and attack Hez in Lebanon.

Red Ryder , May 8, 2018 3:25:25 PM | 30
Iran is joining the EAEU, uses barter deals with Russia already, and will have an opportunity to fast track SCO membership. If handled correctly, Iran can prosper from turning toward Eurasian development. Russia has already involved in the nuclear energy sector, the gas and oil exporting for Iran. Iran may not be able to access Western technology under new sanctions, but almost everything is available from China and Russia any way.

Meanwhile, they really need to clean up the corruption. No government can survive when the populace knows corruption is rampant. Notice Brazil, Argentina, South Africa for example. It has crippled the BRICS badly as a force for sovereignty and multi-polarity.

Anon , May 8, 2018 3:27:49 PM | 31
Jackrabbit

Israel has complained about Iranian upgrades of Hez missiles. Israel is not likely to allow themselves to be checkmated. At some point (very soon, in all probability) Israel will bite the bullet and attack Hez in Lebanon.

Why do you use israeli propaganda to justify attacks on Lebanon? HEzbollah missiles, if there are any, are for protection.

Don Bacon , May 8, 2018 3:33:33 PM | 34
@ Anon 16

Look at how west hit Syria. And nothing happened, it will be the same with Iran. . .

1. It seems clear that the hit on Syria was a US/Russia arranged show. That's why "nothing happened."

2. Iran always strikes back, and would have no reason not to especially since it's so easy to do, with all the lucrative western targets in the Gulf area especially. This is why the US has not and will not attack Iran, because it is not weak country like other US targets.

Anon , May 8, 2018 3:34:11 PM | 36
OF course the jews are already plotting false flags in Golan, Israeli military on' high alert', bomb shelters ready on Golan Heights over Iran activity in Syria https://www.rt.com/news/426190-israel-military-alert-syria/
WJ , May 8, 2018 3:42:08 PM | 38
By the way, anybody who thinks that HRC if elected would not have pursued effectively the same course of action toward Iran has not been paying attention. It was not only plain as day that HRC while campaigning had to situate herself on the side of Obama's deal against Trump's bombastic denunciations of it for obvious political reasons. But the apparent "partisan" divide over the Iran deal was always only that. HRC was going to "distrust and verify" and always counted on Bibi coming through for her like he did for Trump. Neither SA nor Israel liked the Iran deal, and so the Iran deal was never going to last under HRC either, for SA and Israel are her base. I say this all lest the dangerous and self-defeating idiocy of Trump's withdrawal from the deal be misconstrued as a partisan issue or failing. In truth, the Iran deal was never meant to last in the first place. If you think it was, then I would propose you are still underestimating the sway that SA and Israel and their US arms sellers exercise over US foreign policy.
Ninel , May 8, 2018 3:49:27 PM | 40
"The Iranian economy was in serious trouble. It needed to negotiate a way out. That situation will not come back"

This is the key question. Why do you think that situation will not come back? The Iranian economy is already under immense pressure and sanctions have yet to come into effect.

Passer by , May 8, 2018 3:49:33 PM | 41
There won't be any large war against Iran as this will lead to $ 200 oil price and possible break up of NATO. Europeans are against the breaking of the JCPOA not because they like Iran, or not even the 25 billion $ in trade, but precisely because the possibility of such war. It will destroy the EU economically and put it at the mercy of Russia. It will put the world economy into depression too.

Ian , May 8, 2018 4:09:20 PM | 50
It was only a matter of time that the deal would be nixed. For starters, the Iranian deal was never ratified by Congress, so it was rather easy for Trump to walk away from it. Depending on how desperate Israel and Saudi Arabia is, we could see attacks on Iran soon.

Clueless Joe @1:

I highly doubt China will bleed for Iran. Political, financial and clandestine support is all China and Russia will offer.

Yonatan , May 8, 2018 4:09:51 PM | 51
"While Israel wants to keep Iran as a boogeyman to divert attention from its genocidal campaign against Palestinians, it does not want a large war. Hizbullah in Lebanon has enough missiles to make modern life in Israel untenable. A war on Iran could easily end up with Tel Aviv in flames."

Netanyahu also wants a distraction from the criminal investigations he is facing. The Israelis have also arranged for US troops to be based in Israel, who are prepared to defend Israel (according to their US commander), so Netanyahu has nothing to lose in getting the US to attack Iran. He could even arrange a false flag against the US troops in Israel, to be blamed on the 'super secret super deadly weapons' Iran has smuggled into Syria (according to Netanyahu).

mike k , May 8, 2018 4:18:07 PM | 57
Just listened to Trump's speech pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Sounded like something written by Bolton with help from Netanyahoo. Looks like Trump is going to lead us into WWIII very rapidly now. What a complete failure as a human being he is! Our work as lovers of peace is really cut out for us now. The world is plunging deeper into crisis with increasing speed. One cannot help wishing those responsible for this nightmare would just disappear, but that is not going to happen. We are left with trying to help the almost possible to happen, giving peace a chance in a world careening into war...........

Kim would be crazy to make a deal with Trump now, and so would China. If the major powers decide to appease the Empire, it will be a classic mistake, leading to WWIII nuclear. Only if Russia and China stand up to the US with conventional forces, will there be a chance that nuclear Armageddon can be avoided. Iran should be considered the red line to be defended at all costs in this resistance to Empire; anything less will be suicidal.

I would go farther and say that Syria should also be defended at all costs. With the rapidly escalating pressure from the Empire, there will be no way to buy time in hopes the resistance will strengthen, and the Empire will weaken. The Empire realizes that this is their last best chance to achieve total global domination, and is pushing it's potential victims to either respond or be driven into a weakened stance, and then conquered.

Zico , May 8, 2018 4:24:56 PM | 60
Ruhani and his smiling FM are toast!!! They still claiming Iran will abide by the deal simply because the Europeans say so. They'll be hit with another stick soon by the EU. The EU is merely an extension of the US. They don't move without approval from Washington. Like Victoria Nuland will say, "f*ck the EU". Ruhani poured concrete into Arak nuclear plant on some flimsy promises from Obama. The "reformist" camp in Iran are politically DEAD now.

This is the final warning for Kim. So it means war at all fronts. This year I guess.

Anon , May 8, 2018 4:28:28 PM | 62

N.Korea is tremendously stupid if they sign a deal with Trump after this day...as is any other nation. What a mess.

ben , May 8, 2018 4:32:41 PM | 63
Thanks b, good article. An excerpt: " They pointed out that there was no guarantee from Trump that any additional European effort would change his view."

First and foremost, IMO, this decision is not Trump's, his corporate masters tell him what he is to do. The empire's decisions are made by the so-called " deep state", which is nothing more than an alliance formed by global industries bent on global hegemony.

Capturing "market share" is what they do, and they do it by any means necessary.

DT is just the latest version of the empire's puppets.

Ian , May 8, 2018 4:34:59 PM | 64
@61 & 62

Even if Kim makes a deal with Trump, nothing can happen to North Korea without China's consent. Remember that North Korea have a defense treaty with China.

Peter AU 1 , May 8, 2018 4:42:18 PM | 69
NemesisCalling 22

You seem blind to the importance of honoring agreements It is why the US can never be trusted. The point here is that the US throughout its history has rarely honored agreements.

ben , May 8, 2018 4:43:12 PM | 71
Need a reason why peace with Iran is not on the empire agenda? https://www.truthdig.com/articles/i-know-which-country-the-u-s-will-invade-next/
NemesisCalling , May 8, 2018 4:46:11 PM | 72
@ James 48

You are talking about two instances in US history that could not be more different. One is the end of the Iranian deal, which is the result of a different US administration and by the complete and utter infiltration of gloablist and zionist interest. Furthermore, Iran has allies to back it up. The second instance was renegging on land treaties with a native population with its back against the wall, NO ALLIES, and no hope. It was pure and utter western exploitation. Unfettered and "wild," and so was given the name. The latter instance is what any western power would have and has done in the past given the right set of circumstances. It is one instance where the stars aligned for American industry and yet people think our nature and identity is forever stained by this occurrence. I say, "fuck that guilt and fuck that reminder."

Are the same architects or descendents of these in DJT's war cabinet right now? Is that how they are so similar?

But enough...it was a digression to begin with, especially since further in his post b alludes to his disgust with the EU in this issue.

Anon , May 8, 2018 5:07:00 PM | 78
US embassy in Lebanon urges Lebanon to retain policy of staying out of foreign conflicts https://www.rt.com/newsline/426171-lebanon-us-embassy-parties/
Piotr Berman , May 8, 2018 5:12:28 PM | 79
"US ... soft power is gone."

Not totally, the masochistic streak in EU is quite deep. They lived through delicious pain of multibillion fines imposed on their companies for whimsically identified sanction violations. Not imposing sanctions but tolerating such fine would be as bad as breaking the agreement with Iran. But doing something about it may require a positive action rather than vetoes than can be imposed by few holdouts.

I seriously doubt if there would be any holdouts against empowering the offices responsible for the external trade of EU, say, imposing levy on imports from USA to reimburse American fines related to agreement with Iran -- the American exporters may collect the lost revenue from US Treasury engorged with fines. Would POTUS be inclined to escalate, American companies would squeel like hogs led to slaughter. Probably there are also other ways to immunize companies from American threats. But would Macron, May and Merkle go for it? Or would they sing together (sorry for crappy translatio) "With a whip, with a stick, torment my corrupted body".

Zico , May 8, 2018 5:13:50 PM | 80
It's just sad to see Iran's fate being determined by whether the EU keeps holds on to the deal or not. My prediction is that the EU will fold soon under US pressure. Russia/China will go back to using Iran as bargaining chip in dealing with the West.

Man, how I miss Ahmadinejad!!!!

Conscious , May 8, 2018 5:16:40 PM | 81
The US empire is a withering empire in decline. How easy do folks forget the centrifugal forces of history, and that as all empires, especially ones constructed based on artificiality, are doomed. This decision by Trump only hastens the disintegration of the US global footprint. Whether the US ruling class wants to admit it or not, we live in a transitional age that is in the shadows of the American empire.

Wealth and industry have steadily shifted to the east, and with it, power. The "West" is mired in debt and decline and is but a twilight of its former self. The danger here is that when you have a ruling class that's apoplectic & a "leader" so unstable, they just might bring the entire house crashing down as they know nothing else and certainly don't know how to deal with diminishing power- the vainglorious and power hungry never do.

Unfortunately, I'm reminded of Fermi's paradox. Perhaps humanity only reaches a certain point and no more. We shall find out.

Rob , May 8, 2018 5:20:56 PM | 83
Given the current composition of Trump's foreign/defense policy team, it seems likely that the goal is an actual attack upon Iran. The warmongers are riding high in the saddle. One can only hope that our European allies make it clear that they will not support such an action, and that the U.S. and Israel will be on their own.
lysias , May 8, 2018 5:32:29 PM | 85
China and Russia don't need to intervene militarily in Iran. All they need to do is to keep resupplying Iran, and the U.S., if it invades, will be caught in a hopeless quagmire.
majobrs , May 8, 2018 5:36:10 PM | 86
It is hard to make sense of what Trump is up to if we do not know all that is included in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action aka 'Iran deal' of July 14, 2015. THE public text deals with ending Iran's nuclear program, further inspections in return for the lifting of sanctions. It was bad deal for Iran overall, and no sooner was it ratified the US refused to lift sanctions indicating it wants ballistic missiles eliminated as well.. But apparently there were secret clauses negotiated between the US and Iran in time just before ratification, the content which no one knows. Since the Iran deal however, US and Iranian troops, present in all parts of the middle east have not had any military confrontation. http://www.voltairenet.org/article201027.html

In this article Messyan also claims that there is some credence to Israeli claims that it sees itself threatened by Iranian military bases in souther Syria.

Zico , May 8, 2018 5:41:15 PM | 87
For those here blaming Putin for not doing anything against Israeli attacks on Syria, what exactly do you expect him to do? This is a fight between Israel and Iran. Besides, most Israelis are Russian citizens so why should Russia help Syria or Iran Iran against their own. People also forget that a lot of Russian Oligarchs have their second home in Israel. These are the moneymen Putin wouldn't dare go against. It's just business. get use to it.
lysias , May 8, 2018 5:46:48 PM | 88
Aid from North Korea played a big role in the Chinese Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War. China remembers this.
Rob , May 8, 2018 5:47:37 PM | 89
To all those who claim that the United States is either currently or soon will be bankrupt, please stop. The U.S. government is not like a family or a privately owned business. That is because it controls its own currency and can create as much currency as it wants at any time it wants. Hence, bankruptcy is a logical impossibility. And don't think that foreign nations and private individuals relish such a scenario either. Should it come to pass that the U.S. cranks up the printing presses, the value of the dollar will fall, as will the value of all dollar denominated holdings. We're talking about many hundreds of billions (probably trillions) of dollars of investment losses. Anyone who thinks that China wants to absorb a massive pounding on the U.S. government debt it holds is nuts.
WJ , May 8, 2018 6:00:59 PM | 90
Putin is not some guardian angel. He is the leader of a foreign state with multiple and complexly interrelated interests, foreign and domestic. He is not going to act unless the sum of these interests compel him to do so; that is, he is not going to act except in such a case where the repercussions of his *not-acting* clearly outweigh the possible harms of his doing so. And by the way thank God for that.

Yonatan , May 8, 2018 6:03:44 PM | 92
Putin has just stated that the time is right to decouple the Russian economy from the US dollar. He also said that Russia will continue to diversify its foreign exchange reserves in order to restore Russian economic sovereignty. Does this mean that the EU will now be able to pay for the gas it buys from Russia in Euros rather than USD? The US has gone to war to prevent this in other states eg Iraq, Libya.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/rusvesna.su/economy/1525798146

fast freddy , May 8, 2018 6:04:42 PM | 93
Rob 89

The "presses" along with credits on computer terminals have been running at break neck speed for at least 20 years as $1.5 billion each day is spent by the DOD on war machines alone. While logic indicates that it should, this exorbitant spending apparently hasn't had any effect on inflation.

The US can spend like mad on bombs, but not on anything for the good of the common people. And if any other country attempts to do anything for the benefit of their common people, well they get "corrected".

Circe , May 8, 2018 6:08:36 PM | 94
@31

Jackrabbit is what I suspected all along; a NEOCON sleeper! From day one I wrote again and again that Trump is a ZIONIST, FIRST and driving the PNAC agenda - next stop war with Iran and regime change and that's why he was trolling me on every thread.

__________________

I'm surprised (actually, not so much with still lingering Trump deluded diehards) that no one brought up the fact that Israel is on a hyped high alert right now which leads me to suspect one thing and one thing only -- a false flag attack could eventually be launched to pin blame on Iran and just what Ziocon Trump and his master Netanyahoo need to move the Europeans in the planned direction. Trump and Netanyahoo are that dirty.

Pft , May 8, 2018 6:23:14 PM | 96
Not too big of a deal for Iran so long as China, Russia and some EU states ignore the sanctions. Seems like more of a ploy to get US voters on a war footing. I suspect the immediate objective is war in Syria by exaggerating the presence of Iranian forces there. With ISIS in Syria not a credible threat to get support for more many Americans will easily be led to believe Iran is a credible threat to Israel and the region.

June is a favorite month to initiate wars for Israel. Bilderbergers meeting June 7-10. World Cup in Russia starts June 14 . I imagine fireworks around or even before then. Now if Israel gets attacked by Syria or Iran in Syria, or maybe a false flag if they dont, they could blame Iran and launch attacks on Iran with US support. Could happen. Every President has to deliver his shadow masters a new war or two. Trump has yet to deliver.

Rob , May 8, 2018 6:29:17 PM | 97
@fast freddy (92) You bring up a good point. The U.S. government never seems to run short of funds for "defense" purposes. They simply create as much money as is needed. Taxes never enter the discussion. And yet, despite the expansion of the money supply, inflation is nowhere in sight. That is because the demand for goods and services has not approached the capacity to produce them. The big lie is that funding of government projects can only come from taxes. Wrong! Money for non-military purposes can be created in just the same way, yet we never hear the end of how tax revenues are insufficient. Poor little children and their families are simply going to have to do without the niceties that the wealthy enjoy. This dynamic is well explained by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
Bakerpete , May 8, 2018 6:30:44 PM | 98
WJ | May 8, 2018 6:00:59 PM | 90

Thank you, it's the sort of reality that needs to be said. We, none of us, know what is going on within the very high level domain of politics; we don't have access. However, we can gather a great deal of general information and determine some broad ideas of outcomes. Never mind trying to be more manly than those in charge and declaring how you would take this action, shoot that plane, bomb this city. Step back and look at this broad playing field and consider what can be done while keep the body count to a minimum. Indeed, the USA is a zombie country (dead but doesn't know it yet). Yes, Israel is a little hole in the ground (you know, barrel full of fish sort of thing).

Yet, the US being a soulless zombie makes it exceedingly dangerous. So, Putin/Xi take military action, what is the outcome; be honest. The US and Israel panic, millions die.

It truly is a miserable decision to let so many suffer right now but honestly what is the alternative.

I firmly believe that in an informal way Putin/Xi are working in the background to hold what they can together, let the US stumble on in it's death spiral and limit the damage as much as possible. If that means appearing to bend the knee so be it; the alternative is annihilation.

[May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies. ..."
"... The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness. ..."
"... a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ..."
"... In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. ..."
"... The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. ..."
"... There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. ..."
"... No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. ..."
"... The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse? ..."
"... In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. ..."
"... "In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution". ..."
"... This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? ..."
"... One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?" ..."
"... The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. ..."
May 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves "communists" in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.

The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).

Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of "permanent revolution" into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.

A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled "Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria" indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.

McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by "beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out". The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.

But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness.

This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia.

"Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ", according to McKenna.

Whose "ideological lynchpin"? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamic extremism.

Neither Russia nor Iran "framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric" but in terms of the fight against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.

In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.

The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights.

There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.

It is remarkable that McKenna's long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government "used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators)."

No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to.

Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times !

And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel's de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.

Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times.

This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.

This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong.

The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?

Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people's democracy. Has this ever happened?

For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness.

In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save "the revolution" from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.

Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be "modernized" without a strong rule.

McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries.

If Bashar's father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna's eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.

"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution".

This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?

McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?"

One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?"

The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.

For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.

[May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies. ..."
"... The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness. ..."
"... a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ..."
"... In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. ..."
"... The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. ..."
"... There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. ..."
"... No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. ..."
"... The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse? ..."
"... In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. ..."
"... "In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution". ..."
"... This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? ..."
"... One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?" ..."
"... The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. ..."
May 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves "communists" in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.

The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).

Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of "permanent revolution" into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.

A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled "Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria" indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.

McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by "beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out". The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.

But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness.

This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia.

"Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ", according to McKenna.

Whose "ideological lynchpin"? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamic extremism.

Neither Russia nor Iran "framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric" but in terms of the fight against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.

In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.

The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights.

There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.

It is remarkable that McKenna's long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government "used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators)."

No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to.

Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times !

And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel's de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.

Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times.

This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.

This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong.

The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?

Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people's democracy. Has this ever happened?

For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness.

In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save "the revolution" from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.

Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be "modernized" without a strong rule.

McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries.

If Bashar's father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna's eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.

"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution".

This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?

McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?"

One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?"

The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.

For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.

[May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
May 04, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business: Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a questioning journalist.

Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.

The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness and its 'disinformation'.

The opener:

The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."

There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). It was the British government which at first rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:

Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team arrive and took blood samples.

Now back to the Guardian disinformation:

In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide western electorates and sow doubt.

A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it does not know who poisoned the Skripals:

Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security adviser has disclosed.

Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.

Back to the Guardian :

British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy ineffective.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin – she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.

No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that in the New York Times :

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. "In another world," she said.

When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious of it:

This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with Russia outside of U.S. control.

A day later the German government denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):

The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].

A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation.

That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.

The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of propaganda:

He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'

Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.

Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:

What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military counterpart.

Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:

By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us lose trust in our institutions.

Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.

The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.

The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western' societies.

Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation.

That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.

c1ue , May 4, 2018 2:27:27 PM | 1

Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel true.
Mike Maloney , May 4, 2018 2:44:12 PM | 3
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers -- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
CD Waller , May 4, 2018 2:57:20 PM | 4
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
chet380 , May 4, 2018 2:58:22 PM | 5
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
WJ , May 4, 2018 3:02:57 PM | 6
The later history of the 20th century will one day be read as the triumph and normalization of the Nazi state through liberal democratic capitalism.
Laguerre , May 4, 2018 3:07:19 PM | 7
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984, in order to keep the population in-line.
james , May 4, 2018 3:11:05 PM | 8
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian, let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..

the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.

it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article freedom no more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive purposes, done..

mk , May 4, 2018 3:31:41 PM | 9
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff (this is how I interpret it):

He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.

http://www.startribune.com/large-dose-of-nerve-agent-was-used-in-spy-s-poisoning-watchdog-says/481687061/

However, the story is being retracted right now because OPCW staff says it was only 100 mg .

Uzumcu looks like a fool.

b , May 4, 2018 3:49:03 PM | 10
The Russian embassy in the UK must be reading MoA. It just now tweeted this press release: Embassy press officer comments on the Guardian article concerning a new British anti-Russian strategy
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?

A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has shown, were not based on any facts.

No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered.

Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.

karlof1 , May 4, 2018 3:52:31 PM | 11
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by Prouty's there too.
WJ , May 4, 2018 3:53:30 PM | 12
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."

This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes b's analysis uniquely indispensable.

Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"

Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.

Jose Garcia , May 4, 2018 3:56:03 PM | 13
1984, anyone?
john wilson , May 4, 2018 4:03:04 PM | 14
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).

Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.

ken , May 4, 2018 4:03:13 PM | 15
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
karlof1 , May 4, 2018 4:05:15 PM | 16
b @10--

Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned.

I won't omit linking to Craig Murray's conclusion :

"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."

Ort , May 4, 2018 4:22:35 PM | 17
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation.
_______________________________________

Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.

This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.

It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible and absurd.

Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.

And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus.

Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.

Passer by , May 4, 2018 4:24:44 PM | 18

Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of sanctions" with the West.

Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West" in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the west and towards whom there is a certain trust."

Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school.

It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.

https://archive.is/1Ynms#selection-1641.0-1641.66

Formerly T-Bear , May 4, 2018 4:57:25 PM | 21
@ 20 Laguerre

Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.

A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only a convenient suggestion.

Military intelligence is far better described as military information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying. This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their efforts.

Peter Schmidt , May 4, 2018 5:08:52 PM | 23
In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting.
Emily Dickinson , May 4, 2018 5:09:00 PM | 24
@Michael Weddington 19

I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/world/europe/opcw-skripal-attack.html

karlof1 , May 4, 2018 5:12:57 PM | 25
Passer by @18--

This same narrative was put forth in 2016 and is just as false now as then. As I posted on Yemen thread earlier, Putin on 5 May is likely to announce the formation of a Stavka.

Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics at some likeminded university.

jalp , May 4, 2018 5:30:35 PM | 26
Anyone seen this reported elsewhere? https://www.rt.com/news/425810-white-helmets-us-funding-freeze/

[May 04, 2018] Attention Hookers: Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar.

May 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

XXX -> IntercoursetheEU Fri, 05/04/2018 - 11:43 Permalink

Attention Hookers : Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar. Big tits, role-play, and lying required. Television experience preferred. No drug screening. No background check. Transportation included.

Call 1-800-George-Soros or contact the Law Offices of Wray, Mueller, and Rosenstein, LLC.

[May 04, 2018] Too Many Foreign Policy Double Standards Hurt U.S. Credibility by Ted Galen Carpenter

Notable quotes:
"... Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at ..."
"... , is the author or coauthor of 10 books on international affairs, including ..."
April 26, 2018
The hypocrisy is especially evident in Washington's approach to Saudi Arabia and other Middle East 'allies.' President Donald Trump poses for photos with ceremonial swordsmen on his arrival to Murabba Palace, as the guest of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, Saturday evening, May 20, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead) American leaders like to portray the United States as an exemplar of ethical conduct in the international system. The reality is far different, and it has been for decades. Throughout the Cold War, the United States embraced extremely repressive rulers , including the Shah of Iran, Nicaragua's Somoza family, Taiwan's Chiang Kai-shek, and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, all the while portraying them as noble members of the "Free World." Such blatant hypocrisy and double standards continue today regarding both Washington's own dubious behavior and the U.S. attitude toward the behavior of favored allies and friends.

The gap between professed values and actual policy is especially evident in the Middle East. U.S. officials routinely excoriate Syria and Iran, not only for their external behavior, but for manifestations of domestic abuse and repression. Some of those criticisms are valid. Both Bashar al-Assad's regime and Iran's clerical government are guilty of serious international misconduct and human-rights violations. But the credibility of Washington's expressions of outrage is vitiated when those same officials remain silent, or even excuse, equally serious -- and in some cases, more egregious -- abuses that the United States and its allies commit.

Following the Syrian regime's alleged use of chemical weapons in early April, President Trump painted Assad as an exceptionally vile enemy. He immediately issued a tweet describing the Syrian leader as "an animal" who gassed his own people. In his subsequent address to the American people announcing punitive air and missile strikes , Trump charged that the incident confirmed "a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime. The evil and despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead." The president also blasted Russia and Iran for their longstanding sponsorship of Assad. "To Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?"

TAC 's Daniel Larison provided an apt response to that question. "Trump should know the answer, since he just hosted one of the chief architects of the war on Yemen that the U.S. has backed to the hilt for the last three years. Britain welcomed the Saudi crown prince earlier on, and France just hosted him in the last few days. All three have been arming and supporting the Saudis and their allies in Yemen no matter how many atrocities they commit."

Indeed, the United States has been an outright accomplice in those atrocities, which among other tragic effects, has led to a cholera epidemic in Yemen. The U.S. military refuels Saudi coalition warplanes and provides intelligence to assist them in their attacks on Yemen -- attacks that have exhibited total indifference about civilian casualties. A recent revelation implicates Washington in even more atrocious conduct. Evidence has emerged that Saudi forces have employed white phosphorous munitions, and that the United States supplied those foul weapons that inflict horrible burns on their victims. For U.S. leaders to criticize Syria for using chemical weapons in light of such behavior may reach a new level of hypocrisy.

Washington's double standard also is evident regarding the international conduct of another U.S. ally: Turkey. U.S. officials reacted with a vitriolic denunciation of Russia's annexation of Crimea, but the reaction was -- and remains -- very different regarding Ankara's invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the occupation of that country's northern territory. Washington's criticism was tepid even at the beginning, and it has become more so with the passage of time. Indeed, there is greater U.S. pressure on the government of Cyprus to accept a peace settlement that would recognize the legitimacy of the puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that Ankara established (and has populated with settlers from the Turkish mainland) and countenance the continued presence of Turkish troops. Although the United States initially imposed mild sanctions on Turkey for invading and occupying its neighbor, they were soon lifted . Sanctions imposed against Russia are stronger, and there is little prospect that they will be lifted, or even eased, in the foreseeable future.

Washington's criticism of Turkey's repeated military incursions into northern Iraq and northern Syria likewise have been barely audible. That has been the case even though the targets in Syria are Kurdish forces that aided the United States and its allies in their war against ISIS.

The flagrant U.S. double standard also is apparent in the disparate assessments of the domestic conduct of Iran and such U.S. allies as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley verbally eviscerates Tehran at every opportunity for repressing its population. When anti-government demonstrations erupted in several Iranian cities earlier this year, Haley was quick to embrace their cause. "The Iranian regime's contempt for the rights of its people has been widely documented for many years," she stated during a Security Council session. Haley added that the United States stood "unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves, prosperity for their families, and dignity for their nation."

Iran certainly does not resemble a Western-style democracy, but its political system is vastly more open than either Egypt's or Saudi Arabia's. Although the clerical Guardian Council excludes any candidate for office that it deems unacceptable, competing elections take place between individuals with often sharply contrasting views. President Hassan Rouhani won a new electoral mandate over a decidedly more hardline opponent in the May 2017 presidential election. Compared to some U.S. allies in the Middle East, Iran resembles a Jeffersonian democracy.

The Saudi royal family does not tolerate even a hint of domestic opposition. People have been imprisoned or beheaded merely for daring to criticize the regime. Saudi Arabia's overall human-rights record is easily one of the worst in the world, as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented. It is a measure of just how stifling the system is that the government finally allowing women to drive is considered a radical reform. A similar suffocating miasma of repression exists in Egypt, where President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has imprisoned thousands of political opponents, executed hundreds, and wins rigged elections by absurd margins reminiscent of those in Soviet satellite countries during the Cold War.

Yet, President Trump and other U.S. officials express little criticism of those brutal, autocratic allies. Trump's demeanor during his state visit to Riyadh last year bordered on fawning. Washington approves multi-billion-dollar arms deals for both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, despite their legendary human-rights abuses. As noted, the United States even continues to assist Saudi Arabia in its atrocity-ridden military intervention in Yemen.

There may be plausible geo-strategic reasons for persisting in such double standards. Iran, for example, has been openly hostile to the United States and its policy objectives since the fall of the Shah. It is not illogical for Washington to be intent on countering the influence of Tehran and its Syrian ally, even if that requires making common cause with other repressive regimes in the region. But U.S. leaders need to be candid with the American people and acknowledge that their decisions are based on cold calculations of national interest, not ethical considerations. They should at least spare us their pontificating and the pretense that they care about the rights or welfare of Middle Eastern populations. Washington's policies indicate otherwise.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative , is the author or coauthor of 10 books on international affairs, including Perilous Partners: The Benefits and Pitfalls of America's Alliances with Authoritarian Regime. MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

How Rigid Alliances Have Locked Us Into Unwanted Conflicts Was Trump's Threat to Prosecute Hillary a Dictatorial Impulse? Hide 10 comments 10 Responses to Too Many Foreign Policy Double Standards Hurt U.S. Credibility

Realist April 26, 2018 at 3:36 am

"Too Many Foreign Policy Double Standards Hurt U.S. Credibility"

One is too many.

incredibility , says: April 26, 2018 at 8:02 am
"Evidence has emerged that Saudi forces have employed white phosphorous munitions, and that the United States supplied those foul weapons that inflict horrible burns on their victims. For U.S. leaders to criticize Syria for using chemical weapons in light of such behavior may reach a new level of hypocrisy."

Gah! I am so ashamed of having voted for this man. I really thought he was going to get us out of there. I can't believe he's selling the Saudis white phosphorus bombs at the same time he's justifying missile strikes against Syria because of "alleged" use of chemical weapons.

"Credibility"?

What "credibility" are you talking about?

EliteCommInc. , says: April 26, 2018 at 10:23 am
"I can't believe he's selling the Saudis white phosphorus bombs at the same time he's justifying missile strikes against Syria because of "alleged" use of chemical weapons."

You don't have anything to be ashamed about. One can be disappointed that the candidate of their choice by hook or by crook has gone astray. But those are his choices. And those choices are to the delight of those we opposed in the election. I suspect that if we sold WP, it's a sale that took place long before the election.

I thought he would reduce our footprint as well. In fact, I suspected he was going to less with less. Other states are entitled to work out their issues with one another. As a nation we have some shame to bear, but Pres. Trump is far down the least.

Michael Kenny , says: April 26, 2018 at 11:11 am
The author torpedoes his own argument when he says "there may be plausible geo-strategic reasons for persisting in such double standards. Precisely! Ultimately, all the author wants is that US politicians spare Americans their pontificating and the pretence that they care about the rights or welfare of populations. In other words, he has no quibble with the foreign policy, he just wants US politicians to be open about what they're doing.
b. , says: April 26, 2018 at 11:53 am
"Iran, for example, has been openly hostile to the United States and its policy objectives since the fall of the Shah."

Iran has been openly hostile to the US since Eisenhower engineered the fall of Mosaddegh, and for good reasons. The Shah and his torturers fit right in with MbS and al-Siri, or the Bush/Tenet CIA and its Haspels.

"Evidence has emerged that Saudi forces have employed white phosphorous munitions, and that the United States supplied those foul weapons "

Talk about burying the lede along with the bodies.

Sid_finster , says: April 26, 2018 at 1:42 pm
"A wolf, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me."

"Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born."

Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture."

"No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass."

Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well."

"No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me."

Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations."

Moral: The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny."
**************************
For a few more years, the US will have absolute power over other people and we will use that power in an absolutely corrupt way at the behest of our overlords in Riyadh and Jerusalem. When retribution finally comes our way, no one will shed a tear for us.

Nor should they, for we do evil.

Ray Joseph Cormier , says: April 26, 2018 at 2:42 pm
There is no criticism of Israel illegally annexing the Golan and East Jerusalem in violation of International Law.

A Democracy for Jews and a Military Dictatorship for Palestinians is untenable.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , says: April 26, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Truly, what credibility?

You really do have virtually none left in your long march to empire.

It has been almost nothing but lies and manipulation for decades.

Yes, you still have subservient countries like Britain or France who parrot your stuff, but that's only because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing so.

You cannot be both a decent country and a world empire, and almost everyone in the world outside the United States understands that.

Miguel , says: April 26, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Great article in my opinion. I disagree with the comment of Michael Kenny: I don't think the author just wants the U.S. politicians to stop lyinf and to start to admit that they -U.S. politicians and the other U.S. people with power- do what they do because of their interests. I think the author wants to denounce the fact that all the ethical arguments presented by those with power -not only in the U.S., by the way- are "necessary lies".

How necessary lies? Simple: no president, or ruller, can face his polity's people to say that they are going to war on economics or political interests; the only way to justify, I would dare to say emotionaly more than morally, all the horrors of war, is with the excuse of the "Greater Good". To do evil is justified if it is done in order to check a bigger evil", so to speak.

But obvoisully, no one accepts all the spenditures of war "just to do good".

And I think the author points to another, maybe more profound matter: it is like the tale of the lier shepperd who, when the wolf was really coming, no one believed him, and well, the tale didn´t end too well for the shepperd; but I will leave it as an open end.

Now the other countries arround the world are also interets´guided, and therefore can be considered schemers aswell. The problem is that even schemers need to be able to feel trust, or common action becomes immpossible.

David Smith , says: April 27, 2018 at 10:53 am
Good article, but a bit off-base on the criticism of Turkey's annexation of northern Cyprus. As you may or may not recall, in 1974 the Greek military junta planned to annex all of Cyprus to Greece, which would have violated the treaty then in force and brought northern Cyprus, which was predominantly inhabited by Turks, under Greek rule. Turkey responded accordingly by taking northern Cyprus. Greece and Turkey have had a long history of conflict; it is a mistake to make a simple good guys vs bad guys story out of it. I know it was a long time ago, but history is important.

[May 04, 2018] FBI monitored phone calls of Trump s personal lawyer by Barry Grey

FBI monitored phone calls of Trump's personal lawyer
Notable quotes:
"... US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails. ..."
"... Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system. ..."
"... That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor. ..."
"... This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news." ..."
"... The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March. ..."
"... This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators. ..."
"... Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court. ..."
"... In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
May 04, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Multiple media reports on Thursday revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and logged the phone calls of President Donald Trump's personal lawyer and confidante, Michael Cohen, in the period leading up to the FBI raid on Cohen's office and residences in April.

According to NBC News, at least one of the calls that were tracked was between Cohen and Trump.

The extraordinary fact that the federal government's chief police agency, an integral part of the country's intelligence network, is monitoring telephone communications between the president and his self-described "fixer" points to the explosive level of conflict within the American ruling class and its state.

The revelation comes a month after the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, raided Cohen's office and residences as part of a criminal probe into his business dealings. FBI agents seized Cohen's financial records, computer hard drive, cell phones and taped recordings of conversations. Ostensibly, the main concern of federal prosecutors is Cohen's involvement in hush-money payoffs to two women, a porn star and a former Playboy playmate, who claim to have had sexual relations with Trump.

US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails.

Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast quoted Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, as saying, "That sort of thing happens all the time if you're dealing with mob wiretaps."

Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system.

There is little doubt that the FBI and Mueller have seized more than enough evidence of wrong-doing in Trump's business dealings to bring down an indictment, either to attempt a criminal prosecution -- never before carried out against a sitting president -- or force Trump to resign. Alternately, an indictment could become part of an impeachment effort should the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.

No one is more aware of the threat posed by these developments than Trump himself.

That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor.

This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news."

These are the methods of palace coup, without the slightest democratic or progressive content. Should Trump be removed as a result of such a campaign, the result would be to shift the political system even further to the right.

The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March.

This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators.

This week, it was reported that in discussions with Trump's lawyers in March, Mueller threatened to subpoena Trump to appear before a grand jury if he did not voluntarily agree to an interview. On Wednesday, it was announced that Emmet Flood, a Republican who served as one of Bill Clinton's lawyers during the House of Representatives impeachment process in 1998, would replace Cobb.

Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.

In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation.

He cited a list of 49 questions for Trump prepared by Trump's lawyers on the basis of an oral presentation by Mueller's investigators and called the wide-ranging queries concerning links to Russians and potential obstruction of justice, including the firing of Comey, a "perjury trap." The questions were leaked and published earlier this week by the New York Times . The Times , along with the Washington Post , have been in the forefront of the media witch hunt against Russia.

On the question of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said, "Right now, the odds are against it."

Most of the media commentary on the interview has focused on Giuliani's statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 in hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen has said he paid the money from his own funds and without Trump's knowledge, and last month Trump told reporters that he had no knowledge of the payoff.

It is striking that despite the media obsession with Trump and Russia, and the single-minded focus of the Democratic Party on this reactionary campaign, the public remains skeptical, if not hostile, to the entire matter. The Democrats have said virtually nothing about Trump's war on immigrants, including the barbaric treatment of the Central American caravan of refugees forced to camp out at the US border and the denial of their right to asylum. The Democratic Party has dropped its phony opposition to Trump's tax cut for corporations and the rich and barely noted the mounting assault on social programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to housing subsidies for the poor.

This is reflected in recent polls, which show Trump's approval rating actually increasing and the Democrats' edge in the coming midterm elections cut in half since the beginning of the year.

There is mass opposition in the working class and among young people to Trump and his chauvinist, militarist and pro-corporate policies. It is reflected in the upsurge of teachers' strikes and protests in defiance of the corporatist unions, which the unions and the Democrats are doing everything they can to isolate and suppress.

This emerging movement of the working class in the US and internationally is intensifying the warfare within the American ruling class and state. The crisis is being fueled not only by sharp differences over foreign policy -- including tactical differences over Trump's threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and his trade war measures -- but also by a general loss of confidence in Trump's ability to manage either the global affairs of US imperialism or the tense internal social and political situation.

The independent social and political struggle of the working class is the only basis for a progressive solution to the crisis of American capitalism. The opposition of workers to Trump can find no progressive outlet within the framework of the capitalist two-party system. Both factions in the current political wars, notwithstanding their bitter differences, agree on a strategy of expanding war abroad and austerity and repression at home.

[May 04, 2018] Attention Hookers: Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar.

May 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

XXX -> IntercoursetheEU Fri, 05/04/2018 - 11:43 Permalink

Attention Hookers : Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar. Big tits, role-play, and lying required. Television experience preferred. No drug screening. No background check. Transportation included.

Call 1-800-George-Soros or contact the Law Offices of Wray, Mueller, and Rosenstein, LLC.

[May 04, 2018] Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises TheHill

Notable quotes:
"... Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence. ..."
"... The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information" related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director James Comey , which the White House ultimately used to justify his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to charges of obstruction of justice. ..."
"... After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as special counsel to handle the Russia probe. ..."
"... Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed, according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure. ..."
"... He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable." ..."
"... "If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment, I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations. ..."
May 04, 2018 | thehill.com

Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises By Olivia Beavers and Morgan Chalfant - 05/03/18 06:00 AM EDT 2,577 63 Ex-doctor says Trump dictated letter claiming he would be 'healthiest' president ever Trump- South Korean president gives us all the credit Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking their own drafts' White House dodges on Mueller questions Sanders: White House tries to 'never be concerned' with Adam Schiff White House talking to Waffle House hero about Trump meeting White House says Trump is 'very happy' with chief of staff White House: Jackson no longer serving as Trump's lead physician Chaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star Pruitt's head of security resigns Trump&rsquo;s ex-doctor says Trump associates 'raided' his office Romney praises Trump's first year in office: It's similar to things 'I'd have done' WHCD host: Sarah Sanders lies Netanyahu: iran deal flawed, based on lies WHCD host: Trump is not rich Conservative House lawmakers draft articles of impeachment against Rosenstein List reveals questions Mueller wants to ask Trump: report NBC: White House chief of staff told aides women 'more emotional' than men McCain torches Trump in new book: He prioritizes appearance of toughness over American values White House chief of staff denies report he called Trump an idiot Trump: Threats to pull out of Iran deal 'sends the right message' Trump: We don't want to be the policemen of the world Trump campaign covered some of Cohen's legal costs: report Democrats losing support of millennials: poll Cruz again questioning McConnell&rsquo;s strategies Ex-Bush ethics official to run for Franken's former Senate seat as Dem: report Parkland survivor calls out NRA for banning guns at convention Michelle Wolf pushes back on criticism of Sarah Sanders jokes 7 targets Michelle Wolf took aim at during the White House correspondents&rsquo; dinner Trump: If Dems win in 2018 midterms, they'll impeach me WHCD host calls Trump &lsquo;cowardly&rsquo; for skipping event again Trump threatens to 'close down the country' over funding for border wall GOP chairman 'doesn't have a problem' with Tester's handling of Jackson allegations Election forecaster: Nunes seat no longer &lsquo;safe&rsquo; Republican Washington&rsquo;s heavy-drinking ways in spotlight Stars of 'Veep,' 'West Wing' to lobby lawmakers ahead of White House correspondents' dinner Republican worries 'assassination risk' prompting lawmaker resignations Gillibrand unveils bill to offer banking services at post offices Meehan resigns with promise to pay back alleged sexual harassment claim Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking their own drafts'

On Tuesday, the deputy attorney general rebuked the nascent conservative effort to impeach him, likely exacerbating tensions with conservatives in the House. House Republicans are demanding access to classified documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, including a heavily redacted memo that spells out the scope of the investigation.

"There is really nothing to comment on there, but just give me the documents. The bottom line is, he needs to be give me the documents," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said during an interview with The Hill on Wednesday when asked about his response to Rosenstein.

"I have one goal in mind, and that is not somebody's job or the termination of somebody's job, it is getting the documents and making sure we can do proper oversight," he said, adding that there are "no current plans to introduce an impeachment resolution."

Republican lawmakers led by Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus one of President Trump's top allies in Congress, have drafted eight articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. The articles make a series of charges against Rosenstein and question his credibility, reputation and fitness to serve.

Conservatives have called the impeachment articles a last resort. Rosenstein dismissed the impeachment threat and went a step further by suggesting the Justice Department's independence is being threatened. "There have been people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time, and I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted," Rosenstein said during an appearance at the Newseum. "I just don't have anything to say about documents like that that nobody has the courage to put their name on and they leak in that way," he continued, after quipping earlier that the lawmakers "can't even resist leaking their own drafts."

Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official, is widely respected in legal circles. He has been praised for his work leading the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush and served in for 12 years, spanning Republican and Democratic administrations. Rosenstein's years of service at the department came through in his public remarks, lawyers say.

"With a guy like Rosenstein, you can't underestimate the deep connection that many career -- not all -- but many career Justice Department officials have to the department," said Steven Cash, a lawyer at Day Pitney. "It defines their self image as participating in ensuring the rule of law in a way you often don't see in other departments -- they are very, very proud of their association with the department, its traditions, history and independence."

But Rosenstein has plenty of critics on Capitol Hill, where some Republicans accuse him of hindering legitimate oversight.

Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence.

The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information" related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The charges appear to have caught the attention of the president, who threatened to get involved on Wednesday morning.

"A Rigged System -- They don't want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such unequal 'justice?' At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved," Trump tweeted.

Since Trump appointed Rosenstein to serve as deputy attorney general, he has become a key player in the drama surrounding the Mueller investigation.

It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director James Comey, which the White House ultimately used to justify his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to charges of obstruction of justice.

Rosenstein has defended the memo on Comey, pointing to criticism from both parties about Comey's handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's use of a private email server before the 2016 presidential election.

After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as special counsel to handle the Russia probe.

Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies.

In addition, Rosenstein reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed, according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure.

Rosenstein took issue with allegations detailed in the impeachment draft, including the charge that he failed to properly supervise surveillance applications.

He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable."

It's unclear yet whether an impeachment push will gain traction among rank-and-file Republicans; GOP leaders have remained silent on the matter. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), indicated Wednesday that he sees no reason to fire Rosenstein, as he said earlier this year. Some GOP lawmakers in recent weeks have also said they've seen improvement from the Justice Department in responding to documents requests.

"If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment, I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations.

Still, Rosenstein's remarks are sure to ramp up tensions between two sides. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said Rosenstein came off as "cagey" in his defense and raised questions about what he may be trying to hide. "Everyone knows that this is heating up and both sides are gearing up for a fight," O'Connell told The Hill.

[May 04, 2018] Marx Was Right A Warning The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Communist Manifesto ..."
"... The Benedict Option ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Communist Manifesto, ..."
May 04, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Barker points out that Marx was correct that "capitalism has an inbuilt tendency to destroy itself." I would add that Marx's view that capitalism was heretofore the most revolutionary force in human history is also true. From the Communist Manifesto :

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

You see what he means here. Capitalism -- for Marx, the merchant class (the "bourgeoisie") were the carriers of capitalism -- turns everything into a market. Capitalism is a revolutionary force that disrupts and desacralizes all things. All that talk in The Benedict Option about "liquid modernity"? That's based in Marx, actually. Zygmunt Bauman, the late sociologist from whom I took the idea, was a Marxist.

Look, most of us conservatives in the West are to some degree supporters of the free market. What we missed for a very long time was that it is hard to support a fully free market while at the same time expecting our social institutions -- the family, the church, and so forth -- to remain stable. This is an insight of Marx's that we conservatives -- and even conservative Christians -- ought to absorb. I write about this a lot, though not in specific Marxist terms.

The thing is, Christian Democratic parties throughout Western Europe have largely absorbed this truth. Catholic social teaching is based in these insights as well. They aren't necessarily against the free market, but rather say that the market must be tempered for the common good.

That wasn't Marx's view, obviously. Marx thought the free market was itself wicked, and ought to be totally controlled by the state. We know where that all ended up: with a hundred million dead, and entire economies and societies destroyed.

But we can agree that Marx was right to diagnose the revolutionary nature of capitalism, if catastrophically wrong about the cure for capitalism's excesses. If that was as far as Jason Barker went, that would be fine. But he doesn't -- and this is the warning. Barker continues:

The key factor in Marx's intellectual legacy in our present-day society is not "philosophy" but "critique," or what he described in 1843 as "the ruthless criticism of all that exists: ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be." "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it," he wrote in 1845.

Racial and sexual oppression have been added to the dynamic of class exploitation. Social justice movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, owe something of an unspoken debt to Marx through their unapologetic targeting of the "eternal truths" of our age. Such movements recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.

We have become used to the go-getting mantra that to effect social change we first have to change ourselves. But enlightened or rational thinking is not enough, since the norms of thinking are already skewed by the structures of male privilege and social hierarchy, even down to the language we use. Changing those norms entails changing the very foundations of society.

Read the whole thing.

There it is, reader. There is the "cultural Marxism" that you hear so much about, and that so many on the left deny. It is in the Marxist principle that there is no such thing as truth; there is only power.

Lenin understood this well. This is the meaning of his famous dictum, "Who, whom?" In Lenin's view, co-existence with capitalism was not possible. The only question was whether or not the communists will smash the capitalists first, or the other way around. One way of interpreting this is to say that the moral value of an action depends on who is doing it to whom .

This is why it is pointless for us conservatives and old-school liberals to stand around identifying contradictions and hypocrisies in how the progressives behave. They don't care! They aren't trying to apply universal standards of justice. They believe that "universal standards of justice" is a cant phrase to disguise white heterosexist patriarchal supremacy. They believe that justice is achieving power for their group, and therefore disempowering other groups. This is why it's not racist, in their view, to favor non-whites over whites in the distribution of power. This is why they don't consider it unfair to discriminate against men, heterosexuals, and other out-groups.

They will use things like "dialogue" as a tactic to serve the long-term strategy of acquiring total power. Resisting them on liberal grounds is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The neoreactionaries have seen this clearly, while conservatives like me, who can't quite let go of old-fashioned liberalism, have resisted it.

I have resisted it because I really would like to live in a world where we can negotiate our differences while allowing individuals and groups maximum autonomy in the private sphere. I want to be left alone, and want to leave others alone. This, I fear, is a pipe dream. Absent a shared cultural ethos, I can't see how this is possible. I hate to say it -- seriously, I do -- but I think that today's conservatives (including me) are going to end up as neoreactionaries, just as today's old-school liberals are going to end up as progressives, because the forces pulling us to these extremes are stronger than any centrism.

For example, check this out:

I'm running into irreligious people who think that a religious person violating their deeply held principles is just a matter of choice, that they don't truly have any genuine beliefs.
We can't even converse any more b/c we're not speaking the same language.

-- PoliticalMath (@politicalmath) May 1, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This is our country -- and this is the danger we religious people are facing, and are going to face much more intensely. Many non-religious people simply cannot understand why we see the world the way we do, and assume that it can only be out of irrationality and bigotry.

I invite you to read this blog post from three years ago, based on my interview with "Prof. Kingsfield", a closeted Christian teaching at an elite law school. This excerpt:

"Alasdair Macintyre is right," he said. "It's like a nuclear bomb went off, but in slow motion." What he meant by this is that our culture has lost the ability to reason together, because too many of us want and believe radically incompatible things.

But only one side has the power. When I asked Kingsfield what most people outside elite legal and academic circles don't understand about the way elites think, he said "there's this radical incomprehension of religion."

"They think religion is all about being happy-clappy and nice, or should be, so they don't see any legitimate grounds for the clash," he said. "They make so many errors, but they don't want to listen."

To elites in his circles, Kingsfield continued, "at best religion is something consenting adult should do behind closed doors. They don't really understand that there's a link between Sister Helen Prejean's faith and the work she does on the death penalty. There's a lot of looking down on flyover country, one middle America.

"The sad thing," he said, "is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don't hold. It's all about power. They've got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is not anchored in anything. They've got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the answers, and believe that they are good."

This is a small part of a larger struggle.

Many on the left deny that cultural Marxism exists, but you have in The New York Times a column by a Marxist professor saying that yes it does, and it's a good thing, too. His final line:

On that basis, we are destined to keep citing him and testing his ideas until the kind of society that he struggled to bring about, and that increasing numbers of us now desire, is finally realized.

Marx didn't come from nowhere. The world of 1848 (when the Communist Manifesto appeared) is a lot like our own world; re-read the section above from that document and see how familiar it sounds. He was more or less right in his diagnosis of the revolutionary nature of capitalism, but his materialism and its relationship to human nature was catastrophically wrong. His thought may have resulted in mass murder, but it is clearly not dead; it is simply turned against culture, not the means of production.

Therefore, I'll end here with this excerpt from Carlo Lancellotti's recent Commonweal essay about Marx, culture, and Catholicism. Excerpt:

Contra the "Catholic Left," which tended to regard Marx's atheism as accidental, and tried to rescue his socio-political analysis from his religious views, Del Noce concluded that what Marx proposed was not just a new theory of history or a new program of political economy, but a new anthropology , one completely different from the Christian tradition. (Louis Dupré had made a similar argument in the pages of Commonweal ; see "Marx and Religion: An Impossible Marriage," April 26, 1968.) Marx viewed humans as "social beings" entirely determined by historical and material circumstances rather than by their relationship with God. He viewed human reason as purely instrumental -- a tool of production and social organization rather than the capacity to contemplate the truth and participate in the divine wisdom. Finally, Marx viewed liberation as the fruit of political action, not as a personal process of conversion aided by grace. Marxist politics was not guided by fixed and absolute ethical principles, because ethics, along with philosophy, was absorbed into politics. Del Noce concluded that there was no way to rescue Marx's politics from his atheism, which had as much to do with his view of man as with his view of God.

Nonetheless, after World War II Marxism experienced a resurgence in Western Europe, not only among intellectuals and politicians but also in mainstream culture. But Del Noce noticed that at the same time society was moving in a very different direction from what Marx had predicted: capitalism kept expanding, people were eagerly embracing consumerism, and the prospect of a Communist revolution seemed more and more remote. To Del Noce, this simultaneous success and defeat of Marxism pointed to a deep contradiction. On the one hand, Marx had taught historical materialism, the doctrine that metaphysical and ethical ideas are just ideological covers for economic and political interests. On the other hand, he had prophesied that the expansion of capitalism would inevitably lead to revolution, followed by the "new man," the "classless society," the "reign of freedom." But what if the revolution did not arrive, if the "new man" never materialized?

In that case, Del Noce realized, Marxist historical materialism would degenerate into a form of radical relativism -- into the idea that philosophical and moral concepts are just reflections of historical and economic circumstances and have no permanent validity. This would have to include the concept of injustice, without which a critique of capitalism would be hard, if not impossible, to uphold. A post-Marxist culture -- one that kept Marx's radical materialism and denial of religious transcendence, while dispensing with his confident predictions about the self-destruction of capitalism -- would naturally tend to be radically bourgeois. By that, Del Noce meant a society that views "everything as an object of trade" and "as an instrument" to be used in the pursuit of individualized "well-being." Such bourgeois society would be highly individualistic, because it could not recognize any cultural or religious "common good." In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels described the power of the bourgeois worldview to dissolve all cultural and religious allegiances into a universal market. Now, ironically, Marxist ideas (which Del Noce viewed as a much larger and more influential phenomenon than political Marxism in a strict sense) had helped bring that process to completion. At a conference in Rome in 1968, Del Noce looked back at recent history and concluded that the post-Marxist culture would be "a society that accepts all of Marxism's negations against contemplative thought, religion, and metaphysics; that accepts, therefore, the Marxist reduction of ideas to instruments of production. But which, on the other hand, rejects the revolutionary-messianic aspects of Marxism, and thus all the religious elements that remain within the revolutionary idea. In this regard, it truly represents the bourgeois spirit in its pure state, the bourgeois spirit triumphant over its two traditional adversaries, transcendent religion and revolutionary thought."

If Del Noce is correct, we may not have to worry about the cultural Marxists of our time taking total power, as consumer capitalism and its comforts will compromise their revolutionary spirit. When and if university presidents start kicking these bumptious brats out of college, the revolution will sputter like Occupy Wall Street did. But before it's all over, they may end up destroying the institutions and ways of life that make life stable and meaningful. Then again, unrestrained capitalism has done the same thing. The problem with Marxism is that it burns the boats so that nobody can return, and calls the resulting fire enlightenment.

The warning is twofold: First, that cultural Marxism is a real thing willing and capable of doing real damage, and that you cannot negotiate with these people; and second, that unless capitalists figure out how to ameliorate the excesses of market and technological change on society, they are tempting fate, just as their 19th and early 20th century forebears did.

UPDATE: Reader Dave:

The bigger problem with the NYT piece that you either missed or didn't feel added to your thesis is the irony that Marx's critiques are seen as a good and carrying that forward cultural Marxist critiques are good, unless you are critiquing those critiques. You aren't allowed to critique arguments from BLM or La Raza or LGBTQXYZ groups or etc because taking a critical eye to those groups is just hateful bigoted nonsense. Never mind that those groups' manifestos generally don't hold up to scrutiny, just accept it as a means to an end (even if that end isn't really where we should like to be). In a world where there is no objective truth and all individuals' "truths" are valid there is no basis culture or society. But you can't bring that up, lest you be labeled an insensitive bigot who should be burned at the stake. My guess is if Marx were revived today he would be ashamed more of the intellectual rot his philosophy has spawned than he would over the millions of innocents dead.

Posted in Christianity , Conservatism , Consumerism , Culture war , Decline and Fall , Economics , Politics , Liberalism , Liberty & The State , Weimar America . Tagged Alasdair MacIntyre , Marxism , capitalism , Marx , cultural Marxism , Augusto Del Noce , neoreaction , Jason Barker .

Siarlys Jenkins May 2, 2018 at 8:41 pm

Significantly left of center, "hard left", may only describe 20-25% of the U.S. population, but in certain geographic areas, they control virtually all of the political levers of government. Seattle for instance.

Seattle. Right. The domain of corporate liberalism on steroids. Hard left. Uh-huh. I won't ask what you've been smoking, because I think its congenital.

should read "Goldman bankers aren't interested in funding class consciousness"

Much better and more accurate than removing "not" from the original. Thank you.

Emil Bogdan , says: May 2, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Marx was a smart guy, but too smart. It was really really weird the older I got and the more I found out about recurring class struggles and sometimes riots and even revolutions, again and again, in ancient Greece and Rome. There's so much documentation, over centuries, that it seems pretty obvious to me that there's nothing significantly new about Marxism at all, it's just a slightly more complex manifestation of a permanent phenomenon: inequality. Can anything be done about it? Nothing, you just have to idealize "equality" and KNOW inequality.

[May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris

Highly recommended!
Mueller's proposed questions to Trump show that Trump remains Mueller's ultimate target
Notable quotes:
"... (1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made public. ..."
"... (2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target ..."
"... Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by prosecuting Counsel. ..."
"... (3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the Mueller probe ..."
"... the Russiagate investigation did become a criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry. ..."
"... When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..."
"... The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking to. ..."
"... The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal leaking. ..."
"... In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about which however see above. ..."
"... (4) The collusion narrative has collapsed ..."
"... The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt Russian children. ..."
"... In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts. ..."
"... Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much. ..."
May 03, 2018 | theduran.com

...Here is my take on these questions:

(1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made public.

Every single one of the questions is obviously drawn on information which has already been made public and which has been widely discussed.

... ... ...

(2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target

Recently there have been media reports that Robert Mueller's investigators have informed Donald Trump that he is not a target of the Mueller investigation.

The highly aggressive questions Mueller wants to ask Trump however tell a very different story. The consistent theme behind them is of a Donald Trump who is very much at the centre of all sorts of nefarious activities. Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by prosecuting Counsel.

In light of this Trump's hesitation in submitting himself to an interview by Mueller in which these sort of questions are asked is fully understandable.

I suspect his lawyers are advising him against it.

(3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the Mueller probe

When around the time of former FBI Director James Comey's admittedly botched dismissal the issue of obstruction of justice first arose, it seemed to me so farfetched that I could not bring myself to believe that Mueller or anyone else would seriously entertain it.

As I pointed out at the time the Russiagate investigation was at that point in time still a counterespionage inquiry rather than a crime inquiry, as had recently been confirmed by no less a person than James Comey himself in his March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

As it happens it is a moot point when exactly the Russiagate investigation did become a criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry.

My guess is that no such formal decision was ever taken, but that Mueller himself simply decided as soon as he was appointed Special Counsel that he was conducting a criminal inquiry as well as a counterespionage inquiry. The point is apparently being pursued by Paul Manafort's lawyers in the case Mueller has brought against him. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. Irrespective of this, the fact that the Russiagate investigation was apparently still a counterespionage inquiry as opposed to a criminal inquiry when Comey was sacked made it impossible for me to see how Comey's sacking could amount to an obstruction of justice.

What I was of course at that time completely unaware of was of the discussions which had previously passed between Trump and Comey about General Flynn.

A memo Comey wrote up after one of these discussions has been seized on by Trump's critics as evidence that he attempted to block the FBI's investigation into whether or not General Flynn had committed an offence under the Logan Act by talking whilst a member of the Trump transition team to Russian ambassador Kislyak, and that this amounts to an obstruction of justice.

When early accounts of the contents of this memo appeared I expressed my strong doubt that its contents as they were being reported showed that there had been any obstruction of justice by Donald Trump of the investigation of General Flynn

..since Comey's note shows Trump neither instructing Comey nor requesting Comey to drop the investigation against Flynn, nor of Trump putting pressure on Comey to do so, but merely shows Trump expressing the "hope" Comey would do so, in any sane world no charge of obstructing justice or of perverting the course of justice brought upon it could possibly stick.

The redacted text of this and of Comey's other memos has now been published, and the relevant sections of the memo read as follows

He [Donald Trump – AM] began by saying he "wanted to talk about Mike Flynn". He then said that although Flynn "hadn't done anything wrong" in his call with the Russians (a point he made at least two more times in the conversation), he had to let him go because he misled the Vice-President and, in any event, he had concerns about Flynn, and had a great guy coming in, so he had to let Flynn go ..

..He then referred at length to the leaks relating to Mike Flynn's call with the Russians, which he stressed was not wrong in any way ("he made lots of calls"), but that the leaks were terrible.

I tried to interject several times to agree with him about the leaks being terrible, but was unsuccessful. When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..

He then returned to the subject of Mike Flynn, saying that Flynn is a good guy, and has been through a lot. He misled the Vice-President but he didn't do anything wrong in the call. He said, "I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied by saying, "I agree he is a good guy", but said no more.

(bold italics added)

The entirety of the memo in fact shows that the main subject of the conversation and Donald Trump's major concern as of the time when the conversation took place was not General Flynn or the case against him but the systematic campaign of leaks which were undermining his administration.

The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking to.

The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal leaking.

In this Trump was undoubtedly right.

Over the course of this discussion – and obviously so as to emphasise the point -Trump made the further point – which is no longer disputed by anyone – that Flynn had done nothing wrong in his conversations with Kislyak, and had done nothing to deserve having his career and reputation destroyed by illegal leaking.

The memo shows that it was in the context of these observations about the way Flynn was brought down by illegal leaking that Trump made his comments about the investigation of Flynn.

Trump's point was that the investigation of Flynn for committing an offence under the Logan Act (initiated by former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates). coming on top of the illegal leaks which had destroyed his career, was tough on Flynn given that he had done nothing wrong.

Accordingly Trump said to Comey that he hoped Comey would be able to find a way to "letting [the case against Flynn] go".

It was a minor aside and it is unlikely Trump gave much thought to it. Certainly it was not intended as any sort of instruction to Comey to drop the inquiry, and the entirety of the text of the memo shows that Comey never thought it was.

In fact the memo shows that Comey agreed with Trump.

The words in the memo which I have highlighted ("I agreed very much that it was terrible that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence") have attracted remarkably little attention. However they show clearly that Comey also thought that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was lawful.

No other explanation for his words as he himself has reported them in his memo – "he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence" – is possible.

In other words the memo shows that not only did Trump not instruct or request Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn or put pressure on Comey to do so, but on the contrary he and Comey had what was essentially a consensual conversation in which they both agreed with each other that (1) leaks are terrible; (2) Flynn had been appallingly treated by having his career and reputation destroyed by leaks; and (3) in his conversation with Kislyak Flynn had done nothing wrong.

Given that this is so it is simply impossible to see how an obstruction of justice charge can be put together from this material.

Nonetheless the drift of Mueller's questions to Trump suggests that this is still what Mueller is trying to do.

A disproportionate number of Mueller's questions concern Trump's various interactions with Comey. These include but are not limited to Trump's interactions with Comey which concerned Flynn.

In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about which however see above.

There is also a number of questions concerning Trump's sometimes fraught relationship with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the clear implication of which is that Trump's widely known and publicly expressed anger about Sessions's decision to recuse himself from the Russiagate inquiry stems from anger that Sessions would no longer be able to protect Trump from it.

Even if that is so – which it probably is – I cannot see how it amounts to obstruction of justice. Anger that Sessions had recused himself from the Russiagate inquiry and would no longer be able to protect the President is surely no more than a thought crime even if it were true, which it probably is.

Last I heard thought crimes are not actionable in America. However,judging from his questions, Mueller still seems intent on pursuing this one.

(4) The collusion narrative has collapsed

By comparison with the disproportionate number of questions devoted to the obstruction of justice allegations, the questions about the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – the investigation of which was supposed to be the object of the Mueller inquiry – look threadbare.

All of them cover old ground, in which all the facts are known.

The first two questions concern the now notorious meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The lack of substance to this meeting, and the extent to which it is truly a non-story, has been brilliantly explained by Ronald Kessler in The Washington Times

When it comes to President Trump and the question of collusion with Russia , there is indeed a smoking gun. But it's not the June 2016 meeting that Donald Trump Jr. , along with campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, held in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer.

The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt Russian children.

The meeting, which lasted 20 minutes, was the sort any political campaign or media outlet would have agreed to. Like investigative reporters, political operatives want to obtain tips, even if most of the time the proffered information turns out to be of no value. In this case, nothing came of the meeting. In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts.

According to journalistic standards that existed decades ago, the fact that such a meeting took place would not have even been a story. The pretext for the meeting was a hoax, and nothing resulted from it. To suggest by running a story that there was something nefarious about it was unfair. But in today's politically charged media world, the meeting became an immediate sensation as part of a narrative -- pushed by the media and Democrats -- suggesting that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with Russia .

I have nothing to add to this masterful analysis save to say that the fact that Mueller is continuing to ask questions about a meeting at which exactly nothing happened is testimony to the hollowness of the whole collusion narrative the investigation of which Mueller's inquiry is supposed to be about.

Summary

When Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel I welcomed his appointment. What I had heard about Mueller suggested that he would be a safe pair of hands who would put the whole preposterous Russiagate conspiracy theory to bed. It is with frank embarrassment that I repeat what I wrote about him at the time of his appointment

.it is essential that with Comey gone the Russiagate investigation is put in the charge of a safe pair of hands, and of someone who will not be seen as the President's defender, and whose eventual findings are accepted, and Mueller seems by most accounts to be the sort of person to do that ..

Mueller appears to be a good choice for the job. He was a well regarded FBI director, staying in post from 2001 – when he was appointed by George W. Bush – until his retirement in 2013, when Comey replaced him. During that period he resisted the George W. Bush administration's attempts to introduce interrogation methods since characterised as torture as part of the so-called 'war on terror'. As someone well known to the staff of the FBI, he looks like the obvious person to do the job, and to steady the ship, and – hopefully – to bring some sanity to this investigation.

Mueller's job will now be to bring order to the mess Comey has created, and to bring the various investigations into Russiagate that Obama's Justice Department initiated to a proper close. If he does his job properly – and if he is left alone to do it – it should all be over by the summer.

It has long since become clear that far from Mueller being the safe pair of hands I took him for, he is someone who sees his task as protecting the Justice Department and the FBI (which he largely built up) from someone who he obviously considers to be an angry and potentially vengeful President. His proposed questions show that he still has the President in his sights, and that Mueller is pulling out all the stops to bring him down.

Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much.

[May 03, 2018] Skripal case British confirm they have no suspect; Yulia Skripal vanishes, no word of Sergey Skripal by Alexander Mercouris

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Testimony by Sir Mark Sedwill, British Prime Minister Theresa May's National Security Adviser, to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1st May 2018 has now revealed that all the claims about a breakthrough in the Skripal case – not to mention the claims about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – were (as I suspected) nonsense. ..."
"... In other words the investigation is going nowhere and has drawn a complete blank. ..."
"... All this comes hot on the heels of suggestions – which are very likely true – that the wall of silence which has recently descended on the British media's reporting of the Skripal case is the product of a British government D-Notice , ie. of a formal request by the British government to the media to limit their coverage of the Skripal story on grounds of national security. ..."
"... It has also been suggested that despite formal denials the most likely reason for the D-Notice is the desire of the British authorities to conceal a possible connection between Sergey Skripal, his former MI6 controller Pablo Miller, and Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier. ..."
May 02, 2018 | theduran.com

Amidst speculation that British government has imposed reporting restrictions, British authorities admit they have no suspect in Skripal case

A week ago the British media were full of reports from the usual anonymous sources of a breakthrough in the Skripal case.

Allegedly the British authorities by comparing CCTV pictures from Salisbury and details of travellers to and from Britain had been to identify the persons who were supposedly responsible for the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal. These stories came with further stories of a Russian James Bond style assassin – "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – who together with his team had supposedly carried out the attack. The stories about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" came with a bizarre identikit picture supposedly of him, which was too ridiculous to take seriously.

In an article I wrote for The Duran on 24th April 2018 I expressed skepticism about these claims

.it looks to me as if despite all the claims to the contrary the police investigation of the Skripal case has made little actual progress. The British seem to have little more knowledge of who carried out the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal and why than they did when the investigation began. Could it possibly be because they are looking in the wrong place?

Testimony by Sir Mark Sedwill, British Prime Minister Theresa May's National Security Adviser, to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1st May 2018 has now revealed that all the claims about a breakthrough in the Skripal case – not to mention the claims about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – were (as I suspected) nonsense.

Here is how Sir Mark Sedwill's testimony is reported by The Guardian

Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security adviser has disclosed.

The comments by Sir Mark Sedwill punctured hopes that the police and other security agencies had pinpointed suspects but were withholding the name or names from the public.

Asked by an MP at a Commons defence committee hearing if he knew the individuals responsible, he replied curtly: "Not yet."

Sedwill, who coordinates the work of the MI6, MI5, the surveillance agency GCHQ and others, did not elaborate but among problems that have hampered the agencies is a lack of CCTV coverage in Salisbury compared with London. Known Russian spies based in Britain have also been investigated and ruled out.

In other words the investigation is going nowhere and has drawn a complete blank.

All this comes hot on the heels of suggestions – which are very likely true – that the wall of silence which has recently descended on the British media's reporting of the Skripal case is the product of a British government D-Notice , ie. of a formal request by the British government to the media to limit their coverage of the Skripal story on grounds of national security.

It has also been suggested that despite formal denials the most likely reason for the D-Notice is the desire of the British authorities to conceal a possible connection between Sergey Skripal, his former MI6 controller Pablo Miller, and Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier.

There are even suggestions that Sergey Skripal may have had a hand in producing the Trump Dossier, and that this was the reason for the attack on him.

Whilst all this may be true, I have to say that Sergey Skripal – identified as a British spy by the Russians in 2004 and isolated from Russia in the leafy British town of Salisbury since 2010 – seems an unlikely source for the Trump Dossier, largely fictitious though that strange concoction is.

[May 02, 2018] Sanctimonious liar James Comey s Forgotten Rescue Of Bush-Era Torture

While Mueller claim to fame was his handing of 9/11 investigation, Comey made his mark in approval of torture...
May 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by James Bovard via The Mises Institute,

" Here I stand, I can do no other," James Comey told President George W. Bush in 2004 when Bush pressured Comey - who was then Deputy Attorney General - to approve an unlawful antiterrorist policy.

Comey, who was FBI chief from 2013 to 2017, was quoting a line reputedly uttered by Martin Luther in 1521, when he told Holy Roman Emperor Charles V that he would not recan t his sweeping criticisms of the Catholic Church. Comey's quotation of himself quoting the father of the Reformation is par for the self-reverence of his new memoir, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership .

MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently declared, "James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He was a made man before Trump came along." Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria , in a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers like Comey, declared, "The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful. Comey believed they were not... So Comey pushed back as much as he could."

Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the heresies of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker, found a safer way to oppose the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values. Comey approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the optics.

Comey became Deputy Attorney General in late 2003 and " had oversight of the legal justification used to authorize " key Bush programs in the war on terror. At that time, the Bush White House was pushing the Justice Department to again sign off on an array of extreme practices that had begun shortly after the 9/11 attacks. A 2002 Justice Department memo had leaked out that declared that the president was entitled to ignore federal law in approving extreme interrogation techniques. Photos had also leaked from Abu Ghraib prison showing the stacking of naked prisoners with bags over their heads, mock electrocution via a wire connected to a man's penis, guard dogs on the verge of ripping into naked men, and grinning U.S. male and female soldiers celebrating the bloody degradation. A confidential CIA Inspector General report had just warned that post-9/11 CIA interrogation methods may violate the international Convention Against Torture .

Rather than ending the abuses, Comey repudiated the memo. Speaking to the media in a not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004, Comey declared that the 2002 memo was "overbroad," "abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary ." Comey helped oversee crafting a new memo with different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.

Comey twice gave explicit approval for waterboardin g, which sought to break detainees with near-drowning.

This practice had been recognized as a war crime by the U.S. government since the Spanish American War .

Comey wrote in his memoir that he was losing sleep over concern about Bush administration torture polices. But losing sleep was not an option for detainees because Comey approved sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique . Detainees could be forcibly kept awake for up to 180 hours until they confessed their sins. How did this work? At Abu Ghraib, the notorious Iraqi prison, one FBI agent reported seeing a detainee " handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake ."

Comey also approved " wall slamming" -- which, as law professor David Cole wrote, meant that detainees could be thrown against a wall up to 30 times . Comey also signed off on the CIA using "interrogation" methods such as facial slaps, locking detainees in small boxes for 18 hours, and forced nudity. When the secret Comey memo approving those methods finally became public in 2009 , many Americans were aghast - and relieved that the Obama administration had repudiated Bush policies .

When it came to opposing torture, Comey's version of "Here I stand" had more loopholes than a reverse mortgage contract. Though Comey in 2005 approved each of 13 controversial extreme interrogation methods , he objected to combining multiple methods on one detainee. It was as if Martin Luther grudgingly approved of the Catholic Church selling indulgences to individually expunge sins for adultery, robbery, lying, and gluttony but vehemently objected if all the sins were expunged in one lump sum payment.

In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a massive report, Americans learned grisly details of the CIA torture regime that Comey helped legally sanctify - including death via hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and dozens of cases of innocent people pointlessly brutalized. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of prisoners. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture scandal was courageous whistleblower John Kiriakou.

If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to abhor, he would deserve some of the praise he is now receiving. Instead, he remained in the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that "it was my job to protect the department and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted that Comey and two colleagues "have largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because they raised questions about interrogation and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to convey sainthood.

When Comey finally exited the Justice Department in August 2005 to become a lavishly-paid senior vice president for Lockheed Martin , he proclaimed in a farewell speech that protecting the Justice Department's "reservoir" of "trust and credibility" requires "vigilance" and "an unerring commitment to truth ." But Comey perpetuated policies that shattered the moral credibility of both the Justice Department and the U.S. government.

Comey failed to heed another Martin Luther admonition: " You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say ."

Vote up! 7 Vote down! 0

enough of this Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:05 Permalink

The guy is a sanctimonious liar.

beepbop -> enough of this Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:20 Permalink

Torture is just a symptom of a BIGGER problem, and Paying lip service to Christianity is their way of hiding what they're really doing:

US Politicians have set aside the country's Christian roots and

fully embraced Satanic-Talmudic ways to please Israhell,

the Scourge of Empires .

???ö? -> beepbop Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:32 Permalink

I was against Comey, then I was for Comey, and now I'm against Comey again.

ˎ.l..

MillionDollarButter -> ???ö? Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:35 Permalink

"We all voted for Hillary." -The Bushes

P.S. Don't trust the plan, the plan is Greater Israel.

gigadeath Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:06 Permalink

A saint with a capital s. /S

WTFUD Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:09 Permalink

Lockheed, heard that name before, can't quite place it, it'll come back to me, every day in my nightmares.

DiggingInTheDirt Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:49 Permalink

Fl*ck Comey. OMG. I've been wanting to puke into a wastebasket over all of Comey's crap lately. Actually, wanting to puke is one of my best bullshit barometers. He's a lying sack of shit, strutting his sanctimonious arrogance all over the tee-vee. Meanwhile back home his family of women wear pink hats to protest Trump. Wonder if James the Great told his family members he approved torture?

Neochrome Tue, 05/01/2018 - 23:58 Permalink

Keeping his back to the wall and stabbing others from behind...

And it worked until it didn't work anymore.

Aireannpure Wed, 05/02/2018 - 00:17 Permalink

Bush was torture. Bowf of dem.

[May 02, 2018] Popularity of a government or leader or regime is not a guarantee that a well led "color Revolution" will fail.

May 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

CarlD , May 1, 2018 5:59:36 PM | 60

Laguerre 53

Popularity of a government or leader or regime is not a guarantee that a well led "color Revolution" will fail.

There have been instances of very popular government succumbing to well orchestrated and funded "regime change " operations.

There are always, in any country people longing for power and riches and impervious enough to the well being of their compatriots to
play into the hands of those that promise riches and POWER.

Look at Muammar Gaddafi's demise! what else could a Lybian want? Cuddled from birth to death, financed all the way to riches, swiss style local decisions.. And yet...

JC "Baby Doc" Duvalier was very popular at the time of his removal from power. Probably the best Chief of State Haiti had in the past 70 years. But the CIA and the State Dept. obtained his resignation in two years.

Dilma Youssef was certainly popular but through hook and crook she was ousted from power. Making a travesty of justice is easy with cash loaded suitcases. And killing any dissenting judge is as easy as sabotaging his private plane.

There are many other examples of this.

Economic elites do not like social oriented governments that reduce their profits. And will find a way to ditch all regimes that do not play victorian capitalistic schemes of government.

[May 01, 2018] Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right

Notable quotes:
"... I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions. ..."
May 01, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

@ anon with the Niki Haley approval rating of 63% etc.

I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions.

The current geo-political world is exposing all sorts of folks that support what I call the God of Mammon narrative and their associated moral failings. As a species it is way past time that we confront the centuries old assumptions that make up our "social contract"...such as it is/is not.

The Netanyahoo circus is not the underlying friction in our world. The underlying friction in our world is about debt, global/local investment and the cost of doing business including geo-political stability. We have enough food to feed everyone but there are distribution problems because of greed and social control desires. The same is true for housing, health care, education, etc. Our current social contract precludes everyone from having all those things because our social contract says that in the Western world all the tools of finance shall be owned/controlled privately. And furthermore that social contract (didn't you sign it?) says that there are these rules called laws that give not only "ownership" but that ownership in perpetuity through other rules/laws of inheritance to individuals/families.

IMO, if we want to change the world for the better or ever to save our asses we need to confront the underlying social contract that none ever discuss openly.

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 1, 2018 1:35:14 AM | 129

@fastfreddy 17

Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right. However zionists probably like that in their manchurian candidates. See this thread from the saker... note her zionist righthand man, jon lerner...


https://thesaker.is/moveable-feast-cafe-2018-04-23/

" Nikki Haley: Scarier than John Bolton?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/nikki-haley-scarier-than-john-bolton/5637795

"In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who surfaced in the news lately after she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't get confused."

For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.

Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. "

"
Anonymous on April 26, 2018 · at 2:24 pm EST/EDT
One might be inclined to dismiss Haley as another sarah palin, not too bright. This shows she might become relevant as a zionist manchurian candidate. They already seem to be grooming her. See the article below about her key aide, jonlerner

Zionists may prefer not-too-bright frontmen because they can be more easily controlled, think georgewbush, ronaldreagan, donaldtrump etc someone who is too bright might think themselves out of their control e.g. billclinton started off strongly proisrael, but by the end he becoming more savvy about israel his wifes political ambitions may have shorted that,

https://forward.com/news/national/389760/5-things-to-know-about-nikki-haleys-jewish-right-hand-man-jon-lerner/

" 5 Things To Know About Nikki Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner

Nathan Guttman December 11, 2017

He holds a senior position in the Trump administration and has made a name for himself as one of the most successful political consultants, yet Jon Lerner, manages to steer clear from the spotlight. Currently serving as America's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, under Nikki Haley, Lerner, 49, was recently described in a New York Magazine article as "the No. 1 person [Haley] listens to," and with speculations that Haley's political ambition could lead her all the way to the White House, Lerner is the man to follow.

Here are a few facts about Jon Lerner:

He May Pave Haley's Road to the White House

The New York Magazine reported that Lerner "has a long-term plan for Haley, and he is there to make sure nothing derails it." This long term plan began back in South Carolina when Lerner managed Haley's 2010 successful gubernatorial race and maintained its momentum when she entered the Trump administration as top United Nations representative. Lerner was appointed deputy ambassador but stayed behind to run Haley's Washington office.

senator Jim DeMint, [described] Lerner as having "a very good strategic mind."

"Where I follow my gut, Jon relies on facts and the statistics he finds in his polling," Haley wrote in her 2012 autobiography "

Reply

Anonymous on April 30, 2018 · at 4:41 am EST/EDT
nikki haley is the most popular active politician in america, with 63% approval, trump 39% ( obama is top 66%) in one poll. perhaps this shows the ongoing crumbling of american democracy, the principled design of its fundamental institutions (like the elections, the press, the supremecourt etc) being massively gamed in reality by the minions of the 1%.., sad !!

http://theduran.com/americas-most-popular-politician-is-nikki-haley/ "

Posted by: anon | May 1, 2018 12:33:13 AM | 122

[May 01, 2018] It is disgusting how anti-war pre-president Trump becomes Hillary copycat after election: another Obama-style bait and switch maneuver to deceive US electorate

Notable quotes:
"... disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has... ..."
"... The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. ..."
"... I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests. ..."
"... IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero. ..."
"... Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire. ..."
May 01, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Not that there was much doubt who was behind it, but two days after "enemy" warplanes attacked a Syrian military base near Hama on Sunday, killing at least 11 Iranians and dozens of others, and nobody had yet "claimed responsibility" the attack, US officials told NBC that it was indeed Israeli F-15 fighter jets that struck the base, NBC News reported .

Ominously, the officials said Israel appears to be preparing for open warfare with Iran and is seeking U.S. help and support .

"On the list of the potentials for most likely live hostility around the world, the battle between Israel and Iran in Syria is at the top of the list right now," said one senior U.S. official.

The US officials told NBC that Israeli F-15s hit Hama after Iran delivered weapons to a base that houses Iran's 47th Brigade, including surface-to-air missiles. In addition to killing two dozen troops, including officers, the strike wounded three dozen others. The report adds that the U.S. officials believe the shipments were intended for Iranian ground forces that would attack Israel.

Meanwhile, as we reported yesterday, the Syrian army said early on Monday that "enemy" rockets struck military bases belonging to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. According to several outlets, the strikes targeted the 47th Brigade base in the southern Hama district, a military facility in northwestern Hama and a facility north of the Aleppo International Airport.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday that Israel on Tuesday morning had four problems, one more than the day before: "Iran, Iran, Iran and hypocrisy." The comment came one day after Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu "revealed" a cache of documents the Mossad stole from Iran detailing the country's nuclear program, which however critics said were i) old and ii) not indicative of Iran's current plans.

"This is the same Iran that cracks down on freedom of expression and on minorities. The same Iran that tried to develop nuclear weapons and entered the [nuclear] deal for economic benefits," Lieberman said.

"The same Iran is trying to hide its weapons while everyone ignores it. The state of Israel cannot ignore Iran's threats, Iran, whose senior officials promise to wipe out Israel," he said. "They are trying to harm us, and we'll have a response.

Iran's Defense Minister Amir Khatami threatened Israel on Tuesday, saying it should stop its "dangerous behavior" and vowing that the "Iranian response will be surprising and you will regret it." Khatami's remarks came Following Netanyahu's speech which Khatami described as Israeli "provocative actions," and two days after the strikes in Syria.

* * *

Meanwhile, in a potential hint at the upcoming conflict, Haaretz writes that two and a half weeks after the bombing in which seven members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards were killed at the T4 base in Syria, Israel is bracing for an Iranian retaliation for the Syrian strikes (and if one isn't forthcoming, well that's what false flags are for).

As Haaretz writes, the Iranians' response, despite their frequent threats of revenge, is being postponed, screwing up Iran's war planning. It's also possible that as time passes, Tehran is becoming more aware of the possible complex consequences of any action. Still, the working assumption of Israeli defense officials remains that such a response is highly probable.

The Iranians appear to have many options. Revenge could come on the Syrian border, from the Lebanese border via Hezbollah, directly from Iran by the launch of long-range missiles, or against an Israeli target abroad. In past decades Iran and Hezbollah took part, separately and together, in two attacks in Argentina, a suicide attack in Bulgaria and attempts to strike at Israeli diplomats and tourists in countries including India, Thailand and Azerbaijan.

In any case, Lebanon seems all but out of bounds until the country's May 6 parliamentary elections, and amid Hezbollah's fear of being portrayed as an Iranian puppet. The firing of missiles from Iran would exacerbate the claims about Tehran's missile project a moment before a possible U.S. decision on May 12 to abandon the nuclear agreement. Also, a strike at a target far from the Middle East would require long preparation.

* * *

For now, an Israeli war with Iran in Syria is far from inevitable: the clash of intentions is clear: Iran is establishing itself militarily in Syria and Israel has declared that it will prevent that by force. The question, of course, is whether this unstable equilibrium will devolve into a lethal escalation, or if it will somehow be resolved through peaceful negotiation. Unfortunately, in the context of recent events, and the upcoming breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal, the former is looking like the most likely outcome.

BullyBearish -> FireBrander Tue, 05/01/2018 - 13:30 Permalink

disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has...

Chupacabra-322 -> BullyBearish Tue, 05/01/2018 - 13:36 Permalink

The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. The Western-globalist-Zio-hawk Axis no doubt feels it has to act now against Iran in case everything settles down in the ME with the Syrian war cooling off. Any expansion of Israeli turf or getting control of resources to the north would be stymied with further waiting and allowing both Syrian and Iranian defense systems to be further fortified. The Israelis appear to be completely confident that if they can instigate a war with Iran that it will be backed by the US, the UK, France and other NATO nations.

That confidence could only come from the Western elites running things. However, after their last fizzled false-flag poison-gas attack in Syria, the support by many NATO nations for more Axis aggression may not be that solid. So what does the Israeli tough talk and threats mean at this time? Perhaps it means that Israel is in the process of concocting a massive and much more sophisticated false-flag attack, like the taking out of a US war ship and blaming Iran for starting the war.

Remember Five points:

  1. Isreal will fight to the very last American Soldiers Death.
  2. The Zionist screams in Pain as he Stikes you.
  3. The Yinon Plan.
  4. Operation TALPIOT.
  5. Qatari Pipeline Petro Dollar Vs. Russia / China Petro Yaun.

One bright aspect is the Anti-Isreal / Jew Zionist movement is gaining steam. More & more Individuals are speaking openly against Israel's War Crimes, False Flag involvements, The Yinon Plan along with Pro Zionist immigrantion policy of migrating Muslim's & Arabs to the EU & US without fear of retribution. Pro migration policy which supports territory boarder expansion via the Yinon Plan & ethnic cleansing & migration of Arabs & Muslim's.

Not to mention the Billions in US foreign aid, AIPAC, ZioNeoConFascist NGO's & dual Israeli Citizen's which hold Political Office in CONgress. Which must be outlawed.

Jackrabbit , May 1, 2018 3:44:58 PM | 31
As people become more disillusioned with Trump I think it's worthwhile to spend a moment to take stock of what happened in th 2016 election.

1) The US President is the primary determinant of US foreign and military power. The President is much weaker when addressing domestic policy / internal affairs. Any small, paranoid nation with ambitious plans in its neighborhood would want ensure that they have the President's ear ( or his balls). Too much at stake to take chances. And political influence is even easier when you've developed close relation with an oil-rich ally (Saudis) with deep pockets.

2) US democracy is money-driven and no real populist stands much of a chance.

3) Despite a groundswell of discontent on both the left and the right, here were only two populists that ran in the election (note: I'm not counting Rand Paul's because he didn't make an outright populist appeal - he merely spoke in a sensible way.

4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers". Trump is kept in line by the allegation of Russian interference.

5) "Never Trump-ers" were mainly Jewish (AFAIK) and almost certainly pro-Israel. The Never Trump campaign began in earnest with Kagan's Op-Ed in February 2016 ( some might date it to Bloomberg's public statement in January 2016 that neither Sanders or Trump could be allowed to win).

6) AFAIK Pro-Israel oligarchs (like Saban, Soros, Bloomberg) are big donors to Democratic Party. Hillarry and DNC are known to have colluded against 'sheep-dog' Sanders. Wouldn't Hillary just as easily collide FOR Trump (the Cinton's And Trump's are known to have had close ties - and their daughters are still close).

I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests.

IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero.

Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire.

Jackrabbit , May 1, 2018 3:58:01 PM | 33
I should point out that "kept in line" (point #4) appears to be a convenience needed to excuse the faux populist's betrayals.

Both Obama and Trump seem more than willing to do as they are told.

And don't bother citing Obama's Iran deal as "proof" that Obama was independent. IMO That deal was made simply to buy time because regime-change in Syria was taking longer than expected. It is foolish to think that Obama did everything the establishment wanted but refused IN THAT ONE MATTER.

[May 01, 2018] I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is going on in the Syria theater.

Notable quotes:
"... Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by forces on the ground all around it. ..."
"... No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does. ..."
"... Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation. It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are very different, and create different tactics. ..."
"... I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this site. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria, or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground. ..."
"... Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi. ..."
May 01, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved | Apr 30, 2018 9:24:11 PM | 107

Thanks to posters for links to Garrie on a possible "white hat" false flag and to Magnier for a plum-rich storytelling of how Israel is on the losing end of a shift in the balance of power, something that as yet it cannot admit to itself.

Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by forces on the ground all around it.

I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is going on in the Syria theater. Russian commanders are in constant contact with all forces that bear on the situation, including those of the US, and Israel. And Putin has spelled out on numerous occasions - in interviews, from the Valdai Club, from his remarks directly to journalists and his people - what the empire is doing.

No one has lost face in this latest event, except Israel with Netanyahu's inane presentation, currently being called out as empty by Europeans.

No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does.

Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation. It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are very different, and create different tactics.

With each situation that Russia confronts, from military attacks to diplomatic property seizures, Russia looks for the peace dividend. Armchair punters are watching one horse race, while Russia is looking decades down the road and asking what it takes to create stability that endures, out of each situation.

Don Bacon , Apr 30, 2018 10:13:44 PM | 113
@Grieved 107

Yes, some don't appreciate the giant step that Putin took moving into Syria to oppose The Leader Of The Free World™ with its president Obama threatening that Russians would soon be going home in body-bags.

But Russia survived and endured, and made a major point that right can win over might.

The strategy was brave and the tactics were revolutionary, including the busing of combatants away from combat. Credit where credit is due, Putin is a winner at home and abroad, as in Syria (and Crimea, BTW).

Activist Potato | May 1, 2018 1:04:41 AM | 123

"I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is going on in the Syria theater." Posted by: Grieved | Apr 30, 2018 9:24:11 PM | 107

I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this site.

The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria, or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground.

Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi.

Castellio | May 1, 2018 1:14:02 AM | 125

Putin sees the west much more clearly than the west sees him.

[May 01, 2018] Smut Night at the Press Dinner by Pat Buchanan

May 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner, billed as a celebration of the First Amendment and a tribute to journalists who "speak truth to power," has to be the worst advertisement in memory for our national press corps.

Comedian Michelle Wolf, the guest speaker, recited one filthy joke after another at the expense of President Trump and his people, using words that would have gotten her kicked out of school not so long ago.

Media critic Howard Kurtz said he had "never seen a performance like that," adding that Wolf "was not only nasty but dropping F-bombs on live television." Some of her stuff was grungier than that.

The anti-Trump media at the black-tie dinner laughed and whooped it up, and occasionally "oohed" as Wolf went too far even for them, lending confirmation to Trump's depiction of who and what they are.

While the journalistic elite at the black-tie dinner was reveling in the raw sewage served up by Wolf, Trump had just wrapped up a rally in Michigan.

The contrast between the two assemblies could not have been more stark. We are truly two Americas now.

"Why would I want to be stuck in a room with a bunch of fake-news liberals who hate me?" said Trump in an email to supporters, adding that he would much rather "spend the evening with my favorite deplorables who love our movement and love America."

[May 01, 2018] Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right

Notable quotes:
"... I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions. ..."
May 01, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

@ anon with the Niki Haley approval rating of 63% etc.

I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions.

The current geo-political world is exposing all sorts of folks that support what I call the God of Mammon narrative and their associated moral failings. As a species it is way past time that we confront the centuries old assumptions that make up our "social contract"...such as it is/is not.

The Netanyahoo circus is not the underlying friction in our world. The underlying friction in our world is about debt, global/local investment and the cost of doing business including geo-political stability. We have enough food to feed everyone but there are distribution problems because of greed and social control desires. The same is true for housing, health care, education, etc. Our current social contract precludes everyone from having all those things because our social contract says that in the Western world all the tools of finance shall be owned/controlled privately. And furthermore that social contract (didn't you sign it?) says that there are these rules called laws that give not only "ownership" but that ownership in perpetuity through other rules/laws of inheritance to individuals/families.

IMO, if we want to change the world for the better or ever to save our asses we need to confront the underlying social contract that none ever discuss openly.

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 1, 2018 1:35:14 AM | 129

@fastfreddy 17

Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right. However zionists probably like that in their manchurian candidates. See this thread from the saker... note her zionist righthand man, jon lerner...


https://thesaker.is/moveable-feast-cafe-2018-04-23/

" Nikki Haley: Scarier than John Bolton?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/nikki-haley-scarier-than-john-bolton/5637795

"In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who surfaced in the news lately after she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't get confused."

For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.

Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. "

"
Anonymous on April 26, 2018 · at 2:24 pm EST/EDT
One might be inclined to dismiss Haley as another sarah palin, not too bright. This shows she might become relevant as a zionist manchurian candidate. They already seem to be grooming her. See the article below about her key aide, jonlerner

Zionists may prefer not-too-bright frontmen because they can be more easily controlled, think georgewbush, ronaldreagan, donaldtrump etc someone who is too bright might think themselves out of their control e.g. billclinton started off strongly proisrael, but by the end he becoming more savvy about israel his wifes political ambitions may have shorted that,

https://forward.com/news/national/389760/5-things-to-know-about-nikki-haleys-jewish-right-hand-man-jon-lerner/

" 5 Things To Know About Nikki Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner

Nathan Guttman December 11, 2017

He holds a senior position in the Trump administration and has made a name for himself as one of the most successful political consultants, yet Jon Lerner, manages to steer clear from the spotlight. Currently serving as America's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, under Nikki Haley, Lerner, 49, was recently described in a New York Magazine article as "the No. 1 person [Haley] listens to," and with speculations that Haley's political ambition could lead her all the way to the White House, Lerner is the man to follow.

Here are a few facts about Jon Lerner:

He May Pave Haley's Road to the White House

The New York Magazine reported that Lerner "has a long-term plan for Haley, and he is there to make sure nothing derails it." This long term plan began back in South Carolina when Lerner managed Haley's 2010 successful gubernatorial race and maintained its momentum when she entered the Trump administration as top United Nations representative. Lerner was appointed deputy ambassador but stayed behind to run Haley's Washington office.

senator Jim DeMint, [described] Lerner as having "a very good strategic mind."

"Where I follow my gut, Jon relies on facts and the statistics he finds in his polling," Haley wrote in her 2012 autobiography "

Reply

Anonymous on April 30, 2018 · at 4:41 am EST/EDT
nikki haley is the most popular active politician in america, with 63% approval, trump 39% ( obama is top 66%) in one poll. perhaps this shows the ongoing crumbling of american democracy, the principled design of its fundamental institutions (like the elections, the press, the supremecourt etc) being massively gamed in reality by the minions of the 1%.., sad !!

http://theduran.com/americas-most-popular-politician-is-nikki-haley/ "

Posted by: anon | May 1, 2018 12:33:13 AM | 122

[Apr 30, 2018] If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician

Apr 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kalen , Apr 30, 2018 3:16:34 PM | 37

If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician hence I suggest, lock the US insane asylum and throw out the key, since now anything will be blabbermouthed and nothing of substance will really happen except some unwitting crisis actors will die, a fact of inhumane cruelty of imperial rulers.

Where are dire warnings from Russia about severe consequences if Syria attacked.
Russians lost credibility of their threats which is even worse if they have never made them.

I do not know what it would take for people to see what cruel charade all this is, what would it take for people to realize that it is all Roman type of theater of wilderness and pain and we are audience and targets of this propaganda of fear of global nuke war and destruction that they want us to believe is behind all this cruel soap opera.

There will be no global war since there are no fundamental conflicts within global elites despite what propaganda from all sides claims and that including b, trying to make sense of utter unadulterated nonsense of MSM, for those establishment people in west who are already in it are not idiots but rational people who do that immoral, opportunist job for money knowing what they lie about, knowing that there is no danger of global nuke catastrophe whatsoever, otherwise they would act more sober like it was during Cold War.

However, there is logic in this madness, namely to forcefully align nations with discredited ruling elites who attempt to take role of saviors, when no other method of control over population works any more and policies of deliberated destruction of welfare and civil society, openly provoked mass unrest or revolution and instigated natural growth of working class movements in self defense. Warmongering was classical ploy against discontented population used many times in history and nor mere speculation.

Spreading of fear of global anihilation among populations is the ultimate objective of this unheard of verbal and acting belligerence on world stage, which upon examination of basic socioeconomic facts especially soundness and calm of global financial system indicates mood of world peace and love among oligarchic elites who have a good thing going while sheeple are orderly dying of starvation and fear.

But I guess even on this quite brainy blog people are more interested in menacing tabloid surrealism than boring naked truth. Otherwise, b would not have much to write about in his devastating reports on masive MSM lying, with implicit hope that one day may be NYT writes some truth.

It ain's gonna happen b , their business is lies yo

[Apr 30, 2018] Mike Pompeo who has been responsible for the effort to stop CIA support for ISIS, on directions from Donald J. Trump and the Pentagon faction which essentially controls the White House

Apr 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Fec | Apr 29, 2018 9:34:08 PM | 30

@ 28 Chipnik

Another opinion was posited here recently.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/syria-iraq-us-cuddles-isis-others-plan-for-the-final-fight.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef0224e0348326200d

Recall it is Mike Pompeo who has been responsible for the effort to stop CIA support for ISIS, on directions from Donald J. Trump and the Pentagon faction which essentially controls the White House.

Mike Pompeo was President of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment company and close partner of Koch Industries. Also recall the recent meeting between the heads of the FSB and SVR, Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin, received by Pompeo, then director of the CIA, and Dan Coats, director of National Intelligence.

Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin Secretly Received in the United States

http://www.voltairenet.org/article199603.html

In hindsight this meeting appears to have been a strategy session conducted by extremely important high level individuals from Russia with their 'partners' in the United States.

The meeting occurred immediately before the firing of Rex Tillerson, an agent of the UK-Rothchild 'Octopus,' which effectively controls Exxon-Mobil (the Rockefellers sold their interest several years ago) of which Tillerson was formerly head. Tillerson, who once ran the foreign policies of multiple countries dominated by Exxon-Mobil including Qatar, was said to have been caught red-handed by the NSA under James Kelly, of assisting the UK conspiracy to launch a chemical false flag attack in Eastern Ghouta, the discovery of which led to Tillerson's unceremonious dismissal by Donald Trump via Twitter, a truly unprecedented way to fire a US Secretary of State.

[Apr 30, 2018] Mueller s past is so laden with misfeasance and malfeasance that he should have been disbarred a few decades ago

Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
Apr 30, 2018 | www.unz.com

NoseytheDuke , April 23, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT

@renfro

I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen it?

Is there corruption in DC?

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..

Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton Foundation were declared.

Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.

Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine, Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.

It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.

Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.

The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it?? Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.

Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943).. while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..

Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than, Rod Rosenstein.

Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!

Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?

No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward to 2015.

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.

He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State which was required by law.

He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey. Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!

Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes there. Nothing here to report --

Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.

The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of the American Justice System ..

Can you see the pattern?

It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.

FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players. All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.

Twodees Partain , April 23, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

More on Mueller for renfro, who seems to think that Mueller has some kind of integrity hidden somewhere:

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/05/robert-mueller-the-old-fixer-is-back-in-town/

[Apr 30, 2018] Stormy Daniels Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Trump Zero Hedge

Apr 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Stormy Daniels' legal team - led by lawyer Michael Avenatti - must be getting bored since a federal judge in Los Angeles ordered a 90-day delay of her lawsuit against President Trump and his former personal attorney Mike Cohen (who has promised to plead the fifth during the proceedings). Because Stormy has filed another defamation lawsuit, this time exclusively against President Trump, as Reuters reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New York on Monday, seeks damages from Trump for a tweet he sent earlier this month where he criticized a composite sketch that, Daniels said, depicted a man who had threatened her in 2011. He reportedly demanded that she stay quiet about her sexual encounter with Trump. That would've been around the time she gave an interview about her affair with Trump to In Touch magazine which wasn't published until recently.

Her previous lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, sought to have her released from an NDA she signed shortly before the 2016 vote where she also accepted a $130,000 "hush money" payment from Cohen.

"A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!," Trump said.

me title=

According to the filing, cited by the Associate Press and Reuters, the tweet was "false and defamatory" arguing that Trump knew what he was saying out Daniels' claim was false and also disparaging.

The lawsuit also claims Daniels has been exposed to death threats and other threats of "physical violence."

Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages.

"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.

As the Associated Press points out, Daniels, aided by Avenatti, has sought to keep her case in the public eye. She revealed the sketch that Trump mocked during an appearance on the View earlier this month. Trump is facing another defamation lawsuit in New York, this one filed by Summer Zervos, a former "The Apprentice" contestant who says Trump made unwanted sexual contact with her in 2007. She sued him after Trump dismissed her claims. 0

Slippery Slope -> JimmyJones Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:23 Permalink

When does her 15 minutes end?

bobbbny -> Bitchface-KILLAH Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:24 Permalink

Just like herpes she won't go away.

beepbop -> bobbbny Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:25 Permalink

The LAWSUITS will keep on coming

until Trump agrees to Satanyahoo's ULTIMATUM

of destroying SYRIA and IRAN.

TheWholeYearInn -> beepbop Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

" Now, that your tastes at this time should incline towards the juvenile is understandable; but for you to marry that boy would be a disaster. Because there's two kinds of women. There are two kinds of women and you, as we well know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut. "

~Komarovsky

Ghost of Porky -> TheWholeYearInn Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:33 Permalink

Stormy's parents are Trump supporters and Stormy hates them.

This is all a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Shitonya Serfs -> Ghost of Porky Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:34 Permalink

"you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences"

#MeToo

Bitchface-KILLAH -> Stan522 Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:27 Permalink

Monica Lewinsky... good family, intern... major credibility problems according to MSM.

Stormy Daniels... washed up porno actress... MSM "sure we'll roll with that"

tmosley Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:22 Permalink

She literally sketched her old boyfriend.

That will happen when you are describing what someone who doesn't exist looks like. You picture someone you know and make them look like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy9Z-Tg6ufU

ZH FNG Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

On an earlier Stormy story, someone posted these words of wisdom about intimacy:

A gentleman never talks,

And a whore never shuts up.

jmack Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.

oh the irony.

sister tika Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

This cow makes me nauseous. She's a pathetic, has-been punch whose only motivation is (more) money.

Mzhen Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

Communication purportedly from Stormy to a friend, where she again denied the sex ever happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbtS8LdTUfI&t=336s

Fox-Scully Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

"We intend on teaching THE PRESS that you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.

Now it is correct.

Stevious Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:34 Permalink

To prove damages under defamation first someone must believe the defamatory content and second, more importantly, damage must have been done.

Damage what, to the reputation of a stripper?

JoeTurner Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:39 Permalink

Who's paying this filthy whore ? Where are the "journalists" to follow the money ?

wally_12 Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:40 Permalink

Sold out performance at the strip club in Detroit. Trying to squeeze out as much as possible before her boobs and butt sag lower.

NYC80 Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:47 Permalink

It has to be really, really hard to defame a porn star.

Hikikomori Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:49 Permalink

Interesting that the Great White Hope of the Democrats in 2018 is a blackmailing prostitute. On the other hand, probably better than Hillary....

SmittyinLA Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:55 Permalink

Damages? What damages? Her income has no doubt spiked.

No case, no damages, nobody givesashit.

Al Huxley Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:56 Permalink

That's why they're called gold digging whores.

[Apr 30, 2018] They got Putin by the balls with russia histing the Would Cup or something more complex is playing out in Syria and Iran

Apr 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Passer by , Apr 30, 2018 3:53:05 PM | 45

Putin blocking the delivery of S-300 in Syria against the demands of the Russian Military

This was discussed by Putin with General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu on April 20. The Russian military, they told the President, want the go-ahead to deploy S-300 missile batteries to cover Syrian and Iranian forces against US and Israeli attack from the air. They believe Israeli threats to attack the S-300 batteries as soon as they are operational are a bluff which Russia must call if Russia's positions in Syria, and Iran itself, are not to come under subsequent attack from the American-Israeli combination. Testing the threat in Syria, they argue, is the less threatening, less costly option than encouraging the Americans and Israelis to prepare their
offensive against Iran. Putin won't agree.

To respond to Putin's reluctance, the General Staff and the Defence Ministry have devised a step short of the S-300, but with potentially enough defensive power to intercept or deter American and Israeli air attacks. This is the deployment of more Russian electronic warfare systems with the capacity to jam the surveillance, targeting, fire control and command signals on which the attackers rely. It is the Samson Haircut option – deprive the giant of control of his firepower, blind him.

Silently, Putin has decided to protect Deripaska; not to call the US attack on Rusal an act of war; and to test the Americans with an offer of armistice. International bankers close to Russian business believe it is a Russian illusion that an armistice with the US can be anything but temporary; pursuing it is a miscalculation of US intentions, the sources add. They warn that new attacks will come.

http://johnhelmer.net/the-samson-haircut-option-one-step-before-russia-opens-fire-on-american-israeli-forces/#more-19116

Putin Reportedly "Ready For Deep Concessions", Seeks Deal With Trump

He understands Russia can't compete with the West economically and he doesn't plan to go to war with the West.

Kremlin has ordered officials to curb their anti-U.S. rhetoric.

Putin's decision explains why lawmakers Monday suddenly pulled a draft law that would've imposed sweeping counter-sanctions on U.S. companies, two of the people said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-18/putin-reportedly-ready-deep-concessions-seeks-deal-trump

Russian Senators to soften counter sanctions against US

RBC: Russian senators to water down Moscow's response to US sanctions. Two Federation Council members told the newspaper that the final version of the amendments to the 'anti-sanctions' bill initiated by State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin and leaders of all parliamentary factions, will be "quite mild."

http://tass.com/pressreview/1001647

Russia not to take action against US diplomatic property - diplomat

More:
http://tass.com/politics/1002504

frances , Apr 30, 2018 4:02:55 PM | 48
Passer by | Apr 30, 2018 3:53:05 PM | 45
I believe Putin is playing for time. The March 1 weaponry display didn't include production numbers but I think it is a safe bet they don't exist in sufficient numbers..yet.

So US&Co have a small window left to create hell on earth for as many as possible and they IMO will hit Iran before the football playoffs that Putin so wants to go smoothly.

I would assume Iran is/was responsible for Iranian defense of these sites so I am surprised they didn't respond, maybe there was no time?? Couldn't Russia have warned them?? And does anyone know what weaponry the Russians brought into Syria recently under cover of smoke?

imoverit , Apr 30, 2018 4:20:46 PM | 55
@ frances

I think the World Cup is playing a big role in the decision making as you have said. There is a lot at stake: investments already made and international exposure also. I can't wait for it to be finished so we can get back to war !! (sarc)

karlof1 , Apr 30, 2018 4:45:37 PM | 61
Et al--

Russia began its Syria intervention with an S-400 deployed in Latakia and has introduced several more since, one being in Sept 2017 . Syria also has the BUK-M2E AA system and the Pantsir to go with its older and upgraded S-200 systems along with who knows what else. Just what was off loaded from Russian supply vessels under the cover of smoke last week (don't know if such veiling's continuing)? My guess is more AA systems of the type causing Zionists on both sides of Atlantic to freakout.

As for the Zionists attacking Iranian military bases, those Iran uses in Syria are joint-use with Syria regardless of what's said by Zionists; so, any such attack will need to be aimed at Iran proper. The consequences for the region would be horrible--particularly for Zionists and Saudis: Dimona would be leveled as would Saudi oil infrastructure. The fallout and other pollution would be appalling. If the Zionists want to keep their skin, they'll arrest Nutty before he gets his get-out-of-jail war started.

Zionists know they've lost and are contained and constrained, so they're moving into desperation mode. Too bad they lack the courage to put a pistol to their head and pull the trigger.

Jayhawk2018 , Apr 30, 2018 6:03:45 PM | 78
Russia could easily give Syria the s300 system. But Putin clearly does not want to hurt his buddy Netanyahu's feelings. They are always so chummy you can see there is a mutual respect between them whenever they meet. Russia is only in Syria to fight terrorism. They will obviously not confront Israel and go to war, and that is of course, understandable. But whats even worse is that they seem to refuse to give Syria/Iran the means to defend themselves from Israeli attacks.

If its true Putin is blocking the delivery himself against the request of the Russian Army, that is even more shameful. I guess in terms of preventing a World War, it is good that Putin is chummy with Netanyahu. However a regional war is looking very likely at this point. Unfortunately the only way Israel will learn is by being smashed in the teeth. I'm sure in time Syria, Iran or Hezbollah will have to teach them another lesson.

Pft , Apr 30, 2018 6:50:46 PM | 81
A lot of Russian oligarchs are dual Israeli or American -Russian citizens. Even in the Soviet era while they provided just enough support to prevent the Arab countries from being totally defeated they stopped short of giving them enough to threaten Israel or defeat them. Putin has made peace with a number of the oligarchs that remain in Russia but he has to take care not to get the pro Israeli -US faction riled or threaten their overseas financial interests which Trump has threatened to do with sanctions targeted at the oligarchs

So Russia will prevent Syria from being totally overwhelmed but concede the US the northeast oil rich fields and Israel gets the gas fields in Golan. They will allow isolated missile attacks and bombing by US and Israel that both resort to for show to appease their hawks. In the meantime if Assad has an accident or gets overthrown due to economic reasons then israel and US may get their puppet state and Russia/Iran may exit. Then on to Lebanon and Iran.

Wars are not fought to be won anymore. They are fought to be long lasting. Perpetual War Abroad is Peace at Home

[Apr 30, 2018] MoA - Netanyahoo To Again Cry Wolf - But Something Bigger Is Up (Updated)

With Russia neutralized by upcoming football World championship due to Putin's love for large sport events, there are preparation of something similar to Sochi events (EuroMaydan color revolution in Ukraine)
Notable quotes:
"... This can all be easily followed all the way back to before the Iranian nuclear deal and a policy paper out of Brookings on how to set up Iran for war. Basically, it states make a deal with Iran then prove that although the West did its best, Iran broke the deal in whatever manner. Appears they have all the actors lined up. Now it begins. The war of words then war. Like we haven't seen this before. ..."
"... I'd missed this: US-led jets bombed pro-Assad forces advancing on Deir Ezzor: Report http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-jets-bomb-pro-government-fighters-syria-operation-1276052674 International law anyone? Its dead in the west. ..."
"... doesn't make sense ...FUKUS does war on Iran, Iran closes the Gulf ...oil goes to 200/ barrel ....US does a superb imitation of a Dead Fly. ..."
"... Looks to me like Trump is groveling before the Saudis for keeping the petrodollar. ..."
"... Putin who sees only the reality that the US remains both enviably rich and powerful cannot understand how unstable and dangerous it has become. ..."
Apr 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Netanyahoo To Again Cry Wolf - But Something Bigger Is Up (Updated)

Updated below
---

U.S. President Trump wants to end the nuclear agreement (pdf) with Iran and wants to eliminated Iranian forces in Syria which support the Syrian government. Something is being prepared to make that happen.

Last week General Joseph Votel, commander of CENTCOM - the U.S. military command for the Middle East, was in Israel. It was the first ever visit of a CENTCOM commander to Israel which usually works with the European command EUCOM.

Yesterday former CIA director and now Secretary of State Pompeo visited Israel. A few hours later Israel bombed two ammunition depots in Syria which are supposedly related to Iran. This was a clear attempt to provoke Iran into some reaction.

The Israeli defense minister Lieberman just visited Washington DC and only today came back to Israel.

Now the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo loudly announced that he will hold a press conference to present a "huge amount of new and dramatic information on the Iranian nuclear program". He will allege that Iran cheats on the nuclear agreement (JCPOA).

Netanyahoo is a notorious liar and warmonger. In September 2002 he lied (vid) to the U.S. congress:

There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons – no question whatsoever"

Only yesterday he promoted a false story that claimed Arabs in Israel had disrupted a minuted of silence for some people killed in a flash flood.

The IAEA says that Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA. If there were any serious intelligence about any Iranian deviation from the nuclear agreement it would be presented to the IAEA and the six signature powers of the agreement. The IAEA would investigate and report back. If Iran cheated it would be put back under serious international sanctions. That Netanyahoo wants to present something publicly makes it very likely that he has nothing of relevance.

We hear that the documents he is said to present were compiled by one Christopher Steele and assembled with the help of one Sergej Skripal and his MI6 handler [redacted]. They will show that Iran attempts to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger .

This new comedy stunt by Netanyahoo is tightly coordinated with the Trump administration. Trump's national security advisor John Bolton has worked with the Zionists since early 2000 to push for a war on Iran:

During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran.

Behind Trump, Netanyahoo and Bolton is one financier, the militant Zionist and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He financed Trump's and Netanyahoo's election campaigns and the various think tanks that create anti-Iranian propaganda and paid Bolton.


bigger

Trump wants to leave the nuclear agreement but the other signers, China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany want to keep it up. Just leaving the JCPOA without cause will increase doubt over any agreement the U.S. wants to make on other issues. The allegations Netanyahoo will put forward, no matter how ridiculous they may be, could give Trump some excuse to put new sanctions on Iran without actually leaving the agreement.

But even that does not explain all the recent meetings and visits by the various Israeli and U.S. officials. French soldiers and mercenaries from the UAE have entered north-east-Syria. What for? The Saudis are on board with any operation against Iran.

Something big is up and we do not know yet what it might be.

---
Update

That was lame. Netanyahoo just finished his show (vid). He claimed that Israel got access to an Iranian archive of its former nuclear program dating from 1999 to 2003. In 2007 a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran stopped all nuclear weapon research in 2003 after the U.S. had destroyed Iran's then arch-enemy Iraq. In 2011 the IAEA reported in detail of Iran's former "structured program". It agreed that it had stopped in 2003.

All that Netanyahoo now claims to have acquired is old and known stuff. He refers to an AMAD plan Iran had as if that was some new intelligence. But the IAEA documented AMAD and its development in 2011 (PDF, Annex, page 5). He uses the archive documents of known former programs to declare that Iran has cheated and is not trustworthy. He says that gives Trump reason to disavow the nuclear agreement the U.S. and others had signed with Iran. That is bullshit.

I had expected better from him. Some well forged documents or something more dramatic. This was just nonsense.

My feeling is that this was a diversion from an upcoming military(?) operation against Iran or its assets in Lebanon, Syria or Iraq.

Fantome , Apr 30, 2018 1:18:54 PM | 1

Absolutely correct b. Something's cooking and it won't take long for the world to find out what it was.

Also, when responding to the Iranian threats to re-start their nuclear program, Mr Trump appears to have an answer pretty resolute i.e "They won't be starting anything, you can bank on that"

One more thing I like to add. If Mr Trump withdraws US from the deal which is also endorsed by the UNSC, US will loose to IRAN in the war that follows-up.

BX , Apr 30, 2018 1:20:34 PM | 2
Well, what's up is war. Syria and Iran are still missing in the trophy collection.
spudski , Apr 30, 2018 1:25:09 PM | 3
Right now Netanyahu on CNN - Iran lied. Claims Israel has lots of stolen files.
Fantome , Apr 30, 2018 1:27:11 PM | 4
Already happening

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-30/watch-live-netanyahu-addresses-israel-dramatic-news-about-iran

Now, I'll make sure I link this MoA article everywhere in the comments.

john wilson , Apr 30, 2018 1:32:07 PM | 5
OH no! not the yellow cake saga again. Well, if they can get away with the Syrian chemical weapons attack that the white helmets can fix with a hose pipe, then anything goes. It looks as though the Skripal affair has lots more secrets to reveal. This story just keeps on giving and giving, although if you looked for it in MSM you wouldn't find anything on it. I don't understand why the missile defense system doesn't appear to activate for the Iranian contingent in Syria. Is it because this was a surprise attack and the Syrians?Russians were caught off guard, or are the Iranians left to fend for themselves as far as air bombardment is concerned? I get the feeling that the West is probing and poking the bear a bit at a time with a stick to get a reaction. They may well be sorry what they wish for.
fastfreddy , Apr 30, 2018 1:36:25 PM | 6
Doesn't look like fake anti-establishment, swamp-drainer, poseur Trump has given himself ANY leeway...

with which he might counter or to move away from the numerous neocon nut cases hell-bent for WW3 whom he has permanently invited to his war cabinet golden shower party.

Anonymous_1 , Apr 30, 2018 1:36:55 PM | 7
Netanyahu is probably the most dangerous leader in this world, the raw lying and propaganda, its heinous. Not to mention this sick lunatic in Israel have some 300 nukes already themselves, IN SECRET!

Now he have come up with fake documents, trying to justify a war!
Same jewish state that whine about antisemitism, this people are not sane...

Hopefully west dont accept this blatant sicko, because as usual, its not Israel that want to wage the war, no, the war must be fought by
goyim europeans and especially americans.

With ugly pack of morons as Trump, POmpeo, Bolton, it doesnt look good.

This war hysteria just come weeks after the illegal and dangerous bombing of Syria. Netanyahu clarly is a psychopath.

Jayhawk2018 , Apr 30, 2018 1:37:18 PM | 8
What is going on with those s300s? Russia needs to give Syria/Iran the means to defend themselves from these repeated acts of Israeli aggression. It should not be so easy for Israel to take out Iranian forces.
Christian Chuba , Apr 30, 2018 1:40:17 PM | 9
The only way to kick the legs out of Iran in a manner that Israel cares about which would also hurt Assad would be to destroy Hezbollah. The only chance of doing that would be to go full war crime mode and use the most vicious thermobaric or possibly tactical nuclear weapons.

If we did that or enabled the Israelis to do that then we will have reached total depravity. At this point I believe the U.S. public is okay with bombing anyone as long as U.S. lives are not lost. If the Israelis do it we cheer, if we do it then it shows the rest of the world who is boss.

LJ Smith , Apr 30, 2018 1:40:54 PM | 11
This can all be easily followed all the way back to before the Iranian nuclear deal and a policy paper out of Brookings on how to set up Iran for war. Basically, it states make a deal with Iran then prove that although the West did its best, Iran broke the deal in whatever manner. Appears they have all the actors lined up. Now it begins. The war of words then war. Like we haven't seen this before.
Anonymous_1 , Apr 30, 2018 1:48:43 PM | 12
I'd missed this: US-led jets bombed pro-Assad forces advancing on Deir Ezzor: Report http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-jets-bomb-pro-government-fighters-syria-operation-1276052674 International law anyone? Its dead in the west.
fastfreddy , Apr 30, 2018 1:48:46 PM | 13
Nuttyyahoo is dangerous BECAUSE he is thoroughly enabled by the FUKUS, but especially the US in EVERY way - politically, monetarily, morally, and and he is promoted on every television network and mainstream media outlet.

Trump has become increasingly dangerous because he has surrounded himself with Pompeo, Bolton, Nikki Haley, Nuttyyahoo...

ben , Apr 30, 2018 1:52:18 PM | 14
Holy jumping f***, the "yellow cake" BS again. You'd think these war mongering morons could be more inventive.
Jared , Apr 30, 2018 1:54:26 PM | 15
Where will it end? Russia allows it to continue. Then remains who? Pakistan? Are we profitting? US has become monster.
Peter AU 1 , Apr 30, 2018 2:03:51 PM | 16
"That was lame."

US/UK/Israel are not even trying for convincing narratives now. Sounds like F-35 was used to hit the ammo dumps in Syria. Maybe the zionists figure they have F35 bugs ironed out and its time to put it to work against Iran.

fastfreddy , Apr 30, 2018 2:03:57 PM | 17
Nikki Haley aka Nimrata Randhawa, is obviously a mental lightweight and a "yes man" for positive reinforcement & public relations/messaging purposes.

The others are genuinely depraved, lunatic warmongers whom maintain the ability to string together sentences.

Wonder where the Kagans are in all this. Cheering from the sidelines? Seems they'd be invited.

Tannenhouser , Apr 30, 2018 2:13:18 PM | 18
Didn't an American Green Beret from IIRC a nuke snoop/radiological team just die reecently in Niger?
Cyrus , Apr 30, 2018 2:20:01 PM | 20
Actually Iran has a long-time investment in uranium mines in Namibia, from the Shah's time, and Ahmadinejad even visited Niger in Apr 2013 while that country was looking to diversify its uranium sales away from the French Areva. There's nothing "secret" about any of this, uranium is a fuel for reactors.
Hoarsewhisperer , Apr 30, 2018 2:20:13 PM | 21
...
What I like about this story is that, even though smearing Iran doesn't make any sense, narratives that don't make sense are 'normal' for that bloodthirsty experiment in social engineering known as "Israel". One wonders whether, if the "Israelis" are serious about attacking Iran, then shouldn't they be encouraged to give it a try, just to see what happens?

If they're not worried about blowback from Iran and Hezbollah, why should anyone else lose any sleep over it?

When Medvedev was President of Russia he said in an interview (with Zacharia) on a US network that ab attack on Iran would create an "unimaginable refugee catastrophe". Ironically (or Russian-ly), he didn't say for whom it would be catastrophic...

Cyrus , Apr 30, 2018 2:25:01 PM | 22
Also, there was actually never any evidence of a nuclear weapons research program prior to 2003 either. The IAEA has specifically gone on record stating in 2009 that it has "no concrete proof that this is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran". Gareth Porter has written more about the 2003 allegations and Israel's later attempts to undermine the NIE by insisting that there was evidence of "continued" nuclear weapons work. The worst that the IAEA could ever say it actually found in Iran, were "fragmented and incomplete feasibility studies" that were "relevant to" nukes -- none of which is in any way a violation of the NPT which actually ENCOURAGES the sharing of technology "relevant to" nuclear weapons including data from nuclear test explosions.
karlof1 , Apr 30, 2018 2:26:38 PM | 23
Wow! The anti-corruption probe into Nuttyyahoo's activities must be coming close to arresting him; so, to avoid arrest, he must start an actual war of aggression. Only problem is the Zionists like their Outlaw allies are incapable of actually defeating anyone they might attack.

What the Zionists are scared to death of is becoming irrelevant; their Airstrip 1 existence no longer of any value to the Imperialist Empires that created the Zionist state for their own geopolitical machinations. Is there any real reason to militarily attack the Zionists beyond reclaiming Golan? If Lebanon becomes strong enough--I'd argue it's already--then a simple containment policy coupled with the international BDS movement will be more than enough to facilitate internal political change within the Apartheid State over time--containment will take several years to work as it did on South Africa. Zionist racism has destabilized itself. Talk about a state ripe for being Color Revolutionized. Those are the reasons for the easily seen and rebutted lies of a very desperate politico wanting very much to avoid prison for crimes he committed against his own nation, not the many War Crimes against others.

Breadonwaters , Apr 30, 2018 2:34:35 PM | 25
doesn't make sense ...FUKUS does war on Iran, Iran closes the Gulf ...oil goes to 200/ barrel ....US does a superb imitation of a Dead Fly.
Ort , Apr 30, 2018 2:36:07 PM | 26
B.: I had expected better from him. Some well forged documents or something more dramatic. This was just nonsense.
______________________________________________

This is another example of a trend I've been on about lately. You're quite right; the quality of the Western/ME hegemony's Big Lies is deteriorating markedly before our eyes. But only the minority who are willing and able to keep their eyes wide open seem to notice.

It's hard to tell if the proliferation of weak and incredible fabrications is based on the Big Liars' belief that the public is, or has become, so benighted and bamboozled that they'll swallow anything, or if it's an indication that they are running on empty. But, whether it's due to hubris or degenerate incompetence, it indeed looks as if they aren't even trying any more.

Then again, as you also point out, Bibi's anticlimactic histrionics are on a par with his comical September, 2012 performance at the UN, where he produced that cartoon drawing of a "bomb" in order to flog the typically mendacious and hysterical claim that the noble, harmless State of Israel was in imminent danger of destruction from the "Iranian bomb".

It's one thing when zealous Hasbarists, amateur or professional, troll/spam Internet comments boards with their rigidly fatuous, fantastic, Zionist Israel-serving talking points. One expects unsophisticated, fully-indoctrinated True Believers to spew rote talking points and dogma that insult the intelligence of anyone outside the Zionist Hive Mind.

But the fact that Israel's leaders and authorities shamelessly rely on such childish props to sell their genocidal policies and actions suggests both hubris and abiding contempt for the rest of the world.

It's hard to believe that Bibi and his allies and supporters don't know that they're insulting the rest of the world's intelligence. I think there's a word for this. Chutzpah, maybe?

anon , Apr 30, 2018 2:36:12 PM | 27
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IF7ZwfM4tQQK/

This is an absolutely stunning breaking interview of the Syrian independent member of parliament Fares Shehabi by the BBC hardtalk program. The MSM typically try to aggressively browbeat non-western interviewees that they disagree with. Unfortunately, most of the interviewees either get cowed or they get emotional and angry.

Fares Shehabi instead is factually and rationally aggressive, fact by fact, counter-argument by counter-argument, not allowing the BBC interviewer to shut him up. It is a model of how to deal with the MSM.

The MSM have already managed to get the interview wiped off youtube. but it is still available here

http://www.syrianews.cc/syrian-mp-fares-shehabi-pummels-bbc-colonialist-sackur/

download it and upload it and torrent it everywhere you can so that they cannot wipe it off the net.

crossposted

Don Bacon , Apr 30, 2018 2:48:38 PM | 29
@Peter AU 1 16
Sounds like F-35 was used to hit the ammo dumps in Syria
What's your reason for saying this. We established at the previous threat that GBU-39 glide bombs were used. They are a stand-off weapon and I believe that the F-35 is incapable of carrying them.
spudski , Apr 30, 2018 2:54:45 PM | 30
anon @ 27

The interview appears to be deleted from the second link also.

Anonymous_1 , Apr 30, 2018 2:55:47 PM | 31
spudski 30

No I just watched its there. Scoll down a bit.

spudski , Apr 30, 2018 2:58:00 PM | 32
Thanks very much, Anonymous @31.
Sid2 , Apr 30, 2018 2:59:38 PM | 33
"unhinged" = arrogance turns into stupidity? The latest in the continuing Net-job droning on and on "war with Iran" might not go as well as he expects, given resistance to withdrawal from the JCPOA. A more easily applied application of "arrogance turns into stupidity" is the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend roasting Press Sec Sanders. James Woods' response did it nicely at "low class trash." More of this sort of thing will indeed be "a gift" to the Republicans in the upcoming elections.

http://theduran.com/james-woods-crushes-white-house-correspondents-dinner-comedian-michelle-wolf/

Fec , Apr 30, 2018 3:01:09 PM | 34
https://southfront.org/israeli-air-force-allegedly-used-gbu-39-small-diameter-bombs-in-last-night-strike-on-syria/

Indication of F-35I being used.

rs it seems is to skillfully debunk them, these are ironically two sides of the same coin of unsubstantiated hope of making any difference anymore.

Alaric , Apr 30, 2018 3:43:34 PM | 41

Israel will not risk Jews so they will stick to launching air strikes from Lebanon. All of the characters will be happy to use another mercenary army of goys to attack the Syrian gov and it's allies. Especially attractive might be to use these to buttress the SDF to hold onto eastern Syria or to attack Turk aligned forces.

Posted by: Alaric | Apr 30, 2018 3:43:34 PM | 41 /div

Likklemore , Apr 30, 2018 3:48:57 PM | 42
b,

unfortunately the majority only read headlines. In a world where evidence matters not, details of Bibi Nuttuyahoo's claim 1999-2003 is a side show. Bibi is setting the stage for his managing director, D. J. Trump, to "honourably" withdraw from the JCPOA on May 12 and to pressure the other signatories.

There are somethings larger - I do hope someone (Russia or China) will grant Iran their nuclear umbrella. And Kim, do make a note to self. The Anglo-Zionists are deep in pretexts to coverup:

  1. the black swan flying under heavy wings with $230 trillion global debt must be brought down. Not nearly enough in the ESF.
  2. Revelations on the recent 100 missiles hoax to retaliate for the 'chemical attack' that was not. Can't disappear Robert Fisk's expose - he is widely read..
  3. Christoper Steele's Case on the dock wherein he will be deposed. Oh wait, where is he in hiding with the Skripals?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

@ 8, re Russia delivery of S-300s to Syria. Don't count on it as Israel's and Russia's militaries "have an arrangement to avoid aerial conflict over Syria." Last week Russia's Ambassador to Israel made that clear.

meme , Apr 30, 2018 3:49:50 PM | 43
Looks to me like Trump is groveling before the Saudis for keeping the petrodollar. Hence he is walking out of the Iran deal despite its geopolitical risk, and trying to show some fireworks in Syria. What's the half life of this show? More, or less than Trump's average ejaculation time?
Don Bacon , Apr 30, 2018 4:08:50 PM | 49
I've no doubt that for a lot of people the question of F-35 usage anywhere near a combat zone is a so-what issue, but for those of us who have struggled for years to bring some truth about this fault-filled much-delayed program through the fog of corruption, it's important to maintain that the current fleet of expensive pre-production F-35 prototypes is truly worthless.
Anonymous_1 , Apr 30, 2018 4:09:58 PM | 50
Likklemore
@ 8, re Russia delivery of S-300s to Syria. Don't count on it as Israel's and Russia's militaries "have an arrangement to avoid aerial conflict over Syria." Last week Russia's Ambassador to Israel made that clear.

Uh, that is the reason Russia should use S300. Then, there wouldnt be any "aerial conflict" over Syrian sovereign airspace to begin with.

Don Bacon , Apr 30, 2018 4:13:42 PM | 51
@ frances 48
US&Co . . will hit Iran before the football playoffs
And how might they "hit Iran?" Do you mean hit the country itself with a military attack?
Don Bacon , Apr 30, 2018 4:15:24 PM | 52
Israel has said that it will take out any S-300 in Syria, and that would include any nearby Russians.
Fec , Apr 30, 2018 4:20:22 PM | 54
@ 52 Don Bacon

Apparently, Pantsirs have to be in place to protect the S-300s.

https://ejmagnier.com/2018/04/29/syria-russia-is-teaching-israel-the-naughty-boy-a-lesson-and-iran-is-watching/

imoverit , Apr 30, 2018 4:20:46 PM | 55
@ frances

I think the World Cup is playing a big role in the decision making as you have said. There is a lot at stake: investments already made and international exposure also. I can't wait for it to be finished so we can get back to war !! (sarc)

Anonymous_1 , Apr 30, 2018 4:32:44 PM | 56
Israel could start its assassination program, carry out sabotage, airstrikes, there is no limit to the sick regime and the sick western media acceptance of the same unhinged behavior by Israel.
charles drake , Apr 30, 2018 4:38:45 PM | 58
the hero of hebrew history above is a great man did obaama not give him 30 billion in war arms.
did germany not give him 5 free dolphin class submarines for samson option.
does german public funds pay compensation cover amounting to a trillion euros by the year 2070.
the man is a god he can drop and fire depleted uraniun ,drop dialed down nuke bombs kill president,primeminister sell usa top secret files to china and russia via operation talpiot can he not listen and blackmail the world.
who else can kill gaza semites by the 10s of thousands and then call critic anti-semite
this man benji is a king maker bow down for you are not fit to lick his precious fingers
Curtis , Apr 30, 2018 4:44:15 PM | 60
Does NuttyYahoo's document collection include the plans for nuclear triggers that the CIA gave to them via Operation Merlin?
karlof1 , Apr 30, 2018 4:45:37 PM | 61
Et al--

Russia began its Syria intervention with an S-400 deployed in Latakia and has introduced several more since, one being in Sept 2017 . Syria also has the BUK-M2E AA system and the Pantsir to go with its older and upgraded S-200 systems along with who knows what else. Just what was off loaded from Russian supply vessels under the cover of smoke last week (don't know if such veiling's continuing)? My guess is more AA systems of the type causing Zionists on both sides of Atlantic to freakout.

As for the Zionists attacking Iranian military bases, those Iran uses in Syria are joint-use with Syria regardless of what's said by Zionists; so, any such attack will need to be aimed at Iran proper. The consequences for the region would be horrible--particularly for Zionists and Saudis: Dimona would be leveled as would Saudi oil infrastructure. The fallout and other pollution would be appalling. If the Zionists want to keep their skin, they'll arrest Nutty before he gets his get-out-of-jail war started.

Zionists know they've lost and are contained and constrained, so they're moving into desperation mode. Too bad they lack the courage to put a pistol to their head and pull the trigger.

Laguerre , Apr 30, 2018 4:47:05 PM | 63
I have trouble in believing that Trump will really attack Iran, just because of some new fake evidence from Netanyahu. N's been trying this forever. The basic point is that Trump's electorate don't want real war, with American deaths. So far, it's been like that, 102 missiles following 59 Tomahawks, and no effect.
Anonymous_1 , Apr 30, 2018 4:58:29 PM | 64
Laguerre

Trump is dumb enough, Pompeo, Bolton, Trump, I mean you cant get worse, these are the most sick hawks and Trump have already showed that he could attack states illegally Syria, with no proof whatsoever. Stop hoping on Trump.

somebody , Apr 30, 2018 5:00:07 PM | 65
Posted by: TG | Apr 30, 2018 3:11:12 PM | 35

Israel is in a position to attack, but not to defend. Israel's problem is not Iran but the Palestinians. John Helmer seems to think that Russia has decided on electronic warfare , that would be reason for panic as Israel's (and US) stuff is completely dependent on electronics.

Robert D , Apr 30, 2018 5:12:43 PM | 68
Its absolutely disgusting to see comments on social media majorities uncritically belive Netanyahu.
Laguerre , Apr 30, 2018 5:16:15 PM | 69
"Trump is dumb enough," yes but not to the degree where he has to justify American dead.

lysias , Apr 30, 2018 5:43:03 PM | 73

There were a number of reasons for the Balfour Declaration, but one of the major ones was defense of the Suez Canal, vital for communications to India. The Turks had already attacked the canal twice by 1917. The Brits wanted a local group on the spot that would help to defend the canal. A Jewish settlement filled the bill.

Posted by: lysias | Apr 30, 2018 5:43:03 PM | 73 /div

lysias , Apr 30, 2018 5:47:03 PM | 74
And in 1956 they did precisely that. But by that time the British Empire was too far gone to be able to make proper use of that support.
Bakerpete , Apr 30, 2018 5:48:45 PM | 75
@Cyrus | Apr 30, 2018 2:20:01 PM | 20
As background knowledge that most overlook, Iran is one of the top sources for uranium ore, unfortunately it is contaminated with molybdenum making it almost useless for high grading. That is a primary reason for their investment in uranium in Africa.
Perimtr , Apr 30, 2018 5:53:21 PM | 77
Russia's non-intervention in the attack last night will only encourage further attacks.
bevin , Apr 30, 2018 7:13:34 PM | 86
There is nothing new about Netanyahu's nonsense-as everyone seems to realise: the only justification for his party and his particular brand of fascism is the belief that there can be no peace for Jewish people generally, and Israelis in particular until all potential opponents have been wiped out or terrorised into slavery. And he has managed to convince most Israelis of this-something which means that in moral and political, and probably clinical terms too, they are insane- beyond the reach of reason.

What is new and makes the situation very dangerous is that the US is going along with this for the ride. It has run out of ideas on how to deal with the gathering storm of consequences from eighty years of arrogance and careless neglect of the inevitable fall out from its self indulgent policies. And Trump, under constant pressure from the idiots running the Deep State, has no conception of the implications of the little games that he is playing and encouraging others (see Netanyahu above) to play. In his mind he is starring in an extempore version of the Godfather.

Way down at the bottom of things worth mentioning is the fact that the UK government is in an even bigger crisis. It is clearly doomed unless the world ends first, which is something it is happy to consider. May and her allies (who include the Blairite Labour party and almost all the political class including the SNP and the Liberals) will (as the recent attacks in Syria showed) go along with Trump whatever happens, which means that the other 'eyes' the White Commonwealth of Canada, Australia etc will do the same.

This is the problem with empires in decline, they become suicidal. And having reconciled themselves with death they lose any inhibitions.
Poor old Putin just doesn't understand that: for years it has been clearer and clearer that Russia and China were rational, legalistic and diplomatic while the 'west' reverted to its barbaric ways, defying rules, breaking treaties, laughing at international law, drunken berserkers running amok employing the weapons that they have been accumulating for decades because fearing that the end is near they fear nothing else. The future holds no hope for them.

Putin who sees only the reality that the US remains both enviably rich and powerful cannot understand how unstable and dangerous it has become.

As to China, nothing surprises its leadership any more which is why it spends all day lifting weights and eating high protein foods, ready to defend itself and studiously avoiding involvement.

timbers , Apr 30, 2018 7:33:08 PM | 87
I'm still in shook Putin didn't place 300s in Syria long, long ago. He really can be behind the curve at times. How could have thought the Empire would not grow more brazen in aggression?
JohninMK , Apr 30, 2018 7:38:16 PM | 88
Here is a well thought out thread that analyses Bibi's claims. Including that Israel probably hacked into the IAEA systems to get some of the data, in particular a photo of the 'new' storage site.

https://twitter.com/yarbatman/status/991064102314369025

fairleft , Apr 30, 2018 8:05:02 PM | 89
Excellent bevin @86.

Here is former Sweden foreign minister Carl Bildt, in a tweet immediately after Netanyahu's remarks: "Nothing really new in @netanyahu Iran speech. Confirms that Iran closed down nuclear weapons program in 2003. Continued technology efforts. In principle all of this well known. No allegation that Iran cheats on 2015 nuclear deal."

Don Bacon , Apr 30, 2018 8:30:39 PM | 93
@bevin 86

the US is going along with this for the ride

No, for the money. The simple fact is that AIPAC and Israel have an iron grip on each and every member of the US Congress. It's been established that Israel rules, and Congressmembers get "contributions" and trips to Israel and other perks. On the other hand, if any Congress member who gives a slight little anti-Israel (i.e. anti-Semitic) peep will become an ex-Congressmember. It's happened, with highly-financed opposition to a deviant's transgression at the next biannual election. One example is Cynthia McKinney (links broken.

Yeah, Right , Apr 30, 2018 8:33:06 PM | 94
@52 I don't understand that argument, Don. The Russians can unload any S-300 delivery at Tartus. There is zero chance that the Israelis will bomb them while they remain inside a Russian military base.

And those missiles can stay there while the Russians train up the Syrians in their use. Again, attacking while they remain inside Tartus is a no-go. And the S-300's are road-mobile. They can be driven out of Tartus to their eventual operational deployment, which means that they leave the protection of Tartus only when they are capable of defending themselves.

Or, in short: Israeli plans are predicated on taking out those missiles before they can be made operational. But they can be made operational while they are still inside a Russian military base protected by S-400 defences, and by the time they leave that protection the Syrians are already able to shoot down any attackers.

AriusArmenian , Apr 30, 2018 8:59:52 PM | 100
It is hard to lose money on a bet that the US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals will double down on stupid. The US heaps one disaster on top of another, it causes the suffering and death of millions, and Americans don't shed a tear.

[Apr 30, 2018] Stormy Daniels Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Trump Zero Hedge

Apr 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Stormy Daniels' legal team - led by lawyer Michael Avenatti - must be getting bored since a federal judge in Los Angeles ordered a 90-day delay of her lawsuit against President Trump and his former personal attorney Mike Cohen (who has promised to plead the fifth during the proceedings). Because Stormy has filed another defamation lawsuit, this time exclusively against President Trump, as Reuters reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New York on Monday, seeks damages from Trump for a tweet he sent earlier this month where he criticized a composite sketch that, Daniels said, depicted a man who had threatened her in 2011. He reportedly demanded that she stay quiet about her sexual encounter with Trump. That would've been around the time she gave an interview about her affair with Trump to In Touch magazine which wasn't published until recently.

Her previous lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, sought to have her released from an NDA she signed shortly before the 2016 vote where she also accepted a $130,000 "hush money" payment from Cohen.

"A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!," Trump said.

me title=

According to the filing, cited by the Associate Press and Reuters, the tweet was "false and defamatory" arguing that Trump knew what he was saying out Daniels' claim was false and also disparaging.

The lawsuit also claims Daniels has been exposed to death threats and other threats of "physical violence."

Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages.

"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.

As the Associated Press points out, Daniels, aided by Avenatti, has sought to keep her case in the public eye. She revealed the sketch that Trump mocked during an appearance on the View earlier this month. Trump is facing another defamation lawsuit in New York, this one filed by Summer Zervos, a former "The Apprentice" contestant who says Trump made unwanted sexual contact with her in 2007. She sued him after Trump dismissed her claims. 0

Slippery Slope -> JimmyJones Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:23 Permalink

When does her 15 minutes end?

bobbbny -> Bitchface-KILLAH Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:24 Permalink

Just like herpes she won't go away.

beepbop -> bobbbny Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:25 Permalink

The LAWSUITS will keep on coming

until Trump agrees to Satanyahoo's ULTIMATUM

of destroying SYRIA and IRAN.

TheWholeYearInn -> beepbop Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

" Now, that your tastes at this time should incline towards the juvenile is understandable; but for you to marry that boy would be a disaster. Because there's two kinds of women. There are two kinds of women and you, as we well know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut. "

~Komarovsky

Ghost of Porky -> TheWholeYearInn Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:33 Permalink

Stormy's parents are Trump supporters and Stormy hates them.

This is all a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Shitonya Serfs -> Ghost of Porky Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:34 Permalink

"you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences"

#MeToo

Bitchface-KILLAH -> Stan522 Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:27 Permalink

Monica Lewinsky... good family, intern... major credibility problems according to MSM.

Stormy Daniels... washed up porno actress... MSM "sure we'll roll with that"

tmosley Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:22 Permalink

She literally sketched her old boyfriend.

That will happen when you are describing what someone who doesn't exist looks like. You picture someone you know and make them look like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy9Z-Tg6ufU

ZH FNG Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

On an earlier Stormy story, someone posted these words of wisdom about intimacy:

A gentleman never talks,

And a whore never shuts up.

jmack Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.

oh the irony.

sister tika Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

This cow makes me nauseous. She's a pathetic, has-been punch whose only motivation is (more) money.

Mzhen Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

Communication purportedly from Stormy to a friend, where she again denied the sex ever happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbtS8LdTUfI&t=336s

Fox-Scully Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

"We intend on teaching THE PRESS that you cannot simply make things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.

Now it is correct.

Stevious Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:34 Permalink

To prove damages under defamation first someone must believe the defamatory content and second, more importantly, damage must have been done.

Damage what, to the reputation of a stripper?

JoeTurner Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:39 Permalink

Who's paying this filthy whore ? Where are the "journalists" to follow the money ?

wally_12 Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:40 Permalink

Sold out performance at the strip club in Detroit. Trying to squeeze out as much as possible before her boobs and butt sag lower.

NYC80 Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:47 Permalink

It has to be really, really hard to defame a porn star.

Hikikomori Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:49 Permalink

Interesting that the Great White Hope of the Democrats in 2018 is a blackmailing prostitute. On the other hand, probably better than Hillary....

SmittyinLA Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:55 Permalink

Damages? What damages? Her income has no doubt spiked.

No case, no damages, nobody givesashit.

Al Huxley Mon, 04/30/2018 - 14:56 Permalink

That's why they're called gold digging whores.

[Apr 30, 2018] If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician

Apr 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kalen , Apr 30, 2018 3:16:34 PM | 37

If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician hence I suggest, lock the US insane asylum and throw out the key, since now anything will be blabbermouthed and nothing of substance will really happen except some unwitting crisis actors will die, a fact of inhumane cruelty of imperial rulers.

Where are dire warnings from Russia about severe consequences if Syria attacked.
Russians lost credibility of their threats which is even worse if they have never made them.

I do not know what it would take for people to see what cruel charade all this is, what would it take for people to realize that it is all Roman type of theater of wilderness and pain and we are audience and targets of this propaganda of fear of global nuke war and destruction that they want us to believe is behind all this cruel soap opera.

There will be no global war since there are no fundamental conflicts within global elites despite what propaganda from all sides claims and that including b, trying to make sense of utter unadulterated nonsense of MSM, for those establishment people in west who are already in it are not idiots but rational people who do that immoral, opportunist job for money knowing what they lie about, knowing that there is no danger of global nuke catastrophe whatsoever, otherwise they would act more sober like it was during Cold War.

However, there is logic in this madness, namely to forcefully align nations with discredited ruling elites who attempt to take role of saviors, when no other method of control over population works any more and policies of deliberated destruction of welfare and civil society, openly provoked mass unrest or revolution and instigated natural growth of working class movements in self defense. Warmongering was classical ploy against discontented population used many times in history and nor mere speculation.

Spreading of fear of global anihilation among populations is the ultimate objective of this unheard of verbal and acting belligerence on world stage, which upon examination of basic socioeconomic facts especially soundness and calm of global financial system indicates mood of world peace and love among oligarchic elites who have a good thing going while sheeple are orderly dying of starvation and fear.

But I guess even on this quite brainy blog people are more interested in menacing tabloid surrealism than boring naked truth. Otherwise, b would not have much to write about in his devastating reports on masive MSM lying, with implicit hope that one day may be NYT writes some truth.

It ain's gonna happen b , their business is lies yo

[Apr 30, 2018] NBC tried to eliminate and may be sunk Kelly

Trump is definitely not an idiot: Donald Trump, 1998 - BBC HARDtalk - YouTube
Notable quotes:
"... "He doesn't even understand what DACA is. He's an idiot," Kelly said in one meeting, according to two officials who were present. "We've got to save him from himself." ..."
"... According to NBC's sources, Kelly has been hiding behind his public image as a four-star, while in truth operating in an "undisciplined and indiscreet" manner. "The private manner aides describe may shed new light on why Kelly now finds himself -- just nine months into the job -- grappling with diminished influence and a drumbeat of questions about how long he'll remain at the White House . ..."
Apr 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
"Total BS" - Kelly Slams "Pathetic Smear Attempt"; Trump Blasts NBC's "Totally Unhinged" 'Idiot' Report by Tyler Durden Mon, - 16:56 156 SHARES

* * *

White House chief of staff John Kelly has reportedly been undermining morale in the West Wing in recent months - commenting to aides that President Trump is an idiot, while touting himself as the "savior of the country," reports NBC News , citing "eight current and former White House officials."

The officials said Kelly portrays himself to Trump administration aides as the lone bulwark against catastrophe , curbing the erratic urges of a president who has a questionable grasp on policy issues and the functions of government. He has referred to Trump as "an idiot" multiple times to underscore his point , according to four officials who say they've witnessed the comments. - NBC News

NBC notes that three White House spokespeople say the "idiot" thing just isn't true, and he may have spoken in jest about saving the country.

In one heated exchange between the two men before February's Winter Olympics in South Korea, Kelly strongly -- and successfully -- dissuaded Trump from ordering the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula , according to two officials.

For Kelly, the exchange underscored the reasoning behind one of his common refrains, which multiple officials described as some version of " I'm the one saving the country. "

"The strong implication being ' if I weren't here we would've entered WWIII or the president would have been impeached ,'" one former senior White House official said. - NBC News

"He doesn't even understand what DACA is. He's an idiot," Kelly said in one meeting, according to two officials who were present. "We've got to save him from himself."

According to NBC's sources, Kelly has been hiding behind his public image as a four-star, while in truth operating in an "undisciplined and indiscreet" manner. "The private manner aides describe may shed new light on why Kelly now finds himself -- just nine months into the job -- grappling with diminished influence and a drumbeat of questions about how long he'll remain at the White House ."

"He says stuff you can't believe," one senior White House official tells NBC News . " He'll say it and you think, 'That is not what you should be saying. '"

According to presidential historian Michael Beschloss, Kelly's comments about Trump vs. prior White House chiefs of "suggest a lack of respect for the sitting president of a kind that we haven't seen before," adding that the closest would have to be President Ronald Reagan's chief of staff, Don Regan, who "somewhat looked down on" The Gipper, and eventually lost Reagan's support - having been replaced after two years by Howard Baker.

Meanwhile, insults or not, Trump is said to have soured on Kelly - and is aware of some, "though not all" of Kelly's comments. And as NBC News points out, " The last time it became public that one of Trump's top advisers insulted his intelligence behind his back, it didn't go over well with the president . White House aides have said Trump never got over former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson calling him a "moron" in front of colleagues , which was first reported by NBC News. Trump later challenged Tillerson to an IQ test and fired him several months after the remark became public."

Current and former White House officials said Kelly has at times made remarks that have rattled female staffers . Kelly has told aides multiple times that women are more emotional than men , including at least once in front of the president, four current and former officials said.

And during a firestorm in February over accusations of domestic abuse against then-White House staff secretary Rob Porter, Kelly wondered aloud how much more Porter would have to endure before his honor could be restored , according to three officials who were present for the comments. He also questioned why Porter's ex-wives wouldn't just move on based on the information he said he had about his marriages, the officials said.

So in addition to Kelly allegedly calling Trump an idiot, he's also a misogynist, according to NBC.

Kelly is expected to leave by July - his one-year mark, according to sources, however others say it's anyone's guess. That said, "what's clear is both Trump and Kelly seem to have tired of each other."

" Kelly appears to be less engaged, which may be to the president's detriment ," a second senior White House official said. If NBC is correct, we're about to once again play White House Musical Chairs.

That said, when reached for comment, Kelly that it's all more fake news:

"He and I both know this story is total BS. I am committed to the president, his agenda, and our country. This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump... "

One hopes that is the case, then again one also remembers the Rex Tillerson incident...

[Apr 30, 2018] Mueller s past is so laden with misfeasance and malfeasance that he should have been disbarred a few decades ago

Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
Apr 30, 2018 | www.unz.com

NoseytheDuke , April 23, 2018 at 11:39 am GMT

@renfro

I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen it?

Is there corruption in DC?

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..

Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton Foundation were declared.

Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.

Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine, Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.

It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.

Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.

The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it?? Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.

Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943).. while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..

Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than, Rod Rosenstein.

Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!

Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?

No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward to 2015.

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.

He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State which was required by law.

He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey. Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!

Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes there. Nothing here to report --

Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.

The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of the American Justice System ..

Can you see the pattern?

It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.

FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players. All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.

Twodees Partain , April 23, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

More on Mueller for renfro, who seems to think that Mueller has some kind of integrity hidden somewhere:

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/05/robert-mueller-the-old-fixer-is-back-in-town/

[Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle

Highly recommended!
An interesting new term is used in this discussion: "CIA democrats". Probably originated in Patrick Martin March 7, 2018 article at WSWS The CIA Democrats Part one - World Socialist Web Site but I would not draw an equivalence between military and intelligence agencies.
"f the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress."
Notable quotes:
"... @leveymg ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... "I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then." ..."
"... @arendt ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
Apr 30, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Postmodern progressives

arendt on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:28am

The left has never been welcome in the Republican party; and since the neoliberal Clinton machine showed up, they have not been welcome in the Democratic party either. As Clinton debauched the historical, FDR/JFK/LBJ meaning of the word "liberal", the left started calling itself "progressives". The left had long been the grassroots of the Democratic party; and after being left in the lurch by John Kerry (no lawsuits against Ohio fraud), lied to by Barack Obama, and browbeaten by the increasingly neocon Clintonite DNC, they enthusiastically coalesced around Bernie Sanders.

If our political system were honest, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee; and Hillary Clinton and Debbie W-S (of Aman Brothers infamy) would be on trial for violating national security and corrupting the DNC. But, our political system isn't honest. Our political system, including the Democratic party, is completely bought and paid for. And, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders - despite being a victim of that corruption - continues to refuse to make that point. He refused to join the lawsuit (complete with dead process server and suspicious phone call from DWS's office) against the DNC. All in the name of working within a party he does not even belong to.

After the 2016 election, the DNC, continuing its corrupt ways, blatantly favored Tom Perez over the "progressive" Keith Ellison, smearing Ellison as a Moslem lover. Bernie's reaction to this continuing manipulation was muted. On foreign policy, Bernie continues to be either AWOL or pro-MIC (F-35 plant in VT)/pro-Israel. These are not progressive positiions. AFAIAC, Bernie is half a leftist. He is left on economics and social policy; but he is rightwing on the MIC, foreign policy, and Israel. There is very little democracy left in this country, and I am not going to waste my time supporting Bernie, who has shown himself to be a sheepdog. That's my take on the 2018 version of Bernie. I will always treasure the early 2016 version of Bernie, the only political candidate in my life that I gave serious money to.

Neither will I waste my time pretending that honest, inside-the-system efforts can take the Democratic party back from the plutocrats who own it, lock, stock, and checkbook. You might think there is a chance to work inside the system. You might think the DNC is vulnerable because it learned nothing from the 2016 debacle; but you would be wrong. After the Hillary debacle, they have learned how to manufacture more credible fake progressives.

------

For it seems that progressive candidates aren't the only ones who learned the lesson of Bernie Sanders in 2016; the neoliberal Clintonites have too. So, while left-wing campaigns crop up in every corner of the country, so too do astroturf faux-progressive campaigns. And it is for us on the left to parse through it all and separate the authentic from the frauds.

One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website homepage describes him as a "local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders staffers, the Justice Democrats." And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?

By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.

Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.

Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in Iraq were "looking to help our country find a way out" a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.

How Clintonites Are Manufacturing Faux Progressive Congressional Campaigns

The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out. Another thing he has not called out is the fact that the party leadership is still blatantly sabotaging even modestly "progressive" candidates in the primaries.

In the latest striking example of how the Democratic Party resorts to cronyism (and perhaps corruption) to ensure that its favored candidates beat back progressive challengers in local races, a candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional District has leaked a recording of a conversation with Minority Leader Steny Hoyer to The Intercept which published it overnight. In it, Hoyer can be heard essentially lecturing the candidate about why he should step aside and let the Democratic Party bosses - who of course have a better idea about which candidate will prevail over a popular Republican in the general election - continue pulling the strings.

The candidate, Levi Tillemann, is hardly a party outsider. Tillemann had grandparents on both sides of his family who were elected Democratic representatives, and his family is essentially Democratic Party royalty.

Still, the party's campaign arm - the notorious Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (better known as the DCCC, or D-trip) - refused to provide Tillemann with access to party campaign data or any of the other resources he requested.


Secret Recording Reveals Democratic Party Boss Ordering Progressive Candidate To Quit Race

Here is yet another thing that Bernie has not called out: The DNC, which is reportedly badly behind in fundraising, is nevertheless willing to spend obscene amounts of money in primaries just to keep progressives out of races - even Red district races that are guaranteed losses for Democrats.

Dan Feehan has successfully bought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota's first congressional district (MN-CD1). Dan, having lived outside the state since the age of 14, has allegedly misled the public on his FEC form, claiming residence at his cousin's address. Here is Dan's FEC filing form. One can see that it his cousin who lives at this address...

Mr. Feehan has no chance to win in November. While nobody likes a candidate from Washington D.C., people hate Washington money even more. To be fair to Dan he hasn't taken super PAC money, somehow. But he has raised 565,000 dollars, an outrageous sum for a congressional race. 94% of this money has come from outside the district, and 79% from outside the state. Where does this money come from? Well, according to the campaign, from people around the country who want to keep Minnesota blue. If this was the case, why not wait to give money until Minnesota voted for a candidate in the primary and then donate? And who on earth has this much money to pour into an obscure race outside of their state?

Dan Feehan is of the same breed that most post-Trump Democrats are. Clean cut, military experience, stern, anti-gun, anti-crazy Orange monsters, anti-negativity, and anti-discrimination of rich people who fall under a marginalized group. What are they for? No one knows. If pushed they want "good" education, health care, jobs, environment, etc. But they want Big money too for various reasons, but the ones cited are: because that is the only way to win, because rich people are smart and poor people are dumb, and because money is speech. So they cannot and will not make any concrete commitments. Hence energy becomes "all inclusive", as if balancing clean and dirty energy was a college admissions department diversity issue, rather than a question of life or death for the entire planet. Healthcare becomes not a right, but a requirement with a giant handout to insurance companies. Near full employment (with the near being very important, when we consider leverage) comes with part-time, short-term, and low paying work.

The Clintonite Democrats and their spawn are postmodern progressives. In their world, there is no way to test if one is progressive. Within the world of the Democratic party, there is no relativity. It is merely a universe that exists only to clash with (but mostly submit to) the parallel Republican universe. Whoever proves to be the victor should be united behind without a thought given to their place within the political spectrum of Democrat voters. They believe, if I were to paraphrase René Descartes: "I Democrat, therefore I progressive."

How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101

Tell me again why I must be a loyal Democrat, why I must support candidates who are corporate/MIC shills, why I must submit to the constant harassment and sabotage of progressive efforts. Tell me again how Bernie is fighting the party leadership. (That is, explain away all the non-activity related to the items posted above.)

I'm with Chris Hedges. Formal democracy is dead in the US; all we have left are actions in the streets (and those are being slowly made illegal). The only people in this country who deserve my support are: 1) the striking teachers, many of them non-unionized, 2) the oil pipeline protestors, who are being crushed by police state tactics, 3) the fighters for $15 minimum wage, again non-unionized. The Democratic Party used to stand for unions. It doesn't any more. It doesn't stand for anything except getting more money from the 1% to sell out the 99% with fake progressive CIA candidates. Oh, and it stands for pussy hats.

Anyone who tells me to get in line behind Bernie is either a naive pollyana or a disingenuous purity troll.

leveymg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:44am
We have all been here before. 1948. That was the year that the clawback of the Democratic Party and the purge of the Left was formalized. It really dates to the engineered hijacking of the nomination of Henry Wallace at the 1944 Democratic Convention. History does repeat itself for those who didn't learn or weren't adequately taught it.
arendt on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:00am
I appreciate being reminded of the history... @leveymg @leveymg

however tragic it is. Instead of a true leftwinger, we got Harry Truman, a naive wardheeler from corrupt Kansas City. He was led by the nose to create the CIA.

I do take your point; but the question is, can anything be done? If democracy has become meaningless kabuki, and the neocon warmongers are in charge no matter whom we "elect", what is there to do besides build that bomb shelter?

That is why I say that only genuine issues will galvanize the public; and even then, they can run a hybrid war against the left. They have created this ludicrous Identity Politics boogeyman that energizes the right and makes the postmodern progressives look stupid. No matter what tactic I think of, TPTB have already covered that base. The problem is that the left has absolutely no base in the U.S. today.

Alligator Ed on Sun, 04/29/2018 - 3:56am
The post-modern progressives are stupid @arendt They are not progressive. They do not have a platform (except "I anti-Trump, therefore I progressive".

How will the pseudo-progressives be able to justify being both "progressive" and pro-war?

Talk about cognitive dissonance. But wait. Democraps of any stripe, don't cogitate, hence no dissonance.

zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:12am
Appreciate you posting this essay This is only one of the many troubling signs which convince me he is being controlled by my enemy.

The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out.

CS in AZ on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:12am
Thanks for the essay, arendt I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.

And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place." True words!!

So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made. Such a lot of wasted time and energy.

Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.

Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.

zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am
Whose dumb as rocks now? @CS in AZ

Countered with Russia, Russia, Russia. God he was such a prick.

I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.

And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place." True words!!

So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made. Such a lot of wasted time and energy.

Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.

Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.

arendt on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 12:19pm
"important for the SQ to keep the illusion of democracy alive" @CS in AZ

That's how I feel about it. I've been suckered one time too many. The 2016 election was a complete farce. Bernie was sabotaged. The DNC and Hillary broke their own rules to do it. But Bernie, with a perfect opportunity and lots of support, just walked away from the fight that he had promised his people.

Sheep dog.

TPTB want the political "fight" to be between slightly different flavors of neoliberal looting/neocon warmongering. They want unions, teachers, environmentalists, and minorities to, in the words of a UK asshole, "shut up and go away".

The CIA literally paid $600M to the Washington Post, whose purchase price was only $300M. Bezos made 200% of his money back in a month. The media is completely corporatized; and they are coming for the internet with censorship. Where is Bernie on this? Haven't heard a word.

Sheep dog.

As TPTB simply buy what is left of the Democratic party, they will enforce this kabuki politics. Any deviation will be labeled Putin-loving, Assad-loving, China-loving, etc.

You can't have a democracy when free speech is instantly labeled fake news or enemy propaganda.

snoopydawg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 5:47pm
I think this is the gist of people who don't care for Bernie @CS in AZ

"I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then."

This is how I see the way some people feel about him. This same thing happened after I voted for Obama. I thought that he would do what "I heard him say that he would", but he let me down by not even bothering to try doing anything.

What soured me on Bernie was his saying that Her won the election fair and square after everything we saw happen. Even after learning how the primary was rigged against him. And now he has jumped on the Russian interference propaganda train when he knows that Russia had no hand with Trump beating Her out the presidency.

Bottom line is that I no longer believe that Bernie is being up front with me. I know that others feel differently, but remember how people changed their minds on Obama and never accepted Herheinous! People should be free here to say how they feel.

dkmich on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:51am
Obama was the template.

"I guess the lesson is we shouldn't be fooled by good-looking liberals no matter how well-spoken they are," Fonda said.

I don't trust the Justice Dems as far as I can throw them. DailyKos indoctrinated us for 10 years with more and better. It is all bull shit.

Bernie also lied to us. "He is in it to win it" - as long as he doesn't piss off the Clintons and Obama.

arendt on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 12:21pm
I don't folllow all the BS. Who are the "justice" dems? @dkmich

Purportedly Bernie? Perportedly Obama?

I just don't care. The Democratic Party is dead to me. I had a wake a while back.

dkmich on Sun, 04/29/2018 - 7:44am
Berniecrats that want to work from within just like Bernie does @arendt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

Lookout on Sun, 04/29/2018 - 11:35am
The Obomber template has been exported @dkmich

Don't you think Trudeau and Macron seem to be cut from an Obama cloth?

Would that we had a Corbyn in the US. At lest he request evidence before bombing and ejecting diplomats.

zoebear on Sun, 04/29/2018 - 9:58am
Withdrawing in "purity" @The Voice In the Wilderness

Isn't making it "easier" for them to cheat when they are already doing that. What participating in their corruption does do is keep the illusion of democracy alive for their benefit. Easier? They're already achieving their end game. Controlling us, electing their candidates, and collecting our taxes.

Frankly we've been participating in their potemkin village passing as democracy for decades with no effect.

CS in AZ on Sun, 04/29/2018 - 10:09am
No, that's not what it means @The Voice In the Wilderness

First, a boycott is not "ignoring" voting. It's an organized protest against fake elections. It's actually not that uncommon for people in other countries to call for election boycotts in protest when a significant portion of people feel the election is staged or rigged with a predetermined outcome, or where all of the candidates are chosen by the elite so none represent the will of the people.

In that type of situation, boycotting the election -- and obviously that means saying why, and making a protest out of it -- is really the only recourse people have. It may not be effective at stopping the fake election, but it lets the world know the vote was fake.

If you line up to go obediently cast your vote anyway, then you are the one who is empowering the enemy, by giving the illusion of legitimacy to the fake vote.

Now about this big worry about what "they" will say... first, look at what they already say about third party voters. In the media and political world, third party voters are a joke, useful idiots, who can be simultaneously written off as "fringe" wackos who can and should be ignored, and also childish spoilers who can be scapegoated and blamed for eternity for election loses. Witness Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Of course people should still vote third party if there's someone that truly represents them, and if they believe the election process is genuine. Because you don't let your voting choices be dictated by what the powers that be say about it!

For those of us who believe the election process is a sham and a scam, voting is playing into their hands, giving legitimacy to their show. That is what makes it easier for them to keep the status quo firmly in place, and is literally helping them do it.

As has been pointed out, if an organized protest/boycott that called the elections fake were to take root and grow, they would not be able to say we don't care. That's a big if, obviously, but it's better than playing your assigned role in The Voting Show. Because that show is what everyone points to as proof that the American people want this fucked up warmongering government we keep voting back into power every two years.

Enough is enough. One of Bernie's slogans, which I still agree with.

[Apr 30, 2018] UK universities being integrated into military-security apparatus

Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to the Times ..."
"... In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725 million. ..."
"... Huffington Post ..."
Apr 30, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Rupert Murdoch's the Times attempted a witch-hunt of UK academics who have questioned the government's narrative on Syria. This scurrilous campaign, targeting Professor Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh), Professor Piers Robinson (University of Sheffield) and Lecturer Tara McCormack (Leicester University) as "Apologists for Assad," is a sharp expression of how universities have become battlegrounds in the global drive to war.

As the ruling class work to militarise society in accordance with the recently outlined Fusion Doctrine, higher education and research institutions are being transformed into appendages of British imperialism.

The process is well underway. Contrary to the Times ' ravings about universities being hotbeds of left-wing and anti-war sentiment, the institutions and their leaderships are already deeply integrated with the armed forces and private military contractors.

In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725 million.

The UK Government's military research establishment -- the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and Atomics Weapons Establishment (AWE) -- were involved in a quarter of these projects. Arms manufacturers, led by Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ, sponsored the remainder.

Between 2008 and 2011, according to research by the Huffington Post , the Russell Group of 24 elite British universities received £83 million from the same sources listed above. Imperial College London topped the list with £15.2 million, mainly from the AWE. Imperial is joined by Bristol, Cambridge, Cranfield, and Heriot-Watt in a "strategic alliance" with the AWE: The five universities received £15 million in the years 2010-12.

More recently, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, in the past three years, 15 universities with prestigious engineering departments have received £40 million in grants from military contractors. These grants have funded projects including collaboration on military submarine technology between Rolls Royce and the University of Leeds, a drone project worked on by Boeing and Bristol University, and a stealth drone project at Manchester run by BAE.

While the money involved is relatively small when compared to total university research funding, the military projects have a weight of influence beyond their size. Military funding is concentrated in institutions and departments -- mainly engineering -- where the armed forces and arms dealers have a special authority. Such funding is considered a prestigious source of investment, from which other grants and opportunities will flow. Military contracts are fiercely competed for and proudly advertised.

On the back of this commercial turn to the military-industrial complex, moreover, universities are working closely with the armed forces to provide education and recruitment opportunities. Fourteen institutions (including Aston, Birmingham, Cambridge, Imperial College, Loughborough, Newcastle, Northumbria, Portsmouth, Southampton and Strathclyde) are in a partnership with the MoD to provide the Defence Technical Undergraduate Scheme (DTUS). This is a university sponsorship programme for students who want to join the Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force or Engineering and Science branch of the MoD Civil Service as technical officers after they graduate.

There are roughly 800 of these students (who formally hold the ranks of Officer Cadet or Midshipman in their respective reserve forces) in any one year, grouped into four regional units: Taurus Squadron, Thunderer Squadron, Trojan Squadron and Typhoon Squadron. The commanding officer of each unit has visiting lecturer status at the associated universities. Graduates are required to serve in the armed forces or MoD for a minimum of three years after graduating and completing Initial Officer Training.

University resources are thus put at the service of the military to train its key technical staff. They return the favour by lending the armed forces' support to the running of student life on campus, doubtless with the associated military ethos. Loughborough University describes how its DTUS students "regularly support Open Days, Freshers' Fairs and other student activities."

In addition to the DTUS programme, the Army, Navy and RAF provide a range of other scholarships for prospective soldiers.

The Army offers 150 standard bursaries a year, worth £6,000, as well as Technical and Enhanced Army undergraduate bursaries, worth up to £14,000 and £24,000 respectively. Students can also receive £5,000-10,000 a year through the Army Medical Service Professionally Qualified Officer bursary. The Royal Navy also offers a standard bursary, worth £1,500 a year and a Technical Bursary worth £4,000 a year. Future RAF Medical Officers can get a grant to cover all their tuition fees.

All sponsorship requires three years of service in the armed forces after completing education.

While at university, these and other students can participate in one of the University Service Units -- the University Officer Training Corps, University Air Squadrons, or University Royal Navy Units -- who maintain a permanent presence on numerous university campuses.

In 2015, there were 6,580 members of these organisations in Britain, spread across 19 Officer Training Corps units and 14 Air and Navy units. The fundamental purpose of these groups, besides providing a path into the officer ranks, is to train propagandists for the military within higher education and wider society. The University Royal Navy Unit at Cambridge describes its role as being to "educate and inform society's future potential opinion formers and leaders of the need for and role of the Royal Navy."

So great is the influence of the armed forces on campus that several universities have established specific military-focused degree courses.

In 2011, the University of Wolverhampton created a BSc in Armed Forces, Armed Forces and Combat Medicine, and Armed Forces and Combat Engineering. The list of universities currently offering War Studies or related courses includes Queens Belfast, Glasgow, Kent, Coventry, Swansea, Buckingham, Bradford, King's College London (KCL) and others. KCL is home to "the only academic department in the world to focus solely on the complexities of conflict and security," comprising 95 academic staff and over 2,000 students.

Cranfield University offers courses in subjects like Military Economic Systems Engineering, Military Aerospace and Airworthiness, Communication Electronic Warfare, and Explosives Ordnance Engineering.

As well as providing training for the military, universities across the country are happy to play host to recruiting sergeants at Freshers' Fairs and Welcome Weeks. In 2013, FOI requests found that the armed forces had made 341 visits to universities in the previous two years.

None of these developments has gone unopposed. Demilitarisation campaigning groups are active at many universities, with some institutions having banned visits from the armed forces in response to student protests. Organisations like the Campaign Against the Arms and Trade and Scientists for Global Responsibility have consistently exposed and opposed the involvement of military forces in universities. All of this is testimony to the immense anti-war sentiment which exists among the student body and academics.

To wage a successful struggle against the encroachment of the military on campus, however, requires that this sentiment be consciously organised behind a socialist, anti-war perspective. The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) is dedicated to the formation of such a movement on campuses across the country. Eric Sommer • 2 days ago

Getting financial support and training for science and for university students sounds nice, and being part of the 'royal' navy or 'royal' airforce seems appealing for some - until we remember the purpose: To induct students into research and other support work for criminal wars and war crimes involving the UK governments participation in military aggression against helpless nations and which slaughters people who have never attacked or endangered Britain or its people.

[Apr 29, 2018] Pompeo's Contempt for Diplomacy and the Nuclear Deal by Daniel Larison

Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.

Pompeo also said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the agreement:

"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities, things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the [agreement]."

It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness. John Bolton's endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a full-fledged nuclear weapons state.

North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them.

Cincinnati G April 29, 2018 at 3:52 pm

Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.

Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.

[Apr 29, 2018] Macron The Last Multilateralist by Patrick J. Buchanan

He wants the return of France colonial glory.
Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Apr 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."

In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism," invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home to the New World Order.

"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."

His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday. For the world he celebrates is receding into history. The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.

Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU. Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States from which China is exempt. As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have plunged into it?

"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods and means to preserve their national homes?

And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive nationalisms that deny our history." Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration how the Americans acquired all that land? General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America's ties to the nation under which he was born. How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?

Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive British, French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker indigenous tribes? Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?

Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?

Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the "suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence from the Russian Federation. "Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron. Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the original 50. Is this a problem? "Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds."

Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd will forever control.

But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.

And they will not go gently into that good night.

In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they love.

With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost all of them from third-world countries that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left will have a lock on the presidency.

With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.

For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will come to resemble San Francisco.

End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Apr 29, 2018] Macron and Syria

Support of Trump strikes after false flag in Douma characterizes him as neocon and imperialist.
Notable quotes:
"... I know nothing of France, but that Macron fellow seems to be a pure-blooded little weasel. ..."
"... His Rothschild past is well-know, his weasel-like behavior with Trump and Mayhem is typical, he cleverly outmaneuvered the electorate to put his "new party" in power, full of unknowns, after manipulating the weak "socialist" Hollande in the previous government. ..."
"... His domestic policy is to privatise everything, remove the rights workers have gained over the last 70 years, get rid of 120000 jobs (as if others have not tried this for 200 years in France, and it has not helped!) and to do it quickly before people can follow each step. ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | consortiumnews.com
Zachary Smith April 21, 2018 at 12:53 pm

Bashar was compelled to return to Syria and become the nominal political leader after the death of his very tough, ruthless father, Hafez al-Assad.

The other day I saw a passing reference to something I'd never before known – that Richard Nixon paid a state visit to Damascus to see that ruthless father. I was gratified the author mentioned the Bushie use of Syria as a place to torture people. Both the Nixon visit and the routine torture transactions with Syria show that "we" were ok with Syrian dictators – just as we were with all those other dictators coddled by the US.

But when Holy Israel finally gets around to setting up Land Grab #3, suddenly Assad is an obstacle.

France To Revoke Major Award From Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad
Briana Koeneman , Katherine Biek Apr 17, 2018

The Legion of Honor is France's highest award. It's presented to citizens who have "demonstrated outstanding merits in the service of the nation, in a military or a civilian capacity."
.
.
.
The move comes just days after France, Britain and the U.S. launched military strikes on targets in Syria in response to the reported chemical attack. Syria has denied any involvement in the alleged attack.

Genuine Hero Assad suddenly become dirtbag Assad. Except for his success in defeating the latest NATO aggression, what had changed? I know nothing of France, but that Macron fellow seems to be a pure-blooded little weasel.

Reply

rosemerry , April 21, 2018 at 4:41 pm

Micron(sic) has nothing to recommend him but deviousness. His Rothschild past is well-know, his weasel-like behavior with Trump and Mayhem is typical, he cleverly outmaneuvered the electorate to put his "new party" in power, full of unknowns, after manipulating the weak "socialist" Hollande in the previous government.

His domestic policy is to privatise everything, remove the rights workers have gained over the last 70 years, get rid of 120000 jobs (as if others have not tried this for 200 years in France, and it has not helped!) and to do it quickly before people can follow each step.

If the workers do not work together, not only the railways, but the rest of public services, will go and we'll be as bad as the USA, which Micron (sic) obviously admires.

We did not know of his likely international delusions of grandeur, but nothing would surprise me now.

backwardsevolution , April 21, 2018 at 9:18 pm

rosemerry – good post. I read where Macron's election team was composed of some of the same Americans that got Obama elected. They just hopped on a plane and repeated the process in France.

[Apr 29, 2018] Putin and Russia bashing is indeed perplexing. But it is not universal

Notable quotes:
"... BraaaaVO! Killer post....Ironically, at age 57, I NOW do what Russians TOLD ME they did over 30 years ago: Whatever I read in the papers or hear from the U.S. gov, I automatically believe the OPPOSITE! ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Dan Good • 4 years ago ,

The Russia bashing is indeed perplexing. But it is not universal. One explanation is that Americans are afraid of the rivalry. Also Americans have been brought up with a negative imagine of "KGB" and it is impossible to shake this. Russia would love to be part of Europe and increase ties and business. Europe is game; but not USA. It represents a challenge to its own supremacy. I think this is the underlying problem. Putin came out of nowhere, as many of the "Putin Videos" show. His first priority was to rebuild the morale of the Russian army and to do this he picked on Chechnia. Perhaps today he would do things differently. He also turned on many oligarchs who had helped him. But he did this because he did not ask nor want their "help" which he considered self-serving; they wanted to control him, not the other way round. He may regret having been too hard on some (Boris Bereshovski for instance) but it had to be done. All these things played into the hands of the anti-Russians in US. One thing is sure. Neither Russia nor Putin had anything to do with the riots in Maidan which are the root cause of all the disasters occurring in that country. If Putin "took advantage" of the break-down in Kiev to retake Crimea so much to his credit. It was certainly not "planned". The State Dept got faked out. Now they are licking their wounds by Putin bashing day in day out. Rather pathetic really. The best would be to welcome Russia into the world economy. It can make a great contribution.

Patty Donovan Dan Good • 4 years ago ,

I was brought up to hate Russia, to fear Russia but not anymore! It was all lies and manipulation! Do not include all Americans because its just not true but yes, Russophobia is from decades and decades of brainshing in America.. Believe me, since literally the age of 5 I was taught to fear Russia.

From school drills in preparation of " Russia coming to get us" to Putin being a communist dictator to now, Russia is more dangerous than terrorists organization is ALL lies by our government and media! People need to wake the hell up !

It is our government bombing and invading countries, our government funding millions to Isreal to slaughter Palestines, funding Nazi Ukraine president to kill Russian speaking E Ukrainians!

Our government funded and trained ISIS! The world is not n chaos because of your government!

Samantha Dan Good • 4 years ago ,

Well, Washington D.C. IS afraid of rivalry.
Remeber the 1992 ,Wolfowitz Doctrine'? Even one of the mouthpieces, the NYT, was slightly disgusted.
The essence of that vile doctrine: do not allow any rival to rise and challenge US power, hegemony.

Patty Donovan Guest • 4 years ago ,

I am not at all afraid of Russia. In fact they're much like us , who want peace and wished our countries were friends and allies like we should be ! But NO ! We have twisted butthead warmongers who want to cause trouble and keep Russia down because heaven forbid they might be bigger and better than us! I say good for them ! We are NOT excepectionals , we should be equals !

Luketree14 Patty Donovan • 3 years ago ,

Totally agree, Patty

plamenpetkov Guest • 3 years ago ,

Guess what, the Russians are not afraid of USA either.

But we all ARE afraid of a wounded animal, they are the most dangerous. And USA is a wounded dying animal. I will be very surprised if humanity managed to avoid a nuclear war within the next 10 years. The fake "capitalism" is collapsing and the only way out is a major war.

teddyfromcd plamenpetkov • 2 years ago ,

IMO -- WHAT the americans among us are saying "'not afraid of russia\|"

is that they don't fear Russia the WAY the warmongers told them to fear Russia...

as if russians have some malicious nefarious intent towards americans...and they are right. americans should NOT fear russia nor russia americans in the sense that everyone are just PEOPLE -- ordinary folks who just want to grow up , live, have families and friends and work a good decent job, leave something for their children , etc..and then grow old with grace .

buit these warmongers of leaders are just so EVIL - who sit around with their cronies and their families and friends SCHEMING and makng their 'inner circle" decisions about 'shaping the world" as they see fit...and create MISERY for everyone.

Luketree14 plamenpetkov • 3 years ago ,

quote: "The fake "capitalism" is collapsing and the only way out is a major war."

No, as it is implied in your statement, a major war is not a way out. What is a way out, is a reinventing of a new economy!

plamenpetkov Luketree14 • 3 years ago ,

There is nothing being implied into my statement. "Capitalism" has ALWAYS been fake and bunch of lies. With a major war, they will be able to keep the charade a bit longer, the same way thy did it with WWII.

Jacques Cuse Luketree14 • 3 years ago ,

Venus Project? https://www.thevenusproject...

teddyfromcd Dan Good • 2 years ago ,

exactly

brilliant summation.

EUROPE and its ''invasion" by the USA is the USA'S STEPPING STONE and war front towards Moscow n order to rule over all of Eurasia -- all that resource and land, magine...

it is just a mirror of the USA'S ''conquering the west" ..by the other direction. as is JAPAN, peripeheral asian countries to china /russia is from the pacific end...

THAT'S really teh USA''s obsession - always was - and this has been OPENLY declared by no less than the likes of THEODORE ROOSEVELT, "the pacific shall be ours, the philippines shall be our doorstep and forever ours - and then on to the mainland of asia"...things of that kind...

no less than MANIFEST DESTINY to rule the world, or "OUR SOUTH AMERICAN BACKYARD"..

and were russia and europe to unite and have peaceful cooperation , trade, friendship and tighten their commonalities of cultures --

WHAT WOULD EUROPE AND EURASIA really need THE usa FOR?

DEFENSE AND SECURITY against WHOM exactly? a europe at peace with russia would SOON be a europe at peace WITH the middle east and africa -- and asia --

and the extremists would SO ISOLATED within that landmass they would simp;ly wither away for STARVATION as peoples ignore them

people who find meaningful decent jobs , children growing up with families intact and with futures to look forward to and travel everywhere their dreams allowed...etc...

WHAT WOULD the landmasses and their peoples and cultures NEED USA for? resources? technology? science? medicine/ / agriculture? food? ships? cars? .......security? defense/ ?

safety? rights? entertainment? cultural enrichment? stories? friends? nope

they would NOT NEED the USA at all. the wil.l welcome american FRIENDS and traders as it ought to be...but NOT as rulers and ''security and defense " SCAM ARTISTS.

THAT'S WHAT THE USA FEARS from russian/european integration...and become what it really IS..

AN OUTSIDER.

Jonathan Jarvis • 4 years ago ,

look at all the blogs/comments in Uk nationalistic papers eg Daily mail-readers comments are full of vile nonsense and insane idiocy-there is no hope of peaceful resolution Rus and west while ordinary people are so ill informed, do not even wish to understand, completely prejudiced, have such entrenched attitudes perpetuated by mass media, playstation/xbox games and zombie films exported from USA that have morally corrupted peoples and nations.

NGO's being funded by USA to subvert other states, look out for cyberwarfare too.

Please support The Saker too, very high intelligence from this analyst.

Rocky Racoon • 4 years ago ,

Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN recently -- Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola

Rocky Racoon • 4 years ago ,

Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN recently -- Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola, ...these statements are allowed to pass uncritically into the mainstream without a second thought. This depraved leadership sends shivers down my spine as it indicates just serious our problems are and how far down the rabbit hole we have fallen. Capitalism in crisis produces fascism at home and primitive accumulation in the form of Imperialism abroad. America is broke and going from Broke having invested trillions in PNAC they are doubling down on full spectrum dominance-a fallacy that will never be reached leaving poverty stricken societies in their wake. Societies akin to the Hunger Games-quasi-feudal fiefdoms only serfs had more rights than today's wage slaves-tenure on the land,access to the mode of production ability the keep and trade the fruits of their labour at least to an extent. The fall of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for the workers of the world-Not only did we not get a peace dividend from the end of the cold war but a century of social gains won by labour have been rolled back to practically nothing the finishing touches being put into place with the free trade deals about to be unleashed upon the Western Worker-notice austerity was and is not an option for Putin's Russia-he has put his neck on the line for his people and his country and they will do the same for him and the Motherland.

America has to hire mercenaries to fight their battles which is why they can't win. And these false flags are getting a little tiresome. And Mr. Lavrov as FM he is the consummate diplomat, he does not brow beat or chest pound,nor does he humiliate his adversaries even though circumstances have offered him ample opportunities-people like MCCAIN OBAMA and KERRY embarrass themselves and their nation often enough without Russia having to add insult to injury-Russia is above that but truth telling is another matter and must be pursued no matter how embarrassing for certain parties the exercise maybe Russia does need to increase it's public relations budget every thing from student exchanges on up to film festivals Sochi would make an excellent venue for the glitterati......and serves as a reminder of just how immature the West truly is when one harken's back to the coverage of the Olympics. This Ukraine situation needs to be resolved in opposition to the fascists putsch ruling now before it blows up in all of our faces. Cohen nailed it-we are 5 min. to midnight and closing.

Our real enemy is not in the Kremlin or the Middle East-but right here on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue-time for Occupy 2.0 with Agenda.

Webbily Rocky Racoon • 4 years ago ,

Yes, and Ebola isn't a real threat. The only reason it's in the US is because people have been idiots and have not taken the proper precautions. Russia has a vaccine ready to go. ISIS was created by the US, and they're not a real threat. I am not afraid of Russia or the KGB or Putin or Boris and Natasha. All of it is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

elizabeth Eva Young Rocky Racoon • 4 years ago ,

Oh Yes, and not forgetting the hybrid not so Holy Hollywood, the entertainment industry who of course are run by the Banksters. The missing link in humanity the genetic modification from apes to human form, the Banksters. Do you remember the "Man from Atlantis" and the "Planet of the Apes" and the oil magnets "Dallas"
https://encrypted-tbn1.gsta...
Play Hide

idiotland • 4 years ago ,

What this shows more than anything is how desperate the western elites are. They know Russia, China and others are rising powers and that the US empire's days are numbered. The dollar's reign as world reserve currency is coming to an end and they know that the US a busted, bankrupt economic house of cards that could completely collapse at any time taking down US power with it. Hence, the risk taking and recklessness. We're in a very dangerous time.

elizabeth wesley • 4 years ago ,

It just takes a few to manipulate the minds of public opinion and perception. That is mind control and you have to ignore mainstream media and go online to find unadulterated truth. Putin has other means to deal with the US; he doesn't have to stoop so low to call obama what he really is: an illegitimate child who became an illegitimate president, a man who came from nowhere and has nothing to offer but war with third world nations who have no nuclear defense. America is as confused as Africa and his zionist handlers like it that way.

Webbily • 4 years ago ,

Listen up, Russia! If you would just get your borders away from our military bases, that would be great.
Love,
Amerika

astoriava • 4 years ago ,

The basic problem is, and always will be, that people believe what they want to believe irregardless of facts, evidence, proof or common sense. The believe that which they think will benefit themselves, soothe their ego, fill their pockets, bring tem pleasure etc and deliberatly ignore, condemn, and close their eyes to learning something that may not fit that goal. They rationalize away their deliberate ignorance and refuse to look for truth under some morally relative "label" or "cause" so that they don't have to face truth about themselves and their true intentions.

Rose-Marie Mukarutabana • 4 years ago ,

The Valdai Speech is on the "President of Russia" website - or at least three quarters of it, with the rest still being translated from Russian: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/...

Draft Resister • 4 years ago ,

Seriously, should this question even be asked? Of course intelligence agencies are trying to destabilize Russia.

Dragos • 4 years ago ,

The Economist is the voice of the british oligarchy and security services. They don't need to be advised by the CIA, because the English oligarchy is dictating US politics and strategy.

Incredulously Yours, Dragos • 2 years ago ,

It's the voice of the R O T H S C H I L D S .....

plamenpetkov • 3 years ago ,

Is the Pope Catholic? Do you even have to ask? After almost 25 years of documented USA lies against Iraq/Iran do we even have to discuss this?
documented USA/NATO lies that have been proven to be lies:
1990 babies taken out of incubators and left to die on cold hospital floor
1990-1999 Saddam working on nuclear weapons
2001 Osama engineered and did 9-11
2001-2003 Saddam has ties with Ali Queda
2001-2003 Saddam has weapons of mass distraction (Colin Powell, Bush jr, Cheney, Condy Rice, etc)
2002-2203 Saddam working on weapons of mass distraction
2002-2003 Saddam working on acquiring nuclear weapons
2001 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2001 Iran has ties with Ali Queda
2002 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2003 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2004 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2005 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2006 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2007 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2008 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2009 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2010 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2011 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2012 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2013 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2013 Assad gassed his own people (part 1)
2013 Assad gassed his own people (part 2)
2014 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2014 Assad gassed his own people (part 3)

Incredulously Yours, plamenpetkov • 2 years ago ,

BraaaaVO! Killer post....Ironically, at age 57, I NOW do what Russians TOLD ME they did over 30 years ago: Whatever I read in the papers or hear from the U.S. gov, I automatically believe the OPPOSITE! Auto-freakin'-matically.....works like a chahm...

Benjamin Netanyahu • 4 years ago ,

A very interesting professionally made video of the entire Valdai speech of the President of Russia (24 Oct 14) along with all the pointed questions asked of him by the Russian, Bulgarian, Palestinian, English, and American audience, and his complete answers to these, can be found at the "Vineyard of the Saker" site (h t t p : / / vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/... .

tiredofthemedialies • 3 years ago ,

Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?

No!! Fancy that!! Where have you been for the last 3 years? and why bring it up now? The CIA has been waging full-spectrum media warfare, propaganda, dis-information and covert destabilisation of Russia and the Russian president for many years. (What do you think they are paid for? making tea?)

Er, um • 3 years ago ,

It's just a coincidence that we chosen people own and run Newsweek, The Economist, The Daily Express, The Daily Mirror, The New York Times, The New York Post, The Washington Post, News International (The Sun Newspaper, Sky News, Fox News), The Independent, The London Evening Standard, the Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Bloomberg News, and Reuters. And run the BBC.

It's just a coincidence, goyim. Nothing to see here. Move along. And keep thinking what we tell you to think.

Jeremy Bourbon • 3 years ago ,

Russia is establishing a BRICS development bank and consequently becoming a threat to the IMF and WB, this is why the global eite want Putin removed and a puppet regime put in place.

Luketree14 • 3 years ago ,

It's also good to remember that this has been going on for years and years, and in spite of that, Pr. Vladimir Putin kept offering his friendship, insisting on the importance of collaboration, equal terms, exchange, peace, and even disarmament ! For years and years !

Soarintothesky • 3 years ago ,

Considerable Ukrainian money has gone into influencing US, EU and Israeli press and politicians ($12m to the Clinton foundation gets Hilary's attention). It is not necessary to invoke the CIA.

The remnants of Mockingbird work for defense institutes in Estonia, Universities in Azerbaijan and think tanks in Poland. It is not necessary to invoke the current US government. One thing fascinates me. Every year or so there is yet another negative biography of Putin. I do not believe the market is so big. Beresovsky started it - his cousin wrote the first one and claimed P had $40Bn without any evidence whatsoever. Did he fund the others too (there hasn't been one recently).

EVcine • 3 years ago ,

To our German friends on here I say...isn't it weird that no one is allowed to say the word "reunification" for Crimea and Russia
I do not recall a referendum for the DDR citizens.

deliaruhe • 3 years ago ,

Germany and most other EU countries are merely assisting in their own decline. Any country -- including mine -- that insists on continuing to play the role of vassal to Washington will enjoy the same fate that Washington is stupidly preparing for itself. The German government has to have a few screws loose to join Washington in driving Putin into the arms of the Chinese -- and taking his natural gas resources with him. Don't be surprised if Germans freeze in the dark this winter.

CassandraSays • 3 months ago ,

It goes on day and night in Russia, although that doesn't exclude an American origin.

There is no defamation of Putin that is not screamed from the rafters by the Russian liberati. The allegations of corruption, photoshopped pictures of Putin with women who can be found by an image search in the same pose and clothing embracing somebody else, the whole nine yards.

rosewood11 • 2 years ago ,

First off, I say this as a former bookseller, who spent major amounts of time shelving the magazines and newspapers. Newsweek is all but dead. Put a fork in it, it's done!!! I didn't know The Economist was a Rothschild publication until someone on here pointed it out. I did know, however, that most people consider it one of the most manifestly boring magazines on the planet. Finally, as regards the British tabloids shown and the American ones that didn't get mentioned, they are for people who have a little mind and a little time. My favorite one was The Weekly World News, now sadly gone. I know it transgressed the bounds of good journalism, but now I'll never know what became of "Bat Boy," the pregnant mummy (the museum janitor did it!!!) or the 12 US Senators who are actually space aliens. (Now, I know they're lying. There's way more than 12 of them!!!)

That said, when I see headlines like the ones shown here, I ignore them. Newsweek discredited itself long ago, and this presidential election cycle has done much in America to do the same for Big Media and both political parties. That's what made my family start listening to alternative media, and thank God for the Internet!!! The truth about Mr. Putin is out there for anyone who cares to look. I've had to work hard to convince a friend of Ukrainian descent that he's not the one screwing up their homeland, but they are beginning to question. I've also shocked several people out of their socks by telling them Mr. Putin is a devout Christian man. So far, I've found about 3 people out of 30 or so I've told this who had any inkling. And one of them is a pastor who won't tell his congregation!!!

The Russian people have a good leader. Would that America had one at least half as capable. Until then, follow the old adage: "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see!!!"

teddyfromcd • 2 years ago ,

IS THE CIA an american organization ? is it and the USA gov a ''legalized" criminal empire organization?

the answer to both is YES... therefore the answer to the question on impugning putin and russia is - YES.

Kjell Hasthi teddyfromcd • 2 years ago ,

There is a black defence budget on the level on the official one = not American money
(CAI agent told it. He had cancer and id not care about doing anything "unlegal" by telling it)

sepheronx • 2 years ago ,

Why bother asking this question now? Russians are fully aware, so is nearly everyone else. Hence why even with this defemation campaign, Putin hold far more popularity than nearly anyone else. The others who hold popularity are equally against the US and others (Fair Russia Party, Communist, etc). Only ones that sing the grace of US BS, Yabloko and other "liberal" parties/people, are 3%'ers. In other words, hated amongst majority of their population.

The thing about all these media campaigns that the west tries and does, which the Saker failed to state, is that they do not work. Essentially, all it will do is rally the Russians against others. As the newspapers love to demonize Putin, it is all written in English with few actually being translated. And when it does, it ends up as a laughing stock of the country. As well, it is barely working here. Yes, there are a few useful idiots around, we even see them on the comment sections here, but lets be frank - even westerns do not believe it. But if their intention is to destabilize Russia, then they are clearly not working. Putin's popularity back in 2011 was 65%. Now it is over 80%. Clearly, the west is doing him more favors than not.

If he ever even loses popularity, and someone else wins, guarantee it will either be the communists or the nationalists (fair russia). And that is when the west will be dealing with people who are going to make sure they go out of their way to hurt the US.

Helen • 3 years ago ,

Al western media is a propagandamachine for the american elite.We who read alternative media admire Putin and see him as mankinds biggest hope.

Webbily Guest • 4 years ago ,

Clearly it's Putin who has bombed six countries in seven years...or is it seven countries in six years. Whichever. He isn't bombing sovereign nations, and deciding that recognized leaders in sovereign states are the latest incarnation of Hitler and thus need to be sacrificed to the god Pele.

idiotland Igor • 4 years ago ,

He's a colossal scumbag for not doing what Washington says. He actually thinks that Russia should be sovereign country outside of the influence of the "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation. What a loser!

Webbily idiotland • 4 years ago ,

Igor is missing his drunk pal Boris.

Jack Bluebird • 2 years ago ,

Gorbachev is a traitor and dumbest person ever to walk this planet. The only thing that is unbelievable is the fact that everyone are buying into "american dishonesty" story when it is purely visible and understood that no one with a fraction of a brain would ever allow something of this magnitude to happen.( allowing Germany the country that wanted to obliterate Russia and USSR not even 50 years ago at that point ) to reunite based on verbal agreement. He should have been shot in the head the moment he landed back in the USSR for giving such approval without consultaing in detail Soviet Army generals and KGB directors.

People stop drinking KoolAid and open your eyes. gorbachev sold the whole USSR for few private "foundations".

May he rot in Hell forever.

astoriava Guest • 4 years ago ,

Do you unquestionably believe everything you are told to believe or can you start someday to think for yourself and look for logic, facts, evidence, multiple and oppositional sources of information and well founded deduction to make your decisions?

Webbily Guest • 4 years ago ,

What war has he started? What terrorists has he supplied weapons with? What minorities is he oppressing. Oh, d'ye mean the gays? You obviously haven't spent much time in the USA if you think everyone here is open-minded about homosexuality. Maybe in the cities on the coast but in the small towns of the rest of middle America, they are pretty conservative about that issue and openly so. I've met my fair share of homophobes in my lifetime and none of them were from Russia. I would say 50 percent of Americans disapprove of homosexuality, and attitudes have only changed somewhat in the past 10 years. All of those gay marriage bans were passed by voters, even in so-called "progressive" states like California, as recently as 2008. You think you can't get your butt beat for being gay in the United States? You think there aren't any anti-gay laws here? You think the anti-gay propaganda law in Russia is actually enforced? Sure, they could have a different attitude toward that sort of thing, but so could a lot of people. If someone is gay and is that concerned about their safety, stay out of Russia the same way you'd stay out of Utah. You're a person who thinks it's a human right to stage a gay pride parade, but if some idiot "girls" walk into a church and make fun of someone's religious beliefs, well they should be celebrated as heroes.
Who did he threaten to nuke? Got proof of that? I mean proof, not hearsay. Do you have a voice recording of Putin threatening to nuke people?
Stop calling him Putler. His brother was killed by the Nazis. You are ignorant. You must be confusing Putin with our current president, Obomba, and our last prezzident, Bushwacker.

Stop Bush and Clinton • 3 months ago ,

Another problem that needs to be fixed is their control over schools and universities.

An aspiring journalist who went through a lot of effort translating a Putin speech and commenting on it, then getting an F while watching the lazy guy sitting in the class next to him getting an A+++ for writing "Putin's speech translates to 'We'll steal Ukraine because we hate democracy. Heil Hitler! Death to America!' (and any other translation you may see is Russian propaganda, Russia controls the media worldwide), therefore we need to strengthen NATO and move troops directly to Russia's border to fight off that threat" probably learned the lesson before even starting his job.

Anthony Justice • 2 years ago ,

I'm British and the more the media attack Mr Putin the more I trust him! I think if Britain was involved in an altercation with Russia the public would not back it. People in the West feel very down trodden at the minute and if Britain doesn't leave Europe I think democracy will be questioned! It's time to live and let live and help each other instead of interfering, for me Mr Putin plays a good game and seems to be more realistic than our politicians, who knows but people across the world want peace and it's about time we demanded our governments stopped interfering. Every country has it's problems and could sort them out if they weren't too busy interfering over seas! War is horrific and must be avoided at all costs but greed will always motivate war. Someone invent a non-greedy pill please😀

ArnieLerma • 2 years ago ,

The US Secret Government hates PUTIN as much as they HATED JOHN F KENNEDY.

Shahna • 2 years ago ,

There is one little item the author is missing. The USA regards Russia and China as "existential threats to the USA" because they are existential threats to the USA. Without it's world hegemon and tight control on global trade, the US crumbles and fades away. Russia and China are slowly but surely, bit by bit, taking them away. Existential threat.

All living things, even empires, fight for their survival.

Shahna • 2 years ago ,

"Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?"
-------------------
On no. Every word the CIA says is true. Simple - it's true because they said it! American logic.

legal eagle • 2 years ago ,

"Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?" Do bears poo in the woods ?

stevor • 2 years ago ,

to attack the leader of a country is to attack the country? No, I don't think so. In the case of o'bama, to attack him is to HELP the country get out from under a LYING SCUMBAG FRAUD and to go back to following the Constitution!

Dennis De Jarnette • 2 years ago ,

The magazine cover lamenting the spies that run Russia caused me to chuckle. George Bush I ran the CIA.

AMHants • 2 years ago ,

Yes, but is it working?

There are many who believe the MSM and take what they say as Gospel, but there are also many that have woken from the zombie, media induced diet of the MSM and they are voicing their concerns and also given a different type of narative to counterbalance the MSM and that is also working.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."? William Casey, Director of CIA

How much money is the CIA, US, EU and Soros investing in their media disinformation programme? It is quite frightening when you look at the figures involved. Why do they need to do so?

This article goes back to 2011, I wonder how far it stretches in 21016?

Soros-Funded Lefty Media Reach More Than 300 Million Every Month... http://www.mrc.org/commenta...

Ironically, the more the MSM goes into a media frenzy with a story, I now always question the motives and reasons why and then completely dismiss the story.

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/...

http://www.isaiahexplained....

Vierotchka Dewey Olsen • 2 years ago ,

That's an extremely convoluted, circumlocutory and long-winded way of saying "History repeats itself"....

[Apr 29, 2018] Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... ( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia ) ..."
"... nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | russia-insider.com

The latest hot topic in the Russian media. Russian politicians are talking about it. Historical precedent and behavior of Western media suggests that they are. The Saker Fri, Apr 22, 2016 | 52,080 195 MORE: Politics A major topic in the Russian media is mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.

Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such a disconnect with Western impressions.

Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.

Yesterday, at a briefing to foreign journalists, Sergey Ivanov, Putin's chief of staff, arguably the 2nd most powerful man in Russia, spoke of an "information war" consisting of "personal attacks" on Putin.

The western media hit a new low...
The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin, made similar remarks , telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia." The logic, they argue, is that by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally, by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself. They also talk about regime change. They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce this defamation into the news flow.
Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years
The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news, including direct cash payments. Here are some examples they point to: RI sat down with The Saker , a leading analyst of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:

-----------------------------------

So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".

And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...

So this is a US government program?

Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:

1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost Russia then was a US colony like Ukraine is today and,

2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.

a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. this is a full-scale political assault on Russia and Putin personally.

So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, basically, planted stories

Yes, absolutely

It seems like "Operation Mockingbird" all over again Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?

( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia )

Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public Putin's popularity is higher than ever before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance

So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military intervention

but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.

Warm and fuzzy...

So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians, the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin's support base

Yes, that's right ... t here are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine Putin.

Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?

Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don't appreciate there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" (those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).

The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries, right?

Well its sort of like that, but not exactly

The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.

The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support - but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.

Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?

I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes journalists corrupt.

As the French philosopher Alain Soral says " nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ". There are, of course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.

This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning away those who don't.

If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.

There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.

Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin America, etc.

Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.

As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or EU today.

Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.

If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?

I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.

The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.

So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?

Absolutely. MORE:

Johnpd Guest • 4 years ago ,

Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency fails, & competition trims profits.
They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist multinationals dominate both commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs , shareholders & their banksters.
In short, effectively, a Fascism.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came from.

FullDisclosure Guest • 4 years ago ,

Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will all be living as slaves behind a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.

Webbily Guest • 4 years ago ,

Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know the US hegemons will get even nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed state on Russia's border, and also hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.

spin to win Guest • 3 years ago ,

I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this sound familiar? I do not believe that the international banking system give two turds about the affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central bank, then there would be real war.
Bankers have no allegiance except to money

Yonatan spin to win • 2 years ago ,

It is headed by Chicago-school wannabes who follow the dictates of a banking system aimed at preversving the US banks at the expense of their onw country's economy.

Nabuliana (sp ?), the head of the Russian CB, knows she is on borrowed time but still keep favoring the US over Russia.

dixi3150 Guest • 3 years ago ,

The say a rat that is cornered can be very viscous, that's the US.

AMHants dixi3150 • 2 years ago ,

What is it they also say about dying Empires. The US did not retain Empire status for long, when you look at Russia and China, they are just a toddler on the block?

Incredulously Yours, dixi3150 • 2 years ago ,

Oh? Violent too....

Иван Guest • 3 years ago ,

Very interesting perspective.
I'm very curious to hear western comments on Russian conspiracy theories that Fed already owns Russia and current straggle is a straggle for independence. It seems wild but for people who view Federal Reserve Bank as a direct enemy of humanity it doesn't seem very far-fetched.

sixpack Иван • 2 years ago ,

WHEN PUTIN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT of Russia in 2000, Russia was bankrupt. The nation owed $16.6 billion to the Rothschild-run International Monetary Fund while its foreign debt to the Rothschild-controlled Paris & London Club Of Creditors was over 36 billion dollars.

But Putin took advantage of the current boom in world oil prices by redirecting a portion of the profits of Russia's largest oil producer Gazprom so as to pay off the country's debt. The continual surge in oil prices greatly accelerated Russia's capacity to restore financial sovereignty.

By 2006 Putin had paid off Russia's debt to the Rothschilds. Russia's financial dependence on the Mafia financiers was now over. I doubt they've gotten another hold since then.

wilmers13 Guest • a year ago ,

You need to understand that President Putin's divorce is a private matter. In the Anglo World they stick their nose into these private matters but in Russia they do not. Who knows; there have been people who got divorced so the spouse would not cop it in the event of big problems. They even got married again later on. The Anglo World is also dumb, always behaving as if the removal of ONE man would cure something, e.g. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad - nah. Or take Myanmar; if only the lady (whose name I cannot spell) would rule the country, everything would be fine. Nah - she's extremely racist and will not utter the name of one tribe 'Rohingyas'.

There is definitely a campaign against Russia and President Putin. For Germany it's the

Atlantik-Brücke which steers the press, in Australia the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, something else in the other countries, just like the late Brian Crozier masqueraded as a journalist but was CIA funded. The campaign needs to be ignored although it is really peculiar that Bush Sr. was fine as CIA chief, and Putin as KGB officer was not. I'ts just the usual American double standards.

Shahna Guest • 2 years ago ,

(I think) .... Putin's divorce is not yours to wonder about or criticise.
'Sides, he said, at his last Q&A, he gets on better with his ex now than he did when he was married. That should be good enough for you.

teddyfromcd Guest • 2 years ago ,

I THINK the time has come for RUSSIA to play HARDBALL with teh us gov and cia, nsa. etc...

and that is to OPENLY , REPEATEDLY -- RIGHT AT THE LEVEL OF UN AND INTERNATIONAL FORUMS - RIGHT INTO any ''talks" between EU/WEST/ and relations with other nations

always INCLUDE , INSERT -- part of discussions -- teh CIA/US GOV /ENTITIES

attempts against russia.

MAKE IT very prominent that it can NOT be ignored no matter what the USA TRIES...

in order to puit FRONT AND CENTER in the world the attention on THE CIA.

don't let it remain ''incidental" topic to ''major issues"

rather -- make it A CENTRAL topic in every instance and keep throwing t at the USA so that all international meetings ALWAYS bring up

\
USA/CIA - USA,/CIA -- sabotage -- oh yet again another CIA operation in macedonia, oh another one in cnetral asia...etc....

let us remember --

2 cia emplyed ''pschiatrist/psychologists" who took care of the ''methodology" of CIA TORTURE are right now being sued in a US court that is forced to open hearings -- on the suit by former tortured detainees...

the PORTUGUESE AMERICAN woman - SOUSA -- is ordered to appear in an ITALIAN COURT to face her charges for conspiracy to kidnap, rendition , torture the arab/italian citizen

more and more will come, that is inevitable and the CIA ought to be BROUGHT BEYOND just ''topic of discussion" --but as the DEEP STATE that it is -- out into the open -- calling out, searchng out its operatives, officers, policy makers, amerifcan officials -- that' sort of thing...and the only way to do that is make it a WORLD GLOBAL CAUSE TO BRING UP in all matters of international governance and relations -- in press conferences...assemblies, treaties, etc...

Guest • 4 years ago ,

I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia. The western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.

Lisa Guest • 3 years ago ,

Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and get the informations we need from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration they say we are nazi or the media say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the media, but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a little bit like Putin.

dixi3150 Lisa • 3 years ago ,

I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for imbeciles. Cooking, singing, festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also get all my info from sites like this one and many others. Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold out to the US.

Martin Alfven Haider dixi3150 • 3 years ago ,

Sounds like American tv. But without all the series about serial killers, violence and perversion. What they have done to us and our collective psyche here is sick, and demonic.

teddyfromcd Martin Alfven Haider • 2 years ago ,

but this is not just a problem IN america -- germane TV as some of our friends here have said - getng shallower -- IS A PART of the ''influence" of american ''way\" ..

to bring up mostly and primarily shallow past-times...that takes up LIFE HOURS...when you really count it,,,

ONE shallow pastime after another...the WORST imo,,,apart from these silly ''reality shows\" (which ARE copied throughout the world unfortunately in that desire to be ''more american" -- even in CHINA ) -

are these ''game shows" -- trivia shows..that used to be just CHILD'S play n the backyard and really is where they OUGHT to stay so children can be children...

but NATIONAL CULTURE? trivia shows? give me a BREAK!

but that's exactly what americana brings to societies..the HIGHLIGHTING AND GLORIFICATION OF SILLINESS and SHALLOWNESS as a NATIONAL ETHOS.

and a sure-fire way of turning out , reshaping and ''winning hearts and minds" by making them exposed - without choice really -- to ''the only games in town"

SILLY LITTLE GAMES that 'TRAIN the mind to become STUPID".

this - THIS is the great TRIUMPH of the american society over the world. where everything -- even WAR -- is now ''entertainment" - to be ''packaged" - promoted sold, and switched around like cotton candy by the powers that be...and deeper critical thought -- or honest simplicity of thought and discourse is ''NOT ALLOWED".

Seán Murphy dixi3150 • a month ago ,

You should see the satellite TV aimed at Britain and Ireland....

[Apr 29, 2018] The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype

Notable quotes:
"... The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine pulps. ..."
"... Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical sect. ..."
"... These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril" racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities. ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Akira Kalashnikov • 2 years ago ,

The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine pulps.

Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical sect.

Now (straight out of a Fu Manchu plotline) Putin is supposedly plotting to install his puppet as president of the United States.

These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril" racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities.

[Apr 29, 2018] The US is currently attempting Color Revolutions by Force in Nicaragua and Armenia

Apr 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

The U.S. is currently attempting Color Revolutions by Force in Nicaragua and Armenia. This form of 'regime change' uses the typical 'peaceful demonstrators' schemes and media push but adds an armed element that is supposed to shoot at both sides - the protesters as well as government forces - to create marketable victims and chaos. The war on Syria was started this way as was the war in Libya and the violent regime change in Ukraine.

Telesur TV has a good write up on the situation in Nicaragua. Earlier today a journalist was shot in Bluefields, Nicaragua, during live reporting, probably by the opposition which now accuses the government.

AFP has an overview of the conflict in Armenia. It is sympathetic to the 'western' sponsored opposition. Just an hour ago the opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan was arrested after a short talk with the Prime Minister. He demanded total surrender of the government. I expect that further demonstrations will be shut down.

[Apr 29, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today

Notable quotes:
"... ruse de guerre ..."
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States. ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | russia-insider.com

How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today "The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag"

-- take it from Philip Giraldi, a veteran of the CIA of 20 years Philip Giraldi Sat, Apr 28, 2018 | 4,379 146 MORE: Politics False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain, France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.

Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States.

False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. The most recent reported attack on April 7 th might not have occurred at all according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.

The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.

The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely" Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA.

The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.

IllyaK • 2 days ago ,

The USA and other transgender members of the "international community" no longer require proof or evidence. They are conditioned to believe whatever dogshit lies the Jew media's queer coiffed henchmen say. No matter how ridiculous.So as long as they re-enforce the post-modern soullessness narrative of homosexual auto-eroticism.

There is a reason why TV shows like 'Dancing With The Stars' and 'reality' TV dominate the collective self-absorbed psyche of meathead robots: one hundred years of Jungian and Freudian conditioning bullshit feed their need for fantasy - anything to escape their reality of bad hair, 44" waist, drunkenness, base greed, and self-hatred. The Need for Greed.

Just cater to the uneducated swine's basest desires and they'll happily tongue their master's rectums.

The west is into scat porn, gay pride parades, "feeling good about yourself", self-help, getting pissed off at the Walmart crackheads because they don't stock dildos with the correct curvature you desire, etc.

Tell me how a defunct species of automatic self-loathing shit-eaters with a victim-complex can do anything But believe the sexy blonde bimbo with an Adam's Apple reciting today's talking points?

The craven papal Jew-worshiping west are quietly self-medicating into non-existence in their prophylactic hygienic masturbatory GMO ass-perfumed bubbles. Occasionally one of them goes apeshit and shoots-up a school or something.

And2 Russell McGinnis • a day ago ,

Chilling ..reading my own observations and semi formed opinion in someone else's point is ....chilling

Realist Joel Paul Stelt • 17 hours ago ,

Recent mass shooting have too many unanswered questions. Strange circumstances lead one to believe they are false flags to promote gun confiscation.

Billo Joel Paul Stelt • a day ago ,

Most of them were hoaxes.

Franz Kafka Joel Paul Stelt • a day ago ,

"...mind controlled automatons controlled through drugs and remote EM voices directing their behavior..."
That sounds like the job description of CIANN.

And2 IllyaK • a day ago ,

Dildos with the correct curvature .
Rothflmao
Been reading ya for years illya.
That was by far the most memorable line you've penned this year .
Great rant .

Jasonovich IllyaK • a day ago ,

Everything you said Illyak, resonates with me. Your words intelligently crafted. It is a reflection of Western Society, where virtual signalling has replaced honest discussion.

The Western media creates a vacuum and the masses get sucked into the void, they are in a vegetative state, they disengage with reality. Even when basic common-sense hits you in the face, these people have the tenacity to accept as gospel the liars and deceits of their Governments. If you hear BS repeatedly and you are of simple disposition, you will eventually eat the BS, you will speak it and accept it as de-facto.

Much of the West live in a distorted reality field, these people have been embellished on tropes of 'Western Values' and failing to operate within the parameters, will ultimately exclude you from the collective mainstream, thus rendering you a conspiracy theorist or deranged person and further more you will be considered as a maverick person, who's unable to inflict upon thyself 'victim masturbation' or accept that there are other groups (Jews) more deserving than you.

Anti_Globalista IllyaK • a day ago ,

In a few words: It is easy to rule morons, and sell them whatever you want.

Franz Kafka IllyaK • a day ago ,

Since they need no evidence of gender either, just a daily 'mood', their departure from 'reality' is not surprising.

tomo stojanovic Franz Kafka • a day ago ,

anything that makes Anglosheeple disconnect more from reality, from their own instincts and biology, and from other people is encouraged by the Empire of SLAVES

Tillthetruth IllyaK • a day ago ,

My only Flaw in your comment is the 44 inch waist as that is now about the size they Strive to Slim Down to now
A comment made on here about two year's ago has alway's stuck in my mind was "How come British Women's bottom's start behind Their knee's"

tomo stojanovic IllyaK • a day ago ,

as someone who spent more than a decade living in the US and as many years in the UK - I fully agree with your analysis. You just forgot to mention religion - and sexual mutilation of baby boys (only in the US are boys routinely circumcised as far as I know in all other places it's only Jews and Muslims who do it). Religion makes them slavish and fearful of their imaginary and other masters from early childhood.

IllyaK tomo stojanovic • a day ago ,

Circumcision is a brutal ancient practice that is no longer justifiable in modern civilization.

I have no problem with religion except for the evangelical cults like Catholicism and it's various psychotic offshoots. It's mostly paganistic.

Orthodox, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, the Eskimos...I/m ok with that.

Did you know that John XXIII was the ONLY non-Jewish pope?

Franz Kafka IllyaK • a day ago ,

Love your Nabokovian Jeremiad by the way!
"Occasionally one of them goes apeshit and shoots-up a school or something."
That reminds me of Winston in Nineteen Eighty Four.
The net was there to catch the outliers. In fact, the state ran the
'resistance'

Massi Gusoni Franz Kafka • a day ago ,

. In fact, the state ran the
'resistance'

Jed Grover IllyaK • 2 days ago ,

Not this American! I consider the tax extorting, mafia style Shameless Sam to be treasonous and should be on trial in an International court and many of the serial lying neocons who have been pushing our tyrannous foreign policy executed. The past five POTUS including Cheney and HRC should be held accountable.

IllyaK Jed Grover • 2 days ago ,

No member of The Tribe will ever be held accountable for anything, ever....unless they try taking on Russia. Then they will swing. And the world will rejoice.

And2 Jed Grover • a day ago ,

Not this Canadian.
Tho ..its a river to be pushed up a mountain for the rest of my folks to wake up .

Franz Kafka And2 • a day ago ,

Is it the Soma that Turdeau legalised that makes canadians so dopey?

And2 Franz Kafka • a day ago ,

Flouride..its everywhere up here.

Java Ape Timelord IllyaK • 2 days ago ,

Yeah, do not hold back lllyak

Scandinavia - Java Ape Timelord • 2 days ago ,

View Hide

Java Ape Timelord Scandinavia - • 2 days ago ,

The Labour party has become anti-labour (i.e. working class) and Liberal party (*1) has become anti-liberal (i.e. anto human rights).

*1 Tory in UK.

Dr. Pro Liv Scandinavia - • 2 days ago ,

This message is lacking viable alternative but still better than nothing.
"Falling" for Dr. Ron Paul would not be "dumb" at all.
It would have saved U.S. of coming collapse....But than why would I care?!
U.S. being aggressor Empire and all, they are doing me a favor really with their votes...
Trump
rimes
the swamp!

Robert Mcconnell IllyaK • 5 hours ago ,

Brilliant.

Realist IllyaK • 17 hours ago ,

"There is a reason why TV shows like 'Dancing With The Stars' and 'reality' TV dominate the collective self-absorbed psyche of meathead robots"

Exactly the majority of white Americans are shallow idiots. They are participating in their own genocide.

commonsenseadvocate IllyaK • 21 hours ago ,

I think you pretty much summed it up.

Barnabus IllyaK • a day ago ,

OMG thats awesome such eloquence

Tam Mailer IllyaK • 19 hours ago ,

LMAO

cap960 IllyaK • a day ago ,

Agree. Repeat a lie a 100 Times and people will believe it to be true...Lenin

CHUCKMAN • 2 days ago ,

Yes, the same tricks keep being played by those in power, and they include more than just false flags.

Why should that be so? Because they still work.

Even the relative failures like the recent one in Syria (relative failure because millions know it was a fraud) give arrogant leaders who want to do something a public excuse for doing it, even when the excuse is weak and subject to controversy. It is their own people they are largely aiming at, people breathing the same atmosphere of misinformation and suspicion.

As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

tomo stojanovic CHUCKMAN • a day ago ,

the bigger problem is that most (or all ) Americans I know don't actually want to hear about what is really going on.
They have been brainwashed from very early to value UNREALITY much more than the actual reality. Once you convince sheeple to think that way (and to actually fear reality) - they will happily lie to themselves - you don't even need to lie to them any more

[Apr 29, 2018] Theresa May's husband's Investment Firm made a financial killing from the bombing of Syria

Apr 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Philip May, husband of Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May happens to be a senior executive of Capital Group which is a major holder of both Lockheed Martin and British Aerospace (BAE).

Theresa May's husband's Investment Firm made a financial killing from the bombing of Syria

According to Investopedia, Philip May's Capital Group owned around 7.09% of Lockheed Martin in March 2018 – a stake said to be worth more than £7Bn at this time.

...


Every single JASSM used in the recent bombing of Syria costs more than $1,000,000, and as a result of their widespread use during the recent bombing of Syria by Western forces, the share price of Lockheed Martin soared.

https://evolvepolitics.com/theresa-mays-husbands-investment-firm-made-a-financial-killing-from-the-bombing-of-syria/

And here for the story:

https://theswamp.media/how-philip-may-s-company-benefits-from-the-syria-strikes-lockheed-martin-the-jassm-and-the-capital-group

Posted by: Allen | Apr 22, 2018 1:17:13 PM | 10

[Apr 29, 2018] NEO - The Simple Truth of Vladimir Putin's Diabolical Plan by Phil Butler

Notable quotes:
"... "We believe that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria. I've already said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government's armed forces, which today are actually on an offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons." ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

In the New York Times last week, veteran reporter Neil MacFarquhar reminded us Vladimir Putin's "fight" with the West is isolating Russia. The Middle East expert's latest Russia hate also interpolated that the woeful isolation is failing to deter Putin. But what is it that Putin is fighting against? What is the so-called "West" trying to deter him from? Better still, where is the evidence of his cunning plan to destroy all?

I do not know why, but to my knowledge, no one has ever asked these simple questions. Here we are in a new and bitter Cold War, and nobody I can name has any reasonable explanation of what the fight is about.

There are allegations by the truckload. There's sanctions, proxy wars, terrorists scattered, CIA money spent, dignitaries tossed out on their ears, and ten thousand news outlets screaming "Putin foul" – but over what? You can't answer because it's all over nothing. Here's a brief history of the real crimes of Vladimir Putin.

In the early 2000s, Vladimir Putin was running a country almost destroyed by corruption, foreign interventions, and pirates bent on privatizing anything of value for western investors. The advance of the globalist doctrine had reached the borders of the country; wars were brewed in former Soviet republics where regime changes and color revolutions were not working.

The notorious Russian mob, the Israeli mob, anybody inside the country that could be bought by western pirates was taking a bite from the Russian legacy. Putin stepped in and sorted it out. Putin did not sell Russia out. This was a capital crime.

Later in the decade, Vladimir Putin proposed an initiative known as the "Vladivostok to Lisbon" protocol. The plan was for one gigantic Eurasian market worth tens of trillions of dollars. The plan was for a full and fair integration of Russia within the global context. Only the plan made Russia an integral partner rather than a network of small banana republics like Yugoslavia became.

The Putin plan would have assured almost unbreakable cooperation, prosperity, and peace. But the suggestion of such a thing to the existing world order was a heinous crime.

When 2009 rolls around and the world's fascination with then Prime Minister Putin grows. The New York Times back then questioned the Russian leader's work ethic. Western media reported Putin singing "Blueberry Hill" and playing the piano. And the Washington Post begins the rail about "Putin, the killer." Then in 2010, the heat was turned up.

US newspapers began the "huge protest" gambit, Putin the arch criminal became all the rage. The Vladimir Putin legend began to grow during this time. Rumors and speculation became the flavor of the day. Then in 2011, the Russian leader went so far as to criticize the West for the Libya regime change. And we all know how Libya turned out.

Starting in 2012 the mainstream media in the West began predicting the downfall of Vladimir Putin. The Economist titled its prediction. "The beginning of the end of Putin." So much for deep economic analysis and forecasting. It is in this year that Masha Gessen gets the big headlines for labeling Vladimir a "crime boss" and a homophobe.

Meanwhile, the real criminals like Mikhail Khodorkovsky gather steam for the lies and mudslinging to come. NPR and other corporate owned media get readers by labeling Putin a "street thug" and etc. But Putin won the election that year anyhow. And even though The Slate labeled him "Putin the pitiful," he somehow managed the biggest country in the world skillfully. Pussy Riot defiles a Russian Orthodox Church snagging some jail time, and down the rabbit hole we go.

Then in 2013 the world's biggest ever arch villain commits the ultimate sacrilege. At the moment then President Barack Obama is gathering his forces to invade Syria, Russia's leader pecks out a plea to the American people in the New York Times.

Then, on the eve of a fateful vote in the US Congress on Obama's decision to launch strikes against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Putin mediates by instigating a proposal for Syria to surrender all chemical weapons.

This was too much for the gilded world order; the gloves had to come off. Meanwhile, Obama and his CIA had already created the proxy war against Assad. But the American people were never told.

Funny isn't it, how overt Putin moves are eviler than covert killing by America? But Russia's leader became the alchemist of truth, look at his words of warning on alleged gas attacks back then:

"We believe that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria. I've already said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government's armed forces, which today are actually on an offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons."

Almost a year passed until I first learned of the "hell bent" onslaught on anything attached to Vladimir Putin and Russia when the 2014 Sochi Olympics rolled around. The bristling gay globalists had no intention of letting the Russia people welcome the world to their country. Putin had to pay for his past daring.

So, Russia bashing took on a whole new meaning. Bad sportsmanship was also redefined when a people created a showpiece and an unparalleled spectacle, only to be insulted and criticized at every turn. Dog packs, unworking toilets, gay skier hunts, unfinished hotels, an environmental catastrophe once again wrought by our ghastly arch villain. The world order taught Putin a lesson in those days. "Mess with us, and we'll piss on your parade."

This was the message. Then the Euromaidan and an illegal regime change in the midst of an Olympics forced diabolical Putin's hand again. Instead of allowing Russia's most strategic position in the southwest to be taken over by NATO, he instead chose to secure it without firing a shot. Crimea should have been seeded to the global hegemony – but Putin dared to resist. For shame.

Since 2014 Vladimir Putin has been blamed for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and without a smidgen of proof. He's had the gall to ask the world order "Do you even realize what you have done?" And this, before the mighty United Nations and in front of God and everybody else. Our crystal ball at The Economist proclaimed "Putin declares war on the West," and we believed them.

He revealed the United States was backing terrorism in the Middle East, and then he televised his forces destroying ISIS. In 2016 NBC News proclaimed; " US Officials: Putin Personally Involved in US Election Hack ." Amazingly, no pictures of Putin using his laptop to hack the DNC emerged.

And the people of the world failed to notice the lack of evidence. For nearly two years now the world has investigated Putin over alleged tampering in the US election. Can you guess what body of evidence has been shown officially or in the media?

Damn that Putin for being so flawless and diabolical a villain! His utter control of every evil deed on planet Earth is being hidden from us. And oh, so skillfully that armies of brilliant private eyes, investigative journalists, whistleblowers, think tanks, the CIA, the NSA, MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, the Pentagon, Naval Intelligence, Senate committees, or even David Copperfield can turn over one leaf of evidence.

This, my friends, is Putin's greatest delinquency against humanity. He is guilty as sin of the real delinquency, the sin of ancient logic. The reason there we cannot see proof of Putin's misdeeds is stunningly simple.

There is no proof.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he's an author of the recent bestseller " Putin's Praetorians " and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."

[Apr 29, 2018] The conflict in Syria has never been a "civil war", and the anti-government forces are almost entirely Israel-Saudi-U.S. Axis-supported terrorist mercenaries, not "rebels".

Notable quotes:
"... I'll also post another great article (up above) on "color revolutions" and "hybrid wars". It might surprise you at how easy it is for outside parties, who want to overthrow a government, go about doing it nowadays. They can't just walk in. They need a reason. The color revolutions and these new hybrid-type wars do the trick. Please read it. ..."
Apr 28, 2018 | consortiumnews.com
Bashar al-Assad was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist living in London with his British-born wife. When his rash elder brother Basil was killed in a car crash, Bashar was compelled to return to Syria and become the nominal political leader after the death of his very tough, ruthless father, Hafez al-Assad. Bashar's main role was mediating between powerful factions in Damascus and trying to modernize his nation (while managing the police state inherited from his father).

In 2011, the U.S., Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia ignited an uprising in Syria using often fanatical jihadists. The shy, retiring Bashar was forced to become war leader in a ruthless civil conflict as his nation disintegrated.

President Trump, whose B-52 bombers are ravaging Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen calls Assad a 'monster.' Some of his relatives are indeed ruthless. But very many Syrians think of Assad as their nation's only hope of returning to normalcy.

Abe , April 21, 2018 at 5:51 pm

The conflict in Syria has never been a "civil war", and the anti-government forces are almost entirely Israel-Saudi-U.S. Axis-supported terrorist mercenaries, not "rebels".

Terrorist groups were set loose on Syria in early 2011, when the U.S. and its "allies" launched a "dirty war" dressed up by the media as a popular "revolution".

Armed terrorists infiltrated Syria and staged attacks against Syrian civilians and security forces during March 17-18, 2011 demonstrations in Daraa, a city in southwestern Syria, just north of the border with Israel's "good neighbor" Jordan.

In Daraa in 2011, as in Ukrainian capitol Kiev in February 2014, roof top snipers targeted both police and demonstrators.

The U.S. continues to train terrorist fighters at a base in the Jordanian town of Safawi, close to Daraa. CIA-trained terrorists cross into Syria from Jordan along the 320-kilometer (198-mile) shared border. Most fight with Al-Qaeda affiliates while the rest join the ranks of the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

The so-called "humanitarian mandate" paraded by the US and its "allies" is sustained by false flag attacks: killing civilians in a "regime change" campaign to break the legitimacy of governments in the Middle East that refuse to abide by the diktats of Washington and its "allies".

backwardsevolution , April 21, 2018 at 5:29 pm

This is a great article on "color revolutions" and "hybrid wars". The author says:

"Here's how it works. Pre-planned destabilizing forces, a combination of foreign citizens and domestic so-called 'opposition', even if they are not officially affiliated with a political party, either hijack legitimate protests or engineer their own conditions for one, and then provoke the government into responding with force. The goal is to delegitimize the state domestically and internationally, and weaken it to the point where an urban guerrilla offensive eventually topples it.

Even if it fails to overthrow the authorities, the resultant destabilization spreads throughout the region and creates a favorable strategic environment for US foreign policy, such as a pretext for regional military deployment. There are also scenarios where it can be used to create a secessionist movement within the targeted state, in which case it markets itself to certain ethnic, religious, or regional groups in order to gain supposed 'legitimacy'. [ ]

The idea to keep in mind is that Color Revolutions aren't spontaneous, but are engineered destabilization movements with concrete geopolitical goals. [ ]

Also remember that there is a distinction between legitimate protests and Color Revolutions, but the US is dangerously blurring the line between the two in order to hide its strategic intent and gain a certain plausible deniability over its involvement. When foreign NGOs and internationally affiliated opposition members are involved, that's usually a red flag, as well as statements in support of the movement from the US State Department or local American embassy.

If a protest seems to support American strategic interests, more often than not, it actually does, and the US has some kind of direct or indirect role in bringing it about, even if 9 out of 10 of the participants don't realize this. Always be alert, and if you keep in mind that the US has weaponized Color Revolutions and engineers them for geopolitical purposes, then you'll be more fully prepared to counter this new type of weapon."

Hybrid wars -- you take a peaceful protest (maybe citizens complaining about prices being too high), you put your stooges into the crowd and on a few rooftops with sniper rifles. Shots are fired into the crowd, maybe a few innocent people are shot and killed. The citizens look around and see the government soldiers standing on the periphery. Thinking they had taken the shots, they start to maybe throw some rocks or bricks at the soldiers. The soldiers and government are paralyzed. Do they shoot at the protesters, at their own citizens? Maybe one soldier, fearing for his life, does shoot a citizen, and then the fun begins.

The goal is to create chaos, have the citizens think their own government initially fired into the crowd and killed some innocent people. This gives the Western government, who wanted to overthrow the country's leader anyway, an excuse to go in. Of course, the NGO's have already been in the country engineering this whole event.

https://thesaker.is/the-geography-of-color-revolutionary-threats-to-the-brics-countries/

This isn't the exact article I read before (it was longer), but it will do.

Dave P. , April 21, 2018 at 7:55 pm

Backwardsevolution -- It seems like they are starting something -- may be another color revolution -- in Hungary right now, with all these protests. Orban's party just won the parliamentary election resoundingly with 67% of the vote. And EU started threatening Hungary with some sort of sanctions a few days ago. And now for the last two or three days we are seeing these protests.

We have to remember that only in big cities like Budapest or Moscow in those countries, all sort of West's NGO's, including Soros's have bought some followers, along with the West,s intelligence agencies, to start these demonstrations in the beginning stage. I think they are kind of sending the signal to the Austrian Government too to line up behind EU, US or else. I don't think the West will let Orban govern Hungary unless he follows their line.

Jim DiEugenio April 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm

Looks to me like the Arab Spring was incubated by some of our NGO's

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html

And this is limited hangout NY Times.

Jessika, April 21, 2018 at 2:52 pm

Thomas Gilroy's comment overlooks the brief mention by Mr Margolis of the role of Western interventionism and particularly the CIA in the "Arab Spring" movements of Syria and the Middle East. There are numerous articles on the Internet about this for anyone who doesn't care to regurgitate the US Establishment narrative but wants to dig deeper. Ahmed Bensaada has written a book, "Arab Spring: Made in the USA". We don't live in Syria, therefore we have to rely on media sources for information. The Establishment has even cooked up a term for questioning their dominant story, "Alt". 21st Century Wire journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have first-hand knowledge of several years in Syria of what has been called a "Civil War" but is a proxy war for Israel and for multinational corporations' profits.

Delia Ruhe, April 21, 2018 at 2:16 pm

Good to hear from Eric Margolis again after having lost touch with his work a few years ago. I'm now reminded of how much I've missed his voice. He's one of those (to me, a lefty) rare conservatives who believes that people should not be propagandized by their government and its MSM stenographers, and that evidence, facts, and truth are the essence of journalism. He also doesn't get hysterical about liberalism – or what passes for it in the US.

In the rest of the West, "liberal" means something quite different than what it does in the US, where Democrats become "left" when Republicans do a lurch farther "right." So it's always amusing to hear American conservatives attack liberals as "godless" socialists and communists and enemies of the sacred free market instead of the lynch-pin that keeps the political spectrum fastened to the centre of the liberal democratic system, orbited by several varieties of leftism and several varieties of rightism. In reality, there hasn't been a "left" in American politics since Eugene Debs. Even FDR wasn't a lefty; he was a welfare capitalist who practiced the right relation of public and private spheres -- which is far more than you can say about those lunatics who follow Grover Norquist and have devoted their careers to dragging a moribund government into the bathroom and drowning it in the bathtub.

Smart conservatives avoid all this misapprehension and the hysterics that go with it. Margolis is one of these – and we need more like him.

backwardsevolution, April 21, 2018 at 4:59 pm

Thomas – ever since reading your post, I've been searching for a very interesting article you might want to read (I'll keep searching for it). This article states that the war in Syria DID NOT start because of the three boys writing graffiti on a wall, but started in a smallish town in Syria before that event even happened. The reporter had gone to talk to the religious leader who oversaw the town. This religious leader said that the day before the uprising, some outsiders had come into the town, and that it was these outsiders who were instrumental in firing shots from rooftops (just like in Ukraine) in order to start a riot. It was a great article. I'll try to find it.

I'll also post another great article (up above) on "color revolutions" and "hybrid wars". It might surprise you at how easy it is for outside parties, who want to overthrow a government, go about doing it nowadays. They can't just walk in. They need a reason. The color revolutions and these new hybrid-type wars do the trick. Please read it.

Marko, April 21, 2018 at 9:09 pm

I suspect this article by Steven Sahiounie is the one you're referring to :

The day before Deraa: How the war broke out in Syria

http://hahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1135-day-before-deraa.html

backwardsevolution, April 21, 2018 at 9:41 pm

Marko – that's the article! I couldn't get to it with your link, but you gave me the name of the article, and so I found it. As soon as I saw the picture, I knew that that was the article. It's been awhile since I read it, so I hope I didn't do it too much injustice.
Here's the link that works for me:

https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1135-day-before-deraa.html

Thanks again, Marko.

Marko, April 21, 2018 at 8:54 pm

The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't – Stephen Gowans

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/the-revolutionary-distemper-in-syria-that-wasnt/

Syria: NOT A Revolution! – Syriana Analysis

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8prwbWLa7f0

Jessika, April 21, 2018 at 1:45 pm

Great article, was on Lew Rockwell's site this morning. Doesn't really talk about Assad's control after his autocrat father, which seems a change from the hardline elder, but like the "autocrat" demonization of Putin uses the past to shape present public perception. I read that after Macron got France to take part in the F.UK.US strike, Assad voluntarily relinquished the French Legion of Honor award bestowed to Syria by DeGaulle, rather than Syria being ordered to give it back.

It does appear that Britain's participation via Mrs. Mayhem (thanks to another CN commenter, sorry i can't name but great.sobriquet!) harkens back to the colonial Great Powers conflicts of WWI and defeat of the Ottoman Empire, and as we know Britain had a large hand in creation of the state of Israel.

mike k, April 21, 2018 at 1:41 pm

Anyone in the way of US oil grabs is demonized. The American public just eats it up; it gives them a guilt free ticket to vent their taste for violence. The victims of that violence are just some dark skinned natives who don't count, and probably had it coming for defying Uncle Sam. Like in Yemen now. Americans love to be in on a genocide, always have. You can count on us to cheer on the bullies, especially when they are waving the red white and blue. It just makes you feel good to be the toughest guys on the block. Go-git-em! Our brave (hired) heroes will take care of those damn gooks!

JIm DiEugenio, April 21, 2018 at 12:48 pm

Eric is on the right track on this. I was unaware until I read a book called The Devil's Game that the British had tried to undermine any pan Arabist, secular movements in the Middle East. And that policy extended back to the twenties. The Brits actually backed the Muslim Brotherhood. The idea behind this was that it would be easier to negotiate with royal families in the area for petroleum deals. And BP was a major company in the field.That policy was picked up on by John Foster Dulles when Nasser recognized China and refused to join the Baghdad Pact. Dulles then decided to back Saudi Arabia against Nasser's pan Arabist movement.

This is why Israel does not really seem to oppose what is happening to Syria, a secular state that Nasser tried to form a union with. The more fundamentalist the Middle East becomes, the less choice the USA has except to ally itself with Israel no matter what the country does. In fact, it was Israel that backed the formation of Hamas in order to outflank Fatah and make the Palestinians seem more part of the Arab terrorist movement.

Berna, April 24, 2018 at 12:00 pm

Anon- "Israel is the sole US motive behind the Syria fiasco;" That is a highly simplistic, narrow, and uneducated viewpoint. It does not take into account that Israel's actions are almost completely predictable as it will do whatever it feels is militarily necessary whether or not the US approves. The US is not in Syria on Israel's account. US policy is and has been since the beginning of the Cold War to oppose Russian influence anywhere in the world, from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria. Meanwhile, Israel and Russia have very strong relations. Russia is Israel's primary source of oil. The two countries have a visa free agreement and a free trade agreement.

[Apr 29, 2018] America is plagued by neocon experts without expertise

blowhards parading their ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is normal
Apr 29, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com
cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 05:41
If you are saying that their expertise lies elsewhere, that is surely self-evident?
cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 04:37
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL goals.

Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably) just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.

Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no part of it is accidental.

[Apr 29, 2018] Yemen War Great For US Jobs Watch CNN's Wolf Blitzer Proclaim Civilian Deaths Are Worth It Zero Hedge

Apr 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

With the still largely ignored Saudi slaughter in Yemen now in its fourth year, RT's In The Now has resurrected a forgotten clip from a 2016 CNN interview with Senator Rand Paul, which is currently going viral.

In a piece of cable news history that rivals Madeleine Albright's infamous words during a 1996 60 Minutes appearance where she calmly and coldly proclaimed of 500,000 dead Iraqi children that "the price is worth it," CNN's Wolf Blitzer railed against Senator Paul's opposition to a proposed $1.1 billion US arms sale to Saudi Arabia by arguing that slaughter of Yemeni civilians was worth it so long as it benefits US jobs and defense contractors.

At the time of the 2016 CNN interview , Saudi Arabia with the help of its regional and Western allies -- notably the U.S. and Britain -- had been bombing Yemen for a year-and-a-half, and as the United Nations noted , the Saudi coalition had been responsible for the majority of the war's (at that point) 10,000 mostly civilian deaths.

At that time the war was still in its early phases, but now multiple years into the Saudi-led bombing campaign which began in March 2015, the U.N. reports at least "5,000 children dead or hurt and 400,000 malnourished."

... ... ...

Senator Paul began the interview by outlining the rising civilian death toll and massive refugee crisis that the U.S. continued facilitating due to deep military assistance to the Saudis :

There are now millions of displaced people in Yemen. They're refugees. So we supply the Saudis with arms, they create havoc and refugees in Yemen. Then what's the answer? Then we're going to take the Yemeni refugees in the United States? Maybe we ought to quit arming both sides of this war.

Paul then narrowed in on the Pentagon's role in the crisis: "We are refueling the Saudi bombers that are dropping the bombs. It is said that thousands of civilians have died in Yemen because of this."

CNN's Blitzer responded, "So for you this is a moral issue. Because you know, there's a lot of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense contractors stop selling war planes, other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there's going to be a significant loss of jobs, of revenue here in the United States. That's secondary from your standpoint?"

Paul countered, "Well not only is it a moral question, its a constitutional question." And noted that Obama had partnered with the Saudi attack on Yemen without Congressional approval: "Our founding fathers very directly and specifically did not give the president the power to go to war. They gave it to Congress. So Congress needs to step up and this is what I'm doing."

* * *

For further context of what the world knew at the time the CNN interview took place, we can look no further than the United Nations and other international monitoring groups.

A year after Blitzer's statements, Foreign Policy published a bombshell report based on possession of a leaked 41-page draft UN document, which found Saudi Arabia and its partner coalition allies in Yemen (among them the United States) of being guilty of horrific war crimes, including the bombing of dozens of schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure.

The U.N. study focused on child and civilian deaths during the first two years of the Saudi coalition bombing campaign - precisely the time frame during which the CNN Wolf Blitzer and Rand Paul interview took place.

Foreign Policy reported :

"The killing and maiming of children remained the most prevalent violation" of children's rights in Yemen , according to the 41-page draft report obtained by Foreign Policy.

The chief author of the confidential draft report, Virginia Gamba, the U.N. chief's special representative for children abused in war time, informed top U.N. officials Monday, that she intends to recommend the Saudi-led coalition be added to a list a countries and entities that kill and maim children , according to a well-placed source.

The UN report further identified that air attacks "were the cause of over half of all child casualties, with at least 349 children killed and 333 children injured" during the designated period of time studied, and documented that, "the U.N. verified a total of 1,953 youngsters killed and injured in Yemen in 2015 -- a six-fold increase compared with 2014" - with the majority of these deaths being the result of Saudi and coalition air power.

Also according AP reporting at the time : "It said nearly three-quarters of attacks on schools and hospitals -- 38 of 52 -- were also carried out by the coalition."

But again, Wolf Blitzer's first thought was those poor defense contractors:

...Because you know, there's a lot of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense contractors stop selling war planes, other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there's going to be a significant loss of jobs, of revenue here in the United States.

* * *

This trip down memory lane elicited suitable responses on Twitter:

... ... ...

beepbop -> JacksNight Sat, 04/28/2018 - 22:03 Permalink

Hey Wolfie, ALL Wars are evil . Period.

JacksNight -> beepbop Sat, 04/28/2018 - 22:08 Permalink

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

D503 -> JacksNight Sat, 04/28/2018 - 22:17 Permalink

Honestly, with all these drug addicts, pedos, government dependents, and fraudulent finance and advertising pieces of shit at home, I'd really like to see some infighting here. No need to sell abroad.

[Apr 29, 2018] The Stupidity of Trying to 'Rewrite' the Nuclear Deal The American Conservative by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... There is no "Western consensus" in support of "rewriting" the deal. Germany has no interest in revising the agreement, and has said so explicitly. If the U.S. and France cook up some other agreement between themselves, none of the other parties will respect its terms. If one or two parties to the agreement can go back and "rewrite" the parts they don't like whenever they want, none of the other parties will see any reason to abide by its requirements. Thinking that the U.S. can "rewrite" a deal and that the other side simply has to go along with it is as arrogant as it is stupid. ..."
"... Iran isn't going to agree to make additional concessions when the other parties have no intention of offering them anything more, and Iran already gave up as much as it was prepared to concede the first time. ..."
Apr 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Wall Street Journal editors make a ludicrous argument in favor of a "revised" deal with Iran:

This is a major advance, and it offers hope that the U.S. and France, Britain and Germany can agree on a revised pact. Contrary to common misunderstanding, Iran, Russia and China wouldn't have to agree to these changes. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal is known, isn't a treaty. Mr. Obama never submitted it for Senate approval because he knew it would be defeated. The deal is essentially a set of assurances agreed to at the United Nations that lack the force of U.S. law.

The JCPOA was endorsed by a U.N. Security Council resolution (UNSCR 2231), so all member states are obliged to respect the deal as it was written. The deal wasn't a treaty, but that doesn't give the U.S. license to violate it or arbitrarily change it after the fact. Indeed, every attempt to "rewrite" an agreement once it has already been made is a violation that makes U.S. promises seem worthless.

There is no "Western consensus" in support of "rewriting" the deal. Germany has no interest in revising the agreement, and has said so explicitly. If the U.S. and France cook up some other agreement between themselves, none of the other parties will respect its terms. If one or two parties to the agreement can go back and "rewrite" the parts they don't like whenever they want, none of the other parties will see any reason to abide by its requirements. Thinking that the U.S. can "rewrite" a deal and that the other side simply has to go along with it is as arrogant as it is stupid.

Iran would have to agree to any changes because Iran would be the one implementing those changes, and their government has said many times in no uncertain terms that this isn't going to happen. The reason for this should be obvious: Iran isn't going to agree to make additional concessions when the other parties have no intention of offering them anything more, and Iran already gave up as much as it was prepared to concede the first time. Iran isn't going to give up more when they are under less pressure and have more international support. Besides, if they accepted a "rewrite" of the deal now, it would just be a matter of time until the U.S. came back with another "rewrite" and then another after that.

"Rewriting" the requirements of an agreement made in good faith is a dishonest and treacherous way to deal with other governments. Other governments can see that for what it is, and they will know that the U.S. can't be trusted to keep its end of a bargain. All of this talk about a "new deal" is just a bit of kabuki to distract from the fact that the U.S. is about to renege on its international commitments for no good reason. Hawks are desperate to spread blame around for their reckless scrapping of a working nonproliferation agreement, but everyone can see through this. When the deal falls apart, the Trump administration and its hawkish allies will be the only ones responsible.

liberal April 27, 2018 at 10:02 am

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal is known, isn't a treaty. Mr. Obama never submitted it for Senate approval because he knew it would be defeated.

By that standard (ratified by 2/3 vote in Senate) most of our trade treaties are not treaties. They're passed by the normal legislative process. (TPP would have been an example; NAFTA was passed that way, too.)

Of course, given the rabid AIPAC-inspired hatred of Iran, I'm not saying the JCPOA would have passed that way, either.

liberal , says: April 27, 2018 at 10:03 am
Is it just me, or would Trump renouncing the JCPOA be the final nail in the coffin of the NPT?
Bill H , says: April 27, 2018 at 10:16 am
" a violation that makes U.S. promises seem worthless."

Russia has defined the US as a nation who cannot be negotiated with because its promises are meaningless. They have a word for it which goes beyond "untrustworthy," and means someone who makes promises with no intention of keeping them even at the time they are made.

More and more nations will reach the same conclusion.

redfish , says: April 27, 2018 at 10:58 am
liberal,

By that standard (ratified by 2/3 vote in Senate) most of our trade treaties are not treaties. They're passed by the normal legislative process. (TPP would have been an example; NAFTA was passed that way, too.)

Of course, given the rabid AIPAC-inspired hatred of Iran, I'm not saying the JCPOA would have passed that way, either.

Not sure what the debate is they aren't treaties by strict Constitutional standards. Treaties are passed without ratification just like wars are entered without a Declaration of War.

Maybe the outcome of all this is that foreign leaders who want solid agreements will try to get real treaties from the US government instead of convincing the US to do some extra-Constitutional measure that they think should be treated like a treaty when it isn't.

And that would be a good thing, from a conservative perspective.

Christian Chuba , says: April 27, 2018 at 11:30 am
Don't you understand, all international agreements are bound by U.S. law because all of the nations of the earth must bow down to us.

We are such an egotistic, narcissistic people. We will get our comeuppance when we least expect it. I keep hoping for us to wake up but I hope in vain.

b. , says: April 27, 2018 at 12:46 pm
The Wall Street Journal editorial board thinks like a sleazy lawyer – what a surprise. The honor of thieves – and I would not count on Germany maintaining its "splendid isolation" either.

Back in the day, Schroeder pretended to oppose Bush's Iraq invasion for electoral gain, while carefully pretending any of the actual options he had to work against it. The options included using Germany's then-membership in the USNC to unilaterally invoke UN Resolution 377 to force a meeting of the UN General Assembly, with the goal of pass a resolution opposing and disavowing the planned invasion of Iraq. Other, smaller and less powerful countries without much affliction of "Western values and civilization" were trying to organize such a step outside the USNC, and US "diplomats" spent a lot of effort making threats to coerce the more vulnerable nations that participated into dropping out.

Today, Merkel declares that Germany "supports" the repeated illegal bombing of Syria, and has little to say regarding the Turkish and US invasions and Israeli acts of aggression.

Should we consider Israel, undeclared nuclear state, or India, non-signatory to the NPT? Or the failure of the US and Russia to follow the example set by China and settle for minimum means of reprisal even in the face of US forward based missile defense designed to neutralize any deterrent of a "reasonable" size and number?

Should we consider Iraq, Libya, Yemen – those crimes of aggression perpetrated by "the West"?

Nobody can look at the historic record, and with a straight face claim that the US and its various "allies" and hanger-ons and co-belligerents have any standing with respect to the conduct of Iran. Neither Trump nor Macron believes for a moment that the "new deal" is the objective of all this "diplomacy". The only ones fooled are the dupes that take these contortions at face value, and believe that either "leader" is acting in good faith.

redfish , says: April 27, 2018 at 2:29 pm
Christian Cuba,

Don't you understand, all international agreements are bound by U.S. law because all of the nations of the earth must bow down to us.

All international agreements are based on legal processes established by the existence of nations as sovereign entities operating on their own principles, through self-determination.

This is recognized and established in the UN Charter, by the way.

In effect, it practically means the US needs to acknowledge Iranian law, and Iran needs to acknowledge American law.

Globalists who have wanted to act outside this framework have been the arrogant ones, in different ways and different forms, over the decades.

Sid Finster , says: April 27, 2018 at 4:29 pm
Oh, but this is a very valuable lesson, at least for those who didn't figure out the meanings of Iraq and Libya.

The United States cannot be trusted, and can only be dealt with only from a position of strength.

collin , says: April 27, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Again, can't Iran Leader just visit Trump at his hotel during one of weekends and enjoy the best tasting chocolate ever? Or better yet, deliver a Boeing plane to the Iran/Trump summit where Trump takes all the credit for the jobs? Maybe Iran can state how big Trump's hands are. (or Something)

Really I can't tell if Trump is really against the Iran deal or just wants a couple Iranian concessions (or complements on his golfing game) to not back out of the deal. Trump loves to talk loudly and do very little. (It is a very weird way to be a dove.)

GregR , says: April 27, 2018 at 5:00 pm
I can only surmise that Trump's plan is to destroy America's standing as the indispensable party, and instead make us the poison pill. I really do think if the US walks back from this we will see the rest of the world open the doors to Iran further to make up the shortfall. It would be the only way to save the deal and encourage Iran to uphold it end of the deal.

This of course would push the US to implement trade sanctions against the EU, Russia, and China. Further isolating the US as the rest of the world turns its back on us.

Janwaar Bibi , says: April 27, 2018 at 5:57 pm
I read somewhere that the US government violated most treaties that it signed with Native American tribes.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties

https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/sioux.html

The ethnic cleansing of Cherokees and the seizure of the Black Hills from the Sioux after gold was discovered there are just two of the more notorious examples.

The US violated treaties with impunity because the Native Americans were powerless. Today the US is a client state of the Saudis and Israelis, and it violates international law in the Middle East at their behest for the same reason – because it can.

When it comes to nations or people, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Fran Macadam , says: April 28, 2018 at 11:47 am
Our elites get away with whatever they can, and there is no law beyond, whatever cane be done, will be done.

Since international trade is conducted in US dollars, which are backed by the full faith and power of the US military, there is little junior partners can do other than to obey to avoid punishing economic sanctions, or at worst election interference, regime change, covert military action and ultimately open war.

France, always a rival of Britain, senses Brexit weakness and an opportunity to cosy up to the US to its own advantage in the globalist system. As an international bankster, this fits Macron's own elitist agenda well.

[Apr 28, 2018] Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein s Memo Against James Comey, Annotated by Candice Norwood and Elaine Godfrey

May 10, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com
Rosenstein's Case Against Comey, Annotated

Contextualizing the deputy attorney general's memorandum on the former FBI director

In a surprising move on Tuesday, President Trump abruptly fired James Comey, the director of the FBI and the official leading the investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with Russia to sway the U.S. presidential election. In his letter dismissing Comey , Trump told him: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau."

The White House said that Trump acted on the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The longest letter released was a memorandum to Sessions from Rosenstein laying out the case for Comey's dismissal. In the memo, Rosenstein criticizes Comey for his handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, and offers examples of bipartisan condemnation of Comey's actions.

For context, we've annotated Rosenstein's letter below.

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives. Discussions of James Comey's decisions leading up to the 2016 presidential election have been playing out since July. The Atlantic's David A. Graham and Adam Serwer both weighed in on that debate.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. A New York Times report from July summarized the announcement: "Mr. Comey's 15-minute announcement, delivered with no advance warning only three days after his investigators interviewed Mrs. Clinton in the case, riveted official Washington and is likely to reverberate for the rest of the campaign. In offices across the capital, all eyes turned to television screens to hear the outcome of a yearlong investigation that could have thrown the 2016 presidential election into disarray and changed history."

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. The above New York Times story continues: "Mr. Comey's announcement was believed to be the first time that the F.B.I. had ever publicly disclosed its recommendations to the Justice Department about whether to charge someone in any high-profile case, let alone a presidential candidate. His decision to announce the results of the investigation was made before the uproar over Ms. [Loretta] Lynch's meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. He decided to make his findings public, the official said, because he wanted to make the F.B.I.'s position clear before referring the case to the Justice Department." Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." Here is C-SPAN footage of that congressional hearing. But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte Latin for " of one's own accord; voluntarily ." .

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. Comey's comments come from an exchange with California Senator Dianne Fernstein during his May 3 testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman's comments come from his February 24 column in The Wall Street Journal . Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI. Gorelick's comments come from an October 29 column she wrote with former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson in The Washington Post .

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision." Mukasey made these comments in a July 6 interview with Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo.

Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Gonzales made this comment in an interview with CNN's John Berman and Kate Bolduan on October 31. Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI." Holder made this point in his October 30 column for The Washington Post .

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as "real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice." Gorelick and Thompson made these comments in a joint column for The Washington Post.

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions." These comments were not made by Ayer directly, but were part of an open letter from nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials stating that Comey's disclosure "has invited considerable, uninformed public speculation about the significance of newly-discovered material just days before a national election."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions. Although the letter builds a case for Comey's removal, Rosenstein never explicitly recommends a specific course of action, and never directly requests that Comey be dismissed from his job.

[Apr 28, 2018] Mark Levin Mueller's probe is an impeachment investigation

Comey trying to blackmail President using Steele dossier. Comey was also key figure in appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Mueller investigation is an impeachment investigation with Comey and Rosenstein as key players.
Notable quotes:
"... We know that the authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself, the targets of the leak. ..."
"... We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ..."
Apr 28, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Fox News host Mark Levin says Comey has done enormous damage to himself and the FBI.

Lobo Blue , 1 week ago

Mark Levin, is brilliant. Wish he was in the Trump cabinet.

Justin Sparrow , 1 week ago

Comey thinks his book will save him 😂 he'll be off to jail along with the rest. The book means absolutely nothing.

Thelma Yoon , 1 week ago

Soros and Deep State are working 24 hours a day to ruin Trump adm.by any means like MSM propaganda ,payed riots and false flags.

CHAS1422 , 1 week ago

MSNBC' Chuck Todd keeps insinuating that Russia hacked the DNC emails without evidence to back up. He has no idea who leaked the emails to Wikileaks. There were also many in the DNC who were pissed off that citizens were sending hard earned campaign donations for Bernie Sanders, and knew that the Clinton financed DNC was rigging the primaries.

We know that the authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself, the targets of the leak.

We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Jan Wallace

Don't forget the Tarmac meeting...Lynch the AG, and Clinton mixing it up that is obviously not really about golf or kids...She tells Comey to call it a "Matter" that is collusion.

George Stone

I just read that Dem's filed suit alleging that Russia, Trump & Wikileaks interfered with the 2016 campaign. I guess Dem's haven't got the memo, There IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. Adam Schiff hasn't presented any evidence, James Comey hasn't provided any supporting evidence, neither has the FBI or DOJ.

[Apr 28, 2018] Newt Gingrich Comey is almost a pathological liar

Apr 28, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Ruby Begonia , 1 week ago

Newt is right on about Comey and his so-called emotions.

Dennis Vance , 1 week ago

Comey is a pathological weasel.

Alex Huxley , 1 week ago

Why is anyone surprised Comey is a consummate phoney? You didn't think he gained his position by being the best at what he does do you? Work at any large firm long enough and you'll see his type. Working behind the scenes, lying, playing political games for advantage. Eventually that person is promoted and proceeds to wreck the company that promoted him. Comey's only talent IS being a weasel.

Rand K , 1 week ago (edited)

The Democrats are obstructing Democracy. There are also members of congress who have leaked sensitive, if not classified information to the media to aid in this obstruction and the DOJ needs to investigate these members to see if crimes have been committed. If the Democrats believe that the President is not above the law then they too should be subject to this same standards and scrutiny. A special council should be appointed to investigate them and look into all their financial dealings both domestic and off shore.

Christi Dee , 1 week ago

I've been saying from the beginning Comey displays a very unhealthy level of infantile behaviour. How someone like that ever managed to manoeuvre himself so far up, let alone in a law enforcement agency, completely baffles the mind. He gives much credit to his wife. I'd bet a lot she coached him through much of the process. He's not leadership material. On the other side, more importantly even, if I were law enforcement in the USA I'd be taking a very good look at this man's life when the lights go off.

Me LotusBlssm , 1 week ago

It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.

Me LotusBlssm , 1 week ago

It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.

[Apr 28, 2018] A Higher Loyalty Truth, Lies, and Leadership

Comey career was damaged by his treatment of Hillary email scandal and derailing Sanders; clearly the political role the FBI assumed. So this is a memoir of a politician who happened to work in law enforcement, and should be treated as such.
An investigation of real Comey role in derailing Sanders and electing Trump still is a matter of the future.
Rosenstein memo pictures quite a different portrait Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's Memo Against James Comey, Annotated - The Atlantic
Notable quotes:
"... Comey is more than willing on several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president. ..."
"... I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have an effect. ..."
"... Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. ..."
"... Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration. Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January 2002. ..."
"... Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. ..."
"... He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and CNN. ..."
"... Before the election Comey said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President" ..."
"... Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the "Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet Comey use it to get a FISA warrant. ..."
"... Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying, protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an investigation. ..."
"... Comey had his issues with the Justice Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. ..."
Apr 28, 2018 | www.amazon.com

mick on April 25, 2018

Loyal to whom?

James Comey is articulate and makes his case in an interesting and effective manner. He seems competent and well intentioned. Problem is he, like many, considers lying about a crime a greater crime than the crime. It is not the case. If someone commits murder, is lying about it worse than the murder?

He rightfully seems horrified that Trump demands loyalty, but Comey is more than willing on several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president.

Tucker Lieberman on April 18, 2018
A justification of the Clinton email server investigation and a nonpartisan critique of Trump's erosion of norms

A skillfully written and affecting memoir. Comey shares formative experiences: suffering a random attack by a serial home invader as a teenager, being bullied and then bullying, losing an infant son. There's a lot of detail about his decision to announce the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server right before the election. Given that situation as he described it, had I been in his shoes, I can't say for sure what I would have done. He means to reveal the ethical complexity and he does it well.

He speaks positively of working for President George W. Bush and then for President Obama, but he has no such appreciation for President Trump. Contradicting longstanding norms of U.S. government, Trump demanded loyalty from Comey in his nonpartisan, ten-year term as the FBI Director, and when Comey did not give it unconditionally and did not halt the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump fired him. "We had that thing, you know," Trump said to Comey, referring to the previous conversation in which he had asked for loyalty. Comey's knowledge of La Cosa Nostra ("that thing of ours," the Mafia's name for itself) adds a layer of meaning. Comey knows what Mafia guys are like, and he does not live like them; he is not swayed by appeals to loyalty. That's how he became FBI Director and that's also how he lost his job under Trump.

"I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served presidents of both parties. What is happening now," he warns from his new position as a private citizen, "is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay." For those who support Trump's policy agenda because they believe it will benefit them personally somehow, Comey delivers a reminder that "the core of our nation is our commitment to a set of shared values that began with George Washington -- to restraint and integrity and balance and transparency and truth. If that slides away from us, only a fool would be consoled by a tax cut or a different immigration policy."

Irene on April 17, 2018
A higher loyalty

I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have an effect.

If you watch the news at all or read the 1 star reviews by people who appear not to have read the book you will be led to believe this is a book about Trump, and bashing him, or outing him as unfit in some way.

Especially if you know that the RNC has gone out of their way to create a website just ahead of the book release for the sole purpose of Comey bashing. So let me bust that myth. This is not a book about Trump. There are no big jaw dropping Trump secrets here.

This is a book about James Comey, from his early childhood until the here and now. Comey touches on childhood memories, being bullied, later on participating or at least turning a blind eye to bullyng himself. He speaks on his experience being home alone with his brother when the "Ramsey Rapist" broke into his house. He tells you how and why he decided to pursue law as a career instead of becoming a doctor. There are humorous anecdotes about his first job in the grocery store and yes some about his final days as FBI director. You do not have to be a fan of Comey or any of his decisions to enjoy this book. You may or may not be satisfied with his explanation of why he decided to make such public announcements on Hilary's emails, but that is a small part of this book. Personally I was not satisfied and he does admit that others may have handled it differently. If you are only looking for bombshells this book is not for you. By the time it gets to the visit to alert Trump to the salacious allegations the book is 70% over, because as I said this is not a book about Trump.

Even if I do not agree with Comey's decisions to publicly give his opinion on one candidate while withholding the fact that there is an investigation surrounding the other even with the "classified info" that he says we still do not know about I was still able to enjoy this book. I agree with his assessment in the last televised interview he gave, that if Comey is an idiot he is at least an honest idiot.

Omar Gonzalez on April 21, 2018
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey

Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey starts with sharing an experience of a time his house was broken in by a robber while his parents were away and he was alone with Pete. James Comey recounts his investigations of the Mafia. James Comey talks about having Malaria and thanks his wife Patrice for taking him on the back of her motorcycle to the Hospital. He mentions his family life and his new born son Collin who passed away in the hospital after Doctors failed to give Collin treatment while Collin was already showing abnormal behavior.

Comey goes on to talk about his role as FBI director during the Obama Administration.

He talks about Micheal Brown and how fake news caused a big up roar and hatred on police by their distortion on what happened in Ferguson and thus caused great divisions.

Comey tries to justify the outcome of not prosecuting what clinton did with her private email server which had classified government data by saying that even if her actions were bad though a statute was broken and had lied to FBI officials about having classified information but she did so carelessly.

He says that the Clinton campaign was calling the criminal investigation surrounding Hillary Clinton a "matter" and he says that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was strangely telling him to do the same when confronting the media.

When Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a tarmac he saw it not as a big deal, though it was after this private meeting that the decision of not prosecuting Secretary Hillary Clinton was decided . So this shows that the Clinton campaign had influence on the outcome of the investigation concerning Clinton.

Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. Though Wikileaks has already said that it was not Russia but someone living in the United States who sent the emails to Wikileaks.

Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration. Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January 2002.

Comey mentions the piss dossier as evidence "strongly suggesting that the Russian government was trying to interfere in the election in 3 ways." He later admits the suppose "evidence" as "unverifiable", this is the same "dossier" that was used to grant a FISA warrant to spy on Clinton opponent Donald Trump which was paid by Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. Again this is all based on the "unverifiable dossier" , even though the suggested "evidence" is unverifiable a tyrant Government can use this to justify in going after ANYONE who speaks against the corruption going within former director James Comey FBI.

He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and CNN.

He says that his family were Hillary supporters and that they attended the "Woman's March" which was more of a rally in protest to President Trump presidency. Before the election Comey said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President"

Comey goes on to talk about Donald Trump inauguration and as FBI director fails to talk about the riots and protestors blocking the entrance to the inauguration where they set a limousine on fire, stores were broken in including a Starbucks. He compares Trump inauguration to Obama but Obama had no rioters.

Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated Bernie Sanders.

Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the "Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet Comey use it to get a FISA warrant.

Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying, protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an investigation.

JWM on April 27, 2018
A better title would have been " An American's Highest Loyalty"

This memoir is an important piece in the analysis of turn of the century politics in the United States. It is unfortunate that the media hype for this book has been about the more recent turmoil in James Comey's service to his country. True, the Trump administration is different and in many ways dysfunctional. But it is only in the part of the book, that he deals with it's dysfunction.

If one reads carefully, President Trump is only a more obvious and verbal and transparent figure in his disdain for the judiciary and the justice department. Dick Cheney and others in the Bush 43 administration are portrayed as far more sinister in their actions to sublimate justice after 9/11.

His admiration for President Obama is evident and little discussed in the media.

Comey had his issues with the Justice Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. His dealings with the Clinton email controversy is well outlined. His dilemma with his communication regarding his investigation and its reopening was inadequately described in the book and his naivety that its reopening would not influence the election is remarkable. He supposes that the average American voter understands how the investigative system and justice system works.

His demeaning comments about President Trump's physical flaws add nothing to the book. I can understand why he wrote them in as these kinds of notations sell books. They added nothing to the story he had to tell. He should have left them out.

I appreciate that he does not give loyalty to a person. What makes America great is that we are loyal to an idea. Even if we disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, we can all be American. His loyalty seems to be to honesty and integrity which is admirable. However the highest loyalty should be to one's reading of the Constitution. I just wished he had said it.

[Apr 28, 2018] Jim Comey, Liar or Fool by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit." ..."
"... This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever, and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian person it is all available and beneficial.' ..."
"... 'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.' ..."
"... this seems to me clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people, and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt. ..."
"... No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk. ..."
"... A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time. ..."
"... Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now. ..."
"... I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump. ..."
"... Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar. ..."
"... Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay". Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority? ..."
"... No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI. ..."
"... Comey was part of the cabal to bring Trump down....pure and simple.. ..."
"... Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally attract the dimwitted among us? ..."
"... Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes, smart enough. ..."
"... Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test. ..."
Apr 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy (to quote James Comey liberally). He was interviewed tonight (Thursday, 26 April 2018) by Bret Baier on the Fox 6pm news show and it was shocking. Why? Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit."

Do not take my word for it. Watch it yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/CqdE0sMDKTo

I want to direct you to look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know.

So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.

Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose panties were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan) that there was:

. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia and the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.

Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress.

But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information contained in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating on stealing the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.

Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"

Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.

There was a time when I respected James Comey. No longer. Trump called him a liar today. I think President Trump has it right. Comey is a liar. What is shocking to me is that someone who is supposedly so smart can be so downright stupid. His interview above seals that fact for me.

David Habakkuk, a day ago

PT and All,

"He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports."

As I have noted in earlier exchanges on these matters, in the press conference where he responded to the British request for his extradition, the man Steele et al framed over the death of Alexander Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, made the following claim about what his supposed victim really thought of people like the man Comey appears so happy to believe:

'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic.

In the appearance on Russian primetime television where Litvinenko's father embraced Lugovoi, in addition to making the quite implausible claim that Goldfarb had assassinated his son, he made the to my mind not implausible suggestion that the figure who he was, in his turn, framing, was working for the CIA.

(See https://sputniknews.com/rus... .)

In the Q&A at the press conference, Lugovoi's supposed partner-in-crime, Dmitri Kovtun, made a claim parallel to Lugovoi's, about British law enforcement, clearly referring to the supposed plot to assassinate Berezovsky with a 'poison pen', which back in 2003 MI6 had used to frustrate Russian attempts to have the oligarch extradited.

(In this, I think it likely that the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office are quite correct to claim that Goldfarb and Litvinenko played crucial roles.)

According to Kovtun:

'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever, and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian person it is all available and beneficial.'

Also in the Q&A, Lugovoi returned to his earlier claim about Litvinenko's contempt for people like Steele:

'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.'

(For the press conference, follow the link INQ001886 on the 'Evidence page' on the archived website of the inquiry presided over by Sir Robert Owen, which is at http://webarchive.nationala... .)

Whether or not Litvinenko made the remarks attributed to him – and I think it most likely that he did – this seems to me clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people, and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt.

As it happens, the type to which Steele, and also our embarrassment of a Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, patently belongs – the worst kind of superannuated Oxbridge student politician – is one with which I have quite extensive knowledge, which even if I had not followed the antics of Steele and Owen, would strongly incline me to think that Lugovoi's judgments were accurate.

No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk.

If people take a 'retard' seriously, then the natural inference is that they are themselves 'retards.'

I have largely lost count of the number of the people in the United States who appear to have taken Steele seriously. But it seems clear that your intelligence, foreign affairs and law enforcement bureaucracies are as infested by 'retards' as are ours.

The notion of Putin as the sinister puppet master, pulling the 'strings' which caused people to vote for 'Leave' in the Brexit campaign, or to support Trump, has always been BS.

A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time.

RaisingMac -> David Habakkuk, a day ago

Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now.

richardstevenhack -> David Habakkuk, a day ago

I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump.

This is the nature of people in power - they don't care what you think about what they said, so they say anything they want as long as it isn't something so absurd as to make them look like fools directly - in the minds of the rest of the fools listening to them as if what they said really mattered.

Parsing what these people say is a complete waste of time. What matters is what did they DO and what were the consequences to the rest of us.

Bill H -> richardstevenhack, 10 hours ago

Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar.

Nobby Stiles -> David Habakkuk, 17 hours ago

Yes! But i think you really should have said highly convenient credulity. That is why an intelligence agency employs a man like Steele. That is the key competancy they saw when recruiting. That "flexibility" with the truth is such an asset in the civil service. I dont believe all players were idiots. I believe they were "fooled" like John Scarlett was fooled about WMD.

Jack -> David Habakkuk, a day ago

David

Are these people retards or just skilled at playing the bureaucratic game and knowing which way the wind blows?

Sid Finster, a day ago

The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive prosecutor will always have a pretext to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.

At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.

This does not mean that a shadowy cabal have secret meeting and take a ballot on whom we will persecute today. Rather, it refers to people of influence and authority, and prosecutors, being, depending on how you look at it, glorified or perhaps degraded politicians, are exquisitely sensitive to such things.

Che Guevara -> Sid Finster, a day ago

Excellent points!

Vicky SD, a day ago

I deal with attorneys on a weekly basis. The percentage of them which are simply unqualified to wake up in the morning and charge people for advice is mind boggling.

DianaLC, a day ago

I am giggling still after reading your comments about our little Jimmy C. I watched the interview yesterday and came away feeling that somehow I must be losing my marbles, so to speak, because I just could not make myself believe that this person had reached the level of authority in our government that he had reached before deservedly being fired at last.

When the whole Clinton email situation was at its peak in the news cycle, I finally decided that Jimmy was a prime example of the Peter Principle. He had reached his level of incompetence. But after watching the interview yesterday, I decided that he had reached that level of incompetence long before becoming the Director of the FBI. Perhaps all the really intelligent, competent people just didn't want to go into some sort of bureaucratic swampy environment that taking a management position would mean. Maybe they all just kept pushing him up the ladder to keep him from going out into the field to do the real work of the FBI. Who knows? One person--I forget who it was--did call him a malignant narcissist. And that he is. So, I hope he ends up in a federal prison with his fellow malignant narcissists, though they tend more to violence than he does. I pity his daughters. They have no hope of growing up to live rational lives.

I then thought the round table discussion afterward was a bit surreal. It's not that I thought the people weren't stating good points. It was just that I thought they would all be laughing so hard and holding their sides and rolling on the floor laughing at him.

God save our country if there are many more like Jimmy in high positions. I will have to pray extra hard at church this Sunday.

Fred S, a day ago

Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay". Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority?

Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus giving him "attorney client privilege". That being the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.

No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI.

Fred, a day ago

Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee". Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay"? Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus giving him "attorney client privilege". That would be the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.

notlurking, a day ago

Comey was part of the cabal to bring Trump down....pure and simple...

Jack, a day ago

It seems that there is more than meets the eye here. It is becoming more evident that the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russian government was actually a cover for the far more insidious collusion of top officials in the Obama administration including possibly Obama himself to use the resources and capabilities of the federal government to destroy a major party presidential candidate from the opposing party.

Clapper once again being accused of lying to Congress and being a leaker of classified information. Brennan sure looks very concerned. Let's see if the rule of law applies to high officials in government. I'm not holding my breath.

Valissa Rauhallinen, a day ago

Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He looks like both a liar and fool to many of us.

Not surprisingly, there are many great political cartoons to be found on Comey over the past couple of years. It was hard to limit myself to sharing 3 of them, but I didn't want to end up in the spam bin.

Comey, possibly auditioning for an acting job :)

Ghost ship, 12 hours ago

are any Americans in cahoots with the foreign intelligence of an adversary nation

Since when does the Director of the FBI get to decide American foreign policy and does he really understand the principles of democracy? Donald Trump was clear throughout his campaign that he wanted better relations with Russia so the people who elected him however flawed the process had an expectation that there would be better relations with Russia. People in the executive might disagree with this as a policy but in a democracy they should not actively frustrate the will of the people; Trump should call on anybody who has done so to resign as a matter of principle.

MP98, a day ago

Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally attract the dimwitted among us?

English Outsider -> MP98, 6 hours ago

Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes, smart enough.

It reminded me of similar awkward interviews here, from Mr Blair in the distant past to Boris Johnson's recent DW interview: enough ingenuity to convince the most of us and too few of the unconvinced to matter. After all for such people, or I'd guess in the environment Mr Comey has so far prospered in, there's no call for cast iron explanations. The plausible, as long as it has some colour of reason, will carry the day.

Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test.

Karel Whitman, a day ago

ooops, forgot to this: https://www.amazon.com/char...

Karel Whitman, a day ago

PT, I vaguely, very, very vaguely (not much) followed up on Fred's book alert on Comey and his book. I stumbled across a young man's review (as old lady), whose name I had never heard before. Touched old chords somehow. Not sure if I may link here to--of all possible places--Rolling Stone? And Garrett M. Graff, that is: James Comey's 'A Higher Loyalty' Is a Study in Contradictions, Inside and Out. The former FBI director's memoir is about life, leadership and undoing all of the above

https://www.rollingstone.co...

Strictly, I doubt the title was his own choice. But then he, or his ghostwriter must have somehow headed there.

********

Springer and Holtzbrinck, oops, I meant Flatiron:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

...

[Apr 28, 2018] Comey took it upon himself to declassify, classified documents without the permission of the President of the United States, who happens to be his boss.

Notable quotes:
"... Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales, murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast. ..."
"... Strzok and Page are sacrificial pigs who have apparently only convicted themselves of gross stupidity. There is no evidence of crimes being committed in emails. That is why both are still employed. No evidence either one was having an affair, either. Going to lunch is not a crime. ..."
Apr 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

STP -> Creative_Destruct Fri, 04/27/2018 - 16:19 Permalink

Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge what is and what is not classified! As the head of the FBI, he clearly has the role of 'Originating Authority' on determining classification of ANY document. What it says is, that if there's ANY doubt, whether it is classified or not, it shall be SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of classification. And the ultimate authority, is the President of the United States, if the Originator is Comey. So Comey took it upon himself to declassify, classified documents without the permission of the President of the United States, who happens to be his boss.

(c) If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If there is reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification pending a determination by an original classification authority , who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html

STP -> STP Fri, 04/27/2018 - 16:24 Permalink

I'll add this as well. And this is the source, BTW:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html

Executive Orders

Executive Order 12356--National security information

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12356 of Apr. 2, 1982, appear at 47 FR 14874 and 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166, unless otherwise noted.

10) other categories of information that are related to the national security and that require protection against unauthorized disclosure as determined by the President or by agency heads or other officials who have been delegated original classification authority by the President . Any determination made under this subsection shall be reported promptly to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office .

(b) Information that is determined to concern one or more of the categories in Section 1.3(a ) shall be classified when an original classification authority also determines that its unauthorized disclosure, either by itself or in the context of other information, reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.
(c) Unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information, the identity of a confidential foreign source, or intelligence sources or methods is presumed to cause damage to the national security.
(d) Information classified in accordance with Section 1.3 shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unofficial publication or inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure in the United States or abroad of identical or similar information. [!!!!!!]
Beowulf55 -> nope-1004 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:07 Permalink

He's both! Liars are always incredibly naive and mentally lacking.

And why? You dismiss the fact that he, Comey, is a narcissistic sociopath and that is who they are: a liar and mentally lacking.

Omen IV -> Beowulf55 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 14:37 Permalink

" Comey's semantic absurdity"

Comey follows Humpty Dumpty's rules: "A word means exactly what i choose it to mean - no more no less"

Omen IV -> Beowulf55 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 14:37 Permalink

" Comey's semantic absurdity"

Comey follows Humpty Dumpty's rules: "A word means exactly what i choose it to mean - no more no less"

BennyBoy -> nope-1004 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:29 Permalink

Explosive?!

About as explosive as explosive diarrhea

JLee2027 -> nope-1004 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 13:31 Permalink

They get so twisted, they believe their own lies are true...that's basically a broken mind.

MrAToZ -> nope-1004 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 17:42 Permalink

Comey is no different than any of those low lifes you used to see get busted on Cops. He's a confidence man. A crack head, high on his own power. He's worse in fact because he betrayed his fellow Americans en masse.

What nails him is over confidence. Obama has it, Clinton has it. They all think that they they're winners at the table and that it's gonna go on forever. They are the worse type because they think they deserve it. There is not a gram of humility in the lot. Prisons are full of these guys.

Interestingly enough, all these these players use the same excuses those addicts with smack in the center console use as they were getting cuffed.

"What? We were just talkin"

"I had no idea that was there"

"I don't remember"

"Some guy told me it was okay"

"I don't know"

"The other guy started it"

"That's my personal stuff. You got no right"

"Those aren't mine"

"Wasn't me"

"I'm not me I'm my younger brother" (nod to Ike Turner for that one)

It's the sheer weight of these tired old answers that makes it so obvious that Comey is scum. He has an answer for everything. Put them all together and you get a figure eight. He's a punk in the first order and a henchman of a crime family. I'm hoping he ends up somebody's punk when this is over.

BabaLooey -> BaBaBouy Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:43 Permalink

Fucking DIE Comey you prick.

Save us all from your shit - fucking asshole.

El Oregonian -> BaBaBouy Fri, 04/27/2018 - 13:57 Permalink

The political flesh has taken on a nice "Swampy-Taste" to it.

There are lies, and there are damned lies... and there's Comey..

Beowulf55 -> Yukon Cornholius Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:04 Permalink

Hey Cornholius, When you say "these pigs are as dirty as they get" are you talking about Jeff "Reefer Madness" Sessions? Because, if you are, I will agree with you.

Yukon Cornholius -> Beowulf55 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:30 Permalink

I'm talking about all the fucknuts who steal the fruits of your labor and claim to be "serving the public". Sessions is definitely one of those pigs. Taxpayers enable and support his behaviour.

Bigly -> Beowulf55 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 16:24 Permalink

Guys, not so fast. Mr. Magoo is not as dim as he looks: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/heres-jeff-sessions-might-playing-4-d-chess/

Just like Flynn taking that hit so his testimony of ALL the illegalities he witnessed is now legally documented.

Not all is brilliant, but they do have a PLAN.

Rex Andrus -> Yukon Cornholius Fri, 04/27/2018 - 13:06 Permalink

Court? Just who do you think is protecting them? Try harder.

Yukon Cornholius -> Rex Andrus Fri, 04/27/2018 - 13:09 Permalink

Certainly not We the People and the Common Law.

Rex Andrus -> Yukon Cornholius Fri, 04/27/2018 - 13:55 Permalink

This is a constitutional republic. They like "democracy" because they can claim their crimes legitimate as "mandates". Their actions are unconstitutional. That is the law. Be nice if the next time the military conducts exercises in a domestic population center the local militia takes them all prisoner. Train for this.

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/98d979c48bab4bb119b86d5500a4c6279f15f7

Yukon Cornholius -> Rex Andrus Fri, 04/27/2018 - 14:16 Permalink

Maybe ideologically it is a constitutional republic, but since March 9, 1933 when FDR signed the Emergency Banking Act the United States has been a private institution managed by foreign investors.

"Since March 9, 1933 The United States has been in a state of Declared National Emergency ... Under the powers delegated by these statutes the President may: seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, order military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of ways control the lives of American citizens. ... A majority of the people in the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For forty years, freedoms and governmental procedure guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by national emergency." In Reg. US Senate report No. 93-549 dated 11/19/73

Rex Andrus -> Yukon Cornholius Fri, 04/27/2018 - 16:53 Permalink

All laws that are unconstitutional are null and void.

Yukon Cornholius -> Rex Andrus Fri, 04/27/2018 - 18:30 Permalink

Indeed. I have been living under Lawful Rebellion (article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 ) for some time now.

TheWholeYearInn -> FireBrander Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:51 Permalink

Let's see

In summary ~ Another DAY IN THE LIFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM

Hey ~ but at least now we all know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

FireBrander -> TheWholeYearInn Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:55 Permalink

Why Trump allows this, I can't figure out...either it's part of a bigger plan, he's a dumb-ass, or he's being forced to allow this shit-show to go into it's second season.

stant -> J S Bach Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:55 Permalink

they had a banana republic to save

I Am Jack's Ma -> hedgeless_horseman Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:36 Permalink

Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales, murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast.

And of course Hillary... decades of lies, murders, theft, and the deliberate arming of terrorists in Syria, per her emails, to 'help Israel.'

These people aren't merely criminals, but domestic terrorists and traitors.

Trump and Sessions' failure to indict these people merits your attention regardless of what you think of Trump these days.

The lack of prosecutions means a DOJ afraid of what dark secrets may be revealed in the harsh light of investigation and prosecution.

We would likely, even as cynics, absolutely marvel at the thoroughness of Washington's corruption if we saw it.

Maybe we'd think about treating DC as a zio/globalist occupied territory that presents a clear and present danger to the several States.

cat-foodcafe -> hedgeless_horseman Fri, 04/27/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

Will spell all this out for everyone:

Strzok and Page are sacrificial pigs who have apparently only convicted themselves of gross stupidity. There is no evidence of crimes being committed in emails. That is why both are still employed. No evidence either one was having an affair, either. Going to lunch is not a crime.

The real action is who and what else is being concealed from the world.......

FBI are all a bunch of depraved FUCKS.

If FBI secrets were to come out for everyone to see, every criminal prosecution in which FBI Fucks were involved could be dismissed, overturned, reversed, or withdrawn from Fed Court. Gov does not have enough $$$$$$ to pay the damages.

So we all get fucked and FBI cunts stay employed.

Sso corrupt it is UNIMAGINABLE !!!!

Close down the FBI !!!! End the fucking contest. Do it NOW !!!

WileyCoyote -> BetterRalph Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:39 Permalink

A narcissistic pathological liar on display. My opinion as an armchair psychologist!

Catullus Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:34 Permalink

Did his crack legal team tell him to shut the fuck up? He's basically cross examining himself in a public forum.

The Clinton email thing is still amazing. It's de jure illegal to handle the information the way they did regardless of intent. No interview was necessary. No immunity to an unnecessary interview needed to happen either. This is a miscarriage at its most benign.

Only a boob would believe this "aw schucks" nonesense.

lolygager Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:36 Permalink

It is amazing he ran the FBI. He is completely delusional. Has no sense of the rule of law or how to apply it. Has no sense of how the law applies to him. He cannot see the consequences of his actions on people or how they would interpret it. Complete narcissist that lacks any empathy. Truly a psychopath.

L Cornelius Sulla Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:53 Permalink

The level of absurdity of the former head of the nation's purportedly premiere law enforcement agency giving unlimited interviews to promote a tell-all book on still active investigations in which he was involved is so high that it would it wouldn't even be fodder for satire. Sanctimonious "Cardinal" Comey has become a caricature of himself. He is either bringing shame and disgrace to the FBI that he purportedly loves, or conclusively demonstrating that it is more politically corrupt than under Hoover; but without the competency it displayed under Hooveresque directors. People like Comey, McCabe, Strzok and Page sent scores of people to prison, ruining untold lives. How many of these people would have been found guilty if even a fraction of this information had been available to defense attorneys as exculpatory evidence? Manafort's lawyers are going to have a field day with all of this (at least in the DC case where Judge Berman Jackson - a former defense lawyer and ostensibly fair jurist - is presiding; I pity Manafort's lawyers in front of Judge Ellis in Alexandria). Every time that Comey opens his mouth, he is making multiple inconsistent statements of varying degrees. His narcissism and greed are so monumental that he doesn't even see the damage that he did, is and will continue to do to his credibility. I do, however, have to end by commending him for appearing on Fox, though I think that it was more his inability to turn down a forum for self-promotion than out of any particular bravery.

enough of this Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:54 Permalink

Comey said, "it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ would bring."

That doesn't mean the hundred-plus FBI agents who actually worked the case didn't believe Clinton should be prosecuted. Comey betrayed FBI agents by not supporting them. Instead, he sided with politicize prosecutors, including Attorney General Lynch, who weren't going to indict Clinton no matter what the evidence showed. Comey is a limpid coward and a disgrace to law enforcement officers throughout the land.

Robert Trip Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:14 Permalink

Does Bezos have Comey's book "Riding My High Horse" at number one on Amazon, like he did with Clinton's book "What The Fuck Happened?" even though it had only sold 62 copies?

arby63 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:26 Permalink

I truly do not understand any of this. Is this guy so full of himself that he thinks all of these interviews will somehow exonerate him?

What's the method to this madness? He digs a deeper hole every time he opens his mouth. I seriously doubt if everyone is laughing.

adr Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:40 Permalink

Classified is classified, unless you work for a Clinton.

SO if you put classified information in your book, it is no longer classified??????

Shit, a whole lot of ex CIA guys need to write books. How about, "Well we knew that the most murderous and despicable Nazi was in Argentina all along and lived there for 30 years after WWII but we never went and got him, because he really didn't do most of the things we claimed he did."

tedstr Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:08 Permalink

forget the dossier. forget that she destroyed evidence. forget that she fleeced world leaders for her little foundation. forget the outrageous speaking fees of her disgraced ex president husband. forget the meeting on the tarmac with the AG. forget that her campaign was laundering contributions.

SHE SET UP A FUCKING ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER IN HER HOME AND REDIRECTED GOVERNMENT TOP SECRET EMAIL TO THAT SERVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE ALL HER CRIMES.

God these people are dirtier than a small time local politician. Jail em all.

Honest Sam Fri, 04/27/2018 - 14:48 Permalink

I have learned that there is a gaping deep and wide crevasse between a 'fact' and a 'truth'.

A 'truth' is, e.g., That tall oak out there is a tree.

A 'fact' is, that depending on where you are standing, you can attest to seeing less than a half of a tree, (unless you have developed the ability to see around bends).

So when someone like the weasel Comey is says something is a fact, you have every reason to doubt that he is telling you a truth.

I have a larcenous heart. I regret that I did not get into government, seeing how much money can be made and how risk free the jobs are. Few---- compared to the many millions who have literally gotten away with murder, gathered immense fortunes, and awesome behind the scenes power that is invisible----have ever been arrested let alone accused, prosecuted and sent to jail. You can count them on your fingers and toes.

So I have no objections to people buying his pack of lies and him making some serious money on the advances, the book, and the eventual movie, starring George Clooney as the hero, Comey.

The Department of "Justice", lost its way long ago. To persist in calling it the DOJ when it is nothing of the sort, just another disreputable, bureaucratic fuckup of a government agency, is a total lie.

Winston Smith 2009 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 15:23 Permalink

Comey lies in the interview exposed plus the new Peter Strzok and Lisa Page emails. Even what must be a very tiny percentage of their emails during the covered time span have some very revealing contents which the censors missed:

https://soundcloud.com/dan-bongino/ep-708-explosive-new-texts

UndergroundGym Fri, 04/27/2018 - 16:25 Permalink

Interestingly, Comey said Republicans financed the Steele dossier before Democrats. What if he's telling the truth? Trump is an Independent with an "R" next to his name-Trump isn't their "Boy". Many Lifer Republicans in fact are leaving office including House Speaker Ryan. If a Republican is responsible for financing the dossier, my guess for one is Senator John McCain. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mccain-associate-subpoena

Rex Andrus Fri, 04/27/2018 - 16:47 Permalink

Comey the hatchet man https://media.8ch.net/file_store/91745f98ae856a94463f635adea80a2d159baa

You're going to lose more than just fall guys, motherfuckers. It's open season on no go zones.

agcw86 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 18:34 Permalink

Comey will have a bright future if they bring back "The Liar's Club" to TV.

American Snipper Fri, 04/27/2018 - 20:38 Permalink

I could not watch more than 25% of the first video without projectile vomiting. This fucker should be shot for treason, as all the rest of the swamp leaders. The one sailor went to jail for accidentally releasing a pic in an engine room, and Petras went to prison for so much less.

It's time to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of traitors to the Republic...

Petrodollar Sy Fri, 04/27/2018 - 21:59 Permalink

What an evil, brilliant bastard.

[Apr 28, 2018] In Explosive Interview Comey Grilled Over Memos, FBI Bias And Steele Dossier

Notable quotes:
"... As Orwell taught us in, Animal Farm , "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law. ..."
"... And as Bastiat writes in, The Law , today in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder. ..."
"... This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses. ..."
"... look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
Apr 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Fox News host Bret Baier and James Comey sat down for a one-on-one interview Thursday night, in perhaps the most serious and direct conversations with the former FBI Director to date.

Baier held Comey's feet to the fire on a wide variety of controversial topics - including the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton before interviewing her, what Comey knew about the "Steele Dossier" used to obtain a surveillance warrant on a Trump campaign aide, and the memos Comey leaked to his friend which he hoped would lead to a special counsel investigation.

Clinton Exoneration

After starting the interview off with a joke about how Comey must find it "a little tougher to get around town without a motorcade," Baier pulled no punches - launching straight into asking the former FBI Director if it was true that his team decided to exonerate Hillary Clinton before interviewing her .

In response, Comey said that because of all the prior investigative work the FBI had done on the Clinton email case, investigators said "it looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutors will bring it," and that it's "fairly typical" for white collar investigations to save interviews for last.

Comey: I started to see that their view was, it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ would bring .

Baier: Before the interview?

Sure, yeah, because they had spent ten months digging around, reading all of the emails, putting everything together, interviewing everybody who set up her system. They weren't certain of that result, but they said "Look boss, on the current course and speed, looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutor will bring it ."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/CqdE0sMDKTo

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4jo6pBXINUg?start=34

Strzok and Page

On the topic of Peter Strzok - the anti-Trump counterintelligence agent deeply involved in both the Clinton and Trump investigations along with his FBI attorney mistress, Lisa Page, Comey said he never witnessed evidence of bias working with the pair, but that he was " deeply disappointed" when he saw some of the text messages exchanged between them.

"I can tell you this: When I saw the texts, I was deeply disappointed in them," Comey told Baier. " But I never saw any bias, any reflection of any kind of animus towards anybody, including me . I'm sure I'm badmouthed in those texts, I'm just not going to read them all. Never saw it."

Comey said that if he had been aware of the level of hatred Strzok and Page had for Trump, he "would have removed both of them from any contact with significant investigations."

The "leaked" memos

When it comes to the leaked memos that kickstarted the Mueller probe, Comey maintains that the memos he created to document his interactions with President Trump, seven in all and four of which have been deemed classified; two marked "confidential" and two marked "secret."

Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos to two other people who he said were members of his "legal team," including David Kelly and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

"I gave the memos to my legal team after I gave them to Dan Richman -- after I asked him to get it out to the media," said Comey, who likened the memos to his "diaries."

" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it as mine, like a diary"

Trump "just wrong"

Responding to a Fox & Friends interview in which President Trump said "Comey is a leaker and he's a liar. He's been leaking for years," the former FBI Director responded " He's just wrong. Facts really do matter." Comey then claimed that because the FBI approved the inclusion of the memos in his book, A Higher Loyalty , they are therefore not classified.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner provides an excellent breakdown of Comey's semantic absurdity here .

The "Steele Dossier" and who paid for it

Baier asked Comey why the FBI used the Steele Dossier compiled by former UK spy Christopher Steele to obtain a FISA warrant on a Trump campaign aide if it was "salacious," to which Comey replied that the dossier was part of a " broader mosaic of facts " used to support the application.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4jo6pBXINUg?start=638

And when it comes to who funded the dossier used in the FISA application, Comey claims he still has no idea whether Hillary Clinton and the DNC funded it.

" When did you learn that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele's work? " Baier asked.

" Yeah I still don't know that for a fact ," Comey responded.

"What do you mean?" Baier replied.

" I've only seen it in the media, I never knew exactly which Democrats had funded ," Comey explained, "I knew it was funded first by Republicans."

Baier quickly corrected Comey, noting that while conservative website Free Beacon had Fusion GPS on "a kind of retainer," they "did not fund the Christopher Steele memo or the dossier," adding " That was initiated by Democrats ."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/csKAkxzrDc0

On Friday morning, in response to the interview, Trump blasted Comey again in a tweet :

"Is everybody believing what is going on. James Comey can't define what a leak is. He illegally leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION but doesn't understand what he did or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He's either very sick or very dumb. Remember sailor!"

Full Interview Below

Brett Baier's Take and other reactions:

hedgeless_horseman -> BetterRalph Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:23 Permalink

...two marked "confidential" and two marked "secret."

Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos...

As Orwell taught us in, Animal Farm , "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law.

And as Bastiat writes in, The Law , today in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder.

NoDebt -> hedgeless_horseman Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:28 Permalink

This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses.

CuttingEdge -> J S Bach Fri, 04/27/2018 - 10:40 Permalink

Anyone read the latest text messages?

https://www.scribd.com/document/377540616/PS-LP-Text-Messages-Dec-2016-

The recipe for a Nothing Burger, as created by the DoJ. Peddling bullshit like this on a daily basis must be soul destroying for any of these weasel cunts that had a soul in the first place.

The really juicy ones are redacted to hell and gone, or text corrupted in all the right places.

Cunts.

nope-1004 -> BaBaBouy Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:05 Permalink

He's either very sick or very dumb.

He's both! Liars are always incredibly naive and mentally lacking.

jcaz -> de3de8 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:30 Permalink

He feels empowered because he's still running around in the media spouting his shit, which is getting more "creative" with every interview he does;

For a guy who all his friends say he considers himself as "the smartest man in the room", he's a stunning "din know nuffin" dumbfuck........

Creative_Destruct -> Stan522 Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:30 Permalink

" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it as mine, like a diary"

IDIOT. Those memos are a work product created while he worked for the FBI. HE does NOT get to arbitrarily judge what is and is not classified. What HE considers personal is irrelevant.

Arrogant self-righteous douchebag. He should get at LEAST a deserved stay at a Club Fed for this.

solidtare -> Creative_Destruct Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:57 Permalink

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/04/jim-comey-li

"Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit."

...

look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know.

So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.

Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose panties were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan) that there was :

. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia and the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.

Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress.

But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information contained in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating on stealing the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.

Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"

Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.

FireBrander -> solidtare Fri, 04/27/2018 - 15:30 Permalink

DOJ + FBI + Hillary + Obama + Steele = Conspiracy to commit crimes in a desperate effort to get Hillary elected.

Jeff Wayne Sessions - WHERE ARE YOU!?

STP -> Creative_Destruct Fri, 04/27/2018 - 16:19 Permalink

Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge what is and what is not classified! As the head of the FBI, he clearly has the role of 'Originating Authority' on determining classification of ANY document. What it says is, that if there's ANY doubt, whether it is classified or not, it shall be SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of classification. And the ultimate authority, is the President of the United States, if the Originator is Comey. So Comey took it upon himself to declassify, classified documents without the permission of the President of the United States, who happens to be his boss.

(c) If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If there is reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification pending a determination by an original classification authority , who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html

[Apr 28, 2018] Our Useless Clients and Trump's Misguided Plan for Syria by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not worth the costs and risks that go along with it. ..."
www.antiwar.com
Trump's misguided plan to replace U.S. forces in Syria with Egyptians, Saudis, and others has run into the entirely predictable problem that none of our clients wants to do it:

The Trump administration is struggling to assemble a coalition of Arab military forces to replace U.S. troops battling Islamic State militants in eastern Syria, a roadblock that could indefinitely delay President Trump's goal of pulling American forces out of the country, U.S. officials said.

Allies in the region are deeply skeptical about sending their troops -- and many are even reluctant to contribute funds -- to help stabilize cities and towns liberated from Islamic State, according to senior U.S. officials, if the United States intends to pull out, as Trump has threatened.

It comes as no surprise that these governments have no interest in taking Trump up on this offer. Each of them has other more pressing concerns than policing parts of Syria, some have no interest in opposing the Syrian government, all of them are ill-equipped for the task at hand, and it would be a terrible mistake to invite these governments to occupy Syrian territory in any case. That doesn't mean that the U.S. has to keep its forces in Syria, but it should remind us how useless our clients are to the U.S.

The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not worth the costs and risks that go along with it. The U.S. has no business fighting in Syria, and it has no authority to keep its forces there, so a complete withdrawal from Syria is the only appropriate and legal course of action open to the U.S.

[Apr 28, 2018] The Biggest Loser From a Successful Trump-Kim Summit China

Notable quotes:
"... However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal. ..."
"... Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage. ..."
Apr 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM April 26, 2018 at 4:37 pm

Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.

Fat chance. China will continue with its BRI and AIIB initiatives. It will continue to lash-up with Russia and its EAEU to create a pan-Eurasian economic architecture in which the U.S. is largely economically irrelevant. Especially when hard asset pricing is decoupled from the dollar.

And China now has a huge supply of highly trained (many in the U.S.) scientists and engineers. Russia and Europe also have highly skilled technologists making Eurasia self-sufficient in both natural resources and technology development.

The U.S. will be eventually shut out. Because dealing with the Global Cop Gorilla in any context is more trouble than it's worth.

However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal.

Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage.

The U.S. driven into the ditch by the Power Elite Parasites and Neocon War-mongers will get its clocked cleaned in the next 10 years no matter what. North Korea is merely background noise.

Cornel Lencar , says: April 27, 2018 at 1:51 am
And how many treaties the U.S. has walked away from? Right now the treaty with Iran is being scuppered.
sglover , says: April 27, 2018 at 2:34 pm
If you ever wanted a condensed example of the kind of blithe solipsism and wish-thinking that passes for thinking among our "international relations" "scholars", I don't think you could do much worse than this silly paragraph:

In many respects, nothing should scare China more, as America, and specifically the Trump administration, has never been fully capable of taking on the challenges presented by Beijing thanks to Pyongyang and its growing nuclear arsenal. China has taken full advantage of Washington's wandering eye, putting itself in position to dominate the South China Sea, further subjugate Taiwan, and try to develop a stronger position in the East China Sea.

All you saps who think that China's greater prominence might be a consequence of its culture, its history, its recent extraordinary economic growth -- wrong! Turns out it all hangs on North Korea and its mighty Brooklyn-size GDP! And that means .

Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.

All this, and daffodils will cover the meadows again, once Pyonyang comes around, gets its mind right. Simple!

It should surprise absolutely nobody that the guy who wrote this inanity is behind "The National Interest", which daily publishes all kinds of sophistry generally aimed at getting Americans to wade into the "crisis" du jour . Sooner or later Trump will be a bad memory, but Kazianis and his ilk will still be there, as firmly embedded in the Beltway veins as any tick.

[Apr 28, 2018] Macron The Last Multilateralist

Notable quotes:
"... "Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU." ..."
Apr 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."

In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism," invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home to the New World Order.

"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."

His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.

For the world he celebrates is receding into history.

The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.

Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU.

Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States from which China is exempt.

As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have plunged into it?

"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods and means to preserve their national homes?

And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive nationalisms that deny our history."

Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration how the Americans acquired all that land?

General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America's ties to the nation under which he was born.

How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?

Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive British, French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker indigenous tribes?

Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?

Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?

Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the "suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.

"Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron.

Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the original 50. Is this a problem?

"Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds."

Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd will forever control.

But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.

And they will not go gently into that good night.

In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they love.

With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost all of them from third-world countries that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left will have a lock on the presidency.

With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.

For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will come to resemble San Francisco.

End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

12 Responses to Macron: The Last Multilateralist

georgina davenport April 27, 2018 at 12:29 am

Let's remember, it was nationalism that led German, Japan and Italy into the two world wars. Like everything, nationalism is not absolutely good or absolutely bad.

European nationalism that led them to colonize other weaker countries was not a good thing. Nationalism that led the colonized countries to fight for independence was a good thing.

The current rising of nationalism is not a good thing because it is often bound up with white nationalism, a belief that the non-whites are inferior people undeserving of care and happiness.

While I understand the anxiety of White people for losing their power of dominance, multiculturalism is a future that can't be rolled back no matter how much they long for the past white homogeneity. Because technology that made our world smaller and flatter can't be uninvented.

I agree the West can't absorb all the immigrants who want to find new life in the West. The solution is not to shun the immigrants and pretend they don't exist. The solution is to acknowledge their suffering and their need for a stable home and help them build that at their home countries.

Biologically, it is known that our genes get stronger with more diversity, that community gets weaker with too much in breeding. So is our strength as a people, culturally, philosophically, spiritually and creatively.

Petrus , says: April 27, 2018 at 3:55 am
Another nice notion on the mis/abuse of the world nationalism from Mr. Buchanan. From a Central European perspective, however Macron's alleged multilateralism as presented in Washington is just a pretence peddled for the media – teaming up with Angela Merkel (more specifically, with Germany's economic strength), Macron pretty much insists on reining in the rebellious Visegrad 4 politically, without the slightest interest in reaching a mutually beneficial compromise with them.
Dan Green , says: April 27, 2018 at 8:43 am
If only the deplorable's had come to their senses, and elected Hillary, to carry on Hope and Change, we wouldn't be having all this polarity.
Kurt Gayle , says: April 27, 2018 at 8:49 am
Pat points to Macron's globalist trade babble to Congress answers:

"Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU."

President Trump's economic nationalist/fair trade agenda can fix this problem.

KD , says: April 27, 2018 at 9:21 am
It strikes me that both France and Germany have large enough populations, economies and technical know-how to produce effective modern fighting forces. Second, given the size of EU, it is clear that the EU, if it could get its act together, would be capable of projecting force in the world on an equal playing field with the United States.

The European Leaders appeals to Trump to pursue European interests in American foreign policy are simply pathetic. If Europe has foreign interests, they will only be able to protect and insure them if they retake their sovereignty and independence on the world stage.

Europe can, and I suspect Europe will, because their problem is not just Trump and whether he is impeached or re-elected, it is that European interests are being held hostage to the American Electorate, which can and will return a Cowboy to the Presidency long after Trump is gone.

I don't see how, given the developments with the Iran Deal, as well as other frictions, that the NATO alliance can remain standing. None of the above reflections are particularly ideological, and it seems impossible that Merkel and Macron couldn't entertain such thoughts.

Europe can, and inevitably will, declare independence from the Americans, and I see NATO unraveling and a new dawn of European "multilateralism" taking its place.

Emil Bogdan , says: April 27, 2018 at 11:11 am
Nationalism and Multiculturalism cannot coexist separately, they're in tendsion as we all try to balance the scales.

Without the benefit of nationalism, the Koreas would not have done what they just did. My own "ethnic people" are the minority of 1.2 million Hungarians who live in Romania, who have lived there for centuries and will not leave their homeland except many of them do, like my parents did, and many of my other relatives and friends–the number was 1.5 million not too long ago, and I was estimating 1.8, but man, we are dwindling. Only 1.2 million! That shocks me. Nationalism keeps us alive. But if that's all we had, then the Romanians would be totally nationalistic too, and they will forcefully seek to curtail minority rights, language, culture, and slowly choke us out. That's the nationalist philosophy on minorities.

That's your philosophy, and you're saying what will happen here is liberals will slowly turn the country into San Francisco. You make the same error as my friend in another thread. You cannot compare a city and its politics to a province or a country, or to any territory that contains vast farmlands.

Pat, you are saying that it's possible for the entire Byzantine Empire to take on the precise political complexion of the walled city of Constantinople. That city cannot feed itself, it's not a self-contained social or political entity.

The roiling cities of San Francisco/Bay Area and glorious Constantinople are and were completely and totally dependent on the countryside, and thus, on the politics the rurals tend to practice. The rurals need to feel the effects of city politics too.

No city anywhere is self-contained, and most cities are more liberal than their hinterlands, so should we do away with cities?

You can see it as symbiotic or some kind of yin and yang tension, however you prefer. But one is good and the other is evil? I don't buy that.

Emil Bogdan , says: April 27, 2018 at 11:26 am
I'm pretty sure I should say ALL cities are more liberal then the surrounding countrysides which feed them. After all, the city is really just the most commonly known major local market, which the villages eventually form organically. One village in particular stands out, and the neighbors start flocking more and more to its market, some decide to move there and contribute even more to the good energy, and voila, the first city is soon born.

Then it takes on pride, and starts thinking it's superior to the "rubes." It isn't. I was lucky enough to get my foundations in a village, I know its incredible efficiency and _conservative_ values and lifestyle, but trust me, there's plenty of drunkenness and scandal, even among the sainted rubes who raised me.

Keep slapping down the cities, Pat, but don't exaggerate the threat, no self-supporting society on Earth could live the way those freaks live in San Francisco, or Constantinople, that's a fact.

Emil Bogdan , says: April 27, 2018 at 12:12 pm
My apologies, I know I go on a little long sometimes:

I am an American now, and America is my "us," I don't have mixed political allegiances, just cultural ones. I don't live in my original homeland anymore. The choice to leave wasn't mine, though.

If I had a choice to leave my country of origin, the land I was raised in and find familiar–and I have been in America since age twelve, so I do see it as home and very familiar–I would be daunted. Speaking as an average American adult, I know that moving to another English-speaking and equally advanced country is complicated enough for the average American. Imagine uprooting and going to a foreign land whose language you don't know yet, where everything is a lot more expensive. Try getting a job there. Let's say you have no college degree. Try it. I wouldn't want to.

Immigrants are tough as nails, I'm sorry to say. You have no chance against them, actually. You cannot even conceive of the willpower and trials by fire. Most people quite understandably can't fathom it, unless they actually try it or see it with their own eyes.

[Apr 27, 2018] A Most Sordid Profession by Fred Reed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The militarily is America's worst enemy. ..."
"... Fred Reed is a retired news weasel and part-time sociopath living in Mexico with his wife and three sueless but agreeable street dogs. ..."
Apr 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Garrapatas, Piojos, Capulinas, Lampreys Fred Reed April 27, 2018 1,300 Words 27 Comments Reply

A few thoughts on our disastrous trillion-dollar military:

It is unnecessary. It does not defend the United States. The last time it did so was in 1945. The United States has no military enemies. No nation has anything even close to the forces necessary to invade America, and probably none the desire. A fifth of the budget would suffice for any real needs.

"Our boys" are not noble warriors protecting democracy, rescuing maidens, and righting wrongs. They are, like all soldiers, obedient and amoral killers. Pilots bombing Iraq or Syria know they are killing civilians. They do not care. If ordered to bomb Switzerland, they would do it. This is the nature of all armies. Glamorizing this most reprehensible trades is just a means of usefully stimulating the pack instinct which we often call patriotism.

The militarily is America's worst enemy. It does enormous damage to the United States while providing almost no benefit. Start with the war on Vietnam that cost hugely in money and lives, ours and theirs, with no benefit. Iraq: high cost, no benefit. Afghanistan: High cost, no benefit. Syria: High cost, no benefit.

The costs in lives and money do not include the staggering cost of weapons that do nothing for America or Americans. Do you, the reader, believe that you are safer because of the F-35? Do a dozen aircraft carriers improve the lives of your children? Will the B-21, an unbelievably expensive new thermonuclear bomber, make your streets safer? Then add the bleeding of engineering talent better spent on advancing America's economic competitiveness. The country has many crying needs, falls behind China, but money and talent go to the military.

We cannot escape from the soldiers. The armed forces have embedded themselves so deeply into the country that they have almost become the country. America is little more than a funding mechanism for what clumsily may be called the military-industrial-intelligence-media-Israeli complex. Some of these entities belong to the military (NSA). Some depend on it (Lockheed-Martin). Some use it to their own ends (Israel), but the military is the central infection from which the other symptoms flow. Congress? A storefront, a subcommittee of the Knesset or, as P. J. O'Rourke put it, a parliament of whores. Factories, jobs, contracts, towns depend on military spending. If the Second Marine Division folded, Jacksonville NC would dry up and blow away. So would dozens of other towns. Without military spending, California's economy would crash. Universities depend on military research funding.

The military has achieved its current autonomy by degrees, unnoticed. The Pentagon learned much in Vietnam, not about fighting wars, which it still cannot do well, but about managing its real enemy, the public. The media, which savaged the war on Vietnam, are now firmly controlled by the corporations that own them. Thus we do not see photos of the horrors committed by American aircraft bombing cities. While the existence of phenomenally expensive weapons like the B-21 is not quite suppressed, coverage is so slight that most Americans have never heard of it. This the Complex learned from the F-35 debacle. And of course Congress, thoroughly bought and wanting jobs in its districts, allows no serious opposition to anything military. Neither Congress nor the media point out the extent to which military expenditure dominates the economy, draining resources from civilian needs.

Why does the military not win wars? In part because winning is not in the interest of the Pentagon and those who feed on it. Wars generate profitable contracts for all manner of supplies and equipment. Either winning or losing ends the gravy train. For example, the war on Afghanistan of almost two decades has become an entitlement program for the arms industry, accomplishing nothing, killing countless peasants, and lacking purpose other than maintaining an unneeded empire and funneling money to the Complex.

How did the Complex free itself from civilian control? The crucial step in depriving the public of influence was the neutering of the constitutional requirement that wars be declared by Congress. The military thus became the private army of the President and those who control him. Then came the All Volunteer Army, which ended inconvenience to or mutilation of the children of people of importance, leaving the body bags to be filled by deplorables from Memphis or Appalachia or Mexico. America's wars then became air wars and finally drone wars, reducing casualties to very few. The public, both ignorant and uninvolved, became acquiescent.

As I write, we wait to see whether Trump, and those behind him, will put America deeper into the Mid-East and perhaps war with Russia. If he does, we will read about it the next day in the newspapers. It will be expensive, dangerous, and of no benefit to anyone but the arms industry and Israel.

Despite the asphyxiating economic presence, the military keeps aloof from America. This too serves the purposes of the Complex, further preventing attention by the public to what is not its business. In the days of conscription there was a familiarity with the armed services. Young men from most social classes wore the uniform however ruefully and told of their experiences. Not now. The career military have always tended to keep to themselves, to socialize with each other as the police do. Now the isolation is almost hermetic. You can spend years in Washington or New York and never meet a colonel. Military society with its authoritarianism, its uniforms and its uniform government-issue outlook is not compatible with civil society. To the cultivated, military officers seem simple-minded, conformist and well, weird.

ORDER IT NOW

Add it all up and you see that the citizenry has no say–none–over the Complex, which is autonomous and out of control. If the Complex wants war with Russia or China, we will have-war with Russia or China. Ask people whether they would prefer a naval base in Qatar–which most have never heard of, either the base or the country–or decent heath care. Then ask them which they have.

The military destroys America and there is nothing–nothing at all–that you can do about it.

Further, the Complex drives foreign policy, and in directions of no benefit to America or Americans. For example, the contrived fury against Russia. Why this? Russia presents no danger to America or anyone else. The Complex makes foreign policy for its own ends, not ours.

A rising Asia is challenging the America military Empire. The tide runs against the Complex. North Korea faced Washington down and became a nuclear power. The Crimea went back irrevocably to Russia. East Ukraine does the same. Iran got its treaty and becomes part of the world order. In the South China Sea, China ignores the US, which once was supreme in all the seas. The war against Afghanistan heads for its third decade and the war on Syria seems to have failed. Other things go badly for the Empire. The dollar is under siege as reserve currency. China grows economically, advances rapidly in technology and, doubtless terrifying to Washington, tries to integrate Asia and Europe into a vast economic bloc. The Complex beats the war drums as its fingers loosen on the world's collective throat.

Washington desperately needs to stop the rollback of American power, stop the erosion of the dollar, block the economic integration of Eurasia and Latin America, keep Russia from trading amicably with Europe. It will do anything to maintain its grip. All of its remote wars in far-off savage lands, of no importance to America or Americans, are to this purpose. A militarized America threatens Russia, threatens China, threatens Iran, threatens North Korea, threatens Venezuela, expands NATO, on and on.

America has been hijacked.

Fred Reed is a retired news weasel and part-time sociopath living in Mexico with his wife and three sueless but agreeable street dogs. (Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative) ← Herding Hamsters and Other Cosmic Refle...

Jeff77450 , April 27, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT

Fred, a bit harsh in places. Having served for twenty-four years, '76-'00, active & reserve, I can say with certainty that the men & women who comprise the armed forces are a more complex & nuanced group than your brief description of them as "obedient and amoral killers." The number that are amoral killers is probably about the same as those whose main motivation for joining is patriotism, i.e. relatively small.

That said, I get what you're saying. The problem is that nature abhors a vacuum. If America brings the troops home, closes all the bases and "raises the drawbridge" the various bad-actors of the world will proceed to aggress against their neighbors much more so than they already do. Would be an interesting experiment, though, for America to cease being the world's policeman. I suspect that the rest of the so-called free world would be begging us to resume the role almost immediately.

peterAUS , April 27, 2018 at 6:36 pm GMT
Another shallow and superficial rant about a very important topic.

Good for venting, though.
And then moving on with no change whatsoever.

The public, both ignorant and uninvolved, became acquiescent.

With approach to the topic like this, no wonder. Makes sense.

Complex Pseudonymic Handle , April 27, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
Well thought out and well written.

I think your spell checker messed up on: The militarily is America's worst enemy.

Bragadocious , April 27, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
The militarily is America's worst enemy

No, that would be spellcheck, which makes you think you've written something coherent when you haven't.

And it's worth noting that Fred Reed, cheerleader for the Mexican invasion of the U.S., wants the U.S militarily to disarm right now. Interesting.

Diversity Heretic , April 27, 2018 at 7:12 pm GMT
@Jeff77450

Sad to say, the principle "bad actor" in the world today, and the one committing the most aggression, is the United States itself. The United States generates the most instability and is the country that threatens world peace the most. I half expect to see the U.S. try to torpedo the Korean peace talks, just to be able to maintain troops on the Korean peninsula.

Fred's had two good articles in a row and his conclusion is spot on: the United States has been hijacked.

peterAUS , April 27, 2018 at 7:26 pm GMT
@Jeff77450

Agree.

Particularly with

Would be an interesting experiment

because certain countries/people within the reach of "various bad-actors of the world" would pay the price.Heavy price.
There is that prevalent mantra here about Russia/China being forces of good. Yeah ..

I've used the analogy here several times:
US is like Tywin Lannister. Russia Rose Bolton, China Slavers Bay.
Neither that good, but, definitely prefer the first.

restless94110 , April 27, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
I am in a state of shock!!!!

Finally! Finally! A Fred Reed essay that makes total sense!

It is unbelievable! It is incredible!'

It is like that 50s film, The Incredbile Shrinking Man!

I have rarely read an article where everything the writer wrote was totally true!

But Fred has done it.

In the shadows of the late Chalmers Johnson, Fred has moved in taking up the slack.

I say this: Totally correct. Total bullseye. The must clear-eyed analysis I've seen in the last few.

Thanks, Fred. You may be a fool on most other issues, but on this one? You have it down exactly!

Anon [425] Disclaimer , Website April 27, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
We live in strange times. Back in 50s/60s, the Anglo-Right represented militarism & empire while Jewish Left represented anti-war & peace with USSR. Today, the Real Right oppose war & support peace while Jewish 'left' call for more empire, intervention, & new cold war.
Anon [184] Disclaimer , April 27, 2018 at 8:04 pm GMT
Sirs,y
I worked as an electrical inspector for the DCMA under contractors to the DCMA. I worked for 2 years in Iraq and 6 in Afghanistan. I meet and worked many honorable and competent military people; I also had the misfortune to meet a great many who were not so good. Unfortunately, the people that can't make in the military are sent over to the contractors who hire them because of the old boys network and the vets perf. These are the worst.; if you are a civilian working under LOGCAP without the military service you WILL NEVER get advancement . The slugs from the military get all the gravy jobs and it is AA run wild. The ethnics stick together and the dumb white guys who believe in merit end up in the crappy jobs doing all the work and not getting any credit and the first to be laid off.

Not only that the LOGCAP program brinsg in Balkans and Indians to cut Americans out of jobs. Indians make about 700 USD a month 4 times what they would make at home. Balkans, around 4K 3 times what the make at home. These guys worm their way in and never leave; so your average American contract employee shows up and he is getting screwed from the get go.

The story I was told if you get 100K the contractor get 200-250K

manorchurch , April 27, 2018 at 8:11 pm GMT
Fred, you'd best look out the window to see who's at the door for the next few weeks. You may have written too much truth for the military-industrial-intelligence-media-Israeli complex to tolerate. Mossad has a few idle operatives in Mexico. Don't get too high-profile. They kill people for a lot less.
Quartermaster , April 27, 2018 at 8:14 pm GMT
"Russia presents no danger to America or anyone else."

Tell that to the Ukrainians, Moldovans and Georgians. Putin has a serious desire to make Russia great again.

FKA Max , April 27, 2018 at 8:28 pm GMT
Mr. Reed ,

I just commented on the topic here:

The U.S. military is basically the right-wing/Republican version of the social welfare state:
[...]
Welfare's last stand
Long in retreat in the US, the welfare state found a haven in an unlikely place – the military, where it thrived for decades
[...]
– https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-us-military-became-a-welfare-state

– http://www.unz.com/video/ramzpaul_the-comprehensive-strategy-dance/#comment-2291469

Listen to Jennifer Mittelstadt explain the term "military welfare state" on The Strategy Bridge's podcast :
[...]
America's all-volunteer army took shape in the 1970s, in the wake of widespread opposition to the draft. Abandoning compulsory conscription, it wrestled with how to attract and retain soldiers -- a task made more difficult by the military's plummeting prestige after Vietnam. The army solved the problem, Jennifer Mittelstadt shows, by promising to take care of its own -- the more than ten million Americans who volunteered for active duty after 1973 and their families. While the United States dismantled its civilian welfare system in the 1980s and 1990s, army benefits continued to expand.

Yet not everyone was pleased by programs that, in their view, encouraged dependency, infantilized soldiers, and feminized the institution. Fighting to outsource and privatize the army's "socialist" system and to reinforce "self-reliance" among American soldiers, opponents rolled back some of the military welfare state's signature achievements, even as a new era of war began.

– http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674286139

Right now, since unemployment is so low, recruiters have a harder time finding qualified candidates:

Trump Wants To Beef Up The Military, But Recruiters Are Having Trouble Finding People (HBO)

Booming military benefits

The cost of military pay raises and benefits programs, which have increased almost 90 percent since 2001, have become the fastest-growing part of the Pentagon's budget and now account for more than a quarter of all defense spending. Here is a look at the types of compensation provided to active-duty troops and retirees, how those costs have grown and where they are headed. – https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/booming-military-benefits/200/

Related : Commissary plan, backlash show difficulty of cutting military personnel spending https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/commissary-plan-backlash-show-difficulty-of-cutting-military-personnel-spending/2013/06/01/15fb6c12-c922-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html

Jonathan Sachs , April 27, 2018 at 8:37 pm GMT

OMG Yet another nitpicking, mean-spirited, petty, big-mouth,, intellectually bone-lazy commenter. Do you actually carefully read and ponder what is written? Is your attention span longer than a few minutes? Do you have any respect for an author–or for yourself? Has it occurred to you that the author's main points are on the whole absolutely correct and even self-evident? If you're going to take the trouble to critique, how about doing it with intellectual and moral integrity, with some degree of thoroughness and, frankly, coherent thought? Are you even capable of it? Wouldn't it have been better for you to exercise some self-control and keep silent?

dearieme , April 27, 2018 at 8:40 pm GMT
"Wars generate profitable contracts for all manner of supplies and equipment." True.

Poverty generates profitable contracts for all manner of community organisers and social scientists.

Disease generates profitable contracts for all manner of medics and manufacturers.

And so on. The problem is general.

Unhappy marriages generate profitable contracts for all manner of lawyers and assassins. I beg your pardon, I meant "accountants".

76239 , April 27, 2018 at 9:12 pm GMT
Well done. A well written dose of honesty about this criminal system.
Isabella , April 27, 2018 at 9:16 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

I'd suggest you read a little outside of what American MSM wants you to believe.
Russia is, as Fred has said, of no danger to anybody. I would add – to anybody who leaves her alone.
As with poking a bear; if you leave it alone, it ignores you. Start hitting it, it rips you to bits. Same analogy.
As to Ukraine, everyone now who still has 2 brain cells synapsing is aware that Ukraine was a US organised, backed and paid for coup d'etat. IN fact, Putin gets a huge amount of crap from many Alt-Med sites and commentators for NOT going in with tanks and levelling Kiev to the ground, which she could have done in 1.5 days flat. Including tea breaks.
Russia has nothing to do with Moldova.
Georgia, with some encouragement from a few CIA types had an insane President, who launched an unprovoked attack on South Ossetia, and fired on and killed Russian peacekeepers at 2 a.m. one morning. Many in Georgia were being air-bombed. A young girl there visiting from America with her aunt was rescued – by Russian soldiers. She tried to thank them on US tv, and was cut off by the anchor!! Once the situation in Georgia had been resolved with the Georgian troops returned to base, Russia left. Something America has never, ever, done. Where ever it goes, it stays, like brown sticky stuff on your shoe.
So get your facts straight. Remember, Putin made a small comment that the Empire appears to have overlooked. You should never, he said, corner anyone. Read up about what a cornered rat did to him, and what he learned from it.
The Empire is pushing and pushing and pushing. Putin has warned and warned and warned.
Russia is no danger to anyone who leaves her alone – something the Ruling Regime of the Fascist Empire of America seems unable to grasp.

Diversity Heretic , April 27, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Even assuming Vladimir Putin has such designs (I'm skeptical that he wants more ethnic minority headaches than he has already), why is any of this the business of the United States?

WorkingClass , April 27, 2018 at 9:57 pm GMT
Fine job stating the obvious Fred. I mean that as a compliment. It is the obvious that is most likely to be overlooked by my countrymen.

It's the foggy bottom. The District of Corruption. The seat of the Anglo/Zio Empire that is the most dangerous enemy of the people of earth. The good news – the empire is in steep decline. The bad news – it will reach peak madness just before it dies.

Carlton Meyer , Website April 27, 2018 at 10:08 pm GMT
The US military just got an unneeded 10% budget boost because of spin that its budget was cut, while it has increased each year. The only cuts were to the big increases demanded. The Pentagon also lies and says that every military readiness issue is not caused by incompetence, but a lack of money.

Watch the idiotic responses by Fox News propagandists when former Republican Congressmen David Stockman recently informed them that the Pentagon budget should be slashed, not increased.

Antonio , April 27, 2018 at 11:02 pm GMT
@Diversity Heretic

Totally agree. The US is seen in most of the world as the bully of the nations, not the policeman, even in the EU (don't be fooled by our leaders, we don't control them).

Mike P , April 27, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

OMG, that "news" video. Not only do these "journalists" babble like first-graders – they have even unlearned to present facial expressions appropriate for sentient human beings. Turn off the sound and it's like watching "Finding Nemo".

bluedog , April 27, 2018 at 11:32 pm GMT
@Jeff77450

No Isreal could'nt take over the Mid-East if we weren't around, they would either get along with their neighbors or cease to exist,the world gained nothing in Korea except the thousands and millions slaughtered,the world gained nothing with our false flag to get us into Nam except for the thousands and millions slaughtered and then it was on to Afghanistan,Yemen Syria,yes your right the world would be a safer place without out endless wars, and if we can't fine one we create one, the Mid-East is more than proof of that, and you know I don't know of any country or countries who are crying for us to be the policeman, when we lack the capability to even control the whores in congress>>>

Achmed E. Newman , Website April 28, 2018 at 12:05 am GMT

How did the Complex free itself from civilian control? The crucial step in depriving the public of influence was the neutering of the constitutional requirement that wars be declared by Congress . The military thus became the private army of the President and those who control him.

If I'd come upon this paragraph first, I'd have thought I was reading an article by Ron Paul . However, most Americans don't want to hear the old boring stuff about "muh Constitution", right, so they will never understand this.

Good column, Mr. Reed. About the only thing I see missing is the American elites' use of the US military as a grand social experiment, which will make these forces not so effective in a real war with a serious enemy. Being the big bully of the world will work out fine until the first knock-out punch, or the money runs out. The latter will probably happen first – (see peak neocon here and here .)

Begemot , April 28, 2018 at 12:12 am GMT
@peterAUS

Another shallow and superficial rant

It's you, Peter, shallow and superficial.

Mr bob , April 28, 2018 at 12:37 am GMT
LOTS of ad hominem directed at Fred in these comments, without even the slightest refutation whatsoever at the content of his article. There is clearly a strong emotional need to believe that the US military is "a global force for good" among many commenters, since there shouting down of Fred is emotional and without evidence of where he has made an error in his thinking. And to the first commenter who thinks people of earth who would be begging to have the US military back in their homelands should it ever leave: you have obviously never met a person who is not from America. There is really nothing else I can say to such an insane, immature, deliberately stupid remark. God help you. No country on earth wants the US military in it. If any sizeable portion of the brainwashed, two-digit IQ, blaspheming american "christian" population ever wakes up to the scam, it could be over in an election cycle, but it's probably impossible. The crushing weight of universal propoganda and perfectly orchestrated identity politics is just too much.

On a personal level, I have met many men who work for the war profiteers, some at fairly influential levels. They are pure, straight evil; filled with more explosive anger and hate than anyone you've ever met. They are as bad as bad gets. Trust me. To this day, I have never met people like them.

anon [693] Disclaimer , April 28, 2018 at 1:07 am GMT
@FKA Max

That aeon article was stupid. The first half summarized the (prescient, in my view as a one-and-done army officer) worry that adding all these social welfare bennies would turn the army into a bunch of single mothers, which it did, and undermine readiness. The second half, which I guess was the overall point of the article, was whining about how "boo hoo the military is getting its bennies privatized, how are we going to care for all these single mothers?"

Bragadocious , April 28, 2018 at 1:51 am GMT
@Jonathan Sachs

Another hit-and-run one post wonder. Fred Reed's columns seem to be literally filled with you deranged sockpuppets. One post and then poof -- you're gone, never to be seen again. Quite interesting.

[Apr 27, 2018] Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace through strength.

Apr 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [201] Disclaimer , April 24, 2018 at 11:36 am GMT

Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace through strength. Interesting as Stone despises neocons. Bolton went to Yale undergrad and Yale Law. Haley has a degree in accounting from Clemson, a mediocre land grant public university in South Carolina.
Anonymous [196] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 12:04 am GMT
Ok, you all, I have a personal story about John Bolton that I'm gonna drop here. This story comes from someone who used to live next door to John Bolton in Bethesda (or Chevy Chase?). Bolton's former (and current?) neighbor is a Harvard-trained medical doctor and a liberal Jewish guy. He has two daughters who are now grown. One is now a veterinarian in North Potomac. Anyway, his daughters were like 10 and 12-years old when they would water Bolton's plants when he was away on travel. One time when Bolton was traveling he asked the older girl to water his plants and he'd pay her $25. She agreed. Then a few days later she had something come up and would not be able to do it and asked her younger sister if she could take care of it she could have the full $25. The younger sister agreed. After Bolton returned from his trip the younger sister went over to Bolton and explained what happened and that she, not her older sister, had taken care and watered his plants. Bolton told her that he was not going to pay her because the agreement was strictly between him and her older sister. That was last interaction they had with Bolton. End of story.

[Apr 27, 2018] Our friends here in China and in Russia tell us that we should not say this. Nevertheless, we do not respect the UN. It is controlled by many players, but in the end the master of puppets who pulls all the strings in the UN is the US.

Apr 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hope you get better very soon b. I'm not a dietist or so but maybe stick to yoghurt or something for a couple of days :-)

Something completely different... the Syrian ambassador to China gave a nice interview recently and had this to say which many already know: (reaffirmation never hurts)

"Our friends here in China and in Russia tell us that we should not say this. Nevertheless, we do not respect the UN. It is controlled by many players, but in the end the master of puppets who pulls all the strings in the UN is the US.

[...]

So these are the major supporters of the terrorist groups in Syria: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, Great Britain and the US. [...]

Each one of them has its own terrorist groups. [...] They are warlords. Their true doctrine and ideology is money . It depends on who is paying them.

They get their money from the Saudi Arabia and they follow Wahhabi model of Islam, which is not the model accepted by the majority of the Muslim people across the world."

Posted by: xor | Apr 26, 2018 2:48:46 PM | 20

[Apr 27, 2018] Pax-americana is slowly dying

Apr 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , April 26, 2018 at 4:21 am GMT

@falcemartello

The scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures coming out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial output. Profits are all related to the stock market grandest Ponzi scheme in the history of western man.

The US does need $ Trillions in debt to pay for 1) ME wars, 2) stock market speculation 3) keep the US "consumer" afloat and 4) cover endless government and trade deficits.

However, there is a problem. It only works in a ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) environment where borrowing is almost free (i.e. it can be almost unlimited), and the FED has been working hard on providing it.

Paying interest on this debt is something that can't happen -- although in fact the impossible does seem to be happening. Interest rates have recently run up to 3%, which is very bad news in this environment.

Monster leverage in places like the NASDAQ can't accept higher rates, the government can't pay market interest rates on its debt, and over-borrowed consumers only took loans because of low monthly payments, so what gives?

Probably credit worthiness (counter-party risk) in a replay of 2008.

When the thing goes into reverse, the FED will once again flood the banks with money (QE Infinity) but this time it's going to be more obvious than ever that the money doesn't represent anything real -- and my guess -- for what it's worth -- is that the US dollar will finally risk its credibility (i.e. a 10% increase in the money supply = a 10% fall in the dollar) and US Reserve Currency status is gone.

[Apr 27, 2018] REVERSAL Armenia's 'Color' situation just became a lot more interesting

A quite interesting take on the situation in Armenia, with a good overview of how color revolutions are often structured, and might have been circumvented in the present case.
Notable quotes:
"... what's interesting here is how in the process of the Color tactic, what's common is that an individual single 'dictator' is widely demonized, and all social energies of opposition are drawn to condemning and opposing whatever cult of personality exists around this 'dictator', leading the 'regime'. ..."
"... You may recall during the early years of the Syrian invasion, that some informally floated Atlanticist proposals included Ba'ath Party rule, or co-rule, but with a new head of state other than Assad the man. For these reasons and more, we may expect all sorts of Atlanticist pressure to fall on Karapetyan. ..."
"... I want to state clearly, in no uncertain terms, that the declaration of victory – prematurely ..."
"... This is critical, however. Undermining, co-opting, creating dual-power structures, and infiltrating bureaucracies is a critical dimension of the Color tactic. Bureaucracies, whether civil, military, or intelligence, have an internal logic. People live and work their lives everyday in certain structures. They engage every day in double-think: they carry on their duties and obligations even while having suspicions – whether sneaking or even outright proof – that those above them don't quite have their facts straight and are operating on bad information. People whisper by the water cooler. Everyone who has ever worked for a living and had managers above them, understands this process. ..."
"... if the opposition declares victory, the president apparently steps down, the water cooler talk becomes more serious. Even though the 'old regime' still has institutional power, if the secondary and tertiary employees of the bureaucracy simply believe that power has transferred, then power will effectively transfer because employees will stop following managers directives, which leads to a break-down in the command chain, order, and basic functionality as one would imagine. ..."
"... while bureaucracy managers (civil, military, intelligence) may know that the old regime still has institutional power, their ability to effectively convince or otherwise influence their subordinates dissipates when these bureaucracy rank and file workers no longer believe that the ruling bodies still have power. They are likely to leak critical information to the opposition, resign, even join the opposition for perhaps simply quality-of-life/opportunistic/pragmatic reasons. ..."
"... still not satisfied ..."
"... There is a science to the Color Revolution, and likewise but lesser known, a science to countering these. While Gene Sharp wrote authoritatively on these subjects, he is better known for his work on the 'revolution' part, than the 'counter-coup' against it. ..."
"... What's clear is that the last three and four years, the Russians have clearly been working on the science of the 'counter-coup' – how to cancel, stop, redirect, or mitigate the color revolution tactic. They found some success in Macedonia at first, but ultimately arrived at what appears as a loss or set-back. However, it did delay the process significantly, by about two years, and allowed other facts on the ground to emerge in the interim. ..."
"... In conclusion, what we are witnessing right now is tremendously fascinating, and outside of the practical and immediate questions posed, gives us tremendous insights into how power actually functions and operates in countries which only have 3rd or 4th tier levels of sovereignty. ..."
Apr 27, 2018 | www.fort-russ.com

Superficially this is going to boil down, in the nuts and bolts sense, to how the Armenian constitutional court interprets an 'untested' major change to the constitution set up back in 2015 – where some Presidential powers were transferred over to the Prime Minister, and what this means in terms of 'who' actually holds certain powers in Armenia. Recall that Sargsyan was President for some years before just becoming PM earlier in April, just recently.

In short, one possibility is that the focus on Sargsyan this whole time was something similar to a ruse, getting the opposition to 'bark up the wrong tree'. Sarkissian may be in fact the one with the power now. Sarkissian isn't just also a Republican and part of Sargsyan's inner circle, they are in fact in the same family. We won't get into the details of the drama of the Sargsyans and the Sarkissians in Armenia's troubled history since the 1990's, the plots and assassinations of which all Armenians are familiar with during those darkest of days (which may be returning). But Sarkissian is in there as President, with Karapetyan acting as PM – all connected tightly to the Sargsyan run Republican Party and the Sargsyan clan themselves.

Sargsyan is a polarizing name in Armenian society, as these are polarizing times. But what's interesting here is how in the process of the Color tactic, what's common is that an individual single 'dictator' is widely demonized, and all social energies of opposition are drawn to condemning and opposing whatever cult of personality exists around this 'dictator', leading the 'regime'.

Please make the Fort Russ project viable through your support of J. Flores' Patreon, by following this link here

This means that Sargsyan stepping down on the one hand of course gives the opposition a 'victory', the lone despot is done for – but it's unlike other victories in the process of the tactic, as we'll explain below. At the same time it deflates popular opposition support, as their focus was on Sargsyan the man. Intellectually, anyone in Armenia could tell you that of course this is a whole family network. But psychologically it apparently works out quite differently. You may recall during the early years of the Syrian invasion, that some informally floated Atlanticist proposals included Ba'ath Party rule, or co-rule, but with a new head of state other than Assad the man. For these reasons and more, we may expect all sorts of Atlanticist pressure to fall on Karapetyan.

Essentially, Sargsyan has stepped down – the opposition was quick to declare 'victory'. I want to state clearly, in no uncertain terms, that the declaration of victory – prematurely – is a major dimension of the Color Revolution tactic in all iterations, historically. The mechanism is fairly banal, mundane. If victory is declared, and believed, it wraps up (even skips) the final steps in acquiring a transfer of power. It's a border-line bluff, one that only becomes true if you believe it, after-the-fact. One thing to remember is that in this tactic, timing is everything. The order of events is everything. The timing and order of events will determine whether the tactic succeeds or fails. The abstract psychological and organizing methods of the tactic are critical, but problems of timing and order of events throws everything sideways.

This is critical, however. Undermining, co-opting, creating dual-power structures, and infiltrating bureaucracies is a critical dimension of the Color tactic. Bureaucracies, whether civil, military, or intelligence, have an internal logic. People live and work their lives everyday in certain structures. They engage every day in double-think: they carry on their duties and obligations even while having suspicions – whether sneaking or even outright proof – that those above them don't quite have their facts straight and are operating on bad information. People whisper by the water cooler. Everyone who has ever worked for a living and had managers above them, understands this process.

Thus, if the opposition declares victory, the president apparently steps down, the water cooler talk becomes more serious. Even though the 'old regime' still has institutional power, if the secondary and tertiary employees of the bureaucracy simply believe that power has transferred, then power will effectively transfer because employees will stop following managers directives, which leads to a break-down in the command chain, order, and basic functionality as one would imagine.

That means that even while bureaucracy managers (civil, military, intelligence) may know that the old regime still has institutional power, their ability to effectively convince or otherwise influence their subordinates dissipates when these bureaucracy rank and file workers no longer believe that the ruling bodies still have power. They are likely to leak critical information to the opposition, resign, even join the opposition for perhaps simply quality-of-life/opportunistic/pragmatic reasons.

But the final declaration of victory is also the final moment of catharsis, and so it actually takes the steam out of the rolling protest movement. Therefore, the victory declaration is a double-edged sword.

So this time it looks like perhaps a trap was set. Sargsyan steps down for what is in reality, his own 'tactical' reason. The opposition declares this as a victory of their own, thus increasing their own profile and power perception tremendously.

It is likely, if this is true then, that Sargsyan's resignation was a major surprise to the opposition and it was not timed or planned in terms of the opposition's power-transfer strategy overall. They are thrown off guard, Sargsyan steps down but as this was not the result of a final ultimatum based upon an actual 'passing of power to the people' as the opposition typically claims – this means that Sargsyan has much more room to maneuver and determine for himself the terms and details of his resignation, and what comes into its place afterwards. Neither the military nor the courts forced Sargsyan to resign.

In other words, his resignation did not come with the realization of new snap elections. EU or 'international' mediators have not been brought in, as is the case with EU countries or countries 'trying' to enter the EU as full members, like Macedonia. In that sense, Armenia has a few notches more sovereignty than Macedonia or any EU candidate or member-state.

Rather, the already institutionalized line of presidential succession was observed. Power passed from Sargsyan not to opposition leader Pashinyan, but to Karapetyan – Sargsyan's hand picked no 2 man. So far, this 'thwarting' of the color tactic then is successful, and this stage of the counter-tactic was also successfully used in Macedonia when power transfered from Gruevski not to the opposition's Zaev, but to Dmitriev, who was able to hold things together for another year and a half until May of 2017, when finally Zaev slithers in. As we know, in the end, for the Russians involved in helping Macedonia thwart the color tactic, the candle was ultimately not worth the game, and the Atlanticist structure led by Zaev was allowed to mostly assume power last year in May.

The opposition would then look for some way that Karapetyan can be broken off from Sargsyan and Sarkissian.

The Republican Party, of Sargsyan, is still in power. Those soldiers you saw marching with the protesters? Evidence emerged they were 'encouraged' by wealthy individuals the pro-American Armenian diaspora to the tune of thousands per head. The military will be charging them for violating the expected or obvious rules in play surrounding soldiers participating while on duty and in uniform in legally questionable or opposition activities.

So as Pashinyan today 'restarts' the protests, he faces a problem. He was able to capitalize and generate opposition to the cult of Sargsyan. With Sargsyan 'gone', and with Pashinyan still not satisfied , a section of the rank-and-file opposition goes over to the idea that this is about Pashinyan (and not Sargsyan). So, the opposition loses support. This is exactly the rut that Macedonia's Zaev found himself in, until the breakthrough in May of last year.

Please make the Fort Russ project viable through your support of J. Flores' Patreon, by following this link here

So we have two layers of confusion, several possible traps – that are 'wrong doors' to push through or some 'wrong trees' to be barking up. Who has the power? Again, the 2015 constitutional changes have been 'untested' in court. Perhaps Sargsyan is a false target – the (also) Republican Sarkissian may be holding the keys, or maybe its Karepetyan. One can see instantly how this meandering maze of structures and interests can confuse not only external actors like the US, but even those operating very intimately within Armenian power structures.

There is a science to the Color Revolution, and likewise but lesser known, a science to countering these. While Gene Sharp wrote authoritatively on these subjects, he is better known for his work on the 'revolution' part, than the 'counter-coup' against it.

This is a subject which I have devoted no small amount of time to writing about, in detail, in the past. In particular, on the situation in Armenia going back to the 2015 'Electric Yerevan' situation. In my piece on the Electric Yerevan from 2015, I explore the tactical, social-psychological, and sociological (class) dimensions. From the feedback from readers and peers in my field, the piece seems to be considered a great primer or summary of the tactic broadly applied. It can be read here: Electric Yerevan and Lessons on the Color-Spring Tactic

Some of our readers may not know that my background before the Center for Syncretic Studies and its Fort Russ project here in the Balkans, I was – in Los Angeles – a professional labor and community organizer, strategist, and negotiator for a local in one the US's two major trade union federations, SEIU.

The tools we used were in large part pioneered by many unknown labor organizers from a century ago, often 'bolshevik' or 'anarchist' agitators who (in fact quite honestly) fought against the robber barons of the Gilded Age. Many of the 'truisms' and 'insights' were distilled into a few accessible books, like 'Rules for Radicals' by Saul Alinsky.

I subsequently took this experience, and have consulted both Macedonians and Russians – activists, officials, experts, and journalists (including some readers may know) – and shared these in order to help stop the Color-Spring tactic from finding success.

What's clear is that the last three and four years, the Russians have clearly been working on the science of the 'counter-coup' – how to cancel, stop, redirect, or mitigate the color revolution tactic. They found some success in Macedonia at first, but ultimately arrived at what appears as a loss or set-back. However, it did delay the process significantly, by about two years, and allowed other facts on the ground to emerge in the interim.

We saw this used first in Libya, and then in Syria. These entailed mass mobilizations for government support. I wrote in 2015 in 'Electric Yerevan':

"What the government of Armenia can do is utilize the same science of organizing, and work the protests in reverse. They should not, under most conditions, use the state gendarmes to evict the encampments. Rather, they must cut the head and take control of the body."

In conclusion, what we are witnessing right now is tremendously fascinating, and outside of the practical and immediate questions posed, gives us tremendous insights into how power actually functions and operates in countries which only have 3rd or 4th tier levels of sovereignty.

Please make the Fort Russ project viable through your support of J. Flores' Patreon, by following this link here

[Apr 27, 2018] Lots of people are misreading events in Armenia

Apr 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Apr 26, 2018 5:00:45 PM | 35

Lots of people are misreading events in Armenia; allow Flores to walk you through what's occurring. And for the record, here's Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement from yesterday. 6

Here Garrie compares and contrasts the two mini-Summits occurring in just a few hours: Kim/Park and Xi/Modi.

[Apr 27, 2018] Chomsky joined Vichy left on Syria

Apr 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tobin Paz | Apr 26, 2018 5:37:44 PM | 40

Wow, Syria is going to wipeout the majority of the "Left":

Chomsky Among "Progressives" Calling for US Military Involvement in Syria

Since most progressive figures would never publicly call for extending a U.S.-led military occupation, this petition shows that the war propaganda in Syria – particularly as it relates to the Kurds – has been highly effective in subverting the progressive anti-war left as it relates to the Syrian conflict.

How he's going to explain supporting kidnappers, murders, drug dealers:

Ethnic cleaners:

Thieves:

Child soldier recruiters:

Allen , Apr 26, 2018 8:56:52 PM | 64

Don't miss this piece:

Another Beautiful Soul: Counterpunching the Global Assault on Dissent

I was recently alerted to Sonali Kolhatkar's Truth Dig article, "Why Are Some on the Left Falling for Fake News on Syria?", which Counterpunch found important enough to republish under the title, "The Left, Syria and Fake News." Kolhatkar's article was introduced to me as the work of a "beautiful soul."

...

The beautiful soul is consumed with "philanthropic fantasies and sentimental phrases about fraternity", Engels once remarked. They advocate "edifying humanism" and "generic, vague, moral appeals" not "concrete political action" to challenge "a specific social system".* It's not clear what Counterpunch is counterpunching, but in the case of Draitser and Kolhatkar, it's certainly not US imperialism.

Beautiful souls appear not to recognize that the war in Syria is a concrete political struggle connected to a specific social system related to empire; it is the struggle of the United States to extend its dictatorship over all of the Arab world and of Arab nationalists in Damascus and their allies to counter US imperial designs. All the beautiful soul recognizes is that people are being killed, families are being uprooted, small children are being terrorized, and they wish it would all just end. They're not for justice, or an end to oppression and the dictatorship of the United States, or for equality; they're for the absence of conflict. And they don't seem to particularly care how it's brought about.

...

In any event, whatever left Kolhatkar is part of, is not a left that has much to do with challenging and overcoming a real world system of domination, oppression and exploitation. It's a left whose goal is the absence of conflict, not the presence of justice; it's for pious expressions of benevolence, not engagement with a real world struggle against dictatorship on an international level.

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/another-beautiful-soul-counterpunching-the-global-assault-on-dissent/

paul , Apr 26, 2018 9:31:37 PM | 68
what Chomsky is doing now re. Syria should raise big questions about what his role has been for the left in the past.

[Apr 27, 2018] Mattis mentioned Iran twice in his Senate testimony yesterday, coupled with North Korea, with a return to those pesky Iran "nuclear ambitions." The US has had a lengthy war on "terror" so how about a war on "ambitions." Any excuse for war will do.

Apr 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Looks like the US might be giving Israel a green light on going to Iran.
from Jerusalem Post--
Mattis, receiving Liberman, warns of 'likely' conflict between Israel and Iran

"I can see how it might start, but I am not sure when or where," the secretary told lawmakers.
WASHINGTON -- Direct conflict between Israeli and Iranian forces is increasingly likely in Syria as Tehran pursues a permanent military presence there, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned on Thursday.
Addressing a congressional panel before hosting his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Liberman, at the Pentagon, Mattis said it was "very likely" from his perspective, "because Iran continues to do its proxy work there through Hezbollah." . . here

and from DOD:
Readout of Secretary Mattis' Meeting with Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman

Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis met today with Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman to discuss mutual security issues, including Iranian malign influence and destabilizing affects in the region.
Secretary Mattis and Minister Lieberman reaffirmed their commitment to the U.S. - Israeli defense relationship and qualitative military edge, as well as the United States' unwavering commitment to Israel's security. . . here

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 27, 2018 9:37:59 AM | 102 Don Bacon , Apr 27, 2018 10:26:57 AM | 103

Mattis mentioned Iran twice in his Senate testimony yesterday, coupled with North Korea, with a return to those pesky Iran "nuclear ambitions." The US has had a lengthy war on "terror" so how about a war on "ambitions." Any excuse for war will do.
> Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that undermine and threaten regional and global stability.
> While recent events have given rise to a sense of positive movement, North Korea's nuclear provocations threaten regional and global peace and have garnered universal condemnation by the United Nations. Iran's nuclear ambitions also remain an unresolved concern. . . here

[Apr 27, 2018] Atlantist Merkel on Iran deal

Apr 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

This so disgusting

Existing Iran deal 'not sufficient' to curb nuclear program - Merkel
https://www.rt.com/news/425345-existing-iran-deal-not-sufficient/

Posted by: test | Apr 27, 2018 2:31:46 PM | 123 karlof1 , Apr 27, 2018 3:00:58 PM | 124

test @123--

If Merkel refers to a total cessation of Iran's nuclear program, then she's technically correct. Except, the deal wasn't made to attain that outcome as Iran was not going to relinquish its rights under the NPT. And just what are "the problems with Iran" Merkel alludes to? Iran's helping to defeat NATO's terrorists within Iraq and Syria? Insisting the Outlaw US Empire obey International Law and abandon its illegal incursion into Syria? Trying to awaken the real International Community to the massive crime being committed daily in Yemen and the longstanding ongoing crime against Palestinian peoples by Zionists? Seems to me those are Merkel's problems, not a problem with Iran.

test , Apr 27, 2018 3:27:37 PM | 125
karlof1

Merkel is a symbol for Germany in this regard, a puppet to american interest, add to that the sucking up o israel and the result
is a vassal neocon-zionist warbent regime.
Will Germany be part of another conflict of war, this time with Iran? Crazy state (no offense to germans, this is the illogical behaviour by all of eu which of course not will follow Germany and thus US in its new warmongering).

[Apr 27, 2018] Back during Obama s attempts to portray Iran as having a nuclear weapons program, one poll taken of US citizens found seventy-one percent believed Iran not only had a nuclear weapons program, but that Iran actually had nuclear weapons.

Notable quotes:
"... CNN Poll: American believe Iran has nuclear weapons ..."
Apr 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

richardstevenhack • a day ago

"The gullibility involved in that is impressive."

Back during Obama's attempts to portray Iran as having a nuclear weapons program, one poll taken of US citizens found seventy-one percent believed Iran not only had a nuclear weapons program, but that Iran actually had nuclear weapons.

CNN Poll: American believe Iran has nuclear weapons

http://politicalticker.blog...

I just watched the movie "Beirut" last night, currently in some theaters. Premise was a State Department diplomat (Jon Hamm) living in Beirut in the 1970's has his wife killed during a terrorist incident involving a Palestinian boy living with the diplomat and his wife. Ten years later, after the Lebanese civil war but before the Israeli invasion, a CIA friend of his (Mark Pelligrino) is kidnapped and the former diplomat who is now a lawyer doing labor negotiations is brought in to negotiate his release.

The movie is well done and well acted. The villains are the terrorists, the PLO, and the US government types in charge of the negotiations who try to hamstring the lawyer for reasons which are developed. The Israelis get rough treatment, trying to convince the US types to allow the CIA agent to be killed so the US will give the Israelis the green light to invade Lebanon (which, of course, they eventually did.)

One may quibble with the representation of Beirut and the various factions and historical accuracy of the movie, but as a spy thriller it mostly works. I'd recommend seeing it.

I went to see it mostly because Rosamund Pike plays the diplomat's CIA "handler" - and she's drop dead gorgeous as well as an Oscar-nominated actress (for "Gone Girl", which I also recommend.) It's worth seeing the movie for her alone.

Julius HK -> richardstevenhack , 18 hours ago

"Beirut" is a stupid, cheap, disgusting Israeli propaganda movie, filmed in Morocco, only meant to denigrate Lebanon and the Lebanese. You only have to look at some posts on Lebanese social media to see how most Lebanese talk about this Zionist fabrication thru and thru. No one in his right mind will see this crookedly contrived balderdash.

[Apr 27, 2018] Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace through strength.

Apr 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [201] Disclaimer , April 24, 2018 at 11:36 am GMT

Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace through strength. Interesting as Stone despises neocons. Bolton went to Yale undergrad and Yale Law. Haley has a degree in accounting from Clemson, a mediocre land grant public university in South Carolina.
Anonymous [196] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 12:04 am GMT
Ok, you all, I have a personal story about John Bolton that I'm gonna drop here. This story comes from someone who used to live next door to John Bolton in Bethesda (or Chevy Chase?). Bolton's former (and current?) neighbor is a Harvard-trained medical doctor and a liberal Jewish guy. He has two daughters who are now grown. One is now a veterinarian in North Potomac. Anyway, his daughters were like 10 and 12-years old when they would water Bolton's plants when he was away on travel. One time when Bolton was traveling he asked the older girl to water his plants and he'd pay her $25. She agreed. Then a few days later she had something come up and would not be able to do it and asked her younger sister if she could take care of it she could have the full $25. The younger sister agreed. After Bolton returned from his trip the younger sister went over to Bolton and explained what happened and that she, not her older sister, had taken care and watered his plants. Bolton told her that he was not going to pay her because the agreement was strictly between him and her older sister. That was last interaction they had with Bolton. End of story.

[Apr 26, 2018] Even The Simpsons' writers weren't absurdist enough to come up with a President Haley.

Notable quotes:
"... Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. ..."
"... She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least. ..."
"... Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican. ..."
"... She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections. ..."
"... Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl." ..."
"... Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception. ..."
"... Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton. ..."
"... "Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. " ..."
"... Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know. ..."
"... The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets. ..."
Apr 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Fran800 , April 24, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT

I have noticed Haley's awfulness from the beginning, which I see is now 15 months. Awful though Bolton is, one feels that he has some knowledge that might even make him pull back from Armageddon (maybe, not sure).

But Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. Notice how, in the alleged chemical attacks, she takes no thought or action at all to ascertain truth, but she outdoes herself trumpeting the harm caused, and the children suffering.

As if the fact that children are suffering somehow proves guilt. I can't imagine anything so ignorant.

She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least.

Realist , April 24, 2018 at 6:01 am GMT

Scarier Than John Bolton?

She's certainly dumber than Bolton.

Think of Nikki Haley for President!

If the electorate picks Haley, so be it.

NoseytheDuke , April 24, 2018 at 6:21 am GMT
@Fran800

Never dismiss the fool, for he wards no fear, no blame and and no trust. He sees no worth or value and can be swayed by the most trivial things. He seeks no reward but an emotional gratification. While these sound of a foe easily defeated the truth is oft the opposite for your threat and presence are fallen on the senseless. If you must fight a fool you must give him room and let hubris and frailty fight your war, otherwise, you must be swift, with out mercy and be able to ward the madness that will ensue.

I don't know who penned that but I think it's profound.

Pat Kittle , April 24, 2018 at 6:33 am GMT
Some of us once accepted the notion that when women got "empowered" the world would be a better place.
Anon [425] Disclaimer , Website April 24, 2018 at 6:45 am GMT
Nikki Haley's yappings are just the barking of a dog.

She has no agency. If she sounds 'scary', it's only because she is owned by Zionist globalist supremacists. If they ordered her to shut up and be nice to Russia and Iran, she will obey.

She has no mind of her own. Same with Bolton the Dolton.

Dan Hayes , April 24, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
How did Nikki Haley ever manage to get elected in South Carolina?

Maybe for the same reason that Lindsey Graham gets reelected!

These two pliant tools are a very poor commentary on the political acumen of this states electorate!

Pissedoffalese , April 24, 2018 at 6:58 am GMT
And she's different from Samantha Power, how? Under Obomba

Or John Bolton under Bush the Lesser?

Seems to be a tradition in the making of putting the most arrogant, rude, least diplomatic, and aggressive person possible in the position of ambassador to the UN.

Has anybody ELSE been steady, three administrations, non-stop PUKING? Makes it clear, if nothing else, our "humanitarian" face has peeled off, revealing the brain-eating zombie underneath.

jilles dykstra , April 24, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT
When you confront staunch Israel supporters with the isolation of Israel in the world, as can be seen at UN voting, the answer is that this is because of the anti Israel Muslim bloc in the UN.
The weird thing about jews is that with all their cleverness they're unable to see reality.
Israel is right, the rest of the world is wrong.
Now even if this were the case, any sensible person would take reality into consideration.
Not so idiots as Netanyahu.
When the next jewish catastrophe has happened, jews again will see how how they are the eternal innocent victims, if then jews still will exist, as a nuclear world war is likely to kill any human being world wide.
Already around 1953 a USA diplomat said that Israel should behave as a small ME country, in stead of the head of an international group.
They still do not understand.
Pissedoffalese , April 24, 2018 at 7:12 am GMT
Once (Bolton) was kind of an anomaly, because, after all, it WAS Bush the Lesser.

But Nobel Peace Prize-sporting Obomba, puts in Power.

Now we got Haley.

Maybe TWICE is a co-inkydink, but this is absurd! Fucking EVERYBODY blows us away diplomatically! Who is worse? N. Korea does some wicked TWEETS, but their diplomats are circumspect. Ours are visibly RABID.

One of these days, someone is gonna put us out of their misery, and suck though it will, it will be highly deserved! Afterward, perhaps humans can progress once the USA is a giant smoking crater. Or at least D.C. Has ANYONE ever begged for it THIS bad? Ever?

Ludwig Watzal , Website April 24, 2018 at 7:52 am GMT
Nikki Haley is THE mouthpiece of the Zionist aggressive occupation regime. She serves its interests and acts to the detriment of the American people that have to carry the can for the partisanship with this rogue Zionist state. President Trump should sack her before she challenges him in the next presidential race. Haley will have the backing of the trigger-happy Ziocon establishment and the Zionist billionaires.

Together with John Bolton, they seem like the perfect "Doomsday Couple" to bring the U.S. down. Perhaps they are the last true believers in Zionism, the Jewish racist ideology, although both are not Jewish. It's not surprising that Jewish and American exceptionalism are similar in their racist beliefs.

Haley's behavior is hyperbolic, arrogant, and extremely dangerous to the reputation of the U. S. but it seems as if she acts according to the slogan: Freely you live, if you haven't a reputation to lose. But under the borderline Trump administration even a "un-American" behavior, it benefits the Zionist regime, seems acceptable.

So far, all so-called chemical weapons attacks by the al-Asad government were false flag attacks carried out either by al-Nusra, ISIS or al-Qaida terrorist organizations or by the "White Helmets" themselves that are a so-called a terrorist affiliate organization, disguised as paramedics, to draw the U. S. directly into the Syrian conflict.

Under Obama, they failed, and Trump made some symbolic bombings to pacify the trigger-happy Zionist lobby. How mentally deranged Haley seems, shows her arrogant statement: "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its people."

With which "civilized world" should Russia take sides? Does Haley mean the U. S. or the Zionist occupation regime? The first one has slaughtered millions of people in endless wars, the later has been subjugated another people for over 50 years and destroyed its existence. This "civilized world" and its values are for the garbage dump.

Despite his twitter manticism, Trump was still a kind of common sense that can differentiate between the good for America in contrast to the good for Israel for the sake of the American people.

Achmed E. Newman , Website April 24, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT
Nikky Hailey is not only a stupid Globalist('s) bitch, but a traitor to the state of South Carolina. S. Carolinians will remember the flag.

Her appointment to the UN Ambassador position was the very 1st sign of President Trump's incompetence.

Mikhail , Website April 24, 2018 at 8:01 am GMT
@Duncan

Noeconservatives arguably don't have enough appeal for them to get the presidency. Unfortunately, they can still have clout as evidenced by Haley in her role and how the likes of MSNBC and CNN uncritically praise her.

On the subject of Haley:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/12042017-latest-bump-in-us-russian-relations-analysis/

http://www.eurasiareview.com/19042018-confronting-russia-in-syria-analysis/

falcemartello , Website April 24, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT
Well if she does make it to POTUS we have historical equivalence. The Dying days of the Roman western Empire. in the mid 4th century BC. Roman Empire at this stage had two imperial cities. one situated in ROME being hounded by the Goths and the other one in the East Byzantium present day Istanbul. The point is in the western dying Imperial days they put as emperor a child well Haley becomes POTUS one could only say History repeating itself. The scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures coming out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial output. Profits are all related to the stockmarket grandest ponzi scheme in the history of western man.
Latest events from the Skripal imbroglio to Douma all show signs of desperation .
BY DECEPTION YOU MAY WAGE WAR.
Note the three countries that illegally bombed Syria on the sad nite of April 13th 2018 were the exact ring leaders to the total destruction of the highest standard of living of the African continent.
RINSE ,LATHER ,REPEAT.
Post Scriptum: It is sad and scary to see that from 1999 to this day not withstanding all the lies that NATO and FUKUS have spewed to the world and have been exposed as such we the sheeple can fall for the same trap.
THE WEST HAS ENTERED INTO THE WORLD OF ZOMBIES .
Critical thinking gets labelled as enemies of the state. Boy Goebbels must be so envious of recent events.
How Orwellian our western society has become.
Gordo , April 24, 2018 at 8:44 am GMT
"According to an international poll conducted in 2009, 58% of Indians expressed sympathy with Israel, compared with 56% of Americans"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Just sayin.

mark green , April 24, 2018 at 8:46 am GMT
Another very good article by Philip Giraldi. If the US wasn't dominated by foreign agents and roving gangs of ziocon lobbyists, Giraldi would be widely respected, considered 'mainstream', and known to millions. But powerful forces are determined to prevent this.

What we get instead are empty suits reading scripts.

We live in an era where political extremism (aggressive war is a prime example of extremism) has been declared 'centrist' and 'moderate'. Advocates of non-intervention are labeled 'fringe'.

Political illusions happen. They happen by design.

Fortunately, Giraldi demonstrates a commendable ability to separate US interests from contrived foreign agendas. This is not often done. And he does it well.

For revealing this, Giraldi and a few other daring intellectuals have been defamed as 'far right'. Their sin? Telling the truth (to the best of their ability) about Zio-American malfeasance in American life and on the world stage.

Their quiet exile from the corridors of political power shows how debased and unmoored our culture has become. Giraldi's diminished status is the end-product of targeted censorship, economic sabotage, and strategic defamation. This phenomena affects us all.

What do we get instead?–delusional sell-outs like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley. Frauds all, including the journalists who adore them. The corruption in America is wide and deep.

Washington's queer political values are hopelessly under the thrall of liberal interventionists, ne0con militarists, televised war barkers, and deep state vampires. These amoral extremists have become America's political 'establishment'.

Trump notwithstanding, the Swamp, the alphabet government agencies, the two Parties, the major lobbies, donors, and NGOs (and of course, Big Media) are what rules America.

Average, non-organized voters have no political influence.

But it is our mainstream news and entertainment media that ultimately earns the most responsibility for Zio-Washington's trigger-happy embrace of aggressive militarism in all policies and instances that could affect Israel (which is virtually everything.)

This Zionist 'value' opens a very big door.

This commitment is a recipe for endless strife and intervention. Yet our media supports it. Continuously and uniformly.

And the chief beneficiary is (you guessed it).

Incredibly, Washington spends far more time agonizing over borders and security in the far-away shitholes (pardon the expression) than on our own southern border. Who dreamt up this ridiculous scheme?

This level of corrupt insanity did not happen by accident.

Incredibly, if enough empty suits and talking heads repeat a myth or falsehood enough times, it becomes 'true'. Voila! The magic of TV.

Political hallucinations and bizarre double standards become very real. Very 'true'.

Zio-America is morally-unhinged rogue superpower.

If you don't believe me, count the dead.

The Alarmist , April 24, 2018 at 10:31 am GMT
The problem with being arrogant when you are on top of the world is that you are remembered and reviled when you get knocked down a peg. The guys in the dock at Nuremburg learned that at the end of a rope. She'll never face that sort of justice, though, because we can't lose, right?
Greg Bacon , Website April 24, 2018 at 10:33 am GMT

The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in protecting the environment.

But I disagree, Mr. Giraldi! Their is coherence in State policy, that is to serve the State of Israel.

Nutty Nikki is idiotic, vindictive, hateful and very bellicose and would not hesitate to use our kids and tax dollars to support Apartheid Israel, and is loved by multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, which means she will be the next POTUS.

Anonymous [135] Disclaimer , April 24, 2018 at 12:10 pm GMT
Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican.

She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections.

When is Trump going to prosecute Soros for conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. and other countries?

Sandy Berger's Socks , April 25, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
There is no excuse for these awful appointments.

The lack of progress on immigration can, maybe, be explained as Trump faces fierce resistance, but Bolton, Haley, and Pompeo are unforced/forced errors, that will make it nearly immposible for him to keep his promise of ending these stupid wars.

Better than Hillary, but more than a little disappointing.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 3:21 am GMT
Haley has too many skeletons in her closet to run for president. While running for SC governorship rumors of her affair with conservative blogger Will Folks surfaced. She tried to deny it of course, claiming to be "completely faithful" to her husband of 13 years, then Will Folks shared text messages and frequent, lengthy middle of the night phone calls between them, some as long as 180 minutes, all after 10pm (hey she had to put the kids to bed first):

https://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/HaireoftheDog/archives/2010/10/12/will-folks-releases-affidavit-detailing-haley-affair

And then, a second man, political consultant Larry Marchant, came out claiming he had one night stand with Haley. Of course, Haley also denied it.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/nikki-haley-affair-larry_n_599346.html

In his latest book, Michael Wolffe claimed that Nikki Haley had an affair with Trump, which Haley dismissed as "disgusting", one wonders if Trump took that as a compliment.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 3:29 am GMT
@anon

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Haley is sleeping with her current "advisor" at the UN (paid for by taxpayers btw) Jon Lerner, who she has also kindly shared with Mike Pence, one hopes only the advising part, not the bed, but who knows.

Something tells me she's sleeping with Netanyahu as well. She sure loves her Jewish men.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 4:22 am GMT
@Buck Turgidson

Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 4:34 am GMT
"Ambassadors" are supposed to make peace, but Trump who claimed he wanted to end all foreign wars end up with an ambassador to the World who only wants to make wars, with everybody! She even wanted Trump to send troops to Venezuela! Anytime Trump is within 10 ft of this mad woman, he's talking about bombing somebody.

Haley is the Ambassador of DEATH and DESTRUCTION.

RobinG , April 25, 2018 at 5:29 am GMT
@anon

Was there ever any evidence that Trump considered Tulsi for Amb. to UN? Wasn't that just goofy talk from Tulsi's fans?

I doubt she would have wanted it, anyway. Not exactly a step up, being appointed to a position from which you could be summarily dismissed .. as opposed to an elected official with a definite term and, other than pressure from the DNC – which she has handily bucked – freedom to express independent views.

Pandos , April 25, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
@Chris Bridges

She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste.

follyofwar , April 25, 2018 at 5:38 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

I keep wondering why Trump has not fired that know-nothing. He's not been afraid to fire people for far less offenses against his Admin. I suspect that the Israel Lobby will not let him, and made him hire her in the first place. She used to be a "Never-Trumper," after all. In an otherwise fine piece, I wish that Giraldi would have opined as to why she's still there.

deschutes , April 25, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
Haley is a stupid, opportunistic woman who simply goes where the money is, and that is by doing the bidding of the Zionists in USA and Israel. The author even points out that her mentor is Zionist asswipe from the National Review Johah Goldberg's wife! She comes across as such a stupid woman that she perhaps doesn't realize she's being brainwashed and used as a UN mouthpiece of advance the Zionist Israeli agenda.

Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy.

Well, what I'm trying to say, very sadly, is that this insufferable douchebag wench will most likely be your next president

anon [140] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

Does a purportedly high IQ protect one from stupidity?

High IQ signals intelligence, but not wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, and being able to apply your high IQ to learn from those experiences. Many high IQ people in fact lack practical wisdom a.k.a. common sense

...

ChuckOrloski , April 25, 2018 at 10:10 pm GMT
No doubt, it's hard especially for an ally (like me) to get under Philip Giraldi's thick-skin, but I am compelled to try now.

Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl."

Indeed, she could become President of ZUS as could Oprah Winfrey. All originate from Jewish Central Casting, selection.

In closing, linked below is some homegrown CENSORSHIP originating from "The Land of Milk & Honey."

https://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Twitter-blocks-member-of-Knesset-who-said-Ahed-Tamimi-should-be-crippled-552625

That's all folks!

NoseytheDuke , April 25, 2018 at 10:11 pm GMT
@anon

Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception.

Kratoklastes , April 25, 2018 at 11:27 pm GMT
@follyofwar

There are several reasons –

There are probably others – note that none of them has anything to do with diplomacy or international relations (except as a repudiation of the concepts).

Kratoklastes , April 25, 2018 at 11:31 pm GMT
Worse than Bolton? Hard to say.

Neither are effective at all: under both Bolton and now Haley (and "RicePower") the US has had to increase the baksheesh it distributes around the world in order to buy compliance and diplomatic support – they have, as a group been unable to slow the decline of US prestige.

So the 'operational' side of things is a wash.

Bolton's preternaturally unpersuasive, because he's a grotesque parody of a human being.

And there's where it gets interesting: there is upside risk to Haley if she were able to Clintonise herself – by which I mean behave more like Bill , not more like Hillary. If she was more 'aw-shucks', she would get more done (frankly I don't think that's her aim, because like all politicians she's interested in doing things for herself, not for her current boss).

Haley could be far more persuasive/effective because in her best moments she's quite personable (plus she's still very pretty when she turns on the charm, which is always a plus).

The downside is that her 'best' moments are very few and far between – she spends most of her time with that particularly waspish hate-face so common among formerly-pretty women who realise that their best years are behind them.

Frankly, the notion that she's a plausible presidential candidate is laughable: when the US does eventually elect a female president, the successful candidate will be whiter than the whitest Pilgrim.

It is beyond farcical to believe that the Republican voter base would elect a 'dusky' woman for the highest national office: bear in mind that Haley would be repudiated ex ante by Democrats because she's on the wrong side, and US presidential politics is almost entirely decided by base-mobilisation.

Deep down Haley probably realises this, and that will also be a source of rancour.

swimologist , Website April 26, 2018 at 12:22 am GMT
@Duncan

How exactly are these neocon Israel apologists created, vetted, accepted? It must be some weird ceremony that would make La Cosa Nostra look like a Ladies Garden Club invitation. By the way, 3,000 Palestinians weren't shot at the latest dustup.

KenH , April 26, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton.

If she ever ascends to the throne in D.C. her "conservatism" will consist of militant philo-semitism while being liberal on social policy and a warhawk on foreign policy. Hannity will gush joyfully over her.

Twodees Partain , April 26, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
@deschutes

"Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. "

Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know.

Hibernian , April 26, 2018 at 2:09 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

You seem to be confusing the philosophy professor Van Den Haag with The Hague in The Netherlands.

Hibernian , April 26, 2018 at 2:22 am GMT
@JamesG

Patrick Fitzgerald of Scooter Libby Gate fame was a Manhattan doorman's son. The family lived in Brooklyn.

Miro23 , April 26, 2018 at 2:32 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

To keep the bluff going, the US can't afford to push the button. End of story.

The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets.

Power in the US is held by a rabid crowd of Zionist who control Congress and the media, and THEY DECIDE what happens along the lines of "Israel First".

So your question should be, "To keep the bluff going, can Israel afford to push the (US) button?"

The answer could well be Yes.

1) Syria and Iran would be destroyed giving Israel undisputed dominance of the Middle East.

2) The US would be plunged into chaos and the COG (Continuity of Government) legislation installed by Reagan would come into play. This is basically an Emergency Dictatorship run from bunkers around the US, that the Zionists tried for on 9/11 (and failed to get) but would certainly achieve under this new scenario.

With totalitarian control of the United States, the Zionist Neo-Bolsheviks could do what they wanted with the remains of the US population, and who cares if 100 million Goys die in a nuclear exchange with Russia/China (which would also conveniently be in ruins).

[Apr 26, 2018] The Neocons' Next Nightmare Project Waffle House Bombardier for POTUS 2020 by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard. ..."
"... So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president. ..."
"... Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong ..."
Apr 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

She's clearly aiming for the Oval Office and would be the dream occupant for neocons

The musical chairs playing out among the senior officials that make up the President Donald Trump White House team would be amusing to watch but for the genuine damage that it is doing to the United States. The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in protecting the environment. It also means that well-funded and disciplined lobbies and pressure groups are having a field day, befuddling ignorant administrators with their "fact sheets" and successfully promoting policies that benefit no one but themselves.

In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley , who surfaced in the news lately after she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't get confused." This ignited a firestorm among the Trump haters, lauding Haley as a strong and self-confident woman for standing up to the White House male bullies while also suggesting that the hapless Administration had not bothered to inform one of its senior diplomats of a policy change. It also produced a flurry of Haley for higher office tweets based on what was described as her "brilliant riposte " to the president.

One over-the-top bit of effusion from a former Haley aide even suggested that her "deft rebuttal" emphasizes her qualities, enthusing that "What distinguishes her from the star-struck sycophants in the White House is that she understands the intersection of strong leadership and public service, where great things happen" and placing her on what is being promoted as the short list of future presidential candidates.

For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.

The greater problem right now is that Nikki Haley is America's face to the international community, even more than the Secretary of State. She has used her bully pulpit to do just that, i.e. bully, and she is ugly America personified, having apparently decided that something called American Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations. In her mind, the United States can do what it wants globally because it has a God-given right to do so, a viewpoint that doesn't go down well with many countries that believe that they have a legal and moral right to be left alone and remain exempt from America's all too frequent military interventions.

Nikki Haley sees things differently, however. During her 15 months at the United Nations she has been instrumental in cutting funding for programs that she disapproves of and has repeatedly threatened military action against countries that disagree with U.S. policies. Most recently, in the wake of the U.S. cruise missile attack against Syria, she announced that the action was potentially only the first step. She declared that Washington was "locked and loaded," prepared to exercise more lethal military options if Syria and its Russian and Iranian supporters did not cease and desist from the use of chemical weapons. Ironically, the cruise missile attack was carried out even though the White House had no clue as to what had actually happened and it now turns out that the entire story, spread by the terrorist groups in Syria and their mouthpieces, has begun to unravel . Will Nikki Haley apologize? I would suspect that if she doesn't do confusion she doesn't do apologies either.

Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Unfortunately, being a neocon mouthpiece makes her particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. She has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office with only minimal vetting by the Trump Administration, and, as in the recent imbroglio over her "confusion," it is never quite clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House.

Haley has her own foreign policy. She has declared that Russia "is not, will not be our friend" and has lately described the Russians as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children. From the start of her time at the U.N., Haley has made it clear that she is neoconservatism personified and she has done nothing since to change that impression. In December 2017 she warned the U.N. that she was "taking names" and threatened retaliation against any country that was so "disrespectful" as to dare to vote against Washington's disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which she also helped to bring about.

As governor of South Carolina, Haley first became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel through her signing of a bill punishing supporters of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Immediately upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that "nowhere has the U.N.'s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel" and vowed that the "days of Israel bashing are over." On a recent visit to Israel, she was feted and honored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She was also greeted by rounds of applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying "When I come to AIPAC I am with friends."

Nikki Haley's embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?" Haley responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking every Palestinian.

Haley is particularly highly critical of both Syria and Iran, reflecting the Israeli bias. She has repeatedly said that regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority, even when the White House was saying something different. She has elaborated on an Administration warning that it had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime" by tweeting " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." At one point, Haley warned "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people."

At various U.N. meetings, though Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of institutional bias towards Israel, she has never addressed the issue that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her description of Israel as a "close ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. Nor has she spoken up about the more recent shooting of three thousand unarmed Gazan demonstrators by Israeli Army sharpshooters, which is a war crime.

Haley's hardline on Syria reflects the Israeli bias, and her consistent hostility to Russia is a neoconservative position. A White House warning that it had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime led to a Haley elaboration in a tweet that " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, 2017 after Russia blocked a draft U.N. resolution intended to condemn the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, which subsequently turned out to be a false flag, Haley said , "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people."

Haley is particularly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli and neocon viewpoints. She claimed on April 20, 2017 during her first session as president of the U.N. Security Council, that Iran and Hezbollah had "conducted terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She stated in June 2017 that the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in "illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling," while "stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that might easily be challenged.

So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president.

Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong , one suspects that Haley's assertion that she does not do confusion is only the beginning if she succeeds in her apparent quest for the highest office in the land. Worse than John Bolton? Absolutely.

Source: The Unz Review

[Apr 26, 2018] Even The Simpsons' writers weren't absurdist enough to come up with a President Haley.

Notable quotes:
"... Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. ..."
"... She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least. ..."
"... Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican. ..."
"... She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections. ..."
"... Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl." ..."
"... Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception. ..."
"... Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton. ..."
"... "Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. " ..."
"... Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know. ..."
"... The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets. ..."
Apr 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Fran800 , April 24, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT

I have noticed Haley's awfulness from the beginning, which I see is now 15 months. Awful though Bolton is, one feels that he has some knowledge that might even make him pull back from Armageddon (maybe, not sure).

But Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. Notice how, in the alleged chemical attacks, she takes no thought or action at all to ascertain truth, but she outdoes herself trumpeting the harm caused, and the children suffering.

As if the fact that children are suffering somehow proves guilt. I can't imagine anything so ignorant.

She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least.

Realist , April 24, 2018 at 6:01 am GMT

Scarier Than John Bolton?

She's certainly dumber than Bolton.

Think of Nikki Haley for President!

If the electorate picks Haley, so be it.

NoseytheDuke , April 24, 2018 at 6:21 am GMT
@Fran800

Never dismiss the fool, for he wards no fear, no blame and and no trust. He sees no worth or value and can be swayed by the most trivial things. He seeks no reward but an emotional gratification. While these sound of a foe easily defeated the truth is oft the opposite for your threat and presence are fallen on the senseless. If you must fight a fool you must give him room and let hubris and frailty fight your war, otherwise, you must be swift, with out mercy and be able to ward the madness that will ensue.

I don't know who penned that but I think it's profound.

Pat Kittle , April 24, 2018 at 6:33 am GMT
Some of us once accepted the notion that when women got "empowered" the world would be a better place.
Anon [425] Disclaimer , Website April 24, 2018 at 6:45 am GMT
Nikki Haley's yappings are just the barking of a dog.

She has no agency. If she sounds 'scary', it's only because she is owned by Zionist globalist supremacists. If they ordered her to shut up and be nice to Russia and Iran, she will obey.

She has no mind of her own. Same with Bolton the Dolton.

Dan Hayes , April 24, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
How did Nikki Haley ever manage to get elected in South Carolina?

Maybe for the same reason that Lindsey Graham gets reelected!

These two pliant tools are a very poor commentary on the political acumen of this states electorate!

Pissedoffalese , April 24, 2018 at 6:58 am GMT
And she's different from Samantha Power, how? Under Obomba

Or John Bolton under Bush the Lesser?

Seems to be a tradition in the making of putting the most arrogant, rude, least diplomatic, and aggressive person possible in the position of ambassador to the UN.

Has anybody ELSE been steady, three administrations, non-stop PUKING? Makes it clear, if nothing else, our "humanitarian" face has peeled off, revealing the brain-eating zombie underneath.

jilles dykstra , April 24, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT
When you confront staunch Israel supporters with the isolation of Israel in the world, as can be seen at UN voting, the answer is that this is because of the anti Israel Muslim bloc in the UN.
The weird thing about jews is that with all their cleverness they're unable to see reality.
Israel is right, the rest of the world is wrong.
Now even if this were the case, any sensible person would take reality into consideration.
Not so idiots as Netanyahu.
When the next jewish catastrophe has happened, jews again will see how how they are the eternal innocent victims, if then jews still will exist, as a nuclear world war is likely to kill any human being world wide.
Already around 1953 a USA diplomat said that Israel should behave as a small ME country, in stead of the head of an international group.
They still do not understand.
Pissedoffalese , April 24, 2018 at 7:12 am GMT
Once (Bolton) was kind of an anomaly, because, after all, it WAS Bush the Lesser.

But Nobel Peace Prize-sporting Obomba, puts in Power.

Now we got Haley.

Maybe TWICE is a co-inkydink, but this is absurd! Fucking EVERYBODY blows us away diplomatically! Who is worse? N. Korea does some wicked TWEETS, but their diplomats are circumspect. Ours are visibly RABID.

One of these days, someone is gonna put us out of their misery, and suck though it will, it will be highly deserved! Afterward, perhaps humans can progress once the USA is a giant smoking crater. Or at least D.C. Has ANYONE ever begged for it THIS bad? Ever?

Ludwig Watzal , Website April 24, 2018 at 7:52 am GMT
Nikki Haley is THE mouthpiece of the Zionist aggressive occupation regime. She serves its interests and acts to the detriment of the American people that have to carry the can for the partisanship with this rogue Zionist state. President Trump should sack her before she challenges him in the next presidential race. Haley will have the backing of the trigger-happy Ziocon establishment and the Zionist billionaires.

Together with John Bolton, they seem like the perfect "Doomsday Couple" to bring the U.S. down. Perhaps they are the last true believers in Zionism, the Jewish racist ideology, although both are not Jewish. It's not surprising that Jewish and American exceptionalism are similar in their racist beliefs.

Haley's behavior is hyperbolic, arrogant, and extremely dangerous to the reputation of the U. S. but it seems as if she acts according to the slogan: Freely you live, if you haven't a reputation to lose. But under the borderline Trump administration even a "un-American" behavior, it benefits the Zionist regime, seems acceptable.

So far, all so-called chemical weapons attacks by the al-Asad government were false flag attacks carried out either by al-Nusra, ISIS or al-Qaida terrorist organizations or by the "White Helmets" themselves that are a so-called a terrorist affiliate organization, disguised as paramedics, to draw the U. S. directly into the Syrian conflict.

Under Obama, they failed, and Trump made some symbolic bombings to pacify the trigger-happy Zionist lobby. How mentally deranged Haley seems, shows her arrogant statement: "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its people."

With which "civilized world" should Russia take sides? Does Haley mean the U. S. or the Zionist occupation regime? The first one has slaughtered millions of people in endless wars, the later has been subjugated another people for over 50 years and destroyed its existence. This "civilized world" and its values are for the garbage dump.

Despite his twitter manticism, Trump was still a kind of common sense that can differentiate between the good for America in contrast to the good for Israel for the sake of the American people.

Achmed E. Newman , Website April 24, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT
Nikky Hailey is not only a stupid Globalist('s) bitch, but a traitor to the state of South Carolina. S. Carolinians will remember the flag.

Her appointment to the UN Ambassador position was the very 1st sign of President Trump's incompetence.

Mikhail , Website April 24, 2018 at 8:01 am GMT
@Duncan

Noeconservatives arguably don't have enough appeal for them to get the presidency. Unfortunately, they can still have clout as evidenced by Haley in her role and how the likes of MSNBC and CNN uncritically praise her.

On the subject of Haley:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/12042017-latest-bump-in-us-russian-relations-analysis/

http://www.eurasiareview.com/19042018-confronting-russia-in-syria-analysis/

falcemartello , Website April 24, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT
Well if she does make it to POTUS we have historical equivalence. The Dying days of the Roman western Empire. in the mid 4th century BC. Roman Empire at this stage had two imperial cities. one situated in ROME being hounded by the Goths and the other one in the East Byzantium present day Istanbul. The point is in the western dying Imperial days they put as emperor a child well Haley becomes POTUS one could only say History repeating itself. The scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures coming out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial output. Profits are all related to the stockmarket grandest ponzi scheme in the history of western man.
Latest events from the Skripal imbroglio to Douma all show signs of desperation .
BY DECEPTION YOU MAY WAGE WAR.
Note the three countries that illegally bombed Syria on the sad nite of April 13th 2018 were the exact ring leaders to the total destruction of the highest standard of living of the African continent.
RINSE ,LATHER ,REPEAT.
Post Scriptum: It is sad and scary to see that from 1999 to this day not withstanding all the lies that NATO and FUKUS have spewed to the world and have been exposed as such we the sheeple can fall for the same trap.
THE WEST HAS ENTERED INTO THE WORLD OF ZOMBIES .
Critical thinking gets labelled as enemies of the state. Boy Goebbels must be so envious of recent events.
How Orwellian our western society has become.
Gordo , April 24, 2018 at 8:44 am GMT
"According to an international poll conducted in 2009, 58% of Indians expressed sympathy with Israel, compared with 56% of Americans"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Just sayin.

mark green , April 24, 2018 at 8:46 am GMT
Another very good article by Philip Giraldi. If the US wasn't dominated by foreign agents and roving gangs of ziocon lobbyists, Giraldi would be widely respected, considered 'mainstream', and known to millions. But powerful forces are determined to prevent this.

What we get instead are empty suits reading scripts.

We live in an era where political extremism (aggressive war is a prime example of extremism) has been declared 'centrist' and 'moderate'. Advocates of non-intervention are labeled 'fringe'.

Political illusions happen. They happen by design.

Fortunately, Giraldi demonstrates a commendable ability to separate US interests from contrived foreign agendas. This is not often done. And he does it well.

For revealing this, Giraldi and a few other daring intellectuals have been defamed as 'far right'. Their sin? Telling the truth (to the best of their ability) about Zio-American malfeasance in American life and on the world stage.

Their quiet exile from the corridors of political power shows how debased and unmoored our culture has become. Giraldi's diminished status is the end-product of targeted censorship, economic sabotage, and strategic defamation. This phenomena affects us all.

What do we get instead?–delusional sell-outs like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley. Frauds all, including the journalists who adore them. The corruption in America is wide and deep.

Washington's queer political values are hopelessly under the thrall of liberal interventionists, ne0con militarists, televised war barkers, and deep state vampires. These amoral extremists have become America's political 'establishment'.

Trump notwithstanding, the Swamp, the alphabet government agencies, the two Parties, the major lobbies, donors, and NGOs (and of course, Big Media) are what rules America.

Average, non-organized voters have no political influence.

But it is our mainstream news and entertainment media that ultimately earns the most responsibility for Zio-Washington's trigger-happy embrace of aggressive militarism in all policies and instances that could affect Israel (which is virtually everything.)

This Zionist 'value' opens a very big door.

This commitment is a recipe for endless strife and intervention. Yet our media supports it. Continuously and uniformly.

And the chief beneficiary is (you guessed it).

Incredibly, Washington spends far more time agonizing over borders and security in the far-away shitholes (pardon the expression) than on our own southern border. Who dreamt up this ridiculous scheme?

This level of corrupt insanity did not happen by accident.

Incredibly, if enough empty suits and talking heads repeat a myth or falsehood enough times, it becomes 'true'. Voila! The magic of TV.

Political hallucinations and bizarre double standards become very real. Very 'true'.

Zio-America is morally-unhinged rogue superpower.

If you don't believe me, count the dead.

The Alarmist , April 24, 2018 at 10:31 am GMT
The problem with being arrogant when you are on top of the world is that you are remembered and reviled when you get knocked down a peg. The guys in the dock at Nuremburg learned that at the end of a rope. She'll never face that sort of justice, though, because we can't lose, right?
Greg Bacon , Website April 24, 2018 at 10:33 am GMT

The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in protecting the environment.

But I disagree, Mr. Giraldi! Their is coherence in State policy, that is to serve the State of Israel.

Nutty Nikki is idiotic, vindictive, hateful and very bellicose and would not hesitate to use our kids and tax dollars to support Apartheid Israel, and is loved by multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, which means she will be the next POTUS.

Anonymous [135] Disclaimer , April 24, 2018 at 12:10 pm GMT
Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican.

She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections.

When is Trump going to prosecute Soros for conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. and other countries?

Sandy Berger's Socks , April 25, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
There is no excuse for these awful appointments.

The lack of progress on immigration can, maybe, be explained as Trump faces fierce resistance, but Bolton, Haley, and Pompeo are unforced/forced errors, that will make it nearly immposible for him to keep his promise of ending these stupid wars.

Better than Hillary, but more than a little disappointing.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 3:21 am GMT
Haley has too many skeletons in her closet to run for president. While running for SC governorship rumors of her affair with conservative blogger Will Folks surfaced. She tried to deny it of course, claiming to be "completely faithful" to her husband of 13 years, then Will Folks shared text messages and frequent, lengthy middle of the night phone calls between them, some as long as 180 minutes, all after 10pm (hey she had to put the kids to bed first):

https://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/HaireoftheDog/archives/2010/10/12/will-folks-releases-affidavit-detailing-haley-affair

And then, a second man, political consultant Larry Marchant, came out claiming he had one night stand with Haley. Of course, Haley also denied it.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/nikki-haley-affair-larry_n_599346.html

In his latest book, Michael Wolffe claimed that Nikki Haley had an affair with Trump, which Haley dismissed as "disgusting", one wonders if Trump took that as a compliment.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 3:29 am GMT
@anon

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Haley is sleeping with her current "advisor" at the UN (paid for by taxpayers btw) Jon Lerner, who she has also kindly shared with Mike Pence, one hopes only the advising part, not the bed, but who knows.

Something tells me she's sleeping with Netanyahu as well. She sure loves her Jewish men.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 4:22 am GMT
@Buck Turgidson

Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard.

anon [248] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 4:34 am GMT
"Ambassadors" are supposed to make peace, but Trump who claimed he wanted to end all foreign wars end up with an ambassador to the World who only wants to make wars, with everybody! She even wanted Trump to send troops to Venezuela! Anytime Trump is within 10 ft of this mad woman, he's talking about bombing somebody.

Haley is the Ambassador of DEATH and DESTRUCTION.

RobinG , April 25, 2018 at 5:29 am GMT
@anon

Was there ever any evidence that Trump considered Tulsi for Amb. to UN? Wasn't that just goofy talk from Tulsi's fans?

I doubt she would have wanted it, anyway. Not exactly a step up, being appointed to a position from which you could be summarily dismissed .. as opposed to an elected official with a definite term and, other than pressure from the DNC – which she has handily bucked – freedom to express independent views.

Pandos , April 25, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
@Chris Bridges

She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste.

follyofwar , April 25, 2018 at 5:38 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

I keep wondering why Trump has not fired that know-nothing. He's not been afraid to fire people for far less offenses against his Admin. I suspect that the Israel Lobby will not let him, and made him hire her in the first place. She used to be a "Never-Trumper," after all. In an otherwise fine piece, I wish that Giraldi would have opined as to why she's still there.

deschutes , April 25, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
Haley is a stupid, opportunistic woman who simply goes where the money is, and that is by doing the bidding of the Zionists in USA and Israel. The author even points out that her mentor is Zionist asswipe from the National Review Johah Goldberg's wife! She comes across as such a stupid woman that she perhaps doesn't realize she's being brainwashed and used as a UN mouthpiece of advance the Zionist Israeli agenda.

Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy.

Well, what I'm trying to say, very sadly, is that this insufferable douchebag wench will most likely be your next president

anon [140] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

Does a purportedly high IQ protect one from stupidity?

High IQ signals intelligence, but not wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, and being able to apply your high IQ to learn from those experiences. Many high IQ people in fact lack practical wisdom a.k.a. common sense

...

ChuckOrloski , April 25, 2018 at 10:10 pm GMT
No doubt, it's hard especially for an ally (like me) to get under Philip Giraldi's thick-skin, but I am compelled to try now.

Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl."

Indeed, she could become President of ZUS as could Oprah Winfrey. All originate from Jewish Central Casting, selection.

In closing, linked below is some homegrown CENSORSHIP originating from "The Land of Milk & Honey."

https://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Twitter-blocks-member-of-Knesset-who-said-Ahed-Tamimi-should-be-crippled-552625

That's all folks!

NoseytheDuke , April 25, 2018 at 10:11 pm GMT
@anon

Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception.

Kratoklastes , April 25, 2018 at 11:27 pm GMT
@follyofwar

There are several reasons –

There are probably others – note that none of them has anything to do with diplomacy or international relations (except as a repudiation of the concepts).

Kratoklastes , April 25, 2018 at 11:31 pm GMT
Worse than Bolton? Hard to say.

Neither are effective at all: under both Bolton and now Haley (and "RicePower") the US has had to increase the baksheesh it distributes around the world in order to buy compliance and diplomatic support – they have, as a group been unable to slow the decline of US prestige.

So the 'operational' side of things is a wash.

Bolton's preternaturally unpersuasive, because he's a grotesque parody of a human being.

And there's where it gets interesting: there is upside risk to Haley if she were able to Clintonise herself – by which I mean behave more like Bill , not more like Hillary. If she was more 'aw-shucks', she would get more done (frankly I don't think that's her aim, because like all politicians she's interested in doing things for herself, not for her current boss).

Haley could be far more persuasive/effective because in her best moments she's quite personable (plus she's still very pretty when she turns on the charm, which is always a plus).

The downside is that her 'best' moments are very few and far between – she spends most of her time with that particularly waspish hate-face so common among formerly-pretty women who realise that their best years are behind them.

Frankly, the notion that she's a plausible presidential candidate is laughable: when the US does eventually elect a female president, the successful candidate will be whiter than the whitest Pilgrim.

It is beyond farcical to believe that the Republican voter base would elect a 'dusky' woman for the highest national office: bear in mind that Haley would be repudiated ex ante by Democrats because she's on the wrong side, and US presidential politics is almost entirely decided by base-mobilisation.

Deep down Haley probably realises this, and that will also be a source of rancour.

swimologist , Website April 26, 2018 at 12:22 am GMT
@Duncan

How exactly are these neocon Israel apologists created, vetted, accepted? It must be some weird ceremony that would make La Cosa Nostra look like a Ladies Garden Club invitation. By the way, 3,000 Palestinians weren't shot at the latest dustup.

KenH , April 26, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton.

If she ever ascends to the throne in D.C. her "conservatism" will consist of militant philo-semitism while being liberal on social policy and a warhawk on foreign policy. Hannity will gush joyfully over her.

Twodees Partain , April 26, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
@deschutes

"Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. "

Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know.

Hibernian , April 26, 2018 at 2:09 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

You seem to be confusing the philosophy professor Van Den Haag with The Hague in The Netherlands.

Hibernian , April 26, 2018 at 2:22 am GMT
@JamesG

Patrick Fitzgerald of Scooter Libby Gate fame was a Manhattan doorman's son. The family lived in Brooklyn.

Miro23 , April 26, 2018 at 2:32 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

To keep the bluff going, the US can't afford to push the button. End of story.

The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets.

Power in the US is held by a rabid crowd of Zionist who control Congress and the media, and THEY DECIDE what happens along the lines of "Israel First".

So your question should be, "To keep the bluff going, can Israel afford to push the (US) button?"

The answer could well be Yes.

1) Syria and Iran would be destroyed giving Israel undisputed dominance of the Middle East.

2) The US would be plunged into chaos and the COG (Continuity of Government) legislation installed by Reagan would come into play. This is basically an Emergency Dictatorship run from bunkers around the US, that the Zionists tried for on 9/11 (and failed to get) but would certainly achieve under this new scenario.

With totalitarian control of the United States, the Zionist Neo-Bolsheviks could do what they wanted with the remains of the US population, and who cares if 100 million Goys die in a nuclear exchange with Russia/China (which would also conveniently be in ruins).

[Apr 26, 2018] Drones, Baby, Drones! The Rise of Americas High-Tech Assassins

Apr 03, 2015 | Alternet
...President Barack Obama, who had run a quasi-antiwar liberal campaign for the White House, had embraced the assassination program and had decreed, "the CIA gets what it wants." Intelligence budgets were maintaining the steep upward curve that had started in 2001, and while all agencies were benefiting, none had done as well as the CIA At just under $15 billion, the agency's budget had climbed by 56 percent just since 2004.

Decades earlier, Richard Helms, the CIA director for whom the event was named, would customarily refer to the defense contractors who pressured him to spend his budget on their wares as "those bastards." Such disdain for commerce in the world of spooks was now long gone, as demonstrated by the corporate sponsorship of the tables jammed into the Grand Ballroom that evening. The executives, many of whom had passed through the revolving door from government service, were there to rub shoulders with old friends and current partners. "It was totally garish," one attendee told me afterward. "It seemed like every arms manufacturer in the country had taken a table. Everyone was doing business, right and left."

In the decade since 9/11, the CIA had been regularly blighted by scandal-revelations of torture, renditions, secret "black site" prisons, bogus intelligence justifying the invasion of Iraq, ignored signs of the impending 9/11 attacks-but such unwholesome realities found no echo in this comradely gathering. Even George Tenet, the CIA director who had presided over all of the aforementioned scandals, was greeted with heartfelt affection by erstwhile colleagues as he, along with almost every other living former CIA director, stood to be introduced by Master of Ceremonies John McLaughlin, a former deputy director himself deeply complicit in the Iraq fiasco. Each, with the exception of Stansfield Turner (still bitterly resented for downsizing the agency post-Vietnam), received ringing applause, but none more than the night's honoree, former CIA director and then-current secretary of defense Robert M. Gates.

Although Gates had left the CIA eighteen years before, he was very much the father figure of the institution and a mentor to the intelligence chieftains, active and retired, who cheered him so fervently that night at the Ritz-Carlton. He had climbed through the ranks of the national security bureaucracy with a ruthless determination all too evident to those around him. Ray McGovern, his supervisor in his first agency post, as an analyst with the intelligence directorate's soviet foreign policy branch, recalls writing in an efficiency report that the young man's "evident and all-consuming ambition is a disruptive influence in the branch." There had come a brief check on his rise to power when his involvement in the Iran-Contra imbroglio cratered an initial attempt to win confirmation as CIA director, but success came a few years later, in 1991, despite vehement protests from former colleagues over his persistent willingness to sacrifice analytic objectivity to the political convenience of his masters.

Book cover of 'Kill Chain.'

Photo Credit:

Henry Holt

Click to enlarge.

Gates's successful 1991 confirmation as CIA chief owed much, so colleagues assessed, to diligent work behind the scenes on the part of the Senate Intelligence Committee's staff director, George Tenet. In 1993, Tenet moved on to be director for intelligence programs on the Clinton White House national security staff, in which capacity he came to know and esteem John Brennan, a midlevel and hitherto undistinguished CIA analyst assigned to brief White House staffers. Tenet liked Brennan so much that when he himself moved to the CIA as deputy director in 1995, he had the briefer appointed station chief in Riyadh, an important position normally reserved for someone with actual operational experience. In this sensitive post Brennan worked tirelessly to avoid irritating his Saudi hosts, showing reluctance, for example, to press them for Osama bin Laden's biographical details when asked to do so by the bin Laden unit back at headquarters.

Brennan returned to Washington in 1999 under Tenet's patronage, initially as his chief of staff and then as CIA executive director, and by 2003 he had transitioned to the burgeoning field of intelligence fusion bureaucracy. The notion that the way to avert miscommunication between intelligence bureaucracies was to create yet more layers of bureaucracy was popular in Washington in the aftermath of 9/11. One concrete expression of this trend was the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, known as T-TIC and then renamed the National Counter Terrorism Center a year later. Brennan was the first head of T-TIC, distinguishing himself in catering to the abiding paranoia of the times. On one occasion, notorious within the community, he circulated an urgent report that al-Qaeda was encrypting targeting information for terrorist attacks in the broadcasts of the al-Jazeera TV network, thereby generating an "orange" alert and the cancellation of dozens of international flights. The initiative was greeted with malicious amusement over at the CIA's own Counterterrorism Center, whose chief at the time, José Rodríguez, later opined that Brennan had been trying to build up his profile with higher authority. "Brennan was a major factor in keeping [the al-Jazeera/al-Qaeda story] alive. We thought it was ridiculous," he told a reporter. "My own view is he saw this, he took this, as a way to have relevance, to take something to the White House." Tellingly, an Obama White House spokesman later excused Brennan's behavior on the grounds that though he had circulated the report, he hadn't believed it himself.

Exiting government service in 2005, Brennan spent the next three years heading The Analysis Corporation, an obscure but profitable intelligence contractor engaged in preparing terrorist watch lists for the government, work for which he was paid $763,000 in 2008. Among the useful relationships he had cultivated over the years was well-connected Democrat Anthony Lake, a former national security adviser to Bill Clinton, who recommended him to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Meeting for the first time shortly after Obama's election victory, the pair bonded immediately, with Obama "finishing Brennan's sentences," by one account. Among their points of wholehearted agreement was the merit of a surgical approach to terrorist threats, the "need to target the metastasizing disease without destroying the surrounding tissue," as Brennan put it, for which drones and their Hellfire missiles seemed the ideal tools. Obama was initially balked in his desire to make Brennan CIA director because of the latter's all-too-close association with the agency's torture program, so instead the new president made him his assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security, with an office down the hall from the Oval Office. Two years into the administration, everyone in the Ritz-Carlton ballroom knew that the bulky Irishman was the most powerful man in U.S. intelligence as the custodian of the president's kill list, on which the chief executive and former constitutional law professor insisted on reserving the last word, making his final selections for execution at regularly scheduled Tuesday afternoon meetings. "You know, our president has his brutal side," a CIA source cognizant of Obama's involvement observed to me at the time.

Now, along with the other six hundred diners at the Helms dinner, Brennan listened attentively as Gates rose to accept the coveted award for "exemplary service to the nation and the Central Intelligence Agency." After paying due tribute to previous honorees as well as his pride in being part of the CIA "family," Gates spoke movingly of a recent and particularly tragic instance of CIA sacrifice, the seven men and women killed by a suicide bomber at an agency base, Forward Operating Base Chapman, in Khost, Afghanistan, in 2009. All present bowed their heads in silent tribute.

Gates then moved on to a more upbeat topic. When first he arrived at the Pentagon in 2007, he said, he had found deep-rooted resistance to "new technology" among "flyboys with silk scarves" still wedded to venerable traditions of fighter-plane combat. But all that, he informed his rapt audience, had changed. Factories were working "day and night, day and night," to turn out the vital weapons for the fight against terrorism. "So from now on," he concluded, his voice rising, "the watchword is: drones, baby, drones!"

The applause was long and loud.

Excerpted from Andrew Cockburn's new book, Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins Henry Holt, 2015). Reprinted here with permission from the author.

[Apr 26, 2018] The Neocons' Next Nightmare Project Waffle House Bombardier for POTUS 2020 by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard. ..."
"... So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president. ..."
"... Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong ..."
Apr 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

She's clearly aiming for the Oval Office and would be the dream occupant for neocons

The musical chairs playing out among the senior officials that make up the President Donald Trump White House team would be amusing to watch but for the genuine damage that it is doing to the United States. The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in protecting the environment. It also means that well-funded and disciplined lobbies and pressure groups are having a field day, befuddling ignorant administrators with their "fact sheets" and successfully promoting policies that benefit no one but themselves.

In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley , who surfaced in the news lately after she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't get confused." This ignited a firestorm among the Trump haters, lauding Haley as a strong and self-confident woman for standing up to the White House male bullies while also suggesting that the hapless Administration had not bothered to inform one of its senior diplomats of a policy change. It also produced a flurry of Haley for higher office tweets based on what was described as her "brilliant riposte " to the president.

One over-the-top bit of effusion from a former Haley aide even suggested that her "deft rebuttal" emphasizes her qualities, enthusing that "What distinguishes her from the star-struck sycophants in the White House is that she understands the intersection of strong leadership and public service, where great things happen" and placing her on what is being promoted as the short list of future presidential candidates.

For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.

The greater problem right now is that Nikki Haley is America's face to the international community, even more than the Secretary of State. She has used her bully pulpit to do just that, i.e. bully, and she is ugly America personified, having apparently decided that something called American Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations. In her mind, the United States can do what it wants globally because it has a God-given right to do so, a viewpoint that doesn't go down well with many countries that believe that they have a legal and moral right to be left alone and remain exempt from America's all too frequent military interventions.

Nikki Haley sees things differently, however. During her 15 months at the United Nations she has been instrumental in cutting funding for programs that she disapproves of and has repeatedly threatened military action against countries that disagree with U.S. policies. Most recently, in the wake of the U.S. cruise missile attack against Syria, she announced that the action was potentially only the first step. She declared that Washington was "locked and loaded," prepared to exercise more lethal military options if Syria and its Russian and Iranian supporters did not cease and desist from the use of chemical weapons. Ironically, the cruise missile attack was carried out even though the White House had no clue as to what had actually happened and it now turns out that the entire story, spread by the terrorist groups in Syria and their mouthpieces, has begun to unravel . Will Nikki Haley apologize? I would suspect that if she doesn't do confusion she doesn't do apologies either.

Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Unfortunately, being a neocon mouthpiece makes her particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. She has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office with only minimal vetting by the Trump Administration, and, as in the recent imbroglio over her "confusion," it is never quite clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House.

Haley has her own foreign policy. She has declared that Russia "is not, will not be our friend" and has lately described the Russians as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children. From the start of her time at the U.N., Haley has made it clear that she is neoconservatism personified and she has done nothing since to change that impression. In December 2017 she warned the U.N. that she was "taking names" and threatened retaliation against any country that was so "disrespectful" as to dare to vote against Washington's disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which she also helped to bring about.

As governor of South Carolina, Haley first became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel through her signing of a bill punishing supporters of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Immediately upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that "nowhere has the U.N.'s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel" and vowed that the "days of Israel bashing are over." On a recent visit to Israel, she was feted and honored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She was also greeted by rounds of applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying "When I come to AIPAC I am with friends."

Nikki Haley's embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?" Haley responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking every Palestinian.

Haley is particularly highly critical of both Syria and Iran, reflecting the Israeli bias. She has repeatedly said that regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority, even when the White House was saying something different. She has elaborated on an Administration warning that it had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime" by tweeting " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." At one point, Haley warned "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people."

At various U.N. meetings, though Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of institutional bias towards Israel, she has never addressed the issue that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her description of Israel as a "close ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. Nor has she spoken up about the more recent shooting of three thousand unarmed Gazan demonstrators by Israeli Army sharpshooters, which is a war crime.

Haley's hardline on Syria reflects the Israeli bias, and her consistent hostility to Russia is a neoconservative position. A White House warning that it had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime led to a Haley elaboration in a tweet that " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, 2017 after Russia blocked a draft U.N. resolution intended to condemn the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, which subsequently turned out to be a false flag, Haley said , "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people."

Haley is particularly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli and neocon viewpoints. She claimed on April 20, 2017 during her first session as president of the U.N. Security Council, that Iran and Hezbollah had "conducted terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She stated in June 2017 that the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in "illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling," while "stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that might easily be challenged.

So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president.

Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong , one suspects that Haley's assertion that she does not do confusion is only the beginning if she succeeds in her apparent quest for the highest office in the land. Worse than John Bolton? Absolutely.

Source: The Unz Review

[Apr 25, 2018] The Zionists are very much like the CIA: they work secretly, scheming and planning their ugly machinations in the shadows for selfish gain.

Apr 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

deschutes , April 25, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT

@annamaria

Great post. The Zionist Israelis are the shit and scum of planet Earth. You cannot get any worse than Avigdor Lieberman, Ariel Sharon (now dead thank god!), Bibi Netanyahu, etc. The Zionists are very much like the CIA: they work secretly, scheming and planning their ugly machinations in the shadows for selfish gain.

But seriously, Israel is arguably the most vile, hate consumed, parasitical, shithole 'country' that ever existed! Look at how it is such a massive parasite on the US taxpayer and US government: over 2 billion in 'aid' every year, and rising! Why!? Why does Israel get this American foreign aid, the largest foreign recipient by far, with not so much as a question from congress?

Because fucking AIPAC has every congressman by the balls! If they don't have their tongue deeply wedged up the collective Zionist asshole–the zionists donate massively in the next election cycle to an obedient pro-zionist candidate to replace said thinking, reasonable congressman. These are the facts!

Oh, and make sure to watch the youtube videos on illegal Israeli settlers in Hebron. Fucking outrageous: these Zionist settlers make white slave holders during the Old South era look like saints! They terrorize Palestinians, literally throwing shit, urine, vomit, molotov cocktails, rocks, burning tires, anything that causes harm at the Arab homes. And they do it with a sick fucked up kind of satisfaction as the IDF soldiers look on and couldn't give a shit. And what does the US government do about this? Nothing! Not a goddamned thing is done; in fact they provide the weapons to kill off the Palestinians. And don't forget the fucking asshole CAT corporation, making millions selling those giant tank bulldozers to the Israeli zionists to bulldoze Arab homes, olive trees, roads, and people! If I ever run into a CAT employee I'm gonna kick his fucking ass!

[Apr 25, 2018] If I don't like the government and its policies (purchased by moneyed interests and non-Americans) am I an "America hater"?

Apr 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous


But when [Lang] bristles that "I confess that I was unaware that this is a forum for people who hate America," I won't be getting my hopes up too high.
That does sound like something parroted by Slumlord Hannity and other Fox News types. What is America? Land? People? Government? If I don't like the government and its policies (purchased by moneyed interests and non-Americans) am I an "America hater"? I lived all my life in America. I have close relatives and immediate family who fought in wars and immediate family buried at Arlington. How does one qualify as an America hater? Not to genuflect to the military and their illegal and gravely immoral wars and actions? To disagree with the neocon/neolib policies and policymakers? Policies which run counter to Christian morality and natural law? If so then I'm an America hater in good standing.

EnglishOutsider , April 25, 2018 at 5:32 pm GMT

@Anonymous

I dislike the policies of my government as much as you appear to dislike the policies of yours. So we're on the parallel tracks there. But it's possible to do that and still be a patriot. That's democracy.

Democracy's not working at present, certainly not in my country and maybe not quite as expected for all those Americans patriots who voted anti-neocon. But it's still a good idea, democracy, wouldn't you agree?

[Apr 25, 2018] The Lies Behind America's Interventions by Jon Basil Utley

Notable quotes:
"... But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The 15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional committee. The Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... Los Angeles ..."
"... Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... American Conservative ..."
"... New York Times ..."
Apr 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Official Washington and those associated with it have misrepresented the facts numerous times in the service of military actions that might not otherwise have taken place. In the Middle East, these interventions have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab civilians, brought chaos to Iraq and Libya, and led to the expulsion of a million Christians from communities where they have lived since biblical times.

The most famous of these episodes, of course, was the U.S. government's assurance to the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which formed the basis for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The government also insisted Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda, bolstering the call to war. Of course neither was true.

But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The 15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional committee. The Christian Science Monitor detailed this bizarre episode in 2002.

There were also the lies about the Iraqi army being poised to invade Saudi Arabia. That was the ostensible reason for the U.S. sending troops to Kuwait -- to defend Saudi Arabia. Writing in the the Los Angeles Times in 2003, Independent Institute fellow Victor Marshall pointed out that neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable, and said the administration's Iraqi troop estimates were "grossly exaggerated." In fact, the administration's claim that it had aerial photographs proving its assertions was never verified because, as we later learned, the photos never existed. The Christian Science Monitor also reported on this in 2002 ahead of the second Iraq war.

America attacked Iraq in 1991, bombing and destroying that nation's irrigation, sanitation, and electricity plants. (See here regarding Washington's knowledge of and planning for the horrific mass contamination of Iraqi drinking water.) Then we blockaded reconstruction supplies for nine years while some half-million children died of disease and starvation. We blamed it all on Saddam, although we controlled Iraq's money flows through the UN food-for-oil program. Fortunately, we have a rare admission by Madeleine Albright on 60 Minutes about what was done.

Before that, there was the Kosovo war when America attacked Serbia on the basis of lies that 100,000 Kosovans had been massacred by Serbs in suppressing their civil war. This led to massive American bombing, brutally destroying much of that nation's civilian infrastructure and factories, including most of the bridges in the country, and all but one of those over the Danube River. The Americans imposed peace, then expelled most Serbs out of their former province. Subsequently there was the mass destruction of hundreds of ancient Christian churches and the creation of a European enclave now filled with Saudi money that sponsors Wahhabi education, with its rote memorization of the Koran and its 13th-century hatred of Christians.

More recently there was the British, French, and American attack on Libya in response to lies that Moammar Gaddafi was planning to massacre civilians in Benghazi. The U.S. destroyed his armed forces and helped to overthrow him. Widespread looting of his weaponry subsequently filled black markets in Asia and Africa and contributed to the ability of Boko Haram terrorists to sow chaos in Nigeria and parts of Northern Africa. Masses of African refugees have been flooding Western Europe ever since, traveling through Libya. Some of those weapons also made their way into the hands of the Islamic State, which overran parts of Iraq and Syria.

Most recently we had cable news inundating us with stories of a new poison gas attack in Syria. The "news" came from rebel sources. The American Conservative has published a detailed analysis by former arms inspector Scott Ritter questioning the evidence, or lack of it, that the Assad regime initiated the attack. The former British ambassador to Syria also cast doubts on the poison gas attack and its sources from rebel organizations.

It doesn't make sense that Assad would use poison gas just as Trump was saying that he wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. It does make sense for the rebels to have staged a set up to get America to stay and attack Assad. This happened before in the summer of 2014 when President Obama nearly went to war over similar accusations. Only after asking Congress to vote on the matter did he decide against the attack because Congress wasn't interested. Some congressmen's mail was running 100-to-one against bombing. It was a welcome reminder of why Washington doesn't want actual votes on starting wars: because most Americans don't want more Washington wars.

Investigative journalists Seymour Hersh and Robert Parry expertly poked holes in the veracity of that 2013 attack. Other reports suggested that Syrian bombs unleashed poison gas the rebels had been storing in civilian areas. The New York Times finally published in December 2013 a detailed report that expressed doubts about its earlier conclusion that the 2013 "red line" gassing was carried out definitively by the Syrian military. False flag operations to goad America into war, it seems, can be successful.

After all the hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad killed by America and the human misery caused because of clever U.S. and foreign manipulations, one would think we might pause before attacking Syria and running the risk of killing Russians who are advising the Syrians. That could ignite an entirely new kind of war with a nuclear-armed Russia -- all without congressional approval.

Obama, whose policies were predicated on the view that Assad must go, seemed to think Syrians would live happily after in some magically sprouting democracy. To believe this one would have to ignore the prior examples of Iraq and Libya. Nor do these war party advocates seem in the least concerned about the 10 percent of Syria's population who are Christians, many of whom would surely by massacred after any overthrow of Assad.

Further, the so-called Free Syrian Army is a hodgepodge of rebel groups that include many Islamist radicals. With funding from fundamentalist Saudis and Turkey, they took over from more liberal forces early on. It's worth noting also that Turkey provided the black market for ISIS to sell Syria's captured oil.

Going back a hundred years there were the clever British lies that helped coax America into joining the Allies in World War I. England controlled the trans-Atlantic cables and most of our "news" about the war. That intervention resulted in the Treaty of Versailles instead of a compromise peace between Germany and England/France that would have prevented the wreckage of Europe out of which came the rise of communism and Nazism.

For an analysis of the risks of accidental nuclear war, see my 2017 January Publisher's Report , in which I once wrote about how Osama bin Laden's ultimate aim was to get Russia and America to destroy each other. It still could happen, triggered by false atrocity stories, cable TV's 24-hour hyping of any and every threat, and Washington's propensity to believe lies -- and sometimes perpetrate them -- to promote wars.

Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .

Janwaar Bibi April 25, 2018 at 12:15 am

No one wants to be manipulated into war. So why do we keep letting it happen?

Saudi and Israeli money. Next question.

Realist , says: April 25, 2018 at 1:49 am
"No one wants to be manipulated into war. So why do we keep letting it happen?"

It is not we it is politicians.

Money is the reason

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 is the cause.

Emil Bogdan , says: April 25, 2018 at 5:30 am
Lies can be fun, especially the ones I tell myself, and they're also a lot of fun to discover, just like your lies. The worst bummer, however, is that the lies we tell each other very quickly do get tiresome and repetitive, if not downright frustrating:

"Oh My God, It's Still The Same Lies. That Makes It Worse."

Apparently–and this is tragic–it looks like we're just too selfish to come up with new ones: Say what, you want me to lie the country into war in some fascinating novel way, just for your entertainment? I don't think so. It's easier to stick to the routine, and I'm lazy, so I'll just do as you do, I'll keep telling you the same old lies, which explains why you are bored as well–meanwhile, I spend my quality time investigating all the ways I hide things from myself.

(yeah, right)

Fran Macadam , says: April 25, 2018 at 8:30 am
Wars are little more than armed robberies on an industrial scale.

Wars are begun, to take what belongs to someone else.

The sheer magnitude of a crime transforms it into heroic achievement – at least, in historical perspective, for the winners, as long as they retain power. In the long run, the consequences are malignantly pernicious.

Youknowho , says: April 25, 2018 at 10:07 am
Why get into wars?

They are just upping the ante.

For years the American public has accepted and shrugged the overthrow of governments at the hands of the CIA with the excuse of stopping Communism.

Iran, Congo, Guatemala, Chile

There is a trail of blood created by the US in the world, while the American public is told that we are the good guys, so we are justified.

Now the CIA is not enough. There are troops.

These things have to be killed while still young.

BobS , says: April 25, 2018 at 10:16 am
The United States isn't being manipulated into war.
The only manipulation is of American public opinion- fortunately for the War Party,i.e. the US government, there's enough blind nationalism & tribal loyalty on both sides of the political divide for their propaganda to (usually) succeed.
Kent , says: April 25, 2018 at 10:39 am
"Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 is the cause."

Excellent. And throw in Citizens United and you have an effective coup d'etat of the United States by corporate interests.

40 KFt View , says: April 25, 2018 at 10:54 am
Look at any public figure. Their salary is less than $190K. BUT, They are worth $10 Million or more. That is why we go to war. Foreign influence (Saudi and Israel) as well as the Military Industrial Complex. (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, )Our Leaders are paid off!
b. , says: April 25, 2018 at 11:52 am
Now that the war profiteering classes and their retainee camp followers are running into the problem that more and more citizens are prepared to doubt, if not outright dismiss – if just on principle – their claims and anonymous trickyleaks regarding "secret evidence" and elusive "proof", the Democratic Party has become an eager handmaiden to the neolibcon con of projecting all that justified and overdue doubt and dissent – distrust to unaccountable power – and the citizens' frustration with their corrupt representative and dysfunctional institutions – on, you know it Russia!

So now that we stop accepting government claims by default – something no reasonable citizen should ever do, on principle – we are denounced as "gullible" – projection at its best – and as "useful idiots" of some Kremlin mirage that happens to be a mirror image of our own government's betrayals at its worst. Once dissent has been "discredited" by claiming it could not possible have any other cause except uninformed and misled voters – see the published responses to Sanders and Trump supporters – and could, of course, not have any merit, the next step is to make sure that our "democracy" is safeguarded even more against "populists" – those that speak truth to power, not those that lie blatantly to claim power for themselves – and the unruly mob in the streets that questions the establishment, the wholly owned elites, and the oligarchic owners of our very own autocratic franchise.

That is the progression – from being lied into war, whether we believe the BS or not, to being denounced as useful idiots or traitors if we dare to doubt the BS we are being fed, to being disenfranchised under the pretext of protecting the franchise.

The biggest obstacle to establishing a precedents under international law to obtain UN General Assembly consensus for intervention in the inner affairs of a nation- in response crimes committed by the government of that nation – is the US, because the US has acted as a rogue nation for decades, and has eroded the international order to the point where the "allied" governments of Germany and other EU states think nothing of "supporting" those acts of aggression, and post-colonial wannabe powers like the UK and France have joined the US "coalition of the willing". That "international order" will fall unless the US finally leads by example and commits itself to uphold the UN Charter – and its own Constitution – in letter and spirit. Until then, there is nothing we can do to help those that suffer under the yoke of what are, under our current international order, legitimate governments of sovereign nation.

The US cannot assert and pursue primacy and unipolar super-sovereignty over every other nation on this planet and at the same time claim to uphold the principles of sovereign states, and nobody will be able to redefine or constrain the rule of sovereign states within the existing international order as long as what little order we have claim to is being set aside and ignored wholesale by any nation that can get away with it, with the US and the so-called "West" in the lead.

We cannot lie our way to life, liberty and justice, not for ourselves, and certainly not on behalf of others, especially if we do not hesitate at all to make those we claim to help and "protect" pay the ultimate price for our acts of aggression. These are indeed the most dishonest and offensive words in the English language: "We are from the US government, and we are here to help." The "responsibility to protect" is nothing but another attempt to address the necessity to pretend.

Professor Nerd , says: April 25, 2018 at 12:13 pm
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our era of permanent war.
One Guy , says: April 25, 2018 at 12:56 pm
" most Americans don't want more Washington wars."

Actually, most Americans don't care, really. Oh, you ask one if he likes war, and he will say, "No". But ask him if Uncle Joe should lose his job at Boeing, and what will he say?

Wars are, of course, a jobs program on a massive scale. And if some dark-skinned civilians die, Americans aren't concerned.

balconesfault , says: April 25, 2018 at 1:13 pm
What Professor Nerd said.

My own theory of hawkishness is that voters are much more comfortable with putting national defense in the hands of someone far more hawkish then themselves, than in the hands of someone slightly less hawkish.

See, for example, how people who theoretically wan lower taxes, smaller government, and a balanced budget, keep electing GOP leadership that always attacks their Democratic opponents on gutting defense spending (even when defense spending has been going up), and always equates larger DOD budgets with more "security" for Americans.

Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other parts of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more wars.

Kent , says: April 25, 2018 at 1:16 pm
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our era of permanent war."

I've found my elderly mother is very enthusiastic about our overseas wars. I believe it is because she somehow projects America's ability to bully the rest of the world onto herself. She is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how she can tailgate people and they will get out of her way.

BobS , says: April 25, 2018 at 3:06 pm
" my elderly mother is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how she can tailgate people and they will get out of her way."
What a great country! Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow reflexes trying to navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?
Tiktaalik , says: April 25, 2018 at 3:59 pm
>> She is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how she can tailgate people and they will get out of her way.

Wow, I've thought that it could only happen in Russia. I mean, pickup/SUV tailgating.

Silly me)

EliteCommInc. , says: April 25, 2018 at 4:14 pm
"Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow reflexes trying to navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?"

I can say from experience and the related stories of others, one very recent and sad --

cyclists don't stand a chance.
-- -- -- -- -- -

"Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other parts of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more wars."

World gone wrong when we agree -- things must be really be SNAFU.

NorEastern , says: April 25, 2018 at 4:22 pm
I am a Democrat only because the Republican party has gone insane over the last 17 years. When will the TAC style Conservatives take back their party?
sglover , says: April 25, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Echoing Professor Nerd & balconesfault & Kent. It's certainly true that Lockheed Martin, the Israel lobby, our Saudi "friends", et al have a ton of influence, and use it for ends that I'd call malign. But for at least the last 20 years we've been living in a world in which it's effortless to find information contrary to the latest war marketing PR campaign. When Bush the Lesser was getting ready for his war, did any of his hysterical claims last even a week before it was discredited? But off to war we went.

It'd be nice if we could blame all of our lousy decisions on those wily Zionists and Arabs and Russians, but the causes seem to lie a little closer to home .

[Apr 25, 2018] Trump can't keep the neocons off his back they are driving the bus. He's strapped into the driver's seat but isn't allowed to touch anything.

Apr 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

In an age of fake news, fake food, fake sex, Trump has taken the next logical step, by introducing fake war to keep the NeoCon Bastards off his back.

Noah Way , April 26, 2018 at 1:19 am GMT

@CanSpeccy

Trump can't keep the neocons off his back – they are driving the bus. He's strapped into the driver's seat but isn't allowed to touch anything.

This isn't 4D chess, it's hang on and try to survive. The last president who bucked the deep state was JFK.

[Apr 25, 2018] A big part of the "welfare" is corporate. Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

Modern wars are mostly infomercials for weapons.
Apr 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Alfa158 , April 25, 2018 at 4:52 pm GMT

"A very senior civilian colleague in DIA once asked me why sophisticated weapons so often malfunction or are otherwise defeated. I told her that it was simply a fact of life that in actual warfare "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong." She resolutely stated that this should not be. "The manufacturers guarantee that they will work as advertised," she insisted. "
Another reason we can't win wars and we get into wars we shouldn't. Senior officials that naive and uninformed about warfare.
Svigor , April 25, 2018 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Patrick Lang

A big part of the "welfare" is corporate. Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

Anonymous [343] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@Svigor

Check out the comment from Mattis. What a tool.

Lockheed Martin got $35.2 billion from taxpayers last year. That's more than many federal agencies.

Of Lockheed Martin's $51 billion in sales last year, nearly 70 percent, or $35.2 billion, came from sales to the U.S. government. It's a colossal figure, hard to comprehend.

Boeing is in second place with annual sales of $26.5 billion in 2016, a year in which the top five defense contractors -- including General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman -- had total sales of nearly $110 billion to the U.S. government, according to federal procurement data. The five biggest defense contractors took in more money from the U.S. government than the next 30 companies combined.

But no one can touch Lockheed, the manufacturer of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The company is so big that some have likened it to a government agency and have quipped that Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed's chief executive, is as powerful as a Cabinet secretary -- or higher. When she gives her annual state of the company speeches, flanked by a pair of flags -- one American, one with the company logo -- she looks, well, presidential.

In 2013, Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis, now the secretary of defense, told Congress, "If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-trumps-budget-lockheed-looms-almo st-as-large-as-the-state-department/2018/02/15/e7eb3aa8-11c1-11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.b90ea79cc444

SolontoCroesus , April 25, 2018 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Svigor

Just came across this LATimes report of the Lockheed – Martin Marietta merger in 1994 .

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-31/business/fi-33290_1_lockheed-martin-marietta

Analysts say that to make the Lockheed-Martin Marietta merger successful, the new company will have to slash thousands of jobs.

" This merger can't create more revenue. It can only pay off through reduced costs , and that means people" will be laid off, said Robert D. Paulson, who heads the aerospace industry practice for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. in Los Angeles.

--

Norman Augustine was the focus of the article and head of the merged companies who was expected to wield the "scalpel" in order make the merger financially viable.

Over the years I'd done some research on Augustine, so when I saw a video of Augustine schmoozing with George W. Bush at the Cosmos Club celebrating Bush's inauguration early in 2001, I thought, Uh oh, the game's afoot.

Cutting staff simply was not producing the revenue stream Lockheed Martin needed to support lavish lifestyles that even LM weapons sellers enjoyed, particularly when their major clients were based in TelAviv, requiring visits of 5 to 8 months' duration.

Dave from Oz , April 25, 2018 at 7:50 pm GMT
Modern wars are mostly infomercials for weapons.

[Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org
by Patrick Martin

In a three-part series published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

... ... ...

The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .

In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.

This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.

The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.

The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.

The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.

The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.

The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.

Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.

Patrick Martin

[Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org
by Patrick Martin

In a three-part series published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

... ... ...

The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .

In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.

This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.

The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.

The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.

The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.

The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.

The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.

Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.

Patrick Martin

[Apr 24, 2018] Rand Paul Caves on Pompeo

Apr 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Paul has made reclaiming Congress' role in matters of war one of his signature issues. Pompeo testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't think the president needs Congressional authorization to order attacks on other states. Trump's nominee thinks that the president can start wars on his own authority, so Paul should be voting against his nomination for that reason alone. Voting to confirm Pompeo is an effective endorsement of the very illegal and unauthorized warfare that Paul normally condemns.

Mr. Hopeful April 23, 2018 at 8:08 pm

"Instead, Paul will get nothing except widespread derision for caving to pressure. "

Depressing. I thought he'd have more guts. Perhaps he's keeping his ammunition dry for some important purpose, and maybe the White House IOU he now holds has value. We'll see.

beejeez , says: April 23, 2018 at 8:58 pm
Hey, c'mon, Trump gave him assurances.
b. , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:33 pm
We owe Trump for another wonderfully clarifying moment.

No to incumbents. If we ran a lottery for Senators and Representatives we would not do much worse than what we have.

Mike , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Sad. However, the vote that matters is the one to confirm or reject him with the full Senate. We'll see how he votes then.
liberal , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:52 pm
Agree with BobS . I wouldn't have been shocked if Rand had voted against, but it's hardly surprising he caved.
Youknowho , says: April 23, 2018 at 11:52 pm
I have disliked Sen. Paul ever since the British Petroleum disaster, when he bemoaned that making BP pay for damages was "anti-business" as if seafood fisheries, motels, and restaurants were not businesses too.

Nothing he does or says now surprises me.

[Apr 24, 2018] Very Pissed Off Obama DOJ Made Dramatic Call To McCabe To Quash Clinton Probe

Apr 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election, a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.

The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant. - Washington Times

The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions."

McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe.

" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call ."

Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama administration .

As the Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod , who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.

Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.

He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. - Washington Times

"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."

The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair."

Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.

Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.

" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to defend the ban."

The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.

"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."

Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal defense fund

[Apr 24, 2018] This country has absolutely zero credibility or standing in the world anymore. All they've got is a military they can use to menace and bully the rest of the planet into submission. Which is a specialty of the Clintons

Apr 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

Rurik , April 18, 2018 at 6:05 pm GMT

@Steve Gittelson

it's a wonder there's anything left of this country at all.

spiritually, there isn't

just as morally, the ZUSA is a dead husk. This country has absolutely zero credibility or standing in the world anymore. All they've got is a military they can use to menace and bully the rest of the planet into submission. Which is a specialty of the Clintons.

It's wasn't just the Branch Dravidians who were burned alive (no doubt to the cackling of the war hag), or just Gadhafi who was murdered by her sub-human orcs, but this man also had his country illegally bombed and was dragged off to a mock kangaroo court until he was given a chance to speak, whereupon he humiliated his tormentors

so they poisoned him in his cell.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/august/03/milosevic-exonerated-as-the-nato-war-machine-moves-on/


the reason I post this image of the hag is to remind readers of what the alternative to Trump actually was.

Fred likes to fulminate over all things Trump (and us Deplorables – calling us 'gas station louts, and much worse ; ), for his own dubious agenda (biological warfare ; ), but the fact remains that even as Trump adopts all the traits of a neocon war pig, and always has been an egotistical and superficial man, he's still a gazillion times to the n'th power preferable to the gorgon war hag.

For all of Trump's many foibles and failings, he isn't the root cause of all the things Fred is lambasting in this article. Rather it's the ((deepstate)) that Trump has made a devil's bargain with, which does not change with presidents. If we're ever to prevent the looming war with Russia, then it would behoove us to look behind the curtain at the fiend pulling the levers. Talking about Trump, as if he's the cause of it all, is like being enthralled over the theatrics of the wizard of Oz.

[Apr 24, 2018] The Varieties of Russian Conservatism by Paul Grenier

Notable quotes:
"... Times Literary Supplement ..."
"... sine qua non ..."
"... The common good "cannot be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't this something we can learn from in the West today? ..."
"... Russia's "[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ..."
"... Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity. ..."
"... The City of Man ..."
"... Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United States. ..."
"... The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr. Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft. ..."
"... Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on political-philosophical issues. ..."
Jun 19, 2015 | www.theamericanconservative.com
A staunchly traditional society grapples with modernity's disruptions, seeking conservatisms far beyond Putinism.

It's a truism that America is a liberal place. Americans emphasize the importance of the individual and tend to reject notions of hierarchy and authority. Russia by contrast is known to be a more conservative society, one where the interests of the group come ahead of those of the individual; and where, for centuries, respect for hierarchy and authority has usually been the norm.

All the same, the "news" of Russia's return to conservatism has hit many observers in the West like the proverbial ton of bricks. The typical response has been to blame the Russian president for steering Russia away from the liberal path, the path of becoming a " normal country" with "Western values."

Others have sought to understand Russian political culture on its own terms. A recent analysis ("The New Eurasians," Times Literary Supplement , May 13, 2015) stands out from the crowd by making a serious effort to read present-day Russian conservatism in its historical context. Lesley Chamberlain dismisses the glib reduction of Russia to its present-day leader. Russia, she writes, is not ruled by Vladimir Putin: to the contrary, "the power that rules Russia is tradition." Far from it being the case that a benighted Russian public is being led to conservatism artificially by its government, the reverse is the case: the vast majority of Russians, perhaps eighty percent "are intensely conservative."

Like most in the commentariat, Chamberlain finds cause for alarm in Russia's return to type. She worries about a Russia seeking to create "an alternative version of the contemporary Christian, or post-Christian, world, contiguous with but distinct from the West."

Chamberlain reduces today's incarnation of Russian conservatism to the more or less vague bundle of geographic and neo-imperial notions that goes by the name Eurasianism, often linked with the name of Alexander Dugin.

To be sure, anti-Western Eurasianism is part of contemporary Russian conservatism. But it is only one part. Excessive focus on this angle has created the impression that Dugin-esque Eurasianism is the only game in town when it comes to Russian conservatism. It isn't. It's not even the only version of what might be called the 'Russian national greatness' school of conservatism.

If we wish to understand Russia in something like its true complexity, we have to take the trouble to listen to it, to let it speak in its own voice instead of constantly projecting onto it all our own worst fears. Precisely because Eurasianism has already hogged all the attention, I won't deal with it here.

... ... ...

Liberal Conservatism

Some participants straddled several categories of conservatism at once. In other cases, for example that of the above-mentioned Makarenko, their thought fit neatly within a single category -- in his case, that of liberal conservatism.

For Makarenko, modern Russian political practice has far too utilitarian an attitude toward rule of law and democracy. If it can be demonstrated that the latter support state sovereignty, then all is well and good; but whenever either are perceived as a threat to the state -- then democracy and rule of law are always the ones that have to suffer. From his perspective, Russia would do better to learn from Burke, who looked not so much to the sovereignty of the state as to the sovereignty of the parliament .

Matveichev, no doubt the most eclectic thinker in the group, on certain subjects occupied the liberal end of the spectrum. For example, in an essay on corruption and the state, he approvingly cites the work of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto to make the point that rule of law -- as it is practiced, nota bene , in the United States -- is the sine qua non of economic prosperity. What I found fascinating about Matveichev's position is that he then takes his argument in a Hegelian and Platonic direction.

It is the state -- not the market on its own -- that provides these all important forms , and bad as the corruption of state institutions may be, a bad form is nonetheless better than no form at all -- including for business. The common good "cannot be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't this something we can learn from in the West today?

Left Conservatism

The "left conservatives" at the conference -- represented most prominently by Dr. Alexander Schipkov, an expert on Church-state relations -- are critical of liberal capitalism and indeed are also critical of the current Russian state to the extent that its "conservatism" is reducible merely to "family values" without including the all-important component of economic fairness. His views are close to that of Catholic Distributists as well as to those of "radical orthodox" theologians like William Cavanaugh and John Milbank.

According to Schipkov, Russians of various backgrounds (left and right, secular and religious, red and white) need to forge a common ethic. But in truth, Russia already has such an ethic, one that unifies all the disparate phases in its often tragic and contradictory history. Consciously playing off of Weber, Schipkov refers to Russia's "[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ." In a fascinating essay on this same subject, Schipkov makes clear that his concept of solidarity owes much to the writings of the early 20th century German philosopher Max Scheler, who likewise had such a big impact on the thought of Pope John Paul II.

Though the Russian Church continues to play a defining role in the ethical formation of the nation -- no other pre-1917 institution, after all, still exists -- over time it will be replaced by other institutions, according to Schipkov. Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity.

Creative Conservatism

Because it tends to evoke the disastrous social and economic effects of "liberalisation" during the 1990s, the term "liberal" has become something of a swear word in today's Russia. But what, exactly, does this much reviled "liberalism" consist in? In my own presentation (English translation forthcoming at SolidarityHall.org ) I suggested that Russians need to define liberalism -- and conservatism -- more carefully, while distinguishing both from their ideological perversions.

To his credit, Oleg Matveichev has taken the trouble to craft a precise definition of the liberal doctrine of human nature in terms worthy of a Pierre Manent ( The City of Man ). According to Matveichev, liberalism reconceives the very essence of man as freedom, self-sufficiency, and self-definition. Seen through this liberal prism, the goal of our existence becomes self-emancipation from the chains of the past and the dead weight of tradition.

Having redefined the meaning of history, Matveichev continues, the "liberals" then set about condemning those who would thwart its "progress," dismissing them as "conservatives" and "reactionaries." Is it not time, Matveichev asks, to throw off the chains of this label invented for us by our adversaries? Why define ourselves as mere "conservatives"? Why not creatively reimagine an alternative 'meaning of history" ourselves?

Can conservatism be "creative?" And if so, how? Mikhail Remizov, president of the National Strategy Institute, answered, in effect, "how can it be anything else?" Critics on the left sometimes attack conservatism by saying, that conservatives do not preserve tradition, they invent it. Remizov dismisses the implied insult, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of how traditions work: (re)invention " is the normal, creative approach to tradition." Remizov agrees with Hans-Georg Gadamer that sharply contrasting tradition and modernity is a silly and flat-footed way of looking at tradition, because the latter is always in any case a complex creative task of making adjustments and dialectical zig-zags. Such an understanding of culture and tradition as creativity fits, of course, quite nicely with the philosophy of Nicholas Berdyaev. It is hard to think of another thinker for whom creativity plays a more central role.

Alexei Kozyrev, associate dean of the philosophy department at Moscow State University, illustrated the same creative conservative principle when he spoke of the Russian Orthodox Church's Social Concept. The task of modern man, according to that document, is to find creative ways to retrieve the thought of the Church Fathers, for example that of Gregory of Nyssa, who counseled demonstrating our human dignity "not by domination of the natural world but by caring for and preserving it." The Social Concept likewise calls for defending the dignity of the unborn embryo and of the mentally ill. Here, in an unexpected twist, the Western environmental movement meets the pro-Life movement, challenging perhaps our own ideological boundaries.

... ...

Dialogue with Russia?

Lesley Chamberlain claimed that Russia is not a puzzle. In fact that is precisely what it is. As should be clear even from the above very partial survey, Russian conservatism, like Russia itself, embraces a contradictory collection of flaws and virtues. Both the flaws and the virtues are large.

Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United States.

For Western liberals, it is tempting to present Russian conservatism as always intrinsically dangerous. But I believe the loss is ours. Russian conservatism -- or at any rate important elements of it -- contains something potentially valuable to the West as it seeks to forge a strategy for dealing with the growing disorder in the world. What justifies engagement with Russia is before all else its ability to contribute to solving the problem that all of us face: how to devise a softer version of western modernity, one which allows for the preservation of tradition while simultaneously retaining what is most valuable in the liberal tradition.

The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr. Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft.

Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on political-philosophical issues.

Andrew W June 19, 2015 at 9:03 am

@JonF

The presumption amongst Russian conservatives is not that Russia is perfect as it is but that Russia's foundational values are good. This is something they have in common with American conservatives, British Conservatives like Peter Hitchens, and probably most conservatives in most societies. They would also lament their social ills.

I am not going to accuse you of not having read the article, but that comment of yours could easily have been made by someone who simply read the title and jumped to the comments section.

Joseph Kellner , says: June 19, 2015 at 4:53 pm
The author's point on free speech is an important one – there is a lot of very deep and open discussion in Russia at the moment about the country's direction (including even television debates with ten times the intellectual content of what we find in the States). Putinism is not a clear ideological system, and for the most part there is no official orthodoxy being pressed on scholars or the public, many currents exist. Most of the major viable currents, as this article suggests, are variants of conservatism; Western-style liberal democracy has (at the moment) lost nearly all it's appeal to the intelligentsia and the average person alike.

Re: Jon F's comment – unfortunately, in my view he is right. We shouldn't believe that Russia is a place of thriving family values simply because they say it more often and louder. Statistics are not the best way to see this – I personally believe (from experience in the capital and the provinces) that if Russians divorce less, they cheat more. If they have fewer abortions, they have more children born into undesirable childhoods. Russian conservatism does have its virtues and the country must to admire, but respect for women and children are far from a given.

Cornel Lencar , says: June 21, 2015 at 3:26 pm
The tendency to see Russia in black/white only, with a pre-imposed bias is no different than the tendency to see the US (and sometimes the west) and its values in similar manichean perspectives. Adding depth and colour to the other takes work, and especially the willingness to empathise, even for a little while, in order to gain more understanding, before employing a critical eye. And from this perspective I think the article does a good job.
Paul Grenier , says: June 22, 2015 at 7:21 pm
W. Burns: I don't recall that specific issue raised at the conference, but the Revolution and subsequent experience is much debated, including in other writings by the participants, e.g. by Shchipkov (his preferred spelling btw, not my Schipkov), whose take is much like that of Berdyaev: the communist experience is in partial continuity with aspects of Russia's tradition, e.g. of economic 'fairness' (equalizing plots on the peasant commune, etc.) and privileging the group over the individual. I started with the analysis by L. Chamberlain in part because her wide lens-perspective helps make sense of that experience.
David Naas and Cornel Lencar: I wish there were more who shared your perspective. Thanks.
Regarding Russian values vs. practice, aspirations vs. real-world problems. Who among us is without sin? Is U.S. practice so pristine that we should disdain talking to the Russian side? That is the material point.
Since the conference I have continued reading the work of these (and other conference) attendees meant for a Russian audience. They are very, very far from smug about their internal problems; quite the contrary.
Dave P.: As far as I know, the conference Proceedings so far are only in Russian, but there are pretty detailed English-language abstracts. Try contacting ISEPR (their site, ISEPR.ru, also has an English-language version).

[Apr 24, 2018] Lavrov makes clear they only treat the dialogue with the military leadership seriously.

Notable quotes:
"... They have virtually given up on the political channels even through intermediaries like the EU). The only relationship left is that of military balance/confrontation. ..."
Apr 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: les7 | Apr 22, 2018 5:12:23 PM | 32

I just listened to Lavrov's interview with the BBC. Early on, when asked how he responds to waking up to a tweet that tells Russia to get ready for those nice new cruise missiles, Lavrov responds by distinguishing between the tweets and the dialogue between military leaders. Lavrov makes clear they only treat the dialogue with the military leadership seriously.

To me, while stated very subtly, this marks a profound shift in how Russia will interact with the US. They have virtually given up on the political channels even through intermediaries like the EU). The only relationship left is that of military balance/confrontation.

May those who have ears to hear, listen.

[Apr 24, 2018] The CIA Democrats vs. Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site

23 April 2018
Notable quotes:
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
Apr 24, 2018 | www.wsws.org

The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic rights. It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the press and freedom of speech as fundamental rights.

Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not espionage; that its work consists of publishing material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments, giant corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure has made both the website and its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all over the world.

Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past six years, since he fled there to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret grand jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death penalty. Since the end of March, the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication with him.

The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.

The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast" when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its military intelligence agency GRU to the Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery: the campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the Presidency."

Such language has had no place in official American public life since the right-wing political gangster McCarthy left the scene in the late 1950s. Ultra-right groups like the John Birch Society kept alive such smear tactics in ensuing decades, but they were relegated to the fringes of the political system. Now the Democratic Party has sought to revive these methods as the central focus of its bid for power in the 2018 elections.

In the targeting of WikiLeaks, the antidemocratic content of this campaign finds its foulest expression. The DNC suit asserts, without the slightest evidence, that "WikiLeaks and Assange directed, induced, urged, and/or encouraged Russia and the GRU to engage in this conduct and/or to provide WikiLeaks and Assange with DNC's trade secrets, with the expectation that WikiLeaks and Assange would disseminate those secrets and increase the Trump Campaign's chance of winning the election."

According to Assange and WikiLeaks, however, the material from the DNC and from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta that it made public in 2016 was provided by an anonymous whistleblower whose identity WikiLeaks does not know because it observed its normal security practices to preserve secrecy and protect its sources. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to prove otherwise.

The DNC legal complaint cites the negative consequences of the WikiLeaks revelations in passages worth quoting:

135. The illegal conspiracy inflicted profound damage upon the DNC. The timing and selective release of the stolen materials prevented the DNC from communicating with the electorate on its own terms. These selective releases of stolen material reached a peak immediately before the Democratic National Convention and continued through the general election.

136. The timing and selective release of stolen materials was designed to and had the effect of driving a wedge between the DNC and Democratic voters. The release of stolen materials also impaired the DNC's ability to support Democratic candidates in the general election.

But the DNC lawsuit does not explain why the WikiLeaks material was so damaging. On the contrary, it says nothing about the actual content of what was leaked, other than claiming that it included "trade secrets" and other proprietary information of the Democratic Party leadership.

The material published by WikiLeaks about the Democrats fell into two main categories. First were internal emails and documents of the DNC showing that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her top aides were engaged in a systematic effort to block Clinton's challenger Bernie Sanders and make sure Clinton received the Democratic nomination. In other words, while complaining that Russia was engaged in rigging the 2016 campaign, the DNC was seeking to rig the outcome of the Democratic primary contest.

The second batch of documents came from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and included the transcripts of speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton to financial industry groups for fees as high as $300,000 per appearance. In these remarks, she reassured the bankers that they need not be alarmed by any campaign rhetoric about punishing them for the financial skullduggery that triggered the 2008 Wall Street crash and destroyed the jobs and living standards of millions of working people. She made clear that a Clinton government would continue the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration.

The DNC suit is a deepening of the effort by the Democratic Party to become the premier party of the CIA and the military-intelligence apparatus as a whole. In targeting WikiLeaks and Assange, the Democrats are embracing the smear by CIA Director Mike Pompeo -- now Trump's choice for secretary of state -- that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence service," allegedly allied with Moscow.

If, moreover, Assange is a traitor because he exposes the lies and crimes of the US government, then by implication all those publications, websites and individuals who defend him and challenge the government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media are themselves complicit in treason and should be dealt with accordingly.

As the World Socialist Web Site has previously explained, the anti-Russia campaign mounted by the Democrats is a reactionary concoction, backed by no factual evidence, aimed at pushing the Trump administration to sharply escalate the war in Syria and adopt a more aggressive policy against Russia. At the same time, it has been used as the justification for a massive and coordinated campaign to censor the Internet. The manipulation of search and news feed algorithms by Google and Facebook will be followed by more direct efforts at the suppression of left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications.

The campaign has also served to position the Democrats as the party that stands up for the "intelligence community" in its conflict with the Trump White House. This is now being supplemented, in advance of the November midterm elections, by an influx of candidates for Democratic congressional nominations in competitive districts drawn heavily from the ranks of the CIA, the military, the National Security Council and the State Department (see: " The CIA Democrats ").

The conduct of the DNC demonstrates the reactionary and bankrupt character of the claims by liberal and pseudo-left groups -- all of whom have maintained a complete silence on the isolation and persecution of Assange -- that the election of a Democratic-controlled Congress is the way to fight back against Trump and the Republicans. The truth is that the working class confronts in these parties two implacable political enemies committed to war, austerity and repression.

Patrick Martin

[Apr 24, 2018] Regime Change in Armenia PM Resigns After Mass Protests

It does not matter if protests are genuine or artificial. They will be co-opted and exploited by West in the most nefarious fashion with resulting drop of the standard of living or 90$ of population or even 99%. Ukraine is a good example here. This is a neoliberal Catch 22
NGO became completely infiltrated by intelligence agencies and as such have a huge destabilizing role in any protests. Providing both organizational and material help.
Notable quotes:
"... Western backed Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been heavily involved in post Soviet Armenia's education system, community and charity works. These NGOs have been selling the public on the perception that Armenia's economic woes are directly the result of their corrupt, Russia friendly government, as well as Russia itself. ..."
"... Additionally, if these protests continue to move in a violent direction, and categorically seek regime change , if the government does not step down in favor of the opposition, but instead opts to call in the military to defend itself, then the situation could lead to a destabilization of the country . During such a period of chaos, it is not unthinkable that the Azerbs could seize the opportunity to launch a fresh campaign to take Nagorno Karabakh while Armenia's government and forces are concerned with preserving order elsewhere. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the well meaning populace of Armenia has no idea that their grievances are being played upon by international interests like a pawn on a global chess board. ..."
Apr 24, 2018 | russia-insider.com

"The people are against my rule," Sargsyan, who took office as prime minister after serving as Armenia's president for 10 years, said in a statement.

"I am leaving my post."

As Bloomberg reports, the announcement came as demonstrators flooded the streets of the capital, Yerevan, for an 11th day on Monday demanding Sargysan's resignation, and hours after police released opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan from overnight detention.

Pashinyan's arrest prompted the largest protest to date on Sunday , while scores of troops joined the anti-government movement on Monday for the first time.

Sargsyan's election as Prime Minister was largely perceived as a power grab because Sargsyan will largely retain the same powers that he held during his two terms in the Presidential capacity, and took place just after Armenia's April 9th transition from a presidential system to that of a prime ministerial one.

But as The Duran's Frank Sellers detailed previously, this social unrest (and now resignation) has all the markings of a Ukraine-esque Western-backed effort at regime change to once again disrupt Russia.

Western backed Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been heavily involved in post Soviet Armenia's education system, community and charity works. These NGOs have been selling the public on the perception that Armenia's economic woes are directly the result of their corrupt, Russia friendly government, as well as Russia itself.

Hence, the concept that Sargsyan's government has only made matters for the population worse is the grievance upon which much of the unrest hinges. With Sargsyan seen as being in bed with the Russians, and his further development of Armenia's ties with Russia, these protests therefore possess a potentially disastrous outcome, both domestically, for the Armenians, and also geopolitically, as it threatens Russia's position in the region.

However, Armenia has been playing both sides of the fence in recent years, as it has additionally been moving closer to the European Union, signing itself to a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the European bloc, attempting to deepen diplomacy and economic ties with the West, while simultaneously making commitments to Russia's economic initiatives in the region. Russia gets a villainous wrap over the fact that Russia is playing both sides of the Nagorno Karabakh-Azerb conflict, as Russia is the benefactor of both players, the common perception, derived from the propaganda of these NGOs, is that Russia benefits by stoking the conflict.

The situation, in effect, represents a powder keg scenario, with all the elements in place to provoke the necessary popular discontent that would play into an attempt at regime change.

And, indeed, this situation has all the markings of a color revolution, as the ring leader for this movement, Nikol Pashinyan, is already calling it a "velvet revolution", an allusion to the regime change that took place in Czechoslovakia in 1989.

Pashinyan has called upon protesters to obstruct roadways and prevent the opening of governmental offices, and has been so bold as to declare that the Armenian government "no longer holds legitimacy", and that all government agencies and police personnel should only be obedient to "committees" appointed by his revolution.

Keep in mind, however, that Sargsyan hasn't, thus far, broken any law, nor violated the Armenian constitution, so, Pashinyan's claim against Sargsyan's legitimacy can only be viewed as a baseless instigation for further violence and an obstinate unwillingness to look for a middle ground scenario, or peaceful resolution to the situation at hand. An unwillingness to compromise satisfies one of the key factors that is commonly seen in many color revolutions.

The typical manner in which Western backed color revolutions unfold is when a peaceful protest about legitimate grievances are hijacked to become the catalyst for a violent revolution. If we consider the EuroMaidan revolution that took place in 2014, a peaceful protest turned violent after the slaughter of the "heavenly hundred" by mystery snipers, killing police and protesters both, in order to help the conflict along to a point of no return to peace.

To date, the situation on the streets of Yerevan seems to be going in a similar direction, as the protests have already turned semi violent, with police officers sustaining knife wounds. Note that this sort of behaviour is foreign to the Armenian psyche. Western provocateurs are often present to stir up mayhem when these tragedies occur. Pictured here are some of the assailants, observe also that the fellow on the left is not an Armenian.

Sadly, as Sellers concludes, many Armenians are of the persuasion that by changing their government and rejecting Russia as Armenia's strategic partner, in favour of hopeful Western integration, Armenia will realize greater economic opportunity, and a vastly improved standard of living for the average Armenian.

However, what does history show us about just what Western-backed regime changes bring to their victim nation? Let's observe the economic situation in the Ukraine before and after the coup d'état, as reported by Vesti :

If we evaluate the results of the new government, they're simply disastrous for the country. In the year before the coup, the GDP was estimated at $180 billion, in 2017 it's expected to be half as much, $90 billion.

The average salary in the country was more than halved, from $408 per month to $196 last year. The exchange rate of the hryvna fell three and a half times, from 8 to 27 per dollar. As the main high-tech enterprises are destroyed, the economy acquired a colonial structure.

More and more raw materials are exported, being nearly 80% of exports. Half of this is agrarian. Total export volume fell by 57%. Foreign direct investment fell by at least four times, from 6 billion a year to one and a half. That's practically nothing. And out of this nothing, however, most of the investment still comes from Russia.

The national debt has been increasing all the time and has now become difficult to be paid back. It was 64 billion dollars which then became 80 billion. Many millions of its citizens have left the country in search of a better life. Some of them went to the West, some to Russia. The health system and the education system have deteriorated.

The system of legal proceedings as well. Corporate raiding became the norm. Corruption increased. The country broke into pieces.

Poroshenko and his team deceived everyone: the West, and Russia, and their people in terms of the country's prospects, the practices of the new government, and the Minsk Agreements.

An about-face with regards to Russia, and an adherence to the West, however, not only fails to present the economic outcome that many Armenians might hope for, but it presents a very real danger in the form of a greater escalation of conflict with its neighbor Azerbaijan , with regards to Nagorno Karabakh, the last such major conflict costed the lives of some 6,000 Armenians, and approximately 30,000 Azeris.

Additionally, if these protests continue to move in a violent direction, and categorically seek regime change , if the government does not step down in favor of the opposition, but instead opts to call in the military to defend itself, then the situation could lead to a destabilization of the country . During such a period of chaos, it is not unthinkable that the Azerbs could seize the opportunity to launch a fresh campaign to take Nagorno Karabakh while Armenia's government and forces are concerned with preserving order elsewhere.

Such a renewed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan produces results that are simply unpredictable, concerning the geopolitical implications regarding the involvement of Russia and NATO, seeing as Armenia hosts Russian military bases, while Azerbaijan is host to a NATO base , but if the Armenians have broken off its relations with the Russians in the favor of the West, Russian involvement is left in a state of bewilderment, while the conflict devastates Russia's economic and military perspective in the region. This, therefore, holds the possibility of being the next proxy war between Russia and the West.

Therefore, these protests are exceedingly dangerous, not just for the region, but also relevant to the geopolitical balance of power between the east and west, due to the possibilities that could be unleashed if these protests escalate out of control. While protests against Sargsyan's government isn't anything new, considering the protests of recent years, the protests taking place at the present time differ from its predecessors in the sense that previous riots were confined only to Yerevan, whereas the current uprising is national in its scale, and therefore presents a much greater concern.

Meanwhile, the well meaning populace of Armenia has no idea that their grievances are being played upon by international interests like a pawn on a global chess board.

[Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier

Highly recommended!
The fact that 99.9% of neocons are chickenhawks and never experienced the level of sufferings the wat inflicts on people is defining chanracteristic of all US neocons. Especially female neocon -- a unique US breed.
Notable quotes:
"... At the core of the American philosophy is voluntarism, the justification of action based purely and simply on the will. ..."
"... The clearest and perhaps the best expression of American voluntarism come of age was expressed by Karl Rove during the George W. Bush administration, as reported by Ron Suskind in New York Times Magazine ..."
"... We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. ..."
"... The point of the voluntarist order is to act, to impose one's will on global reality by any means necessary. The truth is not something to be understood, or grasped, still less something that should condition one's own actions and limit them in any way. Truth is reducible to whatever is useful for imposing one's will. ..."
"... For America's voluntarist order, whether these events as described are true in the objective sense is of no more importance than whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You will recall that, just prior to the Iraq invasion, the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah some 83 times in order to oblige him to confess a nonexistent connection between Saddam's Iraq, al-Qaeda, and chemical weaponry. That is voluntarism in action right there. "We're an empire now and we create our own reality." It was not a one-off. It is now the norm to make sure the facts are fixed to match the desired policy. ..."
"... Voluntarism is the fruit of an anti-civilization, and of a technological way of knowing, as the great Canadian philosopher George Grant put it, that bears a striking resemblance to what C.S. Lewis described in his pre- Nineteen Eighty-Four ..."
"... That Hideous Strength ..."
Apr 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

At the core of the American philosophy is voluntarism, the justification of action based purely and simply on the will. The distinguishing characteristic of voluntarism is that it gives pride of place to the will as such, to the will as power, the will abstracted from everything else, but especially abstracted from the good. The notion of the good is necessarily inclusive of the whole, of all sides. Concern exclusively for oneself goes by a different name.

The clearest and perhaps the best expression of American voluntarism come of age was expressed by Karl Rove during the George W. Bush administration, as reported by Ron Suskind in New York Times Magazine on October 17, 2004:

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

This oft-quoted statement is naively assumed to have been the expression of a single moment in American politics, rather than a summation of its ethos by one of its shrewder and more self-aware practitioners. The point of the voluntarist order is to act, to impose one's will on global reality by any means necessary. The truth is not something to be understood, or grasped, still less something that should condition one's own actions and limit them in any way. Truth is reducible to whatever is useful for imposing one's will.

We can see this voluntarism at work among our forebears. The Skripal affair in Britain led to almost immediate action -- the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from the United States alone -- well before the facts of this dubious incident, which has led to zero deaths, could be established. Indeed, when the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, suggested first establishing what had happened and only then acting, he was widely accused of weakness. When one is "history's actor," action mustn't be delayed. That, after all, is the whole point.

The suffering of innocents should always concern us. But in Syria, the facts regarding who is the guilty party, including in this latest case of a gas attack in Douma, are very far from having been established. What's more, though reputable investigators such as Hans Blix and MIT's Theodore Postol have cast serious doubt on the reliability of the evidence linking such attacks to Assad's government, official accounts in the U.S. proceed as if there is not the slightest controversy about the matter.

For America's voluntarist order, whether these events as described are true in the objective sense is of no more importance than whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You will recall that, just prior to the Iraq invasion, the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah some 83 times in order to oblige him to confess a nonexistent connection between Saddam's Iraq, al-Qaeda, and chemical weaponry. That is voluntarism in action right there. "We're an empire now and we create our own reality." It was not a one-off. It is now the norm to make sure the facts are fixed to match the desired policy.

Voluntarism is the fruit of an anti-civilization, and of a technological way of knowing, as the great Canadian philosopher George Grant put it, that bears a striking resemblance to what C.S. Lewis described in his pre- Nineteen Eighty-Four anti-utopia That Hideous Strength . In that novel, the institution called N.I.C.E., like the U.S. foreign policy establishment today, is essentially a voluntarist bureaucracy run by men without culture, trained in technical sciences and sociology-like "disciplines" and "law" understood in a purely formalistic sense, who assume human affairs are understandable as aggregates of facts without value. Such "men without chests" (Lewis's phrase) live in a world where the good and the true have forever been severed of their mutually defining link. The resulting, essentially irrational world they inhabit is one that has only one logic left: that of will and power.

It is an American empire where we create our own reality, the mirror image of ourselves, and it is indeed precisely hideous. If the builders of empire continue to get their way, it may all soon enough come to a violent and ignominious end. Historians, if they still exist, will marvel at our folly.

Paul Grenier, an essayist and translator who writes regularly on political-philosophical issues, is founder of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy.

Annette April 23, 2018 at 1:30 pm

For another outstanding account of 'a technological way of knowing', check out Jacques Ellul's 'The Technological Society'.

Not only was this incident fabricated, it was known the preparations were known in advance. I remember reading an article two weeks before Douma about the preparations for the fabrication. Felix Somary was quite right in writing in July 1914 that "the information available to insiders, and precisely the most highly placed among them, is all to often misleading" (quoted in Jim Rickards "The Road to Ruin").

Steph , says: April 23, 2018 at 2:47 pm
An excellent recommendation, Annette! And for the religiously-minded, Ellul's theological companion piece, The Meaning of the City, is also very good.
Emil Bogdan , says: April 23, 2018 at 2:57 pm
Volunteerism, voluntarism, the mysterious workings of the "will," we're famous for all of it, but this is not so uniquely American, Rove's comment reminds me of something that Tolstoy might put in Napoleon's mouth, actually. Pride, plus the tunnel-vision typical of technocrats, academics, specialists

Karl Rove is a man without a chest–a "chickenhawk," a proud and willful man puffed up on ignorance and willpower, wrecking the world–and nothing more than that, unless he wills it to be.

Mark Thomason , says: April 23, 2018 at 3:08 pm
Volunteerism is two things, Power to the Ladies Who Lunch, and we don't have to pay for a social safety net because somebody else will provide it voluntarily for free.

It has no larger meaning, and no role in foreign policy.

The foreign policy described here is just Smedley Butler's "racket" using US foreign policy and forces for private ends.

[Apr 24, 2018] Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today by snoopydawg

Notable quotes:
"... you can't make this shit up ..."
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
"... corrupt intent. ..."
"... grossly negligent ..."
"... extremely careless ..."
Apr 22, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm

From the ' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers with no repercussions.

Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..

Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today

When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never been asked that question before.

"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.

"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.

Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."

Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.

There's that word intent again.

"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"

"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."

What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?

Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"

"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.

Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent. But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent " to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!

BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?

Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?

This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of

Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein for over two decades and their role in protecting the Clintons

Dismissed FBI agent changed Comey's language on Clinton emails to 'extremely careless'

One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent " to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."

What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server? She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?

Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?

[Apr 24, 2018] Rand Paul Caves on Pompeo

Apr 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Paul has made reclaiming Congress' role in matters of war one of his signature issues. Pompeo testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't think the president needs Congressional authorization to order attacks on other states. Trump's nominee thinks that the president can start wars on his own authority, so Paul should be voting against his nomination for that reason alone. Voting to confirm Pompeo is an effective endorsement of the very illegal and unauthorized warfare that Paul normally condemns.

Mr. Hopeful April 23, 2018 at 8:08 pm

"Instead, Paul will get nothing except widespread derision for caving to pressure. "

Depressing. I thought he'd have more guts. Perhaps he's keeping his ammunition dry for some important purpose, and maybe the White House IOU he now holds has value. We'll see.

beejeez , says: April 23, 2018 at 8:58 pm
Hey, c'mon, Trump gave him assurances.
b. , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:33 pm
We owe Trump for another wonderfully clarifying moment.

No to incumbents. If we ran a lottery for Senators and Representatives we would not do much worse than what we have.

Mike , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Sad. However, the vote that matters is the one to confirm or reject him with the full Senate. We'll see how he votes then.
liberal , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:52 pm
Agree with BobS . I wouldn't have been shocked if Rand had voted against, but it's hardly surprising he caved.
Youknowho , says: April 23, 2018 at 11:52 pm
I have disliked Sen. Paul ever since the British Petroleum disaster, when he bemoaned that making BP pay for damages was "anti-business" as if seafood fisheries, motels, and restaurants were not businesses too.

Nothing he does or says now surprises me.

[Apr 23, 2018] Tucker Carlson reporting on Syria

Notable quotes:
"... Last week, after a series of controversial prime-time episodes of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," which questioned whether it is in America's best national security interest to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria; what the ultimate end-game looks like, considering the post-coup mess America's made of Libya and Iraq; and if the recent alleged chemical warfare assault on children was actually the work of Assad or even if it happened -- Tucker Carlson was M.I.A. from his own show Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights. ..."
"... I hear Tucker Carlson is MIA in the USA. Has he been Arkanicided? ..."
"... He recently did an interview totally challenging the permanent state spin on world affairs. As much as I detest the conservatives I absolutely value his honesty and calm tenacity. ..."
Apr 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

vbo | Apr 23, 2018 9:26:58 AM | 98

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/317991/string-theories-tucker-carlson-and-the-unspeakabl.html

We're nearing apocalypse if I'm out here carrying water for Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who is hopefully not being water-boarded as I type this.

Last week, after a series of controversial prime-time episodes of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," which questioned whether it is in America's best national security interest to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria; what the ultimate end-game looks like, considering the post-coup mess America's made of Libya and Iraq; and if the recent alleged chemical warfare assault on children was actually the work of Assad or even if it happened -- Tucker Carlson was M.I.A. from his own show Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights.

MadMax2 , Apr 23, 2018 5:45:39 PM | 130

Tucker Carlson has a tweet up from four hours ago, saying that he will be back on Fox News tonight, after three days off.
Posted by: lysias | Apr 23, 2018 4:13:07 PM | 123

Let's see if he continues to entertain any truth on Syria. One of the most outstanding pieces of MSM busting work there recently. Thought he was on the edge of getting Ben Swann'd on the back of that effort, or maybe even some threatened with some mild waterboarding.

uncle tungsten , Apr 23, 2018 6:32:16 PM | 134
Thanks for the Carla Ortiz post b. She is a great and brave reporter.

I hear Tucker Carlson is MIA in the USA. Has he been Arkanicided?

He recently did an interview totally challenging the permanent state spin on world affairs. As much as I detest the conservatives I absolutely value his honesty and calm tenacity.

[Apr 23, 2018] Syrian Narratives the Worthy, the Scurvy, and the Topsy-Turvy by Wendy Davis

Syria civil war is the result of a attempt to stage a color revolution in the country, exploiting temporary economic difficulties, mistakes by Assad government, overpopulation and lack of water. Money were supplied mostly by the USA and Saudi.
Empire does creates its own reality. Syria is a nice example of the reality that the US empire creates...
Notable quotes:
"... To start this conflict and then keep its fires burning the US and its Satellites have spent billions of dollars. It's curious that the New York Times has recently uncovered the criminal role that the CIA played in the Syrian war, reporting that members of the Obama administration have told them that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring the absolute majority of overseas unannounced overseas wars, to keep the role played in them by Washington a secret. At times the US and Saudi Arabia would share their intelligence, while in some cases Riyadh just hand out large sums of money to CIA operatives, without asking any questions. ..."
"... Back in 2013 the CIA and Riyadh have agreed on launching an operation under the code name the Timber Sycamore that is aimed at toppling Syria's elected officials through the continuous training and supported provided to all sorts of radical militants. ..."
"... And again, h/t Jacob Freeze, more Imperial Scurvy: 'Syria Will Stain Obama's Legacy Forever; The arc of history is long, but it won't ever judge the president's Syria policy kindly', David Greenberg, foreignpolicy.com , Dec. 29, 2016, accompanied by the obligatory photos of the White Helmuts 'saving' wee chirren. ..."
"... In fact many Syrians did not want civil war -- understandably enough since the human and material costs would be devastating. Second, large numbers of Syrians who had no fondness for Assad had even greater reason to fear what might come after him: very likely some combination of radical jihadi forces. Indeed, victorious jihadis might likely then have gone on to wage an internecine power struggle among themselves, just like the civil war among the Afghan mujahideen after the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1988; it all but destroyed the country." ..."
"... "The world has learned that any state that does not accept the U.S.-designed order in the Middle East by definition becomes a "rogue regime" -- hence losing any sovereign rights on the international scene. And Washington's policies have all along been heavily driven by Israel's own regional agenda. It's a bitter pill then: acceptance of Assad's remaining in power until the international order can eventually craft some new political process that offers more representative government there ." (blink, blink) ..."
"... "We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising." ..."
"... To Hasan, the Syrian State's position on the political spectrum is unrelated to its goals: overcoming sectarian and other divisions in the Arab world, safeguarding Syria's political independence, and achieving economic sovereignty. Nor does it matter that Damascus is engaged in a struggle against (to use Hasan's own words) "rapacious U.S. foreign policy", "Saudi-inspired extremism" and "Israeli opportunism" -- in other words, the aggression of conservative and reactionary forces that are more powerful individually to say nothing of collectively than the Syrian State by many orders of magnitude. To the Mahatma, all of these considerations are irrelevant, and all that matters in the evaluation of Assad's political orientation is whether the methods Damascus has used to defend the gains it has made in the direction of asserting its right to equality and sovereignty are methods that that are suitable to a State in periods of stability, normalcy and safety. It's as if what Hasan deplores about a war cabinet, for example, is not the war that made the war cabinet necessary, but the very fact that a war cabinet was created in response to it, as if carrying on in the regular manner could somehow make the war go away." ..."
"... Gowans added a bit more reality on Hasan's 'diatribe' today with: ' Meet Syria's real mass murderers' ..."
"... Related, of course: William Blum's ' Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List' (since WW II) Spoiler alert: it's a long list ..."
Apr 23, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

https://www.youtube.com/embed/zGEc-CMsrQs?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

The Worthy: According to RT : Jeffrey Sachs , economist, UN special adviser, and Colombia University professor told MSNBC's Morning Joe program that the current situation in Syria is a "US mistake that started seven years ago."

Those seven years have been a "disaster," he said, recalling a covert CIA operation called 'Operation: Timber Sycamore. ' The US "started a war to overthrow a regime."

"This is what I would call the 'Permanent State.' This is the CIA, this is the Pentagon wanting to keep Iran and Russia out of Syria, but we have no way to do that. And so we have made a proxy war in Syria.

"And so, what I would plead to President Trump is: Get out, like your instinct told you Get out. We've done enough damage in seven years," he said."

'Operation Timber Sycamore And Washington's Secret War On Syria; To start this conflict and then keep its fires burning the US and its Satellites have spent billions of dollars' by Martin Berger: DIA Docs: West Wants A "Salafist Principality In Eastern Syria" By Robert Barsocchini , mintpressnews.com

In part:

"To start this conflict and then keep its fires burning the US and its Satellites have spent billions of dollars. It's curious that the New York Times has recently uncovered the criminal role that the CIA played in the Syrian war, reporting that members of the Obama administration have told them that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring the absolute majority of overseas unannounced overseas wars, to keep the role played in them by Washington a secret. At times the US and Saudi Arabia would share their intelligence, while in some cases Riyadh just hand out large sums of money to CIA operatives, without asking any questions.

Back in 2013 the CIA and Riyadh have agreed on launching an operation under the code name the Timber Sycamore that is aimed at toppling Syria's elected officials through the continuous training and supported provided to all sorts of radical militants. Under the deal the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the CIA takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missile. Moreover, Turkey, Jordan and Qatar have all been involved in this criminal design, even though exact amounts of money that the above mentioned states handed over to the CIA will always remain a secret. Still, the New York Times states that Saudi Arabia has been the major sponsor throughout all this time, allocating billions of dollars in a bid to bring down the government of Bashar al-Assad."

More from the internal NYT 'U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels', NYTimes.com , Jan. 23, 2016

"WASHINGTON -- When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria s embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the C.I.A. has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since then, the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore.

By the summer of 2012, a freewheeling feel had taken hold along Turkey's border with Syria as the gulf nations funneled cash and weapons to rebel groups -- even some that American officials were concerned had ties to radical groups like Al Qaeda.

The C.I.A. was mostly on the sidelines during this period, authorized by the White House under the Timber Sycamore training program to deliver nonlethal aid to the rebels but not weapons. In late 2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the C.I.A. director, delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another or with C.I.A. officers in Jordan and Turkey.

Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the C.I.A. to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the C.I.A. took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles."

And again, h/t Jacob Freeze, more Imperial Scurvy: 'Syria Will Stain Obama's Legacy Forever; The arc of history is long, but it won't ever judge the president's Syria policy kindly', David Greenberg, foreignpolicy.com , Dec. 29, 2016, accompanied by the obligatory photos of the White Helmuts 'saving' wee chirren.

Self-explanantory in the main, but:

"Since the Syrian uprising began in 2011, Americans have regarded the carnage there as essentially a humanitarian disaster. For Obama, contemplating his legacy, the awful death and destruction that Syria has suffered -- the 400,000 deaths, the wholesale wasting of civilian neighborhoods, the wanton use of sarin gas and chlorine gas and barrel bombs, the untold atrocities -- has raised the old question of how future generations will judge an American president's passivity or ineffectuality in the face of mass slaughter."

Here Barsocchini features some of the docs that are hard to read on the pdfs: 'DIA Docs: West Wants A "Salafist Principality In Eastern Syria" , Robert Barsocchini , 26 May, 2015, Countercurrents.org, (plus he helpfully adds a few related definitions, and more history re: the Sauds.

Clearly this is the Scurvy : Graham E. Fuller 's 'What is the U.S. Fighting for in Syria?, ( former senior CIA official), April 18, consortiumnews.com, and he did he did face some strong objections in the comments, but not enough, imo, as did Sybil Edmonds' hits on Bartlett and Beeley even as he got some of it right, of course. A few bits:

"The power struggle between the Assad regime and the array of diverse insurgents has oscillated over seven years. Initially, when the government faced the first outbreak of domestic insurgency in 2011 , it appeared that he might not last long in the evolving Arab Spring. But he proved resilient."

[wd here: Ah, the CIA-George Soros, anti-Communist Otpor- sponsored Arab Spring ; have you forgotten your roots, dude?]

"He was willing to strike back ruthlessly at the early uprisings and nip them in the bud. He was aided by the fact that the Syrian population was itself highly ambivalent about any collapse of his government. As regional regimes went it was unquestionably autocratic but not more brutal than usual in the region -- at least not until early insurgent forces challenged the regime's existence and Damascus began to show real teeth.

In fact many Syrians did not want civil war -- understandably enough since the human and material costs would be devastating. Second, large numbers of Syrians who had no fondness for Assad had even greater reason to fear what might come after him: very likely some combination of radical jihadi forces. Indeed, victorious jihadis might likely then have gone on to wage an internecine power struggle among themselves, just like the civil war among the Afghan mujahideen after the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1988; it all but destroyed the country."

"The world has learned that any state that does not accept the U.S.-designed order in the Middle East by definition becomes a "rogue regime" -- hence losing any sovereign rights on the international scene. And Washington's policies have all along been heavily driven by Israel's own regional agenda. It's a bitter pill then: acceptance of Assad's remaining in power until the international order can eventually craft some new political process that offers more representative government there ." (blink, blink)

Worthy from Caitlin Johnstone , the Worthy: ' America's Long History of Trying to Determine Who Rules Syria' , April 12, 2018, consortiumnews.com; some excerpts:

" The 2006 William Roebuck Cable

A December 13, 2006 cable published by WikiLeaks reveals how five years prior to the beginning of the violence, the US government (USG) was seeking out weaknesses of the Assad government which could be exploited to undermine it. William Roebuck, an official at the US embassy in Damascus, said this in his summary of the cable:

"We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising."

(She links to more information on that at Truthout.org , Oct. 9)

" The 1986 CIA Memo

A CIA document declassified last year exposed a plot to overthrow the Syrian government by provoking sectarian tensions all the way back in 1986. Here are a few juicy excerpts : [wd here: I'll provide a couple]

"We believe that a renewal of communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis could inspire Sunnis in the military to turn against the regime."

"Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups."

"Mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of Sunni community leaders as well as on those engaged in protests. Regime efforts to restore order would founder if government violence against protestors inspired broad-based communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis."

Rebutting the Scurvy and Topsy-Turvey : On April 21, the good Stephen Gowans deconstructed some creepiness at the Intercept in his ' Mehdi Hasan, beautiful soul, and his diatribe against the consequential Left'

"If it wasn't already clear, The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan, wants us to know he's a beautiful soul. In an April 19 diatribe against "Bashar al Assad apologists," Hasan professes his distaste for war crimes, torture, and dictatorship, no matter the source, but devotes particular attention to the violence and restrictions on political and civil liberties attributable to the Syrian president. Assad, Hasan concludes, "is a war criminal even if he didn't gas civilians," and leftists should stop defending him. The journalist, who once worked for the Qatari monarchy's mouthpiece Al Jazeera , then proceeds to recite a litany of charges against Assad, some undeniable, some unproved or unprovable. One gets the impression that he's peeved that the latest chemical weapons allegations against the Syrian government, ridiculously thin to begin with, and now largely demolished by Robert Fisk's reporting , have failed to stick." [snip]

" Hasan has turned the distinction between goals and methods on its head . In Hasan's view, leftists are defined not by what they're trying to achieve, but by the methods they use. Torture, dictatorship, abridgement of civil liberties, warfare that produces collateral civilian casualties -- all these things, according to Hasan, are signs of a contra-left political orientation. Thus, he argues, with illogic, that "Bashar al-Assad is not an anti-imperialist of any kind, nor is he a secular bulwark against jihadism; he is a mass murderer, plain and simple ." The illogic is evident in the false dichotomy that lies at the center of his argument. Mass murderer (if indeed Assad can be so characterized) does not exclude anti-imperialist and secular bulwark against jihadism; but in Hasan's world, mass murderer and secular anti-imperialist are mutually exclusive. They are so to Hasan, because he has transfigured Leftism into the concept of avoiding all choices that have potentially awful consequences.

The beautiful soul retreats from the political struggles of the real world into impotent moral posturing, where no choices are ever made, because the consequences of all choices are awful to one degree or another. Success, then, in any political struggle is transformed from acting on the world to change it into avoiding any step that might have terrible consequences -- a recipe for impotence, paralysis and failure. To the beautiful soul, the only leftist political movement that is worthy of support is the one that fails, never the one that comes to power and implements its political program and fights to overcome opposition to it.

To Hasan, the Syrian State's position on the political spectrum is unrelated to its goals: overcoming sectarian and other divisions in the Arab world, safeguarding Syria's political independence, and achieving economic sovereignty. Nor does it matter that Damascus is engaged in a struggle against (to use Hasan's own words) "rapacious U.S. foreign policy", "Saudi-inspired extremism" and "Israeli opportunism" -- in other words, the aggression of conservative and reactionary forces that are more powerful individually to say nothing of collectively than the Syrian State by many orders of magnitude. To the Mahatma, all of these considerations are irrelevant, and all that matters in the evaluation of Assad's political orientation is whether the methods Damascus has used to defend the gains it has made in the direction of asserting its right to equality and sovereignty are methods that that are suitable to a State in periods of stability, normalcy and safety. It's as if what Hasan deplores about a war cabinet, for example, is not the war that made the war cabinet necessary, but the very fact that a war cabinet was created in response to it, as if carrying on in the regular manner could somehow make the war go away." [snip]

"So, faced with these enormous challenges, what should Assad do? Whatever it is, Hasan can't say. The best The Intercept writer can do is demand: "Is it the only way you know how to oppose" US, Saudi and Israeli aggression? Well, it does, indeed, appear to be the only way the Syrian government knows how to resist forces many times stronger than itself. But if not this way, then what way? "Should we shoot balloons at the opposition?" Assad once asked another beautiful soul."

Gowans added a bit more reality on Hasan's 'diatribe' today with: ' Meet Syria's real mass murderers'

Related, of course: William Blum's ' Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List' (since WW II) Spoiler alert: it's a long list, and ends:

"Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?

A: Because there's no American embassy there.

[Apr 23, 2018] Lavrov is truly a class act. Intelligent, well read, humorous. He, and a very few like him, are all that's standing between us and oblivion

See BBC interview . One really good sarcasm from Lavrov. Sergey Lavrov comperating UK beahviour with the famous Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland episode in order to describe the new western 'weird logic' of 'Sentence First, Verdict After' has to be watched repeatedly by all...what a masterful HardTalk show...exposing the new bench mark in western international discourse.
Sergey Lavrov: No, I said "highly likely" as a new invention of the British diplomacy to describe why they punish people – because these people are highly likely guilty, like in Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll - when he described a trial. And when they discovered that the jury could be engaged, then the King said "Let's ask the jury" and the Queen shouted "No jury! Sentence first – verdict afterwards." That's the logic of "highly likely".
Question: Have you got one shred, shred of evidence to suggest British intelligence tried to kill Sergei Skripal?
Sergey Lavrov: There is an old Roman criteria "who is to benefit". The UK is grossly benefiting from the provocations both in Syria and in the United Kingdom itself.
Sergey Lavrov: That's a problem. First, the A-234 agent in highly pure form in high concentration is already raising suspicions.
Question: It came from Russia. In the former Soviet Union, you invented that.
Sergey Lavrov: Stephen, you are not factual. You may be hard talking, but you are not listening. This chemical substance indeed was invented in the Soviet Union, then one the inventors fled to the United States and made the formula public. And if you want to check before raising the issue, please do so, the United States patented this formula; and it was formally taken by United States special services or the army, I don't remember. But A-234 is a very light, I mean, it seriously damages a person, kills him of her, but it evaporates very fast; and the sample taken two weeks after the event cannot, according to our scientists, contain very high concentration.
Sergey Lavrov: For a Brit, you have very bad manners. The Swiss laboratory report also said that, and in the first place, they found BZ, which was I think invented in the United States in 1955 and was among the equipment of the US and UK army. And we asked OPCW, whom we trust, whether this is true or not that in addition to A-234 there was also BZ discovered. And we are waiting a reply of OPCW, whom, of course, we trust, but we want to trust and verify.
Notable quotes:
"... Sergey Lavrov analogising from Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland in order to describe the new western 'weird logic' of 'Sentence First, Verdict After' has to be watched repeatedly by all...what a masterful HardTalk show...exposing the new bench mark in western international discourse. ..."
Apr 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

les7 | Apr 22, 2018 5:12:23 PM | 33

I just listened to Lavrov's interview with the BBC. Early on, when asked how he responds to waking up to a tweet that tells Russia to get ready for those nice new cruise missiles, Lavrov responds by distinguishing between the tweets and the dialogue between military leaders. Lavrov makes clear they only treat the dialogue with the military leadership seriously.

To me, while stated very subtly, this marks a profound shift in how Russia will interact with the US. They have virtually given up on the political channels even through intermediaries like the EU). The only relationship left is that of military balance/confrontation.

May those who have ears to hear, listen.

MadMax2 , Apr 23, 2018 5:23:56 AM | 87

Wouldn't be surprised to discover it was an Aussie 'fixer' behind the hold up of the OPCW inspection team, Australia has been pretty much 100% compliant since being regime changed in 1974.

...

Your greatest friend, most staunch ally tells you the truth despite what may come. Sergey Lavrov analogising from Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland in order to describe the new western 'weird logic' of 'Sentence First, Verdict After' has to be watched repeatedly by all...what a masterful HardTalk show...exposing the new bench mark in western international discourse.

The logic of 'highly likely.' No proof required.

Such honesty, what a friend... and the correct book to quote too...given the current ocean of media backed fantasy.

cdvision , Apr 23, 2018 6:02:44 AM | 88
MadMax2 @87

Indeed.

Lavrov is truly a class act. Intelligent, well read, humorous. He, and a very few like him, are all that's standing between us and oblivion.

@Madmax2 87

I agree that Australia with Turnbull and Bishop - especially the latter - in control is 100% onboard with the Deep State narrative - one just has to listen to the ABC to know that.

But since 1974? For all his faults, Fraser would have been opposed to what the US is doing. As Gough said, long after Fraser left office, "Malcolm is a much improved person." Fraser did much to assist in dismantling apartheid in South Africa and wrote a book espousing an independent foreign policy for Australia.

@Madmax2 87

I agree that Australia with Turnbull and Bishop - especially the latter - in control is 100% onboard with the Deep State narrative - one just has to listen to the ABC to know that.

But since 1974? For all his faults, Fraser would have been opposed to what the US is doing. As Gough said, long after Fraser left office, "Malcolm is a much improved person." Fraser did much to assist in dismantling apartheid in South Africa and wrote a book espousing an independent foreign policy for Australia. /div

[Apr 23, 2018] Democrat-pushed Mueller SPECTACLE continues to oppress the United States by Seraphim Hanisch

Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of what Hillary's campaign was about. ..."
"... The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump. ..."
"... The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty. ..."
Apr 23, 2018 | theduran.com

Recent move by Democrat Party to sue Trump, Russia and Wikileaks symptomatic as President Trump's campaign shows up clean

The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of what Hillary's campaign was about.

The only thing they shared in common was a (D) by their name as candidate.

In Michael Goodwin's piece in the New York Post ,, the reason for the Democrat despair is given: Mueller is simply not finding anything wrong with President Trump's election campaign, no signs of collusion with Russian agencies or anything else. Mueller's bizarre and unbridled investigation is reeling along from person to person, looking for something but coming up empty save for minor process crimes which are themselves largely driven into existence by Mueller's questioning, a.k.a. interrogation techniques.

Says Goodwin:

In a move that reeks of desperation, the DNC filed a civil suit Friday against President Trump's campaign, Russia and WikiLeaks , alleging a vast (right wing!) conspiracy to tip the election to Trump.

The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump.

The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty.

Truth be told, party leaders are right to be disheartened by setbacks in the War against Trump. For the second time, the president was told he is not a target of Mueller, this time by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy assistant attorney general who created Mueller.

While Trump could still become a target, the odds of that happening decline by the day.

... ... ...

[Apr 23, 2018] Armenia is operating under the standrd post-Soviet neoliberal model in which the oligarchs and mafia directly owning/looting the government, as opposed to the Western model where looting is outsourced to banks and multinationals

It is easy to exploit neoliberalism inflicted poverty for installing via color revolution even more neoliberal, more friendly to West and more corrupt regime. What a paradox. We can speak about "neoliberal Catch 22." When people realize that they were taken for ride and their standard of living dropped even further, it's too late.
Ukraine should be the primary guide for Armenia. This is a real Catch 22.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of folks here are very aware of the coercion and mass media brainwashing that goes on in the West, but choose to ignore the same (or worse) brutal practices that occur in the corrupt kleptocracies that make up the "Axis of Resistance" and their allies for political reasons. ..."
"... George Orwell -- 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." ..."
Apr 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Armenia is operating under the Russian (really post-Soviet) model of the oligarchs and mafia directly owning/looting the government, as opposed to the Western model where looting is outsourced to foundations and multinationals, which then compensate the oligarchs.

A lot of folks here are very aware of the coercion and mass media brainwashing that goes on in the West, but choose to ignore the same (or worse) brutal practices that occur in the corrupt kleptocracies that make up the "Axis of Resistance" and their allies for political reasons.

Almand | Apr 22, 2018 9:40:24 PM | 52 Don Bacon , Apr 22, 2018 10:14:55 PM | 56

@Almand 51

Armenia is operating under the Russian (really post-Soviet) model of the oligarchs and mafia directly owning/looting the government, as opposed to the Western model where looting is outsourced to foundations and multinationals, which then compensate the oligarchs.

I'm no expert on the forms of corruption, but there's plenty to think about in your statement. Your "Western model" surely seems correct. The US system of "corporate personhood" makes the oligarchs just like us, only more so of course. . .

George Orwell -- 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Ara , Apr 22, 2018 8:31:13 PM | 42
39. There are not only American agents there but also Turkish, Iranian, Georgian and definitely Russian. So what? We are talking about the current leaders and their close relatives. How they get so much income that they buy whole apartment buildings in Los Angeles. These are not regular incomes but extortions and controlling whole economies.

And the former president wants to shift his nominal position in the state and still have the man made authority to control the economic lifelines. This situation is true in almost all of former soviet countries, that is why it is so easy for outside forces to come and give it a kick and their whole system crumbles down in revolutions.

These revolutions mostly happen when people eventually get convinced that things can't get any worse than their current situation and they have nothing else to lose.

The only people that have normal lives in Armenia are those who have a relative in the West who is sending them money on a regular basis. The rest live like homeless bums. And people come here and say it is CIA ran operation, without considering human miseries of a decade. This is really insulting.

[Apr 22, 2018] Jordan Peterson and the Return of the Stoics by Tim Rogers

Unlike almost every modern book in the self-help genre, happiness is a not a major theme here, and to Peterson it is not necessarily even a primary goal.
His book in part is about accepting the ubiquity of human suffering. No wonder reviewers don't get it.
Notable quotes:
"... Pain is its one incontrovertible fact (he remarks at one point that it is a miracle that anything in the world gets done at all: such is the ubiquity of human suffering) ..."
"... You will suffer. Accept that, and shift your focus to the one thing that is within your control: your attitude. ..."
Apr 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

His book in part is about accepting the ubiquity of human suffering. No wonder reviewers don't get it.

"Aphorisms," wrote James Geary, "are like particle accelerators for the mind." When particles collide inside an accelerator, new ones are formed as the energy of the crash is converted into matter. Inside an aphorism, it is minds that collide, and what spins out is that most slippery of things, wisdom.

... ... ...

These reviewers have done a disservice to their readers. In large measure, they have failed to engage with a work that is complex, challenging, and novel. Peterson is sketching out a draft for how we can survive, look in the mirror, and deal with psychological pain.

To understand his message, the first task is not to be distracted by the title or genre, and look for the metaphorical glue that binds it all together. 12 Rules sets out an interesting and complex model for humanity, and it really has nothing to do with petting a cat or taking your tablets or being kind to lobsters. It is about strength, courage, responsibility, and suffering, but it is deep and difficult, and it is not easy to pigeonhole. In a sense, 12 Rules contains a number of hidden structures and hidden processes, and confusingly, these are not always made explicit in the text.

The first of these is Deep Time. We are biological creatures, evolved beings who can only be truly understood through a model that encapsulates the notion of geological time. The concept of Deep Time is very recent: just a few generations ago science thought that the earth was a few thousand years old. The realization that the planet has been around for billions of years and that life itself not much younger has brought about a shift in the story of ourselves and our place in the world. We are the products of processes that are old, old, old. We stretch back across unfathomable reaches, incomprehensible spans, but we carry that history within us.

... ... ..

Unlike almost every modern book in the self-help genre, happiness is a not a major theme here, and to Peterson it is not necessarily even a primary goal. Like Freud, Peterson sees life as suffering. Pain is its one incontrovertible fact (he remarks at one point that it is a miracle that anything in the world gets done at all: such is the ubiquity of human suffering). 12 Rules is not about the pursuit of pleasure, and indeed parts of his message are pure Stoicism. Resistance to life's depredations is futile. You will suffer. Accept that, and shift your focus to the one thing that is within your control: your attitude.

... His much-derided directive to "tidy your room" makes sense at every level. Indeed, if your room is too big, start with "tidy your desk," and then move forward. Find meaning in the tiniest acts of kindness, and push on from there. Concede the transience of pleasure and the inevitability of death. This isn't happiness, but it is a step closer to the Good Life, and contra the reviewers, readers are responding. Active, purposeful "Being in the World" is the dominant theme, and much of the book is taken up with exploring the whys and wherefores of this. Courage and strength and kindness, yes, to be sure, but importantly, courage "in spite of" and kindness "in spite of."

Following Carl Rogers, meaning is to be found in active engagement in a wondrous and hazardous world, and here there is no shirking the "hazardous." It seems to me that Peterson is calling for a return to ataraxia , that imperturbability and equanimity that has been out of fashion amongst the intelligentsia (at least in the West) for a century or more.

The underlying political philosophy is conservative, without question. As Christian Gonzalez identified in The American Conservative , Peterson's closest contemporary equivalent is Roger Scruton. "We have learned to live together and organize our complex societies slowly and incrementally, over vast stretches of time," he writes, "and we do not understand with sufficient exactitude why what we are doing works."

Peterson on the American culture wars sounds like Scruton on the English Common Law: we are "from the soil," we need time, it is senseless to break what we barely understand. Each person's private trouble cannot be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous. Those left-leaning critics who see "just another reactionary" have failed to understand the complexity. What permeates this project is an implicit biopsychosocial model of the human condition (Peterson spares the reader that dread term but it is the only description I know for his integrative model).

... ... ...

Tim Rogers is a consultant psychiatrist in Edinburgh. He's written for Encounter magazine, and has published in both Quillette and Areo .

[Apr 22, 2018] Matt Taibi's review of Comey's new book--Matt does it a little salty as usual.

Apr 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sid2 | Apr 22, 2018 8:14:29 PM | 40

Forgot I wanted to recommend Matt Taibi's review of Comey's new book--Matt does it a little salty as usual.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/james-comey-j-edgar-hoover-w519214

[Apr 22, 2018] It looks like the conspiracy around the smearing of Trump by the Obama administration is slowly coming out.

Apr 22, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Jack , 9 hours ago

Devin Nunes said today that after reviewing the electronic communication that launched the counter intelligence investigation of Trump there was no evidence that warranted this investigation. It is also interesting that Comey memorialized his discussions with Trump but did not do that with others. His memos note that he only informed Trump on the salacious part of the FusionGPS dossier and not the other parts. It looks like the conspiracy around the smearing of Trump by the Obama administration is slowly coming out.
Jack , 3 hours ago
It's getting closer to Brennan.

https://spectator.org/confi...

"An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election -- Hillary's."

[Apr 22, 2018] The Crisis Is Only In Its Beginning Stages by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... This popular question completely misses the point. The US attack on Syria is a clear and indisputable war crime against a sovereign country regardless of whether Syria used a chemical weapon in driving the Washington supported terrorists from Douma. ..."
"... It is unlikely that the UN Security Council will condemn Washington, which pays 25% of the UN's budget. Moreover, the Security Council is loaded up with Washington's vassals, and they will not vote to censure their liegelord. ..."
"... Putin is wasting his time taking the matter to the Security Council, unless his purpose is to prove that every Western institution is completely corrupt. ..."
"... During the entirety of the Cold War no US ambassador to the UN spoke aggressively and disrespectfully to the Soviet representative as Nikki Haley speaks to the Russian ambassador. During the Cold War no American president would have tolerated Nikki Haley. The crazed bitch would have instantly been fired. ..."
"... Until Washington is effectively resisted, Washington's European vassals, the UN Security Council and the OPCW will stand with Washington. ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Many, including Russia's President Putin, have asked why the US launched an illegal attack on Syria prior to the chemical weapons inspectors examining the site of the alleged chemical attack.

This popular question completely misses the point. The US attack on Syria is a clear and indisputable war crime against a sovereign country regardless of whether Syria used a chemical weapon in driving the Washington supported terrorists from Douma. No one acted to stop Washington's war crime. Some of Washington's vassals, such as Germany and Italy, refused to participate in Washington's war crime, but no one attempted to block it. The impotent UN Security Council, to which Russia is wasting its time appealing, the EU, NATO, Russia and China themselves did nothing to stop Washington's Nazi era war crime.

Russia said that if Washington's attack harmed its citizens, there would be military consequences, but Russia did not protect its ally Syria from the attack.

Perhaps it doesn't matter as Washington's attack was carefully conducted so as to have no effect except to serve as a face-saver for Trump. Apparently no one was killed and no damage was done to anything real except to a facility in which anti-venom for snake bites was being produced.

On the other hand, it does matter, because of the perception that the American presstitutes have created that it was a great victory for America over the evil Syrian government and the evil Russian government that supports them. This perception, which the presstitutes have created with their fake news, justifies the war crime and will lead to more attacks on Syria.

It is unlikely that the UN Security Council will condemn Washington, which pays 25% of the UN's budget. Moreover, the Security Council is loaded up with Washington's vassals, and they will not vote to censure their liegelord.

Putin is wasting his time taking the matter to the Security Council, unless his purpose is to prove that every Western institution is completely corrupt. As most informed people already know this, I don't understand the point of proving the known. Putin should read Eric Zuesse's article before he puts too much faith in the UN. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/04/17/how-us-has-virtually-destroyed-un.html

As I have written on a number of occasions, I admire Putin's Christian character of sidestepping the beatings he continuously takes from Washington in order to save the world from the massive deaths of a world war. The problem is that by turning the other cheek, Putin encourages more aggression from Washington. Putin is dealing with neoconservative psychopaths. He is not dealing with common sense.

During the entirety of the Cold War no US ambassador to the UN spoke aggressively and disrespectfully to the Soviet representative as Nikki Haley speaks to the Russian ambassador. During the Cold War no American president would have tolerated Nikki Haley. The crazed bitch would have instantly been fired.

The Russian government is captured by delusion if the Russians believe that the US government, in which Nikki Haley is Trump's choice to be America's spokesperson to the world, in which the crazed neoconservative war monger John Bolton is a principal influence over US military and foreign policy, and in which the President himself is under threat of indictment for wanting to normalize relations with Russia, has any prospect of avoiding war.

The best chance of preventing the oncoming war is Russian-Chinese-Iranian unity and a defeat for American arms in a regional context not worth the Washington psychopaths launching of nuclear weapons. Until Washington is effectively resisted, Washington's European vassals, the UN Security Council and the OPCW will stand with Washington. Once Washington experiences a defeat, NATO will dissolve and with this dissolution Washington's ability to threaten other countries will lose its cover and evaporate.

[Apr 22, 2018] One of the signs of an empire that is failing is the increasing disconnect (and cynicism) between the rulers and the ruled - no matter what the system of government may be

Notable quotes:
"... Overall, my impression is that a huge amount of the American populace is entirely disengaged from what's going on because all of it is too upsetting of the accustomed comfortable lifestyle. ..."
"... There's no sense of how random and stupid (and increasing) violence connects to neocon policies over the past 20 plus years or so. The problems leading potentially to very serious war conflict are demonized away in terms of black vs. white terms, America always the righteous. ..."
Apr 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sid2 | Apr 22, 2018 1:34:57 PM | 11

Just back from a road trip in America where I uncharacteristically watched TV in the evenings. My main impression = appalled at the intellectual decline and I kept saying to myself, "If anyone wants to know why we're stupid, here (TV) is the reason."

Interestingly, what I formerly could not stand, FOX news, showed some dignity and intelligence over what appears to be unraveling in the cover-up of what is now "FBI-gate" versus the old and worn-out Russia-gate stuff. I was amused at FOX news' presentation of the latest DNC lawsuit as more hopeless apologizing for Clinton's loss, and a development which could backfire into disclosure finally, and much more focus on what Clinton was up to with the DNC maligning of Sanders, plus the politicizing of the intelligence agencies, as with Comey, Brennan, and Clapper.

As to Americans generally, a lot of good people, nice and helpful if they can just relax into ordinary relating as with services and restaurants. In meeting with relatives, obvious MSM propaganda layering their opinions. I was struck for example that the homeless problem could be dismissed because some homeless didn't want to take advantage of housing help offered (the specifics of that not offered, nor am I aware of what's meant here). The tendency is to dismiss the troubling into simplification, and get back to what feels good as soon as possible. But this is completely normal human behavior in my 5 decades or so of watching political developments.

Overall, my impression is that a huge amount of the American populace is entirely disengaged from what's going on because all of it is too upsetting of the accustomed comfortable lifestyle.

There's no sense of how random and stupid (and increasing) violence connects to neocon policies over the past 20 plus years or so. The problems leading potentially to very serious war conflict are demonized away in terms of black vs. white terms, America always the righteous.

I do feel, however, that alternative media, such as via MoA here, are very helpful to growing awareness, particularly among young people. I am eager to see new independent political parties, committed to serving the people, but not yet aware of any of these coming about. I would also echo pyschohistorian and others from the previous thread to ask b to be the leader/organizer via emails, should there come a time when this site is attacked and taken out somehow.

Thank you, b, and commenters here for this energetic and hopeful community.

les7 , Apr 22, 2018 2:59:15 PM | 20

@11

Thanks for that snapshot description. One of the signs of an empire that is failing is the increasing disconnect (and cynicism) between the rulers and the ruled - no matter what the system of government may be. Your description provides a graphic picture of that disconnection.

In another vein, Media again posits the SAA as going against the rebel controlled areas in the south. I believe that the SAA will instead consolidate areas around Homs and southern Hama then focus on Deir Ezzour and the cross-river attacks from the US protected eastern shore of the Euphrates.. This action will take us through to mid-June. At that point I anticipate some kind of incidents having to do with the Idlib pocket.

[Apr 22, 2018] Trump is pure schadenfreude

Notable quotes:
"... give the Orange One some credit: he was a wrecking ball to the stagnant, hideous Clinton and Bush dynasties. He has also driven the DC establishment and media insane. Pure schadenfreude. ..."
Apr 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

SunBakedSuburb , April 22, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT

" Russia and China have adult leadership."

They are also non-democratic, authoritarian regimes.

"By contrast, Trump is a loon, ignorant of practically everything, mentally chaotic, and easily modified."

That's all true, especially the last bit. But give the Orange One some credit: he was a wrecking ball to the stagnant, hideous Clinton and Bush dynasties. He has also driven the DC establishment and media insane. Pure schadenfreude.

[Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show

Highly recommended!
Apr 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Apr 20, 2018 6:56:29 PM | 41

Paul Cockshott , Apr 20, 2018 6:56:29 PM | 41

Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show, i plying Trump did it for political reasons. Narrative changing a bit.
Anonymous , Apr 21, 2018 2:47:25 AM | 57
#Germany's state media senior correspondent (who is in Damascus right now & also visited Douma) on primetime evening news on German television: "#Douma chemical attack is most likely staged. A great many people here seem very convinced."

https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/987432370595876864

Fran , Apr 21, 2018 2:55:06 AM | 58
Karlofi#35 and frances#18
Michael Quinn on Russia Insider is wondering about the same thing too: Tucker Carlson MIA for 2 Days After Exposing Syria Gas Hoax - Deep State Revenge?

I too hope he will return soon, he seems to be one of the last sane voices of the msm. Hopefully high viewer rates help to bring him back, but he wouldn't be the first one to vanish from the screen, despite high ratings.

[Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0 ..."
"... This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. ..."
"... So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention. ..."
Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

wheelbarrow1 , 13 Apr 2018 14:37

Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to bomb a Sovereign country with the highly unstable, Donald Trump?

Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it isn't. Hopefully, the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least half a brain.

Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your facts. We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of thing before.

It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next.

Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were parachuted into France and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette Szabo are just a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally know is that many agents when undergoing their training in the UK, were given information about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France into the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed them.

The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri Dericourt, an officer in the German army and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told the Germans. The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the agents (only a small number) into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false information tortured out of them.

Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.

It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

I_Wear_Socks , 13 Apr 2018 14:37
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if you in any way question the narrative forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.

A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be facts. But social pressure to conform and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise it that position hasn't been linked with Brexit.

ChairmanMayTseTung , 13 Apr 2018 14:37
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have been air-dropped and smashed through the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go off.

The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had been hit with a metal object weighing god knows what and dropped from a great height.

MartinSilenus -> ChairmanMayTseTung , 13 Apr 2018 14:36
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate"

The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to the dark jungle floors & a massive amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of Vietcong fighters even harder!

It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine poison gas, let alone nerve gases, it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are pretty horrible.

"Some 45 million liters of the poisoned spray was Agent Orange, which contains the toxic compound dioxin"
http://theconversation.com/agent-orange-exposed-how-u-s-chemical-warfare-in-vietnam-unleashed-a-slow-moving-disaster-84572

120Daze , 13 Apr 2018 14:36
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what you get when you lie and distort though a willing press, you get found out and then nobody believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and founded organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch fund them to the tune of over $40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable to substantiate ANY of it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the press expect us to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all you have is a massive distraction from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
LiviaDrusilla -> Bangorstu , 13 Apr 2018 14:36
LOL are you having a larf?

The same organisation that receives millions of quid in funding from USAID?

Whose 'executive director' used to work for USAID?

Who have campaigned for 'no fly zones' (ie US bombing)?

Who are affiliated to the Iranian terrorist group MEK?

Who only happen to run hospitals in 'rebel' held areas?

You have a strange idea of 'politically neutral'. Your 'NGO' are fighting for an Islamist state. Enjoy them.

Dominique2 , 13 Apr 2018 14:32
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."

The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and needs enforcement. But no virtue signalling where there is none.

CaptTroyTempest -> StoneRoses , 13 Apr 2018 14:27
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma, aren't we? And if an attack was carried out, by whom. But before these essential points are verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you equally keen for some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in Palestine by the Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well documented. But we haven't attacked them yet. Funny that.
CMYKilla , 13 Apr 2018 14:26
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities full of women and children in WW2?

Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm

Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting Wahhabism and has had major cities overrun...

Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of him outside Westminster like the one of Bomber Harris?

Tom1982 , 13 Apr 2018 14:24
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping premature babies out of their incubators after the invasion in 1990? The story was published in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support for military intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.

Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard evidence before blundering into a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?

BlutoTheBruto , 13 Apr 2018 14:21
Didn't General Mattis quietly admit at there was no evidence for the alleged Sarin attacks last year by Assad?

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

Hmmmm.... call me skeptical for not believing it this time around.

AwkwardSquad , 13 Apr 2018 14:19
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad neutralised and they are assisting ISIS terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than to drag the Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?

Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?

Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with nerve agents in the marshes of southern Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then? No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.

I say stay out it.

dannymega -> fripouille , 13 Apr 2018 14:18
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry out this attack. Why do you think the Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western intervention? I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes butchering people... blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the ground.
Preshous , 13 Apr 2018 14:18
Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0
ChairmanMayTseTung , 13 Apr 2018 14:16
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate vast swathes of Vietnam and in the full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest incidence of liver cancer on the planet.

Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis are inhaling as shrill voices denounce Assad.

CodeNameTwiglet , 13 Apr 2018 14:15
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies.

So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention.

But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US & UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction on the populations it was supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.

[Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show

Highly recommended!
Apr 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Apr 20, 2018 6:56:29 PM | 41

Paul Cockshott , Apr 20, 2018 6:56:29 PM | 41

Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show, i plying Trump did it for political reasons. Narrative changing a bit.
Anonymous , Apr 21, 2018 2:47:25 AM | 57
#Germany's state media senior correspondent (who is in Damascus right now & also visited Douma) on primetime evening news on German television: "#Douma chemical attack is most likely staged. A great many people here seem very convinced."

https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/987432370595876864

Fran , Apr 21, 2018 2:55:06 AM | 58
Karlofi#35 and frances#18
Michael Quinn on Russia Insider is wondering about the same thing too: Tucker Carlson MIA for 2 Days After Exposing Syria Gas Hoax - Deep State Revenge?

I too hope he will return soon, he seems to be one of the last sane voices of the msm. Hopefully high viewer rates help to bring him back, but he wouldn't be the first one to vanish from the screen, despite high ratings.

[Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0 ..."
"... This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. ..."
"... So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention. ..."
Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

wheelbarrow1 , 13 Apr 2018 14:37

Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to bomb a Sovereign country with the highly unstable, Donald Trump?

Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it isn't. Hopefully, the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least half a brain.

Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your facts. We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of thing before.

It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next.

Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were parachuted into France and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette Szabo are just a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally know is that many agents when undergoing their training in the UK, were given information about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France into the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed them.

The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri Dericourt, an officer in the German army and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told the Germans. The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the agents (only a small number) into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false information tortured out of them.

Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.

It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

I_Wear_Socks , 13 Apr 2018 14:37
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if you in any way question the narrative forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.

A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be facts. But social pressure to conform and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise it that position hasn't been linked with Brexit.

ChairmanMayTseTung , 13 Apr 2018 14:37
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have been air-dropped and smashed through the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go off.

The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had been hit with a metal object weighing god knows what and dropped from a great height.

MartinSilenus -> ChairmanMayTseTung , 13 Apr 2018 14:36
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate"

The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to the dark jungle floors & a massive amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of Vietcong fighters even harder!

It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine poison gas, let alone nerve gases, it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are pretty horrible.

"Some 45 million liters of the poisoned spray was Agent Orange, which contains the toxic compound dioxin"
http://theconversation.com/agent-orange-exposed-how-u-s-chemical-warfare-in-vietnam-unleashed-a-slow-moving-disaster-84572

120Daze , 13 Apr 2018 14:36
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what you get when you lie and distort though a willing press, you get found out and then nobody believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and founded organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch fund them to the tune of over $40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable to substantiate ANY of it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the press expect us to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all you have is a massive distraction from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
LiviaDrusilla -> Bangorstu , 13 Apr 2018 14:36
LOL are you having a larf?

The same organisation that receives millions of quid in funding from USAID?

Whose 'executive director' used to work for USAID?

Who have campaigned for 'no fly zones' (ie US bombing)?

Who are affiliated to the Iranian terrorist group MEK?

Who only happen to run hospitals in 'rebel' held areas?

You have a strange idea of 'politically neutral'. Your 'NGO' are fighting for an Islamist state. Enjoy them.

Dominique2 , 13 Apr 2018 14:32
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."

The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and needs enforcement. But no virtue signalling where there is none.

CaptTroyTempest -> StoneRoses , 13 Apr 2018 14:27
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma, aren't we? And if an attack was carried out, by whom. But before these essential points are verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you equally keen for some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in Palestine by the Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well documented. But we haven't attacked them yet. Funny that.
CMYKilla , 13 Apr 2018 14:26
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities full of women and children in WW2?

Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm

Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting Wahhabism and has had major cities overrun...

Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of him outside Westminster like the one of Bomber Harris?

Tom1982 , 13 Apr 2018 14:24
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping premature babies out of their incubators after the invasion in 1990? The story was published in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support for military intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.

Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard evidence before blundering into a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?

BlutoTheBruto , 13 Apr 2018 14:21
Didn't General Mattis quietly admit at there was no evidence for the alleged Sarin attacks last year by Assad?

http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

Hmmmm.... call me skeptical for not believing it this time around.

AwkwardSquad , 13 Apr 2018 14:19
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad neutralised and they are assisting ISIS terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than to drag the Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?

Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?

Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with nerve agents in the marshes of southern Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then? No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.

I say stay out it.

dannymega -> fripouille , 13 Apr 2018 14:18
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry out this attack. Why do you think the Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western intervention? I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes butchering people... blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the ground.
Preshous , 13 Apr 2018 14:18
Tucker Carlson of Fox News has it nailed down.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28aYkLRlm0
ChairmanMayTseTung , 13 Apr 2018 14:16
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate vast swathes of Vietnam and in the full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest incidence of liver cancer on the planet.

Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis are inhaling as shrill voices denounce Assad.

CodeNameTwiglet , 13 Apr 2018 14:15
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies.

So now, In desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of humanitarian intervention.

But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US & UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction on the populations it was supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.

[Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... Assange had 'physical proof' Russians didn't hack DNC, Rohrabacher says https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/19/julian-assange-has-physical-proof-russians-didnt-h/ ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Apr 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.

Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel "connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.

With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber. Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to the alleged perps.

This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally "referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate and much less welcome "FBI-gate."

As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many alternative websites.

The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first paragraph of the letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.

Stonewalling

Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)

The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the committees are unaware.

Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."

Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.

And Nothing Matters More Than the Media

The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served .

Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a lead article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch him.'" [sic]

Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity

What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law.

None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win.

But she lost.

Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A Higher Loyalty" -- which

amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his recent article , "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls."

The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego.

I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.

2017

2018

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Mike Whitney , April 20, 2018 at 4:15 am GMT

This story appears to be developing very fast. Interested readers might want to look at this short video on the Tucker Carlson show last night: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5773524495001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!

jilles dykstra , April 20, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT
A weird country, the USA. Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where, in my opinion, the truth was unearthed. At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed. Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Greg Bacon , Website April 20, 2018 at 6:54 am GMT

Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!

The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.

Ronald Thomas West , Website April 20, 2018 at 7:23 am GMT
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.

Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17 with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news service.

The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.

Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not moving east.)

Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er, nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/12/01/the-oath-and-the-trash-bin/

For those who prefer the satire:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/01/07/moot-court/^

animalogic , April 20, 2018 at 8:00 am GMT
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high level yoga or of squaring a circle. On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best – nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.

Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded. Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President ! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the whole way! As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.

Jake , April 20, 2018 at 11:29 am GMT
The Deep State will make certain none of its most important functionaries get anything close to what they deserve.
redmudhooch , April 20, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
Just a show, nothing will happen. Anything to keep you talking about anything other than 9/11, fake economy, fake war on terror, or Zionists..
jacques sheete , April 20, 2018 at 11:49 am GMT

And that will come especially from the mainstream media

I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.

DESERT FOX , April 20, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered up, as usual.
tjm , April 20, 2018 at 1:06 pm GMT
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.

There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him NOT TO DO!

We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out

Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind supporters.

Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.

anon [321] Disclaimer , April 20, 2018 at 1:49 pm GMT
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.

As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in November.

anon [321] Disclaimer , April 20, 2018 at 1:54 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.

Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.

Twodees Partain , April 20, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
@Nick Granite

" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are he certainly knows the enemies by now."

He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.

Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting everybody during his campaign.

So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.

Twodees Partain , April 20, 2018 at 2:46 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

It's also telling that Ray didn't mention what was included in the referral regarding an enforced recusal of Rosenstein going forward.

https://desantis.house.gov/_cache/files/8/0/8002ca75-52fc-4995-b87e-43584da268db/472EBC7D8F55C0F9E830D37CF96376A2.final-criminal-referral.pdf

Authenticjazzman , April 20, 2018 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Renoman

" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".

Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned monetary holdings.

Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed masses.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

anon [140] Disclaimer , April 20, 2018 at 7:24 pm GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same [recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.

That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.

anon [140] Disclaimer , April 20, 2018 at 7:30 pm GMT
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
anon [140] Disclaimer , April 20, 2018 at 7:34 pm GMT
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released. Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
SunBakedSuburb , April 20, 2018 at 7:45 pm GMT
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.

John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.

Haxo Angmark , Website April 20, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT
Seth Rich is still dead...
utu , April 20, 2018 at 11:33 pm GMT
Assange had 'physical proof' Russians didn't hack DNC, Rohrabacher says https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/19/julian-assange-has-physical-proof-russians-didnt-h/
UrbaneFrancoOntarian , April 21, 2018 at 12:18 am GMT
@anon

His cowardice is shocking. I wonder what they have on him? Probably some Roy Moore shit. Some shady stuff happened in the old South.

Ronald Thomas West , Website April 21, 2018 at 12:56 am GMT
@utu

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/09/16/incompetent-espionage-wikileaks-iii/

Yeah, and General Kelly won't let Rohrabacher meet with Trump. What do you suppose is up with that (rhetorical question)

RobinG , April 21, 2018 at 1:02 am GMT
@utu

What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.

anonymous [185] Disclaimer , April 21, 2018 at 2:36 am GMT
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it, pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
Culloden , April 21, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]

During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain. Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/

"We were in Libya for oil" (only). Who said that:

http://www.firmmagazine.com

Bennis Mardens , April 21, 2018 at 2:47 am GMT
Without exception, leftists are degenerate filth.

But they won't be going to jail.

It's kabuki theater.

Art , April 21, 2018 at 5:21 am GMT
My god – who believes this woman?

Hillary says "they would never let me be president" – she is serious. She has gone bonkers with self-pity.

This is no longer laughable – it boarders on the pathological.

Art

WhiteWolf , April 21, 2018 at 5:39 am GMT
@Bennis Mardens

There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to Hillary.

Stonehands , April 21, 2018 at 6:20 am GMT
@Twodees Partain

I still read ZH articles, but the commentariat has devolved to lockeroom towel-snapping, barely above YouTube chattering.

Stonehands , April 21, 2018 at 6:42 am GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

Ronald, thank-you for posting this Doug Coe sermon; l have never heard of him. BTW are you a Christian?

Stonehands , April 21, 2018 at 7:56 am GMT
@Ronald Thomas West

Ronald, thank-you for posting this Doug Coe sermon; l have never heard of him. BTW are you a Christian?

Twodees Partain , April 21, 2018 at 10:11 am GMT
@Culloden

Here's another about Mueller's involvement with the FBI's Whitey Bulger scandal.

https://saraacarter.com/questions-still-surround-robert-muellers-boston-past/

Mueller's past is so laden with misfeasance and malfeasance that he should have been disbarred a few decades ago.

Ronald Thomas West , Website April 21, 2018 at 1:14 pm GMT
@Stonehands

Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some of my thoughts on the matter:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/04/11/celebrating-the-anti-christ/

^ It doesn't necessarily go where the title might suggest (for many)

CIA in Charge , April 21, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@Authenticjazzman

Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.

(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups.

(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)

(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton, successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the CIA org chart.

Authenticjazzman , April 21, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT
@CIA in Charge

Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.

And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique, they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners when left unchallenged.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

[Apr 21, 2018] CIA, MI6 and rebels: Rebels can be genuine protesters but they will brutally used by CIA and MI6 for nefarious purposes

Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

junglecitizen -> LeftOrRightSameShite , 13 Apr 2018 15:44

We, along with the US, France and Gulf states have supported, armed and trained "rebels" in Syria the whole time. We've had, as have others, special forces operating inside Syria


So, there would never be rebellions against totalitarian dictators if it weren't for the CIA and MI6.

I don't buy this. It's very convenient if you're an anti-war person who doesn't want to face an ethical dilemma. But it's not real.

[Apr 21, 2018] The UN Charter is very vague about a lot of things, but it's very clear about one thing, and that is, when is it legal to go to war

Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

tc2011 , 13 Apr 2018 16:21

What Freedland and others are advocating is illegal. They have no moral or legal authority.

For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion, attacking a foreign country without legal basis under international law represents the "supreme international crime". The launching of an "aggressive war" is the "supreme crime" because it is the overarching offense which contains within itself "the accumulated evil of the whole" (e.g. rape, torture, murder, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, etc).

People were tried, convicted and hung at Nuremberg for the crime of waging wars of aggression (as well as crimes against humanity).

Regardless of how unpalatable we may find it, even the verified use of chemical weapons -be they by state or non-state actors - is not a legal basis to attack a country, any country.

As Phyllis Bennis, Fellow and Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., clearly explained (following the last alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, and subsequent military strike on the Syrian air base ordered by President Trump):

"The UN Charter is very vague about a lot of things, but it's very clear about one thing, and that is, when is it legal to go to war? When is it legal to use a military strike? There's only two occasions according to the UN Charter The UN Charter says, "A country can use military force under two circumstances: Number one, if the Security Council authorizes it." Number two, Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is about self-defence. But it's a very narrowly constrained version of self-defence It says very explicitly, "If a country has been attacked." "until the Security Council can meet, immediate self-defence is allowed." Neither of those two categories applied here. So, it was clearly an illegal act."

link

[Apr 21, 2018] The couple Merkel/Sauer knows exactly how to evaluate that so-called evidence in Douma false flag

Apr 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hmpf | Apr 20, 2018 5:51:46 AM | 165

@163 WillyW

Angela Merkel is not stupid - things are way worth than that.
She's got a PhD in physical chemistry, and what's rather mind-boggling in that context is the fact that her husband Joachim Sauer is a professor of chemistry and one of the worlds foremost experts in surface chemistry.
In the 2000s this guy was in the top 30 list of the worlds most extinguished chemists - let that sink in for a second.
The couple Merkel/Sauer knows exactly how to evaluate that so-called evidence, yet... - as I said the situation is way worse as generally anticipated.

[Apr 21, 2018] CIA, MI6 and rebels: Rebels can be genuine protesters but they will brutally used by CIA and MI6 for nefarious purposes

Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

junglecitizen -> LeftOrRightSameShite , 13 Apr 2018 15:44

We, along with the US, France and Gulf states have supported, armed and trained "rebels" in Syria the whole time. We've had, as have others, special forces operating inside Syria


So, there would never be rebellions against totalitarian dictators if it weren't for the CIA and MI6.

I don't buy this. It's very convenient if you're an anti-war person who doesn't want to face an ethical dilemma. But it's not real.

[Apr 21, 2018] Timber Sycamore

A classified U.S. State Department cable signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reported that Saudi donors were a major support for Sunni militant forces globally, and some American officials worried that rebels being supported had ties to Al Qaeda.[14]
Notable quotes:
"... Read more at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore ..."
Apr 21, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Timber Sycamore 20/04/2018 Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by various Arab intelligence services, most notably that of Saudi Arabia . Launched in 2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War . According to U.S. officials, the program has trained thousands of rebels. President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming Syria's embattled rebels in 2013. [3] However, the CIA had been facilitating the flow of arms from Libya to Syria "for more than a year" beforehand in collaboration with "the UK ( United Kingdom ), Saudi Arabia and Qatar ."

The program's existence was suspected after the U.S. Federal Business Opportunities website publicly solicited contract bids to ship tons of weaponry from Eastern Europe to Taşucu , Turkey and Aqaba , Jordan. One unintended consequence of the program has been to flood the Middle East's black market with weapons including assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. The U.S. delivered weapons via Ramstein – supposedly in breach of German laws.

In July 2017, U.S. officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out, with funds possibly redirected to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or to offering rebel forces defensive capabilities.

... ... ...

According to American officials, the program has been highly effective, training and equipping thousands of U.S.-backed fighters to make substantial battlefield gains.[2][19] American officials state that the program began to lose effectiveness after Russia intervened militarily in the Syrian Civil War.[19] David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post, remarked that while the CIA program ultimately failed in its objective of removing Assad from power, it was hardly "bootless": "The program pumped many hundreds of millions of dollars to many dozens of militia groups. One knowledgeable official estimates that the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years."[8]

... ... ...

U.S.-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front, and some of the U.S. supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when the program was first proposed.[10]

... ... ...

The program remains classified,[14][10] and many details about the program remain unknown, including the total amount of support, the range of weapons transferred, the depth of training provided, the types of U.S. trainers involved, and the exact rebel groups being supported.[18] However, The Canberra Times reported that two thousand tons of Soviet era weapons were delivered to Aqaba as recently as April 2016.

Read more at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

[Apr 21, 2018] How about some basic honesty about the role the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war

Notable quotes:
"... How about some basic honesty about the role the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know, might just be incredibly effective ..."
"... Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure, but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years? ..."
"... For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an end ..."
"... Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical reasons. ..."
Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

HoublaHoubla , 13 Apr 2018 14:44

Here's an idea Jonathan for another solution. How about some basic honesty about the role the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know, might just be incredibly effective
notndmushroom , 13 Apr 2018 14:42

But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people

Why not? We're watching Israelis shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians, we're watching our favourite Saudis bomb and kill Yemeni civilians, we're watching our Nobel-winning inspirational Myanmar leader oversee the persecution, massacre and forced displacement of an entire people, we're watching the North Korean leader oppress and starve his people while stepping closer to a nuclear war against a currently volatile superpower, we're watching the Philipino head of state launching a literal war against low-level drug dealers and junkies, we're watching several central Asian dictators imprison and torture dissidents and oppress their people while robbing them of their national wealth, we're watching the Chinese and Russian leaders do pretty much the same, we're watching the Turkish leader kidnap dissidents from EU countries, imprison thousands of alleged dissidents and invade a neighbouring country to fight against part of said countries' inhabitants, we're watching corrupt politicians, media and judges completing the final touches of a coup in the fifth largest country in the world, and then there's Africa, which is a whole other chapter.

What specifically is it about Syria that made you decide that yeah, all these things are pretty bad, but that's the one thing we really have to do something about?

Perhaps that was why, five years ago, the House of Commons voted to leave the Assad regime untouched. Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than 400,000 have died since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction, too, can be deadly.

Inaction? Really? Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure, but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years?

fishandart , 13 Apr 2018 14:42
For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an end. Israel has to comply with UN resolutions and the US has to stop using its veto to block those resolutions that seek to make Israel comply to international standards of acceptable behaviour.

If we can't do that we can forget getting Assad or Putin or anyone else to respect anything we have to say. As it stands the so called West has no moral authority in the Middle East.

Ziontrain , 13 Apr 2018 14:41

But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people

Why is this supposed slaughter such an imperative when we seem to approve of and even profit from selling weapons to slaughters elsewhere in the region

Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical reasons.

[Apr 21, 2018] World War is Still in the Cards by Dan Glazebrook

Notable quotes:
"... Once underway, however, an Iranian-Israeli conflict could very easily draw in Russia and the US. ..."
"... Indeed, Putin reportedly warned Netanyahu last week that he can no longer expect to attack Syria with impunity. And once Israelis start getting killed by Russian hardware, it is hard to see how the US could not get involved. ..."
Apr 20, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Just over a quarter-century before the outbreak of the First World War, global capitalism was in the throes of a deep economic crisis. This original 'Great Depression', which lasted from 1873 to 1896, saw tens of millions perish from famine as the 'great powers' shifted the burden as far as possible onto their colonies; whilst, at home, anti-systemic movements such as the 'New Unionism' burst onto the scene in the capitalist heartlands, presenting a serious challenge to bourgeois rule. Africa was torn apart by imperial powers desperate to secure monopoly access to its riches, and rivalries between these powers constantly threatened to erupt into outright war. In the midst of all this, one particularly astute political commentator gave a disturbingly prophetic insight as to how the crisis would ultimately be resolved, predicting a: "world war of an extent and violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other's throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the Thirty Years War compressed into three or four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and people, in the wake of acute misery; irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of trade, industry and credit, ending in general bankruptcy; collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutter by the dozen, and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of seeing where it will all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle; only one consequence is absolutely certain: general exhaustion and the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working class."

The commentator was Marx's lifelong collaborator Friedrich Engels. The accuracy of his prediction – right down to the numbers killed and the length of the war, not to mention the revolutions and collapse of empires that would result – is truly remarkable. Yet Engels had no crystal ball. What he foresaw was nothing more than the logical outcome of the workings of the global capitalist-imperialist system, which constantly and inexorably pushes towards world war.

The logic is basically this. Capitalism, with its combination of rapid technological progress plus derisory wage payments – both tendencies a 'natural' result of competition – leads to a situation where markets cannot be found for its goods. This is because capital's capacity to produce constantly outstrips the capacity of consumers to consume, as these very consumers are, in the main, the very workers whose wages are driven down, or who are made redundant altogether, by improved technology. Ultimately, this results in a crisis of overproduction, with markets glutted, and workers thrown out of work in their millions. Already in 1848, four decades before his prediction of world war, Engels (and Marx) had written that such crises tended to be "resolved" through "the enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces" – in other words, the wholesale closure of industry. Through closures of the most inefficient industries, surplus production would eventually be reduced, and profitability restored. But in so doing, capitalists were effectively increasing the concentration of capital in the hands of the most 'efficient' industries, whose productive capacity in the future would render the underlying contradiction yet more insoluble still, and were thereby "paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and diminishing the means whereby crises are avoided". For Engels, the crisis underway by the 1880s was so extensive that the destruction of capital required to overcome it would take more than mere closures – it would take all-out war.

The destruction of capital, however, is not the only means by which to overcome overproduction crises. The other option, said Marx and Engels, is "the conquest of new markets or the more thorough exploitation of old ones". The period of the late-nineteenth century saw a renewed 'Scramble for Africa' as each imperial power sought to grab territories which might one day serve as both sources of raw materials and markets for surplus capital. In North America, the USA was completing its own colonisation of the West and South in imperial wars against the Native Americans and Mexico. By the close of the century, however, all the 'available' territories had been conquered. From then on in, argued Lenin, the capture of new colonies could only be at the expense of another colonial power – ushering in a new, imperial, phase of capitalism with an inbuilt drive towards world war.

We have now witnessed two episodes of this cycle of capitalist crisis mutating into world war, the second much more successful in terms of the destruction of capital than the first. Indeed it was so successful that it paved the way for a 'Golden Era' of capitalist prosperity lasting almost three decades. But then, once again, the inevitable crisis tendencies began to set in.

The colonial, imperialist nature of postwar capitalism has, to some extent, been disguised by the formal political independence of most of the formerly colonised world. With an unambiguous and unrivalled lead in technological capacity, the Western nations have not required direct colonisation in order to guarantee essentially 'captive' markets for their goods and capital. The former colonies have largely been dependent on products, finance and technology from the imperial world without the need for formal political control – and this dependence has been backed up with economic blackmail through international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank where possible, and direct military force against resistant nations where necessary.

Such dependence, however, has been decisively eroded since the beginning of the new millenium. The rise of China, in particular, has completely destroyed the West's monopoly on finance and market access for the global South: African, Asian and Latin American countries no longer have to rely on US markets for their goods or on World Bank loans for their infrastructure development. China is now an alternative provider of all these, and generally on far superior terms of trade than those offered by the West. In times of continued economic stagnation, however, this loss of their (neo)colonies is entirely unacceptable to the Western capitalist nations, and threatens the entire carefully crafted system of global extortion on which their own prosperity is based.

Increasingly unable to rely on economic coercion alone to keep countries within its 'sphere of influence', then, the West have been turning more and more to military force. Indeed, the US, UK and France have been permanently at war since the eve of the new millennium – starting with Yugoslavia, through Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Syria and Yemen (to say nothing of proxy wars such as that in the Congo, or the 'drone wars' waged in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere). In each case, the aim has been the same – to thwart the possibility of independent development. It is entirely indicative of this new era of decreasing economic power that several of these wars were waged against states whose leaders were once in the pocket of the US (Iraq and Afghanistan) or who they had hoped to buy off (Libya and Syria).

Thus, where it was once, at least in part, the product of productive superiority, the continued supremacy of the West in international affairs is increasingly reliant on military force alone. And even this military superiority is diminishing daily.

Predictions of the length of time left before the Chinese economy overtakes the US economy continue to shrink. In 2016, China's share of the world economy had grown to 15%, compared to the USA's 25%. But with a growth rate currently three times that of the USA, the difference is expected to decline rapidly; at this rate, the Chinese economy is on course to overtake that of the US by 2026 . In fact, once adjustments are made for purchasing power parity and differential prices, the Chinese economy is already larger . Furthermore, Chinese manufacturing output has been higher than that of the US for over a decade, and exports are one third higher, whilst China produces double the number of graduates annually than the US.

Such developments, however, are not of economic significance only: for it is only a matter of time before economic superiority is converted into military superiority. And this gives the US and its hangers-on an ever-diminishing window of opportunity in which to actually USE their military superiority in order to preserve their deteriorating global power.

Clearly the strategy hitherto has been to avoid direct war with China and its key ally Russia, and instead to focus on 'taking out' its real or potential allies amongst states less able to defend themselves. But Russia's role as a spoiler in the regime change operation in Syria has demonstrated to the US that this may no longer be possible. This has led to a split within the US ruling class on the issue of how to deal with Russia, with one side seeking to purchase Russian acquiescence to wars against Iran and China (advocated by the faction supporting Trump) and the other aiming to simply 'regime change' Russia itself (advocated by the Hillary faction). At the heart of both is the attempt to break the alliance between Russia and China, in the case of Hillary by pulling China away from Russia, and for Trump, pulling Russia away from China.

The point is, however, that neither strategy is likely to work, as clearly the breaking of the China-Russia axis is aimed at weakening both of them. Furthermore, even if Putin were prepared to ditch Iran, or even China, for the right price (such as lifting sanctions, or recognising Russian sovereignty over Crimea ), there is no way Congress would allow Trump to pay such a price. Trump would dearly love to offer to lift sanctions – but this is not within his gift; instead he can merely offer sops such as withdrawal from Syria, or pre-warning of missile attacks on Russia's allies – hardly enough to lure Russia into the suicidal severing of alliances with its most important allies.

This conundrum puts the unthinkable squarely on the agenda: direct war with Russia. The last month has shown clearly how, and how rapidly, this is developing. Britain's carefully calibrated efforts to create a worldwide diplomatic break with Russia can now clearly be seen as a prelude to what was almost certainly planned to be – and may yet become – an all-out war with Iran on the Syrian battlefield. This scenario appears to have been averted for now by Russia's refusal to countenance it, and the West's fear of launching such an operation in the face of direct Russian threats, but such incidents are only likely to increase. It is only a matter of time before Russia will be put to the test.

It is easy to see how the Syrian war could lead to a major escalation: indeed, it is difficult to see how it could not. In Washington, there is much talk of the need to 'confront' Iran in Syria, and recent Israeli attacks on Iranian positions in Syria indicate that they are itching to get this confrontation under way, with or without prior US approval. Once underway, however, an Iranian-Israeli conflict could very easily draw in Russia and the US. Russia could hardly be expected to stand back whilst Israel reversed all its hard fought gains of the past two and a half years – whilst demonstrating the feebleness of Russian 'protection' – and would likely retaliate, or at the very least (and more likely) provide its allies with the means to do so . Indeed, Putin reportedly warned Netanyahu last week that he can no longer expect to attack Syria with impunity. And once Israelis start getting killed by Russian hardware, it is hard to see how the US could not get involved.

This is just one possible scenario for the kind of escalation that would lead to war with Russia. Economic war with China is already underway, and US warships are already readying themselves to cut off China's supply lines in the South China Sea. Each specific provocation and escalation may or may not lead to a direct showdown with one or both of these powers. What is clear, however, is that this is the direction in which Western imperialism is clearly headed. It has built up its unparalleled armoury for one reason only – to protect its dominant world position. The time is soon coming when it will have to use it – and use it against a power that can actually fight back – whilst it still has a chance of winning.

An edited version of this article was originally published by Middle East Eye.

[Apr 21, 2018] Ruling Selling weapons like there is no tomorrow

Notable quotes:
"... Democracy Now ..."
"... much more blatant about it. He's shouting it from the rooftops ..."
Apr 21, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Trump's Establishment Sin: Being an Open and Unabashed Devil

It's the open crassness of Trump as much as his policy substance that bothers establishment operatives. Look at Trump's recent yucky White House sit-down with Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. You can view it on YouTube here . It's incredible. With MBS grinning sheepishly next to him, the Insane Clown President held up posters showing all the big-dollar weapons and war systems the Saudis are purchasing from the U.S. Trump brazenly boasted about Washington's $12.5 billion arms deal with the most reactionary government on the planet.

"That's peanuts for you," Trump chided the crown prince while dangling the posters under his nose. "Saudi Arabia is a very wealthy nation, and they're going to give the United States some of that wealth, hopefully, in the form of jobs, in the form of the purchase of the finest military equipment anywhere in the world," Trump told reporters. MBS looked embarrassed as Trump listed the prices of the weapons the U.S. was selling to the Saudis: "$880 million $645 million $6 billion that's for frigates."

The president sounded like a car dealer boasting about the bargains at Trump Ford-Mazda. It was ugly and humiliating for everyone involved and has been condemned in the dominant corporate media for its decadent unpleasantness.

Meanwhile, a recent Reuters exposé details, in the horrified words of Democracy Now 's Juan Gonzales :

"Trump administration plans to make the U.S. an even larger weapons exporter by loosening restrictions on the sale of equipment ranging from fighter jets and drones to warships and artillery. Reuters reveals that the new initiative will provide guidelines that could allow more countries to be granted faster deal approvals, and will call on Cabinet officials to help close deals between foreign governments and U.S. defense contractors The role U.S. Cabinet officials may be asked to play in pushing arms exports abroad as part of the new initiative, which will call for a 'whole of government' approach -- from the president and his Cabinet to military attachés and diplomats -- to help draw in billions of dollars more in arms business overseas."

So, do you think the Obama administrations sold arms to Saudi Arabia and other reactionary governments around the world? Do you think it enlisted Cabinet officials and U.S. diplomats in the project of advancing U.S. arms sales across a blood-drenched planet? If you answered "Hell yes it did" to both questions, then you are correct. Here is a forgotten story from the final days of the Obama administration, penned by Motherboard 's Farid Farid, who was understandably underwhelmed by Obama's suspension of the sale of one type of munition to the Saudis in early 2017:

Obama's Administration Sold More Weapons Than Any Other Since World War II

Many were sold to the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.

President Barack Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, will leave office in a few weeks with the dubious honor of having sold more weapons than any other American president since World War II. Most of the arms deals totaling over $200 billion in the period from 2008 to 2015 have ended up in the Middle East, according to a Congressional Research Service report published in December Focusing on arms deals to developing nations, the extensive report found that Saudi Arabia was the top arms importer with deals worth around $94 billion from 2008-2015. Under Obama the overall sales, pending delivery of equipment and specialized training for troops, to Saudi Arabia alone has ballooned to $115 billion.

Saudi Arabia is spearheading a coalition of Arab nations in a bombing campaign closing in on two years against the insurgent Houthi militias in Yemen, who took over the capital Sanaa in September 2014. The United States has sent special operations forces to assist the Arab coalition in a grinding war that has seen over 10,000 killed, 2.2 million displaced and nearly half a million children on the brink of famine from the ensuing crisis.

Earlier this month, the United States decided to halt future sales of precision-guided munitions, which are supposed to hit specific targets and minimize collateral damage, to the Gulf kingdom citing civilian deaths in Yemen. But experts are skeptical this will deter Saudi Arabia from continuing to fuel its regional proxy wars.

"Frankly it was a really minor and temporary punishment. I don't view it as a major consequence and it is more symbolic than anything," said Cole Bockenfeld, deputy director of policy at Project on Middle East Democracy.

He pointed to the US partially suspending military aid to Egypt after the military overthrew the unpopular government in July 2013 as another example of the lack of political will of the Obama administration to rock relations with its allies. The Congressional report, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations 2008-2015, noted that Egypt was the biggest recipient of arms deliveries last year worth $5.3 billion.

"What's changed during the Obama administration is that increasing arms sales has become a standardized component of diplomacy at all levels of government, not just in the defense department," Bockenfeld told Motherboard. "For US diplomats to become the salesmen, that has been a new element which really increased exports."

What's the main difference between Trump and Obama when it comes to U.S. arms sales abroad? As the noted liberal arms trade analyst William Hartung told DN's Amy Goodman this week , "Well, [Trump's] much more blatant about it. He's shouting it from the rooftops . He's playing a very personal role .he held up a chart [during his appalling meeting before reporters with MBS] that showed 40,000 jobs from Saudi arms sales, and it showed the states, and they were all the swing states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida. So, among other things, not only is this a business proposition for Trump, but it's a blatant political move to shore up his base."

So here's an interesting question: which is worse – (a) quietly equipping the most reactionary government on Earth and much of the rest of the world with lethal, high-tech means of mass destruction while posing as some kind of progressive and noble peace agent or (b) loudly equipping the most reactionary government on Earth and much of the rest of the world with lethal, high-tech means of mass destruction while boasting about the resulting revenue and jobs to reporters and your white-nationalist political base?

Something tells me the Yemeni victims of Riyadh's U.S.- made bombs, missiles, bullets, and artillery don't care all that much either way.

[Apr 20, 2018] Haley has been an embarrassment for the US at the UN. It was thought that Haley could not be worse than Samantha Power, but she proved otherwise

Apr 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website April 19, 2018 at 12:56 pm GMT

Pretty much agree with the above article that brings into play points raised in this piece from 2015:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/09/answering-russia-critics-on-syria.html

Unsurprising to see the likes of CNN and MSNBC siding with Haley. Trump should've dumped her awhile back. Contrary to the CNN/MSNBC spin, she has been an embarrassment for the US at the UN. Upon her UN appointment, it was thought that Haley couldn't be worse than Samantha Power.

During his presidential bid, Trump spoke of bringing in competent non-establishment types. The case for Jim Jatras as UN ambassador:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/04/11/latest-bump-in-us-russian-relations.html

As noted, Tulsi Gabbard would've been a good selection as well.

The US didn't challenge Russia's more updated missile defense system in Syria shielding Russian forces. It's not like Washington can control everything.

Through their anti-Syrian proxies, the US has a roughly 30% control of Syria. A few days before the most recent alleged Syrian government chemical attack, Trump said he wanted out of Syria. I believe he was either duped into bombing, or knows that the chemical weapon claim is in the very suspect/outright BS ranges of probality.

Related:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/04/17/latest-atlanticist-tough-guy-act.html

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/04/13/cruising-for-bruising-with-russia.html

At least one thing seems to have become clear. The enthusiasm for Trump fostering improved US-Russian relations has diminished.

Pardon some Captain Obvious moments.

[Apr 20, 2018] The United States, fully aware it was Iraq who gased Kurds, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."

Apr 20, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Andersie , 13 Apr 2018 14:45

I've just stumbled on this absolute gem, from the New York Times, 17/1/2003:

"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show

(1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja [a 1988 chemical attack on Kurdish villages that killed 5000 civilians], and

(2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."

[Apr 20, 2018] The most simple explanation for the disaster in Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international contingent of mercenaries.

Apr 20, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

harveybrown , 13 Apr 2018 15:37

In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media."

[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been, by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences* required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).

Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]

Jay_Q123 , 13 Apr 2018 15:36
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?

The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's, what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.

I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against civilians and completely out of context with reality.

Check out Operation Timber Sycamore for more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

[Apr 20, 2018] The Great Game Comes to Syria by Conn Hallinan

Apr 20, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

An unusual triple alliance is emerging from the Syrian war, one that could alter the balance of power in the Middle East, unhinge the NATO alliance, and complicate the Trump administration's designs on Iran. It might also lead to yet another double cross of one of the region's largest ethnic groups, the Kurds.

However, the "troika alliance" -- Turkey, Russia and Iran -- consists of three countries that don't much like one another, have different goals, and whose policies are driven by a combination of geo-global goals and internal politics. In short, "fragile and complicated" doesn't even begin to describe it.

How the triad might be affected by the joint U.S., French and British attack on Syria is unclear, but in the long run the alliance will likely survive the uptick of hostilities.

But common ground was what came out of the April 4 meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meeting in Ankara, the parties pledged to support the "territorial integrity" of Syria, find a diplomatic end to the war, and to begin a reconstruction of a Syria devastated by seven years of war. While Russia and Turkey explicitly backed the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, Iran was quiet on that issue, preferring a regional solution without "foreign plans."

"Common ground," however, doesn't mean the members of the "troika" are on the same page.

Turkey's interests are both internal and external. The Turkish Army is currently conducting two military operations in northern Syria, Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield, aimed at driving the mainly Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) out of land that borders Turkey. But those operations are also deeply entwined with Turkish politics.

Erdogan's internal support has been eroded by a number of factors: exhaustion with the ongoing state of emergency imposed following the 2016 attempted coup, a shaky economy , and a precipitous fall in the value of the Turkish pound. Rather than waiting for 2019, Erdogan called for snap elections this past week and beating up on the Kurds is always popular with right-wing Turkish nationalists. Erdogan needs all the votes he can get to imlement his newly minted executive presidency that will give him virtually one-man rule.

To be part of the alliance, however, Erdogan has had to modify his goal of getting rid of Syrian President Bashar Assad and to agree -- at this point, anyhow -- to eventually withdraw from areas in northern Syria seized by the Turkish Army. Russia and Iran have called for turning over the regions conquered by the Turks to the Syrian Army.

Moscow's goals are to keep a foothold in the Middle East with its only base, Tartus, and to aid its long-time ally, Syria. The Russians are not deeply committed to Assad personally, but they want a friendly government in Damascus. They also want to destroy al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, which have caused Moscow considerable trouble in the Caucasus.

Russia also wouldn't mind driving a wedge between Ankara and NATO. After the U.S., Turkey has NATO's second largest army. NATO broke a 1989 agreement not to recruit former members of the Russian-dominated Warsaw Pact into NATO as a quid pro quo for the Soviets withdrawing from Eastern Europe. But since the Yugoslav War in 1999 the alliance has marched right up to the borders of Russia. The 2008 war with Georgia and 2014 seizure of the Crimea were largely a reaction to what Moscow sees as an encirclement strategy by its adversaries.

Turkey has been at odds with its NATO allies around a dispute between Greece and Cyprus over sea-based oil and gas resources , and it recently charged two Greek soldiers who violated the Turkish border with espionage. Erdogan is also angry that European Union countries refuse to extradite Turkish soldiers and civilians who he claims helped engineer the 2016 coup against him. While most NATO countries condemned Moscow for the recent attack on two Russians in Britain, the Turks pointedly did not .

Turkish relations with Russia have an economic side as well. Ankara want a natural gas pipeline from Russia, has broken ground on a $20 billion Russian nuclear reactor, and just shelled out $2.5 billion for Russia's S-400 anti-aircraft system.

The Russians do not support Erdogan's war on the Kurds and have lobbied for the inclusion of Kurdish delegations in negotiations over the future of Syria. But Moscow clearly gave the Turks a green light to attack the Kurdish city of Afrin last month, driving out the YPG that had liberated it from the Islamic State and Turkish-backed al-Qaeda groups. A number of Kurds charge that Moscow has betrayed them .

The question now is, will the Russians stand aside if the Turkish forces move further into Syria and attack the city of Manbij, where the Kurds are allied with U.S. and French forces? And will Erdogan's hostility to the Kurds lead to an armed clash among three NATO members?

Such a clash seems unlikely, although the Turks have been giving flamethrower speeches over the past several weeks. "Those who cooperate with terrorists organizations [the YPG] will be targeted by Turkey," says Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said in a pointed reference to France's support for the Kurds. Threatening the French is one thing, picking a fight with the U.S. military quite another.

Of course, if President Trump pulls U.S. forces out of Syria, it will be tempting for Turkey to move in. While the "troika alliance" has agreed to Syrian "sovereignty," that won't stop Ankara from meddling in Kurdish affairs. The Turks are already appointing governors and mayors for the areas in Syria they have occupied.

Iran's major concern in Syria is maintaining a buffer between itself and a very aggressive alliance of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, which seems to be in the preliminary stages of planning a war against the second-largest country in the Middle East.

Iran is not at all the threat it has been pumped up to be. Its military is miniscule and talk of a so-called "Shiite crescent" -- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon -- is pretty much a western invention (although the term was dreamed up by the King of Jordan).

Tehran has been weakened by crippling sanctions and faces the possibility that Washington will withdraw from the nuclear accord and re-impose yet more sanctions. The appointment of National Security Advisor John Bolton, who openly calls for regime change in Iran, has to have sent a chill down the spines of the Iranians. What Tehran needs most of all is allies who will shield it from the enmity of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, Turkey and Russia could be helpful.

Iran has modified its original goals in Syria of a Shiite-dominated regime by agreeing to a "non-sectarian character" for a post-war Syria. Erdogan has also given up on his desire for a Sunni-dominated government in Damascus.

War with Iran would be catastrophic, an unwinnable conflict that could destabilize the Middle East even more than it is now. It would, however, drive up the price of oil, currently running at around $66 a barrel. Saudi Arabia needs to sell its oil for at least $100 a barrel, or it will very quickly run of money. The on-going quagmire of the Yemen war, the need to diversify the economy, and the growing clamor by young Saudis -- 70 percent of the population -- for jobs requires lots of money, and the current trends in oil pricing are not going to cover the bills.

War and oil make for odd bedfellows . While the Saudis are doing their best to overthrow the Assad regime and fuel the extremists fighting the Russians, Riyadh is wooing Moscow to sign onto to a long-term OPEC agreement to control oil supplies. That probably won't happen -- the Russians are fine with oil at $50 to $60 a barrel -- and are wary of agreements that would restrict their right to develop new oil and gas resources. The Saudi's jihad on the Iranians has a desperate edge to it, as well it might. The greatest threat to the Kingdom has always come from within.

The rocks and shoals that can wreck alliances in the Middle East are too numerous to count, and the "troika" is riven with contradictions and conflicting interests. But the war in Syria looks as if it is coming to some kind of resolution, and at this point Iran, Russia and Turkey seem to be the only actors who have a script that goes beyond lobbing cruise missiles at people.

[Apr 20, 2018] The United States, fully aware it was Iraq who gased Kurds, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."

Apr 20, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Andersie , 13 Apr 2018 14:45

I've just stumbled on this absolute gem, from the New York Times, 17/1/2003:

"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show

(1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja [a 1988 chemical attack on Kurdish villages that killed 5000 civilians], and

(2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."

[Apr 20, 2018] The USA and WMD

Apr 20, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Justin Thyme , 13 Apr 2018 15:31

The USA and WMD

@S

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.

1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.

This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!

[Apr 20, 2018] Haley has been an embarrassment for the US at the UN. It was thought that Haley could not be worse than Samantha Power, but she proved otherwise

Apr 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website April 19, 2018 at 12:56 pm GMT

Pretty much agree with the above article that brings into play points raised in this piece from 2015:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/09/answering-russia-critics-on-syria.html

Unsurprising to see the likes of CNN and MSNBC siding with Haley. Trump should've dumped her awhile back. Contrary to the CNN/MSNBC spin, she has been an embarrassment for the US at the UN. Upon her UN appointment, it was thought that Haley couldn't be worse than Samantha Power.

During his presidential bid, Trump spoke of bringing in competent non-establishment types. The case for Jim Jatras as UN ambassador:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/04/11/latest-bump-in-us-russian-relations.html

As noted, Tulsi Gabbard would've been a good selection as well.

The US didn't challenge Russia's more updated missile defense system in Syria shielding Russian forces. It's not like Washington can control everything.

Through their anti-Syrian proxies, the US has a roughly 30% control of Syria. A few days before the most recent alleged Syrian government chemical attack, Trump said he wanted out of Syria. I believe he was either duped into bombing, or knows that the chemical weapon claim is in the very suspect/outright BS ranges of probality.

Related:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/04/17/latest-atlanticist-tough-guy-act.html

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/04/13/cruising-for-bruising-with-russia.html

At least one thing seems to have become clear. The enthusiasm for Trump fostering improved US-Russian relations has diminished.

Pardon some Captain Obvious moments.

[Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called 'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. ..."
"... But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as " bloodthirsty ..."
"... British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty. ..."
"... Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. ..."
"... Islamic resistance ..."
"... We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed. ..."
"... Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed to return to the UK thereafter. ..."
"... This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has veered between the ludicrous and the reckless. ..."
"... As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS (whom it was later reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra and Jaysh al-Islam. ..."
"... The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its allies with Russian support. ..."
Apr 20, 2018 | www.rt.com

Britain's strategic relationship with radical Islam goes back decades and continues to this day. There is no more foul a stench than the stench of hypocrisy, and there is no more foul a hypocrisy than the British government painting Bashar al-Assad as a monster when in truth he and the Syrian people have been grappling with a twin-headed monster in the shape of Salafi-jihadi terror and Western imperialism. Both are committed to destroying Syria as an independent, non-sectarian state, and both are inextricably linked.

Author and journalist Mark Curtis charts in detail the contours of this history in his book 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam':

" British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called 'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. "

As far back as the First World War, when the Middle East began to assume strategic importance in the capitals of Western imperial and colonial powers, the British ruling class went out of its way to identify and recruit loyal local proxies in pursuit of its regional objectives. Britain's relationship with the Arab tribal chief, Ibn Saud, who would go on to establish Saudi Arabia in the early 1930s, began in 1915 with the Darin Pact, demarcating the territory then controlled by Saud as a British protectorate.

The following year, the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans erupted. Begun and inspired by Saud's fierce rival, Sharif Hussein, head of the Hashemite Arab tribe, the revolt was heavily bankrolled and supported by the British – a period immortalized in the exploits of British military agent T E Lawrence, known to the world as Lawrence of Arabia.

But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as " bloodthirsty " and " intolerant ." Regardless, when it came to its imperial interests there was no tiger upon whose back the British ruling class was not willing to ride during this period, and which, as events have proved, it has not been willing to ride since.

The most egregious example of this policy, one that continues to have ramifications today, was the support provided by the UK to the Afghan mujahideen in the late 1970s and 1980s. The insurgency's objective was the overthrow of Kabul's secular and left-leaning government, whose crime in the eyes of the Islamist insurgency's US and UK sponsors was that it had embraced the social and economic model of Moscow rather than Washington during the first Cold War.

British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty.

Mark Curtis again:

" Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. "

While Washington's primary role in channeling military and financial support to the Afghan mujahideen, known as Operation Cyclone , may until have succeeded in overshadowing London's role in this dirty war, declassified British government cabinet papers which were made public in 2010 and reported in the UK media make grim reading.

They reveal that three weeks after Soviet forces arrived in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government in Kabul, struggling to deal with an insurgency that had broken out in the countryside, the Thatcher government was planning to supply military aid to the " Islamic resistance ." A confidential government memo provides a chilling insight into the insanity that passed for official policy: " We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed. "

It will be recalled that out of the ensuing collapse of Afghanistan emerged the Taliban, under whose rule the country was turned into a vast militant jihadist school and training camp. Many of the most notorious Islamist terrorists began their careers there, fighting the Soviets and then later broadening out their activities to other parts of the region and wider world. In this regard, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda loom large.

Other notorious names from the world of Salafi-jihadism for whom Afghanistan proved indispensable include the Jordanian Abu al-Zarqawi, who founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during the US-UK occupation, an organization that would over time morph into ISIS.

Abdelhakim Belhaj and other Libyan Islamists cut their jihadist teeth in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Returning to Libya, they formed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in the eastern city of Benghazi. Though the group may have been disbanded in 2010, having failed to topple Gaddafi despite repeated attempts to assassinate the Libyan leader with, it's been claimed , the support of Britain's MI6, former members of the LIFG, including Belhaj, were important actors in the 2011 Libyan uprising.

By way of a reminder, the uprising in Libya started in Benghazi and would not have succeeded without the air support it received from NATO. Britain's then prime minister, David Cameron, was key in pushing for that air support and the sanction of the UN under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1973. Though protecting civilians was central in wording of this UNSC resolution, it was shamefully distorted to justify regime change, culminating in Gaddafi's murder by the 'rebels.'

Staying with the LIFG, in the wake of the Manchester suicide-bomb attack in May 2017, which left 23 people dead and 500 injured, the fact that the bomber, a young Libyan by the name of Salman Abedi, was the son of a former member of the LIFG, did not receive anything like the media attention it should have at the time.

Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed to return to the UK thereafter.

This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has veered between the ludicrous and the reckless.

Emblematic of the former was ex-prime minister David Cameron's claim , which he made during a 2015 Commons debate over whether the Royal Air Force should engage in air strikes against ISIS in Syria, that fighting as part of the Syrian were 70,000 moderates.

As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS (whom it was later reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra and Jaysh al-Islam.

The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its allies with Russian support.

Given the deep and longstanding ties between London and Riyadh; given the fact, reported towards the end of 2017, that British military personnel were embedded in a training role with Saudi forces in Yemen; given the news that a British special forces sergeant was killed in northern Syria at the end of March this year while embedded with the Kurds, revealing for the first time that British troops were operating in the country on the ground – given all that, the question of who else British special forces and military personnel may be embedded with in Syria is legitimate.

In the context of the British state's long and sordid history when it comes to riding the back of radical Islam in pursuit of its strategic objectives, readers will doubtless draw their own conclusions.

Read more

John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. John is currently working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on Twitter @JohnWight1

[Apr 19, 2018] Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.

Notable quotes:
"... So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry. His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days ..."
Apr 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , April 19, 2018 at 1:53 am GMT

Iran doesn't want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this. Trump pulls out. Rest remains same. This will give Iran moral political and legal authorities to pursue its nuclear program with China and Russia.

This will have domino effects on other areas of these 3 countries -- how to conduct business internationally.

So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry. His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days . Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.

[Apr 19, 2018] Looks like Pompeo is compete idiot despite hs Harvard degree

Apr 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

RJJCDA , April 19, 2018 at 12:03 am GMT

At Sec. St. nomination hearing, Pompeo bragged that "we had killed a couple of hundred Russian contractors." As a former civilian contractor in a war zone, I note that he just put a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone. It is now open season on them. Who will have blood on their hands?

[Apr 19, 2018] Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party she herself lacked both the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself

Judging from German press, Germany really looks like a US colony, not even vassal state.
Notable quotes:
"... She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party. ..."
"... Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. ..."
"... Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon brainwashing. ..."
Apr 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

WorkingClass , April 17, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT

The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn. Time is working against Imperial Washington.

Mike P , April 18, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

German expat here.

Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party -- she herself lacked both the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.

Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections -- funny how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.

Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.

Avery , April 18, 2018 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Mike P

Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon brainwashing.

There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.

Mike P , April 18, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@Avery

Merkel's party has no majority – actually her party's share of the vote is at historic lows with less than one third (traditionally it was 45-50%). She has moved that formerly conservative party to the left by co-opting green and welfare agendas of the competing parties. The other formerly strong party, the Social Democrats, have been reduced to a status of auxiliaries in an eternal "grand coalition". In spite of infighting, the new "right-wing" AfD came in third in the last elections.

But of course, as you say, the people's failure to get rid of her is due in large measure to relentless media brainwashing, they swallow the refugee nonsense because it is subliminally suggested that it atones for the "holocaust" etc. I don't read a single German newspaper anymore, the manure is just too depressing.

Sean , April 18, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT
@Mike P

Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve of Merkel.

Mike P , April 18, 2018 at 9:47 pm GMT
@Sean

What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.

You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause the U.S. to "ask" for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that – can't deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go along for the next war so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.

[Apr 19, 2018] The Corrupt U.S. Congress Cheers as the War Industry Steals Billions from the People's Coffers !

Apr 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

S. N. , April 19, 2018 at 12:43 am GMT

The Corrupt U.S. Congress Cheers as the War Industry Steals Billions from the People's Coffers !

Christian Sorensen | April 13, 2018

"Missile Production Capacity

In February, Newsbud reported on the war industry increasing its capacity to produce Hellfire missiles.

Capacity to produce other missile types is expanding as well.

On 6 March 2018, BAE Systems received close to $13.7 million to help increase production capacity of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). With its headquarters in London, BAE Systems links the U.K. war industry to the United States, effectively underpinning the 'special relationship' between the two countries.

On 19 March 2018, Raytheon received roughly $7.8 million to improve the production capacity of AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles. Steps Raytheon might take to increase missile production include adding more equipment, altering staffing levels, and upgrading its facilities.

The war industry has been operating at full steam for the past seventeen years. Now, these contracts tell us, the boardrooms of prominent war industry giants believe there is reason to produce more Hellfire, APKWS, and Sidewinder missiles. Is it war with Iran? A bigger offensive against President Assad's forces in Syria? Conflict in Korea?

The U.S. war industry is expecting more sustained, high-tempo hostilities in the near future. You've been warned."

https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/13/the-corrupt-u-s-congress-cheers-as-the-war-industry-steals-billions-from-the-peoples-coffers/

[Apr 19, 2018] Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.

Notable quotes:
"... So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry. His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days ..."
Apr 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , April 19, 2018 at 1:53 am GMT

Iran doesn't want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this. Trump pulls out. Rest remains same. This will give Iran moral political and legal authorities to pursue its nuclear program with China and Russia.

This will have domino effects on other areas of these 3 countries -- how to conduct business internationally.

So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry. His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days . Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.

[Apr 18, 2018] How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!

Notable quotes:
"... "She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all." ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dh | Apr 17, 2018 8:47:50 PM | 65

Confused!!! How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!

>White House press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted more sanctions were merely under consideration. On Tuesday, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Haley "got ahead of the curve."

"She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all."

Haley, speaking for the first time since the White House dialed back her claims, rejected the idea that she was confused.

"With all due respect, I don't get confused," Haley said in a statement read by Fox News' Dana Perino and confirmed by CBS News Tuesday.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/with-all-due-respect-i-dont-get-confused-nikki-haley-says-of-russia-sanctions/

[Apr 18, 2018] Comey Calls McCabe A Liar, McCabe's Attorney Fires Back Zero Hedge

Apr 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

A massive battle is brewing between former FBI Director James Comey, and his deputy Andy McCabe - as first noted a few weeks ago by the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross - over exactly who is lying about Comey knowing that McCabe had been leaking self-serving information to the Wall Street Journal .

Comey stopped by ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty Loyalty, where he called his former Deputy Andrew McCabe a liar , and admitted that he "ordered the report" which found McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several times.

Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have "confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.

" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "

Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.

"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so. As a reminder, the Justice Department's internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released a report last week detailing his conclusions from the months-long probe of McCabe, which found that the former acting FBI Director leaked a self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath .

In response, McCabe's attorney, Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the disgraced Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .

" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part. So to review , McCabe was fired when it was uncovered that he authorized an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal , just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.

The WSJ article in question reads:

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.

...

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case .

So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.

Did McCabe in fact tell Comey about the leaks?

Is Comey losing his " boyscoutish " charm?

Will McCabe and Comey face justice following Wednesday's criminal referral to the DOJ?

Find out on the next episode of bickering bureaucrats...

... ... ...

[Apr 18, 2018] Ever heard of the British Army s 77th Brigade?

Notable quotes:
"... It turns out that news reports citing UOSSM tend *also* to cite or refer to "French intelligence," especially if the report has to do with local conditions or events within Syria. So perhaps the "partnership" between the UOSSM and the White Helmets in Syria represents, in large part, the coordination of British and French military propaganda/intelligence services ..."
"... I had already heard that French intelligence was using Doctors Without Borders (MSF) as cover in Syria, but was not aware that UOSSM in Syria is likely--at least in part--another French intelligence front. ..."
"... My own impression is that the NGO-ification of military and state intelligence of the degree and sophistication we see in Syria is a relatively recent phenomenon, predicated in part on the disseminating capacities of social media platforms. Is this right? ..."
"... My wife and I stopped donating to MSF a few months ago, based on their evident lack of neutrality in Syria. ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Pat Lang Mod -> Wj , a day ago

Ever heard of the British Army's 77th Brigade?
Wj -> Pat Lang , a day ago
PLang,

No, but you just sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole. From what I can tell, there is the already established link between White Helmets and Mayday Rescue, which seems to be an extension of or front for the 77th.

It turns out that news reports citing UOSSM tend *also* to cite or refer to "French intelligence," especially if the report has to do with local conditions or events within Syria. So perhaps the "partnership" between the UOSSM and the White Helmets in Syria represents, in large part, the coordination of British and French military propaganda/intelligence services.

I had already heard that French intelligence was using Doctors Without Borders (MSF) as cover in Syria, but was not aware that UOSSM in Syria is likely--at least in part--another French intelligence front. How common is this kind of multinational coordination of intelligence/propaganda front groups, if that is what this is?

My own impression is that the NGO-ification of military and state intelligence of the degree and sophistication we see in Syria is a relatively recent phenomenon, predicated in part on the disseminating capacities of social media platforms. Is this right?

TTG -> Wj , a day ago
Wj,

"How common is this kind of multinational coordination of intelligence/propaganda front groups, if that is what this is?"

The coordination and interoperability among these special operations units is intense and has grown rapidly over the last decade. Even in the 80s this joint combined exchange training was the norm. Now it extends into live operations.

This 77th Brigade is an odd mashup linking civil affairs and PSYOP capabilities, but kept within the Tier 1 special operations community. I never heard of it before, but it's a logical progression. We probably have a similar military capability, but i have no idea what it is.

JJackson -> TTG , a day ago
I note it also has close links to the close ties with the 361st Civil Affairs Brigade.
Peter C. -> Wj , 7 hours ago
My wife and I stopped donating to MSF a few months ago, based on their evident lack of neutrality in Syria. The reply from their Donor Relations office did nothing to dispel that impression. In it, MSF admitted that "extreme insecurity has forced us to remove our medical teams from the front lines of the conflict. As a result, in order to do what we can to help alleviate the suffering of Syrians, we have partnered with several hospitals and medical clinics to provide support, with medical supplies and expertise from a distance...Though our teams may not be physically present on the front lines, we receive regular reports..."

I think we can guess who those "reports" are from.

[Apr 18, 2018] I believe Stoicism has a great deal of value for modern man.

Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Rob from Canada on April 15, 2018 , · at 5:39 pm UTC

In my opinion, the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality, that it's the centre of the personality and in control. It's just the centre of the field of consciousness.

I believe Stoicism has a great deal of value for modern man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5897dMWJiSM&t=333s

"The axiom of Maria. A precept in alchemy: "One becomes two, two becomes three, and out of the third comes the one as the fourth."
Jung used the axiom of Maria as a metaphor for the whole process of individuation. One is the original state of unconscious wholeness; two signifies the conflict between opposites; three points to a potential resolution; the third is the transcendent function; and the one as the fourth is a transformed state of consciousness, relatively whole and at peace."

­
Stuart Harlan Doblin on April 16, 2018 , · at 5:43 pm UTC
Good Day Rob from Canada – Stuart says, "Hi".

"In my opinion, the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality, that it's the centre of the personality and in control. It's just the centre of the field of consciousness."

Stuart begins: Our ego is a vestigal organ, long since gone by the by, and all that remains is a cell-wall-less gooey-plasma ready at the moment to luminesce and retire into nothingness.

I take it as axiotmatic that our Whole Mind cannot lose it Self.

OK, Rob from Canada, now to your opinions:

One: "the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality".
Two: "(the ego is) the centre of the personality".
Three: "(the ego is) in control".
Four: "(the ego) is the centre of the field of consciousness".

Regarding Point One: Please explain how fracturing an entirely mistaken ideal can lead to dualism and not chaos?
Two: "Who says?"
Three: "Of What?"
Four: An unconscious ideal cannot attain consciousness, except in illusions.

Barry on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:46 pm UTC
Hi Stuart! Here's my take on the issue of ego being mental, and from my own experience it is correct. With very little practice one can observe his thoughts and internal dialogue. It doesn't require meditation. It's simply a matter of paying attention to our internal dialogue. We all talk to ourselves. That internal dialogue is the ego talking to itself. The ego is a mental construction based on the brain's interpretation of it's experience since birth. So what are we witnessing the ego's internal dialogue and thoughts with? That's where our "spirituality" lies, regardless of religion or no religion. We all have immediate access to the witness to our own ego but few use it. The "witness" is silent. It observes and knows, but doesn't know how or why it knows. Call it "knowingness". That witnessing awareness is silent. Zen Buddhists call it the practice of "no mind". In modern sports it's called being in "The Zone". Though silent is is a very aware state of consciousness.
Instead of using our brain to think when we want to use it to think, we let the brain's ego think us and think our lives for us. Our ego is our own worst enemy. The ego never sees the "big picture" of all involved. The ego/mind is always insecure and spends it's life trying to compensate is some way or another to overcome it's basic insecurity.
Humans for the most part, identify with their mental chatter (the ego). Any real spiritual teaching, teaches us to identify, instead, with the observer of the ego, which is transcending the ego.
All the problems we face on this planet are because of insecure individual egos, grouping to form tribal egos, such as tribes of nationalism, tribes of religious beliefs, tribes of political beliefs, tribes of sports team fans. Egos tend to be competitive and want to be "one up" in some way. One can easily see that the party of Democrats has an ego identity as does the party of Republicans. Egos are mental creations. Mental creations are not necessarily true. They are beliefs about our perception, whether actually correct or not. The witness or observer we all have and share knows the truth of the moment and the appropriate action to take. Of all the books on Spiritual Practices I've read through the years (I'm 80), I recommend Eckhart Tolle's "The Power Of Now". The best to you!
Stiv R on April 16, 2018 , · at 1:59 am UTC
To Barry, thank you for your post. I have read Tolle's book too, about 8 years ago, and found it really making good sense to me. Your explanation of our internal dialogue not being who we really are, is very clear and well-said. These can be hard concepts to get one's head around. You did an admirable job of it in your post.
Thanks again for posting your thoughts.
Anonymous on April 16, 2018 , · at 5:12 am UTC
Insecure group think problems at the crux of existence.

Simple, profound and, also from my experience, true.

Thank you Barry.

Stuart Harlan Doblin on April 16, 2018 , · at 5:35 pm UTC
Barry, I pride myself in speaking to an octogenarian! "And from my own experience" .

"Here's my take on the issue of ego being mental, and from my own experience it is correct. With very little practice one can observe his thoughts and internal dialogue. It doesn't require meditation. It's simply a matter of paying attention to our internal dialogue. We all talk to ourselves. That internal dialogue is the ego talking to itself. The ego is a mental construction based on the brain's interpretation of it's experience since birth."

Barry, the internal dialogue of what you speak, is to me, your conscience and your inner self, not the ego talking to a hallucination of itself; for what can an illusion manifest but more illusions of : it : self.

The ego is a misprojection from our higher mind; ergo, not mind, but misunderstanding, illusion, maya, separate from reality, separate from us, not us, not anyone, just lost awareness with no where to settle but nonexistence from which it came.

Robin Gaura on April 17, 2018 , · at 5:51 pm UTC
Cool. I´d take it a bit further, though. Putting the mind on emptiness, the place without characteristics, in a deep meditative state. One sees the way things really exist, the way consciousness creates our reality, the truth of emptiness and karma. Its called entering the stream. The beginning of the transformation to the divine being. Its an experience that changes you forever.
Beyond words. Meditation is essential.

[Apr 18, 2018] The Rape of Russia, an Interview with F. William Engdahl (Audio)

Notable quotes:
"... What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered anything that they could. ..."
"... And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. ..."
"... And through that the – this network, this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip, Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. ..."
"... They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of assets that came into Yeltsin's control. ..."
"... Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton. ..."
"... So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. ..."
"... In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Given the depth of the fall, the rise (under Putin) has been remarkable. ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | russia-insider.com

The Rape of Russia (full transcript)

Lars Schall: Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am now connected with F. William Engdahl, who has written a new book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. Hi William.

F. William Engdahl: Hello, Lars. Good to be with you again.

LS: Great to have you with us. And first off, let me read something to you and our audience that was written by the economist Dean Baker earlier this month.

As a long-term columnist at the NYT, Thomas Friedman apparently never feels the need to know anything about the topics on which he writes. This explains his sarcastic speculation that Putin could be a CIA agent since he has done so much to hurt Russia.

For all his authoritarian tendencies, it is likely that most Russians think primarily about Putin's impact on the economy, just as is typically the case among voters in the United States. On that front, Putin has a very good record.

According to data from the IMF Russia's economy had plunged in the 1990s under the Yeltsin presidency. When Putin took over in 1998, per capita income in the country had shrunk by more than 40 percent from its 1990 level. This is a far sharper downturn than the United States saw in the Great Depression. Since Putin took power its per capita income has risen by more than 115 percent, an average annual growth rate of more than 3.9 percent.

While this growth has been very unequal, that was also the case even as Russia's economy was collapsing under Yeltsin. The typical Russian has done hugely better in the last two decades under Putin than they did in the period when Yeltsin was in power.

For this reason, there are probably few Russians who would have sympathy for Friedman's speculation about Putin's ties to the CIA. The same would not be the case for Boris Yeltsin.

Now, I think this is a good starting point for our discussion William because in your book, you have a chapter entitled The Rape of Russia, the CIA's Yeltsin Coup d'état. Why do you talk about rape related to Russia?

FWE: What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered anything that they could.

And what you just read from Mr. Friedman is of course horse rubbish but the real CIA asset of this whole collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was in fact Boris Yeltsin and the so called Yeltsin Family, the Yeltsin Mafia. And in my book, the Manifest Destiny book I document and detail at great lengths the relation of a handful of KGB very, very senior persons who worked with the Bush Senior old boys CIA networks in the West and their banks to create a group of oligarchs around Yeltsin, you know the famous Russian oligarchs, well, The New York Times and other Western Media portrayed them as Russian Mafia. They were kind of mafia but the real point was that they were a CIA-run mafia. They were run by the West. They betrayed their own country, their own people and literally stole billions and billions and billions of dollars of assets. And that's the reason for the title in that chapter.

LS: And Boris Yeltsin was very essential for this.

FWE: He was the key figure. He had been selected as a regional governor and brought into Moscow and a certain point Gorbachev saw him as a rising star and someone that could help with a little bit more liberal image as [unclear] was – the Russian economy was running into serious trouble in the '80s, the Star Wars of Reagan, the Nicaragua and above all the war in Afghanistan which is a CIA project with the Mujahideen, that took 10 years long that was bleeding the Soviet economy, the Soviet Union's Vietnam, as Brzezinski used to call it.

And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. You remember, I'm sure many people remember the picture of Boris Yeltsin standing there courageously on top of a Soviet tank in front of the Russian White House or Soviet House, the Supreme Soviet building and reading a speech defying Gorbachev and so forth. Well, that was a KGB CIA-engineered coup d'état in June 1991. And through that the – this network, this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip, Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. And he later joined the [#inaudible 00:06:40-0#] oil and to this day he's still a member of the State Duma giving him prosecution immunity.

So, some of these people are still around after some 23, 25 years and incredibly enough but others of them have died off, have been killed, or murdered or whatever. But the operation that was done with Yeltsin, this corrupt KGB network working with the CIA financed Yeltsin's the silent seat of the presidency of the Russian Federation. And once they had their man in controlling the Russian Federation which is the largest of the former Soviet Union, the Socialist Republic, they were able to engineer through the international monetary fund that was mandated to oversee the transformation of the Soviet economy.

They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of assets that came into Yeltsin's control.

LS: But those assets were sold to a price that was rather ridiculous.

FWE: Someone estimated that that gets into the whole coupon privatisation that was set up under Yeltsin in the '90s. The coupon privatisation issued one coupon to every single Russian man, woman and child 140 million in total. And the value of those coupons was such someone estimated that the totality of Russian Soviet's Fed assets or Russian Federation assets now was equal to the value of the stock at that point of General Electric Company on the New York Stock Exchange. I mean that's just laughable. Russia had financial bankruptcy because the shock therapy, the Jeffrey Sachs and others from Harvard and elsewhere brought in, George Soros and his pals. That created bankrupt companies that couldn't stand on their own and suddenly they had no, no resources. But the assets, the assets on the ground, the nickel, the aluminium, the uranium that Hillary Clinton knows more than a little bit about them, all of these were estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. And this is what the Bush operation aimed at. And they used NGOs, they used the National Endowment for Democracy, they used, George Soros' Open Society Foundation and so forth to bring this about.

LS: You've mentioned already the coup d'etat attempt of August 1991. Highly important for things to come was something that took place in early 1991 and that was the theft of the Soviet gold. Please tell us about this.

FWE: The, under the Soviet Union, this is a very crucial point about the transition that Washington forced on the Russian Federation because Yeltsin was, I think as long as he was well-supplied with vodka he didn't protest very much. But under the Soviet system and the Russian Federation took this over, there was a state bank, not a private central bank like the Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank today but a state bank that was an entity of the Russian State apparatus and that was called the Gosbank. And a man named Viktor Gerashchenko was the chairman of Gosbank at the time of Yeltsin's early start in 1991.

And Gerashchenko made a speech around that time in November of '91 to the Russian Duma or the parliament such as it was and said, "I have to report to you ladies and gentlemen that of perhaps 3,000 tons of Gosbank state-owned gold reserves, we have an estimated less than 400 tons that we can account for." And then he had to go to tell, shock members of parliament that he had no idea what happened to the missing gold, which of course was a lie. And Gerashchenko had created right after 1989 to prepare this coup d'etat coup, which was the CIA and Bush's old boys, he had created something called [unclear] on the Channel Islands in the Island of Jersey to handle the Russian foreign currency reserves.

And the Jersey was exempt from European supervision, so this was a perfect place to hide money, dirty money or stolen money and they managed something like $37 billion between 1993 and 1998. The Gerashchenko and the Gosbank even went to the lengths of hiring a New York Financial Detective firm called the Financial CIA back then called Jules Kroll Associate. And they were told to track the Soviet gold, find out what happened to it and something like $14 billion of communist party assets that were missing as well. And the Cruel which was tied with the CIA linked AIG Insurance Group Hank Greenberg whom you remember from the 2008 to the bail out of Henry Paulson.

LS: Yes.

FEW: The Kroll Associates after a few months announced that they had no results in the attempt to find the missing Soviet Gosbank gold. Then to add insult to injury, the IMF came in and rewrote the constitution of the Russian Federation under Yeltsin and took the power of money creation just like the Federal Reserve took the power of money creation from the congress in 1913. They took the power of money creation from the state and created the Russian Federation Central Bank, the Russian Central Bank and gave it a mandate for two things. One, to control inflation and the other to create currency stability.

Now, in Russia that day that meant stability of the ruble against the US dollar. So it effectively hammer-locked the Russian money creation into the US dollar. And unfortunately that constitution amendment holds until the present day. It's one of the difficulties that Vladimir Putin has been having to try to persuade the Independent Central Bank to lower interest rates more rapidly as inflation is simply managed as a problem in Russia in the last two years.

So, they looted the gold so that there would be no stability to the ruble. If you don't have any gold-backing, then western investors are going to lack confidence which is sort of what happened. And then they began working with very select western bankers to get their money out of Russia.

LS: And instrumental to get money out of Russia were Valmet and Riggs. Can you tell us please about some crucial personnel that was employed there at Valmet and Riggs?

FWE: Valmet Riggs was kind of a fusion of a Swiss bank and Riggs Bank of Washington D. C. And Riggs Bank, this is really quite a fascinating and very little discussed aspect of the reign of Russia back in the '90s.

So you have something called Riggs Bank in Washington and they were set up decades earlier since the 1960s CIA Bay of Pigs operation, they were known as the CIA tied bank. They invested the assets of people like Marcos of the Philippines until when he was close to the CIA. And there was a former NATO Ambassador named Alton Keel and in 1989 when the Soviet KGB generals and they had a group of protégés called the 'Kids' by George Bush Senior. The protégés were in their 30s and a couple of them were in their 40s but rather young. And they were the ones who were nominated to become the oligarchs, the frontal men for taking these state assets the aluminium, the oil assets and other things and looting the Russian Federation.

And Alton Keel just as the Russians were setting up men at a bank for the oligarchs to funnel their stolen assets, de facto stolen assets, Keel went from NATO and the National Security Council to become a head of international banking of Riggs Bank in Washington and its deputy chairman.

Now, it gets even more interesting because the international banking group of Riggs included a new entity that had been created called Riggs Valmet SA in Switzerland, and Riggs Valmet was set up by a man named Jonathan J. Bush, a private banker, who just happened to be the brother of George Herbert Walker Bush. So, Bush brother and Alton Keel set up Riggs Valmet, there was a money laundering apparatus in Geneva and Riggs then through their help bought the major share in Geneva Valmet to create Riggs Valmet.

So, you have the brother of the president of the United States up to his eyeballs in this whole Yeltsin CIA money laundering operation. And then Jonathan Bush was created CEO of something called Riggs Investment in Connecticut where he lived and at that point the looting and taking of the dollar assets out of Russia was just unstoppable. It was in the billions and tens of billions of dollars.

LS: William, there is one guy who was working closely with those people and he was working on Wall Street but later on he was personally recruited by George Tenet then the Director of CIA to become the number three at the CIA, and this is Alvin Bernard "Buzzy" Krongard.

FWE: Yes. We meet "Buzzy" Krongard at Bankers Trust, which bought up Alex Brown, and Krongard became vice chairman of Bankers Trust along with another charming character named Carter Beese. And at the time of the 1998 collapse of the ruble, Krongard was formally made, as you've pointed out, number three, the executive director at the CIA under George Tenet. So, it's a CIA network from beginning to end, from the banking side to you know the direct CIA side. You have Carter Beast, you have "Buzzy" Krongard, Jonathan Bush and Alton Keel and they were the ones working with Valmet as the Riggs Valmet Bank in Geneva to pull this money out through shell companies.

And the oligarchs, this is an interesting part of this whole thing that you know right now Theresa May and the foreign secretary Boris Johnson in the UK are accusing Putin of murdering almost everybody since the birth of Jesus Christ. And one of them was the person who had been the trusted bodyguard of one of the oligarchs living in London Boris Berezovsky.

And Berezovsky was one of the dirtiest of these oligarchs. He'd financed the Ukrainian Colour Revolution back in 2003, 2004 as a revenge against Putin because he at first thought Putin could be bought like Yeltsin and suddenly he realized that he was up against the faction of nationalists within of what had been the KGB but wanted to stabilise and preserve Russia as a functioning nation today. And so Mikhail Khodorkovskyi, Roman Abramovich, who is listed on the sanctions list yesterday, and Berezovsky were some of the leading oligarchs that were created by this Bush operation.

LS: And to jumpstart all of this, we have to talk about something that is well, that is stranger than fiction and that is something called for example "Yamashita's Gold". If our audience is interested in this, they could for example look for an article written by Chalmers Johnson, the famous Asian expert, The Looting of Asia, which was published at the London Review of Books on the 20 th of November of 2003 because then they can find something on this topic of Yamashita's gold on an instant basis in the internet ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia ). I think this is just fair

FWE: Yeah.

LS: because no one really is aware of this whole story. Please tell us about this.

FWE: The Yamashita Gold story is one of the, as you've said really incredible stories of post-World War II. During the Second World War, the Japanese Imperial Family looted the gold of occupied Arch of China, they looted the gold of all the parts of Asia that they had conquered.

LS: Basically from 1895 to 1945.

FWE: Yeah, yeah. And because they had no guarantee that Japan was going to win the war, the emperor ordered the gold to be hidden away in, mostly in the Philippines as far as we know and literally untold tons of gold were buried so deep underground in tunnels around the Philippines and the people who dug the tunnels in many cases were later shot you know so that they couldn't tell. But Marcos who was a CIA asset initially, the dictator of the Philippines through much of the '70s and into the '80s, yeah through the '70, Ferdinand Marcos somehow came upon some of this gold. So, the Japanese looted war body was buried in the early '40s before the end of the war on orders of Emperor Hirohito should they lose the war.

And at some point in the 1970s, Marcos discovered some of the sites where Hirohito's soldiers had buried the gold and the gold was stolen from China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia and other countries occupied by the Japanese forces. And Marcos, and I think this is the major reason the CIA dumped him, got a little bit greedy and took that gold and started selling it under the market through selective secret Swiss banks. But he used the CIA asset, the Saudi billionaire named Adnan Khashoggi to help them get the gold under the market. And what he didn't realise was that Khashoggi would double cross him. He got a better deal from Bush Senior and the old boys.

LS: We have to say Khashoggi is a figure who is involved for example in B.C.C.I. and in Iran-Contra.

FWE: Back in the '70s he was involved in everything dirty that Bush and the CIA were involved in. B.C.C.I. Bank, the money laundering bank of the CIA, the arms deals, Khashoggi was a huge arms dealer during the Iran and Iraq war the CIA was feeding. He was involved in almost every dirty thing the CIA was doing.

LS: He was aware of this gold.

FWE: Supposedly he was helping Marcos to sell the gold out of the market. So he was not only aware of it, he was right in the middle of it. But then once Marcos was tackled by the CIA Bush got rid of Marcos in 1986. Then someone named Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage and Khashoggi began to work with someone in Canada to create something called – Peter Munk was his name, a rather dubious businessman there – to found something called Barrick Gold of Canada and later it went on to become the world's largest gold mining company.

But Barrick Gold, all available evidence is that buried gold was used to melt down the – I don't want to get too much into the details of this but basically to melt down the Emperor Hirohito's gold that had been discovered by Marcos in the Philippines, to melt it down and use that as collateral for derivatives that would be the collateral used to take over the Russian Federation assets.

LS: The money was basically transformed into bank loans into Russia so that the would-become oligarch people could buy up those assets

FWE: Yes, exactly. So, Yegor Gaidar, the economic privatisation adviser of Yeltsin and his sidekick Anatoly Chubais privatisation had kind of guided this whole process together with Jeffrey Sachs and a group from Harvard University. #00:28:37-8#

LS: Yeah. Let us talk about this. This is known as Harvard Shock Therapy.

FEW: Well, the Jeffrey Sachs Shock Therapy, but the Harvard shock therapy is – well, what happened, the next phase of this incredible story and it's important to keep all this in mind, this is one reason that I wrote the book because of what was clear after the CIA coup d'etat of 2014 in Ukraine and all the sanctions against Putin's Russia and so forth, that if you don't understand what really happened in the '90s, the deep-seated hatred there is on these neoconservatives around Washington and their think tanks as well as, the US political establishment for Putin's Russia and the nationalism behind group Russia. You can't make much sense out of what's going on today with all these incredible lies and accusations against Russia for every crime under the book.

So, what happened is the, as I mentioned the IMF, the International Monetary Fund which had done a beautiful job for Washington in terms of, and George Soros and others in terms of looting the assets of the dead economies of Latin America, Yugoslavia, Poland and others during the oil crisis in the 1970s. The IMF was used and a group of economists around Jeffrey Sachs, a young professor at Harvard University then to impose what Sachs called shock therapy.

And the idea was that Sachs convinced Yeltsin, let prices rise through western market prices and this will increase the supply of goods, you know the stores had a paucity of goods back in the Soviet Times and get rid of trade barriers so foreign commodities could flow in to fill the shelves of Russian stores. The problem was that was a lie. The shops had been full. Okay, you could say it wasn't Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Fried Perdue Chickens or whatever, but they were full of Russian food products until November of '91 when Yeltsin announced that the exact date on December 31 st of 1991, that price controls would be suddenly lifted. So, shop owners immediately hid their goods and waited for December 31 st . So, suddenly the shops were empty and rationing was imposed and so forth. It's just unbelievable.

So, into this, this was Jeffrey Sachs on shock therapy and a group of Harvard University under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International Development, a group of, among other things later documented CIA agents set up shop in Moscow and worked with Yeltsin's economic team Gaidar and Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais and themselves got in on the thunder the Russian East Harvard economist working. Now we have a transition in '93 through the Clinton Administration and there former Harvard professor and former World Bank Chief Economist Lawrence Summers became the deputy secretary of treasury responsible for the looting of Russia, effective and responsible for the gold economic transition in the Russian Federation.

And all of the key actors were named by Summers and they were all involved in the privatisation of Russia. They were all from this Harvard Mafia. For example of David Lipton, a former consulting partner of the Jeffrey Sachs, became deputy assistant secretary of treasure for former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and Sachs himself was named Director of Harvard HIID that oversaw the looting of Russia through the voucher privatisation and so forth. And they got grants from the USAID, AID works very closely with the CIA in different parts of the world, this is documented. And so it was really a tight-knit cabal around Lawrence Summers that oversaw this complete theft through these pieces of paper called privatisation coupons.

And what you had was the economic situation under Yeltsin had become so severe I mean people literally they had no jobs because of the freeing up of prices, they could afford to buy little or nothing. So, most people, millions of Russians sold their privatisation vouchers on the street corners to the highest bidder. And of course the would-be oligarchs were the ones with hard currency dollars that they could buy these things up as you pointed out earlier when we talked about them. So, they had credits from their friends in the West, the Riggs Valmet and so forth to buy up these vouchers and therefore they were able when the cost came up, were able to simply steal the property titles, the ownership titles of some of the most valuable investor assets and mineral assets in the world.

LS: And we can talk about this as a classical case of leveraged buyout – even though it was a covered leveraged buyout, if it was?

FEW: Well, you could call it a leveraged buyout. I know Anne Williamson has used that term, the earlier descriptions of it. I think it was simply legalised theft, leveraged buyout gives it too much dignity. That was a term that was quite popular in the financial world back in the '80s and the early '90s. But whatever name you want to give it, it was certainly not a conventional leveraged buyout, it was bizarre in every sense of the word.

LS: An influential figure in this was mentioned by you already, George Soros. And in 1994, as you point out in your book, he was described with the following words from The Guardian in London, "Soros extraordinary role not only as the world's most successful investor but now possibly fantastically as the senior most powerful foreign influence in the whole of the former Soviet Empire, it tricks more suspicion than curiosity." What was he doing back then in Russia?

FWE: Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton. And in 1993 already the opposition inside what was left of Russia when the old communist party was in the Duma and so forth and the population generally was such that the opposition threatened to get out of hand and Yeltsin was forced to agree to hold a national referendum on the entire privatisation. So, this was in April of '93 and the referendum that was given to the population had four questions, yes or no. Do you support Yeltsin? Yes or no? Do you support Yeltsin's economic policy? Yes or no? Do you want early election for president? Yes or no? And do you want early elections for parliament? Yes or no?

So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. And so the media campaign and by this time most of the national media had been bought up by the oligarchs around Yeltsin so they were able to exercise undue influence. So they barely squeak through and got a yes to the privatisation scheme that Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros and others had going on. And then of course Soros' company himself benefitted enormously from this privatisation just a little bit later when the auctions took place.

LS: A figure that connects yesterday with today is Vladimir Putin who came to international attention first in 1998, the same year when the ruble crisis took place.

FWE: This was 1999 and in August '98 you had the collapse of the ruble. This was part of the Bush "Operation Hammer's" original design. You had a huge scam going on in the GKO Russian Bond market where the interest rates were just unbelievably high. So, you had all sorts of hot money coming in, making profits and pulling it up including Soros Fund, quantum fund and so forth.

And finally, Yeltsin was getting near the end of his ability to hold this thing together. And he appointed in August '99, he appointed a young former KGB officer who served during the Cold War in East Germany named Vladimir Putin. And briefly Putin had been a deputy mayor in St. Petersburg and briefly had been the head of the successor to the KGB called FSB and the oligarchs around Putin, I've heard various Russian accounts have had this happen but Berezovsky, Brzezinski and other, the Yeltsin oligarchs thought they could take this young guy Putin and do business with him and you know that he was young and had no political base.

So, at that point Putin gave the ultimatum to Yeltsin, resign or face serious consequences and it turned out that Putin which has later been confirmed was the spokesperson for a nationalist faction within the intelligence community, a patriotic faction, call it what you want but Russian nationalist. And so Yeltsin was told, "If you resign and just get out of politics, we'll leave you alone." So he took the offer and ran. And before he did that he named Vladimir Putin as acting president until elections in March the following year.

So, Putin then came into power and called a meeting as it were of the most powerful oligarchs who had made staggering fortunes at the expense of Russia and he called them creators of a corrupt state through insider dealings and began criminal prosecution against oligarchs like Vladimir Gusinsky and Media-Most, a financial group led by Vladimir Potanin who is in the newspaper today and soon left an oil company controlled by a Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky. So, at that point Putin began the uphill battle of trying to stabilise Russia as a functioning economy. And the recent re-election of Putin indicates that the Russian people by and large support that effort of Putin's.

LS: Meanwhile he also had to react to something new that was taking place then and that was NATO was marching east.

FWE: The negotiations and this is, has been confirmed by former US Ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock and that was the negotiations between the Bush administration in 1991 Germany and Gorbachev included a solemn guarantee as Jack Matlock, Ambassador Matlock who was in Moscow in '87 until '91 in this period. He said that we gave a categorical assurance to Gorbachev when the Soviet Union still existed that if United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not move eastward. So, of course that pledge like so many pledges of Washington under Bush successor governance was honoured in the breach and the newly created National Endowment for Democracy that I write about quite a bit in the Manifest Destiny.

You had, Vin Weber was the chairman of the NED at that time and he took US taxpayer money through the NED to supposedly bring democracy into former communist states. Then Weber was also a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon think tank which really shaped the personnel of George W. Bush in the year 2000 and 2001. And Vin Weber was also a lobbyist for the largest military industrial conglomerate of the US Lockheed Martin.

So, he was instrumental together with another military industrial Lockheed Martin, former Vice President for Strategy named Bruce Jackson, Bruce P. Jackson to promote back democracy in former communist countries including Russia. And they started the process of expanding NATO to the east in strict violation of the pledges that had been given back in the early '90s. So, by 2003, they had begun this whole expansion of NATO into Poland, into Hungary, all the former communist countries.

LS: And the countries at the Baltic Sea.

FWE: So, at the Baltic Sea right on the doorstep of the Russian Federation, and Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so forth. And you began to see a very definite NATO encirclement of Russia. And then in 2003-2004, the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros' Foundation, the whole arm of the fake democracy NGOs of Washington, began to create the so called Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and also the Rose Revolution in Georgia next door. And if you look at a map, if you bring a pro NATO government into power in Ukraine, this they did under Viktor Gerashchenko in 2004, then you're presenting a pretty formidable military threat to the national security of Russia.

Now, at that time 2003, Russia was in no shape to do much more than feebly protest as loud as they could but of course they were ignored. Then you had something quite dramatic in 2006, the end of 2006. The George W. Bush administration Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence back then announced that they were installing ballistic missile defence now I'll get to that in a minute but it's anything but defensive. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and that those anti-missile defence installations which included missiles would be aimed at a rogue nuclear attack from Iran.

In early 2007, Vladimir Putin personally came as president of Russia Federation to the Munich Security Conference, the International Security Conference held here in Munich Germany and gave a speech which really defines the security position of Russia right up to the present date. He said of course this is not aimed at Iran or North Korea as Washington says. That's a lie. It's like taking your right arm to scratch your left ear we say in Russian. It's aimed at Russia. And we consider this intolerable as a threat to our national security and we will be forced to respond.

LS: And it is aimed at Russia as a first strike possibility.

FWE: Yeah. Well, the point about the missile defence is I – in connection with the book, I interviewed, in an earlier book I wrote, I interviewed Colonel Robert Bowman who had been briefly the head of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars or missile defence programme. And became a very, very severe critic of the Bush administration's reckless policies withdrawing from the antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and so forth, said that missile defence is the missing link to Nuclear Primacy. First strike capability.

And that's something that Pentagon planners had been opting for since the 1950s. And he said, "If you can block the counterattack from your opponent and you then have this possibility to make a first strike and wipe them out because they can't simultaneously fire an effective counterstrike." So, that in a nutshell destroys the whole cold war doctrine of mutual and sure destruction that kept nuclear options off the table up until that time. And the Russians understand military strategy rather well I would say. And said, "This is simply intolerable. We have to respond and we will respond but in our own way and you will see."

LS: And the Russians have reacted.

B: The Russians have reacted, and if we can go for a minute up until the present

LS: Please

FEW: On March 1st Putin gave an address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow televised to the nation. The beginning part of the speech, his annual speech there, was about the Russian economy and plans for the future. This was shortly before the Russian elections that overwhelmingly gave him a new term. But the crucial part of that speech to the Federal Assembly was Russia's military technologies and this is as he put it. He referred to that 2007 speech in Munich and he said, "We said at that time that Russia would have to reply and since the expansion of NATO to the east which really to be honest that's – see there is no reason after 1991 or certainly after 2000 for the existence of NATO other than the reason given when NATO was created by the first secretary general of NATO to keep the Russians out the Germans down and the Americans in."

But Putin's speech talked about nuclear primacy and the Russian response and he outlined the military are the developments that they had quietly brought online since Washington tore up, unilaterally tore up the ABM Treaty in 2002/2003. So he outlined an awesome array of missiles, hypersonic low flying stealth missiles carrying nuclear warheads, unpredictable trajectories, invisible against perspective missile defence and air defence systems, unmanned submersible vehicles to great depth that could go many times higher than the speed of submarines cutting edge torpedoes just and commentators in the West like CNN. They said, "Oh, this is just bluff and so forth."

People who know Russian military technology and the intensity of the kind of research and development that's focused on defending the nation confirm that this is no joke. Hypersonic aircraft five times the speed of sound, that's hypersonic and they have something called the [unclear] which goes 10 times mark 10 and as Putin described it, "This missile flying 10 times faster than sound can manoeuvre in all phases of the flight trajectory, overcome all prospective and aircraft county missile defences in a range of 2000 kilometres."

He outlined about six or seven of these I would call them not even cutting edge, bleeding edge military technology and as The Saker commented in his blogpost after the speech, it's indeed set marching game over for the empire. There's no more military option against Russia.

This all is to make a point that the entire history up until now, these fake accusations of Putin would have an interest or Russia would have an interest to meddle with the US elections when you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to accuse Putin and Russia of international violations of law by allowing a referendum to take place in Crimea after the CIA coup d'etat in Kiev and now it's come out from actual mercenary snipers that were brought in from Georgia under [#inaudible 00:55:08-0#] umbrella that they were paid by the CIA or promised to be paid by cut outs to the CIA to create the Maidan Square February 2014 chaos that led to the collapse of the government and the coup d'etat.

So, you know, this is not Russia is the arch Evel Knievel looking for a fight every corner of the world. It's not Russia doing bad things in Syria. It's Russia trying to stop a NATO and Saudi and other embedded destruction of the Middle East and create some kind of peace and stability. And anyone modest to take the slightest bit of care and follow this, they can read a running commentary on my website williamengdahl.com but not only there, it's all over the place. You realise that the fake media is the media that dominates and is guided by NATO public relations strategy in the West and it's not the so called critical media that's being sanctioned and censored right now.

LS: Let's talk further about the present, William, by closing one circle of our interview. As we've discussed the Russian gold vaults were empty since the early 1990s. This has changed since basically the financial crisis broke out in 2007, 2008, 2009. Since then the Russian Central Bank is buying gold like basically no other nation in a very rapid tempo.

FWE: Since the financial crisis and especially since the opposition of sanctions after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, it's been the policy of the Russian Central Bank and the Russian Federation to buy as much gold for reserves of the ruble as they can get their hands on. And they are now I think number five or number six in the world in terms of gold reserves and correct me if I'm wrong but just slightly behind the people's republic of China which has also been vigorously adding gold towards Central Bank reserves for the yuan.

So, what Russia is doing is creating a buffer gold, by the way in my view has never ceased being an object of value to stand behind currencies. If you have currencies like the dollar after all this 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the bread and wood, gold exchange [unclear], then if you have a military you might or manipulate the oil price petrodollar and so forth, you can create money if you have the reserve currency you can create money without them. So what the Russia is doing is creating a security in terms of its currency and now that security is probably going to be tested by the economic warfare division of the US Treasury in these new sanctions.

But Russia is merging together with China. Interestingly enough after 2014 when the CIA coup d'etat Ukraine took place, Putin responded not by getting bogged down in the destructive war inside the Eastern Ukraine but he responded by turning east, strengthening his relationships with China, with the new president of China then Xi Jinping bringing the Asian economic Union which Russia is the leading economy in, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, Armenia and others, bringing that in a coherence with Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative One Belt, One Road to link the infrastructure, the energy pipelines, the high-speed rail networks, the deep water ports and so forth to create a Eurasian, some people call it the land bridge but it's an economic space in Eurasia that would have the majority of the world's population, would have every raw material resource that the world needs including rare earth metals that China is world's leading supplier of at the moment.

And Russia has vast oil and gas reserves and military technology, civilian technology, an educated labour force that is probably one of the finest in the world and scientific country and so forth. And independent of the bankrupt economies of Britain and the United States and very rapidly of the European Union where this banking crisis has, since the crisis of 2008 has just been swept under the rug but it's ready to explode on a moment's notice. So, you have a depth loaded western NATO world. Let's call it a NATO world, a world of the NATO member countries and you have Russia together, which by the way, Russia has unbelievably small

LS: Debt.

FWE: National debt.

LS: Yes.

FWE: Something like 13 to 17% of the gross domestic product.

LS: And now they have this huge stock of gold relative to very little sovereign debt. It's almost ideal.

FWE: Yes, and that's by design. That is by Putin's intention to create this independence. And one thing, I am very often in Russia, have a very, very dear special friends in Russia over the years, the first time I was there was 1994. That was a vastly different, that was in the middle of the Yeltsin and the insanity. The Russians are very not only proud people but they are very determined and they protect their existence and have done that I would say for well over 1000 years going back to the great schism between the Western church in Rome and the Eastern Church in 1054. I think that was a pivotal date in modern history, the division there.

But certainly the Russians have gone through two World Wars and the rape of Russia under Yeltsin, unbelievable trials and tribulations and they are not shying away from defending their existence. That's something I think the west or certainly Washington with these neocons really doesn't have a sense of.

LS: One thing that I would like to ask you about as my final question is the following. You are a renowned expert for the geopolitics and the history of oil. And since this month we have a future's contract in Shanghai, denominated in yuan for oil and we also hear that the Chinese are planning to price oil that they import in yuan which is safe for this buying of oil internationally via yuan, Russia would be the candidate number one as the exporter?

FWE: Definitely. Most definitely and Russia and China are connecting their financial markets ever closer. The Russian government is the in the process sometime this year of issuing Russian bonds denominated new Chinese yuan. The announcing of the petrol yuan, the oil futures contracts being sold in Shanghai, ultimately it won't happen overnight but it's certainly off to a positive start in the marketing acceptance. That has the basis for taking oil sales.

Let's step back a moment to the 1970s and I document this at length in two of my books, Myths, Lies and Oil Wars and A Century of War. In the early 1970s when Nixon took the dollar off of gold, the dollar relative to the German mark and the Japanese yen dropped like a stone, something like 40% over a period of five or six months. And in order to stop that because the New York Banks were hurting quite a bit from that, there was a oil price shock that was orchestrated. I won't go into the details it's documented quite extensively in those two books of mine.

LS: And Sheikh Yamani had said something about this, too.

FWE: Yes. He invited me after reading my book to his annual energy retreat in London in 2000, September 2000. And then called me to a private dinner discussion at his home outside of London to talk about what I wrote about in the book. And he later went on CNN on an interview and mentioned my book by name. In the written transcript it's in there and in the television version they spliced it out so that you couldn't realise that it'd been in there. But Sheikh Yamani told me you are the first journalist or the first person outside of myself that writes correctly what happened with that oil shock. And that was manipulated by among others Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State and by a group in the Atlantic establishment called the Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden back in May of that period before the Yom Kippur War.

In any case, the US circles around Rockefeller, who at that point was the chairman of the board of USA Incorporated, I would say. They had engineered a 400% price rise in oil and to make sure that Germany and Japan and other countries wouldn't make deals to buy oil in German mark but keep the dollar demand high and the dollar value high. They send a delegation from the US Treasury to sign an agreement with the Saudi Arabian monetary agency for a new relationship taking surplus Saudi petrodollars or OPEC petrodollars and buying US government debt.

LS: Yeah, and outside of the normal auction to privileged conditions.

FWE: Yes. In return, Washington agreed to give the Saudis tens and billions of dollars of defence equipment.

LS: Yeah, and Saudi Arabia would use its status as a swing producer in OPEC that it would only accept dollars as a pricing for oil.

FEW: And the quid pro quo was after 1975, this was formalised that Saudis would as swing producer in OPEC guarantee that OPEC sold its oil only in dollars and that held up until the time of Saddam Hussein during the sanctions shortly before the US invasion and Saddam Hussein began buying oil through a French bank denominated in Euros and not in dollars.

LS: And he made a plus, he made a net plus because he did sell his oil in Euro.

FWE: Yeah, yeah. And so this, what that has done up until the present is prop up the US dollars despite the fact that the internal industrial economy import activity of the United States went down the tubes over the past 40 years since the taking the dollar off of gold and the, putting of English dollars for the world economy. So, the idea than China and Russia would trade in energy and that other economies would begin to sell oil to China, Iran for example is a prime candidate in the petro yuan not in petrodollars, this began slowly like acid drops begins to erode the reserve currency status of the US dollar. And if that goes, it's end game for the US as a financial global power.

LS: We have to make clear to our audience. The fact that you have to buy oil in dollar makes sure that you need dollar, that you acquire dollar in order to buy oil.

FWE: Yeah.

LS: And so if this mechanism goes, well then the US has a problem because the dollars that are floating around internationally would find their way back into the homeland of the US.

FWE: Well, the other thing is that in order to sell now you have under this wonderful Trumponomics as I call it, you have projections that the US annual government deficit, shortage of tax income from tax outgo, spending outgo will by 2020 exceed one trillion dollars a year for every year as far as the eye can see. And by end of 2020, 2028 I think was figured by the congressional budget office, the US public debt is estimated to be well over $33 trillion, it's 20 now, 38 maybe, it's just out of control. So, if the ability of the US dollar to command use in the world economy is severely undermined, you're going to have to raise interest rates so high to sell this debt and it just becomes dysfunctional.

LS: Yes, but you have already in the last few years interest rates payments on this already existing that of per annum $400 billion.

FWE: Yeah.

LS: And if interest rates go up

FWE: Yeah and that was under zero interest rates, but now, you know, if they have to put up interest rates to five, six, seven, 8% like it was in the 1980s. the whole thing just blows up sky high.

LS: And so coming back to gold, gold has the advantage relative to bonds or shares or the US dollar or other Fiat currencies that there is no counterparty risk. If you have the gold in physical form, there is no counterparty risk.

FWE: Right.

LS: So would you say that gold will be one of the ultimate winners of the ongoing financial crisis when it goes into full gear?

FWE: Well, it's documented that J. P. Morgan, Chase and other select banks with this collusion of the Federal Reserve have been artificially depressing the price of gold for years. Every time there's a new financial crisis, they intervene and keep gold within a very tight range. At a certain point that's not going to work anymore and then some people estimate to follow the gold markets much more than I do but it could quickly go up to $10,000 an ounce or even beyond that.

Be that as it may, gold as you point out has no counterparty risk and it's a historic store of value. It's one of the beautiful commodities out there and it has a special – the other just being special significance economically and historically, the other thing is that China is the number one mining producer of gold in the world today, not South Africa. South Africa has fallen far behind

LS: Yeah, and Russia is number three.

FWE: Russia is number three.

LS: And a lot of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are producers or are buying gold.

FWE: At the rail connections of the circle of the China Belt Road Initiative in part are aiming to go in the areas where there are known gold reserves but no infrastructure during the Soviet era to bring that gold down to market. So, we have an extremely fascinating prospect, not just for China and Russia, for the world really to build up instead of tear down, destroy and burn and bankrupt which is the only policy that Washington seems able to follow these days.

LS: Yeah. To sum it up with a famous Chinese proverb. "May you live in interesting times" – you and all the others.

FWE: We certainly do.

LS: Okay. great. Thank you very much, William, for this interview.

FWE: Thank you, Lars.

Omega • a day ago ,

Two things:

1. Operation Hammer:

In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.

Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities during 1990 and 1991.

http://www.conspiracyarchiv...

2. Why can't Putin touch Yeltsinist oligarchs:

Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal.

https://www.unz.com/ishamir...

Fraser • a day ago ,

Given the depth of the fall, the rise (under Putin) has been remarkable.

Guy Fraser • a day ago ,

The rise has been astounding and all because they have a leader that can't be bought , not corrupt and loves his country. That is why he literally was swept in in the last election. The Western leaders will not admit it but I am sure they are terribly envious .

Tommy Jensen • a day ago ,

Very good article to bring to RI also.

It open eyes on how the West political elite are a criminal rotten cancer syndicate and Georg Bush Sr. shows up to be even worse than the disgusting profile he already has in media and Georg Soros bad reputation gets confirmed.

No police or court are available to take this out. We only have John Connor or The One to count on.
Choice is the problem now. We will have to make a choice.

Play Hide
Nicole Temple • a day ago ,

The photo of Yeltsin and Clinton that accompanies this article should remind readers of this story:

https://viableopposition.bl...

There is something rotten in Washington and it has been in existence for decades.

Guy • a day ago ,

Great interview .William Engdahl is a very knowledgeable person. I have read a few of his books. Superb in my view.

Jimi Thompson • a day ago ,

Quite a few unknown tidbits for me in all of this... very eye-opening even for someone that is aware of the games being played at the higher levels.

To imagine all of what remains unknown, including many of the players, leaves much to the imagination.

[Apr 18, 2018] The magnitude and complexity of the task Russia took on when it agreed to intervene in Syria.

Edited for clarity...
Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 18, 2018 4:28:52 AM | 105

The Colonial ratfuckers recent unprovoked, lie-based attack on Syria got me wondering about Russia's apparent impotence. I'm quite uncomfortable with that notion but can't dismiss it completely because I can't get a 'handle' on what Russia's strategy is.

Steve Gowans' latest commentary on Syria sets out his summary of US/NATO's Permanent War agenda in Syria.

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/a-prolonged-war-in-syria-is-on-the-us-agenda/

Despite its pessimism (if one takes it as a 'realistic' assessment), it goes a long way toward explaining the magnitude and complexity of the task Russia took on when it agreed to intervene in Syria.

Being pessimistic, it doesn't broach the subject of potential Bright Sides to the conflict, or the flaws in the US/NATO Strategy.

One rather obvious flaw which came to mind is the fact that Neoliberal Colonialism has inflicted pain on almost every country on the planet and have recently underlined their God-given right to continue doing so ad nauseum - without opposition or consequences.

[Apr 18, 2018] The USA as a huge, immensely strong, obnoxious drunk that is being belligerent and needs to be arrested

That's a clear exaggeration. But the fact that the US elite is in decline is undisputable. Trump as a leader of free world. give me a break.
Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bakerpete | Apr 18, 2018 9:01:53 AM | 117

@Hoarsewhisperer

While this isn't a great analogy consider the USA as a huge, immensely strong, obnoxious drunk that is being belligerent and needs to be arrested. The police show up, a bunch of them, and now need to corral the drunk. The drunk is so insensate that it can't feel any damage and the police need to be careful of how they use force. Generally the best outcome for the cops is the drunk trips and collapses whereby the police restrain him and hope he doesn't choke to death on his own vomit.

The USA is a zombie(drunk) country; dead but doesn't know it yet. Yet it is enormously significant in the world. If it suddenly collapses the rest of the world is going to be hugely impacted. While it has an enormous military it is extremely brittle and has virtually no depth; it can't sustain any meaningful military engagement for more than a couple of months.

Israel has created a really stupid situation for itself. It's dug this very small pit and stuffed it full of Jewish folk. A single nuke dropped on it would end the question of Israel. Yet the strut and bully like they are bullet proof.

In each case be too aggressive with them and they will panic. Conversely, and frustrating as hell, both the US and Israel have lots of leeway to cause mischief.

Russia and China are doing their best to patiently sheppard the USA along the path of its decline. They will grit their teeth and suffer humiliation but the alternative is a global economic collapse and many millions dying.

[Apr 18, 2018] Macron Napoleonic complex

Apr 18, 2018 | russia-insider.com

In the space of a few days Macron has:

Inadequacy much? How needy for recognition is this guy?

CHUCKMAN • 9 hours ago ,

France used to produce some pretty fine leaders, but lately, it's like a different place.

Hollande was the most ridiculous, gutless thing we ever saw. He was laughably pompous and ineffective and dishonest and even cowardly, vis a vis the US.

Macron probably ranks second worst. He's making a mess of France, he's blubbering all kinds of nonsense about the EU, he's busy putting troops in Syria against all international law, he is not liked by the people, and he is virtually a French doormat for America.

Sarkozy showed the odd bit of promise, but he was largely talk with no worthy efforts. And he was immensely corrupt. Imagine taking 20 million euros from Qaddafi and then participating in the scheme to kill him? Or the case of the senile woman who was France's wealthiest woman, from whom he took many millions for his campaigns, doing so in private without other members of the family or strict legal supervision.

Hard to see the same country we saw in de Gaulle's time and that of his immediate successors.

Muriel Kuri • 8 hours ago ,

'I am an equal of Putin' - well, he's right in a way - they're both leaders of a country. Beyond that, there is NO comparison. Maybe he admires Putin - which is good, if he tries to emulate him, even better because Putin, after all, is one of the few great current leaders of the world. Macron has a very long way to go, but with many years experience, if he gets the chance, MAY become a better leader than some, but never will be the match of Putin.

[Apr 18, 2018] Russia, China, Iran and others are increasingly concerned with curtailing the damage that the US can still inflict

Notable quotes:
"... The clearing of Ghouta puts a serious dent in this plan. Demoralizing the population of Damascus is now almost impossible. ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Jackrabbit , Apr 18, 2018 11:59:00 AM | 145
Don Bacon
PavewayIV

The West wins by making Syria a hell on earth. That means no reconstruction funding, no trade, and continuous harassment by "rebels".

The clearing of Ghouta puts a serious dent in this plan. Demoralizing the population of Damascus is now almost impossible.

But Lebanon is only about 15 miles from Damascus, and US/Israel would have to deal with Hez at some point anyway, so why not sooner rather than later?

Grieved | Apr 18, 2018 12:00:50 PM | 146

@131 WJ and 134 Don Bacon

I appreciate this discussion.

On a side note I would add that 3-4 years ago when Ukraine was boiling, much of the discussion by concerned people focused on countries outside of the US, and the damage caused by the US. The US, in this context, was largely regarded as an evil but coherent entity.

But that coherence has now come more and more into question. Discussion shifted gradually, as the US made more and more mistakes and lost battle after battle in so many theaters, and revealed itself as a failing actor. And in the last year or two there's much more discussion about the US itself, largely trying to pierce the obscurity of how that country is actually run and by whom. This shift was already happening, and Trump of course added to the fascination.

I was glad to see that gradual shift. To me it indicated the war itself was won, while many battles were yet to be fought. I think it's true that Russia, China, Iran and others are increasingly concerned with curtailing the damage that the US can still inflict. Every day they increase in actual, effective power, and the US decreases in that power. Yesterday's battle will be fought differently tomorrow, because the balance of that power will have shifted again by then.

Syria has been an enormously useful magnifying glass to show us so much about the relative power balances of many nations. And even as the US lashes out in its death throes, it is increasingly cornered and stymied. The same is true of Israel. It's reaching the point - if not already there - that every move made by the US will result in clear damage to itself, with no gain, and no damage to its targets.

The other side has had sufficient time to wargame countless contingencies, and think them through and make preparations for them. Increasingly, it gets to choose what damage to allow and what to stop, because the costs of every action have now been calculated - and the passage of time reduces the costs too, so the equation constantly updates.

This is true outside of Syria also, in all theaters and on many planes of activity.

[Apr 18, 2018] The US Deep State doesn't want to "conquer" any country. Then they'd have to pay the bill for the destruction they caused... think an actual Marshall Plan, not the Iraq and Afghan Debacles. It is not trying to "win". It is trying to destroy those countries' ability to function outside the iron-fist influence of the IMF/BIS

Notable quotes:
"... Trumpty Dumbdy is trapped, just trying to convince his base that he really is getting the US out ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

A P | Apr 18, 2018 1:42:41 PM | 160

The US Deep State doesn't want to "conquer" any country. Then they'd have to pay the bill for the destruction they caused... think an actual Marshall Plan, not the Iraq and Afghan Debacles. It is not trying to "win". It is trying to destroy those countries' ability to function outside the iron-fist influence of the IMF/BIS/etc. banks/economy.

... ... ..

As for US operations in Syria being handed off "to others", i.e. to Prince's latest iteration of Blackwater/Xi/Academia, the last we heard of Erik was trying to sell a budget airforce/drone system to countries in Africa. What a joke.

Not going to happen in Syria, because Russia, Iran, Hezbolla and Syria would have no qualms about directly assaulting Prince's Kurd/Arab/Wahabbist mercenaries... Eric may be a self-serving parasite, but he's not stupid enough to directly take on the Russian military, or even the SAA for that matter. Especially with no NATO air cover...

Killary is not around to unilaterally impose a Libya-style no-fly-zone.

Trumpty Dumbdy is trapped, just trying to convince his base that he really is getting the US out of being Israel's and the Rothschilds' bitch, but that is not a potential reality.

It would involve dismantling the FED and cutting off the yearly $multi-billion military aid tap to Israel. I doubt he is smart or informed enough to comprehend the situation he is in. Any sane, intelligent person would walk away and tell the Zionist/Rothschild/Deep State to find another patsy.

[Apr 18, 2018] Obama vs Trump: That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.

Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit | Apr 18, 2018 11:42:04 AM | 142

Don Bacon

Trump's actions have not matched his election rhetoric. Just like faux populist Obama. Obama also "caved" to pressure, and even set himself up for failure by emphasing "bipartisanship".

That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.

Obama: Change you can believe in
Trump: Make America Great Again

Obama: Most transparent administration ever
Trump: Drain the Swamp

Obama: Deceiver: "Man of Peace" engaging in covert ops
Trump: Distractor: twitter, personal vendettas

Weakened by claims of unpatriotic inclinations:
Obama: Birthers (led by Trump who was close to Clinton's) - "Muslim socialist"!
Trump: Russia influence (pushed by 'NeverTrump' Clinton loyalists) - Putin's bitch!

There's more but I won't belabor the point.

[Apr 18, 2018] Count on an inverted yield curve and Treasury Department derivative losses in the trillions on interest rate swaps sold to Wall Street banks

Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Rob from Canada on April 15, 2018 , · at 2:06 pm UTC

Count on an inverted yield curve and Treasury Department derivative losses in the trillions on interest rate swaps sold to Wall Street banks.

Wall Street banks have been buying surplus US government debt that the world doesn't want to finance huge budget deficits over the last 10 years and the Treasury Department sold them insurance protection against capital loses on that debt.

A lot of malinvestment in fracking and share buybacks with borrowed money has overleveraged corporations. Personal debt, corporate debt and government debt compared to GDP are at 1929 levels and a lot of that debt will be uncollectible.

The USA has kicked the financial can down the road for 10 years. It created a huge asset inflation bubble with borrowed money ie all malinvestment via interest rate suppression by the Fed that will blow up when the yield curve goes inverted signifying a financial panic is underway. That is the demand for short-term money(to borrow) is greater than the supply of money to short-term borrow.(to lend)

All I have to do is look at the SPX chart of the SP500 to know the US is FUKUS. The bull market that started in 2008 has started a head&shoulders topping pattern. In 2019 I expect 52-week lows to be hit and a bear market worse the 2008 financial crisis to be underway.

­
guest on April 15, 2018 , · at 2:52 pm UTC
People keep tossing out "The US economy is tanking, it is going to implode/explode/crumble sooner or later" etc., etc. Such beliefs may be soothing to hold but they do not rest on knowledge or economic literacy. Briefly, here is why.

Economies do not tank because of massive credit. Money Supply = M1 + M2 + M3, where M3 is the outstanding credit in the economy. The US M3 is huge because the economy itself is huge. Modern economies have moved away from paper notes and in future all money supply will essentially be M2 + M3. M2 (total outstanding bank deposits) and M3 are in turn fusing into one as credit card payments replace the practice of mailing out cheques.

Nor is high foreign indebtedness in itself a sign of future imminent collapse. Yes, it is worryingly high presently, but no it is not imminent that some sort of disaster will befall the US Treasury. No one forces the rest-of-the world to buy US treasuries, bonds, and stocks. Yet governments, corporations, and individuals from all over the world line-up to buy these. Ask yourselves why. The answer is: Money and Capital flows to low risk and high return zones. This is how it always has been, and this is how it always will be. Why do Alibaba and the other Chinese majors seek listing on American stock exchanges?

Yes, there are plenty of things wrong with the USA, and yes it may end up paying a dear price for its arrogance, aggression, and cruelty all over the world (not to talk of its collapsing morality, ethics and social cohesion at home) but there is nothing the matter with its economy. Those who wait for its supposedly "Ponzi scheme" to collapse will wait to eternity, I am afraid.

­
Simon Chow on April 16, 2018 , · at 12:57 pm UTC
@guest. I think your conclusion that the US economy is not tanking is blinkered. The US economy tanked in 2008 and would had crashed into a worse depression had not the Chinese held up the US economy (the Chinese also held up Europe by holding up the German economy). Alibaba is not the biggest Chinese company to list in the US. The biggest which is twice as profitable, twice the market capitalisation of Alibaba(more than USD500 billion) and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, is Tencent.

The US economy and the US dollar was viewed as safe haven becuase there was no alternative. The US dollar and the US economy became a bubble because of the global demand for the US dollar resulting from there being no alternative. Besides the use of the USD is enforced by the US military.

But, if you have been following the latest economic development, that had changed. The US economy is no longer the biggest, certainly not the strongest. The US dollar is no longer indispensable. It's value is now perched on the edge of a sharp slippery slope due to US financial mismanagement and profligacy ala the late great USSR!

Its stupendous, useless, egoistic and hubristic military spending and other factors will push the US economy down that very slippery slope to oblivion.

But China will be waiting at the bottom of that slope to cushion the fall!

­
pogohere on April 16, 2018 , · at 8:12 pm UTC
SIGNS THAT THE US DEBT-FUELED ECONOMY MIGHT ACTUALLY COLLAPSE

An Awara Accounting Study on US Economy 2018:
Signs that the US Debt-Fueled Economy Might Actually Collapse
Main findings:

US debt-to-GDP to reach 140% by 2024

Net increase in debt could be as enormous as $10 to 15 trillion in just five years 2019 to 2024

Federal budget interest expenditure could reach $1.5 trillion by 2028, 25% of the total

There has been no real GDP growth since at least 2007

Growth of government debt has exceeded even nominal GDP growth multiple times each year since 2007

US reporting on national debt and inflation full of tricks

War budgets ripping open huge deficits

Skyrocketing social spending leaves no room for deficit cuts

Unfunded liabilities now a reality as Social Security and Medicare funds dry up

https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/signs-that-the-us-debt-fueled-economy-might-actually-collapse/

­
Rob from Canada on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:17 am UTC
No, it's not over Saker, but compared to 2007 victory is in sight.

First, my opinion is that the Russia/China asymmetric attack on US dollar hegemony will create a second financial crisis next year, worse than the one in 2008.

Second, in my opinion, Russia and China are winning on the most important Grand Strategic/Moral level of warfare for global public opinion. The UN votes are illustrative of that moral victory. Also, Qatar, Turkey and the Philippines switching sides are examples of moral victory.

"Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are perceptions!"
That's the perfect strategy to defeat yourself.

"Those who defeat others are strong, those who defeat themselves are mighty." Lao Tzu

Napolean marched into Russia in 1812 with lot's of allies but left several months later with none.

I agree with MK Bhadrakumar assessment of the strike on Syria over your assessment. It's a moral defeat for the F#$%ing stupidest, exceptional nation on the face of the earth.

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2018/04/15/trump-opens-a-pandoras-box-in-middle-east/

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:29 am UTC
<>

Well, I'm not sure what old Lao was smoking on that day but if we replace the word "mighty" with "exceptional" then perhaps Trump fits the bill in a modern context.

Putin the Great vs Trump the Mighty (and Exceptional) who managed to defeat himself.

­
cdvision on April 15, 2018 , · at 3:32 pm UTC
Rob: my view exactly.

Russia and China have stopped buying US Treasuries, in fact are selling down for gold. The deficit if 1.3T will be more costly to fund, and the debt impossible to service. And China with the petro-yuan has tolled the death knell. Added to that is the dysfunction of the US political system. The mid-terms will be very interesting. I doubt Trump will see out 1 term, never mind 2.

And yes, the so-called US allies are fair weather friend.

­
Iris on April 15, 2018 , · at 7:24 pm UTC
Dear Saker;

Rob is right: the coming economic crisis will be nothing like 2007, or like any depression that occurred over the past century for that matter. It is the first time a cycle is ending with interest rates so low, so the trick of lowering them further cannot be used this time.
Even though hyperinflation is not happening because of globalised and cheap offer (Richard Duncan), Western economies are slowly collapsing under the burden of debt (Prof Steve Keen, Prof Michael Hudson).

The global Ponzi scheme will soon end, with major geopolitical consequence. The US, being given their history, will probably go to full blown war where this can bring most economic gains. The Chinese are fully aware of that, and are preparing for it All of their plans ( the OBOR initiative, the petro-yuan) depend on a strong Russia, The Chinese will not let Russia go down, their own survival depend on Russia.
All the best.

[Apr 18, 2018] The strategies put in place during the Yeltsin years to plunder the assets of the new CIS.

Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Lozion | Apr 17, 2018 1:56:16 PM | 3

I know b is not fond of us posting content from other blogs but the Saker has just put up a must-read interview with a personal favorite author of mine, F. William Engdhal, entitled "The rape of Russia". Very informative, it documents the strategies put in place during the Yeltsin years to plunder the assets of the new CIS. Enjoy!

http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/

[Apr 18, 2018] A Note on KGB Style -- Central Intelligence Agency

Apr 18, 2018 | www.cia.gov

After collapse of the USSR the mount of infometion that has flown to the West is staggering. KGB might be then most open of intelleigence services in this sense. multiple defector probably created a very complete picture of the organization and its methods.

July 2, 1996

A NOTE ON KGB STYLE

Wayne Lambridge

The KGB like any enduring institution has a style, its own way of doing things. When we seek to understand the service and its officers, we should perhaps pay attention to how they do business as well as to what kind of business they do. This article is intended to raise the subject for discussion, to present largely one man's opinion. It is far from a definitive study.

By way of indicating something about KGB style, consider the implications for the organization as a whole of a communication system that carries one tenth or less as much traffic -- both electric and by pouch -- as its American equivalent. The KGB sends very few cables and its dispatches are infrequent. For maximum security, they are pouched on undeveloped microfilm, which is recovered and printed when the dispatch reaches its destination. Although Moscow headquarters does excellent and prompt printing, both exposure and development are sometimes haphazard in the field. Ten years ago, they were downright unreadable at times. Now, the quality is generally better. Volume, however, does not seem to have risen much.

The prints of the developed films are seen by the Rezident (the KGB Chief of Station) and by the case officer concerned. In large Rezidentury (KGB Stations) some intermediate may also read the traffic, but that is by no means always the case. The Rezident keeps a file -- sometimes in the form of notes or perhaps as copies of pertinent cables and dispatches -- for reference. The case officer keeps all his files in a briefcase or a notebook. Calling them "files" is perhaps misleading. It is better to say that the KGB officer keeps a movable In-Box. When a document leaves that box it is either returned to the Rezident or destroyed and the fact of destruction recorded. The case file is really in the case officer's head. The excellent memory that KGB officers often display concerning the details of their operations may well be traceable to the necessity of remembering the vital information on each operation that they cannot look up anywhere. Of course, when a new case officer replaces an old one, especially if the latter has been unable to brief his successor fully, complications may ensue. Illness, car accidents and PNG'ing have led to real chaos in some KGB operations when a harassed new man has tried to tie down the broken threads of a departed colleague's dropped contacts.

Although the amount of paper that he sees is small, the KGB case officer is held strictiy accountable for each sheet of it. When he destroys a document, a notation to that effect is included on a record. Even his scrap paper may bear a serial number and have to be accounted for. At the Moscow headquarters each document is sewn into the file by the senior officer directly responsible for the case. A special record of all documents in the file is kept by the case officer and its accuracy is regularly verified by the case officer's supervisor. Safe storage areas are locked and sealed with wax each night.

The ritual of sewing in the documents is often regarded as a waste of time by senior case officers in Moscow. Nevertheless, they would not dream of delegating the job. It seems to have a symbolic significance as an embodiment of both their authority and their responsibility.

The KGB case officer is his own intel assistant. At headquarters he does his own traces, gets his own documents from the archives and handcarries his own messages. Not too long ago, he also often wrote or typed his own dispatches. Even now he may write his own telegrams and personally take them and dispatches to his supervisor for review. In the field he is, if anything, even more responsible for doing everything connected with his operation except for technical surveillance and the like where he must call on experts.

The field case officer under official cover often works at his cover job about as much as do his colleagues who do not have intelligence responsibilities. This obligation is usually not as demanding on the case officer's time as it might first appear because KGB cover slots are usually selected so that cover duties complement intelligence tasks to a substantial degree. By contrast, other KGB officers have virtually no serious cover responsibilities and rely on the all-embracing security system of the Soviet colony to protect their true affiliation. In either case, the 'KGB officer is not expected to spend much time on the administrative or reporting aspects of his intelligence job. Within the limitations of his cover assignment, he is supposed to be out on the street, making contacts, working agents and performing other intelligence tasks, reporting only the highlights and the most crucial information back to headquarters.

In developing new sources, he will usually bring things along to the point where recruitment or some other substantial development is clearly foreseeable before asking for traces from headquarters or getting approval to go ahead with his plan. Local informers and support agents are sometimes picked up without reference to headquarters at all, except perhaps after the fact of recruitment. The KGB officer must account with some precision, however, for his operational expenditures and is usually quite limited in what he can spend for development prior to coming up with a concrete proposal for recruiting a source.

Once an agent is recruited or is established as a source, headquarters' control and demands for accountability are exacting, though never voluminous. For a recruited source with significant access, a senior officer, such as a branch chief or his deputy is specifically charged with responsibility for the case. Moscow's concern to insure that information is really coming from the source as described by the case officer and that the source is bona fide is very considerable. Somewhat by contrast, Moscow's requirements (outside of S&T operations) sometimes seem quite general, apparently leaving it up to the case officer and source to report what seems to them most important. On the other hand, reporting is expected to be factual and documentary, if possible. Sometimes the KGB seems obsessed with documents as the only reliable sources. Speculation is not usually encouraged.

In such a system of extreme compartmentation and vertical lines of communication and authority, the advisory role of staffs and other elements not within the chain of command is small. The First Chief Directorate, the foreign intelligence arm of the KGB, has a counterintelligence unit, for example, that actually takes over a case from the regular chain of command in the event that the agent appears to be doubled, compromised or in danger of compromise. The field case officer may remain the same, but in Moscow the Counterintelligence Service assumes full authority for directing the case. Deception and some types of complex political action operations often appear to be run directly by the headquarters element, Department A, that prepares the operation in Moscow. In such cases, of course, local assets of a Rezidentura may well be employed in support, but the operations are frequently run by specialists.

The typical KGB officer, trained in an environment where political agitation is part of daily fare, sees political action and propaganda as part of his regular routine. There are numerous examples of Soviet officers around the world who seem to concentrate almost exclusively on pushing the Soviet line on the issues of the day with whatever contacts they meet. To them the political approach is not something apart from spotting, developing, assessing, recruiting and agent handling. It is integral to that effort. Some do it crudely, some ineffectively, some with great skill. The point is that in almost all cases, it is a part of the operation.

In addition to politics, KGB recruiting and training of staff personnel emphasizes operational and area knowledge and experience from bottom to top. The main sources for new KGB officers are the institutes of International Affairs and Eastern Languages in Moscow. These institutions, which are better compared to the U.S. service academies than to other organizations of higher learning in America, prepare young Soviet citizens for careers abroad not only in the intelligence services, but for the foreign service, the Ministry of Foreign Trade, Radio Moscow, etc. Assignment of a student after graduation is worked out among the various consuming organizations. The students are under what amounts to military discipline and are required to accept the assignment given them. Few students, see much difference among the organizations these days except for differences in pay, length and location of overseas service and other practical matters.

In the course of their education the students learn two or three foreign languages well and study the history and culture of the area in which they specialize in considerable detail, although current politics is likely tobe a much weaker course than history. Access to native sources is still circumscribed. A substantial number of students go for a year or more as exchange students or as trainees with Soviet organizations working abroad. As a result, they often end up knowing the area, its language, its politics, customs, police systems, local geography and so on very well. Although the old-style Soviet intelligence officer who was raised in the shadow if not the institutions of the Komintern and could recruit agents through appeals to an international revolutionary ideology are long since past, the newest generation of Soviet intelligence officers can be quite effective by trading on their precise knowledge of target personalities and the problems and frustrations of the countries in which they operate.

A KGB officer is ranked in his service by two systems. He progresses up the ladder from junior lieutenant to senior lieutenant and so on up to colonel and general. At the same time, he is classified as a junior case officer, case officer or senior case officer and then as he progresses further by his position, such as Rezident, which he may hold. His pay depends on his ranking in both hierarchies and there is no necessary coincidence between where he stands in one and where he stands in the other. The operational designations are based on his experience and performance as an operator. His formal rank is largely based on length of service up through major or lieutenant colonel. The chain of command is designated through the operational positions rather than formal rank. For example, a major of State Security from some other part of the KGB might be transferred into the First Chief Directorate under the designation of junior case officer and find himself subordinate to a senior lieutenant who had attained the position of case officer.

The phenomenon of marked disparity between formal rank and operational designation was probably more common during the period of considerable expansion of the First Chief Directorate's personnel ten and more years ago than it is today. At that time officers from other branches of the service were being brought into the First Chief Directorate more frequently than they are now. Nevertheless, the emphasis on operational experience and operational ability continues to be a marked element of the KGB style. The top officers in the service, for example, usually involve themselves directly in operations. They meet and develop agent candidates, they recruit and they handle agents.

In part this is a consequence of the strongly operational orientation of the KGB as a whole. A direct involvement in operations comes naturally to almost everyone in the organization. This operational orientation is manifest also in the concentration of relatively few cases per case officer. Generally, one man may handle four or five agents or targets under development. He is not expected to spread his range of intelligence activities further, although he may well be encouraged to develop a large circle of casual contacts from whom a relatively small number of serious targets may be selected.

From the foregoing one can see that the typical KGB officer is a man who sees himself in a strict vertical chain of command. He expects to do everything necessary for his operation without much outside help, except in technical matters. Depending upon circumstances, the case officer may be closely guided by the Rezident in a particular operation, but he is not supposed to discuss it with anyone else. (Gossip and shop-talk are endemic, however, in part to overcome the excessive official compartmentation.) Although the case officer is held strictly to account for the results of his actions, he is not expected to report on day-to-day developments to headquarters and in fact the capacity of his communications system is far too limited to permit him to do so. He is street-oriented in the concept of his job and does not put in a lot of time at the desk writing reports, reading guidance from headquarters or maintaining his files. When he has a problem he takes it up with his boss and he is generally not expected to have many problems. He is supposed to know the difference between what he really needs consultation about and what he ought to be able to handle on his own.

His boss in turn has the responsibility of not only guiding the case officers that work for him, but of ensuring that vital information pertinent to the work of one case officer but acquired through another is made available. In both operational guidance and information sharing, the role of the Rezident is crucial. There is virtually no lateral distribution of communications and an extreme emphasis on compartmentation. Although the rigid compartmentation of the system is probably a major vulnerability, superiors both in the field and headquarters are usually able to keep up with each case because they are not overwhelmed with paper. Relatively primitive (in terms of capacity) communications equipment and the custom that each officer prepare his own reports and keep them brief make it possible for such reports as do get written to be read all the way up the chain of command. The general in command of the First Chief Directorate has been reported on several occasions as reading all the incoming traffic. Much of the outgoing traffic is also signed personally by him.

The strictness of the chain of command and the limited amount of communications place a great weight of responsibility on each Rezident and on each case officer. As with all Soviet officials, KGB case officers have a norm to fulfill for the year and are usually called to account for their activities during part of the annual home leave in the Soviet Union. In a system like that, if something goes wrong, someone must be found to have been responsible. This can encourage an extreme of caution, particularly when the relations between case officer and the Rezident are not of the best or when the headquarters desk officer is not cooperative and understanding of the problems in the field.

Although we are accustomed to think of Soviet organizations as highly impersonal, in the KGB personalities and the private connections of individual officers are often crucial to the success or failure of an operation -- or a career. In many ways, the KGB is an organization made to order for the man who wants to claim all the glory for himself and put all the mistakes on the backs of his subordinates. Family connections or other personal contacts have special significance in this sort of an organization because they can provide a secure and effective second channel for communication in a system in which there is otherwise only one narrow route watched over by jealous monitors for all the messages an officer may want to send.

The emphasis on the role of the individual in the organization also has its advantages, of course. A capable officer, particularly one from an influential family, working under a Rezident who knows his business and will accept responsibility is likely to find himself in a stimulating work environment that may compensate very well for shortcomings of the service or the Soviet system as a whole that might otherwise disturb him.

While the KGB style as outlined above is in many ways admirably suited to running operations, it appears to have limitations in the way it makes use of the product of its operations and in evaluating whether the operations themselves are really worthwhile. There are enough instances on record to permit the generalization that in political matters especially Moscow is often reluctant to receive bad news. The ambitious case officer may find himself frustrated by pressure to conform, either from his Rezident or from Moscow, when he tries to report things as he sees them. To a large degree this is probably an inevitable manifestation of the extreme isolation from the outside world in which the Soviet policy makers live and their lack of exposure to unwelcome information. In addition, the emphasis on operations as such and the overall environment of the KGB, which is predominantly an internal security, criminal investigation, and antisubversive organization, probably discourages the kind of critical intellect by whom frank reporting, regardless of its content, is most prized.

This last consideration, the emphasis on an investigative, operational style at the expense of analytical curiosity, may well be the source of considerable tension within the First Chief Directorate today. Bigoted and inflexible ultimate consumers are problems enough. But also the older generation of KGB officers, including many of today's Rezidenty, was largely trained in war time and internal security operations. Their juniors, speaking broadly, are more academically inclined, more tempted to discourse on their theories, more interested in foreign societies and politics per se and less dedicated to fulfilling the obligations of the party and the state. They are often perceptive and realistic about developments not only abroad, but also in their own country. Bearing in mind the importance of personal relations and the dependence of juniors on seniors in the rigid chain of command, the signs we see these days of tension and cynicism among these younger officers should not be surprising.

As they rise in the KGB, we may see some organizational changes over time. If these changes preserve the laconic style of communication while at the same time do away with some of the most cumbersome and archaic aspects of the communications and records keeping systems, the KGB could become an even more formidable institution than it is today. The problem of encouraging intelligence analysis and imaginative, critical thinking is a problem for Soviet society as a whole. As a part of that society, the KGB shares the problem, but probably not in greater degree than other Soviet institutions and possibly less than many.

Judgments about the influence the KGB style has on KGB officers as individuals, about the implications for KGB operations of the way they do business, about the relevance of the style to Western operations against Soviet targets, and about many other related matters lead us beyond the scope of this note which, as stated in the introductory paragraph, hopes only to raise an interesting topic for further comment. If this piece succeeds in making the point that KGB organizational style is important to Western intelligence and that we should concern ourselves with it more than we have, it will have served its purpose.

[Apr 18, 2018] The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend.

Notable quotes:
"... The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. ..."
"... If you read very carefully the articles written by high level advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they were, whether they were Russian or Chinese. ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Antoni on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:49 am UTC

Shame on Arabs and China! My personal experience with Chinese convinced me that the real God for them is money. Beside collecting money by any means possible, these people have no other issue to talk or discuss. They had shown zero interest in the geopolitics or the dire situation of the planet, or suffering of humanity. They did not show any emotional or sentiment towards what is happening in the World.

Majority of them express some kind of inferiority complex towards West. China Will soon or later betray Russia, They do not think about any higher moral or human value, heroism, solidarity, except for collecting money.

But the Number one betrayal came from Arabs, 22 Arab countries, and some 90% of them are happy in their slave minded status. They are the biggest disgrace for humanity and Muslims. Some of them are more aggressive then their masters in the West.

If not for the virus of Wahabism which infected the body of many Muslims, there could emerge a true alliance of Orthodox Christians and True Muslims. Such an alliance would be undefeatable, even without money worshiping China.

Charles on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:31 pm UTC
Antoni, you know obviously what you are talking about. Especially since I myself am Chinese, and spent almost two decades coordinating the visit of Chinese officials and business folks to US, on behalf of the US government. This was my previous career, before I abandoned it and moved to Russia.

The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. One would not want to speak too undiplomatically about the Chinese mentality, and the current state of Chinese National psyche.

If you read very carefully the articles written by high level advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they were, whether they were Russian or Chinese.

The overseas Russian get very emotional at such trying times for their motherland. I more than relate to that. But they show a natural tendency to idealize everything about Russia, and gets instantly suspicious on hearing a different opinion. The same eagerness to believe is now extended to the new great Asian ally of Russia. I wrote something a couple of days ago to the same effect. The moderator even did not allow me to post. I hope now that this war charade has temporarily abated, the moderator would regain a minimal level of calmness and openness for dialogue.

Darius on April 15, 2018 , · at 3:30 pm UTC
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." – Mahatma Gandhi

Hizbullah, Persia, Russia vs China

The real power and fearlessness is not about numbers. It is about soul and its vibrant energetic radiation.
How can a small movement of people like Hizbullah be more vibrant and fearless and outspoken against oppression and international criminals then the so called giant nation of China?
How could Bolivia a small nation can be so to the point then China?

How can Iran (Persia) with its 70 millions people and totally surrounded by Kosher Nostra mafia can be so brave and standing tall against the international oppressors of humanity in compare to China, which doing practically nothing?
It is not about numbers, it is about power of soul, about life philosophy, about way of life, about believe in true and one God. So that is way Persians historically influenced humanity more then anything China can dream of.
There is reason why King Cyrus, is mentioned several times in Bible. There is a reason why Saadi poetry about humanity is written in the entrance of UN:

Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you've no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain!

"Saadi Persian poet"

But perhaps, the most significant solid power and force which has not only the soul of justice, solidarity and humanity, but even instrument of physical power and ability to fight back a total war is Mother Russia. Despite its shortcomings, Russia is a gift from God, Russia is the historic Rom of our time, mentioned in Sura 30 of Quran (30:1-5 "To Whom Power Belongs" Declares the truth of the universe).

Russia may be is the second period of Zul-Qarnain mentioned in the Sura 18 of Quran. Russia is an exceptional Caucasian (White race, i personally do not believe in race ) people, (if we exclude Persians as Caucasians) which does not participate in the oppression of non-Europeans and blocking the total subjugation of planet by Western and its minions.

When you talk with Russians and Westerners, you will immediately recognize the difference. Russians are not arrogant and it is exactly what Quran describing a kind of Christians, who are not arrogant, but a people with love and affection. I have no illusions, but i talking in general terms, i talking about sum of all vectors and direction of this common vector.
Numbers are not important, historically majority always were wrong. Truth is still truth even you are a minority.

So, the conclusion is that, if I am right and if Russia is righteous and just and hold on rope of God, no force of this plant can defeat Russia. Russia does not need China, China is not a nation of ideology, faith or religion, they only believe in money, which is also the god of Western world and its minions. China is not a natural ally of Mother Russia, natural ally of Russia is nations with believe in God, justice, solidarity, soul and judgment day.
My personal encounter with Chinese convinced me that they have a completely different mindset and I was completely disappointed.

With love and respect to Russia and its heroic people

Charles on April 15, 2018 , · at 9:58 pm UTC
Yow Darius my man, you speak the truth. It is fire and light in one's soul, and nothing else. And if one might add, a preparedness to die, a simplicity and gentleness of character. Labels mean nothing.

Degeneration afflicted many nations, comes in many forms, it can be a well-mannered and finely dressed German so proud of himself, it can be an oily and greedy petty Chinese businessman, it can be a Mercedes driving Arab in front of some big hotel in Dubai.

Globalism is a satanic cult of our times. They are huge in numbers, but their souls are small, enslaved, and twisted. We have no fear of them. Keep well brother.

Ahmed on April 15, 2018 , · at 6:37 pm UTC
@Antoni

I agree with everything you said. I will take a more wait and see approach with China. I hope for the sake of the world they jump onboard. Ultimately the issue is materialism. The Anglo zios want to deal with a world in which everyone has a price on their head, so they can be easy to buyout and compromised. Since the Zionists are the one with the most capital, anyone who wants a piece of the world, will have to go through them. So that materialistic outlook the Chinese have, can be a huge opening for the zios to exploit.

The state of the Arab leaders are even more pitiful. A bunch of animals who are enslaved to their lusts, and desires. I would tell them to enjoy it, because their end will not be good. Most of them have sold out to the highest bidder(Zionists) a ling time ago.

Now the Wahhabi movement, what's left to say about this devious, malicious cult. If you're interested check this article out. It talks about the founder of the Wahhabi movement, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, and how he was in cahoots with British spy's who were looking for a way to bring down the ottoman empire. I have to do more research on this article, however as someone who has studied wahhabisim, I'm fairly certain it was a movement that had malicious intent from the beginning, regardless of the article I linked below. It's just somewhat hard to explain to non Muslim's because some of it deals with matters of theology. Anyways I enjoyed reading you're post. Peace my friend.

http://www.conspiracyschool.com/wahhabis

Pindos on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:49 am UTC
Imagine how many would die in a war. What is happening is acceptable and necessary losses. Russia and China understand this.
Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:54 am UTC
Saker says "But what could the Russians have done?" is the right question.
Ans: Provide advanced defensive weapons well-ahead of time so that the Syrians themselves can impose a cost.

In addition what the Russians have already done, why is Russia not selling advanced anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons to countries in the cross-hairs of the West? Often, they talk about selling S-300 to Syria. Now imagine, Syria has Bastion, anti-sub weapons, and S-300. There will be costs to the West in this case. I think, this possibility is something Russia can do. Why wait, as it is obvious that promises by the West are basically lies. (Despite, dismantling the CW, the same argument is used to justify the attack. The Skripal case uses this method against Russia itself.)

What has the Russians got by withholding the sale of such weapons? What is the Russian calculus?

Arioch on April 17, 2018 , · at 8:48 am UTC
> What has the Russians got by withholding the sale of such weapons?

Those weapons was not re-sold to USA to make them research it and either clone or devise countermeasures or both

James2 on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:55 am UTC
Russia may take the issue economic route

They should target key UK business Like BP and other British entities and exclude them from the Russian Market – force majeur can be put into effect

Then do the same with the French

They don't need China for this.

the pessimist on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:57 am UTC
The attack was pretty clearly highly coreographed and followed strict rules that were not violated. The US provided a turkey shoot for the Syrian AD restricting the missile flight path to lanes with no typical deviations to confuse the AD. I'm sure this is what the Russians required in order to guarantee no response from them.

So there are a number of important questions here.

There was insistence that an attack must occur, despite Russian objections. The US and Russian militaries worked out a way for this to occur as safely as possible. Good that they pulled it off safely as it implies a high level of competence and discipline on both sides.

It seems likely from public behavior that the Pentagon thought this a bad idea and was fully aware of the dangers.

Where is Trump on this and was he forced to acquiesce?

It also seems clear that the pressure on Russia has not diminished and that the 'allies' intend to try and force an agreement on Syria through Geneva process that partitions the country and likely deposes Assad.

The Russian side said that the president of Russia had been insulted/disrespected and that there would be consequences for this action.

There has not been much effective push back in Europe to this policy of direct confrontation.

China is wearing a mask in public but is not pleased and has offered some diplomatic support in public.

I rate the situation as highly dangerous, unpredictable, with a great deal going on behind the scenes.

the pessimist on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:33 am UTC
As an addendum b over at moa has pointed out in his summary that while the US Defense Dept is claiming only 3 targets Russian and Syrian sources claim many more, specifically airports. I also read that B1s, I believe, used laser guided bombs in the attack and I have no idea what the targets were as all discussion has focused only on the cruise missiles. Perhaps more sites were targeted than was agreed upon.

Also, regarding the Skripal poisoning, Russia has obtained the evidence of BZ use from the Swiss OPCW lab, perhaps through back channels. I see this as hopeful – Russia does have friends in Europe, although the remain afraid or without the power to assist openly.

the pessimist on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:57 pm UTC
Postings in various places suggest that the US deviated from the agreed on plan and that the Russian jets that scrambled near the end of the attack put a stop to further deviations. Perhaps a broken promise like this led to the specific assertions of disrespect.

Thanks to the Saker especially and all the commenters for this forum and the robust discussion.

Mark Hadath on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:04 am UTC
The Saker's frustration is clear and valid.

However, I think Russian behaviour is consistent with the long game strategy. Syria lost three buildings and its citizens were celebrating in the streets. The US had the bulk of its missiles shot down. This is quite simply posturing by the Empire. I don't think the last 48 hours add to the perception the US can whatever it wants whenever it wants. If anything its the opposite.

I think the US will try again. Its attempt will be no more powerful or successful than what just occurred. They will continue to do so for many years yet. They will continue the delusional narrative delivered ad nauseam to its own people for another decade at least.

My point is that as each month goes by, it matters less.

The American hrandstanding is becoming white noise.

I am encouraged by the last 48 hours. I admire Russian restraint. I have for years now and I expect to continue to do so for some time yet.

ReneR on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:04 am UTC
What Russia does imo is trying to buy time.

As former analyses of you spoke of, the russians Lack the number of planes etc the Wallstreet-fascists have. This time they will use to speed up the stuff they need. The stuff Putin spoke off in his march speech. The provocation as much to to with it I guess.

And time Saker is not at the Side of the US, as the petro dollar Will be replaced and their debts Will reach astronimical figures. Remember China is a creditor of this fascist regime. Simply stop funding this moron shit. Why did China buy worthless state-papers from the US??

The americans didnt dare to kill Any russian a hoge difference to the event Pompeo was bluffing about. So ..?

Nathan on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:22 am UTC
China bought the worthless state-papers from the US because it give it's leader's the good life and the illusion of great wealth. If they sell off the Treasuries than that illusion with evaporate in hyperinflation. The Russians are only waist deep into the Global Economy, they probably can crawl out with some effort -- the Chinese are up to their eyeballs in it, they cannot.
one minion on April 16, 2018 , · at 8:26 am UTC
China was being pragmatic and keeping its major market afloat. Little point in being the factory of the world if the world stops buying what you produce through lack of liquidity.
I have faith in the Chinese leadership–they are ordinary people like everyone else but their culture and mindset gives them a clever edge that the west has lost, long ago.
Guest on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:07 am UTC
China is not bowing down. They however don't play the game with the same strategy as Russia does.
Jacobs Ladder on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:13 am UTC
It is indeed not over, because in history there is seldom a clear beginning and an end.

However, the Saker is being too pessimistic. The FUKUS coalition avoided the Russian positions (ie showed a wariness and respect), and Syria did stand tall in defending herself.

For Russia to have taken the bait and reacted reflexively would have been counterproductive. As things stand, no escalation occurred, and Russia comes out looking cool-headed and mature. In effect the good guys.

The US is in sharp decline. It's current behaviour demonstrates that it is in the final stages of Empire. Time is on Russia and China's side. To engage the US unless absolutely necessary would work to favour the US and against the rising powers of China and Russia.

Martin Giuffrida on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:14 am UTC
Kevin Barrett re-posted a Gordon Duff censored article re the SAA capturing a Takfiri chemical weapons facility in East Ghouta with western weapon components and reporting the capture of AZ personnel:

https://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.com/2018/04/duff-fb/

Some excerpts:
"The Syrian Arab Army and with the help of Russian captured a shipment of chemical weapons destined for the Eastern Ghouta. These were British weapons produced at Porton Down in Salisbury.
"American, British and Israeli military personnel captured in Syria have confirmed they were ordered to stage chemical attacks in East Ghouta by their governments.
"The Americans are still being held along with Israeli's while British prisoners are being negotiated for. Sources in Damascus told us that representatives of Oman in Damascus approached the Russian Office of Reconciliation on behalf of Britain for the return of British chemical warfare personnel.
"The shells are identified as VX gas from British stockpiles.
"Russian officials in Syria informed Britain through Oman that they would have to directly deal with Syria for the return of their personnel. We have received no further information since, Damascus has remained silent on how or if negotiations were proceeding.
"Last week, VT Damascus received evidence that Americans, US Army Special Forces along with Israeli chemical weapons officers had been captured in East Ghouta. We were told that not only was a command facility captured with modern weapons but a stockpile of British made 81mm poison gas mortar shells, numbering in the hundreds, was seized as well.
"Videos were viewed by former MOD weapons specialists who identified the green stripe on the shells seized in East Ghouta as VX gas from British stockpiles."

Just pencil in that article.

My comment:
Regarding Russian response, my feeling is Russia recived plenty of assurance the US was unwilling to hit Russian facilities, and got special corridors for attacks. The Russians could sit this out and watch and the US failed in a major way again militarily against only Syrian defenses. I think it is a wise principle for Russia to avoid the temptation to reveal the real power of its weapons prematurely until there is a real need for them at which time they may be a rather significant surprise.
-Martin

Nathan on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:15 am UTC
Saker,

I view Russia's position as unassailable. After the bombing of Friday night is it even conceivable that the US could ever gain air superiority over the Russian homeland? Yes the attack was made with second-tier missiles at third-rate targets without the element of surprise and poorly coordinated, but it was still easily repelled by a combination of Soviet-era junk and modern EW equipment and radars. Even those in the West who are apathetic, if they are listening at all before they change the channel, must at some unconscious level realize that the US could not have a "perfect" air strike with over a hundred missiles and destroy only three unoccupied buildings.

A conventional WWIII of any length of time will destroy the Global Economy. The Russians will win easily simply because they are tougher and more prepared. They may not desire that outcome, but of all people they probably have the best chance to survive. Except if the nukes end up being released by accident or through escalation. So the Russians, being just about the only moral actors around, have a moral responsibility not to fight back until there is no other choice.

NOTE: Not that all western nations or the people within them are immoral actors, the greater population and smaller countries are just bystanders.

sallysdad on April 15, 2018 , · at 2:24 pm UTC
I am not convinced the US used second-tier missiles. These were launched from active duty warships and I can only assume it is the standard cruise missile weapon employed. There is way too much not yet known about the details of this operation.
If, and it is a big "if", the missiles moved along agreed corridors, it is not surprising so many were shot down.
As I say, so much is not yet known.
Nathan on April 16, 2018 , · at 12:21 am UTC
I always figure that the best stuff is under wraps, although available in no great quantity.

BTW, I think a technology that isn't discussed much is passive detection systems, which may have taken the element of surprise away from standoff weapons.

pogohere on April 16, 2018 , · at 8:46 pm UTC
The A-Ha Moment.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Here comes this important question of purely tactical nature which many flag-waving uber-patriots miss completely, while, I am sure, Pentagon and not only, is puzzled with what went wrong. The question is not about excellent performance of Syrian AD–what and how about this performance are being unveiled with each passing hour. Russian EW? Absolutely, no doubt it. Massive shooting down of Tomahawks and Scalpel TLAMs? Absolutely. But, but what about JASSMs. It is conceivable that these were they Trump was bragging about in his idiotic twits when spoke about those "Smart" missiles that "are coming". There are still no firm numbers about the number of intercepted JASSMs, what is clear, however, is the fact that many of them were intercepted. If JASSM passes today for "Smart", it kind of puts good ol' Tomahawks, logically, into the category of "Dumb". Obviously, as latest Syria's experience shows, Tomahawks are not an overwhelming threat, as they were positioned as for decades, for truly (not in Saddam Hussein's, or, rather US media, way) highly integrated and EW capable air-defense system.

But JASSMs, "stealthy" and supposedly "Smart", even by preliminary data pouring in didn't fare much better than Tomahawks and this was against Syrian AD assets which are pretty damn old. So, what about "stealth"? Ah, but in the modern signal processing, including well developed now sensor-fusion (or data-fusion) techniques it really doesn't matter for advanced adversary. But that is purely technological aspect, however influential for operational and strategic levels. Truly global, geopolitical issue is this, as Apps concludes:

Therein lies one of the greatest challenges of this situation. In 1990, after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the George H. W. Bush administration was relieved to find that Russia – then still in the hands of Mikhail Gorbachev – was inclined to avoid turning the conflict into a Cold War-style standoff. In the years that followed, successive U.S. presidents became used to acting without such worries. Putin has now successfully signaled that those days are entirely over.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/search/label/JASSM

Izaates bar Monobazeus on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:16 am UTC
No it ain't over. It has just begun. Call it the great tribulation or Jacob's troubles or whatever you like but understand we have another half dozen years to go. In any event Daniel says Damascus will have terror fall upon it at night and become a smoking ruin byvmorning. So Damascus will fall to align reality with prophecy. The ultimate vanity.
Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:17 am UTC
"The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything at this time to support Russia."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-15/china-arrogant-us-has-record-launching-wars-deceptive-grounds

Anon on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:17 am UTC
Yes, it's over.

The recent events are complete theatre but the first act is about setting up the second act.

In the second act, America's tough actions force Iran Russia and Syria to the negotiating table where a grand accord is hammered out.

In the third act, the Empire cuts its losses and gets the fuck out of the ME because it no longer has interests there. Israel BTFO. KSA BTFO. They are really the worst allies ever.

In the epilogue Russia becomes the main broker in the ME and balances out the competing interests while keeping the peace. France and England BTFO. Nobody wants these douche bags around anymore. America goes back to squabbling in South America and Asia where it arguably does have strategic interests.

FURNARIUS on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:19 am UTC
The world Zio-Massonic movement has just shown that it can not dispense with provocations and plots that can unleash bloody world wars.

The United Nations are a farce and should be dismantled!

Just remembering, it is always England and Judea that press for war as they did in 1938-1939 or release the great and relentless butcher – the only true holocaust – 1914-1918 !

Jake on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:20 am UTC
There is another possibility: These "empty strikes" were strictly intended for domestic consumption. Consider: The US openly telegraphed the coming strikes. Syria and Russia cleared some areas for the West to hit that would result in no injuries to personnel and limited damage to infrastructure. The West dutifully hit those evacuated areas and proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". Syrians danced in the streets for "surviving" the missile strikes while Russia threatened consequences. What form those consequences take will tell us if these countries are merely dancing a rather peculiar dance together or whether they are about to starting fighting in earnest. So far Russia has been playing it cool as a cucumber, but these strikes – empty as they might have been – demand some sort of response or Russia will risk looking weak. The fly in the ointment is Israel and their attack on an Iranian base within Syria that reportedly killed 20 Iranian officers. Will that loss of life influence Russia's response after the West made every effort to avoid drawing blood?
Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 3:59 pm UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF60VV3G3_Y
mike k on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:28 am UTC
Saker, many commenters here give me the impression that they will go to any lengths to reassure themselves that we are not teetering on the brink of all out nuclear war. All of their theories and reasonings seem to avoid facing that grim reality. Is that also your impression, or have I misjudged your position?
Simon Chow on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:30 am UTC
I think this blog may have misread China. I think I can read the Chinese mind and the 'Western' more subtly since I am ethnic Chinese but educated in the 'West'. But I follow Sun Tzu and therefore will not expound anymore on China's strategy as far as the Yanks are concern lest they are wised up.

Suffice to say that a catastrophic decline of the empire ala the Ottoman Empire which led to WW1 and WW2 due to fighting over the spoils, is on nobody's interests, not even Russia's.

The best case scenario is to ease the Yanks into a break-up ala the late great USSR.

China's economic, diplomatic and political strength will be critically needed to do this and to rebuild the new independent states of Western North America, Eastern North America and the Southern Confederation.

Anonymous on April 16, 2018 , · at 6:37 am UTC
A Chinese Empire with its new social contract would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Simon Chow on April 16, 2018 , · at 9:20 am UTC
Anonymous. No Chinese empire. The Chinese don't want to occupy other countries. Too troublesome ruling them. Philippines president Duterte recently suggested half-jokingly that the Chinese should just make the Philippines a Chinese province. China don't want that. Just to make the Philippines more prosperous and stable in order to trade with it – which is far better. If China wanted make the Philippines as its own province, She would have done so 600 years ago when Admiral Zheng He sailed his then unmatchable in the South China Sea and onwards to India, Persian Gulf, Africa and possibly beyond.
Bro 93 on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:35 am UTC
Over?

"It ain't over till it's over." Yogi Berra

Which means never, unless you're talking about the individual organism, is it "over".

So get over it never being over.

What would you (we) do if it were "over"? Contemplate our navels??

Oh, you mean stress inducing bluster , bluff and brinksmanship of a dying entity. What else has it got, except blowing itself and everybody else up?

Patience, perserverance. Look at the reaction in the US. Don't forget this terrain, even if Trump's Unreality Show self destructs.

Is there progress? I think there is. None but the most cretinous deplorables are so stupid as to cheer the Donald in the last week. Most are dismayed.

And even Alex Jones is allowing open talk of Israel's Empire role in putting DT on this war mongering course that those who buy his supplements refuse to buy .:

https://youtu.be/IabdFIMCTfM

Although Dr P is the one to explicitly state that Israel is a total liability.

So I wouldn't quibble too much about AJ and his mistakes and prejudices. Weaker on Israel than you would like but as good on Russia as you can expect.

Stupid on China. But Dr P isn't. And anyone watching can see that and see that AJ panders to his base's fears and prejudices.

But if they are wising up on Israel (as they have!) they can wise up on China and the whole picture, as well.

Who would want that process of improving consciousness to end, to be "over"??

To relax go back to what??

Actually, I like Snow Leopard's comment the most. And I am contemplating a surgical procedure on my navel, soon. It's just that Action is part of Being, and I see certain actions other than handwringing and brow wiping being more productive right now. Especially in terms of encouraging the process in the US where increasing numbers of people are realizing they have to think and act to grease the skids for the out of touch geriatrics like McCain, Feintsein, Pelosi, etc .or DT will go out with them, if he keeps acting just as ridiculously untruthful as they are.

one minion on April 16, 2018 , · at 9:16 am UTC
'ridiculously untruthful' -- - that and deceit is the sea that the Donald has swum in his entire life, do you really believe that he could recognise reality if it smashed him in the face like a two ton truck?
Precious little chance of that happening in this lifetime, I'd say. It is by now part of his cell make-up and ineradicable.
Ahsahyah on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:54 am UTC
The US has backed Russia into a DEEP, DEEP corner . Sooner or later Russia will have to respond to the AmeriKKKan madness or surrender and become a vassal State like Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea .After Syria is Iran and China. If Russia goes so is China. Now is the time to stand upp to AmeriKKKa (the empire of chaos)
Check out the work of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.org and Professor William Engdahl
Simon Chow on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:57 am UTC
All I can say at this stage is that Sun Tzu said not to fight out of anger, fear or enemy's provocation to a fight. Russia should stay cool. Pick carefully the battlefield (not necessarily a battlefield like Borodino), pick her own fight (not necessarily in the battlefield with guns and missiles but just as decisive) and pick the issues to fight for. This way retain the initiative and not let the enemy drive and maneuver Russia. Drive and maneuver the enemy instead.

The full-frontal 'love-in' with the Germans in WW2 is a no no type of war to be avoided. If unavoidable, must be very well prepared. But both the West and the semi-West seem addicted to the prospect of such an 'orgasmic' love-in. They seems locked into the paradigm of such logic. But beneath the rationalisation is simply a love for war.

Here is an extract from Richard Lovelace on the English Civil War. He reflects accurately on what, me as an Oriental, views as what drives the West's and the semi-West's mindset to war:

1) Tell me not (Sweet) I am unkind,
That from the Nunnery
Of thy chaste breast, and quiet mind,
To War and Arms I flee.

2) True, a new Mistress now I chase,
The first Foe in the Field;
And with a stronger Faith embrace
A Sword, a Horse, a Shield.

3) Yet this inconstancy is such
As you too shall adore;
I could not love thee, Dear, so much,
Loved I not War.

Some version replace the last line in stanza 3) with: "Loved I not Honour more". But you get the drift. "war" and "Honour" (in or through war), are essentially the same.

So Russians, please calm down.

Anonymous on April 16, 2018 , · at 1:29 am UTC
Speaking of Borodino, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Russians not only repelled Napoleon, but crushed him definitively in the end (thing somehow overlooked in 'histories' of the 1812-14 war genre 'War and Peace') and reorganized Europe on their own terms. Of course, it did not last too long (due to the usual British treachery), but the subsequent attempts to destroy Russia ended in the same way. Now if Hitler has not learned anything from Napoleon, how do you expect a Tramp like Donald, to learn anything from Hitler (and the Kaiser and Napoleon, for that matter)?
Simon Chow on April 16, 2018 , · at 6:32 am UTC
Yeah, the Yanks know about Borodino. So unlikely they will attack that way. They are trying to provoke Russia into making a mistake and self-impale!
one minion on April 16, 2018 , · at 9:31 am UTC
I am in complete agreement with you Simon. All indications are that Mr Putin and team has a firm grasp on reality also, whatever that may bring in the future. It may not be too pretty for the western sphere but delusion and rank stupidity never has a pretty outcome.
Albrecht on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:58 am UTC
Not over. Not even close. The reason this isn't over is that the causes and conditions causing the root of the problem have not been dealt with. The cause of the problem can only be dealt peacefully through diplomacy. In the Empire's current configuration diplomacy is near impossible as there is no competent partner to negotiate with on this side. The Empire will signal their openness to negotiation by removing Bolton aka Captain Crunch, Haley and their ilk. This doesn't seem likely and I'm not sure who a competent replacement would be.

In short, prepare for war.

Mike Reich on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:00 pm UTC
Russia needs to sell to Syria and to Iran ~30 nukes each plus delivery vehicles able to reach New York (thus also Israel, Paris, London). Also S400 systems to protect nukes enough to guarantee launch. Syria and Iran then declare next attack from any of the Gang of Four states will mean a nuclear response to all.
mikhas on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:01 pm UTC
You forgot to mention that without adults Mattis & Dunford, WW3 would have started the last time they "bombed" Syria, now because of they talked the volatile, impulsive and emotional Trump out of it, it landed on a compromise, on Moscow's terms.
Alan on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:06 pm UTC
The PRC is one of the only other 2countries that supported the Russian UN resolution, so it's not clear to me what the Saker is referring to re "just standing by" ? Do you expect PRC to send troops to Syria? has Syria or Russia made such a request or invitation? Do you know if such a move by the PRC has wide support by the Chinese public? Please do not respond with nonsense like public opinions don't matter in china. The Chinese government uses public opinion polls frequently and widely. Fact is I believe majority of Chinese are also affected by all the lies from the western msm, especially the well educated elites, most of whom studied in the West. This explains why their Global Times pieces tend to be much more pro Russia than their better educated elites
grrr on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:35 pm UTC
Diplomacy??? It degraded beyond recognition. We used to have the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick. Now we have geniuses like Samantha Powers and Nikki Haley. We also had a joke of an ambassador to Saddam's Iraq that triggered 1-st Iraq war, although I tend to think (more and more lately) that her blurb to Saddam was a deliberate in order to advance Bush's understanding of his "new world order" idea.
Serbian girl on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:52 pm UTC
Yes, but the previous UNSC meeting where Russia submitted a text requesting a full and objective investigation of the chemical attack in Syria only Bolivia voted yes. China abstained! So Russia looked isolated just prior to the attack
Hydro on April 15, 2018 , · at 3:11 pm UTC
China abstained on the US-sponsored "poison pill" resolution which was set up to be vetoed, and allowed the US to say they tried to resolve the chemical attack diplomatically but since the resolution was vetoed the only avenue left is to retaliate by missile strikes. However, China voted FOR the "clean" Russian-sponsored resolution to investigate but this seems to be lost.
Serbian girl on April 15, 2018 , · at 9:29 pm UTC
Yes you are right. So there we're a total 4 resolutions. 3 resolutions on chemical weapons investigation and 1 on violation of international and UN charter.

For the chemical weapons: Russia submitted 2 resolutions and US 1. None of them passed. China abstained on one, the US one, which Bolivia and Russia vetoed. Here are the links:

Security council fails to adopt three resolutions on chemical weapons use in Syria
https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/04/1006991

And then there was last one on violation of international law and UN charter also didn't pass:

Russia's UNSC resolution calling to stop aggression against Syria does not receive enough votes
https://www.rt.com/news/424171-unsc-russia-resolution-syria/

grrr on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:19 pm UTC
It is impossible to quickly overcome a ~30 years misguided attempt to impose physical hegemony forever. No complex dynamical system deviates from stable trajectory for too long and too far without breaking apart. And since nobody wants (or foolish enough not to be afraid) of a WWIII (a.k.a. breaking the system apart), the US will be forced to change its guiding principle of perpetuating its sole hegemony. Hopefully sooner than later and peacefully.
ThereisaGod on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:21 pm UTC
Is Putin not putting himself at a huge disadvantage if he allows the carriers group now crossing the Atlantic to get close to Syria and Russia. As this confrontation is obviously not over should Russia not draw a red line at the straits of Gibraltar or somewhere?

I don't understand military issues but can see that the USA/UK/France cannot in the slightest way, be trusted to do anything other than wait for what they perceive to be a moment of advantage, then attack.

Coast Guard on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:34 pm UTC
I saw him in a fastboat carrying an RPG. He'll be stopping the carrier task force momentarily.
Don't worry. They won't get close to Syria.
Justice coming for US on April 15, 2018 , · at 1:22 pm UTC
I understand he has a "Dagger" or six under his arm. Not only will that stop the Carrier Group, it will place it where it belongs. At the bottom of the sea.
ReneR on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:24 pm UTC
Another possible option would be to simply bring the Warsaw pact again new life.

The US in the past didnt dare to attack pact-members in the cold war. Now we have a situation that the US considers other States as his toy for torture.

Syria, China Venezuela Belarus, and Donbass even North Korea should become members of it.

ThereisaGod on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:25 pm UTC
It is dreadful to have to wonder if the history of Donald Trump's ***** might play a major role in the continuance or otherwise of life on earth.
gatobart on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:29 pm UTC
Two days ago Vladimir Putin was handed the worst and most humilliating political (and military) defeat of his entire life, something that in other, more normal times, would have immediately forced a man in his stature to resign his post and go away (Chamberlain anyone ?) yet his own adoring fans seem to be the only ones who haven`t noticed it, preferring instead to keep living in that universe of denial they have been dwelling in for years already. What shows best the extent of this attitude of denial is the fact that they were gloating about the fact that Russia didnt even intervene–contrary to what the man himself had promised he would do only a month ago if one of Russia`s allies was attacked. By now is evident that his word is not worth the saliva that was wasted in saying it and that the US has absolutely no respect for him or for Russia. There are just two things to notice to see the truth in these words: a gloating, exulting Nimrata in the UNO, knowing well how cheap was for her and her country, or rather her neocon masters, this victory was (Russia didnt do a thing, so no WW3) and the headlines in the web "Russia furious". If there is still any doubt about this conclusion, well, beware, the Gang Of Three now plans to present to the UNSC a proposition celebrating the illegal attack on Syria of the 14th and they intend to invite ALL members of it, including Russia, to accept it and take it as a fait accompli. But that will be only a prelude for what is to come, which is of course the demand by the U.S. that the UNO accepts her way of conducting business as the norm, as something they will be able to do in every possible occasion they will wish to do it. Which means, more fake chemical attacks and more bombing in Syria until Russia is thrown out of the country. So much for our master chess player in the Kremlin. Only last year he was still insisting, against all caution and the warning of people as knowledgeable as PCR, that his first priority in foreign policy was a good relationship with Amerika, see how well he has done in this regard (Chamberlain anyone, again ?) All in all, things wont become better but much worse after this devastating defeat of the master chess player, they will only become worse until they get him and Russia cornered and with only two possible options, which we all know well. This is not about Russia being alone or being weaker than the US NATO gang, it is all about Putin`s deliberate policy of putting above everything else his vain and useless attempts at being respected and even liked by his worst enemies, the Western elites.
one minion on April 16, 2018 , · at 9:48 am UTC
I thank the gods that Mr Putin is not as simple minded as the picture you have just painted.
Nano Bagonghi on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:30 pm UTC
Regarding China. China it's a great and powerful nation with a vision and a strategy that span far in the future. His policy has always been to go on with extreme caution and as low as possibile exposure. First and foremost she takes care of his own interest, as any other, however. His main opponent is, that for sure, the "western" empire. In this long term fight, China finds herself in company of other nations who are fighting the same long term struggle. Yes, China doesn't share the same cultural, historical, ethnical heritage with Russia, wich in that regard is part of the Euro family, but shares a vital, long term surviving fight with Russia (and Iran, Syria). This is a matter of fact that can not be underestimated. So, in long term, and in spite of some annoying behavior, I'm quite sure that China will stand with Russia. I read that Chinese warships were placed in front of Syria together with Russian navy, maybe someone forgot that, this is a strong message to me.
one minion on April 16, 2018 , · at 9:51 am UTC
To me also, "This is a matter of fact that can not be underestimated."
Jean Lasson on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:31 pm UTC
Did you read this post from Paul Craig Roberts :
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/14/russias-humanity-moral-conscience-leading-war/ ?

I side with PCR. Only a public military humiliation can stop the Empire. Russia had a golden opportunity to inflict such an humiliation yesterday and she missed that opportunity.

Let's suppose that Russia downed as many attacking warplanes as possible, whatever their location was, plus a few ships like the USS Donal Cook. What would happen next ? Would the USA launch their strategic missiles on Russia ? I very much doubt it, since the US know as a hard fact that they would be destroyed in retaliation. MAD has been restored. The would have no military response at all and the whole world would see it. And this would have been the end of the Empire, with many vassals leaving it.

Of course, such strikes will happen again. Let's hope that Russia will strike back then.

Ozzie on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:12 pm UTC
The public is brainwashed because they are hooked to the mass media and they are the product of our "educational" system. Americans are about sports and shopping. A good portrait is the rabbits of Watership Down.

In 1958, I still believed that there was a significant intellectual difference between the American bourgeosie and the cattle one sees peering between the slats of large trucks as they contentedly munch hay on their way to the abattoir.–R. Oliver

mundanomaniac on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:32 pm UTC
Donald T' s inheritance was a loose canon. I'm sure he knew it when he ran, as a proved tower – builder, against floating sands and the satanic Hillary-fan-club.

America is in psychiatric treatment since 2014 by the spirit of the north.

April 14 was a peace of the art of political wisdom, 'taking two to tango
above the triggers of the planet's doom

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:34 pm UTC
London to Pressure Financially Russian Businessmen With Assets in UK – Reports

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804151063587256-uk-russian-oligarchs-assets/

US to Impose Sanctions on Russia Over Support of Assad – Envoy to UN

https://sputniknews.com/us/201804151063584536-haley-us-troops-syria/

More sanctions against Russia to be announced on Monday – Haley

https://www.rt.com/usa/424212-us-sanctions-russia-haley/

Hank on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:35 pm UTC
Saker, no it is not over by a long shot. Haley again today (it appears she is running US foreign policy by herself) says empire gonna sanction Russia again via Treasury tomorrow. It looks like empire trying to ride the false flag chem thing to build a coalition of the "fools" against Russia or some kind of mass movement to give them cover for military action. They are furiously trying to bring massive pressure on the Russian leadership so they will back off and let them have Syria, admit US is almighty god and so they can then go after Iran. It seems US and Brits so knocked off balance by Putin and his election victory and weapons announcement that empire frantically trying to reassert that they and only they are the "decider" of right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. This will go on all of April and into May as Trump backs out of nuke deal with Iran. Then things will really get ugly and fast. And that doesn't even factor in North Korea.

I notice that Russian MOD states that the "allies" were configured to launch 300 missiles not the 110 that were sent. He indicates that they had poor planning and that no one was in charge. But, it may be that they have decided to come back for another hit when the next false flag chem attack is perpetrated probably soon. The chem thing is all they have that is working for them and that isn't much. I finally got emails announcing anti-war protests by ANSWER and I hope they will continue. I have been to some strong street actions with ANSWER in the past although impacting these monsters is nearly impossible.

I agree with you that Russia should flood both Syria and Iran with anti missile systems and they should do it now.

It looks like the Duma gonna finally sanction the US back with some pretty good things including stuffing US "intellectual" property rights in the US ass by turning Russian companies loose to use patents without paying license fees. They can also fuck up US space program and rocket programs.

Actually, Saker, I think what US empire is really up to is to create enough mass hysteria globally that they think they can build some kind of "coalition of the truly stupid" to attack Russia and take it. I honestly think they are that stupid and desperate. Because if that is not it then at some point they are going to have to back off, admit defeat and be seen as the losers they really are. They just don't have the basic decency to do that.

Best

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 3:44 pm UTC
Yes you are right about the U.S. intention to create mass hysteria , and a " coalition of the truly stupid."
The lead item on RNZ news at 5 a.m. this morning referred to the silly little girl who is currently P.M. of N.Z. condoning the U.K. /France / U.S. strike; presumably she will also support the Israel strike against Iranian assets in Syria.
Every day , the lies and propaganda start in NZ, and are halfway around the world before the truth gets out of bed.
Count on it. Thank you Rupert.
eagle eye on April 15, 2018 , · at 7:14 pm UTC
And Rupert's whores are at it in Australia as well, reporting on the grovelling snot bag Turnbull's obsequious offering of more Australian lives to lubricate the Anglo Zionist machine. I say lets put his kids in the first jet to attack Syrian positions and see if he still thinks it is worth the cost.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/world/australia-poised-to-step-in-on-syria/news-story/8b6fbf8de47d22a197a9ce002cefcc77?utm_source=The%20Mercury&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial

Anonymous on April 16, 2018 , · at 12:31 am UTC
In 2001 Australians have marched in their thousands to protest the imminent strike on Irak.
Today they blabbered non stop about the the 'tampered ball' and protesting the punishment of the cheaters and hounding the pedophile clergy.
lizzie dw on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:35 pm UTC
I appreciate your comments but do not share you perceptions. Reportedly, the USA informed Russia before they dropped the bombs. Does that make sense? Reportedly, they bombed a factory which has not been in use since 2013. Reportedly, either no one was killed or 4 unfortunate civilians were killed. Reportedly, no Russian personnel or equipment was affected. Reportedly, the 3 attacking countries dropped 103 bombs and 71 or 73 or whatever were intercepted, yet the USA said the complete opposite. "We are confident ..". Amazingly, the USA has developed a bomb, or a method of bombing, which, if it hits a factory producing chemical weapons and therefore is full of lethal substances, will not, repeat not, dissipate these into the air, thereby insuring that no one will be affected!!! (emphasis mine) I agree that some people might think that the attack actually did something, but who are they? Nobody I know. My perception is that people working in the our government are isolated and out of touch and they are the ones who had to be satisfied(?). I also think that Mr. Trump is so surrounded by liars that he can trust no one. He stated he wanted the US to leave Syria, then, shortly after, the USA performed this inane bombing attack. Maybe this is Mr. Trump's response to the immense pressure I think he gets from those around him. It was very confusing but certainly did not make me feel that our country is great again – I am just embarrassed. I feel very badly for the citizens of Syria who unfortunately live in a country located in the center of the world, surrounded by all that gas and oil.
ProtoSec on April 15, 2018 , · at 2:43 pm UTC
I have seen reports that said they did, and I have seen reports that Moscow was furious because they were not given notice on the deconfliction channel.

Its anyones guess which version is the truth,

metamars on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:39 pm UTC
"The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag attacks can now be announced 4 weeks in advance"

Even though you live in the US, you seem sadly out of touch with what Americans know and believe. "America" is NOT your blog audience, any more than "America" is Donald Trump and the US State Department.

I found out last Thursday that my own mother took seriously the idea that Assad gassed people in Douma. So, yesterday I asked 4 of my coworkers what they thought about the US led missile attack. I was actually more interested in finding out whether they believed Assad had any culpability in Douma.

It turns out that everybody approved, including a guy that I knew for a fact was a Trump supporter (who, as a candidate, would not have approved of meddling in Syria, or at least pretended to be such). This particular guy explained by asking a question: "If you saw your neighbor beating his wife to a pulp, would you jump in to stop him, or just stand around and let it happen?"

The sense I got from everybody is that intervention was a moral act. Most zombies that I have seen in movies are, at best, amoral (assuming they have no agency).

Consequently, you are misusing the term "zombified"!

The appropriate term is "brainwashed". They believe in a pseudo-reality.

That is why the absence of a 4th category in your graph is potentially tragic. You are missing the category of communication/education, which would encompass benign (truthful) propaganda and benign (truthful) psyops, targeting the American public directly (American elites more indirectly). While this was better done as prevention, the resultiing de-legitimization of the American War Party could be thought of as retaliation.

To a person looking at things in a detached manner, prevention (going forward) is better than retaliation (looking backwards), but such considerations are secondary to solving the problem of the ignorance and brainwashing of American citizens. Doing so would provide at least fertile soil for the emergence of corrective political pressure from the bottom, up.

Do you SERIOUSLY think your own efforts, plus Russian government efforts in the form of rt.com and sputniknews.com, are sufficient to deprogram and educate Americans? (There is no disrespect for you efforts intended by asking this question.)

Then please do the following: learn how to use the video feature on your smart phone, or tablet; then do a walking video poll of passersby on some crowded street near you. (You probably won't be allowed to do so in a shopping mall, but it might be worth a try.) I suggest you use the same technique I used when doing a video poll of TPP awareness amongst the public (which proved, to my satisfaction, that polls showing popular acceptance were a complete fraud; most American HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE TPP, Pew notwithstanding). I asked people "May I ask you 1 yes/no question?" About half the people won't give you the time of day, even for that. Of those that do, maybe 1/3 will be interested in talking about it; typically, they they will ask the same question of you.

Afterwards, tabulate the results, upload the video to youtube, and write it up here.

Better yet, do this and ask you audience to do the same. Then, include the links to their youtube channels in your write-up.

You should try to get your results (which are almost sure to be similar to mine) to the Russian government, because they act AS IF they had the same viewpoint as you.

Putin could reach millions of Americans by tweeting to @realDonaldTrump, but doesn't bother. I have to wonder, why? If he assumed that the American public are all "zombies", instead of containing moral but brainwashed citizens in their 10's if not 100's of millions, then his lack of action would make more sense.

He'd be wrong, but at least his actions would logically follow from his mistaken notions.

DannyO on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:44 pm UTC
It is over. It was over in 2000 and the hammer came down in 2006. With the defeat of the anglo/zionists in Lebanon by Hezbollah it marked the beginning of the end for the occultists. Hezbollah was not actually fighting the iof but rather the combined forces of western zionist imperialism. And they won.
Iraq, Libya and now Syria are a direct result of the ouster of the baby killers from Lebanon. The chaos in the ME – the Arab bullshit spring – the propping up of the gulf monarchy muppets is panic mode by the zionist oligarchy. There is no policy only blind reactionary behaviour – this is evidenced even in the propaganda of the MSM which not only makes no sense but speaks continuous transparent lies.
The west has been forced to use moderate and not so moderate head chopper orc mercs to fight its battles. Proxy war by orc is a sign of desperation and with the collapse of the hegemon on the horizon.
The Russians and the axis of resistance is simply trying to mitigate the damage that the oligarchy can still do and keep the US and the western vassals from imploding.
Izaates bar Monobazeus on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:49 pm UTC
I think the UK is exhibiting signs of genuine fear because it has dawned on the UK elite after the miserable performance of their Three Amigo's missile strike that Russia has a special present for instigators of ww3.

The great harlot is going to fall. A smoking ruin no man will ever wish to tread. England has whored itself to the gallows.

ProtoSec on April 15, 2018 , · at 2:36 pm UTC
Mystery Babylon comes down in one hour.
One hour, that is all.
Francis Lee on April 16, 2018 , · at 2:07 am UTC
Yes, I also think that Russia is reserving a special treatment for the UK. Unfortunately I live in London!
Den Lille Abe on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:50 pm UTC
N, it is not over, that much , we agree on. But the Chinese, I believe are not short sighted nor are they stupid. The will probably not do much for Syria, but I think they will raise their voice immediately if Russia is seriously threatened. China knows if Russia falls, she is next. Iran knows this too. So I cant see other than these three will have to stand together. But other may join India, possibly, Pakistan, possibly. And possibly further some smaller countries.
But I am 100 % certain that in all these countries, the people, the knowledgeable of the people, we know that if we end up, in a unipolar world, we will be slaves and remain slaves, forever.
And those countries I just summed up are more than 3 Billion.
Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Who knows. But
Better die standing, than live crawling.

I think you underestimate how hated and despised the US is around the world. In most of the non western world, the United States story of oppression and murder is very well known and it is not forgotten. But fear keeps people in bondage, and the US has shown it will spare no excesses to reach its goal, so when the battle comes it will be long bloody and brutal.
And yes it will come.

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 9:25 pm UTC
From today's Global Times editorial, semi-official organ of the Chinese politburo:

"However, the stronger a country is, the greater the responsibility it has to maintain world peace and order. The military actions of the US and its allies have breached the framework of the United Nations and violated the foundation of modern international relations. If the will of Washington and the West represents the will of all mankind and they can punish whoever they want, why do we need the UN, or international law?

Without UN authorization, the US, UK and France behaved like rogues. No matter how touching the excuses they find for themselves, they cannot change the fact that they were lynching Syria without due evidence "

More of this in the UNSC please.

[Apr 18, 2018] Russian show with Yakov Kedmi really surprised and disturbed me

Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Paul II on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:40 am UTC

What about a fourth type of retaliation, cleaning out the financier/Zionist/pro-Western/liberal infestation inside Russia? This wouldn't require China's approval, and would lead to a much healthier and stronger Russia in the long run.

In my view, China has done far more to get itself out of AZ control and on the path to pursuing its national interests than Russia has. It is depressing to read most Russian blogs as they keep harping on what needed to be done years ago.

Martin Giuffrida on April 15, 2018 , · at 12:12 pm UTC
Yes and this Russian show with Yakov Kedmi really surprised and disturbed me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwYcItJp4O8&t=1s

[Apr 18, 2018] Chinese position of Douma false flag

Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 9:55 am UTC

The Chinese newspaper the Global Times agrees with the Saker:

"Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious contempt for Russia's military capabilities and political dignity. Trump, like scolding a pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon its "dark path." Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way. Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space. That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace Western countries continue bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack. Their arrogance breeds risk and danger."

Graeme - Australia on April 15, 2018 , · at 5:28 pm UTC
Yes, I also follow the Global Times editorials, and have friends in China

Simon Chow nails it, in my opinion

America is playing checkers (or some other child's game). Russia is playing Chess, and we know how good they are at that. China is playing Chinese Chess and that is fking impossible to understand for a westerner subtle does not cover it .. and China has the father (godfather?) of all generals and military strategists, Sun Tzu . go figure

I agree, the fat lady is out there somewhere warming her vocal chords.

Sarmis2014 on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:30 pm UTC
Talking about chess In my humble opinion all the suffering and foreign occupation of Syria could end in less than a month if Russia would have the guts to threaten (behind closed doors or overtly) that if the attacks and occupation of Syria will not stop Russia will provide the weapons necessary to nullify the military superiority of Israel to all relevant enemy of Israel and of course to Syria. The timed leak in the news that Russia considers providing S-300 to Syrian is a good start but obviously not firm and strong enough, According to Paul Craig Roberts "to restate the point once again, the passivity of the Putin government in the face of Washington's aggressiveness is leading directly to nuclear war and the end of life on earth". I think Russia can be "passive" by not attacking US but can be very engage by threatening were it hurts the most the safety of Israel. Cheers
Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 11:33 pm UTC
It is an old metaphor. I think it was used on Atimes years ago: Americans play Monopoly, Russians play chess. Someone added (it could have been me) and Chinese play Go! That was a response: Americans play poker, the game of the 'achievers'. The response was: Americans play poker with loaded dices' and if their bluff is called, they pull the gun and 'take it all'. If I am not mistaken, the verbal joust originated in Australia!
Graeme - Australia on April 16, 2018 , · at 1:13 am UTC
Yes, Go 围棋

From the rules:
• Sacrifice: Allowing a group to die in order to carry out a play, or plan, in a more important area.

Interesting

From the Global Times

'Drill a warning to secessionist forces'

The news that the People's Liberation Army will conduct live-fire military exercises in the Taiwan Straits on April 18 has shocked Taiwan. It is a clear warning against recent pro-independence activities on the island, especially head of Taiwan's administrative authority Lai Ching-te's advocacy for independence.

Secessionists should not fantasize that the US will come to their rescue, even though the US had passed the Taiwan Travel Act. National unity is in the core interest of China, which is determined and capable of shattering any foreign intervention. Once Beijing decides to take action, it won't be stopped by any other force.

We believe that if the mainland were to take a military strike against "Taiwan-independence" forces, Washington would have no effective means other than protest.

The planned military drills will be a reconfirmation of Beijing's bottom line. Let the bombing and shooting drills alert Taiwan, rather than letting them actually occur on the island. The mainland does not wish to end the Taiwan question with a military showdown, however, how the situation develops depends on how much rationality remains in the Taiwan administration.

The Ukraine, North Korea .. Sth China Sea .. Syria

Russia, cold war
China, trade war

America is somewhat busy at the moment.

Could it take on a direct confrontation over Taiwan?

I think Syria is too strategically important to be 'allowed to die' .. but, then, I cannot play Go

Interesting ..

Anonymous on April 16, 2018 , · at 1:56 am UTC
What about the 'rumors' that China will build a base in Vanuatu? "We would view with great concern the establishment of any foreign military bases in those Pacific Island countries and neighbours of ours," Mr Turnbull said. Ahem!
Graeme - Australia on April 16, 2018 , · at 4:20 am UTC
Yes, I wonder what Mr Turnbull would say if it was America doing the same thing?

Oh that's right . does not need to . already has a base here in Australia

Although, Australia has little choice, I believe. We still need a big brother. Although that is getting very very complicated.

Australia's geography will determine its future .. IS determining its future

Anonymous on April 16, 2018 , · at 10:54 pm UTC
Australia has a 'Big Moma' already, the owner of it, actually.
Anonymous on April 16, 2018 , · at 2:36 am UTC
Could America take on a direct confrontation over Taiwan?

If Taiwan is 500 kilometers off the coast from California, America just might give it a try. But alas, Taiwan is 500 kilometer off the coast from Fujian Province. Only a deranged America would take the bite. Let's see if America is deranged. Lately there are signs it is down that slippery slope.

Graeme - Australia on April 16, 2018 , · at 4:30 am UTC
What I meant, is the China is choosing its timing and confrontation very carefully

America is the next door neighbour who has watched the plum ripen every day, fearing that pesky Chinese neighbour will steal it and eat it

Not being careful, or just being plain dumb, the American knocked over a hornets nest and and now too busy dealing with the angry hornets to keep an eye on the plum

Timing is everything

[Apr 18, 2018] Voting in UN on Russian resolution

Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Serbian girl on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:17 am UTC

Excellent analysis by the Saker!

Here is a list of the non-permanent members of the UNSC: (the year indicates the end of their two year term)

Bolivia (2018)
Côte d'Ivoire (2019)
Equatorial Guinea (2019)
Ethiopia (2018)
Kazakhstan (2018)
Kuwait (2019)
Netherlands (2018)
Peru (2019)
Poland (2019)
Sweden (2018)

Every single country (!) on this list- except for Bolivia – abstained in the latest UNSC vote to stop aggression against Syria Russia, China, Bolivia voted in favor. USA, UK, France vited against. With just ONE vote the resolution would have passed

Kazakhstan is a member of the SCO..why did they not join Russia and China to support this resolution?? I am beginning to think the SCO is just hype.

One thing's for sure: I'm going to miss Bolivia when their term ends this year

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 1:28 pm UTC
Incorrect analysis.

The resolution was never going to pass. The US, the UK and France all posses the veto power of a permanent member of the UNSC. Thus, it does not matter how many voted in favor. The resolution was defeated.

I think I remember seeing at least one statement from another country that said that there was purpose of voting in favor of a veto'd resolution. Why bother. Especially when the US is infamous for blackmailing and armtwisting nations that vote against them. It was only a few months ago that Nutti Nikki declared the US was 'taking names' of those who opposed the.

There isn't any reason to vote for a resolution that is already and certainly veto'd. Actually, you see this alot also in bodies like the US Congress. Once a side has the votes to know they won (or lost), then a single vote doesn't mean anything. Thus a congressperson can vote a way that pleases the voters (or the lobbyists) and know that they are doing so with no impact on whether the measure passes or fails. You sometimes see members of congress voting for and against the same bill so they can take either position in the next campaign!

Serbian girl on April 15, 2018 , · at 3:20 pm UTC
Anonymous, you are of course correct. It's the SC and not the GA so any veto will bring down the resolution. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I also understand perfectly your point about tactical voting.

However:

It would send a powerful message to the empire (and the world) if Russia were not so isolated in her diplomatic efforts, even if a resolution is vetoed!..As Saker mentioned above noone seems to care about the higher values of international law. By keeping a low profile and abstaining these countries are basically confirming that there is no diplomatic way to stop the aggression.

tomo on April 15, 2018 , · at 6:36 pm UTC
what is happening to Russia funnily reminds me of what happened to me as a kid – I was maybe 9.
there was a bully in our neighborhood park where we used to play – he was 3 or 4 years older than most of us. He used to beat all of us individually (I was the youngest in the group) – but then I would come behind him when he was not looking and hit him with a brick etc.
so one day all the kids gathered (not sure whose idea it was – not mine – but I approved and joined them) and agreed to circle the bully and at 1..2..3..we were all to jump at him and to start beating him I thought it was a great idea.
so we went there and did that – 1..2..3 – I jumped on the bully and started kicking him – only to realize that everybody else just stayed where they were. I was the only one fighting him Even my brother didn't join me.
I hope the same thing does not happen to Russia – but if it does – just be prepared – and never trust psychopathic Anglo – west
Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 1:33 pm UTC
Bolivia has a democracy that has elected governments that actually favor their people over corporations, and god forbid, that don't favor foriegn (American) corporations over their own people.

Thus, the US has already declared Bolivia an enemy. They don't seem to be number 1 on the American kill list, but they are already on the list.

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 1:46 pm UTC
At this point in time, the UNSC is blocked to both sides. Neither side can pass a UNSC resolution against the other. One side had 2 and now 3 vetos. The other side has 2 vetos. Nothing is passing.

Which means that neither side can claim UNSC sanction for their wars. Which in turn really makes any war illegal. Not that any of the Axis of Evil care about that. For the record, Trump violated the US Constitution in two ways (at least) by attacking Syria, thus, if the system were honest, he would now be impeached. Of course, the system is not honest, but it is highly rigged.

Since Russia and China don't seem to be starting any wars of aggression, that lack of ability to get a UNSC certificate for wars of aggression won't matter much to them. But, also don't expect them to pass anything condemning the Axis of Evil through the UNSC.

The UNSC is now only for making speeches. Both sides then use these messages in their psyOps operations. PsyOps is the right word because both sides now view propaganda as warfare by other means.

Vietnam brought forth the term "hearts and minds." That's what they psyOps wars are fighting over. The hearts and minds of everyone. Or at least those who are paying attention, and of course getting more to pay attention to your psyOps is a part of the battle as well.

The UNSC is thus a tool in these psyOps wars. The Russians make their case. Nutti Nikki screams, rants and threatens. Each is then used as propaganda both at their own people at home and at the rest of the world. It will stay that way as long as no one repeats the Soviet mistake of the Korean War era and gets so fed up with it that they don't bother to show up and cast their veto.

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 2:17 pm UTC
One interpretation of these comments is that diplomacy is just a bunch of fancy talk to create fodder for psyops. While NATO and other military organizations may view it that way, from another perspective, making speeches in a public meeting like this, where a resolution is on the line, can serve to entrench or resolve conflict. As part of a larger diplomatic strategy.
one minion on April 16, 2018 , · at 12:37 am UTC
The 'hearts and minds' concept originated in the Malaya campaign in the 50's–counter-insurgency–and it was never about hearts and minds, it was about 'killing people in order to save them'– a precursor of 'humanitarian intervention' –basic BS, in other words.
Part of the so-called psyop then was head-chopping of communist Chinese by the British soldiers, I seem to recall.
Francis Lee on April 15, 2018 , · at 1:55 pm UTC
Kazakhstan is one of the founding members of the Eurasian Economic Union. But it has always made its position clear that its membership is based upon economic and not political union. So its vote was not all that surprising. It's called hedging your bets.

[Apr 18, 2018] Possible sup ply of Russian S300 to Syria

Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Lysander on April 15, 2018 , · at 9:48 am UTC

Saker,

Russia has a lot of options and none of them involve attacking US/NATO forces directly. And General Rudskoy already hinted at one of them, the S300 to Syria and to possibly some other countries. A great idea, but only one of Russia's options.

Following from that, the first thing Russia should do, a long with Iran, Hizbullah and Syria, is exactly what it has been doing: securing more and more of Syria. Since the last time AZ axis did this, Syria's situation on the ground is much improved. By the next time they try, it will be much better still. Eyes on the prize.

Next, the S300. Russia has to impose a painful cost to the enemy without triggering a war. That's where Israel comes in. Russia needs to help Syria (Russia should not do this herself) to bring down a handful of Israeli jets and capture their pilots alive. You will see immediately of the situation changes once 2, 3 or 4 of those most precious of souls are captured. Your head will spin. They will trade whatever they have to to get them back. Capturing American pilots would not have anywhere near the same effect. And British or French pilots? Don't make me laugh. Nobody really cares about the hired help.

Russia also has the option of soft retaliation. The empire has troops all over the world and faces insurgencies in many places. I'm just sayin'. Sometimes accidents happen when you are fighting insurgencies.

Believe me, I understand how disgusted you are by the situation. But this has been Russia's role in the world forever. Defending Europe and the world from the mongols, the Prussians, the Swedes, Napoleon, the Turks, Hitler has earned Russia zero gratitude. But nevertheless, many of us see. Even I, who am not a Christian, can see the analogy clear as day.

Amir on April 15, 2018 , · at 10:36 am UTC
Sinking gas/oil platforms of Levithian field by "unknown assistants" might be a similar "symbolic" response. Similar to US attack of uninhibited buildings, this response by a third party against an ally of US (nominally ally, in reality the master) would send the message, without too much of a risk.
pogohere on April 16, 2018 , · at 8:24 pm UTC
Your comments about the Israeli reaction to the loss of its planes and the capture of their pilots is right. Read the Israeli press and especially the comments that follow the stories. Israeli hubris is not to be believed. The commenters (much less the article authors) can´t acknowledge that US missiles were shot down (albeit, with integrated modern radars, electronic interference, etc, acknowledged) by Syrians with Soviet era junk.

[Apr 18, 2018] The USA bombings do not hinder the progress of the Syrian army

Notable quotes:
"... Yes it is annoying that USA keeps bombing Syria, and yes it ruins the lives of the families that lose loved ones in such attacks. But they do not hinder the progress of the Syrian army. Which likely will have wrapped up everything that is politically easy to wrap up in Syria this year. The border with Israel, Idlib and the kurds being the last more politically difficult parts. ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | thesaker.is

Anonymous on April 15, 2018 , · at 9:40 am UTC

The consequence has not come yet. Those that expected that Russia would sink every American vessels and fire of off thermonuclear weapon at Washington, has no real connection to reality.

Such an action would be the dream of neocons and liberals in the western world. Russia will win as long as they can avoid a full on attack on Syria by USA and getting themselves dragged into a conflict with USA or one of its clients.

Yes it is annoying that USA keeps bombing Syria, and yes it ruins the lives of the families that lose loved ones in such attacks. But they do not hinder the progress of the Syrian army. Which likely will have wrapped up everything that is politically easy to wrap up in Syria this year. The border with Israel, Idlib and the kurds being the last more politically difficult parts.

In reality, Russia and Assad won from this attack I think, it made them look good internationally, it made USA look bad, Trumps supporters are in an uproar right now.. This is not like last year when the democrats supported his attack and his base kinda thought it was acceptable..

This time everyone thinks Trump is a lunatic, even his most fanatic supporters such as Alex Jones that has been being over backwards to protect Trump have lost hope in him

Here Alex actually cries when he finds out what Trump did
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myz5vBDPH6c

When Russia unified with Crimea, it lost the international moral initiative which it had, now, it is absolutely regained it. This attack while it caused no damage to Russia or the war effort for Syria also gives Russia an excuse to do whatever it wants back.

The consequence of the USA strike could be something like.
1. Giving Syria better and "forbidden" in the style of S400 or S300.
2. Giving Syria more and more advanced pansirs.
3. Giving Syria advance anti-ship missiles, enabling them to take out every USA ship off their coast.
4. Arming groups that oppose USA over the world state actors or non-state actors, either covertly or openly with advanced weapons.
5. Revealing classified information about USA that perhaps USA got Russia to agree it would not reveal. Could be anything, proof perhaps that the USA gold reserve is empty perhaps that USA did 9/11, anything really.
6. A purge of USA backed fifth columnists inside of Russia.

The consequence will be something alone the line of causing long term severe consequence for USA but causing no problem for Russia or even being beneficial.

"Russia's ambassador to the U.S. warned there would be "consequences" for the strike on Syria, and that a "pre-designed scenario" was underway."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/russia-warns-of-consequences-for-us-led-strike-on-syria.html

[Apr 18, 2018] I would think the Pentagon would like to test the Russian defense systems, and the Russians can't be completely sorry they got the opportunity to see how those new systems worked under operational conditions. The winners are the arms manufacturers.

Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Valtin | Apr 17, 2018 2:36:59 PM | 131

These skirmishes (not skirmishes to those who live or die because of them), even ones that are war crimes, as this was, seem to me to be in large part ways in which the major powers test out their combat systems. I would think the Pentagon would like to test the Russian defense systems, and the Russians can't be completely sorry they got the opportunity to see how those new systems worked under operational conditions. The winners are the arms manufacturers. The losers are everybody else.

[Apr 18, 2018] There is nothing like American policies in the Trump era. Even the president is not necessarily the last word

Notable quotes:
"... Actually, there is nothing like "American policies" in the Trump era. The Washington Post carried two reports this week underlining the utter confusion within the Trump administration. Even the president is not necessarily the last word. ..."
"... One of these two astonishing reports titled Trump a reluctant hawk has battled his top aides on Russia and lost (here) narrates shocking details on how the former NSA in the White House HR McMaster simply hoodwinked a bumbling Trump into approving the proposal to expel 60 Russian diplomats from the US last month: ..."
"... The second WaPo report (here) narrates how even the famous Nikki Haley can no longer pretend to be Trump's authoritative voice. ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | blogs.rediff.com

Actually, there is nothing like "American policies" in the Trump era. The Washington Post carried two reports this week underlining the utter confusion within the Trump administration. Even the president is not necessarily the last word.

One of these two astonishing reports titled Trump a reluctant hawk has battled his top aides on Russia and lost (here) narrates shocking details on how the former NSA in the White House HR McMaster simply hoodwinked a bumbling Trump into approving the proposal to expel 60 Russian diplomats from the US last month:

The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia

Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions. "There were curse words," the official said, "a lot of curse words."

The second WaPo report (here) narrates how even the famous Nikki Haley can no longer pretend to be Trump's authoritative voice.

I'm reminded of Roman Emperor Caligula (AD 37-41). He had a favorite horse by name Incitatus whom he once planned to designate as Roman consul. Caligula used to hold parties for friends in the steed's grand stables. In a fit of exuberant joy, he once named Incitatus a Minister of State.

The Trump presidency has not quite reached that point yet, but bizarre things are happening in the Washington Beltway – like in Caligula's decadent Rome in decline and fall. India will be well advised to keep distance.

[Apr 18, 2018] US Says Russia Hacked Syrian Attack Evidence As Russia Finds Rebel Chemical Weapon Lab

Apr 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Update : Interfax reports that the Russian military has discovered a rebel-owned chemical weapons lab in Douma.

The Russian Defense Ministry says that components for Mustard Gas production were discovered along with cylinders of chlorine at a alb belonging to militants in Douma.

Additionally, Moscow has said it is stunned by a French statement that Russia is obstructing OPCW experts from entering Syria's Douma (echoing Ambassador Ward's). the Russian foreign ministry confirms OPCW expoerts are already in Douma.

* * *

And on the game goes...

While Russia's foreign ministry warns that Western powers are interfering with OPCW's work in Syria (noting that the chemical weapons experts' access to Douma is being hampered by remaining militants, supported by Washington), as Caitlin Johnstone details , we are now being told by US officials (and I assure you I am not making this up) that if the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons doesn't find evidence that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack in Douma last week, it's because Russia hid the evidence .

"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site," reports U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward.

"It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation."

Via Caitlin Johnstone,

I guess the idea is that this international top-level investigative team on which tremendous credibility has been placed by the western world can be thwarted by Russians showing up with a Hoover and spraying some Febreze in the air like a teenage stoner when mom comes home? I'm not sure, but given the immense dearth of evidence we've been seeing in support of the establishment Douma narrative and the mounting pile of evidence contradicting it, it sure does sound fishy.

Now that the jihadist-occupied suburb of Douma has been retaken by the Syrian government, western journalists have been allowed in to poke around and start asking questions, and so far it isn't looking great for the propaganda machine .

The Independent 's Robert Fisk has published a report which affirms the story so many westerners have been dismissing as Kremlin propaganda for days now after interviewing a doctor from the hospital of the area where the Douma attack was supposed to have occurred. Dr Assim Rahaibani told Fisk that what was in actuality an outbreak of respiratory distress among occupants of a dusty oxygen-deprived tunnel was made to look like the aftereffects of a chemical weapons attack when a member of the White Helmets started shouting about a gas attack in front of a bunch of video cameras. Everyone panicked and started hosing themselves down, but in the video, according to Rahaibani, "what you see are people suffering from hypoxia  --  not gas poisoning."

This report was independently backed up by a reporter from One America News Network named Pearson Sharp, who gave a detailed account of his interviews with officials, doctors, as well as many civilians on the street Sharp says he deliberately selected at random in order to avoid accusations of bias. Many people hadn't even heard that a chemical weapons attack had taken place, and the ones who had said it was staged by Jaysh al-Islam. The staff at the hospital, including a medic-in-training who was an eyewitness to the incident, gave the same story as the account in Fisk's report.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lSXwG-901yU

The increasing confidence with which these unapproved narratives are being voiced and the increasing discomfort being exhibited by empire loyalists like Ambassador Ward indicate a weakening narrative in the greater propaganda campaign against the Assad government and its allies, but don't hold your breath for the part where Fox News and the BBC turn around and start asking critical questions of the governments that they are meant to be holding to account.

The journalists who have been advancing the establishment narrative on Syria aren't about to start reporting that they've gotten the entire Syria story assballs backward and have been promoting a version of events manufactured for the benefit of CIA-MI6-Mossad agendas. You're not about to see CNN, who last year staged a fake scripted interview with a seven year-old Syrian girl to manufacture support for escalations against Assad, suddenly turn around and start asking if we're being told the full story about what's happening Syria.

Watch them closely. Watch how they steadfastly ignore the growing mountain of evidence and keep promoting the Syrian regime change agenda that the western empire has been working toward for decades . Watch them dismiss all evidence they can't ignore as Kremlin propaganda and shift the narrative whenever things start to look bad for them. Those riding the crest of the wave of establishment media are too far gone into the blob to ever admit error and change. The least among us aren't about to stop constructing a public reality tunnel which depicts them as heroes of truth, tear it all down, and start advancing a narrative which makes them look like fools at best and villains at worst. It will not happen.

Luckily for us, it doesn't need to. Internet censorship is still far from closing the door on our ability to network and share information, and we've been very effective at sowing skepticism among the masses. The war propagandists are not nearly as good at their jobs as they want to believe, and we can beat them.

They work so hard to manufacture support for war because they require that consent. If the oligarchs try to launch a war against a disobedient nation amidst very clear opposition from the public, they will shatter the illusion of freedom and democracy that their entire empire is built upon, and then they're exposed. Corporatist oligarchy has succeeded in weaving its web of dominance because its oppression has thus far remained hidden and its depravity disguised as humanitarianism. They cannot expose themselves by transgressing a loud NO from the public or else the masses will realize that everything they used to believe about their country, their government and their world is a lie.

They won't risk that. We can force them into retreating from open war by circulating facts and information and keeping a healthy level of skepticism circulating among the public. Watch them squirm, move goalposts and shift narratives, and point and yell about it whenever it happens. We can win the media war against the propagandists. We have truth on our side.

* * *

Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Give Me Some Truth -> Dickweed Wang Tue, 04/17/2018 - 12:42 Permalink

That fact-finding body (OPCW) could change the whole paradigm IF it finds conclusive evidence this was a false flag event, and IF they trumpet their findings to the world, and IF people get all the real ramifications of such a potential finding/announcement.

This said, I fully expect their "findings" to be a masterpiece of ambiguous language and weaslespeak.

This body after all is a creation of politicians and bureaucrats answering to many governments. They, almost certainly, will "punt."

... But if by some miracle they don't ...

adonisdemilo -> Give Me Some Truth Tue, 04/17/2018 - 13:02 Permalink

@Give Me Some Truth,

The OPCW had better release their findings if they contradict the "official" narrative before they fly out from Douma as they could well end up like the passengers on MH17.

That in itself will be another problem because the "good guys" will know within minutes that Russia did it.

BarkingCat -> Give Me Some Truth Tue, 04/17/2018 - 13:03 Permalink

"No conlusive evidence was found" will be the finding which either side can spin to their desire.

Russia - there is no evidence so there was no attack

US - the evidence was no conclusive but only because enough time has passed that it degraded to the point where a good sample could not be located.....and Russia kept the inspectors from the site in order for this to happen.

No minds will be changed.

[Apr 18, 2018] How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!

Notable quotes:
"... "She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all." ..."
Apr 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dh | Apr 17, 2018 8:47:50 PM | 65

Confused!!! How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!

>White House press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted more sanctions were merely under consideration. On Tuesday, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Haley "got ahead of the curve."

"She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all."

Haley, speaking for the first time since the White House dialed back her claims, rejected the idea that she was confused.

"With all due respect, I don't get confused," Haley said in a statement read by Fox News' Dana Perino and confirmed by CBS News Tuesday.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/with-all-due-respect-i-dont-get-confused-nikki-haley-says-of-russia-sanctions/

[Apr 17, 2018] The long hand of Bolton

Apr 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

CE , Apr 15, 2018 12:38:18 PM | 34

@16 "The long hand of Bolton"

I've posted the following deep in the previous thread, so here for those who missed it:

As to the OPCW making "political decisions", The Intercept had an interesting piece by Mehdi Hasan recently, about a certain John Bolton.

In 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had penned a letter to [OPCW head José] Bustani, thanking him for his "very impressive" work. By March 2002, however, Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."

Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you."

There was a pause.

"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

[Apr 17, 2018] John Bolton In Search of Carthage by By Michael Shindler

Looks like Iran is Carnage for Bolton and neocon fellow travelers in Trump administration such as Haley and Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly." ..."
"... Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler . ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Last week, John Bolton ascended to the office of National Security Advisor, following in the hurried footsteps of Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Two peculiar characteristics set Bolton apart from most folks in D.C.: an unabashedly luxurious mustache and an unmatched penchant for unjustified preemptive violence.

At the University of Chicago in 2009, Bolton warned , "Unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran's program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future." Thankfully, Israel didn't take Bolton's advice and, as most predicted, Iran never lived up to his expectations. Similarly, in a 2015 op-ed in the New York Times , Bolton opined , "The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure . Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed." Three short months later, a non-proliferation deal wherein Iran agreed to a 98 percent reduction in its enriched uranium stockpile and a 15-year pause in the development of key weapons infrastructure was negotiated.

More recently in February, Bolton advised in the Wall Street Journal that "Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute . It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current 'necessity' posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."

By this point Bolton's record of calling for war in every possible situation had lost the ability to shock. Still, the Founding Fathers would probably be appalled.

A comparatively irenic vision pervades the philosophy of the founders. James Wilson, in his Lectures on Law, wrote that when a nation "is under an obligation to preserve itself and its members; it has a right to do everything" that it can "without injuring others." In Federalist 4, John Jay advised that the American people ought to support steps that would "put and keep them in such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it." And in his Farewell Address, George Washington asserted that the United States should be "always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

A preemptive nuclear strike justified on the flimsy basis of "gaps in U.S. intelligence" hardly seems concordant with such military restraint and "exalted justice." And lest it be thought these ideals were mere lofty notions, consider how, as American history proceeded, they became enshrined in American diplomacy.

In 1837, Canadian rebels sailing aboard the Caroline fled to an island in the Niagara River with the help of a few American citizens. British forces boarded their ship, killed an American member of the crew, and then set the Caroline ablaze before forcing it over Niagara Falls. Enraged, American and Canadian raiders destroyed a British ship. Several attacks followed until the crisis was at last ended in 1842 by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. In the aftermath, the Caroline test was established, which stipulates that an attack made in self-defense is justifiable only when, in the words of Daniel Webster, the necessity is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This principle remains the international standard, though some like Bolton think it's outdated.

With the Caroline test in mind, Bolton wrote while arguing in favor of a preemptive strike against North Korea, "The case against preemption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times." In other words, Bolton believes that we can no longer afford to wait for the situation to be "instant" and "overwhelming," and makes an offense out of abstaining from immediate preemptive action, regardless of the potential costs involved.

Relatedly, one of Bolton's most colorful jabs at President Obama involved likening him to Æthelred the Unready, a medieval Anglo-Saxon king remembered for his tragic indecisiveness. Yet given the costs of groundless preemption, indecisiveness is often a midwife to careful contemplation and peace. Had Prime Minister Netanyahu or Obama been persuaded by Bolton's retrospectively warrantless calls for preemption in Iran, tragedy would have followed.

In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly."

In order that we never find ourselves standing alongside Scipio knee-deep in unjustly spilt blood, Bolton should reconsider whether the flimsy merits of rash preemption truly outweigh the durable wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the lessons of history.

Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler .

Janwaar Bibi April 17, 2018 at 4:28 pm

From the Wikipedia article for Bolton:

During the 1969 Vietnam War draft lottery, Bolton drew number 185. (Draft numbers corresponded to birth dates.) As a result of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' decisions to rely largely on the draft rather than on the reserve forces, joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War. Before graduating from Yale in 1970, Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard rather than wait to find out if his draft number would be called. (The highest number called to military service was 195.) He saw active duty for 18 weeks of training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, from July to November 1970.

After serving in the National Guard for four years, he served in the United States Army Reserve until the end of his enlistment two years later.[1]

He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from."

Why is it that the US leads the world in production of chicken-hawks? Even these mangy ex-colonial countries like the UK and France do not have as many chicken-hawks as we do.

connecticut farmer , says: April 17, 2018 at 4:53 pm
Cato the Elder: "Carthago dalenda est!" ("Carthage Must Be Destroyed!")

John Bolton: "Syria dalenda est!" "Iran dalenda est!" Russia dalenda est!" And etc etc.

Connecticut Farmer: "Bolton dalenda est!"

Kent , says: April 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm
"In order that we never find ourselves standing alongside Scipio knee-deep in unjustly spilt blood,"

That ship sailed awhile back.

JonF , says: April 17, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Comparing Obama to Athelred is absurd. Athelred's problem was not that he was indecisive, but rather that he refused to listen to advice from anyone (the moniker "Unready" actually meant "Uncounseled" in Old English) and that he was extremely impulsive and deeply bigoted. Hence he ordered a general massacre of the Danes in England. Luckily it was only carried out in a limited region, unluckily the victims included the King of Denmark's sister and her children, leading to an open blood feud war, and also cost Aethelred any support he might have had from his wife's kinsman, the Duke of Normandy. If anyone is a good match for old Aethelred, it's Donald Trump.

[Apr 17, 2018] Back to Brinkmanship by Jacob Heilbrunn

One interesting thing is that Trump is apparently hard at work pushing and pushing and pushing China to take Russia's side more forcefully. China ususally don't support Russia in UNSC. Most often Russia stands alone with Iran.
What we are observing is a slow collapse of The US-centered global neoliberal empire. Neoliberalism like Bolshevism before it is a self-defeating ideology that eats the flesh of society on which it parasites.
In a way Trump election is sign of this crisis, as well as attempt of some part of the US elite for find a way out of the current crisis, which started in 2008 with the collapse of neoliberal ideology.
Notable quotes:
"... Managerial Revolution ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | nationalinterest.org
You and the Atomic Bomb ," which he wrote two months after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, George Orwell coined the term "cold war" to describe the new epoch that he saw emerging after the fall of Nazi Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union and the United States. He predicted that the bomb would "put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a 'peace that is no peace.'" It was this very scenario that he depicted in his dystopian novel 1984 , which drew on James Burnham's Managerial Revolution and features Eurasia, Oceania and Eastasia in a permanent standoff several decades after an atomic war. Any actual conflicts or skirmishes take place in borderlands that are located well away from the three main empires.

This cold peace was pretty much what obtained after 1945 in international affairs. The two superpowers, the Soviet Union and United States, avoided direct conflict. Instead, they used proxy powers and national liberation movements, mostly located in the Third World, to try and shift the correlation of forces, as the Kremlin used to call it, in their favor, whenever and wherever they could. The territory under their direct control was off limits -- the United States did not intervene during uprisings in the eastern bloc in East Germany, Hungary or Poland. The Kremlin confined itself to helping to fund communist parties in France and Italy, and to supporting the peace movement clandestinely. The peril of an atomic exchange was so immense that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States went to war over flashpoints such as Cuba and Berlin. What Orwell did not anticipate was that one side, the Soviet Union, would collapse completely, leaving the other as Mr. Big.

... ... ...

The war in Iraq was a fiasco. Afghanistan is a quagmire. In America, terms such as "regime change" have fallen into disrepute. The West has lost its confidence. Populists are looking for a way to escape the iron cage of modernity. The era of Reagan and Thatcher proclaiming the verity of the free market and the expansion of freedom seems almost as remote as the scientific laws of history that Marxists once propounded.

... ... ...

...President Donald Trump explained that he seeks to curb a new arms race that is "getting out of control," but also boasted that "we will never allow anybody to have anything even close to what we have." Already Trump has vastly expanded the American military budget, raising outlays to $700 billion for the fiscal year 2019. Trump, in a decision first approved by President Barack Obama, intends to devote $1 trillion to modernizing the American nuclear force over the next three decades.

... ... ...

With his combination of bluff and bombast, Trump could stumble into a calamitous two-front war in Asia and the Middle East.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

[Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex

Highly recommended!
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Apr 17, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil, warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse, this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel Macron.

We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?

A year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between "capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.

Then, Donnie sent the first shock wave to his supporters by literally hiring the Goldman Sachs banksters to run the economy. And right after that, he signed for more deregulation in favor of the Wall Street mafia that ruined the economy in 2008!

The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.

And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial friends.

It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies. Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.

Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a WWIII.

Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...

[Apr 17, 2018] The long hand of Bolton

Apr 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

CE , Apr 15, 2018 12:38:18 PM | 34

@16 "The long hand of Bolton"

I've posted the following deep in the previous thread, so here for those who missed it:

As to the OPCW making "political decisions", The Intercept had an interesting piece by Mehdi Hasan recently, about a certain John Bolton.

In 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had penned a letter to [OPCW head José] Bustani, thanking him for his "very impressive" work. By March 2002, however, Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."

Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you."

There was a pause.

"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

[Apr 17, 2018] False flags are real US has a long history of lying to start wars -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... indulging an addiction ..."
"... in all probability ..."
"... casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation ..."
"... repeated acts of violence ..."
"... could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for US intervention. ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | www.rt.com

Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance journalist. Having lived and worked in the US, Germany and Russia, she is currently based in Budapest, Hungary. Her work has been featured by Salon, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, Russia Direct, teleSUR, The BRICS Post and others. Follow her on Twitter @DanielleRyanJ, check out her Facebook page, or visit her website: danielle-ryan.com Published time: 16 Apr, 2018 15:49 Get short URL False flags are real – US has a long history of lying to start wars FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell holds up a vial that he described as one that could contain anthrax © Ray Stubblebine / Reuters Use of the term 'false flag' is often met with raised eyebrows and accusations of conspiracism. But false flags are a very real and very present feature of geopolitics -- and denying that is simply denying reality. Last week, the United States, along with the United Kingdom and France, bombed Syrian government targets, ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack which was carried out one week before in the city of Douma.

The story we're told is simple: Syrian President Bashar Assad is an evil maniac who uses poison gas on his citizens for the sheer entertainment value. As neocon think tank the Atlantic Council put it last week, when Assad gasses people, he is simply " indulging an addiction " -- an addiction which he seems to have only recently acquired, given the fact that before Syria's war began, American journalists were busy praising the " educated " and " informed " Assad and marveling at the " phenomenal " levels of peace and religious diversity within Syria.

In 2006 Diane Sawyer praised Assad during a trip to Syria for the "phenomenal" levels of religious tolerance and peace in Syria. Funny how he turned into a monster at the exact moment Washington decided it was time for regime change. https://t.co/24qy6UtFez

-- Danielle Ryan (@DanielleRyanJ) April 14, 2018

Anyway, so intense is Assad's newfound desire for watching Syrian babies foaming at the mouth, that he is willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by deciding to use these weapons despite knowing it would provoke worldwide outrage and potentially a major US military effort to oust him. So, that's the story. Assad is a monster and the world must unite to stop him.

There are plenty of people who are less than convinced by this narrative, however. One of them is Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria. Ford told BBC Radio Scotland that " in all probability " the alleged chemical attack never happened and that the video and image evidence used as proof by the US and its allies was falsified. There are others who believe that the attack could have been real, but that the perpetrators were anti-Assad rebels trying to provoke fresh military action from the US -- in other words, it was very possibly a false flag event which served its purpose perfectly.

One of the best questions to ask when something like this happens, is: Who benefits? Very clearly in this case, Assad has not benefited at all, but the rebel groups fighting against him have.

Whatever the truth about this alleged chemical attack, the notion of false flag events being used to prompt military action should not be met with such skepticism. The US has a long history of using lies (or 'fake news' you might call it) as a pretext for war. It is important to look at recent events in Syria within that context.

Nayirah testimony

Perhaps the most famous of all examples was the heart-wrenching testimony to Congress of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, which was used to sell the first Gulf War to the American people in October 1990. An emotional Nayirah told the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die.

What Americans did not know, was that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and she had been coached by the American PR firm Hill and Knowlton. But before the details of the stunt and false testimony became widely known, it had already been used to sell America's war against Iraq in 1991.

In 1990 young Nayirah told of seeing Iraqi soldiers pull Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. Today our delivery of atrocity propaganda is more sophisticated, yet public credulity remains about the same. pic.twitter.com/l7UYmByl5D

-- U.S. Dept. of Fear (@FearDept) April 8, 2018
Operation Northwoods

In the 1960s, American military leaders devised plans to bomb US cities and blame Cuban leader Fidel Castro in order to manufacture public and international support for a war.

The plan was codenamed Operation Northwoods and what it advocated was nothing short of horrendous. The American military suggested sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees, hijacking planes and bombing Miami. The goal was to convince Americans that Castro had unleashed a reign of terror upon them.

The top brass were even willing to cause US military casualties by blowing up an American boat in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba. Why? Because, as they put it, " casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation " and help manufacture support for war. The plans were quashed by President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated one year later, leading some to speculate on a link between those events.

Gulf of Tonkin

Top US officials also distorted the facts in the lead-up to the Vietnam War and the media dutifully reported the official narrative as absolute fact, helping launch perhaps the most disastrous war in America's history.

On August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack the USS 'Maddox' while it was on " routine patrol " in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, the US Navy reported a second " unprovoked " attack on the 'Maddox' and the USS 'Turner Joy' -- a second destroyer which had been sent in after the first attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson told the American people on TV that " repeated acts of violence " against the US ships must be met with a strong response. Soon after Johnson appeared on TV, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which pre-approved any military action that he would take from that moment on.

The only problem was, there was no second attack on the US ships at all -- and the allegation that the first attack had been " unprovoked " was also a lie. In reality, the USS 'Maddox' had been gathering intelligence and providing it to South Vietnamese boats which were attacking North Vietnam. As for the second attack, the US boats had misinterpreted radio signals and radar images and spent two hours firing at nothing. Nonetheless, the " attack " was used to convince the American people to support war.

3. Given the folly of the British government over Iraq and Libya, and its undoubted misleading of the public over Iraq, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect it of doing the same thing again. Some of us also do not forget the blatant lying over Suez, and indeed the Gulf of Tonkin https://t.co/GLzyoPWaDG

-- Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 12, 2018
Soviet aircraft false flags

Recently declassified documents show yet more American false flag plotting, this time against the Soviet Union. A three-page memo , written by members of the National Security Council, suggested that the US government should acquire Soviet aircraft which would be used to stage attacks and provide the pretext for war.

Such aircraft, the memo said, " could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for US intervention. "

The government even considered producing the soviet planes domestically in a massive covert operation. They went so far as to acquire estimates from the Air Force on the cost and length of time such an operation would take.

In a memo of undisclosed date, the US National Security Council suggested the government should either buy or covertly produce Soviet aircraft and use them to launch fake attacks, providing pretext for war https://t.co/d7fPLW6Fxw pic.twitter.com/tVnqbValPP

-- Danielle Ryan (@DanielleRyanJ) April 15, 2018

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Is there even any need to rehash the lies which were told in the lead-up to the Iraq war? The media here again swallowed the government's lies, one by one -- and 15 years later, the region is still suffering the consequences and very few lessons appear to have been learned.

These are not conspiracy theories. They are cold, hard evidence that the US has no qualms whatsoever about using false flag events and fake evidence to provide pretext for military action.

Continued lack of critical inquiry from the media, given the severe potential consequences of escalating the conflict in Syria, is tantamount to a crime.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[Apr 17, 2018] Trump Prisoner of the War Party by Patrick J. Buchanan

Trump became a despicable warmonger. That true. And undisputable after the recent attack on Syria ("operation Stormy Daniels"). But was it War Party that coerced him or were other processes involved?
The main weakness of Buchanan hypothecs is that it is unclear wether Trump was coerced by War Party, or he was "Republican Obama" from the very beginning performing classic "bait and switch" operation on gullible electorate (as in "change we can believe in") . The second hypothesis is now strong then the fist and supported by more fact. just look at the "troika" of Haley-Bolton-Pompeo -- all three were voluntarily selected by the President and all three are rabid neocons. So it looks liek no or little coercion from the War Party was necessary.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will." ..."
"... Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election. ..."
"... We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMDs. ..."
"... The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands. ..."
"... As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
April 16, 2018, 9:55 PM "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria.' We convinced him it was necessary to stay."

Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term."

Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian Civil War "for the long term"?

If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic?

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria, until three objectives were reached. We must fully defeat ISIS, ensure chemical weapons will not again be used by Bashar al-Assad and maintain the ability to watch Iran.

Translation: whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper in. Trump's commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and blood-soaked Middle East wars and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is "inoperative."

The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign policy. Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war plans:

The better U.S. strategy is to turn Syria into the Ayatollah's Vietnam. Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves.

Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran until they cannot stand the pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.

But suppose that, as in our Civil War of 1861-1865, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949, Assad and his Russian, Iranian, and Shiite militia allies go all out to win and reunite the nation.

Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb mercilessly?

The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used, but they are not plunging into Syria.

Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will."

The Journal 's op-ed page Monday was turned over to former U.S. ambassador to Syria Ryan Crocker and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon: "Next time the U.S. could up the ante, going after military command and control, political leadership, and perhaps even Assad himself. The U.S. could also pledge to take out much of his air force. Targets within Iran should not be off limits."

And when did Congress authorize U.S. acts of war against Syria, its air force, or political leadership? When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has not attacked us?

Can the U.S. also attack Iran and kill the ayatollah without consulting Congress?

Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election.

We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMDs.

The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands.

But where is the evidence for this?

What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared for that?

As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post on Sunday dismissed this as "fatalistic" and "misguided." We have a vital interest, says the Post , in preventing Iran from establishing a "land corridor" across Syria.

Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor." The Shiites in 1979 overthrew a shah our CIA installed in 1953. The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite majority take control of the country. The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in 1982 to run out the PLO.

How many American dead will it take to reverse this history?

How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni over Shiite?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Apr 16, 2018] The Bolton-Pompeo Package

Notable quotes:
"... Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. ..."
"... The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package. ..."
"... The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . ..."
"... But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. ..."
"... Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

This week John Bolton assumes the job of national security adviser. Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. Bolton's objectives are characterized by never meeting a war or prospective war he didn't like. He still avows that the Iraq War -- with all the costs and chaos it has caused, from thousands of American deaths to the birth of the group that we now know as ISIS -- was a good idea. That someone with this perspective has been entrusted with the job Bolton now has is a glaring example of how there often is no accountability in Washington for gross policy malpractice.

Appointments as national security adviser are not subject to Senate confirmation. If they were, it would be appropriate for the Senate to react as it did the last time Bolton came before that body as a nominee for a job that does require confirmation. In 2005 the Senate turned down his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate review brought to light some of the uglier aspects of Bolton's conduct in his previous job as an undersecretary of state. President George W. Bush gave him a recess appointment to the U.N. job, but fortunately that meant there was a time limit to the destruction Bolton could wreak in that position.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9521689830966886?pubid=ld-7032-4043&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org&rid=nationalinterest.org&width=637

The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package.

The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . The copious commentary during the fifteen months of the Trump presidency about having "adults in the room" to restrain the worst urges of an inexperienced and impulsive president speaks to an important truth. Whether adult supervision of this sort succeeds or fails depends on the collective impact of all of the president's senior subordinates. To the extent any one subordinate is especially influential in this regard on foreign policy, it probably is the national security adviser who is best positioned either to accentuate or to restrain Trump's impulses. Having Bolton in that job makes the restraining ability of the secretary of state all the more important.

But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. P

Pompeo's winning of favor with Trump, during what reportedly has been lots of face time with him at the White House during the past year, has a similar dynamic. Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear.

Senators hold up confirmation of nominees, and sometimes vote against them, for all kinds of reasons unrelated to the resumé of the nominee. It would be proper for them to vote against a nominee for secretary of state partly because of who the national security adviser is, given that both of them are in service to an unstable president.

There are other reasons to consider Pompeo and Bolton in tandem. In several respects they are two hazardous peas in a pod. On North Korea, Bolton's bellicose posture is matched by Pompeo's statements about seeking ways to "separate" Kim Jong Un from his nuclear weapons , suggesting a priority to regime change over keeping a volatile situation on the Korean peninsula from blowing up. Both Pompeo and Bolton, along with Trump, have sworn eternal hostility to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral agreement that closed all possible paths to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Neither man bothers to explain how destruction of the agreement, which would free Iran to produce as much fissile material as it wants and would end the intrusive international inspections of the Iranian program, could possibly

[Apr 16, 2018] BREAKING US media claims Nikki Haley is author of Trump's anti-Iran policies

Notable quotes:
"... Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. ..."
"... Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | theduran.com

The claims give insight into Trump's apparent defiance of his most senior Cabinet officials, Rex Tillerson and James "Mad Dog" Mattis.

by Adam , 14:09 4.8k Views

The US media outlet Politico has published claims based on internal White House leaks, which report that the controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, is the author of Trump's anti-JCPOA and broader anti-Iran policies, which were conveyed in his speech form the White House, yesterday evening.

Everything you need to know about Trump's de-certification of the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal)

http://theduran.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-trumps-de-certification-of-the-jcpoa-iran-nuclear-deal/embed/#?secret=xaZPdRsyGp

Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. Her role as US Ambassador has been far more public than that of most of her predecessors. Many, including myself, suspect that Haley who has no previous foreign policy experience, is using her position at the UN to promote a future entry into elected politics at a Federal level.

President of the United States Nikki Haley–it could happen

http://theduran.com/president-of-the-united-states-nikki-haley-it-could-happen/embed/#?secret=93g295S6zE

According to Politico, in July of this year, Trump grudgingly certified the JCPOA under advice from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis. However, at the time, Haley was said to have volunteered to author an argument which could be employed in the future, which would attempt to justify a US de-certification of the JCPOA.

Politico reports ,

"At a mid-day meeting in the Oval Office in late July, U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley came to President Donald Trump with an offer.

Trump had grudgingly declared Tehran in compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal earlier in the month, at the urging of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Trump hated the deal. But the two men pushed him to certify it, arguing in part that he lacked a strong case for declaring Iran in violation. A refusal to do so would have looked rash, they said, convincing Trump sign off for another 90 days.

Haley, in that July meeting, which also included National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Vice President Mike Pence, asked the president to let her make the case for decertification

'Let me lay a foundation for it', she said, according a source familiar with the proceedings. The president agreed.

Haley would become the administration's most vocal public proponent of decertification -- and Trump's favorite internal voice on Iran -- further boosting her standing with the president at a time when she is seen as a potential successor to Tillerson, whose tense relationship with Trump has burst into the open in recent days.

A month after her talk with Trump, Haley flew to Vienna to visit the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Association, where she pressed officials about Iranian compliance with the deal. Soon after, she delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., airing her "doubts and concerns" about the agreement.

Haley's role was described by a half-dozen administration officials who took part in the Iran policy review. While many of the president's cabinet members, aides, and advisers work to restrain his impulses, when it came to Iran deal Haley did the opposite -- channeling what many Democrats and even some Republicans consider the president's destructive instincts into policy".

The story from Politico which also argues that arch neo-con John Bolton pushed for a full withdrawal from the JCPOA from his position outside of the White House, follows may well known trends. This helps explain why Mattis recently stated that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and why Rex Tilleron's State Department has officially said the same.

Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future.

She has also echoed Donald Trump's aggressive statements about North Korea, whereas Rex Tillerson has often repeated his view that the US does not and should not seek regime change in Pyongyang and instead will continue to pursue a diplomatic process.

Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria.

At one point, Rex Tillerson was said to have privately reprimanded Haley for inventing her own foreign policy without consulting her superiors at the State Department. However, it seems that in respect of Iran, Trump has overruled Tillerson and allowed Haley to take charge.

Haley later told journalists that she was offered the position of Secretary of State but turned it down, before being offered the position of Ambassador to the UN. Haley further attested that she sent Trump a list of demands that she never expected to be agreed upon, as a precondition for accepting her current position.

Nikki Haley was offered Secretary of States job and turned it down

http://theduran.com/nikki-haley-was-offered-secretary-of-states-job-and-turned-it-down/embed/#?secret=FF4q2WSDlC

Haley who has long been seen as a rogue figure in the Trump administration and one who is widely exceeding her authority, is apparently doing so with Donald Trump's approval.

With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged that he allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that a hyper-neo-con, might soon become the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con ideology.

With many Trump administration officials coming and going in short order, there is a very worrying possibility that Nikki Haley's role will only be enhanced in future months. This is dangerous not only for the United States, but for the wider world. Haley's inexperience is only matched by her zeal for bellicose measures against countries which have not done any harm to the American people. Such a person should not be anywhere near power, but it seems as though she has Trump's ear, far more than the vastly more mature Tillerson and Mattis.

[Apr 16, 2018] To Secure Democratic Vote Pompeo Masks Regime Change Agenda

Notable quotes:
"... And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | therealnews.com

... ... ...

SPEAKER: What is your view as to whether America should withdraw unilaterally from the Iran nuclear agreement?

MIKE POMPEO: I want to fix this deal. That's the objective. I think that's in the best interest of the United States of America.

SPEAKER: But if the agreement cannot be changed. My question is pretty simple. We're running very close to a deadline on certification.

MIKE POMPEO: And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal.

SHARMINI PERIES: Pompeo is a member of the Tea Party movement, and is generally viewed as a pro-war hardliner who has previously vowed to cancel the Iran agreement ...

... ... ...

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, let's just take the issue of Iran, for starters. There he said at the hearing that he would not try to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, that he wants a better deal. But in the past he's talked about getting out of the Iran nuclear deal. And not only that he said that regime change is the only way to deal with Iran. And as CIA director he also downplayed the CIA's assessment that Iran was complying with the deal although at the hearing he said he has no reason to deny that Iran is complying. So he says very different things and in different places. But I think his actions and his statements in the past speak louder than the words at the hearing, which were quite deceptive, and he's trying to win over Democrats. So he was evasive on some of the issues that he has been very clear about in the past, such as striking Iran, North Korea, and certainly he was open about the president's right to bomb Syria.

... ... ...

SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Now, speaking of Syria and the tensions that are arising with Russia over the chemical attack that Russia now says, and in fact Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, is on record saying they have information that some one else, some other country, initiated this attack in Syria. This is really a heightening the tension between Russia and the United States. So let me go to you on this, Phyllis, first, and then we'll go back to Medea. But your take on this rising tension between U.S. And Russia?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: This is a very, very dangerous moment, when we have Trump, with all of his own proclivities towards war and against diplomacy, surrounding himself by what looks like a clear war cabinet. The danger of escalation in Syria is very serious. It could lead to a direct clash between the two most powerful nuclear weapon states in the world, the United States and Russia. You have completely opposite claims emerging from Washington and Moscow, with the U.S. claiming that they know, even though they also agree that they don't have information, but they know that chemical weapons were used as they were used by the regime in Syria. They seem to know a lot for a government that admits it doesn't know anything yet.

The Russians, on the other hand, have variously said that another country might be involved. Another Russian diplomat has said that there was no chemical attack at all. So for myself, I don't actually believe any of these claims by any of the governments. I'm waiting to hear what the report is of the team that's on its way to D ouma right now, the town outside of Damascus where the alleged chemical weapons attack occurred. The team of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. That's the the internationally acknowledged, internationally credible team that will be determining whether or not chemicals were used, what chemicals were used if there were any, who was affected, what delivery systems, et cetera. They are not mandated to determine who fired or who gave the orders to fire. That's a much more political question that will come back to the Security Council and may stall there, we don't know.

But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago. So I think that we need to do everything possible to ramp down this level of rhetoric. When the U.S. continues to talk about the inevitability of new strikes against Syria, knowing that this is a direct violation of both, again, international law and U.S. domestic law and threatens the possibility of retaliation against U.S. troops in the region, U.S. warships in the Mediterranean, U.S. warplanes in the skies, and, most importantly, threatens the possibility, the likelihood, of killing more Syrian civilians. We are facing a very, very urgent crisis even before we get to the possibility of serious escalation.

So this is something that Congress needs to take very seriously. And unfortunately in what we've seen in the Pompeo hearing there was simply not enough, not enough pushing for this candidate to be the supposed leader of diplomacy in the United States, to push him on the necessity not of saying well, we hoped that we could have a diplomatic solution, but if not well then nothing is off the table. That's not OK. That's not acceptable to the U.S. chief diplomat. And we are simply not hearing enough pressure to make that position known.

... ... ...

But I was going to put it in the context of remember that we have Bolton as the national security adviser, who did not have to have a confirmation hearing. This is why somebody like Jeff Merkley, a senator from Massachusetts, came out and said he will not vote for Pompeo because he recognizes it as part of this larger cabinet, that this is a war cabinet, and therefore a vote for Pompeo is a vote for war. So I would say continue the fight not to get a confirmation for Mike Pompeo.

SHARMINI PERIES: Phyllis, is that even possible?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely. And it's crucial. This is exactly what we need to be focusing on right now. The way the votes come down, it's very, very tight. There are at least, at least one Republican, Rand Paul, who has said he will vote against Pompeo. It looks like McCain will not be there because of his illness. That cuts out two votes. So it's certainly a possibility. But it's going to take an enormous amount of work. Enormous numbers of phone calls and visits and protests and threats of not voting back those members of Congress who, who would go ahead and vote for this person as being the new head of diplomacy. This is as urgent as it gets.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Phyllis. I thank you so much for joining us. Phyllis is with the Institute for Policy Studies New Internationalism Project. And Medea Benjamin, thank you so much for joining us. And Medea's from Code Pink. Thank you both.

0040 • 13 hours ago ,

Nonsense lead . The regime change trope is totally bi-partisan as yesterdays air strikes clearly indicate. Pompeo etal like most American federal government officialdom are now lackeys and on the payrolls of the MIC , CIA, and banksters. There is no Iran nuclear deal , Trump is right about that . Iran has moved under Russia's nuclear umbrella as North Korea is now under China's, making the rush to develop nukes unnecessary at the present time. Obombers treaty was/is a worthless face saving effort, after the destruction of Libya.. Trump increasing represents the wishes of the duopoly, not the electorate, his latest terror attack on Syria bumped his popularity 5% across Americas, knocking down the looming Stormy scandal perhaps...

neoconbuster • 14 hours ago ,

Phyllis: "But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago."

We do know, because we listen daily to the other side of the story too. There was NO Chemical attack . The White Helmets filmed the deception.

These two Workers of the Douma Hospital's Emergency room, are eyewitnesses of the Lie that was sold by the Western MSM, which is a tool of the Deep State:

-Syrian Eyewitnesses Reveal How Douma Provocation Was Made- (Published by Sputnik, on Apr 13, 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Howie Lisnoff • 15 hours ago ,

Arguing for a right-wing Congress to overturn decades of executive war making "privilege" is a bit of a lost cause at this point. Pompeo is the latest iteration in a long line of those at the State Department who have ditched diplomacy in favor of war.

gustave courbet > novychelovek

Consistent theme in caricatures of other nations/groups relates to their inherent "otherness." Be it Clapper's comment about Russians being "genetically driven" to "co-opt," or Kim Jong-un's reputation as a madman, or Iran's fundamentalist world view, they have in common the tendency to project a fundamentally irrational disposition on one's adversaries.

In reality, most governments, be they pseudo-democratic, theocratic, etc are motivated by pragmatic self-interest. In Iran's case, they can use history to compare non-nuclear states to nuclear powers in regards to US bellicosity and see a clear pattern.

[Apr 16, 2018] Israeli lobby and the US foreign policy

Apr 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , April 16, 2018 at 5:57 pm GMT

@Greg Bacon

Just remember the Jew are behind ALL the US warring in the ME and ALL the following events you are looking at right now today.

AIPAC Bristles at Obama's Reminder of Iraq War Lobbying -- LobeLog

https://lobelog.com/aipac-bristles-at-obamas-reminder-of-iraq-war-lobbying/

Aug 6, 2015 -- Jim Moran (D-VA), told Tikkun Magazine that AIPAC. has pushed [the Iraq war] from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they

The Iraq war -- What did AIPAC do and when did it do it? -- Mondoweiss mondoweiss.net/2012/ /the-iraq-war-coverup-what-did-aipac-do-and-when-did-it-do

Feb 2, 2012 -- Let's skip forward to the Iraq war itself, 2003. In The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Walt and Mearsheimer clearly show that AIPAC pushed the Iraq war, though quietly. AIPAC usually supports what Israel wants, and Israel certainly wanted the United States to invade Iraq. Nathan Guttman made this

Barney Frank says Israel and AIPAC lobbied Congress to support war
mondoweiss.net/2015/03/lobbied-congress-support/

Mar 12, 2015 -- Tempers flared even more, they said, when Frank claimed that Israel and AIPAC had lobbied members of Congress a decade ago to support the war in Iraq. Remember that Walt and Mearsheimer were tarred as anti-Semites for saying in 2006 that the Israel lobby pushed the Iraq war.

Moran Down | The New Republic

https://newrepublic.com/article/61979/moran-down

Sep 30, 2007 -- He said that AIPAC was in favor of the Iraq war and "pushed this war from the beginning." And he claimed that on the Iraq war, AIPAC didn't represent "the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all." Moran had other things to say -- much of it having to do with AIPAC's lobbying on U.S. relations to Iran.

AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action -- Haaretz

https://www.haaretz.com/aipac-pushing-hard-for-syria-action-1.5330700

Sep 7, 2013 -- But they had generally wanted the debate to focus on U.S. national security rather than how a decision to attack Syria might help Israel, a reflection of their sensitivity to being seen as rooting for the United States to go to war. Obama AIPAC -- AP -- 22.5.11 U.S. President Barack Obama arriving at the AIPAC

Dems slam Moran's tying AIPAC to Iraq war -- POLITICO

https://www.politico.com/story/ /dems-slam-morans-tying-aipac-to-iraq-war-005925

Sep 19, 2007 -- Democrats offended by Jim Moran's statement that Israel lobby group AIPAC "pushed [the Iraq] war."

AIPAC beats the drums of war -- The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/aipac the war/ /gIQASVMZtR_story.htmlMar 5,

2012 -- But once inside the hall, the AIPAC attendees heard the sound of war drums. "Iran's nuclear Nine years ago this month, there was a similar feeling of inevitability -- that despite President George W. Bush's frequent insistence that "war is my last choice," war in Iraq was coming. Now Israel is moving toward

AIPAC and the Push Toward War -- The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/ /aipac push-toward-war/253358/

Feb 21, 2012 -- The bad news is that, as Kampeas also reports, "AIPAC is expected to make the resolution an 'ask' in three weeks when up to 10,000 activists culminate its Greg Thielmann of the Arms Control Association notes that, "Even after crushing Iraq in the first Gulf War, the international coalition only imposed a ..

[Apr 16, 2018] Self-Centered, Self-Serving Jackass : FBI Insiders Furious After Comey Interview

Notable quotes:
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the Daily Beast - which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other communications detailing their reactions.

Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the broadcast. There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces .

One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing emoji. The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview played out. - Daily Beast

" Hoover is spinning in his grave ," said a former FBI official. " Making money from total failure ," in reference to Comey plugging his book, A Higher Loyalty .

Jana Winter of The Beast adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's upcoming appearance with The View , the official "grew angrier." " Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass ," the official said. " True to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around ."

... ... ...

Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he leaked memos he claims document conversations with Trump to the New York Times, kicking off the special counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...

... ... ...

Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book.

Oldguy05 -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 20:54 Permalink

Cumey is nothing but a small man in a big car.

hxc -> Oldguy05 Mon, 04/16/2018 - 21:57 Permalink

I would rather have RP if he had the charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that delivered babies and educated people on nonagression, as opposed to running a something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire, might be more at risk of A) being unable to overcome political roadblocks and destabilization, and B) something bad happening to him.

Fish Gone Bad -> FireBrander Mon, 04/16/2018 - 19:43 Permalink

I once saw this on a T-shirt: Those who think they are the smartest person in the room, really piss off those of us who are.

Comey is a narcissistic traitor .

NoDebt -> Bitchface-KILLAH Mon, 04/16/2018 - 18:00 Permalink

Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.

THE GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse than that.

Bitchface-KILLAH -> NoDebt Mon, 04/16/2018 - 18:03 Permalink

Every agency has a Jim Comey in it... you know the guy. Their CV just has an implied "team skills and natural ability to get a deep brown nose" at the very top of it.

JimmyJones -> Bitchface-KILLAH Mon, 04/16/2018 - 18:55 Permalink

He really is a traitor

FireBrander -> Bitchface-KILLAH Mon, 04/16/2018 - 19:41 Permalink

Comey reminds me of all the "executives" I've known that married the owners daughter prior to getting hired.

nmewn -> NoDebt Mon, 04/16/2018 - 18:19 Permalink

So, to review.

Comey was the FBI Director when warrants were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by, a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".

Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier" one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time "colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a "counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe (another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in Virginia.

And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of government documents or his turning over those documents to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor" (as he admitted to under oath).

He should be arrested and sent to Gitmo.

???ö? -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 18:27 Permalink

Mueller's investigation is tainted with fruit of the poisonous tree and the entirety of seized evidence will be unceremoniously thrown out by a 5-4 US Supreme Court.

The First Rule -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 18:51 Permalink

There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison: Jeff Sessions. If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.

Ajax-1 -> The First Rule Mon, 04/16/2018 - 20:32 Permalink

Don't hold your breath. The clock on the statute of limitations is ticking away. I wish someone could provide me with an honest rational as to why Trump hasn't fired Jeff Sessions.

Hulk -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 19:04 Permalink

He is one stupid ass. ALways stuns me to hear him speak...

Boxed Merlot -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 20:02 Permalink

...Comey was the FBI Director when...

And if he wasn't aware of every fact as stated, the whole enchilada is even more bogus than you have represented.

Shut it down.

jmo.

Dilluminati -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 20:03 Permalink

https://translate.google.com/m/translate?client=ob&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=en&

GreatUncle -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 20:08 Permalink

But ... but .. but this is the new normal.

We all need to take a leaf out of Comeys behavior ... that's the way to play this game.

Honesty and integrity no longer needed ... time for everybody to lie to the government.

Duc888 -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 20:17 Permalink

You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation.

NumberNone -> nmewn Mon, 04/16/2018 - 20:25 Permalink

Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to save the 'World' so it's justified.

I think you framed it similar...this is the same as injecting bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a pimple on our nose.

[Apr 16, 2018] Russia's Red Lines in Relations with America by Stephen Lendma

Apr 16, 2018 | stephenlendman.org

n ( stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman )

How much more US hostility toward Russia will it tolerate before declaring unacceptable red lines were crossed?

Washington and Moscow are on opposite sides of endless war in Syria – a US imperial project from day one of hostilities.

According to neocon Russophobe Nikki Haley and US ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman, further (illegal) Trump administration sanctions on Russia are coming, likely Monday.

They'll be imposed for Kremlin involvement in combating US-supported terrorists in Syria – cutthroat killers falsely called "rebels."

According to Haley, Russian enterprises allegedly "dealing with equipment related to Assad and any chemical weapons use" will be targeted.

No Syrian CWs exist, the nation's entire stockpile destroyed in 2014, confirmed by the OPCW. Yet according to Haley (and other lunatic fringe Trump administration Russophobes), Damascus has undisclosed CWs. Moscow is "covering this up."

The Big Lie persists. No evidence supports it. Facts on the ground never deter Washington from pursuing it diabolical imperial agenda.

US administrations and bipartisan congressional members consistently blame sovereign independent nations for US high crimes committed against them.

Haley falsely accused Moscow of aggressive behavior, turning truth on its head, claiming the Kremlin facilitated the alleged Douma CW incident.

Medical personnel on the ground treated no one for toxic poisoning, no one killed, ill or harmed, no CW residues found by Russian technical experts at the alleged site.

The false flag incident was staged to blame Syria and Russia for a nonevent – the Big Lie used as a pretext for US-led terror-bombing of Syrian sites, followed by more illegal sanctions on Moscow coming Monday.

On Sunday, OPCW inspectors arrived in Douma to inspect the site of the alleged CW attack, according to Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Ayman Soussan.

AMN news said following US-led terror-bombing of Syrian sites, Russia is sending government forces more weapons and heavy equipment.

According to Southfront, the Pentagon lied, claiming all missiles fired struck Syrian targets – at the same time expressing concern about mission results.

An internal probe will be conducted to produce a more accurate after-action report, including why Syrian air defense systems downed most incoming missiles – reportedly 71 of 103 fired.

Washington intends permanent occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. According to Assad UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari, one-third of the country is illegally occupied by US forces, adding:

Security Council debates omit discussing this key issue. Along with terrorists permanent SC members America, Britain and France support, Damascus faces "three aggressors:" Washington, London and Paris. "We are a state," Jaafari stressed, "the sovereignty of which has been violated by a permanent member of the UNSC."

The international community ignores this core issue of the conflict, along with US-led aggression, using terrorists as foot soldiers, pretending endless war is "civil."

After the latest US-led aggressive incident on a sovereign state, what's next? Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said the Kremlin has "obvious red lines," adding Moscow will do all it can to pull East/West relations out of a dangerous "political nosedive." Addressing the issue diplomatically assures continued failure, along with weakness, encouraging Washington to slam Russia and Syria harder.

Dealing with hegemonic America requires using the only language it understands – challenging it forcefully. Pursuing failed policies assures making a bad situation worse ahead. Washington isn't likely to step back from the brink unless pushed. Diplomacy is futile, accomplishing nothing, encouraging greater US hostility, including endless aggression in Syria and tough anti-Russia actions.

Washington's rage for global dominance likely assures an eventual East/West showdown. Responding weakly to hostile US actions assures more to come, likely harsher than already. When will Russia respond with toughness – better to risk it in Syria than be forced to act in defending its heartland.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org ( Home – Stephen Lendman ). Contact at [email protected] .

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

[Apr 16, 2018] America's Fling With the Kurds Could Cause Turkey and NATO to Split by Mark Perry

Notable quotes:
"... "This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works. The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him, well, you know, it's all Centcom. ..."
"... Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and "transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In fact, just how "ugly" the relationship has become is fast becoming a matter of public debate. During his March visit, Scaparrotti appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to give testimony on the challenges facing his command. While most members focused on Russia and cyberwar issues, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine explored the U.S.-Turkey dust-up, hinting that it might be time for the U.S. to dampen its YPG ties. Scaparrotti didn't disagree, while soft-pedaling the disagreements over the issue that he's had with Votel and Centcom. "Where do we want to be in a year, two years and five years?" he asked. "With a close NATO ally like Turkey, we know that we want to maintain and strengthen our relationship. So that's the long-term objective and if we look at the long-term objective, it can begin to inform what we're doing today with respect to NATO." The senior military officer with whom I spoke proved a willing translator: "What Scaparrotti is saying is that the real marriage here is between the U.S. and Turkey. The YPG is just a fling."

But convincing James Mattis of that is proving difficult, in part because Scaparrotti is outgunned. Every defense secretary surrounds himself with people he can count on and who he listens to. But for Mattis almost all of them have had experience in the Middle East -- and at Centcom. There's Mattis himself (a former Centcom commander), JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford (who served with Mattis in Iraq), Joint Staff Director Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, Jr. (a Marine who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq), retired Rear Admiral Kevin M. Sweeney (the former Centcom executive officer), Rear Admiral Craig S. Faller (a Mattis advisor, and a Navy commander during both the Afghan and Iraq wars), and current Centcom commander General Joseph Votel -- the former commander of the U.S. Special Operation Command ("a trigger puller," as he was described to me by a currently serving officer). Votel is the most outspoken YPG supporter of any of them, and because he's the combatant commander, his support carries weight.

"This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works. The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him, well, you know, it's all Centcom. So Scaparrotti is worried, and he ought to be. We don't want to be sitting around 30 years from now reading historical pieces with titles like 'Who Lost Turkey?'"

Even someone as careful in his public utterances as Admiral James Stavridis, who once held Scaparrotti's command and is now the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, is raising concerns. While he waves off the "who lost Turkey" formulation as "a trope that is moving around the Internet," he told me in an email exchange that "it would be a mistake of epic proportions to allow Turkey to drift out of the transatlantic orbit" -- a repeat of the warning issued by Scaparrotti to Mattis in March. But like Scaparrotti, Staviridis is slow-rolling his disagreement. "This is a distinction without a difference," the senior officer and NATO partisan with whom we spoke says. "By drifting out of NATO, Stavridis means leaving. He's as worried as anyone else."

Concerns over Turkey are probably a surprise in the White House, given its almost daily crisis over the looming Russia-gate investigation, but they shouldn't be. The president has had extended telephone exchanges with Turkish President Tayyip Erodogan twice in the last three weeks. While the White House has refused to give details of these conversations, the Turkish official with whom we spoke told TAC that in both conversations (on March 23 and again on April 11), Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and "transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon.

On April 3, the same day Trump issued his let's-get-out statement, Joseph Votel and Brett McGurk appeared at the U.S. Institute of Peace, arguing that the U.S. needed to stay in. "The hard part, I think, is in front of us," Votel said, "and that is stabilizing these areas, consolidating our gains, getting back to their homes. There is a military role in this," he went on to say. "Certainly in the stabilization phase."

The Votel appearance was exasperating for those worried about NATO's future, and for those concerned that the endless conflicts in the region are draining the defense budget of badly needed funds to rebuild U.S. military readiness. For them, a group that now includes a growing number of very senior and influential military officers, "stabilization" is not only a codeword for "nation building," it signals support for a mission that is endangering the future of NATO, the institution that has guaranteed peace in Europe for three generations.

"It's not worth it," the senior military commander who spoke with TAC concludes. "On top of everything else, it puts us on the wrong side of the political equation. This whole thing about how the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a bunch of bullshit. The enemy of my enemy is now making an enemy of our friend. I don't know who we think we're fooling, but it sure as hell isn't Turkey. And it isn't the American people either."

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American Conservative, and the author of The Pentagon's Wars (2017).

[Apr 16, 2018] The Bolton-Pompeo Package

Notable quotes:
"... Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. ..."
"... The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package. ..."
"... The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . ..."
"... But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. ..."
"... Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

This week John Bolton assumes the job of national security adviser. Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. Bolton's objectives are characterized by never meeting a war or prospective war he didn't like. He still avows that the Iraq War -- with all the costs and chaos it has caused, from thousands of American deaths to the birth of the group that we now know as ISIS -- was a good idea. That someone with this perspective has been entrusted with the job Bolton now has is a glaring example of how there often is no accountability in Washington for gross policy malpractice.

Appointments as national security adviser are not subject to Senate confirmation. If they were, it would be appropriate for the Senate to react as it did the last time Bolton came before that body as a nominee for a job that does require confirmation. In 2005 the Senate turned down his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate review brought to light some of the uglier aspects of Bolton's conduct in his previous job as an undersecretary of state. President George W. Bush gave him a recess appointment to the U.N. job, but fortunately that meant there was a time limit to the destruction Bolton could wreak in that position.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9521689830966886?pubid=ld-7032-4043&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org&rid=nationalinterest.org&width=637

The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package.

The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . The copious commentary during the fifteen months of the Trump presidency about having "adults in the room" to restrain the worst urges of an inexperienced and impulsive president speaks to an important truth. Whether adult supervision of this sort succeeds or fails depends on the collective impact of all of the president's senior subordinates. To the extent any one subordinate is especially influential in this regard on foreign policy, it probably is the national security adviser who is best positioned either to accentuate or to restrain Trump's impulses. Having Bolton in that job makes the restraining ability of the secretary of state all the more important.

But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. P

Pompeo's winning of favor with Trump, during what reportedly has been lots of face time with him at the White House during the past year, has a similar dynamic. Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear.

Senators hold up confirmation of nominees, and sometimes vote against them, for all kinds of reasons unrelated to the resumé of the nominee. It would be proper for them to vote against a nominee for secretary of state partly because of who the national security adviser is, given that both of them are in service to an unstable president.

There are other reasons to consider Pompeo and Bolton in tandem. In several respects they are two hazardous peas in a pod. On North Korea, Bolton's bellicose posture is matched by Pompeo's statements about seeking ways to "separate" Kim Jong Un from his nuclear weapons , suggesting a priority to regime change over keeping a volatile situation on the Korean peninsula from blowing up. Both Pompeo and Bolton, along with Trump, have sworn eternal hostility to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral agreement that closed all possible paths to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Neither man bothers to explain how destruction of the agreement, which would free Iran to produce as much fissile material as it wants and would end the intrusive international inspections of the Iranian program, could possibly

[Apr 16, 2018] Alas, this is far from over! by The Saker

Russia can do nothing alone. NATO is way too strong.
Notable quotes:
"... my honor is called solidarity ..."
"... my honor is loyalty ..."
"... by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any future attacks. But what could the Russians have done? ..."
"... Sic transit gloria mundi ..."
"... Trump demonstrated that the U.S. can still bomb non nuclear countries without regard for the Constitution, international law or common decency. The Deplorables demonstrated that elections will not change anything. Only the death of the U.S. dollar will end Anglo/Zio Imperial aggression. ..."
"... Russia was outgunned, so they did not respond. It was probably a wise decision. They did damage control admirably, and now have an opportunity to improve the Syrian arsenal with obvious justification. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, Russia is tightening the noose in Syria. Air defenses are improving. ..."
"... My precious, too many players want to start a real war between the Mercans and Russians. Aside from the casual suspects (KSA and Israel), Chinese also objectively benefit from the confrontation, which explains their aloofness. Should this come to a nuclear war, Chinese will be the one and only winner. For this old smart monkey is still sitting on the tree, and nothing has changed since Chairman Mao times. ..."
"... For Iran, this war will certainly enhance the Iran-Russia axis and thus may postpone the US aggression. Turkey loves it too because it can play both sides. ..."
"... Ironically, only the USA and Russia will be the biggest losers regardless of the outcome. ..."
"... In UNSC, China has surprisingly took abstained neutral stand, allowing it to play the coordinator role & denying US UK Fr to get any legit for attack. This avoid relegating UNSC into two sides shouting. Nikki Harley was thus preempted her wish of striking with or without UNSC mandate since all ended agreed to let UN conduct independent inspection. Overall, this continue to lock US UK Fr inside UNSC framework. ..."
"... The general idea seems to be containment of Russia, hemming them in within their own borders and cutting them off from being able to extend their influence outward. ..."
"... As part of this any allies of theirs such as Syria come under attack; if the west can't own them then they're to be reduced to chaos and rendered into costly burdens for the Russians. ..."
"... It's all a very cynical and calculated plan that fits into the overall picture of encircling the Russians to stymie their development and influence. NATO expansion up to their borders, the Ukraine coup, encirclement, picking off vulnerable allies, economic warfare and political subversion without end, the pattern is clear. At some point an actual clash might come about, not necessarily now with Syria as the trigger but somewhere all along the entire line of points of friction. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that something bad is going to happen somewhere down the line as the irresistible force meets the immovable object. ..."
"... As a fervent anti-war activist since the sixties, I have been appalled at all the regime change the US has and continues to do around the world including both military covert operations and economic warfare. Well Putin had me at his 2007 Munich speech. ..."
Apr 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Let's begin by a short summary of events.

About a month ago Nikki Haley announces to the UNSC that the USA is ready to violate the rules of this very self-same UNSC should a chemical attack happen in Syria Then the Russians announced that they have evidence that a chemical false flag is being prepared in Syria Then a chemical attack (supposedly) takes place (in a location surrounded and, basically, controlled by government forces!) The OPWC sends investigators (in spite of western powers loudly proclaiming that no investigation was needed) The AngloZionists then bomb Syria Next, the UNSC refuses to condemn the violation of its own rules and decisions Finally, the US Americans speak of a 'perfect strike'

Now tell me -- do you get a sense that this is over?

If you tell me that 32/103 is hardly perfect, I will reply that you are missing the point. In fact, if anything, 32/103 is further incentive to bomb again!

Let's look at the differently for a second and ask this: what has the AngloZionist attack actually demonstrated?

The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag attacks can now be announced 4 weeks in advance The Europeans now live by the motto " my honor is called solidarity " (a variation of the SS motto " my honor is loyalty ") Led by the USA, western countries have no objections to wars started in violation of their own national laws The UN Security Council has no objections to wars started in violation of the UN Charter and International Law The PRC leaders, in their infinite wisdom, act as if they have nothing personal at stake and act like bystanders The Israelis, via the UN Neocons, are now in total control of the Empire and use it to "clean house" next door

Oh, I hear the objections. They go something like this:

But the attack was a dismal failure! So what? the Empire did not pay any price for executing it. But the US Americans did blink! The attacked from Jordanian airspace and from the Red Sea! They avoided the Russians completely! They are afraid of them! So what? They still bombed a Russian ally with total impunity. But, surely you are not suggesting that the Russians should have started a war against the USA over a strike which did not even kill a single person?

No, of course not, but by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any future attacks. But what could the Russians have done?

Now *that* is the right question!

Let's look at it a little closer. Roughly speaking, the Russians have a choice of 3 types of retaliatory measures: political, economic and military. However, each one of them has a specific set of prerequisites which are currently problematic to say the least:

Measures Political Economic Military
Prerequisites Assumes a minimal amount of decency, integrity and respect for the rule of law by the rest of the planet. Assumes that other countries, especially China, would be willing and able to support such measures. Assumes that Russia has the military capability to defeat the AngloZionist "coalition".
Current reality Russia can moan, bitch, complain, protest, appeal to higher values, logic or facts -- nobody gives a damn. The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything at this time to support Russia. Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but only by risking the future of our planet.

This really can be summarized a simple sentence: the AngloZionist Hegemony is a threat for the entire planet, but nobody besides Russia and Iran is willing to take it on. Ain't that an irony!

The so-called "Christian West" has become a willing host for its Zionist parasite and the only ones with the courage and moral integrity to take it on are Orthodox Christians and Muslims! Sic transit gloria mundi indeed

But what is even more important is this: while it is true that the US Neocons did not succeed in delivering the kind of massive attack they would have wanted to, and while it is true that the US attack was just about as lame as can be, you need to completely forget about these facts. Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are perceptions!

And the perception is that "we" (the AngloZionist rulers and their serfs) "kicked" Assad's "ass" and that "we" will "do it again" if "we" feel like it. That is all that matters in the Empire of Illusions which the AngloZionist Hegemony has become.

As soon as you understand that, you also will have to agree that Trump was right: it was a "perfect strike" (again, not in reality, but in the world of illusions created around it).

So now we come full circle.

The AngloZionist Hegemony demands that the entire planet bows down and worships it . Except for Russia and Iran, everybody meekly goes down on their knees or, at most, meekly looks away. In their own delusional reality, the 'Mericans feel empowered to smack down Russia or Iran at anytime. There is nothing Iran can do to stop them, and while Russia can, she can only do that at the risk of the future of our entire planet.

Now you tell me -- do you really think this is over?

aleksandar , April 15, 2018 at 3:02 pm GMT

" There is nothing Iran can do to stop them "

That's clearly a civilian assertion. By no way, the US can defeat Iran, unless they are ready to send 500 000 grunts there. And they are not. No US president will survive a 10 000 body bag return.

They can use air power for sure, but that will never be enough to force Iran to bow.And I'm quite sure the Russian will provide them everything they have to help Iran.And China probably too.

Without even mentioning destruction of Barbaric Saudi and closin Ormuz strait. It's clearly not over but the US are not as powerful as you think.

Antonio , April 15, 2018 at 3:05 pm GMT
Well, firstly, I don't think the future of our planet is at risk, if you mean by that extinction of life on Earth. Current arsenals can't do that, even in the worst case scenario. Nor even can they extinct human race either. Lots of deaths? Yes, sure. Extinction? Nope.

Secondly, there is no rule of law because there is no punishment. Once punishment is delivered, things will change quickly. I agree with you that political or economical punishment will not work. But military punishment will do. Sink some US carriers or destroy some Israel bases, and you will see how they become well-behaved.

(BTW, the EU stopped being Christian long ago.)

Diversity Heretic , April 15, 2018 at 3:16 pm GMT
The best advice that I could give Russia would be what Reese says to Sarah Connor about the Terminator (substitute AngloZionist Empire).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKbZMIP4XUE

WorkingClass , April 15, 2018 at 3:36 pm GMT
Trump demonstrated that the U.S. can still bomb non nuclear countries without regard for the Constitution, international law or common decency. The Deplorables demonstrated that elections will not change anything. Only the death of the U.S. dollar will end Anglo/Zio Imperial aggression.
Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , April 15, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
Uhhh no.

It is not only Russia and Iran that does not bow down. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Phillipines, China etc. Etc. These countries have done as much as the Russians have. Its not like Russia sank a carrier or anything and it's not like Russia is defender of the world on a crusade to defend the planet. They are only acting because they are in the crosshairs.

If America was targeting Cuba, Russia would not say or do anything against America.

El Dato , April 15, 2018 at 7:56 pm GMT

If you tell me that 32/103 is hardly perfect

True if true. US says this was all in the pipe, 5 by 5:

Warship ruse and new stealth missiles: How the Syria attack unfolded

While both vessels [USS Winston Churchill, USS Donald Cook] carry as many as 90 Tomahawk missiles -- the main weapon used in the Friday evening strike on Syria -- neither ship in the end fired a shot. Instead, according to a person familiar with White House war planning, they were part of a plan to distract Russia and its Syrian ally from an assault Assad's government could do little to defend itself against.

It worked. Pentagon officials on Saturday said they faced little resistance to their targeted attack on what they said were three Syrian chemical weapons facilities. Most of the Syrian countermeasures, including defensive ballistic missiles, were fired after U.S. and allied weapons hit their targets, Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said Saturday.

"No Syrian weapon had any effect on anything we did," McKenzie said. He described the joint U.S., French and U.K. strike as "precise, overwhelming and effective."

Where can I get correct assessments? For, umm . research yeah.

The Scalpel , Website April 15, 2018 at 8:17 pm GMT
Russia was outgunned, so they did not respond. It was probably a wise decision. They did damage control admirably, and now have an opportunity to improve the Syrian arsenal with obvious justification.

Slowly but surely, Russia is tightening the noose in Syria. Air defenses are improving. The next step is likely to be an arsenal of anti-ship missile's. If necessary ICBMs might follow some sort of mutual defense treaty.

At some point, Syria itself will be able to deliver the bloody nose to the USA that is so necessary for justice and world peace. That point will be reached when Syrian abilities to inflict pain outweigh the costs of escalation

JR , April 15, 2018 at 8:54 pm GMT
Probably Saker didn't see this yet.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1098059.shtml

China supporting Russia using reasoning in line with the Saker.

Antonio , April 15, 2018 at 8:55 pm GMT
@El Dato

@ElDato: Try borrowing some observation time from these guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_Image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidEye
peterAUS , April 15, 2018 at 9:26 pm GMT

Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are perceptions!

Yup.

There is nothing Iran can do to stop them, and while Russia can, she can only do that at the risk of the future of our entire planet.

Not quite. Or, the regime in Kremlin could've stopped all this had it acted, properly , a couple of years ago. Opportunity missed.

Now you tell me -- do you really think this is over?

Of course not. This is just a starter.

aleksandar , April 15, 2018 at 10:06 pm GMT
@El Dato

Nowhere, stay tuned to Radio Pentagon, that's all you can understand anyway.

Smeagol , April 16, 2018 at 12:16 am GMT
My precious, too many players want to start a real war between the Mercans and Russians. Aside from the casual suspects (KSA and Israel), Chinese also objectively benefit from the confrontation, which explains their aloofness. Should this come to a nuclear war, Chinese will be the one and only winner. For this old smart monkey is still sitting on the tree, and nothing has changed since Chairman Mao times.

For Iran, this war will certainly enhance the Iran-Russia axis and thus may postpone the US aggression. Turkey loves it too because it can play both sides.

Ironically, only the USA and Russia will be the biggest losers regardless of the outcome. It seems they both realize that and are treading carefully. But can they manage to get out of the clinch? And for how long they can be avoiding the all-out conflict? So no, -- it's definitely ain't over. We hates it, but the best is yet to come.

Linda , April 16, 2018 at 4:52 am GMT
You forget ballsy little Bolivia defends Russia in UN with both votes and condemnation of barking Nikki. It looks like they are offering all they have -- moral condemnation of Empire and her vassals.
Linda , April 16, 2018 at 5:21 am GMT
This is a very interesting post from Zaid Fadel at Syrian Perspective. https://syrianperspective.com/2018/04/attack-on-syria-big-flop-air-defenses-robust-massive-failure-for-trump-may-macron-and-the-usual-gang-of-idiots.html

The reason I give it a lot of weight is that the night before the bombing, either Vanessa Beasley or Eva Bartlett called in to Israeli News Live and gave 12 points explaining what Syria was expecting to happen and it seems it pretty well went down as they had said. I'm sorry I can't find the broadcast link. Apparently the Russians said if the strike went into a second day they would strike back even if Russians were not hit. Looks like the "strike" was pretty well pre-determined by both sides.

Gave each side a look at the others capabilities and allowed US a chance to waste missiles and Northrup sell new ones. Same old, same old.

Every time my country says or does something insane (which is often) this Lee Greenwood song goes thru my mind with modified lyrics. "Ashamed to be an American, where I'm duped to think I'm free".

hunor , April 16, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT
" This is far from over ! "

How can it be over ? It is a war in progress. One side of the warring party is creating they own reality, and present it on the world stage with absolute conviction, and determination. This fake reality is part of the war game , it should not be considered as lies or staged events. It is war ! Fake reality is part of the repertoire , just like the missiles. It is war , no rules just brutal conflict.

The other side not understanding any of it. They are running around , like chickens in the rain. UNSC talk , talk and talk some more. Nobody give a them. They are counting how many missiles they intercepted , they are analyzing , they are theorizing . Do something you are about to be wiped off !

Robert Magill , April 16, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT
This is theatre;

Act 2 . China sells tickets. Total now of two hundred missiles used; nothing much destroyed. Top brass satisfied. Neocons, mollified. Audience, US, asleep in our seats as usual.

Act 3 . The big love scene: Trump and Putin do Romeo & Juliet, audience confused. Back to sleep. China offers no refunds.

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/women-of-the-world-summit-2/

TT , April 16, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT

Measures Political Economic Military

Prerequisites

Current reality

The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything at this time to support Russia. Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but only by risking the future of our planet.

Saker correctly pointed out Russia is showing unnecessary weakness in only moaning & bitching with empty threats that nobody bother, relegating itself to a weakling gas station.

But to falsely accused China & the rest not willing to do anything at this time to support Russia is too far fetch, a foolish remark like a whining self pitied child blaming everyone for his own spilled milk.

Does Saker expect its few allies China, NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, SAA to launch attack on US Nato when RuA refused/not permit?

Economically, China is known to have financially back the entire costly war, signed numerous huge deals worth hundreds of Bil with Russia to booster its sanctioned economy, deliver re-construction materials, medicine & food for tens of millions soldiers & Syrians. A astromical cost.

Military, it has also supply lot of weapons & ammunition under so called old contract with SAA, sent in its most senior advisors & Special forces to help fighting & get train, esp to mop up Uyghur ISIS terrorists(CIA assets).

It even cut short a mammoth 40 vessels Liaoning a/c strike group drill in SCS to declare a unprecedented proximate live firing drill in Taiwan Straits, literally forcing existing USN three strike groups to tied down in SCS. This sent a very clear signal that if US start a hot war in Syria with Russia, China might open another war front to take back Taiwan which USM will be overstretched to defend.

Also China despatched its Defense Minister in a high profile visit to Russia, declaring its military solidarity with Russia against US tyranny (a rare glaring mentioned of US name directly) . This sent a very strong signal to USM, China may intervene directly or asymmetrically.

China also took an unusual hard stand in a looming trade war, threatened to fight at all cost without slight compromise, hence refusing Trumps any leeway to back down while he up ante to save face.

China foreign ministry further declare the trade war will not limit in trade but shall utilize all asymmetric tools, including non cooporation in strategic issues, sanction of US hugely profiting investments in China. Also Trumps redneck farming vote bank was purposely targeted to pressure him in coming Nov election. With China $4T war chess & US people resistance, US can ill afford to fight China if Syria war breakout. Every major war will see USD artificially hike >30% historically for expenditure mileage.

In UNSC, China has surprisingly took abstained neutral stand, allowing it to play the coordinator role & denying US UK Fr to get any legit for attack. This avoid relegating UNSC into two sides shouting. Nikki Harley was thus preempted her wish of striking with or without UNSC mandate since all ended agreed to let UN conduct independent inspection. Overall, this continue to lock US UK Fr inside UNSC framework.

China Prez Xi also in Baao seminar announced expedite opening of China huge financial market. This stirred the world into frenzy to prepare for huge investment, skillfully denied US ability to pull EU, Jp & others to joint US trade war. All US financier & trade bodies will loathe any trade or hot war that will derail their golden opportunity.

What else happen behind door we won't know. But whatever we can see now, China has done every heavy lifting it could, very comprehensive & well plan, short of attacking USM in Syria which it can't with limited projection force.

Yet Saker is accusing China & others are doing NOTHING to help Russia, when Putin is refusing to even take down a Israel airfield as a warning to USM. Killing a chicken to frighten the monkey.

Is Saker demonstrating a typical Russian nature, unappreciative & endless blaming, always ready to throw ally under bus? This might explain why Russia has few or no true trusted ally, even ex-Soviet countries. Assad Syria & Iran interest are seen routinely been sacrificed.

Will China one day decided Russia is not a trusted ally afterall to reconsider US G2 invitation?

TT , April 16, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
@Linda

I think one US ally in ME also abstained to refuse support of US proposal, Qatar?

c matt , April 16, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@aleksandar

I think the point of the article was precisely that the US is not as strong as it thinks. Hence, the attack was all for "show" so the US can perpetuate the delusion it can handle Russia/Iran. The danger is that this delusion may cause a major misstep, especially if (when) the US starts believing it's own bullshit and really pokes the bear.

anonymous [187] Disclaimer , April 16, 2018 at 2:56 pm GMT
The general idea seems to be containment of Russia, hemming them in within their own borders and cutting them off from being able to extend their influence outward.

As part of this any allies of theirs such as Syria come under attack; if the west can't own them then they're to be reduced to chaos and rendered into costly burdens for the Russians.

It's all a very cynical and calculated plan that fits into the overall picture of encircling the Russians to stymie their development and influence. NATO expansion up to their borders, the Ukraine coup, encirclement, picking off vulnerable allies, economic warfare and political subversion without end, the pattern is clear. At some point an actual clash might come about, not necessarily now with Syria as the trigger but somewhere all along the entire line of points of friction. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that something bad is going to happen somewhere down the line as the irresistible force meets the immovable object.

Linda , April 16, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT
The problem here is that moving to a multi-polar world will require many countries to contribute what and where they can as we fight a very entrenched international Cabal. But, the largest responsibility lies with the people living within the Evil Empire and its vassal states. Those whose counties are committing these atrocities need to step up and call foul on their own governments. This is difficult to do since the Project Mockingbird press continues to spew unbelievable lies on a non-stop basis. But those lies are getting more and more difficult to believe. Unless your brain is totally disconnected, you have to realize that what they are saying is inconsistent and illogical.

Besides calling and berating my representatives, signing petitions, etc. I have taken to wearing a teeshirt with a picture of Putin and the Russian bear (Putin in a suit, not riding the bear bare chested).

I wear it to all social events for the purpose of starting a discussion. Most Americans are not engaged. They have little trust in their government and most feel like there is nothing they can do about it. I live in the mountain west where people are more libertarian and more willing to fight. I try to provide them with ammunition and point them to places to go to get "real" news. I tell them not to "believe" any news, but get a variety of points of view and use their own minds to determine what is true.

A few years ago, I was very disturbed when I kept hearing Dr. Stephen Cohen say that Putin was the greatest statesman of our time. As I had studied Soviet history in school, I had sort of kept abreast of what was happening in Russia. As an economist, I was aware of how the West, especially the USA, came to help Russia with Democracy and "free markets". It was obvious to me that we were just assisting in selling Russia by the pound to the moneyed class. I had followed Dr. Cohen over the years as well. But sceptical of his assessment of Putin, I have gone back and watched and read almost everything Putin has said and watched what Russia has done and I believe Dr. Cohen is correct.

As a fervent anti-war activist since the sixties, I have been appalled at all the regime change the US has and continues to do around the world including both military covert operations and economic warfare. Well Putin had me at his 2007 Munich speech. The one the West called a rant.

Finally someone was calling out this criminal behavior on an international stage! Putin has continued with these messages and as far as I can see, Russia is operating accordingly. No one country, not Russia, not China, no one can destroy this international Cabal on its own. It will take a concerted effort of all peace seeking people from around the world to force their governments on a different path. Starting in my case with the people of the USA.

[Apr 16, 2018] Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda. Less slick, but more jingoistic

In reality Trump proved again that POTUS does not matter and presidential elections matter very little. In was he is like drunk Obama, reckelss and jingoistic to the extreme. Both foreign and domestic policy is determined by forces, and are outside POTUS control, with very little input possible. But the "deep state" fully control the POTUS, no matter who he/she are.
Notable quotes:
"... To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda. ..."
"... Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being elected in US money-driven elections. ..."
"... Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root. Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit | Apr 15, 2018 5:57:58 PM | 105

To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda.

Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being elected in US money-driven elections.

Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root. Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail.

Rome had bread and circuses. We've got crumbs and tweets.

[Apr 16, 2018] Trump Hits Russia With New Sanctions Over Syria Gas Attack

Apr 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Occams_Razor_Trader Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:32 Permalink

Lindsey Graham with tits. Those who want war never have to fight it!

FBaggins -> Occams_Razor_Trader Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:33 Permalink

I Am a Syrian Living in Syria: "It was Never a Revolution nor a Civil War. The Terrorists are sent by your Government"

American People, Please Help Us

by Mark Taliano

https://www.globalresearch.ca/i-am-a-syrian-living-in-syria-it-was-neve

Adolph.H. -> FBaggins Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:34 Permalink

It would be legitimate to wonder if the U.S. MIC will stealthily add to the long list of sanctimonious sanctions the interdiction for any western vassal state to buy the vastly superior Russian weapon systems in a not so distant future. One can feel it coming. Needless to say this kind of short sighted vision will be the straw that will break the camel's back.

These sanctions are ultimately going to hurt more the USA than Russia because little by little countries are leaving the American sphere of influence for the more balanced and reasonable Eurasian one. Nobody wants to stay with a maniac like Nikki or a fool like trump...

The Americans will be begging to be integrated once they hit the bottom.

[Apr 16, 2018] I Love the Smell of Imperial Meltdown in the Morning by Aidan O'Brien

Notable quotes:
"... Aidan O'Brien lives in Dublin, Ireland. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Gore Vidal preferred chaos to order. According to his wisdom centrifugal forces create gaps and spaces in which freedom can fornicate.

As things stand that's probably the best we can hope for. Indeed we might as well embrace what's happening all around us. Because the Anglo-American gang that filled the last 200 years with liberal imperialism is losing the mendacious plot. The grand illusion is falling apart.

The grand chessboard isn't in the best of shape either. The Anglo-American game plan to dominate Euro-Asia is being ripped apart by the Euro-Asians. The grandfather of ISIS – Zbigniew Brzezinski – must be rolling in his grave. According to him geopolitics is all about hegemony. And that's something no one possesses at the moment – least of all the Anglo-Americans.

The consequence is that there's space for an Assad and an Ali Khameini in the Middle East; for a Kim Jong-un and a Xi Jinping in the East. And for a Putin everywhere. And in Latin America there's room for a Maduro. And a Castro is still there.

And the chaotic spaces aren't disappearing. As Steve Bannon said recently – in the context of North Korea but which can be applied generally: there is no military solution. And he may as well have added that there isn't an economic solution. There's not even an ideological solution.

A few years ago the Anglo-Americans would've invaded and carpet bombed the chaotic spaces without a second thought. And only yesterday the use of proxies was the tactic. Russia though has unilaterally thrown a spanner into the workings of all this naked Anglo-American aggression.

The net result is that the UN Security Council will no longer back anymore "humanitarian wars". And the use of "Islamic fundamentalism" has been check mated. All the Anglo-Americans can do now is nuke the world or shut up.

A few years ago the Anglo-Americans could have also used economics to eliminate or control the chaotic spaces. Sanctions, shock therapy and structural adjustment policies were their alternative WMD. But even these bombs from Bretton Woods are now of limited or no value. Why? The BRICS. Or in another word – China.

Today the English speaking way is not as omnipotent as before. Back in 1955 the Bandung Conference in Indonesia was an attempt to create a space for chaotic freedom but it hadn't the military or economic power to establish itself. Today is different.

The non-aligned countries that emerged from the Bandung Conference now in the early 21st Century have accumulated and generate enough capital to give substance to their 1955 desire.

And as well as that significant fact is the connection these countries have made to a born again Russia. The latter has dramatically added to whatever military power the non-aligned movement has had in the face of the Anglo-American Empire.

The passing of time has seen the passing away of the Empire's military and economic monopolies. The non-aligned movement plus Russia, the Third World, BRICS or whatever you want to call it has at last a sufficient industrial base upon which to construct a liberating chaos.

Alternative banking systems and alternative trading systems have slowly but surely emerged on top of the National Liberation struggles of the 20th Century – to the detriment of Wall Street and London.

And the anchors of this New World Disorder are proving to be the great Russian and Chinese Revolutions of the last century. The radical independence these world changing events gave to Russia and China was – to say the least – no short term phenomenon.

In the long term the universal values of the Enlightenment have successfully taken root. Despite the cynicism, fatalism and pessimism (the postmodernism) in the Anglo-American sphere – reason has found fertile ground in the lands despised by the original Enlightenment.

Its now the Anglo-Americans (and their European clones and clowns) who rely upon religion, hysteria and lies. Its they who are building great walls. And it is they who want to hide behind protectionism. Liberalism had its chance a long time ago to live up to its ideals but for the love of money it chose to do otherwise.

The extremely influential American planner George F. Kennan best expressed this ideological sellout in 1948 (Memo PPS23) when he officially recommended that the US forget about democracy, living standards and human rights in the world if it wanted to maintain its control of global wealth.

The intention of liberalism was top secret back then but is common knowledge now (outside the mainstream media, that is). It has always been Anglo-America and financial wealth first – Trump makes it crystal clear today. The Anglo-Americans severed their ideological links to the world a long time ago – if they were ever there in the first place.

The unprincipled ruthlessness Kennan demanded and got from Anglo-America was – around 1950 – dressed up in the clothes of freedom. Today however its clothes are nothing but farce.

Uncomfortable laughter, embarrassment and disbelief are the feelings associated with Anglo-America now around the non-NATO world. Its not just Trump, Russia-gate, Bolton, Theresa May, the Skripal poisoning-case and the chemical stories in Syria. Each one more fake than the next. Its the stock market bubble and the military bubble as well. Each one more irrational and ripe for revolution than the other.

And underlining it all and the insurance for us all is the cowardice of the Anglo-Americans. Like school yard bullies they only pick on the weak and defenseless. Or its probably more apt to say that like psychopathic serial killers they only pick on the weak and defenseless.

So the chances of Washington D.C. and London confronting head on the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, Venezuelans and Syrians are slim. Against a well organized defense the Empire is a coward.

The Anglo-Americans can rant and rave as much as they like – the rest of the world will work around them and NATO – like the way we avoid the insane on the street. There are roads, bridges and railways to be built across Euro-Asia and across Africa too. And in Latin America there's still time for Bolivar and Che to build something new.

The Anglo-Americans are very much redundant today. The Empire is empty. Its authority in every way has shrank rapidly in the last two decades. It preaches with blood on its hands. Its lectures are lies. And its precious money is nothing but paper. Its New World Order is in chaos. And the world is better because of it. Finally the free world is emerging. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Aidan O'Brien

Aidan O'Brien lives in Dublin, Ireland.

[Apr 16, 2018] BREAKING US media claims Nikki Haley is author of Trump's anti-Iran policies

Notable quotes:
"... Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. ..."
"... Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | theduran.com

The claims give insight into Trump's apparent defiance of his most senior Cabinet officials, Rex Tillerson and James "Mad Dog" Mattis.

by Adam , 14:09 4.8k Views

The US media outlet Politico has published claims based on internal White House leaks, which report that the controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, is the author of Trump's anti-JCPOA and broader anti-Iran policies, which were conveyed in his speech form the White House, yesterday evening.

Everything you need to know about Trump's de-certification of the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal)

http://theduran.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-trumps-de-certification-of-the-jcpoa-iran-nuclear-deal/embed/#?secret=xaZPdRsyGp

Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. Her role as US Ambassador has been far more public than that of most of her predecessors. Many, including myself, suspect that Haley who has no previous foreign policy experience, is using her position at the UN to promote a future entry into elected politics at a Federal level.

President of the United States Nikki Haley–it could happen

http://theduran.com/president-of-the-united-states-nikki-haley-it-could-happen/embed/#?secret=93g295S6zE

According to Politico, in July of this year, Trump grudgingly certified the JCPOA under advice from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis. However, at the time, Haley was said to have volunteered to author an argument which could be employed in the future, which would attempt to justify a US de-certification of the JCPOA.

Politico reports ,

"At a mid-day meeting in the Oval Office in late July, U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley came to President Donald Trump with an offer.

Trump had grudgingly declared Tehran in compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal earlier in the month, at the urging of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Trump hated the deal. But the two men pushed him to certify it, arguing in part that he lacked a strong case for declaring Iran in violation. A refusal to do so would have looked rash, they said, convincing Trump sign off for another 90 days.

Haley, in that July meeting, which also included National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Vice President Mike Pence, asked the president to let her make the case for decertification

'Let me lay a foundation for it', she said, according a source familiar with the proceedings. The president agreed.

Haley would become the administration's most vocal public proponent of decertification -- and Trump's favorite internal voice on Iran -- further boosting her standing with the president at a time when she is seen as a potential successor to Tillerson, whose tense relationship with Trump has burst into the open in recent days.

A month after her talk with Trump, Haley flew to Vienna to visit the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Association, where she pressed officials about Iranian compliance with the deal. Soon after, she delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., airing her "doubts and concerns" about the agreement.

Haley's role was described by a half-dozen administration officials who took part in the Iran policy review. While many of the president's cabinet members, aides, and advisers work to restrain his impulses, when it came to Iran deal Haley did the opposite -- channeling what many Democrats and even some Republicans consider the president's destructive instincts into policy".

The story from Politico which also argues that arch neo-con John Bolton pushed for a full withdrawal from the JCPOA from his position outside of the White House, follows may well known trends. This helps explain why Mattis recently stated that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and why Rex Tilleron's State Department has officially said the same.

Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future.

She has also echoed Donald Trump's aggressive statements about North Korea, whereas Rex Tillerson has often repeated his view that the US does not and should not seek regime change in Pyongyang and instead will continue to pursue a diplomatic process.

Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria.

At one point, Rex Tillerson was said to have privately reprimanded Haley for inventing her own foreign policy without consulting her superiors at the State Department. However, it seems that in respect of Iran, Trump has overruled Tillerson and allowed Haley to take charge.

Haley later told journalists that she was offered the position of Secretary of State but turned it down, before being offered the position of Ambassador to the UN. Haley further attested that she sent Trump a list of demands that she never expected to be agreed upon, as a precondition for accepting her current position.

Nikki Haley was offered Secretary of States job and turned it down

http://theduran.com/nikki-haley-was-offered-secretary-of-states-job-and-turned-it-down/embed/#?secret=FF4q2WSDlC

Haley who has long been seen as a rogue figure in the Trump administration and one who is widely exceeding her authority, is apparently doing so with Donald Trump's approval.

With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged that he allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that a hyper-neo-con, might soon become the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con ideology.

With many Trump administration officials coming and going in short order, there is a very worrying possibility that Nikki Haley's role will only be enhanced in future months. This is dangerous not only for the United States, but for the wider world. Haley's inexperience is only matched by her zeal for bellicose measures against countries which have not done any harm to the American people. Such a person should not be anywhere near power, but it seems as though she has Trump's ear, far more than the vastly more mature Tillerson and Mattis.

[Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. ..."
"... In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018 ..."
Apr 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Craig Roberts • April 13, 2018

  1. Is it insane to push for war with Russia, a major nuclear power?
  2. Is it insane to threaten Russia and bring false charges against her?
  3. Is it insane to brag about killing "hundreds of Russians"? https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/12/pompeo-russians-met-their-match-us-killed-hundreds-of-them/
  4. A normal person would answer "yes" to the three questions. So what does this tell us about Trump's government as these insane actions are the principle practice of Trump's government?
  5. Does anyone doubt that Nikki Haley is insane?
  6. Does anyone doubt that John Bolton is insane?
  7. Does anyone doubt that Mike Pompeo is insane?
  8. Does this mean that Trump is insane for appointing to the top positions insane people who foment war with a nuclear power?
  9. Does this mean that Congress is insane for approving these appointments?

These are honest questions. Assuming we avoid the Trump-promised Syrian showdown, how long before the insane Trump regime orchestrates another crisis?

The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime, the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.

People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. Nothing as irresponsible as what we have witnessed since the Clinton regime and which has worsened dramatically under the Obama and Trump regimes would have been imaginable during the Cold War. In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018

The failure of political leadership throughout the Western world is total. Such total failure is likely to prove deadly to life on earth.

[Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. ..."
"... In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018 ..."
Apr 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Craig Roberts • April 13, 2018

  1. Is it insane to push for war with Russia, a major nuclear power?
  2. Is it insane to threaten Russia and bring false charges against her?
  3. Is it insane to brag about killing "hundreds of Russians"? https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/12/pompeo-russians-met-their-match-us-killed-hundreds-of-them/
  4. A normal person would answer "yes" to the three questions. So what does this tell us about Trump's government as these insane actions are the principle practice of Trump's government?
  5. Does anyone doubt that Nikki Haley is insane?
  6. Does anyone doubt that John Bolton is insane?
  7. Does anyone doubt that Mike Pompeo is insane?
  8. Does this mean that Trump is insane for appointing to the top positions insane people who foment war with a nuclear power?
  9. Does this mean that Congress is insane for approving these appointments?

These are honest questions. Assuming we avoid the Trump-promised Syrian showdown, how long before the insane Trump regime orchestrates another crisis?

The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime, the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.

People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. Nothing as irresponsible as what we have witnessed since the Clinton regime and which has worsened dramatically under the Obama and Trump regimes would have been imaginable during the Cold War. In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018

The failure of political leadership throughout the Western world is total. Such total failure is likely to prove deadly to life on earth.

[Apr 15, 2018] We know this empire is destined to eat itself up due to greed and hubris. My only concern is how long that will take.

Notable quotes:
"... This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave Syria and does not bow to America. ..."
Apr 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

serotonindumptruck -> Janet smeller Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:44 Permalink

Russia knows that this diplomatic, economic, and military aggression will never stop. These military strikes and economic sanctions from the West represent the death throes of a dying empire. A dying empire is like a gravely wounded, cornered animal.

This is an extremely dangerous animal, because it is willing to arbitrarily kill anyone and anything before it dies.

serotonindumptruck -> spyware-free Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:00 Permalink

I still believe that the USA and its European allies will be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping no doubt recognize the grave circumstances, and they are using the utmost restraint to avoid the provision of a military pretext that the West/USA is seeking in their effort to greatly escalate hostilities.

GoinFawr -> serotonindumptruck Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:07 Permalink

" I still believe that the USA ... will be the first to use nuclear weapons . "

Eg. Nagasaki and Hiroshima

dirty fingernails -> serotonindumptruck Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:12 Permalink

The US will only use nukes to secure their dominance. The people in change aren't beholden to any country or continent being filthy rich and/or dual citizens. So the plan is to deny the US an excuse to use nukes while cutting the empire off at the knees.

Otherwise, I agree it'll be a NATO country that nukes first. That's part of the desire to make smaller nukes. "Small" nukes are seen as a way to nuke but not start a global exchange. Fucking insane people gambling with all higher life forms.

Chupacabra-322 -> dirty fingernails Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:38 Permalink

"Small Nuke."

You make it sound like she's just "a little pregnant."

dirty fingernails -> spyware-free Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:01 Permalink

Russia will tolerate it as long as possible. The delay only weakens the US and allies. All have serious issues domestically and even alliances are strained. Don't interrupt when your enemy is making a mistake

serotonindumptruck -> dirty fingernails Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:22 Permalink

That is certainly some excellent Sun Tzu advice.

However, Sun Tzu never calculated criminal insanity into his logical strategems.

When your enemy refuses to concede defeat, and is willing to suicide the entire world in their obstinance, the only winning move is not to play.

Pernicious Gol -> serotonindumptruck Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:48 Permalink

He did talk about that.

dirty fingernails -> serotonindumptruck Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:50 Permalink

True, but look around us. There is no need to nuke cities and military targets in the US. Shut down the electrical grid and the population would lose it in a matter of hours. Within days it would be chaos on so many levels that it would take a long time to recover. We really are our own worst enemies because we are so fractured and polarized of the stupidest shit.

serotonindumptruck -> dirty fingernails Sun, 04/15/2018 - 18:01 Permalink

If limited global depopulation is the ultimate goal, then yes, the USA will suffer the most due to the prevalence of firearms and the general hostility that is clearly evident within its citizenry.

That's obviously not the main objective for the warmongers and neocons in DC.

The ultimate objective is global dominance, and the complete and total subjugation of humanity.

Like I said, criminal insanity is the paradigm that rules the West.

Sid Davis -> serotonindumptruck Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:55 Permalink

Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks instead of a reasoned response.

We need a President who understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".

Cosmicserpent -> Adolph.H. Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:42 Permalink

We won't hit bottom without taking everyone with us. The Republic was lost when JFK was assassinated.

spyware-free -> Adolph.H. Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:43 Permalink

This will work out about as good as Obama "isolating" Russia. Nothing more than a ziocon jerkfest.

khnum -> I woke up Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:51 Permalink

That proposition plus a ban on all US agricultural produce is currently being put up in their parliament

veritas semper -> FBaggins Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:43 Permalink

This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave Syria and does not bow to America.

This recent American fiasco in Syria is just the opening overture. In May we have the moving of American embassy to Jerusalem and the unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal. I think we will not reach the end of the year without a big war : America is losing power and needs it.

Jumanji1959 -> FBaggins Sun, 04/15/2018 - 18:26 Permalink

Actually the terrorists were sent by Israel and more specifically, the Mossad, who trained them. Israel wants to expand its territory by committing a GENOCIDE.

keep the basta -> FBaggins Sun, 04/15/2018 - 20:25 Permalink

The chemical weapons organisation in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria found NO chemical weapons at the site the USA UK And FR bombed for that. The only chemical weapons are those found in the tunnels in East Ghouta after Syria bussed the militant occupiers away. The 40 tons of chemicals have manufactuer names, serial numbers and addresses eg Porton Down Salisbury.

Occams_Razor_Trader -> Occams_Razor_Trader Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:38 Permalink

Cui Bono? Trump says he's going to pull out of Syria -- Things never looked better for Assad -- and he gets the bright idea, to turn the world against him by gassing gassing his own people? I'm not buying it. I-F-F (Israeli False Flag)

[Apr 15, 2018] Trump s in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to neocons, but it seems more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control.

Apr 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

JohninMK -> Lumberjack Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:52 Permalink

The sanctions will no doubt apply to the supplier of that high tech stuff in that chemical lab that the SAA discovered last month in Ghouta.

Just remembered, it was US made and sold through Saudi.

Lore -> JohninMK Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:14 Permalink

Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march, and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?

JohninMK -> Lore Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:54 Permalink

Forgot to say that theses sanctions are downright embarrassing.

So we illegally attack a different country, that country's ally doesn't respond to our act of aggression, and we're now slapping sanctions on that country... for not responding to our attack? Not only sanctions but sanctions on products that both parties actually know aren't there. Unless the US is sanctioning the supply chain of swimming pool and industrial/domestic cleaning agents based on chlorine.

Brilliant just the way to get an agreement from them next time.

dirty fingernails -> JohninMK Sun, 04/15/2018 - 17:59 Permalink

They don't want any agreements except submission. Anything less is unacceptable.

veritas semper -> Lore Sun, 04/15/2018 - 18:04 Permalink

Trump had 1 BILLION $ in debt to the chosen banks ; maybe this can point toward whether or not he was part of the deep state from the beginning ? But ,does it matter any longer ?

the phantom -> chumbawamba Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:48 Permalink

Sanctions... act of war. Dropping bombs on a sovereign country (without UN approval even)... act of war. Insulting foreign leaders and creating false flags to justify your illegal actions... act of war. Don't be fooled into thinking that just b/c Russia did not respond to the US actions, that "nothing happened". War has started, this is just the beginning.

If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

r0mulus -> Whoa Dammit Sun, 04/15/2018 - 16:41 Permalink

Here we go again- the ever-plotting West trying to create reality on the fly -- attempting to make the alleged chemical weapons attack into a fait accompli, painting the tape of reality with the shadow-puppets of the operation mockingbird-controlled, corporate (MIC) media!

Any good reason we shouldn't just start calling the 5(+1)-eyez media environment the Oceania State News Network (OSNN) right now?

veritas semper -> r0mulus Sun, 04/15/2018 - 18:16 Permalink

America starts the war on Syria, by financing, training, paying the terrorists . America builds military bases there.

And Syria , with help from her allies , still wins the war.

America asks her remaining terrorists there to plan, execute a false flag . As a casus belli.

America attacks , the coalition is small .

Syria stuns the world with her courage and old Soviet era air defense . The aftermath for America is embarrassing .

America gives sanctions to Syria because Syria defended herself , to Russia because Russia still doesn't bow .

Iran is next .

In May we will have further escalation.

[Apr 15, 2018] Haley announced new sanctions on the base of false flag Douma operation

Apr 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anon , Apr 15, 2018 11:48:39 AM | 16

Putin: Further Western Strikes in Syria Contrary to Int'l Law Will Lead to Chaos https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201804151063585034-syria-actions-violations-chaos/

Haley responds: US to Impose Sanctions on Russia Over Support of Assad - Envoy to UN https://sputniknews.com/us/201804151063584536-haley-us-troops-syria/

Best wore if Haley catch a brain stroke, that would save peace.

[Apr 15, 2018] Neocons destroyed Trump. Or was he just a decoy like Oabam to ensure continuation of neocon policies which he secretly supports himself

Apr 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Apr 15, 2018 4:09:16 PM | 72

From what I can make of Trump, he wants to return the US to its general prosperity that it has enjoyed in the past, a country with world leading infrastructure, were average workers are better of than workers of other countries. He is not interested in wars that are detrimental or costly to the US. If a war is profitable for the US, he may be interested.

Like Erdogan in Turkey, Trump is heading for the multi-polar world. Personally I don't like the US culture of full blown capitalism and privatization that is US culture and gave rise to the neo-cons, but that is not the point. Trump wants the capitalism of the likes of Henry Ford whose innovation? of production line produced good quality cheap products but paid workers two to three times the going rate.

The neo-cons, with their never ending wars for total dominance are destroying the world and the US. It is starting to look like they will also destroy Trump.

Anon , Apr 15, 2018 4:12:18 PM | 74
Peter AU1

Considering Trump kick out Tillerson and so forth and added many neocons one can't deny the reality of what is going on. Trump knows perfectly well what he is doing and did in Syria. He isn't pushed by anyone.

Peter AU 1 , Apr 15, 2018 4:28:53 PM | 79
A further thought to my post @72

The photographs of Trump with his arms folded and the general look. Defensive or beaten type look. In Trump's book, Art of the Deal, what he respects most is people that deliver what they promise. He uses hyperbole to sell a product, but above all he must deliver what the people want. He campaigned on pulling US out of foreign entanglements and useless expensive wars.

The choreographed attack on Shayrat airbase preempted the neocons and took the wind out of their sails. This latest strike, rather than being pre-emptive, was forced on him. He has not been able to deliver the product he promised and what people bought when they elected him.
The reaction of the likes of Alan Jones and other Trump supporters on Twitter and elsewhere is evidence of that failure.

Peter AU 1 , Apr 15, 2018 4:31:07 PM | 80
Anon 74

The neo-con world butters Tillerson's bread. I suspect he was a snake in the grass like Obama.

ben , Apr 15, 2018 4:59:27 PM | 82
Peter AU1 @ 79 said: "In Trump's book, Art of the Deal, what he respects most is people that deliver what they promise."

Trump must not respect himself much, because according to people who have followed his entire career say he never delivers things promised..

[Apr 15, 2018] Obama And Lynch Jeopardized Clinton Email Investigation Comey

Apr 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information, reports the Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.

" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected, agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major decisions .

("Guys, LMAO, we totally just exonerated Hillary! My sides! Hey Andy, how's Jill's Senate race going?")

Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation "jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .

" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."

" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than follow his lead." - Washington Examiner

Of course, Comey had already begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book.

" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all. And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case were completed with no charges brought."

"Matter" not "Investigation"

Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.

"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word 'investigation,'" Comey writes.

" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy . Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions. Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.

Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.

" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked, smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.

That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or prosecutors on the case."

In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey " had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."

[Apr 14, 2018] Airstrikes Against Syria Would Set Off a Powder Keg by Daniel Larison

"Monica styles"... Trump is fighting fore survival with Tomahawks trying to solve his problem with junfoism.
Notable quotes:
"... "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately, Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the attack takes place. ..."
"... The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. ..."
"... Daniel Larison is a senior editor at ..."
"... where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the ..."
"... Front Porch Republic, and ..."
"... . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter . ..."
Apr 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
It begins: Trump announces a series of joint air strikes on Syrian targets Friday. An explosion after an apparent US-led coalition airstrike on Kobane, Syria, as seen from the Turkish side of the border, near Suruc district, 24 October 2014, Sanliurfa, Turkey Shutterstock/orlok UPDATE 9 p.m.ET : President Trump announces joint air strikes with the UK and France against Syrian targets in retaliation for suspected chemical attack a week ago in Douma.

One year since the U.S. illegally launched 59 cruise missiles at Syrian government forces in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack, the Trump administration is preparing to take similar military action despite an increased risk of escalation that could lead to the start of a wider war.

The U.S., France, and Britain have been preparing to strike the Syrian government over the last several days, and Syria's Russian patron has threatened the "gravest consequences" in response to an attack. Russia didn't respond to last year's one-off airstrikes, but Moscow isn't likely to tolerate a larger U.S. attack carried out with other governments. Syria's government and its allies seem more willing to fight back than they were a year ago, and that should give the Trump administration and our European allies pause. There is a greater risk of great power conflict erupting in Syria than there has been at any time since the end of the Cold War, and if Russian military personnel are killed by U.S. or allied strikes there is no telling how quickly things could deteriorate there and in other parts of the world.

President Trump's public statements have strongly suggested that an attack will be happening soon, going so far as to taunt Russia on Twitter that they should "get ready" for the "new" and "smart" missiles that the U.S. would be using. Some members of Congress have insisted that the president lacks the legal authority to launch an attack on Syria without their authorization. As Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) put it , "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately, Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the attack takes place.

The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. There is no provision in international law that allows a U.S. attack on another government without explicit Security Council authorization, and we know that this authorization that will never be forthcoming in this case because of Russia's veto. While the attack is being sold as the enforcement of a norm against chemical weapons use, it isn't possible to uphold an international norm while violating the most fundamental rule of international law.

To date, the U.S. and its allies have presented no definitive evidence to support their claims against the Syrian government. It is entirely plausible that the Syrian government is guilty of using chlorine or sarin against its enemies and the civilian population, but there has been no real effort on the part of the U.S. and its allies to prove their accusation before deciding to act as executioners. Regardless, the U.S. and its allies have no authority to punish the Syrian government, and in doing so they may do significant harm to international peace and security.

A U.S.-led attack on the Syrian government could lead to war with Russia or Iran or both at once, and there is also a danger that it could help set off a war between Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this week that Israel would not "allow" an Iranian military presence to be established in Syria. The prime minister's threat came on the heels of Israeli strikes inside Syria that reportedly killed seven Iranians serving alongside the Syrian regime's forces. Iran has threatened retaliation for the attack, and it has the ability through Hizbullah to make good on that threat if Israel carries out additional strikes. Israel might use a U.S.-led attack on Iran's allies in Syria as an excuse to strike more Iranian targets, and Iran might then respond in kind with missile attacks on Israel. Lebanese, Syrian, and Israeli civilians would all suffer if that happened, and it would make an already chaotic international situation even worse.

It is a measure of how divorced from U.S. and allied security our Syria policy has become that our government is seriously preparing to launch another illegal attack on a government that hasn't attacked us and doesn't threaten us or our allies. Attacking the Syrian government won't make the U.S. or any other country more secure, and it will likely weaken the government just enough to prolong Syria's civil war and add to the suffering of the civilian population. It is a perfect example of a military intervention that is being done for its own sake with no connection to any discernible interests or strategy. No one stands to gain from such an attack except for the ideologues that have incessantly demanded deeper U.S. involvement in Syria for the last six years.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Front Porch Republic, and The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter .

[Apr 14, 2018] Poison Gas Weapon Of Choice For "False News"

Notable quotes:
"... Authored by Peter Koenig via The Saker, ..."
"... But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news", and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies. ..."
"... And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and conquered. ..."
"... a totally and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported. ..."
"... The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even more rubble, causing even more death and destitution ..."
"... the US economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon manufacturing. ..."
"... But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on humanity. ..."
Apr 14, 2018 | thesaker.is

Authored by Peter Koenig via The Saker,

Poison gas is not only deadly, it often provokes a slow suffocating death. That, perpetrated on innocent children, is particularly cruel.

But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news", and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies.

Is that what we have become – brainless, greedy, selfish beings, no sense of solidarity, no respect for other beings; I am not even talking about humans, but any living being.

Poison gas, the weapon of choice for fear.

Poisoning in Salisbury of the former Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, visiting her dad from Moscow. Poisoning with a nerve gas, called Novichok that was allegedly made in Russia. In the meantime, we know that nerve gas made in the former Soviet Union, now non-existent in Russia, was military grade and deadly. The gas used for the alleged attack was not deadly. We also know by now that the UK – all of their highest officials, from PM May down the ladder, lied so miserably that they will have a hard time recovering. It will backfire. Unlike the foreign secretary, Johnson boy pretended their secret bio-gas / bio-weapon laboratory Porton Down, just 13 km down the road from Salisbury, where the pair was allegedly found unconscious on a park bench, assured him the gas was made in Russia. Alas, the laboratories chief chemists testified later to the media that they could not be sure that the substance was made in Russia. No, of course not.

In fact, Porton Down, working in close collaboration with the CIA, is a highly sophisticated chemical warfare facility that can easily make the gas themselves – at the grades they please, deadly or not so deadly, if it should serve a "false news" purpose – which this did.

Were father and daughter indeed poisoned? – This is a legitimate question. Who has seen them since the alleged poisoning occurred on 28 March? – They disappeared from the public eye. Apparently, they are both recovering, Yulia having been released from hospital a few days ago, but has not been seen by anyone in public, nor been able to talk to the media, lest she could say "something" the public is not allowed to know. Her father is also recovering and may be released soon – released from where? – Is this all a farce?

An aunt talked to Yulia from Moscow, where she noticed that Yulia was not free to talk. The aunt wanted to visit her niece in the UK but was obviously denied a visa.

Where are father and daughter? – Washington has "offered" them a new home and new identity in the US, to avoid further poisoning attempts how ridiculous! A blind man or woman must see that this is another farce, or more correctly, an outright abduction. The two won't have a chance to resist. They are just taken away – not to talk anymore to anyone ever. – That's the way the story goes. The lies are protected, and the "Russia did it" syndrome will prevail – prevail in the dumb folded public, in the herd of pigs that we all have become, as Goebbels would say.

And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and conquered. But the empire needs the public for their support. And the empire is almost there. It disposes of a vicious media corporate army – that lies flagrantly about anything that money can buy. It's like spitting in the face of the world, and nobody seems to care, or worse, even to notice.

* * *

On the other side of the Mediterranean is Syria. A vast and noble country, Syria, with a leader who truly loves his people and country, a leader who has despite a foreign induced war – not civil war – a proxy war, instigated and funded by Washington and its vassal allies in Europe and the Middle East; Syria, a highly educated socialist country that has shared the benefit of her resources, free education, free medical services, free basic infrastructure, with her people. This Syria must fall. Such strength cannot be tolerated by the all-dominating west. Like Iraq and Libya, also socialist countries once-upon-a-time, and like Syria, secular Muslim nations, sharing their countries wealth with the people, such countries must fall.

According to Pentagon planners and those Zion-neofascist thinktanks that designed the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), as the chief instrument of US foreign policy, we know since Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied commander and Chief of NATO in Europe (1997-2000) talked to Democracy Now in 2007, saying that within 5 years seven countries must fall, one of them is Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/r8FhZnFZ6TY

Since 2011, the Syrian people have been bombarded by US and NATO and Saudi funded terrorists, causing tens of thousands of deaths, and millions of refugees. Now, even more blatantly, US bases are vying to occupying the northern third of Syria, totally illegally, but nobody says beep. Not even the UN.

The recent fake gas attack on Douma outside of Damascus, has allegedly killed 80 to 120 people, mostly women and children.

Of course, that sells best in the propaganda theatre – women and children. Strangely, like last time the infamous White Helmets discovered the gas victims, including a gas canister-like bomb laying on a bed, having been shot through the roof of a house a totally and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported. They called on an independent investigation, one that could not be bought and corrupted by Washington. President Assad invited a team of investigators to inspect the scene.

Instead of heeding this invitation, Trump, the bully, calls Mr. Assad an "animal" and a "monster", twittering his brainless aggressions throughout the world. Tell you what, Mr. Trump, Bashar al-Assad is a far better human being than you are a monster. You and your dark handlers don't even deserve being called human. Mr. Assad has regard and respect for his people, attempts to protect them and has so far succeeded with the help of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, recovering the last bits of Syrian territory from the terrorist, except of course, the northern part, where the chief terrorist and the world's only rogue state has itself installed, the US of A. – Why in the world would Mr. Assad choose to gas his own people? Especially, when he is winning the war? – People, ask yourself, cui bono (who benefits?) and the answer is simple: The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even more rubble, causing even more death and destitution . That's who.

While you, Donald, and those monsters that direct you from behind the scenes, have no, but absolutely no respect for your people, for any people on this globe, for that matter, not even for your kind, for your greed-no-end kind of elite, as you bring the world to the brink of an all-destructive, all killing annihilating war.

Since the other fake event, 9/11, we are, of course, already in a "soft version" of WWIII, but that's not enough, the United States needs a hard war, so badly it doesn't shy away from destroying itself. That's how blinded your own propaganda has made you Americans, you generals, you corporate "leaders" (sic-sic) – and all you Congress puppets. That is the sheer truth. You better read this and wake up. Otherwise your dead sentence is hastened by your own greed and ignorance.

Both Russia and the US drafted a Security Council Resolution – which of course are both not approved, with Nikki Haley lambasting Russia, accusing them of being responsible for the countless deaths in Syria – pointing again to the children and women, making up the majority. Again, it sells best in the world of psychological propaganda, while evil Nikki Haley knows very well who has caused all these deaths by the millions, destitution and refugees by the millions, tens of millions throughout the Middle East and the world – her own country, directly or through NATO, the European puppets allies and proxy wars, paid and funded by Washington and by elbow-twisting her vassals.

On 9 April – UNSC – while Nikki Haley, repeats and over-repeats her lies and fake accusations, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Vassily Nebenzia, listens. And then in a twenty-minute statement of sheer intelligence, he dismantles all the lies, and lays bare the truth, about all the fakeness being played out internationally. The depth with which he addresses the assembly is concise and so brilliant, none of his UK, French and German counterparts could have ever come close to a statement of this magnitude and excellence. Even Ms. Haley can't help glancing over ever-so often to Vassily Nebenzia, as he speaks . Her eyes reveal some kind of hidden admiration for what he says. – After all, she can't be as dumb as she is paid for to look and sound.

By now anybody who dares not just reading and listening to the mainstream presstitute "fake news", but has the courage to dig into the truth news, RT, TeleSur, CGTN, PressTV – and a few others, or websites like Global Research, The Saker Blog, ICH, NEO, Greanville Post CounterCurrent, Dissident Voice and many other trustworthy sources – knows about the lies and the only, but the very only purpose these false flags cum false news serve: Provoking a war with Russia, subjugating and dividing Syria, and the Middle East and becoming the hegemonic masters of the universe.

For the simple reason, and hardly anybody talks or writes about it – the US economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon manufacturing.

The entire war industry with all its associated civil services and industries, of banking, electronics, aviation, mining . makes up more than half of the US GDP – but of course, it's never broken down that way. The chosen people will control the world. Well, they do already – financially at least the western part of our globe. But it's not enough. They will not stop, before they burry themselves in their own-dug graves, or rather in one massive mass-grave. But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on humanity.

[Apr 14, 2018] The Deep State Closes In On The Donald

Apr 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Yet here is the even more unexplainable part of this sorry episode that amounts to the Deep State waging the Donald. The remaining rebels capitulated on Sunday and the government re-upped the evacuation deal. That is, the remnants of Jaish al-Islam are now all dead or have boarded busses--along with their families---and are already in Idlib province.

That's right. There is no opposition left in Douma and it has been liberated by the Syrian army, including release of the 3,200 pro-government hostages who had been paraded around the town in cages by the Saudi Arabia funded warriors of Islam who had terrorized it.

According to the Syrian government, no traces of chemicals or even bodies have been found. They could be lying, of course, but with the OPCW investigators on the way to Douma who in their right mind would not wait for an assessment of what actually happened last Saturday?

That is, if you are not caught up in the anti-Russian hysteria that has engulfed official Washington and the mainstream media. Indeed, the Syrian government has now even welcomed the international community to come to Douma, where the Russians claim there is absolutely nothing to see:

Speaking with EuroNews, Russia's ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizov, said "Russian military specialists have visited this region, walked on those streets, entered those houses, talked to local doctors and visited the only functioning hospital in Douma, including its basement where reportedly the mountains of corpses pile up. There was not a single corpse and even not a single person who came in for treatment after the attack."

"But we've seen them on the video!" responds EuroNews correspondent Andrei Beketov.

"There was no chemical attack in Douma, pure and simple," responds Chizov. "We've seen another staged event. There are personnel, specifically trained - and you can guess by whom - amongst the so-called White Helmets, who were already caught in the act with staged videos."

In short, if they are lying, it would not be hard to ascertain. Presumably, the Donald could even send Jared Kushner--flack jacket and all---to investigate what actually happened at Douma.

Alas, the Donald has apparently opted for war instead in a desperate maneuver to keep the Deep State at bay.

Either way, we think he's about done, and in Part 2 we will explore why what's about to happen next should be known to the history books, if there are any, as "Mueller's War".

[Apr 13, 2018] Pompeo Russians 'Met Their Match,' US Killed Hundreds of Them in Syria by Jason Ditz

Apr 12, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Is President Trump tough enough on Russia? For Secretary of State-nominee Mike Pompeo, the answer comes down to simple body count, as he bragged up recent killings of Russian citizens inside Syrian territory .

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo boasted that "the Russians met their match. A couple hundred Russians were killed," referring to a US massacre of military contractors back in February. Pompeo insisted these killings prove Trump's toughness on Russia.

The comments threaten to make this incident a bigger diplomatic row. The February 7 incident came after the US claimed Kurds had come under attack. In reality, an artillery barrage landed half a kilometer from a Kurdish base, and the US reacted by killing in excess of 200 pro-Syrian government fighters, declaring the killings "self-defense."

At the time, there were concerns Russian citizens were among the slain, and US officials ultimately said "scores" of the dead may have been Russian. Now, Pompeo appears to be insisting they were all Russians, and that the killings were about being "tough" of the Russian government.

Russia's government denied any knowledge of the incident at the time, and it appears the slain were private contractors working for the Syrian government, and not in concert with Russia's government itself. That makes targeting them on the basis of their nationality potentially even more problematic.

[Apr 13, 2018] No, the FBI's Michael Cohen Raid Did Not Violate Attorney-Client Privilege by Bruce Fein

Notable quotes:
"... Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance. ..."
"... The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700. ..."
"... Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous. ..."
Apr 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

So what of these charges against Cohen and could they really hurt the president?

Federal election laws define a campaign contribution as "anything of value given to influence a Federal election." It is common knowledge that Mr. Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance.

The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700.

Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted (later acquitted) for soliciting and spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug. The public record also establishes probable cause to believe Cohen was behind the payment of $150,000 to Playboy Bunny Karen McDougall to kill her story about a protracted extramarital relationship with Mr. Trump that could have torpedoed his presidential ambitions. The question remains, of course, how much this will implicate and hurt Trump, who has denied the affair with Daniels and any other "wrongdoing." Cohen said he paid Daniels out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by Trump or the campaign.

JK April 13, 2018 at 1:52 pm

John Edwards was acquited on one charge and a mistrial on five others w/o retrial. So there was no conviction there, these actions are not business as usual, and the DOJ lesson from that case should have been to cease such abusive prosecutorial misconduct, not to repeat it. These examples show why campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on freedom of association. Trump is a rich man, so could afford to pay the hush money if he believed it necessary without it being a crime. As it appears, Cohen believed it important to pay w/o asking Trump, thinking he's helping a friend. Now what of Edwards? Maybe Edwards couldn't afford to pay hush money, so he needed and solicited help from friends. By making it a crime for friends to help him, the law favors rich candidates like Trump that can afford to do things others can't without breaking the law.

There is zero chance of a jury conviction here, so DOJ shouldn't have pursued it given the incendiary effect of conducting raids on someone's attorney. Furthermore, there's zero chance of Muller getting jury convictions on the pile of horse manure prosecutions he's pursuing. The only convictions Muller is getting is from people buckling under the fiduciary extortion inherent in his tactics and copping a plea even though a jury would never convict them.

curri , says: April 13, 2018 at 2:05 pm
So who do we believe, Dershowitz or Fein?

Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted for soliciting and spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug.

Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous.

[Apr 13, 2018] No, the FBI's Michael Cohen Raid Did Not Violate Attorney-Client Privilege by Bruce Fein

Notable quotes:
"... Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance. ..."
"... The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700. ..."
"... Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous. ..."
Apr 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

So what of these charges against Cohen and could they really hurt the president?

Federal election laws define a campaign contribution as "anything of value given to influence a Federal election." It is common knowledge that Mr. Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance.

The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700.

Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted (later acquitted) for soliciting and spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug. The public record also establishes probable cause to believe Cohen was behind the payment of $150,000 to Playboy Bunny Karen McDougall to kill her story about a protracted extramarital relationship with Mr. Trump that could have torpedoed his presidential ambitions. The question remains, of course, how much this will implicate and hurt Trump, who has denied the affair with Daniels and any other "wrongdoing." Cohen said he paid Daniels out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by Trump or the campaign.

JK April 13, 2018 at 1:52 pm

John Edwards was acquited on one charge and a mistrial on five others w/o retrial. So there was no conviction there, these actions are not business as usual, and the DOJ lesson from that case should have been to cease such abusive prosecutorial misconduct, not to repeat it. These examples show why campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on freedom of association. Trump is a rich man, so could afford to pay the hush money if he believed it necessary without it being a crime. As it appears, Cohen believed it important to pay w/o asking Trump, thinking he's helping a friend. Now what of Edwards? Maybe Edwards couldn't afford to pay hush money, so he needed and solicited help from friends. By making it a crime for friends to help him, the law favors rich candidates like Trump that can afford to do things others can't without breaking the law.

There is zero chance of a jury conviction here, so DOJ shouldn't have pursued it given the incendiary effect of conducting raids on someone's attorney. Furthermore, there's zero chance of Muller getting jury convictions on the pile of horse manure prosecutions he's pursuing. The only convictions Muller is getting is from people buckling under the fiduciary extortion inherent in his tactics and copping a plea even though a jury would never convict them.

curri , says: April 13, 2018 at 2:05 pm
So who do we believe, Dershowitz or Fein?

Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted for soliciting and spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug.

Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous.

[Apr 13, 2018] The End of International Law by Thierry Meyssan

Notable quotes:
"... Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump, he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules. ..."
"... " Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has created a class society between states. ..."
"... " Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general mistrust. ..."
"... Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters. ..."
Apr 13, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

o the Western powers hope to put an end to the constraints of International Law? That is the question asked by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, at the Moscow conference on International Security [ 1 ].

Over the last few years, Washington has been promoting the concept of " unilateralism ". International Law and the United Nations are supposed to bow to the power of the United States.

This concept of political life is born of the History of the United States - the colonists who came to the Americas intended to live as they chose and make a fortune there. Each community developed its own laws and refused the intervention of a central government in local affairs. The President and the Federal Congress are charged with Defense and Foreign Affairs, but like the citizens themselves, they refused to accept an authority above their own.

Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump, he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules.

Making an allusion to the Cebrowski-Barnett doctrine [ 2 ], Sergueï Lavrov declared: " We have the clear impression that the United States seek to maintain a state of controlled chaos in this immense geopolitical area [the Near East], hoping to use it to justify the military presence of the USA in the region, without any time limit, in order to promote their own agenda ".

The United Kingdom also seem to feel quite comfortable with breaking the Law. Last month, it accused Moscow in the " Skripal affair ", without the slightest proof, and attempted to unite a majority of the General Assembly of the UN to exclude Russia from the Security Council. It would of course be easier for the Anglo-Saxons to unilaterally rewrite the Law without having to take notice of the opinions of their opponents.

Moscow does not believe that London took this initiative. It considers that Washington is calling the shots.

" Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has created a class society between states. But we should not confuse this new problem with the existence of the right to a veto. Of course, the UNO, while it declares equality between states whatever their size, distinguishes, within the Security Council, five permanent members who have a veto. This Directorate, composed of the main victors of the Second World War, is a necessity for them to accept the principle of supra-national Law. However, when this Directorate fails to embody the Law, the General Assembly may take its place. At least in theory, because the smaller states which vote against a greater state are obliged to suffer retaliatory measures.

La " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values " ignores honour and highlights profit, so that the weight of the propositions by any state will be measured only by the economic development of its country. However, over the years, three states have managed to gain an audience to the foundations of their propositions, and not in function of their economy – they are the Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest in his own country), the Venezuela of Hugo Chávez, and the Holy See.

The confusion engendered by Anglo-Saxon values has led to the financing of intergovernmental organisations with private money. As one thing leads to another, the member states of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), for example, have progressively abandoned their propositional power to the profit of private telecom operators, who are united in a " consultative committee ".

" Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general mistrust.

During the first years of its creation, the UNO attempted to forbid " war propaganda ", but today, it is the permanent members of the Security Council who indulge in it.

The worst occurred in 2012, when Washington managed to obtain the nomination of one of its worst war-hawks, Jeffrey Feltman, as the number 2 of the UNO [ 3 ]. From that date onward, wars have been orchestrated in New York by the very institution that is supposed to prevent them.

Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters.

Just as a society which falls into chaos, where men are wolves for men when deprived of the Law, so the world will become a battle-field if it abandons International Law. Thierry Meyssan

[Apr 12, 2018] Trump chooses impulse over strategy as crises mount

Apr 12, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

In a White House known for chaos, the process of developing the U.S. response to the Syrian government's alleged latest gas attack was proceeding with uncharacteristic deliberation, including several national security briefings for President Trump.

But then Wednesday morning, Trump upended it all with a tweet -- warning Russia, the Syrian government's backer, to "get ready" because American missiles "will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!' "

White House advisers were surprised by the missive and found it "alarming" and "distracting," in the words of one senior official. They quickly regrouped and, together with Pentagon brass, continued readying Syria options for Trump as if nothing had happened.

But the Twitter disruption was emblematic of a president operating on a tornado of impulses -- and with no clear strategy -- as he faces some of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, including Syria, trade policy and the Russian interference probe that threatens to overwhelm his administration.

"It's just like everybody wakes up every morning and does whatever is right in front of them," said one West Wing aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share a candid opinion. "Oh, my God, Trump Tower is on fire. Oh, my God, they raided Michael Cohen's office. Oh, my God, we're going to bomb Syria. Whatever is there is what people respond to, and there is no proactive strategic thinking."

The president has been particularly livid in the wake of Monday's FBI raids on the home, office and hotel room of Cohen, his longtime personal attorney. In the days after, he has seriously contemplated a shake-up at the Justice Department in the hopes of curbing the expanding probe by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose referral led to the Cohen raids. Trump is considering firing Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who is overseeing the probe, several people familiar with Trump's private comments said.

By Trump's admission Wednesday on Twitter, Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference and possible obstruction of justice has consumed "tremendous time and focus." And in denying allegations of wrongdoing, the president seemed to equivocate in a parenthetical aside: "No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back)," he wrote.

On trade, meanwhile, the president is grappling with the potential economic fallout of his threatened tariffs, especially within the agriculture sector, which could harm some of the rural states that carried him to electoral victory -- all against the backdrop of his ongoing effort to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement more favorably for the United States.

Trump also finds himself facing the surprise retirement of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), signaling more turmoil for the fractious Republican Party heading into the midterm elections.

These and other pivotal developments come as many of the guardrails that previously helped stabilize the president -- from West Wing aides to clear policy processes -- have been cast aside, with little evident organization or long-term strategy emanating from the White House.

This portrait of Trump in the current moment comes from interviews with 21 administration officials, outsider advisers, lawmakers and confidants, many of them speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details and conversations.

Save for his Wednesday morning tweet, the president's Syria deliberations have largely been the exception to the chaos engulfing the White House, underscoring the high stakes of a decision, White House officials said.

President Trump, second from right, speaks in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Monday. (Susan Walsh/AP)

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday afternoon that Trump continues to review options for a military strike in Syria and that his tweet should not be read as an announcement of planned action.

"We're maintaining that we have a number of options, and all of those options are still on the table," Sanders said. "Final decisions haven't been made on that front."

The National Security Council met Wednesday afternoon at the White House, chaired by Vice President Pence, to finalize options that could be presented to the president, Sanders said. She said Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, national security adviser John Bolton and other senior officials have been in regular contact with their counterparts from Israel, Saudi Arabia, France, the United Kingdom and other partners around the world as the administration weighs its military options for Syria.

Yet Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday afternoon that he had yet to hear from Trump or other administration officials about impending action in Syria.

"I have no idea. So far, it appears to me to be bluster," Corker said. "Then I saw a tweet come out about us working with Russia right after we're getting ready to bomb them, so I mean, who knows? Unfortunately, there are a lot of things announced by the administration that never come to pass or evolve."

The more general question of U.S. engagement in Syria has confounded and divided the administration. Officials at the White House and Pentagon, for instance, were blindsided by Trump's pronouncement at a rally in Ohio in late March that U.S. troops would be leaving Syria "very soon," and in the first hours after the speech, they scrambled to get a sense of what he meant.

Trump initially told aides that he wanted U.S. soldiers and Marines to leave in 48 hours -- an impossible timeline that alarmed the Pentagon and sent officials racing to dissuade him, two U.S. officials said.

Eventually, Mattis and others persuaded Trump to give the military another six months to wipe out the remnants of the Islamic State. The timeline was far from ideal but was viewed as a major victory compared with Trump's original timeline, officials said.

Senior U.S. officials describe a president who is operating largely on impulse, with little patience for the advice of his top aides. "A decision or statement is made by the president, and then the principals -- Mattis or Pompeo or Kelly -- come in and tell him we can't do it," said one senior administration official. "When that fails, we reverse-engineer a policy process to match whatever the president said."

On a potential shake-up at the Justice Department, Trump has been receiving a range of advice and has sent mixed signals about his intentions. Within the White House, advisers have largely counseled caution and urged him not to make changes. White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and counsel Donald McGahn have tried to calm Trump several times, as has Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer handling the Russia probe.

Yet others, including many in the president's orbit who don't work in the White House, have counseled a more aggressive approach, saying the raid of Cohen's home and business crossed a line. This advice has left White House staff on edge, nervous about what the president might do.

Trump, for instance, yelled about Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for several hours Monday and has continued to complain about them since. But some described his complaints as just "venting," with one outside adviser saying that while the president is "steamed and unhappy," that doesn't necessarily mean he's prepared to take action.

"I heard or saw nothing that would suggest he was planning to make a change at the Department of Justice," said Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor who dined at the White House with Trump on Tuesday night. He said they mainly discussed the Middle East and Russia.

Rosenstein, meanwhile, seems to have made peace with any eventuality, said one person who has had a conversation with him. He understands he might be squarely in Trump's crosshairs, and "is ready for whatever comes and confident in his own behavior."

Trump has also devoted a portion of his days to trade policy. Over the past eight weeks, the president has initiated trade disputes with several of the largest countries in the world, driving forward pronouncements without fully vetting most of them with key aides.

In some cases, he has backpedaled on his vow to impose steep tariffs on countries such as Germany, Canada and Mexico. But he has also refused to waive tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Japan, a major U.S. security ally and trading partner.

Some Senate Republicans fear that Trump's loosely formed trade war with China could end up cratering the agriculture industry at a time when many Midwestern farmers are preparing to plant crops. China has promised to impose tariffs on U.S. farm exports as a way of retaliating against Trump's planned tariffs. The White House promised to backstop U.S. farm groups, but they have yet to share what they would do or how they would do it.

"I don't know what kind of cockamamie scheme we could come up with that would be fair," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Tuesday.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) was similarly frustrated by Trump's trade agenda. "I think the president has some ideas about trade that are not generally shared by the Republican conference," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his frustrated ranks during a closed-door lunch this week to call Trump and air their trade-related worries, according to a person familiar with the Kentucky Republican's remarks. Roberts and others planned to meet with Trump on Thursday to discuss the matter.

[Apr 12, 2018] This looks like war to me. The only question is how big and can it be confined to the ME and Mediterranean

Monica Lewinsky redux ?
Apr 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Pat Lang Mod , 13 hours ago

This looks like war to me. The only question is how big and can it be confined to the ME and Mediterranean.
im cotton -> Pat Lang , 9 hours ago
I am not under the illusion that the US is the cause of all the world's ills, but if our government had at least some half-sane foreign policy which involved cooperation with Russia and China--among other nations--on issues of mutual concern, the world would be a far better place. Instead it's nothing but our-way-or-the-highway confrontation.

Our exceptionalism blinds us to any consideration that there are other people, places, and nations with valid interests. Working through those interests with the goal of mutual benefit to all parties would truly make America great again, not this nonsense. The world is not always a zero sum game.

Randal -> Pat Lang , 12 hours ago
Wouldn't want to be in Putin's seat right now - he's got some very tough calls to make, and none of the choices are good.

If Russia were really the US's enemy, it might be argued that Trump had done good to put him in that position. But why on earth should Russia be regarded as an enemy of the US, except when the US chooses to make it one with actions like this proposed war against its ally?

Daily Planet Hashgraph rules a -> Pat Lang , 2 hours ago
Col Lang, thanks for all you've done in service to the U.S and continue to do by getting this message out to the rest of the nation through your network.
james -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
pat, i am going to go out on a limb and say i don't believe any attack will
happen soon.. if anything happens i think april 24th is close to the
time it will happen... and if that date passes, i think it is unlikely
to happen in the way it is being anticipated at present.. and - wait for it..... that is based off the astrology!
Timothy Hagios -> Pat Lang , 10 hours ago
What I see as a major factor is that Russia probably can't afford a small tit-for-tat exchange. If Russia and the US knock down a couple of each other's planes and then try to cool things off militarily, Russia will almost certainly face massive economic consequences, probably involving the cancellation of the Nord Stream II at a minimum. This means that Russia needs to either do nothing or respond with such force that the west cannot simply change tactics and critically escalate the economic pressure.
Kooshy -> Timothy Hagios , 7 hours ago
Did you had your dinner with Alan Deshowitz too ?
james -> Kooshy , 6 hours ago
based on their comments - they are essentially parroting israels hopes and wishes..
Sid Finster , 13 hours ago
Please do not misunderstand me, I respect your struggle, Colonel, even if it is futile.
Do you remember Iraq's desperate attempts to avoid war in 2003?

All those efforts, all the massive protests in the West were to no avail, because the Empire had made up its mind that it wanted war, and was perfectly willing to lie to get that war.

"Mobile WMD factories"

"Yellow cake"

"Aluminum tubes" ZOMG. Aluminum. Tubes.

In spite of crimes on a hitlerian scale, nobody in the United States or UK leadership paid any price at all, not on a personal level, not on a professional level. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and the others walk the streets freely, treated as Elder Statesmen and Wise Leaders, in spite of the fact that they are directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars wasted, and not only that, but every doomsayer's prediction with regard to Iraq came to pass.

If the west had one tenth the respect for "the rule of law" that it professes, every last one of these Elder Statesmen and more would hang. At the same time, if Saddam Hussein truly had nuclear weapons, the west would have to think twice, just as it cannot force its will on North Korea.

The moral of this sad story? There is no reasoning with sociopaths. They can be dealt with only from a position of strength, if you have rewards to give them that they cannot otherwise take, or punishments to had out that they cannot avoid.

Reward and punishment is what sociopaths understand.

DH -> Sid Finster , 6 hours ago
""Aluminum tubes" ZOMG. Aluminum. Tubes."

lol seems like a lifetime ago. A sad development is that Rumsfeld's 'you to go war...' had entered the national psyche as a saying to be paraphrased. Guilty.

Artemesia -> Sid Finster , 6 hours ago
So who were the sociopaths in the room when Hitler allowed the British to depart Dunkirk; when Hitler offered numerous peace offers to Britain; when the German government offered more-than-generous terms to Poland to settle the Danzig question?
You wrote earlier, Sid Finster,
"Sociopaths care nothing for logic or morality of they stabs in the way of something they want. Like the Reichstag fire.
I don't understand why people refuse to see that we are run by sociopaths, or, at a minimum, by people indistinguishable from sociopaths."

In a recent comment the failure of comparison of Syria to the Reichstag fire was explained.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is equally intellectually suspect.

How did so many people get to be sociopaths? I suggest that one element is that almost the entire nation has been systematically misinformed about its own history, and trained like puppy-dogs to load all culpability on 'that guy,' thereby escaping accountability and also insight, characteristics of -- a sociopath.

Before we start diagnosing sociopathology and offering "reward and punishment" treatment, we might do well to do precisely what major decision makers in the current situation have failed to do: examine the situation from all sides, rationally, based on sound evidence (movies & TV don't count).

Rep. Carol Maloney and seven other congressmen are sponsoring the "Never Again Education Act" to "teach American Students about the Holocaust." https://www.algemeiner.com/... This is an extremely dangerous measure that must be struck down before it takes hold. The Holocaust is already taught in US public schools, and taught in a way that permits no critical analysis but only acquiescence. When a school district in California assigned students to study the issue and prepare a critical analysis of it, the school district was severely chastised, made to rescind and counteract the assignment, monitored for several years to ensure "Holocaust compliance." This is not an intellectually sound study of history, this is dogmatic tyranny. It produces --- sociopaths.

Timothy Hagios -> Sid Finster , 9 hours ago
On several occasions, I have encountered individuals who are psychologically incapable of constructing boundaries for their personal conduct. Instead of determining what they should not do for themselves, they rely on their boss (or anyone else who's above them) to knock them back when they go to far. And then they get to the top...
JoeC , 15 hours ago
Interesting develops in Russia reported by John Helmer - a potential major shift in power from oligarchs to defense interests and indications that the government to be formed by Putin will essentially be a war cabinet (and without Medvedev). All of this seems driven by the unrelating and largely imaginary criticism of Russia by the US, UK, etc. and the lack of any willingness to have honest assessments of the negative claims like the Syria "chemical attacks": http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17...
smoothieX12 . -> JoeC , 10 hours ago
Last Russian Presidential elections were not about electing the President of Russian Federation, they were about electing a Supreme Commander. Most Russians understand that, US national security apparatus and media do not. It is simply beyond their grasp and experiences.
Eric Newhill , 14 hours ago
I am afraid this is a fait accompli. Thank you for trying. At least your honor is clean, which is much more than can be said for too many in a position to influence. I weep for our nation.
As an aside, Trump won't be re-elected, but I don't think he cares at this point - he may not even complete his first term. PT was wrong. The coup has not failed. It marches on. Trump's lack of character has revealed itself. He should make a stand now on his principles. Engaging in war with Syria and Russia isn't going to save his presidency. They will overthrow him anyhow as an example of what will happen to anyone else that The People elect as oppose to the deep state.
Biggee Mikeee -> Eric Newhill , 11 hours ago
(aka mikee)

Eric:
I voted for Trump but he lost my support over a year ago.
Time to finally accept the fact that Trump has no principles.
Trump's statement last week about pulling troop's out of Syria was a half-assed attempt at cover for what came about a few days later. Mulshine's try at running interference for Trump is a comical continuation of that cover. It's a dog and pony show. Don't fall for it.

Who has the ultimate responsibility?

View Hide
Fred -> Eric Newhill , 12 hours ago
Eric,

Now everyone will have a reason to get rid of Trump, then bankrupt his family to boot. Not to worry, Bombing Bolton will win another war and we'll be greated as liberators from Damascus to Moscow. Evidence? Who cares if the evidence is even more fabricated than the Fusion GPS crap. Would anyone in the intellegence community lie? On a bright note Little Rocket Man won't have to worry about his future after Big Rocket Man proves his point.

Eric Newhill -> Fred , 9 hours ago
Fred,
Pour encourager les autres
John Minnerath -> Eric Newhill , 13 hours ago
Eric Newhill,
I fear you may be right. Trump is getting hammered from every side right now.
He may extricate himself, but the quicksand in the swamp is getting deeper.
Sid Finster -> John Minnerath , 13 hours ago
The funny part is that russiagate conspiracy theorists will scream "Putin puppet!" even as the ICBMs are launched. The "Trump is fighting the Deep State" conspiracy theorists will insist that this is eleven-dimensional chess or something equally stupid, even as they go up in a mushroom cloud.

At least it would be funny, if it were not actually happening.

Eric Newhill -> John Minnerath , 13 hours ago
John,

Then again, just when all appears lost a glimmer of hope is offered. Teresa May is hedging now. Maybe it wasn't gas. Maybe Assad didn't do it - inspectors are needed on the ground at the site: http://www.breitbart.com/lo...

chris chuba , 15 hours ago
This is my hometown guy. I was surprised by the number of people there (as well as other places) who are absolutely 100% convinced about the fact that there was a chemical attack and Assad must be guilty because they saw the footage of the victims foaming from their mouths on TV. Yikes.

Perhaps I should blame the networks. In all of the coverage that I saw, they simply streamed out the video as if it came from one of their foreign correspondents. If the networks had any sense of professionalism they would have put up a caption,

'This footage is unverified, it was obtained by rebel activists'

or words to that effect.

james -> chris chuba , 11 hours ago
get your white helmet videos!!!! hot off the press!!!!
james , 11 hours ago
thanks for stating all that pat.. i am happy to see your word is reaching some of the msm! can you get your press secretary to run your ideas by the nyt, wapo and wsj too? that would be a switch for what they regularly offer!
Pat Lang Mod -> james , 11 hours ago
I have been excluded from the MSM by the Ziocons. i don't know why Mulshine talks to me nor do I know why he and Tucker Carlson still are employed.
james -> Pat Lang , 11 hours ago
your comment confirms the idea that alternative views are not being heard in the msm... the msm appears to be one big hall of mirrors with generally the same message being sent out - one that conforms with the ziocons..
RaisingMac -> james , 9 hours ago
I may be dating myself here, but I can still remember 25 years ago, when Col. Lang was a regular guest on the old McNeill/Lehrer News Hour on PBS. He always gave excellent, informed commentary. I was so glad a couple of years ago, when--quite by accident--I found this blog on the internet. It's been a go-to source for me ever since. It's a pity that informed experts like Col. Lang aren't often featured by our MSM anymore; but the again, that's why I now mostly avoid the MSM.
Paul Mulshine -> james , 4 hours ago
I think the real problem is not so much ideology but the fact that the current crop of journalists have little experience with dust-ups in the "developing" world and therefore have to trust inside-the-Beltway "experts" who have no expertise.
VietnamVet , 9 hours ago
Colonel,

Thanks. You've kept your honor.

House Speaker Paul Ryan to retire. "Paul Ryan is abandoning the ship before it
sinks - Chicago Tribune". No doubt to get his cut. But, I guess he never got the briefing
that if the USA goes to war with the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin has more
than enough nuclear weapons to spare one to target Janesville, WI. Will he have time to realize that it all was for nothing?

Babak Makkinejad , 9 hours ago
All:

I believe this episode demonstrates the soundness of my observation a few months ago that the best course of action for the United States is to cut and run from Syria as well as Afghanistan and a number of other such places.

US has demonstrated that she could be easily manipulated and her actions could lead to World War III.

Sid Finster -> Babak Makkinejad , 5 hours ago
The neocons seem to see WWIII as a feature and not a bug.

Witness the articles suggesting that we can "win" a nuclear war. I am reminded of the scene from Dr. Strangelove when General Buck Turgidson suggested "not more than ten, twenty million dead, TOPS!"

Fred , 14 hours ago
Trump should fire a few generals and recall Dempsey back to duty.
DH -> Fred , 7 hours ago
"Kerry asks Dempsey to back him up Dempsey declines, causing Rand Paul's ally to burst out laughing." [I created this clip on C-SPAN, booya!]

https://www.c-span.org/vide...

RaisingMac -> Fred , 9 hours ago
Dempsey was good. So was Gen. Flynn.

[Apr 12, 2018] Does anybody in DC thinks what would be the consequence if Russian retaliate and fire at the missile launchers, are we ready to fold or we will go to war with Russia? what the F*ing morons run this country.

Notable quotes:
"... At the moment if I had to guess, it will be a decapitation strike at Damascus along with wide ranging attacks on Syrian air force targets and possibly other regime targets as well. And my guess is that the Russians probably won't respond beyond shooting down some of the incoming missiles. So like Shayrat, but rather more murderous and widespread. ..."
"... It should be remembered though that even if there is no big Russian retaliation, that doesn't mean the White House nutters were "right", any more than a man who pulls the trigger once in a game of Russian Roulette and gets away with it was "right". ..."
Apr 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Randal , 15 hours ago

" Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and "smart!" You shouldn't be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

11:57 AM - Apr 11, 2018 "

By jingo!

Kooshy -> Randal , 12 hours ago
What does he mean "new" meaning new technology, and smarter? not like the ones he fired last year? So Russians should think twice if they can intercept and fold their hand. What does he think this is a poker game? what if they don't fold, does he think about that. Does anybody in DC thinks what would be the consequence if Russian retaliate and fire at the missile launchers, are we ready to fold or we will go to war with Russia? what the F*ing morons run this country.
Randal -> Kooshy , 10 hours ago
" What does he think this is a poker game? what if they don't fold, does he think about that. Does anybody in DC thinks what would be the consequence if Russian retaliate and fire at the missile launchers, are we ready to fold or we will go to war with Russia? "

Seems clear they think the Russians will fold, and if they don't they can be beaten in theatre at an acceptable cost.

Presumably they see the risks of escalation to regional war, or all out war, or even nuclear war as within acceptable bounds. Others might disagree with them (especially since the pot contains nothing worth having to justify the risk for ordinary folk), but they are the ones making the decisions.

Kooshy -> Randal , 7 hours ago
Yes some like Netanyahu and Alan Darshwitz think it's a bluff worthy of risk to pay, especially since Americans like me and you are the ones who will end up paying the price of their hand. Do you think it's a worth while bluff? Colonel Lang with more experience than any of decision makers, thinks not.
DH -> Randal , 12 hours ago
Still have my fingers crossed for a measured 'response' in the vein of the missiles that missed the deserted target after the first false flag gas attack. He and Putin may be on the same page.
Randal -> DH , 11 hours ago
Seems like a long shot to me, but your guess is as good as mine.

At the moment if I had to guess, it will be a decapitation strike at Damascus along with wide ranging attacks on Syrian air force targets and possibly other regime targets as well. And my guess is that the Russians probably won't respond beyond shooting down some of the incoming missiles. So like Shayrat, but rather more murderous and widespread.

Where we are the following morning, who knows? If Assad is still alive and the strikes aren't too extensive, nothing much is changed. Although of course if the anti-Syrian forces can stage one false provocation and get US intervention, they can stage another. And another, ad nauseam.

It should be remembered though that even if there is no big Russian retaliation, that doesn't mean the White House nutters were "right", any more than a man who pulls the trigger once in a game of Russian Roulette and gets away with it was "right".

Poul , 16 hours ago
Has Trump painted himself into a corner with rhetoric of this nature and made an attack unavoidable?

[Apr 12, 2018] Listening to Russian experts (short report about the mood on Russian prime time TV)

Notable quotes:
"... Next, there was an consensus view that pleading, reasoning, asking for fairness or justice, or even for common sense, was futile. The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified. The authority of the so-called "western values" (democracy, rule of law, human rights, etc.) in Russia is now roadkill. ..."
"... There was also a broad consensus that the US elites are not taking Russia seriously and that the current Russian diplomatic efforts are futile (especially towards the UK). The only way to change that would be with very harsh measures, including diplomatic and military ones. Everybody agreed that talking with Boris Johnson would be not only a total waste of time, but a huge mistake. ..."
"... Reach your own conclusions. I will just say that none of the "experts" was representing, or working for, the Russian government. Government experts not only have better info, they also know that the lives of millions of people depend on their decisions, which is not the case for the so-called "experts". Still, the words of these experts do reflect, I think, a growing popular consensus. ..."
Apr 12, 2018 | thesaker.is

They all agreed that the AngloZionist (of course, they used the words "USA" or "Western countries") was only going to further escalate and that the only way to stop this is to deliberately bring the world right up to the point were a full-scale US-Russian war was imminent or even locally started.

They said that it was fundamentally wrong for Russia to reply with just words against Western actions. Interestingly, there also was a consensus that even a full-scale US attack on Syria would be too late to change the situation on the ground, that it was way too late for that.

Another interesting conclusion was that the only real question for Russia is whether Russia would be better off delaying this maximal crisis or accelerating the events and making everything happen sooner. There was no consensus on that.

Next, there was an consensus view that pleading, reasoning, asking for fairness or justice, or even for common sense, was futile. The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified. The authority of the so-called "western values" (democracy, rule of law, human rights, etc.) in Russia is now roadkill.

There was also a broad consensus that the US elites are not taking Russia seriously and that the current Russian diplomatic efforts are futile (especially towards the UK). The only way to change that would be with very harsh measures, including diplomatic and military ones. Everybody agreed that talking with Boris Johnson would be not only a total waste of time, but a huge mistake.

To my amazement, the notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.

Reach your own conclusions. I will just say that none of the "experts" was representing, or working for, the Russian government. Government experts not only have better info, they also know that the lives of millions of people depend on their decisions, which is not the case for the so-called "experts". Still, the words of these experts do reflect, I think, a growing popular consensus.

Source: The Saker

[Apr 11, 2018] Samantha Power Liberal War Hawk by Robert Parry

There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
"... Ukraina po-nad u-se! ..."
Jun 15, 2015 | consortiumnews.com

32 Comments

Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.

Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having written about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.

Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.

Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.

Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed " the weaponization of human rights. "

We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was rather mealy-mouthed in her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.

For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day.

Power in Power

Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups.

Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered.

The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians. It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.

Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith predicted "the next genocide in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.

Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.

Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.

A Propaganda Speech

Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."

Despite the key role of neo-Nazis acknowledged even by the U.S. House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.

Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February 2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's destabilizing actions in your country."

Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and the message you heard from President Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.

"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.

"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]

Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.

"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in order to topple a democratically-elected government."

Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to "midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]

The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence. Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias, organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.

Inventing 'Facts'

But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:

"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.

"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.

"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled by outsiders.

"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers. Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "

Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.

"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.

"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women, including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.

"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.

"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled by the separatists."

One-Sided Account

Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence, but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."

Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]

Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014, burning alive scores of ethnic Russians while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.

Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.

Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism operation."

Use of Propaganda

In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's " How Reagan Promoted Genocide ."]

Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the "bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians.

During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."

Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom a chastened Obama invited to a White House lunch last year).

But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.

The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.

That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom. And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."

There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.

Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.

Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.

Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here .

incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm

It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands of time' to save their victims from more misery.

Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm

These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.

Debbie Menon , June 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm

I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.

X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and have only resulted in financial ruin,

NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance.

X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism, has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.

Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.

The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.

X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.

The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.

MikeH , June 16, 2015 at 7:12 pm

I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.

One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review, which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.

There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiKsKy7lFw

Anonymous , June 20, 2015 at 10:23 pm

There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called "liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system. These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in the past and as they do now.

michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm

If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!

hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm

Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.

That's all one really needs to know.

Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and is therefore target of blackmail.

Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm

and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale and Harvard.

dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.

Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm

. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened, and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be deterred or stopped.

Debbie Menon , June 19, 2015 at 12:33 am

In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian Empire.

It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.

The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.

I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.

I just pray that we are both wrong.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.

The Ambassador from Hell returns to the scene of the crime:
Remarks at the October Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine (June 11, 2015)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/243583.htm

“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€

The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm

There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!

F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm

I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history. That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats" has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled, those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall? If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.

Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties -- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth and (abusive) power accumulation.

The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.

Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.

While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm

As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.

Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
by Chase Madar
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/09/10/samantha-power-and-the-weaponization-of-human-rights/

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:04 am

Thank you for this important reference.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent, hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?

A Diplomat From Hell: Samantha Power and The Quest For Eternal War
By Michael Smith
http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2013/06/samantha-power-and-imperial-delusion.html

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 12:14 am

The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are presented as the perpetrators of war.

The Globalization of War
By Michel Chossudovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=74&v=34j2Rf-IvJQ

onno , June 16, 2015 at 5:35 am

It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty profits.

Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have suffered too much in the past.

It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating 'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons. And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!

Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am

DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT

Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.

"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.

Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am

She's like John Bolton in drag.

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm

She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism

"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.†-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online

"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am

What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives are worth allowing.

Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am

Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy. It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."

There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.

She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.

That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers "

The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:

Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.

Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned, and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.

He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article 111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.

Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional coup.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140321165941/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20140405140914/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30130.html

cathy , June 22, 2015 at 1:29 am

All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.

Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you, or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks like it will be sooner than expected, too.

hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm

The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little girls on Big Wheels.

Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm

These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.

Debbie Menon , June 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm

I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.

X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and have only resulted in financial ruin,

NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance.

X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism, has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.

Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.

The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.

X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.

The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.

MikeH , June 16, 2015 at 7:12 pm

I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.

One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review, which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.

There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiKsKy7lFw

Anonymous , June 20, 2015 at 10:23 pm

There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called "liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system. These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in the past and as they do now.

michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm

If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!

hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm

Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.

That's all one really needs to know.

Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and is therefore target of blackmail.

Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm

and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale and Harvard.

dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.

Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm

. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened, and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be deterred or stopped.

Debbie Menon , June 19, 2015 at 12:33 am

In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian Empire.

It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.

The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.

I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.

I just pray that we are both wrong.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.

The Ambassador from Hell returns to the scene of the crime:
Remarks at the October Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine (June 11, 2015)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/243583.htm

“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€

The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm

There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!

F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm

I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history. That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats" has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled, those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall? If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.

Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties -- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth and (abusive) power accumulation.

The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.

Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.

While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm

As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.

Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
by Chase Madar
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/09/10/samantha-power-and-the-weaponization-of-human-rights/

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:04 am

Thank you for this important reference.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent, hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?

A Diplomat From Hell: Samantha Power and The Quest For Eternal War
By Michael Smith
http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2013/06/samantha-power-and-imperial-delusion.html

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 12:14 am

The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are presented as the perpetrators of war.

The Globalization of War
By Michel Chossudovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=74&v=34j2Rf-IvJQ

onno , June 16, 2015 at 5:35 am

It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty profits.

Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have suffered too much in the past.

It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating 'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons. And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!

Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am

DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT

Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.

"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.

Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am

She's like John Bolton in drag.

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm

She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism

"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.†-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online

"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am

What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives are worth allowing.

Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am

Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy. It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."

There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.

She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.

That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers "

The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:

Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.

Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned, and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.

He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article 111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.

Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional coup.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140321165941/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20140405140914/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30130.html

cathy , June 22, 2015 at 1:29 am

All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.

Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you, or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks like it will be sooner than expected, too.

hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm

The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little girls on Big Wheels.

[Apr 11, 2018] History repeats itself. An investigation motivated by some alleged abuse deploys drift nets, finds nothing so it changes the focus to the sexual history of the target.

Apr 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman | Apr 11, 2018 10:28:34 AM | 76

Re: the fate of Trump.

History repeats itself. An investigation motivated by some alleged abuse deploys drift nets, finds nothing so it changes the focus to the sexual history of the target. Hush money for consensual sex is legal as far as I know -- I do not know the law, but it became known and studiously ignored by the special prosecutor. So he tries to discover any possible past deal that is somehow illegal, and recorded as illegal? A bit of a fat chance.

[Apr 11, 2018] Samantha Power Liberal War Hawk by Robert Parry

There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
"... Ukraina po-nad u-se! ..."
Jun 15, 2015 | consortiumnews.com

32 Comments

Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.

Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having written about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.

Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.

Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.

Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed " the weaponization of human rights. "

We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was rather mealy-mouthed in her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.

For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day.

Power in Power

Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups.

Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered.

The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians. It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.

Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith predicted "the next genocide in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.

Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.

Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.

A Propaganda Speech

Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."

Despite the key role of neo-Nazis acknowledged even by the U.S. House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.

Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February 2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's destabilizing actions in your country."

Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and the message you heard from President Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.

"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.

"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]

Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.

"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in order to topple a democratically-elected government."

Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to "midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]

The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence. Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias, organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.

Inventing 'Facts'

But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:

"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.

"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.

"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled by outsiders.

"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers. Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "

Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.

"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.

"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women, including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.

"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.

"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled by the separatists."

One-Sided Account

Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence, but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."

Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]

Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014, burning alive scores of ethnic Russians while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.

Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.

Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism operation."

Use of Propaganda

In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's " How Reagan Promoted Genocide ."]

Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the "bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians.

During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."

Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom a chastened Obama invited to a White House lunch last year).

But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.

The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.

That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom. And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."

There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.

Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.

Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.

Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here .

incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm

It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands of time' to save their victims from more misery.

Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm

These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.

Debbie Menon , June 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm

I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.

X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and have only resulted in financial ruin,

NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance.

X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism, has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.

Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.

The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.

X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.

The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.

MikeH , June 16, 2015 at 7:12 pm

I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.

One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review, which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.

There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiKsKy7lFw

Anonymous , June 20, 2015 at 10:23 pm

There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called "liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system. These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in the past and as they do now.

michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm

If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!

hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm

Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.

That's all one really needs to know.

Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and is therefore target of blackmail.

Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm

and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale and Harvard.

dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.

Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm

. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened, and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be deterred or stopped.

Debbie Menon , June 19, 2015 at 12:33 am

In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian Empire.

It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.

The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.

I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.

I just pray that we are both wrong.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.

The Ambassador from Hell returns to the scene of the crime:
Remarks at the October Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine (June 11, 2015)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/243583.htm

“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€

The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm

There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!

F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm

I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history. That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats" has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled, those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall? If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.

Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties -- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth and (abusive) power accumulation.

The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.

Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.

While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm

As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.

Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
by Chase Madar
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/09/10/samantha-power-and-the-weaponization-of-human-rights/

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:04 am

Thank you for this important reference.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent, hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?

A Diplomat From Hell: Samantha Power and The Quest For Eternal War
By Michael Smith
http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2013/06/samantha-power-and-imperial-delusion.html

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 12:14 am

The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are presented as the perpetrators of war.

The Globalization of War
By Michel Chossudovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=74&v=34j2Rf-IvJQ

onno , June 16, 2015 at 5:35 am

It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty profits.

Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have suffered too much in the past.

It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating 'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons. And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!

Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am

DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT

Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.

"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.

Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am

She's like John Bolton in drag.

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm

She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism

"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.†-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online

"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am

What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives are worth allowing.

Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am

Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy. It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."

There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.

She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.

That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers "

The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:

Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.

Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned, and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.

He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article 111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.

Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional coup.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140321165941/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20140405140914/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30130.html

cathy , June 22, 2015 at 1:29 am

All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.

Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you, or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks like it will be sooner than expected, too.

hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm

The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little girls on Big Wheels.

Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm

These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.

Debbie Menon , June 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm

I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.

X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and have only resulted in financial ruin,

NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance.

X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism, has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.

Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.

The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.

X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.

The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.

MikeH , June 16, 2015 at 7:12 pm

I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.

One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review, which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.

There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiKsKy7lFw

Anonymous , June 20, 2015 at 10:23 pm

There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called "liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system. These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in the past and as they do now.

michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm

If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!

hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm

Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.

That's all one really needs to know.

Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and is therefore target of blackmail.

Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm

and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale and Harvard.

dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.

Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm

. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened, and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be deterred or stopped.

Debbie Menon , June 19, 2015 at 12:33 am

In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian Empire.

It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.

The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.

I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.

I just pray that we are both wrong.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.

The Ambassador from Hell returns to the scene of the crime:
Remarks at the October Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine (June 11, 2015)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/243583.htm

“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€

The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm

There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!

F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm

I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history. That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats" has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled, those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall? If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.

Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties -- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth and (abusive) power accumulation.

The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.

Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.

While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm

As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.

Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
by Chase Madar
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/09/10/samantha-power-and-the-weaponization-of-human-rights/

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:04 am

Thank you for this important reference.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent, hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?

A Diplomat From Hell: Samantha Power and The Quest For Eternal War
By Michael Smith
http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2013/06/samantha-power-and-imperial-delusion.html

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 12:14 am

The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are presented as the perpetrators of war.

The Globalization of War
By Michel Chossudovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=74&v=34j2Rf-IvJQ

onno , June 16, 2015 at 5:35 am

It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty profits.

Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have suffered too much in the past.

It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating 'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons. And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!

Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am

DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT

Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.

"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.

Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am

She's like John Bolton in drag.

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm

She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism

"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.†-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online

"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am

What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives are worth allowing.

Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am

Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy. It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."

There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.

She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.

That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers "

The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:

Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.

Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned, and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.

He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article 111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.

Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional coup.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140321165941/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20140405140914/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30130.html

cathy , June 22, 2015 at 1:29 am

All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.

Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you, or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks like it will be sooner than expected, too.

hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm

The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little girls on Big Wheels.

[Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

Highly recommended!
This is US specific bank of chickenhawks, who feed from MIC cramps. this breed is really entrenched in State Department too (Madeleine Albright, Nuland, Powell, Haley, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria! ..."
"... It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names? ..."
Apr 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Art , Next New Comment April 11, 2018 at 11:18 pm GMT

War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria!

It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names?

Think Peace -- Art

annamaria , Next New Comment April 12, 2018 at 12:02 am GMT
@Art

American female anchors on MSM look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

[Apr 11, 2018] An interesting perspective on why the crisis has escalated to this point is made by Adam Garrie

Syria invasion by the USA with Arab monarchies and several Western "partners in crime" is nothing but an attempt to correct disastrous results of Saddam removal which essentially gave the country for free to Iran. Not they try to convert Syria into Sunni country hostile to Iraq/Iran and that requires removal of secular Assad government.
Apr 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Apr 11, 2018 1:29:37 PM | 99

An interesting perspective on why the crisis has escalated to this point is made by Adam Garrie along the lines of Zhirinovsky's nationalist critique of Putin's policy/rhetoric to NATO/Outlaw US Empire acts. Excerpt:

"In respect of Syria, Russia is guilty of presuming that in fighting a war against terrorism that the entire world ought to have supported, that even its enemies in the US and Europe would somehow allow Russia to go about its business in Syria, owing to the greater good of eliminating terrorist groups like Daesh, al-Qaeda and their clones from the face of the earth.

"This was a false premise from the beginning as Russia should have known all too well. Russia should not have been so naive in presuming a nonchalant attitude from the western, as when it comes to the western imperial quest for global dominance, they will do anything to subdue Russia, no matter how many objectively gruesome allies the west will need to associate itself with in the process. There is even a clear blueprint regarding this western attitude. Its author was an English academic called Halford Mackinder whose so-called "heartland theory" portrayed Russia as a necessary "pivot area" that western imperialists would need to subdue in their wider ambition to conquer China and the wider Asian world."

There are some aspects of this position I agree with. But then neither Garrie, Zhriniovsky or I are Russia's President having to weigh a great number of issues, which is why I find it difficult to criticize Putin/Lavrov's overall efforts and thrust. China's Xi now appears to be willing to emerge from behind the shadows to exert its pressure on events. As I alluded to in my comment above, it's quite likely Russia will encourage/allow Syria to use its anti-ship missiles in retaliation, which subtly shifts the dynamic.

Timothy Hagios | Apr 11, 2018 2:41:46 PM |

Russia's main impediment is that it cannot allow the conflict to become purely economic, as it is more vulnerable economically than militarily.

Thus Russia needs to respond to an attack either by doing nothing or by striking with such force that the West is not given the option of creating an economic blockade while maintaining its economic advantages.

One option would be to strike Saudi oil fields, which would be devastating to the West without necessarily leading to a full-blown nuclear war.

[Apr 11, 2018] It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump tweets seriously

Highly recommended!
Trump became really deranged. For a world leader to behave in such a way is unexcusable. Now even Trump supporters think that he should be removed
But the goal of the USA in Syria is establishing Saudi-friendly Sunni theocracy remains unchanged, since Obama unleashed this war using Libyan weapons and Islamic mercenaries/volunteers They want to compensate with Syria the fact that Iraq now went to Iran sphere of influence instead being a countervailing force during Saddam rein.
Notable quotes:
"... This latest Trump-Tweet about "Russia to be ready for new, smart missiles raining down on Syria" is also a negotiating ploy and to save face. Stock markets, even in this volatile times, have hardly budged, and the gold price is where it has been for the past year. ..."
Apr 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Aren Haich , Apr 11, 2018 3:38:48 PM | 141

It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump-Tweets seriously. Trump, himself doesn't take them seriously and considers them as 'negotiating tactics'. Remember the tweets: "Fire & Fury the World has Never Seen Before", "Little Rocket Man" and "Bigger Nuclear Button", which then ushered in the prospect of a meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un?

This latest Trump-Tweet about "Russia to be ready for new, smart missiles raining down on Syria" is also a negotiating ploy and to save face. Stock markets, even in this volatile times, have hardly budged, and the gold price is where it has been for the past year.

There will probably be a well-restricted cruise missile attack on some Syrian-Iranian base with Russia pre-warned. The long-promised meeting between Trump and Putin will emerge in the news to discuss the future of Syria. Trump's desire to pull out of Syria will then come about naturally and as the result of consultations with Putin.

[Apr 11, 2018] Trump's Rush to Judgment on Syria Chemical Attack by Scott Ritter

Apr 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Defense Secretary Mattis. (DoD) On Sunday, President Trump announced his intention to make those responsible for an alleged chemical weapons attack on Douma, including the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian allies, pay a "big price" for their continued disregard for international law. The next day U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley declared that "The United States is determined to see the monster who dropped chemical weapons on the Syrian people held to account."

President Trump reinforced his call for action on Monday, noting that the United States would not sit back in the face of the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria. "It will be met, and it will be met forcefully," the president said, adding that those responsible for the attack will be held accountable, whether it was Syria, Russia, Iran or "all of them together." Trump noted that a decision to use military force would be made "over the next 24 to 48 hours."

The pronouncements of imminent military action by the United States are not made in a vacuum. Russia, which has considerable military forces deployed inside Syria, including advanced military aircraft and anti-aircraft missile batteries, has rejected the allegations of chemical weapons use by Syria as a "fabrication," and promised that any attack on Syria would result in "serious repercussions." Russian forces inside Syria have reportedly been placed on "full alert" as American naval vessels capable of launching cruise missiles have arrived off the Syrian coast.

The United States and Russia appear to be heading toward a direct military confrontation that, depending on the level of force used and the number, if any, casualties incurred by either side, carries with it the risk of a broader conflict. While Russian (and Syrian) claims of innocence regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack cannot be accepted at face value, the fact that the United States has not backed up its own claims with anything other than a recitation of accusations made by rebel groups opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad is problematic insofar as it shows a rush to judgement on matters of war. Given the potentially devastating consequences of any U.S.-Russian military clash over Syria, it would be better for all parties involved to wait for a full and thorough investigation of the alleged attack before any final decision on the use of force in response is made.

There are two versions of what happened in Douma, a suburb of Damascus home to between 80,000 and 150,000 people. The one relied upon by the United States is provided by rebel forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to the Violations Documentation Center (VDC), a non-profit organization comprised of various Syrian opposition groups funded by the Asfari Foundation and George Soros' Open Societies Foundation , at approximately 12 p.m. the Syrian Air Force attacked the vicinity of the Saada Bakery using munitions believed to contain "poisonous gas." The VDC cited eyewitness accounts from members of the Syrian Civil Defense, or "White Helmets," who described the smell of chlorine and the presence of numerous bodies assessed to have succumbed from gas sourced to a Syrian "rocket." Later, at 7 p.m., a second air strike struck an area near Martyr's Square, again using munitions assessed by eyewitnesses to contain "poisonous gas." Doctors from the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) described symptoms that indicated that a nerve agent had been used. Images of victims in the locations allegedly attacked were released by a rebel-affiliated social media entity known as the "Douma Revolution" and the "White Helmets."

Douma is part of a larger district known as Eastern Ghouta which has, since 2012, been under the control of various militant organizations opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In early February 2018, the Syrian Army, supported by the Russian Air Force, began operations to recapture the Eastern Ghouta district. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive was as brutal as it was effective -- by March, Eastern Ghouta had been split into three pockets of resistance at a cost of more than 1,600 civilian dead. Two of the pockets capitulated under terms which had the opposition fighters and their families evacuated to rebel-held territory in the northern Syrian province of Idlib. Only Douma held out, where Salafist fighters from the "Army of Islam" (Jaish al-Islam) refused to surrender. On April 5, the situation had deteriorated inside Douma to the point that the rebel defenders had agreed to negotiations that would lead to their evacuation of Douma; the very next day, however, these discussions had broken down, and the Syrian military resumed its offensive. The air attacks described by the VDC occurred on the second day of the resumption of hostilities.

There is a competing narrative , however, provided by the Russian government and those sympathetic to its position. After the breakdown of negotiations between the Douma rebels and the Russian government on April 6, the story goes, the Syrian government offensive to liberate Douma resumed. The Douma rebels, faced with imminent defeat, fabricated the allegations of a chemical attack. Russia had warned of such a provocation back in March 2018, claiming the rebels were working in coordination with the United States to create the conditions for a massive American air attack against Syrian government infrastructure.

Shortly after the Syrian government resumed its offensive against Douma (and after the opposition forces publicized their allegations of Syrian government chemical weapons attacks), the rebel resistance inside Douma collapsed, with the fighters agreeing to be evacuated to Idlib. The Russian military was able to dispatch units to the sites of the alleged chemical weapons attacks and conduct a survey. According to the state-run Russian news, no evidence of a chemical weapons attack was discovered. Representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent who claim to have worked in Douma stated that they have seen no evidence of any chemical weapons use there, either.

Beyond providing a competing narrative, however, Russia has offered to open up Douma to inspectors from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons , or OPCW, for a full investigation. This offer was echoed by the Syrian government , which extended an official invitation for the OPCW to come to Douma. On April 10, the OPCW announced that it would be dispatching an inspection team "shortly" to carry out this work. The forensic technical investigatory capabilities of an OPCW inspection team are such that it would be able to detect the presence of any chemical agent used in Douma. While the investigation itself would take days to conduct and weeks to process, its conclusions would, under these circumstances, be conclusive as to the presence of any prohibited substance.

One major drawback to any OPCW investigation is its inability to assess responsibility for the presence of any banned substances detected. In prior investigations inside Syria, the OPCW was able to operate as part of the United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) , an entity specifically empowered by Security Council resolution to make such determinations. The mandate of the JIM was not extended , however, after Russia expressed its displeasure over what it deemed to be the inaccurate and politicized findings regarding previous allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government. The United States has submitted a resolution to the Security Council demanding that a new investigatory body be formed that would be able to provide attribution for any chemical weapons attack inside Syria; whether Russia would veto such a resolution or allow it to be passed has yet to be seen.

The bottom line, however, is that the United States is threatening to go to war in Syria over allegations of chemical weapons usage for which no factual evidence has been provided. This act is occurring even as the possibility remains that verifiable forensic investigations would, at a minimum, confirm the presence of chemical weapons (thereby contradicting the Russian claims that no such evidence was detected by its troops), and if the Security Council passes a resolution allowing for a properly mandated investigation team, actual attribution could be assigned.

Moreover, President Trump's rush to judgment on Syrian guilt is being done in a highly politicized environment, coming as it does on the heels of an FBI raid on the offices of the president's personal attorney . In times such as this, a president is often attracted by the prospect of "looking presidential" in order to offset personal problems (one only need to look at President Clinton's decision in August 1998 , at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, to launch cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan.)

If America is to place its military in harm's way, it needs to be in support of a cause worthy of the sacrifice being asked of those who serve. Giving the OPCW time to carry out its investigation in Syria would allow a fact-based case to be made whether military force was justified or not, as well as support a determination of whether or not the risks associated with the use of force were warranted. Pulling the trigger void of such information, especially when Trump is distracted by personal political issues, is not something the American people, nor their representatives in Congress, should tolerate.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War .

[Apr 11, 2018] History repeats itself. An investigation motivated by some alleged abuse deploys drift nets, finds nothing so it changes the focus to the sexual history of the target.

Apr 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman | Apr 11, 2018 10:28:34 AM | 76

Re: the fate of Trump.

History repeats itself. An investigation motivated by some alleged abuse deploys drift nets, finds nothing so it changes the focus to the sexual history of the target. Hush money for consensual sex is legal as far as I know -- I do not know the law, but it became known and studiously ignored by the special prosecutor. So he tries to discover any possible past deal that is somehow illegal, and recorded as illegal? A bit of a fat chance.

[Apr 11, 2018] German MSM - leftish or rightish, doesn't matter - mindlessly repeat what our US colonial masters are telling them to

Notable quotes:
"... There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here - and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing the MSM and/or our government. ..."
Apr 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Martin MS | Apr 11, 2018 2:17:21 PM | 86

@ BM: My take on the situation in Germany: the MSM - leftish or rightish, doesn't matter - mindlessly repeat what our US colonial masters are telling them to.

There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here - and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing the MSM and/or our government.

But what can you do when the published opinions are completely manufactured and anyone has to suppose his neighbours all believe this idiocy?

Hmpf | Apr 11, 2018 2:06:44 PM | 113

@73 aaaaa

That's a bit of a stretch. Germans were demoralized long before, as each sane person knew the war will end in defeat from mid'42 on. Back in the days I had the somewhat questionable pleasure of talking to German ex-soldiers (two of my grand-uncles) that were deployed to the Eastern Front. Compared to the kind of warfare that was going on there, the fighting in the west and south was almost akin to being on vacation - I'm serious about that.

On average the Soviets, mainly comprised of todays Russian peoples, lost 16-18000 people a day, this is evidence of the fierceness of fighting and, also, to what amount of a beating the Russians can take without losing sight of their goal.

The Soviet Union did the real fighting against German forces. At all times there'd been about 85% of all German forces deployed to the east, without this there would had been no bombing campaign against Germany simply because the number of fighter aircraft available against allied bombers would had been overwhelming.

Except for a few elite units, hastily re-deployed from the east, the main force was inexperienced draftees with both a lack of proper training and equipment. All other experienced units stayed east in a desperate attempt to hold back the red army as long as any possible.

A very good friend of mine, who died a couple years back at age 84, was one of these unfortunate souls. When he turned 17 in late Dec.'44 he received an official letter that read 'A gift from the Fuhrer' - it was his draft note. That's been the kind of opponent the western allies faced late in the war, a bunch of badly under-equipped troops consisting of exhausted regulars and youths, that were scared shitless (his words, not mine).

Russia's a different kind of animal. They won WWII - European theater almost singlehandedly but had to pay dearly.

[Apr 11, 2018] The Russians are Flabbergasted, by Israel Shamir

This is just neoliberal Inquisition in action
Notable quotes:
"... The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often unfair. ..."
"... The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media. Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia. ..."
"... We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk -- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall of a Syrian underground fortress. ..."
"... we prefer a more simple explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the goals of these elites. ..."
"... metum Judaeorum ..."
"... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Apr 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

The diplomats' expulsion flabbergasted the Russians. For days they went around scratching their heads and looking for an answer: what do they want from us? What is the bottom line? Too many events that make little sense separately. Why did the US administration expel 60 Russian diplomats? Do they want to cut off diplomatic relations, or is it a first step to an attempt to remove Russia from the Security Council, or to cancel its veto rights? Does it mean the US has given up on diplomacy? (The answer "it's war" didn't come to their minds at that time).

The astonished Russians responded all right. They also expelled 60 diplomats, and they made it painful: all US diplomats engaged in the political department of the Moscow Embassy were on the non-grata list. The Political department consisted of three sections, dealing with foreign policy, internal Russian politics and military analysis; the most important centre of data collection, of liaison with Russian politicians, of military consequences, of Syria and Ukraine, of North Korea and China, experienced first-class intelligence officers and field hands -- all gone, including their Political Officer Christopher Robinson (POL). The Russians expelled Maria Olson, the Embassy's well-known spokesperson, and the Ambassador's interpreter. They closed down St Petersburg Consulate, an important centre for connecting, influencing and interacting with the opposition in this 'second capital' of Russia. The US has lost many of its Moscow hands, people who knew Russia and had developed personal relations with important Russians. It will take a lot of time and effort for the US State Department and intelligence agencies to get back to the positions they had lost. The Brits who initiated the deportations also lost about fifty of their Moscow Embassy staff.

Surprisingly, the mass deportation of so many Russian diplomats had little effect on the Russian people, as this strike had been neutralised by another painful event, by the Kemerovo Mall blaze killing 64 cinema-goers including over 40 children. The blaze, even if it weren't arson (it has not been proven yet) had triggered a massive onslaught of fake news and internet trolls on the people of Russia. A million underfed Ukrainians were deployed by the Western psywar on the web to tell the Russians that hundreds of their children had been incinerated, and that their authorities lie to them. This operation revealed the level of influence and integration the Western spy agencies have in Russia.

Kemerovo was a good choice for the operation: it is the only ethnic-Russian region ruled by an old-style local hero who had outlived his wits, the only region that reported indecently (and unrealistically) high support for Putin in the recent elections, a depressive region of mines and miners with a big potential for trouble.

Putin managed it rather well by coming personally and dealing with the situation hands on. He learned the ropes since 2000, when, at the dawn of his first presidential term, the Kursk submarine went down with all hands. Putin stayed away from the sailors' families, and acted callous, people said. "It had sunk", Putin replied to the question "What happened to Kursk ?" (It is said USS Memphis had fired a torpedo at the submarine, causing the disaster, while the new president had been reluctant to aggravate relations with Clinton Administration). Now, in 2018, he was very good, full of empathy and consideration, conveying strength and decisiveness.

Whatever American agency carried out the psyop around Kemerovo, it was very successful, but its success undermined another operation, that of the Russian diplomats' expulsion. The Russians did not pay it sufficient attention.

The alleged reason for the expulsion, the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, made very little sense. Even if the old spy were bumped off by his erstwhile employers, such a reaction would be excessive by all means. He was not a Napoleon (poisoned by the Brits 200 years ago), not a prince of blood, not a great inventor nor a successful spy. He was a retired ex-spy, a wash-out. Anyway he didn't die, he was just sick for a while. Perhaps he ate something in the pub that didn't agree with him. This is the opinion of his niece, Victoria, who is the only person alive who had been in contact with the Skripals since their alleged hospitalisation.

This affair is so obscure that it beats Rashomon anytime. Russian reporters went around Salisbury and noticed many incongruences. It is not certain whether Skripals were poisoned at all, and where they are. Their pets survived the deadly poison, and they had to be destroyed. This piece of black Russian humour had been forwarded a lot around the net:

Skripal had been poisoned by a most powerful poison, 2 grams will kill half a country instantly! The Russians

- poisoned him in the restaurant

- no, on the bench

- no, in the car

- No, the door handle was smeared

- No, the suitcase was poisoned

- No, everything in the house was poisoned.

- Oh, and buckwheat was poisoned,

- but they did not die instantly, but walked around somewhere for four hours,

- but the policeman that discovered them almost died on the spot,

- but the poison was instantly identified,

- an antidote was instantly introduced, and Skripals and the policeman were saved;

- The policeman had been discharged next day!

- But they were in coma, and they will never recover!

- but no, the daughter had recovered fast!

- Oh, and dad is revived a miracle!

- and they both are quickly recovering, your strongest poison is useless.

- the restaurant had been surrounded by police in spacesuits

- the park had been surrounded by police in spacesuits

- the house had surrounded by police in spacesuits

- they are in spacesuits, since the poison is deadly dangerous, but next to them are policemen without protection

- The bench was cut down and removed: it's such a terrible poison that the bench retained its toxic quality for two weeks;

- but the cat had survived in the poisoned house the policeman had touched Skripal and nearly died, and the cat survived and the guinea pigs would survive, but they were all forgotten, and died of hunger in the house;

- and their remains were immediately burned, as they are poisoned by the strongest poison;

- For two weeks they were poisoned by the strongest poison and survived, and now they had to be urgently cremated;

- Only guinea pigs died, the cat survived all this poison. It was stressful and hungry, so they killed it and cremated to make it certain nobody will find the secret etc etc.

The true hero of Skripal saga is the British ex-Ambassador Craig Murray , who followed the developments and unveiled many of its inconsistencies and outright lies. You may read his articles and twits to learn the details.

Julia Skripal took a daring step: she called her cousin Viktoria in Moscow. Their conversation is an amazing document. Julia says that she and her father are in good health; she doubts Viktoria will be allowed to visit her. Indeed, the British government refused to grant her visa. The feeling is that Julia is imprisoned.

I spoke with a retired Russian counter-intelligence officer who is familiar with the subject. He told me Russia never had a Novichok toxic substance: this name was given by counter-intelligence to A-232 in order to trace the leaks. It worked: a man called Vil Mirzayanov, an administrator in the chemical labs, leaked the Novichok story, and thus he was apprehended and arrested. A-232 had been produced in small amounts in 1990s, and some of it could be stolen and sold in these horrible years, when a full colonel of Russian intelligence had to moonlight as a taxi driver to supplement his measly $46 monthly salary. In those years, the poison could be indeed made available, and in one case it was used by criminals. Theoretically it is not impossible that some of this poison could have been saved and stored by some criminals; alternatively, it was available to the Americans who dismantled the labs in 1992. Anyway we have no independent proof that Skripals were poisoned by anything at all. If they survive, if the British and the American intelligence services don't kill them, perhaps we shall know more. We can definitely exclude the possibility that Russian state agents would go to Britain to poison an old spy who had been pardoned by Russian president years ago. Even if he was active in producing Christopher Steele's Trump ("Golden Rain") file, the Russians would have no compelling reason to kill him at all, and in such an odd way in particular. "If we would kill him, he would stay killed", concluded my interlocutor.

The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often unfair.

The connection between chemical poisoning and Russia had been prepared for the forthcoming event. Eastern Ghouta was an important and well entrenched location of the Syrian rebels. Being within easy reach from Central Damascus, it provided the rebels with a chance to seize power in the Syrian capital. As the Syrian army with Iranian and Russian support advanced into Eastern Ghouta, they learned of the rebel plans to stage a false flag chemical weapon attack, as they already had done a few times in past. President Putin warned of such a possibility at his joint (with President Erdogan and President Rouhani) press conference in Ankara last week, a few days before the alleged attack.

The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media. Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia.

We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk -- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall of a Syrian underground fortress.

The planners of a war on Russia have utilised fear of anti-Semitism for their purposes. I called this method Anti-semitism Weaponised . Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has been blocked and contained by accusations of anti-Semitism. He was the only leader able to stop Britain's descent into war with Russia. Other Labour MPs and activists have been attacked over alleged anti-Semitism issue, and -- what a coincidence! -- practically all of them were against demonising Russia; while Friends of Israel -- whether Conservative or Labour -- were viciously anti-Russian.

This is a correlation that will be discussed at another time, but it is far from obvious one. Russia has no anti-Semitism; the Russian president is friendly to Israel and to the powerful Jewish Chabad movement. Russia has no white nationalism, and little of the alt-right. However, this correlation exists. Shall we explain it by Jewish hatred of the Orthodox Church, as this Church (active in Russia, Greece, Palestine and Syria) hasn't been Jewified. Or should we prefer a more simple explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the goals of these elites.

However, people who can withstand accusations of anti-Semitism are the strongest enemies of the ruling power; they stand against the war with Russia and against attack on Syria, as the Haaretz newspaper explained in an article called White Supremacists Defend Assad, Warn Trump: Don't Let Israel Force You Into War With Syria . The article continues: "Alt-right calls Saturday's chemical attack in Damascus suburb a false flag operation, claiming it's an effort by Israel and 'globalists' to keep U.S. troops in Middle East" It quotes David Duke and other untouchables as the only people who reject Israeli narrative.

Not being a white supremacist (probably I do not qualify) I still applaud these brave men when they say and do the right thing. Sensitivity to anti-Semitism accusation is a strong vulnerability of character. Though people like Corbyn have their heart in the right place, they are weak on this point, and the enemy uses this weakness to neutralize them. There are people in the left that are not afraid of any accusation, but there aren't many who are resistant to metum Judaeorum .

Let us hope and pray we shall survive the forthcoming cataclysm.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review .

[Apr 11, 2018] On The Threshold Of War by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... There is no longer any doubt that the criminally insane government in Washington is driving the world to the last war. ..."
"... False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets, which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US. ..."
"... We have to say once again that military interference in Syria, where Russian forces have been deployed at the request of the legitimate government, under contrived and false pretexts is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences. ..."
"... Above are two of the three most intelligent and reliable Russian experts. The third is Professor Stephen Cohen, who worries, as I do, that an arrogant Washington drowning in hubris is provoking Russia to war. ..."
"... See here for example ..."
"... Nikki Haley's threats against Russia in the UN do not support Doctorow's hopes that reason will prevail in Washington. The crazed bitch said that the US will act against the "monster" Assad with or without the UN. ..."
Apr 11, 2018 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

UPDATE: There is no longer any doubt that the criminally insane government in Washington is driving the world to the last war.

UPDATE: As Americans we must face the possibility that we have a criminally insane government in Washington that is leading the world to destruction.

A Russian Government Press Release :

False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets, which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US.

We recently warned of the possibility of such dangerous provocations. The goal of these absolutely unsubstantiated lies is to protect the terrorists and the irreconcilable radical opposition that has rejected a political settlement, as well as to justify the possible use of force by external actors.

We have to say once again that military interference in Syria, where Russian forces have been deployed at the request of the legitimate government, under contrived and false pretexts is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.

This is John Helmer's interpretation of the warning :

"WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD DECLARED IN WASHINGTON , THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA [the high command of the Russian armed forces] MET IN MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST CONSEQUENCES".

THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR."

I hope that the situation is not this severe.

On The Threshold of War

"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker

"The US generals, unlike the US politicians and media and US administration, are risk-averse if the outcome may be catastrophic." -- Gilbert Doctorow

Above are two of the three most intelligent and reliable Russian experts. The third is Professor Stephen Cohen, who worries, as I do, that an arrogant Washington drowning in hubris is provoking Russia to war.

The Saker has concluded that the Russians have concluded that it has been a mistake to put up with Washington's lies, insults, and orchestrated events and have decided that if the dumbshit Americans attack Syria, Russia is going to take out the US forces involved.

Doctorow has concluded that as dumbshit as Washington is, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have more sense and will not go along with an attack on a Russian ally.

I hope that Doctorow is correct. However, with that crazed demented warmonger John Bolton sitting in the White House next to Trump, who enjoys the role of tough guy, I am more scared by The Saker's reading than I am reassured by Doctorow's.

There are reports, the validity of which I cannot confirm at this time, that the entirety of the Russian military has been put on high alert, not merely the Russian forces in Syria. See here for example .

Nikki Haley's threats against Russia in the UN do not support Doctorow's hopes that reason will prevail in Washington. The crazed bitch said that the US will act against the "monster" Assad with or without the UN.

Tough man Trump, sitting next to the crazed warmonger Bolton, declared that the alleged chemical attack in Syria "will be met and it will be met forcefully. We can't let atrocities like we all witnessed we can't let that happen in our world, especially because of the power of the US, we are able to stop it."

There was NO chemical attack by Syria. I know that for an absolute 100% fact. I would bet my life on it. Yet here is the US president declaring a total non-fact to be something "we all witnessed." Little wonder that the Russians have concluded that the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified.

If Doctorow is not correct that a sane US Joint Chiefs of Staff will prevail over the crazed President and his National Security Adviser, we are headed for war.

It is a war that the US will not win.

Notice, dear readers, that there is no mention of this pending crisis in the Western media. Instead the media whether CNN or the BBC has as the lead news story the FBI's raid on Trump's lawyer.

Insouciant Americans is too mild, isn't it. Clueless is the correct word.

[Apr 10, 2018] The Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21, 2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "The primary conclusion of this study, based on a pharmacological analysis of the video and photographic evidence, is that the Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21.2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad." ..."
Apr 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Imagine , a day ago

"Murder in the Sun Morgue" by Dr. Denis O'Brien (neuropharmacology expert):

"The primary conclusion of this study, based on a pharmacological analysis of the video and photographic evidence, is that the Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21.2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad."

288 pp. analysis. Also, some had slit throats:

https://www.scribd.com/document/230748990/Murder-in-the-SunMorgue

[Apr 10, 2018] Federal probe into Trump's lawyer seeks records about two women who alleged affairs with the president by Devlin Barrett at all

Looks like Rosenstein is after Trump. he authorized this action.
Notable quotes:
"... Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. ..."
Apr 10, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Federal prosecutors investigating President Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, are seeking records related to two women who received payments in 2016 after alleging affairs with Trump years ago -- adult-film star Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The interest in both Daniels and McDougal indicates that federal investigators are trying to determine whether there was a broader pattern or strategy among Trump associates to buy the silence of women whose accounts could harm the president's electoral chances and whether any crimes were committed in doing so, the person said.

... ... ...

The high stakes of the case were underscored by the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation.

Rosenstein's role has infuriated Trump, who was left "stunned" and "livid" by the aggressive move by prosecutors Monday, according to an outside adviser in frequent touch with the White House.

Cohen, Trump's longtime attorney, is under federal investigation for possible bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance violations, The Washington Post reported Monday.

[Apr 10, 2018] Ukraine is a debilitated state, created under Soviet auspices, hampered by a difficult Soviet inheritance, and hollowed out by its own predatory elites during two decades of misrule. But it is also a nation that is too big and independent for Russia to swallow up

Apr 10, 2018 | www.foreignaffairs.com

Ukraine is a debilitated state, created under Soviet auspices, hampered by a difficult Soviet inheritance, and hollowed out by its own predatory elites during two decades of misrule. But it is also a nation that is too big and independent for Russia to swallow up. Russia, meanwhile, is a damaged yet still formidable great power whose rulers cannot be intimidated into allowing Ukraine to enter the Western orbit. Hence the standoff. No external power or aid package can solve Ukraine's problems or compensate for its inherent vulnerabilities vis-à-vis Russia. Nor would sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine's brave but ragtag volunteer fighters and corrupt state structures improve the situation; in fact, it would send it spiraling further downward, by failing to balance Russian predominance while giving Moscow a pretext to escalate the conflict even more. Rather, the way forward must begin with a recognition of some banal facts and some difficult bargaining.

Russia's seizure of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine do not challenge the entire post-1945 international order. The forward positions the Soviet Union occupied in the heart of Europe as a result of defeating Nazi Germany were voluntarily relinquished in the early 1990s, and they are not going to be reoccupied. But nor should every detail of the post–Cold War settlement worked out in 1989–91 be considered eternal and inviolate. That settlement emerged during an anomalous time. Russia was flat on its back but would not remain prostrate forever, and when it recovered, some sort of pushback was to be expected.

Something similar happened following the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, many of the provisions of which were not enforced. Even if France, the United Kingdom, and the United States had been willing and able to enforce the peace, their efforts would not have worked, because the treaty had been imposed during a temporary anomaly, the simultaneous collapse of German and Russian power, and would inevitably have been challenged when that power returned.

Territorial revisionism ensued after World War II as well, of course, and continued sporadically for decades. Since 1991, there have been some negotiated revisions: Hong Kong and Macao underwent peaceful reabsorption into China. Yugoslavia was broken up in violence and war, leading to the independence of its six federal units and eventually Kosovo, as well. Unrecognized statelets such as Nagorno-Karabakh, part of Azerbaijan; Transnistria, a sliver of Moldova; Abkhazia and South Ossetia, disputed units of Georgia; and now Donetsk and Luhansk, parts of Ukraine -- each entails a story of Stalinist border-making.

The European Union cannot resolve this latest standoff, nor can the United Nations. The United States has indeed put together "coalitions of the willing" to legitimize some of its recent interventions, but it is not going to go to war over Ukraine or start bombing Russia, and the wherewithal and will for indefinite sanctions against Russia are lacking. Distasteful as it might sound, Washington faces the prospect of trying to work out some negotiated larger territorial settlement.

Such negotiations would have to acknowledge that Russia is a great power with leverage, but they would not need to involve the formal acceptance of some special Russian sphere of interest in its so-called near abroad. The chief goals would be, first, to exchange international recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea for an end to all the frozen conflicts in which Russia is an accomplice and, second, to disincentivize such behavior in the future. Russia should have to pay monetary compensation for Crimea. There could be some federal solutions, referendums, even land swaps and population transfers (which in many cases have already taken place). Sanctions on Russia would remain in place until a settlement was mutually agreed on, and new sanctions could be levied if Russia were to reject negotiations or were deemed to be conducting them in bad faith. Recognition of the new status of Crimea would occur in stages, over an extended period.

It would be a huge challenge to devise incentives that were politically plausible in the West while at the same time powerful enough for Russia to agree to a just settlement -- and for Ukraine to be willing to take part. But the search for a settlement would be an opportunity as well as a headache.

NATO expansion can be judged to have been a strategic error -- not because it angered Russia but because it weakened NATO as a military alliance. Russia's elites would likely have become revanchist even without NATO's advance, because they believe, nearly universally, that the United States took advantage of Russia in 1991 and has denied the country its rightful place as an equal in international diplomacy ever since. But NATO expansion's critics have not offered much in the way of practicable alternatives. Would it really have been appropriate, for example, to deny the requests of all the countries east of Germany to join the alliance?

Then as now, the only real alternative was the creation of an entirely new trans-European security architecture, one that fully transcended its Cold War counterpart. This was an oft-expressed Russian wish, but in the early 1990s, there was neither the imagination nor the incentives in Washington for such a heavy lift. Whether there is such capacity in Washington today remains to be seen. But even if comprehensive new security arrangements are unlikely anytime soon, Washington could still undertake much useful groundwork.

Critics might object on the grounds that the sanctions are actually biting, reinforced by the oil price free fall -- so why offer even minimal concessions to Putin now? The answer is because neither the sanctions, nor the oil price collapse, nor the two in conjunction have altered Russia's behavior, diminished its potential as a spoiler, or afforded Ukraine a chance to recover.

Whether they acknowledge it or not, Western opponents of a negotiated settlement are really opting for another long-term, open-ended attempt to contain Russia and hope for regime change -- a policy likely to last until the end of Putin's life and possibly well beyond. The costs of such an approach are likely to be quite high, and other global issues will continue to demand attention and resources. And all the while, Ukraine would effectively remain crippled, Europe's economy would suffer, and Russia would grow ever more embittered and difficult to handle. All of that might occur no matter what. But if negotiations hold out a chance of somehow averting such an outcome, they are worth a try. And the attempt would hold few costs, because failed negotiations would only solidify the case for containment in Europe and in the United States.

It is ultimately up to Russia's leaders to take meaningful steps to integrate their country into the existing world order, one that they can vex but not fully overturn. To the extent that the Ukraine debacle has brought this reality into sharper focus, it might actually have been useful in helping Putin to see some light, and the same goes for the collapse of oil prices and the accompanying unavoidable devaluation of the ruble. After the nadir of 1998, smart policy choices in Moscow, together with some lucky outside breaks, helped Russia transform a crisis into a breakthrough, with real and impressive steps forward. That history could replay itself -- but whether it will remains the prerogative of one person alone.

[Apr 10, 2018] Amazing Paul Joseph Watson video exposes false flag Syrian chemical weapons hoax

Notable quotes:
"... This funding was used, if not entirely, then in part to finance the White Helmets. The Syrian Civil Defense Force website lists Chemonics as its primary supporter alongside NGO Mayday Rescue, who operate out of offices in Turkey, Jordan and Dubai. ..."
"... Academy Award winning ..."
Apr 10, 2018 | theduran.com

Via RT

The specialists "found no traces of the use of chemical agents" after searching the sites, the statement said. The center's medical specialists also visited a local hospital but found no patients that showed signs of chemical weapons poisoning. "All these facts show that no chemical weapons were used in the town of Douma, as it was claimed by the White Helmets ," the statement said, referring to the controversial "civil defense" group that was among the first to report about the alleged attack.

" All the accusations brought by the White Helmets, as well as their photos allegedly showing the victims of the chemical attack, are nothing more than a yet another piece of fake news and an attempt to disrupt the ceasefire ," the Reconciliation Center said.

Via Disobedient Media

The Syrian Civil Defense Force (aka the White Helmets) is funded in part by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) . Included here are two links showing contracts awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics).

This funding was used, if not entirely, then in part to finance the White Helmets. The Syrian Civil Defense Force website lists Chemonics as its primary supporter alongside NGO Mayday Rescue, who operate out of offices in Turkey, Jordan and Dubai.

Zerohedge concludes

Of course, that didn't stop Netflix from producing an Academy Award winning documentary about the White Helmets. We're sure recently added board member and former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice is happy considering all of the taxpayer money the previous administration spent funding the group.

#WhiteHelmets psywar continues. Embedded with Al Nusra/Al Qaeda, funded by UK,US,Holland, EU over $ 60m. pic.twitter.com/lB78N0FOUr

-- vanessa beeley (@VanessaBeeley) September 8, 2016

[Apr 10, 2018] Russia controls Douma, guarantees impartial investigation; that makes US attack MORE likely

Apr 10, 2018 | theduran.com

As a result of the total surrender of the Jihadis previously in control of Douma on Sunday, it is the Russian military who this time are in control of the alleged crime scene.

This has put the Russians in a position where for the first time they are able both to invite the OPCW inspectors to attend the crime scene and to provide them with protection if they are there, whilst at the same time monitoring and supervising their work.

If the chemical attack on Douma really is fictitious – as the Russians insist it is – then for the first time their control of the crime scene puts the Russians in a strong position to prove it.

The point was made forcefully by Russia's UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council session today, and it also received indirect backing from the UN Secretariat, who admitted that they could not confirm that a chemical weapons attack had happened, and who called upon all sides to show restraint until a proper investigation of the incident had taken place.

Nebenzia followed this up by inviting OPCW inspectors to the scene as early as tomorrow Tuesday.

By now it should surprise no-one that the fact that the Russians are in control of the crime scene and may on this occasion be able to prove conclusively that no chemical weapons attack happened in Douma, instead of deterring a US attack, is actually making it more likely.

This is because the credibility of the various 'witnesses' to the Douma attack – who are of course the same witnesses who were previously 'witnesses' to the 2013 East Ghouta and the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attacks – is now on the line, as is the credibility of those Western governments – first and foremost the US government – who believed or who pretended to believe them.

I would add that not only is the credibility of the US government and of other Western governments on the line. So is the credibility of Western journalists who also believed or pretended to believe the 'witnesses'. That more than anything else explains the hysteria of the last 24 hours, with the extraordinary warlike statements from Donald Trump and Nikki Haley , and from certain Western journalists .

On any logic, since what actually happened in Douma is unconfirmed and disputed, and since the conditions for an objective investigation this time are there, the correct and proper thing to do is for no action to be taken until that investigation has taken place.

The reason that logic is not being followed, and why against all reason a military strike is likely, is because those who want a military strike do not want an objective investigation to take place, which might expose them as having acted previously on a false basis.

In other words, the military strike is not intended to punish the perpetrators of the alleged chemical strike in Douma. It is intended to make an objective investigation impossible.

There is something genuinely bizarre about the latest threatened military strike.

The Battle of East Ghouta is over. The Jihadis there – following their capitulation in Douma – have lost. A military strike now really would be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, and its military rationale appears to be non-existent. Moreover Donald Trump – the man who is supposed to be the President of the United States – was only a few days ago saying that US troops would be withdrawn from Syria "very soon".

Yet the US looks likely to launch a military strike – one which the Russians are warning risks dangerous escalation – not because it has any clear policy which requires such a strike, but because it is alarmed by a possible loss of face.

When a nuclear powered superpower launches military strikes for such frivolous reasons the situation in the world has become very bad and dangerous indeed

[Apr 10, 2018] Federal probe into Trump's lawyer seeks records about two women who alleged affairs with the president by Devlin Barrett at all

Looks like Rosenstein is after Trump. he authorized this action.
Notable quotes:
"... Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. ..."
Apr 10, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Federal prosecutors investigating President Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, are seeking records related to two women who received payments in 2016 after alleging affairs with Trump years ago -- adult-film star Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The interest in both Daniels and McDougal indicates that federal investigators are trying to determine whether there was a broader pattern or strategy among Trump associates to buy the silence of women whose accounts could harm the president's electoral chances and whether any crimes were committed in doing so, the person said.

... ... ...

The high stakes of the case were underscored by the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation.

Rosenstein's role has infuriated Trump, who was left "stunned" and "livid" by the aggressive move by prosecutors Monday, according to an outside adviser in frequent touch with the White House.

Cohen, Trump's longtime attorney, is under federal investigation for possible bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance violations, The Washington Post reported Monday.

[Apr 10, 2018] Western neoliberals dreams about "regime change" in Russia and the possibility of yet another color revolution

Apr 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

rkka , 4 years ago

My vote is 'both'

As the global financial collapse unfolded in 2008-2009, I recall the delight that many Anglosphere commentators expressed over the prospect that the oil price collapse would devastate Russia economically, causing the Russian people to rise against Putin and all his works, and put FreeMarketReformers back in charge in Russia.

And once it became clear in the spring of 2009 that oil prices were rapidly recovering and that Russia's vast financial reserves were more than sufficient to absorb the blow, these same Anglosphere commentators expressed frustration that Russians had been insufficiently impoverished to overthrow Putin and put FreeMarketreformers back in charge.

It is as if the Angosphere Foreign Policy Elite and Punditocracy (AFPE&P)had no idea what Russians suffered in the '90s at the hands of FreeMarketReformers, suffering so severe that deaths were exceeding births by almost a million a year.

And President Obama recently revealed his utter cluelessness about Russia's present realities:

[Apr 10, 2018] Obama toxic narssissism

Apr 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

different clue , 4 years ago

Obama and his co-governators are doing their part to drive us toward World War Nuke with Russia. Why?

I have spent my time and energy thinking Obama's motives were primarily or even only all the beautiful money he will collect after he leaves office. I haven't fully wanted to accept Walrus's warnings that Obama is driven by a very real and pathological narcissism which will eventually lead Obama to do something amazingly stupid, even to the point of harming Obama's own interests. And it would be stupid for Obama to help cause World War Nuke because that would incinerate all of his beautiful money as well as incinerating the rest of us and much of civilization. So why is he taking and allowing his creatures to take this risk?
He certainly seems to dislike and resent Putin. The more Putin visibly fails to honor and validate Obama's vast regard for himself the more angry and offended Obama becomes. Could Putin's nonworshipful nonvalidation of Obama's own opinion of his own wisdom and power drive Obama's fragile brittle ego to a point of toxic narcissistic lashout? Does Obama's Inner Child look like this?

[Apr 10, 2018] Ukraine is a debilitated state, created under Soviet auspices, hampered by a difficult Soviet inheritance, and hollowed out by its own predatory elites during two decades of misrule. But it is also a nation that is too big and independent for Russia to swallow up

Apr 10, 2018 | www.foreignaffairs.com

Ukraine is a debilitated state, created under Soviet auspices, hampered by a difficult Soviet inheritance, and hollowed out by its own predatory elites during two decades of misrule. But it is also a nation that is too big and independent for Russia to swallow up. Russia, meanwhile, is a damaged yet still formidable great power whose rulers cannot be intimidated into allowing Ukraine to enter the Western orbit. Hence the standoff. No external power or aid package can solve Ukraine's problems or compensate for its inherent vulnerabilities vis-à-vis Russia. Nor would sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine's brave but ragtag volunteer fighters and corrupt state structures improve the situation; in fact, it would send it spiraling further downward, by failing to balance Russian predominance while giving Moscow a pretext to escalate the conflict even more. Rather, the way forward must begin with a recognition of some banal facts and some difficult bargaining.

Russia's seizure of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine do not challenge the entire post-1945 international order. The forward positions the Soviet Union occupied in the heart of Europe as a result of defeating Nazi Germany were voluntarily relinquished in the early 1990s, and they are not going to be reoccupied. But nor should every detail of the post–Cold War settlement worked out in 1989–91 be considered eternal and inviolate. That settlement emerged during an anomalous time. Russia was flat on its back but would not remain prostrate forever, and when it recovered, some sort of pushback was to be expected.

Something similar happened following the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, many of the provisions of which were not enforced. Even if France, the United Kingdom, and the United States had been willing and able to enforce the peace, their efforts would not have worked, because the treaty had been imposed during a temporary anomaly, the simultaneous collapse of German and Russian power, and would inevitably have been challenged when that power returned.

Territorial revisionism ensued after World War II as well, of course, and continued sporadically for decades. Since 1991, there have been some negotiated revisions: Hong Kong and Macao underwent peaceful reabsorption into China. Yugoslavia was broken up in violence and war, leading to the independence of its six federal units and eventually Kosovo, as well. Unrecognized statelets such as Nagorno-Karabakh, part of Azerbaijan; Transnistria, a sliver of Moldova; Abkhazia and South Ossetia, disputed units of Georgia; and now Donetsk and Luhansk, parts of Ukraine -- each entails a story of Stalinist border-making.

The European Union cannot resolve this latest standoff, nor can the United Nations. The United States has indeed put together "coalitions of the willing" to legitimize some of its recent interventions, but it is not going to go to war over Ukraine or start bombing Russia, and the wherewithal and will for indefinite sanctions against Russia are lacking. Distasteful as it might sound, Washington faces the prospect of trying to work out some negotiated larger territorial settlement.

Such negotiations would have to acknowledge that Russia is a great power with leverage, but they would not need to involve the formal acceptance of some special Russian sphere of interest in its so-called near abroad. The chief goals would be, first, to exchange international recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea for an end to all the frozen conflicts in which Russia is an accomplice and, second, to disincentivize such behavior in the future. Russia should have to pay monetary compensation for Crimea. There could be some federal solutions, referendums, even land swaps and population transfers (which in many cases have already taken place). Sanctions on Russia would remain in place until a settlement was mutually agreed on, and new sanctions could be levied if Russia were to reject negotiations or were deemed to be conducting them in bad faith. Recognition of the new status of Crimea would occur in stages, over an extended period.

It would be a huge challenge to devise incentives that were politically plausible in the West while at the same time powerful enough for Russia to agree to a just settlement -- and for Ukraine to be willing to take part. But the search for a settlement would be an opportunity as well as a headache.

NATO expansion can be judged to have been a strategic error -- not because it angered Russia but because it weakened NATO as a military alliance. Russia's elites would likely have become revanchist even without NATO's advance, because they believe, nearly universally, that the United States took advantage of Russia in 1991 and has denied the country its rightful place as an equal in international diplomacy ever since. But NATO expansion's critics have not offered much in the way of practicable alternatives. Would it really have been appropriate, for example, to deny the requests of all the countries east of Germany to join the alliance?

Then as now, the only real alternative was the creation of an entirely new trans-European security architecture, one that fully transcended its Cold War counterpart. This was an oft-expressed Russian wish, but in the early 1990s, there was neither the imagination nor the incentives in Washington for such a heavy lift. Whether there is such capacity in Washington today remains to be seen. But even if comprehensive new security arrangements are unlikely anytime soon, Washington could still undertake much useful groundwork.

Critics might object on the grounds that the sanctions are actually biting, reinforced by the oil price free fall -- so why offer even minimal concessions to Putin now? The answer is because neither the sanctions, nor the oil price collapse, nor the two in conjunction have altered Russia's behavior, diminished its potential as a spoiler, or afforded Ukraine a chance to recover.

Whether they acknowledge it or not, Western opponents of a negotiated settlement are really opting for another long-term, open-ended attempt to contain Russia and hope for regime change -- a policy likely to last until the end of Putin's life and possibly well beyond. The costs of such an approach are likely to be quite high, and other global issues will continue to demand attention and resources. And all the while, Ukraine would effectively remain crippled, Europe's economy would suffer, and Russia would grow ever more embittered and difficult to handle. All of that might occur no matter what. But if negotiations hold out a chance of somehow averting such an outcome, they are worth a try. And the attempt would hold few costs, because failed negotiations would only solidify the case for containment in Europe and in the United States.

It is ultimately up to Russia's leaders to take meaningful steps to integrate their country into the existing world order, one that they can vex but not fully overturn. To the extent that the Ukraine debacle has brought this reality into sharper focus, it might actually have been useful in helping Putin to see some light, and the same goes for the collapse of oil prices and the accompanying unavoidable devaluation of the ruble. After the nadir of 1998, smart policy choices in Moscow, together with some lucky outside breaks, helped Russia transform a crisis into a breakthrough, with real and impressive steps forward. That history could replay itself -- but whether it will remains the prerogative of one person alone.

[Apr 10, 2018] Israeli officials have called on the US to attack the Syrian Army, following what they called a "shocking attack" in Douma

Notable quotes:
"... So the idea that the Israelis were trying to provoke a response directed against US assets in order to escalate the conflict seems plausible. But Syria didn't play. ..."
"... Seems like Israel was used to do the dirty work and get Trump out of the corner he had rapidly painted himself into. Trump's response to the fake Douma chemical attack was so over the top that he would have had to carry out a major attack on Syria to justify it. Major meaning much larger than the last one with 59 tomahawks. So probably a hundred tomahawks at least and against a more important target than last time. This the Russians have said they will not allow. So what to do? Have Israel launch a rather minor harassing attack against a base well away from Damascus and so relieve the pressure on Trump to do something. ..."
Apr 10, 2018 | thesaker.is

pessimist on April 09, 2018 , · at 1:21 am UTC

From RT: https://www.rt.com/news/423532-israel-syria-strike-us/

" Israeli officials have called on the US to attack the Syrian Army, following what they called a "shocking attack" in Douma. Israel's own crackdown on Gaza protesters was "self-defense" and not worthy of attention, they said.

Washington must launch a strike against Damascus in response to the alleged chemical attack in the city of Douma, the Israeli Strategic Affairs and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan told the Army Radio on Sunday, commenting on the reports coming from anti-government groups in Syria. Erdan also said he personally hopes that the US would take military action against the Syrian government, which he blamed for the attack, the Jerusalem Post reports. The minister added that the Douma incident shows the "need" for a US troop buildup in Syria.

The Israeli construction minister and former IDF major general, Yoav Galant, went even further and called for a military strike aimed directly against the Syrian president. "[Bashar] Assad is the angel of death, and the world would be better without him," Galant said. The Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog called on the US to take "decisive military action" against Syria."

So the idea that the Israelis were trying to provoke a response directed against US assets in order to escalate the conflict seems plausible. But Syria didn't play.

Confusion about the number, type, and source of missiles, and the fate of the synchronized ISIS attacks in various accounts.

Ngoyo on April 09, 2018 , · at 6:40 am UTC
Seems like Israel was used to do the dirty work and get Trump out of the corner he had rapidly painted himself into. Trump's response to the fake Douma chemical attack was so over the top that he would have had to carry out a major attack on Syria to justify it. Major meaning much larger than the last one with 59 tomahawks. So probably a hundred tomahawks at least and against a more important target than last time. This the Russians have said they will not allow. So what to do? Have Israel launch a rather minor harassing attack against a base well away from Damascus and so relieve the pressure on Trump to do something.

So far I'd say it looks like this is what happened. If so then the Russians wisely allowed Trump to save face. Hopefully that will allow things to blow over. Next couple days should tell.

[Apr 10, 2018] Full frontal assault from Russia today on Skripls front

Apr 10, 2018 | thesaker.is

Veritas on April 09, 2018 , · at 6:06 am UTC

Various news sources (RT, TASS) quoting the Russian MOD etc. all confirming it was Israeli F-15's:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201804091063353921-russia-israel-syria-airbase-attack/

No Russian casualties – but some as a couple of missiles hit the Western edge of the base and casualties for SAA.

Full frontal assault from Russia today:

1) Releasing of information on deaths of Russians in UK:

https://www.rt.com/news/423554-litvinenko-polonium-london-berezovsky/

https://sputniknews.com/world/201804091063355141-uk-russia-skripal-litvinenko-berezovky/

2) Russia has called a meeting of UNSC about International peace

https://sputniknews.com/us/201804091063350511-trum-macron-agree-response-syria/

US and France co-ordinating their positions

https://www.rt.com/news/423539-red-crescent-ghouta-no-chemical/

Red Crescent confirms no chemical use in Ghouta

3) In addition to Russian MOD clarification above and MOFA

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201804091063352207-daesh-offensive-missile-attack/

Daesh attacks after air strike and

Lavrov stressing again today that Russia warned of the chemical attack false flag weeks ago ..

Paulv on April 09, 2018 , · at 1:09 pm UTC
Russia should have pulled out of START weeks ago and tested nukes. Maybe they could today

[Apr 10, 2018] The "Russian" Poisoning of the Skirpals In Context

Notable quotes:
"... U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft . There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. ..."
Apr 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Unless you've been living under a rock, by now you know that the British government falsely claimed that irrefutable evidence proved that the Russian government was behind the poisoning of a former Russian double agent and his daughter using a "Novichok" nerve agent.

In response, the UK and US carried out the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in history.

Now that the wheels have come off this farce, it is interesting to note previous examples of the West falsely blaming Russia for bad acts.

Official German intelligence service documents show that, in 1994, the German intelligence services planted (original German ) plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to frame Russia for exporting dangerous radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals.

This frame-up job was so successful at whipping up fear that it got German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to "help" secure Russia's nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.

While everyone "knows" that the Kremlin poisoned Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium, a very high-level French counterterrorism official, Paul Barril, alleges that French, US and UK intelligence worked together to kill Litvinenko and to frame Russia: And see this .

U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft . There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.

Newsweek ran an article headlined (all caps in original Newsweek title):

U.S. GOVERNMENT PLANNED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS TO START WAR WITH SOVIET UNION, JFK DOCUMENTS SHOW

The article notes:

The U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft to justify war with the USSR or its allies, newly declassified documents surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy show.

***

False flag attacks are covert operations that make it look like an attack was carried out by another group than the group that actually carried them out.

Indeed, falsely blaming other countries for terrorism or violence is the oldest way to create a "justification" for war.

Update: Why the Russian Double-Agent Skripal Could Not Have Been Poisoned with "Novichok"

Umh Sun, 04/08/2018 - 08:58 Permalink

The governments have certainly learned how to mess with the thinking gear of people. I spent most of my life working with inanimate objects not spending much time figuring out how people think. Most of the people that I did try to figure out were personally known to me. It was only in the last few years of my career that I paid any real attention to how people are manipulated. I knew people were easily manipulate for years, just think about how the war in Iraq in 2003 was so popular amoung most people.

are we there yet -> DuneCreature Sun, 04/08/2018 - 17:56 Permalink

Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on top of other lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost track. I am not sure if even MIC or Israel knows anymore.

[Apr 09, 2018] "His inadequacies are easily stroked." I think Stormy Daniels would concur

Notable quotes:
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | thesaker.is

Larchmonter445 on April 09, 2018 , · at 7:35 am UTC

Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked.
Ahmed on April 09, 2018 , · at 11:05 am UTC
Larchmonter -- "His inadequacies are easily stroked." lol I think Stormy Daniels would concur.

[Apr 09, 2018] New photos reveal Robert Mueller and Paul Manafort both worked with former Ukraine President in 2013

Apr 09, 2018 | theduran.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged Paul Manafort, President Trump's former Campaign Manager, for working with former Ukrainian Presidnet Viktor Yanukovych in 2013.

Mueller failed to mention that he also worked with Yanukovych in 2013 six months before John Brennan, John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and their EU partners, lead a bloody neo-nazi coup to overthrow the Yanukovych government.

Last week a memo was released showing Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directing the Mueller investigation to look into allegations that Paul Manafort

"Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych."

According to the The Gateway Pundit , in the memo there is no indication that Rosenstein or Mueller offered that Mueller interacted with the former Ukrainian President as well. But then again, Rosenstein and Mueller have so many conflicts of interest in this case that it is accurately labeled a "witch hunt".

Jack Posobiec tweeted out over night the link between Mueller and Yanukovych

Robert Mueller is prosecuting Manfort for doing work in Ukraine for Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013

Here is Robert Mueller hanging out in Ukraine with Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013

What is going on here? pic.twitter.com/HQZ1zzjctR

-- Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) April 6, 2018

The Ukrainian Embassy in the United States shared on Facebook a picture of Robert Mueller with the President Yanukovych in 2013. The post was dated June 6, 2013

"We are grateful to American side for support of our efforts aimed at settlement of frozen conflicts, ensuring control over conventional arms in Europe and combating trafficking. We count on further support and cooperation with USA within the OSCE in order to enhance stability and security in the area which is under jurisdiction of the given organization," the President said at the meeting with FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The Head of State reminded that since the beginning of 2013, Ukraine had been presiding in the OSCE. "We determined priorities of our presidency in close cooperation with member-states of the OSCE. I am pleased to note that we have a constructive cooperation with Washington in this sphere," the President emphasized.

"Ukrainian-American cooperation efficiently develops in many spheres of mutual interest. Your visit is very interesting for Ukraine and relations between our law enforcement bodies have established good traditions of cooperation and communication in the course of 20 years. I am confident that there is a potential for further broadening of cooperation," Viktor Yanukovych said.

He stressed that Ukraine paid particular attention to the issue of combating terrorism. We have adopted a number of documents aimed at increasing the efficiency of such work.

"The level of cooperation between central executive governmental bodies involved in anti-terrorist actions is pretty high. The Security Service elaborated respective documents, they were reviewed and approved by respective Presidential Decree," the Head of State noted.

The President emphasized that Ukraine is very close to signing the Association Agreement with the EU in November. "There are some preparations left but I hope that we will fulfill everything and sign the Agreement," he said.

In his turn, FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed gratitude to the President of Ukraine for the assistance provided after the explosions in Boston. "I would like to focus on the most important issue for us – the issue of combating terrorism. I would like to say thank you for the assistance provided to us after the Boston Marathon," he noted.

FBI Director also informed that in the course of his meetings in Ukraine, he planned to discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.

Who only knows what the issues of mutual interest were!

Via The Gateway Pundit

This is not the first interaction Mueller had with the Russians. In 2009 Mueller hand delivered uranium to the Russians on an airport tarmac per the request of Hillary Clinton. Mueller also was Head of the FBI when the Obama Administration sold 20% of US uranium to the Russians in the Uranium One deal.

Mueller also reportedly visited Moscow before he visited the Ukrainian President in 2013.

How can Mueller be investigating Manfort for business with the Ukraine and Russia when Mueller is as suspect as Manafort ever was? Shut it down!

[Apr 09, 2018] The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds

Notable quotes:
"... Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida. ..."
"... Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference? ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | thesaker.is

Larchmonter445 on April 08, 2018 , · at 11:14 pm UTC

One common sense thought: no one wants a bigger or wider war. There is no nation that can handle it. The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds. We know the Kurds in Syria will not fight Assad's forces.

So, there are probably 30,000 fighters of various sorts the US and Turkey are still feeding and using.

As for the air space over Syria, that will eventually close to the US. All Putin has to do is move S 400 75-100 kms closer toward the East border from the West enclaves where they now defend.

The US will be grounded, unable to support their 14+ bases, and will have to leave.

Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida.

But no one wants to put their Armed Forces into Syria.

So, what happens tonight and the next few days is missiles strikes, unless Bolton can convince the Military to do something enormous with a huge air strike. How Putin handles this depends on casualties and losses of Russian forces.

Since Russian advisers, Military Police and Reconciliation Officers are all over Syria North to South, West to East, it will be sheer luck that none are struck by cruise missiles or other weapons if they come into play.

The Lord Has Risen, and the forces of evil are rabid for more Death and Destruction.

Varughese on April 09, 2018 , · at 12:36 am UTC
Not exactly sure. Putin can move S-400 close to US presence but in order to Ground US, he needs to send a message saying that he can shoot them. And in all these episodes Putin never showed the courage. So you could place S-500 on door step of US airbase but still they will continue flying!
Anonymous on April 09, 2018 , · at 8:18 pm UTC
Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference?
Taras 77 on April 09, 2018 , · at 3:06 am UTC
It is hard for me to put into words the utter disgust and anger I feel towards the zio con clowns in wash dc being led by the nose by Israel/mossad. But I guess, what the hell-zios do not care what average americas think or feel-they are the fodder..

Waiting to see what the Russians decide to do: http://johnhelmer.org/

Anonymous on April 09, 2018 , · at 3:25 am UTC
Might be Israeli that pretends to be USA hoping that Syria or Russia will think it is USA and fire at USA forces causing a wider war.. Israel has actually done actually this before.

Actually, Russia just said ti as well: https://www.rt.com/news/423545-israel-planes-syria-strike/

[Apr 09, 2018] The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds

Notable quotes:
"... Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida. ..."
"... Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference? ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | thesaker.is

Larchmonter445 on April 08, 2018 , · at 11:14 pm UTC

One common sense thought: no one wants a bigger or wider war. There is no nation that can handle it. The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds. We know the Kurds in Syria will not fight Assad's forces.

So, there are probably 30,000 fighters of various sorts the US and Turkey are still feeding and using.

As for the air space over Syria, that will eventually close to the US. All Putin has to do is move S 400 75-100 kms closer toward the East border from the West enclaves where they now defend.

The US will be grounded, unable to support their 14+ bases, and will have to leave.

Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida.

But no one wants to put their Armed Forces into Syria.

So, what happens tonight and the next few days is missiles strikes, unless Bolton can convince the Military to do something enormous with a huge air strike. How Putin handles this depends on casualties and losses of Russian forces.

Since Russian advisers, Military Police and Reconciliation Officers are all over Syria North to South, West to East, it will be sheer luck that none are struck by cruise missiles or other weapons if they come into play.

The Lord Has Risen, and the forces of evil are rabid for more Death and Destruction.

Varughese on April 09, 2018 , · at 12:36 am UTC
Not exactly sure. Putin can move S-400 close to US presence but in order to Ground US, he needs to send a message saying that he can shoot them. And in all these episodes Putin never showed the courage. So you could place S-500 on door step of US airbase but still they will continue flying!
Anonymous on April 09, 2018 , · at 8:18 pm UTC
Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference?
Taras 77 on April 09, 2018 , · at 3:06 am UTC
It is hard for me to put into words the utter disgust and anger I feel towards the zio con clowns in wash dc being led by the nose by Israel/mossad. But I guess, what the hell-zios do not care what average americas think or feel-they are the fodder..

Waiting to see what the Russians decide to do: http://johnhelmer.org/

Anonymous on April 09, 2018 , · at 3:25 am UTC
Might be Israeli that pretends to be USA hoping that Syria or Russia will think it is USA and fire at USA forces causing a wider war.. Israel has actually done actually this before.

Actually, Russia just said ti as well: https://www.rt.com/news/423545-israel-planes-syria-strike/

[Apr 09, 2018] Gunboat Diplomacy and the Ghost of Captain Mahan by Alfred W. McCoy and Tom Engelhardt

Apr 09, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Originally posted at TomDispatch .

Or How China and the U.S. Are Spawning a New Great Power Naval Rivalry

Amid the intense coverage of Russian cyber-maneuvering and North Korean missile threats, another kind of great-power rivalry has been playing out quietly in the Indian and Pacific oceans. The U.S. and Chinese navies have been repositioning warships and establishing naval bases as if they were so many pawns on a geopolitical chessboard. To some it might seem curious, even quaint, that gunboats and naval bastions, once emblematic of the Victorian age, remain even remotely relevant in our own era of cyber-threats and space warfare.

Yet if you examine, even briefly, the central role that naval power has played and still plays in the fate of empires, the deadly serious nature of this new naval competition makes more sense. Indeed, if war were to break out among the major powers today, don't discount the possibility that it might come from a naval clash over Chinese bases in the South China Sea rather than a missile strike against North Korea or a Russian cyber attack.

The Age of Empire

For the past 500 years, from the 50 fortified Portuguese ports that dotted the world in the sixteenth century to the 800 U.S. military bases that dominate much of it today, empires have used such enclaves as Archimedean levers to move the globe. Viewed historically, naval bastions were invaluable when it came to the aspirations of any would-be hegemonic power, yet also surprisingly vulnerable to capture in times of conflict.

Throughout the twentieth century and the first years of this one, military bases in the South China Sea in particular have been flashpoints for geopolitical change. The U.S. victory at Manila Bay in 1898, the fall of the British bastion of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942, America's withdrawal from Subic Bay in the Philippines in 1992, and China's construction of airstrips and missile launchers in the Spratly Islands since 2014 – all have been iconic markers for both geopolitical dominion and imperial transition.

Indeed, in his 1890 study of naval history, that famed advocate of seapower Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, arguably America's only original strategic thinker, stated that "the maintenance of suitable naval stations , when combined with decided preponderance at sea, makes a scattered and extensive empire, like that of England, secure." In marked contrast to the British Navy's 300 ships and 30 bases circling the globe, he worried that U.S. warships with "no foreign establishments, either colonial or military will be like land birds, unable to fly far from their own shores. To provide resting-places for them would be one of the first duties of a government proposing to itself the development of the power of the nation at sea."

So important did Captain Mahan consider naval bases for America's defense that he argued "it should be an inviolable resolution of our national policy that no European state should henceforth acquire a coaling position within three thousand miles of San Francisco" – a span that reached the Hawaiian Islands, which Washington would soon seize. In a series of influential dictums, he also argued that a large fleet and overseas bases were essential to both the exercise of global power and national defense.

Although Mahan was read as gospel by everyone from American President Teddy Roosevelt to German Kaiser Wilhelm II, his observations do not explain the persistent geopolitical significance of such naval bases. Especially in periods between wars, these bastions seem to allow empires to project their power in crucial ways.

Historian Paul Kennedy has suggested that Britain's "naval mastery" in the nineteenth century made it "extremely difficult for other lesser states to undertake maritime operations or trade without at least its tacit consent." But modern bases do even more. Naval bastions and the warships they serve can weave a web of dominion across an open sea, transforming an unbounded ocean into de facto territorial waters. Even in an age of cyberwarfare, they remain essential to geopolitical gambits of almost any sort, as the United States has shown repeatedly during its tumultuous century as a Pacific power.

America as a Pacific Power

As the U.S. began its ascent to global power by expanding its navy in the 1890s, Captain Mahan, then head of the Naval War College, argued that Washington had to build a battle fleet and capture island bastions, particularly in the Pacific, that could control the surrounding sea-lanes. Influenced in part by his doctrine, Admiral George Dewey's squadron sank the Spanish fleet and seized the key harbor of Manila Bay in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War of 1898.

In 1905, however, Japan's stunning victory over the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Tsushima Strait (between southern Japan and Korea) suddenly revealed the vulnerability of the slender string of bases the U.S. then possessed, stretching from Panama to the Philippines. Under the pressure of the imperial Japanese navy, Washington soon abandoned its plans for a major naval presence in the Western Pacific. Within a year, President Theodore Roosevelt had removed the last Navy battleship from the region and later authorized the construction of a new Pacific bastion not in distant Manila Bay but at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, insisting that "the Philippines form our heel of Achilles." When the Versailles settlement at the end of World War I awarded Micronesia in the Western Pacific to Japan, the dispatch of any fleet from Pearl Harbor to Manila Bay became problematic in time of war and rendered the Philippines essentially indefensible.

It was partly for this reason, in mid-1941, that Secretary of War Henry Stimson decided that the B-17 bomber, aptly named the "Flying Fortress," would be the wonder weapon capable of countering the Japanese navy's control of the Western Pacific and sent 35 of these new aircraft to Manila. Stimson's strategy was, however, a flight of imperial fantasy that condemned most of those planes to destruction by Japanese fighters in the first days of World War II in the Pacific and doomed General Douglas MacArthur's army in the Philippines to a humiliating defeat at Bataan.

As bomber ranges tripled during that global conflict, however, the War Department decided in 1943 that the country's postwar defense required retaining forward bases in the Philippines. These ambitions were fully realized in 1947 when the newly independent republic signed the Military Bases Agreement granting the U.S. a 99-year lease on 23 military installations, including the Seventh Fleet's future homeport at Subic Bay and the massive Clark Air Base near Manila.

Simultaneously, during its postwar occupation of Japan, the U.S. acquired more than a hundred military facilities that stretched from Misawa Air Base in the north of that country to Sasebo Naval Base in the south. With its strategic location, the island of Okinawa had 32 active U.S. installations covering about 20% of its entire area.

As the Cold War came to Asia in 1951, Washington concluded mutual defense pacts with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia that made the Pacific littoral the eastern anchor for its strategic dominion over Eurasia. By 1955, the early enclaves in Japan and the Philippines had been integrated into a global network of 450 overseas bases aimed largely at containing the Sino-Soviet bloc behind an Iron Curtain that bisected the vast Eurasian continent.

After surveying the rise and fall of Eurasian empires for the past 600 years, Oxford historian John Darwin concluded that Washington had achieved its "colossal Imperium on an unprecedented scale" by becoming the first power to control the strategic axial points "at both ends of Eurasia" – in the west through the NATO alliance and in the east via those four mutual security pacts. During the later decades of the Cold War, moreover, the U.S. Navy completed its encirclement of the continent, taking over the old British base at Bahrain in 1971 and later building a multibillion-dollar base at the epicenter of the Indian Ocean on the island of Diego Garcia for its air and naval patrols.

Among these many bases ringing Eurasia, those along the Pacific littoral were of particular strategic import before, during, and after the Cold War. As the geopolitical fulcrum between the defense of one continent (North America) and control of another (Asia), the Pacific littoral has remained a constant focus in Washington's century-long effort to extend and maintain its global power.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, as Washington elites reveled in their role as leaders of the world's sole superpower, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a master of Eurasia's unforgiving geopolitics, warned that the U.S. could preserve its global power only as long as the eastern end of that vast Eurasian landmass did not unify itself in a way that might lead to "the expulsion of America from its offshore bases." Otherwise, he asserted with some prescience, "a potential rival to America might at some point arise."

In fact, the weakening of those "offshore bases" had already begun in 1991, the very year the Soviet Union imploded, when the Philippines refused to extend the U.S. lease on the Seventh Fleet's bastion at Subic Bay. As Navy tugs towed Subic's floating dry docks home to Pearl Harbor, the Philippines assumed full responsibility for its own defense without actually putting any more of its funds into air or naval power. Consequently, during a raging typhoon in 1994, China was able to suddenly occupy some shoals in the nearby Spratly Islands that went by the name of Mischief Reef – and that would turn out to be just its first step in a bid to control the South China Sea. Without the ability to launch its own air and navy patrols, in 1998 the Philippine military, in an attempt to reassert its claim to the area, grounded a rusting U.S.-surplus ship on nearby Ayungin Shoal as a "base" for a squad of barefoot soldiers who were forced to fish for their rations.

In the meantime, the U.S. Navy suffered its own decline with a 40% reduction in surface warships and attack submarines from 1990 to 1996. Over the next two decades, the Navy's Pacific posture weakened further as the focus of naval deployments shifted to wars in the Middle East, the service's overall size shrank by an additional 20% (to just 271 ships), and crews strained under the pressure of ever-extending deployments – leaving the Seventh Fleet ill-prepared to meet China's unexpected challenge.

China's Naval Gambit

After years of seeming compliance with Washington's rules for good global citizenship, China's recent actions in Central Asia and the continent's surrounding seas have revealed a two-phase strategy that would, if successful, undercut the perpetuation of American global power. First, China is spending a trillion dollars to fund a vast transcontinental grid of new railroads, highways, and oil and natural gas pipelines that could harness Eurasia's vast resources as an economic engine to drive its ascent to world power.

In a parallel move, China is building a blue-water navy and creating its first overseas bases in the Arabian and South China seas. As Beijing stated in a 2015 white paper, "The traditional mentality that land outweighs the sea must be abandoned It is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force structure commensurate with its national security." Though the force it contemplates will hardly compete with the U.S. Navy's global presence, China seems determined to dominate a significant arc of waters around Asia, from the horn of Africa, across the Indian Ocean, all the way to Korea.

Beijing's bid for overseas bases began quietly in 2011 when it started investing almost $250 million in the transformation of a sleepy fishing village at Gwadar, Pakistan, on the shores of the Arabian Sea, into a modern commercial port only 370 miles from the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Four years later, President Xi Jinping committed another $46 billion to the building of a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor of roads, railways, and pipelines stretching for 2,000 miles from western China to the now-modernized port at Gwadar. It still avoided any admission that military aims might be involved so as not to alarm New Delhi or Washington. In 2016, however, Pakistan's Navy announced that it was indeed opening a naval base at Gwadar (soon strengthened with two warships donated by China) and added that Beijing was welcome to base its own ships there as well.

That same year, China began building a major military facility at Djibouti on the Horn of Africa and, in August 2017, opened its first official overseas base there, giving its navy access to the oil-rich Arabian Sea. Simultaneously, Sri Lanka, located at a midpoint in the Indian Ocean, settled a billion-dollar debt to China by ceding it a strategic port at Hambantota, creating a future potential for dual military use there, too – in effect, the Gwadar stealth strategy revisited.

As controversial as these enclaves might be (at least from an American point of view), they paled before China's attempts to claim an entire ocean. Starting in April 2014, Beijing escalated its bid for exclusive territorial control over the South China Sea by expanding Longpo Naval Base on its own Hainan Island into a homeport for its four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. Without any announcement, the Chinese also began dredging seven artificial atolls in the disputed Spratly Islands to create military airfields and future anchorages. In just four years, Beijing's armada of dredges had sucked up countless tons of sand from the ocean floor, slowly transforming those minimalist reefs and atolls into active military bases. Today, China's army operates a jet runway protected by HQ-9 anti-aircraft missile batteries on Woody Island, a radar base on Cuareton Reef, and has mobile missile launchers near runways ready for jet fighters at three more of these "islands."

While fighter planes and submarines are pawns in China's opening gambit in the contest for the South China Sea, Beijing hopes one day to at least check (if not checkmate) Washington with a growing armada of aircraft carriers, the modern dreadnaughts in this latter-day game of empires. After acquiring an unfinished Soviet Kuznetsov -class carrier from Ukraine in 1998, the naval dockyard at Dalian retrofitted the rusting hulk and launched it in 2012 as the Liaoning , China's first aircraft carrier. That hull was already 30 years old, an age that would normally have assured such a warship a place in some scrap metal yard. Though not combat capable, it was a platform for training China's first generation of naval aviators in landing speeding jets on heaving decks in high seas. In marked contrast to the 15 years needed to retrofit this first ship, the Dalian yards took just five years to construct , from the keel up, a much-improved second carrier capable of full combat operations.

The narrow hulls and ski-jump prows that limit these first two carriers to just 24 "Flying Shark" fighter planes won't hold for the country's third carrier, now being built from indigenous designs in Shanghai. When launched next year, it will be able to carry on-board fuel reserves that will give it a longer cruising range and a complement of 40 aircraft, as well as electromagnetic systems for faster launches. Thanks to an accelerating tempo of training, technology, and construction, by 2030 China should have enough aircraft carriers to ensure that the South China Sea will become what the Pentagon has termed a "Chinese lake."

Such carriers are the vanguard of a sustained naval expansion that, by 2017, had already given China a modern navy of 320 ships, backed by land-based missiles, jet fighters, and a global system of surveillance satellites. Its current anti-ship ballistic missiles have a range of 2,500 miles and so could strike U.S. Navy vessels anywhere in the Western Pacific. Beijing has also made strides in mastering the volatile technology for hypersonic missiles with speeds of up to 5,000 miles per hour, making them impossible to stop. By building two new submarines every year, China has already assembled a fleet of 57, both diesel- and nuclear-powered, and is projected to reach 80 soon. Each of its four nuclear submarines carries 12 ballistic missiles that could reach anywhere in the western United States. In addition, Beijing has launched dozens of amphibious ships and coastal corvettes, giving it naval dominance in its own waters.

Within just five years, according to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence , China "will complete its transition" from the coastal force of the 1990s to a modern navy capable of "sustained blue water operations" and "multiple missions around the world," including full-spectrum warfare. In other words, China is forging a future capacity to control its "home" waters from the East China Sea to the South China Sea. In the process, it will become the first power in 70 years to challenge the U.S. Navy's dominion over the Pacific basin.

The American Response

After taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama came to the conclusion that China's rise represented a serious threat and so he developed a geopolitical strategy to counter it. First, he promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation commercial pact that would direct 40% of world trade toward the United States. Then, in March 2014, after announcing a military "pivot to Asia" in an address to the Australian parliament, he deployed a full battalion of Marines to a base at the city of Darwin on the Timor Sea. A month later, the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines signed an enhanced defense cooperation agreement with that country allowing U.S. forces to be stationed at five of its bases.

Combining existing installations in Japan with access to naval bases in Subic Bay, Darwin, and Singapore, Obama rebuilt America's chain of military enclaves along the Asian littoral. To make full use of these installations, the Pentagon began planning to "forward base 60% of [its] naval assets in the Pacific by 2020" and launched its first regular "freedom of navigation" patrols in the South China Sea as a challenge to the Chinese navy, even sending in full carrier strike groups.

President Trump, however, cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership right after his inauguration and, with the endless war on terror in the Greater Middle East grinding on, the shift of naval forces to the Pacific slowed. More broadly, Trump's unilateral, America-first foreign policy has damaged relations with the four allies that underpin its line of defense in the Pacific: Japan , South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. Moreover, in his obsessive courtship of Beijing's help in the Korean crisis, the president even suspended, for five months, those naval patrols into the South China Sea.

The administration's new $700 billion defense budget will fund 46 new ships for the Navy by 2023 (for a total of 326), but the White House seems incapable, as reflected in its recent National Security Strategy , of grasping the geostrategic importance of Eurasia or devising an effective scheme for the deployment of its expanding military to check China's rise. After declaring Obama's "pivot to Asia" officially dead , the Trump administration has instead offered its own "free and open Indo-Pacific" founded on an unworkable alliance of four supposedly kindred democracies – Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

While Trump stumbles from one foreign policy crisis to the next, his admirals, mindful of Mahan's strategic dictums, are acutely aware of the geopolitical requisites of American imperial power and have been vocal about their determination to preserve it. Indeed, China's naval expansion, along with advances in Russia's submarine fleet, have led the Navy to a fundamental strategic shift from limited operations against regional powers like Iran to full-spectrum readiness for "a return to great power competition." After a sweeping strategic review of his forces in 2017, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson reported that China's "growing and modernized fleet" was "shrinking" the traditional American advantage in the Pacific. "The competition is on," he warned, "and pace dominates. In an exponential competition, the winner takes all. We must shake off any vestiges of comfort or complacency."

In a parallel review of the Navy's surface force, its commander, Vice Admiral Thomas Rowden, proclaimed "a new age of seapower" with a return to "great power dynamics" from "near-peer competitors." Any potential naval attack, he added, must be met with a "distributed lethality" capable of "inflicting damage of such magnitude that it compels an adversary to cease hostilities." Summoning the ghost of Captain Mahan, the admiral warned: "From Europe to Asia, history is replete with nations that rose to global power only to cede it back through lack of seapower."

Great Power Rivalry in the Twenty-First Century

As such rhetoric indicates, there is already a rising tempo of naval competition in the South China Sea. Just last month, after a protracted hiatus in freedom-of-navigation patrols, the Trump administration sent the supercarrier USS Carl Vinson , with its full complement of 5,000 sailors and 90 aircraft, steaming across the South China Sea for a symbolic visit to Vietnam, which has its own long-running dispute with China over oil rights in those waters.

Just three weeks later, satellite imagery captured an extraordinary "display of maritime might" as a flotilla of some 40 Chinese warships, including the carrier Liaoning , steamed through that same sea in a formation that stretched for miles. Combined with the maneuvers it staged in those waters with the Cambodian and Russian navies in 2016, China, like empires past, is clearly planning to use its gunboats and future naval bases to weave a web of de facto imperial control across the waters of Asia.

Naysayers who dismiss China's challenge might remind us that its navy only operates in two of the metaphoric "seven seas," a pale imitation of the U.S. Navy's robust global posture. Yet China's rising presence in the Indian and Pacific oceans has far-reaching geostrategic implications for our world order. In a cascading series of consequences, China's future dominance over significant parts of those oceans will compromise the U.S. position on the Pacific littoral, shatter its control over that axial end of Eurasia, and open that vast continental expanse, home to 70% of the world's population and resources, to China's dominion. Just as Brzezinski once warned, Washington's failure to control Eurasia could well mean the end of its global hegemony and the rise of a new world empire based in Beijing.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books).

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , as well as John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands , Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead , and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

[Apr 09, 2018] ISIS is Finished So We Should Leave Syria Now by Gil Barndollar

Apr 06, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Instead Donald Trump's team is inflating the threat, worried he'll rush away from war.

President Trump's unexpected pledge last week to pull U.S. troops out of Syria "very soon" has occasioned predictable wailing in predictable places .

The president also faced unsurprising pushback from his national security team, forcing him to clarify this week that the 2,000 troops there now will stay only until the mission to defeat ISIS, which is "coming to a rapid end," is finished. Of course his military advisors and many of his aides disagree.

A Pentagon spokesman has warned that ISIS is looking for " any opportunity to regain momentum ." Anonymous military officers speak of fumbling the ball " on the two yard line ." Officials tell reporters that while the group is "almost completely defeated," a string of renewed ISIS attacks could signal a resurgence.

Regardless of the outcome in Washington, Trump's instincts on Syria deserve discussion.

Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the operation in Syria has cost us very little blood and treasure, at least so far. Special operations forces (SOF) and "other government agencies" ably partnered with our largely Kurdish proxies to break the back of ISIS's nascent state. The group's conventional military power has been destroyed. Howev er menacing officials make it sound, it's been estimated that the Islamic State has fewer than 1,000 fighters left on the battlefield. Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto capital Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands. Areas of ISIS control are tough to even find on a map of the Syrian conflict.

For all these successes, however, we have been walking a knife's edge in Syria ever since openly intervening there in 2014. Deconfliction with Russia has not been flawless: Turkey shot down a Russian plane in 2015 and U.S. firepower reportedly killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries earlier this year. That knife's edge has only gotten sharper over the past two months, as Turkish troops invaded the Afrin region of northern Syria. Turkey's "Operation Olive Branch" exposed the elephant in the room: America's only successful proxy, the Syrian Kurds, are linked to Turkey's PKK, which Turkey, the European Union, and the U.S. have declared a terrorist group. Our NATO ally is now openly at war with our Kurdish partner, as American advisors do their best to stay off the frontline. In 2008, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden bluntly told Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai: "Pakistan is 50 times more important for the United States than Afghanistan." The same obvious wisdom applies in spades to Turkey and Syria respectively.

What of the Kurds? If recent reports are to be believed, American Special Forces are incensed they are being told to abandon a valiant, reliable battlefield ally. Squeezed between a revanchist Turkey and a stabilized Syrian state, Syria's Kurds are not likely to keep their independent project of Rojava. The United States declined to intervene to protect Iraq's Kurds last year, when Iraqi forces quickly seized the Kurdish "Jerusalem," oil-rich Kirkuk, after an abortive independence referendum. To pretend we have a greater will or ability to protect Syria's Kurds is folly.

The Kurds should ask Vietnam's Montagnards how they fared as an American proxy, or question the Palestinians about what they've gained from an American mediator . Loathe though we may be to admit it, America has been a fickle friend for the majority of small nations and peoples that have looked to her as a protector. Even many of our Afghan interpreters who served in American uniforms and cashed American paychecks have been abandoned to their enemies . Like a serial philanderer we can pretend that this time will be different, but the reality is that America seldom has the patience or stomach for sustained non-existential military intervention outside our hemisphere, particularly when casualties mount. The victims of pretending otherwise are seldom Americans; they are Vietnamese, Somalis, Iraqi Marsh Arabs, and many others. The current state of political polarization in Washington and the primacy of the 24-hour news cycle have only hardened this long-standing reality.

Left to their own devices, Syria's Kurds can probably work out a modus vivendi with Assad's government, which has other battles to fight and foreign backers of its own who would like to draw down their commitments. Battles between the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces and Assad's Syrian Arab Army have been few. Turkey has tolerated a Kurdish autonomous region on its border with Iraq -- but it will not do so with Kurds who remain affiliated with the PKK.

Regardless of Rojava's fate, ISIS may well regenerate. It already has the local ties and financial network to thrive as an insurgency in western Iraq. That, however, is a governance and security problem for Iraqis and Syrians, not Americans. The United States maintains an unparalleled ability to project military power and destroy targets around the world, both with standoff firepower and by putting troops into battle via air and sea. Should ISIS or another Salafist successor build any real base of power again in the Levant we can rapidly deploy combat power to destroy it. But staying there any longer remains a fool's errand.

Gil Barndollar served as a Marine infantry officer from 2009 to 2016. His writing has appeared in the Marine Corps Gazette , the Journal of Military Operations , and the Michigan War Studies Review .

Wheeling philosophe April 7, 2018 at 7:46 pm

"I don't like "abandoning an ally" like this, but that alliance was never going to be long lasting, and the Kurds have to have known that."

Yes. As a parting gesture, we could round up some of the louder-mouthed neocons and ship them over to "independent Kurdistan" to spend a few quiet hours with their erstwhile heroes. Let the Kurds vent their entirely understandable anger out on those who lied to and manipulated them with the same glib ease that they once lied to America about Iraq's WMDs.

SteveK9 , says: April 8, 2018 at 9:02 am
'Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto capital Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.'

I'd like to correct a couple of things, ISIS was destroyed in Syria, by the Syrian Arab Army, and by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Mosuls and Raqqa were not 'retaken' or 'conquered'. They were utterly destroyed by aerial bombardment, which is about the only thing we are good at doing.

[Apr 09, 2018] Trump to Decide Soon Whether to Retaliate for Barbaric Act in Syria

Chemical false flag attacks is the traditional way Syria islamists are calling for the US air support. From comments: "After all they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam must be having a great laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists."
Anther interesting comment: "With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence."
And another " including their mouthpieces at the times manufacture a chemical attack and claim Assad -- who has no reason whatsoever to do such things -- is some horrible monster that deserves to have bombs rained down on him. How totally corrupt the MIC has become."
That act reported by White helmets looks like a classic MI6 provocation. Russian investigation has shown that no attack took place. Moreover the rumors about this false flag were circulating long ago. Russians warned about this possiblity a month or so ago telling the jihadists prepare such provocation. Looks like all that was needed for Trump is a plausible justification -- the desire to "decapitate" Assad is too strong to resist.
Notable quotes:
"... Syria is a crappy place primarily because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that. ..."
"... With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence. ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

President Trump on Monday denounced the suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in Syria over the weekend as a "barbaric act," and said he will make a decision in the next 24 to 48 hours about whether to retaliate militarily as he did to a similar assault last year.

is a trusted commenter Providence 6 hours ago

Congress has skirted their responsibility to authorize war in Syria and Trump is suggesting taking actions that could drag us into a deep and costly war. The American people deserve to hear this debated in Congress.

angel98 nyc 6 hours ago

Retaliate? They don't even know for sure who it was, could well have been an ally. The place is a mess of competing outside forces.

Retaliate - and therein lies the problem. Too much to ask that for once they think, discuss, decide a long term policy with other countries. Last time the 45th tried 'me-big-man-with-bomb' there was no follow up, nothing was done, what was the point? Look at me I have the biggest, noisiest fire cracker! Pathetic. Careless. Irresponsible. Uniformed. Murderous. The list is endless.

HenryJ Durham 5 hours ago

I suppose the President can launch a missile attack, or any military action, based on whatever authority from Congress permitted the US military to be fighting in Syria in the first place. The more fundamental issue is that Congress long ago ceded to the President its constitutional responsibility to declare war . This must be corrected with checks restored on the President's power to deploy the military at will. Otherwise, the US will continue to be in a perpetual state of war, which may be good for the extended military supply industry but damaging to country as a whole.

michael new york city 5 hours ago

What if.....what if this chemical attack was sanctioned not by Assad but by a state or a non-state force that wants the U.S. to retaliate?
Just why did this chemical attack follow Trump's announced desire to get out of Syria?
Why, also, is Israel urging us to attack now? Could it be to distract from the human rights catastrophe in Gaza?
We all know what John Bolton would have us do.
Where's the proof that this was Assad's work? More WMD ?

Ed Watters San Francisco 3 hours ago

Trump wined and dined MBS of Saudi Arabia who has been conducting airstrikes on Yemen with hundreds of casualties, as high as 68 civilian deaths in one day. It would be hard to imagine a better example of hypocrisy.

Llewis N Cal 1 hour ago

Syria is a part of a complex series of issues that make up the problem of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Trump does not have the capacity to manage any of this. Selling arms to the Saudis to continue their war in Yemen added to the Syrian problem. The cholera epidemic in Yemen is a form of biological warfare that is killing more civilians than chemical warfare in Syria. Starving the population of Yemen is also warfare. By supporting the Saudis we have lost the moral high ground in Syria.

Hector Bellflower 16 minutes ago

Was it the rebels again? Or is it chlorine again? Chlorine is used for several commercial and health purposes--to clean bottles, to clean water, and for refrigeration. So it is quite easy for a bomb or explosive to hit a container and then there is a serious gas problem. If pool acid and chlorine are stored together it might be worse when mixed. I do not believe Assad needs to use chemicals because he has Russians who will do air strikes on his enemies. I call fake news.

AGC Lima 16 minutes ago

The solution to Syria was obvious years ago, if you just wanted to see the obvious. And that was Syria as it had been for years, in peace, secular, under a government of Assad who, eventually, knew it had to evolve into a more democratic regime . Now that has changed, and all to Israel´s advantage. It seems as if the whole world has forgotten that the whole Middle East problem was born, and is still the Occupation of Palestinian Land. Israel is a thorn in Arab Middle East.The only one that has attacked ALL its neighbours !

judyweller Cumberland, MD 45 minutes ago

We should do nothing. We need to leave Syria to the Syrian. We can't and musn't involve our military in every tragedy in the world. There is no doubt in my mind that if we mistakenly and stupidly attack the Syrian Army we are aiding the Jihadist who planned thit attack. After all they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam must be having a great laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists.

H. Torbet San Francisco 56 minutes ago

The US government LIES about everything. We know this. This has been proved repeatedly.

Yet, here we are with the US government, and its stenographers in the mainstream media, i.e., the stuff that's not Fake News, right, assuring us that Assad gassed his own people. Again.

Even if we could believe this, or even if we gave the government the benefit of the doubt for . . . what? . . . its integrity?, we are after all exceptional, right, how is this America's business?

Yes, other countries shouldn't gas their own people. But countries shouldn't commit war crimes either, and that goes on every day. America is as dirty as any other country. Despite our treaty obligations, even torture is legal here.

We're supposedly the richest country in the world, but we can barely keep our streets paved and lit. And not only that, but it is a proven fact that one dollar invested in domestic economics brings back much more return than one dollar spent on bombs. Trump is right. We need to stomp the madness in the Middle East. The oil companies can pay for their own security with all of the money they don't pay in taxes.

Right now our cities are clogged with people living in tents and defecating on the sidewalks and in the streets. Look at old pictures from the Depression. It looks the same today.

Let's deal with the real problems.

Pepperman Philadelphia 1 hour ago

The left is seeing Russians responsible for every wrong in the world. The right sees itself as the rescuer of the wrongs of the world. I pray that this does not move this country into a war with Russia.

Tony E Rochester, NY 1 hour ago

This nation needs a "policy". Something with careful thought and backed by facts, expert analysis, and wisdom; Aim first and carefully.

A "Shoot from the Hip" flourish that can be touted at the next Trump self congratulatory ego rally Will Not Do. Either this nation has a leader or it doesn't - Trump's move!

Cari408 Los Angeles 1 hour ago

One of the few things I liked about Trump was his anti-involvement stance in the middle east. We have SO MUCH to fix and worry about at home. Nothing that Trump does on immigration, environment, or anything else will make me more angry than dragging us into another war.

Jim Houghton 1 hour ago

I don't see any ink being given to the very likely possibility that the gas attack was a ploy by rebels to get the US (and their air cover) to stick around. If you ask the question, "Who benefits?" the Assad regime had nothing to gain by gassing a few civilians -- they're about to win the war, so why would they? OTOH, the rebels need us badly, and know that we will reflexively blame Assad.

Whole Grains USA 1 hour ago

Just a few days ago, Trump talked about withdrawing from Syria. Now, he says he will decide whether to attack Syria within the next couple of days. One day we're out, the next day we're in. And just a few days ago, Trump said he didn't like to reveal his military plans in advance. Now, he is announcing to the world that he is consideration retaliation against Syria. His contradictions make the U.S. look as if it is led by a very confused commander in chief.

david rush seattle 1 hour ago

Yes, chemical weapons are barbaric, but who launched the attack? Which faction in this complicated civil war? How does trump know the answer to this question when no one else does? Why would the U.S. "retaliate" based on speculation, especially after trump recently said, "we need to get out of there and leave it to someone else"? What good would military action do at this point? Are we anxious to put our "expensive new military" to the test? So many questions...and an administration unable / unwilling to answer them. Too bad trump can't simply tweet his way out of this one...

John Pittsburgh/Cologne 1 hour ago

The U.S. should respond militarily to Syria's gas attack only on two conditions:

1. The leaders of all key U.S. allies (European countries, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.) sign a joint declaration of support for the action.

2. Each of these countries pays a population-weighted share of the expense of the U.S. military operation.

We are either all in this together, or it's not worth doing.

Let's find out if our allies are willing to back up their pious declarations of condemnation.

Willie Rowe Madison, Wi 48 minutes ago

His action was to support ISIS there among other things. You feel he should have kept supporting ISIS?

Student Nu Yawk 2 hours ago

I don't get it. Subjecting people, women, children and even men, to crushing, burning, lacerating and penetrating wounds is par for the course. It's war after all. But poison! Oh the (in)humanity!

Also, anyone think it's weird that Assad does this just when the US is making motions to pull out?

It is impossible to know what is really going on as the world's powers continue to fight this proxy war. The only thing that is certain is the continued suffering of the Syrian people - including the poor sods who will be conventionally incinerated by American "retaliation" in a day or so.

. . 2 hours ago

NYT, CNN, Twitter: Nothing fishy here. Everything makes total and complete sense

Douglas Girardot Connecticut 2 hours ago

The President should have no authority to declare war or commit troops, period. So far, there has been no urgent "national emergency," as required by the War Powers Resolution, which would justify the President to effectively declare war unilaterally and yet here we are, with presidents on both sides completely ignoring the Constitution, using the WPA as an enabler to bypass the text which says that only Congress can declare war.

e.s. cleveland, OH 2 hours ago

Seems Israel and Saudi Arabia can bomb/kill at will and we just acquiesce.

as new york 2 hours ago

Saddam used gas on the Iranians and we were good with that. It is not clear about this gas in Syria. These "freedom fighters" have no compunction about using civilians as human shields. How do we know the truth? They are various branches of Al Quaeda and given their huge birth rate they don't seem to place much weight on human life in the here and now....maybe they focus on the afterlife more. So why can't we just leave Assad alone and let him be the strong man there? Yes Syria is a crappy place primarily because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that.

Bobby H Massachusetts 2 hours ago

Trump says he was getting us out of Syria. Much to my relief to this endless war.

And I'm pretty sure the president of Syria, Assad, whose regime has been under attack by both the US supported Syrian rebels and their ISIS allies did not want the US on their soil. So why would he do something like this? I don't believe he did. By the way if the US was not meddling over in the M.E. there would be no refugees and fewer immigrants.

Rob Pittsburgh 2 hours ago

"Conventional" deaths by artillery and bullets are perfectly acceptable - when bodies are vaporized, ripped and torn apart unrecognizably. But use a deadly gas and leave the corpses in "beautiful" condition - there you have crossed the line mister.

RR Wisconsin 2 hours ago

Lemme get this straight: The US policy doesn't care *how many* Syrians were killed; it only cares *how* they were killed? Nothing good can come from such an ethically bankrupt policy.

e.s. cleveland, OH 57 minutes ago

I would rather have Assad than those Jihadists the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. are backing. Just ask the Christians in Syria.

max byrd davis ca 2 hours ago

The president does not have the authority to bomb whenever he wants. If we had a Congress, it would its responsibility to authorize military action.

jhanzel Glenview, Illinois 2 hours ago

As painful as it is, the possession of chlorine is not in violation of the standards we all signed in to to stop chemical and biological weapons. Hence, the agreement under Obama, by almost all standards, worked well. Or at least unless we wanted a few hundred thousands troop on the ground to search the entire country. This use of chlorine is. Maybe Trump will propose a huge tariff on chlorine exports to Syria?

David Eike Virginia 2 hours ago

What is the logic for Assad to provoke the US right after Trump announces his intention to withdraw? Would it not be more strategic for the regime to hold off until US troops were withdrawn and then go after the rebels? Does Assad assume that the US response will be more moderate if we still have troops in country? Any chance this was a rogue action to delay or reverse US plans to withdraw? If so, who benefits from US continuing to maintain troops in Syria?

bmck Montreal 2 hours ago

With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence.

[Apr 09, 2018] Trump's Saber-Rattling on Syria by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was opposed to Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons attack. ..."
"... The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict. Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S. attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war. ..."
"... If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately, Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy. ..."
"... But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran. Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there. ..."
"... If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention. ..."
"... Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military response. The result was utter failure. ..."
"... Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel – but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts – by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors". ..."
"... Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region. ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The president tweeted this out this morning in response to reports of a new chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government:

If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2018

Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was opposed to Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons attack. He had no authority to do this, the attack was a flagrant breach of the U.N. Charter, and it apparently failed to discourage the Syrian government from carrying out similar attacks later on. The president ordered the "unbelievably small attack" that Obama administration threatened to launch in 2013, and it made no meaningful difference to the course of the war or the regime's behavior.

Trump tweeted out earlier in the day that "President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay." He didn't say what that "big price" was or how it will be "paid," but the fact that he thinks it is a good idea to make threats against the Syrian government's patrons bodes ill for the future of U.S. policy in Syria. The foreign policy establishment was beside itself last week when they thought that Trump wanted to withdraw from Syria, but they should be much more worried that he will launch an illegal attack and plunge the U.S. in even deeper.

The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict. Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S. attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war.

If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately, Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy.

rayray April 8, 2018 at 2:32 pm

It's true that I'm no genius, but after reading as much as I can and thinking it over I still don't know who is the right horse to back, or what is the right side to be on in Syria. Assad is a brute, Isis are brutes, the other parties of opposition are useless, and etc., and none of it has anything to do with us anyway. To Daniel's point, we're keeping an army hanging around in a volatile and illegal situation for no discernible point.

Except to hate Iran.

The longterm on Syria doesn't look good for anyone. I'm guessing, because of his long history of ignorance and incoherence, Trump has no plan.

But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran. Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there.

romegas , says: April 8, 2018 at 3:36 pm
@rayray

If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention.

b. , says: April 8, 2018 at 3:42 pm
"If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line "

Interesting view. Obama imagined he drew a "red line" that Assad was not to cross, and allegedly did. Trump's tongue apparently wore a Freudian slip when he rubi-conned this phrase into twitter.

To make this a turn worthy of Croesumpus, let us just say that if Trump crosses that red line of his own, a great war criminal will be destroyed.

b. , says: April 8, 2018 at 4:00 pm

"In early March 2008, Abkhazia and South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their recognition to Russia's parliament shortly after the West's recognition of Kosovo to which Russia was opposed. [The] Russian ambassador to NATO, warned that Georgia's NATO membership aspirations would cause Russia to support the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia."

Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military response. The result was utter failure.

Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel – but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well.

Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts – by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors".

Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region.

[Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein

Highly recommended!
Apr 09, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
To borrow from the British definition of an ambassador, United States military leaders are honest soldiers promoted in rank to champion war with reckless disregard for the truth. This practice persists despite the catastrophic waste of lives and money because the untruths are never punished. Congress needs to correct this problem forthwith.

General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, exemplifies the phenomenon. As reported in The Washington Post , Dunford recently voiced optimism about defeating the Afghan Taliban in the seventeenth year of a trillion-dollar war that has multiplied safe havens for international terrorists, the opposite of the war's original mission. While not under oath, Dunford insisted, "This is not another year of the same thing we've been doing for 17 years. This is a fundamentally different approach [T]he right people at the right level with the right training [are in place] "

There, the general recklessly disregarded the truth. He followed the instruction of General William Westmoreland who stated at the National Press Club on November 21, 1967 that the Vietnam War had come to a point "where the end begins to come into view." The 1968 Tet Offensive was then around the corner, which would provoke Westmoreland to ask for 200,000 more American troops. The Pentagon Papers and Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty have meticulously documented the military's reckless disregard for the truth throughout the Vietnam War.

Any fool can understand that continuing our 17-year-old war in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. The nation is artificial. Among other things, its disputed border with Pakistan, the Durand Line, was drawn in 1896 between the British Raj and Afghan Amir Abdur Rahmen Khair. Afghanistan's population splinters along tribal, ethnic, and sectarian lines, including Pushtans, Uzbeks, Hazara, Tajiks, Turkmen, and Balochi. Its government is riddled with nepotism, corruption, ineptitude, and lawlessness. Election fraud and political sclerosis are endemic. Opium production and trafficking replenish the Taliban's coffers.

The Afghan National Army (ANA) is a paper tiger. Desertion and attrition rates are alarming. Disloyalty is widespread. American weapons are sold to the Taliban or captured. ANA soldiers will not risk that last full measure of devotion for an illegitimate, unrepresentative, decrepit government.

The Taliban also has a safe haven in Pakistan. A staggering portion -- maybe up to 90 percent -- of United States assistance to Afghanistan is embezzled, diverted, or wasted. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), related to Chatham House in London that "SIGAR was finding waste, fraud, and abuse nearly everywhere we looked in Afghanistan -- from the $488 million worth of aircraft that couldn't fly, to the navy the U.S. bought for a landlocked country, to the buildings the U.S. paid for that literally melted in the rain ."

"The Taliban are getting stronger, the government is on the retreat, they are losing ground to the Taliban day by day," Abdul Jabbar Qahraman, a retired Afghan general who was the Afghan government's military envoy to Helmand Province until 2016, told the New York Times last summer. ISIS has now joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda in fighting the United States. Secretary of Defense General James Mattis conceded to Congress last June that "we are not winning in Afghanistan right now," but added polyannaishly, "And we will correct this as soon as possible." Only two months earlier, the Defense Department insisted that dropping the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan would reverse the losing trend.

Upton Sinclair sermonized: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Thus do military leaders deceive themselves about futile wars to extract more spending, to maintain their professional reputations and public stature, and to avoid the embarrassment of explaining to Congress and the American people that astronomical sums have been wasted and tens of thousands of American soldiers have died or were crippled in vain.

To deter such self-deception, Congress should enact a statute requiring the retirement without pension of any general or admiral who materially misleads legislators or the public about prospective or ongoing wars with reckless disregard for the truth. That sanction might have prompted General Dunford to acknowledge the grim truth about Afghanistan: that the United States is clueless about how to win that war.

Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan and is the founding partner of Fein & DelValle PLLC.

[Apr 09, 2018] There is no doubt that Trump is an elite "false flag". Someone who was intended to be simply PORTRAYED as being anti-establishment, but in reality, one who carried out and amplified everything the establishment wanted. But neoliberal elite overplayed its hand by encouraging hateful anti-Trump rhetoric so much that now everything that Trump will do will garner massive opposition.

Trump as a "false flag operation," That's rich ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... So the paradox is this: how are the elites herding people towards a new war, while at the same time encouraging thoughts and movements which will be a solid opposition block against military action? ..."
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | thesaker.is

therealestg9 on April 08, 2018 , · at 11:21 pm UTC

There is no doubt that Trump is an elite "false flag". Someone who was intended to be simply PORTRAYED as being anti-establishment, but in reality, one who carried out and amplified everything the establishment wanted. That much is clear and solidified now.

But here is the real strangeness in the situation:

A quick scan of Twitter and Facebook commentary on this new Syria situation shows that a clear majority of Americans are opposed to anything that Trump touches. And this includes military action in Syria, as evidenced from the social media postings. What was once a simple matter of anti-war opposition has turned into a magnified anti-war plus anti-Trump opposition.

So the paradox is this: how are the elites herding people towards a new war, while at the same time encouraging thoughts and movements which will be a solid opposition block against military action?

I think a rational explanation is that the elites simply got overconfident. They overplayed their hand. It will indeed come back to bite them. The American people, whether pro-Trump or anti-Trump, will resist any military action in Syria no matter what. The elites will have to stop this movement and come up with a new strategy towards war.

vot tak on April 09, 2018 , · at 12:37 am UTC
T9

"There is no doubt that Trump is an elite "false flag". Someone who was intended to be simply PORTRAYED as being anti-establishment, but in reality, one who carried out and amplified everything the establishment wanted. That much is clear and solidified now."

Exactly. The main reason trump is better than Clinton, in my opinion, is all that opposition to Trump we see, would not be there against a Clinton regime. Both in the u.s. and international in the west.

Larchmonter445 on April 09, 2018 , · at 7:35 am UTC
Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked.
Ahmed on April 09, 2018 , · at 11:05 am UTC
Larchmonter – "His inadequacies are easily stroked." lol I think Stormy Daniels would concur.

[Apr 09, 2018] "His inadequacies are easily stroked." I think Stormy Daniels would concur

Notable quotes:
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | thesaker.is

Larchmonter445 on April 09, 2018 , · at 7:35 am UTC

Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked.
Ahmed on April 09, 2018 , · at 11:05 am UTC
Larchmonter -- "His inadequacies are easily stroked." lol I think Stormy Daniels would concur.

[Apr 09, 2018] First strike temptation and MAD

Apr 09, 2018 | southfront.org

[Apr 09, 2018] Putin really dropped the ball on the Libya No-Fly Resolution trusting the evil empire

Apr 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Apr 8, 2018 3:59:20 PM | 93

Putin really dropped the ball on the Libya No-Fly Resolution trusting the evil empire. Now the stakes
are even higher. The absolute worse news in all this is that Trump is bringing in Bolton as his lunatic
wing man at the worst possible time when things were looking like they were wrapping up in Syria.
Bolton is the male version of Hillary on steroids. Trump is going to hide behind Bolton's
mustache - you know, me good cop; Bolton bad cop; IOW, don't blame me for what needs to be done. Trump gifted
Jerusalem to Netanyahu, and now he's going to gift him Syria too. The Iran deal will
also get scrapped soon and that's more gasoline on a fire that's about to get out of control. Here's one way
to distract from the Mueller investigation; start a war and rally the county under
a common cause: war with Syria, ergo Russia and then Iran.

It's as I said from day one: Trump can't help himself; he's always been a Zio-con and Adelson
is getting his money's worth. It's all going to happen as I always said it would. Trump was the perfect puppet.

Trump will look like the savior of the realm; a role his big fat ego always dreamed of and won't resist.

Now, there still might be a way out of this potential catastrophe. Admit it, wouldn't it be nice if Putin
really was holding back something big regarding Trump?

*sigh* - if only! Very soon would be a good time to drop it. Manafort?

James , Apr 8, 2018 4:35:09 PM | 99

Circe Medvedev was President

However the responsibility for what happened in Libya is with the western poweres of NATO

they. dropped the bombs and armed the jihadis.

The blame lies with them not Russia

As for the tone of the rest of your post-

War is not a pissing contest

It involves loss of life destruction of families, communities, countries.

Russia has a reason to be there - what is the agenda of the western powered beyond destroying a country like they did Libya

[Apr 09, 2018] New photos reveal Robert Mueller and Paul Manafort both worked with former Ukraine President in 2013

Apr 09, 2018 | theduran.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged Paul Manafort, President Trump's former Campaign Manager, for working with former Ukrainian Presidnet Viktor Yanukovych in 2013.

Mueller failed to mention that he also worked with Yanukovych in 2013 six months before John Brennan, John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and their EU partners, lead a bloody neo-nazi coup to overthrow the Yanukovych government.

Last week a memo was released showing Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directing the Mueller investigation to look into allegations that Paul Manafort

"Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych."

According to the The Gateway Pundit , in the memo there is no indication that Rosenstein or Mueller offered that Mueller interacted with the former Ukrainian President as well. But then again, Rosenstein and Mueller have so many conflicts of interest in this case that it is accurately labeled a "witch hunt".

Jack Posobiec tweeted out over night the link between Mueller and Yanukovych

Robert Mueller is prosecuting Manfort for doing work in Ukraine for Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013

Here is Robert Mueller hanging out in Ukraine with Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013

What is going on here? pic.twitter.com/HQZ1zzjctR

-- Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) April 6, 2018

The Ukrainian Embassy in the United States shared on Facebook a picture of Robert Mueller with the President Yanukovych in 2013. The post was dated June 6, 2013

"We are grateful to American side for support of our efforts aimed at settlement of frozen conflicts, ensuring control over conventional arms in Europe and combating trafficking. We count on further support and cooperation with USA within the OSCE in order to enhance stability and security in the area which is under jurisdiction of the given organization," the President said at the meeting with FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The Head of State reminded that since the beginning of 2013, Ukraine had been presiding in the OSCE. "We determined priorities of our presidency in close cooperation with member-states of the OSCE. I am pleased to note that we have a constructive cooperation with Washington in this sphere," the President emphasized.

"Ukrainian-American cooperation efficiently develops in many spheres of mutual interest. Your visit is very interesting for Ukraine and relations between our law enforcement bodies have established good traditions of cooperation and communication in the course of 20 years. I am confident that there is a potential for further broadening of cooperation," Viktor Yanukovych said.

He stressed that Ukraine paid particular attention to the issue of combating terrorism. We have adopted a number of documents aimed at increasing the efficiency of such work.

"The level of cooperation between central executive governmental bodies involved in anti-terrorist actions is pretty high. The Security Service elaborated respective documents, they were reviewed and approved by respective Presidential Decree," the Head of State noted.

The President emphasized that Ukraine is very close to signing the Association Agreement with the EU in November. "There are some preparations left but I hope that we will fulfill everything and sign the Agreement," he said.

In his turn, FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed gratitude to the President of Ukraine for the assistance provided after the explosions in Boston. "I would like to focus on the most important issue for us – the issue of combating terrorism. I would like to say thank you for the assistance provided to us after the Boston Marathon," he noted.

FBI Director also informed that in the course of his meetings in Ukraine, he planned to discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.

Who only knows what the issues of mutual interest were!

Via The Gateway Pundit

This is not the first interaction Mueller had with the Russians. In 2009 Mueller hand delivered uranium to the Russians on an airport tarmac per the request of Hillary Clinton. Mueller also was Head of the FBI when the Obama Administration sold 20% of US uranium to the Russians in the Uranium One deal.

Mueller also reportedly visited Moscow before he visited the Ukrainian President in 2013.

How can Mueller be investigating Manfort for business with the Ukraine and Russia when Mueller is as suspect as Manafort ever was? Shut it down!

[Apr 08, 2018] Russia Will Never Be Our Friend, We'll Slap Them When Needed

Looks like Haley is competing with Boris Johnson in diplomatic skills
Apr 07, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Originally from: ISRAEL is our GREAT FRIEND RUSSIA can NEVER be our FRIEND, we'll SLAP them when Needed -- NIKKI HALEY

Nikki Haley has erupted in another fiery Russophobic rant, warning that Russia will "never be America's friend." Moscow can try to behave "like a regular country," but the US will "slap them when we need to," Haley said.
The US ambassador to the UN is not known for her friendly stance toward Moscow, but her new take on US-Russia relations stands out among even her most rabid ramblings. Speaking at Duke University in North Carolina on Friday, Haley admitted that friendly relations with Russia is an unlikely prospect, adding that the Trump team has done more against Moscow than any other administration since Ronald Reagan's tenure.

"Russia's never going to be our friend," Haley told students at a Q&A session, responding to a question about "holding Russia
accountable" for alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The diplomat said Washington still works with Moscow "when we need to, and we slap them when we need to."

She then raised the stakes further: "Everybody likes to listen to the words. I'm going to tell you – look at the actions," Haley urged. "We expelled 60 Russian diplomats/spies, we have armed Ukraine so that they can defend themselves," she added.

According to the UN envoy, the US is doing "two things Russia would never want us to do," namely enlarging the military and expanding its energy policy. "So, this president has done more against Russia than any president since Reagan," she asserted.

"You haven't seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia. You will continue to see that play out," she stressed.
Cooling down the degree of Russia-bashing in her speech, Haley said the US and Russia do cooperate on Afghanistan and Africa, looking out for areas of mutual interest. Meanwhile, she claimed, "our relations with Russia depend solely on Russia."

[Apr 08, 2018] Expropriation of many of Russian oligarch is on the agenda

Notable quotes:
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
Apr 08, 2018 | theduran.com

The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites. The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.

Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities.

[Apr 08, 2018] Chris Hedges U.S. Citizens Are Living In An Inverted Totalitarian Country

Apr 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The mainstream media deflects attention from where power resides: corporations, not with the leaders of the free world. The arguments posed by Chris Hedges, that the U.S. is neither a democracy nor a republic but a totalitarian state that can now assassinate its citizens at will, are pertinent ones. Scary ones. Especially as consecutive governments seem equally as impotent to invoke any real change for the States. If the media won't stand up to the marionettes who pull the strings of the conglomerates causing deep, indelible polarisation in the world abound; then so we must act. Together.

Listen to the full interview in our weekly Newsvoice Think podcast.

We were delighted to have Chris Hedges on an episode of the Newsvoice Think podcast as we seek to broadcast perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum. Right, left, red, blue and purple.

In our interview with Chris, we discussed a range of topics facing the U.S. today as the Trump administration looks back at a year in power, and forward to the November '18 midterms where Democrats will be looking to make gains. Chris was scathing of that party describing them as a "creature of Wall Street, which is choreographed and ceased to be a proper party a long time ago." As a columnist with Truthdig, and a big advocate of independent media. Chris Hedges was the perfect interviewee for us to draw on the benefits of crowdsourced journalism and the challenges facing sites at the mercy of Facebook, Google and Twitter algorithms.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/I0Lzmq8alBw

Chris's ire against the corporate interest of Facebook et al didn't let up saying dissident voices were being shut down and that corporate oligarchs were only too happy to let them. The neutralisation of the media platforms that seek to provide independent opinion on U.S. current affairs is in full pelt.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Im5zi2lcX8Y

North Korea was the hot topic in 2017. Commentators said it was like a return to the days of the Cold War. But Hedges pointed that we need to remember what happened during the Korean War  --  how the North was flattened by U.S. bombs  --  and that as a result they, as a nation, suffer from an almost psychosis as a result. Trump, he said, is an imbecile and only deals in bombast, threats and rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/iD2YGy56VAs

Not surprisingly, Trump got it hard from Hedges. Describing his administration as a "kleptocracy" who will seek to attack immigrants and up the xenophobia stakes as it distracts and covers for the unadulterated theft of U.S. natural resources.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0Ajr6WFf_SM

As young people look to estimable journalists, activists and politicians in the States to help give them a voice, Hedges sees the democratic system as utterly futile. Encouraging mass civil disobedience instead, the ex-NY Times foreign correspondent states that railroads should be blocked and shutting down corporate buildings, for example, is the only way forward.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hailNKOv2mw

The perennial argument between Republicans and Democrats is just that; is the U.S. a Republic or a Democracy? Hedges thinks neither. He told Newsvoice that the States is an inverted totalitarian country where the government regards the public as "irrelevant".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uexNoNK2Xok

Unlike Ben Wizner from the ACLU who sees hope in delaying Net Neutrality, at least until a new administration is in power, Chris feels it is hopeless  --  that it is a dead duck, and as Net Neutrality slows down independent media platforms, the public will be at the behest of corporate social media sites such as Facebook who'll increasingly deem what you do and don't read or see.

You can read more of Chris' work at Truthdig where he has a weekly column every Monday.

[Apr 07, 2018] 'Russia Will Never Be Our Friend, We'll Slap Them When Needed' Waffle House Waitress on the Loose

Apr 07, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Nikki Haley has erupted in another fiery Russophobic rant, warning that Russia will "never be America's friend." Moscow can try to behave "like a regular country," but the US will "slap them when we need to," Haley said.

The US ambassador to the UN is not known for her friendly stance toward Moscow, but her new take on US-Russia relations stands out among even her most rabid ramblings. Speaking at Duke University in North Carolina on Friday, Haley admitted that friendly relations with Russia is an unlikely prospect, adding that the Trump team has done more against Moscow than any other administration since Ronald Reagan's tenure.

"Russia's never going to be our friend," Haley told students at a Q&A session, responding to a question about "holding Russia accountable" for alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The diplomat said Washington still works with Moscow "when we need to, and we slap them when we need to."

She then raised the stakes further: "Everybody likes to listen to the words. I'm going to tell you – look at the actions," Haley urged. "We expelled 60 Russian diplomats/spies, we have armed Ukraine so that they can defend themselves," she added.

"You haven't seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia. You will continue to see that play out," she stressed. Cooling down the degree of Russia-bashing in her speech, Haley said the US and Russia do cooperate on Afghanistan and Africa, looking out for areas of mutual interest. Meanwhile, she claimed, "our relations with Russia depend solely on Russia."

The topic of Russia-bashing and Moscow's alleged interference in US democratic processes seems far away from dwindling, despite no solid evidence being presented so far to the public. Moscow has repeatedly brushed off the claims. "Until we see facts, everything else will be just blather," Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in Munich last month.

However, there could be signs of improvement on the horizon. Donald Trump has recently suggested meeting Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Washington, DC. In March, he said the two leaders "will be meeting in the not too distant future to discuss the arms race which is getting out of control." Putin and Trump have so far met twice.

The first meeting occurred during the G20 summit in Germany last July, and the second took place on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam in November. President Putin, as well as several Russian officials, has continuously signaled Moscow's readiness to improve ties with the US and the West, based on trust and respect.

[Apr 07, 2018] Latest US sanctions on Russia: incitement to a coup and a new form of protectionism by Alexander Mercouris

The US lost proper timing for the coup -- it was possible in 2011-2012 timeframe. Now hardly. And if one think that Russian oligarchs will sitting quietly while the West expropriate their money, think again. China banks do exist, if I am not mistaken. And some other nations also have pretty developed financial sector.
I do not think that Russia should or can cut ties with the USA. Dependence of the US technological sector is substantial and cutting the ties might backfire. This is the calculation of the UIS lawmakers, who enjoyed the impunity of the unipolar moment. But bumerang always retrun. sooner or later.
Notable quotes:
"... The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia ..."
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
"... irrespective of anything they do ..."
Apr 07, 2018 | theduran.com

The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia

The latest round of sanctions the US Treasury has imposed on Russia are a strange affair.

Earlier rounds of sanctions have been linked to specific acts of real or alleged Russian misbehaviour e.g. the death of Sergey Magnitsky, the Crimean crisis, the war in the Donbass, the shooting down of MH17, and the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US Presidential election.

This latest round of sanctions is different in that it is not directly linked to any Russian action – real or alleged – at all. Nor are the people sanctioned – for example the Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska – directly accused of anything.

In place of any specific accusation against Russia or any of the individuals concerned, here is how a statemen t from US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin justifies the latest sanctions

The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites. The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities. Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities.

(bold italics added)

In other words Russia is a bad corrupt country which does lots of bad things around the world of which the US disapproves. Anyone in Russia who is rich ("an oligarch") and is therefore "profiting from this corrupt system" is in some way responsible and risks being sanctioned irrespective of anything they do unless this changes.

The implication is that if they do not want to be sanctioned the "oligarchs" must overthrow Russia's government.

The latest sanctions are therefore an incitement to a coup. All other steps the US has taken having failed , Russia's businessmen ("oligarchs") are now being told that unless they engineer the overthrow of Russia's government they will be sanctioned.

The first thing to say about this policy is that it is decades out of date.

There was a time in the 1990s when a small group of stratospherically wealthy and corrupt individuals really did control Russia's government.

By way of example, most of the people who met in the Kremlin during the 1998 financial crisis to decide whether or not to devalue the ruble were not members of the government or even officials, and the meeting during which the decision was finally taken to devalue the ruble was chaired not by a government minister but by the former Acting Prime Minister of Russia Yegor Gaidar, who at the time was neither a member of the government nor an official, but who was merely an adviser of Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin, who was at the time away reviewing the fleet.

The decision was in fact made by the same small group of wealthy and corrupt individuals who at that time really did control Russia's government, meeting informally under Gaidar's chairmanship, and not through the official structures.

It is not a misconception to call these individuals "oligarchs". In the 1990s that is exactly what they were. The most politically powerful amongst them – Boris Berezovsky – was not even properly speaking a businessman.

That is not the situation in Russia today. A person like Oleg Deripaska – the aluminium magnate whose name appears on the latest sanctions list – may be a person of great influence and power. However he does not control Russia's government, and has no means to do so.

I should say that I first came across the suggestion that the "oligarchs" could be mobilised to overthrow President Putin or force him to reverse his policies by imposing sanctions upon them in early 2014 at the start of the Ukrainian crisis.

As I recall reports appeared in the media that the German intelligence agency the BND was advising Chancellor Merkel that if the EU imposed sanctions on Russia the "oligarchs" would either force President Putin to change course or would overthrow him in order to save their fortunes.

Many rounds of sanctions later one might suppose that that theory had been tested to destruction. However Steven Mnuchin's statement suggests that faith in it dies hard.

The latest round of sanctions the US has imposed on Russian businessmen and their companies will not weaken President Putin's position or that of the Russian government, and will not affect Russia's economy.

As China's semi-official English language newspaper Global Times has recently pointed out, Russia – unlike countries like Iran – has a big largely self-sufficient continental sized economy possessing immense scientific, technological and natural resources, making it therefore largely immune to sanctions.

As for the wealthy Russian individuals who the latest sanctions are targeting, the reason so many of them keep money abroad is not because they control Russia's government, but because they do not control it, and do not wholly trust it.

The result is that they have been squirreling away much of their money abroad, beyond their government's reach.

Now what they are discovering is that their money is at far greater risk of being seized by the US government than by their own – something the Russian government has been telling them for years – so that it is in fact safer kept at home than it is squirreled away abroad.

AM Hants VeeNarian (Yerevan) • 16 hours ago ,

Do not think Russia is in the mood to be Diplomatic or generous. Though, they will always be polite and show their manners and respect for International Law, up on the world stage. Do believe the UK and US have seriously crossed the red line. Short term pain for long term gain, so comes to mind.

Raycomeau AM Hants • 8 hours ago ,

With Theresa May and Donald Trump as leaders it is no wonder the world is in such a mess. Putin is the only adult left to lead on the world stage. We will do better listening to Putin. The history of the warmongers (UK and USA ) should never be ignored...

AM Hants Raycomeau • 7 hours ago ,

Must, admit, I find it so reassuring the way that President Putin and President Xi-Jinping, work together. Plus, President Duterte, he might be tactless, but, unlike Trump, he comes across trustworthy and with a love of his nation and people. Not forgetting President Assad, all Syria has been through, yet, he will not leave his people and neither will his family. It is nice to see a different form of politician, that is managing to come through and help another learn from their values.

Together, with the fact that President Putin, would not be where he is, without a very confident and strong team behind him.

louis robert • 14 hours ago ,

"Russia won't "be spoken to in the language of sanctions"..."?

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!

No country that has self-respect, no respectable person can possibly accept to be spoken to and treated generally in that disgustingly arrogant, beyond contemptuous manner. The terms and acts of abuse used by the Empire's representatives, including in the most "prestigious" international institutions, have by now gone way too far repeatedly (a euphemism!!!), with no limit in sight.

It is time for Russia and Russians to impose respect to those creatures come straight out of the Empire's swamps and sewers! Being treated as they now accept to be treated by the Empire is beyond unacceptable. To hear Russia's highest representatives refer to such despicably disgusting bullies as "partners" is not amusing anymore. Only unbearably painful...

Time to STOP playing the part of the poor victim of the Empire (US+EU+NATO+other bits...). Time to adopt China's model, China now promising to hit the Empire hard and till the very end of that war on tariffs. "Even if the Trump administration wants to take the trade war to the direction that bilateral trade and investment is suppressed to zero, China will meet all the challenges."

[Apr 07, 2018] Syria Showdown Trump Versus the Generals

Apr 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

GOP is done April 6, 2018 at 12:20 am

Why are you giving trump so much credit ? Trump is Pro-Israel and will do their evil bidding
polistra , says: April 6, 2018 at 4:15 am
Trump doesn't have any instincts. He's just playing the old DC game. Pretend that you want to do something, then act shocked after you didn't do it. Each party plays the game against the other party, each house of Congress plays the game against the other house, Presidents play it against Congress and the "courts".

===

This game wouldn't work in real life.

Example:

I shout to everyone in the house, "I'm going to the store to get groceries."

One hour later, after sitting in the living room watching TV, making no move toward the car, I shout again:

"See what happens? I tried, but these evil other-party spirits wouldn't let me. You need to vote these evil other-party spirits out of the house so we can have food!"

balconesfault , says: April 6, 2018 at 6:14 am
Huh you elect someone who says his military strategy will always be "listen to the Generals", and are then surprised when the Generals want to keep fighting?

Of course Trump will accede. He has no coherent and consistent policy just Fox News buzzwords spinning in his head. Now add John Bolton as his guiding light.

Stephen J. , says: April 6, 2018 at 7:25 am
Mr. Buchanan is correct the U.S. is: "in a country where we have no right to be "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
The U.S. is in Syria illegally, and what is even worse it is reportedly supporting terrorists.
This is surely a crime, yet no charges have been laid. Why?

"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Much more evidence on this and other matters at link below.
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html

Michael Kenny , says: April 6, 2018 at 8:41 am
The important point in Syria is that Putin is irreversibly bogged down there. He sinks or swims with Assad, which means, sooner or later, sinks. He's a sitting duck who can do nothing but sit there and wait until the US chooses to attack him. So there's no harm in leaving him to stew. John Bolton's bête noire has always been Iran, which is supposed to be Putin's ally. Going after Iran will put Putin on the spot. He has to decide whether to back his "ally" or leave Iran in the lurch. Thus, putting Syria on the back burner and concentrating on Iran forces Putin either to discredit himself by abandoning his "ally" or to bog himself down in yet another conflict. Heads, Ukraine wins, tails, Putin loses!
Dan Green , says: April 6, 2018 at 9:59 am
Our military complex is very key to our security. With that said they plan and like war.
b. , says: April 6, 2018 at 10:00 am
On such hollow reed the imperial presidency, uneasily, rests.

The triad's synthesis: ISIS will never be "defeated".

Hubris, catharsis over is.

Stephen J. , says: April 6, 2018 at 11:25 am
More info on the treachery and criminality being enacted in Syria
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

"Our ally Kuwait has become the epicenter of fundraising for terrorist groups in Syria."
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2308.aspx
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

"Yes, folks, your tax dollars are going to support Islamist crazies in Syria. The same people who attacked Paris are being aided and abetted by the US – and if that isn't a criminal act, then there is no justice in this world." Justin Raimondo, November 25, 2015
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/24/turkeys-stab-in-the-back/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

And much more info at the link below.
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/05/the-war-gangs-and-war-criminals-of-nato.html

Anthony Ferrara , says: April 6, 2018 at 12:02 pm
The military industrial complex is nearly impossible to go up against in this country.
One Guy , says: April 6, 2018 at 1:03 pm
The USA has hundreds of military bases overseas. We should close most of them. Trump is saying the right thing, unfortunately, we all know he doesn't follow through (that NRA thing, that DACA thing, that wall thing, that coal thing, that lock-her-up thing, etc. etc).

Nothing will change.

Cynthia McLean , says: April 6, 2018 at 1:27 pm
The War Party is intent on building a permanent military base in Syria to fulfill US aspirations of full-spectrum dominance.
Fred Bowman , says: April 6, 2018 at 1:54 pm
Rest assure Pat that when "push comes to shove" that Trump will let the Generals have their way. To believe otherwise is foolishness.
Patrick , says: April 6, 2018 at 3:16 pm
It seems that the failure in Syria is related to the classical policy verse strategy conflict. The military is once again put in a difficult position when the civilian leadership tries to use a military solution to solve a diplomatic problem. The military was given the task to destroy ISIS but that goal will be impossible without Turkey's cooperation and the leader of that country has chosen a path toward appeasement by the United States or confrontation.

There seems to be credible evidence of Turkey's support for ISIS in the flow of combatants and military logistics into Syria as well as profiting from the sale and transport of ISIS controlled Syrian oil through Turkey. Now we are seeing Turkey invading Syria and ethnically cleansing our Kurdish allies from Syria's Northern Boarder. We still don't know what the Obama/Clinton CIA and State Department was up to in Benghazi, but it did seem to involve the flow of arms from Libya, and I have read reports that members of the Turkish government were meeting with the killed ambassador before the attack.

In Syria is appears that the Assad, Iranian and Russian alliance was more focused upon the rebels attempting to overthrow the government; rather than destroying ISIS. Once the United States leaves there may be greater tolerance for ISIS as long as the government is not threatened and ISIS may even be allowed to join that alliance to get some revenge against the Kurds who were allied with the U.S.

We saw the recent Russian test of US resolve using mercenaries with disastrous consequences. As long as the US remains in Syria there will be similar tests and what if is Turkey decides to test the resolve of US forces?

Our NATO partner Turkey seems to have become more of an enemy than a friend, and also more of a liability than an asset. Removing U.S. military assets from Turkey may be prudent, followed by its expulsion from NATO. Expelling Turkish citizens from other NATO countries and economic sanctions may be another strategy to make Turkey reconsider its continued belligerence.

JK , says: April 6, 2018 at 4:05 pm
I don't recall anyone forcing Trump to appoint to top positions people who flat out refuse his orders and block him from carrying out policy he campaigned on. There is a limit on how much sincerity you can attribute to a man who says one thing, does the exact opposite, and defend him as fighting some Don Quixotic struggle tilting at windmills.

[Apr 05, 2018] Steve Coll's Directorate S is Disturbing Account of U.S. Mistakes After 9/11 by Mark Perry

Notable quotes:
"... Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Steve Coll, Penguin Press, 784 pages ..."
Apr 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

'Ghost Wars' author on the secret war behind the war in Afghanistan

U.S-trained Afghan Army troops. Credit: USMC Cpl. John Scott Rafoss/public domain Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Steve Coll, Penguin Press, 784 pages

Twelve days after 9/11, on the night of September 23, 2001, the CIA's Islamabad station chief, Robert Grenier, received a telephone call from his boss, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. "Listen, Bob," Tenet said, "we're meeting tomorrow at Camp David to discuss our war strategy in Afghanistan. How should we begin? What targets do we hit? How do we sequence our actions?"

Grenier later wrote in his book, 88 Days to Kandahar , that while he was surprised by the call he'd been thinking about these same questions -- "mulling them over and over and over," as he later told me -- so he was ready. President George Bush's address to the U.S. Congress just a few days before, Grenier told Tenet, was a good start: demand that Afghanistan's Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar, turn bin Laden over to the United States. If he refused, the U.S. should launch a campaign to oust him. Grenier had thought through the plan, but before going into its details with Tenet he abruptly stopped the conversation. "Mr. Director," he said, "this isn't going to work. I need to write this all down clearly." Tenet agreed.

Grenier set to work, and over the next three hours he laid out the battle for Afghanistan. Included in the paper was a detailed program of how the CIA could deploy undercover teams to recruit bin Laden's enemies among Afghanistan's northern Tajik and Uzbek tribes (an uneasy coalition of ethnic militias operating as the Northern Alliance), supply them with cash and weapons, and use them in a rolling offensive that would oust the Taliban in Kabul. With U.S. help, which included deploying American Special Forces teams (under CIA leadership) coupled with American airpower, the Northern Alliance (more properly, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) would start from its Panjshir Valley enclave in Afghanistan's far northeast and, recruiting support from anti-Taliban forces along the way, roll all the way into Kabul.

Grenier gave the eight-page draft paper to his staff to review, then sent it to Tenet in Washington, who passed it through the deputies committee (the second-in-command of each of the major national security agencies), then presented it to Bush. "I regard that cable," Grenier wrote, "as the best three hours of work I ever did in my twenty-seven-year career."

Three days after the Tenet-Grenier telephone conversation, on September 26, the CIA landed a covert-operations team in Afghanistan to recruit local allies in the hunt for bin Laden. The quick action was impressive, but then events slowed to a crawl. It wasn't until October 20 that the first U.S. Special Forces team linked up with anti-Taliban rebels, and it took another week for U.S. units to land in strength. But by early November al Qaeda was on the run and the Taliban's grip on the country was slipping away. On November 13, militias of the Northern Alliance seized Kabul. The Taliban was defeated, its badly mauled units fleeing south and east (its last bastion, in the south, fell on December 6), and into nearby Pakistan, while what remained of al Qaeda holed up in a series of cave complexes in the Spin Ghar mountain range of eastern Afghanistan.

By almost any measure, the CIA-led anti-al Qaeda and anti-Taliban offensive (dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom by George Bush) marked a decisive victory in the war on terror. The U.S. had set out a plan, marshaled the forces to carry it out, and then seen it to completion.

But this triumph came with problems. The first was that the offensive was hampered by Washington infighting that pitted the CIA against a puzzlingly recalcitrant U.S. military and a carping Donald Rumsfeld, who questioned George Tenet's leadership of the effort. This bureaucratic squabbling, focused on just who was responsible for what (and who exactly was running the Afghanistan war), would remain a hallmark of American efforts well into the Obama administration. The second problem was that Afghanistan's southern Pashtun tribes were only marginally included in the effort, and they remained suspicious of their northern non-Pashtun counterparts. The mistrust, CIA officers believed, would almost certainly plant the seeds of an endless inter-tribal Afghan conflict, embroiling the United States in an effort to prop up an unpopular Kabul government. The third problem was Pakistan -- or, more precisely, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI, and the ISI's "Directorate S," responsible for covertly supplying, training, and arming Pakistan's Islamist allies, including the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.

♦♦♦

The intractability of these variables, and America's 17-year effort (sometimes focused but often feckless) to resolve them, form the basis of Steve Coll's Directorate S , a thick but eminently readable account of America's Afghanistan misadventure. While Directorate S stands alone as a comprehensive exposition of the Afghanistan conflict dating from 9/11, it's actually a follow-on of Ghost Wars , Coll's Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004 narrative of America's efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan following their invasion in December 1979. Given the breadth of Coll's dual treatments and the depth of his research, it's likely that these books will remain the standard exposition of the period for years to come.

While the focus of Directorate S is on Pakistan and its shady intelligence services, each of the obstacles that confronted the United States in Afghanistan from the moment the Taliban abandoned Kabul is embraced in detail. These obstacles included America's post-9/11 attention deficit disorder (the pivot away from al Qaeda to Iraq was being considered in Washington even as the Northern Alliance cleared the Afghan capital) and the deeply embedded antipathy toward the new Kabul government among Pakistani-supported southern tribesman. Thus, after the United States ousted al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters, it embarked on a program to strengthen the new Kabul government, anointing Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's president and pledging billions in reconstruction aid. And so, or so it seemed, everything had gone as planned. The Taliban was routed; al Qaeda was on the run; a new anti-terrorism government was in place in Kabul; and the United States had signed Pakistan on as a willing accomplice. On May 1, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan. The war was over. Won.

But of course it wasn't.

Coll's account provides a disturbing catalogue of the U.S. mistakes in the wake of the Taliban defeat. Almost all of them are well known: Hamid Karzai, the consensus choice of a grand assembly (a loya jirga) as Afghanistan's interim president, proved to be a weak leader. The monies appropriated for Afghanistan's postwar reconstruction were woefully inadequate for the task -- "laughable," as one U.S. official put it. American soldiers responsible for countering the Taliban's return (and hunting al Qaeda terrorist cells) were thinly and poorly deployed (and, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, of secondary importance in the Pentagon). Tentative Taliban efforts to engage the United States in political talks were summarily and unwisely spurned. Allegations of prisoner abuse at U.S. detention facilities consistently undermined U.S. legitimacy. American funds were funneled into Afghan ministries laced with corrupt officials. Afghani poppy production increased, despite faint-hearted U.S. eradication efforts. And U.S. counter-terrorism actions proved ham-handed and caused preventable civilian casualties, pushing Afghanis into a resurgent anti-Kabul resistance.

More crucially, Pakistan's unstinting support for America's Afghanistan efforts proved to be anything but unstinting. The reason for this was not only entirely predictable but was actually the unintended result of the American victory. When the Northern Alliance and U.S. airpower pushed what remained of the Taliban (along with the remnants of al Qaeda) out of Afghanistan, they pushed them into Pakistan, creating conditions that, as Coll tells us, "deepened resentment among Pakistan's generals, who would come to see their country's rising violence as a price of American folly . . ." Put simply, for the United States to seal the Operation Enduring Freedom victory, it had to ensure that its effects did not spill over into the one nation that could ensure that its victory would, in fact, be enduring. That didn't happen. The result was that the Taliban was able to rebuild and rearm its networks not only in Pakistan, and under the eyes of the ISI, but also in Afghanistan.

It might have been otherwise. During a series of discussions I had about America's intervention in Afghanistan in the months immediately following 9/11, a number of currently serving and former senior U.S. officials told me they believed that, given enough time, the Taliban might well have handed bin Laden over to the Americans, obviating the need for a full-on invasion. One of these officials was Milton Bearden, a famed CIA officer (his close friends refer to him as "Uncle Milty") who, during his time as a station chief in Pakistan, had helped to head up the CIA's war against the Soviets in the mid 1980s.

♦♦♦

After 9/11, Bearden recharged his Pakistan and Afghanistan networks in an effort to convince the Taliban that turning bin Laden over to the Americans was a better option than the one they were facing. All the while, Bearden kept senior U.S. officials apprised of what he was doing, even as he was attempting to head off their rush to war. Bearden told me that, while his efforts had not reached fruition by the time the Bush White House had decided on a course of action, he believes the United States had not fully explored all of its options -- or thought through the long-term impact of its intervention. "I don't know what would have happened, I don't know," he says wistfully, "but I think we have a handhold in history. We should have seen what was coming." He notes that Alexander the Great "took one look at Afghanistan's mountains and decided against it. He thought his whole army could get swallowed up in there, and he wasn't going to take that chance. So, well, you tell me if I'm wrong, but Alexander was no slouch, right?"

Not everyone agrees with this, of course. The dissenters include Robert Grenier, the first drafter of what became the American war plan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he told me, was committed to his pledge to protect Osama bin Laden; he viewed it as a blood oath that could not be broken. Moreover, argues Grenier, "Omar viewed himself as a kind of world historical figure, a person on whom the axis of history would turn." One result was that he believed his fight against the Americans would be epochal.

That said, Grenier believes America's foray into Afghanistan, and the mistakes that followed, might at least have been dampened by a more diligent focus on the inherent divisions of Afghan society. "We [at the CIA]," he told me several months ago, "were very aware that the march of the Northern Alliance into Kabul would likely create real difficulties in the south. And we tried to slow it, precisely for this reason. But events overtook us, and it just wasn't possible. So, yes, things might have been otherwise, but in truth we just don't know."

The value in Coll's Directorate S comes not from the elegant telling of a story not fully known, but from the dawning realization that Afghanistan is the kind of lock for which there is no key. There is no reason to believe that a different outcome would have ensued if other events had intruded -- for example, more personnel, money, focused diplomacy, or robust and disciplined enemy-defeating and nation building; or that our war there and the occupation that followed would have yielded the same results that we realized in, say, Japan after 1945. The real hubris here is not that we tried and failed but that we thought we could actually succeed. Afghanistan is simply not that kind of place.

There is a term of art for this in the military, which found its first usage in Iraq in 2009, when U.S. commanders adopted it as an appreciation of what could and could not be accomplished. Instead of focusing on defeating corruption, inefficiency, disunity, and poor leadership, the focus shifted almost exclusively to dampening violence, to keeping the doors to Iraq open even as its factions battled for its control. More importantly, the adoption of the phrase marked the abandonment of high expectations and an embrace of realism. The United States would have to yield the business of replicating a Western-style democracy on the banks of the Euphrates. That goal, if it was going to be accomplished at all, would have to be realized by the Iraqis.

Analyst Anthony Cordesman, one of America's premier military thinkers, adopted the phrase and applied to Afghanistan in 2012 in an essay he entitled, "Time to Focus on 'Afghan Good Enough.'" His plan was simply stated but had all the elegance of actually working: keep the Taliban out of Kabul and the major cities, preserve the central and provincial government even in the face of endemic corruption, and work to provide security to large numbers of Afghanis. Cordesman conceded that this was not the kind of victory that Americans had hoped for on September 12. And it was difficult to describe the outcome as even vaguely passable -- or "good." But it was far better than adopting goals that could not be realized or embracing an illusion that disappeared even as it was grasped. For the time being at least, it would have to be "good enough."

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American Conservative and the author of The Pentagon's Wars .

[Apr 05, 2018] All Russiagate Roads Lead To London Evidence Emerges Of Mifsud s Links To UK Intelligence by Elizabeth Lea Vos

Apr 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Via Disobedient Media

Over the last few months, Professor Joseph Mifsud has become a feather in the cap for those pushing the Trump-Russia narrative. He is characterized as a "Russian" intelligence asset in mainstream press, despite his declarations to the contrary. However, evidence has surfaced that suggests Mifsud was anything but a Russian spy, and may have actually worked for British intelligence. This new evidence culminates in the ground-breaking conclusion that the UK and its intelligence apparatus may be responsible for the invention of key pillars of the Trump-Russia scandal. If true, this would essentially turn the entire RussiaGate debacle on its head.

To give an idea of the scope of this report, a few central points showing the UK connections with the central pillars of the Trump-Russia claims are included here, in the order of discussion in this article:

  1. Mifsud allegedly discussed that Russia has 'dirt' on Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails' with George Papadopoulos in London in April 2016.
  2. The following month, Papadopoulos spoke with Alexander Downer, Australia's ambassador to the UK, about the alleged Russian dirt on Clinton while they were drinking at a swanky Kensington bar, according to The Times. In late July 2016, Downer shared his tip with Australian intelligence officials who forwarded it to the FBI.
  3. Robert Goldstone, a key figure in the 'Trump Tower' part of the RussiaGate narrative, sent Donald Trump Jr. an email claiming Russia wanted to help the Trump campaign. He is a British music promoter.
  4. Christopher Steele, ex-MI6, who worked as an MI6 agent in Moscow until 1993 and ran the Russia desk at MI6 HQ in London between 2006 and 2009. He produced the totally unsubstantiated 'Steele Dossier' of Trump-Russia allegations, with funding from the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
  5. Robert Hannigan, the head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share 'director-to-director' level intelligence with then-CIA Chief John Brennan.

Each of these strands of UK-tied elements of the Russiagate narrative can be substantially dismantled on close inspection. This untangling process leads to the surprising conclusion that UK intelligence services fabricated evidence of collusion in order to create the appearance of a Trump-Russia connection.

This trend begins with Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese scholar with an eclectic academic history who Quartz described as an "enigma," while legacy press has enthusiastically characterized him as a central personality in the Trump-Russia scandal. The New York Times described Mifsud as an "enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia", citing his regular involvement in the annual meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club , a Russian-based think-tank, as well as three short articles he wrote in support of Russian policies.

Mifsud strongly denied claims that he was associated with Russian intelligence, telling Italian newspaper Repubblica that he was a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Clinton Foundation, adding that his political outlook was "left-leaning." Last month, Slate reported Mifsud had 'disappeared', as did some of the other figures linking the UK to the Trump-Russia scandal. This aspect will be discussed in more detail below.

To contextualize Mifsud's eclectic academic career in terms of intelligence service, it is helpful to note that research undertaken by this author and Suzie Dawson as part of the Decipher You project has repeatedly shown the close ties – an outright merger in many cases – between the intelligence community and academia. This enmeshment also takes place with think-tanks, NGOs, and in the corporate sphere. In this light, Mifsud's brand of 'scholarship' becomes far less mysterious.

Mifsud's alleged links to Russian intelligence are summarily debunked by his close working relationship with Claire Smith, a major figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. A number of Twitter users recently observed that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee at Mifsud's LINK campus in Rome . Newsmax and Buzzfeed later reported that the professor's name and biography had been removed from the campus' website, writing that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had served the institution for "years."

WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange likewise noted the connection between Mifsud and Smith in a Twitter thread, additionally pointing out his connections with Saudi intelligence: "[Mifsud] and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight-year member of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link University in Rome and appear to both be present in this [photo]."

The photograph in question originated on Geodiplomatics.com , where it specified that Joseph Mifsud is indeed standing next to Claire Smith, who was attending a: " Training program on International Security which was organised by Link Campus University and London Academy of Diplomacy ." The event is listed as taking place in October, 2012. This is highly significant for a number of reasons.

First, the training program Smith attended with high-ranking members of the Italian military was organized by the London Academy of Diplomacy , where Joseph Mifsud served as Director, as noted by The Washington Post. That Claire Smith was training military and law enforcement officials alongside Mifsud in 2012 during her tenure as a member of the UK Cabinet Office Security Vetting Appeals Panel , which oversees the vetting process for UK intelligence placement, strongly suggests that Mifsud has been incorrectly characterized as a Russian intelligence asset. It is extremely unlikely that Claire Smith's role in vetting UK intelligence personnel would lead to her accidentally working with a Russian agent.

The connection between Mifsud and Smith does not end at bumped elbows in a photograph. Mifsud's LinkedIn profile lists the University of Stirling as a place of occupation in connection with his service as Director of the London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD), where Claire Smith served as a visiting professor from 2013-2014 according to her LinkedIn profile . This adds yet another verifiable connection between a man who is at the center of already-flimsy Trump-Russia allegations and a high-ranking British intelligence figure.

Claire Smith also hosted a seminar titled " Making Sense of Intelligence " at the University of Stirling. The event registration form describes her career, including her service as Deputy Chief of Assessments Staff in the Cabinet Office, as a member of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and her completion of an eight-year term as a member of the UK Security Vetting and Appeals Panel.

A particularly compelling factor indicating that Mifsud's working relationship with Claire Smith suggests his direct connection with UK intelligence is Smith's membership of the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) , a supervisory body overseeing all UK intelligence agencies. The JIC is part of the Cabinet Office and reports directly to the Prime Minister. The Committee also sets the collection and analysis priorities for all of the agencies it supervises. Claire Smith also served as a member of the UK's Cabinet Office.

In summary, Mifsud's appearance with Claire Smith at the LINK campus, in addition to her discussion on intelligence at yet another university where Mifsud was also employed, as well as her long-standing role in UK intelligence vetting and her position as a member of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee, would suggest that the roving scholar is not a Russian agent, but is actually a UK intelligence asset. The possibility that such a high-ranking member of this extremely powerful intelligence supervisory group was photographed standing next to a "Russian" asset unknowingly is patently absurd. This finding knocks the first pillar out from under the edifice of the Trump-Russia allegations. It provides an initial suggestion of the UK's involvement in procuring the 'evidence' that fueled the debacle.

Claire Smith is not the only British official associated with Mifsud. He was a speaker at an event by the Central European Initiative alongside former British diplomat Charles Crawford, whose postings included Moscow, Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw. Crawford is listed as a visiting Professor with the same London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD) where Mifsud served as Director, associated with Stirling University. This adds more weight to the idea that Mifsud is a familiar figure among the upper echelons of the UK intelligence and foreign policy establishment.

The final nail in the coffin of the theory that Mifsud is a Russian spy is this photograph of Mifsud standing next to Boris Johnson, the UK Foreign Secretary, as reported by The Guardian. The photograph, taken in October 2017 – nearly a full year after the US Presidential election and nine months after Mifsud's name appeared in newspaper headlines worldwide as allegedly involved in Russian meddling in that election – is either highly embarrassing for the hapless Mr Johnson, or it's not, because Joseph Mifsud is actually a valued and security-vetted asset to the United Kingdom.

Another aspect of the RussiaGate claims tied to the UK includes the reported conversation between George Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer, Australia's High Commissioner to the UK who was based in London. The pair reportedly spoke about the alleged Russian 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton while they were drinking at a swanky bar in London. According to Lifezette , Downer is closely tied with The Clinton Foundation via his role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS.

He is also a member of the advisory board of London-based Hakluyt & Co , an opposition research and intelligence firm set up in 1995 by three former UK intelligence officials and described as " a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers , but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking". Whereas opposition research group Fusion GPS has received all the media attention so far, Lifezette states that Hakluyt is "a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence firm with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign".

Yet another UK link to a central pillar of the Trump-Russia narrative is British music promoter Robert Goldstone, who was reported to have organized a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian nationals in June 2016. In the email chain setting up the Trump Tower meeting, both before and after the meeting, the only real 'evidence' of collusion with Russia come from Goldstone's own emails; none-too-subtle heavy hints about 'Russian help' dropped by Goldstone but later – after the emails became public – walked back by him as " hyping the message and using hot-button language to puff up the information I had been given."

Some have speculated that Goldstone was also involved with British or US intelligence efforts to concoct the RussiaGate narrative. As soon as his name emerged in the press, Goldstone – like Christopher Steele and Joseph Mifsud – went into 'hiding'. Multiple press reports claimed he had done so out of fear for his safety, a claim also made about Christopher Steele when his name first became public. Indeed, the UK government issued a DA Notice (a press suppression advisory notice) to the British press to suppress the ex-spy Steele's name. It is notable that, of all the people swept up into the ever-burgeoning RussiaGate investigation, it is only the UK-linked witnesses – Mifsud, Steele, Goldstone – who have felt the need to go into hiding when their role has been exposed.

The New York Times summed up the contents of Christopher Steele's dossier: "Mr. Steele produced a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, and real estate deals that were intended as bribes."

Press reports also relate that Steele was ordered by an English court to appear for a videotaped deposition in London as part of an ongoing civil litigation against Buzzfeed for publishing the unverified dossier, for which Steele was paid $168,000 by Glenn Simpson's company Fusion GPS, who were in turn paid by Mark Elias of law firm Perkins Coie, lawyers to both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.

In his thread on the role of UK intelligence interference in the 2016 US Presidential race, Assange also noted how Christopher Steele used another former UK ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, to funnel the dossier to Senator John McCain in a way that moved the handover out of London, to Canada. It's often said that no one ever really leaves the UK security services when they retire – many 'former' MI6 or MI5 officers' private intelligence businesses are dependent on maintaining good contacts among their ex-colleagues – so it is interesting to note that Sir Andrew Wood says he was "instructed" -- by former British spy Christopher Steele -- to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called "a good man," about the unverified document.

Lastly, Robert Hannigan, former head of British intelligence agency GCHQ, is another personality of note in the formation of the RussiaGate narrative and its surprisingly deep links to the UK. The Guardian noted that Hannigan announced he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017. Jane Mayer in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the New Yorker also noted that Hannigan had flown to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing "deemed so sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner.

The central supporting pillars of the RussiaGate allegations hinge on figures with close ties to British intelligence and UK nationals. Even establishment media like The Guardian reported that British spies from GCHQ were the first to alert US authorities to so-called Russian interference. Did the entire narrative originate with UK intelligence groups in an effort to create the appearance of Russian collusion with the Trump Presidential campaign, much as the Guccifer 2.0 persona was used in the US to discredit WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails?

If it was not Russia at the heart of a complex operation to topple the Clinton campaign in 2016, then was British Intelligence responsible for creating false narratives and mirage-like 'evidence' on which the Trump-Russia scandal could hinge?

Put another way, if UK intelligence is responsible for manufacturing the Trump-Russia allegations, it suggests that the UK's efforts formed an international arm running concurrently with domestic US 'Deep State' efforts to sabotage Trump's presidential campaign and/or oust him once he had been elected.

Is British intelligence involvement in RussiaGate, as outlined above, the international version of CrowdStrike and former FBI figures manufacturing the Guccifer 2.0 persona specifically to smear WikiLeaks via false allegations of a Russian hack of the DNC? Have we been looking in the wrong place – at the wrong country – to unearth the so-called 'foreign meddling' in the 2016 US election all along?

Erek Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:14 Permalink

" Have we been looking in the wrong place "

Kind of hard to look anywhere with your head up your collective ass.

JohninMK -> Erek Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:18 Permalink

New thread from Craig Murray. Interesting conclusion re conversation.

Update: I have just listened to the released alleged phone conversation between Yulia Skripal in Salisbury Hospital and her cousin Viktoria, which deepens the mystery further. I should say that in Russian the conversation sounds perfectly natural to me. My concern is after the 30 seconds mark where Viktoria tells Yulia she is applying for a British visa to come and see Yulia.

Yulia replies "nobody will give you a visa". Viktoria then tells Yulia that if she is asked if she wants Viktoria to visit, she should say yes. Yulia's reply to this is along the lines of "that will not happen in this situation", meaning she would not be allowed by the British to see Viktoria. I apologise my Russian is very rusty for a Kremlinbot, and someone might give a better translation, but this key response from Yulia is missing from all the transcripts I have seen.

What is there about Yulia's situation that makes her feel a meeting between her and her cousin will be prevented by the British government? And why would Yulia believe the British government will not give her cousin a visa in the circumstance of these extreme family illnesses?

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/knobs-and-knockers/

Pandelis -> JohninMK Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:20 Permalink

yep, all roads lead (((to))) ....

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Boris+Johnson/Lord+Rothschild/Predators+Pr

DaiRR -> Pandelis Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:25 Permalink

The hypocrisy of foreign "election meddling" accusations should blow everyone away. Obama did it, the USA does it, the UK does it, Russia does it, any entity with money and clout does it.

Erek -> DaiRR Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

@Pandelis: In the photo, does Boris have his hands in his pockets to keep Rothchild's hands away from his wallet?

BennyBoy -> Erek Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:37 Permalink

No Trump-Russia narrative?

WTF will MSM fill airtime with?

macholatte -> BennyBoy Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:41 Permalink

How about the very well documented and obvious Collusion Crime:
1. Rosenstein is named assistant AG after Sessions recussed himself from getting involved with any Trump campaign related investigations - here comes Trump campaign related investigations.
2. Rosenstein recommends that Comey be fired.
3. Trump fires Comey.
4. Rosenstein recommends Wray, good buddy of Comey & Mueller, to be new FBI director.
4. Comey testifies that he leaked a memo of stuff he made up that he knew would trigger a special council to investigate the Trump campaign for Russia collusion.
5. Rosenstein appoints Mueller (good friend of Rosenstein & Comey) as the special prosecutor with open authority to investigate a suspected activity that was not a crime if it did exist.
6. Wray stonewalls congressional investigations into DOJ & FBI criminality.
7. Sessions refuses to appoint special council to investigate Hitlary and DOJ & FBI criminality.

Conclusion: Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray and Mueller colluded to assist the "Soros-Clinton-Obama Resistance" to thwart all efforts to indict Clintons or Obama and expose the corruption at the FBI, DOJ and State Dept.

JimmyJones -> macholatte Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:58 Permalink

Yep, this story should be huge and should be enough to fire Muller.

All roads lead to the Khazarian mafia aka Rothschild gang.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/08/the-hidden-history-of-the-incr

stacking12321 -> JimmyJones Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:37 Permalink

Veteranstoday.com?

lol, such rubbish.

mpnut -> stacking12321 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 16:33 Permalink

Was stating all along that Russia wouldn't be this lax on their Execution (Pun intended) if they were the actual PERPS.

Adolph.H. -> mpnut Thu, 04/05/2018 - 17:02 Permalink

In the meantime, we learn that this hoax is indeed a hoax:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=58219

Russian TV Releases Phone Call Of 'Poisoned' Yulia Skripal Saying Her And Her Father Are 'Fine'

"Everything's ok. He's resting now, having a sleep. Everyone's health is fine, there's nothing that can't be put right. I'll be discharged soon. Everything is ok."

And that Moscow is not buying it:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201804051063257743-un-security-council-sk

Regarding the UK's insistence that Moscow coordinated the attack, he asked, "Couldn't you come up with a better fake story?"

Bubbz -> macholatte Thu, 04/05/2018 - 19:45 Permalink

But... Trump has leverage on Mueller... Uranium 1 maybe? Mueller is a former Marine, who's duty is to protect the President. Trump meets with Mueller for an interview for a job Mueller can even take, day before Rosensteins appoints him, and makes a deal. Mueller then spends over a year collecting all the date needed to put Session, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray, Clinton, Obama and any other corrupt PoS away for good? Don't me wake up... this is a good dream.

BigCumulusClouds -> Bubbz Thu, 04/05/2018 - 19:59 Permalink

Mueller covered up the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven. Trump knows the buildings were blown up. Those are the goods Trump has on Mueller.

peopledontwanttruth -> DaiRR Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:52 Permalink

All roads lead to "The City of London".

Its all about money. Greed has/is destroying mankind one shekel at a time.

Dickweed Wang -> peopledontwanttruth Thu, 04/05/2018 - 19:20 Permalink

. . . the UK's efforts formed an international arm running concurrently with domestic US 'Deep State' efforts to sabotage Trump's presidential campaign and/or oust him once he had been elected.

Of course the UK efforts to derail Trump ran/are running concurrently with US' deep state efforts! That's because the "Deep State" is really an international cabal and is not simply a group of shadow brokers running the US behind the scenes . . . the entire thing is headed by the Rothschild and Rockefeller clans (and likely others we've never heard of). Their reach knows no international boundaries, that's for sure.

JohnGaltUk -> DaiRR Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:24 Permalink

After voting for Brexit, it has taught me one thing; my vote counts for nothing.

Torys & Labour agree on one thing, they do not want anymore competition because there are more than enough well paid government jobs to go round.

Its a club and you aint in it.

Dugald -> JohnGaltUk Thu, 04/05/2018 - 17:44 Permalink

Just like the stock market, if you are not getting high level info, you are just a mug punter.......and boy are there a lot of those.....!

MoreFreedom -> DaiRR Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:35 Permalink

I agree the hypocrisy shows anyone upset about the insignificant actions of a Russian firm paying trolls to publish their thoughts, isn't following the Golden Rule. If they object to speech from Russians about our election, they should be upset first about Obama and our government spending money in other country's elections. I'd bet most of these people chose to say nothing when Obama spent $350,000 to OneVoice in Israel to help Netanyahu's opponent.

The choice of words "election meddling" conflates free speech with vote rigging. We, and everyone else in the world, should be free to say who they want to win elections. After all, only the citizens involved can vote.

On the other hand, I object to the US government spending any money to influence ANY election, foreign or domestic. That's tyranny, in forcing taxpayers to support politicians they often don't support.

Blythes Master -> Pandelis Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

Lots of US military planes flying around the UK today, hmmmmm

His name was Seth Rich and he was killed by Hitlery Cuntface.

Erek -> JohninMK Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:25 Permalink

Is anyone certain that the "Yulia" in this phone conversation really exists? Or are the Skripals a fantasy dreamed up for some reason by "the government" - whoever that is. Why not allow a consular visit? Why not allow a family visit? Why are the "Skripals" being detained like hardened criminals? Why is there no live footage of these people? If Julia is recovering and can speak, why not a short live interview?

WTF?

Crazy Or Not -> JohninMK Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

Arcanicide Corp. is so busy in UK they have a new office in Salisbury...

JohnGaltUk -> JohninMK Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:19 Permalink

If they keep out Laura Southern..... who's next Shirley Temple

RightLineBacker -> JohninMK Thu, 04/05/2018 - 20:06 Permalink

Excellent work Elizabeth Lea Vos & Craig Murray. You have done what our hate-filled, brain-dead, Fake MSM would never, never do.

Thank you both and please do keep up your good work.

Zorba's idea -> Erek Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:07 Permalink

Ooooops... "The British are coming!!! The British are coming!!!

Yog Soggoth -> Zorba's idea Thu, 04/05/2018 - 17:03 Permalink

Johnny Horton - 1814 Battle of New Orleans - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-rNnIXJmZs

Zorba's idea -> Yog Soggoth Thu, 04/05/2018 - 18:22 Permalink

They should make room at Mt Rushmore for Old Hickory

Expendable Container -> Erek Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:25 Permalink

You mean like these MSM mockingbird presstitute parrots? (1min38secs):

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-04-01-stunning-video-reveals-how-local

dvfco -> Expendable Container Thu, 04/05/2018 - 18:11 Permalink

I'd love to meet whoever made that video. It's both brilliant and creepy as all hell.

dvfco -> Erek Thu, 04/05/2018 - 18:09 Permalink

It's hard to look in the right place when your job depends on finding the Russians at fault.

Occams_Razor_Trader -> Erek Thu, 04/05/2018 - 18:26 Permalink

Way too wordy for a Thursday- Monday maybe- but not Thursday.

The take away- Obama (and HRC) are Deep State- and the Deep State are in the LEAST communist sympathizers.

Oh, and yeah- the Deep State wants NOTHING to do with Donald J. Trump.

Hotapplebottoms Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:15 Permalink

awww, a little girl blaming both trump, the trump hair lookalike, and tight brexites and big vestesses on russia. poor girl. go get a tanning bed, maybe you can grow up to be a a big boob orange jew yourself. till then, shake your weewee rockstar.

buzzsaw99 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:16 Permalink

the usa now has carte blache to meddle in every uk election from now on. we can start by investigating may on trumped up charges backed by phony evidence. she's a real cunt anyway.

nmewn -> buzzsaw99 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:30 Permalink

I second the motion!

Winston Churchill -> buzzsaw99 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:01 Permalink

The US has been meddling in everyone's elections since 1945, including the UKs.

MI6 planned operations always have at least three levels of misdirection hiding the real motive.

Everything stinks of amateur hour and a panic ,I don't believe any of the narratives so far, and neither

should anyone else.

just the tip -> Winston Churchill Thu, 04/05/2018 - 16:03 Permalink

you might want to go back a few years before '45.

plan red was a war plan written up in '28 about a war between the US and britain.

a couple years later our stock market crashed and in the late '30s, with britain being bombed by gerry, and churchill's speech before congress, we have a unique relationship.

my ass.

if it were up to me, hitler present day, would still be bombing london.

Mike Masr Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:17 Permalink

Fuck the UK. It's a cesspool like Dearborn, MI.

ZENDOG -> Mike Masr Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:19 Permalink

Stop, there is a law against sex with a dead corpse.

And the UK is quite dead.....all gone Muzzie....

ted41776 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:17 Permalink

apologies to Russia? lifting of sanctions? reparations for financial damages? no, didn't think so, they're just bad mmmmkay?

Dead Indiana Sky Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:24 Permalink

Am I losing my mind, or was this article also posted yesterday?

nmewn -> Dead Indiana Sky Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:37 Permalink

Yes.

But it's ok, they just did a company health screening around here (thank you Obama, you fag) and one of my 20something 6'1" co-workers with washboard abs was declared obese.

Yes, the world has gone insane but it's now normal ;-)

Taint Boil -> Dead Indiana Sky Thu, 04/05/2018 - 17:18 Permalink

Am I losing my mind, or was this article also posted yesterday?

It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both .....

MuffDiver69 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

Dan Bongino has a nice timeline among others. Bruce Ohr the number three at Justice wife worked for FUSION GPS and has extensive Russian and CIA background....this entire Fake Russia Collusion was run like a classic CIA operation as the Dossier was written in distinct chapters as the players were introduced to various Trump campaign people...It is obvious that all of these people are connected and none of it was a coincidence...Of course The ringleader was Brennan and his British counterparts....It's laughable a counter-intel was started on a drunk campaign volunteer in a bar...but FBI agent Strzok who started it was involved from the get go...

Zorba's idea -> MuffDiver69 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 15:15 Permalink

I could only imagine if some comic genius could produce a movie in some style like "Monty Python" or the "Marx Brothes" depicting this pathetic deep state nonsense. Mel Brooks also comes to mind...the appropriate title would be a sequel to "High Anxiety", El-Viral does DC :/

FoggyWorld -> MuffDiver69 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 17:26 Permalink

Wonder where Priestap has gone. Not one word about him for quite some time and he was in charge of counter intelligence for the FBI. Still hasn't been either demoted or removed.

Posa -> MuffDiver69 Thu, 04/05/2018 - 17:35 Permalink

Russiagate was a British Operation from the very start, run in collusion with Obama DoJ Execs... the evidence is sitting there... The Brit Oligarchy is engineering a cold coup in the US to nullify the 2016 Elections... When Drump says he wants out of Syria, and bad trade deals that deindustrialize the US, or is defusing WW III with Russia, you understand why the British Led Liberal Deep State is frantic.

Fire Mueller. Now.

RightLineBacker -> Posa Thu, 04/05/2018 - 20:13 Permalink

That is "President Donald J Trump", not "Drump", you worthless piece of butt-hurt shit.

Up voted you anyway because at least you got the basic info correct.

Posa -> RightLineBacker Thu, 04/05/2018 - 20:53 Permalink

Personally I pretty much (but not totally) detest Donald Trump and what he stands for... namely parasitic, rentier capital... BUT, my loyalty is to the Constitution of the US and admiration for my fellow citizens, the voters (even though I haven't bothered with that empty ritual for decades)...

I deeply oppose the Liberal Deep State Cold Coup launched in tandem with the odious remnants of the British Empire... just as I opposed the coup against Bill Clinton... No honest, patriotic American can allow the President and the US government taken down by the permanent Deep State... no matter how repugnant the President might be... So that's why I support the President in opposing the Liberal, Deep State coup launched against him and the USA by evil forces.

JoeTurner Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

There will be war, even if a false flag is necessary to get it started...

Sincerely,

The Deep State

JoseyWalesTheOutlaw Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

When this guy Robert Hannigan declared he needed to spend more time with the family (jan 2017) you had to know the Brits were knee deep in this shit!

MuffDiver69 -> JoseyWalesTheOutlaw Thu, 04/05/2018 - 14:30 Permalink

And the British putting the equivalent of a non- disclosure on Steele...but the courts are tripping that up...

[Apr 05, 2018] Why the US Fails to Understand Its Adversaries

Apr 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Robert Jervis and Mira Rapp-Hooper warn about the dangers that come from misperception on both sides of the standoff with North Korea:

If any U.S. strategy toward North Korea is to have a chance of succeeding (or even of just averting catastrophe), it must be guided by an accurate sense of how Kim's regime thinks, what it values, and how it judges its options. Washington must understand not just North Korean objectives but also how North Korean officials understand U.S. objectives and whether they consider U.S. statements credible.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is remarkably bad at understanding these things accurately. This is not just a Trump administration failing. Most American politicians and policymakers routinely misjudge the intentions and goals of our adversaries, and they often invent a fantasy version of the regime in question that leads them astray again and again. One reason for this is that it is simply easier to project our assumptions about what a regime must want than it is to make the effort to see things as they do. Another reason is that many of our politicians and policymakers mistakenly think that if they try to understand an adversary's views that must somehow mean that they sympathize with the adversary or condone its behavior. Instead of trying to know their enemy, our leaders would prefer not to for fear of being "tainted" by the experience. This lack of knowledge is compounded in some cases by the absence of normal diplomatic relations with the adversary. Our leaders are encouraged to take this self-defeating approach to international problems by a political culture that rewards the people that strike tough-sounding-but-ignorant poses about a problem and marginalizes those that seek to understand it as fully as possible.

The first step in correcting these failings is to accept that some of these regimes regard the U.S. as an "existential threat" and therefore view all U.S. actions with at least much suspicion and fear as our government views theirs. The next step would be to recognize that the main goal of any regime is its own preservation. We should be very wary of any explanation of their actions that claims that an adversary is irrationally suicidal. Another step would be to acknowledge that regime behavior that we regard as purely aggressive is very often the result of the adversary's belief that it needs to deter our aggression against them. Our politicians often talk about North Korea threatening the entire world with its nuclear weapons, but this misses that in their relative isolation and paranoia the North Korean regime sees the rest of the world, and especially the U.S., as a threat that needs to be defended against. Recognizing these things doesn't make their acquisition of nuclear weapons desirable and it doesn't mean that we approve of it, but it does make it understandable.

Our government's frequent inability to understand how an adversary thinks and what an adversary wants is usually bound up with our government's overestimation of its own power and a denial of the other state's agency. If many of our policymakers invent a fantasy version of the regime to serve as a foil, they come up with unrealistic demands that they think the U.S. can force the adversary to accept. Because we fail to understand what the adversary is trying to do, we make demands that we ought to know will never be accepted. Because our government fails to take the other side's agency into account, our policies are often crafted solely to punish and compel and rarely to give them an incentive to cooperate or compromise. We then claim to be surprised when this approach yields only intransigence and more of the behavior that we want the other state to stop.

Fran Macadam April 5, 2018 at 11:40 am

As long as official policy is Full Spectrum Dominance, nothing can change.
Kent , says: April 5, 2018 at 11:47 am
I really believe it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that ignorant.
Will Harrington , says: April 5, 2018 at 1:07 pm
Kent

Why do you think it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that ignorant? Did our Presidents, who never have to prove merit, only popularity, ever appoint people based on reliably tested knowledge of their field? No. They tend to appoint their cabinet based on political calculation. Sometimes political calculation will raise up knowledgeable people, more often not.

grumpy realist , says: April 5, 2018 at 1:20 pm
Welp, this is certainly a different kettle of fish from WWII, where the US government hired ethnologists like Ruth Benedict to analyze Japanese culture and thought patterns (resulting in her book "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.")

We HAVE turned into a country of lazy bastards.

Tyro , says: April 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm
I really believe it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that ignorant

Our highest officials are by design more ignorant than the rank and file. During the Iraq war aftermath, Arabic speakers were actively rejected from jobs within the Coalition Provisional Authority, because it was assumed their knowledge of the region would prejudice them against the W adninistration's vision for the Middle East, and they didn't want nay sayers telling them what they didn't want to hear.

This mindset is persistent, especially in republican administrations, and mirrors the Soviet Union -- people are selected on the basis of their willingness to toe the ideological line rather than their expertise.

Dee , says: April 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm
They are not ignorant, the politicians support these policies because their donors benefit.. They have sold out to greed over country.. I assume that some do it for the easy wealth that can be had, some of the wealthy ones for fame and never losing elections, but they have their reasons, our country is not high on that list.
KXB , says: April 5, 2018 at 3:39 pm
The one exception to this would be Obama's approach to Iran. He had no illusions about the mullahs and IRGC, but he knew that it was simply impossible to perpetually diplomatically isolate and militarily surround a nation of 80 million in its own region. The nuke deal was a tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world. Of course, this is the last thing that Israel or Saudi Arabia want.
Fran Macadam , says: April 5, 2018 at 4:09 pm
"The nuke deal was a tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world."

It must have been a bad deal, since the benefits to the other side never actually happened.

It was de facto over from the moment it was signed.

Fran Macadam , says: April 5, 2018 at 4:11 pm
"The nuke deal was a tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world."

Which nukes were those? Unlike North Korea, they didn't actually have any.

They didn't give anything up, and we didn't remove the sanctions. Sounds about equitable, nothing for nothing.

Cynthia McLean , says: April 5, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Knowledge of History and Language would help enormously, but the US is so arrogant it expects other countries to merely accept US assertions and to speak in English, on the basis of its supposed Exceptionalism.

[Apr 05, 2018] Barack Obama supporters outraged by Bernie Sanders's 'deplorable' attack on Democratic Party on anniversary of Martin Luther King assassination by Peter Stubley

Apr 05, 2018 | independent.co.uk

Vermont Senator says business model of Democratic Party has been a failure for 15 years

Bernie Sanders has triggered a backlash by making comments interpreted as an attack on [Wall Street/CIA troll] Barack Obama on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. The senator for Vermont appeared to criticise the first black US President as he branded the Democratic Party a "failure".

Speaking in Jackson, Mississippi, he said Democrats had lost a record number of legislative seats. "The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure,'' said the Vermont Senator...Mr Sanders's comments were quickly branded "patronising" and "deplorable".

[Apr 04, 2018] A Special Relationship Born in Hell, by Philip Giraldi

Apr 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Paul C. , April 3, 2018 at 5:51 am GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

I agree.

Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").

The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?

We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere. We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not possible. http://themillenniumreport.com

It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.

Frankie P , April 3, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.

Frankie P

Anon [183] Disclaimer , April 3, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in the Middle East.

If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.

Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS

Biff , April 3, 2018 at 6:23 am GMT
Unfortunately, the police forces in the U.S. loves the way the Israeli military does business. Their costumes and tactics are becoming quite similar.
Mark James , April 3, 2018 at 6:48 am GMT
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently threatened that they would never be asked to come back.

Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.

mark green , April 3, 2018 at 8:49 am GMT
There are many compelling reasons for the US to disengage from these costly, intractable, religious-based MidEast conflicts.

So why haven't these sensible ideas gotten through to average Americans?

Because dominant forces want these dissenting thoughts and opinions eradicated, silenced or altogether demonized.

... ... ...

Mike Garrett , April 3, 2018 at 9:37 am GMT
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every American university.
Randal , April 3, 2018 at 10:54 am GMT
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:

Interventionist wars;

The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing "hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);

Mass immigration.

annamaria , April 3, 2018 at 11:10 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke

Ziocons (Israel-firsters) on the march, on the US taxpayers expense: https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoconservative-ideology-in-the-trump-white-house-u-s-military-power-torture-and-the-defense-of-israel/5634336

"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."

anarchyst , April 3, 2018 at 11:11 am GMT
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
annamaria , April 3, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoconservative-ideology-in-the-trump-white-house-u-s-military-power-torture-and-the-defense-of-israel/5634336

"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war) describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"

Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including Nicaragua and El Salvador."

-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.

anarchyst , April 3, 2018 at 11:21 am GMT
@Biff

It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American "law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".

"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine under penalty of law.

We are all Palestinians now

Tbbh , April 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm GMT
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year, they made up, is):

Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.

Where is the "baseline" and why?

For the unedumacated:

http://markcurtis.info/2016/11/02/how-britain-carved-up-the-middle-east-and-helped-create-saudi-arabia/

Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.

Tbbh , April 3, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@CalDre

If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.

Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.

annamaria , April 3, 2018 at 1:03 pm GMT
@Tbbh

The ziocon triumph in dumbing down the US' and UK ' "establishment" (in Russian with English subtitles): http://thesaker.is/were-not-going-to-participate-in-the-madness-zakharova-says-rf-will-retaliate-but-keep-it-sane/

-- Perversity and indignity, the twin children of the zionized mentality of the US & UK deciders.

RebelWriter , April 3, 2018 at 1:09 pm GMT
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?

Is a total lack of introspection heritable?

JackAlbatross , April 3, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.

But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.

We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting Israeli collaborators out of our government.

Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.

You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.

What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?

My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.

You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.

Wizard of Oz , April 3, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT
@Bradrrr

8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration without severely risking the security of Israel?

Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?

Z-man , April 3, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)

The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.

The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.

I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.

ISmellBagels , April 3, 2018 at 1:50 pm GMT
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Twodees Partain , April 3, 2018 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Paul C.

Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.

jconsley , April 3, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article. Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
anonymous [341] Disclaimer , April 3, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT

sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands

Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies. Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.

Che Guava , April 3, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
flashlight joe , April 3, 2018 at 3:17 pm GMT
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"

They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF, 58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.

But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?

Jake , April 3, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
@CCR

The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.

Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?

Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically, all fascists are socialists.

[Apr 04, 2018] A Special Relationship Born in Hell, by Philip Giraldi

Apr 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

Paul C. , April 3, 2018 at 5:51 am GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

I agree.

Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").

The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?

We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere. We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not possible. http://themillenniumreport.com

It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.

Frankie P , April 3, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.

Frankie P

Anon [183] Disclaimer , April 3, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in the Middle East.

If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.

Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS

Biff , April 3, 2018 at 6:23 am GMT
Unfortunately, the police forces in the U.S. loves the way the Israeli military does business. Their costumes and tactics are becoming quite similar.
Mark James , April 3, 2018 at 6:48 am GMT
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently threatened that they would never be asked to come back.

Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.

mark green , April 3, 2018 at 8:49 am GMT
There are many compelling reasons for the US to disengage from these costly, intractable, religious-based MidEast conflicts.

So why haven't these sensible ideas gotten through to average Americans?

Because dominant forces want these dissenting thoughts and opinions eradicated, silenced or altogether demonized.

... ... ...

Mike Garrett , April 3, 2018 at 9:37 am GMT
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every American university.
Randal , April 3, 2018 at 10:54 am GMT
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:

Interventionist wars;

The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing "hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);

Mass immigration.

annamaria , April 3, 2018 at 11:10 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke

Ziocons (Israel-firsters) on the march, on the US taxpayers expense: https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoconservative-ideology-in-the-trump-white-house-u-s-military-power-torture-and-the-defense-of-israel/5634336

"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."

anarchyst , April 3, 2018 at 11:11 am GMT
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
annamaria , April 3, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoconservative-ideology-in-the-trump-white-house-u-s-military-power-torture-and-the-defense-of-israel/5634336

"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war) describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"

Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including Nicaragua and El Salvador."

-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.

anarchyst , April 3, 2018 at 11:21 am GMT
@Biff

It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American "law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".

"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine under penalty of law.

We are all Palestinians now

Tbbh , April 3, 2018 at 12:04 pm GMT
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year, they made up, is):

Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.

Where is the "baseline" and why?

For the unedumacated:

http://markcurtis.info/2016/11/02/how-britain-carved-up-the-middle-east-and-helped-create-saudi-arabia/

Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.

Tbbh , April 3, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@CalDre

If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.

Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.

annamaria , April 3, 2018 at 1:03 pm GMT
@Tbbh

The ziocon triumph in dumbing down the US' and UK ' "establishment" (in Russian with English subtitles): http://thesaker.is/were-not-going-to-participate-in-the-madness-zakharova-says-rf-will-retaliate-but-keep-it-sane/

-- Perversity and indignity, the twin children of the zionized mentality of the US & UK deciders.

RebelWriter , April 3, 2018 at 1:09 pm GMT
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?

Is a total lack of introspection heritable?

JackAlbatross , April 3, 2018 at 12:46 pm GMT
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.

But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.

We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting Israeli collaborators out of our government.

Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.

You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.

What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?

My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.

You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.

Wizard of Oz , April 3, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT
@Bradrrr

8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration without severely risking the security of Israel?

Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?

Z-man , April 3, 2018 at 12:55 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)

The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.

The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.

I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.

ISmellBagels , April 3, 2018 at 1:50 pm GMT
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Twodees Partain , April 3, 2018 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Paul C.

Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.

jconsley , April 3, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article. Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
anonymous [341] Disclaimer , April 3, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT

sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands

Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies. Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.

Che Guava , April 3, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
flashlight joe , April 3, 2018 at 3:17 pm GMT
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"

They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF, 58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.

But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?

Jake , April 3, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
@CCR

The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.

Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?

Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically, all fascists are socialists.

[Apr 03, 2018] Americans Trust 'Our' Intelligence Agencies. Should We

Notable quotes:
"... "We don't torture people. Okay?" Tenet says. ..."
"... "Come on, George," Pelley says. ..."
"... "We don't torture people," Tenet maintains. ..."
"... "Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?" Pelley asks. ..."
"... "We don't torture people," Tenet says. ..."
"... "Water boarding?" Pelley asks. ..."
"... "We do not – I don't talk about techniques," Tenet replies. ..."
"... "It's torture," Pelley says. ..."
"... "And we don't torture people." ..."
"... any Government that's friendly toward Russia ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Apr 03, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

The record is clear that 'our' (that is, the ruling Establishment's) intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, have lied to the public many times, actually lie routinely -- but these lies are always revealed only decades later, by historians, which is too late, because the damage was already done. Think, for example, of just two of the now-famous cases, Iran 1953 , and Chile 1973 , in both of which instances the US Government ended a democracy abroad, and established a brutal dictatorship there (the Shah in Iran, and Pinochet in Chile) -- but what good can a historian do, when the Government and its 'news'-media were persistently lying, and they had fooled the US public, at the time -- which is all that really counted (and ever will count)? Can a historian undo the damage that the Government and its propaganda-agencies had perpetrated, by means of their lies, and coups, and invasions? Never. But this Government, and its propaganda-agents, claim to defend democracies, not to end them. Can it actually be a democracy, if it's doing such things, and doing it time after time?

Something's deeply wrong here. Government by deceit, cannot be a democracy. And, yet, the public still don't get the message, even after it has been delivered to us in history-books. By then, it's no longer in the news, and so only few people really care about it. The message of history is not learned. The public still accepts the ongoing lies -- the new lies, in the new 'news', for the new atrocities.

During the period after the Soviet Union, and its communism, and its Warsaw Pact military alliance, all ended in 1991, the US-and-allied historical record (all now after the Cold War has supposedly been over) is even worse, and is even more clearly evil, because the ideological excuse that had formerly existed (and which was only the excuse, and not the reason, in most cases, such as in Iran, and in Chile) is gone.

Iraq in 2003 was a particularly blatant demonstration of the US-Government's psychopathy regarding foreign affairs. So: let's consider this example (hopefully, to learn a lesson from it -- which still hasn't yet been learnt):

Bill Clinton's CIA chief George Tenet told President George W. Bush that convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had WMD, weapons of mass destruction, was "a slam-dunk." His job wasn't to find the truth, but to authenticate the 'evidence' to back up the President, and Tenet did just that. The American people went for it, even though no WMD actually remained in Iraq, because the U.N. inspectors in 1998 had destroyed all of them, and because there was no indication (other than hired and coerced testimony, and especially fabrications from CIA-partnered anti-Saddam Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi ) that there had been restored in Iraq any WMD program. A crucial date was 7 September 2002, when George W. Bush and Tony Blair both said that a new report had just been issued by the IAEA saying that Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having a nuclear weapon. The IAEA promptly denied that it had issued any such "new report" at all, and the 'news' media simply ignored the denial, which the IAEA then repeated weeks later, and it again was ignored ; so, the false impression, that such an IAEA report had been issued, remained in the publics' minds, and they favored invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein before there would be, as Condoleezza Rice warned the next day following Bush-Blair, on September 8th, a "mushroom cloud" . It was all just lies -- lies that were believed, at the time, and even believed by many for a long time after we invaded. Some of these lies were derived from torturing detainees -- torturing them to say what the US and British regimes wanted them to say.

On 25 April 2007, Tenet told CBS "60 Minutes" that

"We don't torture people. Okay?" Tenet says.

"Come on, George," Pelley says.

"We don't torture people," Tenet maintains.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?" Pelley asks.

"We don't torture people," Tenet says.

"Water boarding?" Pelley asks.

"We do not – I don't talk about techniques," Tenet replies.

"It's torture," Pelley says.

"And we don't torture people."

US President Donald Trump has now appointed to lead the CIA the very same woman, Gina Haspel, who had operated, under Tenet, under Bush, the CIA "black site" in Thailand, where Abu Zubaydeh was waterboarded 83 times and otherwise tortured so that he lost his left eye. The reason why he was being tortured was in order to extract from him testimony that Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11, but Zubaydeh didn't even know anything about any such matter, and tried desperately to say what he thought his torturers wanted him to say, so as to stop these tortures, but he didn't know that they were intending to torture him until he would implicate Saddam Hussein in causing the 9/11 attacks. And so the torturing just went on and on. The CIA's Haspel finally gave up, after deciding that he'd die if they continued any further. The problem now was to hide him from the public. So, Zubaydeh subsequently has been held incommunicado at Guantanamo since 2001, so that he can't communicate with anyone in the outside world, and thus the crimes of George Bush and his employee George Tenet and his employee Gina Haspel, can't be prosecuted. And, now, Trump appoints her to Tenet's old spot, as the CIA Director. So: Bush had hired her, then protected her. Obama protected instead of prosecuted her. And, finally, Trump now promotes her, to be the CIA's new chief. She has demonstrated herself to be a reliable liar for whomever is her boss. Trump therefore can trust her to vouch for whatever he wants her to 'prove', to whatever American suckers still remain, as being American suckers.

This isn't new, but maybe it's just worse. Think JFK assassination. Think RFK assassination. Think MLK assassination. And, even think about the CIA's Gladio operation, which since the very start of the CIA , has been setting up atrocities designed to deceive their publics, so as to blame, first, the USSR's Government, and then, now, Russia's Government. (And, also, Iran's Government, and Iraq's Government, and Syria's Government, and Libya's Government, and Ukraine's Government -- any Government that's friendly toward Russia -- all for the purpose of "regime-change," so as to pump up the sales of corporations such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, and to extend the properties of oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil . Lying to the public, in order to back up what the President wants, is what the American 'intelligence' community is designed to do . And, things aren't much better in UK. (But Seymour Hersh reported that, at least one time, they were somewhat better .)

Is this type of government really in service to the public, anywhere? It is in service to the allied aristocracies -- those of US & Israel & Sauds & British & etc. -- who own those weapons-making firms. The military tail wags this 'democratic' dog.

Globally, there is a competition between aristocracies, and they are contending gangs. That's no different than was the case leading up to WW I . But WW III will end it all -- and all of us -- unless the public wises up, and fast, and recognizes whom their real enemies are (which are internal, not external). Without cooperation from the news-media (owned by those aristocracies), to expose (instead of spread) the frauds, WW III -- the end of everything -- is in the cards. It's in the cards, right now. And, this time, it's not a mistake. It won't need any wild assassin to spark the conflagration . Instead, it's the plan . It has actually been building ever since 24 February 1990 . And this has been even more confirmed now .

Should we trust 'our' intelligence agencies to tell us how they're carrying out the plan? Are we idiots? Or is it just that the 'news' media are an arm of the CIA ? In fact, "America's Top Scientists Confirm: US Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia" , but did you read about that in the New York Times , or Washington Post , or UK's Guardian , or at all?

Patriotism is to the public, not to the rulers. Any rulers who expect it to be to them, instead of to the public, are simply tyrants -- they are traitors, who happen to rule the public. Do we live in a dictatorship, or in a democracy? If it's a dictatorship ( such as the best available evidence shows that America is ), then this, which we are now experiencing, is simply par for the course. But will we continue to accept it? Or, will we, finally, learn from history ? (And, if so, then will we do it fast enough, under the prevailing circumstances?) The time to decide, and to act, could be short . Have we had enough now, of that lying? Because, accepting just a little bit more of it, could mean the end of everything. If it's not going to be the end of the liars, it will probably soon be the end of everything. Because that's the path we now are on.

[Apr 03, 2018] Americans Trust 'Our' Intelligence Agencies. Should We

Notable quotes:
"... "We don't torture people. Okay?" Tenet says. ..."
"... "Come on, George," Pelley says. ..."
"... "We don't torture people," Tenet maintains. ..."
"... "Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?" Pelley asks. ..."
"... "We don't torture people," Tenet says. ..."
"... "Water boarding?" Pelley asks. ..."
"... "We do not – I don't talk about techniques," Tenet replies. ..."
"... "It's torture," Pelley says. ..."
"... "And we don't torture people." ..."
"... any Government that's friendly toward Russia ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Apr 03, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

The record is clear that 'our' (that is, the ruling Establishment's) intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, have lied to the public many times, actually lie routinely -- but these lies are always revealed only decades later, by historians, which is too late, because the damage was already done. Think, for example, of just two of the now-famous cases, Iran 1953 , and Chile 1973 , in both of which instances the US Government ended a democracy abroad, and established a brutal dictatorship there (the Shah in Iran, and Pinochet in Chile) -- but what good can a historian do, when the Government and its 'news'-media were persistently lying, and they had fooled the US public, at the time -- which is all that really counted (and ever will count)? Can a historian undo the damage that the Government and its propaganda-agencies had perpetrated, by means of their lies, and coups, and invasions? Never. But this Government, and its propaganda-agents, claim to defend democracies, not to end them. Can it actually be a democracy, if it's doing such things, and doing it time after time?

Something's deeply wrong here. Government by deceit, cannot be a democracy. And, yet, the public still don't get the message, even after it has been delivered to us in history-books. By then, it's no longer in the news, and so only few people really care about it. The message of history is not learned. The public still accepts the ongoing lies -- the new lies, in the new 'news', for the new atrocities.

During the period after the Soviet Union, and its communism, and its Warsaw Pact military alliance, all ended in 1991, the US-and-allied historical record (all now after the Cold War has supposedly been over) is even worse, and is even more clearly evil, because the ideological excuse that had formerly existed (and which was only the excuse, and not the reason, in most cases, such as in Iran, and in Chile) is gone.

Iraq in 2003 was a particularly blatant demonstration of the US-Government's psychopathy regarding foreign affairs. So: let's consider this example (hopefully, to learn a lesson from it -- which still hasn't yet been learnt):

Bill Clinton's CIA chief George Tenet told President George W. Bush that convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had WMD, weapons of mass destruction, was "a slam-dunk." His job wasn't to find the truth, but to authenticate the 'evidence' to back up the President, and Tenet did just that. The American people went for it, even though no WMD actually remained in Iraq, because the U.N. inspectors in 1998 had destroyed all of them, and because there was no indication (other than hired and coerced testimony, and especially fabrications from CIA-partnered anti-Saddam Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi ) that there had been restored in Iraq any WMD program. A crucial date was 7 September 2002, when George W. Bush and Tony Blair both said that a new report had just been issued by the IAEA saying that Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having a nuclear weapon. The IAEA promptly denied that it had issued any such "new report" at all, and the 'news' media simply ignored the denial, which the IAEA then repeated weeks later, and it again was ignored ; so, the false impression, that such an IAEA report had been issued, remained in the publics' minds, and they favored invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein before there would be, as Condoleezza Rice warned the next day following Bush-Blair, on September 8th, a "mushroom cloud" . It was all just lies -- lies that were believed, at the time, and even believed by many for a long time after we invaded. Some of these lies were derived from torturing detainees -- torturing them to say what the US and British regimes wanted them to say.

On 25 April 2007, Tenet told CBS "60 Minutes" that

"We don't torture people. Okay?" Tenet says.

"Come on, George," Pelley says.

"We don't torture people," Tenet maintains.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?" Pelley asks.

"We don't torture people," Tenet says.

"Water boarding?" Pelley asks.

"We do not – I don't talk about techniques," Tenet replies.

"It's torture," Pelley says.

"And we don't torture people."

US President Donald Trump has now appointed to lead the CIA the very same woman, Gina Haspel, who had operated, under Tenet, under Bush, the CIA "black site" in Thailand, where Abu Zubaydeh was waterboarded 83 times and otherwise tortured so that he lost his left eye. The reason why he was being tortured was in order to extract from him testimony that Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11, but Zubaydeh didn't even know anything about any such matter, and tried desperately to say what he thought his torturers wanted him to say, so as to stop these tortures, but he didn't know that they were intending to torture him until he would implicate Saddam Hussein in causing the 9/11 attacks. And so the torturing just went on and on. The CIA's Haspel finally gave up, after deciding that he'd die if they continued any further. The problem now was to hide him from the public. So, Zubaydeh subsequently has been held incommunicado at Guantanamo since 2001, so that he can't communicate with anyone in the outside world, and thus the crimes of George Bush and his employee George Tenet and his employee Gina Haspel, can't be prosecuted. And, now, Trump appoints her to Tenet's old spot, as the CIA Director. So: Bush had hired her, then protected her. Obama protected instead of prosecuted her. And, finally, Trump now promotes her, to be the CIA's new chief. She has demonstrated herself to be a reliable liar for whomever is her boss. Trump therefore can trust her to vouch for whatever he wants her to 'prove', to whatever American suckers still remain, as being American suckers.

This isn't new, but maybe it's just worse. Think JFK assassination. Think RFK assassination. Think MLK assassination. And, even think about the CIA's Gladio operation, which since the very start of the CIA , has been setting up atrocities designed to deceive their publics, so as to blame, first, the USSR's Government, and then, now, Russia's Government. (And, also, Iran's Government, and Iraq's Government, and Syria's Government, and Libya's Government, and Ukraine's Government -- any Government that's friendly toward Russia -- all for the purpose of "regime-change," so as to pump up the sales of corporations such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, and to extend the properties of oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil . Lying to the public, in order to back up what the President wants, is what the American 'intelligence' community is designed to do . And, things aren't much better in UK. (But Seymour Hersh reported that, at least one time, they were somewhat better .)

Is this type of government really in service to the public, anywhere? It is in service to the allied aristocracies -- those of US & Israel & Sauds & British & etc. -- who own those weapons-making firms. The military tail wags this 'democratic' dog.

Globally, there is a competition between aristocracies, and they are contending gangs. That's no different than was the case leading up to WW I . But WW III will end it all -- and all of us -- unless the public wises up, and fast, and recognizes whom their real enemies are (which are internal, not external). Without cooperation from the news-media (owned by those aristocracies), to expose (instead of spread) the frauds, WW III -- the end of everything -- is in the cards. It's in the cards, right now. And, this time, it's not a mistake. It won't need any wild assassin to spark the conflagration . Instead, it's the plan . It has actually been building ever since 24 February 1990 . And this has been even more confirmed now .

Should we trust 'our' intelligence agencies to tell us how they're carrying out the plan? Are we idiots? Or is it just that the 'news' media are an arm of the CIA ? In fact, "America's Top Scientists Confirm: US Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia" , but did you read about that in the New York Times , or Washington Post , or UK's Guardian , or at all?

Patriotism is to the public, not to the rulers. Any rulers who expect it to be to them, instead of to the public, are simply tyrants -- they are traitors, who happen to rule the public. Do we live in a dictatorship, or in a democracy? If it's a dictatorship ( such as the best available evidence shows that America is ), then this, which we are now experiencing, is simply par for the course. But will we continue to accept it? Or, will we, finally, learn from history ? (And, if so, then will we do it fast enough, under the prevailing circumstances?) The time to decide, and to act, could be short . Have we had enough now, of that lying? Because, accepting just a little bit more of it, could mean the end of everything. If it's not going to be the end of the liars, it will probably soon be the end of everything. Because that's the path we now are on.

[Apr 03, 2018] The West Should Avoid Starting a New Cold War with Russia by Doug Bandow

Notable quotes:
"... The first, perhaps most dominant ingredient of the Cold War is missing: ideological competition. America remains aggressive internationally, determined to transform the world in its image, or at least in its interest. Of course, invading Iraq, nation-building in Afghanistan, blowing up Libya and messing around in Syria all failed dramatically -- even disastrously. Nevertheless, so far Washington's governing elite appears to have learned nothing. ..."
"... Putinism is no philosophy. It is just traditional authoritarian nationalism. Even those in the West who seem to admire him -- reactionary conservatives, intolerant nationalists and wannabe authoritarians -- are more enamored of his methods than his person. There is no Putinist version of the Comintern, no global Putinist revolutionary movement devoted to world conquest. Putin cares about the world only insofar as it affects Russia. ..."
"... Second, Russia's foreign policy is essentially conservative and restrained, though not pacifist. (In contrast, America's is unconstrained and frankly militarist.) This approach explains the conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine, as well as attempts to influence American and European elections. The United States views expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders as the natural evolution of American global domination. Moscow considers the incorporation of Ukraine into the alliance created to constrain Russia as a security threat, rather as Washington might view Mexico's entry into the Warsaw Pact. While to Americans Moscow is wildly inflating the threat -- in truth, the idea of the Europeans attacking Russia sounds like the plot for a fantasy movie -- the United States has not suffered multiple invasions from its European neighbors. ..."
Apr 03, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

President Donald Trump entered office with praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin and support for improving Washington-Moscow relations. A year later President Trump surprised even his aides by congratulating Putin on the latter's reelection and suggesting a summit meeting between the two leaders.

A chilling political wind is blowing through the capitals of America, Europe and Russia. There is talk of a new Cold War, as the two sides trade diplomatic expulsions. In the West, at least, there is even a hint of war as NATO fusses over European defense capabilities (poor) and the United States deploys more troops to the continent (as usual).

President Trump has stood by, mostly silently, as bilateral relations continued their slow-motion collapse, demonstrating his essential irrelevance to much of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, he allowed the State Department to announce the latest expulsion of Russian diplomats. This is one area where his gut instincts -- the value of an improved relationship -- are correct, but what he personally believes obviously doesn't much matter for policy. That could change as he asserts himself with a new secretary of state and national security advisor, but they both have hawkish instincts and have demonstrated no interest in détente with Moscow.

Despite the diplomatic spiral, however, there is no new Cold War. And there won't be a hot war unless Washington ignites a confrontation while pursuing an ever more interventionist and activist foreign policy in areas viewed as vital by Russia.

The first, perhaps most dominant ingredient of the Cold War is missing: ideological competition. America remains aggressive internationally, determined to transform the world in its image, or at least in its interest. Of course, invading Iraq, nation-building in Afghanistan, blowing up Libya and messing around in Syria all failed dramatically -- even disastrously. Nevertheless, so far Washington's governing elite appears to have learned nothing.

In contrast, Vladimir Putin clearly grasped the lessons of the Soviet Union's collapse. He is a pragmatic authoritarian, rather than a communist. His ambitions look far more traditional, like that of the Tsar and the Russian Empire. His government's greatest concerns are maintaining control, gaining respect for Russia's interests and safeguarding its boundaries.

Putinism is no philosophy. It is just traditional authoritarian nationalism. Even those in the West who seem to admire him -- reactionary conservatives, intolerant nationalists and wannabe authoritarians -- are more enamored of his methods than his person. There is no Putinist version of the Comintern, no global Putinist revolutionary movement devoted to world conquest. Putin cares about the world only insofar as it affects Russia.

Second, Russia's foreign policy is essentially conservative and restrained, though not pacifist. (In contrast, America's is unconstrained and frankly militarist.) This approach explains the conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine, as well as attempts to influence American and European elections. The United States views expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders as the natural evolution of American global domination. Moscow considers the incorporation of Ukraine into the alliance created to constrain Russia as a security threat, rather as Washington might view Mexico's entry into the Warsaw Pact. While to Americans Moscow is wildly inflating the threat -- in truth, the idea of the Europeans attacking Russia sounds like the plot for a fantasy movie -- the United States has not suffered multiple invasions from its European neighbors.

Moreover, Putin and many other Russians believe the West violated its commitment not to expand the transatlantic alliance eastward. Perhaps Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton merely encouraged the Gorbachev and Yeltsin governments to believe what they wanted. However, newly declassified diplomatic records help explain Moscow's anger. To that must be added the dismemberment of Serbia, long linked to Russia, and "color revolutions," always to Moscow's detriment. Again, one can imagine the reaction of U.S. policymakers most exercised over Vladimir Putin had Russia backed a street putsch against a democratically elected, pro-American president in Mexico City. Such does not justify Moscow's reaction, but it helps explain it.

Putin wants to disrupt and divide those countries most directly threatening Russia (ironically, his actions have done more to unite the fractious transatlantic alliance). He also wants to prevent NATO from incorporating Georgia and Ukraine (in this he has been more successful). Ironically, there was nothing in his early years in power which suggested animus toward the West. Rather, he appeared to be a typically cynical and worldly KGB officer determined to enhance his nation's domestic power and international standing. From his perspective Russia's foreign policy is just business, nothing personal.

Even Putin's Syrian adventure demonstrates the limits of his ambition. He backed a long-time ally to thwart what would be another aggressive U.S. advance. Far from threatening to dominate the Middle East, Moscow is seeking to preserve a small role in a region long dominated by America, which is allied with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf States. Only pretentious Washington policymakers, who successively intervened militarily to oust established governments in three Middle Eastern countries and backed an ally's invasion of a fourth country would have the chutzpah to accuse Russia of aggressive designs for supporting a recognized government in one.

Third, the world no longer is bipolar. China and the European Union both enjoy economic wealth and power akin to that of the United States, even though Americans remain wealthier and, at least until the Trump administration, were the primary drivers of international economic policy. Beijing is building a significant military while the Europeans are capable of doing so, in whatever form they desire. India is moving onto center stage as well, with virtually unlimited possibilities in the future.

In a broad sense the Europeans are on America's side while the People's Republic of China (PRC) backs Russia, but the divisions are far more complex than during the Cold War. Several European governments have resisted U.S.-led sanctions against Moscow as well as other American initiatives, while the PRC and Russia are friends out of necessity, mostly drawn together by Washington's hostility. Such an alliance, if it deserves to be called that, likely will prove of little value if truly tested. There is no "Evil Empire," as President Ronald Reagan once characterized the Soviet Union and its satellite states.

Fourth, there are no essential conflicts between Washington and Moscow. There are no disputed territories, no vital regions occupied by the opposing power. Neither nation has any interest in conquering the other. The only genuine area of conflict is the desire of American policymakers to impose their will virtually everywhere on earth, including areas of long-standing Russian interest. U.S. policy is an inverted form of the Monroe Doctrine: Other nations are not allowed to exercise influence even in their own neighborhood. Washington desires to treat the world as it originally deigned to handle Latin America, viewing any outside interference as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

This irrationally aggressive approach is evident in Syria, a long-time ally of Moscow. American policymakers speak with outrage at Russia's military involvement in one nation even though Washington has spent decades intervening -- often militarily -- virtually everywhere else in the region: Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Israel, Yemen, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and the other Gulf States. Similarly misguided are Washington's complaints about Russian involvement in Central Asia, which any map shows to be a lot closer to Russia than America. The denizens of the District of Columbia might aspire to a world in which America dominates every region, but such an objective is not important let alone vital to the nation's security. And such an overly ambitious and unsustainable policy certainly is not worth war.

As for Europe, despite the frenzied complaints of the Baltic states and Poland, there is no evidence of any aggressive Russian designs. And why would there be? The meal would be indigestible. Indeed, nearing eighteen years in power Putin has gained nothing but Crimea, which probably was welcomed by a majority of residents. Beyond that influence over South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and the Donbass is a pretty pitiful empire, while the United States has bombed, invaded, occupied and/or dismembered several states. If he was biding his time then he made a huge error, since the Europeans are finally taking steps to create a more effective and better coordinated continental defense.

Even if Moscow were to win against a Baltic state, Russia would only gain ravaged territory along with enduring enmity, brutal sanctions and military retaliation. Worse, if NATO chose to fight -- as it almost certainly would -- Russia would lose the war. Unsurprisingly, Putin has done nothing to suggests he wants anything other than to secure Russia itself, a goal he has advanced by destabilizing, but not conquering, Georgia and Ukraine, to prevent their inclusion in NATO. The easiest way for Washington to avoid conflict with Moscow is to not advance its security guarantees and military deployments to Russia's borders in Asia.

Fifth, Russia is no match militarily to the United States. Despite the widespread wailing and gnashing of teeth about the tragically underfunded American military, Washington spends ten times as much on the armed services as does Moscow. Congress sometimes votes larger annual increases in outlays than Russia's total annual expenditures.

Such comparisons obviously are imperfect, but only in nuclear weapons does Moscow have relative military parity. It possesses one aircraft carrier, sort of, versus ten American carrier groups. The Russian air force and air defense system are competent, and would force the Pentagon to plan a war without absolute air superiority, for once, but they likely would not prevail. The Putin government has rebuilt the army after its less than stellar performance in Georgia, but there is no adjoining American territory for Moscow to invade. And Russia lacks air or naval lift to reach the United States, and would regret arriving if it could.

Which leaves Europe. However, the continent enjoys almost twelve times Russia's economic strength -- Italy alone (as well as Germany, the United Kingdom and France) has a larger GDP than Russia. The Europeans already spend upwards of five times as much on the military as Moscow; collectively the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, despite their anemic efforts, devote almost two and a half times as much as Russia to the military.

True, the Europeans suffer problems of interoperability, coordination, and deployment. Nevertheless, the idea that Moscow could successfully attack America and Europe is a fantasy. While the allies should prepare for any eventuality, the primary responsibility should fall on Europe, which both is relatively more vulnerable and entirely capable of defending itself.

How to pull U.S.-Russia relations out of their tailspin? Federal, state, and local officials should defend the one vital interest at stake, the integrity of American democracy. Of course, Washington would have greater credibility in doing so if it acknowledged having interfered in scores of democratic elections worldwide, including in Russia. U.S. policymakers should stop meddling to help America's foreign friends, improve electoral safeguards at home, and prepare to retaliate in response to future interference by Russia or anyone else.

Washington should end the diplomatic tit-for-tats. Communication channels need to remain open. The more people -- businessmen, tourists, students, family members, athletes, performers and others -- who visit each way, the better. This would be one way to demonstrate that this is not Cold War II.

The United States also should address Moscow's security concerns. American policymakers express shock and sadness that anyone anywhere fears the United States, but any nation on Washington's naughty list should worry about covert or overt efforts at regime change. The United States and Europeans should explore a settlement with Russia involving Georgia and Ukraine which includes the end to NATO expansion. In return, the Putin government would stop supporting anti-Kiev rebels. Moscow isn't going to return Crimea, which historically was part of Russia: the United States and Europe should de facto accept the annexation, dropping sanctions if Moscow stops undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity.

On other issues -- Syria, Iran, North Korea and more -- the two sides should return to old-fashioned compromise. Russian interests are legitimate and need to be taken into account. Along the way Washington should look for ways to loosen the China-Russia partnership. The PRC poses a far greater long-term challenge to America. A friendlier Moscow, like India, could act as an important counterweight to Beijing.

The state of the U.S.-Russia relationship is bad, but it is not Cold War II. Washington should ensure that relations do not further deteriorate. The Russian Federation is too important a country to treat as an enemy. No one would gain from a new conflict, whether cold or hot.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

[Apr 02, 2018] Trump has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with increased interest in foreign war

Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests. ..."
"... I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy. ..."
"... In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them. ..."
Apr 02, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Larry , March 30, 2018 at 8:04 am

I believe Trump could negotiate a deal. But I also believe he could blow up the whole talk before it even happens. He has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with increased interest in foreign war (Bolton hiring) and the ramping up of hostilities by bouncing Russians from the U.S. over the phony poisoning story in the UK.

a different chris , March 30, 2018 at 8:48 am

I don't disagree with your comment, but not comfortable with the term "bend to". Trump gets enamored with different people at different times, but he always is looking down at them. They may get enough rope to scare the rest of us, but they are still on a rope.

Bolton is horrible, but a lot of other horrible people have come and gone in this really quick year.

cocomaan , March 30, 2018 at 11:15 am

Bolton is horrible but probably won't last long. Nobody at Trump's ear has, including his own children.

Trump just announced that we're withdrawing from Syria. That's more than Obama ever did.

Part of being a nationalist demagogue is that you're not as interested in foreign wars unless they enrich the country. Not a single one of our wars does that. There's nothing interesting in mercantilism, for instance, that we can't do at home (drill baby drill).

I'm not saying I agree with that view, I'm just saying that if he's a nationalist demagogue, it only follows that he's not interested in, uh, "non-for-profit warmaking".

sgt_doom , March 30, 2018 at 2:57 pm

I am NO Trump fan or voter, but it does appear that he's the first one to apply sanctions to those specific Chinese banks handling the trade with North Korea.

Arizona Slim , March 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm

Uh-oh, I find myself agreeing with something that Trump is doing. Does that make me a backward deplorable?

Al Swearengen , March 30, 2018 at 8:45 am

(Somewhat) OT, but it strikes me that the best way to look at Trump is through the lense of what he is – the US version of Sylvio Berlusconi. A sleazy billionaire Oligarch with no core principles and a fondness for Bunga Bunga parties.

Rather than as LITERALLY HITLER as per the verbiage of hashtag the resistance.

Thus, rather than as a crazed madman bent on "evil" at all times one wonders whether Mr. Bunga Bunga would do a deal with Lil' Kim. Sure he would, assuming that the ruling military Junta allows him to. It might be in the interest of the latter to de-escalate this particular hotspot (as NK crisis/hype fatigue may set in) and simply push Iran as the next flashpoint to hype.

sgt_doom , March 30, 2018 at 2:59 pm

Indeed! They even sound quite similar -- I recall in a speech that Berlusconi gave when he was still the Italian president and the Italian left was screaming for his resignation, Sylvio claimed such demands were making him uneasy, since if he was to go home, and he had 20 homes, it would be difficult for him to decide which house or mansion to go to!

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 9:05 am

It seems the bottom line for negotiations with North Korea have little to do with this article which covers Trump's thoughts on nuclear proliferation between major powers that have massive stockpiles.

North Korea is mainly interested in protecting itself from regime change and from becoming a US outpost (as in target) butt up against China. It is hard to believe that Kim Jong-Un would get any advantage whatsoever out of dismantling his nuclear arsenal, however small. One assumes he is aware of Gaddafi in particular and US's track record on keeping it's promises – particularly over the span of different administrations – in general.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 9:13 am

The above comment assumes full disarmament as the minimum condition of any "negotiation" since Trump has gone so far out of his way to make that clear.

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm

Oh, and now see the lead story at the Financial Times, China uses economic muscle to bring N Korea to negotiating table:

China virtually halted exports of petroleum products, coal and other key materials to North Korea in the months leading to this week's unprecedented summit between Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.

The export freeze -- revealed in official Chinese data and going much further than the limits stipulated under UN sanctions -- shows the extent of Chinese pressure following the ramping up of Pyongyang's nuclear testing programme. It also suggests that behind Mr Xi's talk this week of a "profound revolutionary friendship" between the two nations, his government has been playing hard ball with its neighbour.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a2b2696-33f7-11e8-ae84-494103e73f7f

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 11:24 am

I would normally agree but Kim Jong-Un was just summoned to China. Not even given a state visit. The Chinese announced North Korea would denuclearlize:

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un pledged his commitment to denuclearization and to meet U.S. officials, China said on Wednesday after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, who promised China would uphold friendship with its isolated neighbour.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china/china-says-north-koreas-kim-pledged-commitment-to-denuclearization-idUSKBN1H305W

China has heretofore pretended that it couldn't do anything about North Korea. It looks like Trump's tariff threat extracted China jerking Kim Jong-Un's chain as a concession. I don't see how Kim Jong-Un can defy China if China is serious about wanting North Korea to denuclearlize. Maybe it will merely reduce its arsenal and stop threatening Hawaii (even though its ability to deliver rockets that far is in doubt) and just stick to being able to light up Seoul instead.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 2:25 pm

Agree. I wasn't aware of the details you mention above regarding the export freeze. (I won't use Google and my normal 'trick' doesn't work to get around FT's paywall – and I won't use the trial membership either). I'm hopeless.

Anyway, you make a very convincing case. I can only imagine that Kim Jong Un is one miserable scared rat. My point about a "silk noose" below was perhaps on the mark.

neo-realist , March 31, 2018 at 12:47 am

Kim might agree on paper or through an insincere promise to denuclearize, but I don't see a closed authoritarian regime like the North agreeing to an inspection regime that would insure that such a pledge would be lived up to. Reduction, but build-up on the sly w/o inspections.

China may be interested in a deal to the extent that it prevents a bloody war breaking out that they'll probably expend manpower to help clean up and it insures the security of a North Korean buffer that keeps American troops off their border; After all, they've got to keep the powder dry for "reunification" with Taiwan.

I also don't believe that the US would agree to concessions, such as removing American troops from the peninsula. the pentagon wouldn't like it, the hawks around Trumps wouldn't like it, and I believe the SK leadership would not be too crazy about the potential ramifications for their security with such an agreement.

Travis Bickle , March 30, 2018 at 9:19 am

But, can Trump (by extension, the US), make an agreement that can be relied on over its term?

For any hope of NK trusting any deal with the US he would have to stand by the Iranian deal. Then there's Bolton and the Neocon Will To War, for deeply pathological reasons which by nature cannot be debated.

In this case, the mere possibility of a "deal" is possible, but only if there is a third party to hold both of them to it.

Hello China?

ambrit , March 30, 2018 at 10:02 am

Did the Chinese call Kim to Beijing to reassure him? Carrot AND stick.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 10:43 am

Presentation of a silk noose perhaps?

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 11:05 am

That's the crazy thing about this. What possible inducement could Kim Jong-Un have gotten to attend his own funeral? Why would anyone trust the US an inch?

I suppose if he can keep his own people in a suspended state of extreme propaganda, then he might be vulnerable to his own medicine, but that seems at odds with his behavior so far (such as the assassination of his uncle). If anything, he would be especially leery of anything coming out of the US.

And then can he really be that psyched out by Bolton, Pompeo and Torture Lady so that good cop Trump can hand him is own death certificate with a space for his signature?

Travis Bickle , March 31, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Whatever happened during this China trip, the overarching theme must have been how to manage the US. Here's one rough scenario:

NK 'disarms' to some definition, under the auspices of China, acquiring in return an explicit Chinese security umbrella for the buffer it presents between them and SK. Nobody really wants a unified Korea in any case. In return, the US vacates SK militarily, ever so discretely and over time.

Done correctly, and with the finesse necessary for Trump, China is in a position to extract all sorts of concessions from the US on other fronts as well. Nothing positive is going to happen here without China, and they hold most of the cards. If nothing positive happens, we have to consider the pressure that'd build on Trump to do something, anything, and that probably being something rash. (Better a big disaster over there than a mammoth one over here thinking).

gearandgrit , March 30, 2018 at 9:46 am

"he can't go willy nilly and set nukes a-flying just because it struck him as a good idea that day."

I mean sure. His "button" isn't literally connected to a missile somewhere, but he sure as hell can ask that nukes be fired whenever and wherever he wants. You could argue that someone in the chain of command would prevent that from happening, but that's more of a hope than a guarantee. For a really good read on how this all works and the history of the nuclear program I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788

With Bolton on board and seemingly everyone with half a brain, a little logic and the ability to hold their tongue for more than about 5 seconds out, I highly doubt anything will come of these negotiations. In fact, I'm more worried that the US will get steamrolled by China and NK.

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 11:13 am

That isn't true. See the link I provided, which you clearly did not bother to read. Various people can refuse his order as illegal. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, in a Financial Times, before Trump was elected, said the same thing. Bolton is the National Security Adviser. He may have a lot of informal power by having direct access to the President, but he does not tie in to the formal chain of command, either at the DoD or State.

gearandgrit , March 30, 2018 at 12:09 pm

Oh I read it and I've read many other articles and a lot of non-fiction on the issue. Again, I would call your position and the position of this article hopeful at best. Trump has the football, he has the codes in his jacket pocket and everyone responsible for carrying out the order to launch has been raised up through a military system that ensures no one questions an order from their superior. Relying on various people to refuse his order as illegal in this system is not a fail-safe I feel comfortable with. I do find it interesting that you just assume I didn't read the article as if this one article is the end all be all on the subject.

David , March 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm

The article seems a bit confused about what it's trying to say. Stopping nuclear proliferation has been a major policy priority of the US and other western governments since the 1960s, and if I recall correctly it was one of Bolton's priorities when he was in Bush the Lesser's administration. It's something in which all of the declared nuclear powers have an interest, because the smaller the number of nuclear powers in the world, the greater the difference between them and the rest. This is much more important than wild fantasies about rogue attacks: if N Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power like India, Israel and Pakistan, then all sorts of other countries might be tempted to have a go, starting with S Korea (which has the capacity and has been caught cheating before). Whilst this risk is objectively small, an end to the NK programme would make it even smaller. I suspect the deal will be that NK denuclearizes and China guarantees its security: a non-nuclear NK will be even more of a client state than it is now.
Nuclear competition among the superpowers is quite different and involves a whole set of different issues.

Synoia , March 30, 2018 at 1:18 pm

since one of Trump's salient characteristics is to have no enduring principles

I beg to differ. He most certainly has enduring principles:

1. My Children
2. Me
3. My current wife.
4. My money

The exact order is debatable, situational, and probably not provable.

Edward E , March 31, 2018 at 3:20 pm

5. My Wall

Less warfare = more wall
But remember the last time Trump said something in Syria's favor? A chemical attack happened in small village for no logical reason and the hawks immediately took to framing Assad. Trump then backed off and took harder line on Assad, launching missiles into Syria.

So I'm inclined to think he wants a deal. But look out for screaming hawks immediately trying to scuttle anything.

Tomonthebeach , March 30, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Perhaps 30 years ago, Trump was an international defense luminary, but I see little evidence of the boasted emotional control and cool Trump claimed. He is unarguably a successful grifter. Is that what it takes to make peace? What happens when the other guy realizes he has been lied to by a congenital liar? Back to square 1.

In my take, the recent meeting between the heads of China and N Korea just Trumped any leverage the US might have had in peace talks. Trump will be there only if a scapegoat is needed. Both S. Korea and Japan have expressed doubts about our reliability as a defense shield against powerful China – Japan and the Koreans' neighbor. What Little Rocketman has likely achieved is diplomatically checkmating the US. Now Trump's tariff threats serve only to push US allies in the region closer to China. Should that turn out to be the case, the economic repercussions are as dangerous and unpredictable as nukes in the air or as Trump himself. I sure hope I got this all wrong.

RBHoughton , March 30, 2018 at 7:51 pm

"no enduring principles" is a feature of politicians everywhere today. Their concern is to represent the rich and their qualification is to present those biased arguments in a way that beguiles the electorate into supposing its a good idea for them as well. Step Two is the "who would have thought it?" response after the country catches on.

In former times the candidate for public office would assert his principles on the hustings and the voters would remember what they knew of him before voting. Sure, there were ambitious unreliable people who were willing to exchange their reputations for office but they were few. We should get back to those days.

We allowed our merchants and spooks to drive USSR to the precipice without any thoughts about the nukes they had. It appeared then that warheads supposedly in Ukraine were missing. We will likely discover what happened to them in due course. It is possible that surveillance of communications is the main reason they are not a thread for the time being but that does not mean they have dropped out of existence.

Thank you NC for introducing an issue that should concern economists as much as everyone else.

Coldhearted Liberal , March 30, 2018 at 8:57 pm

North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests.

Don't forget the United States has itself promised to denuclearize, under the NPT.

Plenue , March 31, 2018 at 2:08 am

It would certainly bring me great pleasure if Trump of all people were to bring about some great positive change in regards to the Forever War with North Korea. Imagine all the whining liberals if Trump, unlike Obama, actually did something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Roland , March 31, 2018 at 3:42 pm

I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy.

PRC and NK leaders might think that all they have to do is get through a short patch of bad weather until 2020. If so, they are badly kidding themselves.

In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them.

[Apr 02, 2018] Iether Russia and China stick together or might be devoured by the West one by one, with Russia first onthe list

Notable quotes:
"... You think in one dimensional. The warfare & alliance is moving very dynamic, Russia & China are working in all fronts together if you watch carefully. Military & energy are appetizer. Petrol Yuan & BRI are main course. Joint dev of C929 civil plane, space program, agri, .its Eurasia century. ..."
"... Skripal false flag & 2 dozen countries expelling diplomats is full display of bizarre brute force destroying entire international norms. You need to resist before more countries succumb to West pressure. ..."
"... If West can orchestrate diplomatic boycott of Russia, won't China be next? When you see smoke, there is fire. When neighbor house is burning, it will spread to yours. But here you are saying, not my problem let China save its own ass until fire spread to yours. ..."
Apr 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

TT , April 1, 2018 at 3:48 am GMT

@Arioch

Oh, we have a copypaste contest? Okay then, i'd copy here my reply at saker's blog too.

No, i just wanna remind you again, Russia & China have to fight as a team, each with their best strength, Russia-military, China-economic.

> China will be blackmailed into submission.
Wooop! Then it is not "existential threat" for China.
Clash for power, clash for sovereignty, clash of prosperity -- but not for survival.

If one energy supply is been fully controlled, you are doomed.

> Russia & China are working closely

Which does not mean China's role is making harsh dyplomatic statements in favor of Russia. At least it was not so before today. So i think it is not today either.

It has very wide implication, West is able to pressure dozens of countries to bend on false flag, it will spread further to Asia & elsewhere. China will be next. Nib the bud.

Also remember that Chinese social mindset is build upon idea of "indebting with gifts and aids" and then requesting payback when they need it.

Since when has the West & Russians, or anyone are more kind than Chinese, giving without expectation of return of at least gratitude from a Russian like you?

Which means Russia should be very wary about accepting any help from China unless it wishes to be seen by China as a deeply indebted beggar incapable of sustaining itself.

Yes Russia should, there is never free lunch. But would it be better for Russia to team up with China to enjoy economic benefits at fair term with a safe South border, than getting raped by the West again with another hostile South neighbor (China could join West to plunder Russia, taking back outer Manchuria Siberia land).

And since diplomatic situation for Russia is not deadly critical I do not think Russia needed that newspaper article. If Russia would request China's support of the kind -- it would be in official diplomatic venues like UN.

No need to wait for UK US to close all Russia embassies with global sanction like what NK get. See further my friend.

> Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin
> Iran needs to save its skin

But is it so for China? Is China in critical need of sovereign and friendly Syria? I doubt it.

Sure Syria is not China concern, but for aftermath implications.

- Stop West eastward aggression. - BRI node in ME - Uyghur terrorists - West control of all ME Energy supply

Was that article reaction to some new threat to Syria, to russia, or to China itself? And i believe in the latter option. This article is not linked to any recent events around Russia, it is caused by Sino-American relations shift.

You think in one dimensional. The warfare & alliance is moving very dynamic, Russia & China are working in all fronts together if you watch carefully. Military & energy are appetizer. Petrol Yuan & BRI are main course. Joint dev of C929 civil plane, space program, agri, .its Eurasia century.

Skripal affair is much less than Olympics was. Even European states many did not jumped Skripal wagon.

who care about Olympics beside some bruise Russkies pride, Skripal false flag & 2 dozen countries expelling diplomats is full display of bizarre brute force destroying entire international norms. You need to resist before more countries succumb to West pressure. Open your narrow vision.

-- but if Russia would soemhow gets politically isolated from the West, what bad is it for China? Russia would become more dependent on China, like many of the trade with West would had to go through Chinese "laundry". China gets more influence over Russia. Russia gets much more limited in its options. Good (for China) develoment, why hurry to cancel it before Russia even asked for ?

You have asked yourself a good qn, why not joint the West vultures to feast on Russia bear? Sure, West aggression to Russia is godsend gift to China. But Chinese leaders think further than greedy West capitalist. Better to have strong Russia as safe Northern backyard than a Nato military threat encirclement (which Russia dream to join but too bad, rejected)

> You are silly self center viewer

Frankly, it is exactly the opposite here.
It is you who claim Russia being behing that article in Global Time.
It is me who claims Russia has no any relation to the timing and wording of that article.

I never claim Russia is solely behind that article. Its entire geopolitical dynamic situation. If West can orchestrate diplomatic boycott of Russia, won't China be next? When you see smoke, there is fire. When neighbor house is burning, it will spread to yours. But here you are saying, not my problem let China save its own ass until fire spread to yours.

> China special force is operating in Syria.
Maybe it is, but seems no one ever saw those operations.

Open secret. Like Russia, its to fight Chinese terrorists there instead of in China. Also real war game training by Russia, too good deal to miss.

> Lot of weapons supply to SAA.

Maybe they are, but can you name those Chinese weapons and show me where SAA is employing it?

It was reported in open news, Syria visited Beijing, then China announced it had old weapon contracts to fulfil..who will pay? Likely those infantry weapons, ammunition, artillery, TAW, uniform & gears, whatever construction materials while Russia take care of high tech equip like S400.

> always throwing allies under bus whenever possible,

.because Putin is evil and just enjoys every opportunity to do bad thing. Always.
I wish i would hear somethign remotely creative from you.

> hence Russia deserve to be raped by West like 1990 is natural.

Oh, i see. Yet another russophobic preaching that "Russians should repent and repay, repay, and repent", then frustrated when Russia shrugs this lecture off.

I'm Russophile & Putin's fan if you read my comments history. But fact is Russia did that, which is foolish short sighted. If West has offered Russia G8 on equal term + Nato, Russia won't hesitate to throw Syria, Iran, China immediately under bus. Then be ready for another rape fantasy. The West just don't love Russians, no matter how much she plead & give.

If all Russians think like you, now let China get all the blows since its their trade war, so Russkies should rest & enjoy the firework, then another bigger 1990′s rape is awaiting your country.

You have just shown Chinese what its like to be in alliance with Russia.

[Apr 02, 2018] The West wants to neutralize China. Russia is the threat to those plans because it could act as a bridge to Europe to China

Notable quotes:
"... It doesn't matter that China has a larger economy. Their economy can be suffocated so long as they are denied a link to Europe through Eurasia. ..."
Mar 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [276] Disclaimer , March 31, 2018 at 7:56 pm GMT

@myself

The point is not to block off China, the point is to block off China AND Russia from Europe. Also trade from other Eurasian countries is going to be discouraged unless it goes through the Straits that the West controlls, but obviously Russia and China are the big players here.

Russia has a lot of gas and natural resources that the West and ME countries do not want going to Europe.

And, as you said, the west has many ways of neutralizing China. So to the West, Russia is the bigger threat since either country could act as a bridge to Europe but Russia has many more paths of creating these links than China has.

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , March 31, 2018 at 3:57 am GMT
@myself

Russia is being singled out, and is being targeted before China, because of Mackinder and the need to control the "Heartland". Read up on Mackinder as he has a huge influence on the west.

The empire sees Russia as the greater threat because only Russia and not China is a threat to control the Heartland and thus the world. This is the real motivation behind everything.

It doesn't matter that China has a larger economy. Their economy can be suffocated so long as they are denied a link to Europe through Eurasia.

[Apr 02, 2018] Russia v the West: Is this a new Cold War? by Jonathan Marcus

It is really strange the BBC sometimes can still publish decent article of such subject and do not just repeat Foreign Office talking points.
Notable quotes:
"... There is a very different balance of forces between Russia and the West. Russia also has very limited "soft power", lacking an attractive internationalist ideology to "sell" around the world. ..."
"... If the Cold War was a battle for global dominance between two universalist ideologies - capitalism and communism - what then is today's competition between Russia and the West really about? ..."
"... But beyond that, policy towards Moscow needs to be thought through from the fundamentals, bearing in mind that the repercussions from the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union are still very much playing out some three decades later. ..."
Mar 31, 2018 | www.bbc.com

Relations between Russia and the West are at a new low. But how should we describe the current situation?

There's a lot of loose talk about a new "Cold War" - a comparison of present-day tensions to the bitter ideological and military rivalry that existed between the Soviet Union and the West from the 1950s to the end of the 1980s.

But such comparisons may be misleading.

"The Cold War," says Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at the CNA Corporation and a fellow at the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute, "was a competition resulting from a bipolar system, where two superpowers, both with economic and military advantages, were competing to shape international politics.

"Their universalist ideologies made this competition inevitable, as did the distribution of power at the time."

In contrast, he says, today's competition is not the result of a balance of power, or universalist ideology per se, but "conscious decisions made by leaders, the strategies they pursued and a series of definable disagreements in international politics". And these were not "destined or inevitable".

'Soft power'

So, while Mr Kofman believes the stakes could prove significant for the United States, the scale and existential nature of the conflict is nothing like the Cold War, nor is Russia in any position to fundamentally alter either the balance of power or the structure of the current international systems. "In short," says Mr Kofman, "the causes and character of the conflict are different."

During the real Cold War there was an armed peace in Europe, while the real battles were fought out across the globe from Angola to Cuba and the Middle East. Today's battle lines are generally much closer to Russia's own borders - Georgia and Ukraine.

There is a very different balance of forces between Russia and the West. Russia also has very limited "soft power", lacking an attractive internationalist ideology to "sell" around the world.

If the Cold War was a battle for global dominance between two universalist ideologies - capitalism and communism - what then is today's competition between Russia and the West really about?

Mr Kofman says that, for Russia, "it is about its survival as a power in the international order, and also about holding on to the remnants of the Russian empire".

"Russian leaders," he says, "are desperate to avert the further fragmentation of Russian influence and territory. They see no way to do this without maintaining buffer states and imposing their will on neighbours to secure their borders."

For the United States, Mr Kofman says, this is a confusing conflict. "One aspect of it", he says, "is a classic tale of hubris and over-extension; that is, too much liberal ideology and not enough thinking about international politics.

"Without any powers to contest American influence for two decades, Washington rightfully took advantage to build what it wanted, but all expansion of influence and power must eventually come with increasing cost, and those costs are starting to multiply in spades."

'Enemy deprivation syndrome'

It is increasingly clear that Russia, and China too for that matter, have not underwritten, and do not subscribe to, the liberal underpinnings of the post-Cold War order. And there is no way for the West to impose its will on these powers. So, in this sense, "great power politics" are back.

But many commentators say the West too has some responsibility for the current situation and playing up the new Cold War idea may only make matters worse.

Lyle Goldstein, a research professor at the US Naval War College, says: "Many in the West seemed to have succumbed to 'enemy deprivation syndrome' after the Cold War. Many national security specialists seem to yearn for a more simple threat that is easily characterised."

Situations in Georgia and Ukraine "seemed to offer the requisite storyline for new Cold War", he says. "However, these situations are incredibly complicated. And those most familiar with the region understand that both situations are a result of the rapid collapse of the Soviet Union with related identity and border issues."

So, what kind of power is Russia today? Mr Kofman describes it as "a weak great power." He says it is "consistently underrated because it historically lags behind the West in technology, political and economic sophistication, but Moscow consistently punches above its economic weight in the international system".

Russia is not, he says, "a declining regional power; quite the contrary".

"Indeed, after a period of internal balancing, military reforms and modernisation, Russia is more than capable of holding ground in its historic backyard, projecting power to other adjacent regions, and, as can be seen. reaching out to exact punishment on distant adversaries via non-military means."

In Nato countries, there is much talk about spending more on defence and of gearing up again to fight what's called a "peer competitor". For that, read Russia.

Some extra defence spending may well be needed - Western allies were far too quick to seek a peace dividend in the wake of the Cold War. But just what kind of military threat does Russia pose to Nato?

Prof Goldstein says Russia's forces are substantially weaker in the aggregate than those of the US and Nato. However, he adds: "Russia has invested wisely in the last 15 years, so that it has preserved certain niche capabilities that give it some advantages."

For example, Nato does not have a real counter to the Russian Iskander tactical nuclear system, and this could pose dilemmas for Nato commanders regarding whether to capitulate or escalate. Russia also has impressive capabilities in artillery and electronic warfare.

'Wars of choice'

But its capacities in cyber- and information warfare are most apparent and pose some of the most pressing challenges. Again, the media and think tanks alike are awash with discussions of an apparently new phenomenon - so-called "hybrid warfare" - a melding and blurring of the boundaries between peace and war at which Russia is perceived to be the new master.

As Mr Kofman notes, "no great power is a monochromatic threat". "In truth," he says, "Russia is both a potent military power in its near-abroad, just as it has the proven ability to conduct political warfare, cyber-warfare, and readily contest the information domain."

But Mr Kofman dismisses the fixation with hybrid warfare, saying this is "just an unintelligible Western reaction, after decades of wars of choice against paltry adversaries, to confrontation with another power that is capable across the full spectrum of conflict".

Prof Goldstein, too, says the obsession with hybrid warfare is problematic. "The real danger," he says, "is miscalculation that could set off a hot war that escalates out of control in either Syria or, most dangerously, in Ukraine."

'Calling Nato's bluff'

The so-called "hybrid" war in Ukraine has been actually shown to be "real war with mostly conventional forces", Prof Goldstein says. Indeed, he argues persuasively that the reason the US and Nato did not contest the Crimea annexation had nothing to do with "hybrid war" and everything to do with the actual military balance and the fact that Crimea and eastern Ukraine were perceived to be a part of Russian "core interests". The Kremlin, he says, "simply called Nato's bluff".

Another problem is that the West may not be using the correct tools in its efforts to influence Russia's behaviour. Indeed, it may not be entirely clear as to what it actually wants from Russia.

"Most of the tools used thus far are about assurance of allies and solving problems in alliance politics," Mr Kofman says, "but there is no discernible theory for how to influence Russian behaviour."

"Diplomatic measures," he says, "are good at maintaining political unity, but nobody in leadership even knows what they want from Moscow. Just trying to get Russia to 'stop' or to retire from international politics, or to capitulate in Ukraine, is not serious thinking - to put it mildly."

Diplomatic expulsions send signals about unity and resolve, but they are unlikely to change minds in Moscow. Most of the experts I speak to say that it is only economic leverage that will compel Russia to weigh up the true cost of its actions.

But beyond that, policy towards Moscow needs to be thought through from the fundamentals, bearing in mind that the repercussions from the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union are still very much playing out some three decades later.

[Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda.

As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation.

... ... ....

Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region.

And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation, and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent assertions of Russophobic observers.

Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching way.

Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia -- a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.

The Anti-Russian Lobby

When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour- nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite, Across the Moscow River, 2002)1

....

Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future. (Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2

This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence, and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1 argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.

1. Goals and Means

Objectives

The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics.

According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4

Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available.

This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6

In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's "practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7 Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values. In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history" thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®

... ... ...

Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated, the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11

In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12

Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States. Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions, the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any partnership with the United States.14

The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15

... ... ...

The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence of firm policy commitments.

Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91

Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004, Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.

President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American Sense of History

It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2006)

If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate. (John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)

On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin, Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the Cold War the first time around.

("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions, presenting those differences as incompatible.

1. Contested History

Two versions of history

The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4

In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood.

In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue with the tradition of freedom as independence.

The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.

This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S. narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation, emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7 They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe, but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9

If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal, but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to address these deep-seated suspicions.

In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it would have to be transformed.

Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines of a scaled-down Cold War?"113

Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114

[Apr 02, 2018] The Third Bush Presidency

Notable quotes:
"... whatever crony wants, crony gets. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War motion-pictures ..."
Apr 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Never Trump cabal can now claim total victory. Unsuccessful at preventing Trump from winning the nomination or the general election, they have instead co-opted his presidency for their own policies and programs.

With the nomination of John Bolton, Never Trump interventionists have installed one of the unrepentant architects of the catastrophic Iraq War to head the National Security Council.

In recent months, ignoring and rejecting his own party's convention platform, Trump has agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. Besides accelerating the deaths of Ukrainians and ethnic Russians while laying waste to the civilian population of the Donbas, what advantage to the people of the United States does this military escalation provide?

Last summer, in one of the strangest speeches in American history, President Trump announced he would surge troop levels in Afghanistan -- and then in the same breath admitted it was a mistake and something he didn't really want to do. That should show the conflict here: Trump's instincts versus the establishment sorts around him.

Never Trumpers are not so secretly celebrating. They got the president they thought they didn't want. And now, pretending they still don't want him, they can hardly believe their good fortune.

Achieving their foreign policy goals is just the icing on the cake. They also got the president to implement the entire Wall Street agenda: lowering taxes on the super rich; advancing huge subsidies to the medical insurance industry; keeping the Export-Import Bank funded; re-authorizing the ivory trade; shrinking the size of national monuments so that multi-national corporations can turn our wilderness areas into strip mines and clear-cut wastelands.

Then, just this week, in a reckless act of generational theft, Trump endorsed the second biggest budget in U.S. history, caving in to every demand and desire of the UniParty and the K Street lobbyists whom they serve.

In the 18th century, the cry went "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute!" Trump's cry is "Billions for defense, but not one penny for a wall!"

Trump justifies his signature on the omnibus bill by claiming it was necessary for national security. But that claim rings hollow when comparatively little is allocated for the protection of America's own borders and the defense of its homeland. Americans intuitively know that the real danger to their safety is not along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; it's along the U.S.-Mexico border. But Trump's own laudable instincts have been neutered by the globalist, interventionist generals and policy wonks who now populate powerful positions at the White House and the departments of State and Defense.

Many reading this might now protest: what's wrong with passing the omnibus? Isn't it providing the funds necessary for making America great again? But Donald Trump did not run for office on a platform of bloating spending; he ran on opposition to massive debt increases and specifically to many of the programs they pay for. The budget can be summed up in a paraphrase of a Broadway musical hit tune: whatever crony wants, crony gets.

Has there been a fiercer critic of the Iraq war than Donald Trump? Yet he promotes to the head of the NSC perhaps that conflict's most vociferous apologist. Trump promised he would end the wars of choice, that he would refrain from taking sides in other nation's internal conflicts. He called for a reasonable rapprochement with Russia with the goal of making America and Americans safer. He specifically said he would wind down the military commitment in Afghanistan as quickly and safely as possible.

His only bellicose pledge concerned ISIS, which he promised to destroy. As we have seen, that was one of the few promises he kept. In most other policy areas he has reversed his campaign pledges. His foreign policy is no longer America First; it's evolved into the same, old, dangerous, meddling, interventionist program of the last quarter century. Trump has deepened U.S. involvement in Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan without clearly defining the missions, the goals, and the risks. If voters had wanted this, they would have elected Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Yet of all the betrayals, the war on nature is the most grievous and shocking. As someone who supported Trump from day one in June 2015, who has seen virtually every one of his speeches, interviews, and tweets, I cannot recall a single word about the national parks or monuments.

Had Trump forecast during the campaign how he would govern on environmental issues, would he have been elected? Could those narrow margins of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa have gone the other way? With his appointment of Ryan Zinke to the Department of the Interior, Trump needlessly and recklessly alienated tens of thousands of voters who might otherwise have supported him and who may indeed have voted for him in 2016. Although its hard to discern exactly why the president's poll numbers are as low as they are, it would be a mistake to discount the animus engendered by the unexpected assault on wilderness, open space, endangered species, and America's magnificent national monuments.

The only national monument that Trump has failed to shrink is the Beltway swamp. In fact, judging from the continuing spread of McMansions in Potomac, Maryland and Falls Church, Virginia, he has effectively widened its borders. It's as if the chants from all those packed stadiums during that long ago presidential campaign were "Fill that swamp! Fill that swamp!"

It is now abundantly clear why the Never Trumpers are tittering over their cocktails. Trump has staffed most departments of his government with establishment cronies and neoconservative zealots. He now presides over the implementation of their agenda. In effect, we're getting a variation on what could be called the third Bush presidency -- minus the decorum.

Trump's is also the all-talk presidency: talk tough on illegal immigration, but fail to build the wall; talk tough on sanctuary cities, but fail to cut federal subsidies; talk tough on illegal immigration, then push for the biggest amnesty since 1986; talk tough against the Export-Import Bank, then fund it; talk tough on Obamacare, then fund big insurance to keep the subsidies flowing; talk tough on reducing taxes, then screw millions of homeowners across America by actually raising their taxes; talk tough on trade, then tiptoe around Mexico and Canada on everything that really matters; talk tough on the deficit, then sign the second biggest boondoggle spending bill in U.S. history.

Still, it cannot be denied: President Trump has accomplished much -- for the establishment and their K Street lobbyists. They write the bills, Paul Ryan guides them through the House amendment-free, and Trump signs them in to law.

For those who packed those campaign rallies, who wore those red "Make America Great Again" caps, and for the rest of us mere plebs, Donald Trump's presidency is best summed up by The Bard: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War motion-pictures Gettysburg , Gods & Generals , and Copperhead .

[Apr 02, 2018] Trump has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with increased interest in foreign war

Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests. ..."
"... I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy. ..."
"... In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them. ..."
Apr 02, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Larry , March 30, 2018 at 8:04 am

I believe Trump could negotiate a deal. But I also believe he could blow up the whole talk before it even happens. He has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with increased interest in foreign war (Bolton hiring) and the ramping up of hostilities by bouncing Russians from the U.S. over the phony poisoning story in the UK.

a different chris , March 30, 2018 at 8:48 am

I don't disagree with your comment, but not comfortable with the term "bend to". Trump gets enamored with different people at different times, but he always is looking down at them. They may get enough rope to scare the rest of us, but they are still on a rope.

Bolton is horrible, but a lot of other horrible people have come and gone in this really quick year.

cocomaan , March 30, 2018 at 11:15 am

Bolton is horrible but probably won't last long. Nobody at Trump's ear has, including his own children.

Trump just announced that we're withdrawing from Syria. That's more than Obama ever did.

Part of being a nationalist demagogue is that you're not as interested in foreign wars unless they enrich the country. Not a single one of our wars does that. There's nothing interesting in mercantilism, for instance, that we can't do at home (drill baby drill).

I'm not saying I agree with that view, I'm just saying that if he's a nationalist demagogue, it only follows that he's not interested in, uh, "non-for-profit warmaking".

sgt_doom , March 30, 2018 at 2:57 pm

I am NO Trump fan or voter, but it does appear that he's the first one to apply sanctions to those specific Chinese banks handling the trade with North Korea.

Arizona Slim , March 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm

Uh-oh, I find myself agreeing with something that Trump is doing. Does that make me a backward deplorable?

Al Swearengen , March 30, 2018 at 8:45 am

(Somewhat) OT, but it strikes me that the best way to look at Trump is through the lense of what he is – the US version of Sylvio Berlusconi. A sleazy billionaire Oligarch with no core principles and a fondness for Bunga Bunga parties.

Rather than as LITERALLY HITLER as per the verbiage of hashtag the resistance.

Thus, rather than as a crazed madman bent on "evil" at all times one wonders whether Mr. Bunga Bunga would do a deal with Lil' Kim. Sure he would, assuming that the ruling military Junta allows him to. It might be in the interest of the latter to de-escalate this particular hotspot (as NK crisis/hype fatigue may set in) and simply push Iran as the next flashpoint to hype.

sgt_doom , March 30, 2018 at 2:59 pm

Indeed! They even sound quite similar -- I recall in a speech that Berlusconi gave when he was still the Italian president and the Italian left was screaming for his resignation, Sylvio claimed such demands were making him uneasy, since if he was to go home, and he had 20 homes, it would be difficult for him to decide which house or mansion to go to!

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 9:05 am

It seems the bottom line for negotiations with North Korea have little to do with this article which covers Trump's thoughts on nuclear proliferation between major powers that have massive stockpiles.

North Korea is mainly interested in protecting itself from regime change and from becoming a US outpost (as in target) butt up against China. It is hard to believe that Kim Jong-Un would get any advantage whatsoever out of dismantling his nuclear arsenal, however small. One assumes he is aware of Gaddafi in particular and US's track record on keeping it's promises – particularly over the span of different administrations – in general.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 9:13 am

The above comment assumes full disarmament as the minimum condition of any "negotiation" since Trump has gone so far out of his way to make that clear.

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm

Oh, and now see the lead story at the Financial Times, China uses economic muscle to bring N Korea to negotiating table:

China virtually halted exports of petroleum products, coal and other key materials to North Korea in the months leading to this week's unprecedented summit between Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.

The export freeze -- revealed in official Chinese data and going much further than the limits stipulated under UN sanctions -- shows the extent of Chinese pressure following the ramping up of Pyongyang's nuclear testing programme. It also suggests that behind Mr Xi's talk this week of a "profound revolutionary friendship" between the two nations, his government has been playing hard ball with its neighbour.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a2b2696-33f7-11e8-ae84-494103e73f7f

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 11:24 am

I would normally agree but Kim Jong-Un was just summoned to China. Not even given a state visit. The Chinese announced North Korea would denuclearlize:

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un pledged his commitment to denuclearization and to meet U.S. officials, China said on Wednesday after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, who promised China would uphold friendship with its isolated neighbour.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china/china-says-north-koreas-kim-pledged-commitment-to-denuclearization-idUSKBN1H305W

China has heretofore pretended that it couldn't do anything about North Korea. It looks like Trump's tariff threat extracted China jerking Kim Jong-Un's chain as a concession. I don't see how Kim Jong-Un can defy China if China is serious about wanting North Korea to denuclearlize. Maybe it will merely reduce its arsenal and stop threatening Hawaii (even though its ability to deliver rockets that far is in doubt) and just stick to being able to light up Seoul instead.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 2:25 pm

Agree. I wasn't aware of the details you mention above regarding the export freeze. (I won't use Google and my normal 'trick' doesn't work to get around FT's paywall – and I won't use the trial membership either). I'm hopeless.

Anyway, you make a very convincing case. I can only imagine that Kim Jong Un is one miserable scared rat. My point about a "silk noose" below was perhaps on the mark.

neo-realist , March 31, 2018 at 12:47 am

Kim might agree on paper or through an insincere promise to denuclearize, but I don't see a closed authoritarian regime like the North agreeing to an inspection regime that would insure that such a pledge would be lived up to. Reduction, but build-up on the sly w/o inspections.

China may be interested in a deal to the extent that it prevents a bloody war breaking out that they'll probably expend manpower to help clean up and it insures the security of a North Korean buffer that keeps American troops off their border; After all, they've got to keep the powder dry for "reunification" with Taiwan.

I also don't believe that the US would agree to concessions, such as removing American troops from the peninsula. the pentagon wouldn't like it, the hawks around Trumps wouldn't like it, and I believe the SK leadership would not be too crazy about the potential ramifications for their security with such an agreement.

Travis Bickle , March 30, 2018 at 9:19 am

But, can Trump (by extension, the US), make an agreement that can be relied on over its term?

For any hope of NK trusting any deal with the US he would have to stand by the Iranian deal. Then there's Bolton and the Neocon Will To War, for deeply pathological reasons which by nature cannot be debated.

In this case, the mere possibility of a "deal" is possible, but only if there is a third party to hold both of them to it.

Hello China?

ambrit , March 30, 2018 at 10:02 am

Did the Chinese call Kim to Beijing to reassure him? Carrot AND stick.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 10:43 am

Presentation of a silk noose perhaps?

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 11:05 am

That's the crazy thing about this. What possible inducement could Kim Jong-Un have gotten to attend his own funeral? Why would anyone trust the US an inch?

I suppose if he can keep his own people in a suspended state of extreme propaganda, then he might be vulnerable to his own medicine, but that seems at odds with his behavior so far (such as the assassination of his uncle). If anything, he would be especially leery of anything coming out of the US.

And then can he really be that psyched out by Bolton, Pompeo and Torture Lady so that good cop Trump can hand him is own death certificate with a space for his signature?

Travis Bickle , March 31, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Whatever happened during this China trip, the overarching theme must have been how to manage the US. Here's one rough scenario:

NK 'disarms' to some definition, under the auspices of China, acquiring in return an explicit Chinese security umbrella for the buffer it presents between them and SK. Nobody really wants a unified Korea in any case. In return, the US vacates SK militarily, ever so discretely and over time.

Done correctly, and with the finesse necessary for Trump, China is in a position to extract all sorts of concessions from the US on other fronts as well. Nothing positive is going to happen here without China, and they hold most of the cards. If nothing positive happens, we have to consider the pressure that'd build on Trump to do something, anything, and that probably being something rash. (Better a big disaster over there than a mammoth one over here thinking).

gearandgrit , March 30, 2018 at 9:46 am

"he can't go willy nilly and set nukes a-flying just because it struck him as a good idea that day."

I mean sure. His "button" isn't literally connected to a missile somewhere, but he sure as hell can ask that nukes be fired whenever and wherever he wants. You could argue that someone in the chain of command would prevent that from happening, but that's more of a hope than a guarantee. For a really good read on how this all works and the history of the nuclear program I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788

With Bolton on board and seemingly everyone with half a brain, a little logic and the ability to hold their tongue for more than about 5 seconds out, I highly doubt anything will come of these negotiations. In fact, I'm more worried that the US will get steamrolled by China and NK.

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 11:13 am

That isn't true. See the link I provided, which you clearly did not bother to read. Various people can refuse his order as illegal. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, in a Financial Times, before Trump was elected, said the same thing. Bolton is the National Security Adviser. He may have a lot of informal power by having direct access to the President, but he does not tie in to the formal chain of command, either at the DoD or State.

gearandgrit , March 30, 2018 at 12:09 pm

Oh I read it and I've read many other articles and a lot of non-fiction on the issue. Again, I would call your position and the position of this article hopeful at best. Trump has the football, he has the codes in his jacket pocket and everyone responsible for carrying out the order to launch has been raised up through a military system that ensures no one questions an order from their superior. Relying on various people to refuse his order as illegal in this system is not a fail-safe I feel comfortable with. I do find it interesting that you just assume I didn't read the article as if this one article is the end all be all on the subject.

David , March 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm

The article seems a bit confused about what it's trying to say. Stopping nuclear proliferation has been a major policy priority of the US and other western governments since the 1960s, and if I recall correctly it was one of Bolton's priorities when he was in Bush the Lesser's administration. It's something in which all of the declared nuclear powers have an interest, because the smaller the number of nuclear powers in the world, the greater the difference between them and the rest. This is much more important than wild fantasies about rogue attacks: if N Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power like India, Israel and Pakistan, then all sorts of other countries might be tempted to have a go, starting with S Korea (which has the capacity and has been caught cheating before). Whilst this risk is objectively small, an end to the NK programme would make it even smaller. I suspect the deal will be that NK denuclearizes and China guarantees its security: a non-nuclear NK will be even more of a client state than it is now.
Nuclear competition among the superpowers is quite different and involves a whole set of different issues.

Synoia , March 30, 2018 at 1:18 pm

since one of Trump's salient characteristics is to have no enduring principles

I beg to differ. He most certainly has enduring principles:

1. My Children
2. Me
3. My current wife.
4. My money

The exact order is debatable, situational, and probably not provable.

Edward E , March 31, 2018 at 3:20 pm

5. My Wall

Less warfare = more wall
But remember the last time Trump said something in Syria's favor? A chemical attack happened in small village for no logical reason and the hawks immediately took to framing Assad. Trump then backed off and took harder line on Assad, launching missiles into Syria.

So I'm inclined to think he wants a deal. But look out for screaming hawks immediately trying to scuttle anything.

Tomonthebeach , March 30, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Perhaps 30 years ago, Trump was an international defense luminary, but I see little evidence of the boasted emotional control and cool Trump claimed. He is unarguably a successful grifter. Is that what it takes to make peace? What happens when the other guy realizes he has been lied to by a congenital liar? Back to square 1.

In my take, the recent meeting between the heads of China and N Korea just Trumped any leverage the US might have had in peace talks. Trump will be there only if a scapegoat is needed. Both S. Korea and Japan have expressed doubts about our reliability as a defense shield against powerful China – Japan and the Koreans' neighbor. What Little Rocketman has likely achieved is diplomatically checkmating the US. Now Trump's tariff threats serve only to push US allies in the region closer to China. Should that turn out to be the case, the economic repercussions are as dangerous and unpredictable as nukes in the air or as Trump himself. I sure hope I got this all wrong.

RBHoughton , March 30, 2018 at 7:51 pm

"no enduring principles" is a feature of politicians everywhere today. Their concern is to represent the rich and their qualification is to present those biased arguments in a way that beguiles the electorate into supposing its a good idea for them as well. Step Two is the "who would have thought it?" response after the country catches on.

In former times the candidate for public office would assert his principles on the hustings and the voters would remember what they knew of him before voting. Sure, there were ambitious unreliable people who were willing to exchange their reputations for office but they were few. We should get back to those days.

We allowed our merchants and spooks to drive USSR to the precipice without any thoughts about the nukes they had. It appeared then that warheads supposedly in Ukraine were missing. We will likely discover what happened to them in due course. It is possible that surveillance of communications is the main reason they are not a thread for the time being but that does not mean they have dropped out of existence.

Thank you NC for introducing an issue that should concern economists as much as everyone else.

Coldhearted Liberal , March 30, 2018 at 8:57 pm

North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests.

Don't forget the United States has itself promised to denuclearize, under the NPT.

Plenue , March 31, 2018 at 2:08 am

It would certainly bring me great pleasure if Trump of all people were to bring about some great positive change in regards to the Forever War with North Korea. Imagine all the whining liberals if Trump, unlike Obama, actually did something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Roland , March 31, 2018 at 3:42 pm

I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy.

PRC and NK leaders might think that all they have to do is get through a short patch of bad weather until 2020. If so, they are badly kidding themselves.

In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them.

[Apr 01, 2018] All the President s Women by Andrew Levine

This is probably the most vicious attack on Trump trangressions that i encountered so far...
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws. ..."
"... The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done. ..."
"... Fire and Fury ..."
Apr 01, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

There is no doubt about it: Stormy Daniels is a formidable woman. Karen McDougal is no slouch either, though she is hard to admire after that riff, in her Anderson Cooper interview, about how religious and Republican she is; she even said that she used to love the Donald. Stormy Daniels is better than that.

How wonderfully appropriate it would be if she were to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Even in a world as topsy-turvy as ours has become, there has to be a final straw.

To be sure, evidence of Trump's vileness, incompetence, and mental instability is accumulating at breakneck speed, and there are polls now that show support for him holding fast or even slightly rising. Trump's hardcore "base" seems more determined than ever to stand by their man.

But even people as benighted as they are bound to realize eventually that they have been had. Many of them already do, but don't care; they hate Clinton Democrats that much. This is understandable, but foolish; so foolish, in fact, that they can hardly keep it up indefinitely.

To think otherwise is to despair for the human race.

What, if anything, can bring them to their senses in time for the 2018 election?

Stormy Daniels says she only wants to tell her story, not bring Trump down. But her political instincts seem decent, and she is one shrewd lady. Therefore, I would not be the least surprised if that is not quite true. It hardly matters, though, what her intentions are; I'd put my money on her.

A recession might also do the trick. A recession is long overdue, and Trump's tax cut for the rich and his tariffs are sure to make its consequences worse when it happens.

To turn significant portions of Trump's base against him, a major military conflagration might also do -- not the kind Barack Obama favored, fought far away and out of public view, but a real war, televised on CNN, and waged against an enemy state like North Korea or Iran. It would have to go quickly and disastrously wrong, though, in ways that even willfully blind, terminally obtuse Trump supporters could not fail to see.

Or the gods could smile upon us, causing Trump's exercise regimen (sitting in golf carts) and his fat-ridden, cholesterol rich diet to catch up with him, as it would with most other sedentary septuagenarians. The only downside would be that a heart attack or stroke might elicit sympathy for the poor bastard. No sane person could or should hope for a calamitous economic downturn or for yet another devastating, pointless, and manifestly unjust war, especially one that could become a war to end all wars (along with everything else), on the off-chance that some good might come of it. And if the best we can do is hope that cheeseburgers with fries will save us, we are grasping at straws.

These are compelling reasons to hope that the accusations made by Daniels and McDougal and Summer Zervos – and other consensual and non-consensual Trump victims and "playmates" – gain traction. If the several defamation lawsuits now in the works can get the president deposed, this is not out of the question.

The problem for Trump is not that his accusers' revelations will cause his base to defect; no matter how salacious their stories and no matter how believable they may be. Trump's moral turpitude is taken for granted in their circles; and they do not care about the myriad ways his words and deeds offend the dignity of the office he holds or embarrass the country he purports to put "first." If any of that mattered to them, they would have jumped ship long ago.

Except perhaps for unreconstructed racists and certifiable sociopaths, white evangelicals are Trump's strongest supporters. What a despicable bunch of hypocrites they are! As long as Trump delivers on their agendas, his salacious escapades don't faze them at all. Godly folk have evidently changed a good deal since the Cotton Mather days.

What has not changed is their seemingly limitless ability to believe nonsense.

And in case light somehow does manage to shine through, Trump has shown them how to restore the darkness they crave. When cognitive dissonance threatens, all they need do is scream "fake news."

The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws.

In this case as in so many others, it is the cover-up, not the underlying "crime," that could lead to his undoing – especially if the stories Daniels and the others are telling shed light upon or otherwise connect with or meld into Robert Mueller's investigation of (alleged) Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election.

Trump could and probably will survive their charges. His base is such a preternaturally obdurate lot that there may ultimately be no last straw for them. We may have no choice, in the end, but to despair for a sizeable chunk of the human race.

Stormy Daniels would not be any less admirable on that account. She took Trump on and came out on top. For all the world (minus the willfully blind) to see, she, the porn star, is a strong woman who has her life together, while he, the president, is a discombobulated sleaze ball who is leading himself and his country to ruin.

***

It was different with Monica Lewinsky, another presidential paramour who, almost two decades ago, also held the world's attention.

There was nothing sleazy or venal about Lewinsky's involvement with Bill Clinton; and, for all I know, unless chastity counts, she is as good and virtuous a person as can be. But personal qualities are not what made her affair with our forty-second president as historically significant as it turned out to be.

It would be fair to say that of all the women who have ever had intimate knowledge of that old horn dog's private parts, there is no one who did more good for her country. If only for that, if there were a heaven, there would be special place in it just for her.

The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done.

Who knows how much progress he would have turned back had he and Monica never done the deed or at least not been found out. Building on groundwork laid down by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, he and his wife had already terminated Aid to Families With Dependent Children, one of the main government programs aimed at relieving poverty. This was to be just the first step in "ending welfare as we know it."

With their "donors" pushing for more austerity, those two neoliberal pioneers were itching to begin privatizing other, more widely supported social programs, including even Social Security, the so-called "third rail" of American politics.

The "Lewinsky matter" put the kybosh on that idea, leaving the American people forever in Monica's debt.

Back in the Kennedy days, Mel Brook's two-thousand year old man got it right when he said: presidents "gotta do it," to which he added – " because if they don't do it to their wives and girlfriends, they do it to the nation."

Stormy Daniels made much the same point ten years ago, while flirting with the idea of running against Louisiana Senator David Vitter. Vitter's political career had been almost ruined when his name turned up in the phone records of the infamous "DC Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Daniels told voters that, unlike Vitter, she would "screw (them) honestly."

What then are we to make of the fact that Trump screws both the nation and his wife (maybe) and his girlfriends (or whatever they are)?

Blame it on arrested development, on the fact that despite his more than seventy-one years, Trump still has the mind of a teenage boy, one with money and power enough to live out his fantasies.

The contrast with Bill Clinton is stark. Clinton is a philanderer with eclectic tastes, a charming rascal with a broad and mischievous mind. Honkytonk women from Arkansas appeal to him as much as zaftig MOTs from the 90210 area code.

Trump, on the other hand, goes for super-models, Playboy centerfolds, and aspiring beauty queens -- standard teenage fantasy fare.

He seems to have had little trouble living his dreams – not thanks to his magnetic face, form and figure, and certainly not to his refinement, wit or charm, but to his inherited and otherwise ill-gotten wealth.

It is money and the power that follows from it that draws women to his net.

Henry Kissinger understood; recall his musings on the aphrodisiacal properties of power. Even in his prime, that still unindicted war criminal (and later-day Hillary Clinton advisor) was even more repellent than Trump. But that never kept him from having to fight the ladies off.

This fact of life puts a heavy responsibility on the women with whom presidents hook up.

Consider Melania. She made a Faustian bargain when she agreed to become Trump's trophy bride; in return for riches and a soft life in a gilded tower, she sold her soul. She might have thought better of it had she taken the burdens she would incur as First Lady into account, but why would she? The prospect was too improbable.

She has, it seems, a very practical, old world view of marriage, and is therefore tolerant of her husband's womanizing. At the same time, as a mother and daughter, she is, like most immigrants, a strong proponent of old world "family values."

Too much of a proponent perhaps; insofar as her idea was to "chain migrate" her parents out of Slovenia and onto Easy Street, or to raise a kid who would never want for anything, there were less onerous ways of going about it. After all, there are plenty of rich Americans lusting after supermodels out there, and it is a good bet that many of them are less repellent than Trump.

She was irresponsible as well. She ought to have realized that the man she married had already spawned two idiot sons, along with other fruit from the poisonous tree, and that four bad apples in one generation are enough.

And so now she finds herself a single mother – not in theory, of course, but very definitely in practice. Unlike most women in that position, she is not wanting for resources. But it must be a hard slog, even so. To her credit, Melania seems to be handling the burden well. More power to her!

She also deserves credit for her body language when the Donald is around; the contempt she shows for him is wonderful to behold. Best of all is her sense of the absurd. The way she plagiarized from Michelle Obama had obvious comic validity, and making childhood bullying her First Lady cause – all First Ladies have causes -- was a stroke of genius.

On balance, therefore, it is hard not to feel sorry for her. Of all the women in Trump's ambit, she deserves humiliation the least.

The rumor mill has it that with all the publicity about Daniels and the others , she has finally had enough. This may be the case; the old world ethos requires discretion and a concern with appearances. That is not the Donald's way, however, and now she is paying the price.

What a magnificent humiliation it would be if she and Trump were to split up on that account. This could happen soon. I would expect, though, that through a combination of carrots and sticks, Trump and his fixers will find a way to minimize the political effects. More likely still, they will channel Joe Kennedy and Jackie O, and figure out a way to head the problem off.

Then there is poor forgotten Tiffany. Her Wikipedia entry lists her as both a law student and a "socialite." I hope her studious side wins out and that, despite the genes from her father's side, she is at least somewhat decent and smart.

I'd be more confident of that if she would do what Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti, did: use her mother's, not her father's, name. Unless she is a sleaze ball too, a Trump in the Eric and Don Junior mold, that would be a fine way to make a political point.

It would also pay back over the years. With the Trump administration on its current trajectory, who, in a few years' time, would take a Tiffany Trump seriously? A Tiffany Maples would stand a better chance.

Her half-sister, the peerless Ivanka, the Great Blonde Hope, is, of course, her father's sweetie. Let's not go there, however. Her marriage to Jared Kushner is already enough to process.

What a pair those two make; and what a glorious day it will be when the law finally catches up with Jared, as it did with his Trump-like father, Charles. Perhaps he will take Ivanka down a notch or two with him. Despite an almost complete lack of qualifications, Trump made his son-in-law his minister of almost everything; a pretty good gig for a feckless, airhead rich kid. Among other things, Trump enabled him to become Benjamin Netanyahu's ace in the hole. Netanyahu is a Kushner family friend. Netanyahu has more than his share of legal troubles too. Let them all go down together!

Ivanka and Jared are well matched – they share a "business model." It has them exploiting their daddies' connections and money.

Jared peddles real estate; his efforts have gotten his family into serious debt, while putting him in solid with Russian and Eastern European oligarchs, Gulf state emirs, and Mohammad bin Salman – people in comparison with whom his father-in-law seems almost virtuous.

Ivanka sells trinkets and schmatas to people who think the Trump name is cool. There actually are such people; at two hundred grand a pop, Mar-a-Lago is full of them. Ivanka's demographic is made up mostly of their younger set.

Two other presidential women bare mention: Hope Hicks and Nikki Haley. Surely, they both have tales to tell, but it looks, for now, as if their stories would be of little or no prurient interest. Neither of them appear to have been propositioned or groped.

Even though Hicks is said to be like a daughter to the Donald – we know what that could mean! – it is a safe bet that there was nothing of a romantic nature going on between them. For one thing, Hicks seems too close to Ivanka; for another, she is known to have dallied with two Trump subordinates, Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter. The don is hardly the type to let his underlings have at his women.

Haley had to quash a spate of rumors that flared up thanks to some suggestive remarks Michael Wolff made while hawking Fire and Fury . The rumor caught on because people who hadn't yet fully realized what a piece of work Trump is, imagined that something had to be awry inasmuch as her main qualification for representing the United States at the United Nations was an undergraduate degree in accounting. Abject servility to the Israel lobby also helped.

But the Trump administration is full of ambitious miscreants whose views on Israel and Palestine are as abject and servile as hers, and compared to many others in Trump's cabinet she is, if anything, over qualified. Think of neurosurgeon Ben Carson heading the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is qualified because, as a child, he lived in public housing.

With the exception of Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos and whoever else comes forward with a juicy and credible tale to tell, the women currently in the president's ambit, though good for gossip and interesting in the ways that characters on reality TV shows can be, are of little or no political consequence.

This could change if any of them decides to "go rogue," to use an expression from the Sarah Palin days. But, while neither Melania nor Tiffany can yet be judged hopeless, it would be foolish to expect much of anything good to come from either of them.

Stormy, Karen, Summer, and whoever else steps forward are a better bet. They are the only ones with any chance of doing as much for their country and the world as Monica Lewinsky did a generation ago.

Among the president's women, they are a breed apart. This is plainly the case with Stormy Daniels; it is already clear that she deserves what all Trump's money can never buy – honor and esteem. To the extent that the others turn out to be similarly courageous, they will too.

[Apr 01, 2018] All the President s Women by Andrew Levine

This is probably the most vicious attack on Trump trangressions that i encountered so far...
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws. ..."
"... The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done. ..."
"... Fire and Fury ..."
Apr 01, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

There is no doubt about it: Stormy Daniels is a formidable woman. Karen McDougal is no slouch either, though she is hard to admire after that riff, in her Anderson Cooper interview, about how religious and Republican she is; she even said that she used to love the Donald. Stormy Daniels is better than that.

How wonderfully appropriate it would be if she were to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Even in a world as topsy-turvy as ours has become, there has to be a final straw.

To be sure, evidence of Trump's vileness, incompetence, and mental instability is accumulating at breakneck speed, and there are polls now that show support for him holding fast or even slightly rising. Trump's hardcore "base" seems more determined than ever to stand by their man.

But even people as benighted as they are bound to realize eventually that they have been had. Many of them already do, but don't care; they hate Clinton Democrats that much. This is understandable, but foolish; so foolish, in fact, that they can hardly keep it up indefinitely.

To think otherwise is to despair for the human race.

What, if anything, can bring them to their senses in time for the 2018 election?

Stormy Daniels says she only wants to tell her story, not bring Trump down. But her political instincts seem decent, and she is one shrewd lady. Therefore, I would not be the least surprised if that is not quite true. It hardly matters, though, what her intentions are; I'd put my money on her.

A recession might also do the trick. A recession is long overdue, and Trump's tax cut for the rich and his tariffs are sure to make its consequences worse when it happens.

To turn significant portions of Trump's base against him, a major military conflagration might also do -- not the kind Barack Obama favored, fought far away and out of public view, but a real war, televised on CNN, and waged against an enemy state like North Korea or Iran. It would have to go quickly and disastrously wrong, though, in ways that even willfully blind, terminally obtuse Trump supporters could not fail to see.

Or the gods could smile upon us, causing Trump's exercise regimen (sitting in golf carts) and his fat-ridden, cholesterol rich diet to catch up with him, as it would with most other sedentary septuagenarians. The only downside would be that a heart attack or stroke might elicit sympathy for the poor bastard. No sane person could or should hope for a calamitous economic downturn or for yet another devastating, pointless, and manifestly unjust war, especially one that could become a war to end all wars (along with everything else), on the off-chance that some good might come of it. And if the best we can do is hope that cheeseburgers with fries will save us, we are grasping at straws.

These are compelling reasons to hope that the accusations made by Daniels and McDougal and Summer Zervos – and other consensual and non-consensual Trump victims and "playmates" – gain traction. If the several defamation lawsuits now in the works can get the president deposed, this is not out of the question.

The problem for Trump is not that his accusers' revelations will cause his base to defect; no matter how salacious their stories and no matter how believable they may be. Trump's moral turpitude is taken for granted in their circles; and they do not care about the myriad ways his words and deeds offend the dignity of the office he holds or embarrass the country he purports to put "first." If any of that mattered to them, they would have jumped ship long ago.

Except perhaps for unreconstructed racists and certifiable sociopaths, white evangelicals are Trump's strongest supporters. What a despicable bunch of hypocrites they are! As long as Trump delivers on their agendas, his salacious escapades don't faze them at all. Godly folk have evidently changed a good deal since the Cotton Mather days.

What has not changed is their seemingly limitless ability to believe nonsense.

And in case light somehow does manage to shine through, Trump has shown them how to restore the darkness they crave. When cognitive dissonance threatens, all they need do is scream "fake news."

The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws.

In this case as in so many others, it is the cover-up, not the underlying "crime," that could lead to his undoing – especially if the stories Daniels and the others are telling shed light upon or otherwise connect with or meld into Robert Mueller's investigation of (alleged) Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election.

Trump could and probably will survive their charges. His base is such a preternaturally obdurate lot that there may ultimately be no last straw for them. We may have no choice, in the end, but to despair for a sizeable chunk of the human race.

Stormy Daniels would not be any less admirable on that account. She took Trump on and came out on top. For all the world (minus the willfully blind) to see, she, the porn star, is a strong woman who has her life together, while he, the president, is a discombobulated sleaze ball who is leading himself and his country to ruin.

***

It was different with Monica Lewinsky, another presidential paramour who, almost two decades ago, also held the world's attention.

There was nothing sleazy or venal about Lewinsky's involvement with Bill Clinton; and, for all I know, unless chastity counts, she is as good and virtuous a person as can be. But personal qualities are not what made her affair with our forty-second president as historically significant as it turned out to be.

It would be fair to say that of all the women who have ever had intimate knowledge of that old horn dog's private parts, there is no one who did more good for her country. If only for that, if there were a heaven, there would be special place in it just for her.

The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done.

Who knows how much progress he would have turned back had he and Monica never done the deed or at least not been found out. Building on groundwork laid down by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, he and his wife had already terminated Aid to Families With Dependent Children, one of the main government programs aimed at relieving poverty. This was to be just the first step in "ending welfare as we know it."

With their "donors" pushing for more austerity, those two neoliberal pioneers were itching to begin privatizing other, more widely supported social programs, including even Social Security, the so-called "third rail" of American politics.

The "Lewinsky matter" put the kybosh on that idea, leaving the American people forever in Monica's debt.

Back in the Kennedy days, Mel Brook's two-thousand year old man got it right when he said: presidents "gotta do it," to which he added – " because if they don't do it to their wives and girlfriends, they do it to the nation."

Stormy Daniels made much the same point ten years ago, while flirting with the idea of running against Louisiana Senator David Vitter. Vitter's political career had been almost ruined when his name turned up in the phone records of the infamous "DC Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Daniels told voters that, unlike Vitter, she would "screw (them) honestly."

What then are we to make of the fact that Trump screws both the nation and his wife (maybe) and his girlfriends (or whatever they are)?

Blame it on arrested development, on the fact that despite his more than seventy-one years, Trump still has the mind of a teenage boy, one with money and power enough to live out his fantasies.

The contrast with Bill Clinton is stark. Clinton is a philanderer with eclectic tastes, a charming rascal with a broad and mischievous mind. Honkytonk women from Arkansas appeal to him as much as zaftig MOTs from the 90210 area code.

Trump, on the other hand, goes for super-models, Playboy centerfolds, and aspiring beauty queens -- standard teenage fantasy fare.

He seems to have had little trouble living his dreams – not thanks to his magnetic face, form and figure, and certainly not to his refinement, wit or charm, but to his inherited and otherwise ill-gotten wealth.

It is money and the power that follows from it that draws women to his net.

Henry Kissinger understood; recall his musings on the aphrodisiacal properties of power. Even in his prime, that still unindicted war criminal (and later-day Hillary Clinton advisor) was even more repellent than Trump. But that never kept him from having to fight the ladies off.

This fact of life puts a heavy responsibility on the women with whom presidents hook up.

Consider Melania. She made a Faustian bargain when she agreed to become Trump's trophy bride; in return for riches and a soft life in a gilded tower, she sold her soul. She might have thought better of it had she taken the burdens she would incur as First Lady into account, but why would she? The prospect was too improbable.

She has, it seems, a very practical, old world view of marriage, and is therefore tolerant of her husband's womanizing. At the same time, as a mother and daughter, she is, like most immigrants, a strong proponent of old world "family values."

Too much of a proponent perhaps; insofar as her idea was to "chain migrate" her parents out of Slovenia and onto Easy Street, or to raise a kid who would never want for anything, there were less onerous ways of going about it. After all, there are plenty of rich Americans lusting after supermodels out there, and it is a good bet that many of them are less repellent than Trump.

She was irresponsible as well. She ought to have realized that the man she married had already spawned two idiot sons, along with other fruit from the poisonous tree, and that four bad apples in one generation are enough.

And so now she finds herself a single mother – not in theory, of course, but very definitely in practice. Unlike most women in that position, she is not wanting for resources. But it must be a hard slog, even so. To her credit, Melania seems to be handling the burden well. More power to her!

She also deserves credit for her body language when the Donald is around; the contempt she shows for him is wonderful to behold. Best of all is her sense of the absurd. The way she plagiarized from Michelle Obama had obvious comic validity, and making childhood bullying her First Lady cause – all First Ladies have causes -- was a stroke of genius.

On balance, therefore, it is hard not to feel sorry for her. Of all the women in Trump's ambit, she deserves humiliation the least.

The rumor mill has it that with all the publicity about Daniels and the others , she has finally had enough. This may be the case; the old world ethos requires discretion and a concern with appearances. That is not the Donald's way, however, and now she is paying the price.

What a magnificent humiliation it would be if she and Trump were to split up on that account. This could happen soon. I would expect, though, that through a combination of carrots and sticks, Trump and his fixers will find a way to minimize the political effects. More likely still, they will channel Joe Kennedy and Jackie O, and figure out a way to head the problem off.

Then there is poor forgotten Tiffany. Her Wikipedia entry lists her as both a law student and a "socialite." I hope her studious side wins out and that, despite the genes from her father's side, she is at least somewhat decent and smart.

I'd be more confident of that if she would do what Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti, did: use her mother's, not her father's, name. Unless she is a sleaze ball too, a Trump in the Eric and Don Junior mold, that would be a fine way to make a political point.

It would also pay back over the years. With the Trump administration on its current trajectory, who, in a few years' time, would take a Tiffany Trump seriously? A Tiffany Maples would stand a better chance.

Her half-sister, the peerless Ivanka, the Great Blonde Hope, is, of course, her father's sweetie. Let's not go there, however. Her marriage to Jared Kushner is already enough to process.

What a pair those two make; and what a glorious day it will be when the law finally catches up with Jared, as it did with his Trump-like father, Charles. Perhaps he will take Ivanka down a notch or two with him. Despite an almost complete lack of qualifications, Trump made his son-in-law his minister of almost everything; a pretty good gig for a feckless, airhead rich kid. Among other things, Trump enabled him to become Benjamin Netanyahu's ace in the hole. Netanyahu is a Kushner family friend. Netanyahu has more than his share of legal troubles too. Let them all go down together!

Ivanka and Jared are well matched – they share a "business model." It has them exploiting their daddies' connections and money.

Jared peddles real estate; his efforts have gotten his family into serious debt, while putting him in solid with Russian and Eastern European oligarchs, Gulf state emirs, and Mohammad bin Salman – people in comparison with whom his father-in-law seems almost virtuous.

Ivanka sells trinkets and schmatas to people who think the Trump name is cool. There actually are such people; at two hundred grand a pop, Mar-a-Lago is full of them. Ivanka's demographic is made up mostly of their younger set.

Two other presidential women bare mention: Hope Hicks and Nikki Haley. Surely, they both have tales to tell, but it looks, for now, as if their stories would be of little or no prurient interest. Neither of them appear to have been propositioned or groped.

Even though Hicks is said to be like a daughter to the Donald – we know what that could mean! – it is a safe bet that there was nothing of a romantic nature going on between them. For one thing, Hicks seems too close to Ivanka; for another, she is known to have dallied with two Trump subordinates, Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter. The don is hardly the type to let his underlings have at his women.

Haley had to quash a spate of rumors that flared up thanks to some suggestive remarks Michael Wolff made while hawking Fire and Fury . The rumor caught on because people who hadn't yet fully realized what a piece of work Trump is, imagined that something had to be awry inasmuch as her main qualification for representing the United States at the United Nations was an undergraduate degree in accounting. Abject servility to the Israel lobby also helped.

But the Trump administration is full of ambitious miscreants whose views on Israel and Palestine are as abject and servile as hers, and compared to many others in Trump's cabinet she is, if anything, over qualified. Think of neurosurgeon Ben Carson heading the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is qualified because, as a child, he lived in public housing.

With the exception of Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos and whoever else comes forward with a juicy and credible tale to tell, the women currently in the president's ambit, though good for gossip and interesting in the ways that characters on reality TV shows can be, are of little or no political consequence.

This could change if any of them decides to "go rogue," to use an expression from the Sarah Palin days. But, while neither Melania nor Tiffany can yet be judged hopeless, it would be foolish to expect much of anything good to come from either of them.

Stormy, Karen, Summer, and whoever else steps forward are a better bet. They are the only ones with any chance of doing as much for their country and the world as Monica Lewinsky did a generation ago.

Among the president's women, they are a breed apart. This is plainly the case with Stormy Daniels; it is already clear that she deserves what all Trump's money can never buy – honor and esteem. To the extent that the others turn out to be similarly courageous, they will too.

[Apr 01, 2018] Problems with Russia-China relations

Apr 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Issac , March 31, 2018 at 10:15 pm GMT

@Anonymous

You're reading your own narrative rather than what's in front of you. Russia isn't going to up and blow away no matter what. Their relationship with China is a matter of course as well, though you vastly over-state the supposed synergy between the two.

My point is that a diminished Russia is obviously no threat to China and clearly in the long term interests of China if they wish to be the chief architect and manager of the Eurasian belt of which they have become enamored.

Taken in broader strokes, a world in which nuclear apocalypse isn't on the menu, due to elites favoring their own survival, is one in which the West invariably declines into obscurity due to their ruling class having no qualms about destroying their nations and states in the name of near term personal benefits. In such a world the only question is who will take the leading role of new geopolitical master.

China is already poised for this position, but having an assuredly weakened Russian gives them the sort of leverage they need to siphon out more Eurasian trade profits for their own geopolitical aims. Geopolitical top players don't simply seek a sufficient position from which to bargain. They seek a position from which the results of said bargain are largely foregone.

And this is entirely consistent with Chinese foreign policy toward the West and Russia. The former is a dead man walking with no chance of rebelling against Beijing's economic control. The latter is a future regional partner whom they would very much like to see as a junior when the time comes for them to abandon the western financial system and asset their peerless status.

utu , April 1, 2018 at 12:53 am GMT
@Issac

Exactly. Very good points. China wants weaker Russia. However China can't allow Russia to submit to the US that's why they will be propping Russia just enough so Russia does not fold too soon. The US and China have one common objective: they do not want Russia to hook up with EU and Germany. Russia+EU would be the only third power that could challenge both the US and China. That's why China is happy with Zio-Amercian meddling in Central Europe by playing Poland and Hungary against both Germany and Russia as the wedge between them.

China does not trust Russia because they know how avaricious, unpatriotic and devoid of any deeper nationalist doctrine and thus how unreliable are Russian elites. They know it because they know their own Chinese elites with respect to which they must use many tools to discipline them, the tools that Russia lacks because there sis no supreme ideological authority. There in Russia nobody really knows who suppose to discipline whom and why.

Saker as usual is naive and let his wishful thinking hijack his analytical abilities.

[Apr 01, 2018] Russia China are working closely to counter the West for existential threat

Apr 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

TT , March 31, 2018 at 6:19 pm GMT

@Arioch

Russia & China are working closely to counter the West for existential threat, deeper & broader than what your self centered mind can imagine. Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin, and its last ME bastion of influence. When Syria down, Israel & Saudi gas will pipe to EU & cut off Russia lucrative EU gas deal & influence. Iran will be next to attack, hence complete ME oil & gas come under US UK Fr control, which can be utilized to sabotage Russia oil export.

China will be then blackmailed into submission for oil supply. Iran will be surrounded by US allied forces everywhere, fighting West moderate terrorists. Its existential war in Syria against West hedgmon control for Russia, China & Iran, not just propping up Assad. Russia has overwhelming sufficient military capability to fight US allies, backed by war hardened powerful Iran, SAA army, Hezbollah & Iraq Shiah fighters unmatched ground force.

USM knows it can't win such war without nuke, so it has to find either face saving exit or contented with current occupied oil rich land. It got nothing to do with Trumps stupidity to overstretch its military as you imagine.

China has been backing up Russia with big cheque book for last few years, signing hundreds of billions deals with upfront payments to prop Russia economy for prolong war.

Global times news mostly reflected the China think tank policy that they wish to propagate to West English speaking world. China has sensed West is hysteria tightening noose around Russia in EU foolish solitude movement with UK.

When Russia is down, China is next, vice versa. China special force has been operating in Syria to fight terrorists. Lot of weapons ammunition supply to SAA. Lot of money pump in to sustain Syria war & feed millions of Syrians. Who else do you think is paying these bills, West controlled UN Red cross?

Now China is largest economy & market by PPP term, with 50% w/w mfg capacity, its capable to inflict unacceptable damage to US economy in trade war. EU, Japan & Korea all have huge parts export to China for assembly, so none wanted the disastrous trade war that will suck down global trade.

So Trumpets is blowing hot air only to blackmail China, soon it will back down as WH already delay any tariffs to after June, seeking dialogue eagerly with Beijing.

You are just silly self centered like those Russians always throwing allies under bus, hence Russia will find it has no true ally and will forever licking its wounds alone until slaughtered by West.

[Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
Mar 30, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

"She Doesn't Have Any Policy Positions"

On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.

The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall back on in case and times of adversity?

Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and] deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as [Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."

Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.

"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"

What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her Republican opponent.

If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to serve elite interests (like Bill Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.

What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by elitism" that Christopher Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled " Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:

"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican] candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate " (emphasis added). Hillary Happened

FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."

It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.

Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. (I cannot reprise here the voluminous details of Mrs. Clinton's longstanding alignment with the corporate, financial, and imperial agendas of the rich and powerful. Two short and highly readable volumes are Doug Henwood, My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency [OR Books, 2015]; Diana Johnstone, Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton [CounterPunch Books, 2015]. On the stealth, virulent racism of the Clintons in power, see Elaine Brown's classic volume The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America [2003].)

What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her "progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).

That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like that.

Historic Mistakes

Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.

In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less (including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."

Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's "deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .

"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"

Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC explain:

"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed, someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop, though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. ' Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"

"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).

Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'

This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist" rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games" insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.

A Republican candidate dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources or access to them.

Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of Wall Street." By FJC's account:

"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large."

"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma (which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications (notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from the cold."

"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.

Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.

Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent "

The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote . Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.

The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion

As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism, and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii) were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing Hillary and funding Trump.

The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: " Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.

An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces:

"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel. They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers, not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots, I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "

" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up 'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ."

" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them, though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly exaggerated."

The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"

Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."

Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance- control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States

Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have gone over to Trump had the supposedly "radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.

Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank that published FJC's remarkable study:

"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from the bottom."

As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"

I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran on.

"A Very Destructive Ideology"

The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements – grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few and the American Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004 elections:

"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady, dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral] choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."

"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting, Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we] ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."

For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."

It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets," not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.

(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)

Ecocide Trumped by Russia

Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings. Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.

Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and "amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top "National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats. Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!

The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings and newspaper sales.

Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called "mainstream" media oligopoly.

Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"

One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States – electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash. As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:

"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low, while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements."

Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more than a century ago.

We get to vote? Big deal.

People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky, 2016 ).

Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance, candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals, corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting) electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false, confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.

Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where, as the leading liberal political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."

Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."

He is a homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of the neoliberal era.

His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging.

Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Paul Street

Paul Street's latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)

[Mar 31, 2018] I believe that the Western campaign to permanently undermine and diminish Russian competition in international sports events is intended to finally exhaust the Russian government's residual good will and patience, and provoke some "unacceptable" hostile response

Mar 31, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: Ort | Mar 30, 2018 8:40:37 PM | 178

@ oneil , 116

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate it, and the entire discussion thread.

@ mali | 109; Maximus | 159

I'm a resolutely non-athletic male, turning 63 next month, and don't follow sports, either domestic or international.

I begin thus to say that I'm not normally disposed to be particularly sensitive or sympathetic to matters involving athletic competition-- especially decadent institutions like the Olympics and comparable bloated sports spectacles.

Even so, it's been terribly clear to me that the US-dominated Western Hegemony (which includes "Five Eyes" allies, e.g. Australia) have long mounted an insidious, reprehensible attack on Russia by targeting Russia's traditional national embrace of sports.

For some reason, despite my above-cited antipathy to professional sports, I find it absolutely galling and appalling that innocent Russian athletes have been victimized by international sports organizations, and odious frauds like Richard McLaren. McLaren, as I presume most readers here know, is the architect of a slanderous report that makes the most of Russia's admitted difficulties with doping.

I believe that the Western politicians and state-security executives concluded that gratuitously and cruelly trashing Russia's national reputation, effectively, er, poisoning the collective reputation of its athletes, and subjecting both Russian sports organizations and individual competitors to unjust and humiliating scrutiny and sanctions would be the ultimate provocation.

That is, I believe that the Western campaign to permanently undermine and diminish Russian competition in international sports events is intended to finally exhaust the Russian government's residual good will and patience, and provoke some "unacceptable" hostile response. This is all the more likely because Putin is himself an enthusiastic athlete as well as an old-fashioned patriotic Russian citizen; his enemies may well believe that bullying and abusing "his" young competitors right in front of his eyes will eventually trigger a rash and intemperate response.

Again, although a non-sportsman I am deeply disgusted by what amounts to obvious "hitting below the belt", and attempting to obscure heinous misfeasance with the usual ladled-on bumptious sanctimoniousness.

It seems quite plausible that at least one of the motivations for the Skirpal Follies is to spoil the World Cup in order to further torment Russia.

@ oneil | 116

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate it, and the entire discussion thread.

@ mali | 109; Maximus | 159

I'm a resolutely non-athletic male, turning 63 next month, and don't follow sports, either domestic or international.

I begin thus to say that I'm not normally disposed to be particularly sensitive or sympathetic to matters involving athletic competition-- especially decadent institutions like the Olympics and comparable bloated sports spectacles.

Even so, it's been terribly clear to me that the US-dominated Western Hegemony (which includes "Five Eyes" allies, e.g. Australia) have long mounted an insidious, reprehensible attack on Russia by targeting Russia's traditional national embrace of sports.

For some reason, despite my above-cited antipathy to professional sports, I find it absolutely galling and appalling that innocent Russian athletes have been victimized by international sports organizations, and odious frauds like Richard McLaren. McLaren, as I presume most readers here know, is the architect of a slanderous report that makes the most of Russia's admitted difficulties with doping.

I believe that the Western politicians and state-security executives concluded that gratuitously and cruelly trashing Russia's national reputation, effectively, er, poisoning the collective reputation of its athletes, and subjecting both Russian sports organizations and individual competitors to unjust and humiliating scrutiny and sanctions would be the ultimate provocation.

That is, I believe that the Western campaign to permanently undermine and diminish Russian competition in international sports events is intended to finally exhaust the Russian government's residual good will and patience, and provoke some "unacceptable" hostile response. This is all the more likely because Putin is himself an enthusiastic athlete as well as an old-fashioned patriotic Russian citizen; his enemies may well believe that bullying and abusing "his" young competitors right in front of his eyes will eventually trigger a rash and intemperate response.

Again, although a non-sportsman I am deeply disgusted by what amounts to obvious "hitting below the belt", and attempting to obscure heinous misfeasance with the usual ladled-on bumptious sanctimoniousness.

It seems quite plausible that at least one of the motivations for the Skirpal Follies is to spoil the World Cup in order to further torment Russia.

/div

[Mar 31, 2018] Merkel and Skripal poisoning -- a despicable position of German neolineral elite

The problems with Germany is that it does not have any independent press... German MSM are probably worse then the USA MSM in being neoliberal stooges, if not to say prostitutes.
Also Merkel is a staunch neoliberal politician hell bent on neoliberal globalization and who still cling to power and tried to use the USA as a leverage to stay in power
Notable quotes:
"... So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed. ..."
"... Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that? ..."
Mar 31, 2018 | larouchepac.com

How To Outflank Mad Theresa May's March to World War III LaRouchePAC

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the case of France is a little bit more complicated, because Macron, who had a slightly different emphasis on the cooperation with the New Silk Road and China, than Merkel, for example; the French Foreign Minister Yves Le Drian just announced that Macron will go to Moscow in May. So I think that that looks a little bit different than Mrs. Merkel, who -- really, I mean, it's a complete shame, and obviously this new "Grand Coalition" government, which is not so grand, given the fact that they are all falling in the polls like a stone; I think this is really a reflection of the fact that there is presently no German elite worth being called the name.

And I think that people in Germany should really not accept that. The history of the German-Russian relationship, given the fact that there were two world wars, the Second World War being an unbelievable memory in every Russian person; and then the fact that Russia agreed to the German unification, without any shots being fired or tanks being deployed, -- you know, in a peaceful way. Russia gave up East Germany and agreed to the unification, and received promises at that time that NATO would never be expanded to the borders of Russia, a promise which was broken. And then you had all these escalations.

So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed.

And I think the German people should go back to the kind of Ostpolitik, at minimum, which was characteristic for German attitude for a very long time, to have a policy of good-neighborliness, of peaceful dialogue, of cooperation. And I think this is really, really important that the population in Germany does not fall in line with this aggressive British policy which Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that?

[Mar 31, 2018] Possible links of Skripal to Steele dossier

This is not very plausible hypothesis... But the fact that Steele indeed was "curator" of Skripal in Moscow (and later at MI6 Russian desk) is true.
Notable quotes:
"... Important to note, too, this report says, is that absolutely no one in the West is even bothering to ask why Russia would break the first cardinal rule of "spy etiquette" in targeting a spy involved in a spy-swap -- which neither the Soviet Union or Russia has done even once in over 70 years ..."
"... Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the Center for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, points out by correctly stating that if the Russia did, indeed, poison Skripal, "no one will ever do a swap with them again" -- and who asks the logical question: "If Russia had really wanted to kill Skripal, why didn't they execute him when they had him in custody?" ..."
"... With Michel Chossudovsky, the award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, having just warned that "the entire Western world is insane, and that the Western politicians, and presstitutes who serve them, are driving the world to extinction", this report concludes, among the handful of experts left to explain where this current Russia hysteria in the West is leading to is the former President Ronald Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts -- and whose warning issued, just days ago, is both simple and dire: "World War III Is Approaching". ..."
Mar 31, 2018 | yournewswire.com

Not being told the peoples in the West, this report notes, is that Sergei Skripal was a former Russian military intelligence officer who was recruited by MI6 to be a double agent -- and whose recruitment to spy for MI6 was masterminded by MI6 agent Pablo Miller who worked directly under the "Trump Dossier" creator , and MI6 officer, Christopher Steele -- with Sergei Skripal, also, working for Orbis Business Intelligence , Christopher Steele's outfit that put together the infamous dossier on Trump, that both MI6 spies Steele and Miller worked for too .

Though the specifics of the offer made to the FSB by Sergei Skripal in order to secure his returning home to Russia remain more highly classified than this general report allows, it does confirm that Yulia Skripal was discussing this issue with her father, on 4 March, when they were both attacked and left in critical condition -- with the Telegraph news service in London then documenting that all internet links between Sergei Skripaland Christopher Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence were being taken down.

At the same time all the internet links between Sergei Skripal and the creators of the fake "Trump Dossier" were being scrubbed from existence, this report continues, the British government suddenly began blaming Russia for the nerve gas attack on him and his daughter -- but when Russia asked for evidence proving this, the British outright refused to produce it as the Chemical Weapons Convention, that the UK has signed, along with Russia, demands they do -- and when questioned in the British Parliament by Labor Leader Jeremy Corbyn as to why this was so, saw Prime Minister Teresa May's forces jeer and shout him down -- followed by British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson saying "Russia should go away and shut up".

With President Putin stating in the Security Council meeting that he was " extremely concerned " by the destructive and provocative stance of the UK, this report continues, the British government, nevertheless, has continued to ratchet up it hysteria by blocking a United Nations Security Council draft sponsored by Russia calling for an "urgent and civilized investigation" incident in line with international standards -- and that led Russian Senator Sergey Kalashnikov to warn:

The West has launched a massive operation in order to kick Russia out of the UN Security Council Russia is now a very inconvenient player for the Western nations and this explains all the recent attacks on our country.

Important to note, too, this report says, is that absolutely no one in the West is even bothering to ask why Russia would break the first cardinal rule of "spy etiquette" in targeting a spy involved in a spy-swap -- which neither the Soviet Union or Russia has done even once in over 70 years -- and as Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the Center for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, points out by correctly stating that if the Russia did, indeed, poison Skripal, "no one will ever do a swap with them again" -- and who asks the logical question: "If Russia had really wanted to kill Skripal, why didn't they execute him when they had him in custody?"

Other logical questions about this supposed nerve gas attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia being suppressed in the West, this report notes, are those such as:

  1. Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
  2. Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about Trump dirt?
  3. Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
  4. Was the lonely old man Sergei Skripal preparing to go back to his homeland Russia?
  5. Did he offer some kind of "gift" as apology to the Russian government that his trusted daughter would take to Moscow?
  6. Did someone find out and stop the transfer?

With Michel Chossudovsky, the award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, having just warned that "the entire Western world is insane, and that the Western politicians, and presstitutes who serve them, are driving the world to extinction", this report concludes, among the handful of experts left to explain where this current Russia hysteria in the West is leading to is the former President Ronald Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts -- and whose warning issued, just days ago, is both simple and dire: "World War III Is Approaching".

[Mar 31, 2018] Unproven Allegations Against Trump and Putin Are Risking Nuclear War by Stephen F. Cohen

This is a fight to save Us led global neoliberal empire. Nothing more nothing less. Cohen is right about connections between Skripal case and Russiagate. Skripal case is a British attempt to save Russiagate.
Notable quotes:
"... Diplomacy kept the nuclear peace during the preceding Cold War, but the mass expulsions -- even pending the Kremlin's response -- seriously undermines the diplomatic process. They even criminalize it, as illustrated by denunciations of Trump's phone conversation with Putin and by widespread political-media demands after he expelled a large number of Russia's diplomats that he do "more" -- such demands ranging from more sanctions on Russia to more military responses in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere -- to prove he is not under Putin's control. ..."
"... Identifying all expelled diplomats as "intelligence officers" is also misleading. Posting intelligence officers as diplomats has long been a mutual de facto arrangement tacitly, if not explicitly, agreed upon and known by both sides. Moreover, the designation might apply to embassy officials who study the other country's economic, social, cultural, or political life. They gather and report "information." ..."
"... Recently, US-backed proxies apparently killed a number of Russian citizens also operating there. The Kremlin, through its Ministry of Defense, issued an ominous warning: If this happens again, Moscow will strike militarily not only at the proxies but also at US forces in the region who provided the weapons and launched the missiles. The same razor's edge could easily occur where the United States and Russia are also eyeball-to-eyeball, as in Ukraine or the Baltic region. (Again, as Trump is being crippled to the extent that he probably could not negotiate a crisis the way President Kennedy did the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.) ..."
"... the extreme demonization of Putin and growing Russophobia in the United States are elevating today's small, less formidable Russia into a threat even graver than was the Soviet Union, against which US nuclear weapons were developed and intended. And this, again, in the context of diminished diplomacy and Trump's diminished capacity to negotiate. ..."
Mar 31, 2018 | www.thenation.com

"Russiagate" and the Skirpal affair have escalated dangers inherent in the new Cold War beyond those of the preceding one.

1. "Russiagate" and the attempted killing of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the UK have two aspects in common. Both blame Putin personally. And no actual facts have yet been made public.

§ Having discussed the fallacies of "Russiagate" often and at length, Cohen focuses on the Skripal affair. Putin had no conceivable motive, especially considering the upcoming World Cup Games in Russia, which both the government and the people consider to be very prestigious and thus important for the nation. No forensic or other evidence has yet been presented as to the nature of the purported nerve agent used or whether Russia still possesses it; or, even if so, whether Russia really is the only state whose agents did so; or when, where, and how it was inflicted on Skripal and his daughter; or why they and many others said to have been affected by this "lethal" agent are still alive. Nonetheless, even before the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has issued its obligatory tests, and while refusing to give the Russian government a required sample to test, the British leaders declared that it was "highly likely" Putin's Kremlin had ordered the attack.

§ Nonetheless, on this flimsy basis, Western governments, led by the UK and reluctantly by the Trump administration, rushed to expel 100 or more Russian diplomats -- the greatest number ever in this long history of such episodes.

§ It should be noted, however, that not all European governments did so, and a few others in only a token way, thereby again revealing European divisions over Russia policy.

2. This episode increases the risk of nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

§ Ever since the onset of the Atomic Age, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction has kept the nuclear peace. This may have changed in 2002. when the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew from, thereby abrogating, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Since then, the United States and NATO have developed 30 or more anti-missile defense installments on land and sea, several very close to Russia. For Moscow, this was an American attempt to obtain a first-strike capability without mutual destruction. The Kremlin made this concern known to Moscow many times since 2002, proposing instead a mutual US-Russian developed anti-missile system, but was repeatedly rebuffed.

§ On March 1, Putin announced that Russia had developed nuclear weapons capable of eluding any anti-missile system, described it as a restoration of strategic parity, and called for new nuclear-weapons negotiations.

§ American mainstream political and media elites derided Putin's announcement. Following the evaluation of several American nuclear experts, four Democratic senators appealed to (now former) Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to (in effect) respond positively to Putin's appeal. Nothing came of it. Shortly after the Russian presidential election on March 18, President Trump himself, in a congratulatory call to Putin, proposed that they meet soon to discuss the "new nuclear arms race." Trump was widely traduced as having revealed further evidence that he was "colluding" with Putin, perhaps § The result has been, reflected in the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats, even more fraught US-Russian relations and with them, of course, the increased risk of nuclear war.

3. Many Americans, including political and media elites who shape public opinion, have been deluded into thinking, especially since the pseudo–"American-Russian friendship" of the Clinton 1990s, that nuclear war now really is "unthinkable." That the mass expulsion of diplomats was merely "symbolic" and of no real lasting consequence. In reality, it has become more thinkable.

§ Diplomacy kept the nuclear peace during the preceding Cold War, but the mass expulsions -- even pending the Kremlin's response -- seriously undermines the diplomatic process. They even criminalize it, as illustrated by denunciations of Trump's phone conversation with Putin and by widespread political-media demands after he expelled a large number of Russia's diplomats that he do "more" -- such demands ranging from more sanctions on Russia to more military responses in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere -- to prove he is not under Putin's control.

( Identifying all expelled diplomats as "intelligence officers" is also misleading. Posting intelligence officers as diplomats has long been a mutual de facto arrangement tacitly, if not explicitly, agreed upon and known by both sides. Moreover, the designation might apply to embassy officials who study the other country's economic, social, cultural, or political life. They gather and report "information." )

§ In this connection, historians remind us of how the great powers gradually "slipped" into World War I. The lesson is the crucial role of diplomacy, now being undermined. Consider, for example, Syria. Recently, US-backed proxies apparently killed a number of Russian citizens also operating there. The Kremlin, through its Ministry of Defense, issued an ominous warning: If this happens again, Moscow will strike militarily not only at the proxies but also at US forces in the region who provided the weapons and launched the missiles. The same razor's edge could easily occur where the United States and Russia are also eyeball-to-eyeball, as in Ukraine or the Baltic region. (Again, as Trump is being crippled to the extent that he probably could not negotiate a crisis the way President Kennedy did the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.)

4. The causes of the new risks of nuclear war are not "symbolic" but real and primarily political.

§ As diplomacy is diminished, the militarization of US-Russian relations increases.

§ Every weapon developed as extensively as have been nuclear weapons have eventually been used. Washington dropped two atomic bombs, genetic predecessors of their nuclear offspring, on Japan in 1945. (Before 1914, some people thought gas, the new weapon of mass destruction, would never be widely used in warfare.)

§ On both sides today, but especially in Washington, there is talk of developing "more precise nuclear warheads" that could be usable. Use of even a "small, precise" nuclear weapon would cross the Rubicon of apocalypse.

§ Meanwhile, the extreme demonization of Putin and growing Russophobia in the United States are elevating today's small, less formidable Russia into a threat even graver than was the Soviet Union, against which US nuclear weapons were developed and intended. And this, again, in the context of diminished diplomacy and Trump's diminished capacity to negotiate.

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton

[Mar 31, 2018] Salisbury Incident Report: Hard Evidence For Soft Minds

Notable quotes:
"... This 6-paged PDF is a powerful evidence of another intellectual low of British propaganda machine. Open it and you can tell that substantially it makes only two assertions on the Skripal case, and both are false ..."
"... The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence, a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph , that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele's 'Trump Dossier'. ..."
"... The authors of this "report" mixed up a very strange cocktail of multitype allegations, none of which have ever been proven or recognized by any responsible entity ..."
Mar 39, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Via Oriental Review,

The UK government's presentation on the Salisbury incident, which was repeatedly cited in recent days as an "ultimate proof" of Russia's involvement into Skripal's assassination attempt, was made public earlier today.

This 6-paged PDF is a powerful evidence of another intellectual low of British propaganda machine. Open it and you can tell that substantially it makes only two assertions on the Skripal case, and both are false:

First.

Novichok is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC " – a false statement . Novichok was originally developed in the USSR (Nukus Lab, today in Uzbekistan, site completely decommissioned according to the US-Uzbekistan agreement by 2002). One of its key developers, Vil Mirzayanov , defected to the United States in 1990s, its chemical formula and technology were openly published in a number of chemical journals outside Russia. Former top-ranking British foreign service officer Craig Murray specifically noted this point on March 17:

Craig Murray

I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016, Iranian scientists set out to study whether novichoks really could be produced from commercially available ingredients. Iran succeeded in synthesizing a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full cooperation with the OPCW and immediately reported the results to the OPCW so they could be added to the chemical weapons database.

This makes complete nonsense of the Theresa May's "of a type developed by Russia" line, used to parliament and the UN Security Council. This explains why Porton Down has refused to cave in to governmental pressure to say the nerve agent was Russian. If Iran can make a novichok, so can a significant number of states .

Second.

" We are without doubt that Russia is responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and motive. There is no plausible alternative explanation " – an outstanding example of self-hypnosis. None of the previous items could even remotedly lead to this conclusion. The prominent British academician from the University of Kent Prof. Richard Sakwa has elaborated on this on March 23 the following way:

Rather than just the two possibilities outlined by Theresa May, in fact there are at least six, possibly seven. The first is that this was a state-sponsored, and possibly Putin-ordered, killing This version simply does not make sense, and until concrete evidence emerges, it should be discounted

The second version is rather more plausible, that the authorities had lost control of its stocks of chemical weapons. In the early 1990s Russian facilities were notoriously lax, but since the 2000s strict control over stocks were re-imposed, until their final destruction in 2017. It is quite possible that some person or persons unknown secreted material, and then conducted some sort of vigilante operation

Third.

The third version is the exact opposite: some sort of anti-Putin action by those trying to force his policy choices

Forth

The fourth version is similar, but this time the anti-Putinists are not home-grown but outsiders. Here the list of people who would allegedly benefit by discrediting Russia is a long one. If Novichok or its formula has proliferated, then it would not be that hard to organise some sort of false flag operation. The list of countries mentioned in social media in this respect is a long one. Obviously, Ukraine comes top of the list, not only because of motivation, but also because of possible access to the material, as a post-Soviet state with historical links to the Russian chemical weapons programme. Israel has a large chemical weapon inventory and is not a party to the OPCW; but it has no motivation for such an attack (unless some inadvertent leak occurred here). Another version is that the UK itself provoked the incident, as a way of elevating its status as a country 'punching above its weight'. The British chemical weapons establishment, Porton Down, is only 12 kilometres from Salisbury. While superficially plausible, there is absolutely no evidence that this is a credible version, and should be discounted.

Fifth.

The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence, a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph , that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele's 'Trump Dossier'.

The British agent who originally recruited Skripal, Pablo Miller, lives in Salisbury, and also has connections with Orbis International, Steele's agency in London. In this version, Skripal is still working in one way or another with MI6, and fed stories to Steele, who then intervenes massively in US politics, effectively preventing the much-desired rapprochement between Trump and Putin. Deep anger at the malevolent results of the Steele and British intervention in international politics and US domestic affairs prompts a revenge killing, with the demonstration effect achieved by using such a bizarre assassination weapon.

Sixth.

The sixth version is the involvement of certain criminal elements, who for reasons best known to themselves were smuggling the material, and released it by accident. In this version, the Skripals are the accidental and not intended victims. There are various elaborations of this version, including the activities of anti-Putin mobsters. One may add a seventh version here, in which Islamic State or some other Islamist group seeks to provoke turmoil in Europe.

Do you wish to know our refutations of any other substantial "hard evidence" against Russia in the UK paper? Sorry, but that is all. The primitive information warriors in what used to be the heart of a brilliant empire, today are incapable of designing an even slightly plausible (they love this word, right?) document on a super-politicized case.

What follows is even more depressing. Slide 3 is dedicated to some sort of anatomy lesson:

Slide 4 seemingly represents a real "honey trap". Just look at it:

The authors of this "report" mixed up a very strange cocktail of multitype allegations, none of which have ever been proven or recognized by any responsible entity (like legal court or dedicated official international organization). Of course we are not committed to argue on every cell, but taking e.g. " August 2008 Invasion of Georgia " we actually can't understand why the EU-acknowledged Saakashvili's aggression against South Ossetia is exposed here as an example of "Russian malign activity"

Have you totally lost your minds, ladies & gentlemen from the Downing Street?

Brazen Heist Fri, 03/30/2018 - 10:11 Permalink

The Russians did it....because, the Russians are baddies!

- Sighed, the echo chamber of American butt kissers.

[Mar 30, 2018] Bolton Is the Opposite of an 'Honest Broker' The American Conservative

Mar 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Sebastian Rotella reports on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:

"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]

That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:

The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.

Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.

[Mar 30, 2018] Donald Trump s Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran Sheep Media

Notable quotes:
"... It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line: ..."
"... "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | asheepnomore.net

Donald Trump's Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran

March 29, 2018 By Sheep Media

This article was written by Derrick Broze and originally published at Activist Post

The latest neo-conservative warmonger to join the Trump Administration does not bode well for the people of Iran.

On Thursday Donald Trump announced that John Bolton, a former official in George W. Bush's administration and former ambassador to the UN, would be his new National Security Advisor. Bolton is a warhawk who called for the invasion of Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and has for years called for the invasion of Iran.

Middle East Eye collected a number of quotes from Bolton over the years that indicate his plans for Iran and other nations viewed as a threat to national security of the U.S. government. And by that I mean the people who secretly wield control of corporate and state power.

In 2009, Bolton said that regime change is "ultimately, the only thing that will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons." As recent as 2015 Bolton call for a U.S./Israel joint bombing campaign."Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."

Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul questioned the appointment. "It concerns me that Trump would put someone in charge who is unhinged as far as believing in absolute and total intervention," Paul stated. Bolton's appointment was also criticized by Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American Council.

Further, it seems that Bolton and former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani have already promised the regime change would be happening within the next year. "Just eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People's Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a 'viable' alternative," The Intercept reports.

"The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself," newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton told the crowd. The Intercept also noted that Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi reported that Bolton ended his talk by promising, "And that's why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!"

At a recent celebration of the Persian New Year, Rudy Giuliani promised the audience that "if anything, John Bolton has become more determined that there needs to be regime change in Iran, that the nuclear agreement needs to be burned, and that you need to be in charge of that country." Disturbingly, Giuliani reportedly led the crowd in a chant of "regime change!".

It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Less than a year later, 10 of the 18 men who signed the paper became members of the Bush administration. The attacks of 9/11 would come soon after and the neocons had their "catastrophic and catalyzing event" and an excuse to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and soon possibly, Iran.

The men included Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition; William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

In addition to the well-known Pearl Harbor quote, the paper goes on to describe the eventual outcome of the initial regime change. "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades." If the last 15 years of war, violence, and death in the Middle East have been the "transition" phase, John Bolton and Trump may be preparing to shift gears and move into the "transformation" phase – beginning with the invasion of Iran. However, based on PNAC's track record, they might be looking for a new catastrophic event to generate support for intervention in Iran.

So much for draining the swamp

H/T: Alt- Market.com

[Mar 30, 2018] Forth Reich plans to attack Russia

Notable quotes:
"... what purpose does Nato serve? it seems like a perfect wedge serving the USA's foreign policy objectives in isolating Russia.. what amazes me is the willingness of the poodles to go along with this.. obviously the military industrial complex is well served by this as well.. what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on all levels? would this somehow interfere with the role the usa has had with these same countries since ww2? at this point nato seems very redundant and only of value as i have stated above.. ..."
"... The deciders have been weeding out the intelligent, principled, honest, and patriotic individuals from the positions of influence in order to ensure that only the mediocrities and pliable opportunists were "elected" for the important governmental positions in the "rest of Europe." ..."
"... Part of the background to Gorbachev's approach at the time was the advice he was getting -- very bad advice, it now seems clear, with hindsight wisdom -- in particular from Georgy Arbatov, the long-serving head of the Institute of the USA and Canada. ..."
"... As it happened, Arbatov was completely and utterly wrong. The liquidation of the security posture inherited from the Stalinist period, followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union and the abandonment of communism, in no ways decreased Western hostility to Russia. The seething and near unanimous hatred of Putin is greater by far than that towards any of the leaders of the old Soviet Union. ..."
"... The truth, it turned out, was that people like Gorbachev and Arbatov were naive fools. ..."
Mar 26, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Not only was there a pledge to halt any eastward expansion of NATO. It was clearly understood that Ukraine would be a permanent buffer state between NATO and Russian borders. During the early days of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. launched the Partnership for Peace, which was presented as an alternative to NATO expansion. Russia was promised membership in the new security structure.

While some American officials, including military flag officers, called for the dismantling of NATO at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, others argued that NATO had an important mission: To assure that there was no new outbreak of war on the European continent. NATO was the only treaty organization under which the United States maintained a presence in Europe. There was legitimate concern that, after two world wars in the 20th century broke out in Europe, it was appropriate to maintain a watchful eye that no new conflict erupted among the contending European states. Given the Balkan Wars of the early 1990s, this was not an outlandish concern. Ultimately, according to the logic of those promoting a continuation of NATO, Russia could be incorporated in a new security architecture. In effect, under a revived American-Russian cooperation, war in Europe would be a permanent thing of the past.

This narrative may seem absurd by today's circumstances. But there is now a growing body of declassified documents that confirm that there was a gentlemen's agreement that there would be no further eastward expansion of NATO, and that the Partnership for Peace would be the anchor of a new Eurasian security architecture to prevent the outbreak of future wars, and to build new cooperative relations in the economic and political spheres as well.

The National Security Archive, hosted at George Washington University ([email protected]) has recently obtained and posted a number of documents from U.S. and Russian files from the early 1990s, recounting this story. They can be found under the headline "NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard." They are well-worth reading for anyone looking for a way out of the current madness New Cold War rhetoric coming from Washington, Berlin, London, Paris and Moscow.

Anna , 22 March 2018 at 11:58 AM

"... there is now a growing body of declassified documents that confirm that there was a gentlemen's agreement that there would be no further eastward expansion of NATO..."

-- Guess there are no gentlemen left among the US deciders... Cannot be too much of reminding about the zionization of the US army: https://israelpalestinenews.org/fighting-israels-wars-u-s-military-government-become-zionized/

David E. Solomon , 22 March 2018 at 12:48 PM
Harper, Thanks very much for posting this piece. Somehow, I always thought (probably naively), that the agreement was always a well known fact. I often wondered why our esteemed leaders broke it. Why the desire to reduce the Russians to total insignificance?

Thanks again.

David

james , 22 March 2018 at 01:48 PM
thanks harper.. this "gentlemen's agreement" story seems to rear it's ugly head every so often.. as an outsider it would seem to me that there has been an ongoing concerted effort to not let any friendly relationships between russia and the rest of europe develop.. i can only think that this has been the intent of nato, especially since the changes in the russia from 89 onward...

what purpose does Nato serve? it seems like a perfect wedge serving the USA's foreign policy objectives in isolating Russia.. what amazes me is the willingness of the poodles to go along with this.. obviously the military industrial complex is well served by this as well.. what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on all levels? would this somehow interfere with the role the usa has had with these same countries since ww2? at this point nato seems very redundant and only of value as i have stated above..

LeaNder , 22 March 2018 at 02:30 PM
Harper, this has been the lonely argument of Harald Kujak and a select few public others for a longtime over here in Germany.

Yesterday I witnessed a debate under the header: Who is more dangerous Trump or Putin? on German TeVe.

The British representative invited, the expert on British intelligence, argued he couldn't understand in the least the German public. Seems 'poll wise' the vast majority of Germans considers Trump more dangerous then Putin. There were phases in his talk were he seemed to get exhausted and tried to address us more directly via our conscience/soul: We have to stand up bold against Russian aggression, since it does not necessarily mean war, but if you do it in a united fashion the other side will fold.

Meanwhile on another public channel a day earlier, second vs. first, a prominent German economist seemingly joined Trump*. Strictly this is only to

*
http://klauskastner.blogspot.de/2018/03/prof-sinn-agrees-with-president-trump.html

Strictly it was part of the promotion of his latest book, something in like in search of the truth. As economist he is obviously aware of matters that lately were alluded to here via OECD. In fact it was the context of the first question to him.

*****
concerning European foreign policy, by now it feels the east dictates it to a large extend, led by Poland.

r whitman , 22 March 2018 at 05:39 PM
I seem to remember that Yeltsin specifically asked that Russia be allowed to join NATO and was turned down. The creation of an alternate organization was suggested, probably the Partnership for Peace.
Max , 22 March 2018 at 07:01 PM
I was unaware of the "gentlemen's agreement," but it makes sense, and Matlock's testimony is good enough for me. NATO was a cold war construct, and with the end of the cold war, NATO could have been dismantled as the relic of a previous age. But institutions die hard and those vested in them seek to maintain their budgets and find new missions to justify their existence. European countries have indeed had a long history of conflict, and the alliance did seem effective at maintaining the peace in Europe. Many of the new post-Communist governments in the former Soviet Bloc also wanted in. It wasn't all our own doing.

The Partnership for Peace was another post-cold-war construct that gave the old school in Garmish a new mission and something else to do. I think it might have been possible to bring Russia in, but was that the purpose of an expanded NATO and the Partnership for Peace, or was it aimed at isolating Russia and ensuring a perpetual western domination?

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine seems to have been the tipping point Did we play a clandestine role in that? I frankly don't know, but I suspect we did. Then came Putin's assertion of Russian interests in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine. And here we are, witnessing the revival of populist nationalisms in many places, including the USA.

These pose a challenge to the post-cold-war "new world order" (I'm citing President #41) which likely will be less and less pretty as it gains momentum. It might have been easier to have abided by that "gentleman's agreement," and the issues we face to day might have been avoided. But then there would have been other issues. We are humans after all and seem to like "issues."

Anna -> james... , 22 March 2018 at 09:02 PM
"...what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on all levels?"

The non-obedient leaders of such countries in the "rest of Europe" would have been compromised and removed from the positions of power by the deciders. Take a closer look at May, Johnson, and, particularly, Gavin Williamson. Do they look like the persons of integrity and able leaders? Was not Macron competitor conveniently (and fraudulently) compromised during the last elections? Were not the Swedes ordered to keep the ridiculous lawsuit against Assange?

The deciders have been weeding out the intelligent, principled, honest, and patriotic individuals from the positions of influence in order to ensure that only the mediocrities and pliable opportunists were "elected" for the important governmental positions in the "rest of Europe."

Anna -> Max... , 22 March 2018 at 09:26 PM
"Did we play a clandestine role in that? I frankly don't know, but I suspect we did. Then came Putin's assertion of Russian interests in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine."

Why don't you do some minor research on the "clandestine role?' The materials are in abundance and are widely available on the internet.
For example:

Peter AU , 23 March 2018 at 01:14 AM
Max commented on the orange revolution, not the maidan.
Balint Somkuti, PhD , 23 March 2018 at 02:24 AM
There has been innumerous stories circulating about the West's broken promises towards Russia. To be honest I thought most of them was fake and the russians were making them up to to ease their pain felt about the loss of an empire.

Now based on the above the opposite seems to be true.

I just dont come to understand at all how can a once superpower with 1000s of nuclear warheads can downplayed for decades. I just don't get it.

The ignorant western elite should heed the old szekler saying: "The bear is not a toy!"

hemeantwell -> David E. Solomon... , 23 March 2018 at 08:37 AM
Yes, a very worthwhile reminder, thanks. It should be run every day on the front page of major news outlets for the next year. Ignorance of NATO's failure to sustain that accord becomes a Pandora's box of bear-filled nightmares.

"Why the desire to reduce the Russians to total insignificance?"

Your question provides the answer. The US and NATO aimed for a Russian government run by natural resource-vending oligarchs. China would have been raised from its understudy role to serve as an excuse for big ticket military spending.

fanto , 23 March 2018 at 09:05 AM
Anna
@11
...The deciders have been weeding out ...that is very important observation. The other half of that sentence is ´..who is weeded in..´ for example, in Germany, the current new government has a social democrat at minister of finance, but he nominated a guy from Goldman Sachs - Jörg Kukies. What more can be said?
fanto , 23 March 2018 at 09:07 AM
sorry, again not written properly - it should be - but he nominated as his undersecretary a guy from Goldman Sachs
LondonBob -> r whitman... , 23 March 2018 at 09:13 AM
I remember some bigwig, I want to say Scowcroft but can't really remember, said the reason Russia wasn't allowed in to NATO is that they would be an alternate power centre to the US within NATO. NATO is really there to assert US primacy over Europe. The Russia nonsense keeps Europe divided and under the thumb, reconciliation between Germany and Russia is an abiding fear for some.

NATO expansion was largely the result of extensive lobbying of the US Senate by American arms and manufacturers in the 1990s, exposed by the New York Times at the time, as well as for domestic political reasons to make Clinton look tough. Now it has all become a self fulfilling prophesy by creating an adversary in Russia.

David Habakkuk , 23 March 2018 at 10:14 AM
All,

Prior to the 'Briefing Book' to which 'Harper' linked, the National Security Archive published, last December, one entitled 'NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.'

(See https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early .)

A crucial point not mentioned in the -- generally excellent -- introduction to this series of documents is that Gorbachev did not even ask for the verbal assurances he was given to be put in writing.

This, incidentally, is a matter which Putin raised in his interviews with Oliver Stone. In these, his comments on almost all the people discussed -- up to and including John McCain -- are restrained and emollient. His contempt and distaste for Gorbachev, however, shine through.

Part of the background to Gorbachev's approach at the time was the advice he was getting -- very bad advice, it now seems clear, with hindsight wisdom -- in particular from Georgy Arbatov, the long-serving head of the Institute of the USA and Canada.

In a letter to the 'New York Times' in December 1987, in response to a column by William Safire, which was headlined 'It Takes Two to Make a Cold War', Arbatov made clear that Gorbachev was intended to, as it were, 'walk away', from the Cold War. And he wrote:

'And here we have a "secret weapon'" that will work almost regardless of the American response -- we would deprive America of The Enemy. And how would you justify without it the military expenditures that bleed the American economy white, a policy that draws America into dangerous adventures overseas and drives wedges between the United States and its allies, not to mention the loss of American influence on neutral countries? Wouldn't such a policy in the absence of The Enemy put America in the position of an outcast in the international community?'

(See https://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/08/opinion/l-it-takes-two-to-make-a-cold-war-963287.html .)

As it happened, Arbatov was completely and utterly wrong. The liquidation of the security posture inherited from the Stalinist period, followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union and the abandonment of communism, in no ways decreased Western hostility to Russia. The seething and near unanimous hatred of Putin is greater by far than that towards any of the leaders of the old Soviet Union.

The truth, it turned out, was that people like Gorbachev and Arbatov were naive fools.

What however then becomes material is that if Western behaviour makes clear that those who sought good relations with us were indeed such, it really is very foolish to expect that Russians will vote for such people.

Something that saddens me somewhat is that, as became clear if one probed, a strong undercurrent in the thinking of people like Arbatov was the belief that, although this had not been Stalin's intention, his post-war policies had gratuitously wrecked the relationship with the United States built up during the wartime 'Grand Alliance.'

I have difficulty thinking of any more promising way causing people to abandon such beliefs than allying with those who venerate Stepan Banderistas in an attempt to bring the Crimea into NATO. One thought people might be aware that Sevastopol is the scene of two great sieges, by the French, Ottomans and British in 1854-5, and by the Germans, Romanians and Italians from December 1941 to July 1942.

In both cases, the city fell. In the latter, however, the defenders tied up Erich von Manstein -- one of the greatest exponents of mobile warfare -- and the German Eleventh Army for seven crucial months, which among other things made a major contribution to the fact that Stalingrad did not fall, and the Germans were decisively defeated there.

Max -> Anna... , 23 March 2018 at 10:15 AM
I am certainly aware of the role that Nuland and the State Department and the Obama administration in general played in supporting the Orange Revolution. What I don't know is what "clandestine" efforts--cash payments, secret promises, etc.--other elements of our government may or may not have played. I suspect we did, but I don't know and for this, open research is difficult to conduct.
james -> Anna... , 23 March 2018 at 11:52 AM
anna - we see this much the same.. this is an organized move on the part of the west to isolate Russia... i don't think it is working.. they have resorted to dirty tricks to get the same result.. it isn't working either..
b , 23 March 2018 at 12:34 PM
Here is the link to the National Security Archive summary with the relevant documents:

NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard

LeaNder , 23 March 2018 at 12:39 PM
Now that matters are heating up in Europe-Russia relations, strictly along the lines of the representative in the political talksshow circle, I talked about above, was Prof. Glees, he speaks German has a semi-German background. Apparently was more frequently present on German media, got glimpses. DW? Didn't take a closer look.

Prof. Anthony Glees - Buckingham University:
https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/directory/professor-anthony-glees/

Strictly two of his arguments stuck out for me. One challenged how it would be challenged here, Iraq, anyway:

a) it is no doubt significant that it only happened 7 km/?miles? from Porton Down. What was he doing there?
b) if the Foreign Minister speaks he has relevant intelligence information.

Apparently the EU followed the latter argument.

JW -> Anna... , 23 March 2018 at 12:59 PM
Anna, re #11. There is very little 'weeding out from positions of influence' as you suggest. The political preselection process ensures that such people do not actually get started on the train, but in most cases they have already left as soon as they arrived, having seen, to them, the nauseous and noxious collection of people with whom they would otherwise spend years rubbing shoulders.
You will not find a Teddy Roosevelt or a George Washington in the current era.
Babak Makkinejad , 23 March 2018 at 01:18 PM
All:

I think you are underestimating the demand side of NATO expansion; many Eastern European states wanted to be included in NATO - for reasons of both security and prestige (of being associated with the dominant civilization on Earth and the Winners of the Cold War). In fact, EU membership, NATO, and Plato went together - it was an act of joining (or re-joining) the "Civilization".

et Al , 23 March 2018 at 01:56 PM
I seem to recall that the purely European WEU (Western European Union) was touted as replacement for NATO that would be purely European and built up, so there would have been at least some discussion. I wonder what the dynamics of that fail were and if there are any public documents that highlight it?
Jubal , 23 March 2018 at 02:34 PM
Stalin promised free elections in these exact same eastern European countries now conquered by Nato only 45 years earlier. Instead he delivered murder, gulags, rape and ethnic cleansing. Because of his total obliteration of any opposition, the postwar history today is still corrupted with Stalin's and the Bolshevic's lies. Not to mentioned all those falsely charged and executed at Nuremburg.

Take Stalin himself. Many Russians would claim that his continuing murder of millions after the war was already won cannot be blamed on Russia or Russians. They claim it was the USSR that perpetrated these deeds. But many of these same Russians suffer from nostalgic delusions about the good old days under "Uncle Joe".

Casey , 23 March 2018 at 02:35 PM
Yeah, I'd say they're moving from worse to as bad as it gets, as Mr. Global sets up a coordinated, simultaneous, four-front attack (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, DPRK) on Rus allies, along with their various false-flag absurdities. We'd better hope any adults left in the room put Mr. Global in the psych ward, and real soon.
Anna -> Jubal... , 23 March 2018 at 06:09 PM
I wonder, what nation makes your cultural/genetic roots. According to your post, your people have been ruled by angelic creatures.
turcopolier , 23 March 2018 at 06:15 PM
b

what link? pl

JohnA , 23 March 2018 at 08:55 PM
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard this one.....b had it embedded.
JW , 23 March 2018 at 09:13 PM
A handshake agreement to limit the eastward expansion of NATO ? This handshaking was going on while Western commercial interests were penetrating, en-masse, the newly de-Sovietised economies of Russia and the CIS states and that alone should have been a hint of what was to come. I'd suggest that Putin was not one to miss that hint.
Power depends on domination and monopolisation of resources, people and ground, or at least in an interim period denying their exploitation by competitors such as their contemporary owners. Control of or denial of use of the wealth of Eurasia, the greatest land mass on the planet, is the key to hegemonic control of the planet for an inestimable time interval, and numerous routes have and will be tried to achieve this objective.
With that in mind, could anyone really express surprise at some long ago handshakes and broken agreements made to Boris Yeltsin and a bunch of bewildered former Soviet bureaucrats ? The Chinese has long since learned the lesson.
guidoamm , 24 March 2018 at 01:13 AM
A blast from the, albeit recent, past.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8144154/Nato-must-continue-operations-beyond-our-borders.html

"[...] Anders Fogh Rasmussen said alliance members must be willing and able to exercise military power "beyond our borders" to combat threats such as terrorism and missile attacks."

"[...] By contrast, Britain and the US believe that to remain relevant, Nato must be prepared to tackle potential security threats beyond its members' borders."

"[...] Afthanistan could serve a template (sic) for future threats and Nato's response to them."

No mention of course of who defines what may or may not represent a threat.

Note also the author's opinion that Afghanistan is to be held up as a model of how to go about things. The MIC's dream come true.

g

b , 24 March 2018 at 06:14 AM
I linked it above as HTML link under "NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard" Works in my browser. Here is the raw link:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard
Sarah B , 24 March 2018 at 08:41 AM
Whatever aliby is offered to explain whatever promise ever made by the US and Western allies on whatever issue is difficult to take into account, since their very way of procceed have been consistently always the same.

On historical facts on inteventions by US Imperialism in Russian sphere of influence and everywhere, I bring in this Spanish translation of 56 chapter of the book "Killing Hope" by Wiliam Blum, currently discontinued, with the following comment by the editor of the blog which made the effort:

The recent American Empire (chapter 56 of Assassinating Hope, by William Blum)

"The way Bush and his people managed to deflect America's anger from Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the greatest public relations sorcery tricks in history." John le Carré, quoted by Blum.

Note from the blog editor : We offer the last chapter of William Blum's book on interventions by the CIA and the US Army since the end of World War II. In this chapter that closes his book, Blum tells us about the recent American "Empire", from 1992 to 2002. It is obvious that between 2002 and 2016 many events have taken place in the world, linked to US imperialism. The last 13 years are not reflected since Blum's book was finished writing in 2003 and published in 2004. Even so, it is a chapter that we can extrapolate perfectly to understand US imperialism. since then. Perhaps, everything that Blum describes has been accentuated more and more in recent years. It is, then, a text that maintains its relevance.

The term "Empire" applied to the United States it began being used by critics of imperialism. However, as Blum tells us, more and more apologists of US foreign policy are using it proudly; recognize and defend such imperial reality.

"The American Empire" is the last chapter of Blum's book. It closes a magnificent and indispensable work whose knowledge and diffusion are required if we want to understand the contemporary world. It is not possible to understand international relations, peaceful or violent, outside of imperialism, just as it is not possible to understand capitalism outside of the latter.

Documentary reference: William Blum: "The North American Empire from 1992 to the present" , in "Killing Hope. Interventions of the CIA and the United States Army since the Second World War" , chap. 56, pp. 460 to 471. Editorial Oriente, Santiago de Cuba (Cuba), 2005 (original in English: William Blum, "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" , Common Courage Press, 2004).
Digitization source and corrections (cite and keep the hyperlink): Blog Del Viejo Topo.
Images, captions and bold: they are our addition.
Other chapters of the book: to access other chapters published on the blog, see the index at the end and click on the hyperlinks that are active."

http://blogdelviejotopo.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/el-imperio-norteamericano-reciente-cap.html

LeaNder -> David Habakkuk ... , 24 March 2018 at 09:46 AM
David, I am familiar with the argument you refer to in the last paragraph. It surfaced in looks at the larger ideological battle at the time as far as the more then extreme Nazi propaganda was 'echoed' or found supporters for historical reasons e.g. in Hungary and/or the Ukraine, arbitrarily. The larger "Judeo-Bolshevik" complex. I have a deep inner resistance to where it feels it would end theoretically. Had they taken a different route they could have made it? Seriously? They should have?

Along these lines, I am not sure either, if I want to reduce Ukrainians collectively to Banderistas. Fact seems that obviously everyone in Russia is anti-Nazi, which includes the extreme right.

*******
Prof Glees alluded to several people beyond the more spectacular cases in the UK. Eight, I seem to remember. Only three were mentioned: Litvinenco, Skripal and Berezovsky's (suicide)*. Not sure if Glees does include him in this list. unfortunately no one asked him for a list. Who else does he have in mind?

Arbitrary google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/russian-exile-nikolai-glushkov-found-dead-at-his-london-home

Glushkov? Who else may be on his mind?

* Now, if anything wouldn't a service use something less spectacular then Polonium and whatever poison gas?


janes -> David Habakkuk ... , 24 March 2018 at 02:20 PM
david, it is always interesting and informative reading your comments.. thanks for making them.. i struggle with the idea that anyone is is idealistic is being naive.. this is how it would appear gorbachev has to be taken, but i struggle with it regardless, as i am attached to the idealism that is built into his way of thinking as you outline here.. at what point does humanity seek an alternative to war and the build up and preparation for war which is the basis for NATO? as john lennon said 'give peace a chance'.. i think gorbachev did this..

i read today an article by peter hitchens where he mentions "Nato is the real barrier to peace" -
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/03/peter-hitchens-the-patriotic-thought-police-came-for-corbyn-you-are-next.html

would the usa ever let europe drop nato? would europe ever recognize how it is a block to greater peace in europe? or, do bigger fences make better neighbours?

pat mentioned you might do a thread on the skripal / uk dynamic at some point.. i hope you do... thanks..

Jubal , 24 March 2018 at 03:28 PM
@Anna, RE: "roots"

Actually, the bezirk of which I am a citizen and taxpayer was once the oldest Republic in Europe. Some Alemeni hill volk and some lake dwellers managed to purchase their freedom from the Habsburgs in about 1350. This Free Republic existed for centuries until its representatives arrived late at the Congress of Vienna in 1817. Our Republic was lost in the same way that Switzerland was lost when it joined the UN.

Switzerland had a long history of preventing rulers and powerful cliques from gaining a monopoly on power. Unfortunately, that history has been discarded in favor of giving up sovereignty to globalist agendas like refugee settlement, global warming, tax law, and here specifically: to NATO empire building (Switzerland is active in "defending" Kosovo).

[Mar 30, 2018] Top Spymaster Explains How Russian Intelligence Sees the US

This an old but pretty interesting article. Very well thought out and insightful analysis of American thinking and objectives regarding their obsession with world hegemony, and Control of vital global resources, a very dangerous period now threatens The Russian people and their resource rich land.
US Policy towards Russia today simply continues US Policy towards the USSR during the Cold War
Notable quotes:
"... The American leadership clearly also disliked the prospects of Russia's collaboration with China and India, the introduction of the practice of summits in the BRICS format, the successful activity of other organizations in which Russia occupies leading positions (the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], and the EAEC [Eurasian Economic Community]), and the formation of the Customs Union. ..."
Mar 30, 2018 | russia-insider.com
This is an edited version of an interview Nikolai Patrushev, the Secretary of Russia's Security Council, gave to the official government newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta.

Patrushev is one of Putin's most important advisors on national security. His position is similar in some ways to that of the US President's National Security Adviser .

As important about what Patrushev does, is who he was. He is Russia's most senior intelligence official.

He has served continuously in intelligence since he joined the KGB in 1975 and was from 1999 to 2008 chief of Russia's FSB – the successor organization to the KGB. He left this post to become the Secretary to Russia's Security Council.

One of Patrushev's key jobs is to collate intelligence information provided by Russia's various intelligence agencies and to provide it to Putin and to Russia's other key foreign policy decision makers.

In this interview Patrushev gives insight into what Russia's intelligence agencies are telling the Kremlin. Thus we learn that Russian intelligence:

  1. Did not expect Yanukovych to fall because of the Maidan protests;
  2. Did however warn the Kremlin long ago that a pro-Western coup in Ukraine was only a question of time because of massive US subversion in the country.

We also get an idea of how Russian intelligence sees the world.

According to its view US hostility to Russia is an unvarying "constant" because Russia, irrespective of its system of government, resists US policies aimed at achieving world hegemony and because the US wants to control Russia's immense natural resources in order to seal its hegemony.

Russia's ties to China and India and the emergence of the BRICS bloc have merely provoked the US to intensify its campaign against Russia. Events such as the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the rebellion in Chechnya in the 1990s, the Georgian attack on South Ossetia in 2008 and the February coup this year in Ukraine, are all simply manifestations of US policies targeted at Russia.

One does not have to agree with every part of this view. For example the claim that the USSR collapsed because of a US engineered fall in oil prices as part of some carefully thought out US "strategy of vulnerabilities", though widely believed and not just in Russia, is a myth and serves as a typical case of a spymaster's belief in external, conspiratorial causes for events that actually had purely domestic, structural and sometimes even accidental causes.

Patrushev also undoubtedly overstates the degree of coherence in US policy and the extent to which US policy is always and invariably hostile to Russia.

There is however much that is compelling about this view and it is easy to understand why within Russia it is becoming increasingly influential.

From a Russian point of view it is not difficult to see US policy since the USSR's break up (eg. NATO's eastern expansion, the tearing up of the ABM Treaty and positioning of anti-ballistic missiles in eastern Europe, the US support for "colour revolutions" in the countries of the former USSR, the US support for anti-government groups within Russia itself, the US's wars of intervention in many parts of the world and last but by no means least the ferocious US media campaign against Russia) as unremittingly hostile towards Russia.

For the increasing number of Russians who hold this view (including its intelligence community) the US backed coup in Ukraine was the final proof.

Russian Intelligence failed to Predict Yanukovych's February Overthrow

Our specialists were warning of the high probability of an escalation of the situation in Ukraine in the context of political and economic instability, particularly under external influence. At the same time it should be acknowledged that the probability of an imminent instant seizure of power in Kiev with the support of militant groups of open Nazis was not considered at that time. Let me remind you that prior to the coup you mentioned, Moscow was implementing in full all its partnership commitments to Kiev.

We were constantly providing material and financial aid, without which Ukraine was in no condition to cope with economic difficulties that had become chronic in nature. To support our neighbours, material and financial resources amounting to tens of billions of dollars were mobilized. Unfortunately for many people in Ukraine this aid became, in time, so customary that its importance for the country's survival was simply forgotten.

Russian Intelligence Did Predict a Pro US Coup in Ukraine

As for longer-term predictions, the Ukraine crisis was an entirely expected outcome of systematic activity by the United States and its closest allies.

For the past quarter of a century this activity has been directed towards completely separating Ukraine and the other republics of the former USSR from Russia and totally reformatting the post-Soviet space to suit American interests. The conditions and pretexts were created for colour revolutions, supported by generous state funding.

Thus, Victoria Nuland, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has repeatedly stated that during the period 1991 through 2013 Washington spent 5bn dollars on "supporting the desire of the people of Ukraine for stronger, more democratic government".

According to figures from open sources alone, for instance US Congress documents, the total amount of state funding for various American programmes of "aid" to Ukraine in the period 2001 through 2012 came to at least 2.4bn dollars. That is comparable with the annual budget of some small countries. The US Agency for International Development spent about 1.5bn dollars, the State Department nearly half a billion, and the Pentagon more than 370m dollars.

According to congressional records, organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the Open World Centre took part in Ukrainian aid programmes, in addition to the well-known USAID and other departments. It is not hard to guess for whom and why American volunteers and staffers of diplomatic missions have been "opening the world" throughout the 23 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

.. as a result of this activity ..an entire generation was raised that is completely poisoned with hatred of Russia and with the mythology of "European values". It has not yet realized that these values, even in the positive sense of the term, are not actually designed for Ukrainians. Nobody intends to set about boosting living standards in Ukraine or establishing these young people in Europe, which is itself having great difficulty coping with extremely serious challenges and threats.

The Coup in Ukraine is a Disaster First and Foremost for Ukraine itself

I think the "sobering up" of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful. It remains to be hoped that this will happen relatively quickly, and a whole string of objective factors could promote that. I would like to note another factor that is of fundamental significance. Irrespective of the subsequent development of events, the significance of the one for the other – Russia and Ukraine – will persist. Ukraine will simply not be able to develop successfully without Russia, whether anyone likes it or not .

Whereas for Russia the total severance of links would be a painful blow, for Ukraine it would be disastrous. It is no accident that current President Petro Poroshenko was obliged, in the wake of his ousted predecessor, to raise the question of postponing the implementation of economic section of the already signed association agreement between Ukraine and the EU . It is to be expected that the victory euphoria of other Kiev rulers will also give way to more sober assessment of the real state of affairs .

US Policy towards Russia today simply continues US Policy towards the USSR during the Cold War

... if the catastrophe in Ukraine had not happened some other grounds would have been found to step up the policy of "containment" of our country. This course has been pursued unswervingly for many decades; only the forms and tactics of its implementation change.

As you know, after World War II the confrontation between the USSR and the West headed by the United States took the form of a "cold war". The military-political component of this standoff was entrusted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formed on the initiative of the United States on 4 April 1949. An analysis of NATO's practical activity indicates that in creating the alliance the United States was pursuing two main objectives.

First, a military bloc directed against the USSR was formed under American leadership.

Second, Washington forestalled the emergence in Western Europe of an autonomous grouping of states that could have competed with the United States. It should be recalled that the territory of the United States itself, which essentially established unilateral military control over the allies, is not included in NATO's zone of responsibility.

After the breakup of the USSR and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, which united Europe's socialist countries and which by definition represented the main danger to NATO, not only was the bloc not disbanded, it began to expand even more in quantitative and military terms.

The US Engineered the USSR's Collapse by Identifying its "Points of Vulnerability"

In the cold war period a whole string of ideological doctrines emerged in the West that served as justification for an anti-Soviet political course. One of the authors of this kind of research was Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American political scientist and statesman of Polish extraction. He established the so-called strategy of "vulnerabilities" in relation to the USSR, and under President Reagan this became the basis of American policy towards our country .The identification and definition of "vulnerabilities" and the task of organizing ways of converting them into substantial problems for the USSR were entrusted to the US Central Intelligence Agency.is work, first and foremost economists but also experts from the business world who had real experience of business wars with competitors. As a result of large-scale analytical work, the USSR's "vulnerabilities" in the political, economic, ideological, and other spheres were defined and systematically studied.

Our country's main "vulnerability," as defined by the CIA, was its economy. After detailed modelling, the American experts identified its "weakest link", namely the USSR budget's extremely high dependence on the export of energy resources. A strategy of provoking the financial and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet state was formulated, envisaging two interconnected objectives: the bringing about of a sharp reduction in revenue to the USSR's budget from foreign trade, combined with a substantial increase in expenditure on resolving problems created from outside.

A reduction in world oil prices was envisaged as the main measure for reducing the income side of the budget. This was successfully achieved by the mid-1980s when, as a result of US collusion with the rulers of a number of oil extracting countries, an artificial surplus of crude was created on the market and oil prices fell almost by a factor of four.

A growth in the Soviet Union's expenditure was provoked in several areas: the transition from the strategy of American opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan to the strategy of dragging it deeply into the Afghan war; the incitement of antigovernment demonstrations in Poland and other states in the socialist camp with a view to provoking Moscow into additional expenditures on stabilizing the situation in Eastern Europe; the whipping up of the arms race, among other things by introducing the SDI [Strategic Defence Initiative] bluff, and so forth.

It should be said that at that time the Americans succeeded in achieving their objectives. The outcome of their activity was a substantial excess in the USSR's expenditure over income, which ultimately provoked a profound economic crisis that extended into the political and ideological spheres. Shortsighted attempts by the Soviet leadership to alleviate the situation through foreign financial aid gave Washington additional levers of influence over Moscow. The "recovery" measures proposed by the West and implemented through the IMF and the World Bank to liberalize foreign trade without a smooth transition from the previous monopoly system led to the final collapse of the economy.

In the assessment of American experts, it was the strategy of "vulnerabilities", which demonstrated the colossal effectiveness of economic variety of cold war compared with "hot" war,that was decisive in promoting the elimination of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.

The US Backed Coup in Ukraine and Sanctions are part of a US Strategy of "Points of Vulnerability" aimed at Russia

The coup d'etat in Kiev, accomplished with clear US support, followed the classical pattern tried and tested in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. But never before has such a scheme affected Russian interests so profoundly.

Analysis shows that by provoking Russia into retaliatory steps the Americans are pursuing the very same objectives as in the 1980s with regard to the USSR. Just like back then, they are trying to identify our country's "vulnerabilities". At the same time, incidentally, they are pursuing the objective of neutralizing European economic competitors who have, in Washington's opinion, grown excessively close to Moscow.

Washington has always sought to have levers of pressure on Russia. Thus, in 1974 the famous Jackson-Vanik Amendment was adopted, restricting trade relations with our country. It appeared to have completely lost its relevance immediately after the breakup of the USSR, but it was still in force right up to 2012, when the so-called "Magnitsky List" was promptly adopted in its place.

The current sanctions are in the same category. The US Administration's activity in the Ukrainian sphere is taking place within the framework of an updated White House foreign policy course aimed at holding on to American leadership in the world by means of the strategic containment of the growing influence of the Russian Federation and other centres of power. In this context Washington is actively making use, on its own terms, of NATO's potential, seeking to use political and economic pressure to prevent any vacillations on the part of its allies and partners.

Yugoslavia was a Dress Rehearsal and Russia's Weaknesss under Yeltsin let it Happen

In the 1990s the Russian Federation, for well-known reasons of an internal and external nature, lost the dominant influence in the Balkans that the Soviet Union had enjoyed and embarked on the path of conciliation with the West. It was in the Balkans that the unilateral and totally uncompensated surrender by Russia of its positions in the international arena was manifested most distinctly. In 1991-1996 the bodies that shaped our country's foreign policy did not officially even have any such concept as "national interest". They nurtured groundless expectations of gratitude for obedience from the Western partners and some kind of special benefit for our country from close and unconditional cooperation with the United States. In practice our American partners almost immediately stopped taking us seriously and only gave us a condescending "slap on the shoulder", so to speak, from time to time.

The NATO bloc, under cover of peacekeeping and without encountering serious objections from our side, operated increasingly confidently outside its own zone of responsibility, sought the rights to lease strategic infrastructure facilities for lengthy periods, and effectively brought the organs of military command and control of a number of Balkan countries under its own control by various means. The Alliance's subunits became firmly established in the region. Other states taking part in peacekeeping missions, including Russia, set themselves no such objectives, having reconciled themselves to the role of junior partners and preferring not to see the self-evident fact: The war in the Balkans could perfectly well be regarded as a rehearsal and a prologue to larger-scale steps to redivide the world.

The US "War on Terror" Gave Russia only a Temporary Respite

Encouraged by the weakening and subsequent elimination of the USSR, American ruling circles did everything possible to ensure dominance over the major sources of raw materials resources in our country and in Central Asia, as well as the transit routes for their export. Washington planned to extend its sphere of direct influence to the regions of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and the Caspian.

All these territories were named a US zone of strategic national interests. The only remaining obstacle to the realization of the Americans' plans to take complete control of the corresponding deposits and transport corridors was Russia, which preserved its military potential to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.

American strategists saw the solution to this difficulty in the final collapse of the system of state power and the subsequent dismemberment of our country . The first region that was supposed to leave Russia was the North Caucasus.

Particular importance was attached to Chechnya, which declared its independence and was temporarily under the effective control of the West. Extremists and their supporters in Russia were offered support by the special services of Britain, the United States, and allies in Europe and the Islamic world.

In these conditions the Russian leadership adopted a firm, principled stance of defending the unity of the state. Ultimately, as a result of the firm political will displayed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and at the cost of enormous efforts, it proved possible to stop attempts to detach Chechnya from Russia and then to consolidate the Republic's place within the Federation.

After 11 September 2001 the world community recognized the terrorist threat as the main threat and a global threat, reaching the understanding that countering this threat requires common efforts. As a result there was, in particular, a slight weakening of the West's attacks on Russia because of its campaign against international terrorists in the Caucasus, while we did not object to the operation by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. The announcement of the formation of a broad antiterrorist coalition followed.

At that time Washington displayed a certain readiness to collaborate, although in actual fact it did not intend to abandon the policy of "containment" with regard to Russia. More and more new NATO facilities moved up to our borders. International law was supplanted by the law of force (let us recall the aforementioned dismemberment of Yugoslavia, followed by Serbia, the occupation of Iraq, and the invasion of Afghanistan by the so-called coalition forces).

Russia's post 1999 Revival and its forging Alliances with China, India and the other BRICS Has Alarmed the US

After 7-8 August 2008, when the Georgian leadership, with US support, attempted to annihilate South Ossetia, the world once again changed substantially.

Everything was staked on surprise. The Georgian dictator believed that a military incursion on the opening day of the international Olympic Games would put Russia in a difficult position, and the Georgians, taking advantage of this, would carry out their "blitzkrieg". However, the Russian leadership reacted promptly to the sharp deterioration in the situation and the necessary measures were adopted to halt the aggression.

After the August events in the Caucasus, Washington was clearly alarmed by Russia's obvious intention to take its place among the world powers of the 21st century and uphold the principle of equal opportunities and full autonomy in global politics. And also to convert the state's financial income from the exploitation of natural resources into real economic and defence potential and human capital.

The American leadership clearly also disliked the prospects of Russia's collaboration with China and India, the introduction of the practice of summits in the BRICS format, the successful activity of other organizations in which Russia occupies leading positions (the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], and the EAEC [Eurasian Economic Community]), and the formation of the Customs Union.

In the context of the growing world financial and economic crisis, major new players in the international arena such as the PRC, India, Brazil, and Iran as well as the growing economies of Southeast Asia and South Korea became increasingly significant factors for the United States. Hence, incidentally, the emergence of new conceptual principles such as the American-Chinese special partnership, the strategic collaboration between the United States and India, the establishment of direct dialogue between Washington and Iran, and so forth.

Indications of the need to resume the beneficial dialogue with Russia on a whole range of issues began to emerge from the new administration of President Barack Obama. This positive inclination on the part of the American authorities could only be welcomed.

However, it soon became clear that Washington is not inclined towards real cooperation. It confined itself to mere statements of friendliness and the devising of certain negotiation tracks from which the benefit to Russia, in the end, proved almost zero. After a while even totally nonbinding positive dialogues of this kind came to an end and the US attitude towards our country began once again to be reminiscent of cold war times.

The US aims to gain Control of Russia's Energy, Food and Water Resources to Seal its Domination

specialists are certain that no real substitute for hydrocarbons as the basis of power generation will emerge in the next few decades. Furthermore the understanding prevails in the West that the total capacity of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and other power stations will meet no more than one-fifth of world demand.

Nor should another important aspect be forgotten. In the modern world we can observe a steady growth in the shortage of food and drinking water for the growing population of the planet. The absence of the most elementary means of existence pushes desperate people into manifestations of extremism and involvement in terrorism, piracy, and crime. This is one reason for the acute conflicts between countries and regions and also for mass migration.

The shortage of water and irrigated land is not infrequently the cause of friction, for instance, between the Central Asian republics. The problem of water resources is acute in a number of other countries in Asia and particularly in Africa.

Many American experts, in particular former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, assert that there are vast territories "under Moscow's power" that it is incapable of exploiting and which therefore "do not serve the interests of all humanity". Assertions continue to be heard about the "unfair" distribution of natural resources and the need to ensure so-called "free access" to them for other states.

The Americans are convinced that people must be thinking in similar terms in many other states, particularly those neighbouring on Russia, and that in the future they will, as is nowadays the custom, form "coalitions" to support the corresponding claims on our country. As in the case of Ukraine, it is proposed to resolve problems at Russia's expense but without taking its interests into account.

The Threat to Russia from the US is "Constant" and "Thaws" Never Last

Even during periods of a relative thaw in relations between Russia (the USSR) and the United States, our American partners have always remained true to such notions.

Therefore irrespective of the nuances in the behaviour of the Americans and their allies the Russian leadership still faces this task as a constant: To guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Motherland, to defend and multiply its riches, and to manage them correctly in the interests of the multiethnic people of the Russian Federation.

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider . It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons

[Mar 30, 2018] Donald Trump s Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran Sheep Media

Notable quotes:
"... It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line: ..."
"... "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | asheepnomore.net

Donald Trump's Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran

March 29, 2018 By Sheep Media

This article was written by Derrick Broze and originally published at Activist Post

The latest neo-conservative warmonger to join the Trump Administration does not bode well for the people of Iran.

On Thursday Donald Trump announced that John Bolton, a former official in George W. Bush's administration and former ambassador to the UN, would be his new National Security Advisor. Bolton is a warhawk who called for the invasion of Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and has for years called for the invasion of Iran.

Middle East Eye collected a number of quotes from Bolton over the years that indicate his plans for Iran and other nations viewed as a threat to national security of the U.S. government. And by that I mean the people who secretly wield control of corporate and state power.

In 2009, Bolton said that regime change is "ultimately, the only thing that will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons." As recent as 2015 Bolton call for a U.S./Israel joint bombing campaign."Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."

Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul questioned the appointment. "It concerns me that Trump would put someone in charge who is unhinged as far as believing in absolute and total intervention," Paul stated. Bolton's appointment was also criticized by Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American Council.

Further, it seems that Bolton and former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani have already promised the regime change would be happening within the next year. "Just eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People's Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a 'viable' alternative," The Intercept reports.

"The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself," newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton told the crowd. The Intercept also noted that Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi reported that Bolton ended his talk by promising, "And that's why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!"

At a recent celebration of the Persian New Year, Rudy Giuliani promised the audience that "if anything, John Bolton has become more determined that there needs to be regime change in Iran, that the nuclear agreement needs to be burned, and that you need to be in charge of that country." Disturbingly, Giuliani reportedly led the crowd in a chant of "regime change!".

It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Less than a year later, 10 of the 18 men who signed the paper became members of the Bush administration. The attacks of 9/11 would come soon after and the neocons had their "catastrophic and catalyzing event" and an excuse to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and soon possibly, Iran.

The men included Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition; William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

In addition to the well-known Pearl Harbor quote, the paper goes on to describe the eventual outcome of the initial regime change. "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades." If the last 15 years of war, violence, and death in the Middle East have been the "transition" phase, John Bolton and Trump may be preparing to shift gears and move into the "transformation" phase – beginning with the invasion of Iran. However, based on PNAC's track record, they might be looking for a new catastrophic event to generate support for intervention in Iran.

So much for draining the swamp

H/T: Alt- Market.com

[Mar 30, 2018] McCabe and US revenge for FIFA decision

Notable quotes:
"... In 2003, he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint operation with the New York City Police Department. ..."
"... In early 2010, Randall, then 28, was assigned to a specialized group of FBI agents in lower Manhattan. The Eurasian organized crime unit, led by a veteran mob investigator named Michael Gaeta, scrutinized criminal groups from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine that were running sophisticated scams in the U.S. As Randall and Gaeta linked street-level criminal operators to figures in Eastern Europe's business and political elite, they started piecing together a string of rumors that led them to an unsettling conclusion: Russia might be bribing its way to host the 2018 World Cup. ..."
Mar 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

add to 115
Andres McCabe legal fund for battle with Trump reaches 300000 in hours

McCabe says he was fired as FBI deputy director because he is a crucial witness in Russia investigation While he was the FBI's deputy director, McCabe was deeply involved in overseeing investigations related to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, and whether Russia colluded with Trump's campaign. Trump has denied any collusion occurred and Russia has denied meddling.

McCabe and the Steele Dossier

and

Mr. McCabe began his career as a special agent with the FBI in 1996. He first reported to the New York Division, where he investigated a variety of organized crime matters. In 2003, he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint operation with the New York City Police Department.

So they infiltrated them?

Posted by: somebody | Mar 30, 2018 12:35:41 PM | 122

somebody , Mar 30, 2018 12:46:41 PM | 123
add to 122

The FBI versus FIFA

In early 2010, Randall, then 28, was assigned to a specialized group of FBI agents in lower Manhattan. The Eurasian organized crime unit, led by a veteran mob investigator named Michael Gaeta, scrutinized criminal groups from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine that were running sophisticated scams in the U.S. As Randall and Gaeta linked street-level criminal operators to figures in Eastern Europe's business and political elite, they started piecing together a string of rumors that led them to an unsettling conclusion: Russia might be bribing its way to host the 2018 World Cup.

[Mar 30, 2018] Obama and his so called "national security" apparatus is primarily responsible for destroying Russian-American relations

This Nobel Peace Prize laureate was in realty a despicable and very dangerous warmongering bottom feeder with very close ties to CIA and Brennan
Notable quotes:
"... Obama and his so called "national security" apparatus is primarily responsible for destroying Russian-American relations ..."
Mar 30, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
SmoothieX12 -> Eric Newhill... , 29 March 2018 at 12:03 PM

should have been worked out during the eight years of Obama.

Obama and his so called "national security" apparatus is primarily responsible for destroying Russian-American relations . Obama also allowed, in fact helped, Al Qaeda and ISIS to unleash a mayhem in Syria. Libya also happened on his watch. Trump, for all his major faults, from the go was sabotaged by Obama (and HRC) establishment especially on the account of relations with Russia. I will reiterate--we literally, be it Obama or Trump Admin, have people who have no clue of Russia nor of US situation vis-a-vis Russia.

Take out few sober and professional US military people out of Trump Admin and there is a chance it all goes kaboom because people literally have no clue. In fact, track record and overwhelming empirical evidence support my simple thesis.

Russia can deal with Trump or they can face his wrath because sans Trump they will face the One Worlders' wrath.

This is precisely an example of what I am talking about. And what this wrath could be against Russia? Another Hollywood movie? You evidently have no idea what happened culturally in Russia over the last four years. I will omit purely economically and militarily. Nobody is afraid of NATO or US be it economically let alone militarily. It seems this simple fact goes constantly missing on anyone in US political top. It is no surprising -- the only sources in Russia which they have is a narrow strata of Russian so called "liberals" who, apart from being totally incompetent in any serious military-political or economic matter, tell only what their Western benefactors want them to say thus echo-chamber for non-stop delusion. But that is also why it is so dangerous.

Peter VE said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 29 March 2018 at 02:24 PM

"If putting down the big stick and playing nice/diplomacy is the answer, then all of the international issues should have been worked out during the eight years of Obama."

Perhaps you could check with the people of Ukraine, of Libya, or Yemen about how Obama put down the big stick. Or maybe the thousands whose relatives were assassinated by drones throughout the world. The foreign policy of the current resident is the same as the policy of the Obama administration, which was a continuation of the policy of the lesser Bush Administration. Mr. Trump promised a different policy on the campaign trail, but has chosen / been maneuvered into continuity.

[Mar 30, 2018] Bolton Is the Opposite of an 'Honest Broker' The American Conservative

Mar 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Sebastian Rotella reports on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:

"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]

That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:

The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.

Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.

[Mar 29, 2018] The US is by no means a "functioning democracy with proper rule of law". More like a corrupt plutocracy

Mar 29, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Aseoria -> ID6902426 , 28 Mar 2018 12:48

The US has been cracking down on protected First Amendment rights for years now. Just heard that someone was kicked off the post office lawn last week for protesting, so FIrday's peace vigil may be at risk again.We haven't had any problems with the police harassing us for probably 12 years, but that may be raising its head again.

The US government has a lot to answer for in terms of press freedom and its reaction to organized protest. One only need remember the clusterfuck at Standing Rock during the final months of Obama's presidency to see that this country has major problems with racism, violence, liberty, equality, fraternity. The US is by no means a "functioning democracy with proper rule of law". More like a corrupt plutocracy riding full-speed into overt fascism, where who you know and who you blow makes the most difference if you wind up in trouble with the law.

I never take First Amendment rights for granted. I am totally aware that if you don't use your rights, and often, you lose them. I have never had an account on Facebook, but sometimes I cruise other people's pages to the extent that Zuckerburg will allow without gathering my information(or maybe they can get it if you just look at a page). Always thought it was a supremely wrong idea to allow your identity to be taken away by some fat cat with a clever idea.

[Mar 29, 2018] The analysis of the UVA Amsterdam professor Laslo Maracs is that Trump, and his rich friends, understand that the USA is no longer capable of maintaining an empire, and that war for enlarging the empire is even more suicide than trying to maintain the empire.

Mar 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , March 28, 2018 at 2:52 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

The last paragraph torpedoes the rest of the article! If anyone deserves to be called a "fatcat" and a member of the "US plutocrat class", it's Donald Trump! If that class is seeking to "take back" the US from somebody, it can't possibly be Trump. He's one of them. Isn't it more likely that they are trying to take it back from the "Russian plutocrat class" of gangsters behind Vladimir Putin and their American supporters? Trying to take one's country back from foreigners, or prevent foreigners from getting control of it, is hardly an ignoble enterprise! Certainly not where I come from!

The analysis of the UVA Amsterdam professor Laslo Maracs is that Trump, and his rich friends, understand that the USA is no longer capable of maintaining an empire, and that war for enlarging the empire is even more suicide than trying to maintain the empire.

Already around 1910 the British empire no longer could maintain the two fleet standard, Obama had to lower the USA two war standard to one and a half.
What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria.

WWII destroyed the British empire, as the British said after the war, poor, after Truman ended LendLease overnight, less food than in the war 'we won the war, and lost the peace'.
So the fact that Trump is rich, and has rich friends, does not mean he's part of the whole rich USA clique.

[Mar 29, 2018] US political "top" certainly is not ready since they don't have competent enough people to recognize a disaster before it buries them. US military people certainly know the score but, as history teaches, in the times when US military has bad news--it is next to impossible to communicate it to the political top.

Mar 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

SmoothieX12 | Mar 28, 2018 3:19:25 PM | 3

The question remains: Is Washington prepared to accept its defeat and acknowledge that it has lost control of the world and pull out of Syria?

US political "top" certainly is not ready since they don't have competent enough people to recognize a disaster before it buries them. US military people certainly know the score but, as history teaches, in the times when US military has bad news--it is next to impossible to communicate it to the political top. In general, American "elites" do not have a grasp of the nature of the military power nor of its application.

That is why they are dangerous, not to mention that many of them have a proud history of draft dodging and egos larger than cathedral.

This all, against the background of a dramatic, precipitous really, decline of the always not very "intellectual" level of American power elites in the last 20 or so years. But then again, unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria in the West is a good indication that they are cornered.

[Mar 29, 2018] In the recently published National Defense Strategy there is no hint that the United States will accept decline or even a multipolar world

Mar 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon | Mar 28, 2018 6:54:58 PM | 34

The world is heading toward pluralism. . . .The question remains: Is Washington prepared to accept its defeat and acknowledge that it has lost control of the world and pull out of Syria?

In the recently published National Defense Strategy there is no hint that the United States will accept decline or even a multipolar world. "The Department of Defense will remain the preeminent military power in the world, ensure the balance of power remains in our favor, and advance an international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity."

That especially applies to the Middle East. "We will foster a stable and secure Middle East that denies safe havens for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the United States, and that contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes," the National Defense Strategy states.
So the US strategy continues to be oriented toward world domination, and in fact has little to do with national defense/security.
Specifically it involves a larger Navy and Army. The most recent budget provides some of the additional funds required for that, in preparation for a naval war against China and a ground war against Russia, perhaps simultaneously.

[The Pentagon hasn't won a war in generations, even against rag-tag civilian left-behinds, but they can dream.]

The top Pentagon general Dunford gave an indication of the future when he was asked about reserve forces, which are necessary because of battlefield "attrition," during a senate hearing in September.

Q: Do you believe we must also have a sufficient strategic and operational reserve, national mobilization capability, and robust defense industrial base to provide a second echelon of follow-on forces if a contingency arises in a particular region, especially against a near peer, great power state?

A: Yes. Any conflict with a near-peer competitor will require follow-on forces. In a major contingency, our formations will almost certainly face battlefield attrition. To sustain a fight and see it through to conclusion on favorable terms, we will have to have additional forces available to maintain the initiative. This will assuredly draw on our strategic and operational reserves, test our national mobilization capability, and place demands on our defense industrial base as spare parts, end items, and critical munitions are consumed or destroyed.

[Mar 29, 2018] The entire history of mankind speaks the same tale. once and empire collapses it never recovers its former status and power

Mar 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

paraglider says: March 22, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT 400 Words

@ThreeCranes

"the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art surveillance state ruled by invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions"

One of the clearest telltales that indicate just how far we have deviated from our former "reasonably free country" is how today, the wealthy, elite corporate and civic leaders have isolated themselves from the general community. Formerly anyone could find the address of his community's leaders because they lived scattered amongst the common people. Even Who's Who gave out the city in which a prominent person lived and from there one could consult the telephone directory.

Today, the elite have wiped clean any public trace of where they live. Their phone numbers are not published in a public telephone directory. It's as though they don't want their fellow citizens to know their whereabouts. Why is that?

As I say, there's no clearer indication that our leaders no longer identify with the people of the communities they rule. Either they are afraid--and justifiably so because of their treasonous behavior--or they are just plain disdainful--also likely, since the two are not mutually exclusive. Their fear is the opposite side of the coin of their disdain but at any rate, it's an acknowledgement by them that the sense of community knitted together by common bonds, is gone.

everything you say is true and it does not matter unless you are an American.

our elites along with the english have been ruling the world for 5 centuries and are now in hysteria because all that is now drawing to a close. without the usa military acting as a global enforcer for elites wet dreams they remain wet dreams.

Russia now technically has thwarted our elites from using muscle. China's economic rise will supplant the usa within a decade and by the 2030′s the financial center of the world will move to shanghai from new york/london.

The entire history of mankind speaks the same tale. once and empire collapses it NEVER recovers its former status and power. the anglosaxon empire is now running on empty ergo the media hysteria of russia this and that. even the serfs ..thats you and i ..can no longer be trusted to vote the way we are told.

the msm is dying as the go to organization for people control. we no longer live in the 20th century so the iron fist of ruling is pretty much out as an option.

the elites have their wealth but their power at least here is on the downswing.

ideas and opinion are how societies are controlled and the elite orgs for disseminating these things have become embarassingly overt which makes their effectivness drop towards zero . hence the hysteria.

when you have nothing to sell or nothing anyone with a brain will purchase you have to appeal to irrational emotions but that is a futile game plan because maintaining that level of frantic enrgy is exhausting and collapses in time of its own accord.

all the rising east has to do is watch us eat ourselves to death. they have to do nothing aggressive towards our deep state idiots in power do it for them.

at the end of the day americans will still be stuck with the swamp until it collapses into bankruptcy once the dollar loses its reserve status still some years ahead . by 2030.

once the dollars loses its status america becomes regular nation. how we pick up the pieces after that will be the real story.

[Mar 29, 2018] Germany - if I remember correctly - was instrumental on behalf of her client state Croatia in persuading the US to acquise in the destruction of Yugoslavia.

Mar 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: ashley albanese | Mar 28, 2018 6:47:49 PM | 33

Germany - if I remember correctly - was instrumental on behalf of her client state Croatia in persuading the U S to acquise in the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Many could see at the time that this would unravel all the balances put into place after the travail of World War 2 . So it is proving to be . The German peoples' for whatever reasons have a history of 'overeach'. On one hand the Germans are now - after millennium - within settled borders but the political and economic wisdom and patience still seems lacking .

ashley albanese | Mar 28, 2018 6:47:49 PM | 33

[Mar 29, 2018] The Anti-Liberty Boomerang of US Militarism

Notable quotes:
"... Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Stanford University Press 2018, 280 pages ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Chad Zuber/Shutterstock Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Stanford University Press 2018, 280 pages

Millennials and members of Generation Z have spent much of if not their entire lives at war. As I've noted in these pages and elsewhere , the Afghan conflict is now in its 17th year, with more than 6,000 days having gone by, making it the longest war in American history. I was 12 years old when that war began in 2001; I'm now a month out from my 29th birthday. Beginning next year, the newly enlisted 18-year-olds who are deployed to Afghanistan will be younger than the war they are fighting.

The Iraq war began in 2003, saw a major troop withdrawal in 2011, and then was re-escalated by former President Obama in 2014. American forces remain there today to aid in the fight against the Islamic State, despite an agreement with the Iraqis that was supposed to begin a troop drawdown. An American-led regime change intervention turned Libya into a failed state. And we have blanketed countries such as Pakistan and Yemen with drone warfare, so much so that drones now haunt their citizens' dreams . U.S. Special Forces were on the ground conducting activities in 149 countries as of 2017.

This kind of foreign policy adventurism is hardly unique to the present day. America has been aggressively deploying its military on foreign soil since the late 19th century. As Stephen Kinzer shows in his book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq , we got our foot in the door of the regime change business all the way back in 1893 with our acquisition of Hawaii.

Living in a post-9/11 world has shattered any inclination to view domestic life as separate from and unaffected by foreign policy, particularly since the 2013 publication of classified NSA documents leaked to the press by Edward Snowden. Snowden's revelations threw back the curtain on an omnipresent surveillance apparatus under which very few aspects of our digital lives were left unmonitored -- all in the name of national security and the global war on terror.

The Snowden leaks demonstrate how an adventurous foreign policy can have negative consequences for liberty at home. Now, political economists Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall have documented this phenomenon in their important new book, Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism . In their words, "coercive foreign intervention creates opportunities to develop and refine methods and technologies of social control."

Coyne and Hall, economists at George Mason University and the University of Tampa respectively, introduce a concept for understanding this phenomenon called the "boomerang effect." It works like this: the constraints on the activities of the U.S. government in the realm of foreign policy are generally weak, which enables those involved in foreign interventions to engage in practices abroad that would meet some institutional resistance on the home front. Eventually, though, interventions end, the interveners come home, and the practices employed on foreign soil are imported for use against the domestic population.

This importation happens along three separate channels. First, there is the development of human capital -- the skills, knowledge, and other characteristics that contribute to one's productive capacity. All companies, organizations, and agencies have goals they seek to accomplish, so they hire people with the right kind of human capital to execute said goals. Foreign intervention is no different.

Among the characteristics necessary for interveners include extreme confidence in their ability to solve complex problems in other countries, a sense of superiority and righteousness, comfort with pushing the ethical envelope, limited compassion and sympathy for the targeted population, and the association of state order with control. Interventionists, as Coyne and Hall put it, treat "society as a grand science project that can be rationalized and improved on by enlightened and well-intentioned engineers."

The second phase occurs when the interventionists come home. Some may retire, but many go to work in various public- and private-sector jobs. The skills and mentalities that served them well abroad don't disappear, so they begin employing their unique human capital domestically. Those who land in the public sector are able to influence domestic policy, where they see threats to liberty becoming manifest. Because of the relative lack of constraints when operating in a foreign theater, tactics that would otherwise cross the line domestically are seen as standard operating procedure.

Finally, physical capital plays a significant role in bringing methods of foreign intervention back home. Technological innovation "allows governments to use lower-cost methods of social control with a greater reach." The federal government spends billions annually on research and development, which buys a variety of different capabilities. These technologies, many originally intended for foreign populations, can be used domestically. One example the authors point to are the surveillance methods originally used in the Iraq war that found their way to the Baltimore Police Department for routine use.

The implication of the boomerang effect for policing doesn't end with surveillance. It can also help explain police militarization, the origins of which lie in the foreign interventions of the Progressive Era, specifically in the Philippines.

In the wake of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded its colonial territories to the United States. This led to the Philippine-American War, a bloody conflict that directly and indirectly caused the deaths of 200,000 Filipino civilians, and which ended in 1902.

As veterans returned home from the Philippines, many sought careers in law enforcement where they were able to implement practices inspired by their days in the military. The effect of this was to "establish precedents whereby military personnel and tactics not only would be considered legitimate but welcomed" by police administrations. Police militarization wouldn't kick into high gear until the latter half of the 20th century, with the introduction of SWAT teams and the federalization of law enforcement during the LBJ and Nixon years. The men behind the development of SWAT were veterans of the Vietnam War.

What ultimately creates the conditions for this boomerang effect to take place? One factor, Coyne and Hall argue, is fear. Fear and crisis, both perceived and real, creates "space for government to expand the scope of its powers and adopt the techniques of state-produced social control that it has developed and honed abroad." Fear can lead people to seek assurances from authorities, which goads them into tolerating and even demanding expansions of state powers -- powers that in less fearful times they would not accept.

Once accumulated, that power becomes a normal part of life, and isn't easily given up, as the great economic historian Robert Higgs shows in his classic work Crisis and Leviathan . Anyone who has gone through airport security over the last 17 years understands this, as the fear of terror attacks after 9/11 has led to ratcheted up airline security measures by the TSA. This has resulted in some fairly egregious violations of person and privacy, despite very little evidence that they work.

Coyne's and Hall's book is a great, conceptually holistic investigation into how the state can threaten our liberty. Economists regularly recognize the unintended consequences of domestic policy; Coyne and Hall have explained the unintended consequences of foreign policy, and their costs. It's particularly timely, as President Trump's tenure has seen decision-making authority at the Pentagon pushed down the chain of command, leaving the United States' war-making capabilities even less accountable and transparent. This book is an incisive elucidation of what writer Randolph Bourne recognized a century ago and of which we could use a perpetual reminder: war truly is the health of the state.

Jerrod A. Laber is a writer and Free Society Fellow with Young Voices. He is a contributor to the Washington Examiner , and his work has appeared in Real Clear Defense , Quillette , and the Columbus Dispatch , among others.

[Mar 29, 2018] High Ranking CIA Agent Blows Whistle On The Deep State And Shadow Government

I have fuzzy feeling is that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4). Looks like Brennan machinations as a part of a larger trend.
So while those fears might look exaggerated, in no way they represent outlier in the spectrum of the opinion of the commentarial. There are also people like Kevin Shipp who might agree with me more then you do.
Moreover, the gradual shift toward some kind of "MIC leadership" was really noticeable in Trump administration just my the number of retired generals inhis administration. It might be just a beginning of the process of shifting the power, as military now are respected more then elected representatives. And CIA will be the key player is any such shift.
Existence of almost five million people with security clearance creates kind of "state within the state" situation. This is the point when quantity turns into quality.
Mar 29, 2018 | www.lewrockwell.com

Shipp expressed that the CIA was created through the Council on Foreign relations with no congressional approval, and historically the CFR is also tied into the mainstream media (MSM.) He elaborated that the CIA was the "central node" of the shadow government and controlled all of other 16 intelligence agencies despite the existence of the DNI. The agency also controls defense and intelligence contractors, can manipulate the president and political decisions, has the power to start wars, torture, initiate coups, and commit false flag attacks he said.

As Shipp stated, the CIA was created through executive order by then President Harry Truman by the signing of the National Security Act of 1947.

According to Shipp, the deep state is comprised of the military industrial complex, intelligence contractors, defense contractors, MIC lobbyist, Wall St (offshore accounts), Federal Reserve, IMF/World Bank, Treasury, Foreign lobbyists, and Central Banks.

In the shocking, explosive presentation, Shipp went on to express that there are "over 10,000 secret sites in the U.S." that formed after 9/11. There are "1,291 secret government agencies, 1,931 large private corporations and over 4,800,000 Americans that he knows of who have a secrecy clearance, and 854,000 who have Top Secret clearance, explaining they signed their lives away bound by an agreement.

[Mar 29, 2018] It's Not a Conspiracy Anymore; Public Belief in 'Deep State' Soars by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm Langley and take the files, problem solved. ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | www.unz.com

CIA Imfrickinpunity , March 22, 2018 at 3:18 pm GMT

This article is a tour de force of beating around the bush. It relates a campaign initiated and led by CIA DCI John Brennan, prosecuted with illegal secret government surveillance, coerced confessions, and suppressed investigation of the murder of Seth Rich. And it blames the Plutocrat Class.

How many divisions does the Plutocrat Class have? Does the Plutocrat Class have impunity for murder, torture, and denial of the rights of trial? Does the Plutocrat Class have anything like these get-out-jail-free cards?

The Central Intelligence Agency Act, which put CIA covert crime beyond the reach of any court. The Rogers-Houston MOU permitting the DCI to abort DoJ investigations with the magic words 'national security.'

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes the identity of CIA criminals a state secret. The operational files exemption to FOIA, which prohibits public scrutiny of evidence of CIA crime.

The 'political questions' judicial doctrine which stops judicial review of CIA crimes condoned, however vaguely or unwittingly, by Congress.

The article outlines criminal coup de main by domestic enemies, and sics us on cartoon Rich Uncle Pennybags.

Don't get wrapped around the axle overthinking some rock-paper-scissors transitivity relations of abstract political and economic power -- that's CIA-infiltrated Paris Review bullshit. Impunity beats money every time. To understand this, just watch what happens when a plutocrat gets in CIA's way. You see right away who's in charge. Plutocrat Ralph Nacchio learned his lesson, didn't he?

Plutocrat Elliot Spitzer learned his lesson. Dynastic plutocrats John and Bobby Kennedy didn't learn their lesson fast enough, but everybody else got the message.

The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm Langley and take the files, problem solved.

[Mar 29, 2018] Giving Up the Ghost of Objective Journalism by Telly Davidson

Highly recommended!
Journalists are always "soldiers of the party". You just need to understand what party.
Notable quotes:
"... 'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times. ..."
"... The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name. ..."
"... To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. ..."
"... the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition. ..."
"... And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased." ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times.

"The Yellow Press", by L. M. Glackens, portrays newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as a jester distributing sensational stories in 1910. (Library of Congress/Public Domain) What the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations always regarded as the ideal of "objective journalism" was actually the exception, not the rule. That was true from the time of Gutenberg until that of Franklin Roosevelt.

The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name.

And if Pulitzer repented of his past, Hearst never did -- he went full speed ahead well into the 1920s and beyond, normalizing Nazi science, openly endorsing eugenics and white superiority, and promoting "Birth of a Nation"-like racism against African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. His dehumanizing attacks against so-called sneaking and treacherous "Japs" and "Chinks" -- well before Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, and communist China -- were even uglier.

To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. High-minded notions of "fairness" and "objective journalism" came to the print media largely because the visionary first families of the papers that finally succeeded the Hearsts and Pulitzers in clout and cache -- the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition.

Meanwhile, the broadcast media (which didn't exist until the rise of radio and "talking pictures" in the late 1920s, followed by TV after World War II) labored under the New Deal's famed Fairness Doctrine.

And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. The fairness flag was fraying when Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan took "liberal media elites" to task a generation ago during the Vietnam and civil rights era, while Tom Wolfe made good, unclean fun out of the "radical chic" conceits of Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberals.

What today's controversies illustrate is that a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and "objective" newspaper reporting could only have existed in a conformist Mad Men world where societal norms of what was (and wasn't) acceptable in the postwar Great Society operated by consensus. That is to say, an America where moderate, respectable, white male centrist Republicans like Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford "debated" moderate, respectable, white male centrist Democrats like Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy Carter.

Now contrast that with today. On November 25, the New York Times made a now-notorious attempt to understand the Nazi next door, running a profile of young suburban white supremacist, Tony Hovater. Transgender social media superstar Charlotte Clymer spoke for her fellow liberals when she savagely satirized the Times with a tweet-storm that included things like:

Bob is a vegan. He believes we should protect the environment. He likes "Big Bang Theory". He pays taxes. He served in the military.

He's a serial killer who has tortured and murdered 14 people. He dissolved their bodies in acid at a remote site. He made them beg for their lives as he tortured them.

He attends PTA meetings. He DVR's episodes of his wife's fave shows when she's late at work.

The moral of the fable being (as Miss Clymer put it): "Bob is a mass-murdering f***head. STOP GIVING BOB NUANCE!"

When the Times followed their neo-Nazi profile by turning an entire op-ed column over to Donald Trump supporters in mid-January, the Resistance went to red alert. And after Ross Douthat penned a column in defense of (Jewish) anti-immigration hardliner Stephen Miller on Holocaust Memorial Day in January, they went full DEFCON.

"F*** you @nytimes for publishing this article on #HolocaustMemorialDay from me & from those in my family whose voices were silenced during the Holocaust. Shame on you!" said Nadine Vander Velde on Twitter. London left-wing journalist Sarah Kendzior agreed that "The NYT is now a white supremacist paper. The multiple Nazi puff pieces, constant pro-Trump PR, and praise for Miller on today of all days is not exceptional – it's [now] the guiding ideology of the paper."

And the current furor over The Atlantic 's hiring of National Review firebrand Kevin D. Williamson only underscores that it isn't just campus leftists or Tea Partiers who are hitting the censor button.

But revealingly, it wasn't just the usual left-wing snowflakes who have needed a trigger warning of late. Just six weeks into the new year, the Washington Post and CNN ran a series of tabloidy, Inside Edition -style stories glamorizing Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post even went so far as to call Ms. Yo-jong North Korea's answer to Ivanka Trump (just ignore the fact she is the DPRK's assistant head of the Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation). That led Bethany Mandel of the New York Post to wonder what was up with all the "perverse fawning over brutal Kim Jong-un's sister at the Olympics?"

Additionally, some of the most provocative critiques of "journalistic objectivity" have come from liberal polemicists like Matt Taibbi and Sam Adler-Bell, who argue that before we go on blathering about untrammeled First Amendment freedom and "objectivity," the first question that must be asked is who has the balance of power and whose hands are on deck in the editing room. (And they're not wrong to ask that question -- it was the same one that Pat Buchanan asked 50 years ago and Ann Coulter asked 20 years ago from the opposite side of the newsroom.)

Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased."

Let's face it: the supposedly more civilized, serious ecosystem of the pre-social media past would come across to identity-conscious Millennials today as nothing more than stale white bread dominated by stale white men. Even among the campus leftists who protest and violently riot to shut down and silence "hate speech," most of them would probably rather live in a world where Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer anchored the nightly news on one channel -- so long as there was a hijab-wearing Muslim or a transgendered man on another, equally highly-rated one.

What would be totally unacceptable to today's young consumer is any kind of return to the mid-century world where "the news" was whatever Ben Bradlee, Johnny Apple, Robert Novak, and The Chancellor/Brinkley Nightly News said it was -- in essence, the world where Punch Sulzberger, Otis Chandler, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw white-mansplained "facts" through their own elite establishment filters, de facto ignoring everyone else.

Meanwhile, the beat goes on. From the left, conservative Sinclair Media is accused of "forcing" its local anchors to read "pro-Trump propaganda." The Nation stalwart Eric Alterman says that "When one side is fascist, there's no need to show Both Sides." As for the right -- just ask your Fox-watching or Limbaugh-listening friends and families what they think of the "mainstream media," the "Communist News Network," or the "opinion cartel."

The great Joan Didion once said "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Maybe "objective journalism" was always just a little social white lie we in the media told ourselves to make ourselves feel better -- fairer, kinder, gentler, more "professional." But if there's one lesson that Barack Obama, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Antifa, Donald Trump, and the Great Recession have taught us over the past decade, it isn't just that the mythical "center" will no longer hold. It's that there may no longer be a center for any of us to hold on to.

Telly Davidson is the author of a new book on the politics and pop culture of the '90s, Culture War : How the 90's Made Us Who We Are Today (Like it Or Not) . He has written on culture for ATTN, FrumForum, All About Jazz, FilmStew, and Guitar Player , and worked on the Emmy-nominated PBS series "Pioneers of Television."

[Mar 28, 2018] Britain Has No Clue Why It's Punishing Russia by Mark Galeotti

Firs of all Mark Galeotti is very weak. That's incurable.
I want your money poor Pinocchio -- that the new slogan of May government. Kind of compensation for Brexit losses at Russian oligarchs expense.
What Russophobe Galiotti does not understand is that this another nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. As soon as you start to distriminate between oligarche neoliberalism stops and nationalism starts
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing Putin's work for him ..."
"... He has launched a " de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31 billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's $154 billion . ..."
"... The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to undermine the regime in Moscow. ..."
Mar 28, 2018 | foreignpolicy.com

This is also a project in which further international cooperation would be crucial. Chasing that money and the influence it buys out of London but seeing it find comfortable new homes in Paris, Frankfurt, and New York is only half the job done and will do little to chasten Moscow. Although it will be difficult to persuade others to turn away tempting business, the unexpected support Britain is receiving from European Union partners in particular suggests this may be an opportune moment to convince them that in its experience this money is too toxic to be safe and that this is a Western, not just a British, problem.

Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing Putin's work for him . Since 2014, the Russian economy has been in the doldrums. Furthermore, Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to see elites stash their money outside his grasp.

Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to see elites stash their money outside his grasp.

He has launched a " de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31 billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's $154 billion .

The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to undermine the regime in Moscow. Overt efforts at regime change would be dangerous and likely counterproductive, but London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to weaken the Kremlin

London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to weaken the Kremlin
, in the hope that this may tame its appetite for playing confrontational geopolitics.

... ... ...

Mark Galeotti is a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Affairs Prague and a visiting fellow with the European Council on Foreign Relations.

[Mar 28, 2018] Forget policies, the Stormy Daniels affair shows how far US politics has sunk by Ben Jakobs

Mar 28, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

As the porn star's allegations show, discourse in Washington is shifting to something more tawdry and celebrity-oriented

... The idea of a porn star appearing on network television to share details of a sexual encounter with the US commander in chief would have been intellectually confounding at any other moment in time. Instead, the interview, which took place only few days after a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal , talked about her affair with Trump, seemed a part of the everyday political landscape in 2018.

... Trump may seem like an aberration but instead he may be an inflection point. It's possible that after over two centuries of presidential campaigns with governors, senators and the occasional general, American politics is shifting to something more tawdry and more celebrity-oriented. The often spoken and rarely met ideal in the United States is that political debates should be about issues. But, after a political campaign where candidates debated penis size on a debate stage, it may be the legacy of Trump that politics has permanently descended to locker-room talk.

[Mar 28, 2018] Britain Has No Clue Why It's Punishing Russia by Mark Galeotti

Firs of all Mark Galeotti is very weak. That's incurable.
I want your money poor Pinocchio -- that the new slogan of May government. Kind of compensation for Brexit losses at Russian oligarchs expense.
What Russophobe Galiotti does not understand is that this another nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. As soon as you start to distriminate between oligarche neoliberalism stops and nationalism starts
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing Putin's work for him ..."
"... He has launched a " de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31 billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's $154 billion . ..."
"... The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to undermine the regime in Moscow. ..."
Mar 28, 2018 | foreignpolicy.com

This is also a project in which further international cooperation would be crucial. Chasing that money and the influence it buys out of London but seeing it find comfortable new homes in Paris, Frankfurt, and New York is only half the job done and will do little to chasten Moscow. Although it will be difficult to persuade others to turn away tempting business, the unexpected support Britain is receiving from European Union partners in particular suggests this may be an opportune moment to convince them that in its experience this money is too toxic to be safe and that this is a Western, not just a British, problem.

Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing Putin's work for him . Since 2014, the Russian economy has been in the doldrums. Furthermore, Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to see elites stash their money outside his grasp.

Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to see elites stash their money outside his grasp.

He has launched a " de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31 billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's $154 billion .

The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to undermine the regime in Moscow. Overt efforts at regime change would be dangerous and likely counterproductive, but London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to weaken the Kremlin

London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to weaken the Kremlin
, in the hope that this may tame its appetite for playing confrontational geopolitics.

... ... ...

Mark Galeotti is a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Affairs Prague and a visiting fellow with the European Council on Foreign Relations.

[Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks

Highly recommended!
Pretty interesting presentation; almost two hours long.
Mar 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

wayfarer , March 24, 2018 at 4:05 am GMT

"Deep State – False Flag Attacks"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNA4f45F5II

[Mar 28, 2018] You are quite right, Power Elite is more accurate description, but now that the term Deep State has reached common parlance, is it useful to try to rebrand them?

Mar 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

RobinG , March 28, 2018 at 4:38 pm GMT

@Bardon Kaldian

You are quite right, Power Elite is more accurate description, but now that the term Deep State has reached common parlance, is it useful to try to rebrand them?

Well, perhaps, because what we have now is a general misidentification (misdirection!) of defining the Deep State. Some single out the Intel agencies, others blame think-tanks, some even blame career civil servants (the 'bureaucrat' smear). Are these accusers really gatekeepers for the deep money interests?

All the same, how would you do it, and is it worthwhile? We've had the same chatter about the Fake News, i.e. MSM vs. Legacy News vs. Corporate News vs. Big News, etc. Some good work is coming out under Deep State -

Misunderstanding the Deep State

CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government

deschutes , March 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT
The 'deep state' is not a 'conspiracy theory', it is a basic fact beyond debating. The deep state by definition means the USA's military industrial complex, i.e. all of the massive security agencies (Dept of Defense; CIA; State Dept; Pentagon; US Army; CentComm; Navy; Marines; NSA; NSC; etc) combined with their partners in the corporate sector who sell them the equipment: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, General Electric, SAIC, Huntington Ingalls, etc. The 'revolving door' between these two sectors is a key aspect of the deep state: top ranking brass leave public service to take top positions at these defense corporations, or become lobbyists for them to continue their multi-billion dollar contracts at the government trough. The top officials at the security agencies often have careers spanning decades: these people are 'the deep state' personified. Presidents come and go, they are window dressing. The deep state calls the shots.
jilles dykstra , March 28, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@deschutes

Maybe better to say 'Deep State shoots, and wants far more shooting'. Just this day a former member of the EU Commission, he did Foreign Affairs, retired, appeared on the leading German tv channel, with deep doubts about May's assertions, and deep concern where the anti Russia propaganda will lead to.

He had negotiated with Putin, who he described a very rational man. He still was quite emotional about the western lies that lead to the attack on Iraq.

BBC, or BBCW, did not watch it myself, broadcast the same interview, also, today. One cannot fool all people for all times.

ValmMond , March 28, 2018 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

BS. The "power elite" in the US is associated with a clearly identifiable group, which doesn't even hide its own tribal interest and allegiances. A parasite lodged in a host. Its messianic DNA slowly unfolds and takes over the host's vital functions. Loss of identity and cognitive ability are only phases preceding total destruction. The complicit host is apparently fully and gleefully embracing its fate.

AnonFromTN , March 28, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT
It takes a lot of effort to make the public believe the obvious. Deep state succeeded after so many years.
utu , March 28, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
@Thales the Milesian

Yeah. Distract them with the race issue. Kill extra couple of blacks. Provoke riots. Seen some money to BLM. And have the right and alt-right and all Sailers write about race , IQ until they dissipate all energy they got.

bluedog , March 28, 2018 at 7:08 pm GMT
@El Dato

If you don't you didn't live while he was president or don't read enough, probably both for you won't find it in the comic books

Art , March 28, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT

It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people.

How far-off it it to naming the Jews as the powerbrokers?

How far-off is the JQ – one year – two, three, four?

Think Peace -- - Do No Harm -- Art

bluedog , March 28, 2018 at 7:20 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Lol yep here we go again it must be Russia and Putin,I sure hope nothing happens to either, for if it did you would have nothing to live for,that grand place you live in would be awful lonesome with out either to whine about ,.

Herald , March 28, 2018 at 8:09 pm GMT
@Bobsyer

It seems you may have missed the main thrust of the article. It is that the Deep State is directing what Trump does or doesn't do. Trump may not like what he is doing but he has little choice but to eat crap and comfort himself with vacuous bluster on Twitter.

jacques sheete , March 28, 2018 at 8:28 pm GMT
Deep state? Sounds like what they called "corporate state" a century ago, especially since there's little hidden and nothing profound about it. Should be called "mafia state."
Jake , March 28, 2018 at 8:41 pm GMT
@ValmMond

The Deep State wielded preponderant power over this nation at least by the time Lincoln was buried, and its main actors then were virtually all pure WASPs (the non-Wasps were all Protestants of Continental Germanic ancestry, some of them Saxons, as was Martin Luther).

Jews didn't become the major power in the US Deep State until well after WW2. Probably after the assassination of JFK. Of course, you also need to face the many implications of the facts that Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy and that archetypal Mr. WASP himself Oliver Cromwell made the alliance with Jews concrete.

WASP culture is doing what it always was meant to do.

jacques sheete , March 28, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
Deep state my tusch. Trump appointed Bolton because Republicans desperately need Adelson's money

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/appointed-republicans-desperately/

How "deep" izzat?

Realist , March 28, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT
@Twodees Partain

Yes, I agree, and the biggest sham of all is that somehow the US is SUPPOSED to be a democracy.

The US is neither a Democracy or a Republic .it is an oligarchy.

renfro , March 28, 2018 at 11:14 pm GMT
The Deep State was called The Shadow Government in the 9o's.

And its the same thing it always was people and groups with ideologies or money interest or power interest or foreign interest ..all trying to direct the government to serve their interest.

And for the most part they have been successful in doing that.

[Mar 28, 2018] How Iraq War destabilized the world and why the neocons aren't finished yet by Rania Khalek

Notable quotes:
"... "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a 'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry." ..."
"... "axis of evil" ..."
Mar 26, 2018 | www.rt.com

The Iraq War architects have been thoroughly rehabilitated and are planning their next adventure, even as the catastrophic ramifications of their crimes continue to reverberate around the world. Last week marked the 15th anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. April 9 will be the 15th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The consequences of these events are still playing out today, from Mali to Niger, to the Philippines. Iraq has never recovered and is only beginning to emerge from the trauma, while American officials plan the next military adventure.

Writing in the New York Times, Iraqi novelist Sinan Antoon observed : "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a 'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry."

The rehabilitation of the neocons

Indeed, the rise of Trump has provided the cabal of Iraq War architects with a rebranding opportunity. After their utter failure in Iraq, these people were largely disgraced and no longer taken seriously outside of right-wing circles. But Trumpism, and the desire of liberals to oust the current president, has led to an anti-Trump coalition which includes at its helm many of the instrumental figures behind the Iraq invasion. The list includes David "axis of evil" Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush and now a senior editor at the Atlantic, as well as neoconservative think tanker Bill Kristol, and George W. Bush , who is now celebrated as a pragmatic leader – even by nostalgic Democrats who contrast him with Trump.

Read more Remember when Trump was anti-Iraq War? Bolton hire just tip of iceberg in policy U-turn

Trump's victory in the Republican primary on a seemingly isolationist platform, which was obviously a facade, sent many of these neoconservatives running toward Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. Those who lined up behind Clinton have since been embraced by the Democratic establishment, while the more extreme neoconservative hawks who stuck by the Republican Party have effectively inserted themselves into the Trump administration. The most recent and terrifying of these is John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intelligence that was used to mislead the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And now he is Trump's national security advisor.

Bolton is a neoconservative extremist who has never seen a country he didn't want to bomb. On the top of his hit list is Iran and North Korea, though Bolton has expended most of his energy agitating for the US to bomb Iran , which he seeks to hand over to the Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), a cultish group of Iranian exiles that has received backing from Israeli intelligence and was formerly classified as a terrorist organization by the United States.

In light of the Iraq war anniversary and the recent appointment of Bolton, it's a good time to survey the damage that neocons such as Bolton caused in Iraq. The war left an estimated 1 million Iraqis dead , 4.5 million displaced, 5 million orphaned, some 2 million widowed, and caused birth defects and cancer rates in some Iraqi cities that are significantly worse than those seen in the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of the Second World War.

Read more 'Epidemic of birth defects & cancer in Iraq after US-led war'

But the destruction reaches far beyond just Iraq.

The new Jihad

The irony is that Trump's rise to the presidency is in many ways the fault of the Iraq War architects. Their policies in Iraq, which were recycled in Libya and Syria, led to the rise of Islamic State and the refugee crisis that fueled right-wing populists such as Trump and his counterparts in Europe. The war in Iraq revived a jihadist movement that was dead after the first few months of the war on Afghanistan, opening the floodgates to jihadists and their supporters from around the world.

When the US dismantled the Iraqi state in 2003, instead of replacing it with a functioning government it punished Sunni areas and installed a sectarian Shiite regime comprised of exiles with no popular support in the country. The US essentially created a new category known as the Sunni Arab and, where the state collapsed, it was Al-Qaeda who would fight on their behalf. The inflammation of sectarian fears and lack of security resulted in a power vacuum that opened the floodgates to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ignited a gruesome civil war . AQI eventually morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq. Before morphing into ISIS, ISI established an Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria called Jabhat al-Nusra, the strongest and most disciplined armed opposition group in the country.

ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups cultivate and thrive off of stateless zones as well as a Sunni Arab victimhood narrative , which started with the execution of Saddam Hussein and has been propagated throughout the region by popular gulf-funded religious figures and media outlets such as Al Jazeera Arabic .

Read more Fallujah battle toxic legacy: 'Damage done to DNA'

Beheadings became a hallmark of the Al Qaeda branch in Iraq under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who, unlike Osama bin Laden began to focus on fighting the near enemy -- the Arab dictatorships, secular people and minorities -- as opposed to the far enemy of the infidel west. We would later see these beheadings in ISIS propaganda videos aimed at terrifying the west. There was a theory in the past in bin Laden's era that you should fight the far enemy, the west, before the near enemy. But under this new and evolved Al Qaeda, whether in Iraq or Yemen or Mali, we saw local franchises focused on slaughtering their fellow countrymen, with particular genocidal hatred for Shias.

The American occupation of an Arab country fueled this Salafi jihadist movement on a global scale. The occupation led to sympathy for this Iraqi jihad throughout the Muslim world, which meant foreign fighters coming in and a huge amount of funding from the gulf.

This global war on terror framework was also implemented by the US in countries such as Somalia and Yemen and across North Africa as well.

The Iraq War gave us Donald Trump

In spite of America's criminal disaster in Iraq, Barack Obama continued to implement regime change policies in both Libya and Syria by funding and arming right-wing insurgencies made up of none other than Al-Qaeda affiliates, the very ideology the US was supposedly fighting in its global war on terror. Like in Iraq, US intervention led to the rise of a failed state in Libya and in much of Syria.

Read more Israeli ex-defense minister says Trump's new NSC adviser Bolton was pushing him to strike Iran

In Syria, these failed state zones were then filled by thousands of foreign fighters coming in from the Turkish border, which the US tolerated as a means to put pressure on the Syrian regime, hoping the regime would offer concessions, which of course it never did. ISIS eventually took over many of these failed state areas and began kidnapping westerners and the group made millions of dollars in ransom money as a result.

The massive refugee flows which resulted from the US encouraging war and regime change in the Middle East led to the destabilization of much of Europe and to some extent, the rise of Donald Trump, who campaigned on the fear-mongering of ISIS, refugees and Muslims. You can trace all these and other terrible consequences to the US decision to encourage war and state collapse rather than to prioritize stability and order in the Middle East. It all started with the Iraq War.

The gift that keeps on giving

The ramifications of the Iraq War are still playing out today, having inspired Salafi jihadist movements from the Philippines to Mali and even Niger , where US soldiers were recently killed by jihadists.

Moreover, the war in Iraq, according to the very people who architected it, has strengthened Iran in the region. That isn't necessarily a bad thing given that Iran and its partners, such as Hezbollah and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), were crucial to defeating ISIS in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But a strengthened Iran is a nightmare for the US as it threatens American, Saudi and Israeli hegemony in the region. So, the Iraq war planners are using the strong position of Iran – created by neoconservative policies – to push for a war with Iran. They've also expanded their hit list to include Russia, who they're still hoping to escalate against in Syria.

With Bolton as Trump's national security advisor, a war with Iran is now much more likely. For the war industry and the neocons who lobby for it, the Iraq war they started is the gift that keeps on giving.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Rania Khalek is an American journalist, writer and political commentator based in the Middle East.

[Mar 28, 2018] Forget policies, the Stormy Daniels affair shows how far US politics has sunk by Ben Jakobs

Mar 28, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

As the porn star's allegations show, discourse in Washington is shifting to something more tawdry and celebrity-oriented

... The idea of a porn star appearing on network television to share details of a sexual encounter with the US commander in chief would have been intellectually confounding at any other moment in time. Instead, the interview, which took place only few days after a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal , talked about her affair with Trump, seemed a part of the everyday political landscape in 2018.

... Trump may seem like an aberration but instead he may be an inflection point. It's possible that after over two centuries of presidential campaigns with governors, senators and the occasional general, American politics is shifting to something more tawdry and more celebrity-oriented. The often spoken and rarely met ideal in the United States is that political debates should be about issues. But, after a political campaign where candidates debated penis size on a debate stage, it may be the legacy of Trump that politics has permanently descended to locker-room talk.

[Mar 28, 2018] It's Not a Conspiracy Anymore; Public Belief in 'Deep State' Soars by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... Monmouth University Poll ..."
"... It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication of how corrupt the system really is. ..."
"... So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. ..."
"... There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in the bureaucracy follow their diktats ..."
"... Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office. ..."
"... Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even admits as much in his statement. ..."
"... And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they are taking it back. That's what this is all about ..."
Mar 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

On Monday, the Monmouth University Polling Institute released the results of a survey that found that "a large bipartisan majority feel that national policy is being manipulated or directed by a 'Deep State' of unelected government officials .. [1] Public Troubled By Deep State, Monmouth University Polling Institute

The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from March 2 to 5, 2018 with 803 adults in the United States. The results in this release have a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/m...31918/

According to the survey:" 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy. Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold too much sway in the federal government. ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State", Monmouth.edu)

The survey appears to confirm that democracy in the United States is largely a sham. Our elected representatives are not the agents of political change, but cogs in a vast bureaucratic machine that operates mainly in the interests of the behemoth corporations and banks. Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla about elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and who ultimately benefits from it. Check it out:

" Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term "Deep State ;" another 24% are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of apparatus exists in Washington. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist." Belief in the probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan group "

So while the cable news channels dismiss anyone who believes in the "Deep State" as a conspiracy theorist, it's clear that the majority of people think that's how the system really works, that is, "a group of unelected government and military officials secretly manipulate or direct national policy."

It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication of how corrupt the system really is.

The Monmouth survey also found that "A majority of the American public believe that the U.S. government engages in widespread monitoring of its own citizens and worry that the U.S. government could be invading their own privacy." .

"Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%)who say this activity is widespread Few Americans (18%) say government monitoring or spying on U.S. citizens is usually justified, with most (53%) saying it is only sometimes justified. Another 28% say this activity is rarely or never justified ." ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State", Monmouth.edu)

So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. Once again, the data suggests that the American people know what is going on, know that the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art surveillance state ruled by invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions–but their awareness has not evolved into an organized movement for change. In any event, the public seems to understand that the USG is not as committed to human rights and civil liberties as the media would have one believe. That's a start.

There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in the bureaucracy follow their diktats. From the time Trump became the GOP presidential nominee more than 18 months ago, a powerful faction of the Intelligence Community, law enforcement (FBI) and even elements form the Obama DOJ, have vigorously tried to sabotage his presidency, his credibility and his agenda. Without a scintilla of hard evidence to make their case, this same group and their dissembling allies in the media, have cast Trump as a disloyal collaborator who conspired to win the election by colluding with a foreign government. The magnitude of this fabrication is beyond anything we've seen before in American political history, and the absence of any verifiable proof makes it all the more alarming. As it happens, the Deep State is so powerful it can wage a full-blown assault on the highest elected office in the country without even showing probable cause. In other words, the president of the United States is not even accorded the same rights as a common crook. How does that happen?

Over the weekend, former CIA Director and "Russia-gate" ringleader John Brennan fired off an angry salvo at Trump on his Twitter account. Here's what he said:

"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you."

Doesn't Brennan's statement help to reinforce the public's belief in the Deep State? How does a career bureaucrat who has never been elected to public office decide that it is appropriate to use the credibility of his former office to conduct a pitch-battle with the President of the United States?

Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office.

Not so, Brennan. Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even admits as much in his statement.

And Brennan has been given a platform on the cable news channels so he can continue his assault on the presidency, not because he can prove that Trump is guilty of collusion or obstruction or whatever, but because the people who own the media have mobilized their deep state agents to carry out their vendetta to remove Trump from office by any means possible.

This is the "America" of which Brennan speaks. Not my America, but deep state America.

And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they are taking it back. That's what this is all about

... ... ...

[Mar 28, 2018] The Consequences of Blowing Up the Nuclear Deal

Mar 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz spells out what the nuclear deal with Iran does and what withdrawing from it would mean:

Conversely, if Trump withdraws the United States from the agreement, with Iran complying and with our allies clearly committed to its continuation, he will have compromised the most stringent nuclear verification standard ever achieved, with no credible prospect for restoring or improving it [bold mine-DL]. Such a move would hand Iran a political "wedge" dividing the international community, and undercut vital arguments for verification of any agreement reached with North Korea.

Opponents of the deal often claim to be against it because it isn't "tough" enough, but as Moniz explains the deal contains the "most robust verification measures the world has ever known." Withdrawing from the deal means throwing that away for no good reason. If Trump follows through on his threat to withdraw, he will confirm that his complaints about the agreement were made in bad faith. Reneging on the deal just because some of its restrictions expire after a decade or more gives the game away. It gives Iran the excuse to ignore some or all of the deal's restrictions immediately instead of having some of them lifted in the 2020s or 2030s. We're supposed to believe that the gradual expiration of some restrictions is so intolerable that we should throw away all of the restrictions right away. It's a completely irrational position, and so it's obviously just a bad excuse for killing an agreement that Iran hawks never wanted.

If Iran is supposed to ratify the Additional Protocol that it is currently implementing voluntarily. Ratification will make these verification measures permanent, and that will make ensuring that Iran abides by its NPT obligations much easier. Blowing up the deal now would give Iran an excuse to stop voluntarily complying with the Additional Protocol years before they have to ratify it. Sina Azodi suggests that this is how Iran might respond to a U.S. withdrawal:

One possible response to a US withdrawal would be for Iran to declare that it will no longer implement the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This supplementary protocol significantly enhances the ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor and verify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA.

Under the agreement, Iran is required to implement the protocol and to ratify it within eight years of the January 2016 implementation of the JCPOA. If the deal collapses, Iran will no longer feel obliged to allow the intrusive inspections required by the protocol or to ratify it. This would significantly reduce the IAEA's ability to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. However, this seems to be a relatively safe option for Iran, since implementation of the protocol is on a voluntary basis.

As Azodi explains, this is the least provocative response available to Iran, and it allows Iran to further divide the U.S. and our European allies, who remain committed to honoring the agreement. It's also quite possible that Iran will follow the U.S. out of the deal to protest the resumption of U.S. sanctions. Either way, the verification measures that make the JCPOA such a strong nonproliferation agreement will be lost.

The verification measures in the deal were so stringent because of the fear that Iran wouldn't keep its side of the bargain, but if the deal dies it won't be because of Iranian cheating. Opponents of the deal have shown that the one truly fatal flaw of the deal was that it contained no provision to make sure that the U.S. fulfills its obligations. Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Iran , IAEA , Donald Trump , JCPOA , Sina Azodi , Ernest Moniz .

[Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Celebrity Apprentice ..."
"... National Enquirer ..."
Mar 27, 2018 | www.wsws.org

The "60 Minutes" broadcast on Sunday night, devoted to rehashing allegations of sexual impropriety and bullying against Donald Trump, marked a new level of degradation for the US political system. For nearly half an hour, an audience of 23 million people tuned in to a discussion of a brief sexual encounter between Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) in 2006.

Trump was then a near-bankrupt real estate and casino mogul, best known for reinventing himself as a television personality. By her account, the proffer of a possible guest appearance on Celebrity Apprentice was the only attraction the 60-year-old Trump had for Daniels, then 27. Trump made promises, but as usual did not deliver.

Earlier in the week, the same interviewer, Anderson Cooper, appearing on CNN instead of CBS, held an hour-long discussion with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy magazine centerfold, who described a year-long relationship with Trump, also in 2006, the year after his marriage to Melania Knauss.

White House officials flatly denied both accounts, but Trump himself has been conspicuously and unusually silent, even on Twitter. His lawyers filed papers with a Los Angeles court, in advance of the "60 Minutes" broadcast, claiming that Daniels was in violation of a confidentiality agreement and could be liable for damages of up to $20 million.

Last Tuesday, a New York state judge turned down a motion by lawyers acting for Trump and refused to dismiss the lawsuit for defamation brought against him by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on another Trump "reality" show, The Apprentice . One of nearly a dozen women who made public charges of sexual harassment against Trump during the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, Zervos alone has sued Trump over his repeated public claims that the women were all liars.

There is little doubt that the accounts by Zervos, McDougal and Daniels are substantially true. Trump has already demonstrated this by attempting to suppress their stories, either through legal action or by purchasing their silence, directly or indirectly. A Trump ally, David Pecker, owner of the National Enquirer tabloid, bought the rights to McDougal's account of her relationship with Trump in 2016 for $150,000, in order not to publish it. Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted last month that he had paid $130,000 to Daniels in October 2016, only weeks before the election, to guarantee her silence.

The bullying tactics of Cohen and other Trump allies add credibility to the claim by Daniels, during her "60 Minutes" interview, that a thug, presumably sent by Cohen, had threatened her with violence in 2011, when she first sought to sell her story about Trump to the media. Daniels offered no evidence to back her claim, but her attorney Michael Avenatti dropped broad hints that Daniels would be able to corroborate much of her account.

Cohen may himself face some legal jeopardy due to his public declaration that he paid Daniels out of his own funds. Given the proximity of the payment to the election, this could well be construed as a cash contribution to the Trump campaign far beyond the $3,500 legal limit for an individual.

The Zervos suit, however, may present the most immediate legal threat, since the next step, after New York Supreme Court Justice Jennifer G. Schecter rejected Trump's claim that he has presidential immunity, is to take discovery. In other words, Trump and his closest aides could be required to give sworn depositions about his actions in relation to Zervos and many of the other women.

Justice Schecter cited the precedent of the Paula Jones case against President Bill Clinton, in which the US Supreme Court held that a US president had no immunity from lawsuits over his private actions. While cloaked in democratic rhetoric at the time ("No one is above the law"), that decision actually gave a green light to an anti-democratic conspiracy by ultra-right forces who used the Jones lawsuit to trap Clinton into lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Unlike the 1998-1999 conflict over impeachment, there is no issue of democratic rights involved in the sexual allegations against Trump. Some of the same legal tactics (using sworn depositions to set a perjury trap), are being employed as weapons in an increasingly bitter conflict within the US ruling elite, in which both factions are equally reactionary.

Trump is a representative of the underworld of real estate, casino gambling and reality television, elevated to the presidency because he had the good fortune to run against a deeply unpopular and reactionary shill for Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies, Hillary Clinton. Under conditions of mounting discontent among working people with the Democratic Party, after eight years of the Obama administration, Trump was able to eke out a narrow victory in the Electoral College.

The Democratic "opposition" to Trump is focused not on his vicious attacks on immigrants, his promotion of racist and neo-fascist elements, his deregulation of business and passage of the biggest tax cut for the wealthy in decades, or his increasingly violent and unhinged foreign policy pronouncements. The Democrats have sought to attack Trump from the right, particularly on the question of US-Russian relations, making use of the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Trump has sought to mollify his critics within the US national security establishment with measures such as a more aggressive US intervention in Syria, the elevation of Gina Haspel, the CIA's chief torturer, to head the agency, and, most recently, the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats as part a NATO-wide campaign aimed at whipping up a war fever against Moscow.

As Trump has made concessions on foreign policy, his opponents have shifted their ground, attacking his behavior towards women. They have sought to link these exposures with the broader #MeToo campaign, which is aimed at creating a witch-hunt atmosphere in Hollywood, the US political system, and more generally throughout American society, in which gender issues are brought forward to conceal and suppress more fundamental class questions.

In both the Russia investigation and now the allegations of sexual misconduct, the Democrats have sought to hide their real political agenda, which is just as reactionary and dangerous as that of Trump and the Republicans. While Trump is pushing towards war with North Korea or Iran, and behind them China, the Democrats and their allies in the national security apparatus seek to maintain the focus on Russia that was developed during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly in Syria, Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole, posing the danger of a war between the world's two main nuclear powers.

Beyond the immediate foreign policy issues, the whipping up of sexual scandals is invariably a hallmark of reactionary politics. Such methods appeal to social backwardness, Puritanical prejudices or prurient interest. They contribute nothing to the political education of working people and youth, who must come to understand the fundamental class forces underlying all political phenomena. The political basis for a struggle against Trump is not in designating him as a sexual predator, but in understanding his class role as a front man for the American financial oligarchy, which treats the entire working class, including the female half, as objects of exploitation.

[Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Celebrity Apprentice ..."
"... National Enquirer ..."
Mar 27, 2018 | www.wsws.org

The "60 Minutes" broadcast on Sunday night, devoted to rehashing allegations of sexual impropriety and bullying against Donald Trump, marked a new level of degradation for the US political system. For nearly half an hour, an audience of 23 million people tuned in to a discussion of a brief sexual encounter between Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) in 2006.

Trump was then a near-bankrupt real estate and casino mogul, best known for reinventing himself as a television personality. By her account, the proffer of a possible guest appearance on Celebrity Apprentice was the only attraction the 60-year-old Trump had for Daniels, then 27. Trump made promises, but as usual did not deliver.

Earlier in the week, the same interviewer, Anderson Cooper, appearing on CNN instead of CBS, held an hour-long discussion with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy magazine centerfold, who described a year-long relationship with Trump, also in 2006, the year after his marriage to Melania Knauss.

White House officials flatly denied both accounts, but Trump himself has been conspicuously and unusually silent, even on Twitter. His lawyers filed papers with a Los Angeles court, in advance of the "60 Minutes" broadcast, claiming that Daniels was in violation of a confidentiality agreement and could be liable for damages of up to $20 million.

Last Tuesday, a New York state judge turned down a motion by lawyers acting for Trump and refused to dismiss the lawsuit for defamation brought against him by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on another Trump "reality" show, The Apprentice . One of nearly a dozen women who made public charges of sexual harassment against Trump during the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, Zervos alone has sued Trump over his repeated public claims that the women were all liars.

There is little doubt that the accounts by Zervos, McDougal and Daniels are substantially true. Trump has already demonstrated this by attempting to suppress their stories, either through legal action or by purchasing their silence, directly or indirectly. A Trump ally, David Pecker, owner of the National Enquirer tabloid, bought the rights to McDougal's account of her relationship with Trump in 2016 for $150,000, in order not to publish it. Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted last month that he had paid $130,000 to Daniels in October 2016, only weeks before the election, to guarantee her silence.

The bullying tactics of Cohen and other Trump allies add credibility to the claim by Daniels, during her "60 Minutes" interview, that a thug, presumably sent by Cohen, had threatened her with violence in 2011, when she first sought to sell her story about Trump to the media. Daniels offered no evidence to back her claim, but her attorney Michael Avenatti dropped broad hints that Daniels would be able to corroborate much of her account.

Cohen may himself face some legal jeopardy due to his public declaration that he paid Daniels out of his own funds. Given the proximity of the payment to the election, this could well be construed as a cash contribution to the Trump campaign far beyond the $3,500 legal limit for an individual.

The Zervos suit, however, may present the most immediate legal threat, since the next step, after New York Supreme Court Justice Jennifer G. Schecter rejected Trump's claim that he has presidential immunity, is to take discovery. In other words, Trump and his closest aides could be required to give sworn depositions about his actions in relation to Zervos and many of the other women.

Justice Schecter cited the precedent of the Paula Jones case against President Bill Clinton, in which the US Supreme Court held that a US president had no immunity from lawsuits over his private actions. While cloaked in democratic rhetoric at the time ("No one is above the law"), that decision actually gave a green light to an anti-democratic conspiracy by ultra-right forces who used the Jones lawsuit to trap Clinton into lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Unlike the 1998-1999 conflict over impeachment, there is no issue of democratic rights involved in the sexual allegations against Trump. Some of the same legal tactics (using sworn depositions to set a perjury trap), are being employed as weapons in an increasingly bitter conflict within the US ruling elite, in which both factions are equally reactionary.

Trump is a representative of the underworld of real estate, casino gambling and reality television, elevated to the presidency because he had the good fortune to run against a deeply unpopular and reactionary shill for Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies, Hillary Clinton. Under conditions of mounting discontent among working people with the Democratic Party, after eight years of the Obama administration, Trump was able to eke out a narrow victory in the Electoral College.

The Democratic "opposition" to Trump is focused not on his vicious attacks on immigrants, his promotion of racist and neo-fascist elements, his deregulation of business and passage of the biggest tax cut for the wealthy in decades, or his increasingly violent and unhinged foreign policy pronouncements. The Democrats have sought to attack Trump from the right, particularly on the question of US-Russian relations, making use of the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Trump has sought to mollify his critics within the US national security establishment with measures such as a more aggressive US intervention in Syria, the elevation of Gina Haspel, the CIA's chief torturer, to head the agency, and, most recently, the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats as part a NATO-wide campaign aimed at whipping up a war fever against Moscow.

As Trump has made concessions on foreign policy, his opponents have shifted their ground, attacking his behavior towards women. They have sought to link these exposures with the broader #MeToo campaign, which is aimed at creating a witch-hunt atmosphere in Hollywood, the US political system, and more generally throughout American society, in which gender issues are brought forward to conceal and suppress more fundamental class questions.

In both the Russia investigation and now the allegations of sexual misconduct, the Democrats have sought to hide their real political agenda, which is just as reactionary and dangerous as that of Trump and the Republicans. While Trump is pushing towards war with North Korea or Iran, and behind them China, the Democrats and their allies in the national security apparatus seek to maintain the focus on Russia that was developed during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly in Syria, Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole, posing the danger of a war between the world's two main nuclear powers.

Beyond the immediate foreign policy issues, the whipping up of sexual scandals is invariably a hallmark of reactionary politics. Such methods appeal to social backwardness, Puritanical prejudices or prurient interest. They contribute nothing to the political education of working people and youth, who must come to understand the fundamental class forces underlying all political phenomena. The political basis for a struggle against Trump is not in designating him as a sexual predator, but in understanding his class role as a front man for the American financial oligarchy, which treats the entire working class, including the female half, as objects of exploitation.

[Mar 27, 2018] Here's John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018

Mar 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack Reply 26 March 2018 at 06:35 PM

Humans are primates. Thus, they are stupid, ignorant, malicious and fearful - mostly the latter. Pretty much explains everything in human history.

I subscribe to the concept of survival at any cost. But in a rational society that would entail being aware of the long-term consequences. This, however, is not a rational society.

Off topic - or maybe not given the topic of human heartlessness - here we have John Bolton:

Here's John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/

Apparently he told the M.E.K. cult that the US would end Iran's leadership before the 40 year anniversary which is February 11, 2019.

That of course is absurd unless somehow the US manages to decapitate the Iranian leadership with an airstrike or nuclear attack. What actually will happen if the US attacks Iran is that Iran will fight for the next several decades until the US backs off. There is no chance short of nuclear bombardment for the US to "defeat" Iran. The US couldn't even "defeat" Iraq in less than five years and hasn't defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in 17 years. Iran will be a far harder nut to crack than either of those.

Lobe Log has published a "John Bolton: The Essential Profile" which covers this lunatic.
http://lobelog.com/john-bolton-the-essential-profile/

Of note in that piece is how many diplomats both within the US State Department and the EU explicitly state they can't stand the guy.

[Mar 27, 2018] John Bolton Tapped for NSA What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations

Mar 27, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

John Bolton Tapped for NSA: What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations?

John Bolton, a Yale-educated lawyer known as a foreign policy hawk , has been appointed National Security Adviser (NSA), in a major reshuffle of President Trump's administration. He officially takes office on April 9. No Senate confirmation is required. Welcome back, Mr. Straight Talker!

Mr. Bolton has a long history of government service, including in the positions of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and ambassador to the UN, the organization he once described as "no such thing" and wants to be defunded . John Bolton scorns international institutions and does not believe that engaging much with the world is in keeping with US interests.

This soon-to-be NSA is an experienced lawyer and "think tanker," as well as a foreign-policy pundit who has written a multitude of books and articles. He's a deft and ready speaker whose gift of gab can win over an audience at any time. The National Security Advisor-designate even considered entering the presidential races in 2012 and 2016.

In his frequent television commentaries , Mr. Bolton has always advocated tough approaches and never missed an opportunity to support using force rather than wasting time on fruitless diplomacy. For instance, he has advocated for a military option to solve the problem with North Korea and for boosting cooperation with Taiwan in order to irk China. He takes a very hard line on Iran. " To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran ," sums up his position.

Mr. Bolton believes the JCPOA was a blunder. He wants the US to push Iran out of Syria and topple President Assad's Tehran-friendly government. With his appointment, the chances of the US certifying the Iran nuclear deal appear to be somewhere between zero and zilch. Mr. Bolton has always been pro-Israel and backed the idea of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran to knock out the facilities there related to its nuclear program.

The late Jesse Helms, a well-known hawk, once claime d Mr. Bolton would be the right man "to stand with at Armageddon."

The newest appointee has championed the idea of raising tariffs to unleash trade wars.

With these two very hawkish Republicans -- John Bolton and Mike Pompeo -- Donald Trump will be under strong pressure to adopt a get-tough approach to all major issues. Gina Haspel, another hawk, will have frequent access to Donald Trump in her role as the newly appointed CIA director. The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on.

John Bolton has always been critical of Moscow and it is almost unanimously believed that his appointment does not augur well for US-Russia relations.

In response to President Putin's speech in which he unveiled the existence of his new super weapons, Bolton emphasized the need for "a strategic response ." He has called on NATO to offer a strong reaction to what is known as the Scripal case, expressing his conviction that the POTUS was considering such a response. The latest choice for National Security Advisor endorses the idea of providing Ukraine with lethal weapons and wants the West to take a much tougher stance on Russia. John Bolton will certainly advocate for expediting Georgia's and Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic alliance, as well as granting those nations the status of Major Non–NATO ally of the US.

He strongly criticized President Obama's "reset policy." Yet despite all that, he never launched personal attacks against Vladimir Putin. He always seemed to genuinely enjoy his visits to Russia, including press conferences and visits to think tanks. Despite his tough talk, he has always been amicable and ready to communicate. He has a long list of personal acquaintances, including many in senior government positions and academia. John Bolton worked with Sergey Kiriyenko, Russia's First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration, back when the latter headed Russia's State Commission on Chemical Disarmament.

Mr. Bolton is an experienced negotiator on strategic arms-control issues. John Bolton was a strong advocate of the US withdrawal from the 1972 BM Treaty. He took part in the talks over the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) that was in effect until the New START went into force. John Bolton sees the New START as a unilateral disarmament agreement that is at odds with US interests. President Trump has also decried that treaty.

Being a hawk does not make him a hopeless prospect. He views the interests of his nation in his own way, but he wants America to lead, not perish in a war it can't win. His experience in strategic arms talks is invaluable. Mr. Bolton has a good understanding of security-related issues.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was a Russia hawk, a tough guy no one could make a deal with. Remember his " joke " about dropping bombs on the USSR in five minutes? Or his "Evil Empire" speech? During his second term, the landmark INF Treaty was signed and the friendly environment of the US-USSR summits were proof that that bilateral relationship had clearly evolved beyond its Cold War roots.

The former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev believes that "He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War." President Reagan ended the Cold War and made it possible to ease the nuclear tensions in the 1990s.

Agreements will remain elusive on many issues and negotiations on some key matters may even break down, but dialog on arms control will probably continue because it meets vital US interests and Mr. Bolton knows that well.

In the end, the decisions are made by the president, and while advisers may have influence, they only advise. President Trump has many people around him to help him see issues from different viewpoints.

Tags: NSA Bolton

[Mar 27, 2018] Perfidious Albion: An Introduction to the Secret History of the British Empire

Mar 27, 2018 | thesaker.is

Abraxas on March 26, 2018 , · at 2:01 pm UTC

This is why Britain is called Perfidious Albion = dirty politics.

Search for article: Perfidious Albion: An Introduction to the Secret History of the British Empire
https://redice.tv/news/perfidious-albion-an-introduction-to-the-secret-history-of-the-british-empire

Mulga Mumblebrain on March 26, 2018 , · at 4:01 pm UTC
Two reasons for the descent of 'the West' into neo-Nazism stand out. First, the West was ALWAYS fascistic, racist, hyper-aggressive, destructive, parasitical and genocidal. Just summon up the shades of the hundreds of millions killed, directly or indirectly, through Western Imperialism, colonialism, settler genocide and economic exploitation even to the extent of causing Holocausts of mass death through famine, as in India, and ask them about the great and glorious West and its stinking 'Moral Values'. Not to forget the tens of millions of Westerners themselves killed in Western internecine wars, or through class hatred, or herded into gas-chambers or made to lie in mass graves then be shot along with their children because they were of the wrong religion, or the same, but they crossed themselves in the wrong direction. German Nazism simply expressed a rather pure essence of true 'Western' moral values, and its mission, and many of its personnel and methods, were simply taken over the USA after WW2.
Of course, the non-Western world was not a collection of lands of milk and honey, but by any rational calculus Western ideology involves a qualitatively different and incessant aggression and cancerous expansion, as manifest in that prototypical Western creation-capitalism. There the lust and capacity for total destruction, as EVERYTHING, living and inanimate is transmuted into the dead stuff of money, is unbounded, but this planet being finite, and the exploiters not having yet escaped to bleed alien worlds anew white and lifeless, capitalism has only succeeded in drowning us on this planet in the waste and filth of its excesses, of which poisoning we will shortly succumb.
And, second, the rise to global dominance through control of Western politics, fakestream media and the other brainwashing mechanisms and finance, of the Zionazi elite centred in Israel, and in the Jewish Diaspora elites, has delivered a final coup de grace to the West, and hence, the world that the West is now in the process of attacking, everywhere, for the crimes of not obeying orders from the likes of vermin like Theresa May, John Bolton and the execrable Macron.
These Zionazi elites are pretty unprecedented in their absolute arrogance and never-ending demands. Currently they have embarked on a veritable firestorm of hatred, invective and false accusations in order to destroy Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. If they cannot destroy Corbyn, they are very happy to destroy UK Labour, because they no longer control it as they did under their stooge, Blair. The whole stinking process is operating in open collusion with the UK fakestream media hate-machine, the reeking corpse of the late UK Guardian leading the way. The Jewish elite grandees leading the onslaught openly declare that it is UK Labour support for the Palestinians and 'Leftwing policies' and criticism of Israel that is motivating their typical exercise in Talmudic hatred. So, the work of hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters invigorated by Corbyn, who have worked, honestly and determinedly, over years and decades, to attempt to make the UK a better, more decent, society that the filthy dystopia created by the Tories and Blairites, is to all be destroyed by a tiny cabal of racist supremacists who see all goyim as their inferiors. A cabal that does not even represent all Jews, although they typically claim that they do, a favourite tactic of these anti-goyite thugs. Many Jews support Corbyn, knowing full well that he is a life-long anti-racist, unlike the Zionazi thugs who traduce him, who are among the vilest racists extant.
This Zionazi thuggery, and numerous other examples like the criminalisation of the BDS Movement or ANY criticism of Israel or Zionazism, as 'antisemitic', is bound to create a good deal of hatred in return. But that is PRECISELY what the Zionazi elites WANT-hatred is the very essence of their existence. Hatred of the Palestinians. Hatred of Arabs. Hatred of Moslems. Hatred of any goyim that do not share these hatreds, or dare to oppose Zionazism. These people, and they do only represent a fraction of Jewry, just as the worst of any community are only a generally small fraction, are the most dangerous and destructive creatures in existence, in my opinion. They hate Russia for thwarting their ambitions to destroy Syria as they did Iraq and Libya. They hate China for not ever going to become supine stooges like the Western kakastocrats. And, as Bibi, Bennett, Sharon, Begin and scores of other hideous Zionazi psychopaths show, they mix a series of ancient and modern psychoses into a maelstrom of hatred and destructiveness seen in policies like the Samson Option, the Oded Yinon Plan and the drive for endless war against their myriad goy enemies, that simply guarantees Israel's eventual destruction, and that, so they often promise, of us all.
Occasional Poster on March 26, 2018 , · at 5:05 pm UTC
To all friends on this blog,

Look beyond the superficial details of the West's hostile actions, and take heart. NOTHING has changed about the West's intentions to Russia, other than that the pretence is over. West is full of good people, but the leaderships kneel to a hidden power. It has been that way for a long time.

The worst possible strategic position was for Russia not to know that, or to be divided by an enduring pro-west movement.

Russia is now besieged, but it always was, without really knowing it. Now there is clarity, and the country can unite.

So take heart. Even on this blog, some will not be able to come to terms today, with West's treachery. As a Serb, I saw it all before, it is not new, it was always there. Russia was always in the cross-hairs, and now it is their turn again.

There is one chain of command in the west, and it is indeed an empire. If Russia has awoken from it's naivety, slumber, and need to believe in an imaginary friend, who always had a hidden knife, then we are good.

I expect every effort will now be made to derail the world cup. Pardon the pun, but it will be another own goal. Zog showed itself, and we can see its true intentions.

Muriel on March 26, 2018 , · at 5:36 pm UTC
Yes, Russia was naive in it's belief that the US was their 'partner'. I cringe every time I hear Putin say that. US is NOT their partner, does NOT want Russia to be sovereign, wants only a vassal Russia, where everything is open to their taking. I'm glad that Putin and many Russians are now losing some of their naivety and are finally realizing that US does NOT have Russia's interests at heart at all, but is, in reality, a treacherous, envious rival that would love to see all Russians bleed and die, if that meant US could take over the land and assets. The vassal EU and the totally repugnant UK are willing to follow US lead anywhere it takes them – even like lemmings over a cliff, which is what's happening now. The cliff is WWIII of which there will be NO winners.
Ky on March 26, 2018 , · at 8:04 pm UTC
England is not vassal but master who is running the show of hatred and inciting usa to fight her war against russia and chi
Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 11:24 pm UTC
England is the most deeply penetrated of the British colonies. The British 'City of London' is the heart of darkness.
Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 9:07 pm UTC
Putin was making an offer when he referred to the 'west' as partners. Take it in that regard. Putin does not seem to be silly nor naive. But by referring to the west as partners, he was extending an olive branch and make an offer to the west. That offer has by now obviously been declined.
proper gander on March 26, 2018 , · at 6:13 pm UTC
@ Occasional Poster

I knew the world cup was unlikely when the US was knocked out from qualifying by .. Guatemala. It was the biggest dive ever in football. No complaints back home from a cancellation, I thought.

TRM on March 26, 2018 , · at 8:59 pm UTC
T&T knocked them out. 2-1 was the score.
Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 9:16 pm UTC
The world cup is proceding as planned. A nuclear war might prevent it, but otherwise its still on.

Notice that all that's been done is 'diplomatic boycotts'. That's a purely symbolic measure, and all it means is that Russia won't have to host a group of government officials who otherwise would take an all expense paid vacation to a futbol tourney.

The English football coach said very openly that he doesn't care what BoJoke says or thinks. And there is no way the English would withdraw their futbol team. Germany is also very unlikely to refuse to defend their championship. German fans are highly unlikely to pass up a short trip to see their team play. And so far even German politicians aren't going the symbolic diplomatic boycott route. Same with most other EU countries.

ioan on March 26, 2018 , · at 5:33 pm UTC
What is going on against Corbyn is disgusting, it seems they have gone now in a frontal attack on all fronts.
It is a sign that something is nearing it's end phase.
TRM on March 26, 2018 , · at 8:57 pm UTC
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Gengis Khan was not western. The Chinese are not western. The Soviets were not western (not Russian either BTW).

It is a human condition that every group is guilty of.

Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 10:24 pm UTC
The west funded and supported the Russian revolution and installed the communists. Those communists were also harbored in the west before the revolution. Germany and the U.S. were financially backing that coup.

[Mar 27, 2018] how do you reform the Secret Police?

Notable quotes:
"... Is this trolling or naïvete? All US investigating agencies are complicit, so who is going to investigate investigators? ..."
Mar 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Si1ver1ock , March 27, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT

So how do you reform the Secret Police? It is an interesting idea. The National Security State has locked out any outside criticism and made reform almost impossible.

Then, there is also the whole indoctrination process. From hire to retire, these three letter agencies indoctrinate their employees with esprit de corps and being a team player with the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.

Pathological groupthink, ideologically pure, hermetically sealed. Eyes Only, NOFORN.

josealamia , March 27, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
Claim made by high level persons in the link, suggest need for deep investigation into who in the USA is getting paid to deliver or make available American taxpayer paid for resources to foreign payee governments conducting terrorism and destabilization programs?

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/03/27/556651/Kamal-Kharrazi-Institute-of-Policy-Studies-Islamabad-terrorism

very interesting

Charles Pewitt , March 27, 2018 at 6:08 pm GMT
John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I don't dare speculate what their real name is.

Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either.

President Trump should have declared war on the corporate propaganda apparatus and the Deep State on day number one of his administration. Trump let the shysters who run the corporate media and the treasonous rats in the Deep State off the hook.

President Trump won the GOP presidential primary and the presidency itself because Trump promised to put the safety, security and sovereignty of America first. The largest vote getter in terms of specific issues was the IMMIGRATION issue. Trump had the chance to fire every damn treasonous rat in the Deep State and he didn't do it. Trump betrayed his voters who wanted immigration reduced and illegal aliens deported.

President Trump should face a GOP presidential primary challenger. Maybe that will force Trump to remove the Deep State, remove the current controllers of the corporate media and put America first.

Trump should also call for an immigration moratorium and begin deporting all illegal aliens immediately.

Trump's problems with the corporate media and the Deep State stem from the fact that Trump didn't immediately remove them when he had the chance. Trump's voter base was more than ready for a "burn the boats on the beach" battle plan to defend the United States against the treasonous rats in the Deep State and the anti-White, anti-Christian shyster rats in the corporate media.

AnonFromTN , March 27, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
Is this trolling or naïvete? All US investigating agencies are complicit, so who is going to investigate investigators?
Anonymous [230] Disclaimer , March 27, 2018 at 7:06 pm GMT
@SunBakedSuburb

"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "

Brennan is PROJECTING.

They have the goods on HIM, and will squeeze out of him every last second of influence operations as long as he draws breath. Brennan will never be able to get off the HAMSTER WHEEL alive.

ChuckOrloski , March 27, 2018 at 7:12 pm GMT
@Charles Pewitt

Charles Pewitt wrote: "John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast."

Hi C.P.,

Above reflects the better part of Brennan' s character.

More definitive is Mr. Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal."

Also, why can not you see that "treasonous rats" rule? A learning deficiency?

Thanks.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , Website March 27, 2018 at 7:55 pm GMT
Wiki says he voted for communist Gus Hall in 1975.

Actually THAT Brennan was better than later Brennan who just became a mindless shill for Empire.

Charles Pewitt , March 27, 2018 at 8:05 pm GMT

More definitive is Mr. Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal."

Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal" because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest.

I would suggest that John Brennan could be politically damaged the most by stating that John Brennan supports open borders mass immigration. John Brennan and the rest of the Deep State are dangerous to Americans because they all support open borders mass immigration. The corporate media all supports mass immigration.

Over 60 million of us voted for Trump because Trump said he would stop the unnecessary overseas wars, reduce immigration and scrap the sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams. We voted for Trump to make the American Empire act more like a republic. We're stuck with the American Empire until it croaks or is croaked in turn. And the empires all turn into rust again.

The treasonous rats in the American Empire's Deep State all push nation-wrecking mass immigration.

Johnny Rico , Next New Comment March 27, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Twodees Partain

It probably wouldn't take a week for felony charges to be brought against him and he could be in jail waiting for a trial.

When was the last time something like that happened in the United States? I think maybe your spellcheck turned never to probably.

Curmudgeon , Next New Comment March 27, 2018 at 8:27 pm GMT
@utu

But was it CIA or DIA that helped to count Trump votes?

Hmmm, let's see here.
Counted Trump votes but not Clinton's?
Counted but reduced the number of Trump votes?
Counted all of the votes, but inflated Clinton's?
Successfully hacked the voting machines in some states to inflate Clinton votes and deflate Trump votes?

So many possibilities.

Art , March 27, 2018 at 8:38 pm GMT
How Brennon came to power, should draw questions. Was the dethroning of Gen. David Petraeus, as CIA chief, a palace coup? Was Brennen spying on Petraeus? Was the NSA tapping his phones? Did the idea that a military man was heading the CIA, anathema to the institution – so they got rid of him?

Just how much actual power does the CIA have in the American permanent Deep State?

Congress is NO check on the CIA – all the politicians on the intel security committees are handpicked dedicated worshipers.

The CIA is the most anti democracy organization on the planet. From its beginning, it has played with, subverted, and toppled democracies and sovereign governments. Today it assonates, tortures, and bombs people around the world. (Has Trump given them a free hand?)

The commie cold war is over – let's not start another one. The CIA's covert activities must stop.

(Spying is rational.)

Think Peace -- Art

[Mar 27, 2018] Stumbling into a War with Russia

Notable quotes:
"... "Now a new Cold War might be different in many respects than the old one. First of all, a very different balance of forces. Second, the absence of an attractive international ideology on the Russian side. Third, obviously, Russia is much more exposed to the West than during the original Cold War, but also, fewer rules and, I think, perhaps more emotions on both sides and increasingly hostile emotions on both sides." ..."
"... While many in Washington believe that Russia would fold if the United States stood up to the Kremlin, the recent Russian presidential elections on March 18 seem to show that Russian president Vladimir Putin has a much stronger mandate than many Western observers might have expected. As Beebe -- former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's Russia desk -- noted, Putin performed much better in the Russian elections than analysts expected. ..."
"... Part of the reason that Putin did so well was because of the alleged Russian attack on Skripal, since the Russian population generally does not believe that their government was involved. ..."
"... Indeed, Russian liberals faired exceedingly poorly in the elections at least in part because of the "rally around the flag" effect, Beebe said. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is under siege by hostile foreign powers greatly contributed to high voter turnout in the Russian elections and for far greater support for Putin himself. ..."
Mar 27, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

"I don't think many of us would question that we do face a new Cold War," Dimitri Simes, Center for the National Interest president and chief executive officer, said during a lunchtime panel on March 26.

"Now a new Cold War might be different in many respects than the old one. First of all, a very different balance of forces. Second, the absence of an attractive international ideology on the Russian side. Third, obviously, Russia is much more exposed to the West than during the original Cold War, but also, fewer rules and, I think, perhaps more emotions on both sides and increasingly hostile emotions on both sides."

The Possibility of a Conflict

Simes, who recently returned from a trip to Russia, said that while the Kremlin is held in low regard by Washington, those feeling are mirrored in Moscow. Indeed, tensions between the two nuclear-armed great powers are so high that analysts are openly wondering if there could be some sort of military confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

... ... ...

Putin is in a Strong Position

While many in Washington believe that Russia would fold if the United States stood up to the Kremlin, the recent Russian presidential elections on March 18 seem to show that Russian president Vladimir Putin has a much stronger mandate than many Western observers might have expected. As Beebe -- former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's Russia desk -- noted, Putin performed much better in the Russian elections than analysts expected.

... ... ...

Simes noted that Putin performed better than expected with parts of the Russian electorate where he traditionally has not fared well, such as in Moscow and with Russians living abroad. Part of the reason that Putin did so well was because of the alleged Russian attack on Skripal, since the Russian population generally does not believe that their government was involved.

Indeed, Russian liberals faired exceedingly poorly in the elections at least in part because of the "rally around the flag" effect, Beebe said. Beebe noted that part of the issue is that neither the United States or Britain has presented concrete evidence that Russia conducted the attack. The information that is publicly available is cause for a high degree of suspicion that Russia was behind the attack, Beebe said, however, it is not evidence in and of itself.

The idea that Russia is under siege by hostile foreign powers greatly contributed to high voter turnout in the Russian elections and for far greater support for Putin himself. "I was at a postelection party for journalists where a lot of opposition people, candidates, their surrogates were present, and they were all saying, 'We lost a lot of voters during the last days before the election because of this British incident,'" Simes said.

[Mar 27, 2018] Indian Punchline - Reflections on foreign affairs by M K Bhadrakumar

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by some countries of the European Union and North America on Monday is an unprecedented and intriguing development. ..."
"... Is it a massive diversionary tactic by the White House the day after porn star Stormy Daniels took Trump's pants off in her TV interview on '60 Minutes' ? Or, is this yet another attempt by Trump to flaunt that he isn't 'soft' on Russia? Or, is it the Deep State in action – as the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle might well suggest? There are no easy answers. ..."
"... THE SKRIPAL AFFAIR ..."
"... 30 Questions That Journalists Should Be Asking About the Skripal Case .) ..."
"... To my mind, this entire controversy snowballed into a litmus test of the Euro-Atlantic partnership – in particular, the US' trans-Atlantic leadership – at a defining moment when Britain is giving up EU membership. ..."
"... "The only question is whether the confrontation will dissipate, as it did over Agadir in 1911, or whether this is the Sarajevo slow-burning crisis that could explode into flame at some later point. ..."
"... Will it be another case of the sinking of the Maine in 1898, where the subsequent public hysteria provoked war against Spain only to be discovered later that the ship's ammunition stores had accidentally exploded; or a Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which was also a false flag operation but provoked the escalation of the Vietnam War. ..."
"... The West may be 'uniting' against Russia, as The Times ..."
Mar 27, 2018 | blogs.rediff.com

The mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by some countries of the European Union and North America on Monday is an unprecedented and intriguing development. First, the US alone accounts for some two-thirds of the expulsion – 60 diplomats. Curiously, even Britain, which is apparently the aggrieved party in the Skripal affair, expelled less than half that number – 23. Broadly, however, this is an Anglo-American move with which a number of EU countries and Canada display solidarity.

Second, President Trump is apparently more loyal to Her Majesty in the Buckingham Palace than Prime Minister Theresa May. This gives an intriguing twist to the tale. Why is there such an excessive interest on the part of Washington, especially at a time when the fervor of the Anglo-American kinship has significantly dampened during the Trump era? (President Trump is yet to visit the UK.)

Is it a massive diversionary tactic by the White House the day after porn star Stormy Daniels took Trump's pants off in her TV interview on '60 Minutes' ? Or, is this yet another attempt by Trump to flaunt that he isn't 'soft' on Russia? Or, is it the Deep State in action – as the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle might well suggest? There are no easy answers.

Third, only less than half the 28 member countries of the EU have signaled support for the Anglo-American campaign over the spy incident. There is much reluctance or skepticism within the EU about what is going on. Surprisingly, though, Germany, which had voiced skepticism at an early stage, has now joined the pack. Which probably shows that there has been immense pressure from Washington and London.

Nonetheless, curiously, the EU countries by and large made only 'token' expulsions. As many as 7 EU countries simply moved on by expelling one Russian diplomat each. Having said that, the pressure campaign is continuing and the likelihood of more EU countries joining the expulsion cannot be ruled out. Austria has point-blank refused to join. (So has Turkey, which virtually rules out a NATO stance, which requires unanimous support from all member countries.)

What is truly extraordinary is that the circumstances surrounding the alleged poisoning an MI6 double agent of Russian extraction are still shrouded in mystery. The British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn openly cautioned against rushed judgment in a piece in the Guardian newspaper, here . By the way, even PM May claims only that it is "highly likely" that there was Russian involvement (not excluding rogue elements.) Yet, a cardinal principle in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is that no one is deemed guilty unless proven guilty.

Indeed, a range of explanations is possible as to what really might have happened in Salisbury. Read an excellent analysis by the respected British scholar on Russia Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent and Associate Fellow of Chatham House, titled THE SKRIPAL AFFAIR , here .

Even in America, there are voices of scepticism. An enterprising columnist drew up 30 questions that beg an answer. (See the column by Bob Slane featured on the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, titled 30 Questions That Journalists Should Be Asking About the Skripal Case .)

To my mind, this entire controversy snowballed into a litmus test of the Euro-Atlantic partnership – in particular, the US' trans-Atlantic leadership – at a defining moment when Britain is giving up EU membership. This is one thing. But, more importantly, does the build-up portend something far more sinister than one would anticipate? One particular passage from Prof. Sakwa's essay becomes a chilling reminder about what may be lying in the womb of time:

"The only question is whether the confrontation will dissipate, as it did over Agadir in 1911, or whether this is the Sarajevo slow-burning crisis that could explode into flame at some later point.

Will it be another case of the sinking of the Maine in 1898, where the subsequent public hysteria provoked war against Spain only to be discovered later that the ship's ammunition stores had accidentally exploded; or a Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which was also a false flag operation but provoked the escalation of the Vietnam War.

The West may be 'uniting' against Russia, as The Times put it on 16 March, but to what purpose."

[Mar 27, 2018] A New Cold War With Russia No, It's Worse Than That

Trump proved to be a new Obama. change we can believe in. Elections in the USA became complete farce and neoliberal elite became both danger tot he USA and humality. Imitation of Perfidious Albion behaviour is a tight rope from fall from which can destroy the country and the civilization.
Mar 27, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

From the Kremlin's perspective, it is the United States that first upended previous norms, when President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Antiballistic Missile accord, an important Cold War-era treaty, in 2002 . Russia, Mr. Kurilla said, does not like the rules of the American-dominated order that have prevailed since then, "and wants to change them."

One rule that Russia has consistently embraced, however, is the principle of reciprocity, and the Kremlin made clear on Monday that it would, after assessing the scale of the damage to its diplomat corps overseas, respond with expulsions of Western diplomats from Russia.

The Russian Parliament also weighed in, with the deputy head of its foreign affairs committee, Aleksei Chepa, telling the Interfax news agency that Russia would not bow to the West's diplomatic "war." Russia, he said, "will not allow itself to be beaten up, the harder they try to intimidate us, the tougher our response will be."

When Britain expelled 23 Russian diplomats this month in response to the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, England, Moscow not only evicted an equal number of British diplomats, but ordered the closing of the British Council, an organization that promotes British culture and language.

... ... ...

Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, posted a message on Facebook sneering at the European Union for showing solidarity with Britain at a time when London is negotiating its exit from the bloc. Britain, she wrote, is "exploiting the solidarity factor to impose on those that are remaining a deterioration in relations with Russia."

While President Trump has expressed a curious affinity with Mr. Putin and raised expectations of improved relations, the Russian leader has always been more measured. The underlying mistrust seemed to be reinforced on Monday by Russia's ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Antonov, who told the Interfax news agency that "what the United States of America is doing today is destroying whatever little is left in Russian-U.S. relations."

[Mar 27, 2018] Trump, 14 EU Nations Expel Russian Diplomats and Recall Ambassadors

Notable quotes:
"... None of that proves Russia is innocent. None of this means the US and EU should appease every Russian move or irredentist motive. None of it implies the Russians shouldn't be monitored, balanced, and carefully watched in Europe and the Caucasus. However, before unilaterally escalating an already alarmingly tense situation between NATO and Russia, shouldn't we at least wait until all the evidence is in? ..."
Mar 27, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

by Maj. Danny Sjursen

Before all the far-from-indisputable-evidence is even in, the U.S. and European Union seem intent on escalating tensions and risking conflict with nuclear-armed Russia – that's politics not prudence!

Why a new Cold War ? Why now? This morning, Americans awoke to news that the supposedly Russia-supplicant Trump administration, along with 14 other EU nations, will expel scores of Russian diplomats. The announcement , which Russia called a "provocative gesture," and vowed to retaliate against, constitutes the largest collective expulsion of Russian Intel officers in history.

This very serious action follows on the heels of Russian intelligence's alleged role in the nerve-agent-attack – which Russia denies – on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, on UK soil. Maybe Russia was behind the attack, maybe it wasn't; but, it seems, we'd want to be sure and have indisputable evidence before embarking on what the Russian foreign ministry correctly labeled "a confrontational path."

More alarmingly, Russia's neighbors, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania, withdrew their ambassadors from Moscow on Monday – a move all but tantamount to breaking off diplomatic relations. With US and NATO troops now forward deployed in these former Warsaw Pact states, Russian and US military personnel staring each other down across the Euphrates River, and US airstrikes having recently killed scores of Russian mercenaries in Syria, are we now on a path to Cold (or Hot!) War?

Look, maybe Russia is behind these attacks, maybe all the MSNBC-Russia-Gate-Hysteria is all justified. But isn't this hasty, serious action a bit premature? Don't we want to be sure? As for the 2016 elections, Mueller's investigation in not yet complete and when it comes to "collusion" there's plenty of smoke, maybe, but very little fire. As for the UK poisoning attack, despite Britain's consistent, confident allegations of Russian guilt, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) won't even have the substance test results back for some 2-3 weeks .

It seems likely that rather than prudently, patiently (you know diplomatically!) waiting for definitive, corroborating chemical and intelligence evidence before further escalating tensions with the Russian bear, what we're seeing is President Trump's team making a political move. Embattled and scandal- ridden – who else saw 60 Minutes last night – this administration likely feels compelled to take some drastic action to prove (again) that they're not in cahoots with Putin. Is that any way to run foreign policy? Well, it is, in this era of hyper-partisan, role-swapping (wait the Dems are Russia hawks now?!?), battle stations politicization!

I watch the news (CNN and MSNBC are the worst culprits) enough to know that it is currently all-Russia, all the time. The American public is led to believe, by those outside, and in some cases – like the National Defense Strategy (NDS) – inside, the administration, that Russia is a born again Soviet Union and Putin the new Stalin incarnate. The Russkies are out for world domination again, a "revisionist power" as the NDS labels them. Hold on though; take a breath. Is that actually true?

As I've written in these pages , the threat and supposedly malign intentions of Russia and China have been highly inflated by hawks on both sides of the political aisle. In fact, Russia has recently announced plans to cut military spending over the next five years. As it stands, Russia is in many ways punching above its weight to begin with. With an economy comparable in size to that of Spain or Italy, military spending just a fraction of the US, and facing a demographic "perfect storm" of high mortality and low fertility, Russia has neither the means nor motivation to conquer Central Europe.

The United States, on the other hand, spends more on its military than the next several nations – China, Russia, India, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Japan and France – combined. Furthermore, a majority of the recent $1.3 trillion US omnibus spending bill goes straight to the warfare (welfare) state – the military and VA. Who exactly holds the aggressive cards here?

None of that proves Russia is innocent. None of this means the US and EU should appease every Russian move or irredentist motive. None of it implies the Russians shouldn't be monitored, balanced, and carefully watched in Europe and the Caucasus. However, before unilaterally escalating an already alarmingly tense situation between NATO and Russia, shouldn't we at least wait until all the evidence is in?

Prudence not politics should be the name of the game.

Major Danny Sjursen, a regular AntiWar.com contributor, is a U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet and check out his new podcast "Fortress on a Hill," co-hosted with fellow vet Chris 'Henri' Henrikson.

[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

Copyright 2018 Danny Sjursen

[Mar 27, 2018] Perfidious Albion: An Introduction to the Secret History of the British Empire

Mar 27, 2018 | thesaker.is

Abraxas on March 26, 2018 , · at 2:01 pm UTC

This is why Britain is called Perfidious Albion = dirty politics.

Search for article: Perfidious Albion: An Introduction to the Secret History of the British Empire
https://redice.tv/news/perfidious-albion-an-introduction-to-the-secret-history-of-the-british-empire

Mulga Mumblebrain on March 26, 2018 , · at 4:01 pm UTC
Two reasons for the descent of 'the West' into neo-Nazism stand out. First, the West was ALWAYS fascistic, racist, hyper-aggressive, destructive, parasitical and genocidal. Just summon up the shades of the hundreds of millions killed, directly or indirectly, through Western Imperialism, colonialism, settler genocide and economic exploitation even to the extent of causing Holocausts of mass death through famine, as in India, and ask them about the great and glorious West and its stinking 'Moral Values'. Not to forget the tens of millions of Westerners themselves killed in Western internecine wars, or through class hatred, or herded into gas-chambers or made to lie in mass graves then be shot along with their children because they were of the wrong religion, or the same, but they crossed themselves in the wrong direction. German Nazism simply expressed a rather pure essence of true 'Western' moral values, and its mission, and many of its personnel and methods, were simply taken over the USA after WW2.
Of course, the non-Western world was not a collection of lands of milk and honey, but by any rational calculus Western ideology involves a qualitatively different and incessant aggression and cancerous expansion, as manifest in that prototypical Western creation-capitalism. There the lust and capacity for total destruction, as EVERYTHING, living and inanimate is transmuted into the dead stuff of money, is unbounded, but this planet being finite, and the exploiters not having yet escaped to bleed alien worlds anew white and lifeless, capitalism has only succeeded in drowning us on this planet in the waste and filth of its excesses, of which poisoning we will shortly succumb.
And, second, the rise to global dominance through control of Western politics, fakestream media and the other brainwashing mechanisms and finance, of the Zionazi elite centred in Israel, and in the Jewish Diaspora elites, has delivered a final coup de grace to the West, and hence, the world that the West is now in the process of attacking, everywhere, for the crimes of not obeying orders from the likes of vermin like Theresa May, John Bolton and the execrable Macron.
These Zionazi elites are pretty unprecedented in their absolute arrogance and never-ending demands. Currently they have embarked on a veritable firestorm of hatred, invective and false accusations in order to destroy Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. If they cannot destroy Corbyn, they are very happy to destroy UK Labour, because they no longer control it as they did under their stooge, Blair. The whole stinking process is operating in open collusion with the UK fakestream media hate-machine, the reeking corpse of the late UK Guardian leading the way. The Jewish elite grandees leading the onslaught openly declare that it is UK Labour support for the Palestinians and 'Leftwing policies' and criticism of Israel that is motivating their typical exercise in Talmudic hatred. So, the work of hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters invigorated by Corbyn, who have worked, honestly and determinedly, over years and decades, to attempt to make the UK a better, more decent, society that the filthy dystopia created by the Tories and Blairites, is to all be destroyed by a tiny cabal of racist supremacists who see all goyim as their inferiors. A cabal that does not even represent all Jews, although they typically claim that they do, a favourite tactic of these anti-goyite thugs. Many Jews support Corbyn, knowing full well that he is a life-long anti-racist, unlike the Zionazi thugs who traduce him, who are among the vilest racists extant.
This Zionazi thuggery, and numerous other examples like the criminalisation of the BDS Movement or ANY criticism of Israel or Zionazism, as 'antisemitic', is bound to create a good deal of hatred in return. But that is PRECISELY what the Zionazi elites WANT-hatred is the very essence of their existence. Hatred of the Palestinians. Hatred of Arabs. Hatred of Moslems. Hatred of any goyim that do not share these hatreds, or dare to oppose Zionazism. These people, and they do only represent a fraction of Jewry, just as the worst of any community are only a generally small fraction, are the most dangerous and destructive creatures in existence, in my opinion. They hate Russia for thwarting their ambitions to destroy Syria as they did Iraq and Libya. They hate China for not ever going to become supine stooges like the Western kakastocrats. And, as Bibi, Bennett, Sharon, Begin and scores of other hideous Zionazi psychopaths show, they mix a series of ancient and modern psychoses into a maelstrom of hatred and destructiveness seen in policies like the Samson Option, the Oded Yinon Plan and the drive for endless war against their myriad goy enemies, that simply guarantees Israel's eventual destruction, and that, so they often promise, of us all.
Occasional Poster on March 26, 2018 , · at 5:05 pm UTC
To all friends on this blog,

Look beyond the superficial details of the West's hostile actions, and take heart. NOTHING has changed about the West's intentions to Russia, other than that the pretence is over. West is full of good people, but the leaderships kneel to a hidden power. It has been that way for a long time.

The worst possible strategic position was for Russia not to know that, or to be divided by an enduring pro-west movement.

Russia is now besieged, but it always was, without really knowing it. Now there is clarity, and the country can unite.

So take heart. Even on this blog, some will not be able to come to terms today, with West's treachery. As a Serb, I saw it all before, it is not new, it was always there. Russia was always in the cross-hairs, and now it is their turn again.

There is one chain of command in the west, and it is indeed an empire. If Russia has awoken from it's naivety, slumber, and need to believe in an imaginary friend, who always had a hidden knife, then we are good.

I expect every effort will now be made to derail the world cup. Pardon the pun, but it will be another own goal. Zog showed itself, and we can see its true intentions.

Muriel on March 26, 2018 , · at 5:36 pm UTC
Yes, Russia was naive in it's belief that the US was their 'partner'. I cringe every time I hear Putin say that. US is NOT their partner, does NOT want Russia to be sovereign, wants only a vassal Russia, where everything is open to their taking. I'm glad that Putin and many Russians are now losing some of their naivety and are finally realizing that US does NOT have Russia's interests at heart at all, but is, in reality, a treacherous, envious rival that would love to see all Russians bleed and die, if that meant US could take over the land and assets. The vassal EU and the totally repugnant UK are willing to follow US lead anywhere it takes them – even like lemmings over a cliff, which is what's happening now. The cliff is WWIII of which there will be NO winners.
Ky on March 26, 2018 , · at 8:04 pm UTC
England is not vassal but master who is running the show of hatred and inciting usa to fight her war against russia and chi
Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 11:24 pm UTC
England is the most deeply penetrated of the British colonies. The British 'City of London' is the heart of darkness.
Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 9:07 pm UTC
Putin was making an offer when he referred to the 'west' as partners. Take it in that regard. Putin does not seem to be silly nor naive. But by referring to the west as partners, he was extending an olive branch and make an offer to the west. That offer has by now obviously been declined.
proper gander on March 26, 2018 , · at 6:13 pm UTC
@ Occasional Poster

I knew the world cup was unlikely when the US was knocked out from qualifying by .. Guatemala. It was the biggest dive ever in football. No complaints back home from a cancellation, I thought.

TRM on March 26, 2018 , · at 8:59 pm UTC
T&T knocked them out. 2-1 was the score.
Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 9:16 pm UTC
The world cup is proceding as planned. A nuclear war might prevent it, but otherwise its still on.

Notice that all that's been done is 'diplomatic boycotts'. That's a purely symbolic measure, and all it means is that Russia won't have to host a group of government officials who otherwise would take an all expense paid vacation to a futbol tourney.

The English football coach said very openly that he doesn't care what BoJoke says or thinks. And there is no way the English would withdraw their futbol team. Germany is also very unlikely to refuse to defend their championship. German fans are highly unlikely to pass up a short trip to see their team play. And so far even German politicians aren't going the symbolic diplomatic boycott route. Same with most other EU countries.

ioan on March 26, 2018 , · at 5:33 pm UTC
What is going on against Corbyn is disgusting, it seems they have gone now in a frontal attack on all fronts.
It is a sign that something is nearing it's end phase.
TRM on March 26, 2018 , · at 8:57 pm UTC
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Gengis Khan was not western. The Chinese are not western. The Soviets were not western (not Russian either BTW).

It is a human condition that every group is guilty of.

Anonymous on March 26, 2018 , · at 10:24 pm UTC
The west funded and supported the Russian revolution and installed the communists. Those communists were also harbored in the west before the revolution. Germany and the U.S. were financially backing that coup.

[Mar 27, 2018] You will gain a better understanding of Vladimir Putin if you study his career as a sportsman, 3rd degree blackbelt Judoka than by sifting through his career as an ex-spy.

Mar 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

ThreeCranes , March 27, 2018 at 1:23 pm GMT

You will gain a better understanding of Vladimir Putin if you study his career as a sportsman, 3rd degree blackbelt Judoka than by sifting through his career as an ex-spy.

First of all, Judo is a sport. It's not a "martial art". It's not meant to maim or injure–though of course, people do get injured because they get thrown. Every particular technique that could inevitably result in injury has been culled from the sport. You don't "practice" Judo, you "play" it–literally, that's what they say when talking about participation.

Practice sessions are democratic. Everyone practices against everyone else. Of course, this results in mismatches as rank beginners will at some point be paired up with advanced players. But this mismatch doesn't result in humiliation because the advanced take special pains to play cleanly, pull their throws i.e. execute them perfectly so the person thrown can land without injury to themselves and it also is an opportunity for every good Judoka to teach the novices.

There are some people who come to Judo who don't fit in. They standout because they can be seen really playing rough with those who are lower in rank than them. But this doesn't go unnoticed. As people cycle through opponents during the practice session, the bully will eventually be paired up with someone who is better than they are. And they will be taught a lesson. Either they learn and conform to the rules or they never show up again. Judo weeds out opportunistic bullies.

Now I hope the above helps people better understand Putin. To sum up: he is competitive but will try to win fairly, within the prescribed rules. He won't tolerate bullying by the stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the aid of the weaker. Has a strong sense of tradition, of belonging to a school of thought and action that is greater than himself and that is worth preserving for its own sake, believes and more importantly, knows through experience, that belonging to such a school improves individual character. He is competent. I've seen film of him in practice and his technique is quite good. His third degree black belt was honestly earned, it wasn't an honorary award.

From the above it can be seen why he would have little respect for the current crop of weak, cowardly, politicians who rule America, lacking as they are in discipline, integrity and dedication to a larger, noble cause. He would, in fact, find it hard not to hold them in contempt but, keeping his eyes on the long-term goals of what's good for his country, masters his emotions when dealing with them face to face.

[Mar 27, 2018] Fifteen Years Ago, America Destroyed My Country by SINAN ANTOON

Notable quotes:
"... My short visit only confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. ..."
"... Paul Bremer III, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, announced the formation of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each followed by their sect and ethnicity . Many of the Iraqis we spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade, went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world. ..."
"... The next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis. ..."
"... I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale, dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. ..."
"... Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter . ..."
Mar 19, 2018 | www.nytimes.com
Photo
A statue of Saddam Hussein in front of the burning National Olympic Committee in Baghdad in 2003. Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

When I was 12, Saddam Hussein, vice president of Iraq at the time, carried out a huge purge and officially usurped total power. I was living in Baghdad then, and I developed an intuitive, visceral hatred of the dictator early on. That feeling only intensified and matured as I did. In the late 1990s, I wrote my first novel, "I'jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody," about daily life under Saddam's authoritarian regime. Furat, the narrator , was a young college student studying English literature at Baghdad University, as I had. He ends up in prison for cracking a joke about the dictator. Furat hallucinates and imagines Saddam's fall, just as I often did. I hoped I would witness that moment, whether in Iraq or from afar.

I left Iraq a few months after the 1991 Gulf War and went to graduate school in the United States, where I've been ever since. In 2002, when the cheerleading for the Iraq war started, I was vehemently against the proposed invasion. The United States had consistently supported dictators in the Arab world and was not in the business of exporting democracy, irrespective of the Bush administration's slogans. I recalled sitting in my family's living room with my aunt when I was a teenager, watching Iraqi television and seeing Donald Rumsfeld visiting Baghdad as an emissary from Ronald Reagan and shaking hands with Saddam . That memory made Mr. Rumsfeld's words in 2002 about freedom and democracy for Iraqis seem hollow. Moreover, having lived through two previous wars (the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War of 1991), I knew that the actual objectives of war were always camouflaged by well-designed lies that exploit collective fear and perpetuate national myths.

I was one of about 500 Iraqis in the diaspora -- of various ethnic and political backgrounds, many of whom were dissidents and victims of Saddam's regime -- who signed a petition: "No to war on Iraq. No to dictatorship." While condemning Saddam's reign of terror, we were against a "war that would cause more death and suffering" for innocent Iraqis and one that threatened to push the entire region into violent chaos. Our voices were not welcomed in mainstream media in the United States, which preferred the pro-war Iraqi-American who promised cheering crowds that would welcome invaders with "sweets and flowers." There were none.

The petition didn't make much of an impact. Fifteen years ago today, the invasion of Iraq began.

Three months later, I returned to Iraq for the first time since 1991 as part of a collective to film a documentary about Iraqis in a post-Saddam Iraq. We wanted to show my countrymen as three-dimensional beings, beyond the binary of Saddam versus the United States. In American media, Iraqis had been reduced to either victims of Saddam who longed for occupation or supporters and defenders of dictatorship who opposed the war. We wanted Iraqis to speak for themselves. For two weeks, we drove around Baghdad and spoke to many of its residents. Some were still hopeful, despite being drained by years of sanctions and dictatorship. But many were furious and worried about what was to come. The signs were already there: the typical arrogance and violence of a colonial occupying power.

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

My short visit only confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. We were still filming in Baghdad when L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, announced the formation of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each followed by their sect and ethnicity . Many of the Iraqis we spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade, went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world.

We were fortunate to have been able to shoot our film in that brief period during which there was relative public security. Shortly after our visit, Iraq descended into violence; suicide bombings became the norm. The invasion made my country a magnet for terrorists ("We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," President George W. Bush had said), and Iraq later descended into a sectarian civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands more, irrevocably changing the country's demography.

The next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis.

My last visit was in April 2017. I flew from New York, where I now live, to Kuwait, where I was giving a lecture. An Iraqi friend and I crossed the border by land. I was going to the city of Basra, in the south of Iraq. Basra was the only major Iraqi city I had not visited before. I was going to sign my books at the Friday book market of al-Farahidi Street, a weekly gathering for bibliophiles modeled after the famous Mutanabbi Street book market in Baghdad. I was driven around by friends. I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale, dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. Nonetheless, I made a pilgrimage to the famous statue of Iraq's greatest poet, Badr Shakir al-Sayyab.

One of the few sources of joy for me during these short visits were the encounters with Iraqis who had read my novels and were moved by them. These were novels I had written from afar, and through them, I tried to grapple with the painful disintegration of an entire country and the destruction of its social fabric. These texts are haunted by the ghosts of the dead, just as their author is.

No one knows for certain how many Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion 15 years ago. Some credible estimates put the number at more than one million. You can read that sentence again. The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a "blunder," or even a "colossal mistake." It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry. (A year ago, I watched Mr. Bush on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," dancing and talking about his paintings.) The pundits and "experts" who sold us the war still go on doing what they do. I never thought that Iraq could ever be worse than it was during Saddam's reign, but that is what America's war achieved and bequeathed to Iraqis.

Sinan Antoon ( @sinanantoon ) is the author, most recently, of the novel "The Baghdad Eucharist." Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter .

[Mar 27, 2018] John Bolton Tapped for NSA What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations

Mar 27, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

John Bolton Tapped for NSA: What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations?

John Bolton, a Yale-educated lawyer known as a foreign policy hawk , has been appointed National Security Adviser (NSA), in a major reshuffle of President Trump's administration. He officially takes office on April 9. No Senate confirmation is required. Welcome back, Mr. Straight Talker!

Mr. Bolton has a long history of government service, including in the positions of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and ambassador to the UN, the organization he once described as "no such thing" and wants to be defunded . John Bolton scorns international institutions and does not believe that engaging much with the world is in keeping with US interests.

This soon-to-be NSA is an experienced lawyer and "think tanker," as well as a foreign-policy pundit who has written a multitude of books and articles. He's a deft and ready speaker whose gift of gab can win over an audience at any time. The National Security Advisor-designate even considered entering the presidential races in 2012 and 2016.

In his frequent television commentaries , Mr. Bolton has always advocated tough approaches and never missed an opportunity to support using force rather than wasting time on fruitless diplomacy. For instance, he has advocated for a military option to solve the problem with North Korea and for boosting cooperation with Taiwan in order to irk China. He takes a very hard line on Iran. " To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran ," sums up his position.

Mr. Bolton believes the JCPOA was a blunder. He wants the US to push Iran out of Syria and topple President Assad's Tehran-friendly government. With his appointment, the chances of the US certifying the Iran nuclear deal appear to be somewhere between zero and zilch. Mr. Bolton has always been pro-Israel and backed the idea of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran to knock out the facilities there related to its nuclear program.

The late Jesse Helms, a well-known hawk, once claime d Mr. Bolton would be the right man "to stand with at Armageddon."

The newest appointee has championed the idea of raising tariffs to unleash trade wars.

With these two very hawkish Republicans -- John Bolton and Mike Pompeo -- Donald Trump will be under strong pressure to adopt a get-tough approach to all major issues. Gina Haspel, another hawk, will have frequent access to Donald Trump in her role as the newly appointed CIA director. The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on.

John Bolton has always been critical of Moscow and it is almost unanimously believed that his appointment does not augur well for US-Russia relations.

In response to President Putin's speech in which he unveiled the existence of his new super weapons, Bolton emphasized the need for "a strategic response ." He has called on NATO to offer a strong reaction to what is known as the Scripal case, expressing his conviction that the POTUS was considering such a response. The latest choice for National Security Advisor endorses the idea of providing Ukraine with lethal weapons and wants the West to take a much tougher stance on Russia. John Bolton will certainly advocate for expediting Georgia's and Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic alliance, as well as granting those nations the status of Major Non–NATO ally of the US.

He strongly criticized President Obama's "reset policy." Yet despite all that, he never launched personal attacks against Vladimir Putin. He always seemed to genuinely enjoy his visits to Russia, including press conferences and visits to think tanks. Despite his tough talk, he has always been amicable and ready to communicate. He has a long list of personal acquaintances, including many in senior government positions and academia. John Bolton worked with Sergey Kiriyenko, Russia's First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration, back when the latter headed Russia's State Commission on Chemical Disarmament.

Mr. Bolton is an experienced negotiator on strategic arms-control issues. John Bolton was a strong advocate of the US withdrawal from the 1972 BM Treaty. He took part in the talks over the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) that was in effect until the New START went into force. John Bolton sees the New START as a unilateral disarmament agreement that is at odds with US interests. President Trump has also decried that treaty.

Being a hawk does not make him a hopeless prospect. He views the interests of his nation in his own way, but he wants America to lead, not perish in a war it can't win. His experience in strategic arms talks is invaluable. Mr. Bolton has a good understanding of security-related issues.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was a Russia hawk, a tough guy no one could make a deal with. Remember his " joke " about dropping bombs on the USSR in five minutes? Or his "Evil Empire" speech? During his second term, the landmark INF Treaty was signed and the friendly environment of the US-USSR summits were proof that that bilateral relationship had clearly evolved beyond its Cold War roots.

The former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev believes that "He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War." President Reagan ended the Cold War and made it possible to ease the nuclear tensions in the 1990s.

Agreements will remain elusive on many issues and negotiations on some key matters may even break down, but dialog on arms control will probably continue because it meets vital US interests and Mr. Bolton knows that well.

In the end, the decisions are made by the president, and while advisers may have influence, they only advise. President Trump has many people around him to help him see issues from different viewpoints.

Tags: NSA Bolton

[Mar 27, 2018] Here's John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018

Mar 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack Reply 26 March 2018 at 06:35 PM

Humans are primates. Thus, they are stupid, ignorant, malicious and fearful - mostly the latter. Pretty much explains everything in human history.

I subscribe to the concept of survival at any cost. But in a rational society that would entail being aware of the long-term consequences. This, however, is not a rational society.

Off topic - or maybe not given the topic of human heartlessness - here we have John Bolton:

Here's John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/

Apparently he told the M.E.K. cult that the US would end Iran's leadership before the 40 year anniversary which is February 11, 2019.

That of course is absurd unless somehow the US manages to decapitate the Iranian leadership with an airstrike or nuclear attack. What actually will happen if the US attacks Iran is that Iran will fight for the next several decades until the US backs off. There is no chance short of nuclear bombardment for the US to "defeat" Iran. The US couldn't even "defeat" Iraq in less than five years and hasn't defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in 17 years. Iran will be a far harder nut to crack than either of those.

Lobe Log has published a "John Bolton: The Essential Profile" which covers this lunatic.
http://lobelog.com/john-bolton-the-essential-profile/

Of note in that piece is how many diplomats both within the US State Department and the EU explicitly state they can't stand the guy.

[Mar 27, 2018] Within a week after Brennan's 'routine' visit in April 2014 to the Ukraine the Ukrainian army launched a civil war. That was within 2 weeks of the CIA instigated coup an the end of February 2014

Mar 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

JR , Next New Comment March 27, 2018 at 6:24 am GMT

Within a week after Brennan's 'routine' visit in April 2014 to the Ukraine the Ukrainian army launched a civil war. That was within 2 weeks of the CIA instigated coup an the end of February 2014.

[Mar 27, 2018] Entangling alliances or scoring at home Why US went out of its way with Russian diplomat expulsions

16 EU states now expelling 33 Russian diplomats
Notable quotes:
"... "intelligence officers" ..."
"... In addition to expelling the diplomats, Trump ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle, Washington. The decision cited the consulate's proximity to a US submarine base and to Boeing production facilities, implying the diplomats were really intelligence operatives. ..."
"... That was echoed by White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah, who told reporters the expulsion is aimed at "significantly degrading their intelligence capabilities around the world, not just in the US." ..."
"... "coordinated with NATO allies," ..."
"... "brazen and reckless" ..."
"... "highly likely" ..."
"... "Thousand-year Reich" ..."
"... "joined at the hip" ..."
"... "entangling alliances," ..."
"... "blindly follow the principle of Euro-Atlantic unity at the expense of common sense, the rules of civilized state-to-state dialogue and the principles of international law," ..."
"... "up to the Russian government and up to Putin," ..."
"... "special relationship" ..."
"... "What we are witnessing now is part of a long-term program of unbridled Russophobia," ..."
"... "what took so long" ..."
"... "Russian oligarchs" ..."
"... "The Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States, ..."
Mar 27, 2018 | www.rt.com

The decision to expel 60 Russian diplomats suggests that President Donald Trump is either following the siren call of 'entangling alliances,' or taking the lead in escalating the conflict with Moscow to appease domestic critics. Not only did Trump's order affect more than twice as many diplomats as the March 14 move by London, it accounts for more than half of the total Russian diplomats expelled by various US allies on Monday. Monday's action is the biggest expulsion of alleged "intelligence officers" since the Cold War and the largest in US history, according to US ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman.

Though Trump campaigned on the "America First" foreign policy , openly critical of the nation-building and "humanitarian" interventions his predecessors engaged in, little of that remains after the first year of his presidency. The media and the opposition Democrats appear to have buttonholed the president with never-ending accusations that he is somehow "soft" on Russia.

Read more 2017 could have been year Russia and US made up. Now they stand on brink of new Cold War

In reality, the current administration has taken the hostility toward Moscow, inherited from Barack Obama's second term, and turned it up a notch, from pressuring Russian media to register as foreign agents and approving the sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, to expelling more Russian diplomats and shutting down consulates .

In addition to expelling the diplomats, Trump ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle, Washington. The decision cited the consulate's proximity to a US submarine base and to Boeing production facilities, implying the diplomats were really intelligence operatives.

That was echoed by White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah, who told reporters the expulsion is aimed at "significantly degrading their intelligence capabilities around the world, not just in the US."

Shah said the move was "coordinated with NATO allies," and represented a US response to Russia's "brazen and reckless" actions, namely, the alleged nerve agent attack that reportedly injured former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, three weeks ago.

16 EU states now expelling 33 Russian diplos
🇩🇪 Germany 4
🇵🇱 Poland 4
🇨🇵 France 4
🇨🇿 Czech 3
🇱🇹 Lithuania 3
🇮🇹 Italy 2
🇩🇰 Denmark 2
🇳🇱 Netherlands 2
🇪🇸 Spain 2
🇱🇻 Latvia 1
🇫🇮 Finland 1
🇪🇪 Estonia 1
🇷🇴 Romania 1
🇸🇪 Sweden 1
🇭🇷 Croatia 1
🇭🇺 Hungary 1

-- Danny Kemp (@dannyctkemp) March 26, 2018

British authorities have asserted that Russia was "highly likely" to have been behind the incident, but have refused to provide any evidence to back up Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson's words. Johnson even went so far as to compare Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler - twice! - though it was Russia that carried the disproportionate burden in defeating Hitler's "Thousand-year Reich" in the Second World War.

On March 14, May ordered the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats. Russia retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats, as well as shutting down the consulate in St. Petersburg and British Council operations in Russia.

Seasoned observers of international relations might note that it is usually Britain that follows the US lead – whether in the 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or the 2011 regime change operation in Libya – and not the other way around. Yet, according to White House's Shah, the US is "joined at the hip" with the UK on this. What gives?

This needs to be emphasized. The majority of the EU countries did not join in this mass expulsion. As for those that did, expulsions were mostly pro forma, undertaken in order to keep the British happy. Why then the wildly disproportionate response from Trump? https://t.co/4FldvIS80W

-- George Szamuely (@GeorgeSzamuely) March 26, 2018

America's first president, George Washington, warned way back in 1796 of the danger of "entangling alliances," which would draw the newly created country into foreign wars on behalf of allied governments. Such alliances would also lead to poor relations with other nations and distort US policies to favor the wishes of its allies over the will of the American people.

Yet today's US policymakers, from the highest officials of the Trump administration to the NeverTrump think-tanks, treat it as an article of faith that the US is strong because it has entangling alliances with countries all over the world, and a military presence all over the planet.

Read more US abusing its rights as host country by expelling Russian diplomats at UN – Russia's UN envoy

Washington and other allies of London "blindly follow the principle of Euro-Atlantic unity at the expense of common sense, the rules of civilized state-to-state dialogue and the principles of international law," the Russian Foreign Ministry said , condemning the expulsions.

Shah's comments, that the US relationship with Russia is entirely "up to the Russian government and up to Putin," as if Washington had no agency in the matter, certainly seems to suggest that Trump is all tangled up in the "special relationship" with London.

However, there is also the possibility that Trump or some of his advisers are pursuing hostility towards Moscow in order to counter the narrative of 'Russian collusion' – which originated from the Hillary Clinton campaign after the humiliating loss in the 2016 election, and continues to be pushed by many in the US media and the Democratic party.

"What we are witnessing now is part of a long-term program of unbridled Russophobia," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Rossiya-1 TV.

Reporters covering the White House presented a good example on Monday. In the rare moments when they digressed from discussing Trump's alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, reporters mostly wanted to know "what took so long" to expel the diplomats and why more is not being done against Russia. CNN's Jim Sciutto finally got a question, only to demand more sanctions against "Russian oligarchs" and Putin personally.

No matter what Trump does against Russia, it fails to mollify his critics, who see evidence of his "collusion" with Moscow in absolutely everything.

Closing Russia's consulate in Seattle hurts Americans in our Northwest who want to visit Russia, not Putin's oligarchs. Typical misdirection by Trump Administration.

-- Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) March 26, 2018

Trump didn't have an option to keep the 60 Russian spies posing as diplomats in the US, but I guarantee he looked for one. He also hasn't criticized Putin or implemented all of the sanctions Congress passed against Russia. Trump's a traitor & shouldn't be president. #ImpeachTrump

-- Scott Dworkin (@funder) March 26, 2018

Whatever the intent behind Monday's decision, its timing and execution were certainly problematic. The expulsion of diplomats came as Russia was collectively mourning the deaths of 64 people, many of them children , in a mall fire in the Siberian city of Kemerovo. Adding insult to injury sounds like really poor diplomacy, no matter who's behind it.

Then again, as the former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali noted in his 1999 memoir, Washington sees no need for diplomacy when power will do.

"The Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States, " wrote Boutros-Ghali.

[Mar 27, 2018] Integrity Has Vanished From The West by Paul Craig Roberts,

Mar 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored Among Western political leaders there is not an ounce of integrity or morality . The Western print and TV media is dishonest and corrupt beyond repair. Yet the Russian government persists in its fantasy of "working with Russia's Western partners." The only way Russia can work with crooks is to become a crook. Is that what the Russian government wants?

Finian Cunningham notes the absurdity in the political and media uproar over Trump (belatedly) telephoning Putin to congratulate him on his reelection with 77 percent of the vote, a show of public approval that no Western political leader could possibly attain. The crazed US senator from Arizona called the person with the largest majority vote of our time "a dictator." Yet a real blood-soaked dictator from Saudi Arabia is feted at the White House and fawned over by the president of the United States.

The Western politicians and presstitutes are morally outraged over an alleged poisoning, unsupported by any evidence, of a former spy of no consequence on orders by the president of Russia himself. These kind of insane insults thrown at the leader of the world's most powerful military nation -- and Russia is a nation, unlike the mongrel Western countries -- raise the chances of nuclear Armageddon beyond the risks during the 20th century's Cold War. The insane fools making these unsupported accusations show total disregard for all life on earth. Yet they regard themselves as the salt of the earth and as "exceptional, indispensable" people.

Think about the alleged poisoning of Skirpal by Russia. What can this be other than an orchestrated effort to demonize the president of Russia? How can the West be so outraged over the death of a former double-agent, that is, a deceptive person, and completely indifferent to the millions of peoples destroyed by the West in the 21st century alone. Where is the outrage among Western peoples over the massive deaths for which the West, acting through its Saudi agent, is responsible in Yemen? Where is the Western outrage among Western peoples over the deaths in Syria? The deaths in Libya, in Somalia, Pakistan, Ukraine, Afghanistan? Where is the outrage in the West over the constant Western interference in the internal affairs of other countries? How many times has Washington overthrown a democratically-elected government in Honduras and reinstalled a Washington puppet?

The corruption in the West extends beyond politicians, presstitutes, and an insouciant public to experts. When the ridiculous Condi Rice, national security adviser to president George W. Bush, spoke of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction sending up a nuclear cloud over an American city, experts did not laugh her out of court. The chance of any such event was precisely zero and every expert knew it, but the corrupt experts held their tongues. If they spoke the truth, they knew that they would not get on TV, would not get a government grant, would be out of the running for a government appointment. So they accepted the absurd lie designed to justify an American invasion that destroyed a country.

This is the West. There is nothing but lies and indifference to the deaths of others. The only outrage is orchestrated and directed against a target: the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Iran, Assad, Russia and Putin, and against reformist leaders in Latin America. The targets for Western outrage are always those who act independently of Washington or who are no longer useful to Washington's purposes.

The quality of people in Western governments has collapsed to the very bottom of the barrel. The British actually have a person, Boris Johnson, as Foreign Secretary, who is so low-down that a former British ambassador has no compunction in calling him a categorical liar. The British lab Porton Down, contrary to Johnson's claim, has not identified the agent associated with the attack on Skirpal as a Russian novichok agent. Note also that if the British lab is able to identify a novichok agent, it also has the capability of producing it, a capability that many countries have as the formulas were published years ago in a book.

That the novichok poisoning of Skirpal is an orchestration is obvious. The minute the event occurred the story was ready. With no evidence in hand, the British government and presstitute media were screaming "the Russians did it." Not content with that, Boris Johnson screamed "Putin did it." In order to institutionalize fear and hatred of Russia into British consciousness, British school children are being taught that Putin is like Hitler.

Orchestrations this blatant demonstrate that Western governments have no respect for the intelligence of their peoples. That Western governments get away with these fantastic lies indicates that the governments are immune to accountability. Even if accountability were possible, there is no sign that Western peoples are capable of holding their governments accountable. As Washington drives the world to nuclear war, where are the protests? The only protest is brainwashed school children protesting the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment.

Western democracy is a hoax. Consider Catalonia. The people voted for independence and were denounced for doing so by European politicians. The Spanish government invaded Catalonia alleging that the popular referendum, in which people expressed their opinion about their own future, was illegal. Catalonian leaders are in prison awaiting trial, except for Carles Puigdemont who escaped to Belgium. Now Germany has captured him on his return to Belgium from Finland where he lectured at the University of Hesinki and is holding him in jail for a Spanish government that bears more resemblance to Francisco Franco than to democracy. The European Union itself is a conspiracy against democracy.

The success of Western propaganda in creating non-existent virtues for itself is the greatest public relations success in history. Tags Politics

[Mar 27, 2018] US Media Sings A Happy Song That is Why We Should Be Afraid New Eastern Outlook by Caleb Maupin

"The happy song of the US media accompanies another oddly totalitarian trend, the constant blaming of discontent on foreign powers. In the aftermath of the school shooting in Florida, Russia was blamed for allegedly fomenting what was already probably the biggest political gap among the US public, the question of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Russia was accused of both opposing and promoting gun ownership, in order to sew confusion among the public."
" the US [MSM] ... accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian bots"
Notable quotes:
"... the commercially-owned mainstream American press has always had another role: crafting public opinion. A huge amount of US government funds are devoted to handling and managing the media. The government and the political establishment is deeply worried about making sure that the US public thinks in ways that are conducive to their overall goals and strategies. The CIA's project mockingbird, and the cozy relationship between reporters, newspaper owners, and various Presidential administrations is the most blatant example. US Military intelligence agencies have sponsored over 1,800 hollywood films. School textbooks in California and Texas have their academic standards set in a highly politicized process. ..."
"... it also serves a political purpose as a public relations wing of the American elite, a recent trend in US mainstream mass media should be quite disturbing, when carefully analyzed. ..."
"... A dull "everything is OK, calm down" message is suddenly being put forth in an American media that has nothing to gain from it in terms of ratings or newspaper sales. A lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review by Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker criticized both the political left-wing and right-wing in the USA for their pessimism, and argued in terms of "the big picture" across centuries, that the western liberal democratic capitalist system has proved itself to be very successful. ..."
"... Not only is the US media singing a happy song, but it is now demanding, along with elected officials, that everyone else do the same thing. Russia isn't accused of putting out a particular position, but rather of simply "sewing discord." ..."
"... the US whistles a happy tune, and accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian bots ..."
"... In our high tech world, framing international economic policies as a zero sum game cannot be be expected to have fruitful results. ..."
"... Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" . ..."
"... https://journal-neo.org/2018/03/05/us-media-sings-a-happy-song-that-is-why-we-should-be-afraid/ ..."
Mar 03, 2018 | journal-neo.org

The understanding that the American press, both TV and print media, thrives on negativity is deeply embedded in the culture, so much so that the theme music to the popular 1990s American TV sit-com "Family Matters" began with the couplet:

Its a rare condition this day and age,
to read any good news on a newspaper page

The US media is a for-profit industry. TV outlets depend on advertising revenue, the value of which depends on ratings. The drive of mainstream American TV news networks is to increase ratings, and make profits. Bad news, scandal, and sensationalism is a way to do that.

However, the commercially-owned mainstream American press has always had another role: crafting public opinion. A huge amount of US government funds are devoted to handling and managing the media. The government and the political establishment is deeply worried about making sure that the US public thinks in ways that are conducive to their overall goals and strategies. The CIA's project mockingbird, and the cozy relationship between reporters, newspaper owners, and various Presidential administrations is the most blatant example. US Military intelligence agencies have sponsored over 1,800 hollywood films. School textbooks in California and Texas have their academic standards set in a highly politicized process.

So, with the understanding that negativity and sensationalism are US media's focus, while it also serves a political purpose as a public relations wing of the American elite, a recent trend in US mainstream mass media should be quite disturbing, when carefully analyzed.

The US media, long known for its negativity intended to grab ratings, is suddenly printing articles, publishing widely circulated books, and featuring commentators all echoing the message: "Don't worry, everything is going to be OK."

This uncharacteristic behavior of American media almost perfectly fits the stereotypical portrayal of government propaganda in supposedly "totalitarian states." Many dystopian science fiction films feature some dark, high tech police state where the controlled press harps on with the message: "Things are going very well, don't worry, just obey."

A dull "everything is OK, calm down" message is suddenly being put forth in an American media that has nothing to gain from it in terms of ratings or newspaper sales. A lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review by Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker criticized both the political left-wing and right-wing in the USA for their pessimism, and argued in terms of "the big picture" across centuries, that the western liberal democratic capitalist system has proved itself to be very successful.

Meanwhile, on February 20th, Public Affairs Books has released a text by Gregg Easterbrook entitled "Its Better Than It Looks." The book has been widely reviewed by the US press. The text assures us that we need to be more positive in our assessment of world events. National Public Radio described the book's message: "Between threats of nuclear war, devastating natural disasters, violence and political division at home, it might feel like things are really bad right now. But not necessarily so, says Gregg Easterbrook. He argues that by a lot of important measures, the United States and the world are on an upward trajectory."

Similar messages have been dancing across American TV screens and radio waves in recent weeks, in a pattern that any careful observer would find peculiar.

A Growing Economic Bubble

Meanwhile, economic news continues to be selectively reported. For example, retail stores across the USA are closing. While US media was previously reporting on the decline of suburban malls and the elimination of retail jobs, suddenly the press is reporting about a rise in retail profits, and hope for the retail sector.

However, all the reports saying that the retail sector is doing well admit that the increase in retail purchases is not taking place at stores, but rather in online sales. The glowing reports about an increase in retail spending all point toward facts that have no bearing on saving the jobs of retail workers, as stores continue to close down. Despite all the talk of a retail boom (on the internet), stores continue to close across the USA, the latest being H&M clothing which closed scores of outlets across the country. Thousands of retail workers have lost their jobs.

Household debt is at record levels, and a lot of purchasing now taking place in the retail market is being done with credit cards. Furthermore, student debt is rising, and with a number of students unable to repay their debt. The student debt markets now face a specter of a potential crash.

Positive numbers on the stock market are certainly a good economic indicator, however, as the stock numbers rise, the population is not seeing an overall rise in its spending power. If Wall Street and Main Street are not rising together, a rise on the stock market simply indicates that the gap between the financialized, fictional Wall Street Casino, and the actual economy is getting larger.

Real economic growth involves the financial sector getting stronger as the population gets richer along with it. The USA hasn't experienced real, sustainable financial growth since the 1950s. "Jobless Recoveries" and other peculiar anomalies show the extent to which Wall Street has insulated itself from the actual conditions of the American people. The result has been the gap between the financial and the real economy expanding for much longer than in the natural boom-bust cycle, making downturns far larger and dramatic.

Artificial growth only lasts so long, and these bubbles tend to burst. As Trump deregulates Wall Street, and rolls back government oversight of the financial sector, all while lowering taxes on corporations, another financial bubble is emerging.

The tone of the press, echoing the mantra of "everything is alright" is oddly reminiscent of 2007 and 2008 as the US economy was moving toward catastrophe. Desperate attempts by the press, politicians, and others to assure us that the economy is fine, while urging us to keep spending money we do not have, should have millions of Americans shouting "We've seen this movie before!"

Blaming Russia for Dissent

The happy song of the US media accompanies another oddly totalitarian trend, the constant blaming of discontent on foreign powers. In the aftermath of the school shooting in Florida, Russia was blamed for allegedly fomenting what was already probably the biggest political gap among the US public, the question of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Russia was accused of both opposing and promoting gun ownership, in order to sew confusion among the public.

Not only is the US media singing a happy song, but it is now demanding, along with elected officials, that everyone else do the same thing. Russia isn't accused of putting out a particular position, but rather of simply "sewing discord." The message behind the endless talk of "bots" and "trolls" is that it is disloyalty and treason to hold dissident or negative assessments of the US political or economic situation. Doing so is allegedly aiding the Russians efforts to harm loyalty and confidence. The insinuation is that all nay-saying and complaint can be traced, somehow, back to Moscow. In order to be a good American, one is expected to simply repeat the media's upbeat and positive message.

Meanwhile, the US media is giving voice to oddly pointed FBI announcements that Americans shouldn't buy Chinese cellphones, and should be suspicious of Chinese University students as potential spies. While China is establishing strong economic ties with France and other countries, the United States is imposing steel tariffs and increasingly cutting itself off from the second largest economy in the world.

At the UN Security Council, the USA and its allies are desperately attempting to prevent the Syrian government from reclaiming the city of Eastern Ghouta. This enclave of Islamic extremists is very near the capital city of Damascus, which is densely populated with pro-government Syrians, many of whom have fled from other parts of the country.

Now that ISIS has been driven from Syria, there is a real fear that the government could win the war, and the longstanding US regime change operation could end in defeat.

As the US whistles a happy tune, and accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian bots , those they deem competitors on the global stage are getting stronger.

The Chinese state controlled machinery of production is marching ahead. Oil prices, a key factor in securing state revenue in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Angola and Ecuador, are rising.

Political Fallout of a Potential Crash?

If a new financial crisis erupts, as is likely based on indicators, the political implications most likely would mean the demise of the Trump administration. Trump would be voted out of office in 2020, or perhaps even impeached, blamed for the mismanagement that created the fallout.

However, the slim possibility remains that Trump could make such a catastrophic economic situation work in his favor. If Trump were to respond to a financial crash by swiftly pushing his base of supporters into action, pushing forward his proposals for infrastructure, and giving a free hand to his allies in the policing agencies, as he often publicly advocates, the results could be a very swift resolution of the crisis.

In the event of a financial crash, a combination of street authoritarianism and economic arm-twisting, both of which Trump clearly does not oppose, could ultimately let him come out of the rubble looking like a savior. Trump could utilize a crash to become a figure like France's Louis Bonaparte and his "Party of Order" who seized power in 1851.

Regardless of hypotheticals, the "don't be afraid, everything is alright" tone in American media is not a good sign. It indicates that we should all be concerned about what will happen in the coming months.

Meanwhile, the absence of China's concept of "win-win" relations in global trade, and human centered development is deeply disturbing. In our high tech world, framing international economic policies as a zero sum game cannot be be expected to have fruitful results.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" .

https://journal-neo.org/2018/03/05/us-media-sings-a-happy-song-that-is-why-we-should-be-afraid/

[Mar 26, 2018] Trump orders expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats, closure of Seattle consulate -- RT US News

Notable quotes:
"... abused their privilege of residence" ..."
"... "engaged in espionage activities that are adverse to our national security." ..."
Mar 26, 2018 | www.rt.com

President Donald Trump has ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats and the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle. It comes in response to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, which the UK has blamed on Russia. The move follows major diplomatic pressure by the UK on its allies to follow their lead in expelling Russian diplomats. The Russian embassy in Washington had previously urged Trump not to heed the "fake news " on Skripal's poisoning.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has accused Moscow of being behind the poisoning of the former spy Skripal and his daughter in the town of Salisbury in early March.

Breaking: US to expel 48 Russian embassy workers in Washington, D.C. and 12 at the Russian mission to the U.N. U.S. says they were intel officers using diplo status as cover. pic.twitter.com/mRuwY8Tes6

-- Patrick Tucker (@DefTechPat) March 26, 2018

Of the 60 diplomats expelled, 12 formed part of the Russian mission to the United Nations. In a statement, US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the 12 Russians in question had " abused their privilege of residence" in the US and had "engaged in espionage activities that are adverse to our national security."

[Mar 26, 2018] Melania Trump was 'furious' after Stormy Daniels reports

Jan 29, 2018 | nypost.com

First lady Melania Trump was reportedly "furious" after the news broke about President Trump's alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

Sources close to the couple told the New York Times that Melania was "blindsided" by the reports of her husband's supposed cover-up -- which included $130,000 in hush money, paid out to Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.

She has been trying to stay out of the public eye ever since, the sources said.

Trump's alleged tryst with Daniels, if true, would have taken place just months after Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, in March 2006.

It was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 18. In Touch magazine published a follow-up piece a day later, featuring an interview with the porn vixen from 2011, in which she confessed to the hookup.

Since then, Melania has canceled an overseas trip with the president, made an unplanned visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum and even enjoyed some R&R at Mar-a-Lago.

The first lady was reportedly in Florida on Friday while Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum. The impromptu stop in the Sunshine State wound up costing taxpayers about $64,000, according to the Times.

see also Team Trump paid porn star $130K to keep quiet about extramarital affair Team Trump paid porn star $130K to keep quiet about extramarital affair A lawyer for Donald Trump arranged to fork over $130,000... Melania has said very little in the days following the WSJ article.

Her spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, blasted the affair allegations, saying, "The laundry list of salacious & flat-out false reporting about Mrs. Trump by tabloid publications & TV shows has seeped into 'main stream media' reporting She is focused on her family & role as FLOTUS -- not the unrealistic scenarios being peddled daily by the fake news."

The first lady is expected to reappear alongside her husband Tuesday during his State of the Union address.

"That is the plan," Grisham said.

[Mar 26, 2018] Paul Craig Roberts Washington Has Declared Hegemony Or War

Mar 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Sun, 03/25/2018 - 20:30 3 SHARES Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

I agree with Stephen Lendman (below) that the Russian government's efforts to deal with the West on the basis of evidence and law are futile. There is only one Western foreign policy and it is Washington's. Washington's "diplomacy" consists only of lies and force. It was a reasonable decision for Russia to attempt diplomatic engagement with the West on the basis of facts, evidence, and law, but it has been to no avail. For Russia to continue on this failed course is risky, not only to Russia but to the entire world.

Indeed, nothing is more dangerous to the world than Russia's self-delusion about "Western partners." Russia only has Western enemies. These enemies intend to remove the constraint that Russia (and China) place on Washington's unilateralism. The various incidents staged by the West, such as the Skirpal poisoning, Syrian use of chemical weapons, Malaysian airliner, and false charges, such as Russian invasion of Ukraine, are part of the West's determined intent to isolate Russia, deny her any influence, and prepare the insouciant Western populations for conflict with Russia.

To avoid war Russia should turn her back, but not her eyes, on the West, stop responding to false charges, evict all Western embassies and every other kind of presence including Western investment, and focus on relations with China and the East. Russia's attempt to pursue mutual interests with the West only results in more orchestrated incidents. The Russian government's failure to complete the liberation of Syria has given Washington Syrian territory from which to renew the conflict.

The failure to accept Luhansk and Donetsk into Russia has provided Washington with the opportunity to arm and train the Ukrainian army and renew the assault on the Russian populations of Ukraine. Washington has gained many proxies for its wars against Russia and intends to use them to wear down Russia. Israel has demanded that Washington renew the attacks on Iran, and Trump is complying. Russia faces simultaneous attacks on Syria, Iran, and the Donatsk and Luhansk Republics, along with troubles in former Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union and intensified accusations from Washington and NATO.

The crazed neoconservatives, such as Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton, think that Russia will buckle under the strains, sue for peace, and accept US hegemony. If this assumption is incorrect, the outcome of Washington's hostile actions against Russia is likely to be nuclear war. The side that Stephen Lendman and I are talking is neither the side of Washington nor Russia, but the side of humanity and all life against nuclear war.

How the Russian government could ignore the clearly stated US hegemony in the 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine is a mystery.

The Wolfowitz doctrine states that the US's primary goal is "to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union." The doctrine stresses that "this is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power." In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, Washington's "overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region's oil." The doctrine also states that the US will act to restrain India's alleged "hegemonic aspirations" in South Asia, and warns of potential conflicts requiring military intervention with Cuba and China.

By "threat" Wolfowitz does not mean a military threat. By "threat" he means a multi-polar world that constrains Washington's unilateralism. The doctrine states that the US will permit no alternative to US unilateralism. The doctrine is a statement that Washington intends hegemony over the entire world. There has been no repudiation of this doctrine. Indeed, we see its implementation in the long list of false accusations and demonizations of Russia and her leader and in the false charges against Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Venezuela, China, Iran, and North Korea .

If Russia wants to be part of the West, Russia should realize that the price is the same loss of sovereignty that characterizes Washington's European vassal states.

* * *

Neocon Takeover of Washington Completed

by Stephen Lendman

Pompeo at State and Bolton as Trump's national security advisor completed the neocon takeover of Trump's geopolitical agenda. Wall Street is running domestic affairs.

The combination represents a major setback for world peace and stability. Greater aggression is likely, along with the triumph of neoliberal harshness over social justice, presenting a dismal and frightening state of affairs.

What to expect ahead? War in Syria is more likely to escalate than wind down, an unthinkable US/Russia confrontation ominously possible.

The Iran nuclear deal is either doomed, or likely to be gutted by Washington, accomplishing the same thing -- with only tepid, ineffective opposition from P5+1 countries Britain, France and Germany.

The EU most often bends to Washington's will when enough pressure is applied.

A relatively quiet Ukraine period could explode in greater Kiev war on Donbass, US-supplied heavy weapons and training aiding the aggression.

A Kim Jong-un/Trump summit is likely to fail to step back from the brink on the Korean peninsula, falsely blaming the DPRK for hostile US actions.

It'll prove again Washington can never be trusted, its commitments are consistently breached when conflicting with its imperial objectives.

A possible trade war with China would be hugely destabilizing, along with being economically harmful to both countries and the global economy.

Further EU/US sanctions and other harsh measures are likely to be imposed on Russia over the Skripal affair, an escalated attempt to isolate the country and inflict economic harm -- despite Western nations knowing Moscow had nothing to do with what happened.

Theresa May-led Tories are considering tough actions against Russia over the incident. So are other EU countries and Washington.

On Friday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the Trump administration is considering a range of options against Moscow over the Skripal affair -- "both to demonstrate our solidarity with our ally and to hold Russia accountable for its clear breach of international norms and agreements."

No breach occurred. Neocons running US foreign policy don't let facts and rule of law principles compromise their imperial objectives.

Theresa May provided Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron with cooked results of Britain's investigation so far into the Skripal affair -- "convincing" them the false accusations are "well-grounded," despite knowing UK claims are pure rubbish.

Macron issued a deplorable statement, saying "there is no plausible explanation" for what happened to the Skripals other than Kremlin responsibility -- abdicating to US/UK-led Russophobic hostility.

On the world stage, Trump is hostage to neocon dark forces controlling him. Relations with Russia, China, and other sovereign independent nations are likely to worsen, not improve.

Unthinkable nuclear war remains an ominous possibility. Russia's only option is building on its alliance with China and other allies, staying committed to respond firmly to US-led Western harshness against its sovereignty.

Virtually no possibility for improved Russian relations with Washington and Britain exists. It's fruitless pursuing it.

German and other European dependence on Russian energy, mainly gas, offers only slim hope for improving things with these countries.

Looking ahead, prospects for world peace and stability are dismal. US-led Western hostility toward Russia could erupt in open conflict by accident or design.

The unthinkable could become reality. Preparedness should be Moscow's top priority given the real danger it faces.

[Mar 26, 2018] US expulsion of Russian diplomats is declaration of war by George Galloway

Notable quotes:
"... "vassal states," ..."
"... made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States, President Trump is Russia's man ..."
"... "precursor to a very sharp deterioration of relations" ..."
"... deep state opponents" ..."
"... "If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," ..."
"... "As far as I can see there is no investigation, ..."
"... "The verdict was declared before the investigation began and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations against Russia are baseless." ..."
"... "I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree," ..."
Mar 26, 2018 | www.rt.com

British politician, broadcaster, and writer George Galloway has slammed Donald Trump's decision to expel 60 Russian diplomats and close the Russian consulate in Seattle. Galloway regards it as tantamount to a "declaration of war." Galloway contrasted the US' actions with those of EU member states. Those EU countries who rushed to follow the lead of Britain and the US in response to the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal are simply acting as "vassal states," doing what they are told.

European states have " made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States, President Trump is Russia's man ," Galloway told RT.

The former British MP said the decision to leave just 40 Russian diplomats to do their jobs in the US was either a "precursor to a very sharp deterioration of relations" -- or alternatively a "charade " designed to make Trump's " deep state opponents" lay off him over not being tough enough on Russia.

Galloway said Russia should not assume that being soft in response to Trump's action will have any desirable effect.

"If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," he said.

According to Galloway, the UK has not conducted a serious and unbiased investigation into the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter.

"As far as I can see there is no investigation, " he said. "The verdict was declared before the investigation began and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations against Russia are baseless."

Galloway said there are still many questions which have been left unanswered in the Skripal case.

"I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree," he said.

[Mar 26, 2018] Neocons Are Back With a Big War Budget and Big War Plans by Ron Paul

What is interesting is that Trump not only folded, but seeking self-preservation he voluntarily appointed neocons to the top layer of his administration
Notable quotes:
"... This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state. ..."
"... But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding." ..."
"... his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren't looking? ..."
"... On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. ..."
"... The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors. ..."
Mar 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ron Paul

On Friday, President Trump signed the omnibus spending bill for 2018. The $1.3 trillion bill was so monstrous that it would have made the biggest spender in the Obama Administration blush. The image of leading Congressional Democrats Pelosi and Schumer grinning and gloating over getting everything they wanted -- and then some -- will likely come back to haunt Republicans at the midterm elections. If so, they will deserve it.

Even President Trump admitted the bill was horrible. As he said in the signing ceremony, "there are a lot of things that we shouldn't have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense, forced -- if we want to build our military "

This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state.

But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. He knows that no one in Washington cares about deficits so he was more than willing to spread some Fed-created money at home to get his massive war spending boost. And about the militarism funded by the bill? Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding."

He's right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is another big increase in military spending. In fact the US continues to spend more than at least the next seven or so largest countries combined. But his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren't looking?

Of course not.

On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. And so on. The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact. Enemies must be created to keep Washington rich, even as the rest of the country suffers from the destruction of the dollar. That is why the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.

While Trump and Mattis were celebrating big military spending increases, the president announced that John Bolton, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war debacle, would become his national security advisor. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has written, this is a man who, while at the State Department, demanded that intelligence analysts reach pre-determined conclusions about Iraq and WMDs. He cooked the books for war.

Bolton is on the record calling for war with Iran, North Korea, even Cuba! His return to a senior position in government is a return to the unconstitutional, immoral, and failed policies of pre-emptive war.

Make no mistake: the neocons are back and looking for another war. They've got the president's ear. Iran? North Korea? Russia? China? Who's next for the warmongers?

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)

[Mar 26, 2018] Melania Trump was 'furious' after Stormy Daniels reports

Jan 29, 2018 | nypost.com

First lady Melania Trump was reportedly "furious" after the news broke about President Trump's alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

Sources close to the couple told the New York Times that Melania was "blindsided" by the reports of her husband's supposed cover-up -- which included $130,000 in hush money, paid out to Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.

She has been trying to stay out of the public eye ever since, the sources said.

Trump's alleged tryst with Daniels, if true, would have taken place just months after Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, in March 2006.

It was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 18. In Touch magazine published a follow-up piece a day later, featuring an interview with the porn vixen from 2011, in which she confessed to the hookup.

Since then, Melania has canceled an overseas trip with the president, made an unplanned visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum and even enjoyed some R&R at Mar-a-Lago.

The first lady was reportedly in Florida on Friday while Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum. The impromptu stop in the Sunshine State wound up costing taxpayers about $64,000, according to the Times.

see also Team Trump paid porn star $130K to keep quiet about extramarital affair Team Trump paid porn star $130K to keep quiet about extramarital affair A lawyer for Donald Trump arranged to fork over $130,000... Melania has said very little in the days following the WSJ article.

Her spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, blasted the affair allegations, saying, "The laundry list of salacious & flat-out false reporting about Mrs. Trump by tabloid publications & TV shows has seeped into 'main stream media' reporting She is focused on her family & role as FLOTUS -- not the unrealistic scenarios being peddled daily by the fake news."

The first lady is expected to reappear alongside her husband Tuesday during his State of the Union address.

"That is the plan," Grisham said.

[Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... (this last sentence in English in the original text – trans.) ..."
"... As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder". ..."
"... Both Saker and the commenter #1 put accent on the ideological struggle between Russia and the West, contrasting Russian (and) Chinese – we do not interfere with your system of beliefs or who rules you, let us cooperate and do business. This is contrasted against the Western – we are the Borg, you will be regime-changed to be assimilated, aka we are the Exceptional Owners of the World. This is truly the main ideological struggle of the 21. century, forget about left wing – right wing. ..."
"... I do not know how long the Russian initiative will last, but at the moment Russia is in a goldilocks situation: it probably has the best leadership in the world, ..."
"... 'Full Spectrum Dominance', as explicit in US military doctrine, and noted as such by Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel address, and embedded in the F. William Engdahl book 'Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order', was imo both pathological and impossible, but that didn't stop them from trying. ..."
"... Gen. Wesley Clark's rather famous post 9/11 surprise at hearing that 7 countries in five years were slated for – in effect – destruction, euphemistically called regime change is starting to seem like another era. 'Guess what I just heard down the hall. We're gonna go into 5 countries with our mercenaries, and military, and our amazing technology, and bomb them all to hell if we have to, and lie to the world about everything we're doing, and kill and wound and orphan millions of people, because ah, because ah, because ah, actually I'm not sure why, but that's what's on the program. It's sort of a tradition. We bombed the hell out of Korea, then we bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, actually I lost count, so many, anyway fast forward to remnants of Yugoslavia, boy did we ever destroy that.!' ..."
"... Any similarity between MH17 and Skripal investigations, although both cooked up in the same kitchen, is completely coincidental, of course. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

March 2018 will go down in history as a truly historical month

March 1st , Vladimir Putin makes his historical address to the Russian Federal Assembly. March 4th , Sergei Skripal, a former UK spy, is allegedly poisoned in the UK . March 8th , British officials accuse Russia of using nerve gas to attempt to murder Sergei Skripal. March 12th , Theresa May officially blames Russia for the poisoning and gives Russia a 24-hour ultimatum to justify herself; the Russians ignore that ultimatum. The same day, the US representative at the UNSC threatens to attack Syria even without a UNSC authorization. March 13th , Chief of Russia's General Staff Valery Gerasimov warned that " in case there is a threat to the lives of our military, the Russian Armed Force will take retaliatory measures both over the missiles and carriers that will use them ". The same day Chief of the Russian Armed Forces' General Staff, Deputy Defense Minister, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov had a phone conversation with Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the United States' Joint Chiefs of Staff. March 15th , the UK blocked Russia's draft UN Security Council statement on Skripal poisoning case asking for an " urgent and civilized investigation " into the Skripal case. The US, UK, France, and Germany issue a statement backing the UK and blaming Russia . The UK Defence Minister tells Russia to " shut up and go away ". March 16th , Major General Igor Konashenkov calls the British Defense Minister an " uncouth shrew " and " intellectual impotent ". March 17th , Russian Generals warned that the US is preparing a chemical false flag attack in Syria March 18th , Putin overwhelmingly wins the Presidential election . The same day, General Votel, Commander of CENTCOM declares in a testimony to the Armed Services Committee that differences with Russia should be settled " through political and diplomatic channels ". When asked whether it would be correct to say that " with Russia and Iran's help, Assad has won the Civil War in Syria? " General Votel replied " I do not think that is too -- that is too strong of a statement. I think they have provided him the wherewithal to -- to be ascendant at this point ". March 19th , the EU's Foreign Affairs Council issues a statement fully backing the UK. March 21st The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summons all ambassadors to a briefing on the Skripal case. The language used by the Russian representative at this briefing possibly is the bluntest used by any Russian (or even Soviet) official towards the West since WWII. The French, Swedish and US representative at the meeting all stood up to declare their "solidarity" with the UK. March 22nd , The Chief of the Russian Armed Forces' General Staff, Deputy Defense Minister, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov had another phone conversation with Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the United States' Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So what is really going on here? Surely nobody seriously believes that the Brits really think that the Russians had any motive to try to kill Skripal or, for that matter, if they had a motive, that they would do it in such a stupid manner? And what's the deal with Syria anyway? Is the US going to execute their false flag and bomb?

I think that at this point we should not get bogged down in the details of all this. There is a forest behind these trees. What matters most now, is that the most powerful factions of the AngloZionist Empire's ruling elites are making a concerted effort to create a unified anti-Russian coalition. In this regard it is quite telling that the US, France, and Germany issued a statement on March 15 th without even bothering to consult with their so-called "allies" in NATO or the EU. You can immediately tell "who is boss" in those crisis situations when the rest of the Euro-riffraff simply doesn't matter (poor East Europeans with their delusions about being appreciated or even respected by the West!). Furthermore, it is quite clear that in this case, the "Anglo" component of the AngloZionist Empire is far more involved than the Zionist one, at least insofar as the front of the stage is concerned ( behind the scenes the Neocons are seething at Trump for calling Putin to congratulate him and offer negotiations). I think that a number of crucial developments forced the US and the UK into trying to strong-arm the rest of the western nations to "circle the wagons" around the Empire:

The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into submission The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria The UK and the rest of the NATO are becoming militarily irrelevant The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most likely The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies are on the ascent The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including North Stream whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia The anti-Putin campaign has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance against the Empire

What this all means is very simple: the Empire needs to either fold or double down and folding is just not something the imperial elites are willing to consider yet. They are therefore using the tools which they perceive as most effective:

False flags : this is really a time-honored western tradition used by pretty much all the western powers. Since the general public is brainwashed and mostly can't even begin to imagine that "freedom loving liberal democracies" could use methods usually ascribed to evil, bloodthirsty dictatorial regimes, false flags are an ideal way to get the public opinion in the correct state of mind to approve of aggressive, hostile and even violent policies against a perceived threat or obstacle to hegemony.
Soft power : have you noticed how the Oscars or the Cannes festival always pick exactly the kind of "artists" which the Empire happens to politically promote? Well, this is true not only for the Oscars or the Cannes festival but for almost all of the cultural, social and political life in the West. This is especially true of so-called "human rights" and "peace" organizations which are simply political pit-bulls which can be sicked on any country in need of subversion and/or intervention. Russia has never developed that kind of political toolkit.
Verbal escalation : this tactic is extremely crude yet very effective. You begin by vociferously proclaiming some falsehood. The fact that you proclaimed it in such vociferous and hyperbolic matter achieves two immediate results: it sends all your friends and allies a clear message " you are either with us or against us ", that leaves no room for nuance or analysis, and it gives otherwise rather spineless politicians no way to back down, thus strengthening their "resolve".
Herding : there is safety in numbers. So when dealing with a potentially dangerous foe, like Russia, all the little guys flock together so as to appear bigger or, at least, harder to single out. Also, when everybody is responsible, nobody is. Thus herding is also politically expedient. Finally, it changed the inter-relational dynamic from one of friends or allies to one typically found among accomplices in a crime.
Direct threats : the Empire got away with making threats left and right for many decades, and this is a habit which is hard to break. The likes of Nikki Haley or Hillary Clinton probably sincerely believe that the US is quasi-omnipotent or, conversely, they might be terrified by the creeping suspicion that it might not. Threats are also an easy, if ineffective, substitute for diplomacy and negotiations, especially when your position is objectively wrong and the other side is simply a lot smarter than you.

The big problem is that none of these methods work against Russia or, let me correct that, don't work anymore (they sure appeared to work in the past). Russian public opinion is fully aware of all these methods (courtesy of a Russian media NOT controlled by AngloZionists) and Margarita Simonian beautifully summarized the feelings that all this elicits in the Russian population:

"all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you. You and your so-called "values." We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those among us that you support, and for all those people who support you ( ). For that, you only have yourself to blame ( ) Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn the history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. White man's burden, my ass!" (this last sentence in English in the original text – trans.)

The stark truth is that far from wanting to invade, appease or otherwise please the West, Russia has absolutely no need, or even interest, in it. None. For centuries Russian elites have been western-focused to some degree or other and none of them could even begin to imagine a West-less Russia. This is still true today, the Russian "elites" still want to live like (very rich) Brits or Germans and they still hate the common Russian people and Vladimir Putin. But those Russian elites have now been crushed by the magnitude of Putin's victory in the presidential elections. Normally, this should result in an even bigger exile of Russian "businessmen" to the UK, France or Israel, but the problem now is that the British are making noises about punishing them for, well, being Russians (even Russophobic, pro-western, "Russians"). As a result, these "poor" pro-western liberals can only whine on the social media and in the few pro-western media outlets left in Russia (no, not due to repression, but due to their political irrelevancy being backed, as they are, by something between 2% and 5% of the population).

But setting aside the wealthy "elites" for a moment, Russia as a country and as a nation has simply no use for the West and what it represents. Those who fantasize about Russia being interested in "Europe", "White identity" or "Western Christianity" are only kidding themselves. They hope that the current cultural and spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to them and allow them to extricate themselves from the gutter in which they are currently prostrated. It won't. Just read again what Simonian said about the western "values" in the quote above. For most Russians "Europe" reeks of Napoleon, "White identity" of Hitler and "Western Christianity" of the creation of the Ukraine and the " Eastern Crusades ". No, Russia has no interest in revenge against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for what these concepts stand for. (Poland – is possibly the last country where all these things are taken seriously and fondly remembered). Still, the Russians remain willing to negotiate to establish a viable coexistence between the Western and Russian civilizational realms. Putin clearly said so in his speech

There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilization. We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this.

But if the AngloZionists are dead set on world domination by means of war, then Russia is ready for that too. Not a war of aggression, of course, not even against the tiny Baltic statelets, Putin made that clear too when he said "w e are not threatening anyone, not going to attack anyone or take away anything from anyone with the threat of weapons. We do not need anything . Just the opposite " (emphasis added). But if attacked, Russia is now ready to defend herself:

"And to those who in the past 15 years have tried to accelerate an arms race and seek unilateral advantage against Russia, have introduced restrictions and sanctions that are illegal from the standpoint of international law aiming to restrain our nation's development, including in the military area, I will say this: everything you have tried to prevent through such a policy has already happened. No one has managed to restrain Russia ( ) Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever."

Why is the nuclear issue so central? Because the Russians are fully aware of the fact that the AngloZionists cannot win a conventional war with Russia . Thus it is crucial for the Russians to convince the AngloZionists that they are neither militarily superior nor invulnerable (see here for a full analysis of these two myths). But once some kind of modus vivendi is achieved with the West, Russia will focus her efforts in different directions: much needed internal reforms and development, the work with China on the establishment of a single Eurasian zone of economic security, peace and prosperity, the restoration of peace in the Middle-East, the development of the Russian Far East and North – you name it. Russia has plenty of work which needs to be done, none of which involves the West in any capacity.

And that is, of course, what is so totally unacceptable to the West.

Hence this month's historical developments which have placed Russia and the West in a direct collision course. As I said above, the Empire can now either fold or double down. If it decides to fold, war will be averted and meaningful negotiations finally entered into. If it doubles down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia. This is a stark and very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the psychopaths ruling the West). And there isn't much Russia could, or should, do at this point. As is the case every time a serious crisis takes place, the apparently united elites running the West will now break-up into separate factions and each one of these factions will pursue and promote its own, narrow, interests. There will be an intense, mostly behind the scenes, struggle between those who will want to double down or even trigger a war against Russia and those who will be horrified by that notion (not necessarily for profound moral reasons, just out of basic self-interest and a healthy instinct for self-preservation).

As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder".

Adrian E. , March 24, 2018 at 1:53 am GMT

Those who fantasize about Russia being interested in "Europe", "White identity" or "Western Christianity" are only kidding themselves. They hope that the current cultural and spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to them and allow them to extricate themselves from the gutter in which they are currently prostrated. It won't. Just read again what Simonian said about the western "values" in the quote above. For most Russians "Europe" reeks of Napoleon, "White identity" of Hitler and "Western Christianity" of the creation of the Ukraine and the "Eastern Crusades". No, Russia has no interest in revenge against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for what these concepts stand for. (Poland – is possibly the last country where all these things are taken seriously and fondly remembered).

I think that is very important. I find it rather odd when some people from the alt-right project their ideals on Russia. Of course, many of these people reject the neoconservative agenda for legitimate reasons, and therefore, it is normal that they also reject Russophobia, and that should be welcomed by most people who do not support the neoconservative agenda. However, they should not think the widespread rejection of Western influence in Russia has much to do with their own ideology.

For most Russians, the difference between hypocritical Western liberals who want to dominate the world with their "values" (and military and economic means for spreading them) and white supremacists is hardly that big, both are a consequence of a similar kind of arrogance towards the rest of the world. Certainly, some white supremacists may under some circumstances be ready to accept Russians as fellow whites, but probably, the path back to regarding them as Asian subhumans is never too long.

Russians are mostly white, but Russia is a multinational and multiracial Eurasian country that is very far from being "racially pure", even as far as many ethnic Russians are concerned, and racism in the narrow sense has hardly ever had much support in Russia. Russia's main religion is Orthodox Christianity, but Islam and Buddhism are also domestic religions in Russia, and there has been an adversarial relationship between Western Christianity and Orthodox Christianity for centuries.

Ideologically, Western alt-right ideologues would be much more likely to find relatively widespread support for their ideas in Poland, the Baltic states, and among nationalists in Western Ukraine – mainly among the most Russophobic elements of European societies. Much of the daily hatred against "the Russians" in the Anglophone media is full of unambiguos bigotry, and even if some of the people believing in Western white identity are currently less extreme with respect to Russia than the liberal racist bigots who think that they are progressive because they hate Russians rather than Mexicans, this is rather a kind of liberals acting as racist supremacists than a genuine split between these two Western ideologies.

In Russia, the constant aggressive rhetoric from Western countries will hardly lead to Russians rejecting the liberal West while embracing nationalist Westerners concentrating on white identity, rather both versions of Western ideology are seen as similarly disgusting. It is doubtful whether in Soviet times, many people really believed in the official anti-imperialist Soviet ideology because the propaganda was too artificial. Now, no special propaganda efforts are needed, the aggressive, arrogant statement of Western politicians and journalists can simply be shown in the original.

Kiza , March 24, 2018 at 8:25 am GMT
I totally agree with Saker and mostly agree with commenter #1. The only big miss of the commenter #1 is that he lumps many different factions in the West into only two groups. The two factions that the commenter describes are as described – much less different than they themselves realise. But there are also a few factions which could be genuinely cooperative with Russia, they should not be discarded because they are also the natural allies in Russian defences against the aggressive West.

Both Saker and the commenter #1 put accent on the ideological struggle between Russia and the West, contrasting Russian (and) Chinese – we do not interfere with your system of beliefs or who rules you, let us cooperate and do business. This is contrasted against the Western – we are the Borg, you will be regime-changed to be assimilated, aka we are the Exceptional Owners of the World. This is truly the main ideological struggle of the 21. century, forget about left wing – right wing.

However, there is a very practical component in the Western rabid behavior, especially the British. The plentiful Russian land was not worth much in the past because it was predominantly permafrost and marshes. The British Empire of warm lower geographical latitudes was worth much more than the huge Russian landmass in colder higher latitudes. Even some Russians did not consider it of much value and this is how Alaska got sold for a pittance by a gambling Russian Tzar. But the contemporary reality is that the human capability to control the environment has advanced so much that the cold regions of the planet are not as much of a challenge that they used to be. On top, they have not been exploited much yet. This is why the Anglos now have an eye on the Russian land, especially Siberia.

It is commonly accepted that the center of human civilisation is moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but the shift of the center of gravity to the North is not widely appreciated. Of course, most people still prefer to live in warmer climate but there is more and more money to be made in colder climate. At the same time that the center of gravity is shifting Northwards, the human advancement in the warmer climate has broken the Britush Empire because most of the British colonies have largely caught up in development with the colonial power. This has left the Anglos with their obsolete principles of domination by the force of armaments and their attempts to double down in their area of advantage. In other words, the Anglo leaders do appear to position themselves for: either we maintain our rule or there will be no World to rule.

IMHO, the main reason for the fervent orgasmic hate displayed by the British parliament, successfully transferred onto most of the British population, is that the Anglos are in the process of losing their empire for the second time – first the British, now US. At the same time, the semi-Asiatic, dirty-Christian Russians (in their racist view) are undeservedly ascending, even after first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union dissolved, never mind that the Russians are now not even creating an empire of the obsolete Anglo kind then something totally new. The landless Anglo prols versus the landed Russian gentry. Those who are down on the wheel of fortune could not hate those now on top any more than they do.

Somewhere in there are also ever-expanding Zionist Jews, the cancer of humanity, who just want to own anything worth owning, but this is worth another long comment.

I do not know how long the Russian initiative will last, but at the moment Russia is in a goldilocks situation: it probably has the best leadership in the world, with fantastic ideas and unsurpassed advantages. Even the non-anthropological climate change appears to work in Russia's favour, opening up a new shorter Northern maritime route and slowly draining the marshes and exposing virgin fertile land. Both smart and lucky.

Kiza , March 24, 2018 at 8:50 am GMT
@Kiza

Sorry for the long post. What I have been trying to say is that the two biggest current ills of the world are the Anglo envy and the Zionist greed, whilst Russia and China have been dealt and have dealt to themselves a magnificent hand of cards.

Cold , March 24, 2018 at 12:22 pm GMT
Interesting read. Just one comment – if Clinton had "won," we would already be "at war" with Russia. Let's remember, even with the appointments through the revolving door (must get a bit dizzy for players) of the Trump administration, he is still the Commander in Chief. I don't see him going to war with Russia. Bolton is just as much "fireable" as the others.

Last thought, this saber rattling by the mouth organs of the Western criminal syndicate has the colour of desperation to it. Also – attempted misdirection. Good that they're overplaying their hand today since they'll have little room to escalate the rhetoric should indictments of the criminals of the Hussein administration be levied some time soon. Let's hope, anyway.

peterAUS , March 24, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT
An .. interesting article. It appears that the author is really getting, fast, detached from reality. This in particular:

The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria

and this even more.

The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most likely

especially the former. This all is really starting to feel as "online therapy". A little echo chamber and groupthink simply helping the members to deal with the world around them.

El Dato , March 24, 2018 at 2:10 pm GMT
Briefing by Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Vladimir Yermakov, Moscow, March 21, 2018

Question (representative of the US Embassy): It is important in this forum to demonstrate that we in the United States also stand in complete solidarity with our partners in the United Kingdom, in the European Union and in NATO. It's important, especially in this forum, since you have mentioned former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the courage that you suggest he demonstrated. It is very important that you, instead of demonstrating a similar type of courage, you attack, attack, attack my British colleague. In this forum in particular, instead of demonstrating the type of courage that we would hope to have seen in the 21st century, the Russian Federation continues its tried and true tactics of denying responsibility, distracting and disinforming. Again, we stand with our colleagues in the United Kingdom, and we will, as our colleagues in the United Kingdom, hold Russia accountable for its illegal actions.

Vladimir Yermakov: We are grateful to the respected representative of the US Embassy for his remarks. It would be interesting to know what American lawyers would make of them. You probably worked at the US State Department? Have we met before? I used to know everyone at the US State Department, and everyone there used to know me. That's water under the bridge In the past, nobody in the US State Department talked to me in this manner. You are probably on a mission from Washington. Well, everyone has a mission to accomplish.

Ow!

Beckow , March 24, 2018 at 3:46 pm GMT

@Kiza

shift of the center of gravity to the North

This has been an under-appreciated trend. North is richer, more liveable, healthier (no chance of Ebola), and has water. The climate changes and the massive increase in population are making southern areas slowly uninhabitable.

Western elites know this – they know that in 1-2 generations large parts of the Third World will collapse, Sub-Saharan Africa, but also partially India, Middle East, south-east Asia. The spill-over from these regions – that West has foolishly integrated with – will fatally damage most of the West.

Parts of the West are already suffering from the climate issues and uncontrolled migration. Inland Australia and Southwest US are becoming deserts. Large cities have been overrun by Third Worlders, and it is inevitable that more will come.

Russia's large geographic space is unique: very rich in resources, benefiting from climate changes, and thinly populated by a well educated, unique civilisation. This stands out like a sore thumb for the West. They have to ' incorporate ' Russia's resources, it is an economic imperative. West has been failing – mostly due to its own arrogance and stupidity. But all they know how to do is more of the same, get angry, scream and shout, try again and again with the same militant approach as before.

When that fails, they go into an outright hysteria: ' No Olympics for you!, and no fish and chips either, how dare your quote to us our own principles, you impertinent Russian savages!!! '. Eventually West might end up in a self-imposed cul-de-sac with the only option to go for the jugular and start an outright war. Then we will be all f ed, but at least the Western masters will not lose face.

Regnum Nostrum , March 24, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT

The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into submission.

The offer of North Koreans to negotiate is a submission, a direct result of the US pressure.

The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria.

The war is still going on. Assad barely controls half of Syria. As a matter of fact until recently he did not even control the whole of Damascus. The Turks are in Afrin, Americans east of the Euphrates River are building new bases.

The UK and the rest of the NATO are becoming militarily irrelevant.

Sure thing. They are so irrelevant that every time they make a move Putin has a major fit.

The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most likely.

Agree about the possibility of an attack.

The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies are on the ascent.

Any evidence?

The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including North Stream whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia.

A pipe dream.

The anti-Putin campaign has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance against the Empire.

The anti Putin campaign continues, see your own paragraphs above. Most Russians seem to be behind Putin.

If it doubles down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia. This is a stark and very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the psychopaths ruling the West).

I am sure that deciding to go to war is extremely difficult choice for the psychopaths whilst for the normal people it is a piece of cake. The entertainment value of this piece is priceless.

FB , March 24, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Regnum Nostrum

' The entertainment value of this piece is priceless '

Speaking of 'entertainment value' Any chance of seeing you take on Peter 'potatohead' Aus in a debate here ?

peterAUS , March 24, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Regnum Nostrum

Agree on all points.

Well, perhaps save that "priceless".
Just the usual Saker, only with one notch up. Increasingly delusional and ratcheting up his wishful thinking.

Fanbase and grupies here don't mind that. On the contrary, they need it, and increasingly so. Offsets, at least temporarily, the harsh realities around them.

Starts to feel almost as ..desperation.

Anatoly Karlin , Website March 24, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Correct on both points.

Assad of course hasn't won. While ISIS might be no more, and there have been real gains (Aleppo, Damascus suburbs), this is more than counterbalanced by Turkey establishing a real presence in northern Syria. Not clear how the Syrians can dislodge them, or the US from Rojava.

The Ukraine has crashed and is burning for the past four years now too bad The Saker is the only one noticing it (well, and Ishchenko, I suppose).

Whether the Ukraine will attack or not.

+: If Russia intervenes forcefully, half the participants announce a boycott. $14 billion or however much all the stadiums + kickbacks cost down the drain.
-: But then the Ukraine will be in for another humiliating defeat, and possibly the gay dwarves in the Kremlin finally find the balls to recognize the LDNR.
-: If Russia doesn't intervene, then the Ukraine has a basically good chance of conquering the LDNR.

Antiwar7 , March 24, 2018 at 9:17 pm GMT

I'm afraid the Bolton appointment means more that an immoral, horrible war with Iran became more probable, not so much Russia. Isn't that the main difference between McMaster and Bolton? Despite the obvious hair differences.
Robert Snefjella , March 24, 2018 at 9:17 pm GMT
Agree with the spirit of the title of this piece that the month of Mars, the war month, in 2018, feels like an historic watershed.

'Full Spectrum Dominance', as explicit in US military doctrine, and noted as such by Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel address, and embedded in the F. William Engdahl book 'Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order', was imo both pathological and impossible, but that didn't stop them from trying.

Putin's announcement to the planet that the Russians had developed a variety of weapons that were capable of demonstrating dominance over the US, does far more than end American full spectrum dominance ambitions and pretensions.

The thousand or so American military bases, and its navy around the planet, that have projected power, are henceforth providing many targets for precise strikes.

It also potentially gives many other countries the ability to purchase the means to be able to make American or NATO attacks on them far more difficult.

Gen. Wesley Clark's rather famous post 9/11 surprise at hearing that 7 countries in five years were slated for – in effect – destruction, euphemistically called regime change is starting to seem like another era. 'Guess what I just heard down the hall. We're gonna go into 5 countries with our mercenaries, and military, and our amazing technology, and bomb them all to hell if we have to, and lie to the world about everything we're doing, and kill and wound and orphan millions of people, because ah, because ah, because ah, actually I'm not sure why, but that's what's on the program. It's sort of a tradition. We bombed the hell out of Korea, then we bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, actually I lost count, so many, anyway fast forward to remnants of Yugoslavia, boy did we ever destroy that.!'

Absolute power corrupting absolutely, Russia and China providing a counterbalance to the US attempt at absolute power has saved the Americans perhaps from being corrupted absolutely.

Andrei Martyanov , Website March 24, 2018 at 9:51 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Karlin, you do understand that you already turned into the cheap pathetic troll, right? With your zero "expertise" in any military issues (as well as most others related and not) your opinions on any Russia related military and geopolitical questions are worth as much as your, well, ignorance. I understand that you have complex of inferiority and are severely butt-hurt, and having a psychology of a loser-teenager you need to pretend that you somehow have something to say, but you don't. So, as I suggested in other threads–before you completely self-destruct and humiliate yourself to the point of becoming a meme for ignorance matched only by your unconstrained ambition (and you are getting there), try not to parade yourself as clown since pretty much your any geopolitical "opinion" is a cringe worthy experience for anyone who have good professional understanding of military issues. You don't and you have zero background for that, so , as I stated, when I have time I will gladly call them out. Note though, since you are an amateur in all that, even the way you state your (butt-hurt) ignorant opinions is such that rational and professional responses are not possible. It is akin to talking to hysterical girl who was un-liked on Facebook by some boy. So, just to illustrate how full of shit you are:

The Ukraine has crashed and is burning for the past four years now too bad The Saker is the only one noticing it (well, and Ishchenko, I suppose).

https://news.mail.ru/economics/32948771/?frommail=1

But then again, you have no faculties to even understand what is going on. Per Ishenko, LOL. Karlin, read Krylov's famous fable about Elephant and Pug, albeit you are not even qualified for a role of a pug.

Anatoly Karlin , Website March 24, 2018 at 10:46 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Oh look, one can cherry pick positive news stories too even about that a company that is so tightly bound up with Russia.

But anyhow, about Ishchenko: How is the " winning of all of the Ukraine " coming along? And is Ukraine still " really falling apart before our eyes "? Indeed, what are the precise timeframes and conditions under which Ukraine either "falls apart" or "is all won"?

Kevin O'Keeffe , March 24, 2018 at 11:22 pm GMT

the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder".

I don't care for John Bolton more than most reasonable people do, I suppose, but it's not clear he's any worse than McMaster. People are readily triggered by the name John Bolton , but has anything substantively changed?

Kiza , March 25, 2018 at 1:27 am GMT
@El Dato

This speech by a US dummy is a preview of what will come from OPCW "investigation", that is more of the same as what they concluded regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons. By some upside down magic privy only to the Exceptional People the countries which have declared, destroyed and have been verified to have destroyed them, keep using the chemical weapons and being constantly accused by those who still hold and produce chemical weapons. Those who have them do not use them, whilst those who do not have them use them. Iraq, Syria now Russia. The Skripal case is Iraq WMD 3.0.

Therefore, OPCW did not find any problem in that Britain did not follow the procedure clearly stated in the OPCW Statute, after Britain with Canada even declared that procedure optional. In reality, it is neither explicitly written nor implied that the procedure of sharing the samples with the accused is optional. But OPCW keeps silent.

Furthermore, the British are already using own courts to their advantage. Although Miss Skripal is a Russian citizen they convened a court proceeding about which no Russian representative was informed and straight out lied in court that the Russians never enquired about their citizen, contrary to the public announcement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The British Government appointed a lawyer for Miss Skripal. This court proceeding was a formality but it is a good sign of the things to come. More details here: http://johnhelmer.net/the-skripal-case-goes-to-court-for-the-first-time-new-uncertainties-for-the-british-and-russian-governments/#more-18920

My best guess is that OPCW will produce a report full of weasel words, which will then be blared from all Western MSM as proof of Russian and maybe even Putin's own doing (not sure how they would make that big jump over in logic, probably through the meme of secret intelligence that clown Johnson used already).

Any similarity between MH17 and Skripal investigations, although both cooked up in the same kitchen, is completely coincidental, of course.

Beefcake the Mighty , March 25, 2018 at 4:32 am GMT
@Adrian E.

Why do you suppose an alt-rightist must view Russia as an extension of what they wish to have in America? Do you have an example of someone who conflates Russian national interests with particular American concerns? Why is it not sufficient to recognize a common enemy and hope for mutual success? At any rate, Putin's multilateralist vision is inherently conservative (properly understood), and his coherence in absolute terms is admirable (never mind in comparison to revolting Western politicians).

pyrrhus , March 25, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@El Dato

"We in the United States" are well aware that the British false flag assassination claim is sheer nonsense, that the UK refuses to allow an investigation precisely because it is a pack of lies (probably ginned up in an attempt to improve May's approval rating), and that no "nerve gas" was used, and very likely nobody was killed.

So that's the problem with this ham handed attempt to stir up a pretext for war. Everyone with a brain knows that it's a lie .There will be no war with Russia, thank God .

[Mar 25, 2018] John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very powerful kompromat on him

Mar 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Outrage Beyond , 23 March 2018 at 09:04 AM

John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very powerful kompromat on him.

Numerous sources allege that Bolton forced his wife (now ex-wife) into group sex at a swinger's club. Did someone get it on film, tape, or some other recording media?

Given the extreme fervor of Bolton's Zionism, the answer seems obvious.

Dr. Puck -> LondonBob... , 23 March 2018 at 12:14 PM
Bolton, to me, is worse than McMaster, is decidedly a neocon, and may well end up being the intellectual impetus behind a shiny new war in the ME or the Korean peninsula.

Although Trump the candidate offered a sketch of his FP views, including his well known declaration about the catastrophic Iraq war, today one can itemize where the US military is currently robustly engaged.

If Bolton can dial back his hawkishness with respect to Russia, not mention--too much--Iraq, he and POTUS may likely find alignment about which will be the first regime to be targeted by our standoff capabilities. imao

Anna -> falcemartello ... , 23 March 2018 at 03:01 PM
Bolton is a dead hand of Cheney. "They are dead before they go..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wn3Eey6dY
catherine -> semiconscious... , 23 March 2018 at 03:02 PM
I agree, people shouldn't imply, they should say straight out what they think.
So allow me.

It appears that the uber Israeli Sheldon Adelson who was the largest campaign donor to Trump and Nikki Haley and also employs John Bolton is dictating US policy to Trump.

If it trots and barks like an Adelson, then its a Adelson poddle.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/13/nikki-haley-trump-iran-whisperer-243772

[Mar 25, 2018] Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on Syria

Mar 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Petri Krohn | Mar 24, 2018 11:37:39 AM | 79

@Rusty Pipes , Mar 24, 2018 8:09:45 AM | 75

Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on Syria.

Immediately assigning blame is one of the signs of a false-flag operation. If Mossad killed Hariri, Bolton would know about it. He would also know if Mossad whacked the Skripals.

The political dividing line in America may not be Left vs. Right or Democrats vs. Republicans or anti-war vs. pro-war but Russiagate believers vs. realist who know it is all a false-flag.

Thierry Meyssan believes that Rex Tillerson fell for the Skripal hoax and that is why Trump fired him. I said something similar here on MoA

[Mar 25, 2018] Hawks Always Fail Upwards by Daniel Larison

This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
"... National Review ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on John Bolton is exactly right:

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL]

So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again.

There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.

Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance." Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what does?

Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like Bolton never deserved a first chance.

French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and no point in listening to anything they have to say.

[Mar 25, 2018] Pompeo is on the record to bomb Iran with 2000 sorties

Mar 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

col from oz | Mar 23, 2018 11:27:59 PM | 68

Greived 52

Pompeo is on the record to bomb Iran with 2000 sorties

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/iran-deal-advocates-prepare-battle-pompeo-nomination.html

Bolton would be on with this idea. I expect Trump go ahead with a military bombing of nuclear reactor sites and Government/military sites as envisage by Pompeo. They dare not try for a full invasion as they will most likely lose. What will be Iran's reaction be?

What could Iran do? They might get Hezbollah to initiate contact with Israel. Try to sink US navy assets where ever they are. Spread the campaign to Afghanistan. Attack Saudi Arabia with missiles. However if the US peruses this course I believe it will be a brief attack lassting 2/3 weeks, whereby a brokered peace to stop US action. But I could be wrong.

[Mar 25, 2018] Trump impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it represents a different set of threats

Notable quotes:
"... The Right Man ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

For the time being, Trump's lack of impulse control and self-discipline may frustrate his strongman tendencies at home, but that's cold comfort, given the damage he can do with U.S. military might. In "the most powerful office in the world," impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it represents a different set of threats than the ones that most concern Frum.

"Trumpocracy has left Americans less safe against foreign dangers," Frum charges, by which he seems to mean mainly Russian cybermeddling. He spends an order of magnitude more time on that subject than on the foreign dangers Trump has gratuitously stoked with brinksmanship on North Korea.

In the near term, what's to be most feared is the president lumbering into a major conflict with either (or both?) of the two remaining "Axis of Evil" members. Uncertain plans for a North Korean summit aside, that risk may be increasing. As the New York Times 's Maggie Haberman recently explained , Trump "was terrified of the job the first six months, and now feels like he has a command of it" -- a terrifying thought in itself. Newly emboldened, the president wants unrepentant uber-hawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo for national security advisor and secretary of state, respectively. "Let Trump be Trump" looks a lot like letting Trump be Bush-era Frum .

In fairness, Frum does seem queasy about all this, but he's awkwardly positioned to sound the alarm. The author who declared that it's "victory or holocaust" in the war on terror and lauded George W. Bush as The Right Man may not be the right man to guide us through the particular dangers of this moment in history.

We may yet avoid a disaster on the scale of the Iraq war, aided by what Frum terms "the surge in civic spirit that has moved Americans since the ominous night of November 8, 2016" -- or God's special affection for fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Perhaps, in hindsight, the Trump years will look more like a Great Beclowning than a Long National Nightmare. If so, we may look back on this period and say, as "43" apparently did of Trump's First Inaugural: "that was some weird shit " -- and give thanks that Trump wasn't as competent as Bush.

Gene Healy is a vice president of the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency .

[Mar 25, 2018] Melania Trump Reportedly Declines Divorce While Donald Is In Office Because Of Their Son Barron

One more rumor from anonymous source propagated by neoliberal MSM
Notable quotes:
"... Jimmy Kimmel Live ..."
Feb 07, 2018 | www.inquisitr.com

Thanks to Barron Trump his parents are not heading for divorce just yet.

When the news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump had an affair with adult star Stormy Daniels, many people assumed that his wife, first lady Melania Trump was going to divorce him. The FLOTUS has been noticed for allegedly refusing to hold her husband's hand in public. Others also spotted her rolling her eyes while the POTUS was greeting a few cheerleaders during the Super Bowl party on February 4. However, the Slovenia native is far from divorcing her husband of 13 years while he is still in the presidential seat for a good reason.

An insider close to Melania Trump recently told Hollywood Life that she is not thinking about making a move to divorce her husband while he is in office because of their son Barron .

According to the source, the 47-year-old former model wants to focus only on the young boy and his well-being. She doesn't want to get distracted with the alleged affair between the POTUS and Stormy Daniels. She apparently wants her family intact for the sake of her 11-year-old son.

... ... ...

Because of her recent actions that didn't go unnoticed, many people believe that Melania Trump is only trying to save her marriage for her son and not just because of being the first lady of the United States. The alleged extramarital affair of her husband and Daniels in 2006 may have caused their marriage to hit a snag. The adult star, though, has been inconsistent with her statements, which is one reason that some Republicans are not convinced that the president had an affair with the 38-year-old Louisiana native.

An alleged statement from Daniels surfaced on January 30 with her signature, saying that she denies the affair. Howbeit, during her interview during Jimmy Kimmel Live , the adult film star said that she is not aware of the denial statement that surfaced earlier that day.

[Mar 25, 2018] When Trump goes low, go low by Richard Cohen

They definitely can ruin his marriage, but not much other then that.
Mar 19, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Michelle Obama had it all wrong. " When they go low, we go high " is no way to deal with Donald Trump.

A porn star, a playmate and a contestant who washed out on his reality TV show have become exemplars for doing battle with a president for whom practically nothing is out of bounds. They are showing that the most effective way to deal with him is on his own terms.

The three -- Stormy Daniels , Karen McDougal and Summer Zervos -- are suing for the right to tell their stories about him. The headaches and unforeseeable turns that these legal fights present would be well understood by a man who, according to a USA Today tally, has filed at least 3,500 lawsuits of his own, for grievances real and imagined. When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post

Adult entertainer Daniels has outmaneuvered the president and his inept lawyer Michael Cohen at nearly every turn. They apparently believed they had bought her silence about the year-long extramarital affair she claims to have had with the future president a decade ago.

But it turns out they had only rented it. When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post

When Daniels signed a nondisclosure agreement in the weeks before the 2016 election, hardly anyone thought Trump had much chance of winning, especially after the furor over comments he had made about women on the now-famous "Access Hollywood" tape . So $130,000 to stay quiet must have looked too good for Daniels to pass up. (Cohen said the money came from his personal home equity line of credit.)

With her alleged paramour in the Oval Office, however, there is surely much more to be gained from her account, so she is trying to slip free from the agreement on the technicality that Trump never signed it.

Backing out of a deal if there's a better one to be had? Trump did it for decades. "I've made a fortune by using debt, and if things don't work out I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that's a smart thing, not a stupid thing," he boasted to CBS during his presidential campaign. As president, he has reversed himself so many times that his befuddled allies on Capitol Hill are never sure where or if he will land on most issues.

Now, instead of Daniels, it is Trump who is remaining silent -- conspicuously so. No tweets, no vicious nicknames, no threats. She, meanwhile, is going on "60 Minutes," where viewership is likely to be some of its highest ever. Count that as another blow to a president who measures the import of every event by its television ratings.

Daniels seems to be having a great time. She has become a ninja master in Trump's own medium, smiting trolls on Twitter with a verve that my colleague Monica Hesse compared to "a very smart cat batting off a series of very dumb mice, who come at her under the delusion that the relationship is reversed." When one man tweeted that she was a "scank," she responded by correcting his spelling.

McDougal, who was Playboy's 1998 Playmate of the Year, claims to have had an affair with Trump around the same time as Daniels. But in her case, the arrangement that she is trying to escape is the one she made with the National Enquirer's parent company, whose chief executive, David Pecker, is close to Trump. In her lawsuit, McDougal claims American Media was working secretly with Cohen to keep her quiet; the company says it contacted Trump's lawyer only to vet her story.

A takedown by a former playmate would be a sour endnote indeed, given how assiduously Trump styled himself as Playboy's ideal of libidinous masculinity. In 1990, the magazine's cover featured the married real-estate developer posing with another playmate, Brandi Brandt. She wore only his tuxedo jacket.

When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post

He hung a framed copy of that Playboy in his Trump Tower office. "I was one of the few men in the history of Playboy to be on the cover," Trump once boasted to a Post reporter.

Zervos, a former contestant from "The Apprentice," presents a different kind of threat, and potentially the most serious one. She is one of more than a dozen women who have accused the president of unwanted sexual advances, in her case that he kissed her and groped her breasts when she met with him to discuss a job. During his presidential campaign, Trump called them all liars, and threatened to sue.

But Trump never did, empty threats being another of his favorite tactics. It was Zervos who went to court, charging defamation.

On Tuesday, the same day McDougal filed her lawsuit, a New York judge ruled that Zervos's case can go forward. It was lost on no one that the precedent cited was the one in the sexual harassment lawsuit that ultimately led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton .

The Zervos lawsuit opens the possibility that Trump's other accusers, and maybe even more women, will return to tell their stories under oath. And that the president himself will have to as well.

When Zervos was on the fifth season of "The Apprentice," Trump fired her because she interrupted him. It turns out she may get in a last word after all.

xxx

Scratch #2 is the playmate lawsuit. Scratch #3 is Summer Zervos.

xxx

What's up with powerful men who can't keep it in their pants? Then they lie... What cowards!

xxx

The blame must be shared evenly... if the men cant keep it in their pants, why are women allowing it to happen? Are they being forced against their will? If so, call the police!

xxx

Wow! What a savage piece! And very well written.

xxx

Yawwwwnn..

Why even bother with this. It just makes everyone look bad. Daniels is a low-life. The media lowers its standards by reporting it. Nobody believes Trump didn't have sex with Daniels but nobody cares. It's actually expected of someone like Trump to have an affair now and then.

You might find it unfortunate that a guy named Cohen was involved. I suggest its also unfortunate that a guy named Cohen got stuck reporting this.

xxx

Trump is a dirtbag, but the last time I checked, having an affair was not criminal offense. I don't care who he slept with, but I do care who he is screwing - which in this case is 99% of the American people. The other 1% are doing well thanks to him.

xxx

(Edited) What has stormy Daniels done for America????? Just some porn movies for money for herself and now she is blackmailing the US president. And these readers actually enjoy it????? Trump must be protected. He is our President.

xxx

Now any hooker can come and sue any guy she has slept with for money.......is this what men want???? I dont think so.

xxx

People can't arbitrarily sue people for no reason. His lawyer paid her $130,000. She obviously has something on him. And most sane men want her to win so Trump can be impeached and sent out to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement... in Antarctica.

xxx

Cant believe men are siding with adult porn actor......... a hooker.... Daniels.........who is out to make money by hook or crook. Men in America are doomed.

xxx 4 days ago

If the U.S. is such that this horrifically warped man and his monstrously greedy and incompetent cabinet are taken down by a stupid sex scandal rather than being judiciously removed by responsible people for being criminals, then the U.S. is in even more serious trouble than even rational thinkers would want to believe.

XXX 3 days ago

"How Trump avoided paying taxes on nearly $1 billion"
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/news/trump-tax-strategy-theory/index.html

"[Trump] deducted somebody else's losses," said John L. Buckley, who served as the chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation in 1993 and 1994. Since the [stiffed] bondholders were likely declaring losses for tax purposes, Trump shouldn't be able to as well. "He is double dipping big time," Buckley told the Times.

Surely, the IRS can't be too happy about multiple taxpayers taking the same ~$1 billion-loss deduction? I therefore look forward to Mueller's audit of Trump's tax returns.

And now the Dumpster finds his yacht "Trumpy!" is caught in "Stormy Weather" off the Seychelles -- LOL

But, never fear Dumpsters, we all know that the usual rules don't and never have applied to the "bouffanted buffoon" -- or so he thinks! -- LOL

Doubtless, the results of Mueller's investigations into Trump's various activities will make this crass, arrogant charlatan (and his family/associates) sorely regret he ever threw his "bouffanted hairpiece" into the political ring. Hopefully, he will ultimately be indicted and convicted for egregious financial/taxation crimes and the courts will penalize him to the extent that all of his and his family's ill-gotten assets will be expropriated, and he'll get to wear one of those ill-fitting orange jump suits too

Still, the thought of the Rev. Pence becoming POTUS fills me with equal dread.

[Mar 25, 2018] Obama sex accuser panned as a liar urges Stormy Daniels scrutiny

Mar 25, 2018 | www.washingtonexaminer.com
A man who claimed without evidence that he had sex with former President Barack Obama says the media is showing a "sickening" double standard with coverage of an alleged affair between President Trump and porn star Stormy Daniels.

Larry Sinclair's allegations involving Obama, cocaine, and a limo -- set in 1999, when Obama was a state senator -- failed to gain broad coverage for a variety of reasons, including lack of corroboration and Sinclair's record of crimes involving deceit.

But Sinclair says the media is giving too much attention and too little skepticism to claims of a 2006 affair between Daniels and Trump.

"Stormy Daniels is being pimped and pimping the media now and it's lining her pockets," Sinclair told the Washington Examine r. "I believe she had sex with him. Do I believe she's trying to twist and add to it to benefit her interests? You're damn right I do."

An interview with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is set to air Sunday on the CBS program "60 Minutes." The performer staging a national strip club tour has given other recent interviews, including to "Inside Edition" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"

Sinclair said he views Daniels' coyness about details -- as she sues to invalidate a $130,000 nondisclosure agreement -- as well as her attempt to sidestep the deal, as reasons to doubt her truthfulness. He said he watched with suspicion as she declined to say if a signature was hers.

"I do believe that there are enough contradictions by Ms. Daniels to justify questioning her motive and truthfulness," Sinclair said, citing "her statements or nonstatements in subsequent interviews implying that her signature was not her signature [and] her back-and-forth on whether Trump paid her."

"I find this whole double standard sickening, and no I am not a bigger supporter of Trump, but I am a supporter of fair and unbiased media coverage," he said. "I find the whole NDA and accepting money and then later coming back and using a completely legal incident for political and personal gain questionable."

Michael Avenatti, an attorney for Daniels, declined to address Sinclair's suggestion that the media be more skeptical of her claims.

"Is this a joke? Am I being punked?" Avenatti wrote in an email.

Sinclair -- who runs a neighborhood revitalization nonprofit in Cocoa, Fla., where he's considering a run for mayor -- said he believes the media also gives too much credence to affair claims by ex-Playboy bunny Karen McDougal and women alleging misconduct by Trump.

There are many distinctions between the allegations made by Sinclair and those made by Clifford and McDougal. For example, Sinclair lacks a photo of himself with Obama, who was married to future first lady Michelle Obama at the time of the alleged two-day relationship.

Trump has denied cheating on first lady Melania Trump, but he did pose for photos with Daniels and McDougal.

Daniels passed a polygraph in 2011, her team said this week. Sinclair allegedly failed a polygraph in 2008, but he says the tests don't mean much.

Daniels told her story to some journalists, including from Slate and In Touch magazine, before signing the October 2016 NDA, though neither published her account. She and McDougal do have a degree of corroboration from friends who attest to contemporaneous conversations or, in the case of McDougal, provided the media with a letter she allegedly wrote documenting the claims.

Sinclair's allegations, by contrast, lack documentary evidence or corroboration from third parties. And whereas Trump has a decadeslong history of romantic relationships with women, Sinclair's gender does not match Obama's reported preference.

"It seems to me that there is a world of difference between the two stories and that there is no double standard," said Joel Kaplan, associate dean for professional graduate studies at the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.

"Sinclair is making a singular allegation without any support," Kaplan said. "Ms. Daniels' allegation is backed up by the fact that there was a settlement and a nondisclosure agreement, which certainly lends credibility to her allegations. If Mr. Sinclair was just one of 14 men making these allegations against President Obama that would be one thing and probably worthy of a story. In President Trump's case, there are multiple women who came forward. So, no I see no double standard."

The high point of Sinclair's press exposure came when he rented a room at the National Press Club in June 2008, prompting an unsuccessful campaign to block the event by journalists fearful that the venue would lend credibility to his claims.

A dueling press conference was planned by Whitehouse.com, then a pornographic website whose owner Dan Parisi had paid Sinclair $20,000 to take the polygraph that Sinclair allegedly failed. Parisi later sued Sinclair unsuccessfully for libel for saying the results were doctored.

"It wasn't until after the fact I was told the Whitehouse.com press conference didn't take place," Sinclair said, recalling that police arrested him at the press club and sent him to Delaware to face theft charges. He also had an open warrant for his arrest in Colorado for allegedly signing someone else's tax return check.

Sinclair said the Delaware and Colorado cases were misunderstandings, but admits he was convicted in Arizona for forgery in 1981, then in Florida for using a friend's credit card before getting a 16-year sentence in Colorado in the late '80s in a similar case. He was released in 1999, the same year he allegedly met Obama through a limo driver in Chicago.

In one similarity between Sinclair's allegations and those made by Daniels and McDougal, significant amounts of money changed hands, resulting in legal action and claims of wrongful gagging of the accuser.

Sinclair negotiated a deal in which he ultimately was paid $20,000 by Parisi to consent to a polygraph. A copy of the check is an exhibit in the libel case Parisi brought against Sinclair. At one point, another $10,000 was supposed to be split between two charities.

Daniels is suing to get out of nondisclosure agreement prepared by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who like the president says Daniels is lying about an affair, and McDougal is suing to get out of an NDA in which she was paid $150,000 for the rights to her story by the company that publishes the Trump-friendly National Enquirer, which didn't print the claims.

Sinclair said his Whitehouse.com deal required that he give exclusive rights for polygraphing to the company for a period of four weeks during the 2008 campaign, a claim that appears to be consistent with an email cited in court documents, and he suggests Parisi may not have acted independently in the libel lawsuit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in 2012.

Sinclair said he lost money on his 2009 book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder? in which he associates a Chicago-area killing with his affair claims.

"To journalists I would say take your time, compare statements and call out contradictions in statements and previous interviews," Sinclair said. "When it comes to polygraphs be very sure you vet the examiners conducting them and always ask for the computer scoring results as well as the examiners findings."

Parisi did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Obama's office.

[Mar 25, 2018] Ex-Playboy Model Suing To Break Silence On Affair With Trump

Mar 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
A former Playboy model who says she had an affair with President Trump is suing the National Enquirer's parent company, American Media, so that she can be released from a legal agreement barring her from discussing the relationship.

Karen McDougal filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the New York Times , after she claims the Enquirer paid her $150,000 for the story of her nine-month-long affair between 2006 and 2007, but did not publish it when she gave the account in August 2016, several months before the 2016 U.S. election.

McDougal says that Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, was secretly involved in her negotiations with A.M.I., and that both the media company and her lawyer at the time misled her about the arrangement. After speaking with The New Yorker last month after it obtained notes she kept on her alleged affair, McDougal said she was warned by A.M.I. that " any further disclosures would breach Karen's contract," and "cause considerable monetary damages ."

Cohen reportedly paid another Trump accuser, adult film actress Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels), $130,000 in exchange for signing an NDA barring her from discussing her experiences with Trump.

Trump joined a legal effort last week suing Clifford for $20 million over what they claim is a breach of her NDA. Meanwhile, both women's claims against Trump are being construed by federal watchdog group Common Cause as illegal campaign contributions - arguing that they could constitute in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign.

Ms. Clifford and Ms. McDougal tell strikingly similar stories about their experiences with Mr. Trump, which included alleged trysts at the same Lake Tahoe golf tournament in 2006, dates at the same Beverly Hills hotel and promises of apartments as gifts.

Their stories first surfaced in the The Wall Street Journal four days before the election , but got little traction in the swirl of news that followed Mr. Trump's victory. The women even shared the same Los Angeles lawyer, Keith Davidson, who has long worked for clients who sell their stories to the tabloids . - NYT

"The lawsuit filed today aims to restore her right to her own voice," McDougal's attorney, Peter K Stris told the Times . "We intend to invalidate the so-called contract that American Media Inc. imposed on Karen so she can move forward with the private life she deserves ."

As the Wall Street Journal reported in November, 2016;

The tabloid-newspaper publisher reached an agreement in early August with Karen McDougal, the 1998 Playmate of the Year. American Media Inc., which owns the Enquirer, hasn't published anything about what she has told friends was a consensual romantic relationship she had with Mr. Trump in 2006. At the time, Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania.

Quashing stories that way is known in the tabloid world as "catch and kill." - WSJ

In a written statement, American Media Inc. claims it wasn't buying McDougal's story for $150,000 - rather, they were buying two years' worth of her fitness columns, magazine covers and exclusive life rights to any relationship she has had with a then-married man. "AMI has not paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump," reads the statement.

American Media Inc. CEO David J. Pecker is a long-standing friend of President Trump.

[Mar 25, 2018] Stormy Daniels -- not Robert Mueller -- might spell Trump's doom by Richard Cohen

Mar 25, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

It was just a little thing, a scratch, that he failed to treat and gangrene set in and it was killing him. They were on safari, in Africa, and their truck had broken down and the rescue plane was never going to make it in time. This is the way Harry died in Ernest Hemingway's " The Snows of Kilimanjaro ." I reread it the other day because of President Trump. I think of him as Harry. Stormy Daniels is the scratch.

The saga of the adult-film star and the juvenile president has become a rollicking affair. Each step of the way, Daniels has out-Trumped Trump. She is as shameless as he, a publicity hound who adheres to the secular American religion that, to be famous, even for nothing much, is to be rich. By and large, that's not true, but then there is Kim Kardashian to prove otherwise.

Daniels alleges she and Trump had an affair beginning in 2006. The president's lawyer and his press secretary allege that the allegations are not true. The lawyer, Michael Cohen, does admit to paying Daniels $130,000 , apparently to keep her silent about an affair that, according to Cohen, did not happen. To do this, Cohen set up a private Delaware company and concocted false names for everyone involved -- the allegation-maker and the allegation-denier. Only the name Delaware is legit.

[Mar 25, 2018] CNN would use any opportunity to smear Trump. Even publishing revelations of a porno star. That does not apply to Bill Clinton behaviour thouth.

I guess there are many women who would provide more explosive evidence about Bill clinton. CNN is just not interested ;-)
Mar 25, 2018 | www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN)

Stormy Daniels was "truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump in July 2006," according to a polygraph test report from 2011.

The report states that the "probability of deception was measured to be less than 1%." It was given to CNN by Michael Avenatti, Daniels' attorney, and contains three pertinent questions: "Around July 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump?," "Around July 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump?" and "Did Trump say you would get on 'The Apprentice'?"

Another Trump attorney involved in Stormy Daniels case Daniels replied yes to all three questions. The first two were analyzed to be truthful and the third question was "inconclusive," according to the polygraph examiner, Ronald Slay. Polygraphs are generally inadmissible in court.

The polygraph was performed at the request of Bauer Publishing, which owns Life & Style and InTouch magazines, according to the reporter who interviewed Daniels in 2011. Reporter Jordi Lippe-McGraw initially interviewed Daniels for Life & Style magazine. The interview was not published at the time, but Bauer Publishing released it in InTouch magazine earlier this year.

Woman named in Stormy Daniels' document accused Trump of unwanted advances

Avenatti confirmed to CNN that he purchased the video and file of the polygraph test for $25,000. "We did so to ensure that it would be maintained and kept safely during the litigation and not be altered or destroyed," Avenatti said in a statement. "We did so after learning that various parties, including mainstream media organization, were attempting to acquire the video and the file and either destroy it or use it for nefarious means." RELATED: The shaky science of lie detectors Daniels tweeted about the encounter Tuesday afternoon following the release of the polygraph, defending herself and saying she's "not going anywhere."

"Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star. But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.

And PS...I am NOT going anywhere. xoxoxo," she wrote.

Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star. But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.

And PS...I am NOT going anywhere. xoxoxo https://t.co/Js9sEnanIk

-- Stormy Daniels (@StormyDaniels) March 20, 2018
Lippe-McGraw told CNN on Tuesday that Daniels passed the test in a broader sense. "Based off of the interview, we had her take the polygraph test to confirm the details of what she was telling us. There wasn't much in the way of physical evidence, per se," Lippe-McGraw said, adding that the big-picture question they wanted to confirm was that the affair happened, and that Daniels passed.

Lippe-McGraw said that Daniels told her she had unprotected sex with Trump, because Daniels is allergic to latex and didn't have condoms at the time. Earlier Tuesday, Avenatti tweeted out a photograph of Daniels being administered the test.

The Wall Street Journal first released the details of the polygraph questions and answers. Also on Tuesday, Daniels' friend Alana Evans told CNN's Brooke Baldwin that she and Daniels have received threats over the allegations from people who had previously been in the adult industry. "I have not been made aware that Cohen had physically threatened her. I know in the last few weeks, and the last couple of months, that Stormy and myself have received threats from people in the outside world completely trying to defend Trump and Cohen and calling us liars and threatening us with physical harm, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's stemming from there as well," Evans said. Evans said this included threatening emails, threats to their families and their safety, and threats to release private information.

CNN's Sara Sidner contributed to this report.

[Mar 25, 2018] Stormy Daniels, Trump's Unlikely Foe, Is 'Not Someone to Be Underestimated' by MATT FLEGENHEIMER , REBECCA R. RUIZ and KATIE VAN SYCKLE

NYT became a yellow publication. And their hate of Trump is really visceral (Not that Trump is an ideal President). Which is strange because Trump folded and with hiring of Bolton now is really Hillary in foreign policy (the only difference is sex, but that can be fixed with the sex change operation)
They write about this prostitute with such a sympathy that I suspect that they are involved in the industry too.
Mar 25, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

She is the actress in pornographic films who is suing a sitting president , with whom she said she had a consensual affair, in order to be released from a nondisclosure agreement she reached with his lawyer just before the 2016 election. Over the past two months, she has guided the story of her alleged relationship with President Trump -- and the $130,000 she was paid to keep silent -- into a full-fledged scandal. If Ms. Clifford's court case proceeds, Mr. Trump may have to testify in depositions, and her suit could provide evidence of campaign spending violations. She is scheduled to appear on "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

And if her name has seemed ubiquitous -- repeated on cable television and in the White House briefing room, and plastered on signs outside nightclubs, where her appearance fees have multiplied -- there is this to consider: Unlike most perceived presidential adversaries, about whom Mr. Trump is rarely shy, Ms. Clifford has not been the subject of a single tweet.

To many in the capital, Ms. Clifford, 39, has become an unexpected force. It is she, some in Washington now joke, and not the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who could topple Mr. Trump.

... ... ...

The false-start campaign coincided with a turbulent moment in her personal life, exposing her to scrutiny in the mainstream press. In July 2009, Ms. Clifford was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence after hitting her husband, a performer in the industry, and throwing a potted plant during a fight about laundry and unpaid bills, according to police records. The husband, Michael Mosny, was not injured, and the charge was later dropped. Ms. Clifford had previously been married to another pornographic actor.

She has since married another colleague in the business, Brendon Miller, the father of her now 7-year-old daughter. He is also a drummer and has composed music for her films.

... ... ...

Ms. Clifford has not shown up at competitions since news broke in January that she accepted a financial settlement in October 2016 -- weeks before the election -- agreeing to keep quiet about her alleged intimate relationship with Mr. Trump. She has said the affair, which representatives of Mr. Trump have denied, began in 2006 and extended into 2007, the year she married Mr. Mosny.

Earlier this month, she escalated public attention by filing suit, calling the 2016 contract meaningless given that Mr. Trump had never signed it and revealing that the president's personal lawyer had taken further secret legal action to keep her silent this year.

[Mar 25, 2018] Stormy Daniels, Porn Star And Possible Senate Candidate, Arrested For Domestic Violence

Jul 29, 2009 | talkingpointsmemo.com
Stormy Daniels, an adult entertainer who's considering running for Senate from Louisiana, was arrested Saturday on a domestic violence charge in Tampa, Fla.

Daniels was charged with battery after she allegedly hit her husband, Michael Mosny, over the head with her hands. According to the police report , she was angry about a bill Mosny hadn't paid and about the way his father had done the laundry. She broke a flower pot and a few glass candle holders, threw their wedding album on the floor and allegedly hit her husband while struggling to get the car keys from him. She denied hitting him intentionally.

https://cdn.districtm.io/ids/index.html

Neither Mosny nor Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, were injured. Daniels was held overnight and released on $1,000 bond.

The porn star formed an exploratory committee in May, the first step in a possible Senate run against Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), whose social conservative reputation was tarnished by the D.C. Madam prostitution scandal.

[Mar 25, 2018] The masses don't care about Stormy Daniels. Who cares? It preceded him being Prez

Mar 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Muppet Sun, 03/25/2018 - 15:40 Permalink

The masses don't care about Stormy Daniels. Of course, Trump used his "art of the deal" to score with likely a hundred of bimbos. Who cares? It preceded him being Prez.

Is like the Facebook article about privacy... most people know the truth and don't need the media view. We know Trump cheated. We know FB is corrupt. By far, Trump is better than the corrupt criminal Clinton's.

[Mar 25, 2018] Melania 'staying in hotel' after Stormy Daniels scandal

Mar 25, 2018 | dailymail.co.uk

Me lania Trump has spent a number of nights at a posh D.C. hotel away from President Trump following allegations of a fling with porn star Stormy Daniels, White House sources told DailyMail.com.

[Mar 25, 2018] Playboy model Karen McDougal I did OK in Trump affair interview

Looks like she is pretty calculating woman...
Amazing neoliberal MSM interest in any dirt that can hurt Trump ;-)
Mar 25, 2018 | www.nydailynews.com
detailing an alleged 2006 romance with Donald Trump , then flew home to celebrate her 47th birthday with friends in Arizona, sources told the Daily News.

On Thursday, the former Playboy Playmate sat down with Anderson Cooper at 6 Columbus Hotel and poured her heart out in a detailed account of what she says was a 10-month fling with the President.

His reps have denied the affair.

McDougal said in the interview that she and Trump had been in love -- and that she now deeply regrets helping him cheat on his wife.

When cameras stopped rolling, she was asked how she felt about the confessional.

"Well, aside from the fact I have a headache and a cold -- I'm my own worst critic -- I think I came across as credible," she said, according to a source. "But I'm not an attorney."

When assured by her handlers that she'd done a great job, a source who was present said McDougal argued she could have been more succinct in explaining why she decided to come forward more than a decade later.

"A friend of mine leaked the story and now that it's out I want to tell my side," she explained.

McDougal also wasn't expecting a marathon grilling.

"I thought this was going to be 20 minutes, I didn't know it would be over an hour," she admitted.

McDougal and her team watched a playback of the interview, which featured an old photo of her that was taken prior to her breast implant removal in January. The model told People magazine in February that the implants were causing her illness.

"That's me on the end," she pointed. "That's when I had breasts."

McDougal cried when watching the part of the interview where Cooper asked what she'd say to Melania, sources told The News. "I'm sorry," she told Cooper. "I wouldn't want it done to me." Tears turned to laughter when a member of the production asked McDougal if she was aware that Hillary Clinton taped an interview in the same hotel suite.

"I didn't know that, but I can tell you I didn't have the questions in advance," she joked.

One member of the production crew asked McDougal if she'd met porn star Stormy Daniels, who also claims she had an affair with the President and is hoping to be released from a confidentiality agreement that could see her punished for speaking up. She said that she has not, nor does she plan to.

[Mar 25, 2018] Melania Trump Fears More Allegations Of Affairs With Donald Will Emerge After '60 Minutes' Special by Beth Shilliday

Rumors, damaging leaks from anonymous sources. that what neoliberal press is about...
Mar 19, 2018 | hollywoodlife.com

Melania , 47, is terrified that more women could emerge with tales of her husband's infidelity. "Melania is unprepared for more women to come forward with allegations of affairs with Donald. Melania wants to leave, but she is paralyzed with fear. She is bracing the worst and is unsure how to move forward," a Washington D.C. insider tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY. Barron , now 11.

"Melania feels stuck with a sinking presidency and she wants to get out before Trump's house of cards comes crashing down around her. She fears what embarrassing revelations Stormy might reveal in her 60 Minutes interview and Melania's greater worries is what impact the revelations may have on the presidency," our source reveals.

...

Trump himself crudely joked about Melania being the next person to leave the White House during a speech at the Gridiron Club Dinner on March 3. Unfortunately, divorcing a sitting president would be unheard of and history making. Melania's pretty much stuck with him as long as he's in the White House, and she still fears he could be cheating on her to this day! "Melania has wanted to divorce Donald, over fidelity issues, since before they landed in the White House. She has long suspected that he has used, and continues to use, Mar-a-Lago as a rendezvous spot for his secret affairs. The Florida location is completely under Donald's control, he is always there, and it is much easier for him to enjoy private meetings at the resort rather than try to meet his mistresses at the White House or around DC or NYC. Melania has pleaded with Donald to stay away from his many trips to Mar-a-Lago , disguised as golfing holidays, but he refuses to give in to her requests," our insider adds.

[Mar 25, 2018] The West Is Going to War With Russia by Brad Cabana

Mar 25, 2018 | russia-insider.com

In a game of one-up-man-ship, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been blowing the proverbial bridges between Russia and the western world to pieces in the last several weeks with comments that have really been beyond the pale. He suggested that Russian President Putin was the person that gave the go ahead for the attempted assassination of a former Russian spy in England. He then absolutely blew that out of the water by claiming yesterday that holding the World Soccer Cup in Russia was akin to Hitler's 1936 Olympics. This last point I personally took huge exception to, because the fact is the 25 million or so Soviets that died actually fighting Hitler saved England fro German invasion - an invasion that England would have lost hands down. In truth, Johnson might just as well of accused modern day Israel of being a Nazi state. That's just how bizarre Johnson's attack on Russia was. And perhaps more importantly in the scheme of things, how incendiary the attack was.

What is becoming clear is that the US, and its western allies, are laying the groundwork for a massive war, perhaps a world war, with Eurasia and its allies in the Middle East. With the appointment of Bolton on the same day as Trump signed the first trade action against China (and he emphasized it was the first of many) the signs are very clear. The West is going to war with the East. The likely initial targets are Syria, and Iran. Any attack on Iran is a declaration of war on Russia. Iran after all is not just an important ally to Russia, but it sits right on the border with Russia. In other words, Russia would be pulled into such a war out of self-defence if for no other reason.

Bearing Russia's position in mind, think back to last week when Russia announced a number of new generation weapons it stated were untouchable by Western anti-missile capabilities. It is quite obvious that Russia is attempting to dissuade the West from its intended push against one of Russia's most strategic interests - Iran. It's also quite evident from Trump's gestures today that he is completely unmoved by Russia's message. That can only mean one thing - we are going to war. When I say we, I mean the West. As someone who has served, and the son of a World War II veteran I am disgusted by Western aggression toward Eurasia. Yes, I said Western aggression. Have a look around at all the conflicts going on. They're all going on around Russia's or China's backyard - not so much in the West...

Nobody knows for certain how this will play its deadly hand out. One thing is for certain, scrapping of the Iran Nuclear Agreement appears imminent. Also, a reigniting of the Saudi/Iran conflict is sure to follow. The West will need an easily understandable excuse to attack Iran, and that can only be one of three things really: an attack on Israel; coming to the aid of Saudi; or a North Korea style action against Iran having a nuclear weapon once the aforementioned agreement is unilaterally cancelled.

This won't be a picnic for the West though. Leave a direct conflict with Russia and China out of the equation for the moment. Consider that a Saudi/Iran conflict, or an Israeli/Iran conflict would have the affect of tripling oil prices over night. Then consider a massive sell off on the stock market. Factor in the US Federal Reserves increases in its over night lending rates. All these things, and quite a few economic problems not mentioned here, would plummet the Western economies into a cataclysmic spiral. The markets are very jittery as it is, sensing as they do that things have gone quite far off the tracks. Many people have said to me that such an economic collapse would cause Eurasia to fall as well, but I always answer that statement like this: "Remember in 2008 when the market collapsed? China sent 250 million people home to their villages, without a job, and that was that. There was no revolt, or any social turmoil. If that happened in the US or any Western economy, there would be civil insurrection almost over night. Therein lies the difference. While China would be hurt, it can sustain the blow. The Western world cannot. In other words, a war of economic attrition."

I don't know if there is anything the ordinary citizen can do to forestall this madness - as one American recently said to me: "all I can do is vote". But, I suggest if you like the world in one piece and you are concerned about the end of humanity, get out and say something. Be accountable to yourself, to humanity, and the world. Don't be a sheeple.

Source: Rock Solid Politics

Serg Derbst • 2 days ago ,

I have the same worries. The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100% under CIA control, has been ramping up anti-Russia propaganda since weeks. I didn't think it would be possible after the Ukraine conflict but it is even worse now. The comments of this filthy lunatic Boris Johnson but also of his boss-bitch Theresa May have been way below any line of decency. It's even below the kind of rhetoric Hitler has used when he talked about other statesmen such as (this fat, ugly war-criminal and mass murderer) Winston Churchill.

But it's not "the West" that is going to war, it is the Anglo-American establishment. "West" is an artificial propaganda term that should not be used anyway, because all it denotes is the countries dominated by Anglo-America. Germany and France, the only countries powerful enough to stop Anglo-American madness, are usually dancing to the tune of Warshington and London, but I am not so sure if they will really go all the way here, especially with Iran. Also and despite all the propaganda, while German and French people may not trust Russia and see Putin as a "dictator", they also see the US regime (especially with the Trumpet in charge) as nothing but a dangerous, trigger-happy war machinery. There is no way you could sell a war against Iran to them, also not the rest of Europe including Britain. I even have doubts about whether the American public would swallow such a war.

Either way, it will be a disaster for the "West" - economically, politically, militarily. In fact, it will be the end of the "West" and of the Anglo-American empire including the Zionist colony. So in the end there might be a great result of yet another horror. What Russia really needs to do now is to give both Syria and Iran the full power of Russian air defence.

Scandinavia - Serg Derbst • 2 days ago ,

Craig Murray is on fire -

Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian "novichok" agent.

Yesterday in an interview with Deutsche Welle Boris Johnson claimed directly Porton Down had told him they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:

*You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory

So they have the samples

They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.*

I knew and had published from my own whistle blowers that this is a lie. Until now I could not prove it. But today I can absolutely prove it, due to the judgement at the High Court
case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals for use by the OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of the evidence which tells us, directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually said...

Read more here: https://www.craigmurray.org...

hiddeninplainsight Scandinavia - • a day ago ,

What a shameful disgrace is the UK government.

CyricRenner Serg Derbst • a day ago ,

Having spent some time in Germany, I have to agree with these comments. If you think the Propaganda is bad in the US and the UK, in Germany it is even worse. It is almost as if they are in competition to be the most servile and obedient to their masters. It is if history doesn't even exist. It is 1941 all over again. The difference being Germany has nothing to fight with and if it comes to war they will be absolutely pulverized to nuclear ash.

This is how stupid the media is to hype this Anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, 7 days a week. There is no real "alternative" news that I could find either. If there is a silver lining in all this though, is that many Germans don't take the media seriously at all anymore. When you overcook the pot, this is what can happen. Just like that fool Boris Johnson. He has now compared Putin to Hitler and the 1936 olympics. How stupid can this buffoon be? You think you can just carry on with business as usual once this stupid provocation with the poisoned spy blows over after saying something like that? He hasn't just insulted Putin, he has insulted all of Russia who sacrificed more than any other country to stop Hitler. I can't believe what low IQ clowns the UK is producing as politicians these days. It is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Nationalist Globalist Oligarch CyricRenner • a day ago ,

Does it really matter if the so called Germans take the media seriously?

They keep voting for Mama Merkel, that really tells me quite a bit about the people living in Germany and their political concerns.

[Mar 25, 2018] CNN would use any opportunity to smear Trump. Even publishing revelations of a porno star. That does not apply to Bill Clinton behaviour thouth.

I guess there are many women who would provide more explosive evidence about Bill clinton. CNN is just not interested ;-)
Mar 25, 2018 | www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN)

Stormy Daniels was "truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump in July 2006," according to a polygraph test report from 2011.

The report states that the "probability of deception was measured to be less than 1%." It was given to CNN by Michael Avenatti, Daniels' attorney, and contains three pertinent questions: "Around July 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump?," "Around July 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump?" and "Did Trump say you would get on 'The Apprentice'?"

Another Trump attorney involved in Stormy Daniels case Daniels replied yes to all three questions. The first two were analyzed to be truthful and the third question was "inconclusive," according to the polygraph examiner, Ronald Slay. Polygraphs are generally inadmissible in court.

The polygraph was performed at the request of Bauer Publishing, which owns Life & Style and InTouch magazines, according to the reporter who interviewed Daniels in 2011. Reporter Jordi Lippe-McGraw initially interviewed Daniels for Life & Style magazine. The interview was not published at the time, but Bauer Publishing released it in InTouch magazine earlier this year.

Woman named in Stormy Daniels' document accused Trump of unwanted advances

Avenatti confirmed to CNN that he purchased the video and file of the polygraph test for $25,000. "We did so to ensure that it would be maintained and kept safely during the litigation and not be altered or destroyed," Avenatti said in a statement. "We did so after learning that various parties, including mainstream media organization, were attempting to acquire the video and the file and either destroy it or use it for nefarious means." RELATED: The shaky science of lie detectors Daniels tweeted about the encounter Tuesday afternoon following the release of the polygraph, defending herself and saying she's "not going anywhere."

"Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star. But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.

And PS...I am NOT going anywhere. xoxoxo," she wrote.

Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star. But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.

And PS...I am NOT going anywhere. xoxoxo https://t.co/Js9sEnanIk

-- Stormy Daniels (@StormyDaniels) March 20, 2018
Lippe-McGraw told CNN on Tuesday that Daniels passed the test in a broader sense. "Based off of the interview, we had her take the polygraph test to confirm the details of what she was telling us. There wasn't much in the way of physical evidence, per se," Lippe-McGraw said, adding that the big-picture question they wanted to confirm was that the affair happened, and that Daniels passed.

Lippe-McGraw said that Daniels told her she had unprotected sex with Trump, because Daniels is allergic to latex and didn't have condoms at the time. Earlier Tuesday, Avenatti tweeted out a photograph of Daniels being administered the test.

The Wall Street Journal first released the details of the polygraph questions and answers. Also on Tuesday, Daniels' friend Alana Evans told CNN's Brooke Baldwin that she and Daniels have received threats over the allegations from people who had previously been in the adult industry. "I have not been made aware that Cohen had physically threatened her. I know in the last few weeks, and the last couple of months, that Stormy and myself have received threats from people in the outside world completely trying to defend Trump and Cohen and calling us liars and threatening us with physical harm, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's stemming from there as well," Evans said. Evans said this included threatening emails, threats to their families and their safety, and threats to release private information.

CNN's Sara Sidner contributed to this report.

[Mar 25, 2018] Neocon lobby and Iraq war

Mar 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , March 25, 2018 at 9:45 pm GMT

... US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq "to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it.

...who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author.

Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on ."

Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.

Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record -- Senate, May 20, 2004, pages S5921-S5925. Also ""Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel

[Mar 25, 2018] Stormy Daniels, Trump's Unlikely Foe, Is 'Not Someone to Be Underestimated' by MATT FLEGENHEIMER , REBECCA R. RUIZ and KATIE VAN SYCKLE

NYT became a yellow publication. And their hate of Trump is really visceral (Not that Trump is an ideal President). Which is strange because Trump folded and with hiring of Bolton now is really Hillary in foreign policy (the only difference is sex, but that can be fixed with the sex change operation)
They write about this prostitute with such a sympathy that I suspect that they are involved in the industry too.
Mar 25, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

She is the actress in pornographic films who is suing a sitting president , with whom she said she had a consensual affair, in order to be released from a nondisclosure agreement she reached with his lawyer just before the 2016 election. Over the past two months, she has guided the story of her alleged relationship with President Trump -- and the $130,000 she was paid to keep silent -- into a full-fledged scandal. If Ms. Clifford's court case proceeds, Mr. Trump may have to testify in depositions, and her suit could provide evidence of campaign spending violations. She is scheduled to appear on "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

And if her name has seemed ubiquitous -- repeated on cable television and in the White House briefing room, and plastered on signs outside nightclubs, where her appearance fees have multiplied -- there is this to consider: Unlike most perceived presidential adversaries, about whom Mr. Trump is rarely shy, Ms. Clifford has not been the subject of a single tweet.

To many in the capital, Ms. Clifford, 39, has become an unexpected force. It is she, some in Washington now joke, and not the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who could topple Mr. Trump.

... ... ...

The false-start campaign coincided with a turbulent moment in her personal life, exposing her to scrutiny in the mainstream press. In July 2009, Ms. Clifford was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence after hitting her husband, a performer in the industry, and throwing a potted plant during a fight about laundry and unpaid bills, according to police records. The husband, Michael Mosny, was not injured, and the charge was later dropped. Ms. Clifford had previously been married to another pornographic actor.

She has since married another colleague in the business, Brendon Miller, the father of her now 7-year-old daughter. He is also a drummer and has composed music for her films.

... ... ...

Ms. Clifford has not shown up at competitions since news broke in January that she accepted a financial settlement in October 2016 -- weeks before the election -- agreeing to keep quiet about her alleged intimate relationship with Mr. Trump. She has said the affair, which representatives of Mr. Trump have denied, began in 2006 and extended into 2007, the year she married Mr. Mosny.

Earlier this month, she escalated public attention by filing suit, calling the 2016 contract meaningless given that Mr. Trump had never signed it and revealing that the president's personal lawyer had taken further secret legal action to keep her silent this year.

[Mar 25, 2018] The masses don't care about Stormy Daniels. Who cares? It preceded him being Prez

Mar 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Muppet Sun, 03/25/2018 - 15:40 Permalink

The masses don't care about Stormy Daniels. Of course, Trump used his "art of the deal" to score with likely a hundred of bimbos. Who cares? It preceded him being Prez.

Is like the Facebook article about privacy... most people know the truth and don't need the media view. We know Trump cheated. We know FB is corrupt. By far, Trump is better than the corrupt criminal Clinton's.

[Mar 25, 2018] Melania 'staying in hotel' after Stormy Daniels scandal

Mar 25, 2018 | dailymail.co.uk

Me lania Trump has spent a number of nights at a posh D.C. hotel away from President Trump following allegations of a fling with porn star Stormy Daniels, White House sources told DailyMail.com.

[Mar 25, 2018] Melania Trump Fears More Allegations Of Affairs With Donald Will Emerge After '60 Minutes' Special by Beth Shilliday

Rumors, damaging leaks from anonymous sources. that what neoliberal press is about...
Mar 19, 2018 | hollywoodlife.com

Melania , 47, is terrified that more women could emerge with tales of her husband's infidelity. "Melania is unprepared for more women to come forward with allegations of affairs with Donald. Melania wants to leave, but she is paralyzed with fear. She is bracing the worst and is unsure how to move forward," a Washington D.C. insider tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY. Barron , now 11.

"Melania feels stuck with a sinking presidency and she wants to get out before Trump's house of cards comes crashing down around her. She fears what embarrassing revelations Stormy might reveal in her 60 Minutes interview and Melania's greater worries is what impact the revelations may have on the presidency," our source reveals.

...

Trump himself crudely joked about Melania being the next person to leave the White House during a speech at the Gridiron Club Dinner on March 3. Unfortunately, divorcing a sitting president would be unheard of and history making. Melania's pretty much stuck with him as long as he's in the White House, and she still fears he could be cheating on her to this day! "Melania has wanted to divorce Donald, over fidelity issues, since before they landed in the White House. She has long suspected that he has used, and continues to use, Mar-a-Lago as a rendezvous spot for his secret affairs. The Florida location is completely under Donald's control, he is always there, and it is much easier for him to enjoy private meetings at the resort rather than try to meet his mistresses at the White House or around DC or NYC. Melania has pleaded with Donald to stay away from his many trips to Mar-a-Lago , disguised as golfing holidays, but he refuses to give in to her requests," our insider adds.

[Mar 25, 2018] Melania Trump Reportedly Declines Divorce While Donald Is In Office Because Of Their Son Barron

One more rumor from anonymous source propagated by neoliberal MSM
Notable quotes:
"... Jimmy Kimmel Live ..."
Feb 07, 2018 | www.inquisitr.com

Thanks to Barron Trump his parents are not heading for divorce just yet.

When the news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump had an affair with adult star Stormy Daniels, many people assumed that his wife, first lady Melania Trump was going to divorce him. The FLOTUS has been noticed for allegedly refusing to hold her husband's hand in public. Others also spotted her rolling her eyes while the POTUS was greeting a few cheerleaders during the Super Bowl party on February 4. However, the Slovenia native is far from divorcing her husband of 13 years while he is still in the presidential seat for a good reason.

An insider close to Melania Trump recently told Hollywood Life that she is not thinking about making a move to divorce her husband while he is in office because of their son Barron .

According to the source, the 47-year-old former model wants to focus only on the young boy and his well-being. She doesn't want to get distracted with the alleged affair between the POTUS and Stormy Daniels. She apparently wants her family intact for the sake of her 11-year-old son.

... ... ...

Because of her recent actions that didn't go unnoticed, many people believe that Melania Trump is only trying to save her marriage for her son and not just because of being the first lady of the United States. The alleged extramarital affair of her husband and Daniels in 2006 may have caused their marriage to hit a snag. The adult star, though, has been inconsistent with her statements, which is one reason that some Republicans are not convinced that the president had an affair with the 38-year-old Louisiana native.

An alleged statement from Daniels surfaced on January 30 with her signature, saying that she denies the affair. Howbeit, during her interview during Jimmy Kimmel Live , the adult film star said that she is not aware of the denial statement that surfaced earlier that day.

[Mar 25, 2018] Stormy Daniels, Porn Star And Possible Senate Candidate, Arrested For Domestic Violence

Jul 29, 2009 | talkingpointsmemo.com
Stormy Daniels, an adult entertainer who's considering running for Senate from Louisiana, was arrested Saturday on a domestic violence charge in Tampa, Fla.

Daniels was charged with battery after she allegedly hit her husband, Michael Mosny, over the head with her hands. According to the police report , she was angry about a bill Mosny hadn't paid and about the way his father had done the laundry. She broke a flower pot and a few glass candle holders, threw their wedding album on the floor and allegedly hit her husband while struggling to get the car keys from him. She denied hitting him intentionally.

https://cdn.districtm.io/ids/index.html

Neither Mosny nor Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, were injured. Daniels was held overnight and released on $1,000 bond.

The porn star formed an exploratory committee in May, the first step in a possible Senate run against Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), whose social conservative reputation was tarnished by the D.C. Madam prostitution scandal.

[Mar 25, 2018] Playboy model Karen McDougal I did OK in Trump affair interview

Looks like she is pretty calculating woman...
Amazing neoliberal MSM interest in any dirt that can hurt Trump ;-)
Mar 25, 2018 | www.nydailynews.com
detailing an alleged 2006 romance with Donald Trump , then flew home to celebrate her 47th birthday with friends in Arizona, sources told the Daily News.

On Thursday, the former Playboy Playmate sat down with Anderson Cooper at 6 Columbus Hotel and poured her heart out in a detailed account of what she says was a 10-month fling with the President.

His reps have denied the affair.

McDougal said in the interview that she and Trump had been in love -- and that she now deeply regrets helping him cheat on his wife.

When cameras stopped rolling, she was asked how she felt about the confessional.

"Well, aside from the fact I have a headache and a cold -- I'm my own worst critic -- I think I came across as credible," she said, according to a source. "But I'm not an attorney."

When assured by her handlers that she'd done a great job, a source who was present said McDougal argued she could have been more succinct in explaining why she decided to come forward more than a decade later.

"A friend of mine leaked the story and now that it's out I want to tell my side," she explained.

McDougal also wasn't expecting a marathon grilling.

"I thought this was going to be 20 minutes, I didn't know it would be over an hour," she admitted.

McDougal and her team watched a playback of the interview, which featured an old photo of her that was taken prior to her breast implant removal in January. The model told People magazine in February that the implants were causing her illness.

"That's me on the end," she pointed. "That's when I had breasts."

McDougal cried when watching the part of the interview where Cooper asked what she'd say to Melania, sources told The News. "I'm sorry," she told Cooper. "I wouldn't want it done to me." Tears turned to laughter when a member of the production asked McDougal if she was aware that Hillary Clinton taped an interview in the same hotel suite.

"I didn't know that, but I can tell you I didn't have the questions in advance," she joked.

One member of the production crew asked McDougal if she'd met porn star Stormy Daniels, who also claims she had an affair with the President and is hoping to be released from a confidentiality agreement that could see her punished for speaking up. She said that she has not, nor does she plan to.

[Mar 25, 2018] Trump impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it represents a different set of threats

Notable quotes:
"... The Right Man ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

For the time being, Trump's lack of impulse control and self-discipline may frustrate his strongman tendencies at home, but that's cold comfort, given the damage he can do with U.S. military might. In "the most powerful office in the world," impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it represents a different set of threats than the ones that most concern Frum.

"Trumpocracy has left Americans less safe against foreign dangers," Frum charges, by which he seems to mean mainly Russian cybermeddling. He spends an order of magnitude more time on that subject than on the foreign dangers Trump has gratuitously stoked with brinksmanship on North Korea.

In the near term, what's to be most feared is the president lumbering into a major conflict with either (or both?) of the two remaining "Axis of Evil" members. Uncertain plans for a North Korean summit aside, that risk may be increasing. As the New York Times 's Maggie Haberman recently explained , Trump "was terrified of the job the first six months, and now feels like he has a command of it" -- a terrifying thought in itself. Newly emboldened, the president wants unrepentant uber-hawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo for national security advisor and secretary of state, respectively. "Let Trump be Trump" looks a lot like letting Trump be Bush-era Frum .

In fairness, Frum does seem queasy about all this, but he's awkwardly positioned to sound the alarm. The author who declared that it's "victory or holocaust" in the war on terror and lauded George W. Bush as The Right Man may not be the right man to guide us through the particular dangers of this moment in history.

We may yet avoid a disaster on the scale of the Iraq war, aided by what Frum terms "the surge in civic spirit that has moved Americans since the ominous night of November 8, 2016" -- or God's special affection for fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Perhaps, in hindsight, the Trump years will look more like a Great Beclowning than a Long National Nightmare. If so, we may look back on this period and say, as "43" apparently did of Trump's First Inaugural: "that was some weird shit " -- and give thanks that Trump wasn't as competent as Bush.

Gene Healy is a vice president of the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency .

[Mar 25, 2018] Hawks Always Fail Upwards by Daniel Larison

This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
"... National Review ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on John Bolton is exactly right:

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL]

So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again.

There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.

Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance." Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what does?

Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like Bolton never deserved a first chance.

French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and no point in listening to anything they have to say.

[Mar 25, 2018] When Trump goes low, go low by Richard Cohen

They definitely can ruin his marriage, but not much other then that.
Mar 19, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Michelle Obama had it all wrong. " When they go low, we go high " is no way to deal with Donald Trump.

A porn star, a playmate and a contestant who washed out on his reality TV show have become exemplars for doing battle with a president for whom practically nothing is out of bounds. They are showing that the most effective way to deal with him is on his own terms.

The three -- Stormy Daniels , Karen McDougal and Summer Zervos -- are suing for the right to tell their stories about him. The headaches and unforeseeable turns that these legal fights present would be well understood by a man who, according to a USA Today tally, has filed at least 3,500 lawsuits of his own, for grievances real and imagined. When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post

Adult entertainer Daniels has outmaneuvered the president and his inept lawyer Michael Cohen at nearly every turn. They apparently believed they had bought her silence about the year-long extramarital affair she claims to have had with the future president a decade ago.

But it turns out they had only rented it. When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post

When Daniels signed a nondisclosure agreement in the weeks before the 2016 election, hardly anyone thought Trump had much chance of winning, especially after the furor over comments he had made about women on the now-famous "Access Hollywood" tape . So $130,000 to stay quiet must have looked too good for Daniels to pass up. (Cohen said the money came from his personal home equity line of credit.)

With her alleged paramour in the Oval Office, however, there is surely much more to be gained from her account, so she is trying to slip free from the agreement on the technicality that Trump never signed it.

Backing out of a deal if there's a better one to be had? Trump did it for decades. "I've made a fortune by using debt, and if things don't work out I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that's a smart thing, not a stupid thing," he boasted to CBS during his presidential campaign. As president, he has reversed himself so many times that his befuddled allies on Capitol Hill are never sure where or if he will land on most issues.

Now, instead of Daniels, it is Trump who is remaining silent -- conspicuously so. No tweets, no vicious nicknames, no threats. She, meanwhile, is going on "60 Minutes," where viewership is likely to be some of its highest ever. Count that as another blow to a president who measures the import of every event by its television ratings.

Daniels seems to be having a great time. She has become a ninja master in Trump's own medium, smiting trolls on Twitter with a verve that my colleague Monica Hesse compared to "a very smart cat batting off a series of very dumb mice, who come at her under the delusion that the relationship is reversed." When one man tweeted that she was a "scank," she responded by correcting his spelling.

McDougal, who was Playboy's 1998 Playmate of the Year, claims to have had an affair with Trump around the same time as Daniels. But in her case, the arrangement that she is trying to escape is the one she made with the National Enquirer's parent company, whose chief executive, David Pecker, is close to Trump. In her lawsuit, McDougal claims American Media was working secretly with Cohen to keep her quiet; the company says it contacted Trump's lawyer only to vet her story.

A takedown by a former playmate would be a sour endnote indeed, given how assiduously Trump styled himself as Playboy's ideal of libidinous masculinity. In 1990, the magazine's cover featured the married real-estate developer posing with another playmate, Brandi Brandt. She wore only his tuxedo jacket.

When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post

He hung a framed copy of that Playboy in his Trump Tower office. "I was one of the few men in the history of Playboy to be on the cover," Trump once boasted to a Post reporter.

Zervos, a former contestant from "The Apprentice," presents a different kind of threat, and potentially the most serious one. She is one of more than a dozen women who have accused the president of unwanted sexual advances, in her case that he kissed her and groped her breasts when she met with him to discuss a job. During his presidential campaign, Trump called them all liars, and threatened to sue.

But Trump never did, empty threats being another of his favorite tactics. It was Zervos who went to court, charging defamation.

On Tuesday, the same day McDougal filed her lawsuit, a New York judge ruled that Zervos's case can go forward. It was lost on no one that the precedent cited was the one in the sexual harassment lawsuit that ultimately led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton .

The Zervos lawsuit opens the possibility that Trump's other accusers, and maybe even more women, will return to tell their stories under oath. And that the president himself will have to as well.

When Zervos was on the fifth season of "The Apprentice," Trump fired her because she interrupted him. It turns out she may get in a last word after all.

xxx

Scratch #2 is the playmate lawsuit. Scratch #3 is Summer Zervos.

xxx

What's up with powerful men who can't keep it in their pants? Then they lie... What cowards!

xxx

The blame must be shared evenly... if the men cant keep it in their pants, why are women allowing it to happen? Are they being forced against their will? If so, call the police!

xxx

Wow! What a savage piece! And very well written.

xxx

Yawwwwnn..

Why even bother with this. It just makes everyone look bad. Daniels is a low-life. The media lowers its standards by reporting it. Nobody believes Trump didn't have sex with Daniels but nobody cares. It's actually expected of someone like Trump to have an affair now and then.

You might find it unfortunate that a guy named Cohen was involved. I suggest its also unfortunate that a guy named Cohen got stuck reporting this.

xxx

Trump is a dirtbag, but the last time I checked, having an affair was not criminal offense. I don't care who he slept with, but I do care who he is screwing - which in this case is 99% of the American people. The other 1% are doing well thanks to him.

xxx

(Edited) What has stormy Daniels done for America????? Just some porn movies for money for herself and now she is blackmailing the US president. And these readers actually enjoy it????? Trump must be protected. He is our President.

xxx

Now any hooker can come and sue any guy she has slept with for money.......is this what men want???? I dont think so.

xxx

People can't arbitrarily sue people for no reason. His lawyer paid her $130,000. She obviously has something on him. And most sane men want her to win so Trump can be impeached and sent out to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement... in Antarctica.

xxx

Cant believe men are siding with adult porn actor......... a hooker.... Daniels.........who is out to make money by hook or crook. Men in America are doomed.

xxx 4 days ago

If the U.S. is such that this horrifically warped man and his monstrously greedy and incompetent cabinet are taken down by a stupid sex scandal rather than being judiciously removed by responsible people for being criminals, then the U.S. is in even more serious trouble than even rational thinkers would want to believe.

XXX 3 days ago

"How Trump avoided paying taxes on nearly $1 billion"
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/news/trump-tax-strategy-theory/index.html

"[Trump] deducted somebody else's losses," said John L. Buckley, who served as the chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation in 1993 and 1994. Since the [stiffed] bondholders were likely declaring losses for tax purposes, Trump shouldn't be able to as well. "He is double dipping big time," Buckley told the Times.

Surely, the IRS can't be too happy about multiple taxpayers taking the same ~$1 billion-loss deduction? I therefore look forward to Mueller's audit of Trump's tax returns.

And now the Dumpster finds his yacht "Trumpy!" is caught in "Stormy Weather" off the Seychelles -- LOL

But, never fear Dumpsters, we all know that the usual rules don't and never have applied to the "bouffanted buffoon" -- or so he thinks! -- LOL

Doubtless, the results of Mueller's investigations into Trump's various activities will make this crass, arrogant charlatan (and his family/associates) sorely regret he ever threw his "bouffanted hairpiece" into the political ring. Hopefully, he will ultimately be indicted and convicted for egregious financial/taxation crimes and the courts will penalize him to the extent that all of his and his family's ill-gotten assets will be expropriated, and he'll get to wear one of those ill-fitting orange jump suits too

Still, the thought of the Rev. Pence becoming POTUS fills me with equal dread.

[Mar 25, 2018] Obama sex accuser panned as a liar urges Stormy Daniels scrutiny

Mar 25, 2018 | www.washingtonexaminer.com
A man who claimed without evidence that he had sex with former President Barack Obama says the media is showing a "sickening" double standard with coverage of an alleged affair between President Trump and porn star Stormy Daniels.

Larry Sinclair's allegations involving Obama, cocaine, and a limo -- set in 1999, when Obama was a state senator -- failed to gain broad coverage for a variety of reasons, including lack of corroboration and Sinclair's record of crimes involving deceit.

But Sinclair says the media is giving too much attention and too little skepticism to claims of a 2006 affair between Daniels and Trump.

"Stormy Daniels is being pimped and pimping the media now and it's lining her pockets," Sinclair told the Washington Examine r. "I believe she had sex with him. Do I believe she's trying to twist and add to it to benefit her interests? You're damn right I do."

An interview with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is set to air Sunday on the CBS program "60 Minutes." The performer staging a national strip club tour has given other recent interviews, including to "Inside Edition" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"

Sinclair said he views Daniels' coyness about details -- as she sues to invalidate a $130,000 nondisclosure agreement -- as well as her attempt to sidestep the deal, as reasons to doubt her truthfulness. He said he watched with suspicion as she declined to say if a signature was hers.

"I do believe that there are enough contradictions by Ms. Daniels to justify questioning her motive and truthfulness," Sinclair said, citing "her statements or nonstatements in subsequent interviews implying that her signature was not her signature [and] her back-and-forth on whether Trump paid her."

"I find this whole double standard sickening, and no I am not a bigger supporter of Trump, but I am a supporter of fair and unbiased media coverage," he said. "I find the whole NDA and accepting money and then later coming back and using a completely legal incident for political and personal gain questionable."

Michael Avenatti, an attorney for Daniels, declined to address Sinclair's suggestion that the media be more skeptical of her claims.

"Is this a joke? Am I being punked?" Avenatti wrote in an email.

Sinclair -- who runs a neighborhood revitalization nonprofit in Cocoa, Fla., where he's considering a run for mayor -- said he believes the media also gives too much credence to affair claims by ex-Playboy bunny Karen McDougal and women alleging misconduct by Trump.

There are many distinctions between the allegations made by Sinclair and those made by Clifford and McDougal. For example, Sinclair lacks a photo of himself with Obama, who was married to future first lady Michelle Obama at the time of the alleged two-day relationship.

Trump has denied cheating on first lady Melania Trump, but he did pose for photos with Daniels and McDougal.

Daniels passed a polygraph in 2011, her team said this week. Sinclair allegedly failed a polygraph in 2008, but he says the tests don't mean much.

Daniels told her story to some journalists, including from Slate and In Touch magazine, before signing the October 2016 NDA, though neither published her account. She and McDougal do have a degree of corroboration from friends who attest to contemporaneous conversations or, in the case of McDougal, provided the media with a letter she allegedly wrote documenting the claims.

Sinclair's allegations, by contrast, lack documentary evidence or corroboration from third parties. And whereas Trump has a decadeslong history of romantic relationships with women, Sinclair's gender does not match Obama's reported preference.

"It seems to me that there is a world of difference between the two stories and that there is no double standard," said Joel Kaplan, associate dean for professional graduate studies at the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.

"Sinclair is making a singular allegation without any support," Kaplan said. "Ms. Daniels' allegation is backed up by the fact that there was a settlement and a nondisclosure agreement, which certainly lends credibility to her allegations. If Mr. Sinclair was just one of 14 men making these allegations against President Obama that would be one thing and probably worthy of a story. In President Trump's case, there are multiple women who came forward. So, no I see no double standard."

The high point of Sinclair's press exposure came when he rented a room at the National Press Club in June 2008, prompting an unsuccessful campaign to block the event by journalists fearful that the venue would lend credibility to his claims.

A dueling press conference was planned by Whitehouse.com, then a pornographic website whose owner Dan Parisi had paid Sinclair $20,000 to take the polygraph that Sinclair allegedly failed. Parisi later sued Sinclair unsuccessfully for libel for saying the results were doctored.

"It wasn't until after the fact I was told the Whitehouse.com press conference didn't take place," Sinclair said, recalling that police arrested him at the press club and sent him to Delaware to face theft charges. He also had an open warrant for his arrest in Colorado for allegedly signing someone else's tax return check.

Sinclair said the Delaware and Colorado cases were misunderstandings, but admits he was convicted in Arizona for forgery in 1981, then in Florida for using a friend's credit card before getting a 16-year sentence in Colorado in the late '80s in a similar case. He was released in 1999, the same year he allegedly met Obama through a limo driver in Chicago.

In one similarity between Sinclair's allegations and those made by Daniels and McDougal, significant amounts of money changed hands, resulting in legal action and claims of wrongful gagging of the accuser.

Sinclair negotiated a deal in which he ultimately was paid $20,000 by Parisi to consent to a polygraph. A copy of the check is an exhibit in the libel case Parisi brought against Sinclair. At one point, another $10,000 was supposed to be split between two charities.

Daniels is suing to get out of nondisclosure agreement prepared by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who like the president says Daniels is lying about an affair, and McDougal is suing to get out of an NDA in which she was paid $150,000 for the rights to her story by the company that publishes the Trump-friendly National Enquirer, which didn't print the claims.

Sinclair said his Whitehouse.com deal required that he give exclusive rights for polygraphing to the company for a period of four weeks during the 2008 campaign, a claim that appears to be consistent with an email cited in court documents, and he suggests Parisi may not have acted independently in the libel lawsuit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in 2012.

Sinclair said he lost money on his 2009 book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder? in which he associates a Chicago-area killing with his affair claims.

"To journalists I would say take your time, compare statements and call out contradictions in statements and previous interviews," Sinclair said. "When it comes to polygraphs be very sure you vet the examiners conducting them and always ask for the computer scoring results as well as the examiners findings."

Parisi did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Obama's office.

[Mar 25, 2018] Ex-Playboy Model Suing To Break Silence On Affair With Trump

Mar 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
A former Playboy model who says she had an affair with President Trump is suing the National Enquirer's parent company, American Media, so that she can be released from a legal agreement barring her from discussing the relationship.

Karen McDougal filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the New York Times , after she claims the Enquirer paid her $150,000 for the story of her nine-month-long affair between 2006 and 2007, but did not publish it when she gave the account in August 2016, several months before the 2016 U.S. election.

McDougal says that Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, was secretly involved in her negotiations with A.M.I., and that both the media company and her lawyer at the time misled her about the arrangement. After speaking with The New Yorker last month after it obtained notes she kept on her alleged affair, McDougal said she was warned by A.M.I. that " any further disclosures would breach Karen's contract," and "cause considerable monetary damages ."

Cohen reportedly paid another Trump accuser, adult film actress Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels), $130,000 in exchange for signing an NDA barring her from discussing her experiences with Trump.

Trump joined a legal effort last week suing Clifford for $20 million over what they claim is a breach of her NDA. Meanwhile, both women's claims against Trump are being construed by federal watchdog group Common Cause as illegal campaign contributions - arguing that they could constitute in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign.

Ms. Clifford and Ms. McDougal tell strikingly similar stories about their experiences with Mr. Trump, which included alleged trysts at the same Lake Tahoe golf tournament in 2006, dates at the same Beverly Hills hotel and promises of apartments as gifts.

Their stories first surfaced in the The Wall Street Journal four days before the election , but got little traction in the swirl of news that followed Mr. Trump's victory. The women even shared the same Los Angeles lawyer, Keith Davidson, who has long worked for clients who sell their stories to the tabloids . - NYT

"The lawsuit filed today aims to restore her right to her own voice," McDougal's attorney, Peter K Stris told the Times . "We intend to invalidate the so-called contract that American Media Inc. imposed on Karen so she can move forward with the private life she deserves ."

As the Wall Street Journal reported in November, 2016;

The tabloid-newspaper publisher reached an agreement in early August with Karen McDougal, the 1998 Playmate of the Year. American Media Inc., which owns the Enquirer, hasn't published anything about what she has told friends was a consensual romantic relationship she had with Mr. Trump in 2006. At the time, Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania.

Quashing stories that way is known in the tabloid world as "catch and kill." - WSJ

In a written statement, American Media Inc. claims it wasn't buying McDougal's story for $150,000 - rather, they were buying two years' worth of her fitness columns, magazine covers and exclusive life rights to any relationship she has had with a then-married man. "AMI has not paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump," reads the statement.

American Media Inc. CEO David J. Pecker is a long-standing friend of President Trump.

[Mar 25, 2018] Stormy Daniels -- not Robert Mueller -- might spell Trump's doom by Richard Cohen

Mar 25, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

It was just a little thing, a scratch, that he failed to treat and gangrene set in and it was killing him. They were on safari, in Africa, and their truck had broken down and the rescue plane was never going to make it in time. This is the way Harry died in Ernest Hemingway's " The Snows of Kilimanjaro ." I reread it the other day because of President Trump. I think of him as Harry. Stormy Daniels is the scratch.

The saga of the adult-film star and the juvenile president has become a rollicking affair. Each step of the way, Daniels has out-Trumped Trump. She is as shameless as he, a publicity hound who adheres to the secular American religion that, to be famous, even for nothing much, is to be rich. By and large, that's not true, but then there is Kim Kardashian to prove otherwise.

Daniels alleges she and Trump had an affair beginning in 2006. The president's lawyer and his press secretary allege that the allegations are not true. The lawyer, Michael Cohen, does admit to paying Daniels $130,000 , apparently to keep her silent about an affair that, according to Cohen, did not happen. To do this, Cohen set up a private Delaware company and concocted false names for everyone involved -- the allegation-maker and the allegation-denier. Only the name Delaware is legit.

[Mar 25, 2018] Facebook Scandal Blows Away 'Russiagate' by Finian CUNNINGHAM

Notable quotes:
"... The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in St Petersburg. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

Now, at last, a real "election influence" scandal -- and, laughably, it's got nothing to do with Russia. The protagonists are none other than the "all-American" US social media giant Facebook and a British data consultancy firm with the academic-sounding name Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is being called upon by British and European parliamentarians to explain his company's role in a data-mining scandal in which up to 50 million users of the social media platform appear to have had their private information exploited for electioneering purposes.

Exploited, that is, without their consent or knowledge. Facebook is being investigated by US federal authorities for alleged breach of privacy and, possibly, electoral laws. Meanwhile, Cambridge Analytica looks less an academic outfit and more like a cheap marketing scam.

Zuckerberg has professed "shock" that his company may have unwittingly been involved in betraying the privacy of its users. Some two billion people worldwide are estimated to use the social media networking site to share personal data, photos, family news and so on, with "friends".

Now it transpires that at least one firm, London-based Cambridge Analytica, ran a profitable business by harvesting the publicly available data on Facebook for electioneering purposes for which it was contracted to do. The harvested information was then used to help target election campaigning.

Cambridge Analytica was reportedly contracted by the Trump campaign for the 2016 presidential election. It was also used during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 when Britons voted to leave the European Union.

This week the British news outlet Channel 4 broadcast a stunning investigation in which chief executives at Cambridge Analytica were filmed secretly boasting about how their firm helped win the US presidential election for Donald Trump.

More criminally, the data company boss, Alexander Nix, also revealed that they were prepared to gather information which could be used for blackmailing and bribing politicians, including with the use of online sex traps.

The repercussions from the scandal have been torrid. Following the Channel 4 broadcast, Cambridge Analytica has suspended its chief executive pending further investigation. British authorities have sought a warrant to search the company's computer servers.

Moreover, Zuckerberg's Facebook has seen $50 billion wiped of its stock value in a matter of days. What is at issue is the loss of confidence among its ordinary citizen-users about how their personal data is vulnerable to third party exploitation without their consent.

Cambridge Analytica is just the tip of an iceberg. The issue has raised concerns that other third parties, including criminal identity-theft gangs, are also mining Facebook as a mammoth marketing resource. A resource that is free to exploit because of the way that ordinary users willingly publish their personal profiles.

The open, seemingly innocent nature of Facebook connecting millions of people -- a "place where friends meet" as its advertising jingle goes -- could turn out to be an ethical nightmare over privacy abuse.

Other social media companies like Amazon, Google, WhatsApp and Twitter are reportedly apprehensive about the consequences of widespread loss of confidence among consumers in privacy security. One of the biggest economic growth areas over the past decade -- social media -- could turn out to be another digital bubble that bursts spectacularly due to the latest Facebook scandal.

But one other, perhaps more, significant fallout from the scandal is the realistic perspective it provides on the so-called "Russiagate" debacle.

For well over a year now, the US and European corporate news media have been peddling claims about how Russian state agents allegedly "interfered" in several national elections.

The Russian authorities have consistently rejected the alleged "influence campaigns" as nothing but a fabrication to slander Russia. Moscow has repeatedly asked for evidence to verify the relentless claims -- and none has been presented.

The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in St Petersburg.

It still remains unclear and unconvincing how, or if, the supposed Russian hackers were linked to the Russian state, and how they had any impact on the voting intentions of millions of Americans.

Alternatively, there is plausible reason to believe that the so-called Russian troll farm in St Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency, may have been nothing other than a dingy marketing vehicle, trying to use the internet like thousands of other firms around the world hustling for advertising business. Firms like Cambridge Analytica.

The whole Russiagate affair has been a storm in a teacup, and Mueller seems to be desperate to produce some, indeed any, result for his inquisitorial extravaganza.

The amazing thing to behold is how the alleged Russian "influence campaign" narrative has become an accepted truth, propagated and repeated by Western governments and media without question.

Pentagon defense strategy papers, European Union policy documents, NATO military planning, among others, have all cited alleged "Russian interference" in American and European elections as "evidence" of Moscow's "malign" geopolitical agenda.

The purported Russiagate allegations have led to a grave deepening of Cold War tensions between Western states and Russia to the point where an all-out war is at risk of breaking out.

Last week, the Trump administration slapped more sanctions on Russian individuals and state security services for "election meddling".

No proof or plausible explanation has ever been provided to substantiate the allegations of a Russian state "influence campaign'. The concept largely revolves around innuendo and a deplorable prejudice against Russia based on irrational Cold War-style Russophobia.

However, one possible beneficial outcome from the latest revelations of an actual worldwide Facebook election-influence campaign, driven by an ever-so British data consultancy, is that the scandal puts the claims against Russia into stark, corrective perspective.

A perspective which shows that the heap of official Western claims against Russia of "influencing elections" is in actual fact negligible if not wholly ridiculous.

It's a mountain versus a hill of beans. A tornado versus a storm in a teacup. Time to get real on how Western citizens are being really manipulated by their own consumer-capitalist cultures.

Tags: Facebook Russiagate

[Mar 25, 2018] Germans media and voting for Mama Merkel

Notable quotes:
"... The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100% under CIA control ..."
"... yes.... 100% right..... the servility of Germany with Merkel is disgusting and unbearable ..."
"... It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Serg Derbst • 2 days ago ,

I have the same worries. The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100% under CIA control , has been ramping up anti-Russia propaganda since weeks. I didn't think it would be possible after the Ukraine conflict but it is even worse now. The comments of this filthy lunatic Boris Johnson but also of his boss-bitch Theresa May have been way below any line of decency. It's even below the kind of rhetoric Hitler has used when he talked about other statesmen such as (this fat, ugly war-criminal and mass murderer) Winston Churchill.

But it's not "the West" that is going to war, it is the Anglo-American establishment. "West" is an artificial propaganda term that should not be used anyway, because all it denotes is the countries dominated by Anglo-America. Germany and France, the only countries powerful enough to stop Anglo-American madness, are usually dancing to the tune of Warshington and London, but I am not so sure if they will really go all the way here, especially with Iran. Also and despite all the propaganda, while German and French people may not trust Russia and see Putin as a "dictator", they also see the US regime (especially with the Trumpet in charge) as nothing but a dangerous, trigger-happy war machinery. There is no way you could sell a war against Iran to them, also not the rest of Europe including Britain. I even have doubts about whether the American public would swallow such a war.

Either way, it will be a disaster for the "West" - economically, politically, militarily. In fact, it will be the end of the "West" and of the Anglo-American empire including the Zionist colony. So in the end there might be a great result of yet another horror. What Russia really needs to do now is to give both Syria and Iran the full power of Russian air defence.

CyricRenner Serg Derbst • a day ago ,

Having spent some time in Germany, I have to agree with these comments. If you think the Propaganda is bad in the US and the UK, in Germany it is even worse. It is almost as if they are in competition to be the most servile and obedient to their masters. It is if history doesn't even exist. It is 1941 all over again. The difference being Germany has nothing to fight with and if it comes to war they will be absolutely pulverized to nuclear ash.

This is how stupid the media is to hype this Anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, 7 days a week. There is no real "alternative" news that I could find either. If there is a silver lining in all this though, is that many Germans don't take the media seriously at all anymore. When you overcook the pot, this is what can happen. Just like that fool Boris Johnson. He has now compared Putin to Hitler and the 1936 olympics. How stupid can this buffoon be? You think you can just carry on with business as usual once this stupid provocation with the poisoned spy blows over after saying something like that? He hasn't just insulted Putin, he has insulted all of Russia who sacrificed more than any other country to stop Hitler. I can't believe what low IQ clowns the UK is producing as politicians these days. It is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Nationalist Globalist Oligarch CyricRenner • a day ago ,

Does it really matter if the so called Germans take the media seriously?

They keep voting for Mama Merkel, that really tells me quite a bit about the people living in Germany and their political concerns.

Peter Jennings Nationalist Globalist Oligarch • 19 hours ago ,

Has Germany ever had an election without US interference? I would imagine that securing power for anyone they choose in the EU has been a doddle for the US, even Hitler's daughter. That would be a sick joke typical of US neocons.

Nationalist Globalist Oligarch Peter Jennings • 16 hours ago ,

Has the USA ever had an election with out interference from its ruling class?

Seems to me the only people really being represented anywhere are the elite, the common citizen is just unimportant fodder to be led and manipulated.

Canosin CyricRenner • a day ago ,

yes.... 100% right..... the servility of Germany with Merkel is disgusting and unbearable .....

wilmers13 CyricRenner • 3 hours ago ,

As a former journalist in Germany I agree. All German news and current affairs are sanitized. People who object to too much power in the hands of the US on German soil or who are against the wars will be sidelined or blacklisted, depending on what their job is. "They" prepare for a new war, or they would not need a new billion $ military hospital near Ramstein. It said in one article that the German government could not prevent it and had to contribute, too. Pawns.

On the whole, though, what they prepare is NOT a war by the West, it is by the US for Full Spectrum Dominance. They rope in allies,sure, but I'd like to be optimistic. After the Iraq and ME experiences the populations (also here in Australia) are not enthusiastic. So maybe this time it will be US vs .... and they cannot hide behind a coalition.

The governments of Germany and Australia always kowtow of course. Ramstein and Pine Gap are crucial for the warmongers.

Serg Derbst CyricRenner • 5 hours ago ,

Thank you for recognizing this, but you're wrong about the German alternative scene. I think it is one of the strongest out there, it is just, well, German. Not so aggressive and more analytical. If you ask me, what the world needs is German Spirit, but this spirit has been oppressed (largely voluntarily, I admit) for the past 70 years or so, but it is still there.

And when I say German, I mean the real meaning of it, so the cultural heritage of the German language. Switzerland, Austria and others are definitely included. Do you speak German?

Play Hide
joe CyricRenner • 9 hours ago ,

The globalists need low IQ people to carry out the water for them but their days are numbered anyways...

Peter Jennings CyricRenner • 19 hours ago ,

It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. Most sit there and view it all as a form of entertainment. Maybe it's the reason why many people in the west are ambivalent.

[Mar 25, 2018] The US neocons demand to close the "Bear Gap" with Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Woah. What kind of bear is that? That's not on the approved play list. Nope, not a black bear, not a grizly bear, not even a teddy bear. What's that you say, all's fair in love and war? Well that means just one thing America. We have a ...... Bear Gap! Yes, a Bear Gap. ..."
"... I demand we take action to close the Bear Gap! and do it soon. We better look to our best and brightest, in the heart of the defense establishment, bowels of the think tanks the swamp. ..."
"... I suggest you try treating the neocons like bridesmaids at a wedding; because they all know they should be the one to marry the groom. ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

So Coach Trump has brought in Bombing Bolton to strengthen the shooting line? He never did win a peace but he sure knows how to leave a nation in pieces. Well, as the saying goes, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. I wonder what the opposing coach is going to do? Say "hold my vodka" and surprise the US? That'll get the right wingers laughing. Send in your best coach, go ahead, we dare ya.

What kind of bear is that?

Woah. What kind of bear is that? That's not on the approved play list. Nope, not a black bear, not a grizly bear, not even a teddy bear. What's that you say, all's fair in love and war? Well that means just one thing America. We have a ...... Bear Gap! Yes, a Bear Gap.

I demand we take action to close the Bear Gap! and do it soon. We better look to our best and brightest, in the heart of the defense establishment, bowels of the think tanks the swamp. I'm sure there's something right there in the 1,200 page omni-bulls*&$ spending bill you can use. Just say you read it in there somewhere - because nobody else read that damn thing before they voted for it either. What do you think they are, responsible leaders? So take the kind of action only you can do.

No, not that. This takes real strategy. I suggest you try treating the neocons like bridesmaids at a wedding; because they all know they should be the one to marry the groom. So give them just what they deserve:

Bridalcat

Yep, that ought to do it. We may still have a Bear Gap, but if there is one thing we have no shortage of in this age of soy-boys and cat ladies in waiting: it's cats. So toss them a bob. That'll keep'm busy for awhile.

[Mar 25, 2018] John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very powerful kompromat on him

Mar 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Outrage Beyond , 23 March 2018 at 09:04 AM

John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very powerful kompromat on him.

Numerous sources allege that Bolton forced his wife (now ex-wife) into group sex at a swinger's club. Did someone get it on film, tape, or some other recording media?

Given the extreme fervor of Bolton's Zionism, the answer seems obvious.

Dr. Puck -> LondonBob... , 23 March 2018 at 12:14 PM
Bolton, to me, is worse than McMaster, is decidedly a neocon, and may well end up being the intellectual impetus behind a shiny new war in the ME or the Korean peninsula.

Although Trump the candidate offered a sketch of his FP views, including his well known declaration about the catastrophic Iraq war, today one can itemize where the US military is currently robustly engaged.

If Bolton can dial back his hawkishness with respect to Russia, not mention--too much--Iraq, he and POTUS may likely find alignment about which will be the first regime to be targeted by our standoff capabilities. imao

Anna -> falcemartello ... , 23 March 2018 at 03:01 PM
Bolton is a dead hand of Cheney. "They are dead before they go..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wn3Eey6dY
catherine -> semiconscious... , 23 March 2018 at 03:02 PM
I agree, people shouldn't imply, they should say straight out what they think.
So allow me.

It appears that the uber Israeli Sheldon Adelson who was the largest campaign donor to Trump and Nikki Haley and also employs John Bolton is dictating US policy to Trump.

If it trots and barks like an Adelson, then its a Adelson poddle.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/13/nikki-haley-trump-iran-whisperer-243772

[Mar 25, 2018] Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on Syria

Mar 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Petri Krohn | Mar 24, 2018 11:37:39 AM | 79

@Rusty Pipes , Mar 24, 2018 8:09:45 AM | 75

Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on Syria.

Immediately assigning blame is one of the signs of a false-flag operation. If Mossad killed Hariri, Bolton would know about it. He would also know if Mossad whacked the Skripals.

The political dividing line in America may not be Left vs. Right or Democrats vs. Republicans or anti-war vs. pro-war but Russiagate believers vs. realist who know it is all a false-flag.

Thierry Meyssan believes that Rex Tillerson fell for the Skripal hoax and that is why Trump fired him. I said something similar here on MoA

[Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras

Highly recommended!
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. "
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
Notable quotes:
"... For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. ..."
"... First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state. ..."
"... Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
"... Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent "election" of Yeltsin. ..."
"... With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US. ..."
"... As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war. ..."
"... Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage. ..."
"... The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals. ..."
"... Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies. ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | unz.com
Originally from: www.globalresearch.ca Prof. James Petras Global Research, March 21, 2018 Region: Europe , Russia and FSU Theme: History , Intelligence , US NATO War Agenda

Introduction

For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war.

The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May . The Brits have claimed that Russian secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England , threatening the sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a military build-up.

A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this anti-Russian animus.

Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?

This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.

The Historical Context for Western Aggression

Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990's account for the current surge in Western hostility to Russia.

First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state. Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent "election" of Yeltsin. Fourthly, the West degraded Russia's military and scientific institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia's borders. Fifthly, the West insured that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba, North Korea, Libya etc.

With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.

Russia's historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia's recovery and control of its economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.

As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages of the 1990's. The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.

Russia's economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports. President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO's funded opposition parties and politicians.

As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war.

The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western public for heightened military confrontations.

Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage.

President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is the opposition of Yeltsin -- he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and defends Russia's borders and allies.

Conclusion

In a summary response to the opening questions.

The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals. Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies.

The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% . .Vladimir Putin secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.

Russia's display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to attack.

The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to break with the EU.

President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda; which do not include the UK.

In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.

Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin. The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors -- and decide it is their better judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.

*

Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the CRG.

[Mar 24, 2018] I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he is.

Mar 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack 24 March 2018 at 06:03 PM

I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he is.

Yesterday in my Youtube recommended list was at least half a dozen channels with headlines expressing horror at the appointment of Bolton as National Security Adviser. Clearly there has been a backlash in quite a few quarters that this appointment is simply lunatic - of a lunatic.

So naturally today we see people trying to play down the absolute stark insanity of Trump appointing this clown.

The only thing we can hope for is that before Bolton does too much damage that Trump gets tired of him, as he has everyone else in his administration, and fires him. But given Trump's history, all we can expect then is that he appoints Nikki Haley to the same post.

Russia, ever patient, issued a statement saying they're ready to work with Bolton. Privately they must be wondering why they didn't develop Novichok so they could use it on him.

Meanwhile the Democrats are trotting out all the hot women they claim had affairs with Trump. Hello, Democrats! Anyone remember Bill Clinton? At least Trump has a wife good-looking enough to maybe keep him home at night.

[Mar 24, 2018] Does Bolton appointment means the return to Monroe doctrine?

Mar 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

bevin | Mar 24, 2018 2:28:24 PM | 82

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the real danger from Bolton is that, in Trumpian fashion, he will return to those good old days when the Cold War was ending and the US went hog wild in Central America.

Like a bruised and beaten bully who's just had his come-uppance in the pub who, returning home, angry and impotent beats up the wife and kids and threatens the neighbours, Uncle Sam is returning, his tail between his legs, from the middle east to his home turf.

Look out Cuba! Look out Venezuela!

The Contras are back in business. Ecuador-sorry Julian- looks about to crumble. Honduras, Paraguay, Haiti, Brazil and Argentina have all been rescued from their own people. Things are beginning to look like the 80s again except that this time there are hardly any 'communists' left to kill. Military dictatorships are back, death squads are bigger than ever.

And, best of all, from the Bolton/Trump viewpoint, the dangers of running into Russian or Chinese backed resistance is negligible, the money to be made is infinite. One Continent from north pole to south, run by a mafia based in Washington.

Its what Making America Great Again means-a return to the Monroe Doctrine and letting up on the mad dream of global hegemony. There's plenty of poor suckers for everyone to exploit a billion or so.

There's only one caveat-Israel. Israel undoubtedly wants a war with Iran, just as it wants to smash up Syria (or get the US to do it for them) but I just can't see the many local interested parties allowing it. Perhaps moving the Embassy to Jerusalem and getting the Guatemalans, Hondurans and Solomon Islanders to do the same, is all that they are going to get from Trump- a gesture without meaning. A con from the grifter himself.

[Mar 24, 2018] John Bolton: The Angriest Neocon by Adam Zagorin

Nov 16, 2007 | content.time.com

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have become accustomed to taking flak from Democratic (and even some G.O.P.) legislators when she testifies on Capitol Hill, but some of the most ferocious criticism she has recently faced comes from an unlikely source: John Bolton, the fiery conservative who served under Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In his new memoir, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, Bolton -- known to be close to Vice President Dick Cheney -- outlines some of the internal foreign policy battles in the Administration of George W. Bush, and paints President Bush himself as betraying his own gut instinct.

Bolton's book covers his childhood as the son of a Baltimore fireman, his days at Yale Law School and his service in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. But it's the brickbats he reserves for Rice and fellow diplomats and civil servants in the current Administration that grab the most attention. First as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and then as U.N. ambassador, Bolton emerges as an outspoken unilateralist and an opponent of treaties and international institutions ranging from the Kyoto climate convention to the International Court of Criminal Justice. And he has been a vocal opponent, both inside and outside the Administration, of negotiations with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs.

Bolton's outspoken policy views have long been familiar, but what's most interesting about his new book is the sheer enthusiasm with which he has adopted the mantle of the most vocal neoconservative critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, only months after resigning from the Bush team when the Senate for the second time refused to confirm his nomination to the U.N. post.

Bolton accuses the Administration of laxity in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea and an Iran intent on obtaining the bomb, not to mention its efforts to arrange a Middle East peace conference. But implicit in Bolton's bomb-throwing is a startling admission: that his never-ending battle against "pragmatists" and those less ideologically committed inside the most conservative administration in decades has been lost. In an interview with TIME, Bolton said: "Secretary Condoleezza Rice is the dominant voice on national security and there is no one running even a close second; her ascendancy is undisputed."

So where does that leave Bolton allies like Cheney and his hard-line advisers, and the few remaining neocons scattered through the national security bureaucracy? "You will never know what the VP's exact interaction with the President is," says Bolton, "But the VP is still closer to the President's basic instincts than anyone else." Bolton's explanation for the shift in White House policy: "The President may be distracted by the Iraq war or other events... but there's no doubt that the President has moved heartbreakingly away from his own deepest impulses on the three principal issues of controversy (North Korea, Iran and Middle East peace); what is happening now is contrary to his basic instincts."

On Iran, Bolton says former Secretary of State Colin Powell was too intent on mollifying U.S. allies like France, Britain and Germany. This caused Powell to offer Iran too many "carrots" -- trade and commercial inducements -- if Tehran would rein in its pursuit of atomic materials. To a large degree Rice, in Bolton's view, perpetuated this strategy even though, he believes, there is almost no chance that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions. As a result, he says, the U.S. has wasted time on "four and half years of failed diplomacy" indulging Iran with unnecessarily accommodationist negotiations, a period Iran has used to advance its nuclear acquisitions and research.

On North Korea, Bolton cites (unconfirmed) reports of the Hermit Kingdom's collaboration with Syria on a secret nuclear facility as evidence that the denuclearization deal between the U.S. and North Korea is not working. Talks with North Korea continue, he notes, and the U.S. looks set to invite Syria to its Middle East peace conference later this month. Uncomfortable issues are not being raised, Bolton charges, for fear of disrupting negotiations that he sees as pointless to begin with.

So what are the prospects for a return to the muscular unilateralism that Bolton favors? "There's a possibility that events in the external world will validate our position and give the President a means to return to his gut," the former U.N. ambassador told TIME. "But until and unless external events prove that current policies are on the wrong track, there is no countervailing or obvious force inside this administration that is going to produce a course correction. "

[Mar 24, 2018] Bolton plans to fire dozens of White House officials

Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com
John Bolton, US President Donald Trump's incoming hawkish national security adviser, is reportedly planning a massive dismissal of staff at the National Security Council, aiming to remove dozens of White House officials.

Sources aware of the changes told Foreign Policy that Bolton is preparing to "clean house" and remove nearly all of the political appointees brought in by his predecessor.

"Bolton can and will clean house," one former White House official told Foreign Policy. One other source said, "He is going to remove almost all the political [appointees] McMaster brought in."

Another former official said that any National Security Council officials appointed under former President Obama "should start packing their shit."

Trump and Bolton see eye to eye on their hawkish foreign policy, especially when it comes to North Korea and Iran, and are equally averse to multilateral diplomacy, whether that means the UN or working with the European Union.

A history of bellicosity

Bolton, an outspoken advocate of military action who served in the administration of former US president George W. Bush, has called for action against Iran and North Korea.

"He is unabashed about this," said Mark Groombridge, a former top adviser to Bolton at the State Department and United Nations pointing to his views on preemptive warfare.

"He has no problems with the doctrine of preemption and feels the greatest threat that the United States faces is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

The Washington Post reports that at the White House, Bolton is likely to reinforce Trump's "America First" view of the world. Both Trump and Bolton share a long-standing animosity toward any treaties, international laws or alliances that limit America's freedom to act on the world stage.

[Mar 24, 2018] Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba.

Notable quotes:
"... When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage. ..."
"... The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere 24 March 2018 at 04:50 PM

Paul Pillar says:

> The most egregious recent instances of arm twisting arose in George W. Bush's administration but did not involve Iraq. The twister was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba. Bolton wrote his own public statements on the issues and then tried to get intelligence officers to endorse them.

According to what later came to light when Bolton was nominated to become ambassador to the United Nations, the biggest altercation involved Bolton's statements about Cuba's allegedly pursuing a biological weapons program. When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage.

The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate -- and this comment came from someone who described himself as a conservative Republican who supported the Bush administration's policies -- an orientation I can verify, having testified alongside him in later appearances on Capitol Hill.

> When Bolton's angry tirade failed to get the INR analyst to cave, the undersecretary demanded that the analyst be removed. Ford refused. Bolton attempted similar pressure on the national intelligence officer for Latin America, who also inconveniently did not endorse Bolton's views on Cuba. Bolton came across the river one day to our National Intelligence Council offices and demanded to the council's acting chairman that my Latin America colleague be removed.

http://lobelog.com/how-john-bolton-handles-diverse-viewpoints-and-expert-analysis/

[Mar 24, 2018] CNN's Anderson Cooper had an exclusive interview with former Playboy model Karen McDougal

Media promotion of old Trump affairs in full swing. Part of the demonization campaign which is essential for color revolution. What you can expect with Brennan hired as analyst for NBC ?
Mar 24, 2018 | www.dailywire.com

On Thursday, CNN's Anderson Cooper had an exclusive interview with former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claims that she had a 10-month relationship with Donald Trump a decade before he became President.

CNN, which is always anxious to paint Trump in the worst possible light, most likely did not get quite the response they were looking for from McDougal. While affairs cannot and should not be ever cast in a positive light, it is worth noting that McDougal spoke highly about the way Trump treated her and her friends noticed the same thing.

Speaking of Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape, McDougal said, "I had not seen that in him at all... [that's] not the man that I knew." McDougal said that her friends would tell her how they were impressed with how respectful he was toward her when they were out in public.

WATCH:

Former Playboy model McDougal on Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape: "Not the man that I knew" https://t.co/xjzeDwyHyi https://t.co/Pf6izrZDjg

-- Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) March 23, 2018

On the issue of whether or not she is coming out to hurt Trump, McDougal said, "I voted for Donald. Why would I want to damage him? That's my party, Republican Party. That's my president. I did not want to damage him or hurt him in any way, shape, or form but I also didn't want to put out the story because I didn't want my reputation to be damaged."

McDougal suggested that the reason she came forward is, according to her lawsuit , because she claims she was paid off to keep quiet and was given a "false promise to jumpstart her career as a health and fitness model."

WATCH:

"I voted for Donald. Why would I want to damage him?" Former Playboy model Karen McDougal says her intention in telling her story isn't to damage President Trump https://t.co/fpLyorn15C pic.twitter.com/V6tLUOVDkw

-- CNN (@CNN) March 23, 2018

[Mar 24, 2018] Melania Trump refuses to be bullied by anyone

The main problem for Melania is Trump. Not so much attacks by the media.
Notable quotes:
"... "What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I wouldn't want it done to me." ..."
"... McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair, saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty." ..."
"... She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry. ..."
"... "After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and said, 'I'm not that type of girl." ..."
"... "And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It hurt me that he saw me in that light." ..."
"... According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens of times." ..."
"... McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said. "There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me baby or he would call me beautiful Karen." ..."
"... quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband itself. ..."
"... Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying? ..."
"... I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children and our next generation." ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | theduran.com

Media sets double standards for itself as it tries to condemn the First Lady for standing up against bullying, all the while bullying her and her husband through infidelity allegations

... ... ...

In seemingly unrelated stories through the rest of the week attack pieces were printed by various women who claimed to have had extramarital affairs with the President during the time of his marriage to Melania. The headlines are anything from accusatory to salacious. Here are some examples:

The attack is the basest sort of hit possible, as these pieces highlight the accusation and "apology" offered by former Playmate model Karen McDougal. In the pieces this lady offers an apology to Melania for the affair with her husband, with the core of the story essentially as shown here (this is from the USA Today version):

"What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I wouldn't want it done to me."

McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair, saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty."

She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry.

"After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and said, 'I'm not that type of girl."

"And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It hurt me that he saw me in that light."

According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens of times."

McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said. "There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me baby or he would call me beautiful Karen."

Okay, so here we have a great way to humiliate a devout Slovenian Roman Catholic, who is actually quite a traditional woman, even while she was a red-hot model, by making "apologies" that are not apologies at all, but quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband itself.

Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying?

It would seem so. And on Tuesday, Mrs. Trump wasn't having it. She fought back with her own gifts, those being her characteristic elegance, but with her amazing personal strength. But, praise aside, this is what the First Lady had to say:

I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children and our next generation."

[Mar 24, 2018] CNN's Anderson Cooper had an exclusive interview with former Playboy model Karen McDougal

Media promotion of old Trump affairs in full swing. Part of the demonization campaign which is essential for color revolution. What you can expect with Brennan hired as analyst for NBC ?
Mar 24, 2018 | www.dailywire.com

On Thursday, CNN's Anderson Cooper had an exclusive interview with former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claims that she had a 10-month relationship with Donald Trump a decade before he became President.

CNN, which is always anxious to paint Trump in the worst possible light, most likely did not get quite the response they were looking for from McDougal. While affairs cannot and should not be ever cast in a positive light, it is worth noting that McDougal spoke highly about the way Trump treated her and her friends noticed the same thing.

Speaking of Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape, McDougal said, "I had not seen that in him at all... [that's] not the man that I knew." McDougal said that her friends would tell her how they were impressed with how respectful he was toward her when they were out in public.

WATCH:

Former Playboy model McDougal on Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape: "Not the man that I knew" https://t.co/xjzeDwyHyi https://t.co/Pf6izrZDjg

-- Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) March 23, 2018

On the issue of whether or not she is coming out to hurt Trump, McDougal said, "I voted for Donald. Why would I want to damage him? That's my party, Republican Party. That's my president. I did not want to damage him or hurt him in any way, shape, or form but I also didn't want to put out the story because I didn't want my reputation to be damaged."

McDougal suggested that the reason she came forward is, according to her lawsuit , because she claims she was paid off to keep quiet and was given a "false promise to jumpstart her career as a health and fitness model."

WATCH:

"I voted for Donald. Why would I want to damage him?" Former Playboy model Karen McDougal says her intention in telling her story isn't to damage President Trump https://t.co/fpLyorn15C pic.twitter.com/V6tLUOVDkw

-- CNN (@CNN) March 23, 2018

[Mar 24, 2018] Melania Trump refuses to be bullied by anyone

The main problem for Melania is Trump. Not so much attacks by the media.
Notable quotes:
"... "What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I wouldn't want it done to me." ..."
"... McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair, saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty." ..."
"... She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry. ..."
"... "After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and said, 'I'm not that type of girl." ..."
"... "And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It hurt me that he saw me in that light." ..."
"... According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens of times." ..."
"... McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said. "There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me baby or he would call me beautiful Karen." ..."
"... quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband itself. ..."
"... Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying? ..."
"... I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children and our next generation." ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | theduran.com

Media sets double standards for itself as it tries to condemn the First Lady for standing up against bullying, all the while bullying her and her husband through infidelity allegations

... ... ...

In seemingly unrelated stories through the rest of the week attack pieces were printed by various women who claimed to have had extramarital affairs with the President during the time of his marriage to Melania. The headlines are anything from accusatory to salacious. Here are some examples:

The attack is the basest sort of hit possible, as these pieces highlight the accusation and "apology" offered by former Playmate model Karen McDougal. In the pieces this lady offers an apology to Melania for the affair with her husband, with the core of the story essentially as shown here (this is from the USA Today version):

"What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I wouldn't want it done to me."

McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair, saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty."

She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry.

"After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and said, 'I'm not that type of girl."

"And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It hurt me that he saw me in that light."

According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens of times."

McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said. "There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me baby or he would call me beautiful Karen."

Okay, so here we have a great way to humiliate a devout Slovenian Roman Catholic, who is actually quite a traditional woman, even while she was a red-hot model, by making "apologies" that are not apologies at all, but quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband itself.

Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying?

It would seem so. And on Tuesday, Mrs. Trump wasn't having it. She fought back with her own gifts, those being her characteristic elegance, but with her amazing personal strength. But, praise aside, this is what the First Lady had to say:

I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children and our next generation."

[Mar 24, 2018] Perhaps a large but not too large conventional attack by US/Israel on 'industry and facilities directly related to Iran nuclear weapons development'?

If they want oil at $120 they can attack Iran.
Mar 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

fairleft , Mar 23, 2018 11:24:35 PM | 67

Don Bacon @ 54, 55

The problem with your rational approach and concern for US casualties is, obviously, that we're dealing with seriously deranged people here. When Trump, Bolton, Adelson, and Netanyahu put their four propaganda-addled minds and blood-lusting/inferiority-complex-fueled emotions together ... the challenge may be "How can we attack Iran, inflict ostensibly serious damage, not lose any of our own 'guys', and receive only a very limited response?"

Perhaps a large but not too large conventional attack by US/Israel on 'industry and facilities directly related to Iran nuclear weapons development'? Just something to throw to the big-pockets Israel First crowd in the U.S. and Yahu's domestic base.

les7 , Mar 23, 2018 11:22:41 PM | 66
The advantage of having Israel launch the attack is that the US can 'defend' them and limit Iran's ability to respond. In addition it brings the Iranian nuclear issue front and centre for the world press, allows the US to pressure the Europeans to back away from JCPOA (if only by 'informal' sanctions) and (based on Israeli media mis-information) allows the US to challenge the UN to snap-back sanctions on Iran.

I agree with comments above - the US will not directly attack Iran. There is however a great advantage to having Israel do it and then provide backup.

Bolton is the key link to see it all done

michaelj72 , Mar 23, 2018 10:31:28 PM | 62
fyi, it's war coming to a theater near you


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump/

The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War With Iran, by Gareth Porter


....More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson.

It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart.....

[Mar 24, 2018] I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he is.

Mar 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack 24 March 2018 at 06:03 PM

I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he is.

Yesterday in my Youtube recommended list was at least half a dozen channels with headlines expressing horror at the appointment of Bolton as National Security Adviser. Clearly there has been a backlash in quite a few quarters that this appointment is simply lunatic - of a lunatic.

So naturally today we see people trying to play down the absolute stark insanity of Trump appointing this clown.

The only thing we can hope for is that before Bolton does too much damage that Trump gets tired of him, as he has everyone else in his administration, and fires him. But given Trump's history, all we can expect then is that he appoints Nikki Haley to the same post.

Russia, ever patient, issued a statement saying they're ready to work with Bolton. Privately they must be wondering why they didn't develop Novichok so they could use it on him.

Meanwhile the Democrats are trotting out all the hot women they claim had affairs with Trump. Hello, Democrats! Anyone remember Bill Clinton? At least Trump has a wife good-looking enough to maybe keep him home at night.

[Mar 24, 2018] Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba.

Notable quotes:
"... When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage. ..."
"... The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere 24 March 2018 at 04:50 PM

Paul Pillar says:

> The most egregious recent instances of arm twisting arose in George W. Bush's administration but did not involve Iraq. The twister was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba. Bolton wrote his own public statements on the issues and then tried to get intelligence officers to endorse them.

According to what later came to light when Bolton was nominated to become ambassador to the United Nations, the biggest altercation involved Bolton's statements about Cuba's allegedly pursuing a biological weapons program. When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage.

The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate -- and this comment came from someone who described himself as a conservative Republican who supported the Bush administration's policies -- an orientation I can verify, having testified alongside him in later appearances on Capitol Hill.

> When Bolton's angry tirade failed to get the INR analyst to cave, the undersecretary demanded that the analyst be removed. Ford refused. Bolton attempted similar pressure on the national intelligence officer for Latin America, who also inconveniently did not endorse Bolton's views on Cuba. Bolton came across the river one day to our National Intelligence Council offices and demanded to the council's acting chairman that my Latin America colleague be removed.

http://lobelog.com/how-john-bolton-handles-diverse-viewpoints-and-expert-analysis/

[Mar 24, 2018] Bolton plans to fire dozens of White House officials

Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com
John Bolton, US President Donald Trump's incoming hawkish national security adviser, is reportedly planning a massive dismissal of staff at the National Security Council, aiming to remove dozens of White House officials.

Sources aware of the changes told Foreign Policy that Bolton is preparing to "clean house" and remove nearly all of the political appointees brought in by his predecessor.

"Bolton can and will clean house," one former White House official told Foreign Policy. One other source said, "He is going to remove almost all the political [appointees] McMaster brought in."

Another former official said that any National Security Council officials appointed under former President Obama "should start packing their shit."

Trump and Bolton see eye to eye on their hawkish foreign policy, especially when it comes to North Korea and Iran, and are equally averse to multilateral diplomacy, whether that means the UN or working with the European Union.

A history of bellicosity

Bolton, an outspoken advocate of military action who served in the administration of former US president George W. Bush, has called for action against Iran and North Korea.

"He is unabashed about this," said Mark Groombridge, a former top adviser to Bolton at the State Department and United Nations pointing to his views on preemptive warfare.

"He has no problems with the doctrine of preemption and feels the greatest threat that the United States faces is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

The Washington Post reports that at the White House, Bolton is likely to reinforce Trump's "America First" view of the world. Both Trump and Bolton share a long-standing animosity toward any treaties, international laws or alliances that limit America's freedom to act on the world stage.

[Mar 24, 2018] Does Bolton appointment means the return to Monroe doctrine?

Mar 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

bevin | Mar 24, 2018 2:28:24 PM | 82

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the real danger from Bolton is that, in Trumpian fashion, he will return to those good old days when the Cold War was ending and the US went hog wild in Central America.

Like a bruised and beaten bully who's just had his come-uppance in the pub who, returning home, angry and impotent beats up the wife and kids and threatens the neighbours, Uncle Sam is returning, his tail between his legs, from the middle east to his home turf.

Look out Cuba! Look out Venezuela!

The Contras are back in business. Ecuador-sorry Julian- looks about to crumble. Honduras, Paraguay, Haiti, Brazil and Argentina have all been rescued from their own people. Things are beginning to look like the 80s again except that this time there are hardly any 'communists' left to kill. Military dictatorships are back, death squads are bigger than ever.

And, best of all, from the Bolton/Trump viewpoint, the dangers of running into Russian or Chinese backed resistance is negligible, the money to be made is infinite. One Continent from north pole to south, run by a mafia based in Washington.

Its what Making America Great Again means-a return to the Monroe Doctrine and letting up on the mad dream of global hegemony. There's plenty of poor suckers for everyone to exploit a billion or so.

There's only one caveat-Israel. Israel undoubtedly wants a war with Iran, just as it wants to smash up Syria (or get the US to do it for them) but I just can't see the many local interested parties allowing it. Perhaps moving the Embassy to Jerusalem and getting the Guatemalans, Hondurans and Solomon Islanders to do the same, is all that they are going to get from Trump- a gesture without meaning. A con from the grifter himself.

[Mar 24, 2018] John Bolton: The Angriest Neocon by Adam Zagorin

Nov 16, 2007 | content.time.com

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have become accustomed to taking flak from Democratic (and even some G.O.P.) legislators when she testifies on Capitol Hill, but some of the most ferocious criticism she has recently faced comes from an unlikely source: John Bolton, the fiery conservative who served under Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In his new memoir, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, Bolton -- known to be close to Vice President Dick Cheney -- outlines some of the internal foreign policy battles in the Administration of George W. Bush, and paints President Bush himself as betraying his own gut instinct.

Bolton's book covers his childhood as the son of a Baltimore fireman, his days at Yale Law School and his service in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. But it's the brickbats he reserves for Rice and fellow diplomats and civil servants in the current Administration that grab the most attention. First as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and then as U.N. ambassador, Bolton emerges as an outspoken unilateralist and an opponent of treaties and international institutions ranging from the Kyoto climate convention to the International Court of Criminal Justice. And he has been a vocal opponent, both inside and outside the Administration, of negotiations with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs.

Bolton's outspoken policy views have long been familiar, but what's most interesting about his new book is the sheer enthusiasm with which he has adopted the mantle of the most vocal neoconservative critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, only months after resigning from the Bush team when the Senate for the second time refused to confirm his nomination to the U.N. post.

Bolton accuses the Administration of laxity in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea and an Iran intent on obtaining the bomb, not to mention its efforts to arrange a Middle East peace conference. But implicit in Bolton's bomb-throwing is a startling admission: that his never-ending battle against "pragmatists" and those less ideologically committed inside the most conservative administration in decades has been lost. In an interview with TIME, Bolton said: "Secretary Condoleezza Rice is the dominant voice on national security and there is no one running even a close second; her ascendancy is undisputed."

So where does that leave Bolton allies like Cheney and his hard-line advisers, and the few remaining neocons scattered through the national security bureaucracy? "You will never know what the VP's exact interaction with the President is," says Bolton, "But the VP is still closer to the President's basic instincts than anyone else." Bolton's explanation for the shift in White House policy: "The President may be distracted by the Iraq war or other events... but there's no doubt that the President has moved heartbreakingly away from his own deepest impulses on the three principal issues of controversy (North Korea, Iran and Middle East peace); what is happening now is contrary to his basic instincts."

On Iran, Bolton says former Secretary of State Colin Powell was too intent on mollifying U.S. allies like France, Britain and Germany. This caused Powell to offer Iran too many "carrots" -- trade and commercial inducements -- if Tehran would rein in its pursuit of atomic materials. To a large degree Rice, in Bolton's view, perpetuated this strategy even though, he believes, there is almost no chance that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions. As a result, he says, the U.S. has wasted time on "four and half years of failed diplomacy" indulging Iran with unnecessarily accommodationist negotiations, a period Iran has used to advance its nuclear acquisitions and research.

On North Korea, Bolton cites (unconfirmed) reports of the Hermit Kingdom's collaboration with Syria on a secret nuclear facility as evidence that the denuclearization deal between the U.S. and North Korea is not working. Talks with North Korea continue, he notes, and the U.S. looks set to invite Syria to its Middle East peace conference later this month. Uncomfortable issues are not being raised, Bolton charges, for fear of disrupting negotiations that he sees as pointless to begin with.

So what are the prospects for a return to the muscular unilateralism that Bolton favors? "There's a possibility that events in the external world will validate our position and give the President a means to return to his gut," the former U.N. ambassador told TIME. "But until and unless external events prove that current policies are on the wrong track, there is no countervailing or obvious force inside this administration that is going to produce a course correction. "

[Mar 23, 2018] 'Trump lining up war cabinet' Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm

Notable quotes:
"... "With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," ..."
"... "John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," ..."
"... "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," ..."
"... "drumbeats of war." ..."
"... "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," ..."
"... "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.rt.com

Donald Trump's cabinet reshuffles have fueled concerns, not least after the latest appointment of hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser, just days after installing a former CIA chief as the new secretary of state. On Thursday afternoon Donald Trump decided to sack Gen. HR McMaster from his national security adviser post, replacing him with John Bolton. The former US envoy to the United Nations will assume office on April 9 – just days after Mike Pompeo is set to replace Rex Tillerson as the new secretary of state.

READ MORE: Trump replaces national security adviser McMaster with John Bolton

The newly formed doublet has caused shockwaves among the Democrats, who have alleged that Trump seems to be preparing for war. Democratic Senator from Massachusetts Ed Markey warned that Trump is creating a "war cabinet," warning of "grave danger" following Bolton's appointment.

John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran and conducting a first strike on North Korea without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people and a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict.

-- Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 22, 2018

"With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," he tweeted.

"John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," Senator Markey added.

John Bolton:
Wanted war w Cuba, arguing wrongly that Cuba had WMD
Wanted war w Iraq, arguing – wrong again – that Iraq had WMD
Believes – wrongly – that Islamic law is taking over America

If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor

-- Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) March 22, 2018

The choice of Bolton as the national security adviser has also been questioned by Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon, who has pointed out many flaws with the new appointee's policies. "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," Merkley tweeted.

This is dangerous news for the country and the world. John Bolton was easily one of the most extreme, pro-war members of the Bush Administration.

Imagine what havoc he could wreak whispering in Donald Trump's ear...I hear the drumbeats of war. https://t.co/A6ZIyORAM7

-- Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) March 22, 2018

Rep. Barbara Jean Lee of California's 13th congressional district was also disappointed by Trump's choice, claiming she is hearing the "drumbeats of war."

The President is surrounding himself with combative lawyers. He's replacing Tillerson and McMaster with Pompeo and Bolton.

It's almost like the President is preparing to go to war in the legal and foreign relations sense...

-- Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) March 22, 2018

Fears expressed by some Capitol Hill members and the public seem justified. The notoriously hawkish former United Nations ambassador was a chief architect of the George W. Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq in 2003, that was based on false accusations that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.

This is one of the most dangerous developments I've seen in our foreign and nat'l security policy. Period. #Bolton #McMaster . https://t.co/aEl5aRn9fA

-- Steve Israel (@RepSteveIsrael) March 22, 2018

Trump's choice of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo as the new secretary of state also made many in Washington uneasy. Unlike his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, Pompeo seems better aligned with Trump's confrontational foreign policy, namely on the Iran nuclear deal, on North Korea, and on the shift of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Besides politicians, the American public also expressed concern about the feasibility of a looming armed conflict.

John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now.

-- Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 22, 2018

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders called Bolton "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," recalling how he deceived the public about the Iraq war.

"John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," Sanders tweeted.

"John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-13) said in a written statement. "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world."

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Mar 23, 2018] So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Jim Haygood , , March 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm

So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?

Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the 21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen! /sarc

Carolinian , , March 22, 2018 at 8:50 pm

Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump/

Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan (for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).

Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.

barrisj , , March 22, 2018 at 10:21 pm

Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.

[Mar 23, 2018] The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran.

Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

fairleft | Mar 23, 2018 12:37:30 AM | 72

The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran. In fact Hillary was attacking Trump from the war hawk right on this issue in 2016 (of course alienating key voters as she did so). So, just like in 2002 with Iraq, the two-party mainstream and all the mainstream media will be overwhelmed by pro-war voices, and the arguments in favor of peace and basic sanity will be ostracized. Note in the RT piece below that the only Democrats expressing real, concrete concern/revulsion are the usual, sheepdog leftie suspects.

'Trump lining up war cabinet'? Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm

https://www.rt.com/usa/422084-trump-bolton-war-cabinet-reaction/

[Mar 23, 2018] Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.

Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dh , Mar 23, 2018 12:13:22 AM | 69

@66 Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-bolton-fires-back-against-004800253.html

[Mar 23, 2018] MoA - John Bolton - The Man With A Hammer Is Looking For Nails

Notable quotes:
"... Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate. ..."
"... Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency. ..."
"... If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly. ..."
"... Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there. ..."
"... global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse. ..."
"... Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

...He is also an exceptionally avid bureaucrat who knows how to get the things he wants done. That quality is what makes him truly dangerous. Bolton is known for sweet-talking to his superiors, being ruthless against competitors and for kicking down on everyone below him.

Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo at State, a real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel's further expansion. Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate.

Bolton has a hammer and he will find lots of nails. Like Hillary Clinton he will want to fight with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and others in no particular order. He will want to destroy Syria. He is cozy with the Kurds and the Iranian terror cult MEK. He addressed (vid) their congress eight years in a row and made lots of money for saying things like this :

"[B]efore 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran."

Bolton has little concern for U.S. allies except, maybe, for Israel.

His first priority will be to prevent the announced summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. He will want more sanctions on North Korea and may argue for a 'preventive' strike against it. He does not care that such a strike will certainly kill tens of thousands of Koreans in the north and south and several thousand U.S. soldiers and civilians.

New sanctions on North Korea are problematic as Trump has just put additional tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods. (The Chinese response is smart: Tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods from states that Trump won.) Why should China and Russia (and South Korea) help the U.S. to strangulate North Korea when they themselves are under fire? To prevent a U.S. strike that may come anyway the very next day?

The Europeans who were part of the nuclear agreement with Iran have to answer a similar question . Why offer Trump a 'compromise' over the JCPOA when the chances are now high that he will destroy it anyway?

What will Bolton do on Syria? Will he try to find a new agreement with Erdogan and drag Turkey away from endorsing Russia's polices in Syria? If he manages to do so, Syria's north will become a shared Turkish-U.S. entity and will be lost for a long time. New attacks on the Syrian government, from the north, south and east, where the U.S. re-trains ISIS into a new 'moderate rebel' army, would then open the next phase of the war.

So far the mean time of survival for Trump appointees is some six to eight months. Let us hope that John Bolton's appointment will - in the end - lower that average.

Posted by b on March 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

Comments

HnH , Mar 23, 2018 12:05:22 PM | 1

Trump wants war with Iran. The reasons are unknown to me, but the intention is very, very clear. The choices of Pompeo and Bolton confirm this.

If Trump gets this war, the short and medium term effects on world trade, and the oil trade in particular, will be absolutely devastating.

Iran will close the strait of Hormuz. The oil shipments will stop. Saudi Arabia may burn, Israel may get attacked. The US homeland may get attacked.

When the oil shipments stop, fuel shortages will occur, supermarkets will get empty, food prices will rocket.

God help us all.

harrylaw , Mar 23, 2018 12:10:50 PM | 2

Bomb Iran, is what Bolton advocated several years ago, this article 'The untold story of John Bolton's campaign for war with Iran' indicates he has not changed his mind http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump/
Altai , Mar 23, 2018 12:13:20 PM | 3
These appointments are weird. Ultimately Trump doesn't seem to have an appetite for large-scale war. What does seem like a dangerous possibility is if Bolton can et al can provoke a situation that traps Trump in his responses, maybe with a tight timeframe to respond and leads to a conflict starting that way.

Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency.

Ultimately it doesn't seem like Trump's election has changed much in terms of foreign policy among prospective successors. So it seems like eventually they will get their war with Iran during Trump's term or afterwards. It's utterly incredible how implacable the neo-cons are despite constant exposure over the last 15-20 years and with at least one President being elected on the basis of disgust with them. (Obama, could maybe include Trump too)

Tom Welsh , Mar 23, 2018 12:36:14 PM | 4
Kim Jong-un has no good reason for a "summit" with Trump. Indeed, there is no reason for him or his country to have anything to do with the USA or its catamites.

The best path for Korea is for North and South to plan reunification, as early as possible. They might as well retain the North's nuclear weapons, just in case anyone cuts up rough. If the Americans try to interfere, the nuclear weapons are there. Any American attempt to escalate, right on China's and Russia's front door, would meet with an extremely frigid response from them.

We must always remember that there was never any "North" or "South" Korea until President Truman's bureaucrats conjured them up out of thin air - apparently with the aid of a school atlas - to avoid the hideous tragedy of the whole of Korea "going communist". South Korea is an occupied nation, and should take immediate steps to kick the American occupiers out. By force if necessary.

Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 12:38:17 PM | 5
Optimism on Bolton as relatively harmless in yesterday's thread is given an interesting perspective by this piece (from today), adding to b's pessimism above:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bolton-and-the-north-korea-summit/

It seems the apparently contradictory move by Trump to appoint Bolton after getting rid of McMaster, who had a similar view to Bolton (North Korea had to be attacked because it is too late for diplomacy, their rocket programs too advanced), could be part of a scheme for a "big victory" effort by Trump who is, according to this view, amidst an artful deal-making moment of allowing faux-optimism re South-North Korean negotiations.

Bolton calls this "diplomatic shock and awe":

Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement about achieving the capability. Bolton envisioned the meeting between Trump and Kim as an opportunity to deliver a threat of military action:

"I think this session between the two leaders could well be a fairly brief session where Trump says, 'Tell me you have begun total denuclearization, because we're not going to have protracted negotiations, you can tell me right now or we'll start thinking of something else.' "

Trump, who only a few weeks back condemned (again) the Iraq War as disastrous, may be thinking Bolton is just the man to nail down a quivering retreat of the North Koreans into denuclearizing or else, now that they've had a nice taste of how sweet it could be in talking with Moon and the South.

If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly.

This analysis also points out how disturbed Asia is over this appointment, and indicates that despite his views McMaster had been working with South Korea on the problem, and now has been jerked. This sounds like what happened in Iraq also, jerking out people who were building relationships and replacing them with hardnose "bring 'em on" thinking from the brilliant leadership in that war.

p has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there.

Posted by: Fec , Mar 23, 2018 12:38:24 PM | 6

Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there.

Posted by: Fec | Mar 23, 2018 12:38:24 PM | 6 /div

Kalen , Mar 23, 2018 12:54:25 PM | 8
I understand that Syrian situation can drive people insane but unfortunately it was and is interpreted wrongly as a preparation to nuke war, it is not. It is same old same old thing, it is just more exposed by internet.

US military is in shambles what they showed in Iraq and Syria last year is all they got, nothing more but a capability of a chicken hawk and D.C. is run by chicken hawks whose business is intimidation not war about which they have no idea and they know that US military can only take on shoeless peasants with dilapitated AK 47 and call it even like in Afghanistan which was utter defeat no one even here want to talk about.

Like Roman Empire before US emporium is an empty shell, and its myth is maintained by US INSTALLED ELITES to control their own populations.

Recent military posturing on all sides of a global country club dinner table is just nothing but bail out of MIC and its wall street backers .

Open your even globalization has been accomplished and global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse.

Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy.

Show must go on. 160 years after collapse of Roman Empire Roman circuses and theater continued like Nothing happened.

We are watching such a circus.

Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 1:03:51 PM | 9
@7 James:

I see this confusing sentence--

"Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement about achieving the capability."

--as, Bolton believes the North Koreans are playing around with negotiations only to delay toward capability, that Trump knows this, and all of it's a game toward resurrection of the hostilities.

This attitude suggests a foregone conclusion that the Trump-Kim meeting will fail, which could set up the next step at (from Bolton): "You see, it's hopeless, we just have to attack and take out this country, as we did with Iraq and are trying to do with Syria."


Charles Misfeldt , Mar 23, 2018 1:08:52 PM | 10
Israel has the Epstein tapes which show Trump having sex with underage girls, Saudi Arabia has billions of dollars to bribe Trump with arms deals, both of these immoral nations want Iran eliminated as an threat to their agendas. Israel and Saudi Arabia demand that Trump try and neutralize Iran before Trump is removed from office which will happen before his first term is up if this nation has any sense of self preservation. Trump is replacing those opposed to a war against Iran with those who support it. Trump is seriously compromised by foreign agendas.
Harry , Mar 23, 2018 1:09:52 PM | 11
My two cents:

1. Iran nuclear deal is dead, EU poodles will fall in line (but not entirely) with sanctions against Iran. I'm curious how Iran will respond, IMHO will restart all centrifuges and raise enrichment level? I still think its unlikely Iran would go for the nukes as ultimate deterrent.

2. US will be more involved in Syria. We can most definitely expect more false flag CW attacks and "retaliation" missiles. The big question mark if Russia will live up to its promise to retaliate on launch sites or US planes.

3. There will be no overt war against Iran, Pompeo/Bolton or not, US simply cannot win it. Covert - most definitely. More sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.

It will be hard to do Libya 3.0 as well, but USrael might try anyway. Arm kurds and baluchis radicals, activate MEK network, it wont be anywhere as bad as in Syria, but some damage would be done. Thats the most what they can do.

Hoarsewhisperer , Mar 23, 2018 1:19:40 PM | 12
Bolton is a fruitcake. Imo Trump only hired him to expose his nuttiness and fire him. When he does, the World will breathe a sigh of relief and Trump's popularity will improve.
Bolton's Achilles Heel is that he doesn't do low-profile and talks too much.
james , Mar 23, 2018 1:25:51 PM | 13
@9 sid.. thanks.. i get that... i am more inclined to view bolton like @8 kalen.. it really does seem that way to me and if so, suggests trump is still in control and happy to have these bozos talk the talk, while knowing they are not able to walk the walk.. trump would throw a real monkey wrench in the spanner if he was to engage in the talks and come away with a positive resolution.. it would be a a nightmare for the military industrial complex and neo cons.. i still think he is capable of this...

@11 harry.. i hope you are wrong, but it is completely conceivable and tends to be the usa/israels pattern when confronted with a loss..

Fec , Mar 23, 2018 1:28:22 PM | 14
@ 12 When you're powerless, give the opposition what they want and hope they choke on it. Trump is being underestimated. Dunford, Mattis, Pompeo and Kelly lined up
behind Trump against Tillerson and the White Helmets in Ghouta.
Mike Maloney , Mar 23, 2018 1:48:20 PM | 15
Let's not forget about Venezuela. Story from McClatchy's D.C. bureau says Bolton considers Venezuela low-hanging fruit ripe for the plucking.
Emily , Mar 23, 2018 2:12:09 PM | 16
Bolton was named as one of Trump's very earliest supporters.
Right at the beginning.
Sounding alarm bells for many.
A few links to refresh some memories.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/john-bolton-state-trump-232573
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/310197-giving-bolton-place-at-state-would-undermine-trumps-own
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-john-bolton-isnt-part-of-the-trump-administration/
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/bolton-iran-deal-cancel/
DonFromWyoming , Mar 23, 2018 2:12:53 PM | 17
"libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron, kind of like saying "a peace-loving bomb-thrower".
Pnyx , Mar 23, 2018 2:21:12 PM | 18
"Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate."
This is nonsense. And you know it B. But you still fancy your idea about a non-interventionistic Trump, and now, by the time this belief is definitely shattered, you try a reasoning dangerously near to 'wenn das der Führer wüsste'.
Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 2:35:10 PM | 19
thanks to b for this excellent link and extensive discussion of Mattis:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/23/james-mattis-defense-secretary-how-to-succeed-in-trump-cabinet-without-getting-fired-217699

This discussion suggests why Mattis has been successful with a naïve blowhard president, including the following interesting comment:

John Bolton's arrival in April as the president's new national security adviser will give Mattis a more ardent and skillful adversary at the National Security Council. Mattis outranked McMaster in military terms and always considered him his junior, even though Mattis is retired. He likely won't view Bolton that way, and Bolton prizes his ability to corral the bureaucracy for his purposes.

We're looking at an upcoming contest Mattis vs. Bolton on such matters as wars with Iran, North Korea, and whoever.

Glad to see all the optimism here on how harmless Bolton is but would like a little more substance versus the automatic dismissals.

Jef , Mar 23, 2018 2:39:05 PM | 20
I don't see the financial thread in all of this and I seriously believe that is #1 on Trumps mind. He would love for his legacy to be the POTUS that turned around the global economic collapse and opened the door big business everywhere.

That is his history wrt foreign relations and he could care less for the "blow shit up" mentality. Not saying that he can't be talked into it, just saying he would prefer the headline "Trump opens up the world for more US business". I honestly think that he believes that a trade war (business by other means) leads to US becoming a Mfg powerhouse again. Those around him might convince him that blowing shit up will have the same outcome.

Banking/finance learned a long time ago that you are better off keeping your customers around to continue borrowing than imprisoning or kill them off. The world is a market place and Trump wants to "make deals-not war" as long as America gets the better part of the deal.

Only other thing that makes since is what CM @ 10 proposes, that Trump is compromised.

bevin , Mar 23, 2018 2:39:59 PM | 21
Kalen @8 you must have followed the Bolton divorce case.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons it just needs a treaty with Russia and China. It might be of assistance to the dimwitted in Washington if the treaty specifically stated that Iran is under a nuclear umbrella.
We ought to acknowledge that, as the camarilla of generals surrounding Trump turns into a junta of bullshitters and blowhards, the dictatorship in DC has never been anything more than an alliance between billionaires, bullshitters and the American Gestapo.
jayc , Mar 23, 2018 2:41:38 PM | 22
Bolton's presence will accelerate Europe's move away from the U.S. This is probably inevitable now.
dh , Mar 23, 2018 3:02:14 PM | 23
@20 Trump may be all about deals but he's having a terrible effect on the stock markets. If a trade war with China wasn't bad enough now they have Bolton to worry about.
Jose Garcia , Mar 23, 2018 3:17:23 PM | 24
What you mean about Bolt-man is he'll be safe in his office, while YOUR father, mother, son, uncle, brother, sister or other family member dies for HIS idea of how the world should be. "We will fight fight "till the last drop of.....your blood!" The "inside the Beltway" gangsters sicken me.
TJ , Mar 23, 2018 3:19:34 PM | 25
Bolton is not a libertarian, libertarians believe in the "non-aggression principle" -

https://www.theadvocates.org/2016/10/aggression/

Please correct this.

Augustin L , Mar 23, 2018 3:20:38 PM | 26
@ 10 Charles,
In New-York Trump's been known as The FRONT GOY even before the Atlantic city heist. Without Kompromat tapes they can bury him six million different ways before sunday...
Charles Michael , Mar 23, 2018 3:37:29 PM | 27
Pat lang SST was horrified by the prospect of Bolton nomination: Not Bolton! not him !

Yesterday Alastair Crooke published on Strategi Culture:
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/03/22/is-north-korea-deal-stalking-horse-trump-mid-east-makeover.html

A day before Bolton got the job, still a very interesting read as usual, up to the end, because Nothing can go wrigth in DC those days, in fact nothing can be done.

Peter AU 1 , Mar 23, 2018 3:51:55 PM | 28
The Trump meeting with KJU, if it comes off, will give an indication of where Trump is headed. Much showtime shock and awe and hyperbole leading up to his suddenly agreeing to the meeting which caught all the US political animals on both sides of the fence by surprise.
Haley constantly yapping like an annoying little dog has achieved what? Haley seems be just another prop in the shock and awe show.
At the same time, Trump could miscalculate and stumble into major war, or he may be actually planning a war. Always room for both pessimism and optimism with Trump, depending on the day.
Laguerre , Mar 23, 2018 4:02:08 PM | 29
I rather agree with Kalen. Trump is genuinely a blowhard - loud mouth and little action.

Bolton is an unpleasant warmonger, though he didn't get much through before. He was never confirmed by the Senate as ambassador to the UN. Since then he's had various sidelined positions as thinktank fellow.

My impression of Trump is that he is too lazy to get the US into a major war. A major war would be a lot of work, and, whatever the advice from the help, I don't think he'd go for it. Especially he wouldn't like months or years in a nuclear bunker. He couldn't dandle young thighs at Mar-a-Lago. That would be a major argument.

An important issue with Trump is that he is unable to keep staff. He must be running out of potential candidates. That's why Bolton.

Don Bacon , Mar 23, 2018 4:24:18 PM | 30
re: "libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron . .Bolton is not a libertarian

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. There are various interpretations of what libertarianism means to various people, such as the freedom to do as one pleases.
Bolton is a libertarian in a national sense. His liberty is national liberty. He is anti-globalist and unilateralist, believing that the country's values should never be superseded by international agreements and treaties. This thinking coincides with Trump's position declared during the campaign. "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism," Trump said in his defining foreign policy speech as a candidate in the spring of 2016. "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down."
Following from this concept of national libertarianism, Bolton goes further to the ready and unilateral use of armed force to advance foreign policy, without bilateral or multilateral agreement. He's a hawk, but that's not unusual for Americans in government.

Lester , Mar 23, 2018 4:37:44 PM | 31
The planet isn't going to survive much longer with Americans and the Tribe infesting it. Fumigation is in order. Pack the Americans and the antisemite semites into an ICBM and send them flying into the heart of the sun. A solution as good as any other.
Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 4:39:20 PM | 32
@ 27 and 20: thanks Charles re link to the Alastair Crooke article which reflects Jef's earlier comment: that is, Trump would likely say: me for war? hell no I'm a peace lover but I'll drive the good bargain including war threat as needed in my "art of making a deal"(hence tools to this end such as Pompeo and Bolton). Crooke makes a good point that Tillerson was too much a conventional diplomat; Trump likes tough, unpredictable guys like Mattis to model himself after.

But all this is in the fundamentals of the same megalomaniacal type thinking that drove/drives PNAC and smart-ass know-it-all-ism of the Iraq Invasion and continuation of this mindset (see Bremer) after "mission accomplished."

This mind-set at base is the problem. I call it megalomania, others might call it hubris on steroids, or daydreams of the psychopath. For me it's difficult to pull Trump out of this mindset, because he's essentially the same. At the same time HIS version of it clashes with State Department Egomania--possibly toward doing some good at times (as with changing the course of US action in Syria last year; as with low-key response to the Skripal nonsense at this time) but nonetheless presenting the possibility of a new set of tripwires a la invasion of Iraq 2003, in terms of North Korea-Iraq.

It seems apparent at this time that Trump is clueless that for North Korea to denuclearize that would mean a quid pro quo of US forces leaving South Korea--which will never be acceptable to the neocons or Trump.

Jason , Mar 23, 2018 5:18:16 PM | 33
I wonder if there are people in the military thinking about resigning before WW3? There is isn't even a believable narrative put forward in bombing Damascus nor Tehran except for murder, destruction and conquest, there is literally zero self defensive aspect. I wonder how special forces troops in Syria who are about to attack the Syrian army and Syrian people on the side if HTS, Al Qaeda, IS, Nouri al Zinki, FSA feel about their mission; many must know they are basically committing treason.
Lester , Mar 23, 2018 5:31:07 PM | 34
"Murder, destruction and conquest". That's as American as apple pie. Why would Americans be committing treason doing the Tribe's work?
worldblee , Mar 23, 2018 5:39:20 PM | 35
Bolton may or may not be a blowhard but the malignant idiocy that billows forth from his mouth is frightening in its combination of willful ignorance and unrestrained rage. He is the new National Insecurity Advisor--that would be his more accurate title.
Blessed Economist , Mar 23, 2018 5:43:29 PM | 36
How long will he last. There cannot be many rooms in the Whitehouse big enough to hold the ego of Trump and the ego of Bolton at the same time.
bevin , Mar 23, 2018 5:43:59 PM | 37
From Off Guardian:
"...as of today, it appears that long battle for Jobar and its neighboring suburbs is finally over after an agreement was put in place with the primary militant groups there.

"According to a military report from Damascus, the Syrian Army and Faylaq Al-Rahman have agreed to peace terms in four East Ghouta suburbs, with the latter agreeing to leave to Idlib.

"Based on the agreement, Faylaq Al-Rahman will surrender all of their weapons, except for their small arms; they will release all Syrian Army prisoners from their jails; they will inform the government of all explosives they placed around the suburbs of Zamalka, Jobar, 'Ayn Tarma, and Arbin; and agree to exit these suburbs on Saturday.

"The militants are now scheduled to leave these four East Ghouta suburbs by noon tomorrow..."

ashley albanese , Mar 23, 2018 5:46:05 PM | 38
Bhadrakumar writes bigger ' war in Syria is imminent ' .
Laguerre , Mar 23, 2018 6:16:30 PM | 39
It is evident that US policy in Syria is failing. The original plan was to divide Syria into weak independent cantons, much as the French wanted in the 1920s. The French didn't succeed. It would be surprising of the US did.

The only parts which remain, are the jihadis in Idlib, and the Kurds in Jazira. Two elements which are opposed to one another.

Supposing that the US wants to revive the war in Syria, as the Neocons do, what are they going to do? Decapitation of the regime in Damascus was a way of getting the Jihadis into power (you have to wonder about US support for jihadis). Unfortunately, the Russians put troops into Damascus a few weeks ago to prevent that. Otherwise it's a bit of a nothing. The Kurds can stay in Jazira, Nobody's going to stop them.

Du , Mar 23, 2018 6:39:55 PM | 40
Great analysis - as usual. The thing missing is that this guy is a rabid zionist and the White House is now a governorate of the AN orthodox American province of Israel.

[Mar 23, 2018] Hawks Resurgent in Washington by Philip Girald

Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

One of the most discouraging aspects of the musical chairs being played among the members of the White House inner circle is that every change reflects an inexorable move to the right in foreign policy, which means that the interventionists are back without anyone at the White House level remaining to say "no." President Donald Trump, for all his international experience as a businessman, is a novice at the step-by-step process required in diplomacy and in the development of a coherent foreign policy, so he is inevitably being directed by individuals who have long American global leadership by force if necessary.

The resurgence of the hawks is facilitated by Donald Trump's own inclinations. He likes to see himself as a man of action and a leader, which inclines him to be impulsive, some might even say reckless. He is convinced that he can enter into negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un with virtually no preparations and make a deal that will somehow end the crisis over that nation's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, for example. In so doing, he is being encouraged by his National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and his Pentagon chief James Mattis, who believe that the United States can somehow prevail in a preemptive war with the Koreans if that should become necessary. The enormous collateral damage to South Korea and even Japan is something that Washington planners somehow seem to miss in their calculations.

The recent shifts in the cabinet have Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. A leading hawk, he was first in his class of 1986 at the United States Military Academy but found himself as a junior officer with no real war to fight. He spent six years in uniform before resigning, never having seen combat, making war an abstraction for him. He went to Harvard Law and then into politics where he became a Tea Party congressman, eventually becoming a leader of that caucus when it stopped being Libertarian and lurched rightwards. He has since marketed himself as a fearless soldier in the war against terrorism and rogue states, in which category he includes both Iran and Russia.

Pompeo was not popular at the CIA because he enforced a uniformity of thinking that was anathema for intelligence professionals dedicated to collecting solid information and using it to produce sound analysis of developments worldwide. Pompeo, an ardent supporter of Israel and one of the government's leading Iran haters, has been regularly threatening Iran while at the Agency and will no doubt find plenty of support at State from Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East David Satterfield, a former top adviser of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Pompeo has proven himself more than willing to manipulate intelligence produce the result he desires. Last year, he declassified and then cherry picked documents recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan that suggested that al-Qaeda had ties with Iran. The move was coordinated with simultaneous White House steps to prepare Congress and the public for a withdrawal from the Iran nuclear arms agreement. The documents were initially released to a journal produced by the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Pompeo has a number of times spoken, to guarantee wide exposure in all the right places.

Pompeo's arrival might only be the first of several other high-level moves by the White House. Like the rumors that preceded the firing of Secretary of State Tillerson two weeks ago, there have been recurrent suggestions that McMaster will be the next to go as he reportedly is too moderate for the president and has also been accused of being anti-Israeli , the kiss of death in Washington. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has been a frequent visitor at the White House and it is believed that he is the preferred candidate to fill the position. He is an extreme hawk, closely tied to the Israel Lobby, who would push hard for war against Iran and also for a hardline position in Syria, one that could lead to direct confrontation with the Syrian Armed Forces and possibly the Russians.

Bolton, who has been described by a former George W. Bush official as "the most dangerous man we had during the entire eight years," will undoubtedly have a problem in getting confirmed by Congress. He was rejected as U.N. Ambassador, requiring Bush to make a recess appointment which did not need Congressional approval.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation

[Mar 23, 2018] John Bolton's Incompetence May Be More Dangerous Than His Ideology by Heather Hurlburt

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. ..."
"... Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional . ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | nymag.com

John Bolton has been one of liberals' top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn't really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a book that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and Brexit campaigns, among others.

Recently Bolton's statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to say that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he called for a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His hostility toward Islam points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American Muslims' rights at home and alienating America's Muslim allies abroad.

As worrying as these policies are, it's worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then soured on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump's opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.

Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been quoted praising Russian "democracy" as recently as 2013). That's nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on Russia as well. But there's every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we'll get from Bolton's National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.

President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. Their disagreements are real – Bolton has famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump attempted to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right's LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and calling for the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

That's all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way. His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump's announcement with comments like "the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job" – not exactly a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker described Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down kind of guy," and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy until he doesn't. This is a man who can't refrain from telling Tucker Carlson that his analysis is "simpleminded" – while he's a guest on Carlson's show. Turns out it's not true that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a tape dispenser. When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a " midlevel munchkin ." How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?

Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional .

Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process. It's also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster, regardless their views of Trump.

So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it's hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with Twitter feeds – on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.

[Mar 23, 2018] In a way Ukraine stepped on the same rake twice: once in 1991 and the second time in 2014. That's unforgivable

Looks like the rules of neoliberal game for Ukraine are as following: Ukraine should be ready for fight Russia till the last Ukrainian, serving as cannon fodder for EU geopolitical interests in Eurasia; (2) As a "debt slave" Ukraine should allow the transfer of ownership of all strategic assets and commodities to EU corporations for pennies on dollar independently of how Donbass situation is resolved; (3) Ukraine should buy EU products, no matter how poor they are and local production should be be iether eliminated ("Baltics style deindustrialization"), or outsourced to transnational corporations with Ukrainian as a cheap labor force (wage slaves).
Notable quotes:
"... And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to Poland after USSR fell. ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez , March 23, 2018 at 3:20 am GMT

@polskijoe

And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to Poland after USSR fell.

Very true. Poland was the first Eastern European country which adopted neoliberal model and thus served to a certain extent as "photo model" of neoliberalism for the rest of Eastern Europe and xUSSR space. So standard of living did not drop too low. The country was somewhat supported by EU and by the USA.

Ukraine was royally raped economically in 1991-2000. Probably as bad as Russia, may be even worse.

In 2014 Ukrainians were lured by unrealistic dream of getting Western European standard of living as a gift for breaking with Russia. As well as the resentment toward kleptocrat Yanukovich (which actually was pretty typical neoliberal politician; not much worse then Poroshenko )

Now they start to understand that the EU will devour the corpse to the bones and they are stuck at the Central African level poverty of $2 a day or so (on average), but this is too late.

A very typical story, a very typical outcome. Neoliberalism is a cancer. As Russian prime minister quipped about economic rape of Russia by local and Western neoliberals in 1991-2000: "We strived to get the best [economic] outcome, but it turned out like we got even worse then average. As always." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Chernomyrdin )

So in a way they stepped on the same rake twice: once in 1991 and the second time in 2014. That's unforgivable.

[Mar 23, 2018] MoA - John Bolton - The Man With A Hammer Is Looking For Nails

Notable quotes:
"... Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate. ..."
"... Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency. ..."
"... If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly. ..."
"... Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there. ..."
"... global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse. ..."
"... Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

...He is also an exceptionally avid bureaucrat who knows how to get the things he wants done. That quality is what makes him truly dangerous. Bolton is known for sweet-talking to his superiors, being ruthless against competitors and for kicking down on everyone below him.

Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo at State, a real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel's further expansion. Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate.

Bolton has a hammer and he will find lots of nails. Like Hillary Clinton he will want to fight with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and others in no particular order. He will want to destroy Syria. He is cozy with the Kurds and the Iranian terror cult MEK. He addressed (vid) their congress eight years in a row and made lots of money for saying things like this :

"[B]efore 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran."

Bolton has little concern for U.S. allies except, maybe, for Israel.

His first priority will be to prevent the announced summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. He will want more sanctions on North Korea and may argue for a 'preventive' strike against it. He does not care that such a strike will certainly kill tens of thousands of Koreans in the north and south and several thousand U.S. soldiers and civilians.

New sanctions on North Korea are problematic as Trump has just put additional tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods. (The Chinese response is smart: Tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods from states that Trump won.) Why should China and Russia (and South Korea) help the U.S. to strangulate North Korea when they themselves are under fire? To prevent a U.S. strike that may come anyway the very next day?

The Europeans who were part of the nuclear agreement with Iran have to answer a similar question . Why offer Trump a 'compromise' over the JCPOA when the chances are now high that he will destroy it anyway?

What will Bolton do on Syria? Will he try to find a new agreement with Erdogan and drag Turkey away from endorsing Russia's polices in Syria? If he manages to do so, Syria's north will become a shared Turkish-U.S. entity and will be lost for a long time. New attacks on the Syrian government, from the north, south and east, where the U.S. re-trains ISIS into a new 'moderate rebel' army, would then open the next phase of the war.

So far the mean time of survival for Trump appointees is some six to eight months. Let us hope that John Bolton's appointment will - in the end - lower that average.

Posted by b on March 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

Comments

HnH , Mar 23, 2018 12:05:22 PM | 1

Trump wants war with Iran. The reasons are unknown to me, but the intention is very, very clear. The choices of Pompeo and Bolton confirm this.

If Trump gets this war, the short and medium term effects on world trade, and the oil trade in particular, will be absolutely devastating.

Iran will close the strait of Hormuz. The oil shipments will stop. Saudi Arabia may burn, Israel may get attacked. The US homeland may get attacked.

When the oil shipments stop, fuel shortages will occur, supermarkets will get empty, food prices will rocket.

God help us all.

harrylaw , Mar 23, 2018 12:10:50 PM | 2

Bomb Iran, is what Bolton advocated several years ago, this article 'The untold story of John Bolton's campaign for war with Iran' indicates he has not changed his mind http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump/
Altai , Mar 23, 2018 12:13:20 PM | 3
These appointments are weird. Ultimately Trump doesn't seem to have an appetite for large-scale war. What does seem like a dangerous possibility is if Bolton can et al can provoke a situation that traps Trump in his responses, maybe with a tight timeframe to respond and leads to a conflict starting that way.

Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency.

Ultimately it doesn't seem like Trump's election has changed much in terms of foreign policy among prospective successors. So it seems like eventually they will get their war with Iran during Trump's term or afterwards. It's utterly incredible how implacable the neo-cons are despite constant exposure over the last 15-20 years and with at least one President being elected on the basis of disgust with them. (Obama, could maybe include Trump too)

Tom Welsh , Mar 23, 2018 12:36:14 PM | 4
Kim Jong-un has no good reason for a "summit" with Trump. Indeed, there is no reason for him or his country to have anything to do with the USA or its catamites.

The best path for Korea is for North and South to plan reunification, as early as possible. They might as well retain the North's nuclear weapons, just in case anyone cuts up rough. If the Americans try to interfere, the nuclear weapons are there. Any American attempt to escalate, right on China's and Russia's front door, would meet with an extremely frigid response from them.

We must always remember that there was never any "North" or "South" Korea until President Truman's bureaucrats conjured them up out of thin air - apparently with the aid of a school atlas - to avoid the hideous tragedy of the whole of Korea "going communist". South Korea is an occupied nation, and should take immediate steps to kick the American occupiers out. By force if necessary.

Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 12:38:17 PM | 5
Optimism on Bolton as relatively harmless in yesterday's thread is given an interesting perspective by this piece (from today), adding to b's pessimism above:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bolton-and-the-north-korea-summit/

It seems the apparently contradictory move by Trump to appoint Bolton after getting rid of McMaster, who had a similar view to Bolton (North Korea had to be attacked because it is too late for diplomacy, their rocket programs too advanced), could be part of a scheme for a "big victory" effort by Trump who is, according to this view, amidst an artful deal-making moment of allowing faux-optimism re South-North Korean negotiations.

Bolton calls this "diplomatic shock and awe":

Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement about achieving the capability. Bolton envisioned the meeting between Trump and Kim as an opportunity to deliver a threat of military action:

"I think this session between the two leaders could well be a fairly brief session where Trump says, 'Tell me you have begun total denuclearization, because we're not going to have protracted negotiations, you can tell me right now or we'll start thinking of something else.' "

Trump, who only a few weeks back condemned (again) the Iraq War as disastrous, may be thinking Bolton is just the man to nail down a quivering retreat of the North Koreans into denuclearizing or else, now that they've had a nice taste of how sweet it could be in talking with Moon and the South.

If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly.

This analysis also points out how disturbed Asia is over this appointment, and indicates that despite his views McMaster had been working with South Korea on the problem, and now has been jerked. This sounds like what happened in Iraq also, jerking out people who were building relationships and replacing them with hardnose "bring 'em on" thinking from the brilliant leadership in that war.

p has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there.

Posted by: Fec , Mar 23, 2018 12:38:24 PM | 6

Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there.

Posted by: Fec | Mar 23, 2018 12:38:24 PM | 6 /div

Kalen , Mar 23, 2018 12:54:25 PM | 8
I understand that Syrian situation can drive people insane but unfortunately it was and is interpreted wrongly as a preparation to nuke war, it is not. It is same old same old thing, it is just more exposed by internet.

US military is in shambles what they showed in Iraq and Syria last year is all they got, nothing more but a capability of a chicken hawk and D.C. is run by chicken hawks whose business is intimidation not war about which they have no idea and they know that US military can only take on shoeless peasants with dilapitated AK 47 and call it even like in Afghanistan which was utter defeat no one even here want to talk about.

Like Roman Empire before US emporium is an empty shell, and its myth is maintained by US INSTALLED ELITES to control their own populations.

Recent military posturing on all sides of a global country club dinner table is just nothing but bail out of MIC and its wall street backers .

Open your even globalization has been accomplished and global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse.

Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy.

Show must go on. 160 years after collapse of Roman Empire Roman circuses and theater continued like Nothing happened.

We are watching such a circus.

Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 1:03:51 PM | 9
@7 James:

I see this confusing sentence--

"Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement about achieving the capability."

--as, Bolton believes the North Koreans are playing around with negotiations only to delay toward capability, that Trump knows this, and all of it's a game toward resurrection of the hostilities.

This attitude suggests a foregone conclusion that the Trump-Kim meeting will fail, which could set up the next step at (from Bolton): "You see, it's hopeless, we just have to attack and take out this country, as we did with Iraq and are trying to do with Syria."


Charles Misfeldt , Mar 23, 2018 1:08:52 PM | 10
Israel has the Epstein tapes which show Trump having sex with underage girls, Saudi Arabia has billions of dollars to bribe Trump with arms deals, both of these immoral nations want Iran eliminated as an threat to their agendas. Israel and Saudi Arabia demand that Trump try and neutralize Iran before Trump is removed from office which will happen before his first term is up if this nation has any sense of self preservation. Trump is replacing those opposed to a war against Iran with those who support it. Trump is seriously compromised by foreign agendas.
Harry , Mar 23, 2018 1:09:52 PM | 11
My two cents:

1. Iran nuclear deal is dead, EU poodles will fall in line (but not entirely) with sanctions against Iran. I'm curious how Iran will respond, IMHO will restart all centrifuges and raise enrichment level? I still think its unlikely Iran would go for the nukes as ultimate deterrent.

2. US will be more involved in Syria. We can most definitely expect more false flag CW attacks and "retaliation" missiles. The big question mark if Russia will live up to its promise to retaliate on launch sites or US planes.

3. There will be no overt war against Iran, Pompeo/Bolton or not, US simply cannot win it. Covert - most definitely. More sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.

It will be hard to do Libya 3.0 as well, but USrael might try anyway. Arm kurds and baluchis radicals, activate MEK network, it wont be anywhere as bad as in Syria, but some damage would be done. Thats the most what they can do.

Hoarsewhisperer , Mar 23, 2018 1:19:40 PM | 12
Bolton is a fruitcake. Imo Trump only hired him to expose his nuttiness and fire him. When he does, the World will breathe a sigh of relief and Trump's popularity will improve.
Bolton's Achilles Heel is that he doesn't do low-profile and talks too much.
james , Mar 23, 2018 1:25:51 PM | 13
@9 sid.. thanks.. i get that... i am more inclined to view bolton like @8 kalen.. it really does seem that way to me and if so, suggests trump is still in control and happy to have these bozos talk the talk, while knowing they are not able to walk the walk.. trump would throw a real monkey wrench in the spanner if he was to engage in the talks and come away with a positive resolution.. it would be a a nightmare for the military industrial complex and neo cons.. i still think he is capable of this...

@11 harry.. i hope you are wrong, but it is completely conceivable and tends to be the usa/israels pattern when confronted with a loss..

Fec , Mar 23, 2018 1:28:22 PM | 14
@ 12 When you're powerless, give the opposition what they want and hope they choke on it. Trump is being underestimated. Dunford, Mattis, Pompeo and Kelly lined up
behind Trump against Tillerson and the White Helmets in Ghouta.
Mike Maloney , Mar 23, 2018 1:48:20 PM | 15
Let's not forget about Venezuela. Story from McClatchy's D.C. bureau says Bolton considers Venezuela low-hanging fruit ripe for the plucking.
Emily , Mar 23, 2018 2:12:09 PM | 16
Bolton was named as one of Trump's very earliest supporters.
Right at the beginning.
Sounding alarm bells for many.
A few links to refresh some memories.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/john-bolton-state-trump-232573
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/310197-giving-bolton-place-at-state-would-undermine-trumps-own
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-john-bolton-isnt-part-of-the-trump-administration/
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/bolton-iran-deal-cancel/
DonFromWyoming , Mar 23, 2018 2:12:53 PM | 17
"libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron, kind of like saying "a peace-loving bomb-thrower".
Pnyx , Mar 23, 2018 2:21:12 PM | 18
"Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate."
This is nonsense. And you know it B. But you still fancy your idea about a non-interventionistic Trump, and now, by the time this belief is definitely shattered, you try a reasoning dangerously near to 'wenn das der Führer wüsste'.
Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 2:35:10 PM | 19
thanks to b for this excellent link and extensive discussion of Mattis:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/23/james-mattis-defense-secretary-how-to-succeed-in-trump-cabinet-without-getting-fired-217699

This discussion suggests why Mattis has been successful with a naïve blowhard president, including the following interesting comment:

John Bolton's arrival in April as the president's new national security adviser will give Mattis a more ardent and skillful adversary at the National Security Council. Mattis outranked McMaster in military terms and always considered him his junior, even though Mattis is retired. He likely won't view Bolton that way, and Bolton prizes his ability to corral the bureaucracy for his purposes.

We're looking at an upcoming contest Mattis vs. Bolton on such matters as wars with Iran, North Korea, and whoever.

Glad to see all the optimism here on how harmless Bolton is but would like a little more substance versus the automatic dismissals.

Jef , Mar 23, 2018 2:39:05 PM | 20
I don't see the financial thread in all of this and I seriously believe that is #1 on Trumps mind. He would love for his legacy to be the POTUS that turned around the global economic collapse and opened the door big business everywhere.

That is his history wrt foreign relations and he could care less for the "blow shit up" mentality. Not saying that he can't be talked into it, just saying he would prefer the headline "Trump opens up the world for more US business". I honestly think that he believes that a trade war (business by other means) leads to US becoming a Mfg powerhouse again. Those around him might convince him that blowing shit up will have the same outcome.

Banking/finance learned a long time ago that you are better off keeping your customers around to continue borrowing than imprisoning or kill them off. The world is a market place and Trump wants to "make deals-not war" as long as America gets the better part of the deal.

Only other thing that makes since is what CM @ 10 proposes, that Trump is compromised.

bevin , Mar 23, 2018 2:39:59 PM | 21
Kalen @8 you must have followed the Bolton divorce case.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons it just needs a treaty with Russia and China. It might be of assistance to the dimwitted in Washington if the treaty specifically stated that Iran is under a nuclear umbrella.
We ought to acknowledge that, as the camarilla of generals surrounding Trump turns into a junta of bullshitters and blowhards, the dictatorship in DC has never been anything more than an alliance between billionaires, bullshitters and the American Gestapo.
jayc , Mar 23, 2018 2:41:38 PM | 22
Bolton's presence will accelerate Europe's move away from the U.S. This is probably inevitable now.
dh , Mar 23, 2018 3:02:14 PM | 23
@20 Trump may be all about deals but he's having a terrible effect on the stock markets. If a trade war with China wasn't bad enough now they have Bolton to worry about.
Jose Garcia , Mar 23, 2018 3:17:23 PM | 24
What you mean about Bolt-man is he'll be safe in his office, while YOUR father, mother, son, uncle, brother, sister or other family member dies for HIS idea of how the world should be. "We will fight fight "till the last drop of.....your blood!" The "inside the Beltway" gangsters sicken me.
TJ , Mar 23, 2018 3:19:34 PM | 25
Bolton is not a libertarian, libertarians believe in the "non-aggression principle" -

https://www.theadvocates.org/2016/10/aggression/

Please correct this.

Augustin L , Mar 23, 2018 3:20:38 PM | 26
@ 10 Charles,
In New-York Trump's been known as The FRONT GOY even before the Atlantic city heist. Without Kompromat tapes they can bury him six million different ways before sunday...
Charles Michael , Mar 23, 2018 3:37:29 PM | 27
Pat lang SST was horrified by the prospect of Bolton nomination: Not Bolton! not him !

Yesterday Alastair Crooke published on Strategi Culture:
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/03/22/is-north-korea-deal-stalking-horse-trump-mid-east-makeover.html

A day before Bolton got the job, still a very interesting read as usual, up to the end, because Nothing can go wrigth in DC those days, in fact nothing can be done.

Peter AU 1 , Mar 23, 2018 3:51:55 PM | 28
The Trump meeting with KJU, if it comes off, will give an indication of where Trump is headed. Much showtime shock and awe and hyperbole leading up to his suddenly agreeing to the meeting which caught all the US political animals on both sides of the fence by surprise.
Haley constantly yapping like an annoying little dog has achieved what? Haley seems be just another prop in the shock and awe show.
At the same time, Trump could miscalculate and stumble into major war, or he may be actually planning a war. Always room for both pessimism and optimism with Trump, depending on the day.
Laguerre , Mar 23, 2018 4:02:08 PM | 29
I rather agree with Kalen. Trump is genuinely a blowhard - loud mouth and little action.

Bolton is an unpleasant warmonger, though he didn't get much through before. He was never confirmed by the Senate as ambassador to the UN. Since then he's had various sidelined positions as thinktank fellow.

My impression of Trump is that he is too lazy to get the US into a major war. A major war would be a lot of work, and, whatever the advice from the help, I don't think he'd go for it. Especially he wouldn't like months or years in a nuclear bunker. He couldn't dandle young thighs at Mar-a-Lago. That would be a major argument.

An important issue with Trump is that he is unable to keep staff. He must be running out of potential candidates. That's why Bolton.

Don Bacon , Mar 23, 2018 4:24:18 PM | 30
re: "libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron . .Bolton is not a libertarian

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. There are various interpretations of what libertarianism means to various people, such as the freedom to do as one pleases.
Bolton is a libertarian in a national sense. His liberty is national liberty. He is anti-globalist and unilateralist, believing that the country's values should never be superseded by international agreements and treaties. This thinking coincides with Trump's position declared during the campaign. "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism," Trump said in his defining foreign policy speech as a candidate in the spring of 2016. "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down."
Following from this concept of national libertarianism, Bolton goes further to the ready and unilateral use of armed force to advance foreign policy, without bilateral or multilateral agreement. He's a hawk, but that's not unusual for Americans in government.

Lester , Mar 23, 2018 4:37:44 PM | 31
The planet isn't going to survive much longer with Americans and the Tribe infesting it. Fumigation is in order. Pack the Americans and the antisemite semites into an ICBM and send them flying into the heart of the sun. A solution as good as any other.
Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 4:39:20 PM | 32
@ 27 and 20: thanks Charles re link to the Alastair Crooke article which reflects Jef's earlier comment: that is, Trump would likely say: me for war? hell no I'm a peace lover but I'll drive the good bargain including war threat as needed in my "art of making a deal"(hence tools to this end such as Pompeo and Bolton). Crooke makes a good point that Tillerson was too much a conventional diplomat; Trump likes tough, unpredictable guys like Mattis to model himself after.

But all this is in the fundamentals of the same megalomaniacal type thinking that drove/drives PNAC and smart-ass know-it-all-ism of the Iraq Invasion and continuation of this mindset (see Bremer) after "mission accomplished."

This mind-set at base is the problem. I call it megalomania, others might call it hubris on steroids, or daydreams of the psychopath. For me it's difficult to pull Trump out of this mindset, because he's essentially the same. At the same time HIS version of it clashes with State Department Egomania--possibly toward doing some good at times (as with changing the course of US action in Syria last year; as with low-key response to the Skripal nonsense at this time) but nonetheless presenting the possibility of a new set of tripwires a la invasion of Iraq 2003, in terms of North Korea-Iraq.

It seems apparent at this time that Trump is clueless that for North Korea to denuclearize that would mean a quid pro quo of US forces leaving South Korea--which will never be acceptable to the neocons or Trump.

Jason , Mar 23, 2018 5:18:16 PM | 33
I wonder if there are people in the military thinking about resigning before WW3? There is isn't even a believable narrative put forward in bombing Damascus nor Tehran except for murder, destruction and conquest, there is literally zero self defensive aspect. I wonder how special forces troops in Syria who are about to attack the Syrian army and Syrian people on the side if HTS, Al Qaeda, IS, Nouri al Zinki, FSA feel about their mission; many must know they are basically committing treason.
Lester , Mar 23, 2018 5:31:07 PM | 34
"Murder, destruction and conquest". That's as American as apple pie. Why would Americans be committing treason doing the Tribe's work?
worldblee , Mar 23, 2018 5:39:20 PM | 35
Bolton may or may not be a blowhard but the malignant idiocy that billows forth from his mouth is frightening in its combination of willful ignorance and unrestrained rage. He is the new National Insecurity Advisor--that would be his more accurate title.
Blessed Economist , Mar 23, 2018 5:43:29 PM | 36
How long will he last. There cannot be many rooms in the Whitehouse big enough to hold the ego of Trump and the ego of Bolton at the same time.
bevin , Mar 23, 2018 5:43:59 PM | 37
From Off Guardian:
"...as of today, it appears that long battle for Jobar and its neighboring suburbs is finally over after an agreement was put in place with the primary militant groups there.

"According to a military report from Damascus, the Syrian Army and Faylaq Al-Rahman have agreed to peace terms in four East Ghouta suburbs, with the latter agreeing to leave to Idlib.

"Based on the agreement, Faylaq Al-Rahman will surrender all of their weapons, except for their small arms; they will release all Syrian Army prisoners from their jails; they will inform the government of all explosives they placed around the suburbs of Zamalka, Jobar, 'Ayn Tarma, and Arbin; and agree to exit these suburbs on Saturday.

"The militants are now scheduled to leave these four East Ghouta suburbs by noon tomorrow..."

ashley albanese , Mar 23, 2018 5:46:05 PM | 38
Bhadrakumar writes bigger ' war in Syria is imminent ' .
Laguerre , Mar 23, 2018 6:16:30 PM | 39
It is evident that US policy in Syria is failing. The original plan was to divide Syria into weak independent cantons, much as the French wanted in the 1920s. The French didn't succeed. It would be surprising of the US did.

The only parts which remain, are the jihadis in Idlib, and the Kurds in Jazira. Two elements which are opposed to one another.

Supposing that the US wants to revive the war in Syria, as the Neocons do, what are they going to do? Decapitation of the regime in Damascus was a way of getting the Jihadis into power (you have to wonder about US support for jihadis). Unfortunately, the Russians put troops into Damascus a few weeks ago to prevent that. Otherwise it's a bit of a nothing. The Kurds can stay in Jazira, Nobody's going to stop them.

Du , Mar 23, 2018 6:39:55 PM | 40
Great analysis - as usual. The thing missing is that this guy is a rabid zionist and the White House is now a governorate of the AN orthodox American province of Israel.

[Mar 23, 2018] Hawks Resurgent in Washington by Philip Girald

Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

One of the most discouraging aspects of the musical chairs being played among the members of the White House inner circle is that every change reflects an inexorable move to the right in foreign policy, which means that the interventionists are back without anyone at the White House level remaining to say "no." President Donald Trump, for all his international experience as a businessman, is a novice at the step-by-step process required in diplomacy and in the development of a coherent foreign policy, so he is inevitably being directed by individuals who have long American global leadership by force if necessary.

The resurgence of the hawks is facilitated by Donald Trump's own inclinations. He likes to see himself as a man of action and a leader, which inclines him to be impulsive, some might even say reckless. He is convinced that he can enter into negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un with virtually no preparations and make a deal that will somehow end the crisis over that nation's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, for example. In so doing, he is being encouraged by his National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and his Pentagon chief James Mattis, who believe that the United States can somehow prevail in a preemptive war with the Koreans if that should become necessary. The enormous collateral damage to South Korea and even Japan is something that Washington planners somehow seem to miss in their calculations.

The recent shifts in the cabinet have Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. A leading hawk, he was first in his class of 1986 at the United States Military Academy but found himself as a junior officer with no real war to fight. He spent six years in uniform before resigning, never having seen combat, making war an abstraction for him. He went to Harvard Law and then into politics where he became a Tea Party congressman, eventually becoming a leader of that caucus when it stopped being Libertarian and lurched rightwards. He has since marketed himself as a fearless soldier in the war against terrorism and rogue states, in which category he includes both Iran and Russia.

Pompeo was not popular at the CIA because he enforced a uniformity of thinking that was anathema for intelligence professionals dedicated to collecting solid information and using it to produce sound analysis of developments worldwide. Pompeo, an ardent supporter of Israel and one of the government's leading Iran haters, has been regularly threatening Iran while at the Agency and will no doubt find plenty of support at State from Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East David Satterfield, a former top adviser of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Pompeo has proven himself more than willing to manipulate intelligence produce the result he desires. Last year, he declassified and then cherry picked documents recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan that suggested that al-Qaeda had ties with Iran. The move was coordinated with simultaneous White House steps to prepare Congress and the public for a withdrawal from the Iran nuclear arms agreement. The documents were initially released to a journal produced by the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Pompeo has a number of times spoken, to guarantee wide exposure in all the right places.

Pompeo's arrival might only be the first of several other high-level moves by the White House. Like the rumors that preceded the firing of Secretary of State Tillerson two weeks ago, there have been recurrent suggestions that McMaster will be the next to go as he reportedly is too moderate for the president and has also been accused of being anti-Israeli , the kiss of death in Washington. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has been a frequent visitor at the White House and it is believed that he is the preferred candidate to fill the position. He is an extreme hawk, closely tied to the Israel Lobby, who would push hard for war against Iran and also for a hardline position in Syria, one that could lead to direct confrontation with the Syrian Armed Forces and possibly the Russians.

Bolton, who has been described by a former George W. Bush official as "the most dangerous man we had during the entire eight years," will undoubtedly have a problem in getting confirmed by Congress. He was rejected as U.N. Ambassador, requiring Bush to make a recess appointment which did not need Congressional approval.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation

[Mar 23, 2018] Putin and neoliberaism in Russia: What they told us about socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be perfectly true

Notable quotes:
"... After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and militarily. ..."
"... As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head. Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be perfectly true". ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [147] • Disclaimer says: March 22, 2018 at 7:23 pm GMT • 500 Words

Anon from TN

The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. He is a normal man, capable and intelligent, but he is not by any means that superhuman leader and savior. He looks much greater than he is because you subconsciously compare him with pathetic nonentities that the Western world sees as leaders now. In fact, the leadership of the US Empire and all its vassal countries visibly degenerated in the last decades. Just compare De Gaulle with sad excuses La Belle France had for presidents lately. Or compare Nixon (he might have been a nasty person, but he was a great President of the country) with various clintons, bushes, obamas, and trumps. Or compare Chancellor Kohl with that poor excuse for a chancellor that Germany has today. You get the drift.

Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US, but actually collapsed due to internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed their luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all dominant empires lose their grip and eventually crumble (remember Roman or British), and now it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the Chinese Empire, not Russian.

After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and militarily.

However, the US played a huge role in increasing Putin's popularity inside Russia, more than his propaganda machine ever could. Before the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014, Putin's approval hovered at about 45%. Nazi takeover in Ukraine and his decisive move to take Crimea back (it was transferred to Ukraine from Russia by Khruschev in 1956, illegally even by vague Soviet law; Crimea tried to get away from Ukraine ever since the breakup of the USSR in 1991; polls by Gallup and German company GfK showed that 80%+ Crimean residents wanted to join Russia, rather than remain in the madhouse that Ukraine became after the coup) resulted in his approval soaring above 70%.

Ill-advised sanctions added even more. Now he did not need to rig elections, he got genuine 70%+ vote, a level of support Western politicians can't even dream of (e.g., Trump was elected by 26% of eligible voters; Merkel's party in Germany got even less).

As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head. Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be perfectly true".

[Mar 23, 2018] Russia has several significant problems with growth of Muslim population and the fact that this is last term for Putin, which might signify the end of the period of political stability

Mar 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez says: March 23, 2018 at 8:22 am GMT 900 Words

This is way too rosy account. Russia has several significant problems with growth of Muslim population and the fact that this is last term for Putin, which might signify the end of the period of political stability.

Also economic rape by local and Western neoliberals of Russia in 1991-2000 was so successful that the country still can't fully recover. Hundreds of billions were stolen and transferred to the West. The "problem of neoliberal oligarchs" as "fifth column" still remains and is a threat to the future of the country. Too much depends of Putin personally. In this sense China is in a better position.

Moreover, Putin was forced into new arm race (by the USA) and military spending now are high and that creates another set of problems including growing influence of internal military industrial complex. Add to this the cost of Syria war and related set of external and internal problems, such as almost complete absence of allies (neither China not Iraq are reliable allies; most post-Soviet republics, even Kazakhstan, are now hostile to Russia)

And Russia does not have too many degrees of freedom yet, as it still depends on the West for many technologies and complex machinery. West dominates high technology area. Add to this brain drain and export of capital from Russia.

Technological dependence means that really crippling sanction are always a possibility. Availability of some of those technologies in China makes this problem less acute than in the past, but still in no way Russia can pursue completely independent policy.

Add to this dependence on dollar and the fact that Russian national bank, which remain a neoliberal institution, controlled by neoliberal Nabibulina ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvira_Nabiullina , who is close to Gref ) who like any "good" neoliberal keeps natural sovereign fund invested in US Treasuries. In this sense she is not that different from Kudrin.

And that means that those money can be confiscated anytime, like the USA did with Iran in the past. Also oligarchs money are now in danger due to clear desire of London to improve its financial standing at Russian oligarchs expense.

What is true is that neoliberalism as a political system entered deep crisis after 2008. In the USA political system became dysfunctional and there is some kind of "virtual" civil war between two factions of neoliberal oligarchy -- classic neoliberals and bastard neoliberals (aka economic nationalists). Add to this "strange" relations with Israel, which sometimes suggest that the tail wags the dog and I do not see why the USA can't experience something similar to processes that took place in Britain after the WWII.

But there is still no alternative social system on the horizon and return to "New deal capitalism" is impossible as the social alliance of management caste changed.

So Russia remains a neoliberal country which hates neoliberalism (in which by definition the power belongs to the financial oligarchy) and which tries to fight Western neoliberal imperialism in ofreign policy including attempts to make is a vassal and appropriate its natural resources (and Russia was a vassal of the West under Yeltsin) while remaining a neoliberal country and promoting neoliberalism externally. that's a recipe for a color revolution in the future, more successfully then 2012 "White" color revolution run by Moscow comprador class. Which in Moscow might well represent probably one third of the population (programmers, doctors, accountants, employees of foreign companies, part of "integrated with West" artistic cicles, writers, journalists, etc.). They were politically decimated by events in Ukraine and then by Russiagate hysteria in the USA. So "neoliberal compradors" class was not a player in the current elections. But that situation might eventually change and they can restore part of their political power.

So, in a way, Putin is some kind of Don Quixote which fight neoliberalism (and neoliberal globalization) externally, while allowing it to exist and even flourish internally (Medvedev, BTW looks like classic neoliberal, a Trojan horse in Putin's administration).

And internally neoliberalism naturally produces high level of corruption, which is amplified by "New Economic Policy" elements on the current Russia political regime (which allowed free operation of small and medium business, but tried to cut/decimate political power of large business -- a very difficult, if not impossible undertaking)

I think Professor Brovkin forgot the classic Lenin work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". That's sad...

Moreover, former pro-Putin people who are now CEO of large government companies are not longer Pro-Putin people. Because their position influences their political orientation. In a sense, people like Gref and Sechin are dangerous strata of Putin-created "nova riches", who can betray him any moment, especially if their money will be under the treat of confiscation by the West.

It might well be that Putin was an anomaly and Russian will enter "Maidan" period or some other form of political crisis after Putin relinquishes his power.

BTW Ukrainians were successfully deceived by the West twice, so I do not see why Russians can't repeat this trick and step of the same rake again by electing some variation of Yeltsin who will promise them immediate bright future and jump in the standard of living (which for the last three year deteriorated due to low oil prices and a huge depreciation of ruble). For Ukrainians around 20 year was enough to forget all lessons.

My impression is that Russia might experience yet another serious of political cataclysm in the near future, when "Putinism" will disappear with Putin.

[Mar 23, 2018] Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for the invocation of Article 5? Nothing.

Notable quotes:
"... "Let me be clear with you" ..."
"... " When I look at the evidence, I mean" ..."
"... "the people from Porton Down, the laboratory So they have the samples They do." ..."
"... "And they were absolutely categorical" ..."
"... "and I asked the guy myself," ..."
"... "I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt" ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

J , March 22, 2018 at 22:36

On a related note, this article by Prof. Niels Harrit claims that a document declassified in 2008 was the basis for the ongoing war in Afghanstian, and that the document is as evidence free as the Novichok claims:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-frank-taylor-report-the-911-document-that-launched-us-natos-war-on-terrorism-in-the-middle-east/5632874

Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for the invocation of Article 5? Nothing. There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan. Only a small part of the introductory text deals with 9/11, in the form of summary claims like the citation in Lord Robertson's press release. The main body of the text deals with the alleged actions of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the nineties.

On 4 October, NATO officially went to war based on a document that provided only 'talking points' and no evidence to support the key claim.

Sound familiar? Of course, I've no idea if he's right.

Je , March 23, 2018 at 00:01

The Taliban foreign minister at the time tried to warn the Americans of the attack they learned about it from a third party that is about as far removed from being behind the attack as it gets. Didn't help them did it the Americans were after vengeance and wanted to satisfy their bloodlust by bombing a country which didn't even have a single one of its citizens involved in the attack. Classic scapegoating.

https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F1%2Fhi%2Fworld%2Fsouth_asia%2F2242594.stm&date=2008-05-29

lysias , March 23, 2018 at 00:27

They had other reasons to want to attack Afghanistan . In fact, they warned the Taliban that they would if the Taliban did not permit the desired pipeline.

Je , March 23, 2018 at 00:41

There's an article on that here, written at the time (in 2001):

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/tangled_web/2001/12/pipe_dreams.html

Tom , March 22, 2018 at 22:37

What do you expect from Johnson? A grindingly stupid man who has never got a job on merit and is now desperately hoping the public don't see through his lies for the Americans. No wonder the government don't want to bring back grammar schools.

Herbie , March 22, 2018 at 22:45

The Ghouta connection:

http://www.unz.com/article/four-days-to-declare-a-cold-war/

CanSpeccy , March 22, 2018 at 22:45

Nice work.

The evidence so far supports Putin's claim that that allegations against Russia are "drivel."

Clark , March 22, 2018 at 22:57

New Viz character; Boris the Bullshitter. Textbook bullshitting:

-- "Let me be clear with you" (though what is to follow is as clear as mud,) " When I look at the evidence, I mean" (not me, actually, I mean) "the people from Porton Down, the laboratory So they have the samples They do." (believe me) "And they were absolutely categorical" (about what?) "and I asked the guy myself," (what did you ask him, Boris?) "I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt" (no doubt of WHAT, Boris?)

What CAN you do with people like this?

m , March 22, 2018 at 23:02

It's obvious when Johnson is lying, it's whenever he opens his mouth.

Ross , March 22, 2018 at 23:18

Has PC Plod managed to make a public appearance yet, or is he still speaking through media surrogates?

Clark , March 22, 2018 at 23:26

Craig, I have to set you straight on this. Boris is as incapable of lying as he is of telling the truth. As strange as it may seem to rational minds, the concepts of truth and falsity simply do not exist in minds such as his. To him, everything is merely an opportunity for achieving his goals, or a threat to his credibility that needs to be bluffed over, and to those ends every statement he makes will be as vague as he can get away with under the circumstances.

J , March 23, 2018 at 00:36

Sounds about right.

[Mar 23, 2018] In a way Ukraine stepped on the same rake twice: once in 1991 and the second time in 2014. That's unforgivable

Looks like the rules of neoliberal game for Ukraine are as following: Ukraine should be ready for fight Russia till the last Ukrainian, serving as cannon fodder for EU geopolitical interests in Eurasia; (2) As a "debt slave" Ukraine should allow the transfer of ownership of all strategic assets and commodities to EU corporations for pennies on dollar independently of how Donbass situation is resolved; (3) Ukraine should buy EU products, no matter how poor they are and local production should be be iether eliminated ("Baltics style deindustrialization"), or outsourced to transnational corporations with Ukrainian as a cheap labor force (wage slaves).
Notable quotes:
"... And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to Poland after USSR fell. ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez , March 23, 2018 at 3:20 am GMT

@polskijoe

And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to Poland after USSR fell.

Very true. Poland was the first Eastern European country which adopted neoliberal model and thus served to a certain extent as "photo model" of neoliberalism for the rest of Eastern Europe and xUSSR space. So standard of living did not drop too low. The country was somewhat supported by EU and by the USA.

Ukraine was royally raped economically in 1991-2000. Probably as bad as Russia, may be even worse.

In 2014 Ukrainians were lured by unrealistic dream of getting Western European standard of living as a gift for breaking with Russia. As well as the resentment toward kleptocrat Yanukovich (which actually was pretty typical neoliberal politician; not much worse then Poroshenko )

Now they start to understand that the EU will devour the corpse to the bones and they are stuck at the Central African level poverty of $2 a day or so (on average), but this is too late.

A very typical story, a very typical outcome. Neoliberalism is a cancer. As Russian prime minister quipped about economic rape of Russia by local and Western neoliberals in 1991-2000: "We strived to get the best [economic] outcome, but it turned out like we got even worse then average. As always." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Chernomyrdin )

So in a way they stepped on the same rake twice: once in 1991 and the second time in 2014. That's unforgivable.

[Mar 23, 2018] Will the Deep State Break Trump The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel, congratulated Putin on his re-election victory.

Instantly, the briefing paper for the president's call was leaked to the Post . In bold letters it read "DO NOT CONGRATULATE."

Whereupon the Beltway went ballistic.

How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did he not denounce Putin for interfering with "our democracy"?

Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital city.

If you wish to see the deep state at work, this is it: anti-Trump journalists using First Amendment immunities to collude with and cover up the identities of bureaucratic snakes out to damage or destroy a president they despise. No wonder democracy is a declining stock worldwide.

And, yes, they give out Pulitzers for criminal collusion like this.

The New York Times got a Pulitzer and the Post got a Hollywood movie starring Meryl Streep for publishing stolen secret papers from the Pentagon of JFK and LBJ -- to sabotage the Vietnam War policy of Richard Nixon.

Why? Because the hated Nixon was succeeding in extricating us with honor from a war that the presidents for whom the Times and Post hauled water could not win or end.

Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like resisters.

Ex-CIA director John Brennan openly speculated Tuesday that the president may have been compromised by Moscow and become an asset of the Kremlin.

"I think he's afraid of the president of Russia," Brennan said of Trump and Putin. "The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could expose."

If Brennan has evidence Trump is compromised, he should relay it to Robert Mueller. If he does not, this is speculation of an especially ugly variety for someone once entrusted with America's highest secrets.

What's going on in this city is an American version of the "color revolutions" we have employed to knock over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine.

The goal is to break Trump's presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump's agenda of populist conservatism. Then America can return to the open borders, free trade, democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites.

Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right.

In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the border, bring back manufacturing, or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled and bankrupted our nation.

Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban return to Kabul, none are existential threats to the United States.

But if the borders of our country are not secured, as Reagan warned, in a generation, America will not even be a country.

Trump seems now to recognize that the special counsel's office of Robert Mueller, which this city sees as the instrument of its deliverance, is a mortal threat to his presidency.

Mueller's team wishes to do to Trump what Archibald Cox's team sought to do to Nixon: drive him out of office or set him up for the kill by a Democratic Congress in 2019.

Trump appears to recognize that the struggle with Mueller is now a political struggle -- to the death.

Hence Trump's hiring of Joe diGenova and the departure of John Dowd from his legal team. In the elegant phrase of Michael Corleone, diGenova is a wartime consigliere.

He believes Trump is the target of a conspiracy, under which Jim Comey's FBI put in the fix to prevent Hillary's prosecution and then fabricated a crime of collusion with Russia to take down the new president the American people had elected.

The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d'etat. And it is not wrong for them to think so.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Mar 23, 2018] It's amazing what obomber left around for the trumpster to use.

Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: jo6pac | Mar 22, 2018 5:55:35 PM | 21

jo6pac , Mar 22, 2018 5:55:35 PM | 21
#4
It's amazing what obomber left around for the trumpster to use.

http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-for-obama-is-scandal-when-it-comes-to-trump

[Mar 23, 2018] How many knows that Obama went to the WH with a regime change feather already in his cap

Mar 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

denk , March 23, 2018 at 4:21 am GMT

@ANON

For starter,

How many knows that Obama, the son of Africa , went to the WH with a regime change feather already in his cap, ?

Obama's Kenya caper ..

During the parliamentary elections of December 2007, a survey funded by USAID announces the victory of Odinga. On election day, John McCain announced that President Kibaki rigged the election in favor of his party and that in fact the opposition led by Odinga had won.

The NSA, in conjunction with local phone operators, sent anonymous text messages to the population.

In areas populated by the Luo (Odinga's ethnic group), they read "Dear Kenyans, the Kikuyu have stolen our children's future We must treat them in the only way that they understand with violence."

In areas populated by Kikuyu, they read: "The blood of any innocent Kikuyu will be paid. We will slaughter them right to the heart of the capital. For Justice, establish a list of Luos that you know. We will send you the phone numbers to call with such information."

Within days, this peaceful country sank into sectarian violence. The riots caused over 1 000 deaths and 300 000 displaced. 500 000 jobs were lost .

Madeleine Albright came back. She offered to mediate between President Kibaki and the opposition trying to overthrow him. With finesse, she stepped aside and placed in the spotlight the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights. The board of this respected NGO was newly chaired by the former Prime Minister of Norway, Thorbjørn Jagland.

Breaking with the Center's traditional impartiality, he sent two mediators on site, whose expenses were entirely footed by Madeleine Albright's NDI (that is to say ultimately out of the U.S. Department of State's budget): another former Norwegian Prime Minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, and former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan (the Ghanaian is very much on the scene in Scandinavian states since he married the niece of Raoul Wallenberg). Compelled to accept the compromises forced on him in order to restore civil peace, President Kibaki agreed to create a prime minister post and to entrust it to Raila Odinga, who immediately began reducing trade with China.
Small gifts between friends

http://www.voltairenet.org/article162559.html

[Mar 23, 2018] Sleazy Obama used Facebook illegally to get an advantage during 2012 elections

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

2012 Post Mortem

"It's Time to Break Up Facebook" [ Politico ]. " According to Carol Davidsen , a member of Obama's data team, "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing."

The social graph is Facebook's map of relationships between users and brands on its platform.

And after the election, she recently acknowledged, Facebook was 'very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side .'" Holy moly.

Altandmain , March 22, 2018 at 7:05 pm

Going back to the days of Obama and Clinton is not going to "save" democracy. That's a sham democracy where the rich really run things – a plutocracy pretending to be a democracy.

It's just that Trump has blown off the comfortable mask and the "big lie".

It should also be noted that inequality and economic despair brought about the conditions such that people would be willing to consider a demagogue like Trump to begin with.

[Mar 23, 2018] John Bolton's Incompetence May Be More Dangerous Than His Ideology by Heather Hurlburt

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. ..."
"... Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional . ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | nymag.com

John Bolton has been one of liberals' top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn't really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a book that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and Brexit campaigns, among others.

Recently Bolton's statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to say that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he called for a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His hostility toward Islam points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American Muslims' rights at home and alienating America's Muslim allies abroad.

As worrying as these policies are, it's worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then soured on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump's opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.

Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been quoted praising Russian "democracy" as recently as 2013). That's nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on Russia as well. But there's every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we'll get from Bolton's National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.

President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. Their disagreements are real – Bolton has famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump attempted to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right's LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and calling for the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

That's all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way. His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump's announcement with comments like "the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job" – not exactly a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker described Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down kind of guy," and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy until he doesn't. This is a man who can't refrain from telling Tucker Carlson that his analysis is "simpleminded" – while he's a guest on Carlson's show. Turns out it's not true that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a tape dispenser. When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a " midlevel munchkin ." How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?

Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional .

Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process. It's also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster, regardless their views of Trump.

So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it's hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with Twitter feeds – on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.

[Mar 23, 2018] The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran.

Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

fairleft | Mar 23, 2018 12:37:30 AM | 72

The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran. In fact Hillary was attacking Trump from the war hawk right on this issue in 2016 (of course alienating key voters as she did so). So, just like in 2002 with Iraq, the two-party mainstream and all the mainstream media will be overwhelmed by pro-war voices, and the arguments in favor of peace and basic sanity will be ostracized. Note in the RT piece below that the only Democrats expressing real, concrete concern/revulsion are the usual, sheepdog leftie suspects.

'Trump lining up war cabinet'? Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm

https://www.rt.com/usa/422084-trump-bolton-war-cabinet-reaction/

[Mar 23, 2018] 'Trump lining up war cabinet' Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm

Notable quotes:
"... "With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," ..."
"... "John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," ..."
"... "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," ..."
"... "drumbeats of war." ..."
"... "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," ..."
"... "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.rt.com

Donald Trump's cabinet reshuffles have fueled concerns, not least after the latest appointment of hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser, just days after installing a former CIA chief as the new secretary of state. On Thursday afternoon Donald Trump decided to sack Gen. HR McMaster from his national security adviser post, replacing him with John Bolton. The former US envoy to the United Nations will assume office on April 9 – just days after Mike Pompeo is set to replace Rex Tillerson as the new secretary of state.

READ MORE: Trump replaces national security adviser McMaster with John Bolton

The newly formed doublet has caused shockwaves among the Democrats, who have alleged that Trump seems to be preparing for war. Democratic Senator from Massachusetts Ed Markey warned that Trump is creating a "war cabinet," warning of "grave danger" following Bolton's appointment.

John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran and conducting a first strike on North Korea without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people and a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict.

-- Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 22, 2018

"With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," he tweeted.

"John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," Senator Markey added.

John Bolton:
Wanted war w Cuba, arguing wrongly that Cuba had WMD
Wanted war w Iraq, arguing – wrong again – that Iraq had WMD
Believes – wrongly – that Islamic law is taking over America

If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor

-- Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) March 22, 2018

The choice of Bolton as the national security adviser has also been questioned by Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon, who has pointed out many flaws with the new appointee's policies. "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," Merkley tweeted.

This is dangerous news for the country and the world. John Bolton was easily one of the most extreme, pro-war members of the Bush Administration.

Imagine what havoc he could wreak whispering in Donald Trump's ear...I hear the drumbeats of war. https://t.co/A6ZIyORAM7

-- Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) March 22, 2018

Rep. Barbara Jean Lee of California's 13th congressional district was also disappointed by Trump's choice, claiming she is hearing the "drumbeats of war."

The President is surrounding himself with combative lawyers. He's replacing Tillerson and McMaster with Pompeo and Bolton.

It's almost like the President is preparing to go to war in the legal and foreign relations sense...

-- Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) March 22, 2018

Fears expressed by some Capitol Hill members and the public seem justified. The notoriously hawkish former United Nations ambassador was a chief architect of the George W. Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq in 2003, that was based on false accusations that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.

This is one of the most dangerous developments I've seen in our foreign and nat'l security policy. Period. #Bolton #McMaster . https://t.co/aEl5aRn9fA

-- Steve Israel (@RepSteveIsrael) March 22, 2018

Trump's choice of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo as the new secretary of state also made many in Washington uneasy. Unlike his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, Pompeo seems better aligned with Trump's confrontational foreign policy, namely on the Iran nuclear deal, on North Korea, and on the shift of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Besides politicians, the American public also expressed concern about the feasibility of a looming armed conflict.

John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now.

-- Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 22, 2018

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders called Bolton "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," recalling how he deceived the public about the Iraq war.

"John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," Sanders tweeted.

"John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-13) said in a written statement. "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world."

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Mar 23, 2018] Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.

Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dh , Mar 23, 2018 12:13:22 AM | 69

@66 Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-bolton-fires-back-against-004800253.html

[Mar 23, 2018] So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Jim Haygood , , March 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm

So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?

Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the 21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen! /sarc

Carolinian , , March 22, 2018 at 8:50 pm

Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump/

Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan (for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).

Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.

barrisj , , March 22, 2018 at 10:21 pm

Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.

[Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.

Highly recommended!
Mar 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

karlof1 , March 22, 2018 at 12:06 am GMT

I find it rather interesting that none of the comments address the last part of Shamir's article. If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.
Rick Merlotti , March 19, 2018 at 10:39 am

Perfidious Albion

A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London Sunday Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants:

"We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China Britain needs a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission."

Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.

As visitors to the LaRouchePAC website know, Russia and China have embarked on a massive infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the center of all British geopolitical fantasies since the time of Halford MacKinder. Moreover, China's Belt and Road Initiative now encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future, while neo-liberal economies continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the massive mound of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair trigger for implosion. It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion with over-the-counter derivatives accounting for another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the derivatives collapse.

In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support of peaceful collaboration with Russia during the campaign and his personal friendship with President Xi, marked him for the relentless coup against him waged by the British and their U.S. friends.

On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing new Russian weapons systems based on new physical principles which render present U.S. ABM systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with the vaunted first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on a new financial collapse; its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.

More: https://larouchepac.com/20180318/perfidious-albion-fatally-wounded-british-beast-lashes-out

Anna , March 19, 2018 at 9:45 pm

Allister Heath pretends to be a pole-bearer for liberal democracies. And what exactly is so precious about Heath and his "liberal democracy" in the UK?

Is it the sudden expertise in chemical weaponry by Boris Johnson, who "knew" immediately that "Russians did it?" This Boris Johnson: "'I am a passionate Zionist,' declares Boris Johnson: http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/boris-johnson-zionist/

Compare Boris pronouncements to the expert conclusion by a real expert in chemical weaponry:

"This so-called "nerve agent" [novichok] has never been placed on the OPCW list of banned chemical weapons because it has never existed. Its non-existence was confirmed by Dr. Robin Black, until recently he was a head of the detection laboratory at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Porton Down). He wrote in his review: " emphasizes that there is no independent confirmation of Mirzayanov's claims about the chemical properties of these compounds: Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)"

"Just accept that everything the British government says is a lie" http://thesaker.is/the-british-spy-skripal-hoax/

[Mar 22, 2018] Bad news: Trump just picked John Bolton to be the new National Security Advisor.

Mar 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment March 22, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT

OT, but related.

Bad news: Trump just picked John Bolton to be the new National Security Advisor.

https://www.rt.com/usa/422081-trump-security-adviser-mcmaster-bolton/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=push_notifications

[Mar 22, 2018] McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton - The New York Times

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON -- Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the battle-tested Army officer tapped as President Trump's national security adviser last year to stabilize a turbulent foreign policy operation, will resign and be replaced by John R. Bolton, a hard-line former United States ambassador to the United Nations, White House officials said Thursday.

General McMaster will retire from the military, the officials said. He has been discussing his departure with President Trump for several weeks, they said, but decided to speed up his departure, in part because questions about his status were casting a shadow over his conversations with foreign officials.

The officials also said that Mr. Trump wanted to fill out his national security team before his meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. He replaced Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson with the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, last week.

Officials emphasized that General McMaster's departure was a mutual decision and amicable, with none of the recrimination that marked Mr. Tillerson's exit. They said it was not related to a leak on Tuesday of briefing materials for Mr. Trump's phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

In the materials, Mr. Trump was advised not to congratulate Mr. Putin on his re-election, which the president went ahead and did during the call.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Mr. Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with Mr. Trump to discuss foreign policy, and was on a list of candidates for national security adviser. He was in the West Wing with Mr. Trump to discuss the job on Thursday.

[Mar 22, 2018] The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War With Iran by Gareth Porter

Another chickenhawk in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. ..."
"... During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran. ..."
"... Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days. ..."
"... Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia. ..."
"... So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce. ..."
"... Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences. ..."
"... I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling". ..."
"... I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor. ..."
"... But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq. ..."
"... Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons ..."
"... Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry. ..."
"... Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to ..."
"... . He is also the author of ..."
"... Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter . ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Everyone knows Bolton is a hawk. Less understood is how he labored in secret to drive Washington and Tehran apart. By Gareth Porter • March 22, 2018

John Bolton (Gage Skidmore/Flikr) In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time -- in 2007 , in 2008, and again in 2011 -- those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.

But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy.

His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as the Bush administration's policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for the administration to carry out military action.

More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson .

It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart.

Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to have had the inside track for national security advisor. Trump met with Bolton on March 6 and told him, "We need you here, John," according to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump promised, "I'll call you really soon." Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources leaked to the media Trump's intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of weeks.

The only other possible candidate for the position mentioned in media accounts is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.

Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.

Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.

Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he had no doubt the United States would attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.

During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran.

Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book The Nuclear Jihadist , Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with briefing the world's press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit's responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.

Bolton's role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he outlines in his own 2007 memoir , was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council. He was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat. Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.

Bolton's strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for conventional explosives testing.

Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran's "intransigence" in refusing to answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.

The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran's nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents, allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to redesign Iran's Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.

But the whole story of the so-called "laptop documents" was a fabrication. In 2013, a former senior German official revealed the true story to this writer: the documents had been given to German intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to "launder" information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn't know that Iran had already abandoned the Shahab-3's nose cone for an entirely different design.

Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man. Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that the Iranians were getting close to "the point of no return." That was point, Bolton wrote, at which "we could not stop their progress without using force."

Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered. Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to attack an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007. But the risk that pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.

The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz. They had no patience for Cheney's wild ideas about more war.

That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged from reality could challenge that wariness -- and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.

Stephen J. March 21, 2018 at 10:37 pm

I believe "War With Iran" is on the agenda. I wrote the article below some time ago. "Will There Be War With Iran"? Is it now Iran's turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack on Iran?

[read more at link below]

http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.html

See also: Will the War Agenda of the War Criminals Result in Nuclear War? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-war-agenda-of-war-criminals-result.html

Clyde Schechter , , says: March 21, 2018 at 11:37 pm
Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days.
Procivic , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:35 am
The re-emergence of Bolton is the result of Trump's electoral victory, a phenomenon that resembles the upheavals that followed when an unhinged hereditary ruler would take the reins of power in bygone empires.
Duglarri , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:16 am
There's a big difference between the wars with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and a war with Iran. The difference is, this is a war the United States could lose. And lose very, very badly. As Pompeo remarked, it would take "only" 2000 airstrikes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities. But what will it take to land 20,000 marines on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf to secure the straits, and there fend off 1.7 million Iranian regulars and militia on the ground? How will the navy cope with hundreds and hundreds of supersonic cruise missiles fired in volleys? What about the S-300 missiles that are by now fully operational in Iran?

A look at the map shows that this is a war that the US simply cannot win.

Unless it uses nuclear weapons and simply sets out to kill every last man, woman, and child in Iran, all 80 million of them.

Which I suppose is not out of the question. As all options are sure to be on the table.

Minnesota Mary , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:54 am
"Everyone worshipped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshipped the beast also, saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?'" Revelation 13:4

Who can fight against the U.S/NATO? Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia.

wrap , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 am
So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce.
Hanson , , says: March 22, 2018 at 4:58 am
The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start.
Julien , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:54 am
Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences.
EliteCommInc. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:03 am
Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required. But I don't need background to know that advocating for wars that serve little in the way of US interests because we simply are not in any "clear and present danger".

Odd that so many "old schoolers" have abandoned some general cliche's that serve as sound guide.

the freakshow (cont'd) , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:41 am
Just when you think you've heard the last of the various catastrophes, blunders, and odd capering about involving Bolton, you hear that voice from the old late night gadget commercials barking "wait, there's more !!"

I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling".

rta , , says: March 22, 2018 at 10:25 am
I wonder if people will finally realize that Trump was only draining the swamp so he could replace it with a cesspool.
Chris Mallory , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:16 am
"The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start."

Hey now, Bolton's service in the Maryland National Guard made sure the North Vietnamese never landed in Baltimore. Can you imagine the horror if the Russians had captured our supply of soft shell crab?

Esther Haman , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:27 am
John Bolton a 75 year old loser, a has Never-been, which is the mouth piece of the Zionists who keep him on the pay roll. He likes to hear his own voice and to feel important because he wants war with Iran or all the Middle East. He's actions and speeches are all emotional and lack logic and reasoning. So, what is he good for?!
Egypt Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:29 am
Re: "Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required."

Not sure about that. We definitely need Roosevelts and Lincolns, Grants and Shermans and Eisenhowers and Pattons. I'm not clear on what function the likes of Bolton serve.

Kent , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:16 pm
This article fails to address the why. Why does Bolton want war with Iran?
Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:38 pm
I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor.

But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq.

And if the Iranians had any sense RIGHT NOW, they would make sure every family had a stock of 10 powerful anti-vehicle mines, REALLY powerful mines. Make sure all are safely buried with locations memorized. And make sure everyone had the training to use them, even older children (who will be the front-line guerrillas in 5 years).

So if that devil Bolton gets his way, his own country will pay a price too, and deservedly too. I want my country to be peaceful and friendly to the world like the Germans are now. But it may take the same type of "WWII treatment" to get my hateful war-loving countrymen to walk away from their sin.

Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:47 pm
The guerrilla war in Iraq was fought against only 5 million Sunni Arabs, the US occupiers having successfully pealed away the Kurds and Shia to be collaborators, or at least stay uninvolved with the insurgency.

But Iran is not just bigger than Iraq, but much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous. Imagine what kind of insurgency you might get from 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites?

My advice to the Iranians RIGHT NOW is to mass-produce the most lethal anti-vehicle mines possible and distribute them to the entire civilian population. Train everyone how to use them, then once trained, bury maybe 20 mines per family, all in known but hidden locations.

THAT will stop the Bolton/Zionist plan dead in its tracks.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:46 pm
"Why does Bolton want war with Iran?"

Maybe it was a career-enhancing move. It is a legitimate question, along with "follow the money"? Regardless of why sociopaths like Keith Payne or John Bolton become obsessed with "winning nuclear war" or "bombing Iran" . How do they make a living? Who would bankroll somebody – over many decades – to not just consider or plan, but actively provoke illegal acts of aggressive war, against declared policy of the government and the demands of the Constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold?

It is also educational to see that the fabrications and other "war-program related activities" in regards to Iran resemble the same stovepipelines that provide the Iraq 2003 pretexts – with Powell reprising his role as useful idiot – which clashes badly with the "blunder" narrative that anybody in the US government actually believed Iraq had WMD – was beyond "the point of no return".

This also bodes ill for a Bolton-formulated policy on Korea, and any "National Security Advice" he would see fit to fabricate and feed to the Bomber In Chief.

Furthermore, we learn just how unhinged Cheney et.al. really were – expecting Iraq to be a mere stepping stone along their adventures on the "Axis of Evil" trail. If these are our gamblers, nobody would suspect them of counting cards.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:04 pm
Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons
PAX , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:49 pm
We must look into our very national soul and ask why are we entertaining a war with Iran? The answer is clear. It is to further the goals of a fanatical, right-wing, group of Zionists. When a truthful history is written about this era of endless wars, the errant and disgraceful behavior of this group will be clearly identified and they will not have anywhere to hide. You may fool some of the folks, some of the time, but not all the folks, all of the time.
Buzz Man , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry.
marvin , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm
John "FIVE DEFERMENTS" Bolton is a filthy yellow bellied coward. Drag her/him to Afghanistan amd make IT serve in the Front Lines for the duration.
Tulsa Ron , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 pm
Israel and the Zionists are exactly the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about. Bolton is a neocon-Zionist who wants the United States blood and taxes to ensure Israel's dominance of the Middle East.
Jeeves , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:14 pm
So Gareth Porter cites his own Truthout article as authority for the assertion that the "laptop documents" are fabrications. Most of the cited article seems to be devoted to "Curveball", the impeached source of Iraqi intelligence, in order to prop up the bona fides of the German who claims the Iranian intelligence is a forgery. Any other sourcing for this allegation available?

Judging from a quick look at what else Truthout has on offer, I'm not sure about the credibility of Mr. Porter.

pirouz moghaddam , , says: March 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Thank you Mr. Porter for your insightful and intelligent articles, being that I am from Iran Originally brings tears to my eyes to even imagine such tragedy, I pray this will never happen. Having lived in America more than half of my life and having children that are Americans makes these thoughts even more horrifying . I am however thankful to read all the comments from so many intelligent , decent and true Americans and that gives me hope that such disaster will not take place. The people of Iran are decent and kind and cultured , I am hopeful that they will find their way and bring about a true democracy soon and again become a positive force to the humanity.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to TAC . He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter .

[Mar 22, 2018] I've been waiting to see what happens with the SDR (Special Drawing Right). The IMF (International Monetary Fund) added it to the SDR basket in October 2016 after a lot of foot dragging by the US.

Notable quotes:
"... I see the global monetary reset currently underway as the slowly moving, but unstoppable, glacier that is forcing all other events. ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

EEngineer -> robt willmann... 21 March 2018 at 04:14 PM

I've been waiting to see what happens with the SDR (Special Drawing Right). The IMF (International Monetary Fund) added it to the SDR basket in October 2016 after a lot of foot dragging by the US. The AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) was setup largely as a Chinese alternative to the US dominated IMF and World Bank because they were not being given an appropriate "place at the table" in the IMF, which was founded as part of the Bretton Woods Agreement at the end of WWII.

I see the global monetary reset currently underway as the slowly moving, but unstoppable, glacier that is forcing all other events.

[Mar 22, 2018] Russian MFA summons all ambassadors to a meeting on Skripal case (MUST WATCH!!!) The Vineyard of the Saker

Original at http://www.mid.ru/
Notable quotes:
"... We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical. The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers. ..."
"... The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia. ..."
"... It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and the reasons behind it. ..."
"... To be continued ..."
"... I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the fight. ..."
"... Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war. ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | thesaker.is

VIDEO: watch-v=dKyR0KZn2Xc

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, friends,

Good afternoon.

We are glad to see you at the Foreign Ministry on this cold wintry day that nevertheless carries a promise of spring.

We are grateful to you for responding so quickly to our invitation, which we issued only yesterday.

The situation is indeed unusual. There is an urgent need for a non-politicised and highly professional discussion of the Skripals' poisoning case. We have distributed a position paper. We ask you to bring it to the notice of your governments.

The language of this position paper, just as any other such paper, is dry legalese with technical details.

It would be wrong to invite you here just to say this. I propose that we hold an open discussion in this closed diplomatic group.

Let us look at hard facts, beginning with the humanitarian aspects of the case at hand.

On March 4, 2018, two people, one of them Russian citizen Yulia Skripal, were attacked in Salisbury, a flourishing city in the south of England.

Various versions of the circumstances of this tragedy have been voiced in the UK. They highlight the use of chemical agents, which the British call Novichok, for some reason. All of these versions do not stand up to any criticism.

In this situation, UK officials have laid the blame on Russia hastily, hysterically and without presenting any evidence, and demanded explanations from us.

I would like to repeat that it was a Russian citizen who has been attacked in the UK. Logic suggests two possible variants. Either the British authorities are unable to ensure protection against such terrorist attacks on their territory, or they were directly or indirectly involved in the preparation of this attack on a Russian citizen. There is no other alternative.

We are surprised, to put it mildly, that the British authorities had denied even consular access to the Russian citizen who has been attacked contrary to the elementary norms of civilised interstate relations. They are prevaricating, but at the same time they distribute video footage from the hospital where the Skripals are allegedly being treated. But this only raises more questions.

The British have refused to share the information obtained by their investigators and have not replied to the Russian requests regarding Yulia Skripal. We have no reliable information about what happened to this Russian citizen over the past two weeks and why this happened to her. This is hard to comprehend: these events are unfolding in the 21st century in a country that is considered civilised.

Naturally, demanding any explanations from Russia in this situation is simply absurd. Russia does not owe anything to anyone in this context, and it cannot be held accountable for the activities or inactivity of the British authorities in their national territory.

We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical. The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers.

The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and the reasons behind it.

To be continued

amarynth on March 21, 2018 , · at 9:54 pm UTC

Doubling down by the Empire. Russia is hardening up fast but still displaying manners and offering goodwill! I'm afraid that is going nowhere excepting support is offered by the traditional friends of Russia as usual.

So far, no answer to the question: "And what is next?"

Things on the war front? Well, the Empire wants their war dammit! And how dare Russia deprive them of it!

I'm afraid tensions were only ratcheted up and the word de-escalation has been removed from all Empire Dictionaries. Oh Boy!

cdvision on March 21, 2018 , · at 10:08 pm UTC
I listened to all this. The idiot who represented the UK (actually not an idiot, she was just doing her job and no doubt in private would admit it was stupid) just parroted out May's previous words and never addressed any of the substantive questions raised; the EU and US speakers merely talked about solidarity with the UK.

Telling was the fact that the Russian main man referred to the US rep as someone he had never seen before, and was presumably from the State Dept.

None of the Russian requests for data or access to their citizens were dealt with.

The Russian side were well prepared, and the fact that they are pursuing this in this way indicates they have nothing to hide and are pissed off.

I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time. It truly does feel like a game of chess.

Cassandra on March 22, 2018 , · at 4:26 am UTC
"I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time."

But why? IMHO the only possible reason could be gaining sufficient time to clear the roaches from East Ghouta in Syria -- why? because it would eliminate one more of the possible false flag locations, and possibly provide more time to beef up the defenses in Syria.

I get the feeling that Russia is adopting a posture, a bit like a boxer puts up his dukes to guard against his opponents blows.

cdvision on March 22, 2018 , · at 5:44 am UTC
Cassandra: I'm thinking the waiting its more strategic than you suggest, bigger than East Ghouta. Maybe all the ducks are not yet in a row?
Lysander on March 22, 2018 , · at 12:07 am UTC
Kudos to the Venezuelan representative, who 1) stood up in Russia's defense against a backdrop of "solidarity" with the UK (I guess meaning whatever story they concoct we will pretend to believe) and 2) seems to be the only foreign diplomat in Moscow who bothered to learn Russian.
vot tak on March 22, 2018 , · at 12:36 am UTC
When FARA is not far enough: US lawmakers invent new ways to brand RT as propaganda

https://www.rt.com/usa/421958-fara-rt-new-legislation/

"Concerned that Americans may be watching "foreign propaganda" (or something different than what is offered on the mainstream media menu) Representatives Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Elise Stefanik (R-NY) introduced the Countering Foreign Propaganda Act.

In practice, it would force RT to do even more reporting to the US government than it currently does under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and will also force it to broadcast every 30 minutes a message saying it is funded by, and is "under editorial control" of, a foreign government. Apparently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will also be the arbiter of who is under editorial control and who is not, because the BBC and France 24 would not be forced to disclose the origins of their funding, according to Foreign Policy (FP) -- presumably, because their messaging is simply accidentally, sort of, in line with that of the British and French governments respectively.

RT's stance on a potential crackdown in the US was summarized by its editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan: "When the high from FARA is no longer hard enough, the representatives switch to even harder legislation."

The US branch of RT came into the focus of the American mainstream public after the election of Donald Trump as president. The channel starred in a controversial report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence, which alleged that RT's coverage of American problems like fracking or the killings of black people by police amounted to infringing on US democratic institutions."

adam on March 22, 2018 , · at 1:08 am UTC
Headline story on RT: "Peskov says ex-spy has zero value; no need to poison him." Implication: "We only poison people of value."

If I were the spokesperson of Russia, I wouldn't even entertain the idea that Russia poisons people. If I were a pro Russian television network, I wouldn't treat this story as anything but Milli Vanilli.

Still think Margie "the true liberal" is your friend?

Tristan Dreykus on March 22, 2018 , · at 1:45 am UTC
I would like to make an observation regarding the name given by Briton and others of this lethal nerve agent, "Novichok". It seems to have appeared out of thin air, or the imaginations of some. As has been pointed out, here in the conference, this was a fictional name used in a TV show in Briton.

The point is this, "Novichok" is perhaps as to what the "Khorasan Group" was in the waning days of the Obama regime. Do you remember the "Aboslute Terror!.com"(tm) that was surrounding this fictional group of terrorists as trumpeted by Obama himself? Similarities are not inconsequential in that a nefarious political goal is the point of the obfuscation and lies.

What is that goal? I can't answer that question, but to speculate, I would guess that the oligarchs of the West have decided that the potential for nuclear annihilation is worth risking for unrestricted free market economic world domination in the short term.

Ilya G Poimandres on March 22, 2018 , · at 2:05 am UTC
Cause the translation is not very accurate (tough job!), here is the Russian only link if anyone is interested! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQK1WMZrVA

Bone on March 22, 2018 , · at 2:54 am UTC
I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the fight.

In that way, no matter what facts are presented (which is what Russia is doing) Russia will always start from what they are accused of. Right there, UK is choosing what Russian reaction would be.

Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war.

Cassandra on March 22, 2018 , · at 5:09 am UTC
A very good point, well made. I've learned myself that conforming to Marquis of Queensbury rules when engaged in a conflict with a street fighter can be somewhat counter-productive. You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to truth. I wonder how these mouthpieces reading their government's lines can truly sleep at night.
Ann on March 22, 2018 , · at 3:04 am UTC
its heartbreaking watching this. It reminds me of the poaching of the great animals of Africa -- Russia does everything right and just -- and the shameful poachers use nothing honorable or decent in their wish to destroy. There has been nothing but dishonesty and untruth from Britain (and the west) in this whole affair -- no one even knows where or how the victims of this 'chemical attack' are -- and that there's only be two victims -- a chemical attack kills multiple people
GeorgeG on March 22, 2018 , · at 3:52 am UTC
I shall listen to the whole thing to get a better grasp of the context of certain speeches, remarks. TASS yesterday posted a report ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) that represents their own summary: "Russian Foreign Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga." While appreciating Russian humor, I dashed off a message to my German friends, as follows (translated):

Incredible! -- No I believe it. Watch the selected-emphasized sections below. The Russians have the knife in, and they are turning it, very slowly. Delicious!

 "It is likely that this could have been orchestrated from across the pond. [Note that Yermakov -- and he comes from the MoD, not the MFA -- throws May's "highly probable" back into her face, but he provides indirect evidence, which May did not do. Note also that it is indeed "likely". That has been my argument the whole time, except that I told you the Americans -- the Trump-Americans -- set a trap for May and she walked into it. Yermakov is saying the same thing: just watch and listen.]

 „It is no secret to anyone that the UK's closest partner is the only state officially keeping the largest arsenals of chemical weapons in the world." [How true, but ist he USA theUK's "closest partner" really? Actually, since the British launched their anti-Trump cvampaign -- with Christopher Steele / MI6 -- the two have been at war with one another. Yermakov seems to play innocent on that point, even naive, but if the Americans set the trap, then the British set themselves up by believing that what May did was wha their closest partner wanted them to do. And now May is in deep sh**.]

 Yermakov further,"is most likely a new grossly falsified and unlawful provocation." Against Russia, yes, of course, fa false flag, and illegal. But also against the UK? That is left ambiguous.?

 "It only has to be solved who stood behind this and which goals pursued." -- Yes, indeed, who was behind the false flag, and what were the aims? This hast o be solved, clarified. Yermakov poses these questions openly and round about, not limited to Russia. Do the British know who was behind the false flag, and what the aims were? Do they have any interest in finding out? Yermakov does not launch counter-accusations at the British.

 „Only one thing is clear that Russia has absolutely no complicity in this at least for one simple reason: such a scheme is simply inadmissible and it is disadvantageous for us by all parameters." Russia's innocence is clear, and, in fact, the British know that themselves. It would be insulting to claim the British believe their own propaganda. And,

 "At the same time, Great Britain has quite a different track record," the senior diplomat said, adding that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had openly admitted his lies about the situation around Iraq." Ah, yes, Blair lying about Irak WMD, but whether he was trapped into that lie or not, at least it is obvious he was doing it to justify actions that were not in the first place British actions, it was Bush's war.

 „"One only has to guess who and for what purpose is now trying to plunge Great Britain into a new dirty and again losing venture for London from the very outset against Russia *this time,*" -- "One" has to guess, and "one" can be Russian, some Russsian who guesses, or it can be a Brit. And "one" is going to "guess" about who is plunging Britain into a dirty and loosing venture against Russia. Wow! -- Let's unravel this. Russia has nothing to do with intelligence war-maneuvers of the Americans against England. If -- that thatg is "highly likely" -- the Americans set the trap, plunging Britain into a losing venture agaisn Russia, implied not to be in British interests, the Russians did not „collude" in setting the trap. Leave Russia out of the game. England is being dragged into something. Yermakov has "empathy" for the British in this dilemma. The British may well think that they were dragged into the Irak-WMD charade and the war, so who is dragging Britain into a losing game „this time"?]

 „"the British authorities are beginning to get ever more nervous" as "they have driven themselves into a deadlock" -- [Really a pity, right? That really hurts, you are invited / or dragged onto the gang-plank, thinking you are doing the right thing, and their your "closest partner" steps off the plank and you plunge into the depths. Sure you get nervous, sure you see you brought onto yourself, you are in a blind-alley. -- You can only do what Yermakov did if you have the upper-hand and you know it. Russia via Yermakov is not out for retaliation, Russia extends the open hand , Russia is merciful. Remember the scene in Schindler's list, where a Nazi camp-commander was about to shoot a little boy because there were still stains in the bathtub the boy was supposed to have cleaned? And Schindler tells the Nazi: real power ist to forgive, and the Nazi, who thinks he is powerful and wans power, lays down his rifle. How merciful the Russias are is ytilll to come. ]

 Moscow considers the Salisbury attack to be an act of terror against Russian citizens carried out on UK soil, he stressed. -- -- So Moscow wants access to the Skripals, Yulia in particular.

 Now comes the icing on the cake, the knife begins to turn. "The senior Russian diplomat called on the British to put their hatred against Russia aside for a moment, as well as their "island way of thinking." "I mean no offence, I think highly of the British diplomacy and this is the reason why I feel ashamed for you when I hear such things," Yermakov added, stressing that in the past, Russian diplomats had learned much from their British colleagues and British experts and now they were calling them for dialogue.. [Of course the British hate the Russians, but don't let that hate get in the way of properly assessing the British situation in this trap. If Russians are anything, they are professional and objective. Of course, Russian diplomats learned from British diplomas: they know double-dealing also, but Russians do it openly -- open double dealing, and that is what Yermakov was doing the whole time. Why would Russia do that? -- It's simple: "to split Europe." That is what the British accuse Russia of doing, but Russia is not doing it the way the British think, they are going to split Europe because the British have handed over the lever to do it, because the British are shaming themselves with their nonsense propaganda, and they know they are losing because it is so shameful. The British were tricked, Russia does not play tricks. The Russians win because they put truth on the table: if the British continue with their shameful behavior, they have no chance to play any leaves in Europe. They know it, that is why they are nervous, that is their own dead-end. Now, when Blair lied, dragging Britain into the Iraq war, it unleashed destruction, which does not bother the British as long as others are destroyed. But now they are on the receiving end, it is their own destruction which is at stake.

Ann on March 22, 2018 , · at 3:55 am UTC
wow -- the British diplomat in the audience has a brutal speech -- well written -- its so hard to defend oneself against untruth -- when its calculated -- at 53:55
Cassandra on March 22, 2018 , · at 4:19 am UTC
It is foolish to believe that explanation will bring to your side those who are implacably oriented against you because they take it as a sign of weakness.
Cassandra on March 22, 2018 , · at 4:28 am UTC
"A military grade, novichok, nerve agent developed by Russia". So they didn't make then ? 'Developing' isn't making, just in case your education didn't cover this rather unsubtle distinction. "Barrage of distortion and disinformation" Have you looked in the mirror of late ?? Pathetic.
Cassandra on March 22, 2018 , · at 5:10 am UTC
I think the UK representative went a bit off-script when she said "Russia produced" -- the official script is "Russian developed". I suspect that she may get a reprimand for that.
GeorgeG on March 22, 2018 , · at 9:21 am UTC
One the one hand I am amazed, on the other hand, not. Has anyone listened to the full session or read the TASS release? ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) If not, please do so, and show some of what the Russians call "respect," which means just listen carefully.

I do not wish to offend, as the Russian "senior diplomat" said, but I am ashamed to hear such baseless gossip as "It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following" or "You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to truth" (cited examples being by no means exhasutive).

Do you realize, have you registered the *fact* that the Russians said "Russian Foreign Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga"?, which a load of backup to that suggesion.

[Mar 22, 2018] The first accusations were launched way too quickly after MH17 was hit

Mar 22, 2018 | thesaker.is

Peter from Oz on March 22, 2018 , · at 6:24 am UTC

The anger and righteous disgust by the chief RF MFA spokesman at around 1:45 from recall (I did just skip to snippets -- but got stopped there) is worth seeing. He talks of the Malaysian Boeing downed in Ukraine to the US rep in audience, pointing out US knows exactly what happened because of its satellites directly overhead, and says something I'd never heard -- repeated it a couple of times at least -- again in accusatory disgust -- that the first accusations Russia shot down the plane came BEFORE the plane was hit!
Auslander on March 22, 2018 , · at 7:29 am UTC
This is true, the plane was still flying when the first accusations were made. The fact that it hit the ground moments later belies the lies that Opolchensya and/or Russia did it. The plane was not hit by a missile, there are entry and exit aircraft cannon holes in the left cockpit outer skin. I have no doubts that the photos of that damning piece of evidence are long gone but not to worry, I'm sure someone has them.
Auslander

[Mar 22, 2018] The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War With Iran by Gareth Porter

Another chickenhawk in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. ..."
"... During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran. ..."
"... Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days. ..."
"... Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia. ..."
"... So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce. ..."
"... Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences. ..."
"... I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling". ..."
"... I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor. ..."
"... But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq. ..."
"... Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons ..."
"... Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry. ..."
"... Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to ..."
"... . He is also the author of ..."
"... Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter . ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Everyone knows Bolton is a hawk. Less understood is how he labored in secret to drive Washington and Tehran apart. By Gareth Porter • March 22, 2018

John Bolton (Gage Skidmore/Flikr) In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time -- in 2007 , in 2008, and again in 2011 -- those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.

But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy.

His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as the Bush administration's policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for the administration to carry out military action.

More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson .

It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart.

Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to have had the inside track for national security advisor. Trump met with Bolton on March 6 and told him, "We need you here, John," according to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump promised, "I'll call you really soon." Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources leaked to the media Trump's intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of weeks.

The only other possible candidate for the position mentioned in media accounts is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.

Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.

Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.

Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he had no doubt the United States would attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.

During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran.

Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book The Nuclear Jihadist , Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with briefing the world's press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit's responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.

Bolton's role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he outlines in his own 2007 memoir , was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council. He was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat. Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.

Bolton's strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for conventional explosives testing.

Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran's "intransigence" in refusing to answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.

The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran's nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents, allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to redesign Iran's Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.

But the whole story of the so-called "laptop documents" was a fabrication. In 2013, a former senior German official revealed the true story to this writer: the documents had been given to German intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to "launder" information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn't know that Iran had already abandoned the Shahab-3's nose cone for an entirely different design.

Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man. Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that the Iranians were getting close to "the point of no return." That was point, Bolton wrote, at which "we could not stop their progress without using force."

Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered. Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to attack an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007. But the risk that pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.

The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz. They had no patience for Cheney's wild ideas about more war.

That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged from reality could challenge that wariness -- and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.

Stephen J. March 21, 2018 at 10:37 pm

I believe "War With Iran" is on the agenda. I wrote the article below some time ago. "Will There Be War With Iran"? Is it now Iran's turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack on Iran?

[read more at link below]

http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.html

See also: Will the War Agenda of the War Criminals Result in Nuclear War? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-war-agenda-of-war-criminals-result.html

Clyde Schechter , , says: March 21, 2018 at 11:37 pm
Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days.
Procivic , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:35 am
The re-emergence of Bolton is the result of Trump's electoral victory, a phenomenon that resembles the upheavals that followed when an unhinged hereditary ruler would take the reins of power in bygone empires.
Duglarri , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:16 am
There's a big difference between the wars with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and a war with Iran. The difference is, this is a war the United States could lose. And lose very, very badly. As Pompeo remarked, it would take "only" 2000 airstrikes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities. But what will it take to land 20,000 marines on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf to secure the straits, and there fend off 1.7 million Iranian regulars and militia on the ground? How will the navy cope with hundreds and hundreds of supersonic cruise missiles fired in volleys? What about the S-300 missiles that are by now fully operational in Iran?

A look at the map shows that this is a war that the US simply cannot win.

Unless it uses nuclear weapons and simply sets out to kill every last man, woman, and child in Iran, all 80 million of them.

Which I suppose is not out of the question. As all options are sure to be on the table.

Minnesota Mary , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:54 am
"Everyone worshipped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshipped the beast also, saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?'" Revelation 13:4

Who can fight against the U.S/NATO? Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia.

wrap , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 am
So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce.
Hanson , , says: March 22, 2018 at 4:58 am
The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start.
Julien , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:54 am
Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences.
EliteCommInc. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:03 am
Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required. But I don't need background to know that advocating for wars that serve little in the way of US interests because we simply are not in any "clear and present danger".

Odd that so many "old schoolers" have abandoned some general cliche's that serve as sound guide.

the freakshow (cont'd) , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:41 am
Just when you think you've heard the last of the various catastrophes, blunders, and odd capering about involving Bolton, you hear that voice from the old late night gadget commercials barking "wait, there's more !!"

I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling".

rta , , says: March 22, 2018 at 10:25 am
I wonder if people will finally realize that Trump was only draining the swamp so he could replace it with a cesspool.
Chris Mallory , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:16 am
"The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start."

Hey now, Bolton's service in the Maryland National Guard made sure the North Vietnamese never landed in Baltimore. Can you imagine the horror if the Russians had captured our supply of soft shell crab?

Esther Haman , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:27 am
John Bolton a 75 year old loser, a has Never-been, which is the mouth piece of the Zionists who keep him on the pay roll. He likes to hear his own voice and to feel important because he wants war with Iran or all the Middle East. He's actions and speeches are all emotional and lack logic and reasoning. So, what is he good for?!
Egypt Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:29 am
Re: "Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required."

Not sure about that. We definitely need Roosevelts and Lincolns, Grants and Shermans and Eisenhowers and Pattons. I'm not clear on what function the likes of Bolton serve.

Kent , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:16 pm
This article fails to address the why. Why does Bolton want war with Iran?
Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:38 pm
I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor.

But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq.

And if the Iranians had any sense RIGHT NOW, they would make sure every family had a stock of 10 powerful anti-vehicle mines, REALLY powerful mines. Make sure all are safely buried with locations memorized. And make sure everyone had the training to use them, even older children (who will be the front-line guerrillas in 5 years).

So if that devil Bolton gets his way, his own country will pay a price too, and deservedly too. I want my country to be peaceful and friendly to the world like the Germans are now. But it may take the same type of "WWII treatment" to get my hateful war-loving countrymen to walk away from their sin.

Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:47 pm
The guerrilla war in Iraq was fought against only 5 million Sunni Arabs, the US occupiers having successfully pealed away the Kurds and Shia to be collaborators, or at least stay uninvolved with the insurgency.

But Iran is not just bigger than Iraq, but much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous. Imagine what kind of insurgency you might get from 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites?

My advice to the Iranians RIGHT NOW is to mass-produce the most lethal anti-vehicle mines possible and distribute them to the entire civilian population. Train everyone how to use them, then once trained, bury maybe 20 mines per family, all in known but hidden locations.

THAT will stop the Bolton/Zionist plan dead in its tracks.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:46 pm
"Why does Bolton want war with Iran?"

Maybe it was a career-enhancing move. It is a legitimate question, along with "follow the money"? Regardless of why sociopaths like Keith Payne or John Bolton become obsessed with "winning nuclear war" or "bombing Iran" . How do they make a living? Who would bankroll somebody – over many decades – to not just consider or plan, but actively provoke illegal acts of aggressive war, against declared policy of the government and the demands of the Constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold?

It is also educational to see that the fabrications and other "war-program related activities" in regards to Iran resemble the same stovepipelines that provide the Iraq 2003 pretexts – with Powell reprising his role as useful idiot – which clashes badly with the "blunder" narrative that anybody in the US government actually believed Iraq had WMD – was beyond "the point of no return".

This also bodes ill for a Bolton-formulated policy on Korea, and any "National Security Advice" he would see fit to fabricate and feed to the Bomber In Chief.

Furthermore, we learn just how unhinged Cheney et.al. really were – expecting Iraq to be a mere stepping stone along their adventures on the "Axis of Evil" trail. If these are our gamblers, nobody would suspect them of counting cards.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:04 pm
Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons
PAX , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:49 pm
We must look into our very national soul and ask why are we entertaining a war with Iran? The answer is clear. It is to further the goals of a fanatical, right-wing, group of Zionists. When a truthful history is written about this era of endless wars, the errant and disgraceful behavior of this group will be clearly identified and they will not have anywhere to hide. You may fool some of the folks, some of the time, but not all the folks, all of the time.
Buzz Man , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry.
marvin , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm
John "FIVE DEFERMENTS" Bolton is a filthy yellow bellied coward. Drag her/him to Afghanistan amd make IT serve in the Front Lines for the duration.
Tulsa Ron , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 pm
Israel and the Zionists are exactly the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about. Bolton is a neocon-Zionist who wants the United States blood and taxes to ensure Israel's dominance of the Middle East.
Jeeves , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:14 pm
So Gareth Porter cites his own Truthout article as authority for the assertion that the "laptop documents" are fabrications. Most of the cited article seems to be devoted to "Curveball", the impeached source of Iraqi intelligence, in order to prop up the bona fides of the German who claims the Iranian intelligence is a forgery. Any other sourcing for this allegation available?

Judging from a quick look at what else Truthout has on offer, I'm not sure about the credibility of Mr. Porter.

pirouz moghaddam , , says: March 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Thank you Mr. Porter for your insightful and intelligent articles, being that I am from Iran Originally brings tears to my eyes to even imagine such tragedy, I pray this will never happen. Having lived in America more than half of my life and having children that are Americans makes these thoughts even more horrifying . I am however thankful to read all the comments from so many intelligent , decent and true Americans and that gives me hope that such disaster will not take place. The people of Iran are decent and kind and cultured , I am hopeful that they will find their way and bring about a true democracy soon and again become a positive force to the humanity.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to TAC . He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter .

[Mar 22, 2018] McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton - The New York Times

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON -- Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the battle-tested Army officer tapped as President Trump's national security adviser last year to stabilize a turbulent foreign policy operation, will resign and be replaced by John R. Bolton, a hard-line former United States ambassador to the United Nations, White House officials said Thursday.

General McMaster will retire from the military, the officials said. He has been discussing his departure with President Trump for several weeks, they said, but decided to speed up his departure, in part because questions about his status were casting a shadow over his conversations with foreign officials.

The officials also said that Mr. Trump wanted to fill out his national security team before his meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. He replaced Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson with the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, last week.

Officials emphasized that General McMaster's departure was a mutual decision and amicable, with none of the recrimination that marked Mr. Tillerson's exit. They said it was not related to a leak on Tuesday of briefing materials for Mr. Trump's phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

In the materials, Mr. Trump was advised not to congratulate Mr. Putin on his re-election, which the president went ahead and did during the call.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Mr. Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with Mr. Trump to discuss foreign policy, and was on a list of candidates for national security adviser. He was in the West Wing with Mr. Trump to discuss the job on Thursday.

[Mar 22, 2018] Bad news: Trump just picked John Bolton to be the new National Security Advisor.

Mar 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment March 22, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT

OT, but related.

Bad news: Trump just picked John Bolton to be the new National Security Advisor.

https://www.rt.com/usa/422081-trump-security-adviser-mcmaster-bolton/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=push_notifications

[Mar 22, 2018] Trump's National Security Chief Calls Russian Interference 'Incontrovertible'

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

MUNICH -- Just hours after the Justice Department indicted 13 Russians in what it charged was a broad conspiracy to alter the 2016 election, President Trump's national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of "disinformation, subversion and espionage" that he said Washington would continue to expose.

The evidence of a Russian effort to interfere in the election "is now incontrovertible," General McMaster said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual meeting of European and American diplomats and security experts, including several senior Russian officials. On Friday, just hours before the indictment, the top White House official for cyberissues accused Russia of "the most destructive cyberattack in human history," against Ukraine last summer.

Taken together, the statements appeared to mark a major turn in the administration's willingness to directly confront the government of President Vladimir V. Putin. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo also attended the Munich conference, and while they did not speak publicly, in private meetings with others here they reiterated similar statements.

The comments highlighted a sharp division inside the administration about how to talk about the Russian covert efforts, with only Mr. Trump and a few of his close advisers holding back from acknowledging the Russian role or talking about a larger strategy to deter future attacks.

The indictment characterized the cyberattacks and social media fraud as part of a larger effort by Russia to undermine the United States. A senior administration official called the effort to confront Russia "a significant point of contention" within the administration.

After the indictment on Friday Mr. Trump declared in a Twitter post that "the results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong -- no collusion!" He made no mention of Russia as a "revisionist power," the description used in his own National Security Strategy, or of the elaborate $1.2 million-a-month effort that the indictment indicated Russia's Internet Research Agency spent in an effort to discredit the election system and ultimately to support his candidacy.

Vice President Mike Pence, speaking this past week in Washington, misstated American intelligence conclusions about the election hacking, arguing "it is the universal conclusion of our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any effect on the outcome of the 2016 election." The intelligence chiefs have said they have not, and cannot, reach such a conclusion.

Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, cited Mr. Pence's comments during the session here Saturday to make the case that Russia did nothing wrong. "So until we see the facts, everything else is just blabber," he said.

The man who served as the Russian ambassador to the United States during the period covered by the indictments, Sergey I. Kislyak, picked up on a favorite theme of Mr. Trump's: questioning the credibility of the F.B.I. and intelligence agency assessments.

"I have seen so many indictments and accusations against Russians," Mr. Kislyak said on Saturday afternoon. "I am not sure I can trust American law enforcement to be the most truthful source against Russians." He added, "The allegations being mounted against us are simply fantasies."

Mr. Kislyak, who has been caught up in the investigation because of meetings with Trump campaign officials during his time as ambassador, went on to cite a study, which he said he was keeping in his briefcase, that proved the "main source of computer attacks in the world is not Russia. It is the United States."

[Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK

Highly recommended!
Mar 18, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

"As for the tragedy that you mentioned, I found out about it from the media. The first thing that entered my head was that if it had been a military-grade nerve agent, the people would have died on the spot," said Putin.

"Secondly, Russia does not have such [nerve] agents. We destroyed all our chemical weapons under the supervision of international organisations and we did it first, unlike some of our partners who promised to do it, but unfortunately did not keep their promises."

Despite the tensions, Putin said Moscow was ready to cooperate with London: "We are ready to cooperate, we said that straight away. We are ready to take part in the necessary investigations, but for that there needs be a desire from the other side and we don't see that yet. But we are not taking it off the agenda, joint efforts are possible."

"I think any sensible person would understand that it would be rubbish, drivel, nonsense, for Russia to embark on such an escapade on the eve of a presidential election."

[Mar 22, 2018] Britain was complicit in creating the world's greatest kleptocracy, Yeltsin regime

Surprisingly this Guardian presstitute has some sound thoughts ;-)
Theresa May was probably pushed by Big Uncle. It is inconceivable that she behaved so arrogantly and foolishly on her own, even taking into account that any confrontation with Russia might prolong the life of her cabinet.
All-in-all this false flag operation looks like the first step is some gambit designed by British intelligence services against Russia. With Scripals as sacrificed pawns. It is amazing how "false flag friendly" poisoning cases are. Uncomfortable evidence can always be hidden under that smoke screen of "state secrecy".
There might be strong desire to confiscate Russian oligarch money as one of the motives for the current May goverment hysteria. That's explains why members of parliament jumped so high on orders, and why the reaction was so bipartisan. Because the attempt to spoil the World Cup looks so petty, that it is smells with the USA, not British intelligence serves. After all British team is a favorite. But such attempts were numerous in the past, so you never know. Sochi was the most recent example.
Notable quotes:
"... Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our history of provoking Russia ..."
"... The prospect has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand. ..."
"... Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end. Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany) pleading with the west "not to play with fire". ..."
"... As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money laundering. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Originally from: After the Skripal attack, talk of war only plays into Vladimir Putin's hands by Simon Jenkins

Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our history of provoking Russia

Do we really want war with Russia? Do we want to risk one, even a tiny one? The prospect has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand.

... ... ...

Parliament parroted the same nonsense. The Tories' Tom Tugendhat said the poisoning "if not an act of war, was certainly a warlike act". Labour's Chris Leslie and John Woodcock worked themselves into a lather over "our country under attack" and "the gravity of the threat Russia poses to this nation". In these bidding wars of exaggeration, words lose all meaning.

... ... ...

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end. Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany) pleading with the west "not to play with fire".

As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money laundering.

All this is a grim echo of how the allies treated Germany after Versailles in 1919. They rubbed its nose in defeat, occupying its territory, destroying its dignity and stripping it of its flimsy wealth. Germany eventually found refuge in dictatorship.

... ... ...

Camus wrote that "plagues and wars take people equally by surprise". The idea that Skripal may be the Franz Ferdinand of the next European conflict may seem ludicrous. Yet the west's responses to post-Soviet Russia, however reasonable in the short term, have been disastrous in general. A war with Russia would be the west's fault.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

[Mar 21, 2018] Israel Quietly Begins Practicing for Possible War With Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Since Russia has asked Lebanon for a military cooperation agreement, which I believe was intended as a warning to Israel not to attack Lebanon again - because of the threat that Syria would become involved - I suspect that Russia is well aware of Israel's intentions. ..."
"... The addition of a US base in Israel and a commitment of US forces to support Israel in their wars means that there will be an increased likelihood of US conflict with Russia if Russia intervenes in a Israeli/US attack in Lebanon which extends into Syria. ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack 20 March 2018 at 03:03 PM

Israel Quietly Begins Practicing for Possible War With Russia

https://russia-insider.com/en/israel-quietly-begins-practicing-possible-war-russia/ri22844

Apparently Israel held a command-level war game under cover of the Cobra exercise where they continued to plan an attack on Lebanon and Syria, as well as what to do if "the Russian made trouble."

"We can achieve decisive victory over Hezbollah, and we don't need help from a single American soldier, but we cannot fight Iran alone," he stated last year. "I consider future cooperation with the U.S. much more important than anything we've had in the past."

Reading that in reverse supports my contention that Israel both continues to intend to degrade Hizballah and Syria's ability to be effective actors in a US/Israel war with Iran, and also that they intend to recruit the US in their next attack on Lebanon, with the goal of extending that war into Syria.

And that is regardless of the Russian presence in Syria.

Since Russia has asked Lebanon for a military cooperation agreement, which I believe was intended as a warning to Israel not to attack Lebanon again - because of the threat that Syria would become involved - I suspect that Russia is well aware of Israel's intentions.

The addition of a US base in Israel and a commitment of US forces to support Israel in their wars means that there will be an increased likelihood of US conflict with Russia if Russia intervenes in a Israeli/US attack in Lebanon which extends into Syria.

I don't think Russia would come to Lebanon's aid directly in support of Hizballah, but it's quite likely Russia would intervene if that war extended into Syria. Russia doesn't have the forces in country in Syria to directly intervene militarily but it could add additional forces or use its regional capabilities to intervene enough to complicate Israeli/US actions in Syria. But not without increasing the probability of escalation to a dangerous degree.

If Israel is not persuaded to stand down on its intentions to attack Hizballah and Syria, things could get much more ugly than the present Syrian crisis.

[Mar 21, 2018] Ironically it was the US and its advisers that first handed all of the Russian wealth over to the oligarchs, and then, later, supported Yeltsin when he illegally dissolved the Rada and arrested their leaders (generally known as the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis) (they had also supported him earlier, back when he was only President of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and Gorbachev was head honcho, when Yeltsin sent tanks to bomb the Rada/Parliament, during the so-called "August coup").

Mar 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

CalDre , Next New Comment March 21, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMT

@EliteCommInc.

As such Russia still gravitates towards "a strong man" style of leadership.

Ironically it was the US and its ((advisers)) that first handed all of the Russian wealth over to the ((oligarchs)), and then, later, supported Yeltsin when he illegally dissolved the Rada and arrested their leaders (generally known as the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis) (they had also supported him earlier, back when he was only President of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and Gorbachev was head honcho, when Yeltsin sent tanks to bomb the Rada/Parliament, during the so-called "August coup"). As a result, so that "their man" had all the authority he needed to crush any dissent, the US and "West" fully supported the "authoritarian" Constitution adopted later that year to cement Yeltsin's powers.

But of course now they blame Putin and the "Russian character" for it. Because, you know, that is how the "West" rolls.

taking on democratic principle is just not as breezy as assumed

Yes and that is why there is not one country, aside perhaps from Switzerland, that is even remotely democratic. The US is an utter oligarchic tyranny. Some other countries in Europe may have some minimal claim at a semblance of democracy but it all collapses under closer scrutiny. Heck many European countries still have their monarchies, including, probably in the most extreme form, the UK.

EugeneGur , Next New Comment March 21, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

Russia has yet to untangle some several hundred years of central authority style leadership and taking on democratic principle is just not as breezy as assumed.

This is such a cliche phrase. Could you specify where exactly do you see stellar examples of "democratic principles" ? In the UK with its unelected upper chamber of the parliament and the Prime Minister, also not elected directly by the citizens? In the US, with its two-party system in indirect elections? In Australis, with its compulsory voting?

Today's Russia is as democratic as any Western country, more so than some. Whatever peculiarities our political system has is due to our history, the same as in any other country. The same as in the UK, with their "constitutional" monarchy in the absence of actual constitution. The same as in the US, with their voting system designed by Founding Fathers. Russia is large and divers; some centralized authority is needed to keep it together structurally and mentally, that is all.

annamaria , Next New Comment March 21, 2018 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Johann

The whining is coming for the land of Bush the lesser, Cheney five deferments, Rice mushroom cloud, Chicago-style elections, and the Lobby strict censorship over the US Congress (only Israel-firsters are allowed). Wouldn't it be great if the US first punish her own criminals, including banksters and dual-citizenship spies? Four million civilians -- including a multitude of children -- were slaughtered in the Middle East since 1999 to satisfy the desires of Israel-firsters, MIC, and oilmen. And yet, the major war criminals who pushed for the wars of aggression (a supreme crime) are wondering free: from Bush and Kristol to Clinton and Powers

annamaria , Next New Comment March 21, 2018 at 6:15 pm GMT
@Alexander Peters

"We reject the American regime. Why not treat the Russian regime equally?"

-- And why "we" should treat them equally? The American "regime" has been thoroughly zionized so that an expression of patriotism by the US brass is looked upon as a great courage: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/03/votel-mattis-and-dunford-must-be-on-the-same-page.html

Comment section: " all these statements by Votel are true and it took a good deal of courage to make them in public." -- Get it? Just stating truthfully that Syria has won a civil war is an anathema to the Lobby and it takes a great personal courage by a four-star general in the United States Army who has been commander of United States Central Command to testify the truth for the US Congress.

Russian Federation is an independent state. The US is ZUSA -- Ziocon United States of America. Ukraine has become the Kaganat of Nuland, and the UK has become a personal estate of the Friends of Israel. For example, Boris Johnson proclaimed himself a committed Zionist: http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/boris-johnson-zionist/

Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and Gavin Williamson are not working for the UK citizens -- they are working for the Lobby (The Friends of Israel), which explains their indecency re Skripal affair. They are defaming the United Kingdom with their behavior: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/03/21/uk-ambassador-craig-murray-asks-aware-fact/

[Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be conducted." ..."
"... Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall [2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb . ..."
"... But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet, indicating that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. ..."
"... John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full pension in jail? ..."
"... Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. ..."
"... Brennan's words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two years. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Washington Post ..."
"... The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A quite different impression was conveyed by the large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's lead article. ..."
"... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let Schumer's theorem stand. ..."
Mar 19, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

With former CIA Director John Brennan accusing President Donald Trump of "moral turpitude" for his "scapegoating" of Andy McCabe, it remains to be seen whether a constitutional crisis will be averted, writes Ray McGovern.

What prompted former CIA Director John Brennan on Saturday to accuse President Donald Trump of "moral turpitude" and to predict, with an alliterative flourish, that Trump will end up "as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history"? The answer shines through the next sentence in Brennan's threatening tweet : "You may scapegoat Andy McCabe [former FBI Deputy Director fired Friday night] but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you."

It is easy to see why Brennan lost it. The Attorney General fired McCabe, denying him full retirement benefits, because McCabe "had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor -- including under oath -- on multiple occasions." There but for the grace of God go I, Brennan must have thought, whose stock in trade has been unauthorized disclosures.

In fact, Brennan can take but small, short-lived consolation in the fact that he succeeded in leaving with a full government pension. His own unauthorized disclosures and leaks probably dwarf in number, importance, and sensitivity those of McCabe. And many of those leaks appear to have been based on sensitive intercepted conversations from which the names of American citizens were unmasked for political purposes. Not to mention the leaks of faux intelligence like that contained in the dubious "dossier" cobbled together for the Democrats by British ex-spy Christopher Steele.

It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times and Washington Post. (At one point, the obvious whispering reached the point that the Wall Street Journal saw fit to complain that it was being neglected.) The leaking can be traced way back -- at least as far as the Clinton campaign's decision to blame the Russians for the publication of very damning DNC emails by WikiLeaks just three days before the Democratic National Convention.

This blame game turned out to be a hugely successful effort to divert attention from the content of the emails, which showed in bas relief the dirty tricks the DNC played on Bernie Sanders. The media readily fell in line, and all attention was deflected from the substance of the DNC emails to the question as to why the Russians supposedly "hacked into the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks."

This media operation worked like a charm, but even Secretary Clinton's PR person, Jennifer Palmieri, conceded later that at first it strained credulity that the Russians would be doing what they were being accused of doing.

Magnificent Diversion

On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be conducted." (That time seems to be coming soon.)

Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall [2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb .

"But then we go back to Brooklyn [Clinton headquarters] and heard from the -- mostly our sources were other intelligence, with the press who work in the intelligence sphere, and that's where we heard things and that's where we learned about the dossier and the other story lines that were swirling about; and how to process And along the way the administration started confirming various pieces of what they were concerned about what Russia was doing. So I do think that the answer for the Democrats now in both the House and the Senate is to talk about it more and make it more real."

So the leaking had an early start, and went on steroids during the months following the Democratic Convention up to the election -- and beyond.

As a Reminder

None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison.

But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet, indicating that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. His words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of yet other miscreants. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."

John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full pension in jail?

Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. Congressional committees have questioned why Obama's UN ambassador Samantha Power (as well as his national security adviser Susan Rice) made so many unmasking requests. Power is reported to have requested the unmasking of more than 260 Americans, most of them in the final days of the administration, including the names of Trump associates.

Deep State Intimidation

Back to John Brennan's bizarre tweet Saturday telling the President, "You may scapegoat Andy McCabe but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you." Unmasking the word "America," so to speak, one can readily discern the name "Brennan" underneath. Brennan's words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two years.

Later on Saturday, Samantha Power, with similar equities at stake, put an exclamation point behind what Brennan had tweeted earlier in the day. Power also saw fit to remind Trump where the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state game of intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday's lead article conveys the intended message: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch him.'" [sic]

The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A quite different impression was conveyed by the large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's lead article.

Putting Down a Marker

It isn't as though Donald Trump wasn't warned, as are all incoming presidents, of the power of the Deep State that he needs to play ball with -- or else. Recall that just three days before President-elect Trump was visited by National Intelligence Director James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Michael Rogers, Trump was put on notice by none other than the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Schumer has been around and knows the ropes; he is a veteran of 18 years in the House, and is in his 20th year in the Senate.

On Jan. 3, 2017 Schumer said it all, when he told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that President-elect Trump is "being really dumb" by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:

"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let Schumer's theorem stand.

With gauntlets now thrown down by both sides, we may not have to wait very long to see if Schumer is correct in his blithe prediction as to how the present constitutional crisis will be resolved.

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst under seven Presidents and nine CIA directors and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

[Mar 21, 2018] This russiagate soap opera as you called it, is running by the US MSM for almost two years now; and it has completely messed up the majority of the US people.

Notable quotes:
"... An antidote to all my Dem liberal Clinton-supporting "friends" on FB who insanely slaver for Russiagate nonsense because they hate Trump. Nevermind that his impeachment would get us Pence. They pat themselves on the back for being good, liberal Trump-hating, Russia-gate believers. ..."
"... Nary a word from them while Obama cowardly ducked prosecuting torturers or banksters -- or started new illegal wars and drone-murdered so many innocent people. Much less the bogus ACA handout to Big Insurance. So much for American Values. ..."
"... They all believe in all this nonsense about Russia-Gate which is being fed nonstop on major networks; and also this latest incident in U.K. I was the only one who was questioning it and it can become unpleasant. ..."
"... It is sad to see all this happening. It is very dangerous. Newspapers, L.A. Times here, keep the public completely in the dark about the consequences that it may accidentally or knowingly lead to nuclear war with Russia. ..."
Mar 21, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky , March 19, 2018 at 10:43 am

Here is something worth reading. https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/19/us-empire-on-decline/

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , March 19, 2018 at 10:19 pm

Thanks for that link, Joe. The article's authors, Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, are long-time political activists, codirectors of PopularResistance.org. https://popularresistance.org/ That organization seems to be taking a very determined approach to social change, supplying not only articles tightly focused on issues but also organizing resources for activists.

I've been watching the group closely because I'm seeing signs that its anti-war work just may become the tip of the spear of a revitalized anti-war movement. (It's been a very long time since the anti-war movement in the U.S. had effective leadership.)

Kevin knows how to play the long game. He was for at least two decades director of NORML and can now watch his earlier work come to fruition as state after state legalizes marijuana.

Typingperson , March 20, 2018 at 12:36 am

Thanks, Paul, for flagging that Kevin Zeese is the former head of NORML. I remember him well from this role -- and how effective he was.

I will check out PopularResistance.org.

An antidote to all my Dem liberal Clinton-supporting "friends" on FB who insanely slaver for Russiagate nonsense because they hate Trump. Nevermind that his impeachment would get us Pence. They pat themselves on the back for being good, liberal Trump-hating, Russia-gate believers.

Nary a word from them while Obama cowardly ducked prosecuting torturers or banksters -- or started new illegal wars and drone-murdered so many innocent people. Much less the bogus ACA handout to Big Insurance. So much for American Values.

Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 2:29 am

Joe, you are right. I do not have to go too far to see what it has done to the citizens of this country, I just look in my own home. This soap opera as you called it, is going on almost two years now; and it has completely messed up the people. We had a visitor, somebody very close to me, a week before this weekend, and invited some other friends. They all believe in all this nonsense about Russia-Gate which is being fed nonstop on major networks; and also this latest incident in U.K. I was the only one who was questioning it and it can become unpleasant.

It is sad to see all this happening. It is very dangerous. Newspapers, L.A. Times here, keep the public completely in the dark about the consequences that it may accidentally or knowingly lead to nuclear war with Russia.

[Mar 21, 2018] It's strange that British police did not find balalaika on the scene. Replay of Iraq WDM hoax on a new level

First of all British did have the poison they detected. Otherwise they would be unable to detect "Novichok" (if there was such substance and this is not just a myth).
Notable quotes:
"... Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex. ..."
"... Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now. ..."
Mar 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

g e hoeflinger March 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm

"We went to war in Iraq in 2003 to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction we later discovered Saddam Hussein did not really have."

Which was known at the time, but was trumped up to give GWB and excuse foir a fast war at election time.

George Hoffman , , March 21, 2018 at 8:27 am
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam and ever since then I have been a card-carrying skeptic of my own country. But I saw the human face of a war based upon lies and propaganda that became the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. If we would get into a shooting war over this affair, we would have to bring back the draft to prosecute this war against Russia. Then the proverbial "merde" would definitely hit the fan.

And when Kim Sung Un assassinated his half-brother in Malaysia, the VX nerve agent was used. The UK invented this agent in the 1950s at its government laboratory. But not one nation blamed Great Britain as the culprit.

Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex.

Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now.

[Mar 21, 2018] Putin drew Macron attention to the lack of evidence behind accusations against Russia and reiterated its readiness to conduct joint investigation into the incident

Mar 21, 2018 | en.farsnews.com

"The sides also touched upon the incident in Salisbury," the Kremlin stressed, underlining that "The Russian side drew attention to the lack of evidence behind accusations against Russia and reiterated its readiness to conduct joint investigation into the incident", TASS reported.

"The two presidents discussed in detail issue of the Syrian settlement in the context of the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2401 and the crisis in Ukraine in the light of the importance of the implementation of the Minsk agreements," the Kremlin stated.

The telephone conversation was initiated by the French Leader who called to congratulate Putin on his victory at Sunday's presidential polls in Russia, according to the Kremlin.

Macron spoke in favor of continuing joint work to promote comprehensive bilateral cooperation, including between civil societies within the Trianon Dialogue.

"It was agreed to continue to exchange views on the matters raised during the conversation at various levels," the press service added.

On March 4, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were exposed to a nerve agent in the city of Salisbury. They were found unconscious on a bench near a shopping center in Salisbury. Both are currently in the hospital in critical condition.

British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of "an unlawful use of force" against her country. Subsequently, she announced that London would expel 23 Russian diplomats and would suspend high-level bilateral contacts.

Russia has vehemently denied its alleged involvement in the incident and said retaliatory measures would follow soon.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that 23 British diplomats had been declared personae non grata to be expelled from Russia in a week's period.

It also said the UK's consulate general in St. Petersburg would be closed and the British Council would stop its activities.

Apart from that, according to the Ministry, the Russian side reserved the right to take other measures "should further unfriendly steps are taken against Russia."

[Mar 21, 2018] If Putin was a happy accident, then Russia has a huge problem when he is gove -- which means in six years by Dmitry Orlov

Mar 21, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

... ... ...

And what does a vote for Putin actually mean, in terms of choice? Who picked him to begin with? Well, it turns out that Putin is a happy accident. Boris Yeltsin named him as his successor, and you could quite reasonably joke that Yeltsin was drunk at the time and didn't remember why he did that. But you could also surmise that Putin was picked for his renowned savvy in money-laundering and offshoring the ill-gotten gains of Russian oligarchs (his previous job back in St. Petersburg) and for his clever use of his KGB connections (from his job before that) to "settle questions." Remember, this was a time when the endlessly clever people who get paid to sit around and drink coffee over at the Pentagon imagined that "Russian mafia" was an emerging global threat. The oligarchs must have liked Putin, and Yeltsin, in keeping with his "leave no oligarch behind" program, did whatever they wanted him to do.

What they got instead was a pig in a poke. The oligarchs thought that they had recruited another faithful servant who, just like Yeltsin, would keep the state weak and facilitate their shameless plunder. Instead they got a steel-willed technocrat and a true Russian patriot who quickly manifested an awesome power to conjure up creative new ideologies. Instead of subservience, the oligarchs got his "doctrine of equidistance," according to which money≠power. (An oil baron by the name of Mikhail Khodorkovsky ran afoul of it, thinking that he could parlay his wealth into political power, and ended up cooling his heels in prison.) Instead of somebody who would look the other way while they ran roughshod over Russian society, they got his "dictatorship of the law," a significantly strengthened Russian state, and the once fearsome Russian mafia melted away like hoarfrost after sunrise. And the Russian oligarchy's plan to seamlessly meld into Western elite society using their expropriated wealth, leaving Russia behind as a withered husk, ran headlong into Putin's plan to reestablish "multipolarity" and to force other nations, even the United States, to treat Russia as an equal. This resulted in Western sanctions, which sent many oligarchs scurrying back to Russia and repatriating their funds under an amnesty program, lest they be frozen.

And so Putin, for Russia, is just a happy accident. Given that happy accidents are in general far less frequent than unhappy ones, a question arises: How can Russia reliably produce another Putin when the time comes? It is definitely a good thing that Russia has six years to answer this question, because this last presidential election, as well as all the previous ones, has conclusively demonstrated that Russian electoral politics are not the answer -- at least not yet. Let's look at Putin's "competition" (in quotes because, judging from the results, it was more of an exhibition).

The one who garnered the most votes was Pavel Grudinin, nominated by the Communists (although he wasn't a member) instead of their perennial presidential candidate and leader Gennady Zyuganov, who is getting rather long in the tooth. Grudinin failed to disclose his foreign bank accounts, or the fact that his son resides abroad, disqualifying him from holding the top secret clearance required of a Russian president. Nevertheless, he managed to get 15% or so of the vote.

Next in line was the nationalist perennial presidential candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is quite formidable, very entertaining, but also rather frightening because he is forever threatening to rain fire and brimstone on Russia's enemies both foreign and domestic. Nevertheless, he is definitely qualified to serve as president -- or to serve on your firing squad, because he is also a good shot, and you can be sure that he won't accidentally miss all of your vital organs and leave you writhing in pain while you bleed out slowly. You can regard him as Russia's presidential insurance, giving Russia's enemies an excellent reason to wish for Putin's good health, because Zhirinovsky is standing by, ready to make them say "ouch!" a lot.

And then we have a sort of winner, but not of the presidential sort: Xenia Sobchak. She is the daughter of Anatoly Sobchak, who was the first democratically elected mayor of St. Petersburg, co-author of Russia's constitution, and Putin's friend and mentor. She is a fully paid-up member of Russia's "golden youth" and pretty much does whatever she wants -- like run for president. Don't laugh, she got over 1% of the vote! She has dabbled in reality television, the fashion industry, this and that, is married to an actor, has a year-and-a-half-old son and is rumored to be pregnant.

She made me laugh because she lost Crimea even before she got her name on the ballot by declaring that she does not approve of Crimea being part of Russia. Recall that Crimea has been part of Russia since 1783, was "gifted" to the Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 in violation of the Soviet constitution, and then voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 after the Ukraine's government was overthrown in violation of the Ukrainian constitution: a rare instance of two constitutional violations canceling each other out.

Her slogan was "against all": she saw herself as a one-person alternative to the entire Russian political system. Neither she nor her supporters saw the obvious logical flaw with this platform: if she were truly "against all" then, to be consistent, she would have to campaign for people to vote against all -- including her. What she meant, of course, was "against all except me." Now that would have been a wonderful slogan, had she managed to explain what it was that made her so uniquely magic. Instead, she complained bitterly about everyone else. I believe that her presidential campaign was actually a clever merchandising operation. Maybe it had something to do with marketing eyeglass frames: she appeared to switch eyeglasses more often than most women change panties. There were some other kinds of "product placement" going on too.

Everybody else got less than 1%, but I will give them honorable mention anyway. There was the perennial liberal candidate Yavlinsky, who gave his rationale for running again this time (a hopeless cause given Russians' overwhelmingly unfavorable view of liberalism) as "I just really wanted to talk to some voters." Then, in no particular order (because I don't care) came the über-capitalist Titov, the über-Soviet Suraikin and the über-Russian Baburin. Titov ran on a pathetically hilarious slogan of "So, what about Titov?"

All of the candidates save Putin (who intelligently stayed above the fray) participated in several interminable rounds of "debates" whose format precluded all intelligent discussion. All candidates were given a few minutes to spout their programmatic gibberish while others tried to shout them down. At one point they ganged up on poor Xenia so hard that they made her cry. The only time they got to talk to Putin was after the election, when they were all invited to a sort of "thank you for playing" meeting at the Kremlin, and where they all appeared dignified, conciliatory and grateful.

This was all good, clean fun (except for making Xenia cry; that was mean) but it doesn't answer the essential question, which is: How can Russia find another Putin to elect president in six years? One of the most important reasons why the Soviet Union failed was the inability of its political elites to recruit and promote talent, causing it to degenerate into a dour, ossified, senile gerontocracy. This fact is currently very well understood in Russia, and a serious effort is underway to appoint young, promising governors and to put young people with leadership potential into positions of ministerial responsibility. Whether these efforts produce the intended result will become clear six years from now. A lot can happen in the intervening years -- both good and bad -- but at the moment the project to "make Russia great again" appears to be firing on all cylinders.

This article was originally published by " Club Orlov " -

shane · 4 hours ago

Orlov is a brilliant and patriotic Russian and is obviously pleased with the stability that Putin's reelection brings to his country in this time of crisis. However he is also strangely begrudging to President Putin here and in other articles I have read, casually throwing out a rather nasty and unsubstantiated slur that Putin during his early career in St Petersburg behaved as a low-life corrupt official, helping oligarchs off-shore their stolen riches. I would challenge Mr Orlov to produce not just hearsay but 'real' evidence of this. It seems to contradict the strongest features of Putin's character during his years as president, honesty and consistency. No one suggests that Putin must have a perfect record in all things, but such a serious accusation surely needs backup, or at least clarification as to what exactly Orlov means.
Pablo · 2 hours ago
As I only received this a couple of hours ago, I am pasting again my comments upon yesterday's Peter Koenigh's article:
Regret to have to say that all you people are squabbling over minor incidents, compared to the overall planned agenda. Craig Thomas is right, Paul Craig Roberts is right, Peter Koenigh is right, everybody who writes for ICH is right and Tom Feeley is a giant.
However, you are all missing the end goal of the universal plan. Defence industry, big pharma, oil industry, Monsanto, Bayer, Dupont, Nestlee, P&G, Goldman Sachs, Banks, the BIS, the Cheneys, Rockfellers, Bushes, Morgans, Rothchilds, Kissingers, Soros and Rumsfelds plus more, all belong to one single group that is known as the "establishment" that promotes globalisation. They have an agenda. It is not financial gluttony that drives them, but power. They already control the World's finances, and are aiming to soon also control the food chain and water supply. The purpose is simple logic. (Wish George Orwell were still alive). Their intent is to reduce the whole World's population to functioning "servants" with barely enough to survive upon, so that they be so encased within the efforts on their own survival in each one's little world, so that they be totally deprived of any stamina to check, object and criticize anything that the rulers of the "establishment" do or enact. The media belongs to them, and most of the reporters therein have already turned into the "servants" mentioned, evidently for their own survival. Hence the necessary brainwashing of the masses is secured. Any dissident that could endanger the agenda, has to be dealt with. One of those is Putin. (according to me, despite some of his misgivings, is the only leader in the Western World that deserves the position he holds). All the rest are plain buffoons. It is "we the people", "the brainwashed people" who have put them in office. However, there still may be some hope. Was Nostradamus right? What about China. A president for life? And what would be the consequences for the rest of us. Personal experience has taught me that the Chinese, as many too of the far Eastern peoples, know of little empathy within their culture. So what would be the future of the rest of us if they were to prevail globally? Should we not all embrace the Russians and Indians and hope for them to be our lifesaver buffer? Food for thought ladies and gentlemen !!!
Elliot · 1 hour ago
I hope the planet survives long enough to see who follows Putin as President of Russia.

[Mar 21, 2018] RT Chief, Margarita Simonyan: Why We Don't Respect the West Anymore

Notable quotes:
"... We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came to be. ..."
"... For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. ..."
"... (in English in the original text -- trans. ..."
"... Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as their rightful commodities. ..."
"... Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held responsible for the factual truth. ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | russia-insider.com

And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never surrender" mode.

I've been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those parasites. With their short-sighted sanctions, heartless humiliation of our athletes (including athletes with disabilities ), with their "skripals" and ostentatious disregard of the most basic liberal values, like a presumption of innocence, that they manage to hypocritically combined with forcible imposition of ultra-liberal ideas in their own countries, their epileptic mass hysteria, causing in a healthy person a sigh of relief that he lives in Russia, and not in Hollywood, with their post-electoral mess in the United States, in Germany, and in the Brexit-zone;

with their attacks on RT, which they cannot forgive for taking advantage of the freedom of speech and showing to the world how to use it, and it turned out that the freedom of speech never was intended to be used for good, but was invented as an object of beauty, like some sort of crystal mop that shines from afar, but is not suitable to clean your stables, with all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you. You and your so called "values."

We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came to be.

For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance.

(in English in the original text -- trans. )

But the only Empire, you have left, ignores history, it doesn't teach it and refuses to learn it, meaning that it all will end the way it always does, in such cases.

In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared him an enemy, we united around him.

Before, he was just our President, who could be reelected. Now, he has become our Leader. We won't let you change this. And it was you, who created this situation.

It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose patriotism.

Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.

Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.

Muriel Kuri • 13 hours ago ,

I agree with you, Margarita, and I am American! I remember as a child, being taught about that horrid USSR - to be so feared, ready at any moment to bomb us into oblivion! I remember the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. - not knowing the full details, but being told that Kennedy saved us all from WWIII. As time went on, we'd watch humorous shows detailing the large percentage of Russians in USSR wanting to AND defecting to America. We were shown Russians lined up around city blocks to buy toilet paper, shoes (any size, any color would do). Russians naivety was always made fun of, casting the majority of you as either clowns or criminals capable of all heinous crimes. Then came the 90s. I watched Yeltsin tottering around drunk, watched in horror as the USSR collapsed, wondering what had happened to you. Then came Putin - this young man being handed the reins of your collapsed, ruined country. Suddenly it seemed, we saw more and more of him. I remember watching his face when he had to explain to the tearful, waiting parents and friends of the mariners from the Kursk. His remark that if he could go down there himself and rescue them he would! I knew then, that this was a man to be watched, because I admired him at that moment. Over the years, after one successful term after another, I saw Russia rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the USSR. I saw the pride returning to the Russian faces, saw smiles returning to their faces, watched you regaining your honor, your sovereignty as we started losing ours. Watching and listening, in horror and fear as more and more of our rights were taken away after 9/11. Discovering that it was a false flag (one of many, it seems), that took the lives of ordinary Americans and used their deaths to start killing more people in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack. More time going by, more rights taken away here, yet for you, rising ever more to greater economy, more business friendly environments in Russia, more world trade with an increasing number of trading partners.

Then started the demonization again - not of USSR, but of Russia - same story, different name. Putin - guilty of all crimes of mankind, blamed for everything under the sun, capable and willing to kill people around the globe with impunity, using chemicals and all other nefarious things! I watched the crimes committed in Ukraine, which deposed the legally elected president, and that tried to kill him after a coup that put Nazis in his place. I watched Crimea hold it's referendum, saw the fireworks display afterwards with all the happy faces. Russia was demonized even more and sanctioned greatly for that. Now to 2017 - I prayed that Putin would run again - (he waited a long time before stating he would run.) I knew that Russia sorely needed him to remain at the reins, guiding Russia (and the world, it seems) around the icebergs of hate, crimes against humanity, local wars, demise of any empathetic feelings towards others as we are all dragged along to the next, last war. Putin has been the one who has prevented it from happening in several situations, where it could have been started. But the demonization continues - little wonder America has lost it's appeal to most of you!

The deep state has us in thrall - (no Kennedy here now to protect us). I pray daily that all of us will survive to realize our hopes - yours and ours, but feel on a deep level that this time it won't happen. It seems that some people here truly want a war - feel they could survive the strike and retaliate to ruin your country, but that ours would remain mainly untouched. They think their bunkers will protect them - their expansive underground cities built for the richest and 'best' of America, while the rest of us are collateral damage. I am not rich - have no real savings, so am definitely not one of those to be saved - like so others around me. I'm sure many of you are in the same position, have the same fears and dreams as I do. I offer all of you my best wishes for a happy, healthy, free and safe world. Maybe your Putin actually does have a rabbit in his hat, or that silver bullet - the magic needed to save us all! I truly hope so.

wdg Muriel Kuri • 5 hours ago ,

As a Canadian, thank you for your excellent summary of what I have concluded for some time. Sadly, the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic as established by the founders; it is not even a representative democracy. What the US has become is an Evil American Empire that is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity in the US and throughout the entire world. The good news is that a growing number of people in the US and the Western World realize this and are working very hard to return America to its founding ideals. The first stage in this process is the exposure of powerful members of the Deep State who have infiltrated and corrupted the essential institutions of government, freedom and justice.

TiredOfBsToo • 13 hours ago ,

I used to be liberal before liberalism became a symbol of stupidity, war mongering and affiliated with the Deep State and it's rush to rule the world by destroying every society whose people chose to live life as they saw fit. The translation mechanism for understanding US leadership is projection. If the mouthpieces ramble on about their values, the meaning is that they are stating the values of their opponent or target country. If they're accusing a country of terrorism, they're talking about their own support for terrorism for geopolitical gains. If they're accusing a country of using chemical weapons, they're really talking about their own use of chemical weapons to launch another war and destroy yet another country's society. So one can easily see the true meaning of these psychopaths rantings and rhetoric by merely using the simple mechanism of projection to determine the truth.

Maria Angelica Brunell Solar Gerry Hiles • 8 hours ago ,

Many times I am completely confused by the use that Americans make of traditional political or economic terms. "Socialism", for example, applied to Democrats? Calling "Liberals" those who like to defy society's traditional customs? "Marxism" is no longer a theory about the conflict of classes, or a dialectical understanding of society! Many political discussions are due to the different interpretations that people give to the same words. The US political science vocabulary is in chaos- along with many other US things!

tomo stojanovic Maria Angelica Brunell Solar • an hour ago ,

Americans are keen on Orwellian renaming

wdg Maria Angelica Brunell Solar • 5 hours ago ,

Seventy years ago, George Orwell wrote the prophetic essay, "Politics
and the English Language," in which he noted that politicians,
journalists and academics were increasingly using meaningless words and
euphemisms to make "lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and...
give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Source: https://www.alternet.org/el...

Rafael Gerry Hiles • 6 hours ago ,

Totally agree. Fundamental or Philosophical Liberalism has to be with the human being and his liberties and rights.
Economic Liberalism has to be with the commodities trade and physical money, financial money, and their privileges put over the human beings, of course this is a euphemism because whom are really self conceded such privileges are the owners of those goods i.e. International Usurers.
Economic Liberalism morphed into the worst; into Neo-(Economic)-Liberalism (They call it only "liberalism" in order to confuse their enemies, all the people).
Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as their rightful commodities.

Tommy Jensen TiredOfBsToo • 13 hours ago ,

Double speak, double thinking, defining realities, part of the same s..t.

TiredOfBsToo Tommy Jensen • 13 hours ago ,

You're absolutely correct! We've had the worst of the worst running and influencing those that run the country and this man was a psycho, but we have more, too many!

Gerry Hiles Tommy Jensen • 12 hours ago ,

And Dubya called him "Turd Blossom". Apt. Perhaps relating to mutual dehumanisation in Skull & Bones?

Peter Jennings Tommy Jensen • 5 hours ago ,

The arrogance of the man. I do hope he lives long enough to see the fruits of his labor whilst the economy collapses around him. I guess when that happens he and his other hapless miscreants will keep their heads down and rely on security to protect them from the karma hurtling towards them.

Nothing this man has done has benefited the American people.

Tommy Jensen Peter Jennings • 3 hours ago ,

Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held responsible for the factual truth.

[Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

Highly recommended!
Mar 21, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

March 20 marks a major anniversary. You'd be forgiven for not knowing it. Fifteen years after we invaded Iraq, few in the US are addressing our legacy there. But it's worth recalling we shattered that country.

We made it a terrorist hotspot, as expected. US and British intelligence, in the months preceding the invasion, expected Bush's planned assault would invigorate Al-Qaeda. The group " would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks," particularly " in the US and UK ," assessments warned. Due course for the War on Terror.

Follow-up reports confirmed these predictions. "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement," Washington analysts explained in 2006.

Fawaz Gerges lists two groups this milieu produced: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), "a creature of the 2003 US-led invasion," and ISIS, "an extension of AQI."

There were good reasons for anyone -- not just jihadists -- to resent US involvement. Consider sectarianism. "The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation," Sami Ramadani affirmed . Nabil Al-Tikriti concurs , citing US policies that "led to a progressive, incessant increase in sectarian tensions." The Shia death squads " organized by U.S. operatives" were one such decision.

The extent to which these squads succeeded is, in part, what scholars debate when they tally the war deaths. Low estimates, like Iraq Body Count's, put civilians killed at just over 200,000. One research team determined some "half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war." Physicians for Social Responsibility concluded "that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq," plus 300,000 more in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iraqis surviving the inferno confronted a range of nightmares. The UN " reported that over 4.4 million Iraqis were internally displaced, and an additional 264,100 were refugees abroad," for example. US forces dealt with Iraqi prisoners -- 70-90% of whom were " arrested by mistake " -- by "arranging naked detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;" "breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;" and "forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves," to list some of the ways we imparted , with the approval of top Bush administration officials, democratic principles.

Then there are the generations of future Iraqis in bomb-battered cities: Fallujah, Basra. In the former, "the reported increases in cancer and infant mortality are alarmingly high" -- perhaps " worse than Hiroshima " -- while "birth defects reached in 2010 unprecedented numbers." In the same vein, "a pattern of increase in congenital birth defects" plagues Basra, and "many suspect that pollution created by the bombardment of Iraqi cities has caused the current birth defect crisis in that country."

This bombardment began decades before 2003, it's crucial to clarify. We can recall UN Under-Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari's mission to Baghdad after Operation Desert Storm. He and his team were familiar with the literature on the bombings, he wrote in March 1991, "fully conversant with media reports regarding the situation in Iraq," but realized upon arrival "that nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation" -- "near-apocalyptic" -- "which has now befallen the country," condemning it "to a pre-industrial age" for the foreseeable future. This was the scale of ruin when the UN Security Council imposed sanctions. The measures were "at every turn shaped by the United States," whose "consistent policy " was "to inflict the most extreme economic damage possible on Iraq."

The policy was, in this respect, a ripping success. The UN estimated in 1995 that the sanctions had murdered over a half-million children -- " worth it ," Madeleine Albright said -- one factor prompting two successive UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq to resign. Denis Halliday thought the sanctions "criminally flawed and genocidal;" Hans von Sponeck agreed , citing evidence of "conscious violation of human rights and humanitarian law on the part of governments represented in the Security Council, first and foremost those of the United States and the United Kingdom."

Eliminating hundreds of thousands of starving children was just the prequel to the occupation -- "the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed Baghdad in 1258," in one writer's judgment . But try to find more than a handful of commentators reflecting on any of these issues on this dark anniversary. Instead, silence shows the deep US capacity for forgetting.

Nick Alexandrov lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Mar 20, 2018] The plausibility of the doping charges disappeared when, at a time when Russian athletes were under extreme scrutiny in the Winter Olympics, they were accused of doping in the curling and bobsleigh events \

Mar 20, 2018 | www.unz.com
unseated , March 20, 2018 at 11:32 pm GMT
@Mark James

The plausibility of the doping charges disappeared when, at a time when Russian athletes were under extreme scrutiny in the Winter Olympics, they were accused of doping in the curling and bobsleigh events. At that point credibility of the charges flew out of the window.

[Mar 20, 2018] We read that Vladimir Putin's passport was found three days later at the Scripaal's poisoning scene.

Notable quotes:
"... Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved. ..."
"... Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade. ..."
"... Car is lifted by straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I doing? Got a better tale? ..."
"... Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why would anyone take you seriously? ..."
"... People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what it has meant historically. ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

remo , Website Next New Comment March 20, 2018 at 8:36 am GMT

"Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", TIMES Mar 14)' may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved."
Stephen Davies. Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust.

Meanwhile, a doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how she found Ms Skripal..She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying "there was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripals face or body."

The woman, who asked not to be named, told the NNC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father.

she said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal's face or body.

The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, hut added that she "feels fine".

Some nerve agent. We read that Vladimir Putin's passport was found three days later at the scene.

Tom Welsh , Next New Comment March 20, 2018 at 8:53 am GMT
One wonders how the Skripals are right now. Have they recovered completely, or partially? Are they still deathly ill? Has one or both of them died?

In any case, why have there been no public announcements of these important facts? It is useless to cite privacy, when the government hastened to trumpet the case – and its own dubious conclusions – as publicly as possible.

Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved.

Incidentally, I wonder where the Skripals are and why. Apparently the Russian government applied for consular access to Yulia (who is a Russian citizen) but this was bluntly refused – against all norms of international law and civilized behaviour.

Ger , Next New Comment March 20, 2018 at 6:17 pm GMT
Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade.

How does the doctor know this: He is just down the street from the British Nerve Agent Factory and has been trained to recognize and treat real exposures to potent nerve agents. A policeman ends up in same hospital as Skripal because he sees car parked overtime or illegally, opens door to check for ownership gets zapped by toxic agent. Car is lifted by straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I doing? Got a better tale?

Beckow , March 20, 2018 at 5:03 pm GMT

We understand we are not being taken seriously

Good, understanding that you are a joke is the first step on the road to possible recovery.

Try for once to imagine a reverse scenario: an Englishman dies under suspicious circumstances in a provincial town in Russia. (Or 3-4 of them over 15-20 years.) He was considered a 'traitor' by UK for whatever reason. Immediately Russia declares that it was an ' unacceptable attack on Russia's sovereignty, that Britain did it, and that it is 'highly likely' that Teresa May ordered it herself' . Russian government also says that they will not disclose any details, show no evidence and will not even allow basis diplomatic protocol for UK embassy. Why? For reasons of ' state security '. Wouldn't any rational outsider consider that a joke?

Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why would anyone take you seriously?

People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what it has meant historically.

This 'joke' is not that funny any more. Grow up.

[Mar 20, 2018] American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism.

Notable quotes:
"... It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Banger , March 19, 2018 at 9:09 am

American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."

At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs. When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human. Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in the neighborhood of following international law.

[Mar 19, 2018] NBC's Clueless Boost for Putin by Ray McGovern

Notable quotes:
"... Reviewing the original Russian tape of the interviews, it became clear that the tête-à-tête showed a Putin looking patiently but supremely presidential to Russian viewers who could see the whole interviews, not just the selective selected excerpts aired by NBC and "interpreted" by Russophobe-de-jour Richard Haas. (A close adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Haas was among those who told him it was a swell idea to invade Iraq. When the anticipated "cakewalk" turned rather bloody, with no WMD to be found, Haas quit in July 2003 and became President of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is now well into his 15th year.) ..."
"... For some reason best known to Kelly and NBC, Kelly tried repeatedly to make the case that the U.S. decision to scrap the ABM treaty was a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when, she said, "the United States was reassessing its security posture." ..."
"... "Complete nonsense," was Putin's reply ("polniy chush" in Russian -- chush ringing with onomatopoeia and a polite rendering of "B.S."). Putin explained that "9/11 and the missile defense system are completely unrelated," adding that even "housewives" are able to understand that. He found occasion to use "polniy chush" (or simply "chush) several times during the interview. ..."
"... During the back-and-forth on chemical weapons, Putin not only called the accusations against Russia a lie, but saw fit to refer to Colin Powell's misbegotten speech at the UN just six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq: "It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the Secretary of State." ..."
"... For good measure, Putin threw in "Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine?" ..."
Mar 19, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

As I watched NBC's special, " Confronting Putin ," Friday evening, I asked myself -- naively -- what possessed President Putin to subject himself again to what NBC calls a Megan Kelly "grilling," replete with supercilious questions and less-than-polite interruptions, just nine months after his first such "grilling." It then hit me that "grilling" is in the eye of the beholder.

Reviewing the original Russian tape of the interviews, it became clear that the tête-à-tête showed a Putin looking patiently but supremely presidential to Russian viewers who could see the whole interviews, not just the selective selected excerpts aired by NBC and "interpreted" by Russophobe-de-jour Richard Haas. (A close adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Haas was among those who told him it was a swell idea to invade Iraq. When the anticipated "cakewalk" turned rather bloody, with no WMD to be found, Haas quit in July 2003 and became President of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is now well into his 15th year.)

Back to the Kelly-Putin pas de deux: At the March 1 interview the Russian President came out swinging. When Kelly asked the first time whether there is "a new arms race right now" after Putin's announcement of Russia's new strategic weapons, Putin reminded her that it was the U.S. that withdrew in 2002 from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. He added that he had repeatedly warned the Bush/Cheney administration that Russia would be forced to respond to the dangerous upset of the strategic equilibrium.

For some reason best known to Kelly and NBC, Kelly tried repeatedly to make the case that the U.S. decision to scrap the ABM treaty was a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when, she said, "the United States was reassessing its security posture."

"Complete nonsense," was Putin's reply ("polniy chush" in Russian -- chush ringing with onomatopoeia and a polite rendering of "B.S."). Putin explained that "9/11 and the missile defense system are completely unrelated," adding that even "housewives" are able to understand that. He found occasion to use "polniy chush" (or simply "chush) several times during the interview.

Russian "Interference"

It was no surprise that Kelly was armed with an array of questions about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and at the start of the March 2 interview asked "can we have that discussion now?" Putin said, "I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering you." And they were off on a feckless exchange with Putin replying calming to Kelly's hectoring.

After one interruption, Putin said, "You keep interrupting me; this is impolite." Kelly apologized, but dutifully went on to cover what seemed to be the remainder of her accusatory talking points. These included repeated insistence that Putin punish the click-bait farmers indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for violating U.S. law.

No doubt fully briefed on the fact that Kelly sports a law degree, Putin asked, "Do you have people with legal training? We cannot even launch an investigation without cause. Give us at least an official inquiry with a statement of facts; send us an official paper."

Kelly: "Isn't it enough that U.S. intelligence agencies and now a Special Prosecutor (sic) with a criminal indictment -- is that not enough for you to look into it?" Putin: "Absolutely not. If you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this." Kelly: "I do." Putin: "Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent to the Prosecutor-General's Office of the Russian Federation."

The interview got testier toward the end, as Kelly tried to fit in all her questions, including the unsupported accusation that Syrian government forces are using chemical weapons and that Russia bears some responsibility for this.

During the back-and-forth on chemical weapons, Putin not only called the accusations against Russia a lie, but saw fit to refer to Colin Powell's misbegotten speech at the UN just six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq: "It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the Secretary of State."

For good measure, Putin threw in "Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine?"

Once again for the record, President Putin finished on a familiar note: "Russia and the U.S. should sit down and talk in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is prevented from it by some forces. We are ready to discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace, or counterterrorism efforts. But the U.S. must also be ready."

... ... ...

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he was Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and later conducted the morning briefings of The President's Daily Brief to President Ronald Reagan's most senior national security advisers.

[Mar 18, 2018] Pompeo's All-or-Nothing View of Diplomacy by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Uri Friedman reviews Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:

The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy; it's surrender."

Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.

Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist. There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes ill for talks with North Korea.

Procivic March 18, 2018 at 3:10 pm

Zero sum games are for the infantile and the Trump administration is infested with them.

[Mar 18, 2018] The Illusion of War Without Casualties by Nicolas J.S. Davies

Notable quotes:
"... But low U.S. casualties do not mean that our current wars are less violent than previous wars. Our post-2001 wars have probably killed between 2 and 5 million people . The use of massive aerial and artillery bombardment has reduced cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Sirte, Kobane, Mosul and Raqqa to rubble, and our wars have plunged entire societies into endless violence and chaos. ..."
"... But by bombing and firing from a distance with very powerful weapons, the U.S. has wreaked all this slaughter and destruction at an extraordinary low rate of U.S. casualties. The U.S.'s technological war-making has not reduced the violence and horror of war, but it has "externalized" it, at least temporarily. ..."
"... Even when the U.S. was losing 900-1,000 troops killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan each year from 2004 to 2007, there was much more public debate and vocal opposition to war than there is now, but those were still historically very low casualty rates. ..."
"... Israeli and Saudi leaders openly threaten war on Iran, but expect the U.S. to fight Iran on their behalf. American politicians play along with this dangerous game, which could get thousands of their constituents killed. This would flip the traditional U.S. doctrine of proxy war on its head, effectively turning the U.S. military into a proxy force fighting for the ill-defined interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia ..."
"... In an article about the prospect of a U.S. war on Iran , U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen dismissed American politicians' fears of Iran as "alarmism" and called his boss, Defense Secretary Mattis, "obsessed" with Iran. Sjursen believes that the "fiercely nationalistic" Iranians would mount a determined and effective resistance to foreign occupation, and concludes, "Make no mistake, U.S. military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the occupation of Iraq, for once, actually look like the 'cakewalk' it was billed to be." ..."
"... Those who argue that war and preparation for it is not necessary to capitalism's existence or prosperity miss the point entirely: it simply has not functioned in any other way in the past and there is nothing in the present to warrant the assumption that the coming decades will be any different ..."
"... there are no easy solutions to the problems of irresponsible, deluded leaders and the classes they represent, or the hesitation of people to reverse the world's folly before they are themselves subjected to its grievous consequences. So much remains to be done – and it is late. ..."
"... America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship. As they brainwash themselves and the public with the illusion of war without casualties, they will keep killing, destroying and risking our future until we stop them – or until they stop us and everything else. ..."
"... The whole notion that American soldiers "fight to protect freedom here at home and abroad" is the biggest propaganda accomplishment in global history. ..."
"... This line of self delusional reasoning finds favor in the United States because it obviously provides moral and ethical support to otherwise brutal and imperialist ventures ..."
"... The War Party of Lincoln has been invading other peoples for the last 150 years. Lincoln was the first president of the Republican Party which represents big banks and big business ..."
"... The political parties are business gangsters, just like Al Capone. I don't think Al Capone killed women, children, and babies. ..."
"... I do not know about other people who comment on this websites. But we have social friends, many of them, unlike us, are in very financially lucrative professions. All their information comes from CNN, MSNBC. They have never read anything about American History or history of their own country. Many of them do not even know who Thomas Jefferson was. All their time is spent in making money and finding tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. And many of them profess to be liberal democrats. This is your new America. ..."
"... Dave in all my years I have never heard, or experienced quite the confrontational attitudes that I see all around me being displayed so rudely and openly, as I see today. I blame a lot of this on our MSM's tabloid style of reporting. This is a media which leaves so much of the news to be disregarded, that it creates a very misinformed public. The 1st Amendment doesn't matter, as much as a particular persons opinions do. In someways I think certain Americans take pride in shutting down another American persons opinion from being known. Irritation only aggravates and brings on more irritation ..."
"... It's rather obvious that the US did away with the draft, and resorted to US bombings rather then boots on the ground to reduce US casualties in order to avoid blow back from the American people so they can fight their endless wars. ..."
"... We (and, plausibly, the world) have only one hope – the United States experiences financial destruction before we go much further. The United States has not experienced the horror of war on our own soil for 150 years – during the Civil War. I consider it quite unlikely that the American population will rise up to put a stop to the warmongers now. It will take one of two events to bring the American people to their senses. Either (a) we experience war here in CONUS or (b) our financial system collapses under the stress of massive government debt (currently $20+T and growing with the advent of our nice fat tax cuts) in much the same way that Sparta's did. ..."
Jan 09, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

In the past 16 years, the U.S. has invaded, occupied and dropped 200,000 bombs and missiles on seven countries, but it has lost only 6,939 American troops killed and 50,000 wounded in these wars. To put this in the context of U.S. military history, 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam, 54,000 in Korea, 405,000 in the Second World War and 116,000 in the First World War.

But low U.S. casualties do not mean that our current wars are less violent than previous wars. Our post-2001 wars have probably killed between 2 and 5 million people . The use of massive aerial and artillery bombardment has reduced cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Sirte, Kobane, Mosul and Raqqa to rubble, and our wars have plunged entire societies into endless violence and chaos.

But by bombing and firing from a distance with very powerful weapons, the U.S. has wreaked all this slaughter and destruction at an extraordinary low rate of U.S. casualties. The U.S.'s technological war-making has not reduced the violence and horror of war, but it has "externalized" it, at least temporarily.

But do these low casualty rates represent a kind of "new normal" that the U.S. can replicate whenever it attacks or invades other countries? Can it keep waging war around the world and remain so uniquely immune from the horrors it unleashes on others?

Or are the low U.S. casualty rates in these wars against relatively weak military forces and lightly armed resistance fighters giving Americans a false picture of war, one that is enthusiastically embellished by Hollywood and the corporate media?

Even when the U.S. was losing 900-1,000 troops killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan each year from 2004 to 2007, there was much more public debate and vocal opposition to war than there is now, but those were still historically very low casualty rates.

U.S. military leaders are more realistic than their civilian counterparts. General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told Congress that the U.S. plan for war on North Korea is for a ground invasion of Korea , effectively a Second Korean War. The Pentagon must have an estimate of the number of U.S. troops who are likely to be killed and wounded under its plan, and Americans should insist that it makes that estimate public before U.S. leaders decide to launch such a war.

The other country that the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia keep threatening to attack or invade is Iran. President Obama admitted from the outset that Iran was the ultimate strategic target of the CIA's proxy war in Syria.

Israeli and Saudi leaders openly threaten war on Iran, but expect the U.S. to fight Iran on their behalf. American politicians play along with this dangerous game, which could get thousands of their constituents killed. This would flip the traditional U.S. doctrine of proxy war on its head, effectively turning the U.S. military into a proxy force fighting for the ill-defined interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia .

Iran is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq, with more than double its population. It has a 500,000 strong military and its decades of independence and isolation from the West have forced it to develop its own weapons industry, supplemented by some advanced Russian and Chinese weapons.

In an article about the prospect of a U.S. war on Iran , U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen dismissed American politicians' fears of Iran as "alarmism" and called his boss, Defense Secretary Mattis, "obsessed" with Iran. Sjursen believes that the "fiercely nationalistic" Iranians would mount a determined and effective resistance to foreign occupation, and concludes, "Make no mistake, U.S. military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the occupation of Iraq, for once, actually look like the 'cakewalk' it was billed to be." Is This America's "Phony War"?

Invading North Korea or Iran could make the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look in hindsight like the German invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland must have looked to German troops on the Eastern front a few years later. Only 18,000 German troops were killed in the invasion of Czechoslovakia and 16,000 in the invasion of Poland. But the larger war that they led to killed 7 million Germans and wounded 7 million more.

After the deprivations of the First World War reduced Germany to a state of near starvation and drove the German Navy to mutiny, Adolf Hitler was determined, like America's leaders today, to maintain an illusion of peace and prosperity on the home front. The newly conquered people of the thousand-year Reich could suffer, but not Germans in the homeland.

Hitler succeeded in maintaining the standard of living in Germany at about its pre-war level for the first two years of the war, and even began cutting military spending in 1940 to boost the civilian economy. Germany only embraced a total war economy when its previously all-conquering forces hit a brick wall of resistance in the Soviet Union. Could Americans be living through a similar "phony war", one miscalculation away from a similar shock at the brutal reality of the wars we have unleashed on the world?

How would the American public react if far greater numbers of Americans were killed in Korea or Iran – or Venezuela? Or even in Syria if the U.S. and its allies follow through on their plan to illegally occupy Syria east of the Euphrates?

And where are our political leaders and jingoistic media leading us with their ever-escalating anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda? How far will they take their nuclear brinksmanship ? Would American politicians even know before it was too late if they crossed a point of no return in their dismantling of Cold War nuclear treaties and escalating tensions with Russia and China?

Obama's doctrine of covert and proxy war was a response to the public reaction to what were in fact historically low U.S. casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Obama waged war on the quiet, not war on the cheap . Under cover of his dovish image, he successfully minimized the public reaction to his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, his proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, his global expansion of special operations and drone strikes and a massive bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria.

How many Americans know that the bombing campaign Obama launched in Iraq and Syria in 2014 has been the heaviest U.S. bombing campaign anywhere in the world since Vietnam? Over 105,000 bombs and missiles , as well as indiscriminate U.S., French and Iraqi rockets and artillery , have blasted thousands of homes in Mosul, Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi and dozens of smaller towns and villages. As well as killing thousands of Islamic State fighters, they have probably killed at least 100,000 civilians , a systematic war crime that has passed almost without comment in the Western media.

" And It Is Late"

How will the American public react if Trump launches new wars against North Korea or Iran, and the U.S. casualty rate returns to a more historically "normal" level – maybe 10,000 Americans killed each year, as during the peak years of the American War in Vietnam, or even 100,000 per year, as in U.S. combat in the Second World War? Or what if one of our many wars finally escalates into a nuclear war, with a higher U.S. casualty rate than any previous war in our history?

In his classic 1994 book, Century of War , the late Gabriel Kolko presciently explained,

"Those who argue that war and preparation for it is not necessary to capitalism's existence or prosperity miss the point entirely: it simply has not functioned in any other way in the past and there is nothing in the present to warrant the assumption that the coming decades will be any different "

Kolko concluded,

"But there are no easy solutions to the problems of irresponsible, deluded leaders and the classes they represent, or the hesitation of people to reverse the world's folly before they are themselves subjected to its grievous consequences. So much remains to be done – and it is late."

America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship. As they brainwash themselves and the public with the illusion of war without casualties, they will keep killing, destroying and risking our future until we stop them – or until they stop us and everything else.

The critical question today is whether the American public can muster the political will to pull our country back from the brink of an even greater military disaster than the ones we have already unleashed on millions of our neighbors.

Drew Hunkins , March 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm

The whole notion that American soldiers "fight to protect freedom here at home and abroad" is the biggest propaganda accomplishment in global history.

This line of self delusional reasoning finds favor in the United States because it obviously provides moral and ethical support to otherwise brutal and imperialist ventures . These bromides about fighting to protect freedom and democracy assuage the American psyche. If American soldiers never fought for a noble cause, then the human carnage, death, bloodshed, destruction, genitals getting blown apart, people being disemboweled, children having limbs severed off, parents witnessing kids getting tortured, etc. would have all been a horror beyond human comprehension. It's absolutely essential that it all be put in some sort of justifiable apple-pie order, hence the self serving platitudes.

Since the end of WWII Washington militarists (and over the last 30 years their Zionist sidekicks) have committed crimes against humanity after crimes against humanity after crimes against humanity

geeyp , March 10, 2018 at 3:13 am

"America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy", and they know nothing of real war.

stan , March 9, 2018 at 2:32 pm

War is an animal behavior to conquer territory, conquer resources, and conquer people. Anyone who thinks war is fought for ideas like freedom, democracy, or my personal favorite, freeing someone else's slaves, has been brainwashed by the cultural propaganda which begins in kindergarten. We were all brought up to believe war is fought for a noble purpose, for an idea. But war is to conquer the necessities of life.

And there is a difference between war against armies and plain murder of innocent civilians, women, children, and babies. The latter is just murder, not war. Our "wars" are just mass murder of civilians. The War Party of Lincoln has been invading other peoples for the last 150 years. Lincoln was the first president of the Republican Party which represents big banks and big business .

The political parties are business gangsters, just like Al Capone. I don't think Al Capone killed women, children, and babies.

Joe Tedesky , March 9, 2018 at 2:42 pm

We Americans need to go to the top of the mountain and dig deep into our moral conscience. I will say this that U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen to me is a real American. His opinions are based on his reality of his serving in our military, and his questioning of this all the time any time war ideology is proper and patriotic.

I know I've been harping on this, but with Putin's revealing the Russian weapons achievements, which were all accomplished on a next to nothing budget got to be making American MIC heads spinning. This isn't good news for an industry who only knows how to profit, or is it good for the many congressional parasites who are excited to feed of them.

Peace!

john wilson , March 9, 2018 at 3:25 pm

Joe; Americans (and we British) don't have any conscience moral or otherwise. As far as war without casualties goes, I suggest the writer ask the people of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere if there is such a thing as war without casualties. As far as Putin's revelations about his new arms equipment go, I suggest the war industry is delighted about this as now they can claim they need more cash to catch up.

Joe Tedesky , March 9, 2018 at 4:33 pm

John on the subject of Americans with a conscience, we the ones with one are at this moment the citizens who are described as our being the un-American ones, or at least that's what we are being labeled now a days. I agree more emphasis should be put on the innocent lives where our two countries have inflicted this pain upon. In that you will find the incubator for terrorist, and this too our corrupt Deep State (both in the U.S. & U.K) is to them but merely some great job security.

On the subject of American's MIC budget increases, because of Putin's announcement of Russia's new and improved weaponry you make a strong point that Putin only helped to increase these out of sight MIC budgets, but on the other hand what a 'talking point' Putin also gave us advocates for defensive spending cuts if you think about it.

In any case the U.S. loss the status of it being the mightiest military, all because of it's military outrageous spending, and drastic social cuts be damned attitude so as America's quality of life has sunk to new all time low's. Now America is a country with no there, there to it, when it comes to actually having any hard assets. We now can yell back, 'hey why you spending so much, Putin doesn't need to' and see how the greedy elite like that. Joe

Dave P. , March 10, 2018 at 4:32 am

Joe,

You wrote: Americans with a conscience who are being described as un-American; yes that is how it is. If I even very softly try to explain to our social friends that it is not entirely true, and that there is no evidence of what is being said on TV networks about Russia/ Putin interfering in our 2016 election and destroying our democracy; they tell you in your face what you said, about being un-American.

I do not know about other people who comment on this websites. But we have social friends, many of them, unlike us, are in very financially lucrative professions. All their information comes from CNN, MSNBC. They have never read anything about American History or history of their own country. Many of them do not even know who Thomas Jefferson was. All their time is spent in making money and finding tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. And many of them profess to be liberal democrats. This is your new America.

Most Americans, including immigrant citizens have been completely brain-washed. I have come to conclusion that there is no point in talking to them about these issues. How can you deprogramme these people now?

I do have cousins in Toronto, who understand what we are talking about. I visited Toronto last spring, they have RT channel there in Toronto, and they often watch it.

Joe Tedesky , March 10, 2018 at 10:38 am

Dave in all my years I have never heard, or experienced quite the confrontational attitudes that I see all around me being displayed so rudely and openly, as I see today. I blame a lot of this on our MSM's tabloid style of reporting. This is a media which leaves so much of the news to be disregarded, that it creates a very misinformed public. The 1st Amendment doesn't matter, as much as a particular persons opinions do. In someways I think certain Americans take pride in shutting down another American persons opinion from being known. Irritation only aggravates and brings on more irritation.

I never have a definite answer for you Dave, but like you we both need to struggle through this. I love my country, and I want to help add diverse opinion to make it better, but one person can only do what one person may do. We all need to stay calm and talk. Joe

Annie , March 9, 2018 at 3:25 pm

It's rather obvious that the US did away with the draft, and resorted to US bombings rather then boots on the ground to reduce US casualties in order to avoid blow back from the American people so they can fight their endless wars.

I personally find that the American people care little about the lives lost in Muslim and African countries, and one cousin in response to my mentioning these casualties said all countries engage in "sneaky and underhanded things." I've heard two people, one coming from a Jewish perspective on Muslims said every single Muslim should be killed, and I asked was she talking about children as well. Her answer was yes. Another who made the same statement was a former nun. Again I asked, children too? Her answer was yes. I really don't believe that Americans justify our wars in their own minds because they think we are trying to bring democracy and a better life to the countries we invade, even though it's the propaganda lie put forward, but they care little about the death and destruction of the "other." The Me generation more engaged with -self-fulfillment" than social responsibility has a very non-inclusive perspective on the world, as well as in their own country. Hollywood has certainly encouraged and pushed this self indulgent attitude as well.

Silly Me , March 10, 2018 at 6:03 am

It doesn't seem to make much difference what people believe, except that if they share it in public (as I am doing it here), they become easier to manipulate.

Those who have the power to make the decisions couldn't care less about Americans or, for that matter, anyone else.

Bob Van Noy , March 9, 2018 at 3:41 pm

"America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship."
Nicolas J.S. Davies

Thank you Mr. Davies for your excellent essay. It was the simple sentence above that really resonated for me, because it not only aptly describes the Neocon attitude but as you say, "America's" deluded leaders.

I originally thought this was a G.W. Bush phenomenon, but like a disease, it has spread to our entire government and Media. I can only hope that it will be possible to change America's mind.

At least we still have Consortiumnews! Thank you

nonsense factory , March 9, 2018 at 4:43 pm

If the United States had wanted a free and independent Vietnam then the 1956 elections would have been allowed to go forward, all French troops would have been ejected, and the U.S. would have been unconcerned about the election of a highly socialist government headed by Ho Chi Minh (who, lest we forget, liked to quote the Declaration of Independence as a basis for freeing Vietnam from French and Japanese colonialism).

Eisenhower, at least, honestly described U.S. aims in 'Indochina' in an Aug 4 1953 speech to the Governor's Conference:

"Let us take, though, for example, one simple problem in the foreign field. You have seen the war in Indochina described variously as an outgrowth of French colonialism and its French refusal to treat indigenous populations decently. You find it again described as a war between the communists and the other elements in southeast Asia. But you have a confused idea of where it is located–Laos, or Cambodia, or Siam, or any of the other countries that are involved. You don't know, really, why we are so concerned with the far-off southeast corner of Asia."

"If Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula, the last little bit of the end hanging on down there, would be scarcely defensible–and tin and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming. . . So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America -- our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory, and from southeast Asia."

Honesty from a U.S. President! The U.S. was just going to run a colonial empire as the French and British had before, that was the post WW-II Washington consensus vision. However, they soon realized that such honesty was bad public relations.

So along came JFK (who ran against Nixon on a non-existent 'missile gap' with the Soviet Union), who preached the virtue of the humanitarian pro-democracy intervention in the name of freedom line that U.S. presidents have promoted ever since, be it Johnson or Nixon, Ford or Carter, Reagan and Bush or Clinton and Obama, it's the same PR line. And no, JFK was not going to pull out of Vietnam, he just thought the puppet regime he installed would be able to control the South Vietnamese and crush any resistance, as the puppet regime in South Korea had managed to do. Johnson did exactly what JFK would have done as the puppet regime in Saigon failed to maintain control.

So no, these wars have not been waged to free the suffering locals from oppressive governments, they have been waged to gain economic advantages and to promote imperial agendas. Of course, the Soviet Union had a similar agenda; the Central Asian Soviet states were little more than economic colonies that served Moscow's interests.

There were no good guys in the Cold War, just two different sets of greedy little bastards out to pillage the Third World by any means available, picking up where France and Britain and Germany and Belgium left off after Europe burned itself to the ground.

Zachary Smith , March 9, 2018 at 8:09 pm

The critical question today is whether the American public can muster the political will to pull our country back from the brink of an even greater military disaster than the ones we have already unleashed on millions of our neighbors.

In my opinion the author made this question relatively meaningless with another observation he wrote previously.

How many Americans know that the bombing campaign Obama launched in Iraq and Syria in 2014 has been the heaviest U.S. bombing campaign anywhere in the world since Vietnam?

Make that Point #1. They don't know. . The Corporate Media tells us only what it feels we need to know, and only their version is permitted. Why else would the PropOrNot scheme and others like it be pushed as much as they are?

Point #2 – In the event Americans ever learn, what are the chances they'll give a hoot? People can be "desensitized" – or manipulated into the belief the victims of the bombings deserved every bit of it. Once again, they must make their decisions based on what they believe to be the truth. "Russia Invaded Crimea." "Saddam will kill us all with his WMDs very soon." "Syria keeps using poison gas on its own people." "Israel is both God's Favorite People and the ONLY democracy in the mideast." "The ABM systems surrounding Russia are there to protect us from Iran and North Korea."

Only after looking at the first two Points can we address the third about American Political Will. But does that one mean a thing? Consider my case here in Indiana. Fake Democrat Joe Donnelly has NOBODY running against him in the upcoming primary. I'm going to have the "choice" between a character who votes Republican 95% of the time and a genuine Republican who wouldn't be much more reliable than that. My vote will be "counted" with an unverifiable electronic device which can be easily manipulated to report the results the highest bidder (or smartest technicians) want it to say. All of a sudden that Political Will business looks like a bad joke.

Americans have a declining standard of living. Declining incomes. Yet few of them understand what is happening, for we're constantly told everything is just great and we're Exceptional in every way imaginable. These days I'm seeing clerks at the check-out trying to sneak looks at their handheld devices between customers. Those types of people don't have a clue about US wars, and I'd venture to say a lot of body bags aren't going to trouble them much – if it's nobody they know.

Adolf Hitler was determined, like America's leaders today, to maintain an illusion of peace and prosperity on the home front.

And like Hitler, "America's leaders" are taking steps to keep the peasants happy. Happy with almost unlimited legal and illegal psycho-drugs. Happy with mostly adequate if crappy food. The obesity epidemic in the US population and US military is due to extremely high levels of cheap fat and sugar. Again, the peasants aren't informed about the real cost of this. (antibiotic resistance, everything laced with homones, and the (usually) sterilized shit and other dirt we eat.

Hitler solved the labor problem in Germany by importing slaves by the millions. Guess what the US elites are proposing?

What If You Could Get Your Own Immigrant? was promptly renamed Sponsor An Immigrant Yourself .

Make slavery legal again simply by calling it "sponsored immigration"!

h**ps://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/13/immigration-visas-economics-216968

But getting back to the central theme of the essay, that's something The Saker addressed last fall.

The End of the "Wars on the Cheap" for the United States

h**p://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/

The Saker has another essay up today about the level of "denial" he predicts The Power Elites is going to display about the end of the Gravy Train. He says they're going to deny it, and keep on trucking with the useless weapons and the extremely profitable foreign murder rampages.

Newly revealed Russian weapons systems: political implications

I've no reason to quarrel with his assessment.

Zachary Smith , March 9, 2018 at 8:14 pm

https://thesaker.is/newly-revealed-russian-weapons-systems-political-implications/

Eddie , March 9, 2018 at 11:15 pm

Great article and comments -- these are the reason I long ago gave up reading MSM. The MSM doesn't even mention the stats that are in the article, they just omit KEY concepts and facts, because the MSM readers virtually demand it. I have to most of all agree with Annie's statement about lack of concern with.'the other' as being probably the major (though not ONLY) underlying cause of this indifference to the utterly HORRIBLE things the U.S. is doing to certain other countries. But let even ONE person (assuming it's a white, middle-class person of course) get killed in THIS country by a terrorist bomb, and the MSM and the general public can barely keep from having apoplexy and we are deluged with outraged commentary about the inhumanity of it all!! (Classic example was the bomb in Sterling Hall @ UW-Madison in 1970 that truly accidentally killed a person, and the attendent outrage, while at the SAME TIME we were dropping THOUSANDS of bombs per week (conservatively) in SE Asia with the very definite intention of killing LOTS of people.)

Skip Scott , March 10, 2018 at 9:50 am

The latte sippers have been lulled into sleep by our MSM, and will not wake until the mushroom clouds appear on the horizon. Maybe as homage to them our drone pilots should wear pink pussy hats.

Indrid Cold , March 10, 2018 at 11:04 am

Germany didn't invade Czechoslovakia. They supported the declaration of a separatist government of Slovakia in March 1939, whereupon the Czechoslovakian state imploded and the Germans walked in large unopposed aside from a minor company sized firefight. Other bits were occupied by Poland (a very aggressive and authoritarian state in those days) and Hungary A bit like Victoria Nuland's performance in Ukraine.

Jeff , March 10, 2018 at 12:06 pm

We (and, plausibly, the world) have only one hope – the United States experiences financial destruction before we go much further. The United States has not experienced the horror of war on our own soil for 150 years – during the Civil War. I consider it quite unlikely that the American population will rise up to put a stop to the warmongers now. It will take one of two events to bring the American people to their senses. Either (a) we experience war here in CONUS or (b) our financial system collapses under the stress of massive government debt (currently $20+T and growing with the advent of our nice fat tax cuts) in much the same way that Sparta's did.

But we'd better hope that it isn't (a) because the argument (that I first heard in the 60's) that we were no longer protected by the two oceans on either side is bullshit. No other country is going to be able to mount a conventional assault on the US. They aren't going to be able to do it over the oceans and the only other way is through either Canada or Mexico which is equally unlikely. The only other choice is nuclear. And that would suck to put it mildly. Aaaannnnd we'd better hope it isn't (b) either. The current system dates back to the '70s when OPEC jacked the price of oil up and the US didn't have the money to pay for our consumption (or just about anything else) since we blew all our money trying to bomb Vietnam back to the stone age. That cycle got us the petrodollar and special drawing rights and it also allowed a succession of Republican presidents to prove that the Republican party was the borrow and spend party, running up the national debt and getting the power to screw with the rest of the world through financial sanctions that rely on everybody needing US dollars which are only available from the US. The new Chinese oil futures exchange that is supposed to open this month will settle in gold backed Yuan. And China is the world's largest buyer of oil. We'd better hope that the world continues to need the US dollar because if they don't, a lot of countries aren't going to buy our debt, and if they don't buy our debt, the US dollar becomes less valuable and our standard of living starts to drop even faster than it already is. And that would really suck too. There is a third option where everybody drops on one knee and accepts American suzerainty. But I doubt that's likely.

Joe Tedesky , March 10, 2018 at 1:48 pm

I have been saying for a longtime of how the U.S. will sanction other nations into U.S. isolationism. Read this

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/09/venezuela-just-stopped-accepting-us-dollars-oil-countries-join-forces-kill-us-petrodollar.html

[Mar 18, 2018] Pompeo's All-or-Nothing View of Diplomacy by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Uri Friedman reviews Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:

The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy; it's surrender."

Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.

Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist. There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes ill for talks with North Korea.

Procivic March 18, 2018 at 3:10 pm

Zero sum games are for the infantile and the Trump administration is infested with them.

[Mar 18, 2018] Putin Furious After Britain Says He Ordered Attack by Jason Ditz

Looks like GB was pushed by the USA like Iraq WDM case. The Skripal case also closely resembles the USA Anthrax case.
Notable quotes:
"... Foreign Secretary says Putin 'overwhelmingly likely' personally ordered attack ..."
"... Russian officials, already increasingly mad about the allegations, issued a statement following Johnson's declaration calling it "shocking." They further labeled it " an unforgivable breach of diplomatic etiquette ." ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Foreign Secretary says Putin 'overwhelmingly likely' personally ordered attack

... ... ...

Russian officials, already increasingly mad about the allegations, issued a statement following Johnson's declaration calling it "shocking." They further labeled it " an unforgivable breach of diplomatic etiquette ."

British officials have invested heavily in portraying the poisoning as a Russian plot, and have stuck to that despite unwillingness to present evidence backing up that claim. Russian officials say they were willing to help in the investigation, but Britain clearly is uninterested in that.

[Mar 18, 2018] Globalists Or Nationalists Who Owns The Future by Patrick Buchanan

Mar 13, 2018 | Buchanan.org

Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be open borders."

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies."

In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."

This was wisdom born of experience.

At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence. They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among Americans.

Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but could not produce.

America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.

By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country.

Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no greater loss.

The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.

We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.

We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.

Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and occupy their homelands.

Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?

The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart.

Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?

Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?

On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.

Patriotism trumps ideology.

In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.

We are present now at the end of all that.

And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.

To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

[Mar 18, 2018] Maria Zakharova blows apart poisoning hoax US should "be put under question"

Mar 18, 2018 | theduran.com

Questions arise: then, they should have samples, which they conceal, or it is a lie from start to finish."

"If the UK prime minister and other British experts give the formula, then it will be clear which countries have been developing these agents."

[Mar 18, 2018] Demonization of Putin and Russia is in full swing

Notable quotes:
"... The general idea has been to isolate Russia and to make it so hard for anyone to defend Russia. This extends to the media. Whereas lots of articles on Russia and Syria were open to comments in the Guardian and lots of people write and disagree with the constant propaganda it is now rare to have these open to comment. Any questions is always dominated by anti Russia and anti SAG rhetoric. ..."
"... It is a constant psyop that is gathering momentum. I am sure the use of nerve agent is a not so subtle way of linking Russia with what is supposedly happening in Syria. ..."
"... But as we know that the supposed use of chemical weapons is a series of false flags then the same may apply here. ..."
"... So thanks to to the toxic tory blatant propaganda it's now an accepted fact in US Democrats minds that it was the Russians wot done it as they push for tougher sanctions against Russia. ..."
"... just remember it was the usa/uk under bush/blair that had all the info needed to attack iraq in 2003 so much for any lesson learned in any of that, or this at present the political class remain in the gutter serving the military-financial-energy complex of course these special interest groups would have it no other way as war=money what's a few dead people to get in the way of making a killing off the next war, or preparation for war? i heard porton down was given a few $ in the past day or two as well lets keep those chemists busy ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

SA , March 16, 2018 at 07:20

I agree with you. But there is more, much more. There was an 8 part drama series on the. BBC called McMafia showing how criminality including arms and narcotics and so on, is closely linked to the Russian state. Then there was a series of very superficial BBC programmes, one on Putin as a new Tsar (sic) and the other on the elections with a spotlight on Navalny. Radio 4 is constantly almost daily talking about Russian aggression and of course there is the vilification of Russian athletes and the drugs.

The general idea has been to isolate Russia and to make it so hard for anyone to defend Russia. This extends to the media. Whereas lots of articles on Russia and Syria were open to comments in the Guardian and lots of people write and disagree with the constant propaganda it is now rare to have these open to comment. Any questions is always dominated by anti Russia and anti SAG rhetoric.

It is a constant psyop that is gathering momentum. I am sure the use of nerve agent is a not so subtle way of linking Russia with what is supposedly happening in Syria.

But as we know that the supposed use of chemical weapons is a series of false flags then the same may apply here.

Mochyn69 , March 16, 2018 at 02:44

"The sanctions today are a grievous disappointment, and fall far short of what is needed to respond to that attack on our democracy, let alone deter Russia's escalating aggression, which now includes a chemical weapons attack on the soil of our closest ally," Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee said in a statement.

So thanks to to the toxic tory blatant propaganda it's now an accepted fact in US Democrats minds that it was the Russians wot done it as they push for tougher sanctions against Russia.

There might just be an answer to the cui bono question somewhere in there. Just maybe, but I'm not rushing to judgement!

james , March 16, 2018 at 02:52

just remember it was the usa/uk under bush/blair that had all the info needed to attack iraq in 2003 so much for any lesson learned in any of that, or this at present the political class remain in the gutter serving the military-financial-energy complex of course these special interest groups would have it no other way as war=money what's a few dead people to get in the way of making a killing off the next war, or preparation for war? i heard porton down was given a few $ in the past day or two as well lets keep those chemists busy

[Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism

Highly recommended!
Jun 28, 2013 | www.theguardian.com

Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden are upset about something, they just can't say what. In a letter sent to the National Security Agency this week about a fact sheet on its surveillance programs, the senators complained about what they refer to only as "the inaccuracy". The inaccuracy is "significant". The inaccuracy could "decrease public confidence in the NSA's openness and its commitment to protecting Americans' constitutional rights". But, because the information underlying it is classified, the inaccuracy can't be described.

This is either a frustrating illustration of the absurdities of America's secrecy regime, or the start of a pretty solid vaudeville act.

The frenzied public debate over the NSA leaks has focused on the correctness of the government surveillance programs themselves. But America cannot properly debate these and future surveillance efforts until it decides what can be debated.

As an official in the first Obama administration, I worked in jobs requiring top secret clearance. I know firsthand how essential secrecy can be to effecting policy goals and how devastating leaks can be. I navigated diplomatic relationships threatened by the indiscriminate release of WikiLeaks documents, and volunteered on the taskforce that sifted through them, piecing together the damage done. But it is also true that a culture of over-classification has shielded too much from public debate and that more could be disclosed without damaging the efficacy of intelligence programs.

Trillions of new pages of text are classified each year. More than 4.8 million people now have a security clearance, including low level contractors like Edward Snowden . A committee established by Congress, the Public Interest Declassification Board, warned in December that rampant over-classification is "imped[ing] informed government decisions and an informed public" and, worse, "enabl[ing] corruption and malfeasance". In one instance it documented, a government agency was found to be classifying one petabyte of new data every 18 months, the equivalent of 20m filing cabinets filled with text.

It is difficult to argue that all or even most of that information should be classified. By keeping too many secrets, America has created fertile ground for their escape. Already, the Obama administration has been forced to initiate six espionage prosecutions for leaks – twice as many as every previous administration combined.

It has also left the American people disillusioned and mistrustful. This is especially true of a new generation raised in a networked world that has made them expect far greater transparency from the institutions around them. According to a recent Pew Research Center/ USA Today poll , a clear majority of young people (60%) feels that the NSA leaks served the public interest.

The leaks illustrate how bad the lack of trust has become - and present an opportunity for greater disclosure.

There is no doubt that some secrecy is essential to the efficacy of surveillance programs like those revealed by the NSA leaks. The specific sources and methods of such programs should be protected. However, it is entirely possible to protect those specifics while also broadly disclosing to the public the scope of information subject to collection, and the rationale behind doing so.

That level of disclosure should be the norm for future programs, and can still be instated in the case of the current NSA surveillance programs. Two Congressmen – Democrat Adam Schiff, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican Todd Rokita – introduced a bill last week that would call on the Department of Justice to declassify the legal justifications for NSA surveillance efforts. Universal public disclosure of individual decisions could impede the efficacy of the program, but there is no reason the Department of Justice can't disclose its generalized legal reasoning. That's a drawer in the stadium of filing cabinets that America can safely open.

"You can't have 100% security and then have 100% privacy," President Obama said in the days immediately following the leaks. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society." But the government can and should let Americans know what choices it is that they're making. The intelligence community might find Americans, particularly young Americans most suspicious of government institutions, more sympathetic to their delicate balancing act as informed participants.

[Mar 18, 2018] America s Phony War by William J. Astore

"If We Should Have to Leave Our Bleached Bones on These Desert Sands in Vain, Then Beware the Anger of the Legions." Quote Investigator
Notable quotes:
"... Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously spoke of the " fog of war ," the confusion created by and inherent uncertainty built into that complex human endeavor. As thick as that fog often is, in these years the fog of phony war has proven even thicker and more disorienting. ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

A bizarre version of blitzkrieg overseas and an even stranger version of sitzkrieg at home could be said to define this peculiar American moment. These two versions exist in a curiously yin-yang relationship to each other. For how can a nation's military be engaged in warfare at a near-global level -- blitzing people across vast swaths of the globe -- when its citizens are sitting on their collective duffs, demobilized and mentally disarmed? Such a schizoid state of mind can exist only when it's in the interest of those in power. Appeals to "patriotism" (especially to revering "our" troops) and an overwhelming atmosphere of secrecy to preserve American "safety" and "security" have been remarkably effective in controlling and stifling interest in the country's wars and their costs , long before such an interest might morph into dissent or opposition. If you want an image of just how effective this has been, recall the moment in July 2016 when small numbers of earnest war protesters quite literally had the lights turned off on them at the Democratic National Convention.

To use an expression I heard more than a few times in my years in the military, when it comes to its wars, the government treats the people like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit.

The Fog of Phony War

Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously spoke of the " fog of war ," the confusion created by and inherent uncertainty built into that complex human endeavor. As thick as that fog often is, in these years the fog of phony war has proven even thicker and more disorienting.

By its very nature, a real war of necessity, of survival, like the Civil War or World War II brings with it clarity of purpose and a demand for results. Poorly performing leaders are relieved of command when not killed outright in combat. Consider the number of mediocre Union generals Abraham Lincoln cycled through before he found Ulysses S. Grant. Consider the number of senior officers relieved during World War II by General George C. Marshall, who knew that, in a global struggle against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, subpar performances couldn't be tolerated. In wars of necessity or survival, moreover, the people are invariably involved. In part, they may have little choice, but they also know (or at least believe they know) " why we fight " -- and generally approve of it.

Admittedly, even in wars of necessity there are always those who will find ways to duck service. In the Civil War, for example, the rich could pay others to fight in their place. But typically in such wars, everyone serves in some capacity. Necessity demands it.

The definition of twenty-first-century phony war, on the other hand, is its lack of clarity, its lack of purpose, its lack of any true imperative for national survival (despite a never-ending hysteria over the "terrorist threat"). The fog it produces is especially disorienting. Americans today have little idea "why we fight" other than a vague sense of fighting them over there (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Niger, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, etc.) so they won't kill us here, to cite George W. Bush's rationale for launching the war on terror. Meanwhile, with such a lack of national involvement and accountability, there's no pressure for the Pentagon or the rest of the national security state to up its game; there's no one even to point out that wherever the U.S. military has gone into battle in these years, yet more terror groups have subsequently sprouted like so many malignant weeds. Bureaucracy and mediocrity go unchallenged; massive boosts in military spending reward incompetency and the creation of a series of quagmire-like " generational " wars.

Think of it as war on a Möbius strip. More money shoveled into the Pentagon brings more chaos overseas, more imperial overreach, and undoubtedly more blowback here at home, all witnessed -- or rather largely ignored -- by a sitzkrieg citizenry.

Of course, for those fighting the wars, they are anything but phony. It's just that their experience remains largely isolated from that of the rest of us, an isolation that only serves to elevate post-traumatic stress disorder rates, suicides , and the like. When today's troops come home, they generally suffer in silence and among themselves.

America's New (Phony) National Defense Strategy

Even phony wars need enemies. In fact, they may need them more (and more of them) than real wars do. No surprise then that the Trump administration's recently announced National Defense Strategy (NDS) offers a laundry list of such enemies. China and Russia top it as "revisionist powers" looking to reverse America's putative victory over Communism in the Cold War. "Rogue" powers like North Korea and Iran are singled out as especially dangerous because of their nuclear ambitions. (The United States, of course, doesn't have a "rogue" bone in its body, even if it is now devoting at least $1.2 trillion to building a new generation of more usable nuclear weapons.) Nor does the NDS neglect Washington's need to hammer away at global terrorists until the end of time or to extend "full-spectrum dominance" not just to the traditional realms of combat (land, sea, and air) but also to space and cyberspace.

Amid such a plethora of enemies, only one thing is missing in America's new defense strategy , the very thing that's been missing all these years, that makes twenty-first-century American war so phony: any sense of national mobilization and shared sacrifice (or its opposite, antiwar resistance ). If the United States truly faces all these existential threats to our democracy and our way of life, what are we doing frittering away more than $45 billion annually in a quagmire war in Afghanistan? What are we doing spending staggering sums on exotic weaponry like the F-35 jet fighter (total projected program cost: $1.45 trillion ) when we have far more pressing national needs to deal with?

Like so much else in Washington in these years, the NDS doesn't represent a strategy for real war, only a call for more of the same raised to a higher power. That mainly means more money for the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and related "defense" agencies, facilitating more blitz attacks on various enemies overseas. The formula -- serial blitzkrieg abroad, serial sitzkrieg in the homeland -- adds up to victory , but only for the military-industrial complex.

Solutions to Sitzkrieg

Of course, one solution to phony war would be to engage in real war, but for that the famed American way of life would actually have to be endangered. (By Afghans? Syrians? Iraqis? Yemenis? Really?) Congress would then have to declare war; the public would have to be mobilized, a draft undoubtedly reinstated, and taxes raised. And those would be just for starters. A clear strategy would have to be defined and losing generals demoted or dismissed.

Who could imagine such an approach when it comes to America's forever wars? Another solution to phony war would be for the American people to actually start paying attention. The Pentagon would then have to be starved of funds. (With less money, admirals and generals might actually have to think.) All those attacks overseas that blitzed innocents and spread chaos would have to end. Here at home, the cheerleaders would have to put down the pom-poms, stop mindlessly praising the troops for their service, and pick up a few protest signs.

In point of fact, America's all-too-real wars overseas aren't likely to end until the phony war here at home is dispatched to oblivion.

A final thought: Americans tell pollsters that, after all these years of failed wars abroad, they continue to trust the military more than any other societal institution. Consistent with phony war, however, much of that trust is based on ignorance, on not really knowing what that military is doing overseas. So, is there a chance that, one of these days, Americans might actually begin to pay some attention to "their" wars? And if so, would those polls begin to change and how might that military, which has experienced its share of blood, sweat, and tears, respond to such a loss of societal prestige? Beware the anger of the legions .

Faith in institutions undergirds democracy. Keeping the people deliberately demobilized and in the dark about the costs and carnage of America's wars follows a pattern of governmental lying and deceit that stretches from the Vietnam War to the Iraq Wars of 1991 and 2003 , to military operations in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere today. Systemic lies and the phony war that goes with them continue to contribute to a slow-motion process of political and social disintegration that could result in a much grimmer future for this country: perhaps an authoritarian one; certainly, a more chaotic and less democratic one.

Societal degradation and democratic implosion, caused in part by endless phony war and the lies associated with it, are this country's real existential enemies, even if you can't find them listed in any National Defense Strategy. Indeed, the price tag for America's wars may in the end prove not just heavy but catastrophic.

Supplement:

The text of the letter in French as it appeared in "Les Centurions" [LCJL] has been appended near the bottom of this post. Here is the English language version published in the 1962 edition of "The Centurions" [TCJL]:

We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens settled overseas, so many years of our presence, so many benefits brought by us to populations in need of our assistance and our civilization.

We were able to verify that all this was true, and, because it was true, we did not hesitate to shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes. We regretted nothing, but whereas we over here are inspired by this frame of mind, I am told that in Rome factions and conspiracies are rife, that treachery flourishes, and that many people in their uncertainty and confusion lend a ready ear to the dire temptations of relinquishment and vilify our action.

I cannot believe that all this is true and yet recent wars have shown how pernicious such a state of mind could be and to where it could lead.

Make haste to reassure me, I beg you, and tell me that our fellow-citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.

If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware of the anger of the Legions!

Marcus Flavinius,
Centurion in the 2nd Cohort of the Augusta Legion,
to his cousin Tertullus in Rome

William Astore, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and history professor, is a TomDispatch regular . He blogs at Bracing Views .

anonymous Disclaimer , March 16, 2018 at 4:06 pm GMT

I'm not sure why the US's actions overseas are called "wars". They're attacks upon weak 3rd and 4th world countries with little capability to resist. The US has never fought a peer enemy despite all it's self-promotion. It moved in on the Germans at the last moment after they were already on the ropes, despite all the WWII movie hype. All other enemies have been carefully chosen for their vulnerability. But who actually wants a "real" war? Only an insane person wants that. These phony wars serve as an income transfer scheme siphoning tax money upward from the masses to the upper classes. Funny how that works. An actual war with a country that can defend itself and inflict real damage might have the effect of upsetting this racket they have going and they don't want that. Of course the money spent for Afghanistan could be better put to use domestically for roads, medical research and other ways of spending our money on ourselves but apparently that's not in the cards. What's important is to keep the hysteria going so as to maintain the .1% in the style to which they're entitled. The people getting killed are the expendables and of no importance.
Jim Christian , March 17, 2018 at 11:05 am GMT
It's all just a money transfer. Ya have to be in the thick of things around DC, the Pentagon, the likes of Lockheed, the spooks at NSA, certain aspects of Federal Law Enforcement, the whole Alphabet Soup. The dough is a-flowing and they're up to their hand-sewn collars in it. Their mansions, their 5 BMWs or whatever, the Rolexes, the vacations, beautiful women at home AND on the road. They intend to hand it all over to their children as their fathers handed it over to them. They are NOT giving this up. Ever.

Get in the way, Mr. Senator or Congressman or President? Here's what we have on YOU sir, usually a girlfriend or some depravity, they're politicians after all. End of the day, these are the people that get richer every day by killing people. They're very good at it. Even in Britain, the UK, even Russians aren't safe in the quest to keep it all going. Get in the way of the cabal and their income streams in any way, they can disappear you and blame it on Putin. These are the people that kill people. Remember that, you'll be well-served.

TG , March 17, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
Indeed, well said.

But: there IS sacrifice. All those trillions of dollars wasted on pointless winless foreign wars are coming out of the standard of living of the United States, one way or the other. It's just indirect and hard to trace.

One is reminded that Donald Trump, during his presidential campaign, suggested that we stop wasting all these trillions on stupid wars, and spend it on ourselves. For this he was excoriated as "literally Hitler." A lot of Americans voted for him because, propaganda aside, they are not stupid and they don't want this phony war nonsense. After the election, though, he finally caved, and now it's back to business as usual. The elites really like their war profits and they will not shy away from playing dirty to keep them. That's why these phony wars continue.

Remember: IN THE LAST ELECTION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST PHONY WARS. It's just that we don't live in a Democracy.

But there is an alternate view. One is reminded that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were only possible because the immigration policy of the United States is increasingly open to people from unstable nations full of extremists. That attack could not have happened a decade or so earlier.

Even if the United States had the most benevolent foreign policy imaginable, it's a big messy world. There will always be people who hate the United States, for whatever reason. In the past these people would just stew in their own misery and kill each other. Now they can come here no questions asked. Now every extremist group in Tyrannia or Fanatistan is our concern, and we need to break up any potentially hostile organized faction anywhere in the world. So maybe – maybe – these stupid wars aren't that stupid after all. Maybe these phony wars is just one more price for "there shall be open borders."

jacques sheete , March 17, 2018 at 2:53 pm GMT

The USA mistake of WWI was

Getting involved in it.

Minding our own business was never a strong suit of our ruling classes, but it would have saved the world a lot of grief. However, it would have shaved the profits of the bankers and other war profiteers.

The "war for profit group" seem to labor under the impression that it is their war, and that it shall be their material gain. That group, surely is the cause of wars

-Charles A. Lindbergh, Why is your country at war and what happens to you after the war, and related subjects" p77, (1917)

https://archive.org/stream/whyisyourcountr00lindgoog/whyisyourcountr00lindgoog_djvu.txt

Excellent book,by the way. Short and to the point. Has some really annoying errors, but overall well worth a read.

RobinG , March 17, 2018 at 3:47 pm GMT
@Jim Christian

Your inclusion of Lockheed – the private, non-governmental sector – makes your description of Deep State agreeable. Great point – they are ruthless.

Kevin Shipp gives a more detailed analysis. In more recent (longer) talks, he does include Israel Lobby, but this is long enough.

CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government

August Storm , March 17, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria .

In the battle of Manchuria ( China ) , August 1945 , or " August Storm " , the Russians defeated the imperial japanese army , the road to Japan was open for the Red Army and the chinese . Then the yankees threw the atomic bombs to Japan to threaten the Russians ( who still did not have the atomic bomb at the time ) to not to invade Japan .

Japan was completeley defeated , there was not any military need to throw atomic bombs on Japan . The Americans have a sad record for bombing unarmed civilians : Corea , Vietnam , Germany , Irak, Afganistan , Libia , Siria , Japan , etc ..

Carlton Meyer , Website March 17, 2018 at 7:09 pm GMT
Americans are no longer allowed to see the reality of war, as some old movies showed. From my blog:

Jun 8, 2017 – Patriotic Nonsense

Do you become angry when you hear nonsense that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for our freedoms? Do you become enraged when the death of soldiers is explained by claiming they protected us? This is nothing new, as shown in this short movie clip with Korean War vet James Garner. Most blame the Generals and politicians, but he also blames the people back home for glorifying wars, thus allowing the deadly ruse to continue. He stated: "It is always the war widows who lead the Memorial Day parade" as though their husbands died by accident.

densa , March 18, 2018 at 12:56 am GMT
@Jim Christian

Back when Reagan was doing his impersonation of POTUS, the defense deficit was some measly amount and the cry went out to privatize defense because the free market could do it for less. Pretty funny in retrospect.

They also fixed our inefficient corporations and markets, then went on to fix housing, inequality and end poverty. As if that wasn't enough, they also fixed healthcare and banking. I'm surprised we're still afloat. I expect a Wiley Coyote moment soon.

[Mar 18, 2018] Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen" ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Secretary of Defense has written to Congressional leaders to express his opposition to S.J.Res. 54, the resolution that would end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen:

In a letter sent to congressional leaders Wednesday and obtained by The Washington Post, Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis."

He urged Congress not to impose restrictions on the "noncombat," "limited U.S. military support" being provided to Saudi Arabia, which is "engaging in operations in its legitimate exercise of self-defense."

The Pentagon has been putting forward very weak legal arguments against S.J.Res. 54, and Mattis' statement of the policy arguments against the resolution are not any better. The Saudi-led coalition would have great difficulty continuing their war without U.S. military assistance. U.S. refueling allows coalition planes to carry out more attacks than they otherwise could, so it is extremely unlikely that ending it could possibly result in more civilian casualties than the bombing campaign causes now. Mattis is taking for granted that U.S. military assistance somehow makes coalition bombing more accurate and less likely to result in civilian casualties, but that is hard to credit when coalition forces routinely target civilian structures on purpose and when the military admits that it doesn't keep track of what happens after it refuels coalition planes.

Secretary Mattis says that cutting off support could jeopardize cooperation on counter-terrorism, but the flip side of this is that continuing to enable the Saudi-led war creates the conditions for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the local ISIS affiliate to flourish. The coalition's war has made AQAP stronger than it was before, and AQAP members have sometimes even fought alongside coalition forces on the ground. Instead of worrying about whether the U.S. is jeopardizing cooperation with these states, we should be asking whether that cooperation is worth very much in Yemen.

He claims that the Saudis and their allies are engaged in "a legitimate exercise of self-defense," and this is simply not true. The Saudis and their allies were not attacked and were not threatened with attack prior to their intervention. Saudi territory now comes under attack because the coalition has been bombing Yemen for years, but that doesn't make continuing the war self-defense. If an aggressor launches an attack against a neighboring country, it is the neighbor that is engaged in self-defense against the state(s) attacking them.

Mattis also warns that ending support for the Saudi-led coalition would have other undesirable consequences:

As Mattis put it in his letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, "withdrawing U.S. support would embolden Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further ballistic missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in the Red Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict."

These claims also don't hold water. Iranian support for the Houthis remains limited, but it has increased as a direct result of the war. The longer that the war goes on, the greater the incentive the Houthis and Iran will have to cooperate. The absurdity of this intervention is that it was dishonestly sold as a war against Iranian "expansionism" and yet it has done more to aid Iran than anything Iran's government could have done on its own. Missile strikes on Saudi Arabia wouldn't be happening if the Saudis and their allies weren't regularly bombing Yemeni cities. If the coalition halted its bombing, the missile strikes would almost certainly cease as well. Continuing the war is a guarantee that those attacks will continue, and U.S. military assistance ensures that the war will continue. Every reason Mattis gives here for continuing U.S. support for the war is actually a reason to end it.

Shipping lanes weren't threatened before the intervention and won't be threatened after it ends. Yemenis have every incentive to leave shipping lanes alone, since these are their country's lifeline. Meanwhile, the cruel coalition blockade is slowly starving millions of Yemenis to death by keeping out essential commercial goods from the main ports that serve the vast majority of the population. Mattis is warning about potential threats to shipping from Yemen while completely ignoring that the main cause of the humanitarian disaster is the interruption of commercial shipping into Yemen by the Saudi-led blockade. The regional conflict that Mattis warns about is already here. It is called the Saudi-led war on Yemen. If one wants to prevent the region from being destabilized further, one would want to put an end to that war as quickly as possible.

Mattis mentions that the U.S. role in the war is a "noncombat" and "limited" one, but for the purposes of the debate on Sanders-Lee resolution that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the military assistance the U.S. is providing doesn't put Americans in combat. That is not the only way that U.S. forces can be introduced into hostilities. According to the War Powers Resolution , the U.S. has introduced its armed forces into hostilities under these circumstances:

For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany [bold mine-DL] the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

Any fair reading of this definition has to apply to the regular U.S. refueling of coalition planes that are engaged in an ongoing bombing campaign. The U.S. is obviously participating in the "movement" of coalition forces when it provides their planes with fuel. Indeed, our forces are making the movement of their forces possible through refueling. U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen clearly counts as introducing U.S. forces into hostilities under the WPR, and neither administration has sought or received authorization to do this. No president is permitted to do this unless there is "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." There has obviously been no action from Congress that authorizes this, and there is certainly no emergency or attack that justifies it. U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen is illegal, and the Senate should pass S.J.Res. 54 to end it.

so it's blackmail March 15, 2018 at 11:00 am

"Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.""

Wow. So MBS is blackmailing us. He's threatening to kill more civilians, to stop anti-terror cooperation, and to shut us out of other Saudi regional security decisions if we don't help him starve and wreck Yemen.

Maybe the situation is a little clearer, but how can anyone take Trump seriously after this embarrassing confession by Mattis?

We may assume that Trump has no self-respect, but doesn't he have any respect for his office? Is he really going to let this disgusting little torture freak jerk him around like this? When it implicates all Americans in Saudi war crimes?

SteveM , says: March 15, 2018 at 2:14 pm
Re: "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen"

Unfortunately, in this day of warped Military Exceptionalism as the civic religion, a 4-Star pedigree fronting weak arguments makes them essentially unassailable. No matter how immoral, idiotic or costly to the taxpayers.

Mad Dog Mattis got a free ride with his logically incoherent, hyper-belligerent pronouncements related to the National Security Strategy. Expect no different response to his perverse rationalizations of the Yemen catastrophe.

Generals and Admirals now pop off stupid and dangerous opinions right and left and are never challenged by an MSM that is bedazzled by anyone wearing stars on their shoulders.

Mattis' case for Yemen is not only weak, it's pathetic. Too bad the co-opted and seduced MSM will never suggest that to the public at large deluded by the omnipresent propaganda of the National Security State.

Nothing will change until the undeserved fawning adoration of the War Machine Elite is substantially attenuated.

Alex Ingrum , says: March 15, 2018 at 3:12 pm
The neocons will stop at nothing to bring down anyone they suspect of threatening Israel or U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East.

First, they lied about WMDs in Iraq and started a completely illegal war, killing millions and devastating that country for generations. That led directly to the creation of ISIS and the havoc it has wrought on both Iraq and Syria (and increasingly in other countries).

Then under Obama and Sec. Clinton, they allowed the military takeover of Egypt by the murderous and oppressive El-Sisi and launched an aggressive war of regime change in Libya, throwing both North African countries into turmoil.

Then they supported the brutal and savage ongoing Saudi war against Yemen to curb non-existent Iranian influence, followed by politically isolating Qatar for its supposed chumminess with Iran.

The neocons will do absolutely anything to bring down the Iranian regime, no matter how many foreign and American lives and destroyed to achieve that end.

b. , says: March 15, 2018 at 3:38 pm
The details of Mattis' letter of indulgence do not matter as much as the fact that he is willing to defend the indefensible. Even if his professed concerns were not only genuine, but actually reflected reality, he also has to know better than anybody else within the administration about the consequences of the US-backed Saudi/UAE invasion of Yemen.

Mattis has joined Graham and Albright in the "worth it" campaign to sustain and extend perfectly predictable atrocities.

If he wants to make the case that we cannot accept uncertainty with respect to an alleged Iranian aggression towards Saudi Arabia – and with even more unlikely acquiescence by the Houthi to let Iran use them the way the US uses the Kurds – or even assuming that Mattis wants to misrepresent possible Houthi blowback against Saudi Arabia as "Iranian" just for convenience – then it should be clear that he is claimng we can easily accept uncertainty with respect to Yemeni blowback against the US – blowback that he also uses to justify the US campaign inside Yemen, and that fueled Obama's pathological obsession with ideological cleansing in Yemen and other prospective "safe harbors".

Mattis is proving the validity of the actual Powell Doctrine – if you join it, you own it – both with respect to US co-belligerence in Yemen, and with respect to Mattis personally. He is also proving the observation that anybody who is willing to join an administration as criminal as that of Bush, Obama or Trump is unlikely to do any good – by their voluntary association they have irredeemably tainted themselves.

Uncle Billy , says: March 15, 2018 at 7:54 pm
We do not want to get in the middle of this Sunni vs. Shiite war. The Saudis want to destroy the Shiites in Yemen and we are fools at best and criminals at worst to help them. The people of Yemen are no threat to the US and for theAmerican Government to cooperate with the Saudis in the murderof Yemeni women and children is revolting.
Sisera , says: March 16, 2018 at 6:06 pm
Americans have heard for years that supporting "democracy" and popular uprisings throughout the Middle East are in our national interests, the basis being that oppressed people are more likely to resort to terrorism.

Yet in the cases of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Yemen popular revolutions of Shias demanding equal rights are actually deemed a threat to our national security.

The neocons have gotten so deep in the Gulf/Israel v. Iran conflict that they're not even keeping to the ostensible reasons for interventionism.

[Mar 16, 2018] Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons s hand to increase hostility towards Russia.

Notable quotes:
"... The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Tom 15 March 2018 at 06:51 AM

For what its worth: there was a very long and detailed analysis by the Frankfurter Allgmeine Zeitung yesterday regarding Tillersons dismissal. You can take this analysis as something like the "official" German position as FAZ journalists are the equivalent of Pravda journalists. That is fully in the know but only writing what is desired.

The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia.

Interestingly enough today Germany´s defense minister who is a close confident of Merkel echoed the outrage about the alleged nerve gas attack but called for a "UN investigation". That is she didn´t endorse the British claim.

Another background to the British provocation might be the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Construction is to start now and once it is finished Ukraine can´t blackmail Europe anymore by holding up gas delivery. Poland, the Baltics, the US and of course Ukraine are violently opposed to Nord Stream 2.


[Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

March 15, 2018 Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA? by Geoff Dutton

Photo by Mark Taylor | CC BY 2.0

I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.

The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion. According to The Atlantic,

The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein himself has been fired since making the statement.

Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in CounterPunch :

The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."

And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom NPR glowingly described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."

Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt it was their duty."

Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins wrote in the New Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,

When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs, not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past, as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision. After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.

When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted ( March 13, 2018 )

Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7

Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.

The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't let things like due process get in the way.

Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy. Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Geoff Dutton

Geoff Dutton is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.

[Mar 16, 2018] At best this is circumstantial evidence leading to a wild assumption, and at worst it is conjecture much like that which has been the banner topic in the United States for 16 months concerning Russia and Donald Trump's election

Notable quotes:
"... Many trails point to the fact that Russia is responsible ..."
"... It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it. Something that should never ever happen and we're taking it very seriously as I think are many others. ..."
"... There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter." ..."
"... our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin, and with his decision, and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK for the first time since the Second World War ..."
"... (That is assuming it was indeed Novichok, since Britain is being close-handed about sharing the data with Russian authorities.) ..."
"... All words, no facts. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | theduran.com

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov plainly stated that to refuse this assistance is a direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention which states that the country suspected of being the place of origin of a toxic agent is to be contacted first in the event of that agent's use.

One would wonder "why not?" At least one ought to.

But in the meantime, Russia is not taking this matter lying down. More, there is even a bit of humor.

The temperature of relations drops to -2 -3, but we are not afraid of cold weather. pic.twitter.com/mand9YyoaE

-- Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) March 14, 2018

Firstly, Moscow has opened its own investigation into the attempted murders of the Skripals on its own. In addition, they have also opened an investigation into the suspected murder of Nikolay Glushkov, a Russian businessman, which also happened in London.

And of course, when asked by a reporter from Reuters if Moscow would expel British diplomats, Foreign Minister Lavrov smiled and said, "We will, of course."

Even US President Donald Trump is seen by some news agencies to be "joining the dogpile" against Russia, though as it has been noted elsewhere here on The Duran , Mr. Trump's response suggests very tacit agreement, but in such a way as to leave plenty of opening, as the American president seems to have a cooler approach to this matter.

The primary allegation has this sort of structure:

But again these are allegations, and there is no conclusive evidence that verifies any of this aside from the point that Novichok was used. (That is assuming it was indeed Novichok, since Britain is being close-handed about sharing the data with Russian authorities.) At best this is circumstantial evidence leading to a wild assumption, and at worst it is conjecture much like that which has been the banner topic in the United States for 16 months concerning Russia and Donald Trump's election.

All words, no facts. Makes a person feel a bit like this man

[Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his own party. ..."
"... he British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. ..."
"... JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? ..."
"... My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man. It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. ..."
"... So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say, no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to come next. ..."
"... Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore. ..."
"... Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right. ..."
"... And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics. ..."
"... The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo massacre ..."
"... With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | therealnews.com

For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his own party. We discuss the case with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University and Princeton

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jY9-c4M7UhA?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0

AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Ties between Russia and the West are at their lowest point since The Cold War, and a new spat over a poisoning in Britain has sunk them even lower. The British government is blaming Russia for the poisoning of former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British town of Salisbury.

The two remain in critical condition after ingesting what the British government says is a military-grade nerve agent made by Russia. The British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. Speaking today in parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia's response so far proves their culpability.

THERESA MAY: There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter. And for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday, it has taken place against the backdrop of a well established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It must therefore, be met with a full and robust response, beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr. Litvinenko and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.

AARON MATÉ: As part of the measures against Russia, May announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, the single biggest such expulsion in three decades. That drew a response from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who pressed May to hand over evidence.

JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators?

AARON MATÉ: The dispute over the poisoning has gotten so serious, that there has been speculation of NATO invoking Article 5, which bounds member states to defend others in the event of an attack. So far, Downing Street has tamped down talk of Article 5, but Theresa May has been summoning support from key allies, including the US

Joining me is professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton. Welcome, Professor Cohen.

You have been warning for a long time that we are in the midst of a new Cold War. What are your thoughts today as you see now tensions escalating between Britain and Russia, with now Britain ordering the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats following the expulsions that have happened in the US to Russian diplomats as a result of the Russiagate controversy?

STEPHEN COHEN: My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man. It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. In the essence of what he said is Theresa May has no evidence, and yet she's prepared to ratchet up already a bad relationship with Russia based on this. They haven't produced any evidence. Let's put it like that. This alarms me because, I've said this before on your broadcast, but it's almost never said in the mainstream and it's hard to get an American discussion of it, is that whether we call our relationship with Russia a new cold war or not, it certainly is. The point is it's so much more dangerous than the preceding Cold War. I could even argue that the situation today is in some ways more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say, no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to come next.

Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore.

AARON MATÉ: One person who has been pillared in the media today is Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who we heard from before. And I wanna play more of his speech of his comments today, to the British parliament.

JEREMY CORBYN: And while suspending planned high level contact, does the prime minister agree that it is essential to maintain a robust dialogue with Russia in the interest of our own and wider international security?

AARON MATÉ: That's Jeremy Corbyn speaking today, calling today for. "a robust dialogue with Russia." So, Professor Cohen, for saying that, Corbyn was widely mocked, including by members of his own party. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, the import of that, not just for this specific case, but overall, this attitude towards having dialogue, calling for dialogue with Russia being somehow worthy of scorn and contempt.

... ... ...

STEPHEN COHEN: But I've heard some of these people saying privately that we need this, but I don't hear them saying it publicly. Look, I did live in England and get educated there partly many, many years ago, and I followed British politics. So, I don't have great authority, but two things come to mind. Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right.

And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics.

AARON MATÉ: Well, that's a good segue to the next part of our discussion where we're gonna talk more about the role right now of Russiagate in US politics. Professor Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University, thank you.

And thank you for joining us on The Real News.

Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University.

p.munkey • 2 hours ago ,

The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo massacre (See Youtube | StormCloudsGathering | 02m:43s " Charlie Hebdo Shootings - Censored Video " [ https://youtu.be/yJEvlKKm6og ])

With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity.

[Mar 16, 2018] How the Iraq War Destabilized the Entire Middle East

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

How the Iraq War Destabilized the Entire Middle East by Mel Goodman

Photo by The U.S. Army | CC BY 2.0

As we approach the fifteenth anniversary of the unwarranted invasion of Iraq, which we are still paying for in so many ways, it is important to remember the misuse of intelligence that provided a false justification for war. It is particularly important to do so at this time because President Donald Trump has talked about a military option against North Korea or Iran (or Venezuela for that matter). Since there is no cause to justify such wars, it is quite likely that politicized intelligence would once again be used to provide a justification for audiences at home and abroad.

In 2002 and 2003, the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency collaborated in an effort to describe the false likelihood of a nuclear weapons program that had to be stopped. In the words of Bush administration officials, the United States was not going to allow the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." On September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condi Rice used that phrase on CNN and NBC's "Meet the Press," respectively, to argue that Saddam Hussein was "using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

In October 2002, the CIA orchestrated a national intelligence estimate to argue falsely that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger for use in a nuclear weapon. Senior officials throughout the intelligence community knew that the so-called Niger report was a fabrication produced by members of the Italian military intelligence service, and several intelligence officials informed Congressional and White House officials that they doubted the reports of Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger. Nevertheless, the national intelligence estimate spun a fictitious tale of a clear and present danger based on false reports of alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; nuclear weapons; unmanned aerial vehicles; and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda that were nonexistent.

In December 2002, President George W. Bush found the CIA's case for war inadequate and asked for "something that Joe Public would understand or gain a lot of confidence from." Bush turned to CIA director George Tenet and remarked, "I've been given all this intelligence about Iraq having WMD and this is the best we've got?" Instead of being truthful, Tenet replied, "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!" Several days later, Alan Foley, the chief of the Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control Staff, told his analysts to prepare a briefing for the president. "If the president wants intelligence to support a decision to go to war," Foley said, "then it is up to the agency to provide it." In early January, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin gave the phony "slam dunk" briefing at the White House.

The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans distributed the unsubstantiated and flawed intelligence that not even the CIA would vouch for. The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith supplied bogus intelligence to the White House on Iraqi WMD and links to terrorist organizations to make the case for war, and then "leaked" this intelligence to key journalists such as Judith Miller at The New York Times . Miller had a front page article in the Times on September 8, 2002, citing administration officials claiming that Saddam was seeking "specially designed" aluminum tubes to enrich uranium, the so-called "smoking gun." Several days later, President Bush inserted the Times' claim in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.

The aluminum tube issue was central to Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN in February 2003, which was based on the phony CIA estimate from October 2002. As Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson wrote in The New York Times in February 2018, the secretary's "gravitas was a significant part of the Bush administration's two-year-long effort to get Americans on the war wagon. It was CIA Deputy Director McLaughlin who lied to Secretary of State Powell about the reliability of the intelligence in Powell's speech. McLaughlin was the central advocate for the phony intelligence on mobile biological laboratories that ended up in that speech.

President Bush would have gone to war with or without intelligence, and once again we are confronted by a president who might consider going to war with or without intelligence. Fifteen years ago, we had a CIA director from Capitol Hill who was loyal to the president and unwilling to tell truth to power. Once again, we have a CIA director, Gina Haspel, who is a White House loyalist and cannot be counted on to tell truth to power. She was one of the Agency's leading cheerleaders for torture and abuse, and sent the message that order the destruction of the torture tapes. And former CIA director Mike Pompeo, a neoconservative hardliner, is now secretary of state, who earned his new position by being a total loyalist who would never tell truth to power. Is there a voice for moderation left in the White House?

Bush's war destabilized the entire Middle East. Any Trump war could lead to the use of nuclear weapons that would destabilize the entire world.

[Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I'd define coup in this case as a potentially "illegal seizure of power" in the form of a slowly unfolding, unresolved constitutional crisis that sticks over time. ..."
"... The 1933 coup plot was funded by Wall Street money in hopes of subverting the power of Franklin Roosevelt, a leader deemed by many wealthy men of the time to be a traitor to his blue-blood class. ..."
"... The Plot to Seize the White House ..."
"... "War is a racket. It always has been," is how Butler's booklet War Is a Racket opens. "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many." The little book ends this way: "Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. But victory will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples." ..."
"... The Wall Street cabal's coup plot was based on the idea of insinuating a disciplined military man into a White House operation deemed irresponsible and out of control. The plan was to install Butler into a newly created cabinet-level position called the Secretary for General Affairs. Negative press would be arranged to inform the American people that the President of the United States was a cripple. The "man on a white horse" was there to save a problematic administration from itself -- all for the good of the country. ..."
"... Today's politics are very different; the similarity is in the troublesome situation of a sitting president deemed a national security problem. In FDR's case, it was weakness due to sympathy for the downtrodden; while in Trump's case, it's unprecedented governmental inexperience linked with a volatile narcissism contributing to chaos in the highest reaches of the government. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

I'd define coup in this case as a potentially "illegal seizure of power" in the form of a slowly unfolding, unresolved constitutional crisis that sticks over time. Like the oft-cited frog being boiled to death in a pot of water rising in temperature very slowly. Center right Times columnist David Brooks had a column recently in which he compared Trump USA to Berlusconi Italy and how, once democracy has been sullied by a right-wing populist like Berlusconi (or Trump), getting democracy back within its previous (constitutional) lines is difficult to impossible.

Some like to call the 2000 election of George W. Bush a "coup" legitimized by a conservative Supreme Court. Whatever one calls the 2000 election, it did put a permanent stain on US democracy. I have no doubt in this age of "fake news" and sophisticated PR that an unresolved constitutional crisis cum coup in Washington D.C. would be spun by info wizards as a pro-American, patriotic event. All this, of course, has helped ratchet up political polarization to new heights.

Instead of seeing a military coup as restricted to melodramatic fiction like the film Seven Days In May, it might be instructive, beneficial and even patriotic to think of it as possible with at least one very real historical antecedent to consider.

The 1933 White House Plot

We don't hear much about the 1933 American "coup" -- here, put in quotes because it was always ambiguous and it was thwarted. The plot has effectively been deep-sixed into historical oblivion. Why might that be? Might it be because it amounted to just another example of the dirty little secret that hovers over everything in America: the power of money married to the power of violence? Just another day in the history of America. Maybe one has to be a left-leaning antiwar activist born under the sign of the National Security State to understand this. But, to me, the antiwar left is perennially at a loss in this equation: Not only is it oriented on peace versus war, but it's also unarmed in the sense of an NRA obsession with guns. Furthermore, the left tends to be crippled thanks to the Cold War that established left-leaning ideas as association with subversion and the enemy.

The 1933 coup plot was funded by Wall Street money in hopes of subverting the power of Franklin Roosevelt, a leader deemed by many wealthy men of the time to be a traitor to his blue-blood class. Had the whistle not been blown on the plot by a Marine general named Smedley Butler, it could have succeeded in politically crippling FDR and his New Deal government. Had it gone differently, it could have changed history. (The 1933 coup attempt is described by Jules Archer in a 1973 book titled The Plot to Seize the White House . Also, The History Channel produced a 41-minute documentary on the plot .)

As the depression set in, the nation watched the rise of fascism in Europe. FDR was opposed on the right by people like the popular hero Charles Lindbergh who cozied up with the Nazis. Much of this ugly, polarized political struggle has slipped from our popular history, in large part due to the unifying power of World War Two that helped end the depression and ended up consuming both sides of the right/left battle. The internal political struggles of the thirties shifted into a focus on military dominance. The US ended up top of the heap at the end of World War Two. It also ended up at odds with the other victor in the war, the Soviet Union. It was at this juncture that US leaders formulated The National Security Act of 1947, thus creating the National Security State we live under today.

MacArthur busting Bonus Marchers, Butler speaking to them and the Mussolini incident

Smedley Butler was raised a Hicksite Quaker in West Chester, Pennsylvania. One side of a major 19th century split, the Hicksites saw "the inner light" contained within each of us as the primary source of truth, while Orthodox Quakers were more like fundamentalist who saw The Bible as the primary source of truth. The young, idealistic Butler learned the US Marines was expanding and recruiting new officers. He lobbied his parents (his father was a US congressman) to let him join, and in 1898 at age sixteen, a fresh Second Lieutenant Butler was dropped off at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was first exposed to hostile fire. He went on to the Philippines. He fought in counter-insurgency wars in places like Nicaragua and Haiti. He undertook spy missions in Mexico. His career was unique. At one point, he took leave of the Marines and became police commissioner of Philadelphia, only to quit when he grasped the level of corruption in the city. He was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor, and at the end of his career he was court martialed by Secretary of War Stimson for calling Benito Mussolini a bum in a speech. He, then, began speaking out in public, effectively undermining the charges. Today, amongst leftist, antiwar activists he's considered a hero thanks to a small book he wrote in 1935 called War Is a Racket. On the other hand, I mentioned him once to General Stanley McChrystal at a book signing and the respected Iraq "surge" leader cited him back at me as, in his mind, one of the great US military heroes. Both views paradoxically prevail. In 1939, he expressed opposition to war in Europe. But, then, he conveniently died in 1940. How he would have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor remains an intriguing question.

Butler got involved in the 1933 coup when he was asked by the Wall Street cabal to be their "man on a white horse" to lead the plot. Due to his humility and his bravery, Butler was beloved by the common soldier -- even when he pushed them. In one story, a soldier has fallen out of a long march and General Butler, wearing no insignia of rank, gets the man back up and walking by carrying his pack. The plotters' modeled their efforts on the rising fascist states in Europe and the various colored-shirt thug organizations significantly made up of WWI veterans. Fatefully, Butler was a terrible choice; he supported FDR. Smelling a rat, he played along with the plotters' front-man, Gerald MacGuire, a fat, cigar-chomping stock broker paid to go to Europe and study the various colored-shirt groups. The idea was to install Butler as the commander of the American Legion, whose 500,000 members -- many disgruntled WWI vets -- had been used to smash union strikers with baseball bats. The Legion outnumbered the US military at the time. With the help of a reporter from the Philadelphia Record, Butler got the goods and went to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which held hearings and exposed the right-wing plot. (It's the very same HUAC that went on to notoriety as a prosecutor of the left.) Those named in the coup all denied they were plotting anything, and the story disappeared into obscurity. No charges were made.

Had the cabal, instead, set up General Douglas MacArthur as the "man on a white horse" -- who they had considered -- it might have turned out differently. MacArthur had an arrogant "fascist" character, but he was not loved by the common soldier. Butler and MacArthur had crossed paths in July 1932 during the Bonus March encampment in Washington DC. Butler was sympathetic and spoke to the encamped veterans seeking their promised bonus for WWI service. "They may be calling you tramps now, but in 1917 they didn't call you bums!" the cragey, diminutive general hollered at them. "You are the best-behaved group of men in the country today. I consider it an honor to be asked to speak to you." MacArthur, of course, led the troops who burned the Bonus Marchers out, killing one veteran and wounding 50.

"War is a racket. It always has been," is how Butler's booklet War Is a Racket opens. "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many." The little book ends this way: "Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. But victory will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples."

The Wall Street cabal's coup plot was based on the idea of insinuating a disciplined military man into a White House operation deemed irresponsible and out of control. The plan was to install Butler into a newly created cabinet-level position called the Secretary for General Affairs. Negative press would be arranged to inform the American people that the President of the United States was a cripple. The "man on a white horse" was there to save a problematic administration from itself -- all for the good of the country.

Today's politics are very different; the similarity is in the troublesome situation of a sitting president deemed a national security problem. In FDR's case, it was weakness due to sympathy for the downtrodden; while in Trump's case, it's unprecedented governmental inexperience linked with a volatile narcissism contributing to chaos in the highest reaches of the government. In both cases, the overarching issue is a very dangerous world and the need for experience and discipline. Is General Kelly today's "man on a white horse" insinuated into the White House to represent the interests of the National Security State?

There are no neat or absolute answers to these questions. We tend to associate the idea of a "coup" with coup d'etat in Third World nations. Our CIA and military have notoriously been up to their eyeballs in foreign coups; there's classics like Iran 1953 and Guatemala 1954. Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009 had the stink of US complicity, but they are more current and, thus, there was lots of plausible deniability and lots of fog. And fog and doubt only get worse in this internet age.

[Mar 16, 2018] The National Security Act of 1947 created the deep state. What we see now if just the result of intelligence agencies and Pentagon becoming more visible as the major political players who among other things influence Presidential election and co-determine (with Wall Street) the US foreign policy

Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Act of 1947 ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The National Security Act of 1947 codified the reality of the imperial American military for the baby-boom generation and beyond. The War Department became the Defense Department; the CIA we know today was formed from the Office of Strategic Services. The 1947 NSA document amounted to a formal re-arrangement of the country's priorities coming out of WWII -- when the victorious United States of America became the "leader of the free world." We forget that before World War Two changed everything, the US military was a shadow of what it was to become.

Over these 70 years, the executive in the White House has ping-ponged back-and-forth between the moderate left and the moderate right, between the Democratic and Republican Parties. (Trump may be the exception in being far right.) Every four years there's a national "conversation" of sorts about who's going to live in the White House and make executive decisions and who's going to legislate in Congress. You couldn't come up with a better example to illustrate the idea of a civilian political see-saw than January 20, 2016, the day Barack Obama handed the civilian reins over to Donald Trump. Meanwhile, over those same 70 years, the National Security State (as an institution led by the Pentagon) has existed as a steadily ascending through-line leading to today's post-9/11 world. Our imperial military has been, and remains, virtually untouchable through the electoral process that chooses civilian leadership. Just like assault weapons on a small scale, the National Security State thrives beyond the reach of American politics. In my mind, White House Chief of Staff and former four-star Marine General John Kelly resides in this protected zone as a power behind the civilian throne.

[Mar 15, 2018] Latter Day America: The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy.

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

kralizec -> Conscious Reviver Wed, 03/14/2018 - 07:59 Permalink

Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!

Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned post in government, period! Everybody has baggage, everybody is compromised.

This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find it impossible to see one thing Trump (or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the real answer even there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the other batch is mystified at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue the inevitable endless circle jerk.

... ... ...

shortonoil -> Bes Wed, 03/14/2018 - 08:51 Permalink

Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to bench press 300 lbs. Those of them who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less. Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come down! When they can't intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.

CatInTheHat -> crossroaddemon Tue, 03/13/2018 - 23:29 Permalink

Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous psychopaths did in 2016, but I also know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.

The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.

Clinteastwood -> Gaius Frakkin' Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:17 Permalink

Hmmmm.....let's see. Pompeo hates Julian Assange. Assange has told us a lot of truth but won't even consider that 911 was an inside job. Pompeo hates Iran and Assad, but he's not about 911 truth at all either. The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy. Trump hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit that the Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition. In the midst of all these powerful world leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we are royally fucked. And I don't even especially like Rosie O'Donnell. Doesn't seem likely we will avoid a catastrophic war. What a world.

Lost in translation -> Clinteastwood Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:31 Permalink

"The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy."

^ eminently quote worthy ^

sarz -> Clinteastwood Wed, 03/14/2018 - 05:48 Permalink

Trump hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit that the Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition.In the midst of all these powerful world leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we are royally fucked.

One Donald J Trump was interviewed on TV on the day of 9/11. He said that's not the way planes hit buildings. There were explosives of some sort involved. Moreover, the same Donald J Trump as a contender for the Republican nomination in the debate in South Carolina in February 2016 stated that if he won the presidency he would publish the secret documents about 9/11.

You have to be paying attention to figure out who Trump really is. Why is that? It is because Judaia as a conscious policy of that quasi-state has for long had total control of the minds of the whole West. The brains of Americans have been turned to oatmeal (as Russians put it) and most of what Trump says has to be oatmeal-to-oatmeal. Trump's brilliance is never challenging directly the memes (such as 9/11 or the Holocaust or false flag shootings) that Judaia has so laboriously constructed. That would be foolish. Rather, he takes one strand of received discourse and short circuits it with another under high voltage. Only rarely and briefly does Trump address clued-in supporters directly (perhaps he's doing it indirectly through Q Anon). You have to be paying attention.

A lot of Trump administration double-talk is a game, his way of strongly playing a weak hand. The anti-Iran bit seems to be a key gambit, going all the way back to Flynn co-authoring an anti-Iran book with Neocon Ledeen. But Tillerson seems to have turned traitor by taking over the script. Declaring that America was going go hang on to territory in Syria was not a 'globalist' gambit in the script. Trump had to tweet that defeating ISIS was America's only aim in Syria and that had been almost accomplished. Similarly, a limited anti-Russia posture is necessary to deal with the Muller caper. But supporting the Empire's Russian poisoning absurdity seems not to be where Trump wants America to be. Tillerson had to go.

If Pompeo is talking a load of shit, and sounding surprisingly uneducsted for someone who was number one at West Point and an editor (unlike Obama, under his own steam) at the Harvard Law Review, be sure there is a game involved.

I instinctively like Trump, and have over a long period, Maybe Trump is at the head of a huge world-historical change. It's looking good, actually, and I'm willing to wait and see.

[Mar 15, 2018] Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA careerist who ran a torture black site in Thailand .

... ... ...

Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

Bes -> Gaius Frakkin' Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:33 Permalink

meh,

a desperate country

throwing a hail mary

caught by a charlatan

nothing new under the sun

or wait..... were you distracted by a strong sounding alpha tweet???

hahaha pathetic

[Mar 15, 2018] Julian Assange The CIA director is waging war on truth-tellers like WikiLeaks

Notable quotes:
"... All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice ..."
Mar 15, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Julian Assange is editor of WikiLeaks.

Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech rather than on the United States' actual adversaries. He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as editor, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth about the administration can be a crime -- as Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly underscored when he described my arrest as a "priority." News organizations reported that federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks, possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage Act.

All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses.

When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher such as WikiLeaks as a "fraud," "coward" and "enemy," it puts all journalists on notice, or should. Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence service," is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.

President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice .

[Mar 15, 2018] Having further researched Mike Pompeo's history it seems he is a war hawk

Mar 15, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

CitizenOne Reply

Well I said: "I hope that this is true but I cannot discount the other possibility that Trump has once again been fooled by the intelligence and the media into appointing a tool of the deep state to replace Tillerson. He was fooled in Syria and the World applauded or rather the World media applauded loudly. Hopefully he was not fooled by that contrived story. If that is the case then it is bad news for all of us and might lead to further hostilities against Russia."

Having further researched Mike Pompeo's history it seems he is a war hawk who will align to blame Russia for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Further he has been a strong critic of the nuclear deal with Iran forged under Obama and has also been a strong republican supporter of every republican strategy for national defense including keeping Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely etc. This would support my doubts that the appointment of Secretary of State Pompeo would do much to ratchet down international tensions in the hot spots around the World where the US has chosen to portray our "enemies" as military targets to be conquered rather than other nations with their own sovereign rights to be dealt with through diplomacy.

The most alarming idea is to launch a war with Iran since they have negotiated a nuclear disarmament strategy with the Obama administration leaving them in a precarious situation of being vulnerable to a change in strategy by the US of negotiation towards a threat of armed force intervention coming from the US. Trump calls the Iran deal a terrible deal and so does Pompeo. How it is a terrible deal seems to be the same accusation that the US launched against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is only a terrible deal for Iran as it was for Iraq to believe that they could disarm under UN supervision in the hopes it would prevent an attack by the US.

I fear that the lessons of the potential new anti Iranian strategy to cancel out our deals with Iran will only convince the North Koreans that any pursuit of a peace with the USA will ultimately result in our reneging on the deal at the first arrival of our stated goals to get NK to disarm and will turn on them even if they comply with western demands that they must dismantle their nuclear arsenals.

The Iranian Nuclear deal is in peril with the appointment of Pompeo and the result will be that North Korea will see no advantage in cooperating with an adversary which on the one hand forges peace treaties and on the other hand revokes them by the politically shifting winds in Washington headed by a president who cannot see the forest from the trees and is easily influenced by people he "connects with" as though that is reason enough to surround himself with those people and appoint them to high positions.

The politically shifting instability in Washington with the firings of high officials alone would be reason enough for any foreign nation to doubt the credibility of any policy being put forth. Stability is what is essential to create the foundation for trust. Without an honest and consistent foreign policy it will be impossible to gain the trust of foreign leaders. As long as the administration is led by the nose by the media and acts in unpredictable ways there can be no shared basis for trust which is essential for peace.

What we have in Washington is the expansion of domestic political unrest and the contention of our national elections flaring over into blame of foreign influences and the externalization of blame for our current sociopolitical divide.

This is the fertile ground laced with the fertilizer for war or at the least a military buildup to war.

There is no greater threat than a World Superpower nation that shifts almost weekly on its policies and has open disputes with its appointed leaders which results in that nation repeatedly reshuffling the cards and changing its positions on foreign policy. I pray that the current leadership will come to grips with its own internal struggles and find a reasoned path towards maintaining the fragile peace that we all depend on.

[Mar 15, 2018] Hysterical panegyric on Observer.com reminds the Hate Week speech delivered by an Inner Party member in the movie version of George Orwell's 1984 !

Notable quotes:
"... It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and pure propaganda outlets. ..."
"... Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same position for nearly a century. ..."
"... Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that. ..."
Mar 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

ashley albanese , Mar 15, 2018 4:18:50 PM | 129

Lying in bed listening to Australian government media propaganda . Endless parroting about the ' rules based order ' , ' the rising power of ( guess) and now Boris Johnson informing us that the world is insensed at Russian aggression . It is funny and absurd , sad and deadly !
SteveK9 , Mar 15, 2018 4:23:47 PM | 131
It's harder and harder to laugh at this nonsense. Just when you thought it could not get more ridiculous, something like this happens. I keep hearing that our masters are preparing us for war with Russia. All those people who keep saying 'war is coming', 'prepare for World War III', etc., you do realize that your life will be over, along with everyone you know, and ... human civilization?
Mister Roboto , Mar 15, 2018 5:58:41 PM | 143
When I read this hysterical panegyric on Observer.com (or at least as much of it as I could stomach), I couldn't help but think of the Hate Week speech delivered by an Inner Party member in the movie version of George Orwell's 1984 !
Oilman2 , Mar 15, 2018 7:03:54 PM | 150
It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and pure propaganda outlets. The only "waking up" that I see anywhere is among those few that are neither progressive or conservative, and they are waking up to a nightmare. I am glad this is all talking - if fur truly starts flying, there isn't anywhere to hide from all this.

It's straight out of Bernays - just keep doubling down and throwing it up all over the media outlets. I get ashamed that critical thinking exists only in a few places like MOA. Yet even here, people seem to divide themselves right along the lines that all this claptrap designates at times.

All you need to sort this out is a simple exercise in "cui bono", same as ever - and Russia had nothing to gain, even in the intel arena.

Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same position for nearly a century.

Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that.

[Mar 15, 2018] Russia is the Eastern Diamondback desperately trying to do all it can to avoid to have to strike. The West is the drunk idiot full of hubris, arrogance and a very mistaken sense of invulnerability saying " hold my beer and watch this! ".

Notable quotes:
"... Crotalus adamanteus ..."
"... hold my beer and watch this! ..."
"... hold my beer and watch this! ..."
Mar 15, 2018 | thesaker.is

Rattlesnakes have a terrible reputation. Here were I live, in Florida, we have the biggest rattlesnakes on the planet, the Eastern Diamondback ( Crotalus adamanteus ). They are huge and can reach well over 2m (6ft) in length and weigh up to 15kg (30lbs). The Eastern Diamondback's venom is not the most potent out there, but they can deliver *a lot* of it. So, yes, it is a formidable creature. But it is also a gentle creature and truly very shy one.

Eastern Diamonbacks are also a stunningly beautiful creatures. I confess that I absolutely love them.

For all their reputation for nastiness, Eastern Diamonbacks will never ever attack you if they can avoid it . I have seen a lot of these snakes on my hikes, I have manipulated them (with a hook), and I have seen my German Shepherd come nose to nose with one (literally) and that Eastern Diamondback did not strike. Why? Because these snakes will do everything they can to avoid having to bite you.

First and foremost, they hide. Really well. You can stand right next to a large Eastern Diamondback and never notice it. You can walk right by, and it won't move, or rattle its tail, and you will never know that it was there. Camouflage is their first line of defense.

Then, if discovered, they will rattle their tails. If needed, very loudly. You can easily hear the rattle from an Eastern Diamondback from 5m (15ft) away. More than enough distance to easily avoid it.

Furthermore, if given the chance, the Eastern Diamondback will retreat and hide.

Finally, when cornered a lot of them try what is called a "dry bite": they do bite you, but deliver no venom. Why? Because you are not prey, so what would be the point of envenomating you? The Eastern Diamondback does not want you dead, it wants you to let it live!

I was once told by a park ranger in Arizona that the profile of a typical rattlesnake bite victim is: white, male, with tattoos and the famous last words " hold my beer and watch this! ".

Why am I telling you all this?

Because that is exactly what I see happening before my horrified eyes.

Russia is the Eastern Diamondback desperately trying to do all it can to avoid to have to strike. The West is the drunk idiot full of hubris, arrogance and a very mistaken sense of invulnerability saying " hold my beer and watch this! ".

Keep in mind that in a confrontation with a drunken human the Eastern Diamondback is most unlikely to survive. And it knows that, and that is why it does everything it can to avoid such a confrontation in the first place. But if cornered or attacked the Diamondback will strike. Hard. Want to see what such a strike looks like?

[Mar 15, 2018] It is the British who need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Moscow to retain relevance

Notable quotes:
"... The Russians are sure to respond to the British expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by expelling a comparable number of British diplomats from Moscow. ..."
"... The reciprocal expulsions of diplomats will of course also make it more difficult for the British to maintain their intelligence operation in Moscow. ..."
"... Since this appears to be rather extensive, and seems to involve far more 'democracy promotion' activity (ie. meddling in Russian domestic politics) than anything the Russians do in Britain, the Russians will probably also be quietly pleased about it. ..."
Mar 15, 2018 | theduran.com

After days of hysteria and of mounting speculation, and after having stoked up by her statement on Monday expectations of stern action against Russia to stratospheric levels, Theresa May produced a package of 'sanctions' today which do no more than expose the weakness of Britain's hand.

This is how the BBC describes them

Note that none of these sanctions include any of the supposedly draconian steps which have been spoken about over the last few days.

Theresa May for example appeared to rule out a blanket visa ban and sweeping asset freezes on wealthy Russians coming to London. It is clear that ideas for a boycott by the England team of the World Cup in Russia and for the complete severing of diplomatic relations with Russia have been abandoned if they were ever considered.

Reports in the media have also confirmed that the idea of launching a cyber attack against Russia has been ruled out, since the British quietly acknowledge that Russia has immeasurably greater cyber resources with which to retaliate than Britain does.

As to whether or not Ofcom will now strip RT of its broadcasting licence, Maria Zakharova's threat to expel all British media outlets from Russia is having a chilling effect, with the British media apparently now quietly lobbying the British government against doing it.

By way of example, The Times of London , the newspaper which has been leading the British media's offensive against RT, now has this to say, tucked away at the bottom of a meandering editorial with the woolly and meaningless headline 'An Unstable World'

The Kremlin has threatened to expel British journalists from Moscow should London shut down the Russian propaganda channel RT. That would be ill advised. Britain stands for nothing if not free speech. Mrs May should stick to the evidence in the Skripal case, identifying the culprits and bringing maximum international force to bear to punish them personally.

It is interesting to see how the British media suddenly discovers free speech also applies to Russian media when its own interests are threatened.

It is still possible that Ofcom may follow up on its threats against RT, but that is now looking rather less likely.

As for the measures Theresa May announced today not only will they not affect Russia in the slightest, but they are actually counterproductive.

The Russians are sure to respond to the British expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by expelling a comparable number of British diplomats from Moscow.

Since Russia is by far the more powerful country, it is the British who need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Moscow to retain relevance. By contrast Russia, as a Great Power, has no need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Britain, which is nowadays a second or even third rank power.

The reciprocal expulsions which are now going to happen will not therefore affect Russia's position as a Great Power in the slightest. They will however further marginalise the British in international diplomacy.

The same is true of the British decision to sever bilateral contacts with Russia.

Apart from Boris Johnson's recent ill-starred to Moscow, there have in fact been barely any bilateral contacts between the Russian and British governments for years, even though it is again Britain as the weaker country which needs these contacts in order to retain relevance, not Russia.

As it happens I expect the Russians to greet the news that they are going to be spared further meetings with Boris Johnson with a quiet sigh of relief.

As for Boris Johnson himself, how he hopes to cut an important figure in international diplomacy when he is now prevented from visiting Moscow – the capital of one of the world's Great Powers – by his own government, completely escapes me. The reality is that no one takes him seriously anyway.

The reciprocal expulsions of diplomats will of course also make it more difficult for the British to maintain their intelligence operation in Moscow.

Since this appears to be rather extensive, and seems to involve far more 'democracy promotion' activity (ie. meddling in Russian domestic politics) than anything the Russians do in Britain, the Russians will probably also be quietly pleased about it.

[Mar 15, 2018] Visualizing How The World Views Vladimir Putin

Mar 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced in the House of Commons that Russia was "highly likely" to have been involved in the attempted murder of a former Russian spy and his daughter. The incident left Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, critically ill in hospital. As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes , The UK has now announced that it will expel 23 Russian diplomats after Russia failed to explain how a military-grade nerve agent was used in the attack in Salisbury.

Even though the Kremlin has vehemently denied any involvement, insiders have said that all signs point to Moscow and if that's true, it raises some troubling questions ahead of the country's presidential election on Sunday.

Some observers have suggested that rogue elements of the Russian government could be responsible for the attack while others are pointing their fingers firmly towards Vladimir Putin.

Even though there is no evidence that Putin gave the order to carry out a high-profile killing in public, the decision to use nerve agents that could be linked to Russia carries considerable risk. Some have claimed that Putin might have arranged the attack to engineer a confrontation with the west in order to improve turnout at the polls.

If the UK goes a step beyond expelling diplomats and imposes sanctions, Russia could find itself more isolated and that has proven deeply unpopular with the country's electorate .

Putin is expected to win Sunday's election easily and even if Russian media portrays the events in Salisbury as some kind of western conspiracy to rally voters, the president's image is still likely to worsen internationally .

The most recent polling into how Putin is viewed abroad was conducted in August 2017 by the Pew Research Center. Even before the events in Salisbury, Putin was very unpopular across the world.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In Poland where the relationship with Russia has never been easy, 89 percent of Pew's respondents said they have no confidence in Putin doing the right thing regarding world affairs.

In France, the share was also high at 80 percent.

In the United Kingdom and the United Stated, 76 and 74 percent of people have no faith in the Russian president doing the right thing on the world stage.

At the other end of the scale, Nigeria and India are more confident than not confident in Putin doing the right thing.

It seems the global propaganda machine has not been able to reach there quite yet.

DownWithYogaPants -> pier Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:33 Permalink

If you don't have some appreciation of Putin's intellect and skill as a leader you're not paying attention. Additionally he's shown real composure and self control given the provocations he has been subject to.

If he has indeed tossed out the Rothschild bankers he is a hero of the ages. That is no light work.

eforce -> DownWithYogaPants Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:36 Permalink

MSM propaganda still holds some power it seems.

Drater -> gatorengineer Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:40 Permalink

Highly recommend reading Putin's NYT editorial from 2013...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-r

rejected Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:33 Permalink

When you say it like it is,,, when you don't BS everyone,,, and if you don't start a dozen wars in a dozen years no one has confidence in you?

The charts show the indoctrination levels, not confidence levels.

Russia and Mr. Putin have taken a lot of abuse that kept us and the world out of a major war,,, so far,,, and I sincerely thank them for that.

rwe2late Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:36 Permalink

Even if the poll were accurate and unbiased,

it says next to nothing by way of relevant comparisons.

"Confident" about what?

How many had even heard of Putin or knew anything about him?

How confident are they in Trump or T. May or their own government?

How about confidence within the respective country?

Are Russians confident?

What about the most populous nation, China?

Iran? Syria?

Even if the poll were unbiased,

the selection of countries for the presentation is not.

Smi1ey Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:36 Permalink

This is complete horseshit straight from the same people who give us WaPo and the New York Times. How does he not have Putin's popularity in Russia. Where is that?

Also, The author's view of the world is extremely skewed.

just the tip Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:37 Permalink

this is nothing new. the propaganda is strong with this one.

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/04/21/countries-that-hate-ame

No country disapproves of America more than Russia, where 82% of survey respondents said they disapproved of U.S. leadership. This was also the worst rating from Russia in the history of the survey. While many Russians do not like America, residents of many other countries do not approve of Russia. The median disapproval rating of Russian leadership was greater than the median approval rating, the only country to claim this distinction. And while a majority of residents in 15 countries disapprove of the U.S., a majority of residents in 42 countries disapprove of Russia's leadership. Russia's disapproval rating of U.S. leadership worsened considerably from 2013, increasing 12 percentage points. Recently implemented U.S.-led Western sanctions on Russia have likely intensified Russians' disapproval. According to historical data from the Levada Center, Russia's independent public opinion tracker, negative attitudes towards the United States spiked during the invasion of Iraq and worsened again in 2008 after the Russia-Georgia conflict. More recently, the U.S. sided with Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

Brazen Heist Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:44 Permalink

Putin is the best Statesman of the 21st century.

The West doesn't make Statesmen anymore. It produces whores and pedophiles who sell to the highest bidders and don't have the capacity to think beyond their tenures.

Because Western governments are dominated by cucks and sellouts, they feel threatened by Putin's unwavering determination, backbone and geopolitical mastery, hence the concerted propaganda campaign to discredit him, which by the way is pretty fucking pathetic.

ISEEIT Wed, 03/14/2018 - 21:46 Permalink

Were YOU Russian... Likely that you would be one of the 70%+ who will vote for him.

Despite the massive (laughable) western efforts to interfere..collude...

Attempting to "undermine FAITH in their institutions"....lol

Pathetic..

[Mar 15, 2018] Western demonization of Putin

Mar 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mikhail , Website March 14, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT

This excerpt has a mainstreaming for the Western mainstream media elites dynamic:

" My point here is not to exonerate Putin or Russia for the many bad things that he (and we) has perpetrated. Plenty of people have died in Syria and Ukraine as the result of his decisions. Russia's history with its European neighbors to the West has been checkered at best, and I can more than understand the fear and apprehension with which peoples in the Baltic States, Poland and other countries view any sort of resurgence or posturing ."

****

Plenty more people might've died in Ukraine and Syria without Putin's action. Poland has had its own aggressive past with Russia – granted that Russia has had the overall upper hand. Besides Poland, some other parts of central/eastern Europe have been strategically used against Russia, over the course of history.

From elsewhere, here's another piece favoring Putin:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/21/overhyping-us-russian-differences.html

Excerpt –

" Scott Shane's February 17 New York Times article 'Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections – We Do It, Too', distinguishes the US and Russian activity in question by claiming that American actions are done for a good cause unlike Russia – a thought shared by former CIA Director James Woolsey. Shane's piece notes the US role in influencing the 1996 Russian presidential election, without noting an otherwise glaring particular. Many generally believe that the US government intervention in that vote (whether you want to describe it as direct or indirect) tipped the balance in favor of Boris Yeltsin.

Yeltsin went on to appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor. If one accepts the US role as the deciding factor in the 1996 Russian presidential election, I wholeheartedly welcome that move which enabled Putin to become Russian president – something that very well might not have happened if Yeltsin didn't win in 1996."

Sergey Krieger , March 14, 2018 at 9:16 am GMT
"My point here is not to exonerate Putin or Russia for the many bad things that he (and we) has perpetrated. Plenty of people have died in Syria and Ukraine as the result of his decisions. Russia's history with its European neighbors to the West has been checkered at best, and I can more than understand the fear and apprehension with which peoples in the Baltic States, Poland and other countries view any sort of resurgence or posturing."

I see where it is all coming from. So, the only position Russia is allowed is doggy style butt up?
History like normal history not much different in this respect form majority. USA seems to have checkered history with practically the rest of the world and caused millions deaths by now and so what? So are other countries in Europe and Asia.
Russia is denied by the author legitimate right to defend her legitimate interests.
I basically sense same school of thought with minor variations as Anatoly Karlin's minus mammoths on Russian plain of course.

P.S: I expect rather lively discussion, lol.

Lars Jorgensen , Website March 14, 2018 at 10:18 am GMT
So, the best critical information that UNZ can provide is a Russian, who doesn't know and understand Russia today. This is not really promoting UNZ as an interesting site. – I am a Danish sociologist, who have collected some information that better explains, why most Russians think that Putin is the absolutely best choice today. http://homosociologicus.com/russia -- critical-information
jacques sheete , March 14, 2018 at 10:47 am GMT
@Sergey Krieger

So, the only position Russia is allowed is doggy style butt up?

Apparently. Amerika calls itself the leader of the free world, and if they can do it, (for G-wd's "Chosen), then so can the Russkies!

G-d Bless Putin!

jacques sheete , March 14, 2018 at 10:49 am GMT
Real Leader of the free World; a man among b̶o̶y̶s̶ punks.

[Mar 15, 2018] The end of Pax Americana, the period of controlling USA global influence, might be more close that previously thought

Notable quotes:
"... That Washington's principal focus currently is on attacking another country (Russia) which due to USA incompetence is punching far above its weight in world affairs. The latest anti-Russia attacks center on a sick Russian spook and some Facebook ads (new weak USA sanctions just announced) are two examples of USA weakness (together with its Europe puppets, also losers). ..."
"... It is the obvious finale of Pax Americana, the period of controlling USA global influence now coming slowly to an inglorious end due to USA incompetence. Coincidentally, the USA is faced with overwhelming problems domestically in many fields, including citizen disparity, health care, transportation, crime and unemployment. So let's celebrate the potential shift against a forced USA withdrawal on the world scene and a possible improvement in domestic policy. ..."
Mar 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon | Mar 15, 2018 12:40:31 PM | 105

That Washington's principal focus currently is on attacking another country (Russia) which due to USA incompetence is punching far above its weight in world affairs. The latest anti-Russia attacks center on a sick Russian spook and some Facebook ads (new weak USA sanctions just announced) are two examples of USA weakness (together with its Europe puppets, also losers).

It is the obvious finale of Pax Americana, the period of controlling USA global influence now coming slowly to an inglorious end due to USA incompetence. Coincidentally, the USA is faced with overwhelming problems domestically in many fields, including citizen disparity, health care, transportation, crime and unemployment. So let's celebrate the potential shift against a forced USA withdrawal on the world scene and a possible improvement in domestic policy.

It won't happen soon though, as the current incompetent president is advocating huge increases in wasteful military spending including the expansion of an army which has no productive purpose to exist at all.

[Mar 15, 2018] Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critica

Mar 15, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Anna -> james... 14 March 2018 at 02:14 PM

"anything for israel..."
http://politicalhotwire.com/world-politics/57199-american-soldiers-dying-israel.html
"Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. ... According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the 'real threat' from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The 'unstated threat' was the 'threat against Israel', Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. 'The American government,' he added, 'doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.'

That was then Today with have this situation: http://silentcrownews.com/wordpress/?p=5814
"Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist Israel with missile defense in times of war according to Haimovitch [Israeli IDF Brig. Gen.] "I am sure once the order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our deployment and team to defend the state of Israel"

General Clark, the US Army: "We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties "

https://whiskeytangotexas.com/2018/03/13/general-clark-u-s-ground-troops-are-now-prepared-to-die-for-the-jewish-state/

More: "Jerusalem - IDF, US Army Celebrate Inauguration Of First American Base In Israel" https://www.vosizneias.com/280626/2017/09/18/jerusalem-idf-us-army-celebrate-inauguration-of-first-american-base-in-israel/

[Mar 14, 2018] Latter Day America

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

kralizec -> Conscious Reviver Wed, 03/14/2018 - 07:59 Permalink

Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!

Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned post in government, period! Everybody has baggage, everybody is compromised.

This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find it impossible to see one thing Trump (or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the real answer even there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the other batch is mystified at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue the inevitable endless circle jerk.

... ... ...

shortonoil -> Bes Wed, 03/14/2018 - 08:51 Permalink

Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to bench press 300 lbs. Those of them who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less. Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come down! When they can't intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.

CatInTheHat -> crossroaddemon Tue, 03/13/2018 - 23:29 Permalink

Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous psychopaths did in 2016, but I also know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.

The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.

[Mar 14, 2018] Krieger It's Impossible To Overstate How Terrible Mike Pompeo Is Zero Hedge

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Unfortunately, it gets worse. Much worse. For all his flaws, Rex Tillerson had a surprisingly sane take on the Middle East, at least relatively. He was known for being against the idiotic Saudi-UAE attempt blockade of Qatar, as well as in favor of keeping the Iran deal active. Pompeo shares no such sentiments.

As CNBC reported :

Pompeo, named as his pick for secretary of state by Trump on Tuesday shortly after he announced Tillerson's departure on Twitter, has taken a notoriously tough stance on Iran in the past in his erstwhile role as director of the CIA.

Not only has Pompeo likened Iran to the Islamic State (ISIS) militant group , calling the country a "thuggish police state" in a speech in October, he has also promised to constrain Iran's investment environment and "roll back" its 2015 nuclear deal.

"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing with a CIA medal last year.

back" its 2015 nuclear deal.

"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing with a CIA medal last year.

... ... ...

But there's more

In November 2016, when Pompeo was appointed to lead the CIA, he warned that Tehran is "intent of destroying America" and called the nuclear deal "disastrous." He added that he was looking forward to "rolling back" the agreement.

Differences of opinion over how Iran should be treated are said to be the source of discord between Trump and Tillerson, whose firing followed a clash over the nuclear deal, the president said Tuesday.

"If you look at the Iran deal I think it's terrible and I guess he thought it was OK We weren't really thinking the same," Trump said in a statement outside the White House. He said he and Tillerson got on "quite well" but had "different mindsets."

Iran has been increasingly marginalized during the Trump administration, which has sided with Saudi Arabia in the regional battle for influence in the Middle East.'

Here's the bottom line. As I outlined multiple times last year, Trump is determined to have a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way. Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation. Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months ahead.

I believe this forthcoming war against Iran will have almost no international support. Probably just autocratic regimes in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as Israel and possibly the UK depending on who's Prime Minister when it gets going. The rest of the world will be against it, which will lead to spectacular failure.

It's become increasingly clear that a huge military error, such as a new major confrontation in the Middle East is what will spell the end of the U.S. empire. Such a confrontation is now increasingly likely with Tillerson out of the picture

Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA careerist who ran a torture black site in Thailand .

... ... ...

Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

* * *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

[Mar 14, 2018] Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA careerist who ran a torture black site in Thailand .

... ... ...

Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

[Mar 14, 2018] Pompeo strikes me as a Narcissist and pro-Israel lobbist

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The Beaver , 14 March 2018 at 11:34 AM

Colonel,

Like the Heritage Foundation pipsqueaker Haley, Pompeo has his admirers in Israel:

http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Pompeo-very-positively-disposed-to-Israel-strong-critic-of-Iran-deal-545010

J , 14 March 2018 at 04:15 PM
Colonel,

Pompeo is in for a rude awakening in the diplomatic arena if he tries to spar with Lavrov. Lavrov IMO will bloody Pomepo's nose before he knows what hit him.

Pompeo strikes me as a Narcissist.

[Mar 14, 2018] Indeed, apparently these heroes (and their leaders) needed to be protected from that odd and unpleasant "liberal game" called 'prosecution for crimes'.

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

confusedponderer said in reply to J ... 14 March 2018 at 02:22 AM

J,
Haspel isn't alone in her views on torture - according to your link Mattis, Trump and Pompeo also think waterboarding is an excellent intelligence tool.

According to your article Pompeo answered to Feinstein's torture criticism that agents who had tortured people were " heroes, not pawns in some liberal game. "

*sob* ... poor heroes ... *sob*

Apparently it was all that heroism that made Haspel destroy evidence about the CIA torture site in Tailand which she led.

One of the men, known as Abu Zubayda, was waterboarded 83 times in one month and was slammed into walls by the head. He was deprived of sleep and kept in a coffin-like box. Interrogators later decided he didn't have any useful information.

ProPublica found that Haspel personally signed cables to CIA headquarters that detailed Zubayda's interrogation.

CIA videos of the torture were destroyed in 2005, on the orders of a cable drafted by Haspel.

Indeed, apparently these heroes (and their leaders) needed to be protected from that odd and unpleasant "liberal game" called 'prosecution for crimes'.

[Mar 14, 2018] Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first meeting with Lavrov or Putin.

Mar 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Mar 14, 2018 3:56:37 PM | 6

Great work b!

Where's Jim Jones when you need him to serve up some of his koolaid to the numerous politicos and propagandists pushing the Russiagate Big Lie, for they surely deserve several pitchers full each.

Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first meeting with Lavrov or Putin.

The sooner Corbyn is able to become British PM, the better for all excepting the corrupt.

[Mar 14, 2018] Trump Votes For Rexit - Torture Queen Will Head CIA - (Updated)

Looks like Tillerson was yet another Big Lie junkie whose entire worldview is based on bullshit
Notable quotes:
"... Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective. ..."
"... Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes. ..."
"... This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia. ..."
"... The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...? ..."
"... I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians. ..."
Mar 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

12:44 PM - 13 Mar 2018

Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!

According to the anti Russian propagandists (vid) Tillerson got the job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was in good standing with Putin. The same people now claim that Tillerson was fired from his job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was not in good standing with Putin.

Neither is correct. The plan to oust Tillerson and elevate Pompeo to State has been rumored and written about for several month . The plan was "developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff". It had nothing to do with Russia.

Tillerson never got traction as Secretary of State. Congress disliked him for cutting down some State Department programs. Trump overruled him publicly several times.

There is some contradiction in the statements coming from the White House and the State Department. According to the Washington Post:

Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside, and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return to Washington.

Last Friday Tillerson suddenly fell ill while traveling in Africa and canceled several scheduled events.

... ... ...

Thus ends the 2018 insurrection at State.

With Tillerson leaving Secretary of Defense Mattis is losing an ally in the cabinet:

[I]t starts with me having breakfast every week with Secretary of State Tillerson. And we talk two, three times a day, sometimes. We settle all of our issues between he and I, and then we walk together into the White House meetings. That way, State and Defense are together.

Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective.

CIA head Pompeo, the new Secretary of State, is a neoconservative with a racist anti-Muslim attitude and a special hate for Iran which he compared to ISIS . That he will now become Secretary of State is a bad sign for the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Europeans especially should take note of that and should stop to look for a compromise with Trump on the issue. The deal is now dead. There is no chance that a compromise will happen.

The new CIA director Gina Haspel is well known for actively directing and participating in the torture of prisoners at 'black sites':

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as "obstruction" by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane.

Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes.

Both, Pompeo and Haspel, will need to be confirmed by Congress. Both will receive a significant number of 'yes'-votes from the Democratic side of the aisle.

11:01 AM | Comments (41)

sejmon , Mar 13, 2018 12:16:49 PM | 6

I think last straw to fire him been TRex stance toward russians -give up Crimea and we cease sanction(WHAT A JOKE) same toward eastern republics of Ukraine LNR,DPR..good move VSGPDJT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

next Nicky H ?????

Peter AU 1 , Mar 13, 2018 1:15:53 PM | 15
This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia.

The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...?

Red Ryder , Mar 13, 2018 1:31:53 PM | 16
Poor Syria. At least one more fierce year of war. But more likely, endless 2,3,4 more years of war. Israel and US are getting the rebels in Daraa (DEZ #4) primed to start up fighting again. I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians.
b , Mar 13, 2018 2:28:49 PM | 23
Tillerson just read a statement to the press:

(My notes)
Tillerson says:
- got call today, afternoon from president, also spoke to Kelly (implies that this was the firing)
- hopes for smooth transition
- Deputy Sec State Sullivan will be acting Sec State
- Tillerson job officially terminates March 31

to DoD and State:
- bound by office oath, support constitution, ...
- always stay by oath, (sounds crying)
to people in uniform:
- great relationship State DOD - thanks Mattis and Dunford, all soldiers
work review:
- DPRK pressure campaign was success
- Afghanistan commitment also
- Syria, Iraq - work remains
- nothing goes without allies, partner
- work to be done on China and "troubling behavior" of Russia
- predicts more isolation if Russia doesn't knee
- nothing on Iran

Didn't say thank you to Trump. Emphasized oath to constitution, not to president. Nothing on Iran, Saudis or Palestine.

This was a f*** you to the White House and its priorities. The endorsement by name of Mattis and Dunlap makes them targets.

b , Mar 13, 2018 2:41:53 PM | 27
A Professor for political science from the United Arab Emirates just posted this:
"History will record that a GCC country had a role in the sacking of the foreign minister of a great power, and this is only the beginning of more"

Interesting ...
https://twitter.com/hxhassan/status/973629082368921600

[Mar 14, 2018] Pat Buchanan was mostly right when he said that our U.S Congress is Israeli occupied territory

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

DailyPlanet -> turcopolier ... , 13 March 2018 at 06:39 PM

Sir,
My favorite mole in all of this is the slippery Doug Feith. He is continnues to be more slippery than the Teflon Don, who by the way died in jail.

Lawrence Franklin, the former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst was another. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_Franklin

Keith Weissman, the man once recognized as a top analyst at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
https://forward.com/news/11608/embattled-aipac-lobbyists-take-divergent-paths-00474/

Another former Aipac analyst, Steve Rosen, has been accused of handing over top-secret American documents to foreign officials and journalists. Both plead not guilty.

https://forward.com/news/11608/embattled-aipac-lobbyists-take-divergent-paths-00474/

https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2005/08/05/aipac-spy-nest-exposed/

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY REPORTS THAT REPRESENTATIVE JANE HARMAN WAS CAUGHT ON TAPE PROMISING TO LOBBY FOR REDUCED CHARGES AGAINST TWO ACCUSED SPIES, IN EXCHANGE FOR HELP SECURING THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/jane-harman-d-ca-sells-favors-to-foreign-spy/article/28490

Pat Buchanan was mostly right when he said that our U.S Congress is Israeli occupied territory.

turcopolier , 13 March 2018 at 05:44 PM
JPB

On further reflection i would guess that AIPAC and the neocons control her; Bolton, Keane, Woolsey, Wolfowitz, etc. with Trump's acceptance. pl

Nancy K said in reply to turcopolier ... , 13 March 2018 at 05:44 PM
I believe Rep. Jane Harman was involved and probably should have been arrested but it involved Israel.

[Mar 14, 2018] Pat Buchanan was mostly right when he said that our U.S Congress is Israeli occupied territory

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

DailyPlanet -> turcopolier ... , 13 March 2018 at 06:39 PM

Sir,
My favorite mole in all of this is the slippery Doug Feith. He is continnues to be more slippery than the Teflon Don, who by the way died in jail.

Lawrence Franklin, the former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst was another. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_Franklin

Keith Weissman, the man once recognized as a top analyst at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
https://forward.com/news/11608/embattled-aipac-lobbyists-take-divergent-paths-00474/

Another former Aipac analyst, Steve Rosen, has been accused of handing over top-secret American documents to foreign officials and journalists. Both plead not guilty.

https://forward.com/news/11608/embattled-aipac-lobbyists-take-divergent-paths-00474/

https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2005/08/05/aipac-spy-nest-exposed/

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY REPORTS THAT REPRESENTATIVE JANE HARMAN WAS CAUGHT ON TAPE PROMISING TO LOBBY FOR REDUCED CHARGES AGAINST TWO ACCUSED SPIES, IN EXCHANGE FOR HELP SECURING THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/jane-harman-d-ca-sells-favors-to-foreign-spy/article/28490

Pat Buchanan was mostly right when he said that our U.S Congress is Israeli occupied territory.

turcopolier , 13 March 2018 at 05:44 PM
JPB

On further reflection i would guess that AIPAC and the neocons control her; Bolton, Keane, Woolsey, Wolfowitz, etc. with Trump's acceptance. pl

Nancy K said in reply to turcopolier ... , 13 March 2018 at 05:44 PM
I believe Rep. Jane Harman was involved and probably should have been arrested but it involved Israel.

[Mar 14, 2018] Washington policies as the result of a monumental unconscious group-think based on individual self interest

Individual are highly rewarded i f they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".
Rebels, individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed
Notable quotes:
"... The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests". ..."
Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

walter, March 2018 at 03:03 PM

Jack, in my opinion, there is no "US". The "US" doesn't have an interest.

There are individuals who behave in their own individual self interest.

The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".

Its a monumental unconscious group-think based on individual self interest.

This is my understanding of "the Borg" and "US interests", "US foreign policy goals"....they are actually individual interests shaped by what individuals who work in this realm believe they should believe and espouse to achieve their own goals. Rebels, individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed

[Mar 14, 2018] If Putin is so diabolical and his information operations so elegant and effective he should execute one that breaks the chain of zionist influence on the US polity. That would prevent Armageddon and the world would be thankful.

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

14 March 2018 at 04:12 AM

What is US interest in the Middle East? I don't see any. We've got plenty of oil. And the Canadians will happily sell us more.

The millenia old conflicts there are really no business of ours. The possibility that we'll go to war with Russia and risk our own population to further Israeli perceptions shows how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. The zionists "own" our political, media, governmental establishments lock stock and barrel for this possibility to exist.

If Putin is so diabolical and his information operations so elegant and effective he should execute one that breaks the chain of zionist influence on the US polity. That would prevent Armageddon and the world would be thankful.

Honestly I have no idea what the firing of Tillerson and his replacement by Pompeo means. Maybe it's because Tillerson called Trump a moron and Pompeo is an ass licker. Hillary, Rubio, etc al wanted a no-fly-zone over Syria. That would have brought instant conflict with Russia. If Nikki Haley's threats come to pass we'll get there.

Trump is attempting to change many past arrangements. One being trade where the US has bled for decades running massive trade deficits. How the GOP does in the mid-terms will influence his position on many issues.

[Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

Highly recommended!
Angleton was a founding father of the deep state.
Notable quotes:
"... Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of official secrecy. ..."
"... Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. ..."
"... With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. ..."
"... Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. ..."
"... He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet. ..."
"... "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life. ..."
"... Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist state. ..."
"... As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA, but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the latent qualities that would make him powerful. ..."
"... In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In 1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis. ..."
"... Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. ..."
"... The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to. Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden, Jr. and others. ..."
"... the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company. ..."
"... By October 1965, the AEC estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms. ..."
"... John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used it to build their nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. ..."
"... When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated diplomacy. ..."
"... Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life into the concept of the deep state. ..."
"... Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest Zionist of the lot ..."
Mar 14, 2018 | www.antiwar.com
Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of official secrecy.

Let's not forget there are a dozen, at least a dozen such agencies based here in Washington. The CIA with its $15 billion a year budget is the largest. The NSA with a budget of about $10 billion is the second largest. The Defense Intelligence Agency is about $4 billion. Then along with some other obscure but still very large agencies like the NGIA. Never heard of the NGIA? I didn't think so. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is a $4.9 billion a year agency. Collectively, these agencies spend probably $50 billion to $60 billion a year, which make them a very small but powerful potent sector in the American scheme of power.

Want to know how the NGIA spent your $4.9 billion? Good luck. Want to see a line item budget of CIA activities in Africa last year? Move along. It's true that Congress nominally has oversight powers over these agencies. Our elected officials do have their security clearances that we don't have, so they can go in and look at selected operations. But the intelligence oversight system is very weak as even its defenders will admit. The intelligence committees polarized and politicized can't even agree on what kind of secret activities they're supposed to monitor. The FISA court system is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance by their government, but it largely functions as a rubberstamp of the secret agencies. A secret government is the norm in America in 2018 which is why the discourse of the deep state has such currency today.

Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. So who was he? Born in December 1917, James Angleton grew up as the oldest son of James Hugh Angleton, a brash self-made American businessman who moved to Milan, Italy during the Depression and made a fortune during the time Benito Mussolini selling cash registers. Angleton attended private school in England. He went to Yale College, and then to Harvard Law school. He was a precocious good-looking young man with sophisticated manners and a literary frame of mind.

As an undergraduate, he befriended his fellow expatriate – Ezra Pound – in Italy. Pound was the modernist poet in the mad tribune of Mussolini's fascism. In their correspondence, which I found at Yale, Angleton sometimes ape the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Ezra Pound. For example, criticizing the Jewish book merchants who he thought overcharged for Pound's books.

In 1943, Angleton was recruited into the Office of Strategic Services, America's first foreign intelligence service stationed in Rome during and after World War II. He excelled at secret intelligence work. I tell a story in The Ghost of how he rescued a leading Nazi and a leading Italian fascist from postwar justice. Among other tasks, he reported on the flow of Jews escaping from Germany and heading for Palestine. The revelations of the Holocaust transformed his disdain for Jews into something of sympathy. He began to develop sources among the leaders of the Jewish and Zionist organizations – including Teddy Kollek who was a British intelligence agent, and a German operative named Arthur Pier who later became known as Asher Ben-Natan.

With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. In those days, the CIA was right here in the heart of Washington. It's hard for people to believe now, but the CIA was located in a series of temporary buildings located along the reflecting pool next to the Lincoln Memorial. The tempos, as they were called by CIA people, were drafty in the winter, hot in the summer, and devoid of charm year-round. But this is where Angleton worked, at what was known as the Office of Special Operations.

Angleton, while sympathetic to Jewish suffering, was still very wary of Israel when he started his career at the CIA. Before the 1948 war, the Jewish army had been largely armed by Czech arms manufacturers and communist Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union was the first country to recognize the state of Israel in 1948. Angleton initially feared that the Soviets would use Israel as a platform for injecting spies into the West. The Israelis, for their part, were looking to cultivate American friends. Stalin's anti-Semitic purges in 1948 showed that his allegiance to the Jewish state was superficial at best.

In 1950 a man named Reuven Shiloah, the founder of Israel's first intelligence organization, came to Washington. He visited the CIA and he came away very impressed with how it was organized. He went back to Israel and in April 1951, he created out of a very fractious collection of security forces what was known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks – inevitably known as Mossad, Hebrew for institute.

In 1951 Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion came to the United States and brought Shiloah with him. Ben-Gurion met privately with President Truman, and Angleton arrange for Ben-Gurion to also have lunch with his friend Allen Dulles who would shortly become the director of the CIA. The purpose of this meeting, Efrain Halevy, a retired director of the Mossad and a longtime friend of Angleton's told me in an interview in Tel Aviv, the purpose was in Halevy's words to clarify in no uncertain terms that notwithstanding what had happened between Israel and United States 1948 and notwithstanding that Russia had been a key factor in Israel's survival, Israel considered itself part of the Western world and would maintain the relationship with the United States in this spirit.

Shiloah stayed on in Washington to work out the arrangements with Angleton. Shiloah, according to his biographer, soon developed a special relationship – quote/unquote – and Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. Angleton return the favor by traveling to Israel often. He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet.

Manor headed up Operation Balsam which was the Israeli's conduit to the Americans. "They told me I had to collect information about the Soviet bloc and transmit it to them," Manor recalled about the Americans. "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life.

In 1963 a man named Isser Harel was succeeded as the chief of Mossad by a military intelligence officer named Meir Amit. Amit found Angleton to be a little eccentric, but he noted that his – quote – identification with Israel was a great asset for Israel. Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist state.

As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA, but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the latent qualities that would make him powerful.

Second, Angleton's creative intellect and his operational audacity inspired deep feelings of loyalty among the Israelis. While Angleton's counterintelligence vision would become very controversial within and bitterly divisive within the CIA, he was widely admired in Israel as a stalwart friend. He still is to this day.

In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In 1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis.

Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. I tell a lot of the story in The Ghost, but the story of Angleton in Israel is really so large and so profound that it probably deserves its own book. I could certainly not do justice to it in the 18 minutes that I have, so I'm going to confine myself to one narrow question about the tradeoffs that became implicit in this arrangement between the CIA and the Mossad and its implications for us.

The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to. Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden, Jr. and others.

I want to just give you a sense of how this transpired. So the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company.

At that time, the US government owned all of supplies of nuclear fuel which private companies, like NUMEC, were allowed to use but ultimately had to return to the government. Within a few years the Atomic Energy Commission noticed worrisome signs that the Apollo Plant – NUMEC had a plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania – that the plant's security and accounting were very deficient. Unexplained losses of nuclear material did happen at other companies, but NUMEC's losses were proportionately much larger. By October 1965, the AEC estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms.

John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used it to build their nuclear arsenal. This story is now very well documented. In the spring of 1965, a technician working at the night shift at NUMEC went out on a loading dock for a breath of fresh air and saw an unusual sight. Zalman Shapiro was pacing on the dock while a foreman and truck driver loaded cylindrical storage containers, known as stovepipes, onto a flatbed truck.

The technician saw a clipboard saying that the material was destined for Israel. It was highly unusual to see Dr. Shapiro in the manufacturing section of the Apollo nuclear facility, the technician said. It was unusual to see Dr. Shapiro there at night, and it was very unusual to see Dr. Shapiro so nervous. The next day NUMEC's personnel manager visited the technician and threatened to fire him if he did not keep his mouth shut, that's a quote, concerning what he had seen. It would be 15 years before the employee told the story to the FBI.

What did Angleton know about NUMEC? Well, he knew that the AEC and the FBI were investigating starting in 1965. As the Israel desk officer of the CIA, he talked about the NUMEC case with liaison agent Sam Papich who was monitoring the investigation for the FBI. He also spoke about it with his colleague John Hadden.

On the crime scene particulars, Hadden defended his former boss. "Any suggestion that Angleton had help the Israelis with the NUMEC operation was totally without foundation," he told journalists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn. But Hadden didn't deny that Angleton had helped the Israeli nuclear program. Why would somebody whose whole life was dedicated to fighting communism have any interest in preventing a very anti-Communist nation for getting the means to defend itself, Hadden asked. The fact they stole it from us didn't worry him in the least, he went on. I suspect that in his inmost heart he would have given it to them if they had asked. Hadden knew better than to investigate any further. I never sent anything to Angleton on this – the nuclear program – because I knew he wasn't interested, Hadden later told his son, and I knew he'd try to stop it if I did.

With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. He believed that the results proved his point. When he started as chief of the counterintelligence staff in 1954, the state of Israel and its leaders were regarded warily in Washington – especially at the State Department. When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated diplomacy.

Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life into the concept of the deep state.

I thought of this story when I visited one of the memorials to Angleton in Israel in 2016. The memorial is located on a winding road outside the city of Mevaseret Zion, which is now really a suburb of Jerusalem. Historically, control of this high ground has been seen as key to the control of Jerusalem and of Palestine itself. A nearby ruins of a castle built by 12th-century Christian crusaders for exactly that purpose stands in mute testimony to the importance of its strategic location.

The Angleton memorial consists of a pedestal of stones topped with a black plaque. To James Angleton, a friend it says. This plaque was dedicated in 1987, a few months after Angleton died, and it has been maintained by his Israeli friends ever since. It's still in perfect condition. The location is no accident. In the course of his extraordinary career, Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest Zionist of the lot . Thank you.

[Mar 14, 2018] For WP editors, a victory for legal army of Syria in their own country' is defying the INTERNATIONAL order

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

kooshy, 13 March 2018 at 09:29 PM

A very meaningful head line by Izvestia on Potomac, WP. For WP editors, a victory for legal army of Syria in their own country' is defying the INTERNATIONAL order. One wonders who are these International community, are Russians, Chinese, Iran and many others part of this community? Or this so-called community is another of US' international country clubs. Too bad, i think the international community should just STFU and live with it.

"Syrian military pushes for victory in Ghouta, defying international outcry"
https://goo.gl/StPpjp

[Mar 14, 2018] Military Contractors have 400 lobbyists, revolving doors with military officers and civilian officials, jobs in congressional districts; plus, corporations and their employees contribute to election campaigns. Most importantly, they are part of the connected elite.

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VietnamVet 13 March 2018 at 06:14 PM

Colonel
@22

Military Contractors have 400 lobbyists, revolving doors with military officers and civilian officials, jobs in congressional districts; plus, corporations and their employees contribute to election campaigns. Most importantly, they are part of the connected elite. You are groomed to succeed and are paid handsomely if you belong to their exclusive club. Unfortunately, today the system is corrupt and the global establishment has absolutely no concern for the well-being of American citizens.

Blaming Russia for the 2016 election and Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatening U.S. troops in Manjib Syria are signs of the House of Cards collapsing around us.

[Mar 14, 2018] Neocons are like clogged arteries you know they will be a problem but failing to comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host

Notable quotes:
"... The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host. ..."
Mar 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sarah Toga , September 28, 2017 at 8:00 pm GMT

Our military record is not so great. Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a millennia. The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific Theater of WWII. Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian work), or a miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco (War Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that "winning" was no benefit to the "victor".

You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.

The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host.

Neocons are like clogged arteries -- you know they will be a problem but failing to comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.

You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don't do what is needed to clean out and become safe.

[Mar 14, 2018] Trump Votes For Rexit - Torture Queen Will Head CIA - (Updated)

Looks like Tillerson was yet another Big Lie junkie whose entire worldview is based on bullshit
Notable quotes:
"... Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective. ..."
"... Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes. ..."
"... This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia. ..."
"... The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...? ..."
"... I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians. ..."
Mar 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

12:44 PM - 13 Mar 2018

Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!

According to the anti Russian propagandists (vid) Tillerson got the job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was in good standing with Putin. The same people now claim that Tillerson was fired from his job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was not in good standing with Putin.

Neither is correct. The plan to oust Tillerson and elevate Pompeo to State has been rumored and written about for several month . The plan was "developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff". It had nothing to do with Russia.

Tillerson never got traction as Secretary of State. Congress disliked him for cutting down some State Department programs. Trump overruled him publicly several times.

There is some contradiction in the statements coming from the White House and the State Department. According to the Washington Post:

Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside, and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return to Washington.

Last Friday Tillerson suddenly fell ill while traveling in Africa and canceled several scheduled events.

... ... ...

Thus ends the 2018 insurrection at State.

With Tillerson leaving Secretary of Defense Mattis is losing an ally in the cabinet:

[I]t starts with me having breakfast every week with Secretary of State Tillerson. And we talk two, three times a day, sometimes. We settle all of our issues between he and I, and then we walk together into the White House meetings. That way, State and Defense are together.

Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective.

CIA head Pompeo, the new Secretary of State, is a neoconservative with a racist anti-Muslim attitude and a special hate for Iran which he compared to ISIS . That he will now become Secretary of State is a bad sign for the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Europeans especially should take note of that and should stop to look for a compromise with Trump on the issue. The deal is now dead. There is no chance that a compromise will happen.

The new CIA director Gina Haspel is well known for actively directing and participating in the torture of prisoners at 'black sites':

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as "obstruction" by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane.

Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes.

Both, Pompeo and Haspel, will need to be confirmed by Congress. Both will receive a significant number of 'yes'-votes from the Democratic side of the aisle.

11:01 AM | Comments (41)

sejmon , Mar 13, 2018 12:16:49 PM | 6

I think last straw to fire him been TRex stance toward russians -give up Crimea and we cease sanction(WHAT A JOKE) same toward eastern republics of Ukraine LNR,DPR..good move VSGPDJT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

next Nicky H ?????

Peter AU 1 , Mar 13, 2018 1:15:53 PM | 15
This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia.

The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...?

Red Ryder , Mar 13, 2018 1:31:53 PM | 16
Poor Syria. At least one more fierce year of war. But more likely, endless 2,3,4 more years of war. Israel and US are getting the rebels in Daraa (DEZ #4) primed to start up fighting again. I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians.
b , Mar 13, 2018 2:28:49 PM | 23
Tillerson just read a statement to the press:

(My notes)
Tillerson says:
- got call today, afternoon from president, also spoke to Kelly (implies that this was the firing)
- hopes for smooth transition
- Deputy Sec State Sullivan will be acting Sec State
- Tillerson job officially terminates March 31

to DoD and State:
- bound by office oath, support constitution, ...
- always stay by oath, (sounds crying)
to people in uniform:
- great relationship State DOD - thanks Mattis and Dunford, all soldiers
work review:
- DPRK pressure campaign was success
- Afghanistan commitment also
- Syria, Iraq - work remains
- nothing goes without allies, partner
- work to be done on China and "troubling behavior" of Russia
- predicts more isolation if Russia doesn't knee
- nothing on Iran

Didn't say thank you to Trump. Emphasized oath to constitution, not to president. Nothing on Iran, Saudis or Palestine.

This was a f*** you to the White House and its priorities. The endorsement by name of Mattis and Dunlap makes them targets.

b , Mar 13, 2018 2:41:53 PM | 27
A Professor for political science from the United Arab Emirates just posted this:
"History will record that a GCC country had a role in the sacking of the foreign minister of a great power, and this is only the beginning of more"

Interesting ...
https://twitter.com/hxhassan/status/973629082368921600

[Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

In a three-part series published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.

Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.

In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon, reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;

Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.

The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."

In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former" military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan administration's CIA director, William Casey.

How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed protector of the American people against terrorism.

This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.

The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark Thirty , etc.)

The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .

In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.

This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.

The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.

The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.

The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.

The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.

The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.

Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.

Patrick Martin

The author also recommends:

Palace coup or class struggle: The political crisis in Washington and the strategy of the working class

[Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

In a three-part series published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.

Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.

In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon, reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;

Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.

The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."

In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former" military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan administration's CIA director, William Casey.

How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed protector of the American people against terrorism.

This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.

The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark Thirty , etc.)

The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .

In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.

This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.

The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.

The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.

The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.

The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.

The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.

Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.

Patrick Martin

The author also recommends:

Palace coup or class struggle: The political crisis in Washington and the strategy of the working class

[Mar 13, 2018] The transition of Pompeo from CIA to the State Department is a logical step as both are intelligence agencies serving global neoliberal empire, not the USA as a country

Looks like another Cold War warrior...
Notable quotes:
"... He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests. ..."
"... Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Pompeo graduated from both the United States Military Academy at West Point and Harvard and served three terms as a representative for Kansas's fourth district. As a member of the House select committee on intelligence, he was an aggressive critic of US foreign policy under the Obama administration, particularly regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.

... ... ...

He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests.

Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

... ... ...

He has, however, diverged from Trump on Russia. In his confirmation hearing, he appeared to share with CIA staff an adversarial view of Russia and Vladimir Putin.

The Senate approved his nomination 66-32. The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, who voted to confirm Pompeo, said in a statement on Tuesday: "If he's confirmed [as secretary of state] we hope that Mr Pompeo will turn over a new leaf and will start toughening up our policies towards Russia and Putin."

... ... ...

[Mar 13, 2018] The CIA Democrats: Part one by Patrick Martin

Brennanization of the Democratic Party
Notable quotes:
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Introduction

An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.

Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit.

A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.

The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."

[Mar 13, 2018] The transition of Pompeo from CIA to the State Department is a logical step as both are intelligence agencies serving global neoliberal empire, not the USA as a country

Looks like another Cold War warrior...
Notable quotes:
"... He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests. ..."
"... Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Pompeo graduated from both the United States Military Academy at West Point and Harvard and served three terms as a representative for Kansas's fourth district. As a member of the House select committee on intelligence, he was an aggressive critic of US foreign policy under the Obama administration, particularly regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.

... ... ...

He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests.

Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

... ... ...

He has, however, diverged from Trump on Russia. In his confirmation hearing, he appeared to share with CIA staff an adversarial view of Russia and Vladimir Putin.

The Senate approved his nomination 66-32. The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, who voted to confirm Pompeo, said in a statement on Tuesday: "If he's confirmed [as secretary of state] we hope that Mr Pompeo will turn over a new leaf and will start toughening up our policies towards Russia and Putin."

... ... ...

[Mar 13, 2018] The current ruling junta in the US absolutely does not have the interests of the American people or the nation at large in mind

Mar 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

SlapHappy | Mar 13, 2018 1:46:05 PM | 18

As if it needs saying, the current ruling junta in the US absolutely does not have the interests of the American people or the nation at large in mind, they're answering to a different set of masters at this point.

Until we can purge the fifth column that's infested the halls of power in this country and obviously in the UK and much of Europe - at least the EU - we'll continue to fight wars for Zionism and all that will be left of the US and Russia when this is over will be bombed-out nuclear wastelands, which is exactly what the Zionists want to have happen.

They did it to Germany and Russia in WWII, and they're going to do it to the US, Russia, and possibly China in WWIII, which is spooling up as we dissect the latest maniacal machinations of the war cabal.

[Mar 13, 2018] Russia's Stand-Off Capability The 800 Pound Gorilla in Syria by Andrei Martyanov

Notable quotes:
"... You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. ..."
"... For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew ..."
"... They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways ..."
"... But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime. ..."
"... The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region. ..."
"... After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. ..."
"... Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. ..."
"... In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine" preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. ..."
"... The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring as it ought to be. ..."
"... If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey (bc. you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against the petrodollar (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines) ..."
"... Rather than a direct attack on Russian forces, it is more probable that the US will resort to sneaky backstabbings, with deniability potential. Direct attacks on the Syrian army could escalate, on the other hand. ..."
"... As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. ..."
"... For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist. ..."
"... The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets. ..."
"... The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the American military do. ..."
"... The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel. ..."
"... My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with Andrei before. ..."
"... Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live. ..."
"... In case you haven't noticed the author isn't talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran. ..."
"... The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Frankie P , September 28, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT

@peterAUS

You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah.

For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans.

They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways.

The resistance has now become The Resistance, and with America's continuing belligerence pushing Russia and China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.

Frankie P

Randal , September 28, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?

OK let's look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.

The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region.

After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity.

They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.

What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.

Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow.

And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the US's interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.

While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine" preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival.

The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of "peacekeeping", and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.

In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the US's European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring as it ought to be.

bb. , September 28, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well .fine. I just don't see it.

TBH i don't realistically see it either, but if you think about it, it's kind of a win win situation for them anyways. My thinking goes like this (correct me pls if I am off)

If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey (bc. you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against the petrodollar (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines)

If Russia fails to stabilize the region, it would mean rising oil prices, which again, is free money for them in the medium term.

Captain Nemo , September 28, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT
Rather than a direct attack on Russian forces, it is more probable that the US will resort to sneaky backstabbings, with deniability potential. Direct attacks on the Syrian army could escalate, on the other hand.
Andrei Martyanov , Website September 28, 2017 at 12:48 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.

Here is the problem, Peters is not alone, in fact, a lot of his hysteria is echoed by such people as former SACEUR Phil Breedlove, today it is Dunford etc.

Another matter, because those are still uniformed (or were recently) it is really bad idea to behave as psychopaths as Peters but all of them read from the same script, just the method of delivery differs, slightly at that.

As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. So I would dispute this thesis of yours. Militarily all neocons are dumb. For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist.

for the Rah-Rah crowd

So, we agree–it is 99% of American military, political and, so called, intellectual elite, right?

Randal , September 28, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT
@Ron Unz

At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

Clearly it made no sense in a tactical military sense to use cruise missiles when straightforward air attack was available, and the use of the Kalibrs in October 2015 was certainly motivated as a demonstration of capability. To what degree it was a warning to potential enemies (the US regime, Israel and the Gulf states, obviously, but also remember at the time still Turkey, though that brief hostility seems to have been managed out of existence, helped by the US turning to the Kurds as their proxies in Syria, since then), as opposed to a marketing pitch ( the Russians have been selling export versions of these missiles for many years ) is open to question – probably both.

The issue is not so much the possession of cruise missiles – the Soviets had nuclear armed Tomahawk equivalents back in the 1980s, and it's always been assumed that those (the air and sea launched ones, anyway) were repurposed as conventionally armed missiles. It's having them, along with deployable launchers, in numbers and proving that they work reliably that was the issue. There's an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian capabilities in terms of high tech weapons. And in order to use cruise missiles in the way Martyanov describes here – basically as a base-denial weapon against a peer rival – you need plenty of them. To hit a US base and render it unusable with conventionally armed weapons, you have to hit it accurately and you have to hit it multiple times, evading or overloading the defences and counter-measures. To take out a carrier, you have to locate the target first, and then beat the counter-measures to hit it at least once and preferably several times, though one hit could be a mission kill. And in the case of the land base, you have to be able to do it again a few days later, and keep hitting it.

So the Russians, with their repeated uses of cruise missiles and the introduction of more modern and potentially significantly more capable missiles that Martyanov refers to, have been building a credible case that the US can no longer count on escalation superiority in Syria to protect them.

Sergey Krieger , September 28, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
Now I see how shooting from Iranian airspace increases salvo. missiles with shorter range can be used which could not have been used from Russian airspace. Now the logic behind longer range missiles is also clear to avoid being dependent on allies too. Those are not reliable. One can only say in retrospective that were it not for what happened in 90s soviet/ Russian stand off capabilities would be absolutely crushing strong long time ago. Now, combined with EW capabilities, air defences and fast moving hard hitting land forces all this United by computerized control it must be something.
The Alarmist , September 28, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

There are reasons why Breedlove was pushed out. I've been out of the "war" for a couple decades, so my confidence that there are saner heads where it counts might be misplaced.

I wouldn't say 99%, but the number is non-trivial, and that is alarming. Peters is aimed at the folks who buy the medicines and other crap hawked on Fox. It helps sell his fiction to people who used to read Tom Clancy but now have to take a step down. If he were taken seriously, he'd be doing more appearances on the Sunday shows.

Stoltenberg's militancy is distressing, but I again hope his masters have him on a short leash, meaning he will bark but he won't bite.

The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets.

DoD has undoubtedly seen and assessed the standoff capability of the Russians, which is why their involvement has been somewhat muted, but yeah, there are some rabid types down the chain who are itching to try their toys on the only real adversaries we have in the world, and given the independence we often give field commanders, they can get us in trouble.

Thorfinnsson , September 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn't sound like rocket science.

Even if the Soviet Union didn't have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed into land attack missiles.

We're really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982, and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot should've been able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.

Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already before the war), but this is one of those things we won't truly know until we see it done.

For that matter I'm not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars, stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today. The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get his country to acquire F-22s.

It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.

DESERT FOX , September 28, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT
The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the American military do.

America is run by a Zionist crime cabal that operates much as Hitler and the Nazis did with no regard for life or limb, ie a rogue nation that creates terror groups such as ISIS and AL CIADA that it uses to wreck countries and pretends to fight this self created terror.

The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel.

The real GORILLA is the Zionists and Israel who have driven American foreign policy for decades and who are going to destroy America as just as a parasite destroys its host so shall Zionist Israel destroy America.

GOD BLESS RUSSIA AND SYRIA

Kiza , September 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

Two separate illusions are to blame for not understanding the foreign, or particularly Russian military capability:

1) the US population in general has been brainwashed that US is the technologically the most advanced country in the World; this may be true in many areas but it is far from being true in all areas, and

2) the US population and its leaders believe that military superiority, especially the one based on technology, is proportional to the budget, which is totally non-sensual; it may be true within US, although the mergers of the MIC companies have reduced the competition to only a few, but it definitely does not apply even to the comparison with the efficiency of spending military funds even by Western allies of US, let alone to Russia and China.

My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with Andrei before.

SimplePseudonymicHandle , September 28, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

And hopefully will not be done in the future–let's keep our fingers crossed.

An admirable sentiment, or outcome of rational, moral principle. Maybe the wisest statement in this whole OP + comment thread. If grown-ups are in charge in Russia, China and then U.S., then it is the case for all three that:

1. Their foreign and military policies are intended to advance, sometimes forcefully, their national interests
2. Their military, forceful, national interest is defined as being sufficiently powerful to deter one another from the use of force specifically with the intention of preventing an outcome from ever happening where one or the other is in open conflict
3. Because, open conflict with one or another is an outcome that's wholly incompatible with #1

Sooooooo many words people toss about finding n-more ways to peal the onion of US/Russia/China power, but really just two things that matter:

1. The US is always paying too much for its military, regardless of what it gets for what it paid
2. The most worrisome thing on the world stage is a US leader or person in the US decision-making chain of command, losing his cool , and acting rashly, out of irrational fear that US dominance is threatened or the infantile possession of a belief that US dominance means dominance over near-peer partnersaries

In any case – if the US blanketed Russian military positions in Syria:

A. Definite outcome – somewhere on the planet Russia would face-savingly even the score by sinking (or otherwise destroying) a carrier yes they are difficult to sink but a Syria debacle would create a will for a partnersary with ways
B. Unclear outcome – whether it would stop there

Because of B, this must never happen. Let's hope to God our leaders understand that.

Ram , September 28, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
Russia in effect has far more valuable very vulnerable targets in the area than the US does.
utu , September 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm GMT
It all comes down to the nuclear deterrence which mask the actual level of imbalance in conventional weapons between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US may demonstrate conventional weapons advantage in an actual exchange to prevent the opponent from being forced to resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the Saving Face Exit Option (SFEO) will be always left by the stronger one for the weaker one. This means that we will not find out about the actual conventional strike and counter strike capabilities. It will be left to speculations, phantasies, disinformation and propaganda.
Avery , September 28, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT
@Anon

{ but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.}

Who would seriously oppose Russia? How?

I think it was either [TheSaker] or [Karlin] who noted that both NATO and/or Israel can bring to bear assets at least 10X what Russia has in Syria. But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts. I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia. Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.

The pending defeat of the Reptiles in Syria is a BIG deal. It throws of giant monkey wrench in the PINAC plan to redraw the Middle East for Eretz Yisrael. Short of directly attacking Russia – with unpredictable consequences – they tried pretty much everything:.

Despite all that, SAA+Russia+Iran+Hezbollah are relentlessly grinding down the cannibalistic invaders. Israel-firsters and anti-American slime who have invested the State dept, Pentagon, and CIA are apoplectic.

But clearly they don't know what to do. Otherwise, they would have done it already.

Carroll Price , September 28, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT
@Frankie P

They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance

Indeed. Relatively unknown (at the time) Hezbollah, who in 2006 put a royal shellacking on Israel, has not only survived, but emerged many magnitudes stronger and more confident than anyone could have ever imagined.

yeah , September 28, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT
@Anon

There were boots a plenty on the ground in Vietnam – and how did that one end? In case you missed Vietnam, Iraq has had plenty of boots on the ground as well; this one hasn't still officially ended but has not been going well, not well at all. And Afghanistan. And Korea in the fifties.

As to Russia not having been seriously opposed in Syria: well, short of all-out war with Russia what else could have been done? If we try to understand the real game being played, we would be very concerned. From a Machiavellian perspective, the US strategy has been succeeding brilliantly. Boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, but the Machiavellian plan certainly did. Allow me to elaborate a little below.

Let us stop this knee-jerk, rah-rah rooting for the home team and try to think coolly. The first thing that comes to mind is that there isn't really any home team. This whole ball-game is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going – all the time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas. So the powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.

Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live.

Carroll Price , September 28, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

During congressional hearings in the 1970s, Admiral Hyman Rickover considered aircraft carriers as being obsolete targets. It's more than obvious to any reader of this forum why they continue being produced.

Carroll Price , September 28, 2017 at 7:11 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Just wondering; Have either of you military geniuses ever consider enrolling in the US War College?

EugeneGur , September 28, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT
@survey-of-disinfo

the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian airbase

There is always somebody in any country who'd create an uproar whether it is in the interests of the country or not.

In case you haven't noticed the author isn't talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran.

It is not in Iran's interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and quit hitting that vodka bottle.

By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn't using Iran as a forward base but, on the contrary, signaling that Iran isn't alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

If you guys want to dwell on the past insults, real or perceived, go right ahead, but remember – this is a loosing proposition unless, of course, you possess a time machine.

If you think Iran'd be better off allied with the US – who is stopping you?

Sarah Toga , September 28, 2017 at 8:00 pm GMT
Our military record is not so great. Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a millennia. The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific Theater of WWII. Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian work), or a miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco (War Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that "winning" was no benefit to the "victor".

You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.

The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host.

Neocons are like clogged arteries – you know they will be a problem but failing to comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.

You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don't do what is needed to clean out and become safe.

John Gruskos , September 28, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT
Even if Russia were militarily the weakest nation on earth, a US attack on the Russians would still be a colossal mistake.

No American national interests or civilizational interests are advanced by attacking Russia.

On the contrary, American lives and wealth would be wasted, and America's reputation tarnished, in a war which would benefit America's real enemies, Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, while diminishing American export opportunities, providing a pretext for the ongoing migrant invasion of Europe, and ethnically cleansing Middle Eastern Christians.

[Mar 13, 2018] The CIA Democrats: Part one by Patrick Martin

Brennanization of the Democratic Party
Notable quotes:
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Introduction

An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.

Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit.

A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.

The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."

[Mar 12, 2018] Obama's has continued his neoliberal ways after leaving office. Obama was NOT forced into neoliberal positions by terrible Repugs like his Obamabot apologists claimed repeatedly

Highly recommended!
It looks more and more that Obama was closely connected to CIA...
Mar 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit | Mar 12, 2018 11:34:17 AM | 23

In his March 9th show (thanks ben@2!), Jimmy Dore talks about how Obama's has continued his neoliberal ways after leaving office. Obama was NOT forced into neoliberal positions by terrible Repugs like his Obamabot apologists claimed repeatedly.

[Mar 12, 2018] Colonizing the Western Mind using think tanks

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In a short span of time in the 1970s, dozens of think tanks were established across the western world and billions of dollars were spent proselytizing the tenets of the Powell Memo in 1971, which galvanized a counter-revolution to the liberal upswing of the Sixties. The neoliberal economic model of deregulation, downsizing, and privatization was preached by the Reagan-Thatcher junta, liberalized by the Clinton regime, temporarily given a bad name by the unhinged Bush administration, and saved by telegenic restoration of the Obama years. ..."
"... Today think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute, Stratfor, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, the Open Society Foundation, and the Atlantic Council, among many others, funnel millions of dollars in donations into cementing neoliberal attitudes in the American mind. ..."
"... The ideological assumptions, which serve to justify what you could call neocolonial tactics, are relatively clear: the rights of the individual to be free of overreach from monolithic institutions like the state. Activist governments are inherently inefficient and lead directly to totalitarianism. Markets must be free and individuals must be free to act in those markets. People must be free to choose, both politically and commercially, in the voting booth and at the cash register. ..."
"... This conception of markets and individuals is most often formulated as "free-market democracy," a misleading conceit that conflates individual freedom with the economic freedom of capital to exploit labor. So when it comes to foreign relations, American and western aid would only be given on the condition that the borrowers accepted the tenets of an (highly manipulable) electoral system and vowed to establish the institutions and legal structures required to fully realize a western market economy. ..."
Mar 12, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

In Christopher Nolan's captivating and visually dazzling film Inception, a practitioner of psychic corporate espionage must plant and idea inside a CEO's head. The process is called inception, and it represents the frontier of corporate influence, in which mind spies no longer just "extract" ideas from the dreams of others, but seed useful ideas in a target's subconscious.

Inception is a well-crafted piece of futuristic sci-fi drama, but some of the ideas it imparts are already deeply embedded in the American subconscious.

The notion of inception, of hatching an idea in the mind of a man or woman without his or her knowledge, is the kernel of propaganda, a black art practiced in the States since the First World War. Today we live beneath an invisible cultural hegemony, a set of ideas implanted in the mass mind by the U.S. state and its corporate media over decades. Invisibility seems to happen when something is either obscure or ubiquitous. In a propaganda system, an overarching objective is to render the messaging invisible by universalizing it within the culture. Difference is known by contrast. If there are no contrasting views in your field of vision, it's easier to accept the ubiquitous explanation. The good news is that the ideology is well-known to some who have, for one lucky reason or another, found themselves outside the hegemonic field and are thus able to contrast the dominant worldview with alternative opinions. On the left, the ruling ideology might be described as neoliberalism, a particularly vicious form of imperial capitalism that, as would be expected, is camouflaged in the lineaments of humanitarian aid and succor.

Inception 1971

In a short span of time in the 1970s, dozens of think tanks were established across the western world and billions of dollars were spent proselytizing the tenets of the Powell Memo in 1971, which galvanized a counter-revolution to the liberal upswing of the Sixties. The neoliberal economic model of deregulation, downsizing, and privatization was preached by the Reagan-Thatcher junta, liberalized by the Clinton regime, temporarily given a bad name by the unhinged Bush administration, and saved by telegenic restoration of the Obama years.

The ideology that underlay the model saturated academia, notably at the University of Chicago, and the mainstream media, principally at The New York Times. Since then it has trickled down to the general populace, to whom it now feels second nature.

Today think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute, Stratfor, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, the Open Society Foundation, and the Atlantic Council, among many others, funnel millions of dollars in donations into cementing neoliberal attitudes in the American mind.

The ideological assumptions, which serve to justify what you could call neocolonial tactics, are relatively clear: the rights of the individual to be free of overreach from monolithic institutions like the state. Activist governments are inherently inefficient and lead directly to totalitarianism. Markets must be free and individuals must be free to act in those markets. People must be free to choose, both politically and commercially, in the voting booth and at the cash register.

This conception of markets and individuals is most often formulated as "free-market democracy," a misleading conceit that conflates individual freedom with the economic freedom of capital to exploit labor. So when it comes to foreign relations, American and western aid would only be given on the condition that the borrowers accepted the tenets of an (highly manipulable) electoral system and vowed to establish the institutions and legal structures required to fully realize a western market economy.

These demands were supplemented with notions of the individual right to be free of oppression, some fine rhetoric about women and minorities, and somewhat more quietly, a judicial understanding that corporations were people, too. Together, an unshackled economy and an unfettered populace, newly equipped with individual rights, would produce the same flourishing and nourishing demos of mid-century America that had been the envy of humanity.

[Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent

Highly recommended!
Mar 12, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The US State Department is spending millions of dollars spreading its own disinformation and propping up NGOs to destroy any individual or organization that does not toe the official US government line on the US global military empire. Through its "Global Engagement Center" the State Department establishes in fact -- in the open -- what it accuses the Russian government of doing without any evidence. Social media companies are colluding with the US government to make organizations who oppose the US global military empire disappear.

RPI's Daniel McAdams joins the Corbett Report to discuss the neocon/Washington war on dissent in America:

Inside the State Department's Troll Farm - Daniel McAdams on The Corbett Report - YouTube

[Mar 12, 2018] Putin s Stated Plan A High-Tech Russian Doll

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Nineteen Eight-Four ..."
"... Putin's goal is now neither to recreate the USSR, nor to become part of the West. Rather, the ambition is to build an economic and technological "West" inside Russia, ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Scary Putin, Bogeyman to the World, has been on full display in US newspapers this month, most conspicuously on the front page of The New York Times , in a misleading photograph suitable for the cover of a new edition of Nineteen Eight-Four . " Putin Says He Has 'Invincible' Nuclear Missile ," was the headline. The hypersonic zig-zag cruise missiles and torpedoes of which he boasted might be a bluff for now, the Times noted. Fully operational, however, such weapons would "travel low, stealthily, far and fast – too fast for defenders to react."

... ... ...

What wasn't on display last week was an analytic account of what else Putin said in what was, after all, his state of the nation address , three weeks before the election in which he is seeking a fourth presidential term. For that I turned to Alexander Baunov of the Carnegie Moscow Center. I get my Russia news from Johnson's Russia List -- 191 items last week, of which I read perhaps twenty-five -- and from Jonathan Haslam's blog, Through Russian Eyes . Haslam is Kennan professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

Bloomberg's Andrey Biryukov and Evgenia Pismennaya set the stage for Putin's hour-long speech. Simon Shuster conveyed its atmospherics in Time , and Mary Dejevsky, of London's Independent , its production values . But it was Baunov who made sense of it, in A Hi-Tech Russian Doll: Putin's Fourth-Term Reboot , on the Carnegie.ru website.

Putin's goal is now neither to recreate the USSR, nor to become part of the West. Rather, the ambition is to build an economic and technological "West" inside Russia, while continuing an aggressive posture towards the West on the outside .

... ... ...

The problems of the Russian economy, interesting though they may be, are for the most part orthogonal to those of the US, which at the moment have to do with the prospect of trade wars with its allies.

... ... ...

[Mar 12, 2018] Putin humiliates NWO agent Megyn Kelly

Notable quotes:
"... Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump ..."
"... America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order ..."
"... Jewish Review of Books ..."
"... Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States ..."
"... The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World ..."
"... The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in Vietnam ..."
"... They try to provoke him by shooting down aircraft, demonizing, sanctions and all forms of schoolboy antics. Regardless, he remains on course, an outstanding strategist. I don"t think he felt provoked in the interview, rather he just had difficulty suffering such a hollow woman. ..."
"... I don't know is she stupid or no, but she had the task – to provoke my President. This is why she acted like a questioning robot. Ignored the answers and simple logic, she wanted him to make a mistake and express what they wanted from him on emotions. Several times he was really angry about her persistent curiosity about Russian hand in US elections. She took the role of prosecutor. But this interview plan was transparent for Putin. ..."
"... Ms. Kellys' antics gave Mr. Putin some face time in the USA MSM. He looks and acts like a leader. I'm sure the benefits outweighed the nonsense. ..."
Mar 12, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

Similarly, the reason I reject the New World Order ideology is because it is metaphysically incoherent. Its finest proponents have never bothered to address its incoherence either. Double standards, contradictions, illogical leaps, inconsistency, are obvious signs that a system is internally incoherent and failing. These issues are never discussed in Michael Isikoff's recent book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump . [1]

New World Order agent Megyn Kelly has recently interviewed Vladimir Putin again, but she didn't flesh out anything new at all. She asked the same old questions about hacking as if the United States should never be placed in the same position. Russia has to admit that it "hacked" the election, the argument goes, but the United States should never be challenged on the same issue. It is totally irrelevant.

I wish I could persuade Kelly and other New World Order agents to concentrate on the fundamental issues and stop flip-flopping. Here is what Kelly needs to focus on: even if we grant the ridiculous idea that Russia "hacked" the election, so what? The United States has been doing this since the beginning of time! This is again coming from the New York Times :

"Bags of cash delivered to a Rome hotel for favored Italian candidates. Scandalous stories leaked to foreign newspapers to swing an election in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters and stickers printed to defeat an incumbent in Serbia.

"The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, just a small sample of the United States' history of intervention in foreign elections.

"Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system. But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view.

"'If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,' said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States 'absolutely' has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, 'and I hope we keep doing it.'

"Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars, who began his career in the 1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate's Church Committee, says Russia's 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, whenever American officials were worried about a foreign vote.

"'We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947,' said Mr. Johnson, now at the University of Georgia. 'We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used what the British call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash.'" [2]

Russia should not hack the election, but who gave the United States the license to hack virtually every election around the globe? Isn't that a blatant double standard? Shouldn't Kelly have wrestled with this issue before she even presented it to Putin? If Putin and the Russians have to go to jail for hacking the election, when will we start jailing virtually every single US official for screwing up the Middle East and much of the world? This is the New York Times again:

"The United States' departure from democratic ideals sometimes went much further. The C.I.A. helped overthrow elected leaders in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and backed violent coups in several other countries in the 1960s. It plotted assassinations and supported brutal anti-Communist governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia." [3]

As former military intelligence officer Robert David Steele has pointed out, "Americans rigged, bribed, stole, killed, raped, and poisoned and you want to blame the Russians?" The United States, Steele argues, has meddled in at least 26 countries since World War II. But the ingenious Megyn Kelly hasn't even bothered to ask for a thorough investigation.

************************************

Furthermore, what did Russia release before the election that the average American shouldn't have known? These questions have never been answered by New World Order agents like Kelly, Michael Isikoff, and David Corn. Why?

Simple: these people do not want to use reason and common sense. They have deliberately abandoned the moral and political order and have embraced an essentially Talmudic ideology. They cannot see that New World Order agents in the United States are deliberately melting in the heat of their own contradictions. Don't believe me? This is coming from Bloomberg (thanks to my dear friend and colleague Mark Dankof for sending this article to me):

"Billionaire investor Peter Thiel got a fresh victory in Washington. His data-mining startup, Palantir Technologies Inc., won a much-contested contract to provide software to the U.S. Army.

"Palantir will work with Raytheon Co. to replace the troubled Distributed Common Ground System now in effect. They beat out seven other proposals for a decade-long, $876 million contract, according to the U.S. Defense Department. Terms of the partnership between Palantir and Raytheon weren't disclosed, and the companies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

"Thiel, the co-founder and chairman of Palantir, approved the company's move in 2016 to sue the Army over what it called an unfair bidding process. A judge found in Palantir's favor and ordered the Army to revamp the way it solicits bids for the Distributed Common Ground System. The U.S. Government Accountability Office determined that the Army's current system was over-budget and underperforming.

"Since the election of President Donald Trump, Thiel has gained significant influence in Washington. He was the most prominent supporter of Trump from Silicon Valley and contributed money to the campaign. Thiel helped fill positions in the Trump administration with former staff, including Trae Stephens, a onetime Palantir employee. Although he recently told the New York Times that Trump's presidency had 'fallen short' in some ways, Thiel said he has no regrets about supporting him.

"In addition to the Army deal, Palantir has been making inroads elsewhere in the U.S. government. After the company made a similar legal challenge to the U.S. Navy, officials agreed to revamp its technology procurement process last year." [4]

Why doesn't Megyn Kelly sit down with Palantir and tell him that he has no right to get involved in such a covert activity? Why doesn't Kelly -- who used to show her skin for metrosexual magazines such as GQ -- discuss these issues with Palantir at a coffee shop somewhere? Who is that woman really fooling this time?

Obviously she is not fooling Putin, who usually says of Kelly's assertions: " This is complete nonsense. " Listen to this sophomoric question that Kelly asked Putin: "Do you like the fact that you were in the KGB? Do you like people to know that?" Again, Kelly finds it repulsive that Putin was in the KGB, but Kelly doesn't even find it repugnant that Irving Kristol, the father of the Neoconservative movement, was a proud Trotskyite.

Kristol proudly admitted that the "honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International)." [5] Kristol was not just a former Trotskyist, but a former neo-Marxist and neo-socialist. [6]

The interview between Putin and Kelly is telling:

Megyn Kelly : I will give you one piece of evidence. Andrei Krutskikh is an advisor to the Kremlin when it comes to cyber issues. In his speech to an information security forum in February 2016, he reportedly said, quote, "I am warning you. We are on the verge of having something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals." What do you think he meant? Because it certainly sounds like a threat right before an election hack.

Vladimir Putin : Sometimes I think you are joking.

Megyn Kelly : No, I am deadly serious.

Vladimir Putin : A man says something about how he sees our contacts and our work with our foreign partners, the US in this case, in a certain area. I have no idea what he said. Ask him what he meant. Do you think I control everything?

Megyn Kelly : He is an advisor to the Kremlin on cyber.

Vladimir Putin : So what? There are 2,000 people working in the administration; do you think I control everyone? Peskov is sitting in front of me, he is my press secretary and he sometimes says things that I see on television and think, what is he talking about? Who told him to say this?

Megyn Kelly : I think when it comes to our two countries you know exactly what is going on. And this is Russia's problem now. It is. The heads of the US intelligence agencies just testified to Congress that Russia, Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, greater than ISIS. You cannot get the sanctions lifted. The relationship between our two countries is nearly non-existent right now. Did not this interference, whether you knew or you did not know about it, backfire against Russia?

Did you follow Kelly's logic in the last statement? The US intelligence agencies declared that Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, and Kelly didn't even challenge that premise. She swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The US intelligence agencies are the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and whatever they posit must axiomatically be true.

We have numerous cases where US intelligence agencies deliberately lied to the American people for perpetuating diabolical activities. [7] But Megyn Kelly isn't interested in things like that because they would ruin her ideological foundations. Now we're talking:

Megyn Kelly : Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America interfered in Russian elections, right?

Vladimir Putin : The US does this all the time.

Megyn Kelly : But Russia did not interfere in America's election?

Vladimir Putin : No, and there are no plans in Russia to do so. It is impossible. It is impossible for us.

Megyn Kelly : Why not? Why wouldn't you?

Megyn Kelly was trained as a lawyer, and she just couldn't realize that her questions violate the basic cannons of logic. I once had a discussion with a lawyer back in 2011 during which he made an extraordinary statement. My simple question was: "Where is the evidence for that?" His response? "Where is the evidence that it is not the case?"

I was astounded because I thought I was talking to a lawyer. The dude made a statement and wanted me to present evidence for it! At that point, I realized that the conversation was over.

Let us conclude by saying that it is just crazy for Kelly to take the US intelligence agencies at face value when they declared that "Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, greater than ISIS." It sounds like that the agencies got that idea right out George Soros' mouth. Soros, as we recalled, wrote an article back in 2016 entitled, "Putin is a bigger threat to Europe's existence than Isis." Soros incoherently declared then:

"The leaders of the US and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that president Vladimir Putin's Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State. The evidence contradicts them. Putin's aim is to foster the EU's disintegration, and the best way to do so is to flood Europe with Syrian refugees." [8]

No one with an ounce of common sense should take this crazy assertion seriously. Soros, as I have argued elsewhere, is a New World Order agent and has been in the business for years.

What we are seeing again and again is that the New World Order is actually collapsing because it cannot produce a coherent system. We were told ad nauseam that Putin is reestablishing the Soviet Union. (Keep in mind that the Soviet Union was essentially Jewish.) Now we are being told that Putin is essentially anti-Semitic because he simply said that

"Maybe they [the so-called hackers] are not even Russians but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked; maybe they have dual citizenship of a green card; maybe the U.S. paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know either." [9]

Putin said that the hackers could be either Russians, Tartars, or even Jews. But the fact that he mentioned Jews axiomatically makes him an anti-Semite. Mentioning Russians does not necessarily make him anti-Russian, but mentioning Jews is an unpardonable sin for which there is no redemption. Where did they dig these people?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/X6275tfuSzM?feature=oembed

  1. joetv March 11, 2018 at 2:19 pm Putin mentioned other suspects. As in any investigation the most likely suspect can be found using logic to determine who benefited from the crime. An honest, reasonable investigator would have ruled out Russia early, as there was nothing to be gained. The motive offered; the end of sanctions, just a canard. It turns out the big winner is Israel. Surprise! That is where the spot light should shine. Log in to leave a comment
  2. Chris Paul March 11, 2018 at 1:55 pm Come on Jonas, stop guilding the lily. You quote some dude who says that the USA has interfered in 26 countries since WW2. That is a Limite Hang Out. I wish to posit the hypothesis that the USA has interfered with EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET since WW2. Using the Scientific Method we need to gather evidence, both hard and cicumstantial, from every corner of the Planet. I would suggest Crowd Funding multiple PhD students from all over and then some to very carefully centrally co-ordinate that gathered information. Gradually that Hypothesis could be transformed into a Theory that the USA pursued a Unipower Policy of Full Spectrum Dominance over the whole Planet.Further, as that one would only take a few years with all the Publicly Available
    read more ... Log in to leave a comment
    • M.O.A.Bitches March 11, 2018 at 6:53 pm I think you just described Argentina . . . since 1891.
      Not only does the U.S. interfere with every country under the sun, so did the old money farts from the daze of yore . . . It grew from there. GMO zio-seed money.
      Argentina has been a hot mess of "revolutionary death and destruction chaos" with Marxist brainwash hammer since, oh I reckon 1891 when Moritz (Zvi) von Hirsch dreamed a little colonization dream for Argentina.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonization_Association
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_de_Hirsch
      The Jewish Colonization
      read more ...
    • M.O.A.Bitches March 11, 2018 at 7:01 pm The Jewish Colonization Association (JCA or ICA, Yiddish ייִק"אַ) was created on September 11, 1891, by Baron Maurice de Hirsch. Its aim was to facilitate the mass emigration of Jews from Russia and other Eastern European countries, by settling them in agricultural colonies on lands purchased by the committee, particularly in North America (Canada and the United States), and South America (Argentina and Brazil).
      -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      Argentina and Brazil . . .
      That is classic!
      The Zionists are a bunch of delusional Masonic magick worshiping secret coders. Sept. 11 1891 . . . and 110 years later . . . NYC is hit.
      Evil bastards is right.
    • Eduardo March 11, 2018 at 7:13 pm These are facts that US has interfered with any Nation on Earth since WW2. Though let us remember that the hammer and anvil of international jewry has already goy crowd funded our days reality and at the same time woven a sticky net of deceit and defense around the globe and themselves reinforced by corrupted politics, religious henchmen and greedy fools. An evil organism in itself, separated from humane humanity but controlling and steering it by their own will and desire. A change can only occur if conscientiousness sets in that every Nation is affected and NO Nationality spared. Only when Nations unite in sovereignty, independence and a CLEAR conscience a change will happen. The "cleansing" must start at every home. A circle must be drawn,
      read more ...
    • Eduardo March 11, 2018 at 7:30 pm Brasil is exactly the same MOAB. Corruption is not a South American virtue as it is recognized all over the world. It was infected and seeded by international Jewry a century ago. President Temer of Brasil is just one of many "heads of state" that legalizes international jewry's rule officially. We all know by now who is behind corruption though it wont be South Americans unless they are double citizens and attend synagogues.
      Colombia is another Jewish enclave run bu the same Jewry. A proper revolution will be needed but this time without creating a safe heaven for Zionists. A proper detention center run by independent goyim seems more appropriate.
  3. Sandra Villarreal March 11, 2018 at 1:08 pm As a well informed American citizen, it was so embarrassing watching Megan Kelly, once again, bring her brainwashed propaganda back to the table with Putin for all the world to see. I think she actually believes her own lies. But thank goodness Putin's able to handle her like a champ. Log in to leave a comment
    • Chris Paul March 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm Putin cleverly plays her. Her stupidity is not as apparent to Pavlovian Trained USA Citizens, but embarrases the USA in the eyes of the rest of the world. The Parasite Cult is gutting the USA under Pump and Dump Drumpf and exposing the level of understanding of the USA Public is part of that process. As they used to say in the TV Industry and probably still do: "pitch it to the lowest common denominator, never overestimate the taste of the viewing public".
  4. US-First March 11, 2018 at 12:03 pm Part 1

    Why President Putin even bothers to give Kelly the time of day is beyond me. She is merely an NWO media sycophant who, if she found one minuscule notion (emphasis on the minus) that somehow Putin was hedging or evasive this would be sufficient to assume guilt on what? – a totally contrived media and face-saving facade by the Democrats agreeable to the Republicans because for once they could unite and attack alleged and delusional Russian interference in the 2016 election. Kelly has gone from being a clown in the Russia-gate circus to doing a high-wire act at 26 feet. She might as well be at 26,000 ft. craving oxygen to give life to a non-existent story in rare air. This may well account for her suffering the Third Man syndrome –
    read more ... Log in to leave a comment

    • US-First March 11, 2018 at 12:09 pm Part 2
      Kelly did manage to evoke one comment that now has the Jewish-run media tripping over themselves that Putin is an anti-Semite. He stated during the interview on alleged Russian interference:

      "Maybe they are not even Russians but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked; maybe they have dual citizenship of a green card; maybe the U.S. paid them for this " he said.

      The Tatar – Khazar connection is a double whammy by those espousing the view that Khazars formed the foundational core of modern Ashkenazim – (Koestler 1976 pp. 134-150). It is quite astounding the number of these same modern-day Ashkenazis are close acquaintances of one Donald Trump and were crucial in getting him
      read more ...

  5. Log in to leave a comment
  6. Khalid Talaat March 11, 2018 at 10:25 am The one thing you must admire about Putin is his laser like focus on his goal. He is a master of himself. They try to provoke him by shooting down aircraft, demonizing, sanctions and all forms of schoolboy antics. Regardless, he remains on course, an outstanding strategist. I don"t think he felt provoked in the interview, rather he just had difficulty suffering such a hollow woman. Log in to leave a comment
  7. Andrew_Bukanov(Russia) March 11, 2018 at 5:00 am I have watched the interview yesterday. I don't know is she stupid or no, but she had the task – to provoke my President. This is why she acted like a questioning robot. Ignored the answers and simple logic, she wanted him to make a mistake and express what they wanted from him on emotions. Several times he was really angry about her persistent curiosity about Russian hand in US elections. She took the role of prosecutor. But this interview plan was transparent for Putin. Log in to leave a comment

[Mar 12, 2018] Can't stand Megyn Kelly anymore: she has access to a world leader and spend most of her time trying to prove that Russians posting to Facebook is the single most important event in the world today

Notable quotes:
"... She has access to a world leader and acts as if Russians posting to Facebook is the single most important event in the world today; narcissism. Speaking of narcissism, did Kelly flick her hair or strut because she knows that she is undoubtedly the most beautiful woman to have ever lived? ..."
"... I hope, 20yrs from now, that Oliver Stone's interview will be remembered. It's possible to to learn about someone by actually listening to them rather than shutting them down. Scientists are still studying this phenomenon. ..."
"... Formerly T-Bear , Mar 12, 2018 12:57:09 PM | 28 ..."
"... @ 13 V. Arnold | Mar 12, 2018 2:35:25 AM @ 25 Jackrabbit | Mar 12, 2018 11:46:08 AM ..."
"... Reading Gilbert Doctorow's book Does the United States Have A Future? Collected (Nonconformist Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2015-17) , ISBN 13: 9781976038371 He mentions another interview V. Putin had with Meagan Kelly in his essay dated 8 June 2017. The essay states RT ran a full, unedited version that is compared to a youtube reference: ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxqGoXNI_gw ..."
"... put on air for American audiences (4 minutes into program).[sorry, transcribing by hand, trusting sufficient information for others to followup]. Apparently the interview was held on sidelines of the St. Petersburg 'International Economic Forum' of 2017. Note was made by Doctorow of the shambles presented to the American viewers. ..."
Mar 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian Chuba | Mar 12, 2018 11:33:13 AM | 22

"the full interview with putin and megan kelly.. emptywheel has also written a piece on it going over the minutiae.. i swear these folks can't see the forest for the trees.." - James

Can't stand Megyn Kelly anymore.

She has access to a world leader and acts as if Russians posting to Facebook is the single most important event in the world today; narcissism. Speaking of narcissism, did Kelly flick her hair or strut because she knows that she is undoubtedly the most beautiful woman to have ever lived?

I hope, 20yrs from now, that Oliver Stone's interview will be remembered. It's possible to to learn about someone by actually listening to them rather than shutting them down. Scientists are still studying this phenomenon.

Formerly T-Bear , Mar 12, 2018 12:57:09 PM | 28
@ 13 V. Arnold | Mar 12, 2018 2:35:25 AM
@ 25 Jackrabbit | Mar 12, 2018 11:46:08 AM

Reading Gilbert Doctorow's book Does the United States Have A Future? Collected (Nonconformist Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2015-17) , ISBN 13: 9781976038371 He mentions another interview V. Putin had with Meagan Kelly in his essay dated 8 June 2017. The essay states RT ran a full, unedited version that is compared to a youtube reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxqGoXNI_gw

put on air for American audiences (4 minutes into program).[sorry, transcribing by hand, trusting sufficient information for others to followup]. Apparently the interview was held on sidelines of the St. Petersburg 'International Economic Forum' of 2017. Note was made by Doctorow of the shambles presented to the American viewers.

... ... ...

[Mar 11, 2018] Is Trump the New Clinton by Musa al-Gharbi

Notable quotes:
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
Mar 11, 2018 | thebaffler.com

A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.

If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else .

In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without breaking his hold on power.

Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S. presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.

In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton.

This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).

It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of collusion.

Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance violations.

Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in his administration forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S. manufacturing workers.

Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.

For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been " bought ."

Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton could not get rid of, having just fired his predecessor ) publically called for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno -- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's apparent obstruction.

The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.

This was Bill Clinton's second known extra-marital affair with a subordinate : in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers -- an employee of the State of Arkansas during Bill's governorship there, appointed as a result of Clinton's intercession on her behalf.

The drama of the inquiry into Bill Clinton's myriad alleged sexual improprieties, the President's invocation of executive privilege to prevent his aides from having to testify against him, Clinton's perjury , subsequent impeachment by the House, acquittal in the Senate, and eventual plea-bargain deal -- these sucked the oxygen away from virtually all other stories related to the president.

Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle, Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of the last.

And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones both posed for Penthouse after their involvement with Clinton surfaced. Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are well-established in the industry.)

Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore, although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such theater is likely being overestimated as well.

The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time, they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.

Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority " thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?" What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.

Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:

The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed policy proposals, and little else.

Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.

Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to bring Trump down.

Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a "lesser of two evils" the public tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.

A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it looks like the president will even have an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.

Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just alienate the Democratic base.

The party's best bet is to instead focus on mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump with a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama districts that Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.

If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating "black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.

But, you say, isn't Trump the least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one (un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50 percent after his first year.

You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first year in office? The Democratic Party.

Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .

[Mar 11, 2018] We've attempted to screw him and his country with such malice and intensity that he must see us as existential threat.

Mar 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bill Herschel 10 March 2018 at 04:13 PM

Slightly off topic...

I would be really interested in SST conducting a gedanken experiment with its correspondents that would choose/ create answers to a variant of the Evangelical question, "WWJD?", namely What Would Putin Do?

I'm interested in this, because I think the entire question, "Did Russia influence the Presidential election?" completely misses the point and ultimately is irrelevant in itself. The relevant question is "Why would Russia influence the election?"

Certainly, without the slightest question, Russia would have a motive to influence the election if it owned Donald Trump. But it's pointless to engage in a round robin about whether or not that is true. On the other hand, if Russia/Putin *did* own Donald Trump, what would Donald Trump do? What would Putin have him do? Obviously, you have to make some assumptions about what Putin wants for the U.S., but the recent historical record indicates to me that what Putin wants for the U.S. is for it to degenerate into anarchy and obscurity. We've attempted to screw him and his country with such malice and intensity that he must see us as existential threat.

Now, to be of any use, there should be an entire list of Trump's actions... 20, 30... with the question, "Is this what Putin would have ordered him to do and why?"

Personally, I have trouble finding a single thing Trump has done that could not have been ordered from Moscow. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, meeting Kim, erecting tariffs, etc. All exactly what Putin/Russia would want him to do. Domestically, supporting the most divisive candidates he can find (Alabama, Arizona...) etc. What is interesting is that if Putin does *not* own him, if Trump spent his time in Moscow reading the great books, it is amazing that he could be acting in a way that fully supports Putin.

So there can be no confusion, I am a Russophile. An excellent case can be made that Russia won WWII. That by itself is enough to support the country. But it goes on and on. Up to and including Russia's support for Syrian sovereignty against Saudi terrorists.

[Mar 11, 2018] I have the audacity to hope that the dismantling of the American Empire will proceed as copacetically as the dismantling of the Soviet Empire did

Mar 11, 2018 | cluborlov.blogspot.ch

I have the audacity to hope that the dismantling of the American Empire will proceed as copacetically as the dismantling of the Soviet Empire did. (This is not to say that it won't be humiliating or impoverishing, or that it won't be accompanied by a huge increase in morbidity and mortality.)

One of my greatest fears over the past decade was that Russia wouldn't take the US and NATO seriously enough and just try to wait them out. After all, what is there to really to fear from a nation that has over a 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements, that's full of opioid addicts, with 100 million working-age people permanently out of work, with decrepit infrastructure and poisoned national politics?

And as far as NATO, there is, of course, Germany, which is busy rewriting "Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles" to be gender-neutral. What are they supposed to do next? March on Moscow under a rainbow banner and hope that the Russians die laughing? Oh, and there's also NATO's largest Eurasian asset, Turkey, which is currently busy slaughtering America's Kurdish assets in Northern Syria.

But simply waiting them out would have been a gamble, because in its death throes the American Empire could have lashed out in unpredictable ways.

I am glad that Russia chose not to gamble with its national security. Now that the US has been safely checkmated using the new Russian weapons systems, I feel that the world is in a much better place. If you like peace, then it seems like your best option is to also like nukes -- the best ones possible, ones against which no deterrent exists, and wielded by peaceful, law-abiding nations that have no evil designs on the rest of the planet.

[Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

Highly recommended!
The crisis of neoliberalism is at the core of current anti-Russian campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." ..."
"... As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources . ..."
"... The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers. ..."
"... Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on. ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com

The United States has launched a three-pronged offensive on Russia. First, it's attacking Russia's economy via sanctions and oil-price manipulation. Second, it's increasing the threats to Russia's national security by arming and training militant proxies in Syria and Ukraine, and by encircling Russia with NATO forces and missile systems. And, third, it's conducting a massive disinformation campaign aimed at convincing the public that Russia is a 'meddling aggressor' that wants to destroy the foundation of American democracy. (Elections)

In response to Washington's hostility, Moscow has made every effort to extend the olive branch. Russia does not want to fight the world's biggest superpower any more than it wants to get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict in Syria. What Russia wants is normal, peaceful relations based on respect for each others interests and for international law. What Russia will not tolerate, however, is another Iraq-type scenario where the sovereign rights of a strategically-located state are shunted off so the US can arbitrarily topple the government, decimate the society and plunge the region deeper into chaos. Russia won't allow that, which is why it has put its Airforce at risk in Syria, to defend the foundational principle of state sovereignty upon which the entire edifice of global security rests.

The majority of Americans believe that Russia is the perpetrator of hostilities against the United States, mainly because the media and the political class have faithfully disseminated the spurious claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But the allegations are ridiculous and without merit. Russia-gate is merely the propaganda component of Washington's Full Spectrum Dominance theory, that is, disinformation is being used to make it appear as though the US is the victim when, in fact, it is the perpetrator of hostilities against Russia. Simply put, the media has turned reality on its head. Washington wants to inflict as much pain as possible on Russia because Russia has frustrated its plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors in Central Asia and the Middle East. The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is quite clear on this point. Russia's opposition to Washington's destabilizing interventions has earned it the top spot on the Pentagon's "emerging rivals" list. Moscow is now Public Enemy#1.

Washington's war on Russia has a long history dating back at least 100 years to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Despite the fact that the US was engaged in a war with Germany at the time (WW1), Washington and its allies sent 150,000 men from 15 nations to intervene on behalf of the "Whites" hoping to staunch the spread of communism into Europe. In the words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the goal was "to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib."

According to Vasilis Vourkoutiotis from the University of Ottawa:

" the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.. was a failed attempt to eradicate Bolshevism while it was still weak .As early as February 1918 Britain supported intervention in the civil war on behalf of the Whites, and in March it landed troops in Murmansk. They were soon joined by forces from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, and ten other nations. Eventually, more than 150,000 Allied soldiers served in Russia

The scale of the war between the Russian Reds and Whites, however, was such that the Allies soon realized they would have little, if any, direct impact on the course of the Civil War unless they were prepared to intervene on a far grander scale. By the end of April 1919 the French had withdrawn their soldiers .British and American troops saw some action in November 1918 on the Northern Front but this campaign was of limited significance in the outcome of the Civil War. The last British and American soldiers were withdrawn in 1920. The main Allied contributions to the White cause thereafter were supplies and money, mostly from Britain .

The chief purpose of Allied intervention in Soviet Russia was to help the Whites defeat the Reds and destroy Bolshevism." (Allied Intervention in the Russian Revolution", portalus.ru)

The reason we bring up this relatively unknown bit of history is because it helps to put current events into perspective. First, it helps readers to see that Washington has been sticking its nose in Russia's business more than a century. Second, it shows that– while Washington's war on Russia has ebbed and flowed depending on the political situation in Moscow– it has never completely ended. The US has always treated Russia with suspicion, contempt and brutality. During the Cold War, when Russia's global activities put a damper on Washington's depredations around the world, relations remained stretched to the breaking point. But after the Soviet Union collapsed in December, 1991, relations gradually thawed, mainly because the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin opened the country up to a democratization program that allowed the state's most valuable strategic assets to be transferred to voracious oligarchs for pennies on the dollar. The plundering of Russia pleased Washington which is why it sent a number of prominent US economists to Moscow to assist in the transition from communism to a free-market system. These neoliberal miscreants subjected the Russian economy to "shock therapy" which required the auctioning off of state-owned resources and industries even while hyperinflation continued to rage and the minuscule life savings of ordinary working people were wiped out almost over night. The upshot of this Washington-approved looting-spree was a dramatic uptick in extreme poverty which intensified the immiseration of tens of millions of people. Economist Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:

"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..

(Due to) the tight monetary policies that were pursued firms didn't have the money to even pay their employees . they didn't have enough money to pay their pensioners, to pay their workers .Then, with the government not having enough revenue, other aspects of life started to deteriorate. They didn't have enough money for hospitals, schools. Russia used to have one of the good school systems in the world; the technical level of education was very high. (But they no longer had) enough money for that. So it just began to affect people in every dimension of their lives .

The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people than the Communists had said it would be. It brought Gucci bags, Mercedes, the fruits of capitalism to a few .But you had a shrinking (economy). The GDP in Russia fell by 40 percent. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices, and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)

So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." At the same time, Washington continued its maniacal push eastward using its military catspaw, NATO, to achieve its geopolitical ambitions to control vital resources and industries in the most populous and prosperous region of the coming century, Eurasia. After promising Russian President Gorbachev that NATO would never "expand one inch to the east", the US-led military alliance added 13 new countries to its membership, all of them straddling Russia's western flank, all of them located, like Hitler, on Russia's doorstep, all of them posing an existential threat to Russia's survival. NATO forces now routinely conduct provocative military drills just miles from the Russian border while state-of-the-art missile systems surround Russia on all sides. (Imagine Russia conducting similar drills in the Gulf of Mexico or on the Canadian border. How would Washington respond?)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an excellent summary of post Cold War history at a gathering of the Korber Foundation in Berlin in 2017. Brainwashed Americans who foolishly blame Russia for meddling in the 2016 elections, should pay attention to what he said.

LAVROV– "Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have shown our cards, trying to do our best to assert the values of equal partnership in international affairs .Back in the early 1990s, we withdrew our troops from Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltic states and dramatically downsized our military capacity near our western borders

When the cold war era came to an end, Russia was hoping that this would become our common victory – the victory of both the former Communist bloc countries and the West. The dreams of ushering in shared peace and cooperation seemed near to fruition. However, the United States and its allies decided to declare themselves the sole winners, refusing to work together to create the architecture of equal and indivisible security. They made their choice in favor of shifting the dividing lines to our borders – through expanding NATO and then through the implementation of the EU's Eastern Partnership program

As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources .

The latest events are clear evidence that the persistent attempts to form a unipolar world order have failed .The new centers of economic growth and concomitant political influence are assuming responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions. Let me reiterate that the emergence of multipolar world order is a fact and a reality. Seeking to hold back this process and keep the unfairly gained privileged positions is going to lead nowhere. We see increasing examples of nations raising their voice in defense of their right to decide their own destiny ." (Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister)

The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers.

Who doesn't want this? Who doesn't want to see an end of the bloody US-led invasions, the countless drone assassinations, the vast destruction of ancient civilizations, and the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Who doesn't want to see Washington's wings clipped so the bloodletting stops and the millions of refugees and internally displaced can return to their homes?

Lavrov offers a vision of the future that all peace-loving people should welcome with open arms.

Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on.

[Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mar 11, 2018 | off-guardian.org

Mark Rice-Oxley, Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.

The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.

For example, Mark Rice-Oxley's column in today's Guardian:

Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury, one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war.

Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet, and has no place in our media.

If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.

To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.

Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.

Its agents pop over for murder and shopping

FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The "public inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which contravene British law regarding a fair trial.

even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.

TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to his "last 270 million" .

When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe literally billions in tax , and our government lets them get away with it.

Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous adversaries that it secretly envies.

FALSE: Russiagate is a farce, anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen, Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a nd allegedly campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.

It bought a World Cup,

FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?

invaded two neighbours

False: A European Union investigation found that Georgia was to blame for the start of the (very brief, very humiliating) Russo-Georgian war . It lasted a week. That a week-long conflict started by the other side is evidence of "global threat" in a world where Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have happened is beyond hypocritical it is delusional.

Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The "anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died. The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom espouse outright fascism .

bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.

MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory, al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether or not he thinks this is a good thing.

Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists and US-backed mercenaries.

And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.

FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their AEGIS "defense shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position for any country. Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush and Cheney if he has a problem with it.

And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.

MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure and count.

We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps . Would we ever hear the end of it?

Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.

Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.

The double-think employed here is literally insane.

Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double standards.

As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself. Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!

FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for years.

Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.

TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia so that people will support US-UK warmongering.

Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state

FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.

Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?

MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .

I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic, social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.

MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.

At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.

TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?

The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.

PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been down, for decades. Poverty is increasing all the time , food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people, now live in poverty .

In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.

What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.

Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can pitch us a "solution".

There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."

FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.

What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.

He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here

The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.

Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.

Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.

The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context and some well placed memes.

Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ – their existence was reported in the Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight face.

Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine their elections and remove their popular head of state.

Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.

It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.

vexarb says March 11, 2018

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.

The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:

https://thesaker.is/the-most-important-part-of-putins-march-1st-speech/

And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."

Jay Q says March 10, 2018
Take a look at this wretched piece in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/10/sergei-skripal-case-proved-charge-putin-attempted-murder

I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.

M. says March 10, 2018
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem to be ok with it.

Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.

Greg Bacon says March 10, 2018
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."

All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.

stevehayes13 says March 10, 2018
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Sheila Coombes says March 10, 2018
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine.

I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian', or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the US.

Big B says March 10, 2018
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless, we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be

11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died? Funny that?

When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter, stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/09/russian-spy-may-have-poisoned-home-police-believe/

DomesticExtremist says March 10, 2018
Theatre indeed.

Check out the report from C4News (mute the sound).

Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.

Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.

BigB says March 10, 2018
Another day, another story: now the BBC, Torygraph (contradicting its own article above), Wiltshire Police, and Nick Bailey himself all confirmed that he became ill after attending the Skripals. So now we know they are lying: the house story concocted by Blair was a complete fabrication. The "nerve agent" appears to be only selectively toxic!
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/journalnewsindex/16078868.Police_officer_in_hospital_over_nerve_agent_attack_releases_first_statement/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/08/russian-spy-poisoning-police-officer-struck-rare-nerve-agent/
flaxgirl says March 10, 2018
It just seems like the so very patronizing nonsense you'd see in a right-wing publication.
Edwige says March 10, 2018
Or the tune you'd hear played on the "mighty wurlitzer".
BigB says March 10, 2018
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast. I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate question after the events in Salisbury?

https://www.securityandpolicing.co.uk/security-policing-live/demo/

As featured on UK Column News (from 22:52.)
https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-6th-march-2018

Francis Lee says March 10, 2018
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement, marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America – and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.

But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000 Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history, it is the wrong side of history.

The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.

Jen says March 10, 2018
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain as a tax haven.

I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in, wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest in.

Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!

Jen says March 11, 2018
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows.

Who's really "dodgy", Mr Rice-Oxley?

David C. Lee (@worldblee) says March 10, 2018
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
Emily Durron says March 9, 2018
The Guardian are scum. Lying, deceiving, warmongering, hating scum. I would love to parachute them all into East Ghouta.
Fair dinkum says March 9, 2018
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
bevin says March 9, 2018
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south, are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.

In The Guardian newsroom the water is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black. There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.

There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.

The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate those not worth frightening.

There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet up.

Thomas Peterson says March 9, 2018
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises.
Thomas Prentice says March 9, 2018
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.

The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.

Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional US Empire.

One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."

I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.

The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing -- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.

But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary /congressional industyrial complex.

None of this suggests tht it will end pretty.

vierotchka says March 9, 2018

Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.

He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!

vierotchka says March 9, 2018
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time.
MichaelK says March 9, 2018
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!

It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.

[Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian

Highly recommended!
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
Mar 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg -> Harry... 10 March 2018 at 06:25 PM

You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.

The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy

JTMcPhee -> to steve... 11 March 2018 at 12:56 PM
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them.

Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and going at it 24/7?

The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...

Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play...

[Mar 11, 2018] It looks like the USA descending into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental exploitation

Loss of legitimacy of neoliberal elite reminds loss of legitimacy of Nomenklatura in the USSR.
This descent "into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental exploitation " also reminds epidemic of alcoholism due to lack of persepdtives both in job environment and housing crisis, where young families did not have a space to live in the USSR.
The logical end on the US empire might well be the USSR style crisis. which might eventually lead to the disintegration of the country.
Notable quotes:
"... NBC News daily has Kumbaya propaganda to facilitate importing of cheap labor and goods. But, what good is a service economy if there is no service? Just like Soviet propaganda, corporate media today is in service of the oligarch owners and sold out party elite. It tries to avoid the truth. Although, NBC did report on the astronomical rise in cost of ambulance service. A couple thousand dollars for mile and half trip to the hospital. They said it was due to the 2008 recession and the cutting of local volunteer emergency services to save tax money. ..."
"... I agree the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because they are unconcerned for the bottom 80% except for their identity issues. They serve their paymasters. ..."
"... The recent Italian election documents the complete collapse of left leaning parties that ignored the plight of the workers in the West. To me, to win, the left in America must write off student debt, implement Medicare for All, end the forever wars and tax George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Pierre Omidyar, the Koch Brothers and the Walton Family to pay for it. To work, criminal bankers need to be jailed and corporate boards required to manage for long term profits that benefit society not just quarterly and themselves only. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VietnamVet 10 March 2018 at 05:27 PM

Colonel,

Have you seen the movie "Wind River" yet? It is the best depiction I've seen of the USA descending into tribalism due to the loss of jobs, the drug epidemic and environmental exploitation.

NBC News daily has Kumbaya propaganda to facilitate importing of cheap labor and goods. But, what good is a service economy if there is no service? Just like Soviet propaganda, corporate media today is in service of the oligarch owners and sold out party elite. It tries to avoid the truth. Although, NBC did report on the astronomical rise in cost of ambulance service. A couple thousand dollars for mile and half trip to the hospital. They said it was due to the 2008 recession and the cutting of local volunteer emergency services to save tax money.

Rather than tax the wealthy and corporations, the middle class is going into debt to pay for education, medical bills, and $40 Northern Virginia one-way tolls. Federal taxes on the middle class support the endless wars.

I agree the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because they are unconcerned for the bottom 80% except for their identity issues. They serve their paymasters.

The recent Italian election documents the complete collapse of left leaning parties that ignored the plight of the workers in the West. To me, to win, the left in America must write off student debt, implement Medicare for All, end the forever wars and tax George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Pierre Omidyar, the Koch Brothers and the Walton Family to pay for it. To work, criminal bankers need to be jailed and corporate boards required to manage for long term profits that benefit society not just quarterly and themselves only.

[Mar 11, 2018] Is Trump the New Clinton by Musa al-Gharbi

Notable quotes:
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
Mar 11, 2018 | thebaffler.com

A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.

If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else .

In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without breaking his hold on power.

Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S. presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.

In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton.

This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).

It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of collusion.

Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance violations.

Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in his administration forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S. manufacturing workers.

Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.

For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been " bought ."

Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton could not get rid of, having just fired his predecessor ) publically called for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno -- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's apparent obstruction.

The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.

This was Bill Clinton's second known extra-marital affair with a subordinate : in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers -- an employee of the State of Arkansas during Bill's governorship there, appointed as a result of Clinton's intercession on her behalf.

The drama of the inquiry into Bill Clinton's myriad alleged sexual improprieties, the President's invocation of executive privilege to prevent his aides from having to testify against him, Clinton's perjury , subsequent impeachment by the House, acquittal in the Senate, and eventual plea-bargain deal -- these sucked the oxygen away from virtually all other stories related to the president.

Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle, Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of the last.

And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones both posed for Penthouse after their involvement with Clinton surfaced. Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are well-established in the industry.)

Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore, although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such theater is likely being overestimated as well.

The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time, they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.

Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority " thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?" What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.

Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:

The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed policy proposals, and little else.

Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.

Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to bring Trump down.

Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a "lesser of two evils" the public tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.

A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it looks like the president will even have an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.

Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just alienate the Democratic base.

The party's best bet is to instead focus on mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump with a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama districts that Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.

If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating "black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.

But, you say, isn't Trump the least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one (un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50 percent after his first year.

You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first year in office? The Democratic Party.

Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .

[Mar 11, 2018] Bringing a sense of reality to a deeply delusional Empire by The Saker

Looks like neocons represent a trap in which the US society got and out of which there is not easy end. That trap which can be fatal.
Notable quotes:
"... American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force. They simply have no reference points ..."
"... In the " Empire of Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. ..."
"... The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have way too much at stake to throw in the towel ..."
"... In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down. So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we stand! Etc. etc. etc. ..."
Mar 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Bringing a sense of reality to a deeply delusional Empire

The leaders of the Empire, along with their brainwashed ideological drones , live in a world completely detached from reality. This is why Martyanov writes that the US " still continues to reside in her bubble which insulates her from any outside voices of reason and peace " and that Putin's speech aimed at " coercing America's elites into, if not peace, at least into some form of sanity, given that they are currently completely detached from the geopolitical, military and economic realities of a newly emerging world ". Martyanov explains that:

American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force. They simply have no reference points. Yet, being a product of the American pop-military culture, also known as military porn and propaganda, these people -- this collection of lawyers, political "scientists", sociologists and journalists who dominate the American strategic kitchen which cooks non-stop delusional geopolitical and military doctrines, can understand one thing for sure, and that is when their poor dears get a bulls-eye on their backs or foreheads.

The fact that in the real world these elites have had a bulls-eye on their backs for decades doesn't change the fact that they also managed to convince themselves that they could remove that bulls-eye by means of withdrawing from the ABM treaty and by surrounding Russia with anti-missile launchers. The fact that some (many? most?) US politicians realized, at least in the back of their minds, that their ABM systems would never truly protect the US from a Russian counter-strike did not really matter because there were some uniquely American psychological factors which made the notion of an ABM system irresistibly attractive:

1) An ABM system promised the US impunity : impunity is, along with military superiority, one of the great American myths (as discussed here ). From Reagan with this "weapons which kill weapons" to the current crisis in Korea, Americans have always strived for impunity for their actions abroad: let all countries drown in an ocean of fire, murder and mayhem as long as our "homeland" remains the untouchable sacrosanct citadel. Since WWII Americans have killed many millions of people abroad, but when 9/11 came (nevermind that it was obviously a false flag) the country went into something like clinical shock from the loss of about 3'000 innocent civilians. Soviet, and then later, Russian nuclear weapons promised to deliver many tens of millions of deaths if the USSR/Russia was attacked and that is why spinning the fairy tale about an ABM "shield" was so appealing even if it was technologically speaking either a pipe-dream (Reagan's "Star Wars") or an extremely limited system capable of stopping maybe a few missiles at most (the current ABM system in Europe). Again, facts don't matter at all, at least not in American politics or in the US collective psyche.

2) An ABM system promised a huge financial bonanza for the fantastically corrupt US Military-Industrial Complex for which millions of Americans work and which made many of them fantastically rich. Frankly, I suspect that many (most?) folks involved in the ABM programs fully realized that this was a waste of time, but as long as they were getting their bank accounts filled with money, they simply did not care: hey, they pay me – I will take it!

3) The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or self-sacrifice (for obvious reasons). The various variations of the ABM fairy tale make it possible for Americans to believe that the next war would be mostly fought by pressing buttons and relying on computers. And if real bombs start falling, let them fall somewhere else, preferably on some remote brown people who, well, ain't quite as precious to God and humanity as us, the White "indispensable nation".

Add to this a quasi-religious belief (a dogma, really) in the myth of American technological superiority and you understand that the Russian leaders began to realize that their US counterparts were gradually forgetting that they did have a bulls-eye painted on their backs. So what Putin did is simply paint a few more, different ones, just to make sure that US leaders come back to reality.

The goal of Putin's speech was also to prove both Obama ("the Russian economy is in tatters") and McCain ("Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country") wrong. The Russian message to the US ruling elites was simple: no, not only are we not lagging behind you technologically, in many ways we are decades ahead of you, in spite of sanctions, your attempts to isolate us, the dramatic drop in energy prices or your attempts at limiting our access to world markets (the successful development of this new generation of weapons systems is a clear indicator of the real state of fundamental research in Russia in such spheres are advanced alloys, nanotechnology, super-computing, etc.).

To the warmongers at the Pentagon, the message was equally clear and tough: we spend less than 10% of what you can spend on global aggression; we will match your quantitative advantage with our qualitative superiority. Simply put, you fight with dollars, we will fight with brains. US propagandists, who love to speak about how Russia always uses huge numbers of unskilled soldiers and dumb but brutal weapons now have to deal with a paradigm which they are completely unfamiliar with: a Russian soldier is much better trained, much better equipped, much better commanded and their morale and willpower is almost infinitely higher than one of the typical US serviceman. For a military culture used to mantrically repeat that everything about it is "the best in the world" or even "the best in history" this kind of new reality will come as a very painful shock and most will respond to it by going into deep denial. To those who believed in the (historically completely false) narrative about the US and Reagan bankrupting the USSR by means of a successful arms race, it must feel very strange to have sort of "traded places" with the bad old USSR and being in the situation of having to face military-spending induced bankruptcy.

Nothing will change in the Empire of Illusions (at least for the foreseeable future)

Speaking of bankruptcy. The recent revelations have confirmed what the Russians have been warning about for years: all the immense sums of money spent by the US in ABM defenses have been completely wasted. Russia did find and deploy an asymmetrical response which makes the entire US ABM program completely useless and obsolete. Furthermore, as Martyanov also points out, the current force structure of the US surface fleet has also been made basically obsolete and useless, at least against Russia (but you can be sure that China is following close behind). Potentially, this state of affairs should have immense, tectonic repercussions: immense amounts US taxpayer money has been completely wasted, the US nuclear and naval strategies have been completely misguided, intelligence has failed (either on the acquisition or the analytical level), US politicians have made disastrous decisions and this is all a total "cluster-bleep" which should trigger God knows how many investigations, resignations, and numerous sanctions, administrative or even criminal ones. But, of course, absolutely nothing of this, nothing at all, will happen. Not a single head will roll

In the " Empire of Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. And, in a way, that is true.

The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have way too much at stake to throw in the towel.

In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down. So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we stand! Etc. etc. etc.

[Mar 11, 2018] RI has published to complete transcript of the Putin interviews by Megyn Kelly

Mar 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere 10 March 2018 at 03:49 PM

Off topic, but perhaps well worth it
RI has published to complete transcript of the Putin interviews by Megyn Kelly. Worthy full read. Putin covers so much ground, far more than you ever saw/heard from NBC which drastically edited the interviews for USA consumption. Kelly repeatedly interrupts and attempts "gotcha", and reveals herself as arrogant stupid american.
here's a taste - but you really have to read it all for yourself
re USA ditching the ABM treaty, Kelly says the reason was 911
quote
> Megyn Kelly: Again, it was in the wake of 9/11, just to make it clear. 9/11 happened on September 11, 2001, and the United States was reassessing its security posture in the world for good reason, wouldn't you admit?
>
> Vladimir Putin: No, not for good reason.This is complete nonsense. Because the missile defence system protects from the kind of ballistic missiles that no terrorists have in their arsenal. This is an explanation for the housewives watching your programme. But if these housewives can hear what I am saying, if you show it to them and they hear me, they will understand that 9/11 and the missile defence system are completely unrelated. To defend themselves from terrorist attacks, the major powers must join their efforts against the terrorists rather than create threats for each other.

re: interference in USA elections by Yevgeny Prigozhin
quote
> To claim otherwise makes no sense. Will anyone believe that Russia, a country located thousands of kilometres away, could use two or three Russians, as you have said, and whom I do not know, to meddle in the elections and influence their outcome? Don't you think that it sounds ridiculous?
>
> Megyn Kelly: Now you are talking about causation. But I am still on whether you did it. And it is not true that you do not know the individuals who were accused of conducting this. One of your good friends is actually accused of helping conduct this. His name is Yevgeny Prigozhin. Do you know him?
>
> Vladimir Putin: I know this man, but he is not a friend of mine. This is just twisting the facts. There is such a businessman; he works in the restaurant business or something. But he is not a state official; we have nothing to do with him.
>
> Megyn Kelly: After you heard about him being indicted, did you pick up the phone and call him?
>
> Vladimir Putin: Certainly not.I have plenty of other things to worry about.
>
> Megyn Kelly: He is your friend. He has been indicted.
>
> Vladimir Putin: Did you hear what I just said? He is not my friend. I know him, but he is not a friend of mine. Was I not clear? There are many people like that. There are 146 million people in Russia. That is less than in the US, but it is still a lot.
>
> Megyn Kelly: He is a prominent businessman.
>
> Vladimir Putin: A prominent businessman? So what? There are many prominent people in Russia. He is not a state official, he does not work for the government; he is an individual, a businessman.
>
> Megyn Kelly: Some people say his real job is to do your dirty work.
>
> Vladimir Putin: Who are those people? And what dirty work? I do not do any dirty work. Everything I do is in plain view. This is your prerogative; some people in your country enjoy doing dirty work. You think we do the same. That is not true.
>
> Megyn Kelly: It is a) the fact that you know him, you admit that. He is a prominent Russian businessman. And he is specifically accused of running this operation; b) this is the same man who has been accused of sending Russian mercenaries into Syria and they attacked a compound held by American back militia. This guy gets around.
>
> Vladimir Putin: You know, this man could have a wide range of interests, including, for example, an interest in the Syrian fuel and energy complex. But we do not support him in any way. We do not get in his way but we do not support him either. It is his own personal initiative.
>
> Megyn Kelly: That is my question to you. That is my question to you. Why, why would you interfere in our election time and time again? And why would not you, for that matter? Let me put it to you that way. You have spent a day, every time I have seen you, in St Petersburg, in Moscow and now here in Kaliningrad, telling me that America has interfered in Russia's electoral process and that Russia has a robust cyber warfare arsenal. And yet you want us to believe that you did not deploy it. Do you understand how implausible that seems, sir?
>
> Vladimir Putin: That does not seem implausible to me at all, because we do not have such a goal, to interfere. We do not see what we have to gain by interfering. There is no such goal. Let us suppose this was our goal. Why, just for the sake of it? What is the goal?
>
> Megyn Kelly: Creating chaos. That is the goal.
>
> Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Not long ago President Trump said something absolutely correct. He said that if Russia's goal was to sow chaos, it has succeeded. But it is not the result of Russian interference, but your political system, the internal struggle, the disorder and division. Russia has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Get your own affairs in order first. And the way the question is framed, as I mentioned – that you can interfere anywhere because you bring democracy, but we cannot – is what causes conflicts. You have to show your partners respect, and they will respect you.

re usa sanctions
quote
>
>
> Megyn Kelly: One of the questions that our audiences have is how do we walk this back? How do we get to the place where these two great nations are less adversaries and something closer to allies, which we clearly are not right now. Do you agree we are not?
>
> Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, we are not. But we were not the ones who made the US our adversary. It was the US, the US Congress, who called Russia its adversary. Why did you do that? Did Russia impose sanctions on the United States? No, it was the US that imposed sanctions on us.
>
> Megyn Kelly: You know why.
>
> Vladimir Putin: No, I do not. Can I ask you a different question? Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine? Why did you do that? The US directly acknowledged spending billions of dollars to this end. This was openly acknowledged by US officials. Why do they support government coups and armed fighting in other countries? Why has the US deployed missile systems along our borders?
>
> Listen, Russia and the US should sit down and talk it over in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is prevented from doing it by some forces. But we are ready to discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace or counterterrorism efforts. We are ready to do it any moment. But the US should also be ready. The time will come when the political elite in the US will be pushed by public opinion to move in this direction. We will be ready the instant our partners are ready.

much more here, including chemical attacks in syria:
https://russia-insider.com/en/kremlin-publishes-full-megan-kelly-putin-interview-nbc-cut-best-parts-video-transcript/ri22747

[Mar 11, 2018] The Rise or Decline of US Global Power A Critical Look at Alfred McCoy's New Book by Mike Byrne

Notable quotes:
"... In many ways, Barack Obama's presidency was a blessing to US Empire, and this begins to make sense when you examine his presidency using McCoy's theoretical framework. McCoy says of Empires "When their revenue shrink, empires become brittle. Consider the collapse of the Soviet sphere after its command economy imploded. ..."
"... Zbignew Brzezinski was almost callous when it came to the blowback of "Operation Cyclone", and despite the US coming out of the Cold War as the world's sole superpower, has been unable to use that Super power to defeat the Frankenstein they cooked up in the laboratories of Langley. With Barack Obama, the Trans Pacific Partnership faced bipartisan backlash from a country whose economy was already wrecked by previous trade policies. Presidential candidates (including Hillary Clinton, who originally spearheaded the pivot to Asia initiative) came out against the trade pact and it eventually died when Trump came into office and ended trade talks. The lesson that McCoy is trying to get across here is perhaps unintended, but still important. The will of the people can trump (no pun intended) the power of Empire. ..."
"... That last point is important in terms of illustrating the importance of understanding the Empire we live in, especially those dedicated to resisting it. For me, the one criticism I have of this book is perhaps its greatest strength. The book itself is a tour de force of US imperialism, treating the world as if it were a game of Diplomacy, or a "Grand Chessboard". This sort of mindset fosters a callousness towards the people of this world, who are increasingly seen and used as pawns in a game being played only by wealthy and powerful people in suits isolated from the pain and suffering caused by their "ideas". ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | medium.com

American power. No two words seem to fit better in the modern political lexicon. America is associated with power like peanut butter and jelly, and there really are no deviations from this fundamental axiom in mainstream discourse. That said, American power is also taken for granted, mainly because Americans possess only a cursory level of knowledge when it comes to world history. Gore Vidal once referred to the this country as "The United States of Amnesia" , and while that certainly describes the short term memory of many Americans in regards to their history, America has sort of a collective amnesia that disconnects them from the rest of humanity. This amnesia makes Americans forget that when it comes to history, great powers rise and fall, so not even Empires are exempt from simple laws of gravity.

Alfred McCoy's new book 'In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power' does not take American power for granted. McCoy's book takes a critical look at American empire by fitting it within a theoretical framework that presents a model for the rise and collapse of Empire. What we will see from a critical examination of McCoy's framework and model, is that America is not exempt from these historical laws.

McCoy in many ways is equipped to write such a tour de force, being a historian that specializes in Southeast Asian studies. Once you consider that the genesis of America's overseas Empire began in the Asia-Pacific region with the "opening" (read invasion) of Japan, as well as the brutal occupation of the Philippines, it makes sense to begin in that region when talking about US global power. McCoy's research also took him all around the globe, particularly to Southeast Asia, and in the process came into the crosshairs of the clandestine drug trade that, thanks to the CIA , was permeating in the region, particularly Vietnam. McCoy is also a frequent contributor to Tom Dispatch, a subsidiary of The Nation Institute founded by journalist Tom Engelhardt, and you can read his many essays here .

When approaching the topic of Empire, McCoy lays the groundwork by delving into a subject that too few political analysts seem to understand, which is the study of Geopolitics. The term geopolitics itself was coined by a 19th century Swede named Kjellen defining it as "the theory of the state as a geographical organism or phenomenon in space". McCoy begins his analysis elsewhere, with the work of British imperialist and founder of modern Geopolitics Sir Halford Mackinder. Mackinder is known mostly for his work "The Geographical Pivot of History." laying out his theory of Geopolitics. Mackinder's theory is interesting considering that from the perspective of a British imperialist, his theory involves looking at Europe as the periphery and concentrating on the massive continent of Eurasia as the center of Geopolitical power.

McCoy writes of Mackinder's theory(quoted at length for importance):

Mackinder argued that the future of global power lay not, as most British then imagined, in controlling the global sea lanes, but in controlling a vast land mass he called "Euro-Asia." By turning the globe away from America to place central Asia at the planet's epicenter, and then tilting the Earth's axis northward just a bit beyond Mercator's equatorial projection, Mackinder redrew and thus reconceptualized the world map.
His new map showed Africa, Asia, and Europe not as three separate continents, but as a unitary land mass, a veritable "world island." Its broad, deep "heartland"  --  4,000 miles from the Persian Gulf to the Siberian Sea  --  was so enormous that it could only be controlled from its "rimlands" in Eastern Europe or what he called its maritime "marginal" in the surrounding seas.
Mackinder's map highlighting "Euro-Asia" as the "Pivot Area" or epicenter of global power

To illustrate how this geopolitical reality has played out, McCoy uses the historical example of the nineteenth century battle between the British Empire and Russia over what is referred to as the "Heartland" of the "world Island".

McCoy ties this into his Geopolitical framework noting:

From this geopolitical perspective, the nineteenth century was, at heart, a strategic rivalry, often called "the Great Game," between Russia "in command of nearly the whole of the Heartland knocking at the landward gates of the Indies," and Britain "advancing inland from the sea gates of India to meet the menace from the northwest." In other words, Mackinder concluded, "the final Geographical Realities" of the modern age were sea power versus land power or "the World-Island and the Heartland."

To see how this ties into American Empire, we have to circle yet again back to Mackinder, who noted that the future of the world would come down to a balancing of power between sea powers operating on what is called the "maritime marginal" and "expansive internal forces" within the Eurasian heartland. McCoy quotes imperial historian John Darwin, who wrote in his book 'After Tamerlane' , that the United States achieved its "colossal imperium on an unprecedented scale". This was accomplished through controlling what are called "the strategic axial points" on both sides of Eurasia. America maintains this axial domination through strategic alliances with Pacific powers such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, while enforcing the axial point in Europe through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A cursory look at this Empire shows American primacy when it comes to dominance of land, sea, air, cyber, space, institutional, economic, and clandestine. The aforementioned institutional supremacy through defensive alliances like NATO and bilateral treaties with strategic nations in the Pacific allow America to surround the "world island" with military bases and naval fleets, allowing for easier power projection into the heartland. Over the years, that power projection has evolved from messy deployments of high numbers of ground troops, to the use of mechanized unmanned vehicles called drones. These drones are becoming so commonplace that, McCoy notes "they emerged from the war on terror as one of America's wonder weapons for preserving its global power."

Drones of course are used within the command of the armed forces, but they are also used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) , making them a tool of clandestine operations. McCoy refers to this as the "Netherworld" where American power is projected behind a veil of secrecy. The clandestine realm played a major role in the development of American power, as covert operations became the preferred method of fomenting discord in countries the US deemed hostile. This evolution of power projection came during a very tumultuous period in history, with the rise of US power coinciding with the collapse of the British Empire, and with that the shift from Britain's traditional sea dominance to a new kind of dominance that is only seen from the shadows. Clandestine power projection from the early days of the CIA was mostly used for fomenting coups, overthrowing elected governments, and even assassination. Over time, this evolved into a much more sophisticated network that combined your typical covert operations with a sort of underworld diplomacy that focused on preserving alliances with some less than savory characters. McCoy in particular brings attention to US involvement with the Contra's in Nicaragua and the Mujahadeen rebels in Afghanistan during the 1980's. This upswing in Clandestine power projection also coincided with the rise of the largest surveillance dragnet in the history of the world. The US intelligence community, primarily through the National Security Agency (NSA) has the ability to monitor all telephone communications that pass through US cell towers , as well as the ability to monitor the internet traffic of all Americans. The NSA also has the ability to monitor the activities of foreign leaders , whether they are "allies" or "hostile".

The NSA also has a strange alliance with the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world called "The Five Eyes" which consists of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These five nations openly share any collected intelligence amongst themselves and the alliance itself can be traced back to the founding of the UKUSA Agreement of 1946, in which the US and the UK agreed to share intelligence with one another. The US also utilized the realms of cyberspace and outer space to project power and influence, attacking Iran's nuclear reactors with the Stuxnet virus , which was the first case of weaponized cyber warfare (that we know of). Much of Washington's space warfare strategy remains classified, but we know that the National Geospacial Intelligence Agency is crucial in the collection of intelligence, analyzing all video captured by surveillance drones and spy satellites circling the globe.

NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland

It is important to examine all the layers of what makes the US such a unique imperial power, because without such context, there are a lot of misconceptions regarding US foreign policy. Alfred McCoy illustrates this best when discussing what he calls "The Grandmasters of the Great Game". McCoy developed his fundamental model of geopolitics in order to give us a picture of how imperial policymakers conduct policy. From that model, McCoy states that in the history of our nation, only three figures were effective at playing "the great game". Those three men were Elihu Root, Zbignew Brzezinski, and Barack Obama. Some people (especially those on the right) may have a conniption at the thought of Obama being on the list considering his mistaken reputation as a foreign policy dove. In the context of McCoy's framework, it makes perfect sense, whereas it makes sense to leave someone like Henry Kissinger, who McCoy sees as reckless and someone who damaged American credibility, off the list.

Elihu Root is a forgotten individual in US history, despite the fact that he served as Secretary of War for William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, Secretary of State, Senator, and an envoy who served under several presidents. Root was at the center of power during the transition of America from a largely domestic Empire to a global Empire, and as secretary of war led efforts when it came to reforming the structure of the army, creating a centralized general staff, a modern war college, and expanding training for army officers. Root established colonial regimes in Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and dictated the constitution to an "Independent" Cuba which led to the establishment of a US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. Root was also instrumental in the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations, and through his friendship with Andrew Carnegie, helped to found the Peace Palace, where the Permanent Court of Arbitration would be set up at The Hague.

Root was an early builder of American Empire, and his policies and contributions to US imperialism are still being felt today. The US is still in Guantanamo, still is occupying the Philippines, and Puerto Rico is reeling from having to recover from a disaster, a recovery which has faced many obstacles due to their status as a "territory".

Root's policies would be essential in laying the foundation for US global power for the next century, but it wouldn't be for another 60 years until the next imperial grandmaster used US global power for the purpose of playing "The Great Game"

Zbignew Brzezinski, a Polish emigre and professor of international relations, is perhaps the closest thing we have to an intellectual successor of Halford Mackinder. Brzezinski embraced Mackinder's theoretical framework of Geopolitics, including Eurasia's designation of being a "world island" and the "heartland" being the "pivot" of global power. Brzezinski believed that "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the world." Brzezinski would apply this philosophy during his time as National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter as he set about to free Eastern Europe from the clutches of the Soviet Union. In order to accomplish that, Brzezinski spearheaded a policy culminating in "Operation Cyclone" , which involved the funneling of money, weapons, and other resources to Islamic rebels fighting the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan, in hopes that the civil war would draw the Soviets in to defend their proxy government. The plan worked, and the long term Soviet occupation of Afghanistan drained their economy to the point of collapse, resulting in the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the independence of the Baltic and Balkan states of Eastern Europe.

Of course, the unintended consequences of this policy would be the creation of a super powered global army of terrorists, some of which would go on to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks, but that wasn't a concern for Brzezinski. During a 1998 interview for a French magazine, Brzezinski was asked if he had any regrets about the operation. He responded by asking "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Union? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?".

We clearly can see the fault in his logic, but this type of hubris is probably common among people who view the world as "The Grand Chessboard", to use the title of Brzezinski's most famous work. For now, it is important to note that while the blowback from funding terrorism has created a global situation that is nearly without precedence, the collapse of the Soviet Union left the world with one superpower, which was the United States. From there, the US would look to once again create a world order in its image, and there was no better person to do so than our next "Grandmaster of the Great Game", a friendly face for Imperialism and Neoliberalism, Barack Obama.

https://medium.com/media/91a7df287185fa7e2df086d8cb6e9d6a?postId=2ed9cdd437ff

Brzezinski speaking with Taliban fighters in Pakistan

In many ways, Barack Obama's presidency was a blessing to US Empire, and this begins to make sense when you examine his presidency using McCoy's theoretical framework. McCoy says of Empires "When their revenue shrink, empires become brittle. Consider the collapse of the Soviet sphere after its command economy imploded.

Or recall the rapid dissolution of the British Empire after World War II as London faced an irresolvable conflict between "domestic recovery and its imperial commitments"". Taking this into consideration, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a disaster for US empire. Solely from the perspective of an imperialist in McCoy's framework, that war cost lives, credibility, and an insane amount of money that didn't go to repairing the needs of the country. More importantly, during those years in which the US was bogged down in the Middle East, China began the next phase of its rise, using it's massive collection of sovereign wealth funds to launch massive infrastructure development across the entire Eurasian Continent. In comes Barack Obama, a friendly face of "hope and change" who vowed to end the Iraq war, while at the same time maintaining the occupation of Afghanistan. One thing that set Obama's foreign policy apart from his recent peers was his "pivot to Asia". When the pivot was first announced, many pundits didn't know how to react, with one pundit even referring to it as a "pivot to nowhere" .

The pivot to Asia strategy makes sense when you look at it from the geopolitical framework given to us by McCoy, and sheds new light on the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact that the Obama administration was trying to implement. The trade pact would encompass countries that make up 40% of world trade, and China would not be included, clearly illustrating the geopolitical nature of the agreement. The reasons in which this agreement was not successful will become apparent, but the question that needs to be asked regarding such an agreement is whether it came too late. In order to answer this question, we have to take a look at how "The Great Game" has been playing out over the last couple decades and who is winning.

China's grand strategy certainly isn't your typical imperial grand strategy, depending moreso on economic soft power than pure power projection through military might. Nevertheless the strategy, if implemented would clearly change the geopolitical power dynamics of the world, and that obviously has some policymakers concerned in Washington. One of the main post-World War II pillars of US empire is "The Washington Consensus" , a philosophical framework of global governance that emphasizes the primacy of western financial and governance institutions in conducting global politics. Institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO are products of this framework, and these institutions, along with military alliances like NATO, have served to maintain a western-centric global supremacy with the US government at the helm. China's strategy looks to reorient the entire landscape, shifting the epicenter of global governance from a "unipolar" model, which emphasizes the need for a single powerful hegemon, to a more "multipolar" model, which emphasizes regional hegemons.

Halford Mackinder once wrote that "Trans-continental railways are now transmuting the conditions of land power," and that " the century will not be old before all Asia is covered with railways,". He wrote this back in 1904, and due to the damage accumulated in the wake of two world wars, it wouldn't be until the next century that his vision was realized. China by 2030 plans on linking all of their major cities by high speed rail, while simultaneously working with surrounding states to make the effort transcontinental. Plans on constructing a "Eurasian Land Bridge" or a high speed rail line that would go from Chongqing to Leipzig, Germany in 20 days is an example of one such ambitious project. Why is this significant? China being able to ship via high speed rail allows it to circumvent shipping lanes, most of which are patrolled by either the US navy or US allies. Circumventing these shipping lanes gives the Chinese ability to get around any obstacles that may arise if any diplomatic or geopolitical tensions arise between China and the US. Chinese grand strategy also involves the construction of a vast network of pipelines for the purpose of importing oil and gas. One of the most significant deals in this realm was between the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Russian state owned Gazprom.

The deal was worth $400 billion , and it came during a time where Russia was facing increased sanctions from the West due to its annexation of Crimea. Russia as a geostrategic partner is essential for China's implementation of their grand strategy. As long as Russia is the primary boogeyman of the West, and keeping the West bogged down in a two front proxy war in Syria and Ukraine, China can simply step in strategically without getting their hands dirty while continuing to implement what some in the US media are beginning to refer to as China's "manifest destiny" . China is also looking to end the monopoly on military alliances, security alliances, and international economic institutions through alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organizations(SCO), functioning as a Asian security alliance, and the establishment of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), built in the likeness and image of the IMF, and already has support from many countries, including US allies like the UK, Australia, and South Korea.

Hopefully, this brings everything full circle, and allows us to contextualize McCoy's rationale when it comes to his selected geopolitical grandmasters, in particular Barack Obama and his "pivot to Asia" strategy. Within the framework of McCoy's model of geopolitics, the strategies of Root, Brzezinski, and Obama seem like the perfect Imperial chess maneuvers, and it would be hard to disagree. With that being said, McCoy's work is not a celebration of imperialist mastery, and the seeming omnipotence of this "Great Game" does not have as much power as some may like to think. McCoy dedicates much to discussing "the limits of vision" and how imperial grand strategies have one blindspot when it comes to long term implementation, which is the will of the people. When it came to the long term vision of Root's globalism, he was unable to foresee the populist backlash post-WWI which led to Congress rejecting the League of Nations, another of Root's imperial projects, as well as the isolationist presidency of Warren G. Harding. Zbignew Brzezinski was almost callous when it came to the blowback of "Operation Cyclone", and despite the US coming out of the Cold War as the world's sole superpower, has been unable to use that Super power to defeat the Frankenstein they cooked up in the laboratories of Langley. With Barack Obama, the Trans Pacific Partnership faced bipartisan backlash from a country whose economy was already wrecked by previous trade policies. Presidential candidates (including Hillary Clinton, who originally spearheaded the pivot to Asia initiative) came out against the trade pact and it eventually died when Trump came into office and ended trade talks. The lesson that McCoy is trying to get across here is perhaps unintended, but still important. The will of the people can trump (no pun intended) the power of Empire.

That last point is important in terms of illustrating the importance of understanding the Empire we live in, especially those dedicated to resisting it. For me, the one criticism I have of this book is perhaps its greatest strength. The book itself is a tour de force of US imperialism, treating the world as if it were a game of Diplomacy, or a "Grand Chessboard". This sort of mindset fosters a callousness towards the people of this world, who are increasingly seen and used as pawns in a game being played only by wealthy and powerful people in suits isolated from the pain and suffering caused by their "ideas". With that being said, it is essential to maintain a realistic outlook when critically examining how an imperialist sees the world, and that is the gift that this book offers. McCoy's entire examination of the collapse of American power serves us two ways. One, it exposes the blindspots of imperialism, by demonstrating that the visions of imperial grand strategy are limited by the lack of knowledge of the imperialist towards the people they are trying to manipulate. This perhaps demonstrates that imperialism isn't as inundated in the culture of America as we perhaps thought. Two, it offers us a look into the imperialist mindset, and gives the anti-imperialist a chance to learn more about their adversary. McCoy's theoretical framework also proves to be highly dependable in forecasting geopolitical trends, which could serve as a useful tool when figuring out where and when future conflicts may arise. The most important lesson learned, and to reiterate what was said in the previous paragraph, is the power of the people, especially people in this country, to combat imperialism. Americans sit in the heart of the empire, and the land that we occupy allows the US empire to project its power all over the world. Without the foundation, the entire empire comes crumbling down, and the people of this country are that foundation. With enough outcry, we can combat imperialism, and with the current decline of US Global Power, there is no better time to speak out.

[Mar 11, 2018] America's Troll Farm Media

Notable quotes:
"... A recent Gallup poll found that while 84% of Americans see media as "critical" or "very important" to democracy, only 28% see the corporatist mainstream news media (MSM) as actually supporting democracy. They're right on both counts of course. The quality of a democracy is only as good as the information people have to make informed judgments about public policy and politicians. ..."
"... Even as the mainstream news media continue to lose street cred, they persist in a rumor-saturated full court press against the "Trump-Putin presidency," which only further exposes their lack of professionalism and increasing vulgarity. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... But it's not a new game, because despite their "free press" claims, American major news media have long been instruments of state propaganda. In the 1970s, Carl Bernstein exposed the fact that the overseas branches of US MSM had long served as eyes and ears of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird," and it's very likely than many amongst their ranks remain agency assets. ..."
"... During the GW Bush presidency, the Pentagon recruited over 75 military generals to spread propaganda in the mass media, fed in camera ..."
"... In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian "hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice between government and the corporate world. ..."
"... And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling. ..."
"... Facebook's vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the total Russian ad buys occurred after ..."
"... The Peacemaker, The Saint, Rambo III, Red Dawn, Red Heat, the James Bond flicks, and the 2018 Oscar for documentaries, Icarus. ..."
"... There are a few signs of life in mainstream journalism. New York Times ..."
"... pledge to be truthful ..."
"... Consortium News ..."
"... The intelligence agencies "have been playing games with us. There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here." It was likely no more than a USB transfer, he said. ..."
"... Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, spoke for the media establishment: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS . The money's rolling in . It's a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald." ..."
"... Gerald Sussman is professor of urban studies and international and global studies at Portland State University. He is the author and editor of several books, including The Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture and Politics in Global Context (2011). ..."
Mar 11, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Despite all the smoke and mirrors, most Americans seem to see where the stenographers of corporate capitalism are taking us. A recent Gallup poll found that while 84% of Americans see media as "critical" or "very important" to democracy, only 28% see the corporatist mainstream news media (MSM) as actually supporting democracy. They're right on both counts of course. The quality of a democracy is only as good as the information people have to make informed judgments about public policy and politicians.

Even as the mainstream news media continue to lose street cred, they persist in a rumor-saturated full court press against the "Trump-Putin presidency," which only further exposes their lack of professionalism and increasing vulgarity. MSM management and their boardroom bosses have long understood that as long as they spice up their "nothing burger" news, ratings and advertising rates will keep them in business and please their commercial and government clients. Tabloid journalism, which can describe most American mainstream media these days, even when wrapped up as "all the news that's fit to print," is in constant search of sensation, scandal, gossip, and profit – and only occasionally in public-oriented investigative integrity.

What else does the citizenry have to say? A mere 18% have "a lot" of trust in the MSM, while 74% see them as "biased" (Pew Research, July 2016). A study by the Harvard-Harris polling organization in May 2017 confirmed this, finding that 65 percent of Americans consider the so-called "free press" biased, obsessed with scandal, and full of "fake news" and therefore cannot be trusted. Among the concurring are a majority of both Democrats (53%) and Independents (60%) as well as 80% of Republicans. Amongst the "informed public," trust in American institutions in general, that is, the government, business, NGOs, and the MSM, is going through the worst crisis in recorded history, according to the marketing firm Edelman in 2018. The US is the lowest rated of the 28 countries surveyed by the firm on this measure. This is not consistent with the image of a serious "democracy."

On the MSM coverage of national politics, Americans are equally skeptical. A June 2017 Rasmussen survey of likely American voters indicated that 50% think most reporters are prejudiced against the president, and only 4% believe most reporters are biased in Trump's favor. Although this is weighted by the 76% of Republicans who support this view, the study also found that 51% of independent voters and even 24% of Democrats also agree. Aided by the billions of dollars of free, almost all negative, publicity the MSM provided, with apparent reverse effect during the presidential campaign, Trump's standing is also supported by the 47 million American shock troops that faithfully follow him on Twitter.

On January 27, 2018, the Washington Post editorial board issued this statement: "A foreign power interfered in the 2016 presidential election. U.S. law enforcement is trying to get to the bottom of that story. Congress should be doing everything possible to make sure the investigation can take place." Obviously referring to Russia, the Post's declaration, as the late investigative journalist Robert Parry and many other independent and respected writers have pointed out, was and remains without a shred of evidence. It's WMD time all over again, only this time the propaganda is being trumpeted mainly by the Democrats. It would better serve the cause of democracy to investigate the Post for its covert coalition and collusion with the deep state and the Clinton (right) wing of the Democratic Party. The Post and the rest of their pack have constructed a wicked Russia foil in order to undermine Moscow's presumed ally Trump and boost bigger Pentagon budgets. It's an extremely dangerous game that is headed toward military confrontation and massive annihilation by the yahoos in government and the liberal media.

But it's not a new game, because despite their "free press" claims, American major news media have long been instruments of state propaganda. In the 1970s, Carl Bernstein exposed the fact that the overseas branches of US MSM had long served as eyes and ears of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird," and it's very likely than many amongst their ranks remain agency assets. Back then, Philip Graham, publisher of the Post , ran the agency's media industry operations, a fact not mentioned in the currently showing eponymous film. During the GW Bush presidency, the Pentagon recruited over 75 military generals to spread propaganda in the mass media, fed in camera by leaders at the Defense Department, the State Department, the Justice Department, and the White House. Their responsibilities included their employment as "objective" foreign policy and war analysts for major network and cable news channels, many of them concurrently receiving pay by military contracting firms. The Pentagon referred to the on-air military propagandists as "surrogates" and "message force multipliers."

The Russians are Coming

In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian "hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice between government and the corporate world. Brennan was a well-known advocate for the CIA's rendition and torture program, spying on its critics, and its use of drone bombings and assassinations in the Middle East. And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling.

If the Russia "hacking" story has no legs, the more interesting piece of news is the organized efforts of the Democrats and some Republicans to bring down Trump and turn over the White House to theocrat Mike Pence. Mainstream pundits and reporters are churning out unsubstantiated speculations about Russia and Trump by the hour. A number of Democrats, military brass, and mercenary journalist (and former country club caddy) Thomas Friedman have characterized alleged Russian intervention as a new "Pearl Harbor" or "9/11," thereby building a case for war and for treason against the president. There's no downside to making even the most absurd claims about Russia and Trump, no penalty for fabrications, misrepresentations, or getting facts wrong. If they were honest, their ledes might read: "This fictional news report is loosely based on a true story." Or: "Any resemblance in this story to real people and events is merely coincidental."

There's room in the inferno for the Democrats' deep state allies. Starting in mid-2015, Peter Strzok, the FBI's H. Clinton personal email scandal investigator before taking the lead in the probe of Russian election interference, sent emails to his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, which clearly revealed that both of them were actively working for the Clinton campaign to undermine Trump in any way possible. The pair also exchanged references to a "secret society" that was operating within the Department of Justice and the FBI to block a Trump victory. Until their exposure, Strzok had been Robert Mueller's right hand man on the Trump-Russia investigation.

Meanwhile, two years later, the hunt for the smoking Kalashnikov continues. The best the MSM have come up with is that a St. Petersburg outfit called Internet Research Agency (IRA) placed $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to the $81 million Facebook ad spending by the Trump and Clinton campaigns), some of the Russian ads actually directed against Trump. As Jeffrey St. Clair pointed out in the pages of CounterPunch, in the key states where Clinton lost the election, the traditional Democrat strongholds of Michigan ($832 spent on token IRA buy ads), Pennsylvania ($300), and Wisconsin ($1,979), all but $54 of this amount was spent before the party primaries even started.

Facebook's vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the total Russian ad buys occurred after the presidential election. "We shared that fact," he tweeted, "but very few [news] outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative" about Trump's election victory. Winning the election for Trump was simply not the Russian objective, Goldman says. Alex Stamos, Facebook chief security officer, concurred. The ads, he said, were more about sowing discord, with messages about guns, immigrants, and racial strife, than on pushing a particular candidate. Think about all the blockbuster American (and British) movies that portray Russians as sinister, violent, and criminal. For starters, remember über-teutonic Ivan Drago, Sgt. Yushin, the many sadistic "Russian" mafia nogoodniks, along with the Cold War-for-children cartoon characters, Boris Badanov and Natasha Fatale? Among the many Russophobic films and TV shows over the decades: The Americans , Air Force One , The Peacemaker, The Saint, Rambo III, Red Dawn, Red Heat, the James Bond flicks, and the 2018 Oscar for documentaries, Icarus. Soviet and Russia-era films, not well tutored in ethnic caricatures, have no comparable stereotypical American counterparts.

There are a few signs of life in mainstream journalism. New York Times correspondent Scott Shane was one of the few journalists who happened to notice that the US intelligence agency (the CIA, NSA, and FBI) report of January 6, 2017 on Russian "hacking" actually offered no evidence. "Instead," he said, "the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" It took the mainstream media 6 months before they acknowledged that the Obama administration claim that 17 intelligence agencies backed the hacking claim was false, the real number was only 3, and even the NSA had only "moderate confidence" in the finding. Last January, the NSA made a significant alteration in its mission statement: it removed the words "honesty" and the pledge to be truthful from its list of priorities.

Even if there were genuine evidence that Russian officials had hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta emails, as originally claimed by the intelligence agencies, one should put this in context of the long history of the CIA's efforts to overthrow many democratically elected leaders who had the temerity to stand up to the superpower. These would include Allende, Arbenz, Mossadeq, Lumumba, Chavez, Goulart, Ortega, and others. The list of US interventions in foreign elections just since 1948 (Italy) is voluminous. Do the mainstream media suffer amnesia about Victoria Nuland and John McCain's presence in the Maidan, egging on the coup against Yanukovych or her infamous leaked phone call to the US ambassador in Kiev in which she dictated the ousted president's successors? And is it reasonable to expect Russia to be passive about a hostile NATO putting troops along its borders and reacting to efforts to install an anti-Russian regime next door in the Ukraine? In this recent historical context, US accusations of Russian political interference smack of complete hypocrisy.

A study by Carnegie Mellon professor Dov Levin found that between 1946 and 2000 alone, the US intervened in foreign elections 81 times, which does not include its invasions, blockades, sanctions, assassination attempts, and other regime change initiatives. "The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries," he wrote. In 1996, the US intervened in the Russian election to prevent the Communist Party from returning to power. Have the MSM also forgotten the lies the government and the CIA told about Saddam Hussein's WMD and connections to terrorist movements? Or that, thanks to Edward Snowden's exposés, we know that Obama's NSA bugged the phones of 35 foreign political leaders?

If the MSM are still confused, perhaps they should listen to former CIA director James Woolsey. Interviewed by Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Woolsey was asked directly whether the US ever interfered with other countries' elections. He initially said, "probably, but it was for the good of the system in order to avoid the communists from taking over." Ingraham followed up with the question, "We don't do that now?" To this Woolsey responded, "nyum, nyum, nyum, nyum, nyum, only for a very good cause," a rather frank admission that merely amused Ingraham, who failed to follow up with this obvious statement of US double standards. After leaving the CIA, Woolsey became chairman of Freedom House, a right-wing government-supported private NGO that putatively supports human rights causes and has been active in regime change operations around the world – far more actively than merely doing Facebook postings.

William Binney, formerly with NSA as a high-level intelligence operative, subsequently becoming a whistleblower on the agency's illegal surveillance operations, called the alleged Russian attacks on the DNC "a charade." Speaking to Daniel Bernstein at Consortium News , Binney said that had any bulk transmissions come from across the Atlantic, the NSA would have known about it, as they tap every communication from abroad. The data from "Guccifer 2.0," was a download "not a transfer across the Web," which "won't manage such high speed." The intelligence agencies "have been playing games with us. There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here." It was likely no more than a USB transfer, he said.

Is there any hope for the mainstream media to change? It would take a revolution to get the MSM to become more democratic. A Harvard Shorenstein Center report found that media coverage of the 2016 US party conventions contained almost no discussion of policy issues and instead concentrated on polling data, scandals, campaign tactics, and Trump and Russia bashing. Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, spoke for the media establishment: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS . The money's rolling in . It's a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald."

As Walter Cronkite would say, "And that's the way it is." Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Gerald Sussman

Gerald Sussman is professor of urban studies and international and global studies at Portland State University. He is the author and editor of several books, including The Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture and Politics in Global Context (2011).

[Mar 11, 2018] Inverted Totalitarianism by Sheldon Wolin

Notable quotes:
"... ...Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security. Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media. Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media's reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly veiled threats of the Attorney General and by their own fears about unemployment. ..."
Mar 11, 2018 | www.thenation.com

The Nation

"Empire" and "superpower" accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to "the Constitution of the American Empire" or "superpower democracy." The reason they ring false is that "constitution" signifies limitations on power, while "democracy" commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens.

For their part, "empire" and "superpower" stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry. The increasing power of the state and the declining power of institutions intended to control it has been in the making for some time. The party system is a notorious example.

...Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security. Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media. Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media's reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly veiled threats of the Attorney General and by their own fears about unemployment.

What is crucially important here is not only the expansion of governmental power but the inevitable discrediting of constitutional limitations and institutional processes that discourages the citizenry and leaves them politically apathetic. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party

...At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive

.. a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing, withdrawal or reduction of pension and health benefits; a corporate political system that relentlessly threatens to privatize Social Security and the modest health benefits available, especially to the poor. With such instrumentalities for promoting uncertainty and dependence, it is almost overkill for inverted totalitarianism to employ a system of criminal justice that is punitive in the extreme, relishes the death penalty and is consistently biased against the powerless.

Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both compliant and repressive, a party system in which one party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers.

That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents.

What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The question for citizens is: Which way?

Sheldon Wolin Sheldon Wolin is the author, most recently, of Alexis de Tocqueville: Man Between Two Worlds (Princeton). A new edition of his book Politics and Vision is forthcoming. He is professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University.

[Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.

Highly recommended!
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time.
It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'

In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background, which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'

There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.

This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.

And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area.

Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.

The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.

In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry – the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.

Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier, which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.

(See http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/what-really-happened-robert-levinson-cia-iran-454803.html .)

Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio 4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets, backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.

The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available – evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.

Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.

What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest a sale had been completed.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.

All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder. For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.

(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews both with Mogilevich and Levinson at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/panorama/transcripts/transcript_06_12_99.txt )

In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.

Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions north of the Litani.

These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.

What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.

Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking 'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.

Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.

So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.

All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate Russia in supplying materials.

There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)

It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional, Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.

It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here, a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.

Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.

In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.

Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain, but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)

That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:

'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear limited life components and you can read for weeks).'

(For this and other articles by Kaszeta, as also his bio, see http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk ')

What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility, in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of ones which lasted longer.

For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.

What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.

In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'

According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?

As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.

In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties, and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another day.

A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.

Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.

Posted at 03:42 PM in As The Borg Turns , Habakkuk , Russia , Russiagate | Permalink

james , 03 February 2018 at 04:33 PM

thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..

it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..

JohnB , 03 February 2018 at 05:17 PM
David,

Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.

turcopolier , 03 February 2018 at 06:02 PM
james

It is the closest of all international intelligence relationships. It started in WW2. Before that the Brits were though of as a potential enemy. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 03 February 2018 at 06:10 PM
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
catherine , 03 February 2018 at 06:22 PM
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.

Re: Levinson

# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.

# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson went to Jablonski with it.

# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson? The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing came of it.

I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.

Ishmael Zechariah , 03 February 2018 at 06:54 PM
DH,

As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.

I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".

Be safe.

Ishmael Zechariah

Rd , 03 February 2018 at 07:31 PM
Babak Makkinejad said in reply to turcopolier...

The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
..and US is the one who has been paying for it since 1979!!!

kooshy said in reply to Ishmael Zechariah... , 03 February 2018 at 08:21 PM
IZ
My guess is, that he is unpredictable, instantaneous and therefore can't be consistent and reliable, useful idiot needs to be predictable.
kooshy , 03 February 2018 at 08:43 PM
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. "

David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making. Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

different clue , 03 February 2018 at 08:49 PM
Ishmael Zechariah,

( reply to comment 6),

I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.

It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate.

And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.

So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.

Jack , 03 February 2018 at 08:54 PM
David,

Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.

In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.

Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century endorsed her.

Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in. Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling the Borg pundits.

SmoothieX12 -> kooshy... , 03 February 2018 at 09:51 PM
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:10 PM
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:24 PM
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier on atlantic side.
catherine said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:21 AM
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''

The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.

'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'

State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union

aleksandar , 04 February 2018 at 04:41 AM
David,

About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS.

Fred said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 08:40 AM
Babak,

"they got US to bail them out during WWII" And how would things have worked out had we not done so?

Fred , 04 February 2018 at 08:46 AM
David,

"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time."

Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.

Anna said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 08:48 AM
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
turcopolier , 04 February 2018 at 08:54 AM
Anna

The powerful are often remarkably ignorant. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> Fred... , 04 February 2018 at 10:08 AM
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion, did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 11:53 AM
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Kooshy said in reply to catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an escalation.
Phodges said in reply to turcopolier ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:23 PM
Sir

It seems we are being defeated by Cicero's enemy within. Zion is achieving what no one could hope to achieve by force of arms.

David Habakkuk -> catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 01:17 PM
catherine,

In response to comment 5.

I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain more pointers.

It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.

An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian attempts to get hold of him. An extract:

'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'

(See http://defiancethebook.com/legal/habeas/petition.htm .)

Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.

Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:

'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'

(See http://konanykhin.com/news/the-konanykhine-case.html .)

So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has changed.

For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:

'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign passports for its "very, very special clients".

'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".

(For a 'Guardian report, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/sep/23/julianborger ; for the actual testimony, see http://archives-financialservices.house.gov/banking/92299ger.pdf .)

Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter, Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:

'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'

(For the transcript presented in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ )

When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.

(For the first part of the exchanges of comments, the second apparently having become unavailable, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2008/07/litvinenko_killing_had_state_i.html )

She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator, David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.

Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.

What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary claim about Shvets:

'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.

'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.

'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'

Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling her as to the side for which he was working.

It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.

An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria' was actually credible.

This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking, and for similar action against Syria.

Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.

There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.

A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing. This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High') might be a start.

Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')

The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one feel as though one wanted to throw up.

Thomas , 04 February 2018 at 01:24 PM
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.}

No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.

SmoothieX12 -> Anna... , 04 February 2018 at 01:39 PM
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.

My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.

Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.

Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.

james said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 04 February 2018 at 03:01 PM
there seems to be no shortage of money for these blatant propaganda exercises..
Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 04:14 PM
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914. Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
begob , 04 February 2018 at 05:20 PM
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 06:20 PM
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.

The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.

spy killer , 04 February 2018 at 06:55 PM
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
English Outsider -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 07:23 AM
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google also allows searches with more than one term. This link -

https://twitter.com/pat_lang

- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories" on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.

If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.

"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.

The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations" (hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many of the contributors know it from inside.

In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible, but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.

jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 08:11 AM
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.

So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.

Babak Makkinejad -> jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 08:29 AM
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Sid Finster said in reply to Jack... , 05 February 2018 at 10:26 AM
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.

The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.

Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.

Sid Finster said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 05 February 2018 at 10:31 AM
Explain Marshall Miller's role in this, please. He is someone I know quite well. I also know one of the Chalupas.
begob said in reply to jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 10:56 AM
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat of the BEF.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 11:18 AM
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break - David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 11:19 AM
Yes, I am Iranian. All "Babak"s are Iranians - except some obscure ones that are Rus - Babakov.
Anna , 05 February 2018 at 02:07 PM
The hard, blinding truth: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Thomas said in reply to turcopolier ... , 05 February 2018 at 02:08 PM
Colonel,

This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.

Richardstevenhack , 05 February 2018 at 02:36 PM
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.

And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.

Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."

Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.

Seriously, read this! The whole thing!

Rampant abuse and possible contempt of Court: what you need to know about the GOP memo
http://theduran.com/rampant-abuse-contempt-court-analysis-gop-memorandum/

blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 03:25 PM
Sen Grassley releases memo heavily redacted by DOJ/FBI.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/grassley-graham-blast-fbi-censoring-memo-calling-criminal-probe-trump-dossier

"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "

I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI is lying.

What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that are based on classified documents.

turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 04:38 PM
FM

We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status. You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are, in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you. You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl

Kooshy said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 04:46 PM
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from Northeestern
blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 04:55 PM
...would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Aye. Aye. Sir!

+1

That is why some of us believe the Patriot Act and FISA are both unpatriotic and unconstitutional. SCOTUS disagrees with the few of us.

Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 05:03 PM
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist. I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians - they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
English Outsider , 05 February 2018 at 06:31 PM
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.

David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because of that.

The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as "salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling around unsupervised?

The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but for the general public, that bit more untenable.

So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.

I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?

kooshy , 05 February 2018 at 07:49 PM
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type, they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 07:59 PM
EO

Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to pay him until he left UK service. pl

English Outsider , 06 February 2018 at 05:10 AM
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.

Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK side.

English Outsider -> Cortes... , 06 February 2018 at 05:53 AM
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about the "golden showers"? "

I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.

So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.

Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.

But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK get mixed up in it?

David Habakkuk -> Sid Finster... , 06 February 2018 at 06:19 AM
Sid Finster,

In response to comment 53.

When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.

A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella.

When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.

His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques, and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.

So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'

The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.

(This initial post by me, and later posts by me on that site, are at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:1857/diary. Three posts David Loepp and I produced jointly in December 2012, which have a lot on Scaramella and Shvets, are on his page there, at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/de%20Gondi/diary .)

The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December 2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:

'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic- Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'

Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:

'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them [presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'

The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':

'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI. Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini. Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'

In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography – which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella which had been described in the wiretap request.

As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.

In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.

Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.

'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with him.'

From a fax dated 7 November 2005:

'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re: Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'

From a fax dated 5 December 2005:

'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'

In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be in a chaotic state.

However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus justifications.

Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.

(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)

And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence in the Inquiry.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.

Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.

The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 09:40 AM
Thank you David Habakkuk. Truly sordid and deplorable. WWIII to be initiated on basis of lies.
Jack , 06 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
David

You may already know this but Steele was a no show in a UK court for a deposition on the libel suit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.amp.html

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 01:18 PM
I know something of spectroscopy.

The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis itself or its instrumentation.

The paragraph that you have quoted:

"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."

And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics - which did not and could not exist in this situation.

LeaNder , 07 February 2018 at 09:16 AM
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there is to know?

I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.

Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.

By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.

According to Google search there are no other links then your articles here:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf

**********

JAN RICHARD BÆRUG
The Collapsing Wall. Hybrid Journalism.
A Comparative Study of Newspapers and
Magazines in Eight Countries in Europe

Available online. Haven't read it yet, but journalism as hidden public relations transfer belt would be one of my minor obsessions. ...

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 07 February 2018 at 11:23 AM
I wonder too; their command of the English idiom is very au currant - noticed "opt in/opt out" reference? Too American.

They clearly are not native speakers of German.

LeaNder said in reply to kooshy... , 07 February 2018 at 12:30 PM
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_Island#Economy

Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.

Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?

The German link is different. How about the Iranian?

or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?

LeaNder said in reply to LeaNder... , 07 February 2018 at 01:14 PM
correcting myself #94:

another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s

I see Sergei seems to share my interest in the literary genre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Ivanov#Personal

[Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'

In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background, which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'

There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.

This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.

And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area.

Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.

The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.

In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry – the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.

Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier, which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.

(See http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/what-really-happened-robert-levinson-cia-iran-454803.html .)

Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio 4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets, backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.

The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available – evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.

Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.

What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest a sale had been completed.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.

All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder. For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.

(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews both with Mogilevich and Levinson at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/panorama/transcripts/transcript_06_12_99.txt )

In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.

Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions north of the Litani.

These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.

What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.

Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking 'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.

Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.

So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.

All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate Russia in supplying materials.

There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)

It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional, Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.

It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here, a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.

Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.

In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.

Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain, but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)

That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:

'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear limited life components and you can read for weeks).'

(For this and other articles by Kaszeta, as also his bio, see http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk ')

What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility, in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of ones which lasted longer.

For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.

What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.

In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'

According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?

As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.

In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties, and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another day.

A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.

Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.

Posted at 03:42 PM in As The Borg Turns , Habakkuk , Russia , Russiagate | Permalink

james , 03 February 2018 at 04:33 PM

thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..

it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..

JohnB , 03 February 2018 at 05:17 PM
David,

Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.

turcopolier , 03 February 2018 at 06:02 PM
james

It is the closest of all international intelligence relationships. It started in WW2. Before that the Brits were though of as a potential enemy. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 03 February 2018 at 06:10 PM
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
catherine , 03 February 2018 at 06:22 PM
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.

Re: Levinson

# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.

# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson went to Jablonski with it.

# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson? The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing came of it.

I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.

Ishmael Zechariah , 03 February 2018 at 06:54 PM
DH,

As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.

I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".

Be safe.

Ishmael Zechariah

Rd , 03 February 2018 at 07:31 PM
Babak Makkinejad said in reply to turcopolier...

The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
..and US is the one who has been paying for it since 1979!!!

kooshy said in reply to Ishmael Zechariah... , 03 February 2018 at 08:21 PM
IZ
My guess is, that he is unpredictable, instantaneous and therefore can't be consistent and reliable, useful idiot needs to be predictable.
kooshy , 03 February 2018 at 08:43 PM
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. "

David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making. Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

different clue , 03 February 2018 at 08:49 PM
Ishmael Zechariah,

( reply to comment 6),

I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.

It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate.

And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.

So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.

Jack , 03 February 2018 at 08:54 PM
David,

Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.

In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.

Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century endorsed her.

Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in. Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling the Borg pundits.

SmoothieX12 -> kooshy... , 03 February 2018 at 09:51 PM
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:10 PM
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:24 PM
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier on atlantic side.
catherine said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:21 AM
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''

The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.

'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'

State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union

aleksandar , 04 February 2018 at 04:41 AM
David,

About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS.

Fred said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 08:40 AM
Babak,

"they got US to bail them out during WWII" And how would things have worked out had we not done so?

Fred , 04 February 2018 at 08:46 AM
David,

"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time."

Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.

Anna said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 08:48 AM
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
turcopolier , 04 February 2018 at 08:54 AM
Anna

The powerful are often remarkably ignorant. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> Fred... , 04 February 2018 at 10:08 AM
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion, did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 11:53 AM
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Kooshy said in reply to catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an escalation.
Phodges said in reply to turcopolier ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:23 PM
Sir

It seems we are being defeated by Cicero's enemy within. Zion is achieving what no one could hope to achieve by force of arms.

David Habakkuk -> catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 01:17 PM
catherine,

In response to comment 5.

I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain more pointers.

It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.

An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian attempts to get hold of him. An extract:

'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'

(See http://defiancethebook.com/legal/habeas/petition.htm .)

Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.

Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:

'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'

(See http://konanykhin.com/news/the-konanykhine-case.html .)

So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has changed.

For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:

'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign passports for its "very, very special clients".

'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".

(For a 'Guardian report, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/sep/23/julianborger ; for the actual testimony, see http://archives-financialservices.house.gov/banking/92299ger.pdf .)

Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter, Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:

'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'

(For the transcript presented in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ )

When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.

(For the first part of the exchanges of comments, the second apparently having become unavailable, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2008/07/litvinenko_killing_had_state_i.html )

She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator, David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.

Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.

What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary claim about Shvets:

'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.

'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.

'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'

Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling her as to the side for which he was working.

It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.

An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria' was actually credible.

This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking, and for similar action against Syria.

Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.

There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.

A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing. This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High') might be a start.

Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')

The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one feel as though one wanted to throw up.

Thomas , 04 February 2018 at 01:24 PM
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.}

No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.

SmoothieX12 -> Anna... , 04 February 2018 at 01:39 PM
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.

My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.

Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.

Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.

james said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 04 February 2018 at 03:01 PM
there seems to be no shortage of money for these blatant propaganda exercises..
Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 04:14 PM
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914. Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
begob , 04 February 2018 at 05:20 PM
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 06:20 PM
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.

The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.

spy killer , 04 February 2018 at 06:55 PM
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
English Outsider -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 07:23 AM
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google also allows searches with more than one term. This link -

https://twitter.com/pat_lang

- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories" on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.

If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.

"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.

The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations" (hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many of the contributors know it from inside.

In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible, but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.

jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 08:11 AM
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.

So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.

Babak Makkinejad -> jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 08:29 AM
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Sid Finster said in reply to Jack... , 05 February 2018 at 10:26 AM
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.

The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.

Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.

Sid Finster said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 05 February 2018 at 10:31 AM
Explain Marshall Miller's role in this, please. He is someone I know quite well. I also know one of the Chalupas.
begob said in reply to jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 10:56 AM
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat of the BEF.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 11:18 AM
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break - David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 11:19 AM
Yes, I am Iranian. All "Babak"s are Iranians - except some obscure ones that are Rus - Babakov.
Anna , 05 February 2018 at 02:07 PM
The hard, blinding truth: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Thomas said in reply to turcopolier ... , 05 February 2018 at 02:08 PM
Colonel,

This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.

Richardstevenhack , 05 February 2018 at 02:36 PM
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.

And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.

Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."

Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.

Seriously, read this! The whole thing!

Rampant abuse and possible contempt of Court: what you need to know about the GOP memo
http://theduran.com/rampant-abuse-contempt-court-analysis-gop-memorandum/

blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 03:25 PM
Sen Grassley releases memo heavily redacted by DOJ/FBI.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/grassley-graham-blast-fbi-censoring-memo-calling-criminal-probe-trump-dossier

"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "

I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI is lying.

What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that are based on classified documents.

turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 04:38 PM
FM

We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status. You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are, in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you. You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl

Kooshy said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 04:46 PM
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from Northeestern
blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 04:55 PM
...would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Aye. Aye. Sir!

+1

That is why some of us believe the Patriot Act and FISA are both unpatriotic and unconstitutional. SCOTUS disagrees with the few of us.

Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 05:03 PM
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist. I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians - they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
English Outsider , 05 February 2018 at 06:31 PM
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.

David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because of that.

The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as "salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling around unsupervised?

The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but for the general public, that bit more untenable.

So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.

I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?

kooshy , 05 February 2018 at 07:49 PM
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type, they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 07:59 PM
EO

Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to pay him until he left UK service. pl

English Outsider , 06 February 2018 at 05:10 AM
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.

Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK side.

English Outsider -> Cortes... , 06 February 2018 at 05:53 AM
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about the "golden showers"? "

I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.

So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.

Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.

But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK get mixed up in it?

David Habakkuk -> Sid Finster... , 06 February 2018 at 06:19 AM
Sid Finster,

In response to comment 53.

When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.

A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella.

When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.

His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques, and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.

So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'

The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.

(This initial post by me, and later posts by me on that site, are at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:1857/diary. Three posts David Loepp and I produced jointly in December 2012, which have a lot on Scaramella and Shvets, are on his page there, at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/de%20Gondi/diary .)

The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December 2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:

'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic- Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'

Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:

'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them [presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'

The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':

'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI. Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini. Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'

In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography – which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella which had been described in the wiretap request.

As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.

In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.

Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.

'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with him.'

From a fax dated 7 November 2005:

'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re: Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'

From a fax dated 5 December 2005:

'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'

In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be in a chaotic state.

However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus justifications.

Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.

(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)

And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence in the Inquiry.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.

Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.

The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 09:40 AM
Thank you David Habakkuk. Truly sordid and deplorable. WWIII to be initiated on basis of lies.
Jack , 06 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
David

You may already know this but Steele was a no show in a UK court for a deposition on the libel suit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.amp.html

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 01:18 PM
I know something of spectroscopy.

The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis itself or its instrumentation.

The paragraph that you have quoted:

"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."

And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics - which did not and could not exist in this situation.

LeaNder , 07 February 2018 at 09:16 AM
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there is to know?

I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.

Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.

By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.

According to Google search there are no other links then your articles here:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf

**********

JAN RICHARD BÆRUG
The Collapsing Wall. Hybrid Journalism.
A Comparative Study of Newspapers and
Magazines in Eight Countries in Europe

Available online. Haven't read it yet, but journalism as hidden public relations transfer belt would be one of my minor obsessions. ...

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 07 February 2018 at 11:23 AM
I wonder too; their command of the English idiom is very au currant - noticed "opt in/opt out" reference? Too American.

They clearly are not native speakers of German.

LeaNder said in reply to kooshy... , 07 February 2018 at 12:30 PM
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_Island#Economy

Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.

Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?

The German link is different. How about the Iranian?

or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?

LeaNder said in reply to LeaNder... , 07 February 2018 at 01:14 PM
correcting myself #94:

another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s

I see Sergei seems to share my interest in the literary genre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Ivanov#Personal

[Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.

Highly recommended!
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time.
It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'

In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background, which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'

There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.

This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.

And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area.

Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.

The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.

In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry – the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.

Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier, which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.

(See http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/what-really-happened-robert-levinson-cia-iran-454803.html .)

Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio 4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets, backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.

The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available – evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.

Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.

What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest a sale had been completed.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.

All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder. For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.

(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews both with Mogilevich and Levinson at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/panorama/transcripts/transcript_06_12_99.txt )

In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.

Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions north of the Litani.

These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.

What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.

Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking 'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.

Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.

So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.

All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate Russia in supplying materials.

There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)

It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional, Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.

It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here, a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.

Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.

In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.

Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain, but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)

That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:

'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear limited life components and you can read for weeks).'

(For this and other articles by Kaszeta, as also his bio, see http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk ')

What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility, in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of ones which lasted longer.

For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.

What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.

In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'

According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?

As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.

In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties, and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another day.

A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.

Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.

Posted at 03:42 PM in As The Borg Turns , Habakkuk , Russia , Russiagate | Permalink

james , 03 February 2018 at 04:33 PM

thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..

it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..

JohnB , 03 February 2018 at 05:17 PM
David,

Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.

turcopolier , 03 February 2018 at 06:02 PM
james

It is the closest of all international intelligence relationships. It started in WW2. Before that the Brits were though of as a potential enemy. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 03 February 2018 at 06:10 PM
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
catherine , 03 February 2018 at 06:22 PM
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.

Re: Levinson

# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.

# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson went to Jablonski with it.

# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson? The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing came of it.

I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.

Ishmael Zechariah , 03 February 2018 at 06:54 PM
DH,

As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.

I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".

Be safe.

Ishmael Zechariah

Rd , 03 February 2018 at 07:31 PM
Babak Makkinejad said in reply to turcopolier...

The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
..and US is the one who has been paying for it since 1979!!!

kooshy said in reply to Ishmael Zechariah... , 03 February 2018 at 08:21 PM
IZ
My guess is, that he is unpredictable, instantaneous and therefore can't be consistent and reliable, useful idiot needs to be predictable.
kooshy , 03 February 2018 at 08:43 PM
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. "

David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making. Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

different clue , 03 February 2018 at 08:49 PM
Ishmael Zechariah,

( reply to comment 6),

I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.

It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate.

And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.

So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.

Jack , 03 February 2018 at 08:54 PM
David,

Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.

In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.

Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century endorsed her.

Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in. Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling the Borg pundits.

SmoothieX12 -> kooshy... , 03 February 2018 at 09:51 PM
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:10 PM
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:24 PM
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier on atlantic side.
catherine said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:21 AM
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''

The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.

'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'

State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union

aleksandar , 04 February 2018 at 04:41 AM
David,

About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS.

Fred said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 08:40 AM
Babak,

"they got US to bail them out during WWII" And how would things have worked out had we not done so?

Fred , 04 February 2018 at 08:46 AM
David,

"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time."

Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.

Anna said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 08:48 AM
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
turcopolier , 04 February 2018 at 08:54 AM
Anna

The powerful are often remarkably ignorant. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> Fred... , 04 February 2018 at 10:08 AM
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion, did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 11:53 AM
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Kooshy said in reply to catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an escalation.
Phodges said in reply to turcopolier ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:23 PM
Sir

It seems we are being defeated by Cicero's enemy within. Zion is achieving what no one could hope to achieve by force of arms.

David Habakkuk -> catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 01:17 PM
catherine,

In response to comment 5.

I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain more pointers.

It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.

An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian attempts to get hold of him. An extract:

'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'

(See http://defiancethebook.com/legal/habeas/petition.htm .)

Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.

Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:

'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'

(See http://konanykhin.com/news/the-konanykhine-case.html .)

So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has changed.

For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:

'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign passports for its "very, very special clients".

'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".

(For a 'Guardian report, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/sep/23/julianborger ; for the actual testimony, see http://archives-financialservices.house.gov/banking/92299ger.pdf .)

Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter, Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:

'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'

(For the transcript presented in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ )

When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.

(For the first part of the exchanges of comments, the second apparently having become unavailable, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2008/07/litvinenko_killing_had_state_i.html )

She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator, David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.

Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.

What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary claim about Shvets:

'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.

'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.

'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'

Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling her as to the side for which he was working.

It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.

An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria' was actually credible.

This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking, and for similar action against Syria.

Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.

There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.

A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing. This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High') might be a start.

Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')

The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one feel as though one wanted to throw up.

Thomas , 04 February 2018 at 01:24 PM
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.}

No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.

SmoothieX12 -> Anna... , 04 February 2018 at 01:39 PM
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.

My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.

Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.

Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.

james said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 04 February 2018 at 03:01 PM
there seems to be no shortage of money for these blatant propaganda exercises..
Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 04:14 PM
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914. Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
begob , 04 February 2018 at 05:20 PM
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 06:20 PM
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.

The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.

spy killer , 04 February 2018 at 06:55 PM
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
English Outsider -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 07:23 AM
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google also allows searches with more than one term. This link -

https://twitter.com/pat_lang

- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories" on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.

If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.

"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.

The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations" (hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many of the contributors know it from inside.

In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible, but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.

jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 08:11 AM
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.

So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.

Babak Makkinejad -> jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 08:29 AM
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Sid Finster said in reply to Jack... , 05 February 2018 at 10:26 AM
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.

The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.

Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.

Sid Finster said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 05 February 2018 at 10:31 AM
Explain Marshall Miller's role in this, please. He is someone I know quite well. I also know one of the Chalupas.
begob said in reply to jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 10:56 AM
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat of the BEF.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 11:18 AM
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break - David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 11:19 AM
Yes, I am Iranian. All "Babak"s are Iranians - except some obscure ones that are Rus - Babakov.
Anna , 05 February 2018 at 02:07 PM
The hard, blinding truth: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Thomas said in reply to turcopolier ... , 05 February 2018 at 02:08 PM
Colonel,

This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.

Richardstevenhack , 05 February 2018 at 02:36 PM
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.

And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.

Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."

Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.

Seriously, read this! The whole thing!

Rampant abuse and possible contempt of Court: what you need to know about the GOP memo
http://theduran.com/rampant-abuse-contempt-court-analysis-gop-memorandum/

blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 03:25 PM
Sen Grassley releases memo heavily redacted by DOJ/FBI.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/grassley-graham-blast-fbi-censoring-memo-calling-criminal-probe-trump-dossier

"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "

I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI is lying.

What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that are based on classified documents.

turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 04:38 PM
FM

We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status. You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are, in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you. You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl

Kooshy said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 04:46 PM
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from Northeestern
blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 04:55 PM
...would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Aye. Aye. Sir!

+1

That is why some of us believe the Patriot Act and FISA are both unpatriotic and unconstitutional. SCOTUS disagrees with the few of us.

Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 05:03 PM
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist. I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians - they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
English Outsider , 05 February 2018 at 06:31 PM
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.

David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because of that.

The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as "salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling around unsupervised?

The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but for the general public, that bit more untenable.

So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.

I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?

kooshy , 05 February 2018 at 07:49 PM
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type, they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 07:59 PM
EO

Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to pay him until he left UK service. pl

English Outsider , 06 February 2018 at 05:10 AM
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.

Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK side.

English Outsider -> Cortes... , 06 February 2018 at 05:53 AM
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about the "golden showers"? "

I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.

So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.

Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.

But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK get mixed up in it?

David Habakkuk -> Sid Finster... , 06 February 2018 at 06:19 AM
Sid Finster,

In response to comment 53.

When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.

A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella.

When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.

His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques, and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.

So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'

The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.

(This initial post by me, and later posts by me on that site, are at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:1857/diary. Three posts David Loepp and I produced jointly in December 2012, which have a lot on Scaramella and Shvets, are on his page there, at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/de%20Gondi/diary .)

The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December 2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:

'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic- Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'

Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:

'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them [presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'

The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':

'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI. Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini. Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'

In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography – which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella which had been described in the wiretap request.

As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.

In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.

Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.

'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with him.'

From a fax dated 7 November 2005:

'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re: Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'

From a fax dated 5 December 2005:

'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'

In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be in a chaotic state.

However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus justifications.

Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.

(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)

And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence in the Inquiry.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.

Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.

The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 09:40 AM
Thank you David Habakkuk. Truly sordid and deplorable. WWIII to be initiated on basis of lies.
Jack , 06 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
David

You may already know this but Steele was a no show in a UK court for a deposition on the libel suit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.amp.html

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 01:18 PM
I know something of spectroscopy.

The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis itself or its instrumentation.

The paragraph that you have quoted:

"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."

And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics - which did not and could not exist in this situation.

LeaNder , 07 February 2018 at 09:16 AM
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there is to know?

I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.

Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.

By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.

According to Google search there are no other links then your articles here:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf

**********

JAN RICHARD BÆRUG
The Collapsing Wall. Hybrid Journalism.
A Comparative Study of Newspapers and
Magazines in Eight Countries in Europe

Available online. Haven't read it yet, but journalism as hidden public relations transfer belt would be one of my minor obsessions. ...

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 07 February 2018 at 11:23 AM
I wonder too; their command of the English idiom is very au currant - noticed "opt in/opt out" reference? Too American.

They clearly are not native speakers of German.

LeaNder said in reply to kooshy... , 07 February 2018 at 12:30 PM
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_Island#Economy

Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.

Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?

The German link is different. How about the Iranian?

or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?

LeaNder said in reply to LeaNder... , 07 February 2018 at 01:14 PM
correcting myself #94:

another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s

I see Sergei seems to share my interest in the literary genre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Ivanov#Personal

[Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'

In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background, which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'

There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.

This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.

And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area.

Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.

The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.

In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry – the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.

Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier, which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.

(See http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/what-really-happened-robert-levinson-cia-iran-454803.html .)

Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio 4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets, backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.

The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available – evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.

Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.

What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest a sale had been completed.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.

All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder. For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.

(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews both with Mogilevich and Levinson at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/panorama/transcripts/transcript_06_12_99.txt )

In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.

Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions north of the Litani.

These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.

What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.

Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking 'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.

Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.

So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.

All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate Russia in supplying materials.

There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)

It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional, Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.

It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here, a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.

Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.

In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.

Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain, but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)

That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:

'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear limited life components and you can read for weeks).'

(For this and other articles by Kaszeta, as also his bio, see http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk ')

What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility, in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of ones which lasted longer.

For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.

What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.

In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'

According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?

As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.

In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties, and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another day.

A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.

Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.

Posted at 03:42 PM in As The Borg Turns , Habakkuk , Russia , Russiagate | Permalink

james , 03 February 2018 at 04:33 PM

thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..

it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..

JohnB , 03 February 2018 at 05:17 PM
David,

Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.

turcopolier , 03 February 2018 at 06:02 PM
james

It is the closest of all international intelligence relationships. It started in WW2. Before that the Brits were though of as a potential enemy. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 03 February 2018 at 06:10 PM
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
catherine , 03 February 2018 at 06:22 PM
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.

Re: Levinson

# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.

# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson went to Jablonski with it.

# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson? The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing came of it.

I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.

Ishmael Zechariah , 03 February 2018 at 06:54 PM
DH,

As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.

I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".

Be safe.

Ishmael Zechariah

Rd , 03 February 2018 at 07:31 PM
Babak Makkinejad said in reply to turcopolier...

The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
..and US is the one who has been paying for it since 1979!!!

kooshy said in reply to Ishmael Zechariah... , 03 February 2018 at 08:21 PM
IZ
My guess is, that he is unpredictable, instantaneous and therefore can't be consistent and reliable, useful idiot needs to be predictable.
kooshy , 03 February 2018 at 08:43 PM
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. "

David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making. Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

different clue , 03 February 2018 at 08:49 PM
Ishmael Zechariah,

( reply to comment 6),

I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.

It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate.

And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.

So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.

Jack , 03 February 2018 at 08:54 PM
David,

Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.

In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.

Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century endorsed her.

Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in. Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling the Borg pundits.

SmoothieX12 -> kooshy... , 03 February 2018 at 09:51 PM
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:10 PM
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:24 PM
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier on atlantic side.
catherine said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:21 AM
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''

The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.

'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'

State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union

aleksandar , 04 February 2018 at 04:41 AM
David,

About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS.

Fred said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 08:40 AM
Babak,

"they got US to bail them out during WWII" And how would things have worked out had we not done so?

Fred , 04 February 2018 at 08:46 AM
David,

"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time."

Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.

Anna said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 08:48 AM
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
turcopolier , 04 February 2018 at 08:54 AM
Anna

The powerful are often remarkably ignorant. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> Fred... , 04 February 2018 at 10:08 AM
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion, did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 11:53 AM
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Kooshy said in reply to catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an escalation.
Phodges said in reply to turcopolier ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:23 PM
Sir

It seems we are being defeated by Cicero's enemy within. Zion is achieving what no one could hope to achieve by force of arms.

David Habakkuk -> catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 01:17 PM
catherine,

In response to comment 5.

I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain more pointers.

It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.

An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian attempts to get hold of him. An extract:

'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'

(See http://defiancethebook.com/legal/habeas/petition.htm .)

Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.

Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:

'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'

(See http://konanykhin.com/news/the-konanykhine-case.html .)

So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has changed.

For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:

'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign passports for its "very, very special clients".

'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".

(For a 'Guardian report, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/sep/23/julianborger ; for the actual testimony, see http://archives-financialservices.house.gov/banking/92299ger.pdf .)

Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter, Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:

'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'

(For the transcript presented in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ )

When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.

(For the first part of the exchanges of comments, the second apparently having become unavailable, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2008/07/litvinenko_killing_had_state_i.html )

She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator, David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.

Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.

What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary claim about Shvets:

'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.

'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.

'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'

Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling her as to the side for which he was working.

It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.

An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria' was actually credible.

This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking, and for similar action against Syria.

Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.

There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.

A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing. This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High') might be a start.

Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')

The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one feel as though one wanted to throw up.

Thomas , 04 February 2018 at 01:24 PM
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.}

No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.

SmoothieX12 -> Anna... , 04 February 2018 at 01:39 PM
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.

My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.

Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.

Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.

james said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 04 February 2018 at 03:01 PM
there seems to be no shortage of money for these blatant propaganda exercises..
Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 04:14 PM
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914. Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
begob , 04 February 2018 at 05:20 PM
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 06:20 PM
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.

The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.

spy killer , 04 February 2018 at 06:55 PM
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
English Outsider -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 07:23 AM
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google also allows searches with more than one term. This link -

https://twitter.com/pat_lang

- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories" on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.

If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.

"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.

The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations" (hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many of the contributors know it from inside.

In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible, but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.

jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 08:11 AM
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.

So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.

Babak Makkinejad -> jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 08:29 AM
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Sid Finster said in reply to Jack... , 05 February 2018 at 10:26 AM
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.

The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.

Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.

Sid Finster said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 05 February 2018 at 10:31 AM
Explain Marshall Miller's role in this, please. He is someone I know quite well. I also know one of the Chalupas.
begob said in reply to jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 10:56 AM
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat of the BEF.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 11:18 AM
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break - David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 11:19 AM
Yes, I am Iranian. All "Babak"s are Iranians - except some obscure ones that are Rus - Babakov.
Anna , 05 February 2018 at 02:07 PM
The hard, blinding truth: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Thomas said in reply to turcopolier ... , 05 February 2018 at 02:08 PM
Colonel,

This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.

Richardstevenhack , 05 February 2018 at 02:36 PM
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.

And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.

Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."

Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.

Seriously, read this! The whole thing!

Rampant abuse and possible contempt of Court: what you need to know about the GOP memo
http://theduran.com/rampant-abuse-contempt-court-analysis-gop-memorandum/

blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 03:25 PM
Sen Grassley releases memo heavily redacted by DOJ/FBI.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/grassley-graham-blast-fbi-censoring-memo-calling-criminal-probe-trump-dossier

"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "

I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI is lying.

What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that are based on classified documents.

turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 04:38 PM
FM

We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status. You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are, in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you. You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl

Kooshy said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 04:46 PM
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from Northeestern
blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 04:55 PM
...would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Aye. Aye. Sir!

+1

That is why some of us believe the Patriot Act and FISA are both unpatriotic and unconstitutional. SCOTUS disagrees with the few of us.

Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 05:03 PM
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist. I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians - they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
English Outsider , 05 February 2018 at 06:31 PM
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.

David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because of that.

The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as "salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling around unsupervised?

The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but for the general public, that bit more untenable.

So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.

I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?

kooshy , 05 February 2018 at 07:49 PM
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type, they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 07:59 PM
EO

Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to pay him until he left UK service. pl

English Outsider , 06 February 2018 at 05:10 AM
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.

Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK side.

English Outsider -> Cortes... , 06 February 2018 at 05:53 AM
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about the "golden showers"? "

I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.

So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.

Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.

But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK get mixed up in it?

David Habakkuk -> Sid Finster... , 06 February 2018 at 06:19 AM
Sid Finster,

In response to comment 53.

When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.

A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella.

When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.

His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques, and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.

So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'

The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.

(This initial post by me, and later posts by me on that site, are at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:1857/diary. Three posts David Loepp and I produced jointly in December 2012, which have a lot on Scaramella and Shvets, are on his page there, at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/de%20Gondi/diary .)

The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December 2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:

'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic- Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'

Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:

'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them [presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'

The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':

'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI. Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini. Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'

In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography – which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella which had been described in the wiretap request.

As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.

In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.

Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.

'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with him.'

From a fax dated 7 November 2005:

'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re: Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'

From a fax dated 5 December 2005:

'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'

In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be in a chaotic state.

However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus justifications.

Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.

(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)

And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence in the Inquiry.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.

Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.

The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 09:40 AM
Thank you David Habakkuk. Truly sordid and deplorable. WWIII to be initiated on basis of lies.
Jack , 06 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
David

You may already know this but Steele was a no show in a UK court for a deposition on the libel suit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.amp.html

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 01:18 PM
I know something of spectroscopy.

The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis itself or its instrumentation.

The paragraph that you have quoted:

"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."

And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics - which did not and could not exist in this situation.

LeaNder , 07 February 2018 at 09:16 AM
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there is to know?

I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.

Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.

By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.

According to Google search there are no other links then your articles here:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf

**********

JAN RICHARD BÆRUG
The Collapsing Wall. Hybrid Journalism.
A Comparative Study of Newspapers and
Magazines in Eight Countries in Europe

Available online. Haven't read it yet, but journalism as hidden public relations transfer belt would be one of my minor obsessions. ...

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 07 February 2018 at 11:23 AM
I wonder too; their command of the English idiom is very au currant - noticed "opt in/opt out" reference? Too American.

They clearly are not native speakers of German.

LeaNder said in reply to kooshy... , 07 February 2018 at 12:30 PM
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_Island#Economy

Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.

Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?

The German link is different. How about the Iranian?

or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?

LeaNder said in reply to LeaNder... , 07 February 2018 at 01:14 PM
correcting myself #94:

another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s

I see Sergei seems to share my interest in the literary genre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Ivanov#Personal

[Mar 10, 2018] The difference between opposition of Likudniks and ethnically based anti-semitism

Those are two different phenomena. Most of the opposition is directed against warmongering Likudniks, neocons and financial oligarchy (signicant part of which is ethnically Jewish, like Germany in 30th), while often incorrectly using ethnic terminology. So in many case you need to substitution Jew with a Neocon or Likudnik to make sense of the sentiments expressed.
Mar 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Colleen Pater , March 9, 2018 at 12:33 am GMT

@Reactionary Utopian

"How much anti-Jewish hostility is there today in America? A lot? A little? Is it negligible? Potentially explosive? It is hard to tell because disliking Jews is often a firing offense, and a controlled press makes discussion impossible.

A clue can perhaps be found in the comments sections of political websites where, protected by anonymity, commenters are often bitterly anti-Jewish. But then, these comments may, or may not, be the work of a few cranks."

This is a question that has moving parts. There might be a lot of hostility today and was very little a few decades ago because what was once thought behavior we could afford or was perhaps thought a temporary reaction to WW2 now seems much more insidious.

Or any of a dozen similar relationships. I have always noticed Jewish behavior being a New Yorker, but had until very recently been rather indulgent about it.

... ... ...

[Mar 10, 2018] The frankly farcical nature of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun

Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

David Habakkuk -> JohnB... , 04 February 2018 at 10:35 AM

JohnB,

In response to comment 2.

If you are interested in Higgins and 'Bellingcat', you might want be interested in a 'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media' which has recently been set up by a group of British academics.

(See http://syriapropagandamedia.org .)

At the moment, work which has already been done is being prepared for publication on the site. However, some of it has already appeared on the blog of one of the members, Tim Hayward.

This includes a detailed discussion of the report of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' on the Khan Sheikhoun attack by Paul McKeigue.
His professorship, at Edinburgh, is in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics. This means that, unlike most of us interested in these matters, with the obvious exception of Theodore Postol, he has a grasp of a lot of relevant science.

(See https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-guest-blog-featuring-paul-mckeigues-reassessment/ .)

A basic tool of his trade is a technique called 'Bayesian analysis', one of whose many applications is to separate out genetic factors in disease from others. His use of it in the piece may make bits of it somewhat hard going for those of us whose scientific education stopped at school.

But if you are interested in a demonstration of the way that the kind of pure charlatanry propagated by Higgins and Kaszeta has come to be accepted uncritically by supposed impartial international bodies, you should read the piece.

Also on Hayward's blog is an article which was submitted to the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' page, in response to a piece by Olivia Solon smearing those who have had the temerity to suggest that the 'White Helmets' may be something less than a band of disinterested charity workers, and an account of the attempts of the 'Working Group' to get a response from the paper.

(See https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/the-guardian-white-helmets-and-silenced-comment/ .)

This has links to material on that organisation already published. A lot more work will be appearing on the 'Working Group' site.

David Habakkuk -> blowback... , 06 February 2018 at 11:42 AM

blowback,

In response to 36.

Thanks for the link. But what Mattis has said relates to the latest accusations, not early ones. Key paragraphs:

'A deadly sarin attack on another rebel-held area in April 2017 prompted President Donald Trump to order a U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase, from which the Syrian operation is said to have been launched.

'"We are on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they would be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical (weapons) convention," Mattis said.'

So he is not repudiating the conventional wisdom according to which sarin was used at Khan Sheikhoun, and the possibility of a military response to a fresh 'false flag' is left open. Unless he is basing his accusation on credible evidence, this to be blunt, comes close to inciting jihadists to atrocity.

The extent -- and unscrupulousness -- of the mounting propaganda campaign in relation to the recently claims is well brought out in a piece by Rick Sterling in 'Consortium News' on Sunday. Whether those involved are still hoping to precipitate a serious American military intervention, and whether those hopes might be realistic, I cannot say.

(See https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/04/wmd-claims-in-syria-raise-concerns-over-u-s-escalation/ .)

This makes the detailed demonstration by Professor McKeigue of the frankly farcical nature of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun, to which I linked, all the more important. In addition to exposing the total dependence of its analysis on a completely incredible claim about the aircraft which is supposed to have delivered the chemical weapon, and discussing much other evidence, he brings out a key point about developments in 'chemical forensics' over the past years.

As well as the 1995 sarin attacks, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks led to an enormous investment of money and intellectual energy in the development of analytical techniques making it possible to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons incidents. A fascinating article entitled 'Tracing a Threat' by Bethany Halford in 'Chemistry & Engineering News World' in February 2012 provides a good picture of what the state of play was at that time.

(See https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i6/Tracing-Threat.html .)

She quotes an expert called Joseph Chipuk, from a consultancy called 'Signature Science' in Austin, explaining how the 'spectra' -- different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation associated with different 'impurities' in samples, including 'environmental' ones, such as soil, fragments of weapons, and clothing -- can be matched with reconstructions of possible 'synthetic pathways'.

The levels of sophistication of which this kind of analysis was already capable, he made clear, are close to breathtaking:

'To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an "almost robotic manner," following a database that tells them exactly what conditions to use. They then hand off the product to the analytical chemists, who look at all the tiny impurities that turn up along with the toxic chemical -- "the stuff that's down in the weeds," as Chipuk describes it. From there, the hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of spectra that are collected go to statisticians and computer scientists who work their magic to tease out the unique attribution signatures.'

At the end of the article, Halford quotes Chipuk again making clear that improvement is continuous in a way that is making it quite extraordinarily difficult to fool analysts who are genuinely looking for the truth -- as not only Dan Kaszeta but, very regrettably, key figures at the OPCW and some of its 'Designated Laboratories' do not appear to be:

'"The fact is that technology continues to improve, instrumentation continues to improve, and computers continue to improve. The chances of someone being able to slip by undetected are getting smaller and smaller," says Signature Science's Chipuk. "If you were to choose to do something like this, the science is going to catch up to you."'

In relation to the claims now being made, what is initially at issue is simply the question of whether the 'impurities' identified by the 'spectra' in samples from the incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal match.

What characterised the 'hexamine hypothesis' as put forward by Kaszeta was the -- close to surreal -- suggestion that a single substance, hexamine, was a 'smoking gun'. To anyone who had taken the trouble to read easily accessible discussions of the methodology, such as Halford's piece, it would be apparent that it is simply ludicrous to base a claim on a single substance -- particularly given that hexamine is also used in explosives.

In the 'Reuters' report on 30 January, we were told:

'Two compounds in the Ghouta sample matched those also found in Khan Sheikhoun, one formed from sarin and the stabilizer hexamine and another specific fluorophosphate that appears during sarin production, the tests showed.'

(See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons-exclusiv/exclusive-tests-link-syrian-government-stockpile-to-largest-sarin-attack-sources-idUSKBN1FJ0MG .)

So we have an -- unidentified -- compound which supposedly establishes that the hexamine did indeed form part of the sarin production process, rather than of the explosive charge. And we are then told of the presence of another compound, which are told is 'another specific fluorophosphate': why not tell us which?

To anyone interested in actually making sense of the evidence, to have a mere two compounds mentioned, and those not adequately identified, suggests an alternative possibility: that people who knew details of the 'synthetic pathway' by which Syrian government sarin had been synthesised leaked them to those who were producing the substance for a 'false flag.' It would have been beyond the capabilities of a relatively primitive operation to produce any kind of close fit -- to get a couple of compounds to match would probably not have been difficult at all.

If this suspicious interpretation if false, there is a very simple way to refute it -- and General Mattis is in a perfect position to do this.

The close links between the American and British 'intelligence communities' have been stressed in comments on this thread. It is clear that in relation to Syrian chemical weapons, there was a division of labour.

Analysis of 'environmental' samples was concentrated at the British OPCW-certified facility, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire. Meanwhile, preparations for the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal were the made at one of the two American OPCW-certified laboratories, the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Maryland.

The destruction of the 581 tonnes of the sarin precursor methylphosphonyl difluoride, or DF, aboard the specially kitted out vessel 'M.V. Cape Ray' in the Mediterranean was announced in August 2014. In the extensive reporting on the preparations for this, it was made absolutely clear that -- as one would expect -- the vessel was equipped with a proper analytical laboratory, with OPCW scientists involved as well as those from the Edgewood Center.

(See https://www.chemistryworld.com/feature/eliminating-syrias-chemical-weapons/7390.article .)

In a post entitled 'Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards?' shortly after the Khan Sheikhoun attack, and then in two 'open letters' to the members of our Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees, I pointed to the mass of evidence suggesting that the test results from different incidents did not match each other or those from the stocks destroyed on the 'Cape Ray.'

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/habakkuk/ .)

The publicly available evidence, I argued, provided strong reason to believe that results from Porton Down and the OPCW confirmed the claim made by the Russians, supposedly on the basis of tests from their own OPCW-certified laboratory, that the sarin used at Khan Al-Asal and Ghouta was a 'cottage industry' product. This was also what Seymour Hersh claimed that tests carried out at Porton Down had revealed about the sarin used at Ghouta - he used the term 'kitchen sarin.'

What the Reuters report has -- perhaps inadvertently -- confirmed is that Porton Down had in fact tested 'environmental' samples from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013, the first where sarin was used in Syria, by suggesting that tests from that incident as well as those at Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun matched the results from the stocks on the 'Cape Ray':

'Laboratories working for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons compared samples taken by a U.N. mission in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta after the Aug. 21, 2013 attack, when hundreds of civilians died of sarin gas poisoning, to chemicals handed over by Damascus for destruction in 2014.

'The tests found "markers" in samples taken at Ghouta and at the sites of two other nerve agent attacks, in the towns of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib governorate on April 4, 2017 and Khan al-Assal, Aleppo, in March 2013, two people involved in the process said.

'"We compared Khan Sheikhoun, Khan al-Assal, Ghouta," said one source who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the findings. "There were signatures in all three of them that matched."'

Can anyone seriously believe that if the tests we know to have been done on at Porton Down had established what this 'source' who does not have the guts to the identify himself claims, this fact would not have been trumpeted to the skies -- first when the results from Ghouta matched those from Khan Al-Asal, and then when both matched those from the 'Cape Ray'?

Allright -- sometimes the practically incredible turns out to be true. But if he has any evidence on which to base his claims, General Mattis should have the courage of his convictions, and order the disclosure of the relevant 'spectra.'

David Habakkuk -> Babak Makkinejad... , 07 February 2018 at 09:28 AM
Babak Makkinejad,

You are wrong about this. That the 'chain of custody' principle has been flagrantly violated in the reports of the 'Fact-Finding Mission' and the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' is patently the case, and in itself reason why the almost unanimous acceptance of these in the MSM is scandalous. But that is a separate issue.

(See http://russiaun.ru/en/news/opcwun -- the whole document is well worth reading.)

The reasons why the test results from the various laboratories were critical were set out last April in my '"Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards"?' piece, and the two 'open letters' to the members of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees pointing out the need for clarification as to what was being claimed about the test results.

Let me recap, and update.

An example of the kind of 'chemical forensics' one needs in incidents like this was provided by the analysis of test results on 'shell and soil' samples purporting to derive from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013 which formed part of the document from the Russian OPCW-certified laboratory which was submitted to the UN Secretary-General on 9 July that year.

On 4 September, as part of the attempt to stop the visible attempt to use Ghouta to create an unstoppable momentum towards the destruction of the Syrian government, more details of what looks like an expanded version of the original document were made public by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In it they claimed that:

'shell and soil samples contained nerve agents -- sarin gas and diisopropylfluorophosphate -- not synthesized in an industrial environment, which was used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.'

It was also made clear that the conclusions rested upon precisely the kind of very complex analysis Bethany Halford is describing:

'We highlight that the Russian report is extremely specific. It is a scientific and technical document containing about 100 pages with many tables and diagrams of spectral analysis of the samples. We expect that it will significantly assist in the investigation into this incident by the UN. Unfortunately, it has in fact not started yet.'

(See https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/3169 .)

Unfortunately, the detailed 'spectra' have not been released, but they have certainly been analysed by experts at the OPCW and that organisation's 'Designated Laboratories' in the West, including Porton Down. We know that the results from the materials tested on the 'Cape Ray' will show a sarin precursor 'manufactured in an industrial environment.'

To prove what Mattis and others want to claim it is necessary that the 'spectra' from none of the other tests match those in the Russian report, and the 'markers' from the 'Cape Ray' materials are the same as those from Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, and Khan Al-Asal. If there are serious 'chain of custody' problems, the 'markers' from the four sets of tests might not be sufficient to establish Syrian government culpability -- a lack of a match would be quite sufficient to establish that the indictment cannot be accepted as it stands.

As I brought out in my post last April, the publicly available evidence -- of which Hersh's 'Red Line and Rat Line' article and subsequent interviews form an important part -- strongly suggests the Russian claims that the toxin used in both Khan Al-Asal and also Ghouta was 'cottage industry', as they put it, or 'kitchen sarin', as he put it, are correct.

It is simply not a refutation of these claims to treat one compound supposed to validate the 'hexamine hypothesis', and an unspecified fluorophosphate, which could be the diisopropylfluorophosphate reported by the Russians, or hexafluorophosphate, as conclusive evidence. (The implications, or lack of them, would be quite different, depending on which compound it was.)

And all this hush-hush whisper-whisper from 'diplomats and scientists' who are not prepared to be identified, as well as assurances from that supposedly 'independent' expert Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, only add to the grounds for scepticism. As I brought out in my post, he is under the strongest possible suspicion of having been involved in covering up, and quite possibly colluding in, the 'false flags.'

If they have evidence to support the case, then let Western governments produce the 'spectra' -- as also should the Russians. We do not need complete reports, which may need to be kept secret for perfectly good reasons -- simply the 'many tables and diagrams' which must exist. Once these were out in the open, then it would be much easier to have an informed argument.

Most of this ground I covered last April. However, there is some crucial new context. Part of this is provided by a report in 'The Intercept' last October, entitled 'NSA Document Says Saudi Prince Directly Ordered Coordinated Attack By Syrian Rebels On Damascus.' As it explains:

'According to a top-secret National Security Agency document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden, the March 2013 rocket attacks were directly ordered by a member of the Saudi royal family, Prince Salman bin Sultan, to help mark the second anniversary of the Syrian revolution. Salman had provided 120 tons of explosives and other weaponry to opposition forces, giving them instructions to "light up Damascus" and "flatten" the airport, the document, produced by U.S. government surveillance on Syrian opposition factions, shows.'

(See https://theintercept.com/2017/10/24/syria-rebels-nsa-saudi-prince-assad/ .)

This was on 18 March -- the day before Khan Al-Asal. Further relevant context is provided by a piece in February 2017 on the 'Monitor on Massacre Marketing' site by Adam Larson, entitled 'What happened on March 19, 2013?' which is subtitled 'The First Bodies Tossed Across Obama's "Red Line" in Syria.'

(See http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/what-happened-on-march-19-2013.html .)

This starts by reviewing the -- ample -- evidence that the Khan Al-Asal attack came at a point where there was very visible enthusiasm on the part of a lot of people in the United States and Western Europe for intervention in support of the 'Assad must go' agenda, so that he had every incentive to avoid chemical weapons use, and the insurgents every incentive to produce a 'false flag.'

And Larson goes on to note that 'Ironically, the first solid news of the feared chemical attack came in the form of a Syrian government announcement on March 19 that their forces had been gassed by "terrorists" in a town just west of Aleppo" -- that is, the Shi'ite town of Khan Al-Asal.

There follow detailed reviews of the evidence of another incident on the same day, in which the victims appeared to be insurgents, at the Damascus suburb variously transliterated as Otaybah and Uteibah, and more fragmentary and puzzling evidence about events at Homs.

And Larson goes on to suggest that a three-pronged 'false flag' was planned for 19 March, in Aleppo, Damascus and Homs -- the country's three largest cities. This would obviously fit very well with the NSA intercept, in that it would suggest that the intent was to portray these as Assad's savage response to the attacks in Damascus, thus, hopefully, generating unstoppable momentum for American military intervention.

This seems to me eminently plausible, but it leaves open two possible interpretations of Khan Al-Asal. When insurgents who are difficult to control are given access to weapons like sarin, there is an obvious possibility of matters developing in unexpected directions, either as the result of their bungling an attack, or succumbing to the temptation to use it against government forces.

However, a different set of unintended consequences is also possible. It could be that Syrian intelligence, perhaps with the assistance of Russian and/or Iranian, and with a combination of 'SIGINT' and 'HUMINT' methods quite possibly being deployed, knew precisely what was going on -- and had double agents inside the groups preparing the 'false flags.'

Rather than wait until the inevitable chorus calling for all-out air strikes began, it could well have made sense to turn one of the incidents into a 'false flag' within a 'false flag.'

The anti-Assad camp would then have been effectively 'snookered.' They would have faced a situation where they would know that, if they acceded to the calls from the Syrians and Russians for a proper UN/OPCW investigation, making a rigorous use of 'chemical forensics', these would implicate the insurgents. And if the evidence suggested that it was these who had crossed Obama's 'red line', it would have been game and set, and probably match, to the Syrian and Russian governments.

Irrespective of people's views on what interpretation is plausible in relation to Khan Al-Asal, the important point is that strategies which rely strongly on convert action -- as the 'régime change' projects I outlined in the current post do -- are inherently liable to run out of control. The uncontrollability of their instruments, and the possibility of covert action meeting covert action in return, are always liable to generate unintended consequences which can escalate.

As soon as the possible that an impartial investigation would implicate the insurgents was real, in relation to Khan Al-Asal, irrespective of whether the imputation would have been justified, the alternative to facing a complete collapse of their projects in Syria, for Western governments, was inherently likely to be at best covering up, at worst colluding in, further 'false flags.' Moreover, intense pressure had to be mounted, to ensure that what were supposed to be sources of independent expertise supported their cover-ups.

This pattern, I am suggesting is common both to history of the 'StratCom' in which Christopher Steele has been involved, and that relating to chemical weapons use in Syria. Particularly when the 'Fourth Estate' ceases to do its job, a likely result is the progressive systematic corruption of institutions.

blowback , 04 February 2018 at 03:20 PM
David,

You have read one of the articles on what James Mattis said on Friday about sarin? He quite clearly states that the United States has no evidence that the Syrian government has used sarin. Given the way, the French, British, German, etc. intelligence services share information, that suggests that if James Mattis is speaking the truth then no one in NATO, except perhaps for Turkey given Erdogan's recent behavior, has any evidence either. This means that both incidents, East Ghouta and Khan Shaykhoun, and any other incidents that are alleged by the terrorists to have involved sarin are not what they are claimed to be in western msm and most western politicians. Bellingcat and all the other NGOs who have made similar claims about sarin are all wrong.

Mattis does claim that Syria has used chlorine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-mattis-says-concerned-about-syrias-potential-use-of-sarin-gas-idUSKBN1FM1VJ

[Mar 10, 2018] The US is not capable of entering into any legal agreement under which it can be trusted to abide by the terms for more than 5 minutes

Mar 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: BM | Mar 9, 2018 11:43:07 AM | 51

O/t

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/08/president-trumps-stunningly-effective-north-korea-policy-leaves-professional-diplomatic-corps-gobsmacked/

Supposedly according to a statement by South Korean National Security Adviser Chung Eui-yong, Kim Jong-un is 'ready' to negotiate away with the US his nuclear deterrance and has asked to meet Trump. The allegations in the above report cannot be true, they would be suicidal. Kim Jong-un is far too intelligent for that. I think more likely the report is seriously distorted by Chung Eui-yong as a means of stupid and naive manipulation - if so that would be a sinister development.

The US is not capable of entering into any legal agreement under which it can be trusted to abide by the terms for more than 5 minutes - that has been proved multiple times over in the recent years. Qadhafy also negotiated away his nuclear programme with legal agreements and where did he end up? And that was before the more recent TOTAL renunciation of adherence to international law by the US which is no longer even covered by a fig leaf!

Kim has claimed (reasonably) before that IF North Korea's security COULD be adequately guaranteed he would be ready to give up his nuclear weapons. That does NOT mean it is POSSIBLE to achieve any such guarantee - who could ever make any such guarantee and how could it be enforced, and what would the interests of the enforcers be? It seems impossible to me. Certainly any bilateral agreement between the US and Kim has no relevance whatsoever to with Kim's offer - it would be like signing his own death warrant.

What makes the report especially implausible by many orders of magnitude is the pitiful allegation in the statement:

"I told President Trump that in our meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said he is committed to denuclearization. Kim pledged that North Korea will refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests; he understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue. And he expressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible."

...

"Along with President Trump we are optimistic about continuing a diplomatic process to test the possibility of a peaceful resolution. The Republic of Korea, The United States and our partners stand together in insisting that we not repeat the mistakes of the past; and that the pressure will continue until North Korea matches it's words with concrete actions. Thank You."

In other words, according to (what I presume is a US puppet and beneficiary of the warmongering) Chung Eui-yong, Kim Jong-un bows down to the supreme military superiority of the US and humbly begs for promises that are not worth writing on toilet paper. Anybody who believes that is a moron. Chung Eui-yong is obviously deliberately distorting Kim's position, as an attempt to sabotage the peace negotiations, the treacherous monster. I can well understand that Kim Jong-un would be horrified by Chung Eui-yong's statement which would massively increase distrust and undermine the tremendous recent diplomatic advances between North and South Korea, but hopefully Kim will navigate around it. Chung Eui-yong must be fired immediately.

I cannot see how North Korea's security could possibly be guaranteed without its nuclear weapons, unless the US gives up all its weapons, navy and worldwide bases. If any such possibility exists it would certainly be dependent on guarantees from many parties including (most crucially) Russia and China, but also the SCO, EU, NATO and the US. The Iran agreement already had multiple guarantors but even that is threatening to unravel, and the US is threatening to tear it up. How could Kim trust that he will not end up sodomised with a bayonet like Qadhafy? The real problem is how can any agreement be enforced if the US tears it up?

Probably any solution if it exists must include arming North Korea with the latest Russian non-nuclear defence equipment with guarantees to upgrade them, combined with defence agreements, investments in the economy, and certainly with multi-year transition arrangements before nuclear weapons are actually removed.

Forget about signing a piece of toilet paper with the US - it is meaningless unless North Korea has POTENT means to enforce US compliance with any such agreement. Such enforcement cannot rely on legal channels because the US is a rogue state with no respect for the law.

"he understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue" - bad joke, bad taste.

[Mar 10, 2018] Why We re Underestimating American Collapse

discussion.theguardian.com
Why We're Underestimating American Collapse The Strange New Pathologies of the World's First Rich Failed State

You might say, having read some of my recent essays, "Umair! Don't worry! Everything will be fine! It's not that bad!" I would look at you politely, and then say gently, "To tell you the truth, I don't think we're taking collapse nearly seriously enough."

Why? When we take a hard look at US collapse, we see a number of social pathologies on the rise. Not just any kind. Not even troubling, worrying, and dangerous ones. But strange and bizarre ones. Unique ones. Singular and gruesomely weird ones I've never really seen before, and outside of a dystopia written by Dickens and Orwell, nor have you, and neither has history. They suggest that whatever "numbers" we use to represent decline  --  shrinking real incomes, inequality, and so on -- we are in fact grossly underestimating what pundits call the "human toll", but which sensible human beings like you and I should simply think of as the overwhelming despair, rage, and anxiety of living in a collapsing society.

Let me give you just five examples of what I'll call the social pathologies of collapse  --  strange, weird, and gruesome new diseases, not just ones we don't usually see in healthy societies, but ones that we have never really seen before in any modern society.

America has had 11 school shootings in the last 23 days. That's one every other day, more or less. That statistic is alarming enough  --  but it is just a number. Perspective asks us for comparison. So let me put that another way. America has had 11 school shootings in the last 23 days, which is more than anywhere else in the world, even Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, the phenomenon of regular school shootings appears to be a unique feature of American collapse  --  it just doesn't happen in any other country  --  and that is what I mean by "social pathologies of collapse": a new, bizarre, terrible disease striking society.

Why are American kids killing each other? Why doesn't their society care enough to intervene? Well, probably because those kids have given up on life  --  and their elders have given up on them. Or maybe you're right  --  and it's not that simple. Still, what do the kids who aren't killing each other do? Well, a lot of them are busy killing themselves.

So there is of course also an "opioid epidemic". We use that phrase too casually, but it much more troubling than it appears on first glance. Here is what is really curious about it. In many countries in the world  --  most of Asia and Africa  --  one can buy all the opioids one wants from any local pharmacy, without a prescription. You might suppose then that opioid abuse as a mass epidemic would be a global phenomenon. Yet we don't see opioid epidemics anywhere but America  --  especially not ones so vicious and widespread they shrink life expectancy. So the "opioid epidemic"  --  mass self-medication with the hardest of hard drugs  --  is again a social pathology of collapse: unique to American life. It is not quite captured in the numbers, but only through comparison  --  and when we see it in global perspective, we get a sense of just how singularly troubled American life really is.

Why would people abuse opioids en masse unlike anywhere else in the world? They must be living genuinely traumatic and desperate lives, in which there is little healthcare, so they have to self-medicate the terror away. But what is so desperate about them? Well, consider another example: the "nomadic retirees". They live in their cars. They go from place to place, season after season, chasing whatever low-wage work they can find  --  spring, an Amazon warehouse, Christmas, Walmart.

Now, you might say  --  "well, poor people have always chased seasonal work!" But that is not really the point: absolute powerlessness and complete indignity is. In no other country I can see do retirees who should have been able to save up enough to live on now living in their cars in order to find work just to go on eating before they die  --  not even in desperately poor ones, where at least families live together, share resources, and care for one another. This is another pathology of collapse that is unique to America  --  utter powerlessness to live with dignity. Numbers don't capture it  --  but comparisons paint a bleak picture.

How did America's elderly end up cheated of dignity? After all, even desperately poor countries have "informal social support systems"  --  otherwise known as families and communities. But in America, there is the catastrophic collapse of social bonds. Extreme capitalism has blown apart American society so totally that people cannot even care for one another as much as they do in places like Pakistan and Nigeria. Social bonds, relationships themselves, have become unaffordable luxuries, more so than even in poor countries: this is yet another social pathology unique to American collapse.

Yet those once poor countries are making great strides. Costa Ricans now have higher life expectancy than Americans  --  because they have public healthcare. American life expectancy is falling, unlike nearly anywhere else in the world, save the UK  --  because it doesn't.

And that is my last pathology: it is one of the soul, not one of the limbs, like the others above. American appear to be quite happy simply watching one another die, in all the ways above. They just don't appear to be too disturbed, moved, or even affected by the four pathologies above: their kids killing each other, their social bonds collapsing, being powerless to live with dignity,or having to numb the pain of it all away.

If these pathologies happened in any other rich country  --  even in most poor ones  --  people would be aghast, shocked, and stunned, and certainly moved to make them not happen. But in America, they are, well, not even resigned. They are indifferent, mostly.

So my last pathology is a predatory society. A predatory society doesn't just mean oligarchs ripping people off financially. In a truer way, it means people nodding and smiling and going about their everyday business as their neighbours, friends, and colleagues die early deaths in shallow graves. The predator in American society isn't just its super-rich  --  but an invisible and insatiable force: the normalization of what in the rest of the world would be seen as shameful, historic, generational moral failures, if not crimes, becoming mere mundane everyday affairs not to be too worried by or troubled about.

Perhaps that sounds strong to you. Is it?

Now that I've given you a few examples  --  there are many more  --  of the social pathologies of collapse, let me share with you the three points that they raise for me.

These social pathologies are something like strange and gruesome new strains of disease infecting the body social. America has always been a pioneer  --  only today, it is host not just to problems not just rarely seen in healthy societies  --  it is pioneering novel social pathologies have never been seen in the modern world outside present-day America, period. What does that tell us?

American collapse is much more severe than we suppose it is. We are underestimating its magnitude, not overestimating it. American intellectuals, media, and thought doesn't put any of its problems in global or historical perspective  --  but when they are seen that way, America's problems are revealed to be not just the everyday nuisances of a declining nation, but something more like a body suddenly attacked by unimagined diseases.

Seen accurately. American collapse is a catastrophe of human possibility without modern parallel . And because the mess that America has made of itself, then, is so especially unique, so singular, so perversely special  --  the treatment will have to be novel, too. The uniqueness of these social pathologies tell us that American collapse is not like a reversion to any mean, or the downswing of a trend. It is something outside the norm. Something beyond the data. Past the statistics. It is like the meteor that hit the dinosaurs: an outlier beyond outliers, an event at the extreme of the extremes. That is why our narratives, frames, and theories cannot really capture it  --  much less explain it. We need a whole new language  --  and a new way of seeing  --  to even begin to make sense of it.

But that is America's task, not the world's. The world's task is this. Should the world follow the American model  --  extreme capitalism, no public investment, cruelty as a way of life, the perversion of everyday virtue  --  then these new social pathologies will follow, too. They are new diseases of the body social that have emerged from the diet of junk food  --  junk media, junk science, junk culture, junk punditry, junk economics, people treating one another and their society like junk  --  that America has fed upon for too long.

Umair
January 2018

[Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

As chickenhawks related those who experienced war in the USA elite that slide to neocon dominance became inevitable.

SmoothieX12 -> Anna... , 04 February 2018 at 01:39 PM

- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.

My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.

Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.

Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.

kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 04:10 PM
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or Ike still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
Joe100 said in reply to kooshy... , 04 February 2018 at 04:40 PM
While McCain is a war veteran, his career was not in any way distinguished - rather he pretty clearly was given "hall pass" after "hall pass" given his father and grandfather. It also seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view of the world.

"The Nightingale's Song" has an excellent treatment of his Naval Academy and service time, along with and in contrast to Ollie North, Jim Webb, admiral Poindexter and Bud MacFarlane. Not a pretty picture..

SmoothieX12 -> kooshy... , 04 February 2018 at 05:00 PM
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or Ike still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.

Seeing generations of your close and remote relatives killed and your property destroyed as a result of war is usually a very sobering collective experience. McCain, apart from being a rather exceptional warmonger, doesn't know what it is, despite experiencing some serious trials while being a POW. Ike saw, for starters, concentration camps and, unlike, McCain was mostly on the ground. This is a crucial distinction.

kooshy , 04 February 2018 at 05:15 PM
"It also seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view of the world."
I agree, and, that was the point I tried to make, not all veterans are necessary qualified MINDS for deciding future of the coming generations. I have the same suspicion for General Kelly, having lost a son in Afghanistan and having power to influence the war in Afghanistan, I think is this situation, like judges, one has to recuse him/herself to be part of planers.

[Mar 10, 2018] In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions.

Notable quotes:
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

catherine -> SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:21 AM

''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''

The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.

'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'

State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union

Kooshy -> catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an escalation.

[Mar 10, 2018] Soros role in Fusion GPS? "Follow the money."

Soros might well be a front company for an intelligence agency.
Notable quotes:
"... a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a Fusion GPS operative ..."
"... This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home. ..."
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs." ..."
"... I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency. ..."
"... i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it... ..."
"... It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards singling out russia for everything.. ..."
"... i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape or form.. ..."
"... My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian. ..."
"... When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"In a Daily Caller op-ed calling the Russian meddling narrative a " false public manipulation ," Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska claims that Daniel Jones - a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a Fusion GPS operative - told the Russian Oligarch's lawyer in March, 2017 that Fusion GPS was funded by " a group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros. "" Zerohedge

------------

Now, this is something different. I have no idea what the relative truthiness of this may be, but... pl

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-09/russian-billionaire-claims-fusion-gps-funded-soros

Posted at 12:33 PM in Russiagate | Permalink

Jack , 09 March 2018 at 01:58 PM

Sir

This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home.

JW , 09 March 2018 at 02:39 PM
I appreciate your use of the phrase ' relative truthiness', and I suggest this latest truthiness is just part of the movie, and a great movie it is.

Still, it's about time Soros showed up and he's in good company too, along with this week's poisoned Russian spy and a paid prostitute with a Trump story to tell. Next ?

We're probably due for a Clinton/Russia-related Julian Assange document dump, some Russian intel officer arrests in DC and....a new Steele-equivalent originator offering a more respectable document since after all any evidence is good evidence. Anything to keep the show going and the audience enthralled !

As for Soros himself, I suggest that there are plenty of Soros's with plenty of attached money trails, but George has the watch. All he is missing is the white cat on his lap.

Peter AU , 09 March 2018 at 03:04 PM
Silicon Valley. A mention of them in this Politico article
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/26/state-defense-russia-propaganda-426626

"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs."

The entry at wikipedia on Fredric Terman, Stanford university and silicon valley is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Terman

Soros? All NGO's that apear in MSM articles, I look up their funding. Most funding traces back to State Dep NED and Soros, along with other older money 'philanthropist' type foundations.

I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency.

james , 09 March 2018 at 04:02 PM
oleg deripaska is a colorful Russian oligarch...

i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it...

It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards singling out russia for everything..

i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape or form..

Kooshy , 09 March 2018 at 05:04 PM
My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian.

When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven.

Fred , 09 March 2018 at 05:23 PM
Interesting that a former staffer from Senator Feinstein is implicated in the mess. How many others are there who have been doing the same thing? I wonder if Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultt's IT staffer Mr. Arwan was accessing any relevant information while he was on her payroll and for whom?

[Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'

In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background, which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'

There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.

This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.

And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area.

Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.

The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.

In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry – the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.

Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier, which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.

(See http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/what-really-happened-robert-levinson-cia-iran-454803.html .)

Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio 4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets, backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.

The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available – evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.

Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.

What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest a sale had been completed.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.

All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder. For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.

(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews both with Mogilevich and Levinson at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/panorama/transcripts/transcript_06_12_99.txt )

In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.

Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions north of the Litani.

These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.

What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.

Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking 'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.

Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.

So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.

All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate Russia in supplying materials.

There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)

It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional, Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.

It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here, a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.

Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.

In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.

Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain, but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)

That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:

'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear limited life components and you can read for weeks).'

(For this and other articles by Kaszeta, as also his bio, see http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk ')

What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility, in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of ones which lasted longer.

For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.

What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.

In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'

According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?

As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.

In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties, and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another day.

A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.

Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.

Posted at 03:42 PM in As The Borg Turns , Habakkuk , Russia , Russiagate | Permalink

james , 03 February 2018 at 04:33 PM

thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..

it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..

JohnB , 03 February 2018 at 05:17 PM
David,

Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.

turcopolier , 03 February 2018 at 06:02 PM
james

It is the closest of all international intelligence relationships. It started in WW2. Before that the Brits were though of as a potential enemy. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 03 February 2018 at 06:10 PM
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
catherine , 03 February 2018 at 06:22 PM
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.

Re: Levinson

# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.

# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson went to Jablonski with it.

# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson? The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing came of it.

I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.

Ishmael Zechariah , 03 February 2018 at 06:54 PM
DH,

As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.

I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".

Be safe.

Ishmael Zechariah

Rd , 03 February 2018 at 07:31 PM
Babak Makkinejad said in reply to turcopolier...

The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
..and US is the one who has been paying for it since 1979!!!

kooshy said in reply to Ishmael Zechariah... , 03 February 2018 at 08:21 PM
IZ
My guess is, that he is unpredictable, instantaneous and therefore can't be consistent and reliable, useful idiot needs to be predictable.
kooshy , 03 February 2018 at 08:43 PM
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. "

David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making. Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

different clue , 03 February 2018 at 08:49 PM
Ishmael Zechariah,

( reply to comment 6),

I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.

It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate.

And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.

So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.

Jack , 03 February 2018 at 08:54 PM
David,

Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.

In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.

Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century endorsed her.

Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in. Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling the Borg pundits.

SmoothieX12 -> kooshy... , 03 February 2018 at 09:51 PM
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.

Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.

Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:10 PM
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 03 February 2018 at 10:24 PM
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier on atlantic side.
catherine said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:21 AM
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''

The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.

'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'

State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union

aleksandar , 04 February 2018 at 04:41 AM
David,

About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS.

Fred said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 08:40 AM
Babak,

"they got US to bail them out during WWII" And how would things have worked out had we not done so?

Fred , 04 February 2018 at 08:46 AM
David,

"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time."

Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.

Anna said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 08:48 AM
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
turcopolier , 04 February 2018 at 08:54 AM
Anna

The powerful are often remarkably ignorant. pl

Babak Makkinejad -> Fred... , 04 February 2018 at 10:08 AM
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion, did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 February 2018 at 11:53 AM
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Kooshy said in reply to catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an escalation.
Phodges said in reply to turcopolier ... , 04 February 2018 at 12:23 PM
Sir

It seems we are being defeated by Cicero's enemy within. Zion is achieving what no one could hope to achieve by force of arms.

David Habakkuk -> catherine... , 04 February 2018 at 01:17 PM
catherine,

In response to comment 5.

I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain more pointers.

It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.

An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian attempts to get hold of him. An extract:

'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'

(See http://defiancethebook.com/legal/habeas/petition.htm .)

Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.

Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:

'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'

(See http://konanykhin.com/news/the-konanykhine-case.html .)

So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has changed.

For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:

'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign passports for its "very, very special clients".

'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".

(For a 'Guardian report, see https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/sep/23/julianborger ; for the actual testimony, see http://archives-financialservices.house.gov/banking/92299ger.pdf .)

Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter, Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:

'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'

(For the transcript presented in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/ )

When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.

(For the first part of the exchanges of comments, the second apparently having become unavailable, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2008/07/litvinenko_killing_had_state_i.html )

She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator, David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.

Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.

What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary claim about Shvets:

'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.

'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.

'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'

Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling her as to the side for which he was working.

It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.

An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria' was actually credible.

This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking, and for similar action against Syria.

Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.

There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.

A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing. This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High') might be a start.

Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')

The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one feel as though one wanted to throw up.

Thomas , 04 February 2018 at 01:24 PM
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040.}

No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.

SmoothieX12 -> Anna... , 04 February 2018 at 01:39 PM
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders." Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.

My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.

Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.

Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.

james said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 04 February 2018 at 03:01 PM
there seems to be no shortage of money for these blatant propaganda exercises..
Babak Makkinejad -> SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 04:14 PM
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914. Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
begob , 04 February 2018 at 05:20 PM
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
kooshy said in reply to SmoothieX12 ... , 04 February 2018 at 06:20 PM
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.

The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.

spy killer , 04 February 2018 at 06:55 PM
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
English Outsider -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 07:23 AM
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google also allows searches with more than one term. This link -

https://twitter.com/pat_lang

- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories" on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.

If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.

"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.

The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations" (hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many of the contributors know it from inside.

In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible, but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.

jonst said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 08:11 AM
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.

So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.

Babak Makkinejad -> jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 08:29 AM
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Sid Finster said in reply to Jack... , 05 February 2018 at 10:26 AM
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.

The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.

Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.

Sid Finster said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 05 February 2018 at 10:31 AM
Explain Marshall Miller's role in this, please. He is someone I know quite well. I also know one of the Chalupas.
begob said in reply to jonst... , 05 February 2018 at 10:56 AM
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat of the BEF.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 11:18 AM
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break - David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 11:19 AM
Yes, I am Iranian. All "Babak"s are Iranians - except some obscure ones that are Rus - Babakov.
Anna , 05 February 2018 at 02:07 PM
The hard, blinding truth: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Thomas said in reply to turcopolier ... , 05 February 2018 at 02:08 PM
Colonel,

This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.

Richardstevenhack , 05 February 2018 at 02:36 PM
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.

And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.

Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."

Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.

Seriously, read this! The whole thing!

Rampant abuse and possible contempt of Court: what you need to know about the GOP memo
http://theduran.com/rampant-abuse-contempt-court-analysis-gop-memorandum/

blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 03:25 PM
Sen Grassley releases memo heavily redacted by DOJ/FBI.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/grassley-graham-blast-fbi-censoring-memo-calling-criminal-probe-trump-dossier

"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "

I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI is lying.

What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that are based on classified documents.

turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 04:38 PM
FM

We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status. You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are, in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you. You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl

Kooshy said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 05 February 2018 at 04:46 PM
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from Northeestern
blue peacock , 05 February 2018 at 04:55 PM
...would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.

Aye. Aye. Sir!

+1

That is why some of us believe the Patriot Act and FISA are both unpatriotic and unconstitutional. SCOTUS disagrees with the few of us.

Babak Makkinejad -> Fatima Manoubia... , 05 February 2018 at 05:03 PM
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist. I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians - they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
English Outsider , 05 February 2018 at 06:31 PM
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.

David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because of that.

The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as "salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling around unsupervised?

The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but for the general public, that bit more untenable.

So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.

I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?

kooshy , 05 February 2018 at 07:49 PM
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type, they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
turcopolier , 05 February 2018 at 07:59 PM
EO

Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to pay him until he left UK service. pl

English Outsider , 06 February 2018 at 05:10 AM
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.

Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK side.

English Outsider -> Cortes... , 06 February 2018 at 05:53 AM
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about the "golden showers"? "

I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.

So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.

Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.

But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK get mixed up in it?

David Habakkuk -> Sid Finster... , 06 February 2018 at 06:19 AM
Sid Finster,

In response to comment 53.

When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.

A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella.

When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.

His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques, and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.

So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'

The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.

(This initial post by me, and later posts by me on that site, are at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:1857/diary. Three posts David Loepp and I produced jointly in December 2012, which have a lot on Scaramella and Shvets, are on his page there, at http://www.eurotrib.com/user/de%20Gondi/diary .)

The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December 2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:

'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic- Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'

Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:

'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them [presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'

The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':

'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI. Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini. Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'

In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography – which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella which had been described in the wiretap request.

As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.

In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.

Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.

'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with him.'

From a fax dated 7 November 2005:

'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re: Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'

From a fax dated 5 December 2005:

'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'

In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be in a chaotic state.

However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus justifications.

Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.

(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)

And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence in the Inquiry.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.

Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.

The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 09:40 AM
Thank you David Habakkuk. Truly sordid and deplorable. WWIII to be initiated on basis of lies.
Jack , 06 February 2018 at 12:06 PM
David

You may already know this but Steele was a no show in a UK court for a deposition on the libel suit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/05/christopher-steele-is-no-show-in-london-court-in-civil-case-over-dossier.amp.html

Babak Makkinejad -> David Habakkuk ... , 06 February 2018 at 01:18 PM
I know something of spectroscopy.

The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis itself or its instrumentation.

The paragraph that you have quoted:

"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."

And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics - which did not and could not exist in this situation.

LeaNder , 07 February 2018 at 09:16 AM
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there is to know?

I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.

Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.

By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.

According to Google search there are no other links then your articles here:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093555/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/HMG000513wb.pdf

**********

JAN RICHARD BÆRUG
The Collapsing Wall. Hybrid Journalism.
A Comparative Study of Newspapers and
Magazines in Eight Countries in Europe

Available online. Haven't read it yet, but journalism as hidden public relations transfer belt would be one of my minor obsessions. ...

Babak Makkinejad -> turcopolier ... , 07 February 2018 at 11:23 AM
I wonder too; their command of the English idiom is very au currant - noticed "opt in/opt out" reference? Too American.

They clearly are not native speakers of German.

LeaNder said in reply to kooshy... , 07 February 2018 at 12:30 PM
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_Island#Economy

Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.

Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?

The German link is different. How about the Iranian?

or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?

LeaNder said in reply to LeaNder... , 07 February 2018 at 01:14 PM
correcting myself #94:

another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s

I see Sergei seems to share my interest in the literary genre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Ivanov#Personal

[Mar 10, 2018] The frankly farcical nature of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun

Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

David Habakkuk -> JohnB... , 04 February 2018 at 10:35 AM

JohnB,

In response to comment 2.

If you are interested in Higgins and 'Bellingcat', you might want be interested in a 'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media' which has recently been set up by a group of British academics.

(See http://syriapropagandamedia.org .)

At the moment, work which has already been done is being prepared for publication on the site. However, some of it has already appeared on the blog of one of the members, Tim Hayward.

This includes a detailed discussion of the report of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' on the Khan Sheikhoun attack by Paul McKeigue.
His professorship, at Edinburgh, is in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics. This means that, unlike most of us interested in these matters, with the obvious exception of Theodore Postol, he has a grasp of a lot of relevant science.

(See https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-guest-blog-featuring-paul-mckeigues-reassessment/ .)

A basic tool of his trade is a technique called 'Bayesian analysis', one of whose many applications is to separate out genetic factors in disease from others. His use of it in the piece may make bits of it somewhat hard going for those of us whose scientific education stopped at school.

But if you are interested in a demonstration of the way that the kind of pure charlatanry propagated by Higgins and Kaszeta has come to be accepted uncritically by supposed impartial international bodies, you should read the piece.

Also on Hayward's blog is an article which was submitted to the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' page, in response to a piece by Olivia Solon smearing those who have had the temerity to suggest that the 'White Helmets' may be something less than a band of disinterested charity workers, and an account of the attempts of the 'Working Group' to get a response from the paper.

(See https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/the-guardian-white-helmets-and-silenced-comment/ .)

This has links to material on that organisation already published. A lot more work will be appearing on the 'Working Group' site.

David Habakkuk -> blowback... , 06 February 2018 at 11:42 AM

blowback,

In response to 36.

Thanks for the link. But what Mattis has said relates to the latest accusations, not early ones. Key paragraphs:

'A deadly sarin attack on another rebel-held area in April 2017 prompted President Donald Trump to order a U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase, from which the Syrian operation is said to have been launched.

'"We are on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they would be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical (weapons) convention," Mattis said.'

So he is not repudiating the conventional wisdom according to which sarin was used at Khan Sheikhoun, and the possibility of a military response to a fresh 'false flag' is left open. Unless he is basing his accusation on credible evidence, this to be blunt, comes close to inciting jihadists to atrocity.

The extent -- and unscrupulousness -- of the mounting propaganda campaign in relation to the recently claims is well brought out in a piece by Rick Sterling in 'Consortium News' on Sunday. Whether those involved are still hoping to precipitate a serious American military intervention, and whether those hopes might be realistic, I cannot say.

(See https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/04/wmd-claims-in-syria-raise-concerns-over-u-s-escalation/ .)

This makes the detailed demonstration by Professor McKeigue of the frankly farcical nature of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun, to which I linked, all the more important. In addition to exposing the total dependence of its analysis on a completely incredible claim about the aircraft which is supposed to have delivered the chemical weapon, and discussing much other evidence, he brings out a key point about developments in 'chemical forensics' over the past years.

As well as the 1995 sarin attacks, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks led to an enormous investment of money and intellectual energy in the development of analytical techniques making it possible to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons incidents. A fascinating article entitled 'Tracing a Threat' by Bethany Halford in 'Chemistry & Engineering News World' in February 2012 provides a good picture of what the state of play was at that time.

(See https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i6/Tracing-Threat.html .)

She quotes an expert called Joseph Chipuk, from a consultancy called 'Signature Science' in Austin, explaining how the 'spectra' -- different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation associated with different 'impurities' in samples, including 'environmental' ones, such as soil, fragments of weapons, and clothing -- can be matched with reconstructions of possible 'synthetic pathways'.

The levels of sophistication of which this kind of analysis was already capable, he made clear, are close to breathtaking:

'To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an "almost robotic manner," following a database that tells them exactly what conditions to use. They then hand off the product to the analytical chemists, who look at all the tiny impurities that turn up along with the toxic chemical -- "the stuff that's down in the weeds," as Chipuk describes it. From there, the hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of spectra that are collected go to statisticians and computer scientists who work their magic to tease out the unique attribution signatures.'

At the end of the article, Halford quotes Chipuk again making clear that improvement is continuous in a way that is making it quite extraordinarily difficult to fool analysts who are genuinely looking for the truth -- as not only Dan Kaszeta but, very regrettably, key figures at the OPCW and some of its 'Designated Laboratories' do not appear to be:

'"The fact is that technology continues to improve, instrumentation continues to improve, and computers continue to improve. The chances of someone being able to slip by undetected are getting smaller and smaller," says Signature Science's Chipuk. "If you were to choose to do something like this, the science is going to catch up to you."'

In relation to the claims now being made, what is initially at issue is simply the question of whether the 'impurities' identified by the 'spectra' in samples from the incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal match.

What characterised the 'hexamine hypothesis' as put forward by Kaszeta was the -- close to surreal -- suggestion that a single substance, hexamine, was a 'smoking gun'. To anyone who had taken the trouble to read easily accessible discussions of the methodology, such as Halford's piece, it would be apparent that it is simply ludicrous to base a claim on a single substance -- particularly given that hexamine is also used in explosives.

In the 'Reuters' report on 30 January, we were told:

'Two compounds in the Ghouta sample matched those also found in Khan Sheikhoun, one formed from sarin and the stabilizer hexamine and another specific fluorophosphate that appears during sarin production, the tests showed.'

(See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons-exclusiv/exclusive-tests-link-syrian-government-stockpile-to-largest-sarin-attack-sources-idUSKBN1FJ0MG .)

So we have an -- unidentified -- compound which supposedly establishes that the hexamine did indeed form part of the sarin production process, rather than of the explosive charge. And we are then told of the presence of another compound, which are told is 'another specific fluorophosphate': why not tell us which?

To anyone interested in actually making sense of the evidence, to have a mere two compounds mentioned, and those not adequately identified, suggests an alternative possibility: that people who knew details of the 'synthetic pathway' by which Syrian government sarin had been synthesised leaked them to those who were producing the substance for a 'false flag.' It would have been beyond the capabilities of a relatively primitive operation to produce any kind of close fit -- to get a couple of compounds to match would probably not have been difficult at all.

If this suspicious interpretation if false, there is a very simple way to refute it -- and General Mattis is in a perfect position to do this.

The close links between the American and British 'intelligence communities' have been stressed in comments on this thread. It is clear that in relation to Syrian chemical weapons, there was a division of labour.

Analysis of 'environmental' samples was concentrated at the British OPCW-certified facility, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire. Meanwhile, preparations for the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal were the made at one of the two American OPCW-certified laboratories, the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Maryland.

The destruction of the 581 tonnes of the sarin precursor methylphosphonyl difluoride, or DF, aboard the specially kitted out vessel 'M.V. Cape Ray' in the Mediterranean was announced in August 2014. In the extensive reporting on the preparations for this, it was made absolutely clear that -- as one would expect -- the vessel was equipped with a proper analytical laboratory, with OPCW scientists involved as well as those from the Edgewood Center.

(See https://www.chemistryworld.com/feature/eliminating-syrias-chemical-weapons/7390.article .)

In a post entitled 'Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards?' shortly after the Khan Sheikhoun attack, and then in two 'open letters' to the members of our Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees, I pointed to the mass of evidence suggesting that the test results from different incidents did not match each other or those from the stocks destroyed on the 'Cape Ray.'

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/habakkuk/ .)

The publicly available evidence, I argued, provided strong reason to believe that results from Porton Down and the OPCW confirmed the claim made by the Russians, supposedly on the basis of tests from their own OPCW-certified laboratory, that the sarin used at Khan Al-Asal and Ghouta was a 'cottage industry' product. This was also what Seymour Hersh claimed that tests carried out at Porton Down had revealed about the sarin used at Ghouta - he used the term 'kitchen sarin.'

What the Reuters report has -- perhaps inadvertently -- confirmed is that Porton Down had in fact tested 'environmental' samples from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013, the first where sarin was used in Syria, by suggesting that tests from that incident as well as those at Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun matched the results from the stocks on the 'Cape Ray':

'Laboratories working for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons compared samples taken by a U.N. mission in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta after the Aug. 21, 2013 attack, when hundreds of civilians died of sarin gas poisoning, to chemicals handed over by Damascus for destruction in 2014.

'The tests found "markers" in samples taken at Ghouta and at the sites of two other nerve agent attacks, in the towns of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib governorate on April 4, 2017 and Khan al-Assal, Aleppo, in March 2013, two people involved in the process said.

'"We compared Khan Sheikhoun, Khan al-Assal, Ghouta," said one source who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the findings. "There were signatures in all three of them that matched."'

Can anyone seriously believe that if the tests we know to have been done on at Porton Down had established what this 'source' who does not have the guts to the identify himself claims, this fact would not have been trumpeted to the skies -- first when the results from Ghouta matched those from Khan Al-Asal, and then when both matched those from the 'Cape Ray'?

Allright -- sometimes the practically incredible turns out to be true. But if he has any evidence on which to base his claims, General Mattis should have the courage of his convictions, and order the disclosure of the relevant 'spectra.'

David Habakkuk -> Babak Makkinejad... , 07 February 2018 at 09:28 AM
Babak Makkinejad,

You are wrong about this. That the 'chain of custody' principle has been flagrantly violated in the reports of the 'Fact-Finding Mission' and the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' is patently the case, and in itself reason why the almost unanimous acceptance of these in the MSM is scandalous. But that is a separate issue.

(See http://russiaun.ru/en/news/opcwun -- the whole document is well worth reading.)

The reasons why the test results from the various laboratories were critical were set out last April in my '"Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards"?' piece, and the two 'open letters' to the members of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees pointing out the need for clarification as to what was being claimed about the test results.

Let me recap, and update.

An example of the kind of 'chemical forensics' one needs in incidents like this was provided by the analysis of test results on 'shell and soil' samples purporting to derive from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013 which formed part of the document from the Russian OPCW-certified laboratory which was submitted to the UN Secretary-General on 9 July that year.

On 4 September, as part of the attempt to stop the visible attempt to use Ghouta to create an unstoppable momentum towards the destruction of the Syrian government, more details of what looks like an expanded version of the original document were made public by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In it they claimed that:

'shell and soil samples contained nerve agents -- sarin gas and diisopropylfluorophosphate -- not synthesized in an industrial environment, which was used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.'

It was also made clear that the conclusions rested upon precisely the kind of very complex analysis Bethany Halford is describing:

'We highlight that the Russian report is extremely specific. It is a scientific and technical document containing about 100 pages with many tables and diagrams of spectral analysis of the samples. We expect that it will significantly assist in the investigation into this incident by the UN. Unfortunately, it has in fact not started yet.'

(See https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/3169 .)

Unfortunately, the detailed 'spectra' have not been released, but they have certainly been analysed by experts at the OPCW and that organisation's 'Designated Laboratories' in the West, including Porton Down. We know that the results from the materials tested on the 'Cape Ray' will show a sarin precursor 'manufactured in an industrial environment.'

To prove what Mattis and others want to claim it is necessary that the 'spectra' from none of the other tests match those in the Russian report, and the 'markers' from the 'Cape Ray' materials are the same as those from Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, and Khan Al-Asal. If there are serious 'chain of custody' problems, the 'markers' from the four sets of tests might not be sufficient to establish Syrian government culpability -- a lack of a match would be quite sufficient to establish that the indictment cannot be accepted as it stands.

As I brought out in my post last April, the publicly available evidence -- of which Hersh's 'Red Line and Rat Line' article and subsequent interviews form an important part -- strongly suggests the Russian claims that the toxin used in both Khan Al-Asal and also Ghouta was 'cottage industry', as they put it, or 'kitchen sarin', as he put it, are correct.

It is simply not a refutation of these claims to treat one compound supposed to validate the 'hexamine hypothesis', and an unspecified fluorophosphate, which could be the diisopropylfluorophosphate reported by the Russians, or hexafluorophosphate, as conclusive evidence. (The implications, or lack of them, would be quite different, depending on which compound it was.)

And all this hush-hush whisper-whisper from 'diplomats and scientists' who are not prepared to be identified, as well as assurances from that supposedly 'independent' expert Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, only add to the grounds for scepticism. As I brought out in my post, he is under the strongest possible suspicion of having been involved in covering up, and quite possibly colluding in, the 'false flags.'

If they have evidence to support the case, then let Western governments produce the 'spectra' -- as also should the Russians. We do not need complete reports, which may need to be kept secret for perfectly good reasons -- simply the 'many tables and diagrams' which must exist. Once these were out in the open, then it would be much easier to have an informed argument.

Most of this ground I covered last April. However, there is some crucial new context. Part of this is provided by a report in 'The Intercept' last October, entitled 'NSA Document Says Saudi Prince Directly Ordered Coordinated Attack By Syrian Rebels On Damascus.' As it explains:

'According to a top-secret National Security Agency document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden, the March 2013 rocket attacks were directly ordered by a member of the Saudi royal family, Prince Salman bin Sultan, to help mark the second anniversary of the Syrian revolution. Salman had provided 120 tons of explosives and other weaponry to opposition forces, giving them instructions to "light up Damascus" and "flatten" the airport, the document, produced by U.S. government surveillance on Syrian opposition factions, shows.'

(See https://theintercept.com/2017/10/24/syria-rebels-nsa-saudi-prince-assad/ .)

This was on 18 March -- the day before Khan Al-Asal. Further relevant context is provided by a piece in February 2017 on the 'Monitor on Massacre Marketing' site by Adam Larson, entitled 'What happened on March 19, 2013?' which is subtitled 'The First Bodies Tossed Across Obama's "Red Line" in Syria.'

(See http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/what-happened-on-march-19-2013.html .)

This starts by reviewing the -- ample -- evidence that the Khan Al-Asal attack came at a point where there was very visible enthusiasm on the part of a lot of people in the United States and Western Europe for intervention in support of the 'Assad must go' agenda, so that he had every incentive to avoid chemical weapons use, and the insurgents every incentive to produce a 'false flag.'

And Larson goes on to note that 'Ironically, the first solid news of the feared chemical attack came in the form of a Syrian government announcement on March 19 that their forces had been gassed by "terrorists" in a town just west of Aleppo" -- that is, the Shi'ite town of Khan Al-Asal.

There follow detailed reviews of the evidence of another incident on the same day, in which the victims appeared to be insurgents, at the Damascus suburb variously transliterated as Otaybah and Uteibah, and more fragmentary and puzzling evidence about events at Homs.

And Larson goes on to suggest that a three-pronged 'false flag' was planned for 19 March, in Aleppo, Damascus and Homs -- the country's three largest cities. This would obviously fit very well with the NSA intercept, in that it would suggest that the intent was to portray these as Assad's savage response to the attacks in Damascus, thus, hopefully, generating unstoppable momentum for American military intervention.

This seems to me eminently plausible, but it leaves open two possible interpretations of Khan Al-Asal. When insurgents who are difficult to control are given access to weapons like sarin, there is an obvious possibility of matters developing in unexpected directions, either as the result of their bungling an attack, or succumbing to the temptation to use it against government forces.

However, a different set of unintended consequences is also possible. It could be that Syrian intelligence, perhaps with the assistance of Russian and/or Iranian, and with a combination of 'SIGINT' and 'HUMINT' methods quite possibly being deployed, knew precisely what was going on -- and had double agents inside the groups preparing the 'false flags.'

Rather than wait until the inevitable chorus calling for all-out air strikes began, it could well have made sense to turn one of the incidents into a 'false flag' within a 'false flag.'

The anti-Assad camp would then have been effectively 'snookered.' They would have faced a situation where they would know that, if they acceded to the calls from the Syrians and Russians for a proper UN/OPCW investigation, making a rigorous use of 'chemical forensics', these would implicate the insurgents. And if the evidence suggested that it was these who had crossed Obama's 'red line', it would have been game and set, and probably match, to the Syrian and Russian governments.

Irrespective of people's views on what interpretation is plausible in relation to Khan Al-Asal, the important point is that strategies which rely strongly on convert action -- as the 'régime change' projects I outlined in the current post do -- are inherently liable to run out of control. The uncontrollability of their instruments, and the possibility of covert action meeting covert action in return, are always liable to generate unintended consequences which can escalate.

As soon as the possible that an impartial investigation would implicate the insurgents was real, in relation to Khan Al-Asal, irrespective of whether the imputation would have been justified, the alternative to facing a complete collapse of their projects in Syria, for Western governments, was inherently likely to be at best covering up, at worst colluding in, further 'false flags.' Moreover, intense pressure had to be mounted, to ensure that what were supposed to be sources of independent expertise supported their cover-ups.

This pattern, I am suggesting is common both to history of the 'StratCom' in which Christopher Steele has been involved, and that relating to chemical weapons use in Syria. Particularly when the 'Fourth Estate' ceases to do its job, a likely result is the progressive systematic corruption of institutions.

blowback , 04 February 2018 at 03:20 PM
David,

You have read one of the articles on what James Mattis said on Friday about sarin? He quite clearly states that the United States has no evidence that the Syrian government has used sarin. Given the way, the French, British, German, etc. intelligence services share information, that suggests that if James Mattis is speaking the truth then no one in NATO, except perhaps for Turkey given Erdogan's recent behavior, has any evidence either. This means that both incidents, East Ghouta and Khan Shaykhoun, and any other incidents that are alleged by the terrorists to have involved sarin are not what they are claimed to be in western msm and most western politicians. Bellingcat and all the other NGOs who have made similar claims about sarin are all wrong.

Mattis does claim that Syria has used chlorine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-mattis-says-concerned-about-syrias-potential-use-of-sarin-gas-idUSKBN1FM1VJ

[Mar 10, 2018] Us neocons and Jewish question

Mar 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

First of all many Neo-con are no Jewish (such prominent neo-con as Dick Cheney for example)

Also warmongering pays well and attracts specific type of people, some of which may be Jews.

Return of Shawn , March 8, 2018 at 3:21 pm GMT

@Anonymous

More of the past? Nope. It is just a question of how many goyim will be nuked.

It's all very simple. Fundamentally, Jews have been disliked because, as part of their Jewish identity, those with power pursue, often successfully, their perceived interests which often conflict with the perceived interests of another group(s).

[Mar 10, 2018] The Future of the Jews by Fred Reed

What some refer to as "Middle Eastern" characteristics probably more correctly can be called the "rug merchant mentality."
Notable quotes:
"... Diversity often disappears through assimilation. Today people named O'Toole and Libertini may be proud of their ancestry, but they think of themselves as American, not as Irish and Italian. So do others. Thus hostility to them, once intense, has vanished. ..."
"... Jews do not assimilate. Yes, they speak the same language, wear the same clothes, and peck at smartphones like everyone else. Yet they think of themselves as Jews. So, therefore, does everyone else. While there is no legal or moral reason why they should not so think of themselves, there are consequences: Human nature is what it is, regardless of whether we think it should be. ..."
"... Worse -- and this has caused millions of deaths -- Jews are often successful. It doesn't matter whether the success arises from superior intelligence, greater drive, collusion, or the will of Yahweh. It happens. Thus the pattern repeated over and over and over down the ages. Jews prosper, become rich, gain power sometimes abused, and become arrogant. If Christians did this -- Bill Gates, or the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age -- they would be resented as individuals perhaps, not as an ethnicity. But Jews are Them. The surrounding population feels colonized -- by Them, by Space Aliens, by internal foreigners -- and deeply resents it. ..."
"... Power and wealth are not necessary to engender slaughter. Mere difference, specifically not being Christian, has often been enough. History is littered with examples, of which Jews are well aware. When the First Crusade took Jerusalem in 1099, the Christian armies immediately burned the synagogue with the Jews inside. Why? The Jews had no part in the war, which was between Muslims and Christians. ..."
"... A Jewish friend once expressed the attitude as sometimes being, "Look what they have done to us. We can do anything we want to them." ..."
"... "It appears that gypsies are born only to be thieves. They are born as thieves, raised among thieves, study to be thieves, and finally end by being common thieves." Cervantes died in 1616, which makes the story over 400 years old. Yet this description of gypsies is their reputation today, very much supported by police files.They haven't assimilated, and they haven't changed. Jews of course have never been associated with burglary or picking pockets, but the passage makes clear that peoples can maintain characteristics over centuries ..."
"... Jews with remarkable consistency have been described for centuries as smart, greedy, combative, clannish, "pushy," exploitative, and arrogant. This is how I hear them described in Mexico, where I live. (I think of these as Middle Eastern traits, but never mind.) Then there is chutzpah. which in practice seems to mean "brashly walking over other people." It can leave others feeling bulldozed, defeated, used. This bruising of the ego, of self-respect, arouses a hostility all out of proportion to actual damage done. It is, or so I think, a major cause of dislike for Jews. Such descriptions are dismissed today as stereotypes. A stereotype is just the aggregate observation of many people over time. ..."
"... In sum, Jews seem alien, smarter than others and far more aggressive than Christians, whom they seem to trample. Christians feel that they cannot compete, that they are outsmarted at every turn, or at least pushed around, and made victims. This bruising of the ego sets off irrational, serious hostility. It is the attitude of blacks toward whites, for the same reasons ..."
"... Finally there is Israel, the albatross around the Jewish neck, making it impossible for Jews quietly to be more or less normal Americans. To Jews Israel is of immense and understandable importance, but this enthusiasm brings up charges of dual loyalty or, often, loyalty exclusively to Israel. The truth of this doesn't matter. It looks true, which is enough. Does Rachel the Jewish dentist in Peoria back Israel? To what extent? What does she think of Israeli behavior? We don't know. We know that Jewish lobbies like AIPAC and the Neocons back Israel one hundred percent. And they control American Mid-Eastern policy. This is much noted on the Web. ..."
"... America is not really stable. Political animosity runs high, racial hostility is great and growing, standards of living fall, offshoring and automation leave the young with nowhere for their lives to go. Wealth goes rapidly from the many to the few and what was the working class falls into drugs and anomie. The wars never end. Infrastructure ages and falls behind that of more advanced nations. Anger grows. As the pie shrinks, someone will have to get less pie. ..."
Mar 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

It is strange: Jews have been disliked everywhere and in all times. The dislike appears in odd places. I was astonished to find that my Nepalese trekking guides were intensely hostile to Jews. They said that Jews (actually Israelis in most cases I think, but the Nepalese do not seem to make the distinction) were loud, demanding, and always trying to force down the guides' fees. Historically the hostility has often been powerful and, not infrequently, murderous. Jews have been expelled from country after country, excluded from polite society, subjected to quotas,and required to live in certain regions. Why?

How much anti-Jewish hostility is there today in America? A lot? A little? Is it negligible? Potentially explosive? It is hard to tell because disliking Jews is often a firing offense, and a controlled press makes discussion impossible. A clue can perhaps be found in the comments sections of political websites where, protected by anonymity, commenters are often bitterly anti-Jewish. But then, these comments may, or may not, be the work of a few cranks.

Today there appear news stories about growing hostility on campuses, that Jews are fleeing Paris because of increased or more openly expressed dislike, or that the German Right, never fond of Jews, gains strength.

Since the dislike has existed for at least two thousand years, there must be some enduring reason or reasons. What?

One I think is the Space Alien Effect. It is human nature to dislike people different from oneself. This fact runs against today's cult of diversity, which accounts for the disastrous reality of American life, but a glance around the world reveals that diversity causes most of the planet's troubles: Sunni and Shia, Jew and Muslim, Tutsi and Hutu, black, white and brown in America, Tamil and Sinhalese; Turks and Kurds; Turks and Armenians; Thais and Muslims, Germans and Jews. Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, on and on for a very long list of religious, ethnic, and racial differences. Diversity is nobody's strength.

Diversity often disappears through assimilation. Today people named O'Toole and Libertini may be proud of their ancestry, but they think of themselves as American, not as Irish and Italian. So do others. Thus hostility to them, once intense, has vanished.

Jews do not assimilate. Yes, they speak the same language, wear the same clothes, and peck at smartphones like everyone else. Yet they think of themselves as Jews. So, therefore, does everyone else. While there is no legal or moral reason why they should not so think of themselves, there are consequences: Human nature is what it is, regardless of whether we think it should be.

Specifically, Jews are always Them. We are Us. We are aware that Feinstein is Jewish as we are not aware that O'Malley is Irish -- because he isn't. Difference alone doesn't cause antagonism. but makes it much more likely.

Worse -- and this has caused millions of deaths -- Jews are often successful. It doesn't matter whether the success arises from superior intelligence, greater drive, collusion, or the will of Yahweh. It happens. Thus the pattern repeated over and over and over down the ages. Jews prosper, become rich, gain power sometimes abused, and become arrogant. If Christians did this -- Bill Gates, or the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age -- they would be resented as individuals perhaps, not as an ethnicity. But Jews are Them. The surrounding population feels colonized -- by Them, by Space Aliens, by internal foreigners -- and deeply resents it. As noted, the reaction may take the form of ostracism, enforced quotas, confinement to the Pale of Settlement, expulsion from the country, ghastly pogroms, or Auschwitz.

Hitler's complaints against the Jews were along usual lines, that Jews controlled German culture, finance, academia, and the media. These are also things said in America today today on the internet against Jews . Whether these criticisms are true, fair, justified, or make sense does not matter. What matters is that people feel, or can easily be made to feel, controlled, by Them. Making a list of powerful Jews is sufficient and, with the internet, easy.

The dislike is profoundly visceral, not rational, tapping into deep wells of instinct that make little sense -- which doesn't matter. This can be seen in the wild disproportion between offense given and reaction. How do you get rationally in Germany from growlings in beer halls, "There are too damn many Jews in everything," to "We should kill all the Jews"?

Them, not Us. It makes little obvious sense to say that Jews are not Americans. Bob Dylan isn't an American? Lauren Bacall? Yet this is clearly how anti-Jewish commenters on the web see it. Them, not Us. It is a matter of limbic tribalism, which does not map well onto legal principles.

The hostility is often to Jews more as a metaphysical category than as actual people. Many who loathe Jews have little contact with them. Ask, "What have Jews actually done to you? Hacked your bank account? Gypped you out of your house? Shot your dog?" and the answer will likely be, "Nothing." Rachel Cohen, the dentist next door in Peoria, is not easily envisioned as trying to destroy America, impose communism, or wreck the currency. Thus, "some of my best friends but ." While the Jews one actually knows probably are not bad people, or at most annoying, The Jews collectively are a sort of ominous barely visible miasma. (For the record, no American Jew has ever harmed me, and many have helped me in what I humorously call "my career." Coupla girlfriends, too.)

Importantly, Jewish presence is seen as Jewish conspiracy. Four Jews on the Supreme Court? From two percent of the population? My God, they must be up to something . A conspiracy, doubtless. But a conspiracy to do what? A candidate theory, correct as it happens, is that Jews as a people do anything and everything they can to advance the fortunes of Israel. But on the Supreme Court how? Other suggestions are a desire to destroy the white race (including themselves?), to bring America down (why?), to wreck the international monetary system (why?), or to impose a Zionist world empire. Most of these make between little and no sense, which doesn't matter. Jews don't actually have to sacrifice Christian children to die for it. They just have to be thought to do so.

It is interesting that these usually nonexistent Jewish conspiracies get enduring attention while other, demonstrably real, conspiracies do not arouse similar ire. For example, the Koch brothers, who are not Jewish, have funded and led a massive and disguised campaign to subvert American politics for the benefit of big business. The arms industry bribes, suborns, and finagles to get the government to buy hugely expensive weapons. The FBI was recently caught trying to prevent the election of Donald Trump. The Clintons are crooked as kite string in a ceiling fan. So why do Jewish conspiracies, sometimes real but, more usually, imagined, get attention on the web?

The Space Alien Effect. Jews are Them. We are Us. Both know it.

The importance of this tribalism should not be underestimated. I once walked down Main Street in Farmville, Virginia, a small town in the Southside, with a friend. He said -- I forget how the subject came up -- with some bitterness, "The Jews own everything on Main Street. Just like they do everywhere." He pointed to Rose's, a perfectly ordinary department store. It did nothing wrong or even interesting. But it was Jewish. That was enough.

Them, not Us. The Presbyterian owners of a store actually engaged in gouging would have been resented as individuals, not as a tribe. The Jews.

Power and wealth are not necessary to engender slaughter. Mere difference, specifically not being Christian, has often been enough. History is littered with examples, of which Jews are well aware. When the First Crusade took Jerusalem in 1099, the Christian armies immediately burned the synagogue with the Jews inside. Why? The Jews had no part in the war, which was between Muslims and Christians.

This explains why Jews do not like Christianity, though the antipathy typically is (wisely) disguised as a principled adherence to the invented constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. Note that while Americans think of the Holocaust as something the Germans did (I do) to Jews it can look like just another attack by a Christian country (Poland, Russia, England, the Baltics, and so on.) A Jewish friend once expressed the attitude as sometimes being, "Look what they have done to us. We can do anything we want to them."

Here we encounter the unfortunate human tendency to blame entire groups for what a few members did. For example, the Jews killed Christ. "(Gosh, Rachel, you don't look old enough.") Or whites enslaved blacks. Actually, no one in the United States has been a slave, or owned one, for a century and a half. Most of liberal politics would wither to nothing if we accepted that people cannot be guilty of things they did not do.

It is not necessarily wise to be seen as trying to eliminate a majority religion.

Note that a people, though living always among others, can maintain characteristic over long periods. Recently I was reading Las Novelas Ejemplares of Cervantes, specifically La Gitnailla , which means very approximately The Little Gypsy Girl. It begins,

"Parece que los gitanos y gitanas solamente nacieron en el mundo para ser ladrones: nacen de padres ladrones, críanse con ladrones, estudian para ladrones y, finalmente, salen con ser ladrones corrientes."

"It appears that gypsies are born only to be thieves. They are born as thieves, raised among thieves, study to be thieves, and finally end by being common thieves." Cervantes died in 1616, which makes the story over 400 years old. Yet this description of gypsies is their reputation today, very much supported by police files.They haven't assimilated, and they haven't changed. Jews of course have never been associated with burglary or picking pockets, but the passage makes clear that peoples can maintain characteristics over centuries .

Jews with remarkable consistency have been described for centuries as smart, greedy, combative, clannish, "pushy," exploitative, and arrogant. This is how I hear them described in Mexico, where I live. (I think of these as Middle Eastern traits, but never mind.) Then there is chutzpah. which in practice seems to mean "brashly walking over other people." It can leave others feeling bulldozed, defeated, used. This bruising of the ego, of self-respect, arouses a hostility all out of proportion to actual damage done. It is, or so I think, a major cause of dislike for Jews. Such descriptions are dismissed today as stereotypes. A stereotype is just the aggregate observation of many people over time.

Of course the evidence does not always support a particular explanation for avisible effect. A Jewish friend says, "We're no more greedy than anyone else. We're just good businessmen so we make money." Those with money are usually described as greedy. I don't think I have ever met a greedy Jew, though I have met many who were very careful with money. It doesn't matter whether you really are greedy only that people think you are.

Chutzpah: When I was seven we lived in Arlington, Virginia, next to the Furmans, recently someone said, of Hell's Kitchen, which I didn't know what was. The Furmans were by no means bad people. One day Mrs. Furman came over and gave my mother a hard time because my little brother, five was playing with a kid across the street instead of little Andrew Furman. Mom had done nothing to influence my brother's choice of friends. She, a quietly genteel woman from the Southside of Virginia, was horrified by the aggressiveness. She told me of this decades later, so it clearly made a bad impression. Thereafter, Them were not our kind of people. Small things can produce lifelong dislike.

In sum, Jews seem alien, smarter than others and far more aggressive than Christians, whom they seem to trample. Christians feel that they cannot compete, that they are outsmarted at every turn, or at least pushed around, and made victims. This bruising of the ego sets off irrational, serious hostility. It is the attitude of blacks toward whites, for the same reasons .

Finally there is Israel, the albatross around the Jewish neck, making it impossible for Jews quietly to be more or less normal Americans. To Jews Israel is of immense and understandable importance, but this enthusiasm brings up charges of dual loyalty or, often, loyalty exclusively to Israel. The truth of this doesn't matter. It looks true, which is enough. Does Rachel the Jewish dentist in Peoria back Israel? To what extent? What does she think of Israeli behavior? We don't know. We know that Jewish lobbies like AIPAC and the Neocons back Israel one hundred percent. And they control American Mid-Eastern policy. This is much noted on the Web.

Jewish backing for Israel requires emotional contortions since Israel is everything liberals, to include Jews, profess to hate, being racist -- just now it is expelling blacks -- religiously exclusive, an apartheid state, militaristic, and brutal in its treatment of Arabs. This I suspect bothers some Jews, but assuredly is a grave PR problem for the country. But then, as a small coastal enclave in a part of the world intensely hostile to it, a sort of second Crusader Kingdom, it is hard to see what choices it has. If it becomes democratic or allows extensive intermarriage, for example, it will quickly cease to be a Jewish state, and there is no way to rule nicely over a sea of people who want to kill you.

Is there a possibility of active anti-semitism in America? Yes. Why is America immune to a dislike that has influenced all of history?

Yet at the moment, no. No overt expression will soon occur, and perhaps never will. But the classic preliminary conditions exist and grow. The appearance of Jewish power is strong. Four of nine justices of the Supreme Court, a majority of Ivy presidents, CEOs of television networks. Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sergei Brin co-founder of Google. the New York Times , Time-Warner, Disney, much of Hollywood, huge parts of retail, most of the big publishing houses in New York. Anyone who has worked in Washington knows that Jewish control of Congress and the media is near absolute. The list could go on for pages. Things like this create a propagandist's paradise.. If America's tight control over expression ever slipped, a would-be Adolf with Google searches could come up with a shocking list.

A rational person might ask, "So what?" Do the Supreme Court's Jewish justices make Jewish decisions -- whatever that might mean? Or do they vote like any four NPR listeners chosen at random? Did Mark Zuckerberg do anything underhanded? Or was he a very bright Jewish kid who had an idea and the strength of character to push it into existence? Does Schultz of Starbucks do something evil, or does he, like, you know, sell reasonably good coffee at a reasonable price?

It doesn't matter. They are there, so they must be conspiring. And their influence is becoming more obvious, as with Trump's subservience (as seen by much of the world) to Israel in planning to move the embassy.

People who think they are defending Jews will point to Jewish contributions to nearly everything -- science, music, math, technology, literature, charity, medicine, support for symphonies. These contributions are real and immense. With respect to anti-Jewish politics, they are also irrelevant or worse. Since the hostility to Jews rests largely on their excessive presence (again, in the eyes of the anti-Jewish) pointing to their intellectual contributions just increases the dislike. It emphasizes both the Jewish presence and apparent superiority.

Happy, prosperous societies seldom form lynch mobs. When things break down, when hope wanes, expectations fall, and near-desperation sets in, explosions come. Today the United States quite arguably heads into a Weimar-like future of chaos and social violence. This may sound crazy but is it? Nobody thought such a highly civilized country as Germany capable of Treblinka.

America is not really stable. Political animosity runs high, racial hostility is great and growing, standards of living fall, offshoring and automation leave the young with nowhere for their lives to go. Wealth goes rapidly from the many to the few and what was the working class falls into drugs and anomie. The wars never end. Infrastructure ages and falls behind that of more advanced nations. Anger grows. As the pie shrinks, someone will have to get less pie.

It is hard to see how this can continue forever. My guess is that the fighting -- "unrest" is the polite term -- will break out first between white and black. Whites are quiescent now, but see their lives worsening and their world deteriorating. The kneelers in the NFL, the rioters

Stealth , March 4, 2018 at 11:31 pm GMT

Fred, you know we love most of your columns, but this one is deeply flawed:

Specifically, Jews are always Them. We are Us.

That's it, huh? Then why did you go on to write the following?

Anyone who has worked in Washington knows that Jewish control of Congress and the media is near absolute.

That doesn't sound like being hated for the offense of simply being different; that sounds like something that would piss people off.

They said that Jews (actually Israelis in most cases I think, but the Nepalese do not seem to make the distinction) were loud, demanding, and always trying to force down the guides' fees.

Implicit in this is that the Nepalese don't dislike most other foreign visitors as much as they do the Israelis. And what had the Israelis done, other than just what the Nepalese guides said? Failed to assimilate into the culture of Nepal while on vacation there? I think your're kind of undermining your central thesis with this one.

Anonymous Disclaimer , March 4, 2018 at 11:33 pm GMT
@fnn

There is a simpler explanation. For obvious reasons, Israelis are terribly fond of third-worlders.

lavoisier , Website March 4, 2018 at 11:37 pm GMT
Animus goes much deeper than simple resentment at Jewish success.

It is because of the destruction of our once stable society and the implosion of Western European nations under cultural currents unleased by the Jews that is the source of that animus.

Speak honestly Fred and stop the tangential and mealy mouthed explanations for the animus.

Stealth , March 4, 2018 at 11:54 pm GMT
For someone who thinks antisemitism is irrational, Fred, you sure do seem to provide a lot of rational sounding reason for disliking the Jews.

Note: I haven't encountered any Jews who were pushy or hostile with me. I've known Jews from work, school and the community, and they don't seem any more likely to be aggressive, in the interpersonal sense, than anyone else. I think this tendency has been exaggerated – a lot. When I was in my early twenties my blond shiksa cousin had a couple of Jewish friends she would take with her when she visited. Trust me, the only aggressive and mean one in the bunch was my cousin. The two Jewish girls were good company, and my friends and I were always happy to socialize with them. The one Jewish kid in my class would never have been described as aggressive by anyone.

KenH , March 5, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT

This explains why Jews do not like Christianity,

That was in 1099. I could give a F who did what to whom that long ago. But with Jews their motto is "never forgive, never forget". Even when they've lived better in white Christian nations than in any other they still work to undermine the white Christians they live among. That their historical grudges have an endless shelf life is reason to hate them and bar them from living in our nations.

Importantly, Jewish presence is seen as Jewish conspiracy. Four Jews on the Supreme Court?

Right. When Jews are overrepresented in any field it's because they're so darn smart. It whites are overrepresented in their own friggin countries then Jews lecture us about unearned white privilege. This is why I and a growing number of whites hate them. And it just so happens that all four Jews represent the totalitarian left wing of the court who consistently vote against white American interests. Another reason they're hated.

I won't waste too much time since Fred's writing philo-semitic propaganda and taking pot shots at anyone who doesn't think they're as groovy as he does. This is just one of Freddy's partisan diatribes similar to how he lionizes and promotes Mexicans and Mexico.

Anyone who examines the historical record and the history of the Jews in the diaspora with an open mind will become anti-semitic.

Bay Area Guy , March 5, 2018 at 2:55 am GMT
As Fred hinted, Jews prize their ethnic identity much more than most whites. For example, while Italian and Greek Americans may pay homage to their respective identities, they don't wear them on their sleeves. They certainly wouldn't describe an Italian marrying a Greek as "intermarriage," a few potential exceptions notwithstanding.

Of course, Jews bragging about their success doesn't help either. Chinese and other Asian Americans – while not wielding the political and cultural clout of Jews – are also very economically successful; but they at least have the wisdom to keep quiet about it, as evidenced by their strident rejection of the "model minority" stereotype. Successful minorities worldwide such as Bohras in India also manage to quietly enjoy their success; and that's saying something, given that India is an openly – and often violently – majoritarian country.

Ultimately, I think that Jews' chutzpah engenders a lot of ill will. Of all affluent and accomplished minorities, they're certainly the most flamboyant and pushy.

turtle , March 5, 2018 at 2:55 am GMT

When a state is composed of a homogeneous population, the natural inertia of such a population will hold the Stage together and maintain its existence through astonishingly long periods of misgovernment and maladministration.
But the situation is utterly different in a country where the population is not homogeneous .Should the ruling hand show signs of weakness in such a State the result will be to awaken the individualistic instincts which are slumbering in the ethnological groups.

nsa
March 5, 2018 at 3:09 am GMT @Stealth

Fred the apologist clearly states the jooies exercise "near absolute control" of Wash DC i.e. the goy 98% of the US population has essentially been disenfranchised. That's not a reason to hate on the vile conniving jooies?

turtle
March 5, 2018 at 3:27 am GMT 100 Words Stereotypes come from somewhere.
I have a friend who is prejudiced against Chinese people, based on his dealings with Chinese in the computer industry. His perception (right or wrong, but it is the perception which matters) is that they were "sneaky," "underhanded," they "stuck together against the round eyes."
Yet, as a school teacher, this same fellow readily bragged up the achievements of his numerous Oriental students. Which tells me that, on a personal level, prejudice can be overcome. As the saying went, back in the days of hippies vs. rednecks, "Bar stool to bar stool, things can be pretty cozy."
My friend is a devout evangelical Christian. Whenever I see the "fish" symbol, I tend to run the other way. But, I make an exception in his case, because I know him to be, and respect him as, a good man.
Carroll Price , March 5, 2018 at 3:31 am GMT

It is hard to tell because disliking Jews is often a firing offense, and a controlled press makes discussion impossible.

Why?? Therein lies the answer as to why Jews are resented and disliked.

turtle , March 5, 2018 at 5:09 am GMT

Hitler's complaints against the Jews were along usual lines, that Jews controlled German culture, finance, academia, and the media.

Not exactly.
In his own words:

There were few Jews in Linz.
As I thought they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence.
Then I came to Vienna.
In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith.
Once, when passing through the inner City [Vienna], I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz.
Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its own peculiar meaning for these people.
What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life .Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate?
The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one percent of the nation – that fact could not be gainsaid.

In summary, Hitler states that his antipathy towards Jews, as a group, was based on his experiences in the "big city" (Vienna), and his *perception* that the Jews he encountered there were mostly immoral and corrupt, unlike those he had known in his (smaller) home town.

Corvinus , March 5, 2018 at 5:14 am GMT
@Anonymous

"It is just a question of how many goyim will be nuked."

Not that many, if you are honest.

"People don't like Jews because Jews don't practice the Golden Rule of treating others as they would like to be treated themselves."

Some people, absolutely.

And, of course Fred is not completely accurate when he said that "Jews do not assimilate".

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/are-us-jews-assimilating-out-of-existence

"David Goldman–Sadly, American Jews stand out as a horrible example of demographic failure. In the United States, secular and loosely affiliated American Jews, that is, the vast majority, have the lowest fertility rate of any identifiable segment of the American population. As I wrote in my book How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too):

Nowhere is the fertility gap between religious and non-religious more extreme than among American Jews. As a group, American Jews show the lowest fertility of any ethnic group in the country. That is a matter of great anguish for Jewish community leaders. According to sociologist Steven Cohen, "We are now in the midst of a non-Orthodox Jewish population meltdown. Among Jews in their 50s, for every 100 Orthodox adults, we have 192 Orthodox children. And for the non-Orthodox, for every 100 adults, we have merely 55 such children."

Half of the non-Orthodox children, moreover, marry non-Jews, and very few children of mixed marriages will remain Jewish. As Reform Rabbi Lance J Sussman wrote in 2010, "With the exception of a number of Orthodox communities and a few other bright spots in or just off the mainstream of Jewish religious life, American Judaism is in precipitous decline the Reform movement has probably contracted by a full third in the last ten years!"

turtle , March 5, 2018 at 5:45 am GMT
As I understand it, Zionism got its main initial impetus from this book:

http://www.mideastweb.org/jewishstate.pdf

which in turn was inspired, if that is the word, by the trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus of the French Army, in which Capt Dreyfus was unjustly convicted of espionage.
From the preface:

In 1902, he [Herzl] published a utopian novel about the Jewish state, Altneuad (oldnew
land) a vision complete with monorails and modern industry. , Altneuad
envisioned a multipluralistic Democracy in which Arabs and Jews had equal
rights.

Doesn't seem to have worked out that way.
The central premise of Zionism seems to be that Jews cannot expect equable treatment in a majority Gentile society. Ironically, the infamous case which inspired it also disproves this hypothesis.
To wit:
In the long run, justice was done in the case of Capt. Dreyfus.
He was very publicly restored to rank, with a promotion, in the French Army, and served honorably in what was then known as the Great War, which was all he ever wanted to do in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Dreyfus

On 12 July 1906, Dreyfus was officially exonerated by a military commission. The day after his exoneration, he was readmitted into the army with a promotion to the rank of major (Chef d'Escadron). A week later, he was made Knight of the Legion of Honour,[6] and subsequently assigned to command an artillery unit at Vincennes.

Of course, there are (particularly) Jews who will say, "But he had years of his life stolen from him." This is, of course, true, but in the long run it is nothing more, nor less, than another miscarriage of justice, which in the case was, fortunately for its victim, eventually corrected. It is, in that sense, not unique. It did result in an an outcome more favorable than some both before and since.

RobinG , March 5, 2018 at 5:45 am GMT
@SolontoCroesus

WWIII ???
"The country that will have made it possible is Israel." Col. Larry Wilkerson

Is the US Ramping Up Its Military Presence in Syria and Planning to Attack Iran for Israel?

Ace , March 5, 2018 at 6:00 am GMT
@lavoisier

It isn't just cultural currents unleashed; it's deliberate destruction planned by institutional Jewry. Barbara Specter's married to the chief rabbi of Sweden and says Europe's "too monolithic," meaning "too white." She says Jews will be resented for their leading role in making Europe multicultural, i.e., non-white majority. Right you are, Barbara.

1,200+ rabbis in the U.S. came out for unchecked immigration of "refugees" and Adelson, Saban, Gelbaum, the ADL, the AJC, the HIAS, and BB are all for open borders. And the utter destruction of white America.

Jews played a huge role in Bolshevism, in putsches in Hungary, Austria, and Germany, and in Holodomor. "Jew" and "communist" were practically synonymous in 1930s America and Israel ran Pollard, one of the most destructive spies ever known in America. Jews have also done their utmost to push the most destructive aspects of the civil rights disaster.

Israel went to war against the U.S. with its deliberate attack on the USS Liberty with machine gunning of our sailors trying to make it into the lifeboats. It's protestations of "mistake" were transparent lies.

AIPAC ensures that billions from the treasury are squandered every year on an enemy nation that tries to involve us in fighting their wars for local hegemony. Is greater Israel also one of our projects?

Finally, institutional Jewry does everything in its power to distort National Socialism as "right-wing" to deflect attention from the leftist essence of totalitarian destruction, torture, theft, and murder and the disproportionate Jewish role in extreme leftist movements. The Jewish obsession with "The" Holocaust is the ultimate "holocaust denial." And woe betide he who cares to point that out. "The" Holocaust pales in comparison to the communist ones? Hater!!

What is not to loathe in organized Jewry?

I know of decent, patriotic Jews but I know of few Jews who dare to speak out against what I have mentioned. I would be attacked for "anti-Semitism" long before such voices are heard.

Fred us always a great read and a personal hero of mine. However, he missed the target here with his discussion of a bland "otherness." Reading excerpts from the Talmud and quotes from the great Rabbi Schneerson reveals that there is indeed some virulent Jewish hatred of the goyim out there. Bland otherness is not what I'm picking up.

RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , March 9, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT

Hitler's complaints against the Jews were along usual lines

You disingenuously fail to note that it is the consistency of these particular accusations throughout history that makes them 'usual'. Jews are always persecuted for the same list of crimes . because they're always up to the same list of crimes. How many times have they been expelled from the gentile nations that were effectively isolated in time and by geography. Are you saying that gentile civilization has quietly conspired to sew a false narrative of Jews, across national borders, and throughout it's entire, and diversely recorded history? Because that's the official Jewish narrative, as wild and absurd as it is. Of course, you'll have to fight tooth and nail just to get one of them to be honest enough to admit that they've been routinely expelled from a great many nations that had formerly welcomed them. And even then, you'll almost never get one honest enough to admit any wrongdoing on the part of the Jews in any such instances of expulsion. Jews can only be victims or heroes, after all. Never villains. Just ask the Democrats, or the Republicans. Or the Media. Or the ADL, or the SPLC, or your college professor etc etc etc.

Them, not Us. It makes little obvious sense to say that Jews are not Americans.

Tell that to the Jews. They're the one's who don't practice what they preach. More than anything, it's that double standard, along with the mass censorship of all criticism and dissent via a deafening chorus of cries of 'antisemitism' that foster the most hostility towards Jews as a collective. Even your dentist Isn't likely to reproach Jews for their wrongdoings, or call for the Orwellian 'strength' of diversity to flood Israel, the way they would in America. You make no mention of the widespread 'ethno-nationalism for me, but not for thee' views held by Jews with regards to Israel and the West.

Four Jews on the Supreme Court? From two percent of the population? My God, they must be up to something. A conspiracy, doubtless.

Don't stop there. Not unless you're TRYING to be dishonest. You've pointed out a single piece in a very long pattern of such events and then attempted to misrepresent the rest of the argument by omitting all the other pieces of evidence that come together to show a cohesive Jewish conspiracy that is rooted in verifiable facts. Tell everyone how much of our government, media, academia, finance etc is overwhelmingly dominated by this 2%.

Then compare the results of such an analysis with Hitler's complaints against the Jews. And then look at the collective leftward political lean of all these Jewish dominated positions of power and influence in America/The West. The Marxists in our colleges, the academics dictating our historical narrative and how we record it in history books, the bankers, the globalist billionaires and media moguls and Hollywood big wigs etc etc etc.

What they all lobby for, advocate for and push, is all the same things they won't tolerate at all in Israel. And for exactly all the same reasons that they decry whites as racists and bigots for bringing up.

Jews with remarkable consistency have been described for centuries as smart, greedy, combative, clannish, "pushy," exploitative, and arrogant. This is how I hear them described in Mexico, where I live.

At some point, Fred, hopefully you figure out how to tell the difference between a coincidence and pattern of events. I'm not holding my breath though.

Svigor , March 4, 2018 at 10:45 pm GMT

I was astonished to find that my Nepalese trekking guides were intensely hostile to Jews. They said that Jews (actually Israelis in most cases I think, but the Nepalese do not seem to make the distinction) were loud, demanding, and always trying to force down the guides' fees. Historically the hostility has often been powerful and, not infrequently, murderous. Jews have been expelled from country after country, excluded from polite society, subjected to quotas,and required to live in certain regions. Why?

LOL.

No, see, this is just brainwashing by the Great Global Antisemitic Conspiracy. They read some virulent antisemitism online first. Then, primed for antisemitism, they saw bad behavior from Jews where it didn't exist.

How much anti-Jewish hostility is there today in America? A lot? A little? Is it negligible? Potentially explosive? It is hard to tell because disliking Jews is often a firing offense, and a controlled press makes discussion impossible.

Yeah, no recipe for animus there.

Countersemitism is probably less common than the countersemites think, and more common than the philosemites think.

Jewish success isn't the problem. Jews are very fond of this answer, because it strokes their ethnic egos, and feeds their dindu nuffin culture (nobody, I mean NOBODY, does dindu culture like the Jews), but it's silly. Whites are rich tourists; did your Nepalese friends say they didn't like whites? Or do you suppose they bitch to their Jewish clients about whites? I suppose it's possible.

Countersemitism thrives despite an extremely hostile environment (it's firing, ruination, and unpersoning stateside; prison time in Europe) because there are much better reasons for it than envy. No serious person takes up countersemitism trivially; the cost is too high. There are far easier ways to work out one's psychological needs, if that's the only motive. No, countersemitism is driven by altruism.

Finally there is Israel, the albatross around the Jewish neck, making it impossible for Jews quietly to be more or less normal Americans.

Jews make it impossible. All they have to do is what whites would do; turn on Israel the way whites turned on South Africa. All they have to do is be consistent in their leftism, and subject themselves to the same rules that they enforce on others. You just glide past this and start yakking about Israel; what they do is their business, what the Jewish diaspora does is our business.

Whites and Jews really are different.

Jewish behavioral profile: "we should be the last people to have to live by the rules we push on everyone else."
White behavioral profile: "we can't push rules on everyone else that we aren't already living by ourselves."

A rational person might ask, "So what?" Do the Supreme Court's Jewish justices make Jewish decisions–whatever that might mean? Or do they vote like any four NPR listeners chosen at random? Did Mark Zuckerberg do anything underhanded? Or was he a very bright Jewish kid who had an idea and the strength of character to push it into existence? Does Schultz of Starbucks do something evil, or does he, like, you know, sell reasonably good coffee at a reasonable price?

It doesn't matter. They are there, so they must be conspiring. And their influence is becoming more obvious, as with Trump's subservience (as seen by much of the world) to Israel in planning to move the embassy.

A rational person might point to the Jews and their leftism, support for "diversity" and such. Jews say "we need black faces here, brown faces," etc., but then we're not supposed to turn around and say, "fine, we need white gentile faces in here"? Sauce, gander. Jews see removal of Jews as antisemitism, so we should see removal of white gentile faces as anti-white racism. Let Jews and all the rest advocate for their own representation, and we whites will advocate for ours.

That's the rational response.

People who think they are defending Jews will point to Jewish contributions to nearly everything–science, music, math, technology, literature, charity, medicine, support for symphonies. These contributions are real and immense. With respect to anti-Jewish politics, they are also irrelevant or worse. Since the hostility to Jews rests largely on their excessive presence (again, in the eyes of the anti-Jewish) pointing to their intellectual contributions just increases the dislike. It emphasizes both the Jewish presence and apparent superiority.

Nah. Jews follow whites around, the same way blacks do. Jews need whites, to live in white countries, the same way blacks do. Jews chimp out at the thought of being excluded from white communities or countries, the same way blacks do. That burning need is not the hallmark of superiority. Whites, on the other hand, don't need either group. They certainly don't need to follow either around, or go ape at the idea of being excluded from their communities or countries.

This explains a lot of the chip on the Jewish shoulder. Jews have a love-hate, superiority-inferiority complex going with whites, big time.

America is not really stable.

Owed mostly to diversity, which in turn is owed largely to the Jews, and their tireless efforts from 1924 to 1965 to pry open our borders.

John Gruskos , March 9, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@Svigor

Svigor,

Your idealism and altruism are wasted on Fred Reed.

He isn't arguing in good faith.

He is just writing lies, which he knows full well to be lies, to provoke the anger of his audience, for his own amusement. I believe they call it "trolling".

The only way antisemitism will ever go away is if more members of the Jewish elite follow the lead of Ron Unz and Stephen Miller and make a good faith effort to use their influence for the benefit of the host community. (If you made a list of the 100,000 most influential Jews in America, would there be anyone on that list other than Unz and Miller who is favorably disposed towards old-stock Americans?)

Trolls like Fred Reed, on the other hand, will reliably increase antisemitism every time they get access to a keyboard. They will be perceived as toadies of the hostile Jewish elite, and unfortunately all Jews will receive a share of the animus stirred up by the all too numerous likes of Fred Reed.

[Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The Intel Community Lie About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works, they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment," discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing. More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.

You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.

The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
  1. Air Force Intelligence,
  2. Army Intelligence,
  3. Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
  4. Coast Guard Intelligence,
  5. Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
  6. Energy Department aka DOE,
  7. Homeland Security Department,
  8. State Department aka INR,
  9. Treasury Department,
  10. Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
  11. Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
  12. Marine Corps Intelligence,
  13. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
  14. National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
  15. National Security Agency aka NSA,
  16. Navy Intelligence
  17. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them. They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:

Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients. The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the NSA.

The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.

Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity. When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA.

The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.

An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.

In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton, along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who released the following memo to the press on 7 October 2016 :

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:

If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.

Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:

"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing."

What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew and believed? There was nothing.

It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.

Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform the work of analysts.

Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network that allegedly was attacked.

Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could have contributed relevant intelligence.

Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.

Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned theft.

Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked.

What Do Analysts Do?

Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.

The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.

Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.

Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.

Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:

  1. One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA. The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts mean or do not mean.
  2. There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing. We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
  3. At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies, i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
  4. Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put into final form.

That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:

Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments. There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government preferred Trump over Clinton.

How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."

It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document.

That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.

LeaNder , 07 March 2018 at 05:59 PM

Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.

But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...

********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

turcopolier , 07 March 2018 at 06:10 PM
LeaNder

One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl

Flavius , 07 March 2018 at 06:19 PM
Well done.

"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.

Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it?

Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup.

The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged, rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.

I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away with it?

Richardstevenhack , 07 March 2018 at 06:23 PM
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."

To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.

All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.

Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.

In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.

The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.

The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.

As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.

ann , 07 March 2018 at 11:22 PM
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Richardstevenhack , 08 March 2018 at 03:02 AM
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."

His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.

It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already.

blue peacock , 08 March 2018 at 04:12 AM
GZC #12

Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.

IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.

Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.

English Outsider , 08 March 2018 at 05:57 AM
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.

Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?

I ask because of the passage in your article -

"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "

Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 07:53 AM
EO,

" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 07:54 AM
GZC

A lot of smoke? Only if you wish to place a negative value on everything the Trump people did or were. pl

jsn -> The Twisted Genius ... , 08 March 2018 at 08:20 AM
The CIA appears to be trying to right the wrongs done them with the creation of the DNI:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/08/dems-m08.html
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 08:54 AM
jsn

The wrongs done them? I hope that was irony. pl

turcopolier -> Green Zone Café ... , 08 March 2018 at 09:01 AM
GZC

Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy, a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks and how much by hustlers. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 09:24 AM
jsn

hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl

DH , 08 March 2018 at 09:50 AM
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.

Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.

Publius Tacitus -> Green Zone Café ... , 08 March 2018 at 09:53 AM
GZC,

Are you really this obtuse?

You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange." You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.

Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.

Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.

jsn , 08 March 2018 at 10:15 AM
Sir,

The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological program, though I believe parts have their place.

Liberals have, I believe, jumped the shark: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/07/progressive-journalists-jump-the-shark-on-russiagate/

If the get their way with the new McCarthyism, the implications for dissent, left or right, seem to me to be about the same:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/federalist-68-the-electoral-college-and-faithless-electors.html#intelligence

jsn , 08 March 2018 at 10:25 AM
Sir,

And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences are, if that was the point.

I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.

I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.

LeaNder said in reply to Flavius... , 08 March 2018 at 10:40 AM
love this coinage Flavius: Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged

a lie "circumstantial"? http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.de/2005/05/seven-degrees-of-lie.html

Sid Finster , 08 March 2018 at 11:06 AM
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.

That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.

If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.

Sarah B said in reply to turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:27 AM
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....

Now, tell me that this is not an intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where everything is crimbling....

Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R. Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?

Barbara Ann -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:35 AM
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
Sarah B , 08 March 2018 at 11:38 AM
Here is the paper in question I am mentioning above: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf Some neutral analyst is saying that from 28 pages, 24 are dedicated to Russia and China, then Iran and NK, in this order...and that it is an official recognition of the new multipolar order....
Peter VE said in reply to johnf... , 08 March 2018 at 11:55 AM
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col. Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
Jack -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:59 AM
Sir

That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. And his sentencing is on hold now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge to do that.

Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that.

The Twisted Genius , 08 March 2018 at 12:59 PM
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the IC.

I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations Center.

LeaNder said in reply to Richardstevenhack ... , 08 March 2018 at 01:01 PM
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 ...

Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.

APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to 29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...

Kasperky pdf-file - whodunnit?
https://tinyurl.com/APT-Avanced-Persitent-Treat

Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.

******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?

Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.

LeaNder said in reply to Fred... , 08 March 2018 at 02:29 PM
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.

I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)

But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined observer of SST.

But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?

Dave -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:18 PM
Ask National Security Advisor General McMaster.
Even Trump now says Putin meddled.
What more evidence do you need
Dave -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:20 PM
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 03:34 PM
Dave

It is politically necessary for Trump to say that. Tell me, what is meant by "Russian meddling"in this statement by McMaster? pl

Dave -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:50 PM
Russian meddling is hacking our election systems.

The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation, even though he is a conservative republican.

They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."

I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.

You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.

Publius Tacitus -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 04:02 PM
Just because trump is stupid is not an excuse for you. You accept a lie without one shred of actual evidence. You are a lemming
Fred -> LeaNder... , 08 March 2018 at 04:04 PM
LeaNder,

"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations left out.

Fred -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 04:07 PM
Dave,

Putin hired Facebook. That company seems to do well helping out foreign governments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html

Linda , 08 March 2018 at 04:16 PM
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:26 PM
Dave

What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?

If the latter you must know that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections, German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.

As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:36 PM
Linda

PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser to the federal court for four years.

In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. pl

JamesT -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 04:37 PM
I continue to learn things around here that I could never learn anywhere else. It is a privilege to read the Colonel, TTG, and Publius Tacitus.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:47 PM
Dave

If you use denigrating language like "wild eyed" to attack your interlocutors you will not be welcome here. pl

LeaNder said in reply to Flavius... , 08 March 2018 at 04:49 PM
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.

Not aware of this. Can you help me out?

No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.

Sid Finster said in reply to Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 05:09 PM
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
LeaNder said in reply to Fred ... , 08 March 2018 at 05:10 PM
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify matters for myself.

* ...

m -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:29 PM
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.

This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?

m -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:33 PM
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge and sets a date for discovery?
Publius Tacitus -> Linda ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:45 PM
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.

THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.

GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event, there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

J , 08 March 2018 at 07:08 PM
Colonel,

The granddaddy of them all is #16, and what have they contributed?

Steve McIntyre -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 March 2018 at 07:41 PM
I'm eagerly awaiting your thoughts on the Skripal poisoning. I'm sure I'm not alone in the hope that you will write on it.
The Twisted Genius -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 07:59 PM
Publius Tacitus,

I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess that is why they call these things assessments.

The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."

I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.

The Twisted Genius -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 08:26 PM
Dave,

As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.

https://medium.com/@ushadrons

I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing. Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.

Publius Tacitus -> The Twisted Genius ... , 08 March 2018 at 08:55 PM
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?

[Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The Intel Community Lie About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works, they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment," discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing. More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.

You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.

The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
  1. Air Force Intelligence,
  2. Army Intelligence,
  3. Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
  4. Coast Guard Intelligence,
  5. Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
  6. Energy Department aka DOE,
  7. Homeland Security Department,
  8. State Department aka INR,
  9. Treasury Department,
  10. Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
  11. Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
  12. Marine Corps Intelligence,
  13. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
  14. National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
  15. National Security Agency aka NSA,
  16. Navy Intelligence
  17. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them. They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:

Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients. The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the NSA.

The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.

Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity. When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA.

The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.

An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.

In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton, along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who released the following memo to the press on 7 October 2016 :

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:

If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.

Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:

"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing."

What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew and believed? There was nothing.

It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.

Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform the work of analysts.

Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network that allegedly was attacked.

Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could have contributed relevant intelligence.

Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.

Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned theft.

Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked.

What Do Analysts Do?

Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.

The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.

Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.

Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.

Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:

  1. One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA. The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts mean or do not mean.
  2. There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing. We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
  3. At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies, i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
  4. Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put into final form.

That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:

Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments. There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government preferred Trump over Clinton.

How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."

It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document.

That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.

LeaNder , 07 March 2018 at 05:59 PM

Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.

But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...

********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

turcopolier , 07 March 2018 at 06:10 PM
LeaNder

One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl

Flavius , 07 March 2018 at 06:19 PM
Well done.

"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.

Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it?

Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup.

The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged, rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.

I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away with it?

Richardstevenhack , 07 March 2018 at 06:23 PM
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."

To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.

All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.

Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.

In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.

The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.

The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.

As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.

ann , 07 March 2018 at 11:22 PM
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Richardstevenhack , 08 March 2018 at 03:02 AM
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."

His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.

It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already.

blue peacock , 08 March 2018 at 04:12 AM
GZC #12

Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.

IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.

Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.

English Outsider , 08 March 2018 at 05:57 AM
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.

Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?

I ask because of the passage in your article -

"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "

Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 07:53 AM
EO,

" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 07:54 AM
GZC

A lot of smoke? Only if you wish to place a negative value on everything the Trump people did or were. pl

jsn -> The Twisted Genius ... , 08 March 2018 at 08:20 AM
The CIA appears to be trying to right the wrongs done them with the creation of the DNI:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/08/dems-m08.html
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 08:54 AM
jsn

The wrongs done them? I hope that was irony. pl

turcopolier -> Green Zone Café ... , 08 March 2018 at 09:01 AM
GZC

Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy, a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks and how much by hustlers. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 09:24 AM
jsn

hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl

DH , 08 March 2018 at 09:50 AM
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.

Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.

Publius Tacitus -> Green Zone Café ... , 08 March 2018 at 09:53 AM
GZC,

Are you really this obtuse?

You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange." You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.

Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.

Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.

jsn , 08 March 2018 at 10:15 AM
Sir,

The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological program, though I believe parts have their place.

Liberals have, I believe, jumped the shark: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/07/progressive-journalists-jump-the-shark-on-russiagate/

If the get their way with the new McCarthyism, the implications for dissent, left or right, seem to me to be about the same:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/federalist-68-the-electoral-college-and-faithless-electors.html#intelligence

jsn , 08 March 2018 at 10:25 AM
Sir,

And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences are, if that was the point.

I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.

I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.

LeaNder said in reply to Flavius... , 08 March 2018 at 10:40 AM
love this coinage Flavius: Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged

a lie "circumstantial"? http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.de/2005/05/seven-degrees-of-lie.html

Sid Finster , 08 March 2018 at 11:06 AM
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.

That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.

If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.

Sarah B said in reply to turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:27 AM
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....

Now, tell me that this is not an intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where everything is crimbling....

Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R. Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?

Barbara Ann -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:35 AM
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
Sarah B , 08 March 2018 at 11:38 AM
Here is the paper in question I am mentioning above: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf Some neutral analyst is saying that from 28 pages, 24 are dedicated to Russia and China, then Iran and NK, in this order...and that it is an official recognition of the new multipolar order....
Peter VE said in reply to johnf... , 08 March 2018 at 11:55 AM
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col. Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
Jack -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:59 AM
Sir

That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. And his sentencing is on hold now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge to do that.

Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that.

The Twisted Genius , 08 March 2018 at 12:59 PM
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the IC.

I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations Center.

LeaNder said in reply to Richardstevenhack ... , 08 March 2018 at 01:01 PM
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 ...

Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.

APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to 29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...

Kasperky pdf-file - whodunnit?
https://tinyurl.com/APT-Avanced-Persitent-Treat

Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.

******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?

Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.

LeaNder said in reply to Fred... , 08 March 2018 at 02:29 PM
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.

I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)

But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined observer of SST.

But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?

Dave -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:18 PM
Ask National Security Advisor General McMaster.
Even Trump now says Putin meddled.
What more evidence do you need
Dave -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:20 PM
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 03:34 PM
Dave

It is politically necessary for Trump to say that. Tell me, what is meant by "Russian meddling"in this statement by McMaster? pl

Dave -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:50 PM
Russian meddling is hacking our election systems.

The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation, even though he is a conservative republican.

They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."

I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.

You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.

Publius Tacitus -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 04:02 PM
Just because trump is stupid is not an excuse for you. You accept a lie without one shred of actual evidence. You are a lemming
Fred -> LeaNder... , 08 March 2018 at 04:04 PM
LeaNder,

"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations left out.

Fred -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 04:07 PM
Dave,

Putin hired Facebook. That company seems to do well helping out foreign governments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html

Linda , 08 March 2018 at 04:16 PM
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:26 PM
Dave

What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?

If the latter you must know that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections, German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.

As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:36 PM
Linda

PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser to the federal court for four years.

In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. pl

JamesT -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 04:37 PM
I continue to learn things around here that I could never learn anywhere else. It is a privilege to read the Colonel, TTG, and Publius Tacitus.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:47 PM
Dave

If you use denigrating language like "wild eyed" to attack your interlocutors you will not be welcome here. pl

LeaNder said in reply to Flavius... , 08 March 2018 at 04:49 PM
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.

Not aware of this. Can you help me out?

No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.

Sid Finster said in reply to Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 05:09 PM
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
LeaNder said in reply to Fred ... , 08 March 2018 at 05:10 PM
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify matters for myself.

* ...

m -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:29 PM
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.

This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?

m -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:33 PM
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge and sets a date for discovery?
Publius Tacitus -> Linda ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:45 PM
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.

THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.

GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event, there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

J , 08 March 2018 at 07:08 PM
Colonel,

The granddaddy of them all is #16, and what have they contributed?

Steve McIntyre -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 March 2018 at 07:41 PM
I'm eagerly awaiting your thoughts on the Skripal poisoning. I'm sure I'm not alone in the hope that you will write on it.
The Twisted Genius -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 07:59 PM
Publius Tacitus,

I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess that is why they call these things assessments.

The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."

I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.

The Twisted Genius -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 08:26 PM
Dave,

As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.

https://medium.com/@ushadrons

I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing. Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.

Publius Tacitus -> The Twisted Genius ... , 08 March 2018 at 08:55 PM
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?

[Mar 08, 2018] Personally I would suggest that there are people within the US establishment that know very well that Putin was/is not bluffing

Mar 04, 2018 | off-guardian.org

summitflyer,

Personally I would suggest that there are people within the US establishment that know very well that Putin was/is not bluffing.The theatrics from the likes of Mark Galeotti and coterie are just that ,buffoons and clowns that speak to a crowd cheering on anyone that would re-enforce the false narrative of the bad Russians in order to feel good about themselves and keep thumping their chests . This will not last forever .Sanity will visit this planet again .

Arrby, March 6, 2018

I don't think that Putin was bluffing. But I came across a Consortium News article that had me wondering about the impression Putin made and whether he was okay with misleading us just a bit, not by doing it himself, but by omission and by allowing us to have ideas that don't exactly conform to reality:
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/03/why-putins-latest-weapons-claims-should-scare-us/
Schlüter, March 4, 2018
I´d like to recommend this again:

„Geo-Politics: The Core of Crisis and Chaos and the Nightmares of the US Power Elite" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/geo-politics-the-core-of-crisis-and-chaos-the-nightmares-of-the-us-power-elite/
Sunday regards

[Mar 08, 2018] Cue bono question in Scripal case?

Highly recommended!
This case looks more and more like Litvinenko II -- another false flag designed to implicate Russia a fuel anti-russian hysteria. British MI6 are masters in such provocations.
Along with sabotaging Moscow soccer tournament this also can also be an attempt to distract from MI6 role is creation of Steele dossier too.
Notable quotes:
"... Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in 1995 by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy in Tallinn. Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians. ..."
"... The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying fingered Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited him. He says it was Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him to British intelligence agents. Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities' suspicions that another former FSB officer, Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium. ..."
"... Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..."
"... Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British intelligence, transmitting information about Russian agents. ..."
"... Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What did he do to earn the higher pay? ..."
"... Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly, he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. ..."
"... If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it, he must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will be thrown under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of ruling elite as high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free ..."
"... If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories in fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional quest of riches ..."
"... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties. ..."
"... It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way... ..."
"... Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what the 'counter-terror' mob do. ..."
"... The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever happened, but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they do trying to find out what actually did occur. ..."
"... Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration. ..."
"... B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow via his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke of genius. Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide. ..."
"... On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will provide all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such. ..."
"... Meanwhile The Guardian is spewing its usual bilge : Russian spy attack inquiry widens after medics treat 21 people ..."
"... The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it. ..."
Mar 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Spy Poisons Spy And The Anti-Trump Campaign

On Sunday a former British-Russian double agent and his daughter were seriously injured in a mysterious incident in Salisbury, England. The British government says that both were hurt due to "exposure to a nerve agent". Speculative media reports talk of Sarin and VX, two deadly nerve-agents used in military chemical weapons. Anonymous officials strongly hint that 'Russia did it'.

New reports though point to a deep connection between the case and the anti-Trump/anti-Russia propaganda drive run by the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton election campaign.

Sergei Skripal once was a colonel in a Russian military intelligence service. In the early 1990s he was recruited by the MI6 agent Pablo Miller. He continued to spy for the Brits after his 1999 retirement. The Russian FSB claims that the British MI6 paid him $100,000 for his service. At that time a Russian officer would only make a few hundred bucks per month. Skripal was finally uncovered in 2004 and two years later convicted for spying for Britain. He was sentenced to 18 years and in 2010 he and other agents ware exchanged in a large spy swap between the United States and Russia. Skripal was granted refuge in Britain and has since lived openly under his own name in Salisbury. His wife and his son died over the last years of natural causes. The only near relative he has left is his daughter who continued to live in Russia.

Last week his daughter flew to Britain and met him in Salisbury. On Sunday they went to a pub and a restaurant. At some point they were poisoned or poisoned themselves. They collapsed on a public bench. They are now in intensive care. A policeman one the scene was also seriously effected.

Authorities have declined to name the substance to which the pair is suspected to have been exposed, but :

Local media had on Monday reported the substance found at the scene to be similar to fentanyl: a lethally strong opioid available even on Salisbury's soporific streets.

The British government is hinting at Russian involvement :

Whorin Piece , Mar 8, 2018 4:30:36 PM | 1

Seth Rich.

Awesome, thank you b,

I think this event is a ramp to offing Knesia Sobchak prior to or just after the national poll. She is a pawn of the West. She has been directed to consolidate the disparate liberal opposition campaigns by the use of primaries...which would just happen to result in her primacy. The idea is to have her win enough vote it can be alleged that she has embarrassed Putin...and then they six her using VX. Her father was close go Putin during Putin's early years in St Pete. The BBC has been running chaff out the foot saying Putin killed his mentor Anatoly Sobchak. Knesia has been moved into position. She will be offed to harm Putin's reputation but also to place e a complex wound in him. The West are monsters

yoffa , Mar 8, 2018 4:35:34 PM | 2
The Orbis consultant / analyst living in Salisbury is identified as Pablo Miller. He had recruited Skripal in 1995 ( https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/03/06/a-hundred-grand-and-hundreds-of-betrayed-agents).
notheonly1 , Mar 8, 2018 4:40:39 PM | 3
Ms Rudd told MPs it was an "outrageous crime", adding that the government would "act without hesitation as the facts become clearer".

Yeah, right.

Like the illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country based on the lies by the same 'government', with a million+ casualties among the middle eastern population.

That kind of outrageous crime , correct?

One day the pendulum will swing back hard and merciless at these criminal warmongers and war profiteers. Disgusting how low what goes for 'homo sapiens' can sink.

Christian Chuba , Mar 8, 2018 4:43:02 PM | 4
I was wondering if Grigory Rodchenkov was in danger of meeting the same fate by some of the more unsavory elements of U.S. Intelligence Agencies. He would become a poster boy for Russian assassinations on U.S. soil.

One thing about Rodchenkov, if the doping was not state sponsored, what motive would have have for doing it on his own, is there enough money in the Olympics that individual athletes would bribe him or would it make him look better if his athletes did better? I don't buy that it was state sponsored, or at least there is no evidence to that affect.

Oyyo , Mar 8, 2018 4:51:46 PM | 6
21 people were affected.

https://news.sky.com/story/live-poisoned-salisbury-cop-talking-and-engaging-11280674

xLemming , Mar 8, 2018 5:05:53 PM | 7
Sadly @3 we may have to wait for Judgement Day for that to happen. But if it comes about sooner, and in our lifetime, it will be a day of rejoicing!
b , Mar 8, 2018 5:07:11 PM | 8
@yoffa @2 - thank you. Your link does not work, here is a good one: A hundred grand and hundreds of betrayed agents What was former GRU Colonel Sergey Skripal's treason against Russia?
Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in 1995 by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy in Tallinn. Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians.

The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying fingered Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited him. He says it was Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him to British intelligence agents. Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities' suspicions that another former FSB officer, Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium.

Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..
Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British intelligence, transmitting information about Russian agents.

Nikolai Luzan, who calls himself a colonel and a veteran of Russia's security agencies, wrote a detailed book about how the British recruited Sergey Skripal. Luzan says his book, "A Devil's Counterintelligence Dozen," is an "artistic-documentary production."

If we assume that Luzan's account is generally accurate, then Skripal was recruited during a long-term assignment in Malta and Spain, where he "got greedy."
...

Further on:
Skripal led a quiet life in Salisbury, where he reportedly bought an average house for 340,000 British pounds (about $472,000). His neighbors describe him as an ordinary, reasonably friendly pensioner. When he moved to the area, he even invited the whole street over for a housewarming party.

It's unclear why Skripal decided to resettle specifically in Salisbury, but LinkedIn indicates that Pablo Miller -- the MI6 agent who recruited him -- lives in the same town. In 2015, the year he retired, Miller received the Order of the British Empire for services to Her Majesty's Government.

Skripal's wife, Lyudmila, lived with him in Salisbury until her death a few years ago. His son died from liver failure in 2017 in St. Petersburg.

It must be Pablo Miller who worked with Steele ...

Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What did he do to earn the higher pay?

karlof1 , Mar 8, 2018 5:12:03 PM | 9
Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly, he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. The UK's fairly well covered by CCTV; I'd be very interested in what those in Salisbury observed. The incident has La Carre written all over it.
Kalen , Mar 8, 2018 5:21:30 PM | 10
If someone like MI6 for FSB wanted him dead they would be instantly in a car accident of robbery attempt, they whoever they are, wanted this to thing to prolong in time to feed the press Russia gate and wanted people like b to follow the trap since most of the info here can be found just after few clicks, will be picked up by rational people.

If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it, he must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will be thrown under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of ruling elite as high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free .

If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories in fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional quest of riches .

In the society of control ruling elite controls everything it needs to control and hence is responsible for this. Case closed.

b , Mar 8, 2018 5:39:21 PM | 12
The Independent: Sergei Skripal: Former double agent may have been poisoned with nerve agent over 'freelance' spying, sources say
The Russian double agent poisoned in Salisbury may have become a target after using his contacts in the intelligence community to work for private security firms, investigators believe.

Sergei Skripal could have come to the attention of certain people in Russia by attempting to "freelance" for companies run by former MI5, MI6 and GCHQ spies, security sources say.
...
Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties.

A very believable denial by Steele. Not.
james , Mar 8, 2018 5:56:08 PM | 13
It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way...
Debsisdead , Mar 8, 2018 6:02:23 PM | 14
For me it was particularly suss when the Leceister Police who are the coppers on the ground in Salisbury were heavied by Scotland Yuk ( or 'the met' as englander papers call that gang of proven torturers & murderers) to turn the Skripsky investigation over to the 'counter-terror squad' - the mob of thugs whose skillful manipulation of england's media combined with evidence falsification made their indicted murder of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes seem like an heroic act by playing the old honest whitefella card - "all those brownfellas look the same, who can tell the difference?" . No copper, not the killers or the idiot in charge suffered any disciplinary actiion, much less a criminal one. IIRC the policeperson in charge who claimed to be 'in the bathroom' at the time of de Menzeses murder, one Cressida Dick, is now chief commissioner, the boss of Scotland Yuk.

The local coppers know the area and will have a rapport with witnesses that a mob of arseholes in sharp suits backed by balaclava wearing armed heavies is unlikely to enjoy, so why grab the gig especially since it is certain to remain unsolved?

Well partly that, to make sure it remains unsolved, but also because counter-terror plays the press release regurgitators who are englander 'journos' like a fine old violin. Questions about fentanyl being a nerve agent get tricky? Spin the chooks a yarn about evil a-rabs you have met.

Uncoy , Mar 8, 2018 6:21:20 PM | 15
Kalen is right. Such a flamboyant killing is not how modern intelligence agencies dispose of problems. Unless they want to draw attention to their work.

Maybe there's a bunch of people around the Christopher Steele dossier thinking of talking. What better way to shut them up than to knock off a Steele source.

Peter , Mar 8, 2018 6:33:27 PM | 16
Very good work, B. Thanks for your website, best on the web.
sadness , Mar 8, 2018 6:41:55 PM | 17
It could always be a simple & rather human explanation - The daughter was struggling for cash at home, dad was old but refused to die & had a stash of cash from his past, she knocked him off to get an earlier inheritance but being an amateur at this she did herself in too, which would be poetic justice...?
sadness , Mar 8, 2018 6:49:11 PM | 18
....oh i forgot to add....or it was a sad suicide pact between them when all else was lost & over
ToivoS , Mar 8, 2018 7:08:41 PM | 19
It is highly unlikely that fentanyl was the toxin that poisoned Skribal and his daughter. That hypothesis should be excluded at this point.

The main reason for this is that the patrol man who discovered them also came down with similar symptoms. Fentanyl is extremely toxic when injected intravenously. But not to any one coming into contact with them, touching them or even performing mouth to mouth resusication.

There are numerous acetyl choline inhibitors (e.g. sarin, vx, and many other similar compounds that have never been approved for chemical warfare) that can cause symptoms if someone comes into contact with an intoxicated patient especially one has be exposed externally.

Also the Portland Down lab has identified an ACE inhibitor (of course, that is part of the British military and they could very easily be lying.)

In any case, this looks like a nerve toxin poison, fentanyl is not in that class.

Fatima Manoubia , Mar 8, 2018 7:08:44 PM | 20
Fentanyl patchs are used to control intense chronic pain...If he resigned from GRU because of health issues, as the "Meduzas" affirm, it might be related to this chronic pain and so he could well be a patient using this drug for pain control.....

Thus, fentanyl is not a nerve agent, but an anesthesic in any case....All could well be a performance...to blame the Russians and contribute to scare the population about them previous to some machination to be mounted at......Do not forget that that factory of mannequin challenges broadcasts, the White Helmets, is also a British "enterprise", creation of "former" MI6 LeMesurier....

Debsisdead , Mar 8, 2018 7:40:41 PM | 21
Yesterday when questions about fentanyl were raised, the sick policeman was identified, up until that point all that had been said was that the bill first on the scene were admitted to be checked out by medics. Today the close to death's door copper is in fine fettle once again. I leave it up to others to decide whether he was crook (sick - an Oz term) or the imported police were crooks (lying).

Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what the 'counter-terror' mob do. If they were really opposed to scaring the bejeezuz outta englanders which is what their name implies they would A) be better at preventing actions which they hadn't cranked up themselves for entrapment and B) not imagine it was on the up and up to terrify the burghers of Salisbury with yarns about possible 'nerve agent' on the loose that were placing the town's population at risk.

The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever happened, but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they do trying to find out what actually did occur. The form of this gang of sleek deceitful killers means that just because they claim this local woodentop was poisoned, it doesn't mean that is what actually befell him.

Duck1 , Mar 8, 2018 7:49:18 PM | 22
Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration.
Jen , Mar 8, 2018 7:54:30 PM | 23
It seems that MI6 was keeping Sergei Skripal on a tight leash by having him live in Salisbury close to Pablo Miller who must be the old fellow's minder as well as recruiter. One way of keeping Skripal on this leash must be to supply him with an addictive painkiller, for whatever pain he is suffering (physical, perhaps psychological?), and fentanyl fits the bill.

Fentanyl also fits the bill for a poisoning agent that also affected the police officer who attended the Skripals. The fentanyl epidemic is apparently forcing emergency and first-response personnel to re-evaluate procedures in handling patients so that they themselves are not affected by sniffing fentanyl accidentally.

B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow via his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke of genius. Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide.

karlof1 , Mar 8, 2018 7:59:42 PM | 24
sadness @17 & 18--

Nobody died. Only 3 remain in hospital and are not endangered.

On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will provide all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such.

Briar Patch , Mar 8, 2018 8:05:32 PM | 25
The question raised by the link offered by Oyyo at 6 (at least 21 affected by the "neurotoxin"), the comments offered by Debisdead at 21, and the note from Craig Murry about the nearby chemical site: Was this an attack targeting Skripal at all, or some other kind of "misadventure"? There are so many opportunities to use this kind of incident, by entities capable of spinning it this way and that, that it doesn't give to us individuals reading the news much hope of ever learning the truth.
Ghost Ship , Mar 8, 2018 8:16:50 PM | 26
>>>>> ToivoS | Mar 8, 2018 7:08:41 PM | 19

Fentanyl can enter the body through the skin :

A police officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, collapsed and was rushed to the hospital after he brushed fentanyl residue off his uniform, allowing the drug to enter his system through his hands. The officer had apparently encountered the opioid earlier in the day while making a drug bust.
Fenatanyl acts on the nervous system so could be described as a "nerve agent", particularly by a British politician or civil servant.
WorldBLee , Mar 8, 2018 8:49:38 PM | 30
I love it when the UK media call it a "professional hit job." No, it's not. In a professional hit job the person ends up dead.
Ghost Ship , Mar 8, 2018 9:02:37 PM | 31
Meanwhile The Guardian is spewing its usual bilge: Russian spy attack inquiry widens after medics treat 21 people

Statement from Wiltshire Police :

In addition to the three inpatients**** who are currently receiving treatment in relation to the incident, in line with Public Health England guidance, which asked anyone who was in the area and is concerned because they feel unwell to come forward, the Trust has seen and assessed a number of people who did not need treatment.

**** - These are Sgt Nick Bailey & the two original victims.

Peter AU 1 , Mar 8, 2018 9:04:33 PM | 32
The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it.

[Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any such legitimacy. ..."
Mar 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere , 08 March 2018 at 11:01 AM

Stephen F. Cohen:

Does Putin really believe Washington will "listen now"? He may still have some "illusions," but we should have none. In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.

Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any such legitimacy.

And making matters worse, there are the still unproven allegations of "Russiagate" collusion. Even if President Trump understands, or is made to understand, the new -- possibly historic -- overture represented by Putin's speech, would the "Kremlin puppet" allegations made daily against him permit him to seize this opportunity? Indeed, do the promoters of "Russiagate" care?

more here:

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-washington-provoked-and-perhaps-lost-a-new-nuclear-arms-race/

[Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative' as possible. ..."
"... Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to term 'bad Straussianism.' ..."
"... What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic. But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning, which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places. ..."
Mar 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

David Habakkuk , 08 March 2018 at 10:28 AM

PT and all,

More material on the British end of the conspiracy.

Commenting on an earlier piece by PT, I suggested that a key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/02/pieces-of-the-coup-puzzle-fall-into-place-by-publius-tacitus.html .)

To recapitulate: Back in June 2016, hard on the heels of the claim by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike' to have identified clinching evidence making the GRU prime suspects, Tait announced that, although initially unconvinced, he had found a 'smoking gun' in the 'metadata' of the documents released by 'Guccifer 2.0.'

A key part of this was the use by someone modifying a document of 'Felix Edmundovich' – the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky, the Lithuanian-Polish noble who created the Soviet secret police.

As I noted, Tait was generally identified as a former GCHQ employee who now ran a consultancy called 'Capital Alpha Security.' However, checking Companies House records revealed that he had filed 'dormant accounts' for the company. So it looks as though the company was simply a 'front', designed to fool 'useful idiots' into believing he was an objective analyst.

As I also noted in those comments, Tait writes the 'Lawfare' blog, one of whose founders, Benjamin Wittes, looks as though he may himself have been involved in the conspiracy up to the hilt. Furthermore, a secure income now appears to have been provided to replace that from the non-existent consultancy, in the shape of a position at the 'Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law', run by Robert Chesney, a co-founder with Wittes of 'Lawfare.'

A crucial part of the story, however, is that the notion of GRU responsibility for the supposed 'hacks' appears to be part of a wider 'narrative' about the supposed 'Gerasimov Doctrine.' From the 'View from Langley' provided to Bret Stephens by CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the 'Aspen Security Forum' last July:

'I hearken back to something called the Gerasimov doctrine from the early 70s, he's now the head of the – I'm a Cold War guy, forgive me if I mention Soviet Union. He's now the head of the Russian army and his idea was that you can win wars without firing a single shot or with firing very few shots in ways that are decidedly not militaristic, and that's what's happened. What changes is the costs; to effectuate change through cyber and through RT and Sputnik, their news outlets, and through other soft means; has just really been lowered, right. It used to be it was expensive to run an ad on a television station now you simply go online and propagate your message. And so they have they have found an effective tool, an easy way to go reach into our systems, and into our culture to achieve the outcomes they are looking for.'

(See https://aspensecurityforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-View-from-Langley.pdf .)

What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative' as possible.

Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'

(See http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/05/im-sorry-for-creating-the-gerasimov-doctrine/ .)

A key paragraph:

'Gerasimov was actually talking about how the Kremlin understands what happened in the "Arab Spring" uprisings, the "color revolutions" against pro-Moscow regimes in Russia's neighborhood, and in due course Ukraine's "Maidan" revolt. The Russians honestly – however wrongly – believe that these were not genuine protests against brutal and corrupt governments, but regime changes orchestrated in Washington, or rather, Langley. This wasn't a "doctrine" as the Russians understand it, for future adventures abroad: Gerasimov was trying to work out how to fight, not promote, such uprisings at home.'

The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to term 'bad Straussianism.'

(See https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-gerasimov-doctrine-and-russian-non-linear-war/ .)

What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic. But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning, which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places.

Having now read the text of the article, I can see a peculiar irony in it. In a section entitled 'You Can't Generate Ideas On Command', Gerasimov suggests that 'The state of Russian military science today cannot be compared with the flowering of military-theoretical thought in our country on the eve of World War II.'

According to the 'exoteric' meaning of the article, it is not possible to blame anyone in particular for this situation. But Gerasimov goes on on to remark that, while at the time of that flowering there were 'no people with higher degrees' or 'academic schools or departments', there were 'extraordinary personalities with brilliant ideas', who he terms 'fanatics in the best sense of the word.'

Again, Galeotti discounts the suggestion that nobody is to blame, assuming an 'esoteric meaning', and remarking: 'Ouch. Who is he slapping here?'

Actually, Gerasimov refers by name to two, utterly different figures, who certainly were 'extraordinarily personalities with brilliant ideas.'

If Pompeo had even the highly amateurish grasp of the history of debates among Soviet military theorists that I have managed to acquire he would be aware that one of the things which was actually happening in the 'Seventies was the rediscovery of the ideas of Alexander Svechin.

Confirming my sense that this has continued on, Gerasimov ends by using Svechin to point up an intractable problem: it can be extraordinarily difficult to anticipate the conditions of a war, and crucial not to impose a standardised template likely to be inappropriate, but one has to make some kinds of prediction in order to plan.

Immediately after the passage which Galeotti interprets as a dig at some colleague, Gerasimov elaborates his reference to 'extraordinary people with brilliant ideas' by referring to an anticipation of a future war, which proved prescient, from a very different figure to Svechin:

'People like, for instance, Georgy Isserson, who, despite the views he formed in the prewar years, published the book "New Forms Of Combat." In it, this Soviet military theoretician predicted: "War in general is not declared. It simply begins with already developed military forces. Mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the onset of the state of war as was the case in 1914 but rather, unnoticed, proceeds long before that." The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the General Staff Academy.'

Unlike Svechin, whom I have read, I was unfamiliar with Isserson. A quick Google search, however, unearthed a mass of material in American sources – including, by good fortune, an online text of a 2010 study by Dr Richard Harrison entitled 'Architect of Soviet Victory in World War II: The Life and Theories of G.S. Isserson', and a presentation summarising the volume.

Ironically, Svechin and Isserson were on opposite sides of fundamental divides. So the former, an ethnic Russian from Odessa, was one of the 'genstabisty', the former Tsarist General Staff officers who sided with the Bolsheviks and played a critical role in teaching the Red Army how to fight. Meanwhile Isserson was a very different product of the 'borderlands' – the son of a Jewish doctor, brought up in Kaunas, with a German Jewish mother from what was then Königsberg, giving him an easy facility with German-language sources.

The originator of the crucial concept of 'operational' art – the notion that in modern industrial war, the ability to handle a level intermediate between strategy and tactics was critical to success – was actually Svechin.

Developing the ambivalence of Clausewitz, however, he stressed that both the offensive and the defensive had their places, and that the key to success was to know which was appropriate when and also to be able rapidly to change from one to the other. His genuflections to Marxist-Leninist dogma, moreover, were not such as to take in any of Dzerzhinsky's people.

By contrast, Isserson was unambiguously committed to the offensive strand in the Clausewitzian tradition, and a Bolshevik 'true believer' (although he married the daughter of a dispossessed ethnically Russian merchant, who had their daughter baptised without his knowledge.)

As Harrison brings out, Isserson's working through of the problems of offensive 'operational art' would be critical to the eventual success of the Red Army against Hitler. However, the specific text to which he refers was, ironically, a warning of precisely one of the problems implicit in the single-minded reliance on the offensive: the possibility that one could be left with no good options confronting an antagonist similarly oriented – as turned out to be the case.

As Gerasimov intimates, while unlike Svechin, executed in 1938, Isserson survived the Stalin years, he was another of the victims of Dzerzhinsky's heirs. Arrested shortly before his warnings were vindicated by the German attack on 22 June 1941, he would spend the war in the Gulag and only return to normal life after Stalin's death.

So I think that the actual text of Gerasimov's article reinforces a point I have made previously. The 'evidence' identified by Tait is indeed a 'smoking gun.' But it emphatically does not point towards the GRU.

Meanwhile, another moral of the tale is that Americans really should stop being taken in by charlatan Brits like Galeotti, Tait, and Steele.

[Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The Intel Community Lie About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works, they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment," discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing. More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.

You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.

The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
  1. Air Force Intelligence,
  2. Army Intelligence,
  3. Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
  4. Coast Guard Intelligence,
  5. Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
  6. Energy Department aka DOE,
  7. Homeland Security Department,
  8. State Department aka INR,
  9. Treasury Department,
  10. Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
  11. Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
  12. Marine Corps Intelligence,
  13. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
  14. National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
  15. National Security Agency aka NSA,
  16. Navy Intelligence
  17. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them. They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:

Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients. The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the NSA.

The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.

Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity. When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA.

The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.

An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.

In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton, along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who released the following memo to the press on 7 October 2016 :

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:

If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.

Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:

"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing."

What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew and believed? There was nothing.

It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.

Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform the work of analysts.

Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network that allegedly was attacked.

Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could have contributed relevant intelligence.

Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.

Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned theft.

Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked.

What Do Analysts Do?

Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.

The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.

Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.

Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.

Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:

  1. One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA. The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts mean or do not mean.
  2. There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing. We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
  3. At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies, i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
  4. Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put into final form.

That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:

Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments. There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government preferred Trump over Clinton.

How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."

It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document.

That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.

LeaNder , 07 March 2018 at 05:59 PM

Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.

But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...

********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

turcopolier , 07 March 2018 at 06:10 PM
LeaNder

One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl

Flavius , 07 March 2018 at 06:19 PM
Well done.

"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.

Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it?

Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup.

The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged, rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.

I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away with it?

Richardstevenhack , 07 March 2018 at 06:23 PM
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."

To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.

All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.

Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.

In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.

The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.

The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.

As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.

ann , 07 March 2018 at 11:22 PM
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Richardstevenhack , 08 March 2018 at 03:02 AM
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."

His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.

It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already.

blue peacock , 08 March 2018 at 04:12 AM
GZC #12

Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.

IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.

Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.

English Outsider , 08 March 2018 at 05:57 AM
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.

Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?

I ask because of the passage in your article -

"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "

Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 07:53 AM
EO,

" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 07:54 AM
GZC

A lot of smoke? Only if you wish to place a negative value on everything the Trump people did or were. pl

jsn -> The Twisted Genius ... , 08 March 2018 at 08:20 AM
The CIA appears to be trying to right the wrongs done them with the creation of the DNI:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/08/dems-m08.html
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 08:54 AM
jsn

The wrongs done them? I hope that was irony. pl

turcopolier -> Green Zone Café ... , 08 March 2018 at 09:01 AM
GZC

Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy, a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks and how much by hustlers. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 09:24 AM
jsn

hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl

DH , 08 March 2018 at 09:50 AM
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.

Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.

Publius Tacitus -> Green Zone Café ... , 08 March 2018 at 09:53 AM
GZC,

Are you really this obtuse?

You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange." You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.

Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.

Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.

jsn , 08 March 2018 at 10:15 AM
Sir,

The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological program, though I believe parts have their place.

Liberals have, I believe, jumped the shark: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/07/progressive-journalists-jump-the-shark-on-russiagate/

If the get their way with the new McCarthyism, the implications for dissent, left or right, seem to me to be about the same:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/federalist-68-the-electoral-college-and-faithless-electors.html#intelligence

jsn , 08 March 2018 at 10:25 AM
Sir,

And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences are, if that was the point.

I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.

I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.

LeaNder said in reply to Flavius... , 08 March 2018 at 10:40 AM
love this coinage Flavius: Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged

a lie "circumstantial"? http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.de/2005/05/seven-degrees-of-lie.html

Sid Finster , 08 March 2018 at 11:06 AM
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.

That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.

If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.

Sarah B said in reply to turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:27 AM
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....

Now, tell me that this is not an intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where everything is crimbling....

Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R. Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?

Barbara Ann -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:35 AM
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
Sarah B , 08 March 2018 at 11:38 AM
Here is the paper in question I am mentioning above: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf Some neutral analyst is saying that from 28 pages, 24 are dedicated to Russia and China, then Iran and NK, in this order...and that it is an official recognition of the new multipolar order....
Peter VE said in reply to johnf... , 08 March 2018 at 11:55 AM
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col. Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
Jack -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 11:59 AM
Sir

That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. And his sentencing is on hold now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge to do that.

Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that.

The Twisted Genius , 08 March 2018 at 12:59 PM
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the IC.

I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations Center.

LeaNder said in reply to Richardstevenhack ... , 08 March 2018 at 01:01 PM
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 ...

Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.

APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to 29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...

Kasperky pdf-file - whodunnit?
https://tinyurl.com/APT-Avanced-Persitent-Treat

Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.

******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?

Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.

LeaNder said in reply to Fred... , 08 March 2018 at 02:29 PM
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.

I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)

But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined observer of SST.

But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?

Dave -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:18 PM
Ask National Security Advisor General McMaster.
Even Trump now says Putin meddled.
What more evidence do you need
Dave -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:20 PM
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 03:34 PM
Dave

It is politically necessary for Trump to say that. Tell me, what is meant by "Russian meddling"in this statement by McMaster? pl

Dave -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 03:50 PM
Russian meddling is hacking our election systems.

The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation, even though he is a conservative republican.

They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."

I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.

You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.

Publius Tacitus -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 04:02 PM
Just because trump is stupid is not an excuse for you. You accept a lie without one shred of actual evidence. You are a lemming
Fred -> LeaNder... , 08 March 2018 at 04:04 PM
LeaNder,

"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations left out.

Fred -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 04:07 PM
Dave,

Putin hired Facebook. That company seems to do well helping out foreign governments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html

Linda , 08 March 2018 at 04:16 PM
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:26 PM
Dave

What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?

If the latter you must know that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections, German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.

As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl

turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:36 PM
Linda

PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser to the federal court for four years.

In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. pl

JamesT -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 04:37 PM
I continue to learn things around here that I could never learn anywhere else. It is a privilege to read the Colonel, TTG, and Publius Tacitus.
turcopolier , 08 March 2018 at 04:47 PM
Dave

If you use denigrating language like "wild eyed" to attack your interlocutors you will not be welcome here. pl

LeaNder said in reply to Flavius... , 08 March 2018 at 04:49 PM
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.

Not aware of this. Can you help me out?

No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.

Sid Finster said in reply to Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 05:09 PM
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
LeaNder said in reply to Fred ... , 08 March 2018 at 05:10 PM
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify matters for myself.

* ...

m -> turcopolier ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:29 PM
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.

This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?

m -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:33 PM
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge and sets a date for discovery?
Publius Tacitus -> Linda ... , 08 March 2018 at 06:45 PM
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.

THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.

GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event, there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

J , 08 March 2018 at 07:08 PM
Colonel,

The granddaddy of them all is #16, and what have they contributed?

Steve McIntyre -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 March 2018 at 07:41 PM
I'm eagerly awaiting your thoughts on the Skripal poisoning. I'm sure I'm not alone in the hope that you will write on it.
The Twisted Genius -> Publius Tacitus ... , 08 March 2018 at 07:59 PM
Publius Tacitus,

I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess that is why they call these things assessments.

The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."

I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.

The Twisted Genius -> Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 08:26 PM
Dave,

As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.

https://medium.com/@ushadrons

I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing. Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.

Publius Tacitus -> The Twisted Genius ... , 08 March 2018 at 08:55 PM
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?

[Mar 08, 2018] So the net effect of Flynn indictment is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.

Notable quotes:
"... So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power. ..."
Mar 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Flavius -> LeaNder... , 08 March 2018 at 01:54 PM

It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie circumstantial."

From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to Flynn were already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not constitute a crime in any case.

Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If you're telling me this, we have reason to think that you're mistaken?"

If I'm correct in my understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a very chickenshit fashion and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.


Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the least reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of the White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia.

For example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what would, what could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and the track record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the leaker.

So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.

[Mar 08, 2018] Deep state vs "surface state" struggle: the deep state is winning

Mar 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

likbez -> Dave... 08 March 2018 at 11:44 PM

Dave,

Is it so difficult to understand that there are strong incentives to create the "Russia Threat" to hide the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. The current can of political worms and infighting in Washington, DC between POTUS and intelligence agencies factions supporting anti-trump color revolution clearly demonstrate that this crisis is systemic in nature. In this sense, we can talk about the transformation of the US political system into something new.

One feature of this new system is that the US foreign policy now is influenced, if not controlled by intelligence agencies. The latter also proved to be capable of acting as the kingmakers in the US Presidential elections (this time with side effects: derailing Sanders eventually led to the election of Trump; that's why efforts to depose Trump commenced immediately.)

A large part of the US elite is willing to create the situation of balancing on the edge of nuclear war because it allows them to swipe the dirt under the carpet and unite the nation on bogus premises, suppressing the crisis of confidence in the neoliberal elite. Neo-McCarthyism witch hunt serves exactly this purpose.

Also now it is clear that the intelligence agencies and Pentagon, play active, and maybe even decisive part in determining the US foreign policy, US population and elected POTUS be damned.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and his staff showed this new arrangement in Syria in July 2017. And the fact that he was not fired on the spot might well signify the change in political power between the "deep state" and the "surface state". With the latter one step closer to being just a Potemkin Village.

Sid Finster said in reply to Dave... , 08 March 2018 at 05:09 PM
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see?

Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle?

Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.

Flavius said in reply to LeaNder... , 08 March 2018 at 01:54 PM
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie circumstantial." From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to Flynn were already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not constitute a crime in any case. Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If you're telling me this, we have reason to think that you're mistaken?" If I'm correct in my understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a very chickenshit fashion and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.

Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the least reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of the White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia. For example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what would, what could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and the track record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the leaker.

So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.

[Mar 08, 2018] The Military-Industrial Complex Is on Corporate Welfare by William D. Hartung

Notable quotes:
"... The figures contained in the recent budget deal that kept Congress open, as well as in President Trump's budget proposal for 2019, are a case in point: $700 billion for the Pentagon and related programs in 2018 and $716 billion the following year. ..."
"... Though the Pentagon's budget was already through the roof, it will get an extra $165 billion over the next two years, thanks to the congressional budget deal reached earlier this month. ..."
"... Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy put the new Pentagon budget numbers in perspective when he pointed out that just the approximately $80 billion annual increase in the department's top line between 2017 and 2019 will be double the current budget of the State Department; higher than the gross domestic products of more than 100 countries; and larger than the entire military budget of any country in the world, except China's. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the majority of Republican fiscal conservatives were thrilled to sign off on a Pentagon increase that, combined with the Trump tax cut for the rich, funds ballooning deficits as far as the eye can see -- a total of $7.7 trillion worth of them over the next decade. ..."
"... Although Congress is likely to rein in the administration's most extreme proposals, the figures are stark indeed -- a proposed cut of $120 billion in the domestic spending levels both parties agreed to. The biggest reductions include a 41% cut in funding for diplomacy and foreign aid; a 36% cut in funding for energy and the environment; and a 35% cut in housing and community development. And that's just the beginning. The Trump administration is also preparing to launch full-scale assaults on food stamps, Medicaid, and Medicare. It's war on everything except the US military. ..."
"... Items that snagged billions in new funding in Trump's proposed 2019 budget included Lockheed Martin's overpriced, underperforming F-35 aircraft, at $10.6 billion; Boeing's F-18 "Super Hornet," which was in the process of being phased out by the Obama administration but is now written in for $2.4 billion; Northrop Grumman's B-21 nuclear bomber at $2.3 billion; General Dynamics' Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine at $3.9 billion; and $12 billion for an array of missile-defense programs that will redound to the benefit of you guessed it: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing, among other companies. These are just a few of the dozens of weapons programs that will be feeding the bottom lines of such companies in the next two years and beyond. For programs still in their early stages, like that new bomber and the new ballistic missile submarine, their banner budgetary years are yet to come. ..."
"... Trump wants to create jobs, jobs, jobs he can point to, and pumping up the military-industrial complex must seem like the path of least resistance to that end in present-day Washington. Under the circumstances, what does it matter that virtually any other form of spending would create more jobs and not saddle Americans with weaponry we don't need? ..."
"... The list of wasteful expenditures is already staggeringly long and early projections are that bureaucratic waste at the Pentagon will amount to $125 billion over the next five years. Among other things, the Defense Department already employs a shadow work force of more than 600,000 private contractors whose responsibilities overlap significantly with work already being done by government employees. Meanwhile, sloppy buying practices regularly result in stories like the recent ones on the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency losing track of how it spent $800 million and how two American commands were unable to account for $500 million meant for the war on drugs in the Greater Middle East and Africa. ..."
"... Most important of all, this flood of new funding, which could crush a generation of Americans under a mountain of debt, will make it easier to sustain the seemingly endless seven wars that the United States is fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. So call this one of the worst investments in history, ensuring as it does failed wars to the horizon. ..."
Mar 08, 2018 | www.thenation.com

The Military-Industrial Complex Is on Corporate Welfare The Pentagon will get an extra $165 billion over the next two years -- that's even more than Donald Trump asked for.

Imagine for a moment a scheme in which American taxpayers were taken to the cleaners to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and there was barely a hint of criticism or outrage. Imagine as well that the White House and a majority of the politicians in Washington, no matter the party, acquiesced in the arrangement. In fact, the annual quest to boost Pentagon spending into the stratosphere regularly follows that very scenario, assisted by predictions of imminent doom from industry-funded hawks with a vested interest in increased military outlays. Most Americans are probably aware that the Pentagon spends a lot of money, but it's unlikely they grasp just how huge those sums really are. All too often, astonishingly lavish military budgets are treated as if they were part of the natural order, like death or taxes.

The figures contained in the recent budget deal that kept Congress open, as well as in President Trump's budget proposal for 2019, are a case in point: $700 billion for the Pentagon and related programs in 2018 and $716 billion the following year.

Remarkably, such numbers far exceeded even the Pentagon's own expansive expectations. According to Donald Trump, admittedly not the most reliable source in all cases, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis reportedly said, "Wow, I can't believe we got everything we wanted" -- a rare admission from the head of an organization whose only response to virtually any budget proposal is to ask for more. The public reaction to such staggering Pentagon budget hikes was muted, to put it mildly.

Unlike last year's tax giveaway to the rich, throwing near-record amounts of tax dollars at the Department of Defense generated no visible public outrage. Yet those tax cuts and Pentagon increases are closely related. The Trump administration's pairing of the two mimics the failed approach of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s -- only more so. It's a phenomenon I've termed "Reaganomics on steroids." Reagan's approach yielded oceans of red ink and a severe weakening of the social safety net. It also provoked such a strong pushback that he later backtracked by raising taxes and set the stage for sharp reductions in nuclear weapons.

Donald Trump's retrograde policies on immigration, women's rights, racial justice, LGBT rights, and economic inequality have spawned an impressive and growing resistance. It remains to be seen whether his generous treatment of the Pentagon at the expense of basic human needs will spur a similar backlash. Of course, it's hard to even get a bead on what's being lavished on the Pentagon when much of the media coverage failed to drive home just how enormous these sums actually are. A rare exception was an Associated Press story headlined "Congress, Trump Give the Pentagon a Budget the Likes of Which It Has Never Seen." This was certainly far closer to the truth than claims like that of Mackenzie Eaglen of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, which over the years has housed such uber-hawks as Dick Cheney and John Bolton. She described the new budget as a "modest year-on-year increase." If that's the case, one shudders to think what an immodest increase might look like.

The Pentagon Wins Big

So let's look at the money.

Though the Pentagon's budget was already through the roof, it will get an extra $165 billion over the next two years, thanks to the congressional budget deal reached earlier this month. To put that figure in context, it was tens of billions of dollars more than Donald Trump had asked for last spring to "rebuild" the US military (as he put it). It even exceeded the figures, already higher than Trump's, Congress had agreed to last December. It brings total spending on the Pentagon and related programs for nuclear weapons to levels higher than those reached during the Korean and Vietnam wars in the 1950s and 1960s, or even at the height of Ronald Reagan's vaunted military buildup of the 1980s. Only in two years of Barack Obama's presidency, when there were roughly 150,000 US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or about seven times current levels of personnel deployed there, was spending higher.

Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy put the new Pentagon budget numbers in perspective when he pointed out that just the approximately $80 billion annual increase in the department's top line between 2017 and 2019 will be double the current budget of the State Department; higher than the gross domestic products of more than 100 countries; and larger than the entire military budget of any country in the world, except China's.

Democrats signed on to that congressional budget as part of a deal to blunt some of the most egregious Trump administration cuts proposed last spring. The administration, for example, kept the State Department's budget from being radically slashed and it reauthorized the imperiled Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for another 10 years. In the process, however, the Democrats also threw millions of young immigrants under the bus by dropping an insistence that any new budget protect the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or "Dreamers," program. Meanwhile, the majority of Republican fiscal conservatives were thrilled to sign off on a Pentagon increase that, combined with the Trump tax cut for the rich, funds ballooning deficits as far as the eye can see -- a total of $7.7 trillion worth of them over the next decade.

While domestic spending fared better in the recent congressional budget deal than it would have if Trump's draconian plan for 2018 had been enacted, it still lags far behind what Congress is investing in the Pentagon. And calculations by the National Priorities Project indicate that the Department of Defense is slated to be an even bigger winner in Trump's 2019 budget blueprint. Its share of the discretionary budget, which includes virtually everything the government does other than programs like Medicare and Social Security, will mushroom to a once-unimaginable 61 cents on the dollar, a hefty boost from the already startling 54 cents on the dollar in the final year of the Obama administration.

The skewed priorities in Trump's latest budget proposal are fueled in part by the administration's decision to embrace the Pentagon increases Congress agreed to last month, while tossing that body's latest decisions on non-military spending out the window. Although Congress is likely to rein in the administration's most extreme proposals, the figures are stark indeed -- a proposed cut of $120 billion in the domestic spending levels both parties agreed to. The biggest reductions include a 41% cut in funding for diplomacy and foreign aid; a 36% cut in funding for energy and the environment; and a 35% cut in housing and community development. And that's just the beginning. The Trump administration is also preparing to launch full-scale assaults on food stamps, Medicaid, and Medicare. It's war on everything except the US military.

Corporate Welfare

The recent budget plans have brought joy to the hearts of one group of needy Americans: the top executives of major weapons contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. They expect a bonanza from the skyrocketing Pentagon expenditures. Don't be surprised if the CEOs of these five firms give themselves nice salary boosts, something to truly justify their work, rather than the paltry $96 million they drew as a group in 2016 (the most recent year for which full statistics are available).

And keep in mind that, like all other US-based corporations, those military-industrial behemoths will benefit richly from the Trump administration's slashing of the corporate tax rate. According to one respected industry analyst, a good portion of this windfall will go towards bonuses and increased dividends for company shareholders rather than investments in new and better ways to defend the United States. In short, in the Trump era, Lockheed Martin and its cohorts are guaranteed to make money coming and going.

Items that snagged billions in new funding in Trump's proposed 2019 budget included Lockheed Martin's overpriced, underperforming F-35 aircraft, at $10.6 billion; Boeing's F-18 "Super Hornet," which was in the process of being phased out by the Obama administration but is now written in for $2.4 billion; Northrop Grumman's B-21 nuclear bomber at $2.3 billion; General Dynamics' Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine at $3.9 billion; and $12 billion for an array of missile-defense programs that will redound to the benefit of you guessed it: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing, among other companies. These are just a few of the dozens of weapons programs that will be feeding the bottom lines of such companies in the next two years and beyond. For programs still in their early stages, like that new bomber and the new ballistic missile submarine, their banner budgetary years are yet to come.

In explaining the flood of funding that enables a company like Lockheed Martin to reap $35 billion per year in government dollars, defense analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group noted that "diplomacy is out; air strikes are in In this sort of environment, it's tough to keep a lid on costs. If demand goes up, prices don't generally come down. And, of course, it's virtually impossible to kill stuff. You don't have to make any kind of tough choices when there's such a rising tide."

Pentagon Pork Versus Human Security

Loren Thompson is a consultant to many of those weapons contractors. His think tank, the Lexington Institute, also gets contributions from the arms industry. He caught the spirit of the moment when he praised the administration's puffed-up Pentagon proposal for using the Defense Department budget as a jobs creator in key states, including the crucial swing state of Ohio, which helped propel Donald Trump to victory in 2016. Thompson was particularly pleased with a plan to ramp up General Dynamics's production of M-1 tanks in Lima, Ohio, in a factory whose production line the Army had tried to put on hold just a few years ago because it was already drowning in tanks and had no conceivable use for more of them.

Thompson argues that the new tanks are needed to keep up with Russia's production of armored vehicles, a dubious assertion with a decidedly Cold War flavor to it. His claim is backed up, of course, by the administration's new National Security Strategy, which targets Russia and China as the most formidable threats to the United States. Never mind that the likely challenges posed by these two powers -- cyberattacks in the Russian case and economic expansion in the Chinese one -- have nothing to do with how many tanks the US Army possesses.

Trump wants to create jobs, jobs, jobs he can point to, and pumping up the military-industrial complex must seem like the path of least resistance to that end in present-day Washington. Under the circumstances, what does it matter that virtually any other form of spending would create more jobs and not saddle Americans with weaponry we don't need?

If past performance offers any indication, none of the new money slated to pour into the Pentagon will make anyone safer. As Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies has noted, there is a danger that the Pentagon will just get "fatter not stronger" as its worst spending habits are reinforced by a new gusher of dollars that relieves its planners of making any reasonably hard choices at all.

The list of wasteful expenditures is already staggeringly long and early projections are that bureaucratic waste at the Pentagon will amount to $125 billion over the next five years. Among other things, the Defense Department already employs a shadow work force of more than 600,000 private contractors whose responsibilities overlap significantly with work already being done by government employees. Meanwhile, sloppy buying practices regularly result in stories like the recent ones on the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency losing track of how it spent $800 million and how two American commands were unable to account for $500 million meant for the war on drugs in the Greater Middle East and Africa.

Add to this the $1.5 trillion slated to be spent on F-35s that the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight has noted may never be ready for combat and the unnecessary "modernization" of the US nuclear arsenal, including a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and missiles at a minimum cost of $1.2 trillion over the next three decades. In other words, a large part of the Pentagon's new funding will do much to fuel good times in the military-industrial complex but little to help the troops or defend the country.

Most important of all, this flood of new funding, which could crush a generation of Americans under a mountain of debt, will make it easier to sustain the seemingly endless seven wars that the United States is fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. So call this one of the worst investments in history, ensuring as it does failed wars to the horizon.

It would be a welcome change in 21st-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America's hyper-militarized foreign policy. A national debate about such matters in the run-up to the 2018 and 2020 elections could determine whether it continues to be business-as-usual at the Pentagon or whether the largest agency in the federal government is finally reined in and relegated to an appropriately defensive posture.

[Mar 08, 2018] Kleptocracy the most typical form of corruption under neoliberalism, where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the financial oligarchy at the expense of the wider population, now even without pretense of honest service

Notable quotes:
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
Mar 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Valissa -> jsn... , 01 March 2018 at 07:44 PM

jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).

Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible.

Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his clients.

I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this post:

The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/

Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.

By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians. Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept responsibility.

That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.

... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a corrupt empire together.

Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.

------------

I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.

My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg

[Mar 08, 2018] And Now For The Good News by Justin Raimondo

Notable quotes:
"... The neocons are nothing if not survivors: they've managed to escape being totally shunned despite their disastrous leadership of the Iraq war, and they're now enjoying a new vogue in "liberal" and even leftist circles on account of their pioneering efforts on behalf of the NeverTrump movement. ..."
"... yet in this era of "America First" nationalism and the explicit anti-globalism of some in the higher reaches of the Trump administration, this time they may well be facing a humiliating defeat. ..."
Mar 08, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

The neocons are nothing if not survivors: they've managed to escape being totally shunned despite their disastrous leadership of the Iraq war, and they're now enjoying a new vogue in "liberal" and even leftist circles on account of their pioneering efforts on behalf of the NeverTrump movement.

This attack on their longtime stronghold in government is bound to call out the Furies, and yet in this era of "America First" nationalism and the explicit anti-globalism of some in the higher reaches of the Trump administration, this time they may well be facing a humiliating defeat. The NED is a rich source of grants and other government goodies: for the neocons to lose this is hitting them where they live.

Yes, the good news is breaking out all over! Enjoy it while it lasts

[Mar 08, 2018] One of their aims is to prevent countries of Africa, Latin America, Near and Middle East and Southern Asia from choosing their trade partners freely and from making use of their resources and industrialize

Mar 08, 2018 | wipokuli.wordpress.com

The US Power Elite ... would be rightfully called the „Deep State" of the USA ( http://tinyurl.com/ho2nz87 ).

And this Deep State has become more and more ruthless over the time. They have brought nightmares over the Southern Hemisphere by installing brutal dictatorships ( http://tinyurl.com/kkpvcf7 ) in their interest and waging bloody colonial wars, in the last one and a half decades especially with their „War on Terror" ( http://tinyurl.com/nrxxej5 ).

One of their aims is to prevent countries of Africa, Latin America, Near and Middle East and Southern Asia from choosing their trade partners freely and from making use of their resources and industrialize, since that would mean a division of resources and allowing them their part of „consuming ecologic Earth capacity".

[Mar 07, 2018] How Russiagate helps the Israel lobby

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs ..."
"... The Washington Report's ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | electronicintifada.net

Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 US presidential election , the Democratic Party establishment has held tightly to the belief that her shock defeat was not the result of her and their shortcomings, but rather due to a nefarious Russian plot to "hack" the election in "collusion" with the winner.

Instead of examining why Donald Trump was able to connect with voters in economically distressed parts of the country in a way that Democrats failed to do, adherents of the Russiagate narrative hoped that investigations would quickly find a smoking gun, leading to Trump's impeachment and undoing an election result they consider aberrant and unjust.

On Friday, I spoke at a conference in Washington, DC, titled The Israel Lobby and American Policy , sponsored by The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and IRmep , a group that researches the lobby's influence.

As I note in my talk, a handful of journalists – especially Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté of The Real News – have consistently debunked the wild, exaggerated and sometimes fabricated claims of Russian interference made by members of the self-styled but woefully ineffectual "Resistance" to Trump.

Watch the video above.

True, over the course of the last year, special counsel Robert Mueller has made a number of indictments, but none of those cases – including the recent indictment of 13 Russians linked to a St. Petersburg troll farm – substantiates the heavily hyped claim that Russia helped Trump win the White House.

Perhaps the most high-profile indictment of someone in Trump's inner circle, the president's first national security adviser Michael Flynn , actually shows that rather than colluding with Russia, senior members of Trump's team were really working with Israel to advance its agenda.

And while no one has pinpointed evidence of Trump auctioning off his foreign policy to any Russian oligarchs, he has definitely tailored his policy toward Israel to the demands of casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson , his biggest campaign donor .

Adelson's immediate priority was securing US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the American embassy there – and Trump duly obliged .

New censorship helps Israel

In my talk I consider how the Russiagate narrative is actually helping Israel and its lobby in particular ways.

I point out that the Russiagate hysteria being adopted by many liberals is legitimizing censorship that helps Israel clamp down on free speech and a free press.

Last year, the Russian-funded network RT was forced to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

As Maté has noted, free speech advocates and journalists were largely silent about it , perhaps thinking this tool of government control over the media would never be used against them.

But now, Israel's supporters in Congress – including Senator Ted Cruz – are demanding that Al Jazeera be investigated by the Department of Justice and forced to register as an agent of Qatar. They are explicitly citing the US government crackdown on RT as their precedent.

Al Jazeera's transgression is that it produced an undercover documentary on the workings of the Israel lobby in the US.

Qatar has come under intense pressure from that lobby to make sure the documentary is never aired. Five months after the network's head of investigations Clayton Swisher announced it would be released "very soon," the film has yet to be broadcast.

On Monday, The Electronic Intifada exclusively published details of what is in the film.

According to a source who has seen it, the film identifies a number of lobby groups as working with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques. It is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too critical of Israel.

True, FARA is being used only against foreign networks, but the point is that these outlets – whatever their flaws – are providing space for discussion and dissent that docile US mainstream media keep closed.

It's simply impossible to imagine CNN, ABC – or for that matter the BBC – showing true independence and taking on the power of the Israel lobby.

While organizers diligently informed media about the Washington conference, the only outlets that invited me on to talk about the Israel lobby were the The Real News and RT. I know that other speakers were shut out of mainstream media as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/v7EvTIplv5I?feature=oembed

And besides, there are other forms of high-tech censorship that are being used to stifle or stigmatize dissent in domestic media: Partly as an outgrowth of Russiagate, Silicon Valley giants Google and Facebook have succumbed to political pressure to effectively throttle the exposure of independent outlets in the name of fighting extremism, "fake news" and alleged foreign interference.

The perverse effect has been to reassert state and elite control over media and erode the freedom that those of us shut out of mainstream outlets rely on. Nothing could suit Israel and its lobby better.

Stark warning

The conference in Washington featured many interesting presentations that can be seen at The Washington Report's YouTube channel .

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was secretary of state in the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, issued a stark warning that the US ramping up its military presence in Syria may be a prelude to launching a war on Iran on behalf of Israel.

Wilkerson said that Israel and its ally Saudi Arabia are encouraging the US to fight a regime-change war against Tehran that they would be incapable of mounting on their own.

"We've already done Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan," Wilkerson said, "so we'd just be seen as continuing the trend."

He warned that an Israeli confrontation and war with Lebanon – perhaps on the pretext of disputed gas fields in the Mediterranean – could provide the pretext.

In an ominous parallel, he likened the current situation to 1914, the eve of World War I – any spark could generate a broad regional or even global conflagration.

Wilkerson singled out the role of the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies as leading the campaign for war on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Notably, the source who spoke to The Electronic Intifada about Al Jazeera's suppressed Israel lobby film said that the documentary reveals that the same think tank may be acting as an agent for Israel in its covert efforts to undermine support for Palestinian rights in the US.

In spite of Wilkerson's worrying thesis, it must be said that, however powerful, the Israel lobby cannot alone force the US to undertake foreign military conquests. For one thing, US elites have never needed encouragement from anyone to wage devastating wars around the world.

When the US establishment sees a critical interest at stake, it pursues it regardless of what the lobby may want. That is why the US signed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement despite all of Israel's efforts to sabotage it. Of course whether that deal survives the Trump administration remains to be seen .

In his keynote address , Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy stated that Israel's military rule over Palestinians "is today one of the most brutal, cruel tyrannies on Earth."

He asserted that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights is a "legitimate tool" and the "only game in town" to force Israel to end this injustice.

[Mar 07, 2018] AIPAC Returns to Washington by Philip Giraldi

It is probably more reasonable to view Israel as another MIC lobbyist.
Mar 07, 2018 | www.unz.com
Philip Giraldi March 6, 2018 1,700 Words 199 Comments Reply

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is back in Washington for its annual summit. Or at least it used to be called a summit but now it is referred to as a policy conference , which is perhaps a bit of very welcome transparency as if there is one thing that AIPAC is good at it is using its $100 million budget and 300 employees to harass lawmakers on Capitol Hill and generate policy for the United States to adhere to. Eighteen thousand supporters have gathered at the city's Convention Center to hear speeches by U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Vice President Mike Pence, plus Senators Marco Rubio, Robert Menendez, Tom Cotton and Ben Cardin. My personal favorite is Maryland Congressman and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer who has visited Israel so many times he might as well move there and who can be relied on to deliver a loud sucking noise as he enthuses over the many wonders of the Jewish state. And for a little foreign flair there is the disheveled French "philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy, who has described the brutal Israeli Army of occupation as the "most moral in the world."

If you want to get some idea of the money and political power represented at AIPAC this year I would recommend going through the speakers' list , a dazzling display of precisely why the United States is in bondage to Israel and its interests. The heavyweight speakers and other attendees will be joined by hundreds more Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, and senior government officials as well as a heavy dose of "experts" from the usual Jewish-dominated pro-Israel think tanks that have sprouted up like mushrooms along K Street, including luminaries like John Bolton, Victoria Nuland, Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams and Eric Cantor. Those participants coming from the government will, of course, be ignoring their oaths of office in which they swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against "all enemies domestic and foreign," but it doesn't matter as everyone performs proskynesis for Israel.

The slogan of this year's gather is "Choose to Lead," an interesting objective for an organization that has led successive presidents since Bill Clinton by their respective noses. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing indictment back home, will also be in town and will meet with President Donald Trump. He might just decide to stay awhile as one thing that Israel is particularly good at is trying, convicting and imprisoning its corrupt leaders.

There has been some informed speculation that Trump will unveil during their meeting a "two state solution" peace plan for Israel-Palestine, but as it will possibly require Israel to withdraw from much of the large chunks of the West Bank that it has "settled," it will not be received favorably by Netanyahu. Israel is certainly vulnerable to possible pressure coming from the White House to impose a solution, but as Trump has proven unable or unwilling to punish an out-of-control Netanyahu in any way up until this point, it has to be considered unlikely that he will change course this time around.

AIPAC must be particularly pleased since Israel has had a sweet ride with the Trump Administration in place in Washington. The greatest gift to Netanyahu has been the Administration's recognition of all of Jerusalem as Israel's capital together with a commitment to move the U.S. Embassy to that city. No other country currently has its embassy in an internationally disputed Jerusalem though Guatemala has followed Washington's lead and has stated that it also intends to physically move its diplomatic facility.

The original State Department relocation plan was to phase the embassy move while a new building is being constructed, but the White House recently accelerated the process, reportedly under pressure from Jewish billionaire GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, and will open a temporary facility in May to coincide with the 70 th anniversary of Israel's founding. Netanyahu has asked Trump to appear at the embassy opening ceremony and also to assist in the celebration of the founding.

Israel has also benefited from a Trump Middle East team that is all Jewish and committed to Israel. It is headed by his son-in-law Jared Kushner and includes former bankruptcy attorney Ambassador David Friedman, who has financially supported Israel's illegal settlements, and Jason Greenblatt, the Trump Organization corporate lawyer, as Special Representative for International Negotiations. In addition, Kushner is reportedly personally advised by a group of Orthodox Jews that he knows from his Synagogue and through his business interests.

The outcome deriving from the all-Jewish team determining Middle Eastern policy combined with a benign White House is predictable, and it just as clearly does not include any benefits for the United States. Israel has been able to dramatically expand its settlements on stolen Palestinian land and is instigating several new wars in its region without any pushback coming from Washington. Quite the contrary as the United States has proven to be an enabler for new conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Several Senators who have recently returned from Israel claim that an invasion of Lebanon is coming because of allegations that Hezbollah is constructing an Iranian-supplied factory to build sophisticated missiles, yet another phony narrative depicting Israel as the perpetual victim of its brutal and threatening neighbors when in reality the reverse is true. This animosity towards Iran and its allies is particularly dangerous as it could produce a new war that might spin dangerously out of control as third countries like Russia and China get involved to protect their own interests.

The reality is that it is a military dominant Israel that has been regularly bombing targets alleged to be Iranian or Hezbollah in Syria as well as Syrian military installations. It has threatened to bomb Lebanon back into the "stone age," which leads one to ask what have those nations done to provoke the wrath of Zion? Close to nothing. An alleged Iranian drone reportedly launched from Syria wandered into the airspace over the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights before being shot down. How many Israeli drones have flown over Lebanon and Syria? Hundreds if not thousands.

And when Israeli planes flew deep into Syria to bomb what was claimed to be the base that the drone flew from, one was shot down by a Syrian air defense missile. Israel then launched a major bombing campaign against Syrian military targets and was only dissuaded from doing far, far worse by Vladimir Putin, who warned Netanyahu against broadening the conflict. Note that it was Russia that made Bibi back down, not Washington. The United States was meanwhile busy in trying to justify its continued presence in Syria, also at the urging of Israel and AIPAC.

Every American president has to bow before Jewish power in the United State and you better believe that both AIPAC and the hundreds of other Jewish and Christian-Zionist organizations that exist at least in part to nurture and protect Israel know it. Even Barack Obama, who had an openly frosty relationship with Netanyahu knew the score and gave the Jewish state $38 billion. He opposed the Israel's expansion into the formerly Palestinian West Bank but never did one thing to stop it until the end of his final term in office when he had the U.S. abstain on a U.N. vote condemning the illegal settlements, a pointless gesture.

Demands that AIPAC, an echo chamber for Israeli interests, should be required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 have been ignored by various Attorneys General since the time of John F. Kennedy, who tried to get AIPAC's predecessor organization the American Zionist Council to comply. He was killed soon after, though I am not necessarily trying to imply anything even though Jack Ruby does come to mind.

Here at home "The Lobby" has also been successful in 2017, with 23 states having now passed laws making it illegal to boycott Israel if one wishes to have dealings with the local or state government. Three months ago, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act was approved by the House of Representatives with 402 affirmative votes and only two libertarian-leaning congressmen voting "no." The Israel Anti-Boycott Act that is also currently making its way through a Senate committee would set a new standard for deference to Israeli interests on the part of the national government. It would criminalize any U.S. citizen "engaged in interstate or foreign commerce" who supports a boycott of Israel or who even goes about "requesting the furnishing of information" regarding it, with penalties enforced through amendments of two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Act of 1945, that include potential fines of between $250,000 and $1 million and up to 20 years in prison. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Senate bill was drafted with the assistance of AIPAC.

And there's lots more to come in 2018. Lindsey Graham and Chris Coons were two of the senators who have just returned from the taxpayer funded "fact finding" trip to Israel and warned about a new war breaking out. And beyond that, what other "fact" did they find? Apparently that Israel needs more money from the U.S. taxpayer. Here is what was reported:

" they

chris , March 6, 2018 at 6:13 am GMT

If you start from the 'adage' that politics is 'acting for ugly people,' it doesn't take much to see the AIPAC (really, IPAC far America) extravaganza as the Oscars in Hollywood-East, with all the politicians in the roles of whores fighting for their place on AIPAC's casting couches.

We're still a couple of wars away from a corresponding #metoo movement and the well deserved pillorying of Harvey Weinstein, who might as well be the poster child of this house of whores as well.

Mark James , March 6, 2018 at 6:25 am GMT
This is always an unpleasant week. Made more so because I heard Bibi was staying at Blair House (hope not). Let him chill at the Isl embassy.

VP Pence has allegedly said that Trump is the best friend Israel has ever had "in the WH." That dubious honor would probably go to Harry Truman after George Marshall threatened to quit the administration if Truman continued his backing of Israel in '48.
Truman who was undoubtedly heavily lobbied even then , came through. The rest is history. Eisenhower was not having it though as the Suez crisis showed. Perhaps our last President to stand up and say no.

But maybe Pence was referring to the Kushner/Friedman factor? Yes that is a formidable duo. Did Jared really affect the Qatar blockade because they told him no on additional financing of his holdings? Let's find that out and act accordingly!

Obama, who had an openly frosty relationship with Netanyahu knew the score and gave the Jewish state $38 billion

All we can do is work towards the current LOU –Letter of Understanding– being the final one. I am not against helping Israel (on an ad hoc basis). This is not the kind of help they need or should be receiving. We should all be efforting the diminution of AIPAC.

Justsaying , March 6, 2018 at 6:28 am GMT
Wow! Is there any other country, large or small, powerful or weak, whose foreign policy for the ME is so completely controlled by a lobby group that puts the interests of a foreign country ahead of and contrary to its own national interests? Is there any other country where a single ethno-religious group exercises so much power in advancing the interests of a foreign nation ahead of its own? Which other country can claim that 1.4% of its citizens (Jewish, and not all support Zionist Israel) exert complete control of ME foreign policy when ethnic groups that represent >20-fold higher numbers of citizens (African American + Latino + Asian) have been coerced into silence in the matter and have no influence in policies related to their own ancestral lands? Is there any other country so completely owned in the manner described here and still has the gall to aggressively push for more "freedoms" and "human rights" in countries it deems in need of such freedoms and rights? Which other countries that pride in its free press has its mainstream media sources all singing the same tune when it comes to ME policies? Finally, is there any other country wherein the principle of might is right -- and on a global scale -- is more ably demonstrated than the US? Just asking.
Lot , March 6, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
"Israel has been able to dramatically expand its settlements on stolen Palestinian "

You mean "justly and legally conquered." Just like my California home!

Lot , March 6, 2018 at 7:16 am GMT
"Note that it was Russia that made Bibi back down, not Washington."

Back down? You mean like "you can drop 877 bombs on our sole middle east ally, whose territory you indefinitely occupy, but not a single bomb more than that!"

Israel will crush Syria and Iran if seriously provoked, which is why they are wise enough to never let their provocations go beyond a drone teasing a couple miles into her airspace. Just a little bread and circuses to destract their inbred and servile populations from their poverty and backwardness.

Anon Disclaimer , March 6, 2018 at 8:00 am GMT
We should send all the taxpayer money to Israel and let them decide how much of our own money they want us to have for expenses such as roads, schools etc.
Robert Dunn , Website March 6, 2018 at 8:47 am GMT
You know, that Adolf Hitler guy is starting to look better and better with each passing day.
mcohen , March 6, 2018 at 9:19 am GMT
P.giraldi whining about "the israelis".and the lobby.and 9/11 dancing israelis,and.

Never mind off the map .how about off the planet.

LondonBob , March 6, 2018 at 9:21 am GMT
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act really sets an unprecedented low, potential fines of between $250,000 and $1 million and up to 20 years in prison!

We have seen similar moves in Britain, obviously given this is all coordinated globally. Than again not sure a judge or jury, a jury even more so, would uphold these new 'laws'. My friend's father was certainly creative when he presided over an Israeli related case, he was born in Palestine during the British mandate, so he has a stronger interest than most.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/sep/23/law-expert-view-gaza-war

mark green , March 6, 2018 at 10:18 am GMT
Mr. Giraldi always writes clearly and explosively on a topic that is clouded by corrupt government action, financial malfeasance, and thoroughly biased news and entertainment.

America has been captured, gelded, rearrangd, and re-imagined. It's a brilliant accomplishment. And a malignant one.

Few understand How or Why. They just sense that something is wrong. Terribly wrong.

America may be powerful, advanced, democratic and 'free'. But it is also occupied.

US wars are now fought for the benefit of a foreign power. Speech restrictions are crafted to protect the same. Speak out against this phenomena and you are branded an 'anti-Semite'.

Americans live in a gilded, glass box. Quiet please.

Better turn to ESPN. Who won the game?

The gatekeepers are watching, monitoring. Facebook is clamping down. Google too. The techno-noose is tightening. This surprises you?

Stop the hate. Impeach Trump!

So how can we, as a people, fight terrorism? Such a good question.

Send in the drones? Must.

The Zionist 'consensus' is complete. And absolute. Stop terror. Fortify Israel. It's a new, multi-faceted, top-down all-American value. Just say 'NO' to terror and fascism!

Thus, any attempt to separate US interests from Israeli interests is OFF LIMITS. And any attempt to make such a distinction puts one in the No-Fly-Zone of political discourse. Why risk it?

As our leaders in Washington say: the 'special relationship' is unshakable.

And unconditional.

Those who challenge this dictum tend to disappear from public life. Bye bye.

Deference and sensitivity towards all 'matters of concern' to the Jewish community have therefore become sacrosanct. Consequently:

Arab 'terrorism'?

Crush it.

Anti-semitism?

Monitor and eradicate it.

Hate speech?

Denounce and criminalize it.

Thou shall respect and love the Jewish people. Israel, too.

Stop racism! Stop fascism!

Opposition is wrong. Opposition is taboo. Disagree?

What made you a white supremacist?

The important thing is the safety and security of the 'survivors'. Never forget.

Meanwhile, Israel's vast meddling and interference in American life goes officially unnoticed. What? There's simply no such thing.

Israel is a democratic ally. These are US citizens!

It's 'Russiagate'. Pay attention.

The deadly, pathetic charade continues.

Greg Bacon , Website March 6, 2018 at 12:03 pm GMT

From an April 2003 Haaretz article:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.

This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7tUEqjmIWE

I hope Israel's next choice for POTUS, 'Nutty' Nikki Hale, brings her well-worn knee pads to the AIPAC conjuring.

Any politician that attends AIPAC and sings the praises of Israel and thumps for more wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel, is a traitor.

jilles dykstra , March 6, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
Which democracy ?
I, for a very long time did not understand the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
A USA friend enlightened me 'Democrats is new money, Republicans old money'.
This is in the tradition of the American continent, seen from over the Atlantic as one, comprising north and south.
In most S American countries the same, two groups of wealthy people struggling for power.
Bolivia the exception, and Venezuala maybe, until the oil price collapsed.
How the USA sees sovereignty was demonstrated when the plane of the Bolivian president, en route from Moscow to Bolivia, was forced to land in Austria, to see if Snowden was on board.
jilles dykstra , March 6, 2018 at 12:37 pm GMT
@Vojkan

In the terrible Netherlands, more and more mothers choose abortion, when a serious birth defect is diagnosed in an early stage of pregnancy.
These tests have become routine.
Those with the Huntingdon gene are advised not to have children.

Vojkan , March 6, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT
@Lot

Or is it maybe because reasonable Russians know that they're dealing with a gang of neurasthenic mythomaniac psychopaths and calculate fallout vs benefit of burning the unholy wart that is Israel.

Ger , March 6, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT
@mark green

Un-registered Foreign Agents have indeed destroyed America's 'independence' and it isn't the Russians.

EliteCommInc. , March 6, 2018 at 6:06 pm GMT
Clearly, regardless of where one stands on the issue of Jews, Israel, Palestine or AIPAC, no one should be applauding laws that make free speech, expression (even by boycott), illegal. That is just bizarre. I would think that the Citizens United case -- which I find a bit dubious -- would roundly prevent even a suggestion that one could not choose to do business based on whatever standard or philosophy they have as citizens.

One need not hate Israel to see that such legislation violates in every way, constitutional protections to expression – oddly enough, most importantly political expression of a foreign state.

[Mar 07, 2018] Troubles for US empire are just starting

Mar 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Deep Snorkeler -> y3maxx Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:45 Permalink

Tsar Putin Addresses America

1. you are a country that cannot keep its genders straight

2. always bent on futile crusades in foreign lands

3. normality eludes you

4. your political-economy is hallucinatory

5. you are in a constant state of distorted perception.

You cannot know what is real. It doesn't exist.

It never existed.

BennyBoy -> zerotohero Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:20 Permalink

Komrade Putin speak truth.

Consuelo -> BennyBoy Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:49 Permalink

And he speaks it with an ease and decorum that only a confident but measured individual is capable of - quite frankly, in many ways like President Trump. The problem here is, daring to speak truth and calling a spade a spade has been made to look like one is speaking like a mad man.

veritas semper -> Consuelo Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:08 Permalink

I would like to see The Donald or any other Western Leader having a Q& A televised address, for > 4 hrs,answering without a teleprompter all types of questions,mostly from unfriendly foreign journalists ,without babbling and wiping the floor with idiots like Charlie Rose and comp.

I do not think so.

Fireman -> Snaffew Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:38 Permalink

If USSA gets too loopy with its ongoing financial collapse as the toilet paper Saudi Mercan dollah gets flushed, don't worry Mr. Bear will rip the entire carcass apart and devour it whole like it did NAZI Germany. Count on it. Russians don't boast and never run off at the mouth like USSANS. Russians never threaten but when it's time to strike they ride hard and hammer fast and furious. Ask the Germans the exceptionals the last time round!.

researchfix -> Fireman Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:45 Permalink

"Ask the Germans the exceptionals the last time round!."

100 points, beautiful said.

putaipan -> Cry Baby Moe Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:49 Permalink

speaking of tigers and bears ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRbMMpTJUVo

Fireman -> Cry Baby Moe Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

You come across as a whack nutjob Bolshevik punk. No cure is possible. Go ahead and jump

Ckierst1 -> Cry Baby Moe Wed, 03/07/2018 - 15:08 Permalink

Yeah, those Russkies need to dismantle all those military bases that surround our happy, peaceful little chunk of North America and stop knocking over all our neighbors to install hostile puppet regimes on our doorstep.

FBaggins -> Shitonya Serfs Wed, 03/07/2018 - 15:13 Permalink

Add Ottawa Canada to the list.

The Western cabal will not use tactical nukes nukes, and for a land war in Eastern Europe they are far from being ready, nor would they likely win it. But Russia has no such ambitions unless there is a continuation of confrontation against Syria and Iran in the ME further isolating, fragmenting, and economically harming Russia and its allies.

The big concern right now for Putin is not the use of nukes or even the constant provocations in Syria attempting to escalate that war. Rather, it is the upcoming Russian election which the West, led by the US deep state, is clearly interfering in and intends to rig with the billions being spent. The US intends to justify its interference based on the unrelenting, deep-state-generated fake news and political propaganda that the Russians interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election, and with the soft-sell mantra being currently spread through the alleged alternate media that "all major powers these days interfere with foreign elections".

Rico -> LawsofPhysics Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:46 Permalink

... and one fiat to rule them all...

My repost from earlier:

The Norks are the fake enemy to keep to keep MIC pumped. The western fiat faction needs to eat Russia for its survival. The gold kings (Putin and Xi) know that the West is dying, and like a starving man, it wants to prolong the inevitable by consuming Russia first, then it will be China's turn. The gold kings know they are on the menu, they know the West is bleeding out and that if they can block the West from doing something stupid (like a first strike nuclear attack on Russia using the stealth drones from the bases in Ukraine and Afghanistan that have already been established for this purpose) then time will take care of the collapse of the West for them...

But understand, without Russia's resources, the West is dead sooner rather than later. So will a starving man attack his innocent neighbor to steal his food and thus prolong his own death? This is the only question that matters and I think we know what the psychos will do. This is why I found Putin's speech the other day to be so revealing, true or not, he is creating doubt as to the winnable nature of our first strike nuclear plans for Russia...pouring sand into the West's vaseline, so to speak...

Will it be enough? Will the West die gracefully or do we take everyone else with us?

LightTrumpsDark -> Rico Wed, 03/07/2018 - 15:05 Permalink

Absolutely agree Rico. Since Nixon took the world off the gold standard in 1971, the West has had to transform from a real economy making things into a financial services economy. Problem is that 90% have become slaves to the Private banking cartel supported by the Central banks in each country. The politicians, media conglomerates, big business, intelligence agencies, and the MIC are all in bed together. They know that they have collectively ruined the world's eco system, ruined the worlds monetary system, and that after the world financial crisis mapped out for the rest of this year, they will usher in a limited world war. Limited to depopulating small parts of the west, large parts of the 3rd world (freeing up resources) and large parts of China, India and the middle east. The system has been built on lies and deceit, and those in power are desperate to keep their crimes and money laundering hidden. They would rather destroy the world with nuclear weapons than lose control of the system. The stupid neocons built up China hoping for it to transform into a market economy. Now China is turning against them, and aligning with Russia, and setting up a gold based monetary system (no gold of any decent quantity or quality in Fort Knox by the way). On another level the nuclear rhetoric may just be fear based theater for the masses, and after the financial storm hits the puppet masters will usher in a one world currency and one world totalitarian government. After all, Trump did praise Xi Jinping on being appointed for life.

Peacefulwarrior -> nmewn Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:42 Permalink

Sociopathic politicians and their Attorneys are not good for business or ethics. Looks like we will revisit the same cyclical Zenith of Ill Repute we have throughout known history, eventually reset and then start the game again...

nmewn -> Peacefulwarrior Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:47 Permalink

It would be an interesting comparison, the sociopathy.

Gowdy or Shitz?

DiFi or Grassley?

And on and on ;-)

Dilluminati -> nmewn Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:01 Permalink

this all has it roots in the Crimean thing.. and the following:

Turning his attention to a particularly sensitive topic, Putin said he was dismayed by what he described as the U.S. role in the ouster of Ukraine's Russia-friendly president in February 2014 amid massive protests.

Putin charged that the U.S. had asked Russia to help persuade then-President Viktor Yanukovych not to use force against protesters and then "rudely and blatantly" cheated Russia, sponsoring what he called a "coup." Russia responded by rushing through a referendum in Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, whose result was an overwhelming majority voting to join Russia.

"Few expected us to act so quickly and so resolutely, not to say daringly," Putin said.

He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as part of "illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the long run." He added that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves."

Responding to a question about Russia's growing global leverage, Putin responded: "If we play strongly with weak cards, it means the others are just poor players, they aren't as strong as it seemed, they must be lacking something."

What i wish Russia would say is: Yes we used what internet and information persuasion we could when we invaded/intervened in Crimea.

And then say: There will be no tampering with elections though we of course have foreign policy objectives.

And finally : That the arguments in your neighbor's house belong inside the house and please don't drag them out onto the lawn.

The whole issue boils back to the debate and wtf to do in respect to arming Ukraine, and that time Russia was in newsgroups and targeting information along with the Buk debacle. It happened, it was for real, no bullshit. Even some of the NFL websites had the content and the posting comes from supposedly far right or far left however the hallmark is always an identity politics message , trolling for the lowest common denominator. Some of the work was sooo damn bad it was almost comical but mostly it was drivel and off-topic, misdirecting any meaningful discussion, that was most often used when crowdsourcing the Buk and proof of deployed green men.. the posts were just disruptive in nature and designed to make the posting environment as fucked up as possible. Trump said some things somewhat favorable to the Russians in the debates and that was when McCains knickers went into flames and Lindsey Graham got worked up.

There was this thing called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which effectively said: heh Ukraine give up your nukes and we'll make sure that that doesn't come back to bite your ass.. and at that time Obama was like.. we'll send blankets and rations.. and Germany and France were like.. well here is the photo

https://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/101854/34/1018543424.jpg

This photo ^ tells more of the issue than anything else.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Now fast forward to the elections.. Some of the facebook ads were back material and if you follow that timeline were in fact the basis of the Ukraine campaign, similar to Rendon group.. etc.. now the difference is that the topics changed and there is no controlled narrative like in the good old days when you'd find a baby in an incubator and that was the story.. or a C130 broadcasting something flying in circles was the message.. so the stuff that surrounded the activity morphed as the larger US based internet discussed the rather "phenomenon" of the elections...

Now if or how, or perhaps there was collusion or more succinctly a quid-pro-quo between Putin and Trump? I don't know.. however the broader incrimination is what is being made. My hunch without all the facts is that the crowd that I call hollywood for ugly people suddenly found the rules changed, couldn't deliver a pinch hit on Brexit, couldn't control the narrative for Hillary, and that they are still floundering around on the issues. They feel cheated as they didn't get their way.

Did Russia troll and perform information campaigns? yes they did.. have I seen a stolen election? Nope.. Hillary really lost that on her own and though she sees the analytics on the email as the issue it was actually when she was too fucking cute and said: "Like with a cloth?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rha6Wamfp0

you can watch and remember.. the analytics topics email, but it was her fucking dishonesty and her mannerism that sunk her, no matter what she says or does, you can't rollback that verdict

I think some people are taking this way too fucking far, and if Americans violated laws.. well fucking charge em

But if meddling in other peoples elections or having an opinion is illegal then we need to completely redo our foreign policy with some middle east nations.. serious the fuck up..

the truth in a picture

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/belarus-president-alexander-lukash

Librarian -> Dilluminati Wed, 03/07/2018 - 15:09 Permalink

>The whole issue boils back to the debate and wtf to do in respect to arming Ukraine

Respectfully, I don't think that's the real debate here. IMHO that ship sailed long ago. Figuratively, it sank to the bottom of the ocean. Everyone involved is now in the process of sorting out their insurance claims.

It's similar to someone parking an expensive motorcycle in his backyard, with the gate unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It's been more than a year since the bike was jacked. But the property owner is still foaming at the mouth and ranting about setting up tripwire perimeter machine guns and setting up minefields in his flower beds.

It's gone and it isn't coming back. Fighting this battle with the Donetsk rebels even down to the last Western Ukrainian isn't going to do much except to produce a few million childless Ukrainian women. The last census in Ukraine was such a shock that portions of it that will likely never be released.

Baron von Bud Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:25 Permalink

If our government wasn't bought off by defense contractors and bankers then fair compromise would be possible. Put the people first and money second. That's how Putin stays in power. Learn and change.

Boubou -> Baron von Bud Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:41 Permalink

I can tell you this as someone who left USA 50 years ago;

The USA reputation right now for bullying and warmongering is so extreme that most people in the world feel admiration and affection for anyone who tries to stand up for his country's independence from US full spectrum domination. Putin benefits from that, plus many find him charismatic and humorous.

I don't think he is delusional enough to believe that Russia can really survive a US attack or carve out a rival empire, in fact I don't think he is delusional at all.

Radical Marijuana -> exartizo Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:07 Permalink

Putin has a practically impossible task, which is to provide rational deterrence to the Anglo-American (Zionist) Finance Empire, which is dominated by increasingly psychotic psychopaths.

The doctrine of MAD Mutual Assured Destruction was the only policy that could be proposed and promoted in order to attempt to cope with weapons of mass destruction becoming trillions of times more powerful than ever before in human history. However, that threat of force from atomic weapons, etc., was the continuation of the historical trends of the combined money/murder systems based upon the public powers of governments being used to enforce frauds by private banks, and the big corporations that grew up around those big banks.

The MAD Mutual Assured Destruction threats continued to back up the MAD Money As Debt systems. The international bankers, behind the globalized dominance of the Anglo-American (Zionist) Finance Empire became the best organized gangsters, the banksters, who effectively captured control over all NATO governments, and especially recaptured control over the government of the USA for more than a Century.

The social successfulness based upon being able to enforce frauds has been enabled by about exponentially advancing technologies to become about exponentially more fraudulent. That is the context inside of which the combination of MAD Money As Debt, backed by MAD Mutual Assured Destruction, is automatically becoming MADDER & MADDER. Indeed, that overall MAD situation has already become too MAD to be completely comprehended anymore by anyone!

The underlying issues were that Globalized Neolithic Civilization was based on Civilization being effectively controlled by applying the methods of organized crime on larger and larger scales, until those became globalized privatization of public powers, in order that money based on measurement backed by murder could spin out of human control, because the collective MADNESS became runaway criminal insanities.

All over the world, it is painfully obvious that various societies integrated into Globalized Neolithic Civilization are manifesting various forms of runaway social psychoses, due to Civilization becoming based on the excessively successful applications of the methods of organized crime, which have reached the point of the MAD Mutual Assured Destruction seeming to fail to rationally deter the dominate gangsters, the banksters, from attempting to consolidate their globalized control over their MAD Money As Debt systems, which thereby effectively consolidate control over the world's natural resources.

Putin has a practically impossible political problem, which is to provide rational material deterrence against the globalized ruling classes, whose previous privatization of the planet has allowed them to indulge in runaway psychotic attitudes towards themselves, as well as everyone and everything else.

Any attempt to wage overt warfare against Russia would result in the destruction of Globalized Neolithic Civilization. For all practical purposes, that kind of criminal insanity would mean that Civilization had committed collective suicide.

The history of the previous social successfulness of the Anglo-American (Zionist) Finance Empire has reinforced the ruling classes of their organizations to become too criminally insane to recover from the degree to which that has become so, while, at the same time, most of those who have been more and more ruled over by those increasingly psychotic psychopaths have gradually adapted, for generation after generation, to living inside those systems by becoming increasingly incompetent political idiots.

Putin keeps on warning both the rulers, as well as those ruled over, in NATO countries, not to be so criminally insane. However, as Putin points out, those warnings are more and more falling upon deaf ears. Putin is stuck inside the problematic predicament of attempting to maintain the precarious balancing of MAD Mutual Assured Destruction, despite that doing so allows the MAD Money As Debt problems to continue to get about exponentially worse.

Theoretically, since it was the series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts in mathematical physics that enabled the development of globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic weapons, it "should" be imperative for series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts to be applied to the public perception of the combined money/murder systems.

Theoretically, after weapons become trillions of times more powerful, then militarism "should" be radically transformed. Since militarism is the ideology of the murder system, while the murder system has been radically transformed by about exponentially advancing technologies, based on profound paradigm shifts in physics, therefore, militarism "should" go through series of profound paradigm shifts in the perception of the death control systems that back up the debt control systems. However, the only things which are actually happening are the ways in which the collective runaway MADNESS is getting MADDER & MADDER!

exartizo -> Radical Marijuana Wed, 03/07/2018 - 16:17 Permalink

Well written, fascinating, but too verbose my friend.

Here it is in a nutshell for you:

The MAD Money Banksters are losing control of the MAD Bombs and vice versa so that the understanding of which is "wagging the proverbial dog's tail", the dog or the tail, "The Money or The Bombs" is blurring into a surreal landscape of money and power the end of which is MAD in every sense.

Let's please do try to remember to be succinct, my friend.

But your paragraphs are sexy.

Cheers

veritas semper -> exartizo Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:21 Permalink

Do not expect that once taking advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russian has always come for their money. And when they come - do not rely on an agreement signed by you, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russian is to play fair, or do not play.

Otto von Bismarck

one of the greatest politicians of all times .

Blankone Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:38 Permalink

More hot air from Putin without any actions.
Putin is getting bullied in Syria now. Even Russia says the US has 20 military bases IN Syria. From RT just today:

"That's after it was revealed the Pentagon plans to spend around $300 million to train and equip a 60,000-strong army in Syria. "

Yesterday RT had a story that ZH is avoiding. That a Russian transport crashed in Syria killing over 30 troops. Which was especially interesting for this reason:

A russian transport plane just crashed in Syria killing all the troops on board.
Some group of people really like their numbers to send messages.

The model number of the Russian airliner that recently crashed was AN 148 = 13
The call number of the Iranian airliner that recently crashed is EP-ATS. MSN 391 = 13

This russian transport drops on landing due to "technical issues" on March 6 = 3/6 = 3 - 6's = 666

All 3 planes just dropped suddenly. This plane lost control on approach to where it could not attempt to glide in. Someone's having fun with Russia and Iran. (Let's not forget how the Russian military choir suddenly dropped out of the sky, on Christmas I believe.)

Yesterday we also found out Putin's claims about a hypersonic nuke was BS and he used photo's of a slightly modified run of the mill missile. Add to that the BS story of a super hypersonic nuke torpedo. And the totally BS story about the new super fighter jet.

What is consistent is increased noise from Putin without any action to confront NATO.

Boogity -> Blankone Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:36 Permalink

Yawn... The USA has hundreds of military bases all over the world and a military budget larger than the next 12 countries combined yet it still keeps getting its sorry azzz whipped in Third World shitholes all over the planet.

In fact, with the notable exception of Ronny Raygun's daring invasion of mighty Grenada in 1984, the USA hasn't won a war since WW2. The only thing that's happened is that its "Empire" is now 20 trillion bucks in debt and rapidly collapsing after just a few decades of existence.

In the grand sweep of human history, where many Empires have lasted a millennia or longer, the USA's pretend Empire will be barely a blip on the radar screen.

Blankone -> Boogity Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:01 Permalink

You do not understand their goals.
How many times has Russia/Soviet Union fallen during the time of the US existence?
A decade is 10 yrs, the US has existed more than 2 or 3 decades.
The US is on the path to ruin in many ways. But Russia is no powerhouse and may well crumble from within yet again. And if Russia fails yet again TPTB will dice it up and haul away the resources this time. And then there will be no Russia, even it the US crumbles later.

Right now Putin is so desperate he tries to change history and make Stalin a hero for the Russian people to rally around. Do they not know who Stalin was or maybe Putin honors him due to the religious purges he enforced. Putin pushed into law new legislation making it a serious crime to deny the holohoax. hmmm Are they going to do it Again?

veritas semper -> Blankone Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:45 Permalink

He strikes me as very calm ,collected,intelligent .

He took Russia from a total disaster done by chosen gang during the Yeltsin years and elevated it to a superpower in 16 years.

Russians have been through Hell and back. During the Color Revolution which was Bolshevism and during the shock therapy applied to them by the Haaavard jooo gang working in synchrony with the Russian chosen. They have seen the wanders of Bolshevism and of American so called capitalism.

And they chose neither.

They chose Mr. Putin ,not because he is a Communist ,or a zionist , red or white ,they chose him because he is RUSSIAN.

Russia has learned from past mistakes. The future is on Russia's side. Not so for US . US has not learned anything . When it makes a mistake ,it doubles,triples down.

Remember ,even if you lose a battle ,wining the war is more important. And this is precisely what Russia is doing.

I really don't understand,do you want a hot war ,that will annihilate the world? You do not seem stupid . Which leaves only one other explanation

veritas semper -> Blankone Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

See above quote . From somebody much ,much smarter then you and me.

And he is going to do it . While avoiding,from his part a WWWIII. Maybe you are eager for one?

Everything in due time. All pieces on the GO table are in place.

And ,remember time is on Russia's side ,not on American one. JUSA is going down .

In 3 years ,Russia had thousands of transports in Syria. this was probably ans accident. And even if it wasn't ,see Bismarck's quote above.

Son of Captain Nemo Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

God Damn but I wish he were my President and "Russia" was the United States!...

The only thing that needs to be said with the gloves clearly off for good with Uncle Shlomo is... When does Putin announce his formal dislocation and departure from the UN after terrorism on his borders and in his Country courtesy of the "Union" since 1992?...

Calling home his diplomatic corps in the U.S. and sending Amerikansy packing from Russia... Either he speaks the embarrassing truth that the West needs to hear with an announcement to the UN that it's the worst farce that mankind has ever conceived... and that he will work with the SCO/BRICS members to build a new "Home" for the rule of law that it deserves?... Or he continues to acquiesce to unconvicted mass murderers through "diplomatic channels" that no longer exist that only wear camo and that he knows he will inevitably never win over anyway!

ENOUGH is "ENOUGH"!!!

P.S.

Vlad FYI... Make my suntan "extra crispy"... And scatter me over a very large part of Washington D.C. where I reside!

Like all Americans THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO BE COLLECTIVE PSYCHOPATHS since this ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ )... We're fucking cowards that will take the easiest and worst way out when we LOSE!!!

CatInTheHat Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

The US is so utterly obvious in it's WARMONGERING, particularly toward Putin and Russia. People in other countries think we are the biggest dumbasses and we are.

The other day, RT had an article about the election in Italy and within the article was a tweet from Samantha power blaming Russia for the election outcome. The blowback from Italians reading that Tweet was outstanding. They know Russiagate is bullshit and the blowback on Americans who buy into this highly propagandized subject we're mercilessly ridiculed.

We should be talking diplomacy, but the US doesn't make money or try to even hide the fact that they want WAR. Our population has been so depleted of critical thinking skills and so deeply complacent, they will sit and watch Maddow continue her assault upon Russia, with American idiots parked in front or their computer or TV sets, as the nuke from Russia heads this way while Maddow beelines it to a bunker.

Americans have descended so far into madness, a reset is required to bring them to a reality that shows them who their ZIONIST masters really are. Maddow being one of the most dangerous among the propagandist serving the see eye aye,EFF BEE EYE, EAT.AL.

Putin appears SANE compared to the insane psychopaths running the country. I mean has anyone bothered to read up about Putin? The documentary of his interview? Anyone read up on RUSSIAN culture or it's people?? I have been and it's really interesting.

What Democrats are doing is INCITEMENT to genocide which is a war crime under international law. They dehumanize, demonizes millions of people and their leader. Think about it, what if this were in reverse? If Putin and his parliament were accusing the US of meddling in their elections and then spend two years threatening to murder our entire population??

Jesus H. Christ THINK PEOPLE.

Pliskin -> Vaablane Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:54 Permalink

WOW! The level of american't butt-hurt on this post is through the roof!!

veritas semper -> Pliskin Wed, 03/07/2018 - 15:16 Permalink

Yes. Sooo funny.

After Mr. Putin speech ,where he tipped the balance of power on Russia's side ,we are witnessing ,in all its glory , the 5 stages of American grief.

-first stage was denial : Putin lied,Russians are drunk and incapable ,those were fake missiles

-then the angry response : the weapons sent to Ukraine , extending of sanctions for another year by the Donald ,continuing vilification of Russia/Putin ; hey ,the Donald 's State Department Troll Farm received a 40 Mil injection recently.

-then will be the bargaining stage : US will try to offer something ,like let's say the used and discarded Porkoshenko in return for transforming Sarmat into scrap metal

-then it's depression time after Russia says they can shove their offer up their assesky

-will we reach a cold acceptance or a very hot nuclear acceptance ?

Stay

abgary1 Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:41 Permalink

Career politicians and bureaucrats are the problem.

-Recall legislation for politicians to remove the worst of the worst.

-Term limits of 2 for politicians at any one level of government and contract limits of 8 years for bureaucrats at any one level of government. If the legislators know they will spend the majority of their working careers in the private sector they won't be passing laws that strictly benefit the public sector.

-Balanced budget laws that require referendums to repeal.

Grass root party members need to demand change.

Let it Go Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:50 Permalink

It is not hard to understand Russia's concern a mishap might occur. When it comes to our nuclear arsenal, not only is America ready to launch but we are also about to spend a great deal of money to increase that ability. What the world would look like following a nuclear war has been the subject of much speculation.

A great number of variables feed into such scenarios but we should be troubled that today it seems many people consider nuclear weapons as an acceptable tool or option for us to use in our defense if we are attacked. More on the size of our arsenal and the plans to spend a huge amount to upgrade the delivery system in the article below.

http://Nuclear Weapons-We Are Ready To Launch.html

Anon2017 Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:53 Permalink

1. It appears to me that Putin has a better grasp of American politics than millions of Americans of all colors and religions, who I think would even fail the basic civics test given to legal immigrants who apply for US citizenship.

2. Victoria Nuland, who was Secretary of State Clinton's point person on Ukraine, helped stir up the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution which ended up in the ouster of its Russia-friendly President. Did anyone in a senior position in NATO really expect Russia to sit idly by while Ukraine developed ever closer ties to NATO and possibly oust the Russians from their only warm water military base at Sevastopol?

[Mar 07, 2018] The Philosopher's Stone A REPLY TO EWAN

Mar 07, 2018 | robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com
Ewan said...
LFC
John Kerry agreed the terms of a ceasefire. President Obama gave it his imprimatur. The Secretary of Defence said he didn't think the US should comply (publicly defied his commander-in-chief!). The USAF then accidentally bombed Syrian troops. Oops.

(We can get into the bombing of the relief convoy if you wish, and the Western media's practice of broadcasting as fact without verification jihadi propaganda. The reporting of the siege of Aleppo has been one of the very lowest points in our media's lamentable career. Compare and contrast Mosul. It appears to be a principle with us that our enemies can always be trusted to act against their own interests at precisely the moment when it will cause them maximum damage and justify us in doing whatever it is we wanted to do all along. For example, Syria use chemical weapons thus crossing the US "red line" the jihadis want it to cross, precisely when it has invited in the UN chemical weapons inspectors... D'oh!)

Russia and Iran are acting within the law in coming to the aid of an ally at that ally's request. The US and its allies are acting contrary to the law in funding, arming, training etc. jihadists, mostly not even Syrians, to overthrow the Syrian government. What may very well have started as a civil war, soon morphed into a proxy war by the Saudis, Turkey, the US, UK and France to overthrow a government they do not like. Such interference is what treaties they have all signed deem illegal. If we are to believe Messrs. Annan and Ibrahimi of the UN, a negotiated settlement in 2012 was thwarted by the jihadis at the behest of the US and the Saudis. The killing of civilians could have ceased long since but for that. We have encouraged the prolongation of the killing of civilians. Given the record of both the Saudis and the US, it is in any event not for us to be lecturing anyone, even the Ba'athists in Syria. We are in the process of driving 19m Yemenis to starvation. We killed what the UN estimated to be half a million Iraqi children in the 1990s (no-one bothered to count the adults). The US Secretary of State called it a "price worth paying". We have killed more than a million civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen since 2001. And we aren't finished.

"Not grown-up" is maybe not most apt to describe those who complain righteously that their enemies kill thousands as a pretext to kill hundreds of thousands themselves.

And maybe you do not like the term applied to US policy on Syria. Fair enough - but that policy is surely not coherent. The US has signed agreements with Russia it has failed to honour. It has condemned Russia for doing legally in Syria what it is itself doing illegally. It has proclaimed its determination to defeat Islamism - by allying itself with the main source and sponsor of Islamism. It insists on identifying as its chief enemies the only forces on the ground able to fight the jihadis effectively. It has allied itself with those its allies are fighting. It has even been reduced to pretending that a change of name has rendered al qaeda a "moderate rebel force" worthy of US tax dollars. I could go on!

You may think it unhelpful to characterise US behaviour as "not grown-up". Fair enough. It still scares the bejeesus out of the rest of us to no good purpose. Or are you able to tell me what purpose has been served by turning Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia into a chaos of death and destruction with no end in sight and at the expense of several trillion dollars?

US foreign policy for at least a hundred years has been about making the world safe for "free enterprise". Quite how does the current chaos further that policy?

Ewan said...
LFC
I have gone on too long.

A few points:

"If the U.S. is bent on overthrowing Assad, it has an odd way of demonstrating that." This is startling. The US makes no bones about it.

I'm also surprised you don't see the difficulty in us deciding who is legitimate and who illegitimate. If we were indeed the good guys, maybe... but, as it is, it is really not on for us to label Assad worse than the Saudis, or Saddam a good guy when we support him but the new Hitler when he disobeys us. The Russian insistence on the rule of law seems to me the best of a bad job. I can't think of any other way to curb them all even slightly.

On al qaeda in Syria, there are specialists who try to detail the various jihadi groups and affiliations. Al Nusra, ahrar al-Sham etc are all inter-related and all subsidiaries and rebrandings and divisions and factions of the same jihadis. As indeed is ISIS/Daesh. They are all the spawn of the US/Saudi cunning plan to use Islamists against secular Arab states. Brzezinski was actually proud of it!

Mosul: I meant the whole shebang. You refer to one incident we happen to have heard of. Aleppo was "genocide!!!!!"; Mosul - mainly silence.

I hold no brief for any thug or princeling or prime minister in the Middle East. I do think the stream of drivel about Russia needs stopping. It is dangerous to us all.

I won't drone on any longer.

[Mar 07, 2018] John Helmer suggests there are signs that Putin has now moved decisively in favour of the forces which have produced the weaponry of which he spoke and against those who side with the oligarchs and favour accommodation, on almost any terms, with the USA

Mar 07, 2018 | off-guardian.org

Reply

bevin says March 6, 2018

The real significance of Putin's speech has been missed. As John Helmer suggests there are signs that Putin has now moved decisively in favour of the forces which have produced the weaponry of which he spoke and against those who side with the oligarchs and favour accommodation, on almost any terms, with the USA.

Something that has mystified unthinking westerners is the possibility that, while spending relatively small amounts an industrial sector which is notoriously run down has managed to come up with an arsenal which matches and may very well exceed that of the US with its massive defense budgets. In a society obsessed with the silly notion that privatisation and free enterprise produce innovation and cut costs the performance of Russia's, largely state owned, arms industry seems counter intuitive. When added to the conventional wisdom that the Soviet Union failed because it was bureaucratised and inefficient Russia's advantage is inexplicable .

In reality none of this should be surprising. The US Defense procurement system is designed basically to funnel money from the taxpayers to the MIC. And the Military Industrial Complex, as its name suggests, has many often conflicting aims in developing and producing weapons. Of the various interest groups in the MIC only the tiny, though loud, ideological wing of neo-conservatives has any interest in war with Russia. As to the rest, the politicians, the corporations, the military war is the least of their desires: the politicians want jobs for constituents and deep wells of graft in which those trillions can be re-cycled into campaign funds, think tanks, pensions, bribes and favours. The corporations want orders with guaranteed and fat profits. They also want monopolies and help in garnering the super profits that come from foreign orders. Places like Israel and Saudi are the icing on an already rich and fruity cake. The military want other things, of which wars against their peers in Russia and China are not a part.

Add together the realities of the Defense procurement system and the inefficiencies of monopoly capitalism and the wonder is not that the Russian state produces better results but that the US forces have any 'materiel' at all. And often enough they do not: the F35 is but one example of the many projects into which untold riches have been sunk without any perceptible advantage. The US fleets are full of ships that serve no real purpose except to consume fuel and bang into one another. The army is so bad that most of the work is actually carried out by Special Forces (now 70,000 strong) while the logistical load is borne by contractors and mercenary bands.

But the reality of Russia's position, as anyone who has followed modern history will know, is that bureaucratic and sclerotic as the Soviet system was it was still vastly more efficient than the chaotic and suicidal capitalist system. From Sputnik down, even despite the co-ordinated wrecking of the Soviet economy, until today the Russian system of developing, producing and employing arms has proved to be superior to the US system.

For this there are many reasons but the single most important is that, in the USA Defense procurement is a scam whereas in Russia, as Putin made plain, it is a matter of national survival. And so it has been since 1918- a century of making sure that a world full of enemies could be fought off.
Those western commentators who sneered that Putin was boasting and exaggerating when he warned potential aggressors to think twice, have gone through the lessons of that century without learning a thing.

What has happened in Russia, since the 1990s, is that the sirens of westernisation, which Russians have been listening to since Tsar Paul's time, have been discredited again. The future in Russia lies not with the Fifth Column of westerners, with their Wall St/City of London banking practices and their longing for acceptance by high finance but with those looking east where the sun rises, east and south where three out of every four members of humanity live.

Theo says March 5, 2018
Putin is an experienced strategist.He plans long ahead and is not at all a warmonger.On his campaign trail Trump recognized this and wanted to ease tensions with Russia.But he failed.I never understood the Russia bashing.The Russians love Putin for what he did for his country.And that's what counts.

[Mar 07, 2018] Putin is the representative of the faction who wants to integrate with the western elites on equal terms, while compradorswork by taking percentages from the loot of Russia by their western handlers and being welcome in the parties of the western institutions

Mar 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

kemerd , Next New Comment March 6, 2018 at 10:50 pm GMT

Actually, we don't have to wait too long to see if the Russians will fold. Putin, as I argued before, is the representative of the faction who wants to integrate with the western elites but on equal terms and there are compradors who considers taking percentages from the loot of Russia by their western handlers and being welcome in the parties of the western institutions is good enough and the least risky path.

I am with Peter that the likelihood of the second faction winning is higher. Only because the first faction cannot eliminate the second without hurting its own interests. In fact, Putin's speech was mostly about how he will be trying to balance those factions and divide pork between them (hint. the state should withdraw from the economy, encourage private enterprises, etc.): such a policy of balancing can be sustained only so far; real sovereignty can only be asserted with elites who sees its future of its own making on its own soil.

Billionaires have a tendency to relocate if they smell danger.

Because of this and unfortunately for Russia, the first faction would easily fold if they feel the second starts to gain the upper hand and their personal fortunes are at stake. Therefore, if the person after Putin continues his policy of balancing oligarchs, the power will eventually be handed again over to Yeltsin types.

In this respect, getting rid of all billionaires is the only way of asserting sovereignty as the remaining people including small scale business class will have to and would see their future in their own country.

peterAUS , Next New Comment March 6, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
@kemerd

Actually .

I am with Peter that the likelihood of the second faction winning is higher.

that's not exactly what I've been saying and what concerns me. That's the easy, nice option. There is only one, very little snag there. TRUST.

How can Putin and his team trust the "opposition" that, should they step down, they won't be dragged at some court? How anyone with brains can trust that? I wouldn't. Not after Milosevic, Saddam and especially Qaddafi.

Let's cut to the chase here. Have you people seen the Colonel's murder? Then, have you seen the reaction of The Bitch on hearing that?

Now .there is more. The "best and brightest" of US, and Anglo-Saxon world were all for The Bitch. Think about that for a second. So ..is it realistically to expect Putin and his team, mostly Russian siloviki, to, effectively, surrender to the victor's justice of those people?

I can't. I can very well envisage: "I am going down .well you are too." And, realistically, we all do deserve that. Now, I am an relic from the Cold War. So, maybe I get all this wrong. But, then, Putin is coming from the same world. Maybe he, with age, got "civilized" enough not to do that. Mellowed a bit. Maybe he hasn't.

Now back to "my dick is bigger" high-tech weapon discussion.

[Mar 07, 2018] Putin Says US Political System Eating Itself Up, Explains Preparation For Nuclear War

There is a Russian term for the political condition into which the USA political establishment has arrived: The USA became "nedogovorosposobniy" -- a derogatory term for people who are iether mentally incapacitated or are such crooks that nobody can't be rely on signed by them treaties and who can break any promises given and signed in writing with ease.
After painful months of negotiation with the US, Sergei Lavrov regretfully announced that the Americans were such. There are rules, and the Americans do not know how to observe them. There are boundaries, but no-one has taught them to the Americans. In this sense, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians are grown-ups. It is possible to do business with them without risking the survival of the species.'
That's a sign of a "failed state"
Notable quotes:
"... He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as part of "illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the long run." He added that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves." ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Putin then ... vented his frustration with the U.S. political system saying " it has demonstrated its inefficiency and has been eating itself up."

" It's quite difficult to interact with such a system, because it's unpredictable ," Putin said.

Russian hopes for a detente and better ties with Washington have been dashed by the ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. Speaking about the bitter tensions in Russia-West relations, Putin said they have been rooted in Western efforts to contain and weaken Russia.

"We are a great power, and no one likes competition," he said.

Turning his attention to a particularly sensitive topic, Putin said he was dismayed by what he described as the U.S. role in the ouster of Ukraine's Russia-friendly president in February 2014 amid massive protests.

Putin charged that the U.S. had asked Russia to help persuade then-President Viktor Yanukovych not to use force against protesters and then "rudely and blatantly" cheated Russia, sponsoring what he called a "coup. " Russia responded by rushing through a referendum in Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, whose result was an overwhelming majority voting to join Russia.

" Few expected us to act so quickly and so resolutely, not to say daringly ," Putin said.

He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as part of "illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the long run." He added that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and poison themselves."

Responding to a question about Russia's growing global leverage, Putin responded: "If we play strongly with weak cards, it means the others are just poor players, they aren't as strong as it seemed, they must be lacking something."

* * *

Finally, Putin, who presented a sweeping array of new Russian nuclear weapons last week , voiced hope that nuclear weapons will never be used -- but warned that Russia will retaliate in kind if it comes under a nuclear attack.

"The decision to use nuclear weapons can only be made if our early warning system not only detects a missile launch but clearly forecasts its flight path and the time when warheads reach the Russian territory," he said. "If someone makes a decision to destroy Russia, then we have a legitimate right to respond."

He concluded ominously: "Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What is such a world for, if there were no Russia?" Tags War Conflict Politics

Comments Vote up! 66 Vote down! 7

Shitonya Serfs Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:23 Permalink

Aim for CA, DC, and NYC, Putin...don't forget Seattle

Cry Baby Moe -> Shitonya Serfs Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:26 Permalink

"Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What is such a world for, if there were no Russia?"

peace in the world? Happiness for all?

y3maxx -> Cry Baby Moe Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:28 Permalink

Absolutely true....Trump is a balanced man compared to the unbalanced Deep State and Congress.

BullyBearish -> y3maxx Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:30 Permalink

"...would you want to live in a world without classic coke?"

skbull44 -> BullyBearish Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:31 Permalink

Making the MIC great again!!

https://olduvai.ca

ThanksChump -> skbull44 Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:38 Permalink

Many Americans are angry that Soviet socialists threw their communist comrades out. Putin, a better capitalist than most US presidents in recent decades, hates communists as much as everyone else does.

Go live in Best Korea, Communist scum.

Luc X. Ifer -> ThanksChump Wed, 03/07/2018 - 13:51 Permalink

Well. It was obvious for some time that a corrupt gov will lead unfortunately to capitalism going rogue and eating itself up. Don't get me wrong, is not the capitalism failure is the failure of the ones who supposedly had to ensure the existence of a true free but balanced market, and that's the gov, so as in the former Soviet bloc this proves again that too big and powerful gov naturally evolves into an oligarchy which drives the system to self cannibalize.

silver140 -> Luc X. Ifer Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:36 Permalink

The US doesn't have a corrupt government, it has corporate fascist rulers who have puppets posing as politicians who pretend to be in a government.

samsara -> skbull44 Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:58 Permalink

Ah, Www.dieoff.com

Remember it?

scaleindependent -> samsara Wed, 03/07/2018 - 14:27 Permalink

Never heard of it. Thanks

[Mar 07, 2018] How Russiagate helps the Israel lobby

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs ..."
"... The Washington Report's ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | electronicintifada.net

Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 US presidential election , the Democratic Party establishment has held tightly to the belief that her shock defeat was not the result of her and their shortcomings, but rather due to a nefarious Russian plot to "hack" the election in "collusion" with the winner.

Instead of examining why Donald Trump was able to connect with voters in economically distressed parts of the country in a way that Democrats failed to do, adherents of the Russiagate narrative hoped that investigations would quickly find a smoking gun, leading to Trump's impeachment and undoing an election result they consider aberrant and unjust.

On Friday, I spoke at a conference in Washington, DC, titled The Israel Lobby and American Policy , sponsored by The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and IRmep , a group that researches the lobby's influence.

As I note in my talk, a handful of journalists – especially Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté of The Real News – have consistently debunked the wild, exaggerated and sometimes fabricated claims of Russian interference made by members of the self-styled but woefully ineffectual "Resistance" to Trump.

Watch the video above.

True, over the course of the last year, special counsel Robert Mueller has made a number of indictments, but none of those cases – including the recent indictment of 13 Russians linked to a St. Petersburg troll farm – substantiates the heavily hyped claim that Russia helped Trump win the White House.

Perhaps the most high-profile indictment of someone in Trump's inner circle, the president's first national security adviser Michael Flynn , actually shows that rather than colluding with Russia, senior members of Trump's team were really working with Israel to advance its agenda.

And while no one has pinpointed evidence of Trump auctioning off his foreign policy to any Russian oligarchs, he has definitely tailored his policy toward Israel to the demands of casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson , his biggest campaign donor .

Adelson's immediate priority was securing US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the American embassy there – and Trump duly obliged .

New censorship helps Israel

In my talk I consider how the Russiagate narrative is actually helping Israel and its lobby in particular ways.

I point out that the Russiagate hysteria being adopted by many liberals is legitimizing censorship that helps Israel clamp down on free speech and a free press.

Last year, the Russian-funded network RT was forced to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

As Maté has noted, free speech advocates and journalists were largely silent about it , perhaps thinking this tool of government control over the media would never be used against them.

But now, Israel's supporters in Congress – including Senator Ted Cruz – are demanding that Al Jazeera be investigated by the Department of Justice and forced to register as an agent of Qatar. They are explicitly citing the US government crackdown on RT as their precedent.

Al Jazeera's transgression is that it produced an undercover documentary on the workings of the Israel lobby in the US.

Qatar has come under intense pressure from that lobby to make sure the documentary is never aired. Five months after the network's head of investigations Clayton Swisher announced it would be released "very soon," the film has yet to be broadcast.

On Monday, The Electronic Intifada exclusively published details of what is in the film.

According to a source who has seen it, the film identifies a number of lobby groups as working with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques. It is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too critical of Israel.

True, FARA is being used only against foreign networks, but the point is that these outlets – whatever their flaws – are providing space for discussion and dissent that docile US mainstream media keep closed.

It's simply impossible to imagine CNN, ABC – or for that matter the BBC – showing true independence and taking on the power of the Israel lobby.

While organizers diligently informed media about the Washington conference, the only outlets that invited me on to talk about the Israel lobby were the The Real News and RT. I know that other speakers were shut out of mainstream media as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/v7EvTIplv5I?feature=oembed

And besides, there are other forms of high-tech censorship that are being used to stifle or stigmatize dissent in domestic media: Partly as an outgrowth of Russiagate, Silicon Valley giants Google and Facebook have succumbed to political pressure to effectively throttle the exposure of independent outlets in the name of fighting extremism, "fake news" and alleged foreign interference.

The perverse effect has been to reassert state and elite control over media and erode the freedom that those of us shut out of mainstream outlets rely on. Nothing could suit Israel and its lobby better.

Stark warning

The conference in Washington featured many interesting presentations that can be seen at The Washington Report's YouTube channel .

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was secretary of state in the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, issued a stark warning that the US ramping up its military presence in Syria may be a prelude to launching a war on Iran on behalf of Israel.

Wilkerson said that Israel and its ally Saudi Arabia are encouraging the US to fight a regime-change war against Tehran that they would be incapable of mounting on their own.

"We've already done Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan," Wilkerson said, "so we'd just be seen as continuing the trend."

He warned that an Israeli confrontation and war with Lebanon – perhaps on the pretext of disputed gas fields in the Mediterranean – could provide the pretext.

In an ominous parallel, he likened the current situation to 1914, the eve of World War I – any spark could generate a broad regional or even global conflagration.

Wilkerson singled out the role of the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies as leading the campaign for war on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Notably, the source who spoke to The Electronic Intifada about Al Jazeera's suppressed Israel lobby film said that the documentary reveals that the same think tank may be acting as an agent for Israel in its covert efforts to undermine support for Palestinian rights in the US.

In spite of Wilkerson's worrying thesis, it must be said that, however powerful, the Israel lobby cannot alone force the US to undertake foreign military conquests. For one thing, US elites have never needed encouragement from anyone to wage devastating wars around the world.

When the US establishment sees a critical interest at stake, it pursues it regardless of what the lobby may want. That is why the US signed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement despite all of Israel's efforts to sabotage it. Of course whether that deal survives the Trump administration remains to be seen .

In his keynote address , Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy stated that Israel's military rule over Palestinians "is today one of the most brutal, cruel tyrannies on Earth."

He asserted that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights is a "legitimate tool" and the "only game in town" to force Israel to end this injustice.

[Mar 07, 2018] 'Progressive' Journalists Jump the Shark on Russiagate Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... According to Mayer, Trump defenders argue that Steele is "a dishonest Clinton apparatchik who had collaborated with American intelligence and law enforcement officials to fabricate false charges against Trump and his associates, in a dastardly (sic) attempt to nullify the 2016 election. According to this story line, it was not the President who needed to be investigated, but the investigators themselves." ..."
"... I could not help but think that Mayer wrote her piece some months ago and that she and her editors might have missed more recent documentary evidence that gives considerable support to that "dastardly" story line. But seriously, it should be possible to suspect Steele of misfeasance or malfeasance – or simply telling his contractors what he knows they want to hear – without being labeled a "Trump supporter." I, for example, am no Trump supporter. I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele served up is garbage. ..."
"... Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as "superb." Personally, I would shun any "recommendation" from that charlatan. Are memories so short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005. ..."
"... Worse still, he displays a distinct inclination toward the remarkable view of former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has said that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." If Mayer wanted to find some ostensibly authoritative figure to endorse the kind of material in Steele's dossier, she surely picked a good one in Sipher. ..."
"... Mayer notes, "It's too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele's dossier will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele's major claims have been backed up by subsequent disclosures. She includes, as flat fact, his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the DNC's emails, but provides no evidence. ..."
"... It was, of course, WikiLeaks that published the very damaging Democratic information, for example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remained to be demonstrated was that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community could not honestly say. ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

'Progressive' Journalists Jump the Shark on Russiagate March 7, 2018

A lack of skepticism has characterized much of the reporting on Russiagate, with undue credibility being given to questionable sources like the Steele dossier, and now progressives like Jane Mayer and Cenk Uygur are joining the bandwagon, Ray McGovern observes.

By Ray McGovern

Russiagate reporting has increasingly taken on a tabloidish and sensationalist character.

Jane Mayer of The New Yorker and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks are the latest progressives to jump on the anti-Trump, pro-Russiagate bandwagon. They have made it crystal clear that, in Mayer's words, they are not going to let Republicans, or anyone else, "take down the whole intelligence community," by God.

Odd? Nothing is too odd when it comes to spinning and dyeing the yarn of Russiagate; especially now that some strands are unraveling from the thin material of the "Steele dossier."

Before the 2016 election, British ex-spy Christopher Steele was contracted (through a couple of cutouts) by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee to dig up dirt on candidate Donald Trump. They paid him $168,000. They should ask for their money back.

Mayer and Uygur have now joined with other Trump-despisers and new "progressive" fans of the FBI and CIA – among them Amy Goodman and her go-to, lost-in-the-trees journalist, Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel.net. All of them (well, maybe not Cenk) are staying up nights with needle and thread trying to sew a silk purse out of the sow's-ear dossier of Steele allegations and then dye it red for danger.

Monday brought a new low, with a truly extraordinary one-two punch by Mayer and Uygur .

A Damning Picture?

Mayer does her part in a New Yorker article, in which she – intentionally or not – cannot seem to see the forest for the trees.

In her article, Mayer explains up front that the Steele dossier "painted a damning picture of collusion between Trump and Russia," and then goes on to portray him as a paragon of virtue with praise that is fulsome, in the full meaning of that word. For example, a friend of Steele told Mayer that regarding Steele, "Fairness, integrity, and truth, for him, trump any ideology."

Now, if one refuses to accept this portrait on faith, then you are what Mayer describes as a "Trump defender." According to Mayer, Trump defenders argue that Steele is "a dishonest Clinton apparatchik who had collaborated with American intelligence and law enforcement officials to fabricate false charges against Trump and his associates, in a dastardly (sic) attempt to nullify the 2016 election. According to this story line, it was not the President who needed to be investigated, but the investigators themselves."

Can you imagine!

I could not help but think that Mayer wrote her piece some months ago and that she and her editors might have missed more recent documentary evidence that gives considerable support to that "dastardly" story line. But seriously, it should be possible to suspect Steele of misfeasance or malfeasance – or simply telling his contractors what he knows they want to hear – without being labeled a "Trump supporter." I, for example, am no Trump supporter. I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele served up is garbage.

Character References

Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as "superb." Personally, I would shun any "recommendation" from that charlatan. Are memories so short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005.

Dearlove explained to Blair that President George W. Bush had decided to attack Iraq for regime change and that the war was to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Dearlove added matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Another character reference Mayer gives for Steele is former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin (from 2000 to 2004) who, with his boss George Tenet, did the fixing of intelligence to "justify" the war on Iraq. State Department intelligence director at the time, Carl Ford, told the authors of "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War" that both McLaughlin and Tenet "should have been shot" for what they did.

And then there is CIA veteran spy John Sipher who, Mayer says, "ran the Agency's Russia program before retiring, in 2014." Sipher tells her he thinks the Steele dossier is "generally credible" in "saying what Russia might be up to." Sipher may be a good case officer but he has shown himself to be something of a cipher on substance.

Worse still, he displays a distinct inclination toward the remarkable view of former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has said that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." If Mayer wanted to find some ostensibly authoritative figure to endorse the kind of material in Steele's dossier, she surely picked a good one in Sipher.

Mayer notes, "It's too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele's dossier will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele's major claims have been backed up by subsequent disclosures. She includes, as flat fact, his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the DNC's emails, but provides no evidence.

Major Holes

Mayer, however, should know better. There have been lots of holes in the accusation that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the material to WikiLeaks to publish. Here's one major gap we reported on Jan. 20, 2017: President Barack Obama told his last press conference on Jan. 18, that the U.S. intelligence community had no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks.

Using lawyerly language, Obama admitted that "the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."

It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs. He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks."

Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence about the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would be a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presented the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap.

It was, of course, WikiLeaks that published the very damaging Democratic information, for example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remained to be demonstrated was that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community could not honestly say.

Saying it now, without evidence, does not make it true.

Cenk Also in Sync

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks at once picked up , big time, on the part of Mayer's article that homes in on an "astonishing" report from Steele in late November 2016 quoting one "senior Russian official." According to that official, "The Kremlin had intervened to block Trump's initial choice for secretary of state, Mitt Romney." Steele's late November memo alleged that the Kremlin had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions and cooperate on security issues like Syria.

Mayer commented, "As fantastical as the memo sounds, subsequent events could be said to support it." Fantastical or not, Uygur decided to run with it. His amazing 12-minute video is titled: "New Steele Dossier: Putin PICKED Trump's Secretary of State." Uygur asks: "Who does Tillerson work for; and that also goes for the President."

Return to Sanity

As an antidote to all the above, let me offer this cogent piece on the views of Joseph E. diGenova, who speaks out of his unique experience, including as Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee). The article is entitled: "The Politicization of the FBI."

"Over the past year," diGenova wrote, "facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency."

He pointed out that nearly half of Americans, according to a CBS poll, believe that Mueller's Trump-Russia collusion probe is "politically motivated." And, he noted, 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

This skepticism is entirely warranted, as diGenova explains, with the Russiagate probe being characterized by overreach from the beginning.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served in Army and CIA intelligence analysis for 30 years and, after retiring, co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

[Mar 07, 2018] The disproportionate ongoing emphasis on the fake story that Russia meddled in the US election serves to stir up suspicions and fears regarding Russia in the generally brain-numbed population

Notable quotes:
"... The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious. ..."
"... The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation. ..."
"... The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election. Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains. ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

teolawki -> Joe Davola Wed, 03/07/2018 - 11:19 Permalink

Well of course there are. We've been told repeatedly that the Obama administration was on the job and focused like a laser on Russia collusion and meddling.

Unfortunately, the hard drive all that was stored on crashed and it was all lost.

FBaggins -> Joe Davola Wed, 03/07/2018 - 11:45 Permalink

If we really want the truth then we have to stop relying on what people say just because we like them, or we think they are on our side, and instead we have to examine the interests of the various sources. Only then we can make better decisions. At this stage of the game the deep state can no longer blame with any credibility Russian hacking as the source of the alleged leak. The know it came directly from the DNC. However, the deep state has a priority (a very strong interest) to keep the heat on Russia.

The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious.

The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation.

The disproportionate ongoing emphasis on the fake story that Russia meddled in the US election, not only serves to stir up suspicions and fears regarding Russia in the generally brain-numbed population, but mainly at this stage, and by the sheer fact that the deep state has carried this rouse so far down the field, the only rational conclusion one can make is that the deep state is going to interfere in the Russian elections in a very major way to ensure that Putin and his cronies - those wicked oil and gas nationalizers, those heinous enemies of the Rothschild banksters and their plans for an expanded US Fed to the auspices of their proposed One World Bank; those upstart renegades who support nations which choose to trade oil without US petrodollars; those evil monsters who oppose globalism and defend their own nation's sovereignty and other nations like Syria which call for help.

The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election. Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains.

Good luck Vlad and F the deep state.

[Mar 07, 2018] The thing with "neocons" is that they're pathological liars and narcissists.

Mar 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , March 7, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT

The thing with "neocons" is that they're pathological liars and narcissists. And the first victims of their dishonesty are themselves. In fact even describing them as "liars" who've deceived themselves is being generous. To put it another way, they've created a false reality for themselves. Actual facts and reasoned arguments, especially any kind of moral reasoning, bounce off such creatures like bullets bounce off Superman.

[Mar 07, 2018] The New Surveillance State and the Old Perjury Trap by Peter Van Buren

Notable quotes:
"... " Incidental collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans' communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for incidental collection, no probable cause is needed, no warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up. ..."
"... While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't " wiretapping " Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information. How was it used? ..."
"... Incidental collection nailed Michael Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his "game-changing" testimony against others. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

March 7, 2018

A significant number of Trump's people were electronically monitored by a Democratic administration -- many "by accident." We now know that a significant number of people affiliated with Donald Trump were surveilled during and after the 2016 campaign, some under warrants, some via "inadvertent" or accidental surveillance. That surveillance is now being used against these individuals in perjury cases, particularly to press them to testify against others, and will likely form the basis of Robert Mueller's eventual action against the president himself.

How did the surveillance state become so fully entrenched in the American political process? Better yet, how did we let it happen?

The role pervasive surveillance plays in politics today has been grossly underreported. Set aside what you think about the Trump presidency for a moment and focus instead on the new paradigm for how politics and justice work inside the surveillance state.

" Incidental collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans' communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for incidental collection, no probable cause is needed, no warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up.

While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't " wiretapping " Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information. How was it used?

Incidental collection nailed Michael Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his "game-changing" testimony against others.

Jeff Sessions was similarly incidentally surveilled, as was former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon , whose conversations were picked up as part of a FISA warrant issued against Trump associate Carter Page . Paul Manafort and Richard Gates were also the subjects of FISA-warranted surveillance: they were surveilled in 2014, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, and then they were re-surveilled after they joined the Trump team and became more interesting to the state.

Officials on the National Security Council revealed that Trump himself may also have been swept up in the surveillance of foreign targets. Devin Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, claims multiple communications by Trump transition staff were inadvertently picked up. Trump officials were monitored by British GCHQ with the information shared with their NSA partners. Some reports claim that after a criminal warrant was denied to look into whether or not Trump Tower servers were communicating with a Russian bank, a FISA warrant was issued.

How much information the White House may have acquired on Trump's political strategy, as well as the full story of what might have been done with that information, will never be known. We do know that the director of national intelligence Dan Coats saw enough after he took office to specify that the "intelligence community may not engage in political activity, including dissemination of U.S. person identities to the White House, for the purpose of affecting the political process of the United States."

Coats likely had in mind the use of unmasking by the Obama administration. Identities of U.S. persons picked up inadvertently by surveillance are supposed to be masked, hidden from most users of the data. However, a select group of officials, including political appointees in the White House, can unmask and include names if they believe it is important to understanding the intelligence, or to show evidence of a crime.

Former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice told House investigators in at least one instance she unmasked the identities of Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner , and Steve Bannon. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power , also made a number of unmasking requests in her final year in office.

But no one knows who unmasked Flynn in his conversations with the Russian ambassador. That and the subsequent leaking of what was said were used not only to snare Flynn in a perjury trap, but also to force him out of government. Prior to the leak that took Flynn down, Obama holdover and then-acting attorney general Sally Yates warned Trump that Flynn could be blackmailed by Moscow for lying about his calls. When Trump didn't immediately fire Flynn, the unmasked surveillance was leaked by a "senior government official" (likely Yates ) to the Washington Post . The disclosure pressured the administration to dump Flynn.

Similar leaks were used to try to pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign, though they only resulted in him recusing himself from the Russiagate investigation. Following James Comey's firing, that recusal ultimately opened the door for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller.

A highly classified leak was used to help marginalize Jared Kushner. The Washington Post , based on leaked intercepts, claimed foreign officials' from four countries spoke of exploiting Kushner's economic vulnerabilities to push him into acting against the United States. If the story is true, the leakers passed on data revealing sources and methods; those foreign officials now know that, however they communicated their thoughts about Kushner, the NSA was listening. Access to that level of information and the power to expose it is not a rank-and-file action. One analyst described the matter as "the Deep State takes out the White House's Dark Clown Prince."

Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.

Trump associate George Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about several meetings concerning Clinton's emails. The FBI knew about the meetings, " propelled in part by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British and Dutch." The feds asked him questions solely in the hope that Papadopoulos would commit perjury, even though there was nothing shown to be criminal about the meetings themselves. Now guilty of a crime, the FBI will use the promise of a light punishment to press Papadopoulos into testifying against others.

There is a common thread here of using surveillance to create a process crime out of a non-material lie (the FBI already knew) where no underlying crime of turpitude exists (the meetings were legal). That this is then used to press someone to testify in an investigation that will have a significant political impact seems undemocratic -- yet it appears to be a primary tool Mueller is using.

This is a far cry from a traditional plea deal, giving someone a light sentence for actual crimes so that they will testify against others. Mueller should know. He famously allowed Mafia hitman Sammy the Bull to escape more serious punishment for 19 first-degree murders in return for testimony against John Gotti. No need to manufacture a perjury trap; the pile of bodies that never saw justice did the trick.

Don't be lured into thinking the ends justify the means, that whatever it takes to purge Trump is acceptable. Say what you want about Flynn, Kushner, et al, what matters most is the dark process being used. The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a harbinger that should chill Americans to their cores.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets @WeMeantWell. MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

SteveM March 6, 2018 at 10:13 pm

Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.

Key advice: Never talk to a cop. Never trust an agent of the Security State. They may still wreck your life, but at least you won't make it easy for them.

Al Boehnlein , says: March 6, 2018 at 10:24 pm
Are you really arguing that using surveillance on foreign agents and spies to catch and compel traders to testify against each other is bad????? Isn't that the way it is usually done?
Joe , says: March 6, 2018 at 11:18 pm
They do have the option of telling the truth.
Bruce Heilbrunn , says: March 6, 2018 at 11:31 pm
It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies. And don't tell me the government has no right to investigate what could be treason by the president and his staff. I know how you love Trump and Russia.
Clean Up Crew , says: March 7, 2018 at 12:06 am
I voted for Trump but now I'm completely disgusted with his failures and betrayals and won't vote for him again.

Setting that aside, it's starting to look to me like the Hillary campaign and allies in the Obama federal bureaucracy were spying on the Trump campaign.

They fully expected Hillary to win and therefore to be able to cover up what they were doing.

But then they lost, and now they're ginning up the Russia/national security angle to blow smoke over what's starting to look like the worst campaign skullduggery since Nixon and Watergate.

It needs to be investigated, and if there's any fire there, vigorously prosecuted. I don't give a damn about Trump anymore, but I give a damn about our democracy and system of government, and if it turns out that some government filth was spying on Trump's campaign, I want them arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in the darkest, dirtiest hole in our prison system. We can't have that kind of s***.

connecticut farmer , says: March 7, 2018 at 8:13 am
Reading this raises the following question: At what point does soft-core totalitarianism morph into hard-core totalitarianism?
Peter Van Buren , says: March 7, 2018 at 10:40 am
If I see one more variation on "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" in a comment my brain will explode. Anyone who writes that kind of thing ("Well maybe they shouldn't lie") is missing the point: our political process was surveilled and no one can control what happens to information gathered. Even if you think it good to "take down" Trump, the process will exist past him to be aimed at a future candidate you support.
SteveJ , says: March 7, 2018 at 10:58 am
"It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies."

Even if true, do you think it is fair for Flynn to be hit with felony charges for his "less than candid answers" with regard to politically and diplomatically sensitive phone calls to the Russian ambassador after the elections were over?

connecticut farmer , says: March 7, 2018 at 11:12 am
"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"

Sound familiar? The Fifties. When the so-called McCarthyites were peddling this line–to howls of derision from the Left.

Thaomas , says: March 7, 2018 at 11:36 am
Republicans created this mess in their desire to make "security" a partisan issue after 9/11. If they now regret it and wish to undo the mess, more power to them!
MM , says: March 7, 2018 at 11:49 am
Peter: "If I see one more variation on 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' in a comment my brain will explode."

The Left used to be vociferously in favor of privacy rights. I took note during the Obama years that it really only mattered for abortion and library books, nothing beyond that.

But a thought experiment: How many progressives, for that matter how many Black and Hispanic Americans would be comfortable with the following government requirements:

– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have your name and current address on file at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a key to your home at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a tracking device on your car or your person at all times.

If you have nothing to hide, you should have no objections to any of those requirements.

Any takers?

Gerard , says: March 7, 2018 at 11:50 am
[[It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies.]]

Even easier: Be a Democrat, preferably the Party's presidential candidate, and then it doesn't matter whether you tell lies or commit felonies because the corrupt Deep State-lib-Dem-media alliance will hold you safely above the law.

kimp , says: March 7, 2018 at 12:01 pm
Even in the midst of all of this, the ongoing ability to continue to spy on our own citizens was recently voted on and passed overwhelmingly, with large bipartisan support. Save your crocodile tears now.
Will Harrington , says: March 7, 2018 at 12:37 pm
Bruce Heilbrunn

Russia is not an enemy of the United States despite all the hoopla about how eeeevil they are, we are not at war. Treason is not on the table unless you, you know, amend the constitution, or abandon it, or something.

mark_be , says: March 7, 2018 at 1:30 pm
@MM: apart from the key to your house (and even that might be questionable if you have certain "smart" appliances), you are describing Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and/or Microsoft. Adding Federal Government to that list isn't as much of a jump as you seem to believe.
BobS , says: March 7, 2018 at 1:32 pm
"The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a harbinger that should chill Americans to their cores."

Thankfully J. Edgar Hoover practiced his job with restraint.
That being said, while there is certainly a need for improvement of the FISA program (sadly, the 'principled' Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, Matt Gaetz, et al., missed their opportunity in January when they voted for reauthorization), those individuals caught in the web "by accident" were regularly communicating with targets of legitimately obtained warrants. It was their choice to subsequently lie.
With respect to their "unmasking", it doesn't seem unreasonable that policy makers in the White House should have knowledge of their identity (even in the politicized environment of a presidential campaign), especially when there's the taint of influence of an adversarial government and/or organized crime on a potential POTUS.

MM , says: March 7, 2018 at 2:15 pm
BobS: "Especially when there's the taint of influence of an adversarial government and/or organized crime on a potential POTUS."

How about an actual POTUS?

Can it be presumed the DOJ and FBI had President Obama under similar surveillance?

MM , says: March 7, 2018 at 2:18 pm
mark_be: "Adding Federal Government to that list isn't as much of a jump as you seem to believe."

No, federal, state, and local *law enforcement*, that's what I put forth

Are you comfortable with that leap, personally? You know, jumping over probable cause and due process?

Youknowho , says: March 7, 2018 at 2:20 pm
It is amazing how many law and order Conservatives start screaming about abuses of power, and targeting specific people when they are the ones at the receiving end.

As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they get to shut up on the subject now.

(Maybe they SHOULD team up with Black Lives Matter..)

b. , says: March 7, 2018 at 2:21 pm
We have come a long way from the reactionary and authoritarian chants of "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" in the lead-up and then wake of the sarcastically name PATRIOT Act.

Surveillance and monitoring are, like all other "national securities" spending, primarily profit extraction driven public-private "partnerships", but the major point here always was "if you build it, they will use it".

That, too, is the foundational criticism driving Global Zero and the insistence that Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty be honored by all signatory nuclear powers.

The basic principle of any evolutionary stable open society based on checks and balances is that no self-inflating institutions and power centers are permissible – whether that is inbred, networked multi-generational wealth, incorporated power such as financial institutions, or specific government institutions, such as the military, the "intelligence" agencies etc.

Of course, the whole idea of having secret courts applying secret law in secret decisions without adversary parties, and no mandatory disclosure after the fact, is also fundamentally incompatible with the idea of transparency and accountability, without which free speech and elections are little more than a travelling circus and a vehicle for advertising profit.

MM , says: March 7, 2018 at 2:23 pm
mark_be: Sorry, I meant to include fingerprints and DNA samples in that list of items for all levels of law enforcement to retain on file on every American.

How does that sound to you?

Youknowho , says: March 7, 2018 at 2:24 pm
@Will Harrington:

Any government whose interests clash with ours must be considered a potential enemy – not enough to go to war, of course, but to be wary of what steps they may take to protect their interests and thwart ours.

As for Russia, alas, she is known for playing very dirty. Before there was a KGB, there was an Okhrana, among whose achievements was the writing and disemination of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Anyone who thinks that because they are no longer communists they Russians are nice guys lives in a fool's paradise

MM , says: March 7, 2018 at 2:53 pm
YKW: "As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they get to shut up on the subject now."

There is no such rule in a free society. People are within their rights to be as hypocritical and inconsistent as they like.

But if there were such a rule, where are the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party? Why aren't they castigating DOJ abuse of power in the previous administration?

Why are neoconservatives and Bush era creeps like Brennan, Clapper, and Hayden darlings of the Left?

[Mar 06, 2018] In Her Majesty's Secret Service: How an Agent of British Intelligence Tried (and Failed) to Prevent the Election of Donald Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA. ..."
"... But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines : ..."
"... An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..." ..."
"... Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing. ..."
"... Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration. ..."
Mar 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

... ... ...

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller (yes, I know it is not deemed reputable) looked into some claims Mayer makes in her piece which, if true, contain new morsels on the issue. They support the standpoint that the whole dossier is fake. These points are:

  1. Steele likely knew who funded the dossier
  2. Steele used dozens of paid confidential 'collectors', not unpaid ones
  3. Steele may have earlier worked for a Kremlin-connected oligarch
  4. The salacious claims in the dossier were based on secondhand information
  5. Steele briefed Jane Mayer during the campaign
  6. A John McCain associate wanted to use dossier to force Trump to resign

Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA.

But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines :

IMO there was a criminal conspiracy among various parts of the government, the Clinton Campaign and the MSM to rig the election against Trump, and it continues. pl

Posted by b on March 6, 2018 at 05:12 AM | Permalink

Comments

Pictorex , Mar 6, 2018 6:04:54 AM | 1

Very astute observations, as usual.

A more fitting title for Jane Mayer's piece would have been:

"In Her Majesty's Secret Service: How an Agent of British Intelligence Tried (and Failed) to Prevent the Election of Donald Trump"

By the way, please correct this: "They pledged guilty on unrelated issues." should read: "They pleaded guilty on unrelated issues."

J Swift , Mar 6, 2018 6:41:08 AM | 2
Nicely written piece. It just leaves you shaking your head in disbelief sometimes, the brazen repetition of utter nonsense and total lies in hopes that it will eventually start to stick. And I had also noticed some time back the rampant circular citations bootstrapped into being called evidence. An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..."

No wonder the New Yorker and their ilk stick to print rather than video...with AV media, you would be able to hear the heavy breathing and wiki-wiki-wiki sounds of turd polishing in the background.

ELRIUS , Mar 6, 2018 7:12:54 AM | 4
common core education. Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing.
Christian Chuba , Mar 6, 2018 7:19:27 AM | 5
And of course this one assertion by Steele is used by the Hannity's of the world to assert that Trump was the victim of a Russian misinformation campaign ...
"In the reports Steele had collected, the names of the sources were omitted, but they were described as "a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,""

The beauty of it is that this alleged source never has to be revealed because it would endanger the source so we have to take this Boy Scouts word for it.

lysias , Mar 6, 2018 11:49:39 AM | 21
Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration.
dahoit , Mar 6, 2018 12:18:58 PM | 22
How about the report graun had today; The Russians had poisoned their ex-spy? Another made up crap. The NYer is another web of deceit, the web of zionism. All of msm is.
Ike , Mar 6, 2018 1:20:15 PM | 26
@22
The possible poisoned spy case is now being used by Boris Johnson for a possible boycott of the Moscow World Cup. It is obvious bullshit and a rerun of the litvinenko affair some years ago.

Also an Mi6 setup in my opinion. The Russians provided a shipload of LNG to alleviate gas shortages in Britain. Boris Johnson is an ungrateful sack of S--t

Erelis , Mar 6, 2018 5:35:39 PM | 49

Max Blumenthal has observed that much of what is in the "dossier" was available in the public sphere. The dossier is touted as being deep revelation totally missed a figure like Papadopoulos, who only appeared to the public after the dossier was published. Strange that.

What seems strange is that so many people in Russia were willing to divulge what would have been closely held secrets like the golden showers tape. Putin is described in the Western press as somebody who would disappear you if you even criticized his shoe laces.

[Mar 06, 2018] Comey, Mueller bungled big anthrax case together by Carl M. Cannon

Notable quotes:
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
"... Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes." ..."
"... Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal. ..."
"... Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative. ..."
"... Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men. ..."
"... That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates." ..."
May 21, 2017 | www.ocregister.com
... ... ...

First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and Mueller's professionalism will supersede any personal loyalty. OK, but here's a second reason: These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic infighting -- with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political intrigue. This is not news. Some of the positive coverage in the last few days highlighted that episode. It's a long and convoluted story, but the story line that took hold in Washington went like this:

In March 2004, Comey, then deputy attorney general, sped with sirens blazing to the hospital bedside of his boss, John Ashcroft, who was recovering from gallbladder surgery. At the time, the Justice Department was being pressured by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to sign papers reauthorizing a secret anti-terrorism domestic surveillance program initiated after 9/11. The clock was running out and the papers had to be signed or the program would lapse. But Comey, who had a dim view of the program's constitutionality, wouldn't do it. When he heard Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital, Comey rushed there, too, to stop them.

Comey had enlisted Bob Mueller, then FBI director, as an ally. Both men apparently told George W. Bush privately they'd quit rather than extend the program. "Here I stand, I can do no other," Comey told Bush. That's Martin Luther's iconic line, and although in 2016 Hillary Clinton would come to see Comey as more akin to Judas than Luther, one thing is apparent: Jim Comey is a government appointee who thinks of himself in a manner many people find grandiose. Bush backed down in the face of the Comey-Mueller insurrection, but three years later Comey told his dramatic Ashcroft hospital bed story in a congressional hearing that eviscerated Gonzales, who was attorney general by then.

The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources -- a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who'd never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters -- including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI).

So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted -- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."

Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.

Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes."

Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal.

I know Steven Hatfill's attorney, Thomas Connolly, well, and David Willman, a former newsroom colleague, even better -- and I spoke to them last week about these events. Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative.

While running for president, Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp." He won enough votes, in the right states, to make him president. So here's the question: How does official Washington, which clearly does not want to be drained, think the 63 million people who voted for Trump will feel about an investigation run by D.C. insiders with a history of grandstanding -- an investigation that some Democrats and commentators are saying aloud they hope will end in impeachment? And what will those Trump voters think of uncritical media coverage of this effort by a self-righteous press corps that has suddenly rediscovered its investigative-reporting impulses, and which behaves as if little of this relevant context is even worth mentioning? .

Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.

GeorgeHanshaw1 • 9 months ago ,

Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men.

I recall sitting in the senate gallery once, doing a little studying somewhere warm while waiting for my bus (security was pretty lax in those days) watching Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms going at it like the sergeant at arms was going to have to physically restrain them from killing one another. It was all Kabuki theater.

That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates."

And over the next four or five decades, the place has changed little, and that mainly for the worse. No, if you are expecting to find people of honor, don't waste your time looking at those who have spent their careers inside the beltway.

[Mar 06, 2018] The Empire shall go for the Russia's internal problems and try to capitalize on that. Ukraine was taken down using that approach. Oh, wait, not only Ukraine but all those who didn't tow the line.

Notable quotes:
"... Politically the situation we see in Ukraine is that the ordinary people don't really care about the politics they are genuinely concerned about bread and butter it is quite sad actually that the US is treating the Ukraine as a pawn and a quite cheap one at that in its game with Russia ..."
Mar 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez , March 6, 2018 at 4:00 am GMT

Some weak points of the article:

1. There is some mystery in this Putin "bragging" about new formidable weapons. This is not his style. Why now? Why do it when sanctions are in place and can be easily be tightened as the result? Looks like in order to make such a statement Putin should have intelligence information about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or Ukraine. Only in this case his statement makes some sense. As a open warning: do not do it. Otherwise this is just an open invitation for the new, more destructive and expensive stage in nuclear arms race. The scenario that Russia should try to avoid.

2. Also the rule is: if your adversary is making a mistake, you should not try to stop him. If missile defense systems and aircraft carriers are useless why not to allow the USA to put another 100 billion dollars into it ? Something does not compute here. BTW both remain perfectly viable as the first strike weapons (you never know what those tubes contain and they can hold cruise missiles as well). The fact that they will perish is just part of the cost of the whole operation.

3. Russia has way too many problems, both economic and political. So each dollar put into military technology is stolen from the civilian sector and makes sanctions more effective. So succumbing to the arm race is like self-sanctions.

4. After 2012 it is clear that the way the USA will try to undermine Russia is most probably via political interference during the next election, in which there will be a power vacuum as Putin finishes his last term, and there is no Putin II. The problem of the leader succession is a well-known Achilles' spot of Russia. In 2012 the "collective West" achieved pretty significant success in staging color revolution in Russia using pro-West (aka Zapadniki) and comprador sector in Moscow as the fifth column. The political situation in Moscow will always favor pro-European forces, as this city has a huge concentration of employees of foreign companies, professionals and entrepreneurs who depend on the West and earn money from the West (compradors) . Efforts to put in power a classic neoliberal like Macron in France will be multiplied for elections in 2024. I do not see, why they can't be more successful then in 2012.

5. While weakened by the recent McCarthyism campaign in the USA, Russian comprador sector and neoliberals are still a very powerful political force and control a significant part of media and oligarch money. Russian constitution was written by the USA. And scars from the economic rape of Russia in 90th still did not fully heal. In other words, pro-Western forces in Russia are powerful enough to serve as a base to stage another color revolution. Probably along with crashing oil prices before the elections again, or some other nasty trick. In this case you do not need any missiles. As long as Russia is a neoliberal country Putin and his policies remain a political anomaly. And Putin himself a maverick. There will be no another Putin, but there can well be another Gorbachov, or, worse, Yeltsin. The same is true for China, but at least China has political control of the Communist Party and state ownership of the financial sector. The latter is not true for Russia and is a huge political risk. While neoliberalism entered the stage of decline there is no viable alternatives on the horizon.

6. Loss of Ukraine was/is a huge geopolitical defeat of Putin (and Russia as a country) which can't be compensated any bragging about new weapon systems. It was and still is a geopolitical knockdown.

7. Hopes about "some sensible conversation on the new world order may start between key geopolitical players" are naïve. The US elite is hell-bent on world superiority as this is a pre-condition of the existence of the dollar as the primary world currency. This situation will not probably change until the end of cheap oil, which might take another twenty years or more.

8. If time is working against the USA, why not to sit quiet and try not to anger aging hegemon as China supposedly does (having also advantage of host of "offshored" manufacturing from the USA and having the USA as debtor).

9. The level of brain drain from Russia actually is a huge limiting factor, which makes a claim about cruising missile with a nuclear reactor as a part of propulsion engine highly suspect.

10. The network of intelligence agencies around Russia (which now include Estonia and Ukraine) probably represents much more serious threat then the "first strike" capability of the USA, if such thing can ever exist.

11. "Collective West" can easily tighten sanction expanding them on more technological sectors, thus damaging Russia economic growth. So bragging about new weapons is bad diplomacy when the opponent is much stronger economically and politically.

12. China has less than 300 nuclear weapons and still is regarded as a formidable nuclear power, probably spending 20 times less money in this area.

13. The claim that "The Kinzhal effectively removes any non-suicidal surface force thousands of miles away from Russia's shores and renders its capabilities irrelevant" is highly questionable. The idea of the first strike includes the elimination of the possibility of launching most (or all) Kinzhal missiles carriers, as a necessary part required for the success of the operation. Any losses of forward deployed units are acceptable in such a huge game.

peterAUS , March 6, 2018 at 4:26 am GMT
@iffen

Just a pre-empt, tiring if you say you don't understand Ukraine, etc. then twenty comments; dem Jews.

No rain, too much rain, dem Jews.

Well, you did utter the trigger word.

Guess your family believes religiously in the eternal victimhood and in the right of Jewish people to demand special treatment from "others"– "because of Holocaust." -- This is over. After the fraternization of the Kagans' clan (via Nuland-Kagan) with neo-Nazi in Ukraine and after Israeli's support for ISIS, Jewish pretenses on superior morality (and similar fantastic inventions) have become unrealistic.

Yahweh, help us.

peterAUS , March 6, 2018 at 4:43 am GMT
@likbez

Putin should have intelligence information about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or Ukraine.

I'd go for Ukraine.

Something does not compute here.

Well, "if we can't have it it's not good." Sour grapes.

Russia has way too many problems, both economic and political. So each dollar put into military technology is stolen from the civilian sector and makes sanctions more effective. So succumbing to the arm race is like self-sanctions.

Agree.

In other words, pro-Western forces in Russia are powerful enough to serve as a base to stage another color revolution. In this case you do not need any missiles.

...While neoliberalism entered the stage of decline there is no viable alternatives on the horizon.

Agree.

Loss of Ukraine was/is a huge geopolitical defeat of Putin (and Russia as a country) which can't be compensated any bragging about new weapon systems. It was and still is a geopolitical knockdown.

Agree. But, perhaps that's not true. In any case, the resident "Team Russia" will now explain that. As victory, of course.

Hopes about "some sensible conversation on the new world order may start between key geopolitical players" are naïve. The US elite is hell-bent on world superiority as this is a pre-condition of the existence of the dollar as the primary world currency.

Agree.

If time is working against the US, why not to sit quiet and try not to anger aging hegemon as China supposedly does (having also advantage of host of "offshored" manufacturing from the USA and having the USA as debtor).

and

The level of brain drain from Russia actually is a huge limiting factor, which makes a claim about cruising missile with a nuclear reactor as a part of propulsion engine highly suspect.

and

"Collective West" can easily tighten sanction expanding them on more technological sectors, thus damaging Russia economic growth. So bragging about new weapons is bad diplomacy when the opponent is much stronger economically and politically.

"Team Russia" coming up. You are about to see the light. Somehow.

peterAUS , Next New Comment March 6, 2018 at 5:48 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Putin and those around him would better do concentrate on internal issues or eventually issues will concentrate on them.

Agree.

This obsession with high tech is actually puzzling. Not only that, but, overall, which "military" is better. "Whose father/older brother is stronger" kid talk.

The Empire shall go for the Russia's internal problems and try to capitalize on that. Ukraine was taken down using that approach. Oh, wait, not only Ukraine but all those who didn't tow the line. Thinking that, somehow, a conventional war, only, will settle the issue is not only delusional but stupid. Why would The Empire do that? No reason whatsoever.

It will try to do exactly what's been doing since '91. Internal dissent.

So, while Russian elites will keep building high tech weaponry (remember USSR), The Empire will keep working on getting all those "unhappy" with Putin regime onboard and using them for weakening the regime.

If the regime in Moscow can't, or doesn't want to see it, well, it doesn't deserve that position. True, weapons industry is good for making money and stashing most of it offshore. Not sharing that wealth, though, with general population is not that smart, just, they simply can't help it. That's the way of the world there. Czars and serfs.

The problem is, of course, they can't step down even if they wanted to. Nobody wants kangaroo courts and hanging. Or public murder broadcast live on Internet. Conundrum.

FB , March 6, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
@likbez

You make some interesting observations and your comment is thought-provoking

However I think the intent of the article was to explore some of the technical issues of what we saw on March 1 not so much the political dimension and certainly your approach is to try to get an overall wide angle picture that gets every possible Russia issue into the frame

which by necessity means you give up some resolution or granularity if you will compared to a more tightly focused article

You start with an initial premise of why announce these weapons now and question the wisdom the simple answer may be technical related these weapons may be already mature technically and now is the time to show them ?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

A couple more points you mention sanctions quite a bit but we have seen that Russia is able to carry on just fine sanctions or not

The key indicator there is that sanctions are having a much bigger blowback on the US itself i.e. the US is losing Europe

Germany has been quite vocal about US going a step too far in trying to dictate energy policy which is key to German industrial export economy and besides they may finally be finding their sea legs after years of subservience to an increasingly unhinged country that is heading for the cliff

The Germans are going to get Nordstream 2 because they want it. It is actually more important to Germany than to Russia Russia has been supplying energy to Europe for many decades going back to Soviet times but is just now starting to feed the biggest energy consumer in the world China

Other, smaller EU countries notably Italy have become quite vocal about Russia sanctions hurting them we saw just now an election in Italy where the ruling claque were turfed

So it seems that the days of US dictating the politics to its European vassals may be over the kind of friction they are making with sanctions and their increasing hysteria is only hastening this process of vassals breaking off

The other issue is Ukraine you bring to this the the typical US perspective of 'losing' a country this again goes back to the vassal game

The US gained all of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union but did Russia lose anything sensible people will say the lost they burden of empire long after it had ceased being profitable as with the British previously

Ukraine is historically something of an artificial country the original Kievan Rus [Rurivik dynasty] was the original Russia it fell apart after the Mongol invasions but the Russian and Ukrainian language and people are mostly indistinguishable other than the Galician Catholic minority

For several hundred years the peoples of the Ukraine [ie even then it was more than a single national people] were under rule by the Poles and Lithuania while the new Russian empire based in Moscow gained strength and eventually took over 300 years ago

There are and have always been Ukrainian nationalists that do not like Russia but they are in the minority the best way to think of Ukraine is similar to Scotland even the Irish are more distant from the English than Ukrainians from Russians

Politically the situation we see in Ukraine is that the ordinary people don't really care about the politics they are genuinely concerned about bread and butter it is quite sad actually that the US is treating the Ukraine as a pawn and a quite cheap one at that in its game with Russia

I don't believe the Russians look at the situation that way there is real fraternity among many Russians and Ukrainians that goes to a fundamental level again similar to Scotland where the country is divided on the issue of the English

So unless the EU and US are prepared to do a full Marshall plan to drag Ukraine into a reasonable living standard then this 'win' will turn out to be something of a chimera

Heck the polls even in eastern Europe are trending against the post Cold War direction with about half the people now questioning if the new boss is really better than the old boss

And finally if you are going to do a wide angle shot like this then get the crazy cousin into the picture also ie the US and its failing Ponzi economy that is bound to collapse just on the principles of mathematics

China and Russia are working to bury the source of all US strength the petrodollar this is literally kryptonite the US is quite simply toast once the petrodollar sinks

China is the world's biggest economy and biggest energy buyer Russia is the world's biggest energy seller other nations too that are not so strong and have felt the body blows of US economic warfare such as Iran, Venezuela and other will gladly join in

It's starting to feel like US has used up all its chips and all its markers

The entire developing world wants real prosperity not economic colonialism and corporate plunder

These are some large and powerful currents that have to be taken into account if one is going to take a wide angle shot of geopolitics

AP , Next New Comment March 6, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@FB

Ukraine is historically something of an artificial country the original Kievan Rus [Rurivik dynasty] was the original Russia it fell apart after the Mongol invasions

Relationship of Kievan Rus to modern Russia and Ukraine is somewhat analogous to the relationship of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire to modern France or Germany. Although both Germany and France would have to be in the same linguistic family for the analogy to be more accurate.

For several hundred years the peoples of the Ukraine [ie even then it was more than a single national people] were under rule by the Poles and Lithuania

Correct. This meant not only political separation but largescale settlement (about 10% of the population were Polish settlers – these were absorbed by the natives, so most Ukrainians have some Polish roots), centuries of schooling, etc. And this was enough to lead to a different culture, language, identity.

eventually took over 300 years ago

The eastern half of Ukraine was linked to Moscow in the 1650s (so indeed about 300 years), but the western half in the 1770s (so 200 years) and Galicia not until 1939.

but the Russian and Ukrainian language and people are mostly indistinguishable

Incorrect. Ukrainian is about as close to Russian as it is to Polish (Ukrainian grammar and pronunciation is closer to Russian, but Ukrainian vocabulary actually has more words in common with Polish than with Russian). The Scandinavian languages are closer to each other Russian is to Ukrainian. The catch is that in everyday life about half of Ukrainians, and most urban Ukrainians other than people in Lviv, use Russian rather than Ukrainian. Kiev is a Russian-speaking city (and Dublin an English-speaking one).

the best way to think of Ukraine is similar to Scotland

Anatol Lieven correctly observed that Ukraine's relationship to Russia is somewhere between that of Scotland and that of Ireland, to England. Viewing it as Scotland is too positive, as Ireland too negative. Given that Scotland itself nearly separated, it is natural to see Ukraine as separate.

[Mar 06, 2018] Comey, Mueller bungled big anthrax case together by Carl M. Cannon

Notable quotes:
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
"... Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes." ..."
"... Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal. ..."
"... Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative. ..."
"... Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men. ..."
"... That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates." ..."
May 21, 2017 | www.ocregister.com
... ... ...

First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and Mueller's professionalism will supersede any personal loyalty. OK, but here's a second reason: These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic infighting -- with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political intrigue. This is not news. Some of the positive coverage in the last few days highlighted that episode. It's a long and convoluted story, but the story line that took hold in Washington went like this:

In March 2004, Comey, then deputy attorney general, sped with sirens blazing to the hospital bedside of his boss, John Ashcroft, who was recovering from gallbladder surgery. At the time, the Justice Department was being pressured by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to sign papers reauthorizing a secret anti-terrorism domestic surveillance program initiated after 9/11. The clock was running out and the papers had to be signed or the program would lapse. But Comey, who had a dim view of the program's constitutionality, wouldn't do it. When he heard Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital, Comey rushed there, too, to stop them.

Comey had enlisted Bob Mueller, then FBI director, as an ally. Both men apparently told George W. Bush privately they'd quit rather than extend the program. "Here I stand, I can do no other," Comey told Bush. That's Martin Luther's iconic line, and although in 2016 Hillary Clinton would come to see Comey as more akin to Judas than Luther, one thing is apparent: Jim Comey is a government appointee who thinks of himself in a manner many people find grandiose. Bush backed down in the face of the Comey-Mueller insurrection, but three years later Comey told his dramatic Ashcroft hospital bed story in a congressional hearing that eviscerated Gonzales, who was attorney general by then.

The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources -- a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who'd never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters -- including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI).

So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted -- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."

Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.

Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes."

Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal.

I know Steven Hatfill's attorney, Thomas Connolly, well, and David Willman, a former newsroom colleague, even better -- and I spoke to them last week about these events. Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative.

While running for president, Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp." He won enough votes, in the right states, to make him president. So here's the question: How does official Washington, which clearly does not want to be drained, think the 63 million people who voted for Trump will feel about an investigation run by D.C. insiders with a history of grandstanding -- an investigation that some Democrats and commentators are saying aloud they hope will end in impeachment? And what will those Trump voters think of uncritical media coverage of this effort by a self-righteous press corps that has suddenly rediscovered its investigative-reporting impulses, and which behaves as if little of this relevant context is even worth mentioning? .

Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.

GeorgeHanshaw1 • 9 months ago ,

Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men.

I recall sitting in the senate gallery once, doing a little studying somewhere warm while waiting for my bus (security was pretty lax in those days) watching Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms going at it like the sergeant at arms was going to have to physically restrain them from killing one another. It was all Kabuki theater.

That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates."

And over the next four or five decades, the place has changed little, and that mainly for the worse. No, if you are expecting to find people of honor, don't waste your time looking at those who have spent their careers inside the beltway.

[Mar 06, 2018] How the U.S. Establishment Lies Through Its Teeth, for War Against Russia by Eric Zuesse

Mar 06, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

The "Russian officials were accusing the United States," while there was supposedly actual "Russian behavior, including interventions in Ukraine and Syria, military posturing and harassment in Europe, and interference in Western elections ," which pretexts the Establishment is now debating with itself whether that will be sufficient to 'justify' an American and NATO invasion, as response. This holier-than-thou and upside-down presumption, of Russian-government guilt and American-government innocence, is reeking throughout that pompous article; but what's even worse is that the reality is exactly the opposite of the story-line that's portrayed in it. The actual reality is: Ever since 24 February 1990, the U.S. and its NATO allies have been pursuing secretly a continuation of the Cold War after the termination in 1991 of the Soviet Union, and of its communism, and of its counter-NATO military alliance, the Warsaw Pact; and the U.S. plan has been to swallow up, first the former Warsaw Pact nations, and then the former nations (such as Ukraine itself) that were inside the Soviet Union itself, and then, any other foreign allies that Russia might still have (such as Syria); and, then, finally, to invade and conquer Russia itself. And, instead of helping those countries, the U.S. Government has been destroying them.

The 'news'media lie about Ukraine , they lie about Syria , they lie about Crimea , and they lie about the entire historical background . America's 'news'media are basically stenographers for the lies by the regime .

Neoconservative, holier-than-thou, lying is so widespread in America's 'news'media, there's practically nothing else than such deceptions about Russia, that's "Fit to Print" (or broadcast) in today's United States, and this is true in the media of both Parties, not merely the Republican media, or the Democratic media . This neoconservative consensus -- the bipartisan ceaseless warmongering -- is driven by the military-industrial complex (MIC) profiteers, whose companies' main market is the American and allied governments (so that in order to increase their sales, more and costlier weapons must be purchased by those governments). It's the MIC-sick current style of capitalism: capitalism that's of, by, and for, the billionaires: a fascism that's merely called 'democracy' . (By contrast, one area of commerce that Russia refused to privatize was its weapons-manufacturers -- there aren't any stockholders who pay politicians to increase the 'defense' budget: instead, the Government itself is in control over that.)

America's billionaires, and their many agents, are giving hypocrisy a bad name.

[Mar 06, 2018] In Her Majesty's Secret Service: How an Agent of British Intelligence Tried (and Failed) to Prevent the Election of Donald Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA. ..."
"... But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines : ..."
"... An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..." ..."
"... Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing. ..."
"... Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration. ..."
Mar 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

... ... ...

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller (yes, I know it is not deemed reputable) looked into some claims Mayer makes in her piece which, if true, contain new morsels on the issue. They support the standpoint that the whole dossier is fake. These points are:

  1. Steele likely knew who funded the dossier
  2. Steele used dozens of paid confidential 'collectors', not unpaid ones
  3. Steele may have earlier worked for a Kremlin-connected oligarch
  4. The salacious claims in the dossier were based on secondhand information
  5. Steele briefed Jane Mayer during the campaign
  6. A John McCain associate wanted to use dossier to force Trump to resign

Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA.

But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines :

IMO there was a criminal conspiracy among various parts of the government, the Clinton Campaign and the MSM to rig the election against Trump, and it continues. pl

Posted by b on March 6, 2018 at 05:12 AM | Permalink

Comments

Pictorex , Mar 6, 2018 6:04:54 AM | 1

Very astute observations, as usual.

A more fitting title for Jane Mayer's piece would have been:

"In Her Majesty's Secret Service: How an Agent of British Intelligence Tried (and Failed) to Prevent the Election of Donald Trump"

By the way, please correct this: "They pledged guilty on unrelated issues." should read: "They pleaded guilty on unrelated issues."

J Swift , Mar 6, 2018 6:41:08 AM | 2
Nicely written piece. It just leaves you shaking your head in disbelief sometimes, the brazen repetition of utter nonsense and total lies in hopes that it will eventually start to stick. And I had also noticed some time back the rampant circular citations bootstrapped into being called evidence. An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..."

No wonder the New Yorker and their ilk stick to print rather than video...with AV media, you would be able to hear the heavy breathing and wiki-wiki-wiki sounds of turd polishing in the background.

ELRIUS , Mar 6, 2018 7:12:54 AM | 4
common core education. Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing.
Christian Chuba , Mar 6, 2018 7:19:27 AM | 5
And of course this one assertion by Steele is used by the Hannity's of the world to assert that Trump was the victim of a Russian misinformation campaign ...
"In the reports Steele had collected, the names of the sources were omitted, but they were described as "a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,""

The beauty of it is that this alleged source never has to be revealed because it would endanger the source so we have to take this Boy Scouts word for it.

lysias , Mar 6, 2018 11:49:39 AM | 21
Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration.
dahoit , Mar 6, 2018 12:18:58 PM | 22
How about the report graun had today; The Russians had poisoned their ex-spy? Another made up crap. The NYer is another web of deceit, the web of zionism. All of msm is.
Ike , Mar 6, 2018 1:20:15 PM | 26
@22
The possible poisoned spy case is now being used by Boris Johnson for a possible boycott of the Moscow World Cup. It is obvious bullshit and a rerun of the litvinenko affair some years ago.

Also an Mi6 setup in my opinion. The Russians provided a shipload of LNG to alleviate gas shortages in Britain. Boris Johnson is an ungrateful sack of S--t

Erelis , Mar 6, 2018 5:35:39 PM | 49

Max Blumenthal has observed that much of what is in the "dossier" was available in the public sphere. The dossier is touted as being deep revelation totally missed a figure like Papadopoulos, who only appeared to the public after the dossier was published. Strange that.

What seems strange is that so many people in Russia were willing to divulge what would have been closely held secrets like the golden showers tape. Putin is described in the Western press as somebody who would disappear you if you even criticized his shoe laces.

[Mar 06, 2018] The Empire shall go for the Russia's internal problems and try to capitalize on that. Ukraine was taken down using that approach. Oh, wait, not only Ukraine but all those who didn't tow the line.

Notable quotes:
"... Politically the situation we see in Ukraine is that the ordinary people don't really care about the politics they are genuinely concerned about bread and butter it is quite sad actually that the US is treating the Ukraine as a pawn and a quite cheap one at that in its game with Russia ..."
Mar 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez , March 6, 2018 at 4:00 am GMT

Some weak points of the article:

1. There is some mystery in this Putin "bragging" about new formidable weapons. This is not his style. Why now? Why do it when sanctions are in place and can be easily be tightened as the result? Looks like in order to make such a statement Putin should have intelligence information about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or Ukraine. Only in this case his statement makes some sense. As a open warning: do not do it. Otherwise this is just an open invitation for the new, more destructive and expensive stage in nuclear arms race. The scenario that Russia should try to avoid.

2. Also the rule is: if your adversary is making a mistake, you should not try to stop him. If missile defense systems and aircraft carriers are useless why not to allow the USA to put another 100 billion dollars into it ? Something does not compute here. BTW both remain perfectly viable as the first strike weapons (you never know what those tubes contain and they can hold cruise missiles as well). The fact that they will perish is just part of the cost of the whole operation.

3. Russia has way too many problems, both economic and political. So each dollar put into military technology is stolen from the civilian sector and makes sanctions more effective. So succumbing to the arm race is like self-sanctions.

4. After 2012 it is clear that the way the USA will try to undermine Russia is most probably via political interference during the next election, in which there will be a power vacuum as Putin finishes his last term, and there is no Putin II. The problem of the leader succession is a well-known Achilles' spot of Russia. In 2012 the "collective West" achieved pretty significant success in staging color revolution in Russia using pro-West (aka Zapadniki) and comprador sector in Moscow as the fifth column. The political situation in Moscow will always favor pro-European forces, as this city has a huge concentration of employees of foreign companies, professionals and entrepreneurs who depend on the West and earn money from the West (compradors) . Efforts to put in power a classic neoliberal like Macron in France will be multiplied for elections in 2024. I do not see, why they can't be more successful then in 2012.

5. While weakened by the recent McCarthyism campaign in the USA, Russian comprador sector and neoliberals are still a very powerful political force and control a significant part of media and oligarch money. Russian constitution was written by the USA. And scars from the economic rape of Russia in 90th still did not fully heal. In other words, pro-Western forces in Russia are powerful enough to serve as a base to stage another color revolution. Probably along with crashing oil prices before the elections again, or some other nasty trick. In this case you do not need any missiles. As long as Russia is a neoliberal country Putin and his policies remain a political anomaly. And Putin himself a maverick. There will be no another Putin, but there can well be another Gorbachov, or, worse, Yeltsin. The same is true for China, but at least China has political control of the Communist Party and state ownership of the financial sector. The latter is not true for Russia and is a huge political risk. While neoliberalism entered the stage of decline there is no viable alternatives on the horizon.

6. Loss of Ukraine was/is a huge geopolitical defeat of Putin (and Russia as a country) which can't be compensated any bragging about new weapon systems. It was and still is a geopolitical knockdown.

7. Hopes about "some sensible conversation on the new world order may start between key geopolitical players" are naïve. The US elite is hell-bent on world superiority as this is a pre-condition of the existence of the dollar as the primary world currency. This situation will not probably change until the end of cheap oil, which might take another twenty years or more.

8. If time is working against the USA, why not to sit quiet and try not to anger aging hegemon as China supposedly does (having also advantage of host of "offshored" manufacturing from the USA and having the USA as debtor).

9. The level of brain drain from Russia actually is a huge limiting factor, which makes a claim about cruising missile with a nuclear reactor as a part of propulsion engine highly suspect.

10. The network of intelligence agencies around Russia (which now include Estonia and Ukraine) probably represents much more serious threat then the "first strike" capability of the USA, if such thing can ever exist.

11. "Collective West" can easily tighten sanction expanding them on more technological sectors, thus damaging Russia economic growth. So bragging about new weapons is bad diplomacy when the opponent is much stronger economically and politically.

12. China has less than 300 nuclear weapons and still is regarded as a formidable nuclear power, probably spending 20 times less money in this area.

13. The claim that "The Kinzhal effectively removes any non-suicidal surface force thousands of miles away from Russia's shores and renders its capabilities irrelevant" is highly questionable. The idea of the first strike includes the elimination of the possibility of launching most (or all) Kinzhal missiles carriers, as a necessary part required for the success of the operation. Any losses of forward deployed units are acceptable in such a huge game.

peterAUS , March 6, 2018 at 4:26 am GMT
@iffen

Just a pre-empt, tiring if you say you don't understand Ukraine, etc. then twenty comments; dem Jews.

No rain, too much rain, dem Jews.

Well, you did utter the trigger word.

Guess your family believes religiously in the eternal victimhood and in the right of Jewish people to demand special treatment from "others"– "because of Holocaust." -- This is over. After the fraternization of the Kagans' clan (via Nuland-Kagan) with neo-Nazi in Ukraine and after Israeli's support for ISIS, Jewish pretenses on superior morality (and similar fantastic inventions) have become unrealistic.

Yahweh, help us.

peterAUS , March 6, 2018 at 4:43 am GMT
@likbez

Putin should have intelligence information about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or Ukraine.

I'd go for Ukraine.

Something does not compute here.

Well, "if we can't have it it's not good." Sour grapes.

Russia has way too many problems, both economic and political. So each dollar put into military technology is stolen from the civilian sector and makes sanctions more effective. So succumbing to the arm race is like self-sanctions.

Agree.

In other words, pro-Western forces in Russia are powerful enough to serve as a base to stage another color revolution. In this case you do not need any missiles.

...While neoliberalism entered the stage of decline there is no viable alternatives on the horizon.

Agree.

Loss of Ukraine was/is a huge geopolitical defeat of Putin (and Russia as a country) which can't be compensated any bragging about new weapon systems. It was and still is a geopolitical knockdown.

Agree. But, perhaps that's not true. In any case, the resident "Team Russia" will now explain that. As victory, of course.

Hopes about "some sensible conversation on the new world order may start between key geopolitical players" are naïve. The US elite is hell-bent on world superiority as this is a pre-condition of the existence of the dollar as the primary world currency.

Agree.

If time is working against the US, why not to sit quiet and try not to anger aging hegemon as China supposedly does (having also advantage of host of "offshored" manufacturing from the USA and having the USA as debtor).

and

The level of brain drain from Russia actually is a huge limiting factor, which makes a claim about cruising missile with a nuclear reactor as a part of propulsion engine highly suspect.

and

"Collective West" can easily tighten sanction expanding them on more technological sectors, thus damaging Russia economic growth. So bragging about new weapons is bad diplomacy when the opponent is much stronger economically and politically.

"Team Russia" coming up. You are about to see the light. Somehow.

peterAUS , Next New Comment March 6, 2018 at 5:48 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

Putin and those around him would better do concentrate on internal issues or eventually issues will concentrate on them.

Agree.

This obsession with high tech is actually puzzling. Not only that, but, overall, which "military" is better. "Whose father/older brother is stronger" kid talk.

The Empire shall go for the Russia's internal problems and try to capitalize on that. Ukraine was taken down using that approach. Oh, wait, not only Ukraine but all those who didn't tow the line. Thinking that, somehow, a conventional war, only, will settle the issue is not only delusional but stupid. Why would The Empire do that? No reason whatsoever.

It will try to do exactly what's been doing since '91. Internal dissent.

So, while Russian elites will keep building high tech weaponry (remember USSR), The Empire will keep working on getting all those "unhappy" with Putin regime onboard and using them for weakening the regime.

If the regime in Moscow can't, or doesn't want to see it, well, it doesn't deserve that position. True, weapons industry is good for making money and stashing most of it offshore. Not sharing that wealth, though, with general population is not that smart, just, they simply can't help it. That's the way of the world there. Czars and serfs.

The problem is, of course, they can't step down even if they wanted to. Nobody wants kangaroo courts and hanging. Or public murder broadcast live on Internet. Conundrum.

FB , March 6, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
@likbez

You make some interesting observations and your comment is thought-provoking

However I think the intent of the article was to explore some of the technical issues of what we saw on March 1 not so much the political dimension and certainly your approach is to try to get an overall wide angle picture that gets every possible Russia issue into the frame

which by necessity means you give up some resolution or granularity if you will compared to a more tightly focused article

You start with an initial premise of why announce these weapons now and question the wisdom the simple answer may be technical related these weapons may be already mature technically and now is the time to show them ?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

A couple more points you mention sanctions quite a bit but we have seen that Russia is able to carry on just fine sanctions or not

The key indicator there is that sanctions are having a much bigger blowback on the US itself i.e. the US is losing Europe

Germany has been quite vocal about US going a step too far in trying to dictate energy policy which is key to German industrial export economy and besides they may finally be finding their sea legs after years of subservience to an increasingly unhinged country that is heading for the cliff

The Germans are going to get Nordstream 2 because they want it. It is actually more important to Germany than to Russia Russia has been supplying energy to Europe for many decades going back to Soviet times but is just now starting to feed the biggest energy consumer in the world China

Other, smaller EU countries notably Italy have become quite vocal about Russia sanctions hurting them we saw just now an election in Italy where the ruling claque were turfed

So it seems that the days of US dictating the politics to its European vassals may be over the kind of friction they are making with sanctions and their increasing hysteria is only hastening this process of vassals breaking off

The other issue is Ukraine you bring to this the the typical US perspective of 'losing' a country this again goes back to the vassal game

The US gained all of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union but did Russia lose anything sensible people will say the lost they burden of empire long after it had ceased being profitable as with the British previously

Ukraine is historically something of an artificial country the original Kievan Rus [Rurivik dynasty] was the original Russia it fell apart after the Mongol invasions but the Russian and Ukrainian language and people are mostly indistinguishable other than the Galician Catholic minority

For several hundred years the peoples of the Ukraine [ie even then it was more than a single national people] were under rule by the Poles and Lithuania while the new Russian empire based in Moscow gained strength and eventually took over 300 years ago

There are and have always been Ukrainian nationalists that do not like Russia but they are in the minority the best way to think of Ukraine is similar to Scotland even the Irish are more distant from the English than Ukrainians from Russians

Politically the situation we see in Ukraine is that the ordinary people don't really care about the politics they are genuinely concerned about bread and butter it is quite sad actually that the US is treating the Ukraine as a pawn and a quite cheap one at that in its game with Russia

I don't believe the Russians look at the situation that way there is real fraternity among many Russians and Ukrainians that goes to a fundamental level again similar to Scotland where the country is divided on the issue of the English

So unless the EU and US are prepared to do a full Marshall plan to drag Ukraine into a reasonable living standard then this 'win' will turn out to be something of a chimera

Heck the polls even in eastern Europe are trending against the post Cold War direction with about half the people now questioning if the new boss is really better than the old boss

And finally if you are going to do a wide angle shot like this then get the crazy cousin into the picture also ie the US and its failing Ponzi economy that is bound to collapse just on the principles of mathematics

China and Russia are working to bury the source of all US strength the petrodollar this is literally kryptonite the US is quite simply toast once the petrodollar sinks

China is the world's biggest economy and biggest energy buyer Russia is the world's biggest energy seller other nations too that are not so strong and have felt the body blows of US economic warfare such as Iran, Venezuela and other will gladly join in

It's starting to feel like US has used up all its chips and all its markers

The entire developing world wants real prosperity not economic colonialism and corporate plunder

These are some large and powerful currents that have to be taken into account if one is going to take a wide angle shot of geopolitics

AP , Next New Comment March 6, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@FB

Ukraine is historically something of an artificial country the original Kievan Rus [Rurivik dynasty] was the original Russia it fell apart after the Mongol invasions

Relationship of Kievan Rus to modern Russia and Ukraine is somewhat analogous to the relationship of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire to modern France or Germany. Although both Germany and France would have to be in the same linguistic family for the analogy to be more accurate.

For several hundred years the peoples of the Ukraine [ie even then it was more than a single national people] were under rule by the Poles and Lithuania

Correct. This meant not only political separation but largescale settlement (about 10% of the population were Polish settlers – these were absorbed by the natives, so most Ukrainians have some Polish roots), centuries of schooling, etc. And this was enough to lead to a different culture, language, identity.

eventually took over 300 years ago

The eastern half of Ukraine was linked to Moscow in the 1650s (so indeed about 300 years), but the western half in the 1770s (so 200 years) and Galicia not until 1939.

but the Russian and Ukrainian language and people are mostly indistinguishable

Incorrect. Ukrainian is about as close to Russian as it is to Polish (Ukrainian grammar and pronunciation is closer to Russian, but Ukrainian vocabulary actually has more words in common with Polish than with Russian). The Scandinavian languages are closer to each other Russian is to Ukrainian. The catch is that in everyday life about half of Ukrainians, and most urban Ukrainians other than people in Lviv, use Russian rather than Ukrainian. Kiev is a Russian-speaking city (and Dublin an English-speaking one).

the best way to think of Ukraine is similar to Scotland

Anatol Lieven correctly observed that Ukraine's relationship to Russia is somewhere between that of Scotland and that of Ireland, to England. Viewing it as Scotland is too positive, as Ireland too negative. Given that Scotland itself nearly separated, it is natural to see Ukraine as separate.

[Mar 06, 2018] Xi Jinping Is Now China's President for Life. What Would Machiavelli Think

Mar 06, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Machiavelli recounts Livy's tale of the sons of Brutus, consul of Rome, to make his point about eradicating foes of a new regime. Roman republicans had just deposed the Tarquin monarchy, and Brutus' sons intrigued to bring the kings back. Why? "As the history shows," observes Machiavelli, the youths "were induced to conspire with other young Romans against the fatherland because of nothing other than that they could not take advantage extraordinarily under the consuls as under the king, so that the freedom of that people appeared to have become their servitude."

In other words, the sons of Brutus subverted the republic because they couldn't turn its institutions to their personal gain. Their enmity left the fledgling regime in an uncomfortable predicament: "a state that is free and that newly emerges," contends Machiavelli, "comes to have partisan enemies and not partisan friends." Those who profited by the old order become implacable foes of the new order, while friends of the new order hedge their bets until and unless the new rulers consolidate their hold on power.

In other words, the new republic faced resolute opposition while commanding only tepid support. The consul had to vanquish Rome's enemies in dramatic fashion to win wholehearted allegiance from the populace. "If one wishes to remedy these inconveniences and . . . disorders," maintains Machiavelli, "there is no remedy more powerful, nor more valid, more secure, and more necessary, than to kill the sons of Brutus." Brutus oversaw the scourging and beheading of the conspirators -- and endeared himself to generations of republicans.

[Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The evidence is damning. And the silence underscores the arrogance. ..."
"... More than seven weeks after a devastating report from the media watch group FAIR, top executives and prime-time anchors at MSNBC still refuse to discuss how the network's obsession with Russia has thrown minimal journalistic standards out the window. ..."
Mar 03, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Originally from Truthdig 1 March 2018 Region: USA Theme: Media Disinformation

The evidence is damning. And the silence underscores the arrogance.

More than seven weeks after a devastating report from the media watch group FAIR, top executives and prime-time anchors at MSNBC still refuse to discuss how the network's obsession with Russia has thrown minimal journalistic standards out the window.

FAIR's study, " MSNBC Ignores Catastrophic U.S.-Backed War in Yemen ," documented a picture of extreme journalistic malfeasance at MSNBC:

Meanwhile, MSNBC's incessant "Russiagate" coverage has put the network at the media forefront of overheated hyperbole about the Kremlin. And continually piling up the dry tinder of hostility toward Russia boosts the odds of a cataclysmic blowup between the world's two nuclear superpowers.

In effect, the programming on MSNBC follows a thin blue party line, breathlessly conforming to Democratic leaders' refrains about Russia as a mortal threat to American democracy and freedom across the globe. But hey -- MSNBC's ratings have climbed upward during its monochrome reporting, so why worry about whether coverage is neglecting dozens of other crucial stories? Or why worry if the anti-Russia drumbeat is worsening the risks of a global conflagration?

FAIR's report, written by journalist Ben Norton and published on Jan. 8, certainly merited a serious response from MSNBC and the anchors most identified by the study, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes . Yet no response has come from them or network executives. (Full disclosure: I'm a longtime associate of FAIR.)

In the aftermath of the FAIR study, a petition gathered 22,784 signers and 4,474 individual comments -- asking MSNBC to remedy its extreme imbalance of news coverage. But the network and its prime-time luminaries Maddow and Hayes refused to respond despite repeated requests for a reply.

The petition was submitted in late January to Maddow and Hayes via their producers, as well as to MSNBC senior vice president Errol Cockfield and to the network's senior manager in charge of media relations for "The Rachel Maddow Show" and "All In with Chris Hayes."

Signers responded to outreach from three organizations -- Just Foreign Policy, RootsAction.org (which I coordinate), and World Beyond War -- calling for concerned individuals to "urge Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and MSNBC to correct their failure to report on the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen and the direct U.S. military role in causing the catastrophe by signing our petition." (The petition is still gathering signers.)

As the cable news network most trusted by Democrats as a liberal beacon, MSNBC plays a special role in fueling rage among progressive-minded viewers toward Russia's "attack on our democracy" that is somehow deemed more sinister and newsworthy than corporate dominance of American politicians (including Democrats), racist voter suppression, gerrymandering and many other U.S. electoral defects all put together.

At the same time, the anti-Russia mania also services the engines of the current militaristic machinery.

It's what happens when nationalism and partisan zeal overcome something that could be called journalism.

"The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda," the independent journalist Robert Parry wrote at the end of 2017 , in the last article published before his death. "Does any sentient human being read the New York Times' or the Washington Post's coverage of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts?"

Parry added that

"to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a 'Putin apologist' or 'Kremlin stooge.' Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many 'liberals' who cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us, even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith."

Across a U.S. media landscape where depicting Russia as a fully villainous enemy is now routine, MSNBC is a standout. The most profound dangers from what Rachel Maddow and company are doing is what they least want to talk about -- how the cumulative effects and momentum of their work are increasing the likelihood that tensions between Washington and Moscow will escalate into a horrendous military conflict.

Even at the height of the Cold War during the 1960s, when Soviet Communists ruled Russians with zero freedom of speech or press, most U.S. political and media elites recognized the vital need for détente. They applauded the " Spirit of Glassboro " when the top leadership of the United States and Russia met at length. Now, across most of the U.S. media spectrum, no such overtures to the Kremlin are to be tolerated.

The U.S. government's recently released " Nuclear Posture Review " underscores just how unhinged the situation has become.

Consider the assessment from the head of a first-rate research organization in the nuclear weapons field, the Los Alamos Study Group. Its executive director, Greg Mello, said :

"What is most 'missing in action' in this document is civilian leadership. Trump is not supplying that. In part the fault for this comes from Democrats -- who, allied with the intelligence community and other military-industrial interests, insist that the U.S. must have an adversarial relationship with Russia. There is no organized senior-level opposition to the new Cold War, which is intensifying week by week. This document reflects, and is just one of many policies embodying, the new and very dangerous Cold War."

But -- with everyone's survival at stake -- none of that seems to matter much to those who call the shots at MSNBC.

*

Norman Solomon is the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org.

[Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war. ..."
"... And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing. ..."
"... In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a remark aimed directly at Russia. ..."
"... NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia." He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark." ..."
"... Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as " imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the region. ..."
"... While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as "military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5 trillion. ..."
"... The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1. ..."
"... Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.: 1.9 percent as opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016. ..."
"... But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856, when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895 and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them. ..."
"... Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade. ..."
"... For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force. ..."
"... And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program. ..."
"... Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia " would be like declaring war ." ..."
Mar 06, 2018 | fpif.org

The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.

It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.

It was President George W. Bush who designated China a "strategic competitor," and who tried to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market -- it was barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT -- helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms race with Pakistan in South Asia.

And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing.

So is jettisoning "terrorism" as the enemy in favor of "great powers" just old wine, new bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to it.

1914 vs. Today

In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a remark aimed directly at Russia.

NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia." He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark."

Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as " imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the region.

But there are differences between now and the run up to the First World War. In 1914, there were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the case today.

While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet Union.

The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as "military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5 trillion.

The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.

This isn't to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant. Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put together by the United States. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is arguably a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep.

Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.: 1.9 percent as opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016.

Beijing has been heavy-handed in establishing "area denial," alienating many of its neighbors -- Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan -- by claiming most of the South China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.

But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856, when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895 and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.

China is, however, the United States' major competitor and the second largest economy in the world. It has replaced the U.S. as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the U.S. asked its key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of Japan , they ignored Washington.

However, commercial success is hardly "imperial."

Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade.

Behind the Shift

There are other players behind this shift.

For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.

This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those often high paying jobs.

Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. That's true even though higher defense spending -- coupled with the recent tax cut bill -- will rule out funding many of the programs the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a major side benefit: cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services, Social Security, and Medicare in order to service the deficit.

And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program.

There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush administration's neoconservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even though inflating Iran to the level of a "great power" is laughable. Iran's military budget is $12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia, which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and the U.S. and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be closer to 60 to 1 .

However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.

The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops on its southern border?

Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia " would be like declaring war ."

The problem with designating "great powers" as your adversaries is that they might just take your word for it and respond accordingly. Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com .

[Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and slipping further into decline. ..."
"... This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in the West are causing. ..."
Mar 06, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

English Outsider -> Lars, 04 March 2018 at 07:43 AM

Lars,

I don't understand the last three paragraphs of your comment so I may be missing your central point. However, I believe this sentence taken in isolation could do with qualifying:-

"No doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket case and the US is rapidly joining them."

The picture one gets of Russia is of a country slowly digging itself out of the disintegrative corruption of the 90's. Putin's recent remarks indicate how slowly.

President Carter's characterisation of the US as now being an oligarchy shows the US slowly going the other way. Even including Germany that is the general picture in the West.

Some recent remarks and examples from DH show the Russian people, or rather a substantial number of them, soberly and consciously preparing to address the threat from the West. Unless it's all Russian PR there is a sense of national unity there, at least for many, and that is reflected by the Russian leadership.

I'm afraid our host is correct when he characterises the current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. That, however, is I believe largely top down. It is a product of PR from the media and from the Western politicians. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves.

The Russians seem also to have escaped the demoralising effects of the more far out social trends in the US and other Western countries.

Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and slipping further into decline.

This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in the West are causing.

[Mar 05, 2018] The Pilgrim Underground Trump +247 Mueller, the 9-11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis

Mar 05, 2018 | pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com

Trump +247: Mueller, the 9/11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis

Robert Mueller is considered to be a man of integrity, of impeccable credentials and character. His appointment to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election was lauded by the Establishment political class, media and a great deal of the public. And yet the same media is utterly failing to connect his name to the recent Saudi scandal that's been quietly making the news. It seems the media would rather this story just went away. For years some of the families associated with the victims of 9/11 have been dissatisfied with the official investigation. With good reason they view it as insufficient, truncated and even corrupt.

Many angles of the 9/11 story were not investigated and many more received only a surface level consideration. The Saudi angle as some would have it has not been sufficiently considered and as the years have gone by numerous investigations and inquiries seem to point to Riyadh playing no small role in the attacks. Many believed this to be the case even in the fall of 2001. Saudi politics have always been confusing and the relationship of the extensive royal family with jihadist groups has always been a present danger but murky and difficult to grasp. On the one hand there's a real antagonism between the House of Saud and groups like al Qaeda. On the other hand the Saudis have provided extensive funding for the spread of Wahhabism and they certainly played no small part in funding some of the Mujahideen groups in 1980's Afghanistan. Some of these same figures (including but not limited to bin Laden) would be instrumental in the founding of al Qaeda. This part of the story isn't all that controversial. Where it becomes problematic for many is that the US and all too often Israel have been right there, right alongside Riyadh in backing these various projects. US intelligence continues to struggle in distancing itself from the founders and initial characters surrounding the founding of al Qaeda and even some of the important figures that later affiliated with the Taliban. You can be sure the media has done all it can to facilitate the re-crafting of the narrative. The so-called 9/11 families were always suspicious of Riyadh. It's understandable considering the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Investigations have shown that Saudi diplomats and intelligence were in contact with some of these men and even high ranking figures like Ambassador Prince Bandar were involved in funding them. The thing is, the connections point not only to the Saudis but to American intelligence... both the FBI and the CIA. These terrorists were facilitated. The story of their entry and surveillance is more than a little remarkable. There were agents that were on to them but they were silenced and set aside. The scale of the 9/11 cover-up ranges far beyond some Saudi connections to the hijackers. Some believe this is all about money, the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud. Michael Moore and others have intimated as much. But that can't be the whole story. That might explain some of the cover-up, though such an explanation is hardly sufficient. It does not explain the way in which these men were facilitated by the FBI in the days leading up to 9/11. The CIA angle is also worth looking into and is potentially vast and certainly more than a little suspicious.

Mueller as head of the FBI played a leading role in the suppression of the 9/11 investigation. If there is a cover-up, as indeed I and many others believe there to be, then Mueller is one of the chief perpetrators. Mueller at this point must be reckoned a top figure (or more likely an actor/agent) within the Deep State. His task vis-à-vis the 9/11 investigation was to obscure the hijacker's connections to US intelligence and to deflect any investigation of the Saudi's. For those that have sought to peel back the layers of deception surrounding 9/11 and its cover-up, Mueller is undoubtedly reckoned one of the great villains of the whole affair. To reckon him a man of integrity is laughable... if such things can be laughed at. The fact that he was selected to investigate supposed Russian manipulation of the US election is more than a little interesting. The ironic part is this... those who question 9/11 are deemed conspiracy theorists. And yet the whole Putin/Trump/Wikileaks narrative which Mueller will supposedly uncover is... a conspiracy theory and yet one without merit. All too often conspiracy theories are rooted in conjecture and inference based on circumstantial evidence. That they all too often err does not discount the reality of a conspiracy. It's simply that there are too many gaps in knowledge or often false assumptions driving the inference. The Ockham's Razor reductionist method of focusing purely on so-called brute facts also proves insufficient to postulate unifying theories and in fact is often hostile to the attempt. For a conspiracy theory to be plausible the inference has to make sense in light of the larger context and what can hopefully be described as overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It's akin to and often is criminal in nature. There has to be motive and intent. There has to be some benefit in terms of the outcome. These questions do not guarantee a correct answer or an accurate interpretation of events but they are at the very least necessary to employ the inference that is at the heart of all such inquiries and investigations. The Russian narrative with regard to the 2016 US presidential election fails this most basic of tests. The motives and outcome of the supposed conspiracists fails on all fronts.

I'm speaking politically at this point. Profits and dirty business deals (of which there is some evidence) cannot be entirely divorced from politics, but the motives, means and desired outcome are often quite different. There a host of narratives being spun about Trump and the nature of his administration. Once again I would argue the proper way to understand these events is in terms of an Establishment internecine battle. The present political struggle is not about an embattled Establishment at war with an insurgent rogue power. Rather I view it as a battle of intramural factions and yet undoubtedly some of those factions view this struggle as existential... or it is in their tactical interest to cast it thus. The DNC is in a state of crisis. It has turned to the media, to Hollywood and entertainment figures and to conspiracy theories to explain the election. The results of the 2016 election have discredited their narrative about the United States, what it is and what direction it is heading. Are they that different from Trump? The answer is a resounding 'no' and while they grandstand for the cameras in decrying his thuggish buffoonery they have offered little political resistance to his agenda.

Hillary Clinton is trying to salvage her legacy. Her defeat in 2016 discredited her life-narrative and historical legacy. She was to go down in history as the great pioneer in modern American politics. Obama stole some of her thunder. Her subsequent defeat at the hands of Donald Trump has completely discredited her. Corrupt, plastic and probably self-deceived she has turned in desperation to a grand conspiracy theory in order to justify her loss. As she sees it, she is not a defeated politician but the victim of a crime. It would seem that in her distorted mind she is only one tier below the assassinated Kennedy brothers. Hers is a great administration stolen, a tragic 'what if' that will haunt American political history. But it's all nonsense of course as are the often contrived Kennedy narratives. The two slain brothers are intriguing figures to be sure, complicated and yet hardly the virtuous paragons they are often made out to be. They represented possibility and yet the change in their character came too late. Clinton has also changed and shifted in her outlook but in quite the opposite direction.

She is not the 'liberal' woman many took her to be in the 1990s. And yet she has only grown more deeply entrenched and tied to the US Establishment. She ranks high on the list of corrupt politicians and she utterly lacks the charm and personal connection that many colourful political figures have possessed. She can't even compete with her husband.

Odious to be sure he is nevertheless a masterful politician. The dirty secret of modern democracy is that it has little to do with objective consideration of issues. Some people vote for tribal factions and some vote on the basis of personality. The latter are the folks who are most easily manipulated by the Madison Avenue types and the camera-work of television producers and directors. The Democrats who were once perceived to have stood for the working class have been exposed. Generations of betrayal and the breaking of the trade unions have destroyed that old base that helped put them into office for several decades. They still command a great deal of the minority vote but their grip is not as solid as it once was and social disintegration has led to a great deal of apathy. Figures like Hillary Clinton are not capable of stirring the disengaged masses to participation. The truth is that Hillary Clinton has long been hated by a huge section of the electorate.

The DNC has lost vast portions of its base. The Democrats have embraced sexual perversion and identity politics and yet have done so while moving to the Right in terms of economics and militarism. The Left is beginning to peel off and the Right has moved even farther to the Right leaving no Centrists or working class sector who would still vote democratic or possible consider swinging that direction in a tight contest. We are left with two Right-wing parties...a Centre-Right and a Far Right. The US Establishment has been concerned with the direction the Far Right has headed. It has clearly taken the government into a position of being unable to govern. It is generating too much chaos and dysfunctionality. In 2016 the bulk of the US Establishment was invested in the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Please understand the bulk of the Establishment is really above the political factions. Much of that is just theatre for the masses.

The pseudo-political war between the Red and the Blue also spawns vast sums of money and creates occasions to generate and launder even more. The Clinton defeat created a crisis because it signalled that many assumptions that have dominated for more than a generation have collapsed. The Trump victory signalled not just a crisis for the 2016-2020 political cycle, but a looming threat of social unrest. The Establishment fears the masses and if the working class starts to unite they are in trouble. Seeds of distrust and fear must be sown. Identity politics divides the populist street. Discrediting Trump will not only hinder his agenda and ability to be effective but it will keep the street divided. People will focus on events like Charlottesville and Trump's foolish comments rather than the real issues that place this society, even this civilisation in danger. The Establishment is banking on the fact that the generals can restrain him from disastrous war.

Mueller's task will be to expose enough of the obvious corruption within his family and organisation to leave him paralysed. Mueller is the Establishment's Sword of Damocles, an ever present threat. Like Kenneth Starr, he will continue to dig and gather dirt, whether related or not. With Trump the pile of refuse will be all but endless and he will likely generate as many problems in trying to cover up his deeds as the actual acts and problems themselves. Mueller's placement remains an ongoing threat to Trump... and yet it's one that may not work as Trump seems all too often divorced from reality. Obstruction of justice is as likely to bring him down as anything else. His own hubris and attempts to cover his tracks will further destroy what little integrity he has left. Eventually someone like Mueller will be able to issue a report and say almost whatever he wants. The political class will believe it, because they want to. If they can restrain him... good. If he self-destructs... that's okay too. If he wages war that's also a fine thing. No one in ruling circles has a problem with US militarism. What they don't like it was it's done unilaterally and without utilising the proper mechanisms that proved plausibility, cover and a right narrative. I am certain there are some that are very concerned about what's happening with regard to North Korea and rightly so.

They are not opposed to war but how it is being set up and prosecuted. In the meantime the Establishment will continue to spin out the narrative that the country was undermined by dark foreign influences. A new Cold War, a new age of McCarthyism is upon us. Censorship, often voluntary has returned with a vengeance. The corrupt moguls who dominate the media and the neo-media centers of Silicon Valley are part of this re-tooling of American society. Even the Trump interlude is being used to re-shape the Internet and to bolster the surveillance state. It's not that hard when millions are apparently more than willing to not only to reject any notions of privacy but are eager to give up their biometric data to the realm of cyberspace and its corrupt and incompetent guardians. Mueller is no man of integrity. He is a shill for the powers that be. His evident lack of virtue and honesty has no power to render judgment as to what Trump is or is not. These are all evil people. Some seem to be fooled into thinking that there are some 'good' folks who make it into these positions of power. Mueller will investigate Manafort who is obviously a corrupt businessman if not something else. He actually looks more like a CIA connected figure to me. His history and placement within the Trump campaign raises some very interesting questions... as does the timing of his departure. Yet thus far the evidence surrounding Manafort seems to actually exonerate Trump and his campaign, a point the media seems unwilling to acknowledge.

Did Trump's people go after dirt on the Clinton's? Of course they did and so did the Clinton's. Are they tied in with corrupt business people in Ukraine and Russia? Yes. So are the Clinton's. Are these people tied in with the political powers within Ukraine and Russia? Of course. But once again the notion that the Putin collaborated with Trump and Assange and that it was these leaks and some ads taken out on social media that somehow stole the election and led to Clinton's loss... is absurd. The evidence is not there and thus far the policies of the Trump administration do not support this. If this were the case then Putin must be seething. It's a betrayal on the order of the Kennedy double-cross of Sam Giancana and the mafia. But I doubt anyone wants to revisit that chapter of history. In a way Mueller's position is both interesting and ironic. All the events of the present, the discussions about leaks, media, wars, politics, Russia etc.... all rest on the foundation created by 9/11. And so now the investigator of corruption is one of the guardians who continues to protect that fortress of lies upon which the new order has been built. For if 9/11 were to come undone the Orwellian regime wed to the War on Terror narrative would collapse. It is therefore appropriate that Mueller continues in his role as guardian and the media will do all it can to make him out as a man of integrity.

When in reality he is already known as one who is utterly lacking character, an obstructor and facilitator of mass murder. He can claim no moral superiority vis-à-vis someone like Trump...and you can be sure Trump knows it.

See also: http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2017/02/establishment-civil-war-deep-state.html http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2016/01/saudi-arabia-and-iran-1979-and-islamic.html http://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-west-and-trump-138.html

[Mar 05, 2018] Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks

Notable quotes:
"... Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side. ..."
"... The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes . ..."
"... A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins. ..."
"... Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes. ..."
Mar 05, 2018 | thefederalist.com

Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side.

We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle's office. The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The world panicked .

Under Mueller's management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now brag about spending "hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case." Let's take a closer look at Mueller's response to understand the context of the investigation -- who his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes .

So how did Mueller's investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found "no direct link to organized terrorism." The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued , Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.

A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great." Instead, they focused on a "linguistic analysis," stating that the letter's writer was atypical in many respects and not "comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering." The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled American with bad personal skills.

The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became "mission oriented" following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a Muslim.

Mueller's FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit -- a "flag-waving" American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI's own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill. The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.

While Hatfill's dignity and life was being trampled on by America's secret police, Mueller took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an American in the FBI's largest-ever investigation.

Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million dollars.

After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI's face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and had been doing so for years. It wasn't until five years after the attack that Mueller's men decided Ivins was a target .

The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but Frontline documented this was not true. Ivins was "familiar" with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case showing it was impossible for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters .

The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive -- so sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented , "This is not your mother's anthrax" -- that was likely produced by a nation state or Al-Qaeda.

Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under " relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo ." He committed suicide.

One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated Ivins was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and they were "confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks."

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks, did not believe that Ivins was the sole actor . Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI's case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI's science and conclusions were not solid .

A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.

Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes.

The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn't go after al-Qaida for the anthrax letters because he couldn't find a direct link. But then he targeted American citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone ( except Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert ).

Now he's running the Trump-Russia investigation. Daniel Ashman is the author of two books, "Dominate No-Limit Hold'em" and "Secrets of Short-Handed No Limit Hold'em," that have been published worldwide and translated into four languages. Follow him at @dashman76 .

[Mar 05, 2018] 29 Pages Revealed Corruption, Crime and Cover-up Of 911

Obama was a CIA protégé. At least in his young years. How CIA protégé can ask for 911 investigation, or release of some materials? That's unrealistic.
Mueller was Bush II appointee. That tells us a lot, because it was Cheney who vetted all candidates.
Notable quotes:
"... President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan. ..."
"... The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that ..."
"... The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. ..."
"... Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole. ..."
"... in San Diego ..."
Mar 05, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you listen to any member of our government state that the newly released 29 pages are no smoking gun -- THEY ARE LYING.

Our government's relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is no different than an addict's relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat, and steal to feed their vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat, and steal to continue their dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA -- a relationship that is rotting this nation and its leaders from the inside out.

When CIA Director John Brennan states that he believes the 29 pages prove that the government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, recognize that John Brennan is not a man living in reality -- he is delusional by design, feeding and protecting his Saudi vice.

When Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne W. Patterson, testifies -- under oath -- that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an ally that does everything they can to help us fight against Islamic terrorism, recognize that her deep, steep Saudi pandering serves and protects only her Saudi vice.

Read the 29 pages and know the facts.

Do not let any person in our government deny the damning reality of the 29 pages.

And as you read the 29 pages remember that they were written during 2002 and 2003.

President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush.

It is well documented that the Joint Inquiry received enormous push-back against its investigation into the Saudis. In fact, former FBI Director Mueller acknowledges that much of the information implicating the Saudis that the Inquiry investigators ultimately uncovered was unknown to him. Why does Mueller say this? Mostly because Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.

Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that .

The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. Frankly, it re-victimizes the 9/11 families by not acknowledging the truth, blocking our path to justice, and the very vital assignment of accountability to those who should be held responsible. Most alarmingly, Obama's silence keeps us unsafe because instead of calling for an emergency session of Congress to immediately name the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, President Obama continues to downplay, belittle, and ignore the truth leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks that are still to this very day being funded by our "ally" the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

To be clear, the 9/11 Commission did NOT fully investigate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Staff Director Philip Zelikow blocked any investigation into the Saudis. Zelikow even went so far as to fire an investigator who had been brought over from the Joint Inquiry to specifically follow-up on the Saudi leads and information uncovered in the Joint Inquiry. I will repeat -- the investigator was fired. In addition, Zelikow re-wrote the 9/11 Commission's entire section regarding the Saudi's and their connection to the 9/11 attacks. Former 9/11 Commissioners John Lehman, Bob Kerrey, and Tim Roemer have all acknowledged that the Saudis were not adequately investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Thus, for any government official to hang their hat on the 9/11 Commission's Final Report -- when Commissioners, themselves, have admitted that the Saudis were not fully investigated, is absurd and disgraceful.

For example, one glaring piece of information was not mentioned in either the 9/11 Commission or the Joint Inquiry's 29 pages -- the information regarding Fahad Thumairy and Khallad bin Attash found in both an FBI report and a CIA report -- that are now declassified. Both reports indicate that Fahad Thumairy -- a Saudi Consulate official -- helped bring Khallad bin Attash into the United States in June of 2000 so he could meet with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. Thumairy escorted bin Attash -- a known al Qaeda operative -- through INS and Customs at LAX evading security and any possible alarm bells. Again, this information is found in both a CIA and FBI report.

Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole.

Where is the information regarding bin Attash and Thumairy? Has it ever been investigated? Had our intelligence agencies capitalized on the known connection between Thumairy and bin Attash, they would have been able to thwart the bombing of the USS Cole. In addition, they would have had access and the ability to weave together nearly all the pieces of the 9/11 attacks -- more than nine months before the 9/11 attacks happened.

But as history shows, Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy was not investigated and 17 sailors in addition to 3,000 others were killed.

I'm sure that Barack Obama, John Brennan, Anne Patterson, and Philip Zelikow would all consider Thumairy's operational and financial support of Attash, Mihdhar, and Hazmi as within the threshold of being an "ally" of the United States. I, and the rest of America, would not.

I know summer is a busy time. I know that next week is the Republican Convention. I know that Congress is out of session for two months. And I know that ISIS attacks continue in Nice, Orlando, San Bernardino, Belgium, Paris, and more. Just like I know that Donald Trump picked Mike Pence as his running mate and that there was a coup in Turkey. For an Administration looking to dump some insanely incriminating evidence and have nobody take notice -- doing it yesterday when Congress was leaving for their two month summer recess was probably the best day anyone could have imagined.

But, the world is an unstable, crazy place. And, while I used to think I was safe because my government was looking out for me and making decisions that were in my best interests and that of other citizens, I now know better. For fifteen long years, I have fought to get information regarding the killing of my husband from the U.S. government. I have fought, pleaded, and begged for the truth, transparency, justice, and accountability because my husband and 3,000 others were brutally slaughtered in broad daylight. And our government has done nothing but block, thwart, impede, and obstruct that path to truth, transparency, accountability, and justice. Even going so far as to gaslight us to this very day by denying the plain truth written on the plain paper of the 29 pages.

Please read the 29 pages. Look at the facts and evidence. And then watch the venal way various members of our government and media play spin-master on those facts -- telling you to deny the very harsh, sobering reality found within those 29 pages. I hope their gaslighting disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.

Note that these 29 pages merely detail the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks in San Diego . They briefly touch on the Phoenix information, as well. Though more notably, the 29 pages do not include information found in the more than 80,000 documents that are currently being reviewed by a federal judge in Florida -- 80,000 documents that neither the 9/11 Commission, the Joint Inquiry, the Clinton, Bush, or Obama White House, nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wants us to know about.

More than anything, please know this: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided operational and financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. That is a fact. And, the U.S. government has been covering up that fact for fifteen years -- even to this very day. And that is a crime.

Corruption, greed, and vice, specifically as it pertains to protecting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is not a one-party problem. It spans both democratic and republican administrations. Blame President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama -- as well as, all of their officials and appointees. They are ALL to blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks through their own abject negligence, using the 9/11 attacks to further ill-begotten gains and goals, and covering-up the 9/11 attacks by not coming clean with the American public for fifteen years.

(9/11 widows Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, and Patty Casazza all sign their names to this blog)

Follow Kristen Breitweiser on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kdbreitweiser

[Mar 05, 2018] 9-11 Whistleblower Rowley on Mueller s History of Cover-up

Notable quotes:
"... I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing. ..."
"... When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. ..."
"... For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey ..."
"... Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on) ..."
"... While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history. ..."
May 18, 2017 | Accuracy.Org

COLEEN ROWLEY, rowleyclan [at] earthlink.net, @ColeenRowley

Rowley, a former FBI special agent and division counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She just appeared on The Real News report " Special Counsel Investigating Trump Campaign Has Deep Ties to the Deep State ," about Mueller being appointed to investigate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.

While Mueller has been widely described as being of impeccable character by much of official Washington, Rowley said today: "The truth is that Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general -- see my New York Times op-ed on day of Comey's confirmation hearing ) presided over a cover-up "

In her interview, Rowley noted: "The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.

"When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War.

For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey."

Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on)."

"While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history."

[Mar 05, 2018] Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks

Notable quotes:
"... Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side. ..."
"... The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes . ..."
"... A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins. ..."
"... Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes. ..."
Mar 05, 2018 | thefederalist.com

Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side.

We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle's office. The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The world panicked .

Under Mueller's management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now brag about spending "hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case." Let's take a closer look at Mueller's response to understand the context of the investigation -- who his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes .

So how did Mueller's investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found "no direct link to organized terrorism." The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued , Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.

A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great." Instead, they focused on a "linguistic analysis," stating that the letter's writer was atypical in many respects and not "comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering." The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled American with bad personal skills.

The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became "mission oriented" following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a Muslim.

Mueller's FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit -- a "flag-waving" American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI's own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill. The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.

While Hatfill's dignity and life was being trampled on by America's secret police, Mueller took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an American in the FBI's largest-ever investigation.

Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million dollars.

After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI's face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and had been doing so for years. It wasn't until five years after the attack that Mueller's men decided Ivins was a target .

The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but Frontline documented this was not true. Ivins was "familiar" with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case showing it was impossible for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters .

The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive -- so sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented , "This is not your mother's anthrax" -- that was likely produced by a nation state or Al-Qaeda.

Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under " relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo ." He committed suicide.

One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated Ivins was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and they were "confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks."

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks, did not believe that Ivins was the sole actor . Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI's case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI's science and conclusions were not solid .

A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.

Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes.

The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn't go after al-Qaida for the anthrax letters because he couldn't find a direct link. But then he targeted American citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone ( except Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert ).

Now he's running the Trump-Russia investigation. Daniel Ashman is the author of two books, "Dominate No-Limit Hold'em" and "Secrets of Short-Handed No Limit Hold'em," that have been published worldwide and translated into four languages. Follow him at @dashman76 .

[Mar 05, 2018] 29 Pages Revealed Corruption, Crime and Cover-up Of 911

Obama was a CIA protégé. At least in his young years. How CIA protégé can ask for 911 investigation, or release of some materials? That's unrealistic.
Mueller was Bush II appointee. That tells us a lot, because it was Cheney who vetted all candidates.
Notable quotes:
"... President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan. ..."
"... The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that ..."
"... The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. ..."
"... Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole. ..."
"... in San Diego ..."
Mar 05, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you listen to any member of our government state that the newly released 29 pages are no smoking gun -- THEY ARE LYING.

Our government's relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is no different than an addict's relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat, and steal to feed their vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat, and steal to continue their dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA -- a relationship that is rotting this nation and its leaders from the inside out.

When CIA Director John Brennan states that he believes the 29 pages prove that the government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, recognize that John Brennan is not a man living in reality -- he is delusional by design, feeding and protecting his Saudi vice.

When Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne W. Patterson, testifies -- under oath -- that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an ally that does everything they can to help us fight against Islamic terrorism, recognize that her deep, steep Saudi pandering serves and protects only her Saudi vice.

Read the 29 pages and know the facts.

Do not let any person in our government deny the damning reality of the 29 pages.

And as you read the 29 pages remember that they were written during 2002 and 2003.

President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush.

It is well documented that the Joint Inquiry received enormous push-back against its investigation into the Saudis. In fact, former FBI Director Mueller acknowledges that much of the information implicating the Saudis that the Inquiry investigators ultimately uncovered was unknown to him. Why does Mueller say this? Mostly because Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.

Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that .

The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. Frankly, it re-victimizes the 9/11 families by not acknowledging the truth, blocking our path to justice, and the very vital assignment of accountability to those who should be held responsible. Most alarmingly, Obama's silence keeps us unsafe because instead of calling for an emergency session of Congress to immediately name the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, President Obama continues to downplay, belittle, and ignore the truth leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks that are still to this very day being funded by our "ally" the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

To be clear, the 9/11 Commission did NOT fully investigate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Staff Director Philip Zelikow blocked any investigation into the Saudis. Zelikow even went so far as to fire an investigator who had been brought over from the Joint Inquiry to specifically follow-up on the Saudi leads and information uncovered in the Joint Inquiry. I will repeat -- the investigator was fired. In addition, Zelikow re-wrote the 9/11 Commission's entire section regarding the Saudi's and their connection to the 9/11 attacks. Former 9/11 Commissioners John Lehman, Bob Kerrey, and Tim Roemer have all acknowledged that the Saudis were not adequately investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Thus, for any government official to hang their hat on the 9/11 Commission's Final Report -- when Commissioners, themselves, have admitted that the Saudis were not fully investigated, is absurd and disgraceful.

For example, one glaring piece of information was not mentioned in either the 9/11 Commission or the Joint Inquiry's 29 pages -- the information regarding Fahad Thumairy and Khallad bin Attash found in both an FBI report and a CIA report -- that are now declassified. Both reports indicate that Fahad Thumairy -- a Saudi Consulate official -- helped bring Khallad bin Attash into the United States in June of 2000 so he could meet with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. Thumairy escorted bin Attash -- a known al Qaeda operative -- through INS and Customs at LAX evading security and any possible alarm bells. Again, this information is found in both a CIA and FBI report.

Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole.

Where is the information regarding bin Attash and Thumairy? Has it ever been investigated? Had our intelligence agencies capitalized on the known connection between Thumairy and bin Attash, they would have been able to thwart the bombing of the USS Cole. In addition, they would have had access and the ability to weave together nearly all the pieces of the 9/11 attacks -- more than nine months before the 9/11 attacks happened.

But as history shows, Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy was not investigated and 17 sailors in addition to 3,000 others were killed.

I'm sure that Barack Obama, John Brennan, Anne Patterson, and Philip Zelikow would all consider Thumairy's operational and financial support of Attash, Mihdhar, and Hazmi as within the threshold of being an "ally" of the United States. I, and the rest of America, would not.

I know summer is a busy time. I know that next week is the Republican Convention. I know that Congress is out of session for two months. And I know that ISIS attacks continue in Nice, Orlando, San Bernardino, Belgium, Paris, and more. Just like I know that Donald Trump picked Mike Pence as his running mate and that there was a coup in Turkey. For an Administration looking to dump some insanely incriminating evidence and have nobody take notice -- doing it yesterday when Congress was leaving for their two month summer recess was probably the best day anyone could have imagined.

But, the world is an unstable, crazy place. And, while I used to think I was safe because my government was looking out for me and making decisions that were in my best interests and that of other citizens, I now know better. For fifteen long years, I have fought to get information regarding the killing of my husband from the U.S. government. I have fought, pleaded, and begged for the truth, transparency, justice, and accountability because my husband and 3,000 others were brutally slaughtered in broad daylight. And our government has done nothing but block, thwart, impede, and obstruct that path to truth, transparency, accountability, and justice. Even going so far as to gaslight us to this very day by denying the plain truth written on the plain paper of the 29 pages.

Please read the 29 pages. Look at the facts and evidence. And then watch the venal way various members of our government and media play spin-master on those facts -- telling you to deny the very harsh, sobering reality found within those 29 pages. I hope their gaslighting disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.

Note that these 29 pages merely detail the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks in San Diego . They briefly touch on the Phoenix information, as well. Though more notably, the 29 pages do not include information found in the more than 80,000 documents that are currently being reviewed by a federal judge in Florida -- 80,000 documents that neither the 9/11 Commission, the Joint Inquiry, the Clinton, Bush, or Obama White House, nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wants us to know about.

More than anything, please know this: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided operational and financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. That is a fact. And, the U.S. government has been covering up that fact for fifteen years -- even to this very day. And that is a crime.

Corruption, greed, and vice, specifically as it pertains to protecting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is not a one-party problem. It spans both democratic and republican administrations. Blame President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama -- as well as, all of their officials and appointees. They are ALL to blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks through their own abject negligence, using the 9/11 attacks to further ill-begotten gains and goals, and covering-up the 9/11 attacks by not coming clean with the American public for fifteen years.

(9/11 widows Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, and Patty Casazza all sign their names to this blog)

Follow Kristen Breitweiser on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kdbreitweiser

[Mar 05, 2018] 9-11 Whistleblower Rowley on Mueller s History of Cover-up

Notable quotes:
"... I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing. ..."
"... When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. ..."
"... For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey ..."
"... Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on) ..."
"... While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history. ..."
May 18, 2017 | Accuracy.Org

COLEEN ROWLEY, rowleyclan [at] earthlink.net, @ColeenRowley

Rowley, a former FBI special agent and division counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She just appeared on The Real News report " Special Counsel Investigating Trump Campaign Has Deep Ties to the Deep State ," about Mueller being appointed to investigate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.

While Mueller has been widely described as being of impeccable character by much of official Washington, Rowley said today: "The truth is that Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general -- see my New York Times op-ed on day of Comey's confirmation hearing ) presided over a cover-up "

In her interview, Rowley noted: "The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.

"When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War.

For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey."

Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on)."

"While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history."

[Mar 05, 2018] The Pilgrim Underground Trump +247 Mueller, the 9-11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis

Mar 05, 2018 | pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com

Trump +247: Mueller, the 9/11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis

Robert Mueller is considered to be a man of integrity, of impeccable credentials and character. His appointment to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election was lauded by the Establishment political class, media and a great deal of the public. And yet the same media is utterly failing to connect his name to the recent Saudi scandal that's been quietly making the news. It seems the media would rather this story just went away. For years some of the families associated with the victims of 9/11 have been dissatisfied with the official investigation. With good reason they view it as insufficient, truncated and even corrupt.

Many angles of the 9/11 story were not investigated and many more received only a surface level consideration. The Saudi angle as some would have it has not been sufficiently considered and as the years have gone by numerous investigations and inquiries seem to point to Riyadh playing no small role in the attacks. Many believed this to be the case even in the fall of 2001. Saudi politics have always been confusing and the relationship of the extensive royal family with jihadist groups has always been a present danger but murky and difficult to grasp. On the one hand there's a real antagonism between the House of Saud and groups like al Qaeda. On the other hand the Saudis have provided extensive funding for the spread of Wahhabism and they certainly played no small part in funding some of the Mujahideen groups in 1980's Afghanistan. Some of these same figures (including but not limited to bin Laden) would be instrumental in the founding of al Qaeda. This part of the story isn't all that controversial. Where it becomes problematic for many is that the US and all too often Israel have been right there, right alongside Riyadh in backing these various projects. US intelligence continues to struggle in distancing itself from the founders and initial characters surrounding the founding of al Qaeda and even some of the important figures that later affiliated with the Taliban. You can be sure the media has done all it can to facilitate the re-crafting of the narrative. The so-called 9/11 families were always suspicious of Riyadh. It's understandable considering the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Investigations have shown that Saudi diplomats and intelligence were in contact with some of these men and even high ranking figures like Ambassador Prince Bandar were involved in funding them. The thing is, the connections point not only to the Saudis but to American intelligence... both the FBI and the CIA. These terrorists were facilitated. The story of their entry and surveillance is more than a little remarkable. There were agents that were on to them but they were silenced and set aside. The scale of the 9/11 cover-up ranges far beyond some Saudi connections to the hijackers. Some believe this is all about money, the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud. Michael Moore and others have intimated as much. But that can't be the whole story. That might explain some of the cover-up, though such an explanation is hardly sufficient. It does not explain the way in which these men were facilitated by the FBI in the days leading up to 9/11. The CIA angle is also worth looking into and is potentially vast and certainly more than a little suspicious.

Mueller as head of the FBI played a leading role in the suppression of the 9/11 investigation. If there is a cover-up, as indeed I and many others believe there to be, then Mueller is one of the chief perpetrators. Mueller at this point must be reckoned a top figure (or more likely an actor/agent) within the Deep State. His task vis-à-vis the 9/11 investigation was to obscure the hijacker's connections to US intelligence and to deflect any investigation of the Saudi's. For those that have sought to peel back the layers of deception surrounding 9/11 and its cover-up, Mueller is undoubtedly reckoned one of the great villains of the whole affair. To reckon him a man of integrity is laughable... if such things can be laughed at. The fact that he was selected to investigate supposed Russian manipulation of the US election is more than a little interesting. The ironic part is this... those who question 9/11 are deemed conspiracy theorists. And yet the whole Putin/Trump/Wikileaks narrative which Mueller will supposedly uncover is... a conspiracy theory and yet one without merit. All too often conspiracy theories are rooted in conjecture and inference based on circumstantial evidence. That they all too often err does not discount the reality of a conspiracy. It's simply that there are too many gaps in knowledge or often false assumptions driving the inference. The Ockham's Razor reductionist method of focusing purely on so-called brute facts also proves insufficient to postulate unifying theories and in fact is often hostile to the attempt. For a conspiracy theory to be plausible the inference has to make sense in light of the larger context and what can hopefully be described as overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It's akin to and often is criminal in nature. There has to be motive and intent. There has to be some benefit in terms of the outcome. These questions do not guarantee a correct answer or an accurate interpretation of events but they are at the very least necessary to employ the inference that is at the heart of all such inquiries and investigations. The Russian narrative with regard to the 2016 US presidential election fails this most basic of tests. The motives and outcome of the supposed conspiracists fails on all fronts.

I'm speaking politically at this point. Profits and dirty business deals (of which there is some evidence) cannot be entirely divorced from politics, but the motives, means and desired outcome are often quite different. There a host of narratives being spun about Trump and the nature of his administration. Once again I would argue the proper way to understand these events is in terms of an Establishment internecine battle. The present political struggle is not about an embattled Establishment at war with an insurgent rogue power. Rather I view it as a battle of intramural factions and yet undoubtedly some of those factions view this struggle as existential... or it is in their tactical interest to cast it thus. The DNC is in a state of crisis. It has turned to the media, to Hollywood and entertainment figures and to conspiracy theories to explain the election. The results of the 2016 election have discredited their narrative about the United States, what it is and what direction it is heading. Are they that different from Trump? The answer is a resounding 'no' and while they grandstand for the cameras in decrying his thuggish buffoonery they have offered little political resistance to his agenda.

Hillary Clinton is trying to salvage her legacy. Her defeat in 2016 discredited her life-narrative and historical legacy. She was to go down in history as the great pioneer in modern American politics. Obama stole some of her thunder. Her subsequent defeat at the hands of Donald Trump has completely discredited her. Corrupt, plastic and probably self-deceived she has turned in desperation to a grand conspiracy theory in order to justify her loss. As she sees it, she is not a defeated politician but the victim of a crime. It would seem that in her distorted mind she is only one tier below the assassinated Kennedy brothers. Hers is a great administration stolen, a tragic 'what if' that will haunt American political history. But it's all nonsense of course as are the often contrived Kennedy narratives. The two slain brothers are intriguing figures to be sure, complicated and yet hardly the virtuous paragons they are often made out to be. They represented possibility and yet the change in their character came too late. Clinton has also changed and shifted in her outlook but in quite the opposite direction.

She is not the 'liberal' woman many took her to be in the 1990s. And yet she has only grown more deeply entrenched and tied to the US Establishment. She ranks high on the list of corrupt politicians and she utterly lacks the charm and personal connection that many colourful political figures have possessed. She can't even compete with her husband.

Odious to be sure he is nevertheless a masterful politician. The dirty secret of modern democracy is that it has little to do with objective consideration of issues. Some people vote for tribal factions and some vote on the basis of personality. The latter are the folks who are most easily manipulated by the Madison Avenue types and the camera-work of television producers and directors. The Democrats who were once perceived to have stood for the working class have been exposed. Generations of betrayal and the breaking of the trade unions have destroyed that old base that helped put them into office for several decades. They still command a great deal of the minority vote but their grip is not as solid as it once was and social disintegration has led to a great deal of apathy. Figures like Hillary Clinton are not capable of stirring the disengaged masses to participation. The truth is that Hillary Clinton has long been hated by a huge section of the electorate.

The DNC has lost vast portions of its base. The Democrats have embraced sexual perversion and identity politics and yet have done so while moving to the Right in terms of economics and militarism. The Left is beginning to peel off and the Right has moved even farther to the Right leaving no Centrists or working class sector who would still vote democratic or possible consider swinging that direction in a tight contest. We are left with two Right-wing parties...a Centre-Right and a Far Right. The US Establishment has been concerned with the direction the Far Right has headed. It has clearly taken the government into a position of being unable to govern. It is generating too much chaos and dysfunctionality. In 2016 the bulk of the US Establishment was invested in the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Please understand the bulk of the Establishment is really above the political factions. Much of that is just theatre for the masses.

The pseudo-political war between the Red and the Blue also spawns vast sums of money and creates occasions to generate and launder even more. The Clinton defeat created a crisis because it signalled that many assumptions that have dominated for more than a generation have collapsed. The Trump victory signalled not just a crisis for the 2016-2020 political cycle, but a looming threat of social unrest. The Establishment fears the masses and if the working class starts to unite they are in trouble. Seeds of distrust and fear must be sown. Identity politics divides the populist street. Discrediting Trump will not only hinder his agenda and ability to be effective but it will keep the street divided. People will focus on events like Charlottesville and Trump's foolish comments rather than the real issues that place this society, even this civilisation in danger. The Establishment is banking on the fact that the generals can restrain him from disastrous war.

Mueller's task will be to expose enough of the obvious corruption within his family and organisation to leave him paralysed. Mueller is the Establishment's Sword of Damocles, an ever present threat. Like Kenneth Starr, he will continue to dig and gather dirt, whether related or not. With Trump the pile of refuse will be all but endless and he will likely generate as many problems in trying to cover up his deeds as the actual acts and problems themselves. Mueller's placement remains an ongoing threat to Trump... and yet it's one that may not work as Trump seems all too often divorced from reality. Obstruction of justice is as likely to bring him down as anything else. His own hubris and attempts to cover his tracks will further destroy what little integrity he has left. Eventually someone like Mueller will be able to issue a report and say almost whatever he wants. The political class will believe it, because they want to. If they can restrain him... good. If he self-destructs... that's okay too. If he wages war that's also a fine thing. No one in ruling circles has a problem with US militarism. What they don't like it was it's done unilaterally and without utilising the proper mechanisms that proved plausibility, cover and a right narrative. I am certain there are some that are very concerned about what's happening with regard to North Korea and rightly so.

They are not opposed to war but how it is being set up and prosecuted. In the meantime the Establishment will continue to spin out the narrative that the country was undermined by dark foreign influences. A new Cold War, a new age of McCarthyism is upon us. Censorship, often voluntary has returned with a vengeance. The corrupt moguls who dominate the media and the neo-media centers of Silicon Valley are part of this re-tooling of American society. Even the Trump interlude is being used to re-shape the Internet and to bolster the surveillance state. It's not that hard when millions are apparently more than willing to not only to reject any notions of privacy but are eager to give up their biometric data to the realm of cyberspace and its corrupt and incompetent guardians. Mueller is no man of integrity. He is a shill for the powers that be. His evident lack of virtue and honesty has no power to render judgment as to what Trump is or is not. These are all evil people. Some seem to be fooled into thinking that there are some 'good' folks who make it into these positions of power. Mueller will investigate Manafort who is obviously a corrupt businessman if not something else. He actually looks more like a CIA connected figure to me. His history and placement within the Trump campaign raises some very interesting questions... as does the timing of his departure. Yet thus far the evidence surrounding Manafort seems to actually exonerate Trump and his campaign, a point the media seems unwilling to acknowledge.

Did Trump's people go after dirt on the Clinton's? Of course they did and so did the Clinton's. Are they tied in with corrupt business people in Ukraine and Russia? Yes. So are the Clinton's. Are these people tied in with the political powers within Ukraine and Russia? Of course. But once again the notion that the Putin collaborated with Trump and Assange and that it was these leaks and some ads taken out on social media that somehow stole the election and led to Clinton's loss... is absurd. The evidence is not there and thus far the policies of the Trump administration do not support this. If this were the case then Putin must be seething. It's a betrayal on the order of the Kennedy double-cross of Sam Giancana and the mafia. But I doubt anyone wants to revisit that chapter of history. In a way Mueller's position is both interesting and ironic. All the events of the present, the discussions about leaks, media, wars, politics, Russia etc.... all rest on the foundation created by 9/11. And so now the investigator of corruption is one of the guardians who continues to protect that fortress of lies upon which the new order has been built. For if 9/11 were to come undone the Orwellian regime wed to the War on Terror narrative would collapse. It is therefore appropriate that Mueller continues in his role as guardian and the media will do all it can to make him out as a man of integrity.

When in reality he is already known as one who is utterly lacking character, an obstructor and facilitator of mass murder. He can claim no moral superiority vis-à-vis someone like Trump...and you can be sure Trump knows it.

See also: http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2017/02/establishment-civil-war-deep-state.html http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2016/01/saudi-arabia-and-iran-1979-and-islamic.html http://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-west-and-trump-138.html

[Mar 05, 2018] His Investigation Is BS Former Trump Aide Refuses To Cooperate With Mueller Subpoena; Hints Trump, Carter May Have Colluded

Mar 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As part of what Donald Trump has dubbed an ongoing "witch hunt", Special Counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed longtime Donald Trump associate and former aide Sam Nunberg. requesting he appear before a grand jury investigating Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Nunberg, however, told Bloomberg he has no intention of cooperating with Mueller's subpoena.

"I'm not going to cooperate with Mueller. It's a fishing expedition ," Nunberg told Bloomberg News . " They want me in there for a grand jury for testimony about Roger Stone. He didn't do anything. What is he going to do? His investigation is BS. Trump did not collude with Putin. It's a joke."

Nunberg was on Trump's payroll from mid-2011 to August 2015 when he was fired from Trump's campaign shortly after it emerged that he had posted racially charged Facebook posts. In July 2016, Trump sued him for violating a confidentiality agreement, however the suit was dropped the following month.

. "What's he going to do? He's so tough - let's see what they do. I'm not going to spend 40 hours going over emails. I have a life."

Nunberg told Bloomberg he expects one line of questioning before the grand jury to be related to Stone, who Nunberg worked with closely over the years.

In a somewhat surreal interview, Nunberg also spoke with NBC's Katy Tur on Monday afternoon, reiterating that he was not going to comply with the subpoena while stating his belief that his onetime boss may be guilty of collusion with the Russians.

After admitting to host Katy Tur that he'd been interviewed by Mueller's investigators, the host asked Nunberg if he believes the special counsel "has anything" on Trump.

"I think they may," the ex-aide responded. "I think he may have done something during the election. But I don't know that for sure."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/E86Qy6O4Smo

This isn't the first time Nunberg's given a rambling MSNBC interview. Last week, he called presidential adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner a "weak link" who has done "nefarious things," and earlier this year, called Trump an "idiot" and a "complete pain in the ass to work for." In the latter interview, which was conducted by host Joy Ann Reid, many noted that Nunberg appeared to be intoxicated.

... ... ...

In the subpoena dated Feb. 27, Bloomberg reports that Nunberg was also asked to turn over emails, texts and other communications with 10 campaign associates, including Trump, former campaign manager Corey Lewandoski and outgoing White House communications director Hope Hicks starting in November 2015 and running through the present.

Another possible line of questioning could be related to Trump's activities in Moscow in 2013 during the Miss Universe pageant, which the president once owned. The book by author Michael Wolff, "Fire and Fury," quotes Nunberg extensively describing the early months of the Trump administration. Wolff said the former adviser was "generally regarded as the man who understood Trump's whims and impulses best" and a Bannon associate. Mueller's team interviewed Bannon earlier this month.

Incidentally, when asked if Nunberg was correct that Trump "may have done something during the election", Press Sec. Sanders dnied, saying that "He's incorrect...I certainly can't speak to him or the lack of knowledge that he clearly has."

Bay of Pigs -> Moe Hamhead Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:41 Permalink

Didn't Rosenstein say that no collusion or interference with the election had taken place?

WTF would this guy know about that anyway? He was long gone by then.

pods -> Moe Hamhead Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:46 Permalink

Seriously, what about Trump's Hotels? Do they employ any Russians? I think that black jack dealer looked Russian.

I am not a big fan of OJ, but Jesus Christ this Mueller investigation acts like our QA department. Non-stop making you do retarded shit just because someone, somewhere might not fully get exactly what you did because they are retarded.

Mueller better just close up shop before the people supporting him give him the hook. Russian Troll farm? Really? Shitposting is now a national security issue. omg.

The longer this goes on, the more I think that our government just needs to go away. Total loss of all credibility. And when he does find something HUGE, if it isn't related to Trump (Uranium One) he just passes it by.

We are now past the point of absurd. Trump will next be guilty of having a bottle of Stoli at his house.

Kudos to this guy for calling this for what it is. Just downright stupid.

pods

BarkingCat -> DillyDilly Mon, 03/05/2018 - 16:35 Permalink

I took Russian as my foreign language elective in college and sometimes even understand some of it. I also read RT from time to time and donated to the Trump campaign.

I fear that Mueller will come after me next.

Dorado -> Moe Hamhead Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:55 Permalink

So someone that worked for Trump says that he doesn't know for sure if Trump did something bad and it is headline news? Give me a break! What click-bait garbage this article is.

chunga -> Dorado Mon, 03/05/2018 - 16:12 Permalink

The thing is, the MSM headlines will read "Another Trump Aide Caught in Crosshairs, Refuses To Cooperate in Collusion Probe".

Mueller is going to keep doing this until he's stopped. He was appointed by the DOJ and, supposedly, the AG is the boss.

Billy the Poet -> Deep Snorkeler Mon, 03/05/2018 - 16:31 Permalink

I love the liberal delusion that the Trump-Russia evidence is going to show up any day now while they continue to ignore the fact that Hillary paid for Kremlin help in the election.

How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier

Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure." Source B was "a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossi

Clinton defends funding the dossier

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2017/11/02/hillary-clinton-dossier-

Bay of Pigs Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:26 Permalink

Finally. Let's see some push back on this bullshit and false narrative.

pods -> Bay of Pigs Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:52 Permalink

Maybe this is the guy who stops pretending? He already sounds like would call Mueller for what he is. I bet Mueller is sitting there in his psychosis thinking that because this guy said what he did he is the one really holding all the dirt.

Someone should go and testify and just start dropping bombs.

"Hey Bob

Savyindallas Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:28 Permalink

I think all witnesses should do the same. Then when they are forced to testify under penalty of contempt, they should plead the 5th amendment and force Mueller to grant them immunity. This is all total BS. Any witness who cooperates and appears before a grand jury runs the risk of some bogus perjury or obstruction of justice charges. Mueller is a piece of human vermin.

Bill of Rights Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:29 Permalink

Mueller has already committed a crime he lied to the Senate, if there was any law and order in this Country Mueller would have been locked up a long time ago.

Born2Bwired Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:31 Permalink

I don't know anything about this guy but glad to see someone is calling bullshit on this ongoing witch hunt. And there are plenty of idiots thinking it is a real thing when basically nothing has been uncovered in a year and a half related to Trump/Putin. Meanwhile gigantic conflicts on the Hillary side are going totally uninvestigated..

Md4 Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:37 Permalink

"I'm not going to cooperate with Mueller. It's a fishing expedition...".

All the president has to do is give Mueller two weeks to wrap it up.

If he doesn't, fire the bastard.

Easy as that.

Joiningupthedots Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:43 Permalink

The truth is Mueller doesn't really know what he is looking for.

Its gone from a controlled search model (which has yielded nothing) to a "pin the tail on the donkey" excersize.

Clinton....the gift that keeps on giving LOL

Distant_Star -> Joiningupthedots Mon, 03/05/2018 - 16:18 Permalink

Mueller is not looking for anything Russia-related because he knows no such evidence exists. Instead, he is looking to file completely unrelated charges against other people such as Paul Manafort, who can then be pressured into making false accusations against Trump. "Special Counsel" Mule-er is nothing but the leader of a star chamber packed with (((Democrat))) loyalists who have no interest in serving justice. This entire ruse is nothing but a seditious attempt to overthrow a Constitutionally elected president because the Deep State and its cronies remain in a state of apoplexy over the 2016 election results. More than anything, this reminds me of some kind of Stalinist NKVD secret police operation from the 1930s: false charges supported by fraudulent evidence followed by show trials that delivered the expected results. Truth and justice be damned. Of course, we know (((who))) was calling the shots in the Soviet Secret Police, don't we?

Md4 -> Joiningupthedots Mon, 03/05/2018 - 16:26 Permalink

I don't think he's actually investigating anything. Once in awhile, he pops up with serious-sounding garbage, that really means nothing.

He's intended to be a shark in the waters around this administration, nothing more. A "potential" threat he might "find" something.

He's had his time at the "Russian collusion" plate, and he needs to be outta pitches.

Meanwhile, the country's business isn't getting done, and Trump's time in office isn't open-ended.

Business like infrastructure, the BloCare repeal, the wall, sanctuary city crackdowns, trade deal overhauls (not simply tariffs, but new deals or no deals at all), and much more.

His supporters really DO need to rise mightily and force these issues to the front and center.

The Bolshevik fascists are stymieing this president, as they bide their time toward the midterms.

Mueller is just one front in that effort.

THAT shouldn't be happening.

Jambo Mambo Bill Mon, 03/05/2018 - 15:56 Permalink

Only in Americana, the deep State mother fuckers, can go over the president like never before, and undermine his authority, take down his staff and stall his presidency... and basically place him in a corner for the kill.

Trump since his inauguration, wasn't able to get anything done because of these fuckers... they are enemies of the people! Why are these freaks being allowed to make a mockery of Trump presidency using bs excuses? How stupid people can be to believe on this shit! Where are the good politicians if any left in Washington? Is there any political decency left in the States? WTFIGO? Most veterans and folks on the service that I know of are ashamed of these debacle!

Hikikomori Mon, 03/05/2018 - 16:17 Permalink

The President needs to set a deadline for Mueller - end of summer would be good - either present evidence of collusion with Russia to Congress - or you're fired. Otherwise this investigation will still be ongoing when Ivanka is sworn in as the 46th. president January 20, 2025.

Fiberton Mon, 03/05/2018 - 16:49 Permalink

He is setting up a trap for Mueller. Get Mueller to go balls to the wall and make a misstep and blow his whole investigation up by being retarded. Stone created an art of being a provocateur. This guy learned from Stone. Mueller will see that conversation and think " WE got the President dig dig dig send subpoenas, do raids. " Thing is doing raids on innocent people catches up to you very fast. You never know who knows who and who is connected to who. This will get Mueller to spend more money and he will for sure go over the line and cut his own throat. Keystone cops tend to die by their own gun.

[Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill

Highly recommended!
McMaster is a danger tot he USA and the world as a whole. Trump disingaged from forign policy and now generals are running it.
Notable quotes:
"... I stopped listening to McMaster at one point. Quite early really. I wish there was a transcript around. But on first sight there isn't. But yes, 'revisionist' surfaced. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham wants to attack North Korea. China promises to defend North Korea if attacked by the USA. If nuclear weapons are used by anyone; destroying Seoul, Pyongyang, Kyoto, Tokyo or Guam, the war will explode. China has 65 hardened ICBMs that can survive a first attack and destroy every major American city. Russia cannot sit out a world war blowing up directly South of Siberia. ..."
"... Simply put, Washington DC has become unhinged. The military is free to do whatever it wants. The western economic system is in slow-motion collapse. There is too much debt. Either the people will force the oligarchs to write down the debt and end the wars; or, fighting over the remains, the corrupt elite will kill off mankind. ..."
"... He has given the quartet too much leeway and they for some naïve reason are far too willing to listen to the Israelis always whispering in their ears. GC Marshall was right when he warned Truman against a future dominated by the existence of Israel. pl ..."
Mar 04, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Karel Whitman , 04 March 2018 at 10:02 AM

I have been reflecting about Reagan too in recent contributions here. Not least since Trump seemed to try to emulate the GOP's greatest hero.

From the original Strategic Statement, casting Russia and China as 'rivals and competitors', the subsequent Defense Posture Statement elevated the latter from mere rivals, to 'revisionist powers'

I stopped listening to McMaster at one point. Quite early really. I wish there was a transcript around. But on first sight there isn't. But yes, 'revisionist' surfaced. As curiously enough this did: "rogue regimes (ME north East Asia) are developing the most destructive weapons on earth."

Maybe I listen to him now. Relevant parts start at 1:45.

https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/munich-security-conference-2018/video/statement-by-herbert-raymond-mcmaster/

******
That said, what I still have huge troubles seemingly is to wrap my head around is the huge applause Trump got on SST, while it left me more then a little irritated, when delivering his foreign policy speech in April 2016. That was before Russia-Gate made news.

kooshy -> FB Ali ... , 04 March 2018 at 10:09 AM
"These US generals have shown themselves to be shallow-minded believers in a doctrine of US invincibility and universal dominance that is no longer applicable to the world we live in."

General Ali, if I remember correctly you reside in Canada, those who are brought up in and under US system, majority think of their country in this way, it's part of the mentality that the system educates and trains it's constituency, to think they are exceptional, invincible and above all others. From what I have learned, this is not unique to just these four generals, this is how even the regular police thinks regardless of state or community they serve. This is how every child has been thought early on.

Babak Makkinejad -> kooshy... , 04 March 2018 at 01:08 PM
I think you are right, once I told an American that the United States will not survive a nuclear war with Russia; he seemed to have been offended.
VietnamVet , 04 March 2018 at 03:57 PM
All

This week NBC News described the White House as "unglued". The owner of Comcast that owns NBC, Brian L. Roberts (Barrack Obama's friend), and the five other media moguls want Donald Trump gone. All that has stopped them so far are four Generals. This is highly unstable. The USA has already killed Russians in Syria. Turkey is heading towards attacking American troops in Manbij. U.S. trainers are in the trenches with Ukraine troops in the Donbass. Anyone who is against this madness is labeled as a Russian collaborator.

Senator Lindsey Graham wants to attack North Korea. China promises to defend North Korea if attacked by the USA. If nuclear weapons are used by anyone; destroying Seoul, Pyongyang, Kyoto, Tokyo or Guam, the war will explode. China has 65 hardened ICBMs that can survive a first attack and destroy every major American city. Russia cannot sit out a world war blowing up directly South of Siberia.

Simply put, Washington DC has become unhinged. The military is free to do whatever it wants. The western economic system is in slow-motion collapse. There is too much debt. Either the people will force the oligarchs to write down the debt and end the wars; or, fighting over the remains, the corrupt elite will kill off mankind.

If somehow, the use of nuclear weapons is avoided; at best, South Korea, the heart of the Asian Economy, will be destroyed. The drumbeats for war with North Korea, Iran and/or Russia is crazy.

turcopolier , 04 March 2018 at 04:06 PM
Alastair Crooke

I agree that the "Four of Hearts" among the generals now running US foreign policy are a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill."

Trump is as yet indifferent to such matters and is in pursuit of his mercantilist view of economics. He has given the quartet too much leeway and they for some naïve reason are far too willing to listen to the Israelis always whispering in their ears. GC Marshall was right when he warned Truman against a future dominated by the existence of Israel. pl

kooshy said in reply to Babak Makkinejad... , 04 March 2018 at 04:06 PM
The first time i really understood and encounter this mentality, was in American government class back in 74 or 75, I even believed in it for a while.

[Mar 04, 2018] RUSSIAGATE UKRAINE HOW THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION HEIGHTENS THE WAR DANGER Roger Stone Stone Cold Truth by Roger Stone

Notable quotes:
"... Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine. ..."
"... (Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London financial institutions.) ..."
"... It was also in June that CIA Director John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of "suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity. Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy" against him, if he won. ..."
"... Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100 memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming. ..."
"... When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 -- four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the Steele memos. ..."
"... Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate coup. ..."
"... The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates. Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea, Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process." ..."
"... On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking. ..."
"... One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks. ..."
"... Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of Directors of HSBC! ..."
"... From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud. ..."
"... With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance strategy. ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | stonecoldtruth.com

What is not generally known, however, due to the lying coverage in the Transatlantic "Fake News" media, is that included in this unholy alliance of coup plotters were armed militia units made up of neo-Nazis, who were responsible for the bloodshed on Maidan Square in Kiev, and which threatened the ethnic Russians, which constitute the majority of the population in the eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The lie that there was no neo-Nazi involvement has been maintained, despite ample evidence to the contrary, including interviews with militants pronouncing admiration for Hitler's collaborators in the Bandera movement in Ukraine during World War II, when Ukrainian units murdered ethnic Poles, Russians, and other "non-Ukrainians", including Ukrainian Jews. The armed "Banderistas" and related thugs have been incorporated into the security apparatus of the Kiev regime, and continue to march in the halls of Parliament and on the streets, under banners with pictures of Bandera, the Nazi collaborator, and symbols going back to their alliance with the Nazi SS.

The coup provoked a chain of events which the U.S., London and NATO used as justification to impose punitive sanctions against Russia, while demonizing Russia's President Putin, asserting that the he was engaged in military operations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, to reverse the coup. Efforts to stop the fighting between the regime's armed forces and ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine led to the Minsk Accord in 2015, which included a cease fire and the granting of autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. The Minsk Accord was brokered by France, Germany and Russia.

On January 18, 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament ripped up the Minsk Accord, referring to the two republics as "temporarily occupied" by an "aggressor country," that is, Russia, and vowed to reintegrate them, by military force if necessary. This bill, which received the full support of Ukraine's President Poroshenko, has been described by the Russian Foreign Ministry as "a preparation for a new war." It occurs simultaneously with an outburst of war-like propaganda from western neocons, typified by a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), released on February 20 with the title, "Coping with Surprise in Great Power Conflicts." The report charges that both Russia and China are preparing for war against the U.S., and that the Russians are deploying forces and artillery to overrun the Baltic states in a lightning strike, to reincorporate them into a new Russian empire!

THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT

This background is necessary to understand the vicious hostility behind the targeting of Paul Manafort, a long-time U.S. political operative, by the "amoral legal assassin", special counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's campaign manager at a key moment in his fight to secure the Republican nomination, from May to August 2016, was indicted by Mueller on October 27, 2017, charged with numerous counts of money laundering, tax fraud, not registering as an agent of a foreign government, and of making false statements to the FBI. Mueller filed a revised indictment on February 28, 2018, following his "turning" of Manafort's partner Rick Gates, who filed a guilty plea to a single count on February 22. While awaiting trial in September, Manafort is confined to house arrest.

None of the charges against Manafort are related to the initial mandate given to Mueller, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to investigate the allegations of Russian hacking and sundry meddling in the 2016 election, and whether Donald Trump had "colluded" with the Russians. However, they are directly related to the geopolitical manipulations against Russia, which have been sharply criticized by Trump, both as a candidate and as President.

Manafort was first placed under surveillance following a FISA Court order in 2014. FISA, the super-secret court set up as part of the post-9/11 apparat to spy on potential terrorists, granted the surveillance order as part of an investigation into alleged illegal lobbying on behalf of the Yanukovych government of Ukraine by Manafort and others. Note that the timing of the court order coincided with the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Manafort had been working for several years as an adviser to the Party of the Regions, which was the party of President Yanukovych, who was overthrown by the regime change coup.

The original FISA warrant targeting Manafort was subsequently not renewed, for lack of evidence. A second order, however, was approved by the FISA Court for surveillance of Manafort sometime during 2016 -- the exact date of the order has not been released -- likely around the time Manafort took over the reins of the Trump campaign. Manafort played a key role in holding the Trump coalition together heading into the Republican convention July 18-21, as Bush-directed "Never-Trumpers" were attempting to steal the nomination away from him.

Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine.

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a leading campaigner for tougher sanctions against Russia -- he was one of the authors of the initial anti-Russia sanctions, in the Magnitsky Act -- accused Trump and Manafort of changing the platform to benefit Russia, which he accused of robbing Ukraine of sovereignty! It is now reported that Manafort's role in changing the language in the platform is "under investigation" by Mueller!

(Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London financial institutions.)

It was during this same time period, June and July, once it was evident that, barring some unforeseen event, Trump would be the Republican nominee, that the anti-Trump activities of the "Deep State" went into high gear. While the "Never Trumpers" were unsuccessfully plotting to prevent his nomination at the convention, Christopher Steele began churning out memos, paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which included wild claims about Putin's secret service filming Trump in compromising sexual activity during the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Moscow. His first memo was written on June 20, 2016, and he met for the first time with an FBI official on July 5, 2016.

It was also in June that CIA Director John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of "suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity. Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy" against him, if he won.

This incriminating text describes the meeting as taking place in "Andy's office", a reference to the now-fired Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who told a Congressional hearing that there would have been no surveillance warrant issued by the FISA court in October 2016 against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, had it not been for the Steele dossier.

Nunes has sent a list of ten questions regarding how the Steele's dossier shaped the anti-Trump mobilization of Obama's intelligence agencies. Among those receiving the list of ten questions are James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump, Obama's Director of National Intelligence Clapper, Brennan and Victoria Nuland. They are given until March 2 to answer, or they will face subpoenas. What Nunes is looking for is answers as to when the Steele dossier was brought to their attention, by whom, what actions were taken in response to it, its role in the submission to the FISA Court, and whether President Obama was briefed on what the dossier contained. They lay the basis for possible indictments against those receiving the questions, and for Steele. Senators Grassley and Graham have already stated they believe charges should be filed against Steele, who has thus far been protected by Her Majesty's government, which has acted to prevent Steele from being brought before a court of law.

STEELE AND THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION

But Steele's role in shaping U.S. policy predates the setting up of the Get Trump task force. Both Nunes and Grassley are investigating Steele's connections with the U.S. State Department, including with the notorious Nuland. They are looking into the role of Jonathan Winer, a former assistant Secretary of State who served as a long-time aide to former Secretary of State John Kerry. Winer befriended Steele in 2009, when they were collaborating on investigations of Russian "corruption".

Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100 memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming.

When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 -- four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the Steele memos.

But the Steele-Winer connection continued. In September 2016, Winer met with Steele, who presented to Winer his anti-Trump dossier. Winer drafted a two-page summary of the dossier, which he gave to Nuland. She told him to present this to Kerry. Later in the month, Winer met with Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who showed him another specious anti-Trump dossier, compiled by Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Winer then shared this who Steele, who then claimed it confirmed the charges he made in his dossier, though coming from different "sources."

Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate coup. Among those calling for a full criminal investigation into Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Hillary Clinton, which would reach Obama as well, is former Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova, who said it's very likely they could all be indicted.

YET BRITISH HITMAN MUELLER PROCEEDS!

The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates. Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea, Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process."

On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking.

One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks.

Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of Directors of HSBC!

From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud.

With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance strategy.

[Mar 04, 2018] NBC's Megyn Kelly gets demolished by Vladimir Putin in latest one-on-one interview (Video)

Mar 04, 2018 | theduran.com

NBC's Megyn Kelly is once again sitting down with Russian President Vladimir Putin to disseminate Deep State propaganda to her Today Show base, and maybe give it another go at trying to outsmart Russia's President.

As expected, Kelly looks lie a complete fool when confronting Putin, as she peddles the tiresome and stupid narrative of ''Russian bots" and ''Facebook Ads", only to be schooled by Putin on how the real world of diplomacy and international law works.

[Mar 04, 2018] Putin interview to Megan Kelly

Mar 04, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky , March 3, 2018 at 1:13 pm

Here is Megyn Kelly's interview with Putin.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-03/putin-says-russia-cant-react-mueller-indictment-without-official-request

incontinent reader , March 3, 2018 at 3:30 pm

Joe- I think the interview reposted by Zero Hedge in its 3/3/18 edition is the interview broadcast by NBC on June, 4 2017. That broadcast was of an edited version of the full interview, and, as such, egregiously misrepresented some of what Putin actually said. The unedited version can be accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_WPk6Rxx00&t=7s .

I'm not certain the new one – i.e. dated 3/1 or 3/2/18- has been broadcast or posted yet, apart from two short excerpts- both of which left this viewer more certain than ever that Kelly was and is arrogant, crude, misinformed- and a peddler of misinformation. See, for example: https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/exclusive-putin-addresses-2016-election-meddling-1175502915757 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN8GpOSX3gg

[Mar 03, 2018] Glenn Greenwald to Tucker Carlson Journalists Eagerly Being Manipulated By Intelligence Community On Russia

Notable quotes:
"... So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again. ..."
"... Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated. ..."
"... Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story. ..."
Mar 03, 2018 | www.realclearpolitics.com
Greenwald Journalists 'eagerly manipulated' on Russia story - YouTube

Tucker Carlson interviews Green Greenwald of The Intercept about journalists "willingly" being taken advantage of by the intelligence community on stories about Russia to reap the benefits, even when they know what they are publishing is "totally false."

From Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the FOX News Channel:

TUCKER CARLSON: So, Glenn, just to get to the facts of this story, it is conclusively shown that the story about the 21 voting systems being hacked is untrue, correct?
GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: It's false in two ways, one is that several of the states included in the list, such as Wisconsin, California, and Texas, said that the websites that the Homeland Security Department cited had nothing to do with voting systems, they are entirely unrelated.

And it's false in a second way, which is a lot of the stories, in fact, most of them said that Russia tried to hack into the voting systems when in fact even Homeland Security, it can only show that what they did was scan those computer systems, which is basically casing something to say for vulnerabilities and made no attempts to actually hack into them. So, it was false on various levels.

CARLSON: So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again.

GREENWALD: Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated.

(LAUGHTER)

Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.

And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish. And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.

CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there's a consequence. Do you really think there's that level of dishonesty in the American press?

GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don't yet fully understand.

CARLSON: Yes.

GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board meetings or using -- they're sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it is about that kind of behavior.

CARLSON: That is really deep. I mean, you live in a foreign country, I'm not on social media, so maybe we have a little bit of distance from this, where do you think the story is going? What's the next incarnation of it?

GREENWALD: Well, the odd part about it, and about the inpatients that journalists have in trying to just jump to the finish line is that there are numerous investigations underway in the city, including by credible investigators, including Senator Burr and Warner and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which most people seem to trust and certainly Robert Mueller who is armed with subpoena power, and everyone is really eager to lavish with praise.

So, we are going to find out presumably one way or the other soon enough. I guess that one thing that is so odd to me Tucker, is that, this has been going on now for a year, this accusation that the Trump administration or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to hack the DNC and John Podesta's email and we know that there are huge numbers of people inside the government who are willing to leak, even at the expense of committing crimes in order to undermine Trump and yet, there has been no leaks so far showing any evidence of that kind of collusion leading one to wonder why that is.

So, I hope that everybody is willing to wait until the actual investigation reveals finally the real answers. But it doesn't seem that will be the case.

CARLSON: Bravery is when you disagree in public with your peers. And by that definition, you are a very brave man. Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.

[Mar 03, 2018] I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he exuded a high level political corruption

Mar 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kelley Fri, 03/02/2018 - 22:39 Permalink

I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he exuded a high level political corruption.

He hasn't changed a bit. His looks come from central casting. Underneath is a dangerous man. He is only now revealing the depths that he is willing to go to maintain the worst kinds of corruption. He has to be this corrupt to keep himself out of prison for his role in the Uranium One scandal. As can plainly be seen he is a Javert type in his willingness to go to the end of the plank - a really ruthless son of a bitch protected by so many ion Washington.

With few exceptions, all of them have dirt on each other. They are preselected based on whether they are blackmailable or not. How can we know this? By their behavior. These are not stupid people. They know what we know when it comes to the guilt of people like Hillary. But they refuse to act because the smell in their closet reeks of little boy's underwear.

Slammofandango Fri, 03/02/2018 - 22:48 Permalink

Last time I checked, Assange was saying Mueller has made no attempt to contact or interview Assange in any way.

RabbitOne Fri, 03/02/2018 - 23:04 Permalink

I keep seeing all these stupid articles. The answer is simple. .... The rule of law is dead...Our ruling class does what they want. Who is going after any of them?. ... Nobody...Well why not? Because too many people know where all the bodies are buried. There is enough "dirt" on people to do 2000 long length movies (greater than 3 hours) about all the scandalous materials. No one wants to stick their nose out because they will get what Seth got - a bullet in the back...

south40_dreams Fri, 03/02/2018 - 23:43 Permalink

Mueller only cares about one thing, winning, truth is for suckers

[Mar 03, 2018] Ukrainian special forces indispensible for NATO's war against Russia

Mar 03, 2018 | www.fort-russ.com

Ukrainian special forces can be "indispensable" for NATO in the event of a war with Russia. This is stated by military expert First Rank Captain Konstantin Sivkov in the "Military Industrial Courier "

"Special forces can be transferred to the Russian Federation both under the guise of civilian passengers and by military aircraft, either by land or from the sea. They can be introduced to consolidate success , which can establish reliable control over the strategic nuclear arsenal of our country, "- writes Sivkov.

This, in the author's opinion, explains the build-up of NATO special operations and rapid deployment units in the areas bordering Russia.

Sivkov notes the special role of the Ukrainian military, in the conflict. "Particularly valuable in these conditions for NATO are the soldiers of the Ukrainian special forces who are ethnically and culturally related to the Russian population, speaking the same language, they will be indispensable in the conduct of special actions with preliminary secretive deployment," the expert said

[Mar 03, 2018] I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he exuded a high level political corruption

Mar 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kelley Fri, 03/02/2018 - 22:39 Permalink

I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he exuded a high level political corruption.

He hasn't changed a bit. His looks come from central casting. Underneath is a dangerous man. He is only now revealing the depths that he is willing to go to maintain the worst kinds of corruption. He has to be this corrupt to keep himself out of prison for his role in the Uranium One scandal. As can plainly be seen he is a Javert type in his willingness to go to the end of the plank - a really ruthless son of a bitch protected by so many ion Washington.

With few exceptions, all of them have dirt on each other. They are preselected based on whether they are blackmailable or not. How can we know this? By their behavior. These are not stupid people. They know what we know when it comes to the guilt of people like Hillary. But they refuse to act because the smell in their closet reeks of little boy's underwear.

Slammofandango Fri, 03/02/2018 - 22:48 Permalink

Last time I checked, Assange was saying Mueller has made no attempt to contact or interview Assange in any way.

RabbitOne Fri, 03/02/2018 - 23:04 Permalink

I keep seeing all these stupid articles. The answer is simple. .... The rule of law is dead...Our ruling class does what they want. Who is going after any of them?. ... Nobody...Well why not? Because too many people know where all the bodies are buried. There is enough "dirt" on people to do 2000 long length movies (greater than 3 hours) about all the scandalous materials. No one wants to stick their nose out because they will get what Seth got - a bullet in the back...

south40_dreams Fri, 03/02/2018 - 23:43 Permalink

Mueller only cares about one thing, winning, truth is for suckers

[Mar 03, 2018] Russiagate: Cue Bob

Mar 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Anunnaki Fri, 03/02/2018 - 21:13 Permalink

From the book Shattered: Russian hacking was the excuse Pizzaboy Podesta and Robby Mook came up with to paper over their rank incompetence in losing to a blowhard like Trump

PaulDF Fri, 03/02/2018 - 21:20 Permalink

"You can't handle the Truth!" - Col. Jessup

If we knew the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding this sordid and tragic conspiracy, I think we'd puke our guts out.

[Mar 03, 2018] The poisonous Guardian about Hope Hicks by Tom McCarthy

So this pro-Hillary bastion of Neoliberal innuentndo -- Guardian -- does not not like Hicks. As onecommneter noted " The poisonous Guardian which is so toxic I would advise folks not to use it even as an ass wipe, did not allow comments as is their custom now." Source
Mar 03, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

What is despicable pressitute is this guy: "The Washington Post has found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings"."

Hicks, 29, had the high-pressure job last summer of crafting , with the president, an explanation for his son Donald Trump Jr's secret meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York in 2016 – an explanation later revealed as false. More recently, Hicks was said to have run the botched White House response to domestic abuse allegations against former aide Rob Porter, with whom she has been linked romantically.

... ... ...

Hicks aggressively defended the president-elect and his team against charges of inappropriate ties to Russian figures.

"The campaign had no contact with Russian officials," she said. Two days after the election, she said: "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr Trump spoke with many world leaders."

The Washington Post has found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings".

Discrepancies such as those have perhaps accelerated Hicks' political education. On Tuesday, the House intelligence committee questioned her for close to nine hours about the campaign's Russia ties.

Hicks refused to answer some of the most sensitive questions, including about the explanation for Trump Jr's meeting with Russians, according to House Democrat Adam Schiff.

But Hicks was said to have made one concession, admitting to having told, on an unspecified number of occasions, certain "white lies" on the president's behalf.

[Mar 03, 2018] From Russia with Trepidation The Rocky Ride of Edward G. Robinson

Notable quotes:
"... Moscow Strikes Back ..."
"... I am an American ..."
"... Miss V from Moscow ..."
Mar 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

In the darkest days of World War II, Hollywood went to bat for Russia -- our ally then -- by adapting Soviet propaganda films for the American audience and making some of its own on their behalf. This amazing documentary, a paean to the heroism of the Russian people and the Red Army, was shot before, during, and after Hitler's siege of Moscow. Filmed between October 1941 and January 1942 during a time of invasion, privation, agony and death in the depths of the Russian winter, Moscow Strikes Back (Russian version here ) may be a little hard to take in spots, but is well worth an hour of your time. Should the following video start in the middle, rewind by dragging the red button all the way to the left. Makes me think: wouldn't it be nice to be able to rewind America away from the right?

... ... ...

Hollywood's famous tough guy (also fine art collector and philanthropist) Edward G. Robinson narrates over a sound track featuring spirited scores by Russian composers. Directed by Leonid Varlamov and Ilya Kopalin, it won the 1942 Academy Award for Best Documentary. Then, as soon as the war ended, along with thousands of government and private employees, Hollywood directors and screenwriters were purged for suspect loyalties. Robinson was among those who paid a steep price's for their idealism and activism.

Now fascism is back in fashion. Who has the temerity advocate for Russian-American solidarity, given that Russia is once again on our rulers' shit list and World War III wish list? We aren't allowed to say good things about it or even that our countries once worked together, however mistrustfully. Thanks to several generations of hawkish propagandists, few of our countrymen remember or appreciate what the Russian people suffered in that war and how thankful they were for the goods the US shipped to them that helped them struggle through it, but it was their own fortitude that won the day. That and a regime that took civil defense seriously and directed the public's efforts.

As Nazi forces encircled Moscow, Marshal Zhukov mobilized Moscow's women to fortify the city. According to the WWII Multimedia Database , the women had to slog and dig through freezing muck to excavate their redoubts. With little more than shovels and wheelbarrows, they "emplaced or dug 201 miles (323.4 kilometers) of anti-tank obstacles and ditches, 158 miles (254.2 kilometers) of anti-infantry obstacles, and laid minefields. 3,800 prepared bunkers and fire bases were built. 37,500 metal 'hedgehogs' were set up to stop vehicles." I hope they at least got medals.

Could today's Americans match Russia's Greatest Generation or even our own? Take it on the chin and go on to collectively mobilize ourselves to prevail? We have sufficient tools and wealth, but have we enough will and leadership? Anesthetized by the H-Bomb, our government let preparedness and civil defense institutions wither. Lacking action plans for what to do in an extreme emergency, we're apparently expected to tough it out (use firearms responsibly and no looting, please). Of course, the government stocks bunkers for top officials and members of Congress, and our moneyed elites will repair to their hideaways and lock the gates at the first sign of mortal danger. Those of us who aren't armed preppers will go first. As civil society collapses, militias will battle over whatever resources are left. And then, depopulated, America will be great again.

But I digress. Back to Eddy Robinson's politics . In 1952, HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee) plunged into ignominy Edward Goldenberg Robinson for being duped by fifth-columnists into assailing fascism and advocating peace and cooperation among the great powers. The anti-fascist Jewish Romanian immigrant film star had served in two world wars. Fluent in six languages, he narrated Allied propaganda broadcasts for which the American Legion honored him. His anti-fascist bona fides, left-wing Hollywood connections, and support and advocacy for several hundred civic, cultural, philanthropic, and political organizations only served to target him as postwar red-baiting and housecleaning proceeded apace.

On April 30, 1952, Robinson sat before HUAC for the third time. He hadn't been subpoenaed; just harassed until he decided the time had come to clear his name. Through 20 pages of testimony (plaintext here ), he states his opposition to communism over and over:

My conscience is clear. My loyalty to this Nation I know to be absolute. No one has ever been willing to confront me under oath free from immunity and unequivocally charge me with membership in the Communist Party or any other subversive organization. No one can honestly do so. I now realize that some organizations which I permitted to use my name were, in fact, Communist fronts. But their ostensible purposes were good, and it was for such purposes that I allowed use of my name and even made numerous financial contributions. The hidden purposes of the Communists, in such groups, was not known to me. Had I known the truth, I would not have associated with such persons, although I would have and intend to continue to help to the extent of my ability in worth-while causes, honestly calculated to help underprivileged or oppressed people, including those oppressed by Communist tyranny.

Robinson closed his prepared testimony by saying:

Anyone who understands the history of the political activity in Hollywood will appreciate the fact that innocent, sincere persons were used by the Communists to whom honesty and sincerity are as foreign as the Soviet Union is to America. I was duped and used. I was lied to. But, I repeat, I acted from good motives, and I have never knowingly aided Communists or any Communist cause.

I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear and clarify my position. I have been slow to realize that persons I thought sincere were Communists. I am glad, for the sake of myself and the Nation, that they have been exposed by your committee.

While you have been, exposing Communists, I have been fighting them and their ideology in my own way. I just finished appearing in close to 250 performances of "Darkness at Noon" all over the country. It is, perhaps, the strongest indictment of communism ever presented. I am sure it had a profound and lasting effect on all who saw it.

During questioning, he doubled down on his anti-communism:

To me, communism is abhorrent. Certainly I supported Russia during the war but, as an ally, and no more than as an ally. What I did for Russia was relatively negligible, compared to what I did for our other allies.

Upon being pressed, he named film industry colleagues he had come to believe were communists: Albert Maltz; Dalton Trumbo; John Howard Lawson; Donald Ogden Stewart. This of course was not news to anyone, but as he had "named names," the witch-hunters refrained from branding him with the Red Star label. But when Robinson asked members of the committee why they shouldn't certify him as a loyal American, the best he could get was Rep. Morgan Molder (R-MO) telling him:

Mr. [Donald L.] Jackson [R-CA16] has made the statement that this committee is not in a position to exonerate or to vindicate any person who has been wrongfully accused of being a Communist or who has been smeared as a result of such false accusations. I will agree with him to a certain extent. However, I believe that when, as a result of any proceedings or functions of this committee, someone has been unjustly smeared or injured it is our duty to aid that person and give that person an opportunity to appear before the committee to explain and defend himself as you have done.

In other words, he was potentially guilty until proven innocent, which the committee refused to do. Instead, they treated him like a student in a dunce cap scratching out "I will not be a commie dupe" over and over. His penitence extended to publishing "How the Reds Made a Sucker Out of Me," in American Legion Magazine (October 1952), paraphrased in 2011 by USC historian Steven J. Ross:

Robinson told readers that while he had "never paid much attention to communism in the past," he now knew how they went about duping loyal Americans. "They do not reveal themselves as communists," but pose "as fine American citizens who are for 'peace,' or 'decent working conditions,' or 'against intolerance.' " These were lies; their real aim was "world domination, oppression, and slavery for the working people and the minorities they profess to love." The contrite actor ended by swearing, "I am not a communist, I have never been, I never will be – I am an American ."

It must have been soul-crushing for someone so allergic to fascism to prostrate himself before that jingoist tribunal. Thank Mother of Mercy, that wasn't the end of Rico . Robinson returned to the stage for several years and then went on to act in more than 40 films. Somehow befittingly, his last role came in the cult classic b-movie Soylent Green ( 1973 ). He died soon after in Mount Sinai Hospital and was buried in Brooklyn. He was 79.

In that article, Little Caesar and the McCarthyist Mob , Ross observes, "The internationalist pronouncements of Robinson and other Hollywood activists soon came to haunt them as HUAC began portraying anti-fascists as the allies of Communists bent on destroying America." And so it is today as anti-Russia hysteria paves the way to a fascist-style America-first militarism, cheered on by compliant corporate media and political opportunists from both sides of the aisle. Whoever objects to the gathering storm is apt to be fingered as soft on Putin and entered into watch lists.

Meanwhile, the corporate takeover of the Federal Government and more than several states is nearly a fait accompli . Our elections are rigged, not by Russian trolls but minions of the GOP. The First Family mixes governing with business and pleasure and the Bozo-in-Chief can't get his wealth-addled mind around anything for more than a New York minute. Generals and billionaires have been placed in charge of arming and corrupting the republic, respectively. Democrats won't take on the Electoral College or Republican stratagems to rig elections, even though reforms would be win-win for them.

We're going down folks, and if Edward G. were around and still in the game he would understand where we're heading. The old anti-fascist would be plunging right in to keep America safe for democracy. Since he can't, I reckon we've got to.

Bonus Feature

Another pro-Soviet propaganda production from 1942, this one all-American, is Miss V from Moscow . Directed by Albert Herman and starring Lola Lane and Noel Madison, it is regarded as one of the cheesiest spy films ever to grace the silver screen. Lane plays Vera Marova, an untrained Soviet spy apparently fluent in German, French, and English. She slips into occupied France pretending to be a dead German spy whom she closely resembles. In an absurd sequence of implausible events, she and Steve Worth, a downed American airman, hook up and collaborate with Free French partisans in Paris. After she romances a Gestapo Captain and worms war plans from him, they send secret radio messages to Moscow from the back room of a bistro that enable American convoys bound for Russia to elude German submarines. As the film ends, instead of having Vera and her plucky American comrade Steve romantically embrace (that would be a bit too much bilateral solidarity) we get to cheer on American supply ships steaming through the Baltic to deliver the goods.

Geoff Dutton is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.

[Mar 03, 2018] The Grammar of Russiagate

Notable quotes:
"... thief, rapist ..."
"... Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute. ..."
Mar 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Closely observing the grammar of the Official Russiagate Narrative is revealing and instructive. It provides clues to the (language-)game being played.

Consider what I call the insidious article, the . In the public prints and official pronouncements, it's not enough to say Russians tried to muck around in the American election. It's almost always the Russians . This is a subtle way to convey the idea that Vladimir Putin and his intel agencies were responsible. If a second-tier Russian oligarch who wishes to help Putin hires, on his own initiative, "a bunch of subliterate-in-English trolls," in Masha Gessen's words, and pays them the minimum wage to (again Gessen) "post[] mostly static and sort of absurd advertising," that is treated as the equivalent of Putin's executing a plan to destroy the American political system.

There's a big difference between Russians and the Russians , even if the grammar seems inconsequential.

Then there's the similar case of synecdoche , "a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa." This is one of the few things I learned in college that I actually remember. (Thank you Mark Isaacs, professor of journalism at Temple University, who also introduced me to the work of H. L. Mencken.)

When you read in the newspaper or hear it said on CNN that Russia or Moscow or the Kremlin did such and such, you should call out, "Who exactly?" Countries, cities, and citadels cannot act. Only individuals do. Moreover, there's a big difference between the GRU (Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije) and the IRA (Internet Research Institute), between Vladimir Putin and Yevgeny Prigozhin. But their acts are equally attributed to Russia . St. Petersburg (where the IRA is located) even becomes subsumed by Moscow . The Kremlin could refer to someone directly ordered by Putin or a rogue actor. But those distinctions are of little interest to those formulating or promulgating the Official Narrative.

Finally, let's turn to the word alleged . I can't stress how important this word figured in my journalism training in the 1960s and 70s, both in school and on the job. It was drilled into me by teachers and editors that an allegation is just an allegation until it is confirmed. And to drive this home, my teachers' favorite line was, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Alleged was the obligatory qualifier before murderer , thief, rapist , kidnapper , etc. -- until the suspect was convicted or his guilty plea was accepted by a judge. We'd never dream of not using it before that point. News organization were of course protecting themselves from libel actions, but it was more than that, namely, fairness and acknowledgment of the presumption of innocent/burden of proof. Even an initial confession was not proof of guilt: people sometimes confess to offenses they did not commit, and sometimes people think their actions are illegal when they are not.

At least one young newsman either learned the lesson about alleged too well or thought it would be fun to mock the obsession with the word. Don Folsom, a rookie Buffalo, NY, radio newscaster in the 1960s began his Easter morning report thus: "Today millions of Christians around the world are celebrating the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ." He was fired.

The word alleged seems almost completely lacking in the Russiagate conversation. The New York Times and other major news outlets have many times referred merely to "Russian interference in the 2016 election." No alleged ? Have those reporters actually seen the evidence the general public has been denied? If so, they haven't said informed us of that fact. Remember, the infamous January 2017 National Intelligence Assessment contained no evidence, as the same Times explicitly acknowledged at the time. In his Jan. 6, 2017, article, "Russian Intervention in American Election Was No One-Off," Times reporter Scott Shane wrote :

What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. This is a significant omission .

Instead, the message from the agencies amounts to "trust us."

I thought reporters weren't supposed to trust even their own mothers! Why are they trusting the lying James Clapper's "handpicked" intel personnel who made this assessment? Do they not remember the Big Lie about Iraqi WMDs, not to mention the entire lying history of the U.S. intel complex?

The Times and the other major news companies have forgotten what Shane reported more than a year ago: that the government has not disclosed the evidence again Putin and the Russians . If you think the indictment of 13 Russians patched up this hole, reread this column. Note also that the IRA is not charged with hacking the DNC and Podesta email accounts and giving the authentic contents to Wikileaks, which is how the big fuss got started.

So there you go. I can only conclude that the mainstream media were so traumatized by Trump's win (a traumatizing event, to be sure) and by Hillary Clinton's loss (not so much) that they have dropped the grammar of detached reporting and embraced the grammar of those who seek confrontation with Russia.

It's a very dangerous (language-)game indeed.

Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute.

[Mar 03, 2018] Glenn Greenwald to Tucker Carlson Journalists Eagerly Being Manipulated By Intelligence Community On Russia

Notable quotes:
"... So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again. ..."
"... Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated. ..."
"... Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story. ..."
Mar 03, 2018 | www.realclearpolitics.com
Greenwald Journalists 'eagerly manipulated' on Russia story - YouTube

Tucker Carlson interviews Green Greenwald of The Intercept about journalists "willingly" being taken advantage of by the intelligence community on stories about Russia to reap the benefits, even when they know what they are publishing is "totally false."

From Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the FOX News Channel:

TUCKER CARLSON: So, Glenn, just to get to the facts of this story, it is conclusively shown that the story about the 21 voting systems being hacked is untrue, correct?
GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: It's false in two ways, one is that several of the states included in the list, such as Wisconsin, California, and Texas, said that the websites that the Homeland Security Department cited had nothing to do with voting systems, they are entirely unrelated.

And it's false in a second way, which is a lot of the stories, in fact, most of them said that Russia tried to hack into the voting systems when in fact even Homeland Security, it can only show that what they did was scan those computer systems, which is basically casing something to say for vulnerabilities and made no attempts to actually hack into them. So, it was false on various levels.

CARLSON: So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again.

GREENWALD: Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated.

(LAUGHTER)

Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.

And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish. And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.

CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there's a consequence. Do you really think there's that level of dishonesty in the American press?

GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don't yet fully understand.

CARLSON: Yes.

GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board meetings or using -- they're sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it is about that kind of behavior.

CARLSON: That is really deep. I mean, you live in a foreign country, I'm not on social media, so maybe we have a little bit of distance from this, where do you think the story is going? What's the next incarnation of it?

GREENWALD: Well, the odd part about it, and about the inpatients that journalists have in trying to just jump to the finish line is that there are numerous investigations underway in the city, including by credible investigators, including Senator Burr and Warner and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which most people seem to trust and certainly Robert Mueller who is armed with subpoena power, and everyone is really eager to lavish with praise.

So, we are going to find out presumably one way or the other soon enough. I guess that one thing that is so odd to me Tucker, is that, this has been going on now for a year, this accusation that the Trump administration or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to hack the DNC and John Podesta's email and we know that there are huge numbers of people inside the government who are willing to leak, even at the expense of committing crimes in order to undermine Trump and yet, there has been no leaks so far showing any evidence of that kind of collusion leading one to wonder why that is.

So, I hope that everybody is willing to wait until the actual investigation reveals finally the real answers. But it doesn't seem that will be the case.

CARLSON: Bravery is when you disagree in public with your peers. And by that definition, you are a very brave man. Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.

[Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
"... he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit. ..."
"... I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all. ..."
"... My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Originally from discussion at Sic Semper Tyrannis Another SIGINT compromise ...

Valissa -> jsn... 01 March 2018 at 07:44 PM

jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).

Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible.

Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his clients.

I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this post:

The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/

Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.

By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians. Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept responsibility.

That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.

... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a corrupt empire together.

Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------

I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.

My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg

[Mar 02, 2018] Si>nce 1980th, very little has been done by US Federal Government for the benefit of the common citizen. A great deal has been done to facilitate the degradation of the standard of living of common citizen by the global one percent and by the costs of maintaining global neoliberal empire

Notable quotes:
"... Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and health care by AHIP with runaway costs. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 3:12:28 PM | 133

In fifty years, very little has been done by US Federal Government which benefits the common citizen. A great deal has been done to facilitate the degradation of the common citizen by the global one percent. We have a new world order as called for by GHW Bush.

Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and health care by AHIP with runaway costs.

Rodger | Aug 20, 2017 3:37:22 PM | 137
ANON

Trump is and has been carrying out his own policies to enrich those that already have everything and to repeal any regulations that were put into place to protect the people. Have you not noticed that he lined his cabinet with Goldman Sachs (which he blasted HRC for associating her self with.

Like I said he and his gang are doing what they want to help enrich themselves on the backs of the rest of us. Wake up and quit upholding these lying pieces of excrement they are no different than the ones before them.

Trump is a dirty businessman the things that he is doing are to benefit him and his family and to screw the rest of us and tell us how great it is for us. You my man have drank from the Trump cup and think that anything that speaks against him is "fake news" when in reality Trump and the likes of Breitbart are the "fake news" a little truth but a bunch of spin

[Mar 02, 2018] Trump_vs_deep_state as bastard neoliberalism vs classic neoliberalism

In this state the current war between factions of the US elite reminds Stalin fight against "globalists" like Trotsky, who were hell-bent of the idea of world revolution.
Notable quotes:
"... I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions and military invasions, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-) ..."
"... But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing. And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear. ..."
"... Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically, and what should be the relationship between US government and business community. ..."
Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

likbez -> likbez... December 26, 2016 at 08:08 PM

I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions and military invasions, especially in the Middle East.

That's what seems to be the key difference of Trump_vs_deep_state from "classic neoliberalism" or as Sklar called it "corporate liberalism".

From Reagan to Obama all US governments pray to the altar of classic neoliberalism. Now we have a slight deviation.

That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-)

In this sense Krugman recent writings are really pathetic and signify his complete detachment from reality, or more correctly attempt to create an "artificial reality" in which bad wolf Trump is going to eat Democratic sheeple. And in which media, FBI, and Putin are responsible entirely for Hillary's loss.

But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing. And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear.

Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically, and what should be the relationship between US government and business community.

But the far right movement that he created and led has different ideas.

So it might be an interesting period to watch.

[Mar 02, 2018] Trump betrayal of Trumpism

But Trump himself was quickly neutered (in just three month) and now does not represents "Trumpism" (rejection of neoliberal globalization, unrestricted immigration for suppression of wages, rejection of elimination of jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing, rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in Middle east, detente with Russia etc) in any meaningful way. He is just an aging Narcissist in power.
Looks like Trump became a variant of Hillary minus sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same. ..."
"... He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership ..."
"... . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement. ..."
"... He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack) ..."
"... His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship. ..."
"... I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA. ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT

it's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically, that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when evaluating Pres Trump:

3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.

... ... ...

5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership

... ... ...

8 . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.

9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack)

10. His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship.

11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary policy.

12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA.

[Mar 02, 2018] The deplorables, having found one another, need to hang together until we find real leadership. Trump, whatever he is, is not a leader.

"Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and attitude. Presidential decorum is a big deal to many."
Notable quotes:
"... The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it. ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

WorkingClass , March 2, 2018 at 2:14 am GMT

@EliteCommInc.

Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him.

Thank you. My bullet points would differ from yours but in the end I also voted for Trump. The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it.

The deplorables, having found one another, need to hang together until we find real leadership. Trump, whatever he is, is not a leader.

[Mar 02, 2018] >US Approves Sale of Anti-Tank Missiles to Ukraine by Jason Ditz

Mar 02, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

$47 million sale targeted at neighboring Russia

Posted on March 1, 2018 Categories News Tags Pentagon , Russia , Ukraine

With Ukrainian officials continuing to talk up their hostility with neighboring Russia, the Pentagon announced on Thursday that approval has been granted for the sale of Javelin anti-tank systems to Ukraine.

The sale, estimated at a $47 million deal for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, would involve 37 Javelin Command Launch Units and 210 missiles . The Poroshenko government says it will be used to "protect Ukrainian soldiers."

Russia is protesting the sale, however, arguing that the sale of the missiles would encourage Ukraine to resume the use of force against Eastern Ukraine's ethnic Russian rebels, with the idea that they would deploy the missiles against any rebel tanks, and also against any Russian tanks that might join the fight.

Pentagon officials downplayed the issue, saying they don't believe the Javelin missiles will materially change the military balance of power in the region. Despite obvious offensive uses for such missiles, the US is trying to spin this as another "defensive" sale to Ukraine.

[Mar 02, 2018] Review 'Breaking Point' Finds Fake News and Real Violence in Ukraine

So Europeans, both Russians and Ukrainians are dying again for the USA geopolitical goals.
Mar 02, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

The first line of the Ukrainian national anthem is "Ukraine has not yet died," one interviewee says in "Breaking Point," a fierce documentary about that country and its recent clashes with Russia. For a land often perched on the edge of ruin, she says, mere survival is something to celebrate.

Directed by Mark Jonathan Harris and Oles Sanin, the film starts with a rundown of a history that has repeated itself for centuries -- invaders have long prized Ukraine for its resources and geography, and modern times are no exception.

... ... ...

The filmmakers supply terrifying footage: At civilian rallies, we see nightstick beatings and bloody riots. During military battles, bullets whiz by and explosions shake the cameras. Nerve-racking scenes follow Ukraine's extraordinarily bold volunteer soldiers.

[Mar 02, 2018] Trump betrayal of Trumpism

But Trump himself was quickly neutered (in just three month) and now does not represents "Trumpism" (rejection of neoliberal globalization, unrestricted immigration for suppression of wages, rejection of elimination of jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing, rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in Middle east, detente with Russia etc) in any meaningful way. He is just an aging Narcissist in power.
Looks like Trump became a variant of Hillary minus sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same. ..."
"... He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership ..."
"... . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement. ..."
"... He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack) ..."
"... His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship. ..."
"... I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA. ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

EliteCommInc. , March 1, 2018 at 3:38 pm GMT

it's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically, that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when evaluating Pres Trump:

3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.

... ... ...

5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership

... ... ...

8 . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.

9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack)

10. His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship.

11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary policy.

12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA.

[Mar 02, 2018] The deplorables, having found one another, need to hang together until we find real leadership. Trump, whatever he is, is not a leader.

"Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and attitude. Presidential decorum is a big deal to many."
Notable quotes:
"... The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it. ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

WorkingClass , March 2, 2018 at 2:14 am GMT

@EliteCommInc.

Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him.

Thank you. My bullet points would differ from yours but in the end I also voted for Trump. The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it.

The deplorables, having found one another, need to hang together until we find real leadership. Trump, whatever he is, is not a leader.

[Mar 02, 2018] Si>nce 1980th, very little has been done by US Federal Government for the benefit of the common citizen. A great deal has been done to facilitate the degradation of the standard of living of common citizen by the global one percent and by the costs of maintaining global neoliberal empire

Notable quotes:
"... Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and health care by AHIP with runaway costs. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 3:12:28 PM | 133

In fifty years, very little has been done by US Federal Government which benefits the common citizen. A great deal has been done to facilitate the degradation of the common citizen by the global one percent. We have a new world order as called for by GHW Bush.

Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and health care by AHIP with runaway costs.

Rodger | Aug 20, 2017 3:37:22 PM | 137
ANON

Trump is and has been carrying out his own policies to enrich those that already have everything and to repeal any regulations that were put into place to protect the people. Have you not noticed that he lined his cabinet with Goldman Sachs (which he blasted HRC for associating her self with.

Like I said he and his gang are doing what they want to help enrich themselves on the backs of the rest of us. Wake up and quit upholding these lying pieces of excrement they are no different than the ones before them.

Trump is a dirty businessman the things that he is doing are to benefit him and his family and to screw the rest of us and tell us how great it is for us. You my man have drank from the Trump cup and think that anything that speaks against him is "fake news" when in reality Trump and the likes of Breitbart are the "fake news" a little truth but a bunch of spin

[Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan

Highly recommended!
At the core of Trumpism is the rejection of neoliberalism
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands: " Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

At Yalta, Churchill rose to toast the butcher:

"I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world. We regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the hopes and hearts of all of us."

Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, "I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government."

George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world.

Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history. But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of "ending tyranny in our world."

... ... ...

After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics.

No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia. If Putin's Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back down -- or face a nuclear confrontation. Why would we risk something like this?

Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history.

But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants, many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million, composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.

Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation and one people?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

likbez , March 2, 2018 at 6:47 am GMT

Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands:

" Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."

The truth is that now Trump does not represent "Trumpism" -- the movement that he created which includes the following:

– rejection of neoliberal globalization;
– rejection of unrestricted immigration;
– fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
– fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing;
– rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in the Middle East;
– détente with Russia;
– more pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of influence;
– revision of relations with China and addressing the problem of trade deficit.
– rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
– the cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and concentrating on revival on national infrastructure, education, and science.
– abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist" foreign policy; closing of unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.

Of course, the notion of "Trumpism" is fuzzy and different people might include some additional issues and disagree with some listed here, but the core probably remains.

Of course, Trump is under relentless attack (coup d'état or, more precisely, a color revolution) of neoliberal fifth column, which includes Clinton gang, fifth column elements within his administration (Rosenstein, etc) as well from remnants of Obama administration (Brennan, Comey, Clapper) and associated elements within corresponding intelligence agencies. He probably was forced into some compromises just to survive. He also has members of the neoliberal fifth column within his family (Ivanka and Kushner).

So the movement now is in deep need of a new leader.

Miro23, March 3, 2018 at 7:55 am GMT
@likbez

That's a good summary of what the public voted for and didn't get.

And whether Trump has sold out, or was blackmailed or was a cynical manipulative liar for the beginning is really irrelevant. The fact is that he is not doing it – so he is just blocking the way.

At some point the US public are going to have to forget about their "representatives" (Trump and Congress and the rest of them) and get out onto the street to make themselves heard. The population of the US is 323 million people and if just 1/2 of 1% (1,6 million) of them decided to visit Congress directly the US administration might get the message.

pyrrhus, March 3, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT

@anon

Finally, Pat understands that the American [Neoliberal] Empire and habit of intervention all over the world is a disaster.

[Mar 02, 2018] Trump_vs_deep_state as bastard neoliberalism vs classic neoliberalism

In this state the current war between factions of the US elite reminds Stalin fight against "globalists" like Trotsky, who were hell-bent of the idea of world revolution.
Notable quotes:
"... I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions and military invasions, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-) ..."
"... But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing. And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear. ..."
"... Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically, and what should be the relationship between US government and business community. ..."
Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

likbez -> likbez... December 26, 2016 at 08:08 PM

I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions and military invasions, especially in the Middle East.

That's what seems to be the key difference of Trump_vs_deep_state from "classic neoliberalism" or as Sklar called it "corporate liberalism".

From Reagan to Obama all US governments pray to the altar of classic neoliberalism. Now we have a slight deviation.

That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-)

In this sense Krugman recent writings are really pathetic and signify his complete detachment from reality, or more correctly attempt to create an "artificial reality" in which bad wolf Trump is going to eat Democratic sheeple. And in which media, FBI, and Putin are responsible entirely for Hillary's loss.

But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing. And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear.

Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically, and what should be the relationship between US government and business community.

But the far right movement that he created and led has different ideas.

So it might be an interesting period to watch.

[Mar 02, 2018] There is will be no invasion of Russia only intimidation of the elites to submit to US political and economic dictates.

Mar 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

/p

What he did not mention is more important namely not what Russia did do with no violation of existing treaties but what they did anticipating expiration of treaties or in violation of existing treaties especially regarding space nuke.

In Fact China, Russia and US all work on space nuclear as well as so called guided hypersonic gravity systems what are man made meteorites , tungsten rods to hit the targets with cosmic speeds.

All additionally with anti satellite systems as well as massive electronic warfare including hacking of airplanes,drones, cruise missiles as well as ICBMs whose latest countermeasures made them, like guided, non ballistic trajectories nuclear heads practically non defeatable .

In fact Putin's speech actually more campaign speech countering the political right on subject of weakness and western appeasement, covered what was well know before, and was a counter point to military strategy of all sides rejecting use of nukes as way to achieve any tactical or strategic advantage.

Nukes are madness serve nobody but threatening human race with anihilation so they submit to their respective rulers who will never used them against one another but only in desperation face global revolution.


Facts are following:

Hitler and Napoleon learned that it is impossible to conquer Russia size of continent of militarily impossible weather with now a network of underground fortifications, tunnels that cannot be nuked.

There is no conquering Russia with measly million soldiers west could at best deploy for their sure deaths. Hence no western strategist plan for that and so the idea of Russia responding to conventional attack with nuke was a propaganda aim to end the conversation about that absurd, no sides really considers, but is used to spread fear.

US may attack Russia with nukes but no strategic goal would be achieved by that while retaliation would have been devastating.

Even conventional attack on Russia is absurd. Poland 50k 5k offensive capability, All Baltic states 10k, Slovakia 5k, Hungary 9k facing what?

Russian allies: Donbas rebels 40k war hardened rebel soldiers would be hard to beat; Belarus 250k highly trained soldiers, fully integrated Air, Space, Ground and electronic warfare with all newest Russian toys, while entire army of 2 millions. Russia 3-5 million military can call at least 10 millions will maintain air and space superiority over their territory , digged in while invaders are exposed.

There is will be no invasion of Russia only intimidation of the elites to submit to US political and economic dictates. Also there is no conquering China as well. Not possible.

The only nuke war can occur when global elite will be losing grip on power and going down in flames in socialist revolution and only to take entire humanity with them to hell.

Posted by: Kalen | Mar 1, 2018 11:30:58 PM | 55

[Mar 02, 2018] The best time to attack Russia

Mar 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

V. Arnold | Mar 2, 2018 12:01:34 AM | 57

The best time to attack Russia, enjoy:

This past September, in one of his regular interviews with the newspaper Parlamentní Listy, retired Czech Major General Hynek Blaško commented on the possibility of a conflict between Russia and NATO with a following anecdote:

"I have seen a popular joke on the Internet about Obama and his generals in the Pentagon debating on the best timing to attack Russia. They couldn't come to any agreement, so they decided to ask their allies.

The French said: " We do not know, but certainly not in the winter. This will end badly. "

The Germans responded: "We do not know, either, but definitely not in a summer. We have already tried."

Someone in Obama's war room had a brilliant idea to ask China, on the basis that China is developing and always has new ideas.

The Chinese answered: "The best time for this is right now. Russia is building the Power of Siberia pipeline, the North Stream Pipeline, Vostochny Cosmodrome Spaceport, the MegaProject bridge to Crimea; also Russian is upgrading the Trans-Siberian railroad with a new railway bridge across Lena River and the Amur-Yakutsk Mainline. Russia is also building new sports facilities for the World Cup and athletics, and has in development over 150 production projects in the Arctic Well, now they really need as many POWs as possible!"

[Mar 02, 2018] It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout

Notable quotes:
"... So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the "military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt. ..."
"... Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it growing 15%-10% yoy ..."
"... It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look big? ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

VK , Mar 1, 2018 8:47:38 PM | 43

The war hawks in my beloved country are the Soviet Politburo clamoring for a larger army, navy, air force to be equipped with the most expensive weaponry. Back in the 80's the Soviet Union had an army of 5M, they it is less than 1M and is purely defensive. We on the other hand have built up our Defense Budget to epic levels and have consultant after consultant telling us that it is at an all time low.

- Posted by: Christian Chuba | Mar 1, 2018 4:14:46 PM | 20

The USSR had deeper problems than that.

It's not that the Soviet expenditure with the military was a problem. On the opposite: the Soviet were very familiar with the concept of dual industry, them being the masters of WWII. Many industries in the USSR that were officially military were actually civilian: the most colorful example being the airplane industry, which could produce either civilian or military aircraft. Another example: the USSR was the biggest agriculture tractor producer in the world at one point. These tractors were produced in the same industrial plants as the one used to produce battle tanks. So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the "military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt.

Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it growing 15%-10% yoy .

It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look big?

[Mar 02, 2018] You don't hear foreign leaders, e.g., Vladimir Putin, constantly referring to the other countries in the world as "competitors", "rivals", "adversaries", "enemies", etc., depending the degree of their subservience/loyalty.

Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

p

Harold Smith , Next New Comment March 2, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT

@The Alarmist

You don't hear foreign leaders, e.g., Vladimir Putin, constantly referring to the other countries in the world as "competitors", "rivals", "adversaries", "enemies", etc., depending the degree of their subservience/loyalty. And as far as I know Chinese rulers don't do it either. Apparently Vladimir Putin really does try to treat other countries as "partners" (and that may explain his demonstrated reluctance to use any kind of "force").

Putin's all about cooperation; respect for international law; respect for each nation's sovereignty; diplomacy; etc. whereas the jewish-supremacist-controlled-demon-possessed-puppet-rulers-of-the-corrupt-neo-Bolshevik-"West" are all about lawlessness, unaccountability, deceit, war, terrorism, complete disregard for the rights/sovereignty of other countries, etc., etc., etc.

Can you imagine if a private person in society acted like the jew-supremacist-controlled U.S. government? Seriously try. Imagine you live on a street where one neighbor, "Sam" is always causing trouble. You have to be either "with him" (and complicit in his treachery against the whole neighborhood) or you're his "enemy", and you'll be dealt with accordingly. And you try to get along with your neighbors, but "Sam" gets up every morning with the thought "how can I screw them over today?"

One day one of Sam's neighbor's kids set up a lemonade stand. The kids had fun and made a little money. Sam was incensed; the neighbor's kids became "rivals" to his kids. Sam reasoned that if he didn't take action, these industrious neighbor kids would one day take over the whole neighborhood.(Sam's kids could've done the same thing but because of Sam's influence, they felt it was "beneath" them). So one day Sam ran over the lemonade stand with his car, trashing it, and he told the cops it
was an "accident."

Sam is always fighting with someone over something; he's burnt down peoples' houses; he's robbed people; he's killed people; he's raped some of the women in the neighborhood; and he's never held accountable. He's a pervert, a liar, a murderer, a crook, an arsonist, etc. And Sam always seems to get away with his crimes because he owns the cops and the judge.

Society wouldn't put up with a scumbag like this for very long, would it? At some point, somebody who's had enough is going to shoot Sam. And this is exactly the situation with the U.S. "government" today.

What is China (or Russia or Panama or Bangladesh or wherever)? It's a country full of people who have the same God-given natural right to exist that anyone else has, including U.S. rulers. Until U.S. rulers accept this (which they apparently never will) there will never be peace on this planet (unless somebody forcefully puts Sam in his place).

So what's my main point? I disagree with labeling other countries according to their willingness to take orders from the "beast". I disagree with the notion that the U.S. "government" can sit in judgment of the governments of other countries which have done nothing to the U.S. China is not a "rival"; Russia is not a "rival"; Country X is not a rival; and there is almost no problem on this earth that reasonable people cannot solve by way of diplomacy, if everyone involved is acts in good faith and accepts the natural rights of other people in far away places.

[Mar 02, 2018] The tales about putin super wealth in neoliberal MSM is just plain war propaganda, attempt to demonize him

Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

/b

TKK , Next New Comment March 2, 2018 at 3:37 am GMT

Putin a modest man? His net worth is an estimated 200 billion$-illegally vacuumed from government assets. It is believed he is the richest man in the world. Quite impressive considering he was a low level KGB drone stationed in Berlin.

Any journalist or bureaucratic agency that questions his staggering wealth disappears, is the victim of a "street" crime or is subject to campaigns of threats and gaslighting (Objects moved in their home while they are away, men following them on the street).

Has the author ever been to Russia? Perhaps that might be the first step in writing an article that is based in reality. Even in Moscow, access to basic antibiotics are a roll of the dice. If you pay enough, you may get them that day. If you not have enough money or the proper connections you may have to meet wait two weeks to get a simple dose of anti virals.

Any procedure that involves the slightest specialization must be scheduled months in advance, unless you are a member of the elite.

The American intellect is so flabby that it must paint people as heroes or devils. There can be no colorable issues. Putin is a man who is going to butter his own bread. He is a skilled politician and a deft criminal, and presenting a strong patriotism to Russia benefits him on all fronts.

Most large nations mettle in others elections. The western media is so deceptive,repulsive and deranged in their hatred of Trump that this is the only issue they believe they can hang their hat on to impeach Trump. If the evidence cannot be found they will invent.

But to paint Putin as a benevolent hero is so out of touch with the facts as to be either childish or insane.

FB , Next New Comment March 2, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@TKK

My my what a remarkable tale

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for even a tiny fraction of that gas eruption ?

I've spent a lot of time in Russia and you obviously have NOT

None of what you say is even remotely approaching reality of life in Russia which is quite civilized in fact much more so than the US

Basic antibiotics ?

What do you think Russia is Ethiopia ?

You're plain nutcase or troll

Jesse James , Next New Comment March 2, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT
@TKK

"Putin a modest man? His net worth is an estimated 200 billion$-illegally vacuumed from government assets. It is believed he is the richest man in the world. Quite impressive considering he was a low level KGB drone stationed in Berlin".

Comical unsubstantiated neocon fiction from US gov't outlets of CNN-MSNBC. Why would Putin stay in office with that kind of bank account? You are a neo-liberal myrmidon.

EugeneGur , March 2, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
@TKK

His net worth is an estimated 200 billion$-illegally vacuumed from government assets.

It's been "estimated" at $20 billion, $40 billion, and then $200 billion. The key word is "estimated". Where do you think a man could hide that amount of money, even $20 billion, so no one is able to find it? Why would Putin even need the money, ever, and would be able to use it? Putin is a smart man and he knows full well that the time when the Count of Monte-Cristo could emerge from a cave with an immense fortune nobody questions the origin of are gone. Putin knows he'd never be able to live in the West and enjoy his money, even if he wanted to. But as long as he stays in Russia he'll enjoy the status of the ex-President and everything that comes with it. This is from the practical standpoint.

Also, Putin doesn't seem to be the type. We've been observing him for close to 20 years, and during this time he has acquired the quality of a leader of truly historical proportions. I don't think he is particularly interested in personal enrichment.

Don't believe everything you read in the West about Russia or Putin – most of it is BS.

Even in Moscow, access to basic antibiotics are a roll of the dice.

Come on, man, are you for real? You can buy a truckload of antibiotics in any pharmacy in any town in Russia. Recently, they started to introduce that stupid "prescription only" rule but plenty is still available. Yes, some procedures do involve some waiting time but so is the case in the United States or anywhere.

Russia is not heaven on earth. It has plenty of problems. It's climbing out of a very deep hole economically and socially. But there is no need to invent stupidities.

[Mar 02, 2018] >US Approves Sale of Anti-Tank Missiles to Ukraine by Jason Ditz

Mar 02, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

$47 million sale targeted at neighboring Russia

Posted on March 1, 2018 Categories News Tags Pentagon , Russia , Ukraine

With Ukrainian officials continuing to talk up their hostility with neighboring Russia, the Pentagon announced on Thursday that approval has been granted for the sale of Javelin anti-tank systems to Ukraine.

The sale, estimated at a $47 million deal for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, would involve 37 Javelin Command Launch Units and 210 missiles . The Poroshenko government says it will be used to "protect Ukrainian soldiers."

Russia is protesting the sale, however, arguing that the sale of the missiles would encourage Ukraine to resume the use of force against Eastern Ukraine's ethnic Russian rebels, with the idea that they would deploy the missiles against any rebel tanks, and also against any Russian tanks that might join the fight.

Pentagon officials downplayed the issue, saying they don't believe the Javelin missiles will materially change the military balance of power in the region. Despite obvious offensive uses for such missiles, the US is trying to spin this as another "defensive" sale to Ukraine.

[Mar 02, 2018] Review 'Breaking Point' Finds Fake News and Real Violence in Ukraine

So Europeans, both Russians and Ukrainians are dying again for the USA geopolitical goals.
Mar 02, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

The first line of the Ukrainian national anthem is "Ukraine has not yet died," one interviewee says in "Breaking Point," a fierce documentary about that country and its recent clashes with Russia. For a land often perched on the edge of ruin, she says, mere survival is something to celebrate.

Directed by Mark Jonathan Harris and Oles Sanin, the film starts with a rundown of a history that has repeated itself for centuries -- invaders have long prized Ukraine for its resources and geography, and modern times are no exception.

... ... ...

The filmmakers supply terrifying footage: At civilian rallies, we see nightstick beatings and bloody riots. During military battles, bullets whiz by and explosions shake the cameras. Nerve-racking scenes follow Ukraine's extraordinarily bold volunteer soldiers.

[Mar 02, 2018] Neocon schumer plays identity politics

Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , March 2, 2018 at 2:59 am GMT

Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.

Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's white

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/chuck-schumer-votes-against-s-c-judicial-nominee-because-he/article_8b9f1890-1d6b-11e8-8533-0f7cc33319a9.html

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.

Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South Carolina

Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.

Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating white men.

"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.

"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice."

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by starting with their offices.

"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.

[Mar 02, 2018] Look deeper at "election rigger" and will find a neoconservative

Mar 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Paul Craig Roberts' invective against the "riggers:" https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/03/01/washington-sufficiently-intelligent-trusted-independent-foreign-policy/
"The stupid Samantha Vinograd [who served as a staffer on Obama's National Security Council] repeats the lie that Russiagate was Putin's plot "to destabilize the United States." So, how is the US a superpower when Russia controls US elections? Doesn't this mean that Americans are of no relevance whatsoever in the world? ... With intelligence levels this low on Obama's National Security Council, no wonder the neoonservatives were able to run over the Obama regime and resurrect the Cold War, thus returning the world to a high chance of nuclear Armageddon."
The "riggers" have exposed their incompetence again and again and again...

[Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative

Highly recommended!
Muller was the guy who buried 911 investigation. That's probably why he was hired for Russiagate investigation too.
Notable quotes:
"... retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional Investigators or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was Wikileaks' source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election? ..."
"... Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New Zealand entrepreneur who clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with a memory stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation. ..."
"... In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery," forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google , was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking: ..."
"... Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news. ..."
"... Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Who else is on the Atlantic Council? Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had been spying on the Trump campaign: ..."
"... "The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons. ..."
"... Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder ..."
"... Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks ." ..."
"... Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a finger at former CIA director (and now MSNBC/NBC contributor ) John Brennan as the architect. ..."
"... and said 'I want money.' ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As rumors swirl that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is preparing a case against Russians who are alleged to have hacked Democrats during the 2016 election -- a conclusion based solely on the analysis of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, a Friday op-ed in the Washington Times by retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional Investigators or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was Wikileaks' source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election?

Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New Zealand entrepreneur who clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with a memory stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation.

On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.

In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery," forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google , was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking:

Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news.

In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged "80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners," Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs that the said information is incorrect .

Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources. Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. –mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)

In fact, several respected journalists have cast serious doubt on CrowdStrike's report on the DNC servers:

Pay attention, because Mueller is likely to use the Crowdstrike report to support the rumored upcoming charges against Russian hackers.

Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Who else is on the Atlantic Council? Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had been spying on the Trump campaign:

The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence. - Evelyn Farkas

Odd facts surrounding the murder of Seth Rich

"The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons.

Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder.

Furthermore, two men working with the Rich family - private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod Wheeler and family acquaintance Ed Butowsky, have previously stated that Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks before his death.

"According to Ed Butowsky, an acquaintance of the family, in his discussions with Joel and Mary Rich, they confirmed that their son transmitted the DNC emails to Wikileaks ," writes Lyons.

While Wheeler initially told TV station Fox5 that proof of Rich's contact with WikiLeaks lies on the murdered IT staffer's laptop, he later walked the claim back - though he maintained that there was "some communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks."

Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich's brother, Aaron – a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth's computer and stonewalled his investigation.

Wheeler said that brother Aaron Rich tried to block Wheeler from looking at Seth's computer, even though there could be evidence on it. "He said no, he said I have his computer, meaning him," Wheeler said. "I said, well can I look at it? He said, what are you looking for? I said anything that could indicate if Seth was having problems with someone. He said no, I already checked it. Don't worry about it."

Aaron also blocked Wheeler from finding out about who was at a party Seth attended the night of the murder.

"All I want you to do is work on the botched robbery theory and that's it," Aaron told Wheeler - Big League Politics

Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks ."

As transcribed and exclusively reported on by journalist Cassandra Fairbanks last year:

What the report says is that some time in late Spring he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that's in his computer," he says. " Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents -- of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC."

Hersh explains that it was unclear how the negotiations went, but that WikiLeaks did obtain access to a password protected DropBox where Rich had put the files.

" All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.' Later, WikiLeaks did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the DropBox."

Hersh also states that Rich had concerns about something happening to him, and had

"The word was passed, according to the NSA report, he also shared this DropBox with a couple of friends, so that 'if anything happens to me it's not going to solve your problems,'" he added. "WikiLeaks got access before he was killed."

Brennan and Russian disinformation

Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a finger at former CIA director (and now MSNBC/NBC contributor ) John Brennan as the architect.

I have a narrative of how that whole f*cking thing began. It's a Brennan operation, it was an American disinformation , and the fu*kin' President, at one point, they even started telling the press – they were backfeeding the Press, the head of the NSA was going and telling the press, fu*king c*cksucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the Russian military intelligence service leaked it.

Listen to Seymour Hersh leaked audio:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/giuZdBAXVh0

(full transcription here and extended audio of the Hersh conversation here )

Hersh denied that he told Butowsky anything before the leaked audio emerged , telling NPR " I hear gossip [Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it. "

Technical Evidence

As we mentioned last week, Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed typical of file transfers to a memory stick.

The big hint

Last but not least, let's not forget that Julian Assange heavily implied Seth Rich was a source:

Given that a) the Russian hacking narrative hinges on Crowdstrikes's questionable reporting , and b) a mountain of evidence pointing to Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails - it stands to reason that Congressional investigators and Special Counsel Robert Mueller should at minimum explore these leads.

As retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks: why aren't they?

macholatte Permalink

Something all of us here already know, if Mueller gets away from the delusion of Trump-Russia collusion then it will be his ass in the frying pan. So he won't go after the Clintons, Obama, Comey or anyone else. Hitlery could show up with a gun in her hand and tell Mueller she shot Seth and he would ignore it.

And, sadly, there ain't nobody gonna do anything about it unless and until a Special Prosecutor from outside DC is hired. Right now a snowball in hell has a better chance.

Corruption!
It's what's for breakfast!

– Rod Sessions

NumberNone -> hedgeless_horseman Permalink

Why don't the Democrats scream about the exploitation of his murder against them like they do with every minor accusation? It's as if they want his death to disappear from the public view...wonder why?

Theosebes Goodfellow -> WTFRLY Permalink

I think it is mostly because they know so much of their world hangs in the secrecy. If they let the Seth Rich story get out, the Uranium One story gets out. If the Uranium One story gets out, the Awans' stolen cars with diplomatic cover for guns to Syria in return for heroin to America comes out. If that story comes out, then the ISI Pakistani doctors with fake medical degrees pushing pharma opiods in America comes out. And finally, Pizzagate, Pedogate, call it what you want, it comes out too. And then all of these dirty sons of bitches go to jail.

And that's why you aren't hearing any of it. Especially from Mueller. I think he got hoodwinked too. They sold him this job as a slam dunk to get Trump out of the White House. It really is the shits when the best laid plans of mice go south.

Bes Yars Revenge Permalink

One of Trumps big problems is that as an outsider he did not have people both qualified and loyal to appoint to critical offices in the deep state. That is why he wound up with a cipher like Sessions, a guy naive and gullible enough to believe the justice department was filled with honorable and trustworthy people or at least men who played by some set of rules. Having found out the hard way that he screwed up Trump is groping for a way out, trying to use a knife in a gun fight. The other side is too ruthless and i suspect they will take him down in the end.

SlothB77 Yars Revenge Permalink

"All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.' Later, WikiLeaks did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the DropBox."

Why has no one followed the money on this yet? This introduces an interesting angle - did Seth Rich get paid by WikiLeaks? And if so, can we find evidence of the payoff? How did he afford his expensive watch and necklace?

Dems voters and liberals are silent on all this or really just pushing the Russian and Putin narrative.

Report a crime, yet don't allow law enforcement access to evidence to help them solve the case.

Sounds like a case in Illinois. A 1 1/2 year old went missing, yet the parent wouldn't let the authorities search the house. I don't remember if there was a warrant or what finally happened that the police were allowed to search the home, but they did, and found the baby, dead, under the sofa.

hedgeless_horseman z530 Permalink

The case is being tried on CNN and in the NYT. It was never intended to go to court.

The other key is Rod Rosenstein's post-indictment presser. At the very end, he gave away the game by admitting there was no collusion, no Americans were involved, and nothing allegedly done by the Russians affected the election's outcome. BOOM. Stick a fork in Mueller's ham sandwich indictment.

truthalwayswinsout Permalink

Without that bit of truth, Mueller can go after people for other crimes but not for what he was mandated to do.

The one bit of evidence that pushes me over from the possible to probably is the gun, what are the odds of this gun being stolen from the FBI, not just some random joe, but the FBI themselves. If that was the same gun used in the murder than the odds of it happening to turn up immediately in a robbery where nothing was stolen in an area where no one commits crimes is so small as to be near zero. It is vague above, what do ballistics say?

If Trump really wants to drain his swamp then this would be the way in, however if they did murder Seth then they'll murder Trump's family too so he is neutralized unless they can go in and get everyone involved in one go. Otherwise I'd expect the job to be handed over to someone ready to die, thinking here a retired general/admiral with no family might be the one to do it.

[Mar 02, 2018] The US has shown nothing but developmental incompetence for some years now. No amount of forced science on special projects can compensate for the systemic failures of a naval fleet that can't steer straight, a trillion-dollar 5th-gen plane that actually doesn't work to 5th-gen standards, and the clear display of a Military Complex saturated with corruption. The gang that can't shoot straight is incapable of peer warfare.

Notable quotes:
"... Yes but very slowly. Russia consistently confounds my western sense of escalation by slicing all situations into tiny increments, smaller than I would have guessed they could be sliced, but on inspection completely realistic and sane. ..."
"... And at the end of each gradual path of escalation sits a hammer blow so final that every time it strikes the world has changed, in the blink of an eye. ..."
"... You wake up and Russia's in Syria. You wake up and every map of Crimea needs to be changed. You wake up and it takes the sane perspective of people like b to narrate how the Munich speech warning of consequences spent 11 years in the preparation, and on this day the Kremlin decided the time to announce this had come. ..."
"... The US has shown nothing but developmental incompetence for some years now. No amount of forced science on special projects can compensate for the systemic failures of a naval fleet that can't steer straight, a trillion-dollar 5th-gen plane that actually doesn't work to 5th-gen standards, and the clear display of a Military Complex saturated with corruption. The gang that can't shoot straight is incapable of peer warfare. You'd hate to be a village without some nuclear arms to protect you in the next 3-4 years, but otherwise the US is done as a world force, and Putin's speech is the milestone of that. ..."
"... The stupidity that the US is trapped it is fealty to the God of Mammon. If your first priority is to make profit then making good stuff become secondary and your competitors have you for lunch ..."
"... Pushing the US into an arms race will be the final nail in its bankruptcy coffin. Are the other nations of the world going to continue to buy Treasuries so we can build weapons to suppress them more? ..."
Mar 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Grieved , Mar 1, 2018 8:58:39 PM | 44
@39 V. Arnold - "I sense the gloves are coming off"

Yes but very slowly. Russia consistently confounds my western sense of escalation by slicing all situations into tiny increments, smaller than I would have guessed they could be sliced, but on inspection completely realistic and sane.

And at the end of each gradual path of escalation sits a hammer blow so final that every time it strikes the world has changed, in the blink of an eye.

You wake up and Russia's in Syria. You wake up and every map of Crimea needs to be changed. You wake up and it takes the sane perspective of people like b to narrate how the Munich speech warning of consequences spent 11 years in the preparation, and on this day the Kremlin decided the time to announce this had come.

And with the announcement of the fruition of the last warning comes also the next warning, that new systems are in development and they will be developed.

~~

@14 karlof1

I like what you're saying about an arms race. And so let the US try. Let it either do nothing and bluster in its media, or else attempt to catch up and step into the real world to match the forces playing at the table. Either way it achieves nothing of substance.

The US has shown nothing but developmental incompetence for some years now. No amount of forced science on special projects can compensate for the systemic failures of a naval fleet that can't steer straight, a trillion-dollar 5th-gen plane that actually doesn't work to 5th-gen standards, and the clear display of a Military Complex saturated with corruption. The gang that can't shoot straight is incapable of peer warfare. You'd hate to be a village without some nuclear arms to protect you in the next 3-4 years, but otherwise the US is done as a world force, and Putin's speech is the milestone of that.

The US is trapped in its own stupidity.

I'd say, stick a fork in it, but Putin could probably describe the 36 gradations of fork-sticking, and advise me to be patient ;)

psychohistorian , Mar 1, 2018 9:22:56 PM | 45
@ Grieved who wrote: "The US is trapped in its own stupidity."

The stupidity that the US is trapped it is fealty to the God of Mammon. If your first priority is to make profit then making good stuff become secondary and your competitors have you for lunch

Pushing the US into an arms race will be the final nail in its bankruptcy coffin. Are the other nations of the world going to continue to buy Treasuries so we can build weapons to suppress them more?

Pushing the US out of Syria will be the test of Putin's strategy. Will it work? I suspect we will know soon enough.

Peter AU 1 , Mar 1, 2018 9:35:16 PM | 46
karlof1, Hoarsewhisperer

More than likely the same clown as went by the username milomilo back in the aussie ambassador thread.
The username this time round links back to a junk news site.

V. Arnold , Mar 1, 2018 9:36:40 PM | 47
Grieved | Mar 1, 2018 8:58:39 PM | 44
Indeed, Putin seems a man of infinite patience; but calculating and analyzing might be a better descriptive.

And then there is NATO; standing naked in front of the Bear. When will its citizens (of so many countries) realize they'll be the first recipients of nuclear wrath wrought by a corrupt hegemon and its sycophant vassals (redundant?) following an insane behavior not their own? Or rather, do they realize they now own that inane behavior?

Peter AU 1 , Mar 1, 2018 9:39:07 PM | 48
Greived 44 "You'd hate to be a village without some nuclear arms to protect you in the next 3-4 years, but otherwise the US is done as a world force"

I have felt for some time that Putin's aim is to see the US empire done and dusted before he retires. 3-4 years looks about right as he will be getting on a bit by the end of the next term.'

telescope , Mar 1, 2018 9:57:31 PM | 49
America's Beltway wonks admit the USA won't be able to keep up with Russia, bring idea of abolishing nukes altogether. I have to admit that although I view condition of the United States as dire and hopeless, I didn't expect to see first signs of folding so soon.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/01/putins-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile-is-bigger-than-trumps/

Whorin Peace , Mar 1, 2018 10:11:59 PM | 50
It is Daniel 8. The watchman (Trump) will unfortunately decide to have a big go at eliminating Syria. The descendant of the Greek shaggy goat is RF. This announcement will be misread. The US will fall into the Daniel 8 trap. 2017 it erected its first facilities between the holy mountain and the sea. We are being puppeted into Armageddon. And for a little tickle consider the Sanhedrin minted coin celebrating Trump's movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem...he is put on same level as Cyrus...the anointed one...messiah...Cyrus is considered by the Judaics as a messiah...Trump is being lauded by them as a new messiah in the vein of Cyrus.

[Mar 02, 2018] Bye-bye carrier fleets in peer conflict. At 12 billion each. Still effective against third world

Mar 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

p
You are right on. The hypersonic Russian cruise missile rules; the US has nothing like it. And we have seen that the evolution of battleship-->carrier-->cruise missile is complete. First planes from carriers out-distanced battleship rounds, now cruise missiles have out-distanced carrier planes (plus speed and maneuver). Bye-bye carrier fleets in peer conflict. At 12 billion each, plus the cost of the escorts and the 5,000 crew (prospects for Davey Jones's locker). Still effective against third world.

Actually they have a small presence anyhow because they are high maintenance. Currently, as usual, only two carriers of the US eleven are deployed as seen here . Two of eleven!!

Posted by: Don Bacon | Mar 1, 2018 10:24:24 PM | 52

[Mar 01, 2018] Russia is at war. Sanction is essentially a declaration of war

Notable quotes:
"... Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA. ..."
"... A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster. ..."
Mar 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jason Liu , February 23, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT

First, and this is crucial, Russia is at war. Let me repeat this: Russia is at war with the AngloZionist Empire. The fact that this war is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic does not make it less real or less dangerous, if only because these ratios can very rapidly change.

So is China, except we're not as aware of it. Especially the information warfare part.

I think Putin should just kick democracy to the curb and make sure his opponents never have a chance to even deny him a majority. The west already regards Russia as an "non-democratic authoritarian state" anyway, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of perception.

Andrei Martyanov , Website February 23, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
@Jason Liu

So is China,

Yes and no. It is much more complex with China than with Russia. US-Chinese relations have a peculiar dynamics, although at some pint of time things may get really dicey, no doubt about it.

RadicalCenter , February 23, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA.

I'm praying for both of our countries to turn it around, each according to its own culture, traditions, and core people's wishes (I.e. I want a less centralized system than Russia has, and than WE have for that matter, and generally more individual liberty than most Russians would want. America and Russia can develop on different paths and still be effective partners, increasing trade and military cooperation to destroy Islamists, crush piracy on the sea, deter and contain China to Asia, etc.)

A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster.

[Mar 01, 2018] Did the CIA Plant Drugs on Russian Athletes at the Olympics

Notable quotes:
"... This is a video created by the New Yorker magazine which desperately pushes the idea that the Russians are dopers. The New Yorker has been a hotbed of pushing a heavy Russophobia through its favorite columnist Masha Gessen. ..."
"... Russian curling team Alexander Krushelnitsky and Anastasia Bryzgalova ..."
"... more than any other athletes ..."
"... is a substance where there is a parent compound which is a common headache migraine treatment available particularly in China and Japan and if that is found then it is not considered an ADRV. And if there is a very low level, as there was in this case, that is a possibility. ..."
"... Russian bobsledder Nadezhda Sergeeva. ..."
Mar 01, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Did the CIA Plant Drugs on Russian Athletes at the Olympics? Something stinks Rick Sterling Feb 27, 2018 | 2,899 122 MORE: Politics

There is something very fishy about the Anti Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) pinned on the Russian curler and Russian bobsledder during the final week of the Peyongchang Winter Olympics.

It makes no logical sense that an athlete would do a one-time consumption of a chemical that is of no value in circumstances where it is almost certain to be detected with huge negative consequences.

me title=

This is a video created by the New Yorker magazine which desperately pushes the idea that the Russians are dopers. The New Yorker has been a hotbed of pushing a heavy Russophobia through its favorite columnist Masha Gessen.

That is precisely the situation. The Russian Mixed Curling bronze medal winner, Alexander Krushelnitsky, had to give up his medal, plus that of his partner wife, because traces of meldonium were found in his urine sample. He had previously tested clean. Meldonium is a medication which helps keep the heart healthy by increasing blood flow. That would be of no benefit in a sport like curling which requires accuracy, strategy and focus but is not taxing physically. The "sweeping" to help guide the rock down the ice lasts only 20 seconds or less. International curlers were astounded at the news and bemused at the idea of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for curling. The skip of the Danish curling team said "I think most people will laugh and ask, 'what could you possibly need doping for?"

Krushelnitsky strongly denies taking banned drugs. "I am categorically opposed to doping . never, at any time that I have been involved in sport, have I ever used prohibited substances".

Russian curling team Alexander Krushelnitsky and Anastasia Bryzgalova

Similar curious circumstances apply in the second ADRV . Russian bobsledder Nadezhda Sergeeva had numerous negative (clean) tests before she was tested positive for banned trimetazidine. Bobsledding is another sport which requires physical and mental skill but not physical endurance.

In the February 25 IOC meeting to close the Peyongchang Winter Games, the head of the IOC Implementation Group, Nicole Hoevertz, said the Russian athletes had been tested " more than any other athletes ". She and her group were convinced that the 168 member Russian athletic team was clean. At about 82:00 in the video, she says the two Russian doping violations were "so peculiar." She introduced the IOC Medical and Scientific Director, Dr. Richard Bludgett, to provide more detail. He suggested that meldonium would not be of benefit in curling. He then went further and suggested the ADRV regarding trimetazidine may be in error. He said trimetazidine " is a substance where there is a parent compound which is a common headache migraine treatment available particularly in China and Japan and if that is found then it is not considered an ADRV. And if there is a very low level, as there was in this case, that is a possibility. "

Sergeeva denies ever taking banned drugs and even went on social media with a T-shirt declaring her commitment to clean spor t.

Russian bobsledder Nadezhda Sergeeva.

In summary, it seems highly unlikely that two different Russian athletes would intentionally take medications that have no benefit but which are almost guaranteed to be detected resulting in huge harm to them and their team.

Who Benefits?

Another possibility is that meldonium or trimetazidine powder was surreptitiously put in the food of the athletes. This one time consumption would cause a positive test.

In fact there are forces on the international scene who are pleased that Russia has been battling defamation and charges of "state sponsored doping" for the past two years. They want the current denigration and punishments of Russia to continue, perhaps influencing Russia's upcoming national election and undermining Russia's hosting of the Football World Cup this summer.

One such group is the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The CIA has a long history of big and small criminal deeds. Presumably it would not be difficult for them to infiltrate Olympic facilities or bribe a corrupt individual to put traces of meldonium or another powder in someone's food or drink.

Those who quickly dismiss this possibility probably also thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2002. That was a false claim supported by evidence fabricated by the CIA.

It is well documented the CIA carries out murders, coups and major sabotage. The CIA has documented some of their methods in "The Official CIA Manual of Trickery and Deception" . They don't just carry out assassinations and coups. In the book "In Search of Enemies", former CIA officer J ohn Stockwell documented how the CIA created a false story about Cuban soldiers raping Angolan women to defame Cuba.

Corrupt police forces sometimes plant evidence on a suspect they wish to convict. It would be essentially the same thing to get a Russian athlete to ingest spiked food or beverage.

The CIA has motive and expressed intent:

* In contrast with Russian leaders who call the US a "partner", US officials increasingly call Russia an "adversary". The latest US National Security Strategy explicitly says they intend to respond to Russia as an adversary: " The United States will respond to the growing political, economic and military competitions we face around the world. China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity."

* Despite the lack of clear evidence , there is widespread belief that Russia "meddled" in the US election. The anti-Russia sentiment has been fanned into the exaggerated claim that the unproven Russian action was "an act of war, an act of hybrid warfare".

* Neoconservatives forces openly talk about "punishing" Russia. The former Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael Morrell, said "We need to make the Russians pay a price" . He confirmed on public television that means killing Russians (and Iranians) in Syria. This is the 33 year veteran CIA leader who publicly campaigned for Hillary Clinton.

Did the CIA plant the doping evidence? We don't know for certain but it should not be dismissed out of hand. The CIA has the means, opportunity and above all the motive to falsely implicate Russians in new doping cases with the goal of preventing Russia from getting beyond the international sporting sanctions and punishments. They have done vastly more deceitful, manipulative, and outrageous things than this.

Media Bias

Unfortunately, western media will not investigate this possibility. Western media cannot even accurately report on events like the IOC meeting yesterday. The fact that the head of the IOC Implementation Group warmly praised the Russian participation at the Peyongchang Olympics is not mentioned in western media. The fact that Dr. Bludgett raised questions about the accuracy of the ADRVs against Russia is not mentioned in reports from NY Times , the UK Guardian or I nside the Games . Instead, the writer at Inside the Games once again exaggerated the voice of critics of Russia as he downplayed the voices of international athletes who want to put the doping scandal behind and move forward.

Western media have reported deceptively that the Russian athletes have "admitted" to the violations. In fact, both Russian athletes strongly deny taking banned drugs.

Western media bias is also shown in the focus on alleged Russian doping and minimization or ignoring of other possible violations. For example the story about the Norwegian cross-country ski team and their use of banned asthmatic medications. They get around the restrictions by having their doctor claim that most of their athletes are asthmatic. This situation is a result of the inconsistent rules and regulations. A Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) can be given to any athlete designated by a doctor and in secrecy. They are not required to publicly disclose this, giving incentive to corruption and misuse.

Richard McLaren's Bias

The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) has also been biased. Over one year ago, their investigator Richard McLaren claimed "over one thousand Russian athletes benefited" from the alleged Russian conspiracy to cheat the ant-doping system. McLaren said the proof would be provided to the various sport federations. In September 2017 it was revealed that charges had been filed against 96 athletes. Of these, WADA cleared 95 athletes of wrongdoing; only one athlete was proven to be in violation. More recently, the Court of Arbitration in Sport completely overturned the bans on 28 Russian athletes. In summary, it appears that McLaren's accusation about "over one thousand athletes benefiting" was a huge exaggeration or fabrication.

Where Do Things Go From Here?

The IOC Executive Board has indicated they intend to lift the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee if no more "anti doping rule violations" are found in the last batch of athlete samples from the Peyongchang Olympics. The results are expected in a few days.

Another ADRV may appear. If so, that will greatly complicate the effort to reintegrate Russian athletics. Even if the final tests are all clean, those who oppose Russia will continue trying to delay or prevent the full integration of Russia within the world sporting Community.

The former Moscow Laboratory Director Grigory Rodchenkov is the primary weapon in the campaign accusing Russia of "state sponsored doping". "Icarus" is a movie about him which has received huge funding and promotion. It is nominated for an an Oscar Academy award. This will serve the campaign well.

The Russian have been accused of trying to murder Rodchenkov. But if he suddenly dies one day, it is more likely to be by the CIA. At this point, Rodchenkov has done all the damage he can to Russian sports. The only thing he could possibly do is to recant or fall apart. His handlers have prevented him from appearing before the various committees looking into the accusations. At this point, Rodchenkov could be more valuable dead than alive. His death would be a powerful weapon to disrupt the normalization of relations with Russia.

[Mar 01, 2018] Putin The Man Who Stopped Washington s Regime Change Rampage by Mike Whitney

What Washington really haptes about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a "unipolar" world order.
Notable quotes:
"... The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. ..."
"... That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny. ..."
"... John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling back democracy" in Russia. ..."
"... What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a "unipolar" world order. ..."
"... Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day. ..."
"... But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. ..."
"... The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression is really the victim. ..."
"... Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground. ..."
"... The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. ..."
"... The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble. ..."
"... After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders committed abroad. ..."
"... China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. ..."
"... American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free' trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike. ..."
"... not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs. ..."
"... Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows administered by US/NATO. A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example? ..."
"... Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example. It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for. ..."
"... Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence. Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has. ..."
"... When asked by a Germany-based academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests." ..."
"... America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria. Very sad. ..."
"... America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes. Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. ..."
"... In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons ..."
"... The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors. ..."
"... GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British empire now? ..."
"... US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them militarily. Good luck with that. ..."
"... The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various "dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British style. ..."
Feb 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

"It is essential to provide conditions for creative labor and economic growth at a pace that would put an end to the division of the world into permanent winners and permanent losers. The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We should work to level out the pace of economic development, and brace up backward countries and regions so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress accessible to all. Particularly, this would help to put an end to poverty, one of the worst contemporary problems." Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

Putin wants to end poverty? Putin wants to stimulate economic growth in developing countries? Putin wants to change the system that divides the world into "permanent winners and losers"? But, how can that be, after all, Putin is bad, Putin is a "KGB thug", Putin is the "new Hitler"?

American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution. Naturally, the Russian system has its shortcomings, but there has been significant progress under Putin who has dramatically increased the budget, improved treatment and widened accessibility. Putin believes that healthcare should be a universal human right. Here's what he said at the annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club:

"Another priority is global healthcare . All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right to healthy, long and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build the foundation for the future world today by investing in all priority areas of human development." (Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)

How many "liberal" politicians in the US would support a recommendation like Putin's? Not very many. The Democrats are much more partial to market-based reforms like Obamacare that guarantee an ever-increasing slice of the pie goes to the giant HMOs and the voracious pharmaceutical companies. The Dems no longer make any attempt to promote universal healthcare as a basic human right. They've simply thrown in the towel and moved on to other issues.

Many Americans would find Putin's views on climate change equally surprising. Here's another clip from the Valdai speech:

"Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum .." Valdai)

Most people would never suspect that Putin supports a global effort to address climate change. And, how would they know, after all, bits of information like that– that help to soften Putin's image and make him seem like a rational human being– are scrubbed from the media's coverage in order to cast him in the worst possible light. The media doesn't want people to know that Putin is a reflective and modest man who has worked tirelessly to make Russia and the world a better place. No, they want them to believe that he's is a scheming tyrannical despot who's obsessive hatred for America poses a very real threat to US national security. But it's not true.

Putin is not the ghoulish caricature the media makes him out to be nor does he hate America, that's just more propaganda from the corporate echo-chamber. The truth is Putin has been good for Russia, good for regional stability, and good for global security. He pulled the Russian Federation back from the brink of annihilation in 2000, and has had the country moving in a positive direction ever since. His impact on the Russian economy has been particularly impressive. According to Wikipedia:

"Between 2000 and 2012 Russia's energy exports fueled a rapid growth in living standards, with real disposable income rising by 160%. In dollar-denominated terms this amounted to a more than sevenfold increase in disposable incomes since 2000. In the same period, unemployment and poverty more than halved and Russians' self-assessed life satisfaction also rose significantly."

Inequality is a problem in Russia just like it is in the US, but the vast majority of working people have benefited greatly from Putin's reforms and a system of distribution that –judging by steady uptick in disposable incomes – is significantly superior to that in the United States where wages have flatlined for over 2 decades and where virtually all of the nation's wealth trickles upward to the parasitic 1 percent.

Since Putin took office in 2000, workers have seen across-the-board increase in wages, benefits, healthcare and pensions. Poverty and unemployment have been reduced by more than half while foreign investment has experienced steady growth. Onerous IMF loans have been repaid in full, capital flight has all-but ceased, hundreds in billions in reserves have been accumulated, personal and corporate taxes have been slashed, and technology has experienced an unprecedented renaissance. The notorious Russian oligarchs still have a stranglehold on many privately-owned industries, but their grip has begun to loosen and the "kleptocracy has begun to fade."

Things are far from perfect, but the Russian economy has flourished under Putin and, generally speaking, the people are appreciative. This helps to explain why Putin's public approval ratings are typically in the stratosphere. (70 to 80 percent) Simply put: Putin the most popular Russian president of all time. And his popularity is not limited to Russia either, in fact, he typically ranks at the top of most global leadership polls such as the recent Gallup International End of Year Survey (EoY) where Putin came in third (43 percent positive rating) behind Germany's Angela Merkel (49 percent) and French President Emmanuel Macron. (45 percent) According to Gallup: "Putin has gone from one in three (33 percent) viewing him favourably to 43 percent, a significant increase over two years."

The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. This should come as no surprise to Americans who know that the chances of stumbling across an article that treats Putin with even minimal objectivity is about as likely as finding a copper coin at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The consensus view of the western media is that Putin is a maniacal autocrat who kills journalists and political opponents (no proof), who meddles in US elections to "sow discord" and destroy our precious democracy (no proof), and who is conducting a secret and sinister cyberwar against the United States. (no proof). It's a pathetic litany of libels and fabrications, but its impact on the brainwashed American people has been quite impressive as Gallup's results indicate. Bottom line: Propaganda works.

The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. This is when the powerful Council on Foreign Relations funded a report titled "Russia's Wrong Direction" that suggested that Russia's increasingly independent foreign policy and insistence that it control its own vast oil and natural gas resources meant that "the very idea of a 'strategic partnership' no longer seems realistic." That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny.

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling back democracy" in Russia. They claimed that the government had become increasingly authoritarian and that the society was growing less "open and pluralistic". Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign against Putin has been built. Twelve years later, the same charges are still being leveled at Putin along with the additional allegations that he meddled in the 2016 presidential elections.

Needless to say, none of the nation's newspapers, magazines or broadcast media ever publish anything that deviates even slightly from the prevailing, propagandistic narrative about Putin. One can only assume that the MSM's views on Putin are either universally accepted by all 325 million Americans or that the so-called "free press" is a wretched farce that conceals an authoritarian corporate machine that censors all opinions that don't promote their own malign political agenda.

What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a "unipolar" world order. As he said at the annual Security Conference at Munich in 2007:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."

Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day.

But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. At present, US Special Forces and their allies are clinging to a strip of arid wasteland in the Syrian outback hoping that the Pentagon brass can settle on a forward-operating strategy that reverses their fortunes or brings the war to a swift end.

The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression is really the victim. More important, failure in Syria has led to a reevaluation of how Washington conducts its wars abroad. The War on Terror pretext has been jettisoned for a more direct approach laid out in the Trump administration's National Defense Strategy. The focus going forward will be on "Great Power Competition", that is, the US is subordinating its covert proxy operations to more flagrant displays of military force particularly in regards to the "growing threat from revisionist powers", Russia and China. In short, the gloves are coming off and Washington is ramping up for a land war.

Putin has become an obstacle to Washington's imperial ambitions which is why he's has been elevated to Public Enemy Number 1. It has nothing to do with the fictitious meddling in the 2016 elections or the nonsensical "rolling back democracy" in Russia. It's all about power. In the United States the group with the tightest grip on power is the foreign policy establishment. These are the towering mandarins who dictate the policy, tailor the politics to fit their strategic vision, and dispatch their lackeys in the media to shape the narrative. These are the people who decided that Putin must be demonized to pave the way for more foreign interventions, more regime change wars, more bloody aggression against sovereign states.

Putin has repeatedly warned Washington that Russia would not stand by while the US destroyed one country after the other in its lust for global domination. He reiterated his claim that Washington's "uncontained hyper-use of force" was creating "new centers of tension", exacerbating regional conflicts, undermining international relations, and "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." He has pointed out how the US routinely displayed its contempt for international law and "overstepped its national borders in every way." As a result of Washington's aggressive behavior, public confidence in international law and global security has steadily eroded and "No one feels safe. I want to emphasize this," Putin thundered in Munich. "No one feels safe."

On September 28, 2015 Putin finally threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York. After reiterating his commitment to international law, the UN, and state sovereignty, he provided a brief but disturbing account of recent events in the Middle East, all of which have gotten significantly worse due to Washington's use of force. Here's Putin:

"Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life

The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 ."

US interventions have decimated Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond. Over a million people have been killed while tens of millions have been forced to flee their homes and their countries. The refugee spillover has added to social tensions across the EU where anti-immigrant sentiment has precipitated the explosive growth in right wing groups and political organizations. From Northern Africa, across the Middle East, and into Central Asia, global security has steadily deteriorated under Washington's ruthless stewardship. Here's more from Putin:

"The Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions .It is irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them ."

Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground.

Putin: "We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world."

Less than 48 hours after these words were uttered, Russian warplanes began pounding militant targets in Syria.

Putin again: "Dear colleagues, relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism .Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples."

So, here's the question: Is Putin "evil" for opposing Washington's regime change wars, for stopping the spread of terrorism, and for rejecting the idea that one unipolar world power should rule the world? Is that why he's evil, because he won't click his heels and do as he's told by the global hegemon?

We should all be so evil.

Renoman , February 28, 2018 at 10:32 am GMT

Leader of the free World.
Robert Magill , February 28, 2018 at 11:00 am GMT
The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position of influence the US has dreamed of for a century.

The next war, if it comes, will be over something like Cobalt. The future lies in big and plentiful electric batteries and China and Russia between them control almost 50% of the known supply of Cobalt, while the US has none. Stand by and wait, folks.

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/mr-bernays-to-dr-goebbels-to-s-h-i-t-3/

macilrae , February 28, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT

The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class.

I would be staggered is only 14 percent of Americans had a negative view of Putin – almost everybody I have spoken to has completely swallowed the media line. In Europe UK in particular has been brainwashed against him – southern Europe far less so. The 28 percent is more realistic.

Harold Smith , February 28, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
@Robert Magill

Is China trying to trash our constitution? Is China invading other countries, killing people with missiles and bombs all over the world, staging "color revolutions" and subverting legitimate governments in the "West"? Is China patrolling the Gulf of Mexico and putting missiles in Mexico and Canada? China hasn't done anything bad to me or to anyone I know, so please explain how China is "our" "rival"?

exiled off mainstreet , February 28, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT
This is a great article. The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble.
Tailgunner Joes talking liver , February 28, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
Magisterial article.

There's a simple reason why Putin is talking sense. He's doing nothing more than stating customary international law. Those economic quotes have been set out in a series of UN resolutions including A/RES/41/128 on the right to development. This is the acquis of the civilized world. No country in the world opposes it – except the USA. The US votes alone against it every time it comes up, even though customary international law is US federal and state common law under the Supreme Court decision, The Paquete Habana.

Mr. Whitney has accepted the official framing that it's all about Putin. That clever decision makes his article more provocative. Calm appraisal of the current official foreign devil is inherently inflammatory. However, this has nothing to do with Putin. Rigid legalist that he is, his hands are tied. Russia has ratified the ICESCR.

Russia has ratified the ICESCR. The USA has not. Here are some of the rights Russians have that you do not:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

OHCHR has a convenient compilation showing how each government meets its legal obligations and commitments. The synoptic heatmap below shows the US deep down in the shithole with Wahhabi headchoppers and neocolonial African presidents-for-life.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

The exhaustively documented fact here is, the Russian state meets world standards. The US government does not. The Russian government respects, protects, and fulfils human rights. The US government fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach, and negates your incomplete half-assed constitutional rights with statist red tape. Russians get a better deal than you do. Merely by reciting the law as he does, Putin would win a fair election here with Roosevelt-scale majorities, again and again. That's why he drives the US government up the wall.

Beckow , February 28, 2018 at 4:23 pm GMT
Where is it the propaganda campaign going? We have seen this before as preparation for a war or a regime change. In Russia both are unlikely to succeed. That leaves an ever increasing propaganda bombast in the West, people brainwashed to the point where outright racism against anything 'Russian' will become widespread. Then what? Move movies with white Russian villains, as if that is what threatens West the most?

Russia can neither be isolated, nor 'collapsed' economically, nor ignored. It is too resource rich and powerful. Russia could possibly be checked in a second tier conflict (Syria?), but that would be of minimal consequence. Ukraine could be escalated, but there Russia has an enormous local logistics advantage, it would be a disaster for Kiev. And Russia is on friendly terms with China, its only potential military threat on land.

Propaganda by itself does nothing, it is only means to an end. West is in no position to go beyond propaganda, so we might experience a bizarre example of a mindless propaganda that goes on and on. As with all propaganda the main target is the domestic population – in other words it is the common people in the West who are being propagandised and in effect made more stupid, less capable of making rational decisions.

Even a slight u-turn is at this point unthinkable, almost all elites have too visibly engaged in the evil-Russia talk, how could they let go of it? We are stuck, we might get saved by an unrelated 'big event' somewhere else. If not, this could just be fatal, after all this belligerent talk we could perish because somebody dared to call Clinton a satan on Facebook. And they didn't use their real name – the horror .

dearieme , February 28, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
My own view is that Putin is probably as trustworthy and honest as any other ex-KGB man. On the other hand he does come across as intelligent, cautious, and calm. Especially when compared to the crook Hillary or the oaf Trump.
Si1ver1ock , February 28, 2018 at 5:34 pm GMT
@Tailgunner Joes talking liver

Great comment. I tried to follow the links but got an error:

The connection has timed out

The server at http://www.ohchr.org is taking too long to respond.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

This is starting to bother me. Stuff is disappearing from the web. Look at the link below to an Al Jazeera documentary which has disappeared from YouTube and the web.

Attempting to play the video gives a message:

This video is unavailable.

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/03/201031761541794128.html

Si1ver1ock , February 28, 2018 at 5:38 pm GMT
Nowadays being Pro Truth now makes you Anti American.

Sad.

and

Edie P , February 28, 2018 at 8:36 pm GMT
Si1ver1ock, interesting problems you're having. I had no problem with the links, but then the magic of Tor means I'm reaching them from the Netherlands. State censorship is harder when you can access suppressed URLs from a couple dozen different countries.

( https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en )

anonymous Disclaimer , February 28, 2018 at 11:50 pm GMT
@Robert Magill

Please do respond, and in good faith, to the reply of commenter Harold Smith. I share his apparent concern that you may be conflating the interests of the American people with the imperial ambitions of their Uncle Sam.

Robert Magill , March 1, 2018 at 1:19 am GMT
@Harold Smith

Harold Smith,

I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing. I tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade and business, while China certainly is.
Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned. However, I am afraid our national focus in this unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious competition is actually coming from and be able to deal with it in a timely fashion.

Robert Magill , March 1, 2018 at 1:20 am GMT
@anonymous

See my reply to Harold Smith.

Harold Smith , March 1, 2018 at 2:52 am GMT
@Robert Magill

"I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing."

In your original comment you said:

"The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position of influence the US has dreamed of for a century."

Since a big part of the U.S. "focus" on Russia is military encirclement, confrontation by proxy, the threat of direct conflict even nuclear war, etc., this statement clearly suggests a "military solution" to "contain" an economically "rising" China, IMO. (After all, when the only tool the U.S. "government" has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

But so what if China has some kind of "mastery" of the Eastern hemisphere? To the extent that's true, at least they didn't do it by way of lawless imperial treachery.

The U.S. is losing influence all over the world because it's making itself hated; it's imposing itself everywhere and squandering everything of value on the hopeless pursuit of world domination and control.

"I tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade and business, while China certainly is."

The thing is "we" don't demonize Russia "as a nation"; rather, it's done by the Satanic ruling class that hates Russia – not for any rational reason, but for the same reason that Cain hated Abel: because "evil" hates a "good" example.

"Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned."

Unless you're going change the definition of "rival" again, I should point out that the U.S. "government" doesn't generally attack "rivals" but deems any country that asserts its sovereign independence and refuses to take orders an "enemy", subject to economic, political and military attack.

"However, I am afraid our national focus in this unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious competition is actually coming from and be able to deal with it in a timely fashion."

You seem to be conflating "us as a people" with the U.S. "government" which has by now lost even the pretense of moral and constitutional legitimacy, and thus has nothing remotely to do with what's in the best interests of "us as a people".

Ilyana_Rozumova , March 1, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT
@Harold Smith

Here is the explanation. China is economic rival to US. That is not only inconvenient, rival, it is the most efficient and most dangerous rival, because who is wining the economic competition is pushing out the opponent from world markets.

LarryS , March 1, 2018 at 5:51 am GMT
@Harold Smith

Somebody wants white Christians to kill each other. Again.

Vojkan , March 1, 2018 at 6:52 am GMT
That people in the West believe the lies that TPTB concoct for their consumption, I can conceive, though only after a convoluted intellectual effort, for given all the now exposed deceit, one is left in wonder as to why the masses still believe proven liars.

After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders committed abroad.

Still, I can't figure out if TPTB believe their own narrative. It takes a very peculiar mindset to be able to live in permanent lies. Contrary to truth which can exist per se and is therefore essentially cost-free, lies demand permanent maintenance and have high maintenance cost.
So, TPTB of the West are either delusional in thinking they can maintain their lies ad vitam aeternam, or they are mythomaniacs. Either way, just think what happens when lies cannot be maintained any more and the liars don't want to relinquish power.

Bear in mind that lying being effectively irrational, they cannot be considered as rational actors. Prepare your shelters folks.

Ludwig Watzal , Website March 1, 2018 at 8:02 am GMT
Very seldom, I've read such a realistic article on President Putin and his policy. I've been following not only his administration but also that of the US Empire, and I'm always flabbergasted about the US elites demonization of this leader. He belongs to the few leaders who got their act together compared to the political exorcists in Washington. The real thugs and psychopaths are the members of the American political elite and their cheerleaders in the fawning US mainstream media. Following their analysis, I often think they stem from lunatics who are coming from outer space.
animalogic , March 1, 2018 at 9:05 am GMT
@Robert Magill

Yes, China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour.
So -- Dr Frankenstein is now scared of his own monster. Oh the irony !

Truthmatters , March 1, 2018 at 9:41 am GMT
In the last two weeks a virtual book burning has begun on YouTube. Scores of independent truth seeking channels have been deleted. Some were pretty amateur and sensationalist, many were good, top notch investigative fact checking in nature. Many had large numbers of subscribers, a few had 100,000s subscribers.

Common denominator seemed to question official mainstream media narrative on mass shootings, 9/11, war on terror, human sex trafficking, Clinton Foundation corruption, and even UFO coverups. One channel was a woman skilled at body language commenting on videos of people like John Podesta being interviewed as to whether he was lying.

None of these channels advocated violence, quite the contrary. Most couched opinion alongside probable facts by asking deductive and inductive questions. The YouTube virtual book burning appears to have gathered pace in last week.

So much for free speech in the fake but very slickly fake Western democracies. Where the geopolitical narrative is uniformly uniform.

Seamus Padraig , March 1, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT

American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution.

American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free' trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike.

"I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it "

I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable energy–whether or not global warming is real.

PiltdownMan , March 1, 2018 at 11:01 am GMT
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. -- Henry Kissinger in 2014.
Swan Knight , Website March 1, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
Vladimir Putin is the World's greatest leader since Robert E Lee
Astuteobservor II , March 1, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT
not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs.

that is actually very, very passive.

Robert Magill , March 1, 2018 at 1:49 pm GMT
@ animalogic

"China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. "

We all know the drill here. China makes stuff cheap so that WalMart can undercut competitors and grow rich. Therefore, alas, what can be done? Except that WalMart has over four hundred stores IN CHINA and plans to build forty more! So what's our excuse now for not being able to compete?

Avery , March 1, 2018 at 2:18 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

{Russia had not been so passive over the years,}

Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows administered by US/NATO. A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example?

Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example. It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for.

Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence. Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has.

TailgunnerJoes Talking Liver , March 1, 2018 at 2:33 pm GMT
Alden, sounds like you stopped with the maps and didn't read any of the underlying documents because of the preconceptions you wear on your sleeve: "idealistic pie in the sky by and by UN treaties impossible to effect." Those preconceptions happen to coincide with the residual message of one persistent strand of US statist propaganda.

Have you ever read, in any US institution or medium, criticism as comprehensive and incisive as this?

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/LACRegion/Pages/USIndex.aspx

IGs can't do this. Courts can't begin to do this. Congress wouldn't dare do this. Media would never do it if they could. The recommendations are legally binding and the US government knows it. Each review is videoed. You haven't lived until you've seen State and Justice bureaucrats crawling and sniveling and tying themselves in logical knots, making fools of themselves in the most public forum in the world. You get to watch the US regime bleeding influence and standing and 'soft power.' It's public disgrace in front of the 96% of the world outside the US iron curtain. You may not want to watch impartial legal experts make a laughingstock of the USG, but everybody else in the world watches with amusement, so you might as well know.

Treaty body review has driven more reforms than Congress ever did. You know perfectly well how bad your government sucks, what a useless parasite it is. The treaty bodies and charter bodies give you more say than either state-controlled political party. Face it, human rights review is all you got. When your government sucks, you go over its head to the world.

Harold Smith , March 1, 2018 at 4:11 pm GMT
@Avery

"During a policy talk at the Valdai Discussion Club, the Russian leader spoke on a number of issues, especially criticizing U.S. foreign policy moves across the globe and lauding Russia's increasingly relevant role as a world power. When asked by a Germany-based academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests."

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-putin-reveal-biggiest-mistake-trusting-west-688998

Well maybe you can make Vladimir Putin feel better about this. You can tell him that blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all, since Russia couldn't have done a single thing about it anyway, right?

EugeneGur , March 1, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Putin has drubbed Russia's economy.

This is a ridiculous statement. When Putin came aboard, there was no Russian economy to speak of. Now it's grown strong enough to withstand the events in Ukraine, sanctions and what not and even derive benefits from these challenges. I am not saying everything's coming up roses but it could hardly be expected considering the deep hole Russia dug itself into in the 1990s.

the entire region is upset with Putin's behavior as they have seen Putin's behavior in Crimea and the Donbas.

The entire region, it you mean our Eastern European neighbors, can like it or lump it. They, Poland in particular, participated very willingly and actively in the coup in Ukraine. Crimea and Donbass are direct, and perfectly predictable, consequences of that coup. If they forgot the law of physics that every action has a reaction, this is just as good a reminder as any.

the thing is, because of the recent study by J. Leroy Hulsey, Putin could still do it, but I predict that he unfortunately will do nothing of the kind.

EugeneGur , March 1, 2018 at 4:57 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all, since Russia couldn't have done a single thing about it anyway, right?

Actually, it could've done a lot. Right at the beginning, Russia could've refused to trust in the word of the West's leaders about the NATO expansion and demand guarantees. A formal treaty plus a couple of remaining military bases, say, in Poland and East Germany, would've sufficed. This likely would've saved Yugoslavia as well.

Russia could've refrained from stopping the development of many weapon system and from destroying others. It could've also kept its own industry (civil aviation comes to mind) instead of relying on cooperation with the West. It could've refrained from allowing the US troops to use the Russia territory to move supplies to Afghanistan. Even recently it did occur to someone exceedingly smart to order aircraft carriers in France – speaking about trust! I do hope they learned their lesson, finally.

jilles dykstra , March 1, 2018 at 5:43 pm GMT
@Avery

In my opinion Putin is the man who saves us from a worldwide USA yoke

windwaves , March 1, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
Great Article.

America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria. Very sad.

America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes. Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. Come on dudes !

This is just a phase, we will turn it around and make America great again ( as opposed to israel which was never great anyway). It is just a question of how long it will take.

It will start the day when we'll tell that terrorist, shit-hole country called israel to go the hell, fight your own wars, pay for your own wars.

When Ukies attack , March 1, 2018 at 6:25 pm GMT
@EugeneGur

GDP per capita tripled on Putin's watch. That's one reason why he has public approval numbers that US politicians couldn't dream of.

jilles dykstra , March 1, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT
@windwaves

In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons. Because of this the Sept 11 shock, while in reality it meant very little, as USA citizens working in the Netherlands soon afterwards said 'we have 30.000 traffic deaths each year'.

edNels , March 1, 2018 at 7:46 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

Good comeback there that was one of the best ones in a while!

I'm sorry, but no we're not. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we here in the "West" are living under a Satanic judeo-communist dictatorship, bent on world domination and control at any cost.

The difference between corporate state, and totalitarian state like old Soviet system is getting blurier all the time. Like planned economies of command systems, now they just create money for the cronies, who might as well be commies, and they don't give a care about what's true or honest, they lie and that's, like you mentioned, (Satanic), the truth isn't in 'em.

FB , March 1, 2018 at 8:01 pm GMT
@Seamus Padraig

' I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable energy–whether or not global warming is real '

Good comment however the environment is about more than just 'global warming' which may or may not be man-caused there is no scientific certainty but certainly what looks like a concerted push by certain quarters

But there is also habitat loss the toxins introduced through pollution industrial farming and the problems it causes with erosion, bad food etc

Putin's comments and Mike's citation of them reflect a thoughtful and realistic approach to at least start looking at these problems

Anon Disclaimer , March 1, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
Anon from TN
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US, but actually collapsed due to internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed their luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all dominant empires lose their grip and eventually crumble (remember Roman or British), and now it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the Chinese Empire, not Russian. (PS. Muslims missed the train. Again)
The Alarmist , March 1, 2018 at 10:57 pm GMT
@Harold Smith

It's not like he used the term 'enemy,' which too many unfortunately resort to in these discussions. During Cold War 1.0, a lot of us referred to the Sovs as the 'Adversary' because it was a less loaded term than enemy, though many equate the two. Are the Chinese rivals? Sure. Are they adversaries? You bet, especially when we keep stepping into their back yard. Are they enemies? The will be if we keep stepping into their back yard and telling them how to behave with their next door neighbours. All of this applies to Russia as well.

Cyrano , March 1, 2018 at 11:15 pm GMT
The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors.

GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British empire now?

From an empire on which the sun never sets, pretty soon they'll be a country where the sun never rises – thanks to their stupid immigration policies and preoccupations with Russia (still!), like they (the British) are still even a factor in the global power games.

US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them militarily. Good luck with that.

The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various "dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British style.

If anything the British military record was at least better than US's, at least they used to win wars – they pretty much went down undefeated – but they did went down and US military doesn't have the same success rate and even if they did, they will not accomplish holding the world back – same as Britain didn't.

renfro , March 1, 2018 at 11:26 pm GMT

American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution

I do not see anything 'liberal' in Putin's ideas, certainly not as in the liberal agendas in the US.

I see him advocating Balance . creating a better order for the needs of populations and interactions between nations . therefore preserving nations, people and earth. Balance is not rocket science .nature is the ultimate example of balance, when it is tampered with all species eventually suffer.

Florin , March 2, 2018 at 12:06 am GMT
The neocons were/are Zionist in essence and mainly Jewish in thought leadership – this is inarguable. Also inarguable, though I am not aware of very many well-written essays on the topic, is that under Yeltsin, brought to power in no small part by US meddling, there was a fire sale of Russian assets – something arranged very largely by Jewish economists and Jewish bureaucrats. And the new 'oligarchs?' Why 6 of 7 of the most enriches were Jews in a nation <3% Jewish.

Ukraine was largely a coup by Nuland, Pyatt, Feltman ato help Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine who suddenly found themselves in the very top of the new govt. Jewish names pop up inordinately as to authors and editors of unhinged Russophobic articles. At what point do we say that the mideast wars are driven by Jews, so, disproportionately (maybe even mainly as to the media) is the aggression and disinfo on Russia.

The Jewish Problem is to be taken seriously. We need to find a way to discuss it, rescued from Zionists and bona fide Judeophobes. Our lives may well depend on it.

[Mar 01, 2018] The Eternal Lure of Nationalism by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about. ..."
"... In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant. ..."
"... Globalists may see the U.N., EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a "universal nation" of all races, tribes, cultures and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grand-parents had, a nation-state that is all their own. ..."
"... Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade and global custody of mankind's destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution. Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future? ..."
"... Indeed, now that George W. Bush's crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit's Children's Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people? ..."
"... The US has always been ruled or parasitized by corrupt, murderous psychopaths with the results we have to live with today. All corny rhetoric aside, it has never been a force for peace, justice, or freedom. Why would anyone desire it to remain what she has been? ..."
"... There is a rebellious coolness in tearing down the PC edifice similar to the fun that could be had attacking Christianity and its holy cows back in the 20th century. The age of Blair, Merkel, Obama and Juncker is drawing to a close. ..."
"... Nationalists supporting such people – any supposedly nationalist movement rooted on the political left – will simply be betrayed, as were the Greeks who voted for SYRIZA, the leftist supposedly "anti-establishment" party that carried its leaders into office and power and then transformed itself into a "respectable" party of the "centre left", and ensured that the boat was not rocked in any ways that might really upset the EU/globalist elites. ..."
"... The war is between globalism and nationalism, the stakes are whether we continue on the path to one world corporatist government and culture – a place where there are no borders, there is no "outside", and no escape from the crushing dogmas of political correctness, or step off before it's too late. And the only true nationalism is the nationalism of the right. That will be true until parties of the old left – devoted to supporting indigenous workers and not to pushing social radicalism – reappear, if they ever do. ..."
apple.slashdot.org

In a surprise overtime victory in the finals of the Olympic men's hockey tournament, the Russians defeated Germany, 4-3. But the Russians were not permitted to have their national anthem played or flag raised, due to a past doping scandal. So, the team ignored the prohibition and sang out the Russian national anthem over the sounds of the Olympic anthem. One recalls the scene in "Casablanca," where French patrons of Rick's saloon stood and loudly sang the "La Marseillaise" to drown out the "Die Wacht am Rhein" being sung by a table of German officers.

When the combined North-South Korean Olympic team entered the stadium, Vice President Mike Pence remained seated and silent. But tens of thousands of Koreans stood and cheered the unified team. America may provide a defensive shield for the South, but Koreans on both sides of the DMZ see themselves as one people. And, no fool, Kim Jong Un is exploiting the deep tribal ties he knows are there.

Watching the Russians defiantly belt out their anthem, one recalls also the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City where sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium, black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial identity

Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about.

Some attendees at the CPAC conclave this past week were appalled that Britain's Nigel Farage and France's Marion Le Pen were present.

But Farage was the man most responsible for Brexit, the historic British decision to leave the EU. Le Pen is perhaps the most popular figure in a National Front party that won 35 percent of the vote in the runoff election won by President Emmanuel Macron.

And the most unifying stand of the NF appears to be "Let France be France!" The French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and the Islamic world. They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong? Is preservation of a country, the national family one grew up in, not conservative? In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant.

Globalists may see the U.N., EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a "universal nation" of all races, tribes, cultures and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grand-parents had, a nation-state that is all their own.

Nationalists like Farage, who seek to pull their countries out of socialist superstates like the EU, and peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.

Why are European peoples who wish to halt mass migration from across the Med, to preserve who and what they are, decried as racists? Did not the peoples of African and Middle Eastern countries, half a century ago, expel the European settlers who helped to build those countries? The Rhodesia of Spitfire pilot Ian Smith was a jewel of a nation of 250,000 whites and several million blacks that produced trade surpluses even when boycotted and sanctioned by a hating world. When Smith was forced to yield power, "Comrade Bob" Mugabe took over and began the looting of white Rhodesians, and led his Shona tribesmen in a slaughter of the Matabele of rival Joshua Nkomo.

Eighty-five percent of the white folks who lived in Rhodesia, prior to "majority rule," are gone from Zimbabwe. More than half of the white folks who made South Africa the most advanced and prosperous country on the continent are gone. Are these countries better places than they were? For whom?

Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade and global custody of mankind's destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution. Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future?

Consider the largest countries on earth. In China, ethnonationalism, not the ruling Communist Party, unites and inspires 1.4 billion people to displace the Americans as the first power on earth. Nationalism sustains Vladimir Putin. Nationalism and its unique identity as a Hindu nation unites and powers India. Here, today, it is "America First" nationalism.

Indeed, now that George W. Bush's crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit's Children's Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Anon Disclaimer , February 27, 2018 at 11:17 am GMT

It's far more complicated. Scotland and Catalonia wanted to secede because they found their nations TOO CONSERVATIVE. Catalonia wanted to be independent to take in MORE immigrants. Scotland wanted independence to take in MORE immigrants and push diversity and leftism even more.

At this point, I think France is too far gone. By some estimates, 70% of all births in Paris are to Africans and Muslims. And French women got serious junglois fever, and many new black babies are popping out of white wombs.

Also, Korean nationalism is myth. Koreans are toadies of any great power. 80% of Koreans want to move to US or Canada and forever abandon their identity. Even though the current 'leftist' regime in SK is for better relations with NK, it is also for massive immigration and replacement of Koreans with foreigners. And 80% of Korean youth support Diversity since their US-trained teachers taught them so.

I'm not sure what Buchanan means by including Rhodesia. Is he saying nationalism was justified in expelling whites? Or is he saying imperialism is better because whites ran a better nation?

... ... ...

WorkingClass , February 27, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT

what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

The globalists envision the earth as a plantation with oligarchs (stateless corporate monopolists) as planters, former national governments as overseers and the people of earth as niggers.

jacques sheete , February 27, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT

They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?

Insofar as France has been a colonial power, the answer is, "yes." Insofar as France has been a puppet of Israel, the answer is also, "yes."It's really sad when an historian of PB's caliber seems to be either clueless or worse about what France has been. As far as the US being what she has been, the answer is also, "yes." Why would anyone want the US to support an entity like the bloody USSR as it has done in the past? Why would anyone want to US to be a morally and fiscally bankrupt nation ruled by monsters and controlled by Zio-gangsters, as she has been, and is?

The US has always been ruled or parasitized by corrupt, murderous psychopaths with the results we have to live with today. All corny rhetoric aside, it has never been a force for peace, justice, or freedom. Why would anyone desire it to remain what she has been?

Anonym , February 27, 2018 at 1:00 pm GMT
Pretty much this, Pat. The future of white people rebounds inexorably towards ethnonationalism. Yes, there will be a boiling off into so much mystery meat of immigrants and whites who are attracted to that or end up with it, but a lot of those areas are Balkanized. Every white child that is born will have more genetic and/or cultural attraction to their own by default.

The baby boomers who have ascended the heights of the institutions can't take it with them. Their time is over. The time for those adults who have been able to make a realistic assessment of the world, now it's not a whitopia any more, has come. They are emboldened by the s *** posting of the internet, the audacity of Trump. There is a rebellious coolness in tearing down the PC edifice similar to the fun that could be had attacking Christianity and its holy cows back in the 20th century. The age of Blair, Merkel, Obama and Juncker is drawing to a close. The era of Xi and Putin has already been here a while, and now we have Trump and will have a cascade of similar leaders in the West in due course I believe.

Randal , February 27, 2018 at 1:30 pm GMT

peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.

Well, yes and no. On the one hand, these people are in fact inherently anti-conservative in the most fundamental sense – they are radicals, seeking to overturn the existing order. On the other hand, where they are merely local elites seeking to formalise their own power and shrug off remote overseers, and don't seek radical social change otherwise, then they are also conservative. That's why the American Secession was not a revolution, merely a transfer of power from remote to local elites.

Things are complicated further by supposed "nationalist" movements that are run by leftists – as in the case of Scotland or Catalonia. These are people who merely want to transfer control from the established state to a more distant superstate, the EU, and who are firmly committed to all the dogmas of leftism – internationalism, antiracism, open borders, social radicalism, and who are just as much dupes for globalist corporatism as any establishment pseudo-conservative.

Nationalists supporting such people – any supposedly nationalist movement rooted on the political left – will simply be betrayed, as were the Greeks who voted for SYRIZA, the leftist supposedly "anti-establishment" party that carried its leaders into office and power and then transformed itself into a "respectable" party of the "centre left", and ensured that the boat was not rocked in any ways that might really upset the EU/globalist elites.

The war is between globalism and nationalism, the stakes are whether we continue on the path to one world corporatist government and culture – a place where there are no borders, there is no "outside", and no escape from the crushing dogmas of political correctness, or step off before it's too late. And the only true nationalism is the nationalism of the right. That will be true until parties of the old left – devoted to supporting indigenous workers and not to pushing social radicalism – reappear, if they ever do.

Randal , February 27, 2018 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Anon

It's far more complicated. Scotland and Catalonia wanted to secede because they found their nations TOO CONSERVATIVE. Catalonia wanted to be independent to take in MORE immigrants. Scotland wanted independence to take in MORE immigrants and push diversity and leftism even more.

And they did not want independence, they wanted to transfer their subordination to a slightly more remote, more globalist supranational organisation, namely the developing superstate that is the EU.

KenH , February 27, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
@Anon

And 80% of Korean youth support Diversity since their US-trained teachers taught them so.

Considering growing numbers of S. Koreans want U.S. forces out of their nation and their highly restrictive immigration policy where's the evidence that they're becoming diversity loving social justice warriors?

Mr. Hack , February 27, 2018 at 2:05 pm GMT

Globalists may see the U.N., EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a "universal nation" of all races, tribes, cultures and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grand-parents had, a nation-state that is all their own.'

Right on Pat! So why your hypocritical stance towards Ukraine and its quest to separate itself from Russian imperial interests? Your inconsistencies are appalling!

Citizen of a Silly Country , February 27, 2018 at 2:16 pm GMT

The Eternal Lure of Nationalism

No, it's the eternal lure of family. As Sailer has noted, races/ethnicities are just extended families. Only sociopaths don't care more for their family than strangers. Even with the most overarching propaganda – schools, media, government, etc. – in history pushing whites to forget this, we are slowly coming out of our slumber. Will we ever fully wake up and, if so, in time? Who knows.

But I do know that our current society won't last. Much like what's going on in Africa, this system – based on the falsehood of racial equality – will slowly (then quickly) fall apart. Of course, the timeframe that I use is historic, not the timeframe that we use in our own lives. A hundred years is a nothing if you look over the past 5,000 years when human civilization began.

Does anyone really believe that the current Cult of Equality system in W. Europe and the U.S. will still be around in 100 years, much less 200 years? No chance. Could it still be hanging on by a thread in 50 or 60 years – long after I'm dead? Quite possibly.

However, we're already seeing some cracks in the system after 50 years and things seem to be accelerating. What happens when Muslims start demanding Sharia law in parts of Paris or London? What happens when whites are no longer welcome in the Dem Party as we're beginning to see at the top level? What happens when government debt reaches a level where the gov can't borrow as much and must start cutting welfare spending? What happens when an increasingly black and brown Congress (and state houses) starts to demand much higher taxes on whites (and Asians) to support blacks and browns?

Wanting to be ruled by your own people is natural – and good. Whites have been on top for 500 years and have forgotten what it's like to have to fight for our place in the sun. As we start to get ruled by others year after year, that tribal instinct will grow. Will it grow fast enough that we survive? Again, who knows. I hope so.

If not, well, natural selection is a bitch, isn't it.

Tulip , February 27, 2018 at 2:57 pm GMT
[W]hat is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

I'm sure Max Boot has some ready ideas.

WorkingClass , February 27, 2018 at 2:59 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

Should we give up these evil nation states for an evil global feudalism?

I can understand a desire for more options. The anarchists have the best of it in my opinion when it comes to political ideology. But there is the real problem of security and survival for anarchists in a non anarchist world.

From the point of view of globalists, nationalism is already a de-centralization of political power. I favor decentralization even if it will not take me all the way to a Jeffersonian agrarian utopia.

Who said "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?

Rurik , February 27, 2018 at 4:23 pm GMT

French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and the Islamic world.

They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?

I guess six million wasn't enough for Pat Buchanan

anyone with a kippah's worth of brains know that if France is allowed to remain French, then the gas chambers and soap factories are only a matter of time.

let's let ((Nicolas Sarkozy)) explain it to you all

Nazis:

must be forced to mix, if they don't do so willingly, because if not, then you can just sit back and count the days until geysers of blood start shooting out of the ground again.

we've all seen this kind of 'will to power' before, when people like the French (and Poles and Hungarians) think they can threaten others with their anti-Semitism by refusing to mix and blend their vile and evil white Nazi features and culture away.

Never again!

Citizen of a Silly Country , February 27, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Rurik

Totally agree. If gentile whites aren't breed out of existence, it's just a matter of time before we see gas chambers in Ohio or Lincolnshire.

Throughout Jewish history, non-Jewish whites inexplicably have shown an insanely irrational dislike of Jews. Since it emerges over and over, across time and regions, it must be some form of mental sickness inherent in gentile whites. There's no other explanation. The only commonalty is gentile whites.

No matter where Jews go, within a century or two, the local goys start to hate them to the point that Jews are often ejected from the area, sometimes attacked. Everywhere, every time. Jews, who just want to fit in and become a part of the community – no, to improve the community – are singled out for no reason again and again.

Well, this must end. Even with their own homeland surrounded by a fence and protected by nuclear weapons, Jews will never be safe until gentile whites are no longer a race. What is the loss of the European peoples and their culture compared to the need to protect the Jewish people from the inevitable Holocaust II: Revenge of the Goys.

Thankfully, the new breed – a mix of African, European, Mesitzo and whatever else – will be more enlightened.

Randal , February 27, 2018 at 5:38 pm GMT
Here's an interesting example of modern nations trying to deal with the consequences of globalism in the context of the ruling political correctness dogmas:

Denmark plans double punishment for ghetto crime

Imagine trying that in the US! How's that for some disparate impact, eh Obama?

He denied that harsher penalties in one area could simply drive criminals into other areas.

This seems a bit of a stretch really. I mean, it's still got to be a good thing to harass ghetto thugs and petty criminal oafs on the turf they think is theirs, but there needs to be preparation for the inevitable spillover into more respectable areas. Unless you take the view that ghetto dweller crime spilling over more is a price worth paying because it will help to "wake up" the wealthy leftist classes who vote for more immigration and evade the costs.

Rurik , February 27, 2018 at 6:17 pm GMT
@Citizen of a Silly Country

it's just a matter of time before we see gas chambers in Ohio or Lincolnshire.

we already saw it in Charlottesville!

the SS was goose stepping towards Sobibór redux, chanting Nazi propaganda about how 'Jews will not replace us"

have you ever heard anything so vile?!

Of course Jews will replace you! because white people are congenitally EVIL!

They don't know their place, because jehovah put them here to SERVE the Jews!!! Yet they stubbornly refuse!

and appoint a Nazi goyim to the Supreme Court!!!

and a CIS at that!

I'm sure glad you too can see what we're up against as these neo-Nazis in France try to assert their inner Himmler, and avoid the Great Kosher Blending.

Thankfully, the new breed – a mix of African, European, Mesitzo and whatever else – will be more enlightened.

not unattractive, but more to the point, unconnected to any ethnic or cultural heritage.

the perfect obedient slave race

a doubleplus good improvement over the Nazis (all white people/anti-Semites)

Never Again!

silviosilver , February 27, 2018 at 6:20 pm GMT
@Anon

Scotland wanted independence to take in MORE immigrants and push diversity and leftism even more.

Scottish elites – in the form of the Scottish National Party – wanted that. But did Scottish voters? Or were they just voting for Scottish independence rather than for the policies of the SNP? Hard to tell.

I'm not sure what Buchanan means by including Rhodesia. Is he saying nationalism was justified in expelling whites? Or is he saying imperialism is better because whites ran a better nation?

I think he's saying that white Rhodesians were the nation, and that they would have been justified in expelling the blacks if the blacks weren't happy with their lot – rather than allowing the blacks to destroy 'their' country. This is a very old school WN viewpoint that, even among WNs, you don't hear much of anymore, but Buchanan likes to make ambiguous and plausibly deniable statements like this. I mean, it's very easy for him to backtrack and claim that he simply meant one of the options you outlined, but probably what he really believes is the version I put forward.

Rhodesia's a bit much, imo; there were just too few whites. You need to have Israeli-settler-like fanaticism to support whites' keeping control of all that territory. I could have supported the South Africans sending the blacks to their own 'homelands' and then cutting off contact with them. That would have been a better long term solution than the segregation they tried to implement. You need a much larger majority – like the South has/had – to pull segregation off. Although, even then, apartheid could have last much longer than it did, if it wasn't for pressure from other white countries.

Maple Curtain , February 27, 2018 at 6:49 pm GMT
The Jews stole America on your watch Buchanan. You had your chance. You're yesterday's news. Still can't name the Jew. Out to pasture.
Carroll Price , February 27, 2018 at 10:05 pm GMT
Nice article Pat, but as long as Jews control the US, it will continue serving as a doormat known as diversity.
expeedee , February 28, 2018 at 12:39 am GMT
@Citizen of a Silly Country

Very profound. Couldn't agree more. Great post.

KenH , February 28, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
It's not just nationalism that's rising but racial nationalism or what some like to refer to as ethno-nationalism. No doubt those Russian hockey players were all ethnically Russian and their celebration was as much one of blood as of nation which in saner times are indivisible.

black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial identity

And it's long past due that whites in America and throughout the Western world start to assert their separate racial identity and act accordingly. We are the only race of people that doesn't act in its own racial interests and if that doesn't change we won't last this century.

Raceless civil nationalism is a dead end for white people and it doesn't resonate with anyone but brainless and brainwashed whites. Religion will always play second fiddle to race and ethnicity and it always will.

Militant multiculturalism, the de facto secular religion of the West, must be overthrown by any means necessary along with its many mullahs in government, universities and the media.

Corvinus , February 28, 2018 at 4:43 am GMT
@Citizen of a Silly Country

"No, it's the eternal lure of family. As Sailer has noted, races/ethnicities are just extended families."

No, races and ethnicities do NOT fit that description. It's an appeal to authority.

"But I do know that our current society won't last."

No, you are only speculating here. No one knows for certain.

"What happens when Muslims start demanding Sharia law in parts of Paris or London? What happens when whites are no longer welcome in the Dem Party as we're beginning to see at the top level? What happens when government debt reaches a level where the gov can't borrow as much and must start cutting welfare spending? What happens when an increasingly black and brown Congress (and state houses) starts to demand much higher taxes on whites (and Asians) to support blacks and browns?"

Chicken Little.

"Wanting to be ruled by your own people is natural – and good."

Our people are Americans.

"Whites have been on top for 500 years and have forgotten what it's like to have to fight for our place
in the sun."

The human race is more important than whites or blacks or Asians.

Corvinus , February 28, 2018 at 4:45 am GMT
@KenH

"Raceless civil nationalism is a dead end for white people and it doesn't resonate with anyone but brainless and brainwashed whites."

White people make their own decisions regarding race and culture. What you are suggesting here is fascism.

"Religion will always play second fiddle to race and ethnicity and it always will."

In reality, religion trumps race and ethnicity. A white Christian and a black Christian are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Corvinus , February 28, 2018 at 4:49 am GMT
@Rurik

"Of course Jews will replace you! because white people are congenitally EVIL!"

Most white people do not believe in the Jewish conspiracy. You are an outlier.

"not unattractive, but more to the point, unconnected to any ethnic or cultural heritage."

That would be Fake News. The mixing of races and ethnicities is part of our humanity. Besides, there are clear scientific benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html

Twodees Partain , February 28, 2018 at 10:52 am GMT
@Citizen of a Silly Country

"Thankfully, the new breed – a mix of African, European, Mesitzo and whatever else – will be more enlightened."

Of course, though the new breed won't be allowed in Israel.

Quartermaster , February 28, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
@anonymous

Smith was a native of Rhodesia. The RAF trained pilots in Rhodesia.

Talha , February 28, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
@Anon

And French women got serious junglois fever, and many new black babies are popping out of white wombs.

Is this right? Anyone have stats? Is anyone keeping count?

Even though Black African nationalism did expel European powers, can nationalism survive in black Africa without whites?

Good point – no doubt the current borders have a lot to do with how lines were drawn by the retreating European powers.

Without whites and their organization skills, black African tends to fracture into tribes, and warring tribes do no make a nation

Possibly, but they did have the capability to organize into fairly large empires (depending on which part of Africa you are talking about. The capability to form an empire over a vast multi-ethnic, multi-religious landscape is certainly a stepping stone for the ability to form a modern nation-state (not that that is the goal).

If things do fracture down and tribal alliances become preeminent, then expect the very large ethno-linguistic groups (like the Fulani and Hausa that number in the tens of millions) to form something that lies across many of the current borders.

Peace.

Talha , February 28, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
@KenH

Religion will always play second fiddle to race and ethnicity and it always will.

That seems to be ahistorical when put in those absolute terms. Consider that Catholics and Protestants joined others apart from their own ethno-linguistic background to slaughter (what they considered) heretics of their own ethnicity. The current mess in the Middle East is also quite a bit related to religious fault-lines. Sunni and Shiah of various backgrounds are ganging up on each other.

To take another example of a recent breakdown of civil law and slaughter (the Rwandan genocide). It was split; being Christian didn't seem to matter to transcend ethnic fault lines, but being Muslim did:
"Roman Catholicism has been the dominant faith in Rwanda for more than a century. But many people, disgusted by the role that some priests and nuns played in the killing frenzy, have shunned organized religion altogether, and many more have turned to Islam.
'People died in my old church, and the pastor helped the killers," said Yakobo Djuma Nzeyimana, 21, who became a Muslim in 1996. 'I couldn't go back and pray there. I had to find something else.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/world/since-94-horror-rwandans-turn-toward-islam.html

As an imam from Rwanda explains, the Muslim Hutus and Tutsis have made their ethnic identity a lesser priority:
"First, you have to remember that Muslims represent one of the only -- perhaps the only -- truly integrated community in Rwanda. What do I mean by this? I mean that most mothers of Muslims are Tutsis, and most fathers of Muslims are Hutus -- let's say something like 80 percent on each side. And while many Muslims share the appearance of Tutsis, we are really a mixed community. We are a community built by intermarriage."

https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/interviews/a-discussion-with-sheikh-saleh-habimana-head-mufti-of-the-islamic-community-of-rwanda

So I understand this attitude in places like Europe, but that's because they don't really take religion as seriously as they used to, which means that other priorities bubble up. If you observe other places in the world, ethnicity plays second fiddle.

Peace.

Note: By the way, sometimes people being scared of you can be quite helpful (from the above article):
"You see, for many years Hutus had been taught to fear Muslims. They were scared of our mosques, so we could hide Tutsis there without fear of Hutus entering. Hutus had been taught that our mosques were houses of the devil. They were taught that the devil lived in Muslim homes, too. It went even further. It was also believed by many Hutus that if you shook the hand of a Muslim something bad would happen to you, maybe get sick, because Muslims were dirty people. So for all these reasons, Hutu militias were afraid of Muslims and left us alone for the most part. "

LOOOL!

Rurik , February 28, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
@Corvinus

You are an outlier.

my name is Legion, for we are many

https://www.activistpost.com/2018/02/wyoming-house-votes-overwhelmingly-remove-taxation-gold-silver.html

RadicalCenter , February 28, 2018 at 11:35 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

I don't recall Pat ever saying that any Ukrianian oblasts that want to remain in Ukraine, should instead be forced to secede and join Russia.

The people of Crimea solidly wanted to be part of Russia (again).

That is true to a much lesser extent in parts of the Donbass region, apparently, but not true of any of the other oblasts.

Would you let the people of the oblasts including Donetsk and Lugansk secede from Ukraine if they voted to do so?

KenH , March 1, 2018 at 3:38 am GMT
@Talha

Please provide an example of Catholics and Protestants joining ethnic others to slaughter heretics of their own race/etnicity so I can better respond.

The current mess in the Middle East is also quite a bit related to religious fault-lines. Sunni and Shiah of various backgrounds are ganging up on each other.

Without a doubt but what Muslims won't admit is that there are also ethnic fault lines between Kurd, Arab, Turk and Persian. Turks, Kurds and Arabs are mostly Sunni yet Sunni Islam has not united them or fostered goodwill and they are savagely fighting each other. The enmity between Arab Muslim and Turkish Muslim goes back almost 1000 years.

To take another example of a recent breakdown of civil law and slaughter (the Rwandan genocide). It was split; being Christian didn't seem to matter to transcend ethnic fault lines, but being Muslim did:

Partly proves my point that the Catholic faith of Hutu and Tutsi didn't avert the inter-ethnic bloodshed nor was Catholic dogma sufficient to prevent the bloodletting. I don't think I was aware that some turned to Islam which is arguably a much more militant, uncompromising and violent faith than Christianity or Catholicism. So any future conflicts involving that particular group are likely to be religious in nature.

So I understand this attitude in places like Europe, but that's because they don't really take religion as seriously as they used to, which means that other priorities bubble up. If you observe other places in the world, ethnicity plays second fiddle.

Be careful with that claim, because again it appears Hutu and Tutsi took Catholicism far more seriously than Europeans do but it did not transcend the ethnic hatred and tensions that existed.

Iran takes religion seriously but it, too, is affected by ethnic tensions such that the CIA was inflaming ethnic minorities against the majority Persians in 2006 in an attempt to weaken the central government. Racial and ethnic diversity isn't such a strength after all since a foreign government could easily foment racial unrest in America with it's 40% no-white population.

Afghanistan takes the Islamic religion very seriously (home of the Taliban) but Sunni Uzbeks and Tajiks loathe the Sunni Pashtuns and vice versa while the Pashtuns loathe the Shiite Hazeras. Islam has not melded the various ethnic groups into one polity nor has it fostered mutual affection between them.

In America it's been long known that Sunday Christian worship is a very racially segregated affair and Christianity and Catholicism has not melded its three dominant racial groups (white, black, Latino) into a cohesive group.

Europeans took religion far more seriously during the WWI and WWII era (but less seriously than previous centuries) but that didn't stop the mind boggling fratricide during the two world wars which may yet lead to the demise of Western Europe and the U.K. Ideology, nationality and ethnicity had greater pull and won the day.

While there's certainly outliers and exceptions I believe that the evidence shows that, generally speaking, ethno-nationalism trumps religion in most cases because it's a force of nature that people must come to terms with instead of deny.

KenH , March 1, 2018 at 4:19 am GMT
@Talha

So I understand this attitude in places like Europe, but that's because they don't really take religion as seriously as they used to, which means that other priorities bubble up.

And don't forget that Europeans took religion so seriously in the 17th century that it nearly wiped out 50% of Germany's population during the Thirty Years War. I doubt ethnic conflict would have been any more bloody and brutal. Your Tamerlane took it so seriously that he's responsible for murdering 17 million people.

Note: By the way, sometimes people being scared of you can be quite helpful (from the above article):

Not unlike a KKK member wearing a white sheet in the 19th century since blacks thought the mask wearer(s) were ghosts and would flee in terror and fear. They incurred the slur "spook" since they were so easily spooked by the sight of a white men wearing white sheets.

Anonymous Disclaimer , March 1, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT
@Anonym

White people will be bred out and chased down. Within the next generation they will become functionally enslaved (we're halfway there already). Our Overlords have seen to this by shifting our nation's demographics in a decisive and irreversible way. Everything– everything –is being redefined such that if white people do it, it's a crime, and if nonwhite people or chosenites do it, it's a mitzvah . Your predictions? They are delusional–I say enjoy them!

Anonymous Disclaimer , March 1, 2018 at 8:01 am GMT
@Rurik

You may think you're being clever, but haven't you just copypasted one of Jack D's posts?

Anonymous Disclaimer , March 1, 2018 at 8:05 am GMT
@Maple Curtain

They stole America once they had grabbed the reins of the mass media, and that happened before Patrick came along. Since then it's just been consolidation. PJB is one of the most courageous voices of our time and he's paid a very high price professionally. Neither of these is true of his critics, yourself included.

Anonymous Disclaimer , March 1, 2018 at 8:08 am GMT
@Corvinus

You keep forgetting to begin your silly screeds with the salutation:
"Dear Fellow White People "

Mr. Hack , March 1, 2018 at 12:52 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

Referendums, at the point of a Russian gun, as was done in Crimea aren't truly an accurate meaure of anything.
Would you feel that a referendum today, after somewhere in the vicinity of 3million people have left the Donbas, would likewise settle anything?

Ilyana_Rozumova , March 1, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
OoooooH that challenge again. Multiculturalism is not working, Zionist Globalists need a new trick.
Rabbis are huddling.
Citizen of a Silly Country , March 1, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
@Anonymous

I'd bet on the bred out before I'd bet on the functionally enslaved. It's hard to enslave a population that's smarter and better-organized than your people. At the moment, whites are enslaving themselves. That's very different than being enslaved.

Gentile whites can free themselves at any moment – if we choose to. Will we? Good question. I don't care if whites drop to 10% or 20% of the population; if that small minority found its racial/ethnic cohension and decided to push back as a group, it'd be functionally independent and free in a very short period of time.

Whites are not blacks or mestizos. We are not being enslaved. (Jews are clever and certainly a major driving force behind much of what's going on, but they aren't omnipotent.) We have agency. A glitch in our DNA makes many whites ill suited for the current environment, ironically, an environment we created. This means that one of three things will happen. All whites will be absorbed by other groups better suited for this environment. Whites with the attributes to survive in this environment – the tribal whites – survive and prosper while other whites fade away. The environment changes.

The future is not linear. You can't just extrapolate today's trends a hundred years out. Europe was 99%+ white a hundred years ago. Now, 10% to 15% of births are to non-whites with immigration continuing. North America was 100% native Indians 600 years ago. Now, they are only a couple of percentage points of the population.

Things change. Momentum changes. I already hear whites laughing in public about being call a racist. Granted, they laugh because they believe that they are "color blind" and thus not racist, rather than being proud of being white. But let's take this one step at a time. Indeed, my own child – truly unprompted – mentioned to me that she should be as proud of European ancestry and a black should be of their African ancestry.

Things change.

Corvinus , March 1, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Actually, it is addressed as "My dear humans".

Corvinus , March 1, 2018 at 4:29 pm GMT
@Citizen of a Silly Country

"At the moment, whites are enslaving themselves."

That is patently false. Whites are free to make their own decisions, and are only "enslaved" as individuals if their choices box them in, and they choose not get themselves out of their predicament.

"I don't care if whites drop to 10% or 20% of the population; if that small minority found its racial/ethnic cohension and decided to push back as a group, it'd be functionally independent and free in a very short period of time."

No, because that group would be enslaving the 80-90% of other white people. You neglect to consider that European whites themselves tend to lack cohesiveness due to their political or religious differences. You assume this minority group will be able to set aside their problems for the benefit of their "race". Perhaps, but perhaps not.

"A glitch in our DNA makes many whites ill suited for the current environment, ironically, an environment we created."

A false premise on your part.

"Indeed, my own child – truly unprompted – mentioned to me that she should be as proud of European ancestry and a black should be of their African ancestry."

Yet she was programmed to make this remark, maybe without realizing it. No different than an SJW who have their own kids and indoctrinate them. You and them are one in the same in this regard.

Talha , March 1, 2018 at 5:36 pm GMT
@KenH

Please provide an example of Catholics and Protestants joining ethnic others to slaughter heretics of their own race/etnicity so I can better respond.

Not race, but certainly ethnicity. The slaughter in Germany that you described was (if I recall my history correctly) due to the Thirty Years War where various powers from outside what is now Germany were called in on one side or another; from as far as Sweden, Spain, even Scotland. Some states even sided with the Ottomans (though I think they did not put soldiers out in the field).

I don't really have a problem with your greater point that ethnicity/tribal identity is often at odds and in tension with religious identity and often wins out. I simply don't see how one can make an absolutist claim that ethnicity always wins out since there are many historical exceptions to the rule.

For instance you pointed to the tension among the various ethnic groups in Afghanistan. This is true, but religion also can help them transcend that divide, something that the Taliban have been pushing successfully as of late:
"Ethnic Minorities Are Fueling the Taliban's Expansion in Afghanistan: The Taliban is gaining dangerous leverage by recruiting Tajiks, Turkmen, and Uzbeks."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/15/ethnic-minorities-are-fueling-the-talibans-expansion-in-afghanistan/

Of Islam and race, Arnold Toynbee (the very capable British historian) wrote:
"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding moral achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue; for, although the record of history would seem on the whole to show that race consciousness has been the exception and not the rule in the constant interbreeding of the human species, it is a fatality of the present situation that this consciousness is felt-and felt strongly-by the very peoples which, in the competition of the last four centuries between several Western powers, have won-at least for the moment-the lion's share of the inheritance of the Earth."

Though Toynbee was being hyperbolic, it is a phenomenon that is quite real and caused someone like Malcolm X (ra) to completely re-evaluate his assumptions about White people after having gone to Hajj, writing:
"During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same rug – while praying to the same God – with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the deeds of the white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana."

You are right about ethnic/tribal affiliation being part of the core of the human animal. It is, like sexuality and lust, embedded deep in the recesses of human consciousness. Just like a pack of wolves or a troop of chimpanzees will tear apart another group in competition for resources, we too have that innate animal instinct in us. But like sexuality, avarice or a whole host of human traits – the whole point of religion is to help us to; a) transcend them and b) point them to a useful purpose or keep them under control.

We will never see ethnic identity or attraction to it completely wiped out (thank God), that is part of the beauty of the human project:
"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most pious of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." (49:13)

However, religion is supposed to helps us to overcome the pathologies and extremes that can arise from it, same as from unchecked sexuality or other natural human tendencies. Of course, religion can be used to underwrite other pathologies as well. Well, the world is never perfect, eh? It'll be interesting to see which way this goes.

I think people will start to be more ethnocentric and identity-conscious for a while (Whites will jump in on this as Blacks and other minorities already do), but I simply don't know how long that will last since that really doesn't provide much in the way of long term transcendental purpose and seems really to be a temporary reaction to the way things have gone to the other extreme for the last few decades.

I guess we'll see.

Peace.

Talha , March 1, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT
@Corvinus

Hey Corvinus,

Yet she was programmed to make this remark, maybe without realizing it.

Not sure about this. It comes naturally to people and there is a side of it that is wrong (which takes it to extreme pride and arrogance) and a side which is natural and healthy.

On twitter, I follow an African American Muslim scholar, Dr. (Shaykh) Abdullah Ali, who once wrote – in criticism of some of the SJW Muslim activists that like to call everyone racist:

Can a White Man Be Proud of His People?

Another area of concern related to Muslim activists is the push for cultural Marxist egalitarianism. It is not that one should be opposed to equal opportunity for all members of society. It is just that Islam promotes meritocracy rather than "sameness" and "equal representation" for the sake of equal "representation." According to this cultural paradigm, it is "good" to celebrate and take pride in what is unique about one's own culture. This seems the case, at least, for any person who is not "white." White people, on the other hand, due to their historical domination of others are forbidden from publicly expressing pride about European civilizational contributions lest they be declared a racist or white supremacist. This concern is shared by nativists like Richard Spencer. But Spencer, however, regurgitates the pseudoscientific racist assumptions of the 19th century French aristocrat Arthur De Gobineau who pioneered the Aryan master race theory. Those blinkered notions aside, what legitimate wrong could be claimed about a white man or woman feeling pride about the achievements of their ancestors if it does not result in cultural domination?

The question he ends with is a pertinent one; what is wrong with that, especially if everyone else is able to publicly do it and not be shamed. Why should we assume this is a sign of indoctrination and not something very natural and healthy. My kids are mixed heritage; I definitely want them to know and love their European side as much as their roots from the Indian subcontinent.

Peace.

Rurik , March 1, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Anonymous

what are you talking about?

and who is Jack D?

I just did a search of Jack D and it's some fudge-packer

RadicalCenter , March 1, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Are you truly claiming that most people in Crimea didn't want to rejoin Russia?

Talha , March 1, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

Original Crimean War – as interpreted through Tom & Jerry:

Citizen of a Silly Country , March 1, 2018 at 7:03 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Corny's not a bad guy. He has schtick – sort of a cross between "We're all God's children" and libertarianism – and he sticks to it. Whether he believes it or not, who knows.

But he is disingenuous.

There was a point in my career when I dealt a lot with lawyers from other companies about reasonably complex issues. After awhile, I could tell when a lawyer was doing their best to make things clearer to see if we could reach a deal and when a lawyer was trying to make things murky in hopes of cheating you out on something. Naturally, the DB lawyers would always argue that our side just wasn't smart enough to understand their brillant proposition.

It was just annoying. Everyone knew what was going on. I suppose that the DB lawyers felt that they needed to try, but it just ended up making everything take a lot longer than necessary.

Corny most definitely falls in the DB lawyer camp. He deliberately obfuscates. If you tell him that an orange is the color orange, he'll say that you can't prove that because there are different shades of orange and thus the color orange doesn't exist. It's tedious and pointless.

It's a shame. I'd love to have someone who believes in multi-everything to discuss these issues with. I've changed my mind on a number of things over the years so maybe they could show me where I'm wrong. That'd be a fascinating dialogue.

Sadly, that's Corny is not that guy. He's either a true believer or a very diligent (maybe paid?) troll. Either way, not of much use.

MarkinLA , March 1, 2018 at 9:42 pm GMT
@Anonymous

There were opportunities to take it back but they weren't taken and Pat was there then. The reason it isn't written about much is because Pat would have to come to terms with who the real Nixon and Reagan were and Pat will never allow such thoughts into his head, let alone his writing.

Arvind , Website March 1, 2018 at 11:38 pm GMT
Thanks for the comment on India! I'm trying to explore how the rise of nationalism fits into Indian identity in my blog. Long time fan.

redpillindian.blogspot.com

[Feb 28, 2018] The Knives Are Out For Kushner: Loans With Deutsche Under Scrutiny By Regulator

If Kushner was/is involved with such risky staff, why he tried to join Trump administration. It does not requires any IQ to understand that he will be the target and that knife are out to depose Trump. In view of color revolution against Trump the best strategy would be to stay in NYC. You need to be squeaky clean to work for him.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political reasons. " ..."
"... Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most expensive building ever purchased", in New York City. ..."
"... After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner, the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado ..."
"... While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the New York Times . ..."
"... Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal. ..."
"... Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action. ..."
"... Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation ..."
"... Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down. ..."
"... They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. ..."
"... They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump ..."
"... If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present. ..."
"... Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance. ..."
"... Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation! ..."
"... You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on. ..."
"... NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE. ..."
"... I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not nice. ..."
"... It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it. ..."
"... Thank goodness the FBI and Justice have all the Democrat/Clinton crimes solved so they can dispense equal Justice to the Republicans ..."
Feb 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The knives are out for Jared Kushner.

After losing his top secret security clearance and reportedly falling under intense scrutiny by Robert Mueller's probe, the New York Department of Financial Services has asked Deutsche Bank two local lenders for information about their dealings with Jared Kushner, the Kushner companies and his family , according to Bloomberg .

Letters were sent by department superintendent Maria Vullo to Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank last week, said a person who had seen the letter which seeks a response by March 5. Vullo was appointed by New York's Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo.

The requested information is broad, and include the banks' processes for approving loans.

Vullo requested copies of emails and other communications between the Kushners and the banks related to financing requests that have been denied or are pending. She also asked whether the banks have conducted any internal reviews of the Kushners and their companies and the results of any such inquiries revealed.

The most detailed information about the Kushners' finances can be found in their government disclosures. The couple had unsecured lines of credit of $5 million to $25 million each from Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank according to a late December filing.

Deutsche Bank's line of credit was extended to Kushner and his mother; lines from the other two banks were extended to Kushner and his father. Signature Bank also extended a secured line of credit to the couple of $1 million to $5 million, according to the disclosure. - Bloomberg

A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political reasons. "

Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most expensive building ever purchased", in New York City.

After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner, the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado.

The Kushner companies are also reportedly negotiating with Vornado to buy their stake back.

While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the New York Times .

Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal.

Kushner in the crosshairs

Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action.

Meanwhile, the presidential son-in-law's security clearance was downgraded from "Top Secret/SCI-level" to "secret" this week, walling him off from the most sensitive information.

Many had expected that Trump would grant Kushner a waiver, even though Trump himself said Friday that he would let Chief of Staff John Kelly decide if such an exception should be granted. In a statement issued last week, Kelly said that any changes to Kushner's security clearance wouldn't impact his ability to do his job:

"As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio including overseeing our Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico," Kelly said in the statement.

At the end of the day, unless Kushner or his company broke the law, it appears that this entire exercise is meant to embarrass the president's son-in-law over his troubled 666 property.

gatorengineer Wed, 02/28/2018 - 17:26 Permalink

Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation..... .yeah I know but how in your face are they going to get... wait dont answer that

NumbersUsa -> giovanni_f Wed, 02/28/2018 - 18:08 Permalink

Trump's Jewish Agenda

January 7, 2018

By CUFPa

Trump, the first US President with two Jewish children , beholden to the money power of the US establishment (i.e., Jewish money ) that supported his presidential bid (or bought the presidency for him), is making the Israeli dream of stealing Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine a reality; especially since he owes Jewish investment banks hundreds of millions of dollars, which can be easily written off the books if certain conditions are met.

"I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," Trump said .

In one fell swoop, Donald Trump overturned decades of international consensus and laws. He also ignored recorded history: Jerusalem was NEVER the capital of even ancient Israel.

Furthermore, he constantly and nonchalantly overlooks the fact that Israel today is an inhumane, apartheid country that uses its carte blanche from the US to do as it pleases in the Middle East. It oppresses the Palestinians, treats them like caged animals , and spreads chaos in the region regardless of how it affects the peace of the world.

The reason is because the Jews control the Federal Reserve , the real center of power in the United States or the money power of the establishment (i.e., Jewish money ). In turn, the Fed wags every other financial institution in America, and consequently ends up being the root cause of all of America's economic ills.

Trump's Jewish Entourage

Not even Trump , who supposedly wants to "make America great again," dares mention the need to dismantle the Fed. Worse, he drools every time he talks about Apartheid Israel , not unlike every other American politician.

The anti-Christ spirit of hate thy neighbor , which revs up the engine of the state of Israel and that of its Prime Minister, seems to fire up Trump's motor as well with his loathing of immigrants , especially of his Mexican neighbors. He and Netanyahu are two peas in a pod – both arrogant, haughty, and supercilious narcissists.

"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18

new game -> Consuelo Wed, 02/28/2018 - 17:52 Permalink

Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down.

They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. All the righteous types just don't get it, they are being played to heighten the drama and division.. they don't give a shit.

They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump.

Rex Andrus -> new game Wed, 02/28/2018 - 17:59 Permalink

Drain the Beltway start at your state capitol

If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present.

Remember WACO. Remember Ruby Ridge. Remember 911. Remember Lynch. Remember DACA. Remember Obama stealing from Freddie and Fannie. Remember all the government assistance programs you are paying for, that you are not eligible for because of the color of your skin, that you had no say in. Nice work, FBI.

EndOfDayExit -> new game Wed, 02/28/2018 - 20:35 Permalink

Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance.

GoingBig -> aliens is here Wed, 02/28/2018 - 17:50 Permalink

Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation!

Rex Andrus Wed, 02/28/2018 - 17:52 Permalink

How much of the loot from the US taxpayer did Deutche get from the "bailout"? The credibility of their organized bankster cartel is lower than that of a belarus hooker in jail in Thailand, because they practice fraud professionally. The FBI is an active enemy of the United States. The masks are coming off.

california chrome Wed, 02/28/2018 - 18:04 Permalink

"The Knives Are Out For Kushner: Loans With Deutsche Under Scrutiny By Regulator"

Will this be the catalyst for Trump to fire Muler's sorry-ass or does he just become more defensive every day about taking action and hope the issue will just sort itself out?

I too would continue unabated like a crazy man until stopped, if I were Muler.

LaugherNYC Wed, 02/28/2018 - 19:21 Permalink

Kushner wants a security clearance? They get to ream, steam and dry clean his ass. This is no game. Now, it just so happens I ran one of the biggest commercial real estate shops on the Street. I have been in the market recently for a major developer. 5-10X the size of Kushner. You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on.

You see, on a secured credit line, the bank only has to reserve about 4-8% of the limit as a capital charge. That allows them to operate at about 12X leverage. If they are charging LIBOR + 300 for the line, and they fund art LIBOR-50, and the line is fully drawn (no bank wants a line that isn't utilized, that's why they charge non-utilization fees), their 350BP spread translates into a nice ~35% ROE. That's good business. On an unsecured line, there is a 100 % capital charge. That's a 3.5% ROE. That sucks balls.

I have literally had a major bank walk away from an unsecured $50mm line when it would have given them the inside track for a $800 million loan they could securitize and make a quick and easy $25 million on. The regulatory headache and capital charges just made it a non-starter.

NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE.

If I were working for Mueller, I would be very curious about this stuff, too. If they called me, I would give them a list of things to look for. Something sounds screwy. Either the reporter has the details wrong, or something IS wrong.

I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not nice.

It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it.

onlooker Wed, 02/28/2018 - 21:21 Permalink

Thank goodness the FBI and Justice have all the Democrat/Clinton crimes solved so they can dispense equal Justice to the Republicans.

[Feb 28, 2018] Barring black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely

Feb 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

p

Pavlo , February 28, 2018 at 4:34 am GMT

the government makes a show of it.

there has been dramatic improvement in number of soldiers, usability of equipment

That is the show.

The Ukrainian army's battlefield performance after February 2015 has not improved, nor will the odds ever again be as favourable as they were in Mid-2014. Kiev has assembled an army suitable for skirmishing and the occasional terrorist attack, nothing more strenuous. Building an army capable of winning the war would entail discipline and sacrifice, and the effort would be for nothing since the RF forces would move in and crush Kiev's army if it were ever on the point of victory.

Kiev is content with the status quo – it's far from ideal for them but it's not so bad as to justify the risks involved in a new offensive (this will never happen). Barring black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely, so long as Moscow does not pull its finger out of its backside and resolve the situation properly.

likbez , February 28, 2018 at 10:52 am GMT
@Pavlo

Kiev is content with the status quo – it's far from ideal for them but it's not so bad as to justify the risks involved in a new offensive (this will never happen). Barring black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely, so long as Moscow does not pull its finger out of its backside and resolve the situation properly.

Two consideration:

1. Ukraine decides very little. Government was outsourced to Washington, DC. If creation of tension with Russia is necessary, they will launch offensive.
2. Nationalist movements, especially far-right, have their own often destructive dynamics and can do things that are illogical and/or highly harmful for the country. They also are ready to fight and die for their ideas. In this sense Poroshenko is a hostage of Galician far right "revolutionaries. "

[Feb 28, 2018] Russia threatens our ability to dominate - US general to Congress

Notable quotes:
"... "the only geographic combatant command executing active combat operations," ..."
"... "An increase in Russian surface-to-air missile systems in the region threatens our access and ability to dominate the airspace," ..."
"... "The principle reason we are in Syria is to defeat ISIS, and that remains our sole and single task," ..."
"... "Sunni populations remain vulnerable to identity-based recruitment" ..."
"... "impressionable youth in this tumultuous region, seeking community and justice, are highly susceptible to extremists' teachings." ..."
Feb 28, 2018 | www.rt.com

h6> Feb 28, 2018 briefed the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on Tuesday on the efforts against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and the wars in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. All of which fall under the purview of CENTCOM, "the only geographic combatant command executing active combat operations," Votel pointed out.

The US has partitioned the globe into six combatant commands. Under this arrangement, CENTCOM's area of responsibility extends from the Libyan border with Egypt to Pakistan's border with India, and from Kazakhstan's border with Russia to Sudan.

US geographical combatant commands / Wikipedia

From Votel's 45-page prepared testimony , it was apparent that the US regards Iran as the biggest challenge in the region, followed by Russian and Chinese efforts to chip away at Washington's hegemony.

"An increase in Russian surface-to-air missile systems in the region threatens our access and ability to dominate the airspace," Votel complained at one point, discussing Syria.

Unlike the US forces present in that country, Russian forces are in Syria at the invitation of the government in Damascus. Votel argued that the legal basis for the presence of US troops was the "collective self-defense of Iraq" from IS.

"The principle reason we are in Syria is to defeat ISIS, and that remains our sole and single task," Votel told the lawmakers, echoing last week's remarks by President Donald Trump.

Declaring the IS largely defeated, Votel cautioned that "Sunni populations remain vulnerable to identity-based recruitment" into terrorist groups, adding that "impressionable youth in this tumultuous region, seeking community and justice, are highly susceptible to extremists' teachings."

[Feb 28, 2018] Barring black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely

Feb 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

p

Pavlo , February 28, 2018 at 4:34 am GMT

the government makes a show of it.

there has been dramatic improvement in number of soldiers, usability of equipment

That is the show.

The Ukrainian army's battlefield performance after February 2015 has not improved, nor will the odds ever again be as favourable as they were in Mid-2014. Kiev has assembled an army suitable for skirmishing and the occasional terrorist attack, nothing more strenuous. Building an army capable of winning the war would entail discipline and sacrifice, and the effort would be for nothing since the RF forces would move in and crush Kiev's army if it were ever on the point of victory.

Kiev is content with the status quo – it's far from ideal for them but it's not so bad as to justify the risks involved in a new offensive (this will never happen). Barring black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely, so long as Moscow does not pull its finger out of its backside and resolve the situation properly.

likbez , February 28, 2018 at 10:52 am GMT
@Pavlo

Kiev is content with the status quo – it's far from ideal for them but it's not so bad as to justify the risks involved in a new offensive (this will never happen). Barring black swan events, the Ukraine is meta-stable and can muddle along indefinitely, so long as Moscow does not pull its finger out of its backside and resolve the situation properly.

Two consideration:

1. Ukraine decides very little. Government was outsourced to Washington, DC. If creation of tension with Russia is necessary, they will launch offensive.
2. Nationalist movements, especially far-right, have their own often destructive dynamics and can do things that are illogical and/or highly harmful for the country. They also are ready to fight and die for their ideas. In this sense Poroshenko is a hostage of Galician far right "revolutionaries. "

[Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state

Highly recommended!
Looks like Mueller investigation was a part of color revolution to depose Trump, using consequentialism slogan widely attributed to Machiavelli's The Prince "the end justifies the means".
Mueller witch hunt is a part of neoliberalism counterattack on forces that are against neoliberal globalization, dropping standard of living of common people and offshoring of manufacturing. That means tiny greedy elite against the majority of the USA population. We read about such situations in history books, did not we?
Notable quotes:
"... The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government (not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff memo reveals five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year. ..."
"... It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence, no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele dossier and its salacious accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings. ..."
"... What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won? ..."
"... It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn an election probably a full two years after it was decided. ..."
"... Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7 to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed. ..."
Feb 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

So here's what Mueller has: evidence of unrelated-to-Trump financial crimes by Paul Manafort and others, based mostly from FISA surveillance on Manafort dating back to 2014 . The FBI's earlier investigation was dropped for lack of evidence, and it appears Mueller revived it now in part so the information could be repurposed to press Manafort to testify. The role pervasive surveillance has played in setting perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others has been grossly underreported. We'll see more of it, unfortunately, a new tool of justice in a surveillance state.

Flynn and Papadopoulos are currently charged with relatively minor offenses whose connections to Russiagate are tenuous. Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador can be seen as a lot of uncomplimentary things, but it does not appear to have been a crime. With Papadopoulos there may be a conspiracy charge in there with some shady lawyering, but little more. Further offstage, Carter Page, a key actor in the Steele dossier and the subject of FISA warrants, has not been charged with anything.

Here's what Mueller is missing. The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government (not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff memo reveals five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year.

It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence, no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele dossier and its salacious accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings.

What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won?

But so far the booked charges against Flynn and Papadopoulos and the guilty pleas of others point towards relatively minor sentences to bargain over -- assuming they have game-changing information to share in the first place. These are process crimes, not ones of turpitude. Manafort says he'll go to court and defend himself, lips sealed.

It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn an election probably a full two years after it was decided.

Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7 to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed.

A limping-to-the-finish line conclusion to Mueller's work just ahead of the midterms alleging Trump technically obstructed justice, or a "conspiracy to commit something" charge without a finding of an underlying crime, will risk tearing the nation apart. Mueller holds a lot in his hands, and he needs soon to produce the conclusive report to Congress he was charged to write. Until then, absent evidence, skepticism remains a healthy stance.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He Tweets @WeMeantWell.

[Feb 27, 2018] What is a crime and what is not

Espionage would possibly be Steele's indictment. But nobody was 'formally' spying for another country. He was simply fed leaked info and he put it into a document and sent it back. Is that a crime?
Notable quotes:
"... The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. ..."
Feb 27, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

EggsX1 , February 25, 2018 at 1:37 pm

The Obama spying is politically terrible but when I consider what is laid out I am not seeing very many crimes that would put people in prison.

This is most likely why this is taking such a long time – and I worry that most if not all conspirators will skate. They will probably be fired and collect their retirement pensions but that may be the end of it.

Though with the next democrat president, they will make sure that all those lose ends that got them caught this time will be perfectly legal. We have only witnessed the beginning of our own homegrown Stazi

phoenixRising , February 25, 2018 at 1:43 pm
You seem to be attempting to lay out a case for the defense a fraudulently constructed one at that

I suggest you take your "probably not a crime" mantras where less intelligent people congregate

Namaste

Like Liked by 2 people

EggsX1 , February 25, 2018 at 2:00 pm
We have already seen some of their defense through the dem memo. I am outraged at the spying scheme, but you have to recognize that all these people involved are lawyers. They will have made sure to have possible exits when the shtf. There are still plenty of black hats in all our gov bureaus and there will be a constant tit for tat throughout the process. The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute.

Like Like

phoenixRising , February 25, 2018 at 2:06 pm
then try reading the above article and previous ones and there are many cases not simply one again, do your homework.

Like Liked by 2 people

EggsX1 , February 25, 2018 at 2:49 pm
Sundance has summarized the scheme quite nicely. Even so, blog posts are very different than an actual indictment. I suppose there must be more substantial crimes if they have been able to get people to flip – crimes we have not been told (I hope).

You say there are many other cases but fail to name any other crimes that have come to light. You could have enlightened me rather than just make accusations against me and told me to 'do my homework'.

I am simply saying they have created a scheme where it is nebulously legal. They could have just leaked the 702 queries but they laundered it through the PDB. This is all done to make it technically legal.

So far I am only seeing leaking, FISA fraud, and conspiracy/racketeering (which is next to impossible to prove). If there are only indictments along leaking, that would easily be seen as political prosecution (dems live under a different rule book than Trump/GoP being hounded by corrupt prosecutors ala Mueller). The Dem memo is trying to politicize the FISA fraud because they recognize that that is the next closest to an open and shut case.

David A , February 25, 2018 at 3:12 pm
You are forgetting 50 percent of the evidence; not the again Trump evidence, but the for HRC whitewash, or " obstruction of justice".

[Feb 27, 2018] Syria vs Ukraine

Looks like Poroshenko is playing with fire. the longer Donetsk and Lugansk republics exists as a separate political entities the more difficult and costly will be to bring them back. Each year matters in this respect. After, say, ten year probably no compromise could ever emerge, unless Russia is weakened and /or dissolved into smaller statelets (the permanent problem for Russia is change of leadership, so 2024 will be a very important year, as Putin does not have any realistic successor who can continue his policies. So iether Russian "economic nationalists" (to borrow Bannon's term) or Pro-European faction will come to power. In both cases foreign policies change. Or the US economy crash again and military budget will be drastically cut, leaving no money for foreign military adventure and the protection of neoliberal empire. Direct attach might elicit Russian response and as such is highly risky (especially in view of Russia being pissed by the USA all the time now and might want to make Ukraine, as a US client, a boy for beating) , but periodic skirmishes just run this territory into wasteland that Syria regions now are. They also drive population out.
Notable quotes:
"... IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to wartime occupation can easily become more or less perm ..."
"... If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't that what Erdogan really wants? ..."
Feb 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

turcopolier , 25 February 2018 at 11:06 PM

TTG et al

You don't understand what I mean. IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to wartime occupation can easily become more or less permanent as was the case with Turkey's acquisition of Hatay. pl

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 26 February 2018 at 12:30 AM
I certainly don't dispute that Turkey is invading Afrin. And I agree with you that if things continue to stand as they are now then that invasion will continue until all of Afrin has been overrun.

But to simply extrapolate from what has happened into the future suggests that circumstances won't change or - if they do - that Erdogan will continue on like some wind-up automaton.

If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't that what Erdogan really wants?

If the Kurds are too stupid or too proud to play that card then, yeah, sure, you and I both agree that they will be ground into the dirt.

But if they do supplicate to Assad then the situation changes.

You (I assume) believe that in that circumstance Erdogan will continue to grind on with this invasion regardless.

I believe he will beat his chest and then go home.

One of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right.

[Feb 27, 2018] What is a crime and what is not

Espionage would possibly be Steele's indictment. But nobody was 'formally' spying for another country. He was simply fed leaked info and he put it into a document and sent it back. Is that a crime?
Notable quotes:
"... The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. ..."
Feb 27, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

EggsX1 , February 25, 2018 at 1:37 pm

The Obama spying is politically terrible but when I consider what is laid out I am not seeing very many crimes that would put people in prison.

This is most likely why this is taking such a long time – and I worry that most if not all conspirators will skate. They will probably be fired and collect their retirement pensions but that may be the end of it.

Though with the next democrat president, they will make sure that all those lose ends that got them caught this time will be perfectly legal. We have only witnessed the beginning of our own homegrown Stazi

phoenixRising , February 25, 2018 at 1:43 pm
You seem to be attempting to lay out a case for the defense a fraudulently constructed one at that

I suggest you take your "probably not a crime" mantras where less intelligent people congregate

Namaste

Like Liked by 2 people

EggsX1 , February 25, 2018 at 2:00 pm
We have already seen some of their defense through the dem memo. I am outraged at the spying scheme, but you have to recognize that all these people involved are lawyers. They will have made sure to have possible exits when the shtf. There are still plenty of black hats in all our gov bureaus and there will be a constant tit for tat throughout the process. The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute.

Like Like

phoenixRising , February 25, 2018 at 2:06 pm
then try reading the above article and previous ones and there are many cases not simply one again, do your homework.

Like Liked by 2 people

EggsX1 , February 25, 2018 at 2:49 pm
Sundance has summarized the scheme quite nicely. Even so, blog posts are very different than an actual indictment. I suppose there must be more substantial crimes if they have been able to get people to flip – crimes we have not been told (I hope).

You say there are many other cases but fail to name any other crimes that have come to light. You could have enlightened me rather than just make accusations against me and told me to 'do my homework'.

I am simply saying they have created a scheme where it is nebulously legal. They could have just leaked the 702 queries but they laundered it through the PDB. This is all done to make it technically legal.

So far I am only seeing leaking, FISA fraud, and conspiracy/racketeering (which is next to impossible to prove). If there are only indictments along leaking, that would easily be seen as political prosecution (dems live under a different rule book than Trump/GoP being hounded by corrupt prosecutors ala Mueller). The Dem memo is trying to politicize the FISA fraud because they recognize that that is the next closest to an open and shut case.

David A , February 25, 2018 at 3:12 pm
You are forgetting 50 percent of the evidence; not the again Trump evidence, but the for HRC whitewash, or " obstruction of justice".

[Feb 27, 2018] Alfred McCoy The Rise and Decline of US Global Power

Highly recommended!
Oct 31, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Prize-winning historian Alfred W. McCoy first came to prominence with his 1972 book, "The Politics of Heroin in South East Asia". His latest book "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power", explores America's rise as a world power--from the 1890s through the Cold War--and its bid to extend its hegemony deep into the twenty-first century through a fusion of cyberwar, space warfare, trade pacts, and military alliances and analyzes the marquee instruments of US hegemony--torture, client elites, psychological torture, and worldwide surveillance. McCoy exposes a military and economic battle for global domination fought in the shadows, largely unknown to those outside the highest rungs of power.

Professor McCoy was in Seattle when he gave this rousing talk.

Thanks to Elliott Bay Books

Recorded 10/25/17

Knopfler , 2 months ago

Remember USA has boots on the ground in 172 countries over 1000 military bases world wide. Remember USA always first to kill, Nukes, Napalm, Agent Orange, Cluster munitions, Depleted uranium, MOAB bomb and first to kill with drones killing in 8 Muslim countries flooding Europe with refugees. Thanks USA. USA military says "full spectrum domination, we own the world, Land, waters, Air, cyber and outer space. Yes Hitler´s dream come true is America. YES EMPIRE OF Killers. Born killing Native Indians, this has gone global.

D n B , 3 months ago

That is a fascinating and disturbing theory

pcald01 , 2 months ago (edited)

People keep trying to predict and keep hoping for the demise of the USA. Ever since I was a small child I have always heard this and now 40 years later, they are still singing the same old song. The US role in this world is diminishing, I agree, but I think it's more due to other nations becoming self aware and participating in the world's economy (and decisions of US policy makers, of course).

Patrick Carney , 2 months ago

Great analysis. I hope for a peaceful multi-polar world. The US full spectrum dominance since WWII was heavy-handed and largely anti-social. Here's to a better future!

Lonnie Farrare , 2 months ago

Sobering analysis.

Spadey Say , 2 months ago

This ninconpoop of a historian, like so many other delusional Americans and others, painted for America as the ideal society vis a vis China, Russia and the rest of the world, that is not just a lie, a myth and a fraudulent claim, but which is also both delusional and illusional.

Imperial America has grown too greedy, too delusional, too arrogant, too self assured, too hegemonic and indulge itself too much in its own filth, to see the new world that exist out there.

Macorian , 2 months ago (edited)

A number of numbers aren't all that relevant. However, the turbo-capitalism, without oversight and rules or counterbalance is what is erroding the US. And, of course, the desire to rule in the first place. Notes: "A few coups" is an understatement. It still works. Blackmail of presidents and their corruption too.

But more and more, there is a lack of real strategy and just crazy ideological wars on the one, and short-term financial gain action on the other.

There is some US delusion there, though. Clearly, that is known, NK missile can't do a thing. They aren't even properly directed. So there is no actual threat. The relations with the Philipines were never good.

They were conquered and they simply cease the opportunity to break free. The British Empire was bound to fall, no big surprise there... Russia (or the Soviet Union) is just reforming.

uttaradit2 , 3 weeks ago (edited)

The venerated 'leaders' of the British Empire sweated and exploited the local workforce and the workers of the countries invaded. Consequently the collapse of the British Empire lead to an historic rise in living standards, life expectancy and security for the British working class. Workers of the world unite to end all empire builders and purge all historical apologists.

TaylorInsight1 , 2 months ago (edited)

the ending is getting scary and this is only the middle..Americans do drama really well.

[Feb 27, 2018] On Contact Decline of the American empire with Alfred McCoy

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Alfred McCoy, Harrington Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explains the decline of the United States as a global power and the rise of the Chinese empire. ..."
Nov 26, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Alfred McCoy, Harrington Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explains the decline of the United States as a global power and the rise of the Chinese empire.

Frank , 3 months ago

if this kind of television is Russian propaganda.....give me more!

Charles Kesner , 3 months ago

Seems right to me. Thanks

Inisfad , 2 months ago (edited)

Only elites benefited from these trade agreements. The US middle class has disappeared, and more than one-half of the population now lives on a salary of less than $50,000 per annum. Yet, this professor seems to think that the rise of poverty, on a personal level, is far less important than the American 'empire' and its globalist conclusion. I imagine this professor would have been against storming the Bastille.

Inisfad , 2 months ago

Brzezinski was a criminal - all he cared about was the destruction of the Soviet Union, due to his own, personal history. To view him as anything other than a corrupt puppeteer for his own personal satisfaction, is absurd, as is evidenced by his response about Bin Laden, the Middle East, etc. These issues made no difference to him . His entire political world revolved around the destruction of the USSR.

carole carroll , 3 months ago

They can thank zionists from.israel whose goal ISXAND WAS to use the U.S.A TO RULE THE WORLD.

Malcolm M , 3 months ago

China doesn't need to go to war to beat out the US. Their strategy is to take an opposite route that doesn't include guns in people's faces.

Hippasus , 3 months ago

The TPP to rein in China? After giving away the last good American job? Geopolitics doesn't put food on the table!!!

gerald geaf , 2 months ago

This professor is a true patriot - even in 2017 he still believes the bullshit of the US standing for democracy and freedom. He made me laugh when he said "the BBC is until today recognized world wide as the standard bearer for news and objectivity" You have to have been away fro the last decade to believe that.

William Schutter , 3 months ago

You are a Globalist, Professor, and you are losing. One Trump can trump your Empire. Lay-down hand, we ancient bridge-players used to say. Did you ever play bridge?

Common Ground , 3 months ago

We're screwed. Both parties have continually screwed us. Most people are too busy fighting each other instead of the enemy.

Jonathan Cook , 2 months ago

Meh, I started off enthusiastic, but then the professor started to come across as a bit of a militarist, Hedges cuts him off before he says anything too imperious, does it several times in fact, but the guy seems like a guy pitching for tenure at West Point tbh.

poppy's dream , 2 months ago

If people can't see its too late for the U.S you are blind. The U.S is sooo desperate to hold on the title and status as the #1 country they have made too many greedy, reckless and fatal decisions when it came to destabilizing the middle east. They have stretched the military too thin all around the world trying to control countries and now countries are fed up teaming up with each other to get rid of the U.S bullying. You can't do evil forever and think no repercussions won't happen. All empires fall and you reap what you sow. The world feels a major shift is happening and when the dust settles I doubt the U.S will be on top.

革命 , 3 months ago

America's decline ... a world led by China ...WHY ISN'T THIS GOOD NEWS? THE GREATEST THREAT TO HUMANITY WAS NEVER NORTH KOREA OR IRAN, ISIS, AL QUIDA, NOR WAS IT GLOBAL WARMING .....RATHER ...WHITE SUPREMACY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT THE WORLD!!

14842 , 3 months ago (edited)

Decline of the American empire what? you guys looking at a picture yet you can not see or determine the real image. America is not an empire or like anything else the worlds political elite are in Decline . look at England look at Westminster chaos look ad the world political chaos. people are losing out mankind is losing out humanity is is decline for what? POWER AND GREED ! CAPITALISM ITS FURTHER END> !@

[Feb 27, 2018] Syria vs Ukraine

Looks like Poroshenko is playing with fire. the longer Donetsk and Lugansk republics exists as a separate political entities the more difficult and costly will be to bring them back. Each year matters in this respect. After, say, ten year probably no compromise could ever emerge, unless Russia is weakened and /or dissolved into smaller statelets (the permanent problem for Russia is change of leadership, so 2024 will be a very important year, as Putin does not have any realistic successor who can continue his policies. So iether Russian "economic nationalists" (to borrow Bannon's term) or Pro-European faction will come to power. In both cases foreign policies change. Or the US economy crash again and military budget will be drastically cut, leaving no money for foreign military adventure and the protection of neoliberal empire. Direct attach might elicit Russian response and as such is highly risky (especially in view of Russia being pissed by the USA all the time now and might want to make Ukraine, as a US client, a boy for beating) , but periodic skirmishes just run this territory into wasteland that Syria regions now are. They also drive population out.
Notable quotes:
"... IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to wartime occupation can easily become more or less perm ..."
"... If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't that what Erdogan really wants? ..."
Feb 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

turcopolier , 25 February 2018 at 11:06 PM

TTG et al

You don't understand what I mean. IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to wartime occupation can easily become more or less permanent as was the case with Turkey's acquisition of Hatay. pl

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 26 February 2018 at 12:30 AM
I certainly don't dispute that Turkey is invading Afrin. And I agree with you that if things continue to stand as they are now then that invasion will continue until all of Afrin has been overrun.

But to simply extrapolate from what has happened into the future suggests that circumstances won't change or - if they do - that Erdogan will continue on like some wind-up automaton.

If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't that what Erdogan really wants?

If the Kurds are too stupid or too proud to play that card then, yeah, sure, you and I both agree that they will be ground into the dirt.

But if they do supplicate to Assad then the situation changes.

You (I assume) believe that in that circumstance Erdogan will continue to grind on with this invasion regardless.

I believe he will beat his chest and then go home.

One of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right.

[Feb 26, 2018] Et Tu, Bernie by Justin Raimondo

Looks like neoliberals decided to equate widespread anti-neoliberalism and anti-globalization sentiment with pro-Russian propaganda. A very clever and very dirty trick.
What is funny is that Steele dossier and FBI Mayberry Machiavellians machinations actually deprived Sanders a chance to represent Democratic Party. nt that he wanted this badly, he folded eve without major pressure (many be under behind the scenes intimidation due to business dealing of his wife)
Notable quotes:
"... Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against the Russian government " as well as Trump. ..."
"... This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical "indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump. Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were flops). ..."
"... Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing – nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a full-fledged witch-hunt: ..."
"... Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material by the fraudulent fanatic Luke Harding all over the web site of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest about Russia. ..."
"... Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since he's not been charged with a crime after all this time. ..."
"... So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people? ..."
"... A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job – exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible donations. ..."
Feb 26, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Sanders signs on to Russia-gate conspiracy theory

One by one, the plaster gods fall, cracked and crumbled on the ground: the latest is Bernie Sanders, the Great Pinko Hope of the (very few) remaining Democrats with a modicum of sense who reject the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" paranoia of Rep. Adam Schiff and what I call the party's California Crazies. The official Democratic leadership seems to have no real commitment to anything other than fealty to a few well-known oligarchs, who provide the party with needed cash, a burning hatred of Russia – an issue no ordinary voter outside of the Sunshine State loony bin and Washington, D.C. cares about – and exotic issues of interest only to the upper class virtue-signalers who are now their main constituency (e.g., where will trans people go to the bathroom?). Overlaying this potpourri of nothingness, the glue holding it all together, is pure unadulterated hatred: of President Trump, of Trump voters, of Middle America in general, and, of course, fear and loathing of Russia and all things Russian.

And now the one supposedly bright spot in this pit of abysmal darkness has flickered out, with Bernie Sanders, the Ron Paul of the Reds, jumping on the Russia-did-it bandwagon and cowering in the wake of Robert Mueller's laughable "indictment," in which the special prosecutor avers that $100,000 in Facebook ads were designed to throw the election to Trump – and to help Bernie!

Oh no, says Bernie, from his place of exile in the wilds of Vermont, where the Russians did not take over the electrical grid: It wasn't me!

Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against the Russian government " as well as Trump.

This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical "indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump. Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were flops).

Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing – nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a full-fledged witch-hunt:

"The key issues now are: 1) How we prevent the unwitting manipulation of our electoral and political system by foreign governments. 2) Exposing who was actively consorting with the Russian government's attack on our democracy."

This is the real goal of anti-Trump groups like the " Alliance for Securing Democracy " and their "Hamilton dashboard," which purports to track "pro-Russian" sentiment online: it's the explicit intention of #TheResistance to censor the media with the cooperation of the tech oligarchs like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. It's back to the 1950s, folks, only this time the Thought Police are "liberals," and "socialists" like Bernie and the Bernie Bros.

Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material by the fraudulent fanatic Luke Harding all over the web site of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest about Russia.

Coming soon: a congressional "investigation" into "pro-Russian" Americans using the "Hamilton dashboard" and the Southern Poverty Law Center as templates. Remember the House UnAmerican Activities Committee? Well, it's coming back. That's always been in the cards, and now those cards are about to be dealt.

I'll tell you one thing: I would have colluded with the Klingon Empire to prevent Hillary and her band of authoritarian statists and warmongering nutcases from taking the White House. If only the Russians had intervened, they'd have been doing this country – and the world – a great service. Alas, there's not one lick of solid evidence – forensic, documentary, witness testimony – that shows this. Which is what the Mueller investigation is all about: the Democrats are claiming there was interference, and Mueller is out to find corroboration. Except it's been over a year and he's come up with nothing.

Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since he's not been charged with a crime after all this time.

The Deep State's bid for power has hit several roadblocks recently, but it could yet succeed. First, Mueller could indict the President for "obstruction of justice" – a charge derived not from any real criminal activity, but from the investigation itself. I think this is the most probable outcome of all this.

Barring that, however, there is one road they could and probably would go down, given the intensity of their hatred for this President and their overweening power lust. Having gone this far in an attempt to overthrow a sitting President, they can't just stop halfway to their goal. They have to go all the way, or else suffer the consequences – public exposure, and possible criminal charges. In short, if they fail to get Trump on some semi-legal basis, I think they'd welcome his assassination.

The Deep State cannot allow the Trump administration to stand for a number of reasons, the chief one being that the coup is already in progress and there's no stopping it now. The President's enemies are legion, they are powerful, and they are abroad as well as here on American shores. They cannot allow his brand of "America First" nationalism to succeed, or seem to succeed: it conflicts too violently with their globalist vision of a borderless America-centric empire ruled by a coalition of oligarchs, technocrats, and Deep State operatives who've been shaping world events from the shadows for generations.

So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people?

That's the issue at hand and that's why I spend so much time writing about Trump and his enemies' efforts to destroy him. Because if the Deep State succeeds, the America we knew and loved will be no more. Something else will take its place – and believe me, it won't be pretty.

A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job – exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible donations.

If we all get together and make that final push we can make our goal. Every donation counts, no matter the amount. This is how we'll finally win the battle for peace: by uniting, despite superficial differences, to support the institutions that are in the front lines of the struggle for a rational foreign policy. And leading the charge is Antiwar.com.

Please make your tax-deductible contribution today.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

[Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis

Highly recommended!
This is mainly about the defense of neoliberal empire which is challenge by Russia who does not wants to be Washington vassal and China who is rising economic power that challenge the US world dominance and status quo of dollar as the main reserve currency. There are also some oil related consideration as weakening and dismembering Russia while capturing its oil and gar resources can postpone the day of becoming for the USA and Western Europe.
Notable quotes:
"... `We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great-power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security.' Henceforth Russia and China will be America's main enemies, with Iran and North Korea thrown in for good measure. ..."
"... At the same time, the US is fast running out of Muslim targets to bomb, now that the bogeyman ISIS has vanished into thin air and US air attacks in Syria are being minimized for fear of clashing with Russia. Iran still remains on the US potential hit list. ..."
"... Which brings us back to General 'Mad Dog' Mattis. He is quite right that so-called terrorists (that's anyone who actively opposes the Lex Americana) pose no real life or death threat to the US mainland. ..."
"... Of course, this supposes the US is ready for war. In truth, neither the US and NATO nor Russia are in any way prepared to fight a real war on land, sea and air. Military forces on both sides have been so run down and depleted by little wars and budget cuts that there are serious shortages of war stocks and aging equipment. ..."
"... Key NATO member Germany is in a shambles. Its feminized military, run by a nice but incompetent lady defense minister, could not fight its way out of a paper bag. France is not much better off. The US armed forces and Britain are critically short of spares, munitions, transport, and armor. Russia's once mighty Red Army is short of everything. Both east and west are simply unready for a real war. ..."
"... As if there is any reason for one. There is not. Those jackanapes in the US Congress and media trying to inflate online mischief by 20-something Russian hackers into a second Pearl Harbor are crying 'fire' in a crowded theater. ..."
"... A final respectful note to Gen. Mattis (my dad was a marine): A good general does not pick a fight with two, far–away major powers at once. The trick is to turn them against one another. Declaring a future war against China and Russia is a crazy idea. Only draft-dodgers and generals who lost the Vietnam War could come up with it. ..."
Feb 24, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

`We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great-power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security.' Henceforth Russia and China will be America's main enemies, with Iran and North Korea thrown in for good measure.

So declared US Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, last week in a statement of profound importance for the world.

For the past seventeen years, the US military has been laying waste to the Muslim world in the faux `war on terrorism.' Afghanistan, Iraq, much of Syria, Somalia, Pakistan – all have been heavily bombed. US B-52's and B-1 heavy bombers have tried to pound those resisting American 'guidance' into submission.

In Afghanistan, America's longest war, President Donald Trump ordered a doubling of bombing against Taliban forces battling US occupation. Now, the US is running very low on bombs, guided munitions and even air-to-air missiles for some reason. Stores of munitions are being rushed from the US Pacific command to the Mideast.

At the same time, the US is fast running out of Muslim targets to bomb, now that the bogeyman ISIS has vanished into thin air and US air attacks in Syria are being minimized for fear of clashing with Russia. Iran still remains on the US potential hit list.

Which brings us back to General 'Mad Dog' Mattis. He is quite right that so-called terrorists (that's anyone who actively opposes the Lex Americana) pose no real life or death threat to the US mainland.

But if so, how then to maintain the $1 trillion US military budget? Well, of course, trot out those good old 'Reds Under Our Beds.' Actually, the Pentagon has been planning a new war with China for the past three years, a mainly air and naval conflict to dominate China's coasts and seas. The Pentagon is loading up on new aircraft, missiles, satellites and naval craft for the next Pacific War, and trying to enlist India as an ally against China.

But what then about Russia? Not so easy. The likely theater for a US-Russia clash is on the Baltic coast, Ukraine, the Black Sea or Syria. In this case, the US would be confronted by the same problem that afflicted France in the fall of 1939.

Few people know that it was France that first attacked Germany, not the other way around. Responding to the German invasion of Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany. French divisions began to invade Germany's Rhineland. But after a few skirmishes the French high command, under the inept Gen. Maurice Gamelin, didn't know what to do next. Germany was large, and the defensive-minded French did not anticipate occupying its entire country.

After a brief demonstration, the French Army withdrew behind the Maginot Line. Hitler did not counter-attack in hope he could forge a peace treaty with London and Paris. Winston Churchill and his fellow imperialists furiously sought to push Britain into war with Germany. But months of inactivity went by, known as the 'Sitzkrieg' or ' drôle de guerre' until Germany acted decisively.

This would also be America's problem in a war against Russia. How deep into Russia to attack (assuming no use of nuclear weapons)? How to protect ever lengthening supply lines? Napoleon and Hitler faced the same challenges and failed.

Of course, this supposes the US is ready for war. In truth, neither the US and NATO nor Russia are in any way prepared to fight a real war on land, sea and air. Military forces on both sides have been so run down and depleted by little wars and budget cuts that there are serious shortages of war stocks and aging equipment.

Key NATO member Germany is in a shambles. Its feminized military, run by a nice but incompetent lady defense minister, could not fight its way out of a paper bag. France is not much better off. The US armed forces and Britain are critically short of spares, munitions, transport, and armor. Russia's once mighty Red Army is short of everything. Both east and west are simply unready for a real war.

As if there is any reason for one. There is not. Those jackanapes in the US Congress and media trying to inflate online mischief by 20-something Russian hackers into a second Pearl Harbor are crying 'fire' in a crowded theater.

A final respectful note to Gen. Mattis (my dad was a marine): A good general does not pick a fight with two, far–away major powers at once. The trick is to turn them against one another. Declaring a future war against China and Russia is a crazy idea. Only draft-dodgers and generals who lost the Vietnam War could come up with it.

[Feb 25, 2018] Kettle called pot blac: McFaul calls for branding RT foreign agent over involvement in the USA Presidential elections

www.moonofalabama.org

Paulo | Dec 11, 2016 9:24:53 AM | 130

Jesus Christ, US turning to a dictatorship with its info war and censorship. Ex-US envoy to Russia calls for branding RT 'foreign agent' over 'involvement' in elections

https://www.rt.com/news/369937-mcfaul-russia-involvement-us/

[Feb 25, 2018] I were in the US or EU leadership, I'd make sure that Ukraine is not my friend, simply for the sake of self-preservation.

Neither EU nor the USA want to be Ukrainian friends. They want Ukrainian market and resources. That's it.
Feb 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon Disclaimer , February 26, 2018 at 12:20 am GMT

Anon from TN

Somehow in numerous statements in this thread, mostly boiling down to "mine is more Russian than yours", the key issues were missed. I am not even talking about obvious trolls trying to denigrate Putin's foreign policy feats. He achieved a lot more with a relatively weak hand than the US with a much stronger one, both in Syria and in Ukraine.

Admittedly, Ukraine does not count: only Americans, who have no history and don't know the history of other countries, could have stepped into that particular pile of s Ukraine brings ruin to anyone it supports. At the beginning of the eighteens century Ukrainian Hetman Mazepa betrayed Russia and joined the Swedes. Peter the Great decimated Swedes in the battle near Poltava. That was the end of Sweden as a great European power. Western Ukrainians fought for Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. Where is that Empire now? Then "independent" Ukraine supported Germans. Well, they lost WWI. Then Ukrainians served Hitler in WWII. USSR smeared Nazi Germany over he wall. Then Ukrainians were "holier then thou" supporters of the Soviet Union. Where is it now? So, if I were in the US or EU leadership, I'd make sure that Ukraine is not my friend, simply for the sake of self-preservation.

Syria is a totally different story. The Empire, on behalf of Israel and Saudis, tried to break it up into a bunch of powerless Bantustans. The plan seemed to be close to bearing fruit until Putin threw a wrench into the works. With ridiculously small ground and air force he turned the tide of the war. The Empire was frustrated. Hence the hysterics.

Anyway, IMHO Putin's Russia has two major weaknesses. One is the profusion of oligarchs who stole their riches from the state and hid the loot offshore. He does not seem inclined to tackle them, likely honoring the deal he made in 2000. "Protected" appear to include even such notorious figures as Chubais (if you ask Russians, ~90% would say that oligarchs should be stripped of their wealth, tried, and imprisoned; but as many or more would say that Chubais should be publicly hanged). The other weakness is that it remains a one-man show, i.e., the absence of credible state institutions and an obvious successor. The rest is chaff.

Jake , February 26, 2018 at 12:50 am GMT
"what we see is that western democracies are run by gangs of oligarchs and bureaucrats who have almost nothing in common with the people they are supposed to represent."

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Robert Dunn , Website February 26, 2018 at 1:06 am GMT
I'm like so totally sure the CIA will not be interfering with their election.
Kiza , February 26, 2018 at 1:36 am GMT
@utu

Just for a moment I will take you seriously, although you sometimes write truly silly stuff, and respond.

Yes, the AngloZionist would prefer to turn and absorb the Russian and Chinese elite, but only as low subordinates. This is what they have been doing in other conquered countries – generating a mix of the new and compliant part of the old elite with a greater proportion of the new elite. The Russian neo-Liberals are ready and waiting for the job, looking down on their compatriots as cattle (the same word as goyim, what an amazing coincidence!?). Read what this Felix writes about the Russians. This gang turned Russia into killing fields in 1917 and will gladly do it again given half a chance by their foreign masters.

The masters are underwriting the full-time writing of puppets such as Karlin. Karlin is the Russian Elliot Higgins , interpreting data without a faintest idea of solid data analysis, a paid full-time hack drawing the right conclusions for the empire. Perhaps he sees himself as a minister in the Russian puppet government after the successful regime change.

Therefore, this group of regular trolls (about 10 nicks) on all Saker's writings are aiming to be that future new Russian servant elite when Russia would be absorbed. They are truly the last thing that Russian people need.

As I said above, I have seen it all before, it is deja vu all over again (Yogi Bear).

[Feb 25, 2018] Poland vs Ukraine

Actually life in Ukraine was not that bad in 2010-2014. Hopefully "After-Maydan" deterioration might be temporary, although without new markets for Ukrainian industrial goods recovery is almost impossible. Also the level of foreign debt is now much higher, so they dig a deeper hole for themselves to climb out. Other probable scenario is bankruptcy. See also Bill Black Once a Poster Child for Austerity, Latvia Becomes a Hotbed of Corruption naked capitalism
Feb 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Dmitry , Next New Comment February 25, 2018 at 7:15 pm GMT

@Felix Keverich

Poland's level of GDP per capita is 6 times bigger than Ukraine's. They started out around the same level in 1991 and were supposed to follow the same playbook. To the extent that their paths diverged can be explained by Ukrainian corruption and incompetence.

Poland received hundreds of billions of dollars in EU subsidies and transfers. Not a fair comparison. Even still today they are receiving this transfer of wealth from net contributor countries in the EU (there's another good reason EU became unpopular in net contributor countries like the UK and the Netherlands):

https://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,Poland-to-get-nearly-EUR-106-bln-from-2014-2020-EU-budget-pool-expected-impact-o.html

Felix Keverich , Next New Comment February 25, 2018 at 8:16 pm GMT
@Dmitry

Energy subsidies from Russia to the Ukraine are estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars since 1991. The Ukraine has been well subsidized since independence. What they have been desperately lacking is governance.

[Feb 25, 2018] Is Putin a neoliberal?

Feb 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

likbez: February 26, 2018 at 1:36 am GMT

I doubt that Putin can be viewed as "pure" neoliberal. He might have some neoliberal leanings, but in his policies he deviates enough to view him as a dangerous revisionist. Even more so than Trump during recent elections with his rejection of globalization, offshoring of industries to countries with cheap labor, protection (and creation) of "good jobs" in the USA, etc (he was quickly emasculated -- approximately three-four months after elections ;-)

Neoliberalism as a social system implies neoliberal globalization. For any country other then the USA that means the acceptance of the dominant role of the USA in world economics and the global role of dollar as the dominant convertible currency. In other words is you need to accept preeminent role of the USA in world economic and financial system and institutions much like members of Communist International accepted preeminent role of the USSR.

That's why GB, Western Europe and Japan are often viewed as US vassals. They might have strong objections to the USA policies and they have certain degrees of freedom, but on key, fundamental issues they need to behave.

I think Putin strays from neoliberal doctrine on both of those issues. He definitely does not want Russia to be vassal of the USA. And he jailed Khodorkovski and exiled a couple of other oligarchs who wanted political power in Russia, which is a direct affront to the neoliberal system. I think Putin tries to play MIC, energy complex and other similar forces vs pro-European "globalist" faction of neoliberal oligarchs as two countervailing forces. This is a tough balancing act that requires immense political skills.

In this sense he is a statist, not so much a neoliberal. What is true is that Putin considers socialism to be not viable social system and accepts capitalism as the necessary evil. But within the bound of capitalism he advocates strong role of state in controlling greed of capitalists, exactly like in the New Deal. Under neoliberalism large corporations and financial oligarchy controls the state. Some elements of Putin polices can probably be viewed as "cultural nationalism" (ethnic nationalism is not a viable political platform in Russia, for obvious reasons). Or using Bannon term "economic nationalism".

Also neoliberalism hates welfare state and any New Deal style protections for workers. So neoliberals typically try to dismantle such social protection net. Neoliberalism also tries to enforce the law of jungles for workers (aka "labor market" with atomized powerless individuals instead of trade unions, using "free movement of labor" to suppress wages, etc).

On both issues Putin position is different. My impression is that on many such issues his position is closer to the New Deal vision of capitalism than to neoliberalism. So I consider viewing Putin as a pure neoliberal wrong.

[Feb 25, 2018] I were in the US or EU leadership, I'd make sure that Ukraine is not my friend, simply for the sake of self-preservation.

Neither EU nor the USA want to be Ukrainian friends. They want Ukrainian market and resources. That's it.
Feb 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon Disclaimer , February 26, 2018 at 12:20 am GMT

Anon from TN

Somehow in numerous statements in this thread, mostly boiling down to "mine is more Russian than yours", the key issues were missed. I am not even talking about obvious trolls trying to denigrate Putin's foreign policy feats. He achieved a lot more with a relatively weak hand than the US with a much stronger one, both in Syria and in Ukraine.

Admittedly, Ukraine does not count: only Americans, who have no history and don't know the history of other countries, could have stepped into that particular pile of s Ukraine brings ruin to anyone it supports. At the beginning of the eighteens century Ukrainian Hetman Mazepa betrayed Russia and joined the Swedes. Peter the Great decimated Swedes in the battle near Poltava. That was the end of Sweden as a great European power. Western Ukrainians fought for Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. Where is that Empire now? Then "independent" Ukraine supported Germans. Well, they lost WWI. Then Ukrainians served Hitler in WWII. USSR smeared Nazi Germany over he wall. Then Ukrainians were "holier then thou" supporters of the Soviet Union. Where is it now? So, if I were in the US or EU leadership, I'd make sure that Ukraine is not my friend, simply for the sake of self-preservation.

Syria is a totally different story. The Empire, on behalf of Israel and Saudis, tried to break it up into a bunch of powerless Bantustans. The plan seemed to be close to bearing fruit until Putin threw a wrench into the works. With ridiculously small ground and air force he turned the tide of the war. The Empire was frustrated. Hence the hysterics.

Anyway, IMHO Putin's Russia has two major weaknesses. One is the profusion of oligarchs who stole their riches from the state and hid the loot offshore. He does not seem inclined to tackle them, likely honoring the deal he made in 2000. "Protected" appear to include even such notorious figures as Chubais (if you ask Russians, ~90% would say that oligarchs should be stripped of their wealth, tried, and imprisoned; but as many or more would say that Chubais should be publicly hanged). The other weakness is that it remains a one-man show, i.e., the absence of credible state institutions and an obvious successor. The rest is chaff.

Jake , February 26, 2018 at 12:50 am GMT
"what we see is that western democracies are run by gangs of oligarchs and bureaucrats who have almost nothing in common with the people they are supposed to represent."

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Robert Dunn , Website February 26, 2018 at 1:06 am GMT
I'm like so totally sure the CIA will not be interfering with their election.
Kiza , February 26, 2018 at 1:36 am GMT
@utu

Just for a moment I will take you seriously, although you sometimes write truly silly stuff, and respond.

Yes, the AngloZionist would prefer to turn and absorb the Russian and Chinese elite, but only as low subordinates. This is what they have been doing in other conquered countries – generating a mix of the new and compliant part of the old elite with a greater proportion of the new elite. The Russian neo-Liberals are ready and waiting for the job, looking down on their compatriots as cattle (the same word as goyim, what an amazing coincidence!?). Read what this Felix writes about the Russians. This gang turned Russia into killing fields in 1917 and will gladly do it again given half a chance by their foreign masters.

The masters are underwriting the full-time writing of puppets such as Karlin. Karlin is the Russian Elliot Higgins , interpreting data without a faintest idea of solid data analysis, a paid full-time hack drawing the right conclusions for the empire. Perhaps he sees himself as a minister in the Russian puppet government after the successful regime change.

Therefore, this group of regular trolls (about 10 nicks) on all Saker's writings are aiming to be that future new Russian servant elite when Russia would be absorbed. They are truly the last thing that Russian people need.

As I said above, I have seen it all before, it is deja vu all over again (Yogi Bear).

[Feb 25, 2018] Poland vs Ukraine

Actually life in Ukraine was not that bad in 2010-2014. Hopefully "After-Maydan" deterioration might be temporary, although without new markets for Ukrainian industrial goods recovery is almost impossible. Also the level of foreign debt is now much higher, so they dig a deeper hole for themselves to climb out. Other probable scenario is bankruptcy. See also Bill Black Once a Poster Child for Austerity, Latvia Becomes a Hotbed of Corruption naked capitalism
Feb 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Dmitry , Next New Comment February 25, 2018 at 7:15 pm GMT

@Felix Keverich

Poland's level of GDP per capita is 6 times bigger than Ukraine's. They started out around the same level in 1991 and were supposed to follow the same playbook. To the extent that their paths diverged can be explained by Ukrainian corruption and incompetence.

Poland received hundreds of billions of dollars in EU subsidies and transfers. Not a fair comparison. Even still today they are receiving this transfer of wealth from net contributor countries in the EU (there's another good reason EU became unpopular in net contributor countries like the UK and the Netherlands):

https://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,Poland-to-get-nearly-EUR-106-bln-from-2014-2020-EU-budget-pool-expected-impact-o.html

Felix Keverich , Next New Comment February 25, 2018 at 8:16 pm GMT
@Dmitry

Energy subsidies from Russia to the Ukraine are estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars since 1991. The Ukraine has been well subsidized since independence. What they have been desperately lacking is governance.

[Feb 25, 2018] Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I strongly suspect that the Russians prefer to leave the honor of making yourself look really stupid to the US ..."
Feb 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon • Disclaimer, February 25, 2018 at 10:10 pm GMT

@The AlarmistAre Putin et al going to go into hyperventilation-mode about American meddling in the Russian elections before or after the election? Maybe they can indict some bigwigs at Google, FaceBag and Twitter for taking long lunches to conspire against Russia on behalf of the Empire.

Anon from TN

I strongly suspect that the Russians prefer to leave the honor of making yourself look really stupid to the US. Therefore, Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.

[Feb 25, 2018] US Aggression in Syria an Imperialist Blueprint

Feb 25, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

US Aggression in Syria – an Imperialist Blueprint

Syria's prolonged conflict and misery going into its eighth year is no accident. It is by design. American imperialist design.

First though, we note the increasing reprehensible absurdity in this conflict.

Turkey, which invaded Syria nearly a month ago in violation of Syria's sovereignty, this week accused Damascus of "terrorism" after the Syrian government sent forces to defend the northern area near Afrin under assault from Turkey.

Meanwhile, US forces, again illegally occupying Syria in violation of international law, claim to be fighting terrorist militia. Yet more often than not, the Americans are affording protection to various terrorist groups. Then when Syrian state forces advance to clear the terror groups, the US claims it is acting in "self-defense" by massacring whole units of the Syrian army.

Further absurdity is due to France, which has been bombing Syria illegally along with the US and Britain, warning Iranian militia, who are legally present in Syria owing to Damascus' approval, that they have to withdraw from the country.

As if the situation couldn't get any more bizarre, Israel has carried out more than 100 air strikes on Syria, claiming that the aggression are "acts of self-defense".

The Syrian government of President Assad is the sovereign authority of the country, as recognized by UN resolutions. It has the right to defend its nation and to reclaim areas which have been usurped by illegally armed groups. Virtually all of these insurgents are foreign-backed proxies who have been waging a war for regime change according to the designs of their foreign sponsors.

The only armed forces legally present in Syria are those of Russia, Iran and associated militia who have been requested legally by the Syrian government to assist in defending the state from a foreign-backed war.

It is within the sovereign right of the Syrian government to take back all areas, including the suburb of East Ghouta near the capital Damascus. The district has been held under siege by foreign-backed extremists going by the name of Jaysh al Islam who are affiliated with internationally proscribed terror groups Al Nusra Front and Islamic State.

The impetus to liberate East Ghouta has come about because the militants have been firing mortars at nearby Damascus with deadly results.

Not only are Western states violating international law by militarily hampering the Syrian army and its allies in rescuing the country from foreign insurgents, the Western governments and media are mounting a propaganda campaign in an attempt to tie the Syrian state forces' hands behind their backs by distorting their legal duty as "barbarism".

Out of the half million people who have died in the past seven years of war in Syria, it is estimated that nearly half of that total were members of the Syrian army.

Added to the Western calumnies over Syria are claims that Syrian state forces have been using chemical weapons on civilian populations. The evidence points in fact to the Western-backed so-called jihadists who have been stealthily using these weapons for false-flag propaganda stunts.

To understand the chaotic conflict in Syria, we must refer to the decades-old imperial designs that the US and its allies have had towards the country. The Americans and the British governments going back to Eisenhower and Churchill in the 1950s wanted to destabilize and subjugate the Arab republic – a former French colony.

In 1996, a new generation of imperialists in Washington led by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and other neoconservatives formulated the "Clean Break" strategy. The strategy in conjunction with Israel sought to destabilize and "roll back" Syria because of its alliance with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

More widely, the neoconservatives in Washington openly declared their aim of balkanizing the entire region in order to, in their calculation, make Israel more secure. Syria and Iraq were top priorities for US-imposed chaos.

Significantly, the Clean Break strategy designated Turkey as a key partner to the US and Israel for implementing this plan.

The same American neoconservative planners went on to occupy key positions at the Pentagon and State Department during President George W Bush administrations. There is every reason to believe their stratagem of organized chaos – as a way of exerting hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East – continues to be the guiding, albeit tacit, policy of the US government under President Trump.

Russia, Iran and Hezbollah largely helped Syria bring the war to a close at the end of last year with the widespread routing of foreign-backed insurgents. However, a subsequent peace process

brokered by Russia, Iran and Turkey has lost momentum. The violence in Syria appears to be re-igniting.

The increasingly overt military presence of US and Turkish forces, as well as Israeli incursions, is the clearest factor in the resurgence of conflict. More than ever, the US and its allies are operating on a brazen imperial design to dismember Syria and its territorial integrity.

This is nothing short of criminal aggression by Washington following a deliberate plan for regional domination. This imperialist intrigue should be called out for what it is by the United Nations. But rather than upholding the UN Charter, the body's senior figures are joining

in the Western chorus of condemning Syria for defending its national rights.

The UN is appearing like the ineffectual League of Nations in the 1930s when it pandered to Nazi and fascist aggression. What the US and its allies are doing now in Syria is a repeat – fanning the flames of wider war in the Middle East.

Laws and sovereignty are being smashed at will and yet the Western media and UN are blind to the aggression. Indeed, they are turning reality on its head, by blaming victim-states for the aggression.

The straightforward bottom line is that the US, Turkey, Israel and other NATO powers must withdraw from Syria. Respect Syria's sovereignty and desist from criminal intrigues for regime change. This is a minimum of abiding by international law.

If these protagonists persist in their criminal schemes, the region is heading for a conflagration sparing no-one.

[Feb 25, 2018] Ron Paul Warns We Can't Continue To Run The World

Feb 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Via SputnikNews.com,

We can't continue to run the world... sentiment toward the US has started to shift too; there was a time when we were welcome... We often have a foreign policy, especially in the last several decades, of being the dominant power. We pressure people; if they do what we tell 'em, we send them more money, since we can print the world currency. And if they don't do what we tell 'em, then we have to participate in a little aggression by bombing and doing these kinds of things.

Former Texas Congressman and leading libertarian thinker Dr. Ron Paul has shared his views on President Trump's job as president after his first year in office, the situation in Syria and the renewed debate on gun control in the wake of the Florida school shooting.

Trump's Year in Office

Sputnik: Donald Trump has been in office for over a year. What is your general assessment of his job as president?

Ron Paul: Mediocre; probably not worse than the other options. But I don't think presidents really have much control. I think the deep state – the people behind the scenes and the shadow government, who control the monetary system, who control our foreign policy and the welfare state, and are connected to the media and the military-industrial complex. – I don't think the presidency is as important as it's made out to be. But everybody talks about it; it's a political thing, and they keep churning the issue and directing everybody to ask 'is Trump a good guy or a bad guy, and are we going to impeach him or what's going to happen', rather than [asking] what kind of philosophy do we have: why do we have this philosophy of welfare-warfare, spend money, run up debt and let the central bank print all that money.

They don't even talk about it; the major parties, including Trump, they sign even more controls on us when it comes to FISA courts and spying on us. In spite of the fact that government officials like the FBI and others actually spy on our own president, he supports this; he passes and signs bills on that. So that really raises questions about 'does the president really have much to say', and I think he has much less to say than a lot of people believe. I believe that if he had stuck to his guns and had a different relationship with Russia and started bringing troops home and not aggravating things, he wouldn't have been tolerated. Something would have happened.

Syria and America's Place in the World

Sputnik: Moving on to the Middle East, in your reports you've stated that with so many countries controlling territory in Syria, there's very little left for the Syrians. Do you think there's a good chance that government forces can regain control of the country?

Ron Paul: I do. I think there will always be a Syria. What it's going to look like is the big problem. At the moment, it's hard to predict and say that the people who have invaded -- the Turks, the Israelis, the United States will leave. They're going to have to suffer a defeat somewhere along the way. That may occur soon –another defeat like Aleppo. That might make them think differently, but it's still a hotbed

Sputnik: There's an ongoing campaign in the east of Demascus in Eastern Ghouta, with media portrayals of it in the West comparing the ongoing campaign to Srebrenica and what happened in Bosnia. Why do you think this is, and how is the situation being portrayed in the West? Do Americans know what's actually going on?

Ron Paul: I think this, indirectly, may be a subtle bit of good news You know Aleppo was seen as a return of Syrian territory, and a lot of people moved back! Everybody said that 'it's Assad who wants to kill his people and gas his people,' and yet they all moved back after the fighting stopped. So maybe this is one of the last desperate stands [for the anti-Damascus forces], at least for the part of Syria where Assad is stronger

Sputnik: The UN has been commenting on this to emphasize how bad things are in Syria, and particularly in Eastern Ghouta. But the situation was also really bad in Mosul in Iraq, with recent video footage showing the results of US airstrikes. Where do you think the UN was then?

Ron Paul: Probably cheering them on. We often have a foreign policy, especially in the last several decades, of being the dominant power. We pressure people; if they do what we tell 'em, we send them more money, since we can print the world currency. And if they don't do what we tell 'em, then we have to participate in a little aggression by bombing and doing these kinds of things. My argument from the day they started, back to 1998 – I argued don't mess around with sanctions on Iraq, it'll lead to war.

Someday, we'll go broke. I don't think that we all of a sudden will have a reasonable foreign policy. I think it's going to be financial. I believe it was the financing of the Soviet system that brought it down as much as anything; that's the way most authoritarian empires end, and I think that's the way our system is going to end. Who knows when that's going to happen, but we can't continue to do what we're doing.

We can't continue to run the world. Our deficit's exploding. I think the sentiment toward the United States has started to shift too; there was a time when we were welcome, and were on the side of trying to help people, but right now it's on the side of expanding our controls around the world.

... ... ...

You can find the complete audio from Dr. Paul's full interview with Sputnik below

[Feb 25, 2018] Any hierarchic system can and will be exploited by intelligent sociopaths

Notable quotes:
"... Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ..."
Feb 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

albert , February 17, 2018 at 2:23 pm

" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ."

I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies. Rather than redefine the term, why not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or 'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.

[Feb 25, 2018] Why Republican Elites are Threatened

This is almost two year old discussion. Still relevant...
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ... ..."
"... I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ... ..."
"... And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did. ..."
"... The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro. ..."
"... Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired. ..."
"... Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened. ..."
"... Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[ ..."
"... "Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..." ..."
"... I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant: ..."
"... Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics! ..."
"... Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts. ..."
"... Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him. ..."
"... The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood. ..."
"... This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912. ..."
"... [I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.] ..."
Mar 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
New Column:
Why Republican Elites are Threatened, by Mark Thoma : ... Donald Trump's tax plan will result in a fall in revenue of 9.5 trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet somehow he will fulfill his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare and balance the budget? When push comes to shove (or worse – this is Trump after all), who do you think he will protect, social insurance programs the working class relies upon for economic security or his own and his party's wealthy interests? Ted Cruz has proposed an 8.6 trillion dollar tax cut. How, exactly, will that be financed without large cuts to social insurance programs or huge increases in the budget deficit?

Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ...

I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ...

Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 05:24 AM in Economics , Politics , Social Insurance | Permalink Comments (41)

New Deal democrat -> pgl...
And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did.

Hence my support for a *countercyclical* Balanced Budget Amendment.

Peter K. -> New Deal democrat...
My point was that Sanders or Clinton would be getting the surprise surpluses as W. did.

My hope is that Clinton would do the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I could see her do tax cuts for corporations and finance. Summers recently had a piece arguing for tax cuts as incentives for private investment.

sanjait -> Peter K....
If we consider that there is probably some pent up business investment demand that could drive above average productivity growth for a few years ... then it plausibly is possible for the country to achieve late 90s style growth.
likbez -> Peter K....

The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro.

Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all it was Bernanke size if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.

Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired.

Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened.

Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[

pgl :
All well said! The notion that Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump lie a lot is as established as the fact that the earth is not flat.
Jerry Brown -> pgl...
True that!
Paul Mathis :
"[T]here are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare."

As every legitimate economist knows, stimulus spending to increase the GDP growth rate would raise tax revenues without raising tax rates. This phenomenon is well-known to Keynesians and has been demonstrated many times.

Thanks to the disinformation campaign run by Republicans, however, stimulus spending has been taken off the table of economic choices except in China where minimum GDP growth is 6.5%. China is "killing us" economically because we are stupid.

Jerry Brown -> Paul Mathis...
Instead, the Trumps and Cruzes and Ryans believe in giant tax cuts for the very wealthy. This might provide a weak stimulus for the economy, but it is a very poor way to go about it. More likely in my mind is that it would lead to increased pressure to cut government spending on things that actually do help the economy.
Paul Mathis -> Jerry Brown...
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not increase demand. Trickle down is a false economic doctrine that exacerbates inequality and therefore reduces demand. Keynes established this principle decades ago but his wisdom has been ignored.
pgl -> Paul Mathis...
You'll love this bit of honesty from right wing Joe Scarborough:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/03/08/joe-scarborough-admits-that-trickle-down-economics-is-a-total-republican-lie-video/

But the 1981 tax cuts did increase shopping on Rodeo Drive.

mulp -> pgl...
Job losses began the month Reagan signed the tax cuts. Job creation began the month Reagan hiked taxes to pay workers to fix the roads and bridges. Reagan and his job killing tax cuts caused the recession, not the Fed and monetary policy. Monetary policy was steady from 1980 to 1983.

Reagan's tax cuts struck fear into would be lenders. How much debt was the government going to need if it intentionally cuts it's incomes? On the other hand, if the government stops spending, that's millions of workers who will be forced to stop spending.

For Nixon, the Fed monetized the smaller deficits from repealling the war tax surcharge that balanced the budget in 1969. Just as the Fed monetized all government debt once FDR and his bankers took over, especially Eccles at the Fed.

But Volcker was not going to monetize the debt caused by Reagan's adoption of intentional deficit spending.

But even Reagan eventually understood what FDR did: gdp growth requires workers getting paid more, and government can take the money from people who have it but won't spend it paying workers, but tax and spend, and create jobs.

If only economists today understood it, and called for tax and spend to create jobs to grow gdp.

anne :
Really nice essay.
Mr. Bill :
"Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..."

I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant:

"At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

BobZ :
I'm pretty sure that the Trumpists would be thrilled to raise taxes...on someone else. It's only the elites that are interested in lowering taxes on the rich. Trump's followers don't care.

I'm also pretty sure that Trump will turn on the donor class rather than reduce anything for his own base - but I could be wrong.

pgl -> BobZ ...
Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics!
pgl -> BobZ ...
Krugman for almost 12 years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/dooh-nibor-economics.html?_r=0

JohnH :
All this liberal hand wringing about Trump's tax plan. Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!! Not a single 'attaboy' from these supposedly liberal economists.

"With the most progressive tax policy of any candidate, Sanders would dramatically increase taxes for the very wealthy and high-income earners (as well as moderate increases for the middle- and upper-middle classes) in order to pay for key planks of his social agenda including tuition-free public college, a Medicare for All healthcare program, massive infrastructure spending, and paid family leave for all workers."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/21/tax-plan-sanders-beats-both-clinton-and-trump-double-digits


"Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes, and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family leave, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US."
http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf

As I've said many times, most 'liberal' economists simply to not want increased taxes to be put on the table as a viable alternative for funding stimulus. Else, why would they go silent when a major candidate makes such an economically significant proposal? Why is it that they are eager to promote ever more debt but refuse to support more taxes?

pgl -> JohnH...
You are pushing this which is fine. But

"Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!"

I noticed this a long time ago. And I applauded Bernie's proposal. I guess I have to resign as a "liberal economist".

JohnH -> pgl...
Now pgl claims to have supported Bernie's tax plan...when all he said did was to acknowledge that I cited a credible source!
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2016/02/bernie_sanders_health_care_tax_plan_would_raise_13_trillion_yet_increase_after-tax_incomes_for_all_i.php#.VvFotY-cHcs

Question is, why are all those 'liberal' economists running from Bernie's progressive tax plan like the plague?

pgl -> JohnH...
I have supported tax increases on the rich many times. Pay attention. Also - read the latest column from Mark Thoma which is what this thread is supposed to be about. I guess Mark must not be a liberal economists either. DUH!
Eric377 -> JohnH...
Because they can always run back to something like it if a Democrat is elected, but not so if Trump or Cruz are and they have convinced themselves that supporting Sanders is a big risk of getting a Republican. And they are right about that.
JohnH -> Eric377...
LOL!!! Democrats will NOT endorse support anything like Bernie's tax pan EVER! Just like 'liberal" economists will never endorse it either...in fact, they have every opportunity to endorse it now but refuse to even talk about it, apparently hoping it will just go away.
mulp -> JohnH...
But the real benefit of high tax rates on people with lots of money is they will work really hard to not pay taxes by investing in new capital assets even if the bean counters think building more assets will only slash returns on capital.

The result is no increase in tax revenue, but lots of jobs created if the tax dodges are designed to create jobs.

The best example is a carbon tax. The correct carbon tax schedule of increases will raise virtually no tax revenue, but will result in trillions of dollars in labor costs building productive capital, which will ironically make the rich far wealthier.

But if millions of people are employed for a lifetime and the burning of fossil fuels ends, only Bernie will be angry that those responsible end up worth hundreds of billions, or maybe become trillionaires. Their businesses will not be profitable, just like Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are worth tens of billions but are unprofitable.

pgl :
GOP elite Peter Schiff babbling even worse lies than our excellent host has documented:

http://realcrash2016.com/peter-schiff-social-security-could-implode-in-2016/?code=466832/&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

pgl -> pgl...
Schiff is saying Soc. Sec. will go bankrupt this year. He also predicted hyperinflation and gold at $5000 an ounce:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/02/13/gold-at-5000-and-beyond-peter-schiff-sticks-to-his-call/

Benedict@Large -> pgl...
Every year Schiff predicts a recession. Once every 6-8 years, he's right. Schiff then claims he's predicted every recession for the last three dozen years. Everyone is amazed. "How does he do it?" the crowd gasps.

Why does anyone even mention Schiff? He's a grifter with an angle to part rich people from their money. Nothing more.

pgl :
From the day job - filed under fun with Microsoft Excel. Math nerds will get this right away. I'm reading a report from some expert witness that claims some loan guarantee is worth only 22 basis points when my client has charged 55 basis points. Think of x = 1.005 and take the natural log. Yes, the right answer is 50 basis points. This clown uses Excel and types in log(x).

OK - I hate Microsoft Excel as it took me a while. But the log function assumes base 10. The correct syntax is ln(x).

Somehow I think the right wing elite will start doing similar things in their Soc. Sec. analyzes.

William -> pgl...
Somehow, I think the right wing elite don't know the difference between a basis point and a percentage point, let alone between a base 10 or a base e logarithm.
pgl -> William...
I know Stephen Moore certainly does not know the difference!
DrDick :
Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts.
pgl :
Politics down under (New Zealand). The Green Party is campaigning on transfer pricing enforcement in order to make the multinationals pay their fair share of taxes:

https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/govt-warned-multinational-tax-rort-2013

We need more of this in the US!

Fred C. Dobbs :
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him.
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
I was tired and fell asleep by 9PM missing Rachel's show. Thanks for filling me in. She's awesome!
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood.

This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912.

eudaimonia :
[I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.]

I disagree here. I don't see Trump as exposing the Republican economic agenda to be a fraud. Instead, Trump is exposing that the main driver in conservatism is not policy, but racism.

The Republican base is not "waking up" per say, but Trump rather erased away the policy veneer and has shown the heart of the conservative base.

For decades, the RW economic and social agenda was based off of racism and bigotry - fictional Cadillac mothers, how blacks just vote Democrat since they are lazy, increased voting restrictions for a non-problem, Willie Horton, opposing the CRA in the name of "freedom" and states' rights, etc.

The argument now has simply shifted away from slashing taxes on white rich males since it creates an underclass of dependent minorities, to blaming Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.

If you look at the heart of Trump supporters, they are high school dropouts who have also dropped out of the labor force since they were dependent on the old economy, live in mobile houses and have not moved around much, with a history of voting for segregationists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=0

As their economy breaks down around them, like it has in various parts of the country, we are seeing the same social ills emerge - suicide, drug use, depression, rise of divorce, etc.

What Trump has shown them is that it is not their fault. It is not the fault of policy. It is not the fault of globalization. It is not the fault of technological change. It is the fault of the Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.

The core of conservatism is still there: racism, and Trump has simply shown this. Conservatism is not about policy, but an emotional reactionary ideology based on fear and ignorance that looks for minorities to be scapegoats.

pgl :
US Supreme Court splits 4-4 in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-22/u-s-supreme-court-splits-4-4-for-first-time-since-scalia-death?cmpid=yhoo.headline

Appeals Court had ruled in favor of the bank so the bank prevails. OK - we know Scalia would have voted in favor of the bank but now the standard is how would have Garland ruled. The Senate needs to act on his nomination.

sanjait :
Maybe the simplest way to dissect it is to note that the GOP has been running multiple overlapping cons. They tell the base that tax cuts will improve their lives, and then passes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich.

They tell the base that regulations are killing jobs, and then block or remove any government protection or program that makes the country livable so some industrialist can avoid having to deal with externalities. They tell the base that "those people" are taking their stuff, and then shred the safety net that helps almost everyone except the rich.

What Trump has done is expose how these cons don't really fit together logically, but he hasn't really gone strongly against any of them. He's been on both sides of the first two, and tripled down on the third.

[Feb 25, 2018] Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here is why by Thomas Frank

This was written in March 7 2016 or two year ago. It still remains fresh insight even today, although Trump election promises now were betrayed and deflated.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
"... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
"... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
"... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics. ..."
"... One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment) rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets, bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves. ..."
"... Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists! ..."
"... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
"... As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of a country that they entered illegally in the first place? This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites). We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen as racists. ..."
"... What a brilliant article. It seems no one wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. ..."
"... And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center? ..."
"... Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like the Space Shuttle. ..."
"... The Democratic Party partly abandoned its core constituencies after the so-called Reagan Revolution, thinking that to become more like the Republicans was the ticket with an electorate that had just angrily voted them out of power. ..."
"... Most of the Republicans are little more than cheerleaders for a system they understand only in a cartoonish form. ..."
"... US squanders the money in other fruitless pursuits like a $3 trillion war in Iraq, campaigns in Afghanistan, trillions of subsidies to too big to fail banks, an inefficient, overpriced and underperforming health care system, $160 billion in dubious disability benefits, billions of overpayment for medical drugs, more than $60 billion in medicare fraud. ..."
"... Only a certifiable imbecile would call Cruz an outsider. ..."
"... A company moving from Pennsylvania to Tennessee is ok, but moving a bit further to Mexico is treason? This seems arbitrary. Why are national borders a sacred limit? ..."
"... Manufacturing boom in China has lifted more people out of poverty than there are people in the United states! ..."
"... Regarding your last point, China lifted people out of poverty because others could afford to buy their goods. Not so much anymore, as today's news is that Chinese exports have dropped 25%. ..."
"... As to your initial point, it is natural for people to be worried about their jobs in a globalised world. For generations, the standard of living in America went up with each generation and this is no longer true. ..."
"... Cheap wages, etc. might be good for those at the top but not so for ordinary workers. ..."
"... You 'progressives'.... How much 'progress' will it take before you realise you have been wrong about absolutely everything ever? This is a serious question. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism outsources your job to India or Mexico. Liberalism calls you a racist when you complain about it. Two sides of the same coin. ..."
"... I find it very hard to believe that 'Donald J Trump' is not committed to corporatism and neo-liberalism. He just knows how to play to his audience. If you don't like neo-liberalism, turning to a divisive demagogue who made his money from the neo-liberal system and is whipping up your anger against other victims of neo-liberalism is not the answer. ..."
"... The Military and Pharma deals are highlighted here and with good reason. Lobbyists from both sectors have ensured that the US taxpayer has paid handsomely for hardware and drugs. These lobbyists have effectively bought Washington DC and handed the bill to taxpayer. The American taxpayer just wants value for money and Washington isn't delivering, so just like any other business that fails it's customer base it gets sacked or goes out of business. Hence the rise of Trump and Sanders. ..."
"... I would suggest that this exactly where all demagogues of the right get their votes: the small bourgeoisie and settled working class,, who have a lot to lose, or so they think, and are constantly afraid. It is the same with Farange and Le Pen, and Berlusconi etc. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed- or rather run its course, in the same whay that Keynsian social democracy had run its course in teh late 1970s. But! In the same that Keynsian social democracy brought the NHS and higher wages and public space and cultural investment etc, neoliberalism brought millions of people out of poverty, or at least out of the abject poverty that they lived in, in the 1980s. I wouldn't want to be a garment worker in Bangladesh, but we have to remember and celebrate that all those women do now have a choice other than prostitution. ..."
"... Xenophobia (much more useful term here, racism is meaningless ... when in France, for instance the issue is the supposed 'Muslim' invasion) provides a context, a kind of comfortable emotional zone, but more often than not people vote for reasons that they believe are based on logic. ..."
"... Yes, there is plenty of racism and bluster on other subjects but Trump stands for the anti-Neoliberal view. People on the left will vote for him because they know full well that the "trade" deals are enriching the "transnational elite" in historically unprecedented amounts while the hoy polly are barely making it if at all. People on the left ignore the wall and vote Trump because the wall can be dealt with later but the oppression of Neoliberal ideology is killing them today. People on the right will ignore abortion and vote Trump because that is a lower priority to them than the economic devastation in their lives - and they know the "trade" deals are sending them directly to Bangladesh living standards. Their adult children are still living at home, there are no descent jobs, their opportunities have been foreclosed by a Neoliberal establishment which governs for the "transnational elite" and the corporations they own and the hoy polly can be damned. ..."
"... It out there now Trump even if he never wins another state has put the lies of the Iraq war on the table but most impotently he has put the "trade" deals on the table which frightens the Neoliberals more than anything else. These issues will not go away just by eliminating Trump for the race now - it's too late the news is out - Neoliberalism is a dangerous ideology of extremism in the support of authoritarian corporate power and dynastic wealth. ..."
"... the working class aren't politically homogenous and are capable of making their own conscious and intelligent decisions (usually dismissed as false consciousness if they don't accord with the 'right' views). ..."
"... Orwell correctly identified that "only the lower classes are never, even temporarily, successful in achieving their aims" ..."
"... "To answer this question one must take a hard look at what is generally represented as "left" politics in the United States. ..."
"... Official "left" politics is constituted by the Democratic Party, which is-no less (and in some respects even more) than the Republican Party-the political instrument of Wall Street and substantial sections of military and intelligence strategists. The Obama administration, which entered the White House promising "change you can believe in," continued and expanded the policies of the Bush administration. Its economic policies have been dedicated entirely to the rescue and enrichment of Wall Street. Its signature social initiative was the restructuring of health care in a manner designed to massively expand the power and boost the profits of the insurance industry. Obama's administration has institutionalized assassinations as a central instrument of American foreign policy and overseen a dramatic escalation of attacks on democratic rights. ..."
"... Oh that is familiar, HR is the art of kicking a man in the balls in such a way he looks like an arsehole if he complains about it. My workplace likes to go about positive thinking and zen while loading the staff with unpaid overtime. ..."
"... In my view, Trump, Farage, Wilders, etc. are the only Western politicians who are committed to the idea of nation-states - with the idea of control over national borders and the sense of a unique national identity. Now, when epithets like 'rascist' or 'bigot' are used, it is often to attack the sentiments that follow from the belief in a nation-state. ..."
"... Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
"... while both sides embraced neo liberalism, while globalization appeared successful, while you entrenched mums and dads in the stock market, both sides of politics wrote off critics as uneducated and bigoted. didn't listen to a word, didn't include them in YOUR democracy ..."
"... Much better than the average article on Trump. He makes a good point about the problems of the academic echo chamber, with experts all quoting each other, rather than real blue-collar workers. ..."
"... To be honest Trump is right on one very key issue as an American, and as a progressive who still would not vote for any Republican. I mean a vote for the Republican party would have disastrous consequences in terms of death and financial ruin as it always has in recent years. But Trump is right on free trade. ..."
"... Globalism is dead. Trump is the messenger. It will be every country for itself. The global elite will get on the isolationist bus or they will be replaced. It has ever been so. ..."
"... I wish it were so, but they spent too much time and money on this and wont let the people toss their ambitions to the side.. ..."
"... "Privilege checking," etc. is becoming a way of not talking about the colossal damage wrought by neoliberal capitalism. Clinton is a case in point. ..."
"... Americans mock Australia's political system, where you vote for a party, and the party picks the Prime Minister, but at least it allowed us to get rid of OUR version of Trump = Tony Abbott after just 2 years of leadership. The absurdities, mistakes, outrageous actions, obvious lies and extreme damage to Australia's reputation just got too much, and he was removed by his own party, ensuring he returned to being a political joke, a piece of amusing satire. ..."
"... Those who still cling to this idiotic explanation at some point would have to realize that many of the people who now vote for Trump 8 years ago voted for Obama. Now there is a puzzle they will never be able to solve. ..."
The Guardian

...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims

....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person's responses to his questions.

When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.

... ... ...

Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.

It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.

Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the government would "start competitive bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!" he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.

... ... ...

Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.

To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.

As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.

Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information". His information about all of them losing their jobs.

But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
Advertisement

It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.

Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, "immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: "good jobs / the economy."

"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."

Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist, not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."

"They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."

Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."

Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.

Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.

Arnold Murphy, 2016-03-08 18:45:41
And here is one good historical reason about who American's really are that they should not vote for Drumph http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-charge-to-veterans-no-longer-in-uniform A Charge to Veterans No Longer in Uniform

Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military, following their service in World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to continue to reflect the values of our individual services and be examples within our communities.

To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.

You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your skill, patriotism, labor, courage and devotion have been some of the factors which make it great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history. You have accomplished miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be proud of yourselves.

You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation accepts hate and intolerance.

We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country. Back in civilian life you will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The responsibility is yours. The nation which depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you as individuals to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.

Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things, but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.

Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government, whether it is county, city, state or nation.

Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought. Make sure that those leaders are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals you can prevent it if you give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.

Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are counting on you. I know that you will not let them down.

Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!

J.M. WAINWRIGHT

General, U.S. Army

Commanding

Albert Matchett

Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians have reduced amount of money that people have available to spent. And can not understand why sales turnovers keeps going down. No money, No sale. Companies say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum hours contracts or low income people.

matt88008

The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!

Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.

Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils.

Bonnie Parmenter , 2016-03-08 18:30:08
Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism.

Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look what happened in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want protection and solutions. It has nothing to do with racism. The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They honestly feel he can bring America back to greatness. I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to vote for him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.

Worker, 2016-03-08 18:29:43
British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now.

British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the opening up those monopoly markets to overseas competition.

TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.

If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to pander to the interests of big capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated from the Labour party.

To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital . If you choose capital you personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now threatening the environment and with it food and water security. Capitalism rests on continuous expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too many restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between the largest capitalist states has the risk of going nuclear.

ChristopherMyers, 2016-03-08 18:29:06
I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of different races voting for Trump, so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful that they might have to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
tonybillbob, 2016-03-08 18:22:48
It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.

I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated and well off and that it's liberals -- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats -- that's part of Bernie Sanders' base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls -- so to state that it's liberals who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.

Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class base, as well as the working-class Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.

What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend) would vote against their best interests and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment crony is beyond comprehension.

If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly, is it that the Clintons went from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy left office, except for the past four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning. She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid -- bribed -- quite handsomely to speak at private functions.

Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics.

One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment) rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets, bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.

Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!

Hiroku, 2016-03-08 18:16:17
Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election.

As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of a country that they entered illegally in the first place? This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites). We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen as racists. Yet, I see no effort by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they have the commonality of language, religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.

Letschat, 2016-03-08 18:11:08
What a brilliant article. It seems no one wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
dublinross, 2016-03-08 18:16:59
This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump is gaining so much support. More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing success.
Sanibel, 2016-03-08 18:03:55
People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back in 92. Perot, also a billionaire predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
AllenPitt, 2016-03-08 17:55:06
I think this assessment gives far too much credit to the average Trump supporter. It's unlikely that any of his followers have a clue about trade or NAFTA or anything beyond Trump's fame as a brash television celebrity.
Nedward Marbletoe -> AllenPitt, 2016-03-08 18:13:20
It's unlikely you've ever met one.
AllenPitt -> Nedward Marbletoe, 2016-03-08 18:24:52
You're in no position to know, yet still arrogant enough to spout a baseless claim without evidence. That pretty well sums up Trump and his supporters.
Sanibel -> AllenPitt, 2016-03-08 18:33:30
Correct. Ross Perot tried to explain to them NAFTA and Free Trade dangers to no avail. Maybe he should have seasoned his dull speeches with racism and hate...
thedono, 2016-03-08 17:54:50
Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'..

The working class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians in both the US and Australia.

Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait a bit, change the words and continue to manipulate things from backrooms.

Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...

However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive

Yasser, 2016-03-08 17:51:02
The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose?
normanshovel, 2016-03-08 17:49:12
The Guardian openly abuses blue collar workers on a daily basis and is at a loss to understand why they can't connect with them.

This is another non-story.

anteater1961, 2016-03-08 17:46:16
All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing.

Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing.

Mint51HenryJ, 2016-03-08 17:40:49
Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without the concurrence of Congress. Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each of the so-called debates ought to concern how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
CivilDiscussion, 2016-03-08 17:37:23
Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political parties can't help real people then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
Deirdre Mullen, 2016-03-08 17:34:41
"We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with racism as much as fear, as people who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade, as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning factory that ISN'T in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working class people you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking the Party Line like a good little establishment "liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone other than Crass Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of useless wars for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will be more painful than it is now. Because what's really important is the correct opinion on everything. Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors and creeds begin to see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his payroll. It got around to him that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees for money to pay his cancer care bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment and that the hospital should take care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible. He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people got wind of it. THAT is exactly the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance, but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and paid for on the Hill of Vipers and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating, blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people towards Trump. And those pulling out all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency is and has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders and oligarchy's bidding.
ony Skaggs, 2016-03-08 17:28:59
Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain type wanted to support a candidate who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump as far as the American political class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for all that...it exists and happens and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY about himself - the classic demagogue.
cally777, 2016-03-08 17:22:35
Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control' a nation's economy have ended badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth century. Conversely opening up the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone bad that socialists feel embarrassed about.

As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone supporting him has a nose-holding ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult. Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon stance, yet when it comes to the head of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very successfully in the 1930s and 40s.

BG Davis -> cally777, 2016-03-08 17:33:25
One really is reminded of Hitler's fans and Mussolini's fans during the 30s.
Yasser -> cally777, 2016-03-08 17:53:19
Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does not equal prosperity. A little less "free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long way towards prosperity.
Tramontane, 2016-03-08 17:21:29
Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. The Republicans have kept most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made few offers to even attempts to help US because they don't have to and they don't want to. Current Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they have a past track record of helping create a vibrant middle class. What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%.
Per_in_Sweden, 2016-03-08 17:21:23
I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?

Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions, relax yourself and all else by calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there, but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time, preferably I want to sleep a night on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take considerable time to bring to the table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering your ears). Prestige and vanity of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong is hurting your vain surface, since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting them you are accountable for this reluctance too.

Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well as remind you of what's hidden. To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment. An emotional assumption such as "everything feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in the Zambezi river we're about to pass into."

Best Regards,

/Per

furtado2001, 2016-03-08 17:18:00
Finally, a decent article about Trump on the Guardian...
lurgee -> ffurtado2001 , 2016-03-08 17:53:55
Tom Frank is an American writer so the appearance of this article is an unhappy mischance. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
tabbaasco , 2016-03-08 17:17:14
So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working class, which the author perceives as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping, road maintenance...are Africa-American, Hispanics, or undocumented workers. Does Trump also speak for those people who work in jobs that have been turned down by the white working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum wage to $14 an hour?
ElyFrog, 2016-03-08 17:15:01
Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton.

So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are.

kodicek -> talenttruth, 2016-03-08 17:26:57
And blah blah blah...

Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.

And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade.

Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before.

kodicek, 2016-03-08 17:04:59
Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington.

I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved!
And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure...

onevote, 2016-03-08 17:03:38
I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals.

The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message?
One thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.

"But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out, they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-minimum-wage-215787#ixzz42Kd1MmTK

weaver2, 2016-03-08 16:56:39
Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama is still pushing TPP, has increased the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too can take a job that might have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class seniors have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
John Kennedy, 2016-03-08 16:54:21
Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots is no way to win their votes. You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.

The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the election.

Per_in_Sweden, 2016-03-08 16:50:10
On Free Trade

What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question is "What is best for our country?" Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing. At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.

The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.

When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities, the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.

On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses, demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.

What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities, private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market, after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents, keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.

In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market (and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.

Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell and export. Thus there is a natural balance.

But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money and the currency value will stay the same.

Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.

Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.

Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources, all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In our nation's own interest.

Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Best Regards,

/Per

CivilDiscussion, 2016-03-08 16:47:47
Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble Democrats could only come up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class. Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
willpodmore, 2016-03-08 16:40:29
Brilliant article, which demolishes the vicious myth that "America is Racist" as the Huffington Post column announced.
Sascha Dikiciyan -> Maria Ashot, 2016-03-08 17:04:41
Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying things like "Trump is far and away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?

Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters are also extremely uneducated, ignorant and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before. America isn't in bad shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us from immigrants for example is just plain crazy.

Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but when you look at his past, he's ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation for fraud.

To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life and when you look at how protesters get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But sure have a President that's ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they vote for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.

This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent or even capable to LEAD a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and stop this monkey show for good.

Alfreda Weiss, 2016-03-08 16:36:41
Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend Carl Icahn. He will take all he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical will say Armageddon is in the Bible as he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the system has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends Cheney and the Rothschilds. The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We are seeing the bad karma of the West in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something. They flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
weaver2 -> Alfreda Weiss, 2016-03-08 16:57:10
You didn't read the article, did you?
Alfreda Weiss -> weaver2, 2016-03-08 18:00:26
Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for themselves. One of Trump's best friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to get control. Americans are now chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer. Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
overhere2000, 2016-03-08 16:30:30
Trump is just Reagan without the halo.
USfan, 2016-03-08 16:27:48
What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics. Reagan told the mostly poorer white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1% on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that prosperity failed to materialize, the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially a feature of their economic model.

Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful critique of the system - that's Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise of an economic critique. That's just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.

The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding it. That has less to do with Trump than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence these people are lining up for King Birther?

Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique; Trump has chosen the most flagrantly racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.

CivilDiscussion -> USfan, 2016-03-08 16:52:23
Nope you are wrong. Millions supported Obama but he betrayed almost everyone on the left and the working class. Race is not the issue. Lying is.
weaver2 -> USfan, 2016-03-08 16:59:18
You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills that destroy US jobs. Maybe you don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do. Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
rippedtanktop -> USfan, 2016-03-08 17:00:15
'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials sound and feel quasi-intelligent about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they feel safe about endorsing.
macmarco, 2016-03-08 16:27:25
One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular order are major reasons why he has millions of supporters.

The Anti-Trump Brigade
1. GOP
2. Tea Party
3. Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
4. DC media from TV to internet
5. Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.

One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media outlets.

Nedward Marbletoe -> macmarco, 2016-03-08 18:43:24
Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting Trump the day before Fox News was to moderate a GOP debate.

The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet called Fox on their bullshit, not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media hates democracy!?

So yeah, your point is totally correct.

Stefano Garavelli, 2016-03-08 16:26:56
In 2016, anything can happen, but so far the Republican primaries showed a state of severe confusion in the party http://ilmanifesto.global/donald-trumps-fortune/
RedOnFire, 2016-03-08 16:24:30
Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability to make goods rather than provide services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
arbmahla -> RedOnFire, 2016-03-08 16:39:47
Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars. Before Toyota and Honda did it, why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles? Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline of US manufacturing.
ID6693806 -> RedOnFire, 2016-03-08 16:48:59
Redonfire,

When I tell one of my sons that globalization has shafted the European working an d middle class, he says" yes, but what about its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class". I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.

weaver2 -> RedOnFire, 2016-03-08 17:00:32
And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center?
ID311139, 2016-03-08 16:21:24
... all of which simply begs the question: "Why are they not turning to Bernie Sanders, who is also against free trade give-aways to the rich"
Ross Grandanette -> ID311139, 2016-03-08 16:43:35
I think mostly because he said he will raise their taxes. So many of Sanders supporters are quite young and pay little or no taxes.
CivilDiscussion -> ID311139, 2016-03-08 16:49:49
Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it?
Jason Holland -> ID311139, 2016-03-08 17:02:14
because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white folks, they feel that Bernie is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern, he will never be able to attract most of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.

The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having to listen to bragado and Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?

georgeat4, 2016-03-08 16:19:49

He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.

I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black economy, and helping to further undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is soo much else to go at?

TwistedCripple, 2016-03-08 16:17:40
The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for "New Labour" for a while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class and we started voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all. Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed the snobbish elements of the people's party back to the margins!
ehmaybe, 2016-03-08 16:17:34
This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
Sunset Blue, 2016-03-08 16:17:14
The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about him and that's just a game. You support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their opponent.

Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do little or nothing, at great cost, and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians are still 25 times more likely to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.

CivilDiscussion -> Sunset Blue, 2016-03-08 16:56:11
Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
westerndevil, 2016-03-08 16:11:51
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
bucktoaster, 2016-03-08 16:11:06
and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore? Bill Clinton........ the Republican in Democrat clothing.
brexitman, 2016-03-08 16:10:06
Good article , obviously his support comes from those that Washington does not serve and reflects badly on democracy in America.
3sisters, 2016-03-08 16:10:05

The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

I hear a bell ringing somewhere.

bookie88, 2016-03-08 16:09:45
"Noe-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when de-regulation became a policy.....escalated tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated in by both major US political parties. They never looked back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk.

Famously said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably bring about more wars around the globe.

What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and the publics willingness to focus more on what a, "progressive" society should be. To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron if ever) that is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)" will be impossible.

A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that would appeal to the common folk by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and common folk leaders would also benefit all.

By the "commons" I mean:

Capitalism is a game. There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs of a progressive society. The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules. There has to be political/public will to back up those rules and referees with force of law.

We need a total new vision for the globe. Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos. We here in the US have no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate. Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar. Hillary C. is trying to exert the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......

Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We continue to fail in history lessons.

KarenInSonoma, 2016-03-08 16:05:55
As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?) Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism. But no, I could never vote for him.
CivilDiscussion -> KarenInSonoma, 2016-03-08 16:58:00
Yet if you vote for Hillary Clinton you get more of the same.
George Wolff -> KarenInSonoma, 2016-03-08 16:58:12
I'm touched by your family's tragedy Karen, and glad that it has not made you fall for Trump as Mr. Frank suggested you might. My best wishes.
George Wolff, 2016-03-08 16:05:40
Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys Frank's argument that people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them.
willpodmore -> George Wolff, 2016-03-08 16:48:24
Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants to help them."
As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."
Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll.
Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.
CivilDiscussion -> George Wolff, 2016-03-08 16:59:24
You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend.
weaver2 -> George Wolff, 2016-03-08 17:04:32
Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs may be naive. He is writing on the reasons for Trump's popularity.
Derrick Helton, 2016-03-08 16:04:15
Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms instead of one of the many attacks or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said she said and the other junk used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
twelveyards, 2016-03-08 16:03:03
Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs, the same idea taken way too far..
And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current version of Free trade is hopelessly inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
trimlimbs, 2016-03-08 16:02:54
Libers are not american, nor do they care if we suffer. They want to destroy this country.
ID8031074 -> trimlimbs, 2016-03-08 16:12:19
They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed groups they bang on about. They want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns, those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside their walled fortresses with their bodyguards.
bobmacy, 2016-03-08 16:01:55
Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan. Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans rely on money invested into stocks and bonds. I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.
holiday66, 2016-03-08 16:01:03
Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised to end runaway inflation and unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels. However, racism was an important galvanizing factor. In the Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean trade and stop it, European monarchy used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support against the Muslims at that time. So, for history,s sake, let,s just call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are his supporters (among other things).
Pseudaletia, 2016-03-08 16:00:59
While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney, both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand. Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from Viet Nam. If Trump foces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for? I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.
Elizabeth Chubbuck, 2016-03-08 15:59:48
Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free trade he has benefited from.. let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
ID8031074 -> Elizabeth Chubbuck, 2016-03-08 16:13:55
Are you being racist against the Chinese? I think maybe YOU are a XENOPHOBE!
Neil24, 2016-03-08 15:59:08
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.
ID8031074 -> Neil24, 2016-03-08 16:00:03
Wonderfully idealist... there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
Dean Myerson, 2016-03-08 15:56:45
I stopped reading part way through. I constantly hear about Trump's opinions on trade and free trade deals. It doesn't get as much coverage as his most spectacular statements, but it gets plenty of coverage.
ID8031074, 2016-03-08 15:56:28
I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.

Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like the Space Shuttle.

And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible.

By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric

bobmacy

Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan. Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans rely on money invested into stocks and bonds.

I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.

Pseudaletia

While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney, both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand. Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a product manufactured in rich nations.

Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from Viet Nam.

If Trump foces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for? I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.

ID8031074

I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.

Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like the Space Shuttle.

And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible.

By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric

Alfreda Weiss, 2016-03-08 15:51:29
US media eliminated a "fair and balanced" rule before Rupert Murdoch bought much of it to create a propaganda machine based on the values of the old South: white supremacy, radical Evangelicals, guns, power in the control of a few rich men. FOX Nation created the fascist character played by Trump who puts the US in danger.
ZeIndi -> Alfreda Weiss, 2016-03-08 15:53:04
Thanks for saying that. Absolutely agree.
ID8031074 -> Alfreda Weiss, 2016-03-08 16:17:12
Great story except that have you noticed that the media is exceeding 'progressive' left these days? If Rupert did all this to made the whites into the master race he did a bloody poor job, since the media all over the world absolutely hates Trump. The amazing thing is that finally people are ignoring the exceedingly biased media and are using their brains to vote.
weaver2 -> Alfreda Weiss, 2016-03-08 17:09:05
You didn't read the article.
Noah Heggins, 2016-03-08 15:50:28
Big businesses need to be policed in respects to damaging the economy which will hurt the working class. The current trade policies are ridiculous. Companies move jobs abroad, taking jobs out of the country: which lessens tax revenue for federal and local government (forcing people to get on assistance, increasing our debt), pay next to nothing wages abroad, then import those same products back here for free. After all that is done the American people that are on assistance use those funds given to them by the government to purchase these products. Big business is using the government as a subsidy in so many ways.
Shatteredandhollow, 2016-03-08 15:50:06
I can remember yesterday on the guardian website an article saying that Transmetropolitan predicted the rise of Trump. That may be true (I haven't read it) but I can't help but be reminded of Glorious Godfrey from Jack Kirby's Forever people ( http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/6/64/Glorious_Godfrey_0003.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141024022501 )
Tom Wessel, 2016-03-08 15:50:01
As despicable as Trump is, I found this to be very good article. But please be careful with the "liberal" designation. They are Neo-Liberals. Better known as 60's-70's moderate republicans like Hillary.
ID8031074 -> Tom Wessel, 2016-03-08 16:20:09
Trump isn't despicable, he's a great guy!
Makidadi, 2016-03-08 15:46:04
The systematic attack on the working class in the U.S.A. by the corporate elites has resulted in a largely uneducated proletariat that knows very little about politics. The working class has been buffeted with so much right wing propaganda over the years, that a labour-oriented analysis has been taboo. Red-baiting and Christian fundamentalism have made simple things like government health insurance, investment in infra-structure, decent labour and environmental laws, the right to form unions, public education, etc., seem like commie schemes.

Into this void comes Trump. Make no mistake, the points made in this article are valid. The de-industrialization of the USA is part of the problem. However, part of the reaction of an uniformed, under-educated proletariat is to turn to bigotry and xenophobia. There is precedent for such a population opting for a rabble-rousing, blustering, strong-man with bad taste in hairdos.

Of course, the other idiots running for the Republicans are nearly equally odious.

Mauryan, 2016-03-08 15:45:24
Trump's concern for the working class is all good. But just by imposing tariffs and building barriers to free trade are not going to bring jobs back. Skill levels are lost. Cost of manufacturing can go ten times or more higher than overseas manufacturing. If the blue collar works are willing to earn the same wages as the Chinese and Mexicans then it would be profitable for the industry to return.

Quality control is another issue. American workforce has poor quality standards compared to those in Asian countries. These people can build a multistoried building in a month like ants. There are lot of safety and environmental regulations that are absent in those countries. So big businesses can get things done there than in the US. Trump has to take into account all these factors.

One can force jobs to return to the US. But companies will fold, being unable to compete. Too much water has flowed under the bridge since the Reagan/Bush/Clinton times. The US economy has been tremendously weakened.

Corporations have gotten much more greedy than ever before. They will arm twist the Congressmen to block any move by President Trump to impose tariffs and build walls. Those who don't like Mexicans still employ them to do dishes in their restaurants and mow their lawns.

For Trump's plan to work a major disaster has to happen in the other countries either in the form of massive wars or economic collapse that will force the businesses to rush back to the US to keep their manufacturing going.

The new generation of Americans lack the vocational skills of those who lost their jobs to the Chinese, Koreans and Mexicans in the 80s and 90s.

So Trump can say all the emotional things he wants and it will resonate with the worker class. But he won't be able to keep his promise. They will expect him to deliver and he simply will not be able to. It is a mighty mountain to climb with excess baggage on the back.

keepithuman, 2016-03-08 15:38:18
This article makes the most sense of anything I have read about the spread of Trump_vs_deep_state and why Trump is in the position he is in. Certainly, having been involved in 'downsizing' I can attest to the bitter (and justified) feelings of folk who were let go from jobs after 10+ years of service, and cast out to rot in a stagnant job market. This could well be a backlash from those times. The problem is - OK now Donald is the POTUS, what does he do about it? His supposed skills of doing deals never had to take into account the Congress, the House and intransigency on both sides of the aisle. I think he will be well out of his depth and will make a mighty mess of the whole thing, perhaps worsening the situation for Americans everywhere. I wish that his followers would consider this, but theirs is an emotional, knee jerk response, as opposed to logically looking at what is happening.

So this race continues on its trajectory for better or worse. We shall see.

simpledino, 2016-03-08 15:36:36
The Democratic Party partly abandoned its core constituencies after the so-called Reagan Revolution, thinking that to become more like the Republicans was the ticket with an electorate that had just angrily voted them out of power.

Part of the difficulty here is that capitalism itself perpetuates systemic inequalities and injustices, and both parties support that economic system, which (to be fair) we seem to be stuck with for some time to come. I would suggest that for Democrats, it's high time to get back to being the party that stands for sensible management of our economic order to minimize the harm it does and maximize the good it can do. Most of the Republicans are little more than cheerleaders for a system they understand only in a cartoonish form. Trump, rascal though he is, speaks the language of populism and does not come across as simply a cheerleader for capitalism -- he is the one in the GOP race who hammers dubious trade deals and insists that he'll bring American manufacturing back. I think the author is right to say that is what so many ordinary people are hearing and supporting and that we aren't simply witnessing the power of racism, sexism, etc. Still, people look for scapegoats to pin complex forces on, and in that sense racism surely comes into play. It's easy to see that Trump has stoked this need to identify alleged "threats" in an embodied form: as in, Latin-American immigrants and Muslims.

The deep irony in all of this is that with Trump, the people would have direct oligarchy/plutocracy rather than at one remove: he isn't an outsider, he IS the system -- or at least he's exactly the sort of fellow that our current socioeconomic order has been shaped to benefit.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is the candidate who most obviously speaks to the economic issues that Trump has put his finger on. I have also heard Hillary Clinton say the Democrats are the party that wants to "save capitalism from its excesses" (close paraphrase), and she's right to suggest that as a guiding philosophy, but it's understandable if people find her a somewhat odd bearer for such a message, given her connection to the New Democrat Nineties.

My hope is that in the end, the sheer ugliness of Trump's campaign will drag him down to defeat, whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary or Bernie, though I also think that Hillary, as a strong political "operator," would be more capable of dealing with the vicious general election campaign Trump is almost certain to wage.

bobmacy -> simpledino

This s why union members ignore their democratic leaders and vote republican. The values of Clinton are not the values of union members. Sanders would receive a lot of Trump supporters in a general election.

hillbillyzombie, 2016-03-08 15:32:50
Two reasons that Trump won't win.

1) Go to any Home Depot in America and watch white men in pickup trucks drive up and hire undocumented workers for day labor.

2) A joke that Stephen Colbert told: "My Grandfather didn't come over here from Ireland to see the place overrun by immigrants! No, he came over because he killed a guy."

America is not like a European nation. It has had open borders for centuries, and despite the moaning and bitching, that will likely continue to be the case.

Hey, all you lot in the Trumpenproletariat who are whining about having to compete for jobs: how about you grow a pair and learn some useful skills, eh? I work in computers with a lot of great lads and lasses from the sub-continent. They seem to be able to find a job. And if you can't program a computer, then just go down to Home Depot and get in line, like everybody else. I was washing dishes in my 40's and it didn't do me any harm; maybe some good, honest work would be good for you lot.

weaver2 -> hillbillyzombie, 2016-03-08 17:27:22
Thanks for having no compassion what so ever for your fellow citizens. Americans are not hired for programming jobs because of those teenagers from the "sub continent" that you are so hot for took all the jobs. They are imported H1B Visa holders who were hired to destroy the lives of Americans who DO have programming skills but are over 40. People over 40 aren't going to be great at construction work, either, btw and won't be hired for it. Especially not if everyone else on the construction team speaks only Spanish. Thanks for insulting your fellow citizens who have been betrayed. People like you are the reason Trump is so popular.
hillbillyzombie -> weaver2, 2016-03-08 17:38:47

Americans are not hired for programming jobs because of those teenagers from the "sub continent" that you are so hot for took all the jobs.

Crap on a stick. My company HAS to spend money and go to India to find qualified programmers because Americans are too damn cheap to fund public education. I used to be a teacher in GA, so go pull the other one. Our generation has utterly failed young people by doing f**k all to help prepare them for the future we all saw coming.

People over 40 aren't going to be great at construction work

Then do what I did and wash dishes. I worked for several years at it in GA. I did indeed learn a bit of Spanish in the process, so that's another plus.

Of course, what America needs are more good-paying, middle-class manufacturing jobs. Duh. Like the ones that Obama saved in his auto bailout in the mid-West. Like we have here in Seattle with the Boeing assembly lines.

But cutting off trade with other nations is not the answer. Not only do we export billions in manufactured goods, foreign companies like BMW, Toyota, and Airbus (to name three) have build production facilities in TN, SC, and AL. And blaming recent immigrants for our self-inflicted economic woes is just stupid and childish; which explains Trump in two words.

EnglishroG, 2016-03-08 15:26:20
Great insights in this article.

I actually blame two things for the rise of Trump:

1) The greed of the CEO class, who've manged to give most of the productivity gains and consequent profits to themselves and their shareholders rather than the workers. Hence the appalling unfairness of stagnant wages for the best part of three decades for vast swathes of the American public.

2) A corrupt political system openly run by corporate lobbies. The hope that Trump already has tons of money and so can't be bribed is a logical one, even if the reality will prove sadly different.

callitwhatitis, 2016-03-08 15:26:09
I have it on good authority that inside the "Make America Great Again" baseball caps the label says "Made In China".

Americans have known for a long time that their products - right up there the iPhone - are made in China. This fact doesn't really stop them from buying. I dispute that trade deals are really "sexy" enough to get most people's goat.

More likely is good old fashioned opportunistic manipulation:

Donald Trump's Debates: 5 Mental Tricks You Didn't Notice

hurrya1, 2016-03-08 15:24:12
Is free trade really to blame for the deindustrialization of the US? Why is no one talking about misallocation of capital? Infrastructure has not been maintained in the past 20 years because the US squanders the money in other fruitless pursuits like a $3 trillion war in Iraq, campaigns in Afghanistan, trillions of subsidies to too big to fail banks, an inefficient, overpriced and underperforming health care system, $160 billion in dubious disability benefits, billions of overpayment for medical drugs, more than $60 billion in medicare fraud.

Most of the jobs are made redundant because of technological changes and not free trade. Coal miners lost their jobs when Natural gas prices declined and generating electricity from nat gas became cheaper. Imports are only 5% of GDP so they can't be responsible for 100% of the problems. The US deficit wth China is only 2% of GDP.

China is facing same issues as the US has faced in the past 30 years. China has at least 5 million people working in state-owned entities (SOEs) who are deemed redundant. The SOEs are mainly in the coal and steel industry, industries suffering from overcapacity. Instead of shutting down the SOEs and firing 4 million people, China is handling the problem slowly and carefully and thinking of ways to place the people in new jobs. They plan to give the SOEs enough time to transition the workers to new industries and train them for new jobs. Compare that to the typical US companies like Carrier, IBM, Coal and Steel who will fire thousands of workers in a second with no plan to help the workers transition and the minimal severance pay they can get away with. Workers have no support mechanism to help them transition to new industries and no serious retraining programmes. The education system lacks professional training programs that can help the workers compete globally.
The US is going from bubble to bubble, proof that the people in charge of allocating capital and making investment decisions are not very good. In the meantime, the 80 to 90% of the workers that depend on the good judgement of the capital allocators suffers from falling living standards.

Marilyn Gallagher, 2016-03-08 15:24:12
Walmart is the bigest importer in the US
Phil429, 2016-03-08 15:22:38

Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against neo liberalism that has been building slowly for decades ... neo liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives.

A small prefix, but it makes a world of difference.

obby Navarro, 2016-03-08 15:18:25
Ford Motor Company, Carrier Corporation, Nabisco just three of the companies he has called out on the national media stage for moving operations to foreign countries. No one else does this .. He is calling major American Corporations out . The racism is just a bait to get u to listen to the show. This guy is calculating and he is correct in what he says about trade issues.

I loved it when he stated that u have to be a neutral party in the Israel and Palestinian issue. He is right. U have to be neutral to come up with a proper deal. This guy is on the money. No wonder the Republican establishment is shitting their pants. He is radical in so many ways. He is on to something that the Democrats are closing watching. He does not speak with fork tongue like the other white establishment candidates spew.

Markus Fiske, 2016-03-08 15:18:16
Our infrastructure is falling apart because no one wants another cent of tax. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised in more than 20 years. Up it 2 cents and watch the jobs and the repairs that follow.
Bringing back manufacturing jobs is all well and good so long as everyone is fine with the price of the goods that are made in the USA.
I believe someone once said, "You can't have your cake and eat it too".
That said, I'll take Bernie.

Markus Fiske

Our infrastructure is falling apart because no one wants another cent of tax. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised in more than 20 years. Up it 2 cents and watch the jobs and the repairs that follow.

Bringing back manufacturing jobs is all well and good so long as everyone is fine with the price of the goods that are made in the USA.

I believe someone once said, "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

That said, I'll take Bernie.

jifferyvtwo, 2016-03-08 15:03:44
As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."

Who rebuilt China? This is a new one on me. What are the figures for this?

What is the infrastructure that is falling apart. Americans are obsessed by cars to the extent of neglecting everything else except air travel. Even so, their airports are apparently "3rd world standard". That isn't my experience of their airports which are the same as everywhere else in the "West", i.e. shopping centres and junk-food purveyors for the masses and luxury "gated" environments for the rich (of which Trump is one). Perhaps it's the sight of Latino, Asian and Black people travelling that bothers him. Still, he doesn't have to sit with too many of them in the first-class lounge.

cappagh66, 2016-03-08 14:53:54
At last a reasoned and balanced account of what lies behind the Trump phenomenon and that is not to support in any way his more lurid utterances against Mexicans and Muslims. Indeed, how refreshing to see it published in the Guardian, the house Journal of the British Liberal elite. In the US as in the UK the white working class are now the most maligned and downtrodden section of society. Mocked as chavs in Britain and as rednecks in the US, put out of work, as businesses relocate abroad and very often put out on the street as housing becomes more and more unaffordable, it seems that in the US at least, the worm is beginning to turn. Who should we blame for this? Thatcher, Reagan, Bush and Cameron? No, we might expect it from them. The real blame lies with the Blairs and the Clintons and their middle class Liberal supporters. These beautiful people abandoned a group no longer fashionable in their polite salons, as they went in search of fresh noble savages. In their desire to rule they have also sown the seeds of division. How long before the chickens come home to roost in UK politics as is now happening Stateside?
lestina, 2016-03-08 14:46:23
If what Mr.Frank writes is true (and he makes a pretty convincing argument) why is that Bernie Sanders isn't slaughtering Hillary, who's untrustworthy and sold out to big business years ago? I suppose it's because Americans, even those at the bottom of the heap, have been indoctrinated into believing in the American Dream/nightmare, which means believing in unbridled capitalism, so too many recoil from Bernie's socialism.
It's rather comical that instead they see their salvation in Trump, very much part of the 1% that gets ever richer while they get poorer.
PaulThtanley -> lestina, 2016-03-08 15:02:11
You asked a sensible question then responded with your own silly prejudices.

A more sensible answer to "why is [it] that Bernie Sanders isn't slaughtering Hillary, who's untrustworthy and sold out to big business years ago?" would be:

Because it's only declared Democratic Party voters who are voting in the Bernie-vs-Hillary race. Bernie is indeed slaughtering Hillary in many of the same groups that Trump is dominating, but Hillary has a lot of die-hard fans in the Democratic Party. The black vote is solidly hers. There are lots of activists who have campaigned for The Clintons for decades and see themselves as firmly aligned with them. She does well with other minority voters and there are plenty of women who will vote for her too (although plenty of women hate her guts). And then the "pro-business" types in the party are with her too - not to mention the superdelegate vote-rigging that the DNC will certainly not want to renounce given what the RNC is currently dealing with. Long story short, it looks like Hillary has just enough "firmly with her" people among Democratic voters to clinch the nomination. Does that mean she is more popular in America than Bernie Sanders? Not necessarily.

SidFinster -> lestina, 2016-03-08 15:31:32
Why isn't Bernie Sanders slaughtering Hillary? Two words:

Machine politics.

aul Byrne , 2016-03-08 15:31:32

I just watched Hannity interview Cruz on Fox News. Hannity was highlighting how much the establishment and Washington hate Cruz because he is an outsider.
That's like saying how much the Conservative party hates the Queen because she is an outsider.

The whole Mitt Romney ploy of running again is just an establishment way to portray Cruz as anti-establishment because it gives him a vehicle to attack their decision. It gives Cruz a needed platform to condemn the establishment for its arrogance and grab some of Trump's thunder. Only a certifiable imbecile would call Cruz an outsider.

DrDenim, 2016-03-08 14:42:50
A company moving from Pennsylvania to Tennessee is ok, but moving a bit further to Mexico is treason? This seems arbitrary. Why are national borders a sacred limit? The anti-trade protectionism (which didn't work before..) of Trump and Sanders in my opinion show a disregard for the poor in other countries, in favor of people (relatively) better off in the US who have offers of retraining and other opportunities.

Manufacturing boom in China has lifted more people out of poverty than there are people in the United states!

turnip2 -> DrDenim, 2016-03-08 15:06:59
Regarding your last point, China lifted people out of poverty because others could afford to buy their goods. Not so much anymore, as today's news is that Chinese exports have dropped 25%.

As to your initial point, it is natural for people to be worried about their jobs in a globalised world. For generations, the standard of living in America went up with each generation and this is no longer true.

Cheap wages, etc. might be good for those at the top but not so for ordinary workers. Maybe one way to resolve the above and address currency manipulation is to have one currency in the world?

simonsaint, 2016-03-08 14:17:09
I hate to use the analogy but Hitler made sense too, amid all the 'nasty' stuff there were elements of truth that were enough to seduce the masses and create a power base. Potent stuff.
ID8031074 -> simonsaint, 2016-03-08 14:22:55
Trump is not like Hitler. Only a neo-progressive could compare Hitler (a former tramp who seized power through force and wrote a book ranting about how he would exterminate all the Jews) to Trump (a billionaire business man and celebrity who seeks democratic election and wants to enforce immigration rules properly).

You 'progressives'.... How much 'progress' will it take before you realise you have been wrong about absolutely everything ever? This is a serious question.

fritzhansschmitt, 2016-03-08 14:25:44
Well, the Chinese working class is doing much better than 20 years ago. Same is true for Eastern Europe. And India. And Indonesia. And Singapore.

Global free trade, mixed with under-regulated global finance, spreads wealth to global elites, and poverty to Western working classes. What Trump is advocating is plunging the 3rd world middle classes into poverty again, so our middle classes are better off again. I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but let's face, it' not exactly left-wing to say that the poor should be somewhere else. It's left-wing to say that there shouldn't be poverty at all. That's not possible with finite resources and no global social state. Hence, the (perhaps right and certainly right-wing) answer is: let's ge back to oppressing and plundering the poor countries to make sure we stay rich and cozy.

I am not at all sure this can work in a world with almost unlimited access to information and transport because people cannot be stopped from migrating to where they can hope for for life in dignity, safety and (usually modest) prosperity.

AllisonAnn, 2016-03-08 14:27:54
You explain neo-liberalism as the cause of average people's distress - then blame liberals. Don't blame liberalism - blame neo-liberalism. They aren't one and the same.
ID4461539 -> AllisonAnn, 2016-03-08 14:42:13
Neo-liberalism outsources your job to India or Mexico. Liberalism calls you a racist when you complain about it. Two sides of the same coin.
SavannahLaMar, 2016-03-08 14:03:02
I find it very hard to believe that 'Donald J Trump' is not committed to corporatism and neo-liberalism. He just knows how to play to his audience. If you don't like neo-liberalism, turning to a divisive demagogue who made his money from the neo-liberal system and is whipping up your anger against other victims of neo-liberalism is not the answer.

Good piece, but I'm afraid liberals are right - Trump's movement would not be what it is without bigotry and stupidity, which is why his support does not come from the broad spectrum of American society. He said it himself 'I love the poorly educated!' Thankfully there are plenty of working class Americans who are also concerned about neo-liberalism who are not buying what he is selling.

But, if he did ever did get to the White House, he would a) fail to act on his promises b) hide behind policies which take as much as they give c) try and act on his promises but be undermined by Congress and the Senate even more comprehensively than Obama was, an eventuality which he will have expected all along, and can hide behind.

At least America's liberals have tried a little to ameliorate the worst excesses of neo-liberalism with policies which, ironically, those people who now make up Trump's base have consistently railed against!

Anjeska, 2016-03-08 14:02:58
A reasonable article about the Trump phenomenon. Still can't entirely discard the accusations of racism. Trump is not a racist period. Anyone who believes so does so because he or she fell fro propaganda or because they believe this cheap propaganda trick will work in this election. The great thing so far is that it doesn't work.
I have long been more disgusted with the disdain and hate urban privileged elites have for ordinary people.

Nick Kristof is a prime example. He loves to patronize to poor people abroad but has nothing but contempt left for the losers of globalization in this country.

PostTrotskyite, 2016-03-08 14:02:14
What the author said needed to be said, that Trump (and Sanders) are at least willing to talk about what brought the US (and the developed world) to its knees, economically - neo-con corporate trade deals with 2nd and 3rd world countries. All of the other candidates are corporatists who represent big money and the 1%.
Williamthewriter, 2016-03-08 13:58:20
These trade deals cut both ways. Poor Mexican farmers were had their livelihood's plowed under by cheap imported American corn. This led them to head north, not only to jobs in American but jobs in the new billion dollar factories being built on their side of the border. These new billion dollar factories paid them so little than they were forced to live in cardboard and corrugated tin shacks they build around the factories. Many of the women (many times young girls in actuality) were sexually abused by their bosses who could simply fire them if they complained. The situation also gave rise to the brutal narco gangs that have killed tens of thousands over the intervening years. If any good has come from Bill Clinton's signing of the NAFTA accords one would be hard pressed to know what it is. The other trade agreements has resulted in similar situations.
fivepasttwelve, 2016-03-08 13:50:13
Very interesting and very good article! I like these two parts best:

>>Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. <<

>>We liberals bear some of the blame [...] for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier [...] to close our eyes to the obvious reality [...]: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.<<

Finally we might remember the winning slogan of some Bill Clinton 1992: " It the economy, stupid! "

Yes, too many academics, politicians and business people have FREE TRADE as their only religion. It serves them well, evidently. And they don't care about the "left-behinds", not a bit. Not in their home country (if they have one, which is doubtful when it come to big money) nor in the countries with which they do trade.

That's the USA, UK and EU (and China) in 2016.

BruceRobbie, 2016-03-08 13:48:10

The Military and Pharma deals are highlighted here and with good reason. Lobbyists from both sectors have ensured that the US taxpayer has paid handsomely for hardware and drugs. These lobbyists have effectively bought Washington DC and handed the bill to taxpayer. The American taxpayer just wants value for money and Washington isn't delivering, so just like any other business that fails it's customer base it gets sacked or goes out of business. Hence the rise of Trump and Sanders.

If the American taxpayer wants to wrestle back control and get value for money out of its tax dollar, then they now have two very different options that have promised to deliver this, which of these very routes they choose is up to them.

Kingsnorth, 2016-03-08 13:42:41
Another piece which seeks to actually understand Trumps's support, as opposed to just shriek uncomprehendingly at it, is this, from Rolling Stone recently. Cracking writing too:

'Backlash against liberalism' nails it, I think. Both economic and social liberalism have created a vast class of unrepresented people who, when they speak up, are shot at by middle class grandstanders too busy obsessing over identity politics to have noticed that a great chunk of their population is on the breadline. It'll only grow.

Lester Smithson, 2016-03-08 13:27:28
I don't support Trump. However, I do get it.
He thinks Bush lied: check
He thinks the Iraq was a mistake: check.
He thinks DC is bought and paid for: check.
He things immigration has been a game for Dems and GOPers: check.
He thinks corporatists like HRC have sold America out: check.
These are powerful messages. And to hear about the GOP/Apple/Google/corporatists trying to subvert the election (again) makes me want to support him. I just can't, however.
donteulen -> Lester Smithson, 2016-03-08 14:47:33
I would add the following:
He doesn't focus on abortion
He doesn't focus on the 2nd amendment
He doesn't focus on about Israel
He doesn't focus on about increasing military spending to "protect" us
He doesn't think Iran is out biggest threat (e.g., Romney who could not distinguish between the US and Israel)
In short, he isn't following the same old Republican mantra that has only led us to economic and social quagmires.
ID8031074, 2016-03-08 13:22:37
You write:

"The man is an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn. He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants. "

Excuse me, but why are you condoning people who break the law? If they are undocumented immigrants, they have broken the law and are continuing to break the law until they leave the United States. Basically, you think that the USA (and all of Europe) should be borderless. The thing is my dear 'progressives', a lot of people disagree with you and are genuinely and reasonably alarmed by this idea. And, believe it or not they are not all 'racists'. They are in fact sensible law-abiding people who think that borders are a damn good idea and that immigration laws should be enforced.

Sirs, please stop telling us sensible people we are racist. You don't need to be working class, racist or stupid to vote for Trump. All we need is some common sense and a bit of foresight.

Ryan Hickel, 2016-03-08 13:24:06
This is a great analysis. I'm an educated 39 year old American who believes in domestic industry support and protection and a strong welfare state. The problem is, nearly my entire life both the Republican and Democratic parties have been doing their utmost to dismantle both of these pillars of middle class success (which largely means blue collar, success). The Clintons have been among the most successful cheerleaders for the destruction of these two pillars of blue collar economic security. Their records of public "service" have sadly been a net negative for most Americans; while being quite lucrative for a smaller, but influential minority (some shareholders/wall street/national security interests or the professional class as Mr. Frank dubs it above).

I'm voting for Sanders if I have a chance. If not, I'm really tempted to vote for Trump, because as repellent as some of his statements (and his general demeanor) are, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for more of the same. At least a vote for Trump potentially keeps some of these ideas in the forefront; unlike I might add where under Obama where progressive groups were expressly told to shut up and go along with the President as soon as he was elected.

Ruby4 -> ID8031074, 2016-03-08 13:29:43

You don't need to be working class, racist or stupid to vote for Trump.

Apparently working class people everywhere supported billionaire racists because they think they are "anti establishment and non elitist" just like us?

ID8031074 -> Ruby4, 2016-03-08 13:39:50
I'm neither working class, anti-establishment (except in so far as it has been hijacked by neo-progressive lunatics) or elitist. I'm also fairly sure I am not more than averagely stupid. I am think I am not racist, since I'm surrounded by foreigners all day in my job and manage to control my racist rage reasonably well. In spite of all this inability to fit into the cosy box the Guardian has prepared for me, I would still vote for Trump in a heartbeat. The man has common sense. He speaks his mind instead of some watered-down politically correct silage such as oozes out of the mouth of Hillary Clinton or any of our British politicians (except Nigel). I hope to God that this man gets elected and that Britain leaves the EU. If both these things come true, maybe just maybe there is some hope left for the Western world.
endaninda, 2016-03-08 13:18:29
As with nearly all the large media outlets, it's easy pickings to label a group racist, bigot, uneducated or the one started by CNN - low information. These are great terms to malign and suppress a large swath of people who have watched the parties sell America down the river; their hard earned money (taxes) used against them - healthcare, schools, welfare and jobs given to illegals in the form of H1b, or no enforcement of the borders. We just call them racists and bigots because they aren't onboard with paying the tab. And they watch the give alway trade deals, corporations using lobbiests, PACS, other nations natural resources and finally Supreme Court (citizens United) as tools to suck away their economic stability. And at each election cycle, the candidates for office are suddenly concerned - for a moment.
paulc156, 2016-03-08 13:20:04
Yes this certainly makes a lot of sense and kudos for writing the article is deserved. I would just add though that the Trump voters he's talking about are still incredibly gullible/thick. Trump is the man to deliver? He was born into wealth, had the great fortune to be heavily leveraged into property during the great 70's property boom, understands and exploits the role of the state in bailing out his bankruptcies so ensuring the privileged retain their privileges in perpetuity and people think this is all well and good. As I recall reading on a blog only yesterday, people [so called left leaning working people] are endorsing something akin to feudalism! Not as left as the author would have it.
ID8031074 -> paulc156, 2016-03-08 13:26:36
Trump would do more for the USA than any of our rubbish European crew.
TheMountebankSpeaks -> ID8031074, 2016-03-08 13:36:59
Well done for making no sense at all.
shooglebunny -> paulc156, 2016-03-08 13:50:31
If Trump was some ragged trousered philanthropist from the rust belt the argument would be that he is too uneducated or lacking in worldly experience to be president.

Basically the argument boils down to only members of a recognised elite being suitable for high office.

This is dangerously antidemocratic. These are public elected officials, not members of some sort of aristocracy.

paulc156, 2016-03-08 13:20:04
Yes this certainly makes a lot of sense and kudos for writing the article is deserved. I would just add though that the Trump voters he's talking about are still incredibly gullible/thick. Trump is the man to deliver? He was born into wealth, had the great fortune to be heavily leveraged into property during the great 70's property boom, understands and exploits the role of the state in bailing out his bankruptcies so ensuring the privileged retain their privileges in perpetuity and people think this is all well and good. As I recall reading on a blog only yesterday, people [so called left leaning working people] are endorsing something akin to feudalism! Not as left as the author would have it.
ID8031074 -> paulc156, 2016-03-08 13:26:36
Trump would do more for the USA than any of our rubbish European crew.
TheMountebankSpeaks -> ID8031074, 2016-03-08 13:36:59
Well done for making no sense at all.
shooglebunny -> paulc156, 2016-03-08 13:50:31
If Trump was some ragged trousered philanthropist from the rust belt the argument would be that he is too uneducated or lacking in worldly experience to be president.

Basically the argument boils down to only members of a recognised elite being suitable for high office.

This is dangerously antidemocratic. These are public elected officials, not members of some sort of aristocracy.

retsiLdivaD, 2016-03-08 13:05:51
This article is disengenuous: I seem to recall reading quite a few articles about the Trump supporters being the lower white middle class and the white working class- the so-called 'losers'of globalisation, and that the hopelessness of their lives and views was why they supported Trump- or indeed why they seem to be killing themselves

Of course, that then was shouted down as being condescending: these people were not losers in any sense of the word, they weren't afraid and angry , they were hopeful and happy about Trump. We didn't understand that the trade thing was just embellishment- it was al about making America great again and morning in America- and selecting one for Spannish and two for English, etc. The whole Trump supporters are bigots is something of the beginning of his run, when he claimed that Mexico was sending rapists over the border, and of the last few weeks, especially following his not-denouncing, but denouncing (Hang it all, Robert Brown) of David Duke.

I would suggest that this exactly where all demagogues of the right get their votes: the small bourgeoisie and settled working class,, who have a lot to lose, or so they think, and are constantly afraid. It is the same with Farange and Le Pen, and Berlusconi etc.

Neoliberalism has failed- or rather run its course, in the same whay that Keynsian social democracy had run its course in teh late 1970s. But! In the same that Keynsian social democracy brought the NHS and higher wages and public space and cultural investment etc, neoliberalism brought millions of people out of poverty, or at least out of the abject poverty that they lived in, in the 1980s. I wouldn't want to be a garment worker in Bangladesh, but we have to remember and celebrate that all those women do now have a choice other than prostitution.

niblickhead, 2016-03-08 13:05:11

"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted..." "...people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don't have a future"

Isn't this the standard way the right wing operates - they tap into your fear from the other and for your children. I can see at least two other examples of free-driven electorate. You can see it in Europe now against immigrants. And in India where the current PM came to power on the back of all this - fed up people, frightened, wanting a better life, trying to ignore his right wing creds - no matter that some of these power hungry candidates go out of their way to stir up fear and hatred.
Matt Bell -> niblickhead, 2016-03-08 13:07:26
This article is empathising and pointing out that just maybe the fear is justified. Do you not get that?
binkis1 -> niblickhead, 2016-03-08 13:21:42
Trump goes to the small rural areas that draw these viewers and disparages the very issues they see played out on their tv and think is real...He is selling a pig in a poke to pig farmers...This is the death knell for the GOP for decades.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-07/what-republicans-demographic-death-spiral-looks-like

Pinkie123, 2016-03-08 13:04:08
The problem is though that beneath all the rhetoric and bluster Trump is just as much the member of an elite class as any metropolitan liberal. And more importantly his economic philosophy is responsible for the very disenfranchisement of his supporters. He is not outside the ideological norm, just a panto-dame, populist exaggeration of it.

There was another article like this about sneering middle-class dismissal of Brexiters by John Harris, who thoughtfully - and to some extent rightly - argued that we should try to understand where poor, dis-empowered and frightened people are coming from.

But at the same time this narrative of political establishment versus 'ordinary people' places adverse limits on national political discussions. You now have to tip-toe round people's ignorance and prejudice for fear of being labelled a condescending liberal elitist, or, perish the thought an expert who' knows best'.

The fact of the matter is that some of these people have been mislead/are ignorant/uneducated/bigoted and, indeed racist. It is ludicrous to suggest that there is not a significant number of Trumps supporters who are either casually or fundamentally racist.

The answer should be a UK and US High school mandatory course in politics, economics and critical thinking. If you don't understand these things you are vulnerable to exploitation by demagogues and political thugs. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

MsMilarepa, 2016-03-08 13:02:44
Finally.

I've been waiting to read an article like this on Trump's steady rise. I don't understand why they are so rare: even though the critics love to lampoon supporters of far-right/populist politicians as stupid and racist, this is very rarely the sole motivating factor for their support.

Xenophobia (much more useful term here, racism is meaningless ... when in France, for instance the issue is the supposed 'Muslim' invasion) provides a context, a kind of comfortable emotional zone, but more often than not people vote for reasons that they believe are based on logic.

This or that politician will improve my economic circumstances and my family. They may be 'wrong' - either in reality or in perception - but it is extremely important for people to stop judging these voters and labelling them, as in the end as their views and platforms become more and more mainstream those same critics will be 'shocked' etc.

Unaware that it was their own laziness and lack of interest that allowed these ideas to go unchallenged, for years beforehand.

Besides, racism and xenophobia is hardly limited to the supporters of populist parties, believe me; such emotional reactions can be widespread and again unexpressed and ignored until they have become entrenched in a culture.

(I've seen this happen twice: in my native Australia and France, in a different way ...)

raffine, 2016-03-08 12:50:47
Mr Frank, it's much simpler.

1. An epidemic of homeschooling
2. Generations (old and younger) voters addicted to reality TV and TMZification of the news
3. Fox News debasement of the political public sphere and its level of discourse
4. Right-wing talk radio
5. A deep strain of homophobic, anti-women's rights, anti-black, and anti-latino beliefs among conservative Republicans

Lafcadio1944, 2016-03-08 12:50:03
At long last after 1001 obsurdly ignorant editorials all over the place one that actually has some truth to it.

Yes, there is plenty of racism and bluster on other subjects but Trump stands for the anti-Neoliberal view. People on the left will vote for him because they know full well that the "trade" deals are enriching the "transnational elite" in historically unprecedented amounts while the hoy polly are barely making it if at all. People on the left ignore the wall and vote Trump because the wall can be dealt with later but the oppression of Neoliberal ideology is killing them today. People on the right will ignore abortion and vote Trump because that is a lower priority to them than the economic devastation in their lives - and they know the "trade" deals are sending them directly to Bangladesh living standards. Their adult children are still living at home, there are no descent jobs, their opportunities have been foreclosed by a Neoliberal establishment which governs for the "transnational elite" and the corporations they own and the hoy polly can be damned.

In some sense Trump is a movement not just a presidential candidate.

People are also tired of politicians who claim moral high ground and speak condescending and self righteous tones about how good they are and have only their best interests in mind while supporting "trade" deals which are nothing of the kind they are transfers of government power to corporations.

In that narrow sense, Trump represents a movement and not just a presidential candidate.

It out there now Trump even if he never wins another state has put the lies of the Iraq war on the table but most impotently he has put the "trade" deals on the table which frightens the Neoliberals more than anything else. These issues will not go away just by eliminating Trump for the race now - it's too late the news is out - Neoliberalism is a dangerous ideology of extremism in the support of authoritarian corporate power and dynastic wealth.

TheToad, 2016-03-08 12:44:47
An excellent article. Can I hope we may have a similar one taking a look at the real motives of UKIPpers and 'Brexiters' at some point?

Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

Swap 'Britain' for 'America' and 'Labour' for 'Democrats' and that sums up the mainstream 'left' over here in a nutshell. Then they wonder why so few people bother to vote for them.
citizenthemis, 2016-03-08 12:34:01
It's not the working class. The working class is dying in America, in Europe and in Australia. What we are witnessing is the appeal of right wing populism to the "precariat"class. This is a new class that has been emerging over the past 30 years. These are the casualised, zero-hours contract workers who were raised with traditional working class values that are no longer relevant to what their lives have become. They are confused and angry. I would suggest that you read Professor Guy Standing's book, "The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class".
maud69cambridge, 2016-03-08 12:30:24
Same people who believe Jesus will come down from heaven & save them, a higher power will always intervene & all will be well again. He promises a return to a strong America, a dream, a land which maybe never has existed. When was America truly "strong" ... maybe the 1950´s ? All the assembly jobs went south & east 20 years ago, there is nothing left for blue collar workers but the service sector, and as usual the middle class are squeezed into paying for everything while Trumps peers get richer & richer & pay hardly any taxes. Perhaps he appears to be more optimistic than others?
AQuietNight -> maud69cambridge, 2016-03-08 12:45:59
" there is nothing left for blue collar workers but the service sector , and as usual the middle class are squeezed into paying for everything while Trumps peers get richer & richer & pay hardly any taxes. Perhaps he appears to be more optimistic than others?"

This creep is moving upwards into lower and middle management. Just as technology decimated many blue collar jobs, technology will move into management as well.

It's funny listening to the Democrats promote more education and then have the newly minted graduates compete against lower cost HB1 visa holders. The Democrats won't touch this issue because, well, because, well it would be racist.

The Democrat Party wants Silicon Valley money, so they will assure a steady supply of HB1 visa holders and illegals. No matter what Bernie says or Hillary says, poverty will be the future of many Americans. An oversupply of any skill guarantees low wages just as a over supply of untrained workers kept wages low in many low skill industries.

Trump aims straight at the belly of the beast. He doesn't need Silicon Valley money, the Democrats do. Keep this in mind when you listen to Sanders or Clinton (yes, Sanders will have to take Silicon Valley money for the good of the greater Democratic Party).

Italo62 -> maud69cambridge, 2016-03-08 13:13:41
NO, the people that believe in Jesus will vote for Rubio. The people that vote for Trump are sick of the neo-liberal status quo.
DrDenim -> AQuietNight, 2016-03-08 14:37:32
Over 200,000 jobs were created every month last year. There are 50,000, 3-year limit H1B visas per YEAR. And tech workers are still in demand. How are they taking a noticeable number of jobs?

And sponsoring a visa costs quite a bit and can only stay a few years, I don't see how they would be much cheaper. Training can take a year or more for high tech jobs so this seems like a poor strategy.

Richard E A Smith , 2016-03-08 12:27:00
The new "Weimar republic" has lasted longer than expected. We can fully expect little versions of Hitler popping up everywhere now. Either that or the elite get very worried about events. Their ill gotten gains will then look very fragile with an exploding population. Perhaps they might start to think of a little culling....just a little you understand!
MrMeinung, 2016-03-08 12:25:09
The Trump phenomenon, as well as similar phenomena in other western world countries, are not due to a failure of the peoples but due to a failure of the western elites to solve the problems of their countries and give people real hope for the future.

I particularly enjoyed the following parts of this good article that high-light these failures:

"To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream."

"Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps."
(emphasis added).

If the mainstream politicians want to take control back from the Trumps and LePens – and I hope they do – then they should urgently listen to their electorate and start addressing their problems. After all they are not elected to promote abstract economic philosophies but to produce real, tangible results.

stephenacworth -> MrMeinung, 2016-03-08 12:36:59
western elites don't want to solve the problems of their countries, they want to extract more economic wealth and power... there is no desire to end anxiety and misery as long as they can be profited from...
CharlesBradlaugh -> stephenacworth, 2016-03-08 12:41:07
There is a corollary to that ...without the underclass rising up against them. The gains of the early 20th century in working rights, pay and conditions were made only because the ruling class were terrified that there would be revolution.
camba1987 -> stephenacworth, 2016-03-08 12:51:32
Agree 100 %. I belong to the poor. Why can't we have our turn?
Mitch Jensen, 2016-03-08 12:16:36
Free trade is what made the US great and what made other western countries prosperous. But free trade is global, it didn't just affect western countries, it had an enormous influence on non-western countries that were forced to open up their economies as well. And that influence wasn't all positive. Take Jakarta, an Indonesian city that had a population of six hundred thousand in 1945, and that has a population of over ten million now. Free trade blew up the city, it made a handful of people in it filthy rich, but it also produced a large underclass, an underclass of people who left their families and villages for the big city only to end up as cheap labor. There's five thousand people that live on a landfill, living off the rubbish Jakarta produces. Indonesia has seen a brain drain, educated people have left the city because they can make a better living in some western country in Europe, the US or Australia. In Indonesia, economic -and social- liberalism has ripped the fabric of society apart.

The negative, corrupting and destabilizing effects of global free trade have always been visible in non-western countries, but it didn't matter to westerners as these were seen as developing countries. But it mattered to the people who lived there, and it has been responsible for anti-western sentiments, sentiments that radical islamists have been able to exploit. The main reason radical islam isn't more succesful in Indonesia, is because most people are too busy surviving to care about revolution.

The problem with Trump is he denies this global interconnectedness. Instead he tries to maintain the fantasy of American Exceptionalism. What Trump sells is the fantasy that American prosperity wasn't based on global free trade, but on it's hard working population. Poor countries on the other hand were poor because they were uncivilized, backwards and/or lazy. The American Dream was corrupted by this outside influence, and if you want to make America great again, you have to keep all bad influences outside of the borders.

It's a myopic view that's not gonna cut it in the 21st century, because the countries outside of the western world will no longer accept it.

CharlesBradlaugh -> Mitch Jensen, 2016-03-08 12:43:38
Totally right, he is lying to people unable to face reality.
Nedward Marbletoe -> Mitch Jensen, 2016-03-08 17:39:57
idk, he talks about this global interconnectedness. Currency devaluations, negotiating trade deals (notice, NOT imposing trade deals, negotiating is his constant theme).

And how "free" is free trade anyway. Only the goods can move, not the labor. The environmental laws are nowhere near the same, so China is exporting costs like pollution. Etc.

MrMeinung, 2016-03-08 12:06:47
A good article that identifies the causes of rising populism correctly not only in the US but everywhere in the western world:

- People simply do not believe anymore that the less extreme political elites are capable of or - even more significantly - willing to solve their problems.
- People have the feeling that their elites - political and other - do not even bother to listen to them.

That is true for the whole political spectrum:

And I do not believe it has to do with "blue collar" only. The middle classes, professionals etc. also sense the above. They are just too "politically correct" to endorse somebody like Trump openly.

Under these circumstances the Trumps and LePens of this world can certainly be rubbing their hands in satisfaction.

Janjii, 2016-03-08 12:01:45
Not so much a mystery. It is the result deploying psychology, media, ICT and money for certain people to generate a desired effect in society. Happened before, among other occasions reference to WWII: Germans were made believe they should cause death and destruction and in the US or the Americans would not have supported going to war against the Germans without the efforts of media those days.
Watch John Carpenter: 'They Live' as a symbolic play; read of course Orwell's 1984, and chew on Kathleen Taylor's work 'Brainwashing, the sience of thought control', oxford university press ( http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashing-Science-Thought-Kathleen-Taylor/dp/0199204780/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457438307&sr=1-1&keywords=brainwashing+the+science+of+thought+control ).
Also the Report from Iron Mountain ( http://projectcamelot.org/Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf ) is illustrative, and for a practical implementation of false flag operations by US military see the declassified document 'Operation Northwoods' ( https://publicintelligence.net/operation-northwoods /)
CraigieBob, 2016-03-08 12:01:28
Do you know who's opposing Donald Trump in Florida, right now? The anti-Trump attack ads I'm seeing are funded by the American Future Fund, a front organization for the Center to Protect Patient Rights, itself, in turn, yet another front organization for Charles and David Koch. Maybe Trump supporters, with whom I find little else on which to agree, believe that the enemy (Trump) of their enemies (the Kochs) is their friend. (?)

At any rate, this would imply that the ideologically hard-right and mega-polluting Kochs are now the Republican "establishment." That's probably not a good thing.

LordMurphy -> CraigieBob, 2016-03-08 12:30:10
Exactly, they were the backers of Mitt Romney last time out.
wufnik, 2016-03-08 12:00:53
My purely anecdotal survey of these comments suggests that maybe one-third of the commentators get Frank's piece--the other two thirds clearly do not, and making Frank's case for him. A bit alarming.
previous -> wufnik, 2016-03-08 12:11:16
It's pretty typical on this forum. Look at the comments below Nick Cohen's latest article. He compared the reactions of the establishments of the Republican and the British Labour parties to the takeover by an "extreme" outsider. I estimate that 80% thought he was comparing Corbyn to Trump!
chapachups1, 2016-03-08 12:00:08
An excellent analysis, didn't expect to see this in the Guardian.
LordMurphy, 2016-03-08 11:59:41
Its about time that somebody pointed out what has been quite obvious to many for several weeks. Trump is succeeding to gather all round support with his message, the Democrats might have managed to diminish Sanders's chances but they have alienated many people that want to punish the old guard on Wall Street and in Washington.
gregorypierrecox, 2016-03-08 11:52:13
At last. But it took an outsider at the Guardian to write an intelligent article on Trump and his supporters. How many who would never be caught dead secretly agreeing with Trump will be voting for him comes Election Day.
AL Seth, 2016-03-08 11:46:01
If one look past the racism and rhetoric, the one truly legitimate and credible thing Donald Drumpf talk about is certainly trade policies. As far as he's concern, that is the cause of all problems in the American economy and he is not entirely wrong.

First consider the following: of all the people in USA, which particular class of people had the most to gain before the crisis of '08? The answer is the white working class. This particularly class was supposed to be the backbone of the American economy whereas minorities were never expected to receive the same privilege of economic positions - i.e. nationally American . When the white majorities realized that they're nothing special compared to their supposed inferior minorities, a certain animosity is borne. From that animosity, what was a subconscious consideration would mass-inspire a whole class of people against their supposed inferiors - a.k.a. racism!

What people tend to casually overlook is the fact that racism is not the cause of Drumpf political success, it was the result. (Either this was something he might never have intended or this was exactly what he anticipated).

At this point, it is safe to say that he has realized this, that his base are the "uneducated white working class" who expected privileges above other minorities, not to be thrown in with them. And at this realization, Drumpf should have walked away from the presidency, but unfortunately, he's Donald Drumpf. This does not mean that the racist deserve our sympathies, but they do deserve our consideration. One does not simply call out a racist and ignore everything they might have to say - that is, in itself, racism. One must realized that these are not just racist, but desperate racists .

There is a reason why Donald Drumpf is constantly compared to a certain German despot whose name I'd like to avoid. During the '20s and '30s, Germany had just lost a humiliating war and is economically in the dump. The whitest Germans were made to live on the streets, even the despot had to live under a bridge, at one point. A sub-conscious hatred against any privilege people, especially those who were not white-German, was born, but it was not yet fashionable. This despot then feed on this hatred and tries to prove it on a genocidal scale... and failed!

The reason why Drumpf pick on Mexicans, Muslims and Chinese is simply because they appeal to his base followers - the Muslims threaten their lives, the Mexicans threaten their jobs and social standing and the Chinese threaten their economy. And if his base followers believe whatever he has to say about bringing their jobs back (a socialism of sorts), they're going to believer everything else he says and Drumpf knows this - it is easier to inspire with hate than to educate, especially when it comes to power. That is his ultimate goal because the white working class makes up majority of voters turn-out. After he gets elected, if, then whatever he said prior to his election could be easily dismissed as Trumspeak - the art of promising his followers riches without conveying a 'how' or 'when,' if ever...

The real irony is that Bernie Sanders promises socialism which could be seen as a subconscious hatred against the super-rich yet deservedly so. After all, what else could you call bailing out the bankers besides "SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH" ? Sanders neither resort to such slander nor feed on such hatred which could be the reason he might not win.

fallentower, 2016-03-08 11:22:02
This is a perceptive piece, and makes a good case for why Trump - if he can curb his excesses - could be a dangerous opponent in November if he makes it past the Republican Party's efforts to nobble him. I think the Democrats are going to be particularly concerned about their vulnerability to Trump in parts of the midwest - Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, for sure, and maybe even Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan if he really catches fire. It would still be an uphill battle for him, and there's a good case to be made that the anti-Trump forces will also come out in force and cause problems for him in more diverse states such as Florida. But I wouldn't dismiss him or laugh him off - the Republicans did that for a long time and look where it's got them. To be honest I would much rather be up against Cruz and find it quite ironic that in their desperation to have a not-Trump some Republican grandees are even portraying Cruz as acceptable. He's a religious nutjob who'll crash and burn outside the red states, a guaranteed general election disaster.
whollymoley, 2016-03-08 11:00:30

But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.

Sounds a lot like Europe and the successful populists there too. They also use bigotry, and use migrants as the scapegoat, but their voters are just as concerned with their economic future - and global "free" trade has a far bigger impact than migration (naturally, as it involves competition with hundreds/thousands of times' more workers).

The age of global "free" trade we live in is relatively recent - only since the 1990s - but I'm not sure if it even stands up to its own theory: many of the economies that outcompete us use massive state power as part of their comparative advantage (we know that China manipulates its currency and censors/suppresses attempts to improve working conditions). So how can this be justified as "free" trade?

Now, maybe there's a security argument for wanting to tie China into world trade, but if so I would like to hear it used openly rather than covered up with empty rhetoric about "free" trade. And if so, don't the people paying the price for this global security deserve some compensation?

XanthanGumsSon, 2016-03-08 10:58:18
You are certainly right, Thomas Frank, about the failure of neo-liberalism, but...how do you explain the working-class white people not supporting Bernie Sanders? Sanders has spoken out about the free trade deals, exporting of jobs, etc., as well. But Sanders does not have a Sanders line of clothing made by poor people in Bangladesh and elsewhere. Trump does. But those white folks still back Trump. They are racist and they are ignorant. That's what binds them to Trump. Like Trump, they are Trumps (Neanderthals).
Richardwrl, 2016-03-08 10:41:53
Great article. The left in the UK has a similar issue with the working class - constantly banging on about championing it but rarely willing to get to grips with the fact that the working class aren't politically homogenous and are capable of making their own conscious and intelligent decisions (usually dismissed as false consciousness if they don't accord with the 'right' views).

Here, the part of the left represented by Jeremy Corbyn has never been able to grasp the reason why so many working class voters supported Thatcher. They blame Murdoch, Tory lies, 'popularism'... anything other than think about why someone might have made that conscious decision.

Blair understood that what mattered to the working class is what matters to the vast majority of voters - their own and their family's economic prospects. Whatever the failings of the reality of his policies, he clearly got that just not being affluent didn't magically endow anyone with a liberal/progressive/collectivist view of society and also that that absence didn't reflect a defect in the voter.

cynical_bystander , 2016-03-08 10:39:41
Orwell correctly identified that "only the lower classes are never, even temporarily, successful in achieving their aims"
James1403, 2016-03-08 09:59:21
While I personally doubt Trump will deliver much, I have understood that people are angry for a long time now. in fact it's sort of obvious if you talk to any blue collar person as the writer has pointed out. What he needs to point out is this 'free trade', is often relying on semi-slave working conditions often trashing the environment and is inefficient only being competitive through externalizing it's costs. think about it' that cheap shit for $4.90 relys on some one working in toxic conditions, no workplace safety trashes the environment and some how gets thousands of miles to you. It's not technology doing it, it's exploitation
leicajon -> Gallicdweller, 2016-03-08 13:14:02
I quite agree the question must be asked why hasn't "ordinary working people" been drawn to the left?

"To answer this question one must take a hard look at what is generally represented as "left" politics in the United States.

Official "left" politics is constituted by the Democratic Party, which is-no less (and in some respects even more) than the Republican Party-the political instrument of Wall Street and substantial sections of military and intelligence strategists. The Obama administration, which entered the White House promising "change you can believe in," continued and expanded the policies of the Bush administration. Its economic policies have been dedicated entirely to the rescue and enrichment of Wall Street. Its signature social initiative was the restructuring of health care in a manner designed to massively expand the power and boost the profits of the insurance industry. Obama's administration has institutionalized assassinations as a central instrument of American foreign policy and overseen a dramatic escalation of attacks on democratic rights.

Of what, then, does the "leftism" of the Democratic Party consist? Its "left" coloration is defined by its patronage of various forms of identity politics-fixated on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual preference-promoted by a broad swathe of political organizations and groupings that represent the interests of affluent sections of the middle class. They have no interest in any substantial change in the existing economic structure of society, beyond achieving a more agreeable distribution of wealth among the richest 10 percent of the population.

The essential characteristics of this political milieu are complacency, self-absorption and, above all, contempt for the working class. In particular, the affluent "left" organizations-or, to describe them more accurately, the "pseudo-left"-make little effort to suppress their disdain for the white working class, for which they can find no place within the framework of identity politics. A vast segment of American workers is written off as "reactionary." Their essential class interests-decent jobs and a safe workplace, a livable income, a secure retirement, affordable health care, inviolable democratic rights, peace-are ignored". See http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/03/pers-m03.html

Andrew Doggett, 2016-03-08 09:56:45
Well this is a slightly different type of article about Donald Trump.

And I agree; yes its always about Jobs, Money to raise a family, to be able to pay for education for your kids and healthcare. Who really believes that Hillary Clinton or any other Dynasty Family really cares about the average working families who are struggling to get by? The author mentioned that he thinks that it may be the attitude of Donald Trump that is actually appealing to voters; and this could be an interesting observation. He's his own man to a certain degree; but he is also part of the establishment to a certain degree as well. He has made financial contributions to both Republican and Democratic politics. IF, IF he was to somehow become the President it would be interesting to see how much his actions differ from his promises that he is making while on the campaign trail. I suspect there would be quite a bit of difference. But its debatable if any President actually has the influence to change or stop the Free Trade Agreements that are currently being put in place between the US, the EU and other Worldwide Regions. But this de-industralisation of the manufacturing industries, this race to the lower wage economies outside the EU and the US is only going to cause a lot of social unrest, and eventually there has to be a breaking point. And before it does I suspect the Political System will suffer the most in terms of right wing politics becoming more popular again, both within the EU and the US. We all know that there are substantial amounts of eligible voters who actually don't bother to vote. I believe that this is no doubt due to a present unhappiness on the part of these voters with the present Political Elite. But the danger with this continued behavior is that sooner or later an individual will come along who will link directly into this voter anger and fear of how things are at present in our World Economy. And while Donald Trump may not be that person as such, due to his own attachments to his business empire; somebody somewhere may be taking note of this Trump Campaign and realise that there now exists (or perhaps in the near future) the ideal conditions for a powerful and influential individual, or individuals to stage a take over of our Political Systems and to achieve access to Power and Influence of society and people.

Elinore, 2016-03-08 09:35:51
I have a feeling based on scientific data that the whole world is not only violently racist but also has a deep and abiding visceral hatred for anyone who is the slightest bit different from what is perceived to be the norm.

That's why people vote for Trump. He gives respectability to their innate nastiness. They are saying to themselves look at Trump he could be President one day - therefore my views must be acceptable for they are the same as his views and nobody but nobody stops Trump from saying how much he hates other people who are not like him.

It's a common phenomenon that is replicated in this country as well and is one that has kept surfacing throughout history.

Any extension of Trump's views and his mindset would lead to mass slaughter of those who has decided to hate because they simply do not firt into his view of the world.

He hates everything and everyone that is not part of himsewlf.

Nada89, 2016-03-08 09:28:59
Most commentator do not seem to have grasped what Thomas Frank is saying.
The article is not really about Trump, but rather the motives of those who are not exactly living the American dream, and why they might support Trump's views about trade and the US economy.

Thomas Frank asks questions about Americas working class, why they are being fucked over, and why self-appointed arbiters of the country's social conscience seems more concerned with demonising them, forever referring to them as racists or bigots, rather than understanding why this strata might feel so afraid and powerless.

TF says, "here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information". His information about all of them losing their jobs."

The commentariat seem to despise the working class in many western countries (the UK is exactly the same) accept for those occasions when a curiously sanctimonious tone is adopted to attack a social ill, and even then it is not really because there is any genuine identification with the working class but rather because they are being used as a vehicle to attack another group that is even more despised (such as landlords, or corporations)

It will be a cold day in hell before anybody outside of the working class really gets it, or as one very wise women said - the only people who can improve conditions for the working class are the working class themselves

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEb9i_cuhy4

bartelbe, 2016-03-08 09:22:06

Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information". His information about all of them losing their jobs

Oh that is familiar, HR is the art of kicking a man in the balls in such a way he looks like an arsehole if he complains about it. My workplace likes to go about positive thinking and zen while loading the staff with unpaid overtime.

As for your wider point, free trade works fine in an economist's textbook, but those textbook models are worthless for modelling the real real. They make absurd assumptions like perfect information and rational economic actors.

The reality is Western workers cannot compete with countries that have sod all environmental standards and worker protections. Free trade benefits the rich and requires a sea of debt to keep it working. The only way they can sell to first world economies that have been hollowed out is if those economies are kept alive with debt.

Free trade wouldn't work if everyone played by the rules, and we know countries like China don't. They rig their currency and subsidise their industry. I can see why an anti-free trade message would play well.

bookmanjb, 2016-03-08 09:21:03
As much as I respect Thomas Frank, there's a big hole in his "they're not really racist" theory. If these working class whites, mostly males, were really PRIMARILY interested in trade/jobs/economy, they'd be at BERNIE'S rallies, whooping and cheering. The truth is that a primary motivator for their Trump_vs_deep_state is that they feel that "those people" are getting free stuff all day long while they, the Trumpettes, are laboring for an ever-decreasing slice of the pie. And that's what Trump's pounding away at. The fuel in Trump's fire is definitely racism, xenophobia, & sexism, and that's what's propelling his followers.
EdHyde -> bookmanjb, 2016-03-08 10:42:35
Working class people know better than starry-eyed liberals that a socialist hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning the White House.
ezodisy -> bookmanjb, 2016-03-08 16:12:10
I love Bernie for his sensitivity to people and social issues, but he has no chance to bring the US a return of manufacturing and higher paid full-time jobs as Trump does. Blind to say otherwise IMO.
jonb12321, 2016-03-08 09:20:53
In my view, Trump, Farage, Wilders, etc. are the only Western politicians who are committed to the idea of nation-states - with the idea of control over national borders and the sense of a unique national identity. Now, when epithets like 'rascist' or 'bigot' are used, it is often to attack the sentiments that follow from the belief in a nation-state.

Take this from the text above:

[Trump is] 'an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn. He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants. He wants to bar Muslims from visiting the United States. He admires various foreign strongmen and dictators'.

Can't see how Trump can have offended each US ethnic group in turn AND have wide support; and be racist AND admire foreign strongmen. And I can't see why deporting illegal immigrants (which every nation-state must do if it wishes to survive) is such an outrageous proposition.

I'm not a fan of Trump, but the PC insults hurled against him have had the opposite effect on me: I see that he must at least have some courage, to face down PC ideology - which in my view constitutes an actual threat to our liberties, while Trump only represents a possible threat.

rexyrooster, 2016-03-08 09:03:50
Trumps disregard for PR and the media which controls every word and action of the other candidates is refreshing. Clinton's posey stance with well rehearsed looks and movements and well honed speeches is pure artifice. Nothing is sincere about her. Working people like Trump,warts and all, unfettered by the need to suck up to business and their slaves in the press. He is disgusting for some of his views but he says what many people actually think.
InYourDrive, 2016-03-08 09:00:20
Where have you been? This analysis has been ongoing since 1989. Michael Moore - Roger and Me. The trouble with journalism is that it automatically equates the white working class with racism. The problem lies in your camp, not in Trump's followers. Just listen to one of his speeches on trade and you get it straight off the bat. It's the same in the UK with UKIP - all UKIP followers are racist. I feel it prudent to put in a qualification here before some holier-than-thou white middle class socialist accuses me of being a kipper. I, too, am a white middle class socialist. I just have greater faith in the working classes than the knuckle-dragger epithet they usually attract from white middle class socialists.
Greg Ewing, 2016-03-08 08:50:55
Why didn't these blue-collar Trump supporters vote for Bernie Sanders then? Sanders has been a vocal opponent of the excesses of free trade, opposing the TPP and all recent agreements. He has also consistently stated that China has been responsible for costing millions of American jobs. Trump still has companies with factories in China and, when exposed, can only bluster that he will do something about it soon. What a joke! Trump knows what is going to be popular and pulls all of the levers to satisfy
the predominantly foolish people who support him - the poor who can't afford Medicare yet who are against 'obamacare'; the unemployed who prefer to blame immigrants for taking their jobs than the billionaire businessmen like Trump; and the evangelicals whose faith justifies their racism, envy and greed. There also appears to be a genuine smattering of radicals who hope that supporting Trump will lead to a change in American politics that will eventually prove to be beneficial.
Frank Rummel, 2016-03-08 08:40:23
It all happened so sudden...

Things were going along all hunky dory; Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate to continue their royal line and Jeb could sustain the Bush Dynasty. Elite life was good. Record numbers of the millionaire caste growing exponentially while blue collar drubs' wages slumped without a peep from them. How could things be any better? All that was needed is to maintain status quo and rake in the loot.

To be honest, until June of 2015, I was a Bernie Sanders supporter. I'm old and poor so there is not much hope for me. We may as well beat out of the rich all we can get because they are not going to part with a dime otherwise. The Republican Party, to me, was on it's deathbed. McCain, Palin and that stuffed shirt Romney with magic underwear were only the nails in their coffin.

***KABOOOMM***!!!! WTF, Donald Trump comes along. He talks about "the wall". And Mexico is going to pay? Well, I thought, his goose is cooked. To make a long story short, I turned on the news and Trump's comment was not suicidal. That was interesting.

Next, Trump talks bringing the jobs back and how China is screwing us and I'm thinking, Pat Buchanan talked about slapping a tariff on China long ago and little old me also thinks that would be a great way to bring the jobs and the money home to roost. Globalist-Elite economist propaganda be damned, I'm tired of living in a country of losers. We haven't won a war since 1945 and everyone takes advantage of us and scoffs at us.

Now, I'm watching Trump rallys, interviews, speeches and victory celebrations from all over the country on YouTube. His message is pretty much the same, but I like it. I'm a very intelligent person, but I know that you have to pound people of mediocre intelligence with a message over and over until it finally sinks in, so I understand where he is coming from and that repetition is a necessary evil of mass media politics.

OMG, it's Super Tuesday and now Trump is winning delegates from state after state. The bodies are stacking up; Christy, Paul, Fiorina, Carson to name a few. Wow! Jeb Bush, the fair-haired boy of the Elites is blown out of the water as Trump mocks him at the debates and runs him out of the playground like a schoolyard bully! That was a watershed moment. The death of a dynasty. What a spectacle as the Elite's anointed candidate for the highest office on the planet and with a $150,000,000 war chest fades into the dark to wimpishly retire and sulk. Geeez, gimme some more a dat.

The Elites are reeling now! All this was unexpected. We thought we were going to have a bunch of suits talk policy, act presidential and try not to fart. But Trump turned the Republican nomination into a circus and the Elites are going to start playing dirty now, after all, this IS American politics.

Trump a racist?

As for "Black Lives Matter," I'm sure others may see them differently, but to me they are stupid. For example, they crash a Bernie Sanders rally, take over his mic and Bernie slinks off a foolish disgrace to the background of the PC leftist milieu. Bernie Sanders of all people! He's as far left as you can possibly get in the U.S. short of a communist and they are making trouble for him? Another example, BLM posts instructions on how to prepare for protests at the upcoming conventions. In Arabic??? That is sure one great way to win the hearts and minds of the American people! Trump kicked BLM the hell out.

In modern America, the word "racism" is a sacred and powerful word/weapon that progressives use to brutally bludgeon someone who disagrees with you. It doesn't have to be a race matter per se. For example, criticizing Hispanics or Muslims can be called racism even though they are not races by the main definition of the word. Trump's opponents are sweating bullets now and throwing everything at him; bigot, nazi, white supremacist, pedophile etc. any slur that comes to mind that stirs strong negative emotion to attack him. Is it any wonder that the KKK thinks he's "one of them" if lefties are shrieking "RACIST" at Trump?

I could go on, but let me conclude...

Your article touched on many salient points of the Trump nomination except for one thing: Donald Trump is shaking up the world!! He is the only man in this time and place who can stand up to the Elites that run this world. It won't be easy. They will probably kill him by "lone nut" or a "Texas Suicide," but Trump threatens those bastards and I hope he kicks the crap out of 'em.

rooolf, 2016-03-08 08:30:29
I find it interesting and alarming that many comments find this article a revelation. it's someone has finally written it but the idea can't be that surprising...can it?

but it is because the professional class have dismissed anything that doesn't fit their worldview as not true. there is no true, just opinion, and there's is skewed.

the left has embraced neo liberalism and the capitalists agenda so wholeheartedly they had nothing to do but push a political correctness, this has just added to trumps appeal, people aren't racist or bigots for pointing out the bleeding obvious yet they're belittled vehemently.talking nice isn't everyones forte, or priority, the left has lost their supporters by being snobs, kinda ironic.

I'd never vote trump, saunders is the man, but trumps appeal is hardly mysterious for the those outside the bubble

ydobon
14h ago
11 12

Another point: illegal immigration (indeed, mass immigration in general) hurts blue-collar workers economically (or why do you think Wall Street loves it so much?), meaning that a desire to have immigration laws enforced doesn't necessarily rest on 'racism' or bigotry per se. (That's quite apart from the question of why wanting one's own nation to retain its cultural/ethnic continuity is indeed 'bigoted' in any real sense - are Mexicans, Japanese or others bigoted and racist for having strict laws about maintaining their existing ethnic fabric?)

p_promet, 2016-03-08 07:43:23
WOW!!
***
It's a bit unusual for an online newspaper article to go viral on the internet--but if Mr. Frank's remarks come even close to to gaining traction, then I would have to agree with, of all people, Bernie Sanders(!), that not only is a revolution in order, it may already be underway--
-
...And NOBODY SEEMS TO KNOW IT...
***
***
In college, I was nurtured in New Deal Economics [my major], which gives an idea of how dated I am
But I swear by my grade-point average, that Mr. Frank's revelations are very old news indeed-old news that is become BIG NEWS, that is due to hit the front page again, after three quarters of a century.
***
...During the Great Depression of the 1930's, the anthem of the working class was, "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime...?"
The New Deal fixed all that; or at least we like to think so.
And guess what FDR and all his friends were called? Socialists! Communists! Enemies of the American Dream.
-
But blue collar workers didn't see it that way-the ones who built Hoover Dam and our National Parks during 1930's, when any job was a gift from heaven!
-
And now it's all come back
The Great "Recession" [who are we kidding?] followed by eight going on twelve years of continuing blight for blue collar workers-
And with the emergence of Donald Trump of all people(!), the hungry howls of the millions of working poor are heard once again, echoing back and forth across the land.
AND THEY ARE ANGRY
***
A relative once asked me about Carl Marks, who he called, "the Father of Communism."
I replied that Marx was an economist, whose primarily interest was studying the impact of rapid industrialization in the West, along with what he supposed might be its **political** consequences.
His ideas gained remarkable amounts of traction, predicting [but probably not promoting] the many communist revolutions that followed. [Rather his ideas were used to **underwrite** the actions of the promoters.]
***
So now we witness the arrival of Donald Trump, whose rise, as Mr. Frank mentioned, is indicative of continuing economic trends in America that are not necessarily new, but could indeed lead to historically documented political consequences. Big ones-
Remarkably, these trends have apparently been overlooked, misinterpreted, or maybe just ignored both by members of the academic community as well as members of the Establishment
But things are shaping up. Fast.
***
***
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are strange bedfellows indeed! But their fingers seem to point in the same direction. And even though their words don't "sound" the same, their message **is** the same-
" BETTER START PAYING A LOT MORE ATTENTION TO THE WORKING CLASS " [my caption]
-
Woe unto those who brush them aside !!
bonsaitree -> p_promet, 2016-03-08 09:51:44
The working class have been being brushed aside for many years now, politicians only talk to the blue collar workers when they want their vote after the vote they can be safely ignored, because the rich talk louder and pay the politicians after they have been in office (sometimes apparently before they leave office as well) so the politicians do as they are bid by the rich. even labour in this country the party that was supposed to be for the working classes ignore the working classes once in power or opposition. it has to change and it looks to the working classes of America that trump may be the man to change it.
Pussiesbow, 2016-03-08 07:04:46
So a journalist has woken up at last to the real problems for the majority of ordinary humans, in this case in the US but prevent throughout the world.

The Neoconservatives in all major parties and the lobby groups who influence them have been extremely successful in feathering their own nests at the expense of working class people and their hopes ever since Thatcher and Reagan came to office fourty years ago.

The fact that many working class people are not particularly well educated (see cuts to public ed) or are often not very well able to articulate an argument often ends with people focusing their anger and frustration at those that the "shock jocks"and spin doctors rant about to deflect real critical thought about the actual causes of their insecurity and fear which is rooted in irresponsible government policy.

Yes, I think that Trump is a selfserving blowhard, straw man and bigot not unlike many of his peers who have better skills or more discretion in hiding their real beliefs, as are many of the blue collar people who follow him but that does not negate the real driving force behind the fear, insecurity and anger that is at the root of Trump's success in campaigning.

jcas0167, 2016-03-08 06:50:54
'Anti-Fragile' author and risk expert Nassim Nicholas Taleb thinks Trump would actually be the most risk averse and pragmatic candidate. Trump isn't beholden to oligarch donors who have an ideological agenda to pursue 'regime change' in the Middle East, or neo-liberal economic policies.

Trump has spoken about trade and manufacturing for decades, as well as questioning US military involvement overseas. This is why 'neo-con's like Romney want to stop him.

Aria Price, 2016-03-08 06:36:53
I'm a Trump Supporter - I'm not White, I'm a minority & I'm not in the "working class"

I support Trump because he's literally the only politician that at least talks about issues that the "professional class" likes to pretend aren't happening.

You guys cover up Islamic violence & anyone who talks about it is immediately called an Islamophobe & a Racist (For telling the truth!)

Trade deals - Who was talking about it before Trump & Sanders? Not the politicians, and certainly not the media.

The wall is racist? - Why don't you talk about all the Americans that PROTESTED the border surge because of the huge strain having people from across the border was having on their taxes & communities? Or the fact that Obama didn't care that Americans didn't want them there & just did what he wanted (which is unconstitutional). So if Trump's a bully, what would that make the media & the Obama administration?

Trump Supporters are AMERICANS voting for an AMERICAN GOVERNMENT not racists, not bigots, just Americans who have watched this country be destroyed by corporate greed.

AdamCMelb, 2016-03-08 06:31:46
This article laboured the point a bit, but it was refreshing in that it sought out an explanation for Trump's success, rather than just making assumptions about it based on the writer's own prejudices. Though I think illegal immigration is as much a part of Trump's popularity as his stance on trade.

Re the latter, though, what evidence is there that free trade deals have actually had the effects that their critics, from Sanders to Trump, claim they have? Certainly, the years post-NAFTA were practically economic golden years for the USA. Correlation is not causation, of course, but it is better than mere dogmatic rhetoric.

And what would Trump or Bernie (Bumpie?) actually do to reverse any alleged losses to free trade. Are we talking about putting up tariff trade barriers, making goods more expensive for American consumers? How would that improve their living standards?

MrMustard Magoo, 2016-03-08 06:21:34
A lot of these "professional" classes have no clothes and the core of Trump supporters see through your rubbish. Half of you would be on the scrap heap begging for a job at McDonalds if it weren't for quantitative easing, the complete perversion of the financial system, mass immigration, the high taxes used to fund bloated, inane and superflous government departments, and for the Chinese to make your shitty product for $2 an hour if you do work for a company that makes something tangible.

The media is bleeding, not even your own supporters want to pay for your bloviated propaganda.

If it's racist to not want open borders and just a reasonable amount of immigration that the west had through out most of the late 20th century then I am "racist" and proud of it.

Oh and according to Bernie white people can't know poverty, we're sick and tired of the racism towards white people and the blatant double standards.

mintslice -> pascald, 2016-03-08 06:32:48
But here's the rub. Where are you hearing Donald Trump say "I wont do free trade agreements anymore?"

Where have we heard Trump say "Im going to remove all those Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses from all our bilateral and multilateral trade agreements because they are anti democratic and contrary to the rule of law"?

All Trump is promising is that the deals he will make will somehow be more favourable to America than the TPP that is already heavily tilted in favour of US multinationals.

That though some magical thinking he will achieve a better deal than the best and brightest in the State Department, or their expsensive private sector consultants.

Trump is talking a big game about doing things differently, but there is no detail to his platform.

When push comes to shove, Trump wont be able to change the course of global capital.

Multinationals have Congress on a short leash. Trump cant overturn Citizens United. He wont even try.

Is Trump seriously suggesting he will get the US Congress to ratify some new type of trade agreement that protects American workers?

Its bullshit. When push comes to shove, does anyone really think Trump is going to stand up for American workers and take sides against the people he plays golf with?

For fucks sake Trump benefits from globalisation every single day. He benefits from intellectual property laws that enforce his trademarks. He benefits from business migration that helps him secure foreign workers for his building projects and resorts.

He said as much when discussing the need for seasonal foreign labour at his resort in Florida.

Donald Trump raging against globalisation is like ISIS raging against the West while wearing Nikes, using iphones and drinking RedBull.

Its theatre. But his working class power base havent the education to pick it. They're being played for suckers. He's turning their downward envy into votes. He wont do jack shit for them other than quicken their blood pressure while blaming the foreign investors that he needs to sustain his own wealth.

gunnison, 2016-03-08 06:08:57
Good piece. This especially:

Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer.

Margaret Moussa, 2016-03-08 05:55:33
Its no surprise that working class white people in the US scapegoat racial minorities and are vulnerable to politicians who encourage them in this direction. To actually focus on the CAUSES of their persistent poverty and unemployment would require the courage to face up to the very powerful American corporate elite. What makes this sad is that this elite is itself the principle beneficiary of the Republican party's economic and socially regressive (unfair) policies.
Ryan Rji Rji -> Margaret Moussa, 2016-03-08 06:13:49
We don't actually scapegoat racial minorities. You're scapegoating us by saying that.
We scapegoat the actual problem, which is the political elite, and it isn't just the Republicans. The Democrats too (Hillary) are in bed with the same corporate interests that are fighting hard against Trump. It has literally nothing to do with race. Zero.
rooolf, 2016-03-08 05:51:35
well youse finally realised!

while both sides embraced neo liberalism, while globalization appeared successful, while you entrenched mums and dads in the stock market, both sides of politics wrote off critics as uneducated and bigoted. didn't listen to a word, didn't include them in YOUR democracy

well the shtick is up, the taxpayer funded bank bail out didn't work. all that public money went to the people with money that fucked it initially, the immigration ponzi scheme didn't work, the exporting jobs didn't work, it worked for a while but you didn't even take us with you for the short ride.

the whole system is broken and all the professional class do is continue name calling the workers. write them off all you want your plan has not worked

shepmeister, 2016-03-08 05:44:38
Much better than the average article on Trump. He makes a good point about the problems of the academic echo chamber, with experts all quoting each other, rather than real blue-collar workers.

Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll.

As good a summary as exists of the problems with the two major parties: they just don't get it.
Akihabara -> shepmeister, 2016-03-08 06:52:30
I understood intellectually why various governments around the world went and implemented bailouts for their banks, etc during the GFC. Without banks the finance system grinds to a halt and everybody suffers because both business and individuals aren't able to get credit, etc.

However, my problem with what happened is that these bailouts left mostly the same senior people in charge of these same banks, insurance companies, etc. What should have happened is that the price of the rescue was that the top couple of levels of any financial organization relying on rescue funding should have been sacked and had much of their bonuses made off the financial risk taking clawed back - the philosophy being you created the mess by taking way too much risk so you now take responsibility for that mess. Unfortunately it didn't happen, hardly anybody was held responsible, it was mostly people with no connection to financial industry who received the pain and then our various reserve banks started pumping out almost free money to the same industry as caused the GFC in the first place through their stupid risk taking.

No wonder people are angry.

angryinsocal, 2016-03-08 05:44:16
To be honest Trump is right on one very key issue as an American, and as a progressive who still would not vote for any Republican. I mean a vote for the Republican party would have disastrous consequences in terms of death and financial ruin as it always has in recent years. But Trump is right on free trade. Americans were never told that tens of thousands of plants would close in America and in fact were told that the plant jobs that left would be replaced by new and better jobs. That never happened, the new and better jobs went from often Union and high priced labor with good benefits, to non-union service sector menial work. At least for the high school trained American worker. Globalized free trade has decimated the industrial base of the western world. In effect a multinational today pays his workers in rupees, pesos, and yuan while selling his good for dollars and euros; meanwhile they open a polluting sweatshop in Asia. to add insult to injury. In short we are taking a double hit of losing the high paying work while having our air and water poisoned for personal profit. Actually, more accurate to say we are getting triple screwed because then the multinational neither pays a reasonable tariff to enter our market nor does that corporation ever pay tax in the US, instead they pay it in the Cayman Islands or Dubai. This is the rigged economy.
Giancarlo, 2016-03-08 05:23:51
"Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed."

This bears repeating over and over again! I, too, find Trump to be quite distasteful but hearing him lay into the likes of Carrier and Ford for packing up and moving to Mexico- and seeing so many Republican voters and conservative leaning independents get excited about it- makes me suspect he is performing a greater service than many of us think. The race to the bottom has got to stop, and that's not going to happen until the ordinary men & women in both parties refute the globalist, neo-liberal dogma. Trump has, stunningly, managed to get many Republicans to openly shun 'free trade'. We can either engage with these voters in a way that actually speaks to their very real concerns or we can dismiss them with the kind of false consciousness crap that Democrats have been pushing for years, a strategy that pushes them to conclude that the 'left' has no solutions and doesn't care about them anyway. A surefire way to strengthen the far right if I've ever seen one.

Thank you, Thomas Frank, for another stellar piece!

samuel glover -> Giancarlo, 2016-03-08 06:15:46
If he's helping to destroy the party that seriously claimed that George W. Bush was suitable for the presidency, Trump is definitely doing a real service to America.

I hope Sanders is doing something similar to the wheezing relic that calls itself the Democratic Party.

Ben Cantwell -> samuel glover, 2016-03-08 10:44:24
It is interesting that Sanders has committed to campaigning until the convention even if he gets to a position where he can't win.

Party elder seeking to reignite the soul of the party and remind it of its core values and beliefs.

mothersuperior5, 2016-03-08 05:10:26
yes. as is Bernie on trade. theres another message as well: relative isolationism on foreign policy. thats not an impotent rage thing btw. thats the result of an objective view: Syria and Libya show that the gig is up. thats why Romney defending George W is so pointless. Trump is not the war monger ideologue. Cruz and Rubio are at least in order to make their case to the establishment. the electorate is far wittier and nuanced than the geniuses are. thank god for democracy.
Morris1798 -> mothersuperior5, 2016-03-08 05:36:10
There is only one type of isolationism. Complete and total isolationism, there is no such thing as partial isolationism.
hurrya1 -> Morris1798, 2016-03-08 18:26:47
It's non-interventionism. The US should let other countries sort their problems. The US does not need middle east oil and should not be responsible for middle east stability or security. Europe should take more responsibility for its neighborhood.
skippy07, 2016-03-08 05:00:36
Globalism is dead. Trump is the messenger. It will be every country for itself. The global elite will get on the isolationist bus or they will be replaced. It has ever been so.
mothersuperior5 -> skippy07, 2016-03-08 05:14:45
nailed it.
Talgen -> skippy07, 2016-03-08 05:18:51

Globalism is dead. Trump is the messanger. It will be every country for itself.

I wish it were so, but they spent too much time and money on this and wont let the people toss their ambitions to the side..

Dan Kallem -> Talgen, 2016-03-08 06:00:17
I believe "they" will have little choice in whether it holds together as it is now: the massive debt bubble used to prop up an economy having just experienced one of the largest bubble bursts of all time, the mortgage securities bubble/non-scandal, will require a massive contraction, as there will never be sufficient growth to cover the truly astounding amount of debt owed.

Something will have to give, eventually if not very soon, and it will not be a pretty sight. I sense many of us know this, but are choosing to place our heads in the sand in the face of knowing there is nothing any of us can do about it.

mismeasure, 2016-03-08 04:46:25
Notably it takes someone not on the payroll, Thomas Frank, to write something sensible about the Trump phenomenon. He is able to do this because he has, in the language of an earlier time, a class analysis.

Increasingly, a view that touts itself as diverse and anti-racist-- one ostensibly rooted in indispensable values such as dignity, tolerance, and egalitarianism-- is being used as ideological cover.

"Privilege checking," etc. is becoming a way of not talking about the colossal damage wrought by neoliberal capitalism. Clinton is a case in point.

Her anti-racist credentials-- largely gifted to her by an affluent and empowered Black political Establishment-- are supposed to deflect attention from her support for economic policies that are crippling working people of all races.

Psyberus, 2016-03-08 04:40:00
Americans mock Australia's political system, where you vote for a party, and the party picks the Prime Minister, but at least it allowed us to get rid of OUR version of Trump = Tony Abbott after just 2 years of leadership. The absurdities, mistakes, outrageous actions, obvious lies and extreme damage to Australia's reputation just got too much, and he was removed by his own party, ensuring he returned to being a political joke, a piece of amusing satire.

If the US votes Trump in, he remains in place a lot longer and can do a LOT more damage to the country than our incompetent joker ever did.

Scary...pass me the popcorn please....

Ministryoftruth -> Psyberus, 2016-03-08 05:07:56
Yet both the ALP and the LNP sing the same song on privatisation and neoliberalism. Free trade is great and good, government run services should be subcontracted out or outright privatized and there is no alternative they both say.

Australia has also been with an almost hung parliament through two governments now such is the public dissatisfaction with the political mainstream. If you think the hard left and the hard right won't affect Australia's fortunes you haven't been paying attention.

peacefulmilitant, 2016-03-08 04:33:47
Good analysis.

And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry.

Those who still cling to this idiotic explanation at some point would have to realize that many of the people who now vote for Trump 8 years ago voted for Obama. Now there is a puzzle they will never be able to solve.

[Feb 24, 2018] Michael Savage says Trump should arrest George Soros for meddling in elections (Video) by Alex Christoforou

Feb 24, 2018 | theduran.com

Michael Savage says Trump should arrest George Soros for meddling in elections (Video) Lock him up!

by Alex Christoforou February 24, 2018, 14:33 918 Views

[Feb 24, 2018] How to Solve the Ukraine Crisis Peacekeepers

An interesting discussion with two polar views on the situation. There is no good guys in the story anyway. Nether the USA, or Russia, or Ukrainian nationalists, or separatists qualify. Truth probably lies somewhere in between. The debate itself reminds the current political debate in the USA between neoliberals/globalists and "economic nationalists"/isolationalists : the two sides do not hear other and their positions are irreconcilable. Each has its own set of grievances. Its own version of history. And its own vision of the desirable future.
Independence by itself meant huge stimulus to Western Ukrainian nationalists (who historically lived a long time under Hapsburg empire). So their political ascendance were given and Maydan was just the culmination point of a long process (actually encouraged by EU members such as Germany, Poland , Baltic republics and Sweden)
The USA clearly tried to secure it geopolitical interests via forcefully turning Ukraine to the West. Despite the fact that it was not completely ready for such a move yet; although were slowly moving in this direction since independence. Germany (and EU in general) played the same fatal role of "accelerator" as well. They wanted new markets for their goods and also have geopolitical interests in weakening Russia (which did happened; Ukraine was the biggest strategic defeat of Putin). The Nazi Lebensraum was, after all, about Ukraine.
But the process of "separation" from Russia was pretty much under way since independence and proceeded at a brisk pace under Yanukovich too, who actually supported Ukrainian nationalists during his term (especially Svoboda, hoping to create something like the USA two party systems: nationalists vs Party of Regions). And it was Yanukovich government which prepared and intended to sign the association agreement with the EU. Then Yanukovich hesitated to sign it and at this point was doomed as pro-Western forces has already their own dynamics and financial support from abroad. With the financial. organizational and political support support of the USA and EU were able to depose him. Large (for Ukraine political scene) amount of money was injected, protesters bused from Western Ukraine, and eventually yet another color revolution (the first was so called Orange revolution which brought to power Yushchenko government) took care of Yanukovich regime. The problem is that this "alternative" political course and a new vision of Ukrainian future proved to be a minefield. Also the association agreement with EU was very unfair to Ukrainian economic interests and essentially downgraded the status of Ukraine to the status of neo-colony openly promoting deindustrialization like in Baltic Republics.
Some unrealistic dreams about benefits of Ukraine association with EU were pretty widespread and become a political factor in the success of the Maydan. nobody understood that by trying to balance between Russia and the West Yanukovich postponed the day of reckoning and kept economics expanding. Everybody hated corrupt Yanukovich although some members of his cabinet were pretty competent technocrats. Nobody calculated losses from the separation of economic ties with Russia and having a hostile Russia as a neighbor. Hopes that EU will open its market for Ukrainian agricultural goods and to Ukrainian gastarbeiters proved to be exaggerated. To say nothing about the danger (or even mere possibility) of civil war as the result of Maydan. All those dreams about improving the standard of living via association with EU were buried after the Maydan very soon. The currency dropped around 300% after 2014 from 8.5 to 27 grivna per dollar. Markets in Russia are almost completely lost.
Ukrainian nationalists decided that the success of Maydan gave them carte blanche on neo-colonization of Eastern Ukraine as well as the suppression of Russian language and culture. They miscalculated. This policy was similar to "Polinization of Western Ukraine" by Poles and it faced growing resistance. Lugansk and Donetsk republic are direct results of this resistance (not without Russia help). In other words this policy backfired, and now those regions represent a Gordian knot for both the USA, EU, Russia and Ukraine. For Poroshenko government to agree on federalization (which Minsk accords presuppose) means to lose face politically (Why to organize Maydan in such cases, if the net result is a huge drop of the standard of living, loss of Crimea, and federalization of Ukraine?), and they prefer military solution to the problem. The USA under Trump administration are only happy to sell weapons to them (as well as coal to replace lost coal from Donetsk region). And nuclear fuel to electrical stations inread of Russia. Meanwhile economics is not improving and that also represents a political threat to Poroshenko, making push for the military solution more probable.
Notable quotes:
"... Any agreement, however -- at least as far as the U.S. State Department is concerned -- would require that Russia must make the first move to ease tensions. ..."
"... Secretary Tillerson has made it abundantly clear that Russia must take the first steps to de-escalate violence and resolve this conflict by fully implementing the Minsk Accords." ..."
"... Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for ..."
"... . You can follow him on Twitter: ..."
"... This country is screwed, alas. Peacekeepers will not change much, but they could help stop shellings and thus help regular people who suffer the most. ..."
"... Strelkov came into Donbass on April 12, 2014 and the acting president Turchinov announced ATO (Anti terrorist operation) on April 7. The people of Donbass protested peacefully for months and no one wanted to talk with them. They sent tanks and jets instead. ..."
"... "And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals." ..."
"... Indeed, that is why there is a civil war in Ukraine. "Red Cross officially declares Ukraine civil war" https://www.thelocal.ch/201... ..."
Feb 23, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Any agreement, however -- at least as far as the U.S. State Department is concerned -- would require that Russia must make the first move to ease tensions. However, it is unclear is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or anyone in his department truly speaks for the Trump Administration.

"It's important to be clear about U.S. policy towards the conflict: Crimea is Ukraine. The Donbas is Ukraine. We will never accept trading one region of Ukraine for another. We will never make a deal about Ukraine without Ukraine," John J. Sullivan, deputy secretary of state, said during a speech in at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Diplomatic Academy in Kiev on Feb. 21 . "To advance these fundamental goals, Secretary Tillerson appointed Ambassador Kurt Volker as Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations in July of last year. And his mandate is to break the deadlock with Russia over Ukraine. Secretary Tillerson has made it abundantly clear that Russia must take the first steps to de-escalate violence and resolve this conflict by fully implementing the Minsk Accords."

Time will tell if any progress will be made in solving the Donbas situation.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest . You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar .

Joe Stevens , February 22, 2018 2:20 AM

If that's the case, then America needs to pull it's own illegal occupation forces out of eastern Syria ASAP too! Eastern Syria is Syria. Eastern Syria is NOT part of Kurdistan! What a bunch of hypocrites.

Vic , February 22, 2018 7:11 AM

"One potential approach -- which as been proposed by U.S. special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker -- is where peacekeepers would be deployed in phases while Ukraine implements some of the measures it agreed to under the Minsk agreements."

-That could work, here is the Minsk 2 agreement for those that don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

It stipulates that Ukraine should complete a number of things, and by the end of it Donbass will be returned to Ukraine. If you add phased peacekeepers to this it could work, the peacekeepers would start between Donbass and Ukraine, and then move into Donbass and get more control the more of the Minsk 2 agreement Ukraine completed.

The peacekeepers could not be NATO or Russian troops for each side to agree obviously

VadimKharichkov , February 22, 2018 5:08 AM

Europe and the US have nothing of value to offer to Ukraine because there's little to exchange it for. There is no economy and too few natural resources to fight for. Thus, Ukraine will remain a suitcase without a handle despite wet dreams of its ultra-nationalists (should be represented in the troll section of this thread).

It will remain useless as an economical ally to Russia in the upcoming years because Ukraine is divided within itself.

The only thing it will be good for, is to serve as an example for everybody on how foolish it is to overthrow democratically elected governments for the sake of fairy tales.

The conflict there will be frozen for decades, as it was frozen in Moldova and Georgia. Without Russian and European investments, there will be no economical development in Ukraine.

This country is screwed, alas. Peacekeepers will not change much, but they could help stop shellings and thus help regular people who suffer the most.

Jorge Martinho VadimKharichkov , February 22, 2018 6:13 AM

Vadim, if Ukraine is not important, why do you spend so much of your precious time writing about it? Why does Russia keep financing the war in Donbass if its so uninteresting to invest in Ukraine? Why did Russia steal Ukrainian gas in the Azov Sea? Or why does it steal ukrainian coal in Donbass? Where did the machinery from the Donbass factories go, Vadim?

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 7:02 AM

"Or why does it steal ukrainian coal in Donbass?"

-The coal belongs to the people of Donbass, not Ukraine, and Ukraine itself banned buying gas from these territories in hope that it will cause more misery to the civilians living there, just like Ukraine stole their pensions and their social welfare in hope for causing maximal suffering.

Jorge Martinho Vic , February 22, 2018 9:09 AM

The Donbass is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Second Ukraine is not obliged to pay for the Russian occupation of its territory. The occupation force is responsible for everything that happens inside that territory, even the payment or not of pensions.

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 10:06 AM

That is a pure lie, the conflict between Donbass and Ukraine is a civil war. Russia is not occupying those territories. And Donbass will return to Ukraine if they can follow thru on the Minsk 2 agreement like they agreed to, but never will of course, because the hyper-corrupt Ukrainian government need the legitimacy and distraction that war brings both domestically to avoid coup and internationally as an excuse.

"Red Cross officially declares Ukraine civil war" https://www.thelocal.ch/201...

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 1:56 PM

Strelkov, referring to the war he helped start in Donbas: "In the beginning, nobody there wanted to fight."

Pro-Russian agitators like Pavel Gubarev tried to illegally take over government buildings in E Ukraine, and also tried to organize protests, but they had little support from the local population. The local population was cynical about Kiev, but they certainly weren't interested in starting a civil war. That is why Strelkov and other Russians had to start the war.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 2:48 PM

"but they certainly weren't interested in starting a civil war. That is why Strelkov and other Russians had to start the war."

-Nobody wanted a war of course, that is one reason why the Kiev government became so dependent on volunteer n4zists, they were the only one that was eager and willing to kill their brothers at the whims of the unconstitutional coup regime. The average Ukrainian soldiers didn't want to fight and a lot of the Donbass fighters came from defected Ukrainian soldiers.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 5:55 PM

Again, all I have to do is point to Strelkov: "In the beginning, nobody there wanted to fight."

"I dream of a Russia in its natural borders," he says. "At least those of 1939." He claims to have been the one who convinced Putin to intervene militarily in Ukraine, at a time, he says, when the Kremlin was still debating the proper approach to the country."

"I was the one who pulled the trigger for war," Strelkov boasts."

http://www.spiegel.de/inter...

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:17 AM

Doesn't matter at all what some commanders "boasts" , the war was started when the unconstitutional and unelected government of Ukraine sent its army to crush the rebels.

brylcream Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 3:20 AM

Strelkov came into Donbass on April 12, 2014 and the acting president Turchinov announced ATO (Anti terrorist operation) on April 7.
The people of Donbass protested peacefully for months and no one wanted to talk with them. They sent tanks and jets instead.

"and also tried to organize protests, but they had little support from the local population. "

This is a blatant lie.

Alex Robeson brylcream , February 23, 2018 7:18 AM

Strelkov took Slavyansk on April 12 - that's not when he arrived. As for the ATO, yes, it was announced on April 7, after armed separatists stormed regional government buildings in Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov, raised Russian flags, and said they would hold an independence referendum. What would Russia do if Karelia was taken over by pro-Finnish separatists? And keep in mind, when the ATO was announced, Turchynov promised amnesty for separatists who laid down arms.

No, the "people" of Donbass did not protest peacefully (Gubarev and others were not representative of the people of Donbass). Gubarev and others repeatedly tried to seize buildings and declare self-rule/independence. But polls during that time clearly showed that people did not want independence, even if they were unhappy about Yanukovych being ousted from the presidency. Public opinion did not really shift towards independence until after the fire of Odessa and Mariupol, when Donbass regions were under separatist control and influenced by Russian propaganda.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 2:46 PM

"Strelkov, referring to the war he helped start in Donbas: "In the beginning, nobody there wanted to fight.""

-The civil war was started when the unelected and unconstitutional coup government sent the army to kill the rebels in Donbass for just wanting their language rights protected.

"Pro-Russian agitators like Pavel Gubarev tried to illegally take over government buildings in E Ukraine,"

-Pavel is a Ukrainian, and it is pretty far fetched to call it illegal to resist to an illegal unconstitutional coup government.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 2:58 PM

I have not seen any proof that there was a coordinated coup to remove Yanukovych. On Feb 21st, Western powers got what they wanted when Yanukovych agreed to form a coalition government with Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok (OK, maybe Tyahnbok wasn't they're first choice) and have early elections. Yanukovych fled because the security forces abandoned him. They most likely abandoned him because the Feb 21st agreement called for investigation into violence on the Maidan, and they thought they would be blamed for everything.

I never said Gubarev wasn't Ukrainian. But he was clearly a pro-Russian agitator. And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals.

brylcream Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 3:35 AM

Yanukovich was in Donetsk when they broke their constitution in the Rada, when they didn't have enough votes to impeach him.

"And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals."

Really?
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Alex Robeson brylcream , February 23, 2018 7:50 AM

He was in Kharkiv, but not on an official visit. He was fleeing. And sorry, but protests attended by a few thousand people do not mean that Gubarev had widespread support.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 3:14 PM

""governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals."

-It is worth to point out that there was no democratic support for the coup in Kiev however. Which I guess is why there was a coup in the first place.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 4:20 PM

You still haven't offered any proof for your claim of a coup in Kiev.

brylcream Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 3:37 AM

Check the Ukrainian constitution, Article 111. There is described how a president could be impeached.

Alex Robeson brylcream , February 23, 2018 7:33 AM

That's not a coup. It's an unconstitutional removal of a president who abandoned his post. What were they supposed to do - live with a power vacuum?

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 3:09 PM

"And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals."

-Hardly illegal, quite the opposite, more like it was a duty to resist an unconstitutional coup government. And while I have not found a opinion poll on rebel controlled areas, the closes I found suggest that the rebels has a very high support among the Donbass population.

"An opinion poll that was taken on the day of the referendum and the day before by a correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Washington Post, and five other media outlets found that of those people who intended to vote, 94.8% would vote for independence. The poll did not claim to have scientific precision, but was carried out to get a basis from which to judge the outcome of the referendum, given that independent observers were not present to monitor it. Even with those who said they would not vote counted in, a 65.6% majority supported separation from Ukraine"
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/...

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 5:52 PM

You should probably try reading the actual article, instead of quoting Wikipedia. The journalists polled 186 people, and of those 110 supported independence. That's a tiny and insignificant sample size. People voting for independence had been going through a war started by pro-Russian separatists, they were under the martial law of pro-Russian separatists, and their only news was Russian propaganda telling them that Kiev was all Nazis who wanted to exterminate Russia. Also, as you no doubt saw while reading Wikipedia, polls taken before Strelkov and the others started the war showed that the locals were not supportive of independence.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:22 AM

" them that Kiev was all Nazis who wanted to exterminate Russia"

-Pretty close to the truth actually, Kiev certainly did and are doing everything they can do exterminate the local civilians in Donbas, but stealing their pensions, cutting of social pay, hindering and stoping food, medicine and water.

Actually I mentioned that in my comment, there are no opinion polls but the closes we get is the opinion polls from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Washington Post, which shows a massive support for the rebels. Which is no surprise as we are talking about an illegal unconstitutional pro-nazi government seizing power.

"tthe locals were not supportive of independence.

-The support for rebels are as all sources show quite high, of course nobody wanted the war, but that was forced on them by the unelected coup government. If Ukraine had just language right of the Donbass people there would have been no war.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 23, 2018 8:14 AM

No, Kiev was not filled with Nazis. Russia engaged in fearmongering to get Crimeans to vote for independence. And what happened? The Ukrainian Army in Crimea resisted all provocations to start a war. Kiev thought that the international community would come to its aid. Remember the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2014? Svoboda and Right Sector barely had any public support at all. The lie that Kiev was filled with Nazis was just that - a lie.

Again, your Frankfurter Allgemeine poll was less than 200 people who happened to be willing to talk to Western journalists. Only 110 of them said they wanted independence, and this was after living under martial law and Russian propaganda for months. There were plenty of actual scientific polls conducted in April before the "referendum" which showed that there was no support for secession - at most, people wanted decentralisation.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 3:05 PM

Well, depends on what you mean with proof I suppose, is an American marxist oligarchs admitting they spent millions to training demonstrators to subvert Ukrainian democracy proof?
Is the fact that 100% of NATO controlled media support the Ukrainian opposition proof?
Is that fact that USA leaders went down to Ukraine and gave out cookies to the undemocratic opposition and held speeches encouraging them to overthrow their government proof?
Is leaked phone calls from USA telling Ukraine which leaders should be installed(which later were installed) proof?
Is Obama openly admitting they handled the "transition of power" in Ukraine proof?
Is the fact that the fascist and ultra-nationalist groups used used to overthrow the democratic government of Ukraine(OUN) known CIA assets proof? I mean, basically, it was the most blatant coup in world history. But if you literally want the USA government to totally in details describe and admit to every detail you will just have to wait a few years or decades until it is released in a FOI report like the fact that USA created ISIS.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 4:38 PM

- I'm assuming you mean the $5 billion the US invested over 20+ years? Russia invested $40 billion in the same time frame - 8x as much as the US (see Sergey Glazyev's March 24, 2014 interview with National Review). Financial investments in democratic institutions are not proof of a coup, but nice try.

- NATO controlled media? There's no such thing.

- Why is it such a big deal with Nuland giving out cookies?

- John McCain didn't encourage them to "overthrow their government". When did he say that? He said "We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe."

- Did you know that government officials from European countries and the EU also encouraged the protesters?

- Nuland and the US were clearly operating to keep the opposition united, and yes, they pushed their interests by encouraging Yatsenyuk to take the lead. But Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok were already established as opposition politicians in general, and had been accepted by the Maidan protesters before the US arrived on the scene. And besides, the Feb 21st agreement was what the US wanted - it would have placed those three figures in a coalition government with Yanukovych, followed by early elections. All of that considered, the fact that they emerged as leaders after Yanukovych left is really not surprising.

- Obama admitted what everyone knew - the US had entered into the crisis on the side of the EU to push Yanukovych to listen to the protesters. Russia, of course, was pushing Yanukovych to crack down. I remember when RT and Sputnik tried to twist it to mean Obama was claiming the US was behind a coup - it was the most blatant spin/propaganda I've ever seen. Go back and watch Obama's interview with Fareed Zakaria.

- You'll have to provide at least an ounce of proof that ultranationalist, far-right, or neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine are "CIA assets". Otherwise you're just another baseless conspiracy theorist.

- Yes, the US and USSR (Russia) have engaged in regime changes in the past. There's zero proof though, that there was a coup in Ukraine.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:27 AM

lol, yes, that is what is called a coup. Not only a coup but the most blatant coup in history I would say, I can only imagine if Russia funded trained and funded demonstrators Mexico, Russian leaders went to Mexico handing out cookies and giving support to the demonstrators, and ordering the opposition which leaders should be installed after the coup and so forth,and then afterwards openly admitting it did it.Hilarious. But I guess you are paid troll, and even when FYI releases information where USA planned the entire thing in detail, like it has with its creation of ISIS and al-qaeda you will deny it still.

Here is the head of Stratfor by the way, the "Shadow CIA" saying the exact same thing, xD

"Head of Stratfor, 'Private CIA,' Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was 'The Most Blatant Coup in History'"
http://www.washingtonsblog....

Alex Robeson Vic , February 23, 2018 9:01 AM

Watch the video of Obama's interview ( https://www.youtube.com/wat... - he clearly states "Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." In other words, he openly admits to helping form the February 21st "Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine". Obviously he's not talking about the Rada removing Yanukovych from office.

Nuland's conversation backs this up. It shows the Obama administration was helping Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok stay united. Yanukovych was individually offering them posts in his government. The US was pushing them to resist those offers. This culminated in the February 21st agreement, where the US and EU got additional concessions from Yanukovych - a coalition government with those three leaders, early elections, and investigations of the violence on Maidan.

As for the head of Stratfor, George Friedman went on to write an article in which he said that his quote was completely taken out of context ( http://www.businessinsider.... .

You think handing out cookies means people are funding coups. I'll have to remember that when giving cookies to my children.

Jorge Martinho Vic , February 22, 2018 2:34 PM

Civil wars dont involve foreign powers invading another country...

Duendao Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 7:21 PM

So what is doing the US in syria?

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 2:43 PM

Indeed, that is why there is a civil war in Ukraine. "Red Cross officially declares Ukraine civil war" https://www.thelocal.ch/201...

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 7:01 AM

Russia does not steal anything, the Crimean people voted to join Russia and that is their democratic right.

"With two studies out of the way, both Western-based, it seems without question that the vast majority of Crimeans do not feel they were duped into voting for annexation, and that life with Russia will be better for them and their families than life with Ukraine. A year ago this week, 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification with their former Soviet parent."
https://www.forbes.com/site...

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 1:48 PM

Crimea was a coup, initiated on February 27, 2014 when armed/masked militants (Spetsnaz?) stormed the Crimean parliamentary building, raised the Russian flag over the building, and barricaded themselves inside. During this occupation, an emergency parliamentary session was called. It is unknown how many MPs participated - a number have said they were not there, even though they were claimed to have been there. But in that emergency session, the Crimean PM (Anatolii Mohyliov) was illegally removed and replaced with an unpopular pro-Russian MP (Sergey Aksyonov). Aksyonov immediately called for the independence referendum. Just to emphasize, all of this happened while the parliamentary building was under armed occupation from unknown pro-Russian forces (most likely Spetsnaz), and against the will of the current Crimean and Ukrainian governments. Interestingly, just the day before (February 26), the Crimean government had told pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian protesters outside the building that there would be no effort to seek independence from Ukraine.

It was, without doubt, a coup.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:28 AM

Derp, there is quite literally a source right above you debunking your lies and linking to several USA and Germany opinion polls verifying that the result of the referendum was reflective of the democratic will of the Crimean people.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 23, 2018 9:03 AM

I didn't dispute the poll. What I said is that before the referendum Russia instigated a coup, suppressed protests, and created a sense of fear in Crimea that drove people to think Kiev was filled with Nazis. Of course they voted to join Russia after that.

BlackRoseML Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 1:27 PM

Isn't that what happened throughout Ukraine when "protestors" (more accurately thugs) took over the Regional Administration buildings and occupied them? Well, before the coup in Kiev, numerous government buildings in other regions were occupied.

You said that it was a big propaganda exercise to portray being pro-Ukraine as being pro-Nazi. Then why was the Euromaidan far right? Why were the most prominent activists and leaders of the "revolution" associated with Svodoba and Right Sector? Why were there thugs destroying monuments to Lenin? Why were many activists extolling Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych?

The people on the Maidan behaved like far-right lunatics and brigands. No wonder why there it isn't difficult to conceive of them as Nazis.

If I were a woman in Crimea, I would be grateful that I am not living under the jackboot of the Maidan thugs.

[Feb 24, 2018] As Washington's efforts to recapture and return Russia to vassalage have failed it has resorted to a growing series of provocations and conflicts

Notable quotes:
"... Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to confront a nuclear-armed Russia, confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... Despite President Trump's campaign promises to 'pull-back', the US has re-entered Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism to 'rollback and aggression' against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response from past and present allies. ..."
"... China has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression against a dynamic and changing world. ..."
Feb 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

Russia has reduced and challenged the US pursuit of a uni-polar global empire following the recovery of its sovereignty and economic growth after the disaster of the 1990's. With the ascent of President Putin, the US-EU empire lost their biggest and most lucrative client and source of naked pillage.

Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to confront a nuclear-armed Russia, confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon.

Washington's efforts to recapture and return Russia to vassalage have failed. Out of frustration Washington has resorted to a growing series of failed provocations and conflicts between the US and the EU, within the US between Trump and the Democrats; and among the warlords controlling the Trump cabinet.

Germany has continued lucrative trade ties with Russia, despite US sanctions, underscoring the decline of US power to dictate policy to the European Union. The Democratic Party and the ultra-militaristic Clinton faction remains pathologically nostalgic for a return to the 1990's Golden Age of Pillage (before Putin). Clinton's faction is fixated on the politics of revanchism . As a result, they vigorously fought against candidate Donald Trump's campaign promises to pursue a new realistic understanding with Russia. The Russia-Gate Investigation is not merely a domestic electoral squabble led by hysterical 'liberals.' What is a stake is nothing less than a profound conflict over the remaking of the US global map. Trump recognized and accepted the re-emergence of Russia as a global power to be 'contained', while the Democrats campaigned to roll-back reality, overthrow Putin and return to the robber baron orgies of the Clinton years. As a result of this ongoing strategic conflict, Washington is unable to develop a coherent global strategy, which in turn has further weakened US influence in the EU in Europe and elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the intense Democratic onslaught against Trump's initial foreign policy pronouncements regarding Russia succeeded in destroying his 'pivot to realism' and facilitated the rise of a fanatical militaristic faction within his cabinet, which have intensified the anti-Russia policies of the Clintonite Democrats. In less than a year, all of Trump's realist advisers and cabinet members have been purged and replaced by militarists. Their hard core confrontational anti-Russia policy has become the platform for launching a global military strategy based on vast increases in military spending, demands that the EU nations increase their military budgets, and open opposition to an EU-centered military alliance, such as the one recently proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Despite President Trump's campaign promises to 'pull-back', the US has re-entered Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism to 'rollback and aggression' against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response from past and present allies.

China has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression against a dynamic and changing world.

[Feb 24, 2018] Chuck Schumer War Hawk or Progressive

He is a neoliberal and neocon...
Notable quotes:
"... He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon. ..."
"... Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump. ..."
"... The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported. ..."
"... The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are usually secondary to his machinations ..."
"... Great development and exposure of this hillary-look-alike. Love the phrase 'pretend progressive,' as it describes Schumer to a T. Great piece. ..."
"... Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong. Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States. ..."
"... Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency. ..."
"... Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes me wonder what he knows? ..."
"... Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers ..."
"... Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerer of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah! ..."
"... Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor ..."
"... Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪ ..."
Feb 24, 2018 | therealnews.com

... ... ...

Thomas Hedges: In the 2007 book he published, Positively American, in the midst of his campaign against the war, Schumer admitted that his opposition that year and the year before, was as much about ending a failed policy as it was about getting votes. In reality Schumer had been one of the war's most ardent supporters, beyond his public display against the war carefully timed for the 2006 Congressional elections, Schumer in fact pitted much of the blame on Iraqis themselves, arguing that Sunis, Shiites and Kurds seemed more interested in starting a civil war in Iraq than in receiving help from the Americans and constructing any democratic central government.

He even said, that in a similar future situation, he might vote again to authorize the use of force against a country like Iraq. "Today," he wrote in his book, "I still believe that when our country is under attack the chief executive deserves a degree of latitude, if God forbid, we were attacked again, I could well vote to give it to a future President, Democrat or Republican." And when a Real News correspondent pressed Schumer in 2007 on US reparations to the Iraqi people, this is what he had to say.

Sam Husseini: Do we owe something to the Iraqi people other than just getting out? Do we owe them reparations for having brought about this war?

Chuck Schumer: I don't believe that.

Ben Norton: It's hard to find a Democrat that's more gung-ho about war than Chuck Schumer. Not only did he support the Iraq war, and fearmonger about weapons of mass destruction, he tepidly criticized the Bush administration for how it carried out the war.

Thomas Hedges: In fact, tepid criticism seems to be Schumer at his most radical. In general, he is someone who supports hard-line policy decisions, atoning for mistakes only years down the line, and usually because it's politically expedient to do so, as in an election is about to take place.

Chuck Schumer: If you don't give up and you keep fighting and you're right, you win!

Thomas Hedges: In his early days, Schumer wasn't as focused on foreign policy, in the years before 911 would shift America's attention to the Middle East, Congressman Schumer, along with the new Democrats like Bill Clinton among others, would exploit the crime scare of the 1990's in order to gain more votes and more power. During those years, Schumer supported the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994, which spiked the prison population. And in 1995 he sponsored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, which became the foundation from which the Patriot Act six years later, was built.

Ben Norton: When it comes to the war on terror he was a very enthusiastic supporter and remains so. He voted for the Patriot Act, and again this is a supposed Democratic leader, who voted for the Bush administration to take away Americans civil liberties.

Thomas Hedges: In the years straddling 911, he supported many of the same policies Republicans supported. From his tough on crime approach to supporting war in the Middle East, to defending the surveillance of Muslim groups in New York after 911. Schumer and the GOP had very few differences, in fact despite shedding tears at a press conference earlier this year after the Muslim ban that Trump implemented, Schumer himself had proposed something eerily similar.

Ben Norton: In November of 2015, not that long ago, less than two years ago, Schumer also said that the US government should consider a so called pause on the re-settlement of Syrian refugees. He also, in one of the most egregious yet under reported aspects of Schumer, previously said that torture should be considered in some places, and he said that, "Oh well if you oppose torture, you say this now, but you need to put yourself in the shoes of people in these particular situations etc." So he really left torture on the table.

Before Trump was President, he had actually donated money to Schumer, that of course, represents something, this is not a progressive Democrat. Schumer actually represents the segment, the influential powerful segment of the Democratic Party, that has helped pave the way for Donald Trump to carry out many of the policies he's already implementing.

Thomas Hedges: But for voters who have paid attention to Schumer for a long time, the Senator's policy choices are anything but surprising.

Kevin Zeese: He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon.

Ariel Gold: He has come out in strong opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and was very supportive of New York Governor Cuomo's order to ban BDS in New York state, and Schumer made a direct statement in support of that.

Thomas Hedges: Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to criticize the Obama administration, when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously upheld since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated international law.

Ben Norton: Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump.

Thomas Hedges: The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported.

Chuck Schumer: On Syria, I salute the professionalism and skill of our armed forces, who took action last night. The people of Syria have suffered untold horrors and violence at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and his supporters in Tehran and in Putin's Russia, making sure that Assad knows when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price, is the right thing to do.

Thomas Hedges: But perhaps Schumer's greatest show of allegiance to Israel, was his decision to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, without which experts have warned, would put the United States and Iran on a collision course.

Ben Norton: Under President Obama, Schumer was one of the most prominent Democrats to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and he was of course fearmongering about Iran, which to him is the devil incarnate, and he actually made factually false statements about the nuclear agreement, and claimed that it would allow Iran in 10 years to produce nuclear weapons etc.

Thomas Hedges: Leading up to his decision, Schumer reassured Zionists that he was consulting the most credentialed men in Washington, including Henry Kissinger, an opponent of the deal, and the man who orchestrated the violent coup in Chile that toppled its democratically elected leader, as well as the architect of the very bloody Vietnam war.

Chuck Schumer: I spent some time with Dr. Kissinger, I'm spending time with excellence.

Ariel Gold: So it threatened to pull us into another war, and we're back in that threat again with Trump winning the election we hear a lot about undoing the Iran nuclear deal, and it's one of the things that Israel has been saying they would like to see come out of the Trump administration.

Thomas Hedges: Schumer's willingness to oppose the deal early on, which created an opening for other undecided Democrats to do the same, is a strong display of support for Israel.

News Anchor: Schumer's support here really would have been key for the White House, but coming out overnight against this deal saying in a statement quote, "I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, not to challenge the path of dis-plomacy it is because, I believe Iran will not change."

Thomas Hedges: It also put him in yet the same camp as current President Donald Trump in terms of pursuing a Middle East policy that is in line with Washington's most hawkish advocates. In the end, Schumer's a friend of the neo conservative foreign policy agenda. While he may cry over Trump's Muslim ban and purport to have the same inclinations as America's most progressive members of the Senate, he's fundamentally in agreement with the United States forceful efforts abroad.

Kevin Zeese: The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent.

Thomas Hedges: As the United States nears yet another arms deal with Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, this time for a hundred billion dollars, and coupled with its four billion dollar annual aid to Israel, we can expect Schumer not only to support an even more militarized Middle East, but to continue to rail against countries like Iran that pose a threat to US and Israel's hegemony in the region.

0040 • 3 days ago ,

Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are usually secondary to his machinations

raquel • 9 months ago ,

Great development and exposure of this hillary-look-alike. Love the phrase 'pretend progressive,' as it describes Schumer to a T. Great piece.

kofi123 • 9 months ago ,

Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong. Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States.

potshot Stretch • 9 months ago ,

Said Nietzsche.

"I only take up causes in which I know I'll find no allies. And often I wait for a cause to become successful before attacking it."

Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency. Anything in the way of progressiveness that you suggest will be only, like Obama's eloquent blackness, to run cover for favors for the war party. Which at this late date ought also be christened the "hastening to collective extinction" party.

Seer • 9 months ago ,

Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes me wonder what he knows?

Jsharp • 9 months ago ,

Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers

sisterlauren Jsharp • 9 months ago ,

I think we can call him an Israel firster.

v. jabotinsky • 9 months ago ,

Schumer is a Zionist. He's said he sees himself as the protector of Israel.

p.munkey • 9 months ago ,

Of the likes of Chuck Schumer, the bard sang:

♪ Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪

[Feb 24, 2018] Dismantle the Department of Homeland Security by Matt Ford

Feb 21, 2018 | newrepublic.com
The Department of Homeland Security's first problem is its name. Mainstream American political thought long celebrated the United States as a multicultural nation, one that forged a common civic identity among people from disparate cultures. Except for the Native Americans, this country is no one's "homeland," a word that evokes the blood-and-soil ethno-nationalism of the Old World.

"The word 'homeland' is a strange word," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mused to his staff in one of his infamous "snowflake" memos in February 2001. "'Homeland' Defense sounds more German than American. Also, it smacks of isolationism, which I am uncomfortable with."

But after the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration rallied around the phrase to describe its anti-terrorism efforts, reportedly pulling it from a 1998 defense report that called for an " increased emphasis on homeland defense ." The White House established an umbrella Office of Homeland Security under former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, then proposed the creation of a massive, Cabinet-level department by the same name to oversee the nation's domestic security.

It's now been more than 15 years since the U.S. government reorganized itself in response to a terrorist attack committed by 19 people. International terrorism's threat to the United States has largely receded: Al-Qaeda is a remnant of its former self, and the Islamic State has been largely defeated in Iraq and Syria. At the same time, the bloated Department of Homeland Security turned into a boondoggle -- an opinion shared across the political spectrum for years. As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approached, in a paper for the libertarian Cato Institute, David Rittgers argued that the department's unusually broad mandate is a recipe for waste and inefficiency. "This arrangement has not enhanced the government's competence," he wrote. "Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu epidemics." Matt Mayer, a Homeland Security official under President George W. Bush, argued in 2015 that DHS has too much responsibility. "It goes without saying that I observed up-close the dysfunction, turf battles, and inherent limitations in an entity that does so much," he wrote in Reason magazine. "These problems are exacerbated due to the fact that, in many cases, the activities DHS engages in require enormous coordination with entities embedded in other federal departments."

Rittgers and Mayer both called for eliminating DHS and distributing its responsibilities among various independent agencies. Vox's Dara Lind and the Freedom of the Press Foundation's Trevor Timm argued likewise in 2015, largely on account of DHS' struggles with accountability and waste. But the last year has seen the emergence of a deeper problem than mismanagement. Under Trump, some of the department's agencies have turned openly abusive towards vulnerable members of American society. The case for abolishing DHS has never been more urgent.

Washington began to rethink its national-security apparatus after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in 1998 the Department of Defense established the Hart-Rudman Commission to study how America should defend itself in the twenty-first century. The commission's final report proposed the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency, recommending the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the NHSA's core, combined with the Customs Service from the Treasury Department, the Border Patrol from the Justice Department, and the Coast Guard from the Transportation Department.

"Bringing these organizations together under one agency will create important synergies," the report said. "Their individual capabilities will be molded into a stronger and more effective system, and this realignment will help ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to tasks crucial to both public safety and U.S. trade and economic interests."

Creating such a department wasn't a priority for the Bush administration, even initially after 9/11. A Washington Post report on DHS's early days noted that its most determined early proponent was Joe Lieberman, then a Democratic senator from Connecticut, who faced resistance from administration officials like Vice President Dick Cheney. But in June 2002, the Bush administration endorsed the calls for a cabinet-level department to handle homeland security, an announcement that came as Bush officials were facing tough questions on Capitol Hill about what clues they had missed about the imminent attacks. Altogether, the department's creation amounted to the most sweeping reorganization in the federal government's history. As the Hart-Rudman Commission had proposed, DHS incorporated FEMA and the Coast Guard. The department also absorbed the entire Immigration and Naturalization Service, merging the Border Patrol and the Customs Service to create Customs and Border Protection and moving the INS' domestic enforcement functions into Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Coast Guard and Secret Service were brought under DHS, too. All told, the department combined 22 agencies from across the government.

The result was a sprawling new federal bureaucracy. In its current form, DHS employs almost a quarter-million people and doles out tens of billions of dollars in grants and programs each year. Its missions include taking the lead on counter-terrorism programs, helping Americans recover from natural disasters, protecting and regulating the U.S. border, and defending the nation from cyberattacks. In all these efforts, DHS has been either incompetent, wasteful, redundant, or abusive -- and Congress knows it.

In January 2015, on his final day in office, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma released a report summarizing what he'd seen during his tenure on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. "Despite spending nearly $61 billion annually and $544 billion since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security is not successfully executing any of its five main missions," the report found. DHS is focused on counterterrorism, Coburn wrote, "but a review of DHS's programs shows that DHS's main domestic counterterrorism programs -- including its intelligence initiatives and homeland security grants -- are yielding little value for the nation's counterterrorism efforts."

But lawmakers are hesitant to cut funding for a department designed to fight terrorism, and reports of wasteful spending abound. Critics often point to so-called fusion centers -- regional hubs for information sharing -- as the quintessential DHS boondoggle. In theory, these centers should enable the sort of inter-agency cooperation that may have prevented the 9/11 attacks. But the reality has fallen far short. A damning 2012 Senate Homeland Security Committee report found that the 77 fusion centers scattered across the United States "often produced irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever."

Fusion centers aren't the only program to draw scrutiny. By 2008, the Government Accountability Office reported that DHS had overseen almost $15 billion in failed contracts. In 2011, for example, the department canceled a radiation-detection project that cost $230 million over five years after watchdogs raised questions about its efficacy. A 2013 GAO analysis on a $900 million program to staff Transportation Security Administration checkpoints with behavioral-detection officers "found that the ability of human observers to accurately identify deceptive behavior ... is the same as or slightly better than chance." The list of such failures is long .

DHS also has a poor track record on disaster relief. The department failed its first major test when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005. FEMA Director Michael Brown resigned amid widespread public criticism for the federal government's slow response to the crisis. An inspector general's report issued the following year concluded that "much of the criticism is warranted" and found shortcomings in communications, management, response plans, and implementation during the disaster. FEMA handled subsequent hurricanes with less controversy, but in 2017 the department again drew criticism for its slow reaction after two hurricanes devastated Puerto Rico. At one point, FEMA tapped an inexperienced Atlanta entrepreneur to provide 30 million meals for the island; she only delivered 50,000 before the agency ended her contract.

The department also has a responsibility to protect the nation from cyber-attacks, but took a sluggish approach to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Many states didn't find out their systems had been targeted until the department notified them almost a year after the election. After when they did find out, California and Wisconsin officials accused DHS of giving them flawed information about the Russian attacks on their systems, an allegation department officials denied. (In fairness to the department, institutional paralysis also characterized much of the Obama administration's response to the attack on American democracy.)

No agency within Homeland Security has received as much scorn as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and for good reason. "Every year," according to a recent New Yorker report , "the branch of the agency tasked with making immigration arrests, called Enforcement and Removal Operations, detains at least a hundred thousand people -- more arrests per year than the F.B.I., the U.S. Marshals, and the Secret Service make combined." In 2017, under Trump, that figure surged by 40 percent. And the arrest of people without criminal records doubled after Trump reversed Obama-era guidelines that prioritized undocumented immigrants with convictions.

In effect, ICE has become the "deportation force" that Trump, as a candidate, had threatened to build. Agents have carried out arrest operations at courthouses , hospitals , and schools where its targets were dropping off their children. With astonishing cruelty, the agency targets undocumented immigrants with jobs, families, and deep roots in American society. ICE seized Syed Jamal, a chemistry professor in Kansas who has lived in the U.S for 30 years and has no criminal record, on his front lawn while he was getting his kids ready for school. Lukasz Niec, a Polish-born doctor from Michigan who came to the U.S. when he was 5 years old, faces deportation to a country whose language he doesn't speak.

The agency has also become nakedly political. After California passed a sanctuary-state law last October, ICE ramped up its enforcement in the state, apparently in retaliation for the move. Thomas Homan, ICE's acting director, called for local and state officials in sanctuary cities to face criminal prosecution for not cooperating with his crackdown. "We've got to take these sanctuary cities on," he said on Fox News last month. "We've got to take them to court and we've got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes."

It's not just ICE, either. Customs and Border Protection has taken a disturbing turn since Trump took office. The DHS inspector general found that CBP officers violated multiple federal court orders in their zeal to aggressively enforce the first version of the president's travel ban targeting seven Muslim-majority countries last January. And like ICE, CBP has a cruel streak. Last month, a nonprofit group released footage showing Border Patrol agents pouring out water jugs and destroying other humanitarian supplies left for migrants crossing the deadly desert between the U.S. and Mexico.

If these issues were found in only one part of DHS and its subsidiary agencies, there might be an option for reform. But the problem is both cultural and systemic. The department will always be the hastily assembled product of a dark, paranoid moment in American history. It also helps give permanence to that moment, preventing the country from moving beyond the post-9/11 era.

The solution: Reverse the 2003 law and send almost every agency back to where it came from. Abolish ICE and return its deportation powers to the Justice Department, whose internal culture is far more professionalized and less susceptible to systemic abuse. Immigration and citizenship responsibilities can be transferred to the State Department, which is far better equipped for the task. Transfer Customs and Border Protection to the Treasury, where the Customs Service existed for decades.

Not everything will necessarily fit somewhere else. After a wave of scandals in recent years, the Secret Service might fare better under the president's direct oversight. Whatever else is left of DHS can be reorganized under a Federal Emergency Management Agency that's independent once more. Congress could even change FEMA's name to something more encompassing of its broadened mission -- just as long as it's less Germanic than what came before.

[Feb 24, 2018] How to Solve the Ukraine Crisis Peacekeepers

An interesting discussion with two polar views on the situation. There is no good guys in the story anyway. Nether the USA, or Russia, or Ukrainian nationalists, or separatists qualify. Truth probably lies somewhere in between. The debate itself reminds the current political debate in the USA between neoliberals/globalists and "economic nationalists"/isolationalists : the two sides do not hear other and their positions are irreconcilable. Each has its own set of grievances. Its own version of history. And its own vision of the desirable future.
Independence by itself meant huge stimulus to Western Ukrainian nationalists (who historically lived a long time under Hapsburg empire). So their political ascendance were given and Maydan was just the culmination point of a long process (actually encouraged by EU members such as Germany, Poland , Baltic republics and Sweden)
The USA clearly tried to secure it geopolitical interests via forcefully turning Ukraine to the West. Despite the fact that it was not completely ready for such a move yet; although were slowly moving in this direction since independence. Germany (and EU in general) played the same fatal role of "accelerator" as well. They wanted new markets for their goods and also have geopolitical interests in weakening Russia (which did happened; Ukraine was the biggest strategic defeat of Putin). The Nazi Lebensraum was, after all, about Ukraine.
But the process of "separation" from Russia was pretty much under way since independence and proceeded at a brisk pace under Yanukovich too, who actually supported Ukrainian nationalists during his term (especially Svoboda, hoping to create something like the USA two party systems: nationalists vs Party of Regions). And it was Yanukovich government which prepared and intended to sign the association agreement with the EU. Then Yanukovich hesitated to sign it and at this point was doomed as pro-Western forces has already their own dynamics and financial support from abroad. With the financial. organizational and political support support of the USA and EU were able to depose him. Large (for Ukraine political scene) amount of money was injected, protesters bused from Western Ukraine, and eventually yet another color revolution (the first was so called Orange revolution which brought to power Yushchenko government) took care of Yanukovich regime. The problem is that this "alternative" political course and a new vision of Ukrainian future proved to be a minefield. Also the association agreement with EU was very unfair to Ukrainian economic interests and essentially downgraded the status of Ukraine to the status of neo-colony openly promoting deindustrialization like in Baltic Republics.
Some unrealistic dreams about benefits of Ukraine association with EU were pretty widespread and become a political factor in the success of the Maydan. nobody understood that by trying to balance between Russia and the West Yanukovich postponed the day of reckoning and kept economics expanding. Everybody hated corrupt Yanukovich although some members of his cabinet were pretty competent technocrats. Nobody calculated losses from the separation of economic ties with Russia and having a hostile Russia as a neighbor. Hopes that EU will open its market for Ukrainian agricultural goods and to Ukrainian gastarbeiters proved to be exaggerated. To say nothing about the danger (or even mere possibility) of civil war as the result of Maydan. All those dreams about improving the standard of living via association with EU were buried after the Maydan very soon. The currency dropped around 300% after 2014 from 8.5 to 27 grivna per dollar. Markets in Russia are almost completely lost.
Ukrainian nationalists decided that the success of Maydan gave them carte blanche on neo-colonization of Eastern Ukraine as well as the suppression of Russian language and culture. They miscalculated. This policy was similar to "Polinization of Western Ukraine" by Poles and it faced growing resistance. Lugansk and Donetsk republic are direct results of this resistance (not without Russia help). In other words this policy backfired, and now those regions represent a Gordian knot for both the USA, EU, Russia and Ukraine. For Poroshenko government to agree on federalization (which Minsk accords presuppose) means to lose face politically (Why to organize Maydan in such cases, if the net result is a huge drop of the standard of living, loss of Crimea, and federalization of Ukraine?), and they prefer military solution to the problem. The USA under Trump administration are only happy to sell weapons to them (as well as coal to replace lost coal from Donetsk region). And nuclear fuel to electrical stations inread of Russia. Meanwhile economics is not improving and that also represents a political threat to Poroshenko, making push for the military solution more probable.
Notable quotes:
"... Any agreement, however -- at least as far as the U.S. State Department is concerned -- would require that Russia must make the first move to ease tensions. ..."
"... Secretary Tillerson has made it abundantly clear that Russia must take the first steps to de-escalate violence and resolve this conflict by fully implementing the Minsk Accords." ..."
"... Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for ..."
"... . You can follow him on Twitter: ..."
"... This country is screwed, alas. Peacekeepers will not change much, but they could help stop shellings and thus help regular people who suffer the most. ..."
"... Strelkov came into Donbass on April 12, 2014 and the acting president Turchinov announced ATO (Anti terrorist operation) on April 7. The people of Donbass protested peacefully for months and no one wanted to talk with them. They sent tanks and jets instead. ..."
"... "And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals." ..."
"... Indeed, that is why there is a civil war in Ukraine. "Red Cross officially declares Ukraine civil war" https://www.thelocal.ch/201... ..."
Feb 23, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Any agreement, however -- at least as far as the U.S. State Department is concerned -- would require that Russia must make the first move to ease tensions. However, it is unclear is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or anyone in his department truly speaks for the Trump Administration.

"It's important to be clear about U.S. policy towards the conflict: Crimea is Ukraine. The Donbas is Ukraine. We will never accept trading one region of Ukraine for another. We will never make a deal about Ukraine without Ukraine," John J. Sullivan, deputy secretary of state, said during a speech in at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Diplomatic Academy in Kiev on Feb. 21 . "To advance these fundamental goals, Secretary Tillerson appointed Ambassador Kurt Volker as Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations in July of last year. And his mandate is to break the deadlock with Russia over Ukraine. Secretary Tillerson has made it abundantly clear that Russia must take the first steps to de-escalate violence and resolve this conflict by fully implementing the Minsk Accords."

Time will tell if any progress will be made in solving the Donbas situation.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest . You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar .

Joe Stevens , February 22, 2018 2:20 AM

If that's the case, then America needs to pull it's own illegal occupation forces out of eastern Syria ASAP too! Eastern Syria is Syria. Eastern Syria is NOT part of Kurdistan! What a bunch of hypocrites.

Vic , February 22, 2018 7:11 AM

"One potential approach -- which as been proposed by U.S. special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker -- is where peacekeepers would be deployed in phases while Ukraine implements some of the measures it agreed to under the Minsk agreements."

-That could work, here is the Minsk 2 agreement for those that don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

It stipulates that Ukraine should complete a number of things, and by the end of it Donbass will be returned to Ukraine. If you add phased peacekeepers to this it could work, the peacekeepers would start between Donbass and Ukraine, and then move into Donbass and get more control the more of the Minsk 2 agreement Ukraine completed.

The peacekeepers could not be NATO or Russian troops for each side to agree obviously

VadimKharichkov , February 22, 2018 5:08 AM

Europe and the US have nothing of value to offer to Ukraine because there's little to exchange it for. There is no economy and too few natural resources to fight for. Thus, Ukraine will remain a suitcase without a handle despite wet dreams of its ultra-nationalists (should be represented in the troll section of this thread).

It will remain useless as an economical ally to Russia in the upcoming years because Ukraine is divided within itself.

The only thing it will be good for, is to serve as an example for everybody on how foolish it is to overthrow democratically elected governments for the sake of fairy tales.

The conflict there will be frozen for decades, as it was frozen in Moldova and Georgia. Without Russian and European investments, there will be no economical development in Ukraine.

This country is screwed, alas. Peacekeepers will not change much, but they could help stop shellings and thus help regular people who suffer the most.

Jorge Martinho VadimKharichkov , February 22, 2018 6:13 AM

Vadim, if Ukraine is not important, why do you spend so much of your precious time writing about it? Why does Russia keep financing the war in Donbass if its so uninteresting to invest in Ukraine? Why did Russia steal Ukrainian gas in the Azov Sea? Or why does it steal ukrainian coal in Donbass? Where did the machinery from the Donbass factories go, Vadim?

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 7:02 AM

"Or why does it steal ukrainian coal in Donbass?"

-The coal belongs to the people of Donbass, not Ukraine, and Ukraine itself banned buying gas from these territories in hope that it will cause more misery to the civilians living there, just like Ukraine stole their pensions and their social welfare in hope for causing maximal suffering.

Jorge Martinho Vic , February 22, 2018 9:09 AM

The Donbass is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Second Ukraine is not obliged to pay for the Russian occupation of its territory. The occupation force is responsible for everything that happens inside that territory, even the payment or not of pensions.

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 10:06 AM

That is a pure lie, the conflict between Donbass and Ukraine is a civil war. Russia is not occupying those territories. And Donbass will return to Ukraine if they can follow thru on the Minsk 2 agreement like they agreed to, but never will of course, because the hyper-corrupt Ukrainian government need the legitimacy and distraction that war brings both domestically to avoid coup and internationally as an excuse.

"Red Cross officially declares Ukraine civil war" https://www.thelocal.ch/201...

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 1:56 PM

Strelkov, referring to the war he helped start in Donbas: "In the beginning, nobody there wanted to fight."

Pro-Russian agitators like Pavel Gubarev tried to illegally take over government buildings in E Ukraine, and also tried to organize protests, but they had little support from the local population. The local population was cynical about Kiev, but they certainly weren't interested in starting a civil war. That is why Strelkov and other Russians had to start the war.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 2:48 PM

"but they certainly weren't interested in starting a civil war. That is why Strelkov and other Russians had to start the war."

-Nobody wanted a war of course, that is one reason why the Kiev government became so dependent on volunteer n4zists, they were the only one that was eager and willing to kill their brothers at the whims of the unconstitutional coup regime. The average Ukrainian soldiers didn't want to fight and a lot of the Donbass fighters came from defected Ukrainian soldiers.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 5:55 PM

Again, all I have to do is point to Strelkov: "In the beginning, nobody there wanted to fight."

"I dream of a Russia in its natural borders," he says. "At least those of 1939." He claims to have been the one who convinced Putin to intervene militarily in Ukraine, at a time, he says, when the Kremlin was still debating the proper approach to the country."

"I was the one who pulled the trigger for war," Strelkov boasts."

http://www.spiegel.de/inter...

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:17 AM

Doesn't matter at all what some commanders "boasts" , the war was started when the unconstitutional and unelected government of Ukraine sent its army to crush the rebels.

brylcream Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 3:20 AM

Strelkov came into Donbass on April 12, 2014 and the acting president Turchinov announced ATO (Anti terrorist operation) on April 7.
The people of Donbass protested peacefully for months and no one wanted to talk with them. They sent tanks and jets instead.

"and also tried to organize protests, but they had little support from the local population. "

This is a blatant lie.

Alex Robeson brylcream , February 23, 2018 7:18 AM

Strelkov took Slavyansk on April 12 - that's not when he arrived. As for the ATO, yes, it was announced on April 7, after armed separatists stormed regional government buildings in Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov, raised Russian flags, and said they would hold an independence referendum. What would Russia do if Karelia was taken over by pro-Finnish separatists? And keep in mind, when the ATO was announced, Turchynov promised amnesty for separatists who laid down arms.

No, the "people" of Donbass did not protest peacefully (Gubarev and others were not representative of the people of Donbass). Gubarev and others repeatedly tried to seize buildings and declare self-rule/independence. But polls during that time clearly showed that people did not want independence, even if they were unhappy about Yanukovych being ousted from the presidency. Public opinion did not really shift towards independence until after the fire of Odessa and Mariupol, when Donbass regions were under separatist control and influenced by Russian propaganda.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 2:46 PM

"Strelkov, referring to the war he helped start in Donbas: "In the beginning, nobody there wanted to fight.""

-The civil war was started when the unelected and unconstitutional coup government sent the army to kill the rebels in Donbass for just wanting their language rights protected.

"Pro-Russian agitators like Pavel Gubarev tried to illegally take over government buildings in E Ukraine,"

-Pavel is a Ukrainian, and it is pretty far fetched to call it illegal to resist to an illegal unconstitutional coup government.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 2:58 PM

I have not seen any proof that there was a coordinated coup to remove Yanukovych. On Feb 21st, Western powers got what they wanted when Yanukovych agreed to form a coalition government with Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok (OK, maybe Tyahnbok wasn't they're first choice) and have early elections. Yanukovych fled because the security forces abandoned him. They most likely abandoned him because the Feb 21st agreement called for investigation into violence on the Maidan, and they thought they would be blamed for everything.

I never said Gubarev wasn't Ukrainian. But he was clearly a pro-Russian agitator. And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals.

brylcream Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 3:35 AM

Yanukovich was in Donetsk when they broke their constitution in the Rada, when they didn't have enough votes to impeach him.

"And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals."

Really?
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Alex Robeson brylcream , February 23, 2018 7:50 AM

He was in Kharkiv, but not on an official visit. He was fleeing. And sorry, but protests attended by a few thousand people do not mean that Gubarev had widespread support.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 3:14 PM

""governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals."

-It is worth to point out that there was no democratic support for the coup in Kiev however. Which I guess is why there was a coup in the first place.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 4:20 PM

You still haven't offered any proof for your claim of a coup in Kiev.

brylcream Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 3:37 AM

Check the Ukrainian constitution, Article 111. There is described how a president could be impeached.

Alex Robeson brylcream , February 23, 2018 7:33 AM

That's not a coup. It's an unconstitutional removal of a president who abandoned his post. What were they supposed to do - live with a power vacuum?

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 3:09 PM

"And yes, his self-promotion as the "governor of Donetsk" was both illegal and unpopular with the locals."

-Hardly illegal, quite the opposite, more like it was a duty to resist an unconstitutional coup government. And while I have not found a opinion poll on rebel controlled areas, the closes I found suggest that the rebels has a very high support among the Donbass population.

"An opinion poll that was taken on the day of the referendum and the day before by a correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Washington Post, and five other media outlets found that of those people who intended to vote, 94.8% would vote for independence. The poll did not claim to have scientific precision, but was carried out to get a basis from which to judge the outcome of the referendum, given that independent observers were not present to monitor it. Even with those who said they would not vote counted in, a 65.6% majority supported separation from Ukraine"
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/...

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 5:52 PM

You should probably try reading the actual article, instead of quoting Wikipedia. The journalists polled 186 people, and of those 110 supported independence. That's a tiny and insignificant sample size. People voting for independence had been going through a war started by pro-Russian separatists, they were under the martial law of pro-Russian separatists, and their only news was Russian propaganda telling them that Kiev was all Nazis who wanted to exterminate Russia. Also, as you no doubt saw while reading Wikipedia, polls taken before Strelkov and the others started the war showed that the locals were not supportive of independence.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:22 AM

" them that Kiev was all Nazis who wanted to exterminate Russia"

-Pretty close to the truth actually, Kiev certainly did and are doing everything they can do exterminate the local civilians in Donbas, but stealing their pensions, cutting of social pay, hindering and stoping food, medicine and water.

Actually I mentioned that in my comment, there are no opinion polls but the closes we get is the opinion polls from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Washington Post, which shows a massive support for the rebels. Which is no surprise as we are talking about an illegal unconstitutional pro-nazi government seizing power.

"tthe locals were not supportive of independence.

-The support for rebels are as all sources show quite high, of course nobody wanted the war, but that was forced on them by the unelected coup government. If Ukraine had just language right of the Donbass people there would have been no war.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 23, 2018 8:14 AM

No, Kiev was not filled with Nazis. Russia engaged in fearmongering to get Crimeans to vote for independence. And what happened? The Ukrainian Army in Crimea resisted all provocations to start a war. Kiev thought that the international community would come to its aid. Remember the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2014? Svoboda and Right Sector barely had any public support at all. The lie that Kiev was filled with Nazis was just that - a lie.

Again, your Frankfurter Allgemeine poll was less than 200 people who happened to be willing to talk to Western journalists. Only 110 of them said they wanted independence, and this was after living under martial law and Russian propaganda for months. There were plenty of actual scientific polls conducted in April before the "referendum" which showed that there was no support for secession - at most, people wanted decentralisation.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 22, 2018 3:05 PM

Well, depends on what you mean with proof I suppose, is an American marxist oligarchs admitting they spent millions to training demonstrators to subvert Ukrainian democracy proof?
Is the fact that 100% of NATO controlled media support the Ukrainian opposition proof?
Is that fact that USA leaders went down to Ukraine and gave out cookies to the undemocratic opposition and held speeches encouraging them to overthrow their government proof?
Is leaked phone calls from USA telling Ukraine which leaders should be installed(which later were installed) proof?
Is Obama openly admitting they handled the "transition of power" in Ukraine proof?
Is the fact that the fascist and ultra-nationalist groups used used to overthrow the democratic government of Ukraine(OUN) known CIA assets proof? I mean, basically, it was the most blatant coup in world history. But if you literally want the USA government to totally in details describe and admit to every detail you will just have to wait a few years or decades until it is released in a FOI report like the fact that USA created ISIS.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 4:38 PM

- I'm assuming you mean the $5 billion the US invested over 20+ years? Russia invested $40 billion in the same time frame - 8x as much as the US (see Sergey Glazyev's March 24, 2014 interview with National Review). Financial investments in democratic institutions are not proof of a coup, but nice try.

- NATO controlled media? There's no such thing.

- Why is it such a big deal with Nuland giving out cookies?

- John McCain didn't encourage them to "overthrow their government". When did he say that? He said "We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe."

- Did you know that government officials from European countries and the EU also encouraged the protesters?

- Nuland and the US were clearly operating to keep the opposition united, and yes, they pushed their interests by encouraging Yatsenyuk to take the lead. But Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok were already established as opposition politicians in general, and had been accepted by the Maidan protesters before the US arrived on the scene. And besides, the Feb 21st agreement was what the US wanted - it would have placed those three figures in a coalition government with Yanukovych, followed by early elections. All of that considered, the fact that they emerged as leaders after Yanukovych left is really not surprising.

- Obama admitted what everyone knew - the US had entered into the crisis on the side of the EU to push Yanukovych to listen to the protesters. Russia, of course, was pushing Yanukovych to crack down. I remember when RT and Sputnik tried to twist it to mean Obama was claiming the US was behind a coup - it was the most blatant spin/propaganda I've ever seen. Go back and watch Obama's interview with Fareed Zakaria.

- You'll have to provide at least an ounce of proof that ultranationalist, far-right, or neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine are "CIA assets". Otherwise you're just another baseless conspiracy theorist.

- Yes, the US and USSR (Russia) have engaged in regime changes in the past. There's zero proof though, that there was a coup in Ukraine.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:27 AM

lol, yes, that is what is called a coup. Not only a coup but the most blatant coup in history I would say, I can only imagine if Russia funded trained and funded demonstrators Mexico, Russian leaders went to Mexico handing out cookies and giving support to the demonstrators, and ordering the opposition which leaders should be installed after the coup and so forth,and then afterwards openly admitting it did it.Hilarious. But I guess you are paid troll, and even when FYI releases information where USA planned the entire thing in detail, like it has with its creation of ISIS and al-qaeda you will deny it still.

Here is the head of Stratfor by the way, the "Shadow CIA" saying the exact same thing, xD

"Head of Stratfor, 'Private CIA,' Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was 'The Most Blatant Coup in History'"
http://www.washingtonsblog....

Alex Robeson Vic , February 23, 2018 9:01 AM

Watch the video of Obama's interview ( https://www.youtube.com/wat... - he clearly states "Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." In other words, he openly admits to helping form the February 21st "Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine". Obviously he's not talking about the Rada removing Yanukovych from office.

Nuland's conversation backs this up. It shows the Obama administration was helping Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok stay united. Yanukovych was individually offering them posts in his government. The US was pushing them to resist those offers. This culminated in the February 21st agreement, where the US and EU got additional concessions from Yanukovych - a coalition government with those three leaders, early elections, and investigations of the violence on Maidan.

As for the head of Stratfor, George Friedman went on to write an article in which he said that his quote was completely taken out of context ( http://www.businessinsider.... .

You think handing out cookies means people are funding coups. I'll have to remember that when giving cookies to my children.

Jorge Martinho Vic , February 22, 2018 2:34 PM

Civil wars dont involve foreign powers invading another country...

Duendao Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 7:21 PM

So what is doing the US in syria?

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 2:43 PM

Indeed, that is why there is a civil war in Ukraine. "Red Cross officially declares Ukraine civil war" https://www.thelocal.ch/201...

Vic Jorge Martinho , February 22, 2018 7:01 AM

Russia does not steal anything, the Crimean people voted to join Russia and that is their democratic right.

"With two studies out of the way, both Western-based, it seems without question that the vast majority of Crimeans do not feel they were duped into voting for annexation, and that life with Russia will be better for them and their families than life with Ukraine. A year ago this week, 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification with their former Soviet parent."
https://www.forbes.com/site...

Alex Robeson Vic , February 22, 2018 1:48 PM

Crimea was a coup, initiated on February 27, 2014 when armed/masked militants (Spetsnaz?) stormed the Crimean parliamentary building, raised the Russian flag over the building, and barricaded themselves inside. During this occupation, an emergency parliamentary session was called. It is unknown how many MPs participated - a number have said they were not there, even though they were claimed to have been there. But in that emergency session, the Crimean PM (Anatolii Mohyliov) was illegally removed and replaced with an unpopular pro-Russian MP (Sergey Aksyonov). Aksyonov immediately called for the independence referendum. Just to emphasize, all of this happened while the parliamentary building was under armed occupation from unknown pro-Russian forces (most likely Spetsnaz), and against the will of the current Crimean and Ukrainian governments. Interestingly, just the day before (February 26), the Crimean government had told pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian protesters outside the building that there would be no effort to seek independence from Ukraine.

It was, without doubt, a coup.

Vic Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 4:28 AM

Derp, there is quite literally a source right above you debunking your lies and linking to several USA and Germany opinion polls verifying that the result of the referendum was reflective of the democratic will of the Crimean people.

Alex Robeson Vic , February 23, 2018 9:03 AM

I didn't dispute the poll. What I said is that before the referendum Russia instigated a coup, suppressed protests, and created a sense of fear in Crimea that drove people to think Kiev was filled with Nazis. Of course they voted to join Russia after that.

BlackRoseML Alex Robeson , February 23, 2018 1:27 PM

Isn't that what happened throughout Ukraine when "protestors" (more accurately thugs) took over the Regional Administration buildings and occupied them? Well, before the coup in Kiev, numerous government buildings in other regions were occupied.

You said that it was a big propaganda exercise to portray being pro-Ukraine as being pro-Nazi. Then why was the Euromaidan far right? Why were the most prominent activists and leaders of the "revolution" associated with Svodoba and Right Sector? Why were there thugs destroying monuments to Lenin? Why were many activists extolling Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych?

The people on the Maidan behaved like far-right lunatics and brigands. No wonder why there it isn't difficult to conceive of them as Nazis.

If I were a woman in Crimea, I would be grateful that I am not living under the jackboot of the Maidan thugs.

[Feb 24, 2018] As Washington's efforts to recapture and return Russia to vassalage have failed it has resorted to a growing series of provocations and conflicts

Notable quotes:
"... Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to confront a nuclear-armed Russia, confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... Despite President Trump's campaign promises to 'pull-back', the US has re-entered Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism to 'rollback and aggression' against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response from past and present allies. ..."
"... China has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression against a dynamic and changing world. ..."
Feb 24, 2018 | www.unz.com

Russia has reduced and challenged the US pursuit of a uni-polar global empire following the recovery of its sovereignty and economic growth after the disaster of the 1990's. With the ascent of President Putin, the US-EU empire lost their biggest and most lucrative client and source of naked pillage.

Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to confront a nuclear-armed Russia, confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon.

Washington's efforts to recapture and return Russia to vassalage have failed. Out of frustration Washington has resorted to a growing series of failed provocations and conflicts between the US and the EU, within the US between Trump and the Democrats; and among the warlords controlling the Trump cabinet.

Germany has continued lucrative trade ties with Russia, despite US sanctions, underscoring the decline of US power to dictate policy to the European Union. The Democratic Party and the ultra-militaristic Clinton faction remains pathologically nostalgic for a return to the 1990's Golden Age of Pillage (before Putin). Clinton's faction is fixated on the politics of revanchism . As a result, they vigorously fought against candidate Donald Trump's campaign promises to pursue a new realistic understanding with Russia. The Russia-Gate Investigation is not merely a domestic electoral squabble led by hysterical 'liberals.' What is a stake is nothing less than a profound conflict over the remaking of the US global map. Trump recognized and accepted the re-emergence of Russia as a global power to be 'contained', while the Democrats campaigned to roll-back reality, overthrow Putin and return to the robber baron orgies of the Clinton years. As a result of this ongoing strategic conflict, Washington is unable to develop a coherent global strategy, which in turn has further weakened US influence in the EU in Europe and elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the intense Democratic onslaught against Trump's initial foreign policy pronouncements regarding Russia succeeded in destroying his 'pivot to realism' and facilitated the rise of a fanatical militaristic faction within his cabinet, which have intensified the anti-Russia policies of the Clintonite Democrats. In less than a year, all of Trump's realist advisers and cabinet members have been purged and replaced by militarists. Their hard core confrontational anti-Russia policy has become the platform for launching a global military strategy based on vast increases in military spending, demands that the EU nations increase their military budgets, and open opposition to an EU-centered military alliance, such as the one recently proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Despite President Trump's campaign promises to 'pull-back', the US has re-entered Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism to 'rollback and aggression' against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response from past and present allies.

China has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression against a dynamic and changing world.

[Feb 24, 2018] Russiagate or Deep State What Some Progressives Get Wrong on Russia by John Feffer

This migration to truthful analysis of the situation to FOx is paradoxically true phenomenon.
Greenwald definition of Rachel Maddow transformation is really brilliant: " "I used to be really good friends with Rachel Maddow," Greenwald told New York magazine. "And I've seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart, independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack."
Notable quotes:
"... The Nation, Counterpunch, Consortium News ..."
"... Over at The Nation ..."
Feb 14, 2018 | fpif.org
Greenwald has emerged as one of the prominent skeptics of the investigation into collaboration between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Once a fixture in the progressive media for his dissection of the national security state, he is now more frequently cited by the far right in its efforts to discredit the investigation run by Robert Mueller. The journalist used to chat regularly with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, but now he's more likely to appear with Tucker Carlson on Fox News.

"I used to be really good friends with Rachel Maddow," Greenwald told New York magazine. "And I've seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart, independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack."

Wow, that's harsh.

Greenwald is not alone. You can find skeptical articles about Russiagate at The Nation, Counterpunch, Consortium News , and many other progressive outlets. And these articles can be equally scathing about the journalists, mainstream or otherwise, that take the investigation seriously.

Over at The Nation , Russia specialist Stephen Cohen regularly challenges the emerging narrative, most recently suggesting that the intelligence community essentially fabricated Russiagate, which has generated in turn a different scandal -- he calls it "Intelgate" -- even larger than Watergate.

[Feb 23, 2018] Russia loses the E. Ukraine as a buffer.

Feb 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Les | Dec 31, 2016 12:09:53 PM | 4

Kissinger reportedly working on a deal with Russia: Crimea for East Ukraine.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/henry-kissinger-russia-trump-crimea-advises-latest-ukraine-a7497646.html

[Feb 23, 2018] Russia loses the E. Ukraine as a buffer.

Feb 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Les | Dec 31, 2016 12:09:53 PM | 4

Kissinger reportedly working on a deal with Russia: Crimea for East Ukraine.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/henry-kissinger-russia-trump-crimea-advises-latest-ukraine-a7497646.html

[Feb 23, 2018] Is the CIA So Bad that Even When It Tells the Truth It Adds-In Lies

Notable quotes:
"... But in recent decades, both Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson argued, Russian and American interferences in elections have not been morally equivalent. American interventions have generally been aimed at helping non-authoritarian candidates challenge dictators or otherwise promoting democracy. Russia has more often intervened to disrupt democracy or promote authoritarian rule, they said. ..."
"... Equating the two, Mr. Hall says, "is like saying cops and bad guys are the same because they both have guns -- the motivation matters." ..."
Feb 23, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

Is the CIA So Bad that Even When It Tells the Truth It Adds-In Lies?

On Sunday, February 17 th , I was surprised to see in the reliably neoconservative newspaper, New York Times, an 'opinion'-article headlined with the distinctively non-neoconservative title, "Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too." But, then, I got to the neocon core, in the article itself:

But in recent decades, both Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson argued, Russian and American interferences in elections have not been morally equivalent. American interventions have generally been aimed at helping non-authoritarian candidates challenge dictators or otherwise promoting democracy. Russia has more often intervened to disrupt democracy or promote authoritarian rule, they said.

Equating the two, Mr. Hall says, "is like saying cops and bad guys are the same because they both have guns -- the motivation matters."

That's just a typical neocon lie -- reality turned upside-down, black-is-white and white-is-black.

When the CIA hired Iranian mercenaries to rebel against and overthrow the progressive democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1953 and installed there a dictatorship (which lasted till 1979); and did the same to overthrow and replace the progressive democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954; and, more recently, in 2009, helped Honduras's aristocracy to overthrow that country's progressive democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya , and to cement and make permanent their new and fascist regime; and, in 2014, perpetrated a brutal coup in Ukraine overthrowing that country's democratically elected but corrupt (like all prior post-communist Ukrainian Presidents were) President Viktor Yanukovych -- even the Soviets (including the pre-1991 and pre-independent Russians) weren't that bad; and a 1992 classic BBC documentary about the CIA's having set up in Western Europe during the Cold War numerous deadly terrorist incidents which were designed so as to be blamed on 'communists', makes clear, that the US CIA is a spiritual implant into the US Government, of Adolf Hitler's Nazi (but now American) Gehlen Organization -- a darling of the CIA Director Alan Dulles, and which is still today the CIA's spirit.

But, even that hypocrisy misses the essentially fascist nature of America's secret-police agencies, because America's Presidents are now reliably pro-fascist, and on many occasions are even pro- racist -fascist, or pro-"nazi" (standing out to defend the nazi ideology itself). At the U.N., both President Obama and President Trump have stood America up publicly as being one of only three countries ( in Obama's case ) and then of only two countries ( in Trump's case ) publicly defending nazism. Furthermore, on one day (31 October 2015), twice in close succession , the U.N. Secretary-General publicly criticized Obama, though not by name, for opposing and insisting on blocking, democracy in Syria. Whereas Russia insists upon a democratic and united -- instead of ethnically broken-up -- Syria, and polls amongst Syrians consistently show that the vast majority of Syrians insist upon the same thing, the US Government not only does everything possible to block it, but has the gall to deny the blatant fact that it's seeking to replace Syria's secular non-sectarian Government, by a fundamentalist-Sunni Government that will do the Sauds' bidding (and the bidding of America's oil-giants) .

However, that February 17 th New York Times article is deceptive not merely on account of its holier-than-thou admission of the CIA's supposedly 'past history' of badness and its presumption of today's Russia being almost as bad as was the Soviet Union. Actually, the article includes several other lies, such as are exposed in these three articles about how American billionaires systematically robbed Russia during the 1990s:

"Russia's Fiscal Whistleblower"

"The Summers Conundrum"

"Soros and His CIA Friends Targeted USSR/Russia in 1987"

Those articles offered at least some of the explanation as to why America's billionaires (at least the ones who care about this matter at all) hate Vladimir Putin: they had loved Boris Yeltsin because he allowed them to rape Russia, but Putin put a stop to it.

So, while millions of Americans, who subscribe to the New York Times, will learn the lie, that (and here is the regime's basic message) internationally 'we're the good guys against the bad guys', there's no more reason to trust that, than there was when the same lies came from Joseph Goebbels's shop, at which time, the US itself was a progressive country, heading in progressive directions, under President FDR. Bill Clinton and the post-Clinton Democratic Party have repudiated that direction for their Party; and, now, in international relations, the US is solidly fascist, in both Parties. The CIA lies, as usual, indistinguishably differently when it's run by a Democratic President and Congress, than when it's run by a Republican President and Congress. In international relations, it's the same regime, regardless: full of the same lies. And that historical fact, and ongoing but unpublished news, is not to be found to be accepted in the Times 's masthead-lie, "All the News That's Fit to Print" -- or else the truth itself, just isn't "Fit to Print." It's fit to print here (and without paying a subscription), but how many people even read here? This explains how the regime protects itself, against democracy -- by hiding what's essential.

Tags: CIA

[Feb 23, 2018] Marion Maréchal Le Pen's Dynamic Speech The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... The Benedict Option ..."
Feb 23, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Marion Maréchal Le Pen's Dynamic Speech By Rod Dreher • February 22, 2018, 7:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/embed/gn80bxXr8eQ?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, the right-wing French politician, delivered a solid speech to CPAC today. It's embedded above. It was not the usual American conservative boilerplate. For example, check out this passage:

To open oneself to the outside, you must have a solid core. To welcome, you have to remain, and to share, you must have something to offer. Without nation, and without family, the limits of the common good, natural law, and collective morality disappears, as the reign of egoism continues.

Today, even children have now become merchandise. We hear now in the public debate, we have the right to order a child from a catalog, we have the right to rent a woman's womb, we have the right to deprive a child of a mother or father. No you don't! A child is not a "right". Is this the freedom that we want? No. We don't want this atomized world of individuals without gender, without fathers, without mothers, and without nation.

She went on to condemn euthanasia, gender theory, and transhumanism. Le Pen said that the fight cannot be political alone, but must take place in culture, in media, and in the education system. She ended like this:

I finish with a Mahler quote I like very much, a quote which sums up conservatism in modernity: 'Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire."

I like that quote very much too:

"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire." -- Gustav Mahler. #BenedictOption

-- Rod Dreher (@roddreher) September 23, 2017

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Michael Brendan Dougherty picked out the most unusual thing about her speech : how it inadvertently revealed how very, very Protestant most American conservatism is. Check out his short reaction piece for the details. That is what occurred to me as well, especially having just returned from a week in France. Even though The Benedict Option was written for an American readership, I find it so much easier to discuss it with French and Italian Catholics, for reasons that I have not been able to figure out. Hearing Le Pen in an American context really brought that out. Even American Catholics are a lot more Protestant in how they think politically than they realize.

I don't say this as a put-down; it's what you would expect from people raised in an overwhelmingly Protestant nation, one built on Protestant, classic-liberal principles. But there it is. My friend Fred Gion, a Catholic and political conservative in Paris, told me over a decade ago that the arguments in my book Crunchy Cons, which was being attacked by many US conservatives for being crypto-liberal, made perfect sense to European conservatives.

Continental conservatives in the Le Pen mold are more traditionalist, focusing on natural law, religion, and culture. Conservative US Protestants share a lot of the views of European conservatives, but there seems to be among conservatives from Catholic cultures a deeper sense of order unifying these principles. There also tends to be much more skepticism of the free market and individualism.

Readers who have thought more about this than I have: tell me why this is. Which principles define conservative politics in Britain and America as more Protestant than conservative politics on the continent? Let's talk about this -- but anybody, Protestant or Catholic, who wants to sneer at the other, keep it to yourself.

I agree with this from Dougherty as well:

And I have a warning for those who would warm to [Le Pen's speech] uncritically. As my career grants me friendships with other conservatives across Europe, I notice the tendency in them and in myself to idealize or project hopes onto the conservatives in other nations. My Irish and English friends tend to be far more positive about Trump than I am. And I have been far more positive about some of their would-be champions than they can be. Unfamiliarity breeds fantasy.

This is true. I was asked quite a bit about Trump while I was in France. It was interesting to me that most of my interlocutors regarded him ideally, in contrast to Emmanuel Macron, whom they detested. I could tell that folks didn't really understand why I was so cool on Trump. I bet that things would be exactly reversed in the matter of Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (but not her secular nationalist aunt Marine, whom I find unappealing!).

Siarlys Jenkins February 23, 2018 at 11:30 am

The main reason why nothing ever gets done in the Beltway is because the two-party system has strangled everything. It is an archaic system which cries out for reform.

Hear! Hear! Three or four parties doing some honest horse trading would serve us much better.

'Look, you know we're never going to agree to X, but, none of us alone have sufficient strength to form a government, so, we could give you Y if you'll go along with Z, and pretty much all of us agree on Q.'

Hector_St_Clare , says: February 23, 2018 at 12:34 pm
Any way there are a lot reasons that Trump is still unpopular in a nation with ~4% unemployment.

The European country with the lowest unemployment rate is the Czech Republic (also with good economic growth and tied for the second-lowest Gini index in the world), and they're also the most ethnocentric and, in a value neutral sense, the most opposed to ethnic diversity. Denmark and Switzerland among others have also seen major reactions against ethnic diversification, in spite of being model high performing social democracies. I don't know what they think about Trump per se in the Czech Republic or Denmark, I doubt they care for him at all, but I do think it's a mistake to reduce all concerns about ethnicity and identity to economics. (As noted, it's also a major mistake to elide all anti-liberal, ethnic-tribalist politicians together. Trump is not Marine Le Pen, much to his discredit, and he's a cut below most other major cultural-reactionary leaders in Europe as well, both in terms of ideology and personal character).

David Nash , says: February 23, 2018 at 12:41 pm
Interesting that also published on February 22 was Cardinal Chaput's speech on faith, state, and society.

http://archphila.org/archbishop-chaputs-address-at-villanova-university-things-to-come-faith-state-and-society-in-a-new-world/

I think that speech and your article have some commonality. What do you think?

Anne , says: February 23, 2018 at 2:22 pm
Yes, as a commenter above noted, I have to wonder where you found these pro-Trump Frenchmen? That alone gives me pause about their supposedly Catholic ways. I get that there can be cultural differences that make the grass look greener on the other hill. But they are seeing green where even their fellow countrymen see an orange-colored blight. Worry.
Robert B Lewis , says: February 23, 2018 at 2:24 pm
I think the difference between American Protestant "conservatives" and European Catholic conservatives is rather simple: the latter are steeped in the "Tory" benevolent paternalism of the social justice encyclicals of the modern papacy, which, though not overtly socialistic, are extraordinarily concerned with the social responsibilities of the "owners" and the rights and dignities of the "laborers." Those encyclicals totally and completely reject unregulated free-market capitalism, albeit favoring entrepreneurship. The model of capitalism they seem to embrace is called "distributism."
Janek , says: February 23, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Sorry RD, they are not for sale. You have them or you don't ;).
JonF , says: February 23, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Re: Le Pen may be Catholic, but she is also divorced from her husband of two years, with whom she has a daughter.

Is she remarried? It isn't divorce per se that is the issue, but rather remarriage afterward.

Geoff , says: February 23, 2018 at 2:58 pm
New ideas, good or bad, achieve escape velocity more easily where traditions are weak. Just as ideas can be good or bad, traditions can be stultifying or sustaining. Protestant culture developed in rebellion against an established culture and any time the dust begins to settle it can be stirred up again by rebels referring to founding principles (inner light, congregationalism, every man his own priest, etc.)

My preference is for protestantism as a personal mode of existence but I feel that a successful society will probably have a strong, stiffening admixture of catholicism.

I'm not really religious and I'm trying to abstract protestantism and catholicism a bit from their formal identities. I think that is okay if understood in the same spirit that Rod says that the United States is a protestant culture and that this influences even American Catholics. I use upper and lower case letters to differentiate confessing members of religions from general tendencies and mental dispositions.

Walter Bagheot once said that a reason the British political experience had been happier and more successful than the French was that the British were more stupid. From the essay:

"In fact, what we opprobriously call 'stupidity,' though not an enlivening quality in common society, is nature's favorite resource for preserving steadiness of conduct and consistency of opinion; it enforces concentration: people who learn slowly, learn only what they must. The best security for people's doing their duty is, that they should not know anything else to do; the best security for fixedness of opinion is, that people should be incapable of comprehending what is to be said on the other side."

Bagheot doesn't just mention the French and the English, he also compares Greece to Rome. And in Bagheot's formulation the inquisitive and experimental virtues are given to the Catholic French and steadiness assigned to Protestant Great Britain Possibly a reason to look for a deeper more accurate division than protestant and catholic.

Logical Meme , says: February 23, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Within the same TAC site, it's interesting how Bill Wirtz had a polar opposite reaction to La Pen's CPAC speech. Wirtz's obsession with Jean-Marie Le Pen's Holocaust quote (which must be contextualized ) notwithstanding, there is a profound struggle for the soul of the conservative movement taking place, both here in the States and across Europe.
James C. , says: February 23, 2018 at 5:26 pm
DRK, Marine LePen is the divorced-and-cohabiting one. (as for her religious beliefs, she claims to be a believer, but doesn't go into detail and doesn't appear to be a regular churchgoer. She did have all her kids baptised).

Marion Marechal Le Pen is the practicing Catholic one.

James C. , says: February 23, 2018 at 5:30 pm
Yes, Marion was civilly divorced last year. She lives with her mother now.
Mark VA , says: February 23, 2018 at 7:56 pm
Why is the "Benedict Option" easier to discuss with the French and Italian Catholics, even though it was written mainly for the American readership? This is what I, a Traditionalist Catholic, think:

(a) Protestantism covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, so a less "cohesive" and more "grainy" response is to be expected (Fragmentation);

(b) Benedict Option may sound like "salvation by works" – if we only work hard and form these communities ourselves, we'll survive and be "saved" in the end. And anyway, weren't those monasteries dens of vice? (Anathema);

(c) A belief that God blesses the faithful us, but others bring evil upon themselves because they have abandoned God, or follow idolatrous religions (Exceptionalism);

(d) Benedict Option, if it's to be done right, requires a comprehensive and rigorous study of the past. However, such studies often bring on uncomfortable questions which can challenge "settled facts" (Amnesia);

To be fair, many Catholics share in some of the above. Part (c) can be heard among a few of my fellow Catholic Traditionalists, and (d) can be found within the Vatican II faction. I think part (c) is particularly tricky – the Book of Job comes to mind.

Les Govment , says: February 23, 2018 at 8:08 pm
I've formerly posted at TAC as "A Libertarian Guy"

I watched Marion Maréchal-Le Pen's speech at CPAC last night. It was like a thunderbolt out of a clear blue sky when she got to the part where she spoke against surrogate mothering and the nonsensical fluid-gender stuff. I had no idea there were any political people in Europe with that kind of common sense and morals.

I too, liked the quote, : 'Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire."

-- Les Govment https://tinyurl.com/ycrwtcng

[Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All

Highly recommended!
Interesting information Guccifer II. He falsified the evidence.
Follow the money. Along with a smoke screen for Hillary political fiasco, Russiagate is a swindle to get more money for intelligence agencies and MIC. For about 15 companies who run the US foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA and NSA, and other intelligence agencies all work on behalf of these corporate entities. There main objective is to keep us all uninformed and dumber than a bag of hammers, so they can extort all the wealth from our great nation ..."
"... If this video won't stop the brainless McCarthyist regressives from knowing the truth about Russiagate, nothing will. And I mean absolutely nothing. Except maybe if they come here to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, NYC. We got lots of Russian immigrants here and they are just normal people ..."
"... Russiagate is an excuse to spend more on the military. Wow- surprising, yet somehow not surprising. American Empire is the biggest destabilizing force in the world ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 is the United States government. Either the CIA, FBI, NSA or DHS. I'd say it was the CIA with the NSA being a close second ..."
Feb 23, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Art Dehls , 2 months ago

Also, when did Russian hackers become so stupid? Since when has the GRU being unable to get even the basics like the up to date email list for the Clinton campaign, started using two-year-old obsolete malware instead of 0-day exploits, completely forgetting that VPN's exist and how to spoof an IP address, and on and on and on. These aren't the guys who cloned Nasdaq!

SeaRose , 2 months ago

Wish I could give this 1000.

Thank you jimmy so much for doing this interview and thank you Bill Binney for so clearly explaining the technical and structural reasons why Russiagate is both false and ceaselessly pushed. Amazing interview!

David Schnell , 2 months ago

My experience working on the Mississippi democratic party executive committee, the Hinds county Executive committee, and working for the state employees union here in Mississippi has educated me on the fact that democratic reps and republican reps work together to pass legislation to benefit the corporate class i.e. business. All you who have replied to my comment make sense, but we must remember that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republician parties, they all work for their corporate masters.

The CIA and NSA, and other intelligence agencies all work on behalf of these corporate entities. There main objective is to keep us all uninformed and dumber than a bag of hammers, so they can extort all the wealth from our great nation. In other words they our commiting treason upon the American people and our constitution and all should be through in prison for the rest of their lives and all ill-gotten wealth given back to the people of these great nation by rebuilding the infrastructure of America, investing in the education of our people to secure a prosperous future, and provide healthcare for all Americans. We can ensure this happens in two ways, pass the 28th amendment and pass FDR's 2nd bill of rights(worker's bill of rights). This will ensure that corporations will never take control of our country again.

hamdoggius , 2 months ago

Can we please now move onto whom the person was that stole the data from the DNC? Can I take a stab in the dark (or maybe two shots to the back of the head?) and guess his name was Seth Rich?

James Williamson , 2 months ago

The fraudulent "war on terror" is a big money-making scam. I've been saying this for the past three years.

P , 2 months ago

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe (requote for google... best line)

Atze Peng Bar , 2 months ago

I know I commented this already in the last segment, but this guy is absolutely awesome. Everything he says is substantial, non-speculative and supported by facts. You're becoming a proper journalist Jimmy. More of people like this please. I got my credit card again. I will donate shortly. Keep up.

Laura Cortez , 2 months ago (edited)

Russia didn't hack USA democracy .. AIPAC did long time ago and you didn't even know it.

Tommy O Donovan , 2 months ago

This is earth shaking news. World class Jimmy....I never thought you had it in you.

tesscot , 2 months ago

As long as they keep lying about Russia they can continue the sanctions against Russia. Russia is holding it's own even with the sanctions but originally under Putin Russia had paid off all it's debt to the IMF (World Bank). Now their debt is increasing, partly because of the sanctions and partly because of helping Syria and preparing for the US to cause a great war. Russia is a threat to the IMF (World Bank). Russia and China want trade outside of the Petrol Dollar. When Russia was debt free from the IMF (World Bank) it was completely independent of them. Russia did not have to take orders from the international bankers. That is why they lie about Russia.

Amateur Professional , 2 months ago

If this video won't stop the brainless McCarthyist regressives from knowing the truth about Russiagate, nothing will. And I mean absolutely nothing. Except maybe if they come here to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, NYC. We got lots of Russian immigrants here and they are just normal people.

stephen0793 , 2 months ago (edited)

Russiagate is an excuse to spend more on the military. Wow- surprising, yet somehow not surprising. American Empire is the biggest destabilizing force in the world

branden burks , 2 months ago

Guccifer 2.0 is the United States government. Either the CIA, FBI, NSA or DHS. I'd say it was the CIA with the NSA being a close second.

branden burks , 2 months ago

A war on terror is a war on ourselves since the United States are the largest terrorists in the world and fund and arm terrorists around the world.

jennings mills , 2 months ago

So you would need a Internet speed of 392 mbps from Russia to Washington. yeah there was no hack. R.I.P Seth Rich,

Matt Erbst , 2 months ago

As I tried to tell you the previous time you had referenced the "conclusions" of the CIA groups, this data nonsense he is handwaving about is all quite feasible, by using a nearby national server, and much skepticism is deserved! Also he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about, from all of the paraphrasing.

I am also quite reminded of the psychological incorporation into personal behaviors by habit of the standards and policies of the industry or professional standards, which for the US Intelligence community includes an explicit policy of disinformation and dishonesty.

How the hell would the NSA's "man in the middle" logging servers see that the transfer occurs to a local USB2 drive (he assumes this is the case because 40 megabytes per second is approximately the rate of the USB2 protocol of 400 megabits per second... Very few USB flash drives were manufactured with solid state storage chips fast enough to reach that full transfer rate before the widespread adoption of USB3, or the modern USB3.1. Essentially, your chosen headline title is a false clickbait, because as of today there is insufficient evidence to draw ANY conclusion

earthie48 Johnson , 2 months ago

Just as they smeared Joe Wilson & his wife, and other great Courageous Americans that came out AGAINST the invasion of Iraq! Until we start DEMANDING those LIARS leave their seats in Washington, put on the Military Gear, and GO to the Countries they want to invade! I am past FED UP with them sacrificing our Troops, they return home to be MISTREATED, and kicked to the curb! Americans, wake up and DEMAND that they GO!

[Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt

Highly recommended!
A very interesting interview. It is almost one year old.
When intelligence agencies use the phase "with high confidence" means that they do not have evidence. This is one of the biggest lie intelligence agencies resort to. They are all professional liars and should be treated as such.
If DNC email offloading was done over Internet (which means it was a hack not an internal leak) NSA should have the direct evidence. They do not. So this is a progpaganda move by Brennan and Clapper to unleash MSM witch hunt, which is a key part of the color revolution against Trump.
Another question is who downloaded this information to Wikileaks. Here NSA also should have evidence. And again they do not.
They have already to direct attention from the main issues. Oversight of intelligence agencies is joke. They can lie with impunity.
BTW NSA has all Hillary emails, including deleted.
Mar 4, 2017 | www.youtube.com

He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software around the world, to preserve their spying access.

John, 10 months ago

It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.

Nancy M, 10 months ago

The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue

[Feb 22, 2018] The US-UK Deep State Empire Strikes Back 'It's Russia! Russia! Russia!'

Notable quotes:
"... For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat ..."
"... Are you reading this commentary? ..."
"... To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that enmity with Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is a smashing success already. ..."
Feb 22, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

There's no defense like a good offense.

For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and the CIA, plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ , possibly along with the British Foreign Office (with the involvement of former British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood ) and even Number 10 Downing Street.

Those implicated form a regular rogue's gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly Chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place, securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy "Steele Dossier," and nailing erstwhile National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a bogus charge of "lying to the FBI "); Lisa Page (Strzok's paramour and a DOJ lawyer formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition); former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let's not forget – current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests . Finally, there's reason to believe that former CIA Director John O. Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation .

Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and President Barack Obama himself, who according to text communications between Strzok and Page "wants to know everything we're doing." Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally implausible.

On the British side we have "former" (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a year ago under mysterious circumstances ), and whoever they answered to in the Prime Minister's office.

The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be allowed to be pulled back!

What to do, what to do . . .

Ah, here's the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That's not even Donald Trump. It's Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!

Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume all the allegations in the indictment are true, however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending not to notice that that presumption doesn't apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on "genetic" grounds .)

Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions (R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a few conclusions:

The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.

[Feb 22, 2018] U.S. Empire Still Incoherent After All These Years -- Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Incoherent Empire ..."
"... The Sources of Social Power ..."
"... Incoherent Empire ..."
"... Incoherent Empire ..."
"... We must find a way to displace or destroy the economic oligarchy that controls elections and mass media, for that is the only path to restoration of democracy, and restoration of the humanitarian purpose of our 18th century founders. Only then shall we see an American Century; otherwise we are doomed to the disdain of history, our lives wasted as cogs in an engine of destruction. ..."
"... Our unregulated free market economy allows the unethical bully to prevail in nearly all areas, including politics. Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This is why the US founders opposed a standing military, and they were right. ..."
"... After years and years of allegiance to the Democratic party, I have begun to realize that neither they nor other mail (political) party can undo the evil that has been done. (See "THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY" by Gabriel Kolko, "Epiloque: Readon and Radicalism". ..."
"... What better way to maximize the sale of all types of armaments than to ensure continuous chaos? Wasn't a CIA presentation on just such a plan leaked some time back? ..."
"... I would beg to differ. The British Empire still exists today although it is mainly a financial and information warfare empire. Yes you are right about the families but mainly these are old aristocratic European and their married in to Jr. partners in America. The empire consists of the City of London,Wall Street, The British monarchy, The Saudi Royal family and many other of there agents and subsidiaries. ..."
"... The violence of the military serves the interests of elites with overwhelming consistency. From creating the necessary conditions for plundering of natural resources, opening new markets for U.S. corporations to exploit, and funneling tax payer monies via "aid" to corporations and elites, all the while allowing the politicians who advance these elite interests to themselves profit greatly via revolving door jobs, speeches, and donations to their "humanitarian" foundations. How is this not rational? It is completely rational and organized and planned to be executed exactly how it does. Furthering your own wealth, power, and interests is not rational? ..."
"... It is undeniable that the military violence has served the interest of the powerful elite in a very consistent manner for centuries. Furthermore, I would submit to you that the military has shown very little remorse by being the murderous tool of elites and that more often than not; They have been happy to oblige. ..."
"... This is a more ultimate claim of power than any prior regime in history ever maintained. Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism has morphed into something even more odious. The central problem, of course, is how a soft landing can be effected in light of the massive number of nukes possessed by this outlaw regime. ..."
Feb 22, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: Without solid economic, political and ideological bases, the U.S. lacks the legitimacy and authority it needs to operate beyond its borders, argues Nicolas J.S. Davies in this essay.

By Nicolas J.S. Davies

I recently reread Michael Mann's book, Incoherent Empire , which he wrote in 2003, soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Mann is a sociology professor at UCLA and the author of a four-volume series called The Sources of Social Power , in which he explained the major developments of world history as the interplay between four types of power: military, economic, political, and ideological.

In Incoherent Empire , Mann used the same framework to examine what he called the U.S.'s "new imperialism" after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. He predicted that, "The American Empire will turn out to be a military giant; a back-seat economic driver; a political schizophrenic; and an ideological phantom."

What struck me most forcefully as I reread Incoherent Empire was that absolutely nothing has changed in the "incoherence" of U.S. imperialism. If I picked up the book for the first time today and didn't know it was written 15 years ago, I could read nearly all of it as a perceptive critique of American imperialism exactly as it exists today.

In the intervening 15 years, U.S. policy failures have resulted in ever-spreading violence and chaos that affect hundreds of millions of people in at least a dozen countries. The U.S. has utterly failed to bring any of its neo-imperial wars to a stable or peaceful end. And yet the U.S. imperial project sails on, seemingly blind to its consistently catastrophic results.

Instead, U.S. civilian and military leaders shamelessly blame their victims for the violence and chaos they have unleashed on them, and endlessly repackage the same old war propaganda to justify record military budgets and threaten new wars.

But they never hold themselves or each other accountable for their catastrophic failures or the carnage and human misery they inflict. So they have made no genuine effort to remedy any of the systemic problems, weaknesses and contradictions of U.S. imperialism that Michael Mann identified in 2003 or that other critical analysts like Noam Chomsky, Gabriel Kolko, William Blum and Richard Barnet have described for decades.

Let's examine each of Mann's four images of the foundations of the U.S.'s Incoherent Empire, and see how they relate to the continuing crisis of U.S. imperialism that he presciently foretold:

Military Giant

As Mann noted in 2003, imperial armed forces have to do four things: defend their own territory; strike offensively; conquer territories and people; then pacify and rule them.

Today's U.S. military dwarfs any other country's military forces . It has unprecedented firepower, which it can use from unprecedented distances to kill more people and wreak more destruction than any previous war machine in history, while minimizing U.S. casualties and thus the domestic political blowback for its violence.

But that's where its power ends. When it comes to actually conquering and pacifying a foreign country, America's technological way of war is worse than useless. The very power of U.S. weapons, the "Robocop" appearance of American troops, their lack of language skills and their isolation from other cultures make U.S. forces a grave danger to the populations they are charged with controlling and pacifying, never a force for law and order, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or North Korea.

John Pace, who headed the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq during the U.S. occupation compared U.S. efforts to pacify the country to "trying to swat a fly with a bomb."

Burhan Fasa'a, an Iraqi reporter for Lebanon's LBC TV network, survived the second U.S. assault on Fallujah in November 2004. He spent nine days in a house with a population that grew to 26 people as neighboring homes were damaged or destroyed and more and more people sought shelter with Fasa'a and his hosts.

Finally a squad of U.S. Marines burst in, yelling orders in English that most of the residents didn't understand and shooting them if they didn't respond. "Americans did not have interpreters with them, " Fasa'a explained , "so they entered houses and killed people because they didn't speak English Soldiers thought the people were rejecting their orders, so they shot them. But the people just couldn't understand them."

This is one personal account of one episode in a pattern of atrocities that grinds on, day in day out, in country after country, as it has done for the last 16 years. To the extent that the Western media cover these atrocities at all, the mainstream narrative is that they are a combination of unfortunate but isolated incidents and the "normal" horrors of war.

But that is not true. They are the direct result of the American way of war, which prioritizes "force protection" over the lives of human beings in other countries to minimize U.S. casualties and thus domestic political opposition to war. In practice, this means using overwhelming and indiscriminate firepower in ways that make it impossible to distinguish combatants from non-combatants or protect civilians from the horrors of war as the Geneva Conventions require.

U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones.

When lower ranks have been prosecuted for war crimes against civilians, they have been acquitted or given light sentences because they were acting on orders from senior officers. But courts martial have allowed the senior officers implicated in these cases to testify in secret or have not called them to testify at all, and none have been prosecuted.

After nearly a hundred deaths in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, including torture deaths that are capital crimes under U.S. federal law, the harshest sentence handed down was a 5 month prison sentence, and the most senior officer prosecuted was a major, although the orders to torture prisoners came from the very top of the chain of command. As Rear Admiral John Hutson, the retired Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, wrote in Human Rights First's Command's Responsibility report after investigating just 12 of these deaths, "One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy."

So the Military Giant is not just a war machine. It is also a war crimes machine.

The logic of force protection and technological warfare also means that the roughly 800 U.S. military bases in other countries are surrounded by barbed wire and concrete blast-walls and staffed mainly by Americans, so that the 290,000 U.S. troops occupying 183 foreign countries have little contact with the local people their empire aspires to rule.

Donald Rumsfeld described this empire of self-contained bases as "lily pads," from which his forces could hop like frogs from one base to another by plane, helicopter or armored vehicle, or launch strikes on the surrounding territory, without exposing themselves to the dangers of meeting the locals.

Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East reporter for the U.K.'s Independent newspaper, had another name for these bases: "crusader castles" -- after the medieval fortresses built by equally isolated foreign invaders a thousand years ago that still dot the landscape of the Middle East.

Michael Mann contrasted the isolation of U.S. troops in their empire of bases to the lives of British officers in India, "where officers' clubs were typically on the edge of the encampment, commanding the nicest location and view. The officers were relaxed about their personal safety, sipping their whisky and soda and gin and tonic in full view of the natives, (who) comprised most of the inhabitants -- NCOs and soldiers, servants, stable-hands, drivers and sometimes their families."

In 1945, a wiser generation of American leaders brought to their senses by the mass destruction of two world wars realized the imperial game was up. They worked hard to frame their new-found power and economic dominance within an international system that the rest of the world would accept as legitimate, with a central role for President Roosevelt's vision of the United Nations .

Roosevelt promised that his "permanent structure of peace," would, "spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the expedients that have been tried for centuries -- and have always failed," and that "the forces of aggression (would be) permanently outlawed."

America's World War II leaders were wisely on guard against the kind of militarism they had confronted and defeated in Germany and Japan. When an ugly militarism reared its head in the U.S. in the late 1940s, threatening a "preemptive" nuclear war to destroy the USSR before it could develop its own nuclear deterrent, General Eisenhower responded forcefully in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in St. Louis,

"I decry loose and sometimes gloating talk about the high degree of security implicit in a weapon that might destroy millions overnight," Eisenhower declared. "Those who measure security solely in terms of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern country was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson , the chief US representative at the London Conference that drew up the Nuremberg Principles in 1945, stated as the official U.S. position, "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

That was the U.S. government of 1945 explicitly agreeing to the prosecution of Americans who commit aggression, which Jackson and the judges at Nuremberg defined as "the supreme international crime." That would now include the last six U.S. presidents: Reagan (Grenada and Nicaragua), Bush I (Panama), Clinton (Yugoslavia), Bush II (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia), Obama (Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen) and Trump (Syria and Yemen).

Since Mann wrote Incoherent Empire in 2003, the Military Giant has rampaged around the world waging wars that have killed millions of people and wrecked country after country. But its unaccountable campaign of serial aggression has failed to bring peace or security to any of the countries it has attacked or invaded. As even some members of the U.S. military now recognize, the mindless violence of the Military Giant serves no rational or constructive purpose, imperialist or otherwise.

Economic Back Seat Driver

In 2003, Michael Mann wrote that, "The U.S. productive engine remains formidable, the global financial system providing its fuel. But the U.S. is only a back-seat driver since it cannot directly control either foreign investors or foreign economies."

Since 2003, the U.S. role in the global economy has declined further, now comprising only 22% of global economic activity, compared with 40% at the height of its economic dominance in the 1950s and 60s. China is displacing the U.S. as the largest trading partner of countries around the world, and its "new silk road" initiatives are building the infrastructure to cement and further expand its role as the global hub of manufacturing and commerce.

The U.S. can still wield its financial clout as an arsenal of carrots and sticks to pressure poorer, weaker countries do what it wants. But this is a far cry from the actions of an imperial power that actually rules far-flung territories and subjects on other continents. As Mann put it, "Even if they are in debt, the U.S. cannot force reform on them. In the global economy, it is only a back-seat driver, nagging the real driver, the sovereign state, sometimes administering sharp blows to his head."

At the extreme, the U.S. uses economic sanctions as a brutal form of economic warfare that hurts and kills ordinary people, while generally inflicting less pain on the leaders who are their nominal target. U.S. leaders claim that the pain of economic sanctions is intended to force people to abandon and overthrow their leaders, a way to achieve regime change without the violence and horror of war. But Robert Pape of the University of Chicago conducted an extensive study of the effects of sanctions and concluded that only 5 out of 115 sanctions regimes have ever achieved that goal.

When sanctions inevitably fail, they can still be useful to U.S. officials as part of a political narrative to blame the victims and frame war as a last resort. But this is only a political ploy, not a legal pretext for war.

A secondary goal of all such imperial bullying is to make an example of the victims to put other weak countries on notice that resisting imperial demands can be dangerous. The obvious counter to such strategies is for poorer, weaker countries to band together to resist imperial bullying, as in collective groupings like CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and also in the UN General Assembly, where the U.S. often finds itself outvoted.

The dominant position of the U.S. and the dollar in the international financial system have given the U.S. a unique ability to finance its imperial wars and global military expansion without bankrupting itself in the process. As Mann described in Incoherent Empire,

"In principle, the world is free to withdraw its subsidies to the U.S., but unless the U.S. really alienates the world and over-stretches its economy, this is unlikely. For the moment, the U.S. can finance substantial imperial activity. It does so carefully, spending billions on its strategic allies, however unworthy and oppressive they may be."

The economic clout of the U.S. back-seat driver was tested in 2003 when it deployed maximum pressure on other countries to support its invasion of Iraq. Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Guinea, Angola and Cameroon were on the Security Council at the time but were all ready to vote against the use of force. It didn't help the U.S. case that it had failed to deliver the "carrots" it promised to the countries who voted for war on Iraq in 1991, nor that the money it promised Pakistan for supporting its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was not paid until the U.S. wanted its support again in 2003 over Iraq.

Mann concluded, "An administration which is trying to cut taxes while waging war will not be able to hand out much cash around the world. This back-seat driver will not pay for the gas. It is difficult to build an Empire without spending money."

Fifteen years later, remarkably, the wealthy investors of the world have continued to subsidize U.S. war-making by investing in record U.S. debt, and a deceptive global charm offensive by President Obama partially rebuilt U.S. alliances. But the U.S. failure to abandon its illegal policies of aggression and war crimes have only increased its isolation since 2003, especially from countries in the Global South. People all over the world now tell pollsters they view the U.S. as the greatest threat to peace in the world.

It is also possible that their U.S. debt holdings give China and other creditors (Germany?) some leverage by which they can ultimately discipline U.S. imperialism. In 1956, President Eisenhower reportedly threatened to call in the U.K.'s debts if it did not withdraw its forces from Egypt during the Suez crisis, and there has long been speculation that China could exercise similar economic leverage to stop U.S. aggression at some strategic moment.

It seems more likely that boom and bust financial bubbles, shifts in global trade and investment and international opposition to U.S. wars will more gradually erode U.S. financial hegemony along with other forms of power.

Michael Mann wrote in 2003 that the world was unlikely to "withdraw its subsidies" for U.S. imperialism "unless the U.S. really alienates the world and over-stretches its economy." But that prospect seems more likely than ever in 2018 as President Trump seems doggedly determined to do both.

Political Schizophrenic

In its isolated fantasy world, the Political Schizophrenic is the greatest country in the world, the "shining city on a hill," the land of opportunity where anyone can find their American dream. The rest of the world so desperately wants what we have that we have to build a wall to keep them out. Our armed forces are the greatest force for good that the world has ever known, valiantly fighting to give other people the chance to experience the democracy and freedom that we enjoy.

But if we seriously compare the U.S. to other wealthy countries, we find a completely different picture. The United States has the most extreme inequality, the most widespread poverty, the least social and economic mobility and the least effective social safety net of any technologically advanced country.

America is exceptional, not in the imaginary blessings our Political Schizophrenic politicians take credit for, but in its unique failure to provide healthcare, education and other necessities of life to large parts of its population, and in its systematic violations of the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other binding international treaties.

If the U.S. was really the democracy it claims to be, the American public could elect leaders who would fix all these problems. But the U.S. political system is so endemically corrupt that only a Political Schizophrenic could call it a democracy. Former President Jimmy Carter believes that the U.S. is now "just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery." U.S. voter turnout is understandably among the lowest in the developed world.

Sheldon Wolin, who taught political science at Berkeley and Princeton for 40 years, described the actually existing U.S. political system as "inverted totalitarianism." Instead of abolishing democratic institutions on the "classical totalitarian" model, the U.S.'s inverted totalitarian system preserves the hollowed-out trappings of democracy to falsely legitimize the oligarchy and political bribery described by President Carter.

As Wolin explained, this has been more palatable and sustainable, and therefore more effective, than the classical form of totalitarianism as a means of concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a corrupt ruling class.

The corruption of the U.S. political system is increasingly obvious to Americans, but also to people in other countries. Billion-dollar U.S.-style "elections" would be illegal in most developed countries, because they inevitably throw up corrupt leaders who offer the public no more than empty slogans and vague promises to disguise their plutocratic loyalties.

In 2018, U.S. party bosses are still determined to divide us along the artificial fault-lines of the 2016 election between two of the most unpopular candidates in history, as if their vacuous slogans, mutual accusations and plutocratic policies define the fixed poles of American politics and our country's future.

The Political Schizophrenic's noise machine is working overtime to stuff the alternate visions of Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and other candidates who challenge the corrupt status quo down the "memory hole," by closing ranks, purging progressives from DNC committees and swamping the airwaves with Trump tweets and Russiagate updates.

Ordinary Americans who try to engage with or confront members of the corrupt political, business and media class find it almost impossible. The Political Schizophrenic moves in a closed and isolated social circle, where the delusions of his fantasy world or "political reality" are accepted as incontrovertible truths. When real people talk about real problems and suggest real solutions to them, he dismisses us as naive idealists. When we question the dogma of his fantasy world, he thinks we are the ones who are out of touch with reality. We cannot communicate with him, because he lives in a different world and speaks a different language.

It is difficult for the winners in any society to recognize that their privileges are the product of a corrupt and unfair system, not of their own superior worth or ability. But the inherent weakness of "inverted totalitarianism" is that the institutions of American politics still exist and can still be made to serve democracy, if and when enough Americans wake up from this Political Schizophrenia, organize around real solutions to real problems, and elect people who are genuinely committed to turning those solutions into public policy.

As I was taught when I worked with schizophrenics as a social worker, they tend to become agitated and angry if you question the reality of their fantasy world. If the patient in question is also armed to the teeth, it is a matter of life and death to handle them with kid gloves.

The danger of a Political Schizophrenic armed with a trillion dollar a year war machine and nuclear weapons is becoming more obvious to more of our neighbors around the world as each year goes by. In 2017, 122 of them voted to approve the new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

U.S. allies have pursued an opportunistic policy of appeasement, as many of the same countries did with Germany in the 1930s. But Russia, China and countries in the Global South have gradually begun to take a firmer line, to try to respond to U.S. aggression and to shepherd the world through this incredibly dangerous transitional period to a multipolar, peaceful and sustainable world. The Political Schizophrenic has, predictably, responded with propaganda, demonization, threats and sanctions, now amounting to a Second Cold War.

Ideological Phantom

During the First Cold War, each side presented its own society in an idealized way, but was more honest about the flaws and problems of its opposite number. As a former East German now living in the U.S. explained to me, "When our government and state media told us our society was perfect and wonderful, we knew they were lying to us. So when they told us about all the social problems in America, we assumed they were lying about them too."

Now living in the U.S., he realized that the picture of life in the U.S. painted by the East German media was quite accurate, and that there really are people sleeping in the street, people with no access to healthcare and widespread poverty.

My East German acquaintance came to regret that Eastern Europe had traded the ills of the Soviet Empire for the ills of the U.S. Empire. Nobody ever explained to him and his friends why this had to be a "take it or leave it" neoliberal package deal, with "shock therapy" and large declines in living standards for most Eastern Europeans. Why could they not have Western-style political freedom without giving up the social protections and standard of living they enjoyed before?

American leaders at the end of the Cold War lacked the wisdom and caution of their predecessors in 1945, and quickly succumbed to what Mikhail Gorbachev now calls "triumphalism." The version of capitalism and "managed democracy" they expanded into Eastern Europe was the radical neoliberal ideology introduced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and consolidated by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The people of Eastern Europe were no more or less vulnerable to neoliberalism's siren song than Americans and Western Europeans.

The unconstrained freedom of ruling classes to exploit working people that is the foundation of neoliberalism has always been an Ideological Phantom, as Michael Mann called it, with a hard core of greed and militarism and an outer wrapping of deceptive propaganda.

So the "peace dividend" most people longed for at the end of the Cold War was quickly trumped by the "power dividend." Now that the U.S. was no longer constrained by the fear of war with the U.S.S.R., it was free to expand its own global military presence and use military force more aggressively. As Michael Mandelbaum of the Council on Foreign Relations crowed to the New York Times as the U.S. prepared to attack Iraq in 1990, "For the first time in 40 years we can conduct military operations in the Middle East without worrying about triggering World War III."

Without the Cold War to justify U.S. militarism, the prohibition against the threat or use of military force in the UN Charter took on new meaning, and the Ideological Phantom embarked on an urgent quest for political rationales and propaganda narratives to justify what international law clearly defines as the crime of aggression.

During the transition to the incoming Clinton administration after the 1992 election, Madeleine Albright confronted General Colin Powell at a meeting and asked him, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

The correct answer would have been that, after the end of the Cold War, the legitimate defense needs of the U.S. required much smaller, strictly defensive military forces and a greatly reduced military presence around the world. Former Cold Warriors, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Assistant Secretary Lawrence Korb, told the Senate Budget Committee in 1989 that the U.S. military budget could safely be cut in half over 10 years. Instead, it is now even higher than when they said that (after adjusting for inflation).

The U.S.'s Cold War Military Industrial Complex was still dominant in Washington. All it lacked was a new ideology to justify its existence. But that was just an interesting intellectual challenge, almost a game, for the Ideological Phantom.

The ideology that emerged to justify the U.S.'s new imperialism is a narrative of a world threatened by "dictators" and "terrorists," with only the power of the U.S. military standing between the "free" people of the American Empire and the loss of all we hold dear. Like the fantasy world of the Political Schizophrenic, this is a counter-factual picture of the world that only becomes more ludicrous with each year that passes and each new phase of the ever-expanding humanitarian and military catastrophe it has unleashed.

The Ideological Phantom defends the world against terrorists on a consistently selective and self-serving basis. It is always ready to recruit, arm and support terrorists to fight its enemies, as in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s or more recently in Libya and Syria. U.S. support for jihadis in Afghanistan led to the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil on September 11th 2001.

But that didn't prevent the U.S. and its allies from supporting the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and other jihadis in Libya less than ten years later, leading to the Manchester Arena bombing by the son of an LIFG member in 2017. And it hasn't prevented the CIA from pouring thousands of tons of weapons into Syria, from sniper rifles to howitzers, to arm Al Qaeda-led fighters from 2011 to the present.

When it comes to opposing dictators, the Ideological Phantom's closest allies always include the most oppressive dictators in the world, from Pinochet, Somoza, Suharto, Mbuto and the Shah of Iran to its newest super-client, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. In the name of freedom and democracy, the U.S. keeps overthrowing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with coup-leaders and dictators, from Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954 to Haiti in 2004, Honduras in 2009 and Ukraine in 2014.

Nowhere is the Ideological Phantom more ideologically bankrupt than in the countries the U.S. has dispatched its armed forces and foreign proxy forces to "liberate" since 2001: Afghanistan; Iraq; Libya; Syria; Somalia and Yemen. In every case, ordinary people have been slaughtered, devastated and utterly disillusioned by the ugly reality behind the Phantom's mask.

In Afghanistan, after 16 years of U.S. occupation, a recent BBC survey found that people feel safer in areas governed by the Taliban. In Iraq, people say their lives were better under Saddam Hussein . Libya has been reduced from one of the most stable and prosperous countries in Africa to a failed state ruled by competing militias, while Somalia, Syria and Yemen have met similar fates.

Incredibly, American ideologists in the 1990s saw the Ideological Phantom's ability to project counter-factual, glamorized images of itself as a source of irresistible ideological power. In 1997, Major Ralph Peters, who is better known as a best-selling novelist, turned his vivid imagination and skills as a fiction writer to the bright future of the Ideological Phantom in a military journal article titled "Constant Conflict."

Peters imagined an endless campaign of "information warfare" in which U.S. propagandists, aided by Hollywood and Silicon Valley, would overwhelm other cultures with powerful images of American greatness that their own cultures could not resist.

"One of the defining bifurcations of the future will be the conflict between information masters and information victims," Peters wrote. "We are already masters of information warfare (we) will be writing the scripts, producing (the videos) and collecting the royalties."

But while Peters' view of U.S. imperialism was based on media, technology and cultural chauvinism, he was not suggesting that the Ideological Phantom would conquer the world without a fight -- quite the opposite. Peters' vision was a war plan, not a futuristic fantasy.

"There will be no peace," he wrote. "At any given moment for the rest of our lives, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the U.S. armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault."

"To those ends," he added, "We will do a fair amount of killing."

Conclusion

After reviewing the early results of the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003, Michael Mann concluded, "We saw in action that the new imperialism turned into simple militarism."

Without solid economic, political and ideological bases, the Military Giant lacks the economic, political and ideological power and authority required to govern the world beyond its shores. The Military Giant can only destroy and bring chaos, never rebuild or bring order.

The sooner the people of the U.S. and the world wake up to this dangerous and destructive reality, the sooner we can begin to lay the new economic, political and ideological foundations of a peaceful, just and sustainable world.

Like past aggressors, the Military Giant is sowing the seeds of his own destruction. But there is only one group of people in the world who can peacefully tame him and cut him down to size. That is us, the 323 million people who call ourselves Americans.

We have waited far too long to claim the peace dividend that our warmongering leaders stole from us after the end of the First Cold War. Millions of our fellow human beings have paid the ultimate price for our confusion, weakness and passivity.

Now we must be united, clear and strong as we begin the essential work of transforming our country from an Incoherent Empire into an Economic High-Speed Train to a Sustainable Future; a Real Political Democracy; an Ideological Humanitarian -- and a Military Law-Abiding Citizen.

Nicolas J.S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .

D Frank Robinson , February 20, 2018 at 5:57 pm

"Like past aggressors, the Military Giant is sowing the seeds of his own destruction. But there is only one group of people in the world who can peacefully tame him and cut him down to size. That is us, the 323 million people who call ourselves Americans."
So what is keeping people from the Libertarian Party to pursue these ends? Could it be political censorship and election rigging disguised as "ballot access" laws? You don't think the Democratic or Republican parties are going to turn anti-imperialists do you?
Disclosure: I am a co-founder of the Libertarian Party.

Sam F , February 20, 2018 at 8:00 pm

We do need new parties that truly represent their followers, and can form coalitions to gain a majority. But with corruption and oligarchy control throughout the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and mass media, and political suppression by secret agencies and IT companies, I doubt that political action can be more than a palliative for the credulous. Please feel free to challenge my pessimism, referring to my comment below..

derek , February 21, 2018 at 10:13 am

This is OT but of interest to many here at CN .The actual snipers from the MAIDAN in Kiev have come forward and have sworn testimony .

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/02/20/shocking-new-evidence-maidan-snipers-confess-they-were-under-orders-from-coup-leaders-to-shoot-police-and-protesters/

I have not been able to verify any of it yet so use your best judgement

regards

D

PS sounds like Sputnik is trying to get it chased down and verified

derek , February 21, 2018 at 10:35 am

And here is the Sputnik story

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201802201061840515-maidan-snipers-testimony-detailed-crucial/

regards

Virginia , February 21, 2018 at 2:57 pm

If you'd like to see "coherent" policy and ideas, watch Putin's 2015 State of the Nation address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOCsxSABVg

Very interesting to see the advice he gives in his speech to the various departments of the Russian government, asking them to please focus on certain issues for the sake of improvement vis-a-vis the judiciary, economic, trade, financial, etc. Very transparent, open, and gives a clear idea of where Russia stands.

I also watched Putin's speech to the UN in 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13yzl6k6w0 . Both speeches very worthwhile!

Sam F , February 20, 2018 at 7:33 pm

Yes, the article is a fine review of the corruption of US government and society.

We must find a way to displace or destroy the economic oligarchy that controls elections and mass media, for that is the only path to restoration of democracy, and restoration of the humanitarian purpose of our 18th century founders. Only then shall we see an American Century; otherwise we are doomed to the disdain of history, our lives wasted as cogs in an engine of destruction.

Our unregulated free market economy allows the unethical bully to prevail in nearly all areas, including politics. Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This is why the US founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.

If the US had spent the billions wasted on war since WWII, on building the roads, schools, and hospitals of the developing nations, we would have eliminated poverty for the poorest half of humanity, a true American century, and we would have no enemies. Instead we have willfully killed over six million innocents for nothing, have destroyed democracies and replaced them with dictators, and have allowed the MIC/Israel/WallSt oligarchy to control our former democracy with campaign bribes, control of mass media to promote violence as patriotism, promiscuous surveillance, and militarized police. They have destroyed America and have spent all we could borrow on destruction for their personal gain. We have the lowest per capita foreign aid of all developed nations, almost all of it military "aid," a total of less than one meal a year for the world's poorest.

Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989.

I suggest re-purposing about 80 percent of the US military for international aid projects, to create James' (and Carter's) "moral equivalent of war," to train the young, the citizen, and the mass media to see humanitarianism as robust and to reject the selfish amorality of US oligarchy pop culture, to serve as a "backup" peacekeeping or defense force (probably little used), and to avoid alienating their staff with unemployment.

Eventually "financial bubbles, shifts in global trade and investment and international opposition to U.S. wars" will make it unable to afford an empire, but it will remain an oligarchy. We cannot stop the wars, establish a humanitarian democracy, nor achieve benefits for the people, until the oligarchy is deposed; this is the greatest problem of civilization. We must resolve that deposing oligarchy is the only historical meaning of our lives.

Apart from the historical revolutions of the largest present democracies (US and India), where the colonial power was small and remote, every solution to oligarchy in history has involved external conquest (e.g. Rome) or violent revolution (e.g. Russia, China, and Cuba). Unfortunately the US is now in the latter category. If democracy is ever restored in the US, it must be stabilized by amendments to protect elections and mass media debate from economic power, better checks and balances within the government branches, purging the corrupt judiciary and Congress, monitoring of government officials for corruption, and regulation of business so that oligarchic bullies and scammers do not rise to control economic power.

frank scott , February 20, 2018 at 9:39 pm

we cannot "restore" a democracy which has never existed, nationally, nor continue the nearly religious worship of the so-called creators of this fiction, the holy founders, many of them owning slaves and having stolen land from the indigenous people and hardly any meaning to have non-property owners voting in elections, no matter what their skin tone, religious or sexual preference might be once we get past the mythology about our country we may well be able to create a reality which is closer to what we idealize than the horror it has always been for some, even while making life extremely pleasant for others..market forces need to be replaced by human forces which means democracy in a material sense -- majority rule -- rather than the religious, therapeutic and drug induced excuse we live.

Sam F , February 21, 2018 at 1:24 pm

Yes, the undemocratic processes throughout US history tempt one to conclude that democracy never was. and this is true in an ideal sense. But the intent of democracy was there, and it was a fact in the early federal era for most citizens, extending with ever greater corruption through FDR. Had there been no predominance of economic power 1850-1945, likely democracy with many flaws would have generalized to all persons within the US.

Yes, we must "get past the mythology about our country" by accepting its wrongs and the corruption of its institutions and popular culture, but if the good in that tradition is preserved, we have a better starting point for reform, which avoids scaring off those who will otherwise see, or pretend to see, only "radicalism" and "anarchism."

Nancy , February 21, 2018 at 1:51 pm

I don't believe in the myths taught about the history of the United States. Our glorious founding fathers were not only slaveholders, rapists and imperialists, they were aristocrats who just wanted to be free of British rule. They had no intention of sharing their freedom and independence (or the bounty of the land) with the less well off inhabitants, regardless of their race, color or creed. This is just a story they tell to keep us hoping that some day we can be one of them.
Hey, there's always the lottery!

Sam F , February 21, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Thanks, Nancy, I agree that today the national mythology largely serves that purpose of burying the truth and creating false hopes. I discern some sincerity behind the best of the founders, even acknowledging their contradictory ownership of slaves (as Robert Parry very well elucidated for Jefferson). The sincere ones were nonetheless products of the contradictions of their times and circumstances, and their good intentions did not extend to impoverishing themselves to free their slaves, thereby ruining their families and good political influences.

Even today good people consume products made with essentially slave labor in poor countries, and I have heard few other than myself demanding serious foreign aid, and/or tariffs sufficient to nearly bring such products to US wholesale prices, to fund foreign aid for the poorest of those nations. Few would support such a sacrifice. While it irritates me, I can see that they too are the products of circumstances, unwilling to impoverish themselves while trying to get by, support families, improve their circumstances, and so on.

So I look for the good side of better characters, and try to build on that, as it is the only building material we have. But of course you are right to call out the selfishness, hypocrisy, and malice. So I presume that we must preserve the best of the national mythology for the young, and teach them better when they are ready. We can preserve the institutions (after they are fixed) and monuments, but the educated must be very critical of mythology.

Brent Riley , February 21, 2018 at 12:29 am

A couple years ago I heard a Chilean woman saying when she was a girl, one couldn't go out of the house after 9 PM because you would get shot. I piped up, "Thanks to Nixon and Kissinger." A serious look came over her face, she looked directly at me and forcefully said, "Americans are a GOOD people. Their government IS NOT".

I believe a serious campaign for war reparations to Iraq could be hard to dismiss and may jolt our nation into a sense of responsibility or acknowledge we don't accept responsibility for our behavior. Either, a step forward.

geeyp , February 21, 2018 at 4:40 am

Yes, that might start with not writing as Nicholas J.S. Davies has: "U.S. support for jihadis in Afghanistan led to the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil on" Sept. 11, 2001.

Peter Loeb , February 21, 2018 at 7:33 am

THANKS FIRST TO NICOLAS J.S. DAVIES.

And to KiwiAnts. for his reply.

Davies touched on my major heroes -- authors and analysts. I would add one:

I "discovered" recently. Francis Jennings (1918-1980) especially THE CREATION OF AMERICA, his late work. He points out that a "democracy" was never intended (African Americans, Native Americans, pacifist organizations such as the Quakers, and women were all excluded. Instead (excuse my paraphrasing) Americans wanted "liberty" from the English Empire in order to form their own Empire maintaining their (economic) needs (slave labor, elimination of Native American claims to land etc.)

After years and years of allegiance to the Democratic party, I have begun to realize that neither they nor other mail (political) party can undo the evil that has been done. (See "THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY" by Gabriel Kolko, "Epiloque: Readon and Radicalism".

-- Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Lisa , February 21, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Peter,

You confirm something I have read much earlier – that the 13 US colonies were in a hurry to separate themselves from the British Empire, because Britons were about to abolish slavery within their Empire. US needed to maintain the slavery for economical reasons, therefore the heroic struggle for independence.

I don't remember the source, and unfortunately cannot give a link to it.

Annie , February 20, 2018 at 6:34 pm

I referenced this in an article before which was a discussion I had with a cousin who is an international lawyer in the military. I said I wasn't voting in this election, but he insisted I vote for Hilary as she was the lesser of the two evils, well, that's how it started out. He went on to claim that Russia was a real threat to the US and in breech of international law in her annexation of Crimea. I told him I would really be afraid of Russia if she was bombing and destroying one country after another in the Middle East, created a coup in the Ukraine and crossed sovereign borders, dropping drones and killing civilians, and had no qualms about creating mayhem in our wars. Wars based on lies, since none of the countries we invaded represented an aggressive threat to us. He accused me of being un-american and failed to acknowledge we were in breech of any international law. What ever we do seems to be justifiable, but are so called enemies are held to the letter of the law. For me he represents the mentality expressed in this article, and unfortunately it is all too real. I guess his position is what's good for the goose, is not good for the gander, an interestingly he applies the same mind set in his marriage.

Sam F , February 20, 2018 at 7:48 pm

Cheers for your courage in facing your cousin. Rare is the lawyer who does not regard argument as a domain of propaganda warfare for private gain, rather than of truth and justice. Most choose the career for money and power, and learn to substitute scamming for reason. There is little point in discussing anything with them.

Annie , February 20, 2018 at 7:56 pm

Thanks Sam, and the outcome was, he no longer speaks to me because of my position, but I really don't care.

Nicolas J S Davies , February 20, 2018 at 8:29 pm

I think your friend is an exception among JAG officers. The father of a JAG officer told me that his son and his colleagues saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as crimes of aggression, and retired JAGs have told me they saw them that way too. Jess Bravin's book, The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo, describes how JAG officers fought our government's efforts to deny justice and due process to accused terrorists, and presciently predicted that this would lead to a failure to convict anyone of the crimes of 9/11. Admiral Hutson's role in investigating and condemning torture deaths in US custody was exemplary and uncompromising. Military lawyers have tried to uphold the law, but have been overridden by their criminal and corrupt military and political bosses.

rosemerry , February 21, 2018 at 4:05 pm

The breach of international law ie the overthrow of the Ukrainian government by the USA did not count, of course! In Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres. Putin I remember the explanation of how Putin's government worked with the pro-Western previous Ukrainian government for four years, managing to cooperate, but as soon as the "pro-Russian government" was elected, the USA/West could not wait to barge in.

Often the USA chooses a date to begin the discussion to make it seem justified eg always 1979 for Iran, never 1953 when the USA/UK overthrew the elected government to instal and keep in power the Shah and the brutal SAVAK police. Israel is good at this too, choosing a selected "violent act" of a Palestinian after vast earlier Israeli attacks, as its starting point.

Mike Martin , February 20, 2018 at 6:38 pm

"And yet the U.S. imperial project sails on, seemingly blind to its consistently catastrophic results." -- J S Davies

?? Really?? But what if the resulting chaos is exactly what is intended?

What better way to maximize the sale of all types of armaments than to ensure continuous chaos? Wasn't a CIA presentation on just such a plan leaked some time back?

joe defiant , February 20, 2018 at 7:56 pm

Yeah this "incoherent" and "stupid blundering" excuse is complete bullshit. USA military via imperialism consistently furthers elites interests all over the world and at home. Michael Parenti has covered this excuse extensively in a few of his books like 'Faces of Imperialism' and 'Against Empire'. Liberal political writers constantly trot out this excuse as if only our leaders would listen to the liberal critiques the empire would be this vast power for good and elites would forget about furthering their own interests and start "doing good".

Sam F , February 20, 2018 at 8:21 pm

Yes, but by "seemingly blind" he means not blind at all. Using moderation in contrast with the strong argument, he urges you to jump ahead. By not offering finally a means to the ends, he leaves the door open to those who will throw out the facts if they see only an extreme solution. Let the readers decide how to get there.

evelync , February 21, 2018 at 1:23 pm

"What better way to ,maximize the sale of all types of armaments than to ensure continuous chaos?"

I think you put your finger on what it all boils down to, Mike Martin – what drives the whole Neoconservative and Neoliberal economic/political/military rape and pillage around the world and, now, here at home – I was going to say that here at home it is a financial rape and pillage (which it is) but then I remembered the for profit prisons which blossomed on Bill Clinton's watch and then, on Obama's watch they mindlessly offered excess military equipment to city police departments. Such a brazen act by compromised politicians. No problem having a militarized for profit scheme here at home too.

You pointed out what drives the whole planet eating machine, Mike Martin. Just plain old grand theft larceny mixed with an Al Capone level of violence, dressed up in a pack of lies.

Sam F , February 21, 2018 at 6:32 pm

Very true.

Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , February 20, 2018 at 7:33 pm

There is no such thing as American Empire. The British Empire was a misnomer ..The real Empire is the Banking Empire owned and run by a number of known families. Since the Industrial Revolution and those families needed a military machine paid for by the people. That military machine is needed to help steal the natural resources of other people or subdue them if they get out of line First it was the British and since WWII they moved it to the US ..As long as the Americans are willing to pay for it, the banking families (Empire) will remain happy to continue exploiting them .

freedom lover , February 21, 2018 at 3:34 pm

I would beg to differ. The British Empire still exists today although it is mainly a financial and information warfare empire. Yes you are right about the families but mainly these are old aristocratic European and their married in to Jr. partners in America. The empire consists of the City of London,Wall Street, The British monarchy, The Saudi Royal family and many other of there agents and subsidiaries.

The members of the British monarchy still refer to the United States in private as the wayward British colony hence they have never accepted US independence or our constitution. No offense to the British people they are for the most part a warm, kind and hardworking people but are still seen as subjects by the Monarchy. Remember to British prime minister has to sware loyalty to the Queen not to the nation of Great Britain.

joe defiant , February 20, 2018 at 7:51 pm

"As even some members of the U.S. military now recognize, the mindless violence of the Military Giant serves no rational or constructive purpose, imperialist or otherwise."

This is complete nonsense. The violence of the military serves the interests of elites with overwhelming consistency. From creating the necessary conditions for plundering of natural resources, opening new markets for U.S. corporations to exploit, and funneling tax payer monies via "aid" to corporations and elites, all the while allowing the politicians who advance these elite interests to themselves profit greatly via revolving door jobs, speeches, and donations to their "humanitarian" foundations. How is this not rational? It is completely rational and organized and planned to be executed exactly how it does. Furthering your own wealth, power, and interests is not rational?

jose , February 20, 2018 at 8:49 pm

You do have a valid point Mr. Joe Defiant: Although some military members may think that. "mindless violence of the Military Giant serves no rational or constructive purpose, imperialist or otherwise." It is undeniable that the military violence has served the interest of the powerful elite in a very consistent manner for centuries. Furthermore, I would submit to you that the military has shown very little remorse by being the murderous tool of elites and that more often than not; They have been happy to oblige.

Banger , February 21, 2018 at 12:36 pm

One thing that is often ignored is that wartime provides rapid promotions and lucrative employment free retirement with major corporations. So military officers have a strong interest in promoting war

Nancy , February 21, 2018 at 2:05 pm

Why would someone join the military if they didn't support the well-known violence it inflicts upon the world? I know that some consider it to be a valid "career" compared to the options available in the civilian world, but unless they are completely clueless they have to know that the military is a killing operation, first and foremost.

Realist , February 21, 2018 at 3:10 am

You are correct, these policies are pursued for a "reason," or as they say, "there is method to their madness." However, the reason, which is basically pure selfishness and greed, is generally not recognised as a legitimate one by most folks who claim to be civilised or moral. If you are a self-proclaimed Nietzchean then "all would be permitted," but that would not make you very popular here or in most other venues.

rosemerry , February 21, 2018 at 4:17 pm

Surely this is the point. The USA pretends to be a democracy and a model to us all, but the leaders are always from or controlled by the élite (look at the Froman emails to Obama before his inauguration, telling him who to appoint to his cabinet-Larry Summers et al). If the people were able to turn away from the MSM, facebook, twitter,the hopelessness of knowing that their "vote", the one aspect of democracy the USA has, is meaningless as none of the "reps" cares at all about their welfare, then as Chris Hedges always writes, a revolution would be needed. Can you imagine this as likely? People are held down by poverty, by no job or too many, by lack of housing, healthcare, yet they are told how lucky they are to be in the best country on earth. The description of the rich few winning is obvious, but 300 million people if they believed in solidarity, would frighten even the Big Boys!!

jose , February 20, 2018 at 8:40 pm

As I was reading this excellent article, a familiar concept came to mind: Cognitive dissonance which is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. A phycologist would tell you that cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The US ruling elite knows that this worldwide " Full Spectrum Dominance" can only be sustained by sheer brutish force; The consequences have been disastrous for US victims. When confronted with this elemental reality, the ruling elite will tell you that is American destiny to do good around the world even though the majority of the world considers US the greatest threat to piece. For instance, If a person believes that US invading Iraq is both immoral and criminal but gives full support to the invasion any way: a dissonance will be created. So to resolve it, the person could convince himself that Iraq is a dictatorship worth toppling or Iraqis are evil so they deserve what is coming to them. This reminds me when on May 12 of 1996,Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq asked Madeleine Albright: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." I rest my case.

irene , February 20, 2018 at 8:55 pm

Many people have forgotten, or did not know in the first place, that the Iraq war started long before the horrifying display of "Shock & Awe" over Baghdad in March of 2003. I clearly remember watching the jet fighter planes leaving Eielson Air Force Base enroute to Bush the Elder's Iraq War in 1991 . . .

And when the brief but brutal sorties were over, we simply continued the war by the 'sanitary' modern method known as Sanctions. How did that work again ? Let's see, first we bombed Iraq's water treatment plants. Then we 'sanctioned' the materials needed to repair them and treat the water. The result was the ugly Albright's 'hard choice'.

jose , February 20, 2018 at 9:19 pm

Dear Irene: I would add the following to your post. Regarding on to deal with Iraq, many republicans were suggesting to bomb Iraq to the stone age: On the other hand, democrats asserted that this was a barbaric conduct unworthy of US magnanimity and righteousness. So the latter recommended placing brutal and genocidal economic sanctions on Iraqis to bring about the desire result. The fact that US did not have constitutional or moral grounds to pursue both courses of actions was not debated. Many of them were church goers so I wonder how each dealt with his cognitive dissonance.

Tannenhouser , February 21, 2018 at 10:57 am

Yes papa bush turned Iraq into a live fire training exercise for at least a dozen years, then his offspring invaded once they were positive there were no remnants of the chemical weapons they provided to kill Iranians. In a sense this first attack on Iraq was WW3 as it was the 'world' under the guise of a UN resolution which enabled the war of aggression crime against humanity.

Nicolas J S Davies , February 20, 2018 at 8:58 pm

Another phenomenon that is related to cognitive dissonance is "normalized deviance", which I wrote about in this article: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/15/us-war-crimes-or-normalized-deviance/

Jeanne , February 20, 2018 at 9:56 pm

We are indeed an imperial power, destructive, greedy, power hungry. Too bad the citizens are so gullible and misinformed. Thank you for your efforts.

Jessika , February 20, 2018 at 11:08 pm

Nothing i disagree with in this article, but the final statement sums up the dilemma, how to get the 323 million to wake up and smell the blood in their coffee? Sam F stated the problem, the corruption is so endemic that people have just succumbed to it. It's the classic psychological conditioning of "learned helplessness", the subjects finally submit to the shocks. I must confess that sometimes i have thought David Icke is onto something, there are evil reptilian overlords from another dimension controlling our planet. The US has definitely gone over to the "dark side", in the words of the demented Dick Cheney.

Realist , February 21, 2018 at 2:55 am

Really! The unjustified killing of a single human being is a crime, and even a sin if you have morals. Yet, for all of my lifetime of 70+ years, our government has wantonly killed MILLIONS for goals as gratuitous as the pursuit of foreign policy. Moreover, we all know with surety that they have many more military actions planned which are guaranteed to result in the deaths and maiming of millions more, most innocent of any offense against the United States. Just their tough luck to be "collateral damage." What a piece of work is the United States of America, surely not the handiwork of any "loving god." To believe that is the epitome of "double think."

Sam F , February 21, 2018 at 7:03 pm

Indeed we have learned helplessness, first as employees and dependents of businesses rather than farmers and woodsmen, and now as dependents upon mass media and groupthink for social acceptance, with no representative in power unless we betray humanity and serve oligarchy. Some of that furious feeling of entrapment is harvested by the oligarchy warmongers for their schemes, portraying the killer of random victims as the liberator of himself. Only bread and circus stand between the oligarchy and public fury, and there may be less of that to go around when the US is isolated and defeated on all fronts by the rest of the world.

irina , February 21, 2018 at 12:10 pm

Dmitry Orlov strikes me as being quite prescient in that respect. We are FAR too smug and cozy in our creature comforts.

exiled off mainstreet , February 21, 2018 at 12:51 am

This is a great article. There is nothing I can add, and nothing I can argue with. The fact that torture has become the modus operandi of yankee centurions and the fact they massacre first and ask questions later is not covered at all by the propaganda machine which obfuscates all of these facts.Things are pretty serious, especially since, as a result of the economic, political and ideological nakedness of the regime, it has lost any semblance of legitimacy. The latest "indictment" of individual non state actor- Russians living in Russia for internet activities which would be protected under free speech if the rule of law still obtained, appears to be the ultimate arrogation of power: that the yankee imperium can outlaw anybody anywhere who takes actions unfavourable to it.

This is a more ultimate claim of power than any prior regime in history ever maintained. Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism has morphed into something even more odious. The central problem, of course, is how a soft landing can be effected in light of the massive number of nukes possessed by this outlaw regime.

Bob Van Noy , February 21, 2018 at 11:10 am

I like to bring Imperialist discussion down from the heights of government theory such as R2P, to the individual soldier, especially those infantry men and women who must confront each other "eye to eye" because that is where the individual decision must be made to kill or be killed, and the theory about why you've been placed in that circumstance is likely not considered.

I had a personal awakening while photographing the "Old North Bridge" in Concord, Massachusetts. There is a small monument by the side of the bridge that is barely noticeable and as a photographer, I've learned to notice such things. I was surprised when I realized that it was a British Monument, not American, it read:

Grave of British Soldiers
"They came three thousand miles, and died,
To keep the Past upon its throne:

Unheard, beyond the ocean tide,
Their English mother made her moan."
April 19, 1775

American Politicians have now made the same mistake of sending their soldiers into multiple foreign populations, ill equipped in language and purpose to win. It always was a fools errand.

https://britishredcoat.blogspot.com/2009/04/grave-marker-for-soldiers-of-4th-kings.html

Joe Tedesky , February 21, 2018 at 1:10 pm

Great comment Bob, it makes a person think. Joe

Sam F , February 21, 2018 at 1:50 pm

That reminds one of the many lost in the Graveyard of Empires, from which only one British soldier returned from their first invasion. They had been fearful that Russia would invade Afghanistan, which it did not, even after their defeat. They did not have any specific goals there, just alleged defense operations. But the lesson did not stop their imperialist masters from further invasions, every other generation interestingly, each larger and longer and unsuccessful, until WWI and WWII distracted them. Kipling wrote both accolades and warnings of imperialism, including a poem about the one who survived the first invasion.

Unfettered Fire , February 21, 2018 at 11:55 am

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." – U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l979 book, With No Apologies.

Neoliberalism, at last, has failed. Even Ben Bernanke had to admit that "Monetary policy is not a panacea." The nation-state is still valuable. It is necessary to have an institution that will protect society from predatory capitalism. The dramatic increase in violence is a direct result of the 40 years of neoliberal dictate, which has shredded the social fabric of America and much of the world.

Global banks are global in health and national in death. ~ Mervyn King

Banger , February 21, 2018 at 1:01 pm

Very fine essay and many excellent comments here. Meanwhile people who share our insights have been totally marginalized in this society. Yet, thus analysis goes back to the sixties and we still are marginalized. The reason is as simple as it was then. We must organize into a community that could easily become a major power block in this society. I'm guessing our views represent from one to five percent of the population. If we organized as a disciplined community of, say, ten thousand then millions would follow. I've been talking about this for 50 years and there has been little action because whether you are on our side or any side we are all, from a cultural perspective narcissists. Ego us as much a currency as money and has moved all of us away from community-mindedness. This is why there can never be major political change in thus country unless the underlying social morality (or lack thereof) changes dramatically the only hope for change can only happen from top down.

Onyx , February 21, 2018 at 1:10 pm

This article is a long winded attempt to explain why we (the US) always fails in our noble pursuits.

"In the intervening 15 years, U.S. policy failures have resulted in ever-spreading violence and chaos that affect hundreds of millions of people in at least a dozen countries. The U.S. has utterly failed to bring any of its neo-imperial wars to a stable or peaceful end. And yet the U.S. imperial project sails on, seemingly blind to its consistently catastrophic results."

I say this by design and the outcomes are exactly as desired. They are not failures in the eyes of the powerful.

There are two things we can do with our power. 1) use it to compete with our competitors 2) use it to destroy or stymie or competitors. The powers that be in the US have long chosen the later. Divide and conquer is the game we've been play for my entire life. Death, destruction and chaos have been rained own on the middle east for 60 years because of its geographical relevance. It sits geographically between all of our current and potential competitors. If it can be kept in chaos we win because all the other powers alone cannot defend themselves. Together they can. So now we are threatening nuclear war with Russia in order to scare them into submitting their sovereignty and dropping their cooperation with China and others.

We need to give up the psychopathic ideal of a mono-polar world and join Russia, China, the EU, Africa, India, in a multi-polar world where everyone's interested are negotiated instead of dictated by the one most capable of resorting to might makes right.

rosemerry , February 21, 2018 at 4:27 pm

There are two things we can do with our power. 1) use it to compete with our competitors 2) use it to destroy or stymie or competitors. This is exactly the no-win ( or as Trump would say, loser) strategy that ignores the possibility of peace or cooperation.
The 323 million have plenty of work to do!

evelync , February 21, 2018 at 1:30 pm

Thanks to Mr. Davies for a fine article, including his link to the delusional Major (P) Ralph Peters' article: "Constant Conflict": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3011.htm

Major Peters' rapture over our Darwinian PAC MAN ravaging of those victims he delights in calling the "uninformed" around the world and here at home, reveals a deep ignorance of economics and finance, IMO. (Are these "uninformed" the cousins of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables"?)

And thanks to Mike Martin and others for reminding us that it's the oligarchs who write policy for their own greed.
Former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Paul Volker, when asked about the impact of the gigantic banks a few years ago – I think it was after the 2008-2009 big crash – he said that over the last 30 years the only useful innovation he was aware of that was produced by the big banks was the ATM machine. Say what????????

The Oligarchs that Jimmy Carter refers to have taken over policy decisions within the Congress and the White House.
Endless regime change wars and financial deregulation have looted wealth abroad and now here at home. Our Secretary of the Treasury, Mnuchin, became fabulously wealthy, foreclosing on millions of homeowners who were set up by unscrupulous banksters who misled them with teaser rates and delayed mortgage debt pile ons. http://wallstreetonparade.com

The Oligarchs have succeeded in becoming our largest "socialist institution" – Eisenhower's "MIC. As Andrew Bacevich says – our regime change war policies have created a mess and will continue doing so. Then why continue? The profiteers run our government.

Zenobia van Dongen , February 21, 2018 at 4:23 pm

You Americans will never stop contemplating your own imperial navel, even as it slips into oblivion. In Latin America, Usimp's traditional stomping ground, US imperialism is being eclipsed by Chinese imperialism, which to nobody's surprise is every bit as ruthless as the US variety. This is an article (in Spanish) about how the indigenouses and sundry others are getting ripped off by China. Inversiones chinas en América Latina fuera de control, CIVICUS, 12 February 2018 https://www.opendemocracy.net/democraciaabierta/civicus/inversiones-chinas-en-america-latina-fuera-de-control

E. Leete , February 21, 2018 at 6:48 pm

doesn't matter what country they come from – wealthpower giants DO what wealthpower giants DO. as the author and everyone here appear to already know, militarism and imperialism are genosadistic projects of psychopathic wealthpower giants. Money is power. overpower/underpower = tyranny/slavery. always. see history. Humans are too dangerous a species to be allowed to have unlimited fortunes, which are extreme injustice. no justice no peace. wealthpower giants can't even see the ants they crush. Can't get rid of wealthpower giants by chopping off the heads of the current ones – next ones are waiting in the wings. always. only way out of the nightmare is to wake everyone up to what the nightmare is: the terrible idea to allow unlimited fortunes on planet earth. everything else is static and noise.

ToivoS , February 21, 2018 at 5:19 pm

The term incoherence came to my mind when trying to figure out Obama's foreign policy towards Libya and Syria, especially after Kerry became SoS. I get it that many here are arguing that these policies are rational if one accepts that there is deep state whose interests they serve is a plutocracy who are only interested in looting the American people and that "American interests" is just a political smoke screen that allows them in doing so. I don't really accept that.

I think that people like Obama, Kerry and even Hillary believe they were serving American national interests. Even idiots like Samantha Power and Anne-Marie Slaughter likely believed that they were serving our national interests. If so, then we have to conclude, using the parsimony principle, that the US is being led by some serious incompetents. That is the scary part. If these fools had any understanding that the ultimate stakes for their folly is the possibility of nuclear war then perhaps a little "coherence" or rational thought might begin to guide them.

John Neal Spangler , February 21, 2018 at 6:39 pm

The author's book on the Iraq War is very good and well worth reading.

Joe Tedesky , February 22, 2018 at 12:21 am

We Americans have no conscience. We Americans need to step of outside of ourselves, and re-examine to what kind of society we have become.

We Americans need to abandon our colonialism, after all wasn't that what our Revolutionary War was all about? We Americans must tell our generals to quit studying to how we could have won the Vietnam War, and rather to how we could avoid such disasters. We Americans need to ask Madeline Albright, for why should America have the world's most sophisticated State Department if we are not going to use it.

We Americans need to change our society, but instead of a revolution using bullets we will work from within using a pen, and keep what's good of our government, and throw to the wind the bad.

Joe Tedesky , February 22, 2018 at 12:36 am

I know some of you take issue with Glenn Greenwald on occasion, but here with this linked article he hits the nail on the head. Take note to the names Greenwald mentions, and take notes to who we should get out of office or out of our media, because these are the very same people who constantly take the U.S. to war, and the very same people who's blood of millions they have on America's hands.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/a-consensus-emerges-russia-committed-an-act-of-war-on-par-with-pearl-harbor-and-911-should-the-u-s-response-be-similar/

mrtmbrnmn , February 22, 2018 at 1:29 am

Do the math: Arrogance of Himalayan proportions + pathological dishonesty + systemic corruption + brain-rotting hypocrisy + soul corroding amorality + zillion$ for war-mongering + no bottom to stupid = RogueNationUSA

[Feb 21, 2018] "NATO expansion was a provocative policy destined to elicit a strong Russian response "

Feb 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

b. February 20, 2018 at 12:29 pm

"NATO expansion was a provocative policy destined to elicit a strong Russian response "

You spellcheck failed you – it should read "policy designed to elicit".

It is not clear from the article whether the "blunder" was "influence ops" involving Russians – with or w/o the Russian government, or whether the blunder is the "fake" hysteria peddled by the establishment apparat and the Clinton Democrats?

If you have no proof of an "act of war", to quote the latest mouth-breathing from one of our selected representatives, and you have no
effective means to retaliate, and if you have good reason to believe that the act in question might well have been blowback from your own earlier transgressions, it would be advisable to shut it up and suck it up.

The "Russia!" politicking in this nation is not just a crime or a blunder, it is idiotic, incompetent and reckless bipartisan malpractice.

Worse, the people who willingly beat this drum as their version of a "stained" vote or a substitute or augmentation for another unaccountable and self-destructive "special" investigation are actively – and possibly knowingly – undermining not just Trump, or the legitimacy of the current administration, or the trust in the election process, they are eroding the confidence in the robustness of democratic institutions and the concept of democracy itself.

Worse yet, these people are the same that have been pushing for "money can't buy me votes" Supreme Court decisions, highly optimized gerrymandering, voter purges, violations of the voting rights act, voter discrimination, systematic disenfranchisement, "rigged" primaries and campaigns, and a uniquely revealing and detestable 2001 decision by the Rehnquist court.

This is the picture of US democracy in action as painted by these people: elections will be decided because of drivel paid for by Russian or American oligarchs and their unprincipled, mercenary retainers, deployed by trolling farms, e-mail spam "down the lists", unsolicited phone calls, and corporate media by means of editorial and outright bought advertising. Voters are incapable of applying common sense, keeping a skeptical attitude and insisting on verification, and they will ignore the evidence in their own lives and vote in accordance to the "nudge" that is backed by the most money and the best voter tracking operation with the most data and the most expensive analysts providing "analytics".

It gives a new meaning to "follow the money."

Now that caricature of The People might or might not contain more truth than we are comfortable with, but the conclusion assuredly is that to the extent this claim is "true", we have bigger problems than a few dozen Russians spending a few dozen million dollars. If this is true, then our problem is that there are entire industries in the US making profit from delivering services to actively undermine and erode the US Constitution and the institutions and processes of our democracy, that many of those people have already been elected as – in their belief – the result of the services this industry delivers, and that as a nation, we have completely failed in inoculating ourselves against this process of "treason for profit".

You do democracy with the voters you have, not the voters you wish for. If our institutions, if We The People ourselves, are not resilient against concentrations of wealth and power, inside or outside the country, foreign or domestic, then we need to fortify ourselves and our institutions, and we need to reduce and dissolve any such concentration of wealth and power within our borders before we can even begin to worry about any such "influences" from abroad. If our democracy is being wrecked, it ain't by Putin.

The absolute worst about this is that our national elections, just with like the congressional-military-industrial "complex", or the government-bailed financial industry, or the student loan financed education industry, or government-mandated health insurance, most of the perpetrators involved do not even care about the election outcome or the process – it is just another American Con to extract millions of fees and profits in exchange for channeling billions of dollars of campaign financing into "information ops" and other services provided by what is, essentially, little more than an entertainment industry delivering advertising. For the congressional-election industrial machine, democracy is just another "must have" feature of modern society ripe for profitable public-private "partnership" to convert ever more tax revenue and money seeking influence into the profitable businesses of selling voting machines, securing voting machines, auditing voting machines

The best democracy money can buy to make money – putting the profit into the Cargo Cult. If we ever try public funding for political candidates, it will be as if Obama and Sunstein designed another funnel for profit extraction.

We "are sick and tired of hearing about your damn" Russians!

[Feb 21, 2018] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

Notable quotes:
"... Atlantic Council ..."
"... Alliance for Securing Democracy. ..."
"... Alliance for Securing Democracy ..."
"... "to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe." That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases. ..."
"... For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity. ..."
"... The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing. ..."
"... Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair. ..."
"... Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not just economic and political but cultural and historical. ..."
"... In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to "correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World War II cabinet. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk ..."
"... The idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms. ..."
"... Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers like a good ole war! Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street. Once over the cliff, there is no turning back. ..."
"... In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public. ..."
"... Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was. 59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. ..."
"... The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

"Russian bots" - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

The U.S. mainstream media are going nuts. They now make up and report stories based on the uncritical acceptance of the outcome of an algorithm they do not understand and which is know to produce fake results.

See for example these three stories:

From the last link:

SAN FRANCISCO -- One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week, Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the gun control debate.

The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

In other words - the "Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia" were following the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive issues.

Those claims are based on this propaganda project:

Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian influence campaign.

The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" is run by military lobbyists, CIA minions and neocons. Its claimed task is:

... to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.

There is no evidence that Vladimir Putin made or makes such efforts.

The ASD "Hamilton 68" website shows graphics with rankings of "top items" and "trending items" allegedly used by Russian bots or influence agents. There is nothing complicate behind it. It simply tracks the tweets of 600 Twitter users and aggregates the hashtags they use. It does not say which Twitter accounts its algorithms follows. It claims that the 600 were selected by one of three criteria: 1. People who often tweet news that also appears on RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News , two general news sites sponsored by the Russian government; 2. People who "openly profess to be pro-Russian"; 3. accounts that "appear to use automation" to boost the same themes that people in group 1 and 2 tweet about.

Nowhere does the group say how many of the 600 accounts it claims to track belong to which group. Are their 10 assumed bots or 590 in the surveyed 600 accounts? And how please does one "openly profess" to be pro-Russian? We don't know and the ASD won't say.

On December 25 2017 the "Russian influence" agents or bots who, according to NYT, want to sow divisiveness, wished everyone a Merry Christmas.


bigger

The real method the Hamilton 68 group used to select the 600 accounts it tracks is unknown. The group does not say or show how it made it up. Despite that the NYT reporters, Sheera Frenkel and Daisuke Wakabayashi, continue with the false assumptions that most or all the accounts are automated, have something to do with Russia and are presumably nefarious:

Russian-linked bots have rallied around other divisive issues, often ones that President Trump has tweeted about. They promoted Twitter hashtags like #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee after some National Football League players started kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice.

The automated Twitter accounts helped popularize the #releasethememo hashtag , ...

The Daily Beast reported earlier that the emphasized claim is definitely false :

Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is either predominantly Russian.

The same is presumably true for the other hashtags.

The Dutch IT specialist and blogger Marcel van den Berg was wondering how Dutch keywords and hashtags showed up in on the Hamilton 68 "Russian bots" dashboard. He found ( Dutch , English auto translation) that the dashboard is a total fraud:

In recent weeks, I have been keeping a close eye on Hamilton 68. Every time a Dutch hashtag was shown on the website, I made a screenshot. Then I noted what was playing at that moment and I watched the Tweets with this hashtag. Again I could not find any Tweet that seemed to be from a Russian troll.

In all cases, the hash tags that Hamilton 68 reported were trending topics in the Netherlands. In all cases there was much to do around the subject of the hashtag in the Netherlands. Many people were angry or shared their opinion on the subject on Twitter. And even if there were a few tweets with Russian connections between them, the effect is zero. Because they do not stand out among the many other, authentic Tweets.

Van den Berg lists a dozen examples he analyzed in depth.

The anti-Russian Bellingcat group around couch blogger Eliot Higgins is sponsored by the NATO propaganda shop Atlantic Council . It sniffs through open source stuff to blame Russia or Syria wherever possible. Bellingcat were recently a victim of the "Russian bots" - or rather of the ASD website. On February 10 the hashtag #bellingcat trended to rank 2 of the dashboard.


bigger

Bellingcat was thus, according to the Hamilton 68 claims, under assault of hordes of nefarious Russian government sponsored bots.

The Bellingcat folks looked into the issue and found that only six people on Twitter, none of them an automated account, had used the #bellingcat hashtag in the last 48 hours. Some of the six may have opinions that may be "pro Russian", but as Higgins himself says :

[I]n my opinion, it's extremely unlikely the people listed are Russian agents

The pro-NATO propaganda shop Bellingcat thus debunked the pro NATO propaganda shop Alliance for Securing Democracy.

The fraudsters who created the Hamilton 68 crap seem to have filled their database with rather normal people who's opinions they personally dislike. Those then are the "Russian bots" who spread "Russian influence" and divisiveness.

Moreover - what is the value of its information when six normal people out of millions of active Twitter users can push a hashtag with a handful of tweets to the top of the dashboard?

But the U.S. media writes long gushing stories about the dashboard and how it somehow shows automated Russian propaganda. They go to length to explain that this shows "Russian influence" and a "Russian" attempt to sow "divisiveness" into people's minds.

This is nuts.

Last August, when the Hamilton 68 project was first released, the Nation was the only site critical of it. It predicted :

The import of GMF's project is clear: Reporting on anything that might put the US in a bad light is now tantamount to spreading Russian propaganda.

It is now even worse than that. The top ranking of the #merrychristmas hashtag shows that the algorithm does not even care about good or bad news. The tracked twitter accounts are normal people.

The whole project is just a means to push fake stories about alleged "Russian influence" into U.S. medias. Whenever some issue creeps up on its dashboard that somehow fits its false "Russian bots" and "divisiveness" narrative the Alliance for Securing Democracy contacts the media to spread its poison. The U.S. media, - CNN, Wired, the New York Times - are by now obviously devoid of thinking journalists and fact checkers. They simple re-package the venom and spread it to the public.

How long will it take until people die from it?

Posted by b on February 20, 2018 at 03:15 PM | Permalink

Comments

nhs , Feb 20, 2018 3:24:03 PM | 1

The truth about 'Russiagate'
Lohmann , Feb 20, 2018 3:32:49 PM | 2
It's all too reminiscent of Duck Soup:

Rufus T. Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it.

[Trentino enters]

Rufus T. Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?

[slaps Trentino with his glove]

Ambassador Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this is the last straw. There's no turning back now! This means war!

Rufus T. Firefly: Then it's war! Then it's war! Gather the forces. Harness the horses. Then it's war!

Clueless Joe , Feb 20, 2018 3:45:14 PM | 3
"to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe." That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases.
ken , Feb 20, 2018 3:46:05 PM | 4
For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity.
xor , Feb 20, 2018 4:11:10 PM | 6
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing.
karlof1 , Feb 20, 2018 4:30:11 PM | 8
Gee, what could go wrong formulating policy founded upon a series of Big Lies? Kim Dotcom says he has important info the FBI refuses to hear. At the Munich Security Conference , neocon Nicholas Burns, former US Ambassador to NATO, details my assertion's factual basis that current policy is being formed on a series of Big Lies: "Will NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian [sic] has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia ?" [Bolded text are the Big Lies.]

Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair.

Jen , Feb 20, 2018 4:54:59 PM | 10
Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not just economic and political but cultural and historical.

In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to "correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World War II cabinet.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk

That's why pinning down the reason for wanting a war against Russia is so difficult.

Partisan , Feb 20, 2018 5:06:58 PM | 11

The whole piece is just hilarious and I laughed out loud all time while reading it.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/nyts-really-weird-russiagate-story/

Since the FBI never inspected the DNC's computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary Clinton ally.

Thus, Putin-basher Clinton hired Putin-basher Alperovitch to investigate an alleged electronic heist, and to absolutely no one's surprise, his company concluded that guilty party was Vladimir Putin. Amazing! Since then, a small army of internet critics has chipped away at CrowdStrike for praising the hackers as among the best in the business yet declaring in the same breath that they gave themselves away by uploading a document in the name of "Felix Edmundovich," i.e. Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret police.

As noted cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr observed with regard to Russia's two main intelligence agencies: "Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."

james , Feb 20, 2018 5:17:19 PM | 12
thanks b!

muddy waters.. paid for propaganda.... look at all the russian bots, lol... cold war 2 / mccarthyism 2 is in effect... the historic parallels are marked. thank you neo cons! it's working... the ordinary person in the usa can't be this stupid can they? when does ww3 kick in? is that really what these idiots want? or is it just to prolong the huge defense budget?

Mike Maloney , Feb 20, 2018 5:24:03 PM | 13
This is about conditioning voters in Europe and the United States for a long war with Russia and China. In other words, a return to the 1950s. It is not working and becoming increasingly hysterical because societies are not nearly as cohesive as they once were, and the mainstream political parties, while better funded and more top-down organized, are basically hollow. The collapse is coming. Four years or ten, take your pick.
dh , Feb 20, 2018 5:32:10 PM | 14
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."

Most Americans probably don't. Just the chosen few with the deepest fall-out shelters. The idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms.

Partisan , Feb 20, 2018 6:02:58 PM | 15
"Most Americans probably don't."

not true.

let's imagine that we have the pyramid of evilness, by which we measure bestiality of one regime and its constituency. my firm belief is that us would be on the top of that pyramid. Only dilemma would be between Zionist entity and the US.

"How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?" was the question Wilhelm Reich famously asked in the wake of the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (Reichstag Fire Decree, February 28, 1933), which suspended the civil rights protections afforded by the Weimar Republic's democratic constitution.Hitler had been appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933 and Reich was trying to grapple with the fact that the German people had apparently chosen the authoritarian politics promoted by National Socialism against their own political interests. Ever since, the question of fascism, or rather the question of why might people vote for their own oppression, has never ceased to haunt political philosophy.2 With Trump openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the continued electoral success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question has again become a pressing one.

An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime.

CarlD , Feb 20, 2018 6:06:06 PM | 16
Remember the "USS MAINE"!

Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers like a good ole war! Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street. Once over the cliff, there is no turning back.

How do you tell people that, at the flick of your magic switch, Putin is in fact a swell guy and wonderful human being? Once love is gone who goes back to the filthy, abhorrent and estranged spouse?

Surely the US establishment is playing with fire thinking they will successfully ride out any conflict and come out on top secure in their newly reestablished hegemony on the smoldering ruins of Humanity.

Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as tomorrow word will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.

"Freedom of speech"...

CarlD , Feb 20, 2018 6:12:52 PM | 17
re 16
correction:

Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as tomorrow's world will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.

dh , Feb 20, 2018 6:14:14 PM | 18
@15 "An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime."

I'm not so sure. I think there are many Americans who deeply distrust their government. But of course they don't want to appear unpatriotic. There are also many who are apathetic and many simply don't know how to change things.

SteveK9 , Feb 20, 2018 6:35:58 PM | 19
It's horrible I know to quote a Nazi, but Goring had this right:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

WorldBLee , Feb 20, 2018 6:36:51 PM | 20
American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources" to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. The skills required to repeat the text verbatim serve them well in both cases. Skepticism is only reserved to anyone who tries to introduce logic or facts into the equation--such as when Jill Stein was interviewed on MSNBC recently. How dare Ms. Stein try to bring FACTS into the discussion!
chet380 , Feb 20, 2018 6:41:04 PM | 21
In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public.
Sinc , Feb 20, 2018 6:41:57 PM | 22
See info on US 'Twitter' manipulation campaign
Sinc , Feb 20, 2018 6:44:16 PM | 23
Sorry, link here
ken , Feb 20, 2018 6:59:01 PM | 24
Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was. 59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. Almost every politician, and major news organizations are pushing for a war/conflict with Russia. This is insanity as no one will win a war like this and I am sure they know that,,, but they keep the war drums beating anyhow. It simply doesn't make sense. But Thanks again.

Same for dh, #14. Things are soooo stupid, your joking may be closer to the truth than you know. :-)

Skip , Feb 20, 2018 6:59:35 PM | 25
@SteveK9 #19

Thank you for the post. I will save it and use it liberally, with proper attributions. When one challenges the tribe on places like Twitter, it is hard to tell who is a real idiot and who is a bot. How do you know? Maybe that the bots go away fairly quickly and the idiots hang around to argue ad infinitum.

oldenyoung , Feb 20, 2018 7:06:23 PM | 26
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MICGlobalists dont care what we think or how poor their deceptions are. The public perception that "russia did it!!" continues to rise. I wonder what the public acceptance level needs to be for them to execute a MAJOR false flag event. They seem to think they are still on target, and its just a short matter or time...

They are going to do this when the perception management is complete...

We really do not need another one of their disasters

regards

OY

Grieved , Feb 20, 2018 7:37:47 PM | 27
The bully pushes and pushes until stopped by the first serious push back. The dynamic of the west and the neocon/Zionists at the core is essentially that of the bully. Nations like Venezuela and the Philippines have started to push back, and I hope and feel fairly confident that they will both survive the rage of the US. In some part, they have begun to show the actual powerlessness of the bully.

But the really killer nations - Russia and China - are holding their water as they strengthen their force. I believe that one very serious push back from either of them in the right circumstances will stop the bully. And yet, as they bide their time, we see a curious phenomenon wherein the US is destroying itself from the inside.

It's as if all of the forces that exist to control the country - the lockstep media, the fully rigged markets, the hysterical military, the bought legislature and the crooked courts - are all acting far more strongly than should be necessary. The entire system is over-reacting, over-reaching, over-boiling. And in the course of this, the US is actually shedding power, and at an amazing rate. But not from the action of Russia but from its non-action, the empty space that that allows the bully's dynamic to over-reach, all the way to complete failure.

Is it possible that deep in the security states of Russia and China there's even a study and a model for this? Is the collapse of the US actually being gamed by Russia and China - and through the totally counter-intuitive action of non-action?

Just a thought.

Ghost Ship , Feb 20, 2018 7:51:03 PM | 28
>>>> xor | Feb 20, 2018 4:11:10 PM | 6
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing.

I've always put it down to the Washington Establishment having a severe case of psychological projection.

WG , Feb 20, 2018 7:52:38 PM | 29
Hey b,
Just wanted to let you know that Joe Lauria mentioned your blog and the article you wrote on the indictment of the 13 Russians. He was on Loud and Clear (Sputnik Radio, Washington DC) today and brought you up at the start of the program.
Glad to see you get some recognition for all the great work you've been doing :)
Mike , Feb 20, 2018 7:53:24 PM | 30
Meanwhile, back in 2010:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/when-campaigns-manipulate-social-media/66351/
Jen , Feb 20, 2018 7:53:43 PM | 31
Ken @ 24: The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion.
https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda

Bernays' books influenced Nazi and Soviet propaganda and Bernays himself was hired by the US government to justify in the public mind the 1954 US invasion of Guatemala.

You may be aware that Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation which owns the Wall Street Journal, FOX News and 20th Century Fox studios, is also on the Board of Directors of Genie Energy which owns a subsidiary firm that was granted a licence by an Israeli court to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's (and Israeli-occupied) Golan Heights.

simjam , Feb 20, 2018 7:59:21 PM | 32
The national media speaks as one -with one consistent melody day after day. Who is the conductor?

When will one representative of the mainstream media sing solo? There must be a Ray McGovern somewhere among the flock.

V. Arnold , Feb 20, 2018 8:05:33 PM | 33
Grieved | Feb 20, 2018 7:37:47 PM | 27

Many of my thoughts as well.The U.S.'s greatest fault is its tacit misunderstanding of just what russia is in fact. They utterly fail to understand the Russian character; forged over 800 years culminating with the defeat of Nazi Germany, absorbing horrific losses; the U.S. fails to understand the effect upon the then Soviets, become todays Russians. Even the god's have abandoned the west...

Palloy , Feb 20, 2018 8:52:02 PM | 34
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."

Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.

In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of the currency as they needed.

They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C) as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began, even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.

In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b). Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of Industrial Civilisation.

Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.

Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't make sense from a normal perspective.

Debsisdead , Feb 20, 2018 8:53:42 PM | 35
I watched bbc news this am in the hope that I would get to see the most awful creature at the 2018 olympics cry her croc tears (long story - a speed skater who cuts off the opposition but has been found out so now when she swoops in front of the others they either skate over her leading to tearful whines from perp about having been 'pushed', or gets disqualified for barging. Last night she got disqualified so as part of my study on whether types like this believe their own bullshit I thought I'd tune in but didn't get that far into the beebs lies)
The bulk of the bulletin was devoted to a 'lets hate Russia' session which featured a quisling who works for the russian arm of BBC (prolly just like cold war days staffed exclusively by MI6/SIS types). This chap, using almost unintelligible english, claimed he had proof at least 50 Russian Mercenaries (question - why are amerikan guns for hire called contractors [remember the Fallujah massacre of 100,000 civilians because amerikan contractors were stupid] yet Russian contractors are called mercenaries by the media?) had been killed in Syria last week. The bloke had evidence of one contractor's death not 50 - the proof was a letter from the Russian government to the guy's mother telling her he didn't qualify for any honours because he wasn't in the Russian military.
The quisling (likely a Ukranian I would say) went on to rabbit about the bloke having also fought in Donbass under contract - to which the 'interviewer (don't ya love it when media 'interview' their own journos - a sure sign that a snippet of toxic nonsense is being delivered) led about how the deceitful Russians had claimed the only Russians fighting in Donbass were contractors - yeah well this bloke was a contractor surely that proves the Russians were telling the truth.
It's not what these propagandists say; they adopt a tone and the audience is meant to hate based on that even when the facts as stated conflict with the media outlet's point of view. Remember the childhood trick of saying "bad dog" ter yer mutt in loving tones - the dog comes to ya tail wagging & licks yer hand. This is that.

The next item was more Syria lies - white helmets footage (altho the beeb is now mostly giving them an alternative name to dodge the facts about white helmets) of bandaged children with flour tipped on their heads.
The evil Syrians and Russians are bombarding Gouta - nary a word about the continuous artillery barrage Gouta has subjected the citizens of Damascus to for the past 4 years, or that the Syrians have repeatedly offered truces and safe passage for civilians. Any injured children need to ask their parents why they weren't allowed to take advantage of the frequent offers of transport out. Maybe the parents are worried 'the resistance' will do its usual and blow up the busloads of children after luring them over with candy.

Anyway I switched off after that so never did learn if little miss cheat had a cry.

[Feb 20, 2018] Russia's Election Meddling Worse Than a Crime; a Blunder by Robert W. Merry

Feb 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Ukraine is crucial in this Russian sense of territorial imperative. It's a tragically split country, with part tilting toward the West and part facing eastward toward Russia. That makes for a delicate political and geopolitical situation, but for centuries that delicate political and geopolitical situation has been overseen by Russia. Now the West wants to end that. Upending a duly elected (though corrupt) Ukrainian president was part of the plan. Getting Ukraine into NATO is the endgame.

Note that the Ukrainian revolution occurred in 2014, which just happened to be the year, according to the U.S. indictments, that Russia initiated its grand program to influence America's 2016 elections. Kennan was right: Russia inevitably would react badly to the NATO encirclement policy, and then America's anti-Russian cadres would cite that as evidence that the encirclement was necessary all along. That's precisely what's happening now.

Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder. Given all that's happened in U.S.-Russian relations this century, there probably wasn't much prospect that those relations could ever be normalized, much less made cordial. But that is now utterly impossible.

Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of seeking better relations with Russia. After getting elected he repeatedly asserted in his first news conference that it would be "positive," "good," or "great" if "we could get along with Russia." Unlike most of America's elites, he vowed to seek Moscow's cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the two countries' sour relations, and acknowledged "the right of all nations to put their interests first."

This suggested a possible dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations -- an end to the encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine. That was largely put on hold with the narrative of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and vague allegations of campaign "collusion" with Russia on behalf of Trump's presidential ambitions.

It doesn't appear likely that investigators will turn up any evidence of collusion that rises to any kind of criminality. But it doesn't matter now, in terms of U.S.-Russian relations, because these indictments will cement the anti-Russian sentiment of Americans for the foreseeable future. No overtures of the kind envisioned by Trump will be possible for any president for a long time. It won't matter that every nation does it or that America in particular has done it or that the West's aggressive encirclement contributed to the Russian actions. The U.S.-Russian hostility is set. Where it leads is impossible to predict, but it won't be good. It could be tragic.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His latest book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , was released in September.

[Feb 20, 2018] How Russophobia wrecked normalization between US Russia -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... gesture to the Kremlin that would enable the nascent Trump administration to see its desire for friendly relations with Russia would be reciprocated ..."
"... fit a pattern within the Trump administration of sidling up to Russia. Taken in sum, the pattern raises questions about whether Trump and his team are willing to pay Russia back for the Kremlin's role in the [presidential] election ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.rt.com

The baleful effect of this anti-Russian paranoia was illustrated in an article published last week by the Daily Beast. It was reported that a member of Trump's National Security Council proposed early in the new presidency last year that the US should scale back its military forces in the Baltic countries.

Russia has long complained that the buildup of US-led NATO forces on its European borders is a provocative threat to its national security.

The idea of repositioning US troops from the Baltic was pitched as a " gesture to the Kremlin that would enable the nascent Trump administration to see its desire for friendly relations with Russia would be reciprocated ."

READ MORE: Senate probe expanded to anyone 'of Russian descent or nationality' – email

Apparently, the proposal was quickly rebuffed out of concern about how it would fuel US media claims of Trump being a Russian puppet.

Another idea that was similarly rejected was the lifting of US sanctions on Russia's economy.

The Daily Beast goes on to make the pejorative editorial comment that the floated proposals " fit a pattern within the Trump administration of sidling up to Russia. Taken in sum, the pattern raises questions about whether Trump and his team are willing to pay Russia back for the Kremlin's role in the [presidential] election ."

Note how the article asserts as fact the dubious speculation about Russia interfering in US politics.

Reportedly the proposals for trying to restore relations with Russia have since dried up within Trump's National Security Council.

Indeed, the NSC official named as the originator of the ideas – Kevin Harrington – is understood to have led the team that produced the hawkish National Security Strategy published at the end of last year.

Thus, from reasonable proposals to engage with Russia floated at the start of Trump's first year in office, within 12 months the administration has absorbed and adopted the Russophobia narrative.

Anti-Russian group think espoused by US elites has become institutionalized, against the stated views of the president and the American electorate. Where's the democracy in that?

[Feb 20, 2018] Lavrov Russia ready for partnerships based on mutual respect

This attempt to offer West the "olive branch" is useless. The US neoliberal elite is trying to save itself from people anger and extent the coming to the end period of global dominance and Russia is a convenient scapegoat.
Notable quotes:
"... Commenting on the Moscow-Brussels ties, Lavrov said that the European Union has failed to find a golden mean in relations with Russia in the last decades, treating the country in 1990s as an "aprentice" that should be taught in accordance with western standards and values. Now, the other irrational myth about the so-called "Russian threat" is being exploited, Lavrov went on to note, with the western states accusing Moscow of meddling in every controversial event, including Brexit and the Catalan referendum on independence. ..."
"... Russia is open to an equal, mutually respectful partnership that will be based on the balance of interests with the EU in order to find effective solutions to the challenges of a present day. We are ready to build relations with the US and other countries basing on the same principles ..."
"... We believe that his idea of cooperation between the European Union, Russia, the United States and China to support the creation of the security architecture in the Middle East is very appreciated, and the same is true for the Gulf ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | theduran.com
Sputnik News reports:

Commenting on the Moscow-Brussels ties, Lavrov said that the European Union has failed to find a golden mean in relations with Russia in the last decades, treating the country in 1990s as an "aprentice" that should be taught in accordance with western standards and values. Now, the other irrational myth about the so-called "Russian threat" is being exploited, Lavrov went on to note, with the western states accusing Moscow of meddling in every controversial event, including Brexit and the Catalan referendum on independence.

Mr. Lavrov went further, though, to state that:

Russia is open to an equal, mutually respectful partnership that will be based on the balance of interests with the EU in order to find effective solutions to the challenges of a present day. We are ready to build relations with the US and other countries basing on the same principles

He also expressed hope that the EU remains unified and continues to serve the basic interests of each of its member states. He noted especially that he hoped that the EU countries would be autonomous in international affairs. He made a point that he believed that the EU member states should define for themselves how to develop their own economies and to satisfy their resource requirements, most particularly that of energy, a veiled reference to the pressure exerted on some EU nations by the Americans to buy American energy rather than the more easily available and cheaper Russian energy resources.

He went on to the discussion of Middle Eastern policy:

We believe that his idea of cooperation between the European Union, Russia, the United States and China to support the creation of the security architecture in the Middle East is very appreciated, and the same is true for the Gulf

Russia has been honest, but always rather tactful, pointing out that the Middle Eastern troubles especially dating from 2011 were caused or exacerbated by the foreign policy whims of the United States. Russia's collegial approach to solving these matters stands in contrast to the single-minded determination of the USA to exert its will in Middle Eastern affairs, as in much of the rest of the world.

[Feb 20, 2018] Mapping Trump's Empire Assets and Liabilities by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... The circumstances leading to new clients in Latin America is significant but has been more than countered by retreats in Asia, divisions in Europe, turmoil domestically and strategic incoherence. ..."
"... The key shift from realism toward a recovered Russia to militarization and confrontation has precipitated the breakdown of the US as a unified coherent leader of a global empire. ..."
"... The US embraces prolonged losing wars in peripheral regions while embracing destructive trade wars in strategic regions. It budgeted vast sums on non-productive activities while impoverishing state and local governments via sweeping tax 'reform' favoring the oligarchs. ..."
"... There is no longer a coherent imperial empire controlling the fate of the globe. We live in a world of political maps centered on regional powers and unruly clients, while the most incompetent, gossip-mongering politicians in Washington compete with an arrogant, benighted President Trump and his fractured regime. ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

The US empire spans the globe; it expands and contracts, according to its ability to secure strategic assets, willing and able to further military and economic power to counter emerging adversaries.

The map of empire is a shorthand measure of the vectors, reach and durability of global power and wealth. The map of empire is changing -- adding and subtracting assets and liabilities, according to the successes and retreats of domestic and overseas power centers. While the US empire has been engaged in intense conflicts in the Middle East, the imperial map has been enlarged elsewhere at lower cost and greater success.

Enlarging the Empire

The US empire has substantially increased its scope and presence in several regions, especially in Latin America. The additions and enlargements include Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Central America, Peru and the Caribbean. The most important asset redrawing the empire in Latin America is Argentina. The US has gained military, economic and political advantages. In the case of Argentina, political and economic advances preceded military expansion.

The US provided ideological and political support to secure the election of its client Mauricio Macri. The new Argentine President immediately transferred over $5 billion dollars to the notorious Wall Street Vulture speculator, Paul Singer, and proceeded to open the floodgates for a lucrative multi-billion dollar flow of financial capital. President Macri then followed up by inviting the Pentagon and US intelligence services to establish military bases, spy stations and training operations along its borders. Equally important, Argentina embraced the US directives designed to overthrow the government of Venezuela, undermine Bolivia's nationalist government under Evo Morales and pursue a policy of US-centered regional integration.

Argentina: A Client without an Economic Patron

While Argentina is a useful political and military addition to the US empire, it lacks access to the US market -- it still depends on China – and has failed to secure a strategic trade agreement with the European Union. Washington has enlarged its military presence with a one-legged client.

Colombia and Mexico, long time US client states, have provided springboards for enlarging US influence in Central America, the Andean region and the Caribbean. In the case of Colombia, the US has financed its war of extermination against anti-imperialist insurgents and their peasant and working class supporters and secured seven military bases as launch pads for Washington's destabilization campaign against Venezuela.

Mexico has served a multitude of military and economic functions – from billion dollar manufacturing platforms to multi-billion dollar laundering of narco-profits to US banks.

Brazil is the new addition to the empire with the ousting and arrest of the leaders of the Workers Party. The shift in political and economic power has enhanced US influence through its leverage over the wealthiest country in the continent. In sum,the US has enlarged imperial influence and control via its acquisition of Latin America. There is one caveat: At least in the cases of Brazil and Argentina, the US advance is tentative and subject to reversal, as it lacks firm economic and political foundations.

If Latin America reflects an enlargement and upsurge of US imperial influence, the rest of the global map is mostly negative or at best contradictory.

The empire-building mission has failed to gain ground in Northeast Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. In Europe, the US retains influence but it appears to face obstacles to enlarging its presence.

The key to the enlargement or decline of empire revolves around the performance of the US domestic economy.

Imperial Decline: China

The determination of the US in remapping the global empire is most evident in Asia. The most notable shift in US political and economic relations in the region has taken place with China's displacement of the US as the dominant investment, trading infrastructure building and lending country in the region. Moreover, China has increased its role as the leading exporter to the US, accumulating trade surpluses of hundreds of billions of dollars each year. In 2017, China's trade surplus reached $375 billion dollars.

Against the relative economic decline of the US, Washington has compensated by widening the scope of its maritime-military presence in the South China Sea, and increased its air and ground forces in South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and Guam. As to how the bolstering of the US military presence affects the US 're-mapping' of its imperial presence, it depends on the dynamics of the US domestic economy and its ability to retain its existing principal military clients – South Korea, Japan, Australia and the Philippines. Recent evidence suggest that South Korea shows signs of slipping outside of the US economic and military orbit. Seoul has trade issues with the US 'protectionist agenda' and opportunities to expand its trading links with China. Equally important, South Korea has moved toward reconciliation with North Korea, and downgraded the US military escalation. As goes South Korea, so goes the US military power base in northern Asia.

The US military strategy is premised on sustaining and expanding its client network. However, its protectionist policies led to the rejection of a multi-lateral trade agreement, which erodes its economic ties with existing or potential military partners. In contrast to Latin America, the US remaking of the imperial map has led to economic shrinkage and military isolation in Asia. US military escalation has poured even more deadly strategic US arms into the region, but failed to intimidate or isolate China or North Korea.

Re-mapping the Middle East

ORDER IT NOW

The US has spent several trillion dollars over the past two decades in the Middle East , North Africa and West Asia. US Intervention from Libya and Southern Sudan, Somalia, across to Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan has resulted in enormous costs and dubious advances. The results are meagre except in terms of suffering. The US has spread chaos and destruction throughout Libya and Syria, but failed to incorporate either into an enlarged empire. The Middle East wars, initiated at the behest of Israel, have rewarded Tel Aviv with a sense of invulnerability and a thirst for more, while multiplying and unifying US adversaries.

Empires are not effectively enlarged through alliances with with armed tribal, sectarian and separatist organizations. Empires, allied with disparate, fractured and self-aggrandizing entities do not expand or strengthen their global powers.

The US has waged war against Libya and lost the political leverage and economic resources it enjoyed during the Gaddafi regime. It intervened in Somalia, South Sudan and Syria, and has gained enclaves of warring self-serving 'separatists' and subsidized mercenaries. Afghanistan, the US's longest war in history, is an unmitigated military disaster. After seventeen years of warfare and occupation, the US is holed up in the walled enclaves of the capital, Kabul. Meanwhile, the puppet regime feeds on multi-billion dollar monthly subsidies.

Iraq is a 'shared' imperial outpost -- the result of fifteen years of military intervention. Kurdish clients, Sunni-Saudi warlords, Shia militia, Baghdad kleptocrats and US contractor-mercenaries all compete for control and a larger piece of the pillage. Every square meter of contested 'terrain has cost the US five hundred million dollars and scores of casualties.

Iran remains forever under threat, but retains its independence outside of the US-Saudi-Israeli orbit. The US geo-political map has been reduced to dubious alliance with Saudi Arabia and its micro-clients among the Emirate statelets – which are constantly fighting among themselves – as well as Israel, the 'client' that openly revels in leading its patron by the nose!

Compared to the period before the turn of the millennium, the US imperial map has shrunk and faces further retrenchment.

The US-NATO-EU Map

Russia has reduced and challenged the US pursuit of a uni-polar global empire following the recovery of its sovereignty and economic growth after the disaster of the 1990's. With the ascent of President Putin, the US-EU empire lost their biggest and most lucrative client and source of naked pillage.

Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to confront a nuclear-armed Russia, confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon.

Washington's efforts to recapture and return Russia to vassalage have failed. Out of frustration Washington has resorted to a growing series of failed provocations and conflicts between the US and the EU, within the US between Trump and the Democrats; and among the warlords controlling the Trump cabinet.

Germany has continued lucrative trade ties with Russia, despite US sanctions, underscoring the decline of US power to dictate policy to the European Union. The Democratic Party and the ultra-militaristic Clinton faction remains pathologically nostalgic for a return to the 1990's Golden Age of Pillage (before Putin). Clinton's faction is fixated on the politics of revanchism . As a result, they vigorously fought against candidate Donald Trump's campaign promises to pursue a new realistic understanding with Russia. The Russia-Gate Investigation is not merely a domestic electoral squabble led by hysterical 'liberals.' What is a stake is nothing less than a profound conflict over the remaking of the US global map. Trump recognized and accepted the re-emergence of Russia as a global power to be 'contained', while the Democrats campaigned to roll-back reality, overthrow Putin and return to the robber baron orgies of the Clinton years. As a result of this ongoing strategic conflict, Washington is unable to develop a coherent global strategy, which in turn has further weakened US influence in the EU in Europe and elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the intense Democratic onslaught against Trump's initial foreign policy pronouncements regarding Russia succeeded in destroying his 'pivot to realism' and facilitated the rise of a fanatical militaristic faction within his cabinet, which have intensified the anti-Russia policies of the Clintonite Democrats. In less than a year, all of Trump's realist advisers and cabinet members have been purged and replaced by militarists. Their hard core confrontational anti-Russia policy has become the platform for launching a global military strategy based on vast increases in military spending, demands that the EU nations increase their military budgets, and open opposition to an EU-centered military alliance, such as the one recently proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Despite President Trump's campaign promises to 'pull-back', the US has re-entered Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism to 'rollback and aggression' against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response from past and present allies.

China has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression against a dynamic and changing world.

Conclusion

The Trump remaking of the global empire has had uneven results, which are mostly negative from a strategic viewpoint.

The circumstances leading to new clients in Latin America is significant but has been more than countered by retreats in Asia, divisions in Europe, turmoil domestically and strategic incoherence.

Remaking global empires requires realism – the recognition of new power alignments, accommodation with allies and, above all, domestic political stability balancing economic interests and military commitments.

The key shift from realism toward a recovered Russia to militarization and confrontation has precipitated the breakdown of the US as a unified coherent leader of a global empire.

The US embraces prolonged losing wars in peripheral regions while embracing destructive trade wars in strategic regions. It budgeted vast sums on non-productive activities while impoverishing state and local governments via sweeping tax 'reform' favoring the oligarchs.

Global remapping now involves a volatile and impulsive US-driven empire incapable of succeeding, while emerging powers are immersed in regional power grabs.

There is no longer a coherent imperial empire controlling the fate of the globe. We live in a world of political maps centered on regional powers and unruly clients, while the most incompetent, gossip-mongering politicians in Washington compete with an arrogant, benighted President Trump and his fractured regime.

[Feb 20, 2018] Russia's Election Meddling Worse Than a Crime; a Blunder by Robert W. Merry

Feb 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Ukraine is crucial in this Russian sense of territorial imperative. It's a tragically split country, with part tilting toward the West and part facing eastward toward Russia. That makes for a delicate political and geopolitical situation, but for centuries that delicate political and geopolitical situation has been overseen by Russia. Now the West wants to end that. Upending a duly elected (though corrupt) Ukrainian president was part of the plan. Getting Ukraine into NATO is the endgame.

Note that the Ukrainian revolution occurred in 2014, which just happened to be the year, according to the U.S. indictments, that Russia initiated its grand program to influence America's 2016 elections. Kennan was right: Russia inevitably would react badly to the NATO encirclement policy, and then America's anti-Russian cadres would cite that as evidence that the encirclement was necessary all along. That's precisely what's happening now.

Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder. Given all that's happened in U.S.-Russian relations this century, there probably wasn't much prospect that those relations could ever be normalized, much less made cordial. But that is now utterly impossible.

Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of seeking better relations with Russia. After getting elected he repeatedly asserted in his first news conference that it would be "positive," "good," or "great" if "we could get along with Russia." Unlike most of America's elites, he vowed to seek Moscow's cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the two countries' sour relations, and acknowledged "the right of all nations to put their interests first."

This suggested a possible dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations -- an end to the encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine. That was largely put on hold with the narrative of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and vague allegations of campaign "collusion" with Russia on behalf of Trump's presidential ambitions.

It doesn't appear likely that investigators will turn up any evidence of collusion that rises to any kind of criminality. But it doesn't matter now, in terms of U.S.-Russian relations, because these indictments will cement the anti-Russian sentiment of Americans for the foreseeable future. No overtures of the kind envisioned by Trump will be possible for any president for a long time. It won't matter that every nation does it or that America in particular has done it or that the West's aggressive encirclement contributed to the Russian actions. The U.S.-Russian hostility is set. Where it leads is impossible to predict, but it won't be good. It could be tragic.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His latest book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , was released in September.

[Feb 20, 2018] MoA - Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

Notable quotes:
"... Atlantic Council ..."
"... Alliance for Securing Democracy. ..."
"... Alliance for Securing Democracy ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

"Russian bots" - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

The U.S. mainstream media are going nuts. They now make up and report stories based on the uncritical acceptance of the outcome of an algorithm they do not understand and which is know to produce fake results.

See for example these three stories:


Russian bot with ancient regalia

From the last link:

SAN FRANCISCO -- One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week, Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the gun control debate.

The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

In other words - the "Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia" were following the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive issues.

Those claims are based on this propaganda project:

Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian influence campaign.

The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" is run by military lobbyists, CIA minions and neocons. Its claimed task is:

... to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.

There is no evidence that Vladimir Putin made or makes such efforts.

The ASD "Hamilton 68" website shows graphics with rankings of "top items" and "trending items" allegedly used by Russian bots or influence agents. There is nothing complicate behind it. It simply tracks the tweets of 600 Twitter users and aggregates the hashtags they use. It does not say which Twitter accounts its algorithms follows. It claims that the 600 were selected by one of three criteria: 1. People who often tweet news that also appears on RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News , two general news sites sponsored by the Russian government; 2. People who "openly profess to be pro-Russian"; 3. accounts that "appear to use automation" to boost the same themes that people in group 1 and 2 tweet about.

Nowhere does the group say how many of the 600 accounts it claims to track belong to which group. Are their 10 assumed bots or 590 in the surveyed 600 accounts? And how please does one "openly profess" to be pro-Russian? We don't know and the ASD won't say.

On December 25 2017 the "Russian influence" agents or bots who, according to NYT, want to sow divisiveness, wished everyone a Merry Christmas.


bigger

The real method the Hamilton 68 group used to select the 600 accounts it tracks is unknown. The group does not say or show how it made it up. Despite that the NYT reporters, Sheera Frenkel and Daisuke Wakabayashi, continue with the false assumptions that most or all the accounts are automated, have something to do with Russia and are presumably nefarious:

Russian-linked bots have rallied around other divisive issues, often ones that President Trump has tweeted about. They promoted Twitter hashtags like #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee after some National Football League players started kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice.

The automated Twitter accounts helped popularize the #releasethememo hashtag , ...

The Daily Beast reported earlier that the emphasized claim is definitely false :

Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is either predominantly Russian.

The same is presumably true for the other hashtags.

The Dutch IT specialist and blogger Marcel van den Berg was wondering how Dutch keywords and hashtags showed up in on the Hamilton 68 "Russian bots" dashboard. He found ( Dutch , English auto translation) that the dashboard is a total fraud:

In recent weeks, I have been keeping a close eye on Hamilton 68. Every time a Dutch hashtag was shown on the website, I made a screenshot. Then I noted what was playing at that moment and I watched the Tweets with this hashtag. Again I could not find any Tweet that seemed to be from a Russian troll.

In all cases, the hash tags that Hamilton 68 reported were trending topics in the Netherlands. In all cases there was much to do around the subject of the hashtag in the Netherlands. Many people were angry or shared their opinion on the subject on Twitter. And even if there were a few tweets with Russian connections between them, the effect is zero. Because they do not stand out among the many other, authentic Tweets.

Van den Berg lists a dozen examples he analyzed in depth.

The anti-Russian Bellingcat group around couch blogger Eliot Higgins is sponsored by the NATO propaganda shop Atlantic Council . It sniffs through open source stuff to blame Russia or Syria wherever possible. Bellingcat were recently a victim of the "Russian bots" - or rather of the ASD website. On February 10 the hashtag #bellingcat trended to rank 2 of the dashboard.


bigger

Bellingcat was thus, according to the Hamilton 68 claims, under assault of hordes of nefarious Russian government sponsored bots.

The Bellingcat folks looked into the issue and found that only six people on Twitter, none of them an automated account, had used the #bellingcat hashtag in the last 48 hours. Some of the six may have opinions that may be "pro Russian", but as Higgins himself says :

[I]n my opinion, it's extremely unlikely the people listed are Russian agents

The pro-NATO propaganda shop Bellingcat thus debunked the pro NATO propaganda shop Alliance for Securing Democracy.

The fraudsters who created the Hamilton 68 crap seem to have filled their database with rather normal people who's opinions they personally dislike. Those then are the "Russian bots" who spread "Russian influence" and divisiveness.

Moreover - what is the value of its information when six normal people out of millions of active Twitter users can push a hashtag with a handful of tweets to the top of the dashboard?

But the U.S. media writes long gushing stories about the dashboard and how it somehow shows automated Russian propaganda. They go to length to explain that this shows "Russian influence" and a "Russian" attempt to sow "divisiveness" into people's minds.

This is nuts.

Last August, when the Hamilton 68 project was first released, the Nation was the only site critical of it. It predicted :

The import of GMF's project is clear: Reporting on anything that might put the US in a bad light is now tantamount to spreading Russian propaganda.

It is now even worse than that. The top ranking of the #merrychristmas hashtag shows that the algorithm does not even care about good or bad news. The tracked twitter accounts are normal people.

The whole project is just a means to push fake stories about alleged "Russian influence" into U.S. medias. Whenever some issue creeps up on its dashboard that somehow fits its false "Russian bots" and "divisiveness" narrative the Alliance for Securing Democracy contacts the media to spread its poison. The U.S. media, - CNN, Wired, the New York Times - are by now obviously devoid of thinking journalists and fact checkers. They simple re-package the venom and spread it to the public.

How long will it take until people die from it?

Posted by b on February 20, 2018 at 03:15 PM | Permalink

Comments

nhs , Feb 20, 2018 3:24:03 PM | 1

The truth about 'Russiagate'
Lohmann , Feb 20, 2018 3:32:49 PM | 2
It's all too reminiscent of Duck Soup:

Rufus T. Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it.

[Trentino enters]

Rufus T. Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?

[slaps Trentino with his glove]

Ambassador Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this is the last straw. There's no turning back now! This means war!

Rufus T. Firefly: Then it's war! Then it's war! Gather the forces. Harness the horses. Then it's war!

Clueless Joe , Feb 20, 2018 3:45:14 PM | 3
"to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe."
That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases.
ken , Feb 20, 2018 3:46:05 PM | 4
For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity.
foo , Feb 20, 2018 3:59:22 PM | 5
Zomg! Pricey robot!

Keep up the excellent work b.

xor , Feb 20, 2018 4:11:10 PM | 6
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing.
Bart Hansen , Feb 20, 2018 4:14:00 PM | 7

How much time might the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" spend on uncovering voter suppression and purges, dis-enfrancisement of felons, the closing of polling places, restrictions of early voting, the influence of billionaires, gerrymandering and so on?
karlof1 , Feb 20, 2018 4:30:11 PM | 8
Gee, what could go wrong formulating policy founded upon a series of Big Lies? Kim Dotcom says he has important info the FBI refuses to hear. At the Munich Security Conference , neocon Nicholas Burns, former US Ambassador to NATO, details my assertion's factual basis that current policy is being formed on a series of Big Lies: "Will NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian [sic] has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia ?" [Bolded text are the Big Lies.]

Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair.

john , Feb 20, 2018 4:34:32 PM | 9
How long will it take until people die from it

as long as it takes to flog a dead horse

Jen , Feb 20, 2018 4:54:59 PM | 10
Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not just economic and political but cultural and historical.

In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to "correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World War II cabinet.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk

That's why pinning down the reason for wanting a war against Russia is so difficult.

Partisan , Feb 20, 2018 5:06:58 PM | 11

The whole piece is just hilarious and I laughed out loud all time while reading it.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/nyts-really-weird-russiagate-story/

Since the FBI never inspected the DNC's computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary Clinton ally.

Thus, Putin-basher Clinton hired Putin-basher Alperovitch to investigate an alleged electronic heist, and to absolutely no one's surprise, his company concluded that guilty party was Vladimir Putin. Amazing! Since then, a small army of internet critics has chipped away at CrowdStrike for praising the hackers as among the best in the business yet declaring in the same breath that they gave themselves away by uploading a document in the name of "Felix Edmundovich," i.e. Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret police.

As noted cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr observed with regard to Russia's two main intelligence agencies: "Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."

james , Feb 20, 2018 5:17:19 PM | 12
thanks b!

muddy waters.. paid for propaganda.... look at all the russian bots, lol...

cold war 2 / mccarthyism 2 is in effect... the historic parallels are marked. thank you neo cons!

it's working... the ordinary person in the usa can't be this stupid can they?

when does ww3 kick in? is that really what these idiots want? or is it just to prolong the huge defense budget?

Mike Maloney , Feb 20, 2018 5:24:03 PM | 13
This is about conditioning voters in Europe and the United States for a long war with Russia and China. In other words, a return to the 1950s. It is not working and becoming increasingly hysterical because societies are not nearly as cohesive as they once were, and the mainstream political parties, while better funded and more top-down organized, are basically hollow. The collapse is coming. Four years or ten, take your pick.
dh , Feb 20, 2018 5:32:10 PM | 14
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."

Most Americans probably don't. Just the chosen few with the deepest fall-out shelters. The idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms.

Partisan , Feb 20, 2018 6:02:58 PM | 15
"Most Americans probably don't."

not true.

let's imagine that we have the pyramid of evilness, by which we measure bestiality of one regime and its constituency. my firm belief is that us would be on the top of that pyramid. Only dilemma would be between Zionist entity and the US.

"How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?" was the question Wilhelm Reich famously asked in the wake of the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (Reichstag Fire Decree, February 28, 1933), which suspended the civil rights protections afforded by the Weimar Republic's democratic constitution.Hitler had been appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933 and Reich was trying to grapple with the fact that the German people had apparently chosen the authoritarian politics promoted by National Socialism against their own political interests. Ever since, the question of fascism, or rather the question of why might people vote for their own oppression, has never ceased to haunt political philosophy.2 With Trump openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the continued electoral success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question has again become a pressing one.

An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime.


CarlD , Feb 20, 2018 6:06:06 PM | 16
Remember the "USS MAINE"!

Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers
like a good ole war!

Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street.
Once over the cliff, there is no turning back.

How do you tell people that, at the flick of your magic switch, Putin is in fact
a swell guy and wonderful human being? Once love is gone who goes back
to the filthy, abhorrent and estranged spouse?

Surely the US establishment is playing with fire thinking they will successfully
ride out any conflict and come out on top secure in their newly reestablished
hegemony on the smoldering ruins of Humanity.

Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as
tomorrow word will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.

"Freedom of speech"...

CarlD , Feb 20, 2018 6:12:52 PM | 17
re 16
correction:

Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as
tomorrow's world will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.

dh , Feb 20, 2018 6:14:14 PM | 18
@15 "An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime."

I'm not so sure. I think there are many Americans who deeply distrust their government. But of course they don't want to appear unpatriotic. There are also many who are apathetic and many simply don't know how to change things.

SteveK9 , Feb 20, 2018 6:35:58 PM | 19
It's horrible I know to quote a Nazi, but Goring had this right:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

WorldBLee , Feb 20, 2018 6:36:51 PM | 20
American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources" to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. The skills required to repeat the text verbatim serve them well in both cases. Skepticism is only reserved to anyone who tries to introduce logic or facts into the equation--such as when Jill Stein was interviewed on MSNBC recently. How dare Ms. Stein try to bring FACTS into the discussion!
chet380 , Feb 20, 2018 6:41:04 PM | 21
In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public.
Sinc , Feb 20, 2018 6:41:57 PM | 22
See info on US 'Twitter' manipulation campaign
Sinc , Feb 20, 2018 6:44:16 PM | 23
Sorry, link here
ken , Feb 20, 2018 6:59:01 PM | 24
Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was. 59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. Almost every politician, and major news organizations are pushing for a war/conflict with Russia. This is insanity as no one will win a war like this and I am sure they know that,,, but they keep the war drums beating anyhow. It simply doesn't make sense. But Thanks again.

Same for dh, #14. Things are soooo stupid, your joking may be closer to the truth than you know. :-)

Skip , Feb 20, 2018 6:59:35 PM | 25
@SteveK9 #19

Thank you for the post. I will save it and use it liberally, with proper attributions. When one challenges the tribe on places like Twitter, it is hard to tell who is a real idiot and who is a bot. How do you know? Maybe that the bots go away fairly quickly and the idiots hang around to argue ad infinitum.

oldenyoung , Feb 20, 2018 7:06:23 PM | 26
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MICGlobalists dont care what we think or how poor their deceptions are. The public perception that "russia did it!!" continues to rise. I wonder what the public acceptance level needs to be for them to execute a MAJOR false flag event. They seem to think they are still on target, and its just a short matter or time...

They are going to do this when the perception management is complete...

We really do not need another one of their disasters

regards

OY

Grieved , Feb 20, 2018 7:37:47 PM | 27
The bully pushes and pushes until stopped by the first serious push back. The dynamic of the west and the neocon/Zionists at the core is essentially that of the bully. Nations like Venezuela and the Philippines have started to push back, and I hope and feel fairly confident that they will both survive the rage of the US. In some part, they have begun to show the actual powerlessness of the bully.

But the really killer nations - Russia and China - are holding their water as they strengthen their force. I believe that one very serious push back from either of them in the right circumstances will stop the bully. And yet, as they bide their time, we see a curious phenomenon wherein the US is destroying itself from the inside.

It's as if all of the forces that exist to control the country - the lockstep media, the fully rigged markets, the hysterical military, the bought legislature and the crooked courts - are all acting far more strongly than should be necessary. The entire system is over-reacting, over-reaching, over-boiling. And in the course of this, the US is actually shedding power, and at an amazing rate. But not from the action of Russia but from its non-action, the empty space that that allows the bully's dynamic to over-reach, all the way to complete failure.

Is it possible that deep in the security states of Russia and China there's even a study and a model for this? Is the collapse of the US actually being gamed by Russia and China - and through the totally counter-intuitive action of non-action?

Just a thought.

Ghost Ship , Feb 20, 2018 7:51:03 PM | 28
>>>> xor | Feb 20, 2018 4:11:10 PM | 6
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing.

I've always put it down to the Washington Establishment having a severe case of psychological projection.

WG , Feb 20, 2018 7:52:38 PM | 29
Hey b,
Just wanted to let you know that Joe Lauria mentioned your blog and the article you wrote on the indictment of the 13 Russians. He was on Loud and Clear (Sputnik Radio, Washington DC) today and brought you up at the start of the program.
Glad to see you get some recognition for all the great work you've been doing :)
Mike , Feb 20, 2018 7:53:24 PM | 30
Meanwhile, back in 2010:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/when-campaigns-manipulate-social-media/66351/
Jen , Feb 20, 2018 7:53:43 PM | 31
Ken @ 24: The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion.
https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda

Bernays' books influenced Nazi and Soviet propaganda and Bernays himself was hired by the US government to justify in the public mind the 1954 US invasion of Guatemala.

You may be aware that Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation which owns the Wall Street Journal, FOX News and 20th Century Fox studios, is also on the Board of Directors of Genie Energy which owns a subsidiary firm that was granted a licence by an Israeli court to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's (and Israeli-occupied) Golan Heights.

simjam , Feb 20, 2018 7:59:21 PM | 32
The national media speaks as one -with one consistent melody day after day. Who is the conductor?

When will one representative of the mainstream media sing solo? There must be a Ray McGovern somewhere among the flock.

V. Arnold , Feb 20, 2018 8:05:33 PM | 33
Grieved | Feb 20, 2018 7:37:47 PM | 27

Many of my thoughts as well.
The U.S.'s greatest fault is its tacit misunderstanding of just what russia is in fact.
They utterly fail to understand the Russian character; forged over 800 years culminating with the defeat of Nazi Germany, absorbing horrific losses; the U.S. fails to understand the effect upon the then Soviets, become todays Russians.
Even the god's have abandoned the west...

Palloy , Feb 20, 2018 8:52:02 PM | 34
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."

Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.

In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of the currency as they needed.

They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C) as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began, even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.

In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b). Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of Industrial Civilisation.

Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.

Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't make sense from a normal perspective.

Debsisdead , Feb 20, 2018 8:53:42 PM | 35
I watched bbc news this am in the hope that I would get to see the most awful creature at the 2018 olympics cry her croc tears (long story - a speed skater who cuts off the opposition but has been found out so now when she swoops in front of the others they either skate over her leading to tearful whines from perp about having been 'pushed', or gets disqualified for barging. Last night she got disqualified so as part of my study on whether types like this believe their own bullshit I thought I'd tune in but didn't get that far into the beebs lies)
The bulk of the bulletin was devoted to a 'lets hate Russia' session which featured a quisling who works for the russian arm of BBC (prolly just like cold war days staffed exclusively by MI6/SIS types). This chap, using almost unintelligible english, claimed he had proof at least 50 Russian Mercenaries (question - why are amerikan guns for hire called contractors [remember the Fallujah massacre of 100,000 civilians because amerikan contractors were stupid] yet Russian contractors are called mercenaries by the media?) had been killed in Syria last week. The bloke had evidence of one contractor's death not 50 - the proof was a letter from the Russian government to the guy's mother telling her he didn't qualify for any honours because he wasn't in the Russian military.
The quisling (likely a Ukranian I would say) went on to rabbit about the bloke having also fought in Donbass under contract - to which the 'interviewer (don't ya love it when media 'interview' their own journos - a sure sign that a snippet of toxic nonsense is being delivered) led about how the deceitful Russians had claimed the only Russians fighting in Donbass were contractors - yeah well this bloke was a contractor surely that proves the Russians were telling the truth.
It's not what these propagandists say; they adopt a tone and the audience is meant to hate based on that even when the facts as stated conflict with the media outlet's point of view. Remember the childhood trick of saying "bad dog" ter yer mutt in loving tones - the dog comes to ya tail wagging & licks yer hand. This is that.

The next item was more Syria lies - white helmets footage (altho the beeb is now mostly giving them an alternative name to dodge the facts about white helmets) of bandaged children with flour tipped on their heads.
The evil Syrians and Russians are bombarding Gouta - nary a word about the continuous artillery barrage Gouta has subjected the citizens of Damascus to for the past 4 years, or that the Syrians have repeatedly offered truces and safe passage for civilians. Any injured children need to ask their parents why they weren't allowed to take advantage of the frequent offers of transport out. Maybe the parents are worried 'the resistance' will do its usual and blow up the busloads of children after luring them over with candy.

Anyway I switched off after that so never did learn if little miss cheat had a cry.

[Feb 20, 2018] Hillary Clinton If I m President, We Will Attack Iran We Would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them. Global Research - Cent

Notable quotes:
"... Among Global Research's most popular articles in 2016. ..."
"... Hillary is Dangerous. She Means What She says? Or Does She? (M. C. GR. Editor) ..."
"... On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an "existential threat to Israel I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program." ..."
"... Stephen Lendman ..."
"... lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. ..."
"... His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." ..."
"... http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

Hillary Clinton: "If I'm President, We Will Attack Iran We Would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them." By Stephen Lendman Global Research, February 19, 2018 Global Research 5 July 2015 Region: Middle East & North Africa , USA Theme: Militarization and WMD , US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?

Among Global Research's most popular articles in 2016.

Hillary is Dangerous. She Means What She says? Or Does She? (M. C. GR. Editor)

* * *

On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an "existential threat to Israel I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program."

Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world's chief sponsor of terrorism.

They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.

We have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.

Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran's nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran wants one. Plenty indicates otherwise.

As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she addressed AIPAC's annual convention saying:

The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests .shared ideals .common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel's security.

(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat" against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel's right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.

I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas' campaign of terror.

No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.

Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas' charter "calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel."

"I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late."

She backs "massive retaliation" if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:

" I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that "keep the peace." She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.

*

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

[Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

Highly recommended!
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.rt.com

Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances

It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union.

But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are only hastening their institutional demise.

Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances.

The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.

This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep spinning.

Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of "Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in December.

Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that "devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by "weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based news outlets like RT and Sputnik.

Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media figures.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later this year.

On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious Russian assault to bring about collapse.

A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together."

Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as well."

Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact" .

It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.

He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning."

As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".

The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."

It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed foreign enemy.

There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance, politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.

Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and institutions need to take a look in the mirror.

The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.

The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?

How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?

Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting austerity.

The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference".

Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is the enemy?

Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity, eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."

Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic process against Trump.

Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?

The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

[Feb 19, 2018] Europe and Russia

A very interesting issue
Feb 19, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

Current Concerns", n°32, December 31st, 2017

Partners | Zurich (Switzerland) | 3 January 2018

[Feb 19, 2018] Western Chauvinism Against Russia Gone Berserk by Michael Averko

Olympics became completely corrupt sport where gladiators ruin their health for wealthy watchers.
Notable quotes:
"... Even if these irregularities occurred (something that remains unclear on account of the claim not being fully presented in the open), one then practically wonders whether it was with the knowledge of any or all of the effected Russian athletes and if their actual test results were indeed positive? Meantime, the prior and post 2014 Winter Olympic Olympic drug tests of a good number of these athletes reveal innocence. ..."
"... Tygart (along with Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound and some other pious blowhards) have favored a collective ban on all Russian athletes. ..."
"... A February 2 RT article , provides a healthy offset to the overall biased Western mass media reporting on the subject of Russian sports doping. The former details numerous reasons for not believing much of the negative allegations against Russian Olympians. ..."
"... In actuality, a good number of them train outside Russia, with non-Russian coaches. Touching on this last point, The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins had an August 10, 2016 article , that showed how Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, had taken performance enhancing drugs on her own, while training in the US, as opposed to some Russian state-sponsored method. ..."
"... Moments before the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympic opening ceremony, CAS came out with another decision on Russian athletes, which contradicts its February 1 ruling. Bigotry has been given a boost over the idea of judging people as individuals. To quote The New York Times' Juliet Macur: " The whistle-blowers are holding their breath. The Russians and clean athletes are, too ." ..."
"... Substitute 'Russians' for some other group in such a negatively applied way and see the selective outrage. No NYT journo would write a bigoted comparison that differentiates between law abiding citizens and African-Americans, followed by a utilization of crime statistics as 'proof' for such a presented contrast ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | www.eurasiareview.com

For you non-sports minded Russia watchers, the ethically flawed antics of the IOC (International Olympic Committee), WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) and Western mass media at large, highlight a predominating anti-Russian bias that have a definite bigoted aspect. Having personally penned the title of this essay, let me say that the February 1 CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) decision favoring Russian athletes, is proof positive that not everyone in the West is motivated (subconsciously or otherwise) by anti-Russian sentiment.

Upon announcing its decision to ban Russia from the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics (with some Russian athletes competing under the Olympic flag and "Olympic Athlete from Russia" designation), the IOC indicated that the WADA propped McLaren report's claim of a Russian state-sponsored Olympic and Paralympic doping campaign hasn't been proven. Yet, this fact hasn't stopped the BBC and New York Times from falsely stating that the IOC decision is based on a primary Russian government culpability. Without definitively making the case in the open, the IOC said that there were testing irregularities at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, that favored some Russian athletes.

The February 1 CAS decision took into consideration that a good number of the IOC banned Russian athletes have been extensively tested inside and outside of Russia over a lengthy period of time, without ever being found guilty of a drug infraction. In addition, the CAS (on the known facts) reasonably concluded that the claimed 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic testing irregularities haven't been firmly concluded. Even if these irregularities occurred (something that remains unclear on account of the claim not being fully presented in the open), one then practically wonders whether it was with the knowledge of any or all of the effected Russian athletes and if their actual test results were indeed positive? Meantime, the prior and post 2014 Winter Olympic Olympic drug tests of a good number of these athletes reveal innocence.

In reply to these particulars, I've heard some Western chauvinist spin, saying that the CAS cleared Russians athletes aren't necessarily innocent, on account that they still could've cheated without getting caught. That very same logic applies to non-Russian athletes who might very well have succeeded in finding a way around the process.

The CAS found 11 Russian Olympians to have been previously found guilty of a drug infraction, that warranted a ban from Pyeongchang, as opposed to the hypocritically flawed IOC decision to implement a lifetime ban against them. The hypocrisy concerns the number of non-Russian athletes found guilty of doping, who didn't receive lifetime bans.

On the matter of gross anti-Russian hypocrisy, note famed US Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps' 2009 admission of smoking pot. Phelps wasn't banned from Olympic competition for that action. On the other hand, the IOC feels that it's appropriate to ban the Russian 1500 meter speed skating world record holder Denis Yuskov from the upcoming Winter Olympics, for a prior marijuana smoking episode in 2008. The unfairness of that move has been noted by some earnest folks in the West. Another of several repugnant anti-Russian IOC acts, concerns the banning of Russian short track speed skater Viktor Ahn.

As I've previously noted, Richard McLaren's claim that 1000 Russian athletes benefitted from a Russian government involved illicit regimen of cheating, would likely mean that ALL of the Russian athletes in question, would be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have taken such a course. This hasn't been proven at all, with a note that the combined Russian Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic participating athletes is (if I'm not mistaken) under 1000.

On the US based National Public Radio, I heard the WADA connected American legal sports politico Travis Tygart (in rather self serving fashion) suggest his objectivity, by noting how he went after the legendary American cyclist Lance Armstrong. This is sheer BS, as Tygart never advocated banning all American cyclists and-or all US athletes from major competition. In comparison, Tygart (along with Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound and some other pious blowhards) have favored a collective ban on all Russian athletes.

The likes of Tygart have a committed track record of extreme bias against Russia. In contrast, the IOC President Thomas Bach, comes across as a wishy washy sort, not fit to serve his position. It's a high point of chutzpah for Bach to second guess the CAS ruling on Russia, by saying that the CAS needs to be revamped. Bach and his fellow IOC cronies have belittled the CAS decision, with the announcement that none of the cleared Russian athletes will be invited to the upcoming Winter Olympics. Russian Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko befittingly said that the IOC and WADA are in need of restructuring.

At the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics, Bach took the position that the individual sports federations should decide on whether to restrict Russian partition. With rare exception, most of these IOC affiliated sports bodies decided (based on facts) that Russia shouldn't be penalized at that Olympiad. This time around, Bach has leaned towards the "pressure", as constantly rehashed by leading Western mass media outlets "to do something" against Russia.

A February 2 RT article , provides a healthy offset to the overall biased Western mass media reporting on the subject of Russian sports doping. The former details numerous reasons for not believing much of the negative allegations against Russian Olympians. Among the particulars, is the faulty notion that Russian athletes live and train under the same state manipulated structure.

In actuality, a good number of them train outside Russia, with non-Russian coaches. Touching on this last point, The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins had an August 10, 2016 article , that showed how Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, had taken performance enhancing drugs on her own, while training in the US, as opposed to some Russian state-sponsored method. (On the subject of Russian sports doping, Jenkins' aforementioned piece is an exception to the generally biased trend in Western mass media.)

It's matter of established record that Italy has the most Olympic sports dopers, despite having a smaller number of competing athletes when compared to Russia. Per capita, India, Turkey and Iran have higher rates of such doping infractions than Russia, with South Africa and Belgium having about the same percentage of positive doping as Russia. The December 24, 2017 Worlds Apart show , suggests that a disproportionate number of Western athletes have been given exemptions for drugs having a performance enhancing capability. (That RT show had earlier featured Dick Pound , which I followed up on .)

Moments before the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympic opening ceremony, CAS came out with another decision on Russian athletes, which contradicts its February 1 ruling. Bigotry has been given a boost over the idea of judging people as individuals. To quote The New York Times' Juliet Macur: " The whistle-blowers are holding their breath. The Russians and clean athletes are, too ."

As I noted : " Substitute 'Russians' for some other group in such a negatively applied way and see the selective outrage. No NYT journo would write a bigoted comparison that differentiates between law abiding citizens and African-Americans, followed by a utilization of crime statistics as 'proof' for such a presented contrast ."

Along with numerous other Western mass media journalists, some of Macur's other commentary have a noticeable anti-Russian bias. I wonder if she learned that slant from her father , who she wrote about?

*Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. A closely related version of this article was initially placed at the Strategic Culture Foundation's website on February 8.

[Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

Highly recommended!
Mueller was the person responsible for investigation of 911. That fact alone tells you all as for what we can expect.
Notable quotes:
"... NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that Russia hacked the DNC ..."
"... There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin ..."
"... Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept) ..."
"... There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm ..."
"... Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber security ..."
"... Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy (and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War and maintaining U.S. global hegemony. ..."
"... Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss. ..."
"... How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup, kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the media never mentions. ..."
"... Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the party. ..."
"... That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the earth's environment. ..."
"... It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House. Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful idiots". ..."
"... This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary. ..."
"... I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe. ..."
"... tweet by Peter Van Buren, former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC, Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians, and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally. ..."
"... BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats. ..."
"... Seems that the end justifies the means. No matter what is the truth. In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered their computers for FBI forensics. ..."
"... The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for corporate media. ..."
"... It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT. ..."
"... So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining. ..."
"... Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"? ..."
"... Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House. ..."
"... You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia, don't you? ..."
"... Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely since Gorbachev. Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure in their bad state. ..."
Feb 19, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Cara Marianna says: February 19, 2018 at 4:36 pm

Here's what we know:

  1. NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that Russia hacked the DNC
  2. There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin
  3. Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective
  4. Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept)
  5. There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm
  6. Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber security

Read number six again and think about it. The U.S. is ready and willing to launch a preemptive nuclear attack against any nation it accuses of undermining our cyber security - no proof necessary. The Democratic establishment, which has spent the past year engaging in baseless Kremlin-baiting (and very little else), is directly responsible for this insanity.

Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy (and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War and maintaining U.S. global hegemony.

Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss.

Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm

Who gives a shit really?

How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup, kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the media never mentions.

Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:12 am

As I open the online edition of The Nation this morning, there are two lead stories. One of them tells how Trump is planning to evict 5 million poor people from public housing. A very important story.

The second story by Bob Dreyfuss is probably the 10,000th one I've seen about the Russia probe. The public housing story is obviously much more important and substantial, yet the Democrats have been focusing almost exclusively on the flimsy Russia probe. Not even the pressing need to regulate assault rifles has really grabbed their full attention, even in the wake of the latest dreadful Florida high school massacre. In perusing the news stories this Sunday morning, the Russia probe continues to hold first place in coverage by a big margin.

Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the party.

That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the earth's environment.

Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 9:52 am

Amen, Caleb
It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House. Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful idiots".

Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:33 pm

This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary.

Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:42 am

I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe.

Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 8:24 am

FYI
tweet by Peter Van Buren, former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC, Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians, and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally.

Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:37 pm

There is nothing illegal or unethical about any individual of government supporting one candidate over another. BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats.

Clark M Shanahan says: February 19, 2018 at 9:02 am

Seems that the end justifies the means. No matter what is the truth. In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered their computers for FBI forensics.

Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 12:31 pm

The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for corporate media.

Richard Phelps says: February 18, 2018 at 2:52 am

There is one issue that no media is talking about regarding the "memos". Trump is clearly a "person of interest", if not a suspect in some parts of the investigation. Given Trump's entanglement how is it not an absolute conflict of interest for Trump being the person who decides what memos get to be public and what redactions must be made.

Imagine a judge being a suspect in a crime or a major stockholder in a corporate civil suit. S/he would never be allowed to make any rulings on what evidence the jury gets to see or anything about the case. Some non-interested 3rd party needs to make those decisions.

Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:38 pm

Quit feeding this beast.

Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm

The other interesting and fun fact not mentioned anywhere. Three Names won by 3 million votes. Crafty Ruskis.

Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:33 pm

This investigation by Mueller is just beginning. In other words, and to use the vernacular, "We "ain't seen nothing," yet."

Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm

You are right. This is nothing but bullshit and it may be just the beginning. The Democrats have an endless supply of donkey-shit.

Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm

It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three Names before Trump even announced he was running. The basic set up for this was going on in 2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.

Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm

No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012

Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 10:28 am

Since when have you been so trusting of our FBI & CIA, Carla? From what we've experienced together from the Gulf of Tonkin onward, I'm a wee-tad taken aback. Please read the ex-foreign intelligence officer's twitter posting that I posted above.

Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm

Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up organizations to do stuff just on the off chance that some politician or wannabe is going to run. These guys ain't got nothin'. It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.

Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm

So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining.

Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm

Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"?

Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.

Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm

You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia, don't you?

Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm

I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.

Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat.

Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 10:13 am

Yes David, I'm still a skeptic. In fact, I think this move to indict 13 suspects, that have a snowball in Hell's chance of ever being tried, is simply a dog and pony show to placate the public. Debrief yourself, read Binney's report and listen to Stephen F Cohen's latest, here on the Nation.

Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 5:25 pm

Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely since Gorbachev. Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure in their bad state.

As if Hill, who stole the primaries actually ran a competent campaign.

[Feb 19, 2018] Kim Dotcom Let Me Assure You, The DNC Hack Wasn t Even A Hack Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... All fucking Kabuki. All of it. ..."
"... The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative. ..."
"... They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly, or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration. ..."
"... This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice. ..."
Feb 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Kim Dotcom: "Let Me Assure You, The DNC Hack Wasn't Even A Hack"

by Tyler Durden Mon, 02/19/2018 - 07:51 3.4K SHARES

Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

In response, Dotcom tweeted " Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. 360 pounds! " alluding of course to Trump's "400 pound genius" comment.

Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed typical of file transfers to a memory stick.

The local transfer theory of course blows the Russian hacking narrative out of the water, lending credibility to the theory that the DNC "hack" was in fact an inside job, potentially implicating late DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.

John Podesta's email was allegely successfully "hacked" (he fell victim to a phishing scam ) in March 2016, while the DNC reported suspicious activity (the suspected Seth Rich file transfer) in late April, 2016 according to the Washington Post.

On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.

On May 19 2017 Dotcom tweeted "I knew Seth Rich. I was involved"

Three days later, Dotcom again released a guarded statement saying "I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK," adding:

"I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.

If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made. I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, I will make no further comment."

Dotcom knew.

While one could simply write off Dotcom's claims as an attention seeking stunt, he made several comments and a series of tweets hinting at the upcoming email releases prior to both the WikiLeaks dumps as well as the publication of the hacked DNC emails to a website known as "DCLeaks."

In a May 14, 2015 Bloomberg article entitled "Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare In 2016 ": "I have to say it's probably more Julian," who threatens Hillary, Dotcom said. " But I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her ."

Two days later, Dotcom tweeted this:

Around two months later, Kim asks a provocative question

Two weeks after that, Dotcom then tweeted "Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on the internet who's going to jail?"

It should thus be fairly obvious to anyone that Dotcom was somehow involved, and therefore any evidence he claims to have, should be taken seriously as part of Mueller's investigation. Instead, as Dotcom tweeted, "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. "

chunga Sun, 02/18/2018 - 21:59 Permalink

Pffft...this guy sounds like the reds with their "blockbuster" memo. Honest Hill'rey is laughing!

SethPoor -> chunga Sun, 02/18/2018 - 22:00 Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_8VaMbPjUU

Bes -> J S Bach Sun, 02/18/2018 - 22:17 Permalink

All fucking Kabuki. All of it.

The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative.

Meanwhile they keep enacting the most Pro Deep State/MIC/Police State/Zionist/Wall Street agenda possible. And they call it #winning

----

pathetic.

bigkahuna -> CheapBastard Mon, 02/19/2018 - 09:58 Permalink

"Had to be a Russian mole with a computer stick. MSM, DNC and Muller say so."

They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly, or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration.

This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice.

StarGate -> CheapBastard Mon, 02/19/2018 - 11:23 Permalink

Don't forget the "hack" analysis of Russian owned "Crowdstrike" since the FBI did and continues to, refuse to analyze the DNC computers.

KuriousKat -> CheapBastard Mon, 02/19/2018 - 13:26 Permalink

Isn't Alperovitch the Only Russian in there?.. When you rule out the impossible...whatever remains probable.. probably is..

wildbad -> IntercoursetheEU Mon, 02/19/2018 - 03:05 Permalink

Kim is great, Assange is great. Kim is playing a double game. He wants immunity from the US GUmmint overreach that destroyed his company and made him a prisoner in NZ.

Good on ya Kim.

His name was Seth Rich...and he will reach out from the grave and bury Killary who murdered him.

NumberNone -> wildbad Mon, 02/19/2018 - 10:04 Permalink

There are so many nuances to this and all are getting mentioned but the one that also stands out is that in an age of demands for gun control by the Dems, Seth Rich is never, ever mentioned. He should be the poster child for gun control. Young man, draped in a American flag, helping democracy, gunned down...it writes itself.

They either are afraid of the possible racial issues should it turn out to be a black man killing a white man (but why should that matter in a gun control debate?) or they just don't want people looking at this case. I go for #2.

Socratic Dog -> Buckaroo Banzai Mon, 02/19/2018 - 12:09 Permalink

Funny that George Webb can figure it out, but Trump, Leader of the Free World, is sitting there with his dick in his hand waiting for someone to save him.

Whatever he might turn out to be, this much is clear: Trump is a spineless weakling. He might be able to fuck starlets, but he hasn't got the balls to defend either himself or the Republic.

verumcuibono -> Buckaroo Banzai Mon, 02/19/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

Webb's research is also...managed. But a lot of it was/is really good (don't follow it anymore) and I agree re: SR piece of it.

I think SR is such an interesting case. It's not really an anomaly because SO many Bush-CFR-related hits end the same way and his had typical signatures. But his also squeels of a job done w/out much prior planning because I think SR surprised everyone. If, in fact, that was when he was killed. Everything regarding the family's demeanor suggests no.

verumcuibono -> NumberNone Mon, 02/19/2018 - 12:41 Permalink

MANY patterns in shootings: failure in law enforcement/intelligence who were notified of problem individuals ahead of time, ARs, mental health and SSRIs, and ongoing resistance to gun control in DC ----these are NOT coincidences. Nor are distractions in MSM's version of events w/ controlled propaganda.

Children will stop being killed when America wakes the fuck up and starts asking the right questions, making the right demands. It's time.

KJWqonfo7 -> wildbad Mon, 02/19/2018 - 11:15 Permalink

Kim is awesome to watch, I remember his old website of pics of him on yachts with hot girls and racing the Gumball Rally.

verumcuibono -> wildbad Mon, 02/19/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

I don't think you know how these hackers have nearly ALL been intercepted by CIA--for decades now. DS has had backdoor access to just about all of them. I agree that Kim is great, brilliant and was sabotaged but he's also cooperating. Otherwise he'd be dead.

StarGate -> Billy the Poet Mon, 02/19/2018 - 11:48 Permalink

Bes is either "disinfo plant" or energy draining pessimist. Result is the same - to deflate your power to create a new future.

Trump saw the goal of the Fed Reserve banksters decades ago and spoke often about it. Like Prez Kennedy he wants to return USA economy to silver or gold backed dollar then transition to new system away from the Black Magic fed reserve/ tax natl debt machine.

The Globalist Cabal has been working to destroy the US economy ever since they income tax April 15th Lincoln at the Ford theater. 125 years. But Bes claims because Trump cannot reverse 125 years of history in one year that it is kabuki.

Pessimism is its own reward.

[Feb 19, 2018] In Raging Tweetstorm, Trump Says Russians Laughing Their Asses Off, Mocks Leakin' Monster Schiff

Trump has a point: "If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams..."
Trump is still better than Hillary but the margin is shrinking fast...
Feb 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
excoriating the FBI for failing to act on multiple tips about "professional school shooter" Nikolas Cruz's murderous intentions, and criticizing National Security Adviser HR McMaster over his Russia collusion comments, President Donald Trump shifted his focus toward one of his favorite targets, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, whom he "congratulated" for finally acknowledging that the Obama administration is responsible for any attempted interference by Russia during the 2016 election.

In one of his more memorable turns of phrase, Trump lauded " Liddle Adam Schiff ", whom he branded the " leakin monster of no control ", for finally " blaming the Obama Administration for Russian meddling in the 2016 Election. He is finally right about something. Obama was President, knew of the threat, and did nothing. Thank you Adam!"

Trump also expressed his amazement that nobody in federal law enforcement or Congress tried to stop the Obama administration from handing over nearly $2 billion in cash to Iran. The cash transfers were first reported by the Wall Street Journal in September 2016. The administration defended its actions by saying it was merely returning the money, which belonged to Iranian entities, but had been frozen because of sanctions.

... ... ...

Putting it all together, given the hysteria surrounding Russian interference during the 2016 election, the multiple investigations and countless public resources wasted, if it was Russia's intention to create chaos in the US, then they've "succeeded beyond their wildest dreams", Trump claimed."They're probably " laughing their asses off in Moscow," he added.

Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:02 Permalink

But wasn't I a great candidate?

Yes you were , and I voted for you, you lying flip-flopping piece of shit!

1. Jail Crooked Hillary – Flipped. During the Inauguration Dinner: "The Clintons are good people!"

2. Drain the Swamp – Flipped. The promise vanished like a fart in the wind.

3. I love WikiLeaks – Flipped. Assange is still marooned in the Embassy.

4. Get out of Syria – Flipped. Attacked Syria with 59 Tomahawks.

5. Reform or Disband NATO – Flipped.

6. Ban Foreign Lobbyists – Flipped. "Did I really promise that shit?"

7. Enact Term Limits – Flipped. Just another fart in the wind.

8. Eliminate Gun-Free Zones – Flipped. Should've pushed for that after the Florida School shooting.

Looney

FreeShitter -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:06 Permalink

Welcome to reality!

JimmyJones -> FreeShitter Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:12 Permalink

The interview with Sessions and Maria Bartiromo on fox is very good, watch it. Today at 10am

DingleBarryObummer -> JimmyJones Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:15 Permalink

fuck this bullshit

I want to know more about this:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/561076/donald-trump-9-11-i
REVEALED: Donald Trump vows to 'reopen 9/11 probe'

brianshell -> BullyBearish Sun, 02/18/2018 - 12:47 Permalink

Dear Bully,

Do you agree with these points?

1. Pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as a sign he WELCOMES whistle blowers and putting the PEOPLE'S business in the LIGHT

2. Begin to revoke the fed's charter by putting Ron Paul in charge of a special investigation of fed malfeasance and destruction of the currency

3. Immediately suspend weapon sales to ANY country or organization involved in a current conflict

4. Revoke israel's special exemption from foreign lobbying registration and fully audit AIPAC with an intention to uncover bribery and espionage

5. Immediately indict Bill and Hillary Clinton and others from the Clinton Foundation on charges of corruption, espionage, and theft

6. Rescind all future payments/allotments to the saudi arabia and israel until they are in compliance with international law and human rights standards

7. Cease saber rattling against Iran and Russia and work toward peaceful, complementary accommodations

8. Draw down the 600 plus U.S. military bases around the world and bring the Americans HOME

9. Initially shift 30% of the current military budget to domestic infrastructure needs with a mandate of further reductions of 10% per yea

Brazen Heist -> brianshell Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow.

Trump is right about the Russians laughing their asses off. But he still foolishly drinks the koolaid handed to him by his fellow swampsters that this was all a Russian plot.

Hubris does that. The swamp is full of it. And Trump is well over 50% in the swamp.

Billy the Poet -> Brazen Heist Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:16 Permalink

It is true that Russians, the intelligence agencies of every other nation and fat guys in their basement all hack and troll the Internet. That simple fact was blown up into a fake Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Trump's latest tweets straighten that all out pretty well.

Deep Snorkeler -> Zero_Ledge Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:30 Permalink

Swinging Hunchbacks on Trump Tower

1. billions for defense, not one cent to protect children

2. tax cuts for the wealthiest, not one cent for debt reduction

3. privileges for giant corporations, attacks on the natural environment

4. a grand military parade and the collapse of democracy

5. trinkets for the middle class, gold for the billionaire caste

Deep Snorkeler -> FreeShitter Sun, 02/18/2018 - 12:39 Permalink

America all Opiated Up With Nowhere to Go

1. the pain of ignorance

2. the pain of obesity

3. the pain of TV watching

4. the pain of imperial collapse and military impotence

5. guns, guns and no fun

Duc888 -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:14 Permalink

1. Sessions has two investigations going on into Hillary. The heavy hitters in Military Int. are taking the lead so Sessions has no reason to dig deeper. the big boys are taking her down. So he did not flip. Clean up on aisle 6 is happening, albeit slowly.

2. Same thing, you'll see the Military Tribunals start in a few months. again, he did not flip... have you missed the fact that because of the ongoing investigations that about 30 congresspersons / Senators are not going up for re election? Most of the senior Staff in State dept is gone. Coney, out, Lynch, holder, Rice and a slew of others currently under investigation.

3. Is Trump supposed to be Assanges nanny or something?

4.That's more Tillersons mess and State dept. Most senior officials quit en mass months ago from State dept. Trump stopped all CIA funding going into Syria...

5. Easier said than done... I'm sure he didn't flip....but his priority now is the counter coup.

6. He took a round about approach in his Dec 21st EO. Blocked Soros dozens of bullshit non profit orgs...antifa funding...etc...

7. Flipped? Or did not get to it? Did he specifically SAY he was FOR term limits? Got a link?

SheHunter -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 11:54 Permalink

9. Build the wall - Windyfart.

10. Keep our money at home to rebuild America - Windyfart.

11. Stop our military intervention in ME and thrid-world countries - Flipped.

12. Put our tax money toward educating our younth - partial windfart.

The one thing I do applaud him for is succeeding in rattling the political/MSM/Deep Swamp cage. I give him credit for that much. MAGA.

343 Guilty Spark -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 12:02 Permalink

Looney I love you but you need to sit back and actually analyze the situation.

1. He extended an olive branch because of how crazy the divide was. She balked and he ramped up his rhetoric on investigating her.

2. WTF are you talking about?? He is pushing congress to investigate and push out publications on the corruption. He can't do shit on his own and expect people in the middle or left to believe it.

3. That is due to Britain putting out an arrest warrant. Has nothing to do with Trump.

4. The same Intel agencies you criticized in the past are giving him info. If they say Syria used chem weapons, he doesn't have any different information. With the info he had, he did the best option...gut the Airbase in question and not fully invade.

5. He got all the countries in question to up their spending, which was the biggest thing he gripped about.

6. I don't know anything about this point so I won't refute it.

7. That requires congress and a possible Constitutional Amendment. Give it time and we will see.

8. That requires congress and he has had a shit time with both Dems and RINOs. Give it time and we will see.

MoralsAreEssential -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 12:38 Permalink

People like you seem to think Trump can just wave a magic wand and POOF, fait accompli. Should he just declare himself Dictator, have a coup d'etat with the White Hat Military and we can go on from there? Do you have ANY idea the depth and breadth of the pollution and toxic information that if it was released at one time the created Zombie American public would literally implode and strike out at any and all, innocent or not? Trump has had to get himself into a powerful enough position to have a reason that the Zombies will accept even if they don't like it to rid himself of planted people NOT White Hats. Do you think he can just tell Goldman Sucks to F*** Off? What's wrong with you people? Look at what he's accomplished in one year AND HE HASN'T BEEN ASSASSINATED which in and of itself tells you how astute he is.

Bloodstock -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:11 Permalink

Mostly, I am disappointed in the war agenda and the continued kissing of Netanyaoo ass (although that was apparently going to happen throughout the campaign and election process.) With that said I do believe that getting his campaign promises all taken care of will be quite a chore and aren't going to happen in the short term. After 8 years of Obama, 8 years of Bush, I'm going to give Trump some more time before I try to fool some people that I've got a crystal ball. MAGA!

surf@jm -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:12 Permalink

I kinda agree, but I still thank god Hillary wasn`t elected......Don`t you?........

Plus no president in history has fulfilled 100% of promises......Besides not being practical, its probably impossible.....

Honest Sam -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:13 Permalink

You are a greedy son of a bitch. He did the single thing that forever saved us from another Clinton fiasco.

You either are a liar and did not vote for him, or you are an ignoramus about Presidential campaign promises, or you could be a DNC operative, attempting to infiltrate a friendly Trump website and sow seeds of discontent.

No matter what I still wake up every morning knowing that 61,000,000 of us destroyed 63,000,000 assholes' aspirations for corrupt criminal, turned Hollyweird ultra liberal predators in bowls of quivering jelly, and made Chris, Oliver, Colbert, Kimmel, most jews, nearly all of both coasts talking heads into blithering idiotic fools.

Count your blessing: No More Clintons!

brushhog -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:43 Permalink

1Gave you the biggest tax cut in history
2 Put an end to the TPP
3 Pulled us out of the NWO Paris climate accord
4 Rolled back regulations
5 Eliminated the obamacare mandate forcing you to buy communist insurance
6 Exposed more corruption in the intelligence, FBI, and DOJ than any other human being living or dead
7 Got rid of net neutrality

etc, etc, etc

The guy has made enormous progress toward his agenda within one year of taking office. What the hell do you want? You're no Trump voter, you lying SOS.

ProsperD9 -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:43 Permalink

You'd have to be VERY naive to think that Trump could just walk in and change everything. What do you think he has some magic button or something? He's in a very precarious situation and perhaps during his campaign he thought he would be able to easily make the changes that America so badly needs but the Deep State had another plans...and unfortunately, they have a lot of power. He has to play both-sides in order to ease his way into what needs to be done for the country and he's doing it. Think about it! North Korea and South Korea are starting to talk, he prevented WW3, he stopped the money that was flowing to the rebels in Syria, he hasn't changed his mind about NATO or the gun-free zones but what can he do now? You know Trump is actually not in charge of the military don't you? The military is a money machine and they don't want it to stop. Creating an enemy like Russia fits right into their hands. This goes for everything else you mentioned...as Trump is not entirely on the side of the Deep State they make it hard for him to do anything. You can't be so naive that you can't see the whole picture!

ReasonForLife -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:56 Permalink

Geez, the guy is 1 year in office and you've got sparks going off in your brain already?

Your impatience and lack of thinking depth is showing very strongly. One cannot come in and start slashing things with his sword, JFK tried that, they took him out. Now Trump wrote a little famous book called "The ART of the Deal", perhaps you may want to read it to understand how he works before you pass judgment. It takes great skill and TIME to be able to drain a swamp artfully.

Why don't you mention any of his great accomplishments he's made within first year as president you impatient fool?

chubbar -> Fishthatlived Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:22 Permalink

The hammer comes down with the IG report, wait for it. Sessions may be a bumbling old fool or he may be playing the long game here. Since Sessions is Trumps political appointee, the optics of him going after all of these assholes from the Obama administration before the general public is aware of the corruption would doom the clean up. We'd have months/years of the MSM screaming about political payback, etc. So these guys are just taking baby steps to out the corruption.

If the IG report is as damning as it is being touted as, even the MSM will be forced to cover it and Horowitz is not a Trump appointee, he will be considered above the fray. He has to be the guy on point. Then Sessions can act without it being seen as political. They (MSM, Deep state) can play that card, but it won't carry much weight and just further discredit the MSM.

The IG needs to lay it out so that the MSM can't spin it to look like a Trump operation to deflect attention from the Russia collusion story which just took a massive torpedo from the Mueller/Rosenstein indictment, which exonerated Trump.

The narrative is being laid out right now and Trump is helping it along with these tweets. When the truth finally comes out about this massive effort to overturn the election using the intelligence community, FBI, DOJ and State Dept, even the most libtarded Dem will be clamoring for heads to roll and this sedition/treason leads all the way through Clinton and into the White House. It's going to be epic!

[Feb 19, 2018] The Free Market Threat to Democracy by John Weeks

Notable quotes:
"... In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital. And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority, and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through force. ..."
"... I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect. There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. ..."
"... Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future. ..."
"... I think that the struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here, but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future. ..."
"... The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools. ..."
"... Any hierarchic system will be exploited by intelligent sociopaths. Systems will not save us. ..."
"... What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear & loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps. ..."
"... Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group or something. :-) ..."
Feb 17, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves here. This Real News Network interview with professor emeritus John Weeks discussed how economic ideology has weakened or eliminated public accountability of institutions like the Fed and promote neo[neo]liberal policies that undermine democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/o9bXo1f5r0I

SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. The concept of the [neo]liberal democracy is generally based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the face of the law. The rise of financial capital and its efforts to deregulate financial markets, however, raises the question whether [neo]liberal democracy is a sustainable form of government. Sooner or later, democratic institutions make way for the interests of large capital to supersede.

Political economist John Weeks recently gave this year's David Gordon Memorial Lecture at the meeting of the American Economic Association in Philadelphia where he addressed these issues with a talk titled, Free Markets and the Decline of Democracy. Joining us now is John Weeks. He joins us from London to discuss the issues raised in his lecture. You can find a link to this lecture just below the player, and John is, as you know, Professor Emeritus of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies and author of Economics of the 1%: How Mainstream Economics Serves the Rich, Obscures Reality and Distorts Policy. John, good to have you back on The Real News.

JOHN WEEKS: Thank you very much for having me.

SHARMINI PERIES: John, let me start with your talk. Your talk describes a struggle between efforts to create a democratic control over the economy and the interest of capital, which seeks to subjugate government to the interest, its own interest. In your assessment, it looks like this is a losing battle for democracy. Explain this further.

JOHN WEEKS: Yeah, so I think that Marx in Capital, in the first volume of Capital, refers to a concept called bourgeois right, by which he meant that, you said it in the introduction, that in a capitalist society there is a form of equality that mimics the relationship of exchange. Every commodity looks equal in exchange and there is a system of ownership that you might say is the shadow of that. I think more important, in the early stages of development of capitalism, of development of factories, that those institutions or those factories prompted the growth of trade unions and workers' struggles in general. Those workers' struggles were key to the development, or further development of democracy, freedom of speech, a whole range of rights, the right to vote.

However, with the development of finance capital, you've got quite a different dynamic within the capitalist system. Let me say, I don't want to romanticize the early period of capitalism, but you did have struggles, mass struggles for rights. Finance capital produces nothing productive, it doesn't do anything productive. So, what finance capital does basically is it redistributes the income, the wealth, the, what Marx would call the surplus value, from other sectors of society to itself. And it employs relatively few people, so that dynamic of the capital, industrial capital, generating its antithesis So, that a labor movement doesn't occur under financial capital.

In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital. And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority, and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through force.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Before we get further into the relationship between neo[neo]liberalism and democracy, give us a brief summary of what you mean by neo[neo]liberalism. You say that it's not really about deregulation, as most people usually conceive of it. If that's not what it's about, what is it, then?

JOHN WEEKS: I think that if you think about the movements in the United States, and as much as I can, I will take examples from the United States because most of your listeners will be familiar with those, beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, in the United States you have reform movements, the breaking up of the large monopolies, tobacco monopoly, a whole range of Standard Oil, all of that. And then of course under Roosevelt you began to get the regulation of capital in the interests of the majority, much of that driven by Roosevelt's trade union support. So, that was moving from a system where capital was relatively unregulated to where it was being regulated in the interests of the vast majority. I also would say, though, I won't go into detail, to a certain extent it was regulated in the interest of capital itself to moderate competition and therefore, I'd say, ensure a relatively tranquil market environment.

Neo[neo]liberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital. So, it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in a way that enhances capital. These regulations, to get specific about them, restrictions on trade unions, as you, on Real News, a number of people have talked about this. The United States now have many restrictions on the organizing of trade unions which were not present 50 or 60 years ago, making it harder to have a mass movement of labor against capital, restrictions on the right to demonstrate, a whole range of things. Then within capital itself, the regulations on the movement of capital that facilitate speculation in international markets. We have a capitalism in which the form of regulation is shifted from the regulation of capital in the interest of labor to regulation of capital in the interest of capital.

SHARMINI PERIES: John, give us a brief summary of the ways in which neo[neo]liberalism undermines democracy.

JOHN WEEKS: Well, I think that there are many examples, but I'm going to focus on economic policy. For an obvious case is the role of the Central Bank, in the case of the United States' Federal Reserve System, in which reducing its accountability to the public, one way you can do that is by assigning goals to it, such as fighting inflation, which then override other goals. Originally, the Federal Reserve System, its charter, or I'll say its terms of reference, if you want me to use that phrase, included full employment and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation. Control of inflation basically means maintaining an economy at a relatively high level of unemployment or part-time employment, or flexible employment, where people have relatively few rights at work. And that the Central Bank becomes a vehicle for enforcing a neo[neo]liberal economic policy.

Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring that the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say grinding into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely neo[neo]liberal ideology.

In summary, one way that the democracy has been undermined is to take away economic policy from the public realm and move it to the realm of experts. So, we have certain allegedly expert guidelines that we have to follow. Inflation should be low. We should not run deficits. The national debt should be small. These are things that are just made up ideologically. There is no technical basis to them. And so, in doing that, you might say, the term I like to use is, you decommission the democratic process and economic policy.

SHARMINI PERIES: John, speaking of ideology, in your talk you refer to the challenge that fascism posed or poses to neo[neo]liberal democracies. Now, it is interesting when you take Europe into consideration and National Socialist in Germany, for example, appeal mostly to the working class, as does contemporary far-right leaders in Poland and Hungary, that they support more explicit neo[neo]liberal agendas. Why would people support a neo[neo]liberal agenda that exasperate inequalities and harm public services that they depend on, including jobs?

JOHN WEEKS: I think that to a great extent it is country-specific, but I can make generalizations. First of all, I'm talking about Europe, because you raised a case in some European countries, and then I'll make some comments about the United States and Trump, if you want me to. I think in Europe, a combination of three things resulted in the rise of fascism and authoritarian movements which are verging on fascism. One is that the European integration project, which let me say that I have supported, and I would still prefer Britain not to leave the European Union, but nevertheless, the European Union integration project has been a project run by elites.

It has not been a bottom-up process. It has been a process very much run by elite politicians, in which they get together in closed door, and they make policies which they subsequently announce, and many of the decisions they come to being extremely, the meaning of them being extremely opaque. So, therefore, you have the development in Europe of the European Union which, not from the bottom up, but very much from the top down. You might suggest from the top, but I'm not sure how much goes down. That's one.
The second key factor, I would say, for about 20 years in European integration, it was relatively benign elitism because it was social democratic, it had the support of the working class, or the trade unions, at any rate. Then, increasingly, it began to become neo[neo]liberal. So, you have an elite project which was turning into a neo[neo]liberal project. Specifically, what I mean by neo[neo]liberal is where they're generating flexibility rules for the labor market, austerity policies, bank, balanced budgets, low inflation, the things I was talking about before.

Then the third element, toxic, the most toxic of them, but the other, they're volatile, is the legacy of fascism in Europe. Every European country, with the exception of Britain, had a substantial fascist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. I can go into why Britain didn't sometime. It had to do with the particular class struggle of the, I mean, class structure of Britain. Poland, ironically enough, though, is one of them. It was overrun by the Nazis, and occupied, and incorporated into the German Reich. Ironically, it had a very right-wing government with a lot of sympathies towards fascism when it was invaded in the late summer of 1939.

France had a strong fascist movement. Of course, Italy had a fascist government, and Hungary, where now you have a right-wing government, a very strong fascist movement. The incorporation of these countries into the Soviet sphere of influence, or the empire, as it were, did not destroy that fascism. It certainly suppressed it, but it didn't destroy it. So, as soon as the European project began to transform into a neo[neo]liberal project, and that gathered strength in the early 1990s, I mean, the neo[neo]liberal aspect of the European Union gathered strength in the early 1990s, exactly when you were getting the "liberation" of many countries from Soviet rule. And so, when you put those together, it led to, It was a rise of fascism waiting to happen and now it is happening.

SHARMINI PERIES: John, earlier, you said you'll factor in Trump. How does Trump fit into this phenomena?

JOHN WEEKS: I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. Now, though I wouldn't go too deeply into that, I think that that is the most serious offenses by Obama that have been carried on by Trump have to do with the use of drones and the military. But at any rate, but there's a big difference from Trump. For the most part, the previous Republican presidents, and Democratic presidents, accepted the framework of, the formal framework of [neo]liberal democracy in the United States. That is, formally accepted the constraints imposed by the Constitution.

Now, of course, they probably didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it because they saw that the things that they wanted to achieve, the neo[neo]liberal goals that they wanted to achieve were perfectly consistent with the Constitution's framework and guarantees of rights and so on, that most of those rights are guaranteed in a way that's so weak that you didn't have to repeal the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution in order to have repressive policies.

The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect. There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. What you have in Trump, I think, is a sea change. You have a, we've had right-wing presidents before, certainly. What the difference with Trump is, he is a right-wing president that sees no reason to respect the institutions of democratic government, or even, you might say, the institution of representative government. I won't even use a term as strong as "democratic." That lays the basis for an explicitly authoritarian United States, and I'd say that we're beginning to see the vehicle by which this will occur, the restriction on voting rights. Of course, that was going on before Trump, it does in a more aggressive way. I think the, soon, we will have a Supreme Court that will be quite lenient with his tendency towards authoritarian rule.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Let's end this segment with what can be done. I mean, what must be done to prevent neo[neo]liberal interests from undermining democracy? And who do you believe is leading the struggle for democracy now, and what is the right strategy that people should be fighting for?

JOHN WEEKS: Well, one thing, I think, where I'd begin is that I think progressives, as The Real News represents, and Bernie Sanders, and all the people that support him, and Jeremy Corbyn over here, I'll come back to talk about a bit about Jeremy. We must be explicit that we view democracy, by which we mean the participation of people at the grassroots, their participation in the government, we view that as a goal. It's not merely a technique, or a tool which, what was it that Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future.

I'm quite fortunate in that I live in perhaps the only large country in the world where there's imminent possibility of a progressive, left-wing, anti-authoritarian government. I think that is the monumental importance of Jeremy Corbyn and his second-in-command, John McDonnell, and others like Emily Thornberry, who is the Foreign Secretary. These people are committed to democracy. In the United States, Bernie Sanders is committed to a democracy, and a lot of other people are too, Elizabeth Warren. So, I think that the struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here, but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future.

... ... ...

JTMcPhee , February 17, 2018 at 9:35 am

"Informed speculation" with lots of footnotes and offshoots in this Reddit skein: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1llyf7/about_how_much_in_todays_money_was_30_pieces_of/

"A lot of money" in those days- Some say JI "bought land" with the shekels. An early form of asset swap? A precursor to current financialist activities?

WobblyTelomeres , February 17, 2018 at 10:44 am

Good article. If it were any bleaker, I'd suspect Chris Hedges having a hand in writing it.

The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools.

There it is, the Gorgon Thiel, surrounded by terror and rout.

James T. Cricket , February 18, 2018 at 3:46 am

I suppose you've read this.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny

Here's a quote:

"Altman felt that OpenAI's mission was to babysit its wunderkind until it was ready to be adopted by the world. He'd been reading James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention for guidance in managing the transition. 'We're planning a way to allow wide swaths of the world to elect representatives to a new governance board,' he said."

I was having trouble choosing which of the passages in this article to provide a mad quote from. Some other choices were
Altman's going to work with the Department of Defense, then help defend the world from them.
Or:
OpenAI's going to take over from humans, but don't worry because they're going to make it (somehow) so OpenAI can only terminate bad people. Before releasing it to the world.
Or:
Altman says 'add a 0 to whatever you're doing but never more than that.'

But if this sort of wisdom (somehow) doesn't work out well for everybody and the world collapses, he's flying with Peter Thiel in the private jet to the New Zealand's south island to wait out the Zombie Apocalypse on a converted sheep farm. (Before returning to the Valley work with more startups?)

These are your new leaders, people

David , February 17, 2018 at 7:56 am

I think it's revealing that the only type of democracy discussed, in spite of the title, is "[neo]liberal democracy", which the host describes as "based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the face of the law."

I've always argued that [neo]liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms, and you can see why from that quotation. [neo]liberalism (leaving aside special uses of the term in the US) is about individuals exercising their personal economic freedom and personal autonomy as much as they can, with as little control by government as possible.

But given massive imbalances in economic power, the influence of media-backed single issue campaigns and the growth of professional political parties, policy is decided by the interventions of powerful and well-organised groups, without ordinary people being consulted. At the end, Weeks does start to talk of grassroots participation, but seems to have no more in mind than a campaign to get people to vote for Sanders in 2020, which hardly addresses the problem. The answer, if there is one, is a system of direct democracy, involving referendums and popular assemblies chosen at random.

This has been much talked about, but since you would have the entire political class against you, it's not going to happen. In the meantime, we are stuck with [neo]liberal democracy, whose contradictions, I'm afraid are becoming ever more obvious.

JTMcPhee , February 17, 2018 at 8:45 am

"Contradictions?" One question for me at least would be whether the features and motions of the current regime are best characterized as "contradictions." If so, to what? And implicit in the use of the word is some kind of resolution, via actual class conflict or something, leading to "better" or at least "different." All I see from my front porch is more of the same, and worse. "The Matrix" in that myth gave some comforting illusions to the mopery. I think the political economy/collapsed planet portrayed in "Soylent Green" is a lot closer to the likely endpoints.

At least in the movie fable, the C-Suite-er of the Soylent Corp. as the lede in the film, was sickened of what he was helping to maintain, and bethought himself to blow his tiny little personal whistle that nobody would really hear, and got axed for his disloyalty to the ruling collective. I doubt the ranks of corporatists of MonsantoDuPont and LockheedMartin and the rest include any significant numbers of folks sickened by "the contradictions" that get them their perks and bennies and power (as long as they color inside the lines.)

Eustache De Saint Pierre , February 17, 2018 at 9:33 am

I hope I am way off the mark, but within that genre & in terms of where we could be heading, the film " Snowpiercer " sums it up best for me- a dystopian world society illustrated through the passengers on one long train.

Michael C , February 17, 2018 at 8:46 am

Thanks for the Real News Network for covering issues that never see the light of day on the corporate media and never mentioned by the Rachel Maddow's of the "news" shows.

torff , February 17, 2018 at 10:02 am

Can we please put a moratorium on the term "free market"? It's a nonsense term.

Yves Smith Post author , February 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm

Yes, I wrote about that at length in ECONNED. I kept the RNN headline, which used it, but should have put "free market" in quotes.

Katz , February 18, 2018 at 11:09 am

I actually like the term and find it useful, insofar as it describes an ideology -- as oposed a real political-economic arrangement. The presence of "free markets" may not be a characteristic of the neo[neo]liberal phase, but the belief in them sure is.

(Which is not to say there aren't people who don't believe in free markets but do invoke them rhetorically for other ends. That's a feature of many if not most successful ideologies.)

Jim Haygood , February 17, 2018 at 10:59 am

' Originally, the Federal Reserve charter included full employment and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.

Eh, this is fractured history. The Fed was set up in 1913 as a lender of last resort -- a discounter of government and private bills.

In late 1978 Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey Hawkins Act instructing the Fed to pursue three goals: stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates, though the latter is rarely mentioned now and the Fed is widely viewed as having a dual mandate.

The Fed's two percent inflation target it simply adopted at its own initiative -- it's not enshrined in no Perpetual Inflation Act.

' We had a world of fixed exchange rates which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic policy. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool. '

LOL! This is totally inverted and flat wrong. The Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system prevented radical monetary experiments such as QE which would have broken the peg. Nixon unilaterally suspended fixed exchange rates in 1971 because he was unwilling to take the political hit of formally devaluing the dollar (or even more unlikely, sweating out Vietnam War inflation with falling prices to maintain the peg).

Floating rates are a new and potentially lethal monetary tool which have produced a number of sad examples of "governments gone wild" with radical monetary experiments and currency swings. Bad boys Japan & Switzerland come readily to mind.

To render history accurately requires getting hands dirty with dusty old books. Icky, I know. :-(

RBHoughton , February 17, 2018 at 6:24 pm

Yes but globalisation meant that all central banks and finance ministers had to act concertedly as in G-20 and similar meetings. While we may talk of floating exchange rates, each country fixes its interest rate to maintain parity with the others. Isn't that so?

Yves Smith Post author , February 17, 2018 at 7:00 pm

Ahem, you skip over that the full employment goal was added to the Fed mandate in 1946, long before the inflation goal was added.

The Rev Kev , February 17, 2018 at 7:29 pm

I think that the key piece of info is that the Federal Reserve was created on December 23rd, 1913. That sounds like that it was slipped in the legislative back door when everybody was going away for the Christmas holidays.

Steven Greenberg , February 17, 2018 at 11:26 am

===== quote =====
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring that the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say grinding into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely neo[neo]liberal ideology.
===== /quote =====

This makes absolutely no sense and seems to have the case exactly backward. Our federal government has no rule that the budget must be balanced. Fixed exchange rates were not a tool that could be used to affect trade and domestic policy in a good way.

Lee Robertson , February 17, 2018 at 11:42 am

Any hierarchic system will be exploited by intelligent sociopaths. Systems will not save us.

Susan the other , February 17, 2018 at 1:29 pm

I enjoyed John Weeks' point of view. He's the first person I've read who refers to the usefulness of a fixed exchange rate. Useful for a sovereign government with a social spending agenda. We have always been a sovereign government with a military agenda which is at odds with a social agenda.

Guns and butter are a dangerous combination if you are dedicated to at least maintaining the illusion of a "strong dollar." That's basically what Nixon finessed. John Conally told him not to worry, we could go off the gold standard and it wasn't our problem since we were the reserve currency – it was everybody else's problem and we promptly exported our inflation all around the world. And now it has come home to roost because it was fudging and it couldn't last forever.

Much better to concede to some fix for the currency and maintain the sovereign power to devalue the dollar as necessary to maintain proper social spending. I don't understand why sovereign governments cannot see that a deficit is just the mirror image of a healthy social economy (Stephanie Kelton).

And to that end "fix" an exchange rate that maintains a reasonable purchasing power of the currency by pegging it to the long term health of the economy. What we do now is peg the dollar to a "basket of goods and services"- Ben Bernanke. That "basket" is effectively "the market" and has very little to do with good social policy.

There's no reason we can't dispense with the market and simply fiat the value of our currency based on the social return estimated for our social investments. Etc. Keeping the dollar stubbornly strong is just tyranny favoring those few who benefit from extreme inequality.

ebbflows , February 17, 2018 at 4:19 pm

Bancor. Then some got delusions of grandeur.

albert , February 17, 2018 at 2:23 pm

" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ."

I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies. Rather than redefine the term, why not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or 'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.

Paul Cardan , February 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm

What is this democracy of which you speak?

Tomonthebeach , February 17, 2018 at 4:30 pm

I had not given much thought to "Fascist" until the term was challenged as a synonym for "bully." So, I started reading Wikipedia's take on Fascismo. What I discovered was the foremost, my USA education did not teach jack s -- about Fascism – and I went to elite high school in libr'l Chicago.

Is Fascism right or left? Does it matter? What goes around comes around.

What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear & loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps.

Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group or something. :-)

Synoia , February 17, 2018 at 6:32 pm

Left and right are more line circle that a line.

I view the extreme left and extreme right, meeting somewhere, hidden, at the back of a circle.

c_heale , February 17, 2018 at 7:29 pm

I always believed this too!

+1

flora , February 17, 2018 at 8:01 pm

Neoliberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital. So, it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in a way that enhances capital.

Prominent politicians in the US and UK have spent their entire political careers representing neoliberalism's agenda at the expense of representing the voters' issues. The voters are tired of the conservative and [neo]liberal political establishments' focus on neoliberal policy. This is also true in Germany as well France and Italy. The West's current political establishments see the way forward as "staying the neoliberal course." Voters are saying "change course." See:

'German Politics Enters an Era of Instability' – Der Speigel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-political-landscape-crumbling-as-merkel-coalition-forms-a-1193947.html

[Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

Highly recommended!
Very weak analysis The authors completely missed the point. Susceptibility to rumors (now called "fake new" which more correctly should be called "improvised news") and high level of distrust to "official MSM" (of which popularity of alternative news site is only tip of the iceberg) is a sign of the crisis and tearing down of the the social fabric that hold the so social groups together. This first of all demonstrated with the de-legitimization of the neoliberal elite.
As such attempt to patch this discord and unite the US society of fake premises of Russiagate and anti-Russian hysteria look very problematic. The effect might be quite opposite as the story with Steele dossier, which really undermined credibility of Justice Department and destroyed the credibility o FBI can teach us.
In this case claims that "The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan " are just s a sign of rejection of neoliberalism by voters. Nothing more nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made. ..."
"... A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption. ..."
Feb 18, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

That these efforts might have actually made a difference, or at least were intended to, highlights a force that was already destabilizing American democracy far more than any Russian-made fake news post: partisan polarization.

"Partisanship can even alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgment," the political scientists Jay J. Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira wrote in a recent paper . "The human attraction to fake and untrustworthy news" -- a danger cited by political scientists far more frequently than orchestrated meddling -- "poses a serious problem for healthy democratic functioning."

It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made.

... ... ...

A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption.

Americans, it said, sought out stories that reflected their already-formed partisan view of reality. This suggests that these Russians efforts are indicators -- not drivers -- of how widely Americans had polarized.

That distinction matters for how the indictment is read: Though Americans have seen it as highlighting a foreign threat, it also illustrates the perhaps graver threats from within.

An Especially Toxic Form of Partisanship

... ... ...

"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."

The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.

Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other side.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

In taking this approach, the Russians were merely riding a trend that has been building for decades. Since the 1980s , surveys have found that Republicans and Democrats' feelings toward the opposing party have been growing more and more negative. Voters are animated more by distrust of the other side than support for their own.

This highlights a problem that Lilliana Mason, a University of Maryland political scientist, said had left American democracy dangerously vulnerable. But it's a problem driven primarily by American politicians and media outlets, which have far louder megaphones than any Russian-made Facebook posts.

"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."

The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.

Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other side.

[Feb 19, 2018] Trump says FBI missed Florida shooter 'signals' spending 'too much time trying to prove Russian collusion'

Feb 19, 2018 | www.legitgov.org
Trump says FBI missed Florida shooter 'signals' spending 'too much time trying to prove Russian collusion' | 17 Feb 2018 | President Trump late Saturday suggested the FBI could have stopped the shooter who killed 17 people and injured 14 others at a High School this week if they spent less time working on the Russia investigation.

"Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!" Trump tweeted.

His comment comes after the FBI said Friday that it had failed to follow "protocols" when it received a tip earlier this year about 19-year old Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter who went on a rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla on Wednesday.

[Feb 18, 2018] Both agencies were complicit in the most infamous assassinations and false flag episodes since the Kennedy/MLK Vietnam days. Don't forget Air America CIA drug running and Iran/Contra / October Surprise affairs.

Notable quotes:
"... The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe. ..."
"... The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a fascinating book. ..."
Feb 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Lee Anderson , February 17, 2018 at 4:32 pm

Your link to the Giraldi piece is appreciated, however, Giraldi starts off on a false premise: He claims that people generally liked and trusted the FBI and CIA up until or shortly after 9/11. Not so! Both agencies were complicit in the most infamous assassinations and false flag episodes since the Kennedy/MLK Vietnam days. Don't forget Air America CIA drug running and Iran/Contra / October Surprise affairs.

The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe.

The political parties are theatre designed to fool the people into believing we are living in some sort of legitimate, representative system, when it's the same old plutocracy that manages to get elected because they've long figured out the art of polarizing people and capitalising on tribal alignments.

We should eliminate all government for a time so that people can begin to see that corporations really do and most always have run the country.

It's preposterous to think the stupid public is actually discussing saddling ourselves and future generations with gargantuan debt through a system designed and run by banksters!

it should be self evident a sovereign nation should maintain and forever hold the rights to develop a monetary/financial system that serves the needs of the people, not be indentured servants in a financial system that serves the insatiable greed of a handful of parasitic banksters and corporate tycoons!

Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 5:08 pm

You are so right, in fact Robert Parry made quite a journalistic career out of exposing the CIA for such things as drug running. I gave up on that agency a longtime ago, after JFK was murdered, and I was only 13 then. Yeah maybe Phil discounts the time while he worked for the CIA, but the CIA has many, many rooms in which plots are hatched, so the valiant truth teller Giraldi maybe excused this one time for his lack of memory .I guess, right?

Good comment Lee. Joe

Annie , February 17, 2018 at 5:56 pm

Yes, but he's referring to the public's opinion of these agencies, and if they didn't continue to retain, even after 9/11, a significant popularity in the public's mind how would we have so many American's buying into Russia-gate? In my perception of things they only lost some ground after 9/11, but Americans notoriously have a short memory span.

Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:42 pm

And films that are supposed to help Americans feel good about the aims and efficacy of the agencies like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo are in the popular imagination.

Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 7:19 pm

The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a fascinating book.

[Feb 18, 2018] Here s how Mueller s latest indictment further discredits the Trump Dossier by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... As the days since Mueller's latest indictment have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies. ..."
"... Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump" ..."
"... In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory ..."
"... Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it ..."
"... This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was). ..."
"... The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been expected to know about it. ..."
"... Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016. ..."
"... Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both in person and online. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel Mueller in his indictment. ..."
"... I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my article about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018. ..."
"... This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting, but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier, which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted. ..."
"... Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see here and here ) they in fact do no such thing. ..."
"... With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there is still a collusion case to investigate? ..."
Feb 19, 2018 | theduran.com

As the days since Mueller's latest indictment have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies.

Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump"

There will be understandable disappointment in many quarters that the latest indictments delivered by Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, once again failed to nail Donald Trump. Although the charges levelled against 13 Russians and three Russian entities are extraordinarily serious, they do not directly support the central claim that Trump and senior campaign aides colluded with Moscow to rig the vote.

The Times of London meanwhile has admitted that the latest indictment contains "no smoking gun"

The Department of Justice, however, offered no confirmation to those still smarting from the election in Nov­em­ber 2016, who believe that, in the absence of Russian interference, Hillary Clinton would be in the White House today. Friday's allegations offered no evidence that the outcome had been affected. Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, said yesterday that Donald Trump's victories in the key swing states were his own.

There was further comfort for Mr Trump, which he was quick to celebrate with a tweet. The investigation uncovered no evidence "that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity". That includes, so far, anybody involved in the Trump campaign. If there is a smoking gun it has yet to emerge, though Robert Mueller's investigation will grind on. Presi­dent Vladimir Putin is a malign and dangerous mischief maker. It has not been proved that he is an evil genius with the ability to swing a US election.

In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory.

Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it

This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks.

Belief in this conspiracy dies hard, and an interesting article in the Financial Times by Edward Luce provides a fascinating example of the dogged determination of some people to believe in it. Writing about Mueller's latest indictment Luce has this to say

Mr Mueller's report hints at more dramatic possibilities by corroborating contents of the "Steele dossier", which was compiled in mid-2016 by the former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele -- long before the US intelligence agencies warned of Russian interference. Mr Steele, who is in hiding, alleged that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee. Mr Mueller's indictment confirms that account.

Likewise, Mr Mueller's indictment confirms the Steele dossier's claim that Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election by backing leftwing as well as rightwing groups. Among the entities run by the IRA were groups with names such as "Secured Borders", "Blacktivists", "United Muslims of America" and "Army of Jesus".

What is fascinating about these words is that none of them are true.

Christopher Steele is not in hiding.

The actua l Trump Dossier does not allege "that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee".

Bernie Sanders is mentioned by the Trump Dossier only in passing. By the time the Trump Dossier's first entries were written Bernie Sanders's campaign was all but over and it was already clear that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency.

Jill Stein is mentioned – again in passing – only once, in a brief mention which refers to her now infamous visit to Russia where she attended the same dinner with President Putin as Michael Flynn.

Nor does the Trump Dossier anywhere claim that "Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election by backing leftwing as well as rightwing groups".

On the contrary the Trump Dossier is focused – exclusively and obsessively – on documenting at fantastic length the alleged conspiracy between the Russian government and the campaign of the supposedly compromised Donald Trump to get him elected US President.

Supporters of the Russiagate conspiracy theory need to start facing up to the hard truth about the Trump Dossier.

At the time the Trump Dossier was published in January 2017 little was known publicly about the contacts which actually took place between members of Donald Trump's campaign and tranisiton teams and the Russians during and after the election.

Today – a full year later and after months of exhaustive investigation – we know far more about those contacts.

What Is striking about those contacts is how ignorant the supposedly high level Russian sources of the Trump Dossier were about them.

Thus the Trump Dossier never mentions Jeff Sessions's two meetings with Russian ambassador Kislyak, or the various conversations Michael Flynn is known to have had with Russian ambassador Kislyak, some of which apparently took place before Donald Trump won the election.

The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was).

The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been expected to know about it.

Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016.

This despite the fact that the Trump Dossier's first entry is dated 20th June 2016 i.e. eleven days later, so that if this meeting really was intended to set the stage for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – as believers in the Russiagate conspiracy theory insist – a well informed Russian source with access to information from the Kremlin would be expected to know about it.

Nor does the Trump Dossier have anything to say about George Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign aide who had the most extensive contacts with the Russians, and whose drunken bragging in a London bar is now claimed by the FBI to have been its reason for starting the Russiagate inquiry.

In fact George Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the Trump Dossier at all.

This despite the fact that members of Russia's high powered Valdai Discussion Club were Papadopoulos's main interlocutors in his discussions with the Russians, and Igor Ivanov – Russia's former foreign minister, and a senior albeit retired official genuinely known to Putin – was informed about the discussions also, making it at least possible that high level people in the Russian Foreign Ministry and conceivably in the Russian government and in the Kremlin were kept informed about the discussions with Papadopoulos, so that a genuinely well-informed Russian source might be expected to know about them.

By contrast none of the secret meetings between Carter Page and Michael Cohen and the Russians discussed at such extraordinary length in the Trump Dossier have ever been proved to have taken place.

Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both in person and online.

The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel Mueller in his indictment.

The only conclusion possible is that if the Trump Dossier's Russian sources actually exist (about which I am starting to have doubts) then they were extraordinarily ignorant of what was actually going on.

That of course is consistent with the fact – recently revealed in the heavily redacted memorandum sent to the Justice Department by Senators Grassley and Lindsey Graham – that many of the sources of the Trump Dossier were not actually Russian but were American.

John Helmer – the most experienced journalist covering Russia, and a person who has a genuine and profound knowledge of the country – made that very point – that many of the Trump Dossier's sources were American rather than Russian – in an article he published on 18th January 2017, ie. just days after the Trump Dossier was published.

In that same article Helmer also made this very valid point about the Trump Dossier's compiler Christopher Steele

Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012.Read more on Steele's fake rock operation here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story.

Given that Steele was outed by Russian intelligence in 2006, with his intelligence operation in Russia dismantled by the FSB that year, it beggars belief that ten years later in 2016 he still had access to high level secrets in the Kremlin.

What we now know in fact proves that he did not.

I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my article about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018.

This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting, but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier, which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted.

For my part I owe Helmer an apology for not referencing his 18th January 2017 article in my article of 6th February 2018. I should have done so and I am very sorry that I didn't.

I have spent some time discussing the Trump Dossier because despite denials it remains the lynchpin of the whole Russiagate scandal and of the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see here and here ) they in fact do no such thing.

Despite Edward Luce's desperate efforts to argue otherwise, Mueller's latest indictment far from corroborating the Trump Dossier, has done the opposite.

With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there is still a collusion case to investigate?

[Feb 18, 2018] In Raging Tweetstorm, Trump Says Russians Laughing Their Asses Off, Mocks Leakin' Monster Schiff

Trump has a point: "If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams..."
Feb 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
excoriating the FBI for failing to act on multiple tips about "professional school shooter" Nikolas Cruz's murderous intentions, and criticizing National Security Adviser HR McMaster over his Russia collusion comments, President Donald Trump shifted his focus toward one of his favorite targets, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, whom he "congratulated" for finally acknowledging that the Obama administration is responsible for any attempted interference by Russia during the 2016 election.

In one of his more memorable turns of phrase, Trump lauded " Liddle Adam Schiff ", whom he branded the " leakin monster of no control ", for finally " blaming the Obama Administration for Russian meddling in the 2016 Election. He is finally right about something. Obama was President, knew of the threat, and did nothing. Thank you Adam!"

Trump also expressed his amazement that nobody in federal law enforcement or Congress tried to stop the Obama administration from handing over nearly $2 billion in cash to Iran. The cash transfers were first reported by the Wall Street Journal in September 2016. The administration defended its actions by saying it was merely returning the money, which belonged to Iranian entities, but had been frozen because of sanctions.

... ... ...

Putting it all together, given the hysteria surrounding Russian interference during the 2016 election, the multiple investigations and countless public resources wasted, if it was Russia's intention to create chaos in the US, then they've "succeeded beyond their wildest dreams", Trump claimed."They're probably " laughing their asses off in Moscow," he added.

Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:02 Permalink

But wasn't I a great candidate?

Yes you were , and I voted for you, you lying flip-flopping piece of shit!

1. Jail Crooked Hillary – Flipped. During the Inauguration Dinner: "The Clintons are good people!"

2. Drain the Swamp – Flipped. The promise vanished like a fart in the wind.

3. I love WikiLeaks – Flipped. Assange is still marooned in the Embassy.

4. Get out of Syria – Flipped. Attacked Syria with 59 Tomahawks.

5. Reform or Disband NATO – Flipped.

6. Ban Foreign Lobbyists – Flipped. "Did I really promise that shit?"

7. Enact Term Limits – Flipped. Just another fart in the wind.

8. Eliminate Gun-Free Zones – Flipped. Should've pushed for that after the Florida School shooting.

Looney

FreeShitter -> Looney Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:06 Permalink

Welcome to reality!

JimmyJones -> FreeShitter Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:12 Permalink

The interview with Sessions and Maria Bartiromo on fox is very good, watch it. Today at 10am

DingleBarryObummer -> JimmyJones Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:15 Permalink

fuck this bullshit

I want to know more about this:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/561076/donald-trump-9-11-i
REVEALED: Donald Trump vows to 'reopen 9/11 probe'

brianshell -> BullyBearish Sun, 02/18/2018 - 12:47 Permalink

Dear Bully,

Do you agree with these points?

1. Pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as a sign he WELCOMES whistle blowers and putting the PEOPLE'S business in the LIGHT

2. Begin to revoke the fed's charter by putting Ron Paul in charge of a special investigation of fed malfeasance and destruction of the currency

3. Immediately suspend weapon sales to ANY country or organization involved in a current conflict

4. Revoke israel's special exemption from foreign lobbying registration and fully audit AIPAC with an intention to uncover bribery and espionage

5. Immediately indict Bill and Hillary Clinton and others from the Clinton Foundation on charges of corruption, espionage, and theft

6. Rescind all future payments/allotments to the saudi arabia and israel until they are in compliance with international law and human rights standards

7. Cease saber rattling against Iran and Russia and work toward peaceful, complementary accommodations

8. Draw down the 600 plus U.S. military bases around the world and bring the Americans HOME

9. Initially shift 30% of the current military budget to domestic infrastructure needs with a mandate of further reductions of 10% per yea

Brazen Heist -> brianshell Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow.

Trump is right about the Russians laughing their asses off. But he still foolishly drinks the koolaid handed to him by his fellow swampsters that this was all a Russian plot.

Hubris does that. The swamp is full of it. And Trump is well over 50% in the swamp.

Billy the Poet -> Brazen Heist Sun, 02/18/2018 - 13:16 Permalink

It is true that Russians, the intelligence agencies of every other nation and fat guys in their basement all hack and troll the Internet. That simple fact was blown up into a fake Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Trump's latest tweets straighten that all out pretty well.

Deep Snorkeler -> Zero_Ledge Sun, 02/18/2018 - 10:30 Permalink

Swinging Hunchbacks on Trump Tower

1. billions for defense, not one cent to protect children

2. tax cuts for the wealthiest, not one cent for debt reduction

3. privileges for giant corporations, attacks on the natural environment

4. a grand military parade and the collapse of democracy

5. trinkets for the middle class, gold for the billionaire caste

[Feb 18, 2018] Both agencies were complicit in the most infamous assassinations and false flag episodes since the Kennedy/MLK Vietnam days. Don't forget Air America CIA drug running and Iran/Contra / October Surprise affairs.

Notable quotes:
"... The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe. ..."
"... The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a fascinating book. ..."
Feb 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Lee Anderson , February 17, 2018 at 4:32 pm

Your link to the Giraldi piece is appreciated, however, Giraldi starts off on a false premise: He claims that people generally liked and trusted the FBI and CIA up until or shortly after 9/11. Not so! Both agencies were complicit in the most infamous assassinations and false flag episodes since the Kennedy/MLK Vietnam days. Don't forget Air America CIA drug running and Iran/Contra / October Surprise affairs.

The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe.

The political parties are theatre designed to fool the people into believing we are living in some sort of legitimate, representative system, when it's the same old plutocracy that manages to get elected because they've long figured out the art of polarizing people and capitalising on tribal alignments.

We should eliminate all government for a time so that people can begin to see that corporations really do and most always have run the country.

It's preposterous to think the stupid public is actually discussing saddling ourselves and future generations with gargantuan debt through a system designed and run by banksters!

it should be self evident a sovereign nation should maintain and forever hold the rights to develop a monetary/financial system that serves the needs of the people, not be indentured servants in a financial system that serves the insatiable greed of a handful of parasitic banksters and corporate tycoons!

Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 5:08 pm

You are so right, in fact Robert Parry made quite a journalistic career out of exposing the CIA for such things as drug running. I gave up on that agency a longtime ago, after JFK was murdered, and I was only 13 then. Yeah maybe Phil discounts the time while he worked for the CIA, but the CIA has many, many rooms in which plots are hatched, so the valiant truth teller Giraldi maybe excused this one time for his lack of memory .I guess, right?

Good comment Lee. Joe

Annie , February 17, 2018 at 5:56 pm

Yes, but he's referring to the public's opinion of these agencies, and if they didn't continue to retain, even after 9/11, a significant popularity in the public's mind how would we have so many American's buying into Russia-gate? In my perception of things they only lost some ground after 9/11, but Americans notoriously have a short memory span.

Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:42 pm

And films that are supposed to help Americans feel good about the aims and efficacy of the agencies like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo are in the popular imagination.

Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 7:19 pm

The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a fascinating book.

[Feb 18, 2018] If there HAD been any evidence of collusion , treason , or an attack by foreign state actors Donald Trump would have been pulled from the roster of presidential candidates by October 2016 at the latest.

Notable quotes:
"... Any country that would allow a traitor (or even a suspected traitor) to compete for the highest office in the land is not a country that is serious about "sovereignty" or "democracy" and should quite rightly be considered a failed state. ..."
"... As for the red-baiting and blatantly obvious attempts by the FVEYs to get Russia to throw a first punch -- so we can then jump in with all we've got and pin down the victory we thought we had back in 1998 (the big one that got away) -- I think we should all re-read that open letter signed by Dmitry Orlov, the Saker, and others which was posted in May of 2016 (yeah: right around the time this whole Russia narrative was being cooked up): https://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html ..."
"... Let's all just hope the warmongers end up exposing themselves as being the belligerent, immature a**holes that they are so everyone else can laugh and point and get back to building the peaceful, prosperous world that we want to live in. ..."
Feb 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

LaNinya

no evidence is added to cohesively tie the establishment Russia narrative together

Right.
It's all been gossip and innuendo.

If there HAD been any evidence of "collusion", "treason", or an "attack" by foreign state actors, the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies would not have been playing games leaking to the press, but pressing forward with serious measures to harden the country's security system and neutralize the threat(s). Had there been any genuine evidence of malfeasance by the Trump campaign (outside of widely practiced and generally accepted instances of corruption), Donald Trump would have been pulled from the roster of presidential candidates by October 2016 at the latest.

Any country that would allow a traitor (or even a suspected traitor) to compete for the highest office in the land is not a country that is serious about "sovereignty" or "democracy" and should quite rightly be considered a failed state.

As for the red-baiting and blatantly obvious attempts by the FVEYs to get Russia to throw a first punch -- so we can then jump in with all we've got and pin down the victory we thought we had back in 1998 (the big one that got away) -- I think we should all re-read that open letter signed by Dmitry Orlov, the Saker, and others which was posted in May of 2016 (yeah: right around the time this whole Russia narrative was being cooked up):
https://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html

Let's all just hope the warmongers end up exposing themselves as being the belligerent, immature a**holes that they are so everyone else can laugh and point and get back to building the peaceful, prosperous world that we want to live in.

Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:13 pm

Good letter, please read this one.

https://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/24/the-russia-they-lost/

LaNinya , February 17, 2018 at 1:48 pm

Wow. Good one, Joe. Beautifully written. Thanks for the link. The comments were interesting, too.

Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Your welcome, and you are right about the comments. Let's read the very first one, as I'm also leaving off the commenters name which may be seen on the original comment board.

"As an American who has spent a lifetime studying his nation, I can tell you for a fact that America was never cool. At the end of WWI, American soldiers came home to lynch African-Americans in record numbers because they had gotten "uppity" in the soldiers' absence. After WWII, America protected Nazi war criminals and immediately attacked the real saviour of mankind (the Soviet Union), actually attacking Soviet citizens and starving the Soviet state of reconstruction monies. In the 1950s, America took over the British and French empires and became a National Security State with the growth of the CIA. Sixty-five years later, it is estimated by scholarly demographic studies that The United States is directly responsible for 40 million deaths. Even Nazi Germany, had it been victorious in WWII, could have not outstripped that record of carnage. Think about that! The world was saved from the Nazi conquest only to suffer the US conquest. And the latter was worse -- simply because the US was larger and richer and therefore more powerful and violent. You and your friends should never have been entranced. The Soviet Union provided its citizens with employment, housing, education, health-care, recreation, great art, science. The United States provided its citizens with job insecurity, homelessness, brainwashing, obesity, stress leading to mass killings, crap art, and laughable pseudo-science. I rather wonder what it might have been like for myself if I had been born on the USSR rather than the USA. I'd feel less rage and guilt, forty million fewer iota of rage and guilt; that is for certain. That would have been cooler."

What a great comment, and made with such historical accuracy. Joe

[Feb 18, 2018] And, what about all the foreign nationals who post here in this forum on this blog? I daresay most offer opinions not complementary of the US government and its political menagerie.

"I swear that Russiagate is nothing more than trying to cover up the blatant corruption of the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, CIA and The Department of Justice. Keep everybody busy with Russiagate and don't allow the corruption (with the help of the press) to see the light of day. Otherwise, people in high places would be going to jail.
Notable quotes:
"... As many commentators have pointed out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . . they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with. ..."
"... They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to call "free" in this country. ..."
"... The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party's authority and ideology. ..."
"... Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state. ..."
"... What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying to spark a war with Russia? ..."
"... The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. ..."
"... "Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military adventure of all. War with Russia." ..."
"... The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. ..."
"... Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC). ..."
Feb 18, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

"Realist , February 17, 2018 at 3:27 pm

Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the press about it did not deny doing so. Mueller made no links to the Russian government, Putin, the FSB or even their alleged puppet Donald Trump. Just private individuals being persecuted for expressing an opinion on American politics in public because they are foreigners. Doesn't matter whether the opinions were true, false, complementary or disparaging because they were subjective just like anyone else's opinions (you know, opinions are like a-holes, everybody's got one).

So, if that move by Mueller is allowed to stand and serve as a precedent in American jurisprudence, doesn't that mean that journalists from foreign lands, like Caitlin herself, are at risk of being indicated at any moment by the US Justice Department if they express opinions that the insiders in the Deep State do not like? And, what about all the foreign nationals who post here in this forum on this blog? I daresay most offer opinions not complementary of the US government and its political menagerie. And, to be honest, many do so in order to either change minds or solidify shared beliefs with others, including great swirling drifts of snowflake Americans.

This free exchange of thoughts is now to be verboten because someone other than Uncle Sam may have an influence or even change the mind of a precious American citizen? This is madness. That the most educated and articulate amongst us do not see this, but rather participate in the feeding frenzy upon the carcass of what is left of our liberal democracy is absolutely stupifying. As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must be imposing a form of mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most here) seem to be immune to its effects. Maybe something we consume acts as an antidote. Perhaps your Italian grandma's muffalettas or calzones, Joe? Or my mother's German rouladen?

Dave P. , February 17, 2018 at 5:01 pm

Realist –

"As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must be imposing a form of mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most here) seem to be immune to its effects."

You are dead right on that. My wife was yelling and screaming last night that why I was not watching this "Russia trolls" show with her on CNN, MSNBC, and PBS; to learn how the Russians have destroyed our beautiful democracy. She had seen the World too, mostly for fun and experiences; she taught English in Malaysia – British colony until 1957 – as a peace Corps volunteer during 1960's. There you have it. As many commentators have pointed out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . . they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with.

Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:21 pm

They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to call "free" in this country. They not only take us for moronic fools, but they can't even see that that they are insulting us further by insinuating that our voting decisions are completely unsophisticated and easily swayed to the point that 13 Russians could have an impact amidst a sea of election season campaign "propaganda" from both major parties and an array of special interest influence peddling. Like the Clinton campaign didn't hire Facebook trolls!
Bye Bye First Amendment no one in the halls of power takes it seriously enough to defend it unless you're spouting groupthink right Bernie?

Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 8:00 pm

Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the press about it did not deny doing so.

I'll echo Drew Hunkins in calling this a brilliant condensation of the issue. What worries me is what the morons-in-charge might have in mind as a follow-up to this lunacy.

CitizenOne , February 18, 2018 at 2:31 am

Perhaps we are entering into the Orwellian dawn of Thought Crimes which are any feelings or thinking a Citizen has which are counter to the State Propaganda put out by the Ministry of Truth. The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is their job to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party's authority and ideology.

Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state.

It would appear to be allegations of thought crime because 15 foreign nationals posted things on social media. We have been under the perception that social media is a free forum for discourse but now, like China, we are seeing the formation of a witch hunt for foreign devils who have infiltrated the social mediascape and are on trial for the results of a national election.

We are literally burning some innocent teenager for the calamity we are convinced was not of our own making. We need to find a witch to brew some witchcraft to explain how our current situation has arisen.

Not sure if anyone alive today believes the Salem Witch Trials served justice and created a restoration of civil harmony. I'm fairly sure that everyone looks at those dark days as a travesty of justice.

Yes we are living in a time of universal deceit and the act of telling the truth has become a revolutionary act just as Orwell portrayed in his novel.

Thought crimes are fairly scary and they imply that our government is willing to indict the thoughts of whoever it deems to be an enemy of the state and bring the thinkers of thought crime as defined by the state as anyone who questions the official fake narrative of Russia Gate to "justice".

What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying to spark a war with Russia?

The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons.

Even the analysis on North Korea which opines that NK will use all weapons first as a first strike in a scenario the USA has called the "Use it or Lose it" fell short and was proved a false scenario or that there were really no actual WMDs in Iraq as the UN claimed.

Either way, the likely outcomes of a WMD armed Iraqi leader facing imminent demise which would cause him to use all available weapons at his disposal did not happen. There are only two conclusions to the outcome. Saddam did not have these weapons or the likely scenario of "Use it or Lose it" is all wrong.

Either way the premise of the war was shown to be false.

Unfortunately in the aftermath of that war there was no US counterpart to the British Chilcot Report and the US went on to engage in regime change in other nations like Ukraine, Syria, Libya and elsewhere.

There is no sense to it other than to destabilize nations, foment violence and create international tensions which have the effect of causing our elected leaders to pony up more money for defense to combat the new enemies we just created.

Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military adventure of all. War with Russia.

I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media all the times before.

I agree with you Joe that a form of mass hypnosis has gripped our democrat officials and a large segment of our population. We have been handed a leader they don't like and they are ready and able to make hay with the election outcome to persuade us by force to support more military adventures.

Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 3:53 am

Citizen One –

"Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military adventure of all. War with Russia."

I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media all the times before."

Yes. This scenario is getting more and more likely. All steps point to that direction.

Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm

Unfortunately I'm not as confident. Here is the complete indictment at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945 . There are three counts (with almost 70 allegations): 1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States 2. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud And Bank Fraud and 3. Aggravated Identity Theft. It ends with a forfeiture allegation seeking property, real or personal from the defendants.

The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. Mueller will be the hero; Trump may be saved as the interference started in 2014, before his campaign began; the Hillary emails and Nunes memo will be cast aside; and the USA can say to the world "see I told you so."

Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC).

Martin - Swedish citizen , February 18, 2018 at 1:15 am

If the allegations are true, they need to be put in perspective:
– what might be the rational behind? Eg tit-for-tat for Western meddling, arms race,
– do other nations engage in similar projects? What are the scale of those?

Starting in 2014 could it have been triggered by the Kiev coup and Nuland's was it five billion?

[Feb 18, 2018] Had Hillary Won What Now by Andrew Levine

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Feb 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Then Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, would be president of the United States, but the Senate, probably, and the House of Representatives, certainly, would have remained under Republican control.

In other words, had Hillary won, we would now have pretty much what we had when Barack Obama was president – but with the executive branch less competently led and more packed with Clintonite (neoliberal, liberal imperialist, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later) officials, and with a Congress run by obstinate Republican troglodytes running roughshod over feckless, slightly less retrograde Democrats.

Radical impulses would, of course, continue to stir throughout the general population but notwithstanding widespread and deep popular support, to even less avail than before.

A Clinton presidency wouldn't make the blood of high-minded people boil, the way the Trump presidency has done, though, for anyone with the courage to face reality squarely, it would be nearly as painful to endure.

That pain would be much less constructive than the pain that is now so widely felt. Instead of sparking anodyne "resistance," it would be drowned out in a sea of acquiescence.

In a word, Clinton's first term would be what a third Obama term would have been – ratcheted down a few notches in the squelched "hope" and "change" departments.

By being African American, Obama stirred up plenty of hope and change illusions, especially at first, in many, maybe most, sectors of the population. In other sectors, Obama's race brought barely suppressed prejudices and resentments out into the open.

Because it soon became clear – not to everybody, but to everybody not willfully blind – that, under Obama, little, if any, good would come, Obamaphilia eventually faded away; the racism and nativism Obama's election boosted proved more durable.

Hillary, on the other hand, was anything but a beacon of hope – except perhaps to those of her supporters whose highest priority was electing a woman president. Hardly anyone else ever expected much good to come from her calling the shots.

In comparison with Obama, she wasn't even good at what she did. Despite a constant barrage of public relations babble about how experienced and competent she is, this was widely understood, even if seldom conceded.

She hadn't been much of a First Lady or Senator; among other things, she helped set the cause of health insurance reform back a generation, and she supported the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

Then, as Secretary of State, she was at least partly responsible for devastating levels of disorder and mayhem throughout North Africa (Libya especially), the Greater Middle East (not just Syria), and elsewhere (Honduras, for example). But for her tenure at Foggy Bottom, there would be many fewer refugees in the world today.

It is therefore a good bet that were she president now, Obama would be sorely missed – notwithstanding his fondness for terrorizing civilians with weaponized drones, and for deporting Hispanics and others with a zeal exceeding George Bush's.

Inasmuch as he did break a color line that seemed infrangible, it was impossible for persons of good will not to root for the man. That would be like not rooting for Jackie Robinson. But the fact remains: except in comparison to his rivals and to Trump, he was no prize.

Because it was clear to nearly everybody outside the Clinton propaganda circuit that, by 2016, there really was no "glass ceiling" holding women back, Hillary had nothing like that going for her.

There were and are plenty of people of all ages and genders who would have liked to see a woman elected president; the time for that is long past due. But, by the time Clinton became the Democratic standard bearer, hardly anyone could truly believe that patriarchal attitudes or rampant misogyny were significant factors standing in her way.

To be sure, the lingering effects of attitudes in place years ago have diminished the pool of plausible female candidates. But then so too did the idea that Clinton was somehow entitled to the office. Because that attitude was so deeply entrenched, few women wanted to cross her.

Nevertheless, there are women who, running on the Democratic line, could surely have defeated Trump. An obvious example is Elizabeth Warren.

I am not alone in thinking that had the Democratic National Committee not rigged the nomination process in Clinton's favor, Bernie Sanders would have become the party's nominee and then gone on to defeat Trump. Warren's chances of winning the election were better still – precisely because, she is a woman.

Clinton's problem was not her gender; it was her politics.

Even so, we would be a lot better off now had she won in 2016 -- not just because the evil we know (too well!) is easier to deal with than the blooming buzzing confusion we ended up with instead, but also because, despite her Russophobia and fondness for "military solutions," the likelihood that the United States would blunder into a nuclear Armageddon would now be significantly less.

Too bad therefore that she flubbed even more egregiously than those of us who saw through the public relations myths about her accomplishments and competence thought possible.

Needless to say, in the alternative universe that Democrats and their media flacks have concocted, they explain the election outcome differently. In their view, Hillary lost because "the Russians" subverted our democratic institutions.

Or was it because James Comey, then the Director of the FBI, tipped that election to Trump by refocusing attention on Clinton's emails as Election Day approached?

One would think that it would faze Democratic confabulators that, shortly after the election was over, Comey rose to the top of Donald Trump's shit list – and was unceremoniously fired. They really should get their story straight.

While they are sorting that out, they might also make an effort to be a tad less besotted with the FBI. It is, to say the least, unseemly, even for faux-progressives, to cozy up to the perennial scourge of every progressive tendency in the American body politic.

And it isn't just the FBI – Democrats nowadays are smitten with the entire national security state apparatus, including the CIA and the NSA.

Democrats have always been that way to some extent, but, in the pre-Trump era, Republicans were generally the more gung ho of our two semi-established parties.

For decades, Cold War anti-Communist paranoia endeared the FBI and the others to wide swathes of the general public and to Republicans and Democrats alike. When a dearth of real world Communists made that story line impossible to maintain, "Islamic terrorists" were on hand to take their place.

These obsessions pair well with the right's passion for law and order – in other words, for keeping the poor generally, and persons of color especially, down.

And so, being the more rightwing of the duopoly parties, Republicans, before Trump, were especially besotted with the forces of order – from local police (for whom, black lives don't really matter) on up (or is it down?).

Democrats have never had any real quarrel with any of this, but, being the "nicer" and more reasonable of the duopoly parties, they were less inclined to go overboard.

It grieves me to say anything good about Donald Trump, but, to his credit, he did force Republicans onto a less unreasonable track – not in general, but towards Russia, a country with a nuclear arsenal so formidable that only maniacs would want to mess with it unnecessarily.

In all likelihood, Trump's reasons are venal or otherwise nefarious, and have little if anything to do with common sense. But anything that holds back the Doomsday Clock is welcome.

It is likely, though, that, before long, Republicans will revert back to their old ways.

Indeed, this is already happening: witness Trump's new "defense strategy" – aimed at the old Cold War bugaboos, Russia and China.

The scare quotes are in order because there is no strategy there, and what Trump is proposing has nothing to do with defense. It has everything to do, however, with giving free rein to the Pentagon to squander monies that could be otherwise spent in socially useful ways, and with stuffing the pockets of death merchants ("defense contractors") and those who feed off the taxpayer money our political class throws their way.

***

Despite even this, Democrats remain the less odious duopoly party. On nearly all "issues," just about any Republican is worse than any Democrat; and the attitudes and instincts Republicans evince are more execrable by far.

It should be born in mind, however, that the Democratic Party is, if anything, even more responsible for Trump than the Republicans are.

Insofar as he has set political views and attitudes, they were forged in New York City, under the aegis of Democratic Party politicians. And the Clintonite (neoliberal) turn in the larger political culture created the conditions for the possibility of Trump, or someone like him, rising to national prominence.

Democrats pulled this off by malignly neglecting the working class – and therefore less well-off white voters, among others – and by euthanizing nascent left oppositions that showed promise of challenging the economic supremacy and political power of the so-called "donor class" and of capitalists generally.

Neoliberalism shifts power and resources from the state sector to private capital, it encourages the globalization of trade, and it facilitates the free flow of capital around the world.

Its nostrums are integral to a form of class struggle aimed at weakening working class opposition – largely, but not exclusively, by attacks on the labor movement.

The classical fascism of the interwar years took aim at workers' economic and political organizations too – more directly, through violent frontal assaults. Neoliberalism works more gently, through protracted wars of attrition. The consequences, however, are much the same.

The Clintons and Tony Blair and their counterparts in other countries make a show of their progressivism – limiting their efforts, however, to cultural issues that do not materially harm capitalists' interests.

Around election times, they even make nice with union leaders -- because they need the resources and manpower they can still provide. But it is all a ruse, as workers and others know well.

Real fascists set out to intimidate workers' organizations; they liked bloodying noses. Neoliberals take aim at workers' power in such subtle but far-reaching ways that they often don't even realize that they have been had.

In the early days of the Regan era, Bertram Gross famously introduced the notion of "friendly fascism." The GOP used to be the friendly fascist's natural home. These days, however, Republicans are a lot nastier than they were in Reagan's time.

In recent years, the Tea Party and then Trump and the miscreants he has empowered have accentuated the GOP's racist, nativist, and authoritarian side. It is not a fascist party in the traditional sense, but the resemblances are more than a little worrisome.

And so, Reagan-style friendly fascism has largely disappeared from the Republican fold. But for what has taken its place, this would be a reason to celebrate.

Meanwhile, the spirit of the "Reagan revolution" lives on in the other duopoly party –where, thanks to the Clintons and others like them, efforts to keep "the donor class up" and everyone else down continue in a seemingly more benign way.

The electoral consequences are predictable. The kinds of working class people whom Trump derides – basically, everyone who is not white, male and straight – are, of course, more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans. But they are more likely still not to vote at all.

Why would they when they have nothing to vote for ?

And, in large (mainly rural) swathes of the country, white working class men and the women who stand by them will vote for anyone, even an obviously incompetent billionaire buffoon whose policies will do nothing for them materially, provided only that he channels their resentments at Clintonite policies and people.

However, malign neglect of an important segment of the working class is only partly responsible for Trump. The absence of a genuine left is of far greater importance.

The reasons for its absence are many, and go far beyond the Democratic Party. Even so, Democrats have a lot to answer for.

As it became increasingly clear that the Bush-Cheney wars launched after 9/11 were responsible for enormous harm to people and to geopolitical stability, a peace movement took shape that, by 2006, had become a force to be reckoned with.

At the same time, in anticipation of the 2008 election, the leadership of the Democratic Party did its best to keep dissent in bounds. Their aim was to get Hillary Clinton elected president, and they feared that political turbulence would upset their plans.

At the very least, with the House back under Democratic control in 2006, Democrats could have initiated impeachment proceedings against George Bush; they had more than ample grounds. Whether or not he would then have been removed from office, he and his subordinates would have been impeded to some extent from doing at least some of the harm they went on to do.

But Nancy Pelosi and her co-thinkers in Congress put the kibosh on that idea. Their efforts did not stifle the growing peace movement entirely, but it did take some of the wind out its sails.

When it turned out that Obama was a stronger candidate than Clinton, and that the nomination would go his way, leading Democrats adapted. Hillary was their favorite, but Obama had been thoroughly vetted for corporate-friendliness and passed all the tests with flying colors. That was good enough for them.

And so it fell to the Nobel laureate to put the peace movement definitively down, even as he continued – temporarily even escalating -- the Bush-Cheney wars.

For too long and against too much contrary evidence, liberals took it for granted that Obama was on the side of the angels. They therefore let pass the murder and mayhem he was responsible for.

After eight years of that, what little semblance of a genuine left there had been within the Democratic Party's ambit found itself narcotized into oblivion.

An appetite for real opposition, even rebellion, existed within the general public; under the pressure of events it was growing all the time. But, with our debilitating duopoly party system in place, there was no political way out of the status quo.

Had Hillary won, that sad state of affairs would have continued, while the underlying maladies that Trump exploited for the benefit of himself and his class would have continued to fester.

And we would now likely be on the brink of even more appalling electoral outcomes than we suffered through in 2010 and 2014, and in 2016, when the Trump phenomenon defied all expectations.

Paradoxically, though, with Trump's victory, the prospects for a better mainstream politics actually improved. Trump is so manifestly unfit for the job he holds that his hold over the White House and the Republican Party actually harms the right more than it helps it.

His ever expanding docket of impeachable offenses and his crude misogyny are doing the work an organized left opposition would be doing, if only one existed -- creating space for popular movements to develop.

It started with the Women's March, immediately after Inauguration Day, and has been growing ever since; with women – black, brown, and white – leading the surge.

With midterm elections looming, the danger of cooptation is great -- Democrats, their media in tow, are working overtime to make that happen. But thanks to Trump, things have gone too far by now to be squelched entirely.

What Obama's victory did to the peace movement after 2008, a Hillary victory in 2016 would have done ten times over to the several (mainly woman-led) insurgencies that were beginning to take shape during the campaign.

With Trump in the White House, progressive women remain in the forefront of struggles to change the world for the better. With Clinton there instead, their best efforts would be swamped by anodyne campaigns led by well-meaning liberals of the kind that understandably rile up the Trump base.

All things considered, it would have been better (less catastrophically awful) had Hillary won. Even so, there is some reason to be grateful that she did not. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine

ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Feb 17, 2018] Iran is already being attacked from West and East in the North

Feb 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: ninel | Feb 11, 2018 3:59:15 PM

Here is an interesting article that points to the new American strategy with respect to Iran and central Asia. Iran is already being attacked from West and East in the North. And central Asia is next. This might force Iran to pull back some forces from Syria and Iraq.

No end to the wars.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/06/us-isis-nexus-afghanistan-becomes-hot-topic.html

[Feb 17, 2018] Russia condemned and defined as the enemy of America with laughably little evidence (effing Facebook posts being about the extent of it) .... not a word about JEWISH MONEY controlling the entire political system in the USA. When Netanyahu gets 29 standing ovations from Congress should that not have triggered an FBI Investigation

Taking oil price to 30th or 40th is a strategic goal of the USA in relation to Russia. Listen at 3:30.
Notable quotes:
"... Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years. ..."
"... You are exactly right. U$ politicians are uninformed, stupid, detached from reality, selfish and they think like schoolyard kids do. ..."
"... They are the product of the US society as a whole. ..."
"... Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them". ..."
"... In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of power? ..."
"... I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors. ..."
"... The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin). ..."
"... Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election, 2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States. ..."
"... What an admission! trump doesn't want more drilling for oil to Americans to use. It is for export and for foreign interference ..."
"... and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too ..."
Feb 17, 2018 | theduran.com

Gano1 , February 17, 2018 10:31 AM

The USA has lost all morality, they are so hypocritical it is risible.

Patricia Dolan , February 17, 2018 10:25 AM

What Russian expansionism??? Look at the US expansionism..........get a grip!

Ann Johns Patricia Dolan , February 17, 2018 2:51 PM

Another tiresome, butthurt yank/wank? Between the new One Belt, One Road Chinese initiative, the Russians taking control of ME oil production and the fact that america has NO answers to help it's declining empire, it would seem to the non-partisan observer that america is well and truly f***ed. You must be talking about their debt expansionism, $20 TRILLION and rising by the second.

Vera Gottlieb Patricia Dolan , February 17, 2018 2:29 PM

US expansionism...really? Where? 😜

Mario8282 Vera Gottlieb , February 17, 2018 2:58 PM

Syria? Libya? Yemen? Africa, Afgh...

Vera Gottlieb Mario8282 , February 17, 2018 3:00 PM

And you left out Latin America...

Mario8282 Vera Gottlieb , February 17, 2018 3:05 PM

This is why I left with the dots... The list would end up with America itself (an endless spree of false flags and deception schemes).

Patricia Dolan Mario8282 , February 17, 2018 6:11 PM

Thank you Mario......let's not forget Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia, the entirety of eastern Europe, the entirety of northern Africa, Rwanda, the Congo, Venezuela, Chili, Guatemala, Panama, Jeeeeeeeze etc......

Patricia Dolan Vera Gottlieb , February 17, 2018 6:07 PM

get a grip......and turn your TV off!

Terry Ross Patricia Dolan , February 17, 2018 6:08 PM

'twas sarcasm Patricia.

Patricia Dolan Terry Ross , February 17, 2018 6:18 PM

I guess the WINKS need to be LARGER!!!! LOL

ThereisaGod , February 17, 2018 10:05 AM

Russia condemned and defined as the enemy of America with laughably little evidence (effing Facebook posts being about the extent of it) .... not a word about JEWISH MONEY controlling the entire political system in the USA. When Netanyahu gets 29 standing ovations from Congress should that not have triggered an FBI "Investigation"? Nah ... nothing happening there. It is breathtaking that THIS is the Alice-In-Wonderland world we inhabit.

Ton Jacobs, Human Guardians , February 17, 2018 10:02 AM

Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years.

christianblood Ton Jacobs, Human Guardians , February 17, 2018 12:32 PM

(...If this man seriously represents the intellectual level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years...)

You are exactly right. U$ politicians are uninformed, stupid, detached from reality, selfish and they think like schoolyard kids do.

Jesse Marioneaux christianblood , February 17, 2018 12:43 PM

They are the product of the US society as a whole.

christianblood Jesse Marioneaux , February 17, 2018 12:57 PM

They indeed are! U$A! U$A! U$A!

tom , February 17, 2018 11:14 AM

Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them".

journey80 , February 17, 2018 12:37 PM

Yeah, that's hilarious. Join the murdering creep in a giggle, Laura, that's cute. Here's a global criminal who should have been hung years ago for crimes against humanity. No one in their right mind would treat this creep with anything but contempt and horror, let alone find him funny.

Franz Kafka , February 17, 2018 12:17 PM

In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of power?

journey80 Franz Kafka , February 17, 2018 12:34 PM

We don't need to hear it, we're living it.

Franz Kafka journey80 , February 17, 2018 3:33 PM

My profound and sincere condolences. You are getting the 'Democracy Treatment' by the West. I hope some of you survive to tell the tale and take revenge.

Franz Kafka , February 17, 2018 12:09 PM

Are those ears or bat-wings? WOW! Yet another Jewe, pretending not be be. I guess he would say that the USA murdered all the Indians and enslaved Africans 'for their own good' as well.
Talmudo-Satanism is the pernicious underlying ideology of the people who have taken over, not just the USA, but, lets face it, the entire West.

Vera Gottlieb , February 17, 2018 2:28 PM

What a bunch of ingrates we are...not appreciating all that the CIA is doing for us. We must thank them instead of complaining.

Trauma2000 , February 17, 2018 5:30 PM

Lets not forget that the U.$.A. meddled in Australia's election of the Whitlam Government. (And several governments there after as soon as they realised they could get away with it an nothing would happen to them). The United States are a bunch of sick puppies; really sick puppies the way they have treated Australia.

So much for being allies. With allies like the United States you don't need enemies (Unless the U.$. doctors them up for you to force you to pay them more money for weapons and protection).

And it makes me sick that so many 'naive' people around the world keep falling for the SH*T that comes out of their mouths.

When dealing with the United States there are a few rules to follow. (Apologies to the innocent Americans out there but 'they' allow their government to do some unspeakable horrors to the world.)

And that goes for the entire planet no matter who the United States is speaking to.

End of story.

Shue Trauma2000 , February 17, 2018 5:51 PM

Worst part is the our Gov can't think ahead, if they keep antagonising China on behalf of the Seppo's China will eventually pull their mineral imports and our economy will crash overnight.

HappyCynic , February 17, 2018 4:31 PM

Yes, nobody doubts that the US interferes with elections in other countries - we're the good guys, so this is ok :)

I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors.

The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin).

John R Balch Jr , February 17, 2018 6:31 PM

Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election, 2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States.

Graeme Pedersen , February 17, 2018 6:11 PM

I believe john Key was sent from the U$A (Merrill Lynch) to ruin our economy in New Zealand as well.

janbn , February 17, 2018 5:37 PM

What an admission! trump doesn't want more drilling for oil to Americans to use. It is for export and for foreign interference.

Aidi Deduction , February 17, 2018 4:51 PM

Frederick the Great concluded that to allow governments to be dominated by the majority would be disastrous: "A democracy, to survive, must be, like other governments a minority persuading a majority to let itself be led by a minority."

General Kreeg , February 17, 2018 4:13 PM

Russian Trolls are all of a sudden the Russian Gov't.

fredd , February 17, 2018 3:18 PM

and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too

Mario8282 , February 17, 2018 2:56 PM

...and the US bombed half of the world's countries for their own good too. US made Libya a slave market for humanity's good as well. Oboomer even got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.

K Walker , February 17, 2018 2:55 PM

I would be greatly relieved if the USA government merely tweeted instead of invading and indulging in regime change.

Kevin S , February 17, 2018 12:55 PM

Talk about the pinnacle of hypocrisy!

[Feb 17, 2018] Russia has paid for a few Facebook trolls. Boo hoo. Better that than the typical US method of kidnapping and torturing opposition leaders we don t like.

Feb 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Expat Sat, 02/17/2018 - 18:28 Permalink

How is this "news"? The US has been meddling in foreign elections for hundreds of years. When we can't change the results, we change the leader. We have assassinated foreign leaders. We have organized revolutions. We have carried out false flag "terrorist" attacks to destabilize countries.

Russia has paid for a few Facebook trolls. Boo hoo. Better that than the typical US method of kidnapping and torturing opposition leaders we don't like. Fuck America and it's brutish hypocrisy.

Son of Captain Nemo Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:59 Permalink

Woolsey is one of many profiles in the "machine" that turns out the worst socio/psychopaths called Langley!... Much like the Department of Defense they train them to believe they are the most highly intelligent and capable in espionage even when they "lose" and lose "badly"!

They look at themselves as superior beings in every way that deserve and expect no restraint. And are repeatedly rewarded with pay and responsibility even when failure on missions includes the worst "blowback"!

If there ever was a government agency alongside the DOD that deserves the honorary title of total betrayal to their motto " And You Shall Know The Truth And It Shall Set You Free "... that has economically and politically SINGLE HANDEDLY done the opposite of EVERYTHING DEMOCRACY STANDS FOR in it's TOTAL DESTRUCTION -- this agency is the personification without equal and "without question"!

[Feb 17, 2018] Looks like Obama Nobel Price was for reviving slavery market in Lybia

Feb 17, 2018 | theduran.com

Mario8282 , February 17, 2018 2:56 PM

...and the US bombed half of the world's countries for their own good too. US made Libya a slave market for humanity's good as well. Oboomer even got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.

[Feb 17, 2018] In Trump's 2019 Budget, Lockheed Looms Almost as Large as State Dept by Jason Ditz

Notable quotes:
"... Lockheed Martin, after all, gets nearly as much money from the US government as the State Department. CEO Marilyn Hewson is, by the reckoning of some analysts, as powerful as most US cabinet secretaries. ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | news.antiwar.com
In great measure, the Pentagon runs on Lockheed Martin. The US armsmaker racked up $35.2 billion in sales to the US government last year, a preposterously large figure that positions them both as heavily reliant on the government for its profits, and gives them a level of influence unmatched.

Lockheed Martin, after all, gets nearly as much money from the US government as the State Department. CEO Marilyn Hewson is, by the reckoning of some analysts, as powerful as most US cabinet secretaries.

Teal Group's Richard Aboulafia has the gold medal quote on this – " diplomacy is out; airstrikes are in. " From the F-35 on, Lockheed is a key facilitator of airstrikes, and soaring demands for its products are leading to soaring revenue and rising profit margins.

Reports on the company brag about "juicy" shipbuilding deals, and the money pouring in from nuclear weapons upgrades. Lockheed Martin's status as a main seller of US arms and the US obsession with growing its military seem to ensure that the company will remain rich, and wildly influential, for years to come.

[Feb 17, 2018] Former CIA Chief Admits US Meddling In Foreign Elections For Their Own Good

Notable quotes:
"... How about Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa? Fuck Allen Dulles, Mike Pompeo, and everybody in-between! ..."
"... BTW, Victoria Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work. ..."
"... Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and along others like Hannity have blood on their hands. ..."
"... You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment. ..."
Feb 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Former CIA chief James Woolsey appeared on Fox News to push the narrative of how dastardly 'dem Russkies' are in their meddling with the sacred soul of America's democracy.

Woolsey did his patriotic deep-state-duty and proclaimed the evils of "expansionist Russia" and dropped 'facts' like "Russia has a larger cyber-army than its standing army," before he moved on to China and its existential threats.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SpWai3kZ-gM

But then, beginning at around 4:30 , the real debacle of the conversation begins as Ingraham asks Woolsey,

"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?"

Hes responds, surprisingly frankly...

"Oh probably... but it was for the good of the system..."

To which Ingraham follows up...

"We don't do that now though? We don't mess around in other people's elections?"

Prompting this extraordinary sentence from a former CIA chief...

"Well...hhhmmm, numm numm numm numm... only for a very good cause...in the interests of democracy"

So just to clarify - yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading 'Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other nations "in the interests of democracy."

In case you wondered which ones he was referring to, here's a brief selection since 1948...

2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin's Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)

(h/t @Yogi_Chan)

gellero Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:18 Permalink

What?? No Ukrania ???

Stan522 -> gellero Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:23 Permalink

obama sent in operatives into Israel to mess with Bibi....... They missed that one too....

skbull44 -> Stan522 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:25 Permalink

It's always for the children...

https://olduvai.ca

TBT or not TBT -> skbull44 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:29 Permalink

Yeah, a little bit for the children, but primarily it's for the stockholders and upper management, with some serious trickle down to their children.

Looney -> TBT or not TBT Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:32 Permalink

How about Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa? Fuck Allen Dulles, Mike Pompeo, and everybody in-between!

Looney

Mango327 -> manofthenorth Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:01 Permalink

This Russia bullshit has gotta stop. For the love of God, it's been like two and a a half years now. If Vladimir Putin was as twice as evil as we're told, he still wouldn't be half as evil as the Clintons are on any given Thursday.

MUELLER IS A JOKE, ABOLISH the F.B.I.

https://youtu.be/wC_Ro80LlhE

SoilMyselfRotten -> skbull44 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:47 Permalink

Democracy? Annnnnnnd it's gone! No wonder the rest of the world thinks we've collectively lost our minds. BTW, Victoria Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work.

marysimmons -> SoilMyselfRotten Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:16 Permalink

Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and along others like Hannity have blood on their hands.

The whole purpose of the Mueller indictment was to give the mainstream outlets something to report so idiot Americans will believe the crap put out about Russia since the Winter Olympics in Sochi and set the tone to justify a military conflict with Russia that won't end well for anyone, IMO

veritas semper -> marysimmons Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:40 Permalink

And Victoria Nuland Kagan is now Senior Adviser in the Donald's Department of Defense. See, kids, how the swamp is drained?

New_Meat -> marysimmons Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:46 Permalink

mary, just a touch catty tonight, don't cha' think?

Zio-Nazi? How dat work?

Whole purpose of the Mueller indictments is to give the folks a show to prove that their money hasn't been wasted on a Trump collusion charge for collusion that started in 2014 when Trump was prolly out schlongin' some playmate or other..

TheSilentMajority -> Looney Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:47 Permalink

They didu sumtin.

Deep Snorkeler -> skbull44 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:38 Permalink

America plays political-economic pranks on the rest of the world for the good of the system. It's worked out well.

Dumpster Elite -> Stan522 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:28 Permalink

I kinda wondered why they missed that one, too. I've seen that list on here before. I guess messing with Israel's elections doesn't fit the ZH narrative?

Justin Case -> Stan522 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:36 Permalink

That anchor sounds like she would be a good candidate for a gender change, meat stick and tea bag.

Vilfredo Pareto -> Stan522 Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:00 Permalink

They missed post war Greece too, Albania, and a ton of others.

Bastiat -> Vilfredo Pareto Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:18 Permalink

. . . and Australia: watch The Falcon and the Snowman, if you haven't.

TheSilentMajority -> gellero Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:51 Permalink

Rothschilds at it again?

keep the basta -> gellero Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:53 Permalink

No Australia? Whitlam dismissal 11/11/1975 even wiki lists it

dirty fingernails Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:20 Permalink

The US is working hard to make banana republics look respectable

TBT or not TBT -> dirty fingernails Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:31 Permalink

We're The Most Interesting Banana Republic In The World.

Justin Case -> dirty fingernails Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:45 Permalink

to make banana republics look respectable

Not like a shit hole?

Bay Area Guy Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:20 Permalink

I generally can't stand Laura, but that was a spot on question. America is the quintessential "do as I say and not as I do" government.

chunga -> Bay Area Guy Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:33 Permalink

Among the many things sorely lacking in uncle sam is simple humility.

rwe2late Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:29 Permalink

Woolsey is an evil man. I doubt if he really believes. that the murders and tortures he presided over were for "their own good".

Ms No -> rwe2late Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:55 Permalink

No way he believes it. One thing about people who lack human empathy is that they would NEVER fall for the same tricks that the empathy having population does. They will always see the angle. It's what their brain is devoted to. All the capacity that we use to be reflective, emotional or caring all goes to angling for advantage with them. He knows exactly why people are tortured and couldn't give a shit less. You are either shark or mutilated gold fish as far as he is concerned.

New_Meat -> rwe2late Sat, 02/17/2018 - 17:51 Permalink

Woolsey is an evil man, for a certainty. But, au contraire, I bet he does believe it is for their own good. Whoever "they" are that he's doin' shit to. Like the Jesuits in Andalusia, purging the non-believers.

- Ned

dizzyfingers Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:29 Permalink

This repeats our own terrible history: Tom Landess on "The Dark Side of Abraham Lincoln," and the week in review at the Abbeville Institute.

serotonindumptruck Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:31 Permalink

You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment.

Dumpster Elite Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:32 Permalink

It really would be a new dawn for this country if the entire Deep State were outed, and publicly executed. I know that sounds like tinfoil hat talk, but hey, I'm sure the NSA is all over me right about now. Too bad they can't seem to find serial killers that say they're going to shoot up a school online. Too busy trying to shut up those that don't like the Deep State.

Ms No Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:50 Permalink

They have always done this and every single other accusation that they have levied against other "tyrants". The crazy train continues to pick up speed.

OT: Wales may have had a fracking quake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM4Wcqe6s_s

This is pretty funny. "Footage" of quake. Fracking quakes usually are not that big but it did drop masonry off of buildings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEI4cSd4B38

Paracelsus Sat, 02/17/2018 - 16:52 Permalink

Ummm, Fidel Castro, Cuba, 1962 ? Leading up to Dallas? Which led to LBJ and ramp up of Indochina. If you look closely you will see that there was a huge little war going on in Laos, lots of bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail from fighter bombers based in Thailand.

Also, Australia. The 1972 Whitlam dismissal was a bloodless coup d'état. Whitlam recognized North Vietnam which pissed off a bunch of people in Langley. The pilots were on strike and they couldn't fly parts and crew into Alice Springs (Pine Gap Satellite facility). The Aussies have long memories and it will be a cold day in hell before they trust the Yanks like before. This is a country with a strong sense of injustice. The Aussies still talk about the "bodyline" cricket scandal with the Brits, and that happened in the 1930's....

[Feb 17, 2018] Iran is already being attacked from West and East in the North

Feb 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: ninel | Feb 11, 2018 3:59:15 PM

Here is an interesting article that points to the new American strategy with respect to Iran and central Asia. Iran is already being attacked from West and East in the North. And central Asia is next. This might force Iran to pull back some forces from Syria and Iraq.

No end to the wars.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/06/us-isis-nexus-afghanistan-becomes-hot-topic.html

[Feb 17, 2018] Delegitimization of ruling elite is an approriate word for the current crisis

Notable quotes:
"... This rings true as well; "The implications for the future of the American republic were terrifying, Tesich concluded. His words are haunting to read today: We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world." ..."
"... This also applies to the UK. What goodwill, mythology ("worldliness, pragmatism") etc. that was attached by continentals to the UK has been "exploded". ..."
"... Lately, I've detected a certain sense of malaise among my fellow citizens. In my opinion, it's long been apparent that this won't end well. All of these factors points to a day of reckoning that is rapidly approaching. Perhaps the prevalence of school shootings is acting as the proverbial canary in the coal mine? ..."
"... Don't think that the elite have not noticed the way things are moving. In my own line of work I interact with the 1% on a regular basis. I can tell you that even though they are doing better that ever, there is a sense of discreet terror. It's obvious when they discuss all the ways that they're trying to replicating their own advantages in the education of their little darlings. ..."
"... I think it's dawning on us that we're not re-experiencing the moment before the election of Franklin Roosevelt, and the beginning of the New Deal, we're actually just now realizing the necessity of the daunting task of organizing, which makes our times resemble 1890 more than 1935. ..."
"... Even if it takes half as much time to defeat the Robber Barons this go-round, many of us will not see anything resembling ' victory ' in our lifetimes, so we have to make adjustments in our expectations, and accept the monumental nature of the tasks ahead. ..."
"... I think delegitimization is upon us. General malaise is nearly to the point of a general strike. The house of cards is in a slow motion but certain wind storm. Those thousand dollar checks at Wal-Mart payday will vanish overnight while the wealthy reap tax benefits for years on end. We are down to the twenty seven percent (Dems) waging false battles with the twenty six percent (Reps). Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out. ..."
"... The Anglo-American countries can not be anything but in a class of their own. They include the mother country with former colonies, some especially successful, and rule the world by virtue of language, wealth and, often necessarily, violence, almost always gratuitous. ..."
"... Violence has an effect on peoples lives at both the giving and receiving ends. ..."
"... Image you are in Baghdad on the glorious, glittering night of Shock and Awe to get a feel for things. That happened when the US was supposedly great. ..."
"... Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists. ..."
"... But Trump is not the problem here, only the Front Man for something larger. Even during the early oughts one could perceive a fundamental societal drift, empowered by a 'conservative' (read: fascist) willingness to do whatever was necessary in pursuit of their particular vision. It is not a vision of returning disempowered white folks to some rosy past that never existed; I sense a more feudal vision, with princes and lords in gated communities, with peasants conned into doing their bidding, every day being fleeced even further. ..."
"... The angst feels not like the angst of an impending, singular catastrophe, but rather the angst of decline. There's a late empire feel to the current mood: leaders without agency, more interested in their own, internal sense of normalcy and maintaining their perches, perches that increasingly feel pointless as they're all just listless figureheads doing what the Magister Militum tells them to do. ..."
"... The military feels all-encompassing yet simultaneously incapable of exercising its will in the theater of war, so dispersed and aimless, as the missions are no longer about winning wars but about resume building ..."
"... Civililizations don't collapse like falling off a table. They stress resources of materials and people and such stresses build and build. This has serious psychological impacts. ..."
"... The moderate catastrophic disasters like Trumps election cause much bigger disruptions to the civilizational equilibrium, but only for a time. We all know deep inside that what comes next in Brexit or say Trumps removal will actually be worse than what we have now. ..."
"... For me the frame changed with the restart of the Cold War. I remember "Duck and Cover, McCarthyism, John Birchers, and Who Lost China". It has all come back. The Democrats are idiots for scapegoating Russia. President Donald Trump is incompetent. ..."
"... Jones Marathon ..."
Feb 17, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
HopeLB , February 16, 2018 at 8:43 am

All of the warnings, predictions, knowledge, tech advances and humor of sci-fi, real science, history, and literature alike has boiled down to this? This low quality "news" that reports on the latest predictable, preventable outrage/injustice when it not intentionally turning up the hysteria/fear tuner? It's like living in a simulation of a society ruled by the insane and hearing about its unwinding day after day.

This rings true as well; "The implications for the future of the American republic were terrifying, Tesich concluded. His words are haunting to read today: We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world."

https://www.thenation.com/article/post-truth-and-its-consequences-what-a-25-year-old-essay-tells-us-about-the-current-moment/

Yeat's captures the inexorable feel of our times perfectly;

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Colonel Smithers , February 16, 2018 at 9:04 am

Thank you.

This also applies to the UK. What goodwill, mythology ("worldliness, pragmatism") etc. that was attached by continentals to the UK has been "exploded".

This makes me wonder whether the US will exist in its current form. Is it desirable? Genuine questions from someone who visits annually, including "fly over", and enjoys doing so. I don't see the UK existing as currently constituted much beyond the next decade.

camelotkidd , February 16, 2018 at 8:42 am

Lately, I've detected a certain sense of malaise among my fellow citizens. In my opinion, it's long been apparent that this won't end well. All of these factors points to a day of reckoning that is rapidly approaching. Perhaps the prevalence of school shootings is acting as the proverbial canary in the coal mine?

Don't think that the elite have not noticed the way things are moving. In my own line of work I interact with the 1% on a regular basis. I can tell you that even though they are doing better that ever, there is a sense of discreet terror. It's obvious when they discuss all the ways that they're trying to replicating their own advantages in the education of their little darlings.

Watt4Bob , February 16, 2018 at 8:45 am

I'm starting to think that what we are experiencing is the realization that we've spent way too much time expecting that explaining our selves, our diverse grievances, and our political insights would naturally result in growing an irresistible movement that would wash over, and cleanse our politics of the filth that is the status quo.

It is sobering to realize that it took almost four decades for the original Progressive Era organizers to bring about even the possibility of change.

I think it's dawning on us that we're not re-experiencing the moment before the election of Franklin Roosevelt, and the beginning of the New Deal, we're actually just now realizing the necessity of the daunting task of organizing, which makes our times resemble 1890 more than 1935.

Government by the people, and for the people has been drowned in the bath-tub, and the murderers have not only taken the reigns of power, but have convinced half the population that their murderous act represents a political correction that will return America to greatness.

It remains to be seen whether we will find it in our hearts to embrace both the hard, and un-glamorous work of relieving the pain inflicted by the regime that has engulfed us, and the necessity of embracing as brothers and sisters those who haven't yet realized that it is the rich and powerful who are the problem, and not all the other poor and oppressed.

The difficulty of affecting political change might be explained the way Black-Smiths describe their problem;

Life so short the craft so long to learn.

Even if it takes half as much time to defeat the Robber Barons this go-round, many of us will not see anything resembling ' victory ' in our lifetimes, so we have to make adjustments in our expectations, and accept the monumental nature of the tasks ahead.

Eureka Springs , February 16, 2018 at 10:32 am

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

A nice excerpt from the non-binding Gettysburg address. Too bad he was referring to a system of governance which never existed.

In a conversation with several friends yesterday.. all of us found among our greatest despairs the behavior of our long time friends who are Democrats. Much more pig-headed and determined to stay that way than Republicans ever were during the Bush Jr. years. Pretending we live in some sort of system (much less a party) which could or would possibly represent. Seemingly incapable of listening, blinded by delusion and propaganda demanding anyone in their presence double down on what's failed so many of us for far longer than we have lived.

All of us men in our fifties. Hard working. None of us had kids of our own, but several are in relationships with women who did. None of us have anything close to high living standards. Barely getting by now with great uncertainty ahead. Hell, we all own our homes outright, drive ten to twenty year old cars, buy most clothes second hand, grow much of our own food, cut our own firewood, several live off the grid entirely. Only one has access to health care and that's because he's on disability due to spinal injury on the job and an inherited heart condition. He's also the only one who might be able to get by in 'retirement' years on what he will receive. Every one of the rest of us realized if we lose our current jobs we would be hard pressed to replace them at half the income we have now.

I went to orientation for jury duty this week. Out of a hundred and fifty people I was the only man wearing a button down shirt and a sport coat. The only man who removed his hat in the courtroom. And I felt like a freak. It was all I could do to not ask the judge about jury nullification. The only reason I held back is because I knew every citizen in the joint just wanted out of there.

I think delegitimization is upon us. General malaise is nearly to the point of a general strike. The house of cards is in a slow motion but certain wind storm. Those thousand dollar checks at Wal-Mart payday will vanish overnight while the wealthy reap tax benefits for years on end. We are down to the twenty seven percent (Dems) waging false battles with the twenty six percent (Reps). Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out.

Watt4Bob , February 16, 2018 at 11:20 am

Only the 47 percent rest of us will grow in numbers from here on out.

So there is our hope. Personally, I suspect that Trump's working-class supporters will join us sooner than the deluded, diehard Clintonista faction of the democratic base. And let's hope the false battles don't turn into real battles. It's obvious there are some who would love to have us throwing rocks at each other, or worse.

juliania , February 16, 2018 at 12:58 pm

Yes, indeed, you have it. Delegitimization is the appropriate word. My thought on seeing the headline that 17 died in the Florida school shooting was how many months to go before the school year ends. I won't read anything about the shooter, or the deaths, or the bravery and self sacrifice. There have been too many; there will be far too many more.

It is an end-of-Vietnam moment. It is a moment for poems such as the above mentioned, and for me T.S.Eliot's 'Four Quartets'.

Petter , February 16, 2018 at 8:45 am

Book: The Administration of Fear – Paul Virilio. From the back cover: We are facing the emergence of a real, collective madness reinforced by the synchronization of emotions: the sudden globalization of affects in real time that hits all of humanity at the same time, and in the name of Progress. Emergency exit: we have entered a time of general panic.
-- --

suffer , February 16, 2018 at 8:46 am

what is your suffering of choice?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/58230/how-tell-whether-youve-got-angst-ennui-or-weltschmerz

Colonel Smithers , February 16, 2018 at 8:51 am

Thank you to Yves and the NC community.

Perhaps because I live in the UK, I echo particularly what Clive, Windsock and Plutonium Kun say.

Having spent much of the winter in Belgium, Mauritius, Spain and France, so none Anglo-Saxon, it was a relief to get away from the UK in the same way as JLS felt. Although these countries have their issues, I did notice their MSM appear not as venal as the UK and US MSM and seem more focused on local bread and butter. Brexit and Trump were mentioned very briefly, the latter nothing as hysterical and diversionary as in the UK and US. There were little identity politics on parade. Locals don't seem as worn out, in all respects, as one observes in Blighty.

With regard to PK's reference about Pearl Harbour, I know some well informed remainers who want a hard Brexit just for the relief that it will bring. Others, not necessarily remainers, have no idea what's going on and think Trump is a bigger threat. I must confess to, often, sharing what the former think, if only to bring the neo-liberal house down once and for all.

All this makes me think whether anglo-saxon countries are in a class of their own and how, after Brexit, the EU27 will evolve, shorn of the UK. This is not to say that the UK (the neo-liberal bit) is the only rotten apple in the EU.

If it was not for this site and community, I know of no other place where I would get a better source of news, insight and sanity. I know a dozen journalists, mainly in London, well and echo what Norello said.

Quentin , February 16, 2018 at 11:43 am

The Anglo-American countries can not be anything but in a class of their own. They include the mother country with former colonies, some especially successful, and rule the world by virtue of language, wealth and, often necessarily, violence, almost always gratuitous.

Violence has an effect on peoples lives at both the giving and receiving ends. What was this school shooting? The 13th or something since the beginning of the year. War. Nuclear war. A fear of war is the undertone which has been droning (!) on long before Donald Trump took power. Image you are in Baghdad on the glorious, glittering night of Shock and Awe to get a feel for things. That happened when the US was supposedly great.

LizinOregon , February 16, 2018 at 11:33 pm

Is pretending all is well a rational defense against the overwhelming feeling that there is nothing an individual can do to deflect the trajectory we are on? And the emotional energy it takes to keep up that pretense is exhausting.

Jane , February 16, 2018 at 9:30 am

I understand she's eager to leave but where to?! Isnt everywhere infected with this angst?

Yves Smith Post author , February 16, 2018 at 12:13 pm

She spends a lot of time in Asia .

Steve , February 16, 2018 at 9:37 am

I think for myself and others that the complete hopelessness of our situation is starting to take more of a toll. The amount of personal and social capital used to finally get some sanity back in government after Bush and the disastrous wasted opportunity of Obama that led to Trump is overwhelming. The complete loss of fairness is everywhere and my pet one this week is how Experian after losing over 200 million personal financial records is now advertising during the Olympics as the personal security service experts instead of being prosecuted out of business.

DJG , February 16, 2018 at 9:52 am

Yesterday was peculiar, Yves Smith. You should have sent me an e-mail! My colleagues were having meltdowns (overtired, I think). My computers were glitchy. The WWW seemed to switch on and off all day long. I am of a mind that it has to due with the false spring: We had a thaw in Chicago.

Like Lambert, and I won't speak for Lambert, who can speak for himself, I am guardedly optimistic: I have attended Our Revolution meetings here in Chicago as well as community meetings. There are many hardworking and savvy people out there. Yet I also believe that we are seeing the collapse of the old order without knowing what will arise anew. And as always, I am not one who believes that we should advocate more suffering so that people "learn their lesson." There is already too much suffering in the world–witness the endless U.S. sponsored wars in the Middle East. (The great un-covered story of our time: The horrors of the U.S.-Israeli-Saudi sponsored massacres from Algeria to Pakistan.)

I tend to think that the Anglo-American world is having a well-deserved nervous breakdown.

I note on my FB page that a "regular Democrat" is calling for war by invoking Orwell. When someone has reached that point of rottenness, not even knowing that Orwell was almost by nature anti-war, the rot can only continue its collapse.

So I offer Antonio Gramsci, who in spite of everything, used to write witty letters from prison. >>

My state of mind brings together these two sentiments and surpasses them: I am pessimistic because of intelligence, but a willed optimist. I think, in every circumstance, of the worst scenario so I can marshal all of my reserves of will and be ready to overcome the obstacle. I never allow myself illusions, and I have never had disappointments. I am always specially armed with endless patience, not passive or inert, but patience animated by perseverance.
–Antonio Gramsci, letter to his brother Gennaro, December 1929. Translation DJG.

Every collapse brings intellectual and moral disorder in its wake. So we must foster people who are sober, have patience, who do not despair when faced with the worst horrors yet who do not become elated over every stupid misstep. Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists.
–Antonio Gramsci, first Prison Notebook, 1929-1930. Translation DJG.

So: Commenting groundlings and comrades, we must be alert, somewhat severe in our judgments of people and of the news, and yet open to a revolution that includes bread and roses.

Eclair , February 16, 2018 at 11:52 am

Nice find, DJG: "Our intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists."

Too big for a bumper sticker . but good for a bedside table or the bathroom mirror. To remind us that, for the realists, being optimistic takes an effort of will, a determined reach every single morning to find just one small thing that will keep us going for that day and give us hope for the future. It could be a rosy sunrise, or the imminent arrival of a grandchild, or a packet of seeds ready to be sown. Or meeting a good friend for coffee, or mastering a new dance step or a difficult passage on the fiddle.

Not denial of the world's shameful faults and of our increasingly precarious position within it, but a refusal to allow them to grind us down completely.

Left in Wisconsin , February 16, 2018 at 2:34 pm

Intelligence makes us pessimists, and our will makes us optimists.

My favorite quote. What else is there?

And if you want to know who the enemy is, it is all those whose cure for what ails us is either "Just going on living your life (i.e. shopping)" or "just vote". I view the current period of disquiet and all of us wondering what we can and should do, and who will be alongside us, or opposed to us, when we do.

Lambert Strether , February 16, 2018 at 5:22 pm

> Pessimism of the the intellect, optimism of the will

I think -- call me Pollyanna if you wish -- that optimism of the intellect is warranted as well. My only concern is that collapse will come (or be induced) when "the good guys,"* let us say, are still to weak to take advantage of the moment. That's why I keep saying that gridlock is our friend.

* Who in the nature of the case have been unaccustomed to wielding real power.

Eclair , February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm

I have been fortunate, in the past decade, to have 'hung out' with lots of 20-somethings (and a few older beings) who have been passionately optimistic about what they can accomplish against the forces of darkness. From the environmentalists who are fighting the corporations who would build pipelines and LNG terminals to activists building tiny houses for the homeless and working with the city to find land to place them on, and those who happily get arrested for sleeping under a blanket, in protest against 'urban camping' bans, to a woman who for the last five years has served Friday night meals for all, on sidewalks in front of businesses supporting the urban camping ban.

And, I have been constantly in awe of those who, in the face of centuries of being relocated, dispossessed, despised and massacred, will not give up on protecting their lands and their way of life. These Lakota and Kiowa and Dineh people are truly optimistic that they will prevail. Or, perhaps fatalistic is a better description; hey know they may die trying.

The Rev Kev , February 16, 2018 at 9:57 am

Looks like this article has a lot of legs on it but will wait to read more commentator's thoughts and ideas before doing so myself. Too much to take in. In the meantime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WatQeG5fMU

R , February 16, 2018 at 10:19 am

As a New Zealander living in the USA for around 7 years now (but routinely spending Christmas months back in NZ, and often multi month stints remote working in Europe) the 'tension' just living in the USA – NYC / LA is through the roof.

I can remember being in Vienna some time after trump won, a few days shy of returning to the US and wondering what the hell I was thinking – and that's related to people / media's reaction to trump just as much as trump being in charge.

It's hard to put your finger on exactly what it is – partly just the 'big metropolis' thing.. but there's also something else nasty in the air.

Similar (but amplified) feeling at work last week at the office as one quarter of the company were sacked on a days notice – a downsizing at a start up that supposedly has 'great culture'.

It's that nasty squeeze of fast capitalism I believe that has a grip on everyone's psyche – elevated fear levels, etc.

Re-read Ames' 'going postal' a few weeks back, which covers brilliantly the vicious cultural turn under Reagan.

Ps – Naked Capitalism has become my 'News refuge' having dropped off social media entirely, and wanting to avoid the general insanity of the news cycle but not disengage, thank you!

tegnost , February 16, 2018 at 10:22 am

It's not so much the presence of angst that I see, among my working brethren we're pretty numb to the current hopeless future and tend to focus instead on the present for efficiencies sake, for if one thinks too much about the hopeless future it's hard to get up and get going on fighting back the tide and muddling through the hopeless present that will be more hopeless if you don't do anything. (as an aside my opinion is that this psychology has much to do with the current homeless crisis it takes confidence to try and those who can delude themselves into doing so seem to be a little better off) But now the angst is in the the 10%er's in my acquaintance, who claim to be really worried about nuclear war. Not surprisingly they're mostly informed by npr, which as far as I can see makes people really stupid. The trump as crazy fascist narrative has them in it's clutches so much so that his weekend I had to give the "don't be too pessimistic b/c if the world doesn't end you will be unprepared for it, and if it ends who cares?" speech normally reserved for youngsters who see no point in trying due to end of the world thinking (as anecdote since when I was in college in the early '80's I was pretty certain there would be a nuclear war and made different choices than the best ones,, anyone remember the star wars missile defense system?). That said I think the "we're all gonna die" theme is just more bs sour grapes and more proof that the residence of hopelessness is actually the democrat partisans who refuse to live in the present, so denial is where they are at. But isn't that the thing about angst, it doesn't have to be real to effect one's life negatively, and I'm hearing it from people who I think should know better, but I read nc daily and live out in the woods (highly recommended, almost as good as being in another country as the rural areas of the US are actually another country) and npr was so unhinged this weekend that I felt that even the reporters were having a hard time mustering the outrage. As Hope said commenting on the uber series
"What a pleasure it is to read a genuine (and all too rare) piece of financial analysis."
I couldn't agree more, and I might send it on to a 10%er, but they seem kind of fragile lately and I don't know if they could handle "uber is a failing enterprise", they might not get out of bed

tegnost , February 16, 2018 at 1:31 pm

oops sorry that was hana not hope

Travis Bickle , February 16, 2018 at 10:22 am

Don't know if I'm any more sensitive than you guys, and I'm certainly not that good at articulating what's going in with something this subtle.

I will say that when the dogs stop barking its time to start getting REALLY worried. What we may now be hearing, or not hearing, may be a sign of fatigue, but more depressingly, impending resignation. EVERY day for the past year there's been yet another affront, and the opposition has been ineffective in any meaningful sense. Trump has apparently learned that the way to parry any thrust is to counter with something even more outrageous, literally in a matter of minutes. The initiative he is thus able to maintain is scary, and something I see no way to surmount.

But Trump is not the problem here, only the Front Man for something larger. Even during the early oughts one could perceive a fundamental societal drift, empowered by a 'conservative' (read: fascist) willingness to do whatever was necessary in pursuit of their particular vision. It is not a vision of returning disempowered white folks to some rosy past that never existed; I sense a more feudal vision, with princes and lords in gated communities, with peasants conned into doing their bidding, every day being fleeced even further.

Hence, having the means, though by no means being rich, I began my move off-shore over ten years ago. I now have 3 passports and permanent residency on as many continents. What Jerri-Lynn senses is very, very real, as I learned in the US over Xmas past in a series of vignettes I'll spare anyone reading this. I was sharing my experiences there to a local student recently (here in South America) who had once lived in the US and who continues to be enamored of the now frayed, and largely repudiated, American Dream. As I explained to him, it's not a pretty picture, and hardly one to succumb to.

My sense is that the media has succeeded in instilling into the North American zeitgeist a sense of the US being At War against the rest of the world, not unlike that of the mentality of Israel, which has a far more real situation to contend with. The tragedy, in the case of the US, is that it really, really does not have to be like this. This is a hole we have begun digging ourselves into only recently, as opposed to Israel, which at this point can hardly see the light of day.

At some point this mentality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and while the US could easily turn itself around, the momentum is strong and decidedly in the other direction. The vision of the fascists and the imperatives of the media pretty much guarantee the US, and by extension the world, is on a collision course with negative time and space.

Left in Wisconsin , February 16, 2018 at 2:37 pm

Everything holds until it doesn't.

Lambert Strether , February 16, 2018 at 5:30 pm

Herbert Stein disagrees with Godot's Vladimir: ""If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

Andrew Watts , February 16, 2018 at 10:33 am

I'm probably the last person able to comment on this topic having spent the last three months ignoring the news and not even reading Naked Capitalism daily. I was never bothered by the big stories like the drama over North Korea which I thought of as nothing more than a psy-op incidentally aimed at the American populace. Nor did I find Liberal Hezbollah (The Resistance) or #Metoo to be anything more than a joke. I kinda suspected that American culture would be plagued by another round of hysterical superstition driven by Calvinist social-jihadism.

If there seems to be a lack of consequential events it's because history doesn't move as swiftly as we might want. It doesn't mean that we aren't moving towards more worldview shattering events which will challenge the ability of our body politic to react to them. The United States continues to collapse driven by external and internal factors. The lack of clarity and unity of action will eventually usher in the end of the empire aboard. The inability of our ruling class to respond to Trump's election in such a manner which would constructively restore faith in our institutions will only accelerate the process at home. There isn't a lack of stories which serve as a useful guide through history. The story about American troops being ambushed and dying in Niger was significant.

A few years before the Islamic State steamrolled through Iraq and Syria it was mostly unnoticed that the French were contending with rebels marauding through their African protection racket in Mali and the Central African Republic. The fact that the US is having to prop up the French and that the chaos has been migrating southward is significant especially given the economic factors at stake. Another story I found interesting was a recent DW article about the woeful state of readiness of the German military given it is assuming leadership of a prominent position in NATO. It notably reveals that in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis and euro crisis the Germans, but probably the European countries as a whole, have been strip-mining their military budgets which is something that America did during the Great Depression. I'm sure there is even more stories out there that are little pieces of a much larger puzzle but to be honest I've mostly spent my downtime playing video games.

Don't judge me.

Andrew Watts , February 16, 2018 at 9:16 pm

True enough. It shouldn't go unnoticed that Obama was calling for NATO nations to increase their military spending 'til they reach 2% of their GDP. The Germans wouldn't theoretically have any trouble meeting under normal circumstances. It's also a far cry from what Germany spent on the eve of both World Wars.

kareninca , February 16, 2018 at 8:58 pm

"Basically everything and anything anti-Republican & anti-Trump that gets published on Facebook gets re-posted on our church Facebook page."

Hmmm. Are you losing parishioners as a result? Or gaining them? It doesn't seem to me like what people would be looking for in a faith community – an overload of politics – but what do I know.

Oh, I see that you've already sort of answered that question.

CalypsoFacto , February 16, 2018 at 4:19 pm

the tendency to excessive rage when identity is questioned is a feature of narcissism. excessive, misplaced, out of proportion rage (at being denied what was expected, at being wrong, at being seen as incompetent, whatever conflicts with the rager's identity) is what this sounds like to me. which is I guess another form of not thinking enough, unfortunately narcissism isn't curable.

in fact so much of this thread makes me feel like we're all suffering a bit as grey rocks in a narcissistic abuse scenario. the narcissism is at the individual level and at the societal level; we're all just trying to keep our heads down and avoid the maelstrom, which keeps increasing in intensity to get our attention back.

freedeomny , February 16, 2018 at 11:36 am

What I have noticed is: a sense of powerlessness and not being able to control basic aspects of your life .that at any moment things could spiral widely out of control; people have become more enraged, meaner and feel they don't even have to be polite anymore (my friends and I have noticed this even with drivers); people who normally would be considered comfortable are feeling more and more financially insecure. Almost everyone I know feels this tension and is trying to figure out what they need to do to survive – I know several who are exploring becoming expats. I think we are rapidly moving towards a breaking point .

windsock , February 16, 2018 at 11:37 am

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/cheer-up-the-apocalypse-isn-t-coming-and-life-s-getting-better-a3768606.html

PKMKII , February 16, 2018 at 11:58 am

The angst feels not like the angst of an impending, singular catastrophe, but rather the angst of decline. There's a late empire feel to the current mood: leaders without agency, more interested in their own, internal sense of normalcy and maintaining their perches, perches that increasingly feel pointless as they're all just listless figureheads doing what the Magister Militum tells them to do.

The military feels all-encompassing yet simultaneously incapable of exercising its will in the theater of war, so dispersed and aimless, as the missions are no longer about winning wars but about resume building. Same for the security agencies, whose invasive practices feel less like a preparation for a 1984-style security state, and more a cover for their own incompetence and inability to do proper legwork, as these mass shootings seem to inevitably come with the revelation about how authorities were alerted prior to the fact of the shooter's warning signs and did no follow up. Meanwhile, standards of living decline for the vast majority of Americans, the sense of national unity is eroding as regional and rural/urban identities are superseding that of country. Not to mention the slow simmer that is global warming and climate change.

So yeah, nothing that translates to a flashy headline or all-at-once collapse, but definitely an angst of a slow slide down, with too much resistance to the change needed to reverse it.

polecat , February 16, 2018 at 2:53 pm

My feeling is that the U$A, along with various sovereign entities around much the planet will, within a decade or so, cease to exist in their current form. When people coalesce and societies reform, is when one gets/is forced .. to choose their 'new' afilliation(s) !

It will be facinating to behold, if one is alive to partake in it ! As for positive, or negative outcomes who knows ?

Wyoming , February 16, 2018 at 12:01 pm

Yves

I believe that what is happening is that slowly but surely the numbers of people who are subconsciously reacting to the ongoing collapse of civilization are growing. They are uneasy, anxious, deflated, waiting for Godot, in depression and so on.

Civililizations don't collapse like falling off a table. They stress resources of materials and people and such stresses build and build. This has serious psychological impacts. Numbness to new is bad news. Or what used to be bad news has to be Trumped by exceedingly bad news before folks can rise to deal with them, but for a shorter time than they had the ability they used to. As the number of people grows who have reached their capacity to tolerate the stress we will find more and more of them just shut down as their subconscious tells them there is no point in caring anymore as things are just going to get worse.

We all see things getting worse.

So we have little collapses on a regular basis which hardly ruffle anyone's feathers anymore. The moderate catastrophic disasters like Trumps election cause much bigger disruptions to the civilizational equilibrium, but only for a time. We all know deep inside that what comes next in Brexit or say Trumps removal will actually be worse than what we have now. And we know that such will be the trend for the duration. Each time we seem to overcome a disaster we will be presented with another building disaster. A worse one. As we continue to stair step down the long slope that our civilization climbed during the renaissance and the enlightenment. Trump and Brexit are medium steps down.

The Black Swan is out there somewhere watching us. The big step down. We can feel it coming and we cannot stop it. We know that what seems bad now is going to be a lot worse in the future. We know this and it makes us helpless.

Skip above has the word on this.

"The centre does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world".

Oregoncharles , February 16, 2018 at 2:04 pm

"The Second Coming," 1919: http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html

akaPaul LaFargue , February 16, 2018 at 12:13 pm

The Worst Well-Being Year on Record for the U.S. – Gallup

"Americans' well-being took a big hit nationally in 2017, according to the Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index, which recorded declines in 21 states. Why did well-being drop, and where were the declines most pronounced?"

OK- no endorsement from me re the validity of this Index, BUT the podcast raises an important point vis a vis 2009 downturn in their Index.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/gallupstrengthscenter/the-worst-well-being-year-on-record-for-

Loneprotester , February 16, 2018 at 12:20 pm

I think what we have here is a Mexican standoff the likes of which has perhaps never been seen. I am 51 years old. For most of my life there has been a polite changing of the guards to no great effect every four years. Trump rode into Washington on a bridge burning mission and all that has changed. Or were the bridges burned upon his approach, after which he was framed for the crime? This is the essence of the problem we face as a country, and the world watching on with bated breath.

I still do not know what is "true" about any of this "Russiagate" contretemps. Perhaps none of it. Perhaps all of it. I suspect both parties and candidates were hand fed dubious information then tried to hide the wrappers from the "authorities" who (naturally) were only interested in how any of it impacted them personally and institutionally, and so on and so forth, etc. etc.

But where does that get us a nation? If you are a child and you walk into your parent's bedroom to find your mother screwing the gardener you may be upset. But then if you run down the hall to your brother's room to tell him and find your father en flagrante with the nanny, well where do you go from there?

We have to find a way to deescalate with each other as Americans. I find myself repeatedly smiling blankly in conversations with family, friends, and strangers who will all equally complain vociferously about someone who is definitely destroying the planet/country/children. But that only gets you so far. If you do not engage after a few minutes you are viewed with great suspicion. And then only the strongest bonds of love can save you from being cast aside or worse.

Deescalate now. I'm gonna put it on a tshirt.

By the way, reading a lot of Jung right now. Anyone else?

Blitz , February 16, 2018 at 12:31 pm

For the better part of the last 45 years I have traveled the world, worked with individuals in different cultures, walked among and shared bread and stories with many people in their living quarters and the news of today is not so much (occasionally) about the depth of love that exists around the world but only about the evils we are told about in pages of the WaPo, NYTimes and even the WST. So sad because there is so much good to view but good rarely delivers headlines and headlines sell news and make journalists.

The news is slow because the liberal media just can't dig out that one great story or smokin' gun that brings down Trump & Co. This whole story is stale and at the point of "who cares" ..well, the liberals seem to be the only interested parties. I am not a Republican or Conservative or aligned with any party but an American who looks for the best talent of any party to represent us .citizens of the U.S.A. I laugh at the whole 'Russian Thing' . like this is NEW news when it's as old as the Roman Empire. There are many of us true Americans that if our democracy was every challenged, threatened or in trouble would rise up against any threat–and more than likely not with guns but with our minds, our knowledge and our ability to talk calmly and rationally rather than shout threats on Twitter.

The media needs to get over itself and quit trying to be the type of police we all despise .manipulated headlines are part of the problem with the 'stillness' today. If you can't dig up any worthy headlines that will sell the news, then go home and close the cover of your computer and find someone to hug ..God knows we can all use an extra level of love in today's seemingly gloomy lack of news world.

Wyoming , February 16, 2018 at 6:31 pm

Well put.

Clif , February 16, 2018 at 1:30 pm

a pretty good question in the face of all the noise.

i believe it is in response to the saturated level of cognitive dissonance. an inverse reaction to the lack of transparency and unresponsiveness of both commercial and governmental activities.

the sensitivity of untoward persuasion on social media an indication of the fallibility of the centralized narrative?

Jeremy Grimm , February 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm

I have felt an eery disquiet for the last several years, more or less since the year I retired. I think retirement finally offered me the time I needed to see and think about the world. For the last few years I have felt a strong need to move away to higher ground and a smaller community further out from the cities. Churchill's book title "Gathering Storm" seems apt, but war seems only one of the many possible storms gathering and I think one of the least likely at present although the actions and qualities of those who rule us make even nuclear war seem possible. And I take little comfort from learning how close we came to nuclear war in the past and how the unstable mechanisms guiding us toward this brink remain in place with new embellishments for greater instability.

The economy is ambling a drunkard's walk climbing a knife's edge. The Corporations remain hard at work consolidating and building greater monopoly power, dismantling what remains of our domestic jobs and industry, and building ever more fragile supply chains. The government is busy dismantling the safety net, deconstructing health care, public education and science, bolstering the wealth of the wealthy, and stoking foreign wars while a tiff between factions within those who rule us fosters a new cold war and an arms build-up including building a new nuclear arsenal. In another direction Climate Disruption shows signs of accelerating while the new weather patterns already threaten random flooding and random destruction of cities. It already destroyed entire islands in the Caribbean. The government has proven its inability and unwillingness to do anything to prepare for the pending disasters or help the areas struck down in the seasons past. The year of Peak Oil is already in our past and there is nothing to fill its place. The world populations continue to grow exponentially. Climate Disruption promises to reduce food production and move the sources for fresh water and the worlds aquifers are drying up. It's as if a whole flock of black swans is looking for places to land.

I quit watching tv, listening to the radio, and reading newspapers long ago. The news desert isn't new or peculiar to this moment. I haven't seen much of interest in the news from any source since the election. The noise of social media and celebrity news does seem turned up higher recently, although I base this judgment on occasional peeks at magazines or snatches of NPR. After the last election I gave up on the possibility that we still had a democracy in this country. Over the last several years I've had some expensive and unpleasant dealings with local government, the schools, law enforcement, the courts, and government agencies in helping one and then the other of my children through difficulties which confirmed in the particular all my worst beliefs about the decay of our government and legal systems. In short my personal anxiety has been at a high level for some time now and I can't say its peaked lately. I don't get out and around enough to get a good sense of how others feel and certainly can't judge whether this moment is a moment of peaking anxiety. When I've been in the City and nearby cities I've long had a feeling of passing through a valley between mountains of very dry tender. I hold my head low and walk quickly to my destinations. Every so often I warn my children to move out, but they don't listen.

VietnamVet , February 16, 2018 at 10:11 pm

This is an excellent post and valid observations. Things don't seem right. I blame old age and being awaken by F-16s on combat patrols out of Andrews. For me the frame changed with the restart of the Cold War. I remember "Duck and Cover, McCarthyism, John Birchers, and Who Lost China". It has all come back. The Democrats are idiots for scapegoating Russia. President Donald Trump is incompetent. Scott Pruitt must fly first class because he cannot sit next to riff-raft like me who worked at his Agency for 37 years and hear that he has sold out the earth for short term gain and profit. America is at war, inside and out, with no way of winning.

The Rev Kev , February 16, 2018 at 10:15 pm

I am going to try to see if I can make sense of what has been happening the past few years but I could easily be as wrong as the next person but will try nonetheless. In reading the comments I can see the tension seeping through so to try to come to terms with it I will use the US as my focus though I could just as easily be talking about any other western country like the UK, Germany, Australia, France, etc. The US though is at the forefront of these changes so should be mentioned first.

The American people are now in what the military call a fire-sac and the door has been slammed shut behind them. What is more, I think they realize it. A few threads need mentioning here. A study that came out last year showed that what Americans wanted their government to do never becomes a consideration unless it aligned what some upper echelon also wanted. People want a military pull-back but are ignored and now find that American troops are digging into Syria and are scattered in places like Africa with the military wanting to go head-to-head with North Korea, Russia, China and a host of other nations. It has become blatantly obvious too that their vaunted free media has become little more than Pravda on the Potomac and in fact has aligning with the wealthy against the interests of the American people. The media is even helping bring in censorship as they know that their position is untenable. The entire political establishment is now recognized as a rigged deck with radical neoliberal politicians in charge and at the last election the best candidates that they could find out of 330 million Americans were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The massive industry that built America has been mostly disassembled and shipped overseas and without the wealth and skills that it generated, infrastructure has been left to rack and ruin when it should be a core government function. Climate change cannot be ignored anymore and is starting to bite. Even the Pentagon is realising that some of its vaunted bases will be underwater in decades. I am sure other commentators can list yet more trends here but you get the picture.

OK, so there are massive problems but they can be faced and taken on but here is the kicker. The political establishment in your country does not want anything to change but to keep doing what is generated these problems. There is too much money at stake to change for them. In fact, one of the two presidential candidates in 2016 was specifically chosen to keep things going they way that they are. So where does that leave the American people? British officers have always been taught that when their men were complaining and bitching, that that was how it was but when the men were very quiet, that was the time to watch them carefully. I think something similar is at work here. It has not yet coalesced but what I think we are seeing is the beginnings of a phase shift in America. The unexpected election of Trump was a precursor but as nothing changed after he was elected the pressure is still building.

Now here is the part where I kick over everybody's tea wagon. In looking for a root cause to how all these challenges are being pushed down the road to an even worse conclusion, I am going to have to say that the problem lies in the fact that representative democracy no longer works. In fact, the representatives in the form of Senators, Reps, Judges and even the President have been almost totally dislocated from the will of the people. The connection is mostly not there anymore. It is this disconnection that is frustrating change and is thus building up pressure. I am all for democracy but the democracy we have is not the only form there is of democracy. There are others.
What this means is that somehow this is going to have to be changed and if not done peacefully, then I suspect that it will be done in some other way. That lull in the news may represent a general milling around if you will until some unknown catalyst appears to give the beginnings of a push in another direction. How it will work out in practice I do not know but if a mass of independents were elected in your mid-terms then that may be a good sign of change coming. If both parties clamp down and continue to keep all others out and continue with neoliberal policies, well, game on.

Erling , February 16, 2018 at 10:28 pm

We have for the last generation or two, (maybe three?) been relentlessly conditioned (name your puppet-master of choice) to equate happiness and contentment with the never ending pursuit of keeping up with the Joneses. The competitive underpinnings encouraging our participation in this futile contest fit well with our innate drives for "success". The race was over-subscribed by throngs of enthusiastic participants yearning for glory.

For decades many of us did well. We ran strong and felt rewarded with the material enhancements to our lives, which encouraged many of us to run faster, even if that motivation was rooted more in the fear of being passed by Ron and Nancy Jones than it was for improving our chances of ending up on the podium.

Even though we never seemed to catch or pass Ron or Nancy, surely they must have been out there ahead in the haze somewhere? After all, this was the race that we so eagerly had trained for. Plus, life was going well while we chased, so we figured it was a fruitful one to be a part of. All the effort and toil would be worth it in the end.

The slow arc of realization and barely perceptible sense over time (coupled with the self delusion that comes with resisting acceptance) that we have been duped that this Jones Marathon has actually been taking place on a treadmill which gradually (hardly noticeable, but cumulatively significant) has been ratcheted up in both speed and incline, has now hit home. We have been running for years, but going nowhere. We can't find the stop button, and don't even want to think what will happen to us if we were to slow down or stop running! Problem is not only are we are growing physically weary, we are dejected and defeated in spirit knowing that all our efforts have yielded little other than illusionary gains.

[Feb 17, 2018] The Deep State Has Long Abused Its Power by George Beebe

Notable quotes:
"... From Eisenhower to Trump, the intelligence community has always struggled with its political role. ..."
"... Note: this article is part of a ..."
"... included in the March/April 2018 issue of the ..."
"... George Beebe is director of the Center for the National Interest's intelligence program. He formerly served as chief of Russia analysis at the CIA, and as special advisor to Vice President Cheney on Russia and the former Soviet Union. ..."
Feb 13, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

From Eisenhower to Trump, the intelligence community has always struggled with its political role. Tweet Share Share March-April 2018 Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .

FEW QUESTIONS have greater import for the health and integrity of any republic than the question of whether important parts of its government's national-security apparatus are abusing their power for political purposes. This is particularly true in the United States, where the departments and agencies known collectively as the Intelligence Community (IC) have grown so large and capable, where faith in the integrity of our democratic institutions is so vital to the effective functioning of our system, and where suspicions about secret police and intelligence organizations are baked so deeply into our country's political culture.

The United States has faced this question several times in its recent history. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations all used -- or attempted to use -- the FBI and CIA to gather intelligence on U.S. citizens they suspected of collaboration with communist agents, with too little regard for statutory regulations and prohibitions of such practices, and too great a tendency to view their political enemies as national-security threats. Lyndon B. Johnson believed, without much justification, that the CIA had conspired against him at the 1960 Democratic convention to ensure that John F. Kennedy won the presidential nomination. Richard Nixon was equally convinced that the CIA had helped to swing the subsequent presidential election to Kennedy. These misperceptions barely surfaced in public at the time and did little to shake voters' faith in the outcome of the election, but they had significant implications for the working relationships of both Johnson and Nixon with the CIA once in office. Johnson's suspicions probably increased his inclination to side with the Defense Department's optimistic assessments of the Vietnam War over the CIA's more pessimistic -- and, in retrospect, more accurate -- analyses. Nixon's suspicions fueled his determination to build a small intelligence-gathering and covert-action group within the White House, which ultimately led to the Watergate break-in and cover-up that destroyed his presidency.

Investigations in the 1970s into various IC abuses, including efforts to collect intelligence on the political activities of U.S. citizens, led to the creation of specially designated congressional oversight committees -- the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- with the power and authorization to ensure that the CIA, NSA, FBI, and other IC bodies conduct their activities strictly within the bounds of law. The investigations also resulted in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which imposed strict limits on the government's ability to surveil the communications and activities of U.S. persons, requiring warrants issued by a special FISA court based on probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or its agent. The act established "minimization" requirements for disclosing the identities of U.S. persons being surveilled, allowing for "unmasking" -- that is, revealing their names to authorized government officials -- only when there is strong reason to believe they have committed a crime or when their identities are necessary to understand the intelligence information.

The now-infamous Iraq WMD estimate of 2002 raised questions of the political misuse of intelligence in a different form. Seldom had intelligence figured more prominently in the public justifications for a decision to go to war, and seldom had it been proven more spectacularly wrong in retrospect. Years of efforts by the CIA to increase its relevance had paid off in an unprecedentedly close relationship to the White House, but its unique ability to provide policymakers with the skepticism of a disinterested party suffered. The reorganization and reform of the IC mandated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005 were designed less to prevent political abuses of intelligence than to make the IC less prone to such consequential errors. This required something new of intelligence overseers: not only to ensure that IC activities remained within the bounds of law, but also to encourage qualitative improvements to its analytic rigor, information sharing and collaboration.

In principle, no one disputes that intelligence operations should be conducted strictly within the bounds of law, and that intelligence and law-enforcement professionals should be guided solely by evidence and analytic rigor in producing their assessments. Human nature being what it is, however, two temptations will be a never-ending challenge: for the IC, to please its White House masters, and for the presidency, to conflate its political enemies with those of the country as a whole. Aspects of both these temptations are evident in the controversies over the 2016 presidential election.

The use of the IC's vast capabilities to gather intelligence on opposition political campaigns should occur only in the rarest of circumstances, justified by solid evidence of treasonous activities warranted by the FISA court. The so-called Steele dossier, a piece of Clinton-funded opposition research gathered from London through unsecure communications with unnamed contacts in Russia, does not meet that standard of evidence. If, as is alleged but not proven, the FBI relied on this unverified document to justify a FISA warrant for collecting intelligence on Trump campaign officials, then the Obama administration crossed an important ethical, though probably not legal, line. Is there a deep state in the United States? Yes, if that means that important parts of our national-security apparatus have the capability, albeit not the legal authority, to abuse intelligence to alter the outcomes of national elections or distort public-policy debates. But we have processes in place to minimize this danger if the oversight provisions established by our laws are properly implemented and our independent media play their informal oversight role effectively. The IC, Congress, judiciary and media all appear to have fallen short of the standards our country should expect.

George Beebe is director of the Center for the National Interest's intelligence program. He formerly served as chief of Russia analysis at the CIA, and as special advisor to Vice President Cheney on Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Alistar , February 14, 2018 9:00 AM

Mr. Beebe, crossed an ethical but probably not legal line??? Really, appalling. FBI/DOJ operatives using the national level intel services to spy against a political opponent? Corruption, deception, lying to judges? Then there's this little aspect of a "cover up." Remember Nixon and Watergate, the break in was small potatoes, it was the lying and cover up that cost Nixon the Presidency. These two questions MUST be asked: What did they know and when did they know it??? Lynch, Holder, Brennan, Comey, Panetta, Biden and especially Obama. The truth will come out, eventually.

Irakli Bokuchava , February 15, 2018 9:12 AM

CIA and Intelligence community in common are parts of the American political system;their successful functioning is basis of success and victory of the USA as civil country;its alpha and omega of practical politics!

enoch arden , February 14, 2018 9:33 AM

The American so-called "Intel community" is a very peculiar phenomenon. Including this very term. Any intelligence agency is a military organisation with a very strict discipline directly subordinated to the commander in chief. Its activity is strictly secret and the commander in chief is the only recipient of the intelligence they acquire.

The Chinese book of military strategy "Sun Tzu" says that if the information of an agent became known to anyone before it was reported to the superior commander, both the agent and the recipient must be executed: the former for his loose tongue, the latter for his inappropriate curiocity. This implies that a particular branch of the intelligence service cannot distribute the information even to the adjacent branches, leaving alone the media.

In the US these rules seems to be entirely foreign. The intelligence officers actively discuss everything both with each other and with the media so that the commander in chief is often the last receiving the information. In a normal country this behaviour would have been stopped by executing the first 100 caught in leaking. The rest would learn the lesson.

TrumpUup💪🏻 enoch arden , February 14, 2018 6:04 PM

I agree but i would say these people are obviously Obama lovers... We both know the realities of today wouldn't allow for executions but it would stop ot and i do agree... The only answer is smaller government but it's to late for that..

sr37212 , February 14, 2018 9:26 AM

I guess we should just ignore the Dulles boys and their using the government to advance their own worth by overthrowing governments.

Schlesinger's Zenith ElPrimero , February 14, 2018 6:02 AM

Another worthless article - how can you mention the Deep State and Nixon and not mention the mighty James Schlesinger and the Family Jewels? I think the Master Old Boy talked about peak oil in his later years too - nah, no such thing as the Limits to Growth eh boys?

Arkansas Traveler Schlesinger's Zenith ElPrimero , February 14, 2018 10:30 AM

The difference is that at one time, the deep state was on the side of the United States

[Feb 17, 2018] The Deep State Is No Supervillain by Michael Lind

Notable quotes:
"... Michael Lind is a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author, with Robert D. Atkinson, of ..."
"... (MIT Press, March 2018). ..."
"... The rise of the power elite has long been a serious problem in many Western societies, but trying to forcibly overthrow it will only create a new and potentially more dangerous elite in turn. ..."
"... Information is the key to winning any war between the people and the elite ..."
"... Would have been nice to mention that all this was possible post-1991 because there was no longer a peer competitor to the US, and thus Western business elite no longer was constrained to be allied with Western workers. Since 2014, that has all changed. There are now two near-peer competitors to the US. ..."
Feb 17, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Political scientists often divide explanations of democratic politics in the United States and similar nations among theories of pluralism, state autonomy and elitism. The pluralist theory holds that the American elite, like the population, is divided among competing centers of power and authority with different values and interests. The state-autonomy theory holds that government agencies and military and intelligence organizations are independent actors in politics. The elitist theory holds that in most democracies most of the time, no matter how many political parties there may be, there is a dominant elite, which includes most of the leaders of politics, the economy and civil society and shares a broad consensus.

... ... ...

In my view, the elitist approach best explains the Trump phenomenon, along with contemporary populism on both sides of the Atlantic. Since the end of the Cold War, highly homogeneous social elites in North America and Europe have liberated themselves from the constraints of the institutions that restrained them between 1945 and 1989 -- institutions including strong labor unions, grassroots political parties and, in the United States, a distinct Southern oligarchy that by now has largely lost its identity and power and has been absorbed into the national ruling class.

Elites in the United States, Britain, Germany and other Western nations under post–Cold War leadership have deliberately weakened the bargaining power of workers in their nations by a combination of austerity-induced unemployment, offshoring, permitting Western-controlled corporations to play nation-states against one another and mass low-skilled immigration, creating a low-wage "reserve army of labor" in Western countries.

While restructuring the global economy to crush organized labor, transatlantic elites have simultaneously restructured government to minimize democratic accountability, by shifting decisionmaking from legislatures to executive and judicial agencies within the nation-state, and by enabling treaties and transnational agencies like the European Union, which are more insulated from voters, to replace or modify national statutory law. In both of the cases of anti-worker economic restructuring and de-democratization, American and European oligarchs have claimed that a mysterious, unstoppable force called "globalization" compelled them to do what they wanted to do anyway. This post–Cold War oligarchic revolution from above might be described as a conspiracy, but it is not a secret conspiracy perpetrated by the deep state. It was a program carried out in broad daylight by Bill Clinton and George Bush, Tony Blair and centrist European leaders. And it succeeded in its two goals of weakening the economic leverage and political power of the working-class majorities in the United States, the UK and other Western nations.

The populist rebellions of the second decade of the twenty-first century, which have been led by right-wing tribunes like Trump or left-wing demagogues like Sanders and Corbyn, can only be understood as a long-delayed reaction by populations to the replacement of the cross-class compromises of the post–World War II period by untrammeled oligarchy. America's newly empowered ruling class has closed ranks against Trump, but it would also close ranks against any other outsider president who challenged its post–Cold War dominance of American society, including Bernie Sanders. Deep divide? Yes. Deep state? No.

Michael Lind is a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author, with Robert D. Atkinson, of Big is Beautiful: Debunking the Myth of Small Business (MIT Press, March 2018).

Uniters.org Centrist EIC , February 13, 2018 7:36 AM

A bizarre misreading of history, though good points are made as well.

This is a classic example of a dishonest person analyzing something they disagree with, and instead of sticking to reality, they build a straw man bugaboo to assign blame to, and make their side into a victim:

"deliberately weakened the bargaining power of workers in their nations by a combination of austerity-induced unemployment, offshoring, permitting Western-controlled corporations to play nation-states against one another and mass low-skilled immigration, creating a low-wage "reserve army of labor" in Western countries"

He pretends that he isn't calling it a conspiracy, but that is exactly what he's doing, and some have done what he describes, but where he willfully jumps off the cliff of dishonesty is in claiming to know why ("deliberately") these actions were taken by so many people, over such a long period of time.

That's an obvious lie. Unless Mr. Lind is Professor X, using science fiction psychic magnifying machines to read thousands of minds, both past and present, there is no way anyone could honestly make that claim.

His use of conspiracy theory makes it doubly interesting in how he deconstructs the conspiracy theory many on the right are pushing about the 'deep state'.

Turn that skeptic's lens back on yourself, Mr. Lind.

R. Arandas , February 13, 2018 3:57 PM

The rise of the power elite has long been a serious problem in many Western societies, but trying to forcibly overthrow it will only create a new and potentially more dangerous elite in turn.

Information is the key to winning any war between the people and the elite.

Curt , February 13, 2018 1:59 PM

Would have been nice to mention that all this was possible post-1991 because there was no longer a peer competitor to the US, and thus Western business elite no longer was constrained to be allied with Western workers. Since 2014, that has all changed. There are now two near-peer competitors to the US.

[Feb 17, 2018] Neo-McCarthyite Hysteria at US Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Notable quotes:
"... The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech. ..."
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
Feb 17, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech.

Senator Mark Warner

The performance of Senator Mark Warner , the ranking Democrat on the committee, was particularly obscene. Warner, whose net worth is estimated at $257 million, appeared to be doing his best impersonation of Senator Joe McCarthy . He declared that foreign subversion works together with, and is largely indistinguishable from, "threats to our institutions from right here at home."

Alluding to the publication of the so-called Nunes memo, which documented the fraudulent character of the Democratic-led investigation of White House "collusion" with Russia, Warner noted,

"There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian Internet bots and trolls, who have attacked the basic integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department."

Responding to questioning from Warner, FBI Director Christopher Wray praised the US intelligence agencies' greater "engagement" and "partnership" with the private sector, concluding,

"We can't fully police social media, so we have to work with them so that they can police themselves."

Wray was referring to the sweeping measures taken by social media companies, working directly with the US intelligence agencies, to implement a regime of censorship, including through the hiring of tens of thousands of "content reviewers," many with intelligence backgrounds, to flag, report and delete content.

The assault on democratic rights is increasingly connected to preparations for a major war, which will further exacerbate social tensions within the United States. Coats prefaced his remarks by declaring that "the risk of inter-state conflict, including among great powers, is higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War."

As the hearing was taking place, multiple news outlets were reporting that potentially hundreds of Russian military contractors had been killed in a recent US air strike in Syria. This came just weeks after the publication of the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, which declared,

"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security."

However, the implications of this great-power conflict are not simply external to the US "homeland." The document argues that "the homeland is no longer a sanctuary," and that "America is a target," for "political and information subversion" on the part of "revisionist powers" such as Russia and China.

Since "America's military has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield," the only way the US can prevail in this conflict is through the "seamless integration of multiple elements of national power," including "information, economics, finance, intelligence, law enforcement and military."

In other words, America's supremacy in the new world of great-power conflict requires the subordination of every aspect of life to the requirements of war. In this totalitarian nightmare, already far advanced, the police, the military and the intelligence agencies unite with media and technology companies to form a single seamless unit, whose combined power is marshaled to manipulate public opinion and suppress political dissent.

The dictatorial character of the measures being prepared was underscored by an exchange between Wray and Republican Senator Marco Rubio , who asked whether Chinese students were serving as spies for Beijing.

"What is the counterintelligence risk posed to US national security from Chinese students, particularly those in advanced programs in the sciences and mathematics?" asked Rubio.

Wray responded that

"the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it's professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country, not just in major cities, small ones as well, basically every discipline."

This campaign, with racist overtones, recalls the official rationale -- defense of "national security" -- used to justify the internment of some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War.

In its open letter calling for a coalition of socialist, antiwar and progressive websites against Internet censorship, the World Socialist Web Site noted that

"the ruling class has identified the Internet as a mortal threat to its monopolization of information and its ability to promote propaganda to wage war and legitimize the obscene concentration of wealth and extreme social inequality."

It is this mortal threat -- and fear of the growth of class conflict -- that motivate the lies and hypocrisy on display at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

The original source of this article is World Socialist Web Site Copyright © Andre Damon , World Socialist Web Site , 2018

[Feb 16, 2018] A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war. ..."
"... And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing. ..."
"... Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, US Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "imperial. ..."
"... Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put together by the US. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is largely a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep. ..."
"... China is, however, the US's major competitor and the second largest economy in the world. It has replaced the US as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the US asked its key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of Japan, they ignored Washington ..."
"... Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade. ..."
"... For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force. ..."
"... This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those high paying jobs. ..."
"... Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times ..."
"... Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is being touted as a sea change in U.S. foreign policy, a shift from the "war on terrorism" to "great power competition," a line that would not be out of place in the years leading up to World War I. But is the shift really a major course change, or a re-statement of policies followed by the last four administrations?

The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.

It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.

It was President George W. Bush who designated China a "strategic competitor," and who tried to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market -- it was barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT -- helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms race with Pakistan in South Asia.

And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing.

So is jettisoning "terrorism" as the enemy in favor of "great powers" just old wine, new bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to it.

In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned, "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day," a remark aimed directly at Russia. NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become use to wars of choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia," adding "The parallels with 1914 are stark."

Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, US Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "imperial. "

But in 1914 there were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the case today.

While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia, or, for that matter, the Soviet Union.

The U.S. and its allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments–$840 billion to $69 billion -- and that figure vastly underestimates Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as "military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5 trillion.

The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. outspends China almost three to one. Include Washington's allies, Japan, Australia and South Korea, and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.

This is not to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant.

Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put together by the US. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is largely a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep.

China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its navy and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the US: 1.9 percent as opposed to 3.8 percent.

Beijing has been rather heavy-handed in establishing "area denial," aliening many of its neighbors -- Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan -- by claiming most of the South China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.

But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856, when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895 and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.

China is, however, the US's major competitor and the second largest economy in the world. It has replaced the US as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the US asked its key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of Japan, they ignored Washington .

However, commercial success is hardly "imperial."

Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade.

There are other players behind this shift.

For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.

This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those high paying jobs.

Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. Higher defense spending -- coupled with the recent tax cut bill -- will rule out funding many of the programs the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a major side benefit: cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services, Social Security and Medicare in order to service the deficit.

And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the Party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program.

There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush administration's neo-conservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even though inflating Iran to the level of a "great power" is laughable. Iran's military budget is $12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia, which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and the US and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be a little more than 66 to 1.

However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.

The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops on its southern border?

Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia "would be like declaring war."

The problem with designating "great powers" as your adversaries is that they might just take your word for it and respond accordingly. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Conn Hallinan

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com

[Feb 16, 2018] We Need to Abolish the Olympic Games

Notable quotes:
"... David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows . He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

February 14, 2018 We Need to Abolish the Olympic Games

by David Macaray

by At the risk of sounding mawkishly sentimental, there was a time -- decades ago, when this world was vastly larger, more mysterious, more inscrutable -- when the Olympic Games genuinely mattered. A time when one could make the argument that the Olympics actually "benefitted mankind."

Take the Summer Games of 1960, for example, which were held in Rome. It was in Rome where American and European track stars first got to meet athletes from countries that they barely knew existed, much less had competed against. Indeed, it was in Rome where the African runners -- those extraordinary athletes who eventually came to dominate the distance events -- first made their presence known on the world stage.

In 1960, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, et al, were remote and exotic locales. In fact, they were so remote (this was before the Peace Corps was established) that, farfetched as it sounds, it was unlikely an American would ever meet face to face with any of their citizens unless he did so as an athlete at the Olympic Games.

It was a different age, a different milieu. Not only was there was no TV coverage of the 1960 Olympics, the only aspect of those Games that the American media deemed worth reporting was the comparative medal count of the USA and its arch-enemy the USSR.

But so much has changed since 1960, it's close to impossible to quantify. Not only is the "magic" gone from the Games, even the novelty is gone. Because today's world is an infinitely smaller place, who really cares?

To say we have become more cosmopolitan is a profound understatement. "Hey, I met a Kenyan." An athlete telling someone that he got to shake hands with a Kenyan doesn't even move the needle on the Human Interest meter. That's because our mailman is a Kenyan. Or our neighbor. Or our buddy at the health club.

Somalis now post photos of themselves and their families on Facebook. The men are wearing Dockers and polo shirts. There are two excellent Ethiopian restaurants in the city of Santa Monica. Also, let's not forget that mega-corporations now own the whole shebang. They own it outright. NBC reportedly paid $1 billion for the rights to broadcast the 2018 Winter Olympics. And of course, absurd as it seems, professional athletes are now allowed to compete.

Why any American (even those of the flag-waving, USA-chanting variety) would get their jollies seeing a team composed of NBA stars beat a struggling team from, say, Honduras by 81 points is a mystery. Charles Barkley said that during an out-of-bounds call, an opposing player actually handed him a scrap of paper and a pen, and requested his autograph. The game was a mismatch, but it was still in progress! WTF?

Basically, the Olympic Games have outgrown themselves, and by doing so, they've relinquished whatever modest "contribution" they once made to the Family of Man. They've gone from a noble and worthwhile experiment to a bloated, self-aggrandizing, and over produced spectacle, having congealed into a caricature of their former self.

And speaking as a life-long track & field fan, the final nail in the coffin has been the proliferation of PEDs (performance enhancing drugs). Other than perhaps bicycling, nowhere in the sports world do you find athletes more juiced up with drugs than today's world-class runners, jumpers and throwers.

Because the "drug detectives" (those overworked and understaffed technicians assigned the daunting task of flagging drug users) are five years behind the "drug innovators" (those creative and highly motivated geniuses who are coming up with space-age performance enhancers that aren't yet even on the list of illegal substances), the sport will always be suspect.

So let's end the charade and abolish the Olympics. We don't need a billion-dollar extravaganza to satisfy our needs. Track fans can catch all the action they want by attending high school and college meets. I've done it myself. Gymnastics fans can do the same. As for aficionados of synchronized swimming, well .good riddance. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: David Macaray

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows . He can be reached at [email protected]

[Feb 16, 2018] Russians Spooked by Nukes-Against-Cyber-Attack Policy Consortiumnews

Feb 16, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Russians Spooked by Nukes-Against-Cyber-Attack Policy February 16, 2018

New U.S. policy on nuclear retaliatory strikes for cyber-attacks is raising concerns, with Russia claiming that it's already been blamed for a false-flag cyber-attack – namely the election hacking allegations of 2016, explain Ray McGovern and William Binney.

By Ray McGovern and William Binney

Moscow is showing understandable concern over the lowering of the threshold for employing nuclear weapons to include retaliation for cyber-attacks, a change announced on Feb. 2 in the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

A nuclear test detonation carried out in Nevada on April 18, 1953.

Explaining the shift in U.S. doctrine on first-use, the NPR cites the efforts of potential adversaries "to design and use cyber weapons" and explains the change as a "hedge" against non-nuclear threats. In response, Russia described the move as an "attempt to shift onto others one's own responsibility" for the deteriorating security situation.

Moscow's concern goes beyond rhetoric. Cyber-attacks are notoriously difficult to trace to the actual perpetrator and can be pinned easily on others in what we call "false-flag" operations. These can be highly destabilizing – not only in the strategic context, but in the political arena as well.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has good reason to believe he has been the target of a false-flag attack of the political genre. We judged this to be the case a year and a half ago, and said so. Our judgment was fortified last summer – thanks to forensic evidence challenging accusations that the Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee and provided emails to WikiLeaks. (Curiously, the FBI declined to do forensics, even though the "Russian hack" was being described as an "act of war.")

Our conclusions were based on work conducted over several months by highly experienced technical specialists, including another former NSA technical director (besides co-author Binney) and experts from outside the circle of intelligence analysts.

On August 9, 2017, investigative reporter Patrick Lawrence summed up our findings in The Nation. "They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation," he explained.

As we wrote in an open letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left office, the NSA's programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. "We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks," our letter said. "If NSA cannot produce such evidence – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any."

A 'Dot' Pointing to a False Flag?

In his article, Lawrence included mention of one key, previously unknown "dot" revealed by WikiLeaks on March 31, 2017. When connected with other dots, it puts a huge dent in the dominant narrative about Russian hacking. Small wonder that the mainstream media immediately applied white-out to the offending dot.

Lawrence, however, let the dot out of the bag, so to speak: "The list of the CIA's cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called Marble Framework that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to."

If congressional oversight committees summon the courage to look into "Obfus-Gate" and Marble, they are likely to find this line of inquiry as lucrative as the Steele "dossier." In fact, they are likely to find the same dramatis personae playing leading roles in both productions.

Two Surprising Visits

Last October CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited one of us (Binney) into his office to discuss Russian hacking. Binney told Pompeo his analysts had lied and that he could prove it.

In retrospect, the Pompeo-Binney meeting appears to have been a shot across the bow of those cyber warriors in the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the means and incentive to adduce "just discovered" evidence of Russian hacking. That Pompeo could promptly invite Binney back to evaluate any such "evidence" would be seen as a strong deterrent to that kind of operation.

Pompeo's closeness to President Donald Trump is probably why the heads of Russia's three top intelligence agencies paid Pompeo an unprecedented visit in late January. We think it likely that the proximate cause was the strategic danger Moscow sees in the nuclear-hedge-against-cyber-attack provision of the Nuclear Posture Statement (a draft of which had been leaked a few weeks before).

If so, the discussion presumably focused on enhancing hot-line and other fail-safe arrangements to reduce the possibility of false-flag attacks in the strategic arena -- by anyone – given the extremely high stakes.

Putin may have told his intelligence chiefs to pick up on President Donald Trump's suggestion, after the two met last July, to establish a U.S.-Russian cyber security unit. That proposal was widely ridiculed at the time. It may make good sense now.

Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and briefed the President's Daily Brief one-on-one from 1981-1985. William Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

mike k , February 16, 2018 at 5:36 pm

Those Russians had a strange mission coming to CIA headquarters to try to negotiate with soulless mass murderers in the name of maintaining a precarious semblance of peace, knowing full well that these men's words and assurances were worth less than nothing. Ah well, I guess in a mad situation one is reduced to making desperate gestures, hoping against hope .

Mild-ly -Facetious , February 16, 2018 at 5:42 pm

F Y I :> Putin prefers Aramco to Trump's sword dance

Hardly 10 months after honoring the visiting US president, the Saudis are open to a Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the upcoming Aramco IPO

By M.K. BHADRAKUMAR
FEBRUARY 16, 2018

[extract]

In the slideshow that is Middle Eastern politics, the series of still images seldom add up to make an enduring narrative. And the probability is high that when an indelible image appears, it might go unnoticed – such as Russia and Saudi Arabia wrapping up huge energy deals on Wednesday underscoring a new narrative in regional and international security.

The ebb and flow of events in Syria – Turkey's campaign in Afrin and its threat to administer an "Ottoman slap" to the United States, and the shooting down of an Israeli F-16 jet – hogged the attention. But something of far greater importance was unfolding in Riyadh, as Saudi and Russian officials met to seal major deals marking a historic challenge to the US dominance in the Persian Gulf region.

The big news is the Russian offer to the Saudi authorities to invest directly in the upcoming Aramco initial public offering – and the Saudis acknowledging the offer. Even bigger news, surely, is that Moscow is putting together a Russian-Chinese consortium of joint investment funds plus several major Russian banks to be part of the Aramco IPO.

Chinese state oil companies were interested in becoming cornerstone investors in the IPO, but the participation of a Russia-China joint investment fund takes matters to an entirely different realm. Clearly, the Chinese side is willing to hand over tens of billions of dollars.

Yet the Aramco IPO was a prime motive for US President Donald Trump to choose Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip. The Saudi hosts extended the ultimate honor to Trump – a ceremonial sword dance outside the Murabba Palace in Riyadh. Hardly 10 months later, they are open to a Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the Aramco IPO.

Riyadh plans to sell 5% of Saudi Aramco in what is billed as the largest IPO in world history. In the Saudi estimation, Aramco is worth US$2 trillion; a 5% stake sale could fetch as much as $100 billion. The IPO is a crucial segment of Vision 2030, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman's ambitious plan to diversify the kingdom's economy.

MORE : http://www.atimes.com/article/putin-prefers-aramco-trumps-sword-dance/

Anna , February 16, 2018 at 6:46 pm

"Last October CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited one of us (Binney) into his office to discuss Russian hacking. Binney told Pompeo his analysts had lied and that he could prove it."

That was about some Dm. Alperovitch for CrowdStrike fame, who had discovered the "hacking" in 10 sec. Guess Alperovitch, as an "expert" at the viciously Russophobic Atlantic Council (funded by the State Dept., NATO, and a set of unsavory characters like Ukrainian oligrach Pinchuk) decided to show his "understanding" of the task. The shy FBI did not even attempt to look at the Clinton's server because the bosses "knew better."

Alperovitch must be investigated for anti-American activities; the scoundrel has been sowing discord into the US society with his lies while endangering the US citizenry.

[Feb 16, 2018] The Pathetic Inadequacy of the Trump Opposition The American Conservative by Paul Brian

Notable quotes:
"... Dancing With The Stars ..."
"... The Washington Post. ..."
"... Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com . ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The hawks and internationalists who set our house on fire don't now deserve the contract to rebuild it.

While it may have significant popular support, much of the anti-Trump "Resistance" suffers from a severe weakness of message. Part of the problem is with who the Resistance's leading messengers are: discredited neoconservative poltroons like former president George W. Bush, unwatchable alleged celebrities like Chelsea Handler, and establishment Republicans who routinely slash and burn the middle class like Senator Jeff Flake. Furthermore, what exactly is the Resistance's overriding message? Invariably their sermonizing revolves around vague bromides about "tolerance," diversity, unrestricted free trade, and multilateralism. They routinely push a supposed former status quo that was in fact anything but a status quo. The leaders of the Resistance have in their arsenal nothing but buzzwords and a desire to feel self-satisfied and turn back to imagined pre-Trump normality. A president like Donald Trump is only possible in a country with opposition voices of such subterranean caliber.

Remember when Trump steamrolled a crowded field of Republicans in one of the greatest electoral upsets in American history? Surely many of us also recall the troupes of smug celebrities and Bushes and Obamas who lined up to take potshots at Trump over his unacceptably cruel utterances that upset their noble moral sensibilities? How did that work out for them? They lost. The more that opposition to Trump in office takes the same form as opposition to him on the campaign trail, the more hypocritical and counterproductive it becomes. Further, the resistance to Trump's policies is coming just at the moment when principled opposition most needs to up its game and help turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock. It's social conservatives who are also opposed to war and exploitation of the working class who have the best moral bona fides to effectively oppose Trump, which is why morally phrased attacks on Trump from the corporate and socially liberal wings of the left, as well as the free market and interventionist conservative establishment, have failed and will continue to fail. Any real alternative is going to have to come from regular folks with hearts and morals who aren't stained by decades of failure and hypocrisy.

A majority of Democrats now have favorable views of George W. Bush, and that's no coincidence. Like the supposedly reasonable anti-Trump voices on their side, Bush pops up like a dutiful marionette to condemn white supremacy and "nativism," and to reminisce about the good old days when he was in charge. Bush also lectures about how Russia is ruining everything by meddling in elections and destabilizing the world. But how convincing is it really to hear about multilateralism and respect for human rights from Bush, who launched an unnecessary war on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left thousands of American servicemen and women dead and wounded? How convincing is it when former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously remarked that an estimated half a million Iraqis dead from our 1990s sanctions was "worth it," haughtily claims that she's "offended" by Trump's travel ban ? "Offended" -- is that so, Madame Secretary? I have a feeling millions of Muslims in the Middle East may have also been "offended" when people like you helped inflame their region and turned it into an endless back-and-forth firestorm of conflict between U.S.-backed dictators and brutal jihadists, with everyone else caught in between.

Maybe instead of being offended that not everyone can come to America, people like Albright, Kerry, and Bush shouldn't have contributed to the conditions that wrecked those people's homes in the first place? Maybe the U.S. government should think more closely about providing military aid to 73 percent of the world's dictatorships? Sorry, do excuse the crazy talk. Clearly all the ruthless maneuvering by the U.S. and NATO is just being done out of a selfless desire to spread democratic values by raining down LGBT-friendly munitions on beleaguered populations worldwide. Another congressman just gave a speech about brave democratic principles so we can all relax.

Generally, U.S. leaders like to team up with dictators before turning on them when they become inconvenient or start to upset full-spectrum dominance. Nobody have should been surprised to see John Kerry fraternizing in a friendly manner with Syrian butcher Bashar al-Assad and then moralistically threatening him with war several years later, or Donald Rumsfeld grinning with Saddam Hussein as they cooperated militarily before Rumsfeld did an about-face on the naïve dictator based on false premises after 9/11. Here's former president Barack Obama shaking Moammar Gaddafi's hand in 2009 . I wonder what became of Mr. Gaddafi?

It's beyond parody to hear someone like Bush sternly opine that there's "pretty clear evidence" Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Even if that were deeply significant in the way some argue, Bush should be the last person anyone is hearing from about it. It's all good, though: remember when Bush laughed about how there hadn't been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004? It's all just a joke; don't you get it? (Maybe Saddam Hussein had already used all the chemical weapons the U.S. helped him get during the 1980s on Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which killed over one million people by the time the coalition of the willing came knocking in 2003). That's the kind of thing people like Bush like to indirectly joke about in the company of self-satisfied press ghouls at celebratory dinners. However, when the mean man Mr. Trump pals around with Russian baddie Vladimir Putin, mistreats women, or spews out unkind rhetoric about "shitholes," it's far from a joke: it's time to get out your two-eared pink hat and hit the streets chanting in righteous outrage.

To be fair, Trump is worthy of opposition. An ignorant, reactive egotist who needs to have his unfounded suppositions and inaccuracies constantly validated by a sycophantic staff of people who'd be rejected even for a reality show version of the White House, he really is an unstable excuse for a leader and an inveterate misogynist and all the other things. Trump isn't exactly Bible Belt material despite his stamp of approval from Jerry Falwell Jr. and crew; in fact he hasn't even succeeded in getting rid of the Johnson Amendment and allowing churches to get more involved in politics, one of his few concrete promises to Christian conservatives. He's also a big red button of a disaster in almost every other area as commander-in-chief.

Trump's first military action as president reportedly killed numerous innocent women and children (some unnamed U.S. officials claim some of the women were militants) as well as a Navy SEAL. Helicopter gunships strafed a Yemeni village for over an hour in what Trump called a "highly successful" operation against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). A senior military official felt differently, saying that "almost everything went wrong." The raid even killed eight-year-old American girl Nawar al-Awlaki, daughter of previously killed extremist leader Anwar al-Awlaki, whose other innocent child, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also droned while eating outdoors at a restaurant in 2010 (with several friends and his 17-year-old cousin). The Obama administration dismissed Abdulrahman's death at the time as no big deal .

The list goes on with the Trump administration, a hollow outfit of Goldman Sachs operatives and detached industry and financier billionaires helping out their hedge fund friends and throwing a small table scrap to the peasants every now and then. As deformed babies are born in Flint, Michigan , Ivanka grandstands about paid parental leave . Meanwhile, Trump and Co. work to expand the war in Afghanistan and Syria. It's a sad state of affairs.

So who are the right voices to oppose the mango man-child and his cadre of doddering dullards? Not degenerate celebrities, dirty politicians of the past, or special interest groups that try to fit everyone into a narrow electoral box so mainline Democrats can pass their own version of corporate welfare and run wars with more sensitive rhetoric and politically correct messaging. Instead, the effective dissidents of the future will be people of various beliefs, but especially the pro-family and faith-driven, who are just as opposed to what came before Trump as they are to him. The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative individuals who define their own destinies instead of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity outreach strategies. It's possible, for example, to be socially conservative, pro-worker, pro-environment, and anti-war. In fact, that is the norm in most countries that exist outside the false political paradigm pushed in America.

If enough suburbanite centrists who take a break from Dancing With The Stars are convinced that Trump is bad because George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright say so, it shows that these people have learned absolutely nothing from Trump or the process that led to him. These kind of resistors are the people nodding their heads emphatically as they read Eliot Cohen talk about why he and his friends can't stomach the evil stench of Trump or Robert Kagan whine about fascism in The Washington Post. Here's a warning to good people who may not have been following politics closely prior to Trump: don't get taken in by these charlatans. Don't listen to those who burned your town down as they pitch you the contract to rebuild it. You can oppose both the leaders of the "Resistance" and Trump. In fact, it is your moral duty to do so. This is the End of the End of History As We Know It, but there isn't going to be an REM song or Will Smith punching an alien in the face to help everyone through it.

Here's a thought for those finding themselves enthusiastic about the Resistance and horrified by Trump: maybe, just maybe , the water was already starting to boil before you cried out in pain and alarm.

Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .

Fran Macadam February 16, 2018 at 1:14 pm

Trump is definitely a castor oil antidote. But if not him, then them.
Frank , says: February 16, 2018 at 1:19 pm
Now this is TAC material!
Kent , says: February 16, 2018 at 1:48 pm
"The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative individuals who define their own destinies instead of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity outreach strategies."

They will have to lose their faith in "Free Market God" first. I don't believe that will happen.

Aaron Paolozzi , says: February 16, 2018 at 2:56 pm
I enjoyed the heat. The comments made are on point, and this is pretty much what my standard response to reactionary trump dissidents are. Trump is terrible, but so is what came before him, he is just easier to dislike.

Keep it coming.

One Guy , says: February 16, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Even with inadequate opposition, Trump has managed to be the most unpopular president after one year, ever. I'm guessing this speaks to his unique talent of messing things up.
RVA , says: February 16, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Wow! Paul! Babylon burning. Preach it, brother! Takes me back to my teenage years, Ramparts 1968, as another corrupt infrastructure caught fire and burned down. TAC is amazing, the only place to find this in true form.

Either we are history remembering fossils soon gone, or the next financial crash – now inevitable with passage of tax reform (redo of 2001- the rich got their money out, now full speed off the cliff), will bring down this whole mass of absolute corruption. What do you think will happen when Trump is faced with a true crisis? They're selling off the floorboards. What can remain standing?

And elsewhere in the world, who, in their right mind, would help us? Good riddance to truly dangerous pathology. The world would truly become safer with the USA decommissioned, and then restored, through honest travail, to humility, and humanity.

You are right. Be with small town, front porch, family and neighborhood goodness, and dodge the crashing embers.

The Flying Burrito Brothers: 'On the thirty-first floor a gold plated door
Won't keep out the Lord's burning rain '

God Bless.

Donald , says: February 16, 2018 at 5:50 pm
I agree with Frank. This was great.

The depressing thing to me is how hard it is to get people to see this. You have people who still think Trump is doing a great job and on the other side people who admire the warmongering Resistance and think Hillary's vast experience in foreign policy was one of her strengths, rather than one of the main reasons to be disgusted by her. Between the two categories I think you have the majority of American voters.

[Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything bad that happens in the world. ..."
"... No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling. ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

andrewp111 Guest , February 13, 2018 7:21 AM

For a very simple reason. The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves. They wanted Hillary to win, badly, but were not willing to risk too much for her. James Comey in particular cares about James Comey. Remember, this is a guy who views himself as a historical Religious Figure. He wanted to be able to serve out a full 10 year term. He wanted to please his Democratic masters enough to avoid being fired by either Obama or Clinton, but not too much to gain excessive ire from Congress. He was afraid that a Republican Congress under a future Clinton Administration would go after him tooth and nail if he "concealed" new evidence against Clinton prior to the election - especially since he promised the Congress that he would inform them of new developments. And Comey probably feared the worst as to what was in Wiener's email archive. When they finally went through that archive, and failed to find much that was new, he must have breathed a sigh of relief - only to see the wrong person win the election.

Tracy Crawford , February 13, 2018 8:21 PM

The political system in the US is a near complete failure. On one hand the massive levels of corruption legalized in Citizen's United give influence over political decisions to wealthy elites previously unseen outside of the deeply corrupted and criminal Russian oligarchy. On the other hand and synergistic with the previous point, the least informed and most easily influenced of people have votes equal in weight to highly informed, well-educated, expert and professional practitioners.

Rights guaranteed by a difficult-to-alter constitution combined with easily managed and easily created social media content based on opaque sources of emotionally charged, unverified and unverifiable information have gained control over public opinion (making alteration of our constitution even more difficult.)

And look at the fourth (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump) wave of Republican explosion of national debt under the banner of "fiscal responsibility."

It is astounding how "A" can be so successfully marketed as "B."

I am afraid that once control of public opinion has been so successfully attained in our form of democracy/legalized-corruption that there is no way to recover.

It is a sad state of affairs. I'd love to hear solutions.

Kurt Gayle , February 13, 2018 2:03 PM

An excellent description of the recent activities of the Deep State, Mr. Merry.

Thank you.

The trolls will now come after you full-bore.

WillDippel , February 12, 2018 9:08 PM

As shown in this article, Washington is completely ignoring the one issue of its own making that could create global chaos:

https://viableopposition.bl...

Washington's anti-Russia program is simply a distraction from its real problems.

Anti-Empire , February 14, 2018 12:48 PM

Great piece by Merry. Not new, but worthy of repetition when presented clearly like this.
It does not matter what you call it, Deep State or something else. What Merry says about the threat it poses to what remnants of democracy we have is true.
I prefer to call it the Imperial State since its highest priority is the US Empire, with domestic well-being simply an afterthought or of no cosequence at all.

Jamie , February 14, 2018 12:12 PM

"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,"

- Cryin' Chuck Schumer

Steve JimmyD , February 14, 2018 1:29 PM

There is only ONE country that consistently "messes" in the politics of nearly every other country on the planet and that is not Russia.

It is the USA Deep State. I challenge you to research the evidence, "hidden in plain sight", of these examples:

1) US money that flowed into France and Italy elections after WW2;

2) overthrow of Greece elected pres in 1974 by US-friendly generals;

3) overthrow of Salvadore Allende in Chile 1973;

4) overthrow of Iran Mossadegh in 1953;

5) overthrow of neutral govt in Indonesia in early '60s;

6) the massive money that flowed into Russia in 1996 to get Yeltsin re-elected;

7) the money and attention US put into overthrowing legally elected govt in Ukraine in 2014.

That is just a VERY short list.

NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS MAINTAINED THIS FRANTIC PACE OF MASSIVE INTERVENTIONS/MEDDLING/BRIBING/OVERTHROWING/BOMBING/INVADING/DEATH-SQUADing FOREIGN POLITICAL SYSTEMS FOR 70 YEARS LIKE YOUR "GOOD OLE USA", powered by it's un-elected Deep State.

kelly bako JimmyD , February 13, 2018 7:27 PM

Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything bad that happens in the world.

No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling.

A troll, from Saint Petersburg.

Tracy Crawford kelly bako , February 13, 2018 10:50 PM

You're right, Kelly, about some of your points. Evil: check. Kill: check. Steal: check. Co-opting the largest per capita criminal network in the world: check.

kelly bako Tracy Crawford , February 14, 2018 2:01 AM

He forced Americans to vote trump to undermine your democracy : check

[Feb 16, 2018] The Deep State Is Very Real by Robert W. Merry

Notable quotes:
"... Note: this article is part of a ..."
"... included in the March/April 2018 issue of the ..."
"... Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is editor of ..."
"... . He is the author most recently of ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

February 12, 2018

Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .

OF COURSE there's a Deep State. Why wouldn't there be? Even a cursory understanding of human nature tells us that power corrupts, as Lord Acton put it; that, when power is concentrated and entrenched, it will be abused; that, when it is concentrated and entrenched in secrecy, it will be abused in secret. That's the Deep State. James Burnham saw it coming. The American philosopher and political theorist (1905–87), first a Trotskyist, then a leading conservative intellectual, wrote in 1941 that the great political development of the age was not the battle between communism and capitalism. Rather, it was the rise of a new "managerial" class gaining dominance in business, finance, organized labor and government. This gathering managerial revolution, as he called it, would be resisted, but it would be impervious to adversarial counteractions. As the managerial elites gained more and more power, exercised often in subtle and stealthy ways, they would exercise that power to embed themselves further into the folds of American society and to protect themselves from those who might want to bust them up.

Nowhere is this managerial elite more entrenched, more powerful and more shrouded in secrecy than in what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, augmented by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. That's where America's relentless drive for global hegemony meshes with defense manufacturers only too willing to provide the tools of dominance.

Now we have not only a standing army, with hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready, as in Cold War days. We have also permanent wars, nine of them in progress at the moment and not one with what could even remotely be called proper congressional approval. That's how power gets entrenched, how the managerial revolution gains ever greater force and how the Deep State endures.

Few in the general public know what really happened with regard to the allegations of Trump campaign "collusion" with Russia, or how the investigation into those troubling allegations emerged. But we know enough to know we have seen the Deep State in action.

We know that U.S. agencies released an "Intelligence Community Assessment" saying that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of embarrassing Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency. But we also know that it wasn't really a National Intelligence Assessment (a term of art denoting a particular process of expansive intelligence analysis) but rather the work of a controlled task force. As Scott Ritter, the former Marine intelligence officer and arms-control official, put it , "This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia NIA casts a shadow over the viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and judgments contained within." Besides, the document was long on assertion and short on evidence. Even the New York Times initially derided the report as lacking any "hard evidence" and amounting "essentially . . . to 'trust us.'"

We have substantial reason to believe that an unconfirmed salacious report on Trump, paid for by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign (with the FBI eventually getting hold of it), was used in an effort to get a secret national-security warrant so the government could spy on the Trump campaign. We know that the FBI went easy on Clinton in its investigation of her irresponsible email practices, and then we find out that a top FBI official involved in both the Clinton and Trump/Russia investigations despised Trump, liked Hillary and expressed an interest in doing what he could to thwart Trump's emergence. We know he privately told his lover that, while he didn't think Trump could win, he nevertheless felt a need for an "insurance policy" because "I'm afraid we can't take that risk." We know these matters were discussed in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

We know further that former FBI director James Comey used a cutout to leak to the press a rendition of an Oval Office conversation with the president that could be interpreted adversely to Trump. We know he did this to set in motion the appointment of an independent investigator, a potentially mortal threat to any president -- and perhaps particularly to this freewheeling billionaire developer.

Perhaps most significant, we know that all this had the effect of wrenching from the president the flexibility to pursue a policy agenda on which he had campaigned -- and which presumably contributed to his election. That was his promise to work toward improved relations between the United States and Russia. Prospects for such a diplomatic initiative now are as dead as the dodo bird. Trump lost that one. The Deep State won.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . He is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century .

grumpy_carpenter , February 13, 2018 8:07 AM

I don't believe there is a secret 'deep state' controlling the USA from the shadows like some Bond villian.

What people call the deep state is in fact the interests of the business elite who have been granted nearly unprecedented political influence by the American people in the form or nearly unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who promote their interests, unregulated lobbying, control of the MSM and the funding of think tanks and other institutions that promote their interests.

When historians look back at this time it will be Madison Avenue and the revolution in persuasion that they study.

Paul Cressman grumpy_carpenter , February 13, 2018 6:20 PM

1934 Major General Smedley Butler, US Marine Corp, was asked by US Industrialists to help them overthrow the government. Roosevelt was to remain as the figurehead of the US but the industrialists would be in charge. The industrialist would supply Butler with a 500,000 man army that he would be in charge of. Butler's father was a congressman in the 1920's and Butler told congress of the possible Coup. Read of The Committee of Foreign Affairs, CFA.

R. Arandas grumpy_carpenter , February 13, 2018 4:02 PM

Yes, it is quite disturbing that 2% of the world's population control about 50% of its total wealth though:
https://www.theguardian.com...

JimmyD grumpy_carpenter , February 13, 2018 9:24 AM

Teddy Roosevelt and the Presidents that followed him understood the dangers of the Robber-Barons buying the government. That's why they launched anti-trust, income tax and estate taxes to protect democracy.

[Feb 16, 2018] The March-April 2018 Issue The National Interest

Feb 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

The Deep State Isn't What You Think

The problem is not that the "deep state" is thwarting Trump's policy agenda. It is his reliance on advisers who agree with the post–Cold War foreign-policy consensus.

Emma M. Ashford The Deep State Is a Distraction

When you hear the term "dark government," change the channel or turn off the radio; if you see an article, turn the page.

John Deutch Is There a Deep State?

A symposium on the "deep state" in today's Washington.

Jacob Heilbrunn The 'Deep State' Is No Supervillain

The encroaching "deep state" was a program carried out in broad daylight by Bill Clinton and George Bush, Tony Blair and centrist European leaders.

Michael Lind The Deep State Is Very Real

How the Deep State stopped better relations with Russia.

Robert W. Merry The Deep State Has Long Abused Its Power

From Eisenhower to Trump, the intelligence community has always struggled with its political role.

George Beebe The 'Deep State' Conspiracy Is a Joke

From the Masons to UFOs, Americans have loved mysteries.

Gary Hart We've Seen This Deep-State Story Before

As a boy in the early 1950s, I learned about a widely feared attempt to take over America by communists. A few years later, it was just a myth.

John Despres Trump's War on the Deep State

This is why Donald Trump went to war against the entire political class.

Conrad Black America Has No Deep State

The fictitious idea of a deep state is doing more to politicize the bureaucracy than any real deep state ever did.

Paul R. Pillar How We Got Trump's Clash with the Deep State

Had the deep state gotten its way, Donald J. Trump would never have come close to the Oval Office, let alone be sitting in it.

Christopher A. Preble

[Feb 16, 2018] How We Got Trump's Clash with the Deep State by Christopher A. Preble

Notable quotes:
"... History informed his judgement. "The means of defense against foreign danger," he said, "have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." ..."
"... National Security and Double Government ..."
"... Christopher A. Preble is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

AMERICA'S FOUNDERS anticipated how a sprawling national-security state could subvert the popular will, and even endanger the nation's interests. James Madison told his fellow delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty."

History informed his judgement. "The means of defense against foreign danger," he said, "have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."

George Washington agreed. In his Farewell Address, the general turned president advised his countrymen to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

Another general-president, Dwight Eisenhower, echoed these concerns. He worried that the evolving "military-industrial complex" would acquire "unwarranted influence" and "endanger our liberties or democratic processes." "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry," he continued, "can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Alas, the citizenry is neither alert nor knowledgeable.

Which means that the actual conduct of foreign policy falls to what Michael Glennon dubbed the Trumanites: "the network of several hundred high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement officials within the executive branch who are responsible for making national security policymaking." And within that executive branch, Glennon concludes in his book National Security and Double Government , "The President . . . exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy."

Even if you don't buy Glennon's argument, it seems likely that the men and women responsible for executing U.S. foreign policy are uninterested in the views of the many Americans who actually pay for the nation's wars, and the few Americans who fight them.

Defenders of the status quo like to argue that it survives because it works. The public is wrong to doubt the wisdom of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the foreign-policy elite sees it, the American people can't be expected to understand why we defend wealthy allies, deploy hundreds of thousands of military personnel in numerous foreign countries and align ourselves with some of the world's most reprehensible autocrats.

Dean Acheson, Truman's secretary of state, presumably spoke for many elites (though perhaps too candidly) when he explained, "If you truly had a democracy and did what the people wanted, you'd go wrong every time."

In this sense, it isn't merely inertia that explains why U.S. foreign policy remains on autopilot, despite widespread public dissatisfaction with the status quo. Rather, it's the deep state, doing what the deep state does.

Donald Trump tapped into the resentment engendered by the establishment's contempt for the great unwashed. He has failed, so far at least, to dislodge the deep state and its policies. Then again, maybe he never intended to roll back American primacy. After all, he promised massive military spending increases, and expressed regret that we didn't take the Iraqis' oil. Even his claim to have always opposed the Iraq War was a taradiddle. So there were ample grounds for doubting that Trump would give the American people the foreign policy they wanted. Maybe the deep state didn't thwart him?

The deep state obviously isn't all-powerful. After all, had the deep state gotten its way, Donald J. Trump would never have come close to the Oval Office, let alone be sitting in it.

Now, given the power that we have erroneously invested in the office of the presidency, critics of the deep state should rethink their opposition to it, and members of the deep state should rethink their enthusiasm for a chief executive generally unencumbered by the Congress or the people. The deep state doesn't control the @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed. It cannot stop him from engaging in behavior that increases the risk of a catastrophic conflict. Perhaps we should wish that it could?

But we should never welcome a situation in which unelected officials distort or ignore public sentiments, or undertake policies that are demonstrably harmful to vital national interests.

Christopher A. Preble is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free .

[Feb 16, 2018] Is Donald Trump Morphing Into A Neocon Interventionist by Doug Bandow

One year later we can say with confidence, yes he morphed into a neocon in foreign policy.
What is especially bad is that Trump executed "bait and switch" maneuver as smoothly as Obama. Devastating.
Notable quotes:
"... So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? ..."
"... Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view. ..."
"... I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street. ..."
"... It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start... ..."
"... While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative. ..."
"... Stop those wars. They don't serve us. ..."
"... Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam. ..."
"... Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle! ..."
Apr 20, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Why Is Trump Abandoning the Foreign Policy that Brought Him Victory The National Interest Blog

Candidate Donald Trump offered a sharp break from his predecessors. He was particularly critical of neoconservatives, who seemed to back war at every turn.

Indeed, he promised not to include in his administration "those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war." And he's generally kept that commitment, for instance rejecting as deputy secretary of state Elliot Abrams, who said Trump was unfit to be president.

Substantively candidate Trump appeared to offer not so much a philosophy as an inclination. Practical if not exactly realist, he cared more for consequences than his three immediate predecessors, who had treated wars as moral crusades in Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. In contrast, Trump promised: "unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct."

Yet so far the Trump administration is shaping up as a disappointment for those who hoped for a break from the liberal interventionist/neoconservative synthesis.

The first problem is staffing. In Washington people are policy. The president can speak and tweet, but he needs others to turn ideas into reality and implement his directives. It doesn't appear that he has any foreign policy realists around him, or anyone with a restrained view of America's international responsibilities.

Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and H. R. McMaster are all serious and talented, and none are neocons. But all seem inclined toward traditional foreign policy approaches and committed to moderating their boss's unconventional thoughts. Most of the names mentioned for deputy secretary of state have been reliably hawkish, or some combination of hawk and centrist-Abrams, John Bolton, the rewired Jon Huntsman.

Trump appears to be most concerned with issues that have direct domestic impacts, and especially with economic nostrums about which he is most obviously wrong. He's long been a protectionist (his anti-immigration opinions are of more recent vintage). Yet his views have not changed even as circumstances have. The Chinese once artificially limited the value of the renminbi, but recently have taken the opposite approach. The United States is not alone in losing manufacturing jobs, which are disappearing around the world and won't be coming back. Multilateral trade agreements are rarely perfect, but they are not zero sum games. They usually offer political as well as economic benefits. Trump does not seem prepared to acknowledge this, at least rhetorically. Indeed he has brought on board virulent opponents of free trade such as Peter Navarro.

The administration's repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly damaging. Trump's decision embarrassed Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who had offered important economic concessions to join. More important, Trump has abandoned the economic field to the People's Republic of China, which is pushing two different accords. Australia, among other U.S. allies, has indicated that it now will deal with Beijing, which gets to set the Pacific trade agenda. In this instance, what's good for China is bad for the United States.

In contrast, on more abstract foreign policy issues President Trump seems ready to treat minor concessions as major victories and move on. For years he criticized America's Asian and European allies for taking advantage of U.S. defense generosity. In his March foreign policy speech, he complained that "our allies are not paying their fair share." During the campaign he suggested refusing to honor NATO's Article 5 commitment and leave countries failing to make sufficient financial contributions to their fate.

Yet Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have insisted that Washington remains committed to the very same alliances incorporating dependence on America. Worse, in his speech to Congress the president took credit for the small uptick in military outlays by European NATO members which actually began in 2015: "based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning" to "meet their financial obligations." Although he declared with predictable exaggeration that "the money is pouring in," no one believes that Germany, which will go from 1.19 to 1.22 percent of GDP this year, will nearly double its outlays to hit even the NATO standard of two percent.

Trump's signature policy initiative, rapprochement with Russia, appears dead in the water. Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America. Contrary to neocon history, Russia and America have often cooperated in the past. Moreover, President Trump's attempt to improve relations faces strong ideological opposition from neoconservatives determined to have a new enemy and partisan resistance from liberal Democrats committed to undermining the new administration.

President Trump also appears to have no appointees who share his commitment on this issue. At least Trump's first National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, wanted better relations with Russia, amid other, more dubious beliefs, but now the president seems alone. In fact, Secretary Tillerson sounded like he was representing the Obama administration when he demanded Moscow's withdrawal from Crimea, a policy nonstarter. Ambassador-designate Huntsman's views are unclear, but he will be constrained by the State Department bureaucracy, which is at best unimaginative and at worst actively obstructionist.

taavitheman , March 10, 2017 4:04 PM

"Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America."

I did my due diligence on the writer after this absolutely baffling argument that has no basis on certain fundamental laws of geopolitics. Referring to this: https://www.bloomberg.com/n...

So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? Figures...

Eric Zuesse , March 14, 2017 8:24 AM

Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view.

Sarastro92 Eric Zuesse , March 19, 2017 11:43 AM

And other say you're a sap for believing a bunch of half-baked one-liners that Trump often contradicted in the same sentence... He never had a coherent policy on anything, no less foreign policy... so don't complain now that he's showing his true colors

tom Eric Zuesse , March 19, 2017 10:28 AM

The USA should FORCE other nations to use DIPLOMACY as a means to preventing wars. If they don't, they lose all support, financial and otherwise, from the USA. This would include Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The only thing Trump should take a look at in all this is the INHUMANE policies that previous administrations have used to placate the military/industrial clique's appetite for money and blood! If it's going to be "America First" for Trump's administration, it better start diverting this blood money to shore up America's people and infrastructures!

America2028 , March 12, 2017 1:19 PM

Most of these issues come down to the fact that President Trump doesn't have anything resembling a "grand strategy", or even a coherent foreign policy. His views are often at odds with each other (his desire to counter China economically and his opposition to the TPP, for example), and I suspect that most were motivated by a desire to get votes more than any kind of deep understanding of global affairs.

R. Arandas , March 10, 2017 9:36 PM

Most of his supporters, at least from what I can tell, are actually quite resolutely against entering a new war, and are strongly condemnatory of the neo-conservatism that involved the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, according to the polls taken at the time, more Democrats favored military intervention in Syria than Republicans did.

olde reb R. Arandas , March 21, 2017 5:53 PM

I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street.

Ref. http://farmwars.info/?p=15338 . A FACE FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT

mladenm , March 11, 2017 8:45 AM

It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start...

Mark Thomason , March 11, 2017 11:13 AM

While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative.

That does not excuse doing more of the same, but just asserts that we did get some of what we voted for/against.

We should get the rest of it. Stop those wars. They don't serve us.

richardvajs Guest , March 19, 2017 1:46 PM

There are similarities between Trump and Putin . The GOP and its rich corporate members have decided to use Trump as the oligarchs in Russia used Yeltsin. The oligarchs used a drunken Yeltsin to pry the natural resources out of the public commons for the grabbing by the oligarchs. Likewise, our rich are going to use an unwitting Trump to lower their taxes to nothing while delivering austerity to the 99%.
To the oligarchs' surprise and dismay, Yeltsin's incompetence led to Putin and his scourge of the oligarchs. So will Trump's incompetence lead to the end of our system of crony capitalism and the rebirth of socialism such as the New Deal, and higher taxes.
The crooked bastards can never be satisfied even with 3/4 ths of the whole pie, so no-one should pity them for being hoisted on their own petard.

Asia at War , April 30, 2017 12:52 AM

Trump forgot what he promised to the people. He sold his soul to the devil. I hope he doesn't send more of our children to die for the "Deep state."

Doug Nusbaum , March 21, 2017 5:17 PM

I'm sorry --- Trump had a foreign policy? As near as I can tell, he just said whatever the crowd in front of him wanted to hear. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Remember that this is a man who can be shown, in his own words, to have been on all sides of almost every issue, depending on the day of the week, and the phase of the moon.

Stefan Reich , March 20, 2017 6:13 AM

You really take all that time to analyze the guy instead of just seeing he is a madman? Wouldn't that be faster?

gentry_gee , March 20, 2017 3:41 AM

He, they, the US, that is, must obey Israel. Israel wants Assad gone in the end for their territorial expansion. It also helps the oil companies and isolates Russia further into a geostrategic corner.

dieter heymann , March 19, 2017 11:58 AM

This headline is way over the top. The first and foremost foreign policy statement which brought numerous voters to Trump was the US-Mexico wall and at least some of that wall will be constructed. Hence it is the only promise which has not (yet) changed except for who will pay for it.

OBTUSEANGLE , March 19, 2017 9:39 AM

The truth can be buried, but eventually it will be exposed. Only a matter of time.

Harold Smith , March 19, 2017 12:34 AM

Why must we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that his campaign presentations were made in good faith? That is a very generous assumption.

There's a simple and more logical explanation for what's going on with "foreign policy" in the "Trump" administration: Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam.

freewheelinfranklin543 , March 18, 2017 4:03 PM

Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle!

dieter heymann , March 18, 2017 9:35 AM

The fundamental problem of exonerating Trump and blaming this non-reversal on the non-existing "deep state" is believing that anything a candidate said on the campaign trail can be executed when that candidate becomes president. Such reversal has happened so frequently in our history that it is truly amazing that " he does not do what he promised" still has adherents.

There is no reversal. I see reality clashing with words. I do not blame Trump for reversals. I see some shift from unrealistic to more realistic. It is called learning on the job.

Elelei Guhring , March 11, 2017 8:06 AM

Every political position on the planet is stuck in the 80s. There is no one with a will to change what is happening, mostly because no one wants to get tarred and feathered once the:

a) economy implodes upon itself in the most glorious Depression to ever happen, and;

b) world war 3 erupts but engaging such a variety of opponents, from Islam to China and Russia and even minor trivial players such as North Korea, and;

c) civil disobedience in the western world rivals that of even third world revolutions as people revolt against a failure to protect them from Islamic violence, to preserve their standard of living and their perceived futures. Lots of change coming, but nothing that any politician is promising.

Politicians are dinosaurs. We are entering a world where large numbers of people will make things happen. It's called Democracy.

An Eastern European , March 11, 2017 2:10 AM

Trump will remain close to Putin ideologically and he might continue to admire the man as a strong leader BUT there is one thing that neither Putin nor Trump can change and it is that Russia and America are natural rivals. Geopolitics. Land vs Sea. Eurasia vs Atlantic. Heartland vs Outer Rim.

Trump is hawk, don't be mislead. You cannot have a great country if you're not willing to kill and die for it. Russia knows that. Which is why Putin made Russia great again after the horror of the Yeltsin years. Now America knows that too.

[Feb 16, 2018] Mueller Indicts 13 Russians For Interfering In US Election

False flag or real ?
Is not "included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton . " (or vise versa) by posting on social media an example of free speech ?
But usage of fake identities clearly is not: "The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some, as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to promote their activities."
The question is how those unquestionable very talented Russians managed to learn English language without living in the USA and operate such a sophisticated operation from oversees? English is a very difficult language for Russians to master and Russian immigrants who came to the USA being older then 16 and living in the USA for ten or twenty years typically still have horrible accent and bad or very bad grammar (tenses, "a" and "the" usage, you name it). Actually Russian woman are noticeably better then men in this area, especially if they are married to a US spouse. Ass to this dismal understanding of the USA politics including differences between Democratic and Republican parties (you probably need to live in the USA for ten years to start appreciate those differences ;-) . How they managed to learn local political culture to be effective? That's a strong argument in favor of false flag operation -- in case they have puppeteers from the USA everything is more or less rationally explainable.
Notable quotes:
"... It gets better: the defendants reportedly worked day and night shifts to pump out messages, controlling pages targeting a range of issues, including immigration, Black Lives Matter, and they amassed hundreds of thousands of followers. They set up and used servers inside the U.S. to mask the Russian origin of the accounts. ..."
"... The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said. ..."
"... The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some, as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to promote their activities. ..."
"... Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton . ..."
"... Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016 ..."
"... Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked group that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans. The event was shared with 61,000 users. ..."
"... As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media reports at the time . ..."
"... 13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1 BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success. ..."
"... Indict AIPAC. That is the real foreign interference in ALL US elections. Such hypocrisy. At the very least, make them register as a foreign operation! Information warfare using social media ? What, you mean like the Israeli students who are paid to shape public opinion thru social media? This is no secret and has been in the news. I fail to find the difference? Psychologists call this projection, that is where you accuse others of the crimes you commit . ..."
"... It looks like Mueller would have these people for identity theft if he had them in the US, which he probably doesn't. ..."
"... Deep state pivot to keep the Russian hate alive. ..."
"... Fucking hilarious - Mueller has indicted an anti-Russian CIA operation that was run out of St. Petersburg. http://thesaker.is/a-brief-history-of-the-kremlin-trolls/ ..."
"... The bigger question is "when is Mueller going to be indicted for covering up the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven??" ..."
Feb 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Mueller charges "defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016."

The indictment adds that the Russians " were instructed to post content that focused on 'politics in the USA' and to 'use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump -- we support them)' ."

It gets better: the defendants reportedly worked day and night shifts to pump out messages, controlling pages targeting a range of issues, including immigration, Black Lives Matter, and they amassed hundreds of thousands of followers. They set up and used servers inside the U.S. to mask the Russian origin of the accounts.

Ultimately, and this is the punchline, the goal was to disparage Hillary Clinton and to assist the election of Donald Trump.

In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election.

The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.

The Russians "had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system," according to the indictment in Washington.

The Russians also reportedly bought advertisements on U.S. social media, created numerous Twitter accounts designed to appear as if they were U.S. groups or people, according to the indictment. One fake account, @TEN_GOP account, attracted more than 100,000 online followers.

The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some, as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to promote their activities.

The full list of named defendants in addition to the Internet Research Agency, as well as Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering, include:

Mueller's office said that none of the defendants was in custody.

So how is Trump involved? Well, he isn't, as it now seems that collusion narrative is dead, and instead Russian involvement was unilateral. Instead, according to the indictment, the Russian operations were unsolicited and pro bono, and included " supporting Trump... and disparaging Hillary Clinton,' staging political rallies, buying political advertising while posing as grassroots U.S. groups. Oh, and communicating " with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities. "

Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton .

Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.

Furthermore, the dastardly Russians created fake accounts to pretend they are Americans:

Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016

Mueller also alleges a combination of traditional and modern espionage...

Certain Defendants traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence to inform Defendants' operations. Defendants also procured and used computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law enforcement.

Mueller also charges that two of the defendants received US visas and from approximately June 4, 2014 through June 26, 2014, KRYLOVA and BOGACHEVA " traveled in and around the United States, including stops in Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and New York to gather intelligence, After the trip, KRYLOVA and BURCHIK exchanged an intelligence report regarding the trip."

* * *

The indictment points to a broader conspiracy beyond the pages of the indictment, saying the grand jury has heard about other people with whom the Russians allegedly conspired in their efforts.

Joe Davola -> Pandelis Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:02 Permalink

Concord Catering - what, were they offering chicken wings and pigs ears at the polling places?

Never One Roach -> Joe Davola Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:03 Permalink

So how often does Mueller hear those demon voices in his head?

Billy the Poet -> Never One Roach Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:05 Permalink

I wonder if any of these Russians were behind the anti-Trump rallies of November 2016? Thousands attended protest organized by Russians on Facebook.

Thousands of Americans attended a march last November organized by a Russian group that used social media to interfere in the 2016 election.

The demonstration in New York City, which took place a few days after the election, appears to be the largest and most successful known effort to date pulled off by Russian-linked groups intent on using social media platforms to influence American politics.

Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked group that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans. The event was shared with 61,000 users.

As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media reports at the time .

The BlackMattersUS-organized rally took advantage of outrage among groups on the left following President Trump's victory on Nov. 8 to galvanize support for its event. The group's protest was the fourth consecutive anti-Trump rally in New York following election night, and one of many across the country.

"Join us in the streets! Stop Trump and his bigoted agenda!" reads the Facebook event page for the rally. "Divided is the reason we just fell. We must unite despite our differences to stop HATE from ruling the land."

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-

Belrev -> Billy the Poet Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:07 Permalink

13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1 BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success.

SamAdams -> Belrev Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:08 Permalink

Indict AIPAC. That is the real foreign interference in ALL US elections. Such hypocrisy. At the very least, make them register as a foreign operation! Information warfare using social media ? What, you mean like the Israeli students who are paid to shape public opinion thru social media? This is no secret and has been in the news. I fail to find the difference? Psychologists call this projection, that is where you accuse others of the crimes you commit .

Belrev -> SamAdams Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:10 Permalink

That is a regime change in DC proposition.

IH8OBAMA -> Belrev Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:21 Permalink

If Mueller is going outside the Trump organization to indict Russians, when is he going to indict some equally criminal Democraps?

I also see that one of the 13 Russians was Valdimir. ( VLADIMIR VENKOV ) LOL

Shillinlikeavillan -> IH8OBAMA Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:24 Permalink

Soooooooo...

They basically indicted the $100,000 facebook ad russian group... Bravo! Ur really on the path to impeaching trump now!
LULZ!

overbet -> Shillinlikeavillan Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:34 Permalink

Boy Hillary sure didnt get her money's worth. She shoulda hired these people.

Is it ok for MSM for to make all of their disparaging commentary, but not ok for people to do the same? Mueller mustve forgot about the craigslist ads hiring protesters to attack Trump rallies. What a fucking clown show.

I guess that's it Mueller gets his indictments to save face and Trump is pleased its over.

El Vaquero -> overbet Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:44 Permalink

This ties directly into the October 31, 2017 testimony from Facebook, Twitter and Google regarding Russian media presence on social media. Mueller is grasping here, and given that it talks about visas granted for short visits, I'm led to believe that most of these people are actually not on US soil to be arrested. This means political grandstanding via an indictment that is never going to see a courtroom where the evidence can be examined and witnesses can be cross examined. It looks like Mueller would have these people for identity theft if he had them in the US, which he probably doesn't.

I'm going to get called a Russian bot over this elsewhere. Well, maybe facetiously here. #WeAreAllRussianBotsNow

spanish inquisition -> El Vaquero Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:56 Permalink

Deep state pivot to keep the Russian hate alive.

FoggyWorld -> spanish inquisition Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:59 Permalink

And set us up for war.

Shemp 4 Victory -> FoggyWorld Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:10 Permalink

Fucking hilarious - Mueller has indicted an anti-Russian CIA operation that was run out of St. Petersburg. http://thesaker.is/a-brief-history-of-the-kremlin-trolls/

pods -> Shemp 4 Victory Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:22 Permalink

Wow, I am going to have to keep the radio off for a couple of days. They are going to be wall to wall on this. Maybe even bump the stories where fakely sympathetic reporter cunts (FSRC) ask mother's if they miss their dead kids.

This is a fucking clownshow anymore. Jesus, THIS is what the investigation brought home? Holy fuckshit, this is a joke. Some guy had 100k followers? Really? Like anyone GAF about that? We have AIPAC making candidates kneel before them and yet some guys on Tweeter fucked around. I think that is even bullshit. If Russians really did that, they wouldn't "work in shifts" they would program some fucking bots to do this.

I can just imagine the fake outrage that that worthless kike from NY Chuckie "don't get between me and a camera" Schumer has to say about this.

This is a Matrix alright, and a cheap ass one at that.

Mueller should be taken out and horsewhipped for bringing this shit home.

Hey Mueller, I read a comment on Yahoo news that was in broken English. Go get um!

pods

stizazz -> pods Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:30 Permalink

They HATE Russia because PUTIN OPENLY derided the American Empire.

BennyBoy -> pods Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:38 Permalink

The Russians duped me.

I was gonna vote for Hillary then I read tweets where she bullied the woman her husband raped to keep quiet. And how her foundation got hundreds of $millions from countries with business before her at the state dept. ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA mislead me.

BennyBoy -> BennyBoy Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:42 Permalink

Its probably nothing....

CHINESE STATE-OWNED CHEMICAL FIRM JOINS DARK MONEY GROUP POURING CASH INTO U.S. ELECTIONS

Lee Fang February 15 2018, 10:10 a.m.

WANHUA CHEMICAL, A $10 billion chemical company controlled by the Chinese government, now has an avenue to influence American elections.

On Monday, Wanhua joined the American Chemistry Council, a lobby organization for chemical manufacturers that is unusually aggressive in intervening in U.S. politics.

The ACC is a prominent recipient of so-called dark money -- that is, unlimited amounts of cash from corporations or individuals the origins of which are only disclosed to the IRS, not the public. During the 2012 , 2014 , and 2016 election cycles, the ACC took this dark money and spent over $40 million of it on contributions to super PACs, lobbying, and direct expenditures. (Additional money flowed directly to candidates via the ACC's political action committee.).....

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/15/chinese-state-owned-chemical-firm-j

ThanksChump -> BennyBoy Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:50 Permalink

Duped by facts and truth is no way to go through life, son.

JimmyJones -> ThanksChump Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:59 Permalink

Obama, "I can do more after I'm reelected" to Putin caught on a hot mic.

I always knew Hillary was as pure as the first winter's snow.

Theosebes Goodfellow -> pods Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:42 Permalink

~" In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election. "~

Wait, does this mean that "disparaging Hillary" was just for the witless? I've been doing that for years, (without any Russian influence at all), and have found it to be rather witty virtually all the time.

Can we NOW get to the point where we appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary?

rwe2late -> Theosebes Goodfellow Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:09 Permalink

not yet ...

any of us who spread "fake news" are now "conspirators" who gave "support" to foreign agents with the goal of undermining the "democratic process" by denying Hillary the presidency.

tsk, tsk.

ignorance can be no excuse for such wanton lawlessness.

rwe2late -> rwe2late Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:36 Permalink

oh, oh

I almost forgot. "conspirators" were blatantly "sowing discord" obvious "proof" of "cooperating" with the Russians

Boxed Merlot -> rwe2late Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:46 Permalink

..."conspirators" were blatantly "sowing discord"...

Yep, so on top of being "Deplorable", I'm also without wit.

His name was Seth.

Squid Viscous -> pods Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:57 Permalink

well said pods, i wish i could upvote you like, 13 times

Machbet -> pods Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:32 Permalink

Well said, my brother. "A fucking clownshow..." A clownshow run by juvenile, idiotic fallen angels.

sixsigma cygnu -> spanish inquisition Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:01 Permalink

I'm just relieved they didn't get Boris. Not this time.

Telling people the truth makes one a very desirable target.

BigCumulusClouds -> sixsigma cygnu Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:06 Permalink

The bigger question is "when is Mueller going to be indicted for covering up the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven??"

eatthebanksters -> spanish inquisition Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:10 Permalink

So this is all they have?

Bubba Rum Das -> Citizen in 1984 Fri, 02/16/2018 - 16:08 Permalink

Yes, Mueller is a clown show, but he came up w/ this crap in an attempt to divert media attention away from his & McCabes direct involvement in trying to cover up Uranium 1 for Hillary...The Truth!

Boxed Merlot -> eatthebanksters Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:48 Permalink

...all they have?...

Sure hope they weren't bettin' the farm.

jmo.

DosZap -> El Vaquero Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:05 Permalink

He has to INDICT someone,since he can't get Trump except on adultery.(the only thing NOT under his purview)

I see a distant MELANIA in his near future.

eclectic syncretist -> DosZap Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:43 Permalink

The FBI going DEEP (#sarc) into its playbook for this one.

Simultaneously distracting from their incompetencies with regards to domestic threats (school shooters/government collusion to subvert presidential election), and exonerating Hillary AGAIN.

"Using lies and deception to cover our lies and deceptions, so that we can enslave the populace to our will" (visualize Meuller/Comey/Strzok/Page/Ohr/Rosenstein/Obama/Rice/ with left hands on Satanic Bible and right arms extended giving oath in Temple of Mammon before upside down American flag).

ebear -> El Vaquero Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:17 Permalink

"#WeAreAllRussianBotsNow"

Ich bin ein Russe!

agNau -> overbet Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:59 Permalink

Hillary hired the entire Russian government with the Uranium one deal.

BigCumulusClouds -> overbet Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:04 Permalink

Protestors?? HRC hired thugs who beat people up at Trump rallies. That's a felony. Some people got hurt real bad.

IH8OBAMA -> Shillinlikeavillan Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:37 Permalink

I wonder if Mueller is going to indict Obama for interfering in the Israeli election?

giovanni_f -> IH8OBAMA Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:56 Permalink

1. CNN can now say Russian interference is a "proven fact".

2. "13 individuals" and "3 companies" - this is a casus belli even for the most pacifist peaceniks on ZH

3. US can now continue to meddle in Russian elections as they did since 1919 pointing to the existential thread those 13 individuals posed.

rwe2late -> giovanni_f Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:46 Permalink

worse than 3.meddling in Russian elections,

anyone who objects to US military and economic aggression,

will be further branded/dismissed (prosecuted?)

as a "proven dupe" of Russia/Putin.

caconhma -> IH8OBAMA Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:08 Permalink

The US Constitution. RIP

The DoJ and Miller activities are anti-American. What else is new in occupied America?

PS

Note Trump does nothing about this unprecedented assault on Freedom of Speech and Assembly in the USA. Therefore, Trump is a willing player in these criminal activities.

commiebastid -> IH8OBAMA Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:21 Permalink

and Brexit and the French election and Venezuela election and The Ukraine; Libya; Palestinian Territories..... lmao

DownWithYogaPants -> Shillinlikeavillan Fri, 02/16/2018 - 13:44 Permalink

Ohhh fake social accounts.........the horror!

( If I had known they were the equivalent of Harry Potters magic wand I would have opened a few long ago! )

Seems like Mr Mueller is in face saving mode.

What is Rod Rosenstein doing still at the FBI. He should be in prison.

MEFOBILLS -> Shillinlikeavillan Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:50 Permalink

Mueller is going to go until he gets some meat. Maybe this lean and stringy meat is enough to satisfy. Of course, nobody will look at AIPAC and all of the foreign influence money funneling into senators coffers.

Endgame Napoleon -> carni Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:26 Permalink

He said they stole identities, posting anti-Hillary remarks on Russian-controlled sites, using the stolen identities. They must do that through hacking, which is illegal.

They also organized rallies, he said. There were ads on job sites, advertising for paid [leftist] protestors, long before Trump emerged as a candidate. People posted them on American sites. Some attribute it to Soros. I am a little skeptical that Soros controls the world, anymore than Russians, but that is what people often believe, when it is leftist ads.

Advertisements are all over the Internet. Is that illegal? He called it fraud, referring to the misrepresentation of identity, I guess. They should not be manipulating unknowing people.

But, I wonder if he has the same vigilance when illegal aliens use fake SS cards to acquire jobs, while their girlfriends use real SS cards of US-born kids to get $450 on average in EBT food assistance, in addition to other welfare, making it easy for illegal aliens to undercut American citizens in jobs. Using a fake SS number -- i.e. posing as an American to get a job -- is fraud.

As long as the illegal aliens have sex after illegal border crossings, reproduce and say they misrepresent their identities for the good of their kids, this is legal and deserving of pay-per-birth welfare / child-tax-credit freebies and citizenship, whereas these Russians are committing fraud.

They should not be doing that in either case, but the double standard is interesting.

And if people cannot post freely on the internet without revealing their real names, a lot of internet activity (and a lot of related commerce) will cease. Many people post anonymously, often due to jobs or other factors that have nothing to do with elections.

In fact, FBI agents post under identities (personas) that are not their own. There are many articles, describing how police agencies use fake identities on the internet to track down criminals, including those who abuse children. They do the same thing to monitor terrorists; they use fake identities.

[Feb 16, 2018] Where are these indictments ? Obama, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pyatt and John McCain.

Feb 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Vote up! 2 Vote down! 0

Mike Masr Fri, 02/16/2018 - 15:41 Permalink

Where are these indictments ? Obama, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pyatt and John McCain.

The US has been meddling and interfering in other countries elections and internal affairs for decades. Not only does the US meddle and interfere in other countries elections it overthrows democratically elected governments it simply doesn't like, and then installs its own puppet leaders. Our deep-state MIC owned neocons casually refer to this as "regime change".

I can only imagine the hell that would break loose if Russia fomented, paid for, and assisted in a violent overthrow of the legitimately and democratically elected government in Mexico. Imagine Russian spymasters working from the Russian Embassy in Mexico City training radicals how to use social media to bring out angry people and foment violent pubic unrest. Then Russian Duma members in Mexico City handing out tacos, and tamales emboldening and urging these angry people to riot, and overthrow the government and toss the bums out. Then Putin's executive group hand picking all the new (anti-USA) drug cartel junta puppet leaders and an old senile Russian senator in Mexico City stating at a podium on RT, there are no drug cartels here, that's all propaganda!

On the other side of the world Obama's neocon warmongers spent billions doing exactly this. Instead of drug cartels it was Banderist Neo-Nazis. Obama and our neocons, including John McCain intentionally caused all of this fucking mess, civil war and horrific death in Ukraine on Russia's border and then placed the blame on Putin and Russia.

Thanks to John McCain and our evil fucking neocons - the regime change policy implemented by Obama, Clinton and Nuland's minions, like Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukraine today is totally fucked. It is now a corrupt banana republic embroiled in a bloody civil war. For the US and NATO the golden prize of this violent undemocratic regime change was supposed to be the Crimea. This scheme did not play out as intended. No matter what sanctions the warmongering neocons place on Russia they will NEVER give back the Crimea!

Our neocon fuck heads spent billions of our hard earned taxpayer dollars to create pain, suffering, death and a civil war in Ukraine on the border with Russia.

This is a case of don't do what we do, only do what we tell you to do. It's perfectly okay when we meddle. We don't like it when we think it may have been done to us. It's hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest!

Tech Camp NGO - operating out of US Embassy in Kiev

(using social media to help bring out radicals-and cause civil war-pre Maidan 2013)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM

Nuland talks about $5 billion spent on Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaR1_an9CnQ

Nuland plotting(on intercepted phone call) the new handpicked puppet leaders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

US Support of Banderist Neo-Nazis in Ukraine 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-RyOaFwcEw

Lavrov reminds the UN a West-inspired coup d'état started Ukraine crisis, not Russia

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/404247-un-lavrov-ukraine-sanctions/

[Feb 16, 2018] This is how empires truly end. The empire loses legitimacy, in the eyes of the populace. Mainly because the empire has to accommodate all the subjugated cultures. The elections have always been rigged

Feb 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

rgraf Fri, 02/16/2018 - 14:29 Permalink

This is how empires truly end. The empire loses legitimacy, in the eyes of the populace. Mainly because the empire has to accommodate all the subjugated cultures. The elections have always been rigged. Nothing good happens to the establishment when the corruption gets pointed out, even falsely. The only viable solution would be a verifiable voting method. One that ensures only legitimate ballots were cast, and every legitimate vote was counted. The software would have to be open source.

The government should withhold no information from the public. Secrecy, on the part of government, is always used for the enrichment of the insiders. The notion of a secret ballot implies a culture where people fear expressing themselves freely. A result of political correctness. The politicians sell themselves as 'tireless public servants', but immediately turn into lazy, shiftless, gluttonous demagogues, once in office.

A legitimate electoral process would most likely mean an immediate end to the careers of the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, etc. In the private sector, employees have 90 days to prove themselves capable, with performance reviews at least annually. In government, they're given 4 years with no review. The only way a republic can be democratic is if the populace gets to vote on any legislation the president signs. That would place far too much burden on congress, making it nearly impossible to get anything but vital legislation passed.

These idiots have not figured out that they have lost control of the narrative. Everything they say can, and will be used against them, in the court of public opinion. They funded the social media, and now, they are reaping that which they have sown. They have most likely chosen 13 sacrificial goats, who will plea bargain, to get out of prison, knowing that they will spend even more time in prison, during the course of the phony trial, in which they will make some sort of token court appearance, for the sake of appearance of 'justice'.

SirBarksAlot -> rgraf Fri, 02/16/2018 - 16:44 Permalink

What crime?

Impersonating an American?

Practicing freedom of speech?

Trying to influence an election?

I don't see any crimes.

[Feb 16, 2018] Stephanie Savell The Hidden Costs of America's Wars by Tom Engelhardt

Feb 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

If anything, recent weeks have offered remarkable evidence of just how victorious this country's losingest commanders and their colleagues really are in our nation's capital. In the bipartisan style that these days usually applies only to the U.S. military, Congress has just settled on giving an extra $165 billion to the Pentagon over the next two years as part of a formula for keeping the government open. As it happens, the 2017 Pentagon budget was already as large as the defense spending of the next seven nations combined. And that was before all those extra tens of billions of dollars ensured that the two-year military budget (for 2018 and 2019) would crest at a total of more than $1.4 trillion .

That's the sort of money that only goes to winners, not losers. And if this still seems a little strange to you, given that military's dismal record in actual war-fighting since 9/11, all I can say is: don't bring it up. It's no longer considered polite or proper to complain about our wars and those who fight them or how we fund them, not in an age when every American soldier is a " hero ," which means that what they're doing from Afghanistan to Yemen , Syria to Somalia , must be heroic indeed.

In a draft-less country, those of us not in or connected to our military are expected to say " thank you " to the warriors and otherwise go about our lives as if their wars (and the mayhem they continue to generate abroad) were not a fact of global life. This is the definition of a demobilized public. If you happen to be that rarest of all creatures in our country these days -- someone in active opposition to those wars -- you have a problem. That means Stephanie Savell, who co-runs the Costs of War Project , which regularly provides well-researched and devastating information on the spread of those wars and the money continually being squandered on them, does indeed have a problem. It's one she understands all too well and describes vividly today.

[Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... And the dossier, a pastiche of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee ..."
"... The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed. ..."
Feb 15, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

...Donald Trump went to war against the entire political class: all factions of both parties, the bureaucracy, the national media, the lobbyists, Hollywood and Wall Street. He said the whole system was rotten and had failed the nation: hopeless wars that accomplished nothing except the wastage of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, the extension of Iranian influence and an immense humanitarian crisis, a flatlined economy, a shrinking workforce, increasing poverty and crime, oceans of debt, large trade deficits from trade agreements that exported unemployment to the United States and the unmonitored influx of millions of illiterate peasants from Latin America.

... ... ...

For the first nine months of the new administration, there was the constant confected threat of impeachment. The phantasmagorical imbecility that Trump had somehow colluded and connived with the Russian government to rig the election was the excuse of the hapless Clinton and her Trump-hating echo chamber in the national media for the election result.

The deep state was almost the whole state, and it pitched in to sabotage the administration. For nearly that long, the Republican leaders sat on their hands waiting to see if he would be impeached or not. His nominees were a long time in being confirmed. There were leaks of White House conversations, including with foreign leaders -- outright acts of insubordination causing Trump, a decisive executive, to fire some fairly high officials, including the malign director of the FBI, who then informed Congress that he had leaked a self-addressed memo (probably illegally, as it was technically government property), in order to have a special prosecutor named to torment the president over the fatuous Russian allegations, although Comey testified that Trump himself was not a target or suspect and the Russians had not influenced the outcome of the election. (This was a sober position compared to the wholesale fabrications of the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, that a thousand Russian agents had swarmed the key battleground states and had delivered Wisconsin to Trump.)

The president has strengthened the White House staff. The FBI and Justice Department have been ripped apart in their partisanship and misuse of the dossier on which the collusion argument and the surveillance of the Trump campaign were based. And the dossier, a pastiche of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, and the whole impeachment movement has collapsed. The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed.

Conrad Black is a writer and former newspaper publisher whose most recent book is Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full (PublicAffairs, 2007).

[Feb 15, 2018] Tucker You have to be a moron to believe Steele dossier

Impressive dissection of Steele dossier
Notable quotes:
"... What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads like a parody of a badly written spy novel. ..."
"... It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb... rinse and repeat. No objection from either side. ..."
"... Watch Jerome Corsi and James Kalstrom great video's about all the felony crimes Barry's DNC/DOJ/FBI were involved in including the dossier. ..."
"... to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town... ..."
Feb 15, 2018 | theduran.com

What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads like a parody of a badly written spy novel.

Amazingly, the dossier is what the FBI used to justify spying on American citizens.

Tucker Carlson easily debunks the many claims that Democrats in Congress repeatedly cited as reason to stop the normal functioning of government, so that millions of tax payer dollars can be spent trying to figure out if Trump has been a Russian spy for the last 10 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29vHVcXVN_M

Melotte 22 , February 14, 2018 5:48 PM

It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb... rinse and repeat. No objection from either side.

Joseph Sobecki , February 14, 2018 1:29 PM

Watch Jerome Corsi and James Kalstrom great video's about all the felony crimes Barry's DNC/DOJ/FBI were involved in including the dossier.

john vieira , February 15, 2018 1:06 AM

No need to convince me Tucker...have been calling them morons with regards to "Putin did it" since the ex "moron in chief"...who by the way is now a certified fifth columnist with the blessing of the treasonous mainstream media...insinuated as much after the "loser" lost....to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town...

Vierotchka , February 14, 2018 1:28 PM

I can only concur.

[Feb 15, 2018] More Sanctions Please IOC Crusade on Russia Has Reinvigorated Its Fans, Athletes and Patriotism

When Western intelligence agencies ventured into sport like MI6 did with football federation, sports ands and dirty political games start. Not the professional sport is not corrupt to the core. It is. But it is universally corrupt, with the USA probably the most dirty country.
Feb 15, 2018 | russia-insider.com

[Feb 15, 2018] The US is interfering in Russia's elections.

Feb 15, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Bruno Bardorosso , February 2, 2018 2:09 PM

The US is interfering in Russia's elections. On behalf of Putin.

[Feb 15, 2018] Guardian's "Putin stealing election" shows new wave of Russia-hate being rolled out by Catte

Feb 15, 2018 | off-guardian.org

This appeared in the Guardian today (thanks to Peter in the comments for alerting us):

We won't bother doing an analysis of its lies, stupidities and racism. Simon Tisdall, author of the piece, could easily find out the reason Putin is virtually certain to return as president isn't because the election is rigged but because people in Russia overwhelmingly support him. Even Gallup admit that much. Even the more level-headed western outlets acknowledge it . It's a fact beyond dispute. Putin doesn't need to rig anything on order to win an election.

But Tisdall's brutish conviction is proof against facts. Any facts, even Western-backed facts. Instead of doing even basic research he prefers to riff for umpteen paragraphs on something that is a total, demonstrable lie .

Fact-based reality is not the one Tisdall and his peers live in any more. They don't see it. And when it's presented to them they think it's Kremlin propaganda. In the matter of Russia they have become over the last few years blind and deaf to reason and fact. They are the most dangerous of deceivers -- those who believe their own lies. Even the best of them now truly thinks anyone who questions their Russia=Evil narrative is a paid Kremlin agent. These well-paid supposedly well-educated people are on Twitter literally asking anyone who challenges them what the weather is like in St. Petersburg.

The sheer wanton deception, the outright, blunt and brutal propagandising is getting worse. It's attaining new heights of spittle-flying hate. And in concert the war drums are beating again in Syria and Ukraine.

And we can be sure this is going to continue up until and for some while after the Russian election is done.

Supposing any of us live that long.

Because, without unnecessary alarmism, we have to be aware xenophobia of this magnitude comes with a risk. In the past it has always been a prelude to war. And if this current case isn't an exception, humanity is not going to survive. Not even those Guardian journos snug in their cosy hubris. Hubris isn't bomb-proof sadly.

The Guardian allowed comments on this article for six whole hours. Long enough to make it clear the suicidal, fact-blind, cultist insanity ATL is not shared by most who read it. Yes there are predictable cries of "putinbots" and predictable agenda-setting claims such as that Corbyn needs to be tougher on Putin (look forward to this becoming a major facet of the next UK general election), but for all that it's the rational observations that get the most upvotes. And that's even after the mods have scoured and censored as is their wont.

Here are a couple of the best.

Nik2

Being Russian, residing in Moscow and having never before voted for V. Putin because he
was once chosen and promoted by B. Yeltsin and the oligarchs (so praised by Western
"liberals"), this time I am not so sure about my vote, and there is a chance I may vote for
V. Putin for the first time. There are some 2-3 reasons for me to vote for V. Putin (and
some - against him), and one of the strongest among pro-Putin stimuli - the writings of
Western "progressivists" like this article.

I do not like lies and fakes, and S. Tisdall presents many of such stuff.

1. How can V. Putin "steal" the victory if anyone knows he leads in opinion polls by a huge
margin? There are several services, doing monitoring of public opinion, including the
"Levada centre", officially designated as a "foreign agent" in Russia and generally well
accepted by Western colleagues.

2. To call Alexei Navalny the "most credible challenger" is to tell lies: it was always a
communist, coming second after Putin at all the previous presidential elections with
some 15% - 20% (30% in 2000) of votes, and this time P. Grudinin is taking the 2nd
position in the polls (and most likely in elections too).

3. To say that Putin's "political opponents are virtually invisible" is to spread obvious fake
news - see, for example, the results of monitoring TV-programmes by communists on
February 6, 2018: https://msk.kprf.ru/2018/02/08/37248/ (in Russian; in short, V. Putin
got 14 only positive mentions; P. Grudinin -13 mentions, with 69% negative ones; M.
Suraikin, hard-line communist and opponent of P. Grudinin -11 mentions with no negative
ones; V. Zhirinovsky -10 mentions with no negative ones, etc.).

The more anti-Putin writings of this kind appear in Western mass-media (and are covered
in Russia), the larger portion of Russians would vote for V. Putin because: first, people
remember well how they lived under Yeltsin's rule in the 1990's who was so generously
backed up by the West, and second - everyone can see what has happened with standards
of living (and with prospects of just staying alive) after Western-backed
"democratization" of the Ukraine, Libya, etc.

Pemulis 8h ago

"There are no presidential debates, no unsanctioned opinion polls."

Credible external polls indicate consistently high approval for Putin. Obviously this is
influenced by his stranglehold on information, but even Navalny's internal polling shows
a high level of approval for Putin.

thinlkandleap1234 6h ago

I am unable to take this nonsense about Putin and democracy seriously any longer, and
especially so when we have to endure it from outlets such as the Guardian and the BBC.

In July 2013, the Egyptian military staged a coup d'etat which overthrew a democratically
elected Government: Obama did nothing, other than to insult the intelligence of ordinary
Americans by disregarding the Federal Laws that required him to cut off military and
other forms of aid to democracy-suppressing regimes; the BBC did nothing, other than to
have the now disgraced former Prime Minister Blair on the Radio 4 Today programme
justifying the actions of al-Sisi and the Generals (and he followed this up with an article in
this very newspaper where he did the same thing); and the UN did nothing, other than to
arrange to have Ms Yousafzai mouth some empty platitudes about girls' education in
some children's forum at the headquarters of this tawdry and discredited institution. The
BBC and the EU and the other usual suspects whipped up dissent in the Ukraine in order
to bring about the overthrow of the lawful - and elected - government, and thereby
plunge that unhappy country into internal conflict akin to a civil war. As for the United
States, Hillary Clinton and her henchpersons in the DNC did a lot of chicanery to ensure
that Senator Sanders was denied the opportunity to go up against Donald Trump in the
November 2016 presidential election. We in the UK are even being sold the lie that Putin
swung the vote for Brexit in June 2016, although quite how he is supposed to have done
this is something that no one bothers to explain. All in all, the hypocrisy is appalling: so
perhaps we should just shut about it, and attend, here in the UK, to the problems
attaching to the failed and failing state that is our own country.

avenir 8h ago

So the guardian's Mi6 assets still want regime change. Im sure they'll supply you with a
rifle a one-way ticket to Finland and cooperation of a US multi billionaire nutcase to help.

Oops that's the plot of billion dollar brain.

fragglerokk

Oh Simon! such hyperbole. There are many (and regular) independent polls conducted by
western polling firms and not one of them gets less than 80% support at home for Putin.
This kind of silly sabre rattling just diminishes the impact of anything the Guardian has to
say on Russia. Navalny is a no hoper and polling over the whole of Russia will be lucky to
get 5%, he'll fare better in Moscow but nowhere near enough. He's just another western
backed stooge, a stalking horse for the wests babe in arms Khordokovsky, sat patiently
waiting in Berlin. How about an in depth report on why Putin has ratings western leaders
would die for and how he manages to maintain them over such a long period? Something
interesting and meaningful not just the ill informed, alarmist pap that comes out of the
foreign office, the armed forces and govt backed 'institutes' like RUSI.

Comments

Jim Scott says February 12, 2018

The outstanding feature of the MSM and particularly the modern Guardian is that it will not under any circumstance allow an alternative view to be put by the pro Syrian side of the argument. They would not dare allow Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley to use their own voices to reply to the fact free claims of Guardian journalists who happily promote the views of the terrorists through the perspective of the White Helmets and the UK based Muslim Brotherhood man who calls himself the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Can anyone recall the Guardian talking to the majority Syrian citizens who want Assad as President and who are not in terrorist controlled areas. There are many Syrians who have become refugees due to the illegal invasion but who never get interviewed, only the Al Qaeda terrorists get a voice.
This is today's Guardian a mish mash of propaganda, populism! and salacious click bait, while heavily restricting discussion on important issues. Shame on these cowardly traitors of truth.
Alan says February 10, 2018
Does Mr Tisdall claim to be a journalist as I see no evidence of this, unless being employed by a state organ qualifies one for such?
MichaelK says February 9, 2018
I have real Russians in my large and extended family, and they all admire and pretty much adore Putin, especially after the shameful years typified by Yeltsin.

One of the amusing things about Russia, is that the leadership have discovered and understood that they don't need to produce 'propaganda' about the West, like the old Soviets did, all they need to do is tell the truth about the West and use openly available western sources; which is somewhat ironic.

As an aside, sorry; I've just watched the movie 'Kill the Messenger' about the journalist Gary Webb who wrote a series of articles linking the CIA with gun-running and drug-running on a massive scale in the 1970's. Webb's
story, unfortunately, was to big to tell and the rest of the quality press turned on him and basically destroyed him and his career. What struck me about the movie was how closely Webb's story, what happened to him, the reaction of the rest of the press to his staggering revelations about massive criminality at the heart of government, echoes the way Assange has been savaged by the Guardian and the rest of them. Webb, like Assange became the story, diverting attention away from the information they gathered and released. There are so many parallels between what happened to Webb and the way Assange's reputation has been undermined and how both of them were taken 'out of circulation.'

In the movie Webb says that he was never fired by an editor and never told what to write because nothing he'd written really mattered or threatened any vested interests or powerful people or the state.

George Cornell says February 9, 2018
Simple Simon.
vexarb says February 9, 2018
Shock Poll: Most Countries Prefer Putin Over Trump – Forbes
https://www.forbes.com › 2017/08/16 › s

[I wanted t, present a similar global poll for PM May but could not find one]

vexarb says February 9, 2018
80% of Ukrainians would prefer Vovo to any of their current leaders.
https://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.globalresearch.ca/scandalous-poll-84-of-ukrainians-want-vladimir-putin-as-their-president/5556904&ved=2ahUKEwiC1ey8rZnZAhXJ5qQKHawDBWwQFjAAegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw1dJ8uM48Q5YLz033lQ05m1

Anyone done a poll in Britain?

mohandeer says February 9, 2018
Tisdale pukes lies and disinformation and Guardian readers choose not to swallow it – no wonder CiF was closed.
mohandeer says February 9, 2018
Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

Excellent

MichaelK says February 9, 2018
One of the things that irritates me about the 'liberal' Guardian is how they simply love to preach and moralize about well, almost everything everywhere, as if they and the West represent so kind of 'moral civilization' superior to everyone a 'progressive vanguard' with a mandate from providence to lead the world in the right direction in all things. They truly believe that they are both 'right' and 'good' and have a duty to help and save other countries and peoples from their backwardness, ignorance and darkness. The Guardian's writers are innocent, to a degree that's staggering as well as being incredibly dangerous, because, fundamentally they are self-delusional and soaked in a form of 'liberal imperialist' dogmatism and faith that's been the mainstay of western thinking and beliefs for centuries, and allowed us to justify crimes we've committed on a vast global scale, wiping entire countries and civilizations off the map, holocaust after holocaust after holocaust. And now, since the fall of Soviet Russia we've been on a roll smashing state after state and leaving a great swathe of mass-destruction and mass-slaughter behind our military juggernaut, which the fools at the Guardian honestly believe isn't a giant killing machine covered in body parts and gore, red and monsterous to behold; but a gleaming, white ambulance covered in peace signs and slogans about 'peace' 'love' and 'human rights'.
shaksvshav says February 9, 2018
It is difficult to believe that crude and crazy Western propaganda convinces anyone in Russia: https://thesaker.is/re-visiting-russian-counter-propaganda-methods/
People here must by now be finding it increasingly tiresome and predictable.
jdseanjd says February 9, 2018
" Control the Media"
" Ruin the youth with sex & drugs"

These are 2 of the 25 points in a strategy for world domination drawn up by Adam Weishaupt, ex Jesuit professor of canon law, in 1773 for the Rothschilds Banksters.

This is dealt with in William Guy Carr's 1955 book: Pawns in the Game.
I first saw this book referenced in a 1 hr 4 mins youtube video by Ted L. Gunderson. Worth the hour.
Put in youtube search box: Ex Head of FBI Tells All.

John Doran.

MichaelK says February 9, 2018
I think it's a sign of terminal decline when the leading members of a ruling elite begin, seemingly and in public, to act like they actually believe in their own propaganda, regardless of how far it is from reality and truth.

They keep sermonizing like religious fanatics and they're increasingly dogmatic and aggressive in their utterances, clinging to their beliefs no matter what.

That there's more actual evidence that there was far more 'stealing' and 'rigging' in the last US presidential elections, especially inside the Democratic Party, doesn't bother them at all. That the US has a system that structurally allows electoral 'stealing' on a vast scale, where the will and votes of the people can be overturned and the candidate with the most votes 'loses', doesn't register with them. And what about the UK? Here magically a party with only 42% of the votes cast in an election, can be transformed into a powerful government with a huge majority over all the other parties combined! And this happens over and over again. 42% becomes a 'landslide' and a 'mandate' from the electorate, and this is called 'democracy' and gives us the right to lecture everyone else and the Russians?!

Jen says February 8, 2018
' "For years," the [US Senate minority report] said, "Vladimir Putin's government has engaged in a relentless assault to undermine democracy and the rule of law in Europe and the US. Mr Putin's Kremlin employs an asymmetric arsenal that includes military invasions, cyber-attacks, disinformation, support for fringe political groups, and the weaponisation of energy resources, organised crime, and corruption" '

Dear Mr Tisdall, are you sure the people who researched and compiled that report weren't hired hacks from Hollywood who normally write scripts for science fiction movies?

Has anyone else noticed that the arsenal Moscow supposedly employs to undermine democracy and the rule of law in Europe and the US is the very same arsenal (plus more, such as using other countries' impeachment laws to get rid of Presidents the US doesn't like, as in Brazil in 2016) that the US uses to erode and weaken democracy and stability across the world including Europe?

jdseanjd says February 9, 2018
Pots & Kettles Projection?
You have to wonder what they've got on him to make him put out such insane drivel?
John Doran.
Mikalina says February 8, 2018
"obviously rigged poll" – er, Honduras?

"screams of outrage from the West" – er, whimpers of 'where's that?' AND – isn't that where we sent an awful lot of electronic surveillance equipment to help that nice man we got into government last time?

You know, the one that let's us use the country for a military base – sopoooo strategically useful. Was a little worried there that closing down the computers when the opposition was obviously winning was a tad blatant, but, no.

That nice man has been endorsed by US and UN. Oh, you are worried about the UN delegation investigating the election fraud, er, sorry, result? One's from Guatemala, one's from El Salvador and one's from, yes, of course, the US. No problems there. I don't think anyone's reporting the riots in the streets, the protest marches and the 30 dead. Result.

Mikalina says February 8, 2018
Boris Johnson or Sergei Lavrov? End of .
rtj1211 says February 8, 2018
The easiest way to dismember this nonsense is to talk to ten real Russians. Real Russians were seriously alarmed by the 'nuke Russia' Hillarybilly psycho nonsense in 2016, not because they seriously believed it, but they worried that in a mad world, could they easily disregard it? Amazingly enough, real Russian people who hope to have babies do not want depleted uranium in their neighbourhoods.

These ordinary Russians have no interest in invading eastern Europe, bombing America and really have no desire for war with Ukraine. They are interested in things like going out with friends, having a nice holiday, meeting interesting people, finding a partner to marry and raise a family with. They are, in other words, exceedingly normal people.

They do not take kindly being told that the man they desire as President does not represent them. I can say with certainty that President Putin represents Russians considerably more diligently than the Washington patsies found in Western European offices of state. If I were a Russian citizen, I would vote for him, despite him not being either Jesus Christ MkII nor a drunken puppet of Western bankers.

As a UK citizen, I do not expect President Putin to agree to win-lose deals with the UK, his job as Russian President is to ensure that dodgy UK charlatans do not screw his country something chronic. I would consider him amenable to deals which benefits both parties. Watch Washington try and trash anything like that .

Mercifully, Russians take little notice of UK media. Hopefully they realise that fewer and fewer Brits do either

MichaelK says February 8, 2018
What I find grotesque, bizarre and frightening is the attitude of the journalists in relation to grooming the public to support war, as if they won't end up frying too like everyone else! They reallys seem immune to rational thought and the dangers of demonizing Russia and the seemingly inexorable momentum towards WW3. Do they believe they'll escape the nuclear holocaust 'cause they write for the Guardian? The way they appear to think is truly frightening and underneath the brittle liberal gloss their extraordinarily reactionary too. They are all, basically, neoconservatives with a dreadful, sanctimonious tone that's insufferably smug. They love putting their virtue on display and preen themselves like peacocks.
Don DeBar says February 9, 2018
I honestly think they are so ignorant of history, politics and human behavior generally that they cannot make the connection of cause to effect. They aren't afraid of being fried because it hasn't occurred to them that such a thing is even possible. It's pretty slow-going in the minds of the folks who live in imperially privileged fantasy-land.
Harry Stotle says February 8, 2018
Not just Gallup, The Pew Research Centre found high levels of confidence (amongst Russian citizens) in Putins leadership.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/20/president-putin-russian-perspective/

But as we all know, the Guardian long ago abandoned fact based journalism – its one of the reasons so many articles are evicerated BTL.

By the way, which leader is Tisdall referring to?
Does he seriously expect the laughing stock of Europe, or at least her own party, Theresa May, to make weighty pronouncements about a sovereign leader who enjoys the kind of national goodwill she can only dream about?

In contrast I can hardly wait for Zoe Williams next bout of tabloid style sycophancy for the horrific HRC.

The Cad says February 8, 2018
Odd that his diatribe against Russian elections is a description of British ones.
MichaelK says February 8, 2018
The Guardian is actually getting worse and worse when covering foreign policy and especially the West's official enemies, who are slammed in the dock, with the charges shouted at them, but rarely, if ever allowed to come with a word in their defence or even the opportunity to deny the charges or protest their innocence.

Let's face it, the western media is grooming the public for the next war WW3, yet the hacks at the Guardian seem strangely and frighteningly sanguine about the prospect. I often wonder, just how stupid does one have to be to write for the Guardian these days?

Don DeBar says February 9, 2018
Q. – "how stupid does one have to be to write for the Guardian these days?"
A. – Very.
Paul says February 8, 2018
The Guardian joins the BBC in attacks of all sorts on Russia, China and Syria. The BBC has been giving almost daily reports of child deaths in Gouta while never mentioning the mortar bombs that go the other way, unguided, into resedential areas of Damascus. No mention either of mass child deaths in Yemen which is being treated like a WW2 ghetto. The same goes for Idlip. Alongside such slanted coverage we also have the "analysts" who assure us "Yes! The Russians really are after our guts for garters. Believe me Old Boy!" The "experts" have never been more obviously run by the MoD, some are right out of the bunker. The recent intensity of this avalanche of propaganda suggests things are being geared up in preparation for War. Maybe there is something they haven't told us, like the date?
The Guardian has swung hard Right and can never recover it's reputation. Thank Goodness for sites like this!!
Captain Kemlo says February 8, 2018
Tried to read the original article but foundered after a few paragraphs. It wasn't so much the (de haut en bas) tone but the evidence free content. Tisdall is almost unreadable anyway.
argonut says February 8, 2018
You were fortunate not to reach the comments. Albion has become an albatross
Admin says February 8, 2018
There were lot of the usual – and possibly to some extent astroturf – Russophobic comments, but many intelligent ones as well. And, as Catte says, the latter tended to get more up-votes. And that is allowing for the moderator censorship.
argonut says February 9, 2018
I don't know. Apart from very few, I found the bulk of the comments initially infuriating but ultimately depressing. A disgraceful article, whose putrescence certainly drew the zombies – the guardian readership these days. I've abandoned it, and visit only on occasion, eg when highlighted by 'you'. The sooner its demise the better. Regards, an ex-pat who subscribed to the guardian for 15 yrs (20 yrs ago)
Francis Lee says February 10, 2018
The only Journos in the Graun that were ever worth reading were Jonathan Steele and Seamus Milne. Since their departure we are now left with cossetted, fanatical hacks from the Ministry of Truth telling us what to think. There is not a smidgen of compromise, diplomacy, or God forbid, 'peace' as an option from this chorus of jihadist neo-cons seemingly spoiling for a war.

Perhaps the only exception comes in the shape of Peter Hitchens who writes for the Mail on Sunday who adopts a high-Tory realist persective: namely, that war, particularly nuclear war, is bad and should be avoided at all costs, and it is not a good or even legal policy to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign states.

Oh, how utterly passe, intone the soi-disant enlightened ones. Now doubt we should – they have – adopted the position in International Relations as outlined by Mr Francis 'end of history' Fukuyama.

"Dictators and human rights abusers like Serbia's Milosevic could not hide behind the principle of sovereignty to protect themselves as they committed crimes against humanity, particularly in the multi-ethnic states like Yugoslavia where the borders of the sovereign state in question were themselves contested, under these circumstances outside powers, acting in the name of human rights and democratic legitimacy, had not just the right but the OBLIGATION to intervene." Yep, 'White Man's Burden' circa 1995.

I don't suppose it was of any import than Milosevic was acquitted of these 'crimes' by the International Court after his death in prison from a heart attack. But simply consider the sanctimonious bluster above and remember the old axiom, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions ' though truth to tell I am not convinced about the goodness or otherwise of the intentions.

There is a particular passage in Orwell's 1984 where Winston Smith and two of his co-workers are having their lunch when they overhear a defender of the faith describing the party's role in the elimination of the enemies of Oceania. From a nearby table a party member – like our Guardian journos – holds forth "what was horrible was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth, it was almost impossible to distinguish one word. Just once Winston caught a phrase -complete and final elimination of Goldsteinsim – jerked out very rapidly , and as it seemed, all in one piece all like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking "

Winston's intellectual colleague sitting at the same table was wont to comment.

"There is a word in Newspeak' said Syme 'I don't know whether you know it: it is duckspeak, to quack like a duck. Applied to an opponent it is abusive, applied to someone you agree with it is praise"

Unquestionably Syme would be vaporised. (1984 p.62.63)

Prescient or what?

Duckspeak, the lingua franca of 'liberal journalists' – a group of propagandists not far from clinical schizophrenia

[ edited by Admin for typo ]

[Feb 15, 2018] Russia In the Crosshairs by Paul Craig Roberts

that would be nice if the state capable to put the USA in place exists. But such state does not exist and we need to be content with this fact. The period of wnjoying "sole superpower" status which started in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR will not end probably until we run out of cheap oil. Russia currently is way too weak to confront the USA and NATO allies in Syria. So she needs to suffer, while trying to preserve gains of Assad government.
I think Russia realizes that Washington is not a rational government with which diplomacy can be practiced, peace pursued, and agreements reached.
As the author stated earlier : " With the public in its pocket, the military/security complex will increase its reckless provocations of Russia until we are all dead."
Notable quotes:
"... Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington's illegal occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete and total violation of international law, and Israel's continual attacks on Syria. ..."
"... Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all UN action against Washington's illegality. http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/u-s-not-globally-condemned-military-occupation-syria/ ..."
"... But the question is, when will Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington? Washington's interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel's hegemony in the Middle East. ..."
"... Lendman makes the point that "As long as Russia maintains the myth of partnership with Washington instead of giving Washington a taste of its own medicine . . . conflict will likely continue escalating." https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-blasts-us-attack-on-syrian-and-allied-forces/5628740 ..."
"... Either Russia is unsure of its power or Putin is prevented from using Russia's power by the treasonous Atlanticist Integrationists who constitute Washington's Fifth Column inside the Russian government and economy. It is a mystery why Putin tolerates a small handful of traitors who have minimal public support while the West and Israel become daily more aggressive against Russian national interests. ..."
"... Putin sensibly avoids escalating a situation, but one gets the impression that there are constraints on Putin's ability to stand up to Washington. The Saker identifies the problem as the pro-Washington "Atlanticist Integrationists" who for personal career reasons, personal business reasons, and because they are supported by Washington-financed NGOs and media inside Russia, have sold out Russian sovereignty to globalism. ..."
"... This entire conflict, primed to grow in intensity, could have been stopped by Putin acknowledging the same overwhelming majority vote as occured in Crimea and reincorporating the provinces in Russia. The nazi government of Ukraine even with Washington and EU's support is not so completely insane that it would attack Russia and expect to continue to exist. ..."
Feb 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Defending the latest round of US/Israeli aggression against Syria, US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert struck a Hitlerian note when she blamed Syria and Iran for an act of overt Israeli aggression, saying "The United States . . . strongly supports Israel's sovereign right to defend itself," and when she lied that "Iran's malign activities" and "calculated escalation of threat and its ambition to project its power and dominance places all people in the region at risk." https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201802111061547754-state-department-syria-israel-escalation/

Adolf Hitler covered his "projection of power and dominance" and his invasion of Poland with the same blatant lies that Washington and Israel use to cover their aggressions. Hitler claimed that Polish forces had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. That is the excuse used by Israel and its puppets in the White House and Pentagon that blames Iran for Israel's attack on Syria. When Washington and Israel are shameless in their lies, why does Russia think they are "partners" with whom agreements can be reached?

Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington's illegal occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete and total violation of international law, and Israel's continual attacks on Syria. Washington's continuing support for war against the legitimate government of Syria and support for Israeli and terrorist attacks on Syrian and Russian forces are undermining Russia's efforts to bring peace to the region. Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all UN action against Washington's illegality. http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/u-s-not-globally-condemned-military-occupation-syria/

Zuesse is correct. But is the continuation of Washington's campaign against Syria and Russia largely the fault of Russia? Stephen Lendman makes a case that it is Russia's fault. https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-blasts-us-attack-on-syrian-and-allied-forces/5628740

Why? It appears to be the case that the Russian government is so anxious for Western approval that it ends its successful military campaigns before the job is finished. It was Putin himself who declared "victory" in Syria and withdrew some of the Russian military before clearing all of Syria of foreign and jihadist occupation, thus leaving in place US beachheads for renewing the conflict.

It couldn't have taken more than two more weeks for Russia and Syria to liberate all of Syria from the US backed jihadists, but apparently Russia was afraid to annoy Washington that much and to risk contact with US personnel, even though Russia is in Syria legally under international law and the US is present illegally.

Again trusting to international law, the UN, and "our Western partners," Russia quit prematurely. As Lendman says, the complaints by Zakharova, Lavrov, Russian Defense Ministry spokesmen, and Putin himself are based in absolute fact. But the question is, when will Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington? Washington's interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel's hegemony in the Middle East.

Lendman makes the point that "As long as Russia maintains the myth of partnership with Washington instead of giving Washington a taste of its own medicine . . . conflict will likely continue escalating." https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-blasts-us-attack-on-syrian-and-allied-forces/5628740

Lendman might be correct judging by the reported heavy Israeli attacks on Syria on February 10 after Syrian air defences damaged Israel's image of invincibility by shooting down one of Israel's US-supplied war planes that was attacking Syria and reports that the conflict might be escalating and involving Iran. RT reports that the Kremlin is worried that the de-escalation zones are threatened and that Putin got on the telephone with Netanyahu urging restraint.

All of my life US presidents have been urging restraint on Israel to no effect whatsoever. Putin's urges will have no more effect, unless Putin takes the card from Lendman's playbook and tells the war criminal Netanyahu who heads the illegal Israeli state, which is based on land stolen at bayonet point from Palestinians, that any more of this and Russia will take Israel out. Lendman thinks that no other way of talking to the crazed zionist state, or to Washington, will have any effect, and history seems to be on Lendman's side. http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/syrian-air-defense-downs-israeli-f-16/ and http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/israel-escalates-aggression-syria/

Either Russia is unsure of its power or Putin is prevented from using Russia's power by the treasonous Atlanticist Integrationists who constitute Washington's Fifth Column inside the Russian government and economy. It is a mystery why Putin tolerates a small handful of traitors who have minimal public support while the West and Israel become daily more aggressive against Russian national interests.

Putin sensibly avoids escalating a situation, but one gets the impression that there are constraints on Putin's ability to stand up to Washington. The Saker identifies the problem as the pro-Washington "Atlanticist Integrationists" who for personal career reasons, personal business reasons, and because they are supported by Washington-financed NGOs and media inside Russia, have sold out Russian sovereignty to globalism. Putin, apparently, is unwilling or unable to move aside those who serve as Washington's check on Russian nationalism, which prevents any real Russian victory. If the "Atlanticist Integrationists" inside Putin's government are able to block more decisive responses, the question arises: how powerful, really, is Putin? Did Putin win Syria only to lose it to Washington and the Israelis? How can we imagine Putin, the head of a powerful state, on the telephone pleading with an Israeli war criminal who heads a tiny state? We know that Israel owns Washington, but does Israel own Russia also?

How many times did Putin announce victory in Syria, pull out, and then have to go back after Washington's forces had recuperated? Why does Putin refuse the reincorporation of the breakaway Russian provinces in Ukraine? He allowed Crimea back in because of the Russian naval base, but he has refused the Russian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Consequently, the Russian people in these provinces continue to be subject to attack, and Washington has now armed its Ukrainian nazi state with weapons to reconquer the breakaway republics.

This entire conflict, primed to grow in intensity, could have been stopped by Putin acknowledging the same overwhelming majority vote as occured in Crimea and reincorporating the provinces in Russia. The nazi government of Ukraine even with Washington and EU's support is not so completely insane that it would attack Russia and expect to continue to exist.

Putin can entirely end the Ukrainian conflict by accepting the former Russian provinces back into Russia. We can understand that Putin might be thinking long term, as were the Soviet leaders who put Russian populations into Ukraine, to balance the Ukrainian state with Russian populations so that the West cannot completely turn Ukraine, a historic part of Russia herself, into a completely hostile state against which more military forces must be directed. Clearly Putin is a long term strategic thinker, but Russia's fate and that of the rest of us will be decided in the short run.

We can also understand that Putin, by continuing to stress international law, is trying to bring Europe to the realization that Washington operates outside of and above law. Putin is wasting his time. For decades European leaders have been on Washington's payroll. They don't give a hoot about anything other than their bank balances.

The neoconservatives who rule in Washington believe that Putin's removal will restore Washington's hegemony over the world. They regard China as a country that will accept American leadership in exchange for riches. This is most likely a mistaken view of the Chinese government, but it serves to concentrate the attack on Russia, within whose government Washington has allies.

Can the Russian government successfully withstand Washington without Putin dispensing with the Atlanticist Integrationists?

I understand that the views expressed here might be wrong. Zuesse perhaps is wrong. Lendman is perhaps wrong. The Saker is perhaps wrong. And perhaps I am mistaken in my reading of them. No one should underestimate Putin. Nevertheless, Russia should be aware that she is perceived by neoconservative policymakers as a weak state lacking in courage that Washington, and even tiny Israel, can push around, as Washington has done since the collapse of the Soviet Union and as Israel is doing now in Syria. There is never any cost to Washington of blackening Russia's eyes and Russia's reputation. Russia's passivity is inviting nuclear war or Russian surrender.

Whether or not Russia wants to acknowledge it, Russia is in a fight for her life. There is evidence that top Russian leaders are unaware of this. Sergei Chemezov says that Russia is willing to sell Russia's S-400 anti-aircraft system to Washington so Washington can learn how to defeat it and catch up with Russian military technology. Unless Chemezov is making a joke, there is a problem in his perception of reality. http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/02/head-of-rostech-us-may-buy-russias-s.html

Putin damaged himself with people who have a moral conscience when he met with the criminal-in-chief of the Israeli state and treated Netanyahu as if he were not a war criminal who belonged on the scaffold but a world leader worthy of Russia's recognition. This act of folly deflated Putin's reputation as a leader who stood for moral outcomes and not merely for self-interested, negotiated outcomes.

The world needs a leader. The hopes were on Putin.

The America-worshipping Russian Atlanticist Ingegrationists must have many screws loose to want to be part of degenerate Western civilization:

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/02/08/sarah-silverman-i-want-to-eat-an-aborted-fetus/

https://www.infowars.com/journalist-calls-for-profs-to-drown-conservative-students/

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/little_barbies_sex_trafficking_of_young_girls_is_americas_dirty_little?utm_source=The+Rutherford+Institute&utm_campaign=8f8957d1fe-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d7ffde3304-8f8957d1fe-42135461

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/02/08/boys-silent-victims-sex-trafficking/1073799001/

[Feb 15, 2018] How The Deep State Stopped Better Relations With Russia by Robert W. Merry

Feb 14, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .

OF COURSE there's a Deep State. Why wouldn't there be? Even a cursory understanding of human nature tells us that power corrupts, as Lord Acton put it; that, when power is concentrated and entrenched, it will be abused; that, when it is concentrated and entrenched in secrecy, it will be abused in secret. That's the Deep State.

James Burnham saw it coming. The American philosopher and political theorist (1905–87), first a Trotskyist, then a leading conservative intellectual, wrote in 1941 that the great political development of the age was not the battle between communism and capitalism. Rather, it was the rise of a new "managerial" class gaining dominance in business, finance, organized labor and government. This gathering managerial revolution, as he called it, would be resisted, but it would be impervious to adversarial counteractions. As the managerial elites gained more and more power, exercised often in subtle and stealthy ways, they would exercise that power to embed themselves further into the folds of American society and to protect themselves from those who might want to bust them up.

Nowhere is this managerial elite more entrenched, more powerful and more shrouded in secrecy than in what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, augmented by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. That's where America's relentless drive for global hegemony meshes with defense manufacturers only too willing to provide the tools of dominance.

Now we have not only a standing army, with hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready, as in Cold War days. We have also permanent wars, nine of them in progress at the moment and not one with what could even remotely be called proper congressional approval. That's how power gets entrenched, how the managerial revolution gains ever greater force and how the Deep State endures.

Few in the general public know what really happened with regard to the allegations of Trump campaign "collusion" with Russia, or how the investigation into those troubling allegations emerged. But we know enough to know we have seen the Deep State in action.

We know that U.S. agencies released an "Intelligence Community Assessment" saying that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of embarrassing Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency. But we also know that it wasn't really a National Intelligence Assessment (a term of art denoting a particular process of expansive intelligence analysis) but rather the work of a controlled task force. As Scott Ritter, the former Marine intelligence officer and arms-control official, put it , "This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia NIA casts a shadow over the viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and judgments contained within." Besides, the document was long on assertion and short on evidence. Even the New York Times initially derided the report as lacking any "hard evidence" and amounting "essentially . . . to 'trust us.'"

[Feb 15, 2018] Russophobia a Futile Bid to Conceal US, European Decline by Finian Cunningham

Feb 14, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems.

Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are only hastening their institutional demise.

Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances.

The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.

This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep spinning.

Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of "Russiagate" interference as "fake news" , he has at other times undermined himself by subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in December.

Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that "devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by "weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based news outlets like RT and Sputnik.

Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media figures.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later this year.

On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious Russian assault to bring about collapse.

A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together."

Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic institutions. It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as well."

Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact" .

It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.

He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning."

As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".

The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."

It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed foreign enemy.

There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance, politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.

Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and institutions need to take a look in the mirror.

The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.

The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?

How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?

Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting austerity.

The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference".

Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is the enemy?

Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity, eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."

Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic process against Trump.

Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?

The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by " RT "

Cathi · 4 hours ago

Anyone who believes MSM is totally indoctrinated since it has been proven over and over that they won't tell the truth of the matter. The only REAL thing this country supplies or produces is war. Most other industries have been outsourced and given subsidies to so, thus taking American jobs from our lives. And now they want to take Social Security and Medicare to PAY for our military buildup????
Jim P · 3 hours ago
This nation needs a complete chage. All Congress and Dual citizens must be removed!
vicenr · 4 hours ago
It is without a doubt true that the political class and their oligharchic owners are falling and falling fast. They need a war to sustain their enrichment and attempted control of the world. They have run out of potential victims , while on the home front the naive Amrikan is starting to reject their nonsense. They can't really afford to take on China as they could easily dump their US treasuries and sink the financing arrangements for a war. They would like to stop the OBOR ; but how? Ah Russia. Smaller population but lethal in central Europe and perhaps beyond. Good geographic position for cutting OBOR. After all why would anyone be allowed to put in such a mega project and not let the US oligharchic class control it?
Woopy · 3 hours ago
A big part of the problem with Washington DC is that they are ruled by the Rothschild oligarchs and function first and foremost for Rothschild interests such as Israel and other Rothschild programs. Washington is not focused on the states it was designed to serve. Rothschild's and other oligarchs, fascists and the like control Washington crippling them. Countries like China, Russia are making their own destinies while Washington languishes and dissolves under a Rothschild fascist flag.
the_chump · 3 hours ago
"Intel chief: Federal debt poses 'dire threat' to national security"

The above was the title to an article in The Hill, yesterday. The comment was attributed to Dan Coates, DNI in testimony to Congress. To me, since elected officials CREATE the federal debt, what the DNI is REALLY saying is that the elected officials are a dire threat to national security. Their spending and fake borrowing from the Federal Reserve is the threat-not Syria, Yemen, or other countries that have not attacked the US. The elected officials, both Democrat and Republicans are on the way to destroying the US. Not Russia, China, ISIS, or international terrorism.

Eric · 2 hours ago
I recently read a horrifying commentary by John Whitehead on the burgeoning sex trade in this country where young girls are abducted and sold for sexual favors to deviants in every major city in the US. Many of these girls are as young a three and four years old, and the average age of these victims is 13! Thousands of missing children end up as sex slaves and are forced to be with as many as 40 men a night.

This great evil has become extremely lucrative, and numerous monsters, both men, and women are reaping billions of dollars from the unspeakable crime of destroying children's lives, not only physically, but mentally and spiritually as well.

The West has reached a new level of rottenness. Moral decay is actively gnawing at the very fabric of our society. The Cabal and its rampant criminality in Washington is a reflection of this terrible decline we are witnessing around us.

The hypocritical cry and hue from our government officials about the terrible human rights abuses in other countries as they seek to deflect the attention away from their own criminality and murderous abuses at home and abroad is indeed sickening.

Ray Joseph Cormier 84p · 1 hour ago
UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1961. He dared speak Truth to the Power. His quote from over 60 years ago is so relevant to what is going on Today. It has spread like never before to affect the judgments of the Politicians, the news media, and the Public.

-The Assembly has witnessed over the last weeks how historical truth is established; once an allegation has been repeated a few times, it is no longer an allegation, it is an established fact, even if no evidence has been brought out in order to support it.

American propaganda is scapegoating Russia to absolve Americans of responsibility for creating their own political divisions.

Observing from CanaDa, this anti-Russia/Putin Propaganda is confirming this Vision of the Future published 41 years ago.

On September 13, 1976, the major daily THE KANSAS CITY TIMES published this Vision of the FUTURE: "He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the election in November TO DO GOD'S BIDDING: To tell the world, from Kansas City, this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered [...] He gestured toward a gleaming church dome. "The gold dome is the symbol of Babylon," he said." [...] He wanted to bring to the Public's attention an "idea being put out subtly and deceptively" by the government that we have to get prepared for a war with Russia.

It's taken over 40 years, but that 1976 FUTURE is NOW with the Revelation of the details GENERALLY unfolding in the spirit of the letter. The World is finally waking up to see Trump just may hasten "its days are numbered" part of the 1976 Public record.

Ray Joseph Cormier 84p · 1 hour ago
The KANSAS CITY TIMES did a follow up report on ALL SOULS DAY, November 2, 1976. When the TV movie 'THE DAY AFTER' Kansas City was incinerated in a Nuclear Holocaust appeared in 1983, most likely, I was the only Human on Earth, including the newspaper reporters, to note at the END, the movie pauses at the very same picture frame THE KANSAS CITY TIMES chose for the ALL SOULS DAY record 7 years earlier.

Any way you look at it, that HISTORICAL FACT is a confirming SIGN for our Generations, the World has arrived at this point of Decision, of an "idea being put out subtly and deceptively" by the government that we have to get prepared for a war with Russia."
Multitudes! Multitudes in the Valley of Decision. The Day of the LORD IS NEAR in the Valley of Decision.

Not many will recognize, "this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered" as the 1st two parts, of the 3 part 'Writing on the Wall" from Daniel 5 and the Captivity of Babylon some 2600 years ago. The whole world saw The Writing on the Wall for the 1st TIME at the same TIME, with the Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour in September of 2008, even if the world does not recognize it as such.

The 3rd part of the Writing on the Wall tells of the decline of Babylon, the 1st Biblical model of the Nation that reaches Imperial Military-Economic Superpower Status, and the rise of Persia

Ancient Babylon is now Iraq, and ancient Persia is now Iran.

The US is the latest, greatest of all the Nations reaching Imperial Military-Economic Superpower Status in the 2600 year old Biblical Babylonian superstructure.

The TAIL struck the HEAD, causing the unravelling of the Earthly Babylonian superstructure and infrastructure, ushering in the Law of the Jungle to the Middle East and this World.

The Iranian Revolution happened in 1979, 2-1/2 years after the record in the 1976 KANSAS CITY TIMES Timeline.

All the chaos in the Middle East since then, including the carnage in Syria, is the consequence of the vain attempt to reverse that God ordained, repeat of History, as a SIGN for our Generations.
http://ray032.com/2013/09/01/signs-of-the-times/

refirex · 55 minutes ago
https://warsclerotic.com/2017/01/07/cartoons-and-...
Take Placid · 43 minutes ago
Bulldoze them Georgia Guidestones.
Erase that Denver Airport Artwork.
Send Lady Liberty back to France.
Neandertals, behaving badly.
Stars and Stripes gilded cheap pennant should be changed to Skull n Bones.
Guest99 · 5 minutes ago
What the U.S. political and Deep State accused of Russia today is exactly what they themselves have done to much of the world. Entire Wikipedia is not big enough to write about the dirty tricks of the CIA and NSA.

Russia of course has no need to do what was accused. But they are surely laughing at being accused. Indeed, keep the accusation coming. The more the accusations, the longer they last, the more sure Russia know the corrupt terror empires of the west are going down.

Without firing a single shot. Now isn't that funny? Just ask the Chinese!

[Feb 15, 2018] Dutch FM Admits Lying About Putin - Russia

Feb 15, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

February 14, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - Every empire needs a scary external threat, led by a singular menacing villain, to justify its massive military expenditures, consolidation of authoritarian powers, and endless wars. For the five decades after the end of World War II, Moscow played this role perfectly. But the fall of Soviet Union meant, at least for a while, that the Kremlin could no longer sustain sufficient fear levels. After some brief, largely unsuccessful auditions for possible replacements -- Asian actors like China and a splurging Japan were considered -- the post-9/11 era elevated a cast of Muslim understudies to the starring role: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and "jihadism" generally kept fear alive.

The lack of any 9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S. (or any Western) soil for the past 17 years, along with the killing of a pitifully aged, ailing bin Laden and the erosion of ISIS, has severely compromised their ongoing viability as major bad guys. So now -- just as a film studio revitalizes a once-successful super-villain franchise for a new generation of moviegoers -- we're back to the Russians occupying center stage.

That Barack Obama spent eight years (including up through his final year-end news conference) mocking the notion that Russia posed a serious threat to the U.S. given their size and capabilities, and that he even tried repeatedly to accommodate and partner with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is of no concern: In the internet age, "2016" is regarded as ancient history, drowned out by an endless array of new threats pinned by a united media on the Russkie Plague. Moreover, human nature craves a belief in an existential foreign threat because it confers a sense of purpose and cause, strengthens tribal unity and identity, permits scapegoating, shifts blame for maladies from internal to external causes, and (like religion) offers a simplifying theory for understanding a complex world.

One of the prime accusations sustaining this script is that the Kremlin is drowning the West in "fake news" and other forms of propaganda. One can debate its impact and magnitude, but disinformation campaigns are something the U.S., Russia, and countless other nations have done to one another for centuries, and there is convincing evidence that Russia does this sort of thing now. But evidence of one threat does not mean that all claimed threats are real, nor does it mean that that tactic is exclusively wielded by one side.

Over the past year, there have been numerous claims made by Western intelligence agencies, mindlessly accepted as true in the Western press, that have turned out to be baseless, if not deliberate scams. Just today, it was revealed that Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra lied when he claimed he was at a meeting with Putin, in which the Russian president "said he considered Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic states as part of a 'Greater Russia.'"

"Fake news" is certainly something to worry about when it emanates from foreign adversaries, but it is at least as concerning and threatening, if not more so, when emanating from one's own governments and media. And there are countless, highly significant examples beyond today's of such propaganda that emanates from within.

... ... ...

If there's any lesson that should unite everyone in the West, it's that the greatest skepticism is required when it comes to government and media claims about the nature of foreign threats. If we're going to rejuvenate a Cold War, or submit to greater military spending and government powers in the name of stopping alleged Russian aggression, we should at least ensure that the information on which those campaigns succeed are grounded in fact. Even a casual review of the propaganda spewing forth from Western power centers over the last year leaves little doubt that the exact opposite is happening.

This article was originally published by " The Intercept "

Zeesso 101p · 4 hours ago

Russia accusations are a false flag!!-No evidence-Zero NADA!!
Rather than Russia how about Mossad false flags??!
More likely .............and the silence is deafening.......... at theZionist owned MSMs in the USA!!!!
Dollars to Doughnuts-Israel is the perpetrator
Invictus · 2 hours ago
I suppose I am too naive to understand the
hysteria and indignation that claims of Russia
Interference in the 2016 american electoral process garners.
The US openly calls for regime change in Syria. Hung Saddam
Hussein after a show trial. Arranged Muammar Gaddafi's sodomization
and assassination.
Do americans not realize that in levelling the accusation that Putin-Russia
successfully subverted the US electoral process that you are conceding that Russia has the power to subjugate (bring under domination or control, especially by conquest.) the US electoral process, its government, institutions and public perception.
If americans are going to continue to make this outlandish claim for which no evidence has yet to be produced then Putin's Russia must be recognized as the world hegemon and the indispensable- Exceptional nation. What does that do to the narrative of the "shining city set upon a hill".
The US is blinded by its own conceit.
fudmier · 1 hour ago
Frankly, what I have seen in the past 20 years, the people in San Francisco might be better off under Russian federation management than it has been under the selected, elected, salaried, privileged 527 USA neo clowns who manage Americans in America. At least the Russians might not give USA money to foreigners, prevent Americans from drilling their own gas and oil, tax Americans so the USA can give the tax revenues to the corporations, and send American jobs and educational knowledge to far away places; as the NEO CLOWN management has done.

My personal experience with Russia people with whom I have worked is they are just exactly like Americans, quite a bit better educated, may be a little more honest.. so the question becomes under which managing government would 340,000,000 Americans be better off: the Russian Federation or the 527 neocon-selected, media-elected, salaried, privileged USA neo clowns? Actually, i think both governments are in need of being better arranged to respond to the needs and intentions of their people instead of using those they govern to satisfy the Oligarchs.

beanhead001 102p · 1 hour ago
"9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S." a self-inflicted "catastrophic attack". Perhaps the USI should quit murdering people at home and abroad... maybe that way some semblence of symathy could be mustered up.
Oh and the "shooter" in Florida.. notuce it's not a "terrorist"? So this kid was a "shooter". Pfft. Call it what it is. He was and is a terrorist. Treat him as one would treat the invented funded and propped up "terrorists" abroad. Send the kid to 'Gitmo' (how i loathe that americanized word)

[Feb 14, 2018] I hope the Russians are aware of the utter ruthlessness of certain western countries, the US in particular.

Feb 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

harrylaw , Feb 14, 2018 6:34:07 AM | 74

I hope the Russians are aware of the utter ruthlessness of certain western countries, the US in particular. They are so determined to have regime change in Syria that they will lie and cheat to achieve that end, probably culminating in direct military attacks on Syrian forces west of the Euphrates on some phoney pretext or another.

Because Putin is aware of US aims it is beyond foolish to withdraw Russian forces as they have done in the past, in the vain hope that the US will reciprocate, the US do not behave like that, they see any withdrawal as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Make no mistake the US are in this for keeps, anyone who thinks otherwise will be killed just like those Russian contractors last week and the hundreds of Syrian troops killed because they posed a "so called threat" to deconfliction zones.

If the West can supply hundred's of billions worth of arms to the most repressive nations on earth [Saudi Arabia and Co, then surely the Russians should supply s400 anti aircraft missiles to the Syrians who are under threat of a military assault from the West in the event of a successful false flag chemical weapons attack by the Wests proxies[which they are working on now] If not, why not?

[Feb 14, 2018] Trump's Massive Giveaway to the Pentagon by Daniel Larison

Feb 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Judah Grunstein dubs Trump "the generals' president" because of his total capitulation to whatever the current and former generals around him want:

Trump's generals have instead gone back to the future, restoring the model of a U.S. military that faces no fiscal or strategic constraints, while preparing for a conflict -- a conventional war with either or both of its nuclear-armed big power competitors -- that is not just unlikely, but unwinnable.

While it is true that Trump voiced some objections to foreign wars long after they were over or when it was no longer very risky to do so, it is important to remember that he was always in favor of throwing more money at the military from the beginning of his campaign. He seized on the nonsense talking point that the military had been "depleted" under Obama, and he has continued to use it until now, and he made undoing the imaginary "depletion" one of the main planks of his platform. Since Trump is a militarist, and since he now comes from the more hawkish of the two parties, it was more or less a given that he would waste huge sums on higher military spending while agreeing to the policies favored by Mattis, McMaster, et al. Add to this his fetish for "strength" and "greatness," and you have a recipe for massive wasteful spending on weapons and programs that the U.S. doesn't need. When there are already Pentagon agencies losing track of how they spend hundreds of millions of dollars , throwing more money at a huge department with inadequate oversight is pure folly.

The increase in military spending that Trump has endorsed reflects his impulse to give the military whatever they want. In addition to being completely unnecessary, higher military spending will indulge the Pentagon in all its worst habits:

The Pentagon budget request for 2019 puts the military on a course of spending unmatched since the Reagan-era buildup, boosting the number of troops, warplanes and bombs, according to documents and analysts.

But, defense analysts say, the $716 billion spending plan risks flooding too much money into a Defense Department that may not spend it wisely.

"The risk is that when the budget is flowing freely, policy makers are usually reluctant to make hard choices," said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a non-partisan think tank.

"While this is not a record increase, it comes on top of a budget that was already higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup when adjusted for inflation [bold mine-DL]," Harrison said.

The fantasy claim that the military budget suffered significant reductions in the last decade has been one of the standard hawkish criticisms of the previous administration, and Trump takes that falsehood as gospel. The truth is that an already bloated military budget has continued to grow, and Trump proposes to make it grow even faster. Everyone in Washington was so desperate to have the generals rein in Trump that most of them never thought through what it meant for Trump to be the military's unthinking yes-man.

[Feb 14, 2018] President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements and especially oppose growing war-fever. ..."
"... Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond. ..."
"... Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction, there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction, there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order. ..."
Feb 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation, by James Petras - The Unz Review

President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China.

... .. ...

In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the vehicle to support the struggles. Women organized at some workplaces and gained better protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video evidence of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to restrain local police violence in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and political organizations; and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements and especially oppose growing war-fever.

Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond.

Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction, there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction, there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order.

[Feb 14, 2018] BuzzFeed Suing DNC For Proof They Were Hacked Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including "digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn " oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas company Joe Biden's son is on the board of). ..."
"... If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants," perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier. ..."
"... The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked? ..."
Feb 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

BuzzFeed is suing the cash-strapped Democratic National Committee (DNC) to force them to hand over information related to the "Steele Dossier" that might help the news outlet defend itself against a lawsuit lodged by a Russian businessman who was named in the document. Three separate lawsuits have been launched against BuzzFeed in connection to the January 11, 2017 publication of the dossier, which states that Russian tech executive Aleksej Gubarev used his web hosting companies to hack into the DNC's computer systems.

The dossier, without substantiation, said Gubarev's U.S.-based global web-hosting companies, XBT and Webzilla, planted digital bugs, transmitted viruses and conducted altering operations against the Democratic Party leadership.

While one key name in the dossier was blackened out by BuzzFeed, Gubarev's was not. He alleges that he was never contacted for comment, suffering reputational harm in the process. - Foreign Policy

As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including "digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.

Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn " oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas company Joe Biden's son is on the board of).

"As part of the discovery process, BuzzFeed is attempting to verify claims in the dossier that relate to the hacking of the DNC," said BuzzFeed spokesman Matt Mittenhal in a statement. "We're asking a federal court to force the DNC to follow the law and allow BuzzFeed to fully defend its First Amendment rights."

Last month, the DNC claimed that providing the requested information would expose the DNC's internal operations and harm the party politically (it's always someone else's fault, no?).

"If these documents were disclosed, the DNC's internal operations, as well as its ability to effectively achieve its political goals, would be harmed ," said DNC lawyers.

If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants," perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks.

Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier.

The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports Foreign Policy .

At FTI, Ferrante launched what's now been a months-long stealth effort chasing down documents and conducting interviews on the ground in various countries around the world. His team directed BuzzFeed lawyers to subpoena specific data and testimony from dozens of agencies or companies across the country and assembled a cyber ops war room to analyze that dat a, according to sources familiar with the work.

Considering that much of the Steele dossier came from a collaboration with high level Kremlin officials (a collusion if you will), one has to wonder exactly what channels Ferrante and FTI have tapped in order to access such information.

Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked?

[Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... One objective is to keep in place an anti-Russian policy. The coup's instigators want to prevent Trump from letting up on the pressure (sanctions) on Russia and from cooperating with Russia. The coup forces are all anti-Russia, and that serves to unite them. A second objective is to maintain the positions, power, and influence of the coup's seekers. ..."
"... This is a "seed crystal" coup. The model for the seed crystal coup is the Watergate scandal. The operational goal is to crystallize and solidify the disunited Trump opposition into a movement that has irresistible momentum. In much the same way that seed crystals can accelerate a phase change from liquid to solid, the coup perpetrators introduce reports, accusations, and leaks over time in order to create the impression that a widening scandal is occurring. Each component has no merit but the media accept them at face value and provide publicity that creates new adherents and coherence among the anti-Trump forces. The anti-Trump forces are anxious to replicate the success in getting Nixon to resign. ..."
"... The anti-Trump media are critical in this effort. The anti-Trump media keep up a drumbeat of anti-Trump reporting. They slant the news, manufacture stories, repeat them and create fake news. ..."
"... The media must paint Russia and Putin as enemies for this propaganda effort to succeed. The media provide a focal point that coordinates the coup's backers even if they never sit down and conspire with one another. Everyone can observe the media stories and through that the effects of their anti-Trump leaks, reports, and innuendos. This allows them to plan their next moves. ..."
"... Social media have played a role in uprisings during the Arab Spring. The same thing can happen in America. There is a host of groups who are anti-Trump on grounds other than Russia. They can coordinate through social media. These groups seek to de-legitimize Trump so as to maintain items on their agenda. Aides to Hillary Clinton's failed campaign are now piling on to the effort. ..."
"... Positing a coup attempt is the simplest and most comprehensive hypothesis that ties together and explains a host of known facts that we know have occurred. Being a model of events, it is imperfect; but it's better than no model because it still helps us to understand what's going on. We are not seeing a train of unconnected events that just happen to be anti-Trump. It is easier to understand it as a concerted effort going on to emasculate the Trump presidency and possibly see him replaced; and that effort is centered in the CIA. ..."
"... The second victim of the coup is Michael T. Flynn, who resigned as Trump's National Security Advisor after only three weeks in that post. Leaks of tapped phone calls showed that intelligence operatives were behind this shark attack ..."
"... Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis. ..."
Feb 21, 2017 | www.lewrockwell.com

Q. Will the coup succeed in removing Trump from office?

A. Not in its present form. It is currently destined to fail because the investigating agencies and enemies of Trump haven't found a smoking gun against him on the basis of Russian ties or influence. No one can prove that Trump is being controlled by Putin, and so he won't resign for that reason. The coup will peter out unless it comes up with new and more explosive anti-Trump material that's not obviously specious or doubtful as much of the current material is. Furthermore, Trump hasn't yet counterattacked and he has plenty of ammunition.

Q. What are the objectives of the coup?

A. One objective is to keep in place an anti-Russian policy. The coup's instigators want to prevent Trump from letting up on the pressure (sanctions) on Russia and from cooperating with Russia. The coup forces are all anti-Russia, and that serves to unite them. A second objective is to maintain the positions, power, and influence of the coup's seekers.

Q. How is the coup being conducted?

A. This is a "seed crystal" coup. The model for the seed crystal coup is the Watergate scandal. The operational goal is to crystallize and solidify the disunited Trump opposition into a movement that has irresistible momentum. In much the same way that seed crystals can accelerate a phase change from liquid to solid, the coup perpetrators introduce reports, accusations, and leaks over time in order to create the impression that a widening scandal is occurring. Each component has no merit but the media accept them at face value and provide publicity that creates new adherents and coherence among the anti-Trump forces. The anti-Trump forces are anxious to replicate the success in getting Nixon to resign.

Q. What is the role of the establishment media in the coup?

A. The anti-Trump media are critical in this effort. The anti-Trump media keep up a drumbeat of anti-Trump reporting. They slant the news, manufacture stories, repeat them and create fake news. They try to convince the public that the coup's promoters are on the side of the angels (as in protecting national security and the election system's purity) and Trump is on the side of the devils (as in making concessions to a dangerous foe and being too respectful to Putin). The media must paint Russia and Putin as enemies for this propaganda effort to succeed. The media provide a focal point that coordinates the coup's backers even if they never sit down and conspire with one another. Everyone can observe the media stories and through that the effects of their anti-Trump leaks, reports, and innuendos. This allows them to plan their next moves.

Q. What is the role of social media in the coup attempt?

A. Social media have played a role in uprisings during the Arab Spring. The same thing can happen in America. There is a host of groups who are anti-Trump on grounds other than Russia. They can coordinate through social media. These groups seek to de-legitimize Trump so as to maintain items on their agenda. Aides to Hillary Clinton's failed campaign are now piling on to the effort.

These groups are distinct from the coup's perpetrators. They might launch a coup attempt of their own or they may become a front line of the existing coup, that is, merge with it as a force to reckon with that Trump has to address.

Q. How do you answer those who deny that there is an ongoing coup attempt?

A. Positing a coup attempt is the simplest and most comprehensive hypothesis that ties together and explains a host of known facts that we know have occurred. Being a model of events, it is imperfect; but it's better than no model because it still helps us to understand what's going on. We are not seeing a train of unconnected events that just happen to be anti-Trump. It is easier to understand it as a concerted effort going on to emasculate the Trump presidency and possibly see him replaced; and that effort is centered in the CIA.

The people behind the coup are operating partly openly and partly covertly. They are not so far using military means or physically threatening means so that the coup is not clearly recognizable as such. They are more like sharks circling their intended victims, with each one being hungry and attacking its own, as opposed to making pre-arranged attacks. Their coordination is achieved through publicity and a common goal.

We can see these attacks, and they show a pattern, a common goal and a recognizable origin, primarily among U.S. intelligence agencies, especially the CIA.

Q. What attacks are you referring to?

A. The first victim was Paul Manafort who resigned in mid-August 2016 as Trump's campaign chairman. His lobbying efforts on behalf of the ousted head of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, resulted in a dirt campaign against him. That attack stemmed from anti-Russian sources in Ukraine whom the U.S. government supports. Attacks from foreign origins conceal their true U.S. origins. They are a sign of a CIA operation behind the scenes.

The second victim of the coup is Michael T. Flynn, who resigned as Trump's National Security Advisor after only three weeks in that post. Leaks of tapped phone calls showed that intelligence operatives were behind this shark attack .

Q. Who is behind the coup attempt ?

A. Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis.

... ... ...

Michael S. Rozeff [ send him mail ] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline .

[Feb 14, 2018] The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's behalf and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor of Trump. This is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead, they focus their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between the US and Russia, especially in confronting jihadi terrorists. ..."
"... The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined with or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians! ..."
"... The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term, large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors, screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of their sweeping purge of civil society. ..."
"... President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China ..."
"... Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version; to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal of creating pro-war public opinion. ..."
"... Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction, there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction, there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Few government organizations have been engaged in violation of the US citizens' constitutional rights for as long a time and against as many individuals as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Seldom has there been greater collusion in the perpetration of crimes against civil liberties, electoral freedom and free and lawful expression as what has taken place between the FBI and the US Justice Department.

In the past, the FBI and Justice Department secured the enthusiastic support and public acclaim from the conservative members of the US Congress, members of the judiciary at all levels and the mass media. The leading liberal voices, public figures, educators, intellectuals and progressive dissenters opposing the FBI and their witch-hunting tactics were all from the left. Today, the right and the left have changed places: The most powerful voices endorsing the FBI and the Justice Department's fabrications, and abuse of constitutional rights are on the left, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and famous liberal media corporations and public opinion makers.

The recently published Congressional memo, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, provides ample proof that the FBI spied on Trump campaign workers with the intent to undermine the Republican candidate and sabotage his bid for the presidency. Private sector investigators, hired by Trump's rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, worked with pro-Clinton operatives within the FBI and Justice Department to violate the national electoral process while flouting rules governing wiretaps on US citizens. This was done with the approval of the sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.

The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's behalf and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor of Trump. This is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead, they focus their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between the US and Russia, especially in confronting jihadi terrorists.

The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined with or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians!

The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term, large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors, screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of their sweeping purge of civil society.

The FBI investigated the private lives of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even threatening their family members. They illegally spied on and infiltrated civil liberties organizations, and used provocateurs and spies in anti-war groups. Individuals lives were destroyed, some were driven to suicide; important popular American organizations were undermined to the detriment of millions. This has been its focus since its beginning and continues with the current fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda and investigations.

President Trump: Victim and Executor

President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China .

Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version; to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal of creating pro-war public opinion.

In a word: From the right to the left there are no political options to choose from among the two ruling political parties. Popular political movements and mass demonstrations have risen up against Trump with clear justification, but have since dissolved and been absorbed. They came together from diverse sectors: Women against sexual abuse and workplace humiliation; African-Americans against police impunity and violence; and immigrants against mass expulsion and harassment. They staged mass demonstrations and then declined as their 'anti-Trump' animus was frustrated by the liberal-democrats hell-bent on pursuing the Russian connection.

In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the vehicle to support the struggles. Women organized at some workplaces and gained better protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video evidence of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to restrain local police violence in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and political organizations; and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements and especially oppose growing war-fever.

Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond.

Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction, there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction, there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order .

[Feb 14, 2018] Is John Brennan the Mastermind behind Russiagate by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA. ..."
"... Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) ..."
"... These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia actually exist or not. ..."
"... Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of the dossier. ..."
"... What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose, like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause. ..."
"... Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia. ..."
"... Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails. The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him. ..."
"... It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. ..."
"... It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation must have been irresistible. ..."
"... But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked" analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? ..."
"... Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here" principle. ..."
"... Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance ..."
Feb 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

The report ("The Dossier") that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. The FBI's counterintelligence probe into Trump's alleged connections to Russia was launched on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this below)

The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the "unverified and salacious" information from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here's how Stephen Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:

"Steele's dossier was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative from the time its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US "Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 2017 .the dossier and subsequent ICA report remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of "Trump-Putin collision." ("Russia gate or Intel-gate?", The Nation)

There's just one problem with Cohen's statement, we don't really know the extent to which the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the IC's flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this excerpt from an article at Business Insider:

"Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality", Business Insider)

Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA.

In the last two weeks, documents have been released that have exposed the weak underpinnings of the Russia investigation while at the same time revealing serious abuses by senior-level officials at the DOJ and FBI. The so called Nunes memo was the first to point out these abuses, but it was the 8-page "criminal referral" authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham that gave credence to the claims. Here's a blurb from the document:

"It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele's personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility."

There it is. The FBI made a "concerted effort to conceal information from the court" in order to get a warrant to spy on a member of a rival political campaign. So –at the very least– there was an effort, on the part of the FBI and high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice, to improperly spy on members of the Trump team. And there's more. The FBI failed to mention that the dossier was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, or that the dossier's author Christopher Steele had seeded articles in the media that were being used to support the dossier's credibility (before the FISA court), or that, according to the FBI's own analysts, the dossier was "only minimally corroborated", or that Steele was a ferocious partisan who harbored a strong animus towards Trump. All of these were omitted in the FISA application which is why the FBI was able to deceive the judge. It's worth noting that intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony.

Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) Here's one suggestive tidbit that appeared in the Graham-Grassley" referral:

" Mr. Steele's memorandum states that his company "received this report from REDACTED US State Department," that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a foreign sub-source who "is in touch with REDACTED, a contact of REDACTED, a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to REDACTED."

It is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility." (Lifted from The Federalist)

What are we to make of this? Was Steele shaping the dossier's narrative to the specifications of his employers? Was he being coached by members of the Hillary team? How did that impact the contents of the dossier and the subsequent Russia investigation?

These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia actually exist or not.

Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of the dossier.

What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose, like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause.

But that brings us to the strange case of Carter Page, a bit-player whose role in the Trump campaign was trivial at best. Page was what most people would call a "small fish", an insignificant foreign policy advisor who had minimal impact on the campaign. Congressional investigators, like Nunes, must be wondering why the FBI and DOJ devoted so much attention to someone like Page instead of going after the "big fish" like Bannon, Flynn, Kushner, Ivanka and Trump Jr., all of whom might have been able to provide damaging information on the real target, Donald Trump. Wasn't that the idea? So why waste time on Page? It doesn't make any sense, unless, of course, the others were already being surveilled by other agencies? Is that it, did the NSA and the CIA have a hand in the surveillance too?

It's a moot point, isn't it? Because now that there's evidence that senior-level officials at the DOJ and the FBI were involved in improperly obtaining warrants to spy on members of the opposite party, the investigation is going to go wherever it goes. Whatever restrictions existed before, will now be lifted. For example, this popped up in Saturday's The Hill:

"House Intelligence Committee lawmakers are in the dark about an investigation into wrongdoing at the State Department announced by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Friday. Nunes told Fox News on Friday that, "we are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation. That investigation is ongoing and we continue work toward finding answers and asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."

Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia.

"I'm pretty troubled by what I read in the documents with respect to the role the State Department played in the fall of 2016, including information that was used in a court proceeding. I am troubled by it," Gowdy told Fox News on Tuesday." ("Lawmakers in dark about 'phase two' of Nunes investigation", The Hill)

So the State Department is next in line followed by the NSA and, finally, the Russia-gate point of origin, John Brennan's CIA. Here's more background on that from Stephen Cohen's illuminating article at The Nation:

" .when, and by whom, was this Intel operation against Trump started?

In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017, John Brennan, formerly Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested that he and his agency were the first, as The Washington Post put it at the time, "in triggering an FBI probe." Certainly both the Post and The New York Times interpreted his remarks in this way. Equally certain, Brennan played a central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter, briefing members of Congress privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret envelope in early August 2016 that almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on, Brennan presumably would have shared his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper, director of national intelligence. FBI Director Comey may have joined them actively somewhat later .

When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of Trump? His House testimony leaves this somewhat unclear, but, according to a subsequent Guardian article, by late 2015 or early 2016 he was receiving, or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding "suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents."

In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate." ("Russiagate or Intelgate?", Stephen Cohen, The Nation)

Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails. The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him.

According to the Washington Times:

"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians."

It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation must have been irresistible.

But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked" analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?

Soon the investigative crosshairs will settle on Brennan. He'd better have the right answers.

El Dato , February 13, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT

Deepstate ain't gonna go quietly.

Watch out for distractions in the national or international sphere.

(Btw, Russia warns via RT of an upcoming false flag attack using chlorine in Syria. Can't get an even break.)

Anon Disclaimer , February 13, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
That the whole media can be in service of a such a fraud and beam their relentless lies across millions of TV screens even in a democracy like America goes to tell you that the Power ultimately decides what is 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'.

Why else would most of Big Media be spreading all these lies about Russia Hacking or 'Russiagate' when the only real 'gate' is Deepstategate and Jewishhategate. The anti-Trump hysteria is nothing but an act of arson set by Jewish globalists who hate him.

The Alarmist , February 14, 2018 at 12:32 am GMT
Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here" principle.
nsa , February 14, 2018 at 5:12 am GMT
Planting stories in the kept lugenpresse then citing the resulting articles as evidence is a common technique of the national security state. Anyone remember DickiePoo Cheney (the man with no heart) planting bogus weapons-of-mass-destruction stories with "reporter" Judith (the jooie) Miller whose stuff was dutifully published in the rapidly anti arab Jew York Times. DickiePoo then cited the stories as evidence that Iraq needed to be invaded and destroyed. This kind of propaganda is quite effective and very long lasting to this day something like 60% of the american public still believe Saddam had a hand in the 911 false flag operation and probably future history books will agree.
JNDillard , February 14, 2018 at 5:32 am GMT
Investigative reporting at its best. Thank you, Mike Whitney. Every member of Congress should read this.
Dan Hayes , February 14, 2018 at 5:39 am GMT
Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance .

His appointment is in the grand tradition of Jesuitical sucking up to the powers-that-be.

An especially egregious example of this would be the current Jesuit "Bishop of Rome" (his preferred parlance) playing footsie with communist China. And in the process throwing faithful Chinese under the proverbial bus – just being chalked up as collateral damage!

The beat goes on.

Toby Keith , February 14, 2018 at 6:07 am GMT
@The Alarmist

Every President after Kennedy has been a kosher puppet. Obama masterminded nothing, and it's a very Hasbara thing to suggest he did.

[Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there ..."
"... PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ..."
"... two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch, he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world. The exact wrong message. ..."
"... Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways, the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on. ..."
"... The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon, in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time. ..."
"... Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis, and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things, really. ..."
"... And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category. ..."
"... He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen, you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you." ..."
"... It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. ..."
"... And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre. ..."
"... They do not appreciate that there are different manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist. ..."
"... Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place; and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy). ..."
"... Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did. ..."
"... not like capitalism didn't murder a few proletarians if murder is the standard, both are condemned ..."
"... the vast bulk of provocations and exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the "policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.) ..."
"... Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing. Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear "standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists. ..."
"... Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective. ..."
"... Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert oppressed groups here]. ..."
"... Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff. ..."
"... "It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there" Was he subsequently co-opted, or BSing? ..."
"... But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive. ..."
"... Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust. Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination: ..."
"... Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current thinking does not seem much changed. ..."
"... Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack. ..."
"... The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was electe ..."
"... I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller, J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state. ..."
"... The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT. ..."
"... The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it until they did do something about it in 2014. ..."
"... An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski (the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill. ..."
"... LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes. It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped. ..."
"... This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man". ..."
"... General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three? ..."
"... Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on February 11, 2018 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield

Jerri-Lynn here: Lest anyone be deluded into thinking that the current lunacy of Trump foreign policy is unprededented and ahistoric, part eight of an excellent Real News Network series on Undoing the New Deal reminds us this simply isn't so.

That series more generally discuses who helped unravel the New Deal and why. That was no accident, either. In this installment, historian Peter Kuznick says Eisenhower called for decreased militarization, then Dulles reversed the policy; the Soviets tried to end the cold war after the death of Stalin; crazy schemes involving nuclear weapons and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba put the world of the eve of destruction.

Three things I've seen recently made me think readers might appreciate this interview. First, I recently finished reading Stephen Kinzer's The Brothers , about the baleful consequences of the control over US foreign policy by Dulles brothers– John Foster and Alan. These continue to reverberate to today. Well worth your time.

Over the hols, I watched Dr. Strangelove again. And I wondered, and this not for the first time: why has the world managed to survive to this day? Seems to me just matter of time before something spirals out of control– and then, that's a wrap.

Queued up on my beside table is Daniel Ellsberg's The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner . Haven't cracked the spine of that yet, so I'll eschew further commentary, except to say that I understand Ellsberg's provides vivid detail about just how close we've already come to annihilation.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3ejpFDjks9M

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network, I'm Paul Jay. We're continuing our series of discussions on the Undoing of the New deal, and we're joined again by Professor Peter Kuznick, who joins us from Washington. Peter is a Professor of History, and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University. Thanks for joining us again Peter.

PETER KUZNICK: My pleasure, Paul.

PAUL JAY: So, before we move on to Kennedy, and then we're going to get to Johnson, you wanted to make a comment about Eisenhower, who made a couple of great sounding speeches about reducing military expenditure but I'm not sure how much that actually ever got implemented. But talk about this speech in, I guess, it's 1953, is it?

PETER KUZNICK: Yes. The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there

PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

PETER KUZNICK: This is not a way of life at all. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.� What a great speech and the Soviets were thrilled. They republished this. They reprinted it. They broadcast it over and over, and then two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch, he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world. The exact wrong message.

And so, it's sort of like Trump, where Tillerson says something sane and then Trump will undermine it two days later when it comes to North Korea. The same thing happened in 1953 with Eisenhower and Dulles. We're really much more on the same page, but if you look at the third world response, you've got the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955, and the third world leaders are all saying, "We have to be independent. We have to be neutral." They say, "It is insane to spend all these dollars and all these rubles on the military when we need money for development."

PAUL JAY: So, what went on with Eisenhower, making that kind of speech? He's not known for any big increase in social spending domestically. He helps build, as you said, the military industrial complex, especially the nuclear side of it. So, what was that speech about, and then how does he allow Dulles to contradict him two days later?

PETER KUZNICK: That's one of the mysteries. That's why writing books on the debate, what was going on in that administration. Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways, the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on.

We talked a little bit about Sputnik but one of the proposals after that was to blast a hydrogen bomb on the surface of the moon to show the world that we really are the strongest. And they talked about putting missile bases on the moon, and then the idea was to have the Soviets respond by putting their own missile bases on the moon. We could put ours on distant planets, so that we could then hit the Soviet bases on the moon. The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon, in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time.

This comes across, really, with the nuclear policies. So, when McGeorge Bundy asks Dan Ellsberg in 1961 to find out from the Joint Chiefs what would be, how many people would die as a result of America's nuclear launch in the event of a war with the Soviet Union, the Pentagon comes back with the idea that between 600 and 650 million people would die from America's weapons alone in our first PSYOP. And that doesn't even account for nuclear winter, which would have killed us all, or the numbers who would be killed by the Soviet weapons. That includes at least 100 million of our own allies in Western Europe.

We are talking about a period the lunacy and insanity was captured best by Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove in 1964. That policy was so close to what was actually occurring at the time. Did Eisenhower speak for this? When Eisenhower wanted to, one of his visions was for planetary excavation using hydrogen bombs. People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare.

PAUL JAY: They used to have tourism to go look at nuclear tests outside of Las Vegas and people would sit just a few miles away with sunglasses on.

PETER KUZNICK: And we sent American soldiers into the blast area, knowing that they were going to be irradiated. Yeah, the irrationality in these times. People are going to look back at the Trump administration and if we're here later, maybe they'll laugh at us. If we survive this period, they'll laugh. They'll look back and say, "Look at the craziness of this period." Well, if you look at the history of the '50s and early '60s, you see a lot of that same kind of craziness in terms of the policies that were actually implemented at the time, and the ones, for example, one of the ideas was to melt the polar ice caps using hydrogen bombs. We wanted to increase polar melting. We wanted to increase the temperature on the planet by exploding nuclear bombs.

PAUL JAY: And this was to do, to what end?

PETER KUZNICK: For what end? I'm not sure. I mean, one-

PAUL JAY: Well, they may get their way, the way things are heading right now. They may get that.

PETER KUZNICK: And one of the things from Trump's National Security speech was to not talk about, or to say that global warming is not a National Security concern as Obama and others had believed it was. But they wanted to actually redirect hurricanes by setting off hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere in the path of the hurricane, so they could redirect hurricanes. They wanted to build new harbors by setting off hydrogen bombs. They wanted to have a new canal across the, instead of the Panama canal, with hydrogen bombs and reroute rivers in the United States.

I mean, crazy, crazy ideas that was considered American policy. And actually, it was the Soviets who saved us because Eisenhower wanted to begin to do these programs, but the Soviets would not allow, would not give the United States the right to do that because there was a temporary test ban in the late 1950s. And Eisenhower would have had to abrogate that in order to begin these projects.

PAUL JAY: Okay. Let's catch up. So, we had just, the last part dealt with some of Kennedy. We get into the 1960s. Kennedy is as preoccupied with the Cold War, the beginning of the Vietnam War, Cuba, the Missile Crisis. And we had left off right at the moment of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Give us a really quick recap because I think on this issue of militarization and former policy, we kind of have to do a whole nother series that focuses more on that. We're trying to get more into this issue of the New Deal and what happened to domestic social reforms in the context of this massive military expenditure. But talk a bit about that moment of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

PETER KUZNICK: Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis, and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things, really.

One is to, he knows the United States is planning an invasion of Cuba. The United States had been carrying out war games, massive war games, 40,000 people participating in these war games. Like now, we're carrying out war games off the Korean coast. And the war game that was planned for October of '62 was called Operation Ortsac. Anybody who doesn't get it? Certainly the Soviets did. Ortsac is Castro spelled backwards.

And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category.

Still, the pressure was to increase America's missiles and so, the Strategic Air Command in the Air Force wanted to increase our missiles by 3,000. McNamara figures that the least number he can get away with is to increase our intercontinental ballistic missiles by 1,000 even though we're ahead 10 to 1 already at that point. The Kremlin interpreted that, and said, "Why is the US increasing its missiles when it's so far ahead of us?" They said, "Obviously, the United States is preparing for a first strike against the Soviet Union." That was the Kremlin interpretation. It needed a credible deterrent.

They knew that, initially they thought, "Well, the fact that we can take out Berlin will be a credible enough deterrent. The Americans will never attack." Then they realized that that wouldn't be a sufficient deterrent to some of the hawks in the American military, the Curtis LeMays, who had a lot of influence at the time. Or before that, the Lemnitzers. And so, they decide, "Well, we've got to put missiles in Cuba, which is a more credible deterrent."

And the third is that Khrushchev wanted to appease his hawks. Khrushchev's strategy was to build up Soviet consumer economy. He said, "The Soviet people want washing machines. They want cars. They want houses. That's what we need." And so, he wanted to decrease defense spending and one of the cheap ways to do that was to put the missiles in Cuba. So, they do that foolishly. It's a crazy policy because they don't announce it. It's very much like the movie Strangelove, where Khrushchev was planning to announce that the missiles were in Cuba on the anniversary of the Soviet Revolution. That was coming up in a couple-

PAUL JAY: You mean Dr. Strangelove, meaning what's the point of a doomsday machine if you don't tell people you've got it?

PETER KUZNICK: As Strangelove says, "Well what's the point of the doomsday machine if you don't announce that you have it?" And then, the Americans didn't, the Soviets didn't announce that they had the, if they had announced that the missiles were there, then the United States could not have invaded Cuba the way the military wanted. They could not have bombed Cuba. It would've been an effective deterrent, especially if they announced that also, that the missiles were there, that the warheads were there and that they also had put 100 battlefield nuclear weapons inside Cuba.

That would have meant that there was no possibility of the United States invading and that the deterrent would've actually worked. But they didn't announce it. And so, the United States plans for an invasion and we got very close to doing so. But again, the intelligence was abysmal. We knew where 33 of the 42 missiles were. We didn't find the other missiles. We didn't know that the battlefield nuclear weapons were there. We didn't know that the missiles were ready to be armed.

And so, the United States was operating blind. We thought that there were 10,000 armed Soviets in Cuba. Turns out, there were 42,000 armed Soviets. We thought that there were 100,000 armed Cubans. Turns out, there were 270,000 armed Cubans. Based on the initial intelligence, McNamara said, "If we had invaded, we figured we'd suffer 18,000 casualties, 4,500 dead." When he later finds out how many troops there actually were there, he says, "Well, that would've been 25,000 Americans dead." When he finds out that there were 100 battlefield nuclear weapons as well, he doesn't find that out until 30 years later, and then he turns white, and he says, "Well that would've meant we would've lost 100,000 American Troops." Twice as many, almost, as we lost in Vietnam.

He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen, you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you."

Which we learned in Cuba. We learned in Iraq and Afghanistan or we should've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, Trump hasn't learned it and we had better learn before we do something crazy now in Korea.

PAUL JAY: All right, thanks, Peter. And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Disturbed Voter , February 11, 2018 at 5:28 am

It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. The existence of nuclear weapons, was what prevented either the US or the Soviet Union/Russia from attacking each other. Otherwise the sport of kings would have continued as usual.

And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre.

Chris , February 11, 2018 at 9:49 am

It's always that word, "communism", isn't it? As long as that word is used, everything is justifiable. If you look at it closely, it would seem that the Russians have discovered that communism is every bit as susceptible to corruption as capitalism. Communism has been, in fact, MORE discredited than capitalism (for now.) With Russia on the other side of the planet, what would be the harm in letting whatever failed ideologies they have fail like Kansas failed? As Jesus might say, "Ah Ye of little faith."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/06/07/the-great-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/

Tomonthebeach , February 11, 2018 at 1:03 pm

The vast majority of Americans today have no idea what communism is. Most cannot even thing about communism in terms of it being just another economic system different from capitalism. (No, it is slavery!) They do not appreciate that there are different manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist.

In many cases, Americans vote against their own interests just because some pol labels a new social program as communist so he can give his new bill and edge.

Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place; and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy).

Trump is anything if he is not politically and strategically a dim wit. Thus he probably buys into the communist boogeyman scenario common in our culture. He is likely attracted to the economic stimulus that more guns and less butter offer in the short run. Our problems seems to hinge on leaders who limit their action to the short run, and the long run (ensuring survival of the human species?), well, they never get around to that.

Moocao , February 11, 2018 at 8:09 pm

I would not be so loving over the "communistic ideals". My great grandparents were murdered for the fact that one was a postal office manager, another was a sock factory owner. Believe what you want, but communism is far from just an economic theory.

Communism, once you force the politics into the economic theory, is this: equality of all men, regardless of abilities, and damn if you started off well because everything will be taken from you. Your life is not your own, your family is not your own, your work is not your own: it belongs to the state.

Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did.

Duck1 , February 11, 2018 at 11:10 pm

not like capitalism didn't murder a few proletarians if murder is the standard, both are condemned

JTMcPhee , February 11, 2018 at 9:55 am

Yaas, it's just Putin friendly propaganda, that's all. Let us persuade ourselves that the vast bulk of provocations and exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the "policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.)

How does one break the cycle of ever-increasing vulnerability and eventual destruction, that includes the extraction and combustion and all the other decimations of a livable planet? how to do that when the Imperial Rulers are insane, by any sensible definition of insanity? And the Russians sure seem to be wiser and more restrained (barring some provocation that trips one of their own Doomsday Devices that they have instituted to try to counter the ridiculous insane provocations and adventures of the Empire?

Maybe revert to "Duck and cover?" Or that Civil Defense posture by one of the Reaganauts, one T.K. Jones, who wanted Congress to appropriate $252 million (1980 dollars) for Civil Defense, mostly for SHOVELS: in the firmly held belief that "we can fight and win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union:"

Three times Mr. Jones – or someone speaking in his name – agreed to testify. Three times he failed to appear. The Pentagon finally sent a pinch-hitter, Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. But the Senate wants Mr. Jones. It wants an authoritative explanation of his plan to spend $252 million on civil defense. Evidently, most of that money will go for shovels.

For this is how the alleged Mr. Jones describes the alleged civil defense strategy: "Dig a hole, cover it with a couple of doors and then throw three feet of dirt on top. It's the dirt that does it."

Mr. Jones seems to believe that the United States could recover fully, in two to four years, from an all-out nuclear attack. As he was quoted in The Los Angeles Times: "Everybody's going to make it if there are enough shovels to go around."

Dig on, Senator Pressler. We're all curious.

Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing. Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear "standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists.

"Tu Quoque" is an especially weak and inapposite and insupportable argument in this context.

Chris , February 11, 2018 at 10:28 am

SPOT ON! IF Robby Mook and the gang can stir up a Russian frenzy from hell based on nothing more than sour grapes, and IF what we know about the deep state is only the tip of the iceberg, and IF the media is largely under the control of the 'Gov, THEN a logical human must at least be open to the possibility that there is also such a thing as American propaganda, must (s)he not?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/01/08/hillarys-campaign-manager-the-russia-investigation-is-not-a-winning-strategy-n2429189

Summer , February 11, 2018 at 12:30 pm

Indeed, WWII was never a war against fascism, just particular fascists that ventured off the establishment reservation.

rd , February 11, 2018 at 2:51 pm

Yes. Nobody invaded Argentina when Juan Peron et al took over. Hitler and Mussolini could have died as dictators decades later if they had simply kept their armies home.

ObjectiveFunction , February 11, 2018 at 11:20 am

Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective.

Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert oppressed groups here].

Yet during the Cold War, there were plenty of prominent people calling out the McCarthys and Lemays of the world as loons (and behind the Curtain, even Stalin was removed from key posts before his death). Guess what, sane generally wins out over the mad king. The arc of history indeed bends toward justice, though never without sacrifice and diligent truthseeking. The ones to worry about are the snake oil merchants, who pee on our shoes and tell us it's raining.
g.

Here endeth my catechism.

JTMcPhee , February 11, 2018 at 12:19 pm

Keep whistling past the graveyard: http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff.

Summer , February 11, 2018 at 12:48 pm

Yes, this is what the world gets when technological advancement is combined with a socio-economic system that rewards sociopathic tendencies. A system advanced by propaganda (disguised as entertainment and education) backed up with the barrell of a gun and cameras everywhere.

bob , February 11, 2018 at 12:59 pm

"The arc of history indeed bends toward justice"

You're going to need some proof for that wild, completely baseless claim.

oaf , February 11, 2018 at 6:57 am

"It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there" Was he subsequently co-opted, or BSing?

Don Midwest , February 11, 2018 at 6:58 am

This article is not scary enough. Find out that in 1983 there was almost a nuclear war. Both sides have a first strike strategy and a Russian general thought that actions of Reagan were getting ready for the first strike and he was going to strike first. And during the Cuban missile crisis, Russian subs had nuclear weapons on them and we dropped low level depth charges on them and we didn't know that they were armed.

This is a very long interview of Daniel Ellsberg in Seattle on Jan 9, 2018.

Daniel Ellsberg with Daniel Bessner:
The Doomsday Machine

Now that everyone, except many in the USA, knows that when the USA changes a government that the country is ruined, this may have forced North and South Korea to get together.

Ellsberg says that any nukes used in the Korean Peninsula would result in at least 1 million dead and while 60 million in WWII were killed during the course of the war, with nukes that many cold be killed in a week. And then, nuclear winter would finish off the rest of us.

I am scared.

Massinissa , February 11, 2018 at 10:13 am

To be fair, there are now doubts among scientists that Nuclear Winter as classically described would even be a thing.

But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive.

JTMcPhee , February 11, 2018 at 1:15 pm

Some scientists doubt global warming too. Got support for your assertion? https://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war

Synoia , February 11, 2018 at 2:21 pm

Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust. Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination:

List them, together with their credentials and "donor$."

Donald , February 11, 2018 at 3:07 pm

You can google nuclear winter early enough. And yes, there are scientists who are skeptical for various reasons. The only group that has written a paper on it in recent years is composed of some of the same scientists who originally proposed it and they think it is real.

Reasons for skepticism include doubt about the amount of smoke that would be produced. And the volcano and asteroid comparisons are imperfect because the details are different. People used to talk about volcanic dust, and now it is mostly sulfuric acid droplets. With asteroids the initial thought was the KT boundary layer represented trillions of tons of submicron size dust and then Melosh proposed ejects blasted around the world heated the upper atmosphere and ignited global fires and created soot and then his grad student Tamara Goldin wrote her dissertation saying the heat might not be quite enough to do that and then people suggested it was ( I won't go into why) and others suggested the bolide hit sulfur layers .

The point is that there is not a consensus about the detailed atmospheric effects of either large asteroid impacts or of super volcanoes like Toba and yet we do have some evidence because these things happened. We don't have an example to study in tge geologic record where hundreds of cities were hit simultaneously with nuclear weapons.

I could go on, but I don't want to give the impression I have a strong opinion either way, because I don't. But I think the case for global warming is overwhelming because vastly more people are working on it and it is happening in front of us. It is not just computer models.

Sy Krass , February 11, 2018 at 5:18 pm

Forget possible nuclear winter, the economic effects alone would be worth 10 Lehman brothers (2008 meltdowns). And then the knock on effects would cause other knock on effects like other wars. Even without a nuclear winter, civilization would probably collapse within 18 months anyway.

JBird , February 11, 2018 at 5:32 pm

All this, while true, only change the details not the results. The Chicxulub impact almost certainly exterminated the majority of then living species, and the Toba Supervolcano probably almost caused our extinction. That suggest throwing massive amounts of anything into the atmosphere is not good.

As a student I would like to know the details, but in practice, it's like arguing whether a snow storm or a blizzard killed someone. Humanity as a species would probably survive a nuclear war okay, but many(most?) individuals as well as our planetary civilization would be just as dead. The numbers dying would be slightly different is all.

rfdawn , February 11, 2018 at 6:53 pm

Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current thinking does not seem much changed.

Jer Bear , February 11, 2018 at 7:07 am

Trump, like everyone before him, will do what Kissinger advises him to do.

The Rev Kev , February 11, 2018 at 8:11 am

Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack.

The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was elected.

I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller, J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state.

Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author , February 11, 2018 at 8:26 am

Excellent point about the missiles deployed in Turkey and Italy– and one I might have mentioned if I had remembered it, absent your prod.

Disturbed Voter , February 11, 2018 at 9:02 am

The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT.

The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it until they did do something about it in 2014.

An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski (the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill.

The Rev Kev , February 11, 2018 at 5:55 pm

Just recently Russia deployed more nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania. Maybe something to do with all those special forces NATO keeps stationing on the Russian border?

JTMcPhee , February 11, 2018 at 9:14 pm

And all the a -- -oles who Command and Rule, and most of the commentariat and punditry, all treat these affairs as if they are playing some Brobdingnagian Game of Risk ™, where as with Monopoly (which was originally intended to teach a very different lesson) the object of the game is all about TAKING OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA an idiotic froth on top of an ever more dangerous brew of exponentially increasing,and largely ignored, mutual if often asymmetric, deadly vulnerability.

Stupid effing humans and their vast stupid monkey tricks

Carolinian , February 11, 2018 at 9:14 am

LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes. It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped.

So no the crazy didn't start with Trump and Trump had even advocated we make nice with the Russians until the Dems, their remnants at State and Defense and the press forced him to change course (on threat of impeachment). The elites who have gained more or less permanent power over the direction of this country are a threat to us all.

Anyhow, thanks for the above post. Those who forget history ..

polecat , February 11, 2018 at 11:51 am

Let's not forget the little country that could with it's aggregated threat of 300+ undeclared
They're 'in-the-mix' too !

Disturbed Voter , February 11, 2018 at 12:02 pm

In so far as the US has moved away from the JFK view of nuclear deterrence to the LeMay view of nuclear first strike we are dead.

David , February 11, 2018 at 11:07 am

Different world. The first generation of nuclear weapons had yields (around 20-30Kt) that were comprehensible in terms of conventional bombing, which of course would have required many more aircraft but was also much more efficient per tonne of explosives. For the formative years after 1945, therefore, people thought of nuclear weapons as weapons in the classic sense and, at that time, nobody really knew that much about the effects of radiation and fallout. This all changed with the advent of the hydrogen bomb, but even then it took a long time for the likely catastrophic effects of the use of such weapons in large numbers to sink in. Nuclear technology, and both delivery and guidance systems, evolved far more quickly than rationales for their use could be found. Indeed, you can say that the Cold War was a period when nuclear powers found themselves acquiring weapons with technologies that couldn't actually be used, but couldn't be un-invented either. Enormous intellectual effort went into trying to provide post-hoc rationales for having these weapons, some of it very ingenious, most of it wasted.

Don't forget the role of paranoia either. NSC-68, the report that formalized US strategy during the Cold War, reads today like the ravings of a group of lunatics, seeing, almost literally, Reds under the beds. And if Stalin was dead, the Soviet leadership had just gone through a war which had cost them almost 30 million dead, and any, literally any, sacrifice was worth it to make sure that they prevented another war, or at least won it quickly.

rd , February 11, 2018 at 11:56 am

Dr. Strangelove has moved from the archive boxes of historical artifacts to being a "must see" movie again.

Baby Gerald , February 11, 2018 at 2:12 pm

It never left the 'must see' list. Its just moved higher up the rankings in recent months, what with all this 'collaboration' conspiracy drivel.

From wikipedia :

US military casualties in WW2: 407,300
US civilian casualties in WW2: 12,100

USSR military casualties in WW2: estimated by various sources [see the footnotes] between 8,668,000 to 11,400,000.
USSR civilian casualties in WW2: 10,000,000 [plus another 6-7 million deaths from famine, a line in the table that is completely blank for the US]

Simply put, for every American that died, somewhere between a thousand to two thousand of their Russian counterparts were killed. And somehow people in the US were convinced and worried that Russia wanted to start yet another war when they still hadn't finished burying the dead from the last one.

rd , February 11, 2018 at 3:06 pm

1. Stalin made his pact with the devil that gave Hitler free rein to invade Poland and France. Hitler then invaded Russia from Poland as the jumping off point. Stalin miscalculated big-time.

2. Invaded countries always have many more civilian countries than un-invaded ones.

3. Germany started WW II only 20 years after the end of WW I that also slaughtered 2 million German soldiers. Past losses generally does not appear to impact the decision-making of dictators regarding new wars. So it would have been irrational for the West to think that the USSR had no intent to expand its borders. That was the blunder that France and Britain made in 1938-39. However, the paranoia did get extreme in the Cold War.

Yves Smith , February 11, 2018 at 6:03 pm

This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man".

JBird , February 11, 2018 at 8:34 pm

The Poles have been the Germans and Russians chewtoy ever since it was completely partitioned. All the countries immediately around Russia have been horribly abused by Russia. Putin is doing his country no favors by reminding everyone of that. He can cow them into submission, but like the American government is finding, just because they are doesn't mean they cannot cause trouble. Heck, the current Great Game could be said to have started with the Soviet-Afghanistan War.

Going into the war every country was unprepared and unwilling to fight and had difficulty choices. The German military itself was not prepared. It was Hitler's choice to start when and where and by 1938 everyone knew it. Hitler was surprised that France and Great Britain honored their guarantee to Poland.

As evil as Stalin's regime was, and his invasion of Poland was just as bad as Hitler's at first, I don't think most people really understood just how evil the Nazis were and what they were planning on doing for Germany's living space. It was worse than anything that Stalin did and between the Ukrainian famine, the Great Purges, the takeover of the Baltic States, the invasion of Finland, etc he did serious evil.

Harold , February 11, 2018 at 3:17 pm

General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three?

xformbykr , February 11, 2018 at 12:34 pm

Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted.

JTMcPhee , February 11, 2018 at 1:09 pm

For those with a shred of remaining optimism who want to be rid of it, might I suggest a book titled "With Enough Shovels" by Robert Scheer. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/robert-scheer-4/with-enough-shovels-reagan-bush-and-nuclear-war/

I was going to post the text of the short review, but all I got at the moment is this blankety iPhone and its limits with cut and paste.

Not many read books anyway these days, and what sufficient moiety of them will form the groundswell that tips over the Juggernaut we are all pushing and pulling and riding toward the cliff?

I read this stuff mostly to sense which hand holds the knife and not to go down asking "What happened? What did it all mean?"

John k , February 11, 2018 at 1:13 pm

Trump has been bellicose re NK and Iran, but I see him as resisting the Syrian adventure, while cia plus military hawks pushing forward.
Dems today are real hawks, itching to confront Russia in both Syria and Ukraine the latter another place trump may be resisting hawks, the area has been quiet since the election, I.e. since dems were in charge.
It's an odd thought that in some theaters trump may be the sane one

JTMcPhee , February 11, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Yaas, nothing is happening in Ukraine, all is quiet on the Eastern Front of NATO: http://ukraine.csis.org/ Nuland has gone on to other conquests, and all that. The CIA and War Department have lost interest in that Conflict Zone. Nothing is happening. You are getting sleepy. Sleepy.

Yaas, nothing is happening. https://www.reuters.com/places/ukraine All is well. Safely rest. God is nigh.

marku52 , February 11, 2018 at 3:12 pm

Yeah, the title of this post would lead one to believe that their is something uniquely horrible about Trump's foreign policy. From anything I can detect, her bellicose statement about a no-fly zone in Syria and her abject destruction of Libya, HRC's FP would have been even worse.

If she had been elected, we might already be in a ground war with the Russians in Syria. The only hopeful sign is that while Trump spends his day watching TeeVee, State, DOD, and CIA are all working at cross purposes and getting in each other's way.

Foreign policy? We have a foreign policy? If anybody finds it, will they please explain it to me?

William Beyer , February 11, 2018 at 1:20 pm

I almost never comment, although I rely on NC for most of my news and blood pressure control. You are a treasure.

May I recommend another book – "All Honorable Men" – by James Stewart Martin. Published in 1950 and shortly thereafter all bookstore copies were hoovered-up and burned by the CIA. It might have been referenced in one of the RNN segments, but I haven't slogged through all of them yet.

You can get a hardback at Amazon for a mere $298. An i-book is cheaper.

After reading "The Brothers," and "The Devil's Chessboard," I considered starting a non-profit using GPS technology – Piss-on-their-Graves.org.

J.Fever , February 11, 2018 at 2:43 pm

Forbidden bookshelf series $11.49 Barnes & Noble

JBird , February 11, 2018 at 2:47 pm

The Forbidden Bookshelf series by Open Media is fantastic. Sadly for dinosaurs like me, it is mostly ebooks, but they do the occasional hard copy reprints, and since much in the series would be out of print without Open Media, even the ebooks are great to have.

And it is interesting to see how many bothersome books just go away even without any "censorship" even with the First Amendment being the one right courts have consistently, and strongly, enforced.

JTMcPhee , February 11, 2018 at 9:17 pm

Especially the right of corporate persons to one dollar, one vote speech..,

JBird , February 11, 2018 at 9:43 pm

I will take what I can get, even if as a college student, I don't have much "Free Speech."

:-)

shinola , February 11, 2018 at 4:07 pm

This article reminded me of an interesting/disturbing thing I saw on tv last night – a local news show had a bit on what to do in case of nuclear attack!

Boomers & older probably remember the drill: go to the basement or innermost room of the house, have 72 hours of food & water stashed & don't go outside for at least 3 days, etc. (yeah, that's the ticket).
Thought I was having a flashback to the 60's

Of course the best advice I ever heard on the subject was "Squat down, put your head between your knees & kiss your sweet [rear end] goodbye."

JBird , February 11, 2018 at 5:45 pm

Well, as I recall they were trying to give us the illusion of control so that we would not go all nihilistic or into a drunken fatalistic stupor. I don't know if telling people, like little JBird, that the bombs might start dropping anytime in which case you're just f@@@@d would have done any good.

The Rev Kev , February 11, 2018 at 6:04 pm

Maybe they could digitally colourise and re-issue this old film again, you know, as a public service-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_1jkLxhh20

Of course, it took a long time till we learned that a nuclear attack would be more like this-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG2aJyIFrA

Oregoncharles , February 11, 2018 at 4:41 pm

One interpretation of the Cold War, that I found revealing, was that the two "opposing" militaries colluded to magnify the threat so as to pump up their respective budgets. So both were essentially conning their own governments – and putting the whole world at risk in the process.

Of course, another big factor, equally obvious at the time, was (and is) that world "leaders," elected or not, can't resist the temptation to play chess with live pieces. They don't seem to care that people wind up dead, or that occasionally they put the whole world in danger.

Waking Up , February 11, 2018 at 5:05 pm

FYI: The first link to the Real News Network ends up at outlook.live.

Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author , February 11, 2018 at 11:45 pm

Fixed it. Thanks.

rkka , February 11, 2018 at 5:13 pm

It's SIOP, not PSYOP. SIOP stands for Single Integrated Operating Plan, which was what the first nuclear war plan was called. PSYOPS are Psychological Operations.

VietnamVet , February 11, 2018 at 7:17 pm

Having served in the first Cold War, it simply is beyond my comprehension that the Democrats restarted it all over again. Even weirder are the neo-con proponents of a First Strike. If the USA wins, at least one or two major cities (if not all) will be destroyed. New Zealand becomes the sequel to "On the Beach". We are in the same position as Germany in the 1930s except we know that the world war will destroy us. Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of Eastern Syria surrounded by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?

JBird , February 11, 2018 at 7:59 pm

Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of Eastern Syria surrounded by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?

Why they are needed to fight the evil-doers of course! Anything to protect our Freedom and the American Way. Now, ifyou keep asking these inconvenient questions, then "they" might start asking if you support the terrorists.

It's like when my half blind aged mother, and her possibly weaponized cane, is scrutinized as a possible al-Qaeda terrorist with a super hidden weapon, and I ask why it's 9/11 and the very bad people might hurt us.

Max4241 , February 11, 2018 at 8:10 pm

Nuclear winter. How quaint. Soot and dust. Rapid cooling. Crop failures. Starvation. Billions -perhaps- dead.

But life, certainly, will find a way!

Not in my world. All-out thermonuclear war means 250 nuclear reactors melt down simultaneously and several hundred thousand tons of loosely stored nuclear waste becomes aerosoled.

The resulting radiation blast burns the atmosphere off and the earth becomes a dead planet.

We can never look the thing straight in the eye. Take North Korea. We have been told, repeatedly, endlessly, that they have 20,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul!

Again, how quaint. How SCARY! What we should be reading about, are the priority targets, the game changers:

http://res.heraldm.com/content/image/2012/03/23/20120323001281_0.jpg

Light those five softies up and you can say good-bye to South Korea forever.

Bobby Gladd , February 11, 2018 at 8:19 pm

"People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare."
__

Yeah. In 1992 my wife was serving as the QA Mgr for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) nuke remediation project contractor. In 1993 a successful FOIA filing unearthed the Alaskan "Project Chariot." One of the brilliant Project Plowshare ideas was the potential utility of nuke detonations to carve out deep water harbors (they now deny it), so they took a bunch of irradiated soil from NTS and and spread it around on the tundra 130 miles N of the Arctic circle on the coast of the Chukchi Sea to "study potential environmental impacts."

The nuke "dredging" idea went nowhere, so they just plowed the irradiated crap under the surface, where it remained secret until the FOIA revelation decades later. DOE told my wife's company "go clean this shit up" (Eskimo tribes were freaking after finding out), so off goes my wife and her crew to spend the summer and fall living in tents guarded by armed polar bear guards (they had to first plow out a dirt & gravel runway, and flew everyone and all supplies in on STOL aircraft). They dug the test bed area all up (near Cape Thompson), assayed samples in an onsite radlab, put some 30 tons of "contaminated" Arctic soil in large sealed containers, barged it all down to Seattle, loaded it on trucks and drove it all back down to be buried at NTS.

Your tax dollars.

She looked so cute with her clipboard, and her orange vest, steel toed boots and hardhat.

JTMcPhee, February 11, 2018 at 9:26 pm

Did she get stuck dealing with any of the impossibly intractable problems at the Hanford Reservation? Anyone who doubts the massive stupidity of humans, read this: http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2008/06/a_tour_of_the_hanford_reveals.html

Disaster tourism. "Buffy, can we do Fukushima next?"

The Rev Kev, February 11, 2018 at 9:50 pm

As a teenager I read in a newspaper a proposal to use nuclear blasts to form a canal that would bring the sea to the middle of Australia and form an inland sea from which water could be drawn. We already had nuclear weapon being tested here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_tests_in_Australia ) so there was no appetite for ideas like this.

[Feb 12, 2018] Drug Wars, Missing Money, and a Phantom $500 Million by Nick Turse

Notable quotes:
"... Last year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime noted that while West Africa "has long been a transit zone for cocaine and heroin trafficking, it has now turned into a production zone for illicit substances such as amphetamines and precursors" and that drug use "is also a growing issue at the local level." Meanwhile, heroin trafficking has been on the rise in East Africa , along with personal use of the drug. ..."
"... In the spring of 2001, American experts concluded that a ban on opium-poppy cultivation by Afghanistan's Taliban government had wiped out the world's largest heroin-producing crop. Later that year, the U.S. military invaded and, since 2002, America has pumped $8.7 billion in counternarcotics funding into that country. A report issued late last month by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction detailed the results of anti-drug efforts during CENTCOM's 16-year-old war: "Afghanistan's total area under opium cultivation and opium production reached an all-time high in 2017," it reads in part. "Afghanistan remains the world's largest opium producer and exporter, producing an estimated 80% of the world's opium." ..."
"... While AFRICOM and, to a lesser extent, CENTCOM have made changes in how they track counternarcotics aid, both seemingly remain hooked on pouring money into efforts that have produced few successes. More effective use of spreadsheets won't solve the underlying problems of America's wars or cure an addiction to policies that continue to fail. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

More troubling than the findings in the IG's report or CENTCOM's apparent refusal to heed its recommendations may be the actual trajectory of the drug trade in the two commands' areas of responsibility: Africa and the Greater Middle East. Last year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime noted that while West Africa "has long been a transit zone for cocaine and heroin trafficking, it has now turned into a production zone for illicit substances such as amphetamines and precursors" and that drug use "is also a growing issue at the local level." Meanwhile, heroin trafficking has been on the rise in East Africa , along with personal use of the drug.

Even the Pentagon's Africa Center for Strategic Studies is sounding an alarm. "Drug trafficking is a major transnational threat in Africa that converges with other illicit activities ranging from money laundering to human trafficking and terrorism," it warned last November. "According to the 2017 U.N. World Drug Report, two-thirds of the cocaine smuggled between South America and Europe passes through West Africa, specifically Benin, Cape Verde, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Nigeria, and Togo. Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania are among the countries that have seen the highest traffic in opiates passing from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Western destinations." As badly as this may reflect on AFRICOM's efforts to bolster the counter-drug-trafficking prowess of key allies like Kenya, Mali, and Nigeria, it reflects even more dismally on CENTCOM, which oversees Washington's long-running war in Afghanistan and its seemingly ceaseless counternarcotics mission there.

In the spring of 2001, American experts concluded that a ban on opium-poppy cultivation by Afghanistan's Taliban government had wiped out the world's largest heroin-producing crop. Later that year, the U.S. military invaded and, since 2002, America has pumped $8.7 billion in counternarcotics funding into that country. A report issued late last month by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction detailed the results of anti-drug efforts during CENTCOM's 16-year-old war: "Afghanistan's total area under opium cultivation and opium production reached an all-time high in 2017," it reads in part. "Afghanistan remains the world's largest opium producer and exporter, producing an estimated 80% of the world's opium."

In many ways, these outcomes mirror those of the larger counterterror efforts of which these anti-drug campaigns are just a part. In 2001, for example, U.S. forces were fighting just two enemy forces in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, according to a recent Pentagon report , they're battling more than 10 times that number. In Africa, an official count of five prime terror groups in 2012 has expanded, depending on the Pentagon source, to more than 20 or even closer to 50 .

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but given the outcomes of significant counternarcotics assistance from Africa Command and Central Command -- including some $500 million over just three recent years -- there's little evidence to suggest that better record-keeping can solve the problems plaguing the military's anti-drug efforts in the greater Middle East or Africa. While AFRICOM and, to a lesser extent, CENTCOM have made changes in how they track counternarcotics aid, both seemingly remain hooked on pouring money into efforts that have produced few successes. More effective use of spreadsheets won't solve the underlying problems of America's wars or cure an addiction to policies that continue to fail.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch , a fellow at the Nation Institute, and a contributing writer for the Intercept . His 2017 Harper's magazine article, " Ghost Nation ," is a finalist for an American Society of Magazine Editors award . His website is NickTurse.com .

[Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore

Highly recommended!
160 billion plus 160 billion are pretty serious money. money that were stolen from ordinary Americans.
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. (cited from The Age of Lunacy The Doomsday Machine naked capitalism )
Notable quotes:
"... The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and even more disastrous military adventurism. ..."
"... Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those "sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it wisely? ..."
Feb 12, 2018 | www.antiwar.com

The new Congressional budget boosts military spending in a big way . Last night's PBS News report documented how military spending is projected to increase by $160 billion over two years, but that doesn't include "overseas contingency funding" for wars, which is another $160 billion over two years. Meanwhile, spending for the opioid crisis, which is killing roughly 60,000 Americans a year (more Americans than were killed in the Vietnam War), is set at a paltry $6 billion ($25 billion was requested).

One thing is certain: Ike was right about the undue influence of the military-industrial-Congressional complex.

The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and even more disastrous military adventurism.

Even if you're a supporter of big military budgets, this massive boost in military spending is bad news. Why? It doesn't force the military to think . To set priorities. To define limits. To be creative.

Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those "sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it wisely?

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

[Feb 12, 2018] Barack Obama: Crime Boss by Stephen Lendman

Notable quotes:
"... Bill Moyers Journal ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Wall Street Under Fire ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
Apr 18, 2009 | www.foreignpolicyjournal.com
Since taking office, Obama, wittingly or otherwise, has headed the largest criminal enterprise in history -- the mass looting of national wealth to enrich his Wall Street benefactors. He assembled a rogue economic team of Clinton/Robert Rubin retreads -- to fix the current crisis they engineered.

In a March 13 article, (author and former Republican strategist) Kevin Phillips called them "recycled senior (Clinton administration) Democrats (responsible for the) tech mania, deregulation binge and (1997-2000) stock market bubble and crash. (Obama) extend(ed) the (disastrous) mismanagement and pro-Wall Street bias of the 2008 Bush regime bailout."

He called Geithner and Bernanke "hapless," the result of their ruinous misjudgments (and, along with Alan Greenspan, complicit) with finance-sector malfeasance."

He said Summers will be "remembered for helping to block federal regulation of financial derivatives and orchestrat(ing) the 1999″ Glass-Steagall repeal, among his other "achievements." He went down the list of key economic officials and trashed them all as the very types to be avoided, not appointed.

He noted that Bernanke was chairman of George Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and added: "Imagine if FDR had retained Herbert Hoover's chief economic advisor and loyal Republican Fed Chairman in 1933 .To think that the pussycat Fed (would become) a saber-toothed tiger is a deception." Worse still, ruinous economic policies "could prove fatal" if White House policies favor "Wall Street but not the national economy or American people" -- the very direction they've now taken.

In a follow-up April 7 article, Phillips highlighted "The Disaster Stage of US Financialization a much grander-scale disaster than anything that happened in 1929 – 1933. Worse, it dwarfs the abuses of debt, finance and financialization that brought down previous leading world economic powers like Britain and Holland."

Today's crisis represents "the bursting of the huge 25-year, almost $50 trillion debt bubble that helped underwrite the hijacking of the US economy by a rabid financial sector " It's realigning global power with America losing its economic leadership won in WW II.

"The ignominy deserved by Wall Street after 1929-1933 is peanuts compared with the opprobrium the US financial sector and its political and regulatory allies deserve this time." Financialized America radically transformed the country, now "doubly staggering because of the crushing burden of its collapse."

Yet major media pundits and reporters barely noticed and now claim relief is just a few quarters away -- ignoring a metastasizing cancer, a national disaster, while policy makers heap fuel on a raging blaze now consuming us, yet too little public rage confronts them.

A Former Insider Speaks Out

Economics Professor William Black is a former senior bank regulator and Savings and Loan prosecutor, currently teaching economics and law at the University of Missouri. In an April 13 Barrons interview, he referred to "failed bankers (advising) failed regulators on how to deal with failed assets" they all had a hand in creating and proliferating.

His conclusion: "How can it result in anything but failure." He called the scale of financial fraud "immense," and said "Unless the current administration changes course pretty drastically, the scandal will destroy Barack Obama's presidency," besides what it's doing to the country, global economies, and many millions of people here and abroad.

He scathed Summers and Geithner, both "important architects of (today's) problems," and the latter as a failed and dishonest regulator, yet "numbering himself among those who convey tough medicine when he's really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks." No need to mention which ones.

The law mandates corrective action, the kind FDR took in the 1930s. He, Bernanke and Summers flout the law, "in naked violation, in order to pursue the kind of favoritism that the law was designed to prevent." They've turned taxpayers into "suckers" who'll pay dearly for decades, maybe generations.

His refusal to put insolvent banks into receivership, resorting to deceptive language like "legacy assets," and pursuing the worst of Chicago School economics "is positively Orwellian .If cheaters prosper, (they'll) dominate. It's like Gresham's law: Bad money drives out the good. Well, bad behavior" does the same thing "without good enforcement."

His bailout plans are disastrous. They prop up zombie banks by "mispricing toxic assets .The last thing we need is a further drain on our resources by promoting this toxic asset market (and notions of) too-big-to-fail."

With most, perhaps all, the big banks insolvent (a polite term for bankrupt), what's going on is "a multi-trillion dollar cover-up by publicly traded (enterprises), which amounts to felony securities fraud on a massive scale."

Ultimately, these firms will be forced into receivership, their "managements and boards stripped of office, title, and compensation." What's needed is a 1930s-style Pecora investigation to get to the bottom of their fraud, deceit, and cover-up, along with government complicity to hide it. More on that below.

Black cited billions to AIG as the single worst abuse so far to bail out their counterparties like Switzerland's UBS at the same time we were prosecuting it for tax fraud. As bad was following Goldman Sachs' advice to direct a $13 billion counterparty windfall to itself.

The whole process reeks of corruption. It must be stopped, and a new direction instituted under a reformist economic team -- one that will admit the nature and depth of the problem, cut the tie to Wall Street, and take corrective action the law mandates. That's "precisely what isn't happening."

Washington is "wedded to the bad idea of bigness" and power of Wall Street. In today's America, financialization is predominant. It's a cancer eating away at the fabric of the nation and many millions affected, the result of the grandest of grand thefts.

A good start would be to break up the financial giants into more effectively managed and less powerful units -- maybe the way Standard Oil was dismantled through a simple share spinoff. In addition, "a new seriousness must be put into regulation," and a new resolve to enforce it.

Today, the whole system encourages fraud, one based on results at any cost, so "fudging the numbers" becomes de rigueur and global bigness the holy grail. It sends the wrong message: play or pay with your job and future on Wall Street. "The basis for all regulation and white-collar crime is to take the competitive advantage away from the cheats, so the good guys can prevail. We need to get back to that." It's been decades since we've been there and high time we took it seriously. Job one is a thorough housecleaning and new direction, much like what's described below.

On April 3, Black appeared on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS and explained what's briefly enumerated below. From his experience as a regulator and prosecutor, he said:

– fraud is initiated in boardrooms and CEO offices by making "really bad loans, because they pay better;"

– then grow them like a Ponzi scheme multiplied through leverage; it's hugely profitable early on, then inevitably creates "disaster down the road;"

– dismantling regulation makes it possible;

– one scheme was subprime, Alt-A , and even prime "liars' loans" – meaning no checks are made on income, jobs, ability to repay, and the more they're inflated the more profitable they are; the amount of them was enormous – for one company alone, they generated as many losses as the entire S & L scandal;

– toxic products were willfully created to scam borrowers for big profits;

– rating agencies went along by appraising junk as AAA instead of doing it honestly;

– in September 2004, the FBI warned about a mortgage fraud epidemic, but nothing was done to stop it; so now we have a crisis hundreds of times greater than the S & L one and bad policy in play to address it;

– as in Barrons, he accused top Bush and Obama officials of a cover-up – to conceal the insolvency of all major banks and by so doing broke the law established after the S & L crisis, the Prompt Corrective Action Law that mandates insolvent banks be shut down and/or placed in receivership; and

– this is the greatest financial scandal in history – swept under the rug by top government officials of both parties; it's legally and morally indefensible, and it's wrecking the country.

In an April 6 article, Black calls ongoing "stress tests a complete sham to fool people make us chumps" and essentially say 'If we lie and they believe us, all will be well" when, in fact, it's not. It's part of the giant cover-up and greatest ever criminal fraud – by bankers and complicit government officials.

On April 13, Nouriel Roubini shared Black's view. He cited the stress test "spin machine" leaking stories to the press that all 19 banks in question will pass. None will fail. If more "exceptional assistance" is needed, Washington will provide it.

However, Q 1 macro data tells another story as growth, unemployment, and falling home prices alone "are worse than those in FDIC's baseline scenario for 2009 AND even worse than those for the more adverse stressed scenario for 2009. Thus, the stress test results are meaningless" as worsening data are outdistancing "the worst case scenario."

In other words, test results "are not worth the paper (they'll be) written on" as their assumptions are fraudulently based. They're "fudge tests blatantly rigged" to put a brave face on a very bleak economic picture.

They're in addition to other changes, including the recent Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) ruling. It's responsible for developing "generally accepted accounting principles" known as GAAP. On April 3, it changed so-called "mark-to-market" standards to "mark-to-make believe" ones. It also voted to allow banks to book smaller impaired asset losses to paint a brighter profits picture. It let Wells Fargo, for example, claim a Q 1 profit when it's drowning in losses, ones it can hide and not take.

Also likely coming is restoration of the "uptick rule" that prohibited short-selling in a down market. Established in 1938 to prevent disorderly selling, it allows shorts only when shares trade up. In June 2007, it was removed. Re-introductory proposals are now being considered to artificially boost prices.

Roubini calls it "a form of legalized manipulation of the stock market by regulators to prevent short-sellers (from doing) their job, i.e. make stock prices reflect fundamentals and prevent bubbles."

Overall, alarm bells should be warning about reckless monetary and fiscal policies, but perverse market reaction was relief that's wildly premature according to some like Roubini. Others see a protracted downturn, a prolonged winter, and if conditions deteriorate enough perhaps a nuclear one, unlike anything before seen, and why not:

On April 6, Professor Vernon Smith (a 2002 economics Nobel laureate) and research associate Steven Gjerstad headlined a Wall Street Journal op-ed: " From Bubble to Depression? " They asked:

– what creates bubbles?

– why does a large one, like the dot.com bubble, do no damage to the financial system while another (housing) caused collapse?

They believe "events of the past 10 years have an eerie similarity to the period leading up to the Great Depression," including rising mortgage debt and speculation, then asked:

Had banking system difficulties "been caused by losses on brokers loans for margin purchases in 1929, the results should have been felt in the banks immediately after the stock market crash." But they weren't apparent until fall 1930, a year later.

Further, if money supply contraction caused bank failures, why haven't massive infusions today prevented the crisis? They conclude that conventional wisdom needs reassessing and believe "excessive consumer debt -- especially mortgage debt -- was transmitted into the financial sector" causing the Great Depression.

Their hypothesis "is that a financial crisis (originating) in consumer debt, concentrated at the low end of the wealth and income distribution (affecting so many households), can be transmitted quickly and forcefully into the financial system we're witnessing the second great consumer debt crash, the end of a massive consumption binge," but want more study to prove it.

However, much more than that is needed – real reform, a complete reversal from current policy of the kind addressed below. Also, Smith and Gjerstad omitted a crucial fact – how misdirected today's massive infusions have been. Instead of helping beleaguered households, they've gone mostly to bankers for purposes other than economic recovery; namely, recapitalizations, for acquisitions, and big bonuses at the same time they fire thousands of lower level staff.

The 1930s Pecora Commission

On March 4, 1932 (one year to the day before FDR took office), a majority-Republican Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee established it to investigate the causes of the 1929 crash. It was little more than a fig leaf until Democrats took over, appointed Ferdinand Pecora as special counsel, and made a real effort for banking and regulatory reform.

Straightaway, Pecora looked into Wall Street's seamy underside by placing powerful bankers in the dock, holding them accountable for their actions, and doing through hearings what would have been impossible in open court given their ability to "buy" justice.

He confronted Wall Street's biggest names:

– Richard Whitney, president of the New York Stock Exchange;

– noted investment bankers, including Thomas Lamont, Otto Kahn, Charles E. Mitchell, Albert Wiggin, and JP Morgan, Jr., scion of the man who dominated the Street for decades as its boss and de facto Fed chairman before the central bank was established; and

– market speculators like Arthur Cutten.

He got Morgan to admit that he and his 20 partners paid no income taxes in 1931 and 1932. Neither did its Philadelphia operation, Drexel and Co., in the same years and way underpaid them in previous ones. It made headlines, was stunning, and galvanized critics to demand reform.

Pecora went further. He questioned Morgan and others on various matters, including sweetheart deals for political figures and insider ones for Wall Street cronies, similar shenanigans to today but not on the same scale, and under a president then who cared once Roosevelt took office. He directed "pitiless publicity" on Street corruption, what they easily got away with under Republicans.

Pecora was a former New York district attorney, an Eliot Spitzer-type with a reputation for toughness and fearlessness, but one serving at the behest of the President. He established straightaway that some of Wall Street's most powerful lied to their shareholders, manipulated stocks to their advantage, and profited hugely through malfeasance.

Roosevelt encouraged him in his March 4, 1933 inaugural address saying:

there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency .the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. The money changers have fled their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We must now restore that temple to the ancient truths. (Doing it requires) apply(ing) social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Imagine Obama saying this, followed by strong policies for enforcement under Roosevelt-style officials. Men like Pecora who asked tough questions and demanded answers, including on the House of Morgan's operations, something unimaginable today under any leadership. Morgan's counsel, John W. Davis, called Pecora's questions outrageous, but Morgan had to answer in detail enough to shake the "secret government's" foundations.

Pecora's staff examined company records that revealed financial manipulations among the Street's powerful to reap enormous profits -- enough for Morgan to gain control of most US industry, buy politicians and diplomats, and effectively control the most powerful banks in the country.

Years later in his book, Wall Street Under Fire , Pecora wrote:

"Undoubtedly, this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States." Morgan called it performing a "service" and exercising no more control than through "argument and persuasion."

His managing partner, Thomas Lamont, told the committee that the firm only offered advice that clients could accept or reject. Pecora learned otherwise as he peeled away the layers of company power and influence. He discovered "preferred clients" and friends of the bank lists in two tiers – special allies, operatives, and cronies and a "fishing list" from which new ones were recruited. In total, it showed Morgan was more powerful than Washington -- that the firm effectively controlled a network of companies that made US financial policy for over three decades plus leading politicians and much of the federal bench.

Pecora discovered what's as true today: that a select group of giant banks run things. They set policy, rig the game to their advantage, buy politicians the way Morgan did, and pretty much run the country and the world.

Again Pecora from his book:

Morgan's power was "a stark fact. It was a great stream that was fed by many sources; by its deposits, by its loans, by its promotions, by its directorships, by its pre-eminent position as investment bankers, by its control of holding companies which, in turn, controlled scores of subsidiaries, and by its silken bonds of gratitude in which it skillfully enmeshed the chosen ranks of the 'preferred lists.' It reached into every corner of the nation and penetrated in public, as well as business affairs. The problems raised by such an institution go far beyond banking regulation in the narrow sense. It might be a formidable rival to the government itself."

Pecora proceeded from Morgan to others, powerful bankers in their own right like Kuhn, Loeb's Otto Kahn. Roosevelt championed the hearings and from them came legislative reforms, the kinds so desperately needed now but nowhere in sight by an administration totally subservient to money and power and thoroughly corrupted by them – after a scant three months in office.

Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) Calls for Sweeping Changes

Its head, Elizabeth Warren, called on the Treasury to get tough on TARP recipients, including:

Given the extent and long-term nature of today's crisis, it's shocking that bad policy practically assures the worst outcome. Maybe a government/Wall Street cabal prefers it to capitalize on the wreckage at fire sale prices, at home and globally, as part of a long-term process of sucking wealth to the top while ignoring its fallout, both human and economic. Those calculations don't enter their sophisticated models, only bottom line ones they can bank on.

Other Bank Bailout Critics

Willem Buiter was a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (1997 – 2000). He's now has a Maverecon blog and is a Financial Times (FT) regular. He's also a fierce critic of bank bailouts, a policy he says wastes good time and money and is destined to fail.

"The good bank solution and slaughter of the unsecured creditors should have been pursued actively as soon as it became clear that most (US international banks were) insolvent." Soon enough it will be apparent anyway, before year end. "At that point, (their) de facto insolvency will be so self-evident that even the joint and several obfuscation of banks and Treasury will be unable to deny the obvious." And they'll be no fiscal resources to the rescue. "The likelihood of Congress voting even a nickel in additional financial support for the banks is zero."

Joseph Stiglitz was even blunter in an April 17 Bloomberg interview headlined: "Stiglitz Says White House Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue." He accused the administration of bailing out bankers at the expense of the economy. "All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing" ones. The people who created this monster are "either in the pocket of the banks or they're incompetent."

"We don't have enough money, they don't want to go back to Congress, they don't want to do it in an open way, and they" won't act responsibly and place the banks in receivership where they belong and let shareholders, not taxpayers take the pain. This policy guarantees failure. It's "an absolute mess." It's a strategy to re-inflate a bubble that will do nothing to speed recovery. "It's a recipe for Japanese-style malaise."

Financial expert and investor safety advocate Martin Weiss is most critical of all. He calls bank stress tests "FLIM-FLAM" in accusing Washington of hiding the true condition of the nation's 19 largest banks.

Key economic indicators like GDP contraction and unemployment are far worse than stress test parameters. "Our own government is clearly cooking the books -- using (false) criteria to deceive you; hoping you'll trust banks that are clearly hanging by a thread."

On May 4, they'll announce the results -- jerry-rigged to present an illusion of solvency, but clearly a deceptive lie. The economy is sinking, not stabilizing, let alone recovering. The administration is bailing out bankers while wrecking the economy and millions of households. Why isn't Washington addressing the tough questions, he asks. Because the answers have them "terrified," so they play for time while home foreclosures are exploding, factories are sitting idle, consumption keeps falling, yet they hope conditions will improve.

No one asks:

What if one day we discover America is no longer America. What if we realize that day is today.

Another Day, Another Scheme

The latest one lets ordinary people participate in Geithner's Public-Private Partnership Program (PPIP) that sounds suspiciously like "liars' loan" fraud, except this time "investments" in worthless junk are involved that will separate fools from their money.

The New York Times headlined the plan by comparing it to WW I Liberty Bonds that helped the country win the war. Now it's "to come to the aid of their banks -- with the added inducement of possibly making some money " The idea is for "large investment companies to create the financial-crisis equivalent of war bonds: bailout funds" to sucker the unwary to "invest" and, simultaneously, quiet opposition to the handouts.

According to money management firm BlackRock director Steven Baffico: "It's giving the guy on Main Street an equal seat at the table next to the big guys." Pimco's Bill Gross called it a "win-win-win policy." Absolutely for him so he loves it.

Plans are still being discussed. They won't likely be announced for several months, but already the scheme is apparent. It's to offload toxic junk on the public, let unwary investors take losses, relieve troubled banks of more of them, and arrange for investment fund issuers (like Pimco and BlackRock) to reap healthy fees if enough suckers can be enlisted to go along.

As troublesome, is FDIC's role in the scam -- through its transformation from insuring depositors to a much greater one guaranteeing over $1 trillion in junk assets, way over its charter $30 billion limit by twisting the rules to arrange it.

Its charter allows extraordinary steps to be taken when an "emergency determination by secretary of the Treasury" is made to mitigate "systemic risk." However, its Section 14 Borrowing Authority states:

"The Corporation is authorized to borrow from the Treasury for insurance purposes (not speculation, bailouts, or other schemes, an amount) not exceeding in the aggregate $30,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time .Any such loan shall be used by the Corporation solely in carrying out its functions with respect to such insurance (of bank deposits, then up to $5000, now temporarily at $250,000) "

"Before issuing an obligation or making a guarantee, the Corporation shall estimate the cost of such obligations (as well as market value) the Corporation may not issue or incur any obligation, if, after (so doing) the aggregate amount of obligations of the Deposit Insurance Fund (exceeds) the total of the amounts authorized ($30 billion under) section 14(a)."

PPIP violates FDIC rules. If it's opened to the public, greater fraud will result with ordinary people hit hardest as usual, the best reason to avoid this and alert others to be as prudent. It's another dubious scheme to separate the unwary from their money and redirect it to the top – to the same fraudsters responsible for the crisis and their investment company partners going along with the scam.

The Treasury extended the deadline for PPIP participants (to April 24) and loosened some of its guidelines, suggesting that investor support has been less than expected.

However, on April 2, the Financial Times (FT) headlined: "Bailed-out banks eye toxic asset buys." Giants like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs "are considering buying (each other's) toxic assets," and why not when it's a win-win way to offload each other's junk, do it at inflated prices, and stick taxpayers with the risk. New York University's Stern School of Business Professor Lawrence White put it this way:

"I'm worried about the following scenario: You and I have troubled assets, I buy assets from you, you buy them them from me, and at the end of the day it (looks) suspiciously like you bought assets from yourself" with Treasury funds.

PPIP prohibits banks from buying their own assets but lets them do it from other firms, either directly or through investment funds set up for that purpose, and according to Treasury: "It's an open program designed to get markets going."

On April 3, Reuters reported that "US regulators may be open to letting TARP recipients participate in the new program," and already Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley suggested they'll do it. Others expressed interest in what some observers call a giant money laundering scheme compounding the colossal flimflam that in the end most likely won't work -- except to extract multi-trillions from the public to banksters with Washington acting complicitly as transfer agent.

Meanwhile economic fundamentals are deteriorating at depression-level speed and depth while Obama remains in denial. On April 2 at the G 20, he cited "a very productive summit that will be, I believe, a turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery" when, in fact, it produced nothing beyond the usual hype – plus this time the quadrupling of the IMF's budget to inflict debt bondage on its willing partakers.

We're clearly in early stage unchartered waters of what Michel Chossudovsky calls "The Great Depression of the 21st Century" heading America for "fiscal collapse" because of policies amounting to "the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history" – directing most of it for militarism and foreign wars, Wall Street bailouts, and half a trillion for public debt service.

In an April 12 commentary, longtime, well-respected Chicago financial journalist Terry Savage headlined "Social Security Myth" in reporting on some of the fallout. Someone has to pay for "fixes" and militarism, that someone is us, and target one is Social Security. According to Savage:

"Most likely, Social Security will become a "needs-based" payout to low income, elderly recipients – not a return of the 'investments' you made with all those FICA deductions from your pay check every month over your working career." In other words, Washington intends to renege on the 74-year old promise FDR announced to the nation on August 14, 1935:

"Today a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled .This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens (now over 56 million, including Supplement Security Income recipients) who will reap direct benefits .This law represents a cornerstone in a structure .by no means complete. (It) will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness. (The passage of this bill marks) a historic (achievement) for all time."

It's now in jeopardy, so here's what Savage advises. Prepare. "Save more money, (and) start from an honest assessment" of what's coming. What FDR gave will be taken away. "And that's The Savage Truth." A disturbing and outrageous one as well as all the other ways we've been betrayed.

This article was posted on Saturday, April 18th, 2009 at 8:59am and is filed under Banks/Banking , Corruption , Economy/Economics .

ShareThis

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. Contact him at: [email protected] . Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. Read other articles by Stephen , or visit Stephen's website .

[Feb 11, 2018] A very strange story of Page surveellance extentions by Scott Ritter

Notable quotes:
"... The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions, deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both. ..."
"... WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign ..."
"... 'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers. Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather than Russian. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

This presupposes that the FISA renewal left unchanged the information linked to Steele that underpinned its initial application. By January 2018, however, the FBI had terminated its relationship with Steele based on the deceit of the former British intelligence officer. As such, all Steele's reporting should have been recalled as unreliable, as well as any corroborating information that could be linked to Steele in any way (such as the Isikoff article, the Papadopoulos investigation and the CIA's information as briefed to Sen. Reid). Any sworn affidavit and application used in support of a FISA renewal that sustained the Steele reporting would have been misleading at best, and most probably false, making anyone whose signature appears in any certifying capacity open to charges of making a false statement---including both Comey and Yates.

The next application for renewal occurred in April 2017. This one would have been signed off by Comey and then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente, who took over from Yates after she was fired by Trump in January 2017---shortly after she signed off on Page's FISA warrant renewal application.

What is interesting about the April 2017 application is that the level of public scrutiny of the Steele dossier engendered by BuzzFeed's publication of it in January 2017 would seem to have at least raised the issue of Steele's credibility as a source, something that should have been reflected in the FISA renewal application.

Moreover, by the time of the renewal application, Page had met with the FBI over the course of 10 hours in March 2017, when he was questioned in depth about his interactions with Russia. Following past practice, the FBI agents conducting the interview would have relied upon FISA material to try and catch Page in a "perjury trap," where it could be proved that he made a false statement to a federal agent. No such charges have been filed, strongly suggesting that Page was honest and forthright with the FBI. To what extent, if any, the Steele dossier factored in the April 2017 application for renewal, and whether the FBI informed the FISA court about the 10 hours of questioning it conducted with Page, is not known. Nor is the context, if any, the FBI provided to any intercepted communications that would raise them to the level needed to sustain a renewal of a FISA warrant.

The final FISA renewal application was submitted and approved in July 2017. This one was signed off by McCabe and acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. By this time, the media had run with numerous stories about Page being the subject of a FISA warrant, and Page himself had appealed to both Rosenstein and Mueller to make public the application used to grant his FISA warrant. Page was unemployed, his professional life ruined by the public revelations about allegations that he had colluded with the Russians and was under active FBI investigation, the totality of which could be linked back to the information Steele provided the FBI.

And yet somehow, in the face of overwhelming evidence of Page's innocence, the FISA court saw fit to grant yet another renewal of its warrant.

... ... ...

The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions, deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both.

Scott Ritter spent more than a dozen years in the intelligence field, beginning in 1985 as a ground intelligence officer with the US Marine Corps, where he served with the Marine Corps component of the Rapid Deployment Force at the Brigade and Battalion level. In 1987 Ritter was hand-picked to serve with the On Site Inspection Agency, where he was responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by American President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev. Ritter served as a Deputy Site Commander of a specialized inspection team stationed outside a Soviet missile factory. For his work, Ritter received two classified commendations from the CIA. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Ritter was assigned to a special planning cell that reported directly to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, where he helped plan the employment of Marine Corps combat forces in response to Iraq's actions. He was later deployed to Saudi Arabia, where he served on the intelligence staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf .

truthynesslover , February 9, 2018 1:29 PM

It gets better.......Carter Page was an FBI informant.

WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign

'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers. Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather than Russian.

That is significant for another very important reason – according to the Washington Post, the FBI obtained a FISA warrant last summer to spy on the Trump campaign under the pretext that Page was alleged to be a Russian agent.

https://www.washingtonpost.... ...

coronaoutgloria2 , February 8, 2018 9:09 PM

First!! the agony of those democrats (union rights, civil liberties, protection of the poor etc.) is understood in the light that there is no democratic party. where have you been?? the clintons and all their charm have wrecked it. bernie sanders is nothing but 'clinton lite'. look at the record and enlighten yourself. if hellary were elected in 2016 we would be in trouble more so than trump. fascism is crawling beneath the feet of both these miscreants but hellary had the mechanism of the deep state. they failed to elect her. forget about the rules and know that, now, trump is the deep state's favorite boy (look his people). trump has failed to gain the media's favoritism but that will change. given what the FBI has done (if there is no punitive action) we will have slipped another gear into grinding fascism. we are reaching an overt state. Scott Ritter did well writing about the bungling of the FBI but that is not new. Some people are welcomed to lie to agents some are not.
But most of all do not forget what Scott Ritter did in the investigation of WMD prior to Bush (deep state) and the Iraq war. Nobody listened because they did not know how.

Kronosaurus , February 7, 2018 3:14 PM

If Ritter has the correct analysis then we are all royally screwed. The Dems will be burned for a generation, Trump will be vindicated and we will all have to drag our sorry butts to Trumps military parade and lick his shoes. I am so depressed after reading this. I hope Ritter is wrong and overlooking that he may not have all the facts himself. I find it hard to believe the FISA courts would renew three times when public skepticism was in the air. That would be a major scandal. The problem is that the GOP won't get religion and start distrusting the police state they helped create. They will ignore the fact that they just passed legislation bolstering the FISA courts and go back to locking up the plebes and shielding their big money benefactors.

What's funny about this is that this piece is way more solid then the "memo". That alone makes you wonder. I'm not sure what it means. I await the counter memo with much interest.

mulga mumblebrain Kronosaurus , February 8, 2018 12:51 AM

The Nunes memo is just a precis of good deal of information, and even that is but a part of the evidence of the Demonazi, and elements of the FBI and Justice Department, conspiracy to stop Trump. If Trump is capo di tutti capi in Thanatopolis DC, it is Clinton and her incompetent fellow conspirators' fault.

truthynesslover Kronosaurus , February 7, 2018 5:24 PM

The dems deserve to be burned to the ground........next stop republicans

truthynesslover Kronosaurus , February 8, 2018 1:59 PM

Trump ran against the GOP and neo-cons like Bush.

Democrats are now the Neo-con party and far more dangerous.

Neo -cons wanted Hillary and its why they are going after Trump.Trump was never supposed to win.Trump was a anti-gop candidate.So republicans are the anti -war party now.

Ironinc no?

How Donald Trump blasted George W. Bush in S.C. -- and won ...

▶ 2:03

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02...

Feb 21, 2016At a CNN town hall in Columbia on Thursday, Trump stopped short of repeating the claim that George W. Bush ...

Breaking taboos: Donald Trump and Bush's WMD 'lie'

| USA | Al Jazeera

▶ 8:50

www.aljazeera.com/.../break... ...

Feb 22, 2016In the Republican debate in South Carolina last weekend, presidential candidate Donald Trump declared live ...

Donald Trump in 2007: Bush's War Was Based On Lies, Iraq Will ...

▶

https://www.realclearpoliti... ...

Sep 11, 2015In 2007 in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Donald Trump spoke about the Bush administration and the Iraq War ...

RoloTomassi truthynesslover , February 8, 2018 8:48 AM

These people--and all these folks in law enforcement and corporate hierarchies and the list goes on and on--they LIE. They manipulate. Newsflash, that is human nature, despite all of the bogus, idealistic posturing made in these comments and in the world at large.

But my point is that these same people play by a set of rules that they defined for themselves, and now the conservative faction wants special treatment for their buffoon Trump. They need to suck it up and take their medicine. Trump is a vile, unintelligent cretin and a criminal, and I really don't care if the means by which they remove him doesn't rise to the level of your or others supposed BS-idealism.

The U.S. government is an unethical $hit show driven by the most heinous form of capitalism ever imagined, so what the hell do you expect? Do try to get in touch with reality and put down your tome of rightwing talking points.

truthynesslover RoloTomassi , February 8, 2018 2:05 PM

LOL!!

Im a left Sanders voter.Trump is literally doing what you say you want and your too bias to notice.

Newsflash........Trump is bringing to the forefront just how corrupted our system is.The $shitshow has just started........even MSNBC cant ignore the treason of the FBI and DOJ any more.

And did you miss Trump tweet about the wallstreet crash?

Didnt he call out the fact wallstreet bets against the US economy?

Trump tweeted Wednesday:

"In the 'old days,' when good news was reported, the Stock Market
would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down. Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news about the economy!"

Didnt Trump just make an important criticism of capitalism?.....I think he did.Sorry you missed it.

truthynesslover Calvinius , February 7, 2018 7:55 PM

The entire corporate media is coming down with the Russia ruse....

from James Petras:

The Logic behind Mass Spying: Empire and Cyber Imperialism
https://petras.lahaine.org/...

The Deeper Meaning of Mass Spying in America
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

The Two Faces of a Police State: Sheltering Tax Evaders, Financial Swindlers and Money Launderers while Policing the Citizens
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

The Rise of the Police State and the Absence of Mass Opposition
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

The Great Transformation: From the Welfare State to the Imperial Police State
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

[Feb 11, 2018] What We've Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The new weapons for Ukraine coincides with an increase in US troop deployments in the Baltic region on Russia's border, prompting Russia to accuse the United States of violating the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, and position nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in response. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.thenation.com

One consequence of the Trump-Russia fixation is the overshadowing of the far-right agenda that Trump and his Republican allies are carrying out, including, inexorably, policies that undermine the narrative of Trump-Russian collusion. But as that narrative is also used as a cudgel against Trump's presidency, it is worth asking if some of those policies are now even a direct result.

In December, Trump authorized the sale of new weapons to Ukraine for its fight against Russian-backed separatists. President Obama had rejected the arms shipments, "fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed," as The New York Times noted in 2015. Trump had also opposed such a move during the campaign, but was swayed by lobbying from advisers and congressional neoconservatives . "Overall," observed Andrew Weiss , a Russia expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "I see this discussion [on Trump-Russia] as fitting within a broader effort by people within the national security bureaucracy to box Trump in on Ukraine."

The new weapons for Ukraine coincides with an increase in US troop deployments in the Baltic region on Russia's border, prompting Russia to accuse the United States of violating the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, and position nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in response.

[Feb 11, 2018] http://theduran.com/american-hysteria-over-russia-will-lead-to-nuclear-war/

Notable quotes:
"... Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Cold War is long over. However, despite our best efforts to sustain a positive relationship, Russia now perceives the United States and NATO as its principal opponent and impediment to realizing its destabilizing geopolitical goals in Eurasia. (Emphasis mine) ..."
"... becoming great ..."
"... Russia has significantly increased the capabilities of its non-nuclear forces to project power into regions adjacent to Russia and, as previously discussed, has violated multiple treaty obligations and other important commitments. Most concerning are Russia's national security policies, strategy, and doctrine that include an emphasis on the threat of limited nuclear escalation, and its continuing development and fielding of increasingly diverse and expanding nuclear capabilities. Moscow threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Some in the United States refer to this as Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine. "De-escalation" in this sense follows from Moscow's mistaken assumption of Western capitulation on terms favorable to Moscow. ..."
"... Effective U.S. deterrence of Russian nuclear attack and non-nuclear strategic attack now requires ensuring that the Russian leadership does not miscalculate regarding the consequences of limited nuclear first use, either regionally or against the United States itself. Russia must instead understand that nuclear first-use, however limited, will fail to achieve its objectives, fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict, and trigger incalculable and intolerable costs for Moscow. Our strategy will ensure Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is unacceptable. ..."
"... The U.S. deterrent tailored to Russia, therefore, will be capable of holding at risk, under all conditions, what Russia's leadership most values. It will pose insurmountable difficulties to any Russian strategy of aggression against the United States, its allies, or partners and ensure the credible prospect of unacceptably dire costs to the Russian leadership if it were to choose aggression. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | theduran.com

Russian television broadcast a dire sounding piece on February 5th that probably was rather disquieting to most Russians, and also a source of significant dismay to their hopes for a rapprochement in relations following the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States. The news agency "Vesti" explained that the US is preparing itself for nuclear war with Russia.

The US Department of Defense published its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. This consists of at least two documents that are public domain that detail the assessment the DoD made about nuclear threats from around the world. The language about Russia is curious, for like Russia, the US repeatedly maintains that there is no desire for anything but good relations.

However, this is unfortunately either a blind claim or a willfully blind claim for the sake of propaganda. Based on the insanity of the US government's reaction or posture about Russia overall, with the military fears, the sanctions and the most recent incidents of the release of the "Kremlin list" of government heads and successful businessmen and women, and the close flyby of a Russian fighter jet to an American surveillance aircraft , the ever-present "RussiaGate" investigations ; and the lack of visible insanity on the Russians' side, it seems likely that the American version of what is causing the 'need' to resolidify 'defenses' is lacking in factual evidence and cannot be taken as conclusive or trustworthy.

Not that there is any precedent for this outrageous statement and if you believe that

The problem begins with a false premise:

Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Cold War is long over. However, despite our best efforts to sustain a positive relationship, Russia now perceives the United States and NATO as its principal opponent and impediment to realizing its destabilizing geopolitical goals in Eurasia. (Emphasis mine)

This is an extremely bold assertion, though for some of the people who influence the stance of US foreign and military policy, this is how they see it. However, it is also rather skillful sophistry that is achieved by a combination of American desire for hegemony and also, unfortunately, by a certain level of vagueness on both sides.

The Russian component of this vagueness largely seems to rest on the matter of Ukraine. Ukraine itself is rightly understood as the motherland of all the Rus' ("all the Russias") from history that runs back over a thousand years. It was Kiev that was the great capital of the early Russian governorate, which slowly expanded to become the Russian Empire.

However, there is also a complicated and deeply tragic history regarding the Ukraine, notably during the Soviet era, when millions of Ukrainians perished in what some in that country now regard as an intentional genocide , perpetrated deliberately against them by the Soviets in Moscow, hence, "Russia."

This issue itself is complex and warrants, even begs, further exposition, but it is beyond the scope of this article. Some understanding may be gained by reading this piece , which gives an interesting survey of the history of Ukraine. (Be aware though that it still comes from a publication with Western perspective.)

The main point is that Ukraine's own nationalistic wish is spawned from factors including a national memory that points at Moscow as the source of their problems. The fact that the Russian Federation is not Communist does not deter this point of view, because although the Russian nation is no longer a dictatorship, it still does not always conduct its foreign and national affairs transparently, and the desire for a real sense of self-determination is magnified by the allure of the glittering, wealthy West. The Western powers, most notably the USA, know this and have been teasing the Ukrainians with it.

Some of them, in Kiev and the western areas of the country (not all of which were Soviet territories at one point) have long had ties more to Europe than to Russia, and the inclusion of their territories in the Soviet Union was a source of further bitterness. For many people in Ukraine, their history is of living in a battlefield of foreign powers.

They are understandably almost instinctively upset about any power's designs on their territory, but it is also easy to manipulate this characteristic, and the United States has led the current struggle for Ukraine yet again. The allure of Western European life seems to be what drew so many to the Euromaidan struggle in 2014, but the present day economy under the pro-Western government also appears to be in a shambles.

At any rate, the historical memory of extremely authoritarian and cruel Soviet rule in the region, plus the present day "vagueness" that seems to exist with regards to Russian foreign affairs, helps the West to cast Russia as an authoritarian nation, led by a "secret Communist", Vladimir Putin, "who used to be a KGB agent."

When one gives this information to many Americans, the conclusion they draw is clear.

Share
The Pentagon, the central hub of US military operations.

Now to be sure, Vladimir Putin has been extremely open and candid about his nation and his own assertions of a strong Russian nation are absolutely proper for Russia, as they are for any nation. Nationalism is held extremely strongly in the United States, and again, history plays a part. The recent history of what amounts to world dominance, militarily, scientifically, academically, and culturally, gives a sense to Americans that it is their country which is the guardian of all that is good.

But what are they guarding? That greatness has shown many signs of slipping into decadence, such as happened in the waning days of the Roman Empire, where people lost their vision of becoming great , and have been self-indulgent in their perceived independence, not only of other nations and cultures, but of any power, including the Highest Power. We have seen it become legal to call homosexual unions "marriage" and depravity, drug use, and tremendous unproductive navel-gazing have become more and more prevalent in a nation that, a mere 45 years ago, really stood as a defender of Christian freedom.

It is not possible that a nation living in delusion about itself can have a clear view of those nations outside itself. And Russia has moved in the opposite direction as has the West. The struggle exists, for Russia under Communism suffered great damage to the institutions of family, marriage and Church, but the move of the Federation now is to rebuild these core values. All this while for a time, America seemed to be engaged in self-destruction by attacking these same core values.

Now, America's military is in an extremely dangerous place. The amount of sheer power the military has is greater than any in the world. Although Russia and China also have incredibly capable military forces, the Chinese are untested in battle thus far, and the Russians are just beginning to show their own incredible capabilities. But the United States has been at war almost continuously since at least as early as 2001, and this projection of power does create experience.

This Nuclear Posture Review shows us the face of a country who is deluded, hysterical, as the Russian media calls it, and they are right. Despite the issues with Russia and Ukraine or Syria, Russia's political will does not remotely resemble the notion that Russia is in an expansionist stage and that it wants to take over the former Soviet republics and then expand into the West. Russia does want to chart her own course, and as a great power, and one with a long history and long memory of suffering, she wants to try to protect her own people from more suffering.

The American posture points the finger at Russia for being a threat, and then implies that Russia is a threat in very well-crafted language. And this makes the assessment even more dangerous:

Russia has significantly increased the capabilities of its non-nuclear forces to project power into regions adjacent to Russia and, as previously discussed, has violated multiple treaty obligations and other important commitments. Most concerning are Russia's national security policies, strategy, and doctrine that include an emphasis on the threat of limited nuclear escalation, and its continuing development and fielding of increasingly diverse and expanding nuclear capabilities. Moscow threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Some in the United States refer to this as Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine. "De-escalation" in this sense follows from Moscow's mistaken assumption of Western capitulation on terms favorable to Moscow.

Effective U.S. deterrence of Russian nuclear attack and non-nuclear strategic attack now requires ensuring that the Russian leadership does not miscalculate regarding the consequences of limited nuclear first use, either regionally or against the United States itself. Russia must instead understand that nuclear first-use, however limited, will fail to achieve its objectives, fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict, and trigger incalculable and intolerable costs for Moscow. Our strategy will ensure Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is unacceptable.

The U.S. deterrent tailored to Russia, therefore, will be capable of holding at risk, under all conditions, what Russia's leadership most values. It will pose insurmountable difficulties to any Russian strategy of aggression against the United States, its allies, or partners and ensure the credible prospect of unacceptably dire costs to the Russian leadership if it were to choose aggression.

This is an amazing construction and assertion, and it is extremely dangerous for a nation with simultaneously massive power and a deluded worldview to hold. It is also very difficult to get people who have such a suspicious point of view to back away from that suspicion. There is a great deal of bondage such belief and fear exerts on those who hold it.

That being said, this situation helps explain what many in the alternative media do – to counter media and political bias and to report on events in a light that is hopefully objective and true. The Vesti newspiece was in its own way as alarmist as the American document it reported is. The real way through this is obviously through increased understanding of the truth in all matters – historical, ideological, and in our case here, geopolitical.

The American side has taken several nasty jabs at the Russians recently, in this document and last week's "Kremlin list", but there is also hope that the disintegrating "Russiagate" investigation will come to the true conclusions about this matter, and so free the hands of those in America who understand that Russia is anything but an enemy or adversary.

[Feb 11, 2018] Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three years keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western competition.

Feb 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Peter Akuleyev , February 9, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT

Cohen is a Communist and reflexive hater of the United States in the Noam Chomsky mold. He is either naive or a fool if he believes half of what he is saying.

Russia never had a decent shot at democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. The fight between Yeltsin and the Russian Parliament was basically a fight between two factions, and the Yeltsin/KGB faction beat the CPSU/Red Manager faction. Putin is very much a product of and continuation of the Yeltsin/KGB team (notice, for example, the role that Chubais continues to play in government policy), but the current team realizes how hated Yeltsin is and are smart enough to create plausible distance for public consumption.

For the most part the Putin years have been a failure, and these last two decades will be seen as squandered. Very little economic growth, continuing deterioration of the education and health systems, increasing dependence on China and massive transfers of wealth abroad. Those are Putin's primary achievements.

On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western competition.

[Feb 11, 2018] Too many sport disciplines, too much cheating, too much money and too many politics involved in the Olympic

Feb 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sportsmen became modern day graduators, who rid their health for entetaiment of crowd of rich spectactators.

I am no longer fond of Olympic games. There are too many sport disciplines, too much cheating, too much money and too many politics involved in the Olympics. The Norwegian team was rumored to have brought some 6,000 doses of asthma medicine for its athletes. That rumor is likely false, but it makes a good point. Such drugs are exempted by the anti-doping agency if some doctor simply certifies that an athlete needs them.

That such drugs are performance enhancing is then just a 'side effect'.

At least 15 U.S. athletes in the Rio Olympics took such 'medicine'. Russian athletes though, who never used these exemptions, were banned or restricted for alleged doping on quite murky grounds.

[Feb 11, 2018] A very strange story of Page surveellance extentions by Scott Ritter

Notable quotes:
"... The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions, deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both. ..."
"... WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign ..."
"... 'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers. Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather than Russian. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

This presupposes that the FISA renewal left unchanged the information linked to Steele that underpinned its initial application. By January 2018, however, the FBI had terminated its relationship with Steele based on the deceit of the former British intelligence officer. As such, all Steele's reporting should have been recalled as unreliable, as well as any corroborating information that could be linked to Steele in any way (such as the Isikoff article, the Papadopoulos investigation and the CIA's information as briefed to Sen. Reid). Any sworn affidavit and application used in support of a FISA renewal that sustained the Steele reporting would have been misleading at best, and most probably false, making anyone whose signature appears in any certifying capacity open to charges of making a false statement---including both Comey and Yates.

The next application for renewal occurred in April 2017. This one would have been signed off by Comey and then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente, who took over from Yates after she was fired by Trump in January 2017---shortly after she signed off on Page's FISA warrant renewal application.

What is interesting about the April 2017 application is that the level of public scrutiny of the Steele dossier engendered by BuzzFeed's publication of it in January 2017 would seem to have at least raised the issue of Steele's credibility as a source, something that should have been reflected in the FISA renewal application.

Moreover, by the time of the renewal application, Page had met with the FBI over the course of 10 hours in March 2017, when he was questioned in depth about his interactions with Russia. Following past practice, the FBI agents conducting the interview would have relied upon FISA material to try and catch Page in a "perjury trap," where it could be proved that he made a false statement to a federal agent. No such charges have been filed, strongly suggesting that Page was honest and forthright with the FBI. To what extent, if any, the Steele dossier factored in the April 2017 application for renewal, and whether the FBI informed the FISA court about the 10 hours of questioning it conducted with Page, is not known. Nor is the context, if any, the FBI provided to any intercepted communications that would raise them to the level needed to sustain a renewal of a FISA warrant.

The final FISA renewal application was submitted and approved in July 2017. This one was signed off by McCabe and acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. By this time, the media had run with numerous stories about Page being the subject of a FISA warrant, and Page himself had appealed to both Rosenstein and Mueller to make public the application used to grant his FISA warrant. Page was unemployed, his professional life ruined by the public revelations about allegations that he had colluded with the Russians and was under active FBI investigation, the totality of which could be linked back to the information Steele provided the FBI.

And yet somehow, in the face of overwhelming evidence of Page's innocence, the FISA court saw fit to grant yet another renewal of its warrant.

... ... ...

The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions, deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both.

Scott Ritter spent more than a dozen years in the intelligence field, beginning in 1985 as a ground intelligence officer with the US Marine Corps, where he served with the Marine Corps component of the Rapid Deployment Force at the Brigade and Battalion level. In 1987 Ritter was hand-picked to serve with the On Site Inspection Agency, where he was responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by American President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev. Ritter served as a Deputy Site Commander of a specialized inspection team stationed outside a Soviet missile factory. For his work, Ritter received two classified commendations from the CIA. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Ritter was assigned to a special planning cell that reported directly to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, where he helped plan the employment of Marine Corps combat forces in response to Iraq's actions. He was later deployed to Saudi Arabia, where he served on the intelligence staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf .

truthynesslover , February 9, 2018 1:29 PM

It gets better.......Carter Page was an FBI informant.

WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign

'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers. Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather than Russian.

That is significant for another very important reason – according to the Washington Post, the FBI obtained a FISA warrant last summer to spy on the Trump campaign under the pretext that Page was alleged to be a Russian agent.

https://www.washingtonpost.... ...

coronaoutgloria2 , February 8, 2018 9:09 PM

First!! the agony of those democrats (union rights, civil liberties, protection of the poor etc.) is understood in the light that there is no democratic party. where have you been?? the clintons and all their charm have wrecked it. bernie sanders is nothing but 'clinton lite'. look at the record and enlighten yourself. if hellary were elected in 2016 we would be in trouble more so than trump. fascism is crawling beneath the feet of both these miscreants but hellary had the mechanism of the deep state. they failed to elect her. forget about the rules and know that, now, trump is the deep state's favorite boy (look his people). trump has failed to gain the media's favoritism but that will change. given what the FBI has done (if there is no punitive action) we will have slipped another gear into grinding fascism. we are reaching an overt state. Scott Ritter did well writing about the bungling of the FBI but that is not new. Some people are welcomed to lie to agents some are not.
But most of all do not forget what Scott Ritter did in the investigation of WMD prior to Bush (deep state) and the Iraq war. Nobody listened because they did not know how.

Kronosaurus , February 7, 2018 3:14 PM

If Ritter has the correct analysis then we are all royally screwed. The Dems will be burned for a generation, Trump will be vindicated and we will all have to drag our sorry butts to Trumps military parade and lick his shoes. I am so depressed after reading this. I hope Ritter is wrong and overlooking that he may not have all the facts himself. I find it hard to believe the FISA courts would renew three times when public skepticism was in the air. That would be a major scandal. The problem is that the GOP won't get religion and start distrusting the police state they helped create. They will ignore the fact that they just passed legislation bolstering the FISA courts and go back to locking up the plebes and shielding their big money benefactors.

What's funny about this is that this piece is way more solid then the "memo". That alone makes you wonder. I'm not sure what it means. I await the counter memo with much interest.

mulga mumblebrain Kronosaurus , February 8, 2018 12:51 AM

The Nunes memo is just a precis of good deal of information, and even that is but a part of the evidence of the Demonazi, and elements of the FBI and Justice Department, conspiracy to stop Trump. If Trump is capo di tutti capi in Thanatopolis DC, it is Clinton and her incompetent fellow conspirators' fault.

truthynesslover Kronosaurus , February 7, 2018 5:24 PM

The dems deserve to be burned to the ground........next stop republicans

truthynesslover Kronosaurus , February 8, 2018 1:59 PM

Trump ran against the GOP and neo-cons like Bush.

Democrats are now the Neo-con party and far more dangerous.

Neo -cons wanted Hillary and its why they are going after Trump.Trump was never supposed to win.Trump was a anti-gop candidate.So republicans are the anti -war party now.

Ironinc no?

How Donald Trump blasted George W. Bush in S.C. -- and won ...

▶ 2:03

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02...

Feb 21, 2016At a CNN town hall in Columbia on Thursday, Trump stopped short of repeating the claim that George W. Bush ...

Breaking taboos: Donald Trump and Bush's WMD 'lie'

| USA | Al Jazeera

▶ 8:50

www.aljazeera.com/.../break... ...

Feb 22, 2016In the Republican debate in South Carolina last weekend, presidential candidate Donald Trump declared live ...

Donald Trump in 2007: Bush's War Was Based On Lies, Iraq Will ...

▶

https://www.realclearpoliti... ...

Sep 11, 2015In 2007 in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Donald Trump spoke about the Bush administration and the Iraq War ...

RoloTomassi truthynesslover , February 8, 2018 8:48 AM

These people--and all these folks in law enforcement and corporate hierarchies and the list goes on and on--they LIE. They manipulate. Newsflash, that is human nature, despite all of the bogus, idealistic posturing made in these comments and in the world at large.

But my point is that these same people play by a set of rules that they defined for themselves, and now the conservative faction wants special treatment for their buffoon Trump. They need to suck it up and take their medicine. Trump is a vile, unintelligent cretin and a criminal, and I really don't care if the means by which they remove him doesn't rise to the level of your or others supposed BS-idealism.

The U.S. government is an unethical $hit show driven by the most heinous form of capitalism ever imagined, so what the hell do you expect? Do try to get in touch with reality and put down your tome of rightwing talking points.

truthynesslover RoloTomassi , February 8, 2018 2:05 PM

LOL!!

Im a left Sanders voter.Trump is literally doing what you say you want and your too bias to notice.

Newsflash........Trump is bringing to the forefront just how corrupted our system is.The $shitshow has just started........even MSNBC cant ignore the treason of the FBI and DOJ any more.

And did you miss Trump tweet about the wallstreet crash?

Didnt he call out the fact wallstreet bets against the US economy?

Trump tweeted Wednesday:

"In the 'old days,' when good news was reported, the Stock Market
would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down. Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news about the economy!"

Didnt Trump just make an important criticism of capitalism?.....I think he did.Sorry you missed it.

truthynesslover Calvinius , February 7, 2018 7:55 PM

The entire corporate media is coming down with the Russia ruse....

from James Petras:

The Logic behind Mass Spying: Empire and Cyber Imperialism
https://petras.lahaine.org/...

The Deeper Meaning of Mass Spying in America
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

The Two Faces of a Police State: Sheltering Tax Evaders, Financial Swindlers and Money Launderers while Policing the Citizens
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

The Rise of the Police State and the Absence of Mass Opposition
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

The Great Transformation: From the Welfare State to the Imperial Police State
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...

[Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means. ..."
"... They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation ..."
"... Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? " ..."
"... And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded. ..."
"... We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. ..."
"... Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. ..."
"... The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia. ..."
Feb 06, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war with Russia globinfo freexchange

Corporate Democrats can't stop pushing for war through the Russiagate fiasco.

The party has been completely taken over by the neocon/neoliberal establishment and has nothing to do with the Left. The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means.

But things are probably much worse, because this completely absurd persistence on Russiagate fiasco that feeds an evident anti-Russian hysteria, destroys all the influence of the Kremlin moderates who struggle to keep open channels between Russia and the United States.

Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NY University and Princeton University, explained to Aaron Maté and the Real News the terrible consequences:

They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation.

Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? "

I think all of us need to focus on what's happened in this country when in the very mainstream, at the highest, most influential levels of the political establishment, this kind of discourse is no longer considered an exception. It is the norm. We hear it daily from MSNBC and CNN, from the New York Times and the Washington Post, that people who doubt the narrative of what's loosely called Russiagate are somehow acting on behalf of or under the spell of the Kremlin, that we aren't Americans any longer. And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded.

The new Cold War is unfolding not far away from Russia, like the last in Berlin, but on Russia's borders in the Baltic and in Ukraine. We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. Meanwhile, not only do we not have a discussion of these real dangers in the United States but anyone who wants to incite a discussion, including the President of the United States, is called treasonous. Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative.

Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. They can't think of a single thing to tell the Kremlin to offset hawkish views in the Kremlin. Every day, there's something new. And these were the people in Moscow who are daytime peacekeeping interlockers. They have been destroyed by Russiagate. Their influence as Russia is zilch. And the McCarthyites in Russia, they have various terms, now called the pro-American lobby in Russia 'fifth columnists'. This is the damage that's been done. There's never been anything like this in my lifetime.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/CpVBA4OIfb8

The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia.

And, unfortunately, even the most progressives of the Democrats are adopting the Russiagate bogus, like Bernie Sanders, because they know that if they don't obey to the narratives, the DNC establishment will crush them politically in no time.

[Feb 11, 2018] What We've Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The new weapons for Ukraine coincides with an increase in US troop deployments in the Baltic region on Russia's border, prompting Russia to accuse the United States of violating the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, and position nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in response. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.thenation.com

One consequence of the Trump-Russia fixation is the overshadowing of the far-right agenda that Trump and his Republican allies are carrying out, including, inexorably, policies that undermine the narrative of Trump-Russian collusion. But as that narrative is also used as a cudgel against Trump's presidency, it is worth asking if some of those policies are now even a direct result.

In December, Trump authorized the sale of new weapons to Ukraine for its fight against Russian-backed separatists. President Obama had rejected the arms shipments, "fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed," as The New York Times noted in 2015. Trump had also opposed such a move during the campaign, but was swayed by lobbying from advisers and congressional neoconservatives . "Overall," observed Andrew Weiss , a Russia expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "I see this discussion [on Trump-Russia] as fitting within a broader effort by people within the national security bureaucracy to box Trump in on Ukraine."

The new weapons for Ukraine coincides with an increase in US troop deployments in the Baltic region on Russia's border, prompting Russia to accuse the United States of violating the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, and position nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in response.

[Feb 11, 2018] DemoRats and neoliberal MSM are using Russiagate to empower the military-security complex

Notable quotes:
"... The Apprentice ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The Atlantic ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Daily Beast ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Rachel Maddow, the top-rated cable-news host who covers Russiagate more than all other issues combined , has speculated that Putin was responsible for the hiring of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; is inducing Trump to "weaken" the State Department and " bleed out " the FBI; and, via the infamous "pee tape" alleged by Steele, may blackmail Trump into withdrawing US forces near Russia's border . ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative. Democrats can claim to be Trump's opposition without having to confront many of the failings that handed them one of the most stunning defeats in US political history. ..."
"... The DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals. ..."
"... Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. ..."
"... The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change? ..."
"... This whole "we lost the election because of Russian interference" argument appears to be roughly on the same level as "the dog ate my homework" dodge. ..."
"... The bottom line of any Trump association is financial - whether or not an association will protect and increase his wealth. Trump most likely believed that Russians were hacking the DNC (and the RNC) and favored him over Clinton, but that is a far cry from proof that he was colluding with a foreign government that committed crimes. The Democrats knee-jerk obsession with Russia serves to inoculate Trump from any real crimes that the Mueller investigation uncovers. Mostly those crimes will be financial, money laundering being the foremost. Democrats, in a 'the sky is falling' tone, breathlessly proclaim the latest revelation that Trump wanted a reset of Russia relations, or that some Trump official actually talked to a Russian official, as proof positive that Trump is a traitor. That Russia is the enemy is a fait accompli. ..."
"... To go on any liberal forum and point out that we really do need a better foreign policy with Russia than demonizing Putin is to bring forth a cascade of vituperation. Russia is the enemy and Trump colluded with the enemy, end of story they say. It's really way more complicated than that. It goes to the heart of the financialization of governments, including ours, to the point where finance can no longer be separated from government, and everything in government becomes a business transaction. Trump views the presidency as just another tool for self-enrichment, on a continuum from his global wheeling-dealing working on the boundaries of the law. The Russian state works in much the same way, a government that is run by a confederation of oligarchs and mob figures. ..."
"... In indulging themselves in Russiagate, Democrats have solidified the current provocative foreign policy that benefits the arms industry while putting civilization in danger. They are closing out all the sane options, and engaging in the same asinine fearmongering that Republicans do. On foreign policy, both parties deserve contempt. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.thenation.com

Originally from: What We've Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate by Aaron Maté ( The Nation)

... ... ...

Neither "Proven nor Disproven"

Both scenarios also call into question another foundation of Russiagate, the series of Clinton-campaign-funded intelligence reports written by former British spy Christopher Steele. The premise of the Steele dossier is of a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation" in which Russia has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years," beginning back when Trump was hosting The Apprentice . Russia gives Trump "and his inner circle a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." As an insurance policy, Steele contends, at least two years after their conspiracy began, the Russians collected a videotape of Trump hiring and watching prostitutes "perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show," in a Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel room.

This questionable narrative is perhaps why, according to the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, after one year and multiple investigations, the dossier's allegations remain neither "proven nor, conversely, disproven" -- in other words, not proven. According to Fox News, "when pressed [in recent congressional testimony] to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated [then–FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow." It would not have been difficult for the FBI -- or Steele -- to figure that out, given that it was reported in The Washington Post and Russian media in early July. (Steele reports it only on July 19.)

"Missing Hard Evidence"

The shaky evidentiary basis for collusion extends to Russiagate's other central pillars. It has been over a year since the release, shortly before Trump's inauguration, of a US intelligence report alleging a Russian-government campaign to elect Trump through e-mail hacking and covert propaganda. Amid the ensuing uproar, some quietly noted at the time that the public version of the report "does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions" ( The Atlantic ); contained "essentially no new information" ( Susan Hennessy , Lawfare ); and was "missing what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims" ( The New York Times ).

If "hard evidence" is what "many Americans most eagerly anticipated" in January 2017, they have continued to wait in vain. The Russian government may well have hacked Democratic Party e-mails, but evidence of it beyond unsubstantiated claims has yet to arrive.

In its place is a bipartisan fearmongering campaign that recalls the height of the Cold War. The nation is said to face "an ongoing attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic process" ( Democrats Representative Adam Schiff and Senator Dianne Feinstein ); in which "Russia continues to disseminate propaganda designed to weaken our nation" ( former acting CIA director Michael Morell and former Republican Representative Mike Rogers ); which means that we cannot "simply sit back and hope that we do not face another attack by a hostile foreign power" (Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen).

A credulous national media has helped disseminate the panic. When news of Russian-linked Facebook ads (in reality, Russian troll farms ) broke open, The Daily Beast calculated that the "Russian-funded covert propaganda posts were likely seen by a minimum of 23 million people and might have reached as many as 70 million," meaning that "up to 28 percent of American adults were swept in by the campaign." National audiences were soberly informed of covert Russian attempts to dupe them via Pokemon Go . CNN reported -- and multiple outlets repeated -- that "highly sophisticated" Russian Facebook ads targeted "the states that turned out to be pivotal," including "Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November." The New York Times consulted with "analysts" to ponder over the mysterious significance of a Russian-linked "Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies":

The goal of the dog lovers' page was more obscure. But some analysts suggested a possible motive: to build a large following before gradually introducing political content. Without viewing the entire feed from the page, now closed by Facebook, it is impossible to say whether the Russian operators tried such tactics.

We may never know if vulnerable American dog-lovers were compromised by the Russian puppy-gandists. But "analysis" and "exclusives" like these have drowned out the actual evidence. In brief, more than half of the relatively paltry $100,000 in Facebook ads bought by "Russian-linked" accounts ran after the election. They were mostly related not to the election but to social issues and were often juvenile and written in broken English. Those that were "geographically located" came mostly during the primaries. The ads that ran in battleground states were, as one study noted , "microscopic": Fewer than a dozen ran in Michigan and Wisconsin combined, and the majority were seen fewer than 1,000 times. Purported Russian ad spending amounted to $1,979 in Wisconsin -- all but $54 of that during the primary -- $823 in Michigan, and $300 in Pennsylvania.

Summarizing available data, The Washington Post 's Philip Bump concludes : "what we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts."

"Theories With Virtually No Fact"

The impact of Russiagate panic has been magnified by a preponderance of influential exponents wading into imaginative territory. And their audience happens to be millions of people aggrieved by Trump's presidency and seeking hope that it can be reversed.

Rachel Maddow, the top-rated cable-news host who covers Russiagate more than all other issues combined , has speculated that Putin was responsible for the hiring of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; is inducing Trump to "weaken" the State Department and " bleed out " the FBI; and, via the infamous "pee tape" alleged by Steele, may blackmail Trump into withdrawing US forces near Russia's border .

The Russian influence theory is so ingrained that Democrats see no irony in invoking it to dismiss the conspiracy theories of Republicans. Denouncing the current right-wing uproar over alleged anti-Trump bias at the FBI, Senator Chuck Schumer cautioned that in pushing "conspiracy theories with virtually no fact," the Republicans "wittingly or unwittingly are acting as allies of Russia's disinformation campaigns," ultimately "playing right into Putin's hands."

Such is our Trump-era political spectrum: a Republican Party that has graduated from birtherism to now pushing fears of an anti-Trump FBI "secret society," versus a Democratic Party whose counterattack is to accuse its foes of doing Putin's bidding.

... ... ...

As it ramps up its armed presence near Russia, the Pentagon's new National Defense Strategy declares that the US military advantage over Russia and China is "eroding," and that reversing it is now more of a priority than stopping ISIS or Al Qaeda. "Great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security," Defense Secretary James Mattis declared. Russia is the top threat invoked in Trump's Nuclear Posture Review. The plan's centerpiece is the development of smaller, so-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons, small enough to ensure that Russia fears their actual use. The review attributes this to the "deterioration of the strategic environment" -- "a nod toward existing tensions with Russia in particular," The Washington Post observes .

Tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers have helped lead the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move its Doomsday Clock to its highest point since 1953. "Nuclear risks have been compounded by US-Russia relations that now feature more conflict than cooperation," the Bulletin warns . "Coordination on nuclear risk reduction is all but dead. For the first time in many years, in fact, no US-Russian nuclear arms control negotiations are under way."

The nuclear risks may also be compounded by a US opposition party that has made "more conflict than cooperation" a defining trait. "Never before has a U.S. president so clearly ignored such a grave threat, and a growing threat, to U.S. national security," declares Senator Ben Cardin . In not imposing new sanctions, Trump has "let Russia off the hook yet again," says Representative Eliot Engel . In releasing the House Republican memo, Trump has "Vladimir Putin there smiling like he gave Donald Trump the script" ( Representative Jackie Speier ) and has "just sent his friend Putin a bouquet" ( Representative Nancy Pelosi ). It is difficult to imagine Democrats leading the charge to reduce nuclear tensions with Russia when they expend more energy urging Trump to be confrontational.

With Trump's actual Russia policies receiving less attention than Russiagate, it also makes sense that his administration has begun to take advantage of the opportunities that the distraction provides. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has warned that there are "initial signs" of Russian "subversion and disinformation and propaganda" in Mexico's upcoming presidential election . McMaster did not cite any evidence, but perhaps he had in mind the multiple polls that show leftist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador as the front-runner so far .

Top Priorities

The focus on still-absent evidence of Trump-Russia collusion while ignoring increasing US-Russia tensions coincides with the indifference that has greeted the most concrete case of Trump collusion with a foreign government so far: the Trump transition's effort to undermine President Obama's abstention on a United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements in December 2016. Undertaken at the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "derailing the vote was Mr. Trump's top priority at that time," The Wall Street Journal reports .

But for Democrats and thought leaders to oppose the Trump transition's "top priority" would mean challenging one that they uphold. "While [the UN effort] might have otherwise given the Democrats a welcome political opportunity to underscore the perfidy of the Trump team," Stephen Zunes observes , "they are hindered by the fact that the majority of Congressional Democrats opposed Obama and supported Trump's position on the vote."

It is here that Russiagate performs a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative. Democrats can claim to be Trump's opposition without having to confront many of the failings that handed them one of the most stunning defeats in US political history.

In focusing on a foreign villain, there is also little need for Democrats to challenge the powerful sectors of US society that many Trump voters were duped into thinking that they were voting against -- and whose interests many Democrats have deftly served. In fact, the outside enemy offers Democrats new opportunities to cater to powerful donors: increased militarism towards a nuclear power is a boon for the military-security establishment, and lawmakers who promote it have been duly rewarded .

Less understandable is how Democrats and partisan media outlets can continue to prioritize Russiagate over factors that likely cost their party far more votes than any stolen e-mails or Facebook ads: gerrymandering , voter suppression , declining unionization , exhaustive Trump media coverage , and the unregulated, worsening " dark-money " takeover of political campaigns. Or any number of domestic outrages around which large segments of the population, not just liberals , could be mobilized.

After more than one year of its engulfing our politics, perhaps that could be Russiagate's most helpful contribution: guiding us to the challenges that it helps us avoid.

  1. Victor Sciamarelli says: February 10, 2018 at 2:35 pm

    An interesting article especially the conclusion under "Top Priorities" where it states, "It is here that Russiagate performs a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them [democrats] to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative."

    This is important and I largely agree, but the observation could have gone further. The DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals.

    Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. Jill Stein was attacked and brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee because the dossier claimed, falsely, that she accepted payment from Russia to attend a RT event in Moscow. And we all know what happened to the Sanders' campaign.

    None of this would matter because Clinton was expected to win. Trump is a hypocrite and a fake populist but the populist message resonated with voters. Bernie Sanders, the real deal populist, remains the most popular politician in America and he is the most popular democratic politician among Republican voters.

    The recent FISA reauthorization bill passed with 65 House Democrats who joined Trump and the Republicans. In 2002 the DP controlled the Senate, but 29 Dems joined Republicans to pass the Iraq War Resolution along with 82 House Dems. And was the Republican regime change in Iraq better than the Democratic regime change in Libya? And recall that Hugo Chavez, who was democratically elected, governed constitutionally, and complied with international law, and if he ever crossed a line it was trivial compared to the lines Bush crossed, was labeled a dictator and attacked much like Putin is today.

    The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change?

    Maintaining a neoliberal course on behalf of elite interests is more important than winning elections. Thus, while Trump is investigated, the DP and supportive media are preparing to demonize progressives and any alternative voices as nothing more than Russian puppets.

  2. Jeffrey Harrison says: February 10, 2018 at 12:12 pm

    Articles like this one on The Nation surprise me. The Nation seems to be in the pockets of the DNC and their Hillary-bots. While this is a great article, I'm left with a sense of dissatisfaction based on what was missing from it. Nobody seems to see the forest for the trees.

    The first thing missing is the reality that Three Names won the election by about 3 million votes. Mr Maté does a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of the whole facebook/twitter meme but leaves out that Three Names' problem was not a lack of votes but a lack of breadth of votes. She won the major population centers but not the countryside and thus lost the state. Folks in the countryside are much less likely to be on facebook and twitter than their city cousins and thus will be relatively immune from the influence of ads on those platforms. If you want to see real meddling, take a look at what AIPAC is doing.

    The other thing that's missing is the danger behind sanctions. There's another name for sanctions - economic warfare. These are actually forbidden by the UN charter unless authorized by the UN but the US has never let its promises keep the US from doing exactly what it wanted to. In the past, sanctions have, in fact, led to shooting wars. What we are doing is perpetrating economic warfare on the only country capable of destroying the United States.

    In what way could this be considered wise?

  3. Matthew Walsh says: February 10, 2018 at 11:30 am

    I appreciate this article--and I agree with many of its arguments--but it contains some layered irony that is important to address. The author is correct in asserting that there is irony in the Democrats' claim that Republicans' opposition to the investigation is not based in fact.

    But I find it ironic that the author is accusing the Democrats of using Russiagate to empower the military-security complex. It's a highly plausible prospect, but it's certainly no more plausible than Russian collusion accusations.

  4. Dan Swanson says: February 10, 2018 at 8:36 am

    Superb article. My only quibble is that Trump probably did collude with Russians -- not over the election, but over his business interests, and that exposing this will damage his overall popularity, even among some of his supporters. But the article's major point still stands -- putting all the opposition eggs into the Russiagate basket is a big risk, especially now that the Republicans will take aim at Social Security and Medicare. Among major politicians, only Bernie Sanders has recognized that Russiagate distracts from Trump's true evils.

  5. Robert Borneman says: February 10, 2018 at 2:29 am

    Kudos to Mr. Maté for keeping a clear eye out on the facts and evidence of the case against Russia having thrown the election to Hillary (which is paltry at best, and falsely exculpatory of HRC's own disaster on the simple surface). Kudos to The Nation for not swallowing the same establishment DNC pill which seeks to provide cover for the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic Party by blaming Russia instead of their own (DNC's own) anti-democratic machinations and poor decisions.

  6. Philip Gerard says: February 9, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    This whole "we lost the election because of Russian interference" argument appears to be roughly on the same level as "the dog ate my homework" dodge. The democrats just can't admit that they blew the 2016 election . If they did they would have to look for answers and this is something they really do not want to do. Why? I suspect that they all ready know what they need to do to win but that would mean cutting ties with their corporate "constituents" and that is something they simply can not bring themselves to do.

  7. Michael Robertson says: February 9, 2018 at 3:39 pm

    The bottom line of any Trump association is financial - whether or not an association will protect and increase his wealth. Trump most likely believed that Russians were hacking the DNC (and the RNC) and favored him over Clinton, but that is a far cry from proof that he was colluding with a foreign government that committed crimes. The Democrats knee-jerk obsession with Russia serves to inoculate Trump from any real crimes that the Mueller investigation uncovers. Mostly those crimes will be financial, money laundering being the foremost. Democrats, in a 'the sky is falling' tone, breathlessly proclaim the latest revelation that Trump wanted a reset of Russia relations, or that some Trump official actually talked to a Russian official, as proof positive that Trump is a traitor. That Russia is the enemy is a fait accompli.

    To go on any liberal forum and point out that we really do need a better foreign policy with Russia than demonizing Putin is to bring forth a cascade of vituperation. Russia is the enemy and Trump colluded with the enemy, end of story they say. It's really way more complicated than that. It goes to the heart of the financialization of governments, including ours, to the point where finance can no longer be separated from government, and everything in government becomes a business transaction. Trump views the presidency as just another tool for self-enrichment, on a continuum from his global wheeling-dealing working on the boundaries of the law. The Russian state works in much the same way, a government that is run by a confederation of oligarchs and mob figures.

    To say that the Russians hacked the election is to say nothing. There is nothing that they have putatively done that we haven't done to them. The Facebook posts that are evidence of high-level psychological manipulation are indistinguishable from Republican spin. In indulging themselves in Russiagate, Democrats have solidified the current provocative foreign policy that benefits the arms industry while putting civilization in danger. They are closing out all the sane options, and engaging in the same asinine fearmongering that Republicans do. On foreign policy, both parties deserve contempt.

  8. Brian Cairns says: February 9, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    Excellent job, Aaron! And thanks to The Nation for not getting swept up in the Russiagate hysteria like so many other progressive outlets have.

[Feb 11, 2018] Republican investigations put Blumenthal in spotlight

Notable quotes:
"... Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was true. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.cnn.com

How Shearer's notes got to Steele

Shearer, an independent journalist, decided to investigate potential Trump-Russia connections after seeing stories about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the source said.

Shearer's so-called dossier is actually a set of notes based on conversations with reporters and other sources, according to the person who spoke to CNN, and he circulated those notes to assorted journalists, as well as to Blumenthal.

Blumenthal then passed the notes to Jonathan Winer, who was a State Department special envoy for Libya under former Secretary of State John Kerry, the source said. Winer had a previous relationship with Steele, and he passed it along to Steele in order to get his assessment.

Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team

Related Article: Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team

Blumenthal, according to the source, did not know that Winer would consult Steele on the Shearer document, and said Winer made that decision on his own.

After Winer gave Steele the notes from Shearer, Steele wrote that he found it interesting and it tended to corroborate some of what he found, but he also noted that it was uncorroborated, the source said.

Shearer's notes, a copy of which were obtained by CNN, make uncorroborated allegations involving Trump and Russia, and they cite unnamed Russian intelligence and Turkish sources.

Steele provided Shearer's notes to the FBI in October 2016.

What are the GOP allegations? Steele was being paid for his research by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was hired by a law firm on behalf of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. A key allegation in last week's Nunes memo was that Steele's political connections to Democrats were not told to the FISA court, and Republicans are charging that Shearer's involvement could show Steele was receiving information from Clinton associates that went into the dossier he gave to the FBI. The criminal referral from Grassley and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham -- which was unclassified with some redactions this week -- states that Shearer's notes went to Steele through an official at the State Department and another person who was a "friend of the Clinton's." "It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele's allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility," the senators wrote in the criminal referral, which does not accuse Steele of wrongdoing but urges the Justice Department to investigate the matter. Winer worked with Steele from 2014 through 2016, according to another source familiar with their interactions. Steele provided Winer with reports related to the conflict in Ukraine and Russia as a courtesy, which was not unusual and considered one source among many used for assessing the situation on the ground in Ukraine, the source said.

Former CIA Director Brennan says Nunes 'abused his office' Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was true.

Senior State Department officials showed the dossier to Kerry once it was clear the document was in wide circulation around Washington, according to the source. Kerry was not briefed on the Shearer document, the source said. Lee Wolosky, an attorney for Winer, said in a statement that Winer was "concerned in 2016 about information that a candidate for the presidency may have been compromised by a hostile foreign power." "Any actions he took were grounded in those concerns," Wolosky said.

"Today's attacks are nothing more than a further attempt to undermine the independence and credibility of special (counsel Robert) Mueller's ongoing investigation into those and related issues." What are Republicans saying? Republicans haven't come out and accused Blumenthal of any wrongdoing, but they've hinted in public appearances that raw intelligence may have been distributed for partisan purposes. Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Oversight Committee and is a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, discussed Nunes' State Department investigation a Fox News interview Tuesday, saying he was "troubled" by the role the State Department played. Gowdy read the classified FISA documents that the Justice Department gave congressional committees access to on the condition that only one member of the majority and minority would view them. "When you hear who the source, or one of the sources of that information is, you're going to think, 'Oh, my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere before. Where could he possibly have been?'" the South Carolina Republican said.

Gowdy: Memo has no impact on Russia probe "A domestic source. I'm trying to think of Secretary Clinton defined him. I think she said he was an old friend who emailed her from time to time," Gowdy continued. "Sidney Blumenthal?" Fox News' Martha MacCallum asked. "That would be really warm," Gowdy concluded. Nunes made headlines over the weekend when he predicted more memos would be coming from his committee, but he says that the investigation into the State Department has already been in the works. "We have an active investigation into the State Department. That has been ongoing for a while now," Nunes told Fox News' Sean Hannity.

Nunes has repeatedly declined to discuss his investigations with CNN, saying he doesn't discuss committee business "in the halls." Graham declined to discuss Blumenthal's role in the committee's investigation into Steele, but said the State Department is one element of it. "There's some connections outside the Department of Justice and the dossier that we're looking at. One of them goes to the State Department," Graham told CNN. "It's clear to me he was using the dossier for political purposes and that should have been more alarming than it was."

Who are the players?

Blumenthal is no stranger to congressional investigations, playing a role in the House Benghazi Select Committee investigation that was led by Gowdy. Blumenthal testified behind closed doors as part of the Benghazi investigation, and he provided the committee with emails he exchanged with Clinton , who was secretary of state when the 2012 Benghazi attack occurred. Blumenthal sent Clinton dozens of emails while she was secretary of state on various foreign policy topics, some of which were unsolicited and others that were requested by Clinton.

A former journalist, Blumenthal has known the Clintons for more than 30 years, and he worked in the Clinton White House as senior adviser from 1997 to 2001. He's been by the family's side during difficult moments, including President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.

[Feb 11, 2018] In Afghanistan's Unwinnable War, What's the Best Loss to Hope For

Feb 11, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

After 16 years of war in Afghanistan, experts have stopped asking what victory looks like and are beginning to consider the spectrum of possible defeats.

All options involve acknowledging the war as failed, American aims as largely unachievable and Afghanistan's future as only partly salvageable. Their advocates see glimmers of hope barely worth the stomach-turning trade-offs and slim odds of success.

"I don't think there is any serious analyst of the situation in Afghanistan who believes that the war is winnable," Laurel Miller, a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, said in a podcast last summer, after leaving her State Department stint as acting special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This may be why, even after thousands have died and over $100 billion has been spent, even after the past two weeks of shocking bloodshed in Kabul , few expect the United States to try anything other than the status quo.

It is a strategy, as Ms. Miller described it, to "prevent the defeat of the Afghan government and prevent military victory by the Taliban" for as long as possible.

Though far from the most promising option, it is the least humiliating. But sooner or later, the United States and Afghanistan will find themselves facing one of Afghanistan's endgames -- whether by choice or not.

[Feb 11, 2018] None Dare Call It Treason by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Is Trump Serious about 'Treasonous' Democrats? ..."
"... But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of American citizens ..."
"... Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children ..."
"... This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another 775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year goes on. ..."
Feb 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

President Trump, allegedly humorously, later described the [neoliberal] Democrats' behavior during his State of the Union speech as "treasonous" and "un-American," prompting the usual hysteria [ Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union , by Jessica Taylor, NPR, February 5, 2018].

The chutzpah is breathtaking considering how journalists and their pet elected officials in the Democrat party have waged a nonstop insurgency against the President of the United States since his inauguration , accusing him of being a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, as even Never Trump cuckservatives at National Review wearily pointed out, Democrats have habitually and quite seriously called Republicans not only traitors but " terrorists " for opposing their various policies. [ Is Trump Serious about 'Treasonous' Democrats? , by Dan McLaughlin, February 5, 2018]

But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of American citizens and advocate their replacement with foreigners. Pelosi's ludicrous claim that the Founding Fathers (who created the Naturalization Act of 1790 ) would support the mass influx of "Dreamers" and that illegals are "more American than Americans" is as definitive a statement of hatred for American citizens as can be imagined [ Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children , by Neil Munro, Breitbart, February 7, 2018].

renfro , February 9, 2018 at 8:46 am GMT

Hell, they are ALL traitors here is how they spend their time in congress

That's 376 bills, more than one a day and I haven't even gotten into the trade and appropriation categories where they bury other bills for Israel that would take several days of reading. This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another 775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year goes on.

Hang them all and let God sort them out.

[Feb 11, 2018] Whodunit Who "Meddled" With "Our Democracy" by Ilana Mercer

Feb 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Republicans have revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on. I'd expect nothing less from a Court created and perpetuated by George W. Bush and his Republicans.

But, what do you know? Following Barack Obama's lead, President Donald Trump and his Republicans have renewed FISA Section 702, which, in fact, has facilitated the usurpations the same representatives are currently denouncing.

Also in contravention of a quaint constitutional relic called the Fourth Amendment is Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller has taken possession of "many tens of thousands of emails from President Donald Trump's transition team." There is no limit, seemingly, to the power of the special counsel.

Look, we're living in a post-Constitutional America. Complaints about the damage done to our "democracy" by outsiders are worse than silly. Such damage pales compared to what we Americans have done to a compact rooted in the consent of the governed and the drastically limited and delimited powers of those who govern.

In other words, a republic. Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

The destruction is on display daily.

Pray tell where-oh-where in the US Constitution does it say that anyone crossing over into the US may demand and get an abortion? But apparently, this is settled law -- a universally upheld right, irrespective of whose property and territory it impinges.

The only aspect our clodhopper media -- left and right -- deign to debate in such abortion-tourism cases is the interloper's global reproductive rights. So, if abortion is a service Americans must render to the world, why not the right to a colonoscopy or a facelift?

Cannabis: The reason it's notin the Constitution is because letting states and individuals decide is in the Constitution. That thing of beauty is called the Tenth Amendment:

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That's right. In American federalism, the rights of the individual were meant to be secured through strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. Yet on cannabis, the meager constitutional devolution of power away from the Federales and to states and individuals Republicans have reversed. Some are even prattling about a constitutional cannabis amendment, as if there's a need for further "constitutional" centralization of authority.

After 230 years of just such "constitutional" consolidation, it's safe to say that the original Constitution is a dead letter; that the natural- and common law traditions, once lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute that would fill an entire building floor. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside, natural justice and the Founders' original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.

Consider: America's Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.

The welfare clause stipulates that "Congress will have the power to provide for the general welfare." And even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the limited powers so delegated; our overlords, over decades of dirigisme , have taken Article I, Section 8 to mean that government can pick The People's pockets for any perceivable purpose and project. Witness a judiciary of scurrilous statists that had even found in the Constitution a mandate to compel commerce by forcing individual Americans to purchase health insurance on pains of a fine, an act of force President Trump has mercifully repealed.

anonymous Disclaimer , February 9, 2018 at 10:30 am GMT

A few more observations, with which Ms. Mercer should agree:

The invertebrate Congress has been a weak link in the Constitutional system, deferring in the last 50 years to the judiciary in matters of domestic policy and to the executive in matters of foreign policy, most obviously war.

Turning the Constitution into a mystical, living document speaking through robed priests has served to trash it.

The loss of the States' authority was gradual, but amending the Constitution to have voters directly elect senators looks in retrospect like a key step in the national government's arrogation of authority.

The world's gaudiest whorehouse is also wide open for business with foreign interests. And why not? If Uncle Sam is trying to run the world, then shouldn't everyone in the Empire be allowed to participate in the democracy?

The Alarmist , February 10, 2018 at 8:22 pm GMT

" treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on."

To be correct, the US government considers its subjects to be chattels property. For my part, the US is my crazy ex-girlfriend, who always wants to know where I'm going, who I'm seeing, what I'm doing, and who annually wants a full accounting of every Dollar, Pound, Euro and ounce I earn, spend or hold.

[Feb 11, 2018] Hope Hicks: Trump s confidante finds herself center stage in scandal

Feb 11, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Throughout Donald Trump's campaign and relentlessly chaotic presidency, the single constant presence at his side, outside of his family, has been the 29-year-old former Ralph Lauren model and White House communications director Hope Hicks.

While aides and advisers fall in and out of favor, Hicks has remained Trump's Oval Office gatekeeper, companion and sounding board, offering consistent loyalty.

But now Hicks has herself been cast into two plotlines currently playing out in the presidential daytime reality-soap.

In one, Hicks features as a likely target in the special counsel Robert Mueller's effort to acquire cooperating witnesses in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hicks has reportedly been interviewed by Mueller's investigators.

In the other, her prized judgment is being called into question over Rob Porter, the senior White House aide accused of physically abusing two ex-wives and whom Hicks has reportedly been dating.

Publicly, Trump has offered his support for Hicks, saying: "Hope is absolutely fantastic. She was with the campaign from the beginning, and I could not ask for anything more. Hope is smart, very talented and respected by all."

But in private, the president is believed to have issued rare criticism of a woman who by some estimates is the most influential figure in the administration after Trump himself.

At issue is whether Hicks, who also served as communications director during the campaign, relaxed her judgment owing to her relationship with Porter.

White House officials have said Hicks knew that an ex-girlfriend of Porter's had informed aides that both of Porter's ex-wives had said he was violent. Hicks continued to see him and did not tell the president. Porter denies the allegations against him.

If the unfolding episode calls into question the maturity of Hicks' judgement, she clearly is invaluable as a personal assistant. In his campaign memoir, Let Trump Be Trump, Corey Lewandowski, the early campaign strategist – with whom, coincidentally, Hicks also had an affair – described her steaming Trump's suit while he is wearing it.

"She's really quite talented and able," Christopher Ruddy, a close friend of the president and chief executive of the conservative website Newsmax, told the Washington Post .

But her professional experience, especially where is comes to matters that carry potentially legal consequences, is limited. Hicks came to the Trumps through a PR firm that represented the Trump Organization. The family later hired her away to work exclusively for them, furnishing her with responsibilities that included working on Ivanka Trump's fashion line.

A GQ magazine profile in June 2016 described her: "She is a hugger and a people pleaser, with long brown hair and green eyes, a young woman of distinctly all-American flavor – the sort that inspires Tom Petty songs, not riots."

But her looks and fashion background can cause people to underestimate her. She has a background in PR and is a graduate of Dallas' Southern Methodist University.

[Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The post WW2 promotion process in the armed forces has produced a group at the top with a mentality that typically thinks rigorously but not imaginatively or creatively. ..."
"... These men got to their present ranks and positions by being conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of their guidance from on high. They actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board." ..."
"... If asked at the top, where military command and political interaction intersect, what policy should be they always ask for more money and to be allowed to pursue outcomes that they can understand as victory and self fulfilling with regard to their collective self image as warrior chieftains. ..."
"... In Trump's time his essential disinterest in foreign policy has led to a massive delegation of authority to Mattis and the leadership of the empire's forces. Their reaction to that is to look at their dimwitted guidance from on high (defeat IS, depose Assad and the SAG, triumph in Afghanistan) and to seek to impose their considerable available force to seek accomplishment as they see fit of this guidance in the absence of the kind of restrictions that Obama placed on them. ..."
"... Like the brass, I, too, am a graduate of all those service schools that attend success from the Basic Course to the Army War College. I will tell you again that the people at the top are not good at "the vision thing." They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers ..."
"... Academia reinforces the groupthink. The mavericks are shunned or ostracized. The only ones I have seen with some degree of going against the grain are technology entrepreneurs. ..."
"... "They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I have found this to be the case with 80 to 90% of most professions. A good memory and able to perform meticulously what they have been taught, but little thinking outside that narrow box. Often annoying, but very dangerous in this case. ..."
"... Since Afghanistan and the brass were mentioned in the editorial statement, here is an immodest question -- Where the brass have been while the opium production has been risen dramatically in Afghanistan under the US occupation? "Heroin Addiction in America Spearheaded by the US-led War on Afghanistan" by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/06/heroin-addiction-america-spearheaded-us-led-war-afghanistan/ ..."
"... A simple Q: What has been the role of the CENTCOM re the racket? Who has arranged the protection for the opium production and for drug dealers? Roberts suggests that the production of opium in Afghanistan "finances the black operations of the CIA and Western intelligence agencies." -- All while Awan brothers, Alperovitch and such tinker with the US national security? ..."
"... God help the poor people of Syria. ..."
"... thanks pat... it seems like the usa has had a steady group of leaders that have no interest in the world outside of the usa, or only in so far as they can exploit it for their own interest... maybe that sums up the foreign policy of the usa at this point... you say trump is disinterested.. so all the blather from trump about 'why are we even in syria?', or 'why can't we be friends with the russia?' is just smoke up everyone's ass... ..."
"... Predictably there is always someone who says that this group is not different from all others. Unfortunately the military function demands more than the level of mediocrity found in most groups ..."
"... A lot of technology entrepreneurs--especially those active today--are stuck in their own groupthink, inflated by their sense that they are born for greatness and can do no wrong. ..."
"... The kind of grand schemes that the top people at Google, Uber, and Facebook think up to remake the universe in their own idea of "good society" are frightening. That they are cleverer (but not necessarily wiser) than the academics, borgists, or generals, I think, makes them even more dangerous. ..."
"... They [the generals] seem to have deliberately completely ignored the issues and policy positions Trump ran on as President. It isn't a case of ignorance but of wilful disregard. ..."
"... So true and as others commented this is a sad feature of the human race and all human organizations. Herd mentality ties into social learning ..."
"... Our massive cultural heritages are learned by observing and taken in as a whole. This process works within organizations as well. ..."
"... I suspect a small percentage of the human race functions differently than the majority and retains creative thinking and openness along with more emphasis on cognitive thinking than social learning but generally they always face a battle when working to change the group "consensus", i.e. Fulton's folly, scepticism on whether man would ever fly, etc. ..."
"... This is an interesting discussion. The top in organisations (civil and military) are increasingly technocrats and thinking like systems managers. They are unable to innovate because they lack the ability to think out of the box. Usually there is a leader who depends on specialists. Others (including laymen) are often excluding from the decision-making-proces. John Ralston Saul's Voltaires Bastards describes this very well. ..."
"... Because of natural selection (conformist people tend to choose similar people who resemble their own values and ways-of-thinking) organizations have a tendency to become homogeneous (especially the higher management/ranks). ..."
"... In combination with the "dumbing" of people (also of people who have a so-called good education (as described in Richard Sale's Sterile Chit-Chat ) this is a disastrous mix. ..."
"... That's true not only of the US military but of US elites in general across all of the spectra. And because that reality is at odds with the group-think of those within the various elements that make up the spectra it doesn't a hearing. Anyone who tries to bring it up risks being ejected from the group. ..."
"... "The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, according to the former U.S. ambassador to the country. This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after war broke out in 2011." https://goo.gl/8pj5cD ..."
"... "They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I've often pondered that concept. Notice how many of radical extremist leaders were doctors, engineers and such? Narrow and deep. ..."
"... Long ago when I was a professor, I advised my students that "the law is like a pencil sharpener, it sharpens the mind by narrowing it." I tried to encourage them to "think backwards". ..."
"... Col, I think it might help people to think of "the Borg" - as you have defined & applied it - in a broader context. It struck me particularly as you ID'd the launching of our modern military group-think / careerism behavior coming from the watershed of industrialized scale & processes that came out of WWII. ..."
"... We note parallel themes in all significant sectors of our civilization. The ever-expanding security state, the many men in Gray Flannel Suits that inhabit corporate culture, Finance & Banking & Big Health scaling ever larger - all processes aimed to slice the salami thinner & quicker, to the point where meat is moot ... and so it goes. ..."
"... I just finished reading Command & Control (about nuclear weapons policy, systems design & accidents). I am amazed we've made it this far. ..."
Feb 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

(Editorial Statement)

The Borgist foreign policy of the administration has little to do with the generals. To comprehend the generals one must understand their collective mentality and the process that raised them on high as a collective of their own. The post WW2 promotion process in the armed forces has produced a group at the top with a mentality that typically thinks rigorously but not imaginatively or creatively.

These men got to their present ranks and positions by being conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of their guidance from on high. They actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board."

If asked at the top, where military command and political interaction intersect, what policy should be they always ask for more money and to be allowed to pursue outcomes that they can understand as victory and self fulfilling with regard to their collective self image as warrior chieftains.

In Obama's time they were asked what policy should be in Afghanistan and persuaded him to reinforce their dreams in Afghanistan no matter how unlikely it always was that a unified Western oriented nation could be made out of a collection of disparate mutually alien peoples.

In Trump's time his essential disinterest in foreign policy has led to a massive delegation of authority to Mattis and the leadership of the empire's forces. Their reaction to that is to look at their dimwitted guidance from on high (defeat IS, depose Assad and the SAG, triumph in Afghanistan) and to seek to impose their considerable available force to seek accomplishment as they see fit of this guidance in the absence of the kind of restrictions that Obama placed on them.

Like the brass, I, too, am a graduate of all those service schools that attend success from the Basic Course to the Army War College. I will tell you again that the people at the top are not good at "the vision thing." They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers. pl

Jack , 09 February 2018 at 05:42 PM

Sir

IMO, this conformism pervades all institutions. I saw when I worked in banking and finance many moons ago how moving up the ranks in any large organization meant you didn't rock the boat and you conformed to the prevailing groupthink. Even nutty ideas became respectable because they were expedient.

Academia reinforces the groupthink. The mavericks are shunned or ostracized. The only ones I have seen with some degree of going against the grain are technology entrepreneurs.

Fredw , 09 February 2018 at 06:26 PM
You remind me of an old rumination by Thomas Ricks:

Take the example of General George Casey. According to David Cloud and Greg Jaffe's book Four Stars, General Casey, upon learning of his assignment to command U.S. forces in Iraq, received a book from the Army Chief of Staff. The book Counterinsurgency Lessons Learned from Malaya and Vietnam was the first book he ever read about guerilla warfare." This is a damning indictment of the degree of mental preparation for combat by a general. The Army's reward for such lack of preparation: two more four star assignments.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/07/cmon-man-meathead-generals-and-some-other-things-that-are-driving-me-crazy-about-life-in-this-mans-post-911-army/

Peter AU , 09 February 2018 at 06:37 PM
"They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I have found this to be the case with 80 to 90% of most professions. A good memory and able to perform meticulously what they have been taught, but little thinking outside that narrow box. Often annoying, but very dangerous in this case.
Anna , 09 February 2018 at 06:48 PM
Since Afghanistan and the brass were mentioned in the editorial statement, here is an immodest question -- Where the brass have been while the opium production has been risen dramatically in Afghanistan under the US occupation? "Heroin Addiction in America Spearheaded by the US-led War on Afghanistan" by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/06/heroin-addiction-america-spearheaded-us-led-war-afghanistan/

" in 2000-2001 the Taliban government –with the support of the United Nations (UNODC) – implemented a successful ban on poppy cultivation. Opium production which is used to produce grade 4 heroin and its derivatives declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. The production of opium in 2001 was of the order of a meager 185 tons. It is worth noting that the UNODC congratulated the Taliban Government for its successful opium eradication program. The Taliban government had contributed to literally destabilizing the multibillion dollar Worldwide trade in heroin.

In 2017, the production of opium in Afghanistan under US military occupation reached 9000 metric tons. The production of opium in Afghanistan registered a 49 fold increase since Washington's invasion. Afghanistan under US military occupation produces approximately 90% of the World's illegal supply of opium which is used to produce heroin. Who owns the airplanes and ships that transport heroin from Afghanistan to the US? Who gets the profits?"

---A simple Q: What has been the role of the CENTCOM re the racket? Who has arranged the protection for the opium production and for drug dealers? Roberts suggests that the production of opium in Afghanistan "finances the black operations of the CIA and Western intelligence agencies." -- All while Awan brothers, Alperovitch and such tinker with the US national security?

J , 09 February 2018 at 07:05 PM
Colonel,

There needs to be a 're-education' of the top, all of them need to be required to attend Green Beret think-school, in other words they need to be forced to think outside the box, and to to think on their feet. They need to understand fluid situations where things change at the drop of a hat, be able to dance the two-step and waltz at the same time. In other words they need to be able to walk and chew gum and not trip over their shoe-laces.

By no means are they stupid, but you hit the nail on the head when you said 'narrow thinkers'. Their collective hive mentality that has developed is not a good thing.

divadab , 09 February 2018 at 07:16 PM
God help the poor people of Syria.
james , 09 February 2018 at 07:30 PM
thanks pat... it seems like the usa has had a steady group of leaders that have no interest in the world outside of the usa, or only in so far as they can exploit it for their own interest... maybe that sums up the foreign policy of the usa at this point... you say trump is disinterested.. so all the blather from trump about 'why are we even in syria?', or 'why can't we be friends with the russia?' is just smoke up everyone's ass...

i like what you said here "conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of their guidance from on high. They actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board." - that strikes me as very true - conformist group thinkers... the world needs less of these types and more actual leaders who have a vision for something out of the box and not always on board... i thought for a while trump might fill this bill, but no such luck by the looks of it now..

David E. Solomon , 09 February 2018 at 07:50 PM
Colonel Lang,

Your description of these guys sounds like what we have heard about Soviet era planners. Am I correct in my understanding, or am I missing something?

Regards,

David

DianaLC , 09 February 2018 at 07:56 PM
As a young person in eighth grade, I learned about the "domino theory" in regard to attempts to slow the spread of communism. Then my generation was, in a sense, fractured around the raging battles for and against our involvement in Vietnam.

I won't express my own opinion on that. But I mention it because it seems to be a type of "vision thing."

So, now I ask, what would be your vision for the Syrian situation?

Bill Herschel , 09 February 2018 at 09:11 PM
This has been going on for a long time has it not? Westmoreland? MacArthur?

How did this happen?

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 09:40 PM
Bill Herschel

Westmoreland certainly, Macarthur certainly not. This all started with the "industrialization" of the armed forces in WW2. we never recovered the sense of profession as opposed to occupation after the massive expansion and retention of so many placeholders. a whole new race of Walmart manager arose and persists. pl

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 09:48 PM
DianaC

The idea of the Domino Theory came from academia, not the generals of that time. They resisted the idea of a war in east Asia until simply ordered into it by LBJ. After that their instinct for acting according to guidance kicked in and they became committed to the task. Syria? Do you think I should write you an essay on that? SST has a large archive and a search machine. pl

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 09:55 PM
David E. Solomon

I am talking about flag officers at present, not those beneath them from the mass of whom they emerge. There are exceptions. Martin Dempsey may have been one such. The system creates such people at the top. pl

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 10:08 PM
elaine,

Your usual animosity for non-left wing authority is showing. A commander like the CENTCOM theater commander (look it up) operates within guidance from Washington, broad guidance. Normally this is the president's guidance as developed in the NSC process. Some presidents like Obama and LBJ intervene selectively and directly in the execution of that guidance. Obama had a "kill list" of jihadis suggested by the IC and condemned by him to die in the GWOT. He approved individual missions against them. LBJ picked individual air targets in NVN. Commanders in the field do not like that . They think that freedom of action within their guidance should be accorded them. This CinC has not been interested thus far in the details and have given the whole military chain of command wide discretion to carry out their guidance. pl

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 10:12 PM
J

Thank you, but it is real GBs that you like, not the Delta and SEAL door kickers. pl

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 10:24 PM
Gaikomainaku

"I am not sure that I understand what makes a Borgist different from a military conformist." The Borg and the military leaders are not of the same tribe. they are two different collectives who in the main dislike and distrust each other. pl

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 10:27 PM
Anna. Their guidance does not include a high priority for eradicating the opium trade. Their guidance has to do with defeating the jihadis and building up the central government. pl
turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 10:30 PM
Peter AU

Predictably there is always someone who says that this group is not different from all others. Unfortunately the military function demands more than the level of mediocrity found in most groups. pl

turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 10:44 PM
james

Trump would like to better relations with Russia but that is pretty much the limit of his attention to foreign affairs at any level more sophisticated than expecting deference. He is firmly focused on the economy and base solidifying issues like immigration. pl

Peter AU , 09 February 2018 at 11:01 PM
The medical profession comes to mind. GP's and specialists. Many of those working at the leading edge of research seem much wider thinking and are not locked into the small box of what they have been taught.
turcopolier , 09 February 2018 at 11:16 PM
Peter AU

The GPs do not rule over a hierarchy of doctors. pl

J -> turcopolier ... , 09 February 2018 at 11:22 PM
Combat Applications Group and SEALS don't even begin to compare, they're not in the same league as 'real deal' GBs. The GBs are thinkers as well as doers, whereas Combat Applications Group and SEALs all they know is breach and clear, breach and clear.

There is more to life than breach and clear. Having worked with all in one manner or another, I'll take GBs any day hands down. It makes a difference when the brain is engaged instead of just the heel.

kao_hsien_chih -> Jack... , 09 February 2018 at 11:22 PM
A lot of technology entrepreneurs--especially those active today--are stuck in their own groupthink, inflated by their sense that they are born for greatness and can do no wrong.

The kind of grand schemes that the top people at Google, Uber, and Facebook think up to remake the universe in their own idea of "good society" are frightening. That they are cleverer (but not necessarily wiser) than the academics, borgists, or generals, I think, makes them even more dangerous.

FB Ali , 09 February 2018 at 11:23 PM
Col Lang,

They are indeed "narrow thinkers", but I think the problem runs deeper. They seem to be stuck in the rut of a past era. When the US was indeed the paramount military power on the globe, and the US military reigned supreme. They can't seem to accept the reality of the world as it is now.

Of course, these policies ensure that they continue to be well-funded, even if the US is bankrupting itself in the process.

turcopolier , 10 February 2018 at 01:03 AM
dogear

He is still the Saudi Mukhtar for the US and most of the generals are still narrow minded. pl

LondonBob , 10 February 2018 at 06:59 AM
They [the generals] seem to have deliberately completely ignored the issues and policy positions Trump ran on as President. It isn't a case of ignorance but of wilful disregard.
turcopolier , 10 February 2018 at 07:55 AM
LondonBob

I think that is true but, they were able to talk him into that, thus far. pl

DianaLC said in reply to turcopolier ... , 10 February 2018 at 09:23 AM
I've been reading this blog for some time. My question was facetious and written with the understanding of your statement about the generals not having a good grasp of "the vision thing" on their own.
Terry , 10 February 2018 at 09:25 AM
So true and as others commented this is a sad feature of the human race and all human organizations. Herd mentality ties into social learning. Chimps are on average more creative and have better short term memory than humans. We gave up some short term memory in order to be able to learn quickly by mimicking. If shown how to open a puzzle box but also shown unnecessary extra steps a chimp will ignore the empty steps and open the box with only the required steps. A human will copy what they saw exactly performing the extra steps as if they have some unknown value to the process. Our massive cultural heritages are learned by observing and taken in as a whole. This process works within organizations as well.

I suspect a small percentage of the human race functions differently than the majority and retains creative thinking and openness along with more emphasis on cognitive thinking than social learning but generally they always face a battle when working to change the group "consensus", i.e. Fulton's folly, scepticism on whether man would ever fly, etc.

One nice feature of the internet allows creative thinkers to connect and watch the idiocy of the world unfold around us.

"A natural desire to be part of the 'in crowd' could damage our ability to make the right decisions, a new study has shown."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216212049.htm

TV , 10 February 2018 at 10:18 AM
The military by definition is a rigid hierarchical structure. It could not function as a collection of individuals. This society can only breed conforming narrow leaders as an "individual" would leave or be forced out.
Barbara Ann , 10 February 2018 at 10:22 AM
That part of our brain responsible for the desire to be part of the 'in crowd' may affect our decision-making process, but it is also the reason we keep chimps in zoos and not the other way around. Or, to put it another way; if chimps had invented Facebook, I might consider them more creative than us.
Babak Makkinejad -> Terry... , 10 February 2018 at 10:30 AM
Do you think chimps are, per the Christian Docrine, in a State of Fall or in a State of Grace?
Adrestia , 10 February 2018 at 10:32 AM
This is an interesting discussion. The top in organisations (civil and military) are increasingly technocrats and thinking like systems managers. They are unable to innovate because they lack the ability to think out of the box. Usually there is a leader who depends on specialists. Others (including laymen) are often excluding from the decision-making-proces. John Ralston Saul's Voltaires Bastards describes this very well.

Because of natural selection (conformist people tend to choose similar people who resemble their own values and ways-of-thinking) organizations have a tendency to become homogeneous (especially the higher management/ranks).

In combination with the "dumbing" of people (also of people who have a so-called good education (as described in Richard Sale's Sterile Chit-Chat ) this is a disastrous mix.

Homogeneity is the main culprit. A specialists tends to try to solve problems with the same knowledge-set that created these.

Not all (parts of) organizations and people suffer this fate. Innovations are usually done by laymen and not by specialists. The organizations are often heterogeneous and the people a-typical and/or eccentric.

(mainly the analytical parts of ) intelligence organizations and investment banks are like that if they are worth anything. Very heterogeneous with a lot of a-typical people. I think Green Berets are also like that. An open mind and genuine interest in others (cultures, way of thinking, religion etc) is essential to understand and to perform and also to prevent costly mistakes (in silver and/or blood).

It is possible to create firewalls against tunnel-vision. The Jester performed such a role. Also think of the Emperors New Clothes . The current trend of people with limited vision and creativity prevents this. Criticism is punished with a lack of promotion, job-loss or even jail (whistle-blowers)

IMO this is why up to a certain rank (colonel or middle management) a certain amount of creativity or alternative thinking is allowed, but conformity is essential to rise higher.

I was very interested in the Colonel's remark on the foreign background of the GB in Vietnam. If you would like to expand on this I would be much obliged? IMO GB are an example of a smart, learning, organization (in deed and not only in word as so many say of themselves, but who usually are at best mediocre)

Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg -> gaikokumaniakku... , 10 February 2018 at 11:58 AM
Isn't the "Borg" really The Atlantic Council?
ISL , 10 February 2018 at 12:58 PM
Dear Colonel,

Would you then say that a rising military officer who does have the vision thing faces career impediments? If so, would you say that the vision thing is lost (if it ever was there) at the highest ranks? In any case, the existence of even a few at the top, like Matthis or Shinseki is a blessing.

ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to FB Ali ... , 10 February 2018 at 01:08 PM
FB Ali:
"When the US was indeed the paramount military power on the globe, and the US military reigned supreme. They can't seem to accept the reality of the world as it is now."
That's true not only of the US military but of US elites in general across all of the spectra. And because that reality is at odds with the group-think of those within the various elements that make up the spectra it doesn't a hearing. Anyone who tries to bring it up risks being ejected from the group.
Adrestia , 10 February 2018 at 02:03 PM
I forget an important part. I really miss an edit-button. Comment-boxes are like looking at something through a straw. Its easy to miss the overview.

Innovations and significant new developments are usually made by laymen. IMO mainly because they have a fresh perspective without being bothered by the (mainstream) knowledge that dominates an area of expertise.

By excluding the laymen errors will continue to be repeated. This can be avoided by using development/decision-making frameworks, but these tend to become dogma (and thus become part of the problem)

Much better is allowing laymen and allowing a-typical people. Then listen to them carefully. Less rigid flexible and very valuable.

kooshy , 10 February 2018 at 02:19 PM
Apparently, according to the last US ambassador to Syria Mr. Ford, from 2014-17 US has spent 12 Billion on Regime change in Syria. IMO, combinedly Iran and Russia so far, have spent far less in Syria than 12 billion by US alone, not considering the rest of her so called coalition. This is a war of attrition, and US operations in wars, are usually far more expensive and longer than anybody else's.

"The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, according to the former U.S. ambassador to the country. This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after war broke out in 2011." https://goo.gl/8pj5cD

J , 10 February 2018 at 02:49 PM
Colonel, TTG, PT,

FYI regarding Syria

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/sen-tim-kaine-demands-release-secret-trump-war-powers-memo-n846176

Richardstevenhack -> turcopolier ... , 10 February 2018 at 02:56 PM
It may "demand" it - but does it get it? Soldiers are just as human as everyone else.

I'm reminded of the staff sergeant with the sagging beer belly who informed me, "Stand up straight and look like a soldier..." Or the First Sergeant who was so hung over one morning at inspection that he couldn't remember which direction he was going down the hall to the next room to be inspected. I'm sure you have your own stories of less than competence.

It's a question of intelligence and imagination. And frankly, I don't see the military in any country receiving the "best and brightest" of that country's population, by definition. The fact that someone is patriotic enough to enter the military over a civilian occupation doesn't make them more intelligent or imaginative than the people who decided on the civilian occupation.

Granted, if you fail at accounting, you don't usually die. Death tends to focus the mind, as they say. Nonetheless, we're not talking about the grunts at the level who actually die, still less the relatively limited number of Special Forces. We're talking about the officers and staff at the levels who don't usually die in war - except maybe at their defeat - i.e., most officers over the level of captain.

One can hardly look at this officer crowd in the Pentagon and CENTCOM and say that their personal death concentrates their mind. They are in virtually no danger of that. Only career death faces them - with a nice transition to the board of General Dynamics at ten times the salary.

All in all, I'd have to agree that the military isn't much better at being competent - at many levels above the obvious group of hyper-trained Special Forces - any more than any other profession.

dogear said in reply to Terry... , 10 February 2018 at 02:59 PM
That is well put.most important is the grading system that is designed to fix a person to a particular slot thereby limiting his ability to think "outside the box" and consider the many variables that exist in one particular instant.

Creative thinking allows you to see beyond the storm clouds ahead and realize that the connectedness of different realities both the visible and invisible. For instance the picture of the 2 pairs of korean skaters in the news tells an interesting story on many levels. Some will judge them on their grade of proffiency, while others will see a dance of strategy between 2 foes and a few will know the results in advance and plan accordingly

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.nbcolympics.com/news/north-south-korean-figure-skating-teams-practice-side-side%3famp?espv=1

Mark Logan said in reply to Peter AU... , 10 February 2018 at 03:30 PM
Peter AU

"They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I've often pondered that concept. Notice how many of radical extremist leaders were doctors, engineers and such? Narrow and deep. STEM is enormously useful to us but seems to be a risky when implanted in shallow earth.

turcopolier , 10 February 2018 at 05:03 PM
Mark Logan

These narrow "but deep" thinkers were unable to grasp the nature of the Iraq War for the first couple of years. They thought of it as a rear area security problem, a combat in cities problem, anything but a popular rebellion based on xenophobia and anti-colonialism The IED problem? They spent several billion dollars on trying to find a technology fix and never succeeded. I know because they kept asking me to explain the war to them and then could not understand the answers which were outside their narrow thought. pl

turcopolier , 10 February 2018 at 05:13 PM
ISL

War College selectees, the national board selected creme de la creme test out as 50% SJs (conformists lacking vision) in Myers-Briggs terms and about 15% NTs (intellectuals). To survive and move upward in a system dominated by SJs, the NTs must pretend to be what they are not. A few succeed. I do not think Mattis is an intellectual merely because he has read a lot. pl

outthere , 10 February 2018 at 05:19 PM
Long ago when I was a professor, I advised my students that "the law is like a pencil sharpener, it sharpens the mind by narrowing it." I tried to encourage them to "think backwards".

My favorite example was a Japanese fisherman who recovered valuable ancient Chinese pottery. Everyone knew where an ancient ship had sunk, but the water was too deep to dive down to the wreck. And everyone knew the cargo included these valuable vases. And the fisherman was the first to figure out how to recover them. He attached a line to an octopus, and lowered it in the area, waited awhile, and pulled it up. Low and behold, the octopus had hidden in an ancient Chinese vase. The fisherman was familiar with trapping octopuses, by lowering a ceramic pot (called "takosubo") into the ocean, waiting awhile, then raising the vase with octopus inside. His brilliance was to think backwards, and use an octopus to catch a vase.

turcopolier , 10 February 2018 at 05:24 PM
TV

By your calculation people like Joe Stilwell and George Patton should not have existed. pl

turcopolier , 10 February 2018 at 05:31 PM
Adrestia

the original GBS were recruited in the 50s to serve in the OSS role with foreign guerrillas behind Soviet lines in th event of war in Europe. Aaron Bank, the founder, recruited several hundred experienced foreign soldiers from the likely countries who wanted to become American. By the time we were in VN these men were a small fraction of GBs but important for their expertise and professionalism. pl

ked , 10 February 2018 at 05:56 PM
Col, I think it might help people to think of "the Borg" - as you have defined & applied it - in a broader context. It struck me particularly as you ID'd the launching of our modern military group-think / careerism behavior coming from the watershed of industrialized scale & processes that came out of WWII.

We note parallel themes in all significant sectors of our civilization. The ever-expanding security state, the many men in Gray Flannel Suits that inhabit corporate culture, Finance & Banking & Big Health scaling ever larger - all processes aimed to slice the salami thinner & quicker, to the point where meat is moot ... and so it goes.

I note many Borgs... Borgism if you will. An organizational behavior that has emerged out of human nature having difficulty adapting to rapidly accelerating complexity that is just too hard to apprehend in a few generations. If (as many commenters on STT seem to...) one wishes to view this in an ideological or spiritual framework only, they may overlook an important truth - that what we are experiencing is a Battle Among Borgs for control over their own space & domination over the other Borgs. How else would we expect any competitive, powerful interest group to act?

In gov & industry these days, we observe some pretty wild outliers... attached to some wild outcomes. Thus the boring behavior of our political industries bringing forth Trump, our promethean technology sector yielding a Musk (& yes, a Zuckerberg).

I find it hard to take very seriously analysts that define their perspective based primarily upon their superior ideals & opposition to others. Isn't every person, every tribe, team or enterprise a borglet-in-becoming? Everybody Wants to Rule the World ... & Everybody Must Get Stoned... messages about how we are grappling with complexity in our times. I just finished reading Command & Control (about nuclear weapons policy, systems design & accidents). I am amazed we've made it this far.

Unfortunately, I would not be amazed if reckless, feckless leaders changed the status quo. I was particularly alarmed hearing Trump in his projection mode; "I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity, without a major event where people pull together, that's hard to do.

But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing." It strikes me that he could be exceptionally willing to risk a Major Event if he felt a form of unity, or self-preservation, was in the offing. I pray (& I do not pray often or easily) that the Generals you have described have enough heart & guts to honor their oath at its most profound level in the event of an Event.

turcopolier , 10 February 2018 at 06:00 PM
babak

As a time traveler from another age, I can only say that for me it means devotion to a set of mores peculiar to a particular profession as opposed to an occupation. pl

Barbara Ann -> outthere... , 10 February 2018 at 06:00 PM
Great example outthere.

Another springs to mind: James Lovelock (of Gaia hypothesis fame) was once part of the NASA team building the first probe to go to Mars to look for signs of life. Lovelock didn't make any friends when he told NASA they were wasting their time, there was none. When asked how he could be so sure, he explained that the composition of the Martian atmosphere made it impossible. "But Martian life may be able to survive under different conditions" was the retort. Lovelock then went on to explain his view that the evolution of microbial life determined the atmospheric composition on Earth, so should be expected to do the same if life had evolved on Mars. Brilliant backwards thinking which ought to have earned him the Nobel prize IMHO (for Gaia). Lovelock, a classic cross-disciplinary scientist, can't be rewarded with such a box-categorized honor, as his idea doesn't fit well into any one.

Another example of cross-disciplinary brilliance was Bitcoin, which has as much to do with its creator's deep knowledge of Anthropology (why people invented & use money) as his expertise in both Economics and Computer Science.

This is they key to creative thinking in my view - familiarity with different fields yields deeper insights.

[Feb 10, 2018] That Mueller picked Dumb-Strzok and his mistress, senior FBI attorney Lisa Page -- not to mention so many other widely known supporters/defenders of Mrs. Clinton -- to run his investigation is a perfect example of the overweening, unbridled arrogance

the MSM deification of Mueller reminds me much of their similar glorification of J Edgar Hoover at that time.
Notable quotes:
"... Given the state of the law and the Russia-gate cheerleading media -- both mainstream AND progressive -- Mueller's demonstrable malfeasance of the past has not yet put a dent in the "universally respected" honorific the New York Times has bestowed on him. Not yet. ..."
Feb 10, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Ray McGovern , February 9, 2018 at 11:57 am

Well done, Coleen and Nat,

Against the background of the excellent article Coleen wrote last June on Mueller:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/06/russia-gates-mythical-heroes/

and one I wrote earlier, having had a chance to question Mueller personally before a large audience at Georgetown University:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/18/how-nsa-can-secretly-aid-criminal-cases-2/

well, in the Bronx, we would call Mueller a crook; in Manhattan, a white-collar criminal.

Given the state of the law and the Russia-gate cheerleading media -- both mainstream AND progressive -- Mueller's demonstrable malfeasance of the past has not yet put a dent in the "universally respected" honorific the New York Times has bestowed on him. Not yet.

What may do him in, rather, is the same tragic flaw that did in the main actors of the Greek tragedies of two and a half millennia ago. The Greeks called it hubris.

That Mueller picked Dumb-Strzok and his mistress, senior FBI attorney Lisa Page -- not to mention so many other widely known supporters/defenders of Mrs. Clinton -- to run his investigation is a perfect example of the overweening, unbridled arrogance that led to the downfall of many a Greek hero.

Appearance of bias be damned.

And did no one notice how Mueller' best friend forever Comey immediately admitted that the reason he had one of his sidekicks leak sensitive information to the NY Times was that he wanted a special counsel picked toot sweet. And who would that, toot sweet, turn out to be? his old joined-at-the-hip partner in crime, Bob Mueller (thank you, Jesus!)

The supreme irony is that the "universally respected" Robert Mueller is now hoisted by his own petard of hubris. The newness about Nunes -- and rowdy Gowdy -- is their willingness to take on Mueller's closest friends, despite media charges that Republicans are trying to sabotage his investigation. In reality, Mueller has done a pretty good job of that himself, thank you very much.

I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller, Rosenstein, et al. be fired for cause (with respect to Rosenstein, signing deceptive FISA applications is a felony). I would guess it would be best politically to leave Mueller there to stew in his own juice.

In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if only because of the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation. Is he perhaps waiting for his old FBI buddies to dig up some dirt on Nunes and Gowdy? I would not put that past him, given his checkered career (see, again, Coleen's excellent article of last June).

Be prepared for things to get still uglier.

Once again, hats of to Coleen Rowley -- and Nat Parry. Like father, like son.

Ray McGovern

Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 1:41 pm

Mr. McGovern I was just reading some of Fletcher Prouty's on-line posts from the past. I have long admired him. Your background and ethics remind me of his. Many thanks

[Feb 10, 2018] Martin Armstrong Asks Is George Soros One Of The Greatest Threats Against Society

Feb 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

BobEore -> Captain Chlamydia Feb 10, 2018 12:04 PM Permalink

Soros is mid level management

The firm employs him in a variety of roles, the better to smoke screen the real agendas in play

George deals in politicians as much or more as 'currencies'

Red/blue... what's it to you. Like the man always sez|

joomanji gonna git you!

Ckierst1 -> BobEore Feb 10, 2018 2:34 PM Permalink

My guess is that he is a very highly paid lackey for the Rothschilds, much as was J. P. Morgan. The world would be better off without him, obviously, but the "darkside" globalist remain, and ultimately they are the real eminence gris control freaks working for instability, corruption, financial manipulation, fiat money, violence, strife, illegal immigration, drug epidemics, human trafficking and bad economics, such as mercantilistic, false capitalism cronyism, among other anti-middle class and anti-liberty movements/phenomena occurring around the world. G. Edward Griffin might be right! Wikipedia has one of the most negative bios of him that I've ever read, to his credit, I suppose!

Expendable Container -> OverTheHedge Feb 10, 2018 2:24 PM Permalink

Being a genuine psychopath (they are not quite human due to brain differences) Soros certainly enjoys his sense of power. They cannot experience conscience nor empathy and that emotional vacuum can only be filled by a sense of P O W E R over others. Psychopathy used for political purposes for evil is called Political Ponerology. We watch the movies and think psychos are out killing prostitutes - we never consider Snakes In Suits! Despite all this Soros is working for the Zionist World Domination plan (check out the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion).

Expendable Container -> Trader Maximus Feb 10, 2018 2:31 PM Permalink

No, Soros is not just a threat to the 'American way of life'. He organizes color revolutions around the world including Asia so he is a threat to all nations' sovereignty but then national sovereignty is to be 'removed' for the Neoliberal World totalitarian goal.

Gadfly Feb 10, 2018 1:55 PM Permalink

Soros is a front man for the Rothschilds. Plain and simple. That's where he gets the billions he needs to engage in global activities that destroy religion, morals, values, gender, nationalism and society. This is the agenda of the Rothschilds, the private central bankers, and the New World Order.

Do you really think Soros is some kind of investing genius who's made billions on his own, who is then willing to give it all away for so called "philanthropic" reasons? Bullshit. He's a hired gun. A front man. A cover for the Rothschilds who have spent two hundred years hiding in the shadows while others go about doing their dirty work to reshape society for their own selfish ends – a private, worldwide financial system they own and control.

Just like he pimped for the Nazis, Soros is now pimping for the Rothschilds. He has no moral center or compass, and has admitted as much in a televised interview. (He said if he hadn't turned in Jews to the Nazis for money, someone else would have done it.) Wake up people. Soros is the Sammy the Bull Gravano for the Rothschilds. The Luca Brasi to the Godfather. He needs to be brought to justice. And so do the Rothschilds.

[Feb 10, 2018] Canons of color revolution in action: hundreds of thousands have pledged to take to the streets if Special Counsel Robert Mueller is removed, reflecting misplaced priorities and some fundamental misunderstandings

Notable quotes:
"... What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest prize of all and said "Why not.'. ..."
"... Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly, Americans cannot wake up fast enough ..."
"... I am familiar with the tactics of Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more committed to getting him elected. ..."
"... This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy prey for being led to their own political slaughter. ..."
"... Does anybody ever talk about the failures of capitalism anymore or just about people and politics? ..."
"... Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors. That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the Mueller "investigation." ..."
"... yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream media. ..."
"... This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court represents. ..."
"... Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk. In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never. ..."
"... Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our free [sic] press and establishment media. ..."
"... Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them compliant and confused. ..."
"... As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally, then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what they seem to have done. ..."
"... Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war. How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as millions of dead and traumatized survivors. ..."
"... I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of supporting war against Russia. ..."
"... Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential administrative discipline. ..."
"... That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it. Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out. If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media in the service of both. ..."
"... Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade, splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer. ..."
"... I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay. Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left. ..."
"... Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as possible. ..."
"... The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate. ..."
"... One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population. ..."
"... Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions "political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering, just as were our British forefathers. ..."
"... Is it a diversion? From what? It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll. Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to doomsday. Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP. Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima. when nerves fray hey! ..."
"... I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate. ..."
"... For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern. We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us. Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their hatred of Trump is only part of this issue. ..."
"... With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. ..."
"... Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these Russian hackers who weren't there. ..."
"... The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves. ..."
"... I maintain that having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate. People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled." ..."
"... Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the Pentagon budget! ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Originally from: 'This is Nuts' Liberals Launch 'Largest Mobilization in History' in Defense of Russiagate Probe – Consortiumnews By Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry

Exclusive: Hundreds of thousands have pledged to take to the streets if Special Counsel Robert Mueller is removed, reflecting misplaced priorities and some fundamental misunderstandings, report Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry.

... ... ...

Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported . We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators.

Such emotional manipulation is the likely explanation for the fact that so many people are now gearing up to defend someone like Mueller, while largely ignoring other important topics of far greater consequence. With no demonstrations being organized to stop a possible war with North Korea – or an escalation in Syria – hundreds of thousands of Americans are apparently all too eager to go to the mat in defense of an investigation into the president's possible "collusion" with Russia in its alleged meddling in election 2016.

Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and defender of democracy? Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn't have to be privy to his inner circle to recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should still shock liberal consciences.

Although Mueller and his "joined at the hip" cohort James Comey are now hailed for their impeccable character by much of Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited stunning levels of incompetence.

Ironically, recent declassifications of House Intelligence Committee's and Senate Judiciary Committee Leaders letters ( here and here ) reveal strong parallels between the way the public so quickly forgot Mueller's spotty track record with the way the FBI and (the Obama administration's) Department of Justice rushed, during the summer of 2016, to put a former fellow spy, Christopher Steele up on a pedestal. Steele was declared to be a "reliable source" without apparently vetting or corroborating any of the "opposition research" allegations that he had been hired (and paid $160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

There are typically at least two major prongs of establishing the "reliability" of any given source in an affidavit, the first – and the one mostly pointed to – being the source's track record for having furnished accurate and reliable information in the past. Even if it is conceded that Steele would have initially satisfied this part of the test for determining probable cause, based on his having reportedly furnished some important information to FBI agents investigating the FIFA soccer fraud years before, his track record for truthfulness would go right up in smoke only a month or so later, when it was discovered that he had lied to the FBI about his having previously leaked the investigation to the media. (Moreover, this lie had led the FBI to mislead the FISA court in its first application to surveil Carter Page.)

The second main factor in establishing the reliability of any source's information would be even more key in this case. It's the basis of the particular informant's knowledge, i.e. was the informant an eye witness or merely reporting double-triple hearsay or just regurgitating the "word on the street?"

If the actual basis of the information is uncertain, the next step for law enforcement would normally be to seek facts that either corroborate or refute the source's information. It's been reported that FBI agents did inquire into the basis for Steele's allegations, but it is not known what Steele told the FBI – other than indications that his info came from secondary sources making it, at best, second- or third-hand. What if anything did the FBI do to establish the reliability of the indirect sources that Steele claimed to be getting his info from? Before vouching for his credibility, did the FBI even consider polygraphing Steele after he (falsely) denied having leaked his info since the FBI was aware of significant similarities of a news article to the info he had supplied them?

Obviously, more questions than answers exist at the present time. But even if the FBI was duped by Steele – whether as the result of their naivete in trusting a fellow former spy, their own sloppiness or recklessness, or political bias – it should be hoped by everyone that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get to the bottom of how the FISA court was ultimately misled.

As they prepare for the "largest mobilization in history" in defense of Mueller and his probe into Russiagate, liberals have tried to sweep all this under the rug as a "nothing burger." Yet, how can liberals, who in the past have pointed to so many abusive past practices by the FBI, ignore the reality that these sorts of abuses of the FISA process more than likely take place on a daily basis – with the FISA court earning a well-deserved reputation as little more than a rubberstamp?

Other, more run-of-the-mill FISA applications – if they were to be scrutinized as thoroughly as the Carter Page one – would reveal similar sloppiness and lack of factual verification of source information used to secure surveillance orders, especially after FISA surveillances skyrocketed after 9/11 in the "war on terror." Rather than dismissing the Nunes Memo as a nothing burger, liberals might be better served by taking a closer look at this FISA process which could easily be turned against them instead of Trump.

It must be recognized that FBI agents who go before the secret FISA court and who are virtually assured that whatever they present will be kept secret in perpetuity, have very little reason to be careful in verifying what they present as factual. FISA court judges are responsible for knowing the law but have no way of ascertaining the "facts" presented to them.

Unlike a criminal surveillance authorized by a federal district court, no FBI affidavit justifying the surveillance will ever end up under the microscope of defense attorneys and defendants to be pored over to ensure every asserted detail was correct and if not, to challenge any incorrect factual assertions in pre-trial motions to suppress evidence.

It is therefore shocking to watch how this political manipulation seems to make people who claim to care about the rule of law now want to bury this case of surveillance targeting Carter Page based on the ostensibly specious Steele dossier. This is the one case unique in coming to light among tens of thousands of FISA surveillances cloaked forever in secrecy, given that the FISA system lacks the checks on abusive authority that inherently exist in the criminal justice process, and so the Page case is instructive to learn how the sausage really gets made.

Neither the liberal adulation of Mueller nor the unquestioned credibility accorded Steele by the FBI seem warranted by the facts. It is fair for Americans to ask whether Mueller's investigation would have ever happened if not for his FBI successor James Comey having signed off on the investigation triggered by the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on her opponent.

In any event, please spare us the solicitations of these political NGOs' "national mobilization" to protect Mueller. There are at least a million attorneys in this country who do not suffer from the significant conflicts of interest that Robert Mueller has with key witnesses like his close, long-term colleague James Comey and other public officials involved in the investigation.

And, at the end of the day, there are far more important issues to be concerned about than the "integrity" of the Mueller investigation – one being the need to fix FISA court abuses and restoring constitutional rights.

Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002.

Nat Parry is co-author of Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush .

Herman , February 9, 2018 at 9:44 am

What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest prize of all and said "Why not.'.

Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:04 am

Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly, Americans cannot wake up fast enough

Annie , February 9, 2018 at 10:40 am

I'm not all that familiar with the group Avaaz, but I am familiar with the tactics of Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more committed to getting him elected.

I discontinued my support for Move-on as a result of these kind of antics. Those I know who were viciously anti-Trump lost total perspective during his presidential run, and all supported Clinton whose policies they knew little about. They were hooked into mainstream media, and none investigated alternative news sources even though they are computer literate and could have done so. All were hooked into Russia-gate from the beginning, and have never waivered in their position. I think we have to begin to look at these people not as liberals, or progressives, but for the most part they are democrats who see their party as representing liberal causes. None I know who would support this march participated in any anti-war movement, and were basically silent on Obama's militarism, which informs me these so called liberals when it comes to war their position is more dependent on who's doing the killing.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:27 pm

Annie I found this statement of yours a very interesting perspective 'and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well'. All this noise coming from the left is never analyzed from the perspective of what would the average Trump supporter think. Yet, you did this. Pretty good analytical take on these attacks against Trump.

I thought when Trump honored the 'Natve-American code breakers' that by his doing this function while standing underneath a picture of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson was very telling. Although seen properly by many who may have a good sense of history, I thought that this was purposely done, and done to insight the Trump supporters who's racist attitude were served quite well with Trump's staging of this honorable affair.

The Left (which isn't really Left) is wandering around trying to bring down Trump, while at the same time the American Left ignores what a Trump supporter may think. Both groups of American citizenry would do well to quit with all of this name calling, and derisive contempt for each other, and they should begin with a dialog which could eventually bring them together, in order to create a more perfect union.

Then that's where you come in Annie, as to reassure they keep their eye on the ball, and to what is most important to remember, and that is because we are all together in this big crazy thing called America. We Americans should bridge our difference into making the U.S. a better nation for all to live in, and relieve the world from fears of American bombs falling on their heads.

Good take on the anti-Trump movement Annie. Joe

Jim Meeks , February 9, 2018 at 7:34 pm

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-propaganda-war-against-syria-led-by-avaaz-and-the-white-helmets/5479307

Coleen Rowley , February 9, 2018 at 10:12 pm

More background on Avaaz (and its hypocrisy) at: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/14/duping-progressives-into-wars/

Lois Gagnon , February 9, 2018 at 11:02 pm

This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy prey for being led to their own political slaughter. He does become more foul mouthed towards the end. I understand his increasing frustration with this insanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAvvAQopmQ

Nancy , February 9, 2018 at 1:46 pm

"Hoisted by his own petard of hubris"–great line. We can only hope.

weilunion , February 9, 2018 at 5:47 pm

Does anybody ever talk about the failures of capitalism anymore or just about people and politics?

floyd gardner , February 9, 2018 at 10:38 pm

Your point is NEVER off-subject. Soros may fund one branch of the Capitalist Party and Singer the other; but they both and all the rest of their ilk, belong to the same Brotherhood.

alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 4:28 pm

"I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller, Rosenstein, et al. be fired for cause "

Ray, thanks for not being like most politicians (and journalists) who carefully test which way the political winds are blowing to decide whether something is a good or bad idea. You do what you think is right, based on considerations more important than your career (gasp!).

"In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign "

Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors. That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon.

The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the Mueller "investigation."

Mueller and his co-conspirators, with all their lies and smears, have been subverting our democracy long enough. Fire him already and oppose Trump democratically instead.

Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:56 pm

Nice summary. I can't really think of anything to say to improve on that title remark of "This is Nuts.

Virginia , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm

Ray, Mueller should resign (" if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if only because of the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation") because there is no there there. Just close the investigation and let Americans get on with our lives.

GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:12 pm

yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream media. as long as that dog has a bone he will run with it. where's a dog catcher when you need one??

CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm

Thanks Ray,

Way to little truth out there and a whole bunch of characters involved in some modern day Shakespearean tragedy.

So Tex , February 9, 2018 at 10:48 am

These organizers are arms of or provocateurs for the failing and flailing Democratic Party.. They have staked their very lives on the Russia-gate nonsense and removing or just crippling Trump.. It's all very sad since they could be embracing the current political climate and reforming the once great Democratic Party. The unfortunate reality is that many people, including good hearted people, are falling for it.

Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:00 am

"It is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue."

"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts."

Ain't that the truth. Most Americans want to believe anything that authority tells them to believe. They are not worthy of the great democracy they inherited. Thank you Colleen. You are the opposite. We need to see you more often.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 11:25 am

This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court represents.

Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk. In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never.

What this Russia-gate investigation has rot among so many other things, is that it has taken the weakening Left and showed it for what it is. It was one thing when the Clinton's moved the Democrates over into the Wall Street column, but now with this organized Left push to support the Mueller Investigation the Left has been moved into the police state category whether these poorly misguided liberals even realize this fact. This would be akin to Albert Einstein marching behind a Nazi flag, or his standing next to Joseph Goebbels to help usher in the sheep to slaughter under the guise of democracy, and everything that's right.

Wake up America.

Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 am

"This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up"

Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our free [sic] press and establishment media.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:34 pm

Thank you Mr Hunkins, I've read many a comment post of yours, and hardly do I ever disagree with you. To bad there are not more of us voices for sanity, but with that there go I. Joe

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:46 am

I just saw this on the Duran. Duran reporter Jim Jatras details some very interesting angles of the likes you don't very often hear in regard to Russia-Gate. Be notified Mr Jatras has a typo where he says Mac Blumenthal he really means the father of Max who is Sidney.

Jatras also points to the same circumstance where many Russians assumed Hillary would be our next president, so the attraction to sabotage Hillary's campaign seemed to a fruitless proposition. I remember our own beloved Robert Parry making the same observation.

http://theduran.com/steele-dossier-full-russian-dirt-or-british/

exiled off mainstreet , February 10, 2018 at 3:35 am

The last sentence sums it up. Any former member of the left who supports this (they became former once they supported this obviously flawed fascistic phony investigation the implications of which threaten the rule of law and the stability and sustainability of life itself) has gone zombie and can be compared to Einstein backing Goebbels.

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:01 pm

I'm still having a hard time accepting this pseudo Left swing to the National Security State/Deep State. Nothing in life should surprise me by now, but seeing what calls itself the Left in the U.S. go the way of the CIA/FBI/NSA is hard to swallow.

The Democrates are soon going to regret spending all of this valuable time wasted on this Russia-Gate craziness, and then what will they blame? Of course they will blame Trump, and still invoke Putin's name, because that's what sells tv ratings. In the end the Democrates may wake up to the realization that they blamed Trump,for all the wrong things that should have mattered. This distraction for their bend obsession with all things Russian, is what will have sunk their boat in 2018, and unless the Dem's wise up this unneeded shadow will hover over them even into 2020. Joe

Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:42 am

The most disconcerting and heartbreaking thing I've witnessed in my 30 plus years of studying the politico-economic scene is the manner in which otherwise decent liberals have fallen for (or of course have been more than willing propagandists for) the hoax Russia-gate narrative. Sure, with the Schiffs (D-Israel), Schumers (D-Israel) and others in the corporate DNC, it's all to be expected, and no semi-intelligent CN fan would consider them to be otherwise decent liberals. But to see good domestic populist liberals sell this dangerous snake-oil has been illuminating and dismaying. For crying out loud -- on this particular issue Sean Hannity is better than Rachel Maddow!

It demonstrates more than any other issue the lock that Official Washington and its military driven empire builders along with the blood soaked mass media have on virtually our entire political spectrum and social discourse.

The recent Nuclear Posture Review just comes out -- putting the world closer to complete annihilation and total Armageddon -- and there isn't much of a hue and cry from the smart and most important people in our media-industrial complex. Frightening.

D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:49 am

An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal anti-Israel campaign. We really don't all agree that a "fair partitioning" in the Mideast would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews. For those who don't know, Israel is a tiny country (roughly the size of New Jersey). It's the sole Jewish nation, surrounded by vast, oil-rich Arab countries. Jews are, indeed, indigenous to that bit of land. Those called "Palestinians" are Arabs who are recruited to work toward the destruction of Israel, establishing a 100% "pure" Moslem Mideast.

Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:07 pm

"An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal anti-Israel campaign."

Set up a strawman much?

What you describe is a very, very marginal phenomenon in the Palestinian justice movement, marginal enough to be totally insignificant. It's interesting that you bring this disinformation into CN. The Zionist power configuration in America can be relentless, no doubt. Hasbara is ubiquitous.

Israel's a criminal state and international pariah bent on wiping out any independent pro Palestinian nation-state in the Middle East and subverting and destabilizing any independent pro Palestinian head of state. Bloodthirsty Tel Aviv militarists mow the grass in Gaza by killing and maiming roughly 2,000 women and children every 6 or 7 years. And no, it's not a "fascist ideology" to point any of this out.

Read Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Mearsheimer and Walt and a few others I'm forgetting at the moment for the real dope.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm

I think D.H. just ran a Zionist commercial on 'the Consortium'. Should we run a pro-Palestinian commercial, just to be 'fair and balanced'?

Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm

I've noticed the dishonest Zionist was trying to act like a "normal" person a few times recently. Probably the thought was that this would gain "credibility" for BS like this "Zionist Commercial" you speak of.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm

Zachary it's interesting to listen to a Zionist using the same talking points that would describe the horrible plight of the downtrodden Palestinian, and do it so easily without any conscious effort to hide the truth, of what's really going on. Joe

Lois Gagnon , February 9, 2018 at 11:22 pm

I've seen this troll on other progressive sites using the same exact wording.

Anon , February 9, 2018 at 1:35 pm

Troll alert: please do not reply to DHF comments. This is an attempt to derail the discussion and debase the participants, a extreme zionist attack, on a site known for more cautious and fair commenters.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:42 pm

Maybe we should aim our conversation to this maddening frustration over all things Russian, to better describe America's relationship to the Zionist Bibi Netanyahu. Do you hear me, Robert Mueller? Can you Mr Mueller lean heavily onto Flynn's Israeli heavy lifting, and why Flynn was serving the needs of the Israeli's?

Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:21 pm

Yes, this comment is so out of touch that it must be a troll looking to discredit this site.

A previous comment making the same statement was it seems removed. Israel must be a very sensitive issue in the US.

Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 8:20 pm

It is beyond belief how sensitive it is. You have no idea. However, now it actually isn't as subversive and contentious as it was just 15 to 20 years ago. So there has been a small amount of progress, long way to go though.

floyd gardner , February 9, 2018 at 10:57 pm

There's an elephant in the room; and it's stomping on everyone's feet. But anyone who mentions it is an anti-elephant.

louis coulson , February 9, 2018 at 5:34 pm

Hey Fabian I have some refugees here so I'm taking your land for them. Pack your trash and move on.

nonsense factory , February 10, 2018 at 10:54 am

The solution is simple: Allow all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to vote in Israeli national parliamentary elections. Only then could Israel call itself a 'true democracy'. This I believe results in about a 50-50 split in the electorate on religious / ethnic lines so you could even get a Muslim leader of Israel, or at least a balanced parliament.

This of course raises the issue of the military and executive and judicial structure of Israel; land ownership and immigration policy would have to be changed so that any citizen could own land, and non-Jews would be allowed to emigrate back to the region (i.e. the Palestinian diaspora would have the same rights as the Jewish diaspora).

An even more tricky issue would be the Israeli nuclear weapons program; the first step there is for the state of Israel to publicly admit its existence and allow for IAEA inspections of the program.

Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 12:17 pm

Many thanks Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry. Drew Hunkins, I think your comment about "otherwise decent liberals" is prescient but I'll bet that we could have a long, extended discussion on The illiberalness of this generation of democrats (please note the small d).
I would argue that with the inception of the Clinton/Blair "Third Way" that the Democratic Party separated itself from its historic roots. In fact I think the very label of liberal opposition here used is disingenuous.

These people The Clintons and their Neoliberal constituents have never represented the Democratic Party in act or deed. The Neocons switching sides prior to the last election cycle underscored their illiberal attitude. In fact classic party alignment has little to do with this issue of criminal behavior, it is just the vehicle of divisiveness being utilized in this instance

Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:09 pm

Points well taken Mr. Van Noy.

Most of the Dem Party has been a complete dumpster fire since corporate Clinton, "New Democrats!" and DLC completely took over the entire infrastructure.

Nancy , February 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm

Sadly, those decent liberals you speak of also fell for the Clinton/Obama hoax. They are a big part of the problem -- phonies.

Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 1:45 am

A big part of the problem for sure. Support for the Democrats on the basis of "liberal causes" is blind, phony. or both. We have suffered soaring housing and health care costs. Investment in Social Security has been marginalized at the same time war costs are put "off the books" and deemed a "necessity" of National Security. Public schools are now "standardized", but standards are lacking and the quality of "higher"education has taken a hit too while leaving graduates in piles of debt. The safety of our drinking water is suspect and other environmental concerns take a back seat as well while "fracking" and "drill baby drill" get passes. Civil liberties are under assault and the war drums beat on. So where are the liberal Democrats? Taking "contributions", hiding under rocks, or snickering through 3-martini lunches with their Republican cohorts but they certainly haven't been "liberals" for a long time now. Bill Clinton and Obama were nothing of the sort.
Next time a Democrat calls him/her self a "liberal", they ought to have to express a true idea of just what that's suppose to mean. And then explain what happened the last quarter-century and what in the hell their current "resistance" is really about. Don't worry there won't be any straight answers forthcoming, and likely nary a hint of embarrassment either. They are shameless traitors or fools

Bob Van Noy , February 10, 2018 at 10:07 am

Nicely done Gregory Herr. The democratic party talks a good game but manages to Never Deliver the goods. The party hierarchy (DNC) doesn't deserve support
Simply vote for a candidate that delivers. And, never donate to the party

D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:44 am

We saw how powerfully the Clinton "New Democrat Party" gained "influence" over the media marketed to middle class liberals, from MSNBC to online publications, pulling them well to the right. The Democrats' anti-Russian crusade does, indeed, mimic Bush's lies about "Iraq's stockpiles of WMD." What is truly "nuts" is that so much of the liberal media promote the right wing agenda while wearing their "bold progressive" lapel buttons.

Loretta , February 9, 2018 at 12:05 pm

Thank you for this piece!!

j. D. D. , February 9, 2018 at 12:16 pm

The spectacle of the Democratic Part and even the Black Caucus rallying to support the FBI is truly a wonder to behold. Have they forgotten the FBI's past in blackmailing presidents and political leaders including JFK, Robert Kennedy and Matin Luther King? Have they forgotten its Operation Frugmenschen, which means "ape man" in German to target Balck politicians and activists, or the threatening dirty tricks letter sent to MLK urging him to commit suicide? Are they prepared to see through an illegal coup against an elected president who dared suggest a positive relaitonship with Russia and China, ensuring that no future president will dare "step out of line" lest the secret files be pulled to create a cripling scandal?. Apparently not, as the Demcratic Party we knew appears quite dead, perhaps lethally shot on Nov 22, 1963 and finally buried in 2016 with the nomination of a craven Wall Street puppet and warmonger.

SeaClearly , February 9, 2018 at 12:17 pm

Thank you, Nat and Coleen, for this article -- as well as continuing and furthering Consortium News' reputation as one of the few remaining independent outlets that can be considered trustworthy. In this age, where even Common Dreams has lost its credibility (and posts by Caitlin Johnstone have to be taken/guarded with grains of salt) it is still a refreshing rarity.

In overall relation, the following Review is shared as representative:

Robert Shetterly's "Americans Who Tell The Truth.org" continually express, show, and Speak Truth to Power. During our times of First Draft Coalition[s], where we are subjected to 98% (?) Controlled Narratives, a predominance critically desires to hear/see those sides which are purposely and collusively repressed, banned and/or censored. In these exponentially-escalating periods of secret laws based on secret memos, secret courts acting with secret evidence (which will not be revealed to the accused), absolute torture to the point of insanity (and death) as a means of interrogation until one gives predetermined answers (truthful or not), worldwide surveillance on every inhabitant (without probable cause) that can be (and is) used as a means to instill fear, to threaten, tarnish, oppress, and silence even peaceful dissenters of basic causes while (resultantly) turning back history 500 years, we need those with (the ability of) absolute courage to Stand Up Now (more than ever).

Evolution: from Total Information Awareness (which started long before 9/11) to Total Information (and Population) Control (as a goal in the present).

Steve , February 9, 2018 at 12:19 pm

FAKE NEWS has been used to snooker the Aemnrician people and as it is gobbled up and digested and spit back with investigation or corroboration it turns decent folks into FAKE PEOPLE. Mueller is no choir boy and the mess in Washington is not going away sometime soon. As for damaging democracy, the 2 party system has taken care of that very nicely but channeling anger into something positive just wont' be allowed to happen as the media are controlled by huge moneyed interests.

Janet Zampieri , February 9, 2018 at 12:29 pm

The liberals are reacting this way because of the constant lies they are fed by the mainstream media. The corporate and CIA control of the media must be exposed and put to an end.

Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 12:36 pm

Being a mere paycheque away from disaster, most Americans cannot afford to take to any streets. The Powers That Be know and exploit this, having orchestrated their captives' dire straits, all along.

So, whence shall cometh these threatening troops from Camps AVAAZ and MoveOn? By process of elimination, from the minority well-enough-heeled and the Soros-paid.

FISA's Footsoldiers. Mueller's Mobs. Comey's Creatures. Hillary's Hordes.

Slavery is Freedom! War is Peace! 1984 was a cookbook; we've been reading Orwell all wrong.

johnnieandroidseed , February 9, 2018 at 9:03 pm

My chuckle for the day was "1984 was a cookbook." Reminded me of the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man" which should be the motto of capitalists everywhere.

floyd gardner , February 9, 2018 at 11:17 pm

"We serve the workers" [to our Distinguished Diners.]

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:17 am

As the episodes star character Michael Chambers is taken away by the Kanamits for meal time on their far away planet, Chambers looks at the audience and says, "How about you? You still on Earth, or on the ship with me? Really doesn't make very much difference, because sooner or later, all of us will be on the menu all of us."

Yikes how true. Great comment johnnieandroidseed. Joe

Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 5:36 am

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=De4u1Zz7Yt4

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 2:20 pm

That was so cool. Thanks Gregory. Joe

Bryan Hemming , February 9, 2018 at 12:40 pm

Though my instincts tell me there are many more people who are willing to sign a petition than to actually get out on the street, I might be proved wrong in this particular instance.

After signing a couple of petitions for this or that, in the forlorn hope they might bring about change, I began to realize they were mainly designed to make me feel good about myself; that I was doing something very important to make the world a better place.

Even worse, I saw I was being treated as nothing more than another fish in the net. My signature had hardly enough time to reach its destination before my inbox was deluged with requests to sign more petitions, each of which invited me to donate towards the great effort it takes to think up a petition and put it on the internet. For some unexplained reason, the process seemed to require highly-remunerated executives, and an awful lot more money than all the real work needed to run something as work-intensive as Consortium News.

After signing two, I'd already given up the idea of signing more petitions by the time I was urged to sign one for a no-fly zone over Syria to save hundreds of thousand of lives. With anti-Russian propaganda being heavily pushed by the corporate media at the time, it was obvious people who had no idea what a no-fly zone entailed were being manipulated.

We live at a time where, for most people, touchy-feely means engaging with the world through a screen. No man is an island being far from the state of affairs, all men have become islands. Far from bringing us together, the internet is being increasingly used to keep most of us farther and farther away from each other, and the information we need to form opinions based on facts.

Which leads me to ponder how on earth we arrived at a point where of hundreds of thousands of people are preparing to come out on the streets to demonstrate their support of an organization, which just happens to be one of several intelligence agencies, trying to remove their right to come out on the streets to demonstrate? I hope I'm not the only one who finds it perversely ironic and extremely disturbing.

Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 1:16 pm

Do those intending to demonstrate on the FBI's behalf even realize that one of that agency's most resource-intensive and mission-critical tasks is to record, identify and profile demonstrators?

"I am marching for my right to be surveilled. Democracy means Dossiers for All! FISA = Freedom. I'm guided by the beauty of my shackles. Liberty is Liability. Truth is Treason."

And Insanity is Virtue. Well played, overlords: you have set the stage well – but for the hubris you can't shake off. Lofty as you are, you don't float above the law of unintended consequences. Or that of gravity, either.

Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:16 am

Love your comments, The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 2:21 pm

My experience with AVAAZ is similar. They petition for many good causes and seem to achieve quite a lot, but then there appear a slice of the petitions that are political and naive, like the no fly zone. Inherent problems in their brand of activism. They should probably reconsider their scope of issues.

Coleen Rowley , February 9, 2018 at 10:43 pm

Some more background information on Avaaz at: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/14/duping-progressives-into-wars/

Martin - Swedish citizen , February 10, 2018 at 1:34 am

Thank you!

Fenn , February 10, 2018 at 9:32 am

Yes, thank you for the link. I had forgot about that. It's very important that we understand NGO's roles & who they are working for.

Lethal Weapon: NGO Soft Power

"Along with military invasions and missionaries, NGOs help crack countries open like ripe nuts, paving the way for intensifying waves of exploitation and extraction" " ~ Stephanie McMillan

""The NGO 'soft power complex' is now one of the most destructive global forces. It is employed as an interface between civilians of a target nation, with government, economic or military structures of the colonialist force intent on harnessing any given nation's resources or undermining its geopolitical influence. The Democratization process, or the path to regime change is facilitated by these undercover government or corporate proxy employees who, once embedded into a society, set about producing the propaganda that will justify intervention, either economically, politically or militarily. NGO propaganda will often employ slick social media marketing which is underpinned by advance applied behavioural psychology and advanced NLP-based 'social enterprise' sales pitches.

A recent piece by researcher Eva Bartlett entitled, "Human Rights Front Groups [Humanitarian Interventionalists] Warring on Syria", provides a detailed insight into how this new breed of weaponized politics is being deployed right now in the Middle East.

The perception of a 'non profit' complex who purport to be "working for the betterment and improvement of humanity" can be a difficult nut to crack, but it must be done. In the west. charities, not-for-profits and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are seen as "do gooders" and so they rarely fall under public scrutiny. Western governments know the general public has an inherent faith in their perceived integrity and this provides an ideal cover for western government and intelligence agencies to operate through their NGO and aid organisations."

-Vanessa Beeley,
https://www.globalresearch.ca/syrias-white /5485128

welshTerrier2 , February 9, 2018 at 1:24 pm

Why all the criticism of MoveOn?

I think it's great that they are calling for massive rallies against the rape of our democracy by the one percent. It's great to see them rallying hundreds of thousands of us to protest the state of endless war. It's nice to see them putting all that muscle into the streets to oppose US foot-dragging on climate change.

Oh wait, I must have misread the article.

On a serious note, we need to see these FISA abuses only as the tools of tyranny. Far more important is who is wielding them and why.

Judy Majors , February 9, 2018 at 1:41 pm

Thank you Ms. Rowley and Mr. Parry for reporting honestly. If certain factions can set-up a POTUS, what can they do to "we the people"? Mr. Parry, your father would be proud of you!

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 1:48 pm

"Liberals?" Just another name for war mongering liars these days. "Conservatives?" Just another brand of liars and thieves. People who put stock in, and vote on the basis of these baseless tags are the real suckers that enable our whole doomed evil empire. If you vote for anyone who uses either of those labels, you are a fool, and a dangerous one at that. Come to think of it, if you vote at all you are an idiot endorsing a corrupt process.

Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:52 pm

Off topic.

What looks to be an outstanding brand new film is coming out soon. It's entitled, "The Young Karl Marx." This movie looks like a must-see.

The following link is to the two minute trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTDoZLssg8

(If the link doesn't open, merely punch into the YouTube search engine ""The Young Karl Marx" trailer".)

Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 2:24 pm

Thanks!

lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:42 pm

Looks good!

Gary , February 9, 2018 at 1:56 pm

Unfortunately for those very many invested in the Russiagate nonsense, the cold reality is that doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity. We're watching the Western power structure fracture before our eyes as their propaganda operations have become not simply unbelievable, but now have entered into the world of the totally outlandish and absurd. The notion that "reality" requires some kind of rational connection to observable events in the physical world seems to have totally lost any meaning in this current climate of reality meltdown. Quite amazing to witness actually.

Eddie , February 10, 2018 at 12:49 pm

"doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity."–Great phrasing!

alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 2:23 pm

The undead hands of those two zombie neocons, HRC and John Brennan, reach out from the boneyard of U.S. politics to drag democracy down with them.

The neocons' ultimate target is Russia, together with anyone who dares to utter the truth about Russia. They are drunk with power and will stop at nothing, not even nuclear war, to eliminate any rival for global domination. They are so reckless and arrogant that they think a nuclear war is winnable.

Megalomania much?

Goebbels boasted that he could play the German public like a keyboard. The neofascist neocons are using the same tactics with the so-called U.S. left, which, measured by international political metrics, corresponds to the traditional imperialist right. American so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public was played by the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not from the left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference.

Fascist tactics bring fascist results. There are multitudinous grounds to oppose Trump democratically. Impeaching him based on ginned-up, right-wing, smears would tear this country apart at the seams.

lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 pm

"American so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public was played by the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not from the left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference."

I'm afraid you are right.

Democrats are not "the left." Have they ever really been? That's why you said "so-called left" I realize. It makes me laugh when mainstream media calls it such.

Richard Hicks , February 9, 2018 at 2:36 pm

The story says: "Considering all of the threats to democracy posed by unconstitutional overreach, unfair elections, corruption, and voter suppression – not to mention environmental challenges, economic inequality, an out-of-control U.S. foreign policy, numerous foreign conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in, and the ever-present threat of nuclear war – it is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue."
Yes, it is "telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue". Except it's not just this issue. Remember that Al Capone was convicted of crimes other than the crime he was arrested for. It seems that on an almost daily basis evidence is discovered that the President is/was involved in crimes other than Conspiracy and/or Obstruction of Justice. As new evidence is uncovered, it may lead the Mueller investigation in another direction, and apparently, it has. If that is the case, Mueller is doing his job. The job that The People hired him to do. If Trump were to fire Mueller, it could very well be because of newly discovered criminal activity that Trump is, or was involved in, and Trump is nervous about. Our Nation is a Nation of laws, and no one, even the President is above the law. This President has a long-standing proven reputation, of difficulty with the Truth. Based on that alone, if Mueller is fired by Trump, people would be justified taking to the streets, in protest.

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm

A riot to back up the putch against Trump? Not likely, but a disaster if performed. Is this how some dream of a new US government? It will take something much deeper and wiser to accomplish that. Again not likely, but if one has to dream, why not something truly positive?

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:06 pm

"Putin's life work is spying"? You seem to have a rather shallow estimate of someone who stands against those in the US determined to turn our planet into an ashy corpse.

Daniel C. Maguire , February 9, 2018 at 2:49 pm

Best not to lose sight of this fact: there is no liberal cause, especially the incipient climate disaster, that is not negatively affected by Trump and the legal coup-d etat achieved by the Republicans. Anyone working to stymie that,whether sinless or simon pure deserves support. Also, re Russia, Garry Kasparov the Chess Master says it would be naive to think that Putin whose life work is spying would not use his current sophisticated apparatus to work his will on any issue or election of interest.

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:00 pm

"legal coup d'etat?" That's a new one on me, on the other hand the whole loony scene in Washington is illegal – so what the hey! Still, removing a sitting President on the basis of phony charges against him for colluding with Russia would really kick over the chess board and empower the crazies to do their worst. Or is there anybody still out there who believes the Russiagate nonsense has a shred of truth in it? I hope not, but I am afraid I am in danger of overestimating my fellow citizens .

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:02 pm

As for Gary Kasparov, he should rest on his fading laurels as a chess master, and stay out of politics. If he had his way Russians would raise Yeltsin from the grave, and turn their country back over to the international capitalists.

Mark Thomason , February 9, 2018 at 2:52 pm

Russia-gate has nothing to do with the real Russia.

It is entirely a Team Hillary attack on Trump. It is an attempt to deny the election. It is rage at losing, looking for excuses to express itself. If not Russia it would be Comey, or many other things. It has been most convenient to use Putin at the pinata, but that is a matter of internal US politics, not Putin at all.

irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:17 pm

And luckily for us, Putin not only groks that dynamic but has been brave enough
to say so in public.

What's with all the new-name trolls here today ?

Mr Boompi , February 9, 2018 at 3:02 pm

I hate the term derangement syndrome but some people surely do have Trump derangement syndrome. It's beaten into them every day on TV and certain internet sites. I believe they want Trump removed using any means possible, including illegal means. Their derangement syndrome includes the mistaken belief attempting to enforce the law regarding Clinton emails and the frauds perpetrated on the FISA court are nothing more than an attempt to obstruct justice for Trump. Even though there is no evidence Trump has done anything wrong. It's a shame actually.

Alan , February 9, 2018 at 3:06 pm

Let's take a step or two back and try to see the current state of chaos in a broader perspective. People are angry. The Trump administration is without question aberrant. Where is true leadership today? Certainly not with Trump or his administration. The real issue isn't specifically "Russiagate", but what lies beneath.

We have been mislead, lied to, manipulated by virtually every administration to greater and lesser degrees. Of relevance here is that both Nixon and Reagan manipulated the American people through their backchannel negotiations with foreign powers prior to inauguration.

While this Consortiumnews article can shine some light on potential abuses which takes place through the FISA court we must recognize that we form an imperfect union. This particular article seems to be like arguing for changes to the fire codes while Rome burns!

Any mobilization of the "liberal establishment" is far more about the egregious threats to our democracy than whatever "Russiagate" means. An imperfect Mueller seems to represent our best way forward to finding the hidden truths behind all of Trump's malfeasance. Let the people be heard!

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:10 pm

The people have been heard! They voted for Trump

WheresOurTeddy , February 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm

Damn the people in this country are easy to manipulate. Pathetic.

If the activists of the last generation could see the sellout pieces of garbage that call themselves democrats today, they'd roll over in their unmarked graves they were dumped into by the same alphabet agencies of oppression the stooges are standing up for.

Late stage empire in decline.

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:11 pm

Amen.

Maxim , February 9, 2018 at 3:29 pm

They don't want Trump, they want Russia. That's why Trump was "elected". So they could use Trump to get to Russia. In 2020 Clinton will finally get elected and everyone will be begging for WWW3 against the Russian Threat. Another false Pearl Harbor is coming. Syria, N.Korea, Iran or Ukraine are all potential flash points. We're sheep being led to slaughter.

Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:58 pm

In one ponit you are wrong. The orange clown is uninhibited in starting a war. Read just the new disclosure that pentagon had been resisting requests from the White House to provide military options for Iran. In his first speach in the UN Trump has threatened to destroy North Korea totally. This crazy man doesn't deserve to be the president of the US!

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:14 pm

Mostly correct, but the Deep State emphatically did NOT want Trump elected. Too unpredictable. The DS thought Hillary had a lock on the election. Just goes to show that the DS is not as smart as they like to think they are.

Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:47 am

For sure, Mike, the DS pulled out all the stops to help Hillary both before and after the election to no avail. They are still doing it. The most influential insiders in America couldn't alter the results of the election, yet they would have you believe that Putin merely snaps his fingers, "meddles in our democracy" and has his way. Yet most people cannot see the absurdity of that claim because the corporate media, which is part of the real conspiracy orchestrated by the DS, spews nothing but propaganda full bore 24/7 changing apparent reality right in front of your own lying eyes.

Now the History Channel is coming out with an extra special demonisation of Putin extravaganza!!! Be sure to watch if you wanna stay free! These people could rehabilitate Hitler if it suited their purposes. The American people are putty in their hands. There is no opposition but those few of us who fail to be hypnotized by the svengalis that represent the interests of the string puller elites on the boob tube and internets, who and which they totally own and control. There are so few of us who can still see the truth, I suspect they could house us all in a single detention camp if it comes to that.

Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:49 am

I couldn't suppress a derisive laugh reading an above comment about Putin's ability "to work his will on any issue or election of interest." Yep, those snapping fingers are rife with ability not to mention speculation about Putin's desires. What a mad genius he must be!

Snookered and bamboozled, the show must go on.

Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm

I would support any measure that tends to an impeachment of a crazy, impulsive and retarded president. This president is a misfortune for the US and for the world. One can criticise the actions to support the current investigations in the Russiagate. But if it helps to get rid of a mentally ill clown then why not!

mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:18 pm

Good reasoning, but it fails to consider what's next? Believe it or not, there will probably be a lot worse in store for us than President Donald Trump. Things just tend to get worse and worse in a collapsing empire ..

Far , February 9, 2018 at 4:39 pm

What's next is a good question. I hope that Clinton leave finally the political world. She was one of the main reasons that many of voters elected the bad option instead of the worst option. Collapsing of the system can not be an option. But Trump is well under way to shake the political system and polarize the civil society more than ever before

Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:59 am

That's what Susan Sarandon foresaw as the "good" outcome of a Trump victory–the collapse of the system would be advanced. However, how do we benefit from that opportunity for change when the only announced candidates for Trump's job are the same ilk (Clinton, Biden, Kerry) or their even shallower accolytes (Booker, Harris ) that caused all the damage in the first place? All those idiots are still about fooling and fleecing the American public and warring upon the rest of the world–friends and foes alike. They offer no peace, no prosperity, and no future whatsoever, only a bleak struggle for existence in a nuclear winter by the few survivors of their promised handiwork. You nailed it, Mike, things will only get worse because our leaders (from both of these two abominable parties) insist upon it.

irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:22 pm

"Why not ?" Because such 'measures' only serve to destroy what little remains of our
democracy. Here's a thought experiment for you : would you support similar 'measures'
if they 'tended to an impeachment' of crazy, impulsive, mentally ill Hillary had she been
elected ? (As co-president with Bill, who she promised to 'put in charge' of the economy).

Because "We came, we saw, he Died" Hillary is arguably even farther off the rails than
The Donald. And probably more dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is
that so many people look at her and see someone 'sane'.

Far , February 9, 2018 at 5:06 pm

Crooked Hillary was never be an option. And Trump is definitive not fit for the oval office. Trump will bury the democracy finally. Damages to the reputation of the US in the world community is immense. With Trump there is no chance to make a real change. Quit in contrary the US will face serious social, economic and security challenges without a glimmer of hope to change the things. My father said that a great ship could be sunk. And if it sinks it will be just slower than a little one. Trump is not an option anymore to steer the ship.

louis coulson , February 9, 2018 at 5:19 pm

Have a look at the less than vigorous investigations run by Mueller into BCCI (Bush crime family "intelligence" op) pre 911. Mueller can run coverups or smear campaigns. Wonder what his corporate offshore bank accounts look like

lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:50 pm

bank accounts. good question.

weilunion , February 9, 2018 at 5:35 pm

"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported. We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators."

Cognitive dissonance, lack of critical thinking, reliance on authority, in this case a former head of a criminal organization called the FBI.

People have no class consciousness. They have no idea who their enemies ar or how to organize.

This is the sad case of liberalism melting like warm butter while the fascists congeal.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:27 pm

Nicely put.

Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 2:51 am

"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. . ."

Yes. On any bar counter, just start some conversation with the person sitting to you. With all this bizarre drama – Russia-Gate, Iran, memos, dossier . . . going on TV, and in Washington being enacted knowingly by the the Powers who rule – both, so called Liberals and Conservatives – one can see how this emotional manipulation has worked to snooker just about most of the population. I just had the experience today during lunch at a bar counter. In our conversation, the person sitting next to me was ready to nuke Iran, N. Korea, and go after Russia; and go after Hillary too.

Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them compliant and confused.

Does any body have idea how they are going to bring an end to this completely concocted bizarre drama?

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:21 pm

Dave the same stupid asses you speak of will still be the same stupid asses long after these foreign affairs take any turn for the better. The dumb butts are easy to control. It's like you point and say bad, and these morons growl, as their faces contort in macho anger. Although, if one day the U.S. should make friends with Iran, N Korea, or Russia, these silly little stupid puppies will just go back to work. If you tell them it will be exciting to play the Russians at hockey, well this might get them going a little bit again, but not to worry because it's just hockey. Oh, easy on the beer, and make sure the refreshment stands have plenty of nachos and tip. The jackasses like to eat and drink a lot, what can I say? Joe

Jessika , February 9, 2018 at 5:56 pm

Both MoveOn and Avaaz get major funding from George Soros.

Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:30 pm

As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally, then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what they seem to have done.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:28 pm

Now your talking. Good idea.

ToivoS , February 9, 2018 at 7:11 pm

"This is nuts" is a great headline for our current problem.

Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war. How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as millions of dead and traumatized survivors.

I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of supporting war against Russia.

Reading other comments here it seems my experience has been shared by others.

Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:49 pm

Yes ToivoS, many of us here have been watching our family, friends, and fellow citizens lose their minds in mass over the election of Donald J Trump. It's with his Electoral College win that I noticed the psychic break in many a citizens mind. So now here we are, where this psychic break has moved good thinking people to the side of the field where the Deep State, or National Security State if you will, has replaced critical thinking people by turning them into 'useful idiots', if that is enough of a suitable label to pin on these stray pseudo liberals.

These misguided liberal thinkers ought to move out of the way, drop this Russia-Gate travesty, and allow the real Left to emerge so as justice maybe served upon the Trump Administration. And if these limousine liberal hacks don't wish to travel a different avenue, as to confront what the Trump team does, then for the love of mike please dear almost liberals quit getting so cozy with the National Security State. This kind of stuff gives reason to believe that 'Nightmare on Elm Street' was a documentary, as Freddy Krueger is a nice guy in real life. Now I'm afraid to go to sleep .take care ToivoS. Joe

Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 11:35 pm

Regarding Guns of August , it's a book I won't be reading. Anything by Barbara Tuchman connected with WW1 is automatically suspect with me. I've kept many of her other history books, but will maintain a distinct level of skepticism while reading them. That's necessary because she was a fanatical Zionist, and lying about Israel-related issues is just something that type does.

Lois Gagnon , February 10, 2018 at 12:32 am

The term psychic break I think is dead accurate. It made me think of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" in that people who are traumatized by natural or man made disasters are taken advantage of by powerful interests intent on imposing policies that are against the public interest.

People who are in a state of shock are not equipped to make rational decisions. Trump's surprise (at least to Clinton voters) win left Democratic Party voters in shock leaving them vulnerable to the Establishment's agenda of increasing tensions with Russia. Enter Russia-gate which serves many purposes at once. As we have seen, it worked like a charm. Those falling for the psy-op have left all reason behind. They are singularly focused. It is virtually impossible to introduce evidence that contradicts the narrative. It's as frustrating as talking to a religious fanatic.

Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:48 am

In an ironic twist, Naomi Klein today has completely lost her mind due to Trump Derangement Syndyome.

Larco Marco , February 10, 2018 at 3:34 am

The Ottoman Empire was also destroyed, with the UK subsequently claiming Palestine as a piece of their own empire.

Sam , February 9, 2018 at 8:26 pm

"[I]t should be hoped by everyone that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get to the bottom of how the FISA court was ultimately misled."

Is the IG even looking at this? The current investigation by the IG, the one due to report soon, is looking at the investigation into Clinton's email server. I'm not aware of an IG investigation on this matter. It would certainly be a good idea – assuming that the IG is not compromised, which is a big assumption.

Coleen Rowley , February 9, 2018 at 11:20 pm

Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential administrative discipline.

GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:05 pm

the so called liberals need god on their side so they can tear down the constitution (at least what is left of it) and then put trump's head on a pike. the most fearful thing in this country is watching ignorance in action.

Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:45 am

Yes! Stop and think about the consequences of a COUP of a legitimately ELECTED U.S. President by the Deep State and his political opponents. It's a dangerous game and a slippery slope. It's frightening to imagine where this could go.

ThomasGilroy , February 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm

To a liberal, the worst possible scenario was the election of Trump – especially because they are "liberals". That cannot be difficult to see. They rightly see that Russian inference in the election could have made a significant difference in the swing states.

Whether that is true or not, is irrelevant. There cannot be closure without the investigation going forward. That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without question. Whether Trump colluded or not still needs to be answered.

Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect Trump. Trump had a lot to gain by colluding. We need to find out the truth.

Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:00 am

"swing states" – do you suppose that Hillary taking several of them for granted had anything to do with "influencing" the election?

That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without question.

Without Question! This sounds very much like a religious belief to me. Something like this 1950 declaration by the pope at the time:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Change a few words in that, and we'd have the Tragedy of Saint Hillary.

Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect Trump.

And how do you suggest this "safeguarding" happen? Shut down the internet? Imprison anyone who says a favorable word about Russia?

ThomasGilroy , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm

Zachary

HRC was the second worse candidate in US history – just behind Trump. She is definitely the one most responsible for her loss in the election. None the less, very few votes separated a significant amount of electoral votes so the Russian influence could have made a difference. If you view all of the evidence beginning when US intelligence first identified Russian-related hackers in 2015, followed by Crowdstrike in 2016 (and at least five other cybersecurity firms which confirmed Crowdstrike's conclusions) , social media and the obvious reasons that Putin favored Trump over the anti-Russia candidacy of HRC (motive), then it becomes much more logical that Russia meddled. Assange served the Russian government as well (mostly with the aid of the Russian government-funded RT). He clearly looked to undermine the HRC candidacy despite his denials (lies).

The Daily Beast does a nice job with the time line in the current Mueller investigation (Trump-Russia Isn't About the Cover-Up. It's About the Crime. http://thebea.st/2slKBBE?source=twitter&via=desktop via @thedailybeast) and Marcie Wheeler (at Empty Wheel) also does a good job presenting evidence of Russian perfidy. Mueller probably knows a lot more than he is sharing so it's just a matter of time before the evidence becomes much more difficult to ignore.

Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:23 am

That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it. Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out. If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media in the service of both.

What's the point in dragging out the process if the object is justice and the removal of a putative pretender to the presidency? The aforementioned insurrectionists cannot pull off their desired miracle because the evidence doesn't exist and it doesn't exist because the purported crime was never committed.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans undoubtedly each cheated to win the election in their own ways, but not in any way involving the Russians who have just served as unwitting targets by our own domestic villains. Russia has gained NOTHING by seeing Trump in office. During the election Putin would not even play favorites, stating the obvious: that he could not predict the future and that he would have to deal with whomever was elected. Your scenarios are all delusions, Gilroy.

Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm

Realist – Excellent summation of this whole false, delusionary, bizarre concocted drama being enacted on the American people, and on people beyond in the World.

Paul Easton , February 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm

The article mentions "perception management" and I think it is well to generalize. Ever since 9/11 the permanent government has kept the population in line by playing on their fears, in Trump's case fear of fascism. (And quite possibly the events of 9/11 were planned and executed for this very purpose.) As it turned out the perception management was all too effective and by now most of the population is freaking out, in one way or another, and our society is disintegrating. Personally I am cheering it on. Goodbye USA Thank God!

Charles Leone , February 9, 2018 at 9:46 pm

Liberals getting behind the most racist government agency in a pathetic display of supporting the "enemy of my enemy" Donald Trump gives further proof they are as unprincipled as any of history's other "national socialists".

Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:02 am

What the hell is this endless repetition of the word "Liberals"? Try "Corporate Democrats" and you'd be a LOT closer to reality.

Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:31 am

To be sure. The other biggest mischaracterisation is to call the ring leaders of this witch hunt "the left" or "leftists." The genuine left (what little still exists of it) are the few who rail against this nonsense, largely on this or similar sites (e.g., ICH).

Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:40 pm

I completely agree, Zachary. The true democratic party adherents – which includes lot of us – should have split from the Corporate Democrats long ago during Clinton presidency.

Bandrui , February 9, 2018 at 10:27 pm

We live in a hall of mirrors. This is yet another example of how easily most Americans are manipulated, dumbest populace on the planet apparently. I see no hope for us at all.

D.H. Fabian , February 10, 2018 at 12:36 am

Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade, splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer.

RandyLee , February 10, 2018 at 9:55 am

so the democrats are going for mob rule now? and they have willing accomplices in liberals who have no idea why they hate Trump, they just know they are supposed to hate Trump. well I say take to the streets then! give it your best shot! cry and scream and threaten your little butts off. when you have no real idea why you are doing something, it won't take long before you realize how stupid you are and will stop listening to those who encourage you from the sidelines to attack american principles but aren't actually on the streets with you. its ok for you to take that bullet but they sure as hell won't be taking one for the cause.

Martin S , February 10, 2018 at 10:19 am

The nefarious results of the Left propaganda: CRUSH THE TRUTH AND THE SHEEP WILL SWALLOW

William Thrash , February 10, 2018 at 10:55 am

I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay. Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left.

Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as possible.

I think we're witnessing the absolute genius of the deep state getting taken down. My hunch is that Mueller is part of the team and the media is getting outsmarted.

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm

One can only wonder to where all of this may go. Read this .

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-08/fbi-informant-testifies-moscow-routed-millions-clinton-foundation-russian-uranium

robert , February 10, 2018 at 11:24 am

The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate.

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:27 pm

Remember when the Dem's hated Comey? Boy, those were the days, weren't they?

Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:35 am

Robert Mueller is leading an open-ended investigation that can cover any potential crime uncovered during the course of the investigation. He has unlimited resources, no deadlines, and no oversight. He can't be fired, except by the President. He reports to noone. His targets have no idea what their crimes may be. His team is stacked with partisan hacks. He uses heavy-handed tactics intended to break his adversaries, even if they haven't been charged with a crime. He refuses to consider contrary evidence or to examine the DNC computers. He won't interview witnesses. The Constitutional and human rights abuses are alarming.

Douglas Mailly , February 10, 2018 at 11:43 am

Great article, but too bad about the polygraph reference, it just perpetuates the myth that they are useful

https://antipolygraph.org

Howard Mettee , February 10, 2018 at 12:11 pm

One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population.

Corporations have taken over our legislatures under the guise of "free speech", and the country's foreign policy is controlled by a military-industrial-security complex that sees perpetual war as the answer to domestic economic well being and American world hegemony.

While Russians have no doubt used the internet to sow dissent here via "perception management", as we no doubt have done there and elsewhere around the globe, what we Americans as masters of Madison Avenue techniques have done to ourselves pales in comparison. Can we come to grips with this and then get on to building a more cooperative world? It's a cause worth fighting for.

Mild -ly - Facetious , February 10, 2018 at 5:17 pm

Well said, Howard Mettee.

Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions "political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering, just as were our British forefathers.

The present personification of our historical arrogance is this trenchantly self-approving / self-adoring Trump; (Mala Mens Malus Animus), whose wanton path of destruction is largely more perverse than any of his predecessors. His path of DECONSTRUCTION is the portent of a free-radical DISORGANIZATION of the world structure as we've known it. ( Poe aptly depicted this in his short story, "The Descent Into The Maelstrom")

The foreboding actions from Mr. Trump foreshadow Perilous Times predicted first in First Timothy 6: 9-10, Trump as forerunner and Second Timothy 3: 1-5 -- either and both apt descriptions of Donald Trump.

– – – – – – "mala mens malus animus"

R Davis , February 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm

Is it a diversion? From what? It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll. Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to doomsday. Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP. Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima. when nerves fray hey!

Brad Smith , February 10, 2018 at 2:22 pm

I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate.

For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern. We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us. Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their hatred of Trump is only part of this issue.

With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. It was already ramping up well before our elections and much of it was targeted at the left then as well. Remember Pussy Riot? Remember the stories about how homophobic Russians are? The left has been primed to hate Putin for a long time by this propaganda and they fell for it well before Trump ran for office. Think about it this way, before we had the American "Deplorables" we had "Russians". They were shown as nothing but drunken, wife beating, homophobic, Religious, white, gun nuts, etc. etc. etc. This Extreme form of stereotyping was meant to invoke hatred by the left and it worked.

Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:33 pm

Brad you got it right. Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these Russian hackers who weren't there. Brad you also got it right, that these so called liberals are blinded by their hatred of Trump, and in my estimation these kool-aid liberals are passing up any golden opportunity they may have to go after Trump for what they should be going after him for. Talk about misdirected, the Dem's aren't even close. Joe

Erelis , February 10, 2018 at 3:24 pm

Well, there was middle last year a nationally organized "March for Truth" which called for investigation of Trump and any Russian ties. The march by newspaper reports got "hundreds" in Chicago and NYC. I saw a live stream of the Portland march. Maybe just maybe cracked a hundred. Basically the march attendees looked like older party partisans. I would expect the same for any pro-Mueller rallies in that they will be pretty much be democratic party rallies. As the leadership of groups like Planned Parenthood, unions, and other organizations are aligned with establishment democrats, I am not sure they can convince their bases to march.

On the electoral side. Sure some people will show up, and show up in democratic dominated cities, but in the rest of America, more of a yawn. Establishment democrats think that Russiagate will win them elections. I think not.

dee , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm

The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves.

Jessika , February 10, 2018 at 6:47 pm

So far these "liberals" have not dug their own graves, because media supports their position now despite having primed Trump for winning during campaigning. I maintain that having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate. People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled."

Dave Sullivan , February 10, 2018 at 7:12 pm

Yet another "analysis " of russia-gate without mentioning organized crime. The trump cronies are mobbed up from top to bottom, and the right is shocked they would be looked at by the FBI. Talk about snookered. Then the author, denigrates FISA, blames liberals, but doesn't mention the lockstep GOP vote to continue it, or, the majority of dems who opposed .check your own cognitive dissonance at the door before you sit to "write" again.

Jessika , February 10, 2018 at 7:15 pm

No reason for foul language, doesn't enlighten just plays into the already coarse society we have. Colleen Rowley in the past has written on Mueller's harmful coverups of FBI behavior including 9/11 collusion with Bush to ignore Saudi complicity, if I remember correctly.

Yoshi Shimizu , February 10, 2018 at 7:34 pm

Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the Pentagon budget!

[Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
Feb 10, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 11:58 am

The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians, the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people. No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.

The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".

It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.

I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article) and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.

Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events.

We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.

Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.

The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.

Well said for Annie and the authors.

Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.

More wisdom from Goebbels:

I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.

CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 11:59 am

Link to article: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-moonves-snap-htmlstory.html

Elaine Sandchaz , February 10, 2018 at 5:34 pm

Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth, DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a seer.

AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.

So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood – seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the highest courts " America be damned".

And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.

So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.

Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business – especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance, transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law; they must not only do right but be seen to do right.

CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm

The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the truth.

Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm

I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for useless and pointless wars, period.

[Feb 10, 2018] US military is the second largest US employer after Wallmart

Notable quotes:
"... Walmart employs 1.4 million Americans. The military employs 1.3 million active duty soldiers. That's a problem. Peace can't be allowed to break out. And the best way to insure that it doesn't is to kill the minimum number of people and export the maximum number of arms to keep people fighting with each other around the world. ..."
Feb 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bill Herschel -> turcopolier ... , 10 February 2018 at 10:13 AM

Walmart employs 1.4 million Americans. The military employs 1.3 million active duty soldiers. That's a problem. Peace can't be allowed to break out. And the best way to insure that it doesn't is to kill the minimum number of people and export the maximum number of arms to keep people fighting with each other around the world.

That is all about as far as conceivable away from any notion of a professional soldier.

How do you stop this? Who will employ those 1.3 million... 1.3 million who have been brainwashed about "terrorism", "communism", "democracy", "muslims", etc. etc. etc.? Particularly in the context of the tsunami of social change that is about to hit with the advent of real artificial intelligence. Doctors? Their jobs are on the line and I suspect they don't know it. Lawyers? Even worse.

The following article was the start of an epochal change in medicine:

Lasko TA, Denny JC, Levy MA (2013) Computational Phenotype Discovery Using Unsupervised Feature Learning over Noisy, Sparse, and Irregular Clinical Data. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066341

Bill Herschel , 10 February 2018 at 10:17 AM
I guess I should add, although it should be obvious, that the one thing that absolutely cannot under any circumstances be allowed to happen is real war. Then you have to figure out how to employ both the soldiers and the Walmart employees. Those that are still alive. And of course if you look at the behavior of the U.S. in Syria you see that we are about as interested in real war as we are in the arts.

[Feb 09, 2018] Professor Stephen F. Cohen Rethinking Putin – A critical reading, by The Saker - The Unz Review

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... As a young and inexperienced leader placed at the helm of a collapsing state: He rebuilt, stabilized and modernized Russia in a way to prevent future collapses He had to restore the "vertical" of power: "managed democracy" (i.e. restored order) He needed a consensual history patching up Czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet eras without imposing one, single, version of history He needed Western support to modernize the Russian economy He wanted Russia to be a great power, but not a super-power He never favored iron-curtain isolationism; he is an internationalist (more European than 90% of Russians, at least in the beginning). ..."
"... The key thesis is this: Putin began as a pro-Western, European leader and with time he realigned himself with a much more traditional, Russian worldview. He is more in line with Russian voters today. ..."
"... "by any reckoning, be it flourishing inside Russia or relations with Israel, by general consent of all, nobody denies this, Jews under Putin in Russia are better off than they had ever been in Russian history. Ever. They have more freedom, less official anti-Semitism, more protection, more official admiration for Israel, more interaction, more freedom to go back and forth". ..."
"... The Soviet KGB was first and foremost a huge bureaucracy with completely different, and separate, directorates, departments, and sections. Yes, one such Directorate did deal with dissidents and anti-Soviet activists (mainly the 9 th Department of the 5 th Directorate) but even within this (infamous) 5 th Directorate there were some Departments which, in coordination with other KGB Directorates and Departments, dealt with more legitimate tasks such as, for example, the early detection of terrorist organizations (7 th Department). Other Directorates of the KGB dealt with economic security (6 th Directorate), internal security and counter-intelligence (2 nd Directorate) or even protection of officials (9 th Directorate). ..."
"... My most important objection to Saker is that Putin does not know what to do about Ukraine and does not have a policy on Ukraine. ..."
"... The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. ..."
"... On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western competition. ..."
"... I've heard a few of Grudinin's speeches, and they were very disappointing, to put it mildly. It is nice to say that you want to confiscate oligarch's money (after all, they just stole it), stop capital flight, nationalize natural resources, etc. It might sound good for the electorate, but without specifying means of achieving these goals, this is pure demagoguery. ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

I have recently had the pleasure of watching a short presentation by Professor Stephen F. Cohen entitled "Rethinking Putin" which he delivered on the annual Nation cruise on December 2, 2017 (see here for the original Nation Article and original YouTube video). In his short presentation, Professor Cohen does a superb job explaining what Putin is *not* and that includes: (but, please do watch the original video before proceeding).

Professor Cohen ended his talk by suggesting a few things which might form a part of a future honest biography:

As a young and inexperienced leader placed at the helm of a collapsing state: He rebuilt, stabilized and modernized Russia in a way to prevent future collapses He had to restore the "vertical" of power: "managed democracy" (i.e. restored order) He needed a consensual history patching up Czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet eras without imposing one, single, version of history He needed Western support to modernize the Russian economy He wanted Russia to be a great power, but not a super-power He never favored iron-curtain isolationism; he is an internationalist (more European than 90% of Russians, at least in the beginning).

The key thesis is this: Putin began as a pro-Western, European leader and with time he realigned himself with a much more traditional, Russian worldview. He is more in line with Russian voters today.

Professor Cohen concluded by addressing two topics which, I presume, his audience cared deeply about: he said that, contrary to Western propaganda, the so-called 'anti-gay' laws in Russia are no different from the laws of 13 US states. Secondly, that "by any reckoning, be it flourishing inside Russia or relations with Israel, by general consent of all, nobody denies this, Jews under Putin in Russia are better off than they had ever been in Russian history. Ever. They have more freedom, less official anti-Semitism, more protection, more official admiration for Israel, more interaction, more freedom to go back and forth".

This is all very interesting important stuff, especially when delivered to a Left-Liberal-Progressive US audience (with, probably, a high percentage of Jews). Frankly, Professor Cohen's presentation makes me think about what Galileo might have felt when he made his own "presentations" before the tribunal of Inquisition (Cohen's articles and books are now also on the modern equivalent of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum) . In truth, Professor Cohen is simply true to himself: he opposed the crazies during the old Cold War and now he is opposing the same crazies during the new Cold War. His entire life Professor Cohen was a man of truth, courage, and integrity – a peacemaker in the sense of the Beatitudes (Matt 5:9). So while I am not surprised by his courage, I am still immensely impressed by it. Some might think that delivering a short presentation on a cruise-ship is hardly a sign of great courage, but I would vehemently disagree. Yes, nobody would shoot Cohen in the back of the neck like, say, the Soviet ChK-GPU-NKVD would have done, but I submit that these methods of "enforcing" a single official consensus were far less effective than their modern equivalents: the conformity imposition techniques (see: Asch Conformity Experiment ) so prevalent in the modern Western society. Just look at the results: there was far more reading and thinking (of any kind) going on in the Soviet society than there is today in the modern AngloZionist Empire (anybody who remembers the bad old USSR will confirm that to you). As one joke puts it: in a dictatorship, you are told to "shut up", while in a democracy you are encouraged to "keep talking". QED.

Turning to Professor Cohen's talking points, numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are basic facts. Nothing to be debated here – Cohen is plainly setting the factual record straight. Number 5 is much more interesting and controversial. For one thing, we are talking views/intentions, which are hard to judge. Was Putin ever pro-Western? Who knows? Maybe his closest friends know? My own belief is that this question must be looked at in combination of issue #8: Putin's service in the KGB.

There is still a huge amount of misinformation about the old Soviet KGB in the West. To the average American a "KGB agent" is a guy called Vladimir, with steel gray-blue eyes, who beats up dissidents, steals Western technological secrets, and spies on the wives of politicians (and even beds them). He is a hardcore Communist who dreams about nuking or invading the US and he speaks with a thick Russian accent. Alternatively, there is Anna Kushchenko (a.k.a. Anna Chapman ) – a devious sex doll who seduces Western men into treason. These prototypes are as accurate as James Bond is an accurate representation of MI6. The reality could not be more different.

The Soviet KGB was first and foremost a huge bureaucracy with completely different, and separate, directorates, departments, and sections. Yes, one such Directorate did deal with dissidents and anti-Soviet activists (mainly the 9 th Department of the 5 th Directorate) but even within this (infamous) 5 th Directorate there were some Departments which, in coordination with other KGB Directorates and Departments, dealt with more legitimate tasks such as, for example, the early detection of terrorist organizations (7 th Department). Other Directorates of the KGB dealt with economic security (6 th Directorate), internal security and counter-intelligence (2 nd Directorate) or even protection of officials (9 th Directorate).

Putin was an officer (not an "agent" – agents are recruited from outside the KGB!) of the First Main Directorate (PGU) of the KGB: foreign intelligence. Putin himself has recently revealed that he was working inside the most sensitive Department of the PGU, the "Department S" which are "illegals". This is very important. The PGU was so separate from all the other Directorates of the KGB that it had its own headquarters in the south of Moscow. But even inside the PGU, the Department S was the most secret and separated from all the other PGU Departments (no less than 10). As somebody who has spent many years as an anti-Soviet activist and who has had personal, face to face, dealings with KGB officers (of various Directorates) I can confirm that not only did the KGB as a whole get some of the best and brightest in Russia, but the PGU got the best ones of those and only the very best ones from that select group ever made it to the legendary Department S. Now let's look at what kind of skill-set was required from PGU officers in general (besides the obvious two: being very bright and very trustworthy).

First and foremost, a PGU officer has to be a top-notch specialist of his area of expertise (in Putin's case: Germany, of course, but also the rest of Europe and, since Western Europe was – and still is – a US colony, the US). While Soviet people were told that the West was the enemy, the PGU officers had to understand why and how the West was that enemy.

In practical terms, this implies not only knowing and understanding the official cultural, political, social and economic realities of the enemy's polity, but also the real power relations inside that polity. Such an understanding is not only useful to approach and evaluate the potential usefulness of each person you interact with, but also to be able to understand in what environment this person has to operate. The notion of PGU officers being bigoted commies is laughable as these men, and women, were very well read (they had unlimited access to all the Western information sources, including anti-Soviet ones, classified reports, and all the anti-Soviet literature imaginable) and they were ultimate realists/pragmatists. Of course, like in any organization, the top leaders were often political appointees and the bureaucrats and counter -intelligence officers were much less sophisticated. But for officers like Putin to really understand the reality of the Western society was a vital skill.

Second, a good PGU officer had to be likable; very, very likable. Being liked by others is also a crucial skill for a good intelligence officer. In practical terms, this means that he/she has to not only understand what makes the other guy tick but how to influence him/her in the right direction. When dealing with 'illegals' that also meant being their best friend, confessor, moral support, guide and protector. You can't do that if people don't like you. So these intelligence officers are masters of being good friends and companions; they are good listeners and they know a lot about how to make you like them. They also understand exactly what you like to hear, what you want to see and what words and actions place you in a relaxed and trusting mode.

Now combine these two: you have a man who is top notch specialist of the West and who is superbly trained to be liked by Western people. How likely is it that this man had many illusions about the West, to begin with? And what if a man like that did have misgivings – would he have shown them?

My own gut feeling is that this is not very likely at all.

What is far more likely is this: Putin played the "West best's friend" role for as long as possible and he dumped it when it was clearly not productive any longer. And yes, in doing that he did realign himself to the mainstream Russian public opinion. But that was just a useful side-effect, not the cause or the goal of that realignment.

Look at the Professor Cohen's points 9-13 above (I would summarize them as "fix Russia"). They all make sense to me, even that " he was a young and inexperienced leader ". There is a huge difference between being a skilled PGU officer and being the man who rules over Russia. And even if Putin did lose some of his illusions, it would have been primarily because the West itself changed a great deal between the 1980s and the 2010s. But Putin must have indeed always known that to implement Cohen's points 10-13 he needed the West's help, or, if that was not possible, at least the West's minimal interference/resistance. But to believe that a man who had full access to the real information about the two Chechen wars would have any kind of illusions left about the West's real feelings about Russia is profoundly misguided. In fact, anybody living in Russia in the 1990s would have eventually come to the realization that the West wanted all Russians to be slaves, or, more accurately, and in the words of Senator McCain – " gas station " attendants. Putin himself said so when he declared , speaking about the US, " they don't want to humiliate us, they want to subjugate us. They want to solve their problems at our expense, they want to subordinate us to their influence ". Putin then added, " nobody in history has ever succeeded in doing this and nobody will ever succeed ". First, I submit that Putin is absolutely correct in his understanding of the West's goals. Second, I also submit that he did not suddenly "discover" this in 2014. I think that he knew it all along, but began openly saying so after the US-backed coup in the Ukraine. Furthermore, by 2014, Putin had already accomplished points 9-13 and he did not need the West as much anymore.

Now let's look at points 6 (Putin's view of the Soviet period), 12 (consensual history) and 14 (Russia as a great power but not a super-power). And again, let's consider the fact that officers of the PGU had total access to any history books, secret archives, memoirs, etc. and that they were very free to speak in pragmatic analytical terms on all historical subjects with their teachers and colleagues. Here I submit that Putin had no more illusions about the Soviet past then he had about the West. The fact that he referred to the breakup of the Soviet Union (which, let's remember, happened in a totally undemocratic way!) as a " catastrophe " which was " completely unnecessary " does in no way imply that he was not acutely aware of all the horrors, tragedies, waste, corruption, degradation and general evil of the Soviet regime. All this shows is that he is also aware of the immense victories, achievements, and successes which also are part of the historical record of the Soviet era. Finally, and most importantly, it shows that he realizes what absolute disaster, a cataclysm of truly cosmic proportions the break-up of the Soviet Union represented for all the people of the former USSR and what an absolute nightmare it was for Russia to live a full decade as a subservient colony of Uncle Sam. I am certain that Putin studied enough Hegel to understand that the horrors of the 1990s were the result of the internal contradictions of the Soviet era just as the Soviet era was the result of the internal contradictions of Czarist Russia. In plain English, this means that he fully understood the inherent dangers of empire and that he decided, along with the vast majority of Russians, that Russia ought to never become an empire again. A strong, respected and sovereign country? Yes. But an empire? Never again. No way!

This fundamental conclusion is also the key to Putin's foreign policy: it is "reactive" by nature simply because it only acts in response to when (and what) something affects Russia. You could say that all "normal" nations are "reactive" because they have no business doing otherwise. Getting involved everywhere, in every fight or conflict, is what empires based on messianic ideologies do, not normal countries regardless of how big or powerful they are. For all the sick and paranoid hallucinations of Western Russophobes about a "resurgent Russia" the reality is that Russian diplomats have often mentioned what the goals of Russian foreign policies truly are: to turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into partners, partners into friends and friends into allies. And this is why Professor Cohen is absolutely correct, Putin is no isolationist at all – he wants a new, multi-polar, international order of sovereign countries; not because he is a naïve wide-eyed idealist, but because this is what is pragmatically good for Russia and her people. You could say that Putin is a patriotic internationalist.

And now to the homosexuals and Jews. First, both assertions made by Professor Cohen are correct: homosexuals and Jews are doing great in modern Russia. I would even agree that they are doing better than ever before. Of course, both Professor Cohen and I are being factual and very superficial when we say that. And since I discussed both of these topics in some detail in the past (see here and here ) I won't discuss them here. Rather, I would simply state that in both cases we are talking about a rather small minority of whose treatment is, for some reason or other, considered as THE measure of humanity, kindness, civilization, and modernity in the West. Well, okay, to each his own. If in the West, the treatment of these two minorities is The One And Only Most Important Topic In The Universe – fine. I personally don't care much (especially since I don't feel that I owe any special consideration to either one of them). This being said, I would also claim that Putin's number one concern is also not for any specific minority. However, and that is where this is indeed very interesting, his concern for the majority does not at all imply any kind of disregard or disrespect for the fundamental freedoms and rights of the minorities but includes his concern for all minorities (and, in this case, not just two minorities which are treated as "more equal than others").

This is where various right-wingers and assorted Alt-Righters completely "lose" Putin. The very same Putin who told an assembly of Orthodox Jews in Moscow that 80-85% of Bolshevik leaders were Jews (see subtitled video here ), the same Putin who crushed the (overwhelmingly Jewish) oligarchs of the Eltsin era as soon as he came to power, and the same Putin who completely ignored all the hysterics of Bibi Netanyahu about the Russian role in Syria is also the same Putin who went out of his way to protect Russian Jews inside Russia and who considers that Jews and Russians are forever joined in their common memory of the horrors of WWII.

[Sidebar: I personally wish that Russia would denounce Israel for what it is, an illegitimate racist rogue state hell-bent on genocide and expansion, but I don't have relatives there. Neither am I the President of a country with very strong ties to the Russian-speaking Jewish communities worldwide. In my opinion, I am accountable to nobody else but my conscience and God, whereas Putin is accountable to those who elected him and still support him].

Guilt by association, the punishment of all for the actions of some, scapegoating, the vicious persecution of minorities in the name of some ideal – this has all been tried in the past, both in Russia and in the West. The Nazis did that and so did the Soviets. And both the Nazis and the Soviets inflicted untold horrors upon the many peoples of the Soviet Union and beyond. Putin is acutely aware of the dangers of nationalism, just as much as he is aware of the dangers of imperialism, and he said so many times: Russia cannot afford any more nationalistic conflicts as they almost completely destroyed Russia in the 1990s. Just look at modern Ukraine and you will see what a Russia torn apart by nationalist ideologies could have looked like had Putin not cracked down, hard, on various nationalists (including and mostly Russian ones).

Far from catering to (an admittedly powerful) Jewish lobby in Russia, Putin is, in fact, trying to assemble as many different peoples and minorities as possible to his project of a New Russia; and that project includes Russian Jews, not only for the sake of these Jews, but mainly for the sake of Russia . The same goes for another crucial minority in Russia – Muslims. They also very much form a key part of the project Putin has for Russia. Of course, racists, nationalists and other less than bright folks in Russia will still dream about expelling all Jews (or Muslims) from Russia. Simply put – that ain't happening (for one thing this would be physically impossible) and Putin and those who support him will fight such projects with every legal tool at their disposal. Here again, you could say that Putin is a patriotic internationalist.

In the meanwhile, the West is still stuck in its old, ideological ways: imperialism, nationalism and messianic exclusivism on one hand, and a complete surrender to post-modernism, cultural self-hatred, petty minority politics and moral relativism on the other. It is, therefore, no surprise whatsoever that both mainstream camps in the West completely misread Putin and can't figure out what he is up to.

Professor Cohen is right: the real Putin has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, in common with the pseudo-Putin the Western media presents to its infinitely gullible and zombified audience. Alas, nobody will listen to Cohen, at least not until the regime in Washington DC and the power structure which supports it, and whose interests it represents, come crashing down. But I do believe that Professor Cohen will eventually go down in history as the most intellectually honest and courageous Russia expert in the US.

exiled off mainstreet , February 8, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT

I respect this commentator and respect Mr. Cohen and detest the power structure they are resisting. This seems to be a realistic appraisal of Putin's role.
Cyrano , February 8, 2018 at 6:57 am GMT

Guilt by association, the punishment of all for the actions of some, scapegoating, the vicious persecution of minorities in the name of some ideal – this has all been tried in the past, both in Russia and in the West. The Nazis did that and so did the Soviets.

Saker, I know you want to sound egalitarian and fair, but comparing Nazi's and Soviet treatment of minorities – come on man. Nazi's mistreated minorities because of the fact that they were of different ethnicity, and that treatment was reserved for them only, and not for the Germans.

In the Soviet Union, the mistreatment of minorities had more equal opportunity flavor – they didn't want to make the minorities feel left out of the mistreatment that the ethnic Russians were receiving themselves.

In other words, the USSR didn't want to discriminate against the minorities by treating them differently than the ethnic Russians.

Imagine how it would have felt from the minorities perspective if the USSR authorities refrained from sending them to the Gulag. They would have felt unloved and unworthy of receiving the same treatment as the Russians. Like they are not good enough to be sent to the Gulag.

yurivku , February 8, 2018 at 9:14 am GMT
Thank you Saker. It was an interesting reading.

Both of you – The Saker and prof. Cohen probably are right in yours conclusions about Putin and its role in world and Russia's history. But: - he was appointed by Yeltsin, as I.Shamir ( http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-rich-also-cry/ ) said to guard Old Money; - he did alot for our country and really saved it from final crushing, but he could have done much more and he had not.

I mean corruption questions when he behaves very selectively (keeping some corruptioners while fight with others, this looks like undercover fight), economy (thanks US imbeciles with sanctions which forced him to support internal productions and agriculture), he did almost nothing to get those oligarchs's money work for country, he does invest to different unneeded projects (like football champ etc) not trying to help poorest part of our society, he still does nothing (even supports) 5th column (Chubais, Kudrin, Shuvalov, Gref ), building stupid Eltsin center .

So I, as well as many Russian, have a very contradictory feelings to him. After Crimea joined Russia we all gave him a big credit. Most than 90% of Russians happy of this, when root and lovely part of Russia returned home not to say about strategic meaning of that. But now credit is over and if we could see someone good enough to be compared with Putin – quite a significant part of a society is ready to vote for for such person. Unfortunately not now. Grudinin doesn't seem to be real alternative, others are just clowns appointed to be faked alternatives.

And the future of Russia is very vague.

Alas, nobody will listen to Cohen, at least not until the regime in Washington DC and the power structure which supports it, and whose interests it represents, come crashing down.

But, thanks to US neocons, it's probably no future at all going to happen, just getting back to stone age. Hope it's a joke. Alas.

Renoman , February 8, 2018 at 10:42 am GMT
Putin is the leader of the free World. A sensible man with a real set of nuts, he stands almost alone.
Ludwig Watzal , Website February 8, 2018 at 10:43 am GMT
There are still some voices of reason left in the US. The most aggressive, dangerous and trigger-happy country in the world is the US Empire.

http://www.newspronto.com/opinion/45229-the-demonization-of-president-vladimir-putin-must-stop

Randal , February 8, 2018 at 12:11 pm GMT

Professor Cohen is right: the real Putin has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, in common with the pseudo-Putin the Western media presents to its infinitely gullible and zombified audience. Alas, nobody will listen to Cohen, at least not until the regime in Washington DC and the power structure which supports it, and whose interests it represents, come crashing down. But I do believe that Professor Cohen will eventually go down in history as the most intellectually honest and courageous Russia expert in the US.

It's very encouraging for me to get the impression that a genuine expert, such as Cohen is on Russia and on Putin, has reached the same broad conclusions about Putin as I have as a mere amateur (albeit long-time) observer of world events.

It's vaguely discouraging that on the particular issues of homosexuals and jewish influence Cohen is able to "reassure" the worst parts of his leftist and presumably political correctness-hobbled audience on Putin, but it's not really a big concern for me. It would be better imo if Putin had wise views on those topics – "gays" are not a "minority" but rather just people who choose to engage in sexual perversion which ought, at the least, to not be officially encouraged, and Jewish people are a recognizable ethnic/national/religious group, with broadly clear identity interests and external loyalties not necessarily congruent with those of the nations they live in, but it's mostly not really any of my business or concern, except insofar as it plays into politics and international policy over here, since he's the Russian president and I'm not Russian.

anonymous Disclaimer , February 8, 2018 at 5:47 pm GMT
Anyone who would bother to examine the issue would arrive at the same conclusions as Mr Cohen. Most Americans won't but just rely on what the mass media transmits to them. The propaganda campaign against Putin depends on repeating the same themes over and over again hence the constant use of the term "thug" to influence the minds of the audience. The campaign against Putin is so vehement and shrill because of his effectiveness in building up the Russian state. Contrast it to the treatment Yeltsin received in the western media as a brave fighter for democracy with pics of him standing on top of a tank. Name calling can't harm Putin or Russia even if it creates an unpleasant environment. After all, they have their army and can't be aggressed against no matter any wishful thinking. The toxic haze is to get the western mind used to the idea that conflict with the Russians, or Putin, in inevitable and desirable to free the world of a dictator. Clinton appeared to want a no-fly zone over Syria and thus military confrontation was on the horizon over that and over other places. We were being prepared for that. That seems to have dissipated for the moment but the internal dynamic of US expansionism remains. What we don't want to do is start believing our own baloney and blunder into any conflict that could cause a catastrophe.
bluedog , February 8, 2018 at 9:20 pm GMT
@yurivku

As they say you can't make everyone happy, for they could have always in their limited view and knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes could always have done more, but the fact remains that Putin was the right person at the right time for Russia

Anon Disclaimer , February 8, 2018 at 10:45 pm GMT
@Renoman

Anon from TN
You wrote: "Putin is the leader of the free World. A sensible man with a real set of nuts, he stands almost alone".

In my view, you grossly overestimate Putin. He is a normal man, capable and intelligent, but he is not by any means that larger-than-life leader and savior of the free World. He looks much greater than he is because you subconsciously compare him with pathetic nonentities that the Western world sees as leaders now. In fact, the leadership of the US Empire and all its vassal countries visibly degenerated in the last decades. Just compare De Gaulle with sad excuses La Belle France had for presidents lately. Or compare Nixon (he might have been a nasty person, but he was a great President of the country) with various Clintons, bushes, obamas, and trumps. Or compare Chancellor Kohl with that poor excuse for a chancellor that Germany has today. You get the drift.

Putin's Russia punches much more than its economic power warrants for the simple reason that he plays chess, seeing many moves ahead, whereas Western leaders he deals with don't even have enough brains to play checkers. He is often winning the game with weak hand not so much because he is great, but because his opponents are clueless. I'd say he, Chinese Xi, and Israel's Bibi look so smart not because they are geniuses, but because they are dealing with morons.

Anon Disclaimer , February 8, 2018 at 11:04 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Anon from TN.
Sorry to disappoint you, but when the Russians saw the example of Ukraine after 2014 they understood the destructive power of primeval tribal nationalism. That's why after the Ukrainian coup popular support for Russian nationalists nosedived. Let me remind you that neither Kadyrov, nor Shoigu, nor Lavrov are ethnic Russians, yet they are perceived by many in the country as super-Russians. Many in today's Russia hold the view that Russian is not a nationality, but a state of mind. Let me remind you the words of former commander of Gorlovka (Donetsk Republic) Bezler: "My mother is Ukrainian, my father German, so who am I? A Russian!"

Dan Hayes , February 9, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
The Saker,

For the last four years I have listened to Prof Steve Cohen being interviewed on the John Batchelor radio show. In those discussions I have always been struck by Cohen's equanimity, scholarship and sense of fair play. (As an aside, I have also been struck by his seemingly fond regard for being reared and educated in Kentucky which at that time was still semi-segregated.)

Cohen oftentimes contrasts the Old Cold War where various viewpoints were on the table versus the one-sidedness of the New Cold War. And he especially castigates his fellow left wingers for failing to consider alternative viewpoints. Note that Cohen is associated with The Nation magazine, a leftist publication edited and subsidized by his wife.

As of now Cohen is a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. I concur with your judgement and it is my hope that history will honor him for his efforts.

polskijoe , February 9, 2018 at 12:10 am GMT
@anonymous

Amongst people who tend to really distrust, dislike people, where we are called Russian agents, or Russians. I have studied lots about Russia, especially since 1990 plus.

I also came to similar over years as Cohen. There is no plan for USSR rebirth, or tanks rolling to Poland and Berlin, or even returning to super power status (at least unlikely).

In 1990 the Russians were in very poor state, and now they have returned to world power status. I think its important to have bipolar world. (even multipolar would be better).

Now I dont love Russians, Im still mixed on Putin, but I think Russians and Putin have made some positive changes. I can respect that. Average Russian, morals are similar to mine (and the same can be said of most Slavics).

Anon Disclaimer , February 9, 2018 at 12:15 am GMT
@AP

Anon from TN. Well, current Ukrainian regime is a lot more "Sovok" than those who resist it. At least if by "Sovok" you mean rampant corruption, widespread unprofessionalism, and obsession with a totally loony ideology.

RobinG , February 9, 2018 at 1:00 am GMT
@Dan Hayes

"Cohen is a lone voice crying out in the wilderness." Feels that way, but he's not totally alone. For example, I believe most members of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) feel about the same. And he's a board member of the American Committee for East-West Accord.

https://eastwestaccord.com/

nebulafox , February 9, 2018 at 1:05 am GMT
I neither like nor dislike Putin. He is what he is, he's in charge of Russia, he needs to be dealt with.

>He is not the man who de-democratized Russia (Elstin and the White House did)

When was Russia ever democratic to begin with? Tsarism, civil war, Communism, oligarchy, Putin. That's pretty much been it. And that's OK. Russia is a massively different culture. But the US isn't to blame.

>He is not the leader who created corruption and kleptocracy in Russia (Elstin and the White House did)

No. Corruption began to really take off in the 1970s under Brezhnev, and that's when the Russian mafia began to strongly collaborate with the government, breaking the old vor code. The KGB remained above it all, but Putin was the product of a corrupt society from the get-go.

Following the collapse of the USSR, yes, everything got a lot more explicit and out-there. But the rot didn't just appear overnight.

>He is not a criminal leader who ordered the murder of opponents or journalists (no evidence)

I don't find it hard to believe, but I don't care enough to find out one way or the other. What Putin does in his own country is, or should be, his own business. Properly conducted foreign policy cares about the external actions of foreign nations, not their internal ones, but that's anathema to American political culture-on both sides of the political spectrum.

Besides, I can't really label a single group in society I could care less about than journalists.

>He did not order the hacking of the DNC servers (no evidence)

Again: I don't find it hard to believe he did, but I don't think it is as relevant as the Democrats would like it to be. Intelligence services can exacerbate political conditions. They cannot create them. Putin did not force Hillary to run arguably the most inept campaign in American political history, losing in spite of the near uniform backing of everything "official" in the US. Unless you believe Moscow magically spawned millions of pissed off downscale white voters in the Rust Belt, try again.

Moreover, Putin definitely wanted Trump to create political chaos in the US. Whether he wanted him in the White House is an open matter. Though he's friendlier than Hillary on a lot of foreign policy issues, he's surrounded by standard issue GOP hawks who influence everything, and he must be disappointed. Furthermore, like all authoritarian rulers, Putin wants stability. (That's why, prior to Bush II, most authoritarian governments in the world-especially Russia and China-openly preferred Republicans in charge.) Trump is anything but.

>He was not anti-US or anti-West from the get-go (Putin changed over time)

Correct. He's changed over the years.

>He is not a neo-Soviet leader (he is very critical of Lenin and Stalin)

Very critical of Lenin, which should surprise no one given that Lenin himself was far more fond of Western culture-specifically German -- than Russia, who he thought of as a backward, "Asiatic" place. As I've said, the KGB following Stalin's purges was arguably the least ideologically Communist place in the USSR, at least compared to their major two rivals-the military and party -- in the ever ongoing three-war political struggle that characterized post-Stalin Russia.

More ambiguous with Stalin. He's been making noises about replacing Volgograd's name around the anniversary of the battle back to the old Stalingrad. I think he holds the standard views that Russians his age hold of Stalin. I think they'll readily agree that he's probably in hell if it exists right now, and showed there was such a thing as being too fond of law and order, but he was *their* SOB and got them through the war.

>He is not an aggressive foreign policy leader (he has been a reactive leader)

He is primarily defensive, yes. Partially by necessity-his Russia just can't project power like the USSR could-but also because, unlike the USSR, his Russia is not governed by an ideology that necessarily implies eventual expansionism.

>He is not somehow defined by his years at the KGB.

He's partially defined by them, but not in the way people think. The KGB was, by the time Putin was in the organization, far and away the least ideologically Communist place in the USSR and saw their main function as protecting what was essentially an old-style Muscovite imperium with Marxist trappings from the spoiled, corrupt party princelings-who they did not allow into the organization. The KGB was the only place someone like Putin could have accelerated, given that 1970s USSR had one of the lowest social mobility rates in the world, contrary to the propaganda. Chekist thinking is very evident in his public pronouncements, his actions, and his beliefs about how life works. It's pretty obvious. Putin's regime is the first in history to be dominated by former security and intelligence professionals to this extent. Most of his inner circle-former intelligence officers.

However, equally important is old-style Tsarist Orthodox-laden Slavophilism, and just plain greed and venality. The third one is overlooked. I think Putin's real first goal, all things balanced, is staying in charge, on top, and wealthy. That means keeping the various turf lords in check and satisfied. It works for now. What happens to the sand-castle when he dies is a different matter.

That's it. Goodbye Unz.

yurivku , February 9, 2018 at 6:28 am GMT
@bluedog

Got to PC, writing from smartphone is unhandy

As they say you can't make everyone happy, for they could have always in their limited view and knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes could always have done more

Exactly, but I think you know not more that me here in Russia "what's going on behind the scenes".
And yes, probably there are hidden reasons for his behaviour, but I've written what many (I beleive the majority) of Russians think. Of cource not all, there are some absolute fans of him and absolute enemies, BTW mainly latter are jews for unknown reasons.

but the fact remains that Putin was the right person at the right time for Russia

bold assertion – "the fact". It's not the fact, – it's your opinion, not more. Yes, It could have been much worse person, but could have been much better. Or you think he's an ideal? Nobody denies his achievements, but I mentioned also his (actually ours) losses or mistakes.

bluedog , February 9, 2018 at 10:43 am GMT
@yurivku

Who would you have recommended?

Vlad , February 9, 2018 at 11:12 am GMT
Saker did a great job of explaining Cohen's position on Putin that had been misunderstood in mainstream Western media. Cohen has basically been trying to show that Putin is a normal leader, ready to cooperate with the US and defend his country's national interests. His posture has been defensive. Cohen is trying to reason with the liberals and New York Jews. He is trying to convince them that the mainstream media is lying. Fine.

But that does not explain what Putin's agenda is. Saker goes further. He does explain most of Putin's past and present. But still there is room for disagreement. Saker argues that Putin knew all along the wicked intentions of the US and openly revealed that knowledge after the Ukraine take over by the US. Here I disagree. When Bush came to Russia Putin greeted him with genuine enthusiasm. Putin then did hope that Russia and US could turn the page and begin a new relationship. That did not happen. Expansion of NATO happened instead. And that is when Putin began to reconsider. My difference with Saker is that I believe that Putin still does not know what his policy to the US should be. He still hopes that Trump will live up to his pre-election promise. Putin is still beholden to the moment of 2003 when Russia Germany France and Italy were together in opposition to US Iraq war. He still craves for the days when the German Chancellor and Italian leader were his personal friends. He hoped then and still hopes today to draw Europe to Russia and undermine NATO from within.

However, the Ukraine conflict has completely messed up that dream project. My most important objection to Saker is that Putin does not know what to do about Ukraine and does not have a policy on Ukraine. He puts up with what no Russian leader would put up with. Americans are arming Ukrainian neo-Nazies for a war with Russia. And Putin does nothing. Americans openly arm terrorists on Syria who shoot a Russian airplane and Russia does nothing. Basically Putin's policy of turning enemies into partners and partners into friends and friends into allies has partially succeeded in Syria but failed in Ukraine. Is he going to wait until US missiles are established in Ukraine? Is he going to accept de facto NATO membership of Ukraine. Where is the red line beyond which he would not go?

Peter Akuleyev , February 9, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
Cohen is a Communist and reflexive hater of the United States in the Noam Chomsky mold. He is either naive or a fool if he believes half of what he is saying.

Russia never had a decent shot at democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. The fight between Yeltsin and the Russian Parliament was basically a fight between two factions, and the Yeltsin/KGB faction beat the CPSU/Red Manager faction. Putin is very much a product of and continuation of the Yeltsin/KGB team (notice, for example, the role that Chubais continues to play in government policy), but the current team realizes how hated Yeltsin is and are smart enough to create plausible distance for public consumption.

For the most part the Putin years have been a failure, and these last two decades will be seen as squandered. Very little economic growth, continuing deterioration of the education and health systems, increasing dependence on China and massive transfers of wealth abroad. Those are Putin's primary achievements. On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western competition.

yurivku , February 9, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMT
@bluedog

Who would you have recommended?

Good question. Probably it was a sarcasm and you think you proved I'm wrong?
After all the answer depends on what you trying to get. For US probably Sobchak will be just fine, for people of Russia who want peace and prosperity the answer will be certainly other.

I put it quite clear

But now credit is over and if we could see someone good enough to be compared with Putin – quite a significant part of a society is ready to vote for for such person. Unfortunately not now.

Unfortunately I see no specific person

Grudinin doesn't seem to be real alternative, others are just clowns appointed to be faked alternatives.

But as for me personally I ( probably , I'm still watching for his electoral company) will vote for Grudinin cause he's representing patriotic block, not himself only.

Anon Disclaimer , February 9, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
@yurivku

Anon from TN
You are free to vote any way you want. However, I'd like to remind you that Russia already had one Director of Sovkhoz as president (Gorbachev), and nothing good came out of it.

Shemp , February 9, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT
Cohen could go further. One of the curious fixations of US public discourse is reducing the country to a leader, when the most comprehensive standard of governance assigns duties to the state as a whole. Anyone can compare Russia and the USA point by point.

Comparing US and Russian human rights protections, it's evident that Putin's Russia undertakes to meet world human rights standards in good faith, and the USA does not. Russians get a better deal than we do.

yurivku , February 9, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
@bluedog

If my opinion really matters i'll write more later, now from phone its abit difficult.
I can only say that we need clever, honest patriotic person which is not easy task u know. Especially if u are from US, every elections believe that most stupid people we already seen and its cant be worst, but I'm mistaken. Compare for ex Samanta Power and N. Haley or Obama and Trump

yurivku , February 9, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
@Anon

Yes we need to isolate those cause they will do their dirty job with childs and u have no enough police to watch. They aggressively set theirs habits remember lgbt parades etc

bluedog , February 9, 2018 at 5:33 pm GMT
@yurivku

Yes I would be interested in your opinion, and yes I do live in the U.S. and yes your right that just when you think the worse has arrived then on the scene one always worse arrives to makes you out as a lair

Anon Disclaimer , February 9, 2018 at 5:43 pm GMT
@yurivku

Anon from TN
You are right, this is not a scientific conclusion. Politics are not science.

I agree that Putin is not a perfect leader. His foreign policy is smart and successful (hence the US hysterics). But his internal policies are far from admirable: he allows oligarchs to plunder the country and even transfer their loot abroad. A big chunk of state budget is stolen by those close to the trough, but you have to keep in mind that even greater chunk of state budget is stolen by "contractors" in the US and other countries (F35 program and Zumwalt are the best known examples, but there are many more). Thing is, the politics are the game of the possible. I am not sure Putin can maintain his international stance and his position in Russia and antagonize the whole ruling class at the same time. I disapprove of his "vertical" – Russia is not Lichtenstein, it's a huge country that cannot be directly ruled by one person. I also believe that Russia cannot afford to have a total nonentity as a Prime Minister, with only one redeeming (from Putin's standpoint) quality: loyalty.

However, I've heard a few of Grudinin's speeches, and they were very disappointing, to put it mildly. It is nice to say that you want to confiscate oligarch's money (after all, they just stole it), stop capital flight, nationalize natural resources, etc. It might sound good for the electorate, but without specifying means of achieving these goals, this is pure demagoguery. There is only one way to do all of it, and this way is called "socialism", like in the USSR. Problem is, this comes in a package: you must make rouble not freely convertible into other currencies, you must strictly control the movement of people across the border, you must introduce planned or at least semi-planned economy, etc.

You cannot pick and choose, no more than you can be a little bit pregnant: it is a yes or no thing. If Grudinin does not understand that, he is not smart enough to be president. If he understands it, but does not acknowledge, he is simply dishonest. Many of the other candidates are just clowns supported by the Kremlin to play this role (think Zhirinovsky). Besides, Russia should have as the president someone who cares about the country more than about him/herself (this excludes Sobchak: she is smart, but she cares only about her precious self), and certainly not a traitor running to the US Embassy for money and marching orders (you should know who I mean). Thus, in my humble opinion, Putin, warts and all, is still the best president Russia can have at the moment.

yurivku , February 9, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
@bluedog

From phone..
Well, its funny, I just dont understand who are the God sake US people here on UNZ, from different sources I see Americans happy with one more Russian killed in Syria. You know we call Americans "pindosy" ( пиндосы ) I actually not sure what its mean, but its clear that its a most degree of disgust. And further its going the more our disgust. And its between two most powerful countries in the world. Are u Americans have any feelings of selfdefence? Actually all red lines crossed and everything ready for apocalypse

Sergey Krieger , February 9, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT
@yurivku

Very good post. Agree.

yurivku , February 9, 2018 at 7:22 pm GMT
@Anon

Pbone.
I'll answer,later. But just understand that for us its a live question, well probably for the whole world also, but this stupid world doesn't know it yet

Sergey Krieger , February 9, 2018 at 7:25 pm GMT
@yurivku

People of Lenin and Stalin caliber do not happen often. I think Putin is sort of transitional figure. However the main issue since Stalin times seems to be lack of systematic approach in bringing up and then putting in power capable leaders and in reality lots of fools getting up there. I believe fools essentially destroyed Ussr as saying goes fool is more dangerous than enemy. Long topic but it is really a murky question as to where Russia is going with 70% of everything in few hands and stolen funds siphoned offshore.

bluedog , February 10, 2018 at 1:25 am GMT
@yurivku

Oh I don't think most Americans are glad to see another Russian killed, at least not the sane ones that is, or anyone else for that matter but our so called leadership is quite a different matter, and the farther down the rabbit hole we go the worse it becomes as the best government money can buy goes into overdrive, for I suspect it will get a whole lot worse before it even starts to get and better

[Feb 09, 2018] Nunes Duels the Deep State by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify what the president had decided to do. ..."
"... How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in the firing of James Comey? ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

The most plausible hypothesis is that Steele was simply telling Fusion and the DNC what they wanted to hear to collect the money. When you go on a witch hunt you're going to find witches.

From the Nunes memo, there was, at the highest level of the FBI, a cabal determined to derail Trump and elect Clinton. Heading the cabal was Comey, who made the call to exonerate Hillary of criminal charges for imperiling national security secrets, even before his own FBI investigation was concluded.

Assisting Comey was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, running for a Virginia state senate seat, received a windfall of $467,000 in contributions from Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Last week, McCabe was discharged from the FBI. Seems that in late September 2016, he learned from his New York field office that it was sitting on a trove of emails between Anthony Weiner and his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, which potentially contained security secrets.

Not until late October did Comey inform Congress of what deputy McCabe had known a month earlier.

Other FBI plotters were Peter Strzok, chief investigator in both the Clinton email server scandal and Russiagate, and his FBI girlfriend, Lisa Page. Both were ousted from the Mueller investigation when their anti-Trump bias and behavior were exposed last summer.

Filling out the starting five was Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general under Loretta Lynch. In 2016, Ohr's wife was working for Fusion GPS, the oppo research arm of the Clinton campaign, and Bruce was in direct contact with Steele.

Now virtually all of this went down before Robert Mueller was named special counsel. But the poisoned roots of the Russiagate investigation and the bristling hostility of the investigators to Trump must cast a cloud of suspicion over whatever charges Mueller will bring.

Now another head may be about to fall, that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

If Mueller has given up trying to prove Trump collusion with the Kremlin and moved on to obstruction of justice charges, Rosenstein moves into the crosshairs.

For the heart of any obstruction scenario is Trump's firing of James Comey and his boasting about why he did it.

But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify what the president had decided to do.

How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in the firing of James Comey?

The Roman poet Juvenal's question comes to mind. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

Consider where we are. Mueller is investigating alleged Trump collusion with Russia, and the White House is all lawyered up.

The House intel committee is investigating Clinton-FBI collusion to defeat Trump and break his presidency. FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking into whether the fix was in to give Hillary a pass in the probe of her email server.

Comey has been fired, his deputy McCabe removed, his chief investigator Strzok ousted by Mueller for bigoted anti-Trump behavior, alongside his FBI paramour, Page. Bruce Ohr has been demoted for colluding with Steele, who was caught lying to the FBI and fired, and for his wife's role in Fusion GPS, which was being paid to dig up dirt on Trump for Clinton's campaign

If Americans are losing confidence in the FBI, whose fault is that? Is there not evidence that a hubristic cadre at the apex of the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?

To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.

Rurik , February 6, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT

a hubristic cadre at the apex of the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?

Beautifully written article Mr. Buchanan

To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.

What it always looks like to me, is that the interests of the deep state never coincide with the actual interests of the American people, and that indeed, they are mutually incompatible.

It seems to me that one of, if not the main motivation of the deep state is to dismantle the American people's Constitutional rights, disarm then, and set about creating an Orwellian dystopia for the purpose of exerting total power over them.

Who doubts that Hillary's very grotesque existence is one big collective desire of a certain bent of people to wield total power over others? Why else would she publically cackle at the torture/murder of a man she disliked unless she figured her audience agreed that his murder was a good thing, and that once she came to power, that she's really get to the business of putting it to those deplorables but good! Not for anything they ever did, but for what they were – irredeemable.

In fact, I see the deep state today as an exact incarnation of Orwell's Ingsoc, with it's total surveillance police state, and all the other tyrannical state power abuses over every aspect of our lives. (Even with the ubiquitous televisions with the microphones and cameras monitored by the Ministry of Love)

we have the Newspeak speech codes on our universities. The places where our young and brightest are supposed to be taught to think, and they're doing the opposite- by creating mindless drones who parrot doubleplus good PC bromides.

we have the Eternal Wars

we have the ((inner party))

we have the two minute hate for the Hitler du jour, (Osama, Saddam, Gadhafi, Assad, now Putin )

we have the Ministry of Truth = msm fake news 24/7 lies and more lies

we have the Ministry of Love = Gitmo

we have the all pervasive fear that governs our conversations and alters our behavior. How many dare to discuss the inner party at dinner parties or at work? How many dare to flout the speech codes?

1984 was the most prescient book ever written, with a nod to The Protocols, as runner up. And the deep state today is nothing more than what Orwell was writing about. Men and women who seek power for its own sake. And have a deep-seated imperative to wield that power over others.

That's what the memo is about. Power-crazed assholes hell bent on putting their boot on our collective faces. And mashing it in.

who doubts, for one second, that John Brenan

(or Hillary or John McCain ) would relish the opportunity to put the metaphorical 'deplorable' in this chair?

for some reason, when I look at that photo, (a peek into the id of the deep state personality) I see Ron Paul in that chair, with Rudy Giuliani standing there, but it could just as easily be Edward Snowden in the chair, with Dick Cheney presiding..

But the reason I'm belaboring this Orwellian theme is because it is quintessentially salient to this subject of the deep state.

George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest

Anonymous Disclaimer , February 6, 2018 at 7:39 pm GMT
@Rurik

"George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest "

True enough, but it was Huxley who nailed the underlying theme that made it all possible; the people will trade all of their other rights for complete sexual freedom.

Rurik , February 7, 2018 at 12:36 am GMT
@Anonymous

on them, and embraced their own genocide? No, no, no. That simply would not due!

There has to be some fun to it, and so you don't want them all to embrace their submission to the police state, since then what's the point?

They have to want to be free, and want to persevere, if enslaving them and replacing them is going to be any fun at all. You see?

And that's why Orwell's methods will win out over Huxley's. Because what fun is wielding power, unless your victims writhe under your lash?

Miro23 , February 7, 2018 at 4:53 am GMT
@Rurik

I agree, and you put it very clearly.

Orwell's 1984 was an exposition of Totalitarianism, with the Inner Party using these mechanisms because they work. Like you say, the whole package is now present in the US, although the Inner Party doesn't yet have sufficient power to use full state violence against the public.

But at some point they'll have to , since the system is based on the implicit threat of violence against dissidents, and it has to become explicit (social exclusion is not enough). So, realistically, the cabal needs a National Emergency with an official suspension of Democracy, probably using the framework for emergency rule already in place under Reagan era COG (Continuity of Government) legislation.

The 9/11 Coup was a failed attempt to activate a COG dictatorship under Cheney (halted by the events in Florida that morning), but the same planners will inevitably try again. Their private security depends on public insecurity, allowing them to turn the mechanisms of state power against the public, while paradoxically, they live by the integrity of this same hijacked state structure.

If the state should melt away in generalized anarchy, then the levers of power would no longer work, and they would face the fate of Ceausescu or Gaddafi – hence the deceptive Doublespeak of the "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security".

Z-man , February 7, 2018 at 6:02 am GMT
I'm not following this story much because it's boring but I will always be a fan of Nunes by the enemies he keeps. Ana Navarro, the 'Latina' battle-axe who is a 'Never Trump' 'Republitard' was on TV and made sure to let everybody know that Nunes was not an Hispanic. He's of Portugese decent, racial politics. LOL Devin Nunes is ok in my book. Hopefully he's not an Israeli firster.
KenH , February 7, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
@Corvinus

Your information is wrong as always, Corvinky. The leftist "Russian collusion" narrative is collapsing and (((Seth))) and other lefties are desperate to keep it alive with spin and fake facts. That's why it's quietly changed from claims of collusion to obstruction of justice since there's no evidence of the former.

If there was other corroborating evidence then why absolutely no mention of it until now? If the (((lamestream media))) knew and sat on it then they are colluding with the Democrat party on how and what to report which we already know they do. And it proves that the (((media)) is hyper partisan and not independent but anyone with half a brain already knows that also.

If there was really any evidence of Trump collusion the NSA would have it, but they don't. In fact, it was the NSA that threatened to spill the beans on the origins of the Steele dossier if the FBI and DOJ failed did not come clean to the FISA court.

Miro23 , February 7, 2018 at 7:57 pm GMT
@Rurik

remember reading about this "suicide"

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore. "Science is our best witness in this case. It is not biased and it doesn't lie."

According to police, Zahau bound her own hands and feet with a thick red rope and hanged herself naked off the second-floor balcony of a guest bedroom. She appeared to have secured one section of the rope to the footboard of the bed before she bound her feet, wrapped the rope around her neck, tied her hands behind her back, walked to the balcony, and propelled herself over the railing.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rebecca-zahau-death-ruled-a-suicide-shacknai-mysterys-sad-ending

indeed, I suspect that it is because they so often get away with such things that this mega-wealthy Hollywood insider figured he'd also get away with it.

"Well, then," he said to the police, "I guess you'll have to find out who did it."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/murder-mayhem-torture-sunset-strip-tragic-story-budding-director-his-dead-girlfriend-1068725

MarkinLA , February 7, 2018 at 9:18 pm GMT
@Corvinus

Doesn't work that way in a criminal investigation. Man, you really have little clue how our legal system works.

Obviously, you don't either. As someone who was against the Clinton witch hunt that created a perjury trap when they couldn't get him on real charges related to Whitewater, I can see perfectly well that this is similar – drag this on and on until they can create some process crime.

Rurik , February 7, 2018 at 9:37 pm GMT
@Miro23

There's now a mountain of evidence that shows that they are lying, and the only way for US society to stabilize, is to pull every thread of the 9/11 shroud until the whole rotten enterprise is revealed, and the US public can see the plotters in daylight.

[Robert] Mueller took over the FBI one week before the 9/11 attacks

His protestations helped the Bush administration railroad the Patriot Act through Congress, vastly expanding the FBI's prerogatives to vacuum up Americans' personal information

http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/371206-robert-muellers-forgotten-surveillance-crime-spree

whoever pulls down the "Democratic" facade will be doing the US a favour.

not just the US. They'll be doing the whole planet a favor. 9/11 has been the pretext for serial wars of aggression against nations that have done us no harm. It has been used as the pretext for the total police / surveillance state that has eviscerated our constitution, and rendered it a worthless piece of toilet paper, all to the bovine cud-chewing apathy of the dumbed down Americanus Bovinus. Who can't wait for the next Hollywood movie based on cartoon characters to come out on the big screen.

I was poised to leave this country if Hillary became potus, and still wonder if there's any hope at all.

These psychopaths are as bad as they get. These Straussian neocons and tribalist Jewish supremacists are bad news, man. Very, very bad news. They're ideologically driven by a Satanic imperative to dominate, and they will never, ever stop. Until they are stopped. And that would require a resolve that the Americanus Bovinus is endemically incapable of, because it necessitates a spiritual mettle that's been systematically bred out of them.

They'd rather embrace their smart device chains, than suffer the egregious enormity of breaking a societal taboo or politically correct norm. And this has all been very systematically constructed with schools that dumb them down, and universities that create slavish fealty to virtue signaling uber alles.

It's all so very tragic, because for one thing, these people had it made! They're the most wealthy and powerful demographic in the country. They enjoy assess and perks wildly out of proportion to their fellow Americans. But that is not enough! Then want that boot on everyone's neck and they want it now, God damn it!

So the world is driven to the brink to sate an insatiable appetite for grandiose megalomaniacal power. And once they have the power, what fun is that unless you use it?

George Soros doesn't want his son to see the fall of Europa and Western civilization, HE wants to see it! He wants to cackle like Hillary was able to over the murder of Gadhafi, only he want the stake though the heart of Hungary in particular.

It's this psychotic need of these people to see everyone else suffer, while they laugh at the misery, knowing that they caused it all. Whether it's in Palestine or Libya or Ferguson. Hate all day long, and with a bottomless pit of rancor and bile tossed in for good measure.

Hell, when I contemplate them and their obsession to hate, all day, every day, I almost feel pity. Almost.

Ilyana_Rozumova , February 8, 2018 at 1:50 am GMT
@Rurik

It is not lying.
It is damage control.

Rurik , February 8, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT
@Cassandra

hatred of Trump is such that a huge slice of the country would support his removal by extralegal, unconstitutional means. This is bigger than Watergate, a conspiracy at the highest levels, and before it's over, will decide the fate of the nation. I just hope Trump is up to the task.

I very much agree.

I know of liberals who're despondent, and nearly catatonic over Trump. I've heard it said they're psychologically in the fetal position, unable to cope with the ascendancy of Les Deplorables. Or, more precisely, the altering trajectory that doesn't have a demographic dagger being plunged into the necks of 'the irredeemables' and their children as we speak.

They've been so rapturous over the looming evisceration of heritage America for so long, that having to wait a few more extra years until that glorious day when the 'patriarchy' is dead and in its grave- is existential for them. Of course! they'd subvert our 'democracy' and Constitution and all notions of decency in their butt-hurt quest, since they've never had a shred of integrity to begin with. They don't even know what the word means, except as something to mock.

... ... ...

MarkinLA , February 8, 2018 at 10:01 pm GMT
@Corvinus

I wonder why when I replace Mueller with Starr in your post I seem to get the same conclusion?

However, I will give you this, Mueller is a POS protecting the Deep State against somebody he deems not worthy of a seat at the table. Starr was a sanctimonious POS thinking he was leading a crusade to keep an uncouth lowbrow sleazeball out of an exalted position.

Liberty Mike , February 8, 2018 at 10:14 pm GMT
@Rurik

Rurik -

Excellent.

However, I would suggest that some in the cabal have understood, all along, that in order for their dreams and plans to materialize, there would have to be a Long March through the institutions and while they were conquering the institutions, the masses would have to be given their breads and circuses.

A fellow traveler of our cause once said to me, words to the effect that, "they'll let you go on your football trips, and they'll let the drunks enjoy their Budweiser, and of course they'll let people go to the movies and out to dinner."

[Feb 09, 2018] Our Enemy, Ourselves by William J. Astore

Notable quotes:
"... William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor, is a ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Whether the rationale is the need to wage a war on terror involving 76 countries or renewed preparations for a struggle against peer competitors Russia and China (as Defense Secretary James Mattis suggested recently while introducing America's new National Defense Strategy ), the U.S. military is engaged globally. A network of 800 military bases spread across 172 countries helps enable its wars and interventions. By the count of the Pentagon, at the end of the last fiscal year about 291,000 personnel (including reserves and Department of Defense civilians) were deployed in 183 countries worldwide, which is the functional definition of a military uncontained . Lady Liberty may temporarily close when the U.S. government grinds to a halt, but the country's foreign military commitments, especially its wars, just keep humming along.

As a student of history, I was warned to avoid the notion of inevitability. Still, given such data points and others like them, is there anything more predictable in this country's future than incessant warfare without a true victory in sight? Indeed, the last clear-cut American victory, the last true "mission accomplished" moment in a war of any significance, came in 1945 with the end of World War II.

Yet the lack of clear victories since then seems to faze no one in Washington. In this century, presidents have regularly boasted that the U.S. military is the finest fighting force in human history, while no less regularly demanding that the most powerful military in today's world be " rebuilt " and funded at ever more staggering levels. Indeed, while on the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised he'd invest so much in the military that it would become "so big and so strong and so great, and it will be so powerful that I don't think we're ever going to have to use it."

As soon as he took office, however, he promptly appointed a set of generals to key positions in his government, stored the mothballs, and went back to war. Here, then, is a brief rundown of the first year of his presidency in war terms.

In 2017, Afghanistan saw a mini-surge of roughly 4,000 additional U.S. troops (with more to come ), a major spike in air strikes, and an onslaught of munitions of all sorts, including MOAB (the mother of all bombs), the never-before-used largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal, as well as precision weapons fired by B-52s against suspected Taliban drug laboratories . By the Air Force's own count, 4,361 weapons were "released" in Afghanistan in 2017 compared to 1,337 in 2016. Despite this commitment of warriors and weapons, the Afghan war remains -- according to American commanders putting the best possible light on the situation -- " stalemated ," with that country's capital Kabul currently under siege .

How about Operation Inherent Resolve against the Islamic State? U.S.-led coalition forces have launched more than 10,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria since Donald Trump became president, unleashing 39,577 weapons in 2017. (The figure for 2016 was 30,743.) The "caliphate" is now gone and ISIS deflated but not defeated , since you can't extinguish an ideology solely with bombs. Meanwhile, along the Syrian-Turkish border a new conflict seems to be heating up between American-backed Kurdish forces and NATO ally Turkey.

Yet another strife-riven country, Yemen, witnessed a sixfold increase in U.S. airstrikes against al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (from 21 in 2016 to more than 131 in 2017). In Somalia, which has also seen a rise in such strikes against al-Shabaab militants, U.S. forces on the ground have reached numbers not seen since the Black Hawk Down incident of 1993. In each of these countries, there are yet more ruins, yet more civilian casualties, and yet more displaced people.

Finally, we come to North Korea. Though no real shots have yet been fired, rhetorical shots by two less-than-stable leaders, "Little Rocket Man" Kim Jong-un and " dotard " Donald Trump, raise the possibility of a regional bloodbath . Trump, seemingly favoring military solutions to North Korea's nuclear program even as his administration touts a new generation of more usable nuclear warheads, has been remarkably successful in moving the world's doomsday clock ever closer to midnight.

Clearly, his "great" and "powerful" military has hardly been standing idly on the sidelines looking "big" and "strong." More than ever, in fact, it seems to be lashing out across the Greater Middle East and Africa. Seventeen years after the 9/11 attacks began the Global War on Terror, all of this represents an eerily familiar attempt by the U.S. military to kill its way to victory, whether against the Taliban, ISIS, or other terrorist organizations.

This kinetic reality should surprise no one. Once you invest so much in your military -- not just financially but also culturally (by continually celebrating it in a fashion which has come to seem like a quasi-faith) -- it's natural to want to put it to use. This has been true of all recent administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, as reflected in the infamous question Secretary of State Madeleine Albright posed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell in 1992: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

With the very word "peace" rarely in Washington's political vocabulary, America's never-ending version of war seems as inevitable as anything is likely to be in history. Significant contingents of U.S. troops and contractors remain an enduring presence in Iraq and there are now 2,000 U.S. Special Operations forces and other personnel in Syria for the long haul . They are ostensibly engaged in training and stability operations. In Washington, however, the urge for regime change in both Syria and Iran remains strong -- in the case of Iran implacably so. If past is prologue, then considering previous regime-change operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the future looks grim indeed.

Despite the dismal record of the last decade and a half, our civilian leaders continue to insist that this country must have a military not only second to none but globally dominant. And few here wonder what such a quest for total dominance, the desire for absolute power, could do to this country. Two centuries ago, however, writing to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams couldn't have been clearer on the subject. Power, he said, "must never be trusted without a check."

The question today for the American people: How is the dominant military power of which U.S. leaders so casually boast to be checked? How is the country's almost total reliance on the military in foreign affairs to be reined in? How can the plans of the profiteers and arms makers to keep the good times rolling be brought under control?

As a start, consider one of Donald Trump's favorite generals, Douglas MacArthur, speaking to the Sperry Rand Corporation in 1957:

"Our swollen budgets constantly have been misrepresented to the public. Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

No peacenik MacArthur. Other famed generals like Smedley Butler and Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke out with far more vigor against the corruptions of war and the perils to a democracy of an ever more powerful military, though such sentiments are seldom heard in this country today. Instead, America's leaders insist that other people judge us by our words, our stated good intentions, not our murderous deeds and their results.

Perpetual Warfare Whistles Through Washington

Whether in Iraq , Afghanistan , or elsewhere in the war on terror, the U.S. is now engaged in generational conflicts that are costing us trillions of dollars, driving up the national debt while weakening the underpinnings of our democracy. They have led to foreign casualties by the hundreds of thousands and created refugees in the millions , while turning cities like Iraq's Mosul into wastelands .

In today's climate of budget-busting "defense" appropriations, isn't it finally time for Americans to apply a little commonsense to our disastrous pattern of war-making? To prime the pump for such a conversation, here are 10 suggestions for ways to focus on, limit, or possibly change Washington's now eternal war-making and profligate war spending :

1. Abandon the notion of perfect security. You can't have it. It doesn't exist. And abandon as well the idea that a huge military establishment translates into national safety. James Madison didn't think so and neither did Dwight D. Eisenhower.

2. Who could have anything against calling the Pentagon a "defense" department, if defense were truly its focus? But let's face it: the Pentagon is actually a war department. So let's label it what it really is. After all, how can you deal with a problem if you can't even name it accurately?

3. Isn't it about time to start following the Constitution when it comes to our "wars"? Isn't it time for Congress to finally step up to its constitutional duties? Whatever the Pentagon is called, this country should no longer be able to pursue its many conflicts without a formal congressional declaration of war. If we had followed that rule, the U.S. wouldn't have fought any of its wars since the end of World War II.

4. Generational wars -- ones, that is, that never end -- should not be considered a measure of American resolve, but of American stupidity. If you wage war long, you wage it wrong, especially if you want to protect democratic institutions in this country.

5. Generals generally like to wage war. Don't blame them. It's their profession. But for heaven's sake, don't put them in charge of the Department of "Defense" (James Mattis) or the National Security Council (H.R. McMaster) either -- and above all, don't let one of them (John Kelly) become the gatekeeper for a volatile, vain president. In our country, civilians should be in charge of the war makers, end of story.

6. You can't win wars you never should have begun in the first place. America's leaders failed to learn that lesson from Vietnam. Since then they have continued to wage wars for less-than-vital interests with predictably dismal results. Following the Vietnam example, America will only truly win its Afghan War when it chooses to rein in its pride and vanity -- and leave.

7. The serious people in Washington snickered when, as a presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008 , Congressman Dennis Kucinich called for a Department of Peace . Remind me, though, 17 years into our latest set of wars, what was so funny about that suggestion? Isn't it better to wage peace than war? If you don't believe me, ask a wounded veteran or a Gold Star family.

8. Want to invest in American jobs? Good idea! But stop making the military-industrial complex the preferred path to job creation. That's a loser of a way to go. It's proven that investments in " butter " create double or triple the number of jobs as those in "guns." In other words, invest in education, health care, and civilian infrastructure, not more weaponry.

9. Get rid of the very idea behind the infamous Pottery Barn rule -- the warning Secretary of State Colin Powell offered George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that if the U.S. military "breaks" a country, somehow we've "bought" it and so have to take ownership of the resulting mess. Whether stated or not, it's continued to be the basis for this century's unending wars. Honestly, if somebody broke something valuable you owned, would you trust that person to put it back together? Folly doesn't decrease by persisting in it.

10. I was an officer in the Air Force. When I entered that service, the ideal of the citizen-soldier still held sway. But during my career I witnessed a slow, insidious change . A citizen-soldier military morphed into a professional ethos of " warriors " and " warfighters ," a military that saw itself as better than the rest of us. It's time to think about how to return to that citizen-soldier tradition, which made it harder to fight those generational wars.

Consider retired General John Kelly, who, while defending the president in a controversy over the president's words to the mother of a dead Green Beret, refused to take questions from reporters unless they had a personal connection to fallen troops or to a Gold Star family. Consider as well the way that U.S. politicians like Vice President Mike Pence are always so keen to exalt those in uniform, to speak of them as above the citizenry. ("You are the best of us.")

Isn't it time to stop praising our troops to the rooftops and thanking them endlessly for what they've done for us -- for fighting those wars without end -- and to start listening to them instead? Isn't it time to try to understand them not as " heroes " in another universe, but as people like us in all their frailty and complexity? We're never encouraged to see them as our neighbors, or as teenagers who struggled through high school, or as harried moms and dads.

Our troops are, of course, human and vulnerable and imperfect. We don't help them when we put them on pedestals, give them flags to hold in the breeze, and salute them as icons of a feel-good brand of patriotism. Talk of warrior-heroes is worse than cheap: it enables our state of permanent war, elevates the Pentagon, ennobles the national security state, and silences dissent. That's why it's both dangerous and universally supported in rare bipartisan fashion by politicians in Washington.

So here's my final point. Think of it as a bonus 11th suggestion: don't make our troops into heroes, even when they're in harm's way. It would be so much better to make ourselves into heroes by getting them out of harm's way.

Be exceptional, America. Make peace, not war.

William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor, is a TomDispatch regular . He blogs at Bracing Views .

[Feb 09, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis Syria Notes - 5 February 2018

Notable quotes:
"... Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run. ..."
"... I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north. Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin. ..."
"... My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career. ..."
"... If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity. ..."
"... 'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which raised a total of $915,000.' ..."
"... I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does. IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed. ..."
"... It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning all the dirty tricks from Madeleine. ..."
"... I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack. ..."
Feb 09, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

1. Nikki Haley is either completely gullible or is in thrall to some collection of Borgists at State. Someone remarked of a previous US Secretary of State that "if only he were still alive this would not happen." Unfortunately he was still alive and in office. Much the same could be said of Rex Tillerson. Haley is now tub thumping for US air attacks on Syria. This a reprise of several previous US assertions of Syrian Arab Government (SAG) use of chemical weapons including the East Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun fiascos. After Khan Sheikhoun the SAG invited US and UN investigations of the air base but somehow this was not accepted. Now James Mattis is asserting that the SAG is manufacturing chemical munitions although the US has no evidence of this as yet. I believe this is called "confirmation bias?"

2. As shown above , the SAA is committed to elimination of the East Idlib pocket. The jihadis are without re-supply and will progressively be running out of the means of resistance. This should not take too long and is actually a good idea before proceeding further into Idlib Province to the west. I believe I expressed an opinion as to the wisdom of such a move.

3. The SAA has begun shelling the Turkish strong point (observation post) at Al-Eis. The Turks have been attempting tricky cleverness by claiming that they are occupying the hill at Al--Eis un accord with a Russian/Iranian/Turkish de-escalation igreement. In fact IMO they are seeking to position themselves so as to impede SAG liberation of Idlib Province. pl

Christian Chuba,

Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run.
kooshy,
Colonel Lang, did you see this news on AMN, "Syrian Army allows massive YPG convoy to travel to Afrin from their lines' God only knows what is going on in Syria? it's a mess, was that to stop the Turks going to Al Eis.
james said in reply to kooshy... ,
and further to that - this also from AMN -

"BEIRUT, LEBANON (7:53 P.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army or allied paramilitary groups or both have reportedly started shelling the freshly established positions of Turkish forces in the southern countryside of Aleppo province according to both opposition and pro-government sources.

Opposition sources says that Syrian Army and allied Iranian-linked paramilitary groups have unleashed artillery fire onto recently established positions of the Turkish Army in the strategic Al-Eis area of southern Aleppo province."

confusedponderer , 06 February 2018 at 01:43 AM
Re Haley & in thrall of Borgists.

It seems she is attracted by John Bolton, her destructive, cunning and IMO rather malicious hard core neocon predecessor. She twittered this insight in July 2017:

"Great to see @AmbJohnBolton back @USUN. Thanks to his years of public service to our country, he continues to share great advice & wisdom."

His great advice and great wisdom? Ah yes ...

I had the pleasure that an indian senior (20+ years of service) UN guy back then did explain me what he did when US ambassador at the UN, and how and why it was cunning what he did, and how and why it was destructive and what he was after. It turned my stomach to get it explained to clearly.

So, unlike Haley, I always thought Bolton was a ruthless, destructive, nutty, if cunning, nasty man. I never seen his "wisdom". Rather I saw an arsonist who likes to play with fire.

For Haley he, with all his "wisdom", is an inspiration. He was also inspirational for Trump, but not inspirational enough.

Bolton didn't make it to Secretary of State ... because of his moustache. See? How very maverick-ish to make a difficult decision on so simple grounds.

Ah well, perhaps Trump is daily being too savaged by his hair thing on his head. I assume that having to face mirrors likely can be a terror.

Whatever about that moustache, and assuming that the story is correct - I for my part don't see the problem in what is over Bolton's mouth but that what comes out of it.

Donald Trump passed over a potential candidate for Secretary of State because of bushy moustache, according to insiders close to the incoming US President.

Several of Mr Trump's associates said they thought that John Bolton's brush-like moustache was one of the factors that handicapped the bombastic former United Nations ambassador in the sweepstakes for the role.

"Donald was not going to like that moustache," said one, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I can't think of anyone that's really close to Donald that has a beard that he likes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-secretary-of-state-reject-john-bolton-moustache-transition-president-elect-cabinet-a7489576.html

JW said in reply to kooshy... , 06 February 2018 at 06:36 AM
Whats going on ? Iran wants influence and bases as far as the sea, to enable it to convince the Israelis to emigrate en masse. The West want to stop them now, everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop them when the last FSA / AQ /etc have almost died off, and Erdogan want to continue mugging people as a form of foreign policy.

Run those actions simultaneously and you have the current outcome.

A. Pols , 06 February 2018 at 08:14 AM
"1. Nikki Haley is either completely gullible or is in thrall to some collection of Borgists at State."

Both

JPB , 06 February 2018 at 10:18 AM
I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north. Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin.
JPB said in reply to Stonevendor ... , 06 February 2018 at 10:43 AM
Stonevendor -

A small number of US and troops from other coalition countries have been in the Manbij area since August 2016 when it was liberated from the headchoppers. More were sent in 2017 when TFSA from the Euphrates Shield enclave started threatening Manbij. No secret there, it has been previously announced publicly.

Barbara Ann -> ToivoS... , 06 February 2018 at 10:46 AM
I have happily discovered an analyst who has consistently been right on many aspects of the way the Syrian conflict has played out, despite its manifold complexities. If you find one that claims to be able to "see" ahead, I'd suggest he/she may better be described as a clairvoyant.

As to things being "fixed" - I guess an expectation that such a state is attainable, or indeed desirable - betrays something of one's ontological preferences. In any case, Syria appears to me to be an object lesson in the futility of such expectations.

Balint Somkuti, PhD , 06 February 2018 at 11:02 AM
Even though I have my own reservations about US benevolence about Syria, what happens if primus enter pares goes running amok?
Sid Finster , 06 February 2018 at 12:00 PM
My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career.

If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity.

In fact, most of our elected and unelected career politicians exhibit similar levels of mendacity, on a level that is indistinguishable from sociopathy. Just that in Haley it's more shameless and obvious. Maybe she is not as good an actress as some, I don't know.

John_Frank , 06 February 2018 at 01:37 PM
With respect to the allegations surrounding the usage of chemical weapons, yesterday the UN Security Council had an open meeting to discuss the situation in Syria.

The meeting was held to consider a letter submitted by the Secretary General to the Council on February 1 concerning the latest report from the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

http://undocs.org/S/2018/84

At the beginning of the meeting Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs presented her briefing.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/Remarks+of+the+High+Representative+to+Security+Council+on+Syria+-+5+Feb+2018.pdf

In turn, after the meeting the UN press office published the following news release

Proof of chemical weapons use in Syria should be met with 'meaningful response,' UN disarmament chief http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=58533#.WnnRx65Kupo

During the meeting Ambassador Haley spoke. Her remarks have been posted on the US mission to the UN website:

Ambassador Haley Delivers Remarks at a UN Security Council Meeting on Chemical Weapons Use in Syria https://usun.state.gov/highlights/8286

The UN has posted a video of the entire meeting:

The Situation in the Middle East (Syria) - Security Council, 8174th meeting
http://webtv.un.org/watch/the-situation-in-the-middle-east-syria-security-council-8174th-meeting/5726590308001/

The member states were seeking to have the Security Council President issue a statement condemning the recent reports of the usage of chemical weapons in Syria, but they were unable to achieve the needed consensus.

Russia submitted a resolution that would replace the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism which had been shut down. However the proposal is not acceptable to the United States in its current form for the reasons stated.

Follows is a summary of the meeting as prepared by the UN secretariat:

Amid New Reports of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria, United Nations Top Disarmament Official Says International Community Obliged to Enact Meaningful Response
http://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13196.doc.htm

Although not posted yet, ultimately people will be able to read the entire meeting record at https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.8174

Ambassador Haley may be pushing for US military action in response to the most recent claims of chemical weapons usage in other forums, but she did not call for such action during the UN Security Council meeting.

As to Defense Secretary Mattis, he spoke to the Press on February 2 at which time he issued a warning and expressed concerns about the usage of Sarin gas.

Media Availability by Secretary Mattis at the Pentagon
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1431844/media-availability-by-secretary-mattis-at-the-pentagon/

Q: Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were -- the State Department was talking about just a little bit yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas? Is this something you're seeing that's been weaponized or – just give us a sense.

SEC. MATTIS: It has.

Q: It has. Okay.

SEC. MATTIS: It has. We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.

Then later on during the same press briefing:

"Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?

SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.

Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?

SEC. MATTIS: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.

And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used.

We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

Q: So the likelihood was not what your -- you're not characterizing it as a likelihood? I thought I used -- you used that word; I guess I misunderstood you.

SEC. MATTIS: Well, there's certainly groups that say they've used it. And so they think there's a likelihood, so we're looking for the evidence.

Q: Is there evidence of chlorine gas weapons used -- evidence of chlorine gas weapons?

SEC. MATTIS: I think that's, yes --

Q: No, I know, I heard you.

SEC. MATTIS: I think it's been used repeatedly. And that's, as you know, a somewhat separate category, which is why I broke out the sarin as another -- yeah.

Q: So there's credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine --

SEC. MATTIS: No, I have not got the evidence, not specifically. I don't have the evidence.

What I'm saying is that other -- that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has been used. So we are looking for evidence. I don't have evidence, credible or uncredible."

In that regard three reports from Reuters:

January 30 Exclusive: Tests link Syrian government stockpile to largest sarin attack - sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons-exclusiv/exclusive-tests-link-syrian-government-stockpile-to-largest-sarin-attack-sources-idUSKBN1FJ0MG

"The Syrian government's chemical weapons stockpile has been linked for the first time by laboratory tests to the largest sarin nerve agent attack of the civil war, diplomats and scientists told Reuters, supporting Western claims that government forces under President Bashar al-Assad were behind the atrocity."

February 1 - U.S. says Syria may be developing new types of chemical weapons https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-says-syria-may-be-developing-new-types-of-chemical-weapons-idUSKBN1FL65L

"The Syrian government may be developing new types of chemical weapons, and U.S. President Donald Trump is prepared to consider further military action if necessary to deter chemical attacks, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday."

As to the Friday media briefing by Secretary Mattis on February 2, Reuters reported:

U.S.' Mattis says concerned about Syria's potential use of sarin gas
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-mattis-says-concerned-about-syrias-potential-use-of-sarin-gas-idUSKBN1FM1VJ

On Monday, February 5, the Bild, a German outlet published a report alleging that Iran was supplying Syria with missiles to deliver chemical weapons and that some of the materials in the weapons came from Germany. The report analyses missiles with gas canisters allegedly used in a chemical weapons attack in Douma, Damascus on January 22, 2018.

Deutsche Bauteile in Assads Giftgas-Raketen
https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/headlines/gas-deutsche-teile-54697308.bild.html

The Bild article relies on work carried out by an entity known as Syrians for Truth and Justice and the online investigative journalist website Bellingcat operated by Eliot Higgins.

Also read the following reports posted on the Bellingcat website:

January 23 - Despite Trump's Threats, Chemical Attacks Continue in Syria
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/01/23/despite-trumps-threats-chemical-attacks-continue-syria/

February 1 - For the Third Time This Year, Chlorine is Used as a Chemical Weapon in Douma, Damascus https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/02/01/third-time-year-chlorine-used-chemical-weapon-douma-damascus/

February 5 - Images from the January 22nd 2018 Chlorine Attack in Douma, Damascus
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/02/05/images-january-22nd-2018-chlorine-attack-douma-damascus/

February 5 - More Details of the January 22nd 2018 Chlorine Attack in Douma, Damascus https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/02/05/details-january-22nd-2018-chlorine-attack-douma-damascus/

Also read the following reports posted by Syrians for Truth and Justice:

August 21, 2017 - Non-Stop Using Chlorine Gas as a Weapon in Syrian Conflict https://stj-sy.com/en/view/185

December 2, 2017 - New Attack by Toxic Gases on a Battlefront in Harasta- Damascus Countryside "Testimonies Confirm Using "Organophosphorus Compounds" https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/344

January 21, 2018 - Exposure of Six Civilians to Poisonous Substances in Eastern Ghouta- Damascus Countryside https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/391

February 5, 2018 - Syrian Forces Use Chemical Weapons in Duma for a Second Time in a Month. Joint Report: Bellingcat & Syrians for Truth and Justice https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/413

(Do not shoot the messenger. As to the Bild report, the summary relies on Google translate, the original article being in German. Since the Bild report relies on work done by Bellingcat and Syrians For Truth and Justice, I have linked to various reports providing details of alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria since July, 2017 produced by these entities for your reference.)

catherine , 06 February 2018 at 02:43 PM

Re: Nikki Haley

This is all you need to know about Haley and why Trump (or rather Adelson) appointed her to the UN.

'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which raised a total of $915,000.'

(Not coincidentally, however, Sheldon Adelson was the GOP's and Trump's single biggest donor)

"Perhaps Adelson gained an unusual interest in South Carolina's state senate, but it seems more likely the investment was a show of support for Haley's hawkish pro-Israel positions. Adelson, who is also the largest donor to the extreme right-wing Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), has long pushed stridently anti-Iran positions, suggesting in late 2013 that Washington detonate a nuclear weapon in Iran's territory unless Tehran complied with demands that it completely abandon its nuclear program.
And, as Weiss wrote, Haley had come through for Adelson already in 2015, when she signed without any reservation the first law against boycotts of Israel -- about the same time as Adelson convened an anti-BDS summit in Las Vegas.''
https://lobelog.com/nikki-haley-neocon-heartthrob/

DianaLC , 06 February 2018 at 03:00 PM
Thank you. I hear "chemical attack" now and know I need to get away from the Tee Vee and come here instead.
The Beaver , 06 February 2018 at 03:23 PM
Colonel,
Today at House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing :
Former Ambassador Ford:
-If purpose to deter Iran from attacking Israel, perhaps we should have troops in Israel instead of eastern Syria.
-US forces in eastern Syria. Iranians in western Syria. Our forces about 350 miles from Iranians. Not likely Iranians going to leave Syria. Mistake to think Russians will push them out. Hi-level consultations btw us, Israel Jordan to develop menu of options about how to deter.
-when I was US ambassador in Syria in 2007, Iranians were there. Iranians long been there. They don't need a road/land bridge. They fly things into Damascus airport.

Thought he has learnt his lessons, but I must be hoping for too much !

Richardstevenhack , 06 February 2018 at 04:25 PM
Two points:

That the reports of SAA shelling of the Turks comes from "opposition resources" needs no caveat.

That there is also a report claiming that the shelling of the Turks comes from Iranian militia also needs no caveat. Clearly someone wants to blame both the SAA and Iran, which dovetails neatly with the US/Israel desire to "roll back Iran" out of Syria as well as get a full-scale US/NATO/Israel war on Syria started, which has been the goal from Day One of the Syria crisis.

The new rise of "chemical WMD" charges against Syria clearly also feed into the now-confirmed continued desire of the US/Israel for a full-scale air campaign against Syria.

As I believe I've mentioned before, it ain't over until it's over. The US clearly has not given up a desire to go to war with Syria as a precursor to Israel and the US taking out Hizballah (to the degree that is possible) which is also a precursor to starting a war with Iran.

Also, read a report the other day that John Bolton is still considered a candidate for Secretary of State should Tillerson be forced out at some point, which I still think is quite likely. Such an appointment would signal the absolute end of any notion of Trump being interested in rapprochement with Russia and would also guarantee war with Iran.

Because John Bolton is a raving neocon lunatic - which is what the moustache tells you.

kooshy said in reply to catherine... , 06 February 2018 at 05:36 PM
I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does. IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed.

IMO, they are not selected to pursue US foreign policy, they are only there as Israel'gate keepers, they are just there to make sure nothing against the interests of Israel passes, just like, what just happened in UNSC on Jerusalem. IMO, US for her own policies, doesn't give a damn about UN or UNSC, she does what she wants, and when she wants, and are not shy saying it like it is.

She is there as the Israel' veto power over the rest of the word, in case something not kosher comes up to UNSC. IMO, US' UN ambassadors only job is to protect Israel at UN, they are a retribution from the elected president of US (of either political party0 to Israel lobby for helping them getting elected. If Nikki is a gift for Adelson' money, whoever Hillary would have appointed to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB. This country' sovereignty has been successfully hijacked in almost 50 years.

Nevertheless, I believe WE the People are the sole responsible party for loss of control, as well as what Nikki does and who she does it for.

John_Frank , 06 February 2018 at 07:00 PM
Earlier today, jihadists backed by Turkey in the Afrin conflict claimed the YPG had used chemical weapons.

https://t.co/vDos2chHTr

In response to these claims, the YPG has issued a statement denying the claim, saying the Turkish military fired artillery shells containing a chemical weapon, which harmed their forces, so they moved to the high ground, while the jihadists remained in the low lying areas, so suffering the consequences.

http://bit.ly/2GQkIgl

Have the Turkish military and the Turkish backed jihadists used chemical weapons in the past in Syria?

Three tweets by @EndiZentarmi

https://twitter.com/EndiZentarmi/status/961005969336688640

Also

https://twitter.com/EndiZentarmi/status/961012542645600256

As well as

https://twitter.com/EndiZentarmi/status/850651337733943297

Along with one tweet by @AzadiRojava:

https://twitter.com/AzadiRojava/status/960962329448976384

In addition, as to the current claim:

https://twitter.com/4rj1n/status/960962657020010497

(The writer is unable to verify the competing claims and is simply posting them for information purposes.)

james said in reply to John_Frank ... , 06 February 2018 at 07:40 PM
john - with respect.. do you understand what a false flag operation is and how often they have been used in the war on syria?
JamesT -> JW... , 06 February 2018 at 11:43 PM
JW

You wrote "everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop [Iran from spreading its influence and bases] ...".

You sir, are wrong. There are a lot of people in the world, and certainly in the Arab world (including Sunnis) who see Iran's influence as a welcome counterweight to the US/UK/Israel. They remember what happened in 1953 and don't buy into what CNN is pushing. I say this based on face to face discussions I have had with Arabs.

John_Frank -> james... , 07 February 2018 at 12:21 PM
Yes and earlier today the OPCW issued the following statement:

OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria Continues Investigations into Allegations of Chemical Weapons Use https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-fact-finding-mission-in-syria-continues-investigations-into-allegations-of-chemical-weapons-use/

The portion relevant for our purposes reads:

"THE HAGUE, Netherlands – 7 February 2018 – Recent allegations about the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Aran Republic continue to be of grave concern to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), whose mandate is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic", is investigating all credible allegations and provides regular reports for consideration by States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). A rigorous methodology is employed for conducting an investigation of alleged use of chemical weapons. The FFM report will take into account corroboration between interviewee testimonies; open-source research; medical reports and other relevant documentation as well as the characteristics of any samples obtained by the FFM. The FFM works closely with States Parties including the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The FFM's mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks.

OPCW Director General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü reiterated: "Any use of chemical weapons is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the hard won international norm prohibiting these weapons. Those responsible for their use must be held accountable. These abhorrent weapons have no place in the world today."

In turn, in my view, the UN Security Council needs to reach an understanding on the re-establishment of a OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism so that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons are brought to account.

The Beaver said in reply to kooshy... , 07 February 2018 at 01:35 PM
whoever Hillary would have appointed to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB.

It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning all the dirty tricks from Madeleine.

james said in reply to John_Frank ... , 07 February 2018 at 01:36 PM
sure... but tell me john, how does the opcw offer any credibility to itself, if it is relying on eyewitnesses in the jihadi held area of Khan Shaykhun???
it is fine for the same countries that have been pushing for regime change in syria to say ''they believe''' syria is responsible, but that is not proof and it really sullies there reputation and the opcw's further as i see it.. al nusra were in control of the area at the time... these are the friendly headchopper crew that turkey seems to have in their backpocket at present and who they are using to further there exercise in afrin.. now, maybe al nusra has had a name change again, so forgive me if i don't have the up to date name for them... for all i know, they are now called the 'syrian democratic forces' or turkish free syrian army - 2 other names that sound straight out of a hollywood script.. if i sound cynical - you are reading me correctly.. the western gov'ts - usa, uk, or even israel, saudi arabia, turkey and france need to stop using international organizations for there own political ends and start being honest brokers in finding peace, as opposed to dividing up sovereign countries like syria.. thanks..
james said in reply to John_Frank ... , 07 February 2018 at 02:00 PM
john - for another example of the blame game that the usa has gotten so in the habit of doing with regard to these chemical weapon attacks - i call them false flags, as that is just what they are to me, take a look at the stupidity coming via the daily press briefing from yesterday... all bluster and bullshit with nothing to substantiate any of it.. is this all the usa is capable of nowadays? see down towards the bottom of the link for the relevant comments on this topic..
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/02/278014.htm
Greco said in reply to JW... , 07 February 2018 at 02:00 PM
JW, that sounds about right.

I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack.

[Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

David Habakkuk , 08 February 2018 at 09:57 AM

All,

A number of points.

1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.

It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'

2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005.

(See http://mikhail_khodorkovsky_society_two.blogspot.co.uk .)

This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson, starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.

We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'

Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials resources.

3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.

In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom' operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.

Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.

Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.

Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.

(One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)

Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.

4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.

When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .)

5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.'

(See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html ; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/07/former-mi6-agent-christopher-steele-behind-trump-dossier-returns-to-work .)

6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.

In one a contemporary is quoted:

"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said. "Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."

The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4115070/Chris-Whatsit-brilliant-Cambridge-spy-spent-life-battling-KGB-MI6-agent-wife-s-high-heels-stolen-Kremlin-spooks-revealed-Litvinenko-poisoned-Putin-s-thugs.html ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4115070/Chris-Whatsit-brilliant-Cambridge-spy-spent-life-battling-KGB-MI6-agent-wife-s-high-heels-stolen-Kremlin-spooks-revealed-Litvinenko-poisoned-Putin-s-thugs.html .)

From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way up some greasy pole or other in later life.

It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism, I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'

7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.

But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.

8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.

If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)

Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to political misjudgements.

9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.

There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control, creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle East.

SmoothieX12 -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 February 2018 at 11:28 AM
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to political misjudgements.

It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble.

Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.

In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome.

[Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

David Habakkuk , 08 February 2018 at 09:57 AM

All,

A number of points.

1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.

It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'

2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005.

(See http://mikhail_khodorkovsky_society_two.blogspot.co.uk .)

This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson, starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.

We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'

Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials resources.

3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.

In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom' operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.

Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.

Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.

Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.

(One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)

Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.

4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.

When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .)

5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.'

(See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html ; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/07/former-mi6-agent-christopher-steele-behind-trump-dossier-returns-to-work .)

6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.

In one a contemporary is quoted:

"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said. "Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."

The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4115070/Chris-Whatsit-brilliant-Cambridge-spy-spent-life-battling-KGB-MI6-agent-wife-s-high-heels-stolen-Kremlin-spooks-revealed-Litvinenko-poisoned-Putin-s-thugs.html ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4115070/Chris-Whatsit-brilliant-Cambridge-spy-spent-life-battling-KGB-MI6-agent-wife-s-high-heels-stolen-Kremlin-spooks-revealed-Litvinenko-poisoned-Putin-s-thugs.html .)

From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way up some greasy pole or other in later life.

It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism, I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'

7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.

But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.

8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.

If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)

Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to political misjudgements.

9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.

There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control, creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle East.

SmoothieX12 -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 February 2018 at 11:28 AM
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to political misjudgements.

It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble.

Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.

In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome.

[Feb 08, 2018] Did British Intelligence Try to Destroy the Trump Presidency by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... The Grassley/Graham memo is devastating for Jim Comey. We can entertain only two possibilities--Jim Comey is a monumental dunce or he is a liar. One need only read the Michael Isikoff piece from 23 September 2016 to realize that Christopher Steele was a primary source for Isikoff. We are asked to believe that Comey is a naive, trusting soul bereft of curiosity, who refused to entertain the possibility that Steele was double dealing intel. ..."
"... First, Steele is resisting efforts to face a deposition in a lawsuit over his infamous dossier. Steele's lawyers argued in a court in London this week that a deposition would endanger the former spy's dossier sources as well as harm U.K. national security interests. If the Judge buys this claim then we will not have to speculate anymore about whether or not Steele was acting on his own or had a "wink-and-a-nod" from his MI-6 bosses. ..."
"... So much for our special relationship. As the evidence of British intelligence meddling in the U.S. election piles up it will create some strains in our bi-lateral ties. It has the potential to harm cooperation on military, law enforcement and intelligence fronts. I suspect there is some scrambling going on behind the scenes to come up with a strategy to contain the damage while rooting out the sedition. Stay tuned. ..."
"... Russia was unlikely to have been the only nation to break the unwritten rule that only Israel is allowed to interfere in US politics - Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Ukraine etc were almost certainly doing it too. ..."
"... Steele became the "go-to person on Russia in the commercial sector" following his retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as "superb." ..."
"... London-Russian "oligarchy" there, with a very specific outlook on Russia-UK's track record in anti-Russian activities---> hence Steele's sources. Anything Russia-related in Anglo-American IC can not be treated as "superb" or even moderately "good" at all. ..."
"... I am waiting for Nunes memo on State Department. I am in no position to pass judgements on any legal, let alone operational "superbity" of, say MI-6 but and if it had intentions of influencing US elections (which is scandalous in itself) it is one thing, but in circles it all comes back to this Dossier which stunk to heaven from the get go. In circles less sophisticated than MI-6 it is known as disinformation, which, of course, the first indication of operation of influence. The decision to "believe" in this cocktail of rumors, lies and hearsay was made in Washington, not London. ..."
"... Trump had planned to visit UK this month but cancelled it a few weeks ago. Any possibility that might not just be due to expected protests and lack of British enthusiasm, but also as retaliation after he learned the MI6 and/or GCHQ involvement in this affair? ..."
"... can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time? ..."
"... I am simply not seeing the connection between spying on Page and spying on Trump. There has been no evidence released that even suggests it happened. I watched Tucker Carlson and Hannity this week and both are saying that the FBI spied on a POTUS candidate and on a sitting president (Trump in both instances, of course). I had to stop myself, clear my head and think for minute. I don't see it. They spied on Page and most likely anyone he talked to/met with, but that's not Trump nor anyone in Trump's inner circle. ..."
"... However, at this point, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. The GOP is using the Page warrant to damage the FBI (well deserved, apparently) and Mueller's investigation. The dems are using the existence of the warrant on Page to insinuate that Trump campaign needs to be investigated b/c they had a Ruskie mole amongst them and a bunch of other stuff about collusion that Clinton and Steele pulled out of their asses. ..."
"... I think it was more reactive, they had all been complicit in a number of illegal activities and they were worried they would all go down if Trump won. They obviously got more and more desperate, digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole. ..."
"... Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated. Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians. ..."
"... Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to election was insufficient. ..."
"... Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after. ..."
"... The Steele dossier is central to the public meme that Trump was colluding with the Russians. All of the major news stories on the subject were based on what Steele told them. ..."
"... "Did British Intelligence Try to Destroy the Trump Presidency?" Yes. That is why Steele is trying so hard to keep the Russian lawyers from deposing him in a London court. The Russians are on the scent, and Steele and his MI6 handlers know it. ..."
"... Are British Intelligence 'Still' Trying to Destroy the Trump Presidency? Yes. ..."
"... Trey Gowdy says Sidney Blumenthal is the 'domestic' source of the information in the Steele Dossier. Gowdy doesn't say the Steele Dossier is illegal, but it appears it was obtained by illegal conspiracy of DJT's political enemies. ..."
"... Thank you for this important post, PT. You've really captured some arresting details. The Grassley/Graham document is impressive, isn't it? I have been highly critical of both men in the past but credit where credit is due: good work, specific, particular, devastating. And at a tough time when taking sides makes enemies and draws fire. ..."
"... So Steele named some names and Simpson "did that work" of what appears to have been -- simply looking 'em up on the internet. There he saw some "scholars" and "learned" experts saying some of the same things Steele had said -- and so he believed it was all true. I guess world class journalist Simpson, who once worked for the Moonie Insight Magazine, had never heard of the disinformation tactic of mixing a dash of true with a pound of false. It would be sad -- if I believed he was actually such a babe in the woods. ..."
"... But hoo boy, wish I could get paid $50k a month to look things up on the internet! ..."
"... "The trouble with the Trump Dossier is that it's a recognizable product of a specific milieu: If you spend an evening or two in the bars where Moscow's chattering classes hang out, you'll hear an equal complement of political tall tales about Putin and his presidential administration. The kind of gossip that fills the Trump Dossier is common currency in Moscow, even if very little of it has any authority behind it aside from the speaker's own imagination. Any experienced observer learns to filter gossip for the stray useful clues that are sometimes hidden within curlicues of fantasy. The author of the Trump Dossier, though, appears enthusiastically to have transcribed every bit of tittle-tattle that fit the overarching narrative of a grand Kremlin scheme to elevate Donald Trump to the presidency." ..."
"... Here is some more The Russians are coming garbage coming out of DHS https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-07/dhs-russia-penetrated-voter-rolls-21-states-no-evidence-alterations And there is a lot of big money behind the Anti -Russia campaign. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/07/your-guide-to-top-anti-russia-think-tanks-in-us-who-funds-them/ ..."
"... Basically Hillary bought herself a FISA warrant... ..."
"... The sudden resignation of the head of GCHQ, Hannigan, coupled with UK PM May's precipitate trip to Washington to meet Trump, leads me to speculate that GCHQ was an enabler of surveillance of the Trump team. ..."
"... My guess, based on my belief in the languid behaviour of British Intelligence professionals (which I acknowledge may be utterly unfounded) is that neither GCHQ or MI6 gave much thought to either Steeles machinations (which they may have known about in passing) or an American request for surveillance on a Trump team member, if in fact they even knew he was part of the team. They knew what was going on, but it was club chit chat until Trump won the election, then the enormity of their actions was made plain. ..."
"... Hilary bought a FISA warrant and then trolled for dirt on Trump. ..."
"... Graham and Grassley: "Thus, the FISA applications are either materially false in claiming that Mr. Steele said he did not provide dossier information to the press prior to Oct. 2016 or Mr. Steele made materially false statement to the FBI when he claimed he only provided the dossier info to his business partner and the FBI." ..."
"... If it turned out that the UK authorities had been in lockstep with the US authorities throughout before the election result, and had fed them every bit of nonsense they had relating to the US election, then what would that prove? Nothing. I'd hope they are in lockstep when it comes to passing on information from one country that might be of interest to the other. It would look very odd had it turned out later that the UK had been sitting on material that should have been passed across. I've no doubt that half the material the two sides pass across to each other is arrant nonsense - but they're more likely to find out what is nonsense and what is serious if they share it. ..."
"... Then it all blows up in their faces. Suddenly they find that the UK is associated with a very public down-market smear campaign against a US president. ..."
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence – including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control, creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle East. ..."
"... I don't understand what the big deal is here. British intelligence (or anybody else for that matter - remember Al Gore's soliciting Chinese money?) is welcome to meddle in US elections, as long as it is on behalf of the establishment/Deep State candidate. ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
"... What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation of a 'narrative' – in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to 'double think' and 'crimestop.' ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Last night's release of the memo by Senator's Grassley and Graham asking the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation of Christopher Steele for possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 provides critical confirmation of charges presented in the HPSCI memo prepared under the leadership of Devin Nunes, but it also confirms that Christopher Steele was not just some random guy offering good gossip to the FBI. He was an official intelligence asset. He was, in John LeCarre's parlance, our "Joe." At least we thought so. But, there is growing circumstantial evidence that Steele was acting on behalf of Britain's version of the CIA--aka MI-6. If true, we are now faced with actual evidence of a foreign country trying to meddle in a direct and significant way in our national election. Only it was not the Russians. It was our British cousins.

Here are the key take aways from the Grassley/Graham memo :

The Grassley/Graham memo is devastating for Jim Comey. We can entertain only two possibilities--Jim Comey is a monumental dunce or he is a liar. One need only read the Michael Isikoff piece from 23 September 2016 to realize that Christopher Steele was a primary source for Isikoff. We are asked to believe that Comey is a naive, trusting soul bereft of curiosity, who refused to entertain the possibility that Steele was double dealing intel.

One of the most surprising revelations from the Grassley/Graham memo is in footnote 7. I'm surprised this was not redacted because it is drawn from a redacted/blacked out paragraph. Here is a critical bit of intel:

This means Steele was a signed up intelligence asset for the FBI. He was our spy. A FD-1023 is an FBI form used to document meetings between FBI and sources. It is also called a CHS Report--CHS aka Confidential Human Source. Here is an example posted by a Trump supporter on Twitter :

DSQFvkCX4AA1I5u.jpg-large

With this confirmation the next move is in the hands of the Brits. If Steele became an FBI asset without the knowledge of his former colleagues and chain of command, he faces legal risk. But two development in the last two days suggest that British intelligence officials, at least some key officials, were witting of Steele's activities in gathering information for the FBI.

First, Steele is resisting efforts to face a deposition in a lawsuit over his infamous dossier. Steele's lawyers argued in a court in London this week that a deposition would endanger the former spy's dossier sources as well as harm U.K. national security interests. If the Judge buys this claim then we will not have to speculate anymore about whether or not Steele was acting on his own or had a "wink-and-a-nod" from his MI-6 bosses.

Second, in my mind more telling, were the comments made this week by former MI-6 Chief, Richard Dearlove, on behalf of his former protege:

Among those who have continued to seek his expertise is Steele's former boss Richard Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004. In an interview, Dearlove said Steele became the "go-to person on Russia in the commercial sector" following his retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as "superb."

But we do not have to rely solely on Dearlove's glowing remarks about Steele. There is other information indicating that the Brits played a substantial, if not leading, role in spying on Trump and building the Russian meddling meme. The Guardian reported in April 2017 that:

Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians, sources said.

So much for our special relationship. As the evidence of British intelligence meddling in the U.S. election piles up it will create some strains in our bi-lateral ties. It has the potential to harm cooperation on military, law enforcement and intelligence fronts. I suspect there is some scrambling going on behind the scenes to come up with a strategy to contain the damage while rooting out the sedition. Stay tuned. Reply 07 February 2018 at 04:20 PM

Prem , 07 February 2018 at 04:22 PM

If it happened, the motivation would have been to curry favour with HRC, whom everybody assumed would be elected.

Of course, we are only getting a partial view of what happened. Clinton family retainers also had contacts with Russia; it's just not been reported much. And Russia was unlikely to have been the only nation to break the unwritten rule that only Israel is allowed to interfere in US politics - Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Ukraine etc were almost certainly doing it too.

SmoothieX12 , 07 February 2018 at 04:25 PM

Steele became the "go-to person on Russia in the commercial sector" following his retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as "superb."

London-Russian "oligarchy" there, with a very specific outlook on Russia-UK's track record in anti-Russian activities---> hence Steele's sources. Anything Russia-related in Anglo-American IC can not be treated as "superb" or even moderately "good" at all.

I am waiting for Nunes memo on State Department. I am in no position to pass judgements on any legal, let alone operational "superbity" of, say MI-6 but and if it had intentions of influencing US elections (which is scandalous in itself) it is one thing, but in circles it all comes back to this Dossier which stunk to heaven from the get go. In circles less sophisticated than MI-6 it is known as disinformation, which, of course, the first indication of operation of influence. The decision to "believe" in this cocktail of rumors, lies and hearsay was made in Washington, not London.

Clueless Joe , 07 February 2018 at 04:38 PM
Trump had planned to visit UK this month but cancelled it a few weeks ago. Any possibility that might not just be due to expected protests and lack of British enthusiasm, but also as retaliation after he learned the MI6 and/or GCHQ involvement in this affair? (apparently he's considering a visit late this year, in which case he might have got some assurances that British agencies will stop messing up, or UK authorities will now collaborate with his team)
BLL , 07 February 2018 at 04:50 PM
Couldn't help but notice the FBI form you used as an example disclosed the sex of the "he/she" informant.
Virginia Slim , 07 February 2018 at 04:58 PM
Quite an intrigue, isn't it? It reminds one rather of the Tukhachevsky affair.
John Minnerath , 07 February 2018 at 05:02 PM
All,
An endlessly convoluted can of worms impossible for anyone not completely up to speed on subjects like this to get a grip on.
Cvillereader said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 07 February 2018 at 05:14 PM
Reportedly, the Democrat House Intelligence Committee memo contains a great deal of information on Page's background. It will be interesting to see if it survives the declassification process.

From the Grassley letter, it doesn't sound like a lot of this information was included in the FISA warrant. If that is the case, one has to wonder why it wasn't.

SmoothieX12 -> Virginia Slim... , 07 February 2018 at 05:15 PM
Quite an intrigue, isn't it? It reminds one rather of the Tukhachevsky affair.

In procedural terms, yes. On substance, no--most of it is as clear as a day. Per Tukhacevsky--his affair is not even in the same league as what is transpiring now in the US. The stakes here are immense since American statehood is under attack. As per Tuchachevsky--he wasn't that good of a general to start with (certainly technologically not astute). Plus, there is a whole other dimension to his, and others, story which should not be discussed in this thread.

Navsteva , 07 February 2018 at 05:26 PM
Excellent summary. Obvious reasons for British meddling in U.S. elections: Trump's pre-election statements on NATO, desire to improve relations with Russia, related Russian sanctions, etc.
The Twisted Genius -> blue peacock... , 07 February 2018 at 05:31 PM
blue peacock,

I don't think a Title 1 FISA warrant gives the FBI any additional surveillance capability beyond what could be gained by surveilling a controlled source. In either case the FBI would be listening to all those who came in contact with Page. That's why I have serious doubts about Page being a controlled FBI source/informant. A FISA warrant is just not necessary if the target is already a controlled source/informant. I believe I read somewhere Comey had the FBI surveil himself in order to listen in on conversations he had with White House officials. It didn't take a FISA warrant for that. (Actually, I'm surprised we haven't heard more outrage about this.) In either case I don't think the FBI gets access to retroactive surveillance except for the specific target of the surveillance.

As I mentioned in our earlier conversation, I'm surprised the SVR would try to recruit Page after their earlier experience with him. He's the reason they lost three SVR officers. He was a witness for the Federal prosecution rather than a controlled informant. Years later he looked like a dangle with his trips to Moscow. He's either a clueless idiot or an operator worthy of the title, ace of spies. The questions about his true status are legitimate and worth pursuing.

Was that compliance review you refer to the same one that was released by Coats earlier this year? That long (99 pages or so) report was an annual review conducted by the FISC of all NSA, CIA and FBI FISA activities. It wasn't anything specific initiated by Rogers.

Why was Page let go by the Trump campaign? Perhaps the FBI did tip the campaign off to his Russian connections. Obama warned Trump not to get involved with Flynn.

Cvillereader said in reply to blue peacock... , 07 February 2018 at 05:37 PM
He may have been an accomplice for someone other than the FBI.

It might be a mistake to think that state actors would have been the only folks interested in obtaining intelligence about Trump.

It has been reported that he worked on the Clinton transition team in 1992. He was also some kind of liaison to Congress under Les Aspin. His specialty involved nuclear weapons.

The Twisted Genius -> Eric Newhill... , 07 February 2018 at 05:41 PM
Eric Newhill,

reference your comment at #6

You make a good point about Page not having access to Trump or the Trump campaign or transition team when he was under the FISA warrant and three renewals. I think this was because the target of the Page surveillance was the Russian connection, not Trump himself. An investigation should proceed from established facts rather than some presumed and unsubstantiated conclusion. And I'm pretty sure there are other warrants. Whether they're based on the Steele material I don't know.

Jack , 07 February 2018 at 05:49 PM
PT
We can entertain only two possibilities--Jim Comey is a monumental dunce or he is a liar.

All these guys were certain Hillary would win the election. They were convinced their lawlessness would be rewarded and their subterfuge would be conveniently buried.

Unfortunately for them the voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin decided otherwise. So they tried to create the casus belli for impeachment. That has now failed. Where this leads to is anyone's guess.

wisedupearly Ceo , 07 February 2018 at 05:52 PM
So, the Brits passing GCHQ intel that they are seeing suspicious indicators re. TRUMP - Russian contacts to us via long-established channels is now seen as "interfering with our elections"? Not realistic. Preliminary intel is always 99% uncorroborated. Sad, but true.

Should the Brits have waited for full corroboration before informing us? Hell, no. As I understand it we get everything automatically. Nothing is withheld, that is the nature of the special relationship.

So to answer the title, if Brit intel fabricated the indicators then yes, they did try to destroy the Trump Campaign. Otherwise no.
Is Steele an FBI spy or is he a source? Unclear.

If Steele is a still active Brit spy then he should have been declared as such under existing MOA. Could he be NOC for the Brits? Unlikely given his direct involvement with IC on intel matters.

Did Steele leak the story to Yahoo News? Steele says he briefed several newspapers, only Yahoo published.

The Yahoo article, written by Isikoff September 24, states "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. "

So the number of people read into the STEELE reports is significant.

So the questions should be

Barbara Ann -> Navsteva ... , 07 February 2018 at 05:53 PM
And equally obvious that getting caught meddling in US elections would have catastrophic consequences for all involved, as we may shortly witness. If the British IC did have anything to do with this, it begs the question; what was worth the colossal risk?
wisedupearly Ceo , 07 February 2018 at 06:01 PM
Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time?

The only STEELE memo that had any chance of doing any material damage was the pee-pee tapes. Trump supporters thought it was "cute". As Trump himself said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally. He was not joking and who knows his supporters better than Trump.

Eric Newhill said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 07 February 2018 at 06:17 PM
TTG #20

Thx for the reply. As you know I like Trump a lot and I don't like all I have seen going on to subvert his presidency (e.g. the MSM 24/7 fake news bashing on him, Soros organized riots). That said, I try to be as objective as possible.

I am simply not seeing the connection between spying on Page and spying on Trump. There has been no evidence released that even suggests it happened. I watched Tucker Carlson and Hannity this week and both are saying that the FBI spied on a POTUS candidate and on a sitting president (Trump in both instances, of course). I had to stop myself, clear my head and think for minute. I don't see it. They spied on Page and most likely anyone he talked to/met with, but that's not Trump nor anyone in Trump's inner circle.

Maybe it will come out that Trump and his inner circle were spied on. Maybe the FISA warrant was construed to permit that. Maybe they just did it regardless of legality. Maybe that's what all these GOP releases are leading up to.

However, at this point, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. The GOP is using the Page warrant to damage the FBI (well deserved, apparently) and Mueller's investigation. The dems are using the existence of the warrant on Page to insinuate that Trump campaign needs to be investigated b/c they had a Ruskie mole amongst them and a bunch of other stuff about collusion that Clinton and Steele pulled out of their asses.

In the midst of this is Carter Page, an obviously self-absorbed/self-promoting goofy homosexual that is always trying to get close to power and failing, who never met Trump and who never has yet been shown to have contributed anything to the Trump campaign - and who has an annoying habit of pretending to connections and knowledge that he doesn't really have; and getting himself in hot water in the course of doing so.

Until more is revealed - or someone explains how it could be otherwise - I am beginning to think that the entire focus on Page means nothing more than the exposure of a corrupt FBI playing fast and loose w/ FISA. All of the recently revealed FBI invective toward Trump and talk of "insurance policies" is highly suggestive, but that's it [at this point].

My spider sense says it will be revealed that Trump himself was sureveilled - that and a buck 50 gets me a ride on the cross town bus.

LondonBob said in reply to Clueless Joe... , 07 February 2018 at 06:24 PM
Joe I think such things would have been discussed when PM May rushed to see Trump after his election. I have always assumed that was the reason for the rushed visit. Due to his mother Trump is desperate to see the Queen and will do so when the time is right.

Plausible but I still think any activities would have been done with the approval of, or more likely at the behest of, Brennan, Clapper et al. After all it is the former British Foreign Secretary who heads up the International Rescue Committee, rather than say John Kerry being the overpaid head of an NGO in London with MI6 links.

james said in reply to Barbara Ann ... , 07 February 2018 at 06:27 PM
going after russia is considered being worth the risk... that is what it looks like to me.. just imagine a multi polar world when you are so used to viewing it as a unipolar one.... i see the ''''us-led''' coalition is now bombing the syrian army again, this time under the guise they, or the sdf - were under attack... whether the usa imposes words like democatic on the name tag, or does much more - is not in question.. does the usa have a right to be in syria? not really.. they are said to be going after isis, but that looks as phony as a 2$ bill to me personally..
https://www.rt.com/news/418164-coalition-airstrikes-syrian-forces/
Cvillereader said in reply to wisedupearly Ceo ... , 07 February 2018 at 06:37 PM
I have noticed that you keep posing the same question about Gowdy, as have some prominent twitterers. Since a Gowdy is an attorney and was a federal prosecutor, I wonder whether there are professional restrictions on him in terms of declaring a person's guilt. Do congressional investigations ever pronounce that someone is guilty of a crime? Or is it customary for such investigations to make a referral to the Justice Department?
SmoothieX12 -> Jack... , 07 February 2018 at 06:39 PM
All these guys were certain Hillary would win the election. They were convinced their lawlessness would be rewarded and their subterfuge would be conveniently buried. Unfortunately for them the voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin decided otherwise.

Exactly, one of those cases when what we broadly define as democracy actually worked and very effectively at that. You see, it is one thing to give it a lip service, totally another live with the consequences of democracy actually working. Many people in Washington still cannot resign themselves to the fact that people can actually have their own voice--what a novel concept for them.

LondonBob said in reply to Jack... , 07 February 2018 at 06:39 PM
I think it was more reactive, they had all been complicit in a number of illegal activities and they were worried they would all go down if Trump won. They obviously got more and more desperate, digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole.
wisedupearly Ceo , 07 February 2018 at 06:42 PM
Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time?

Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated. Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians.

Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to election was insufficient.

Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after.

Cortes said in reply to wisedupearly Ceo ... , 07 February 2018 at 06:43 PM
A court may err due to failings of its judges in interpretation or application of the law, but it doesn't act illegally. The article at The Duran by Alexander Mercouris previously referred to by richardstevenhack exploring how the officers of court (lawyers) in the DOJ/FBI were somewhat economical in making their pitches for the Page warrants may have disadvantaged the judge or judges who, with fuller information, may have reached a different determination, might provide answers to your other questions. Due process should apply to all, not at whim.
Publius Tacitus -> The Twisted Genius ... , 07 February 2018 at 08:12 PM
The Steele dossier is central to the public meme that Trump was colluding with the Russians. All of the major news stories on the subject were based on what Steele told them.
wisedupearly Ceo -> Cvillereader... , 07 February 2018 at 08:24 PM
I keep posting it because if stated it is an extremely powerful indicator. I believe that Gowdy can make a statement as to legality with no constraint other than not exposing national secrets. If he was constrained I would expect him to make reference to said constraint. Before we waste time with rabbit holes of choice we need to agree on what is known.
J , 07 February 2018 at 08:39 PM
"Did British Intelligence Try to Destroy the Trump Presidency?" Yes. That is why Steele is trying so hard to keep the Russian lawyers from deposing him in a London court. The Russians are on the scent, and Steele and his MI6 handlers know it.

Are British Intelligence 'Still' Trying to Destroy the Trump Presidency? Yes.

Cvillereader said in reply to wisedupearly Ceo ... , 07 February 2018 at 08:45 PM
It has been suggested that Trey Gowdy be appointed as a special prosecutor to look into how the DOJ/FBI handled the Steele dossier. Would not an accusation of guilt by Gowdy disqualify him from that job?

Also, I don't think we understand yet what records the HPSCI has been given access to. Fox News is reporting that Nunes may go the FISC court and ask them to release all records and transcripts related to the Page FISA warrants. If that is the case, then it is too early for any one on the HPSCI to make conclusions about illegality.

I think you are also ignoring what is happening with respect to both Grassley's and Goodlatte's investigations.
It appears that the committees may be working in tandem to destroy the Democrats' narrative. The idea is not to put all your cards on the table at once.

jpb said in reply to wisedupearly Ceo ... , 07 February 2018 at 08:51 PM
Trey Gowdy says Sidney Blumenthal is the 'domestic' source of the information in the Steele Dossier. Gowdy doesn't say the Steele Dossier is illegal, but it appears it was obtained by illegal conspiracy of DJT's political enemies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzkOaHTkDpU (12:00 minutes in)

Rhondda , 07 February 2018 at 09:59 PM
Thank you for this important post, PT. You've really captured some arresting details. The Grassley/Graham document is impressive, isn't it? I have been highly critical of both men in the past but credit where credit is due: good work, specific, particular, devastating. And at a tough time when taking sides makes enemies and draws fire.

This is all rather depressing, seeing how rotten things are. And worse to come, I think. So I wanted to share with the Committee something that made me laugh, albeit in a rather black comedy sort of way.

To that end, here follows some "glowing remarks" about Steele's dossier and sources, from Mark Galeotti, the man that Simpson, in his testimony has called "very learned" and a "distinguished scholar":

When asked what efforts he had made to "corroborate or verify" the dossier's assertions, Simpson seems to have Googled the name Ivanov:
"As I dug into some of the more obscure academic work -- how the Kremlin operates by some of the more distinguished scholars of the subject, I found that Ivanov is, in fact, or was at the time, in fact, the head of a sort of internal kind of White House plumber's operation for the Kremlin and that he seemed to have the kind of duties that were being described in this memo. "

In his August testimony, providing an example as to what effort had been made to "corroborate or verify" the dossier's assertions, Glenn Simpson references Galeotti in re Sechin: "In particular I remember reading a paper by a superb academic expert whose name is Mark Galeotti, G-A-L-E-O-T-T-I, who's done a lot of work on the Kremlin's black operations and written quite widely on the subject and is very learned. So that would have given me comfort that whoever Chris is talking to they know what they're talking about."

He must be talking about this: http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR_169_-_PUTINS_HYDRA_INSIDE_THE_RUSSIAN_INTELLIGENCE_SERVICES_1513.pdf

I wouldn't call publications of the European Council on Foreign Relations "obscure." It was on page 2 of my Google search results. Just sayin'. And call me unrepentant foil-hatter, but Galeotti strikes me as about as much scholar as Simpson is journalist.

So Steele named some names and Simpson "did that work" of what appears to have been -- simply looking 'em up on the internet. There he saw some "scholars" and "learned" experts saying some of the same things Steele had said -- and so he believed it was all true. I guess world class journalist Simpson, who once worked for the Moonie Insight Magazine, had never heard of the disinformation tactic of mixing a dash of true with a pound of false. It would be sad -- if I believed he was actually such a babe in the woods.

But hoo boy, wish I could get paid $50k a month to look things up on the internet!

OK. Now for the amusing part. The 'very learned scholar' Mr. Mark Galeotti has since offered his opinion of the Steele dossier and it's rather more a radioactive kind of glowing remarks.

"The trouble with the Trump Dossier is that it's a recognizable product of a specific milieu: If you spend an evening or two in the bars where Moscow's chattering classes hang out, you'll hear an equal complement of political tall tales about Putin and his presidential administration. The kind of gossip that fills the Trump Dossier is common currency in Moscow, even if very little of it has any authority behind it aside from the speaker's own imagination. Any experienced observer learns to filter gossip for the stray useful clues that are sometimes hidden within curlicues of fantasy. The author of the Trump Dossier, though, appears enthusiastically to have transcribed every bit of tittle-tattle that fit the overarching narrative of a grand Kremlin scheme to elevate Donald Trump to the presidency."

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/237266/trump-dossier-russia-putin

Ouch! I found this quite amusing, I hope it adds some levity to your day, as well.

J , 07 February 2018 at 10:16 PM
PT,

FYI

Here is some more The Russians are coming garbage coming out of DHS https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-07/dhs-russia-penetrated-voter-rolls-21-states-no-evidence-alterations And there is a lot of big money behind the Anti -Russia campaign. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/07/your-guide-to-top-anti-russia-think-tanks-in-us-who-funds-them/

Tyler , 07 February 2018 at 10:24 PM
Basically Hillary bought herself a FISA warrant...
Fred -> wisedupearly Ceo ... , 07 February 2018 at 10:27 PM
wisedupearly,

From comment 31: "Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated... Official; ... Public; Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians."

Wrong. The second didn't work and after over a year there's zero evidence of the other. The obvious way for Trump to lose the election was for the voters of the Democratic Party - that's the party whose executives rigged the DNC Primary for Hilary - to nominate someone who could have beaten him.

"can we all agree .... was the most inept operation in a long time?"

No. You repeat this meme twice, comment 24 and 31. It only has the appearance of ineptness because they got caught. The obvious question is how many other times did political appointees/operatives within FBI/CIA/intellegence agencies succeed in doing the same thing? Then follow up and ask whether this was only done in Presidential elections or did they also do this in House and Senate races? My take is that this was done before and Trump is going to appoint Trey Gowdy as a speical prosecutor and we'll all have fun watching as he goes all Ethan Edwards on finding the bad guys.

Walrus , 07 February 2018 at 11:11 PM
The sudden resignation of the head of GCHQ, Hannigan, coupled with UK PM May's precipitate trip to Washington to meet Trump, leads me to speculate that GCHQ was an enabler of surveillance of the Trump team.

My guess, based on my belief in the languid behaviour of British Intelligence professionals (which I acknowledge may be utterly unfounded) is that neither GCHQ or MI6 gave much thought to either Steeles machinations (which they may have known about in passing) or an American request for surveillance on a Trump team member, if in fact they even knew he was part of the team. They knew what was going on, but it was club chit chat until Trump won the election, then the enormity of their actions was made plain.

To put that another way, I would prefer to believe in a stuff up rather than a concerted plan by the fiendish British to influence the U.S.

Walrus said in reply to Tyler... , 08 February 2018 at 01:08 AM
Hilary bought a FISA warrant and then trolled for dirt on Trump.
Jack said in reply to Rhondda... , 08 February 2018 at 01:09 AM
Rhondda

Rep. Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has written FISC presiding judge Rosemary Collyer to provide him all the documentation around the Page FISA application and warrant. Let's see what she does. FISC has been taken for a ride by the DOJ and FBI. Ball's in their court.

IMO, we need another Church Committee to have a broad mandate to investigate mass surveillance, secret courts and the entire national security apparatus and if our Constitution has been shredded by the Patriot Act and FISA and the GWOT. Is there anyone like Sen. Frank Church around?

wisedupearly Ceo , 08 February 2018 at 04:27 AM
Fred, Fred, my post discussed the possible avenues for the destruction of the Trump candidacy as related to the Steele memos.
As I wrote, both possible attacks, official and public, failed for fairly obvious reasons.
wisedupearly Ceo , 08 February 2018 at 07:21 AM
Graham and Grassley: "Thus, the FISA applications are either materially false in claiming that Mr. Steele said he did not provide dossier information to the press prior to Oct. 2016 or Mr. Steele made materially false statement to the FBI when he claimed he only provided the dossier info to his business partner and the FBI."

As Isikoff writes in Yahoo, September 24 2016: "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. "
It should be clear that several if not many people in Washington were privy to the Page meeting Russians. I note also that, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the Isikoff article that is unambiguously attributable to the Steele memos. Maybe the experts can find a clear indicator.

Page himself is headlined in a Reuters article July 8 2016 (referenced by Isikoff) after he gave a pro-Russian lecture to students at the New Economic School in Moscow. The article titled "Trump adviser, on Moscow visit, dodges questions about U.S. policy on Russia" says "Page declined to say whether he was planning to meet anyone from the Kremlin, the Russian government or Foreign Ministry during his visit."

dogear , 08 February 2018 at 07:22 AM
Wrong heading, should read...did the British labour party use its connections in British intelligence to try oust trump.
English Outsider -> Eric Newhill... , 08 February 2018 at 07:44 AM

Eric Newhill - Though from a far less well-informed point of view than yours I'd concur heartily with your "All of the recently revealed FBI invective toward Trump and talk of "insurance policies" is highly suggestive, but that's it [at this point]."

It's all of it highly suggestive at this point but what it suggests seems to depend entirely on the convictions of the observer.

I'm not sure that's going to change. When one looks at the contacts between UK and US Intelligence BEFORE the Presidential election results material is starting to come out that also could be suggestive either way but could also prove nothing at all. From what I've seen it proves nothing at all.

If it turned out that the UK authorities had been in lockstep with the US authorities throughout before the election result, and had fed them every bit of nonsense they had relating to the US election, then what would that prove? Nothing. I'd hope they are in lockstep when it comes to passing on information from one country that might be of interest to the other. It would look very odd had it turned out later that the UK had been sitting on material that should have been passed across. I've no doubt that half the material the two sides pass across to each other is arrant nonsense - but they're more likely to find out what is nonsense and what is serious if they share it.

No smoking gun there then. All that's happened so far is that a spotlight has been shone in the US on areas where it doesn't usually get shone. That spotlight might find only hordes of intelligence officers running around trying to do the right thing when they find that they've got caught up in something intensely political. It could well show that and no more. The spotlight will inevitably show errors in procedure sometimes. Normal, unless all involved are prodigies. It does show a few people in the two Intelligence Communities who are pretty close to freaks. Disturbing - maybe they could tighten up on selection procedures - but irrelevant in this context. You work with what you've got. What I don't think it does or will show is a top down conspiracy on both sides to get Trump.

And as the comment above from John Minnerath says, it's an "endlessly convoluted can of worms impossible for anyone not completely up to speed on subjects like this to get a grip on", so whatever any investigation shows most of us won't even grasp what that "whatever" is.

I don't think either that Trump will ever escape suspicion from those who want to suspect him. He's come to the Presidency from a suspect world, the world of the New York property and construction business. Hot money looking for a bolthole, international contacts with people who are no better than crooks, lawyers everywhere smoothing out bent deals, politicians and officials on the take - spend a few decades in that world and there are always going to be episodes that can be made to look sufficiently suggestive of criminal activity to keep the never-Trumpers happy for ever.

So what. Sending a man in to drain the swamp who comes from the swamp looks like a good move. Who better to sort out the poachers than one who's turned gamekeeper. And to me he looks straight and the only question is whether he can keep straight in the Washington snake pit. A long shot, maybe, but the only one going and therefore rational. Those who think as I do on that will continue to hope he gets somewhere. Those who don't will continue to find in everything they come across proof that he's a crook. That won't alter.

Not so much a nothingburger then as a make whatever you like of it burger. Can we leave it at that? Almost. I'm sorry to keep harping on about this but there's just one thing. That dossier, and in particular the post-result response to it in the UK.

"CEO" keeps our feet on the ground about that dossier - "The only STEELE memo that had any chance of doing any material damage was the pee-pee tapes. Trump supporters thought it was 'cute'.

"As Trump himself said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally. He was not joking and who knows his supporters better than Trump."

Shoddy rather than cute, this long-distance observer thought, but that observation from "CEO" must be accurate. Those of us in the UK too who don't believe the nonsense that gets put out by the media didn't believe this nonsense. I think it harmed Trump in the eyes of those who do believe the nonsense though, is all I'd add.

Please look at this from the perspective of a UK politician or official. The UK IC has been following the rules, passing material over to the US and leaving the US authorities to make what they want of it. They've been allowing the US authorities to make what use they wish of an ex-operative, again happy to leave the US to decide on what that use is.

Then it all blows up in their faces. Suddenly they find that the UK is associated with a very public down-market smear campaign against a US president. Associated by accident, that's accepted, but associated. What do they do? They rush to mend fences. They disavow Steele and they make it clear that it's nothing to do with the UK. Had that happened then there would, from the UK perspective, be no more to be said. It didn't happen. Instead they backed Steele to the hilt, publicly and continuously. It's that, from the UK side, that needs an explanation.

Babak Makkinejad -> Walrus... , 08 February 2018 at 07:53 AM
"A concerted plan by the fiendish British to influence US" will be of no surprise to many old school Iranians.
turcopolier , 08 February 2018 at 08:17 AM
jack

I testified in Collyer's district court in Washington several times and recollect that she is a she. pl

Harry said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 08 February 2018 at 08:35 AM
My understanding is different. Page had left the campaign but remained in contact. I also understand that Page had been on the FBI radar much earlier after SVR attempted to recruit him. I am surprised that no one saw fit to warn the Trump campaign that asdociating with Page would put the entire campaign under surveillance. I guess they couldn't, but its very convenient. From what i gather it was an open secret and treated as part of the Trump campaigns general cluelessness.
semiconscious said in reply to John Minnerath... , 08 February 2018 at 09:31 AM
& the mainstream media likes it, & wants to keep it, that way! :) ...
David Habakkuk , 08 February 2018 at 09:57 AM
All,

A number of points.

1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.

It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'

2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005.

(See http://mikhail_khodorkovsky_society_two.blogspot.co.uk .)

This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson, starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.

We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'

Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials resources.

3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.

In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.'

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence ">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom' operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.

Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honour of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.'

Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of – commonly with justice – as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.

Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.

Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)

Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.

4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.

When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' – but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.

(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .)

5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed – that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained:

'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.'

(See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html ; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/07/former-mi6-agent-christopher-steele-behind-trump-dossier-returns-to-work .)

6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its – supposed – author was President of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.

In one a contemporary is quoted:

"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said. "Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."

The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4115070/Chris-Whatsit-brilliant-Cambridge-spy-spent-life-battling-KGB-MI6-agent-wife-s-high-heels-stolen-Kremlin-spooks-revealed-Litvinenko-poisoned-Putin-s-thugs.html ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4115070/Chris-Whatsit-brilliant-Cambridge-spy-spent-life-battling-KGB-MI6-agent-wife-s-high-heels-stolen-Kremlin-spooks-revealed-Litvinenko-poisoned-Putin-s-thugs.html .)

From my own – undistinguished and mildly irreverent – Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way up some greasy pole or other in later life.

It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism, I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter – now Lord – Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'

7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.

But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.

8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.

If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)

Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to political misjudgements.

9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.

There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence – including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control, creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle East.

Fred said in reply to wisedupearly Ceo ... , 08 February 2018 at 10:49 AM
wisedupearly,

No, you are just making some deflecting comments to try and drive people to the desired narrative of what's in the memo rather than discussing the criminal conduct of Obama holdover appointees and corrupt career federal employees.

Sid Finster , 08 February 2018 at 10:56 AM
I don't understand what the big deal is here. British intelligence (or anybody else for that matter - remember Al Gore's soliciting Chinese money?) is welcome to meddle in US elections, as long as it is on behalf of the establishment/Deep State candidate.
Sid Finster said in reply to Prem... , 08 February 2018 at 11:05 AM
The intelligence agencies believed the dossier, or at least were willing to suspend disbelief, go along with the deception, because it told them what they wanted to hear. Remember "Curveball", AKA the "defecting Iraqi WMD scientist who told us every lurid thing he knew"? Anyone with the depth of understanding that God gave a housecat could tell that Curveball was not a super-scientist, he was a C student at best, and that he was embellishing his stories. In other words, he was lying shamelessly about things he knew nothing about.

The investigators lapped it up. Even the German intelligence, less emotionally invested in finding some justification, any justification for a war on Iraq, warned the Americans that Curveball was a fabricator. No matter. Curveball told the CIA and FBI what they wanted to hear, so they took his stories at face value, then passed their "intelligence" up the food chain and out to their loyal stenographers working in the press, none of whom questioned not a word of it at the time.

Joe100 , 08 February 2018 at 11:13 AM
Another question - possibly for TTG: why (as reported) did Nellie Ohr recently get an amateur radio license? This does not sound to me like a plausible later-life hobby to take up -which leads me to wonder if amateur radio traffic is well outside of NSA's "we collect everything" net?
Sid Finster said in reply to Jack... , 08 February 2018 at 11:15 AM
Why do you think that this effort has failed?

Of course, factually, russiagate is nonsense, everyone knows that. Russiagate is merely an excuse.

It reminds me of Malcolm Muggeridge's observation of the fate of businessmen and diplomats from the Baltic states travelling in the 1930's Soviet Union. They would be arrested, imprisoned on laughably false pretexts, the NKVD wouldn't even bother to follow their own procedures in doing so.

The embassies of their unfortunates' home countries would file protest after protest, legal objection after objection, all of which were duly ignored. Why? Because the Baltic statelets had no other leverage, no friends to call upon who would make the USSR recognize their rights and those of their citizens.

One might also look at the United States' presence in Syria. We are not invited there, we are not wanted there, we have no mandate to be there. Yes, our presence there is illegal, by any standard of international law.

Yet we refuse to leave. Why? Because noone is able to force us to leave.

This is, quite frankly, the logic of pirates.

Sid Finster said in reply to james... , 08 February 2018 at 11:17 AM
ISIS is an excuse. The United States is in Syria, looking for any excuse to go to war against the government there.
SmoothieX12 -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 February 2018 at 11:28 AM
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to political misjudgements.

It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble.

Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. I

n case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome.

JOHN SHREFFLER -> turcopolier ... , 08 February 2018 at 11:45 AM
The East StratCom Team is a part of the administration of the European union, focused on proactive communication of EU policies and activities in the Eastern neighbourhood (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine)[1] and beyond[2] (Russia itself).[1] The Team was created as a conclusion of the European Council meeting on 19 and 20 March 2015, stressing the need to challenge Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns."[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_StratCom_Team
The Twisted Genius -> Joe100... , 08 February 2018 at 12:31 PM
Joe100,

My older son has been a HAM radio operator for years. He and his fellow HAM operators are getting a good laugh out of this Nellie Ohr conspiracy theory. Radio operators are not only subject to NSA interception, but also FCC interception. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is also vigilant in policing its members' activities. If Ohr intended to use radio communications clandestinely, the last thing she would do is become a licensed operator.

Amateur radio is very much a later in life hobby. My son is an outlier in that respect. They support all manner of community activities from weather emergencies to the Marine Corps Marathon. They were involved in a major volunteer effort to support communications in Puerto Rico last year. They're an impressive bunch of nerds.

I had CI folks talk to me because of my son's radio license. Both he and I speak Russian. He has a degree in Russian literature. I had HF antennas under the eaves of my house. We both spent a lot of time researching hacking, especially Russian hacking. His online activities in college led my coworkers into jokingly calling him Erik the Red. Some jackass in CI didn't find this at all funny and called me in with their suspicions. I didn't make any friends among these CI folks with my reaction.

David Habakkuk -> turcopolier ... , 08 February 2018 at 12:32 PM
In response to #63.

Colonel Lang,

My apologies – it was sloppy of me to use the term.

I was using it interchangeably with 'propaganda.' One reason for this is that I have been looking at the website of the 'Department of War Studies' at King's College London. This has a 'Centre for Strategic Communications', which 'aims to be the leading global centre of expertise on strategic communications.'

(See https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/kcsc/experts.aspx .)

An 'Associate Fellow' is my sometime BBC Radio colleague Mark Laity, who, according to his bio on the site, 'is the Chief Strategic Communications at SHAPE, the first post holder, and as such he has been a leading figure in developing StratCom within NATO.' In this capacity, he produces presentations with titles like ' "Bocca della veritas" or "Perception becomes Reality."

(See http://www.natoschool.nato.int/Media/News/2015/20150910_StratCom .)

The same ethos penetrates other parts of the War Studies Department – Eliot Higgins is involved, as also Thomas Rid, who backed up the claims made by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', along with the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. (It appears that Rid, who has now moved to SAIS at Johns Hopkins, is a German who has earlier worked at IFRI in Paris, RAND, and in Israel.)

What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation of a 'narrative' – in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to 'double think' and 'crimestop.'

It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception management', or 'StratCom.'

The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests.

It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs.

So in describing what these people got up to I sloppily used 'StratCom', when I should have said propaganda.

Cvillereader said in reply to wisedupearly Ceo ... , 08 February 2018 at 12:59 PM
As I suspected, there are rules of professional conduct that prohibit attorneys from making public statements that are likely to have a material prejudicial impact on an adjudicative hearing in which they have been involved.

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/ethics/email/summer2012/summer2012-0712-ethical-rules-litigating-court-public-opinion.html

You are going to have to come up with a new talking point.

Publius Tacitus , 08 February 2018 at 01:02 PM
Great commentary as always Sir Hababkkuk. Also worth noting that the largest block of students at the university of Missouri school of journalism is strategic communications. But they don't consider it propaganda (though it is).
Fred said in reply to Cvillereader... , 08 February 2018 at 02:14 PM
Cvillereader,

What is the American Bar's ethic rule for an Attorney General meeting with the spouse of someone under investigation by the FBI?

cato iii , 08 February 2018 at 02:26 PM
It's worth pointing out that no one in the administration publicized any of this information during the election. Unlike the Clinton emails case, which they made very public in the days immediately before the election, against policy.

Even if you believe there was nothing to the idea of Russian interference, there was enough to make damning insinuations about. If the FBI or the intel community was corrupt and wanted to interfere against Trump, why didn't they?

Barbara Ann -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 February 2018 at 02:30 PM
David Habakkuk

Re your point 7. I am surprised at the level of robustness you expect of MI6's recruitment due diligence process - especially in respect of a Cambridge alumnus with a leftist background.

Harry said in reply to David Habakkuk ... , 08 February 2018 at 02:51 PM
From my own – undistinguished and mildly irreverent – Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way up some greasy pole or other in later life.

I am very familiar with the lessor spotted cantab hack. Particular in its Trinity form.

Publius Tacitus -> cato iii... , 08 February 2018 at 02:54 PM
Are you really that obtuse? Government officials were leaking this info from August on and it was in the news. Most of the media ignored it because they did not think Trump had a chance
an occasional reader , 08 February 2018 at 03:03 PM
The LaRouche people have always said it was London.
I agree considering the center of the Trans-Atlantic financial empire is London and the currency of said empire is the petro-dollar which Russia, along with others, is slowing undermining.
In other words, they have motive.
Joe100 said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 08 February 2018 at 03:09 PM
TTG - Thanks! I got my general HAM license back about 1959 (while living in Quantico and spending alot of time at the base "HAM shack") but let it lapse once I hit college. Interesting to know that NSA monitors ham radio.

Nice to have your calming insight on the conspiracy theories.

Jack , 08 February 2018 at 03:09 PM
All

What is Mueller up to these days? Haven't heard much from him other than to delay Flynn's sentencing.

I'm also curious why Cater Page hasn't been charged with anything despite all the surveillance. Was he a Russian spy as Comey believed?

[Feb 08, 2018] Charge of neoliberal MSM brigade against Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated. Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians. ..."
"... Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to election was insufficient. ..."
"... Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after. ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

wisedupearly Ceo , 07 February 2018 at 06:42 PM

Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time?

Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated. Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians.

Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to election was insufficient.

Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after.

[Feb 08, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGOVERN

Feb 08, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.

Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved narrative of Russia-gate.

Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from the White House.

It didn't even seem to matter when new Russia-gate disclosures conflicted with the original narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a "Moscow stooge."

The Text Evidence

But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evivdence that key FBI officials involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump, adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch hunt."

[Feb 08, 2018] Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs

Notable quotes:
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
"... Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome. ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

SmoothieX12 -> David Habakkuk ... , 08 February 2018 at 11:28 AM

Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to political misjudgements.

It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble.

Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.

In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka".

Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome.

[Feb 08, 2018] The Nunes Memo and the Death of American Journalism

Notable quotes:
"... Here's the real deal: FISA, the notion of what is essentially a Federal secret police force, most of our post-9-11 infrastructure and our pathetic lack of regulation of information technology has been a problem built by both parties for decades. ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

BCZ February 6, 2018 at 3:40 am

We know that FISA knew the dossier was politically motivated and unconfirmed. Even Nunes acknowledges this . now.

And this is the issue, and the irony of this article. 'Wasn't it nice before journalists stopped reporting and pushing narratives?' Yes, it was narrative pusher.

Here's the real deal: FISA, the notion of what is essentially a Federal secret police force, most of our post-9-11 infrastructure and our pathetic lack of regulation of information technology has been a problem built by both parties for decades. I find it literally impossible that the most scandal free 'weak kneed' administration was doing anything other than business as usual in this increasingly dystopian context .

. but now here comes the GOP to try to turn this in to a partisan weapon, and journalists like you to help them do it increasing division over an issue that should be the people versus the elites into democrats versus republicans.

And, frankly that was so blatantly the intent given the manner this whole thing has been handled that only a true hack wouldn't note it in the context of an article like this.

But here's the thing I think deep down you are just too blind to acknowledge that all this security apparatus, tough on terror, 'freedom-isn't-free-but-I'll-sell-it-for-a-security-from-attacks-less-likely-than-lightning-strikes' cowardice is the problem.

OF COURSE FISA'S BEING ABUSED (along with the whole intelligence apparatus) it was custom designed by decades of elites to be so!

What fits the facts more? That the FBI simultaneously conspired to help, and then hurt the Clinton campaign, all the while saying that they are all just doing their jobs .

Or

That they were just doing their jobs, and this kind of stuff happens all the time.

I'm going door number two.

https://www.washingtonpost.com

[Feb 07, 2018] Obama was involved, up to his skinny neck, in the efforts (continuing as we speak) to unseat Trump.

Notable quotes:
"... Obama was involved, up to his skinny neck, in the efforts (continuing as we speak) to unseat Trump. The reason: he wanted to eliminate the chance that his many examples of unlawful and unconstitutional actions remain hidden from view ..."
"... Now that the conspiracy is being revealed, as an onion is peeled back, layer by layer, he is starting to see his "legacy" destroyed as it should be. ..."
"... After downing a bottle of Rollaids and taking 2 valium, I went to see if the NYT or the WaPoo were reporting on this revelation that Obama actually lied. No mention anywhere. It never ceases to amaze me how far down our "journalists" have gone. ..."
"... I want to see Obama exposed, from top to bottom -- all the sealed records, lies, frauds. Mike Zullo and Arpaio already did the work on the fake BC. Then there's the fake draft card. Who paid for the VERY expensive education at Punahou? What was his status at Occidental? Foreign student from Indonesia? ..."
"... Why did both Obama's lose their law licenses? ..."
Feb 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Peter41 Feb 7, 2018 11:32 AM Permalink

Obama was involved, up to his skinny neck, in the efforts (continuing as we speak) to unseat Trump. The reason: he wanted to eliminate the chance that his many examples of unlawful and unconstitutional actions remain hidden from view.

Now that the conspiracy is being revealed, as an onion is peeled back, layer by layer, he is starting to see his "legacy" destroyed as it should be. The only people left to believe in this woeful example of an American president will be the true believers who will never be convinced of the depths that their hero plumbed in order to destroy this country.

rosiescenario Feb 7, 2018 11:36 AM Permalink

After downing a bottle of Rollaids and taking 2 valium, I went to see if the NYT or the WaPoo were reporting on this revelation that Obama actually lied. No mention anywhere. It never ceases to amaze me how far down our "journalists" have gone.

Bastiat Feb 7, 2018 12:07 PM Permalink

I want to see Obama exposed, from top to bottom -- all the sealed records, lies, frauds. Mike Zullo and Arpaio already did the work on the fake BC. Then there's the fake draft card. Who paid for the VERY expensive education at Punahou? What was his status at Occidental? Foreign student from Indonesia? How did he travel to Pakistan?

Why did both Obama's lose their law licenses? Failure to disclose to the Bar other names they've gone by, like Michael or Barry Soetoro? Or some sleazy malpractice?

[Feb 07, 2018] The fact that they are talking about talking points to Comey to brief Obama is the big cookie

Feb 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

3-fingered_chemist Feb 7, 2018 9:20 AM Permalink

Wow, the fact that they are talking about talking points to Comey to brief Obama is the big cookie. Obama's legacy is destroyed completely.

That implements Comey and Obama as traitors. Why does Comey keep tweeting shit? Dude should be lawyering up and perhaps thinking about getting out of the country.

Hey, Dems? Do we have a Constitutional Crisis yet? LOL at these fuckers.

J2nh -> 3-fingered_chemist Feb 7, 2018 9:24 AM Permalink

The best defense is a strong offense. For Comey this worked for a while but I think those days are over. If he was smart he would lawyer up and shut the fuck up.

Clinton emails found on September 28 and Comey didn't know until October 28, who believes that load of crap.

Burn them all.

Fishthatlived -> 3-fingered_chemist Feb 7, 2018 9:25 AM Permalink

'I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. ... I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation.'

Obama

rent slave Feb 7, 2018 9:26 AM Permalink

As soon as I heard in 2007 that the NY Times couldn't find anyone at Columbia who knew Obama,I knew something was up.Columbia seems to be the default college for frauds with Van Doren,"Dr."Bob Harris,and Meadow Soprano.

Bastiat -> rent slave Feb 7, 2018 11:53 AM Permalink

. . .yeah and I recall the professor of Political Science who said: never saw him and I knew EVERY student who studied Poli-sci. It is impossible that I would not have known him. -- or words to that effect.

[Feb 07, 2018] FBI lovers texts show Obama wanted info on Clinton probe

A comment to the article "
"
Feb 07, 2018 | dailymail.co.uk

An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president Barack Obama wanted updates on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'

Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that investigation.

'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.

'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->

The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.

Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'

President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'

Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years, and didn't document it.'

He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.

But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the Russia probe.

Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.

He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia.

Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports

Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'

On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary of State.

That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.

On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that Clinton should not face criminal charges.

The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.

In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->

It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.

Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.

In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'

On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'

Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'

Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'

[Feb 07, 2018] Why do you, dummy, not believe this junk? ...because Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow said so?

Feb 07, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

vofreason Feb 7, 2018 9:56 AM Permalink

Why do you dummies believe this junk? ...because Hannity said so? The "memo" is an altogether ridiculous idea, it's just a piece of paper of what all these liars thought about something,....it has no weight on anything anymore than if someone came on tv and gave their opinion..........and in this case it's just the opinion, like all the rest, of an incompetent group of people that have no business being in their positions.

This isn't the usual Dems' vs Repuplican stuff where they fight about issues ........ this is our government taken over by reality tv personalities, rich housewives and greedy leeches of the worst kind.

They're the dummy at the McDonalds counter that can't understand your order and should all be working some harmless minimum wage job where they aren't responsible for anything important or that requires any sort of intellect.

Stan522 -> vofreason Feb 7, 2018 10:15 AM Permalink

Why do you, dummy, not believe this junk? ...because Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow said so?

The "memo" is an altogether review of the evidence at hand that uses what has been derived from evidence found much through the Inspector General's report and the testimony from witnesses (that means documented in writing), both in the House and Senate, plus what has been released by the DOJ and FBI through both lawsuits and Congressional requests... Again, it's all documented and irrefutable.

The dem memo is just a piece of paper of what all these dem liars thought about something,....it has no weight on anything anymore than if someone came on tv and gave their opinion..........and in this case it's just the opinion, like all the rest, of an incompetent group of people that have no business being in their positions in the dem party and the left leaning dem carrier pigeons in the MSM.

This isn't the usual Dems' vs Repuplican stuff where they fight about issues ........ this is the democrat party desparately trying to block EVERYTHING because they fully realize what the outcome will be if all id disclosed.

It will be the end of their party for decades (similar to republicans during Watergate - I was in DC then and I know). The dem sycophants like you are the dummy at the McDonalds counter that can't understand your order and should all be working some harmless minimum wage job where they aren't responsible for anything important or that requires any sort of intellect.

[Feb 07, 2018] 'Deep State' Veterans find New Homes in Mainstream Media by Caitlin Johnstone

Notable quotes:
"... purchase of the Washington Post ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers ..."
"... Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires. ..."
"... This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and not a fully-scripted performance. ..."
"... I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong reasons". ..."
"... "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public." ..."
Feb 07, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

'Deep State' Veterans find New Homes in Mainstream Media February 5, 2018

NBC News' hiring of former CIA Director John Brennan is the latest in a wave of intelligence community stalwarts being given jobs in the media, raising concerns over conflicts of interests, reports Caitlin Johnstone.

"Former CIA director John Brennan has become the latest member of the NBC News and MSNBC family, officially signing with the network as a contributor," chirps a recent article by The Wrap, as though that's a perfectly normal thing to have to write and not a ghastly symptom of an Orwellian dystopia. NBC reports that the former head of the depraved , lying, torturing , propagandizing , drug trafficking , coup-staging , warmongering Central Intelligence Agency "is now a senior national security and intelligence analyst."

Brennan, who played a key role in the construction of the establishment's Russia narrative that has been used to manufacture public consent for world-threatening new cold war escalations , is just the latest addition in an ongoing trend of trusted mainstream media outlets being packed to the gills with stalwarts from the U.S. intelligence community. Brennan joins CIA and DoD Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash on the NBC/MSNBC lineup, who is serving there as a national security analyst, as well as NBC intelligence/national security reporter and known CIA collaborator Ken Dilanian.

Former Director of National Intelligence, Russiagate architect, and known Russophobic racist James Clapper was welcomed to the CNN "family" last year by Chris " It's Illegal to Read WikiLeaks " Cuomo and now routinely appears as an expert analyst for the network. Last year CNN also hired a new national security analyst in Michael Hayden , who has served as CIA Director, NSA Director, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and an Air Force general.

Former CIA analyst and now paid CNN analyst Phil Mudd, who last year caused Cuomo's show to have to issue a retraction and apology for a completely baseless claim he made on national television asserting that WikiLeaks' Julian Assange is "a pedophile", is once again making headlines for suggesting that the FBI is entering into a showdown with the current administration over Trump's decision to declassify the controversial Nunes memo.

More and more of the outlets from which Americans get their information are being filled not just with garden variety establishment loyalists, but with longstanding members of the U.S. intelligence community. These men got to their positions of power within these deeply sociopathic institutions based on their willingness to facilitate any depravity in order to advance the secret agendas of the U.S. power establishment, and now they're being paraded in front of mainstream Americans on cable news on a daily basis. The words of these "experts" are consistently taken and reported on by smaller news outlets in print and online media in a way that seeds their authoritative assertions throughout public consciousness.

The term "deep state" does not refer to a conspiracy theory but to a simple concept in political analysis which points to the undeniable reality that (A) plutocrats, (B) intelligence agencies, (C) defense agencies, and (D) the mainstream media hold large amounts of power in America despite their not being part of its elected government. You don't need to look far to see how these separate groups overlap and collaborate to advance their own agendas in various ways. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, for example, is deeply involved in all of the aforementioned groups : (A) as arguably the wealthiest person ever he is clearly a plutocrat, with a company that is trying to control the underlying infrastructure of the economy ; (B) he is a CIA contractor ; (C) he is part of a Pentagon advisory board ; and (D) his purchase of the Washington Post in 2013 gave him total control over a major mainstream media outlet.

Bezos did not purchase the Washington Post because his avaricious brain predicted that newspapers were about to make a profitable resurgence; he purchased it for the same reason he has inserted himself so very deeply into America's unelected power infrastructure – he wants to ensure a solid foundation for the empire he is building. He needs a potent propaganda outlet to manufacture support for the power establishment that he is weaving his plutocratic tentacles through. This is precisely the same reason other mass media-controlling plutocrats are stocking their propaganda machines with intelligence community insiders.

Time and again you see connections between the plutocratic class which effectively owns America's elected government , the intelligence and defense agencies which operate behind thick veils of secrecy in the name of "national security" to advance agendas which have nothing to do with the wishes of the electorate, and the mass media machine which is used to manufacture the consent of the people to be governed by this exploitative power structure.

America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money increasingly translates directly into political power , and which is therefore motivated to maintain economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the economic inequality, the greater their power. Nobody would willingly consent to such an oppressive system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive drones are showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda machine is needed.

And that's where John Brennan's new job comes in. Expect a consistent fountain of lies to pour from his mouth on NBC, and expect them to all prop up this exploitative power establishment and advance its geopolitical agendas . And expect clear-eyed rebels everywhere to keep calling it all what it is.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium . Follow her work on Facebook , Twitter , or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .

Cold N. Holefield , February 5, 2018 at 10:29 am

Yeah, I noticed this too and it disgusts me. It doesn't surprise me, though. Ever since Oliver North got his own show and has been a regular contributor at Fox News, this has been the trend. CNN also gives plenty of Air Time to the disgraced John Dean of Watergate Infamy.

It underscores how vital it is We The People take back The Media from the Corporate Thieves who now own it. We need to reverse consolidation in the Media Industry and in fact, reverse the trend of Media as an Industry.

Ol' Hippy , February 5, 2018 at 1:58 pm

There appears to be two types of media these days. The first type plays by the "rules" of the corporate/banking/military state and gets prestigious jobs with all the perks, i.e. Nice house, good salary, steady work, etc. The second type works independent from the power structures. They have integrity; Robert Parry being a prime example. They also become media pariahs. They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc. Without them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank goodness for these brave people.

Cold N. Holefield , February 5, 2018 at 2:52 pm

They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc. Without them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank goodness for these brave people.

Yes, I agree. Thank goodness for the few of us who still remain and persist against all odds with no support.

Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 10:48 am

The culture in DC being described recently as 'critters in the swamp', does not nearly come close to describing the choking filth that has taken our government over. To be clear, this coup toke place a very longtime ago, but don't announce that to any good red blooded American Patriot, that is unless you want to be titled 'un-American'.

My hesitation to get excited over the 'Nunes Memo', is my frustration over what all is missing from this Congressional members flaming Memo. Like where is Brennan, Clapper, or any DNC Operatives, as if we should have expected the MSM to be mentioned? Why, just go after a couple of cheating lovers?

Seeing Brennan join the NBC staff, is like watching him walk across the hall at Langley only to start his mischief in another CIA department. I'd love to wish the old spook good luck on his first day at his new job, but then that would be like condoning that pain be inflicted upon more unsuspecting poor souls, so I won't.

Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 11:49 am

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/

Realist , February 5, 2018 at 3:17 pm

Inserting guys like that into the center of the storm within the corporate media whose job it *should* be to expose the truth to the public is clearly a conflict of interest (because they themselves are prime suspects in the purported criminal activities) and obvious obstruction of justice because we know they are actually snow-jobbing the public and hiding the truth to protect themselves and their puppetmasters.

In all fairness, when does General Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page or Jared Kushner get to have a regular segment on the Rachel Maddow show? Why doesn't the media interview Barack Obama himself to find out what he knows and when he first knew it, or to force him into self-incriminating or at least highly-suspicious obfuscations? It was his justice department that targeted the Trump campaign on highly problematic grounds. Or, put a microphone in front of Hillary's face and ask her how the administration (of which she was an organic outgrowth) interfaced with the FISA court, allegedly on her behalf to spy on the competition.

This caper is not only worse than Watergate (Watergate was conducted in the shadows), this crime and subsequent cover-up are being carried out in broad daylight with the full complicity of the media. They don't care who knows because those people, regardless of their substantiated facts, will never get a hearing in the media which now creates our moment-to-moment reality, as far as 99% of Americans know or care about.

Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 3:48 pm

Our MSM is lacking the honor and truthfulness of Robert Parry.

Realist, I always like reading your comments, and with this comment of yours you don't disappoint. I too would like to know when the truth will be broadcast over our airways, and printed in our national news outlets. Although, I could watch the grass grow, or the snow melt, and have better results to jump up and down about, before the MSM will shoot straight with us viewers. I have come to the conclusion that what hurts our nation most, is we have to much corporate control, like our infamous corporate owned MSM. These pundits, and news anchors only do what they do best, and that is they promote themselves. I mean, the omissions of facts, and the over the top characterizations of world leaders and national political opponents goes to the degree of slander, and yet life goes on. I know it would be an impossible task, but wouldn't it be great to if we news junkies could sue the MSM for fraud?

Realist , February 5, 2018 at 8:44 pm

I could have been more strident than I was, Joe. I might have called the FISA court outright illegal and unconstitutional like Jimmy Dore did yesterday. I mean, what the hell is its role in America today? It serves as a SECRET COURT which gives permissions to intelligence agencies to SPY without limits on any American citizen they choose to target, including, apparently, their supposed boss, the president of the United States. As if the carte blanch, full spectrum eavesdropping done by DARPA on every American weren't enough of a violation of our constitutional rights, they have to dress up some of their spying with special judicial privilege. Useful tools like Brennan, Clapper, Mueller and Comey have been justifying or fallaciously LYING about this imposition on our citizens for years now. Remember when the KGB was disbanded and folks were publicly rooting through the files in a carnival atmosphere after the Soviet Union collapsed? This country needs a dose of the same thing. We need more of our freedoms back and less of the so-called "order" imposed by the Deep State and its string pullers. I don't believe for a moment that the Russians, the Chinese, ISIS, Al Queda, Kim Yung-Un, the Ayatollahs or a squadron of Klingon battle cruisers are waiting just outside our borders preparing to attack the United States and we all must be defended by the "Intelligence Community" by living like Winston Smith.

Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 9:57 pm

The U.S. is so shallow at even their attempting to address its citizens with the appropriate truth, that after 50 years to prepare for the public more information on the JFK Assassination that when the time come the government wasn't even ready for the release. What an insult to the nation.

The purge you spoke of Realist is a dream in this purist eye. I really do welcome a much broader investigation of panoramic proportions of our nation's massive bureaucracy, and the discovery of the elements who only conspire to enact their agendas could then be exposed.

You are right about our freedoms. We Americans are in the end going to need to put our foot down to our governments police state rules, and all of us will need to brave it out when going into public places. (Oh boy what false flag bate) At some point it will be necessary to say, enough is enough, and hopefully catch them while at their game. Joe

Ps that last part I doubt will ever happen.

Gregory Herr , February 6, 2018 at 12:52 am

I think you touched upon something really important referring to the "moment-to-moment reality" that media "creates". A big problem with television "news" and the funny papers is the failure to.contextualize what's going on today with related events or issues–even from the relatively recent past. It's almost always about a myopic and usually distorted focus on just one particularly vexing item that generates competing opinions that must be paired and parsed to death–until there's something else to "talk" about. Yeah, yeah! Pick a team–partisanship is entertaining don't ya know! Rachel's got ratings and Hannity's one of us!

Just one for instance:
Obama relaxed constraints on sharing of NSA raw data as a parting blow to privacy that also makes it easier to "leak" and cover up the leaking. He signed a Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act which essentially is a way for government to make it harder to "counter" their disinformation and propaganda. Google and Facebook are are all in on the filter and censor project. Yet with all this and much more there isn't a peep of a national discussion about the First Amendment and the value of protecting free and diverse expression. Oh, I know why. The Court says money is speech so all the "important" people can buy their freedom of expression. Guess that will leave me out.

Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 11:16 am

Thank you Caitlin Johnstone!

I'm going to refer readers to an off-guardian article running now and specifically to the comment pages where one can see Noam Chomsky's (as a young researcher) explain cointelpro. This is an exceptional explination

I will attempt a link below

Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 11:17 am

Here is the link mentioned above:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/02/05/bought-journalists-postscript-to-udo-olfkottes-suppressed-book/#comments

Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 11:49 am

Here is the link to Wikipedia on COINTELPRO https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Virginia , February 5, 2018 at 11:51 am

Thanks, Caitlin. People need to learn more about Deep State and and also the One World Order. There are lots of videos on the Internet, including some featuring former CIA (whistleblower-type) agents who feel impelled to divulge the hidden government. Thanks for your links, Bob. I'll take a look.

Erin , February 5, 2018 at 11:51 am

Don't watch, don't watch, don't watch!

Skip Scott , February 5, 2018 at 12:42 pm

Erin-

I agree. I think people need to turn off their TV sets. They are mind numbing. People like Brennan belong in jail, not on television.

Nancy , February 5, 2018 at 2:24 pm

I don't think the majority of people are watching this crap anymore. It's mainly a bunch of circle jerks mouthing off in an echo chamber. Problem is, the rest of the population is either preoccupied with making a living or playing with their gadgets to find out what's really going on. People seem to have given up on the idea of democracy, justice and fairness and in a way I don't blame them.
It's kind of a curse to still have this notion that a better world is possible.

Cold N. Holefield , February 5, 2018 at 2:49 pm

Good points. I agree. It's as though "The News" is intended for the Oligarchs and the Political Class. The ads are a dead giveaway that's the target market. The products they are selling are not for the Average Joe who can't afford such luxuries.

Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 12:00 pm

Now finally for the most adventurous of you I'll introduce you to a man I discovered in an agonizingly slow way over the course of years. His name is Carl Oglesby and as a young worker at a defense industry job he started doing research on the Vietnam War. He ultimately wrote a book called "The Yankee and Cowboy Wars" that surprisingly accurately describes our current condition. It is one of those books long out of print worth thousands of dollars in resale.
I will post a link to Spartacus
Educational below but you can find it on your own..
I promise to now shut-up and listen

Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 12:02 pm

Here is the link:
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoglesby.htm

geeyp , February 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm

I saw that recent Mudd comment regarding President Trump = 13 months vs. Hoover Org. = since 1908. The President needs to eliminate this agency. Then we can watch this asshole cough up his spleen LIVE on t.v.! I guess these creatures have license to claim anything they want and get away with it. His Assange accusation falls out of his mouth and gets repeated endlessly. Then when the weak retraction occurs, it never gets the same press/traction and the damage is already done.

Babyl-on , February 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm

Nothing particularly new here, this has been established practice for decades. What is new about this issue and so many others now is that it is done openly, without any pretense that there is a constitution. The Imperial institutions housed in the US now act openly for the interests of an overarching transnational oligarchy.

Trump has destroyed the dominate narrative this is by far the deepest wound I have seen the Empire receive. No one really believes Clapper any more – whether it is a plurality or a majority is not the point, enough people don't believe them that the Empire has lost control of the message. That is the source of their panic. Trotting out their apparatchiks once worked and worked for decades but – "It's all over now baby blue."

Trump has exposed much of the ways things have been done behind the seines for many years and unwittingly forced them into the open – this has been his biggest contribution to the weakening of the Imperial structures. Leaving them naked in their policies of slaughter. The Empire has nothing now but a huge military which it can't use without destroying civilization so it goes around the world destroying countries and cities in its helpless thrashing around slaughtering innocent people as it looses on every front. The last gasp of Empire – kill them all if they will not submit. In its death throws the Empire will do untold damage and create vast human suffering, it might very well destroy civilization with its nuclear weapons rather that accept a place as one part of the human community not the ruler of humanity.

Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 6:13 pm

Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires.

This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and not a fully-scripted performance.

exiled off mainstreet , February 5, 2018 at 12:29 pm

Yankee media has degenerated into an echo chamber for the deep state structure. This is just further proof of that salient fact.

No More Neos , February 5, 2018 at 1:35 pm

Maybe we should view this as a good sign that they need to "call in the National Guard" for corporate media back-up reinforcements. The propaganda machine is sputtering and sparking, overheated from working OT to push flimsy narrative, which only accentuates the cartoonish spectacle of it all.

Neoliberalism rests on a fragile foundation of financial myths that are beginning to come crashing down, aside from shooting itself in the foot in the 2008 crash. They had to admit that:

Global banks are global in health and national in death. ~ Mervyn King

A growing number of economics students are demanding to be taught economic history and not just neoclassical economics. Hayek, Friedman, Greenspan and the Apostles of Doublespeak in the academic and corporate media realm have lost all credibility. Heterodox economists like Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, Bill Mitchell and Stephanie Kelton are gaining popularity in their blinders-off clarity of how the economy actually works, sans the political spin.

Even Russia and China have decided to not allow Monsanto to control the world's food supply, have no desire to continue working with the IMF and World Bank and are wise enough to see the futility in acquiescing to a unipolar world view. Ultimately, the US will be the bigger loser by going it alone and not accepting the vast multipolar opportunities that await, based on faulty principle. But that won't deter them from continuing provocations in Ukraine, Venezuela (and other Latin American countries), etc., even though Western agenda's neoliberal offerings are now considered to be an appalling joke internationally.

But this has been known for some time. It was just a matter of time before the "market society" experiment crashed and burned:

"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ~ Karl Polanyi, 1944

"In 1945 or 1950 if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the insane asylum." ~ Susan George

Do not confuse the economic -- oikos nomia -- the norms of running home and community with chrematistics -- krema atos -- the accumulation of money. ~ Aristotle

Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:50 am

Many thanks No More Neos. I was unaware of most of what you wrote. I have noted the names that you mentioned and I will pay more attention to them. I do know of Michael Hudson and admire his work.

It has occurred to me that there will be Rich academic histories written about the organized management of subject matter by TPTB. See my Response To cmp below.

Stephen J. , February 5, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Re, The Deep State and the "media."Do: "Birds of a feather produce propaganda together?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
December 25, 2015
Are the Corporate Media and Others Covering Up The Treachery of The War Criminals?

There is plenty of evidence that people in positions of power planned and plotted a number of "illegal" wars [1] in "defiance of international law." Unfortunately, this information is suppressed and censored in most of the corporate monopoly media. Instead we are fed propaganda that attempts to disguise the truth, and covers up the massive human suffering caused by the warmongering criminals of these 21st century war crimes. This has resulted in the creation of millions of refugees, [1a] many soldiers dead and maimed, countries destroyed, millions dead, children dead and contaminated, and the war criminals are FREE. [2]
[read more at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2015/12/are-corporate-media-and-others-covering.html

Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 2:52 pm

Thank you Stephan J. Here is a link that you provided from a Robert Parry piece.

If one goes through the commentary, you will see that comments have always been decent, informative and educational on this truly wonderful site.

Man oh man I miss Robert Parry and F. G. Sanford where are you?
(Caitlin Johnstone you're our new leader, and apparently another fine journalist. Thank You)

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/19/neocons-object-to-syrian-democracy/

Ol' Hippy , February 5, 2018 at 2:09 pm

This article by Caitlin just helps me to be glad that I never bought cable TV. I didn't realize how many former government criminals/ex-officials populated their polluted networks. Former head spook Mike Morell on CBS doesn't seem like an anomaly any more. The hens are fattening the foxes guarding the air and cable waves. No wonder those with little time, due to work and family matters, know so little about what's actually going on.

j. D. D. , February 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm

Looks like the Obama/British connected warmongering intel agents have decided to eliminate the "middle-men" (and women) and go directly on record. Rachel, Chris, Jim and Wolfe, your jobs are in jeopardy, Not to be left out, I expect that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and perhaps Mueller, are filling out their own applications right now.

, , February 5, 2018 at 2:45 pm

Johnstone tells it like it is. It's a pure pleasure to read her ripping out the guts of the oligarchic monster creating our present deepening dystopia. Wouldn't it be nice if every American could read her little piece, and think about what it says? Maybe I can get a few of my friends to read it. You have to start somewhere to wake people up. If enough of us gently encourage our friends to take a brief dip into reality, who knows what might come from it?

Realist , February 5, 2018 at 2:48 pm

Mainstream liberal pundits used to talk like this, blasting the privileged insiders "feeding at the trough" and such. Now they have become just a bunch of crybaby spoilers and haters because their push for power via the Hildebeast movement came crashing down. If they can't have it, they'd rather break it. They couldn't beat the warmongering neocons or the rapacious neoliberals, so they joined 'em. They became what they always professed to hate.

Their followers, being just mindless tribalists rather than the perspicacious philosophers they are told they are, leap in lockstep over the precipice. They can never give you a coherent or logical reason why, just vapid slogans usually diametrically at odds with any real truth. All that matters to them is receiving daily affirmation from their fellow ranks of sloganeering nincompoops. In their newfound McCarthyism they've morphed into the lost boys from "Lord of the Flies" who went so far as to kill Piggy, Piggy's counterpart being Al Franken and his career as a champion of liberal causes in the U.S. senate.

But, in a world where one can purportedly choose any identity one pleases with no basis in reality, these self-immolations merely win accolades from the right-thinking media clerics as society in general goes into a death spiral. Living the "theatre of the absurd" has become the new "American way of life." Now, if we could just quickly get out of the way of the rest of the world, things might turn out all right for the rest of humanity. Unfortunately, they've designed an "app" to prevent that, it's called the MIC, and it's not user friendly.

Tom K. , February 5, 2018 at 3:05 pm

As exposed by Julian Assange: https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/

Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 6:57 pm

We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input.

Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort, and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.

It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths of the propaganda.

Chris , February 5, 2018 at 3:43 pm

"America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money increasingly translates directly into political power, and which is therefore motivated to maintain economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the economic inequality, the greater their power. " This is backwards. The elite does not create economic injustice to maintain and solidify their power for then there would have been no French, Russian, Cuban, Chinese revolutions. The capitalist system leads to economic injustice because it steals unpaid labour power from the working class and puts into the hands of the capitalists. The reason they keep wages lower is to increase the rate of profit not to keep power thought they try to hold on to the power to maintain that system. And the more that inequality is produced the weaker they become because the working class then realises it has nothing to lose and revolts. This is basic marxism which the writer seems to be unaware of. The greater the economic inequality, the greater the distress of the working class is and greater the motivation to change their condition.

backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:01 pm

Chris – you are right, conditions must be favorable for any action to take place. It is when the crowd gets a taste of fear that they move.

Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 7:02 pm

Cold, you may know that the original use of the term "American Exceptionalism" was Stalin's description of how the USAmerican working classes seem incapable of revolting against capitalist exploitation, no matter how egregious it becomes. We are "the exception" to Marx's theories about the tipping points for revolutions.

cmp , February 5, 2018 at 4:20 pm

Just what does democracy look like to these cowards who sell prejudice, discrimination, hate and violence?

Here is an example of how much they think of their (our) own kids, if they even dare to speak to the teachers & preachers:

On May 2nd 1970, Governor James A. Rhodes (R-OH), says of student protesters at Kent State University:
"They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes. They're the worst kind of people we harbor in America. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America. We're going to eradicate the problem, we're not going to treat the symptoms." Two days later, on May 4th, National Guardsmen kill four unarmed students on the Kent State campus and wounded nine others.
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009

On May 5th 1970, Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) says of the efforts to stop student protests on university campuses:
"If it takes a bloodbath, then let's get it over with.."
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009

.. And, 10 years later, in 1980, America elected who??

Who will the sellers offer up in 2024? Are we closing in on the end of the era of the puppet?

Perhaps it will be a pro. (with media experience on the resume, to boot) .. A John Brennan-ite?

If there is a hell, then certainly there must be a special spot reserved for those who are the worst of the guru's in greed. But, in the meantime, for America's own good, maybe someday soon, the International Community will close Guantanamo.. .. And, do all of the citizens of the planet a great justice by reopening it in the middle of the Mohave Desert. These cowards that corporatize & commercialize prejudice, discrimination, hate and violence, they can be the honorary members. And since it is they who have long killed their conscience, then maybe that desert heat will serve as a small reminder for what a little heat really feels like.

Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:31 am

I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong reasons".

cmp , February 6, 2018 at 4:43 pm

Bob, "Thank You!" I have made a note to look for Lansdale, Carl Oglesby, and now Seth Rosenfeld. All of this I know, will be such great reading for me!

I also sent you some follow up on the 28th. Did you receive those two? Would you like for me to send them again?

I look forward to all of your posts – Keep up all of your great work Bob!

backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:31 pm

Sean Hannity on Fox is doing a stellar job of exposing the Department of Justice, FBI, and all of the other characters re the Steele dossier and Russiagate. Every night more information is revealed; it's like a spy novel. None of the other outlets are even talking about this stuff. Crickets. If you want the latest on criminality, go there. Meanwhile, Zero Hedge says:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public."

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid Steele for his dossier. But the FBI also hired Steele, and just before they paid out $50,000.00 to Steele for his work, they discovered he lied, didn't pay him, but still continued to spy on Trump and his team. With Steele's dossier now discredited in the eyes of the FBI, they should have stopped their spying, but they didn't. Russiagate has been based on this Steele dossier, and yet there was "no there there", and the DOJ and the FBI knew it.

Zero Hedge goes on:

"Furthermore, a section on a second memo by Steele says he received information from the State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with 'a friend of the Clintons.'

'It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility,' Grassley and Graham wrote in their criminal referral."

So Steele was receiving information from the State Department and a friend of the Clinton's? How impartial is that?

backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:33 pm

Link for the above Zero Hedge piece:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/grassley-graham-blast-fbi-censoring-memo-calling-criminal-probe-trump-dossier

Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 7:16 pm

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,

~ The Bard

The Reality TV Show Presidency has great ratings.

Do you think Nikki Haley got the red rose? Apparently Michael Wolf, the author of "Fire and Fury," is backing down on that bit of salacious gossip "news."

backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 4:39 pm

Daniel – and a line I like to quote from Shakespeare applies so well to the Clinton's:

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here."

backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:36 pm

John Brennan – "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." That guy is evil, and nothing good will come of this.

Mark Thompson , February 5, 2018 at 8:13 pm

Really happy to see Caitlin writing on this forum. Keep up the good work Caitlin. You'll never be short on material to write about. If what we're witnessing in this point in time is any barometer, we're in for a world of hurt. Orwell is in his grave wishing he had two more hands. He has to choose whether to cover his eyes or ears. What a sad state of affairs

Lois Gagnon , February 5, 2018 at 11:18 pm

It becomes more evident by the day that we live in a military dictatorship. One of the incidents that brought this realization home to me was when John Kerry had negotiated a deal with the Russians regarding military operations in Syria. The military took it upon themselves to nullify that deal when it purposely attacked and killed 60 Syrian soldiers. That was a clear case of insubordination that should have led to firings of the military brass who ordered that strike. Instead, Obama just carried on as if nothing happened except that the negotiated deal was null and void.

And of course the press said nothing about the blatant criminality of the military action.

What president is willing to stand up to the military and the Department of Skullduggery AKA the CIA anymore? Who is really calling the shots?

Diana Lee , February 6, 2018 at 2:52 pm

Thank you Caitlin! Good job! I especially like: "Nobody would willingly consent to such an oppressive system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive drones are showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda machine is needed." I agree! NO ONE is "willfully ignorant". NO ONE chooses to be under the influence of government mass mind control/propaganda. Mind control is something that is "done to" people -- – whether the perpetrator is a psychopathic spouse or cult leader; religious indoctrinator, military boot camp sargeant, and/or the voice of government control of the media. Blaming victims of mind control for being mind controlled and therefore being "willfully ignorant" is just another form of mind control used to discount the reality of mind control.

[Feb 07, 2018] I don't talk to parasites and pressitutes

Notable quotes:
"... You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically stating that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said just after the release of the dossier. The veracity has since tumbled as questions arose about the allegations and their sources. But, there is a Cabal that still hang their hopes on the "90%". ..."
"... Seriously, explain to me the difference between the two things. Trump may have sought out dirt on Hillary from Russia and Hillary may have sought out dirt on Trump from an former British spy. ..."
"... We will see what the other memo says but simply as speculation I think the chances are that Democrats probably would be better off cutting ties with Steele, GPS Fusion, Comey, Page, Ohr, Strzok, Lynch even and maybe more, than to parse out why this FISA warrant was not a bad idea. It really is never, ever too late to turn back, but the animus against Donald Trump is clouding a lot of otherwise clear thinking Democrats. "Yeah, that whole mess sure was a screw-up and now let's talk about how terrible Trump's immigration policies would be for the country." ..."
"... the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath." ..."
"... When is somebody going to read United states vs Leon that stands for the rule of law that if a cop (fbi) knowingly or recklessly includes facts in an application for a warrant that the cop knows are false or recklessly includes, then the warrant is quashed and and all evidence is suppressed ..."
"... This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The left is deliberately trying to steer discussion away from the elephant in the room -- the FBI under Obama was no longer neutral but was being used as a political tool to undermine the opposition. This is a serious threat to our democratic process and cannot be taken lightly. Jeff Sessions needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Nunes Memo allegations. Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and Christopher Wray all need to be suspended while the investigation is ongoing. ..."
"... The NYT and the [neo]liberal media in general have lost all their journalistic integrity in the way they've been covering up for all of Democrats' corruption and abuse of power the last two decades. The way they fawned over Obama was downright sickening. Watergate was billed as the greatest scandal ever because it was done by a Republican president. What Obama did not just with the 2016 election meddling but with covering for Clinton's Uranium One pay to play scheme was far, far worse. ..."
"... The people aren't as stupid as the liberal elites think we are. That's why the fake news media is losing their stranglehold on news as people turn to alternative news sources thanks to the internet. The Times can print whatever they want, they are only further discrediting themselves as a legitimate news source with each passing day. The delirious, foam at the mouth reader comments that they deemed fit to print just show how hysterical and out of touch the left have become. ..."
Feb 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Jay Dee February 6, 2018 at 12:22 pm

Some years ago, my father-in-law was pursued by the press after witnessing an armed robbery. His response? "I don't talk to parasites."
ArtR , says: February 6, 2018 at 12:24 pm
You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically stating that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said just after the release of the dossier. The veracity has since tumbled as questions arose about the allegations and their sources. But, there is a Cabal that still hang their hopes on the "90%".
Terence Kivlan , says: February 6, 2018 at 1:02 pm
NYT reporters have always been part of the [neo]liberal Democratic flea circus. They are just more open about it now.
MM , says: February 6, 2018 at 1:21 pm
ArtR: "You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically stating that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said."

Yeah, I caught that doozy over the weekend. Clift, a so-called journalist, also claimed that Steele and the dossier had been funded by the GOP, which is a false statement that's still widely circulated, for no good reason.

Katy Tur, another so-called journalist, was calling Nunes "treasonous" on par with Snowden before the memo release, and is now laughing about it after the fact. When the press acts like that, not in the public interest but in defense of government secrecy, you can bet something rotten is going on in the bureaucracy.

Add to that Senators Blumenthal and Booker claiming the release of this memo, and by extension the public's right to know, would constitute "obstruction of justice" and "treason", essentially repackaging claims by the intelligence agencies that the release would jeopardize national security. And again, this was all before the memo release.

Why so much fear-mongering and lying? It suggests there's something to hide. But that could describe Trump's behavior, too.

Donald (the left leaning one) , says: February 6, 2018 at 1:35 pm
"That you CAN'T combine the two speaks of a deeper rot. The opposition researcher was working with agents of the exact same country and they knew it."

This makes sense to me. I am and continue to be somewhat agnostic and bemused by this whole russiagate thing. Without defending Trump, who I just assume is corrupt and surrounded by corrupt people, it is more than a little hard to believe that Steele and the Clinton side was entirely innocent. On the one hand we are supposed to be scared to death of the mighty Russian propaganda machine and yet on the other hand people on the left don't stop and ask whether someone sent to Russia to gather dirt on Trump might have had contact, witting or not, with Russian intelligence. If they wanted to sow confusion, wouldn't they try to do it on both sides? Wouldn't they know what Steele was up to? It wasn't like anyone thought Trump had a good shot of winning, so why wouldn't they play both sides if they wanted to sow confusion?

Personally, I don't give a crap about any of this. Much of the outrage, I think, is being fueled by people who want a new Cold War with Russia. Russiagate, true or false, helps keep the all important fear and loathing of Russia on the front page.

Roman Reigns , says: February 6, 2018 at 1:36 pm
"The brilliant conservative mind at work.

One side collaborating with an adversary nation (Russia) that harms our national interests is a threat to national security.

The other side is hiring an opposition researcher.

The fact that you can combine the two and compare them speaks of deep the rot is."

Well, I'm not a conservative, so there's that. Second, Russia wasn't an adversary nation up until about two seconds ago when Democrats suddenly needed a scapegoat for Hillary's flame-out. Russia wasn't an adversary nation for nearly the entirety of 20th century while they were being run by a series of despots, but now they're an adversary nation. I think it was Obama who said, "The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back."

Seriously, explain to me the difference between the two things. Trump may have sought out dirt on Hillary from Russia and Hillary may have sought out dirt on Trump from an former British spy.

Eric377 , says: February 6, 2018 at 1:41 pm
We will see what the other memo says but simply as speculation I think the chances are that Democrats probably would be better off cutting ties with Steele, GPS Fusion, Comey, Page, Ohr, Strzok, Lynch even and maybe more, than to parse out why this FISA warrant was not a bad idea. It really is never, ever too late to turn back, but the animus against Donald Trump is clouding a lot of otherwise clear thinking Democrats. "Yeah, that whole mess sure was a screw-up and now let's talk about how terrible Trump's immigration policies would be for the country."
MikeJC , says: February 6, 2018 at 2:10 pm
The entire episode brings three possibilities.

1. All reporters, FBI agents, intel agents and congressional investigators -- Dem and GOP are so incompetent that they can't find "collusion" after nearly 20 months.

2. Trump is a master genius who has engineered the most successful cover-up in US history -- keeping all direct evidence of collusion hidden. or

3. Hillary hated Trump so much she paid for phony Russian dirt and then spread it to law enforcement and media to ensure that there would not a repeat of Obama snatching the Presidency away from her.

Since no evidence of collusion has shown up, #3 is most obvious. Of course, Democrats think "evidence" is "Joe lied about the perfectly legal act of drinking milk, so that means he must have stolen some milk." Actually, they don't care; any old lie will do.

balconesfault , says: February 6, 2018 at 3:02 pm
what the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath."

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

ADBrooks , says: February 6, 2018 at 3:25 pm
When is somebody going to read United states vs Leon that stands for the rule of law that if a cop (fbi) knowingly or recklessly includes facts in an application for a warrant that the cop knows are false or recklessly includes, then the warrant is quashed and and all evidence is suppressed
KD , says: February 6, 2018 at 3:40 pm
It really does seem like an alternate reality.

The FBI should not be conducting political surveillance on opposition candidates in national elections. If you want to talk about the real Putinization of America, that would be it.

Further, the fact that the FBI was conducting political surveillance based on unvetted opposition research which was so badly concocted even the media wouldn't run it for libel fears, combined with a drunk quip, that is really pathetic.

On the other hand, Machiavelli noted something to the effect that the ends sometimes justify the means, and its not clear that democracy dies in darkness, it dies in the kind of anti-constitutional partisanship we are witnessing today, with the media in the Amen corner.

b. , says: February 6, 2018 at 4:29 pm
"If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier, that in itself is a monumental scandal." If the FBI knew that the allegations of Steele's now-famous dossier remained unverified and used them anyway, that would constitute an abuse of power and an effort to manipulate the FISA court [..] what the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath."

Dodgy "intel" stovepiped through "dodgy intelligence?
FBI discredited for unconstitutional searches?
FISA secret court revealed as abuse of government power?

This whole affair must be a cunning liberal plot to turn Republicans against themselves

I will never understand what satisfaction any citizen could draw from the joys of being a "partisan" of either collection of half-wits that make for our schizoid duopoly of political "parties". Those "parties", thrown – always – at our expense, are a lot more educational and even entertaining if you have no dog in this fight, given the inbreeding on the two lousy, rapid dogs involved.

Tempest in a sh*thole.

The media fails , says: February 6, 2018 at 5:16 pm
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The left is deliberately trying to steer discussion away from the elephant in the room -- the FBI under Obama was no longer neutral but was being used as a political tool to undermine the opposition. This is a serious threat to our democratic process and cannot be taken lightly. Jeff Sessions needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Nunes Memo allegations. Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and Christopher Wray all need to be suspended while the investigation is ongoing.

The NYT and the [neo]liberal media in general have lost all their journalistic integrity in the way they've been covering up for all of Democrats' corruption and abuse of power the last two decades. The way they fawned over Obama was downright sickening. Watergate was billed as the greatest scandal ever because it was done by a Republican president. What Obama did not just with the 2016 election meddling but with covering for Clinton's Uranium One pay to play scheme was far, far worse.

The people aren't as stupid as the liberal elites think we are. That's why the fake news media is losing their stranglehold on news as people turn to alternative news sources thanks to the internet. The Times can print whatever they want, they are only further discrediting themselves as a legitimate news source with each passing day. The delirious, foam at the mouth reader comments that they deemed fit to print just show how hysterical and out of touch the left have become.

[Feb 06, 2018] The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. They can iether remove Putin, reparticate assets back to Russa or defect to the West and lose Russian assets by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia). ..."
"... They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect. But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos. Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West. ..."
"... When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is very stupid. ..."
"... "Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve. And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems." ..."
"... I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago, perhaps at the point Flynn was let go. ..."
"... A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions, finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist compliance with the mandate from Congress. ..."
"... If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. ..."
"... Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system" Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign . ..."
"... "I have come to the conclusion that the Empire is run by stupid, ignorant ideologues who live in a world totally detached from reality." ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Which west goals ? I do not want USA world supremacy. At present Putin is the only man preventing this. ..."
"... As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up – the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading them far and wide. ..."
"... http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events, etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss ..."
"... "I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge, so far only one country used nukes against humans. And it wasn't North Korea. ..."
"... That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely) Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions? ..."
"... The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people ..."
"... It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it will further place the EU and the US on a collision course. ..."
"... I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German – Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse. ..."
"... The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US, rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions. ..."
"... Group three. Ignore what he says. Consequences are secondary to neocons; rhetoric is primary. Instead, watch what he does (consequences). Qui bono ? http://www.oom2.com/f81-q-anon-archive-analytical-discussion ..."
Feb 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , February 2, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT

The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia).

They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect. But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos. Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West.

When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is very stupid.

Cyrano , February 2, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT
Every aspect of human existence evolves around one basic (mis?)calculation: Am I better than someone else? Every second of every day individuals, organizations, political parties, companies, countries, religions (God knows why) are trying to prove the above – that they are better than the next in their respective category.

There are only 4 possible outcomes here:

  1. You are better than someone and you can prove it. – ideal outcome
  2. You are better than someone, but you can't prove it. – It sucks
  3. You are no better than someone, but you have the means to manipulate the outcome into appearing like you are better. – Probably the most unfair outcome.
  4. You are no better than someone and if you try to prove that you are, you prove the opposite.

The current state of affairs between US and Russia is that US are aware that number 1 doesn't apply, they believe that they can pull off a number 3, but I think that the most realistic assessment is number 4.

Andrei Martyanov , Website February 2, 2018 at 7:55 pm GMT
@Cyrano

they believe that they can pull off a number 3,

Yet, for some reason it always ends in Number Two, if you know what I mean.

Chet Bradley , February 2, 2018 at 8:20 pm GMT
@peterAUS

The underlying assumption of your comment is that applying pressure to Russia works in achieving the West's goals. But everything we have seen from Russia in at least the last decade shows that pressuring Russia doesn't work. Ergo your conclusions are wrong. Maybe it's time you start learning something from history.

Cyrano , February 2, 2018 at 11:36 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

OK, I got it. You are talking about delusions. Thanks for expanding my list. That should actually be number 5.

Norumbega , February 3, 2018 at 12:37 am GMT

"Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve. And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems."

[....]

"And, you know, people don't realize Russia has been very, very heavily sanctioned. They were sanctioned at a very high level, and that took place very recently. It's now time to get back to healing a world that is shattered and broken. Those are very important things. And I feel that having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world and an asset to our country, not a liability."

[....]

"President Obama wanted to get along with Russia, but the chemistry wasn't there. Getting along with other nations is a good thing, not a bad thing -- believe me. It's a good thing, not a bad thing."

The above quotations are excerpted from President Trump's response to a Fox news reporter during a joint press conference with President Quang of Vietnam on November 11, 2017. They suggest a continuing intention on Trump's part to get along with Russia despite the very strong pressures to enforce the New Cold War policies, including from within his Administration. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-quang-vietnam-joint-press-conference-hanoi-vietnam/

I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago, perhaps at the point Flynn was let go.

A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions, finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist compliance with the mandate from Congress.

KenH , February 3, 2018 at 1:05 am GMT

If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. Putin is standing in the way of greater Israel and a Jewish world empire that is furthered by American military might. Despite his faults he is a strong nationalist leader who's preventing Jewish globalists from turning Russia into a global plantation like America and their economy into a revenue stream for Jewish robber barons like they have the American economy.

I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America is now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917 until Jews began losing control in the 50′s and 60′s. Now the red diaper babies and their progeny loom large over America.

KA , February 3, 2018 at 7:33 pm GMT

http://www.businessinsider.com/syrian-rebels-reportedly-shoot-down-russian-su-25-pilot-unkown-2018-2 reports -Syrian rebels shot down a Russian Su-25 in Idlib province on Saturday,

Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system" Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign .

The Alarmist , February 3, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT

"I have come to the conclusion that the Empire is run by stupid, ignorant ideologues who live in a world totally detached from reality."

Yeah, but the list is the product of a government dominated and staffed largely by hack lawyers.

renfro , February 4, 2018 at 6:06 am GMT

Interesting ..but I can see no reason for always claiming that the money laundering is done by the 'Russia State' instead of private individual actors .the only motivation I can see for the State doing it is to turn rubles into western dollars and English pounds .but since the dollar dominates in trade, for now anyway. the English pound isn't such a lure for Russia's holdings of foreign currencies.

UK promises to crack down on assets of corrupt oligarchs – The Times

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain will use new powers to seize the assets of foreign criminals and corrupt politicians, The Times newspaper reported on Saturday quoting the security minister. Investors from Russia, China and the Middle East have poured billions into London, buying everything from luxury properties to entire companies, but the provenance of some of those funds has been questioned by transparency campaigners. It is unclear how much money is laundered through Britain, but the National Crime Agency has said calculations of between 36 billion pounds ($50.83 billion) and 90 billion pounds ($127.08 billion) are "a significant underestimate".

Security minister Ben Wallace told The Times that the government would use powers regarding unexplained wealth to freeze and recover property if individuals cannot explain how they acquired assets over 50,000 pounds ($70,000).

What we know from the Laundromat exposé is that certainly there have been links to the [Russian] state," he was quoted as saying. "The government's view is that we know what they are up to and we are not going to let it happen any more."

renfro , February 4, 2018 at 6:47 am GMT
@KenH

I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America is now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917

I am fairly sure that those in Russia who need to know already know plenty about Jew/Isr led USA Russian policy ..they've been after Russia for a long time.

1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Zionist Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union

State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.

This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

Anonymous Disclaimer , February 4, 2018 at 7:28 am GMT
I've always appreciated your candid exposure of American hypocrisy and stupidity, Saker, especially as unfairly and dangerously directed at Russia. But explain to me why most Russian opinion columnists, such as yourself, have to make their pieces as long as a novel by Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Something to do with the R1a haplotype perhaps? Many long introns amidst the essential exons perhaps? Or, just an inability to stop when having a good time?
jilles dykstra , February 4, 2018 at 8:05 am GMT
@Chet Bradley

Which west goals ? I do not want USA world supremacy. At present Putin is the only man preventing this.

renfro , February 4, 2018 at 9:02 am GMT
The US congress is such a freaking circus of idiots, clowns, whores for Israel, crooks, perverts and incompetents I don't think I can stomach keeping up with their malfeasance much longer.

But I will leave this snippet -- -the 'list' and idea to sanction Russian individuals was the work of former Russian hating State Dept Amb to Poland, uber Jew Daniel Fried working in conjunction with uber Jew Sen Ben Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee.

That tells you all you need to know. ((They)) were delighted to seize on Hillary's Russian excuse for losing the election and may have even instigated it to Hillary.

It will be interesting to see if the oligarchs faced with the choice of Russia or Europe or US as a home for their billions ever meet with little boy Kushner who might guarantee them safe bank accounts in Israel for a fee of course lol.

Avery , February 4, 2018 at 1:21 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

{Two million German citizens died,}

Crocodile tears. ~15 million Soviet citizens were killed or murdered by Nazi invaders. Plus ~3 million Red Army POWs deliberately starved to death, or died to due deliberate neglect, withholding medical aid, etc by Nazi invaders. A total of ~10 million Red Army troops lost their lives to prevent the extermination of Slavic peoples by Nazi invaders.

DESERT FOX , February 4, 2018 at 2:08 pm GMT
The whole hate the Russians deal is a Zionist ploy as the Russians are defeating ISIS aka AL CIADA in Syria and since ISIS and all of its branches are a creation of the U.S. and ISRAEL and BRITAIN via the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 , the Zionists cannot accept defeat and are turning the U.S. against Russia .

If anyone doubts that Israel and the zionist neocons control the U.S. gov, just remember that ISRAEL and the deepstate did 911 and got away with it, that is control in spades.

headrick , February 4, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
The last week or so the left has been bombastically upset at Trump because he did not enact more sanctions against Russia, and were pleased at the action against the Russian Oligarchs though. – These people are always convinced that the government has the power to do things by fiat- take away guns, punish global warming skeptics, sanction politically incorrect speech – lets pass a law-. The right is not immune from this instinct either with drug wars .etc. This belief
that the direct application of force 180 degrees against the foe, never a thought to strategy or cause and effect or blowback or complex analysis, – brute force and ignorance- into the valley of death rode the 600. Those drunk with power grasp the reins and charge madly. The drunk are not great thinkers. Putin raises a glass to their return.
Michael Kenny , February 4, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT
As always, simplistic pro-Putin propaganda buried in a mass of details so as to bog people down. The centrepiece is at the end: sanctions. The basic argument is always "lift the sanctions" then some pretext or other is trotted out to justify that pre-ordained conclusion. In today's serving, the sanctions are useless and the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin. What is interesting though is that the author claims to see opposition to Putin within the elite but (needlwss to say!) "the people" are solidly behind Putin. Reading between the lines, that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite.
RobinG , February 4, 2018 at 4:42 pm GMT
@renfro

" ..weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions." Same strategy is operating in US now. Some allege Soros is promoting this, but he's not the only one. [#Resist was/is underwritten by MeetUp! CEO.] Can you give citations for your quotes about Nationalities Working Group? Thanks.

Den Lille Abe , February 4, 2018 at 4:47 pm GMT
It is getting rather tiresome, the "The Russians did it" meme. Whatever happens that contradicts US perceptions of reality , "The Russians did it". Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this. It has has been dis proven that Russia meddled in the French and German elections, and while the Brexit vote is inconclusive , we still have not been exposed to the smoking gun.

There is no doubt that the US MSM is trying to steam roll all objections to this stance, but proof, where is it? The bought ads on Fakebook is laughable at best, and the new Dutch source is another "Flat earther theory". Has general American IQ deteriorated so much in the span of a decade ? I doubt it.

Anon Disclaimer , February 4, 2018 at 5:12 pm GMT
Anon from TN
The author did not need so many words to state the obvious: the US shot itself in the foot again, and now it's going to start complaining that it hurts. Anyone familiar with human history knows that dying empires invariably make maladaptive moves that speed up their demise. This was the scenario with Roman, Spanish, Ottoman, British, and French Empires. Look on the bright side, though: the US Empire follows in the footsteps of the greatest.
FB , February 4, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

' that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite '

What disneyland character are you portraying ? I'm guessing Dopey from the Seven Dwarfs. US has zero ability to influence the trajectory of Russia which is straight up like the Russian rocket launches that take Nasa astronauts into space for the last seven years. US sanctions have only been a blessing to Russia

For one thing they have driven a wedge between EU and the US especially Germany which is a natural Russian ally. For another they are helping Putin to clean up the remaining rotten apples in the Russian billionaire class by forcing them to bring their offshore money home or get the hell out of Russia and have whatever they leave behind confiscated by the Russian people. I have noticed you here as a monkey with a serious Russia chip on his shoulder

I'll be checking back to see what you are spouting as soon the US Ponzi scheme economy starts collapsing. The only thing holding up this house of cards is the petrodollar which is already in the frying pan. Russia and China along with other emerging powers like Iran and the Brics are working round the clock to dismantle the present US-based world financial order. The Brics already exceed the G7 in total GDP. Enjoy your coming poverty

Anon Disclaimer , February 4, 2018 at 5:19 pm GMT
@Den Lille Abe

Anon from TN: The Europeans will never appreciate to what extent the thinking and behavior of Americans is determined by the view that "this is not my problem". They would also never understand or believe how parochial and uninformed the people in the US are. Then again, the Europeans have nothing to be proud of: while the US elites are at least open about their ulterior motives, the Europeans fell into a trap of anti-Russian sanctions (which hurt them a lot more than the US, BTW) by virtue of pure hypocrisy.

bluedog , February 4, 2018 at 5:20 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Sorry I don't have the tea leaves to read between the lines, but I was reading that a number of business leaders from the EU was just in the Crimea, and I rather doubt they were there for a vacation, sanctions are a double edged sword and it would seem the EU are feeling them as much if not more than Russia .

EugeneGur , February 4, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@Den Lille Abe

Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this.

Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized, unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse.

As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up – the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading them far and wide.

So, it I were you, I'd first question the collective European IQ, before laughing at the Americans. The European policy towards Russia for the past 25 years has been unnecessarily confrontational and generally extremely stupid. After all, the US is far away, but Europe is right next door to Russia. If push comes to shove, you'd be the first to get a kick in your tender behind. It happened before, remember? Not only your IQ seems to have deteriorated, even assuming it was ever high, but your memory as well.

renfro , February 4, 2018 at 6:26 pm GMT
@RobinG

Its from ..historycommons

http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events, etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss

Jake , February 4, 2018 at 6:56 pm GMT

"I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters.

Jake , February 4, 2018 at 6:58 pm GMT

@EugeneGur

"Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized, unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse."

That is funny because true.

renfro , February 4, 2018 at 7:09 pm GMT
@RobinG

Bottom line, destroy Russia has always been the Jews , (aided by some bought politicians and assorted psychopaths) and still is. You need to track them thru the decades to see how the US came to its Russia fear mongering. http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islamic_militancy_202708

Context of '1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'

[MORE]
Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, gathers a cadre of fiery young intellectuals around him, many of whom are working and associating with the magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965). Wohlstetter's group includes Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wohlstetter, himself a protege of the Machiavellian academic Leo Strauss, is often considered the "intellectual godfather" of modern neoconservatism. Formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, Wohlstetter wielded a powerful influence on the US's foreign policy during the heyday of the Cold War.

The recently formed neoconservatives, bound together by magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965), react with horror to the ascendancy of the "McGovern liberals" in the Democratic Party, and turn to conservative senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) for leadership. Jackson calls himself a "muscular Democrat"; others call him "the Senator from Boeing" for his strong support of the US defense industry.Jackson assembles a staff of bright, young, ideologically homogeneous staffers who will later become some of the most influential and powerful neoconservatives of their generation, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Abram Shulsky, and Paul Wolfowitz. Jackson's office -- Jackson's neoconservative disciples came of age either fighting two foreign dictators -- Stalin and/or Hitler -- or growing up with family members who fought against them. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41] Wolfowitz's father's family perished in the Holocaust; he will later say that what happened to European Jews during World War II "shaped a lot of my views." [New York Times, 4/22/2002] Feith will tell the New Yorker in 2005, "[My] family got wiped out by Hitler, and all this stuff about working things out -- well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn't make any sense." Most neoconservatives like Feith and Wolfowitz tend to look to military solutions as a first, not a last, resort. To them, compromise means appeasement, just as Britain's Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Stefan Halper, a White House and State Department official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, will say of the neoconservatives, "It is use force first and diplomacy down the line."
Former Trotskyites – On the other hand, many neoconservatives come to the movement from the hardline, socialist left, often from organizations that supported Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky (see Late 1930s – 1950s). Trotskyites accused Stalin of betraying the purity of the Communist vision as declaimed by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. "I can see psychologically why it would not be difficult for them to become [conservative] hard-liners," says Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes, himself a hardliner whose son, Daniel Pipes, will become an influential neoconservative. "It was in reaction to the betrayal." Many neoconservatives like Stephen Schwartz, a writer for the Weekly Standard, still consider themselves to be loyal disciples of Trotsky. Richard Perle is a Trotskyite socialist when he joins Jackson's staff, and will always practice what author Craig Unger calls "an insistent, uncompromising, hard-line Bolshevik style" of policy and politics. Like Trotsky, Unger writes, the neoconservatives pride themselves on being skilled bureaucratic infighters, and on trusting no one except a small cadre of like-minded believers. Disagreement is betrayal, and political struggles are always a matter of life and death. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41]
After George H. W. Bush becomes the head of the CIA (see November 4, 1975 and After), he decides to break with previous decisions and allow a coterie of neoconservative outsiders to pursue the allegations of Albert Wohlstetter that the CIA is seriously underestimating the threat the USSR poses to the US (see 1965),
The neocon team of "analysts" becomes known as "Team B," with "Team A" being the CIA's own analytical team. It is unprecedented to allow outsiders to have so much access to highly classified CIA intelligence as Bush is granting the Team B neocons, so the entire project is conducted in secret.
Former CIA deputy director Ray Cline says Team B had subverted the National Intelligence Estimate on the USSR by employing "a kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view." Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says that B's only purpose is to subvert detente and sabotage a new arms limitation treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993; Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57]
Although the entire "Team B" intelligence analysis experiment (see Early 1976, November 1976, and November 1976) is supposed to be classified and secret, the team's neoconservatives launch what author Craig Unger will call "a massive campaign to inflame fears of the red menace in both the general population and throughout the [foreign] policy community -- thanks to strategically placed leaks to the Boston Globe and later to the New York Times." Times reporter David Binder later says that Team B leader Richard Pipes is "jubilant" over "pok[ing] holes at the [CIA]'s analysis" of the Soviet threat. Team B member John Vogt calls the exercise "an opportunity to even up some scores with the CIA." [Unger, 2007, pp. 57]

In 1993, after reviewing the original Team B documents, Cahn will reflect on the effect of the B exercise: "For more than a third of a century, assertions of Soviet superiority created calls for the United States to 'rearm.' In the 1980s, the call was heeded so thoroughly that the United States embarked on a trillion-dollar defense buildup. As a result, the country neglected its schools, cities, roads and bridges, and health care system. From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing." [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 4/1993

polistra , February 4, 2018 at 7:46 pm GMT
Sanctions are almost always counterproductive. We should have learned this from Cuba, but we didn't. When US breaks connections with a country, we force the country to develop its own skills and products, or to do business with our enemies. Result: the sanctioned country gets stronger, our enemies get richer, and US loses business. Total loss for US, total gain for everyone else.

Justice.

bike-anarchist , February 4, 2018 at 7:54 pm GMT
@Cyrano

#1: I have to take a #2

bike-anarchist , February 4, 2018 at 8:01 pm GMT
@Jake

There already is the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast", known as Birobidzhan, in Eastern Siberia. It is much larger than the land mass of any configuration of the State of Israel, tons of fresh water, natural resources. And get this: they wouldn't have to behave like Nazis to benefit from a land ready for them.

Cyrano , February 4, 2018 at 8:02 pm GMT
@Avery

There is a monument on Mamayev Kurgan, called The motherland calls. Luckily, when the motherland called millions of Russians answered. The Russians not only like to answer the call of duty, but also the call of booty – as the Germans found out around 1945.

It's not like the Europeans haven't gone on a genocidal rampages before – Spanish and Anglo-Saxon massacres of native Americans comes to mind. The real genius of those monkeys – the Germans – is that they attempted to treat the Russians like they were American Indians. If anything, the Russians were too kind to those beasts.

bike-anarchist , February 4, 2018 at 8:19 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

Can Israel be trusted with nukes? They, like the U$A have exemptions from IAEA inspections. They have equal exclusiveness in their military doctrine. I recall an anon poster a couple weeks ago stating that Israel has positioned nukes in strategic locations, including continental U$A and Europe, influencing Israel-favourable decisions, explaining why Western countries make decisions that are NOT in their best interests.

I don't wish to believe in that scenario

Sergey Krieger , February 4, 2018 at 8:46 pm GMT
Well, Russia must not be baffled. After having so much baffling experience with partners being baffled is not a good thing especially after 2 consequitive Soviet and then Russia leaders basically gave to USA everything they wanted on a plate with blue stripe so to speak only to get baffled yet again by partners not giving an inch. This is zero sum game and relaxed attitude is not part of it. Every single opportunity must be used to undermine remaining pillars of USA might namely her currency status and international financial system which is built by as Sacker said uncle Shmuel for uncle Shmuel benefits. USA military is just an outgrowth which will collapse like sand cattle without massive cash infusions allowed only because those two pillars mentioned above still standing. Hoping that there will be some reasonable people in Washington with whom some detente is possible is dangerous illusion. There not going to be lasting detente between USA and Russia until USA is reduced to her natural state of regional northern American power with zero influence everywhere beyond Mexican and Canadian borders. Now I always wonder where indeed Putin is taking Russia. I am watching Russia tv and see sort of very ugly place which sole existence is to dumb down Russian people and destroy people morals and ethics. I wonder what kind of population and new generation of russians can grow watching this? I know there are still many people born and brought up in ussr to be immune to this garbage but what about young people? Where indeed Putin is taking Russia and does he need dumbed down American way population for this. Not to be forgotten is that people's strength is country strength. What is going on is quite simple. America is plainly hot bed of capitalism and capitalism is quite obviously in death throws. Exponential growth of debt around the world and continuous reduction of life standards and overall moral decay around the world is a proof of this and obviously Russia and other former socialist states did a very bad bet on capitalism. Results of the past 25 years are extremely disappointing and downright catastrophic for long term survival of the very people who adopted this dead end system which passed its prime long time ago and dying. Communism is not popular at the moment but I have no doubt it will come back because nothing in the past 25 years convinced me that capitalism is better.
Anon Disclaimer , February 4, 2018 at 9:06 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Anon from TN
Let me add a little vignette. In Stalingrad (now Volgograd), there are preserved ruins of one of only two buildings that remained semi-standing: Pavlov's house. Not only it was defended for 60 days against Wehrmacht (longer than France), Germans lost more solders there than they lost conquering France. That should explain to Europeans why Russians don't take Europe too seriously: they say that every 100 years or so the whole of Europe unites, makes war on Russia, gets beaten to pulp, and then licks its wounds for another century. There was Napoleon in the nineteenth century, there was Hitler in the twentieth century, there is NATO in the twenty first

jilles dykstra , February 4, 2018 at 9:18 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty

Was there no bravery on the German side ?After the Normandy invasion western generals expected the war to be over at Christmas, or even in September, when they tried to take the Dutch bridges, and failed miserably. It in my opinion is amazing how one country withstood GB, USSR and USA so long.

jilles dykstra , February 4, 2018 at 9:30 pm GMT
@Anon

Alas NATO seems to be planning a nuclear war. If this war comes, it will be the 'war that ends all wars', as Wilson said about WWI, because no human being will survive, as all bigger animals. Rats seem to have a chance.

Art , February 4, 2018 at 10:04 pm GMT
@Norumbega

A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list.

Have heard that they went to a Forbes list to get the sanction names. This looks very very bad – it makes us look ridicules. Congress doing foreign policy is wrong. Of course, this is Jew business – AIPAC doings. America for America – NOT – America for Israel. Think Peace -- Art

Anon Disclaimer , February 4, 2018 at 10:29 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

Anon from TN. Yes, rodents, insects, and simpler life forms will inherit the Earth. The elites, if they start that war, won't survive, either. Poor consolation for the rest of us, though.

annamaria , February 4, 2018 at 10:37 pm GMT
@peterAUS

"The Empire is simply, and logically, putting pressure on pro-Moscow Russian elites." – You need to re-read the article.

annamaria , February 4, 2018 at 10:40 pm GMT
@KA

Read the experts: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/02/httpsenwikipediaorgwikiflanking_maneuver.html

Ilyana_Rozumova , February 4, 2018 at 10:40 pm GMT
@bike-anarchist

Can Israel be trusted with nukes?

Definite answer is Yes! Israeli government are not nuts like Kim. Wherever Israel did put their nukes, the only reason is that the responsibility and cost of maintenance they did put on some other suckers.
Israel has nothing to fear. If there would be some concentrated and dangerous attack on Israel US air force would be there in the matter of hours. Maybe even Russians would help with their air force.
To attack Israel is out of question. Maybe some terrorist attack is an option, but that is difficult to prevent

annamaria , February 4, 2018 at 10:55 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Actually, it is your ziocon propaganda that is simplistic: -- " the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin." -- An honest cooperation between the US and Russian Federation would be the best solution for humanity at large. But this cooperation would be the worst outcome for the bloody "chosen" dreaming of Eretz Israel and world dominance, while they can't stop whining about "eternal victimhood."
Since 1999, four million human beings, including a multitude of children, died in the Middle East because of your bloody mythological "promised land" of Israel.

Seraphim , February 4, 2018 at 11:02 pm GMT
@Jake

Probably they won't have any choice. The more that it would be in the heart of the new Eurasian economic configuration. But they still want Ukraine and Crimea. That's why you hear so much talk about the Khazars.

annamaria , February 4, 2018 at 11:06 pm GMT
@renfro

"From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing."
And look at the corruption within the highest echelons of the US government and security apparatus -- the opportunists and ignoramuses have taken the upper hand. This is very convenient for Israel-firsters but deadly for the US. The hatred of ziocons towards Russia is boundless and irrational.

Anon Disclaimer , February 4, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

Anon from TN: To the best of my knowledge, so far only one country used nukes against humans. And it wasn't North Korea.

Twodees Partain , February 5, 2018 at 12:21 am GMT
@KenH

"If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. "

Ken, I think that The Saker is just baffled on their behalf.

Cyrano , February 5, 2018 at 12:47 am GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

Ever heard of existential threat, sport? WW1 and the Crimean war were not existential threats to Russia. The minute they turned into such, the outcome would have been different.

headrick , February 5, 2018 at 12:55 am GMT
Here is what sanctions do. I recently saw a story about a German farmer/dairy expert who
went to Russia and jump started a large network of dairy farms in Russia. Before sanctions, Russia thought the could buy their dairy from Europe, but after the sanctions, Russian knew they needed domestic suppliers, and lo an behold, this German (Joint Russian German citizen actually and friend of Putin) was phonemically successful and now there is a robust local Dairy Industry in Russia. Now the people who are howling are the European Farmers who used to have a healthy export market for their products.
Astuteobservor II , February 5, 2018 at 1:17 am GMT
@Beckow

well, if shamir is right and the looted accounts of the old money is equal to 1 trillion usd. that is alot of money for the people in charge to not see green and only green. doubt long term consequences/effects would ever factor into the decision.

Ivan , February 5, 2018 at 1:54 am GMT

That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely) Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions?

The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people

Miro23 , February 5, 2018 at 3:20 am GMT

Then look a step further and forget about the US for a second: Russia is trying hard to work with the Europeans on many join projects. What do you think the creation of such a list will have on joint ventures between EU and Russian businessmen? I predict two things:

1. It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it will further place the EU and the US on a collision course.

2. I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German – Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse.

The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US, rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions.

Anon 101 , February 5, 2018 at 3:45 am GMT
@Jake

Jake is a troll.

There is no subject that he doesn't derail by going on about Wasps his intent is to "divide and conquer" the building momentum against neocon foreign policy.

Talks-to-Cats , February 5, 2018 at 5:11 am GMT
Group three. Ignore what he says. Consequences are secondary to neocons; rhetoric is primary. Instead, watch what he does (consequences). Qui bono ? http://www.oom2.com/f81-q-anon-archive-analytical-discussion
Anti_republocrat , February 5, 2018 at 5:36 am GMT
@peterAUS

Selecting wealthy individuals at random regardless of political beliefs indeed makes no sense at all. Perhaps if you had read the rest of the article you would understand why. Then again, swine don't typically understand the value of pearls.

[Feb 06, 2018] The War That Never Ends (for the U.S. Military High Command), by Danny Sjursen - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, ..."
"... In his own work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national security interest of the United States. ..."
"... A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another "go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war." ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ..."
"... Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times ..."
"... On Strategy ..."
"... Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War. They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in 1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in 1984 . Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in 1971 , while Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his commission in 1976 . ..."
"... Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only lead to twenty-first-century disasters ..."
"... Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70% of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new "mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize" Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones , planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on farce. ..."
"... The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting. None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who flew 269 combat missions over that country) noted in the recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side." ..."
"... Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment -- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ." ..."
"... Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers again. ..."
"... "America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think? ..."
"... The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense. For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war. ..."
"... Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful. ..."
"... The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless war. ..."
"... The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military. ..."
"... The warhawk imperialists – some of them Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British Empire 2.0. ..."
"... No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their dependents, say. ..."
"... The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption. ..."
"... Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging, insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic. ..."
"... Wars fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there. Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep ask. ..."
"... According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. ..."
"... If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by refusing to participate. ..."
"... Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II. This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War -- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to the American republic. ..."
"... Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media and the university and private research establishments. ..."
"... That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the same. ..."
Feb 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Vietnam: it's always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.

A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command. And almost half a century later, they're still losing it and blaming others for doing so.

Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the previous century and perhaps it's well that they did. The United States really had no business intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides of that country's artificial border. In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans in those years as the Vietcong.

More than two decades of involvement and, at the war's peak, half a million American troops never altered the basic weakness of the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon. Despite millions of Asian deaths and 58,000 American ones, South Vietnam's military could not, in the end, hold the line without American support and finally collapsed under the weight of a conventional North Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.

There's just one thing. Though a majority of historians (known in academia as the "orthodox" school) subscribe to the basic contours of the above narrative, the vast majority of senior American military officers do not. Instead, they're still refighting the Vietnam War to a far cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.

The Big Re-Write

In 1986, future general, Iraq-Afghan War commander, and CIA director David Petraeus penned an article for the military journal Parameters that summarized his Princeton doctoral dissertation on the Vietnam War. It was a piece commensurate with then-Major Petraeus's impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war. Though he did observe that Vietnam had "cost the military dearly" and that "the frustrations of Vietnam are deeply etched in the minds of those who lead the services," his real fear was that the war had left the military unprepared to wage what were then called "low-intensity conflicts" and are now known as counterinsurgencies. His takeaway: what the country needed wasn't less Vietnams but better-fought ones. The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics, and doctrine to win such wars.

Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very conclusions to win the war on terror. The names of some of them -- H.R. McMaster and James Mattis, for instance -- should ring a bell or two these days. In Iraq and later in Afghanistan, Petraeus and his acolytes would get their chance to translate theory into practice. Americans -- and much of the rest of the planet -- still live with the results.

Like Petraeus, an entire generation of senior military leaders, commissioned in the years after the Vietnam War and now atop the defense behemoth, remain fixated on that ancient conflict. After all these decades, such "thinking" generals and "soldier-scholars" continue to draw all the wrong lessons from what, thanks in part to them, has now become America's second longest war.

Rival Schools

Historian Gary Hess identifies two main schools of revisionist thinking.

Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in Vietnam.

The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century. Senior commanders, some now serving in key national security positions, fixated on Vietnam, have translated that conflict's supposed lessons into what now passes for military strategy in Washington. The result has been an ever-expanding war on terror campaign waged ceaselessly from South Asia to West Africa, which has essentially turned out to be perpetual war based on the can-do belief that counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions should have worked in Vietnam and can work now.

The Go-Big Option

The leading voice of the Clausewitzian school was U.S. Army Colonel and Korean War/Vietnam War vet Harry Summers, whose 1982 book, On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, became an instant classic within the military. It's easy enough to understand why. Summers argued that civilian policymakers -- not the military rank-and-file -- had lost the war by focusing hopelessly on the insurgency in South Vietnam rather than on the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. More troops, more aggressiveness, even full-scale invasions of communist safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, would have led to victory.

Summers had a deep emotional investment in his topic. Later , he would argue that the source of post-war pessimistic analyses of the conflict lay in "draft dodgers and war evaders still [struggling] with their consciences." In his own work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national security interest of the United States.

Perhaps he would have done well to reconsider a famous post-war encounter he had with a North Vietnamese officer, a Colonel Tu, whom he assured that "you know you never beat us on the battlefield." "That may be so," replied his former enemy, "but it is also irrelevant."

Whatever its limitations, his work remains influential in military circles to this day. (I was assigned the book as a West Point cadet!)

A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty . He argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were derelict in failing to give President Lyndon Johnson an honest appraisal of what it would take to win, which meant that "the nation went to war without the benefit of effective military advice." He concluded that the war was lost not in the field or by the media or even on antiwar college campuses, but in Washington, D.C., through a failure of nerve by the Pentagon's generals, which led civilian officials to opt for a deficient strategy.

McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another "go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war."

COIN: A Small (Forever) War

Another Vietnam veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, fired the opening salvo for the hearts-and-minders. In The Army and Vietnam , published in 1986, he argued that the NLF, not the North Vietnamese Army, was the enemy's chief center of gravity and that the American military's failure to emphasize counterinsurgency principles over conventional concepts of war sealed its fate. While such arguments were, in reality, no more impressive than those of the Clausewitzians, they have remained popular with military audiences, as historian Dale Andrade points out , because they offer a "simple explanation for the defeat in Vietnam."

Krepinevich would write an influential 2005 Foreign Affairs piece , "How to Win in Iraq," in which he applied his Vietnam conclusions to a new strategy of prolonged counterinsurgency in the Middle East, quickly winning over the New York Times 's resident conservative columnist, David Brooks, and generating "discussion in the Pentagon, CIA, American Embassy in Baghdad, and the office of the vice president."

In 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam . Sorley boldly asserted that, by the spring of 1970, "the fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S. commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor, General Creighton Abrams -- Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have been) a war winner.

Critics noted that Sorley overemphasized the marginal differences between the two generals' strategies and produced a remarkably counterfactual work. It didn't matter, however. By 2005, just as the situation in Iraq, a country then locked in a sectarian civil war amid an American occupation, went from bad to worse, Sorley's book found its way into the hands of the head of U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, and State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. By then, according to the Washington Post 's David Ignatius, it could also "be found on the bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad."

Another influential hearts-and-minds devotee was Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl. (He even made it onto The Daily Show with Jon Stewart .) His Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam followed Krepinevich in claiming that "if [Creighton] Abrams had gotten the call to lead the American effort at the start of the war, America might very well have won it." In 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker "so liked [Nagl's] book that he made it required reading for all four-star generals," while the Iraq War commander of that moment, General George Casey, gave Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a copy during a visit to Baghdad.

David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times -reviewed ) military field manual for counterinsurgency since Vietnam, must also be considered among the pantheon of hearts-and-minders. Nagl wrote a foreword for their manual, while Krepinevich provided a glowing back-cover endorsement .

Such revisionist interpretations would prove tragic in Iraq and Afghanistan, once they had filtered down to the entire officer corps.

Reading All the Wrong Books

In 2009, when former West Point history professor Colonel Gregory Daddis was deployed to Iraq as the command historian for the Multinational Corps -- the military's primary tactical headquarters -- he noted that corps commander Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby had assigned a professional reading list to his principal subordinates. To his disappointment, Daddis also discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley's A Better War . This should have surprised no one, since his argument -- that American soldiers in Vietnam were denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors -- was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the military's fault!

Officers have long distributed professional reading lists for subordinates, intellectual guideposts to the complex challenges ahead. Indeed, there's much to be admired in the concept, but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The generals have been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.

Just after 9/11, for instance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers -- who spoke at my West Point graduation -- included Summers's On Strategy on his list. A few years later, then-Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker added McMaster's Dereliction of Duty . The trend continues today. Marine Corps Commandant Robert Neller has kept McMaster and added Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (he of the illegal bombing of both Laos and Cambodia and war criminal fame). Current Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley kept Kissinger and added good old Lewis Sorley. To top it all off, Secretary of Defense Mattis has included yet another Kissinger book and, in a different list , Krepinevich's The Army and Vietnam .

Just as important as which books made the lists is what's missing from them: none of these senior commanders include newer scholarship , novels , or journalistic accounts which might raise thorny, uncomfortable questions about whether the Vietnam War was winnable, necessary, or advisable, or incorporate local voices that might highlight the limits of American influence and power.

Serving in the Shadow of Vietnam

Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War. They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in 1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in 1984 . Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in 1971 , while Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his commission in 1976 .

In other words, the generation of officers now overseeing the still-spreading war on terror entered military service at the end of or after the tragic war in Southeast Asia. That meant they narrowly escaped combat duty in the bloodiest American conflict since World War II and so the professional credibility that went with it. They were mentored and taught by academy tactical officers, ROTC instructors, and commanders who had cut their teeth on that conflict. Vietnam literally dominated the discourse of their era -- and it's never ended.

Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only lead to twenty-first-century disasters .

From Vietnam to the War on Terror to Generational War

All of this misremembering, all of those Vietnam "lessons" inform the U.S. military's ongoing "surges" and "advise-and-assist" approaches to its wars in the Greater Middle East and Africa. Representatives of both Vietnam revisionist schools now guide the development of the Trump administration's version of global strategy. President Trump's in-house Clausewitzians clamor for -- and receive -- ever more delegated authority to do their damnedest and what retired General (and Vietnam vet) Edward Meyer called for back in 1983: "a freer hand in waging war than they had in Vietnam." In other words, more bombs, more troops, and carte blanche to escalate such conflicts to their hearts' content.

Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70% of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new "mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize" Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones , planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on farce.

The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting. None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who flew 269 combat missions over that country) noted in the recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side."

Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment -- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ." Eerily enough, to cite a Vietnam-era precedent, General Creighton Abrams predicted something similar. speaking to the White House as the war in Southeast Asia was winding down. Even as President Richard Nixon slowly withdrew U.S. forces, handing over their duties to the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) -- a process known then as "Vietnamization" -- the general warned that, despite ARVN improvements, continued U.S. support "would be required indefinitely to maintain an effective force." Vietnam, too, had its "generational" side (until, of course, it didn't).

It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the wrong books.

In 1986, General Petraeus ended his influential Parameters article with a quote from historian George Herring: "Each historical situation is unique and the use of analogy is at best misleading, at worst, dangerous." When it comes to Vietnam and a cohort of officers shaped in its shadow (and even now convinced it could have been won), "dangerous" hardly describes the results. They've helped bring us generational war and, for today's young soldiers, ceaseless tragedy.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet and check out his new podcast Fortress on a Hill .

[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

The Alarmist , January 29, 2018 at 9:35 am GMT

The book that needs to be written is the one that explores the question, "Does this war need to be fought by us?"

The guys running the show now were mid-grade officers when I served in the '80s. They know we already were waging a war on terror, but it was a quiet one, e.g "low-intensity conflict," the kind that doesn't pump up budgets or put lots of ribbons and badges on the chests of more than a few of them, much less punch the ticket for promotion.

The problem here is one of governance: Civilians who should be reigning in and questioning the military leadership (including the senior civilian leadership at DoD and apparently State) when it wants to take us on yet another foreign adventure seem instead to be be captive to them, because the spoils of war accrue to their benefit via procurement in their districts.

Vietnam and the GWOT are merely symptoms of a bigger problem.

The Alarmist , January 29, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

BTW, re Vietnam: Vietnam went through its Communist phase, but in a rather short time came back to pseudo-capitalism, much like China, so aside from nearly 60k US troops and a few million Viets killed and 20 years of lost time, what did we gain from fighting there?

America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the other way around.

Anon Disclaimer , January 29, 2018 at 1:33 pm GMT
Didn't US realize that it can win any war with bribes and trade?

Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers again.

And Vietnam even has homo parades because it comes with more gibs and bribes.

US won. It just spread the money around.

Carlton Meyer , Website January 29, 2018 at 2:22 pm GMT
They established a myth that we almost won in Vietnam but the politicians wouldn't let us finish the job, claiming we never lost a battle in Vietnam. That is false, so I posted a list of 104 "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War" that squashed this myth.

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

Carlton Meyer , Website January 30, 2018 at 5:39 am GMT
The entire conflict can be understood in this two minute video clip:
Grandpa Charlie , January 30, 2018 at 6:39 am GMT
A great article by Sjursen, with major implications for what's happening now, and several excellent comments. Thank you.
dearieme , January 30, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

"America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think?

Sandmich , January 30, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Thanks for that link. I agree, whitewashing those tragedies is a grave disservice to our soldiers who had to fight in those conditions (how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes if we can't even come to terms with what we did wrong?).

Sean , January 30, 2018 at 9:54 pm GMT
No the JCS initially said SE Asia was strategically a backwater and not worth the concentrating of America's limited resources. But military high command were operating within longstanding army protocols of subordinating the military to civilian policymakers. It was the CIA's job to say whether the war could be won and they were always skeptical.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/vietnam.html

That skepticism was not what any politician wanted to hear so they listened to a civilian adviser.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/David-Milne-13964/americas-rasputin/

America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War makes clear who was responsible for pressing for escalation and bombing in Vietnam, who was the optimist, and who continued to insisted after it had finished that the war had stabilized a domino.

CK , January 30, 2018 at 9:55 pm GMT
If one's fundamental image of the world is as a place full of Quislings, McCains and assorted dual nationals; then it follows that one will be militarily a Coindinista. If only third world citizens were like American pols and stayed bought, but they aren't and they don't. If one's fundamental image is that it is a world full of nationalists, patriots and Churchills: then the bomb them back to non-existence; then it follows that one is a Summer's soldier.

Unfortunately, if one wishes to debate other nuanced alternatives to this dichotomy; the enemy gets to shoot first. A policeman walks a beat in his city because he is paid to do it, the "world's indispensable policeman" is unnecessary to the rest of the world but inevitable to himself.

George Taylor , January 31, 2018 at 12:49 am GMT
@The Alarmist

America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the other way around.

Because we are here to help the Vietnamese because inside every go*k is an American trying to get out

anon Disclaimer , February 2, 2018 at 5:17 am GMT
The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense. For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war.
WorkingClass , February 2, 2018 at 6:26 am GMT
Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the same.
Singh , February 3, 2018 at 4:43 pm GMT
It's also weird that the idea of Vietnam War as a missionary conflict is never discussed. The colonial Vietnam & later South Vietnam government gave preference to christians in governmental positions, bureaucracy & had a monopoly on education. The prevailing narrative in the west, is that somehow christianity is better & that people flock to it due to this, just like their ancestors did. Mosmaiorum.org/persecution_list.html

For example, the anti Buddhist discriminatory laws in Korea are never discussed, neither is the flooding of Japan with bibles post ww2. In the present age you have missionaries following closely behind the USA army & organizations like the US council on religious freedom being headed by missionaries sic. soul vultures.

From that pov, if white nationalists cannot control the predatory instincts of 'their' people nor disavow them by becoming Pagan; then, they deserve their fate & should expect no support from outsiders. As others have remarked, tariffs & protectionism help accrue capital as do socially conservative views. The pushing of free trade & social liberalism on 2nd/3rd world countries is akin to kicking the ladder. It's probably in everyone's interest for the Protestant west to collapse under Afro-Islamic demographic pressure so the great clean up can begin. Tldr yes state power leads to liberalism & liberal views but, if you view that as the legacy of your people, fuck your people.

EliteCommInc. , February 5, 2018 at 6:04 am GMT
Well Major,

we are deeply at odds. We did not lose the Vietnam conflict. I am confident that billions of dollars have been spent drilling that myth into the minds of well everyone. I remember being a young poli-sci student in KS. And as I listened to the lecture on Vietnam, did the reading my conclusion was so distant from his as to cause me no small amount of turmoil. The contention that we lost Vietnam is so counter to the data -- it makes the Twilight Zone look like Gilligan's Island, the twists on reality are directionless -- but conclude we lost, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I have another theory, the reason that Vietnam remains etched in the psyche is because the analysis was political as opposed to what actually occurred. This kind of hyperventilated self flagellating recriminations will distort truth. Perception over reality -- then becomes self fulling history.
_________________

But to the point. The US has lost two wars: The war of 1812 and in my view, the Iraq conflict -- no direct fault of those on the ground doing the fighting. And we may lose the Afghanistan gambit. It's a loss because it fell apart during our occupation. The guerrilla warfare (asymmetrics) was not the issues for that failure. The failure was in

1. unjustifiable cause
2. poor implementation
3. under resourced
4. an inability to maintain order among communities -- (1-3)
5. and just a lot of bad decisions

Trying compare Vietnam to Iraq is like trying compare a stone to water in similarity. You might be able to some generic references and very tiny specifics, but overall: the environment politically and strategically, just never mesh. We didn't invade Vietnam. They had a functioning government. There were clear lines of who was who based on borders (I am not ignoring the insurgency -- Vietcong, etc.

It was the cold war and unlike Iraq there were not six varying countries throwing a myriad of combatants into the fray with varying agendas and varying religious convictions. Even the physical environment demanded a different strategy, insurgents or no insurgents.

One has to plan for insurgent warfare as invading any country is bound to have those who get the best defense is one of stealth when your foe is as large a target as the US was in Iraq. But for all of the complaints about Counter-Insurgency the one that no one seems willing to state is the simplest. Don't invade countries for which there is no clean or clear motive to do so. It's that simple. There was never a need to invade Iraq, if anything we should have readjusted our dynamic and began a process of easing sanctions for their aide in countering terrorism.

There was no reason to invade Afghanistan -- even to distribute more bikinis and advance killing children in the womb. We wanted twenty guys and instead we stirred a hornet's nest . . . ok well, more than one.

Vietnam really was an act of selflessness, we wanted to shore up a small republic seeking a different course to communism. It bolstered our own ideas against the grand schema of the Soviet Union, rightly or wrongly. Now you are not the only one who has a gripe with counterinsurgency.

And I think it's a debate/discussion worth having, and while it may be useful to examine COIN as to Vietnam strategically -- I think it can be done minus the incorrect and yet incessant sack cloth and ashes built on mountains of liberal psychological faux trauma as if the trauma of war is somehow unique to Vietnam,. It is not. As you know war is a nasty filthy business, best left alone. But on occasion one gets pushed into a fight as did S. Vietnam and when that screw is turned -- well history is replete of the consequences, the waste, the blood, the brokenness . . . The tragedy of war does not mean one loses a war.

Kweli , February 5, 2018 at 6:17 am GMT
@Anon

How true! If only the US had recognized the power of man's baser instincts and did what the US does best -- continue selling its culture of consumerism and hedonism, Vietnam would have arrived at the point much sooner and with virtually no loss of life.

Thomm , February 5, 2018 at 7:32 am GMT
Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful.

I mean, the Korean war started just 5 years after WW2 ended. They could barely wait for a new crop of boys to turn 18 and become cannon fodder. 50,000 in Korea right after the 300,000 in WW2.

When casualties became politically incorrect (after VietNam), the focus shifted towards lengthy 'nation building', that was not meant to succeed, but just to cost a lot for a long time. In theory, the Iraq War could have worked, IF the true objective was the installation of a moderate regime in Iraq, coupled with no extended US occupation. But that was not the true objective after all, so it did not work.

Greg Bacon , Website February 5, 2018 at 12:08 pm GMT
The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless war.

Get rid of the draft and there will be no protests hell raised back home by people of draft age–and their families and friends–who don't want to get drafted to fight wars so colonels can become generals; Wall Street can make a killing on the killing and so the Pentagon can try out its new 'gee-whiz' weapons in the field on actual people.

The next biggest lesson was that the media must be tamed and brought under control with embedding, so they'll push the Pentagon's and Wall Street message of duty, honor, Mom and apple pie onto gullible Americans, who now damn near get orgasmic when they see a multi-billion dollar killing machine–the B-2–fly over the upcoming gladiator battle in the newest billion dollar coliseum and go into the State-mandated 'Two Minutes Hate' whenever they see or hear the word Muslim or Islam.

For the record, I did my time in the US Army with the 82nd Airborne.

Wyatt Pendleton , Website February 5, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
So America worships Ares/Mars and doesn't expect the god of War to want to eat them too? There shall be wars and rumors of wars .I so look forward to watching this love of war spread itself from sea to shining sea.
n230099 , February 5, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT
Until the young wise up and realize that the military operations in other countries have nothing to do with the freedoms we have here and that they're being used as fodder for the investments that the MIC has in the companies that make the tools of war, we will keep having this nonsense. The kids need to wise up. The government has at its disposal all it needs to 'win' if it wants to. But if you 'win' , the sales and manufacturing of the goodies is curtailed. They'd rather send the kids into the meat grinder all pumped up thinking they're 'preserving freedom' LOL!
augusto , Website February 5, 2018 at 1:25 pm GMT
@CK

Nice, thank U. I´d never before had figured out, never outlined such a precise conceptual sight of the two still remaining American mindsets on HOW to win.
Yes, cause for them Amerika must obviously must always win. So there are two viewpoints, that in plain clear English we citizens of the shitholin´ countries wherever -- express as follows:

augusto , Website February 5, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
@Singh

Yes, you say tariffs and proteccionism help accrue capital.

Have you got any objection against a large, populous but still poor country (like Nigeria, Indonesia, India or Brazil) sticking to higher (though not sky high) tariffs and protectionism to raise their production, their income and their living standards?

That was PRECISELY HOW the US, Uk, Germany and the Meiji era Japan, not to mention China from 1949 to Chu enLai) acted and because of it rose the heights of the present status and well being societies.

Yes, you naive repeater, let´s us first protect ourselves from the globalist wolves and THEN, we can sit down and talk but from a firm solid position, not the other way round. cut the frack! We southern people are fed up with that northern hemispheric sales talk – it ´s so convenient to you – but the web exists and times change.

another fred , February 5, 2018 at 2:18 pm GMT

It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the wrong books.

It's not just the generals. The whole idea of the state is to control the uncontrollable in order to continue "growing". That's why we conducted Vietnam as we did and why we conduct operations as we do all over the world. Rather than Total War that produces winners and losers we are trying to keep a lid on behavioral sinks and modify behavior so that economic "growth" can continue.

I am not advocating Total War, but I am predicting that horrible war is coming.

How many dead men will it take
To build a dike that will not break?

DESERT FOX , February 5, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT
The Zionists have been the root cause of every war that America has been in since WWI and right on through the wars in the Mideast and the wars in the Mideast were perpetrated by the Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state attack on 911.

America is under Zionist control and if anyone doubts this, just remember Israel did the attack on 911 and got away with and every thinking American knows that Zionist Israel did the attack which killed 3000 Americans, that is control.

Don Bacon , Website February 5, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
. . .supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy

Actually the US created the "Republic of Vietnam" within Vietnam, which was rather unusual, and then fought Vietnam. The US grabbed a Christian out of a New Jersey seminary (Ngo Dinh Diem) to run the Buddhist "country," that didn't help. More recently the US has overthrown governments (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then fought the natives. Whatever, it doesn't work. The citizens (AKA dissidents, insurgents, terrorists, etc.) so effected don't want US troops in their countries, and who can blame them.

Anonymous Disclaimer , February 5, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
Why do credulous Americans read anti-war books written by war criminals? Only brainwashed people support the troops. Most Americans hated soldiers after Vietnam. They had seen soldiers raping wives and daughters, burning houses and huts and crops and wiping out entire villages. They knew that men who agree to kill for a paycheck do other bad things like raping and looting and then writing books about it later.

The cons put a stop to all those "incorrect" ideas American slaves had developed by ramping up the propaganda in the 1980s. Movies kicked in and "learned" the zombies about the wonderfulness of war and killing and how American soldiers kill with love in their hearts and the tragedy of the boy baby killers left behind – probably by "communists in the US Government."

jacques sheete , February 5, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT

The United States really had no business intervening

That's a, maybe "the," key concept. The US has always had enough internal problems of its own to deal with and it should always have tended to its own interest first. Damned know-it-all, brainless busybodies!

jacques sheete , February 5, 2018 at 3:08 pm GMT
@n230099

The kids need to wise up.

I suspect most of them would wise up if their elders did so first, and would teach 'em. One of the most annoying sights to me is to see some ancient fart wearing some sign that he's a vet. Even though I was once a sucker too, I always make it a point to remind them that we had no business in whatever war they happen to be glorifying and still wallowing in. How old does one have to be to get a clue?

Anonymous Disclaimer , February 5, 2018 at 3:31 pm GMT
Nothing quite says freedom like heavily armed soldiers on the streets demanding papers. Soon the US will have the same situation, with the "freedom loving" Americans willingly surrendering all their freedoms for "safety." Today the US government spies on everyone's communications, conducts over 80,000 SWAT raids a year, locks over 2 million people in actual slavery, and lets the cops execute people on the street. Nothing quite says Freedom when cops can execute poor people without any repercussions. Nothing quite says Freedom when opiate casualties in one year exceed the American total in Vietnam. Nothing quite says zombie when Americans can't see the war that is being waged on them right now.
Anonymous Disclaimer , February 5, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

Is that true? The Military simply harvested the poors out of the hills, the South and other rural areas the same way they would have drafted 'em. All the kids respond once the Government offers them a way out of potential starvation and hopeless poverty. That's just a better way to draft people, although they won't call it that.

Anonymous Disclaimer , February 5, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military.
Jake , February 5, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT
"The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century."

Apparently it is not close to clear. The warhawk imperialists – some of them Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British Empire 2.0.

Jake , February 5, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
@George Taylor

"Because we are here to help the Vietnamese because inside every go*k is an American trying to get out." Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'Middle Easterners' and 'gook' with 'Arab' or 'Moslem,' and you have the Neocon position. Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'the world' and replace 'gook' with 'dark skinned non-Christian' and place the word "liberal' before 'American,' and you have the Liberal/Leftist position.

anonymous Disclaimer , February 5, 2018 at 4:25 pm GMT
As a youth during that time it seemed like a strange idea that they were pushing. How could Vietnamese be invading Vietnam? They already live there. The Americans had to travel thousands of miles to prevent this. Years later I realize my youthful intuition was right; Vietnamese can't invade Vietnam. This North-South dichotomy was just a made up propaganda tool. The South was an artificial concoction set up by the West to divide someone else's country. This question of how could we have won is absurd nonsense. What would 'winning' have looked like? The South would just have been a multi-billion millstone around our neck.
skrik , February 5, 2018 at 4:42 pm GMT

The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones, planes, and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on farce.

No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their dependents, say.

[*] The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption.

a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches

add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies

=====

It's a lot, and here I point for emphasis to all the citizens of the two named entities; silence is acquiescence. Take a look at the result, not 'just' in Afghanistan but Libya, Syria etc., the WC7in5 [fortunately not yet Iran]; wherever the US/Zs deploy their 'hammers.'

In the fewest words: The US/Zs including their 'ordinary people' are all true monsters, with the only exception being the actively objecting few.

Not so BTW, from the above [but not only] I conclude that there can be no 'god' – for surely, any such would strike all the US/Z villains down.

Again a 'special case' for emphasis, the intellectuals and academics who really should know better but where again, silence is acquiescence.

*Guilty, your honour; may they all hang by the neck until dead!* rgds

Anonymous Disclaimer , February 5, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
American sheep can't see war even though they are in one. What better weapon than to have a group of writers spreading disinformation and colorful propaganda that revolves around discrediting the other propaganda with falsehoods and romanticization of the war that came before. Let's have yet another debate about the thing that happened half a century ago because driving the flock in circles gets them no where closer to resistance.

Meanwhile the real war. If the financial crisis wasn't a terrorist attack because the press never told you, what will you believe? If more men and women die in one year because of opiates than in the entire Vietnam effort, will the real owners tell you in their newspapers that they do it because they want to win?

Alden , February 5, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
@n230099

I think the kids are more pumped up with college tuition, VA health , a chance to learn a civilian applicable skill , citizenship and something to do other than competing with illegal Indios for low wages.

nsa , February 5, 2018 at 6:19 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging, insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic.

anarchyst , February 5, 2018 at 6:36 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

The Vietnam war was not a "civil-war" but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese communists, who were not amenable to letting people decide for themselves what political system they chose to live under. They wanted "the whole pie". The South Vietnamese and American military fought courageously, with one hand tied behind their backs, as they were not permitted to attack the supply lines, logistics and staging areas of the North Vietnamese communists. The American news media played a large part in the sympathetic attitudes they had towards the communists, taking every chance to denigrate American and South Vietnamese troops, a prime example was communist sympathizer Walter Cronkite reporting that the 1968 "Tet offensive" was a "major loss" for Americans and south Vietnamese, despite it being a total slaughter of North Vietnamese communists and the Viet Cong. In fact, the Viet Cong operating in the South were almost all totally decimated.

Yes, the final result of the Vietnam war was communist control, BUT, it was not due to the efforts of South Vietnamese and American troops. The Vietnamese "boat people" who risked life and limb to escape that communist "paradise" have a totally different story to tell, but which had been rarely reported. Ken Burns is a communist sympathizer whose "documentary" on the Vietnam war was so one-sided, even the communists admitted that his whole premise on the Vietnam war was one-sided and false. Communist sympathizer Ken Burns inadvertently "let it slip" that "re-education" by the communists was not a "six month deal" (as he claimed) in which those in positions of power in South Vietnam would be "re-educated", but were actually prisons, in which "enemies of the (communist) state were to be interned for as long as 20 years. It is interesting to note that the communists could not exert the same harsh level of control as was the case in the North, to the people in the South.

Norcal , February 5, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

So much for The Domino Theory". This clip from "The Fog Of War". Thanks

EliteCommInc. , February 5, 2018 at 8:19 pm GMT
@anarchyst

Apparently unfamiliar with my long and detailed discussions here and at TAC about the Vietnam War. I don't think you will find a single suggestion in mt two or more years of discussion on Vietnam , that it was a civil war -- it was not. In every way, the North Vietnamese were the aggressors. And if anyone looking at the political issues and objectives of what happened in Vietnam – those who protested got nearly every aspect about Vietnam wrong, nearly every contention they make was predicated on the incorrect information, except one.

war is a nasty filthy affair in which a lot hoes wrong – because that is part and parcel to the nature of war so many moving pieces on so many potential unpredictable planes. The entire enterprise is best avoided, but sometimes as in the case of S. Vietnam, you are left little choice but to defend yourself. Boys and girls afraid to fight screaming "Give peace a chance" at the defenders like pushing a drowning men under the waves and telling him all he need do is swim.

You are preaching to the choir and the preacher.

I am going to avoid rehashing the conflict, I think the data sets are on my side in tons. But I think the authors intentions are to really dismantle the cadre and their advocacy of COIN. Given that the current President has reneged on his campaign agenda to avoid needless wars violating the territory of others to regime change. The issue of counter insurgency is relevant. Because it looks like we are in for more than we bargained for. No doubt, SAS, the French Legionaries, CIA and a spec ops contingents are pre-prepping for insurgencies of our own.

A brief look suggests that the only effective response to counter insurgency is intelligence and brutal response. though intended to suggest finesse, in the end -- it's root them out and destroy them. I think this is one those the cure is worse than the illness, because without indigenous support for your political and strategic goals in country -- brutal reprisals eventually reignite acts of terror as a means of self defense.

EliteCommInc. , February 5, 2018 at 8:31 pm GMT
For those who are not familiar with COIN here are some articles, those from TAC include lengthy discussions which you may find interesting. http://ready4itall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Counterinsurgency-Warfare-Theory-and-Practice.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG595.pdf https://www.fs.blog/2017/06/counterinsurgency/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/coin-is-a-proven-failure/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/counterinsurgency/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-coin-doctrine/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2012/06/15/the-cnas-annual-confab-aloof-and-irrelevant-as-ever/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/savior-general-petraeus-gave-us-the-wrong-bible/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/petraeuss-coin-gets-flipped/
bluedog , February 5, 2018 at 8:51 pm GMT
@anarchyst

What are you a troll playing the same old broken record spewing forth the same old line, for there was a vote coming up by the Geneva Accord, to decide just what kind of government the two Vietnam's wanted, a vote that would'nt go the way we wanted thus the false flag to get us involved.

FDR had made a deal with Ho that if they would rise up and drive out the Japs that Vietnam could choose their own destiny, colonialism was dead he said, well until that little man in the to big a house got into office and then once again America's word wasn't worth a mouth full of warm spit and its never changed

EliteCommInc. , February 5, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMT
A thorough review and discussion about Mr. Ken Burns and Lynn Novick film concerning our defense of South Vietnam. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-best-way-to-honor-a-vet-is-with-the-truth/
Auntie Analogue , February 5, 2018 at 9:04 pm GMT
Today's officer corps would spare us all a great deal of cost, blood and grief and we Americans would all do much better if the cadets', midshipmen's, officer candidates' and officer corps' reading list began with the Bernard Fall book Rue Sans Joie .
Anonymous Disclaimer , February 5, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

Rand? American Conservative? Tom's Dispatch? All fake news for the sheep, i.e COIN. If people want change, they have to refuse to cooperate. That means no voting. Voting means you agree with the basic trends and just want to tweak the system. All of us have gotten cheated by the Government all of our lives. Destruction of schools so people can't learn. Wars fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there. Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep ask.

wayfarer , February 5, 2018 at 10:48 pm GMT

Vietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics

source: https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics

nsa , February 5, 2018 at 11:22 pm GMT
The religious aspect of the Vietnamese CIVIL WAR is overlooked by the senile VFW geezers posting here. The patriots were mostly Buddhists the quislings were mostly Catholics (inherited from the French). In between perving little kids, American Cardinals and Bishops demanded even more war and Vietnamese blood. The bloodthirsty homo, Cardinal Spellman, would even visit the troops in person and exhort them to create more carnage and mayhem. According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. The role of the vile bloodthirsty Homo Cult of the Seven Hills has been mostly overlooked.
ElitecommInc. , February 5, 2018 at 11:52 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Note, I list of sites is not definitive. There are articles critical and article supportive of COIN. Some articles are just descriptive of what COIN means. COIN has been a subject of a good deal of debate for a very long time. Most articles are from TAC because that is the site I most frequently read and comment. And as Dr. Unz will tell you, they invite a host of articles by a host of authors -- with varying view points.

About Rand, they are one of the most noteable contributors to government policy via research and while one may not appreciate their advocacy, it's not a bad idea to read what they are presenting on issues, in this case COIN. Even considering broad definitions of fake news -- it is unlikely that Rand would be included as such an outlet.

One of the advances launched in the late sixties -- forward was that Vietnam was a MIC windfall and in fact manufactured by the MIC.

I don't think there is much evidence of that. Pres Johnson and most of the leadership actually saw it as a case for democracy against the Chinese, the Soviets -- etc. You are not going to be able to escape the private sector profiting from war. Sure had democracy and capitalism actually won the day , I don't think there is any question money would have been made -- capitalism is a very healthy system -- if operated minus manipulation/unfair dealings. But that is not unique. One does business where business is. but cold war strategic aims made money for lots of people -- that doesn't deny that there was actually a system of proxy engagements for democracy and communism.

ElitecommInc. , February 6, 2018 at 12:29 am GMT
@nsa

I am not a member of the VFW. I don't drink and have never been drunk. There was drug use how prevalent it was is unclear. not enough to prevent mission readiness, it appears.

A lot has been made of fragging, but if you can find the numbers -- The evidence is very sparse that this practice was anywhere close to a staple. Here's an estimate 800 such incidents attempted. But given that there are only about 13 confirms that estimations is suspect. Some 3 million service members service in Vietnam that's a percentage of 0.026666666666% attempted. The actual number of men who died as the result of fragging 0.0005% and i used the highest number of fifteen actuals.

There were tragic incidents of mass killings, but those two were rare. The next series of complaints are hard to quantify -- but suffice it to say, whatever the complaints -- when push came to shove the US service member repeatedly got the job done. And contrary to your comments, the process of the US withdrawal is well documented. More than anything, they secured a line of defense, and the situation at home was the most pressing. There is no evidence that the US ran from the battle field.

OI think the evidence is clear that we should maintained support via air and sea power to ensure the victory was maintained on behalf of the S. Vietnamese who fought and died to defend their country. kudos to the Aussie's for their loyal support.

Carroll Price , February 6, 2018 at 1:12 am GMT
If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by refusing to participate.
Art , February 6, 2018 at 1:18 am GMT
Westmoreland and McNamara are awaiting Kissinger in hell. Think Peace -- Art
p.s. Every US general supports Israel – how sick is that?
Carroll Price , February 6, 2018 at 1:26 am GMT
@Thomm

Money's made fighting wars not winning them. 1945 was the last time the US made the mistake of winning a war, and may not have made that one had Russia not been on the verge of invading and occupying Japan, thus forcing the US into bringing the war to a close.

Anonymous Disclaimer , February 6, 2018 at 1:53 am GMT
@ElitecommInc.

Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II. This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War -- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to the American republic.

Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media and the university and private research establishments.

Tom Jefferson thought periodic revolution against wealth and authority was desirable to keep these bastards in check. Which implies that he figured they would inevitably get us by the throat down on the floor from time to time.

EliteCommInc. , February 6, 2018 at 2:11 am GMT
Sounds like a good reason to know what they are advocating. And Pres Eisenhower was talking about --

raytheon
GD/EB
Hughes
etc, ect

Here's a list of the MIC many were not around during the Eisenhower years -- but Rand was but a single player among many.

https://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/companies.asp

JVC , February 6, 2018 at 2:20 am GMT
@EliteCommInc.

I don't think that you understand at all the history of the USG involvement in VietNam–an act of selflessness??? What a crock.

The entire foreign policy of the united states has been controlled by the military/industrial/security/espionage etc etc complex since, at least, the end of WWII. that group doesn't really care about victory–on going conflict somewhere is the only goal. Personally, I doubt that the USG has ever committed a selfless act in it's entire history. VietNam was just one stop in a long line of USG aggression.

EnriiqueCardovaa , February 6, 2018 at 3:01 am GMT
Danny Sjursen says:

Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the previous century and perhaps it's well that they did.

LOL.. True enough. Yet an assortment of "Church of Rambo" true believers in civilian life, including several here on Unz, continue to insist that that the US never lost the war, hell, never even lost a battle -- claims all debunked by credible historians and military men who fought there.

the vast majority of senior American military officers do not. Instead, they're still refighting the Vietnam War to a far cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.

The weakness of the piece is that you don't say exactly which Vietnam approach today's generals are following. Are they doing the "big battalions" approach of Westmoreland's "search and destroy"? Are they doing the "Expanding Inkblot" of Marine General Krulak, Sorley's "Better war", or John Paul Vann's "Hearts and Minds"?? You say these are all things from Vietnam but exactly which one is in place, and why is it losing?

jacques sheete , February 6, 2018 at 3:02 am GMT
@WorkingClass

Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the same.

Amen to that.

EnriiqueCardovaa , February 6, 2018 at 3:09 am GMT
Danny Sjursen says:

Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very conclusions to win the war on terror.

Again questionable. Petraeus had the correct approach to counter the previous "lets just invade and beat Saddam" approach of Rumsfeld. Rummy's "lean force" package backed by almost unlimited air power was enough to win the conventional struggle but was woefully short of the numbers needed for occupation and pacification. Same thing happened to Hitler in the Balkans. Initial smooth success, grinding guerrilla attrition for years afterward.

Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in Vietnam.

"Winning" by 1972 did not contemplate victorious US troops marching into Hanoi, or total abandonment of the field by PAVN/VC but a better final political settlement enabling the southern regime to survive, and/or a "decent interval" for the US to save face.

n 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. Sorley boldly asserted that, by the spring of 1970, "the fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S. commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor, General Creighton Abrams -- Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have been) a war winner.

You are misrepresenting Sorley's full argument somewhat. Sorley did not envision or claim that there would have been any sweeping US victory with US troops marching into Hanoi, or that the VC/NVA would flee and abandon the struggle. A big part of his argument is for "a better war" – that is- the end game of which inevitably would be a BETTER NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT. Sorley knew quite well that the VC would not disappear (their political apparatus was still in place) and that the NVA would not simply pack up and return north. Sorley's book "A Better War" contemplates a BETTER FINAL POLITICAL SETTLEMENT as part of the bottom line, not US troops marching triumphantly into downtown Hanoi, as PAVN armies scurried away into the jungle.

EnriiqueCardovaa , February 6, 2018 at 3:15 am GMT
To his disappointment, Daddis also discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley's A Better War. This should have surprised no one, since his argument – that American soldiers in Vietnam were denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors – was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the military's fault!

Keep in mind that Daddis wrote a book on the Vietnam War called 'No Sure Victory' in which he pins US failure on not being versed ENOUGH on hearts and minds counterinsurgency war, hence the reliance on massive and unworkable statistical and reporting systems of "progress."

"The army's unpreparedness for counterinsurgency in the early 1960s surely encouraged this confusion. Conventional officers had little experience in developing a counterinsurgency reporting system and applying it within a larger strategic context.. So it was for the U.S. Army in Vietnam. Insufficiently versed in the mysteries of counterinsurgency, officers turned to statistics to assist them in measuring and reporting progress and effectiveness. Statistics, though, bred more statistics, and the MACV headquarters soon became awash in a flood of numbers, facts, and figures."
–Daddis, No Sure Victory

but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The generals have been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.

You are barking up the wrong tree somewhat. Daddis laments reading list limitations as far as Iraq, but the reading list did not make any difference given 3 issues:

(a) the decision to go to war in Iraq, when it was not necessary

(b) the woefully inadequate number of troops provided the commanders for conquest and occupation and

(c) the cavalier, careless nature of planning for postwar Iraq.

What was or was not on the reading list is of limited impact given these 3 big realities the civilian leadership saddled commanders with.

[Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... An investigation of the State Dept should bring the focus around to issues of substance. ..."
"... DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT "Security" company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election ..."
"... DNC consultant Andrea Chalupa, unregistered foreign agent whose entire family is tied to Ukrainian Intelligence ..."
"... Further research revealed that Andrea Chalupa and her two siblings are actively involved with other sources of digital terrorism, disinformation and spamming, like TrolleyBust com, stopfake org, and informnapalm. ..."
"... Ms. Chalupa kept cooperating with the Khodorovky owned magazine "The Interpreter." Now, it's a part of RFE/RL run by the government funded Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) whose director, Dr. Leon Aron also a director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute ..."
Feb 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

mc888 -> nmewn Feb 3, 2018 12:00 PM Permalink

Sessions is not recused from a Ukraine investigation. An investigation of the State Dept should bring the focus around to issues of substance.

Further research revealed that Andrea Chalupa and her two siblings are actively involved with other sources of digital terrorism, disinformation and spamming, like TrolleyBust com, stopfake org, and informnapalm.

Ms. Chalupa kept cooperating with the Khodorovky owned magazine "The Interpreter." Now, it's a part of RFE/RL run by the government funded Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) whose director, Dr. Leon Aron also a director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://thesaker.is/guess-whats-neither-meat-nor-fish-but-ms-chalupa-and

[Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... An investigation of the State Dept should bring the focus around to issues of substance. ..."
"... DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT "Security" company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election ..."
"... DNC consultant Andrea Chalupa, unregistered foreign agent whose entire family is tied to Ukrainian Intelligence ..."
"... Further research revealed that Andrea Chalupa and her two siblings are actively involved with other sources of digital terrorism, disinformation and spamming, like TrolleyBust com, stopfake org, and informnapalm. ..."
"... Ms. Chalupa kept cooperating with the Khodorovky owned magazine "The Interpreter." Now, it's a part of RFE/RL run by the government funded Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) whose director, Dr. Leon Aron also a director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute ..."
Feb 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

mc888 -> nmewn Feb 3, 2018 12:00 PM Permalink

Sessions is not recused from a Ukraine investigation. An investigation of the State Dept should bring the focus around to issues of substance.

Further research revealed that Andrea Chalupa and her two siblings are actively involved with other sources of digital terrorism, disinformation and spamming, like TrolleyBust com, stopfake org, and informnapalm.

Ms. Chalupa kept cooperating with the Khodorovky owned magazine "The Interpreter." Now, it's a part of RFE/RL run by the government funded Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) whose director, Dr. Leon Aron also a director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://thesaker.is/guess-whats-neither-meat-nor-fish-but-ms-chalupa-and

[Feb 04, 2018] There are heroes out there, Dobson of F F, Binney, Drake, Snowden and others. But the ration of truth tellers to neoliberal feral dogs in MSM is abysmally small. And that s why the majority of the US population is thoroughly brainwashed and kept in the dark

"Robust regime of oversight" is a joke. Powerful intelligence agencies which are immanent feature of the national security state tend to acquire control off MSM and never relinquish it.
Notable quotes:
"... There are heroes out there, Dobson of F&F, Binney, Drake, Snowden and others. But the majority of the ppl are kept in the dark via the enemedia. Those who make waves are sent to job Siberia ..."
"... So guilty or not, Carter Page is in the clear. And if the FBI's knowledge of Mike Flynns payment for "lobbying" for Turkey were discovered while the FBI was monitoring Page and his known associates, then the charges against Flynn will be dropped and he will be free and clear as well. ..."
Feb 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

It wasn't the bombshell everyone hoped for. But the release of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) memo did corroborate what we already knew: the government is corrupt.

In fact, the contents of the memo should be disturbing to everyone. But Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, and Edward Snowden revealed much worse. Americans are desensitized to immense abuses of their rights.

The FISA Memo Overview: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton Campaign paid Christopher Steele $160,000 to dig up information on Trump team members including Carter Page. Steele also provided this information to the FBI.

The FBI and DOJ asked the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) for permission to surveil Page, using the Steele Dossier as evidence. They did not disclose that Steele was paid by political opponents of their target to compile the information presented to the court. Based on probable cause from the information amassed by a democrat operative, the court granted their surveillance request.

So the Republicans are upset a government agency targeted a GOP ally based on information provided by political opponents. That seems like a valid complaint.

[Flashback: Trump Administration settles IRS Tea Party targetting lawsuits for peanuts.]

... ... ...

We should note that the FISA memo specifically states that "DOJ and FBI sought and received a probable cause order (not under title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from FISC."

That just means that are other parts of FISA that also use secretive proceedings to ignore due process.

So the GOP likes some mass surveillance that violates rights, just not when it targets one of their own.

They seem to think if we just had the right people in power then the government could work for good!

VWAndy Feb 3, 2018 6:22 PM Permalink

Basic logic says you could not have this level of corruption if they have this much access to everyones data. Unless it was all being used by the corrupt only.

nmewn -> VWAndy Feb 3, 2018 7:15 PM Permalink

Its a fair point. It took years to find out "most of the truth" about Fast & Furious and the weaponizing the IRS (again) against political opponents, surely if there were any "boy scouts believing in truth, justice and the American way", they would have came forward. But they didn't.

Gardentoolnumber5 -> nmewn Feb 3, 2018 7:30 PM Permalink

There are heroes out there, Dobson of F&F, Binney, Drake, Snowden and others. But the majority of the ppl are kept in the dark via the enemedia. Those who make waves are sent to job Siberia or have their homes raided as an example to future whistle blowers. Just like the populace, too many followers willing to accept their 30 pieces of silver for quiet instead of standing for principle.

nmewn -> Gardentoolnumber5 Feb 3, 2018 8:56 PM Permalink

Agreed. But are there enough is the question. People being what they are, they come with all sorts of personalities and belief systems. There are those who blindly follow orders without any moral or ethical compass, just doing what they are paid for. Then, there are those with that compass who follow orders anyways knowing its wrong in the hope someone else will straighten it out.

Then you have the Snowdens, Binneys etc of the world who are willing to face ostracization, the character assassination (or real assassination), loss of family, liberty and possessions for what is a right for all of us.

I would hazard a guess that its less than 10% but on the optimistic side...I think that number is growing ;-)

VWAndy -> nmewn Feb 3, 2018 9:33 PM Permalink

Id like to see where they stand if there is no chance of a payday for them. A put up or shut up moment is needed. The boy scouts to feral ratio looks pretty bad.

Richard Chesler -> VWAndy Feb 4, 2018 10:25 AM Permalink

So the US gov is nothing more than the covert ops unit of the DNC.

VWAndy -> Richard Chesler Feb 4, 2018 10:36 AM Permalink

Bankers run the joint. Both parties do their bidding.

Anonymous_Bene -> VWAndy Feb 4, 2018 12:12 PM Permalink

Funny. You would think it would be more obvious to everyone that Trump is repaying a debt.

Gerrilea -> nmewn Feb 3, 2018 10:54 PM Permalink

Ummm...wait...didn't we have Manning, Snowden and Drake? They came forward and told us the truth. All of them were branded traitors and 2 out of the 3 were prosecuted for telling us.

Gardentoolnumber5 Feb 3, 2018 7:20 PM Permalink

Black Pigeon Speaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM_guk9LC8g

grunk Feb 3, 2018 7:48 PM Permalink

The intelligence agencies are going to pull down this country just to save themselves. Those in leadership positions are psychotics.

Reaper Feb 3, 2018 8:48 PM Permalink

Now, more future jurors will know the government hacks (FBI, prosecutors forensic examiners) cannot be trusted. The FBI forms 302 were a tool for absolute corruption. https://boingboing.net/2013/05/07/dont-ever-speak-to-the-fbi-w.html

Mustafa Kemal Feb 3, 2018 10:17 PM Permalink

Excellent article. One of the take aways is: if you think that this is going to manifest itself in any improvement in these practices, you are sorely mistaken. Did Trump undo Obama's 11th hour executive order distributing the NSA US-surveillance information to all other intelligence agencies? Not.

AurorusBorealus Feb 3, 2018 11:28 PM Permalink

Secret police, secret courts, secret investigations, using secret police against political opponents, news media performing as instruments of propaganda, widespread surveillance of all public communications, and conspiring with foreign agents to overthrow a government. The U.S. has arrived at the Finland Station. To any clear thinking person in the U.S. government, these secret police agencies, their endless abuses of the ability to "classify" information, their secret courts, and their secret investigations must come to an end and be constrained by the rule of law and subject to some form of public of scrutiny. Therefore, why have Trump and his junta and the Republicans in congress not begun legislation to end the totalitarian regime that Washington has become?

There can be only one reason. They have not ended these totalitarian measures because they seek to use them. Against who? Against all the "enemies of the state." Who is an "enemies of the state?" Whoever the military decides is an enemy of the state. That could be you. Get out of that country, right now.

hootowl -> AurorusBorealus Feb 4, 2018 9:56 AM Permalink

Get out of the U.S.........and go where??? The U.S. is the last, best, hope of mankind in this fallen world. When we fall, darkness will descend upon all of mankind.

Our constitution was designed to govern a moral and religious people. The U. S. was founded by geniuses. We are now being governed and led by self-serving idiots.

......And we are no longer a moral and religious people.

Trifecta Man Feb 3, 2018 11:47 PM Permalink

Too many crooks in high positions. FISA is not Constitutional. Many years ago, pro wrestling champ Verne Gagne started out a match with Mad Dog Vashon by viciously attacking him. He broke the rules. But Mad Dog Vashon readily broke the rules repeatedly in all his matches. Sometimes the good guys break the rules to get rid of the bad guys who pay no attention to them. Same here.

bshirley1968 -> Trifecta Man Feb 4, 2018 9:35 AM Permalink

It is NEVER right to do wrong...to do right! The ends NEVER justify the means. Once you go down that slippery slope as a man, society, government, etc., you are DONE. It is only a matter of time, Mr. Lincoln.

libertyanyday Feb 4, 2018 12:42 AM Permalink

trying to blame the GOP for the indiscriminate abuses of the Democrats is reprehensible. Appointing a chief of police does NOT authorize the rampant lawlessness he may produce......... when the inofrmants lie to the cops, bad results occur....

7thGenMO -> libertyanyday Feb 4, 2018 8:10 AM Permalink

+1, but having been involved with Repugnican politics, the memo shouldn't be used to reinforce the illusion that Repugnicans are in true opposition to the DemonRats. In reality, we have a Uniparty system. The memo does expose .gov's total lack of credibility because its own law enforcement agencies are corrupt.

NuYawkFrankie Feb 4, 2018 2:34 AM Permalink

In its deeper context, what the FISA Memo CONFIRMED is that.. the America you thought existed, if it ever did, is now just a fantasy, a fond 'Norman Rockwell' memory... superceded by ZOG USSA, a Rogue Entity - beholden to a 5th Column Cabal of Mega Criminals controlling over 5000 nuclear weapons - masquerading as a "Legitimate Government". JFK had his brains blown out for even suggesting such an eventuality - that has now transpired - in his last public speech.

Son of Loki Feb 4, 2018 6:57 AM Permalink

Fewer then 40% of Americans now trust the fbi. Unless Wray or Congress does something, their cred will drop further and crime will increase since 90% of obeying the law is psychological respect for the law enforcement agencies. If they don't get that back, people will just spit in their faces when they come to the door.

bshirley1968 -> Son of Loki Feb 4, 2018 9:48 AM Permalink

What planet are you on? "Spit in their faces"? Lol, that's funny right there. All over the western world, governments are breaking laws, stomping on rights, invading their own countries with 3rd world, radical foreigners, taking out debt so they can live off the backs of several generations that haven't even been born yet.......and what are the people doing about it? Not one damn meaningful thing. All they know to do is trust in another goobermint agency to fix another goobermint agency.

What do you think happens when you find out your cook and butler have slowly been poisoning you for weeks? You think they say, "Oh, gee, we're sorry and won't ever do it again."? No, the jig is up, and they pull out a revolver and shoot you in the head, or wrestle you down and smother your weak ass. Either way, "finding out the truth" only hastens your demise, unless you or a brother who just happened to show up can kill them before they kill you.

All we have done here is acquire the truth we are being killed by those who are supposed to serve us. You wait until they come to your door, and you are dead already. "Spitting" or any action on that level is a joke.

JailBanksters Feb 4, 2018 7:36 AM Permalink

It's not the Agencies that are corrupt, it's is the people in these Agencies that are Corrupt.

And it's these People the Public can not vote for or get rid of them. Even the President can't Fire anybody in these Agencies. Just removing one or two bad Apples is not going to save the Bunch, and that's the real problem. Does the USA really need all these, NOT so secret Spy Agencies ? But in true US Fashion, they will probably add another Spy Agency to Spy on the other US Agencies.

7thGenMO -> JailBanksters Feb 4, 2018 8:12 AM Permalink

"Who watches the watchmen?" - Satires of the Roman Poet Juvenal

nekten Feb 4, 2018 7:45 AM Permalink

"They are just fighting for the upper hand over their political opponents. This is not freedom versus tyranny. It is a war of factions ."

Exactly right. It was hypocritical to withhold the FISA memo until after the vote on extending and expanding 702. It's not just the FBI and DOJ who are corrupt. That said, Nunes provided a weapon to begin ferreting out these weasels. It needs to be used with maximum effectiveness. Long live the Republic!

SirBarksAlot Feb 4, 2018 8:33 AM Permalink

Agreed.

However, they need to keep it the way it is until they rout out the components of the government that are controlled by the elite international power-brokers.

Just like J. Edgar Hoover had everyone in Congress blackmailed, the elite have evidence of everyone in the government they need to control in compromised status. The elite lost control of the USA Corporation in 2016, when Puerto Rico filed bankruptcy. Now there is a fight by the heads of that corporation to try to wrestle back control of our nation. Let them use whatever tools they need to use until the wicked witch is dead!

Joshua2415 Feb 4, 2018 8:58 AM Permalink

A tid-bit that should not be lost on us when we consider the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier is that Steele admitted to PAYING his russian "informants" for the information that he included in his report. So not only is the information he used "salacious and unverified", it is also inadmissible as evidence in US court...ANY US court. So even IF, the FBI did not know that the DNC paid for the dossier, and even IF, the FBI believed the allegations to be true, the FISA warrant they obtained is invalid and any evidence gathered as a result is inadmissible.

So guilty or not, Carter Page is in the clear. And if the FBI's knowledge of Mike Flynns payment for "lobbying" for Turkey were discovered while the FBI was monitoring Page and his known associates, then the charges against Flynn will be dropped and he will be free and clear as well.

jin187 -> Joshua2415 Feb 4, 2018 10:26 AM Permalink

I still haven't figured out why Trump hasn't blanket pardoned everyone in his administration. He can pardon a cocksucking illegal immigrant slavelord, but can't pardon Manafort and Flynn for procedural crimes? WTF...

SirBarksAlot Feb 4, 2018 9:00 AM Permalink

https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/vatican-cops-bust-drug-fueled-gay-orgy-at

Start at 1:50:

Leo Zagami interview on elite pedophile rings: https://youtu.be/S_kj2TN-3ZI

Neil Keenan on elite pedophile rings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcqTA8NY75Y

jin187 Feb 4, 2018 10:22 AM Permalink

I don't think people are desensitized to the corruption. We just know that when the smoke clears, none of the big players are going to jail, and it'll be business as usual. Trump needs an epic win against the swamp, with someone bigger than a deputy assistant whatever going to prison.

Fred box Feb 4, 2018 10:42 AM Permalink

This $tory has much more to play out. > But Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, and Edward Snowden revealed much worse . Americans are desensitized to immense abuses of their rights <The daily brain washing of the Boogy Man coming, as well as the implementing of The Patriot Act is the biggest thief of rights. But as George says: Your either with us, or your against us!

Consuelo Feb 4, 2018 11:49 AM Permalink

'What the FISA Memo Reveals about the FBI, DNC, GOP–and the sketchy timeline' That the rule of law is effectively, Dead. Here, try this on for a headline, TDB: 'What the failure to prosecute Hillary Rodham Clinton reveals about the rule of law in America'

[Feb 04, 2018] Operation Condor How NSA Director Mike Rogers Saved The U.S. From a Massive Constitutional Crisis

Feb 04, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

This outline is the story of how the FBI Counterintelligence Division and DOJ National Security Division were weaponized. This outline is the full story of what House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is currently working to expose. This outline exposes the biggest political scandal in U.S. history. This outline is also the story of how one man's action likely saved our constitutional republic.

His name is Admiral Mike Rogers.

I'm calling the back-story to the 2016 FISA 702(16)(17) political corruption by the Obama administration "Operation Condor". Those of you familiar with the film " Three Days of The Condor " will note how the real life storyline almost mirrors the Hollywood film. For the real life version, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers plays the role of "Condor".

[Feb 03, 2018] Can The Impending Collapse Of Russiagate Halt The Slide Toward A Nuclear 1914 Zero Hedge

Feb 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

In the period preceding the World War I how many Europeans suspected that their lives would soon be forever changed – and, for millions of them, ended?

Who in the years, say, 1910 to 1913, could have imagined that the decades of peace, progress, and civilization in which they had grown up, and which seemingly would continue indefinitely, instead would soon descend into a horror of industrial-scale slaughter, revolution, and brutal ideologies?

The answer is, probably very few, just as few people today care much about the details of international and security affairs. Normal folk have better things to do with their lives.

To be sure, in that bygone era of smug jingosim , there was always the entertainment aspect that "our" side had forced "theirs" to back down in some exotic locale, as in the Fashoda incident (1898) or the Moroccan crises (1906, 1911). Even the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 seemed less a harbinger of the cataclysm to come than local dustups on the edge of the continent where the general peace had not been disturbed even by the much more disruptive Crimean or Franco-Prussian wars.

Besides, no doubt level-headed statesmen were in charge in the various capitals, ensuring that things wouldn't get out of hand.

Until they did.

A notable exception to the prevailing mood of business-as-usual, nothing-to-see-here-folks was Pyotr Durnovo, whose remarkable February 1914 memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II laid out not only what the great powers would do in the approaching general war but the behavior of the minor countries as well. Moreover, he anticipated that in the event of defeat, Russia, destabilized by unchecked socialist "agitation" amid wartime hardships, would "be flung into hopeless anarchy, the issue of which cannot be foreseen." Germany, likewise, was "destined to suffer, in case of defeat, no lesser social upheavals" and "take a purely revolutionary path" of a nationalist hue.

When the great powers blundered into war in August 1914, each confident of its ability speedily to dispatch its rivals, the price (adding in the toll from the 1939-1945 rematch) was upwards of 70 million lives. But the cost of a comparable mistake today might be literally incalculable – if there's anyone left to do the tally.

During the first Cold War between the US and the USSR, there was a general sense that a World War III was, in a word, unthinkable. As summed up by Ronald Reagan: " A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought ." Then, it was understood that all-out war, however it started, meant massed ICBMs over the North Pole and the " end of civilization as we know it ."

Not anymore. What was unthinkable in the old Cold War has become all-too-thinkable in the new one between the US and Russia . As described by veteran arms control inspector Scott Ritter , in analyzing a draft of the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR ), the US threshold for the use of nuclear weapons has become dangerously low:

'The 2018 NPR has a vision of nuclear conflict that goes far beyond the traditional imagery of mass missile launches. While ICBMs and manned bombers will be maintained on a day-to-day alert, the tip of the nuclear spear is now what the NPR calls "supplemental" nuclear forces – dual-use aircraft such as the F-35 fighter armed with B-61 gravity bombs capable of delivering a low-yield nuclear payload, a new generation of nuclear-tipped submarine-launched cruise missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles tipped with a new generation of low-yield nuclear warheads. The danger inherent with the integration of these kinds of tactical nuclear weapons into an overall strategy of deterrence is that it fundamentally lowers the threshold for their use. [ ]

'Noting that the United States has never adopted a "no first use" policy, the 2018 NPR states that "it remains the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances that might lead to a US nuclear response." In this regard, the NPR states that America could employ nuclear weapons under "extreme circumstances that could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks." The issue of "non-nuclear strategic attack technologies" as a potential precursor for nuclear war is a new factor that previously did not exist in American policy. The United States has long held that chemical and biological weapons represent a strategic threat for which America's nuclear deterrence capability serves as a viable counter. But the threat from cyber attacks is different. If for no other reason than the potential for miscalculation and error in terms of attribution and intent, the nexus of cyber and nuclear weapons should be disconcerting for everyone. [ ]

'Even more disturbing is the notion that a cyber intrusion such as the one perpetrated against the Democratic National Committee and attributed to Russia could serve as a trigger for nuclear war. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. The DNC event has been characterized by influential American politicians, such as the Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, as " an act of war ." Moreover, former vice president Joe Biden hinted that, in the aftermath of the DNC breach, the United States was launching a retaliatory cyberattack of its own, targeting Russia. The possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange of cyberattacks that escalates into a nuclear conflict would previously have been dismissed out of hand; today, thanks to the 2018 NPR, it has entered the realm of the possible.'

The idea that a first-strike Schlieffen Plan could knock out the Russians (and no doubt similar contingencies are in place for China) at the outset of hostilities reflects a dangerous illusion of predictability. Truth may be the first casualty of war, but "the plan" is inevitably the second. That's because war planners generally don't consult the enemy, who – annoyingly for the planners – also gets a vote.

Recently US Secretary of State James Mattis declared that "great power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security," specifying Russia and China as nations seeking to "create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." At least we can drop the pretense that US policy has been to fight jihad terrorism, not to use it as a policy tool in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. And of course Washington never, ever meddles in "other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions" . . .

There is much anticipation that release of a House Intelligence Committee memo "naming names" of those in the FBI and elsewhere inside and outside of government to thwart the election of Donald Trump and cripple his administration with a phony Russian "collusion" probe will be a silver bullet that upturns the Mueller probe and cleans the Augean stables of the Deep State. Even in that unlikely case, the damage is already done. The primary purpose of Russiagate was always to ensure Trump could not reach out to Moscow , as seems to be his sincere desire. Even as the narrative began to boomerang against those who launched it , Trump's defenders (such as fanatical Russophobe Nikki Haley ) are as adamant as his detractors that Russia is and will remain the main enemy: Russia was behind the Steele Dossier, Russia tried to " corner the market" on "the foundational material for nuclear weapons " with the Uranium One deal, etc. Hostility toward Russia is not a means to an end – it is the end .

At this point Trump is fastened to the neocons' and generals' axle, and all he can do is spin. Echoing Mattis, in his State of the Union speech Trump lumped "rivals like China and Russia" together with "rogue regimes" and "terrorist groups" as "horrible dangers" to the United States. (Note: The word "horrible" does not appear in the posted text . That evidently was Trump's adlib.) The recently issued "name and shame" list of prominent Russians is a veritable Who's Who of government and business, ensuring that there's no American engagement with anyone within screaming distance of the Kremlin .

To be fair, the Russians and Chinese are making their own war preparations. Russia's "Kanyon," a doomsday nuclear torpedo carrying a massive warhead, is designed to obliterate the U.S east and west coasts , rendering them inhabitable for generations. (Wait a minute. Is it any coincidence, Comrade, that the coastal cities are just where the Democrats' electoral strength is? Talk about "collusion!" Somebody call Bob Mueller!) For its part, China is developing means to eliminate our white elephant carrier groups – handy for pummeling Third World backwaters but useless in a war with a major power – with drone swarms and hypersonic missiles .

Just as in 1914, when Durnovo referred to "presence of abundant combustible material in Europe," there is any number of global flashpoints that could turn Mattis's "great power competition" into a major conflagration that probably was not desired by anyone. However, if the worst happens, and the lamps go out again – maybe this time forever – Americans will not again be immune from the consequences as we were in the wars of the 20th century. The remainder of our lives, however brief, might turn out very differently from what we had anticipated

[Feb 03, 2018] Sanders on Trump s State of the Union: Not a word on Nuclear War threat, anti-Russian and anti-Iranian crusades!

Jan 30, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press
Watch: Bernie Sanders' Response to Trump State of the Union

"Here's the story that Trump failed to mention "

Following President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered a response.

"I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to Trump's State of the Union speech," Sanders announced. "But I also want to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, Trump chose not to discuss."

And, he added, "I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty, and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year."

Watch:

... ... ...

The complete text of Sanders' prepared remarks follow:

Good evening. Thanks for joining us.

Tonight , I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to President Trump's State of the Union speech. But I want to do more than just that. I want to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, President Trump chose not to discuss. I want to talk to you about the lies that he told during his campaign and the promises he made to working people which he did not keep.

Finally, I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty, and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year.

President Trump talked tonight about the strength of our economy. Well, he's right. Official unemployment today is 4.1 percent which is the lowest it has been in years and the stock market in recent months has soared. That's the good news.

But what President Trump failed to mention is that his first year in office marked the lowest level of job creation since 2010. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 254,000 fewer jobs were created in Trump's first 11 months in office than were created in the 11 months before he entered office.

Further, when we talk about the economy, what's most important is to understand what is happening to the average worker. And here's the story that Trump failed to mention tonight .

Over the last year, after adjusting for inflation, the average worker in America saw a wage increase of, are you ready for this, 4 cents an hour, or 0.17%. Or, to put it in a different way, that worker received a raise of a little more than $1.60 a week. And, as is often the case, that tiny wage increase disappeared as a result of soaring health care costs.

Meanwhile, at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, the rich continue to get much richer while millions of American workers are working two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water. Since March of last year, the three richest people in America saw their wealth increase by more than $68 billion. Three people. A $68 billion increase in wealth. Meanwhile, the average worker saw an increase of 4 cents an hour.

Tonight , Donald Trump touted the bonuses he claims workers received because of his so-called "tax reform" bill. What he forgot to mention is that only 2% of Americans report receiving a raise or a bonus because of this tax bill.

What he also failed to mention is that some of the corporations that have given out bonuses, such as Walmart, AT&T, General Electric, and Pfizer, are also laying off tens of thousands of their employees. Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Kleenex and Huggies, recently said they were using money from the tax cut to restructure -- laying off more than 5,000 workers and closing 10 plants.

What Trump also forgot to tell you is that while the Walton family of Walmart, the wealthiest family in America, and Jeff Bezos of Amazon, the wealthiest person in this country, have never had it so good, many thousands of their employees are forced onto Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing because of the obscenely low wages they are paid. In my view, that's wrong. The taxpayers of this country should not be providing corporate welfare to the wealthiest families in this country.

Trump's Broken Promises

Now, let me say a few words about some of the issues that Donald Trump failed to mention tonight , and that is the difference between what he promised the American people as a candidate and what he has delivered as president.

Many of you will recall, that during his campaign, Donald Trump told the American people how he was going to provide "health insurance for everybody," with "much lower deductibles."

That is what he promised working families all across this country during his campaign. But as president he did exactly the opposite. Last year, he supported legislation that would have thrown up to 32 million people off of the health care they had while, at the same time, substantially raising premiums for older Americans.

The reality is that although we were able to beat back Trump's effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 3 million fewer Americans have health insurance today than before Trump took office and that number will be going even higher in the coming months.

During his campaign, Trump promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

As president, however, he supported a Republican Budget Resolution that proposed slashing Medicaid by $1 trillion and cutting Medicare by $500 billion. Further, President Trump's own budget called for cutting Social Security Disability Insurance by $64 billion.

During Trump's campaign for president, he talked about how he was going to lower prescription drug prices and take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry which he said was "getting away with murder." Tonight he said "one of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs."

But as president, Trump nominated Alex Azar, a former executive of the Eli Lilly Company -- one of the largest drug companies in this country -- to head up the Department of Health and Human Services.

Trump spoke about how in other countries "drugs cost far less," yet he has done nothing to allow Americans to purchase less expensive prescription drugs from abroad or to require Medicare to negotiate drug prices – which he promised he would do when he ran for president.

During the campaign, Donald Trump told us that: "The rich will not be gaining at all" under his tax reform plan.

Well, that was quite a whopper. As president, the tax reform legislation Trump signed into law a few weeks ago provides 83 percent of the benefits to the top one percent, drives up the deficit by $1.7 trillion, and raises taxes on 92 million middle class families by the end of the decade.

During his campaign for president, Trump talked about how he was going to take on the greed of Wall Street which he said "has caused tremendous problems for us.

As president, not only has Trump not taken on Wall Street, he has appointed more Wall Street billionaires to his administration than any president in history. And now, on behalf of Wall Street, he is trying to repeal the modest provisions of the Dodd-Frank legislation which provide consumer protections against Wall Street thievery.

What Trump Didn't Say

But what is also important to note is not just Trump's dishonesty. It is that tonight he avoided some of the most important issues facing our country and the world.

How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention climate change? No, Mr. Trump, climate change is not a "hoax." It is a reality which is causing devastating harm all over our country and all over the world and you are dead wrong when you appoint administrators at the EPA and other agencies who are trying to decimate environmental protection rules, and slow down the transition to sustainable energy.

How can a president of the United States not discuss the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows billionaires like the Koch brothers to undermine American democracy by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who will represent the rich and the powerful?

How can he not talk about Republican governors efforts all across this country to undermine democracy, suppress the vote and make it harder for poor people or people of color to vote?

How can he not talk about the fact that in a highly competitive global economy, hundreds of thousands of bright young people are unable to afford to go to college, while millions of others have come out of school deeply in debt?

How can he not talk about the inadequate funding and staffing at the Social Security Administration which has resulted in thousands of people with disabilities dying because they did not get their claims processed in time?

How can he not talk about the retirement crisis facing the working people of this country and the fact that over half of older workers have no retirement savings? We need to strengthen pensions in this country, not take them away from millions of workers.

How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in our election in 2016, is interfering in democratic elections all over the world, and according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections that we will be holding. How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship with Mr. Putin?

What Trump Did Talk About

Now, let me say a few words about what Trump did talk about.

Trump talked about DACA and immigration, but what he did not tell the American people is that he precipitated this crisis in September by repealing President Obama's executive order protecting Dreamers.

We need to seriously address the issue of immigration but that does not mean dividing families and reducing legal immigration by 25-50 percent. It sure doesn't mean forcing taxpayers to spend $25 billion on a wall that candidate Trump promised Mexico would pay for. And it definitely doesn't mean a racist immigration policy that excludes people of color from around the world.

To my mind, this is one of the great moral issues facing our country. It would be unspeakable and a moral stain on our nation if we turned our backs on these 800,000 young people who were born and raised in this country and who know no other home but the United States.

And that's not just Bernie Sanders talking. Poll after poll shows that over 80 percent of the American people believe that we should protect the legal status of these young people and provide them with a path toward citizenship.

We need to pass the bi-partisan DREAM Act, and we need to pass it now.

President Trump also talked about the need to rebuild our country's infrastructure. And he is absolutely right. But the proposal he is bringing forth is dead wrong.

Instead of spending $1.5 trillion over ten years rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, Trump would encourage states to sell our nation's highways, bridges, and other vital infrastructure to Wall Street, wealthy campaign contributors, even foreign governments.

And how would Wall Street and these corporations recoup their investments? By imposing massive new tolls and fees paid for by American commuters and homeowners.

The reality is that Trump's plan to privatize our nation's infrastructure is an old idea that has never worked and never will work.

Tonight , Donald Trump correctly talked about the need to address the opioid crisis. Well, I say to Donald Trump, you don't help people suffering from opioid addiction by cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion. If you are serious about dealing with this crisis, we need to expand, not cut Medicaid.

Conclusion/A Progressive Agenda

My fellow Americans. The simple truth is that, according to virtually every poll, Donald Trump is the least popular president after one year in office of any president in modern American history. And the reason for that is pretty clear. The American people do not want a president who is compulsively dishonest, who is a bully, who actively represents the interests of the billionaire class, who is anti-science, and who is trying to divide us up based on the color of our skin, our nation of origin, our religion, our gender, or our sexual orientation.

That is not what the American people want. And that reality is the bad news that we have to deal with.

But the truth is that there is a lot of good news out there as well. It's not just that so many of our people disagree with Trump's policies, temperament, and behavior. It is that the vast majority of our people have a very different vision for the future of our country than what Trump and the Republican leadership are giving us.

In an unprecedented way, we are witnessing a revitalization of American democracy with more and more people standing up and fighting back. A little more than a year ago we saw millions of people take to the streets for the women's marches and a few weeks ago, in hundreds of cities and towns around the world, people once again took to the streets in the fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice.

Further, we are seeing the growth of grassroots organizations and people from every conceivable background starting to run for office – for school board, city council, state legislature, the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

In fact, we are starting to see the beginning of a political revolution, something long overdue.

And these candidates, from coast to coast, are standing tall for a progressive agenda, an agenda that works for the working families of our country and not just the billionaire class. These candidates understand that the United States has got to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare for All, single-payer program.

They understand that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the top one-tenth of one percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we should not be giving tax breaks for billionaires but demanding that they start paying their fair share of taxes.

They know that we need trade policies that benefit working people, not large multi-national corporations.

They know that we have got to take on the fossil fuel industry, transform our energy system and move to sustainable energies like wind, solar and geothermal.

They know that we need a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and universal childcare.

They understand that it is a woman who has the right to control her own body, not state and federal governments, and that woman has the right to receive equal pay for equal work and work in a safe environment free from harassment.

They also know that if we are going to move forward successfully as a democracy we need real criminal justice reform and we need to finally address comprehensive immigration reform.

Yes. I understand that the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2018 mid-term elections supporting the Trump agenda and right-wing Republicans. They have the money, an unlimited amount of money. But we have the people, and when ordinary people stand up and fight for justice there is nothing that we cannot accomplish. That has been the history of America, and that is our future.

Thank you all and good night.

Published at https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/01/30/watch-bernie-sanders-response-trump-state-union

[Feb 03, 2018] Memo: Democrats Made Up Evidence Enabled Eavesdropping On Trump Campaign

It was not only that Steele memo enabled eavesdropping. More troubling fact that FBI considered both Trump and Sanders as insurgents and was adamant to squash them and ensure Hillary victory. In other word it tried to play the role of kingmaker.
Notable quotes:
"... The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious and so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously. ..."
"... Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory. ..."
"... One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It probably broke several laws. ..."
Feb 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Over the last month political enemies of U.S. President Trump and the FBI and Justice Department have desperately tried to prevent the publishing of a memo written by the Republican controlled House Intelligence Committee.

The memo (pdf) describes parts of the process that let to court sanctioned spying on the Trump campaign. The key points of the memo that was just published:

* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.

* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.

If the above memo proves to be correct one can conclude that a Democratic front organization created "evidence" that was then used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to get FISA warrants to spy on someone with intimate contacts into the Trump campaign.

The Democrats as well as the FBI have done their utmost to keep this secret.

Carter Page was a relative low ranking volunteer advisor of the Trump campaign with some business contacts to Russia. He had officially left the campaign shortly before the above FISA warrant was requested.

Andrew McCabe was an FBI assistant director. A few month earlier his wife ran for a Virginia State Senate seat with the help of $700,000 she had received from Clinton allies.

The wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, the outlet hired by the Democrats to find Trump dirt. Fusion GPS hired the former British agent Steele.

The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious and so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously.

Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory.

One must wonder if the FISA warrant and eavesdropping on Page was the only one related to the Trump campaign.

One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It probably broke several laws.

There are still many questions: What was, exactly, the result of the surveillance of Carter Page and the Trump campaign? Who was getting these results - officially and unofficially? How were they used?

I am pretty sure now that more heads of those involved will role. Some of the people who arranged the scheme, and some of those who tried to cover it up, may go to jail.

If Trump and the Republicans play this right they have practically won the next elections.

[Feb 03, 2018] Is USAID really a CIA front - Quora

Notable quotes:
"... For some reason C-Span has recently been running US propaganda films promoting the war in Vietnam, featuring John Wayne and USAID workers involved in civilian pacification in rural areas. At that time and place USAID was really a CIA front. ..."
Feb 03, 2018 | www.quora.com

Brian K. Price , 20 year (and 2 war) military veteran Answered Sep 23

No, USAID is a separate organization with its own budget and oversight. It has a separate and distinct mission and it conducts that mission on a day to day basis around the world. [1]

Within the intelligence community, personnel are sometimes introduced into their embassies via "official cover." This is standard practice among all intelligence agencies around the world. For this reason, any government agency that has representatives in an embassy could be used as a means of bringing intelligence officers into the country under "official cover" which provides them significant protection.

This does not mean that organization is a "front." A front, by definition, means that it only exists to serve as a cover for other operations. It may conduct business to keep up appearances but it exists first and foremost as cover and nothing else. Once it gets burned, that organization tends to be shut down and the utilizing agency finds another cover. [2]

Air America is an example of a "front company." Arc Electronics, Inc would be an example of a Russian intelligence "front company." [3]

USAID is not a "front company". It really does exist. It really does do the things it is tasked with. It *may* be used by the CIA to provide an official reason for one of its officers to be in a country under official status.

Footnotes

[1] United States Agency for International Development - Wikipedia

[2] Category:Central Intelligence Agency front organizations - Wikipedia

[3] https://archives.fbi.gov/archive...

Fred Landis Investigative Reporter Worked at University of Southern California PhD Political Science & Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Graduated 1975 Lives in Southern California 15.6m answer views 427.1k this month Top Writer 2015, 2014, and 2013 Published Writer Business Insider Follow 11.4k Turn On Notifications Fred Landis , Investigative Reporter

Answered Oct 20, 2016

For some reason C-Span has recently been running US propaganda films promoting the war in Vietnam, featuring John Wayne and USAID workers involved in civilian pacification in rural areas. At that time and place USAID was really a CIA front.

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has shown how much better a job can be done with aid work in Africa if you just take the politics out of it.

USAID was a CIA front back during the Cold War in a few hot spots .

[Feb 03, 2018] Did Barack Obama really ordered the CIA to train ISIS

Feb 03, 2018 | www.quora.com
George Gonzalez , Seen the guy in person, impressed. Answered May 29, 2015

The USA has a very long history of training and equipping foreigners in how to be better at maiming, torturing, and killing. During the Reagan years we trained thousands of Latin Americans to fight. Sometimes we trained the folks on the side of the government, sometimes we trained the insurgents. Whichever side we thought was more to our liking.

We also trained and equipped random folks that were willing to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. That's where Al Queda got a big boost.

More recently we trained and bought off various warlords in Afghanistan, which worked really well in driving the Taliban into hiding, for a short while, until the billions in payoffs dried up.

As for training ISIS, it's no secret, many in Congress pushed hard for us to train and supply anybody that said they were anti-Assad.

That's about as far as the linked article hints at. Nothing about Obama at all. 937 Views · View Upvoters

[Feb 02, 2018] The "Kremlin list" Is a Bullet Aimed at Putin's Heart by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him. ..."
"... The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs, and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American president in history. ..."
"... The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia. The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of Russia. ..."
"... Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's "shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. ..."
Feb 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Russian government, media, and public don't know what to make of the US Treasury's "Kremlim list." The Treasury list contains the names of the top echelon of Russian government and business leadership. The Russians understand that the list is unfriendly and furthers Washington's policy of worsening the relationship between the two major nuclear powers, but beyond that the list seems to be a mystery to them.

President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him.

On January 30, I explained four of the main reasons for the list. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/30/washington-reaches-new-heights-insanity-kremlin-report/

Here are two more important reasons for the list:

1) The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs, and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American president in history.

2) The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia. The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and Russia.

The lack of a meaningful Russian response will encourage more insults and actual sanctions against Putin's supporters, which will cause some of them to separate from Putin in order to protect their own economic and career interests. In the past Washington has used sanctions in efforts to deprive leaders of public support. With the Kremlin list, Washington has changed its tactics and is targeting the reputations and economic interests of the leadership class. The list is Washington's attempt to deprive Putin of the support of the top echelon of government and business leaders. The list is a bullet aimed at Putin's heart.

Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of Russia.

Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's "shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. (Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative) ← The Second Dossier

[Feb 02, 2018] 'Kremlin List' Made Public What's in Store for US-Russia Relationship

Feb 02, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

So, the long-awaited " Kremlin List " happened to be a purely formal action. What was made public is just a meaningless compilation of names partly taken from a phonebook with some of them cribbed from the Forbes' Billionaires list – a kind of Who Is Who reference publication. The administration had to release the document as required by law, so it adopted the "get what you want and leave me alone" approach. At least, that's what the unclassified part of the report looks like. Technically correct, the list is just a mockery in its essence. Nothing in the report indicates that the US is in possession of information about the individuals' involvement in any wrongdoings. The paper says it is not a sanctions list though Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said it would result in restrictive measures. He did not specify the date.

It's not the "Kremlin List" that really matters. On Jan.29, one day before the document was made public, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee voted to release a classified memorandum, revealing the misconduct by the FBI and the Justice Department in the Russia investigation. The paper expresses grave concern over the way the investigation, launched by the Obama administration, was conducted. The lawmakers took the decision ignoring the position of the Justice Department, which had warned not take this "extraordinary reckless" step. It's highly probable that if an investigation into the abuses is launched, the trail will lead to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

It's not Donald Trump but rather his opponents who will be at center of the scandal with media raising ballyhoo (and they will do it as practice shows). Everything will turn around to put the Democratic backers of Hillary Clinton on the defensive with the president's hands untied giving him much more freedom to implement his Russia policy. He won't keep one eye on Congress when it comes to dealing with Russia. Trump will become the defender of democracy threatened by Clinton's camp. The "Kremlin's List" will be on the backburner.

Russia knows well all the ins and outs of US politics. It is reserved and patient but it cannot forever abstain from striking back. Both governments realize this fact and act accordingly. They don't sever the contacts, so that wouldn't have to start from scratch when the times change.

On the contrary, they do what is possible under the circumstances. It's enough to look at the news that doesn't hit headlines but tells about the events of great significance. For instance, Sergey Naryshkin, the head of Russian foreign intelligence service, has recently visited the United States to discuss terrorism. The Russian foreign intelligence chief is under sanctions but the visit was important enough to make the US executive turn a blind eye on this fact. Naryshkin was granted entry to the country. It's hard to imagine such a high-ranking official coming alone.

So, the information exchange with Russia is too important to be affected by ups and downs in the relationship. It's enough to remember how the interaction between the intelligence services of both countries prevented a terrorist act in Saint Petersburg last December. In his recent interview with Russian Echo Moskvy ( Echo of Moscow ) radio station, US Ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman said the time is propitious for a Russia-US bilateral summit. He also emphasized the importance of military-to-military communications. Until now, the leaders have met only on the sidelines of top-level international events. A summit could change a lot of things, addressing many problems beyond the scope of bilateral relationship.

2018 is an election year in the United States. The Democrats' chances will diminish greatly when the secret memo is released. With economy going strong, the chances for Republicans to strengthen their position in both houses look good enough. So do the opportunities for the president to keep his pre-election promise to improve the relationship with Russia.

Tags: FBI Russiagate

[Feb 02, 2018] As in all empires, power is passing to the generals. Nunes memo can speed the process

Feb 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Grandpa Charlie, January 30, 2018 at 7:11 am GMT

As in all empires, power is passing to the generals. And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial city? Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia-gate.

Excellent editorial by Pat B., Americans should pay attention to this. As for the generals, Pat could do worse than to read carefully through Danny Sjursen's current article here at Unz – http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/danny-sjursen-wrong-on-nam-wrong-on-terror/

[Jan 31, 2018] Military blames human error for hidden Afghan war data

Notable quotes:
"... For being "intelligence" agencies who no one is apparently allowed to question or criticize, they sure make a lot of "mistakes", "lose" a lot of documents, and just get a lot of things "wrong". ..."
"... Iraq was invaded and occupied as well. Control resources!! That is the end game...As a Combat Veteran served during 9/11 and tip of the spear in 2003 we found ZERO weapons of mass destruction....So many young Americans impacted and suffered for pure profit at the hands of greedy Men... ..."
Jan 31, 2018 | www.yahoo.com

His comments came hours after SIGAR said in a quarterly report on the conflict that the Pentagon prohibited the inclusion of information on the number of districts in Afghanistan, and the population therein, controlled by the Afghan government or the Taliban or contested by both sides.

"The number of districts controlled or influenced by the Afghan government had been one of the last remaining publicly available indicators for members of Congress -- many of whose staff do not have access to the classified annexes to SIGAR reports -- and for the American public of how the 16-year-long U.S. effort to secure Afghanistan is faring," SIGAR said in a statement. "This is the first time SIGAR has been specifically instructed not to release information marked 'unclassified' to the American taxpayer."

In his emailed statement, Gresback said that, as of October 2017, about 56 percent of the country's 407 districts were under Afghan government control or influence, 30 percent remained contested, and roughly 14 percent were now under insurgent control or influence.

R Roger47 yesterday

Afghanistan is too big and too poor for their own government and military to ever be able to control. Much of the country is controlled by tribal leaders associated loosely with the Taliban. They want to continue to live their lives as they have done for hundreds of years. We can either let them do so, or occupy their country forever. I say make an agreement to leave them alone as long as they keep terrorists out, and bring our troops home.

e edward yesterday

For being "intelligence" agencies who no one is apparently allowed to question or criticize, they sure make a lot of "mistakes", "lose" a lot of documents, and just get a lot of things "wrong".

C CBVET2003 yesterday

  • Iraq was invaded and occupied as well. Control resources!! That is the end game...As a Combat Veteran served during 9/11 and tip of the spear in 2003 we found ZERO weapons of mass destruction....So many young Americans impacted and suffered for pure profit at the hands of greedy Men...

    • V Vegasvince 22 hours ago

  • Several things he promised to work on are traditional Democratic issues. Since they also agree, I'd hope we can see quick congressional action. Infrastructure, prescription drug costs, terminal patients access to drug trials, Job training investment, Paid family leave, former prisoner job training, etc... These should be fast tracked through Congress and to the Presidents. We can agree on things in America and need a productive governement to get thing s done!

    • [Jan 31, 2018] The neoliberal MSM spin on Nunes memo is astounding

    " I do think Russia-gate is an over-hyped political campaign. The threat from Russia to our electoral process is like a cult, in which belief is paramount to rational thinking. Evidence. Let's see the evidence for all these things."
    " The weight of evidence is on the side of the debunkers of Russiagate. This "debate" is far from a wash, or a draw. The propaganda and spin are from the Russia blamers, not their refuters."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Talking about the spin the New York Times is putting on the memo contents (The Nunes Conspiracy), please take a look at last night's PBS News Hour. Instead of what Judy Woodruff and Lisa Desjardins should have reported, they spun Andrew McCabe's "stepping aside" as yet another loss of an important high ranking FBI official causing still more vacancies in the many still unfilled offices due to Trump's failure to appoint people, etc. It was unbelievable! ..."
    "... It's painful to say, but the PBS Newshour is a pathetically blatant propaganda outlet. I suspect Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, etc have nights of troubled sleep. ..."
    Jan 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    Virginia , January 30, 2018 at 12:14 pm

    Talking about the spin the New York Times is putting on the memo contents (The Nunes Conspiracy), please take a look at last night's PBS News Hour. Instead of what Judy Woodruff and Lisa Desjardins should have reported, they spun Andrew McCabe's "stepping aside" as yet another loss of an important high ranking FBI official causing still more vacancies in the many still unfilled offices due to Trump's failure to appoint people, etc. It was unbelievable!

    Then Judy interviewed Mark Warner, and his spin was even more astounding -- that most Democrats hadn't read it, implying it was unavailable; also implying that this "memo creation" hadn't gone through proper channels. Nothing on the up and up with Warner! But, I don't think they are going to be able to get by with it. Will the American people agree to be duped by propaganda when the facts are on the table? I'm not seeing that friends of mine are coming around, but do they really believe in Santa Claus? Is there integrity in the land, or will truth continue to be trampled in the streets and sold in the shambles? The house of cards is about to crumble, or will it?

    JWalters , January 31, 2018 at 12:54 am

    It's painful to say, but the PBS Newshour is a pathetically blatant propaganda outlet. I suspect Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, etc have nights of troubled sleep.

    Regarding Congressman Nunes,

    "The current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R- California, is one of the few politicians who knows and cares about the attack on the Liberty."

    from "Still Waiting for USS Liberty's Truth" by Ray McGovern https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/04/still-waiting-for-uss-libertys-truth/

    [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia, because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby. ..."
    "... The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage. ..."
    "... Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses? ..."
    "... Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism. ..."
    Jan 30, 2018 | www.unz.com

    In an act of insane escalation of provocations against Russia, Washington has produced a list of 210 top Russian government officials and important business executives who are "gangsters," "members of Putin's gang," "threats," "people deserving to be sanctioned," or however the Western presstitutes care to explain the list. The absurd list includes the Prime Minister of Russia, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister, and executives of Gazprom, Rosneft, and Bank Rossiya. In other words, the suggestion is that the entirety of Russian political and business leadership is corrupt.

    The Russians do not seem to understand the purpose of the list. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the government sees the list as an attempt to interfere in the Russian presidential election. There is no doubt that Washington would like to reduce Putin's public support so that Washington can use the Western-funded NGOs operating in Russia to present American stooges as Russia's true voices. However, it is unlikely that the Russian people are stupid enough to fall for such a trick.

    Washington's list has three purposes:

    1. To undercut Russian diplomacy by presenting the top echelons of Russia as gangsters.
    2. To present Russia as a military threat as per the ridiculous announcement by British defense minister Gavin Williamson on January 26 that Russia intends to rip British "infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths," and create "total chaos within the country."
    3. To shift American and European attention away from the coming release of the House Intelligence Committee's report that proves Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the Obama Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee against President Trump. Washington's Russian list will give the presstitutes something else to talk about instead of the act of treason committed against the President of the United States. Expect to hear nothing from the presstitutes except that the House Intelligence Committee report is only a political effort to shield Trump from accountability.

    There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia, because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby.

    The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage.

    Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses?

    For the West to come to its senses requires the complete overthrow of the Zionist neoconservatives and/or the breakup of NATO. The overthrow of the neoconservatives would require a rival foreign policy voice, and that voice is very weak as it is shut off from the media, the think tanks, and the universities. The breakup of NATO would require European political figures to give up their Washington subsidies and the career advancement that Washington provides.

    As I write the Atlantic Council is holding a members and press call in for a discussion with Atlantic Council members Amb. Daniel Fried and Anders Aslund. The Atlantic Council is a neoconservative propaganda agency. The purpose of the "discussion" is to further undermine US-Russian relations.

    The Russian government faces a difficult situation. The foreign policy of the US, and thereby of the Western world, is controlled by neoconservatives who are determined to present Russia in the most threatening light. Russian diplomacy can do nothing to change this. The non-provocative and responsible Russian response has the effect of encouraging more provocations from Washington. At some point Russian passivity might convince the neoconservatives that they can successfully attack Russia. Alternatively, the continual provocations might convince Russia that the country is targeted for attack, thereby causing a Russian pre-emptive action.

    Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism.

    [Jan 30, 2018] How We Got Donald Trump by Andrew J. Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... members of Washington's smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to prevail everywhere. ..."
    "... In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the "indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue from Mogadishu to Mosul. ..."
    "... Trump is not a revolutionary, and he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to correct few excesses and buy some time. ..."
    "... The beneficiaries of the excess policies – cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics, military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening. They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers). ..."
    "... Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a 'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably followed Serbia. ..."
    Jan 30, 2018 | www.unz.com

    1989: The Fall of the Berlin Wall. As the Cold War wound down, members of Washington's smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to prevail everywhere.

    There would be no way except the American Way. In fact, however, the passing of the Cold War should have occasioned a moment of reflection regarding the sundry mistakes and moral compromises that marred U.S. policy from the 1940s through the 1980s. Unfortunately, policy elites had no interest in second thoughts -- and certainly not in remorse or contrition.

    In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the "indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue from Mogadishu to Mosul.

    When, in due time, Donald Trump announced his intention to dismantle the establishment that had presided over those failures, many Americans liked what he had to say, even if he spoke from a position of total ignorance.

    Beckow , January 30, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT

    Those who hate Trump, will hate Trump. And very little of what they write will not be colored by the hatred.

    The analysis – although based on a sound historical premise – is off by miles. It focuses on personalities and avoids mentioning the systemic failures by Western institutions, from media to academia, from Hollywood to UN. Trump is not a revolutionary, and he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to correct few excesses and buy some time.

    The beneficiaries of the excess policies – cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics, military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening. They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers).

    Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a 'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably followed Serbia.

    Why are these points left out? Because they would make the neo-liberal Democrats look bad? Right, Gore as president, that would had fixed it all

    David In TN , January 30, 2018 at 11:13 pm GMT
    Bacevich didn't write a word about the Open Borders fetish of both parties from which Trump dissented, or seemed to. Not a word. And this played no small part in Trump winning the GOP nomination and the election.

    [Jan 30, 2018] John Heilemann suggests Devin Nunes is a Russian agent - Washington Times

    Notable quotes:
    "... Free speech is one thing but this stuff shouldn't be allowed. Making up false allegations against someone should Not be protected speech! This guy should be fired immediately! ..."
    "... The legal issue is libel and slander, but the laws are very specific and need to be read and understood carefully before launching into a lawsuit against Progressive demagogues. ..."
    "... Mr Heileman is behaving in a very McCarthyism manner( I mean the cartoonish liberal version of McCarthyism not the real McCarthy) ..."
    Jan 30, 2018 | www.washingtontimes.com

    Greg Beaty , January 30, 2018 1:58 PM

    MSNBC Is all fake news!

    FirstLadyIvana Greg Beaty , January 30, 2018 2:02 PM

    I thought CNN was all fake news and MSNBC was only 90% fake. Are you sure you have your facts right?

    VermontAmerican FirstLadyIvana , January 30, 2018 2:05 PM

    You know who's fake? Adam Schiff. He's really a puppet. Chuck Schumer has his hand up his back making his mouth work.

    Rotorblade VermontAmerican , January 30, 2018 4:31 PM

    Adam Schiff... When I see that guy he gives me the impression that he has young boys buried under his house.

    FirstLadyIvana VermontAmerican , January 30, 2018 2:12 PM

    You know what isn't fake? Liberals in Vermont. Possession and cultivation rights must have you feeling pretty good.

    VermontAmerican FirstLadyIvana , January 30, 2018 2:14 PM

    His head is just a network of wires and cotton, with latex stretched over to approximate skin. It's actually pretty lifelike.

    sandraleesmith46 FirstLadyIvana , January 30, 2018 3:55 PM

    Both are 100% fake and not worth anyone's time!

    Thucydides_of_Athens FirstLadyIvana , January 30, 2018 2:27 PM

    But CNN says MSNBC is 100% accurate.....

    Ernest Nizza , January 30, 2018 1:41 PM

    Free speech is one thing but this stuff shouldn't be allowed. Making up false allegations against someone should Not be protected speech! This guy should be fired immediately!

    Thucydides_of_Athens Ernest Nizza , January 30, 2018 2:26 PM

    The legal issue is libel and slander, but the laws are very specific and need to be read and understood carefully before launching into a lawsuit against Progressive demagogues.

    sandraleesmith46 Ernest Nizza , January 30, 2018 3:56 PM

    It's not; that's called "slander" under the law, and listed in the US code of CRIMES!

    Rotorblade Ernest Nizza , January 30, 2018 4:35 PM

    Yes, many top Democrats have publicly said there is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion... even the melting-face woman Maxine Waters said so. But the fact the search continues IS evidence of Democrat desperation and childishness.

    Kbuzz Rotorblade , January 30, 2018 4:44 PM

    It is about the spin - deflection - intimidation, or perhaps a hope that the democrats can get a rise out of Trump or his Family via a tweet. The Administration really needs to slap this stuff down - hard, and bury these false accusers. Incarcerate, confiscate assets, freeze the accounts, and when the MSM starts spreading what is false crap, throw them in too...it might improve the Journalistic standards while where at it. In essence, make these people accountable for their accusations.

    Brad Gillespie , January 30, 2018 1:33 PM

    Maybe mr. Heilemann is having nancy Pelosi write up his talking points? Mr. Nunes looks like a paragon of reason compared to any of the msnbc socialist parrots, and the comparison is even more extreme when compared to adam shiff. Unfortunately, when your main goal is to obfuscate and throw incredibly rude comments at your opposition, you lose.

    Thucydides_of_Athens Brad Gillespie , January 30, 2018 2:28 PM

    The Legacy media is always between 24 and 72hr behind what is really going on because they have to clear their talking points through the DNC and Valarie Jarrett before going on air.

    Susie Q Thucydides_of_Athens , January 30, 2018 2:49 PM

    very true!!

    Tnt , January 30, 2018 1:26 PM

    Journalism has been compromised

    Harry Tnt , January 30, 2018 4:04 PM

    .At MSNBC Journalism is extinct.

    VermontAmerican , January 30, 2018 2:09 PM

    The memo won't be released until after Trump has had a chance to bask in the glow of his SOTU. And there's a lot to boast about: the economy is soaring, ISIS is destroyed, record number of fed judges appointed, tax reform, companies repatriating billions of off shore dollars. This is one SOTU the Democrats could only DREAM they could have. Unfortunately, their policies won't allow them.

    Larry VermontAmerican , January 30, 2018 4:05 PM

    make that "repatriating TRILLIONS of off shore dollars".

    ricocat1 , January 30, 2018 2:10 PM

    All the delusional Democrats have is the rejected race card and RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA. No wonder Democrats lose most honest elections.

    VermontAmerican ricocat1 , January 30, 2018 2:12 PM

    Can anyone now believe that 'Romney 2012' lost fairly and squarely? Likely Obama had his campaign wiretapped, too.

    tofubamboo VermontAmerican , January 30, 2018 2:51 PM

    Bingo!!!

    Ed Workman jonzebut , January 30, 2018 3:47 PM

    Well, dunno about any wires, but I did see Harry "the littlest mouse turd" Reid admit that he got up in front of the senate and told the world the Romney was a tax evader to the tune of many $millions. You understand that anything can be said on that floor without legal consequence. Harry LMT told the interviewer it was ok to lie and malign a person if that's what it took to win the election.

    lumark630 Ed Workman , January 30, 2018 4:37 PM

    Thankfully, that scum bag is gone. Unfortunately, the Democrats have a limitless supply of people to replace him. Whatever happened to honest debate and statesmanship? There was a time when both sides could express opposition, without name calling and outrageous accusations.

    Leprekhan jonzebut , January 30, 2018 4:26 PM

    How about the 2005 photo just surfacing this week with Osucko smiling and shaking hands with the biggest black racist on the planet, Farrakhan? A photo that has been hidden for the last 13 years because the Congressional Black Caucus didn't want it released so as not to damage his chances of being elected. If that had surfaced, he wouldn't have won. Didn't hear about that? Oh, that's right, you only listen to the ClintonNewsNetwork. Keep shoveling that s*#t down your gullet.

    zeno2654 , January 30, 2018 2:06 PM

    Veteran MSNBC political analyst John Heilemann should put up or shut up. Probably wrote this to cover some breaking news that excoriates the Dems and Party

    GeoWashington1787 , January 30, 2018 2:28 PM

    The deranged media were colluding to overturn the election--they are more guilty than anything the Russians could have done.

    CountMontyC , January 30, 2018 1:27 PM

    Mr Heileman is behaving in a very McCarthyism manner( I mean the cartoonish liberal version of McCarthyism not the real McCarthy)

    Jack Magan , January 30, 2018 2:19 PM

    The Liberal media's uncontrollable disdain for Donald J. Trump has reached manic proportions ...and it's going to devour them over the remaining 3-7 years of the Trump presidency, as it already has THE LOS ANGELES TIMES and THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.

    Lee , January 30, 2018 3:50 PM

    Adam Schiff is a Russian agent! Along with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton! Prove that is wrong.

    Average Joe Lee , January 30, 2018 4:02 PM

    It's wrong...

    Guy Smith , January 30, 2018 4:58 PM

    Boy the DEMs are really sweating! That Memo must be really good!.

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger," said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily, and what we're doing." ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
    "... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
    Jan 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The Unseen Wars of America the Empire By Patrick J. Buchanan • January 30, 2018, 12:01 AM

    Forward Operating Base Torkham, in Nangahar Province, Afghanistan (army.mil) If Turkey is not bluffing, U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria, could be under fire by week's end, and NATO engulfed in the worst crisis in its history.

    Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his forces will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.

    Erdogan's foreign minister demanded concrete steps by the United States to end its support of the Kurds, who control the Syrian border with Turkey east of the Euphrates all the way to Iraq.

    If the Turks attack Manbij, America will face a choice: stand by our Kurdish allies and resist the Turks, or abandon the Kurds.

    Should the U.S. let the Turks drive the Kurds out of Manbij and the entire Syrian border area, as Erdogan threatens, American credibility would suffer a blow from which it would not soon recover.

    But to stand with the Kurds and oppose Erdogan's forces could mean a crackup of NATO and a loss of U.S. bases inside Turkey, including the air base at Incirlik.

    Turkey also sits astride the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea. NATO's loss would thus be a triumph for Vladimir Putin, who gave Ankara the green light to cleanse the Kurds from Afrin.

    Yet Syria is but one of many challenges facing U.S. foreign policy.

    The Winter Olympics in South Korea may have taken the menace of a North Korean ICBM out of the news, but no one believes that threat is behind us.

    Last week, China charged that the USS Hopper, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal, a reef in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, though it is far closer to Luzon in the Philippines. The destroyer, says China, was chased off by one of her frigates. If we continue to contest China's territorial claims with our warships, a clash is inevitable.

    In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance jet in international airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.

    U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with being a false friend.

    "The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools," Trump declared. "They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!"

    As for America's longest war in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, the end is nowhere on the horizon. A week ago, the International Hotel in Kabul was attacked and held for 13 hours by Taliban gunmen who killed 40. Midweek, a Save the Children facility in Jalalabad was attacked by ISIS, creating panic among aid workers across the country.

    Saturday, an ambulance exploded in Kabul, killing 103 people and wounding 235. Monday, Islamic State militants attacked Afghan soldiers guarding a military academy in Kabul. With the fighting season two months off, U.S. troops will not soon be departing. If Pakistan is indeed providing sanctuary for the terrorists of the Haqqani network, how does this war end successfully for the United States? Last week, in a friendly fire incident, the U.S.-led coalition killed 10 Iraqi soldiers. The Iraq war began 15 years ago.

    Yet another war, where the humanitarian crisis rivals Syria, continues on the Arabian Peninsula. There, a Saudi air, sea, and land blockade that threatens the Yemeni people with starvation has failed to dislodge Houthi rebels who seized the capital Sanaa three years ago. This weekend brought news that secessionist rebels, backed by the United Arab Emirates, seized power in Yemen's southern port of Aden from the Saudi-backed Hadi regime fighting the Houthis. These rebels seek to split the country, as it was before 1990.

    Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE appear to be backing different horses in this tribal-civil-sectarian war into which America has been drawn. There are other wars -- Somalia, Libya, Ukraine -- where the U.S. is taking sides, sending arms, training troops, flying missions.

    Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger," said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily, and what we're doing."

    No, we don't, Senator. As in all empires, power is passing to the generals. And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial city? Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia-gate.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

    [Jan 30, 2018] Rewriting the History of the Vietnam War, to the Detriment of Everyone Save the Military-Industrial Complex naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Major Danny Sjursen, a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, ..."
    "... He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at ..."
    "... and check out his new podcast ..."
    "... . Originally published at TomDispatch ..."
    "... On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, ..."
    "... Dereliction of Duty ..."
    "... The Army and Vietnam ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ..."
    "... Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... On Strategy ..."
    "... Dereliction of Duty ..."
    "... The Army and Vietnam ..."
    "... War Comes to Long An ..."
    "... I. Laying Plans ..."
    "... 1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. ..."
    "... 2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. ..."
    "... 3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. ..."
    "... 4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline. ..."
    "... 5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. ..."
    "... 7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons. ..."
    "... 8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death. ..."
    "... 9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness. ..."
    "... 10. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure. ..."
    "... 11. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail. ..."
    "... 12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:– ..."
    "... 13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment? ..."
    "... 14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat. ..."
    "... 15. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat:–let such a one be dismissed! ..."
    "... The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation. ..."
    "... Chaque fois que les incidents de guerre obligent l'un de nos officiers à agir contre un village [ ], il ne doit pas perdre de vue que son premier soin, la soumission des habitants obtenue, sera de reconstruire le village, d'y créer un marché, d'y établir une école. C'est de l'action de la politique et de la force que doit résulter la pacification du pays et l'organisation à lui donner plus tard. ..."
    "... Every time one of our officers is forced to act against a village because of war incidents, he must not lose sight of his first concern, which, after the submission of the inhabitants, is to rebuild the village, to create a market, to establish a school. It is the joint action of policy and force that must result in the pacification of the country and in its later organization. ..."
    "... The Bridge on the River Kwai ..."
    "... A Bright Shining Lie ..."
    "... The Best and the Brightest ..."
    "... The Ugly American is a 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. The Ugly American depicts the failures of the U.S. diplomatic corps, whose insensitivity to local language, culture, customs and refusal to integrate was in marked contrast to the polished abilities of Eastern Bloc (primarily Soviet) diplomacy and led to Communist diplomatic success overseas [sic]. The book caused a sensation in diplomatic circles. John F. Kennedy was so impressed with the book that he sent a copy to each of his colleagues in the United States Senate. The book was one of the biggest bestsellers in the country, has been in print continuously since it appeared and is one of the most politically influential novels in all of American literature. ..."
    "... The title of the novel is a play on Graham Greene's 1955 novel The Quiet American and was sometimes confused with it. ..."
    "... The "Ugly American" of the book title refers to the book's hero, plain-looking engineer Homer Atkins, whose "calloused and grease-blackened hands always reminded him that he was an ugly man." Atkins, who lives with the local people, comes to understand their needs, and offers genuinely useful assistance with small-scale projects such as the development of a simple bicycle-powered water pump.[2] ..."
    "... as it very properly attempted to conceal from the Japanese, ..."
    Jan 30, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    By Major Danny Sjursen, a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet and check out his new podcast Fortress on a Hill . Originally published at TomDispatch

    [Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

    Vietnam: it's always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.

    A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command. And almost half a century later, they're still losing it and blaming others for doing so.

    Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the previous century and perhaps it's well that they did. The United States really had no business intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides of that country's artificial border. In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans in those years as the Vietcong.

    More than two decades of involvement and, at the war's peak, half a million American troops never altered the basic weakness of the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon. Despite millions of Asian deaths and 58,000 American ones, South Vietnam's military could not, in the end, hold the line without American support and finally collapsed under the weight of a conventional North Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.

    There's just one thing. Though a majority of historians (known in academia as the "orthodox" school) subscribe to the basic contours of the above narrative, the vast majority of senior American military officers do not. Instead, they're still refighting the Vietnam War to a far cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.

    The Big Re-Write

    In 1986, future general, Iraq-Afghan War commander, and CIA director David Petraeus penned an article for the military journal Parameters that summarized his Princeton doctoral dissertation on the Vietnam War. It was a piece commensurate with then-Major Petraeus's impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war. Though he did observe that Vietnam had "cost the military dearly" and that "the frustrations of Vietnam are deeply etched in the minds of those who lead the services," his real fear was that the war had left the military unprepared to wage what were then called "low-intensity conflicts" and are now known as counterinsurgencies. His takeaway: what the country needed wasn't less Vietnams but better-fought ones. The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics, and doctrine to win such wars.

    Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very conclusions to win the war on terror. The names of some of them -- H.R. McMaster and James Mattis, for instance -- should ring a bell or two these days. In Iraq and later in Afghanistan, Petraeus and his acolytes would get their chance to translate theory into practice. Americans -- and much of the rest of the planet -- still live with the results.

    Like Petraeus, an entire generation of senior military leaders, commissioned in the years after the Vietnam War and now atop the defense behemoth, remain fixated on that ancient conflict. After all these decades, such "thinking" generals and "soldier-scholars" continue to draw all the wrong lessons from what, thanks in part to them, has now become America's second longest war.

    Rival Schools

    Historian Gary Hess identifies two main schools of revisionist thinking. There are the "Clausewitzians" (named after the nineteenth century Prussian military theorist) who insist that Washington never sufficiently attacked the enemy's true center of gravity in North Vietnam. Beneath the academic language, they essentially agree on one key thing: the U.S. military should have bombed the North into a parking lot.

    The second school, including Petraeus, Hess labeled the "hearts-and-minders." As COINdinistas, they felt the war effort never focused clearly enough on isolating the Vietcong, protecting local villages in the South, building schools, and handing out candy -- everything, in short, that might have won (in the phrase of that era) Vietnamese hearts and minds.

    Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in Vietnam.

    The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century. Senior commanders, some now serving in key national security positions, fixated on Vietnam, have translated that conflict's supposed lessons into what now passes for military strategy in Washington. The result has been an ever-expanding war on terror campaign waged ceaselessly from South Asia to West Africa, which has essentially turned out to be perpetual war based on the can-do belief that counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions should have worked in Vietnam and can work now.

    The Go-Big Option

    The leading voice of the Clausewitzian school was U.S. Army Colonel and Korean War/Vietnam War vet Harry Summers, whose 1982 book, On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, became an instant classic within the military. It's easy enough to understand why. Summers argued that civilian policymakers -- not the military rank-and-file -- had lost the war by focusing hopelessly on the insurgency in South Vietnam rather than on the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. More troops, more aggressiveness, even full-scale invasions of communist safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, would have led to victory.

    Summers had a deep emotional investment in his topic. Later , he would argue that the source of post-war pessimistic analyses of the conflict lay in "draft dodgers and war evaders still [struggling] with their consciences." In his own work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national security interest of the United States.

    Perhaps he would have done well to reconsider a famous post-war encounter he had with a North Vietnamese officer, a Colonel Tu, whom he assured that "you know you never beat us on the battlefield."

    "That may be so," replied his former enemy, "but it is also irrelevant."

    Whatever its limitations, his work remains influential in military circles to this day. (I was assigned the book as a West Point cadet!)

    A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty . He argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were derelict in failing to give President Lyndon Johnson an honest appraisal of what it would take to win, which meant that "the nation went to war without the benefit of effective military advice." He concluded that the war was lost not in the field or by the media or even on antiwar college campuses, but in Washington, D.C., through a failure of nerve by the Pentagon's generals, which led civilian officials to opt for a deficient strategy.

    McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another "go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war."

    COIN: A Small (Forever) War

    Another Vietnam veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, fired the opening salvo for the hearts-and-minders. In The Army and Vietnam , published in 1986, he argued that the NLF, not the North Vietnamese Army, was the enemy's chief center of gravity and that the American military's failure to emphasize counterinsurgency principles over conventional concepts of war sealed its fate. While such arguments were, in reality, no more impressive than those of the Clausewitzians, they have remained popular with military audiences, as historian Dale Andrade points out , because they offer a "simple explanation for the defeat in Vietnam."

    Krepinevich would write an influential 2005 Foreign Affairs piece , "How to Win in Iraq," in which he applied his Vietnam conclusions to a new strategy of prolonged counterinsurgency in the Middle East, quickly winning over the New York Times 's resident conservative columnist, David Brooks, and generating "discussion in the Pentagon, CIA, American Embassy in Baghdad, and the office of the vice president."

    In 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam . Sorley boldly asserted that, by the spring of 1970, "the fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S. commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor, General Creighton Abrams -- Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have been) a war winner.

    Critics noted that Sorley overemphasized the marginal differences between the two generals' strategies and produced a remarkably counterfactual work. It didn't matter, however. By 2005, just as the situation in Iraq, a country then locked in a sectarian civil war amid an American occupation, went from bad to worse, Sorley's book found its way into the hands of the head of U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, and State Department counselor Philip Zelikow. By then, according to the Washington Post 's David Ignatius, it could also "be found on the bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad."

    Another influential hearts-and-minds devotee was Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl. (He even made it onto The Daily Show with Jon Stewart .) His Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam followed Krepinevich in claiming that "if [Creighton] Abrams had gotten the call to lead the American effort at the start of the war, America might very well have won it." In 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker "so liked [Nagl's] book that he made it required reading for all four-star generals," while the Iraq War commander of that moment, General George Casey, gave Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a copy during a visit to Baghdad.

    David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times -reviewed ) military field manual for counterinsurgency since Vietnam, must also be considered among the pantheon of hearts-and-minders. Nagl wrote a foreword for their manual, while Krepinevich provided a glowing back-cover endorsement .

    Such revisionist interpretations would prove tragic in Iraq and Afghanistan, once they had filtered down to the entire officer corps.

    Reading All the Wrong Books

    In 2009, when former West Point history professor Colonel Gregory Daddis was deployed to Iraq as the command historian for the Multinational Corps -- the military's primary tactical headquarters -- he noted that corps commander Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby had assigned a professional reading list to his principal subordinates. To his disappointment, Daddis also discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley's A Better War . This should have surprised no one, since his argument -- that American soldiers in Vietnam were denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors -- was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the military's fault!

    Officers have long distributed professional reading lists for subordinates, intellectual guideposts to the complex challenges ahead. Indeed, there's much to be admired in the concept, but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The generals have been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.

    Just after 9/11, for instance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers -- who spoke at my West Point graduation -- included Summers's On Strategy on his list. A few years later, then-Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker added McMaster's Dereliction of Duty . The trend continues today. Marine Corps Commandant Robert Neller has kept McMaster and added Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (he of the illegal bombing of both Laos and Cambodia and war criminal fame). Current Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley kept Kissinger and added good old Lewis Sorley. To top it all off, Secretary of Defense Mattis has included yet another Kissinger book and, in a different list , Krepinevich's The Army and Vietnam .

    Just as important as which books made the lists is what's missing from them: none of these senior commanders include newer scholarship , novels , or journalistic accounts which might raise thorny, uncomfortable questions about whether the Vietnam War was winnable, necessary, or advisable, or incorporate local voices that might highlight the limits of American influence and power.

    Serving in the Shadow of Vietnam

    Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War. They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in 1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in 1984 . Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in 1971 , while Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his commission in 1976 .

    In other words, the generation of officers now overseeing the still-spreading war on terror entered military service at the end of or after the tragic war in Southeast Asia. That meant they narrowly escaped combat duty in the bloodiest American conflict since World War II and so the professional credibility that went with it. They were mentored and taught by academy tactical officers, ROTC instructors, and commanders who had cut their teeth on that conflict. Vietnam literally dominated the discourse of their era -- and it's never ended.

    Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only lead to twenty-first-century disasters.

    From Vietnam to the War on Terror to Generational War

    All of this misremembering, all of those Vietnam "lessons" inform the U.S. military's ongoing "surges" and "advise-and-assist" approaches to its wars in the Greater Middle East and Africa. Representatives of both Vietnam revisionist schools now guide the development of the Trump administration's version of global strategy. President Trump's in-house Clausewitzians clamor for -- and receive -- ever more delegated authority to do their damnedest and what retired General (and Vietnam vet) Edward Meyer called for back in 1983: "a freer hand in waging war than they had in Vietnam." In other words, more bombs, more troops, and carte blanche to escalate such conflicts to their hearts' content.

    Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70% of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new "mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize" Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones , planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on farce.

    The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting. None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who flew 269 combat missions over that country) noted in the recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side."

    Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment -- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ." Eerily enough, to cite a Vietnam-era precedent, General Creighton Abrams predicted something similar. speaking to the White House as the war in Southeast Asia was winding down. Even as President Richard Nixon slowly withdrew U.S. forces, handing over their duties to the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) -- a process known then as "Vietnamization" -- the general warned that, despite ARVN improvements, continued U.S. support "would be required indefinitely to maintain an effective force." Vietnam, too, had its "generational" side (until, of course, it didn't).

    That war and its ill-fated lessons will undoubtedly continue to influence U.S. commanders until a new set of myths, explaining away a new set of failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, take over, possibly thanks to books by veterans of these conflicts about how Washington could have won the war on terror.

    It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the wrong books.

    In 1986, General Petraeus ended his influential Parameters article with a quote from historian George Herring: "Each historical situation is unique and the use of analogy is at best misleading, at worst, dangerous." When it comes to Vietnam and a cohort of officers shaped in its shadow (and even now convinced it could have been won), "dangerous" hardly describes the results. They've helped bring us generational war and, for today's young soldiers, ceaseless tragedy.

    3

    0

    42

    0

    0

    Medon , January 29, 2018 at 2:38 am

    How come no one reads Giap

    fajensen , January 29, 2018 at 7:00 am

    That would be admitting that "we" didn't win the Vietnam War. The winners write history and all that.

    sierra7 , January 29, 2018 at 6:28 pm

    I know there is a book with the name; "The Arrogance of Power", but it is apt when applied to US attempt to obliterate the nation of Vietnam. We continue to spread this filthy type of "war" around the globe only because we have not really met our "match" but, we will .oh yes, we will. Every book that has been written about either the war itself or the tactics used to try to "win" has contributed to more understanding of that brutal war. The military must relearn the rule of war that war itself alone cannot win, it takes the political side also. It has been infernally "easy" since 9/11 for the politicians, the military industrial complex to construct a world of "terror" and most Americans believe in that world. It has been immensely profitable. No compulsory military service; a bunch of "little" wars around the globe being run by private enterprises; no excess war profits taxes; a Pentagon budget that includes the propagandizing of the American sports public .and on and on and on. What's not to like for the profit mongers and the ideologically bent?? Ho Chi Min and the people of Vietnam were outright betrayed by WW1 (just like the Arabs) treaties; by the US in it's treatment of Vietnam in the treaties of WW2 (Roosevelt died but he already had an understanding with the French (DeGaulle)) to not interfere with their retaking over of Vietnam after WW2 so as to get French cooperation with the birth of NATO.
    May I add another book: "Ho Chi Min" "A Life" William J. Duiker. Pub. 2000.

    The Rev Kev , January 29, 2018 at 3:22 am

    Well if they are looking for good books on 'Nam, might I suggest some of the books from my own collection?
    "Long Time Passing" – Myra MacPherson
    "About Face" – David H. Hackworth
    "Nam" – Mark Baker
    "Dispatches" – Michael Herr
    "One Soldier"- John H. Shook
    "The Only War We Had" – Michael Lee Lanning
    "To Heal a Nation" – Jan C. Scruggs

    Yves Smith Post author , January 29, 2018 at 3:53 am

    Thanks!

    PlutoniumKun , January 29, 2018 at 5:32 am

    I'd add 'Kill anything that moves' by Nick Turse

    Also, the novel (based on the authors experience as an NVA soldier), 'The Sorrows of War' by Bao Ninh. It shows many NVA soldiers were as cynical of their political masters as the average US grunt.

    DakotabornKansan , January 29, 2018 at 6:06 am

    Beginnings, America does not learn:

    Graham Greene: The Quiet American

    Bernard Fall: Street without Joy

    PlutoniumKun , January 29, 2018 at 6:15 am

    Oh, I'd forgotten 'The Quiet American', incredible book – I kept having to check the inside page when I read it to confirm that it was in fact written before the Vietnam War – its prescience was amazing. It should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in foreign policy of any type.

    paul , January 29, 2018 at 7:17 am

    Conrad's "The Secret Agent" and Chesterton's "The man who was Thursday" fit in with this category too.
    Not much new under the sun.

    Objective Function , January 29, 2018 at 9:02 am

    George Martin Windrow's "The Last Valley" (1996) displaces Bernard Fall as the definitive work on Dien Bien Phu, prelude to America's debacle. I work a lot in Vietnam, and his description of how their society organizes and moblilizes is spot on. He also has blood curdling descriptions of what artillery does to human bodies. And there is the entertaining interlude where the US briefly entertained atomic bombing to break the siege.

    Fred1 , January 29, 2018 at 7:52 am

    From Bernard Fall's Newport lecture at the Naval War College in about 1964:

    "Let me state this definition: RW = G + P, or, "revolutionary warfare equals guerrilla warfare plus political action." This formula for revolutionary warfare is the result of the application of guerrilla methods to the furtherance of an ideology or a political system. This is the real difference between partisan warfare, guerrilla warfare, and everything else. "Guerrilla" simply means "small war," to which the correct Army answer is (and that applies to all Western armies) that everybody knows how to fight small wars; no second lieutenant of the infantry ever learns anything else but how to fight small wars. Political action, however, is the difference. The communists, or shall we say, any sound revolutionary warfare operator (the French underground, the Norwegian underground, or any other European anti-Nazi underground) most of the time used small-war tactics–not to destroy the German Army, of which they were thoroughly incapable, but to establish a competitive system of control over the population. Of course, in order to do this, here and there they had to kill some of the occupying forces and attack some of the military targets. But above all they had to kill their own people who collaborated with the enemy."

    Adam Eran , January 29, 2018 at 1:20 pm

    Also worth a look: War Comes to Long An by Jeffrey Race, which essentially discloses that the U.S. war effort, as understood by the Vietnamese themselves, was to keep the French colonial oligarchy in place.

    Race learned Vietnamese on the boat over to Vietnam and interviewed the Vietnamese themselves to find out why they continued to fight. Basically, the oligarchy promised only continued oppression by the rentiers.

    animalogic , January 29, 2018 at 11:23 pm

    "The only war we got" (1970) a novel by Derek Maitland. Great satire: wish I knew where my old copy is.

    Anon , January 29, 2018 at 11:32 pm

    I didn't need to read books about Vietnam. I simply listened to the stories and night-time screams of my new roommates returning to school on the GI Bill in '68 and '69. The lives ruined, on both sides, stays with me today.

    One of those room-mates was on Hamburger Hill in May of '69 and was attempting college in the Fall. PTSD was apparent and he soon enough dropped out (of life).

    paul , January 29, 2018 at 3:44 am

    "The Phoenix Program" by Douglas Valentine.

    Another approach to controlling hearts and minds.

    JBird , January 29, 2018 at 4:22 am

    It's finally back in print. I am getting myself a copy soon.

    JBird , January 29, 2018 at 4:21 am

    The sad part is we Americans do everything we keep to keep snatching defeat from victory's teeth. The Vietnamese as a whole were happy with us before our government (read CIA) sabotaged the elections, and handed power over to the Catholic minority and its most corrupt part at that. (When you have to pay/bribe someone for artillery support during a battle ) Ho Chi Min and company did not ally themselves to their worst enemy, the Chinese, because they wanted too.

    Same with Iraq. It was probably unwindable, but scrapping detailed State Department plans on what when, and if, Iraq was occupied because you don't want to spend the money, defend only the oil ministry's offices, let the entire country just collapse, and then fire not only anyone a member of the Ba'ath Party as well as the entire Iraqi Army. Of course, if wanted to be a teacher or have a job in the government, you had to be a Ba'athist, and to secure any of the weapons and ammunition of the army is something. I am not what that something is, but it's really something. And then the Bush Administration basically says it's going to invade Iran once everything settles, which gave the Iranians incentive to keep arming anyone in Iraq fighting the Americans and British.

    I am raaaanting now and I can feel my blood rising so I am gonna stop now. It's just so hard seeing our government's foreign policy and its intelligence services being run by well educated morons.

    vlade , January 29, 2018 at 5:49 am

    Can't comment on Iraq, but Vietnam was a MAJOR F-up by USA. Ho Chi Min was actually very much pro-USA – until they handed them back to French after WW2.

    With even a bit of US support Vietnam could have been fairly firmly pro-US (it always was anti-China, so the "it will go to Chinese like Koreans did" fears were fearmongering/PR at worst and lack of understanding at best), aiming to build a sort of social-democratic regime rather than full-on Communist one. Yes, it would have upset the French. What's not to like, given how deGaule was trying to screw everyone around to push their national interests? (much better than British at the time, one should say).

    voteforno6 , January 29, 2018 at 6:05 am

    The Cold War was spinning up in Europe, and the U.S. was trying to get France on its side. The price for that was allowing France to attempt to reassert itself in Indochina.

    vlade , January 29, 2018 at 6:40 am

    I know the usual excuse – but there was about zero chance that France would really go into bed with USSR.

    deGaule definitely threatened it, but I very much doubt he would go the full hog – if nothing else, he didn't want to be anyone's, and that included USSR's, puppet. At the very very worst, they might end up Yugoslavia-like, although I'd say that once proto-EU was cooked up, France would jump there pretty quick, as otherwise it would have lost pretty much all influence in Europe.

    PlutoniumKun , January 29, 2018 at 8:24 am

    Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were all, arguably, 'winnable' – the common thread in all three is the US failure to understand local political dynamics. With Vietnam, it was the failure to understand that what was happening was primarily a civil war with the 'Communists' not necessarily being anti-American – they saw (and still see) China as their long historical enemy. In Iraq the dismembering of the existing Ba'ath party structures without having anything (apart from the free market of course) to replace it proved fatal, along with an ignorance of Shia/Sunni dynamics. In Afghanistan the 'victory' was blown by an insistence on chasing phantom Al-Q enemies when the Taliban was more or less destroyed.

    When you read the history of long lived empires, from Rome to the British Empire, a common characteristic they all have is an acute awareness of how to manipulate local dynamics in order to maintain control without expending too much manpower. The US military seems to completely lack this capacity. In fact, rather than being in charge, a common feature seems to be that US military power is all too easily manipulated by local powerbrokers for their own ends.

    vlade , January 29, 2018 at 8:56 am

    Yep, I'll sign under that. I do wonder how much it has to do with the American psyche, and how much with the fact that even British or Roman empires had sort of hard limitations (not just in terms of manpower, but more importantly in the ability to get the manpower to the sharp end pronto).

    PlutoniumKun , January 29, 2018 at 11:41 am

    I think an element of it is quite simply the sheer wealth and power of America means it doesn't have to think through the consequences of interventions too much. Even in the heyday of the European empires, military adventures were very expensive operations – two or three failures in a row could fatally set an empire back.

    I think another major issue is the lack of skin in the game for decision makers. I think the early days of WWII was the last time there was a major cull of military officers for incompetence in the US. And even in WWII, it was rare for officers to get killed. Even more so since then, and with the ending of the draft, it means no risks for their sons or daughters, and minimal ones for anyone they would be likely to know.

    There is simply little or no price paid for failure. At least not by the people responsible.

    JTMcPhee , January 29, 2018 at 9:57 am

    "All, arguably, winnable." For what definition of "WIN?"

    Our military rulers are supposed to "study war." The curriculum supposedly includes not only Clausewitz, Mr. "Center of Gravity," on "modern" war, but also that hoary old classic under the nom de plume "Sun Tzu," called "The Art of War." Said rulers, for some reason, skip over the first part of Sun Tzu's advice, the part about asking whether going to war is wise at all, at all:

    I. Laying Plans

    1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

    2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

    3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

    4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

    5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

    7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.

    8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.

    9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness.

    10. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure.

    11. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.

    12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:–

    13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

    14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.

    15. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat:–let such a one be dismissed! http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

    There's a lot more in "The Art of War" about the idiocy of doofus war-fighting in absence of the Moral Law and true national interest at the end of immense logistics and supply chains, war that bankrupts the peasants, getting stuck in quagmires and such. The current rulers just jump (if they pay any attention at all to the work any more) straight to all the chestnuts ("All war is deception," duh, "Attack where he is weak, retreat where he is strong," duh) about how to conduct strategy and tactics.

    When was the last time any of these fundamental "Think before shooting" considerations Sun Tzu distilled from millennia of earlier wars and his own experiences was given ANY attention by the rotter nihilists ("Mutual Assured Destruction, Massive Retaliation, "counterinsurgency always and everywhere, the F-35 model of logistics?) who commit "the nation" and the peasants to their programs and "operations"? And even the attempts to "get the peasants on side" via Bernays saucing, one of the necessary conditions per Sun Tzu, have been completely bollixed, or simply plowed over.

    All this sh!t-storm activity is conducted from within the same kind of bubble that got inflated around the French High Command in the run up to the Great War, and seems to regularly envelop "high commands" which are maybe experiencing a "contact high" from breathing, inside that bubble, the heady fumes of their self-generated hallucinogenic "designer drugs."

    Many of our cities and towns already look a lot like Fallujah and Raqqa after "liberation-by-destruction." Waiting for a massive collapse, maybe slow-mo or maybe tipping-point quick, with huge collateral damage, in three, two, one

    a different chris , January 29, 2018 at 1:19 pm

    The problem is, many will argue that the parts of Sun Tzu you so correctly pointed out aren't really the US military's job, they are the responsibility of the US Congress.

    And, well, you know.

    JTMcPhee , January 29, 2018 at 8:12 pm

    But something other than "Congress" is what's loosing the dogs of war. There's how it's supposed to work, on paper, per that "quaint document," and how it actually works. Like so much of "the Republic." Which ain't.

    animalogic , January 29, 2018 at 11:28 pm

    "When you read the history of long lived empires, from Rome to the British Empire, a common characteristic they all have is an acute awareness of how to manipulate local dynamics in order to maintain control without expending too much manpower."
    + 100

    Colonel Smithers , January 29, 2018 at 4:36 am

    Thank you, Yves.

    It won't surprise readers that Petraeus' "masterpiece" on counterinsurgency bears a strong similarity to a publication by the late Sir Frank Kitson. Sir Frank commanded British forces in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and UK Land Forces soon after. He also served in colonial insurgencies in the 1950s. Kitson gave a talk, based on his publication, on such matters to his alma mater, which I attended, in the mid-1980s. He was also the speaker at "speech day" around then.

    paul , January 29, 2018 at 5:35 am

    The shankhill butchers seemed a fairly obvious example phoenix/kitson's counter-gang enthusiasms to me.

    On 27 April 2015 Kitson and the Ministry of Defence were served with papers for negligence and misfeasance in office by Mary Heenan, widow of Eugene "Paddy" Heenan who was killed in 1973 by members of the Ulster Defence Association, because of "the use of loyalist paramilitary gangs to contain the republican-nationalist threat through terror, manipulation of the rule of law, infiltration and subversion all core to the Kitson military of doctrine endorsed by the British army and the British government at the time."

    PlutoniumKun , January 29, 2018 at 5:39 am

    When the Iraq and Afghanistan War started, the British military were full of confidence that their experience in counterinsurgency would allow them to show the US how it was done. They had to be rescued in somewhat ignominious manner from both Basra and Kandahar as they were shown to be completely out of their depth. It is part of British Army mythology that they defeated the IRA using sound and sensible COIN, but the reality is much more complicated.

    Incidentally, it is said that Mao (and possibly Ho Chi Minh too) were avid readers of the biographies of early 20th Century IRA leaders, including Michael Collins and Tom Barry, both experts in counter-counter insurgency. Tom Barry was the leader of the most effective unit, the West Cork Brigade. Collins was a master in using intelligence against intelligence services, while Tom Barry was capable of using limited resources to keep an enormous number of soldiers tied up. Both knew the skills of provoking the State into over-reactions which pushed civilians over onto the rebels side.

    paul , January 29, 2018 at 5:59 am

    There's quite a good exposition of insensible COIN in the wikipedia entry on the Force Research Unit .

    PlutoniumKun , January 29, 2018 at 6:24 am

    Yes – despite its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement the British Government is still sitting on files which would likely shed light on the dirty war in Northern Ireland. Its pretty clear that both the main loyalist groups were to a large extent run by the intelligence services to kill suspected IRA members, and were very likely involved in bombings that resulted in mass casualties in Dublin and Monaghan. While they did undoubtedly manage to neutralise some IRA Units in reality they stoked up as much violence as they stopped.

    Colonel Smithers , January 29, 2018 at 6:47 am

    Thank you, PK and Paul.

    In advance of a Corbyn government, many papers, some going back to the smearing of Labour in the 1920s, have been "lost". The cache lost include the papers on the "sexed up dodgy dossier", written by the UK's current envoy to the UN (Matthew Ryecroft) and sexed up by the loathsome Alistair Campbell, and the death of the weapons inspector. The form of death officially recorded, as with George Michael's, is disputed by many pathologists, including former colleagues of my father.

    icancho , January 29, 2018 at 3:03 pm

    Indeed. Document "disappearance" is a serious problem, with a long history, addressed pretty well in Ian Cobain's recent title The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation.

    visitor , January 29, 2018 at 9:04 am

    Whatever approach Petraeus & Co proposed, "hearts and minds" counter-insurgency was basically a century old. Here:

    Chaque fois que les incidents de guerre obligent l'un de nos officiers à agir contre un village [ ], il ne doit pas perdre de vue que son premier soin, la soumission des habitants obtenue, sera de reconstruire le village, d'y créer un marché, d'y établir une école. C'est de l'action de la politique et de la force que doit résulter la pacification du pays et l'organisation à lui donner plus tard.

    I.e. Every time one of our officers is forced to act against a village because of war incidents, he must not lose sight of his first concern, which, after the submission of the inhabitants, is to rebuild the village, to create a market, to establish a school. It is the joint action of policy and force that must result in the pacification of the country and in its later organization.

    From the "fundamental instructions" of General Gallieni from 22nd May 1898, in the midst of the "pacification" of Madagascar. Its estimated death toll was about 100000.

    voteforno6 , January 29, 2018 at 6:07 am

    These generals remind me of the character of Colonel Nicholson (played by Alec Guinness) in The Bridge on the River Kwai . They're so focused on the task in front of them, they can't seem to step back and think about the wider picture.

    PlutoniumKun , January 29, 2018 at 8:26 am

    In the Netflix film The Siege of Jadotville , the real life Commandant Pat Quinlan is quoted as saying 'Soldiers do tactics, politicians do strategy'. The US miliitary always seems to have a surfeit of tactics with no discernable strategy.

    JTMcPhee , January 29, 2018 at 10:43 am

    And of course Nicholson, at the end of the film, was going to stop the demolition of that so painfully built bridge by the "inglorious bastards" on his nominal own team. Only dumb luck and the timing of a bullet from a "Jap" led to his falling on the detonator as he died, and blowing up the span .

    flora , January 29, 2018 at 3:10 pm

    re: wider picture.
    The wider picture is the political picture. The military in the US is supposed to be and remain non-political. The politicians send the military to wars. The military does not choose what war, where, why to fight. Those decisions are Congress and the prez's job.

    flora , January 29, 2018 at 3:45 pm

    adding: When then (2003) Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee the truth about what an Iraq invasion required he displeased the Bush admin and DoD, and was shortly edged out of his command by retirement. That in-essence "sacking" had a large effect on the thinking of the entire chain of command, imo.

    https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/index.html

    Pokie , January 29, 2018 at 8:05 am

    The most thing learned from Vietnam War
    was how to manage public opinion
    About the war on terror

    RickM , January 29, 2018 at 8:27 am

    A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan and, of course, The Best and the Brightest , by David Halberstam. Tree of Smoke by Denis Johnson.

    shinola , January 29, 2018 at 8:36 am

    Thank you Yves for posting this article. It is rather disheartening but explains a lot of what I have been wondering about for years – Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?
    Obviously the answer is no; but even worse is the attitude of "we could/should have won" displayed by the current military brass.

    I remarked to wifey the other day that kids who were only a year old on 9/11 will be old enough to join the military this year

    Steely Glint , January 29, 2018 at 8:42 am

    I first heard of Ghost Riders of Baghdad by following various military Twitter accounts, like Angry Staff Officer, or the account of Robert Bateman ( who sometimes writes for Esquire). Angry Staff officer also has a blog with very informative posts. I thought of, Is The Amy's Professional Military Education Broken?, after reading the above post. A sample, " All military education must stem from the fundamental that war is a human endeavor, and as such cannot be prosecuted without understanding basic factors of humanity".
    https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/07/18/is-the-armys-professional-military-education-system-broken/

    The Rev Kev , January 29, 2018 at 8:45 am

    It is never mentioned here but how about the possibility that some wars simply cannot be won – ever. It is not for nothing that Afghanistan is know as the place that empires go to die nor that a geopolitical axiom is to never fight a land war in Asia. There was no possible time-line where the US won in Vietnam using either military means or COIN operations. The terrible truth is that most of those 58,00 Americans died long after it was know that they could never win.
    The COINdinistas had their chance in Iraq but younger offices at the time were furious with senior officers in how out of touch they were with what was going on so it was a repeat of the Vietnam experience all over again, including the notorious body-counts. And this whole we-would-have-won-if-not-for-the-politicians-and-hippies is as much crap as the post WW1 German officers with their we-were-stabbed-in-the-back obsession. I see this even here in Australia. Years ago I saw an Army show that featured the history of the Army. When they got to the Vietnam war era they had Aussie soldiers naming the dead bodies in a mock-up of the Battle of Long Tan while of the other side of the arena they had hippies shouting peace slogans and the like. The message was clear – you betrayed us!
    And that "you never beat us on the battlefield" was apparently not true either according to an article I read last year setting out a few hard truths. The truth is that the training of American officers is badly broken and that sycophants do very well in it. The whole system needs to be junked as America is not bringing out the best officers that it can – not by a long shot – and it was this system that produced leaders like Petraeus. They may have been presented as the Great White Hope once but I invite other commentators find out how his superior, Admiral William Fallon, regarded him. Nothing less than a root and branch overhaul of the American officer training regime will counter how we see wars being fought now. Otherwise we will continue to see more of the same.

    Colonel Smithers , January 29, 2018 at 9:55 am

    Thank you for bringing up Fallon's opinion of the "ass kissing chicken shit".

    a different chris , January 29, 2018 at 1:26 pm

    >And that "you never beat us on the battlefield" was apparently not true either

    Colonel Tu was being a pretty gracious winner with his "that may be so" response, wasn't he?

    animalogic , January 29, 2018 at 11:41 pm

    Its worse than that: the US military is the cutting edge of a political Imperialist policy completely contradicted by the
    21st C environment. This is failure at the DNA level.

    Matthew G. Saroff , January 29, 2018 at 9:19 am

    Two things that need to be understand about the Vietnam war that the US military does not get.
    The first is that the US did not lose the Vietnam war, we were beaten by the Vietnamese.
    If we just "lost" the war, then all the "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics" crap where the only to lose is through a failure of will, (protesters and namby-pamby members of Congress) becomes the dominant explanation.
    We were beaten, and so we need to know why our military was beaten, and what the military/Pentagon did wrong.
    The second thing is the idea that the Vietnamese won no battles in the war is patently false .
    There are at least 70 battles that were lost.
    The reason that the Pentagon insists on ignoring both of these is because the "stab in the back from protesters" means that there is no accountability for the failures of our military.
    So, like the Bourbon kings, our military has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

    Ian Perkins , January 29, 2018 at 9:22 am

    The article states "Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq "
    In fact, the next Vietnam-like quagmire was engineered much sooner than that, and is still running.
    From an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, US National Security Adviser at the time:
    " it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.' "
    http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview

    This is him in Pakistan in 1979 egging on the Mujahaddin who would morph into the Taliban and al Qaeda:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg

    Objective Function , January 29, 2018 at 9:22 am

    Popular insurgencies can be beaten. There are many examples, especially in Latin America. The common enabling condition appears to be exhaustion of the peasantry over a period of years, after which they choose 'peace and order' enforced by thugs with badges over the guerrillas who cannot restore economic life, even in 'liberated zones'.
    Pastoral mountain tribesmen are probably the least susceptible to this exhaustion and subjugation can take generations: witness the Scots.

    hemeantwell , January 29, 2018 at 10:10 am

    I think you're getting at something that the win/lose focus misses: whether or not the US ultimately failed to maintain a client regime in Vietnam, it brutally demonstrated the costs of resistance.

    In Yves' intro she writes

    but decided to stay at war because they deemed the damage to US prestige of winding down the war to be too great.

    US prestige = certainty of monumental costs to resistance. Prestige is honorspeak for legitimate terrorism.

    Self Affine , January 29, 2018 at 10:24 am

    I think you are missing the point of all of this and in fact trivializing the war.

    Vietnam was not a popular insurgency (whatever that means). It was an all out war to rid that nation of colonial domination and unify the country. It was not the "Viet Namese war" for these people, but the war against America.

    "Popular insurgency" is the Orwellian term used by those in power. A good example is the American war of independence. From the British Empire's point of view, it was a "popular insurgency".

    It would be instructive if you could define "popular insurgency" more clearly and provide some context.

    Altandmain , January 29, 2018 at 1:37 pm

    The issue is that they can only be done by governments in their own nations or the nations that they are very close by.

    Even then, the success record is mixed and it requires a willingness to be totally ruthless. Otherwise the subjugated people eventually will be able to win some form of independence, like the Irish.

    The US is different. It is dealing with self inflicted and totally pointless wars in the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan.

    Lord Koos , January 29, 2018 at 1:49 pm

    The insurgencies in Latin America can hardly be compared to Vietnam, as they were for the most part beaten by CIA dirty work rather than crushed by a full-on military operation.

    jfleni , January 29, 2018 at 9:36 am

    The long, sad record is so awful, maybe we just turn over the whole military to the Civil Air patrol and the Coast Guard! They could not possibly do worse, and might be much better!

    JTMcPhee , January 29, 2018 at 10:40 am

    In no time flat, either of those organizations (already peopled by nascent Petraeuses and Mattises) would revert to the mean that we already know too well. Nice thought, though. The Coast Guard's multi-missions mission: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missions_of_the_United_States_Coast_Guard Unlike all the other "branches" of the MIC hydra, the CG suffers from cost cutting and neoliberalism. "More and more work, for fewer and fewer people, for less and less money, under tighter and tighter constraints, with every more detailed metrics " and their recent acquisitions of new cutters are kind of F-35/littoral-combat-ships-ish "Billions Later, Plan to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles," http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09ship.html

    Colonel Smithers , January 29, 2018 at 9:51 am

    One thing that is rarely, if ever, mentioned is the type of person who joins the officer corps. The school I attended has produced (British) generals and admirals (only, not the ranks). Many, if not most, of the pupils who joined, or were encouraged to join, and only as officers were considered dunces. Goodness knows what the soldiers and sailors, especially NCOs, thought of the "young ruperts".

    One contemporary, now a well regarded and well known painter (deservedly so), stayed in the same class / year for three years. He was encouraged into the Welsh Guards and served a few years. His elder brother joined the same regiment and is a general. Ian Duncan Smith, formerly of the Scots Guards, is similar.

    Steven Greenberg , January 29, 2018 at 10:17 am

    Read The Pentagon Papers to see why we couldn't win hearts and minds. The Vietnamese hated the French and we ended up doing everything the French did to make the Vietnamese hate us too.

    https://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Papers-Defense-Departments-History-ebook/dp/B00361EXR6/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1516545546&sr=8-9&keywords=the+pentagon+papers+book

    Norb , January 29, 2018 at 10:17 am

    Two good books that give a historical perspective of American involvement in the Pacific and Asia are James Bradley's,The Imperial Cruise, and The China Mirage- The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia. Both books are written in a narrative style that is very approachable and entertaining. Bradley tells a great story. They describe some long standing American policy that go unreported and bring new understanding to todays events.

    These titles led me to Barbara Tuchman's, Stilwell and the American Experience in China- 1911-45. I haven't read this one yet, but Stilwell seems an interesting American character. Someone on the ground, seeing reality for what it is, and ignored by the upper brass. Another typical American story- a tragedy.

    One of the criticisms of American foreign policy made by the British has always been the lack of political foresight and strategic thinking. I came across these criticisms in the context of WWII policy, but at their core, I think they say much about the character of American leadership. American founding principles and the needs of Empire are contradictory to the citizenry. America has become an Empire by luck and default. Luck in the unmatched bounty the North American continent has bestowed on the Nation and Europeans wearing themselves out. This point is driven home by the fact that American standing in the world is falling like a rock in many metrics.

    I believe this explains why Americans still are reluctant to view themselves as being an Empire. Too many tricky contradictions when dealing with their own citizens and reason for being. It is what lies behind the lie of spreading "Democracy" to the world. The British Empire faced no such dilemma. At least they brought law, order, and culture to those they conquered. American Empire spreads chaos. Resisting cultures are treated to the political ideology of annihilation. American policy is, "bombing them into the stone age."

    Another great read is Halford Mackinder, The Geographical Pivot of History. In a way, his thesis ties up all the loose ends of the Great Game being played by our political and social betters. The Anglo-Saxon mode of rule has been to carve up the world. Asian cultures are much older and as humanity moves forward in time, people are truly tiring of war. A united Eurasian Continent would be a supreme power to set living standards and future goals. True power is moving East.

    What has the West to offer, but more blood and bombs. The embrace of cultural diversity moves away from war and embodies political power in the melding of culture not its extermination. I think that was the policy of Alexander the Great.

    The great fear of American political leaders is being labeled provincials. Failed world leadership lends credence to this charge. We are not ready to lead, and it shows by the mediocracy of our leaders. An Empire that kills itself has to be a first. Is it any wonder that the leadership now embrace the kill anything that moves mentality. It is all they have in the form of power projection and vision.

    All this to get to the point that maybe a multipolar world is not such a bad thing. Trying something new when everything else seems to fail.

    a different chris , January 29, 2018 at 1:34 pm

    Eh I'm no fan of the West but I wouldn't paint the East in very pretty colors either, for sure. Humanity has a tendency to suck. Look close to home to make things better I would say.

    You want a multipolar world, me too but what's with this "supreme" "United Eurasian Continent"??? I want to have to at least take my shoes off to count the world's power centers.

    Enrico Malatesta , January 29, 2018 at 10:21 am

    We have all forgotten the "Forgotten War". In another Asian byproduct of WWII, Curtis LeMay channeled Clausewitz to the max as we flattened North Korea. How did that work out? Does it have any ramifications for the USA in 2018?

    JTMcPhee , January 29, 2018 at 10:25 am

    Books to "explain" Vietnam and sequelae: Why no mention of a really seminal tome, "The Ugly American"? Dated 1958. I read it, avidly, several times over, as a young, testosterone-poisoned American Boy Scout Youth, and its mythos helped in getting me to enlist in the Imperial Army in 1966. From Wiki:

    The Ugly American is a 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. The Ugly American depicts the failures of the U.S. diplomatic corps, whose insensitivity to local language, culture, customs and refusal to integrate was in marked contrast to the polished abilities of Eastern Bloc (primarily Soviet) diplomacy and led to Communist diplomatic success overseas [sic]. The book caused a sensation in diplomatic circles. John F. Kennedy was so impressed with the book that he sent a copy to each of his colleagues in the United States Senate. The book was one of the biggest bestsellers in the country, has been in print continuously since it appeared and is one of the most politically influential novels in all of American literature.

    The title of the novel is a play on Graham Greene's 1955 novel The Quiet American and was sometimes confused with it.

    The "Ugly American" of the book title refers to the book's hero, plain-looking engineer Homer Atkins, whose "calloused and grease-blackened hands always reminded him that he was an ugly man." Atkins, who lives with the local people, comes to understand their needs, and offers genuinely useful assistance with small-scale projects such as the development of a simple bicycle-powered water pump.[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American

    Another of the hero's engineering triumph was getting the women of "Dong Ba" (?) to unbend their backs by changing to a New, Improved, longer model of the bamboo brooms they used to sweep the dirt floors of their huts. A relatively innocuous form of Coca-Colonialism But the part that I got all hepped up about was the engineer's innovation, borrowing from the Soviet "multiple launch rocket systems" known as "Katyushas," https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F2lPpPVlDhg , of fitting a truck with a several dozen rocket-launching rails, which he used to fire a volley of "spin-stabilized folding-fin air-to-ground rockets (SSFFARs)" into a bamboo grove where Evil Insurgents were having a meeting of their cabal -- "in the glare, you could see body parts spinning up into the night sky " Heady Stuff for young mopes.

    Apparently the myth of "The Ugly (But Big-Hearted, Local-Language-Speaking) American settled nicely into the mind and mindset of Saint Kennedy, too

    a different chris , January 29, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    And the story of the locals being too simple minded to invent longer broom handles. Yeesh.

    JTMcPhee , January 29, 2018 at 2:55 pm

    Tradition is durable. I recall Haitians, like some African forebears, preferred to cook with charcoal, which one gets by burning wood in a low oxygen furnace before burning it in your clay stove. Vastly wasteful. Now a good part of local effort goes into long walks to find bits of shrubbery to reduce to charcoal. And they denuded the whole country of trees and woody shrubs. Efforts made to change the custom met resistance -- "good enough for grandemere, good enough for.me." Like trying to get Americans to stop smoking, or worse, to drive smaller cars let alone kick the deadly automobile habit that has so many knock-on deleterious effects on people and planet.

    Anon , January 29, 2018 at 11:57 pm

    The degradation of the Haitian portion of Santo Dimingo was as much a result of the soil erosion caused by that mono-crop, sugar cane. The French merchants were making "boo koo" bucks deploying as many slaves as possible to harvest this cash crop. (Too many slaves on too little land.)

    The other half of Santo Domingo Island is the Dominican Republic and it has little of the resource devastation apparent in Haiti.

    John , January 29, 2018 at 11:22 am

    I see VietNam as the perfect example of successful neo liberal economic policies. Military Keynesianism, the workings of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and corporate profiteering are more pertinent than Clausewitz or Coin. As with the thoroughly neo liberal DNC, it's never been about winning or losing. It's just about the next consulting or munitions contract. Forever war means forever contract. The Mt. Pelerin society didn't start in 1947 for nothing. Keep them talking about winning and losing while the money flows in. Tough about the GI Joe collateral damage.

    Scott1 , January 29, 2018 at 4:57 pm

    I am more with your take John.

    Today's War Poem I Wrote
    Loving Generals

    The destined warriors are misused. International Law has no problem with wars of defense. I have a right to defend myself. The State has a monopoly on the use of force.

    Sports aren't enough for the action figures.

    Couldn't beat the Vietnamese so beating the Beats
    at home, in the homeland develops into for profit prisons
    & the recreation of the Gulag. American Gulags
    & how much of that labor for pennies is done for Koch Industries?
    Meltoy?

    I could found an entire nation on a love & war movie. South Koreans have made the theaters called 4D. Shakes you around and blows wind and smells on you.

    Spies fail in concert with their employers, the diplomats.
    Haley is at the UN taking names.

    Economic Warfare is universal. I mean there has been all my life
    War against me. I went to Canada, so I am the enemy & the Wall is to keep me here where I can be found & made to pay.

    One term President Carter pardoned dodgers.
    Wear sweaters.
    On goes the petrodollar war. 100 Year Oil War.

    Law of unintended consequences.
    No care.
    10,000 a year die from just small arms, in Mexico, not even artillery.

    US Police kill 2,000 or is it 3? or is it 4? A year.

    Now it is striking that Scandinavia, the Netherlands?
    Nations other places & until France so few do big
    murders of their countrymen or even within the EU.
    They have lived where war means everything is
    bombed or destroyed by cannons.

    Germany won economically in capitalism matured
    Because debts were to NAZIs enabling a great write off
    of debt, not happening and inflated by Hedge Funds
    for anybody else till Greece is enslaved & Puerto Rico
    & whose next?

    Doesn't matter, the US Military & its Bankers
    & its police have been & will be at war with or
    just at all Territories.
    Unitary Power but as Gov. of Govs, can't be
    That.
    Why? Why Not?
    War is not a war against spaceship aliens
    So war is to destroy the Earth.
    Kill anyone because you are destined
    to kill.
    Great Generals Have a Zest for Killing the Enemy.
    Read "Our Jungle Road to Tokyo" by Robert L. Eichelberger who
    is a great and perfect General of the 8th Army
    in the Pacific.
    Long as a General & an Army has one job only
    At the behest of its Civilians.
    All will be well.
    Or at least rational, which is better.

    Obviously Econ War is war.
    Declaration of Econ War is Sanctions
    Declared.
    Because of illegal War.

    I insist that the ICAO demand that
    Kim Y. Un & DPRK give Notices to Airmen
    When launching their Rockets.

    My Rocket Program is called
    The "Message Rocket Program".
    Beat, I'm Beat.

    "Army censorship concealed from
    the American public, as it very properly
    attempted to conceal from the Japanese,
     How weak we were.

    The ethical weakness of the US
    has become so profound.
    All it does is war piratical parasitical
    & everywhere all the time
    on the ground or in the mind.

    Out flow of all territory is by right
    The Unitary Power's.
    No Territory is won or lost.

    flora , January 29, 2018 at 11:28 am

    Revisionist history is in full swing across the MSM spectrum. Take, for instance, the new movie – 'The Post' – that pretends to be an accurate drama about Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers, and the "heroic" roll played by the Washington Post. It's fake history, as this excellent review makes clear, but it fits a certain preferred narrative.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/

    flora , January 29, 2018 at 11:46 am

    adding: one the the self-serving fictions the Dem party estab tells itself is that the working class voted for Nixon and other GOP candidates because the working class is racist. That neatly sidesteps the then growing belief that Vietnam – a Dem war, LBJ's war – was unwinnable, the Dem power establishment new it was unwinnable, and yet kept drafting working class boys to go fight and die because LBJ and others' egos were at stake. The Dems have never dealt with that betrayal of the working class.

    Trey N , January 29, 2018 at 12:04 pm

    The reading list is missing the books that describe the actual horrors of combat that our soldiers endured:

    Hamburger Hill – the movie does not do full justice to the total clusterfuck that battle was. I guarantee that you will weep bitter tears as you read accounts of the stupidity of commanding officers from general to lieutenant, and of the tragic waste of life of young draftees.

    We Were Soldiers Once – The first 3/4 of the movie closely follows the book -- and then goes all Hollywood at the end. It had to, because what actually happened was a stinging defeat of the American troops and a template for the rest of the war. A REMF staff officer needed to "get his ticket punched" for promotion with combat command experience, so was put in charge of a battalion that took part in the latter phases of the battle. While withdrawing from the battlefield afterward, he led the unit into an NVA ambush and lost 2/3 of his men (155 KIA, 124 WIA and 4 MIA out of about 450 troopers present).

    For somewhat more sanitized versions of what the grunts endured, see the half-dozen books (extended after-action reports) by S. L. A. Marshall.

    Nothing has changed from Nam to GWOT as far as the utter stupidity of America's military leaders, and their need for constant wars to advance their careers and feed their patrons in the MIC. One thing they *did* learn, after getting their sorry asses fragged by young draftees fed up with dying at the hands of incompetent dolts, was to ditch the draft and pay for mercenary -- called "volunteer" -- enlisted ranks. The wonder is, after 16 years of endless, futile deployemnts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria, that the mercs aren't murdering their idiot officers now as well ..

    paul , January 29, 2018 at 6:23 pm

    "Go tell the spartans" did without the hollywood ending, us military assistance and Burt Lancaster ponied up the 150k USD required to finish it.
    Set in 1964, says it was clearly fucked then.
    Worth a look.

    paul , January 29, 2018 at 8:25 pm

    The book it was based on was called "Incident ant muc wah" by Daniel Ford. (1968)
    Though I haven't read it.

    Trey N , January 29, 2018 at 9:23 pm

    Yeah, Go Tell the Spartans is an excellent Nam flick.

    Another is Platoon. Oliver Stone served in the 25th Infantry Division in Quang Tin Province in 1967. The last big battle of Platoon is based on an actual event in Quang Tin in 1971, when the VC overran Firebase Mary Ann and inflicted 33 KIA and 83 WIA on the 23rd Division.. Sappers in the Wire is a very good book about that fiasco.

    The Rev Kev , January 29, 2018 at 7:07 pm

    Books by S. L. A. Marshall may have to be read with caution, even though I have never read them. The reason that I say this is a book that I recommended in this series of posts called "About Face" by David H. Hackworth. Hackworth was detailed to escort Marshall around Vietnam and he "described his initial elation at an assignment with a man he idolized, and how that elation turned to disillusion after seeing Marshall's character and methods firsthand. Hackworth described Marshall as a "voyeur warrior," for whom "the truth never got in the way of a good story", and went so far as to say, "Veterans of many of the actions he 'documented' in his books have complained bitterly over the years of his inaccuracy or blatant bias". The guy was always chasing a buck.

    Winslow P. Kelpfroth , January 29, 2018 at 12:47 pm

    One significant action this piece left out was Congress' cutting off aid to South Vietnam after the US military withdrawal in '72 on. When the final tank-led NVA push came in Apr 75 most of the ARVN forces remained at their bases for lack of fuel and ammunition. Could the NVA Apr 75 campaign have met with similar lack of success as the '71 and '68 campaigns had Congress continued support for South Vietnam? Guess we'll never know.

    a different chris , January 29, 2018 at 2:18 pm

    Oh I think we know. We have Afghanistan and Iraq to prove how long a hyperpower can prolong stupid wars.

    BTW, so I Orbitz'd LA->HoChiMin City. 1 transfer, 800 bucks. Tell me again WTF we were fighting about?

    HopeLB , January 29, 2018 at 1:07 pm

    Vietnam Vets, Tom and Chuch Hagel were on c-span last night discussing Vietnam.
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?436970-1/hagel-brothers-reflect-vietnam-war-experiences&start=3303

    Tom Hagel, at one point, calls the wars in Iraq and Afganistan stupid but I can't find it in the transcript. However, he also said this;

    WE DISTRUST OUR INSTITUTIONS, WE DISTRUST THE GOVERNMENT, BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES. WE ARE ANGRY AND WE JUST WANT TO SMASH IT. IN A WAY, I THINK THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO WRIST BECAUSE OUR CURRENT POLITICIANS TOO OFTEN, I DON'T TRUST THEM, EITHER. I THINK THEY CONTINUALLY LIE TO US, BUT WE'VE ALLOWED OURSELVES TO BE LIED TO BECAUSE WE ELECT THEM ALL THE TIME. THEY FORGOT THAT THEY WORK FOR US. WE ARE CITIZENS, WE RUN THE SHOW. THEY WORK FOR US. FOR SOME REASON, AS A SOCIETY, WE HAVE LOST THAT. WE JUST LET IT GO ON. CONSEQUENTLY, A LOT OF THE DISTRUST IN THE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS CAN BE TRACKED BACK TO THE VIETNAM WAR. BECAUSE IT WAS SO CLEAR UP OR A WHILE,. ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE ARCHIVES AND THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED IN THAT, THE SOCIETY AND THE TROOPS WERE LIED TO,

    Synoia , January 29, 2018 at 8:16 pm

    Didi he speak in all caps?

    Synoia , January 29, 2018 at 1:35 pm

    Hmm

    Basics (I learned this at a military University, informally, not as coursework):

    The objective of the military in war is to cause the enemy's economy to collapse.

    This can be achieved by other means: eg Sanctions (an act of war) and Venezuela as an example.

    It would have been easier to control Vietnam in the '60s, by becoming the largest customer for their major product, Rubber, and having American corporations, such as Coca-Cola, "colonize" the country.

    My experience of the Vietnamese, in the largest Vietnamese community outside Vietnam, is they are Capitalists.

    The various wars the US is fighting around the world have all the appearance of draining the US economy and forcing it to collapse. Which in the world of soccer is referred to as an "own goal."

    That is, the US' largest enemy appears as itself.

    1914 there were a number of Empires, British, French, German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, et, and the US.
    By the 1920s there were many less.
    By the 1960s few.
    Today, one, the US.

    In California, where I live, manufactured goods used to come from the east, over the mountains. Today it appears few goods come over the mountains from the east.

    One wonders if the union will last, for how long, and if it's ending will be bloody or peaceful.

    UserFriendly , January 29, 2018 at 2:37 pm

    My experience of the Vietnamese, in the largest Vietnamese community outside Vietnam, is they are Capitalists.

    That was nominally what the whole war was about.

    Synoia , January 29, 2018 at 8:14 pm

    Even the Vietnamese in the North are capitalists.

    What Ho Chi Minh wanted was Vietnamese rule for Vietnam.

    Medon , January 29, 2018 at 2:17 pm

    Giap?

    flora , January 29, 2018 at 3:14 pm

    NV General Nguyên Giáp .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B5_Nguy%C3%AAn_Gi%C3%A1p

    Lee Robertson , January 29, 2018 at 2:47 pm

    I came back from Vietnam feeling that I had just bathed in a septic lagoon. It was a war based on a false moral premiss, and the obvious was apparent to anyone properly informed. In a war that is at its foundation a moral outrage, even if you win you lose. Added to our present situation is the fact that no one will read the Koran READ THE KORAN ..(the Penguin Classic translation will do nicely) then come back and we'll talk about "hearts and minds". The halls of power are everywhere stacked with sociopaths, narcissists, and culpable morons.

    VietnamVet , January 29, 2018 at 8:43 pm

    David Halberstam from the Best and Brightest:
    "The truth of the war never entered the upper-level American calculations; that this was a revolutionary war, and that the other side held title to the revolution because of the colonial war which had just ended. This most simple fact entered into the estimates of the American intelligence community and made them quite accurate. But it never entered into the calculations of the principals, for a variety of reasons; among other things to see the other side in terms of nationalism or as revolutionaries might mean a re-evaluation of whether the United States was even fighting on the right side. In contrast, the question of Communism and anti-Communism as opposed to revolution and anti-revolution was far more convenient for American policy."

    The Vietnam War could never have been won by the USA. Invasion of the North at worst would have started a nuclear war (as Russia threaten) or at best a wider war with the Chinese Peoples Army which had ended in a tie a decade before in Korea.

    Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are repeats except without the draft there is inadequate manpower. The USA's Great Game uses proxy forces that they supply and then fight; the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS. Kurds will soon be added to the list. These wars likewise cannot be won. Counter insurgency wars have been won against minorities who do not have outside support or safe havens; the American Indian Wars or Australia for example. This is fairly clear. Then why don't the experts, West Point graduates, see it? First, it is hard to admit that it all for nothing. Second, the ruling ideology in the West; neo-liberalism, advocates the free movement of people, goods and services. The way mankind ends wars is with strong borders, home based militias and peace treaties. This is antithesis to western plutocrats. The military is doing what their bosses want them to do.

    Plenue , January 29, 2018 at 8:55 pm

    I think the thing that always needs to put out in front of any discussion of the euphemistically named 'Vietnam War' is that there literally wouldn't have been a war if not for US interference. Debates about whether we could have 'won' or not, or if the US should have 'intervened' in the first place always seem to ignore the fact that this wasn't just some regional conflict that the US decided to interject itself into. If we had allowed the elections stipulated by the 1954 Geneva Accords to happen, rather than seeking to make the South into a permanent puppet regime, there wouldn't have been any war. Going even further back, if we hadn't given our support to the French to continue their colonial rule there probably wouldn't have even been a First Indochina War, or it would have at least been far shorter.

    J C Bennett , January 29, 2018 at 11:27 pm

    Memorable books that I was reading at the time and shortly thereafter:

    "A Viet Cong Memoir," by Truong Nhu Tang, a massively detailed account of his own personal journey from a privileged family serving the French, to a leader of the Viet Cong war against the US invaders.

    Frances Fitzgerald's "The Fire in the Lake" What the American invaders did not understand nor care to learn about Vietnamese society and customs, that did them in as much as anything else in that war.

    "Betrayal" by Marine Colonel William Corson;

    "Our Own Worst Enemy" by William J Lederer;

    "The Viet-Nam Reader," edited by Marcus Raskin and Bernard Fall

    Neil Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam"

    "Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia" by William Shawcross (This is an explosive, massively researched, highly detailed and horrifying account of Kissinger's deliberate destruction of the land and the people of what until then had been the "bread basket of SE Asia" and the most contented society on earth.)

    Roland , January 29, 2018 at 11:42 pm

    Why would anyone blame de Gaulle WRT to anything in Indochina? De Gaulle didn't take over France until several years after their Vietnam debacle, and de Gaulle was the man who got the French out of Algeria (he nearly got assassinated for this). De Gaulle was an authoritarian French nationalist, but he was neither an imperialist nor a sabre-rattler.

    Chauncey Gardiner , January 30, 2018 at 12:47 am

    As the author alludes, the war in Vietnam was essentially unwinnable because it failed to meet a basic precept for success in any war: It did not have a higher purpose. Ditto Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Raises fundamental questions regarding military action as the geopolitical default option of choice, which as the title to the post suggests, is not desired by the MIC.

    [Jan 30, 2018] Anti-Trump propaganda in MSM continues unabated

    Gaslighting of American public by neolibs from Hollywood...
    Jan 30, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

    The 60th annual Grammy Awards went full anti-President Donald Trump on Sunday as the awards show host James Corden enlisted singers Cher and John Legend, rappers Snoop Dogg and Cardi B, music producer DJ Khaled, and failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to read excepts from Michael Wolff's White House tell-all Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

    "Trump won't read anything. He gets up halfway through meetings with World leaders because he is bored," Legend read during the surprise comedy bit meant to introduce the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album.

    "His comb-over: A product called 'Just for Men,'" Cher said.

    "Trump did not enjoy his own inauguration, he started to get angry and hurt that stars were there to hurt him and embarrass him," Snoop Dogg said.

    [Jan 29, 2018] US Ambassador Urges Russia To React Calmly To Corrupt Oligarchs List Due Monday

    Notable quotes:
    "... In December 2016, President Obama closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election," expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations. ..."
    "... Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S. Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt. ..."
    "... In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium deal deemed corrupt. ..."
    "... As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any Russians deemed corrupt by the United States. ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    The US Ambassador to Russia urged the Kremlin to react "calmly" to the U.S. Treasury Department's list of "corrupt oligarchs" due Monday. The list is designed to "name and shame" elite Russians into thinking twice before engaging in business with Putin's government. It will be up to Congress to decide whether the list should be published.

    "I urge to take this report, based on its real and not a contrived essence and without emotions, because relations between our countries are far from being exhausted by this one legal act, and I was reminded about it in Washington, where I was two weeks ago," - US Ambassador John Huntsman via - newsru (translated)

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters two weeks ago that Russia will react to any punitive measures against its businessmen, stating "The principle of reciprocity remains," suggesting that Putin would employ a commensurate response to a U.S. crackdown on oligarchs.

    As we previously reported , the list was created pursuant to an August, 2017 law requiring the Treasury and State Departments identify officials and oligarchs as determined by "their closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth" in order to penalize the Kremlin for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election.

    The report is intended to "name and shame" Russia's elite who prop up Putin , and to send a message "that Putin's aggression in terms of Russian interference in our elections will be very costly to them," said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of State who led the State Department Russia sanctions office.

    It is likely to signal to Russia's political and business classes that they'd be better off maintaining a distance from the Putin government, and it could lead to further sanctions against individuals who participate in corruption, Fried said.

    " The Russian elite reacted with something between anxiety and panic about the prospect of this list ," Fried said. "They focused on this immediately, and they're very worried about it. " - USA Today

    The list will include "indices of corruption with respect to those individuals," along with any foreign assets they hold. According to Bloomberg, this sent Russian fat cats into a liquidation frenzy - with many scrambling to contact D.C. lobbyists in order to buy their way off the list.

    Some people who think they're likely to land on the list have stress-tested the potential impact on their investments , two people with knowledge of the matter said. Others are liquidating holdings , according to their U.S. advisers.

    Russian businessmen have approached former Treasury and State Department officials with experience in sanctions for help staying off the list, said Dan Fried, who previously worked at the State Department and said he turned down such offers. Some Russians sent proxies to Washington in an attempt to avoid lobbying disclosures, according to one person that was contacted . - Bloomberg

    Corruption Index

    The Treasury's report must include "indices of corruption , " which will list any foreign assets next to an oligarch considered corrupt. " Because of the nervousness that the Russian business community is facing, a number of oligarchs are already beginning to wind back businesses , treating them as if they are already designated, to stay ahead of it," said Daniel Tannebaum, head of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 's global financial sanctions unit.

    Russia's well-connected billionaires have hired law firms to try to keep them off the list, said Ariel Cohen, a Russia analyst at the Atlantic Council think tank. Russians believe the list is a first step toward increasing the current 29 Russians under U.S. sanctions by adding 40 to 400 names, Cohen added. - USA Today

    Vladimir Putin has warned wealthy nationals over worsening U.S. sanctions, and provided them with a capital amnesty program designed to allow oligarchs to repatriate some of their overseas assets. Meanwhile, Putin has issued special bonds which will allow the wealthy to hold assets outside of the reach of the U.S. Treasury.

    Separate sanctions handed down

    As we reported earlier in the month, Treasury officials are concerned that people will confuse Monday's list of corrupt oligarchs with separate sanctions handed down to Russians over the Ukraine crisis.

    On Friday, the Treausry Department added 11 individuals to a "blacklist" which now contains 21 Russian or Ukraainian nationals and nine companies - most of which are power or energy firms. The Treasury's announcement reads in part:

    WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today designated 21 individuals and 9 entities under four Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to Russia and Ukraine, including three individuals and two entities related to Russia's transfer of four turbines made by a Russian-German joint venture to Crimea. Today's action is part of Treasury's continued commitment to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia until it fully implements its commitments under the Minsk agreements. This action underscores the U.S. government's opposition to Russia's occupation of Crimea and firm refusal to recognize its attempted annexation of the peninsula. These sanctions follow the European Union's recent extension of sanctions and reinforce our continued unity in supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    As a result of today's action, any property or interests in property of the designated persons in the possession or control of U.S. persons or within the United States must be blocked. Additionally, transactions by U.S. persons involving these persons are generally prohibited.

    "The U.S. government is committed to maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and to targeting those who attempt to undermine the Minsk agreements," said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. "Those who provide goods, services, or material support to individuals and entities sanctioned by the United States for their activities in Ukraine are engaging in behavior that could expose them to U.S. sanctions."

    Today, OFAC also identified 12 subsidiaries that are owned 50 percent or more by previously sanctioned Russian companies to provide additional information to assist the private sector with sanctions compliance.

    Relations between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, sparking the conflict in Ukraine. Diplomatic ties have worstened between the two nuclear superpowers, with Washington accusing Moscow of interfering in the 2016 US presidential election.

    In December 2016, President Obama closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election," expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations.

    Several weeks later in August 2017, the Trump administration "thanked" Russia again - giving them 72 hours to vacate three more diplomatic facilities in San Francisco, Washington DC, and New York City.

    Towards the end of 2017, Washington took a series of steps to further vilify Russia, branding the country a "rival power" and "revisionist power," while imposing new sanctions on several individuals linked to the Kremlin.

    Trump's Executive Order

    Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S. Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt.

    In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium deal deemed corrupt.

    As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any Russians deemed corrupt by the United States.

    [Jan 29, 2018] The Trump administration is the wake-up call: the constitutional powers of the president are not as well defined

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has long been known that the constitutional powers of the president are not as well defined as the powers of the other branches of government. And for many years now, Republicans and Democrats have been content to see the powers of the office increased, so long as it was to the benefit of their particular agenda. ..."
    "... The Trump administration is the wake-up call both parties need. But whether they are willing to learn and change remains to be seen. ..."
    "... "Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? " ..."
    "... Read The American War Machine by Peter Dale Scott for some idea of the FBI's role in undermining the US Constitution for decades. https://heavywatergate.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/american-war-machine-peter-dale-scott.pdf ..."
    "... Are you going on record here saying that Hillary Clinton did not destroy 30,000 emails from her private server? There is a strange one-sided nature to all this - I support Clinton, therefore I will rewrite history to preserve her reputation. I hate Trump and I will write anything regardless of reality in order to attack him. ..."
    "... Where was the author for in the last 50 years that she can write the FBI is the torch bearer of freedom and democracy. ..."
    "... Attacking the FBI, CIA, Stazi, MI5, SIS and all other secret services and making them accountable to the people should definitely be something we all do. But for a President to attack the FBI, for a personal advantage is insupportable. ..."
    "... Under McCarthyism which, let's face it, attacking the FBI should have happened and was about to happen under JFK, until his untimely death, it was deeply suspected that the FBI had a hand in silencing a President ..."
    "... I remember acting CIA Director Mike Morell telling Charlie Rose "we need to start killing Iranians and Russians in Syria". Maybe they decided to use another tactic and started killing Russian's ambassadors: https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html ..."
    "... Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? Which foreign influence on US campaigns is acceptable? Is there a list? Or are we supposed to just buy into the concept that only Hillary's favorite bogeymen, the Russians, are worthy of interest? ..."
    "... Let's not forget the J Edgar Hoover was a facist tool of presidents who ruined or tried to ruin many a career in Hollywood and academia during decades of secret unlawful espionage against MLK. ..."
    "... For better or worse Trump was ELECTED and has a mandate. Separation of powers and checks and balances in America apply to the three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The FBI is strictly under control of the president. ..."
    "... We have seen in Switzerland and in Italy in recent decades plots exposed where various people in security positions organized actual cabals and plots to subvert the elected governments. We now know that military officers and government employees in the time of JFK deliberately refused to follow presidential directives ..."
    "... It is this kind of thing which is treason. And that is what the FBI was clearly doing, against Trump and illegally to further Hillary ..."
    "... Bye, Bye, FBI? The Case for Disbanding the Federal Frankenstein's Monster https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/25/bye-bye-fbi-the-case-for-disbanding-the-federal-frankensteins-monster/ ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

    ID6030211, 27 Jan 2018 12:23

    "Where is my Congress? This is the urgent question posed by these outrageous attempts by the president to subvert the constitution. The legislative branch of government must hold an out-of-control president with authoritarian tendencies accountable."

    Provided that Republicans and Democrats can think and act maturely (a very big 'if'), this may well be the principal benefit of a Trump administration.

    It has long been known that the constitutional powers of the president are not as well defined as the powers of the other branches of government. And for many years now, Republicans and Democrats have been content to see the powers of the office increased, so long as it was to the benefit of their particular agenda.

    The Trump administration is the wake-up call both parties need. But whether they are willing to learn and change remains to be seen.

    Durangotang , 27 Jan 2018 12:17
    Hello people.

    Robert Mueller is NOT the FBI. He is a Special Prosecutor for the Justice Department, which is a far bigger entity than the FBI. His position is similar, if not identical to any other US Prosecutor.

    Mueller is using the FBI as his investigation team because . . . that is what Federal Attorneys do. The FBI is one investigative branch of the Justice Department. I would be very surprised if Mueller is not using other investigating officers from other Departments, such as the SEC, IRS for his investigation.

    For those reasons attacking the FBI in an attempt to discredit Mueller is just plain stupid.

    But then just look at the track record of Republican Congressmen and Senators who are attempting to discredit Mueller. Stupid may very well be their middle names.

    Densher , 27 Jan 2018 12:16
    So far Trump has said a lot about 'draining the swamp' but has done nothing to re-structure US institutions, or reform Congress which he probably cannot do anyway. The genuine problem the US has is that in addition to the FBI and Military Intelligence and the CIA, George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, so there are these overlapping agencies that cost a lot of money but at times are doing the same thing without communicating with each other.

    Yes, the FBI has often had a dubious view that Martin Luther King and John Lennon were security threats, but it has also played an important role in taking on organized crime and murder cases that cross state lines. It remains to be seen if Trump is a real radical or just a loud-mouth, but maybe the US needs to re-think is security apparatus, if only to save money; but as long as an independent body exists to investigate everything inside the State.

    backstop -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 27 Jan 2018 12:11
    DeltaFoxWhiskyMike John Schwartz
    26m ago
    0 1

    "Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? "

    I don't think so, perhaps you could find out and get back to us...

    Aldous0rwell , 27 Jan 2018 12:08
    Frankly, it's disturbing to see the rush of "liberals" to defend the FBI, simply because of Trump's opposition to the institution. Let's not forget this is the same FBI that attempted to drive MLKJr. to suicide through harassing letters. The same FBI that has initiated mass domestic surveillance on the Citizens of this country (USA), the same FBI that has generated tons of sting operations goading people into committing "acts of terror", infiltrated environmental organizations in an attempt to turn them violent, and been used by big corporate interests to spy on anti-fracking activists in Pennsylvania. And now they are Democratic heroes? That tells you plenty about the heart of the Democratic Party!
    Karma Chameleon , 27 Jan 2018 12:06
    Read The American War Machine by Peter Dale Scott for some idea of the FBI's role in undermining the US Constitution for decades. https://heavywatergate.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/american-war-machine-peter-dale-scott.pdf
    MasonInNY -> jpl72948 , 27 Jan 2018 11:59
    Let's not forget that you're describing the FBI at least 50 years ago. MLK was assassinated in 1968. Hoover (1895-1972) tracked MLK's friendships and love affairs in 1963-65. At this time, the British, West German, Canadian, and French domestic security services did exactly the same thing, with more discretion than the FBI. That includes Canadian in the discretion dept. Parallel East German, Czech, Hungarian, and Soviet domestic agencies were a different order of magnitude. They did far more than blackmailing actresses or trailing human rights activists.
    Karma Chameleon , 27 Jan 2018 11:57
    You don't think the FBI losing 5 months of texts between Strzok and Page due to 'software upgrades' is a little bit too coincidental?

    just as Clinton's so-called missing emails were in 2016.

    Pardon? So-called? Are you going on record here saying that Hillary Clinton did not destroy 30,000 emails from her private server? There is a strange one-sided nature to all this - I support Clinton, therefore I will rewrite history to preserve her reputation. I hate Trump and I will write anything regardless of reality in order to attack him.

    I think what the author is missing here is the fact that the FBI have no constitutional role in politics yet throughout US history of the last 60-70 years they have been heavily involved. This is the constitutional crisis - nobody elects the FBI to tamper with elections, candidates, etc, and they aren't mandated to even play a role. How the author fails to see this is beyond me.

    jpl72948 -> ID4524057 , 27 Jan 2018 11:53
    Did the Guardian order the author to write this story or did you choose it yourself? Where was the author for in the last 50 years that she can write the FBI is the torch bearer of freedom and democracy. It turns my stomach having lived through the '60s in college to read anything about the FBI that whitewashes it's history.
    Helen Pat -> mikedow , 27 Jan 2018 11:53
    Attacking the FBI, CIA, Stazi, MI5, SIS and all other secret services and making them accountable to the people should definitely be something we all do. But for a President to attack the FBI, for a personal advantage is insupportable.

    Under McCarthyism which, let's face it, attacking the FBI should have happened and was about to happen under JFK, until his untimely death, it was deeply suspected that the FBI had a hand in silencing a President

    But Trump is merely trying to muzzle the FBI to ensure his political survival despite some very murky dealings in his camp.

    jak1234 , 27 Jan 2018 11:51
    I always become indignant when people, Abramson (who should know better) or anyone else tries to put the FBI up on a pedestal. No one familiar with the history of this political police agency could do such a thing. Look at the agency's disgraceful efforts to discredit Dr. King and its role in the assassination of Fred Hampton. In the current context the agency's essentially political orientation is evident in the anti-Trump text messages by the two FBI officials in formerly key positions.
    Durangotang -> Lafcadio1944 , 27 Jan 2018 11:50
    Many of the posters here write like J Edgar Hoover is still alive. And that makes unfounded all their underlying assumptions.
    DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> violagirl , 27 Jan 2018 11:48
    Anybody with half a brain would figure out that insulting millions of voters might go badly. You are still bad mouthing the voters a year after the election. Slow learner?
    DogsLivesMatter -> Paul Wiiddeyed , 27 Jan 2018 11:46
    I remember acting CIA Director Mike Morell telling Charlie Rose "we need to start killing Iranians and Russians in Syria". Maybe they decided to use another tactic and started killing Russian's ambassadors: https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html
    DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> John Schwartz , 27 Jan 2018 11:43
    Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? Which foreign influence on US campaigns is acceptable? Is there a list? Or are we supposed to just buy into the concept that only Hillary's favorite bogeymen, the Russians, are worthy of interest?
    jpl72948 , 27 Jan 2018 11:42
    Let's not forget the J Edgar Hoover was a facist tool of presidents who ruined or tried to ruin many a career in Hollywood and academia during decades of secret unlawful espionage against MLK. He blackmailed the Kennedys. They weren't thinking about the constitution then. Now they're the whites in shining armor because it's a requirement to write anything against Trump. Please.
    marknickless , 27 Jan 2018 11:41
    This is a worrying example of how hate for Trump results in damage to logical thought and utter misrepresentation of American institutions. NB I am NOT a Trump voter.

    For better or worse Trump was ELECTED and has a mandate. Separation of powers and checks and balances in America apply to the three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The FBI is strictly under control of the president.

    We have seen in Switzerland and in Italy in recent decades plots exposed where various people in security positions organized actual cabals and plots to subvert the elected governments. We now know that military officers and government employees in the time of JFK deliberately refused to follow presidential directives.

    It is this kind of thing which is treason. And that is what the FBI was clearly doing, against Trump and illegally to further Hillary.

    William Anthony -> Joe Dert , 27 Jan 2018 11:37
    Trump is the absolute lowest common denominator. Extremely embarrassing. The US (except New York and California) has become an Unstable Shithole.
    DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> Morat , 27 Jan 2018 11:36
    The answer is to pick better opponents and run better campaigns.
    Lafcadio1944 , 27 Jan 2018 11:36
    Yes, of course Jill, we know how pristine and "constitutional" the FBI has always been...that is if we ignore the historical record of shameful disgrace left behind by J. Edgar Hoover.

    The press writes as if history started last week, and makes unfounded underlying assumptions.

    rd232 -> J.K. Stevens , 27 Jan 2018 11:34
    Quite. Here's another view:

    Bye, Bye, FBI? The Case for Disbanding the Federal Frankenstein's Monster https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/25/bye-bye-fbi-the-case-for-disbanding-the-federal-frankensteins-monster/

    [Jan 29, 2018] You need to dispense with appeals to the Pavlovian training of your readers to accept the narrative of the villainous Russians and Chinese and North Koreans

    Notable quotes:
    "... The FBI of course has no place in the US Constitution. It could be argued that its very existence violates that document. Freedom of speech and assembly, etc, combined with the Stasi? ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

    FREDBUDTZ , 27 Jan 2018 11:32

    Oh, I am very sorry, but I think you have that quite wrong.

    I don't want to defend Trump. He's a nasty piece of work, but even a nasty piece of work can be correct sometimes.

    The FBI of course has no place in the US Constitution. It could be argued that its very existence violates that document. Freedom of speech and assembly, etc, combined with the Stasi?

    But if its very existence doesn't violate the Constitution, its hideous lifetime record of behavior does.

    And, again, ignoring what we think of Trump, we do have strong suggestions of highly inappropriate behavior by the FBI around the election of Trump.

    Does anyone really think secret police should be able to work against a proper election?

    Keeping secret files on Congressmen. Helping Presidents do political spying. Hounding innocent citizens. setting up agent provocateur operations.

    If you want a clear brief history of this abysmal organization, see:

    https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-dreadful-record-of-the-fbi /

    Stringfellow1983 , 27 Jan 2018 11:31
    The evidence against the FBI is mounting, to list a few:
    Texts between FBI lovers (one involved then fired from the Russian probe) regarding Trump " we cant take the risk" and " an insurance policy" .
    High level FBI employee involved with the Russian probe whos wife works for Fusion GPS.
    Texts from the lovers mentioned above regarding Clintons FBI interview " don't go loaded for bear, she could be our president".
    Comey writing his exoneration of Clinton months before all people involved were interviewed.
    More texts from the lovers go missing, as claimed by the FBI, but are found and are now being released by the Inspector General.

    These are all know facts that have been used by both the Oversight and Intelligence committees, you can watch the actual meetings on YouTube.

    HaveYouSeenThisMan , 27 Jan 2018 11:28
    Strange days when progressives are defend the FBI. Let's hope the DOJ inquiry into both Hillary and the Clinton Foundation doesn't find anything.
    Paul Wiiddeyed , 27 Jan 2018 11:16
    The FBI has a trash history of locking up and framing leftists , black activists, native americans or anyone else who has threatened the establishment. trump is filth but there is a lot lot lower.
    tc2011 -> erikus , 27 Jan 2018 11:15
    If you want to shock yourself with the similarities between Nixon and Trump, try some Hunter S Thompson.

    It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character that almost every country in the world has learned to fear and despise. Our Barbie-doll president, with his Barbie-doll wife and his boxful of Barbie-doll children is also America's answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde. He speaks for the Werewolf in us; the bully, the predatory shyster who turns into something unspeakable, full of claws and bleeding string-warts on nights when the moon comes too close

    "Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls " (October 1973)

    baudelaire , 27 Jan 2018 11:14
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average (Trump) voter. --Churchill (were he alive today...)
    Edward Frederick Ezell , 27 Jan 2018 11:14
    Too much rhetoric and too little sourced information. Right off the bat, you need to dispense with appeals to the Pavlovian training of your readers to accept the narrative of the villainous Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Vietnamese and all things related to Communism or even socialism - and start accepting that the political actors of all social entities - especially nations which are the entities that decide what can be owned and who can be privileged to own it - meddle as much as they can in the selection processes of all other social entities as much as they can. Certainly , even aside from Western Military interventions, the US, UK, and the other partners in the Western Hegemony have been using all means possible to influence the political outcomes of other nations - including the launching of viral autonomous and guided propaganda bots into the media and internet networks of foreign nations. What would be surprising, and worth investigating, is any significant evidence that a foreign country was not meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Please - stop promoting fantasies yourself - and gain credibility by moving your platform into the real world. I remember when all the Germans in comic books had green faces. It brought back memories when I saw pictures of contemporary villains depicted on news sites with green faces. This vilification stuff is old. Very old. How about some new tricks for a change.
    aldebaranredstar , 27 Jan 2018 11:11
    This is ridiculous. There is ample evidence, before and after Trump, of FBI incompetence and disarray. Look at the inept handling of the Boston bombing, the failure to vet the Tsarnov family despite a head's up from Russia that they had been in contact with extremists. Then there was the failure regarding the Orlando nightclub killings, even though, again, there were ample warnings ignored. The FBI and Comey are, in addition, extremely suspect for their bizarre handling of the Clinton 'investigation,' so-called: a hand-picked group of investigators, side-stepping protocols for setting up a team; the fact that an exoneration was written before the investigators interviewed key witnesses or Clinton herself; granting immunity to the witnesses; failure to impanel a grand jury; failure to get a subpoena to examine the DNC computers that were breached; changing the wording of the exoneration to 'extremely careless,' instead of 'reckless,' and of course, the fact that biased, pro-Clinton agent Strozak was the team leader. If this is not sufficient for Jill, or anyone, to be alarmed about FBI impartiality, I despair. The fact she has made her bias against Trump known, saying he is unsuitable for the presidency, merely adds to the known biases that permeate this piece and its defense of the corrupted FBI.
    DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> erikus , 27 Jan 2018 11:06
    The fogies these days think it is more appropriate to have the actual government intelligence agencies (all seventeen of them) listen in on the rival party's Presidential campaign conversations, especially when the fogies' personal politics exactly match those of the administration in power.
    Why hire Watergate burglars when you have an alphabet soup of spooks with a trillion dollars in hardware at your disposal?
    DogsLivesMatter , 27 Jan 2018 11:01
    Con't....even Masha Gessen says you CAN'T keep blaming Russia for Trump, and she is not a fan of Putin as most of us know.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/masha-gessen-wendy-mesley-interview-the-national-1.4071222
    DogsLivesMatter , 27 Jan 2018 10:58
    You'd have to be a complete fool, or a "democrat can do no wrong ever" to not think that Trump has some reason to be suspicious of the FBI and DOJ. BTW, who the hell keeps on leaking, it's like hour by hour leaks? If I were Trump I'd get rid of Sessions cuz he sure isn't doing his job. Soooo, why did Rod Rosenstein go to Speaker Ryan and plead with him not to release the "memo" if there's nothing to hide?
    ***Even
    J.K. Stevens , 27 Jan 2018 10:54
    This is a strange century where liberals and moderates are defending J. Edgar's old haunts. But must agree with the author that the POTUS is a clear and present danger.
    mp66 , 27 Jan 2018 10:49
    Preview of some upcoming Graun drivels: "Attack on NSA is attack on privacy", "Attack on CIA is attack on international law". I am sure somebody will correct me, but none of these three letter agencies have anything in common with either the letter or the spirit of US constitution.
    erikus , 27 Jan 2018 10:49

    As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it's important to remember a piece of history. Without Deep Throat, the Washington Post's secret source, the Watergate scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned in 2012, was Mark Felt, the No2 official at the FBI.

    Another Watergate reference. We hear a great many of them emanating from the US. It does seem as though the American media is top heavy with old fogies who see every independent council investigation as an opportunity to LARP the glory days of the Watergate Era.

    [Jan 29, 2018] It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn t work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead becomes hated and despised

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... When do they run out of people for this ..."
    "... Everyone is assuming this is an anti-American, Russia-backed operation, and Turkey has left the NATO fold, but is it? Wheels within wheels, and it's is not clear what the end result will be. If I was Assad, I would be looking very closely at all this. There seems to be some suggestion that the Kurds are getting reinforcements and supplies shipped via Syrian government areas, which is interesting. ..."
    "... If one is set on running an empire, one simply cannot afford to be seen losing to "inferior 3'rd world tribals" very often, if not they, then others will take notice and get ideas. ..."
    "... The USA was not designed to be an empire, it was designed to be a Republic for, by and of the People. Our international adventurism will be the death of not just us, but possibly the world. Not a month goes by without a major provocative incident towards Russia. Usually assassinations of Russian diplomats, Oligarchs, or military bellicosity. I wonder if these are in response to disavowed US operatives being killed, or if Russia is exhibiting enormous restraint, because they are the responsible ones who don't want to see the world burn for Israel. ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    Leveraged Algorithm Jan 29, 2018 1:22 AM Permalink

    When do they run out of people for this...

    An Shrubbery Jan 29, 2018 1:28 AM Permalink

    So now Turkey's invading Syria, too? Curiouser and curiouser...

    Archive_file, Jan 29, 2018 1:31 AM Permalink

    Remember Gallipoli!!

    Juggernaut x2 -> Archive_file, Jan 29, 2018 2:43 AM Permalink

    another fuck-up by Churchill

    OverTheHedge -> Archive_file, Jan 29, 2018 2:53 AM Permalink

    In what way? The fact that the Turks won? They beat the shit out some very tough British and Anzac troops, who were invading their country. Might be something to consider at this point.

    Another point: this little piece of Syria that is being invaded lies between two other little bits of Syria that turkey has already invaded / occupied. If they manage to link up on either side, they will have created a wide buffer on their border. Is this just a bit of "protection" for turkey, or is it part of the US plan to split up, partition and dismember Syria?

    Everyone is assuming this is an anti-American, Russia-backed operation, and Turkey has left the NATO fold, but is it? Wheels within wheels, and it's is not clear what the end result will be. If I was Assad, I would be looking very closely at all this. There seems to be some suggestion that the Kurds are getting reinforcements and supplies shipped via Syrian government areas, which is interesting.

    fajensen -> OverTheHedge, Jan 29, 2018 5:09 AM Permalink

    In what way? The fact that the Turks won?

    Yes. It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn't work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead becomes hated and despised.

    If one is set on running an empire, one simply cannot afford to be seen losing to "inferior 3'rd world tribals" very often, if not they, then others will take notice and get ideas.

    Letting one's side down has consequences. Not delivering on the benefits promised for foreigners serving the empire has consequences too.

    gougeonit, Jan 29, 2018 1:36 AM Permalink

    So is it, The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy?

    Blue Steel 309, Jan 29, 2018 1:41 AM Permalink

    The USA was not designed to be an empire, it was designed to be a Republic for, by and of the People. Our international adventurism will be the death of not just us, but possibly the world. Not a month goes by without a major provocative incident towards Russia. Usually assassinations of Russian diplomats, Oligarchs, or military bellicosity. I wonder if these are in response to disavowed US operatives being killed, or if Russia is exhibiting enormous restraint, because they are the responsible ones who don't want to see the world burn for Israel.

    Omega_Man Jan 29, 2018 4:17 AM Permalink

    so what, mericans killed millions in iraq and syria... you didn't cry then.

    Omega_Man Jan 29, 2018 4:18 AM Permalink

    hopefully merica and turkey will get into a big war...and not let those mericans off the hook...

    SaudiMail Jan 29, 2018 5:26 AM Permalink

    I watched 'The Promise' last night, about the Armenian genocide which the Turks still deny to this day.

    Seems history is repeating itself in Syria.

    [Jan 29, 2018] Remarks by James Mattis on the National Defense Strategy by James Mattis

    Completely unrealistic assessment of the situation. Essentially "kicking the can down the road:" approach. Looks like Trump administration is now neocon administration. Kind of Obama II or Bush III.
    Military Keysianism (in the style of national socialism) all over again. But the US empire requires now spending that can hardly be afforded by US economy. Add to this care of disabled veterans, number of which is growing each year (while casualties rate due to modern medicine is low, number of disabled soldiers is substantial).
    Hopefully over $100 per barrel oil will sober some hot Pentagon heads. Neocons, who now dominate foreign policy of Trump administration, are hopeless in this respect, they will pursue the dream of global dominance and American empire ("America uber alles") till the last American (excluding of cause themselves -- 99% of them are chickenhawks -- and their families)
    So 700 billion dollars will be spent not matter what suffering and deprivations for ordinary Americans (no jobs, no hope) it entails
    The USA population lose much treasure and has a deteriorating standard of living to maintain an empire at the behest of neoliberal elite... This sentiment is merely confirming the US public discontent with interventionism and neocon foreign policy that had been revived by the 2003 Iraq invasion. The recent J. Wallin Opinion Research survey revealed that 71 percent of Americans believed Congress should pass legislation that restrained military action. Due to power of MIC an overblown defense budget does not get proper the scrutiny of any other form of public spending. the United States' annual military budget around $700 billion. Those guys need war to justify it.
    Much of those costs have been borne by ordinary Americans -- from paying for war debts to being at greater risk of terrorist attacks -- while the war profits go to a select group of corporations. It is difficult to imagine any single decision in any other realm of policy that has cost so much, delivered little, and harmed America and the rest of the world so irreparably.
    Notable quotes:
    "... our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, space and cyberspace, and it is continuing to erode. ..."
    "... to keep the peace for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day. To ensure our diplomats who are working to solve problems do so from a position of strength ..."
    "... It is incumbent upon us to field a more lethal force if our nation is to retain the ability to defend ourselves and what we stand for. The defense strategy's three primary lines of effort will restore our comparative military advantage. ..."
    "... We're going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances and building new partnerships with other nations. And at the same time we'll reform our department's business practices for performance and affordability. ..."
    "... We will modernize key capabilities, recognizing we cannot expect success fighting tomorrow's conflicts with yesterday's weapons or equipment. Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win. ..."
    "... And again, the 40-odd nations that stand shoulder-to-shoulder in NATO's mission in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our competitive edge: reforming the business practices of the department to provide both solvency and security, thereby gaining the full benefit from every dollar spent, in which way we will gain and hold the trust of Congress and the American people. ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

    We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other, nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions.

    Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten regional and even global stability. Oppressing their own people and shredding their own people's dignity and human rights, they push their warped views outward.

    And despite the defeat of ISIS' physical caliphate, violent extremist organizations like ISIS or Lebanese Hezbollah or al Qaida continue to sow hatred, destroying peace and murdering innocents across the globe.

    In this time of change, our military is still strong. Yet our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, space and cyberspace, and it is continuing to erode.

    Rapid technological change, the negative impact on military readiness is resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation's history and defense spending caps, because we have been operating also for nine of the last 10 years under continuing resolutions that have created an overstretched and under-resourced military.

    Our military's role is to keep the peace; to keep the peace for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day. To ensure our diplomats who are working to solve problems do so from a position of strength and giving allies confidence in us. This confidence is underpinned by the assurance that our military will win should diplomacy fail.

    When unveiling his national security strategy, President Trump said, "Weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unquestioned strength is the most certain means of defense."

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have no room for complacency, and history makes clear that America has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield. Simply, we must be the best if the values that grew out of the Enlightenment are to survive.

    It is incumbent upon us to field a more lethal force if our nation is to retain the ability to defend ourselves and what we stand for. The defense strategy's three primary lines of effort will restore our comparative military advantage.

    We're going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances and building new partnerships with other nations. And at the same time we'll reform our department's business practices for performance and affordability.

    In doing this, we will earn the trust of the American people and Congress, if their defense dollars are well spent.

    But let me go through each of the lines of effort. And I want to start with lethality, because everything we do in the department must contribute to the lethality of our military.

    The paradox of war is that an enemy will attack any perceived weakness. So we in America cannot adopt a single preclusive form of warfare. Rather we must be able to fight across the spectrum of conflict.

    This means that the size and the composition of our force matters. The nation must field sufficient capable forces to deter conflict. And if deterrence fails, we must win.

    We will modernize key capabilities, recognizing we cannot expect success fighting tomorrow's conflicts with yesterday's weapons or equipment. Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win.

    Changing our forces' posture will prioritize readiness for warfighting for major combat, making us strategically predictable for our allies and operationally unpredictable for any adversary.

    Increasing the lethality of our troops, supported by our defense civilians, requires us to reshape our approach that managing our outstanding talent, reinvigorating our military education and honing civilian workforce expertise.

    The creativity and talent of the department is our deepest wellspring of strength, and one that warrants greater investment.

    And to those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy, they must know: If you challenge us it will be your longest and your worst day. Work with our diplomats; you don't want to fight the Department of Defense.

    The second line of effort I noted was to strengthen alliances as we build new partnerships, as well.

    In my past, I fought many times and never did I fight in a solely American formation. It was always alongside foreign troops.

    Now, as Winston Churchill once said, the only thing harder than fighting with allies is fighting without them. But we are going to be stronger together in recognizing that our military will be designed and trained and ready to fight alongside allies.

    History proves that nations with allies thrive, an approach to security and prosperity that has served the United States well in keeping peace and winning war. Working by, with and through allies who carry their equitable share allows us to amass the greatest possible strength.

    We carried a disproportionate share of the defense burden for the democracies in the post-World War II era. The growing economic strength of today's democracies and partners dictates they must now step up and do more.

    When together we pool our resources and share responsibility for the common defense, individual nations' security burdens become lighter. This has been demonstrated right now, today, for example, by over 70 nations and international organizations of the Defeat-ISIS campaign that is successfully conducting operations in the Middle East. And again, the 40-odd nations that stand shoulder-to-shoulder in NATO's mission in Afghanistan.

    To strengthen and work jointly with more allies, our organizations, processes and procedures must be ally-friendly. The department will do more than just listen to other nations' ideas. We will be willing to be persuaded by them, recognizing that all not -- that not all good ideas come from the country with the most aircraft carriers.

    This line of effort will bolster an extended network capable of decisively meeting the challenges of our time. So we're going to make the military more lethal, and we are going to build and strengthen traditional alliances, as well as go out and find some new partners -- maybe nontraditional partners -- as we do what the Greatest Generation did, coming home from World War II, when they built the alliances that have served us so well, right through today.

    Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our competitive edge: reforming the business practices of the department to provide both solvency and security, thereby gaining the full benefit from every dollar spent, in which way we will gain and hold the trust of Congress and the American people.

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 29, 2018] America's National Defense Is Really Offense by Philip M. Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... Occasionally, it is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating "gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere." ..."
    "... At times Mattis' supplementary "remarks" were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he warned " those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day." He did not exactly go into what the military response to hacking a politician's emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the problem. ..."
    "... Some of the remarks by Mattis relate to China and Russia. He said that "We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models - pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." There is, however, no evidence that either country is exporting "authoritarian models," nor are they vetoing anything that they do not perceive as direct and immediate threats frequently orchestrated by Washington, which is intervening in local quarrels thousands of miles away from the U.S. borders. And when it comes to exporting models, who does it more persistently than Washington? ..."
    "... The report goes on to state that Russia and China and rogue regimes like Iran have " increased efforts short of armed conflict by expanding coercion to new fronts, violating principle of sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and deliberately blurring the lines between civil and military goals." As confusing civil and military is what the United States itself has been doing in Libya, Iraq and, currently, Syria, the allegation might be considered ironic. ..."
    "... What might that mean in practice? Back in 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney had requested "a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States." ..."
    "... Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us, particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail. ..."
    "... how should China, Russia and Iran be responding to the strategic plans of Mattis, the US War Hawks and neocons who surround Trump? Who is it that is threatening the United States, that is not responding to threats first against them? ..."
    "... This appears to me to be the same dangerous, belligerent talk justifying preemptive strike thinking that separates out the United States from its' perceived enemies. And probably the rest of the world! And brought us, according to the Concerned Scientists, again to "two minutes to midnight." It seems, to me, quite rational for Russia and China to respond accordingly, like good boy scouts, and also be prepared. ..."
    "... The U.S. since it very first day of founding is offense. The Revolutionary War is offense against the British Empire. It built its first navy ships, not for defense but to fight a war in the Med Sea across the ocean. No one attacked the U.S ..."
    "... The U.S. is 100% offense since day one to today. There is no department of defense. But its department of aggression and war was founded in 1776. ..."
    "... The physics of nuclear war allow no winners because we all share this earth. ..."
    "... Of course here in America we have no public shelters so threats by our plutocracy puppets must be absorbed by our fellow American Sheep. After the bombs come down are you one of those politicians holding a ticket to those vast hidden U.S. government shelters where sheep are not allowed? Doubtful ..."
    "... Wake up folks aka sheep / slaves before it's too late! No one is going to protect you! You and me are being played! ..."
    "... Putin, a Russian patriot if there ever was one, recognized that western capital could not be resisted by the Soviet system. In defense of Russia he liberated the economy, gradually but inexorably eliminating the evils of the Yeltsin years, and releasing the social forces needed for national strength and productivity. He reversed the isolation of Soviet times, establishing international relations based on mutual advantage and trust, not coercion. Despite western propaganda, he has established himself as a good neighbor, and as a reliable partner and ally. His stewardship has made Russia stronger and more impervious to US hegemonic ambitions. ..."
    "... Putin is no lackey of US imperialism. He together with China and Iran form the chief bulwarks against it. ..."
    "... It seems that Mattis is a fool; he's reading something in which he has no comprehension for its ramifications in the long run. ..."
    "... Maybe the Lockheed Martin CEO written the document so that idiot would read it to the sheeple....Who knows. ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    On Friday, the Pentagon released an unclassified summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy report . On the same day, Secretary of Defense James Mattis delivered prepared remarks relating to the document.

    Reading the summary is illuminating, to say the least, and somewhat disturbing, as it focuses very little on actual defense of the realm and relates much more to offensive military action that might be employed to further certain debatable national interests. Occasionally, it is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating "gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere."

    At times Mattis' supplementary "remarks" were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he warned " those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day." He did not exactly go into what the military response to hacking a politician's emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the problem.

    One of the most bizarre aspects of the report is its breathtaking assumption that "competitors" should be subjected to a potential military response if it is determined that they are in conflict with the strategic goals of the U.S. government. It is far removed from the old-fashioned Constitutional concept that one has armed forces to defend the country against an actual threat involving an attack by hostile forces and instead embraces preventive war, which is clearly an excuse for serial interventions overseas.

    Some of the remarks by Mattis relate to China and Russia. He said that "We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models - pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." There is, however, no evidence that either country is exporting "authoritarian models," nor are they vetoing anything that they do not perceive as direct and immediate threats frequently orchestrated by Washington, which is intervening in local quarrels thousands of miles away from the U.S. borders. And when it comes to exporting models, who does it more persistently than Washington?

    The report goes on to state that Russia and China and rogue regimes like Iran have " increased efforts short of armed conflict by expanding coercion to new fronts, violating principle of sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and deliberately blurring the lines between civil and military goals." As confusing civil and military is what the United States itself has been doing in Libya, Iraq and, currently, Syria, the allegation might be considered ironic.

    The scariest assertion in the summary is the following: "Nuclear forces - Modernization of the nuclear force includes developing options to counter competitors' coercive strategies, predicated on the threatened use of nuclear or strategic non-nuclear attacks." That means that the White House and Pentagon are reserving the option to use nuclear weapons even when there is no imminent or existential threat as long as there is a "strategic" reason for doing so. Strategic would be defined by the president and Mattis, while the War Powers Act allows Donald Trump to legally initiate a nuclear attack.

    What might that mean in practice? Back in 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney had requested "a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

    Possible employment of "weapons of mass destruction" responded to intelligence suggesting that conventional weapons would be unable to penetrate the underground hardened sites where Iran's presumed nuclear weapons facilities were reportedly located. But as it turned out, Iran had no nuclear weapons program and attacking it would have been totally gratuitous. Some other neocon inspired plans to attack Iran also included a nuclear option if Iran actually had the temerity to resist American force majeure.

    Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us, particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.

    Possible employment of "weapons of mass destruction" responded to intelligence suggesting that conventional weapons would be unable to penetrate the underground hardened sites where Iran's presumed nuclear weapons facilities were reportedly located. But as it turned out, Iran had no nuclear weapons program and attacking it would have been totally gratuitous. Some other neocon inspired plans to attack Iran also included a nuclear option if Iran actually had the temerity to resist American force majeure.

    Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us, particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.

    By Philip M. Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation

    James Higginbotham · 20 hours ago

    well. as a combat vet it's ALWAYS better to be PREPARED THAN SORRY. and you DON'T sit on your Butt waiting for your enemies to attack FIRST when you can PREVENT IT.
    Len · 19 hours ago
    Better PREPARED THAN SORRY!

    In that case James; how should China, Russia and Iran be responding to the strategic plans of Mattis, the US War Hawks and neocons who surround Trump? Who is it that is threatening the United States, that is not responding to threats first against them?

    This appears to me to be the same dangerous, belligerent talk justifying preemptive strike thinking that separates out the United States from its' perceived enemies. And probably the rest of the world! And brought us, according to the Concerned Scientists, again to "two minutes to midnight." It seems, to me, quite rational for Russia and China to respond accordingly, like good boy scouts, and also be prepared.

    However; It is very dangerous, for if they detect there is an incoming missile or potentially nuclear armed plane what are they expected to do? They won't be sitting on their hands, that's for sure!

    Just look at how the ordinary people of Hawaii responded to a "false alarm" recently. I put "false alarm" in brackets because who knows what the United States neocons get up to nowadays. This is all very wearying and repeated so often there is a danger of people giving up.

    Isn't it interesting how we are surrounded by folktales and the warnings of the old Prophets and new which we ignore at our peril? Like crying wolf. God help us all if some deluded idiot with authority, including that self-styled "genius" and Supreme Commander, General Trump, miscalculate. I imagine what remains of the sidelined, but still rational thinking Generals and Admirals and military realists in the lower ranks are really sweating it out worrying what the morons in charge might do.

    The U.S. since it very first day of founding is offense. The Revolutionary War is offense against the British Empire. It built its first navy ships, not for defense but to fight a war in the Med Sea across the ocean. No one attacked the U.S.

    The U.S. is 100% offense since day one to today. There is no department of defense. But its department of aggression and war was founded in 1776.

    1871 89p · 16 hours ago
    There is not one human being on the planet that would have the inclination to want to invade USA Inc. We watch and read and only need a minuscule amount of imagination to know that USA Inc is the "sh*th*le " of the world populated by "ar*eh*les".

    The only solution is for NK to invite China and Russia to send in missile batteries to defend NK and if they are attacked, all US military bases in Asia will be obliterated with Hawaii and Mainland in quick succession if USA Inc escalates.
    Cities of Seoul and Tokyo need be left with no doubt that they will be tripled glazed,

    Russia and China need to lift sanctions on NK immediately .
    The rest of the world needs boycott USA Inc to the Olympics, just as the fascist West did to Russia when it went to the rescue of Afghanistan.

    Persons inciting war need to be prosecuted, those who incite use of WMD must be put in a special category and immediately stopped from traveling outside their country and from speaking at the UN.

    A resolution must be passed at the United General Assembly to put above suggestion into practice, and see if we can not get a resounding "vote" for it, as was the case for support of Palestine recently.

    Sheeple · 12 hours ago
    America's National Defense Is really to terrorize the sheep / slaves into submission. The physics of nuclear war allow no winners because we all share this earth.

    Of course here in America we have no public shelters so threats by our plutocracy puppets must be absorbed by our fellow American Sheep. After the bombs come down are you one of those politicians holding a ticket to those vast hidden U.S. government shelters where sheep are not allowed? Doubtful! You can just turn around and try to kiss your hind quarter Ba Ba a a aaa.

    Wake up folks aka sheep / slaves before it's too late! No one is going to protect you! You and me are being played!

    Time to replace all politicians with AI Robots. Who needs rulers anyway? Let politicians be the first to be replaced with robots

    Inthebyte · 9 hours ago
    The Department Of Defense was previously called The Department Of War. I refer to it as the Department Of War. Tell it like it is folks.
    oates792 · 5 hours ago
    Dave above has one cockeyed view of Putin, and of those sources of opinion that support him. Soviet Russia imploded because it could not deliver the goods.An endless arms race, a population regimented, harnessed, and stifled in service to a centrally planned economy, run by a vast self-serving bureaucracy, It it was an experiment in state capitalism that, in hindsight, could not but fail. The west tried to strangle it in its crib but in the event it died of old age.

    Putin, a Russian patriot if there ever was one, recognized that western capital could not be resisted by the Soviet system. In defense of Russia he liberated the economy, gradually but inexorably eliminating the evils of the Yeltsin years, and releasing the social forces needed for national strength and productivity. He reversed the isolation of Soviet times, establishing international relations based on mutual advantage and trust, not coercion. Despite western propaganda, he has established himself as a good neighbor, and as a reliable partner and ally. His stewardship has made Russia stronger and more impervious to US hegemonic ambitions.

    Putin is no lackey of US imperialism. He together with China and Iran form the chief bulwarks against it. Dave's view is perverse.

    Hexx · 4 hours ago
    It seems that Mattis is a fool; he's reading something in which he has no comprehension for its ramifications in the long run.

    Maybe the Lockheed Martin CEO written the document so that idiot would read it to the sheeple....Who knows.

    [Jan 29, 2018] CNN has gone bananas and doesn't seem to care; and other horrible examples of media bias

    Jan 29, 2018 | www.foxnews.com

    Yes, CNN staffers have lost their minds. One year of Donald Trump's America and he's defeated them as thoroughly the New England Patriots beat, well, just about anybody.

    We're a year into the most-biased U.S. media in history – tracking at 90 percent biased against President Trump . But there appears to be lasting damage to journalists, their professionalism and even their ability to pretend they are rational.

    In just one week, CNN staffers blamed President Trump for a man who tried to harm people at their headquarters, ran a piece celebrating cuckolding (not kidding!) and questioned whether the president deserved "credit" for all of the good corporate news of raises and bonuses – resulting from his tax cut.

    Celebrity clown and CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta had repeated run-ins with whoever the Trump administration put at the podium. In each case, they smacked him down and showed the lack of depth of his reporting.

    ... ... ...

    2. What FBI Memo? What Missing Messages? Journalists love to highlight the 18-minute gap in one of President Richard Nixon's tapes. Give them 30,000 missing emails or 50,000 missing texts and they are less thrilled. Perhaps because both of those involved are liberal.

    It was all hands on deck in a desperate quest to control the narrative about the memo and texts. MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough claimed criticism of the FBI amounted to "conspiracy theories" that were "making America less safe." CNN talked repeatedly about the effort to "discredit" the Mueller investigation.

    CBS and NBC tried to spin the story away from the missing texts . But when ABC finally decided to chime in, it went full bore against the GOP. Anchor David Muir echoed Democratic talking points about the FBI text messages: "This is a political battle, and ultimately, the American people will decide whether those personal text messages were appropriate or not."

    ... ... ...

    4. You Actually Thought Journalists Were Neutral? Part II: The New York Times actually devoted some opinion space to Trump supporters. Naturally, it caused a firestorm with its lefty readers and journalists who think those readers aren't left-wing enough.

    Journalistic operations like the Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute were joined by HuffPost and others blasting the decision. How dare the Times run content from actual Trump supporters and turn the page into a "welcome wagon" for his supporters, wrote Poynter ?

    CJR's attack: "The Times's pro-Trump editorial page is patronizing and circular" at least admitted that the paper has no pro-Trump voices. "In fact, the Times employs many conservative commentators. It just seems to be a requirement that those commentators are never-Trumpers."

    In fact, it has three "conservatives." David Brooks is only conservative compared to his coworkers. Relatively new hire Bret Stephens hates the Second Amendment and Ross Douthat wrote, "Why I Can't Learn to Love Donald Trump" soon after the president took office.

    ... ... ...

    Dan Gainor is the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture . He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

    [Jan 29, 2018] Trump's attack on the FBI is an attack on the US constitution itself by Jill Abramson

    Is she a MI6 asset? Strong intelligence agencies (and FBI for all practical purposes is a branch of CIA, when if comes to politics) are grave threat to republican form of government (then make elections meaningless, as the winner need their support) and remnants of democracy. In view of FISA memo bomb I like her statement "Comey's independence and ethics cost him his job when Trump fired him" Such an ethical Comey, using falsified dossier to spy on one of contenders in the Presidential race ;-)
    As one commenter aptly noted: "Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate?"
    Notable quotes:
    "... President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedein, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton [remember his surreptitious visit to Lynch's plane during the final days of the investigation?] conspired to compromise the independence of The Justice Department itself. ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

    tc2011 -> Wolframite , 27 Jan 2018 14:03

    Says who?

    The only person who can fire Mueller is Rod Rosenstein. From last June:

    Amid reports that President Trump is considering firing the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigations, a senior Justice Department official said Tuesday that he - and not the president - is the only official empowered to dismiss the prosecutor and that he sees no reason to do so.

    link

    Hence Trump's meltdown and McGahn's freakout, one presumes.
    Cali_Quercus -> theredmenace , 27 Jan 2018 14:03
    No indictments alleging collusion have been issued.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/362813-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-flynn-indictment "However, there is nothing in this indictment that offers serious support for the allegation of collusion with the Russians. "

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-to-know-about-the-paul-manafort-indictment / "This is Mueller's first indictment resulting from his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and any collusion between Trump campaign associates and Russia. But this indictment does not get to the heart of that matter."

    Grae Sun -> Durangotang , 27 Jan 2018 13:46
    This comment...if it was written by a journalist, would be the perfect example of what we are discussing. The bias is obvious and it claims to offer facts under the veil of industry standard sub part evidence (sources within the white house)....sadly, our journalists, including the Guardian CNN FOX...all of them...now allow their journalists to cross these ethical lines. The damage is that their audiences swallow it up rather than questioning the bias and questioning the evidence....in a nut shell, society's critical thinking skills have deminished and polarization (conquer and divide) has increased.....because dumb or lazy people don't read and dumb/lazy people don't demand sources or evidence. If everyone took the 10 seconds to simply request that journalist follow their OWN STANDARD OF ETHICS across the board, the political chaos and polarization we see in the world would be reduced.
    ConBrio -> Ritula Fränkel , 27 Jan 2018 13:34
    Ritula Fränkel ConBrio 10m ago

    Ha ha! Show me a fact, please! I'd love to see what a fact in the National Review looks like.

    Try CBS and other media:

    "The FBI recently released records last month that detailed an interview with Clinton adviser Huma Abedin, in which she was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Mr. Obama. At first, she didn't recognize that it was the president because he was using a pseudonym.

    "Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report said. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-hillary-clintons-email-servers-jeopardize-obama /

    Don't like the facts? Revise them as you wish.

    Subversives in leftist cloth.

    zolotoy , 27 Jan 2018 13:33
    Trump and the FBI are **both** attacks on the Constitution.
    Jeshan -> Durangotang , 27 Jan 2018 13:31
    We recovered from the Civil War. i think America is stronger and better than the Republican Party

    The Civil War hasn't finished yet.

    tjt77 -> Ritula Fränkel , 27 Jan 2018 13:31
    America exists to serve the powerful and wealthy interests that have always called the shots.. read the written record expressed by its founders, if you seek proof. The difference at this current time, is that with trump being the "distractor in chief", there is little effort to cover up the reality of who exists to serve whom. for those who don't like it, be patient. Trump will be out on his ear once his usefulness has played out.
    DaveBloomfield , 27 Jan 2018 13:19
    This isn't Watergate. I remember it well. Actual crimes were committed. A group of operatives broke into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate hotel in the middle of the night going through files. Then you had an unsolved crime seeking the criminals. This is the opposite. You've decided Trump is a criminal, and now you're desperately seeking a crime to pin on him.

    It won't work. Any obstruction charge will either fail at the Supreme Court or during impeachment proceedings in the Senate. Democrats will claim a moral victory, in that they actually got Trump charged, if not convicted. This is a farce. Just like the BS charges against Bill Clinton. Back then we were treated to the ridiculous spectacle of grown men raising a semen encrusted dress skyward in victory. It's just sad that this is what government has been reduced to. It's pathetic.

    Under Freedom of Speech President Trump has a democratic right to criticize the FBI, judges, or any other subject he chooses. Just like the Guardian, and numerous other media publications have a right to criticize the President. No one disputes that judges have the legal right to render a decision, but you do have every right to criticize that decision. Same goes for the FBI. They have the legal obligation to investigate and bring charges, but you can criticize those charges and the impartiality of investigators. Unquestioned obedience to authority is still fortunately not part of our democratic tradition. If that's what you're looking for, move to China.

    ninoinoz , 27 Jan 2018 12:59
    "As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it's important to remember a piece of history. Without Deep Throat, the Washington Post's secret source, the Watergate scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned in 2012, was Mark Felt, the No2 official at the FBI."

    It also important to remember that Nixon was President at the time of the Watergate break-in, seeking re-election.
    It is Obama, Clinton and the serving FBI officers who are under scrutiny for abuse of power before an election, not Trump.

    ConBrio , 27 Jan 2018 12:48
    The Author's selectivity is fascinating as well as ironic. While Trump's harangues are potentially criminal the notion that they could do much more damage than already done by her cadre is laughable.

    President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedein, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton [remember his surreptitious visit to Lynch's plane during the final days of the investigation?] conspired to compromise the independence of The Justice Department itself.

    In fact against regulations not to speak of good investigative practice, an FBI agent disclosed the name of Barack Obama as a knowing recipient of State Department Emails from her home grown server, to Huma Abedein, herself a potential material witness and in all likelihood a target of the investigation.

    Who authorized that disclosure isn't documented, but it had to be a higher up.

    "How is this not classified?" So exclaimed Hillary Clinton's close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton's private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system -- something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

    She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after "express[ing] her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym," was to "ask if she could have a copy of the email." Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

    The fix was in.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440380/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary

    lyonedes , 27 Jan 2018 12:28
    Bile.

    The FBI is corrupt as is the Department of Justice. Why was Comey signing off investigations into Hillary's wrongdoings before he's see the evidence?
    The whole lot of them are totally anti-Trump and collude together to withhold information from Congressional Hearings with Trey Gowdy exposing lie after lie..
    Be assured, the Clinton's eil influence will be exposed for what it is.

    Karma Chameleon -> tc2011 , 27 Jan 2018 12:25
    Excellent. Now they've been recovered, which virtually anyone should have been able to do with forensic software, maybe their contents will become publicly available through their use in the courts/legal proceedings.

    It was Page and Strzok who were the ones using the term 'secret society', from your link:

    Some GOP lawmakers in recent days have homed in on an exchange in recently recovered texts in which Strzok and Page make reference to a "secret society." Johnson, one of the senators who has voiced concerns about this exchange, acknowledged Thursday morning the possibility that the "secret society" reference was made in jest. [note, this is his speculation]

    "Are you even going to give out your calendars?" Page asked Strzok in one of the messages. "Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society."

    DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> Matthew McKinnon , 27 Jan 2018 12:24
    That's about how long it would take an effective Intel analyst to access, sort, select, prioritize, arrange, print, cover, staple, and deliver everything in the electronic inventory of NSA intercepts. That they haven't done so is an indication that the concept of an ongoing investigation is more important than the outcome.
    Travis , 27 Jan 2018 12:23
    The true attack on the US Constitution was Hillary Clinton's email management practices. Thank God we dodged that bullet, thanks to the wholly proportionate coverage from media like Jill's former employer.

    [Jan 29, 2018] "Russiagate" or "Netanyahugate" Defend Democracy Press

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Eric Zuesse 1 ..."
    "... The Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's main evidence thus far in his "Russiagate" probe is not actually about possible Russian collusion with Trump to win the Presidency, but instead about definite Israeli collusion with Trump after Trump had already won the Presidency but before he became inaugurated. As a lawyer explained on the day when Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was indicted in a plea-deal: "Mr. Flynn has just become the prosecution's star witness." What Flynn had pled to was his trying to obtain Russia's support for Israel's Government, against the Palestinians. Russia said no; Putin said no to Flynn's request, which had been made on behalf of Israel. ..."
    "... * Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . ..."
    "... The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Eric Zuesse , Global Research, 2017 ..."
    Jan 29, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    "Russiagate" or "Netanyahugate"? 24/12/2017

    If what Mr. Zuesse is writing, in the following, seemingly very well substantiated article, is true, then extremely serious questions arise as to which forces have helped Mr. Trump become the President in a country where anybody who challenged the establishment got assasinated (for ex. the Kennedies) and which forces are controlling him.

    Another extraordinary aspect of all that is also the way such forces have succeeded, up to now, to be hidden behind Russia!

    If things like those already revealed are true, then the same forces controlling Mr. Trump can use the situation they helped engineer, to push him to implement their war agenda against both Iran and North Korea, in exchange for help to the President to get out of all this mess. If Mr. Trump will not agree to the war scenarios, then more disturbing revelations may follow.

    We hope that all these are simple suppositions and hypotheses, theories of conspiracies and not description of real conspiracies.

    But, unfortunately, nightmares tend now to happen more often when we wake up, than when we slip. Maybe this is a reason we slip too much.

    K.D.

    "Russiagate" Is Actually "Israelgate": Trump as "Agent of Israel", Not of Russia?

    By Eric Zuesse 1

    The Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's main evidence thus far in his "Russiagate" probe is not actually about possible Russian collusion with Trump to win the Presidency, but instead about definite Israeli collusion with Trump after Trump had already won the Presidency but before he became inaugurated. As a lawyer explained on the day when Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was indicted in a plea-deal: "Mr. Flynn has just become the prosecution's star witness." What Flynn had pled to was his trying to obtain Russia's support for Israel's Government, against the Palestinians. Russia said no; Putin said no to Flynn's request, which had been made on behalf of Israel.

    The way that Mueller's investigation, to find reasons for Trump's impeachment, achieved on December 1st the indictment and plea-deal with Flynn, was to get Flynn to admit (after his first having lied to deny) that he had been asked by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , who had been asked by Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu , to communicate to Russia's head-of-state Vladimir Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador, a request on behalf of the incoming U.S. Administration of Donald Trump , for Russia to get Israel out of a jam at the U.N. Security Council. Netanyahu didn't want to be alone in trying to pressure Putin to turn against the Palestinians; he wanted the incoming Trump Administration also to be pressuring Putin to do that -- for Russia to veto, this time, a resolution ( #2334 in 2016 ), which, every year in the past, had been supported by Russia; or, failing to achieve that, to get Russia's support for Israel's effort to delay the Security Council's vote, until after Trump would become installed as the U.S. President on January 20th. That's what Putin was saying no to.

    The initiative in this matter -- the matter that has oddly become the centerpiece of Mueller's case for impeaching Trump -- came from Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not at all from Russia's head-of-state, Vladimir Putin, such as is almost universally reported to have been the Trump Administration's foreign master (if any). Trump's agent, Kushner, was the supplicant, on behalf of Israel, for Putin's assistance to Israel. Kushner had been asked by Netanyahu to do this, and Kushner assigned Flynn to do it, on behalf of Trump. According to ABC News ,

    "Trump phoned Flynn shortly after the election to explicitly ask him to 'serve as point person on Russia,' and to reach out personally to Russian officials to develop strategies to jointly combat ISIS."

    But, apparently, Flynn accepted Kushner's instructions also (not only Trump's), and he assumed that what Kushner wanted here (which was not against ISIS, but instead against the Palestinians) was also what Trump wanted on this matter. In fact, Eli Lake reported about Flynn, on the day of Flynn's indictment, December 1st,

    "that during the last days of the Obama administration, the retired general was instructed to contact foreign ambassadors and foreign ministers of countries on the U.N. Security Council, ahead of a vote condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn was told to try to get them to delay that vote until after Barack Obama had left office, or oppose the resolution altogether."

    This was being done for Netanyahu, not for Putin. As the New York Times reported this ,

    "Mr. Flynn asked Russia to intervene at the United Nations on behalf of Israel."

    Furthermore, Putin's answer to Kushner's request for Russia to veto or at least delay the "United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its settlement policy" was the exact opposite of what Netanyahu-Kushner were requesting: Russia voted in favor of the resolution , not weakened it -- much less vetoed it, as Netanyahu-Kushner were urging.

    In other words: Russia refused to comply with the incoming U.S. President's son-in-law's request that had been passed to Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , through Flynn, through Kushner, who had received the request directly from Netanyahu (and the indictment makes no allegation that President-Elect Trump even so much as knew about any of this; there is no impeachable allegation made there against Trump). Possibly, but not yet certainly, Kushner had received, from his father-in-law, instructions to comply with Israel's 'requests', so that Kushner didn't need to communicate with Mr. Trump specifically for permission to pass along to Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador, Netanyahu's desire, as being also America's desire. Not only was Trump not Putin's agent in this matter, but his son-in-law was instead serving there as Netanyahu's agent, under some as-yet-undetermined authorization from Trump, but the indictment doesn't even allege there to have been any such authorization, by Trump, at all .

    We can be certain that Kushner did have Trump's authorization, however, in some form, because even now, Trump hasn't yet fired Kushner. Kushner's incompetence might bring down Trump, but Trump still stands with Kushner, against Mueller, even though that seems politically suicidal for Trump to be doing. No doubt, if Trump were to break from Kushner, then Kushner might testify against Trump -- and so that path (Trump's turning against Kushner) would also be politically suicidal for Trump. Perhaps Kushner will go to prison if he becomes prosecuted and doesn't reach any plea-deal. Maybe that's the reason why Trump doesn't fire Kushner.

    The plea-deal with Flynn has him admitting that his contacts with Kislyak were authorized only by Kushner (referred to in Flynn's indictment not by name but only by the vague phrase "a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team"). However, Flynn had earlier lied to the FBI and said that he "never asked Russia's ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, to delay the vote for the U.N. Security Council resolution." So: if, subsequently, it somehow does turn out to be Flynn's word against Trump's word, then the ultimate decision will be made by Senate Republicans when they either do or don't vote for Mike Pence to take over the remainder of Trump's term. In order for that switch to be made, two-thirds of the entire U.S. Senate -- that's 67 of the 100 -- would need to vote for Pence to take over. Whereas Democrats seem eager for Pence to complete Trump's term, that's only 46 Senators, or 48 if both Independents vote with the Democrats , and at least 9 or 11 of the Senate's 52 Republicans would then also need to vote for Pence. The Vice President would not be the presiding officer; instead, the Constitution makes the Chief Justice of the U.S. that, and only the Senators are allowed to be counted in a Senate trial that would follow after the House's majority-vote for a Senate trial to be held. The V.P. couldn't serve as any 'tie-breaker' in this trial. And removal-from-office would be the only direct harm to Trump; the U.S. provides no way to try the President on any charge via the courts -- the only way a U.S. President can be punished for any crime is by being tried, and then convicted and removed from office, by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Other than that, a U.S. President is above the law.

    The Flynn indictment does make one other allegation which specifically concerns Russia:

    "FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia."

    Flynn admitted now that that was a lie -- that he had made this request of Kislyak.

    On December 5th, Max Blumenthal aptly headlined, "Michael Flynn's Indictment Exposes Trump Team's Collusion With Israel, Not Russia -- But you wouldn't know it from reading most mainstream coverage of the revealing affair," and he commented:

    "While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal anti-Trump 'Resistance' minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow , who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel."

    Apparently, exposing Israeli control over the U.S. Government is, in effect, prohibited; only Russian 'control' over us may be 'exposed'. The very possibility, that when America's taxpayers pay (via U.S. taxes) annual donations of $3.8 billion per year to the Government of Israel, which is a 'friend', instead of a master -- an enemy -- of the American people, seems to be prohibited to disprove, or even to question publicly. But there it is, and Russia gets the blame, which Israel ( and the Sauds ) do not.

    Such misdirection of the blame could cause WW III, especially if U.S. media continue calling this 'evidence' 'against Trump', by such terms as 'Russiagate.' It's not that, at all; and portraying it as if it were, could do the whole world a whole lot of harm. (I don't say this in support of Trump, a President I loathe as much as I do his far slicker predecessor, but instead to expose the current lynch-mob as being what they actually are: psychopathic inciters of the most horrific -- and unwarranted -- war ever.)

    * Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

    The original source of this article is Global Research
    Copyright © Eric Zuesse , Global Research, 2017

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    Highly recommended!
    Truth is the first victim of war. This is also true about the Cold War II with Russia.
    Notable quotes:
    "... MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?" ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies ..."
    "... This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China. ..."
    "... In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader ..."
    "... So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" ..."
    "... The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better. ..."
    "... So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. ..."
    Jan 28, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia Written by Caitlin Johnstone Sunday January 28, 2018

    MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?"

    Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of the 2016 election. Like all "bombshell" Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as documented here by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as "Cozy Bear," which as Real News ' Max Blumenthal notes is not a network of hackers but "a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops."

    This "bombshell" overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn't.

    *Cough.*

    Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over and over again these "bombshell" stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be debunked , retracted , or erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they're not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community, which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as porous claims made by an extremely shady and insanely profitable private cyber security company, and yet all we're ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.

    Why is that?

    You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies.

    That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn't it? But that's exactly what's going on here, and if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that's precisely what they'd say.

    It's not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world's leading superpower as quickly as possible. Hell, Xi Jinping flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and many experts think it might happen a lot sooner than Xi's 30-year deadline. An editorial from China's state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the "Xi-style collaborative approach" and Trump's "self-centred America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the broader world." China has been collaborating with Russia to end the hegemony of the US dollar , to shore up control of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to remain in Washington's good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.

    Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation's affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barack Obama made the "indispensable" nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their stated primary goal .

    This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China.

    In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader .

    "Russia is essential to China because of Moscow's long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon," writes Doctorow, "whereas China, with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through another power, which today is Russia."

    So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" after much badgering from Fox's Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an "act of war." It is worth noting here that despite Swalwell's repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president's godlike surveillance powers anyway.

    Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right out and say that.

    They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better.

    Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.

    So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. They think they're lying to you for your own good, because you can't understand how important it is that they do what they're trying to do. That's why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up; they're lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn't want a lump of coal for Christmas. Except instead of eating broccoli it's consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it's a class of elitist sociopaths, and you're always going to get coal.

    And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally I would argue that the death, destruction and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate that argument, but it's a debate that people deserve to have, and they can't have it when they're being lied to about what's really going on.

    Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.

    Support Caitlyn Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal . Reprinted with author's permission from her website .

    [Jan 28, 2018] Cought in geopolitical war Ukraine became a pawn in bigger games

    Jan 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of the planned US attack on Syria? Well, the very same Ukraine has recently passed a law abolishing the "anti-terrorist operation" in the Donbass and declaring the Donbass "occupied territory". Under Ukie law, Russia is now officially an "aggressor state". This means that the Ukronazis have now basically rejected the Minsk Agreements and are in a quasi-open state of war with Russia. The chances of a full-scale Ukronazi attack on the Donbass are now even higher then before, especially before or during the soccer World Cup in Moscow this summer (remember Saakashvili?). Having been ridiculed (again) with their Border Security Force in Syria, the US Americans will now seek a place to take revenge on the evil Russkies and this place will most likely be the Ukraine. And we can always count the Israelis to find a pretext to continue to murder Palestinians and bomb Syria. As for the Saudis, they appear to be temporarily busy fighting each other. So unless the Empire does something really crazy, the only place it can lash out with little to lose (for itself) is the eastern Ukraine. The Novorussians understand that. May God help them.

    Paranam Kid , January 26, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT

    Saker, interesting analysis. 1 tiny point of criticism:

    Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of the planned US attack on Syria?

    If I am not mistaken the CIA fomented "Orange revolution" in Ukraine was in 2014, whereas Russia stepped into the Syrian war in 2015. So in the quoted sentence, it seems you got the sequence of events back to front.

    bliss_porsena , January 28, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
    Ha-ha! Goddam Russkies scorched the Amero-ISIS arse and now Russo-Turks are gaslighting the Kurds and their ten 'Murican lilypads. It's time for a diversionary Great Patriotic Ukrainian War, just as soon as Porko sobers up.
    Seamus Padraig , January 28, 2018 at 11:53 am GMT
    @Biff

    You're both wrong. The Orange Revolution occurred in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

    What occurred in 2014 was the Maidan psy-op. As far as I recall, the only thing significant that happened in Ukraine in 2010 was the election of Yanukovych.

    Michael Kenny , January 28, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
    In an article about Syria, Russia is omnipresent and the article ends by talking about Ukraine. Nothing could better illustrate the fact that Putin has painted himself into a corner in both places. He is irreversibly bogged down in Syria and any deal he makes with the Kurds will just bog him down even more. Putin is a sitting duck. The US can lower the boom on him at any time by relaunching the war and there's nothing he can do about it. And, of course, the author makes clear that all this is "about" Ukraine. Syria is a proxy war. But in Ukraine also, Putin has painted himself into a corner. He can't go forward, he can't go backwards and he can't stay where he is!
    bluedog , January 28, 2018 at 3:23 pm GMT
    @Michael Kenny

    Looks to me like he has done very well, the Ukraine is a basket case, surviving on little more than borrowed money(I see on the QT that they are back to having to buy coal from Russia AGAIN) and sooner rather than later there will be another coup as they find that even the EU don';t want them.Syria why does he need to make a deal with the Kurd's for they are not his problem,if anyone makes a deal with the Kurd's it will have be Syria,as far as that little chunk we carved out just what good is it landlocked with no access to a water port,as normal your trolling along with the mighty U.S. which is little more than a paper tiger with its involvement in Afghanistan Africa and other places of interest as it tries to save what can't be saved,the EMPIRE

    EliteCommInc. , January 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT
    @Michael Kenny

    I am not sure there is any evidence that Pres Putin needs t do anything.

    He has no intention of raking the Ukraine. Not an issue. He's responding the consequences of a western incited violent revolution that spun out of control -- and is protecting "ethnic Russians" a dynamic that plagues Europe and Asia.

    In Syria he is not launching a campaign of conquest but supporting. Anyone who thinks Russia is caught in a vice is sorely mistaken. I can see from the comments that misunderstanding the motivations of pothers remains in play and that is not encouraging.

    Yo be clear, I have full faith of US might. we can bring a formidable amount of force on any situation -- it's frightening, just how formidable we are. The question remains

    first should we
    second how long we need to sustain it
    third tested against multiple adversaries (of our own making) in multiple locations
    fourth tested against other modern states who themselves have engaged in tech superior forces
    fifth the strategic advantages -- short verses long term

    Just because one can -- doesn't . . .

    Nor am I ignoring that we have allies willing to take on Russia, but when push comes to shove . . . who knows. I think we are the ones getting played and as for trapped -- and bogged down --

    goodness gracious.

    [Jan 28, 2018] Cought in geopolitical war Ukraine became a pawn in bigger games

    Jan 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of the planned US attack on Syria? Well, the very same Ukraine has recently passed a law abolishing the "anti-terrorist operation" in the Donbass and declaring the Donbass "occupied territory". Under Ukie law, Russia is now officially an "aggressor state". This means that the Ukronazis have now basically rejected the Minsk Agreements and are in a quasi-open state of war with Russia. The chances of a full-scale Ukronazi attack on the Donbass are now even higher then before, especially before or during the soccer World Cup in Moscow this summer (remember Saakashvili?). Having been ridiculed (again) with their Border Security Force in Syria, the US Americans will now seek a place to take revenge on the evil Russkies and this place will most likely be the Ukraine. And we can always count the Israelis to find a pretext to continue to murder Palestinians and bomb Syria. As for the Saudis, they appear to be temporarily busy fighting each other. So unless the Empire does something really crazy, the only place it can lash out with little to lose (for itself) is the eastern Ukraine. The Novorussians understand that. May God help them.

    Paranam Kid , January 26, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT

    Saker, interesting analysis. 1 tiny point of criticism:

    Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of the planned US attack on Syria?

    If I am not mistaken the CIA fomented "Orange revolution" in Ukraine was in 2014, whereas Russia stepped into the Syrian war in 2015. So in the quoted sentence, it seems you got the sequence of events back to front.

    bliss_porsena , January 28, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
    Ha-ha! Goddam Russkies scorched the Amero-ISIS arse and now Russo-Turks are gaslighting the Kurds and their ten 'Murican lilypads. It's time for a diversionary Great Patriotic Ukrainian War, just as soon as Porko sobers up.
    Seamus Padraig , January 28, 2018 at 11:53 am GMT
    @Biff

    You're both wrong. The Orange Revolution occurred in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

    What occurred in 2014 was the Maidan psy-op. As far as I recall, the only thing significant that happened in Ukraine in 2010 was the election of Yanukovych.

    Michael Kenny , January 28, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
    In an article about Syria, Russia is omnipresent and the article ends by talking about Ukraine. Nothing could better illustrate the fact that Putin has painted himself into a corner in both places. He is irreversibly bogged down in Syria and any deal he makes with the Kurds will just bog him down even more. Putin is a sitting duck. The US can lower the boom on him at any time by relaunching the war and there's nothing he can do about it. And, of course, the author makes clear that all this is "about" Ukraine. Syria is a proxy war. But in Ukraine also, Putin has painted himself into a corner. He can't go forward, he can't go backwards and he can't stay where he is!
    bluedog , January 28, 2018 at 3:23 pm GMT
    @Michael Kenny

    Looks to me like he has done very well, the Ukraine is a basket case, surviving on little more than borrowed money(I see on the QT that they are back to having to buy coal from Russia AGAIN) and sooner rather than later there will be another coup as they find that even the EU don';t want them.Syria why does he need to make a deal with the Kurd's for they are not his problem,if anyone makes a deal with the Kurd's it will have be Syria,as far as that little chunk we carved out just what good is it landlocked with no access to a water port,as normal your trolling along with the mighty U.S. which is little more than a paper tiger with its involvement in Afghanistan Africa and other places of interest as it tries to save what can't be saved,the EMPIRE

    EliteCommInc. , January 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT
    @Michael Kenny

    I am not sure there is any evidence that Pres Putin needs t do anything.

    He has no intention of raking the Ukraine. Not an issue. He's responding the consequences of a western incited violent revolution that spun out of control -- and is protecting "ethnic Russians" a dynamic that plagues Europe and Asia.

    In Syria he is not launching a campaign of conquest but supporting. Anyone who thinks Russia is caught in a vice is sorely mistaken. I can see from the comments that misunderstanding the motivations of pothers remains in play and that is not encouraging.

    Yo be clear, I have full faith of US might. we can bring a formidable amount of force on any situation -- it's frightening, just how formidable we are. The question remains

    first should we
    second how long we need to sustain it
    third tested against multiple adversaries (of our own making) in multiple locations
    fourth tested against other modern states who themselves have engaged in tech superior forces
    fifth the strategic advantages -- short verses long term

    Just because one can -- doesn't . . .

    Nor am I ignoring that we have allies willing to take on Russia, but when push comes to shove . . . who knows. I think we are the ones getting played and as for trapped -- and bogged down --

    goodness gracious.

    [Jan 28, 2018] The old MH17 crew back in action. Now to help to depose Trump

    The financialization of the American economy and continued slide of the lower 80% of population standard of living might provide the impetus to scale back the MIC. And scaling back MIC is long overdue
    Notable quotes:
    "... A thread here not long back with a bit about the Aussie diplomat giving some 'intel' to US IC for the Russia/Trump collusion meme. Now the Dutch are in on it too, hacking into a university beside red square in 2014 and watching Russia hack DNC/Hillary emails or whatever. (apparently no university beside red square) ..."
    Jan 28, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
    3

    A thread here not long back with a bit about the Aussie diplomat giving some 'intel' to US IC for the Russia/Trump collusion meme. Now the Dutch are in on it too, hacking into a university beside red square in 2014 and watching Russia hack DNC/Hillary emails or whatever. (apparently no university beside red square)

    Ukraine for the Dossier, Australia and Netherlands chipping in with their bits of 'evidence'. The old MH17 crew back in action.

    Tillerson/US holding Russia responsible for Syrian chemical weapons attacks, lots of new sanctions on Russia etc etc.

    Saker has an interesting article written for UNZ Review. Ukraine have official changed the status of Donbass from being terrorist occupied to Russian occupied to dump the Minsk agreement. US supplying javelin missiles etc.

    US about to kick off the war in Ukraine again as revenge for Russia stuffing up their plans for Syria?

    [Jan 28, 2018] How Trump Trauma Is Crippling the News Media (Guest Column)

    Neoliberal MSM are hired presstitutes on a mission. Ideological soldiers of the neoliberal Party, if you want to use the Bolsheviks term. To expect from them objectivity is like to expect snow in hell.
    But what is interesting is how Trump managed to undermine this neoliberal fake news industry, especially WaPo, NYT, and CNN. Now even some neoliberal view those presstitutes with disdain: they went way too far ion the war trial. Russiagate debacle is one such story.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is, at bottom, a battle over the truth. Who owns it, who controls it, who can sell their version to a polarized public that increasingly cannot agree on basic facts. ..."
    "... As paradoxical as it sounds, negative coverage helps Trump because it bonds him to people who also feel disrespected by the denizens of the mainstream press. The media take everything literally, and Trump pitches his arguments at a gut level. It is asymmetrical warfare. ..."
    "... Every president gets pounded by the press. But no president has ever been subjected to the kind of relentless ridicule, caustic commentary and insulting invective that has been heaped on Trump. I have a name for this half-crazed compulsion to furiously attack one man. It's called Trump Trauma. ..."
    "... by Howard Kurtz (Regnery Publishing, Jan. 29), copyright Regnery Publishing. ..."
    "... This story appears in the Jan. 25 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe . ..."
    Jan 28, 2018 | www.hollywoodreporter.com

    This is, at bottom, a battle over the truth. Who owns it, who controls it, who can sell their version to a polarized public that increasingly cannot agree on basic facts. Everything you read, hear and see about Trump's veracity is filtered through a mainstream media prism that reflects a lying president -- and virtually never considers the press' own baggage and biases. Everything you read, hear and see from the Trump team is premised on the view that media news is fake news, that journalists are too prejudiced, angry and ideological to fairly report on the president. Trump and his acolytes use these attacks on the Fourth Estate to neutralize their own untruths, evasions and exaggerations.

    What many journalists fail to grasp is that Trump's supporters love his street talk and view the media critiques as nonsense driven by negativity. They don't care if he makes mistakes. As paradoxical as it sounds, negative coverage helps Trump because it bonds him to people who also feel disrespected by the denizens of the mainstream press. The media take everything literally, and Trump pitches his arguments at a gut level. It is asymmetrical warfare.

    Every president gets pounded by the press. But no president has ever been subjected to the kind of relentless ridicule, caustic commentary and insulting invective that has been heaped on Trump. I have a name for this half-crazed compulsion to furiously attack one man. It's called Trump Trauma.

    Excerpted from Media Madness: Donald Trump, the Press, and the War Over the Truth by Howard Kurtz (Regnery Publishing, Jan. 29), copyright Regnery Publishing.

    This story appears in the Jan. 25 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe .

    [Jan 28, 2018] MSM know how to spin a good story and spread propaganda/disinformation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Maybe they get their training from the CIA. ..."
    "... Maybe they ARE CIA. ..."
    "... Always keep in mind, when a source leaks an "exclusive" to one reporter, there is ALWAYS an ulterior motive, even if the leaked information is true. ..."
    Jan 28, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

    blind no longer , January 26, 2018 at 8:36 pm

    We've had people here arguing with each other on another thread about it. They( MSM ) know how to spin a good story and spread propaganda/disinformation. Maybe they get their training from the CIA.
    WSB , January 26, 2018 at 9:41 pm
    Maybe they ARE CIA.
    filia.aurea , January 27, 2018 at 1:27 am
    It's not like Sundance hasn't been warning us Sara Carter and Sean Hannity Are Being Played By James Comey Posted on June 13, 2017 by sundance
    Angel Martin , January 26, 2018 at 7:50 pm
    Always keep in mind, when a source leaks an "exclusive" to one reporter, there is ALWAYS an ulterior motive, even if the leaked information is true.

    Every leak has multiple consequences, and it is not clear what the primary motive was. For example: TheHill leak to Soloman and Carter has:

    -S&P leaking various things to various reporters. The one that caught my eye was the reference to "throwing him under the bus" regarding the CF article (Clinton Foundation?). ie. they are leaking to get back at superiors who do things re clinton that S&P don't like. But there are many others, including the actual or likely identities of the reporters being leaked to.

    [Jan 28, 2018] Deep State Private Chat Intercepted, Exposes A Coup Attempt Against America By Intelligence Community Members by Susan Duclos

    Notable quotes:
    "... That time range is incredibly important ..."
    "... The first was that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be naming former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and that the White House would be "blind-sided." The second would be a MSM news report on "MF" (Michael Flynn) to which they planned to "put MF back in the news" by drawing up "a memo on Turkey," stating that "with Erdogan thugs beating protesters on the streets, it fits the news cycle." ..."
    "... During the beginning of the conversation it was stated that "I'm hearing Mueller, maybe by the end of the week." By the end of the conversation, someone with a little more knowledge said "RM is happening tonight," to which the original person that mentioned Mueller by name, says "Tonight. F*ck. Quicker than I thought." ..."
    Jan 28, 2018 | allnewspipeline.com

    On May 17, 2017, a person that calls himself "FreshCamel," posted messages on multiple forums across the Dark Web (part of the Internet not included in search engines and requires special encrypted programs to access it), asking for help to decipher a discussion he had witnessed between five people communicating using the secure messaging platform called Gliph .

    The same day, the user also uploaded four screen shot links to a pastebin account which allegedly showed the conversation "FreshCamel" witnessed on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, during a 45 minute period, from 2:31 pm to 3:15 pm.

    That time range is incredibly important because the conversation detailed knowledge and planning of events that had not occurred nor been reported at the time the conversation took place, meaning those participating in the conversation had first hand knowledge of events that wouldn't occur until hours later.

    The first was that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be naming former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and that the White House would be "blind-sided." The second would be a MSM news report on "MF" (Michael Flynn) to which they planned to "put MF back in the news" by drawing up "a memo on Turkey," stating that "with Erdogan thugs beating protesters on the streets, it fits the news cycle."

    During the beginning of the conversation it was stated that "I'm hearing Mueller, maybe by the end of the week." By the end of the conversation, someone with a little more knowledge said "RM is happening tonight," to which the original person that mentioned Mueller by name, says "Tonight. F*ck. Quicker than I thought."

    Screen shots below, but first a couple points as to the timeline. The news of Mueller did not hit the news until 6 pm ET on May 17, 2017 ( CBS News ) and 7:32 pm ( ABC News ), both of which time stamp their articles, which was 3 1/2 hours after the first mention in the chat log, and 3 hours after the second person said "RM is happening tonight."

    The second point is that the New York Times article on Michael Flynn and Turkey, and follow ups by other organizations like McClatchy , weren't published until 7:27 pm on Wednesday.

    Parciat test recovered fromt he image (see the original article for the fuill text)

    Dooku joined the group.

    Dooku: RR isn't taking shit., and he knows our friends have stuff on him
    Dooku: I'm hearing Mueller, maybe by the end of the week

    SevernS: May 17 at 2: 37 pm

    Hearing that too.. WH will be blind-sided. Let's put MF back in the news? Can have S draw up
    memo on Turkey With Erdogan thugs beating protesters in streets, it fits news cycle, and I'm
    sure we'll need a few more 'memos'' down the road. Good practice :-)

    Huck

    I'm in. S. you in here? Our friends in NY still have secure connection set up waiting

    Roger

    MF was mentioned in company group too... Evidently their work on the limey is paying off.

    Roger

    MF was mentioned in company group too... Evidently their work on the limey is paying off.

    Dooku

    Paying off how?

    Dooku

    Getting to him?

    Timelines aside, there are a number of other references that line up with the constant leaks by the Deep State to the MSM.

    For example, the reference in the log above, to how their work on "MF" was paying off, saying he is "scared sh*tless," then the one that calls himself "Roger" stating "didn't AEWP mention it when we gave him that tape."

    Coincidentally, the original report on Michael Flynn, in February 2017, detailing his conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States, before Trump took office, was published by the Washington Post, with one of the writers listed as "Adam Entous." Is that the "AE" that is one of the Deep States "carrier pigeons?"

    Another highly interesting reference is to the "Limey," where the person listed as "Huck, states "our carrier pigeon said in debrief that they said something along the lines of "No wonder no one in our business has called the Limey out, what's the point when you all keep bringing us great stuff? It actually helps our pageviews when she gets all of her minions first up with dumb sh*t first'."

    According to The Third Estate New Group, who broke this story, the Limey reference could be to "Louise Mensch," who just happens to be the one of the two people that put out the bogus report that there had been a sealed indictment issued against President Trump, just last week, and who also has been given space at the New York Times for op-eds.

    Another thing that caught my eye was the reference to a "Camp Eagle," to which the user Roger called an "asset." In the intelligence community an "asset" someone "within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy. They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short." (Source)

    Third Estate also claims they have contacted the person that released these screen shots, who said that while five people participated int he conversations, there were 13 present in the message group.

    ANP has also reached out to the dark web .onion email address "FreshCamel" posted on the pastebin account, but have not heard back from him by the time of publishing, but we will update if we do receive a response.

    BOTTOM LINE

    While anybody in the intelligence community could be leaking to the press, the specific knowledge of Rod Rosenstein tapping Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, would have been known to only a short list of people within the DOJ, and Mueller himself of course.

    Since the information aligned so well with actual events that happened after the conversation took place, this lends considerable credence to the veracity of the Third Estate claim that they "independently reviewed and verified these screenshots and other information provided by "FreshCamel."

    This is a well planned coup attempt against not just president Trump, but against every single voter and supporter that fought to get him elected.

    Last, but not least, at the top of the first screen shot, it says "Palpatine's Revenge" as the name of the chat..... which appears to be a reference to a Star Wars character, which has "has become a widely recognized popular culture symbol of evil, sinister deception, dictatorship, tyranny, and the subversion of democracy," according to Wikipedia.

    [Jan 28, 2018] US MIC extract so many money out of the American taxpayers to maintain the US global empire that any former serviceman who was deployed in Europe for a couple years can see that many parts of US are overrated, crime ridden dumps even when compared to places in Eastern Europe

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a former service member, Uncle Sam paid me to live in Europe for a couple years and sure opened my eyes (though they got their money out of me from an Iraq and A-stan deployment). I realized that many parts of US are overrated, crime ridden dumps even when compared to most places even in Eastern Europe. ..."
    "... Europeans can thank US promoted defense freeloading so they can focus on beating the US on all quality of life measure including crime rates, mortality, longevity, health care, and other measures of happiness other than GDP such as not worrying about your kids getting massacred at school from yet another mass shooting. ..."
    "... I'm a proud American but these infinitely proved wrong neocons keep resurrecting themselves. ..."
    Jan 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    jk January 19, 2018 at 1:02 pm

    @deef, the ad hominem you begin with against the author shows where you are coming from. George the Lesser revisionists like you never learn.

    Where is the ROI on global policing? Selective sampling of wars? Where have you been for the last 15 years as the US digs deeper within the biggest strategic blunder in the history of the US? We could have done more useful things with the $5,000,000,000,000+ that was spent on these dumb wars of choice such as manned mission to mars, universal insurance, pave the freeways in gold

    The US causes more unintended consequences and greater conflicts and deaths than the good intentions they believe they are performing. See Syria, Iraq, Yemen, et al.

    What's the casualty/death/missing numbers of Iraqis during the US's invasion vs. Saddam's time? Is the average Iraqi happy to be there? I guess all that matters is that the US is supposedly safer. Would any US citizen agree to that for the past 15 years?

    And let's not kid ourselves, the State Dept. in any neocon administration is an extension of the Department of Defense.

    As a former service member, Uncle Sam paid me to live in Europe for a couple years and sure opened my eyes (though they got their money out of me from an Iraq and A-stan deployment). I realized that many parts of US are overrated, crime ridden dumps even when compared to most places even in Eastern Europe.

    Europeans can thank US promoted defense freeloading so they can focus on beating the US on all quality of life measure including crime rates, mortality, longevity, health care, and other measures of happiness other than GDP such as not worrying about your kids getting massacred at school from yet another mass shooting.

    I'm a proud American but these infinitely proved wrong neocons keep resurrecting themselves.

    jk , says: January 20, 2018 at 1:16 pm
    I stand corrected, it is 17 years of continuous hole digging, tax dollar burning, and amortization of the decline of future prosperity continues un-abated.

    Sons and daughters born in 2001 of vets of these stupid wars of choice are now eligible to fight the same end-stateless, no condition of victory wars with an expanded enemy set to include peer competitors of Russia, China, N. Korea.

    The annual soldier that dies on Jan. 1 of year X hand wringing editorial can continue indefinitely.

    your call , says: January 23, 2018 at 8:49 am
    @jk "I'm a proud American but these infinitely proved wrong neocons keep resurrecting themselves."

    Because we let them. We don't laugh them off television programs or kick them out of the auditoriums where they keep inviting each other to appear. We don't punish elected politicians (like Trump) who keep hiring them because they think we won't notice.

    [Jan 28, 2018] Israel as a MIC lobbyist injecting some money they got via military help into the USA politics directly, or indirectly.

    Jan 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    likbez January 17, 2018 at 1:46 am

    @One guy

    As far as I remember his posts Michael Kenny is "Israel-firster."

    He does not care much about the US national security by definition, having different priorities.

    BTW it's a news for me that AEI launched such neocon stalwarts as "Frederick Kagan, John Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle Pletka."

    It is a sad fact that Trump administration now is infiltrated with neocons, but in reality how it can be different.

    POTUS no longer defines the US foreign policy; MIC does (neocons can probably be better understood as professional lobbyists of MIC). In a way, POTUS is now by-and-large ceremonial figure, although Trump at least during the election campaign (and shortly after, say, before April 2017 and Mueller commission) has had somewhat more isolationist views (his bellicosity toward Iran and NK notwithstanding.) But he was quickly brought into the fold. Now he acts like a regular Republican President, say, like Bush III.

    The latter just demonstrates the power of MIC.

    That's why there a surprising level of continuity of foreign policy between different administrations.

    My impression is that Israel also is effectively acting as a MIC lobbyist injecting some money they got via military help into the USA politics directly, or indirectly.

    [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir

    Highly recommended!
    Fantastic article. A very plausible hypothesis. "The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders."
    Notable quotes:
    "... And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow. ..."
    "... Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders. ..."
    "... Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence. ..."
    "... The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'. ..."
    "... They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. ..."
    "... Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal. ..."
    "... Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago. ..."
    "... This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism. ..."
    "... Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime! ..."
    "... Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund. ..."
    "... This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration. ..."
    "... Echo Moskwy ..."
    "... But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece. ..."
    "... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
    "... That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'. ..."
    "... I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest. ..."
    "... There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back. ..."
    "... Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer. ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    While you have probably already forgotten the feast, Russia is only now slowly coming back to life after its overlong Christmas break completed on January 14 by the quaintly named Old New Year, or even perhaps by the Epiphany on January 19. Everybody went somewhere, even candidates for the presidential race coming in on March 18: the Communist one went to ski in Austria, while the right-winger went to Bali. On the eve of Epiphany, they dipped in the ice-cold waters: the ultimate trial of Russian fitness. Not only he-man Putin, but even she-woman Sobchak did it!

    And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow.

    The Russian assets in the west could be divided into New Money, assets of Putin's people, and the Old Money, assets of Yeltsin's people. The sanctions are supposed to deal with Putin's people, but Russian experts think the Old Money is more vulnerable, for a good reason. The New Money is under Putin's protection. If the US or any other western authority grabs it, the Russian government may seize Western shares in Russian companies and properties.

    But what about the Old Money? Its owners, elder oligarchs, are extremely worried about Putin's nonchalance. Putin takes it easy, they say. Ma'alish , the Arab in Putin says. Que sera sera , says his inner Frenchman. And this nonchalant attitude drives the oligarchs crazy. They want him to fight and save their money. They insisted on his meeting with President Trump in Vietnam; some say the meeting took place in the depth of the night, far from prying eyes, and didn't bring results. Now Putin says to the Old Money: if you want to save your money, repatriate it to Russia. We aren't that mad, they reply. You have to defend us anyway! That was the Deal!

    Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders.

    Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence.

    Putin was elected, or you may say, he was appointed to stick to the Deal and to serve as the Supreme Arbiter among the oligarchs, with very little of a power base of his own. Slowly, he created his own oligarchs (they are described as "siloviki", though not all of them have some security forces background), and he had built up a limited power base; though many important positions, in particular in the economic sphere, remained in the hands of the Old Guard, Yeltsin's men. This, too, was a part of the Deal.

    The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'.

    They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. The worst Putin can do about them is to give them a fat chunk of the Russian economy to chew on, while limiting their access to the rest. So he gave Mr Chubais the Rusnano company that made no profit but embezzled billions . This was the Deal.

    Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal.

    The topmost schools of Russia, the most endowed, the most privileged schools for the children of the new nobility are the HSE, (the Higher School of Economics, a clone of the LSE and the economic think-tank of the government), and MGIMO, (Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the school for perspective diplomats). Their graduates were been trained to despise Russia and admire the neo-liberal West (just like the Indian students trained by the Brits, had admired England and despised their country in the days of the British Raj). Professor Medvedev of the HSE called upon Russian government to transfer the Russian Far North to the international community, though this is the place of the greatest gas reserves (he kept his position). Professor Zubov of the MGIMO had compared Putin to Hitler, and denounced Russian diplomats as liars (his contract hasn't been prolonged). All that is a part of the Deal.

    Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago.

    Meanwhile, the Deal has been undone from the West, as a result of the epic struggle between Bankers and Producers, otherwise described as Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Globalists vs. Regionalists, personalised as Clinton vs. Trump. Yeltsin's people are historically aligned with the Clinton camp. Now, their assets in the West, previously protected by the Deal, have lost their protection and come up for grabs.

    The Old Money people are putting their effort into persuading the West, namely the US, to let them live in peace and instead confiscate the pro-Putin New Money.

    This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism.

    Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime!

    (Émigrés are frequently like that, and the US, a country of immigrants, had been vulnerable to the attack by Illarionov Syndrome, by listening to Masha Gessen, or to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré who claimed Iraq has had WMD, to Alexander Solzhenitsyn with his horror stories about GULAG, etc. I made it a rule to moderate my critique of Israel while abroad, in fear of failing the Illarionov Sanity Test.)

    Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund.

    Direct and generous beneficiaries of their lobbying are the Three Alpha Jews, Peter Aven, Michael Friedman and Herman Khan. They are owners of the Alpha Bank, a very big Russian bank , and they are Old Money oligarchs from Yeltsin's days when their kin ruled the land.

    Michael Friedman, the fat guy with a jolly piglet face, rose to his eminence from being a ticket tout selling illegally obtained opera tickets to Western tourists near Bolshoi Theatre; afterwards he became The Mind behind all ticket mafias in Moscow, and then proceeded to banking and so many other things.

    Like many Old Money guys, Friedman earns money in Russia, but siphons it off for Jewish causes. He is a co-founder of a "Jewish Nobel Prize", also called Genesis Prize, a cool million dollars being given annually to a deserving Jew, the most recent one being the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg who called Donald Trump, "the faker". This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration.

    Alternatively, it could mean they are just smart and able to play the both houses. The Three Alpha Jews had been mentioned in the Steele Dossier as the conduit of Putin influence for Trump and against Clinton in the recent US Presidential elections. (They are suing Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed for spreading the accusation).

    According to an even better conspiracy theory spread on the social networks, both Mr Illarionov and the smart Alpha Jews are a sleeper cell organised by cunning Mr Putin to ensure his survival in the most adverse conditions. All of them were very friendly with Putin; perhaps they just pretended to become his enemies, the conspiratorially minded journalist from the anti-Putin Echo Moskwy has implied.

    Leaving the conspiracy theories aside for a while, we can reach a conclusion. The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.

    But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece.

    Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

    This article was first published at The Unz Review .

    Andrei Martyanov , Website January 26, 2018 at 3:17 pm GMT

    The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.

    That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'.

    Alias Anonymous , January 26, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
    "Que sera sera". One of my favorite songs. Sung by Doris Day and was a hit in the 1950′s. Italian in origin and translates to "whatever will be, will be".
    Anon Disclaimer , January 26, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
    On topic, hoping to elicit comments: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5315353/Tycoon-swaps-Putins-daughter-glamorous-socialite.html

    Slightly OT: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5314897/George-Soros-calls-Trump-blistering-Davos-speech.html

    That masterful Freud! Mafia govmn't = pure projection. Plus the war cry for 2018 is official.

    The swipe at Solzhenitsyn beneath you, Mr. Shamir.

    Andrei Martyanov , Website January 26, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT
    @Anon

    The swipe at Solzhenitsyn beneath you, Mr. Shamir.

    When did Solzhenitsyn gain the sainthood status? Can you remind us please.

    Sergey Krieger , January 26, 2018 at 7:57 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Agree. I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest.

    Sergey Krieger , January 26, 2018 at 8:02 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.

    Andrei Martyanov , Website January 26, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
    @Sergey Krieger

    there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.

    Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer.

    [Jan 27, 2018] Remember that both Pence and Tillerson were outspoken Never Trumpers.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here's another map that's a little different than the one linked by Peter AU1. The Kurdish Project - https://thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/ (remove the space) ..."
    "... Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy. ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    mrd | Jan 25, 2018 10:54:46 PM | 59

    @Peter AU 1 | Jan 25, 2018 4:29:45 PM | 28

    I think you're on target with your comment. Also, I don't believe Jared has asked the Kurds themselves whether they're on board or not. Let me explain.

    1. Remember that both Pence and Tillerson were outspoken Never Trumpers. Pence was promised that he'd be 100% in charge of policy and all day to day decisions. When he asked Trump what he intended to be doing he replied: "I'll be busy making America Great Again." Whatever deal and contract wound up being signed between them, I think the tomahawk missile attack on Syria violated the details and revoked most of Pence's authority.
    2. Several, including Bannon have stated that Jared is in charge of ME policy. So, what did Jared offer to Exxon and Tillerson in exchange for the SOS position? I believe he / they are slated to become the King of Kurdistan. "King" is the only thing that Tillerson hasn't had in his life; yet.

    Here's another map that's a little different than the one linked by Peter AU1. The Kurdish Project - https://thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/ (remove the space)

    Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy.

    Bernie Sanders figured out that he could double down and REALLY monetize the scam that Ron Paul executed against the Republican voters in 2012; which he executed to perfection.

    I believe Exxon / Tillerson have figured out that they are going to REALLY monetize the oil theft that Erdogan executed with Kurdistan and his name will be written in the history books as a King.

    Trump wants out of Nato. The Pentagon wants ports, runways and to surround Russia. Whether Turkey remains in Nato or not is inconsequential to Jared and Greater Israel.

    [Jan 27, 2018] Ukraine, Syria, Russiagate, the Media, and the Risk of Nuclear War by Robert Roth

    Notable quotes:
    "... London Review of Books, ..."
    "... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
    "... Return to Moscow ..."
    "... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the title suggests.

    The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:

    Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.

    But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July 25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/ .)

    In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo , it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two members of VIPS,

    On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents [the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents ] -- ignored by mainstream media -- showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example. ("Trumped-up Claims Against Trump," May 17, 2017, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-trump-russia-phony-20170517-story.html ).

    McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,

    today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017.) [9]

    Demonization of Putin and Russia

    The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.

    Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow , mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman. [10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,

    The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."

    Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us, even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith. [11] .

    One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.

    [Jan 27, 2018] Ukraine, Syria, Russiagate, the Media, and the Risk of Nuclear War by Robert Roth

    Notable quotes:
    "... London Review of Books, ..."
    "... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
    "... Return to Moscow ..."
    "... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the title suggests.

    The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:

    Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.

    But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July 25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/ .)

    In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo , it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two members of VIPS,

    On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents [the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents ] -- ignored by mainstream media -- showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example. ("Trumped-up Claims Against Trump," May 17, 2017, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-trump-russia-phony-20170517-story.html ).

    McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,

    today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017.) [9]

    Demonization of Putin and Russia

    The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.

    Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow , mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman. [10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,

    The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."

    Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us, even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith. [11] .

    One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.

    [Jan 27, 2018] Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia s interference in US-elections

    Dutch media is trying to help the Russiagate plotters. nice...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ': they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description. ..."
    Jan 26, 2018 | www.volkskrant.nl

    It's the summer of 2014. A hacker from the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD has penetrated the computer network of a university building next to the Red Square in Moscow, oblivious to the implications. One year later, from the AIVD headquarters in Zoetermeer, he and his colleagues witness Russian hackers launching an attack on the Democratic Party in the United States. The AIVD hackers had not infiltrated just any building; they were in the computer network of the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. And unbeknownst to the Russians, they could see everything.

    That's how the AIVD becomes witness to the Russian hackers harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring thousands of emails and documents. It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before the United States realize what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections. And the AIVD hackers have seen it happening before their very eyes.

    The Dutch access provides crucial evidence of the Russian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic Party, according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It's also grounds for the FBI to start an investigation into the influence of the Russian interference on the election race between the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidate Donald Trump. 'High confidence'

    After Trump's election in May 2017, this investigation was taken over by special prosecutor Robert Mueller. While it also aims to uncover contacts between Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, the prime objective is bringing to light the Russian interference with the elections. An attempt to undermine the democratic process, and an act that caused tensions between the two superpowers to rise to new heights, bringing about a string of diplomatic acts of revenge.

    Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party. That certainty, sources say, is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years. This is so exceptional that the directors of the foremost American intelligence services are all too happy to receive the Dutchmen. They provide technical evidence for the attack on the Democratic Party, and it becomes apparent that they know a lot more.

    Anonymous • Disclaimer says: January 26, 2018 at 8:16 am GMT • 200 Words
    Russian Meddling in Muh Elections (more like hacking the Obama's e-mail) bizzaredly confirmed by the Dutch!

    Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia's interference in US-elections

    (This is not a joke)
    (Why is this being announced now)
    (This is going to run and run)
    (Is this even real, sounds quite fishy)
    (Navy CSI levels of Drama!!)

    via

    Matryoshki of news: Tech giants flash code to Russia, Dutch hack Kremlin spies, and more

    According to de Volkskrant, AIVD in 2014 had established surveillance on Cozy Bear, the Russian state hacking group, and observed its efforts to attack the US Democratic Party's email systems and American government servers.

    AIVD was, we're told, able to compromise security cameras surrounding the building used by the Cozy Bear crew, to look out for known Russian spies entering the joint. The Euro snoops duly tipped off the FBI that something was afoot.

    "Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference with the American elections," reports the Dutch daily newspaper.

    "For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear AIVD [became] witness to the Russian hackers harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring thousands of emails and documents.

    "It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before the United States realize what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections. And the AIVD hackers have seen it happening before their very eyes."

    yurivku , January 26, 2018 at 2:00 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra

    But, in my opinion, trying to prevent the election of war loving Hillary, who can blame the Russians ?

    Nobody, but it' still a bullshit.

    Beckow , January 26, 2018 at 7:55 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra

    today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA elections

    Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ': they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description.

    I am still waiting for someone to explain to us how is ' interference ' or ' meddling ' different from having an opinion about an election. And we all know that Americans (or Dutch) have never, ever, expressed any opinions about other countries' elections. Right. My democracy promotion is your meddling.

    It is bad when you kill my cow. It is very good when I kill your cow. Monkey reasoning level?

    [Jan 27, 2018] President Trump Calls for Release of FISA Abuse Memo by S.Noble

    Mueller investigation as a palace coup ?
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.independentsentinel.com

    President Trump has called for the release of the FISA abuse memo which reportedly lists abuses by the DoJ/FBI, The Washington Post reported Saturday. The DoJ warned against its release until they have had a chance to look it over. This is the same DoJ/FBI that is stonewalling and withholding information from Congress.

    Trump reportedly told Attorney General Jeff Sessions through Chief of Staff John Kelly that he wants to see the memo released, believing that it will shed light on the special counsel investigation.

    The decision rests with the House Intelligence Committee overseen by Chair Devin Nunes who has said he wants to release them as early as Monday.

    [Jan 27, 2018] "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" are names created by Crowdstrike.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Inevitably there were questions about the strange names his company had given the Russian hackers. As it happened, "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were part of a coding system Alperovitch had created. Animals signified the hackers' country of origin: Russians were bears, Chinese were pandas, Iranians were kittens, and North Koreans were named for the chollima, a mythical winged horse. By company tradition, the analyst who discovers a new hacker gets to choose the first part of the nickname. Cozy Bear got its nickname because the letters coz appeared in its malware code. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, used malware that included the word Sofacy, which reminded the analyst who found it of the Iggy Azalea song "Fancy." " ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

    V , January 27, 2018 at 8:49 pm

    My goodness, what a farce this muh Russia hoax is! I'm sure you're all familiar with Adam Carter's Guccifer 2.0: Game Over exposing Crowdstrike.

    Besides the wonderful research linked above, here's a very quick retort one can use to knock out the Dutch intel story (see bold):

    In this 10-24-16 puff piece by Esquire on Crowdstrike, we find a nugget – "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" are names created by Crowdstrike . The purported Russian hackers do not call themselves that. It's Crowdstrike's name for them!!! It's become so used by know-nothing "experts" in the media that people believe that's what the hackers call themselves.

    So, how did Dutch intel know anything about those names – the Russians aren't as stupid as CNN* to put those names in their coding!

    Excerpt from Esquire article:

    "Inevitably there were questions about the strange names his company had given the Russian hackers. As it happened, "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were part of a coding system Alperovitch had created. Animals signified the hackers' country of origin: Russians were bears, Chinese were pandas, Iranians were kittens, and North Koreans were named for the chollima, a mythical winged horse. By company tradition, the analyst who discovers a new hacker gets to choose the first part of the nickname. Cozy Bear got its nickname because the letters coz appeared in its malware code. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, used malware that included the word Sofacy, which reminded the analyst who found it of the Iggy Azalea song "Fancy." "
    __________

    * CNN The Russian Connection June 2017 video – at 19:00 – 19:11 shows fake computer screen with the words "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" and commentary by Hultquist, former senior US Intel Analyst. CNN didn't have Crowdstrike people presenting that screen; they'd know better.

    The whole video is one piece of amateur propaganda laughable puerile piece of .

    [Jan 27, 2018] Speaking of questionable narratives: The Dutch are throwing a pathetic lifeline of slippery dental floss to Obama and Hillary. Won't work.

    "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" are names created by Crowdstrike.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm formerly a VP level IT security expert. The mickey mouse audit Crowdstrike did on the DNC server reads like a port-scan-log for any old box on the internet. So, this "Dutch surprise" is garbage, as is the report from Crowdstrike. That server was a victim of a LEAK, not a hack. ..."
    "... IP's from all over the world scan for open and vulnerable ports 24/7/365. The best hackers don't use an IP you'll ever see unless they WANT you to see it – or it is a quick hit-and-run. They allege the activity was going for "years". ..."
    "... The Dutch are throwing a pathetic lifeline of slippery dental floss to Obama and Hillary. Won't work. ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

    IpsoPhakto (@Mcschweety) ,

    January 26, 2018 at 8:15 pm
    Speaking of questionable narratives: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/370857-dutch-spy-agencies-passed-fbi-crucial-intel-on-russian-election-hacking

    This is the next desperate grasp at straws. They put a pic of Trump next to Putin – with no reference regarding Trump at all. Also, funny how this alleged activity is going on while Obama is in charge of the FBI and Debbie Wasserman Shultz has a gang of Pakistani "IT Admins" savaging congressional computers / servers.

    I'm formerly a VP level IT security expert. The mickey mouse audit Crowdstrike did on the DNC server reads like a port-scan-log for any old box on the internet. So, this "Dutch surprise" is garbage, as is the report from Crowdstrike. That server was a victim of a LEAK, not a hack.

    IP's from all over the world scan for open and vulnerable ports 24/7/365. The best hackers don't use an IP you'll ever see unless they WANT you to see it – or it is a quick hit-and-run. They allege the activity was going for "years".

    The Dutch are throwing a pathetic lifeline of slippery dental floss to Obama and Hillary. Won't work.

    Ziiggii , January 26, 2018 at 8:36 pm
    interesting that you should bring up that Hill article because Devlin retweeted this today:

    [Jan 27, 2018] As of January 2018 Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.

    Highly recommended!
    This quote belongs to Pat Buchanan and was taken from In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses, and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross negligence," the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent drafts to read, "extreme carelessness."

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.

    Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the public did.

    A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you know, sir, and when did you know it?"

    [Jan 27, 2018] The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. ..."
    "... Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified and released and explained by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova (see: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/22/here-are-all-the-facts-about-russiagate/ ) contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperty spied and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to the FISA court. ..."
    "... Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
    Jan 25, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    The Republicans' delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation is giving weight to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it is a hack attempt at a Trump coverup that is not believable. Only Republicans are stupid enough to put themselves in such a situation.

    Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans. Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that might be blocking release are:

    1. Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents for the release of classified information.
    2. Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex. Upsetting a large employer and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big consideration.
    3. The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that Republicans are influenced by neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
    4. The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied with the neoconservatives and this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against Russia, which supports Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
    5. Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and would like to replace him with Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby, undermining US power.

    Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan.

    If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies.

    Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe the Russiagate BS in the first place. They miss the point. They need the report, because those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and prosecuted for their act of high treason.

    This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.

    Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified and released and explained by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova (see: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/22/here-are-all-the-facts-about-russiagate/ ) contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperty spied and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to the FISA court.

    (See Lendman on Boyd's claim that releasing the memo would harm national security and ongoing investigations. This is always the claim made when government has to cover up its crimes. http://stephenlendman.org/2018/01/memo-detailing-russiagate-abuses-names-high-level-us-officials/ )

    When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.

    In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States.

    A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state.

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West , How America Was Lost , and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order .

    [Jan 27, 2018] Mainstream Media and Imperial Power

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable." ..."
    "... CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths. ..."
    "... Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable. ..."
    "... I have found that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies ..."
    "... I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know. ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    Randy Credico: A lot of mainstream journalists complain when Trump refers to them as the enemy of the people, but they have shown themselves to be very unwilling to circle the wagons around Assange. What is the upshot for journalists of Assange being taken down?

    John Pilger: Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected, because most people don't trust the mainstream media anymore.

    In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable."

    CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths.

    This latest film about The Post neglects to mention that The Washington Post was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War before it decided to have a moral crisis about whether to publish the Pentagon Papers. Today, The Washington Post has a $600 million deal with the CIA to supply them with information.

    Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable.

    Dennis J Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom . You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net .

    Annie , January 24, 2018 at 3:29 pm

    I've always liked Mr. Pilger, and Mr. Parry, of course, and Hedges and so on However in this statement made by Mr. Pilger, "Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected, because most people don't trust the mainstream media anymore." I would really disagree based on my own personal experiences. I have found that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies, like his climate change denial and his position on Iran. It's more about taking sides then it is in being interested in the truth.

    Annie , January 24, 2018 at 4:33 pm

    I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know.

    Joe Tedesky , January 24, 2018 at 6:28 pm

    You got that right Annie. In fact I know people who voted for Hillary, and they wake up every morning to turn on MSNBC or CNN only to hear what Trump tweeted, because they like getting pissed off at Trump, and get even more self induced angry when they don't hear his impeachment being shouted out on the screen.

    I forgive a lot of these types who don't get into the news, because it just isn't their thing I guess, but I get even madder that we don't have a diversified media enough to give people the complete story. I mean a brilliant media loud enough, and objective enough, to reach the mass uncaring community. We have talked about this before, about the MSM's omission of the news, as to opposed just lying they do that too, as you know Annie, and it's a crime against a free press society. In fact, I not being a lawyer, would not be surprised that this defect in our news is not Constitutional.

    Although, less and less people are watching the news, because they know it's phony, have you noticed how political our Late Night Talk Show Host have become? Hmmm boy, sometimes you have to give it to the Deep State because they sure know how to cover the market of dupes. To bad the CIA isn't selling solar panels, or something beneficial like that, which could help our ailing world.

    We are living in a Matrix of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, all of us are on the divide, and that's the way it suppose to be. You know I don't mean that, but that's what the Deep State has done to us, for a lack of a better description of their evil unleashed upon the planet.

    I like reading your thoughts, because you go kind of deep, and you come up with angles not thought of, well at least not by me so forgive me if I reply to often. Joe

    Annie , January 24, 2018 at 10:18 pm

    I know I keep referring to Facebook, but it really allows you to see how polarized people have become. Facebook posts political non issues, but nonetheless they will elicit comments that are downright hateful. Divide and conquer is something I often think when I view these comments. I rarely watch TV, but enough to see how TV Talk Show hosts have gotten into the act, and Trump supplies them with an endless source of material, not that their discussing core issues either.

    I don't remember whether I mentioned this before in a recent article on this site, but when a cousin posts a response to a comment I made about our militarism and how many millions have died as a result that all countries do sneaky and underhanded things, I can only think people don't want to hear the truth either, and that's why most are so vulnerable to our propaganda, which is we are the exceptional nation that can do no wrong. Those who are affluent want to maintain the status quo, and those that live pay check to pay check are vulnerable to Trump's lies, and the lies of the Republican party whose interest lie with the top 1 percent.

    Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 12:36 am

    Talking about lies you mention only Trump and the Republicans Annie. Is this because the Democrats are such party of criminals that you consider them worth mentioning only in the crime chronic not in the context of lies?

    About that "Climate Change" religion of yours: how much does it make sense that people around US are freezing but TPTB still want to tax fossil fuels, the only one thing which can keep people warm? Does that not look to your left-wing mind as taking from the poor to give to the Green & Connected ? Will a wind-turbine or a solar-panel keep you warm on a -50 degree day? I am yet to live to see one green-scheme which is not for the benefit of the Green & Connected, whilst this constant braying about global warming renamed into climate change is simply as annoying as the crimes of the Israelis hidden by the media (Did you see that photo of a 3-year old Palestinian child whose brain was splattered out by an Israeli sniper's bullet? She must have been throwing stones or slapping Israeli soldiers, right?).

    I am not a US voter and I do not care either way which color gang is running your horrible country, because it always turns out the same. But the blatant criminality of your Demoncrats is only surpassed by their humanitarian sleaze – they always bomb, kill and rape for the good of humanity or for the greenery or for some other touchy-feelly bull like that, which the left-wing stupidos can swallow.

    Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:15 am

    Oh, Kiza, are you one of those people that patrol the internet for people who dare mention climate change? I have no intentions of changing your mind on the subject, even though my background is in environmental science with a Masters degree in the subject. I am not a registered democrat, but an independent and didn't vote for Clinton, or Trump. I'm too much of a liberal. I'm very aware of the many faults of the democratic party, and you're right about them. They abandoned their working class base decades ago and they pretty much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country. Yes, both parties proclaim their allegiance to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world and that world pretty much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war.

    P. S. However being fair, the Republican base is the top 1 percent in this country.

    Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 6:46 am

    Hello again Annie, thank you for your response. I must admit that your mention of climate change triggered an unhappy reaction in me, otherwise I do think that our views are not far from each other. Thank you for not trying to change my mind on climate change because you would not have succeeded no matter what your qualifications are. My life experience simply says – always follow the money and when I do I see a climate mafia similar to the MIC mafia. I did think that the very cold weather that gripped US would reduce the climate propaganda, but nothing can keep the climate mafia down any more – the high ranked need to pay for their yachts and private jets and the low ranks have to pay of their house mortgages. But I will never understand why the US lefties are so dumb – to be so easily taken to imperial wars and so easily convinced to tax the 99% for the benefit of 1% yet again. Where do you think the nasty fossil fuel producers will find the money to pay for the taxes to be or already imposed? Will they sacrifice their profits or pay the green taxes from higher prices?

    Other than this, I honestly cannot see any difference between the so called Democrats and the so called Republicans (you say that the Republicans are for the 1%). Both have been scrapping the bottom of the same barrel for their candidates, thus the elections are always a contest between two disasters.

    Sam F , January 25, 2018 at 7:02 am

    Good that you both see the bipartisan corruption and can table background issues.

    Joe Tedesky , January 25, 2018 at 9:09 am

    Yeah Sam I was impressed by their conversation as well. Joe

    Bob Van Noy , January 25, 2018 at 11:05 am

    I agree, an excellent thread plus a civil disagreement. In my experience, only at CN. Thanks to all of you.

    Realist , January 25, 2018 at 1:04 pm

    I am with you, Annie, when you state that "They [the Democrats] abandoned their working class base decades ago and they pretty much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country." And yet they are so glibly characterised as "liberal" by nearly everyone in the media (and, of course, by the Republicans). Even the Nate Silver group, whom I used to think was objective is propagating the drivel that Democrats have become inexorably more liberal–and to the extreme–in their latest soireé analysing the two parties:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-democratic-party-getting-more-extreme/

    In reality, the Dems are only "liberal" in contrast to the hard right shift of the Republicans over the past 50-60 years. And what was "extreme" for both parties is being sold to the public as moderate and conventional by the corporate media. It's almost funny seeing so much public policy being knee-jerk condemned as "leftist" when the American left became extinct decades ago.

    Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    Annie, it's not just the Democrats who are bought and paid for.

    Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:54 pm

    Virginia, I didn't say that only the democrats were bought and paid for, but said, " yes, both parties proclaim their allegiance to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world and that world pretty much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war." I also mentioned that the republicans pander to the top 1 percent in this country.

    Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm

    And my reply was meant to say,

    It's not just the Democrats who pander to the 1% who have bought and paid for them!

    NeoCons and NeoLiberals -- same thing!

    Otherwise, yep!

    [Jan 27, 2018] Ukraine, Syria, Russiagate, the Media, and the Risk of Nuclear War by Robert Roth

    Notable quotes:
    "... London Review of Books, ..."
    "... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
    "... Return to Moscow ..."
    "... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the title suggests.

    The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:

    Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.

    But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July 25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/ .)

    In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo , it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two members of VIPS,

    On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents [the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents ] -- ignored by mainstream media -- showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example. ("Trumped-up Claims Against Trump," May 17, 2017, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-trump-russia-phony-20170517-story.html ).

    McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,

    today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017.) [9]

    Demonization of Putin and Russia

    The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.

    Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow , mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman. [10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,

    The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."

    Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us, even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith. [11] .

    One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.

    [Jan 27, 2018] Is Trump Truly 'Insane'

    Jan 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Susan Dawkins January 26, 2018 at 4:44 pm

    The author has made several errors. He assumes that discussing the possibility of a psychiatric disorder making Trump unfit means proving insanity. In reality, the most likely disorder does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but does make a person incapable of competently or faithfully performing the duties of office.

    The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver ignores the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed behavior, history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the individual shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a face-to-face interview may be virtually useless.

    The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
     Dishonesty and fraudulence
     Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
     Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
     Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
     Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
     Lack of concern for one's limitations
     Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
     Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
     Disregard for -- and failure to honor­–financial and other obligations or commitments

    No one imagined that someone with this possible disorder would ever make it to the White House, however, the 25th Amendment provides an avenue for him to temporarily be removed from power while he can undergo proper evaluation by military psychiatrists and neurologists. This is all mental health professionals are requesting. These individuals can do tremendous damage when give power over others.

    karsten , says: January 26, 2018 at 8:56 pm
    "The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
     Dishonesty and fraudulence
     Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
     Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
     Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
     Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
     Lack of concern for one's limitations
     Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
     Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
     Disregard for -- and failure to honor­–financial and other obligations or commitments "

    An Orwellian comment like the above just proves the point of the article, and then some. As if there isn't anyone in the world who couldn't be shoehorned to fit such a diagnoses, with a crafty narrative reconfiguring of their actions.

    If there are indeed any witch doctors (excuse me, "psychiatrists") pathologizing people on the basis of a laughable list like the above, then I consider them to be far more undeserving of the power they have, and far more toxic to society, than Trump in any of the actions or utterances that he has made.

    Peter Van Buren , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:04 pm
    Susan Dawkins, who claims my article has mistakes, didn't read it. Her amateur diagnosis that Trump has "Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features" does not make him UNABLE to be president, which is what the 25th Amendment is for.

    She claims he is UNFIT. Fitness is judged primarily by the people, who elected him. If a president somehow becomes unfit while in office it must be because of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's the only reason the Constitution provides for. And impeachment is the only answer.

    Sorry kiddies, the 25th is a not-over for an election Rachael Maddow doesn't like.

    karsten , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:07 pm
    This is all mental health professionals are requesting."

    "All"? That's rich.

    Indeed, is that all that they're requesting? My goodness -- what a modest request! -- a request merely to have complete veto power over America's entire citizenry, in terms of who is allowed to be President; a request merely to be able to remove any President who is not to their liking.

    In short, a mere request to be able to legally perform a coup d'etat at will, to overturn any election that does not yield their desired result.

    How gratified we all should be that their request for power is such a small one. Imagine if they asked for something just a bit more ambitious. "Omnipotence" comes to mind.

    Dale , says: January 26, 2018 at 9:38 pm
    Trump is the one who messes with the very fundamentals of our democracy. Remember his voting commission and the crap they wanted? Force states to provide all the 2016 voter information to his CosaNostra buddies. And remember when they wanted all Americans to fill out a registration form similar to the one used when purchasing a gun? They said they wanted to make sure only those qualified were on the voter registration lists.

    [Jan 27, 2018] Today press in US is a huge tabloid rug

    Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Ilyana_Rozumova , January 26, 2018 at 7:25 pm GMT

    These terms must be immediately banned from US political discourse:

    These are totally irresponsible statements. There must be absolute responsibility of press. There must be also absolute transparency of press. Today press in US is a tabloid rug. New York times and Washington post should be fired and replaced with people from this website.

    [Jan 27, 2018] Remember that both Pence and Tillerson were outspoken Never Trumpers.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here's another map that's a little different than the one linked by Peter AU1. The Kurdish Project - https://thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/ (remove the space) ..."
    "... Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy. ..."
    Jan 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    mrd | Jan 25, 2018 10:54:46 PM | 59

    @Peter AU 1 | Jan 25, 2018 4:29:45 PM | 28

    I think you're on target with your comment. Also, I don't believe Jared has asked the Kurds themselves whether they're on board or not. Let me explain.

    1. Remember that both Pence and Tillerson were outspoken Never Trumpers. Pence was promised that he'd be 100% in charge of policy and all day to day decisions. When he asked Trump what he intended to be doing he replied: "I'll be busy making America Great Again." Whatever deal and contract wound up being signed between them, I think the tomahawk missile attack on Syria violated the details and revoked most of Pence's authority.
    2. Several, including Bannon have stated that Jared is in charge of ME policy. So, what did Jared offer to Exxon and Tillerson in exchange for the SOS position? I believe he / they are slated to become the King of Kurdistan. "King" is the only thing that Tillerson hasn't had in his life; yet.

    Here's another map that's a little different than the one linked by Peter AU1. The Kurdish Project - https://thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/ (remove the space)

    Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy.

    Bernie Sanders figured out that he could double down and REALLY monetize the scam that Ron Paul executed against the Republican voters in 2012; which he executed to perfection.

    I believe Exxon / Tillerson have figured out that they are going to REALLY monetize the oil theft that Erdogan executed with Kurdistan and his name will be written in the history books as a King.

    Trump wants out of Nato. The Pentagon wants ports, runways and to surround Russia. Whether Turkey remains in Nato or not is inconsequential to Jared and Greater Israel.

    [Jan 26, 2018] The US elite has such a world shattering level of hubris that they don't even consider that they themselves could be destroyed in a conflagration of their own making.

    Jan 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Miro23 , January 26, 2018 at 7:43 am GMT

    What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality.

    I have to agree with this – and the excellent article. The US elite has such a world shattering level of hubris that they don't even consider that they themselves could be destroyed in a conflagration of their own making.

    [Jan 26, 2018] Ukraine, Syria, Russiagate, the Media, and the Risk of Nuclear War, by Robert Roth - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. ..."
    "... The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. ..."
    "... Return to Moscow ..."
    "... The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq, 9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way. I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness: if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard? ..."
    "... "Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII. ..."
    "... Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as bad as they seemed. ..."
    "... Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore nurtures both. ..."
    "... Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used. ..."
    "... One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine who's going to be next :-). But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went down. ..."
    "... There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater Israel. ..."
    "... One honest, generally morally competent man holding the ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man. ..."
    "... Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the "collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16 years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an "inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity and order an investigation? ..."
    "... The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements. Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal one – is medieval. ..."
    "... Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the result of series of mistakes has increased. ..."
    "... The US and its vassals (including other NATO countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up "Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed). ..."
    "... The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal. ..."
    "... Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of even a "small" nuke exchange. ..."
    "... Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions – it is anything goes world now. ..."
    "... The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world happens. ..."
    "... Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming next. ..."
    "... Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but neither genius. ..."
    "... Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I think financial collapse gonna be trouble sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit. ..."
    Jan 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

    ... ... ...

    My goal in writing about these things is to alert you to the problems and encourage you to share your concerns with people you know and with federal policy-makers. Right now, the entire gamut of political discussion all but excludes the topic nuclear war, so if some Senators, Members of Congress, and the President were to begin hearing from people that we're concerned about the threat, and how easily it could happen, and that we want that threat removed, it would be some progress.

    Why the focus on nuclear war? Because of all the pending potential disasters we may have to face, it's the most sudden, inescapable, irrevocable. At some level, people know that, though they don't like to think about it. Author Carl Boggs describes the reaction of the people of Hawaii when they received a false alarm about an incoming ICBM attack:

    People scattered frenetically, mostly without logic or purpose or hope. Where to go? If this turned out to be one of Kim Jong Un's powerful ICBMs, it could be over in 20 minutes. Repair to a shelter? None exist. Go to the basement? Sure suicide. Find a car or taxi and head for the hills? No time. [T]he response was utter psychological numbness, paralysis -- a dysfunctional yet comprehensible state of mind in the face of nuclear oblivion. [T]he end seemed inescapable.

    And because, as Mr. Boggs says upon hearing a talk by former nuclear war planner Daniel Ellsberg, it's a lot less unlikely than most of us have been led to believe.

    The American people have been lulled to sleep, distracted by endless media and political spectacles, while busy warmakers keep refining their insane nuclear blueprints . More than 70 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pentagon elites still theorize and fantasize about the unthinkable, their demented plans far removed from the realm of political debate or even public awareness. [1]

    The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. And it's heightened further by a Pentagon plan to develop a "low-yield" warhead for the submarine-based Trident missile, and a new nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile. [2] I believe that expanding the range of options in this way would increase the likelihood that the weapons will actually be used.

    In case you think I'm overstating the problem, you should know that almost everything in "Dr. Strangelove" -- the Stanley Kubrick film in which nuclear war is started by a rogue military officer -- was true. [3] . "Doomsday" is an "Actual War Plan," as Daniel Ellsberg says in a December 13, 2017 interview discussing his new book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. [4].

    Dan Ellsberg proposes a Six-Step Program for dismantling the Doomsday Machine:

    1. A U.S. no-first-use policy;
    2. Probing investigative hearings on our war plans in the light of nuclear winter;
    3. Eliminating our ICBMs;
    4. Foregoing the delusion of preemptive damage-limiting by our first-strike forces;
    5. Giving up the profits, jobs, and alliance hegemony based on maintaining that pretense;
    6. Otherwise dismantling the American Doomsday Machine.

    Of course none of that will happen under present circumstances. It's Ellsberg's goal to contribute to developing an informed electorate that, recognizing the risk, will demand such actions.

    ... ... ...

    Regarding the two nuclear-armed superpowers, who between them possess some 15,000 nuclear warheads, the Cold War that ended in 1991 has lately been replaced by a New Cold War. U.S. and NATO provocations to Russia have reached a largely unheard crescendo in Ukraine, where a U.S.-backed coup installed a regime, essentially in the Russian belly, that's riddled with neo-Nazis and hostile to Russia; in eastern Europe generally, where NATO war games have been held repeatedly just across the Russian border; and in Syria, where the U.S. continues to maintain an unlawful presence in proximity to Russian forces legitimately there at the invitation of the internationally recognized and constitutionally elected Syrian government. And in both Syria and Ukraine, there are signs the situation is becoming even more dangerous than it's been for some time. [7]

    These situations raise the risk of unintended nuclear war, as confrontation may lead at any time to escalation spiraling out of control. Dr. William Polk, a member of the White House team that handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, describes how in a confrontational situation, the logic of events could force the Russians and us to the next step and that step also to the next and so on, to the ultimate disastrous result without anyone having initially intended it. [8] . Mr. Shatz concludes that what we once mistook for safety was more like sleepwalking. Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin sums up the situation in similar terms:

    "Under the false and demonizing imagery of 'Putin's Russia' which has now taken hold in the United States and NATO world, the West is truly 'sleepwalking', as Kissinger, Gorbachev, [University of Kent professor Richard] Sakwa, [Princeton emeritus professor Stephen F.] Cohen and others have urgently warned, into a potential nuclear war with Russia. It is the Cuban missile crisis all over again, but actually worse now [in part] because American policy under recent U.S. presidents has been so lacking in statesmanship, consistency or historical perspective where Russia is concerned." ( Return to Moscow , University of Western Australia, 2017, p. 255).

    animalogic , January 26, 2018 at 8:25 am GMT

    @Grandpa Charlie

    Think you're pretty spot with all you say. The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq, 9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way. I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness: if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard?

    alley cat , January 26, 2018 at 10:01 am GMT
    "Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII.

    His account of attending a Nazi rally where he appeared to be the only member of the audience not mesmerized by Hitler's delusional rants reminds me of my own reaction to the Russiagate hysteria being orchestrated by neocons and Clinton dead-enders. Who are these people and what is the matter with them? The current state of our Union is a testament to the power of propaganda, which Hitler and Goebbels understood so well.

    Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as bad as they seemed.

    But as it turned out, things were even worse than they seemed. The nightmare was real and there was no waking from it.

    troll_of_the_month , Website January 26, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
    The USA/Russia/China/Israel/France/UK/India/Pakistan have collectively been playing Russian Roulette for 65 years. Probability dictates sooner or later, one of the chambers will contain a live round.
    Renoman , January 26, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
    If nuclear war was even slightly or even remotely feasible, the Americans would be doing it. Talk about shitting in your own well.
    anonymous Disclaimer , January 26, 2018 at 12:26 pm GMT
    What an excellent essay. It appears to have been submitted initially to The Unz Review, which should enhance the reputation of both the author and publisher.

    Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore nurtures both.

    trixie , January 26, 2018 at 1:22 pm GMT
    Great article and great comments so far (11 of them).

    We have a scenario much like those scenarios prior to the Great War (WWI) and the second world war, and the same shadowy 'hidden hand' orchestrating the entire pending disaster so they can yet further augment their control and expand their illegal land theft.

    The consolidation of the mass media agencies, now almost pure propaganda/perception management agencies controlled by the competing factions of the 0.1%, and the advent of the internet and 'big data' have enabled this psychopathic cabal to attain previously undreamt of control over the common 99%, including control over their perception.

    Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used.

    It is because of this point that the entirety of humanity must rally and do 'what ever it takes' to stop the terrorist empire from sustaining the current tyranny. The psychopaths of the empire, not exposed to public scrutiny, hidden in the shadows, can and will nudge the world into unwinnable (for anyone) nuclear war; their egos are the definition of human depravity.

    Exposing the grand charade to a critical mass of the general population is the first objective, then exposing the 'hidden hands' in the shadows is the next.

    The parasite must be stopped, and we, the people who have seen glimpses of the enemy, are incumbent to spread the word.

    Good luck.

    yurivku , January 26, 2018 at 1:48 pm GMT
    I left this comment on a different article ( http://thesaker.is/listening-to-mattis/ ), but seems it could be in place here also. Cause we're talking approximately same and nothing gonna change
    -- -- -

    Well, it's getting boring a little. I mean the descriptions of the insanity of US's rulers.

    One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine who's going to be next :-). But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went down.

    Thanks God, we, Russians, not that happy. After imbecile alcoholic Yeltsin we've got not bad alternative (your media and stupid people in power call him a killer). Who (with his sanity) the only chance for this world to survive.

    But, actually we're very tired from all this stuff and the possibility of US generals to test our conventional and even nuke arms constantly increasing. They can also test if our soldiers who've seen Napoleon, Hitler and many others got worse or still the same. I'm asking US citizens – Is it really interesting to you to get know it for sure?

    DESERT FOX , January 26, 2018 at 2:00 pm GMT
    There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater Israel.
    Harold Smith , January 26, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
    "But as Mr. Shatz observes, the problems run much deeper than President Trump."

    This statement is misleading. One honest, generally morally competent man holding the ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man.

    Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the "collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16 years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an "inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity and order an investigation?

    There is only one plausible explanation: I believe that Donald John Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice in the 2016 election. I believe that's why they ran wild-eyed madwoman Hillary Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders. I believe that's why, in the early fall of 2016, as the election was coming into the home stretch, Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia; i.e., so as to nudge the disgruntled anti-war Democrats (Sanders supporters) into Trump's camp, swinging the election to him.

    I believe that Donald John Trump is a "deep cover" or "sleeper" agent that's been groomed and waiting in the wings for his masters' call. I believe that Donald John Trump was called to power in a desperate now or never moment to save the "deep state" (Zionist) agenda.

    Donald John Trump is a liar. Donald John Trump is a fraud. Donald John Trump is a con man. Donald John Trump is a mass-murderer.

    Wyatt Pendleton , Website January 26, 2018 at 3:24 pm GMT
    I don't think anyone in the West is sleepwalking into anything, esp the USA. I think the American people see the writing on the wall and that if the American Empire loses status the economy of the USA will revert to being a labor intensive existence of working the ground just to have enough food to eat and water to drink. So entitled and lazy Americans are and horrified to be relegated back to a 1920/30′s quality of life (loss of Bread & Circuses), that if the Military Industril Complex has to threaten the entire planet with nuclear annihilation if they don't tithe 10% of their GDP (Roman Empire) so fat ass Yankees can continue to be fat asses – then just burn the place to the ground.

    If the BRIC countries attempt to dethrone the petro dollar lazy entitled Americans will BEG Washington to do whatever it takes to bring back $3.00 t-shirts at Wal-Mart.

    Beckow , January 26, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
    The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements. Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal one – is medieval.

    We are at a point when views other than BBC, CNN, NY Times , are routinely dismissed as 'meddling', 'trolling, or sometimes 'hatred'. The objective is to suppress and dismiss them. That is very dangerous for any civilisation, but for a system that was built on celebrating free speech, it is fatal.

    I often hear that it is a 'natural' pendulum swing, that most people in the West don't agree with it, that it is an angry reaction to an unexpected loss ('Clinton dead-enders'), that it will self-correct over time. In my view that is missing the point and overlooks the permanent damage this hysteria has caused. If the more rational members of the elite are unable to defend rationality and freedom today – when it is still easy – they are co-responsible for the madness.

    Anon Disclaimer , January 26, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
    BDS loses spy vs spy.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/01/new-orleans-city-council-rescinds-bds-backed-resolution-we-were-duped/?utm

    annamaria , January 26, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
    @troll_of_the_month

    The ziocon triumph in the Kaganat of Nuland (known as "liberated" Ukraine): http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/01/tribunal-awaits-latest-un-data-on.html
    Comment section:

    "After the Maidan the leaders of two right wing neo-Nazi organisations were rewarded with control of four ministries

    -- Where are the Lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, the Friends of Israel in UK, and the whole Holocaust business? Where are the fighters with BDS?

    Anon Disclaimer , January 26, 2018 at 5:25 pm GMT
    Anon from TN:

    Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the result of series of mistakes has increased.

    The US and its vassals (including other NATO countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up "Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed).

    The Empire is afraid of losing its position, but shortsighted elites do everything to accelerate its demise. The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal.

    RadicalCenter , January 26, 2018 at 6:08 pm GMT
    Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of even a "small" nuke exchange.

    But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so if it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India, who in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent.

    And the reference "the TWO nuclear-armed superpowers" is out of date. That would be at least THREE nuke-armed superpowers: China, the USA, and Russia.

    bike-anarchist , January 26, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
    @RadicalCenter

    "But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so if it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India, who in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent."

    because it will keep the victims of ZIO/U$A imperial policy at bay for the victims request for REPARATIONS, when that time comes

    Beckow , January 26, 2018 at 6:55 pm GMT
    @Anon

    understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal

    Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions – it is anything goes world now.

    So where is the assurance that rationality would prevail in a crisis? It didn't in 1914. Who would step in and tell the morons that they have been living a lie of their own creation? That constraints are still there, that their verbal acuity has not changed how the world is, that 'soft power' is called soft for a reason – it doesn't add up to a hill of beans when it matters. The risk for any dissenter of consequence is very high (see Trump for a related, imperfect example).

    Let's hope. Most bad scenarios don't actually end life on the planet, they just make life more miserable. That's what happened in the past. We might see a 'nuclear' version of that. One thing I know for sure: none of the liberal fire-eaters in Washington, Brussels or London will ever own up to this. They are born 'victims', so they will go on whining

    jilles dykstra , January 26, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT
    The Dutch government tries to get a law accepted now that greatly increases the legal possibilities of our secret service to spy on anyone.
    March 21 there is a referendum on the law, I expect that we will reject it, but the politicians already stated that they will reject a negative referendum.
    By accident, of course, today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA elections, without being specific of course, 'classified', as a lot in the USA.
    Jake , January 26, 2018 at 7:38 pm GMT
    The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world happens.

    Most regular readers of Unz Review can agree with the above. What they also need to accept is that those problems did not enter the US, or more generally the Anglosphere, with the flight of mostly Jewish Trotskyites from the USSR and Europe. The same attitudes of insufferable hubris that was basically amoral in regard to national and ethnic groups it most despised marked the British Empire.

    The British WASP Elite form certainly was more refined and pleasant-seeming than the Jewish Neocon form, and other groups of people within that world usually proved able to bring the most crazed WASP Elite monsters back from the edge of the cliff. But they existed, and they caused needless trouble around the globe.

    It is the mix of the two that makes the American hawkish anti-Russian, Israel-first foreign policy insane enough to try to start a nuclear exchange.

    Anon Disclaimer , January 26, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
    @Beckow

    Anon from TN
    You may be right, but we can't do anything about it now: much hyped democracy is a pure ruse (look at presumably two party system in the US: Republicrats always win). I just hope that the sense of self-preservation in those degenerate elites is stronger than their lies that they apparently believe themselves (even mice are smart enough for that). If not, then those morons along with innocent bystanders (99.9% of world population) would be dead. Look on the bright side: rodents and insects would be happy to inherit the Earth.

    Lars Porsena , January 26, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMT
    Unpopular jerk-boy opinion incoming. I honestly think the Hawaii response is pretty typical but shameful. I like the response of the guy who just tweets, 'OK, if I die goodbye, I'm golfing anyway' and turns his stupid phone off.

    ... ... ...

    Sergey Krieger , January 26, 2018 at 7:50 pm GMT
    @yurivku

    Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming next. What makes me wonder how this sort of imbeciles gets elected without collapsing the state. I think it is moving slowly in this direction but there was enough to have just 2 morons in top positions and look -- no more USSR. Talk about "Checks and balances."

    Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but neither genius.

    Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I think financial collapse gonna be trouble sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit.

    Anon Disclaimer , January 26, 2018 at 7:52 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra

    Anon from TN
    You are right: Dutch government has already thrown away negative results of the referendum on EU association with Ukraine. What's more, it betrayed its own citizens by still pretending to investigate the crash of MH-17, even though everyone with a brain knows that Ukrainian puppet government is to blame (international airlines made this conclusion long time ago: they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukraine, flying around it, just like they fly around North Korea).

    I am tempted to say that you guys elected this scum, but then you'd say that I elected Trump, which I didn't (anyway, what choice did we have: corrupt to the core mad witch would have been even worse).

    Beckow , January 26, 2018 at 7:55 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra

    today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA elections

    Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ': they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description.

    I am still waiting for someone to explain to us how is ' interference ' or ' meddling ' different from having an opinion about an election. And we all know that Americans (or Dutch) have never, ever, expressed any opinions about other countries' elections. Right. My democracy promotion is your meddling.

    It is bad when you kill my cow. It is very good when I kill your cow. Monkey reasoning level?

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. ..."
    "... If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies. ..."
    "... This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state. ..."
    "... When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals. ..."
    "... In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States ..."
    "... A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
    Jan 26, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    The Republicans' delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation is giving weight to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it is a hack attempt at a Trump cover-up that is not believable. Only Republicans are stupid enough to put themselves in such a situation.

    Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans. Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that might be blocking release are:

    1) Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents for the release of classified information.

    2) Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex. Upsetting a large employer and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big consideration.

    3) The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that Republicans are influenced by neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."

    4) The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied with the neoconservatives and this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against Russia, which supports Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.

    5) Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and would like to replace him with Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby, undermining US power.

    Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate.

    Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies.

    Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe the Russiagate BS in the first place. They miss the point. They need the report, because those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and prosecuted for their act of high treason.

    This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.

    Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified and released and explained by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperly spied and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to the FISA court.

    (See Lendman on Boyd's claim that releasing the memo would harm national security and ongoing investigations. This is always the claim made when government has to cover up its crimes. )

    When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.

    In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States.

    A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state.

    holdbuysell Jan 26, 2018 12:18 AM Permalink

    Why Russia is the enemy is found in the historical record that Collins lays out in a series of articles.

    https://philosophyofmetrics.com/category/crown-beast-series/

    [Jan 25, 2018] Hillary should, and possibly may, be prosecuted for mishandling of classified documents. Comey, acting as an investigator, did present his findings dishonestly, and is now liable for prosecution as well

    Jan 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Twodees Partain , Next New Comment January 25, 2018 at 3:44 am GMT

    @The Alarmist

    Mark puts it in the proper words. Hillary should, and possibly may, be prosecuted for mishandling of classified documents.

    Comey, acting as an investigator, did present his findings dishonestly, and is now liable for prosecution as well.

    [Jan 25, 2018] Was Mueller appointment "the insurance policy" Strzok was talking about

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. ..."
    "... Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an abomination to our constitution and the rule of law . ..."
    Jan 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    The Fox News anchor also notes that former FBI Director James Comey may be in hot water over leaking a memo he says he wrote containing his concerns over President Trump pressuring him to go easy on former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.

    Also brand new tonight we have new revelations about one of the lawyers that is now representing disgraced former FBI director, soon to be probably investigated, national embarrassment James Comey. According to Buzzfeed, one of Comey's attorneys turns out as his Columbia law professor buddy - the guy he leaked the memo to to the New York Times because he wanted a special counsel appointed, which turned out to be "oh, Comey's other BFF Robert Mueller" You can't make this up in a spy novel!

    It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. And according to the reports, special counsel interviewed Comey about his memos last year. By the way, they also collaborated before he testified. Those memos contain classified information. They were created on government computers, so Comey broke the law by removing them from the FBI, but it's clear that Mueller didn't care about any of that.

    Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an abomination to our constitution and the rule of law .

    To recap: right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an " insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Someone must have been telling tales about Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested ..."
    Jan 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

    "Someone must have been telling tales about Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

    Thus begins The Trial , Franz Kafka's 1925 work, in which Joseph K., ordinary bank employee, is arrested at his home by mysterious agents and notified of legal proceedings against him.

    He is not informed of the offense or crime of which he would allegedly be guilty – he is only given to understand that he must have broken some unknown law – and is notified of a summons to court a certain day, without knowing the exact time or place.

    The protagonist is dragged into a completely absurd circle, wavering between inspectors, bailiffs, lawyers and judges, and not knowing at any time for what or against whom he must defend himself.

    He is finally executed by three distinguished executioners who, with "odious politeness", plant a butcher's knife in his heart.

    [Jan 24, 2018] Whistleblower Confirms Secret Society Meetings Between FBI And DOJ To Undermine Trump

    Highly recommended!
    The shadow of J. Edgar Hoover is still lingering over FBI.
    Notable quotes:
    "... On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels of the American intelligence community . ..."
    "... I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and his appointment was a set up from the beginning. ..."
    "... Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and runs biggest detective agency in DC. ..."
    "... Mueller's gravy train ends if he can't find anything. So he's setting perjury traps like IEDs in the Sunni Triangle. ..."
    "... Mueller trying to put the onus back on Trump instead of FBI corruption covering up Obama's treason ..."
    "... The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on his own uncontrollable personality. ..."
    "... Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it. ..."
    "... Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices. You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks. ..."
    "... I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building? Did some areas get clean? ..."
    "... Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security? Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government is a secret society. ..."
    "... I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. ..."
    "... You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid, but they can be that arrogant - as they were! ..."
    "... The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free. ..."
    "... You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them. ..."
    Jan 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    A whistleblower has revealed to Congress that clandestine, offsite meetings between high ranking FBI and DOJ took place in which officials discussed ways to undermine President Trump after the 2016 election, Rep. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Fox News on Tuesday.

    The bombshell revelation all but confirms a " secret society " alluded to in text messages released last Friday between two anti-Trump FBI employees tasked with investigating both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

    " The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group holding secret meetings off-site ," Johnson said.

    "We have to continue to dig into it," he added. " This is not a distraction. This is biased, potentially corruption at the highest levels of the FB I." - The Hill

    On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels of the American intelligence community .

    What we learned today in the thousands of text messages that we've reviewed that perhaps they may not have done that (checked their bias at the door). There's certainly a factual basis to question whether or not they acted on that bias. We know about this insurance policy that was referenced in trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.

    We learned today from information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a secret society of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok to be working against him .

    As part of the 384 page document delivery, the Department of Justice notified Congressional investigators that five months of text messages from December 14, 2016 to May 17, 2017 have gone missing (ironically there is a text message about "not keeping texts" from last Friday's release).

    And while Strzok and Page's communications for five months after the election apparently won't see the light of day, what we do know is that right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an " insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.

    " I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he [Trump] gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." writes FBI counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair while spearheading both the Clinton email inquiry and the early Trump-Russia probe, adding " It's like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."

    To recap: we now have text messages between Strzok and Page referencing an "insurance policy" and a "secret society" of people within the DOJ and FBI who came together in the "immediate aftermath" of the 2016 election to undermine President Trump... and a whistleblower who has now told Congress that's exactly what happened in the form of secret, offsite meetings between officials at the two agencies.

    Betrayed Jan 24, 2018 8:48 PM Permalink

    18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

    prev | next

    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

    Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

    Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons , knowing the purposes thereof --

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

    If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

    As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons , include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons .

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808 ; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623 ; Pub. L. 87–486 , June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII , § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148 .)

    gwar5 Jan 24, 2018 8:26 PM Permalink

    I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and his appointment was a set up from the beginning.

    Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and runs biggest detective agency in DC.

    BigCumulusClouds -> Sizzurp Jan 24, 2018 8:27 PM Permalink

    He lost his credibility right away. In 2001 he began the cover up of the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven.

    earleflorida -> BigCumulusClouds Jan 24, 2018 8:49 PM Permalink

    the CIA clean'd-up the evidence while Mueller was in California to introduce himself to the nations top FBI personnel. thus, unable to fly back to NYC.

    coincidence? why the fuck wasn't the meeting held in NYC!?!

    New_Meat -> Sizzurp Jan 24, 2018 8:08 PM Permalink

    Mueller's gravy train ends if he can't find anything. So he's setting perjury traps like IEDs in the Sunni Triangle.

    Anunnaki -> Sizzurp Jan 24, 2018 8:03 PM Permalink

    Mueller trying to put the onus back on Trump instead of FBI corruption covering up Obama's treason

    Obsidian Samctum Jan 24, 2018 7:16 PM Permalink

    This shit is fake. Whistleblower is fake. They're just doing this as damage control. The truth is far worst.

    Lord Raglan Jan 24, 2018 7:08 PM Permalink

    Imagine if the text messages between these "Secret Society" members talks about killing Trump if the Russia-Russia-Russian Collusion Farce fails. And further imagine if McCabe, Rosenstein, J. Edgar Comey or even some Obama people like Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett are included in those very text messages. Imagine further if Obama and/or Huma or Hillary are included in any of them...........these people are arrogant enough and so full of themselves and their ability to "fix" the world around them that it is all entirely possible.........

    BigCumulusClouds -> Lord Raglan Jan 24, 2018 8:31 PM Permalink

    LaRoche says Jarrett and Rice are British agents who recruited Obama to run. They must have guaranteed the cover for all of Obo's homo activity.

    Kelley Jan 24, 2018 6:59 PM Permalink

    How about this scenario: Hillary and the rest of the Deep State expected her to win via fractional voting. She had a mortal lock, so they thought except Trump snagged 20 to 30 million more votes than Hillary did, overriding the fractional voting scheme they had in place.

    The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on his own uncontrollable personality.

    With Hillary at the top of all the levers of the government, Trump would have gotten bitch slapped repeatedly with little recourse.

    south40_dreams Jan 24, 2018 6:14 PM Permalink

    This isn't just a couple of rogue individuals, this is an organized conspiracy at the very top, using all the power of the FBI and DOJ to destroy a sitting president up to and including harming him.

    HANG THE BASTARDS

    ThreeRs -> south40_dreams Jan 24, 2018 7:27 PM Permalink

    Absolutely.

    This is an attempted coup.

    earleflorida -> ThreeRs Jan 24, 2018 8:14 PM Permalink

    "Mueller probe accidentally exposes FBI COVER-UP of Saudi role in 911"

    1/24/18 ***oops?!? This is what happens when the Saudi's let China offer the 'Public Offering' of Saudi Aramco' on the Shanghai INE Exchange beginning mid-Feb/2018 if all is finalized. Perhaps this why the opening was delayed?

    any thoughts? https://www.sott.net/ Ref: 'puppet masters'

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mueller-probe-accidentally-exposes-fbi-cover-up-of-Saudi-role-in-9-11/

    FreeEarCandy Jan 24, 2018 6:12 PM Permalink

    Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it.

    lew1024 -> FreeEarCandy Jan 24, 2018 8:27 PM Permalink

    Simple game thinking, I thought. You can't give up the tools they have until you have won.

    The good guys have to assume that the bad guys can go on using covert means, likely they have back-doored their own agencies' info systems. If not, they have their people scattered through the organization. Or both.

    Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices. You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks.

    Great, now we have a 'he said, she said' situation, complete with files that can prove anything, how hard is that to arrange? For all sides?

    I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building? Did some areas get clean?

    Problem with all this social stuff is that there isn't a clean in/out test for any group. We are going to find that many of our leading people throughout society have ties in shades from bright white social innocence to partners in crime black, into the blackest of the crimes. everyone has lots of connections. The more prominent you are, the wider the variety of people you have mingled with.

    There are political careers in the investigations. Trump and his successors can ride this for 2 decades.

    Of course, they will become the issue when in some far distant future the last possible bad guy has died and fortune has dispersed beyond recall, but the surveillance capabilities are greater than ever and the successors of the current good guys refuse to end the situation.

    The compromise will be immediately ending all surveillance, everyone owns their data in return for amnesty for confessions, files and loss of 90% of fortunes. Ae open all files to everyone and run a public investigation to understand it all.

    https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/amnesty-program-for-israe

    FreeEarCandy Jan 24, 2018 6:06 PM Permalink

    Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security? Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government is a secret society.

    If one loves words and their meanings take note that freedom is the antithesis of government. If you don't understand the concepts of the words you use, don't complain when you get what you ask for.

    juggalo1 Jan 24, 2018 3:56 PM Permalink

    I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. Also someone once said that any anonymous informant should be considered made-up. I'm not denying the agency is anti-Trump. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to be anti-Trump. I just wish you and Mr. Johnson would bother getting some slightly less flimsy conspiracy theories before you go blaring them on the banners. It makes you look pathetic and desperate.

    Kelley -> juggalo1 Jan 24, 2018 4:25 PM Permalink

    You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid, but they can be that arrogant - as they were!

    The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free.

    You say Johnson looks pathetic while you spew out terms like "flimsy conspiracy theories" as your 'evidence.' Juggalo, you look like a dumb f***ing clown with your head so far up your a$$ you think it's nighttime.

    Cloud9.5 -> juggalo1 Jan 24, 2018 4:23 PM Permalink

    You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them.

    holdbuysell Jan 24, 2018 3:38 PM Permalink

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs

    nobodysfool -> JasperEllings Jan 24, 2018 4:35 PM Permalink

    No kidding, right? Watched Tucker Carlson last night interviewing Richard Goodstein (former Hillary Campaign Advisor, obviously unemployed) Great segment asking Goodstein to answer a "Revulsion Test"!

    It was unreal! The damn ignorant libtard just would not, could not bring himself to say that anything bothered him about the corruption going on in the FBI.

    Tucker: Does it bother you that the FBI decided not to bring criminal charges against Hillary BEFORE conducting an investigation of her, or interviewing her.

    Goodstein: No

    Tucker: Does it bother you that Strozk said he couldn't take the chance that Trump got elected and had an insurance policy in mind to prevent it, while he was on the committee investigating Trump?

    Goodstein: No

    Listen to the rest here...its hilarious and shows how Diseased Liberals are mentally!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJUWYWRzgPU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJUWYWRzgPU

    VisionQuest Jan 24, 2018 2:03 PM Permalink

    Democrats are the spit and image of the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia. Democrats in America today despise everything and everyone that is not Democrat in policy, propaganda, attitude, opinion & belief. If the Democrat Party is allowed to continue as it is there will be blood and lots of it.

    "You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators."
    ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Betrayed Jan 24, 2018 1:46 PM Permalink

    Ok congress critters. If all this is true and a lot of it probably is, can someone enlighten me as to why the delay. I really see no advantage in holding back on this. It gives every advantage to the Blue team to organize a response and create more smoke screens. The longer this goes on the more likely this will never see the light of day. Especially when one considers the Red teams past performance. Release it or shut the fuck up.

    Throat-warbler -> Betrayed Jan 24, 2018 2:16 PM Permalink

    Gives them time to shred, obscure evidence, and get all the stories aligned.

    Give Me Some Truth -> Betrayed Jan 24, 2018 2:00 PM Permalink

    Re: Our "Congress Critters"

    Remember these are the same "group thinkers/actors" who voted something like 415-5 to impose harsh sanctions on Russia to punish Russia for "meddling" in our Democratic processes.

    I wonder if any of these critters would take back this vote now?

    Maybe they should now vote on imposing "sanctions" on the DOJ and HRC's campaign staffers (Hillary included), as well as the DNC and the MSM organizations/ "journalists" who spread a bogus story-line for nefarious/unpatriotic reasons.

    P.S. I also wonder how many stories/posts on Facebook and Twitter advanced this faux story. Probably about 1 billion more than Russian bots managed to sneak into the national dialogue. I understand the owner of Facebook has deep pockets. Give him the "Saudi treatment" - pay up or go to jail, buddy.

    CatInTheHat -> sickofthepunx Jan 24, 2018 3:43 PM Permalink

    Both parties are part of the cabal, including Trump. Arming the neonazis in the Ukraine that wants war on Russia, as well as US and NATO troops on RUSSIA'S borders. Signing off on the FISA spy ring upon Americans, expanding US WARS, in Syria and Afghanistan and Africa. Wanting war on N. Korea.

    If people would just get that the cabal are addicted to WAR and the enrichment that comes from it as well as it's all ZIONIST wars, for which Trump is now owned by Netanyahu, as is our Congressional dual Israeli citizens, we might be able to organize under one banner that never changes witj both parties utterly submissive to the military and security complex. No more WAR .

    Clinton+Bush+Obama+Trump = WAR.

    Dilluminati Jan 24, 2018 1:22 PM Permalink

    If this is as reported, and if there was a convening of a meeting in secret outside of the professional roles of law enforcement, for the purposes of a focused prosecution of a duly elected president, then that is at a minimum an offense that would disbar employment in the federal government. It would also be grounds for disbarring any attorney.

    But what I'm finding equally as troubling is the very casual manner in which somebody from say nation A, can hire person in Nation B, to provide paid hearsay evidence from Nation C to initiate an investigation that circumvents Nation A's laws of privacy upon a targeted individual.

    That makes the NSA the tool of anyone with money to initiate this type of investigation as described above to harass and intimidate an individual using tax dollar funded services.

    I'm not Ok with Republicans or Democrats doing this.

    So someone with means initiates NSL's against a person soliciting banking, building, employment, relationships, all designed to use the institutional credibility of the NSA or even the FBI to tarnish the standing of a targeted individual.

    The bank isn't going to disclose, but they might not offer a loan!

    The zoning bard will not disclose, but will withhold permits.

    And the zeal and the bias that there groups exercise in their zeal to assist their government in an investigation cumulatively is damaging. Loan delayed is loan denied. Permit delayed is permit denied.

    You want to support legitimate law enforcement activities and investigations, but not this fucking circus.

    It is as if you are witnessing the prosecutor receiving cash from a private party, then the prosecutor hand the bailiff cash, who then passes it onto a paid witness prior to testifying and not swearing in, or being available for cross examination. And that folks is bullshit. Meanwhile the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense all met in private during recess and agreed that facts weren't relevant and to not allow facts to stand in the way of their "convictions!"

    Now folks that is fucked up.

    SirBarksAlot -> Dilluminati Jan 24, 2018 1:38 PM Permalink

    John Perkins said that to get in the CIA, you have to pass a personality test that shows you are less than morally sound. Just imagine the test tube of explosive back-stabbing sociopaths that place must be today.

    Give Me Some Truth -> SirBarksAlot Jan 24, 2018 2:24 PM Permalink

    Re: Alleged "personality test"

    Maybe. I just think these people "self select" their career paths. A certain type of personality type is driven to government bureaucracies and/or political office and/or capitalist positions that reward "cronies" to government. A certain ambitious type learns how to "play the game" and rises up the ranks. The culture in these places rewards corruption (or turning a blind eye to same). These people like the power, prestige and money-making opportunities. They "scratch backs" so their own back can be scratched. Whatever the psychology or personality type, these people work to preserve and protect the Status Quo.

    Dilluminati -> SirBarksAlot Jan 24, 2018 1:47 PM Permalink

    i don't agree with you on your general premise of immorality. But if things are as reported and as I describe above, then the NSA is nothing more than the errand chasers of those with cash and connection, and that that service is paid for by the US taxpayer to be abused by those whom would misuse it as I described. And if that is the way the system is being misused then there is a problem.

    I don't do the hate America first bullshit but I do call em like I see em..

    Jon_Locke -> NickPeeMe Jan 24, 2018 1:57 PM Permalink

    So the 5000+ missing texts is not enough, the murder of Seth Rich is not enough, the 30K missing hilary emails is not enough...

    moonman Jan 24, 2018 1:00 PM Permalink

    But 17 intelligence agencies pinky sweared Trump was dirty

    Give Me Some Truth -> moonman Jan 24, 2018 1:08 PM Permalink

    A line pushed repeatedly by Hillary. That was a lie of course. Only a few (hand-picked) "analysts" from three or four of these agencies signed off on that important "conclusion."

    I also think of all the "intelligence experts" who immediately knew that Assad bombed his own people with banned chemicals. Whatever they say, you know the opposite must be the truth.

    MK ULTRA Alpha Jan 24, 2018 12:52 PM Permalink

    How can General Flynn be charged with lying to the FBI when the FBI agent he lied to is plotting to over throw the president?

    Who were the coup leaders? It was McCabe's office that set up the meeting with Flynn. Flynn didn't know the meeting was about Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador. Which is normal for an incoming National Security Advisor. There were no witnesses to the meeting except two FBI agents, one of which is the disgraced FBI agent. Flynn thought like a former Intel General, he was protecting national security information on a need to know basis.(standard military SOP).

    It looks like Flynn was set up to frame Trump. Flynn's charges need to be dropped.

    Small Governme Jan 24, 2018 12:38 PM Permalink

    Hey! Special Prosecutor Mueller! Are you investigating this collusion between members of the FBI?

    If you have not investigated this Mr. Mueller, you are not only fired.

    For not having investigated this obvious internal FBI collusion, you will be indicted as an accomplice!

    Give Me Some Truth -> newmacroman Jan 24, 2018 1:57 PM Permalink

    In one year, I associate Sessions with three issues:

    1) Doubling down on the "War on Weed."

    2) Doubling down on "civil forfeiture" statutes.

    3) Considering the arrest and prosecution of Julian Assange a DOJ "priority."

    By extension, I guess Trump supports all three of these (very wrong) positions as well. Sigh.

    Pundit Jan 24, 2018 12:22 PM Permalink

    Oh, my! It looks like things are beginning to clarify! Dear American public has it ever occured to you that this whole Trump colluding with Russia as well as the Russia meddling in the election narrative is just a one big lie. Too big to swallow?

    Was clear to me from day one.

    Give Me Some Truth -> Pundit Jan 24, 2018 1:47 PM Permalink

    If "Russia" wanted to swing or rig an election, they couldn't. The whole premise is preposterous. "Russia" convinced millions of voters in a dozen swing states to change their votes? With a few Facebook entries? Good God.

    dvfco -> Pundit Jan 24, 2018 12:53 PM Permalink

    I think it was clear to most of us. It was those who couldn't accept Hillary's defeat who wanted the narrative to keep them sane. They were the same as Strock, et. al. - too stupid to see the train coming straight down the tracks. When they realized they would lose their lifetime of job safety and corruption, they panicked.

    Who in the US didn't know Hillary was the most corrupt politician and ruthless sub-human animal ever to run for office? They were the ones profiting either directly or indirectly from all the criminality.

    Give Me Some Truth -> dvfco Jan 24, 2018 1:32 PM Permalink

    You know who has/had Hillary and Bill pegged better than anyone else? Linda Tripp. I wish I had the link to a recent feature on her. Her main take-away: The rules of society and laws do not apply to her. She (and her husband) can and had gotten away with everything. But the scary part is how seemingly everyone in D.C. and the Establishment is allied with them and has/had no issue with their MO. The Swamp is full of the same type of people and their defenders. These are the type people who are attracted to "government service" and move up the ranks once embedded. Not just in government, but the press corps and the worlds of finance as well.

    I'll say again. If Trump had been sincere in draining the swamp - and had did it - he would have gone down as the greatest president in U.S. history.

    That he is not committed to this mission - or quickly abandoned it - is a tragic disappointment.

    (For those who say he is still trying to drain the swamp, explain why he never made an effort to investigate and expose "Crooked Hillary," has no interest at all in auditing the Fed, signed legislation imposing severe sanctions on Russia for "meddling" and filled his administration with Goldman Sachs alums, among other swamp-protecting activities).

    Dark star Jan 24, 2018 11:54 AM Permalink

    There are very senior members of the Intelligence Community who risk exposure, ignominy, and possibly even death if their treason is exposed to the light of day.

    These people are the artists who create false flag events and change foreign Governments at the drop of a hat.

    If the Intelligence Community needs to start a war to escape the consequences of their treason; that is what they will do; without the slightest hesitation.

    The rest of the world needs to be extremely sceptical regarding "Intelligence" from the U.S., and wide awake to the risk.

    Get everything out in the open before it's too late for the human race.

    AriusArmenian Jan 24, 2018 11:47 AM Permalink

    Secret teams.

    This is exactly what Prouty wrote about in "The Secret Team".

    We have so far found out about two teams: the Brennan team at the CIA and the FBI team.

    Isn't it interesting how the focus is only the FBI?

    The CIA is happy to have the FBI take all the heat.

    dvfco -> AriusArmenian Jan 24, 2018 1:00 PM Permalink

    The Secret Team - Quote from Wikipedia:

    "This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base structure. They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years ahead. " [L. Fletcher Prouty, Alexandria, VA 1997]

    Give Me Some Truth -> AriusArmenian Jan 24, 2018 12:56 PM Permalink

    For the record, we have 17 (known) "intelligence agencies" in the U.S. Government. The NSA alone employs 70,000 people.

    We know as much about the real activities of the CIA as we do about the real activities of The Fed.

    Close them all down. Expose every "secret."

    America - and the world - would be a much SAFER place.

    YouPi Jan 24, 2018 11:44 AM Permalink

    Adam Schiff

    Don't Release FISA Memo Because 'American People to Dumb to Understand it''

    [Jan 24, 2018] Nones: who is wantching the watchmen

    Dec 12, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    SOS DD , 4 weeks ago

    "We could look at it this way"...Muller gathered together, "A Special Council of Disgusting Back Stabbing Clinton Thug's". So now President Trump and all America have a clearer picture of who was tapping us in the back of the head, a few month back, no one really knew, we were all just guessing.

    J.P. Man , 4 weeks ago

    I'm all for removing mueller and his corrupt team but why replace them with another one? The whole reason for the current investigation was to prove collusion between trump and russia...it's been debunked and is an obvious hoax. What would there be for another team to investigate? If they want to create a new special investigation team, put one together to go after Hillary Clinton and all the other treasonous people she has surrounded herself with.

    Walter Knight , 1 week ago

    They need to close that witch hunt investigation concerning Russia due to the lack of any evidence. Let's face it if Trump did anything wrong whatsoever someone would have uncovered some smidgin of evidence of wrongdoing. If there was evidence against Trump it would be all over CNN.

    [Jan 24, 2018] Bombshell! Trump Was Unmasked! Trump Wire Tapped! Crickets From You! Democrats Freaking Out!

    Mar 22, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    I think it's very clear that US Intel is freaking out that Judge Napolitano exposed the truth about how Obama bypassed the FISA process so that no fingerprints would be disclosed. It's more than important to notice that Judge Napolitano has been kept off the air as a Fox NewsLegal Consultant since he made the comment about the British Intel spying on the Trump campaign. Some people say he was fired, but I haven't officially seen that from Fox News as of today! If I had to bet, and I am a betting man, I would say that Judge Napolitano exposed something so dirty on the British Intel and Obama that Fox had to discredit it! What that means to me after researching this stuff for many years, is that the smoke is from the intel or people that deny it the most!

    The only way for the US Intel to safe face now is to throw someone else under the bus! Expect US Intel to create a situation where they can pin this on anyone other than the British.

    Trump clearly knew all about what was going on and when he already has the facts he doesn't back down. Neither Trump or Spicer ever backed down about Trumps original claims! People are going to go to jail about this! If you watch this entire video the only conclusion you can come to is that the US Intel Is completely corrupt and operating beyond their directive! It is sick!

    [Jan 24, 2018] The Secret Society to Get Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court. ..."
    "... I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge, unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this, the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is. ..."
    "... RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly after [Trump] won the election. ..."
    "... And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that? ..."
    "... GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama. ..."
    "... RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States?" ..."
    "... RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from Strzok. ..."
    "... That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate " He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there," meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it. ..."
    Jan 23, 2018 | The Rush Limbaugh Show

    Hillary Clinton losing threw the biggest wrench in these people's plans, and they had the fear. They were aware she could lose. But now we've got a secret society -- DOJ, FBI, intelligence community -- some of it directly in touch with the Obama White House. No doubt in my mind. "Missing" texts that are not really missing. They are somewhere, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails are somewhere. They're backed up on servers. They're backed up on devices. They are somewhere. The FBI claims they don't have them, but they are somewhere.

    Just like Hillary's missing 30,000 emails are somewhere. The mystery of the missing text messages between Strzok and the paramour, Lisa Page, continues to widen and deepen at the same time. It's all too pat. It's too easily understandable. This is easy to understand as the House Bank Scandal was back in 1988 and '89. An FBI agent even texted about deleting the texts, warning everybody, "You know what? We might want to get rid of these."

    I had a suggestion. Ali on our staff -- not my cat, but Ali on our staff -- suggested, "You know what'd be fun one day?" I'm not gonna do it today. But I'm thinking about it. "It might be fun one day to take calls from people 30 and under -- you know, Millennials." The problem with that is that anybody can call and claim they're under 30. So we would have to be really discriminatory and aware of voices. You know, it's not fair to start judging people by their voices, their gender, their sexual orientation, their race, their anything.

    I mean, even though you can do it, you make a mistake in doing it. You're not supposed to do it. But we would have to raise our vigilance if we're gonna do that. (interruption) "Profiling!" Yeah, that's exactly right. We would have to profile. If we're gonna have calls from 30 (maybe even 28, I don't know) and under, then the whole thing's blown if a bunch of 80-year-olds start calling or 75-year-olds trying to pass themselves off as young whippersnappers.

    Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court.

    I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge, unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this, the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly after [Trump] won the election.

    "'The day after the election there is a text exchange between these two FBI agents [Strzok and Page], these supposed to be fact-centric FBI agents saying, 'Perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society,' Gowdy said 'So I'm going to want to know what secret society you are talking about, because you're supposed to be investigating objectively the person who just won the Electoral College.'" Trump "resistance,""secret society." These people probably gave themselves that name. I can see I really can. I can see where these two Strzok In the first place, you got hormones raging 'cause they're having an affair.

    And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that? Can I say that without getting beat up by people? (interruption) I can't? Okay, then forget it. I didn't say that. This guy And I think probably their connections and their contacts as FBI agents

    I think they probably really went to their head. They thought they were really doing something important and cool, but they knew it's on the edge of legality, probably not legal. But they felt protected. They knew that the Obama DOJ was behind 'em, they knew Obama was behind 'em. Comey, everybody in the deep state knew that they were probably on the edge here, but all aligned -- and I'm sure it got very heady. This is a very august group, a very small group of people, a very important project: Getting rid of Trump, defending the Washington establishment.

    And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if these people got totally lost and caught up in how important they were and how cool they were and how exciting what they were doing was and how important it was. And it was clear from the texts of theirs that we've seen that they knew that they were on the edge and that they had to keep this under wraps and they had to keep it secret. So they probably name themselves this "secret society," and who knows, folks! I wouldn't doubt if this whole group decided to name themselves that.

    I think we're dealing with a degree, a level of arrogance and superiority. I'm talking about psychological superiority. "We are better than everybody else! We're the defenders. We're the protectors." You combine that with their opinion of Trump, which is nothing more than he's human debris. "This guy is sewer-level scum." You couple that with the fact that he's won, he's an outsider, he's outsmarted them, and now the lid's blowing. Now we know that Hillary hired the people that wrote the fake Trump dossier.

    And now we're getting closer and closer to confirming that Obama and the DOJ lied to a FISA judge to get a warrant to surveil. So they're panicking, and that's why a bunch of texts from the five-month period of real activity on this are now missing. But, my friends, they aren't missing. The FBI claims they can't find 'em, that there's a glitch and something's happened, but they are somewhere. They are on the original device. I read that the FBI was using Samsung 5s, Samsung Galaxy 5s. Is that right? (interruption) Well, those are old devices.

    Those are very, very old devices. But we're talking about the FBI here! There are servers, there are backups, there is redundancy. We're being told that this stuff's gone just like Lois Lerner's stuff just miraculously disappeared, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails just disappeared. They didn't. They're somewhere. Somebody can get them. Somebody has them. Like you. If you use IDrive here, if you pick up on the idea of backing up your phones and your computer to IDrive, okay. So you may have a glitch on your phone or your computer and you lose 'em.

    But they're there.

    They're on that server, they're on the IDrive server, and they may be elsewhere. So Strzok and Page, their two devices are being used and their computers. Whatever server side backups are happening, whatever the FBI's backups are. These text messages are somewhere. And somebody could find them if they wanted to. Now, let's go to the audio sound bites. Let's listen. This is, first off, last night on Fox News, Representative John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, along with Trey Gowdy, talking about this "secret society" at the FBI. This is interesting because they have learned that these two people are talking about an investigation.

    Obama was briefed on an investigation, but they don't know which investigation, Trump or Clinton. Let's get started

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/c6Lg-4hLaEk

    RATCLIFFE: We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a "secret society" of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok that would be working against him.

    RUSH: "We learn today about " This is above and beyond what is in the four-page memo about the FISA warrant. This is additional. "We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a 'secret society' of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok," meaning others, "that would be working against" Trump. Here's Trey Gowdy weighing in.

    GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama.

    RUSH: So that means Obama's in the loop. The "secret society," Strzok, whatever they're doing, Comey knows. He's FBI director, Strzok and Page are FBI. She's a lawyer; he's an agent. There are other people involved here. They've got this "secret society" going, and the texts they saw referred to an investigation that Director Comey was gonna update Obama on. But they don't know which, 'cause he's right: Hillary was being investigated. They reopened this like a weekend before the election, the email server thing -- which Hillary never forgot.

    Or the Trump dossier investigation. Let's go to June 8th, 2017. "If these texts are accurately, it may not look good for Jim Comey. On June 8th of 2017, Comey testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election. And during the Q&A, Mark Warner, Democrat, Virginia, said, 'In all your experience, Director Comey, President Trump was the only president you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point -- using your words -- "he might put out a non-truthful representation of the meeting"'?"

    COMEY: As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it.

    RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States?"

    COMEY: No! I met Dinner, no. I had two one on ones with President Obama that I laid out in my testimony, once to talk about law enforcement issues -- law enforcement ERASE -- which was an important topic throughout for me and for the president. And then once, very briefly, to him to say good-bye.

    RUSH: Okay. So he tells Mark Warner that as FBI director he interacted with Obama, spoke only twice in three years, didn't document it. And then he tells Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico (summarized), "No! Dinner? No. I had two one on ones with Obama that I laid out in my testimony, one to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement ERASE, which was," blah, blah, blah. This was all about the fact that Comey had to document everything he heard Trump say 'cause Trump's such a liar. Now, if these texts are accurate, the texts say that Comey was "updating [Obama] on an investigation."

    They don't know which, and these are texts that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe read, and the texts detailed Comey updating Obama on an investigation. Comey under oath doesn't say a word here about updating Obama on anything. All he did was talking about law enforcement issues and ERASE. So people are thinking Comey may have not have been forthcoming under oath while testifying before the committees. Based on what we've learned with the texts saying he was actively updating Obama on an investigation. Now, the odds are he's updating Obama on the Trump investigation, because the only thing about the Hillary investigation is how to cover it up and make it amount to nothing.

    There wouldn't be really be a need for an update of that.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: In jaw dropping (unintelligible) Peter Strzok Strzok expressed concern about joining the Mueller team. My friends, look. If it looks like a witch hunt and it sounds like a witch hunt and it reads like witch hunt, then it is a witch hunt. You know, stop and think. The Republicans wasted most of the first year of the Trump the presidency because they thought that the media narrative on Trump-Putin collusion was true, or they thought it was close enough that they couldn't take any chances about going all in with Trump in case it turned out to be true and he was eventually to be impeached. They believed it.

    Look, they're creatures of the swamp themselves. And there was so much of it. And remember, Washington is Washington. And if the deep state, if the intelligence agencies are saying this over and over and over and over again, if they're flooding the zone, if every newspaper, every cable network is reporting these leaks, you can almost see how they would have no choice but than to believe it. And so they kept their distance from Trump. And that whole year, you know, we're talking here.

    We're each saying to ourselves, if they would just get on board for three months, if they'd just get on board the Trump agenda, there'd be no stopping them. And we thought they weren't getting on board because they didn't like Trump or because they rented Trump, either one of those things. It wasn't that. It was they fell for the narrative. Enough of them thought there might be something to it that they couldn't risk not buying into it. Speaking of the intelligence agencies, I'm sure some of you have already thought of this, but it just hit me a few seconds.

    For some reason. I was thinking about the war in Iraq. You remember what the intelligence agencies were telling us about the war in Iraq? You remember what they were telling us? There was detail, there were photos, there was conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And it wasn't just U.S. intel. It was MI5, MI6. It was intelligence agencies all over the world. George W. Bush kept quoting them. George W. Bush kept citing them.

    George W. Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with the so-called evidence, and Colin Powell had to present it to the Security Council. There were photos and all of these bits of proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell now says that's the most embarrassing period in his life, because it turns out none of it was true. And remember the immediate aftermath, everybody said, "Wow, man. How could they have gotten it so wrong, man?" And the story we got that Saddam himself was to blame because he was leading everybody on.

    He wanted the world to think that he was the biggest Arab in the Middle East. He was the giant that was gonna slay the United States. So he furthered the belief. He helped it along. Sorry. That doesn't wash with me. Okay, so the guy says he's got 'em. That's your basis for believing it? What if ? Just what if ? Remember, they all thought Gore had won that election, until the Supreme Court came along and stole it for Bush. This is what they thought.

    The Democrat Party is the Washington establishment, and the Washington establishment believes that Gore won the presidency and the Florida recount math was bogus and rigged, that James Baker did a better job than the Democrat people did in finding votes, the hanging chads. What if the intel on the war in Iraq was another disinformation campaign to damage another Republican president? And, boy, did that work. Ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction, look at what we did?

    Bush spent 2-1/2 years traveling the country building support for the war in Iraq. We had the massive opening day of Shock and Awe, and we had the pictures of Saddam's statue coming down, Saddam eventually being captured, hiding out in a hole in the ground somewhere. But there were no weapons of mass destruction. After that "No, yes, there were, Rush, yes, there were, they've been moved to Syria, we have pictures of the trucks, they got 'em out of there, they got 'em out. We know he had this."

    Well, we know he used nerve gas on the Kurds at one time, which is weapons of mass destruction. But just what if? The, quote, unquote, intelligence community misrepresented on purpose the degree to which Hussein had WMDs, cause, I'll tell you, it was a very, very embarrassing moment for the Bush administration. I mean, two years of ontological certitude. This guy posed a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda. This guy -- they even showed us photos where Al-Qaeda may have trained outside Baghdad.

    Now, we know the Republicans are not the favored party in Washington amongst swamp dwellers. Even though many of the CIA apparatus were, of course, aligned with Bush. But I was just thinking about this the other day. And that was a glaring example where, if it was legitimate, look how wrong they were, I mean, they couldn't have been more wrong, and it was not just one intelligence agency. It was the entire intel community in this country and in the U.K. and all of our allies.

    There was supposedly unanimous agreement on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Now, what if -- this is hindsight, which is always 20/20 -- what if, based on what we know now -- we know how the deep state has been trying to undermine Donald Trump from the days he was a candidate to during his transition to even it's ongoing now as president. We're learning of Strzok and the FBI and the Hillary opposition research dossier that the ends up becoming fodder for a warrant at the FISA court to spy on Trump.

    So we know the deep state can mobilize if they want to, and they can create false narratives that everybody in the media believes. Even had the Republican Party for a year believing that Trump had conspired with Russia maybe to steal the election. What if Saddam weapons of mass destruction was also a false narrative designed to ? Did it ultimately embarrass Bush? Did it weaken the U.S. military? Whatever it did, I mean, it opened the doors for the Democrats to literally destroy his presidency in the second term. Which is what they did.

    They launched every salvo they had. They did everything they could to get John Kerry elected in 2014, as the Democrat nominee. So I just wonder. And then I remember Chuck Schumer telling Donald Trump after he had criticized the intelligence community one day, Chuck You said, "You better be careful, 'cause those guys can make your life hell, Mr. President." So I don't know. It's all deep state. It's all stuff happening way beyond wherever our eyes can see and our ears can hear. PMSNBC is reporting that the

    It is the New York Times says that Comey shared memos about Trump's meeting. I'm getting this word by word as it's hunt and pecked on the New York Times: "Comey Shared Memos About Trump's Meeting with the Special Counsel Team." I don't know what that is. I don't know. This is dangerous to get headlines off TV. So, anyway, we'll track that down and get to it in due course. I just This whole deep state intelligence community, all of these errors That weapons of mass destruction, that was just huge, and Bush bought it, totally trusted it.

    We all did. Mind-boggling. Now this? What we're learning about Strzok and Comey and there's no question here that there was a mighty collusion effort between the Democrats, the Hillary campaign, the FBI, the Department of Justice -- that's the Obama administration -- to spy on the Trump campaign and then the Trump transition team. And slowly but surely we're getting to the bottom of it, despite a whole lot of efforts to cover it up.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from Strzok.

    I was remiss here in not finishing/closing the loop on this. Here's what Strzok Strzok wrote to his paramour, Lisa Page: "You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there." What this means is Strzok was writing to Page about his lack of desire to be on the Mueller team 'cause he didn't think there was any collusion!

    That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate " He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there," meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it.

    "Hey, we all know there's nothing there."

    [Jan 24, 2018] It is now undisputable: there was a FAKE investigation of HR and frame-up of Trump by the FBI

    Jan 24, 2018 | www.youtube.com

    abupupu poopoo , 7 hours ago

    The FISA memo was just turned over to info wars it's unbelievable all of the dogs need charged with treason and death penalties .

    Jeff , 7 hours ago

    It will be a long and slow process to drain the sludge filled swamp. Let's move forward and stop concentrating so much on this swamp, the murky swamp water will and is becoming much more clearer by the day. Let's focus on this immigration. #MAGA

    Miss-andry Begone , 7 hours ago

    Why do you even want an FBI? Sessions is useless, get rid of him. He's blinded by his own crap (going after marijuana) instead of dealing with the real problems that the USA faces, like Hillary Clinton. He must be a Deep state operative.

    Today Turn your Heart to Yeshua , 9 hours ago

    Speaking of Sessions , what has happened to him. Where is the bulldog?

    Steve Wiseman , 6 hours ago

    Watergate was a trap to overthrow Richard Nixon. It was not a third grade burglary. Deep throat was a CIA guy and the two investigative newspapers guys were in on the trap. The motive? To stop Nixon from making peace with Russia and China.

    No Names , 9 hours ago

    Pocket change.

    Carolina Girl , 6 hours ago

    How in the world can President Trump clean up swamp when their are so dam many swimming in it. Can't trust anyone to do their job or to have his back he's fighting the wolves every day. God Bless and protect our President against the evil around him!!!!!! Amen!!!

    Sheri Dobson , 9 hours ago

    The FBI and doj and congress have proven to be domestic enemies of the united states of America! Send all to Gitmo! High treason! Stop all immigration due to the written plan to take over Americas using immigrants and illegals and daca and refugees to kill all Americans. This is serious the congress have planned to take America over for fifty years!

    Christine Sage , 7 hours ago

    America wants the TRUTH!

    Christine Sage , 7 hours ago

    ..and we must thank dead ones, like Seth Rich.

    Tvoe Voe , 6 hours ago

    #ShitholeSchiff #missUmilo

    Tvoe Voe , 1 hour ago

    I am not a BOT !!! Unbelievable !!!! #Patriots #Justice #AmericaFirst #SethRichMurder #SethRichCoverUp #UraniumOne #AwanSpyRing #AwanContra

    Healing Spirit , 9 hours ago (edited)

    They're bought by the power's that be they're controlled puppets they're Satanists btw

    roundedges2 , 13 minutes ago

    Roger Stone smooth and hella funny!

    Carol Harris , 16 minutes ago

    Good product placement Roger, Perrier.

    Lonnie Christopher , 41 minutes ago

    ...FAKE investigation of HRC.....AND......Frame- up of Trump by the FBI.........

    vickie , 1 hour ago

    Dem's do not want to see it because they already know about it

    Nancy Williams , 3 hours ago

    Laura should it surprise you? The DemonRats all ready know what is in it. Most of them where involved in it in one way or another so why would they want to go look at it and be reminded of there evil ways and what they have really done. They would love for it to go away so they are not prosecuted for treason and sedition.

    [Jan 24, 2018] Trump s got the military behind him - the only institution powerful enough to challenge the deep state

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is nothing to lose at this point. The elite have made day to day life a void of lifelessness and stress chasing inflating life necessities with a falling dollar. The revolt hinges on the upcoming market crashes. ..."
    "... As in the Rome's example, it may be that America can be saved by the cancerous corruption only by a military coup, the alternative being a massive war which will also enable the Army to overtake the control of the government ..."
    Jan 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    WFO -> Luc X. Ifer Jan 21, 2018 11:20 PM Permalink

    Trump's got the military behind him - the only institution powerful enough to challenge the deep state. I also understand he has a special forces security contingent in addition to SS. Trump gets hit - revolution will explode in their face.

    Freedom Lover -> WFO Jan 22, 2018 11:32 AM Permalink

    After reading the new National Security policy directive I'm not so sure. it is a blueprint for a new cold war possibly nuclear war with Russia and China which is antipathy to Trumps stated policies of collaboration with Russia, no more regime change and cooperation with China on Infrastructure projects. There is obviously a very strong Neo-con component in the Trump administration so i would not necessarily say the generals have his back.

    MK ULTRA Alpha -> WFO Jan 22, 2018 2:56 AM Permalink

    Black Knight Pence is the Deep State choice, and the military is the epicenter of the Deep State. The US is no longer a country, but an empire, with born and bred, programmed Globalist Officers in the military and all through the government.

    It's a system which isn't a part of the country, it's completely in it's own synthetic realm, devoid of reason and logic. It's officers often confer with the Council on Foreign Relations and various controlled think tanks for it's marching orders. We, the American people aren't in the decision loop.

    This system was designed from the outcome of the civil war. It's a centralized command and control system. It rules the states as harshly as it rules the world. We speak of freedom, but no one in their right mind can call this freedom. So most of us are not in our right mind, some brainwashed, others suspicious.

    Luc X. Ifer -> WFO Jan 22, 2018 12:08 AM Permalink

    Agree. I'm sure that Army's Intelligence services are indeed behind all the hacks & leaks which collapsed HC campaign and helped DT's. Also, they exposed the FBI's and NSA dirt. Kind of they didn't liked the ascension of the civils controlling the intelligence policies strategically - kind of the situation between Soviet's army and KGB. In the game of the pig and the chicken, the chicken is only involved with the eggs but the pigs must provide the bacon. Id Trump gets hit I'm pretty sure you'll see a military coup overtaking the governement.

    Scipio Africanuz -> Luc X. Ifer, Jan 22, 2018 5:09 AM Permalink

    I have a feeling the US army is really pissed they died for nothing. Despite all the talk of shortcomings, the US army, not USAF or USN, is not to be toyed with in an existential war, they will fight!

    All adversaries understand that, they lose wars because they don't believe, simple. If the deep state, including feckless military leaders push too far, they'll be facing rifle barrels and possibly be chesting bayonets.

    A military coup can happen in the USA despite talk of sacrosant democracy, it happened in Rome, word enough for the wise. 😎

    Scipio Africanuz -> Scipio Africanuz, Jan 22, 2018 5:18 AM Permalink

    BTW, the bulk of us army is not in active service, never underestimate patriotic veterans, if it comes to a shootout at the OK corral, they'll kill and die for their loved ones, against all enemies, foreign, and "domestic".

    Mr Hankey -> Scipio Africanuz, Jan 22, 2018 1:19 PM Permalink

    No, they won't Never have, never will .Gutless cowards one & all.They pick on the poor& weak & never won a real war, except Japan. They burn babies 4 billionaires,& there is no such thing as a domestic enemy.

    Stupid goldbricking brutes fit 4 fertilizer and nothing else. Go copsuck & flagwank elsewhere, cuckfaggot vet or fanboi

    JRobby -> Scipio Africanuz, Jan 22, 2018 6:12 AM Permalink

    There is nothing to lose at this point. The elite have made day to day life a void of lifelessness and stress chasing inflating life necessities with a falling dollar. The revolt hinges on the upcoming market crashes.

    Luc X. Ifer -> JRobby, Jan 22, 2018 9:47 AM Permalink

    Agree + Scipio. As mentioned, till now the chickens lied and Army provided the bacon and the chickens collected all the revenue. As in the Rome's example, it may be that America can be saved by the cancerous corruption only by a military coup, the alternative being a massive war which will also enable the Army to overtake the control of the government, here is where NK and Iran would be good players in the scheme.

    [Jan 24, 2018] Comey is lying to Congress about Clinton Emailgate

    Now we know why. Actually amazing exchange.
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.

    Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.

    [Jan 23, 2018] FBI Says It has lost five months of text messages between Peter Strzok And Lisa Page - Jay Sekulow - YouTube

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on! Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!! ..."
    "... I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see jail time.  ..."
    Jan 23, 2018 | www.youtube.com

    Michelle The Security Guard , 17 minutes ago (edited)

    If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on! Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!!

    THERE ARE NO TEXTS MISSING!

    DETECTIVES GET SEARCH WARRANTS FOR TEXT MESSAGES ALL THE TIME! WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE ANY DIFFERENT!

    mrmavaw70 , 1 hour ago

    I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see jail time. 

    [Jan 22, 2018] What unites us: new links of Melian Dialogue with Purple color revolution against Trump

    Trey Gowdy mentions of the Melian Dialogue: see lygdamus.com
    He also mentioned: Insulting never works as a method of persuasion. That applies to insult of Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right-or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" ..."
    "... The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the independent island states and the disgruntled subjects that Athens has already conquered that are more likely to take up arms against Athens. ..."
    "... This speech should be obligatory study for each prospective teacher, politician and in fact every person around. ..."
    Jan 22, 2018 | www.youtube.com

    From Siege of Melos - Wikipedia

    Synopsis

    The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right-or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".[25]

    The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it.

    The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the independent island states and the disgruntled subjects that Athens has already conquered that are more likely to take up arms against Athens.

    The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens.

    The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is at least a slim chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolish optimism.

    The Melians believe that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak.

    The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that the Spartans are a practical people who never put themselves at risk when their interests are not at stake, and rescuing Melos would be especially risky since Athens has the stronger navy.

    The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They say that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. They also argue that it is sensible to submit to one's superiors, stand firm against one's equals, and be moderate to one's inferiors. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss the envoys.

    Analysis

    Warships of the era (triremes) could carry little in the way of supplies, and thus needed friendly and neutral ports where the crew could purchase food and other necessities on a daily basis.[26] Whether or not Melos was truly neutral, Peloponnesian ships could freely resupply there, which made it strategically important to the enemy.[27] Capturing Melos reduced the reach of the enemy's navy.

    The mercilessness which the Athenian invaders showed to the Melians was exceptional even for the time and shocked many Greeks, even in Athens.[28] These may have included the Athenian playwright Euripides, whose play The Trojan Women is widely regarded as a commentary on the razing of Melos. The historian Xenophon wrote that in 405 BC, with the Spartan army closing in on Athens, the citizens of Athens worried that the Spartans would treat them with the same cruelty that the Athenian army had shown the Melians.[29] The Athenian rhetorician Isocrates was a proud patriot but accepted that the razing of Melos was a stain on Athens' history.[30][31]

    It is uncertain whether the fate of Melos was decided by the government of Athens or the Athenian generals on Melos. A historical speech falsely attributed to the Athenian orator Andocides claims that the statesman Alcibiades advocated the enslavement of the Melian survivors before the government of Athens.[32] This account gives no date for the decree, so it could have been passed to justify the atrocities after-the-fact.[33] Thucydides made no mention of any such decree in his own account.

    The phrase "Melian hunger" became a byword for extreme starvation. Starvation is a normal goal of sieges and the ancient Greeks had much experience with them, so this suggests that the Melian experience was extreme. The earliest known reference to the starvation of the Melians is in Aristophanes' play, The Birds, which was first performed in 414 BC.[34] Its usage lasted well into the Byzantine era, as it is mentioned in the Suda, a 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia.[35]

    Dennis Rawley , 2 days ago

    When is this guy going to run for president? He has my vote.

    Jane Vanden Heuvel , 2 days ago

    I really appreciate your thoughts, and concerns for the future of our country! It's so nice to know that we still have some politicians who truly care about WE the people! GOD BLESS YOU Trey!

    T 63 , 2 days ago

    Awesome speech Trey!!

    Ben Safronovitz , 2 days ago

    This speech should be obligatory study for each prospective teacher, politician and in fact every person around.

    Therese Lambela , 1 day ago

    Thank you gowdy!!!! I love the way you think!

    Sean Bergeron , 2 days ago

    That was strong. It made me think about some of my own weaknesses that I'll have to address.

    whispers_hope , 2 days ago

    What do you believe in enough to lose? ( Truth or Freedom? Unity or diversity?) Excellent food for serious thoughts!!

    Wise Woman , 2 days ago

    Love the speech. Respect to Trey Gowdy.

    [Jan 22, 2018] US Intelligence Could Well Have Wiretapped Trump by Ron Paul

    Notable quotes:
    "... Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT. ..."
    "... I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage ..."
    "... "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents." ..."
    "... "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that." ..."
    "... "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained. ..."
    "... Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it ..."
    "... "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially." ..."
    "... "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said. ..."
    Jan 20, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT.

    A top-secret intelligence memo, believed to reveal political bias at the highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ towards President Trump, may well be as significant as the Republicans say, Ron Paul told RT. But, he added, "there's still to many unknowns, especially, from my view point."

    "Trump connection to the Russians, I think, has been way overblown, and I'd like to just get to the bottom of this the new information that's coming out, maybe this will reveal things and help us out," he said.

    "Right now it's just a political fight," the former US Congressman said. "I think they're dealing with things a lot less important than the issue they ought to be talking about Right now, I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage."

    Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence agencies on the orders of the Obama administration may well turn out to be true, Paul said.

    "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents."

    However, he criticized Trump for doing nothing to prevent the Senate from voting in the expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) earlier this week.

    "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that."

    "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained.

    The fact that Democrats on the relevant committees have all voted against releasing the memo "might mean that Trump is probably right; there's probably a lot of stuff there that would exonerate him from any accusation they've been making," he said.

    Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it

    "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially."

    "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said.

    This article was originally published by RT -

    [Jan 22, 2018] Trump Jr. on FISA memo Media, Democrats working together to deceive Americans

    Jan 22, 2018 | www.washingtonexaminer.com

    Donald Trump Jr. called for the release of a memo that allegedly contains information about Obama administration surveillance abuses and suggested that Democrats are complicit with the media in misleading the public.

    "It's the double standard that the people are fed by the Democrats in complicity with the media, that's why neither have any trust from the American people anymore," Trump said on Fox News Friday.

    [Jan 22, 2018] Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation TheHill

    Jan 22, 2018 | thehill.com

    Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's 2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.

    The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that the two were not coordinating with each other.

    And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.

    [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken

    Highly recommended!
    See also: Full Speech President Trump Outlines National Security Strategy - Video - NYTimes.com
    Everyone in the world can see that the United States has become a bitterly divided country, but still has a really amazing level of continuity in foreign policy between various administrations.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The long-awaited National Defense Strategy is a vision of US imperialism besieged on all sides and in mortal danger of losing global dominance. ..."
    "... "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security," Mattis said in his speech, which accompanied the release of an 11-page declassified document outlining the National Defense Strategy in broad terms. A lengthier classified version was submitted to the US Congress, which includes the Pentagon's detailed proposals for a massive increase in military spending. ..."
    "... Russia, it charges, is attempting to achieve "veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic, and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor." ..."
    "... "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea," it states. "Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors." ..."
    "... Both Moscow and Beijing issued statements condemning the US defense strategy. A Chinese spokesman denounced the document as a return to a "Cold War mentality." Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, told a United Nations press conference: "It is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialog, instead of using the basis of international law, the US is indeed striving to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts." A government spokesman in Moscow characterized the document as "imperialistic." ..."
    Jan 22, 2018 | russia-insider.com

    The long-awaited National Defense Strategy is a vision of US imperialism besieged on all sides and in mortal danger of losing global dominance.

    The Trump administration's defense secretary, former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, rolled out a new National Defense Strategy Friday that signals open preparations by US imperialism for direct military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

    Speaking at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, Mattis made clear that the strategy, the first such document to be issued by the Pentagon in roughly a decade, represented an historic shift from the ostensible justification for US global militarism for nearly two decades: the so-called war on terrorism.

    "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security," Mattis said in his speech, which accompanied the release of an 11-page declassified document outlining the National Defense Strategy in broad terms. A lengthier classified version was submitted to the US Congress, which includes the Pentagon's detailed proposals for a massive increase in military spending.

    Much of the document's language echoed terms used in the National Security Strategy document unveiled last month in a fascistic speech delivered by President Donald Trump. Mattis insisted that the US was facing "growing threat from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models."

    Russia, it charges, is attempting to achieve "veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic, and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor."

    "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea," it states. "Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors."

    In what appeared to be a threat directed against both Russia and China, Mattis warned, "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day."

    Both Moscow and Beijing issued statements condemning the US defense strategy. A Chinese spokesman denounced the document as a return to a "Cold War mentality." Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, told a United Nations press conference: "It is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialog, instead of using the basis of international law, the US is indeed striving to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts." A government spokesman in Moscow characterized the document as "imperialistic."

    [Jan 22, 2018] German Imperialism as a tool of the "Kingdom of Money" by Thomas Fazi

    Ukraine after EuroMaydan is a de-facto EU colony.
    Notable quotes:
    "... By Thomas Fazi 4 December 2017 ..."
    "... For Germany, the idea of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration' ..."
    "... "That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples. According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic realm?" ..."
    "... More recently, an article in Politico Europe ..."
    "... Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance – even against ..."
    "... Germany (and France) have been the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote , overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'. ..."
    "... This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general), while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level. ..."
    "... German authorities have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'. ..."
    "... Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of 'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika -forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by the German airport operator Fraport. ..."
    "... France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years, French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased 'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship between the stronger and weaker countries of the union. ..."
    "... In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie ..."
    "... Exportnationalismus' ..."
    "... Modell Deutschland ..."
    "... Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation' – under the German aegis, of course. As a recent article in Foreign Policy ..."
    "... In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy ..."
    Jan 21, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    Originally from: Germany's dystopian plans for Europe: from fantasy to reality? By Thomas Fazi 4 December 2017

    For Germany, the idea of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'

    After Emmanuel Macron's election in France, many (including myself) claimed that this signalled a revival of the Franco-German alliance and a renewed impetus for Europe's process of top-down economic and political integration – a fact that was claimed by most commentators and politicians, beholden as they are to the Europeanist narrative, to be an unambiguously positive development.

    Among the allegedly 'overdue' reforms that were said to be on the table was the creation of a pseudo-'fiscal union' backed by a (meagre) 'euro budget', along with the creation of a 'European finance minister', the centre-points of Macron's plans to 're-found the EU' – a proposal that raises a number of very worrying issues from both political and economic standpoints, which I have discussed at length elsewhere .

    The integrationists' (unwarranted) optimism, however, was short-lived. The result of the German elections, which saw the surge of two rabidly anti-integrationist parties, the right-wing FDP and extreme right AfD; the recent collapse of coalition talks between Merkel's CDU, the FDP and the Greens, which most likely means an interim government for weeks if not months, possibly leading to new elections (which polls show would bring roughly the same result as the September election); and the growing restlessness in Germany towards the 13-year-long rule of Macron's partner in reform Angela Merkel, means that any plans that Merkel and Macron may have sketched out behind the scenes to further integrate policies at the European level are now, almost certainly, dead in the water. Thus, even the sorry excuse for a fiscal union proposed by Macron is now off the table, according to most commentators.

    At this point, the German government's most likely course in terms of European policy – the one that has the best chance of garnering cross-party support, regardless of the outcome of the coalition talks (or of new elections) – is the 'minimalist' approach set in stone by the country's infamous and now-former finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, in a 'non-paper' published shortly before his resignation.

    The main pillar of Schäuble's proposal – a long-time obsession of his – consists in giving the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which would go on to become a 'European Monetary Fund', the power to monitor (and, ideally, enforce) compliance with the Fiscal Compact. This echoes Schäuble's previous calls for the creation of a European budget commissioner with the power to reject national budgets – a supranational fiscal enforcer.

    The aim is all too clear: to further erode what little sovereignty and autonomy member states have left, particularly in the area of fiscal policy, and to facilitate the imposition of neoliberal 'structural reforms' – flexibilisation of labour markets, reduction of collective bargaining rights, etc. – on reluctant countries.

    To this end, the German authorities even want to make the receipt of EU cohesion funds conditional on the implementation of such reforms , tightening the existing arrangements even further. Moreover, as noted by Simon Wren-Lewis , the political conflict of interest of having an institution lending within the eurozone would end up imposing severe austerity bias on the recovering country.

    Until recently, these proposals failed to materialise due, among other reasons, to France's opposition to any further overt reductions of national sovereignty in the area of budgetary policy; Macron, however, staunchly rejects France's traditional souverainiste stance, embracing instead what he calls 'European sovereignty', and thus represents the perfect ally for Germany's plans.

    Another proposal that goes in the same direction is the German Council for Economic Experts' plan to curtail banks' sovereign bond holdings. Ostensibly aimed at 'severing the link between banks and government' and 'ensuring long-term debt sustainability', it calls for: (i) removing the exemption from risk-weighting for sovereign exposures, which essentially means that government bonds would no longer be considered a risk-free asset for banks (as they are now under Basel rules), but would be 'weighted' according to the 'sovereign default risk' of the country in question (as determined by credit rating agencies); (ii) putting a cap on the overall risk-weighted sovereign exposure of banks; and (iii) introducing an automatic 'sovereign insolvency mechanism' that would essentially extend to sovereigns the bail-in rule introduced for banks by the banking union, meaning that if a country requires financial assistance from the ESM, for whichever reason, it will have to lengthen its sovereign bond maturities (reducing the market value of those bonds and causing severe losses for all bondholders) and, if necessary, impose a nominal 'haircut' on private creditors.

    As noted by the German economist Peter Bofinger , the only member of the German Council of Economic Experts to vote against the sovereign bail-in plan, this would almost certainly ignite a 2012-style self-fulfilling sovereign debt crisis, as periphery countries' bond yields would quickly rise to unsustainable levels, making it increasingly hard for governments to roll over maturing debt at reasonable prices and eventually forcing them to turn to the ESM for help, which would entail even heavier losses for their banks and an even heavier dose of austerity.

    It would essentially amount to a return to the pre-2012 status quo, with governments once again subject to the supposed 'discipline' of the markets, particularly in the context of a likely tapering of the ECB's quantitative easing (QE) program. The aim of this proposal is the same as that of Schäuble's 'European Monetary Fund': to force member states to implement permanent austerity.

    Read also: Lack of Credible Leftist Alternatives is fueling national movements. Catalonia wants independence from the small Madrid Empire, but inside Brussels Great Empire

    Of course, national sovereignty in a number of areas – most notably fiscal policy – has already been severely eroded by the complex system of new laws, rules and agreements introduced in recent years, including but not limited to the six-pack, two-pack, Fiscal Compact, European Semester and Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP).

    As a result of this new post-Maastricht system of European economic governance, the European Union has effectively become a sovereign power with the authority to impose budgetary rules and structural reforms on member states outside democratic procedures and without democratic control.

    The EU's embedded quasi-constitutionalism and inherent (structural) democratic deficit has thus evolved into an even more anti-democratic form of 'authoritarian constitutionalism' that is breaking away with elements of formal democracy as well, leading some observers to suggest that the EU 'may easily become the postdemocratic prototype and even a pre-dictatorial governance structure against national sovereignty and democracies'.

    To give an example, with the launch of the European Semester, the EU's key tool for economic policy guidance and surveillance, an area that has historically been a bastion of national sovereignty – old-age pensions – has now fallen under the purview of supranational monitoring as well. Countries are now expected to (and face sanctions if they don't): (i) increase the retirement age and link it with life expectancy; (ii) reduce early retirement schemes, improve the employability of older workers and promote lifelong learning; (iii) support complementary private savings to enhance retirement incomes; and (iv) avoid adopting pension-related measures that undermine the long term sustainability and adequacy of public finances.

    This has led to the introduction in various countries of several types of automatic stabilizing mechanisms (ASMs) in pension systems, which change the policy default so that benefits or contributions adjust automatically to adverse demographic and economic conditions without direct intervention by politicians. Similar 'automatic correction mechanisms' in relation to fiscal policy can be found in the Fiscal Compact.

    The aim of all these 'automatic mechanisms' is clearly to put the economy on 'autopilot', thus removing any element of democratic discussion and/or decision-making at either the European or national level. These changes have already transformed European states into 'semi-sovereign' entities, at best. In this sense, the proposals currently under discussion would mark the definitive transformation of European states from semi-sovereign to de facto (and increasingly de jure ) non-sovereign entities.

    Regardless of the lip service paid by national and European officials to the need for further reductions of national sovereignty to go hand in hand with a greater 'democratisation' of the euro area, the reforms currently on the table can, in fact, be considered the final stage in the thirty-year-long war on democracy and national sovereignty waged by the European elites, aimed at constraining the ability of popular-democratic powers to influence economic policy, thus enabling the imposition of neoliberal policies that would not have otherwise been politically feasible.

    In this sense, the European economic and monetary integration process should be viewed, to a large degree, as a class-based and inherently neoliberal project pursued by all national capitals as well as transnational (financial) capital. However, to grasp the processes of restructuring under way in Europe, we need to go beyond the simplistic capital/labour dichotomy that underlies many critical analyses of the EU and eurozone, which view EU/EMU policies as the expression of a unitary and coherent transnational (post-national) European capitalist class.

    The process underway can only be understood through the lens of the geopolitical-economic tensions and conflicts between leading capitalist states and regional blocs, and the conflicting interests between the different financial/industrial capital fractions located in those states, which have always characterised the European economy. In particular, it means looking at Germany's historic struggle for economic hegemony over the European continent.

    It is no secret that Germany is today the leading economic and political power in Europe, just as it is no secret that nothing gets done in Europe without Germany's seal of approval. In fact, it is commonplace to come across references to Germany's 'new empire'. A controversial Der Spiegel editorial from a few years back event went as far as arguing that it is not out place to talk of the rise of a 'Fourth Reich':

    "That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples. According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic realm?"

    More recently, an article in Politico Europe – co-owned by the German media magnate Axel Springer AG – candidly explained why 'Greece is de facto a German colony'. It noted how, despite Tsipras' pleas for debt relief, the Greek leader 'has little choice but to heed the wishes of his "colonial" masters', i.e., the Germans.

    This is because public debt in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a disciplining tool – to get governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to get citizens to accept these policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why Germany continues to refuse to seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece, despite the various commitments and promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the chain that keeps Greece (and other member states) from straying 'off course'.

    Read also: Boris Johnson: Why not a preemptive strike on Korea?

    Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance – even against Germany's wishes – as a result of the euro's design faults, which have allowed Germany and its satellites to pursue a neo-mercantilist strategy and thus accumulate huge current account surpluses.

    Now, it is certainly true that the euro's design – strongly influenced by Germany – inevitably benefits export-led economies such as Germany over more internal demand-oriented economies, such as those of southern Europe. However, there is ample evidence to support the argument that Germany, far from having accidently stumbled upon European dominance, has been actively and consciously pursuing an expansionary and imperialist strategy in – and through – the European Union for decades.

    Even if we limit our analysis to Germany's post-crisis policies (though there is much that could be said about Germany's post-reunification policies and subsequent offshoring of production to Eastern Europe in the 1990s), it would be very naïve to view Germany's inflexibility – on austerity, for example – as a simple case of ideological stubbornness, considering the extent to which the policies in question have benefited Germany (and to a lesser extent France).

    Germany (and France) have been the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote , overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'.

    This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general), while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level.

    As Andy Storey notes, not only did the German government, throughout the crisis, show a blatant disregard for ordoliberalism's non-interference of public institutions in the workings of the market, by engaging in a massive Keynesian-style programme in the aftermath of the financial crisis and pushing through bailout programmes that largely absolved German banks from their responsibility for reckless lending to Greece and other countries; German authorities have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'.

    Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of 'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika -forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by the German airport operator Fraport.

    France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years, French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased 'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship between the stronger and weaker countries of the union.

    These transformations cannot simply be described as processes without a subject: while there are undoubtedly structural reasons involved – countries with better developed economies of scale, such as Germany and France, were bound to benefit more than others from the reduction in tariffs and barriers associated with the introduction of the single currency – we also have to acknowledge that there are loci of economic-politic power that are actively driving and shaping these imperialist processes, which must be viewed through the lens of the unresolved inter-capitalist struggle between core-based and periphery-based capital.

    From this perspective, the dichotomy that is often raised in European public discourse between nationalism and Europeanism is deeply flawed. The two, in fact, often go hand in hand. In Germany's case, for example, Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'. Ironically, the European Union – allegedly created as an antidote to the vicious nationalisms of the twentieth century – has been the tool through which Germany has been able to achieve the 'new European order' that Nazi ideologues had theorised in the 1930s and early 1940s.

    In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie of the old colonial system – sections of a country's elite and middle class allied with foreign interests in exchange for a subordinated role within the dominant hierarchy of power.

    From this point of view, the likely revival of the Franco-German bloc is a very worrying development, since it heralds a consolidation of the German-led European imperialist bloc – and a further 'Germanification' of the continent. This development cannot be understood independently of the momentous shifts that are taking place in global political economy – namely the organic crisis of neoliberal globalisation, which is leading to increased tensions between the various fractions of international capital, most notably between the US and Germany.

    Trump's repeated criticisms of Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour mercantilist policies should be understood in this light. The same goes for Angela Merkel's recent call – much celebrated by the mainstream press – for a stronger Europe to counter Trump's unilateralism. Merkel's aim is not, of course, that of making 'Europe' stronger, but rather of strengthening Germany's dominant position vis-à-vis the other world powers (the US but also China) through the consolidation of Germany's control of the European continental economy, in the context of an intensification of global inter-capitalist competition.

    This has now become an imperative for Germany, especially since Trump has dared to openly challenge the self-justifying ideology which sustains Germany's mercantilism – a particular form of economic nationalism that Hans Kundnani has dubbed ' Exportnationalismus' , founded upon the belief that Germany's massive trade surplus is uniquely the result of Germany's manufacturing excellence ( Modell Deutschland ) rather than, in fact, the result of unfair trade practices.

    This is why, if Germany wants to maintain its hegemonic position on the continent, it must break with the US and tighten the bolts of the European workhouse. To this end, it needs to seize control of the most coveted institution of them all – the ECB –, which hitherto has never been under direct German control (though the Bundesbank exercises considerable influence over it, as is well known). Indeed, many commentators openly acknowledge that Merkel now has her eyes on the ECB's presidency. This would effectively put Germany directly at the helm of European economic policy.

    Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation' – under the German aegis, of course. As a recent article in Foreign Policy revealed , 'Germany is quietly building a European army under its command'.

    This year Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, announced the integration of their armed forces, under the control of the Bundeswehr. In doing so, the will follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr's Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr's 1st Armored Division.

    In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire military sovereignty, which it currently lacks.

    Europe is thus at a crossroads: the choice that left-wing and popular forces, and periphery countries more generally, face is between (a) accepting Europe's transition to a fully post-democratic, hyper-competitive, German-led continental system, in which member states (except for those at the helm of the project) will be deprived of all sovereignty and autonomy, in exchange for a formal democratic façade at the supranational level, and its workers subject to ever-growing levels of exploitation; or (b) regaining national sovereignty and autonomy at the national level, with all the short-term risks that such a strategy entails, as the only way to restore democracy, popular sovereignty and socioeconomic dignity. In short, the choice is between European post-democracy or post-European democracy.

    There is no third way. Especially in view of the growing tensions between Germany, the US and China, periphery countries should ask themselves if they want to be simple pawns in this 'New Great Game' or if they want to take their destinies into their own hands.

    -- -

    Some portions of this article previously appeared in this article published by Green European Journal. Thomas Fazi is the co-author (with William Mitchell) of Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World (Pluto, 2017).

    [Jan 22, 2018] Ivanka Trump Told by Steve Bannon: 'You're Just Another Staffer Who Doesn't Know What You're Doing,' New Book Claims by Melina Delkic

    Jan 22, 2018 | www.yahoo.com

    January 22, 2018

    Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once told Ivanka Trump: "You're just another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," according to a new book.

    Related: Ivanka Trump's "special place in hell" for child predators comment trolls Roy Moore rally

    Bannon, who has long critiqued and clashed with Ivanka's and her husband Jared Kushner's roles in the White House, tried to put the president's daughter in her place in one instance detailed in the book.

    "My daughter loves me as a dad...You love your dad. I get that. But you're just another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," Bannon said, The Washington Post reported when it published excerpts on Monday.


    The revelation is part of the latest book about life inside the White House. Howard Kurtz, host of the Fox News show Media Buzz, wrote the book Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press, And The War Over The Truth, set to be released on January 29.

    The new book, though perhaps not as sensational as the explosive tell-all Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, contains several new alleged revelations about the administration. Along with reports of the turbulent relationship between Ivanka Trump and Bannon, are claims that the president himself leaked information to journalists, that his aides referred to his behavior as "defiance disorder" and that his staff was "blindsided" when he accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones.

    [Jan 22, 2018] Defiance Disorder Another new book describes chaos in Trump s White House by Ashley Parker

    Beware of a strategist who watch how tigers fight in the valley from a safe top of the mountain ~ Shota Rustaveli (c. 1160-after c. 1220
    "Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided," to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the campaign." -- What a blatant lie, there are tons of evidence that this was the fact. the author desrctied himslef as an establishment stooge.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided," to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the campaign. ..."
    "... "Nobody in the White House quite knew what to do," Kurtz writes. ..."
    "... Priebus watched as his phone exploded with email and text messages, according to the excerpts. "Priebus knew the staff would have to fall into line to prove the tweet correct, the opposite of the usual process of vetting proposed pronouncements," Kurtz writes. "Once the president had committed to 140 characters, he was not going to back off." ..."
    Jan 21, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

    In late July, the White House had just finished an official policy review on transgender individuals serving in the military and President Trump and his then-chief of staff, Reince Priebus, had agreed to meet in the Oval Office to discuss the four options awaiting the president in a decision memo.

    But then Trump unexpectedly preempted the conversation and sent his entire administration scrambling, by tweeting out his own decision -- that the government would not allow transgender individuals to serve -- just moments later.

    " 'Oh my God, he just tweeted this,' " Priebus said, according to a new book by Howard Kurtz, who hosts Fox News's "Media Buzz." There was, Kurtz writes, "no longer a need for the meeting."

    The White House -- and the politerati diaspora -- has just barely stopped reeling from author Michael Wolff's account of life in Trump's West Wing, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," and now another life-in-the-White-House book is about to drop, this one from Kurtz.

    Like the books that came before it, and almost certainly like the ones still to come, Kurtz's book, "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press, And The War Over The Truth," offers a portrait of a White House riven by chaos, with aides scrambling to respond to the president's impulses and writing policy to fit his tweets, according to excerpts obtained by The Washington Post.

    Kurtz, who worked at The Post from 1981 to 2010, writes that Trump's aides even privately coined a term for Trump's behavior -- "Defiance Disorder." The phrase refers to Trump's seeming compulsion to do whatever it is his advisers are most strongly urging against, leaving his team to handle the fallout.

    The book officially hits stores Jan. 29.

    Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided," to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the campaign.

    "Nobody in the White House quite knew what to do," Kurtz writes.

    Priebus watched as his phone exploded with email and text messages, according to the excerpts. "Priebus knew the staff would have to fall into line to prove the tweet correct, the opposite of the usual process of vetting proposed pronouncements," Kurtz writes. "Once the president had committed to 140 characters, he was not going to back off."

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 22, 2018] NYT settles upon brilliant strategy for manipulating Trump Insult his intelligence by Steve Sailer

    NYT is borrowing the ideas from Wolff's book...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times is trying to convince Trump that he is being betrayed by his staffers John Kelly and Stephen Miller ..."
    "... But, his favorite NYT reporter also can't help herself from insulting Trump. ..."
    Jan 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

    The New York Times is trying to convince Trump that he is being betrayed by his staffers John Kelly and Stephen Miller:

    A President Not Sure of What He Wants Complicates the Shutdown Impasse
    By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and MAGGIE HABERMAN JAN. 21, 2018

    WASHINGTON -- When President Trump mused last year about protecting immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, calling them "these incredible kids," aides implored him privately to stop talking about them so sympathetically.

    When he batted around the idea of granting them citizenship over a Chinese dinner at the White House last year with Democratic leaders, Mr. Trump's advisers quickly drew up a list of hard-line demands to send to Capitol Hill that they said must be included in any such plan.

    And twice over the past two weeks, Mr. Trump has privately told lawmakers he is eager to strike a deal to extend legal status to the so-called Dreamers, only to have his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, make clear afterward that such a compromise was not really in the offing -- unless it also included a host of stiffer immigration restrictions.

    But, his favorite NYT reporter also can't help herself from insulting Trump.

    ... ... ...

    Great strategy, NYT. The surest way to get Donald Trump to side with what you demand for the good of the Democratic Party electing a new electorate is to insult his intelligence.

    Your strategy is foolproof! There's nothing Trump like more than being played for a fool. What could possibly go wrong?

    YetAnotherAnon , January 22, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT
    There's a lot of media focus on Miller atm, the thrust being that Miller is Bannon* 2.0, riding on the coat tails of The Great Deal-Maker (formerly the New Hitler, but that didn't work) to push his own agenda.

    They're hoping that Trump won't like a staffer getting more attention than he does and will say "you're fired". The same thing will happen to any Trump appointment who looks like they want to implement the platform Trump ran on.

    * AFAIK Bannon wasn't actually doing that, but it's the Narrative.

    PS – BBC only ever quote Flake or Ryan when they want a "Republican" view.

    dearieme , January 22, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT
    OT: while y'all rightly shake with apprehension at what the next skullduggery from the FBI, CIA, or NSA might be, cheer yourselves up by contemplating the incompetence of the people involved. They're such mugs that a 15-year old can dance rings around their security procedures.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5290787/Boy-15-posed-head-CIA-secret-files.html

    Still, it doesn't seem to inhibit the FBI from murdering US citizens, staging a slow-motion coup against a President, or manfully saving the USA from a terrorist attack on 9/11. Hang on; the latter would have called for competence

    [Jan 22, 2018] Who's Lying FBI Says 5 Months Of Texts Lost, Yet IG Horowitz Says His Office Received Them In August

    Notable quotes:
    "... And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA director in history by CIA employees. ..."
    "... The UK Govt appears to be complicit in the overthrow of the newly elected US Govt..........Team Globalist ..."
    "... as I noted my beliefs before. Trump can be goofy at times. can be a walking ego at times. but he does not have an inherently evil heart. So he never fully comprehends the evil hearted person or collection of persons. ..."
    "... He is a great marketer, but he is not a brilliant war strategist, because he doesn't fully understand the heart of his enemy. Example: He thought laying off of Hillary after the election was actually the gentlemanly thing to do....because, he thought she'd accept defeat and leave the playing field. (we on ZH knew better, but Trump actually didn't know) ..."
    "... So now we know the real purpose of the FBI Trump investigation, to give Mueller and his band of merry Clinton-Lawyers the opportunity clean up the evidence. ..."
    "... First, the backups are at the NSA and the Telco systems. 2nd, I'd ask WHO ELSE in the FBI was affected by lack of backups for such long period, AND how does that other impact ongoing investigations... If the answer is just those 2, well, follow the money. If the answer is more than these 2, than the credibility of the entire FBI is at stake. Which may not be much, but that is the only thing left at the moment. ..."
    "... By the way, for non-techie out there, the FBI's excuse is that they couldn't get the software upgrade done right. If you work in a big company, you know how much testing and disturbance goes on before new software is rolled out. There is no such thing as a serious bug left running for months. Big companies just roll back in such extreme cases. Now imagine the amount of testing that goes on for secure phone on FBI systems. LOL. I suggest my american friends to look at this great invention called the guillotine? ..."
    Jan 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    A major contradiction has been discovered between yesterday's revelation that the FBI "lost" five months of text messages, and a claim by the DOJ's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz - who claimed his office received the texts in question between FBI employees Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page last August.

    ... ... ...

    Knowledge of the missing texts was revealed in a Saturday letter from Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) - after the Committee received an additional 384 pages of text messages between Strzok and Page, several of which contained anti-Trump / pro-Clinton bias. The new DOJ submission included a cover letter from the Assistant AG for Legislative Affairs, Stephen Boyd, claiming that the FBI was unable to preserve text messages between the two agents for a five month period between December 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017 - due to "misconfiguration issues" with FBI-issued Samsung 5 devices used by Strzok and Page (despite over 10,000 texts which were recovered from their devices without incident).

    However - as the Gateway Pundit 's Josh Caplan points out , the lost text messages are in direct contradiction to a December 13, 2017 letter from the DOJ's internal watchdog - Inspector General Michael Horowitz, to Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley and HSGAC Chairman Ron Johnson, in which he claims he received the texts in question on August 10, 2017 .

    In gathering evidence for the OIG's ongoing 2016 election review, we requested, consistent with standard practice, that the FBI produce text messages from the FBI-issued phones of certain FBI employees involved in the Clinton email investigation based on search terms we provided. After finding a number of politically-oriented text messages between Page and Strzok, the OIG sought from the FBI all text messages between Strzok and Page from their FBI-issued phones through November 30, 2016 , which covered the entire period of the Clinton e-mail server investigation. The FBI produced these text messages on July 20, 2017. Following our review of those text messages, the OIG expanded our request to the FBI to include all text messages between Strzok and Page from November 30, 2016, through the date of the document request, which was July 28, 2017.

    The OIG received these additional messages on August 10, 2017.

    This glaring contradiction suggests someone is lying or perhaps simply incompetent. Did Horowitz's office *think* they had received the texts in question without actually verifying? Did the DOJ screw up and fail to read Horowitz's letter before "losing" the text messages so that "leaky" Congressional investigators wouldn't see them? Either way, this question needs answering.

    While you can draw your own conclusions, keep in mind that Inspector Horowitz has been described as your archetypical Boy Scout bureaucrat - who as we reported two weeks ago - fought the Obama administation to restore powers taken away from the OIG by then-Attorney General, Eric Holder.

    After a multi-year battle, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) successfully introduced H.R.6450 - the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .

    And Congress has been very engaged with Horowitz's investigation; spoon-feeding the OIG all the questions they need in order to nail the DOJ, FBI and the Obama Administration for what many believe to be egregious abuses of power. As such, the OIG report is expected to be a bombshell , while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel to launch an official criminal investigation into the matter.

    As illustrated below, the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    At this point, Horowitz's office needs to clarify whether or not they indeed took delivery of the "lost" text messages. If the OIG does indeed have them, it will be interesting to get to the bottom of exactly what the DOJ claims happened, and particularly juicy if they're caught in a lie.

    CuttingEdge -> Four Star Jan 22, 2018 9:39 AM Permalink

    If not found at the NSA, surely the texts will still be at Verizon or whichever SP the phones operate under. Only talking 18 months here. What really cracks me up is "Peter Strzok - Head of Counter Intelligence." Really? Has a dumber cunt ever graced the 7th floor of the Hoover Building?

    Speaking of which, by the time this shit has gone down in it's entirety, they won't need a 7th floor. Chris Wray will be bloody lonely up there on his own. Probably coinciding with the search for Andrew McCabe's missing pension beginning in earnest...

    BennyBoy -> CuttingEdge Jan 22, 2018 9:41 AM Permalink

    Who's Lying: FBI Says 5 Months Of Texts "Lost," Yet IG Horowitz Says His Office Received Them In August

    FBI: OOPS!

    SethPoor -> BennyBoy Jan 22, 2018 9:47 AM Permalink
    Jim in MN -> SethPoor Jan 22, 2018 9:52 AM Permalink

    Bottom Line: The party in power used the apparatus of the police state to spy on and damage an opposition candidate. There really isn't a higher crime in our supposed system. THEN there's the cover-up.....as in deleting files and pretending you never had them even though the IG already does.

    mtl4 -> Jim in MN Jan 22, 2018 10:53 AM Permalink

    This used to be the reason why each new gov't as soon as it took power would toss out any folks showing any alignment to a party at all.........guess they knew a thing or two back then, didn't they. Time for Trump to warm up those Apprentice vocal chords and start uttering his famous words. At the current rate Nixon will be exonerated by the end of 2018.

    teolawki -> Jim in MN Jan 22, 2018 11:38 AM Permalink

    Could the treason be any more obvious? And not just treason, but treason in collaboration with foreign governments and multinational corporate elitists!

    teolawki -> Jim in MN Jan 22, 2018 11:42 AM Permalink

    "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." President George Washington Farewell Address | Saturday, September 17, 1796

    MK ULTRA Alpha -> SethPoor Jan 22, 2018 10:22 AM Permalink

    I read about this, it was quickly brushed under the rug. Didn't know it was as extensive because media coverage on this angle hasn't been clear. Good report.

    And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA director in history by CIA employees.

    Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump. It would explain Clappers irrational statements about Trump, sabotage and incitement of government employees not to follow Trump's orders. We got that from Clapper, Brennan and former CIA director Hayden. All three have joined forces in LA, using celebrities to continue the coup against Trump. They formed, essentially a convert political action group using celebrities, to make their case in the media. It's illogical for Clapper to continue with the coup, there is no reward in it unless, he is guilty of treason and must continue the coup to protect himself. In other words, this isn't for Hillary Clinton.

    Occams_Razor_Trader -> MK ULTRA Alpha Jan 22, 2018 11:12 AM Permalink

    And we wonder why these "intelligence agencies" endorse Hillary for President? These fuckers need to hang. They not only conspired to excuse the email scandal, torpedoed Sanders in the primary -- and were conspiring against her political opponent. President Trump the time is NOW!

    William Dorritt -> SethPoor Jan 22, 2018 11:46 AM Permalink

    ************ HAIL HYDRA **************

    Nice write up, keep improving, updating and posting it. The UK Govt appears to be complicit in the overthrow of the newly elected US Govt..........Team Globalist

    CatInTheHat -> NoDebt Jan 22, 2018 10:44 AM Permalink

    They ARE ALL in on it. ALL of them are guilty of TREASON, SEDITION. Republicans didn't want Trump in power at first...until they realized Trump, as Mitch McConnell said, "He'll sign anything we put in front of him." If you want to know what is being done on Trump Administration end. Just watch SESSIONS. Right now, Sessions has bigger fish to fry with weed smokers.

    ZIOCONS have an invested interest in Russia gate: to win public support for a war on Russia. Russiagate is WMD all over again. It's why Trump does ZERO about Russia gate, while arming neonazis in the Ukraine and surrounding Russia and China's borders with US and NATO troops.

    N. Korea isn't about N. Korea but about regime change to put nukes on China's doorstep. Look at what they are or are not doing. Not what they SAY..

    WillyGroper -> FoggyWorld Jan 22, 2018 11:26 AM Permalink

    i disagree. they're digging their hole deeper. it's ALL already been captured. everything going on is to keep us off balance & emotional. don't feed the beast.

    Antifaschistische -> NoDebt Jan 22, 2018 12:16 PM Permalink

    as I noted my beliefs before. Trump can be goofy at times. can be a walking ego at times. but he does not have an inherently evil heart. So he never fully comprehends the evil hearted person or collection of persons.

    He is a great marketer, but he is not a brilliant war strategist, because he doesn't fully understand the heart of his enemy. Example: He thought laying off of Hillary after the election was actually the gentlemanly thing to do....because, he thought she'd accept defeat and leave the playing field. (we on ZH knew better, but Trump actually didn't know)

    Bannon understood but wires got crossed there somehow. Kellyanne Conway understood. Sessions is a fine gentleman that appears to have no clue the battle that is really waging.

    Most of the Washington VIPs that DO understand, are more interested in preserving their membership in the country club than saving America. This is why I like Trump...because he already has a country club and doesn't need to get invited to another party and doesn't really care about those scumbags. He just needs to understand a little bit more.

    Bush Baby -> eclectic syncretist Jan 22, 2018 9:28 AM Permalink

    So now we know the real purpose of the FBI Trump investigation, to give Mueller and his band of merry Clinton-Lawyers the opportunity clean up the evidence.

    virgule -> Bush Baby Jan 22, 2018 9:48 AM Permalink

    First, the backups are at the NSA and the Telco systems. 2nd, I'd ask WHO ELSE in the FBI was affected by lack of backups for such long period, AND how does that other impact ongoing investigations... If the answer is just those 2, well, follow the money. If the answer is more than these 2, than the credibility of the entire FBI is at stake. Which may not be much, but that is the only thing left at the moment.

    By the way, for non-techie out there, the FBI's excuse is that they couldn't get the software upgrade done right. If you work in a big company, you know how much testing and disturbance goes on before new software is rolled out. There is no such thing as a serious bug left running for months. Big companies just roll back in such extreme cases. Now imagine the amount of testing that goes on for secure phone on FBI systems. LOL. I suggest my american friends to look at this great invention called the guillotine?

    bloofer -> GunnerySgtHartman Jan 22, 2018 10:43 AM Permalink

    I thought all deleted materials could be recovered from any hard drive, unless something like BleachBit is used, or the hard drive is physically destroyed. If the FBI lacks the expertise to recover the materials, may a team of IT specialists should be sent in to help them.

    ultramaroon -> bloofer Jan 22, 2018 12:17 PM Permalink

    There are magnetic traces left behind even after several passes of a "zero-fill" utility or pseudo-random over-writes. There are commercial companies whose business it is to recover such data. I recovered data for the Sheriff's department from a computer involved in a murder case. A company I worked for lost a Dell 96-drive array when just the right 3 drives died at the same time. A data recovery company got everything back and sold us our own data (and that's on a RAID 10 striped and mirrored array with 3 crashed drives).

    They can get any data back if they want to badly enough.

    [Jan 22, 2018] Top FBI, DOJ Officials Use Drug-Cartel-Style Burner Phones to Dodge Federal Investigators, Lawmakers

    That's a really fishy development. Like a mafia running inside FBI ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via: ..."
    "... Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money order ..."
    "... Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous texting ..."
    "... Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of federal subpoenas ..."
    "... Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of federal laws, insiders said. ..."
    "... With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders confirm. ..."
    "... "The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public scandals. ..."
    "... "It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the FBI source said. "They have switched to burners." ..."
    "... The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations. ..."
    Jan 22, 2018 | truepundit.com

    Members of the FBI and Justice Department's top brass at their Washington D.C.headquarters and other field offices are now using burner phones to stay under the radar of federal investigators and lawmakers, according to FBI insiders.

    The shocking revelations come on the heels of news that the FBI deleted thousands of text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents before investigators could review their content.

    While that is disturbing on one level, FBI and DOJ hierarchy employing the telecom habits of drug cartel bosses reaches a new low for the once-heralded federal law enforcement agency and the DOJ. And breaks federal laws as well.

    Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via:

    Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of federal laws, insiders said.

    But that hasn't slowed their use by top law enforcement personnel in the United States.

    With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders confirm.

    "The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public scandals.

    One of the main reasons why the Inspector General's report of its investigation of the FBI has been delayed is because investigators keep getting wiretap intelligence on the key players, the FBI official said.

    "It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the FBI source said. "They have switched to burners."

    Multiple FBI and federal law enforcement sources disclosed earlier that the IG was running wiretaps on FBI and DOJ officials to True Pundit but requested an embargo on publishing the information which would interfere with the investigation. True Pundit agreed to withhold until given the green light to publish.

    The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.

    The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

    "The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI's technical system for retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page," Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of HSGAC.

    He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.

    Boyd attributed the failure to "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities."

    "The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected," Boyd wrote.

    [Jan 22, 2018] Comey to teach ethical leadership course at William Mary

    Jan 22, 2018 | thehill.com

    Former FBI Director James Comey has landed a teaching gig at his alma mater, the College of William & Mary, and will join the ranks of the school's teaching faculty this fall with a course on ethical leadership.

    The Washington Post reports that Comey has accepted a nontenured position as an executive professor in education with the school, and will teach the course on ethical leadership in fall 2018, spring 2019 and summer 2019 semesters.

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... But, according to the letter, the FBI told the department that its system for retaining text messages sent and received on bureau phones had failed to preserve communications between Strzok and Page over a five-month period between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 7, 2017. The explanation for the gap was "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities." ..."
    "... Technical glitches obviously do happen but I can't help getting a bit of a Lois Lerner flashback upon hearing that five months of messages are missing from the time right after Trump was elected until 10 days before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. So if you were hoping for any follow up on that comment about an insurance policy, it looks like you can forget it. That's a well-timed glitch. ..."
    "... But it seems the DOJ did turn over some additional texts that are worth considering. One involves an early draft of the Comey memo clearing Hillary Clinton. Originally the draft pointed out that Clinton had exchanged emails with President Obama while she was "on the territory" of a hostile power. Eventually, Obama's name was scrubbed from the document and finally all reference to the incident was removed. So that's one more example of the statement being watered down over time. And finally there is this : ..."
    "... In another exchange, the two express displeasure about the timing of Lynch's announcement that she would defer to the FBI's judgment on the Clinton investigation. That announcement came days after it was revealed that the attorney general and former President Bill Clinton had an impromptu meeting aboard her plane in Phoenix, though both sides said the email investigation was never discussed ..."
    "... Strzok said in a July 1 text message that the timing of Lynch's announcement "looks like hell." And Page appears to mockingly refer to Lynch's decision to accept the FBI's conclusion in the case as a "real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought ..."
    "... Comey himself had suggested Lynch appeared biased in the email probe and that he felt the need to act independently from her. ..."
    "... "And she said, 'Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter,'" Mr. Comey continued. "And I said, 'Why would I do that?' And she said, 'Just call it a matter.'" ..."
    "... Mr. Comey said the "conclusive" episode that persuaded him to make his own announcement in the Clinton investigation rather than leave it to Ms. Lynch came last June, when former President Bill Clinton spontaneously boarded her plane on a tarmac and sat down to talk with her. ..."
    "... So the story was that Lynch was biased (she was) but that Comey acted to protect the independence of the investigation. In fact, Lynch knew what Comey was going to say days before he said it. ..."
    Jan 22, 2018 | hotair.com

    The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch .

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 21, 2018] Mifsud Offering Alu Tubes to Papadopoulos?

    Looks like another false flag operation , now with the participation of Italian intelligence services.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence Agency. See more information from the Link Campus based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ... ..."
    "... "We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," ..."
    "... "We have respected the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on vital contemporary issues." ..."
    "... "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." ..."
    "... "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world." ..."
    "... Prince Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said Prince Turki , who also served as his country's envoy to Britain and the US. ..."
    "... ... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador to the United States. ..."
    Jan 21, 2018 | www.boomantribune.com

    Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence Agency. See more information from the Link Campus based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ...

    [The Maltese government send a warning to Colonel Gaddafi when the F-111 fighter bombers were en route to Libya in the 1980s.]

    Partenariats of EDOF

    EDOF & the Link Campus Foundation
    Establishing the Essam & Dalal Obaid Foundation Centre for War and Peace Studies at Link Campus University in Rome.

    The EDOF Centre will work closely with the various interdisciplinary academic departments at the Link Campus University as well as with international governments and organizations in order to support experts, academics, researchers, diplomats, governments, and civil society activists in their attempts to help countries in conflict, crisis and transition around the world. The Partnership Agreement was signed in Rome on May 8, 2017.

    "We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," said EDOF's CEO, Dr. Nawaf Obaid . "We have respected the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on vital contemporary issues."

    Professor Joseph Mefsud will be appointed the Founding Director of the Centre for a period of three years. Scholarships and bursaries will be allocated in the field of War and Peace studies. The Centre will also hold international seminars and conferences, produce research publications, and appoint Senior Fellows in the field of War and Peace studies.

    According to Tarek Obaid ( 1 ), Founder of EDOF, "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." It will achieve this by having three areas of concentration: training, mentoring, and providing platforms for professional and expert seminars; building up the capacity of institutions and civic groups; and working with independent and official partners to remove barriers to free expression, robust public debate and open citizen engagement. "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world."

    [( 1 ) Source: Sarawak Report ]

    Belfer Center - Nawaf Obaid Biography

    Nawaf Obaid is the Visiting Fellow for Intelligence & Defense Projects at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He is also a weekly columnist for the pan-Arab daily, Al Hayat Newspaper.

    He is currently the CEO of the Essam and Dalal Obaid Foundation (EDOF).

    From 2004 to 2007, he was Special Advisor for Strategic Communications to Prince Turki Al Faisal , while Prince Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom & Ireland, and then the United States. And from 2007 to 2011, he worked with the Saudi Royal Court, where he was seconded as a Special Advisor to the Saudi Information Minister. Most recently, he served as the Special Counselor to the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 2011 to 2015.

    Joseph Mifsud: Brexit: stepping off a cliff or indipendence day?

    Il 20 marzo alle ore 10:30 presso l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University, si è tenuto il convegno "Brexit: stepping off a cliff or indipendence day?"

    Il convegno determina il primo atto di una collaborazione italo-britannica post Brexit, ed è stato organizzato in occasione della firma del Protocollo d'intesa tra l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University e la London School of Economics and Political Science, tenutasi lo stesso giorno nella sede dell'università romana.

    Sono intervenuti: Franco Frattini - Presidente del Corso in Studi Strategici e Scienze Diplomatiche e Presidente della SIOI, Vincenzo Scotti - Presidente dell'Università degli Studi Link Campus University, Michael Cox - Direttore della LSE IDEAS e Professore di Relazioni Internazionali presso la LSE.

    ○ Link Campus University - Vincenzo Scotti, President
    ○ Portrait of a Political Leader: Vincenzo Scotti

    Linked to Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal ...

    ○ Hariri Caught In Sudairi Power Struggle - US Policy
    ○ Iranian dissident does not believe in 'Saudi ambassador' plot

    Prince Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said Prince Turki , who also served as his country's envoy to Britain and the US.

    ...
    Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador to the United States.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Remarks from Robert Mueller III

    Looks like Mueller has strong connections to CIA and according to Brennan is his personal friend. This glowing introduction by none other then Brenner rises several questions. One is did CIA controlled Mueller during his tenure of FBI director.
    The fact the Muller was in charge after 9/11 attacks rases additional questions.
    Jun 20, 2014 | www.youtube.com

    LazyJack2003 , 1 month ago

    "In Mueller we trust!"

    Kathy Collins

    Listening to this, I feel very confident that Mr. Mueller will be able to get to the very bottom of the Russian investigation. I think he is probably three or more steps ahead of any tricks our "President" might try. This man is a head chess player.

    Ash Pro

    No wonder Trump and co are scared of this man. He is gonna take the whole thing down.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Brennan Calls For Coup Against Trump if Mueller is Fired

    Jan 21, 2018 | www.trunews.com

    On Friday at the Aspen Security Forum former CIA director John Brennan said senior officials in the executive branch should refuse the order if President Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller

    (VERO BEACH, FL) Speaking on a panel to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer with former DNI chief James Clapper, John Brennan effectively called for a coup against the president if he should give the order to fire the DOJ appointed investigator.

    "I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," Mr. Brennan said . "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future.

    "If he's fired by Mr. Trump, or is attempted to be fired by Mr. Trump, I hope, I really hope that our members of congress, our elected representatives, will stand up and say enough is enough, and stop making apologies and excuses for things that are happening that really flaunt, I think, our system of laws and government here," Mr. Brennan said.

    The editorial staff of ZeroHedge, an influential global blog which covers politics, economics, and war from a libertarian perspective, also concluded that Mr. Brennan's statement was "effectively calling for a coup" should President Trump give the order to fire Mr. Mueller.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Brennan Officials should refuse Trump if he fires Mueller Daily Mail Online

    Jul 25, 2017 | www.educationviews.org

    CIA's former boss calls on government officials to refuse to obey Trump if he fires Mueller

    [Jan 21, 2018] FBI, Mueller, Rosenstein, Strzok, Comey, Brennan, McCabe: Up to Their Gills in Collusion by Donna Garner

    Dec 05, 2017 | www.educationviews.org

    12.5.17

    From May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017, Robert Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7 Million of taxpayers' dollars. In seven months, no solid evidence has been produced to prove that Pres. Trump colluded with the Russians to impact the elections. The budget for Mueller's investigation was approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- 12.5.17 –"Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7M in four months – May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017" – Fox News -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/muellers-russia-probe-spent-nearly-7m-in-first-few-months.html

    =============

    12.5.17 –"Fired FBI official at center of Flynn, Clinton, dossier controversies revealed" – by Nicole Darrah, Pamela K. Browne – Fox News -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/fired-fbi-official-at-center-flynn-clinton-dossier-controversies-revealed.html

    Excerpts from this article:

    Now there's a face to go with the name of the biased FBI operative at the center of multiple probes and controversies dogging the Trump administration.

    Fox News has obtained a photo of Peter Strzok, the longtime FBI deputy fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his bias against President Trump. Strzok (pronounced "Struck"), was sacked by Mueller after electronic messages he reportedly sent to a colleague emerged, but not before he played key roles in the probes swirling around Trump.

    Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, oversaw the bureau's interviews with ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, changed former FBI Director James Comey's early draft language about Hillary Clinton's actions regarding her private email server from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" and reportedly helped push the largely unverified dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.

    Strzok's messages were reportedly not only anti-Trump, but also pro-Hillary. That has raised the ire of critics because, prior to joining Mueller's probe, he made edits to Comey's speech exonerating Hillary Clinton.

    The language being edited was important because classified material that's been mishandled for "gross negligence" calls for criminal consequences, analysts point out.

    The wording change came to light last month after newly reported memos to Congress showed that a May 2016 draft of Comey's statement closing out the email investigation accused the former secretary of state of being "grossly negligent." A June 2016 draft stated Clinton had been "extremely careless."

    The modified language was final when Comey announced in July 2016 that Clinton wouldn't face any charges in the email investigation.

    A source close to the matter told Fox News that the probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."

    =======

    12.3.17 – "Mueller aide fired for anti-Trump texts now facing review for role in Clinton email probe" -- By James Rosen, Jake Gibson -- FoxNews -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/03/mueller-aide-fired-for-anti-trump-texts-now-facing-review-for-role-in-clinton-email-probe.html

    Excerpts from this article

    EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

    The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.

    As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.

    Key figure

    House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

    The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.

    Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.

    In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.

    While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators

    When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress.

    Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday

    Contempt citations?

    Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.

    "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.

    Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the Senate panel.

    In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.

    Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.

    A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?"

    Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Poeoshenko failed to imagine the situation a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now. Failing to resolve the Donbass crisis now might create much worse situation in the future

    Notable quotes:
    "... Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now ..."
    "... The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning for the good old days. ..."
    Jan 21, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    English Outsider -> Babak Makkinejad... 21 January 2018 at 11:18 AM


    Babak - "The only sensible thing to do is to cut and run; in my opinion. Just work through the implications as US cuts and run in the Levant, in the Persian Gulf, in South Korea."

    As you point out, that could have unexpected effects. We saw what happened when a previous dominant power - Great Britain, though by no means as overwhelmingly dominant and not at all so at the end - effectively cut and ran after the Second World War. It ended up more of a mess than it started out as.

    Even in an ideal world, a world in which the current style of Great Power politics was universally abandoned, the sudden withdrawal of the US would cause instability and chaos. The disengagement would have to be gradual.

    But there is no such ideal world as that and there will not be. Therefore the sudden withdrawal of the US would leave a power vacuum that others would fill.

    What others? Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now .

    The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning for the good old days.

    I'm one of those that still hope that the non-interventionist policy that was voted for in America in 2016 will be carried through. But if that is indeed Trump's intention then there is more in his way than local political or administrative difficulties. To engineer such a transition would require great care. It's no good if the US just steps back and worse comes forward to take its place.

    It's not overly idealistic, or even that unrealistic, to hope for a world in which defense forces (AND defensive alliances) are used for the proper purpose of defence and not for expensive and destructive enterprises dreamed up by some bubble elite. That's part of what Trump 2016 was about. But getting to such a world would require a considerably more careful transition than we've seen in similar circumstances in the past.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Syria - Turks Attack Afrin, U.S. Strategy Fails, Kurds Again Chose The Losing Side

    There are some analogies here with the recent Poroshenko government desire to take Donbass area back by military force.
    Notable quotes:
    "... How will this breakup of Syrian national territory affect the situation between the Donbass region and the Ukraine junta? ..."
    "... True and very sad. The Syrians have been caught in the crossfire since the beginning. We have theorized over the various causes of the war, but, in the end, when the superpowers are hanging around, Syrians are the first row of pieces to be sacrificed. ..."
    "... The Afrin war plays several roles. It will demonize and demoralize further the 'independentist' Kurds, awake the nationalist Turkish feeling by displaying military power that has been damaged by the coup, boost the Islamist flame among the rural Turks so the Turks can forget about their grudge over the EU and the declining buying power. ..."
    "... All the actors are tributaries flowing into the main river, and all moving in the same general direction, because the river is actually the tide of history. All players are advancing to meet their inevitable destinie ..."
    Jan 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    BRF , Jan 21, 2018 10:28:49 AM | 17

    Let me see if I understand all this? The Erdogan Turks fully back the terrorists in Syria aiming to dislodge the Assad Syrian government. The USA et al fully backs the same.

    The USA also backs the PKK/YPG Kurd faction in Syria as a means to at least break up Syrian national territory, as originally in their plans, even if they do remove the Assad government as originally planned.

    Erdogan has wanted to expand Turkey's national boundaries at the expense of Syria's. This latest encroachment, as with Euphrates Shield, accomplishes this goal especially if they can subsume their terrorist proxies occupied areas in Idlib Province as the USA has by using their newest Kurd proxies in eastern Syria. Erdogan need only create some new proxy (Turkmen?) and go after the terrorists and Kurds in western Syria. No doubt with American help.

    Erdogan and the USA disagree only on what future the Kurdish people will play in the eastern territories of Syria and Turkey. So what will be the necessary accommodation between them?

    If a Kurdish state is declared and backed by NATO and a UN resolution what if anything can Syria and her allies do about it as war is simply out of the question.

    How will this breakup of Syrian national territory affect the situation between the Donbass region and the Ukraine junta?

    NemesisCalling , Jan 21, 2018 1:41:54 PM | 37
    This would not be some devious plot by Turks/US to prolong the war in Syria and give cover to send more troops in ... troops that never leave? The whole thing seems a bit too ... convenient.

    Posted by: GoraDiva | Jan 21, 2018 1:22:57 PM | 35

    @35 E

    True and very sad. The Syrians have been caught in the crossfire since the beginning. We have theorized over the various causes of the war, but, in the end, when the superpowers are hanging around, Syrians are the first row of pieces to be sacrificed.

    And I would never put my faith in any international community ruling after Syria. We are in uncharted territory, I believe. Dance with the one you came with and if you have to stand on Putin's toes to keep up, then hold him close.

    "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." -- Thucydides

    Can we got off this stupid ride, yet?

    William Rood , Jan 21, 2018 2:03:05 PM | 41
    "These oilfields seem to be the big prize and one of the main reasons the US wants to hold onto this corner of Syria."

    Posted by: financial matters | Jan 21, 2018 10:37:30 AM | 18

    The goal of the MIC and Deep State is just to keep the chaos going as long as possible to sell arms and benefit careers. However, Trump has been enticed to go along with it by the promise that the US will "take their oil."

    Don Wiscacho , Jan 21, 2018 3:21:35 PM | 47

    @ William Rood re: Kurds who can't speak Arabic

    You may be correct that those Kurds aren't Syrian, but not necessarily so. The areas of Syria that have actually had Kurdish, or for instance Armenian, majorities have enjoyed a large measure of de facto autonomy, which has only increased in the last 20 years. So while nominally required to use Arabic in schools, if the school is staffed with Kurdish teachers and administrators with Kurdish students, there is little to stop them from simply teaching in Kurdish. Or Armenian, or Aramaic, etc.

    Frank , Jan 21, 2018 5:13:08 PM | 56
    We had wrongly predicted that Turkish threats against the Kurdish held north-west area of Afrin were empty:
    Maybe not. Maybe your first analysis was correct. If the Kurdish militias do fight, it will take many weeks, and lead to substantial Turkish losses. So it is really too early to say that Erdogan will attempt to conquer Afrin no matter the cost, and too early to say that the US will not put effective pressure on Erdogan, or offer him some sort of deal.

    So far, Erdogan has upped the ante, but he hasn't gone all in.

    virgile , Jan 21, 2018 6:03:49 PM | 60
    Erdogan is obsessed by keeping power and winning his re election in 2018 or 2019 . To get that, he needs to neutralize the Turkish Kurds who don't vote for him. Sunni conservative Kurds worship Erdogan for his promotion of Sunni Islam. For them Islam is the unifying factor of Turks especially Sunni Islam. They all vote for the AKP.

    Erdogan has emasculated the burgeoning liberal Kurdish party, the HDP, by demonizing the liberal Kurds and throwing its leader in prison just to get more votes in the previous parliamentary election that he reran to win with a very small margin.

    For the next election, he is very worried about the growth of other centrist parties, the weakness of his ally the MHP, a nationalist party archi-enemy of the Kurds and about the insatisfaction of the Turks with the deteriorating relation with the EU and the fall of the lira.

    The Afrin war plays several roles. It will demonize and demoralize further the 'independentist' Kurds, awake the nationalist Turkish feeling by displaying military power that has been damaged by the coup, boost the Islamist flame among the rural Turks so the Turks can forget about their grudge over the EU and the declining buying power.

    The question is will he win fast enough not to create the impression of failure and a quagmire that would reflect negatively on his voters? And what will be the aftermath of Afrin? early elections?

    Grieved , Jan 21, 2018 6:52:02 PM | 66
    I agree with everyone!

    It's a multiple win-win, a great demonstration of congruent interests all doing their own thing. Lots of things remain to play out. But there are no downsides to this situation, no matter who holds what piece of Syrian territory for what temporary short time.

    All the actors are tributaries flowing into the main river, and all moving in the same general direction, because the river is actually the tide of history. All players are advancing to meet their inevitable destinies: Turkey moves closer to Russia, and closer, despite much bad blood, to restoring the friendship between itself and Syria (over time); the Kurds get their final lesson about the perfidious US and settle into their lands in Syria, as Syrians; Dr. Assad gets his entire country back for his people (over time); terrorists die; the US is further marginalized and its generals scream mayhem, in words only.

    Great update, b - thanks!

    [Jan 21, 2018] MoA - Sundry - Shutdown, Ukraine, Omidyar And Syria

    Jan 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The Ukrainian Parliament has practically declared the Minsk agreements null and void and decided to militarily "liberate" Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea from the will of the people living there. Just in time the neo-nazi fanatics of the Azov Battalion received a U.S. military delegation and U.S. arms.

    The 2015 Minsk II agreement ( full text ) demanded that the Ukraine creates a new law for the administration of these regions:

    Without delays, but no later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, a resolution has to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, indicating the territory which falls under the special regime in accordance with the law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts," based in the line set up by the Minsk Memorandum as of Sept. 19, 2014.

    Russia is not a party of the agreement. But when the resolution by the Ukrainian parliament was not forthcoming western propaganda falsely blamed Russia for "not fulfilling the Minsk agreement" and the west has since bound the sanctions on Russia to this fake conclusion.

    The National Bank of Ukraine announced that an independent accountant found that PrivatBank, then owned by the coup financier and billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskiy , was plundered of $5.5 billion shortly before it went bankrupt and nationalized by the coup government. In connection with that an IMF loan of $1.8 billion to the Ukraine allegedly went directly into Kolomoyskiy's pockets. How much of this stolen money was paid to U.S. politicians?

    While the anti-Trump politicians and media still fret about "Russian influence" on U.S. social media everyone seems to have forgotten that in early 2016 the Ukraine set up a massive troll farm and a Ministry of Truth. Back then even the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine disliked that . If every troll tweeting in Russian or with Cyrillic letters in its name is under the direct command of Vladimir Putin where then are those Ukrainians trolls?

    les7 , Jan 20, 2018 1:57:19 PM | 18

    @15
    You ask "How much more is there to come...?"

    The last round in Ukraine erupted while the winter games finished in Sochi. I see the empire positioning things to repeat the treatment during FIFA. Ukraine is being primed and the clock is set to create incidents that will force Russia's hand.

    This potential very public shaming of Russia is what is restraining Russia from responding to many of the US and Israeli (and Turkish?) provocations in Syria. Perhaps they are hoping their present silence will gain them some grace for that showcase event.

    Personally, I doubt it.

    And should some incidents happen during the FIFA world cup events, we will see the real Putin - which might be for the best in the long run.

    frances , Jan 20, 2018 6:11:22 PM | 42
    re:?The Ukrainian Parliament has practically declared the Minsk agreements null and void and decided to militarily "liberate" Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea from the will of the people living there. Just in time the neo-nazi fanatics of the Azov Battalion received a U.S. military delegation..."
    And also just in time Russia is voting on legalizing militias in Africa and elsewhere; just in time for Spring in the Ukraine?
    http://russiafeed.com/russia-legalize-private-military-contractors-get-leg-africa/
    Eugene , Jan 20, 2018 5:20:49 PM | 39
    I'm curious about Ukraine & its neo-nazi's. How do the Israelis who work there, knowing the past-present? After all, mention the word nazi in their presence, and they go out of their collective minds attacking the source. Or maybe there's some sort of collusion taking place?

    [Jan 21, 2018] Brennan Calls For Coup Against Trump if Mueller is Fired

    Jan 21, 2018 | www.trunews.com

    On Friday at the Aspen Security Forum former CIA director John Brennan said senior officials in the executive branch should refuse the order if President Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller

    (VERO BEACH, FL) Speaking on a panel to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer with former DNI chief James Clapper, John Brennan effectively called for a coup against the president if he should give the order to fire the DOJ appointed investigator.

    "I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," Mr. Brennan said . "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future.

    "If he's fired by Mr. Trump, or is attempted to be fired by Mr. Trump, I hope, I really hope that our members of congress, our elected representatives, will stand up and say enough is enough, and stop making apologies and excuses for things that are happening that really flaunt, I think, our system of laws and government here," Mr. Brennan said.

    The editorial staff of ZeroHedge, an influential global blog which covers politics, economics, and war from a libertarian perspective, also concluded that Mr. Brennan's statement was "effectively calling for a coup" should President Trump give the order to fire Mr. Mueller.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Brennan Officials should refuse Trump if he fires Mueller Daily Mail Online

    Jul 25, 2017 | www.educationviews.org

    CIA's former boss calls on government officials to refuse to obey Trump if he fires Mueller

    [Jan 21, 2018] FBI, Mueller, Rosenstein, Strzok, Comey, Brennan, McCabe: Up to Their Gills in Collusion by Donna Garner

    Dec 05, 2017 | www.educationviews.org

    12.5.17

    From May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017, Robert Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7 Million of taxpayers' dollars. In seven months, no solid evidence has been produced to prove that Pres. Trump colluded with the Russians to impact the elections. The budget for Mueller's investigation was approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- 12.5.17 –"Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7M in four months – May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017" – Fox News -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/muellers-russia-probe-spent-nearly-7m-in-first-few-months.html

    =============

    12.5.17 –"Fired FBI official at center of Flynn, Clinton, dossier controversies revealed" – by Nicole Darrah, Pamela K. Browne – Fox News -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/fired-fbi-official-at-center-flynn-clinton-dossier-controversies-revealed.html

    Excerpts from this article:

    Now there's a face to go with the name of the biased FBI operative at the center of multiple probes and controversies dogging the Trump administration.

    Fox News has obtained a photo of Peter Strzok, the longtime FBI deputy fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his bias against President Trump. Strzok (pronounced "Struck"), was sacked by Mueller after electronic messages he reportedly sent to a colleague emerged, but not before he played key roles in the probes swirling around Trump.

    Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, oversaw the bureau's interviews with ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, changed former FBI Director James Comey's early draft language about Hillary Clinton's actions regarding her private email server from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" and reportedly helped push the largely unverified dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.

    Strzok's messages were reportedly not only anti-Trump, but also pro-Hillary. That has raised the ire of critics because, prior to joining Mueller's probe, he made edits to Comey's speech exonerating Hillary Clinton.

    The language being edited was important because classified material that's been mishandled for "gross negligence" calls for criminal consequences, analysts point out.

    The wording change came to light last month after newly reported memos to Congress showed that a May 2016 draft of Comey's statement closing out the email investigation accused the former secretary of state of being "grossly negligent." A June 2016 draft stated Clinton had been "extremely careless."

    The modified language was final when Comey announced in July 2016 that Clinton wouldn't face any charges in the email investigation.

    A source close to the matter told Fox News that the probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."

    =======

    12.3.17 – "Mueller aide fired for anti-Trump texts now facing review for role in Clinton email probe" -- By James Rosen, Jake Gibson -- FoxNews -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/03/mueller-aide-fired-for-anti-trump-texts-now-facing-review-for-role-in-clinton-email-probe.html

    Excerpts from this article

    EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

    The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.

    As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.

    Key figure

    House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

    The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.

    Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.

    In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.

    While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators

    When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress.

    Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday

    Contempt citations?

    Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.

    "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.

    Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the Senate panel.

    In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.

    Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.

    A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?"

    Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Remarks from Robert Mueller III

    Looks like Mueller has strong connections to CIA and according to Brennan is his personal friend. This glowing introduction by none other then Brenner rises several questions. One is did CIA controlled Mueller during his tenure of FBI director.
    The fact the Muller was in charge after 9/11 attacks rases additional questions.
    Jun 20, 2014 | www.youtube.com

    LazyJack2003 , 1 month ago

    "In Mueller we trust!"

    Kathy Collins

    Listening to this, I feel very confident that Mr. Mueller will be able to get to the very bottom of the Russian investigation. I think he is probably three or more steps ahead of any tricks our "President" might try. This man is a head chess player.

    Ash Pro

    No wonder Trump and co are scared of this man. He is gonna take the whole thing down.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Poeoshenko failed to imagine the situation a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now. Failing to resolve the Donbass crisis now might create much worse situation in the future

    Notable quotes:
    "... Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now ..."
    "... The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning for the good old days. ..."
    Jan 21, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    English Outsider -> Babak Makkinejad... 21 January 2018 at 11:18 AM


    Babak - "The only sensible thing to do is to cut and run; in my opinion. Just work through the implications as US cuts and run in the Levant, in the Persian Gulf, in South Korea."

    As you point out, that could have unexpected effects. We saw what happened when a previous dominant power - Great Britain, though by no means as overwhelmingly dominant and not at all so at the end - effectively cut and ran after the Second World War. It ended up more of a mess than it started out as.

    Even in an ideal world, a world in which the current style of Great Power politics was universally abandoned, the sudden withdrawal of the US would cause instability and chaos. The disengagement would have to be gradual.

    But there is no such ideal world as that and there will not be. Therefore the sudden withdrawal of the US would leave a power vacuum that others would fill.

    What others? Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now .

    The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning for the good old days.

    I'm one of those that still hope that the non-interventionist policy that was voted for in America in 2016 will be carried through. But if that is indeed Trump's intention then there is more in his way than local political or administrative difficulties. To engineer such a transition would require great care. It's no good if the US just steps back and worse comes forward to take its place.

    It's not overly idealistic, or even that unrealistic, to hope for a world in which defense forces (AND defensive alliances) are used for the proper purpose of defence and not for expensive and destructive enterprises dreamed up by some bubble elite. That's part of what Trump 2016 was about. But getting to such a world would require a considerably more careful transition than we've seen in similar circumstances in the past.

    [Jan 21, 2018] Syria - Turks Attack Afrin, U.S. Strategy Fails, Kurds Again Chose The Losing Side

    There are some analogies here with the recent Poroshenko government desire to take Donbass area back by military force.
    Notable quotes:
    "... How will this breakup of Syrian national territory affect the situation between the Donbass region and the Ukraine junta? ..."
    "... True and very sad. The Syrians have been caught in the crossfire since the beginning. We have theorized over the various causes of the war, but, in the end, when the superpowers are hanging around, Syrians are the first row of pieces to be sacrificed. ..."
    "... The Afrin war plays several roles. It will demonize and demoralize further the 'independentist' Kurds, awake the nationalist Turkish feeling by displaying military power that has been damaged by the coup, boost the Islamist flame among the rural Turks so the Turks can forget about their grudge over the EU and the declining buying power. ..."
    "... All the actors are tributaries flowing into the main river, and all moving in the same general direction, because the river is actually the tide of history. All players are advancing to meet their inevitable destinie ..."
    Jan 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    BRF , Jan 21, 2018 10:28:49 AM | 17

    Let me see if I understand all this? The Erdogan Turks fully back the terrorists in Syria aiming to dislodge the Assad Syrian government. The USA et al fully backs the same.

    The USA also backs the PKK/YPG Kurd faction in Syria as a means to at least break up Syrian national territory, as originally in their plans, even if they do remove the Assad government as originally planned.

    Erdogan has wanted to expand Turkey's national boundaries at the expense of Syria's. This latest encroachment, as with Euphrates Shield, accomplishes this goal especially if they can subsume their terrorist proxies occupied areas in Idlib Province as the USA has by using their newest Kurd proxies in eastern Syria. Erdogan need only create some new proxy (Turkmen?) and go after the terrorists and Kurds in western Syria. No doubt with American help.

    Erdogan and the USA disagree only on what future the Kurdish people will play in the eastern territories of Syria and Turkey. So what will be the necessary accommodation between them?

    If a Kurdish state is declared and backed by NATO and a UN resolution what if anything can Syria and her allies do about it as war is simply out of the question.

    How will this breakup of Syrian national territory affect the situation between the Donbass region and the Ukraine junta?

    NemesisCalling , Jan 21, 2018 1:41:54 PM | 37
    This would not be some devious plot by Turks/US to prolong the war in Syria and give cover to send more troops in ... troops that never leave? The whole thing seems a bit too ... convenient.

    Posted by: GoraDiva | Jan 21, 2018 1:22:57 PM | 35

    @35 E

    True and very sad. The Syrians have been caught in the crossfire since the beginning. We have theorized over the various causes of the war, but, in the end, when the superpowers are hanging around, Syrians are the first row of pieces to be sacrificed.

    And I would never put my faith in any international community ruling after Syria. We are in uncharted territory, I believe. Dance with the one you came with and if you have to stand on Putin's toes to keep up, then hold him close.

    "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." -- Thucydides

    Can we got off this stupid ride, yet?

    William Rood , Jan 21, 2018 2:03:05 PM | 41
    "These oilfields seem to be the big prize and one of the main reasons the US wants to hold onto this corner of Syria."

    Posted by: financial matters | Jan 21, 2018 10:37:30 AM | 18

    The goal of the MIC and Deep State is just to keep the chaos going as long as possible to sell arms and benefit careers. However, Trump has been enticed to go along with it by the promise that the US will "take their oil."

    Don Wiscacho , Jan 21, 2018 3:21:35 PM | 47

    @ William Rood re: Kurds who can't speak Arabic

    You may be correct that those Kurds aren't Syrian, but not necessarily so. The areas of Syria that have actually had Kurdish, or for instance Armenian, majorities have enjoyed a large measure of de facto autonomy, which has only increased in the last 20 years. So while nominally required to use Arabic in schools, if the school is staffed with Kurdish teachers and administrators with Kurdish students, there is little to stop them from simply teaching in Kurdish. Or Armenian, or Aramaic, etc.

    Frank , Jan 21, 2018 5:13:08 PM | 56
    We had wrongly predicted that Turkish threats against the Kurdish held north-west area of Afrin were empty:
    Maybe not. Maybe your first analysis was correct. If the Kurdish militias do fight, it will take many weeks, and lead to substantial Turkish losses. So it is really too early to say that Erdogan will attempt to conquer Afrin no matter the cost, and too early to say that the US will not put effective pressure on Erdogan, or offer him some sort of deal.

    So far, Erdogan has upped the ante, but he hasn't gone all in.

    virgile , Jan 21, 2018 6:03:49 PM | 60
    Erdogan is obsessed by keeping power and winning his re election in 2018 or 2019 . To get that, he needs to neutralize the Turkish Kurds who don't vote for him. Sunni conservative Kurds worship Erdogan for his promotion of Sunni Islam. For them Islam is the unifying factor of Turks especially Sunni Islam. They all vote for the AKP.

    Erdogan has emasculated the burgeoning liberal Kurdish party, the HDP, by demonizing the liberal Kurds and throwing its leader in prison just to get more votes in the previous parliamentary election that he reran to win with a very small margin.

    For the next election, he is very worried about the growth of other centrist parties, the weakness of his ally the MHP, a nationalist party archi-enemy of the Kurds and about the insatisfaction of the Turks with the deteriorating relation with the EU and the fall of the lira.

    The Afrin war plays several roles. It will demonize and demoralize further the 'independentist' Kurds, awake the nationalist Turkish feeling by displaying military power that has been damaged by the coup, boost the Islamist flame among the rural Turks so the Turks can forget about their grudge over the EU and the declining buying power.

    The question is will he win fast enough not to create the impression of failure and a quagmire that would reflect negatively on his voters? And what will be the aftermath of Afrin? early elections?

    Grieved , Jan 21, 2018 6:52:02 PM | 66
    I agree with everyone!

    It's a multiple win-win, a great demonstration of congruent interests all doing their own thing. Lots of things remain to play out. But there are no downsides to this situation, no matter who holds what piece of Syrian territory for what temporary short time.

    All the actors are tributaries flowing into the main river, and all moving in the same general direction, because the river is actually the tide of history. All players are advancing to meet their inevitable destinies: Turkey moves closer to Russia, and closer, despite much bad blood, to restoring the friendship between itself and Syria (over time); the Kurds get their final lesson about the perfidious US and settle into their lands in Syria, as Syrians; Dr. Assad gets his entire country back for his people (over time); terrorists die; the US is further marginalized and its generals scream mayhem, in words only.

    Great update, b - thanks!

    [Jan 21, 2018] MoA - Sundry - Shutdown, Ukraine, Omidyar And Syria

    Jan 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The Ukrainian Parliament has practically declared the Minsk agreements null and void and decided to militarily "liberate" Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea from the will of the people living there. Just in time the neo-nazi fanatics of the Azov Battalion received a U.S. military delegation and U.S. arms.

    The 2015 Minsk II agreement ( full text ) demanded that the Ukraine creates a new law for the administration of these regions:

    Without delays, but no later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, a resolution has to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, indicating the territory which falls under the special regime in accordance with the law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts," based in the line set up by the Minsk Memorandum as of Sept. 19, 2014.

    Russia is not a party of the agreement. But when the resolution by the Ukrainian parliament was not forthcoming western propaganda falsely blamed Russia for "not fulfilling the Minsk agreement" and the west has since bound the sanctions on Russia to this fake conclusion.

    The National Bank of Ukraine announced that an independent accountant found that PrivatBank, then owned by the coup financier and billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskiy , was plundered of $5.5 billion shortly before it went bankrupt and nationalized by the coup government. In connection with that an IMF loan of $1.8 billion to the Ukraine allegedly went directly into Kolomoyskiy's pockets. How much of this stolen money was paid to U.S. politicians?

    While the anti-Trump politicians and media still fret about "Russian influence" on U.S. social media everyone seems to have forgotten that in early 2016 the Ukraine set up a massive troll farm and a Ministry of Truth. Back then even the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine disliked that . If every troll tweeting in Russian or with Cyrillic letters in its name is under the direct command of Vladimir Putin where then are those Ukrainians trolls?

    les7 , Jan 20, 2018 1:57:19 PM | 18

    @15
    You ask "How much more is there to come...?"

    The last round in Ukraine erupted while the winter games finished in Sochi. I see the empire positioning things to repeat the treatment during FIFA. Ukraine is being primed and the clock is set to create incidents that will force Russia's hand.

    This potential very public shaming of Russia is what is restraining Russia from responding to many of the US and Israeli (and Turkish?) provocations in Syria. Perhaps they are hoping their present silence will gain them some grace for that showcase event.

    Personally, I doubt it.

    And should some incidents happen during the FIFA world cup events, we will see the real Putin - which might be for the best in the long run.

    frances , Jan 20, 2018 6:11:22 PM | 42
    re:?The Ukrainian Parliament has practically declared the Minsk agreements null and void and decided to militarily "liberate" Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea from the will of the people living there. Just in time the neo-nazi fanatics of the Azov Battalion received a U.S. military delegation..."
    And also just in time Russia is voting on legalizing militias in Africa and elsewhere; just in time for Spring in the Ukraine?
    http://russiafeed.com/russia-legalize-private-military-contractors-get-leg-africa/
    Eugene , Jan 20, 2018 5:20:49 PM | 39
    I'm curious about Ukraine & its neo-nazi's. How do the Israelis who work there, knowing the past-present? After all, mention the word nazi in their presence, and they go out of their collective minds attacking the source. Or maybe there's some sort of collusion taking place?

    [Jan 21, 2018] The FISA Memo Is All The Ammo Trump Needs To Take On The CIA by Tom Luongo

    Notable quotes:
    "... FISA is an abomination. Let's get that out of the way. And since I don't believe there are any coincidences in U.S. or geo-politics, the releasing of the explosive four-page FISA memo after Congress reauthorized FISA is suspicious ..."
    "... Former NSA analyst (traitor? hero?) turned security state gadfly Edward Snowden came out in favor of President Trump vetoing the FISA reauthorization now that the full extent of what the statute is used for is known to members of the House Intelligence Committee, who are rightly aghast. ..."
    "... Someone leaked this memo to the House Intelligence Committee with the sole intention of giving President Trump the opportunity to do exactly what Snowden is arguing for. And well Trump should. ..."
    "... This is the essence of draining the swamp. It is the essence of his war with the Shadow Government. If one makes the distinction between the Deep State and the Shadow Government, like former CIA officer Kevin Shipp does , then this falls right in line with Trump's goals in cleaning up the rot and corruption in the U.S. government. In a recent interview with Greg Hunter at USAWatchdog.com, ..."
    "... Shipp explains, "I differentiate between the 'Deep State' and the shadow government. The shadow government are the secret intelligence agencies that have such power and secrecy that they act even without the knowledge of Congress. There are many things that they do with impunity. Then there is the 'Deep State,' which is the military industrial complex, all of the industrial corporations and their lobbyists, and they have all the money, power and greed that give all the money to the Senators and Congressmen. So, they are connected, but they are really two different entities. It is the shadow government . . . specifically, the CIA, that is going after Donald Trump. It is terrified that some of its dealings are going to be exposed. If they are, it could jeopardize the entire organization." [emphasis mine] ..."
    "... Trump's continued needling of the establishment; playing the long game and demonizing the media which is the tip of the Shadow Government's spear while strengthening the support of both the military (through his backing them at every turn) and his base by assisting them destroy the false narratives of globalism has been nothing short of amazing. ..."
    "... So, Trump cozying up to the military, cutting a deal with the military-industrial complex (MIC) has the Deep State now incentivized to fight the Shadow Government for him. The tax cut bill, while a brilliant example of political knife-fighting, is fundamentally about shoring up the finances of the corporations that make up the MIC through the repatriation of foreign-earned income, lowering the corporate tax rate and stealing even more of the middle class back from the Democrats. ..."
    Jan 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
    FISA is an abomination. Let's get that out of the way. And since I don't believe there are any coincidences in U.S. or geo-politics, the releasing of the explosive four-page FISA memo after Congress reauthorized FISA is suspicious.

    Former NSA analyst (traitor? hero?) turned security state gadfly Edward Snowden came out in favor of President Trump vetoing the FISA reauthorization now that the full extent of what the statute is used for is known to members of the House Intelligence Committee, who are rightly aghast.

    Officials confirm there's a secret report showing abuses of spy law Congress voted to reauthorize this week. If this memo had been known prior to the vote, FISA reauth would have failed. These abuses must be made public, and @realDonaldTrump should send the bill back with a veto. https://t.co/BEwJ9EyIq0

    -- Edward Snowden (@Snowden) January 19, 2018

    But, like I said, timing in these things is everything. And the timing on this leak is important.

    Someone leaked this memo to the House Intelligence Committee with the sole intention of giving President Trump the opportunity to do exactly what Snowden is arguing for. And well Trump should.

    This is the essence of draining the swamp. It is the essence of his war with the Shadow Government. If one makes the distinction between the Deep State and the Shadow Government, like former CIA officer Kevin Shipp does , then this falls right in line with Trump's goals in cleaning up the rot and corruption in the U.S. government. In a recent interview with Greg Hunter at USAWatchdog.com,

    Shipp explains, "I differentiate between the 'Deep State' and the shadow government. The shadow government are the secret intelligence agencies that have such power and secrecy that they act even without the knowledge of Congress. There are many things that they do with impunity. Then there is the 'Deep State,' which is the military industrial complex, all of the industrial corporations and their lobbyists, and they have all the money, power and greed that give all the money to the Senators and Congressmen. So, they are connected, but they are really two different entities. It is the shadow government . . . specifically, the CIA, that is going after Donald Trump. It is terrified that some of its dealings are going to be exposed. If they are, it could jeopardize the entire organization." [emphasis mine]

    Court the Military Against the Spooks

    And as I've talked about at length, I've felt from the moment Trump was elected he was going to have to ally himself with the U.S. military to have any chance of surviving, let alone achieve his political goals.

    Trump's final campaign ad was a clarion call to action. It was a declaration of war against both the Shadow Government and the Deep State. And it ensured that if he won, which he did, they would immediately go to war with him.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/vST61W4bGm8

    And you don't declare war like this if you aren't prepared for the biggest knock-down, drag-out street brawl of all time. If you aren't prepared for it, don't say it. And for the past year we've been left wondering whether Trump was 1) prepared for it 2) capable of pulling it off.

    Trump's continued needling of the establishment; playing the long game and demonizing the media which is the tip of the Shadow Government's spear while strengthening the support of both the military (through his backing them at every turn) and his base by assisting them destroy the false narratives of globalism has been nothing short of amazing.

    As a hard-core, jaded politico, I can tell you I never thought for a second he had the ability to what he's already done. But, as the past few months have pointed out, the real power in the world doesn't rest with the few thousand who manipulate the levers of power but the billions who for years stood by and let them.

    And those days of standing by are gone.

    So, Trump cozying up to the military, cutting a deal with the military-industrial complex (MIC) has the Deep State now incentivized to fight the Shadow Government for him. The tax cut bill, while a brilliant example of political knife-fighting, is fundamentally about shoring up the finances of the corporations that make up the MIC through the repatriation of foreign-earned income, lowering the corporate tax rate and stealing even more of the middle class back from the Democrats.

    Trump had the right strategy from the beginning. Civil Wars turn on what the police and the military do. They are instigated by and fanned by the spooks, but it is the soldiers and the cops who decide the outcome.

    And so here we are.

    FISA, It's Everywhere You Don't Want it to Be

    Trump has called the Democrats' and RINOs' bluff on DACA and chain-immigration as a vote-buying scheme with zero political fallout. He's properly reframed the looming government shutdown on their inability to stick to their original agreements.

    His much-maligned Justice Department is now rolling up traitors associated with Uranium One, pedophiles and human traffickers all over the country and preparing for a showdown with blue state governors and attorney generals over "Sanctuary" grandstanding.

    By leading the charge, he gave strength to the patriots within both the Shadow Government and the Deep State organizations to leak the material needed to keep his campaign afloat.

    And as each new thing drops at the most inopportune time for the political establishment mentioned ad nauseum in that final campaign ad linked above, you have to wonder just how big the revolt inside these organizations is.

    Because, right here, right now, Trump can demand the release of this FISA memo and use it to torpedo the very thing that allowed the entire "Russia Hacked Muh Election" nonsense and send it back to the sh$&hole it was spawned from in the first place, the CIA and the DNC.

    And if that means for a few months the FISA courts are inoperable while a new bill and a new set of rules is drafted so be it.

    * * *

    Support work like this by subscribing to my Patreon Page where you can get access to the Gold Goats 'n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

    [Jan 20, 2018] Will Steve Bannon s Testimony Bring Down Jared by Abigail Tracy

    A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
    Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information ? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
    Notable quotes:
    "... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
    "... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
    "... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
    "... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
    Jan 16, 2018 | www.vanityfair.com

    "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury. "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father in the meeting "is zero."

    When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom he accused of having "lost his mind." But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort. "My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ," Bannon said in a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election .)

    ... ... ...

    Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House panel, told CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic at a minimum."

    Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"

    Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."

    He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster, Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he questioned Kushner's maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also declared his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."

    [Jan 20, 2018] Ukraine President given power to wage war in the separatist republics and Crimea.

    Jan 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Posted by: CarlD | Jan 19, 2018 11:49:05 AM | 57

    addwnsum to 56

    https://www.rt.com/news/416305-ukraine-donbass-law-war-moscow/

    Ukraine President given power to wage war in the separatist republics and Crimea.

    [Jan 20, 2018] Will Steve Bannon s Testimony Bring Down Jared by Abigail Tracy

    A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
    Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information ? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
    Notable quotes:
    "... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
    "... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
    "... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
    "... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
    Jan 16, 2018 | www.vanityfair.com

    "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury. "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father in the meeting "is zero."

    When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom he accused of having "lost his mind." But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort. "My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ," Bannon said in a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election .)

    ... ... ...

    Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House panel, told CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic at a minimum."

    Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"

    Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."

    He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster, Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he questioned Kushner's maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also declared his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."

    [Jan 20, 2018] Struggle for the Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... the recent influx of attack dog journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news, both of which have serious, negative implications. ..."
    "... All the President's Men ..."
    "... The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It" slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in office, not the poor wording choice. ..."
    "... All the President's Men ..."
    Jan 20, 2018 | struggleforthepresidency.wordpress.com

    Journalists' role in the political process should be to serve as intermediaries between politicians and the public. The average American does not have the means by which to get the news directly from the White House and other bureaucrats. Therefore, there are reporters, who exist to provide such information to the people. However, the recent influx of attack dog journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news, both of which have serious, negative implications.

    Woodward and Bernstein, as portrayed in All the President's Men , should be the heroes of every news reporter in the country. By tirelessly digging up the dirt on the Watergate, they discovered a government scandal. The pair adhered to their journalistic duty of reporting the details to the public, despite hesitation from others and a warning from Deep Throat that their lives may be in danger. They did not cease their searching once they had enough to publish a story; rather, they kept probing until they got to the bottom of things. According to lecture, their investigative journalism is indicative of a shift from lap dog journalism to watch dog journalism.

    Around the 1990s, American journalism lost its watch dog affiliation. Today's reporters are rarely incited by the whispers of a government cover-up. For example, it took at least eight years for the public to learn that Iraqi detector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi lied about weapons of mass destruction in an effort to influence Western war efforts ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41609536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/curveball-i-lied-about-wmd-hasten-iraq-war/#.UFzwiVGQTE0 ). Reporters should not be expected to question every government decision. Nevertheless, when the issue at hand is a war, they should be counted upon to look into why exactly one country proposes going to war with another – reporting not only why the government is saying it is time for war, but providing what evidence they are using to authorize their decision. This is an enormous responsibility that is vital to our very democracy.

    That is not to say that investigative journalism or watch dog reporting has died out (e.g., http://watchdog.org/about/ ). Rather, their admirable tactics have been subsumed by the new news norm of non-news. In an effort to attract an audience, countless news outlets have transitioned to offering non-news items as news. For instance, the top story's headline on one of Tucson's local news station's websites reads, "Donate hair this weekend to win tickets to "Disney on Ice." Another is, "Man jumps off Bronx Zoo train, mauled by tiger." While a contest and a novel story might be interesting enough for people to tune in, they are undoubtedly not the top stories of the day. One might find the protesters' overtake of an Islamist group's headquarters in Benghazi more pressing, especially considering the potential link to the recent attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya (or perhaps Mitt Romney's tax release).

    The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It" slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in office, not the poor wording choice.

    The trend away from watch dog journalism toward attack dog journalism, as well as the warped definition of what is considered news, have serious implications for the country as a whole. The current nature of political news coverage can serve to place importance on non-issues, inspire and perpetuate misinformation, and leaves out what is not easily accessible. By giving so much attention to minor gaffes, rumors, and unimportant issues, the media make such items salient to the public and communicate that they are important. This can lead to skewed priorities, as people might find insignificant items to be much more relevant than they actually should be. Additionally, attack dog journalists' mongering about Obama's birth certificate led approximately 25% of the country to believe Obama was not born in the United States – according to 2011 polls, administered two to three years after the rumor's origin. Finally, acting like attack dogs rather than watch dogs prevents journalists from investigating stories. Reporters might not act as politicians' lap dogs but by attacking rather than digging, they fail as watch dogs.

    Such a sociological shift in news norms and journalistic tendencies is difficult to reverse, but not impossible. In All the President's Men , Woodward and Bernstein did not act alone. While met with hesitation from most, a few people offered invaluable support, such as their executive editor and Deep Throat. The four of them (Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee, and Deep Throat) prove that it does not take an army to reveal a scandal. Both the moral of the film and the return to watch dog journalism is the belief that all it takes are a few people impassioned by a desire to get the story and to get it right.

    (Sabato's book is titled "Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American Politics")

    [Jan 20, 2018] Ukraine President given power to wage war in the separatist republics and Crimea.

    Jan 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Posted by: CarlD | Jan 19, 2018 11:49:05 AM | 57

    addwnsum to 56

    https://www.rt.com/news/416305-ukraine-donbass-law-war-moscow/

    Ukraine President given power to wage war in the separatist republics and Crimea.

    [Jan 20, 2018] As of today, Gen. Mathis exposing the new Us Defense Strategy warned that: The US will counter any threat to America s democracy experiment in the world, if necessary with military force

    Jan 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    CarlD | Jan 19, 2018 11:38:25 AM | 56

    I am afraid, if one is to believe Mathis words, that the Syrian, Ukrainian and Korean potential confrontations will lead to exchanges that will force us into wars on several theaters in the very near future.

    As of today, Gen. Mathis exposing the sew Us Defense Strategy warned that: The US will counter any "threat to America's democracy experiment" in the world, if necessary with military force, the Pentagon chief threatened.

    He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners" designation used by Russia in designing the USA. He vowed: the US will respond with lethal force.

    So the stage is set for escalation of escalation in several theaters. How long will the bear be poked and the dragon provoked before retaliation ensues?

    I am afraid that war looks more and more certain in 2018.

    james , Jan 19, 2018 12:49:13 PM | 62

    @40 b... thanks for that... the place was getting out of hand.. you are becoming too popular..

    @56 carl... it is an outrageous statement from mattis, any way you read it!

    "The US will counter any threat to America's democracy experiment in the world..."

    usa as country that gets to dictate its agenda anywhere in the world.. it would explain why they want to circumvent any international body that they don't already control too, like the un.. america's democracy experiment is imposing the us$ as world currency under the threat of their military.. it is already starting to fall apart on all accounts which explains mattis's anxiousness in representing these same undemocratic structures and institutions he refers to as 'america's ''democracy'' experiment'... he needs to get a gig in hollywood at comedy central.. he never found his true calling..

    harrylaw , Jan 19, 2018 1:16:21 PM | 63
    "We will modernize key capabilities," Mattis said. "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win." [Sputnik News]
    Just two quotes from 'Mad dog' Mattis which prove he needs to be put in an asylum.
    "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all".
    "Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."
    Temporarily Sane , Jan 19, 2018 1:52:11 PM | 64
    @56 CarlD
    He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners"
    designation used by Russia in designing the USA. He vowed: the US will
    respond with lethal force.

    Actions speak louder than words. The US is scared of two things: 1) a military conflict where its troops get slaughtered wholesale, and 2) going up against any army or regular military force it can't destroy from the air. Whatever happens in the near future we can rest assured Uncle Scam won't be engaging in direct hostilities with China or Russia.

    dh , Jan 19, 2018 2:03:17 PM | 66
    @63 "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win."

    Nice for the high-quality troops. Sounds like they should be totally risk-free. But I don't share Mad Dog's faith in technology. Looks like an accident waiting to happen.

    karlof1 , Jan 19, 2018 3:37:08 PM | 72
    Mattis opens his mouth and reveals his level of ignorance when it comes to understanding the Outlaw US Empire's history--it's certainly not a "democracy experiment," nor has it ever tried to install a democracy anywhere on the planet. I'd bet he's just as ignorant when it comes to military history, too. He reminds me of the ignorant brute Sgt. Snorkel from the Beatle Bailey comic strip. The so-called "new" "defense posture" is no more than a tidied-up version of the two that preceded it: What we say goes; either you're with us or against us.

    By way of rebuttal, I highly recommend reading this interview of Hassan Nasrallah from 3 Jan 2018, particularly his remarks about differences in the quality of soldiers from The Resistance versus those of the enemy--IDF, NATO, USA, Daesh--and why they exist.

    Contrary to all the hype about the Empire being a new energy exporting colossus, it needed to import LNG to keep its East Coast dwellings warm, but the cargo seems to have found a better price elsewhere. Just how will it displace Russian gas from the market when it can't provide enough domestic supply?

    Meanwhile, Tillerson pulls an Albright : "Signs of starvation and death in North Korea indicate that US diplomatic strategy works fine, says the secretary of state." Is he being two-faced? You bet! From last year : "We're not your enemy, we're not your threat..."

    Ignorant, lying, immoral are just a few of the important behavioral traits of those leading faces of the Outlaw US Empire. And my historical investigations prove such traits have been in the forefront since its inception. Guess we can thank its tutor, the British Empire.

    virgile , Jan 19, 2018 5:14:33 PM | 79
    January 19, 2018 at 10:10 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The US administration either is very smart in bluffing to temporarily reassure its panicking regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia or it is living in the la-la land of an incompetence close to stupidity.

    Do they really believe that the Russians will allow the USA to rob their victory in Syria over ISIS? Or that the Turks will stay idle while the USA is building a Kurdish military entity on their border? Or that Iran and Syria will allow the partitioning of Syria and the US illegal long term presence in the region?
    The USA administration is posed for dramatic blowbacks and reshuffling of alliances in the region.Maybe that is why it is running like a headless hen!

    Ghost Ship , Jan 19, 2018 6:52:28 PM | 88
    This will damage Trump with his base. Reducing the involvement of the United States military abroad was one of the more important commitments he made to his base and now he has broken that commitment and quite a few of his base are disappointed. Even if it's just a couple of hundred thousand of them, there goes the next presidential election for Trump and the Republicans. By forgetting about Russia-gate, focusing on his foreign military involvements, and provided the Democratic candidate is not a Clinton, the presidency is for there for taking by the Democrats. Having Tulsi Gabbard on the ticket would help.
    The only reservation I have is if Trump is stiffing the generals in the White House and sometime in the future pulls the plug on all those interventions then he'll remain in the White House for another four years.
    Mike K. , Jan 19, 2018 7:08:43 PM | 90
    Tillerson could have been speaking for Trump, or Obama, or Bush - under whose regime the Likudnik/neocons/Zionists were able to foment a policy coup while using the OSP to concoct lies for Israel's long-desired war.

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/trump-isnt-another-hitler-he-s-another-obama-51ea7db498b4

    https://www.activistpost.com/2018/01/new-trump-admin-policy-on-syria-is-the-same-as-obamas-and-hillary-clintons.html


    While there are generally multiple motives for entry into wars, only one is whitewashed. As Phil Giraldi put it:

    ""Why doesn't anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it's American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn't we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?"

    https://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2017/09/21/1015592-americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/

    They have also very heavily figured, neocon and neoliberal Jews both, in promoting the #Russiahoax in media and on the hill.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/its-time-drop-jew-taboo/ri22186


    Here's where we are, as the same cabal cheerlead for war on Iran (Lebanon must be first) a you are either committed to stopping the drive to war by all cognizable social and pitical forces, or you are not.

    The time for letting cries of 'anti-Semite' preclude FAIR dis ussuon of the role of Jews and the Israel Lobby is over.

    Those who censor this necessary component of analysis should be deemed confederates of the bankers, MIC, transnationals, and Zionist Jews who have been driving wars for decades.

    With millions dead, playtime is over. Those censoring the truth side with the warmongers.

    [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether

    Highly recommended!
    "Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
    Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
    Notable quotes:
    "... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
    "... What sort of legal entity is ..."
    "... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
    "... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
    "... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
    "... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
    "... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
    "... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
    "... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
    "... That's exactly ..."
    "... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
    "... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC  --  collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
    "... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
    "... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
    "... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
    "... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
    "... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
    "... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
    "... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
    Jan 15, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom; it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the (putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant part:

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou

    Highly recommended!
    Looks like Rosenstein might lose his position.
    Jan 19, 2018 | theduran.com

    Classified documents obtained by members of Congress reportedly show extensive FISA abuses.

    André De Koning , January 19, 2018 5:16 AM

    What a bombshell! Finally some truth about the "Justice system" in the US.

    Following on from this should be the whole subsequent story of the DNC-Fusion-Steele dossier in detail, exposing the MSM too for what it has been worth.
    Perhaps then Trump dares to go against the deep state swamp and stop wars instead of following the dictates of CIA, Israel and Military Industrialists. That would be a real POTUS PLUS result.

    foxenburg , January 19, 2018 5:13 AM

    I thought Trump explained all this last March when he said his campaign was wiretapped, and he called for a Congressional investigation?

    "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

    12:35 PM - Mar 4, 2017

    Rick Manigault foxenburg , January 19, 2018 6:01 AM

    Trump gave in to the lie about Russian interference and the republicans who hated him went along with this hoax until recently.

    louis robert , January 19, 2018 3:07 PM

    ""It's troubling. It is shocking," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.""

    ***

    Come on, child! Enough with that spectacle. Get real. Have the basic courage to know and to admit what everybody has known about your country for ages!... The entire world already knows.

    Franz Kafka , January 19, 2018 11:28 AM

    More proof, if any were needed, that the only threat to the people of the USA comes from their own government. The 'external threat' is a fiction calculated to enslave the US population and enrich the Oligarchy.

    Gano1 , January 19, 2018 8:11 AM

    The DOJ, FBI and Democrats have colluded 100%.

    Franz Kafka Gano1 , January 19, 2018 11:29 AM

    Why omit the US Masked [sic] Media?

    Franz Kafka , January 19, 2018 11:31 AM

    If the 'swamp' gets drained all at once, can the bottom fall out of the pond?

    WeAreYourGods , January 19, 2018 8:14 AM

    Somebody's going to leak this in short order. Let's take a real look at what both Dems and Repubs just expanded, let's look at the monster they are feeding in broad daylight.

    Rick Manigault , January 19, 2018 6:00 AM

    This should be the focus until there are actual convictions of high level perpetrators.

    Franz Kafka , January 19, 2018 2:05 PM

    Why is Hannity afraid of using the 'C' word? CONSPIRACY!

    Sueja , January 19, 2018 4:57 PM

    Has the House Intelligence committee's Twitter account really been shut down. How corrupt is Twitter?

    [Jan 19, 2018] Russiagate Has Blown Up In The Face Of Its Originators -- the FBI, DOJ, and Hillary by Paul Craig Roberts

    Jan 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

    It is exactly as I told you. Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the DOJ, and the Hillary campaign to overturn Donald Trump's election. We have treason committed at the highest levels of the FBI and Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee.

    If you believed one word of Russiagate, you now must laugh or cry at your incredible gullibility.

    This scandal should also bring down the presstitute media who have done the dirty work for the conspiracy against Trump.

    watch-v=oUAt4DsscXA

    [Jan 19, 2018] GOP Rep. Gaetz Calls on House to Release 'Important Intelligence Document' - Goes to 'Very Foundations of Our Democracy,' Invol

    Notable quotes:
    "... Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor ..."
    Jan 19, 2018 | www.breitbart.com

    GOP Rep. Gaetz Calls on House to Release 'Important Intelligence Document' -- Goes to 'Very Foundations of Our Democracy,' Involves FBI, DoJ and Trump

    . @mattgaetz : "The allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy and they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion." pic.twitter.com/kqjxp21GcA

    -- FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) January 18, 2018

    by Jeff Poor 18 Jan 2018 0

    18 Jan, 2018 18 Jan, 2018 Thursday on the Fox Business Network, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) teased an intelligence memo that he claimed went "to the very foundations of democracy" and called on his colleagues in the House of Representatives to make the memo public.

    Gaetz told host Liz Claman the memo involved the FBI, the Department of Justice and President Donald Trump.

    "The allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy, and they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion," Gaetz said. "Unfortunately, I can not talk about the specific facts contained within this memo. I can only share my observation -- that if the American people knew what was happening if they saw the contents of this memo, a lot would become clear about the information that I've been talking about the last several months. And so, I am calling on our leadership to hold a vote on the floor of the House to make public the key contents of this intelligence memo regarding the FBI, the Department of Justice and President Trump."

    According to Gaetz, a vote could be held simultaneously with a continuing resolution vote that would make the "critical allegations" in the document on the floor of the House of Representatives.

    Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

    [Jan 19, 2018] No Foreign Bases Challenging the Footprint of US Empire by Kevin B. Zeese and Margaret Flowers

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct ..."
    "... Popular Resistance ..."
    "... . This article first appeared as the ..."
    "... weekly newsletter ..."
    "... of the organization. ..."
    Jan 18, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

    The United States cannot be a moral or ethical country until it faces up to the realities of US empire and the destruction it causes around the world. The US undermines governments (including democracies), kills millions of people, causes mass migrations of people fleeing their homes, communities and countries and produces vast environmental damage.

    A new coalition, The Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases , held its inaugural event January 12-14, 2018 at the University of Baltimore in Maryland. The meeting was framed by a Unity Statement that brought together numerous peace and justice organizations. The basis for unity was:

    "U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of US foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world."

    You can endorse the statement here .

    ... ... ... (image deleted)
    US foreign military bases as of 2015. Source BaseNation.us

    Responsibility to End Global Empire of Bases

    Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace and the vice presidential candidate for the Green Party in 2016 opened the conference, describing the responsibility of the people of the United States (USians) to protect the world from US aggression. He argued :

    "The only logical, principled and strategic response to this question is citizens of the empire must reject their imperial privileges and join in opposing ruling elites exploiting labor and plundering the Earth. To do that, however, requires breaking with the intoxicating allure of cross-class, bi-partisan 'white identity politics.'"

    This reality conflicts with one of the excuses the US uses to engage in war – so-called 'humanitarian wars', which are based on the dubious legal claim that the US has a "responsibility to protect." The United States is viewed as "the greatest threat to peace in the world today" by people around the world. Thus, USians need to organize to protect the world from the United States.

    US empire is not only a threat to world peace and stability but also a threat to the United States. Chalmers Johnson , who wrote a series of books on empire, warned in his 2004 book, " The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic ," that there were four "sorrows" the United States would suffer. In the 14 years since they have all come true:

    "If present trends continue, four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative impact guarantees that the United States will cease to bear any resemblance to the country once outlined in our Constitution. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a growing reliance on weapons of mass destruction among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second, there will be a loss of democracy and constitutional rights as the presidency fully eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from an "executive branch" of government into something more like a Pentagonized presidency. Third, an already well-shredded principle of truthfulness will increasingly be replaced by a system of propaganda, disinformation, and glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there will be bankruptcy, as we pour our economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchange the education, health, and safety of our fellow citizens."

    The footprint of US empire are what Chalmers Johnson called an "empire of bases." David Vine, the author of Base Nation, put US empire in context by describing 800 US bases in 80 countries and US military personnel in more than 170 countries. Bases range from so-called Lily Pad Bases of hundreds of troops to town-sized bases of tens of thousands of troops and their families. He noted many bases have schools and they do not need to worry about heating or air conditioning, unlike schools in Baltimore where parents bought space heaters to keep children warm and where schools were closed due to lack of heat.

    The contrast between Baltimore schools and military base schools is one example of many of the heavy price USians pay for the military. Vine reported that $150 billion is spent annually to keep US troops on bases abroad and that even a Lily Pad base could cost $1 billion. More is spent on foreign military bases than on any agency of the federal government, other than the Pentagon and Veterans Administration.

    The Pentagon is not transparent about the number of US foreign bases it manages or their cost. They usually publish a Base Structure Report but have not done so in several years. The Pentagon only reports 701 bases, but researchers have found many, even significant bases, not included in their list of bases.

    According to the No Foreign Bases Coalition:

    "95% of all foreign military bases in the world are US bases. In addition, [there are] 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft – each of which can be considered a floating military base."

    The military footprint of the United States shows it is the largest empire in world history. In our interview with historian Alfred McCoy , author of In The Shadows of the American Century , he describes how some of the key characteristics of US empire are secrecy and covert actions. This are some of the reasons why it is rare to ever hear US empire discussed in the corporate media or by politicians. McCoy told us this was true for some other empires too, and that it is often not until the empire begins to falter that their existence becomes part of the political dialogue.

    Strategies for Closing US Foreign Military Bases

    David Vine described an unprecedented opportunity to close bases abroad, to do so we need to build a bigger movement. We also need to elevate the national dialogue about US Empire and develop a national consensus to end it.

    Vine pointed to Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric about pulling back from US involvement abroad and focusing on the necessities at home as indicative of the mood of the country. In fact, a recent survey found that "78 percent of Democrats, 64.5 percent of Republicans, and 68.8 percent of independents supported restraining military action overseas."

    McCoy argued that after the globalization of President Barack Obama, which included the Asian Pivot and efforts to pass major trade agreements, in particular the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), created a backlash desire to focus on "America First." Both trade agreements, the TPP and TTIP, failed as a result of a political shift in the country, in part created by grassroots movements.

    McCoy describes Obama as one of three "Grandmasters of the Great Game" (the other two being Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, and Elihu Root, former Secretary of War and Secretary of State at the beginning of the 20th Century) who excelled in being strategic on behalf of US empire. In addition to trade agreements and the Asian Pivot, Obama built on the intelligence apparatus of the George W. Bush era. Even though Obama was a "grandmaster," he did not slow the weakening of US empire. McCoy sees the inability to account for the unpredictable complexities of US and global political developments as a common weakness of empire strategists.

    The conference was divided into regions of the world (with the exception of one session on the impact of military bases on the environment and health). There will be reports and videos published on each section of the conference on the No Foreign Bases webpage . One common denominator around the world is opposition to US military bases. According to the Unity Statement of the coalition:

    "Many individual national coalitions – for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany – are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the US has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century, is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the US return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba."

    One important strategy for success is for US activists to work in cooperation with people around the world who want US military bases to be closed and for the US military to leave their country. Attendees at the conference had traveled to South Korea, Okinawa and other places to protest in solidarity with US activists.

    Another strategy that many in the conference urged was the need for education about US imperialism and to tie US militarism abroad with militarized police at home. Similarly, the reality of the US military focusing on black and brown countries abroad highlights a white supremacy philosophy that infects foreign policy and domestic policy. Members of the No US Foreign Bases coalition also engage in domestic efforts for racial and environmental justice.

    Further, the no bases coalition highlights the environmental and health damage caused by foreign and domestic military bases. As the Unity Statement notes, "military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental degradation." Pat Elder and David Swanson described the degradation in and around the Potomac River, writing:

    "The Pentagon's impact on the river on whose bank it sits is not simply the diffuse impact of global warming and rising oceans contributed to by the US military's massive oil consumption. The US military also directly poisons the Potomac River in more ways than almost anyone would imagine."

    People can find information about the environmental damage being done by the military in their community on the Bombs in Your Backward webpage . World Beyond War held a conference on War and the Environment in 2017. You can view video and summaries from the conference on their site .

    Next Steps

    The conference attendees decided on some next steps. A national day of action against foreign military bases is being planned for February 23, the anniversary of the US seizing Guantanamo Bay, Cuba through a "perpetual lease" that began in 1903. Activists are encouraged to plan local actions. If you plan an event, contact [email protected] and we'll post it on the events page. The demands will include closing the base and prison in Guantanamo, returning the land to Cuba and ending the US blockade.

    The conference also decided to hold a conference outside of the United States in one of the countries where the US has a foreign military base within the next year. People from some countries were not allowed to attend the inaugural conference this weekend.

    And, the coordinating committee will reach out to other peace and justice groups to select a date and place for a national mass action against US wars. This will be organized as quickly as possible because the threat of more wars is high.

    This is a key moment for the antiwar movement in the US to make itself more visible and to demand the closure of US foreign bases. In this report on living in a post-primacy world , even the Pentagon recognizes what many commentators are seeing – the US empire is fading. One great risk as the empire ends is more wars as the US tries to hang on to global hegemony. We must oppose war and work for the least damaging end of empire.

    Indeed, if the US becomes a cooperative member of the global community, rather than being a dominator, it would be a positive transition. Imagine how much better it would be for everyone in the world if the US collaborated on addressing the climate crisis in a serious way, obeyed international law and invested in positive programs to solve the many crises we face at home and abroad.

    During the Baltimore conference, World Beyond War sponsored a billboard nearby that read, "3% of US military spending could end starvation on earth." Imagine what a peace budget could look like. The US could invest in domestic necessities including rebuilding infrastructure, a cleaner and safer public transportation system, education, housing and health care. The US could provide aid to other countries to repair the damage it has caused. Members of the US military could transition into a civilian jobs program that applies their expertise to programs of social uplift.

    It is imperative that as the US Empire falls, we organize for a smooth transition to a world that is better for everyone. The work of the new coalition to end US foreign military bases is a strong start.

    Homeless encampment in the foreground of a Baltimore, MD billboard that read, "3% of US military spending could end starvation on earth." Source World Beyond War.

    Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance . This article first appeared as the weekly newsletter of the organization.

    Read more by Kevin B. Zeese

    [Jan 18, 2018] Explosive, Shocking And Alarming FISA Memo Set To Rock DC, End Mueller Investigation Zero Hedge

    Jan 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. tonight after a four-page memo detailing extensive FISA court abuse was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation.

    These sources say the report is "explosive," stating they would not be surprised if it leads to the end of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation into President Trump and his associates. - Sara Carter

    A source close to the matter tells Fox News that "the memo details the Intelligence Committee's oversight work for the FBI and Justice, including the controversy over unmasking and FISA surveillance." An educated guess by anyone who's been paying attention for the last year leads to the obvious conclusion that the report reveals extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team during and after the 2016 presidential election.

    Lawmakers who have seen the memo are calling for its immediate release, while the phrases "explosive," "shocking," "troubling," and "alarming" have all been used in all sincerity. One congressman even likened the report's details to KGB activity in Russia. " It is so alarming the American people have to see this, " Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told Fox News . " It's troubling. It is shocking ," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. " Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much. "

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored report available to the members.

    " The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document available, so the public can see it, " said a senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. " Once the public sees it, we can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways ."

    The government official said that after reading the document " some of these people should no longer be in the government. " - Sara Carter

    Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) echoed Sara Carter's sentiment that people might lose their job if the memo is released:

    " I believe the consequence of its release will be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice ," he said, referencing DOJ officials Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr .

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/z4ByDYn-taE

    Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Gatetz (R-FL) said not only will the release of this memo result in DOJ firing, but "people will go to jail."

    Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino says " Take it to the bank, the FBI/FISA docs are devastating for the Dems ."

    The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump campaign, according to a story published this month . Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016, was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.

    Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and released to the public.

    " We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month ," stated a congressional member, who asked not to be named. - Sara Carter

    Releasing the memo to the public would require a committee vote, a source told Fox , adding that if approved, it could be released as long as there are no objections from the White House within five days .

    Reactions from the citizenry have been on point:

    ... ... ....

    Even WikiLeaks has joined the fray, offering a reward in Bitcoin to anyone who will share the memo:

    Oddly, the Twitter account for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - @HPSCI - has been mysteriously suspended.

    Of all the recent developments in the ongoing investigation(s), this one is on the cusp of turning into a genuine happening.

    WTFRLY -> IridiumRebel Jan 18, 2018 10:30 PM Permalink

    This. Cut the Joominati out and light them on fire plz

    Automatic Choke -> ACP Jan 18, 2018 10:35 PM Permalink

    is somebody watching the airports?

    Ahmeexnal -> NoDebt Jan 18, 2018 10:36 PM Permalink

    Seems like the Deep State has no option but to fire some ballistic nukes from "black submarines" and blame it on the ruskies/norks/chinks.

    JimmyJones -> Ahmeexnal Jan 18, 2018 10:37 PM Permalink

    I pray you are wrong. I hope that this pans out.its blatantly obvious we have major corruption that needs to be dealt with.

    overbet -> ACP Jan 18, 2018 10:36 PM Permalink

    This statement shows the level of corruption that is acceptable. If something illegal was done they might lose their job:

    Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) echoed Sara Carter's sentiment that people might lose their job if the memo is released .

    Bigly Jan 18, 2018 10:27 PM Permalink

    Hannity was big tonight on this.

    I think it is just becoming too apparent. If it's released, there are names in there. Then they can be indicted and swing.

    GOLD AND SILVE Jan 18, 2018 10:30 PM Permalink

    I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for all of this and hey, it's the weekend. - Jeff Sessions

    IridiumRebel -> DarthVaderMentor Jan 18, 2018 10:39 PM Permalink

    https://reason.com/archives/2017/01/18/the-most-transparent-administr

    [Jan 17, 2018] A fascinating essay in Katehon, by military historian; Luis L zaro Tijerina: A Critique of Stephen R. Covington's "The Culture of Strategic Thought Behind Russia's Modern Approaches to Warfare".

    Jan 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    V. Arnold | Jan 15, 2018 1:00:21 AM | 49

    The closing paragraph;

    Such military thinkers like Sun Tzu, the moderns military strategists like Mao Zedong, General Võ Nguyên Giáp and even the military conceptions of Fidel Castro Ruz, should be investigated, developed more thoroughly and applied in the unexpected form of warfare that comes out of the fog of war across a battlefield on any given day.

    There is great promise of creative output in the Russian military art of war for it animates from one the most progressive nation-states, and the Russian military theorists must embrace their historical past, welding it to the here and now.

    http://katehon.com/article/modern-operational-art

    Well worth a read IMO...

    [Jan 17, 2018] US political and military leaders either are unaware of -- or have chosen to reject -- the peer-reviewed studies that predict a US-Russian nuclear war would likely wipe out most of the human race

    Notable quotes:
    "... The public relation campaign designed to increase the acceptance of new nuclear weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare is a symptom of this ignorance and willful blindness. ..."
    "... An article published by the Federation of American Scientists provides a summary of the nuclear winter studies (those done during the period 2007-2008) and the rejection of their findings by the US Nuclear Weapons Council, see Turning a Blind Eye Toward Armageddon ..."
    "... In a world of hyper sonic missiles and megaton nuclear warheads, sending off an alarm for your populace to seek bomb shelters, in a period of extremely heightened tensions, as exists currently between North Korea and the US, could be construed by your enemy as a nuclear-age form of mobilization. ..."
    "... One must also consider that Russia and China have also been threatened repeatedly by the US over the last year, and both have sent extra troops to their respective North Korean borders. ..."
    Jan 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Perimetr | Jan 14, 2018 2:37:37 PM | 21

    US political and military leaders either are unaware of -- or have chosen to reject -- the peer-reviewed studies that predict a US-Russian nuclear war would likely wipe out most of the human race. The public relation campaign designed to increase the acceptance of new nuclear weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare is a symptom of this ignorance and willful blindness.

    An article published by the Federation of American Scientists provides a summary of the nuclear winter studies (those done during the period 2007-2008) and the rejection of their findings by the US Nuclear Weapons Council, see Turning a Blind Eye Toward Armageddon

    Heros , Jan 16, 2018 4:49:22 AM | 99

    @PavewayIV 96

    Thank you once again for providing us a glance behind the curtain. Most historians accept that the Tsar and Russia deserve a certain degree of blame for WWI for being the first empire to mobilize in 1914.

    In a world of hyper sonic missiles and megaton nuclear warheads, sending off an alarm for your populace to seek bomb shelters, in a period of extremely heightened tensions, as exists currently between North Korea and the US, could be construed by your enemy as a nuclear-age form of mobilization.

    One must also consider that Russia and China have also been threatened repeatedly by the US over the last year, and both have sent extra troops to their respective North Korean borders.

    For the TSA/PACCOM/? to decide to fake a Nuclear missile attack would not only be exceedingly reckless, it could also be suicidal. Unless:

    1. The enemy had been informed before hand and there was no risk.
    2. The risk of a nuclear exchange had already been baked into the cake, and the possibility of this kicking off a war was not a bug, but a feature.

    [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Take Nadia Schadlow, for instance. Never heard of her? Unless you've been navigating the rice paddies of Washington's post-9/11 national security enterprise for the last several years, there's no reason you would have. But she has been at the National Security Council since last winter, and is set to replace Dina Powell as deputy national security advisor , at the right hand of NSC chief H.R. McMaster. She was also the lead on the White House National Security Strategy , released last month. ..."
    "... This was Schadlow's first position in government. Her résumé includes doctoral degrees from Johns Hopkins Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) under the tutelage of vocal Never Trumper and Iraq war promoter Eliot Cohen, who runs the largely neoconservative Strategic Studies program there, and whose last book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power, argued that the U.S., backed by a more robust military, must be the "guardian of a stable world order." ..."
    "... What is significant about Schadlow's role in the White House -- she's reportedly a "trusted confidant" of General McMaster, who was lionized in the New Yorker for his T.E. Lawrence approach to counterinsurgency in Tal Afar in 2006 -- is not her bibliography, but her vast connections to Washington's foreign policy and national security clique, especially its neoconservative elite. If one were using the metaphor of chain migration, she would have plenty of friends on either side of the Potomac to tap for high-level placement, consulting, and advice. ..."
    "... The foundation has a rich history cleaved to neoconservative pioneers such as Irving Kristol, father of Bill, who in his own memoirs credits the philanthropic institution and its then-director Randall Richardson (heir to the Vicks fortune) with helping him jumpstart the Public Interest, known as the premier neoconservative organ, a label Irving fully embraced . The foundation also served as a key backer of Commentary magazine after Norman Podhoretz took the helm in 1960. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, since 1998, the foundation has given over $10 million to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI was built, literally, on Smith Richardson money), which fielded many of the Iraq war architects and promoters, including Frederick Kagan, John Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle Pletka. ..."
    "... No surprise, then, that the worldview of people like Nadia Schadlow is no different from the wider Washington policy orbit that has enjoyed a pipeline of patronage from her former employer. She is not only affiliated with the Foreign Policy Institute, but is a full member of the Council on Foreign Relations. When she was named to the NSC staff in March 2017, along with "Kremlinologist" and former Eurasian Foundation strategist Fiona Hill, national security establishment courtier Thomas Ricks called them both "well-educated, skeptical, and informed. In other words, the opposite of the president they serve." ..."
    "... That is why there seemed to be such relief upon the recent release of the Trump administration's National Security Strategy, with Washington scribblers lauding it as " well within the bipartisan mainstream of American foreign policy " and "a well crafted document that should reassure allies and partners." ..."
    "... What it actually does is to reinforce Trump's turn towards a harder line against Iran, as evidenced in McMaster's recent speeches . Nikki Haley, ambassador to the UN, is threatening fellow members on the Security Council , and the Trump administration is seen as taking sides with Israel in the fragile Middle East peace process (or what's left if it). Meanwhile, the White House has just given a green light to arming Ukraine against Russia. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is executive editor of ..."
    "... Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC. ..."
    "... It turns to new parties, this endless Democrat/Republican cycle is a joke. Surely there are no more people out there that can rationally argue for the two party state as being a good setup for America. ..."
    "... There is a term soldiers sometimes use to characterize those who have never fought, will never fight, but are nevertheless positive that fighting is the answer to their dissatisfactions. Chickenhawks. ..."
    "... The Neocons are a cancer upon the American Body Politik. When Trump was elected I and many others were hopeful that this cancer could be effectively treated, but it could not for the cancer has spread to all vital organs and is terminal and our nation will die because of it. ..."
    "... "Neocons?" Actually what they are is Neocoms or Neocommunists. World domination is the name of their game. ..."
    "... The folks who thought President Trump would have a less belligerent foreign policy than Sec. Clinton would have deserve as much intellectual sympathy as those who thought that he would lower premiums and increase coverage of ACA. ..."
    Jan 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Over the last year critics have warned of the returning neoconservative influence on the executive branch's national security apparatus, each day a little less confident that President Donald Trump will keep to the seeming anti-interventionist impulses he demonstrated during the 2016 campaign.

    News flash: We're already there.

    Of course the most garish of the pro-war set -- Sebastian Gorka, K.T. McFarland, John Bolton -- are easy to identify in or on the periphery of Trump's orbit (in Gorka's case, he was cast out of the White House, only to flak away in any media outlet that will pay attention). Meanwhile, elite neoconservative voices like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have become darlings of the "Never Trump" cadre, finding new life as conservative tokens on "Resistance" media like MSNBC.

    What has been less obvious, but has become much clearer in these last few months, is that other neoconservatives are quietly filling the vacuum left by Obama's cadre of liberal interventionists. Many of them had taken a pass on "Never Trumping" publicly, and are now popping up at the elbows of top cabinet officials.

    Take Nadia Schadlow, for instance. Never heard of her? Unless you've been navigating the rice paddies of Washington's post-9/11 national security enterprise for the last several years, there's no reason you would have. But she has been at the National Security Council since last winter, and is set to replace Dina Powell as deputy national security advisor , at the right hand of NSC chief H.R. McMaster. She was also the lead on the White House National Security Strategy , released last month.

    This was Schadlow's first position in government. Her résumé includes doctoral degrees from Johns Hopkins Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) under the tutelage of vocal Never Trumper and Iraq war promoter Eliot Cohen, who runs the largely neoconservative Strategic Studies program there, and whose last book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power, argued that the U.S., backed by a more robust military, must be the "guardian of a stable world order." In that vein, Schadlow published a book last year, War and the Art of Governance , that extols the virtues of long-term military intervention for "achieving sustainable political outcomes," requiring "the consolidation of combat gains through the establishment of stable environments." Schadlow has repeated this for years as a mantra for reordering military strategy in the wake of the disastrous wars she and her contemporaries helped sustain, in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. Call it nation-building by another name.

    In a 2012 Weekly Standard commentary , she criticized the Obama administration for saying "the tide of war is receding," and exclaimed "the line of thinking that now pervades the Pentagon avoids recognizing that combat and the restoration of political order go hand and hand." While she gives a nod to "civil-military operational planning and execution," she never utters the words "State Department." No surprise there, either, since her neocon friends were responsible for the long slide of Foggy Bottom's resources and influence in favor of military leadership, beginning with the "political reconciliation" and reconstruction of Iraq, and then Afghanistan.

    What is significant about Schadlow's role in the White House -- she's reportedly a "trusted confidant" of General McMaster, who was lionized in the New Yorker for his T.E. Lawrence approach to counterinsurgency in Tal Afar in 2006 -- is not her bibliography, but her vast connections to Washington's foreign policy and national security clique, especially its neoconservative elite. If one were using the metaphor of chain migration, she would have plenty of friends on either side of the Potomac to tap for high-level placement, consulting, and advice.

    Why? As recent senior program director for the expansive, multi-million dollar International Security and Foreign Policy Program under the Smith Richardson Foundation , she has helped to fund and facilitate countless authors, conferences, think tanks, and university programs since 9/11, most of which hew to the doctrine of sustained military intervention towards the goal of U.S. global power and influence. That includes preemptive war strategy, counterinsurgency, democracy promotion, and the continued push for bigger military budgets and solutions to regional conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. If there was a prominent player in the U.S. security community over the last 20 years, you can bet Schadlow and Smith Richardson were more often than not connected to him.

    But it goes back so much further than that. The foundation has a rich history cleaved to neoconservative pioneers such as Irving Kristol, father of Bill, who in his own memoirs credits the philanthropic institution and its then-director Randall Richardson (heir to the Vicks fortune) with helping him jumpstart the Public Interest, known as the premier neoconservative organ, a label Irving fully embraced . The foundation also served as a key backer of Commentary magazine after Norman Podhoretz took the helm in 1960.

    It is in international affairs that Smith Richardson has made some of its biggest impacts, during the anti-communist Reagan era and into the Middle East conflicts under Presidents Clinton, Bushes, Obama, and Trump. To say the foundation was involved at every level in the lobbying for and crafting of the so-called global war on terror after 9/11 would be an understatement. Example: Former Smith Richardson research director Devon Gaffney Cross became a director of the Project for a New American Century, the intellectual vehicle that drove the removal of Saddam Hussein and shaped George W. Bush's foreign policy. In 2000, Cross was listed as one of the participants in PNAC's seminal treatise, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." The rest of the contributors are a who's who of Washington's war theocracy, most of whom have benefitted from Smith Richardson support.

    Meanwhile, since 1998, the foundation has given over $10 million to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI was built, literally, on Smith Richardson money), which fielded many of the Iraq war architects and promoters, including Frederick Kagan, John Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle Pletka.

    Just as telling is Smith Richardson's continued backing of the Institute for the Study of War , headed by Kimberly Kagan, wife of Frederick, with whom she was a "de facto advisor" to General Petraeus for a year as he set about his then-vaunted COIN strategy in Afghanistan. ISW, chaired by retired General Jack Keane, known as the " godfather of the surge ," was founded in part by the generosity of Smith Richardson in 2007. It not only promoted more troops, but an extended occupation in Afghanistan, regime change in Syria , and ongoing hostilities with Iran. No surprise, then, that ISW has numerous intertwining relationships with the military and the defense industry. It received $895,000 for program work from Smith Richardson between 2014 and 2016 alone.

    According to Philip Rojc of Inside Philanthropy , other recipients of Smith Richardson grants since 1998 include the the Hudson Institute ($6,032,230), the Jamestown Institute ($5,779,475), the Hoover Institution ($3,645,314), and the Center for a New American Security ($1,595,000). Totals have been adjusted to include 2016 numbers.

    The last one -- CNAS -- is more indicative of Smith Richardson's broader strategy, in that it doesn't only give to hardline neoconservative outfits like, say, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (which has received no less than $500,000 since 2014 and says it helped write Trump's new Iran policy ). On the contrary, Smith Richardson has been a major patron of the conventional establishment, too, even largely Democratic think tanks like CNAS, Brookings Institute, and the Carnegie Endowment -- all of which invariably host scholars and programs that promote America's military-driven global influence, counterinsurgency doctrine (CNAS was a virtual hothouse for COIN early in Obama's presidency), and democracy promotion in places like Russia and Ukraine, a major yet failed project of humanitarian interventionists in the Obama administration.

    No surprise, then, that the worldview of people like Nadia Schadlow is no different from the wider Washington policy orbit that has enjoyed a pipeline of patronage from her former employer. She is not only affiliated with the Foreign Policy Institute, but is a full member of the Council on Foreign Relations. When she was named to the NSC staff in March 2017, along with "Kremlinologist" and former Eurasian Foundation strategist Fiona Hill, national security establishment courtier Thomas Ricks called them both "well-educated, skeptical, and informed. In other words, the opposite of the president they serve."

    You know the "right" kind of operator has arrived in the White House when establishment commentariat like Ricks and Josh Rogin get all gushy about their calming, "soft power" influence over Trump, which sounds like a lot of bunk when you consider their well-documented points of view.

    Simply put, after years of cross-pollination brought on by a slush fund of wealthy private donors like Smith Richardson and an even more eager defense industry, neoconservative views are no longer distinguishable from the sanctioned goals of the Washington policy establishment. They are all working, really, as proper stewards of the military-industrial complex, which is essential for advancing their (sometimes competing) visions of world power politics and American exceptionalism. There is little room for realism and restraint, as voiced by this magazine and other critics.

    That is why there seemed to be such relief upon the recent release of the Trump administration's National Security Strategy, with Washington scribblers lauding it as " well within the bipartisan mainstream of American foreign policy " and "a well crafted document that should reassure allies and partners."

    What it actually does is to reinforce Trump's turn towards a harder line against Iran, as evidenced in McMaster's recent speeches . Nikki Haley, ambassador to the UN, is threatening fellow members on the Security Council , and the Trump administration is seen as taking sides with Israel in the fragile Middle East peace process (or what's left if it). Meanwhile, the White House has just given a green light to arming Ukraine against Russia.

    Call it the new "adults in the room," if you want, or peg it as the neoconservative influence that it is. Strikingly, Dan Drezner writes that the NSS is "Straussian" in that its "subtext matters at least as much as the text." The preeminent scholar Leo Strauss is considered one of the key founders of the neoconservative movement, a fact the Washington Post columnist should be well aware of. Like most of the elites here in Washington, however, Drezner is trying to have it both ways -- calling it neocon without have the guts to say it outright.

    Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is executive editor of The American Conservative. Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC.

    Iron Felix January 15, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    It is a sad state of affairs when the American people are literally dependent on sane people in Beijing, Moscow, Ankara, Tehran, and other capitals to keep a completely out of control neo-con foreign and defense policy establishment from plunging our people on the world into yet more pointless warfare.
    MEOW , says: January 15, 2018 at 10:57 pm
    Mainstream media seems "All Neocon." A star studded group of rationalizers. We are being gently taught to hate what the neocons hate. South Pacific had the recipe. Not for the reasons intended. Au contraire.
    Beltway Roach Motels? , says: January 16, 2018 at 4:22 am
    So. Well-heeled foreign interests and interventionists are buying nosebagger politicians and shaping our foreign policy under Trump, just like they did under Obama, Bush II, and Clinton.

    Why do we bother having elections if neocon crap is the only item on the menu?

    It's incredible. No matter how often they lie and fail, no matter how many colossally expensive disasters they cause, someone keeps letting the filth back in. They're as hardy and resilient as cockroaches, and we need to start dealing with them as such.

    george Archers , says: January 16, 2018 at 9:26 am
    Neocons?
    Hal Donahue , says: January 16, 2018 at 9:41 am
    Trump 'needs a war' to be re-elected. He knows this and who else to better start one than the neo-cons?

    What is terrifying is that these same people and their ancestors actually attempted to convince Reagan that the US could win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Reagan wisely chose 'Trust but Verify' over their strongest objections. Trump is a far cry from a Reagan.

    The generations long war to destroy the State Department appears to have completely obscured the greatest US victory of last century. The defeat of the Soviet Union with little more than skirmishes.

    The gloved fist approach, while frustrating to the military, was a massive success. Military solutions fail badly. One look at the history of military governments confirms their abysmal record. Yet, we have an administration preparing for war. Not at all certain, the people will follow.

    mike flynn , says: January 16, 2018 at 9:59 am
    Now that Trump has been effectively body snatched in foreign policy (neo-cons) and domestic (wall st) where does main st turn?
    peter murray , says: January 16, 2018 at 10:35 am
    As a matter of interest, and in the light of kite-flying about arming the Ukrainian nationalists, where is Ms 'Toria Nuland hanging out these days?
    Peter B. Gemma , says: January 16, 2018 at 11:06 am
    Good article. Trump is easily distracted from his (often right) gut feelings on policy (China, NATO, etc.) by titles: military rank, highbrow think tanks, Wall St. moguls, and power elites from the Council on Foreign Relations. With no moral compass or basic understanding of the Constitution or the ways Washington works, he is hapless and his agenda is hamstrung.
    Michael Kenny , says: January 16, 2018 at 11:53 am
    I wondered how far down I'd have to go down in the article before Ukraine and Putin popped up! It's the usual "let Putin win in Ukraine" propaganda. What astonishes me as a European is why people who call themselves "conservatives", whom you would naturally expect to be patriotic, often indeed excessively so, are frantically trying to persuade their fellow citizens to submit to a foreign power inflicting a humiliating defeat on their country, possibly the most humiliating that it has ever suffered in its history. I couldn't imagine Europeans behaving like that.
    Stephen J. , says: January 16, 2018 at 11:57 am
    Interesting article with good info. I believe "the Trump White House" is just continuing the policies of the past occupants of "The House of Blood."
    [More info at link below]

    August 9, 2016
    The House of Blood

    Its color is white but it is red with blood
    The residents' name should really be mud
    Instead they get fancy honors and titles
    Wars for them is a musical recital

    The hum of their drones flying through the air
    Are killing children without due care
    This is hellishly called "collateral damage"
    These are the words of the resident savage

    Immaculately dressed in a business suit
    An eloquent speaker is this callous brute
    Surrounded by sycophants and flunkeys too
    Evil is what these people plan and do

    War and more war is their hellish aim
    Are they all devils and bloody insane?
    Countries are reduced to smoking rubble
    These well-dressed maniacs are big trouble

    People are fleeing and dying too
    From the hell produced by this satanic crew
    Refugees are drowning in deadly waters
    Trying to escape the endless slaughters

    These helpless victims once had homes
    Now they have nothing, and just roam
    Helpless, homeless people on the move
    With nothing really left to improve

    The perpetrators call their crimes "bringing democracy"
    Surely creating hell on earth is really hypocrisy
    But when criminals rule there is no justice
    And law and order is totally corrupted

    The war criminals slogan is "responsibility to protect"
    They tell that to the people whose countries they wrecked
    Those still alive can hear the bombs explode and thud
    A hellish "courtesy" from the House of Blood

    http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-house-of-blood.html

    Bobber , says: January 16, 2018 at 12:27 pm
    Why would a big drug company have so much interest in foreign policy?
    spite , says: January 16, 2018 at 12:58 pm
    "where does main st turn?"

    It turns to new parties, this endless Democrat/Republican cycle is a joke. Surely there are no more people out there that can rationally argue for the two party state as being a good setup for America.

    bacon , says: January 16, 2018 at 1:11 pm
    There is a term soldiers sometimes use to characterize those who have never fought, will never fight, but are nevertheless positive that fighting is the answer to their dissatisfactions. Chickenhawks.
    JEinCA , says: January 16, 2018 at 1:26 pm
    The Neocons are a cancer upon the American Body Politik. When Trump was elected I and many others were hopeful that this cancer could be effectively treated, but it could not for the cancer has spread to all vital organs and is terminal and our nation will die because of it.
    Minnesota Mary , says: January 16, 2018 at 1:46 pm
    @ george archers

    "Neocons?" Actually what they are is Neocoms or Neocommunists. World domination is the name of their game.

    Steve in Ohio , says: January 16, 2018 at 2:34 pm
    " where does Main St turn?"

    Trump won with a coalition of conservative and populist support. The two partners agree on judges, but not too much else. For those of the latter persuasion, you at least have a seat at the table in the current administration (thank you, Lord, for Stephen Miller!) Populists need to run candidates at all levels and start to groom future leaders. Somebody with Rand Paul's FP views and Tom Cotton's immigration views would be perfect.

    One Guy , says: January 16, 2018 at 2:49 pm
    @Michael Kenny,
    Why should America care what Putin wins in Ukraine? Why doesn't the EU fight its own battles? Go on, oppose Putin. You have more to lose than America does.
    Thaomas , says: January 16, 2018 at 4:37 pm
    The folks who thought President Trump would have a less belligerent foreign policy than Sec. Clinton would have deserve as much intellectual sympathy as those who thought that he would lower premiums and increase coverage of ACA.

    [Jan 17, 2018] Out " -- Trump Expels CNN's Jim Acosta From Oval Office Over Shiteholegate Questions

    Jan 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    "Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.

    " I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump replied while Acosta continued to interject.

    " Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:

    "Out!"

    Watch here:

    me title=

    Different angle:

    me title=

    Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.

    "It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."

    Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of another reporter:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xy2U55fIBx0

    Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."

    Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them. Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.

    "I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is false."

    [Jan 17, 2018] Truman was a lot like obomba. shaped, modeled and fluffed to appear to be a thoughtful, moral and decent fellow - everyman, but in reality an empty suit and a useful frontispiece

    Jan 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    fast freddy | Jan 14, 2018 4:50:02 PM | 31

    Truman was a lot like obomba. shaped, modeled and fluffed to appear to be a thoughtful, moral and decent fellow - everyman, but in reality an empty suit and a useful frontispiece - puppet for the zioinist warmongers.

    [Jan 16, 2018] Turning a Blind Eye Toward Armageddon

    Jan 16, 2018 | fas.org

    Posted by: Perimetr | Jan 14, 2018 2:37:37 PM | 21

    [Jan 16, 2018] http://katehon.com/article/modern-operational-art

    Jan 16, 2018 | katehon.com

    Well worth a read IMO...

    Posted by: V. Arnold | Jan 15, 2018 1:00:21 AM | 49

    [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia's attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition , complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even -- though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities -- the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives. ..."
    "... Administration officials said Mr. Putin had miscalculated and would pay a cost regardless of what the United States did, pointing to the impact on Russia's currency and markets. "What we see here are distinctly 19th- and 20th-century decisions made by President Putin to address problems," one of the officials said. "What he needs to understand is that in terms of his economy, he lives in the 21st-century world, an interdependent world." ..."
    "... The dossier's claim that Putin talked about the "ideals-based international order" also rings false. Putin only ever refers to Western ideals when saying that Western countries' leaders are hypocrites for not adhering to them. ..."
    "... The more straightforward explanation is that, knowing that this is opposition research, Steele and his sources provided information that rang true with what the client already believed and would want to hear. This is the first report in the series–in effect, a teaser trailer–and no consultant working on a monthly retainer is going to tell you in the first memo that his services aren't needed. If Steele had indicated that there was no dirt to investigate, the $15,000/mo. (as estimated by Vanity Fair ) contract wouldn't have lasted longer than a month or two. ..."
    "... The dossier's use of the phraseology "Trump and his team" and "Trump team" and the like is confusing in reference to the pre-2016 campaign period. Other than his lawyer Michael Cohen, there's nothing I've seen to indicate that the other Trump campaign people mentioned by name in the dossier (Paul Manafort and Carter Page) knew Trump before 2016. By all appearances, the key members of Trump's team before 2016 were his children, and maybe his talent agent. ..."
    "... It also seems out of character for Trump to have the foresight and planning that it would take to seek out intelligence on Hillary Clinton several years back. Several years ago, Trump and the Clintons were friends , and the Clintons attended Trump's wedding and Bill and Donald played golf together. ..."
    "... Russians are very cautious about what they talk about, even amongst each other. Therefore, with the story about [sexual acts] in the Moscow Ritz Carlton, the idea you have managed to triple source it via an employee at the hotel, a serving FSB [Russian security service] officer, and the security officer at the hotel, who inevitably will be at least a former FSB or GRU [Russian intelligence agency] officer It just doesn't make sense. If such a thing had taken place, it would be a Russian state secret. ..."
    "... Seems more likely that it's just a piece of "scuttlebutt" that Steele's sources, pressed to find anything juicy on Trump, saw in the newspaper or in a news search on Google or on Russian search engine Yandex . ..."
    "... Whatever the truth of the matter, Page is clearly someone who was very keen to network with powerful Russians in 2016 and was not shy about leveraging his affiliation with the Trump campaign to do it. ..."
    "... But at the same time, this would also mean Page was a loose cannon and a huge potential liability to the Trump campaign. Igor Sechin is, and was in July 2016, on the Specially Designated Nationals list of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. This means that it's a crime for any US citizen to do any business with Sechin personally (though not with Rosneft as a corporate entity). ..."
    "... Page, by all appearances, is reckless and kind of an idiot . He had to have known that his activities (even if they were limited to just non-treasonous networking with Russians) carried a huge risk of blowback for Trump. He didn't care. Carter Page's willingness to toe the Russian line on foreign policy, publicly and on the record, goes beyond even what the most Russophile Western expats in Moscow say in private conversations. I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask why and how Carter Page came to be affiliated with the Trump campaign, why he visited Russia alone at least twice in 2016, and what contacts he's had with Russian officials (he definitely met with some of them, at least at the New Economic School graduation reception on Jul. 8, at which there were several senior Russian officials present and Carter Page was commencement speaker and an honored foreign guest). ..."
    "... And why send him to give a public university commencement speech in which he rails against US foreign policy, ensuring wide media coverage? ..."
    "... A meeting with a Trump adviser on the sidelines of such a noisy, high-profile trip–with both the Russian and foreign press speculating in real-time what the hell Page was doing in Moscow–seems like an extremely incautious setting for a meeting to discuss the most scandalous quid pro quo since the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. ..."
    "... To sum up, I have serious doubts that a meeting took place as described. But I also think that Carter Page was–at the very least–trying to leverage his connection to Trump in Russia for personal gain at the very earliest opportunity he got. ..."
    "... *This report doesn't have a date. However, the July 19 report is numbered "2016/94" and the July 26 report is numbered "2016/097" so it seems like this is where the report should go. ..."
    "... This is the central allegation against the Trump campaign – that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to take actions aimed at defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The one thing that I'd add (or, rather, remind) is that by late July, the story of allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election was in full swing . Manafort's history in the former Soviet Union was being widely reported . Carter Page, as mentioned above, had traveled to Moscow for unknown purposes a few weeks before, a trip that was covered in the Russian and US media. ..."
    "... What I'd like to point out here -- in terms of the timing of the information in this report -- is that the DNC hacked e-mail dumps on WikiLeaks that led to Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigning as head of the DNC happened on July 22, 2016 , and even before the WikiLeaks dumps the DNC had been attributing the hack to Russia. ..."
    "... Since this report refers to the WikiLeaks dump of DNC e-mails that happened on July 22, even though it's undated we know that the report must have been made after that, as well as after the Republican National Convention that happened on July 18, as well as after reports had emerged that the Trump team had been behind a change in the Republican Party platform to remove a reference to providing lethal arms to Ukraine. The allegation made here closely tracks what was being reported in the media at the time. ..."
    "... FBI director James Comey made a point of saying that US intelligence services were struck by how unusually noisy the Russians had been in their election interference, as if they wanted to be discovered. ..."
    "... *The actual date on the report is "26 July 201 5 " (in the British style), but since it refers to events that happened as recently as June 2016, and based on the news reports that said that Steele was hired in June 2016, I assume this is just a typo. ..."
    "... This strains credulity. So there's a single Russian emigre who not only knows the internal mood of the Trump team, but also knows what the Russian leadership is thinking (about a matter that, remember, according to the dossier is top-top secret)? And I know what you're thinking – well, if they were in collusion, of course there's such a person. But who is it? You'd think that there couldn't be too many people who fit this description – being a Russian emigre, close to the Trump campaign, and also with top-level Kremlin access. ..."
    "... This is described as someone's opinion so it's hard to argue against or fact-check. I will note that the e-mails from John Podesta's Gmail account started being published by WikiLeaks in October 2016, and since the e-mails run only through March 2016, and given that WikiLeaks usually takes time to prepare for a dump, whoever broke into Podesta's Gmail account was likely very active at the time when this report was dated. If you believe that it was the Russians who broke into Podesta's Gmail account, then this intelligence report is precisely wrong. Eleven days after this report, on August 10, Guccifer 2.0 published the personal contact info of 200 prominent Democrats, so if you believe that Guccifer 2.0 was the alter ego of the Russian government, this intelligence report was precisely wrong. ..."
    "... This report is dated precisely one week before Sergei Ivanov was dismissed from his post and moved to a less political role as Putin's special envoy for the environment. If you want to be charitable to the dossier, you could say that this report foreshadows Ivanov's dismissal (later reports say that the dismissal was unexpected). But on the other hand, clearly Ivanov's move to his new position was already in the works on Aug. 5 – it was reported that rumors of the move had been circulating since spring. Why hadn't Steele's "well-placed and established" sources heard those rumors? ..."
    "... Peskov is widely considered not to be an independent political player in the Kremlin. He is seen as being a sort of assistant to Putin in addition to his role as spokesman, but someone who likes the spotlight, celebrity and glamour a bit too much. ..."
    "... About Turkey: Peskov started his career in the Russian diplomatic corps as a Turkey specialist and worked as the third secretary of the Russian embassy in Ankara in the early '90s. He speaks Turkish. So hearing him mentioned in connection with Turkey makes some sense. ..."
    "... Russia was reported to have given advance warning to Erdogan, based on intelligence intercepts, that a coup was being planned. Peskov denied these reports. Just a few weeks earlier, Turkish president Erdogan had apologized to Putin for shooting down a Russian fighter jet on the Turkey-Syria border and Medvedev had announced that Russia would begin lifting the sanctions it had imposed on Turkey in connection with the incident. ..."
    "... So in early August 2016 it seemed like Russia-Turkey relations had turned a corner and were being handled quite well – as a matter of fact, over the course of 2016, Turkey went from being the US's partner on Syria to being in a de facto alliance with Russia . The turnaround is stunning – in January 2016 , the US and Turkey were conducting joint operations in Syria, and in January 2017 , Turkey and Russia were conducting joint operations in Syria. Whoever was handling Russia's relationship with Turkey, they did a good job by any objective measure – hard to see how this can be considered "botched." ..."
    "... Around this time , there was a lot of speculation in the media about whether Trump would drop out of the race. It's remarkable how the "intelligence" in the dossier follows what was being reported in the news at the time. ..."
    "... Ivanov was leading the operation to "hack the US election" literally days before he was fired? That doesn't make sense. ..."
    "... This ethnic Russian associate of Trump – who is it? Is it Sergei Millian ? He's supposed to be Source D , a "close associate" of Trump, but he might also be the ethnic Russian (even though Millian is technically from Belarus) associate referred to here and elsewhere. ..."
    "... Here we have Carter Page telling the maybe-Millian about his collusion with Russian intelligence on the DNC leaks. Do people really go around confessing crimes willy-nilly? According to this dossier, they do. ..."
    "... The big Trump campaign news of August 2016, of course, was that on Aug. 17, Steve Bannon replaced Paul Manafort as head of Trump's campaign. This news was absolutely huge. If Steele's source would have said on Aug. 9 that Bannon would be replacing Manafort, or even that a change of campaign management was being discussed, then in retrospect, you would have to admit that this source was well-informed. But if on Aug. 9, this source was talking about "a rethink and a likely change of tactics," s/he either was not very close to the campaign or was holding back on Steele. ..."
    "... So this associate was so close to the campaign that he was privy to all of the team's discussions about collusion with the Russians, but he didn't know that Steve Bannon was about to be named as the new campaign head? ..."
    "... But my main beef with this paragraph involves the phrase "kick-back payments to MANAFORT as alleged." Manafort wasn't accused of receiving kickbacks (as I'll explain in a moment, that doesn't make any sense) – he was accused of being paid cash by Yanukovich's political party in an off-the-books scheme, and this was widely covered in the press after the story broke in The New York Times on Aug. 14. ..."
    "... That's not a kickback. A kickback is when a government or other organization is offering a contract to an outside contractor, typically in a competitive bid situation, and then when the winner is selected the winner kicks back some of the contract proceeds to the person who manipulated the contract selection process. ..."
    "... So if there were kickbacks involved in Manafort's work for Yanukovich, it would've been Manafort kicking back money to Yanukovich, not the other way around. ..."
    "... However, what Manafort was actually accused of in the press -- receiving money not properly accounted for under Ukrainian law -- is a crime under American law only if he received income that he didn't report to the IRS, or engaged in money laundering, even if an indisputable "documentary trail" emerges. ..."
    "... It is difficult to imagine Putin and his inner circle being fearful of political vulnerability and embarrassment in connection with Manafort. As even Julia Ioffe–a journalist opposed to both Trump and Putin–conceded i n a recent article i n The Atlantic , the political consulting work that Manafort did for Yanukovich and others in the former Soviet Union was hardly unusual. ..."
    "... Just to point out – there's a certain implication in the dossier's description of Manafort's work for Yanukovich that this work was "exposed" during the 2016 US election campaign. That's not the case. Manafort just wasn't a household name before 2016, so no one cared. He was just another American political consultant who was more than happy to offer his services to unsavory foreign politicians, like Sandra Bullock's character in "Our Brand is Crisis." ..."
    "... Manafort's work for Yanukovich was public knowledge in Ukraine as early as 2005, and was reported actively in the Ukrainian press. By 2016 it was part of Manafort's resume. ..."
    "... The report on the Alfa Group (yes, Steele spelled it wrong) is actually the only place in the whole dossier where the dossier was ahead of the mainstream news cycle. The report doesn't give any context for why a special report on the relationship between Putin and Alfa was requested. But on Halloween 2016, the story broke that in Spring and Summer 2016, white-hat hackers had been tracking electronic communications between Trump's e-mail server and an Alfa-Bank (part of Alfa Group) computer in Russia, posting their findings on Reddit – so it was in the public domain but you really had to be paying attention (as apparently a few New York Times journalists and probably the FBI were). I doubt that Steele or his sources were following hacker forums on Reddit. ..."
    "... So here's what I think happened: by September, Steele's ultimate client was the Democrats. Someone tipped off the Hillary Clinton campaign (and/or the Clinton-aligned group that was paying Fusion GPS / Orbis) about the electronic link to Alfa, and then Orbis (Steele) got a call asking for an intelligence report on Alfa Group's connections to Putin, without saying why. However, since it was on the phone, the Orbis person heard it as "Alpha Group," and their Russian sources didn't correct the error. ..."
    "... Vladimir Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg from 1992 to 1996 . In August 1996 Putin moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow to be Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Directorate (Yeltsin was president at the time, of course). He needed a new job because his boss, St. Petersburg mayor Anatoly Sobchak , lost his re-election bid. ..."
    "... Alfa-Bank was a direct competitor to Khodorkovsky's Bank Menatep (a subsidiary of Rosprom) at the time. So there's no way Fridman and Aven used Govorun to deliver cash to Putin when Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. The dates don't line up. There was an 8-month gap after Putin left St. Petersburg and before Govorun started working at Alfa. ..."
    "... How could Steele's sources have made this mistake? Because Govorun's Wikipedia page omits his time at Rosprom, and makes it look like Govorun worked at Alfa-Bank from 1993 to 2000. This is why you don't prepare your report based on Wikipedia, kids! ..."
    "... Or if Steele was feeling particularly lazy, he could've gone to Trump's Twitter feed, where Trump proudly told his millions of followers that he'd just spent the weekend with Aras Agalarov and that he wanted to do more business with him. Maybe in Steele's world, being "well-placed" to hear intel about Trump's connections with Russian businesspeople means reading Donald Trump's tweets? ..."
    "... There's no other word but "fraud" to describe an "intelligence report" that tries to make it look like the connection between Trump and the Agalarov family is some kind of inside information that you'd need "well-placed sources" to obtain. It took some serious balls for Steele to present it that way, since all anyone would have to do is Google the names mentioned in the report and it would be instantly clear that the intelligence was worthless. ..."
    "... Hmm. This is the intelligence that Hillary's people were getting less than one month from Election Day. Intelligence that they paid for. Makes you feel sorry for her; I strongly suspect she was being conned with these reports. ..."
    "... In December 2016, Rosneft did indeed sell 19.5% of its shares to two investors using a complicated financing structure. Some have pointed to this as an example where the dossier correctly predicted something would happen. However, the sale of 19.5% of Rosneft to an investor was part of Russia's privatization plan for 2016, which the Russian government announced in December 2015 , and the timeline for the privatization (referring to the 19.5% figure) was updated throughout the year . Anyone who was following Russian business news in 2016 knew that Rosneft was planning to sell 19.5% to an investor that year. ..."
    "... Sucks to be Michael Cohen! Unless the dossier is true, he should sue for libel. ..."
    "... Sechin is a very big deal in Russia, and a total badass that you don't want to mess with. He is an intimidating guy who is as serious as a heart attack. Carter Page is a dumbass. But the account of this conversation makes it sound like Page was running the meeting like a seasoned pro, leaving Sechin hanging, keeping things vague and noncommittal. I, on the other hand, think that Sechin would never bother meeting with a nobody like Carter Page to discuss something as consequential as billion-dollar oil deals and international relations unless Page had made his bona fides abundantly clear. ..."
    "... "Unexpectedly." This looks suspiciously like ass-covering as to why Steele's earlier reports dated mere days before Ivanov's dismissal, containing statements attributed directly to Ivanov, made no mention that these were his last days on the job. ..."
    "... Most political observers believed at the time that it was Bernie Sanders, not Russia, who pushed Hillary Clinton away from supporting TPP. This is because Bernie Sanders said openly that he was pressuring Hillary to drop support for TPP. Strangely, the only place where the "veterans' pensions ruse" was ever reported was in the Steele dossier, and the media haven't been tipped off to it to this day. Dodged a bullet! Remember, this is after Putin had supposedly directly ordered all Kremlin insiders, all of whom are tried-and-true Putin loyalists, not to talk about these matters even in private. ..."
    "... Steele's team has made the bold decision to misspell Paul Manafort's name as MANNAFORT (Mannafort from heaven?) throughout this report. ..."
    "... Gubarev sued BuzzFeed and its editor-in-chief for libel and slander and, lacking any basis other than the dossier itself for these allegations, BuzzFeed blacked out the identifying information. ..."
    "... This is quite a cinematic portrayal of hacking. The implication seems to be that there were teams of hackers in a room somewhere and they were ordered to "stand down." Is that how hacking works? Especially in this case, where the hacking that resulted in the 2016 DNC and Podesta leaks had taken place several months before this alleged meeting? This also seems to contradict the declassified US intelligence community findings that said that the hacks were done by Russian government hacker teams called "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear" that were working for the GRU, a Russian intelligence agency that isn't mentioned once in the dossier. The Romanian angle apparently refers t o Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be Romanian but was also believed to be a Russian intelligence agency alter ego only pretending to be Romanian. If these were Russian government hackers, why would they be ordered to cross international borders and "lay low" in Bulgaria, a member of NATO? ..."
    "... Also, given that Russia allegedly had huge wins in their 2016 election meddling, why would they be so stingy as to demand that Trump pay his share for the hacking? Especially if they were so concerned about covering their tracks? This only would implicate the Trump campaign and create a paper trail leading directly to Trump transition team members in the United States, plus they would be involving themselves in a criminal conspiracy to violate US money laundering laws, RICO and the like. ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | russiaexplainer.com

    THE DOSSIER

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 16, 2018] The Darkest Time in American History

    Notable quotes:
    "... What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and 400,000 American soldiers died World War II. ..."
    "... Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the worst they have ever felt. ..."
    Jan 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    Via The Daily Bell

    The darkest time in American history.

    I saw someone refer to the Trump Presidency as "possibly the darkest time in American history." I've heard some iteration of that many times from people still in a frenzy over the Trump Administration.

    I'm not a big Trump fan. I wasn't a big Obama fan either. But their presence in office did not and does not hang over my life like a dark cloud. They really aren't that important.

    Yes, they have the ability to make life more difficult for many. It is unfortunate that any politicians have that much control over our day to day lives.

    But the darkest time in American history ?

    What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and 400,000 American soldiers died World War II.

    For Japanese Americans, FDR's presidency was likely a darker time, as they sat in detainment facilities. Their crime was having Japanese ancestors.

    In 1918 the Spanish Flu swept across the globe killing at least 20 million people worldwide, 675,000 Americans. At the same time, soldiers were coming home from WWI blinded by chemicals and mutilated by bombs.

    And that is just going back one century. American history also includes the Civil War, slavery, and the Whiskey Rebellion .

    Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the worst they have ever felt.

    ... ... ...

    Look at where it left the global warming alarmists . They wanted to reduce pollution, which is a noble cause. But they lied about the goals, they lied about the causes, and they exaggerated the timetable. It's the classic boy who cried wolf.

    ... ... ...

    I used to be paranoid about the government. Obviously, some of that paranoia is well founded. They do monitor communications and disrupt online discourse . They do violate rights . They are oppressive in many ways.

    But those are not things I can readily change. I can protect myself, and I can try to show others how to change things for the better. But I can't control everything, and I can't control others .

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 16, 2018] Drive by shooting in Afghanistan of truck, full video over 3 minutes

    Jan 16, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Christian Chuba | Jan 16, 2018 8:48:12 AM | 101

    https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1-2.mp4?_=1
    https://southfront.org/leaked-afghan-combat-video-shows-us-special-forces-firing-at-driver-of-civilian-truck/

    Okay, the segment with the shooting through the truck window is still only 5 seconds but I'd argue that the fact that it is part of a 3 minute montage 'our guys are kicking ass in Afghanistan' actually gives it a much worse context. If this was some innocent procedural, 'we had to reluctantly do it' incident, no one in their right mind would have popped it into such a sequence.

    [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus

    Highly recommended!
    It was a coup d'état.
    Notable quotes:
    "... When the entire episode about the creation of the Trump dossier (by former Brit spy, Christopher Steele) and its dissemination (by Steele and the Democrat hired contractor, FUSION GPS,) to the FBI and the press, is fully exposed, the American people will be confronted with the stark dilemma of how to deal with the fact that there was a failed domestic coup attempted by members of the U.S. intel and law enforcement community. The facts will show that the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA and the FBI conspired and meddled in the 2016 Presidential election. They lied to a Federal judge about the origins of the dossier and used those lies to get permission to spy on Trump and members of his campaign staff. ..."
    "... But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News. ..."
    "... The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. ..."
    "... "I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results. The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount. . ." ..."
    "... Michael Isikoff referenced those briefings : "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and "high ranking sanctioned individuals" in Moscow over the summer as evidence of "significant and disturbing ties" between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau." ..."
    "... September 2016. FBI used the Steele memos as part of the basis for requesting a FISA warrant according to reports by the NY Times and the Washington Post : ..."
    "... We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September 2016 (see here , here , and here ). ..."
    "... After Mr. Page, 45 -- a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Moscow for three years -- stepped down (26 September 2016) from the Trump campaign in September, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing the authorities to monitor his communications on the suspicion that he was a Russian agent. ..."
    "... The Justice Department obtained a secret court-approved wiretap last summer on Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to Donald J. Trump 's presidential campaign, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent, a government official said Wednesday. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued the warrant, the official said, after investigators determined that Mr. Page was no longer part of the Trump campaign, which began distancing itself from him in early August. ..."
    "... The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials. ..."
    "... Loretta Lynch, Attorney General under President Obama, approved the FISA application. (Note--federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.) ..."
    "... End of September--Steele revealed in a London court filing earlier this year that he was directed by Fusion GPS to brief reporters at outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo! News and Mother Jones about his Trump findings. ..."
    "... End of September--Steele informs Simpson (i.e. Fusion GPS) that the FBI wants to meet him in Rome. ( Senate Judiciary Committee 0n 22 August 2017, p. 171 ) ..."
    "... 6 January 2017--FBI Director Comey briefs Trump on the Steele dossier, which Comey describes as "salacious and UNVERIFIED." : ..."
    "... The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing. (Comey's statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 8 June 2017) ..."
    "... Describing his reports in the Mother Jones interview, Steele asserted, "This was something of huge significance, way above party politics." Things changed, though, when Steele was sued for libel after the dossier was published in early 2017. Suddenly, when he was in a forum where it was clear to him that making exaggerated or false claims could cost him dearly, he decided his allegations were not of such "huge significance" after all . . . .According to Steele's courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation of bits of "raw intelligence" that were "unverified" and that he passed along because they "warranted further investigation" -- i.e., not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. (kudos to Rowan Scarborough who initially broke the story). ..."
    "... I think one has to start with the assumption that everyone at the highest levels of the federal government, especially the national security apparatus, is a swamp creature. They just don't get there unless they are one. Weasels like Clapper, Brennan, Hayden. Of course that does not mean a person with honor & integrity doesn't get up there. Just far and few between. ..."
    "... It is extremely difficult to uncover malfeasance in government in the best of circumstances and it is practically impossible within the national security apparatus as they have the ever present shield of "state secrets". In this context we have to be thankful for small gifts of transparency coming from inside like these disclosures by IG Horowitz as well as by whistleblowers like Snowden. ..."
    "... Are you sure the"insurance policy" referred to a way to destroy Trump if he were to be elected? What if FBI counterintelligence agents were involved in illegal surveillance activities that could possibly come to light if Trump were president? The dossier in fact was the insurance policy that they retroactively used to launder previous illegal searches that would have been covered up if Hillary had won. ..."
    "... The primary purpose of the "insurance policy" was to protect FBI agents against accusations of malfeasance, which at present, appears to be an accurate description of their behavior. ..."
    "... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
    "... So, the snooping began much before Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Sundance for example believes that the FBI provided this "unauthorized" access to its subcontractor Fusion GPS. This is how Fusion GPS was paid by the FBI. ..."
    "... When the time line and interactions are put together it seems that it all begins at the FBI during March 2016, pretty early in the primary season, possibly with Fusion GPS as the subcontractor. Steele only comes on the scene, after the meeting of Mary Jacoby, Glen Simpson's wife at the White House and Fusion is hired by the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... This post and PT's previous ones on the same topic, concern what many here suspect to be an orchestrated attempt to remove the Constitutionally-elected head of state via extra Constitutional means. In other words a soft coup. Rather than "Trump_vs_deep_state", I think the motivations for exploring this possibility here, by and large, come from feelings of patriotism. Particularly from those who swore to defend the Constitution (not the President) from enemies, both foreign and domestic. ..."
    "... The question of whether the Rule of Law, or the observance of contitutional propriety, is being upheld is what is being examined here. That second issue is independent of the first. That is as it should be. If it were so that the FBI had played politics against Mrs Clinton that would be as disturbing as if they had played politics against Mr Trump. ..."
    "... It will be most interesting to see Trump's most devoted congressional supporters and 'swamp beast fighters' utilize the timeline and verified facts and (unknown-to-indy investigators) details in the 'private' source, to bring justice to bear on this extremely serious matter. Why hasn't the DOJ appointed a special prosecutor; considering what PT and many others here and elsewhere are "piecing together?" ..."
    "... I didn't vote Trump but I was shocked by the obvious coup d'etat to overthrow Trump after the election. You see some of us support the rule of law, our constitution, and established process for political change. Just because someone is elected that is unpopular with the losing side doesn't mean you throw away everything and become a willing banana Republic. While this was going on I predicted that if they had succeeded they would have over a million angry people in Washington and I would have been one of them ..."
    "... To amplify your point, Terry: once you give the unelected and unaccountable "intelligence community" (or any other part of the Deep State) a de facto veto over election results, you will never get that power back. ..."
    "... You as a country have crossed the Rubicon, and when you get to the other side, you are no longer in a constitutional republic, but in something else. ..."
    "... In my view, the deep state......... CIA, FBI, NSA....... had the opportunity to prove their commitment to the welfare of the nation...... given they had the means and opportunity to sway the election. ..."
    "... Given that the FBI made no serious effort to analyze the DNC servers after the alleged "hack" and, according to Seymour Hersh, are sitting on an FBI report that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the supplier of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, these two facts also support the conclusion that the FBI at the highest levels are in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow Trump ..."
    "... The FBI IS a criminal enterprise ..."
    "... The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of "hacking"? Seriously? ..."
    "... Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks. ..."
    Jan 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus

    When the entire episode about the creation of the Trump dossier (by former Brit spy, Christopher Steele) and its dissemination (by Steele and the Democrat hired contractor, FUSION GPS,) to the FBI and the press, is fully exposed, the American people will be confronted with the stark dilemma of how to deal with the fact that there was a failed domestic coup attempted by members of the U.S. intel and law enforcement community. The facts will show that the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA and the FBI conspired and meddled in the 2016 Presidential election. They lied to a Federal judge about the origins of the dossier and used those lies to get permission to spy on Trump and members of his campaign staff.

    Here are the facts as we know them now. (Please note, these facts are sourced and are not my opinion).

    1. Perkins Come was retained by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC in April 2016.
    2. Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie (a Seattle based law firm) and sought an engagement to continue research it had started on Donald Trump. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116755-PerkinsCoie-Fusion-PrivelegeLetter-102417.html)
    3. The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116755-PerkinsCoie-Fusion-PrivelegeLetter-102417.html, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.14d16b270afd).
    4. Christopher Steele (Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd) was hired by Fusion GPS in May or June of 2016 (Glen Simpson testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee 0n 22 August 2017, p. 77 )
    5. The first report of the Dossier was dated 20 June 2017 and made the following allegations:
      1. Russian regime had been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years.
      2. TRUMP declined various business deals offered him in Russia but accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.
      3. Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has material to blackmail TRUMP.
      4. The Russians had a dossier on Clinton but "nothing embarrassing."
    6. Christopher Steele tells Glen Simpson that he wants to take the info in the 20 June report to the FBI (this conversation occurred late June/early July according to Glen Simpson testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee, p. 161, 165
    7. July 2016, Christopher Steele meets with FBI (name of contact unknown) and passes on content from the 20 June memo.
    8. Third report, dated 19 July 2016 , claims that TRUMP advisor Carter PAGE held secret meetings in Moscow with SECHIN and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN. ( See dossier ).
      1. But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News.
    9. 15 August 2016 FBI Agent Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 15, 2016. . . According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
    10. According to David Corn, Christopher Steele was sending all of his subsequent reports to the FBI :
      1. The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources.
    11. 27 August 2016. Senate and House leaders briefed by "intelligence community" on the contents of the Steele memos-- A letter from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, dated 27 August 2017 states :
      1. "I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results. The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount. . ."
      2. Michael Isikoff referenced those briefings : "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and "high ranking sanctioned individuals" in Moscow over the summer as evidence of "significant and disturbing ties" between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau."
    12. September 2016. FBI used the Steele memos as part of the basis for requesting a FISA warrant according to reports by the NY Times and the Washington Post :
      1. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September 2016 (see here , here , and here ).
        1. After Mr. Page, 45 -- a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Moscow for three years -- stepped down (26 September 2016) from the Trump campaign in September, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing the authorities to monitor his communications on the suspicion that he was a Russian agent.

        2. The Justice Department obtained a secret court-approved wiretap last summer on Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to Donald J. Trump 's presidential campaign, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent, a government official said Wednesday. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued the warrant, the official said, after investigators determined that Mr. Page was no longer part of the Trump campaign, which began distancing itself from him in early August.

        3. The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.
        4. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General under President Obama, approved the FISA application. (Note--federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.)
    13. End of September--Steele revealed in a London court filing earlier this year that he was directed by Fusion GPS to brief reporters at outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo! News and Mother Jones about his Trump findings.
    14. End of September--Steele informs Simpson (i.e. Fusion GPS) that the FBI wants to meet him in Rome. ( Senate Judiciary Committee 0n 22 August 2017, p. 171 )
    15. 8 November 2016 , Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership), met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.
    16. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016 , where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.
    17. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator McCain hard copies of the memoranda.
    18. 13 December 2016 , Christopher Steele prepares, on his own, the 17th report in the dossier and sends it to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
    19. 6 January 2017--FBI Director Comey briefs Trump on the Steele dossier, which Comey describes as "salacious and UNVERIFIED." :
      1. The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing. (Comey's statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 8 June 2017)

    One of the more interesting developments in the dossier case came as a result of depositions and testimony in the defamation case that Aleksej Gubarev filed against Christoper Steele in the United Kingdom last year. When pressed to defend the authenticity and accuracy of the dossier and the allegations against President Trump, Christopher Steele became a British version of Michael Jackson and moon-walked backwards. Andy McCarthy describes the situation beautifully :

    Describing his reports in the Mother Jones interview, Steele asserted, "This was something of huge significance, way above party politics." Things changed, though, when Steele was sued for libel after the dossier was published in early 2017. Suddenly, when he was in a forum where it was clear to him that making exaggerated or false claims could cost him dearly, he decided his allegations were not of such "huge significance" after all . . . .According to Steele's courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation of bits of "raw intelligence" that were "unverified" and that he passed along because they "warranted further investigation" -- i.e., not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. (kudos to Rowan Scarborough who initially broke the story).

    There are some very interesting unanswered questions. Here are some that I believe are most relevant:

    1. Why does a former MI-6 officer reach out on his own to the FBI when the normal point of contact would be the CIA?
    2. Who did Steele contact at the FBI?
    3. Who at the FBI asked Steele to travel to Rome in October 2016? [Note--this request is quite odd given the fact that the FBI has a very large presence in London and, if the purpose was simply to inform the FBI about possible nefarious Russian activity, could have easily walked over to the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square rather than travel to Rome.]

    The failure of the FBI and the CIA to disclose to members of Congress and the President that the information they briefed from the dossier had been paid for by the Clinton campaign is much more than gross negligence and incompetence. It is prima facie evidence of collusion and meddling in a U.S. domestic election. Only the culprits weren't the Russians. As Pogo once said , "we have met the enemy and he is us."

    blue peacock , 11 January 2018 at 06:37 PM

    PT

    Thanks for spurring my interest on this monumental deceit with your many posts.

    I knew nothing about FISA & mass surveillance other than our government was collecting all communications of every American, before you began posting on this topic. I've learned more since and it is revolting if one is a staunch believer in the Bill of Rights as what makes America different.

    IG Mike Horowitz was barred from investigating the DOJ National Security Division by the Obama administration. It required an act of Congress and Obama signed it after the election, to allow the IG the ability to investigate all of DOJ. The DOJ NSD and FBI CounterIntelligence had a big role to play in all this as all the FISA applications originated there. What we know about Peter Strzok & Lisa Page, Bruce & Nellie Ohr and the Clinton exoneration all came from the IG. In testimony to Congress, Rosenstein used the IG investigation to stall the production of documents and witness interviews. It seems the IG report will become available in a few weeks. That will hopefully shed more light.

    Considering that in our country the rule of law does not apply to high officials in government, I am not holding my breath that any of these miscreants will be held accountable or there will be any changes to the surveillance laws.

    M. Smyth , 11 January 2018 at 07:45 PM
    So, is IG Michael Horowitz one of the honorable guys in this whole thing? You'd never guess judging by his bio. And his ties to the Democrats and Comey. I've lost all respect for the FBI. And the IC.

    https://heavy.com/news/2017/01/michael-e-horowitz-inspector-general-department-of-justice-fb-investigation-james-comey-hillary-clinton-email-review/

    Pilot44236 , 11 January 2018 at 07:45 PM
    Sundance's view reporting on the whole affair.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/11/the-doj-and-fbi-worked-with-fusion-gps-on-operation-trump/#more-144446

    blue peacock said in reply to M. Smyth... , 11 January 2018 at 10:06 PM
    M. Smyth

    I think one has to start with the assumption that everyone at the highest levels of the federal government, especially the national security apparatus, is a swamp creature. They just don't get there unless they are one. Weasels like Clapper, Brennan, Hayden. Of course that does not mean a person with honor & integrity doesn't get up there. Just far and few between.

    I don't have any basis to judge Michael Horowitz since I didn't even know about him until a few weeks ago. What we know in this case is he has allowed us to learn about some of the activities of Peter Strozk & Lisa Page as well as Bruce & Nellie Ohr which has helped further understand Russiagate.

    It is extremely difficult to uncover malfeasance in government in the best of circumstances and it is practically impossible within the national security apparatus as they have the ever present shield of "state secrets". In this context we have to be thankful for small gifts of transparency coming from inside like these disclosures by IG Horowitz as well as by whistleblowers like Snowden.

    blue peacock said in reply to Publius Tacitus ... , 11 January 2018 at 10:12 PM
    PT

    Both Christopher Wray and Rosenstein in separate testimony were unable to confirm that any of the contents in the Steele dossier was verified, with the exception of Carter Page's visit to Russia.

    doug , 11 January 2018 at 11:19 PM
    It's becoming quite clear that Trump, as President, appeared to be such an appalling concept amongst some highly placed functionaries that "insurance" was needed to deal with the possibility. And these people had contacts with the media, which, by and large, were as appalled. Thus the current situation.

    Quite unfortunately, Trump's unbounded hubris has played into this mess. Trump is very fortunate that his party is in control of the legislative branches. One thinks of Hercules and the Aegean stables.

    Newmarket , 11 January 2018 at 11:19 PM
    PT,r

    Great compilation and analysis of the available facts. No need to publish the following, but I would suggest that your work is important enough to correct a couple of typos and provide a clarification which I will identify by paragraph number.
    1. Perkins Coie (a Seattle Law Firm)--you get the name right in #2.
    9. Put "Lisa" in front of "Page" in order to let the reader know you are referring to Lisa Page.
    19. Rowan Farrow, I think, not Rowan Scarborough.
    Keep posting and keep up the good work. Bob Randolph

    Cvillereader said in reply to doug... , 11 January 2018 at 11:19 PM
    Are you sure the"insurance policy" referred to a way to destroy Trump if he were to be elected? What if FBI counterintelligence agents were involved in illegal surveillance activities that could possibly come to light if Trump were president? The dossier in fact was the insurance policy that they retroactively used to launder previous illegal searches that would have been covered up if Hillary had won.

    The primary purpose of the "insurance policy" was to protect FBI agents against accusations of malfeasance, which at present, appears to be an accurate description of their behavior.

    Reggie said in reply to DC... , 11 January 2018 at 11:50 PM
    DC, It is quite simple:

    The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein.

    blue peacock , 12 January 2018 at 12:26 AM
    PT

    Here's something that's puzzling. The FBI directly or indirectly through Fusion GPS or another a subcontractor, began querying the NSA database around March 2016 as per the FISC ruling. That's pretty early in the primary. I don't think anyone at that point was thinking Trump was going to clinch the GOP nomination.

    Do you think they were doing this on other candidates too? Bernie? Were they already an arm of the Clinton campaign? Or just snooping on all or some of the candidates communications?

    The Twisted Genius , 12 January 2018 at 12:44 AM
    Publius Tacitus,

    Here's a stab at your relevant unanswered questions.

    "Why does a former MI-6 officer reach out on his own to the FBI when the normal point of contact would be the CIA?"
    "Who did Steele contact at the FBI?"
    "Who at the FBI asked Steele to travel to Rome in October 2016?"

    Steele's CIA contacts were probably more of the bureaucratic liaison variety. Hardly memorable. However, he worked closely with the FBI Eurasian Joint Organized Crime Squad on several operations. He formed strong friendships doing these "heady things" as Steele describes . When he decided to bring his concerns to the FBI, he found one of these old FBI friends stationed in Rome. This FBI friend is who he reached out to. This FBI Special Agent seems to be identified in Steele's Judicial Committee testimony, but the name and position is redacted. Someone in Comey's Russian investigation team probably decided to continue this established relationship and venue for the October 2016 meeting. Perhaps it was Comey himself.

    Walrus said in reply to DC... , 12 January 2018 at 12:44 AM
    DC you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Both the FBI and Steele in his court case have stated that there is no confirmation of anything in the reports. They are purely hearsay at absolute best and more likely a deliberate fabrication for political purposes in the opinion of far more knowledgeable people than you.

    To put that another way, the chances of your opinion being valid are judged as zero.

    Publius Tacitus -> The Twisted Genius ... , 12 January 2018 at 01:22 AM
    Keep your eyes tightly closed. Your hatred of Trump blinds you to what is really going on. Deal with these two indisputable facts: 1) Comey, under oath, almost one year after the info became available, still said it was UNVERIFIABLE; 2) Steele, himself, also under oath, now disavows the importance of what he originally claimed was so essential. You should write a novel. You're very good at spinning a tale without having a shred of evidence to go on.
    blue peacock said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 12 January 2018 at 02:05 AM
    TTG

    If you look at the FISC ruling that has been declassified but heavily redacted, you will notice the FBI provided a sub-contractor "unauthorized" access to the NSA database in March 2016. This access to the raw FISA data was discontinued on April 18, 2016.

    So, the snooping began much before Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Sundance for example believes that the FBI provided this "unauthorized" access to its subcontractor Fusion GPS. This is how Fusion GPS was paid by the FBI.

    When the time line and interactions are put together it seems that it all begins at the FBI during March 2016, pretty early in the primary season, possibly with Fusion GPS as the subcontractor. Steele only comes on the scene, after the meeting of Mary Jacoby, Glen Simpson's wife at the White House and Fusion is hired by the Clinton campaign.

    Peter AU , 12 January 2018 at 03:11 AM
    Not being an academic, mathematician, nor pollster, I simply run an image search on both Clinton and Trump election rallies. These showed that Trump would win. Early in the campaign, there were several pics of large crowds at Clinton rallies, but from about six months out, the images all showed her speaking to fifty to hundred people, whereas Trump images always showed packed stadiums.

    The Dossier. A person as portrayed in the Steele would be corrupt/dishonest in most everyday business dealings. With the attacks against Trump, by intelligence and investigative agencies, any dishonesty, breaking the law in business dealings, would have been brought up. This tells me he has always operated within the letter of the law. Perhaps sharp and ruthless, but within the letter of the law.

    Trump's ideology/culture is USA through and through. Russia has no ideology, and its own culture.

    There is no ideology nor religion involved, so why would a man like Trump that has always operated within the letter of the law be nefariously colluding with a foreign state?

    Needs to be a lot more digging like you are doing PT, as the saying goes "Without fear or favor".

    blue peacock , 12 January 2018 at 03:56 AM
    Here's a timeline based on Sundance's work to supplement PT's timeline. I did this for my benefit so likely contain errors. Others here at SST can correct.
    Lee A. Arnold -> Publius Tacitus ... , 12 January 2018 at 07:08 AM
    Publius Tacitus: "When James Comey testified in June of 2017 that the dossier was "SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED," he made it very clear that Steele's so-called "raw intelligence" had no value nor corroboration. If Comey had said, "WE HAVE VERIFIED KEY ELEMENTS OF THE DOSSIER BUT WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT IN CLOSED SESSION," then Trump would have been a dead man walking."

    Then Trump is in big trouble. In the June 2017 transcript, Senator Burr questions first. After about a dozen questions:

    "BURR: In the public domain is this question of the "Steele dossier," a document that has been around out in for over a year. I'm not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

    COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation."

    Barbara Ann -> Stonevendor ... , 12 January 2018 at 08:40 AM
    Stonevendor

    This post and PT's previous ones on the same topic, concern what many here suspect to be an orchestrated attempt to remove the Constitutionally-elected head of state via extra Constitutional means. In other words a soft coup. Rather than "Trump_vs_deep_state", I think the motivations for exploring this possibility here, by and large, come from feelings of patriotism. Particularly from those who swore to defend the Constitution (not the President) from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    This said, if Trump actually does go to war with Iran (rather than just threaten it) I will agree with your comparison re Bush and the neocons of his era.

    Barbara Ann -> blue peacock... , 12 January 2018 at 08:54 AM
    Minor correction: Nellie Ohr is the Ham radio enthusiast:

    http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/LicArchive/license.jsp?archive=Y&licKey=12382876

    Publius Tacitus -> Lee A. Arnold ... , 12 January 2018 at 09:05 AM
    Nice try Lee, but he still does not contradict his sworn testimony, i.e. UNVERIFIED. Not being able to discuss "details of the investigation" could have opened up questions about when the FBI first learned of the reports in the dossier. That would have raised even more uncomfortable questions about the FBIs conduct.
    English Outsider -> Stonevendor ... , 12 January 2018 at 09:14 AM
    "I check in with this site from time to time because I find coverage of the Middle East that I will not find elsewhere. It has always been informative. But it is curious to find this remarkable devotion to Trump_vs_deep_state."

    Right on the first point. Wrong on the second. To my occasional regret the dream of 2016 had and has few all-in adherents here.

    The merits of what you term "Trump_vs_deep_state" are examined from time to time on the Colonel's site. The question of whether the Rule of Law, or the observance of contitutional propriety, is being upheld is what is being examined here. That second issue is independent of the first. That is as it should be. If it were so that the FBI had played politics against Mrs Clinton that would be as disturbing as if they had played politics against Mr Trump.

    From my point of view - I'm English, as you might notice - the question of whether the UK Security Services helped play politics in a US presidential election is relevant whoever the target was. I like to think that our Security Services work as part of our defence forces, not as political hit men.

    Fred said in reply to bks ... , 12 January 2018 at 09:24 AM
    bks,

    The Kremlin targeted "educated youth"? Which ones, the Bernie supporters who were going to be screwed by the rigged democratic primary? How did they do the targeting, by that $100K ad spend with Zuckerberg? Isn't he then also guilty by association or is he still the good billionaire? Which other US citizens maintain ties to rich businessmen from Axerbaijan? Which law does that violate?

    Annem , 12 January 2018 at 09:43 AM
    Two small points:

    When the MSM was all a-flutter with coverage of Simpson's testimony in the Capitol, I heard none of the TV hosts mention that it was the Clinton folks who hired Fusion. If that is not the case, please let me know.

    In his testimony, Simpson supposedly said that Russia was just one country that research into Trump's business contacts were conducted, the others being the likes of South East Asia and Latin America. We have heard nothing about the outcome of that research.

    Dr. Puck , 12 January 2018 at 09:59 AM
    It will be most interesting to see Trump's most devoted congressional supporters and 'swamp beast fighters' utilize the timeline and verified facts and (unknown-to-indy investigators) details in the 'private' source, to bring justice to bear on this extremely serious matter. Why hasn't the DOJ appointed a special prosecutor; considering what PT and many others here and elsewhere are "piecing together?"

    If Trump wanted to do so, he could have all this factual stuff published on the WH web site; yes? If he did so the counter-narrative would be instantly annihilated, right?

    Terry said in reply to Stonevendor ... , 12 January 2018 at 10:09 AM
    I didn't vote Trump but I was shocked by the obvious coup d'etat to overthrow Trump after the election. You see some of us support the rule of law, our constitution, and established process for political change. Just because someone is elected that is unpopular with the losing side doesn't mean you throw away everything and become a willing banana Republic. While this was going on I predicted that if they had succeeded they would have over a million angry people in Washington and I would have been one of them

    What I find remarkable isn't Trump_vs_deep_state - but rather the blind emotional partisanship that drives far too many people and how willing so many people are to commit treason and tear apart constitutional law just to "win".

    Greco said in reply to blue peacock... , 12 January 2018 at 10:28 AM
    Further to your points:

    - November 2016: Clapper recommended that Rogers be fired. This was soon after Rogers' meeting with Trump.

    - March 2017: Trump tweeted that Trump Tower had it's "wires tapped."

    Sundance's theory is very interesting. Given the circumstances and the timeline of events, it seems plausible to say the least that Rogers tipped off Trump.

    Sid Finster said in reply to blue peacock... , 12 January 2018 at 10:42 AM
    I have believed that the FISA courts and procedures are a flat violation of the Sixth Amendment (which guarantees public trials, the right to confront witnesses and the right of the accused to be made aware of the charges against them) ever since the day I became aware of them.
    Sid Finster said in reply to Terry... , 12 January 2018 at 10:50 AM
    To amplify your point, Terry: once you give the unelected and unaccountable "intelligence community" (or any other part of the Deep State) a de facto veto over election results, you will never get that power back.

    You as a country have crossed the Rubicon, and when you get to the other side, you are no longer in a constitutional republic, but in something else.

    TimmyB , 12 January 2018 at 10:54 AM
    Americans should be able to put their personal beliefs about Trump aside and realize that our country has a serious problem when one-sided opposition research containing little more than rumors is used as the basis for starting a FBI investigation on a presidential candidate during an election. This is especially true when, as we all know, the "news" of such an investigation would soon be leaked to the press.

    Personally, I have a very low opinion of Trump and his policies. However, this whole "Russiagate" thing, from what evidence I've seen, is complete bullshit. To see that such obvious bullshit was used to start an FBI spying operation and witch hunts by both the press and a special prosecutor against Trump is outrageous. It is also a crime under our laws. If it can happen to Trump, it can happen to anyone.

    One would think the great harm caused by allowing our government intelligence agencies to spy on political candidates and then leak both true and false information about those candidates to the press would be obvious. I hope the people who caused this outrage are prosecuted for the many crimes they committed.

    Laura , 12 January 2018 at 11:07 AM
    And then...there is this: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/368671-russia-linked-hackers-targeting-us-senate
    Flavius , 12 January 2018 at 11:11 AM
    Very, very well done. Andy McCarthy's and Publius Tacitus's combined work in clearing the political and MSM smoke from around this Beltway debacle alone is more than is needed to predicate a full criminal investigation.

    In my opinion, another Special Counsel is neither needed nor desirable: a competent apolitical United States Attorney with a special Grand Jury and a couple of squads of FBI Agents brought in from some place like Chicago should be adequate to the job; or the American taxpayer has not been getting its money's worth. A not inconsiderable side benefit would be that our system of justice and the FBI might start to reclaim some of their reputation that is lying in tatters.

    The only thing I would add is that I would integrate into the design of the case the multiple unmaskings and unfettered leaks. This case points directly towards the Obama White House and it is reasonable to suspect that it may include Obama himself.

    Dr. George W. Oprisko , 12 January 2018 at 11:52 AM

    In my view, the deep state......... CIA, FBI, NSA....... had the opportunity to prove their commitment to the welfare of the nation...... given they had the means and opportunity to sway the election.

    I'm speaking of Sanders... There was enough dirt on HRC to blackmail her into giving the nomination to Sanders. There was enough dirt on DT to show him as the plaything of the Zionists/ Russians. They had both the Post and Times in their pockets, not to mention Fox and CNN. Only Sanders had a domestic program which could put money into households and thus grow demand and the economy, and Sanders was/is a hawk. They didn't. Their loyalty to HRC trumped the nation.... The question left un asked......... WHY??? What did they have to gain from HRC that no one else offered?

    INDY

    Richardstevenhack , 12 January 2018 at 12:29 PM
    Given that the FBI made no serious effort to analyze the DNC servers after the alleged "hack" and, according to Seymour Hersh, are sitting on an FBI report that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the supplier of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, these two facts also support the conclusion that the FBI at the highest levels are in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow Trump.

    This should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the FBI's history of conducting illegal, criminal activities against various dissident groups in the US and covering up evidence of criminal activity by their own informants - including murder - and also covering up evidence of criminal activity by other law enforcement agencies such as the Bureau of Prisons.

    The FBI IS a criminal enterprise.

    Richardstevenhack , 12 January 2018 at 12:51 PM
    And now we have this...

    Mueller adds DOJ cybercrime prosecutor to his team https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/10/russia-special-counsel-mueller-adds-cybercrime-prosecutor-276499

    If any of Trump's associates knew about and encouraged the hacking of Democrats' emails and computer servers, they could be charged under the statute.

    In November, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller's team was letting the original DOJ prosecutors retain the investigation of the actual cyber intrusions into the DNC and other targets.

    This is beyond ridiculous.

    The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of "hacking"? Seriously?

    Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks.

    These two facts - along with the compromised FBI personnel involved in the Fusion GPS scandal - demonstrate that the FBI at the highest levels were involved in a criminal conspiracy to prevent Trump from winning the election.

    This establishes that the entire "Russiagate" investigation is nothing but more of the same. The real scandal is that the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies are involved in a "soft coup" against an elected President.

    Publius Tacitus -> Lee A. Arnold ... , 12 January 2018 at 02:01 PM
    I can keep smacking you around all day. Here's what Corn reported in January 2017 about his first conversations with Steele: The former spy said he soon decided the information he was receiving was "sufficiently serious" for him to forward it to contacts he had at the FBI. He did this, he said, without permission from the American firm that had hired him. "This was an extraordinary situation," he remarked.

    The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. But he said, "My track record as a professional is second to no one."

    When I spoke with the former spy, he appeared confident about his material -- acknowledging these memos were works in progress -- and genuinely concerned about the implications of the allegations. He came across as a serious and somber professional who was not eager to talk to a journalist or cause a public splash. He realized he was taking a risk, but he seemed duty bound to share information he deemed crucial. He noted that these allegations deserved a "substantial inquiry" within the FBI.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/spy-who-wrote-trump-russia-memos-it-was-hair-raising-stuff/
    Of course, if you had actually read carefully what I wrote you would have known this.

    [Jan 14, 2018] Trump Stumped As Bannon-Backed Roy Moore Wins Alabama Republican Primary By Landslide

    Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
    This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
    According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat, betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
    And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone. What's left?
    Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
    Notable quotes:
    "... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
    "... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
    "... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
    "... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
    "... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
    "... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
    "... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
    "... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
    "... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
    "... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
    "... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
    "... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
    "... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
    "... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
    "... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
    "... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
    Sep 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!

    In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide

    The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted...

    ... ... ...

    However, as Politco reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast, telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.

    Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according to three people who were there.

    And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.

    While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.

    Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides, White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda, and knew little about Moore, officials said.

    ... ... ...

    Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

    AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !

    On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."

    Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."

    While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.

    http://www.sjlmag.com/2017/09/alabama-senate-candidates-express.html?m=1

    justa minute -> Déjà view •Sep 27, 2017 2:53 AM

    moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following the tradition of men.

    They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.

    I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM

    Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.

    Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM

    Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.

    "Ha! Your vote went to the Israel first swamp!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gdw_MVY1Vo

    Déjà view -> Clashfan •Sep 27, 2017 1:00 AM

    MIGA !

    These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.

    http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.807776

    The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM

    Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have stayed the course and not give in.


    Theosebes Goodfellow -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM

    ~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~

    Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]

    Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM

    Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.

    overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM

    Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.

    Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM

    Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner, Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.

    opport.knocks -> Juggernaut x2 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

    Distancing us from Israel... LOLOLOLOL

    https://youtu.be/tm5Je73bYOY

    The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))

    NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM

    I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.

    Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM

    I think it was a setup.

    Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.

    Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.

    But what do I know?

    Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM

    Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.

    general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM

    People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.

    None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would prefer to keep voting in the swamp.

    Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM

    Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.

    Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.

    Lanka -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 26, 2017 11:07 PM

    McMaster and Kelly have Trump under house arrest.

    Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM

    He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this all along.'

    To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy, or strategic skills.

    NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM

    Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our flag, our country, and the unborn!

    nevertheless -> loveyajimbo •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

    I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he was way too good to be true.

    We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault", it actually is.

    His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.

    Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should do.

    Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...

    Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM

    Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government. I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare, even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.

    The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.

    You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..

    This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye, there was none.

    Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

    Dear Trump:

    Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.

    MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.

    DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!

    ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!

    You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!

    ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM

    Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.

    Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system. At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.

    samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
    I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.

    I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same

    I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the same.

    I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.

    I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.

    We didn't leave Him, He left us.

    BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM

    Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.

    napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM

    A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.

    America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).

    Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM

    When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population.

    Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.

    In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless.

    nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM

    I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports...

    LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM

    Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that.

    nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM

    What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...

    But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty, and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions of illegals, dressed up as "security".

    Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.

    archie bird -> nevertheless •Sep 27, 2017 7:45 AM

    Bernie wants to cut aid to Israel https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/09/25/bernie-sanders-yeah-i...

    nevertheless •Sep 27, 2017 8:04 AM

    It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.

    Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...

    YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.

    Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".

    [Jan 14, 2018] Bannonism Will Live On by Matt Purple

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Constitution of Liberty ..."
    "... The Camp of the Saints ..."
    "... As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile. ..."
    "... But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all. ..."
    "... The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement. ..."
    "... The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money. ..."
    "... Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative ..."
    "... A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism. ..."
    "... Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse ..."
    "... Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes ..."
    "... The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters." ..."
    "... These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage ..."
    Jan 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Bannon is an imperfect ideologue. He has a gargantuan ego that often leads him astray, perhaps lately towards the delusion that he himself would be a better populist messenger than the man he helped elect. But he's also hit on a paradox at the core of today's American conservatism. Conservatives, in theory at least, look with skepticism upon grand projects and giant leaps, which too often end up rupturing with the societal traditions they hold dear. Yet much of what conservatives support today is actually quite radical: banning all or most abortions, rolling back the regulatory state, rejecting decades of orthodoxy on the issue of climate change, a massive downshift of power from the federal government to states and localities, a moral ethic rooted in Christianity rather than identity politics -- and lately questioning the "liberal international order" in favor of something more nationalist and protectionist. The enactment of such an agenda would cause a good deal of upheaval and uncertainty, exactly the sort of void conservatives' forebears feared most.

    Some have wrangled with this contradiction by scaling back their proposals, claiming great problems can be addressed with light-touch solutions, like child tax credits to arrest sagging birth rates. Others, much of Conservative Inc. it seems, are fine pretending this tension doesn't exist at all. Bannon's approach has been to gleefully embrace conservatism's radical side. Disagree with him all you like (and I do), but his is a perfectly logical position. His ascent -- some would say his transformation -- is a predictable consequence of conservatives yearning for something increasingly distant from the modern world, just as did young people in the quietly simmering 1950s. Indeed, there are many stylistic similarities between the radicals of today and those half a century ago: the "for the lulz" performance art of a Milo Yiannopoulos contains an echo of the prankster Yippies, for example. Those who lack cultural power can sell out, they can evolve, they can retreat to the catacombs -- or they can take Bannon's approach, they can transgress and pump their fists and try to burn it all down.

    Bannon's digestible binaries -- establishment versus the people, globalists versus Americans -- are easily superimposed on an electorate that's itself divided both economically and culturally. Red states and the Rust Belt have for decades been the victims of bad federal policy; Bannonism gives them an abstract enemy to blame, a valve for their fury. The algorithmic and library-voiced Mitt Romney and the earnest Paul Ryan seem woefully inadequate by comparison: have those praying they run for higher office again learned nothing? In The Constitution of Liberty , F.A. Hayek critiques conservatism by defining it as "a brake on the vehicle of progress" and observing that a mere decrease in speed "cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." Likewise, while conventional taxes-and-terrorism Republican rhetoric doesn't feel like much of a heave on the ship's wheel, Bannonism furnishes a clear vision, a real change, swords to wield, dragons to slay. Guess which one has greater appeal right now?

    The modern right has always had a whiff of radicalism about it, with origins in pushback against the 60s counterculture, a second wind in Newt Gingrich's legislative reformation, and late-life vitality in the Saul Alinsky-invoking tea party. But it's with Bannon that the odor has become most pungent. He is an unlikely revolutionary. An early profile from Bloomberg Businessweek in 2015 portrays him as more of an operative than anything, determined to professionalize a conservative movement that had made too many unforced errors. Other pre-Trump appearances found Bannon worrying about the national debt and extolling his Catholic faith. It's a windy road from there to storming the barricades under Donald Trump's sigil, but it's one many conservatives have traveled in recent years. The challenge for more traditional Republicans will be fashioning a new politics that quenches voters' burning thirst for change -- a position they've arrived at themselves, not been brainwashed into by Fox News -- while circumventing Bannonism's conflagrations and The Camp of the Saints ugliness.

    As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile.

    But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all.

    Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative

    collin January 11, 2018 at 8:50 am

    There is always a level of Bannonism /Paleoconservatism in the US politics but who knows how impactful it will be.
    1. Probably the biggest issue for Bannon was Trump was elected in 2016 and our nation did not want or need a Leninist. (It wasn't 2008 anymore)
      Frankly most conservatives were satisfied that HRC and Obama were not President and did not want massive changes.
    2. The whole the people and globalist division is too simplistic and there are a lot 'People' that support free trade or relatively open borders. (For instance I don't see the economic benefit of steel tariffs at all.)
    3. The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
    4. We still don't know how much a pushback on Trump/Bannonism will be. Trump is not popular and the House is endangered.

    5) The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money.

    David Nash , says: January 11, 2018 at 9:12 am
    It is a cardinal error to confuse conservatism with The Right, as much as it is to conflate liberalism with The Left.

    Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative. (Thanks loads, Frank Meyer.)

    A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism.

    Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse.

    Navy Jack , says: January 11, 2018 at 12:14 pm
    Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes.

    The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters."

    These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage.

    The writer's allusion to the French Revolution is somewhat telling. The history of the West is replete with moments of savagery and destruction directed inwardly. It will be so again. When these Deplorables turn on their keepers, it will not be pretty. The Progressive elites who believe that they can control and shape "narratives" to harness that power are fools. The cloistered intellectuals who believe that they can "opt" out of the coming clash are dreaming.

    The traditional core of the American people are no different than their ancestors. They just don't live as close to the edge as those folks did. But when they are backed up to that edge, when betrayal has been made clear and the institutions are revealed for the Oz that they have become, they will recall that old hatred that still courses in the Western man's veins and will react in ways that will chill the blood. The imaginary "crimes" with which "privileged whites" are damned by the rioting Cultural Marxists will escape imagination and leap into reality. God help us.

    JonF , says: January 11, 2018 at 1:30 pm
    Re: The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.

    Perot, for whom I voted in 1992 but not 1996, was not a paleoconservative, but rather a pragmatic centrist. Compare his position on social issues with Pat Buchanan's (Buchanan being Mr. Paleoconservative -- and who ran in 1992 too)

    [Jan 14, 2018] How The Social Order Crumbles

    Social order crumbles then the elite became detached from common people and distrusted by them, as the US neoliberal elite now is. Trump elections were mostly semi-conscious protest against the neoliberal elite which was symbolized by Hillary candidacy.
    The problem with the article is that the author mixed liberalism and neoliberalism: Liberalism and neoliberalism are opposite. Neoliberalism has nothing to do with Christianity. It is, in essence, a Satan-worshiping cult ("greed is good"). The fact that it is dominant in the USA and Western Europe suggests that we can talk about persecution of Christians under neoliberalism.
    That's why neoliberal elite resorted to Russophobia -- to rally the nation against the flag and to hash the distrust with anti-Russian hysteria.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It has been observed many times that liberalism is mostly a secularized version of Christianity; there's a lot of truth to that. ..."
    "... Why Liberalism Failed ..."
    Jan 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    I disagree. The problems in liberalism didn't show up until now because most people in liberal democratic countries took the Judeo-Christian moral framework for granted. If the human rights (for example) that liberalism enshrines are something real, then they have to be grounded in something transcendent. It has been observed many times that liberalism is mostly a secularized version of Christianity; there's a lot of truth to that.

    As I read Why Liberalism Failed , I take Deneen as saying that liberalism had to fail because at its core it stands for liberating the individual from an unchosen obligation. Ultimately, it forms consumers, not citizens.

    I don't see Deneen airbrushing the good parts of liberalism from history, but rather honing his critique on what he believes are its structural flaws that make it unsustainable. His critique is strong, certainly, and I think dead-on, in that he sees that liberalism cannot generate within itself the virtues it needs to survive.

    Deneen's critique is also matter-of-fact. Free markets are a core part of the liberal democratic model, but given the globalized nature of the economy, and rapid technological changes, we have to face the possibility that liberalism as we have understood it is inadequate to provide for the good of workers left behind by these changes.

    If we have neglected the moral order embedded within liberalism itself, on what basis can we regain it? I keep going back to Adams's line about our Constitution is only good for a "moral and religious people," because self-government by the people can only work for people who possess the virtues to govern their own passions. This says to me that to perceive and to achieve the virtues embedded within liberalism, one has to be oriented towards a sense that there really are moral and religious truths beyond ourselves that bind our conduct.

    Liberalism has degenerated into Justice Anthony Kennedy's famous line:

    At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

    I think most Americans today would not get what the problem is with that definition. You can't support a governing order based on something that weak. That, I believe, is Patrick Deneen's overall point.

    E.J. Worthing January 12, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    "If prudence and temperance are synonyms for modesty and self-restraint – the rising generation of Americans has utterly abandoned these values."

    They are not synonyms. Prudence is appropriate concern for the future. It has nothing to so with modesty. Temperance has to do with appropriate self-restraint. It is not temperate to constrain oneself in a way that causes oneself senseless suffering. That is what some conservatives are asking people who don't fit into traditional gender categories to do.

    Feel better, Rod!

    Dale McNamee , says: January 12, 2018 at 9:05 pm
    John Adams' quote says it all !

    We are no longer a moral and religious people

    To paraphrase C.S. Lewis comment in his "Abolition of Man" essay : "We ridicule morality and religion and we are surprised what takes its place "

    Abelard Lindsey , says: January 12, 2018 at 11:33 am
    I believe Brooks is more correct than Deneen. Robert Heinlein always made the point that liberty was not compatible with ignorance and ineptitude. Rather, liberty and self-ownership requires a certain level of competence. Competent people are capable of self-rule. Incompetent people are not. The problem with Deneen's ideas is that they force the competent people to surrender a certain measure of liberty and self-ownership in order to "accommodate" and "fit in" with the less competent, and that is a trade off that people like myself will never accept in a million years. In other words, Deneen does not speak for competent individuals such as myself. Hence, his ideas could never work for the likes of myself.

    I believe the only solution, and a partial one at that (there is no such thing as a perfect solution as perfection does not exist in nature) is radical decentralization on a global scale. I call this the "thousand state sovereignty" model or the "21st century Westphalis". Some might even call it the "Snow Crash" scenario. This is where conventional nation-states and institutions fade away and new ones based more on networks of individual with common interests, objectives, and character traits form. The more competent members of the human race, who have no need to give up classical liberalism and individual self-ownership are able to form their own societies politically and culturally autonomous from the rest of the human species. Other factions of humanity can do the same thing. Call it "GTOW" on a global scale. Hence, the nation-state will decline in relative importance and the city-state will come back into vogue.

    I believe this is the ONLY pathway forward to a better world for everyone. It does have the advantage of being a "positive-sum" solution, as most everyone gets what they want. Positive-sum solutions are always superior to zero-sum solutions, which are really negative-sum solutions.

    Erik , says: January 12, 2018 at 11:40 am
    Even John Locke, who is basically the father of liberalism, said that the state "need not tolerate" atheism because a state cannot rely on enforcement mechanisms alone to ensure proper civic behavior. A citizen must have a healthy fear of some form of divine retribution as guarantor of his behavior. It's possible, of course, to develop some form of morality based in natural reason that can ensure proper behavior, but I think Locke was onto something in his exhortation that the law alone is not enough.
    E.J. Worthing , says: January 12, 2018 at 12:00 pm
    Based on Brooks's summary, Deenen appears to believe that people in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and medieval times were more virtuous than people are in contemporary America.

    That is not a reasonable thing to think. Maybe people in contemporary America have different vices than people did in past societies. But vice is part of the human condition, and people in America have not stopped caring for virtue. We value the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance as much as ever (though our understanding of what these virtues require has changed in some ways).

    We also continue to value kindness, though Catholic teaching regards kindness as a theological virtue. True, as religious adherence has declined, some have joined the cult of Ayn Rand. But a culture of charity flourishes among secular people. Witness the growth of the effective altruism movement.

    The only traditional Christian virtues that are now widely rejected are those specifically concerning religious belief and those that concerned sexual morality. Even if you think that sexual purity is a virtue (I don't), regarding it as among the most important virtues has never been reasonable.

    C. L. H. Daniels , says: January 12, 2018 at 12:06 pm
    As another writer somewhere wrote on the topic of Deneen's book (or perhaps it was a quote from the book itself, I don't remember), liberalism has until now been surviving by spending down the store of accumulated moral norms and civic mindedness that it inherited from its pre-modern progenitors. But since it cannot replenish those stores, it is essentially starving itself of that which it needs to survive. Eventually we (the people) will forget those things, and as norms break down and social trust diminishes toward the point of anarchy, we will beg for the state to step in and protect us from our fellow citizens. And that is when liberalism will give way to authoritarianism in what I'm sure will be an irony appreciated by almost no one when it actually happens.
    Siarlys Jenkins , says: January 12, 2018 at 2:12 pm
    I'm afraid our gracious host has affirmed David Brooks in the substance of Rod's stated disagreement. The Judeo-Christian moral order is as good as any moral order, and better than most in significant aspects. Its probably not the only one that would work, but if liberalism is a secular version of Christianity, then Brooks is right.

    As a critic of liberalism from the left, but a sadder and wiser adherent of constitutional liberty after flirting in theory with Bolshevism, I think the word "liberal" is overplayed here. Liberalism is a political expression of laissez-faire capitalism. The concept of individual liberty, and the concept of ordered liberty, are not the exclusive province of liberalism.

    Colonel Bogey provides a modest case in point. He is an advocate of the divine right of kings and monarchical superiority to any parliament the king may deign to authorize although he comfortably enjoys the privileges of living in a federal republic that prohibits any hereditary nobility. Colonel Bogey is no liberal, yet he is an enemy of the most viable alternatives to liberalism.

    Embedded within liberalism the the emancipation of the self from constraint. How do you maintain tradition in such a culture?

    The murderer is unregulated capitalism a la Ronald Reagan, just as Reagan was the murderer of the Savings and Loans, a true Mr. Potter. If the only virtue is getting rich at the expense of the general community, and only a few make it, what do faith, family, and tradition have to do with it? Now if the union hall was a center of social life, not only for you but for your entire family, and solidarity was woven into the fabric of your life, things might be different.

    Only certain selves are liberated from restraint by liberalism. It also, historically speaking, involves the subordination of the employee to the employer, and the consumer to the purveyor of shoddy goods at exorbitant prices. Which has a morally degrading effect on both the dominant and the oppressed classes. The faux-left dismissal of the "working class," or to indulge a politically correct euphemism, the "white working class," is just another variant on the traditional class distinctions in liberalism.

    At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

    Nothing wrong with that statement, per se. The problem is overlooking that "one's own concept" is not binding on anyone else, nor does a law of general application have to bend and twist to accommodate each and every "own concept" every individual may have. Which is why Lawrence was valid, Windsor plausible and Obergefell a terribly sloppy application of generally valid constitutional principles.

    Brendan , says: January 12, 2018 at 6:16 pm
    The problem with Brooks is that he fails to realize that the things he treasures -- personal virtue, community, self-restraint, temperance and so on -- are not actually creations of liberalism, nor are they necessary products of it. To a large degree these came from the pre-existing culture(s) that came to the US before the founding from non-liberal societies. Included among these was, of course, Christianity as a prominent influence on values, virtues, community and so on. Liberalism was draped over this, but it doesn't create this, and none of this is inherent in liberalism. The liberal system in America has "free ridden" on these inherited aspects, which stem from non-liberal sources, for pretty much the entire history of the country. But they didn't come from liberalism.

    The very things that Brooks values the most do not themselves come from liberalism, and it is far from clear, particularly as Western liberalism reaches its particularly illiberal/hegemonic phase culturally, actively seeking to strictly limit the permitted influence of these things which glued the society together for most of our history but did not stem from liberalism itself, that liberalism is the best system in which to preserve or even practice these things moving forward. I think a part of Brooks's brain senses this, but he is so committed to liberalism -- or at least so fearful of potential alternatives -- that although he sees the problem (much of his column writing bemoans the loss of these things, really), he can't really bring himself to see that liberalism is fundamentally indifferent as to whether the things that David Brooks so cherishes fade into the mists of history completely, so long as the absolute prioritization of individual freedom of action remains paramount.

    It's unfortunate, really, because it makes a lot of what he writes rather painful to read, sadly.

    [Jan 14, 2018] The U.S. is "owned" whole and complete. At the risk of repeating thy self; They've got a giant segment of the population duped into believing they live in a democracy, and some of them are just dumb enough to waste their time voting

    Notable quotes:
    "... Come on dude. I mean, I really like your stuff, but get with the times -- the U.S. is "owned" whole and complete. At the risk of repeating thy self; They've got a giant segment of the population duped into believing they live in a democracy, and some of them are just dumb enough to waste their time voting. ..."
    "... America is like a religion -- you are required to "believe", because the reality is absent of any kind of deity. ..."
    "... If only, Americans could get the kind of understanding of how the owners think of them -- contemptuous at best -- needed for certain tasks, but expendable if required -- basically, not well liked. Akin to a dirty, smelly employee that keeps showing up as not to get fired. ..."
    Jan 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Biff , January 14, 2018 at 6:06 am GMT

    to finally restore the sovereignty of the US to the people of the US

    Come on dude. I mean, I really like your stuff, but get with the times -- the U.S. is "owned" whole and complete. At the risk of repeating thy self; They've got a giant segment of the population duped into believing they live in a democracy, and some of them are just dumb enough to waste their time voting.

    The owners throw the elected(owned prostitutes) officials a bone now and then, but that's all they get. If there ever was a corporate house negro, Obama, and the rest of them are it, and Trump has had his dumb ass neoconed from day one.

    America is like a religion -- you are required to "believe", because the reality is absent of any kind of deity.

    If only, Americans could get the kind of understanding of how the owners think of them -- contemptuous at best -- needed for certain tasks, but expendable if required -- basically, not well liked. Akin to a dirty, smelly employee that keeps showing up as not to get fired.

    [Jan 14, 2018] Democracy in crisis? What democracy? There has not been a democracy for quite some time. by Cloudchopper

    Jan 13, 2018 | therealnews.com

    Cloudchopper •an hour ago

    Democracy in crisis? What democracy? There has not been a democracy for quite some time. Matter of fact it turned into a corporate oligarchy ruled by them, Wall Street and the Pentagon and not to forget Israel.

    If Trump is messing with this so called democracy so be it. He is the bull walking through the delicate china closet the shadow rulers have set up for a long time. He smashes most of all those delicate dishes who really did not help the regular people at all. They were just there on display as teasers. Well Trump is smashing things left and right. "Racism" is being so overdone that it is becoming ridiculous and that real racism is still being hidden. Don't know about Bannon, never cared or paid much attention to him nor Breitbart news.

    But believe me democracy is not in crisis because of Trump. There had to be a real democracy to begin with in order to be in crisis. What's in crisis is the two party system, the oligarchy, the false prophets, the media and the exceptionalism of the USA. All good things to have a crisis over and change things towards a new awakening.

    John Ellis • 5 hours ago .

    SHIT-HOLE DEMOCRACY --- ROOT CAUSE

    ● Republicans are top 25% of society who own 75% of wealth.
    ● Democrats are educated middle-class who own 25% of wealth.
    ● Working-poor are uneducated bottom 50% who refuse to vote until they stop getting shit upon. see more

    PrMaine • 9 hours ago

    they all overestimated the American people.

    That is true if the election really reflected the will of the American people. But do our elections do that?

    Although we have all been indoctrinated into believing that we have the best democracy in the world, do our elections really reflect what the people want? Even if we believe the counting of votes to be accurate , we know that many citizens are denied their right to vote by manipulation of the voting rolls, voter intimidation, or the engineering of long lines.

    But even if these issues are ignored, there is the two-party system that makes it so easy for big money and in particular big media to ensure that we do not get to choose from candidates that we would really want. A good step in moving toward a multi-party system would be to adopt some voting system that would encourage a multi-party system.

    Democracy in America? We should work to give it a try.

    NoDifference PrMaine • 7 hours ago

    It's a good point. You figure that, at best, maybe 60 or 70 per cent of voters actually participate in an election. Then, out of that, it takes only 50%+1 to win. That means that a seat can be won with as little as perhaps 35% of all voters casting ballots.

    However, first-past-the-post vote calculations are not an absolute impediment to winning elections. In Seattle, there is a socialist on the city council. In Minneapolis, another socialist came extremely close to a win there also. And the example of Canada's CCF/NDP cannot be ignored. All of these examples are in the context of first-past-the-post.

    Now, I am firmly in favor of RCV. But we will probably only get RCV once the American Left gets itself to a position of power where it can make that kind of reform reality. The duopoly powers will not concede this to us gleefully, unless they see an opportunity to benefit from it somehow, such as gaming the system somehow (maybe setting off competition on the Left to ensure a win for the Right during a prolonged period of Rightwing solidarity as sometimes happens... like right now). I urge people to learn about the rise of the NDP even if they do not believe it to be a legitimate Left party (and there is plenty to support the impression that it has drifted to the center, sadly). I urge people to closely and carefully the Sawant win in Seattle. We can learn from these historical lessons.

    We could be winning far more often and deeply if we just had something like RCV, like Proportional Representation (PR). But we don't. And the fact we don't have them should be that much more fuel for ignition. We must start winning. I always suggest starting at the bottom, not the top, where the Left could make inroads far more easily than attempting heroic battles with the duopoly at the highest levels of government. Over time, our presence would strengthen and our local efforts would weave a strong fabric of regional and maybe federal parties.

    Getting depressed by the unfairness of the electoral college should move us in efforts to abolish it (and that is happening, btw). But at the same time, it should not be discouraging us from doing sensible things, like organizing local campaigns, taking over city halls, disrupting city planning departments and planning committees, and beginning to build what will one day become a national presence.

    Yes, we should definitely give democracy a try. And we could be trying, mostly, at the local level with an eye toward eventual coalescence into more regional bodies of power. It has been done, and we would be wise to examine thoroughly how it was done and how we could improve that process.

    NoDifference • 9 hours ago

    Bannon's "far right Leninism" does not read well the first time, or the second time, or as many times as I read and re-read that phrase. I wish writers for the Left press would take the time to carefully proofread their own work before posting.

    Yeah, I think I get what the author meant , but maybe it would have read more easily if it had been written something like "the Bannon version of authoritarianism" (or whatever it is the author precisely meant). It would have been clearer and not have appeared to conflate a rather Leftish ideology with some form of RW extremism.

    [Jan 13, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on. ..."
    "... Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the "insurance policy" when he calls him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated "Steele Dossier" was part of the "insurance," as was the evidence-less legend that Russia hacked the DNC's and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and gave them to WikiLeaks . <img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg" alt="" width="291" height="300" srcset="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg 291w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px" /> ..."
    "... There is a snowball's chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single 'trusted intermediary' to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence. ..."
    "... "The fact that you do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable." ..."
    "... How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton. ..."
    Jan 11, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 13, 2018] CNN's Jake Tapper uses Stephen Miller incident to create buzz by Charles Hurt

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is true that Mr. Miller can come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools. The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them. Mr. Miller is not going to get into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy pajamas. ..."
    Jan 11, 2018 | www.washingtontimes.com

    CNN's Stephen Miller incident proves how fake news ignorantly smears conservatives

    White House adviser does not play mental footsie with fools

    White House adviser Stephen Miller appears on CNN anchor Jake Tapper Sunday show. After an exchange, Mr. Tapper cut off Mr. Miller's mic, saying, "I think I've wasted enough of my viewers' time." (CNN.com)

    Behold, the anatomy of a "fake news" smear.

    The latest drive-by character assassination of White House adviser Stephen Miller began, as it so often does, in a fact-free live TV orgy of public posturing by a journalist eager to display his virgin-snow virtue when it comes to unalloyed hatred of President Donald Trump .

    This time it was CNN anchor Jake ( Mr. Trump calls him "Fake") Tapper, who invited Mr. Miller on his Sunday show to respond to Mr. Tapper's complex conspiracy theory about how the president is somehow unfit or too mentally unstable to occupy the White House .

    Obviously, Fake Tapper missed the report on Twitter that actually Mr. Trump is a "very stable genius."

    Anyhoo, Mr. Miller had no intention of playing any of Fake Tapper's reindeer games. Instead, he wanted to talk about the unrelenting unfairness of CNN and its coverage of Mr. Trump .

    When Mr. Miller refused to engage in Mr. Tapper's conspiracy fantasy, the anchor changed his mind and decided he no longer wanted Mr. Miller on his show.

    "I think I've wasted enough of my viewer's time," he petulantly whined before cutting off Mr. Miller 's mic.

    It was a small, sad, silly moment in the death gurgles of American journalism. But enough to whip up a little buzz on Twitter or some Internet echo chamber. Which is all Fake Tapper was going for in the first place.

    In all the frenzy, doddering old House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi clamored over to the bright lights to declare through her unglued dentures that Mr. Miller -- a Jew -- is somehow a "white supremacist."

    And then she declared that the Jew be fired from the White House . How that does not make Nancy Pelosi -- a Christian, despite her infatuation with abortion -- an anti-Semite?

    Details. Minor details. Then, along comes a Washington reporter who announces that Mr. Miller is "standing in the way of an immigration deal." Not clear if this "deal" is a good one or a bad one. Mr. Miller is just standing in the way of it, which further proves he is a white supremacist. Her entire story was entirely based on unnamed "sources," according to the reporter. Another death gurgle of American journalism. The story includes a link to a "very tense and loud exchange" Mr. Miller had last year with another CNN reporter in which Mr. Miller utterly eviscerated the reporter over his near total ignorance of immigration policy in America.

    All that matters to doltish reporters around here, though, is that the exchange was "very tense and loud." Mr. Miller is not only a (Jewish) white supremacist, he is an angry (Jewish) white supremacist. So, like Hitler, basically. Only Jewish.

    It is true that Mr. Miller can come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools. The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them. Mr. Miller is not going to get into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy pajamas.

    Rather, Mr. Miller -- and his boss -- wants desperately to fix a horribly broken immigration system that created this whole unfortunate class of illegal Dreamers in the first place and prevent a future generation of "Dreamers."

    If you have any doubt about the challenge Mr. Miller and Mr. Trump face in honestly addressing illegal immigration in this country, consider this: During this week's bipartisan meeting in the White House to begin negotiations, the word "DACA" was uttered 61 times. The universal sentiment among lawmakers from both parties was to pass some kind of "DACA" legislation that would legalize the illegal-immigrant Dreamers.

    Sixty-one times.

    The word "American" was used just 20 times. "Worker" only twice. "Citizen" not once. "Citizenship" was used three times -- as in the DACA bill should give Dreamers "citizenship." The words "miner," "unemployed," and "lawful" were never uttered during the 55-minute confab. Perhaps Mr. Miller is "standing in the way of an immigration deal" with these people. But is that a bad thing?

    [Jan 13, 2018] RIP Marc Raskin, Who Connected the Dots Between Inequality and War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Four Freedoms Under Siege ..."
    "... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and is a co-editor of Inequality.org. ..."
    Jan 13, 2018 | fpif.org

    Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and launching pad for nuclear war."

    Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current president of the United States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them poor and people of color.

    While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and racial injustice at home.

    In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.

    Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

    Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and launching pad for nuclear war."

    Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current President of the United States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them poor and people of color.

    While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and racial injustice at home.

    In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.

    Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

    In Four Freedoms Under Siege , Raskin and Spero concede that the Cold War superpower rivalry did contribute to some progress towards Roosevelt's dream of freedom from want. Raskin was a young aide in Kennedy's National Security Council during a period of high tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that were playing out with deadly consequences in Cuba, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

    And while he was horrified by the existential threat posed by the superpower standoff, Raskin later recognized that the competition with the Soviet Union did give a boost to the U.S. labor unions and other forces that were pushing for progressive economic reforms.

    The elites, Raskin and Spero explained, feared that movements for "social and economic justice, from rhetoric to out-and-out radicalism, would transform the power structure in such a way as to open up the society to democracy that displaces overlapping economic oligarchies. The right, especially big business, also feared that this would be just the prelude to the redistribution of resources, or at least access to them."

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Raskin and Spero point out, "people at the top no longer had to concern themselves with the people at the bottom." And the permanence of the national security state obliterated any hope of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" that could've helped realize FDR's dream of freedom from want.

    Raskin and Spero wrote their book during the militarily aggressive administration of President George W. Bush. As Halliburton and other private military contractors lined up to feed at the Iraq War trough, the period perfectly illustrated the danger of a war economy without end.

    "This kind of 'let 'er rip' corruption policy did not originate with Bush II conservatives," Raskin and Spero wrote, "but they pushed the idea of a corporate controlled state to the limit as a partner to military expansion."

    In his final weeks, Marc Raskin was excited to learn about plans for a Poor People's Campaign that, like his own work, will take on the inter-connected problems of the War Economy, poverty, racism, and ecological devastation.

    The campaign will mark the 50th anniversary of a similar effort led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders who saw the need to build on the civil rights cause by tackling the militarism that had led to the Vietnam War and the poverty that plagued too many Americans of all races. Back then in 1968, Institute for Policy Studies staff included leaders of both the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Raskin himself was indicted that year for conspiracy to aid resistance to the draft.

    The new Poor People's Campaign, led by two prominent faith leaders -- the Rev. Liz Theoharis and the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II -- held a kick-off event in Washington on December 4. The Institute for Policy Studies prepared a report for the launch that includes data on each of the campaign's focus areas. Theoharis and Barber announced plans for a historic 40-day wave of civil disobedience across the country in the spring of 2018, culminating in a mass demonstration in the capital in June.

    At a December 12 follow-up meeting at the Institute for Policy Studies, Raskin asked one of the lead organizers of the new Poor People's Campaign who they expect to be their strongest opponents. From his six decades of experience in Washington, he had a keen sense of the challenges ahead. Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and is a co-editor of Inequality.org.

    [Jan 13, 2018] Stephen F. Cohen The US Betrayed Russia, but It Is Not News That s Fit to Print (Podcast)

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New Republic ..."
    "... Failed Crusade: American and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... The National Interest ..."
    "... The American Conservative ..."
    "... Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives ..."
    Jan 13, 2018 | russia-insider.com

    New evidence that Washington broke its promise not to expand NATO "one inch eastward" -- a fateful decision with ongoing ramifications -- has not been reported by The New York Times or other agenda-setting media outlets John Batchelor Jan 11, 2018 | 2,513 70

    John Batchelor has a very popular political talk show on America's largest radio network, WABC.

    He has Stephen Cohen on live in the studio almost every week for a full 45 minute segment, the only guest he gives that much time to.

    Why? Because Cohen's appearances are killing the ratings. America seems to be thirsting for an alternative and critical view of Obama's Russia policy.

    See below for a summary of this program courtesy of The Nation .

    http://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/6588850-tales-of-the-new-cold-war-was-gorbachev-deceived-and-other-media-mysteries-left-unreported-part-1-of-2-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-eastwestaccord-com/embed/v4?eid=AQAAAD9tV1qyiWQA

    http://embeds.audioboom.com/posts/6588851-tales-of-the-new-cold-war-was-gorbachev-deceived-and-other-media-mysteries-left-unreported-part-2-of-2-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-eastwestaccord-com/embed/v4?eid=AQAAAD9tV1qziWQA

    Cohen returns to a subject he has treated repeatedly since the 1990s, mainstream media malpractice in covering Russia, but with a new and highly indicative example that is both historical and profoundly contemporary.

    There have been three relevant major episodes of such malpractice. The first was when American newspapers, particularly The New York Times , misled readers into thinking the Communists could not possibly win the Russian Civil War of 1918–20, as detailed in a study by Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, published as a supplement to The New Republic , August 4, 1920. (Once canonical, the study was for years assigned reading at journalism schools, but no longer it seems to be.)

    https://lockerdome.com/lad/9533801169000550?pubid=ld-1806-5338&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com&rid=russia-insider.com&width=745

    Failed Crusade: American and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia .)

    The third and current episode grew out of the second but spread quickly through the media in the early 2000s with the demonization of Vladimir Putin, Yeltsin's successor, and now is amply evidenced by mainstream coverage of the new Cold War, Russiagate's allegation that "Russia attacked American democracy" in 2016, and much else related to Russia. This rendition may be the worst, certainly it is the most dangerous.

    Media malpractice has various elements -- among them, selective use of facts, some unverified, highly questionable narratives or reporting based on those "facts," mingled with editorial commentary passed off as "analysis," buttressed by carefully selected "expert sources," often anonymous, and amplified by carefully chosen opinion page contributors. Throughout is the systematic practice of excluding developments (and opinion) that do not conform to the Times ' venerable motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print." When it comes to Russia, the Times often decides politically what is fit and what is not. And thus the most recent but exceedingly important example.

    In 1990, Soviet Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed not only to the reunification of Germany, whose division was the epicenter of that Cold War, but also, at the urging of the Western powers, particularly the United States, that the new Germany would be a member of NATO. (Already embattled at home, Gorbachev was further weakened by his decision, which probably contributed to the attempted coup against him in August 1991.)

    Gorbachev made the decision based on assurances by his then–Western "partners" that in return NATO would never be expanded "one inch eastward" toward Russia. (Today, having nearly doubled its member countries, the world's most powerful military alliance sits on Russia's western borders.) At the time, it was known that President George H.W. Bush had especially persuaded Gorbachev through Secretary of State James Baker's "not one inch" and other equally emphatic guarantees.

    Now, however, the invaluable National Security Archive at George Washington University has established the historical truth by publishing, on December 12 of last year, not only a detailed account of what Gorbachev was promised in 1990–91 but the relevant documents themselves . The truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: All of the Western powers involved -- the US, the UK, France, Germany itself -- made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways. If we ask when the West, particularly Washington, lost Moscow as a potential strategic partner after the end of the Soviet Union, this is where an explanation begins.

    And yet, nearly a month after the publication of the National Security Archive documents, neither the Times nor The Washington Post , which profess to be the nation's most important, reliable, and indispensable political newspapers, has published one word about this revelation. (Certainly the two papers are pervasively important to other media, not only due to their daily national syndicates but because today's broadcast media, especially CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and PBS, take most of their own Russia-related "reporting" cues from the Times and the Post .)

    How to explain the failure of the Times and Post to report or otherwise comment on the National Security Archive's publication? It can hardly be their lack of space or their disinterest in Russia, which they featured regularly in one kind of unflattering story or another -- and almost daily in the form of "Russiagate." Given their immense daily news-gathering capabilities, could both papers have missed the story? Impossible, even more so considering that three lesser publications -- The National Interest , on December 12; Bloomberg , on December 13; and The American Conservative , on December 22 -- reported and commented on its significance at length.

    Or perhaps the Times and Post consider the history and process of NATO expansion to be no longer newsworthy, even though it has been the driving, escalatory factor behind the new US-Russian Cold War; already contributed to two US-Russian proxy hot wars (in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine since 2014) as well as to NATO's ongoing buildup on Russia's borders in the Baltic region, which is fraught with the possibility of an actual war between the nuclear superpowers; provoked Russia into reactions now cited as "grave threats"; nearly vaporized politically both the once robust pro-American lobby in Moscow politics and the previously widespread pro-American sentiments among Russian citizens; and implanted in at least one generation of the Russian policy elite the conviction that the broken promise to Gorbachev represented characteristic American "betrayal and deceit."

    Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives .) Russians can cite other instances of "deceit," including President George W. Bush's 2002 unilateral abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Obama's broken promise that he would not use a 2011 UN Security Council resolution to depose Libyan leader Gaddafi. But it is the broken promise to Gorbachev that lingers as America's original sin, partly because it was the first of many such perceived duplicities, but mainly because it has resulted in a Russia semi-encircled by US-led Western military power, an encroachment that continues today.

    Given all this, we must ask again: Why did neither the Times nor the Post report the archive revelations? Most likely because the evidence fundamentally undermines their essential overarching narrative that Putin's Russia is solely responsible for the new Cold War and all of its attendant conflicts and dangers, and therefore that no rethinking of US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991 is advisable or, it seems, permissible, certainly not by President Donald Trump. Therein lie the national-security dangers of media malpractice, and this example, while of special importance, is far from the only one in recent years. In this regard, the Times and Post seem contemptuous not only of their own professed journalistic standards but of their purportedly cherished adage that democracy requires fully informed citizens.

    If Americans cannot rely on the Times and Post , at least in regard to US-Russian relations, where can they seek the information and analysis they need? There are many valuable alternative media outlets, but few hard-working citizens have time to locate and consult them. Cohen recommends that they turn to two websites that almost daily aggregate reporting, analysis, and opinion not to be found in the Times , Post , or most other mainstream publications. One is Johnson's Russia List . The other is the website of the American Committee for East-West Accord , of which Cohen is a board member. Upon request, both will come to your computer. The former requests a nominal donation but does not insist on it. The latter is free. For readers who worry about international affairs, the new US-Russian Cold War, and America itself, the information and perspectives they will gain from these sites are invaluable.

    Source: The John Batchelor Show

    Vtran , January 11, 2018 11:09 AM

    American citizens Never have adhered to agreements, Cease Fires, Peace Agreements ....Just look at the First Nations

    Isabella Jones Vtran , January 11, 2018 3:28 PM

    It is something of a mystery that this should have escaped Gorbachev, although Cohen does say that Conservatives warned him against going with the flow on this one. He ignored them.
    There's an old saying about leopards and never changing their spots. I guess he was as fooled, as many are, that the appalling history of the US was in each case a separate incident, involving and caused by different people, and therefor "it will be different this time." Gorbachev was willing to overlook the horrific evidence of an Anglo West planning to destroy the Russia who had saved their bacon by winning WWII for them; and to destroy her utterly and horrifically. That he could overlook that beggars belief.
    It's so essential to get the bigger picture, to read the History of the Nations you are dealing with extensively, to determine how to connect the dots to find the pattern, and to realise that ultimately nations are an aggregate of systems - and a system is far more powerful than most individuals [until you find a rare person who knows how to break the system].
    Sadly, it seems that they had fallen for the idea too, that, as V. P. said when Russia abandoned communism, their opponent would "to them hand the sword". i.e. would become partners and equals. That was never going to happen. It also shows us, once again, that all too often political leaders are not well enough educated, not well enough informed and not bright enough, to undertake the job of national leader which they do.
    And we are not interested nor thoughtful enough to demand better.

    Tommy Jensen Isabella Jones , January 11, 2018 5:41 PM

    ...And we may not be educated suficient to look through the matter.
    Before 1968 in Nordic countries with Sweden had hollistic education systems, making academics able to see the whole picture.

    After 1968-70 they changed the education system so the working class could get academic degrees, but separated the disciplines so you only were able to see your part and not the whole picture and leaving out history and roots.
    Newspeak was introduced and started.
    Its about classes, deliberately leaving the knowledge and whole picture to the elite.

    Any hollistic educated who analyse US history should be able to see that you deal with a hypocrite and liar country throughout from start up til today.
    When Russia with its excellent education system missed the point in 1990´es I think it maybe more due to their previous suffering and emotional culture, than to actual foolishness as we can see the Russians quickly raised their heads again from the ashes.

    John Mason Tommy Jensen , January 12, 2018 12:52 AM

    Same happened here in Australia Tommy, they lowered the education standard so that anyone can obtain a University Degree under the belief that everyone is entitled to one and not only those best suited. Now one has idiots running corporations and in politics. Getting them out is the problem. I have always expressed concern that those who wish to go into politics and government should present to the Public a full resume as anyone would who is seeking a senior position in a corporation.

    Isabella Jones John Mason , January 12, 2018 3:29 AM

    Very true John.
    If you look at the entire system, we see that immense power over the lives of millions of people is given to those who don't have to show any form of qualification for the job; any training; or prior experience, assessment by qualified experience assessors.

    In fact, all they have to be able do is to generate money for themselves by making promises to others using taxpayer money; present themselves in a slick, eye catching fashion like an aspiring film actor auditioning for a role; lie; as Vladimir Putin said "make promises better than those of your competitor"; and sell meaningless words better than a used car salesman.

    In other words, present themselves to voters as an ignorant, inexperienced psychopathic, criminally fraudulent, snake oil salesman. And then we wonder why that's exactly what we get as our "leaders". !!

    John Mason Isabella Jones , January 12, 2018 10:18 AM

    Very passionate you are on this subject your profundity is a source of enlightenment Isabella.

    Isabella Jones John Mason , January 12, 2018 10:42 AM

    Thank you John - yes I do feel deeply that as civilisations, we have strayed from so much that is balanced, natural, and optimal for human growth and happiness. We have so much in our cultures that beggars belief in it's stupidity- and as always, the very stupid are too stupid to know that they are very stupid. I see us preening ourselves as the epitome of civilisation, when research into the distant past shows we have had about 3.5 thousand years of slow, non-stop collapse including an arrogant ignorance.
    Yet the answers are so close to hand. It's only an understanding of where we have all gone wrong, and a willingness to do what needs to be done to correct it which will stop us falling into the night, I suspect.
    Then again, I remember that everything happens in circles, and follows Universal Laws. Maybe we have no course but to follow the natural pattern we have put ourselves on try to learn from it.
    Thanks for your kind words John.

    Isabella Jones Tommy Jensen , January 11, 2018 9:46 PM

    Yes, all this was about the time they introduced the "expert". Prior to that idea, a well educated, intelligent person was held to have a wide ranging education, and to be familiar with many different disciplines. They they got the "expert" idea - a mechanic in my - then - University Department informed me that "expert means, here is x which marks the spot of a drip under pressure" !! :-)
    Now we have people who know more and more about less and less until they reach the pinnacle where they know absolutely everything about nothing.
    Yes, I think the Russian education got infected by America, and in the struggle to break free of all the other disasters that caused - just to survive as a country and as a people - this is an issue that has had to be put on a back burner. But they are doing fine in spite of it, and I'm sure will find their way back to the best of the Soviet times education.

    Vtran Isabella Jones , January 12, 2018 2:58 PM

    I still (and know not alone) feel Gorbachev is a Traitor that "sold" the USSR, the People of the USSR for Personal ("friends") gain .... so he knew what would happen !

    Remember the people of the USSR wanted to work through the "problems / issues" leaving the USSR intact but Gorbachev decided to GO AGAINST the Wishes of the People / Wishes of the country and allowed the regions to "break free" including denying the right for Crimea to Return to RF (loaned to Ukraine while USSR existed) .... why would you Do that except for your own agenda !

    And Where does Gorbachev live .... but in U$ america ... and every time he visits RF he comes with masses of Body Guards

    Isabella Jones Vtran , January 12, 2018 4:30 PM

    That last part is very interesting Vtran - I didn't know he lived in America.
    I hadn't caught up with any documentation about his "friends", although there is the comment - with the long/lat given of the area on the documentary "The Unknown Putin" - that Gorbachev sold to US what wasn't his to sell - a huge chunk of sea off the coast of Russia, containing massive amounts of oil deposits!! He did it to get the money to try and defeat Yeltsin!! So, he has a track record, and as the saying goes "he who lies once, lies ten times". The principle holds for everything, as well as lying. I also didn't know that there were grass roots movements of people trying to stop the collapse of the USSR.
    Can you recommend any good modern history resource which covers these events please?
    I got a lot from that excellent documentary, but as is so often one is left wanting more.
    I know Vladimir Putin doesn't like him - not one bit. I could "read" it from the Stone Interviews :-)
    I certainly agree with you - that if he did all that, selling out the people of Russia - no way does he deserve to be grouped with them, they aren't "his" people, in that case - then yes, he was a sellout traitor. Should count himself lucky to be alive!!

    Vtran Isabella Jones , January 12, 2018 10:34 PM

    Isabella,, I will look for a document regarding Gorbachev selling out the people of the USSR .... However my comment is personnel ... all Russians I know, all people of the ex USSR (except those of fanatical Ukraine) speak as One ...The did not at the USSR to break ... their views were "over ridden" !
    -
    Interesting comment of "selling off which does not belong" reminiscent of Alaska where the Gold supposedly exchange disappeared after the western inspired revolution of 1918 !

    Isabella Jones Vtran , January 12, 2018 10:38 PM

    Joined a small river of disappeared gold from many places Vtran with Libya and Iraq being the latest!!

    Le Ruse Vtran , January 12, 2018 12:58 AM

    Quote: Over 500 treaties were made with American Indian tribes, primarily for land cessations, but 500 treaties were also broken, changed or nullified when it served the government's interests.

    Qua Patet Orbis Le Ruse , January 12, 2018 2:31 AM

    White men speak with forked tongue....

    Le Ruse Qua Patet Orbis , January 12, 2018 3:34 AM

    Like that one ??
    View Hide

    Vtran Le Ruse , January 12, 2018 2:49 PM

    Because U$ Americans citizens thought the had "Given away STOLEN Worthless Land" .... and then found that "Worthless Land" contained "Yellow Gold" ...... later more so called "Worthless Land" contained Black Gold and so it went on

    Le Ruse Vtran , January 12, 2018 7:30 PM

    Yupp...
    Like the mineral & natural wealth of Russia, doesn't belong to Russia, but belong to the WORLD (a.k.a. City of London/Wall St) ??
    Mad Madeleine Notsobright.

    Kjell Hasthi Vtran , January 11, 2018 7:51 PM

    Who was Christopher Columbus? Any can check it out. My guess as another Vtran.
    - What do you see?
    - No gold yet?
    - Of course there is gold there
    It was the same as Europa. War in Indians replaced war on Muslim.

    paul , January 11, 2018 11:35 AM

    This a a very unhelpful spin by Cohen. Dugin, addressing the end of the cold war, reports that Brzezinski once told him, "we tricked you." That's what happened. This is what Russians need to think about when speaking with their common law partners.

    Alberto , January 11, 2018 12:52 PM

    I have wondered many times how the S Union, a nation with so many brilliant people, could chose someone like Gorbatchev to lead the country.
    Reagan and Thatcher did whatever they wanted with him. They achieved all their objectives in dealing with Gorbachev because he was receptive, soft and a puppet. Worst of all, he was a mix of an idiot and naif by believing them.
    It was hard to build the S Union, very hard, and Gorbatchev wanted to make a transition from socialism to capitalism in one year. Only an idiot could think like that.
    He is the main responsible not only of the demise of the S Union but of the shameful accumulation of wealth in the hands of a bunch of soulless oligarchs whose wealth, to date, remain untouched.
    As a communist, I ask myself how could a guy like him lead the S Union. Yeltsin was another calamity but the main responsible of the debacle is Gorbachev.
    As a result of his stupidity, not only millions of Soviets encountered poverty and criminality, but he opened the way to the unipolar world. Many invasions took place because the US. did not face any opposition.
    North Korea had to rearm itself to protect. Cuba underwent a terrible period.
    Gorbachev will go down in the history of Russia and communist from across the world as an idiot, as an irresponsible leader and as a traitor.

    mark Alberto , January 11, 2018 2:30 PM

    This is very true. Millions died as a result of this colossal stupidity. Tens of millions more suffered appalling misery and destitution. Several countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, have been completely destroyed. These are crimes on a gargantuan scale. And there has been zero accountability.

    Alberto mark , January 11, 2018 2:37 PM

    Right, zero accountability because the S Union was influential on world institutions. Because of "imported liberalism in 365 days" many factories closed (because they were not "modern"), many good engineers became poor, families destroyed, all sorts of gangs emerged, collective property and natural resources went to oligarchs without scruples for a cheap price. And there was no bread in stores.

    All thanks to Gorbachev who was in power almost 17 years, a long period in which he succumbed to the sweet-talk of Reagan and Thatcher.

    VeeNarian (Yerevan) , January 11, 2018 3:16 PM

    Having lived through the incredible 90s and the end of the Soviet Union, I believe that it was not wrong for Gorbachev to seek partnership with the West. That move brought all of mankind back from the precipice of total extinction. It was the LYING and deceitful actions of the "superior and civilized" West that betrayed the world and their own interests, just to expand their territory and control, like some mindless plague that knows no morality.

    There must be balance in world affairs. Power corrupts and absolute power has corrupted the US/EU/NATO gang absolutely. The West's loss is the worlds gain. Russia will lead the free nations away from the rotten and putrid fate offered by the death merchants of the West.

    AM Hants VeeNarian (Yerevan) , January 11, 2018 4:50 PM

    I remember those times, but, it was 'Spitting Image' that made the memories. The thought of John Major, still makes my skin crawl.

    Nuclear War...

    Play Hide
    Krestovan VeeNarian (Yerevan) , January 11, 2018 10:23 PM

    Russia cannot seem to be able to lead itself from the cluches of the ooligarks who out send capital Russia desparately needs. If and when Russia cleans up the mess that Gorby, Gelsman, and others made, there will not be any free nations or any hope for peace and freedom in this late stage of mankind's probationary time.

    Gerry Hiles , January 11, 2018 1:05 PM

    No wonder we are in deep trouble! How shall I say? Well Stephen Cohen is too pedestrian, to put it mildly. There is nothing I have ever heard him say that I did not know years ago. Wow the NYT and WaPo both publish fake news and omit what isn't convenient ideologically. Go suck eggs granny. Even if large numbers of people in the US now listen to him (which I very much doubt), he's too late by decades and will probably never catch up with the fact that 9/11 was an inside job/CIA/Mossad operation. As for Gorbachev, Yeltsin, US deception, etc., he could have asked me a thing or six back in the 80s when Gorbachev was best buddies with Reagan and Thatcher, it was bleedin' obvious that he was a dupe, though at first I was hopeful for glasnost and perestroika.

    Not that I didn't have hopes for the Soviet Union anyway, nor that I didn't understand hanging on to Eastern Europe for too long, because of US betrayal after WW2 ... heck Prof Cohen, since when hasn't Russia been betrayed?. Too late for all those who either couldn't or wouldn't be informed decades ago. Too late for there to be any chance of averting escalation to WW3, unless by more or less luck, such as the US internally imploding like the Soviet Union did but, unlike the Soviet Union's collapse by US design, collapse of its own hubris and Empire over-reach, perhaps. Academics generally do not impress me.
    .
    Sorry if I have condensed too much, but I daresay some will know what I'm getting at.

    John McClain , January 11, 2018 12:01 PM

    As a "well informed American", a retired Marine, and having spent some two decades in research of our "national history", as it relates to the status of the world today, I have to say, I've not deliberately read either paper since I was in third or fourth grade, and then only because we lived in Massachusetts for a couple years.

    I spent nine years in Chicago, before entering the Marines, and as a "paper boy", laughed at headlines every day, knowing the lies for what they were, and having "truth" solely because my parents subscribed me to Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, because I'm dyslexic, had problems in school, but am endowed with talent in mechanics and the hard sciences.

    Those two magazines spent their pages defining the world of mechanics, moving forward, and the world of science, advancing, and while most facts regarding "our state of our Nation" were indirect, just part of background, when a boy reads such cover to cover, every month dozens of times, for a decade and more, the bits and pieces add up and paint a picture behind the "mechanical issue or science issue", that is easily seen, looking past, and is intrinsically absolutely true, because no part was put up for the purpose of "the big picture", but the big picture naturally emerges, when sufficient bits and pieces of data accumulate, and we add them to what has long been accepted as true, tested and tried.

    Having come to understandings by multiple articles on definitive science and engineering, with background bits and pieces coalescing, simply reading headlines were nothing but amusing, and the greatest factor was wondering how adults could believe this trash.

    I began with the intent to debunk all the conspiracy theories regarding McCarthy and government, and ended up with the certainty McCarthy was right, he simply named them wrong, they were "Bolsheviks", using socialism and communism for cover, with the full intent of overthrowing our government, and they have continued to this day.

    We have become "an empire whose people follow the Emperor, even when he dances around with no clothes, never believing that boy who actually sees.
    Semper Fidelis,
    John McClain
    Vanceboro, NC, USA

    AM Hants John McClain , January 11, 2018 4:35 PM

    Well said. It is quite refreshing, as I have been upsetting a few of your neighbours over on Info Wars. The activists, who are desperate for a war with Iran, managed to leave Breit Bart for the day and flock to one of the articles. Together with those that have no idea that the US is in a bad way, economically. As I find myself being labelled a Soros paid troll. The standard of debate is quite soul destroying, until you can get somebody, who does not need personal insult to enhance their argument. Which is so liberating.

    Socrates207 , January 11, 2018 4:24 PM

    You have to be very naive to trust the American government, it is like to trust Al Capone. No wonder Putin doen's trust them one inch.

    DIRTY TEXAN , January 12, 2018 11:36 AM

    For those who know what Russians are this is no surprise. A classless herd of sheep lead by a maniacal leader. If you think ISIS or Hitler were bad you should read about Russian history and the atrocities they have perpetrated and continue today.

    AM Hants , January 12, 2018 7:40 AM

    Off topic, but, related. A few interesting articles that all merge together.

    Putin: Turkey not responsible for drone attack; Russia knows who was
    Russian President calls drone attack "provocation" aimed at causing rift between Russia and Turkey... http://theduran.com/putin-t...

    WATCH as US denies involvement in drone attack on Russian base in Syria... http://www.fort-russ.com/20...

    How does Ukraine, fit into it, bearing in mind that Ukraine is planning similar in Crimea. The same Ukraine that does so well from having the US Bio-weapons factories up and running. Not forgetting that NATO is also setting up a base in Khakov, non-NATO territory and close to the bio-weapons factories. Then you have the mother craft, found hovering around the Russian bases in Syria and her sister working so hard around Crimea.

    Remember the Pentagon begging for Russian DNA? Now what was that all about?

    Kharkov Is Forcibly Prepared For The Status of a NATO Base (remember Ukraine is a non-NATO nation)...http:// www.stalkerzone.org/kharkov ...

    US Military Bio-labs in Ukraine, Production of Bio-weapons and "Disease Causing Agents"

    In 2015, American alternative media outlet InfoWars accused the Pentagon of developing new types of biological weapons in secret military laboratories in Ukraine. The facilities were constructed under the terms of the bilateral agreement signed between the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the Department of Defense in 2012.

    Today thirteen American military bio-labs operate in Ukraine, The International Mass Media Agency reports. They employ only American specialists being entirely funded from the budget of the Department of Defense. Local authorities have pledged not to interfere in their work. These military labs are reported to be mainly involved in the study and production of disease-causing agents of smallpox, anthrax and botulism. The facilities are located in the following Ukrainian cities: Odessa, Vinnytsia, Uzhgorod, Lviv (three), Kharkiv, Kyiv (four), Kherson, Ternopil.

    http://theinformer.life/us- ...

    Russia Says U.S. Expanding Bioweapons Labs in Europe U.S. denies claim outlined in new Russian strategy http://freebeacon.com/natio...

    AM Hants , January 11, 2018 6:02 PM

    Slightly off topic, but, another story of the West trying to upset Russia. Followed by what came next, which made me seriously laugh. The first article is well worth reading, just for the awe aspect and mega congratulations to the team. The 2nd article, just made me laugh. You gotta love those sanctions. Where there is a will there is a way.

    Russia Wins in Arctic After U.S. Fails to Kill Giant Gas Project... https://www.bloomberg.com/n...

    What comes next?

    HEY TRUMP, LOOK WHO WILL WARM UP THE EAST COAST, GAS FROM MOTHER RUSSIA TO WARM CHILLY BOSTON !... http://nrt24.ru/en/news/hey...

    View Hide
    AM Hants AM Hants , January 11, 2018 6:21 PM

    Yamal LNG and container tanks. View Hide

    Mia Williams , January 11, 2018 5:23 PM

    President Gorbachev has made clear several times that the agreement reached with the former Soviet Union regarding NATO and the reunification of Germany was specific to the East/West line through Germany. To date Germany and NATO have kept that promise.

    What are Russia's rights? Well, Moscow simply has no right to expect that her neighbors do not enjoy the sovereign right to join any alliances each may wish.

    Krestovan Mia Williams , January 11, 2018 10:36 PM

    Providing they were sovereign which they are not but under the EU control.

    observerBG Mia Williams , January 11, 2018 6:44 PM

    James Baker (and others) told Gorbachev that NATO will not expand to the East so western powers are a bunch liars, that's for sure.

    As for sovereign rights, that also depends if the organisation is willing to accept a certain country, not only if the country wants to join it. Germany and France for example blocked Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO in 2008. Countries are also allowed to join NATO in order to contribute to its security and i'm not sure about the "gain" of taking small countries on the border of the biggest nuclear power. That increases the possibility for arms race and for war between the major powers, that's for sure.

    Also it is unclear how "sovereign" these decisions are, since lots of western money was invested in media, NGOs and political leaders and parties in Eastern Europe in order to promote pro-NATO views. US government officials bragged about "investing" 5 billion dollars in Ukraine for that purpose.

    So those countries and their politicians were basically bribed, while their population propagandised via foreign sponsored media. This has nothing to do with sovereignity, rather its about interfering in other countries affairs.

    Moreover, the US uses loopholes in international law in order to support rebels in various countries, to stage coups and to interefere in democracy and elections, with the aim of changing the politics of the target country, and even balkanising/disintegrating the target country.

    Well, if the US can do that, others can too, hence the rebels in Ukraine, who are now preventing the country from joining NATO.

    It could be much more simple. An agreement for buffer zone between NATO and Russia, so that peace and stability are secured. Or it could be "my way or the high way" mentality, which of course leads to wars and destabilisation. Which will not be a good thing in the nuclear proliferation era.

    Russia wants peace and stability. The US does not. Its entire geopolitical strategy is based on destabilising the rest of the world, so that it remains divided and mired in internal squabbles, and no strong power could arise there. In addition to fueling conflict and selling weapons to both sides while staying out of it. Divide and rule.

    The Russian (and Chinese - OBOR) strategy will be to stabilise, unite and interconnect the rest of the world, particularly Eurasia, in order to overthrow the US - the great disruptor. And as of now, they are winning.

    Mia Williams observerBG , January 11, 2018 8:29 PM

    Personally speaking, I have little choice but to go with what Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan, along with FM Shevardnadze and Secretary Baker, have said on the subject. Not moving NATO troops or equipment one step east of the East/West German line of the time was promised. This happens to fall precisely in line with what German Chancellor Schroeder has said and written as well. The context of the discussions were in the context of Germany, not the whole of Europe.

    According to President Gorbachev the collapse of the Soviet Union was not conceivable at that time. Thus, according to Mr. Gorbachev, he never participated in any discussion of Soviet States joining (or not joining) NATO.

    Lastly, I reject the popular notion in some circles that all who align themselves with Russia do so out of free will but those who align themselves with the U.S. and the West must be corrupt or coorced. I believe such ideas ring of arrogance and dismissiveness.

    observerBG Mia Williams , January 12, 2018 11:36 AM

    This is not what recent US media says on ths topic.

    "the collection shows that top officials from the U.S., Germany and the U.K. all offered assurances to Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand toward the Russian borders. The documents make clear that the Western politicians meant no expansion to Eastern European countries, not just the East German territory."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/v...

    http://nationalinterest.org...

    http://beta.latimes.com/opi...

    http://www.theamericanconse...

    The context here is about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, to the east of Germany, whether the new (former soviet) states existed or not.
    Large parts of EE were never part of the USSR.

    "Lastly, I reject the popular notion in some circles that all who align
    themselves with Russia do so out of free will but those who align
    themselves with the U.S. and the West must be corrupt or coorced. I
    believe such ideas ring of arrogance and dismissiveness."

    Thanks for the straw man, but i did not say that.

    About this, i will say several things. First, there are no bigger and more sophisticated liars than western elites. They are specialists in hiding and masking their interests behind "freedom", "democracy" and "human rights". The russians are more direct and directly talk about russian interests, economic gains, "the fate of our people in this or that country", etc.

    Second, if you look at russian foreign policy docs and statements you will notice that russians embrace multipolarity and significantly lower level of interference in other peoples affairs. Specifically, the russians do not try to impose their "system", or developmental model, or culturo-religious model on other countries. After the fall of communism, Russia no longer believes that it should impose its "model" or "system" on other countries, and it does not believe that such an attempt could work either. So Russia accepts the cultural and developmental differences and diversity in the different countries of the world, and does not try to remake it in its own image, or push for "one size fits all" models. For example Russia does not believe that its own "state capitalism" should be imposed everywhere, the way the US believes that its own neo-liberal capitalism should be imposed everywhere.

    In comparison, the West and especially the US is messianic and self-obsessed, with strong belief in its own superiority and maniacal desire to impose its own cultural and economic models on everyone else, whether they like it, or not. It thus believes that it "knows better" than anyone else, and therefore should rule the world "for its own good".

    In other words the US interferes everywhere and sees the whole world as its playground and even property, something that it can change or remake the way it sees fit. Its like someone who wants to make decisions instead of you "for your own good", which implies that everyone else is mentally inferior to the US, that the whole world is in custody of the US "parent", who knows "better" than anyone else. It becomes crazed and obsessed if its model and culture are rejected by someone, as if that fatally weakens its confidence in itself.

    In comparison, the russians are much more direct that things are about pure interests, and are also not interested in interfering at the level or scope the US does. They do not want to remake Poland, Britain, Korea or Iraq in their own image and are ok with whatever culture or economic model these people have. Russia has several military bases abroad in comparison to 700 bases for the US, and that tells you what is going on. Russia can also interfere sometimes, but for far more practical (and real) reasons, mostly in their neighbours, with the aim of ensuring its own security (anti-terrorism), or for making sure that NATO military can not be deployed en masse near its borders. There can be also some economic interference (gas disputes) or attempts to protect russian minorities abroad. But russian interference does not come close to the level of the US one, or the scope of the US one, and certainly does not include messianic dreams about remaking the whole world in its own image, and Russia definitely does not see the world as its playground. The russian embrace of multipolarity means that Russia accepts that there will be countries with vastly different cultures, economic and developmental models, even very different than the russian one, that there will be many powers, and that Russia can not impose its views on the rest of the planet.

    John Tosh , January 11, 2018 3:51 PM

    The attack on Russian airbase in Syria is a sign that the Central Intelligence Agency is sleepwalking into 3rd world war

    For the CIA's information at the start of WW3, the CIA will be nuked since everyone knows it is the brain and actor for the entire Western group of criminals.

    CIA you will be nuked. Those CIA agents who survived will be hunted down in different countries like the dogs they are. Many CIA superior officers will sell out their boses and subordinates to survive at the end there would be no more CIA. Just like the NAZIs.

    QE ornotQE John Tosh , January 12, 2018 7:38 AM

    Look up DUMBs and YouTube a guy called Phil Schneider. The elites (including the CIA) will be as safe and secure as possible in the event of a nuclear war.

    Tommy Jensen , January 11, 2018 12:05 PM

    Russia was not betrayed by USA. Russia was letting themselves willingly being betrayed, this is a big difference. The Russians were shining all over their faces, dreaming, hoping to become Europeans, and getting coca-cola, friendships, scolarships and dollars from the Americans...............LOL.
    The Russians loved to be betrayed man, you loved it man................LOL.

    Peter Paul 1950 Tommy Jensen , January 11, 2018 12:26 PM

    If you really believe your words then they just reveal that you have an underdeveloped character and lack of empathy towards your own self ... and towards others ... and an even larger deficit in history ... the uprising in Russia 1991 and tanks shooting holes in the White House in Moscow were absolutely not about becoming Europeans or the want of Coca Cola and Big Macs that were then introduced and made available thanks to Yeltsin ... a US puppet ... you love nothing Tommy ... and you are LOLing yourself in an illusion if you try making others believe anybody would love to be betrayed ...

    AM Hants Peter Paul 1950 , January 11, 2018 1:02 PM

    I have got a project for you, if interested. Andrew came up with a wonderful idea for one of your images. A pyramid, of 'yes' men/women, with their noses firmly embedded in the butts of those above them. If you fancy some artwork, public friendly and nothing that would frighten us, or get you banned, I will leave it to you.

    You can even use these characters and their friends that arrived in 2017.

    [Jan 13, 2018] Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

    Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go here to read the full transcript of his speech.
    One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism."
    Notable quotes:
    "... That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age. ..."
    "... I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism. ..."
    "... I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism." ..."
    "... One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century. ..."
    "... The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States. However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom." ..."
    Jan 13, 2018 | the-american-catholic.com

    Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News , and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at the Vatican in the summer of 2014:

    Steve Bannon:

    Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.

    It's ironic, I think, that we're talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at the exact moment we're talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind's history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100 years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians. Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.

    That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

    But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people -- whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it's the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it's the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

    That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.

    And we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

    Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you're seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.

    I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism."

    But there's a strand of capitalism today -- two strands of it, that are very disturbing.

    1. One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.
    2. The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

      However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom."

    The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we've talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 13, 2018] Steve Bannon on white nationalism, Donald Trump agenda - CBS News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over." ..."
    "... "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements." ..."
    "... "It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan." ..."
    "... "With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
    "... Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them. ..."
    Jan 13, 2018 | www.cbsnews.com

    Steve Bannon, the chief strategist and right-hand man to President-elect Donald Trump, denied in an interview that he was an advocate of white nationalism -- and gave hints instead about how his brand of "economic" nationalism will shake up Washington.

    In The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News who went on to chair Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, discussed why he believed his candidate won the election.

    "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over."

    Bannon's appointment to the White House has drawn criticism from Democrats and several civil liberties groups, in part because of his (and Breitbart's) strong association with the alt-right , a political movement with strains of white supremacy.

    In the past, the former Breitbart CEO has admitted the alt-right's connections to racist and anti-Semitic agendas.

    "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements."

    In the Reporter interview, Bannon challenged the notion that racialized overtones dominated the Trump campaign on the trail. He predicted that if the administration delivered on its election promises, "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years."

    "It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan."

    "With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement."

    Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them.

    "Darkness is good," Bannon said. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they...get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."

    [Jan 12, 2018] The DOJ and FBI Worked With Fusion GPS on Operation Trump

    Highly recommended!
    CIA trace in color revolution against Trump
    Notable quotes:
    "... Sally Yates essentially said 'all DOJ is subject to oversight, except the National Security Division'. ..."
    "... In short, FISA "queries" from any national security department within government are allowed without seeking court approval. ..."
    "... We know NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of an issue with unauthorized FISA-702(17) " About Queries " early in 2016. As a result of a FISA court ruling declassified in May of 2017 we were able to piece a specific timeline together. ..."
    "... At the same time Christopher Steele was assembling his dossier information (May-October 2016), the NSA compliance officer was conducting an internal FISA-702 review as initiated by NSA Director Mike Rogers. The NSA compliance officer briefed Admiral Mike Rogers on October 20th 2016. On October 26th 2016, Admiral Rogers informed the FISA Court of numerous unauthorized FISA-702(17) "About Query" violations. Subsequent to that FISC notification Mike Rogers stopped all FISA-702(17) "About Queries" permanently . They are no longer permitted. ..."
    "... Mike Rogers discovery becomes the impetus for him to request the 2016 full NSA compliance audit of FISA-702 use. It appears Fusion-GPS was the FBI contracted user identified in the final FISA court opinion/ruling on page 83. ..."
    "... What plan came from that April 19th,2016 White House meeting? What plan did Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson present to use the information they had assembled? How and who would they feed their information to; and how do they best use that 'valuable' information? This appears to be where Fusion-GPS contracting with Christopher Steele comes in. ..."
    "... Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. ..."
    "... The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016. ( link ) ..."
    "... DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr had a prior working relationship with Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Together they worked on a collaborative CIA Open Source group project surrounding International Organized Crime. ( pdf here ) Page #30 Screen Shot Below . ..."
    "... Nellie Ohr is a subject matter expert on Russia, speaks Russian, and also is well versed on CIA operations. Nellie Ohr's skills would include how to build or create counterintelligence frameworks to give the appearance of events that may be entirely fabricated. ..."
    "... Knowing the NSA was reviewing FISA "Queries"; and intellectually accepting the resulting information from those queries was likely part of the framework put together by Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby; we discover that GPS employee Nellie Ohr applied for a HAM radio license [ May 23rd 2016 ] (screen grab below). ..."
    "... Accepting the FBI was utilizing Fusion-GPS as a contractor, there is now an inherent clarity in the relationship between: FBI agent Peter Strzok, Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson, and 'Russian Dossier' author Christopher Steele. They are all on the same team. ..."
    "... The information that Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson put together from his advanced work on the 'Trump Project', was, in essence, built upon the foundation of the close relationship he already had with the FBI. ..."
    "... Simpson, Jacoby and Ohr then passed on their information to Christopher Steele who adds his own ingredients to the mix, turns around, and gives the end product back to the FBI. That end product is laundered intelligence now called "The Trump/Russia Dossier". ..."
    "... The FBI turn around and use the "dossier" as the underlying documents and investigative evidence for continued operations against the target of the entire enterprise, candidate Donald Trump. As Peter Strzok would say in August 2016: this is their "insurance policy" per se'. ..."
    "... In October 2016, immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for a valid FISA application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job . His exit came as the NSD and Admiral Rogers informed the FISC that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted. Read Here . ..."
    "... Yes, the FBI was working with Christopher Steele through their contractor Fusion-GPS. Yes, the FBI and Clinton Team were, in essence, both paying Christopher Steele for his efforts. The FBI paid Steele via their sub-contractor Fusion-GPS. ..."
    "... Lastly, when the DOJ/FBI used the Steele Dossier to make their 2016 surveillance activity legal (the October FISA application), they are essentially using the outcome of a process they created themselves in collaboration with both Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... All research indicates the intelligence information the DOJ and FBI collected via their FISA-702 queries, combined with the intelligence Fusion GPS created in their earlier use of contractor access to FISA-702(17) "about queries", was the intelligence data delivered to Christopher Steele for use in creating "The Russian Dossier". ..."
    "... Christopher Steele was just laundering intelligence. The Steele "dossier" was then used by the DOJ to gain FISA-702 approvals – which provided retroactive legal cover for the prior campaign surveillance, and also used post-election to create the "Russian Narrative". ..."
    "... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
    Jan 12, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com
    Following the released transcript of Fusion-GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Dianne Feinstein , several media outlets have begun questioning the relationship between the FBI investigators, Glenn Simpson and dossier author Christopher Steele.

    What we have discovered highlights the answer to those relationship questions; and also answers a host of other questions, including: Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele? Yes, but now how media has stated. Was the FBI connected to the creation of the Steele Dossier? Yes, but again, not the way the media is currently outlining.

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 12, 2018] How the BBC shapes the news.

    Jan 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    English Outsider | Jan 10, 2018 1:41:48 PM | 30

    I'm in the UK as well and now find it quite alarming how the BBC shapes the news.

    Recently on Radio 4 I listened to the BBC talking of a terrorist group related to or derived from Al Qaeda merely as "rebels", and giving the impression that their actions were part of a legitimate insurgency. That's not how 9/11 was described.

    It's all too like the BBC's Ukraine reporting, in which the neo-Nazi component was played down and the indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas in Donetsk and Lugansk spoken of as legitimate warfare.

    Crazy. And not only the PR. All those journalists and expensive editors and more admin staff than you can shake a stick at, and there's more fact to be got on some one man and a dog Russian news outlet. I heard recently of an old BBC hand describing the way the BBC changed after David Kelly. What with that and what with the material we now see put out by the BBC, I reckon that as far as foreign news goes we've got ourselves our very own Pravda on the Thames.

    [Jan 12, 2018] How the BBC shapes the news.

    Jan 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    English Outsider | Jan 10, 2018 1:41:48 PM | 30

    I'm in the UK as well and now find it quite alarming how the BBC shapes the news.

    Recently on Radio 4 I listened to the BBC talking of a terrorist group related to or derived from Al Qaeda merely as "rebels", and giving the impression that their actions were part of a legitimate insurgency. That's not how 9/11 was described.

    It's all too like the BBC's Ukraine reporting, in which the neo-Nazi component was played down and the indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas in Donetsk and Lugansk spoken of as legitimate warfare.

    Crazy. And not only the PR. All those journalists and expensive editors and more admin staff than you can shake a stick at, and there's more fact to be got on some one man and a dog Russian news outlet. I heard recently of an old BBC hand describing the way the BBC changed after David Kelly. What with that and what with the material we now see put out by the BBC, I reckon that as far as foreign news goes we've got ourselves our very own Pravda on the Thames.

    [Jan 10, 2018] Trey Gowdy TEARS INTO Suspected Leaker Adam Schiff Over His Outrageous Trump-Russia Collusion Claims by Cristina Laila

    (VIDEO)
    Jan 07, 2018 | www.thegatewaypundit.com

    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) ripped ranking member of the House Intel Committee and suspected leaker Adam Schiff (D-CA) Sunday in a Fox News appearance.

    Gowdy told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that Adam Schiff makes unsubstantiated claims about the Trump-Russia hoax to further his bid for a U.S. Senate seat.

    Maria Bartiromo said to Trey Gowdy, "How long is this going to go on? Because we still haven't had any evidence of any collusion. When is it appropriate for Bob Mueller to come out and say, yes, definitively there's no collusion here, but what I have uncovered is collusion at the top of the FBI between FBI leadership and Hillary Clinton."

    Gowdy responded by blasting Adam Schiff.

    "Well Maria some of my Democratic colleagues, namely Adam Schiff, said he had evidence, more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, before the investigation even began so keep that in mind," Gowdy said.

    Dee Plorable • 2 days ago

    Schiff is as despicable as they come. He knew from day one this was a non fact based witch hunt to divert from his floundering DEMONcratic Party. Yet in Oscar worthy performances he feigns outrage at the President. He tried Forcing Nunes off the investigation but it only slowed Devin down for a few weeks whereupon he returned more determined ... Fact is Nunes is back and exposing the real collusion ... involving hugh ranking members of the Clinton Foundatin & Obama administration ... including the two at the top, Clinton & Obama

    FDNYpatriot • 2 days ago

    Blah blah blah, Gowdy had his chance, I had high hopes then. He's all bark and no bite, I want to see some of these people go to jail, not get the Lerner treatment.

    PDXPapaG > FDNYpatriot • 2 days ago

    Gowdy is a member of the House and can't indict anyone, let alone prosecute them. Somebody wake up Jeff Sessions and tell him there is no collusion so he can un-recuse himself now and do his damn job instead of harassing a person growing a few extra marijuana plants in their garden.

    Lunagirl > PDXPapaG • a day ago

    Read Conservative Treehouse today and the below link. I am pretty cynical but I think this whole thing is going to blow wide open when the IG report comes out, which is why Trump is not sounding off on Sessions. They are waiting until the damning evidence is released by Obama appointee Michael Horowitz. No one will be able to deny the horrifying truth of how the DOJ/FBI and all of the executive branch agencies were weaponized under Obama. Now we know why he wouldn't appoint an Inspector General the entire time Hillary was head of State. (See second link).

    Thank God Horowitz can do what should have been done then. Horowitz and Mike Rogers will do down in history as American heroes.

    https://threadreaderapp.com...

    https://www.wsj.com/article...

    notoriousBLOG > FDNYpatriot • 2 days ago

    Gowdy is like my neighbors little dog. Always barking and nipping at my ankles but never biting.

    totaldisgust > Up the Coast • 2 days ago

    Gowdy cannot charge or prosecute, what he can do is get them to commit under oath on record to their version of the truth, that is what is coming back to haunt them once the DOJ gets back on track.

    totaldisgust > Campaign Promises • a day ago

    I don't equate DOJ with Sessions...and don't consider Pro Trump to equate to pro establishment. Sessions is deep in the snake pit but that may not make him a snake. The DOJ and FBI will not be allowed to continue as they have in the past. The swamp has way more sludge than even Trump expected. I have no doubt it will get done. Trump tried relying on Ryan and McConnell and he is done with that. Nunes, Jordan and others have picked up the ball and ran with it. No lie just takes time.

    [Jan 09, 2018] Steve Bannon and Trump's Populist Victory by Jeremy Cooper

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
    "... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
    "... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
    "... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Republished from VDare.com

    Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was responding to the mounting Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating. The commentary is so dumbed down and painfully reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a few exceptions -- above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015 prediction of a Trump victory on Bill Maher -- these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away, first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people actually started voting in the primaries.

    Finally, after having been wrong at every point during the primaries, they just as confidently predicted that the Republican primary voter had foolishly done nothing more than assure that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

    The most interesting cases to me: the " Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson, Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris. Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the next president -- [ Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22, 2016]

    With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as horrified by " racism " and " sexism " as their Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the " strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM handed this token opposition the Megaphone because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the bipartisan Ruling Class.

    And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the climax. Joshua Green begins his book Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual biography of Steve Bannon, with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.

    Bannon joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies, Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).

    One key example: Green recounts how after Obama's re-election, the GOP Establishment was eager to surrender on immigration, supporting the bipartisan Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Gang of Eight bill . GOP leaders had neutralized Fox News, leaving Breitbart.com, talk radio and guerilla websites like VDARE.com as the only resistance. But the bill died due to a grass-roots revolt, partly inspired by Breitbart's reporting on the flood of Central American "child" refugees t he Obama Regime was allowing across the southern border. GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his congressional seat in a shock upset in the primaries. And little over a year later, Donald Trump became a candidate for president with opposition to illegal immigration as his signature issue.

    Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your side.

    Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American politics. The picture that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his goals.

    For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he realized that the rigid bureaucracy that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in 2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk -- sticking to Establishment scripts, making life comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left. Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has been remaking center-right politics across the globe.

    When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years."

    From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius Evola and René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.

    It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention of Bannon's personal life -- wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his beliefs and political development.

    Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump.

    As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete biographies.

    But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days.

    Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]

    But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.

    In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

    Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were

    playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

    Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.

    History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.

    If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious project of working their way up through powerful institutions.

    Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and free to pursue his political goals.

    If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .

    Clyde Wilson > , August 29, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

    Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices?

    Jobless > , August 30, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT

    @Clyde Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the government than lawyers -- ? -- ?

    At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww -- -- -- (I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my support for Trump )

    The triumph of the Swamp.

    Clyde Wilson > , August 30, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

    We have here perhaps the key to Trump's tragic failure. It was our last shot.

    Sep 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
    < -- --TAGS: . --> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Trump_vs_deep_state/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/anti_russian_hysteria.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Militarism/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/neocons.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocolonialism/Cold_war2.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Nationalism/Economic_nationalism/bannon.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Nationalism/economic_nationalism.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocolonialism/War_is_racket/media_military_industrial_complex.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Paleoconservatism/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/index.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/donald_trump.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/trump_vs_deep_state.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/trump_foreigh_policy_platform.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/us_presidential_elections2016.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/Bulletin/propaganda2017.shtml--> < -- --file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Bulletin/neoconservatism_bulletin2017.shtml--> < -- --file:///f:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Bulletin/political_skeptic2017.shtml--> < -- --file:///f:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocolonialism/Cold_war22/Bulletin/coldwar2_bulletin2017.shtml-->

    [Jan 08, 2018] Someone Spoofed Michael Wolff s Book About Trump And It s Comedy Gold

    Highly recommended!
    Many got the joke, however, many did not and it gained traction because it was "so plausible." This is what "confirmation bias" is about.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him ..."
    "... Some people online at first incorrectly thought that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election ..."
    Jan 08, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    A hilarious spoof excerpt purporting to be from Michael Wolff's new tell-all book about President Donald Trump's administration has gone viral. Twitter user @pixelatedboat , also known as Ben Ward of "milkshake duck" fame , shared a fake extract, which they joked was from Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House , online Thursday night.

    The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him

    Some people online at first incorrectly thought that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

    On his first night in the White House, President Trump complained that the TV in his bedroom was broken, because it didn't have "the gorilla channel". Trump seemed to be under the impression that a TV channel existed that screened nothing but gorilla-based content, 24 hours a day.

    To appease Trump, White House staff compiled a number of gorilla documentaries into a makeshift gorilla channel, broadcast into Trump's bedroom from a hastily-constructed transmission tower on the South Lawn. However, Trump w as unhappy with the channel they had created, moaning that it was "boring" because "the gorillas aren't fighting".

    Staff edited out all the parts of the documentaries where gorillas weren't hitting each other, and at last the president was satisfied. "On some days he'll watch the gorilla channel for 17 hours straight," an insider told me. "He kneels in front of the ТV with his face about four inches from the screen, and says encouraging things to the gorillas, like 'the way you hit that other gorilla was good'. I think he thinks the gorillas can hear him."

    Many got the joke, however, but said it gained traction because it was "so plausible."

    A sampling of the responses are below:

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 08, 2018] Steve Bannon Backpedals On Comments In New Book On Trump by Igor Bobic

    Too little, too late. Also Bannon by demonizing Russians has shown that his is a dangerous warmonger. And a weak politician.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bannon added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. ..."
    "... Bannon released the statement after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon "Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller, the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to Wolff as "grotesque." ..."
    Jan 08, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    The former White House aide said Donald Trump Jr. is a "patriot and a good man." Steve Bannon backpedaled on comments to journalist Michael Wolff, whose explosive new book sparked a backlash against the former top Donald Trump aide over his remarks about a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016. According to the book, released a week early due to high demand, the former White House strategist called the infamous meeting in New York between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian operatives at Trump Tower "treasonous."

    In a statement to Axios on Sunday, Bannon heaped praise on Trump and his agenda, and called Don Jr. a "patriot and a good man." "My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from my life experiences as a Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to hunt Soviet submarines to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was the defeat of 'the evil empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and Hillary Clinton's involvement in selling uranium to them, " Bannon said in the statement.

    Bannon added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends.

    To reiterate, those comments (about the meeting with the Russians) were not aimed at Don Jr." In the statement, Bannon again denied that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And though he did not deny any of the remarks that were attributed to him in the book, Bannon said he regretted "that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president's historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency."

    Bannon released the statement after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon "Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller, the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to Wolff as "grotesque."

    Earlier Sunday, Trump railed about what he called Wolff's "Fake Book" on Twitter:

    [Jan 08, 2018] President Trump's Jerusalem Decision means The End of Hegemony by James Petras

    Jan 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

    The leader and driving force behind the UN disaster was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose quest to seize Jerusalem and convert it into the 'eternal' capital of the Jews was his top priority. For decades the entire world has rejected Israel's seizure of Jerusalem and its conversion into an ethnically cleansed capital for the 'Jewish' state. The UN and international jurists denounced Israel's colonial conquest and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

    Netanyahu took charge with the election of Donald Trump as President. Operation Jerusalem was his first order to Puppet Donald. A number of Israel-First multi-billionaires, who financed Trump's electoral campaign, demanded an immediate pay-off from their puppet: The Administration's unconditional support for Netanyahu's agenda. Despite protests from the rest of the world, especially the US closest European allies, Trump plunged the nation right into the Zionist soup: a Jewish Jerusalem; the systematic eviction of all Arabs, Christian, Muslim and secular, and the eventual annexation of all of Palestine; as well as an increasing military confrontation with Iran.

    Real estate speculator, Jared Kushner, Trump's pampered son-in- law, and a complete Netanyahu flunky, became the senior advisor for the Middle East. Kushner pressured Trump's National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn to intervene with Russia on behalf of Israel's take-over of Jerusalem. Flynn was subsequently prosecuted for discussing global US Russian relations and the 'good soldier' is falling on his sword on behalf of the Zionists. Not surprising, the Congressional Democrats, the FBI and the Special Prosecutor found it easier to prosecute Flynn for his discussion regarding de-escalating the tense US-Russian relations provoked by the Obama administration than his discussions with the Kremlin in support of Israel's seizure of Jerusalem!

    Netanyahu's operational weapons in manipulating US policy involved Jared Kushner, the billionaire Israel-First donors, the AIPAC and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Tel Aviv succeeded in securing Trump's commitment to the Israeli agenda, despite opposition from the entire UN National Security Council and the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly. In the style of a typical authoritarian, US President Trump grovels at the feet of his 'superior', Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while tearing at the throats of his 'inferiors', the 193 member nations of the UN General Assembly.

    Netanyahu's vitriolic bar room threats against the entire membership of the UN prior to the vote ensured the repudiation of all Security Council representatives with the exception of his South Carolina puppet, Ambassador Nikki Haley. Trump and Haley backed the blustering Netanyahu by issuing gangland threats to all UN representatives who dare to oppose Washington's dictates.

    In this way, Prime Minister Netanyahu secured the greatest diplomatic and political success of his career – the total submission of the US to his agenda, at the risk of a major humiliation in the UN. This, in effect, formalized Israeli hegemony over Washington, for the world to see.

    In contrast to Netanyahu's beaming success, the US suffered a historic diplomatic defeat: Fourteen times as many nations voted against the demands of the US President over– Netanyahu's grab of Jerusalem.

    What makes the defeat even more striking is the fact that all major allies and most of the biggest aid recipients openly defied the US threats. Eight of the ten biggest US aid recipients voted against Trump–Netanyahu–Haley. This bizarre troika is now left with an enemy list circling the entire globe, and a few timorous allies in the South Pacific and among the death squads of Guatemala.

    Trump's total and puerile embrace of the raving Netanyahu has exposed and widened fissures in US global hegemony.

    Apart from 'capturing' Netanyahu's vote, the other pro Trump nations included a handful of insignificant Pacific islands (Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia), Togo, a corrupt African mini-state and two banana-sized 'death squad democracies', Honduras and Guatemala. The latter two regimes hold power via stolen elections backed by narco-thugs in the pay (dubbed 'foreign aid') of the US.

    ... ... ...

    Conclusion

    Clearly Trump's championing of a racist, colonialist, ethnic cleansing state like Israel is view as a strategic diplomatic disaster. The Manhattan egomaniac has tied the US fortunes to the whims of a pariah state led by a complete lunatic.

    Trump's decision to demonstrate total loyalty to his Zionist billionaire campaign 'donor-owners' and his Israel-First son-in-law in his first major foreign policy decision failed to impress any of the influential nations of the world – East or West. Indeed, it showed how fractured and dangerously dysfunctional the US Administration had become.

    Most important, Trump's proclamation of a unipolar world based on his notion of the US's economic power has collapsed. Israel, despite Haley's bluster and list-taking, has no legitimacy. It's continued Mossad assassinations of leading Palestinians and others and the increasing IDF slaughter of the spontaneous Palestinian civilian resistance has failed to improve its international standing – except among Guatemalan torturers.

    However, it is not clear that the US has lost its big power influence regarding other regional conflicts. The subsequent UN Security Council vote in favor of Washington's demands for added sanctions against North Korea demonstrated Trump's power to intimidate the oligarchs and leaders of China and Russia.

    In other words, limits on US power still depend on the issues, the allies, the diplomatic appeals, the adversaries and the distribution of benefits and costs.

    In the case of Jerusalem, Real Estate Mogul Trump's bizarre decision to hand an entire city over to the Zionists alienated all Muslims and Christians the world over, as well as the secular Western liberal nations and emerging powers, like Russia and China. The US tied its prestige to the whims of a paranoid nation arrogantly flaunting its racist superiority complex, backed by groups of immensely wealthy overseas dual citizens.

    Diplomatically, Israel's vituperative responses to any legal criticism from world bodies undermines its chances of coalition building.

    Finally, Washington's support for Israel's perpetual and overt violation of international law and its bombing of humanitarian missions makes Israel a very costly ally.

    [Jan 08, 2018] Trump s Failed Coup in Iran by Eric Margolis

    Jan 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Listen to the state-'guided' US media this past week and you'd believe a series of spontaneous anti-government protests broke out across Iran. The protests, according to President Donald Trump and his Israeli allies, were caused by `anger over Iran's spending billions on wars in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon and helping the Palestinian movement Hamas.' Trump tweeted that Iranians were finally rising up against what he called their hated, brutal regime.

    Talk about manufactured news. Most Iranians were elated and proud of their nation's role in thwarting US plans to occupy much of Syria and overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. By contrast, the other side in this long proxy war – the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain – was smarting with defeat and seeking ways to exact revenge on the hateful trio, Syria, Iran and Russia.

    Interestingly, the so-called news of protests over Iran's military spending did not apparently originate in Iran but rather in Washington which spread it far and wide to our state-guided media. This was clumsy, but the US and Israel were so eager to get this piece of made-up good news out that they forget the basics of propaganda management: wait for the event before you proclaim it.

    What in fact was going on in Iran where more than 21 demonstrators have died violent deaths? As a very long-time Iran watcher allow me to explain.

    Restive minority groups in Iran's Kurdish, Azeri and Sunni Arab regions, most far from the big cities, have been demonstrating and protesting severe economic problems. Iran is a big, resource-rich nation of 80 million people that should be booming. But it has been under economic siege warfare by the US and its allies ever since a popular uprising in 1979 overthrew the US-British backed monarchy that was raping the nation and keeping it a vassal of the western powers.

    Iran's new Islamic Republic was deemed a dire threat to Western and Israeli strategic and military interests (think Saudi Arabia). The very idea that the Islamic Republic would follow the tenets of Islam and share oil wealth with the needy was anathema to London and Washington. Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, ran Iran's dreaded, brutal secret police, Savak. The crooked royal family looted the nation and stored their swag in California.

    The West's first act was to induce Saddam Hussein's Iraq to invade Iran, in Sept 1980. The West (including the Gulf Arabs) armed, financed and supplied Iraq. As I discovered in Baghdad, Britain and the US supplied Iraq with poison gas and germ warfare toxins. After eight years, 250,000 Iraqis were killed and nearly one million Iranians died.

    Ever since the Islamic Revolution, the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs have been trying to overthrow the Tehran government and mount a counter-revolution. CIA and Britain's MI6 has ample practice: in 1953, the CIA and MI6 mounted an elaborate operation to overthrow Iran's democratically-elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh who sought to nationalize Iran's British-owned oil company. Mobs of specially trained anti-Mossadegh plotters poured into Tehran's streets. Bombs went off. Army commanders were suborned, lavish bribes handed out.

    The 1953 coup went perfectly. Mossadegh was ousted with backing from the Army and Savak. Iran's oil remained safe in western hands. The successful Iran uprising became the template for future 'color revolutions' in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Russia, Poland, and Romania.

    But in 2009 a US-engineered 'color revolution' in Iran went badly wrong even though it used all the latest arts of social media to whip up protestors and deploy them in the streets. Something similar happened in Iran this past weekend where mobs of 20-somethings, agitated by US and British covert social media, poured into the streets of dingy provincial towns.

    As of now, this medium-sized uprising in Iran looks to be over, though it could re-ignite at any time. Young Iranians, at least 40% of the population, suffer due to 50% unemployment. Iran's $1 trillion economy is extremely fragile and in some cases barely functioning after decades of US-engineered economic warfare and boycotts. High unemployment is a result of US economic warfare and bullying other nations not to do business with Iran, producing 13% overall unemployment and a 40% inflation rate. The latter and wide-scale corruption were the spark that ignited the latest riots.

    In two more weeks, President Trump, who makes no secret of his hatred and contempt for Muslims, must decide whether to reaffirm the multilateral nuclear energy deal with Iran or heed Israel's demands and refuse to certify it. His cutoff this week of US military aid to Muslim Pakistan bodes ill for Iran.

    Many Iranians observing the current US-North Korea nuclear standoff will wonder if their nation was not better off continuing its nuclear program and holding the Saudi oil fields at risk to deter a US attack. Trump's wild, inconsistent and often infantile responses on this issue are making matters murkier and ever more dangerous.

    KA , January 6, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT

    "Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

    "Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces,"

    The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat.

    The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with Iran's strategy in Iraq." May 2007 Simon Tisdall

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/22/iraq.topstories3

    You see the lies that bind the newspaper columnist and USA's warlords!!

    Vety soon after this write-up , USA liberated ISIS from prison and from foreign lands ,gathered them together from the disparate mixture of foreign fighters who populated the roster of Al Qaida and unleashed them on
    Shia.

    But per the narrative Al Qaida and Shia were plotting to topple American the warlords from the Board Of Director of the company known as Freedom Democracy Liberty .
    Iran is learning so has Russia and EU . Hope they extend the learning to the underlying philosophies that govern USA's behaviors.

    1

    RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , January 6, 2018 at 8:54 pm GMT
    @KA

    underlying philosophies that govern USA's behaviors.

    Translation: Israel gets what Israel wants.

    edgeslider , January 6, 2018 at 11:15 pm GMT
    US is screwing with Iran. Good deal I say. Why all this constant moaning here in defense of the Persian-Shia supremacists? Those fellows are at war with us, starting with the act of war of occupying our embassy in 1976. The supreme leaders there proclaim "Death to America" every chance they get . We have been too lenient. They should have been reduced to the level of Somalia by now.
    anony-mouse , January 7, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
    So the CIA and Mossad have agents all over Iran, including Qom, something that the Iranian authorities are, of course, oblivious to.

    And are the reports that Ahmadinejad's been arrested true?

    He's certainly stopped tweeting at least in English:

    https://twitter.com/ahmadinejad1956?lang=en

    Chris Mallory , January 7, 2018 at 1:17 am GMT
    @edgeslider

    Are the Iranians chanting "Death to America" any different than you and your Israel First buddies that chant "Death to Iran"? Other than that you do your chanting on the internet?

    Did you not read about the attack by the CIA on the Iranian people in 1953?

    The best thing we could do is to being all our troops home from the Middle East, end all aid to every other nation, let Israel sleep in the bed it has made, and mind our own business. Nothing in the Middle East is any responsibility of the American people.

    Andy Zeist , January 7, 2018 at 2:03 am GMT
    Right on top, Chris. You are so right!

    Peace

    Johnny Smoggins , January 7, 2018 at 5:38 am GMT
    Iran poses no threat to the US whatsoever.

    "Allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia are nothing but.

    Realist , January 7, 2018 at 9:05 am GMT
    @Chris Mallory

    Excellent points.

    CalDre , January 7, 2018 at 9:35 am GMT

    US is screwing with Iran. Good deal I say. Why all this constant moaning here in defense of the Persian-Shia supremacists?

    Persian-Shia supremacists? LOL, the only true supremacists in the ME are the Jews. You don't see the Persians ethnically cleansing other groups and occupying their lands. You don't see the Persians lobbying and infiltrating Washington to get the US puppets to destroy their neighbors.

    Those fellows are at war with us, starting with the act of war of occupying our embassy in 1976.

    The acts of war occurred in 1953 when the US overthrew Iran's government and installed a savage dictatorship. The US embassy staff were an occupying force. Iran had every right to arrest every single person in the embassy as an illegal occupying force, which was intimately involved in the crimes the Shah committed against the Iranian people. Those embassy personnel were murderers, torturers, kidnappers and thugs. They got off easy.

    The supreme leaders there proclaim "Death to America" every chance they get .

    Actually they don't, and they certainly don't chant "Death to America". Given your general stupidity, you obviously don't speak a foreign language. Translations are wide open to abuse, and no more so, than when someone's enemy does the translation. What they are really chanting is "Down with America", using the proper translation, and what they really mean is "Down with American Imperialism and Interference in Iranian Affairs". Of which there has been a lot (US being the successor to British imperialism / occupation / war crimes in the region).

    We have been too lenient. They should have been reduced to the level of Somalia by now.

    Would make me much happier if your home and family were destroyed instead. For you are a truly evil war-mongering criminal. Though even that, I don't wish for, as I am nowhere near the deep realms of hatred, supremacism and evil as you.

    [Jan 07, 2018] Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news

    This article is one year old but still looks like it was written yesterday...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. ..."
    "... "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump." ..."
    "... Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line. ..."
    "... For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books. ..."
    Jun 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC, June 27, 2017 at 07:27 AM

    On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

    Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

    The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.

    Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

    Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence.

    "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump."

    Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
    ........................
    https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

    RGC -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:33 AM
    June 27, 2017

    Hersh's New Syria Revelations Buried From View

    by Jonathan Cook

    .................

    Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line.

    For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books.
    ................
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/

    RGC -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria

    The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly be to its disadvantage.

    The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which will be blamed on the Syrian government.
    .................
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/white-house-says-it-will-fake-chemical-weapon-attacks-in-syria.html#more

    JohnH -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:38 AM
    When the going gets tough, the US fakes a chemical weapons attack...
    JohnH -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news.

    Hirsh has been a thorn in the side of the national security state ever since his expose of the My Lai massacre in 1969...and they're doing their best to shut him up.

    [Jan 07, 2018] Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey The Three Amigos from the Deep State by Roger Stone

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves. ..."
    "... He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons, no indictments were filed. ..."
    "... Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair. ..."
    "... Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes for President Donald J. Trump? ..."
    Jun 22, 2017 | stonecoldtruth.com

    There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller go even further back.

    James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. The two men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was incapacitated in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with hubris and almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.

    Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves.

    We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons, no indictments were filed.

    Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.

    Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes for President Donald J. Trump?

    Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.

    ... ... ...

    Al Benson Jr. , June 25, 2017 5:54 PM

    Same question I have asked before, why are all these Clinton supporters and Obama clones still part of the Trump White House? Why have they not been removed. It almost seems as if Trump is handing these people the rope they plan to hang him with. You can bet the farm if Obama was still in office there would be no supporters of a previous Republican administration in his White House. They would all have been shoved out the back door long ago. Is there no way either Trump or Sessions can get rid of these people? And if not, why not?

    The Trump administration is more than overloaded with Obama holdovers and you can bet none of them is there to help him enact his America First agenda. Those people have been working to make sure it's "America Last" for decades now.

    One wonders how long they will be able to keep pushing that famous non-event, the Trump/Russian collusion theory before they realize that people are just not buying it anymore.

    Years ago, and some of you all may remember it, there was a hamburger commercial on where a little old lady stepped up to the counter and asked "Where's the beef?" Today the public could just as easily step up and ask the Establishment "Where's the evidence?" when it comes to Trump and the Russians because all we have heard from the Trump detractors is lots of political bloviation all dressed up in legalese--but no real evidence to back it up.

    Might I suggest that Mr. Trump and/or Mr. Sessions see about removing these people that are willfully preventing the Trump administration from doing what we elected it to do?

    Alan Rhoads Al Benson Jr. , August 10, 2017 4:18 PM

    Send your letter modified to be a formal complaint. I have just sent the following letter to Rosenstein by Certified Mail so that "Someone" needs to sign for it.
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

    Attention: Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ron Rosenstein, Esq.

    August 10, 2017

    Subject: Mr. Robert Mueller, Esq. serving as Special Council, and calling for a Grand Jury

    Dear Mr. Deputy Attorney General:

    I am writing to you primarily as a way to establish a historical record of your endeavor to investigate any collusion between President Donald J. Trump and the Russians, during the 2016 Federal Election process. Your temporary responsibilities as acting Attorney General caused you to be attuned to the entire Department of Justice case load. And so, you would be fully aware of all facets of the Trump-Russia 2016 Election collision, if any. No collusion was discovered. And so, it would behoove the present Attorney General Mr. Jeffrey Sessions, Esq., to un-recuse himself now that there is no evidence of a Trump felony. You, however, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, are complicit with Attorney Robert Mueller, Esq. in establishing a Special Council and appointed Mr. Mueller to that position.

    It is known in public circles that Mr. Mueller is a close friend of former Dir. FBI, James B. Comey. When the President of the United States, Donald Trump fired Comey, Attorney. Robert Mueller can be seen as an extremely biased prosecutor. Mueller's assignment, at the suggestion of Comey and its actual enactment, is, in my opinion illegal.

    The Special Council began his investigation in May 2016, it has been noted in the Main Stream Media. We are now almost midway into August and there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

    I am aware that a Special Council is triggered by ongoing or previous criminal activity and is based upon hard evidence that can be used to prosecute a felon. Yet Atty. Robert Mueller was made Special Council without any criminal activity performed by a felon and without any evidence. And then, to establish a Grand Jury for the prosecution, that is totally out of line with ethical justice and the Rule of Law. The final partisan development is that Special Council Mueller has moved the Grand Jury from Virginia to Washington D. C., wherein he is likely to load the Grand Jury with Democrats who, politically are biased against President Trump.

    How is that possible at such a high level in the DOJ to allow such misdeeds of justice? The complicit activity described in the body of this letter is the criminal activity, in my opinion. No, the Mueller investigation and Grand Jury is not a witch hunt. Rather it is a stronger term, a Vendetta.

    Alan Dale Rhoads, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, Oreland, PA, 19075-1401

    Pitchman , December 14, 2017 3:42 PM

    Lisa Barsoomian, Rod Rosenstein's wife was FBI FOiA Shot Blocker and covert communication masking official. Did Rosenstein mention her FBI oversight duties yesterday?

    Stewie Steve , December 14, 2017 10:54 PM

    you don't think that maybe this is a honeypot? I think these over zealous criminals are creaming their pants and hanging themselves, remember Rogers and the NSA be listening to err thing in the house

    D.Plorable , October 25, 2017 4:48 AM

    Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly was investigating Hilary's infamous server -- he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate

    https://www.cbsnews.com/new...

    though this MSM once-over, like all the others, won't go anywhere near the curious fact that the FBI never actually examined the server, it took the word of Google-funded puppet Crowdstrike, which just happens to be run by a famously anti-Russian activist

    https://libertyblitzkrieg.c...

    http://dailycaller.com/2017...

    and Terry McAuliffe does seem to lead the charmed life doesn't he? His career seems to be a laundry list of grossly unethical but just-not-quite-illegal behavior...I guess it helps to have friends in high places.

    newbedave , July 6, 2017 6:03 AM

    Document location http://akdart.com/obama111....
    Updated July 4, 2017.

    [Jan 07, 2018] Trump's Failed Coup in Iran, by Eric Margolis - The Unz Review

    Jan 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Blogview Eric Margolis Archive Blogview Eric Margolis Archive Trump's Failed Coup in Iran Eric Margolis January 6, 2018 800 Words 9 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS

    Email This Page to Someone
    Remember My Information


    =>
    ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Add to Library
    Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

    Listen to the state-'guided' US media this past week and you'd believe a series of spontaneous anti-government protests broke out across Iran. The protests, according to President Donald Trump and his Israeli allies, were caused by `anger over Iran's spending billions on wars in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon and helping the Palestinian movement Hamas.' Trump tweeted that Iranians were finally rising up against what he called their hated, brutal regime.

    Talk about manufactured news. Most Iranians were elated and proud of their nation's role in thwarting US plans to occupy much of Syria and overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. By contrast, the other side in this long proxy war – the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain – was smarting with defeat and seeking ways to exact revenge on the hateful trio, Syria, Iran and Russia.

    Interestingly, the so-called news of protests over Iran's military spending did not apparently originate in Iran but rather in Washington which spread it far and wide to our state-guided media. This was clumsy, but the US and Israel were so eager to get this piece of made-up good news out that they forget the basics of propaganda management: wait for the event before you proclaim it.

    What in fact was going on in Iran where more than 21 demonstrators have died violent deaths? As a very long-time Iran watcher allow me to explain.

    Restive minority groups in Iran's Kurdish, Azeri and Sunni Arab regions, most far from the big cities, have been demonstrating and protesting severe economic problems. Iran is a big, resource-rich nation of 80 million people that should be booming. But it has been under economic siege warfare by the US and its allies ever since a popular uprising in 1979 overthrew the US-British backed monarchy that was raping the nation and keeping it a vassal of the western powers.

    Iran's new Islamic Republic was deemed a dire threat to Western and Israeli strategic and military interests (think Saudi Arabia). The very idea that the Islamic Republic would follow the tenets of Islam and share oil wealth with the needy was anathema to London and Washington. Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, ran Iran's dreaded, brutal secret police, Savak. The crooked royal family looted the nation and stored their swag in California.

    The West's first act was to induce Saddam Hussein's Iraq to invade Iran, in Sept 1980. The West (including the Gulf Arabs) armed, financed and supplied Iraq. As I discovered in Baghdad, Britain and the US supplied Iraq with poison gas and germ warfare toxins. After eight years, 250,000 Iraqis were killed and nearly one million Iranians died.

    Ever since the Islamic Revolution, the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs have been trying to overthrow the Tehran government and mount a counter-revolution. CIA and Britain's MI6 has ample practice: in 1953, the CIA and MI6 mounted an elaborate operation to overthrow Iran's democratically-elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh who sought to nationalize Iran's British-owned oil company. Mobs of specially trained anti-Mossadegh plotters poured into Tehran's streets. Bombs went off. Army commanders were suborned, lavish bribes handed out.

    The 1953 coup went perfectly. Mossadegh was ousted with backing from the Army and Savak. Iran's oil remained safe in western hands. The successful Iran uprising became the template for future 'color revolutions' in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Russia, Poland, and Romania.

    But in 2009 a US-engineered 'color revolution' in Iran went badly wrong even though it used all the latest arts of social media to whip up protestors and deploy them in the streets. Something similar happened in Iran this past weekend where mobs of 20-somethings, agitated by US and British covert social media, poured into the streets of dingy provincial towns.

    As of now, this medium-sized uprising in Iran looks to be over, though it could re-ignite at any time. Young Iranians, at least 40% of the population, suffer due to 50% unemployment. Iran's $1 trillion economy is extremely fragile and in some cases barely functioning after decades of US-engineered economic warfare and boycotts. High unemployment is a result of US economic warfare and bullying other nations not to do business with Iran, producing 13% overall unemployment and a 40% inflation rate. The latter and wide-scale corruption were the spark that ignited the latest riots.

    In two more weeks, President Trump, who makes no secret of his hatred and contempt for Muslims, must decide whether to reaffirm the multilateral nuclear energy deal with Iran or heed Israel's demands and refuse to certify it. His cutoff this week of US military aid to Muslim Pakistan bodes ill for Iran.

    Many Iranians observing the current US-North Korea nuclear standoff will wonder if their nation was not better off continuing its nuclear program and holding the Saudi oil fields at risk to deter a US attack. Trump's wild, inconsistent and often infantile responses on this issue are making matters murkier and ever more dangerous.

    KA , January 6, 2018 at 5:51 pm GMT

    "Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

    "Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces,"

    The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat.

    The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with Iran's strategy in Iraq." May 2007 Simon Tisdall

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/22/iraq.topstories3

    You see the lies that bind the newspaper columnist and USA's warlords!!

    Vety soon after this write-up , USA liberated ISIS from prison and from foreign lands ,gathered them together from the disparate mixture of foreign fighters who populated the roster of Al Qaida and unleashed them on
    Shia.

    But per the narrative Al Qaida and Shia were plotting to topple American the warlords from the Board Of Director of the company known as Freedom Democracy Liberty .
    Iran is learning so has Russia and EU . Hope they extend the learning to the underlying philosophies that govern USA's behaviors.

    1

    RealAmericanValuesCirca1776Not1965 , January 6, 2018 at 8:54 pm GMT
    @KA

    underlying philosophies that govern USA's behaviors.

    Translation: Israel gets what Israel wants.

    edgeslider , January 6, 2018 at 11:15 pm GMT
    US is screwing with Iran. Good deal I say. Why all this constant moaning here in defense of the Persian-Shia supremacists? Those fellows are at war with us, starting with the act of war of occupying our embassy in 1976. The supreme leaders there proclaim "Death to America" every chance they get . We have been too lenient. They should have been reduced to the level of Somalia by now.
    anony-mouse , January 7, 2018 at 12:51 am GMT
    So the CIA and Mossad have agents all over Iran, including Qom, something that the Iranian authorities are, of course, oblivious to.

    And are the reports that Ahmadinejad's been arrested true?

    He's certainly stopped tweeting at least in English:

    https://twitter.com/ahmadinejad1956?lang=en

    Chris Mallory , January 7, 2018 at 1:17 am GMT
    @edgeslider

    Are the Iranians chanting "Death to America" any different than you and your Israel First buddies that chant "Death to Iran"? Other than that you do your chanting on the internet?

    Did you not read about the attack by the CIA on the Iranian people in 1953?

    The best thing we could do is to being all our troops home from the Middle East, end all aid to every other nation, let Israel sleep in the bed it has made, and mind our own business. Nothing in the Middle East is any responsibility of the American people.

    Andy Zeist , January 7, 2018 at 2:03 am GMT
    Right on top, Chris. You are so right!

    Peace

    Johnny Smoggins , January 7, 2018 at 5:38 am GMT
    Iran poses no threat to the US whatsoever.

    "Allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia are nothing but.

    Realist , January 7, 2018 at 9:05 am GMT
    @Chris Mallory

    Excellent points.

    CalDre , January 7, 2018 at 9:35 am GMT

    US is screwing with Iran. Good deal I say. Why all this constant moaning here in defense of the Persian-Shia supremacists?

    Persian-Shia supremacists? LOL, the only true supremacists in the ME are the Jews. You don't see the Persians ethnically cleansing other groups and occupying their lands. You don't see the Persians lobbying and infiltrating Washington to get the US puppets to destroy their neighbors.

    Those fellows are at war with us, starting with the act of war of occupying our embassy in 1976.

    The acts of war occurred in 1953 when the US overthrew Iran's government and installed a savage dictatorship. The US embassy staff were an occupying force. Iran had every right to arrest every single person in the embassy as an illegal occupying force, which was intimately involved in the crimes the Shah committed against the Iranian people. Those embassy personnel were murderers, torturers, kidnappers and thugs. They got off easy.

    The supreme leaders there proclaim "Death to America" every chance they get .

    Actually they don't, and they certainly don't chant "Death to America". Given your general stupidity, you obviously don't speak a foreign language. Translations are wide open to abuse, and no more so, than when someone's enemy does the translation. What they are really chanting is "Down with America", using the proper translation, and what they really mean is "Down with American Imperialism and Interference in Iranian Affairs". Of which there has been a lot (US being the successor to British imperialism / occupation / war crimes in the region).

    We have been too lenient. They should have been reduced to the level of Somalia by now.

    Would make me much happier if your home and family were destroyed instead. For you are a truly evil war-mongering criminal. Though even that, I don't wish for, as I am nowhere near the deep realms of hatred, supremacism and evil as you.

    [Jan 07, 2018] Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news

    This article is one year old but still looks like it was written yesterday...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. ..."
    "... "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump." ..."
    "... Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line. ..."
    "... For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books. ..."
    Jun 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC, June 27, 2017 at 07:27 AM

    On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

    Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

    The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.

    Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

    Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence.

    "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump."

    Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
    ........................
    https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

    RGC -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:33 AM
    June 27, 2017

    Hersh's New Syria Revelations Buried From View

    by Jonathan Cook

    .................

    Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line.

    For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books.
    ................
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/

    RGC -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria

    The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly be to its disadvantage.

    The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which will be blamed on the Syrian government.
    .................
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/white-house-says-it-will-fake-chemical-weapon-attacks-in-syria.html#more

    JohnH -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:38 AM
    When the going gets tough, the US fakes a chemical weapons attack...
    JohnH -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news.

    Hirsh has been a thorn in the side of the national security state ever since his expose of the My Lai massacre in 1969...and they're doing their best to shut him up.

    [Jan 06, 2018] Looks like Bannon self-immolated himself by his cooperation with Wolff

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
    "... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
    "... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
    "... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
    "... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
    "... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
    "... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
    "... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
    Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
    ... ... ..

    Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

    The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

    Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

    Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

    Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

    Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

    I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

    It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

    Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

    I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

    But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

    - John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia Says U.S. Media Will Be Banned From Parliament

    Notable quotes:
    "... Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S. journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC. ..."
    Dec 01, 2017 | www.hollywoodreporter.com

    Reporters representing U.S. media outlets will be banned from Russian Parliament, in a response for Russia's Kremlin-funded international TV news channel RT having its Congressional press accreditation stripped earlier this week.

    A ban on attending sessions of the State Duma, the lower chamber of Russian Parliament, will be introduced "for all U.S. media," Olga Savastyanova, head of the Duma's committee on regulations and control, was quoted as saying by RBC news.

    According to Savostyanova, the measure is Russia's "reciprocal response to the U.S. Congress' decision" regarding RT. The restriction is expected to begin Dec. 6, after being formally adopted by the Duma council and a plenary meeting.

    Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S. journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC.

    [Jan 06, 2018] Hollywood's Top Three Challenges to Doing Business in Russia in 2018

    Jan 06, 2018 | www.hollywoodreporter.com

    Many expected the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November 2016 to lead to improved ties between Russia and the United States. That didn't happen.

    Relations between Washington and Moscow are now at a nadir, not helped by Trump's recent speech lumping in Russia with China as "rival powers" to the U.S. and the primary threats to America's economic dominance in the world.

    For Hollywood, which has relied on Russia as a significant market for its films and TV series, 2018 is likely to bring more bad news and more challenges to doing business.

    Kremlin watchers will be focused on March 18, the date of Russia's presidential election. While the result is not in doubt -- Vladimir Putin is certain to secure another six-year term -- it is anyone's guess how far President Putin will go in his "Russia First" policies of economic nationalism.

    After the 2012 election, for example, Putin took a sharply anti-Western stance, imposing new restrictions on foreign companies working in Russia and cracking down on his country's mostly pro-Western liberal opposition. Most observers expect this trend to continue in 2018.

    The question is: How far will Putin go? Here is THR's look at three key challenges for Hollywood in Russia that will be in focus next year.

    New Taxes

    Moscow's Russia First policy -- which Russia's government calls "import substitution" -- has looked to the tax code as a way to protect the local film industry at the expense of Hollywood and other foreign imports.

    Russia backed down from a radical idea to hike the exhibition license fee for theatrical releases in the country -- the fee, which is mandatory for a theatrical release in Russia, was set to jump from 3,500 rubles ($60) to 5 million rubles ($85,000) -- but the ministry is still adamant about taxing foreign releases in one way or another.

    Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky, an ardent Russia First advocate keen to protect homegrown films against the Hollywood invasion, is expected to lose his position in the new cabinet, but his replacement will likely be drawn from the same conservative and anti-Western contingent.

    A proposal, introduced mid-December, would implement a 3 percent tax hike on all foreign theatrical releases. Expect that to pass easily and go into law in early 2018.

    [Jan 06, 2018] Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: Ethno-nationalism -- it's losers. It's a fringe element.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies. ..."
    "... Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production. ..."
    "... Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario. ..."
    "... Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists. ..."
    "... I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s. ..."
    "... Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
    "... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist. ..."
    "... If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector ..."
    "... Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism? ..."
    "... At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath ..."
    Aug 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 1:53:13 AM | 4
    So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.

    Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.

    Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.

    Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.

    At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin. I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.

    psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5
    I thought that maybe Bannon was being a bit too forthright in his recent comments and perhaps he has just painted a big bullseye on his back for the racist clowns he has used to aim at. Check this out: Bannons colleagues disturbed by interview with left wing publication
    Realist | Aug 17, 2017 3:18:01 AM | 8
    Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.

    Clueless Joe | Aug 17, 2017 5:24:06 AM | 13

    Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.

    Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.

    fairleft | Aug 17, 2017 6:35:17 AM | 15

    I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s.

    likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:51:54 AM | 28

    @ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014

    Progressives and Steve Bannon have something surprising in common: hating Wall Street

    Pop quiz! Which major American political figure said the following:

    • "The 2008 crisis is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks."
    • "I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong."
    • "[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis."
    • "The Republican Party "is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules" and are "the reason that the United States' financial situation is so dire."

    LINK

    and here is BusinessInsider's analysis of Bannon's worldview:

    LINK

    In the Vatican talk, Bannon described in length and detail how he views the biggest issues of the day:

    • He wants to tear down "crony capitalism": "a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people.[.]
    • He is against Ayn Rand's version of libertarianism: "The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism.[.]
    • He believes the West needs to wage "a global war against Islamic fascism": "They have a Twitter account up today, ISIS does, about turning the United States into a "river of blood" if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad. And trust me, that is going to come to Europe.[.]
    • He believes the capitalism of the "Judeo Christian West" is in crisis: "If you look at the leaders of capitalism at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West.[.]
    • He believes the racists that are attracted to Trump will become increasingly irrelevant: [.]

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    this recent Bannon interview with The American Prospect will now go viral. Drudgereport headlines the WAPO spin.

    fastfreddy | Aug 17, 2017 11:05:47 AM | 31

    Except for the selective Zion-flavored warmongering, Bannon appears to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Also crafty. Is he not "Trump's Brain" in the way that Rove was Bush's Brain?

    RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 12:23:40 PM | 34

    @30 Just Sayin'

    Agree. I think Bannon's quite bright and very very clever and crafty.

    However, if anyone believes the lies he spewed yesterday about white supremacists, let me enlighten you that that's what's called "good PR" or something. Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.

    Caveat Emptor.

    karlof1 | Aug 17, 2017 12:30:01 PM | 36

    The first group to call themselves Progressives were the 19th century Populists. Their mantle was adopted by T. Roosevelt and other like-minded Republicans. Lafollette and Wallace are perhaps the best remembered Progressives--yes, FDR is portrayed as one, but when examined really isn't: Eleanor was far more Progressive and since she was people also thought he was too. Once Wallace was ousted from government, Democrats reverted to their old ways, although Truman did order the military to desegregate--perhaps his only Progressive act. JFK was in the process of becoming a Progressive in the months prior to his murder. LBJ very reluctantly made some Progressive noises in his War on Poverty that he was essentially forced into thanks to massive ethnic strife and related riots during the 60s. But essentially since the beginning of WW2, Progressives and their goals vanished from the political landscape. Nader brought it back to the fringe from the wilderness, but the so-called Progressive Caucus really isn't Progressive thanks to its war promotion.

    Admittedly, I don't know much about Steve Bannon; he certainly isn't a Progressive, but he doesn't seem to be a Regressive either. The points he made at the Vatican Talk supplied by likklemore @28 are rather encouraging in an anti-Deep State manner. So, his interaction with The American Prospect I don't see as surprising--he's seeking allies: "'It's a great honor to finally track you [Robert Kuttner] down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it.'... Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me." I think Kuttner will discover Bannon will "still [be] there" after Labor Day, so he might as well make his travel plans.

    likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 12:45:43 PM | 38
    @ Just Sayin' 30

    I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.
    Read and understand as Bannon is proven right on events.

    The $28 - trillion (US dollar) global bailouts in 2008 is proven to have failed. A handful on Wall Street became trillionaires instead of being suited in special stripes.
    Negative interest rates steal the retirement savings of seniors. Pensions and Insurance companies cannot meet promised payouts.

    And all is fine. Corruption flourishes. Judeo-Christian moral values are not in crisis.

    les7 | Aug 17, 2017 12:27:02 PM | 35

    @12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist.

    @ 8 as you say... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist.

    @ 9 If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector (see @28).

    @28 Bannon would never call himself a Socialist, but the most logical expression of his individualist views when applied to the business world are expressed by none other than Ayn Rand. The financial world simply got legal cover to act on the views that he rails against. Bannon does not like what he sees when the rules he claims for himself are given to the rest of the world. Which makes him an "Exceptionalist"??

    Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism?

    At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath.

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    Highly recommended!
    I wish Robert Parry quick and full recovery after his minor stoke. He is a magnificent journalist !
    Notable quotes:
    "... In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called "Establishment McCarthyism, " traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives. ..."
    "... This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about "Russian propaganda" and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks" by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact. ..."
    "... For instance, PolitiFact still rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA. ..."
    "... And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community. ..."
    "... And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false. ..."
    "... Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts" to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy. ..."
    "... And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press? ..."
    "... So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism," a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged. ..."
    Oct 27, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called "Establishment McCarthyism, " traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.

    This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about "Russian propaganda" and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks" by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact.

    It doesn't seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and, indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.

    For instance, PolitiFact still rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.

    And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community.

    Even then, what these analysts published last Jan. 6 was an "assessment," which they specifically warned was "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." In other words, they didn't have any conclusive proof of Russian "hacking."

    Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable "consensus" of the "intelligence community." Contrary information, including WikiLeaks' denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and contrary judgments from former senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.

    The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from "fracking."

    How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American "democracy" is hard to comprehend.

    However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report's admitted uncertainties about Russian "hacking" and the troubling implications of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can't be questioned or challenged.

    Silencing RT

    For instance, on Tuesday, the Times published a front-page story entitled " YouTube Gave Russians Outlet Portal Into U.S ." that essentially cried out for the purging of RT from YouTube. The article began by holding YouTube's vice president Robert Kynci up to ridicule and opprobrium for his praising "RT for bonding with viewers by providing 'authentic' content instead of 'agendas or propaganda.'"

    The article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore swallowed whole the Jan. 6 report's conclusion that RT is "the Kremlin's 'principal international propaganda outlet' and a key player in Russia's information warfare operations around the world." In other words, the Times portrayed Kynci as essentially a "useful idiot."

    Yet, the article doesn't actually dissect any RT article that could be labeled false or propagandistic. It simply alludes generally to news items that contained information critical of Hillary Clinton as if any negative reporting on the Democratic presidential contender – no matter how accurate or how similar to stories appearing in the U.S. press – was somehow proof of "information warfare."

    As Daniel Lazare wrote at Consortiumnews.com on Wednesday, "The web version [of the Times article] links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014 email obtained by Wikileaks in which Clinton acknowledges that 'the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.'"

    In other words, the Times cited a documented and newsworthy RT story as its evidence that RT was a propaganda shop threatening American democracy and deserving ostracism if not removal from YouTube.

    A Dangerous Pattern

    Not to say that I share every news judgment of RT – or for that matter The New York Times – but there is a grave issue of press freedom when the Times essentially calls for the shutting down of access to a news organization that may highlight or report on stories that the Times and other mainstream outlets downplay or ignore.

    And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false.

    Nor is it just the Times. Last Thanksgiving, The Washington Post ran a fawning front-page article about an anonymous group PropOrNot that had created a blacklist of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other independent news sources, that were deemed guilty of dispensing "Russian propaganda," which basically amounted to our showing any skepticism toward the State Department's narratives on the crises in Syria or Ukraine.

    So, if any media outlet dares to question the U.S. government's version of events – once that storyline has been embraced by the big media – the dissidents risk being awarded the media equivalent of a yellow star and having their readership dramatically reduced by getting downgraded on search engines and punished on social media.

    Meanwhile, Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts" to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy.

    There is also a more coercive element to what's going on. RT is facing demands from the Justice Department that it register as a "foreign agent" or face prosecution. Clearly, the point is to chill the journalism done by RT's American reporters, hosts and staff who now fear being stigmatized as something akin to traitors.

    You might wonder: where are the defenders of press freedom and civil liberties? Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media or national politics recognize the danger to a democracy coming from enforced groupthinks? Is American democracy so fragile that letting Americans hear "another side of the story" must be prevented?

    A Dangerous 'Cure'

    I agree that there is a limited problem with jerks who knowingly make up fake stories or who disseminate crazy conspiracy theories – and no one finds such behavior more offensive than I do. But does no one recall the lies about Iraq's WMD and other U.S. government falsehoods and deceptions over the years?

    Often, it is the few dissenters who alert the American people to the truth, even as the Times, Post, CNN and other big outlets are serving as the real propaganda agents, accepting what the "important people" say and showing little or no professional skepticism.

    And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press?

    The answer seems to be that many liberals and progressives are so blinded by their fury over Donald Trump's election that they don't care what lines are crossed to destroy or neutralize him. Plus, for some liberal entities, there's lots of money to be made.

    For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has made its "resistance" to the Trump administration an important part of its fundraising. So, the ACLU is doing nothing to defend the rights of news organizations and journalists under attack. When I asked ACLU about the Justice Department's move against RT and other encroachments on press freedom, I was told by ACLU spokesman Thomas Dresslar: "Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, I've been informed that we do not have anyone able to speak to you about this."

    Meanwhile, the Times and other traditional "defenders of a free press" are now part of the attack machine against a free press. While much of this attitude comes from the big media's high-profile leadership of the anti-Trump Resistance and anger at any resistors to the Resistance, mainstream news outlets have chafed for years over the Internet undermining their privileged role as the gatekeepers of what Americans get to see and hear.

    For a long time, the big media has wanted an excuse to rein in the Internet and break the small news outlets that have challenged the power – and the profitability – of the Times, Post, CNN, etc. Russia-gate and Trump have become the cover for that restoration of mainstream authority.

    So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism," a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged.

    Reprinted with permission from ConsortiumNews.com .

    Related

    [Jan 06, 2018] Looks like Bannon self-immolated himself by his cooperation with Wolff

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
    "... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
    "... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
    "... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
    "... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
    "... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
    "... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
    "... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
    Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
    ... ... ..

    Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

    The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

    Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

    Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

    Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

    Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

    I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

    It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

    Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

    I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

    But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

    - John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

    [Jan 06, 2018] George Papadopoulos sage timeline

    Looks like another "insurance" plot
    Jan 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

    englishmike , Next New Comment January 4, 2018 at 4:39 am GMT

    George Papadopoulos ... in 03/06//16, he joined the Trump campaign as a low-level foreign policy adviser.

    Between 03/15/16 and 09/15/16 he tried six times to to arrange meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians, all of them rejected.

    On 04/26/16 he met with a Russian contact in London and was "reportedly" offered "dirt" on Hillary.

    05/21/16. According to Mueller's investigation, a Trump campaign official refused Papadopoulos's offer to broker meetings with Russian officials.

    09/15/16. Papadopoulos emailed a Russian contact, Boris Epshteyn, trying to connect him with Sergei Milliam, author of much of the Fusion GPS "dossier".

    01/27/17. Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI, which resulted in his eventual indictment for lying to the Bureau.

    As Pat Buchanan discusses above, on 12/30/17, the NYT's Maggie Haberman (known to be linked with the DNC), marketed a narrative that the FBI opened its Trump investigation due to Papadopoulos, and not because of the "dossier".

    These dated facts are taken, mostly verbatim, from a timeline compiled by Doug Ross

    I recommend his: A TIMELINE OF TREASON: How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated Saturday, December 30, 2017].

    It's an excellent account of the key events, from 05/31/13 to the present, with dates and links to key documents.

    You can find it at his dougross timelineoftreason website.

    [Jan 06, 2018] Trump's triumph revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as usual the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress. Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. ..."
    Jan 06, 2018 | lrb.co.uk

    American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.

    Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.

    Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress. Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus.

    [Jan 05, 2018] Kissinger reportedly working on a deal with Russia: Crimea for East Ukraine.

    Jan 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Kissinger reportedly working on a deal with Russia: Crimea for East Ukraine.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/henry-kissinger-russia-trump-crimea-advises-latest-ukraine-a7497646.html

    You think Russia loses the E. Ukraine as a buffer.

    [Jan 05, 2018] Corruption and inequality fuelling protests in Iran, by Patrick Cockburn

    Jan 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Iran is seeing its most widespread protest demonstrations since 2009. They are still gaining momentum and some 15 people are reported to have been killed, though the circumstances in which they died remains unclear. The motive for the protests is primarily economic, but many slogans are political and some directly attack clerical rule in Iran which was introduced with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.

    The demonstrations began with one against rising prices on Thursday in Mashhad, Iran's second largest city and the site of its most holy shrine, a place which is traditionally seen as a stronghold for clerical hardliners. It may be that these conservatives initiated or tolerated the protests as a way of undermining President Hassan Rouhani, seen as a political moderate, who was re-elected by a landslide last year. If so, the protests have swiftly spiralled out of the control of the conservatives and are erupting all over Iran, strong evidence of a high level of discontent everywhere in the country and possibly a sign of covert organisation by anti-government groups.

    Donald Trump threatened last year to support domestic anti-government resistance in Iran, though this does not necessarily mean that his administration has done anything about this as yet. His latest tweet accuses Iran's leaders of turning the country "into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed and chaos". The US and Saudi Arabia may also be tempted to fund ethnic groups like the Iranian Kurds who are already alienated from the central government.

    Belligerent rhetoric like Mr Trump's will be used to discredit protesters as the pawns of foreign powers.

    Iran has been divided politically since the fall of the Shah, but the most immediate cause of unrest over the past five days is economic and social discontent. In many respects, grievances are similar to those in other oil states where there is long-suppressed anger against corruption and inequality. Youth unemployment was 28.8 per cent last year. The nuclear deal with the US and other major powers in 2015 reduced sanctions, but has not produced the benefits that many expected. A 50 per cent increase in the price of fuel was announced in the budget in December. Egg and poultry prices recently rose by 40 per cent.

    [Jan 05, 2018] DOJ Will Not File Charges Against Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

    Blast from the past. Now we know why Coney behaved this way and who was instrumental in exonerating Hillary. They wanted to derail both sanders and Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires. ..."
    "... The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server. ..."
    "... That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure. ..."
    "... So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as written. ..."
    "... Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency, lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her. ..."
    "... More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said. ..."
    "... For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to. ..."
    "... She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and we are recommending to not prosecute! ..."
    "... "the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m... [theantimedia.org] ..."
    "... What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political. ..."
    "... She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute. ..."
    "... But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law. ..."
    "... She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them." ..."
    "... I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal. ..."
    "... That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com] ..."
    "... Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws actually applied to me. ..."
    "... In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested. ..."
    "... You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.) ..."
    "... She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce. ..."
    "... Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her. ..."
    "... I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent. ..."
    "... Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible fool are you? ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | politics.slashdot.org

    acoustix ( 123925 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:38AM ( #52462645 ) Homepage

    Re: Yawn ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    18 USC 793.

    This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody.shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires.

    18 USC 1924.

    This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

    18 USC 798.

    This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Statesany classified informationshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

    18 USC 2071.

    This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

    Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28PM ( #52467767 )
    The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server.
    NicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @05:12PM ( #52466115 )
    Re: Yawn ( Score: 2 )
    A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English. Especially since we're talking about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:

    18 USC 793:

    "Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The definition [wikipedia.org] starts with extreme carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head ("conscious and voluntary")?

    That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure.

    18 USC 1924:

    Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said that.

    Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server, strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.

    18 USC 798:

    Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.

    18 USC 2071:

    You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.

    Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28AM ( #52462567 )
    Re: Yawn ( Score: 2 , Informative)

    Comey didn't say that she leaked anything. He said that she didn't properly safeguard classified information.

    However, there was no intent to leak information, nor is there evidence that anything was leaked. Comey searched high and low for a precedent which would allow him to bring charges, and he concluded that if he indicted Clinton, he would probably have to indict a significant portion of the federal bureaucracy.

    Hard to bring criminal charges for utilizing a bad process. "Should have known better" isn't a criminal offense.

    Actually, you are wrong, it is a criminal offense. Anyone given classified information is briefed on the proper use and handling of said classified information. The law, under 18 USC 793 subsection (f) actually states that any form of information that through gross negligence is removed from it's proper place of custody is subject to criminal fines or up to 10 years in prison.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

    Information that the Secretary of State has that she transmits to her subordinates on an unsecured email server does meet the requirement of "gross negligence".

    So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as written.

    Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:02PM ( #52459451 )
    Sanders has an option ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

    He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting government secrets' etc etc.

    The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs. If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.

    Here's hoping.

    Crashmarik ( 635988 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:15PM ( #52459523 )
    Hillary concerned about legitimacy ? ( Score: 4 , Funny)

    Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency, lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her.

    Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:36AM ( #52461905 )
    Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 1 )

    Citation: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

    Sounds like it's more than a couple dozen to me.

    Page 21: Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet's introduction. He has publicly written: "To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign -minister colleagues...."

    NicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:20PM ( #52466545 )

    Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 2 )

    Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private gwb43.com [wikipedia.org] server. This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted all emails after a period of time.

    While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he has admitted [politico.com] that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless nonetheless [cnn.com] he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.

    Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:05AM ( #52461955 )

    Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 1 )

    Wrong

    https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

    "At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell's "internet service or email provider" to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers.

    The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell's representative conveying this request. As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative."

    Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:10PM ( #52464787 )

    Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 1 )

    A lot of people did the same thing and Colin Powell was one of them.

    No. There's a difference here. From FBI director Comey and the State Department:

    More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said.

    The State Department inquiry identified 10 messages sent to Rice's immediate staff that were classified and two sent to Powell, according to Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Benghazi committees.

    The emails, Cummings said, appear to have no classification markings, and it is still unclear if the content of the emails was or should have been considered classified when the emails were originally written and sent.

    It appears that Clinton sent / received over 100 Emails clearly marked "secret" in some form or another; Powell had 2 Emails retroactively classified. Seems like a very narrow distinction, but it's not. Clinton handled 110 messages (those that were found) that were unambiguously marked as classified, Powell did not.

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @05:01AM ( #52461735 ) Homepage
    Re:Sanders has an option ( Score: 2 )

    The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network. Regardless of where the server is hosted from.

    A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime. It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified. And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.

    For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required. Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.

    For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to.

    Colin Powell did NOT do the same thing.

    cmiller173 ( 641510 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:56AM ( #52462747 )
    Re:Sign the petittion... ( Score: 2 )

    Are you seriously trying to make this about a FOIA compliance issue? This has nothing to do with FOIA. She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and we are recommending to not prosecute!

    Powell did not have a private server, and while he did have a personal address there is no evidence that any material that was classified at the time was ever sent to/from it. Politifact rates Clinton's statement that her predecessors did it as "Mostly false"

    "the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m... [theantimedia.org]

    The Government Has Prosecuted Nearly Every Violator of Secrecy Rules Before Hillary Clinton. The Obama administration has filed more charges against those who leak classified information than all previous presidential administrations combined, according to a statement made by CNN's Jake Tapper that was marked "True" by Politifact. http://usuncut.com/politics/cl... [usuncut.com]

    Coren22 ( 1625475 ) writes: on Friday July 08, 2016 @04:47PM ( #52474221 )

    Journal http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

    Re:I would daresay... ( Score: 2 )

    What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.

    hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @08:39PM ( #52460001 )

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    18 U.S. Code 793 (f)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

    (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.

    Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.

    Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:09AM ( #52461847 )

    Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you promise to not be careless with it.

    Cederic ( 9623 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:35AM ( #52463037 )
    Journal 30k emails? About 10 months volume for me.

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.

    110 is nothing

    Please tell me you don't work in IT.

    hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @10:20PM ( #52460475 )

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody

    Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.

    This is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves intent :)

    Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:01AM ( #52460869 ) Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    The words "extremely careless" were chosen carefully to avoid saying "negligent". To be careless is to be ignorant of the required security procedures, while to be ignorant is to know what's proper and required, and choosing to not attempt to follow it. If you're going to go down that road, you'll need to establish that the sysadmins responsible for that server were aware of the that the system could hold classified information, and they knew the security requirements necessary to protect a system holding classified information, and chose willingly to leave it unsecured.

    There are an awful lot of bad things here... certainly enough to say the handling was careless. Unfortunately, without an absolutely solid case for a particular and completely-provable allegation, a successful prosecution is extremely unlikely, and would not serve the cause of justice in any meaningful way.

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:27AM ( #52461887 )

    Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified on it.

    You don't get to be careless with classified information.
    The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?

    This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.

    The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified networks.

    But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.

    mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:25AM ( #52461997 )

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    To be careless is to be ignorant of the required security procedures

    SHE WAS TRAINED IN THE REQUIRED SECURITY PROCEDURES!

    Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @11:57PM ( #52460841 ) Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    That email about the fax proves only that a particular message was requested to be transmitted in an insecure manner. That does not mean the contents of the fax were sensitive or that removing the markings was improper. As I understand, the subject of the fax was a set of talking points for a speech, which were sensitive only in that they were not yet publicly released. If there was indeed a classified piece of information in the fax, it could have been sanitized prior to the insecure transmission. Without seeing the classified version, it is impossible to tell.

    It's not "moving the goal post" to point out that your kick fell far short. Again, consider that a prosecution would be arguing before a court of law. Nothing is obvious, and nothing is beyond question. If you want to prove something, you have to show your entire case.

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:29AM ( #52461891 ) Homepage
    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.

    Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:20PM ( #52468021 )

    Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    Actually, yes, you can usually just remove markings from (or more precisely, rewrite without markings) unclassified material that's on a secure system. The unclassified material doesn't need to be "declassified" because it was never classified to begin with. That includes unclassified parts of a larger document that's marked as containing classified information, and by the same extension it applies to unclassified data on computer systems that are marked as containing classified data.

    What's important is that no classified information actually gets out of the secure environment. Nobody cares about other information, with a few exceptions.

    h4ck7h3p14n37 ( 926070 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:30AM ( #52462993 )
    Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    How about that thumb drive of emails that she turned over to her attorney?

    hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:14AM ( #52461219 )

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    "extreme carelessness" == "gross negligence"

    They're literally synonyms in legal dictionaries.

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:26AM ( #52462011 ) Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.

    Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefore we have Gross negligence.

    raymorris ( 2726007 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:22AM ( #52463387 ) Journal
    "Remove markings and send non-secure" ( Score: 2 )

    She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them."

    I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal.

    hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @08:38PM ( #52467483 )
    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    She consciously refused a state.gov email account.

    She voluntarily setup a private email server.

    Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong, makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.

    tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry and lives with whatever email it's configured with.

    P. I. Staker ( 3958187 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:02AM ( #52463239 )
    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 1 )

    I'm sure this is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to prosecute, even when the letter of the law has been definitively broken. Obviously, this is how it should work, but in many cases laws regarding handling of protected information are prosecuted with extreme discretion. In other words, charges are often not brought unless there is intent and/or aggravating factors, even when the law has clearly been broken as written.

    Really we need someone with substantial legal experience in this specific area to comment (I won't hold my breath for that). Despite the fact that the above code is fairly straight forward, I don't feel qualified to assess the FBI's conclusion: "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," (James Comey).

    I'm not addressing whether or not it makes sense to use discretion in these cases. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate and sets a double standard; it's not like someone selling drugs will not get prosecuted because there was no intent to cause addiction.

    That said, I don't make the rules, and I really don't think most people in this forum are qualified to judge whether she is getting preferential treatment by applying the letter of the law, combined with the way that other laws are prosecuted (and the way laws should be prosecuted). The reality is that, right or wrong, this is not how laws regarding handling of sensitive information are applied. For the record, I despise Hillary & the Clintons and will not vote for her, even though the alternative is at least as terrible.

    hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @08:42PM ( #52467511 )
    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.

    Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding with a warning, is discretion.

    But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:09AM ( #52461843 ) Homepage

    Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )

    No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.

    Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence. When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.

    Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:33PM ( #52459649 )

    Wrong ( Score: 3 , Informative)

    He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight of those emails carried top secret information , eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/no-charges-clinton-emails-fbi-director-article-1.2699441

    Goldsmith ( 561202 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @09:11PM ( #52460137 )

    Re:No justice ( Score: 3 )

    I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...

    It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." The FBI characterization of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with disclosure of classified material; "grossly negligent" is the legal term associated with the threshold for felony mishandling of classified information.

    The FBI statement is also very clear on the security classification of what they found, which is why I think you're reading something else.

    110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

    That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com]

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:43AM ( #52462061 ) Homepage
    Re:No justice ( Score: 2 )

    It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not. It was exposed.

    As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall (highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified. There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked. That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.

    The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).

    Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:36PM ( #52459661 )
    Re:No justice ( Score: 1 )

    Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws actually applied to me.

    argumentsockpuppet ( 4374943 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @09:56PM ( #52460371 )

    Re:No justice ( Score: 2 , Insightful)

    I support the NSA and I also support Snowden. Snowden did a brave and terrifying thing that needed to happen, that needed to be done, knowing the consequences he faced. The NSA is a good organization with many good people doing what they need to do with love for their countrymen in their hearts and honor in their actions. Some people in the NSA made bad, perhaps even evil decisions. Sometimes bad people get put in positions they shouldn't be, and sometimes people with power, even good people, make decisions that are bad.

    Supporting the NSA doesn't mean I support all the decisions or people that are a part of it. I believe the NSA did some bad things, but that doesn't mean I think the organization is bad or comprised of bad people.

    What Snowden did may have been illegal, but it was a choice to do what he believed was right. For what it's worth I believe it was right too. I think it is a terrible thing to have to choose between following the law and doing what is right when the two are mutually exclusive.

    The US justice system was designed intentionally to have people determine not only whether the law was followed, but also whether the law should apply. Snowden should be able to face a court of his peers and plead his case and that jury should be able to make a judgement not based on the law, but on whether what he did was wrong or right. It disturbs and saddens me to realize I don't trust that he could receive such a fair trial.

    hwstar ( 35834 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @09:25PM ( #52460195 )
    We could always bring back Star Chambers ( Score: 2 )

    From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

    The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.

    The constitution would need to be modified, however.

    GPS Pilot ( 3683 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @08:27PM ( #52467409 )
    You've not heard of the Petraeus case? ( Score: 2 )

    The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying, or in Manning's case, whistleblowing

    I'm surprised that you've not heard of the David Petraeus case.

    In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.

    cold fjord ( 826450 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:04AM ( #52461069 )

    Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 1 )

    Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence officer with Top Secret clearance and had served in the war zone. She used the information (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)

    As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.

    Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.

    Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton [dailycaller.com]

    dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:21AM ( #52462927 ) Homepage
    Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 2 )

    Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information was included in her product.

    Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.

    The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.

    IronOxen ( 2502562 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @10:32PM ( #52460523 )

    Re:Not surprising ( Score: 1 )

    https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento... [fbi.gov] How about that for president from last year? This guy just took some work home...

    ooloorie ( 4394035 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:52PM ( #52468371 )
    Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 2 )

    You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.)

    She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce.

    Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.

    ooloorie ( 4394035 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:24AM ( #52463403 )

    Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 2 )

    She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her.

    She has said that. She has also made the same statement without the word "marked".

    I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying.

    The fact that she phrased her statement so carefully actually shows the opposite: even if literally true, that statement is intended to deceive.

    Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.

    I don't disagree much with Clinton politically as far as I know (it's hard to know what she really believes); I actually used to be a registered Democrat until a few years ago.

    I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.

    ooloorie ( 4394035 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:20PM ( #52467721 )

    Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 2 )

    Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible fool are you?

    [Jan 05, 2018] Kissinger reportedly working on a deal with Russia: Crimea for East Ukraine.

    Jan 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Kissinger reportedly working on a deal with Russia: Crimea for East Ukraine.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/henry-kissinger-russia-trump-crimea-advises-latest-ukraine-a7497646.html

    You think Russia loses the E. Ukraine as a buffer.

    [Jan 05, 2018] FBI Chief FOIA Officer Every Single Memo Comey Leaked Was Classified

    Jan 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    While Richman told CNN "No memo was given to me that was marked 'classified,' and James Comey told Congressional investigators he tried to "write it in such a way that I don't include anything that would trigger a classification," it appears the FBI's chief FOIA officer disagrees .

    While we previously reported that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said four of the 7 Comey memos he reviewed were "marked classified" at the "Secret" or "Confidential" level - tonight we find out that every single Comey memo was classified at the time, per Judicial Watch director of investigations Chris Farrell - who has a signed declaration from the FBI's chief FOIA officer to that effect:

    We have a sworn declaration from David Hardy who is the chief FOIA officer of the FBI that we obtained just in the last few days, and in that sworn declaration, Mr. Hardy says that all of Comey's memos - all of them, were classified at the time they were written, and they remain classified. - Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch

    Therefore, Farrell points out, Comey mishandled national defense information when he "knowingly and willfully" leaked them to his friend at Columbia University.

    It's also mishandling of national defense information, which is a crime. So it's clear that Mr. Comey not only authored those documents, but then knowingly and willfully leaked them to persons unauthorized, which is in and of itself a national security crime. Mr. Comey should have been read his rights back on June 8th when he testified before the Senate.

    In closing, Farrell tells Dobbs "Recently retired and active duty FBI agents have told me - and it's several of them, they consider Comey to be a dirty cop ."

    [Jan 05, 2018] The horrific, Deep State Plan C to remove Donald Trump from the White House... by Alex Christoforou

    Notable quotes:
    "... In a wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state] and their tactics. " It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties, " he explained. "I say that as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." – New American ..."
    Jan 04, 2018 | theduran.com
    Longtime Trump advisor and confidante Roger Stone is warning America that the Deep State is getting desperate to find a way to remove Trump from office and since Plan "A" and "B" are not working out, a horrific Plan "C" may have to be put into play.

    Via SHTF Plan

    With trust in the mainstream media at an all-time low, the global elitists are on the verge of losing their grip on humanity's throat. And Roger Stone says emphatically that they plan to go down swinging. According to New American , the Deep State's "Plan A," is the imploding "investigation" into alleged "Russian collusion" by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, said Stone. If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely and soon, the establishment would move to "Plan B." In essence, Plan B would involve trying to get a majority of Trump's cabinet to declare him unfit for office. This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution's 25th Amendment. This scheme is also going to most likely fail , Stone said. Last but not least, though, Stone warned of "Plan C," which is killing the president.

    In a wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state] and their tactics. " It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties, " he explained. "I say that as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." – New American

    Roger Stone isn't the first person to see Trump as a target of the deep state. Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has said he feels that the deep state isn't afraid to nuke a city in the United States in order to kill Trump and blame North Korea for the result.

    "He's a shock to the system," said Stone, a legendary political operative who, in addition to his longtime relationship with Trump, has served as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Senator Bob Dole, and others. According to Stone, Donald Trump's election represented the "hostile takeover of the old Republican Party, which we now hope to remake in his image as a party that stands for economic nationalism, that stands for putting American interests ahead of globalist interests, and re-affirms our sovereign rights as Americans."

    "Now, I think the establishment, at this time, when the president has just passed his tax cut, has cut these regulations -- so you see a record stock market, you see unemployment at all time lows, you see a booming housing market -- it's easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the Insiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him ."

    Stone believes the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president when Plan A and B fail, which seems the likely scenario. "Having written books on the Kennedy assassination, having highlighted the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan by people deeply associated with the Bush family, I think the establishment has Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C," he said. " Plan A is very clearly a take-down by the illegitimate Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed not by Jeff Sessions, not at the direction of the president, but by this fellow Rosenstein, who is a close associate of Mueller and [disgraced former FBI boss James] Comey, and who is a globalist Bush insider, a liberal Republican, who somehow got the number two position in the Trump Justice Department," Stone warned, saying the establishment was now hoping Trump would fire Mueller to regain the upper hand.

    The other thing that is becoming more and more apparent, Stone said, is that "neither Mr. Mueller nor the House nor the Senate Intelligence committees nor the Judiciary committees in those bodies have been able to find any evidence of Russian collusion."

    "Sorry, but Don Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer that provided nothing is perfectly legal and proper," Stone said. "There's nothing wrong with it. She produced no evidence, but what we did learn is that she was in the country thanks to the Obama FBI, without a visa, and she was popping up and being photographed at Hillary rallies and in John McCain's office. She's a Quisling! It's a setup! She's a spy. She delivered nothing. It's an attempt to entrap Donny Jr. in a meeting that's perfectly innocuous and perfectly legal." But the deep state's Plan B is to invoke the 25th Amendment.

    "So we'll see an uptick in all of this 'Trump is mentally imbalanced, Trump is insane, Trump must be removed,'" Stone warned. "Now you have to examine the extent to which they can whip up that hysteria as a backdrop because, without that hysteria, such a political move on the president will fail." And once Plan B fails, the globalists will move on to Plan C, which is simply an assassination. "We know Plan C. We saw it in the case of President John F. Kennedy, who had crossed the Central Intelligence Agency and the Deep State over both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs, both, I think, central," he said.

    [Jan 03, 2018] When Putin Talks on Ukraine, It Is Worth Listening

    Notable quotes:
    "... Originally from: ..."
    "... Ukraine. Putin's remarks on the state of affairs in Ukraine are, of course, wholly at odds with what Washington puts out on the subject. But they are not at odds with reality: Washington is. ..."
    "... Those terms remain Putin's point of reference. They appear to remain the European Union's, too. Washington, which the Europeans and Russia excluded from the Minsk talks for the wisest of reasons, does not seem to have a point of reference, busy as it is pretending there is progress on the corruption front and that Kiev is not dependent on a frightening collection of militias, many of them led by neo–Nazi fanatics. ..."
    "... These groups still present the threat of a massacre in the eastern provinces, as Putin reminded his audience. He spoke with notable ease of Russian assistance in those regions, suggesting this can end when they are capable of self-defense. ..."
    Jan 03, 2018 | russia-insider.com
    Originally from: When Putin Talks, It Is Worth Listening

    Ukraine. Putin's remarks on the state of affairs in Ukraine are, of course, wholly at odds with what Washington puts out on the subject. But they are not at odds with reality: Washington is. As Putin calmly noted, the number-one obstacle to a settlement in Ukraine is, as it has been for three years come next February, the profoundly corrupt government installed in Kiev after the American-cultivated coup in 2014.

    I say three years next February because it was then the settlement framework known as Minsk II (for the city where it was negotiated and signed) was put in place.

    Those terms remain Putin's point of reference. They appear to remain the European Union's, too. Washington, which the Europeans and Russia excluded from the Minsk talks for the wisest of reasons, does not seem to have a point of reference, busy as it is pretending there is progress on the corruption front and that Kiev is not dependent on a frightening collection of militias, many of them led by neo–Nazi fanatics.

    These groups still present the threat of a massacre in the eastern provinces, as Putin reminded his audience. He spoke with notable ease of Russian assistance in those regions, suggesting this can end when they are capable of self-defense.

    We would do well to understand where the force of inertia lies in Ukraine. This was Putin's topic. A settlement in Ukraine remains possible via the framework fixed three years ago. Let us not forget this. Moscow has not deviated from Minsk II -- another point worth noting. The spoilers are in Kiev, and behind them are those in Washington, which continues to encourage the irresponsible behavior of the Poroshenko government and other Ukrainian elites.

    [Jan 03, 2018] WP is certainly exaggerating when it claims 'tens of thousands' of people have protested in Iran. Most of the pictures in this WaPo article are pictures of pro-government rallies.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well so far I have to say that 2018 is starting off nicely. The Pakistanis are totally pissed off with Trump. The Iranians have now shown the real Grass Roots by their massive demonstrations against the violence of the color revolutionaries - this is the grass roots discussed by Mazaheri in karlof1's link @36. And the UN has dismissed the US attempt to convene a Security Council emergency session over Iran. ..."
    "... What's next for the US? Financial terrorism? Go on, do it. Push the multi-polar world into the Yuan as currency of choice, and gold as the hedge of choice, with the Russian alternative to SWIFT as the clearing system of choice. ..."
    "... Wonderful. It looks like the 'Streisand effect' is kicking in. While NPR is continuing to spread misinformation, I hope the same effect will make listeners that still trust this propaganda outlet drop this pathetic CIA tool. ..."
    "... There's a struggle going on within the country between various factions of the ruling class. The Mashhad protests were initiated by opponents of Rouhani (Raisi's father in law). This struggle is in large part connected to the issue of succession of the Supreme Leader (rumours have been spread about Khameini's health, possibly by foreign forces or other actors with a stake in the system). ..."
    "... "To sum it up, this is a plot against the moderates by two unlikely allies, in DC and in Mashhad. Rouhani would either be completely defeated as a capable leader, or he'd manage to manipulate the force of the threat against its instigators, like a jujitsu master." ..."
    Jan 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ninel , Jan 3, 2018 11:52:11 AM | 101

    Well, the WP is certainly exaggerating when it claims 'tens of thousands' of people have protested in Iran.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/03/tens-of-thousands-of-people-protested-in-iran-this-week-heres-why

    "One commentator at least clarified the issue by writing:

    Most of the pictures in this article are pictures of pro-government rallies.

    The handful of pictures of the anti-government "protests" have been circulated over and over in the Western Media in the last few days to push an agenda.

    Give it a rest Western Media! these anti-government protests are small and unpopular even by the people who want change in Iran.

    They couldn't have come at a worse time (trump is just looking for any excuse to nix the Nuclear Deal), and serve no purpose than to destabilize the country at the moment which is not good for anyone with any political view living in Iran."


    Haaretz published an article with a similar claim:

    Analysis What Israeli Intel Really Thinks About the Iran Protests
    Tens of thousands of Iranians breached barriers of fear and have taken to the streets, but the regime hasn't yet responded in full force

    The telegraph published an article with the opposite 'Tens of thousands in Iran take to streets in pro-government protests'

    Ditto The Express: Iran news: Tens of thousands take to the streets in SUPPORT of regime in latest protests

    Quentin , Jan 3, 2018 12:01:21 PM | 102
    Is the US REGIME intimidating and destabilising the Iranian GOVERNMENT?
    Virgile , Jan 3, 2018 12:05:56 PM | 103
    Iranians profoundly detest violence. These demonstrations turning violent and manipulated by Nikki, Bibi and her likes will create more cohesion against the USA and will allow Rohani to stand firmer in front of Trump's threats.

    Obviously the USA and Israel do not realize how hated they are and how any move they make only re-inforce that hatred.

    Go on Nikki and Bibi stir the pot! The burning oil will get into your face!

    Rev. Spooner , Jan 3, 2018 12:22:03 PM | 104
    Folks who come to Moon of Alabama tend to be much more informative. And the site (MoA) and the content posted here is reflective of this. I bounce around a few sites to get my true news and MoA is one. What I would like is to have all you good and informed people to visit a few more sites that are similar.

    I have been reading MoA for about 5 years but rarely posted since its more a church of the believers and I'm one. I'm also a fan of Zero Hedge and Tom Feeley's Information clearing house. Another good site is the 'Sakers' and some more.

    The reason I mention this is that we need to make our presence felt more by posting comments.

    For 9 years I was a comment moderator and I know how this free for all makes the wind blow. We all should try to prevent war mongers, racists, and societies built on pillage of the weak from controlling the narrative.

    Rev. Spooner , Jan 3, 2018 12:28:33 PM | 105
    Since this is a site that I love and the comments are usually what I agree with, I forgot to emphasize in my previous post, that it's in our interest to post comments on all the sites we visit. Duh! Stating the obvious but do it .
    b , Jan 3, 2018 12:36:06 PM | 106
    https://twitter.com/mo_hashemi/status/948531713394737152
    Mohammad Hashemi @mo_hashemi

    #IRGC chief: Sepah forces only had limited presence and were deployed in Isfahan, Hamedan & Lorestan provinces after latest riots.

    The biggest gathering was held with only 1500 people and in total no more than 15,000 people joined riots at their peaks.

    ---
    The total number of 15,000 total protesters/rioters which the IRGC chief gives sounds reasonable to me. All videos I watched showed only a few dozen during riots and a few hundred during protest marches. Tiny when one knows that Iran has 80 million people. The G20 protests last year in Hamburg were way bigger (and the rioting smaller).

    Christian Chuba , Jan 3, 2018 12:58:44 PM | 107
    The great Trumpolution

    The funny thing is that even if the demonstrations completely fade, the FOX news crowd will still hail this as a victory for Trump's new approach.

    Perception vs. reality list:

    1. Obama missed a chance to change the Iranian regime by being quiet during protest.
    Trump did the exact opposite and the result ???, FOX hails non-accomplishment.

    2. Bill Clinton appeases N. Korea; obtaining an 8yr freeze on their Plutonium production.
    Trump threatens N. Korea continuously as they develop a two stage miniaturized, thermonuclear weapon and an ICBM within 1yr.
    Sean Hannity is ecstatic with Trump's handling of situation; no more appeasement.

    3. Obama has ineffective air campaign against ISIS (I'll grant that one).
    Trump takes off the gloves and gives the Generals full license in Afghanistan, they drop MOAB on ISIS, MSM has collective orgasm for weeks, war over, or maybe not, ISIS presence grows in Afghanistan.

    Christian Chuba , Jan 3, 2018 1:04:54 PM | 108
    Regarding other websites, which websites have you written off as hopeless where it is impossible to even post a contrary opinion?

    1. Newsmax - totally unbearable.
    2. Politico - forgettaboutit.
    3. HuffPo - used to be okay until they became Russophobic Maximus.

    Oddly enough, National Review, facebook section stream is bearable. The people there are at least civil, perhaps posting under your own name contributes to that. They might ignore you but tend not to insult.

    Grieved , Jan 3, 2018 1:15:24 PM | 109
    Well so far I have to say that 2018 is starting off nicely. The Pakistanis are totally pissed off with Trump. The Iranians have now shown the real Grass Roots by their massive demonstrations against the violence of the color revolutionaries - this is the grass roots discussed by Mazaheri in karlof1's link @36. And the UN has dismissed the US attempt to convene a Security Council emergency session over Iran.

    It's all over except the empty words and false images. And it never had much substance to begin with. A few provocateurs, relative to the numbers of the real people.

    THIS is the strength of the US today? And Israel? And Saudi Arabia? And France?

    Now I look forward to the forensic analysis. Oh, for a smoking gun.

    What's next for the US? Financial terrorism? Go on, do it. Push the multi-polar world into the Yuan as currency of choice, and gold as the hedge of choice, with the Russian alternative to SWIFT as the clearing system of choice.

    2018. The year of choice.

    nottheonly1 , Jan 3, 2018 1:18:22 PM | 110
    Wonderful. It looks like the 'Streisand effect' is kicking in. While NPR is continuing to spread misinformation, I hope the same effect will make listeners that still trust this propaganda outlet drop this pathetic CIA tool.

    Who would have thought that Faux news will essentially become the propaganda office for Agent Orange?

    ninel , Jan 3, 2018 1:47:58 PM | 111
    @ 97 somebody

    There's a struggle going on within the country between various factions of the ruling class. The Mashhad protests were initiated by opponents of Rouhani (Raisi's father in law). This struggle is in large part connected to the issue of succession of the Supreme Leader (rumours have been spread about Khameini's health, possibly by foreign forces or other actors with a stake in the system).

    According to Hossein Derakhshan Rouhani may wish to succeed Khameini and Ali Larijiani who is speaker of parliament and who Rouhani has worked closely with to implement the nuclear deal may wish to become the next president. But the hardliners are obviously opposed to this. And obviously foreign powers and agents are trying to take advantage of the situation. Derakshan writes:

    "To sum it up, this is a plot against the moderates by two unlikely allies, in DC and in Mashhad. Rouhani would either be completely defeated as a capable leader, or he'd manage to manipulate the force of the threat against its instigators, like a jujitsu master."

    https://twitter.com/h0d3r/status/947665068421996544

    Elsewhere on his twitter page, an IRGC commander is quoted as saying "a formal official who nowadays uses language opposing principles and values of the Islamic Republic" is under investigation for involvement in the protests." This suggests that former president Ahmadinejad is being implicated

    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 2:20:38 PM | 113
    111

    Viral video of Iranians voicing their grievances over the economy was likely produced by the IRGC

    :-))

    William Manning , Jan 3, 2018 2:28:39 PM | 114
    M.K. Bahadrakumar over at Indian Punchline writes insightfully about this issue.

    "The current unrest is doomed to fizzle out. The absence of middle class (which is in the vanguard of all revolutions in history) guarantees it. Again, the lack of leadership among protestors would mean that "fatigue" would set in sooner or later. The wretched of the earth do not have the luxury to protest till eternity instead of eking out their daily livelihood to keep body and soul together."

    http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2018/01/03/irans-regime-faces-moment-of-truth/

    Christian Chuba , Jan 3, 2018 2:39:09 PM | 115
    Fizzling out?

    Not to worry, Trump will write some more inspiring tweets reminding the Iranians that they are on the travel ban because they are all terrorists and that we have renamed that famous body of water, the 'Arab Gulf' , the Iranians love that.

    Trump can follow that up with more sanctions, freezing assets, and strong arming the EU into cancelling whatever civilian projects on in the queue, we could even stiff them on the Boeing deal, anything to show our solidarity with the Iranian people.

    maningi , Jan 3, 2018 2:54:33 PM | 116
    Great article as always here at MOOA.

    Anyone interested in US policy toward Iran may consider to have a look at this strategy paper from the Brookings Institution (Saban center)
    Link here: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

    They put all options on the table, from velvet revolution, military coup to full scale invasion and so on.
    170 pages of "crazy" stuff. There are some serious sociopaths running around ...

    james , Jan 3, 2018 2:59:14 PM | 117
    @115 christian.. that is funny, but i like this one better.. btw - so many of those media outlets are complete trash.. oh well..

    Is the US REGIME intimidating and destabilising the Iranian GOVERNMENT?

    Posted by: Quentin | Jan 3, 2018 12:01:21 PM | 102

    Hausmeister , Jan 3, 2018 3:07:19 PM | 118
    Anybody here able to give more details about how the Rohani camp leaked/published details about the real payments to religious institutions etc.? If publishing it was first no wonder that the other side took that as an attack on the fundaments of their power.
    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 3:31:26 PM | 119
    118

    He did not leak the budget, he published it in the name of transparency

    Hausmeister , Jan 3, 2018 3:43:52 PM | 120
    @ somebody | Jan 3, 2018 3:31:26 PM | 119

    Thank you! Doesn't this mean that Rohani started the fight. I do not believe that he is so naive not to realize what most likely would happen. As of now it seems to work. Wrong?

    Jackrabbit , Jan 3, 2018 3:46:25 PM | 121
    Shakesvshav @99:
    Thanks to ninel . . . Ludicrous to describe such a commenter as a troll
    There's good reason to believe that he is a troll - just a well informed one.

    Firstly, readers of MOA are already aware of economic and civil right problems in places like Russia, Iran, and China. But we also know that USA and it's allies have taken advantage of these to push regime change. Such action undermines those who seek positive change and lead instead to turmoil and war. The lesson (still unlearned) is that those who would lead the world must act morally.

    One hallmark of trolls is the focus one a single issue or cause. ninel is very loquacious and claims to be a reader of MoA for years but shows up only now as USA-Israel-KSA push hard to turn small protests (as described by b @106) into something more.

    In addition, there are other clues:

    >> his non responsiveness to valid criticism;

    >> his urging us to prioritize anti-Iranian regime over all else and his associated stories of suffering - as though there is no suffering anywhere else;

    >> his evident use of second handle (ArioBarzan);t

    >> his pushing hard on the story of Neda only to dismiss her later as insignificant when JS describes the real story, saying "As for poor Neda, she is only one casualty." (@145 in 'Iran - Early U.S Support For Rioters Hints At A Larger Plan');

    >> his attempt to make it personal -if you don't see it his way - he considers you to be against the Iranian people.

    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 4:01:43 PM | 122
    Posted by: Hausmeister | Jan 3, 2018 3:43:52 PM | 120

    You mean for Rohani? Not really, as the US has been siding with the protests of his opponents, puts pressure on Europe, and his middle class base depends on him getting Iran out of isolation. I guess, he could not avoid the fight.

    He does not necessarily seem to have Khamenei's back .

    As I understand Iran's clerical system, Khamenei is checked by the clerical establishment whose power in the end depends on their respective followers who chose their leaders.

    Plus the military establishment involved in economic enterprise probably have a life of their own.

    Iranian clerics are highly literate . They know that they need the buy in of the youth.

    If these demonstrations convinced them that young people under 25 cannot be coopted by personal freedom but need economic security, and there is no way of economic agreement with the west, Rouhani's attempts at neoliberal reforms designed to open the country for western investment are doomed.

    Not that I know anything, really. Just reading stuff and applying logic.

    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 4:04:20 PM | 123
    add to 122

    It seems to have worked for Iranian security services who let this run to arrest some 1000 people according to reports, plus probably the existing inside network of Iranian royalists and MEK.

    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 4:22:41 PM | 124
    add to 123


    Reza Derakhshi
    ‏ @RDerakhshi

    Unusual characteristics of #IranProtests:
    No widespread calls in advance
    Lack of specific root/demand
    Lack of reformers' support
    Reaches Tehran from smaller cities
    Less violent reax by security forces
    High number of deaths in a short time
    No comments from the victims' families

    james , Jan 3, 2018 5:13:47 PM | 125
    @121 jackrabbit.. i basically agree with you.. thanks for saying all that.

    @122 somebody.. here is my quick take on iran's situation.. on the one hand the usa-israel-ksa want to isolate and make war on them while claiming they are a terrorist state - the opposite to me seems the case), while iran itself struggles to be in the everyday internet world that has become standard thinking in the west.. whether iran wants to open itself up to neo-liberal, corporate agenda world or not is only a part of it.. the other part is the religious rule that seems to dictate a particular code of behaviour, although no where near as bad was what the usa and west happily accept with saudi arabia.. so, dealing with these double standards, while under threat is a challenge and makes the west appear very hypocritical, especially at this moment in time.

    at some point khamenei is going to have to pass the baton to someone else.. they need to have the support of the youth, as someone else mentioned here... if the religious leadership of iran is anything like the corruption that we know takes place in the vatican - they could hang in their for a long time and keep what they have going.. i can see iran being accepted into the community, however if the west continues to have control over the financial system that is ruling things at present, it is going to remain a challenge. perhaps after saudi arabia bites the dust and the usa is in full acknowledgement of a multi polar world, it will be different.. that seems like a good 10 to 100 years out from here. in the meantime i suspect the west will come up with some shitty reason to make war on iran, while life for iran will remain a challenge.. i would like to see iran succeed.. russia and china can help and i think they probably are.. too bad the usa is such a shitty actor on the world stage at this point.

    Jen , Jan 3, 2018 5:16:41 PM | 126
    Somebody @ 122, 123,124: Thanks for the information on Khamenei and the updates. From what you cite from Reza Derakhshi's Twitter account @ 124, the number of dead looks to be exaggerated, perhaps deliberately so.
    stonebird , Jan 3, 2018 5:17:45 PM | 127
    A somewhat OT addition to @122 somebody.
    The "unusual" part is the suddeness of the "protests" at the beginning and the lack of any build-up of momentum so far. Even the US and others seemed to think that it would fail - so why do it ? ( I am assuming that there is a definite "foreign" influence)

    It has been an excellent distraction from the personal troubles of Netanyahu, MbS and Trump/Mueller/Clinton . It has had the secondary effect of "questioning" publicly the Iranian Governement/society. (Note I said Clinton rather than Trump - deliberately, as it is she that was about to be exposed - I am NOT going to discuss why on this thread, much too far OT for the moment).

    However, the sudden protests during christmas, seem more a desperate attempt by the "weevil" three (US-Israel-Saudi) to change the course of MSM revelations from their own internal problems by using an external "threat" or pole of interest.

    Mmmmm... still, I have learnt a lot about Iran on MoA recently. Thanks all.

    [Jan 03, 2018] Iran - Few Protests - Some Riots - U.S. Prepares The Next Phase

    "Rent a mob" export from the USA ?
    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... We have the memes with women without hijab, we have all the usual tired guff about freedom and democracy. As if Iraq Syria and Lybia and Ukraine disasters never happened ..."
    "... One astounding aspect of this "color revolution" is its banal and repetitive nature. The tactics used by the rent-a-mob protesters of hijacking and exploiting legitimate protests as cover to attack and kill police, and burn cars and buildings are the same as those carried out in Dar'aa in Syria in 2011 that led to the war there, and in Kiev in 2014 that led to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government. Not surprisingly, John McCain supported those events and visited the people involved on a number of occasions. ..."
    Jan 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Iran - Few Protests - Some Riots - U.S. Prepares The Next Phase

    Updated below:
    ---

    The riots and protests in Iran continue for a 6th day. While "western" media claim that the protests are growing I see no evidence for that in the various videos that appear online. The legitimate protests over price rises, failing private banks and against the new neoliberal austerity budget of President Rohani were hijacked early on by rioting gangs. These are obviously coordinated from the outside of the country through various internet applications, especially Telegram and Instagram :

    Amad News, a channel on Telegram, appears to have played a pivotal role in the wave of protests. Reportedly administered by exiled journalist Rohollah Zam -- a son of a senior Reformist cleric said to have escaped the country after being accused of having links with foreign intelligence agencies ...

    Blocking the specific control channels proved to be insufficient :

    Special software used to circumvent the government filters could still be downloaded easily. And on Monday, as on other days, there were calls for protests online and on foreign-based Persian-language satellite channels.

    The blockage of the internet applications was lifted today.

    The original protests over economic issues seem to have died down after President Rouhani confirmed the right to protest, conceded economic problems and promised to take them on. Indeed there are only few new videos of genuine protest marches but an avalanche of videos of rioting, arson and tussling with police forces. The size of the protests are in a few hundred people or less . Counter demonstrations , expressing loyalty for the republic (not noted in "western" media), are bigger in size than the anti-government protests. Since December 28 protests and riots have occurred in a total of 66 cities by now, but only about 30 have been taking place each night. This might point to some planning behind the events. A daily switching of venues might be intended to prevent police preparations.

    The groups of rioters are between 30 and 80 people in size with a some bystanders milling around. They seem to follow a flash mob strategy appearing here and there and to vanish again when police appears in force. In some cities rioters attacked police stations , military posts and were even stealing firetrucks . Some of the rioters are evidently trying to get their hands on weapons.

    Altogether only a few thousand people, overwhelmingly male youth, seem to be involved. Thousands protest in Israel each week against the corruption of Prime Minister Netanyahoo. On New-Years-Eve more than 1,000 cars in France were set alight by arsonists. None of this is front page news but a few dozen riots in Iran get elevated to a "revolution".

    The total death toll of the "peaceful protests" is now some 21 of which (by my count) at least five were policemen killed in attacks by "protesters" and two unrelated civilians who were run over and killed by rioters driving a stolen firetruck. Six rioters were killed when they tried to attack a police station in the town of Qahderijan. The governor there claimed that the attackers were armed with guns.

    The same faking of pictures of large demonstrations and "evidence" of government brutality that we have seen with regard to the war on Syria is taking place with Iran. Videos of demonstrations from Argentine and Bahrain are used to claim large demonstrations in Iran. A tweet with the Bahrain video by a "journalist" who claimed it was in Iran has received more than 17,000 re-tweets. Videos from Spain or even movie scenes are purported to show police violence in Iran. A video of a man lying on his back and being cared for is once claimed to show that he has been shot by police while at the same time another propagandists claims that the man had a cardiac arrest after police used a taser on him. There are no signs of wounds or other trauma. The dude probably just passed out.

    The terrorist group MEK (NCRI, MKO) " leaked " fake protocols of an alleged government meeting which it claims shows panic over the protests. Allegedly the government fears the leader of the MEK, Marjam Rajavi. The MEK has paid large sums to get support from politicians, including John McCain in Washington and elsewhere. During the Iraq-Iran war it fought against Iran on the side of Iraq. After the U.S. invaded Iraq the MEK was held in special camps under U.S. control. According to a 2012 Seymour Hersh report the U.S. military trained MEK fighters in the U.S. in sabotage and insurgency technics. These people are deeply hated in Iran but feared they are not. Their early engagement in the "protests" via their website and propaganda ops in Iran may point to deeper role in the riots.

    The usual neoconservatives in the U.S. media are arguing for "more help" for the "Iranian people". The help they want to offer is designed to worsen their economic situation.

    I earlier argued that the larger plan of the instigators of these riots is not aimed at winning a violent "regime change" conflict, but at causing a reaction by the Iranian government which can then be used to press especially Europeans to again isolate Iran. This plan is now confirmed by an op-ed in the Washington Post . Michael Singh of the Zionist lobby in Washington writes :

    If the regime resorts to violence anyway, the international response should focus on diplomatic isolation. European and Asian states should reduce their diplomatic ties with Iran and downgrade Iran's participation in international forums. Sanctions may also have a role ...

    Unsurprisingly the neoconned WaPo editors are fully in sync with the lobby:

    European leaders, who have been far more cautious, should speak up. ... On Sunday [President Rohani of Iran] recognized that the demonstrators had legitimate grievances and nominally accepted their right to protest. The Trump administration and other Western governments should aim to hold him to those words through diplomacy and the threat of sanctions in the event of more bloodshed.

    The rioting at the current level is in no way endangering the Iranian republic. Should some rioters acquire weapons the intensity might change a bit. But unless they receive material and personal support from the outside, like it happened in Syria, the situation will soon calm down. The people of Iran are against such violence and the government has yet to use its manifold capabilities.

    I had documented in earlier posts that the Trump administration, in tight co-operations with Israel, long prepared for an intensification of a conflict with Iran. Half a year ago the CIA set up a special office with a high level Iran hawk leading the charge. Last month Trump named another Iran hawk to lead the State Department Middle East section.

    Since the Iranian people successfully achieved "regime change" in 1979 the U.S. and Britain have had an adversarial policy against Iran. It has ebbed and flowed in intensity but never changed. Under Trump we will see a rapid increase of hostile actions. The administration just called for a UN emergency session about the situation. That is a laughable move when one considers the size of daily murder the U.S. and its allies commit in Yemen, Syria and Palestine. But the operation that unfolds now is likely just a small part of a larger anti-Iran strategy that has yet to become visible.

    Update (Jan 3, 01:00am EST)

    I just checked various internet resources for two hours to find new videos of protests/riots of January 2 to 3. There were just a handful and none of them was remarkable. Some short clips of loud screaming of small crowds and light bashing with riot police. The protests and riots are obviously dying down.

    This map is by HRA_news a Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) . It says "There were protests in at least 11 cities in #Iran on the sixth day".


    bigger

    Eleven cities is less than half than the thirty cities with protests/riots that were counted yesterday.

    Posted by b on January 2, 2018 at 02:15 PM | Permalink

    James , Jan 2, 2018 2:44:16 PM | 1

    With Yemen under reported and daily deaths of women and children - they want a UN meeting about Iran?
    They are playing there regime change hand in a very heavy way.

    Netanyahu made a speech, Trump, Hillary, McCain - IRan just needs to put these people on TV and let them broad cast to the nation!!

    Social media also is being used to manipulate the uniformed - many of the many American alt/right commentators are in the vanguard of this anti Iran social media campaign.

    We have the memes with women without hijab, we have all the usual tired guff about freedom and democracy. As if Iraq Syria and Lybia and Ukraine disasters never happened

    Blue Dot , Jan 2, 2018 2:52:31 PM | 3
    Russia and China need to make the UN meeting about US, UK and Israeli support of terrorism in Iran (MEK, et al.) Turn the tables.
    Jen , Jan 2, 2018 2:53:37 PM | 4
    One astounding aspect of this "color revolution" is its banal and repetitive nature. The tactics used by the rent-a-mob protesters of hijacking and exploiting legitimate protests as cover to attack and kill police, and burn cars and buildings are the same as those carried out in Dar'aa in Syria in 2011 that led to the war there, and in Kiev in 2014 that led to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government. Not surprisingly, John McCain supported those events and visited the people involved on a number of occasions.

    The sloppiness of the reporting is amazing as well. It's as if the MSM simply doesn't care any more that astute members of the public can see that material from past news reports or even movies is being used as "evidence" of supposed genuine protest or police repression.

    The most worrying thing all these "cplor revolution" activities, wherever they occur, point to is how deeply insulated from the real world The Powers That (Should Not) Be are.

    Oui , Jan 2, 2018 3:07:34 PM | 5
    @b - was that a rogue blogger who had put up the first post? Hijacking a legitimate Greek name Αυτοκαθορισμός and put up some trash statement?
    James , Jan 2, 2018 3:08:01 PM | 6
    @2 apologies to your Lynda! I did indeed mean poor destroyed Libya
    james , Jan 2, 2018 3:21:57 PM | 7
    thanks b.. the western propaganda version of the syrian white helmets continues on with the latest dispatches from iran.. the usa-uk and some others are in no position to speak with any authenticity in any of it.. i like what you said here because it highlights the selectivity of the western press :

    "Thousands protest in Israel each week against the corruption of Prime Minister Netanyahoo. On New-Years-Eve more than 1,000 cars in France were set alight by arsonists. None of this is front page news but a few dozen riots in Iran get elevated to a "revolution"."

    it explains the role western msm is willing to play in accommodating this ongoing anti-iran agenda..

    Peter AU 1 , Jan 2, 2018 3:26:06 PM | 8
    I'll put a few dollars on US air or missile strikes on Iran for 2018. Until now, Trump admin attacks on Iran have been verbal. Looks like whatever they have been cooking up for the past eleven months has now been set in motion.
    Red Ryder , Jan 2, 2018 3:28:35 PM | 9
    b, exactly--"But the operation that unfolds now is likely just a small part of a larger anti-Iran strategy that has yet to become visible."

    The CIA, US Military, UK and Israel have many operations ongoing against Iran.
    This is a long-shot, these protests.

    What is more likely is a 'civil war', like Syria, with 'moderates' armed and a flow of terrorists from Afghanistan into the East (where much of this uprising has occurred.)

    The template is for a destabilizing of Iran and a nice four-six year war on the eastern front would be likely.

    The airport at Herat is a base of operations for ISFA/NATO. The CENTCOM war of choice has been Afghanistan because everyone knows it is un-winnable, but "must" be fought. It creates huge issues for China and now Pakistan, too. So, using it to direct arms and trainers against Iran is predictable and relatively easy, logistically.

    The Shia Crescent will be pounded at both ends--Lebanon-Syria and Iran's eastern region.

    Part of the not yet visible.

    fudmier , Jan 2, 2018 3:30:08 PM | 10
    I think it would be useful to analyze which news agencies, internet companies, browser providers and search engine providers are actively involved in the disinformation campaigns ..
    are users dealing only with media providers, or does the disinformation involve the information transport technology providers as well?
    If so that suggest this is a corporate war, not a nation state war?

    Classification of information tampering by type:
    information blocking campaign
    disinformation promoting campaign

    and assigning to each type the parties..
    might produce some real useful data?
    Nodes at nation state boundaries are either transparent or filtered.
    Tracking nation state behaviors at these boundaries by media provider.
    One instance of disinformation came to light in discussions over the weekend where in one country.. the same provider delivered three very different messages that covered the same event from the same media source.. one party said the client side browsers had key directives which determined which of the media stories about the same event to allow into the browswer.. So the webservers answering the get request would or could differentiate between users and decide which content a particular user is allowed to have. I have not been able to confirm this yet.

    I think it is not the event, where ever the event takes place but what the viewer is informed about the event that counts..

    Seems the disinformation filter system capable to advise different folks differently about the same events. HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
    Explains maybe why when Iran had its Earthquake a few weeks back, the same news agency said the quake happened in three different Iranian towns, but it turned out the origin of the quake was in a Iraq town.

    I am not sure the reporting variance is sloppy.. more I would say deceptive.

    paul , Jan 2, 2018 3:58:50 PM | 11
    The US has called a UNSC meeting. Watch Russia throw Iran under the bus at the UNSC, as it has done before and as it not long ago did to North Korea. Russia is a two faced vassal state to the hegemon. But go ahead and prove me wrong Vlad.
    Christian Chuba , Jan 2, 2018 4:28:19 PM | 12
    If there were very large crowds, satellite imagery would be able to pick that up even with govt censorship. The lack of such verification is telling.

    I'm not going to comment on the 'sociological' element, not qualified but I don't trust a word that's reported in my country regarding Iran.

    james , Jan 2, 2018 4:31:44 PM | 13
    @11 paul.. you have been proven wrong every other time.. why should this time be an exception?
    Laguerre , Jan 2, 2018 4:34:22 PM | 14
    I haven't followed all the discussion so far, as I've been away for Xmas.

    As the demonstrations are in the provinces, it means something much more serious than the 2009 demonstrations in Tehran. If it were US running it, this route would not have been chosen, indeed impossible, although they want to profit from opportunities.

    The obvious reason is that the US failed to carry out its side of the nuclear agreement, and did not lift sanctions. So the economic recovery promised did not occur. And Iranians are understandably unhappy that what they expected did not happen. Disappointment of expectation is what led to revolt.

    psychohistorian , Jan 2, 2018 4:50:50 PM | 15
    Thanks for the reporting b

    I want to repeat one of your statements for emphasis
    "
    Altogether only a few thousand people, overwhelmingly male youth, seem to be involved. Thousands protest in Israel each week against the corruption of Prime Minister Netanyahoo. On New-Years-Eve more than 1,000 cars in France were set alight by arsonists. None of this is front page news but a few dozen riots in Iran get elevated to a "revolution".
    "
    This is the issue that needs to be brought up in the UN meeting.

    Eric , Jan 2, 2018 4:54:50 PM | 16
    @11

    While I'm equally disgusted by Russia's and China's imposing genocidal sanctions on North Korea, there are very good reasons to expect they won't have the same attitude toward Iran in the coming meeting of the UNSC.

    1. Iran is not in violation of Security Council resolutions the way North Korea is with its nuclear and ballistic missile tests. On the contrary, US hostility and aggression toward Iran is in the context of perfect alignment with the JCPOA on the part of Iran while the United States grabs every opportunity to renege on its obligations.
    2. Russia and China have massive geopolitical, energy and economic interests in Iran and deep, active strategic partnership with Iran, unlike the case of North Korea. Russian/Chinese investments run in the tens of billions of dollars, including in oil/gas extraction, pipelines and nuclear energy, and Iran is an essential node in the Belt and Road Initiative.
    3. The current protests follow the exact same color revolution script successfully used in the Ukraine, Georgia, Libya, Syria etc., along with similar and inspired opposition protests in Russia and Hong Kong. Russia and China would destroy any credibility with regard to past and potential future events in Ukraine and Hong Kong if they follow the US line on Iran in the UNSC, and encourage the usage of the same tactics eventually in Russia and China themselves.

    On a side note, does anyone know whether this UNSC meeting is now actually a given because of the US request, and if so when it is likely to be held?

    WorldBLee , Jan 2, 2018 4:56:59 PM | 17
    As I've said before, if these western-sponsored (apparently) riots turn the Rouhani government less neoliberal it could end up all to the better for the people of Iran. The bloviating of the US and Israel will be hard to listen to but as long as it's just words Iran can take it.
    Laguerre , Jan 2, 2018 5:02:39 PM | 18
    As I've said before, if these western-sponsored (apparently) riots turn the Rouhani government less neoliberal it could end up all to the better for the people of Iran.
    Oh yeah. They're calling for the return of the Shah, = absolute dictator.
    Piotr Berman , Jan 2, 2018 5:03:31 PM | 19
    Some speculation: why economic discontent in Iran now?

    Based on very few data points, I think that Iran may experience some "prosperity symptoms": during severe sanctions, Iran developed import substitution industries as foreign currency was scarce and rationed, and various industries were relatively well distributed over the territory of Iran. With more oil revenue imports are easier. On one hand, government may afford more for services like schools and healthcare, perhaps some social spending, priming the demand side of the economy, on the other, many parts of import substitution sector may experience drop in profits and even outright unprofitability, hence factories that do not pay workers.

    If this is the case, the government has the resources to placate the working class protesters, and security apparatus will take care of the remainder. Hypersalivation in USA and Israel will energize "the base". However, there is a gap between having resources and using them, because importing and import-substitution sectors have interests that may be hard to reconcile.

    Laguerre , Jan 2, 2018 5:18:44 PM | 20
    Some speculation: why economic discontent in Iran now?
    It's obvious, isn't it? The US agreed to lift sanctions in exchange for the nuclear agreement, but they didn't do what they agreed. Not surprising that the Iranians are unhappy.
    gnome chumski , Jan 2, 2018 5:22:43 PM | 21
    i have met many iranian who where very happy and prosperous under the original 1913 anglo persian oil agreement contracts the shah indeed was along with menechem begin and golda meir one of the greats.
    why not indeed help the innocents b free let domocracy prevails?
    bp uk, dutch shell, france chevron and exxon really mobile good all help to stabilise iran supplies once persia is brookings and chatham house converted into libya 2.
    please do not underestimate the value of open air slave trading.
    with the closing off of the live human organ traffic flows from syria to turkey then onto tel aviv then haiti new markets need to be opened.
    the simple fact was yemen and syria iraqi had way to much history.
    iranian persia has to be year zero for the new bbc simon scharma ashkanazi revised history of the middle and near easts.
    oded yinon moves on
    history must be dustified for the official chabad kosher seal
    waterloo , Jan 2, 2018 5:24:29 PM | 22
    Rohollah Zam is a Mossad agent.
    Leaked phone conversation:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlbT8flaKa4
    Jen , Jan 2, 2018 5:29:46 PM | 23
    Lagueere @ 14, 20: Are Iranians in the countryside really all that concerned about US lifting sanctions against Iran over its nuclear energy program
    ?
    james , Jan 2, 2018 5:30:10 PM | 24
    @21 gnome / charles.. now that was funny!
    Partisan , Jan 2, 2018 5:32:59 PM | 25
    @ Piotr Berman | Jan 2, 2018 5:03:31 PM | 19

    Wrong! Yet you appear to be grossly misinformed.

    A true is that the Gov. of both countries are bitter enemies from geo-political reasons as well as the historical one. However, when one look at economic policy of the Iranian Gov. he/she can see identical set of austerity measures, i.e. the same oppressive economic policies that benefit only and Just only ruling elites of both countries.

    But more about that here: https://ismaelhossein-zadeh.com/2016/08/22/1472/

    Laguerre , Jan 2, 2018 5:33:26 PM | 26
    why not indeed help the innocents b free let domocracy prevails?
    More hasbara. israel wouldn't like it if there were democracy in Iran, but confusion, that would be great.
    Laguerre , Jan 2, 2018 5:50:26 PM | 27
    re jen 23
    Are Iranians in the countryside really all that concerned about US lifting sanctions against Iran over its nuclear energy program
    They're affected by the US failure to lift sanctions. Access to the money market, for example.
    gnome chumski , Jan 2, 2018 5:54:01 PM | 28
    26

    a simple central bank
    tired to the nazi swiss bank of international settling munts
    compensation to the uk,usa and israel for the breach of contracts relating to anglo persian oil companies stolen oil and gas supplies over countless decades.

    a gold ingot return aggreement
    kinder transport style epic journey return of the gold from tehran to bis where it can be placed into bonded very safe uk,israel usa accounts for safe keeping.

    during times of instability is it not better that chosen professionals look after vitals such treasure

    Ghost Ship , Jan 2, 2018 6:05:38 PM | 29
    >>>> Laguerre | Jan 2, 2018 5:33:26 PM | 26

    It's satire of a reasonable quality for once. Either that or "gnome" is dumber that Nikki Haley.

    Jack , Jan 2, 2018 6:12:12 PM | 30
    Zam the Iranian Chalabi.
    Fake photos and American collusion and all.
    An attempt at interfering in Irans Election.
    gut bugs galore , Jan 2, 2018 6:14:36 PM | 31
    Russia and China have not imposed genocide sanctions on NKR. NKR is well prepared. They can survive for a year or two in their stockpiles. The effect therefore of the current sanctions are in large part some distance into the future. China and Russia feeding a bit of blood to the vampire US whilst at the same time punching out gazillions of garlic spiked silver arrows seems like a reasonable economy to me. In effect Russia and China have agreed to meet the US on the field of battle about the time these sanctions actually do/would take devastating effect. They have said...ok have your year or so of tantrums...suck on that.
    james , Jan 2, 2018 6:14:39 PM | 32
    @26 laguerre.. that is our resident hasbara troll, but sometimes he is funny...

    laguerre, i would be curious for your view on this outline from a twitter account that lozion left on another thread yesterday..
    https://twitter.com/h0d3r/status/947665068421996544

    Bianca , Jan 2, 2018 6:21:06 PM | 33
    Based on a simple formula that is always used without fail, every act of munificence on US part assumes a major concession. Europe did not get a spine in Iran's case, as Obama gave a wink and a nod to his fellow globalist-Zionist oligarchy, to "pressure" US to sign a nuclear deal. The deal was cut with Rouhani, a known "reformer", who was to introduce neoliberal economy, and let US and Europe in. Did not happen. Instead, in response to the growing anti-Shia Saudi cult ISIS and others, Iran opted to support Iraq and Syria. US not happy. Rouhani not happy. Iran firmly tied now to Russia for defence and China for the long range development. US not happy to the extreme. We were thus toooo generous, so all the promises are off, one more Indian treaty. Like the Clinton one with North Korea.

    So, do not count on Europe keeping its spine, as the ruling oligarchy/media scribes are the same. Slowly, "reluctantly" they will have to "pressure" Iran on human rights, etc. etc. Deal will be off. When it comes to US, the economic losses for us are potential great. Who knows what is happening to Boeing sales, etc. But this is peanuts compared to the salivating of Zionist crowd -- being able to get their Iranian agenda back on track!

    But I need to think some of this through. It is getting murky out there. Why is South Korea running to Moscow, and declaring Russia a reliable negotiating partner. Why are both Russia and China ignoring many sanctions on North Korea? Why is Erdogan running to Riyadh, and then announcing the deal with Sudan on restoring an old port city, abandoned after Port Sudan was built. And using the port for military base. So close to Saudi city of Jeddah, across the hot Red Sea pond. Presumably, Saudis are unhappy. Presumably Egypt is unhappy. Presumably they -- like all inferior beings, in our view of the world -- do not talk to each other. So, many inconsistencies are afoot, many confusing and contradicting moves -- what does it all mean? For one, it may mean that US practices are linear and predictable, while the Asian and Mid East regions are opaque.

    And Turkey becoming dependent on Russian air defence, nuclear energy, and oil and gas pipelines, as well as Chinese infrastructure, both physical and internet -- will not make moves without consulting them both. So, what is afoot? We do not know. But we do know that following Egypt's intervention, Qatar "conditions" were redefined as "principles, while the trade, and air traffic has increased from Qatar to Iran and Turkey. Given that Iraq has over 60% Shia population, Kuwait, 40%, Bahrain 80%, with large populations in Syria, Lebanon, and even Turkey. Almost entire North Yemen, is Shia. And the somewhat different religion of Oman, I would say, Oman is not too keen on letting Saudi Arabia spread Sunni caliphates. And given how US occasionally berates the new Crown Prince, while heaping regular abuse on his father, the King, I would say something is not quite kosher in this bromance. China opened a base in Djibouti. Egypt and Russia working on Libya mess. Pakistan put US on notice that it will shoot down any US flying object, as the days of drone attacks on Pakistan are over.

    So, linear vs. opaque. I do not think we see or understand many other events, as they are not getting much coverage. We need to assume some asymmetrical events coming.

    Curtis , Jan 2, 2018 6:26:13 PM | 34
    Legit peaceful protests enjoined by violent rioters. We've heard this story before but I doubt the US will pull a fake no-fly on Iran the way Hillary/Obama did for Libya. Supporting the terrorists like the US did in Syria is probable and may be going on now. Good of you to point this out, b.

    And in the list of articles Google News threw up was one that suggested Iran's govt is "teetering" on collapse. Doubtful. The govt/regime has too much power and support to collapse anytime soon.

    somebody , Jan 2, 2018 6:42:54 PM | 35
    Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 2, 2018 5:18:44 PM | 20

    As I understand it Rouhani tried to cut subsidies or convert subsidies to charity for the poor. That would endanger the subsistence of a lot of people and be reason enough to demonstrate. It is also the type of neoliberal remedy investors love. On top of that Rouhani seems to have started an anti-corruption drive against his political enemies which usually creates trouble.
    Iran also closed the border to Iraqi Kurdistan which interrupted all kinds of business transactions there. They have reopened the border in the last few days.

    Iran needs neither US nor European investment as China has most of the money to spend , Trump is basically forcing Iran into economic dependence from China. He attacked Pakistan by tweet as well, so part of this marks the US losing Iran and Pakistan to China. How NATO can remain in Afghanistan or Iraq after this is anybody's guess. General Mattis might have a say in this.

    In the end this "regime change light" might prove how impotent the US/Britain/Saudi have become to influence developments.

    Everything in Iran seems to be done via Telegram messenger/Instagram including BBC Persian .

    I can't see Iranian security asleep on how to control that. This here is from 2016 .

    SAN FRANCISCO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iranian hackers have compromised more than a dozen accounts on the Telegram instant messaging service and identified the phone numbers of 15 million Iranian users, the largest known breach of the encrypted communications system, cyber researchers told Reuters.

    They will have discovered most networks by now.

    karlof1 , Jan 2, 2018 6:43:57 PM | 36
    I've yet to see anyone reference Ramin Mazaheri's excellent article written for The Saker blog. Fortunately, it's been mostly republished here so I can link it directly. Being an Iranian journalist posted to Paris, he provides a greatly needed balance to the many lies of Big Lie Media and educates those willing to read about the nature of Iran. I wanted to provide an excerpt, but the essay's structure makes that difficult, so I'll just leave this:

    'A final point: Why are democratic protests for policy reform a "sign of a vibrant and healthy democracy" when they occur in the West but "an indicator people want to bring down the system" whenever they occur in non-Western countries? Ultimately, these protests will be heeded and, like all genuine protests, will make Iranian democracy stronger and the country better.'

    ben , Jan 2, 2018 6:47:17 PM | 37
    About time for the snipers on the rooftops to show up. Then, it's on for real. With both sides taking causalities, and the Govt. getting the blame. Then, we'll see the position Russia takes.


    Same old "color revolution" BS me thinks..

    somebody , Jan 2, 2018 6:47:37 PM | 38
    More on the security of Telegram messenger

    Why you should stop using Telegram just now

    ben , Jan 2, 2018 6:50:30 PM | 39
    "What Is Happening in Iran? Is Another "Color Revolution" Underway?"

    From Global Research:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-is-happening-in-iran-is-another-color-revolution-underway/5624505

    Lozion , Jan 2, 2018 7:04:47 PM | 40
    @37 indeed, " watch for snipers ", but I dont think it will happen this time, Iranians are smart and the IRGC and Basij are on the watch no doubt. Rouhani will address some issues and while the internal struggle between hardliners and reformists for Khameini´s replacement will go on, this will hopefully fizzle out soon..
    Jen , Jan 2, 2018 7:13:51 PM | 41
    Laguerre @ 27: I asked only because the news I have seen so far here at MoA and at The Duran is that the protesters were complaining about the increase in the prices of eggs and poultry. Some time ago there had been a bird flu epidemic in Iran which has affected the supply of chickens and eggs. It would seem very peculiar for ordinary people outside the main cities to demonstrate against continuing US sanctions against Iran due to Iran's continued nuclear energy program.

    If demonstrations are taking place outside Tehran at the same time, that fact in itself could still be evidence of US infiltration. Mashhad in Iran's northeast is a large city (the second largest) and close to Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. Borders could be quite porous for all we know.

    There are many Western tourists visiting Iran now and the major tourist trails are in the south-central (Yazd, Isfahan, Shiraz) and south-west (Choqa Zanbil) parts of the country. Urban populations in these areas could have elements antagonistic towards the national government. Baha'i followers in particular would be hostile towards the government as theirs is a much persecuted religion. Sections of the US government would be aware of and targeting these groups because historically in most cultures, minority groups (and persecuted minority groups) are focii for social and political change. Plus such groups have diaspora populations in the US and beyond and communications among the homeland and the diaspora most certainly would be monitored closely by US intel agencies.

    dh , Jan 2, 2018 7:22:16 PM | 42
    I suspect a few of those young men are protesting the absence of bars and discotheques.
    somebody , Jan 2, 2018 7:50:24 PM | 43
    Posted by: ben | Jan 2, 2018 6:47:17 PM | 37

    The interesting thing is that this time violence is not the issue. The EU calls for "all sides to refrain from violence". Trump threatens that "the US is watching".

    Iran has been fighting PJAK, Jundullah and MEK for quite a while. It is unlikely there will be any surprises.

    Ghost Ship , Jan 2, 2018 8:01:24 PM | 44
    To demonstrate how informed Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch is, the Angry Arab tweeted this . Rephrasing the Angry Arab, I can't for the life of me understand why Kenneth Roth subsequently deleted his tweet.
    ben , Jan 2, 2018 8:16:30 PM | 45
    I hope all the folks that think no real violence will occur are right. My thought process is a bit jaded because of the empire's sordid history of regime change..
    Grieved , Jan 2, 2018 8:32:32 PM | 46
    @36 karlof1

    I posted Mazaheri's article on an earlier thread - glad you supplied the Greanville link for it. I have really enjoyed Mazaheri's writing over the last several months at Saker. And this is an excellent view of the grass roots heart of Iran I think. His article rambles a bit, he broke his vacation to write it in a hurry, but he made his points.

    Reviewing the snippet I excerpted I still like it so I'll reprint it here:

    Exactly like in Venezuela this year – there is a hardcore, GRASSROOTS system of citizen supporters who will defend the Iranian Revolution with their lives because they feel the Iranian Revolution (like Chavismo) has benefited the average citizen so very much. That's why Venezuelan democracy didn't fall – it was due to the common person attending a counter-protest, maybe even wielding a garden tool. This is what preserved Venezuelan democracy – not state military action – and this is also what happened in Iran in 2009.

    [...]

    What must also be remembered is that Iran already had their "NATO intervention" – it was called the Iran-Iraq War. For 8 horrible years the West foisted Iraq on Iran, supplied Iraq with weapons, turned a blind eye to the worst chemical weapons atrocities since World War One, and did all they could to create, prolong and influence the deadliest war in the last quarter of the 20th century.

    And it was still not enough.


    Peter AU 1 , Jan 2, 2018 8:32:39 PM | 47
    Afghan on one side with US/ISIS coalition, Iraq Kurd/US border other side. US have been flying ISIS into Afghanistan (a number of reports some months ago with even official Russia questioning who the US was flying into ISIS controlled areas).
    US airlifting ISIS out of west Syria to Hasaka for retraining, perhaps as peaceful Iranian demonstrators, from where they have free movement through to the Kurd majority area of the Iraq/Iran border.
    Grieved , Jan 2, 2018 8:40:49 PM | 48
    I gather about 450 protesters have been arrested so far. They are predominantly under 25 years old. I believe the government will be tough on them. Their story will emerge eventually. Perhaps there will be documented smoking guns. The forensic study of these events will obviously take time but it's clear that Iran never for one moment misunderstood what was happening to it. Ayatollah Khamenei has called it out as a foreign intervention by the usual countries.

    The dynamic seems practically like a de-escalation zone now: the government has affirmed the right to protest, and condemned the act of violence. So that's how the authorities will tell the innocent from the guilty.

    As b states, everything has been handled by the police thus far. The government's "manifold capabilities" have yet to become visible. They will become visible, one assumes, at every turn as the anglo-zionists attempt to escalate, and as each move is met and destroyed by the authentic national power.

    In all, while it is sad to see the destruction and the dead innocents, including those yet to come, it will be supremely satisfying to watch as Iran - I predict - shows the world exactly how to deal with this attack by the west.

    Lozion , Jan 2, 2018 8:43:14 PM | 49
    @44 Ghost Ship, that was sarcasm right? Look again at the protesters signs, oh the irony..
    Temporarily Sane , Jan 2, 2018 8:49:14 PM | 50
    Good piece. The only thing I would add is that the genuine protesters (to the extent that they exist) who are unhappy about the sluggish Iranian economy are a result of the economic sanctions the US placed on Iran. Making life hard for ordinary people is intended to stir up anti-government sentiment among them.

    Trump's tweets about his "concern" for the Iranian people and "human rights" are particularly hypocritical and vile. What a piece of shit. Apparently he didn't see the leaked memo that reveals how Rex Tillerson, who may have been naive enough to believe the guff about the US upholding human rights abroad, was put in his place in no uncertain terms by the DoS.

    somebody , Jan 2, 2018 9:02:51 PM | 51
    47
    Iran has been working on border security for a long time
    Grieved , Jan 2, 2018 9:05:51 PM | 52
    Sharmine Narwani tweeted a response to anglo-zionist media hack Josh Rogin's drivel about how Syria started the same way as Iran, when "...peaceful protesters were attacked by their tyrannical government."

    She replied :

    "Peaceful protestors" in #Syria were not so peaceful. They killed 88 soldiers in the first month

    In her tweet she links to her own important article, a seminal work that details exactly how the color uprising in Syria began, and once again how it was the violence that surprised everyone: Syria: The Hidden Massacre

    If you haven't read it, I earnestly recommend it for a clear and exact picture of what is being ventured in Iran right now.

    Peter AU 1 , Jan 2, 2018 9:39:37 PM | 53
    @ somebody
    I hope they do have their borders covered, but I believe in the Kurdish area, the border will be somewhat porous, plus re-uniformed/re-named ISIS from all directions will have the assistance of US intel.
    Peter AU 1 , Jan 2, 2018 9:53:48 PM | 54
    The more I look at the Trump/US establishment fight in the US, the more this seems a fight over a re-direction of the empire than anything else. Obama's soft talk/lead from behind/snake in the grass style failed miserably. Trumps job is to turn the US focus from Russia Syria ect onto China whos economy is the main threat facing the empire, and Iran which is the strong point in the resistance against Israel.
    Seems to be a lot of cold war warriors still in the US establishment wanting to re-live their glory days, plus generations of soviet block/east European so called dissidents carrying inherited hate for Russia that have to be overcome for US to fully focus on the new direction.
    Early on in the Trump admin, there were a number of meetings between Trump/Kissinger and Putin/Kissinger. Apart from Trump perhaps carrying no grudge against Russia, the re-direction would require separating Russia from the target countries, China and Iran.
    Jen , Jan 2, 2018 10:09:51 PM | 55
    Grieved @ 48: First, the govt should ask the protesters if they're being paid to protest and who's paying them.

    As they say, follow the money...

    fefe , Jan 2, 2018 10:13:54 PM | 56
    @22 Yes would be very interesting to know more about this Rohollah Zambia whose new telegram channel Sedaie Mardom of more than 1.2 M user now (and main cause behind Telegram filtrage).... Is really suspect. Just have a look on whatis posted inside and you will understand a lot.
    Is there an English translation of your video?
    nottheonly1 , Jan 2, 2018 10:20:53 PM | 57
    Just a few thoughts:

    Is there a chance that those other, rather impotent members of the UNSC call in an emergency meeting about the number of innocent young unarmed African American being shot with impunity by 'law' enforcement?
    Will there be a session about the rampant homeless in the U.S.? About the mass incarcerations? About the use of prison inmates in the California wild fires without protective gear? About the opiod pandemic? About the treatment of innocent protesters in Dakota and elsewhere?
    The propaganda emanating from air waves is unbearable to those with both common sense and critical thinking skills.
    This is psychological projection par excellence. The preposterous displays of Haley speaking for the U.S. surpasses what goes for "the pot calling the kettle black".
    IF the protests in Iran would have anything to do with legitimate calls for redress, what does that say about the U.S. population? Compared to the shortcomings in Iran, the present conditions in the U.S. should be sufficient to get tens of millions of people into the streets.
    Why is that not happening? National Billionaires' Radio bemoans conditions in Iran that are are worse in the U.S. These script readers ask for money for their "high quality" journalism?
    Is all this just acid satire? Bill Maher talking about getting a phone call from the corrupt Nutanyahoo asking for advice in regards to the regime change plans regarding Iran?

    Are we there yet?

    Dwayne Weyrich , Jan 2, 2018 10:36:51 PM | 58
    Hmmm... protest here in the USSA can be just as violent and destructive. Wish the international community would sanction this growing police state. But then again, I foresee the US imploding economically soon so it'll be a moot point once the zombie tax livestock see all they know evaporate. Nature abhors that which is contrary to Itself and eventually corrects.
    jrh , Jan 3, 2018 12:46:28 AM | 59
    I watched similar scenarios in Syria and Libya in early 2011. In Syria, the government arrested some teenagers in Da'ar for writing anti-government graffiti. The parents and others protested the arrests. Some who joined the protests began shooting from within the crowd of parents and others at police, killing 7. Some police shot back and the Western Media reported that Assad was killing his own people. In Libya, some gangs tried to storm army barracks. The soldiers defended. themselves and the same media said Qaddafi was killing his own people. I hope we have learned from these examples and from Iran in 2009. The situation is serious and will require great strength and wisdom on the side of the Iran government and the great mass of Iranian people, but I do not expect Iran to become another Libya.
    Grieved , Jan 3, 2018 12:53:16 AM | 60
    @33 Bianca - "Pakistan put US on notice that it will shoot down any US flying object, as the days of drone attacks on Pakistan are over. "

    Here's a fun tweet from Brasco Aad, who has been reliable on Syria, but this story is not sourced anywhere, so it may be no more than fun:

    Question: Why is #Trump so angry at #Pakistan and why did he cut of financial support to Islamabad?

    Answer: Pakistan refused to let #US (#CIA)/#Israeli/#Saudi-backed Salafi Jihadi terrorists stage terror attacks on #Iran from its territory

    Sourced or not, it fits the current reality. The multi polar world steps daily more clearly into focus.

    Penelope , Jan 3, 2018 1:08:15 AM | 61
    Partisan @25, that was an interesting link. Do you think that Rohani & his "moderates" have sold out, then? Should we expect to see their govt-owned central bank become an "independent" bank? That is, a bank that's joined the international cabal & is insulated from its own govt or the needs of its own people.

    Since Rohani has moved TOWARD the globalists in trade & monetary ("austerity") policy, you wdn't expect Western-induced protests. Maybe it's pressure to make him move faster.

    karlof1 , Jan 3, 2018 1:32:59 AM | 62
    Grieved @60 et al--

    Thanks much for your comments, links and excerpts. What we are witnessing is how The Outlaw US Empire manifests Terror through its stated policy of establishing full spectrum dominance of the planet and its people--virtually everyone is targeted, yet most remain ignorant of that which threatens them most.

    Lozion , Jan 3, 2018 1:34:34 AM | 63
    @60 Grieved, are you familiar with Lebanese professor Amal Saad? Here she links to translated video excerpts from protesters and their demands a la vox populi.

    https://twitter.com/amalsaad_lb/status/948324393029074944

    james , Jan 3, 2018 1:56:54 AM | 64
    @49 lozion.. definitely sarcasm on ghost ships part.. kenneth roth is an idiot... i don't know if he even looked at the pic, which would explain how some folks tweet first and think later..

    and after a week or more off, the usa daily press briefing was on tap today right on cue... read the link here for more info.. i have quoted some of it below..

    amazing how important social media is to the usa! more important then removing any of the financial sanctions that cause hardship.. hey - who cares about eating? but, one must not have their social media removed!

    "QUESTION: When you say that you're watching it very closely, monitoring, as everyone knows quite well, the U.S. doesn't have an embassy in Iran, it doesn't have any – at least no publicly known presence there. So how exactly are you following the situation? News, social media?

    MS NAUERT: Well, Matt, this would go back to how we watch many nations when things are going on, especially when we don't have a presence there. We get our information from a variety of sources. Some of that can come from NGOs. Some of that can come from media reports. Obviously, that's a little more difficult right now because the government has clapped – clamped down not only on media but, as we've seen, social media too. We expect and we certainly hope that people will be able to access social media and speak freely there, just like we've seen them speak on the streets.

    QUESTION: Right. Last --

    MS NAUERT: So we'll get that from a variety of sources. Some of that will include intelligence, our partners on the ground, and many other nations as well.

    QUESTION: Last one. So you are, in fact, calling on the Government of Iran to restore any social media that has been – that may have been blocked?

    MS NAUERT: Well, I think that would certainly be an important thing for them to do. We support a freedom of the press here in the United States. We support the right of voices to be heard. And when a nation clamps down on social media or websites or Google or news sites, we ask the question, "What are you afraid of?" What are you afraid of? We support the Iranian people and we support their voices being heard.

    QUESTION: And are you considering sanctions?

    MS NAUERT: We don't get ahead of sanctions, but that is one toolkit, a couple things that we have in a very broad and wide toolkit. It's – there are a range of options that we certainly have going forward. And that's why I say we are watching reports very carefully of any potential human rights abuses of these protesters who are protesting peacefully.

    Okay. Hi, Andrea. Nice to see you.

    QUESTION: Hi, Happy New Year to you.

    MS NAUERT: Thank you.

    QUESTION: Is there – first of all, is there anything that the U.S. can do to help restore access to social media to the Iranian people?

    MS NAUERT: Not that I'm aware of. I mean look, I'm not a tech expert. There are lots of ways that people can get information through different sources and different apps and all of that, but I'm not aware of anything particularly that we as a government are able to do. But we're watching it carefully." what bullshite..

    james , Jan 3, 2018 1:59:37 AM | 65
    like social media is the great revolution tool when in fact it's the great manipulative tool which nsa monitors 24/7 thanks the police state the usa has become..
    ArioBarzan , Jan 3, 2018 2:12:17 AM | 66
    Im an avid reader of MOA, ZeroHedge etc... and a strong supporter of movement towards a multi polar world and agree with much of what the axis of resistance stands for, but as a young Iranian Im very disappointed in this analysis and the following comments, perhaps this is understandable though since non of you guys seem to be aware of the extent of oppression and hypocrisy that exists in Iran under the Islamic republic.
    So here I will try to give a narrative of why these protests are happening as a voice (out of many) for the Iranian youth,

    What is happening these days in Iran doesnt resemble a color revolution to me as much as it does the constitutional revolution of 1906-1909 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Constitutional_Revolution);
    for more than a 100 years we have called for Freedom, Independence and independent judiciary, and what have we got?

    A state which has crafted its own upper class clerical and related oligarchy that openly claim majority of the resources and sole right of final decision making for themselves,
    A state whose own president admitted 2 days ago that he has no control over 200,000 Billion Tumans of its budget out of a total budget of 360,000 Billion Tumans, due to special interest groups that he can not challenge,
    A state in which "Centre for supporting clerical students" receives about $200 million a year while the whole of the very earthquake prone country's emergency services receive $50 million a year,
    A state in which the office of the representative of the supreme leader in universities receive more than $40 million a year while fund for helping university students with financial difficulty receives less than $10 million a year,

    Over a hundred years ago our forefathers marched in the streets asking for an independent judiciary and what have we got?

    An openly political judiciary whose head is an anoitee of the unelected supreme leader and whose former head (Mr.Shahroudi) called it a ruin,
    A Judiciary which doesnt even reject that its current head has 63 personal bank accounts in his own name and receives over $7 million a month of interest from those accounts (because of "certain considerations") while his own deputy and head of prison services admits that the prisons dont have the budget to feed prisoners 3 times a day.
    A Judiciary where the Head openly interferes with domestic and international politics of the country and even goes as far as personally ordering the cancellation governmentally approved concerts by Shiite ISIS while rejecting to even consider corruption cases againstg his brothers with video proof.

    My dear Multi polar world supporters, we are rebelling because we are oppressed, for too long we've been oppressed economically, Politically and socially,
    We are sick and tired of the IR's Hypocrisy,
    we are sick and tired of seeing our troops and wealth fighting and dying in Syria, yemen etc (rightly in my opinion) in defense Alevites and Houthis and other groups while if in Iran these same groups would have been badly prosecuted as proved by the IR's treatment of the Yaresan, Ahl el Haq and various sufi and dervish denominations in Iran,
    We are sick and tired of our troops fighting and dying in Syria, for President Assad and Putin to say cheers in Sochi, while we would be lashed for the same cup of wine.
    We are sick and tired of seeing our beloved religion hijacked by a few and used as a tool of oppression with the sole purpose of enriching a few.

    The children of Sattarkhan,Sardar Assad Bakhtiari and Sepahsalar Tonekaboni have risen in the 4 corners of Iran against a clerical oligarchy that sucks the blood of the country dry, a clerical establishment that has amassed in 40 years an amount of wealth comparable to the Catholic church while our beloved Iran is going trough environmental and social disaster.

    I have no doubt the enemies of Iran (US, Israel, saudi or other) will do their best to use these protests in their favor, but to call whats happening a color revolution is not only closing your eyes towards all the legitimate demands of the people protesting, but also bringing into question the sole achievement that IR has been claiming these past few years domestically as the providers of national security for Iran. If IR has failed to stop foreign infiltrators to cause unrest in 20+ of the small towns that are protesting all around Iran today, as well as failing Iran, economically, socially and politically, Isnt it the peoples right to call for a referendum that gives them a way out of this broken, corrupt system?

    If you dont want this to turn into a color revolution then dont let it become one, dont let the vulture's of the uni polar world to dominate the dialogue about the events in Iran, heed people's legitimate concerns and ask your Governments (specially Brics countries) to engage IR and convince it of holding a referendum under international(specially brics) supervision, this way the one can ensure which ever side wins in this referendum will see Brics as partners not enemies, and after all if IR is as popular as you claim it to be, it shouldn't have any fears of getting a second stamp of approval from the Iranian people 40 years on by holding a referendum.
    Thank you for reading through my long comment, I hope you found it useful;
    MOA if you believe in freedom of expression Tag-post this comment as a rebuttal to your analysis.

    Ariane Grazioli , Jan 3, 2018 2:15:24 AM | 67
    Attention to the videos on the net, many of which are false... western propaganda against Iran. http://www.20minutes.fr/monde/2195291-20180102-manifestations-iran-attention-images-videos-detournees
    james , Jan 3, 2018 2:25:56 AM | 68
    ariobarzan - there was another poster recently on another thread called ninel.. your post reminds me of theirs..

    "but to call whats happening a color revolution is not only closing your eyes towards all the legitimate demands of the people protesting".. no actually.. it is not... the 2 go together like butter and jam.. you can't have the one without the other..

    "MOA if you believe in freedom of expression Tag-post this comment as a rebuttal to your analysis." that isn't the way it works in the free world.. you can start your own website though..

    Peter AU 1 , Jan 3, 2018 2:57:32 AM | 69
    @ ArioBarzan
    Very few countries have managed to stand against the US empire. China and Russia are powers in their own right who cannot be attacked by the US without the US being destroyed itself.
    Of the smaller countries, it is only those with ideological or religious fanaticism that have stood against the US empire. Makes it a really shitty world. It is Iran's (or a good section of Iran) religious fanaticism that has enabled it to kick the US out and stand against them. It would be much better if the world did not have to function in this way.
    Perhaps in the coming multi-polar world..
    Peter AU 1 , Jan 3, 2018 3:52:06 AM | 70
    to add to 69

    There will be opposition to both religious authority, and economic problems (economic problems brought on by us Sanctions), same as any country. US empire will identify this, use this, insert a few provocateurs, snipers, fake media ect.

    Ian , Jan 3, 2018 4:01:52 AM | 71
    Peter AU 1 @54:

    It's unlikely that there will be another Sino-Russian split. Both Beijing and Moscow will be polite and listen to what Washington has to say, but they'll ignore them. I agree that Trump is trying to shift focus away from Russia and towards China and Iran. IMO, the problem for Washington is that they can only go after one, China or Iran. It's anybody guess on who will win in the fight between the Zionists and Nationalists.

    Den Lille Abe , Jan 3, 2018 4:03:50 AM | 72
    Iran is not Syria. Iran is not an arab country.It appears that the US do not understand this fact. They further do not understand that the Iran - Iraq war, while horribly stunting development of Iran, cemented the idea of a national belonging and national spirit, regardless of religious issues. That was never present in Syria.
    Israel on the other hand, however vile it acts, clearly understands these facts, and indeed did cooperate with the Islamic state in the beginning. But Israel fears Iran, because Iran is the only state in the region that is in earnest capable of opposing Israels ambitions. Iran as such , imo, has only the ambition of countering the Wahabis, not Sunni or any other religion. Other religions are absolutely tolerated in Iran, although proselyting is frowned upon. Try proselyting in SA! Head goes off!
    I doubt that the subversion of the protests will work at all.
    Den Lille Abe , Jan 3, 2018 4:15:04 AM | 73
    This talk about China - Russia splits, Russia throwing Syria, Iran, Turkey under the bus, are wet dreams of our own Western press. Sensational journalism, when worst. The case of NK is much different as NK in fact is in breach of UN conventions and agreements. But as we have seen sanctions can be broken readily. The US itself is a master of disregarding international Law, the UN and any agreement that they suddenly feel inhibit their aspirations.
    The Silk road is all too important for all involved, including the EU. EU is already heavily engaged in Iran, with Iranians welcoming it. The EU sees the Silk Road as tremendous opportunity for developing new markets in the world.
    And please dont forget the EU is supremely the worlds largest economic power. Having good trade relations with the EU is far, far more important than with the US.
    The US is a has been. Spent, it industries off shored, like Britain, done by corporations only driven by greed.
    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 4:34:37 AM | 74
    Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 3, 2018 2:57:32 AM | 69

    Vietnam did, Cuba did. Both countries are now keen on economic relations with the US. To see the world as with / against the US is a strange prism. Both - China and Russia - cooperate and have cooperated with the US in lots of ways.

    It makes more sense to analyze what is going on as a fight over who secures/controls trade routes, who takes or pays levy. History has not progressed much from the Middle Ages. Religion/ideology is used to cover warfare and crime on all sides.

    The New York Times now has proclaimed the Iranian "revolution" as internal economic conflict, whilst Iran presumably has prove of what has been going on. This here is the Washington Post:

    The Latest: No Schedule yet for US sought UN meeting in Iran

    Iran's President Hassan Rouhani says an exiled opposition group is inciting violence in Iran, where anti-government protests have been held in a number of cities in recent days.

    In a phone call with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, Rouhani called on France to stop hosting the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq group, known as the MEK. Several of the group's leaders are based in Paris.

    I have full sympathy with most Iranian emigrants but they are irrelevant for what is going on in Iran. There are now official demonstrations in support of the Iranian government and they are massive. Yes people are probably bussed in government employees but there seem a lot of them and all they needed to do to protest would be simply not to go.

    Peter AU 1 , Jan 3, 2018 5:00:09 AM | 75
    @ Ian, I agree that another Sino/Russian split is unlikely. Highly unlikely.
    China or Iran is interesting. Will keep an eye on that. Perhaps Iran first then China is the plan?
    blues , Jan 3, 2018 5:13:34 AM | 76
    Wait a minute here! I am supposed to actually worry about protests in Iran? Really? Not one of my protests in the USSA has been news.

    What a freaking load!

    x , Jan 3, 2018 5:25:50 AM | 77
    @74 -- "There are now official demonstrations in support of the Iranian government and they are massive."

    All likely part of a 'Reality TV' strategy. Controlled opposition and opportunism to distract and misdirect the MSM narrative and even draw out the 'official' response from the Swamp.

    No doubt vectors are moving and assets positioning in respect to Iran and NK. However, Trump's comic 'art of bullying' is a dangerous clown gambit with Netanyahu behind him pushing.

    True, in 2018 "something must be done" to save the US economy (and indeed, Assad just won't go...), but starting WW3 and/or losing huge amounts of 'face' are likely even worse scenarios for most players.

    I suspect Persia's long history provides many case studies and opportunities to slice the diplomatic 'polony' as thin as it gets.

    Trump's getting frustrated with international affairs and he now appears to have the Clinton gang in his sights. So, perhaps we should expect more US domestic orientated scenes in the 2018 reality-tv circus?

    Jen , Jan 3, 2018 5:57:46 AM | 78
    Methinks that ArioBarzan @ 66 has revealed his/her trolling nature by claiming that Iranians are sick and tired of seeing their troops fighting ISIS in Syria and assisting the Houthis in Yemen: for suggesting that foreigners should pressure the Iranian government to hold a referendum in which Iranians can vote for the government of their choice (and if in that referendum most Iranians choose the devil they know over the devil they don't know, ArioBarzan is going to have a lot of egg on his/her face); and for demanding that MoA privilege his/her comment above everyone else's.

    Never mind that assisting Syria in its war against ISIS and its foreign supporters is in Iran's interests as well; that there is as yet no evidence of Iranian assistance to the Houthis, what with Saudi Arabia enforcing a blockade of Yemen; and that there are extremely few if any Alevis in Yemen (but plenty in Turkey).

    Ian , Jan 3, 2018 6:01:40 AM | 79
    Peter AU 1 @75:

    The AAZ Empire have enough life left for one more military adventurism. There isn't any viable way to take on China without risking an exchange of nukes where the best case scenario is the loss of an ally, South Korea (because they'd be all dead). Invade Taiwan? That'll piss off the Chinese on both the mainland and among the diaspora. Thus, inviting a security nightmare, unless he brings back internment camps which will bring about another nightmare. The PLA would invade and fight the US which will turn Taiwan into another Syria. I highly doubt Taipei would want such devastation. Japan stated that they'll come to the aid of Taipei but then Beijing would green light an attack from North Korea and you can kiss those nuclear power plants goodbye. No American would be motivated to fight in East Asia due to a lack of cultural connectivity. The best Trump can do against China is wage an economic war.

    My money is on Iran because of the Israeli-Saudi lobbyists which have infiltrated every aspect of US life. People like Sheldon Adelson and the Evangelical Christians, would make Trump's life a living hell if Israel's core interest is sacrificed. Trump have no choice.

    Harry , Jan 3, 2018 6:08:27 AM | 80
    @ ArioBarzan aka zio-Lenin from previous thread. Go away with your trolling and shilling for shekels. Their point of view just happen to be inline with US, Israel and MEK, what a coincidence! :)

    Considering how much zionists invests in mass and social media, its quite surprising they send just one or two guys to derail threads here, it must be they dont consider MoA that popular... Their mistake.

    ArioBarzan , Jan 3, 2018 6:14:44 AM | 81
    @78
    Me thinks Jen is an uninformed person who doesnt know what is he/she talking about and only engages in name calling without actually answering any of the points I made,
    I clearly stated that I support Iranian involvement in both Syria and Yemen ( to what ever extent it exists or used to exist) exactly because I think its in Iran's as well as the former countries interest,
    what I hate is the double standard of the Islamic republic in supporting these groups externally while oppressing very similar faiths and denominations internally.
    Also yes there is no Alevis in Yemen and actually not many in Syria the one's in Syria are called Alawites and the houthi's in Yemen are Zaidi Shias, to see how any of these groups would have been treated if they had been in Iran just look at the Islamic republic's treatment of any non twelver denomination,
    B Logical , Jan 3, 2018 6:17:14 AM | 82
    Again, humble apologies to b for my having believed that the Q "Storm" phenomenon was Trump fighting the deep state starting with the purge in S.A. Apparently the Iran regime change nonsense is his "Storm".
    BB8 , Jan 3, 2018 6:28:32 AM | 83
    Fellow Iranian here. I can not agree at least with half of what @Ariobarzan is talking about. To me it seems he just want to highlight the points that is important for him or his opposition! yet forgets to mentions where is the source of all these issues and corruptions !
    But hey my 2cents, do you know what was/is the difference between Iran under Pahlavi and nowadays Iran? both of them are same shit, dictatorship in different ways! the only difference was under Pahlavi there was no sanctions! there was no demonising, Iran was part of hegemony! Now its not, so it has to pay for being against it and not part of it!
    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 6:45:06 AM | 84
    Posted by: BB8 | Jan 3, 2018 6:28:32 AM | 83

    I guess Iran would have (had) to pay either way - being part of hegemony or being against it. Look at Pakistan - which used to be part of hegemony. Or look at Turkey - which used to be part of hegemony.

    ArioBarzan , Jan 3, 2018 6:47:01 AM | 85
    @BB8
    Can you please tell me which points dont you agree with,
    also im not sure if I understand you correctly but are you claiming that the reason for internal corruption and oppression pointed out is the sanctions and demonising ?
    Not that I agree with sanctions and demonisation, not only they cause many problems for the Iranian people but also they are used as a tool by the regime to justify the internal oppression,
    As we say in Iran we are stuck between چکش و سندان or the rock and a hard place in english.
    BB8 , Jan 3, 2018 7:17:33 AM | 86
    @Ariobarzan
    As I said I did no agree with what you said earlier just because I can easily smell "Saltanat Talab" out of it! Using words like Shiite ISIS, like seriously? or mentioning someone like Sepahsalar Tonekaboni can clearly show from what opposition you are talking!

    I do however agree with the fact the we should be allowed to protest and ask for changing ask for reforming but don't fool yourself for a moment if you think any change in Iran will lead to transferring power to peoples hand. Though I think you know changing regime in Iran will transfer power to whom.

    And if you want to know more how I do not agree with you just read @Jen @Ian @harry @Peter AU 1's posts and the others, I do agree with them!

    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 7:31:22 AM | 87
    Anyway, the Islamist revolution seems to be over: It is back to nationalism now .
    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 7:34:53 AM | 88
    add to 87
    Link is meant to go to the images of this tweet
    https://twitter.com/SaeedKD/status/948467527931351040
    ArioBarzan , Jan 3, 2018 7:40:10 AM | 89
    @BB8 86
    Again the name calling ! Im not "Saltant Talab" or monarchist and I only mentioned SepahSalar Tonekaboni within the context of the Constitutional revolution and also mentioned Sardar Assad Bakhtiari who was murdered by the monarchy later on,
    Im sure if I was a Monarchist and wanted to come up with an example I could have came up with someone much more recent than Tonekaboni...
    Anyways whether Im a monarchist or not shouldn't even matter; Attacking the messenger rather than the message is clear logical fallacy, Answer the points I have made non of the people you mentioned (besides @peter au to some extent) has even engaged with what ive said,
    Dont attack me based on who you assume I am, You dont know who am I and I dont know who you are,
    yes I do refer to the " Gorooh Feshars " and the Mesbah types as Shia ISIS, Not all of the Iranian Regime.
    Thanks
    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 7:45:02 AM | 90
    This French - Iranian phone call must have been awkward and there are different versions.
    On the sixth day of protests that have cost 21 lives, according to official figures, Macron told Rouhani that he was worried about the number of victims and insisted that "fundamental liberties, especially freedom of expression and demonstration, must be respected".

    He called on Rouhani to exercise "restraint and appeasement".
    ...
    Iranian state television reported that Rouhani called on Macron to take action against the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an exiled opposition group that is currently based in Auvers-sur-Oise, north of Paris.

    The Iranian government describes the organisation as a "terrorist group" and it was on the European Union's terrorist list until 2009.

    Tehran claims that it has stirred up the current demonstrations on the orders of Saudi Arabia and "certain European countries".
    ...
    French companies have increased trade with Iran since the lifting of sanctions over its nuclear programme, although US President Donald Trump has threatened to pull out of the deal.

    Loyal , Jan 3, 2018 8:03:52 AM | 91
    As expected this new so called revolution was faded out quick. US, Israel, Saudi and their lackeys Monarchist & MKO . failed again.
    This was not the first nor the last violent attempt but they will fail every time against IRI.
    dadooronron , Jan 3, 2018 8:22:26 AM | 92
    Laguerre wrote: "As I understand it Rouhani tried to cut subsidies or convert subsidies to charity for the poor. That would endanger the subsistence of a lot of people and be reason enough to demonstrate. It is also the type of neoliberal remedy investors love."

    I agree. Most of the commentators here are not giving much weight to economic issues. And, I see no one referring to the leak of the budget by Rouhani, a leak that shows religious institutions getting fat while subsidies are being cut and youth unemployment is above 35%. It's a certainty that Iran's external enemies are trying to fan the flames, but the regime has created plenty of embers. Sure, check out the satellite photos of demos, but also take a look at the leaked budget.

    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 8:22:33 AM | 93
    91 - They are pretty good. German radio at present describes today's demonstration as "in support of the conservative clerical rule". Judging from the photos above (88) they did not fall into this trap.
    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 10:43:45 AM | 94
    Posted by: dadooronron | Jan 3, 2018 8:22:26 AM | 92

    I think we got the plot of this tragicomedy now.

    1. Rouhani publishes the budget to highlight large unaccounted spending on the religious institutions of his opponents.

    2. His opponents fight back by highlighting the cut of subsidies and handouts making the poor depend on charity.

    3. Iranians get upsite sharing their discontent via Telegram messenger.

    4. Telegram's Dubai developers hand the data over to a secret service center used for coordinating the enemies of Iran. The latest highly sophisticated software used to evaluate the mood of populations declares the situation to be revolutionary. Population centers where most dissatisfaction is registered are identified. For some reason these centers are in the provinces.

    5. Popular Iranian messenger channels inform people in the localities identified on simultaneous dates for demonstrations.

    6. MEK and Royalist networks activate their sleeper cells to be there.

    7. Somewhere in Tehran a counterinsurgency center with similar software to the one used in Dubai evaluates what is going on in the notoriously unsafe Telegram messenger. Iranian secret service cannot believe their luck - the enemy does a sting operation for them.

    5. The Iranian Islamic Department for Soft Warfare (IIDSW) begins to plan the look and feel of the final unity demonstrations.

    kooshy , Jan 3, 2018 10:45:00 AM | 95
    ArioBar(HAM)zan: "yes I do refer to the " Gorooh Feshars " and the Mesbah types as Shia ISIS, Not all of the Iranian Regime.'

    Iranian Regime? sounds like US' UN Nikki Babe' label for governments she/Israel doesn't like . don't you think so? IMO, Ziocan hasbra didn't get far this time,

    ninel , Jan 3, 2018 10:59:53 AM | 96
    @ BB8 83

    There are things the IRI could do to improve its image inside and outside the country. Do you take any position regarding the following issues:

    a) child marriages

    According to the Islamic Republic civil code, the legal age of marriage in Iran is 13 for girls and 15 for boys. UNICEF estimates approximately 17% of girls in Iran are married before the age of 18. The population is close to 80 million, do the math (!) The IRI does not keep proper records of child marriages inside the country. But in 2012, the Iranian Parliament sought to lower girl's legal marriage age to 9. See Vivian Tsai's 'Child bride practice rising in Iran'.

    b) torture, executions and public hangings

    c) bonyads are religious charitable trusts in Iran that receive billions of dollars. Rouhani who has been trying to improve the economy, create jobs and allocate proper funds to various sectors, recently disclosed details of the new budget, in particular the allocation of billions of dollars of funds to bonyads, as a way to provoke popular resentment, which worked as many Iranians were outraged

    d) repression of trade unions and of the right to organize, to collectively bargain and to strike.

    e) compulsory dress code for women (and men)

    f) corruption and mismanagement

    g) prohibition of alcohol

    By addressing these issues, which I don't think would threaten the IRI in any fundamental way, other than perhaps ideologically or financially in the case of corruption, the government would help protect itself from criticisms and threats, both from within and outside of the country. Can you think of any good reason why the IRI doesn't 'update' its laws?


    @ Ariobarzan 85 wrote in response to BB8:

    "but are you claiming that the reason for internal corruption and oppression pointed out is the sanctions and demonising ? Not that I agree with sanctions and demonisation, not only they cause many problems for the Iranian people but also they are used as a tool by the regime to justify the internal oppression,"

    Yes, I wholeheartedly agree and I have heard the same from many Iranians. The excuses must end. Even Rouhani and other government officials have sought to address the issue of corruption!

    In Iran, there was a great revolutionary figure who mysteriously died in 1979, he was more popular than Khomeini, and in fact helped promote Khomeini's image in the country when the latter was living in exile by copying recorded tapes of his lectures and distributing them to his countrymen. This man spent over a decade in prison and was even tortured by SAVAK agent. He was called the Red Mullah because of his association with various socialist groups in Iran back in the 60s and 70s. He even wrote a piece on private property in Islam. This man's name was Ayatollah Taleqani, who has much respect in the country, even among the non-religious. There is a famous story of him which I would like to share: immediately after the revolution, when many Islamic revolutionaries had rushed into government buildings and in Parliament with the intention of occupying and securing for themselves seats in the newly established government, Taleqani who feared that a new dictatorship would replace the old one, famously did not take a seat in the parliament building, instead he sat on the floor, in protest at what he perceived to be a lust for power and corruption. He warned against a 'return to despotism' decades before. Here is the picture:

    https://www.isna.ir/news/95061812117/%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%84-%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF


    Noirette , Jan 3, 2018 11:15:23 AM | 97
    Leaving Syria aside for now and going for the greatest contrast, Ukraine, the 'color' revolution 'Maidan' - with the snipers / deaths, worked because of many particular local conditions. Note is was a *second* attempt after the Orange Revolution, 2004-5, which fizzled out, with Yanukovitch, Party of Regions, elected.

    The Ukr. 'opposition' gathered all kinds of 'refusniks' together: the strongest were the Nazis, they were joined by deluded or 'paid' young ppl, ppl from the countryside, political opponents, splinter interests, etc.

    In a country that traditionally is, was split in two, supposedly ethnically - culturally/linguistically - (pale distinctions, basically, the Donbass is the stronghold of the uncivilized, thugs, Russia lovers, etc.) and rife with internal strife. Already losing population - suitcase protest - since the middle 90's, from 52 m down to maybe less than 45 m. today. With a super-weak totally oligarchic Gvmt. In Ukraine, the ugly dark murderous chaos might be wonderful from a US pov, heh yet oohlaa Crimea was lost to Russia.

    None of these detrimental and negative characteristics (one could add many others) apply to Iran.

    Nothing will happen. These manifestations of 'protests' engineered by various and blown up by the MSM are like the application of a tired, outdated script, the last dance, the small eruptions that finally fizzle or bubble out.

    I hope I'm right.

    John , Jan 3, 2018 11:46:19 AM | 98
    It would seem that the Trump administration and its allies in deep state are exporting Fake News and rent a mobs. Are these exports increasing our GDP, Pres Trump?

    Why don't you just get busy on your pledged agenda like cleaning the stinkin swamp, re-building infrastructure and creating term limits in congress?

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

    Shakesvshav , Jan 3, 2018 11:48:42 AM | 99
    Thanks to ninel for his cogent account of the odiousness of the regime. Ludicrous to describe such a commenter as a troll.
    somebody , Jan 3, 2018 11:49:55 AM | 100
    97
    The rift in the elites seems to be serious enough if you believe the Guardian .
    The president, who increased his mandate by 5m votes when he won his second term, fired back this week by saying that the political legitimacy of a religious leader is determined by the "people's will and invitation" – comments that supporters of Khamenei, whose position as supreme leader is a lifelong appointment, have received with disdain.

    Clerics sympathetic to Khamenei argue that the legitimacy of the leader, or the rule of the Islamic jurist (Velayat-e-Faghih) is divine.

    This here is the Financial Times - Iran cracks down on Revolutionary Guards business network

    Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps is being forced to shrink its sprawling business empire and some of its senior members have been arrested as part of President Hassan Rouhani's attempts to curb the elite force's role in the economy.

    [Jan 03, 2018] Shocking Trump-Russia Investigation Corruption Exposed

    YouTube video. Highly recommended.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society. ..."
    Jan 03, 2018 | www.youtube.com

    Jeiku Anime Review , 4 weeks ago

    We are at war, a war for our minds.

    RoseThistleArtworks , 4 weeks ago

    Thank you for this detailed analysis and breakdown.

    jerrywh3 , 4 weeks ago

    Never doubted for a moment that Trump wasn't involved with Russia.

    Sam Nel , 4 weeks ago

    Trump is innocent

    Saint Michael , 4 weeks ago

    When does this fictitious investigation become treason?

    Fun fun times oh boy , 4 weeks ago

    Reading the news feels like I'm living in an alternate reality gone wrong

    Lexi Rae , 4 weeks ago

    It's great that The Deep State's attempted coup against Trump has (thus far) failed... BUT, given all the serious crimes that The Left has been caught red-handed involved in, and the complete lack of legal repercussions that have resulted, I'm losing faith in our ability to mend the American justice OR political systems :/

    JFBalz , 4 weeks ago

    Tell me this Agent investigated the Seth Rich murder too...

    Alanna Peebles , 4 weeks ago (edited)

    Glad you are covering this.

    jonnbravo119806 , 4 weeks ago

    All these witch hunts have done, is continue to exonerate Trump, and expose crimes, and corruption from the deep stare, MSM, DNC, Clintons, and Obama. As well as further discredit our intelligence agencies, and destroy what little faith the people had in them.

    Jade Lee , 4 weeks ago

    Double standards abound

    Anj Kovo , 4 weeks ago

    All this debacle, constantly demonizing Trump is the Dems way of hiding there own corruption. Smoke & mirrors. The Dems remind me of an Ouroboros like creature eating its own tail but destroying itself

    Papinoo 11 , 4 weeks ago

    Very nice. I enjoy your shorter vids more. The long stuff is quite an ear full. Still love all your work.

    Joe Wayne , 4 weeks ago

    Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society.

    [Jan 03, 2018] When Putin Talks on Ukraine, It Is Worth Listening

    Notable quotes:
    "... Originally from: ..."
    "... Ukraine. Putin's remarks on the state of affairs in Ukraine are, of course, wholly at odds with what Washington puts out on the subject. But they are not at odds with reality: Washington is. ..."
    "... Those terms remain Putin's point of reference. They appear to remain the European Union's, too. Washington, which the Europeans and Russia excluded from the Minsk talks for the wisest of reasons, does not seem to have a point of reference, busy as it is pretending there is progress on the corruption front and that Kiev is not dependent on a frightening collection of militias, many of them led by neo–Nazi fanatics. ..."
    "... These groups still present the threat of a massacre in the eastern provinces, as Putin reminded his audience. He spoke with notable ease of Russian assistance in those regions, suggesting this can end when they are capable of self-defense. ..."
    Jan 03, 2018 | russia-insider.com
    Originally from: When Putin Talks, It Is Worth Listening

    Ukraine. Putin's remarks on the state of affairs in Ukraine are, of course, wholly at odds with what Washington puts out on the subject. But they are not at odds with reality: Washington is. As Putin calmly noted, the number-one obstacle to a settlement in Ukraine is, as it has been for three years come next February, the profoundly corrupt government installed in Kiev after the American-cultivated coup in 2014.

    I say three years next February because it was then the settlement framework known as Minsk II (for the city where it was negotiated and signed) was put in place.

    Those terms remain Putin's point of reference. They appear to remain the European Union's, too. Washington, which the Europeans and Russia excluded from the Minsk talks for the wisest of reasons, does not seem to have a point of reference, busy as it is pretending there is progress on the corruption front and that Kiev is not dependent on a frightening collection of militias, many of them led by neo–Nazi fanatics.

    These groups still present the threat of a massacre in the eastern provinces, as Putin reminded his audience. He spoke with notable ease of Russian assistance in those regions, suggesting this can end when they are capable of self-defense.

    We would do well to understand where the force of inertia lies in Ukraine. This was Putin's topic. A settlement in Ukraine remains possible via the framework fixed three years ago. Let us not forget this. Moscow has not deviated from Minsk II -- another point worth noting. The spoilers are in Kiev, and behind them are those in Washington, which continues to encourage the irresponsible behavior of the Poroshenko government and other Ukrainian elites.

    [Jan 02, 2018] Haley and the Trump Administration's Contempt for Diplomacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy. She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd, deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted. ..."
    "... Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force.. ..."
    "... I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way"? ..."
    Jan 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Our ambassador to the U.N. doesn't understand anything about diplomacy:

    Nikki Haley on reports South Korea is proposing talks with North Korea: "We will not take any of the talk seriously if they don't do something to ban all nuclear weapons in North Korea." https://t.co/RaGT9E3dRt pic.twitter.com/pVyCc9VxzD

    -- CBS News (@CBSNews) January 2, 2018

    Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy. She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd, deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted.

    There is no more obvious non-starter than demanding that the other side surrender before negotiations even begin. By dismissing all talks that precede denuclearization, Haley is restating the administration's complete refusal to compromise and its utter contempt for diplomacy as a tool of statecraft. It is an exceptionally obtuse and unreasonable position to take when there is an opportunity to open negotiations with Pyongyang, and I expect that our regional allies will be as baffled as they are disturbed by it.

    Christian Chuba January 2, 2018 at 4:08 pm

    This is standard operating procedure as far as the U.S. goes.

    1. 2008 – U.S. insists that Iran has to dismantle their entire nuclear infrastructure as a precondition of 'negotiations'. HRC cackles that the additional sanctions she put in place 'brought Iran back to the negotiating table'. Obama, to his credit, accepts Iran's original claim to their right to enrich uranium to produce their own fuel but the myth that sanctions brought 'them' to the negotiating table lives on.

    2. The U.S. torpedoes Geneva peace plan in 2012 (Obama's bad moment) by making it a requirement that Assad (and his cronies) have to resign and be barred from new elections in Syria. End result, civil war continues for another 5yrs, Saudi backed rebels are still demanding that Assad has to step down even after getting whipped on the battlefield.

    So as bad as Nikki Haley is, sadly, she is not uncommon but rather she is the pinnacle of what passes in the U.S. for diplomacy.

    Dee , says: January 2, 2018 at 4:17 pm
    Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force..

    Like most everyone still involved with trump at this point, they are trying to maximize whatever window they have to benefit themselves..

    After citizens united they just might get away with it, but they have no feelings of responsibility to our country, IMO..

    Just Dropping By , says: January 2, 2018 at 4:28 pm
    I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way"?
    Lane Reeder , says: January 2, 2018 at 4:55 pm
    Maybe South Korea will take its rightful place and carry out its own policy toward North Korea. Then the Trump administration will get angry and threaten to pull out all of our troops. South Korea will be courageous and continue its own policy. Then our troops will leave. The best result for South Korea and North Korea. And best for us, since we will no longer be wasting time and money there, as well as placing our troops in danger for no valid purpose.
    Lefty , says: January 2, 2018 at 5:02 pm
    Trump and Haley don't give a damn about our allies. All they care about are the yahoos whooping it up whenever they bully anyone else.
    Disgusting.

    [Jan 02, 2018] We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

    Jan 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Wizard of Oz , July 11, 2017 at 11:50 am GMT

    @Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

    So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

    To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

    Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

    Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

    The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

    We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

    B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?

    Replies:

    @Sowhat

    https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/former-nist-employee-speaks-out-on-wtc-investigation/

    @NoseytheDuke

    A better question: Have YOU read The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?

    [Jan 02, 2018] There is no doubt that US will escalate existing wars as well as start new ones in 2018

    Jan 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

    Kiza , December 30, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT

    There is no doubt that US will escalate existing wars as well as start new ones in 2018, Trump is a nothingburger for the MIC (to make a caricature of the cliche). But I have said the following before and just repeating it now – the race is on between the collapse of the US-driven financial system and a big kahuna of the global nuclear war. Either US finances will collapse or the US will do the big damage to this planet. Whether the financial collapse will be initiated by the replacement of US petro dollar with petro Yuan or some other synthetic currency, or by an attack on NK or even worse Iran, it is hard to say. Rigging All of the Markets will eventually come to an end and hopefully the cowards commanded to launch the missiles will instead rush home to take care of their families.

    If you do not know already how rotten the US system is, read that the Federal employee who mowes the grass of the White House lawn earns almost $142,000 per year:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-27/1mm-minute-salaries-22bn-year-vacation-pay-and-other-fun-facts-about-federal-workfor

    [Jan 02, 2018] The NYT's latest Russiagate story on George Papadopoulos is not believable. Here's why

    "We have a triumvirate of the Democratic Party, New York Times, and FBI, that perfectly parallels their predecessors: the Communist Party, Pravda, and KGB." January 4, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
    "Why was it felt necessary for a DNC-linked "journalist", in a politically-biased "newspaper", to obfuscate the rather obvious fact that the Fusion GPS "dossier"was the pretext for the FBI investigation? "
    Notable quotes:
    "... This information has clearly been published in order to counter the increasingly widely circulating claim that it was the Trump Dossier which triggered the Russiagate investigation. ..."
    Jan 02, 2018 | theduran.com

    Of much more interest is the new information which has been published about George Papadopoulos. The information appears in an article in the New York Times which reads in part as follows

    During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia's top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

    Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online , Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians' role.

    This information has clearly been published in order to counter the increasingly widely circulating claim that it was the Trump Dossier which triggered the Russiagate investigation.

    [Jan 02, 2018] Meet Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Secret Source In Trump Probe – The Forward

    Notable quotes:
    "... Contact Nathan Guttman at [email protected] or on Twitter, @nathanguttman ..."
    Mar 30, 2017 | forward.com

    Who is Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the 30-year-old White House aide who could be a key player in the blockbuster investigation into Russian ties to President Trump and his campaign?

    Cohen-Watnick, 30, who The New York Times reports provided key information in the probe, is a once fast-rising protege of ousted Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn with deep roots in suburban Washington's Jewish community.

    The paper identified him as one of two staffers who explosively gave information on intelligence gathering in the Russia probe to Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a move that potentially compromised the lawmaker's role in the bombshell probe.

    Cohen-Watnick grew up in Chevy Chase, Maryland, just outside the nation's capital, and attended the nearby Conservative synagogue Ohr Kodesh. Last November he celebrated his engagement to Rebecca Miller at the synagogue.

    He attended the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in 2008. Cohen-Watnick began working as an intelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency after college. At the DIA, Cohen-Watnick met Flynn, the then-director who was later removed from his position during the Obama administration.

    After Trump won the November election, Flynn brought Cohen-Watnick from the DIA to the Trump transition team, where the young staffer, according to The Washington Post, was among the few Trump advisers to hold a top security clearance. He participated in high-level intelligence briefings and briefed Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and their team on national security issues.

    When Flynn was appointed to lead the National Security Council, he hired Cohen-Watnick to work with him there. But Flynn served as national security adviser for less than a month before being asked to leave following revelations that he had maintained ties with Russia during the campaign.

    Flynn's successor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, sought to remove Cohen-Watnick from the team, following input from the CIA director who pointed to problems intelligence officers had when dealing with Cohen-Watnick. Questions were raised about his ability to carry out the position of senior NSC director for intelligence programs, who oversees ties with intelligence agencies and vets information that should reach the president's desk.

    But Cohen-Watnick was spared when Trump personally intervened, reportedly after top White House aides Sphen Bannon and Jared Kushner stepped in. Cohen-Watnick still serves as senior director at the NSC.

    Cohen-Watnick is known for holding hawkish views on national security issues and of being a proponent of an American tough line toward Iran.

    The Times said that Cohen-Watnick became swept up in the Russia probe this month, shortly after Trump wrote on Twitter about unsubstantiated claims of being wiretapped on the orders of the former president Barack Obama.

    Cohen-Watnick apparently was reviewing highly classified reports detailing the intercepted communications of foreign officials that consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were trying to curry favor with Trump's family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration. He and another aide, identified as Michael Ellis, came across information that Trump aides may have been inadvertently caught on some of the surveillance.

    Nunes says he went to the White House to meet with the aides, whom he has refused to identify. Nunes would not share the information with his colleagues on the committee but did brief Trump, raising major questions about his independence.

    Contact Nathan Guttman at [email protected] or on Twitter, @nathanguttman

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Deep State's War on Ezra Cohen-Watnick by Daniel Greenfield

    Notable quotes:
    "... In totalitarian systems where the media does nothing but churn out propaganda, people learn to read between the lines. You understand what is really going on by inferring what they don't want you to know from what they do what you to know. ..."
    "... Why would you not believe "unnamed officials"? But what we are seeing very obviously is some of the shape and texture of the war based on who is being targeted and why. While those doing the targeting are "unnamed", their targets are named. And that tells us also about those doing the targeting. ..."
    Mar 31, 2017 | www.frontpagemag.com
    In totalitarian systems where the media does nothing but churn out propaganda, people learn to read between the lines. You understand what is really going on by inferring what they don't want you to know from what they do what you to know.

    The interesting thing about the current political conflict is which key anti-terrorist Trump figures are being targeted. Flynn was a major target. Then Gorka. The case of Gorka made the targeting obvious. You can tell the targeting when if the first attack fails, they come back with a second one.

    Now there's Ezra Watnick-Cohen. He showed up in the news recently when McMaster attempted to replace him with an establishment infiltrator.

    President Donald Trump has overruled a decision by his national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, to sideline a key intelligence operative who fell out of favor with some at the Central Intelligence Agency, two sources told POLITICO.

    On Friday, McMaster told the National Security Council's senior director for intelligence programs, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, that he would be moved to another position in the organization.

    The conversation followed weeks of pressure from career officials at the CIA who had expressed reservations about the 30-year-old intelligence operative and pushed for his ouster.

    But Cohen-Watnick appealed McMaster's decision to two influential allies with whom he had forged a relationship while working on Trump's transition team -- White House advisers Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner. They brought the matter to Trump on Sunday, and the president agreed that Cohen-Watnick should remain as the NSC's intelligence director, according to two people with knowledge of the episode.

    Cohen-Watnick was brought onto Trump's transition team and then the NSC by a leading critic of the CIA: retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was Cohen-Watnick's boss at the Defense Intelligence Agency and preceded McMaster as national security adviser.

    Cohen-Watnick and Flynn "saw eye to eye about the failings of the CIA human intelligence operations," said a Washington consultant who travels in intelligence circles. "The CIA saw him as a threat, so they tried to unseat him and replace him with an agency loyalist," the operative said.

    Specifically they tried to replace Cohen-Watnick with a woman at the center of the Benghazi mess.

    Two sources within the White House tell me that last week McMaster had interviewed a potential replacement for Cohen-Watnick: longtime CIA official Linda Weissgold. Weissgold apparently had a good interview with McMaster, as she was overheard saying as she left the White House she would next have to "talk to Pompeo" -- as in Mike Pompeo, the director of the CIA. But Weissgold was never offered the job; days later, Trump himself overruled the effort to move Cohen-Watnick out of his senior director role.

    During the Obama administration Weissgold served as director of the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis. She was among those who briefed Congress following the Benghazi terrorist attack in 2012, a team of intelligence and military experts who reportedly earned the nickname "the dream team" within the administration.

    In her position at OTA, she was also involved directly in drafting the now infamous Benghazi talking points, which government officials revised heavily to include factually incorrect assessments that stated the attackers were prompted by protests. According to the House Select Committee on Benghazi's report, Weissgold testified she had changed one such talking point to say that extremists in Benghazi with ties to al Qaeda had been involved in "protests" in the Libyan city, despite the fact that no such protests had occurred there on the day of the attack.

    McMaster's interview of Weissgold last week raised eyebrows beyond the White House, with members of the congressional oversight committees expressing concerns about Weissgold to top officials in the White House and the intelligence community.

    If at first you don't succeed, try again. Now Ezra Watnick-Cohen is at the center of the latest manufactured scandal.

    A Jewish security official has been named as the confidential source of House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) following claims that US President Donald Trump and his aides were swept up in surveillance by US intelligence agencies, The New York Times revealed Thursday.

    Citing unnamed US officials, the Times identified the White House official as "Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council."

    Why would you not believe "unnamed officials"? But what we are seeing very obviously is some of the shape and texture of the war based on who is being targeted and why. While those doing the targeting are "unnamed", their targets are named. And that tells us also about those doing the targeting. Any enemy action reveals something about the enemy, his motives, his nature and his goals. That is how wars of this kind must be understood.

    [Jan 02, 2018] False flag attacks using sharpshooters as a standard instrument of color revolutions

    Notable quotes:
    "... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
    "... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
    "... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
    "... "'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.' ..."
    "... opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. ..."
    "... For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't." ..."
    "... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
    Jan 02, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Gen Dau , , May 8, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.

    Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down.

    Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.

    There have even been allegations that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.

    Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. In the case of Syria:

    "Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs . His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:

    "'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'

    "In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. '"

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011/

    For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't."

    https://gowans.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/the-revolutionary-distemper-in-syria-that-wasnt/

    Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet. ..."
    "... Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers. ..."
    "... Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy. Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist groups, while acts of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts. ..."
    "... For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and eventually recycled. ..."
    "... Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign promised. ..."
    "... This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to overthrowing governments. ..."
    "... It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its profit calculation. ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. ..."
    Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    What makes a Harvey Weinstein moment? The now-disgraced Hollywood mogul is hardly the first powerful man to stand accused of having abused women. The Harveys who preceded Harvey himself are legion, their prominence matching or exceeding his own and the misdeeds with which they were charged at least as reprehensible.

    In the relatively recent past, a roster of prominent offenders would include Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and, of course, Donald Trump. Throw in various jocks, maestros, senior military officers, members of the professoriate and you end up with quite a list. Yet in virtually all such cases, the alleged transgressions were treated as instances of individual misconduct, egregious perhaps but possessing at best transitory political resonance.

    All that, though, was pre-Harvey. As far as male sexual hijinks are concerned, we might compare Weinstein's epic fall from grace to the stock market crash of 1929: one week it's the anything-goes Roaring Twenties, the next we're smack dab in a Great Depression.

    How profound is the change? Up here in Massachusetts where I live, we've spent the past year marking John F. Kennedy's 100th birthday. If Kennedy were still around to join in the festivities, it would be as a Class A sex offender. Rarely in American history has the cultural landscape shifted so quickly or so radically.

    In our post-Harvey world, men charged with sexual misconduct are guilty until proven innocent, all crimes are capital offenses, and there exists no statute of limitations. Once a largely empty corporate slogan, "zero tolerance" has become a battle cry.

    All of this serves as a reminder that, on some matters at least, the American people retain an admirable capacity for outrage. We can distinguish between the tolerable and the intolerable. And we can demand accountability of powerful individuals and institutions.

    Everything They Need to Win (Again!)

    What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet.

    In no way would I wish to minimize the pain, suffering, and humiliation of the women preyed upon by the various reprobates now getting their belated comeuppance. But to judge from published accounts, the women (and in some cases, men) abused by Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mark Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison Keillor, my West Point classmate Judge Roy Moore, and their compadres at least managed to survive their encounters. None of the perpetrators are charged with having committed murder. No one died.

    Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers.

    Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy. Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist groups, while acts of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts.

    It discomfits me to reiterate this mournful litany of truths. I feel a bit like the doctor telling the lifelong smoker with stage-four lung cancer that an addiction to cigarettes is adversely affecting his health. His mute response: I know and I don't care. Nothing the doc says is going to budge the smoker from his habit. You go through the motions, but wonder why.

    In a similar fashion, war has become a habit to which the United States is addicted. Except for the terminally distracted, most of us know that. We also know -- we cannot not know -- that, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. forces have been unable to accomplish their assigned mission, despite more than 16 years of fighting in the former and more than a decade in the latter.

    It's not exactly a good news story, to put it mildly. So forgive me for saying it ( yet again ), but most of us simply don't care, which means that we continue to allow a free hand to those who preside over those wars, while treating with respect the views of pundits and media personalities who persist in promoting them. What's past doesn't count; we prefer to sustain the pretense that tomorrow is pregnant with possibilities. Victory lies just around the corner.

    By way of example, consider a recent article in U.S. News and World Report. The headline: "Victory or Failure in Afghanistan: 2018 Will Be the Deciding Year." The title suggests a balance absent from the text that follows, which reads like a Pentagon press release. Here in its entirety is the nut graf (my own emphasis added):

    "Armed with a new strategy and renewed support from old allies, the Trump administration now believes it has everything it needs to win the war in Afghanistan. Top military advisers all the way up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis say they can accomplish what two previous administrations and multiple troop surges could not: the defeat of the Taliban by Western-backed local forces, a negotiated peace and the establishment of a popularly supported government in Kabul capable of keeping the country from once again becoming a haven to any terrorist group."

    Now if you buy this, you'll believe that Harvey Weinstein has learned his lesson and can be trusted to interview young actresses while wearing his bathrobe.

    For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and eventually recycled.

    Short of using nuclear weapons, U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan over the past decade and a half have experimented with just about every approach imaginable: invasion, regime change, occupation, nation-building, pacification, decapitation, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency, not to mention various surges , differing in scope and duration. We have had a big troop presence and a smaller one, more bombing and less, restrictive rules of engagement and permissive ones. In the military equivalent of throwing in the kitchen sink, a U.S. Special Operations Command four-engine prop plane recently deposited the largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal on a cave complex in eastern Afghanistan. Although that MOAB made a big boom, no offer of enemy surrender materialized.

    $65 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. And under the circumstances, consider that a mere down payment.

    According to General John Nicholson, our 17th commander in Kabul since 2001, the efforts devised and implemented by his many predecessors have resulted in a "stalemate" -- a generous interpretation given that the Taliban presently controls more territory than it has held since the U.S. invasion. Officers no less capable than Nicholson himself, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal among them, didn't get it done. Nicholson's argument: trust me.

    In essence, the "new strategy" devised by Trump's generals, Secretary of Defense Mattis and Nicholson among them, amounts to this: persist a tad longer with a tad more. A modest uptick in the number of U.S. and allied troops on the ground will provide more trainers, advisers, and motivators to work with and accompany their Afghan counterparts in the field. The Mattis/Nicholson plan also envisions an increasing number of air strikes, signaled by the recent use of B-52s to attack illicit Taliban " drug labs ," a scenario that Stanley Kubrick himself would have been hard-pressed to imagine.

    Notwithstanding the novelty of using strategic bombers to destroy mud huts, there's not a lot new here. Dating back to 2001, coalition forces have already dropped tens of thousands of bombs in Afghanistan. Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts to create effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the production of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency, alas with essentially no effect whatsoever . What Trump's generals want a gullible public (and astonishingly gullible and inattentive members of Congress) to believe is that this time they've somehow devised a formula for getting it right.

    Turning the Corner

    With his trademark capacity to intuit success, President Trump already sees clear evidence of progress. "We're not fighting anymore to just walk around," he remarked in his Thanksgiving message to the troops. "We're fighting to win. And you people [have] turned it around over the last three to four months like nobody has seen." The president, we may note, has yet to visit Afghanistan.

    I'm guessing that the commander-in-chief is oblivious to the fact that, in U.S. military circles, the term winning has acquired notable elasticity. Trump may think that it implies vanquishing the enemy -- white flags and surrender ceremonies on the U.S.S. Missouri . General Nicholson knows better. "Winning," the field commander says , "means delivering a negotiated settlement that reduces the level of violence and protecting the homeland." (Take that definition at face value and we can belatedly move Vietnam into the win column!)

    Should we be surprised that Trump's generals, unconsciously imitating General William Westmoreland a half-century ago, claim once again to detect light at the end of the tunnel? Not at all. Mattis and Nicholson (along with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster) are following the Harvey Weinstein playbook: keep doing it until they make you stop. Indeed, with what can only be described as chutzpah, Nicholson himself recently announced that we have " turned the corner " in Afghanistan. In doing so, of course, he is counting on Americans not to recall the various war managers, military and civilian alike, who have made identical claims going back years now, among them Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012 .

    From on high, assurances of progress; in the field, results that, year after year, come nowhere near what's promised; on the homefront, an astonishingly credulous public. The war in Afghanistan has long since settled into a melancholy and seemingly permanent rhythm.

    The fact is that the individuals entrusted by President Trump to direct U.S. policy believe with iron certainty that difficult political problems will yield to armed might properly employed. That proposition is one to which generals like Mattis and Nicholson have devoted a considerable part of their lives, not just in Afghanistan but across much of the Islamic world. They are no more likely to question the validity of that proposition than the Pope is to entertain second thoughts about the divinity of Jesus Christ.

    In Afghanistan, their entire worldview -- not to mention the status and clout of the officer corps they represent -- is at stake. No matter how long the war there lasts, no matter how many " generations " it takes, no matter how much blood is shed to no purpose, and no matter how much money is wasted, they will never admit to failure -- nor will any of the militarists-in-mufti cheering them on from the sidelines in Washington, Donald Trump not the least among them.

    Meanwhile, the great majority of the American people, their attention directed elsewhere -- it's the season for holiday shopping, after all -- remain studiously indifferent to the charade being played out before their eyes.

    It took a succession of high-profile scandals before Americans truly woke up to the plague of sexual harassment and assault. How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that don't work? Here's hoping it's before our president, in a moment of ill temper, unleashes " fire and fury " on the world.

    Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author, most recently, of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History .

    anonymous , Disclaimer December 11, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT

    It's astonishing to see people make the claim that "victory" is possible in Afghanistan. Could they actually believe this or are they lying in order to drag this out even longer and keep the money pit working overtime? These are individuals that are highly placed and so should know better. It's not really a war but an occupation with the native insurgents fighting to oust the foreign occupier. The US has tried every trick there is in trying to tamp down the insurgency. They know what we're trying to do and can thwart us at every step. The US lost even as it began it's invasion there but didn't know it yet in the wake of it's initial success in scattering the Taliban, not even a real army and not even a real state. They live there and we don't; they can resist for the next thirty years or fifty years. When does the multi-billion bill come due and how will we pay it?
    Issac , December 12, 2017 at 4:07 am GMT
    "How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that don't work?"

    It already happened, but Progressives like you failed to note that Republican voters subbed the Bush clan and their various associates for Trump in the Primary season, precisely because he called the Iraq and Afghan wars mistakes. The Americans suffer under a two party establishment that is clearly antagonistic to their interests. As a part of that regime, a dutiful Progressive toad, you continue to peddle the lie that it was the war-weary White Americans who celebrated those wars. In reality, any such support was ginned up from tools like you who wrote puff pieces for their Neocon Progressive masters.

    Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign promised. Might you count that among your lucky stars? Fat chance. You cretinous Progressive filth have no such spine upon which to base an independent thought. You trot out the same old tiresome tropes week after week fulfilling your designated propagandist duty and then you skulk back to your den of iniquity to prepare another salvo of agitprop. What a miserable existence.

    USAMNESIA , December 14, 2017 at 3:32 am GMT
    This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to overthrowing governments.

    Obama ended up killing more people than any dictator or demagogue of this generation on earth you care to name, several hundred thousand of them in his eight years. And he found new ways to kill, too, as by creating the world's first industrial-scale extrajudicial killing operation. Here he signs off on "kill lists," placed in his Oval Office in-box, to murder people he has never seen, people who enjoy no legal rights or protections. His signed orders are carried out by uniformed thugs working at computer screens in secure basements where they proceed to play computer games with real live humans as their targets, again killing or maiming people they have never seen.

    If you ever have wondered where all the enabling workers came from in places like Stalin's Gulag or Hitler's concentration camps, well, here is your answer. American itself produces platoons of such people. You could find them working at Guantanamo and in the far-flung string of secret torture facilities the CIA ran for years, and you could find them in places like Fallujah or Samarra or Abu Ghraib, at the CIA's basement game arcade killing centers, and even all over the streets of America dressed as police who shoot unarmed people every day, sometimes in the back.

    https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/john-chuckman-essay-of-wizards-and-washington-and-the-dreary-unrelenting-reality-of-american-politics-a-raw-and-sometimes-darkly-comic-survey-of-americas-treacherous-political-terrain/

    nsa , December 18, 2017 at 5:36 am GMT
    ZOG has now asserted the right to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. No trial, no hearing, no witnesses, no defense, no nothing. Is this actually legal? Any constitutional lawyers out there care to comment? Has ZOG now achieved the status of an all-powerful all-knowing deity with the power of life and death over all living things?
    Waiting too , December 18, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT
    It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its profit calculation.
    War for Blair Mountain , December 18, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT
    5.6 TRILLION $$$$$$ FOR GULF WAR 1 AND GULF WAR 2

    The Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Male Population used as CANNON FODDER for Congressman Steven Solarz's and Donald Trump's very precious Jewish only Israel .

    WAR IS A RACKET!!!! don't you think?

    DESERT FOX , December 18, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT
    Israel and the deep state did the attack on 911 and thus set the table for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of the U.S. gov and the MSM and the MIC and the FED ie the BANKS set in motion the blood sacrifice for their Zionist god SATAN, that is what they have done.

    The Zionist warmongers and Satanists will destroy America.

    Michael Kenny , December 18, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT
    It's not so much that America is addicted to war as that the American "business model" makes permanent war inevitable. US global dominance rests on economic domination, in particular, the dollar as world reserve currency. That has allowed the US economy to survive in spite of being hollowed out, financialised and burdened with enormous sovereign debt. Economic dominance derives from political dominance, which, in its turn, flows from military dominance. For that military dominance to be credible, not only must the US have the biggest and best military forces on the planet, it must show itself willing to use those forces to maintain its dominance by actually using them from time to time, in particular, to unequivocally beat off any challenge to its dominance (Putin!). It also, of course, must win, or, more correctly, be able to present the outcome credibly as a win. Failure to maintain military dominance will undermine the position of the dollar, sending its value through the floor. A low dollar means cheap exports (Boeing will sell more planes than Airbus!), but it also means that imports (oil, outsourced goods) will be dear. At that point the hollowed out nature of the US economy will cut in, probably provoking a Soviet-style implosion of the US economy and society and ruining anyone who has holdings denominated in dollars. I call that the Gorbachev conundrum. Gorby believed in the Soviet Union and wanted to reform it. But the Soviet system had become so rigid as to be unreformable. He pulled a threat and the whole system unravelled. But if he hadn't pulled the thread, the whole system would have unravelled anyway. It was a choice between hard landing and harder landing. Similarly, US leaders have to continue down the only road open to them: permanent war. As Thomas Jefferson said of slavery, it's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it but you don't dare let go!
    TG , December 18, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT
    "How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that don't work?" Answer: Never.

    In Alabama when people would rant about how toxic Roy Moore was, I would politely point out that his opponent for Senate was OK with spending trillions of dollars fighting pointless winless wars on the other side of the planet just so politically connected defense contractors can make a buck, and ask if that should be an issue too? The response, predictably, was as if I was an alien from the planet Skyron in the galaxy of Andromeda.

    We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.

    Intelligent Dasein , Website December 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
    Andrew Bacevich is wrong about a couple of things in this article.

    First, he says that the American public is both apathetic and credulous. I agree that we have largely become apathetic towards these imperial wars, but I disagree that we have become credulous. In fact, these two states of mind exclude one another; you cannot be both apathetic and credulous with respect to the same object at the same time. The credulity charge is easy to dismiss because virtually no one today believes anything that comes out of Washington or its mouthpieces in the legacy media. The apathy charge is on point but it needs qualification. The smarter, more informed Americans have seen that their efforts to change the course of American policy have been to no avail, and they've given up in frustration and disgust. The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting on with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the understanding nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever.

    Second, Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. An echo of that groundswell happened again in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected to office on an explicitly antiwar platform. But Obama turned out to be one of the most pro-war presidents ever, and thus an angry electorate made one final push in the same direction by attempting to clean house with Donald Trump. Now that Donald has shown every sign of having cucked out to the war lobby, we seem to be left with no electoral solutions.

    The only thing that's going to work is for the American Imperium to be handed a much-deserved military and financial defeat. The one encouraging fact is that if the top ten percent of our political and financial elite were planed off by a foreign power, the American people would give as few damns about that as they currently do about our imperial wars.

    Ilyana_Rozumova , December 18, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT
    @Michael Kenny

    Very good but some little errors. Concerning Russia and China, Russia vent all or nothing. China was much smarter. First they allowed self employment, than small business and long time after they started to sell state enterprises,

    Anonymous , Disclaimer December 18, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT
    If Tom's Dispatch continues to be successful, Americans will continue to be asleep.

    Masterful propaganda. War, according to our favorite spooks, is necessary to win, but otherwise reprehensible.

    Sex is otherwise necessary for human life but Harvey Weinstein is ugly. Hold tightly to your cognitive dissonance, because you're expected to remember John F Kennedy who got it on, but is the expendable martyr you should care about, not that other guy

    Let's review: terror attacks are wins. Superior or effective anti-war propaganda comes from the military
    itself. They really don't want war, but really they do.

    nebulafox , December 18, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT
    @anonymous

    We're trying to make Afghanistan not Afghanistan: aka, trying to be a miracle worker. We can throw as much money as we like at that place, and it isn't going to happen, least of all with troops on nine month shifts.

    Let Iran and Pakistan squabble over it. Good riddance.

    nebulafox , December 18, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
    @Waiting too

    1) doesn't really make much sense, given that Poland and the Baltic States would be more than happy to take all US forces in Europe to give us a presence near Russia in a part of the world that would be far easier to justify to the American public-and to the international community. Afghanistan? Who exactly is Russia going to mess with? Iran is their-for now, longer term, the two have conflicting agendas in the region, but don't expect the geniuses in the Beltway to pick up on that opportunity-ally, and unlike the USSR, the Russians don't want to get involved in the India-Pakistan conflict. Russia's current tilt toward China makes a strategic marriage with India of the kind that you found in the Cold War impossible, but they obviously don't want to tilt toward the basketcase known as Pakistan. The only reason that Russia would want to get involved with Afghanistan beyond having a more preferable status than having American troops there is power projection among ex-Soviet states, and there are far more effective ways to do than muddle about with Afghanistan.

    2, on the other hand, given Iran-Contra who knows? The first generation of the Taliban pretty much wiped the heroin trade out as offensive to Islamic sensibilities, but the newer generations have no such qualms.

    I think you give America's rulers far too much credit. The truth is probably far scarier: the morons who work in the Beltway honestly believe their own propaganda-that we can make Afghanistan into some magical Western democracy if we throw enough money at it-and combine that with the usual bureaucratic inertia.

    Anonymous , Disclaimer December 18, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT
    @Waiting too

    Another bonus is that Afghan heroin seeps into Russia and wreaks havoc in the regions bordering Afghanistan -- krokodil and all that.

    Art , December 18, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT
    According to General John Nicholson, our 17th commander in Kabul since 2001,

    We have been killing these people for 17 years. Now our generals say that if we indiscriminately kill enough men, women, and children who get in the way of our B52s, that they will see the light and make peace. How totally wonderful.

    My solution is to gage the Lindsey Grahams for a year.

    What will do more good for peace – B52s or shutting up Graham's elk?

    Think Peace -- Art

    MarkinLA , December 18, 2017 at 5:59 pm GMT
    I remember when Trump said he knew more than the generals and was viciously attacked for it. It turns out he did know more than the generals just by knowing it was a waste. Trump was pushed by politics to defer to the generals who always have an answer when it comes to a war – more men, more weapons, more time.
    Sollipsist , December 18, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
    @Intelligent Dasein

    "The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting on with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the understanding nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever."

    I wonder if any Abolitionists criticized the slaves for failing to revolt? Probably not; I'm guessing they were mostly convinced that the negro required intervention from outside, whether due to their nature or from overwhelming circumstance.

    If the enslaved American public is liberated, I hope we'll know what to do with ourselves afterwards. It'd be a shame to simply end up in another kind of bondage, resentful and subject to whatever oppressive system replaces the current outrage. Perhaps the next one will more persuasively convince us that we're important and essential?

    peterAUS , December 18, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
    @Michael Kenny

    Agree.
    Very good post, IMHO.

    That phrase "a choice between hard landing and harder landing" is good and can be easily applied to USA today.

    Interesting times.

    peterAUS , December 18, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
    @TG

    Agree.
    This is well written, IMHO:

    We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.

    Sowhat , December 18, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT
    Thank you, Andrew J. Bacevich, for your words of wisdom and thank you, Mr. Unz, for this post.
    This corporation needs to be dissolved. I've read about "the inertia" of Federal Government that has morphed into a cash cow for a century of wasted tax dollars funding the MIIC, now the MIIC. Does our existence have to end in financial ruin or, worse yet, some foreign entity creating havoc on our soil?
    The Founders NEVER intended that the US of A become a meddler in other Sovereignty's internal affairs or the destroyer of Nation States that do not espoused our "doctrine." Anyone without poop for brains knows that this is about Imperialism and greed, fueled by money and an insatiable luster for MORE.
    This should be easier to change than it appears. Is there no will? After all, it Is our Master's money that lubricates the machinery. So, we continue to provide the lubrication for our Masters like a bunch of imbeciles that allow them to survail our words and movements. Somebody please explain our stupidity.
    Delinquent Snail , December 18, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT
    @nebulafox

    If americans would just go all in and commit genocide. That would lead to victory.

    No afgans, no enemy.

    joe webb , December 18, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT
    the folks in the US are sick of the wars, contrary to Bacevich. They simply will vote come next election accordingly. They register their disgust in all the polls.

    This article is not very useful. More punditry puff.

    No comments on the Next War for Israel being cooked up by the new crop of neocon youngsters, I guess, and Trump who will trump, trump, trump into the next War for the Jews.

    How about some political science on Iran, Syria, Hisbollah, Hamas and the US, Arabia, Judenstaat axis of evil?

    Joe Webb

    Jim Christian , December 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
    Hey Bacevich? When you link to WashPost and NYTimes to make your points, you don't. They block access if you've already read links to those two papers three times each and can no longer, for the month, read there. When folks link to papers that won't let you read, it makes one wonder why.
    Simply Simon , December 18, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT
    I believe Americans are damned sick and tired of the stupid, needless war in Afghanistan. But then they should have been sick and tired of stupid , needless wars like Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, and probably most of them were. But it's easy to be complacent when someone else's son is doing the fighting and dying And it's easy to be complacent when your stomach is full and you have plenty of booze and pain killers available. There will be a day of reckoning when the next big economic bust arrives and which may make the Great Depression paltry by comparison. America is a far different place then it was in the 1930s when our population was 140 million. Americans were not so soft and the conveniences we now take for granted not available. When the supermarkets run out of food, watch out. There may not even be any soup lines to stand in.
    Joe Franklin , December 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm GMT

    In truth, U.S. commanders have quietly shelved any expectations of achieving an actual victory -- traditionally defined as "imposing your will on the enemy" -- in favor of a more modest conception of success.

    Your assumptions are wrong about the US goal of the invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq were not invaded to establish democracy or impose American will whatever that is. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded to establish a temporary military staging ground for a US invasion of Iran, the designated regional enemy of Israel. As long as the current regime in Iran remains, the US will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    ... ... ...

    Druid , December 19, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT
    @Waiting too

    And minerals! Eric Prince himself recently tried to sell the idea of having his private militias do the fighting in Afghanistan for the US and finance it by mining said country's minerals, thus making himself even richer.

    anno nimus , December 19, 2017 at 1:53 am GMT
    "i can live without a friend, but not without an enemy."
    Cloak And Dagger , December 19, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
    @SolontoCroesus

    I was onboard with Mr. Bacevich, until I got to this:

    Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts to create effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the production of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency

    What utter rubbish! The Taliban was instrumental in shutting down the poppy production until the CIA came along and restarted it to fund their black ops.

    http://www.sfaw.org/newswire/2017/03/28/a-conspiracy-theory-that-became-a-conspiracy-fact-the-cia-afghanistans-poppy-fields-and-americas-growing-heroin-epidemic/

    We have the reverse Midas touch. Everything we touch (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc., etc.) turns to shit. We supposedly attack countries to liberate them from their tyrants who are supposedly killing their own people, and end up killing more people than all of them put together. And, oh yes, we have our favorite tyrants (Saudis, Israelis) whom we provide with horrible weapons (like cluster bombs) to help them kill people we hate.

    Mr. Bacevich is right about the lack of outrage about our wars, but the current Weinstein explosion consists of hordes of mostly American female victims, mostly white, a (very) few jews, and a few men, who have the stage to complain about their oppressors. What would be the counterpart of that w.r.t. the wars? Millions of brown victims in far away lands that most of us couldn't even find on a map? How likely is that to happen?

    So yes, no outrage, and none likely. The last 17 years have proven that.

    Joe Wong , December 20, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT
    @anonymous

    You don't know the American has been paying everything through monopoly money printed through the thin air since WWI, i.e. a keystroke on the Federal Reserve's computer? No wonder the Americans have been waging reckless wars all over the world on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention relentlessly.

    Romans did not stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed; the British imitates the Romans and the American is born out of the British, hence the Americans will no stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed like the Romans.

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    Highly recommended!
    It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US neoliberal elite.
    It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
    Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
    "... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
    "... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
    "... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
    "... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
    "... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
    "... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
    "... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
    "... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
    "... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
    "... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
    "... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
    "... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
    "... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
    "... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
    "... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
    "... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
    "... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
    "... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
    "... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
    "... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
    "... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
    "... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
    "... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
    "... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
    "... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
    "... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
    Jan 04, 2018 | lrb.co.uk

    American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign. Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington. Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russia Investigation shifts to Clinton's Political Rivals ..."
    "... Let me get this straight: The Democrats think Stein siphoned votes away from Hillary, so Stein must be a "Russian agent". Is that it? ..."
    "... The persecution of Jill Stein strips away the facade once and for all exposing Russia-gate as a complete fraud that is being used to exact revenge on the adversaries of Hillary Clinton and her reprobate friends. The New York Times even admits as much. ..."
    "... That's what's really really going on, the fatcat honchos behind the scenes are just settling scores for Hillary's lost election. It's payback time for the Clinton Mafia. Here's more baloney from the Times: ..."
    "... Give me a break. Does anyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee honestly believe that Jill Stein is a Russian agent? ..."
    "... Of course not. They're just harassing her to send a message to anyone who might be thinking about running for president in the future. They're saying, "You'd better watch your step or we'll trump-up charges against you and make your life a living hell. Isn't that the message?You're damn right it is! ..."
    "... "This is a witch hunt. It is neo-McCarthyism, plain and simple. The people who are outright calling Stein a Russian agent are making a complete mockery of themselves and of the American political process ..."
    "... Dragging Stein into this mess shows Clinton Democrats up for what they really are. It proves that the 'Resist' crowd's crusade is not just about Trump and "collusion" -- it's also about discrediting all dissenting American voices and establishing their own definition of what political opposition is supposed to look like -- and for the Clinton cult, it's not supposed to look like Jill Stein . ..."
    "... Anyone who disagrees with the Democrats is a Putin puppet -- and if you've ever been to Moscow, forget it -- don't even bother trying to defend yourself. Off with your head." ("McCarthy-style targeting of Jill Stein proves Democrats have truly lost the plot", RT) ..."
    "... "The Socialist Equality Party condemns the targeting of Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate in the 2016 election, by the neo-McCarthyite witch-hunters on the Senate Intelligence Committee . The attack on Stein, spearheaded by the Democratic Party, is an unconstitutional attempt to delegitimize and suppress political opposition to the monopoly of the capitalist two-party system . ..."
    "... This is the Orwellian reality of America in 2017, ruled by two right-wing, oligarchic parties that can and will tolerate no political opposition . ..."
    "... If you're a liberal and you hate Donald Trump, then you probably see the Russia-gate investigation as your best chance to achieve the Golden Grail of "impeachment". But are you willing to compromise your principles, join forces with the sinister and unscrupulous Clinton cabal, and throw allies like Jill Stein under the bus to achieve your goal? ..."
    "... How high a price are you willing to pay to get rid of Trump? That's the question that every liberal in America should be asking themselves. And they'd better answer it fast before it's too late. ..."
    "... Mueller is clearly not the upstanding 'protector of American values' he is painted he is a servile political degenerate. A lifetime of betrayal has rendered him ethically autistic. He is blind to the way his own actions condemn him before reasonable minds. Hopefully he will wake up when condemned hiself in an American Court of Law at some future date. ..."
    "... According to Edward Aguilar of Project for Nuclear Awareness, cancelling construction of the new submarines, reducing the current number of such subs, and retiring rather than replacing nuclear warheads and a couple hundred ICBMs would save $270 billion. ..."
    "... The weapons oligarchy appears to be a racketeering-influenced and corrupt organization. Luckily, the RICO Act provides for heavy criminal penalties for such death-dealing corruption. ..."
    Dec 26, 2017 | www.unz.com
    The Russia Investigation shifts to Clinton's Political Rivals Mike Whitney •

    "Jill Stein had dinner with Putin, so GET THE GUILLOTINE! That's how we roll in this country now. Didn't she know it's illegal to eat with Russians?"

    ... ... ...

    [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi

    Highly recommended!
    Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
    Notable quotes:
    "... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
    "... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
    "... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
    "... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
    "... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
    "... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
    "... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
    "... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
    "... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
    "... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
    "... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
    "... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
    "... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
    "... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
    "... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
    "... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
    "... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
    "... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
    "... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
    "... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
    Jul 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

    And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation.

    Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.

    So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things. First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere that must be respected by Russia and China.

    Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.

    Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels. Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.

    It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter, but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.

    Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."

    The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.

    Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.

    As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

    Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.

    Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.

    The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon, supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel, which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.

    Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change direction? Unfortunately, no.

    Jake, July 11, 2017 at 4:12 am GMT

    The title of the article tells it all.

    Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.

    Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by WASP Elites.

    Priss Factor, Website , July 11, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT
    US foreign policy is simple. Zionist Emperor goes thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever nation based on his own interests. That's about it.

    Priss Factor, July 11, 2017 at 4:49 am GMT

    In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

    No, the only threats are the following three:

    Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.

    The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.

    The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole. It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.

    Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.

    Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.

    http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2017/07/pattern-recognition-great-sin-than.html

    The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.

    Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading the savage genes.

    Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of the West.

    Replies: @Z-man

    Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.

    Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
    Israel, the REAL enemy! , @K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence. And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.

    (i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)

    Wally, July 11, 2017 at 5:02 am GMT

    The US govt. does what "that shitty little country" tells them to do.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel. Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    RobinG, July 11, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT

    100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda. ."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"

    Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out Cynthia McKinney's twitter.

    #UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update

    @Durruti Nice action approach to cure ills of society.

    Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.

    *Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).

    The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.

    Feel free to contact.

    Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    "I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

    "Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    [email protected]

    MEexpert, July 11, 2017 at 5:50 am GMT

    In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

    You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.

    The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him.

    That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.

    The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.

    jilles dykstra, July 11, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
    The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944. The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism ?

    Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest. That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.

    Ludwig Watzal > Website , July 11, 2017 at 7:01 am GMT
    Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
    animalogic, July 11, 2017 at 7:32 am GMT
    I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even. But unfortunately, it's simply naive.

    "Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go."

    Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?

    The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.

    Paul, July 11, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT

    Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

    So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

    To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

    Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

    Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

    The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

    We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

    B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)

    Replies:

    @Wizard of Oz

    I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,

    Realist, July 11, 2017 at 8:24 am GMT

    "The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"

    Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago.

    Chad, July 11, 2017 at 8:28 am GMT
    I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?

    Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.

    USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw.

    It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.

    And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country.

    So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go."

    Bingo.

    Replies:

    @Jake

    Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.

    The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,

    Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.

    Anonymous, July 11, 2017 at 9:33 am GMT

    @Priss Factor

    US foreign policy is simple. Zionist Emperor goes thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever nation based on his own interests.

    That's about it. That's most of unz.com summed up in a single sentence!

    Johnny Smoggins, July 11, 2017 at 10:19 am GMT

    The casus belli of America's hostility towards Iran is the 3000 year old grudge that the Jews have been holding against Persia.
    Z-man, July 11, 2017 at 11:22 am GMT
    @Priss Factor

    In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

    No, the only threats are the following three:

    Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.

    The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.

    The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole. It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.

    Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.

    Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.

    http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2017/07/pattern-recognition-great-sin-than.html

    The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.

    Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading the savage genes.

    Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of the West.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yB69UkJGwk

    Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.

    Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.

    Israel, the REAL enemy!

    eah, July 11, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT
    The WH should focus on the USA.
    Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.

    Greg Bacon > Website , July 11, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT

    The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest.

    You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.

    The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.

    The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies

    Wizard of Oz, July 11, 2017 at 11:50 am GMT

    @Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

    So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

    To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

    Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

    Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

    The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

    We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

    B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?

    Replies:

    @Sowhat

    https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/former-nist-employee-speaks-out-on-wtc-investigation/

    @NoseytheDuke

    A better question: Have YOU read The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?

    Sowhat, July 11, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

    @eah The WH should focus on the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
    anarchyst, July 11, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT
    Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them.

    The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.

    1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".

    2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders" -- goyim or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective "tribe".

    3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider" will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.

    4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.

    Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
    A pox on both their houses

    Replies:

    @ThreeCranes

    Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).

    Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.

    As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.

    Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe. , @bjondo Jews/Judaism bring death, destruction, misery.

    Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.

    Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.

    bjondo, July 11, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

    SA is the tail wagged by US. US is the tail wagged by internal Jew. Israel/Jewry the enemy of all.

    Terrorism is Israeli weapon to take down Sunnis and Shias.

    US is Israel's go-to donkey.

    Sauds gone tomorrow if wished. And they may be with Arabia broken into pieces. Yinon still active.

    Agent76, July 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
    June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us

    Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s. You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/06/07/we-have-met-the-evil-empire-and-it-is-us/

    ThreeCranes, July 11, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT
    @anarchyst Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them.
    The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.

    1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".

    2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective "tribe".

    3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider" will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.

    4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.

    Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
    A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).

    Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.

    As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.

    Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.

    Sowhat, July 11, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT
    @Wizard of Oz I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/former-nist-employee-speaks-out-on-wtc-investigation/
    virgile, July 11, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT
    Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA from terrorists attacks.

    Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.

    SolontoCroesus, July 11, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
    Saudi Arabian Manal al-Sharif is the latest (((MSM))) media darling; she wrote a book about being imprisoned for driving in Saudi Arabia. She is attempting to expand a movement to strike down the Saudi ban on women driving. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/sunday/saudi-arabia-women-driving-ban.html

    At the same time, (((MSM))) gleefully focuses on Iranian women who are wearing white hijab in protest of restrictions on women's attire in Iran. http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/05/24/why-women-and-some-men-in-iran-are-wearing-white-headscarves-on-wednesdays/

    I think these women ought to get together.

    In Iran, women drive.

    In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi companies owned and run by women.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/iranian-women-take-the-wh_b_879041.html

    Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores. It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.

    Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.

    What could Saudi women teach Iranian women?

    NoseytheDuke, July 11, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?

    siberiancat, July 11, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

    Why is is so difficult to avoid this ugly term 'regime'? Does it really add anything to the discourse?
    anonymous, July 11, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT
    There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals.

    They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty, living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.

    LondonBob, July 11, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT
    http://mihsislander.org/2017/06/full-transcript-james-mattis-interview/

    Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.

    Don Bacon, July 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
    Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
    Corvinus, July 11, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT
    @Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

    So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

    To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

    Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

    Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

    The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

    We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

    B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."

    Adjust tin foil hat accordingly.


    Father O'Hara, July 11, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT
    @Jake The title of the article tells it all.

    Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.

    Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was pro-Arabic/Islamic.

    And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.

    So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.

    Jake, July 11, 2017 at 4:23 pm GMT
    @Chad I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.

    I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.

    Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?

    Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.

    And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country.

    So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go."

    Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.

    The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.

    Durruti, July 11, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

    1,000 Words @RobinG #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
    ..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"

    Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out Cynthia McKinney's twitter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxcnaNND4XM

    #UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.

    Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.

    *Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).

    The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.

    Feel free to contact.

    Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    "I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

    "Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    [email protected]

    SolontoCroesus, July 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT

    Scholars at Mercatus Center, George Mason Univ. https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

    are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois, California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions are unfunded or underfunded.

    I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.

    Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy, and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded, Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?

    ____
    ** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.

    The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.

    [Jan 02, 2018] BOOK REVIEW: America s War for the Greater Middle East by Andrew J. Bacevich by David Rohde

    This review way written almost two year ago. The new President is now sitting in White house. Nothing changed.
    The problem with Bacevich' views is that neoliberalism dictates expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire as well in best Trotskyism tradition "export of neoliberal revolution" using bayonets, if other means do not work. So this is the nature of the neoliberal beast, not an aberration like he assumes. Militarism is essence of US foreign policy under neoliberalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-­provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals, journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's widespread use of assassination by drone strike today. ..."
    "... A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse would be true." ..."
    "... In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy, wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict. ..."
    "... From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war. ..."
    "... "In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." ..."
    "... For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential. ..."
    Apr 15, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    BOOK REVIEW: AMERICA'S WAR FOR THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST (A Military History) By Andrew J. Bacevich Illustrated. 453 pp. Random House. $30.

    In the opening chapter of his latest book, the military historian Andrew J. Bacevich blames Jimmy Carter, a president commonly viewed as more meek than martial, for unwittingly spawning 35 years of American military intervention in the Middle East. Bacevich argues that three mistakes by Carter set precedents that led to decades of squandered American lives and treasure.

    First, Carter called on Americans to stop worshiping "self-indulgence and consumption" and join a nationwide effort to conserve energy. Self-sacrifice, he argued in what is now widely derided as Carter's "malaise speech," would free Americans from their dependence on foreign oil and "help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country."

    The president came across as more hectoring pastor than visionary leader, Bacevich argues in "America's War for the Greater Middle East." His guileless approach squandered an opportunity to persuade Americans reeling from high foreign oil prices to trade "dependence for autonomy."

    Carter's second mistake was authorizing American support to guerrillas fighting a Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan, a move that eventually helped fuel the spread of radical Islam. Finally, in a misguided effort to counter views that he was "too soft," Carter declared that the United States would respond with military force to any outside effort to seize Persian Gulf oil fields. "This statement, subsequently enshrined as the Carter Doctrine, inaugurated America's war for the greater Middle East," Bacevich writes.

    This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-­provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals, journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's widespread use of assassination by drone strike today.

    Washington's penchant for intervention, Bacevich contends, is driven by more than America's thirst for oil or the military-­industrial complex's need for new enemies. In addition to these two factors, he argues that "a deeply pernicious collective naïveté" among both Republicans and Democrats spawns interventions doomed by "confusion and incoherence."

    The ultimate responsibility for the United States' actions lies with an "oblivious" American public engrossed in "shallow digital enthusiasms and the worship of celebrity," Bacevich writes. Americans support freedom, democracy and prosperity in other nations, he tells us, as long as they get the lion's share of it. "Ensuring that Americans enjoy their rightful quota (which is to say, more than their fair share) of freedom, abundance and security comes first," Bacevich says. "Everything else figures as an afterthought."

    Bacevich's argument is heavy-handed at times, but when he writes about military strategy, he is genuinely incisive. Citing numerous examples, he convincingly argues that destructive myths about the efficacy of American military power blind policy makers, generals and voters. The use of overwhelming lethal force does not immediately cause dictators or terrorists to turn tail and run, even if that's what politicians in Washington want to believe. Rather, it often leads to resentment, chaos and resistance.

    A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse would be true."

    In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy, wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict.

    From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war.

    "In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." The historical forces at work in the Middle East are different from the dynamics that led to American victories in World War II and the Cold War. American officials have failed to understand that. What's more, a deluded Washington foreign policy establishment believes that an American way of life based on "consumption and choice" will be accepted over time in the "Islamic world."

    But it is here, in his description of the "Islamic world," that Bacevich stumbles. What is missing in this book about "the greater Middle East" are the people of the greater Middle East. Bacevich's most highly developed Muslim character in these pages is Saddam Hussein. The former Afghan president Hamid Karzai is a distant second. Beyond those two, the rest of the world's estimated 1.6 billion Muslims come across as two-dimensional caricatures.

    And so Bacevich lumps together vastly different nationalities - from Bosnians to Iraqis to Somalis - often referring to all of them primarily as "Muslims." The dizzying complexities of each country's history, politics, culture, resources and rivalries are missing. And when it comes to how "Muslims" view the world, Bacevich veers into the simplistic essentialism that he accuses Washington policy makers of following.

    Bacevich suggests that in the "Islamic world" lifestyles based on "consumption and choice" might not work. Such broad-brush statements might well be considered simplistic and even bigoted if applied to other faiths. Can one contend that a "Christian world," "Hindu world" or "Jewish world" exists? Are such generalizations analytically useful? Do the world's hundreds of millions of Muslims practice their faith identically?

    As a result of this essentialism, Bacevich glosses over a vital point about the Middle East today: A historic and brutal struggle between radicals and modernists for the future of the region is underway. One can argue that the United States has no place in that fight, but making sweeping generalizations about Muslims as Bacevich does limits our understanding of the forces at work in the region. It also plays into the hands of extremists who seek to divide the world by faith.

    In the most troubling passage of the book, Bacevich breezily questions pluralism itself. "According to one of the prevailing shibboleths of the present age, this commingling of cultures is inherently good," he writes. "It fosters pluralism, thereby enriching everyday life. Yet cultural interaction also induces friction, whether spontaneously generated or instigated by demagogues and provocateurs."

    We do live in a dangerous world, but it is also an inevitably interconnected one. The commingling of cultures cannot be stopped. Nor should it be.

    For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential.

    David Rohde is the national security investigations editor for Reuters and a contributing editor for The Atlantic.

    [Jan 02, 2018] Another strong suggestion that Gorbachov was traitor not just a person who lost control of the events he himself initiated

    Notable quotes:
    "... [Choose a single Handle and stick to it, or else use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments may be trashed.] ..."
    Jan 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

    pet , December 30, 2017 at 3:33 am GMT

    [Choose a single Handle and stick to it, or else use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments may be trashed.]

    For such an uncritical defender of everything Russian, Mr. Saker would be well advised to undertake an objective analysis of the Russian policies and actions from the time of Gorbachev to the current time in order to look for the true causes of the dismal geo-strategic position of Russia today, instead of blaming it all on western "partners" only. I'm sure he would be able to find a plenty of strategic mistakes done by the Russian leadership including Putin, during more than 3 decades, some of them result of naked ignorance and others result of pure stupidity.

    He would also have to touch on the issue of the "despotic" nature of the Russian state whereby one man, whether able or not, decides about everything while everyone else applauds.

    Some suggested points for the analysis: betrayal and hand-over of East Germany against its will, dissolution of Warsaw Pact without any paperwork (parallel dissolution of NATO was very much discussed at the time but Russians didn't even ask for it), dissolution of the USSR absolutely contrary to the interests of Russian people, destruction of "Mir" station, betrayal of Serbia, Cuba, siding with "partners" on Iran, Libya, North Korea etc., giving up on Vietnam and many Soviet friends and allies all over the world, half-hearted "intervention" in Georgia, loss of Ukraine due to negligence, occasional mistreatment of Belarus for its refusal to sell out to Russian oligarchs, total lack of care for the Russians stranded all over former Soviet space etc. etc.

    All theses things add up leading to where we are today. (I'm not even touching upon the state of affairs inside Russia regarding corruption, salaries, oligarchs, social justice and many others).

    El Dato , December 30, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT
    @pet

    destruction of "Mir" station

    Woah slow down there. It was a piece of aging junk, had already had fire aboard, had nonfunctional solar panels, the computers were fritzing out, mold was growing in the isolation. The ISS, formerly Space Station Freedom, formerly Space Station Alpha, was taking shape. Time to dump that assemblage of canisters.

    Far more important is to have a heavy launcher like the Energia so you can launch it again and service it. Well, that doesn't exist either now. SAD!

    Have some old school space dreaming instead:

    Red Star, Winter Orbit (1983), Text .

    I still prefer Hinterlands (1981). Text .

    We had really settled in for Soviet Union forever. Amazing.

    [Jan 02, 2018] What investigative reporters should be like but most defintely are NOT like these days

    Jan 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    Winston Smith 2009 -> takeaction Dec 31, 2017 4:54 PM

    Links to his blog below. He's what investigative reporters should be like but most definitely are NOT like these days. He's sharp as a tack and doesn't miss a thing.

    Transparent DOJ and FBI Desperation: New York Times Attempts "Trump Operation" Justification
    December 30, 2017

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/30/transparent-doj-and-fbi

    BREAKING: Senator Lindsey Graham Just Confirmed The Steele Dossier Was Used For 2016 FISA Warrant
    December 30, 2017

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/30/breaking-senator-lindse

    The article found below is where he discusses his first clue about the HUGE scandal confirmed at the above DETAILED analyses. If this doesn't result in just a whole bunch of high level swamp creatures doing a perp walk or AT THE VERY LEAST losing their jobs, you'll know there's no hope:

    THE BIG UGLY – Why U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras Recusal From Mike Flynn Case is a Big Deal
    December 8, 2017

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/08/the-big-ugly-why-u-s-di

    [Jan 02, 2018] Trump versus the FBI

    Notable quotes:
    "... The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits). There had to be some other reason. ..."
    "... Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust. ..."
    "... Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved. ..."
    "... Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organization, Robert Mueller . ..."
    "... "Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!" ..."
    "... More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other. ..."
    "... As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him. ..."
    "... Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] ..."
    Jan 02, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

    The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits). There had to be some other reason.

    Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust.

    The FBI investigation into Trumpland and its reputed nexus with Russia remains both bane and opportunity for Trump. As long as it continues, it affords Trump ammunition for populist broadsides and claims that such entities are sworn to destroy him.

    To watch this story unfold is to remember how a soap opera can best anything done in celluloid. The New York Times has given us a New Year's Eve treat, claiming that former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos spilt the beans to former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer at London's Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016.

    The two men had, apparently, been doing what any decent being does at such a London venue: drink. Papadopoulos' tongue started to wag as the imbibing continued. There was a Russian connection. There was dirt to be had, featuring Hillary Clinton.

    Downer, however hazed, archived the discussion. He could make a name for himself with this decent brown nosing opportunity. Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved. So commenced the long road to the fall of Trump's former aide, who conceded, in time, to have lied to the FBI. Trump's response was to degrade Papadopoulos as a "low-level volunteer" and "liar", giving him the kiss of unimportance.

    Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organization, Robert Mueller .

    This provides the broader context for the Trump assault on all manner of instruments in the Republic. Earlier in December, Twitter was again ablaze with the president's fury. The blasts centered on the guilty plea by former national security advisor Michael Flynn. He had, in fact, had conversations with the former Russian ambassador. Trump's approach was two-fold: claim that Flynn's actions had been initially, at least, lawful, while the conduct of the FBI and Department of Justice had been uneven and arbitrary.

    "So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now infamous FBI holiday 'interrogation' with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times and nothing happens to her?"

    He then reserved a salvo for the DOJ.

    "Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!"

    The persistent inability to understand Trumpland as a series of bullying an exploitative transactions blunts the value of the FBI investigation. Whatever it purports to be, it smacks of desperation, an effort in search of an explanation rather than a resolution. The Trump Teflon remains in place, immovable.

    More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other.

    As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him.

    ... ... ...

    Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

    [Jan 02, 2018] Rep Bud Cummins Discuss FBI Plot Against Trump Presidency

    Video
    Notable quotes:
    "... The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some solid policies that benefit normal Americans! ..."
    "... Failure to do something IS consent. ..."
    Jan 02, 2018 | www.prisonplanet.com

    Fox News host Maria Bartiromo interviews Representative Bud Cummins about the 2016 weaponization of the FBI and DOJ and the same group of people in 2017 working to undermine the Trump administration.

    https://youtu.be/XZtA7MJ5haw

    This Tuesday FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe will meet with the House Intelligence Committee. Around the same time Trump lawyers will be meeting with Robert Mueller. Could be a big news week.

    Lutz • 12 days ago

    Only the chosen tribe can shut down an agency like the F.B.Lie. Control through money distribution. They control everyone, PERIOD.

    Tom Turek > Claude Taylor • 13 days ago

    FBI? On site the night before 911, On site within minutes after Sen Wellstone's chartered almost new Twin Turboprop Beachcraft with 2 pro plots smashed into the ground on approach.

    Wellstone was about to expose 911. Illegally taking over the TWA800 investigation from NTSB and many times removing evidence overnight that investigators found suspicious of a missile strike. Told us that a low voltage wire in a fuel tank overheated and caused the plane to break into 2. Wreckage still under armed guard!

    About what 'IDEALS' is DJT talking??

    Doctor72 • 13 days ago

    The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some solid policies that benefit normal Americans!

    MikeG the Deplorable > Doctor72 • 13 days ago

    What a refreshing change.

    Cyrano • 13 days ago

    This man is afraid to call it treason...

    centurion • 13 days ago

    It's a very sad day for Trump supporters when they elected a person to jail the law breakers in Washington, CIA, FBI, BLM, NSA, the Clintons, the Bush's and Trump does absolutely nothing about it. Failure to do something IS consent.

    Mistaron • 13 days ago

    Why is this guy dancing around? It's not 'bad management' mate, it's bloody Treason!

    Elim • 13 days ago

    I just saw a clip of Trump answering questions at a news conference. He was answering questions about the Russian collusion crap, and was saying that Putin and his government denied any interference, just as he denied any collusion. When Trump was asked what he personally believed, he said that he supported what the intelligence agencies said about it. In other words, he believes what he was told by our intelligence services...which is what, exactly? He didn't answer the question.

    [Jan 02, 2018] American exceptionalism extracts a price from common citizens

    Highly recommended!
    Widespread anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.
    Notable quotes:
    "... For all the haters of us ugly Americans, just remember that we at this blog are suffering in our country standing up for the truth, pitted against our neighbors, coworkers, and friends in the arena of political debate and decrying the massive injustice of our foreign aggression. ..."
    "... The world knows the military industrial complex that has worked over years, and year to create the ugly tentacles throughout what was once our government has been usurped. Dollars. All these bastards see is dollars. Not human life. Not the potential of that lost life in science, math, technology. Just dollars. ..."
    "... or heavens sakes the voters in Arizona returned the worst of ALL Warmongers to Congress. ..."
    "... We can't even get the voters to learn that their votes equal WAR pushed by both Parties they are aligned with. Get real. Our challenge is yours. Help us! ..."
    "... I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today suffering and paying a price. And I agree that (widespread) anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs. ..."
    "... Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick in the world, but it seems to work every single time...sad! ;-) ..."
    "... I'm from California. Technically the USA. My take on things is we United States of Americans are exceptional. Most of us are exceptionally ignorant and violent. That is exceptionally sad. ..."
    Jul 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    NemesisCalling | Jun 30, 2017 8:21:54 PM | 31

    For all the haters of us ugly Americans, just remember that we at this blog are suffering in our country standing up for the truth, pitted against our neighbors, coworkers, and friends in the arena of political debate and decrying the massive injustice of our foreign aggression.

    I won't call ya out by name, but lumping us forlorn sacks into your "untouchable" category reeks of reactionary arrogance that is, to pay patrons at this fine blog their due, beneath you.

    In the mean time, American issues = issues concerning the empire they we all want to see destroyed. Liberating Americans should also be on your wish list.

    lex.talionis | Jun 30, 2017 9:14:01 PM | 36
    Amen @31

    The world knows the military industrial complex that has worked over years, and year to create the ugly tentacles throughout what was once our government has been usurped. Dollars. All these bastards see is dollars. Not human life. Not the potential of that lost life in science, math, technology. Just dollars.

    For heavens sakes the voters in Arizona returned the worst of ALL Warmongers to Congress. And you, the World, think for a moment we, citizens in this colony, have a snowball's chance in hell reeling these creatures in all by ourselves are sorely mistaken.

    We can't even get the voters to learn that their votes equal WAR pushed by both Parties they are aligned with. Get real. Our challenge is yours. Help us!

    h | Jun 30, 2017 8:38:56 PM | 32

    @Nemesis

    Well said...!

    I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today suffering and paying a price. And I agree that (widespread) anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.

    Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick in the world, but it seems to work every single time...sad! ;-)

    smuks | Jun 30, 2017 8:50:51 PM | 35

    @ Nemesis and all,

    I'm from California. Technically the USA. My take on things is we United States of Americans are exceptional. Most of us are exceptionally ignorant and violent. That is exceptionally sad.

    I am very glad to have found MoA and the crew of experts. I have learned so very much.

    Big up b! Booyakah as they say in JA. God help us.

    [Jan 02, 2018] Hillary Clinton and neoLiberal American Exceptionalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It does, after all, have deep roots in the Manifest Destiny ethos that spurred the Mexican War, drove continental and trans-Pacific expansion, and emerged as a paternalistic justification for voluminous military interventions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. As Dick Cheney suggests, "the world needs a powerful America." In this unilateral missionizing zeal Clinton proves most typical. ..."
    "... she wants the United States to be the dominant power in the world, so she doesn't question the massive sums spent on the military and on the other branches of the national-security state. ..."
    "... But Clinton's brand of American exceptionalism goes beyond the issue of American military dominion and into the policy potentials of mid-century social liberalism and, more specifically, the neoliberalism that has since replaced it. Indeed, since George McGovern's failed presidential bid of 1972, neoliberals, moving decidedly rightward on economic issues, have consistently employed exceptionalist code to fight off movements, ideas, and challengers from the left. ..."
    "... She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism. ..."
    Jan 05, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : January 05, 2017 at 07:42 AM , 2017 at 07:42 AM
    ...It's hilarious how cocky and confident the neoliberals were throughout the election. It's amazing how wrong they were. Trump's victory is almost worth it.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/26/we-are-not-denmark-hillary-clinton-and-liberal-american-exceptionalism

    Published on
    Friday, February 26, 2016
    by Common Dreams

    "We Are Not Denmark": Hillary Clinton and Liberal American Exceptionalism

    by Matthew Stanley

    Several months removed, it now seems clear that the Democratic debate on October 13 contained an illuminating moment that has come to embody the 2016 Democratic Primary and the key differences between its two candidates. Confronting Bernie Sanders's insistence that the United States has much to learn from more socialized nations, particularly the Nordic Model, Hillary Clinton was direct: "I love Denmark. But we are not Denmark. We are the United States of America."

    The implication behind this statement-the reasoning that ideas and institutions (in this case social and economic programs) that are successful in other nations are somehow practically or ideologically inconsistent with Americans and American principles-speaks to a longstanding sociopolitical framework that has justified everything from continental expansion to the Iraq War: American exceptionalism. Rooted in writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and the mythology of John Winthrop's "City Upon a Hill," the notion that the history and mission of the United States and the superiority of its political and economic traditions makes it impervious to same the forces that influence other peoples has coursed through Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," the Cold War rhetoric of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and the foreign policy declarations of Barack Obama.

    Despite particular historical trends-early and relatively stable political democracy, birthright citizenship, the absence of a feudal tradition, the relative weakness of class consciousness-historians have critiqued this "American exceptionalism" as far more fictive than physical, frequently citing the concept as a form of state mythology. Although different histories lead naturally to historical and perhaps even structural dissimilarities, America's twenty-first century "exceptions" appear as dubious distinctions: gun violence, carbon emissions, mass incarceration, wealth inequality, racial disparities, capital punishment, child poverty, and military spending.

    Yet even at a time when American exceptionalism has never been more challenged both by empirically-validated social and economic data and in public conversation, the concept continues to play an elemental role in our two-party political discourse. The Republican Party is, of course, awash with spurious, almost comically stupid dialogue about a mythic American past-"making America great again"-the racial and ethnic undertones of which are unmistakable. Those same Republicans have lambasted Obama and other high profile Democrats for not believing sufficiently in their brand of innate, transhistoric American supremacy.

    But this Americentrism is not the sole province of the GOP. We need look no further than bipartisan support for the military-industrial complex and the surveillance state to see that national exceptionalism, and its explicit double-standard toward other nations, resides comfortably within the Democratic Party as well. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa censured Obama's use of the term in the fall of 2013, with the latter likening it to the "chosen race" theories of Nazi Germany. Hyperbole notwithstanding, academics often do associate American exceptionalism with military conquest.

    It does, after all, have deep roots in the Manifest Destiny ethos that spurred the Mexican War, drove continental and trans-Pacific expansion, and emerged as a paternalistic justification for voluminous military interventions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. As Dick Cheney suggests, "the world needs a powerful America." In this unilateral missionizing zeal Clinton proves most typical. As historian Michael Kazin argues in a recent piece for The Nation: "Hillary Clinton is best described as a liberal. Like every liberal president (and most failed Democratic nominees) since Wilson, she wants the United States to be the dominant power in the world, so she doesn't question the massive sums spent on the military and on the other branches of the national-security state. "

    But Clinton's brand of American exceptionalism goes beyond the issue of American military dominion and into the policy potentials of mid-century social liberalism and, more specifically, the neoliberalism that has since replaced it. Indeed, since George McGovern's failed presidential bid of 1972, neoliberals, moving decidedly rightward on economic issues, have consistently employed exceptionalist code to fight off movements, ideas, and challengers from the left.

    The victims include leftist efforts toward both American demilitarization and the expansion of a "socialistic" welfare state. Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her.

    She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism. It also revealed a more clandestine strain of American exceptionalism common among liberals and the Democratic Party elite in which "opportunity" serves as a stand-in for wider egalitarian reform. As Elizabeth Bruenig highlighted in The New Republic: "Since getting ahead on one's own grit is such a key part of the American narrative, it's easy to see how voters might be attracted to Clinton's opportunity-based answer to our social and economic woes, though it leaves the problem of inequality vastly under-addressed. Indeed, a kind of American exceptionalism does seem to underpin much opportunity-focused political rhetoric."

    This preference for insider politics (rather than mass movements involving direct action) and limited, means-tested social programs speaks to a broader truth about modern liberalism: it functions in a way that not only doesn't challenge the basic tenets of American exceptionalism, it often reinforces them. Whether vindicating war and torture and civil liberties violations, talking past the War on Drugs and the carceral state, or exhibiting coolness toward the type of popular protest seen during of Occupy Wall Street, with its direct attacks on a sort of American Sonderweg, establishment Democrats are adept at using a more "realistic" brand of Americentrism to consolidate power and anchor the party in the status quo. Now the 2016 Democratic Primary has seen progressive ideas including universal health care, tuition-free college, and a living minimum wage, all hallmarks of large swaths of the rest of the developed world, delegitimized through some mutation of liberal exceptionalist thinking. These broadminded reforms are apparently off limits, not because they are not good ideas (though opponents make that appraisal too), but because somehow their unachievability is exceptional to the United States.

    All this is not to exclude (despite his "democratic socialist" professions) Sanders's own milder brand of "America first," most evident in his economic nationalism, but to emphasize that American exceptionalism and the logical and practical dangers it poses exist in degrees across a spectrum of American politics. Whatever his nationalistic inclinations, Sanders's constant reiteration of America's need to learn from and adapt to the social, economic, and political models of other nations demonstrates an ethno-flexibility rarely seen in American major party politics. "Every other major country " might as well be his official campaign slogan. This bilateral outlook does not fit nearly as neatly within Clinton's traditional liberal paradigm that, from defenses of American war and empire to the, uses American exceptionalism tactically, dismissing its conservative adherents as nationalist overkill yet quietly exploiting the theory when politically or personally expeditious.

    In looking beyond our national shores and domestic origin-sources for fresh and functional policy, Sanders seems to grasp that, from the so-called "foreign influences" of the Republican free soil program or Robert La Follette's Wisconsin Idea or even Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, American high politics have been at their most morally creative and sweepingly influential not only when swayed by direct action and mass movements, but also when they are less impeded by the constraints of ethnocentrism and exceptionalism. The "We are not Denmark" sentiment might appear benign, lacking as it does the bluster of Republican claims to national supremacy and imaginary "golden age" pasts and what economist Thomas Picketty has termed a "mythical capitalism." But it is the "seriousness" and very gentility of liberal Americentrism that underscores the power, omnipresence, and intellectual poverty of cultural dismissal. "I still believe in American exceptionalism," Clinton has proclaimed in pushing for U.S. military escalation in Syria. Indeed she does, and it is by no means relegated to the sphere of foreign policy.

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Idolatry of the Donald

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Europe will not contribute more to its defense, and Trump will not abandon NATO. China will continue on as before, indifferent to the blustering of the American president because it realizes Trump needs Chinese workers to manufacture the things Americans will not (at Chinese wages), the same things (at low prices) that maintain the lifestyle of the Trump supporters. ..."
    "... So civil religion is now a name for national megalomania? ..."
    "... If you think the Americans sacralize the presidency, then I don't think you know what it actually means to sacralize a state authority. Look at Putin, Stalin and the tsars in Russia. American presidents are nowhere near them in sacralization ..."
    "... Clinton, on the other hand, presents us with a deadly serious plan ("no fly zone")to start an unnecessary unjustified war against Syria, Russia and Iran, the only beneficiaries of which would be Al-Qaida and ISIS, the inevitable results of which would be the destruction of Middle Eastern Christianity and an intensification of the migrant invasion of Europe, and the obvious risk of which is a catastrophic nuclear exchange. ..."
    "... Trump will be the first president since Eisenhower who can be trusted to enforce the immigration laws, reduce the trade deficit, and avoid unnecessary wars. ..."
    "... Look, here's the deal: Trump is the only candidate who has identified the problems of Middle America and who has identified ways to begin to fix those problems. Trump is not a "miracle" worker, but he does have the will and the courage to lead the country back in the right direction. And as his supporters he has our backing all the way. ..."
    "... As President Trump will no doubt run into problems in implementing some aspects of his broad, multi-faceted program to make America great again. For sure there will be setbacks and delays, because (1) there is so much wrong with the country that has to be set right again, and because (2) there are so many powerful, wealthy, vested interests who will oppose doing what the country needs. ..."
    "... Nelson said: You can't be a Christian and hate thy neighbor. ..."
    "... Well, let's see what John Adams had to say about the Christian nation concept. ""The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ..."
    "... "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding ." ..."
    "... There's a whole lot more I could point to that further illustrates the erroneous nature of the Christian nation myth. But people love their myths, just as the term Christian is quite a bit problematic in that historically it most accurately describes Orthodox Jews. ..."
    "... Bush2/Cheney fancied themselves caesars invading multiple Mideast nations. Obama fancies himself as god. ..."
    "... Is Trump a surprise? Only in that he is unapologetic and doesn't hide it. ..."
    "... WYSIWYG. The problem is he is a mirror, and the problem is it is your image staring back even if you find it horrible. ..."
    "... Trump is what you get when a party becomes bankrupt of any real ideas other than personal greed. ..."
    "... Why is the author, and some commenters here, acting as if the label "Evangelical" means any more to those Evangelicals than the label "Catholic" means to most Catholics, or the label "Jewish" means to most Jews, etc. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com
    "I even brought my Bible-the evangelicals, OK?" Donald Trump whinged at a campaign stop in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. "We love the evangelicals and we're polling so well." For good measure, he waved his prop a little more and doubled down, "I really want to win Iowa-and again, the evangelicals, the Tea Party-we're doing unbelievably, and I think I'm going to win Iowa."

    This sycophantic word vomit was about average as Trump's public forays into religion go. His transparent attempts to cast himself as a churchgoer have been awkward at best , and more often approach the bizarre if not the heretical . Nevertheless, as the man himself would say, the professing evangelicals-and the "professing" is key here -love him. They really, really do.

    But for all the headlines the Trumpvangelicals have snagged, their vehement support is ably matched by the strident opposition to Trump found among millions of American Christians of all stripes, many of them (like me) appalled that such blatant pandering and brash prurience is, well, working on our fellow travelers in the faith. Nearly a year into this misadventure, it is still tempting to ask: How is this happening? How is the heir of the Moral Majority endorsing a twice-divorced former strip club owner? How is Trump so appealing to what is supposed to be a Christian nation?

    And it is in precisely that last phrase-"Christian nation"-the answer may be found: America's entrenched , pseudo-Christian civil religion is the primary culprit here. President Trump is the due result of our theologically vacant imperial cult, which in the guise of orthodoxy worships only the power of the state.

    Granted, the connection may not be immediately obvious, particularly in light of the harsh critiques Trump has received from many prominent Christians, as well as his own dime-store costume faith.

    These surface obstacles obscure the deeper fit. Trump's extravagant self-deification, his demands of personal allegiance, and his obsession with unique national and personal greatness all flow naturally out of a civil religion which co-opts Christianity to cast an aura of divine approval on Washington. Indeed, Trump fancies himself a modern Caesar , tinged with divinity and cloaked in gold . Our civil religion gives him just the theological resource he needs.

    Consider, first, Trump's view of himself. As Frank Bruni persuasively argued in the New York Times , the Republican frontrunner comes off not as "someone interested in serving God" so much as "someone interested in being God." Trump so closely links himself and the divine that he drifts into boasting of his own accomplishments in the very process of explaining why God is important. The candidate feels he is above the need for God's forgiveness ( as it is written , "there is one who is righteous, yea, just one") and recently named "an eye for an eye" as his favorite Bible verse, an interesting selection given the New Testament's assignment of vengeance as God's prerogative.

    Of course, Americans might rightly protest that we don't ascribe divinity to the presidency, but the office is undoubtedly sacralized. Its successes-notably in foreign policy-are attributed to divine blessing. Conventional politicians may be more politic than Trump, but most will happily harness God to tow their pet projects. A classic example is what theologian Michael J. Gorman labels the "divine passive voice," in which, often in the run-up to war, presidents say things like "We are called " to subtly invoke a holy authority for their plans. In a Trump White House, the voice would simply become slightly more active.

    Beyond this there's Trump's demand ( and receipt ) of intense personal loyalty. One gets the feeling that the provision of a bust of Trumpself for long-distance veneration would not be taken amiss by many of his followers, but usually a simple pledge of allegiance will do.

    "I do solemnly swear that I, no matter how I feel, no matter what the conditions, if there are hurricanes or whatever, will vote on or before the 12th for Donald J. Trump for President," he asked Floridian supporters to promise in advance of their state's primary. This sort of ultimatum is right at home in a civil religion that facilitates unthinking Christian loyalty to the state by means of a clever syncretism: If America is "under God"-if the United States becomes the " city on a hill "-we needn't worry about obeying God rather than men. It's all one and the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph is idolatrously mutated into an American tribal deity.

    But the most convincing link lies in Trump's preoccupation with greatness. In the context of American civil religion, Gorman explains , "Greatness is defined especially as financial, political, and/or military strength, and this definition carries with it the conviction that both America and Americans should always enjoy and operate from a position of strength and security."

    "Weakness," he adds, "is un-American; Americans want to be number one. For many, these kinds of secular strengths are seen as manifestations of power from God." Gorman wrote that more than five years ago, but Trump couldn't have said it better himself. His is a perverse patriotism inextricably tied to the notion that God likes America (and the Donald) most. Trump is certainly more explicit in his promises of unparalleled personal ("the greatest jobs president God ever created") and national ("we will have so much winning") greatness, but his distinction from our standard-issue civil religion is one of degree, not kind.

    We might ask why a Trumpian candidate is only now appearing-and with such success-on our political stage. The civil religion is hardly new, but surely Trump is. The tipping point, I suggest, is primarily about the expansion of power in the executive branch, a process which has been underway for decades but accelerated in recent times. The authority of the White House has expanded to match the sanctity we've assigned it. (Not for nothing is it called the imperial presidency.) The modern office "looks nothing like the modest, businesslike, law-governed executive the Framers envisioned," and if it did, Trump wouldn't want it.

    In The Four Loves , C.S. Lewis recounts a conversation with an elderly clergyman sincerely convinced that his "own nation, in sober fact, has long been, and still is markedly superior to all others." "To be sure," Lewis muses, "this conviction had not made my friend (God rest his soul) a villain; only an extremely lovable old ass. It can however produce asses that kick and bite." If mixed with assurance of unique divine favor, he continues, this dangerous nonsense "draws evil after it. If our country's cause is the cause of God, wars must be wars of annihilation. A false transcendence is given to things which are very much of this world."

    In Trump we find such nonsense crystallized into an ass that kicks and bites, and gleefully plans to torture and murder because this is what will make America great again. His gilded self-aggrandizement is the organic fruit of a "Christian" nation that welcomed such theo-nationalism in drabber forms for years. We may not for a while see again so shameless an execution of the temple ceremonies of the American state, but the false transcendence of our civil religion will not die with the Trump campaign.

    Bonnie Kristian is a writer who lives in the Twin Cities. She is a graduate student at Bethel Seminary, a contributor at The Week , a columnist at Rare, and a fellow at the American Security Initiative Foundation. Her writing has also appeared at Time , Relevant, and The American Conservative , among other outlets. Find her at bonniekristian.com and @bonniekristian .

    Brendan, May 5, 2016 at 7:00 am

    Well, America has had a born again evangelical Christian in the Whitehouse in recent memory, and how did that work out?

    I suspect most Presidents are a reflection of culture, rather than shapers and formers of it. In other words, the problem didn't begin and end with Trump.

    Nick Valentine, May 5, 2016 at 8:03 am

    The opinion of the New York Times is not normally a reliable voice when one seems to determine what is and what is not properly Christian.

    Nonetheless, as a Christian voter, I'll gladly explain my support of Donald Trump despite his questionable Christian "creds".

    I don't care.

    I've given up on finding a true, virtuous, Conservative Christian to lead us in DC, because that's never going to happen. This is NOT a devoutly Christian nation any longer. Sure, many people identify as Christians, but like Trump, few of them ever pick up a Bible.

    Instead, I prefer the man who speaks his mind – however un-PC his mind may be – honestly and forthrightly, and who talks directly to the citizens about the real issues that concern us as a nation:

    Illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, corruption in government, jobs and the economy, crony-capitalists who are destroying the middle class by shipping jobs overseas, and unfair trade deals that also damage American jobs.

    Based on Mr. Trump's business success and extreme confidence, he strikes me as the man most likely to right this ship of state.

    So as a Christian, I'm confident that if Trump is President, I'll do just fine.

    In all honesty, any Christians who are looking for devout Christianity at the polls should probably stay home.

    Daniel (not Larison ), May 5, 2016 at 8:59 am

    Nick wrote:

    Instead, I prefer the man who speaks his mind – however un-PC his mind may be – honestly and forthrightly, and who talks directly to the citizens about the real issues that concern us as a nation:

    Does "speaking his mind" and being "un-PC" include shameless, ham-fisted pandering to Evangelicals, as posted in the article?

    Trump is as deceptive as the rest of them, perhaps more so. You just get a kick out of him offending certain people, the people that you don't like either. If anyone–including Trump–said something to hurt your precious feelings, you wouldn't say "I love how he speaks his mind!" You'd call him an @sshole.

    That doesn't make you weak, it makes you human. But to support it when others are the victims is just sad.

    JLF, May 5, 2016 at 9:30 am

    The most frightening thing will not come in the immediate wake of Trump's inauguration. It will not be brought by Democrats and Republicans-in-exile. It will come from the Trump faithful when they see that their idol has feet of clay and cannot perform the miracles he says he will. Even with a compliant Congress (and Court), Trump will not build a wall. Mexico will not pay for it. He will not deport 11 million illegal aliens. Europe will not contribute more to its defense, and Trump will not abandon NATO. China will continue on as before, indifferent to the blustering of the American president because it realizes Trump needs Chinese workers to manufacture the things Americans will not (at Chinese wages), the same things (at low prices) that maintain the lifestyle of the Trump supporters.

    The scales fallen from their eyes, Trump's followers will act in the same way any mob acts and turn on the one that has betrayed them. Only two questions remain: how long after inauguration will it take for their enlightenment, and how will The Donald react to being cast down from his pedestal?

    Rancor, May 5, 2016 at 9:49 am

    So civil religion is now a name for national megalomania?

    The British saw themselves as the lost tribe of Israel

    The French as Galls and descendants of the Roman Empire

    The Germans as Germanics who are supposed to destroy the Rome

    The Russians as Katechons who must conquer Europe, as the last and true Rome

    All of this is civil religion?

    If you think the Americans sacralize the presidency, then I don't think you know what it actually means to sacralize a state authority. Look at Putin, Stalin and the tsars in Russia. American presidents are nowhere near them in sacralization

    John Gruskos, May 5, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Trump muses about the possibility of using torture and assassination against a small number of terrorists who have American blood on their hands.

    Clinton, on the other hand, presents us with a deadly serious plan ("no fly zone")to start an unnecessary unjustified war against Syria, Russia and Iran, the only beneficiaries of which would be Al-Qaida and ISIS, the inevitable results of which would be the destruction of Middle Eastern Christianity and an intensification of the migrant invasion of Europe, and the obvious risk of which is a catastrophic nuclear exchange.

    Please remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from mine.

    Trump will be the first president since Eisenhower who can be trusted to enforce the immigration laws, reduce the trade deficit, and avoid unnecessary wars. He is receiving enthusiastic support because of his *platform*, not his alleged cult of personality. The clown act was a necessary tactic to circumvent the media gatekeepers who prevented previous outsiders such as Buchanan, Tancredo and Paul from presenting their ideas to the public. See Scott Adams' blog for a full explanation. Bravo Trump! You weren't too proud to fight for the interests of the American people.

    Robert Thomas, May 5, 2016 at 10:20 am

    Not that I am particularly religious nor does religion play a part in my politics.
    However I don't need to be a bible thumper to see how over my life Christianity has been slowly systematically and successfully attacked and wiped clean from our culture but the left and their orahanizatuons like the ACLU. Trump is the first guy who actually acknowlages this and addresses it by simply saying " we will say Merry Christmas again"

    When B.J.B. And Michael Sheuer both support Trump That's a great indicator that My support for Trump is well founded.

    I was surprised to see an article like this written in TAC

    It would be more fitting and we'll received in the national review or huffington post!

    Clint, May 5, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Trump,
    "I will be the greatest representative of the Christians they've had in a long time." It appears Trump will be a better advocate for Christians than Obama or Hillary Clinton.

    SteveM, May 5, 2016 at 11:16 am

    These days the ONLY thing we get from a president are NEGATIVE impacts. I.e., too much war, too much immigration, too much regulation, a pathologically busted health care solution, tolerance of a pathological tax code, tolerance of Beltway Swamp corruption, supplicant to the Security State. All of it – just too much

    If Trump us just gives a small respite, let alone some actual relief from the massive parasitic hammer of the Leviathan, I'll settle for that.

    "Business as usual" just can't continue. It can't

    Kurt Gayle, May 5, 2016 at 11:57 am

    @ JLF, who wrote: "The most frightening thing will come from the Trump faithful when they see that their idol has feet of clay and cannot perform the miracles he says he will."

    With all due respect, JLF, I think you hold those of us who are "the Trump faithful" in an unusual level of contempt.

    Look, here's the deal: Trump is the only candidate who has identified the problems of Middle America and who has identified ways to begin to fix those problems. Trump is not a "miracle" worker, but he does have the will and the courage to lead the country back in the right direction. And as his supporters he has our backing all the way.

    As President Trump will no doubt run into problems in implementing some aspects of his broad, multi-faceted program to make America great again. For sure there will be setbacks and delays, because (1) there is so much wrong with the country that has to be set right again, and because (2) there are so many powerful, wealthy, vested interests who will oppose doing what the country needs.

    But as tough and steadfast a group as we Trump supporters have shown ourselves to be, why would you think that we would see setbacks and delays as signs of some sort of "betrayal"? Why? That doesn't make any sense. Haven't you learned yet, JFL, that of all the groups of Americans supporting all the candidates of both parties, those of us who are Trump supporters are by far the most loyal, the most unshakeable, and the toughest.

    So, don't try to hang some kind of prissy faint-of-heart label on us. As Trump supporters we're in this for the long haul. We're ready to fight against the setbacks. We'll be fighting this out for as long as it takes to get the job done.

    TB, May 5, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    Nelson said: You can't be a Christian and hate thy neighbor.
    ____________________

    all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Lee, May 5, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    Well, let's see what John Adams had to say about the Christian nation concept. ""The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    -John Adams

    Or what of Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams on April 11 of 1823?

    "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding ."

    There's a whole lot more I could point to that further illustrates the erroneous nature of the Christian nation myth. But people love their myths, just as the term Christian is quite a bit problematic in that historically it most accurately describes Orthodox Jews.

    LouisM, May 5, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    Bush2/Cheney fancied themselves caesars invading multiple Mideast nations. Obama fancies himself as god. He has gone beyond any president in usurping the congress and the states for his personal beliefs in Islam, global warming, drugs, immigration, unions, sexual identity, Title IX, Healthcare, etc.

    Is Trump a surprise? Only in that he is unapologetic and doesn't hide it. More than likely future presidents will not be as overt and obvious but that does not make them any less psychopathic in seeing the Presidency as a throne rather than a orchestra leader.

    tz, May 5, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    Sad. Bush and Obama have both tortured and murdered and garnered only a few peeps – aside from the few low level personnel who were all but ordered to do so, who is in prison, much less been tried?

    Trump is the epitome of our last two decades of compromise, of the end justifies the means, the "24" "Jack Bauer" that will save the day at any cost, and is somehow the amoral savior.

    The most rabidly righteous evangelicals who hate even the mild "damn" love "24". For some reason they originally preferred Cruz.

    This is the one thing – Trump may be many other forms of evil, but is not a hypocrite. He doesn't equivocate on torture (listen to Cruz's debate response). He doesn't pull punches. He doesn't triangulate or check the polls.

    WYSIWYG. The problem is he is a mirror, and the problem is it is your image staring back even if you find it horrible.

    Jay L , May 6, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Trump is what you get when a party becomes bankrupt of any real ideas other than personal greed. The party of NO wing of the Republican Party has reached its logical conclusion. The Party has paid only lip service to Evangelicals for a generation. Look at all the shirt sleeve pols that end up in sex and/or money scandals all the while thumping the bible and being born again. Look how every problem can be solved and every issue addressed if only you support us is giving the corporate and wealthy class another round of tax cuts and hand outs. The Party has over and over said to the Evangelicals if you support us we will get around to your agenda right after we address the lobbyists who fund our greed. I have wondered for years when the Evangelicals would see that the ends don't justify the means philosophy of the Republican Party isn't really interested in what they have to say. One doesn't achieve a Christian state through the seven deadly sins.

    My greatest fear is that Trumps rise and the rise of a civil religion/cult is but a step on the path to chaos. History has shown many times that when people don't see religion as an answer to their problems that they next turn to civil god champions and when their champions ultimately fail there is nothing left to turn to except the social chaos of tearing the whole structure down. Many of Trumps and Bernie's supporters won't listen to or care about what dangers, even to themselves, are on the path they are supporting as long as it hurts the current ruling class that refuses to share the benefits of the system.

    A. G. Phillbin , May 6, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Why is the author, and some commenters here, acting as if the label "Evangelical" means any more to those Evangelicals than the label "Catholic" means to most Catholics, or the label "Jewish" means to most Jews, etc.

    People are asked in a survey to identify by religion. People saying, for example, "Catholic," would include both liberal and traditionalist Catholics, practicing Catholics and lapsed Catholics and perhaps even ex-Catholics who haven't converted to anything. But the poll would only reflect the number of people who checked the "Catholic" box, not the depth of their faith.

    Similarly, would not people checking "Evangelical" include people who were born into an Evangelical Christian household, but don't practice much themselves and have given little thought as to what being an Evangelical means, as well as the very devout?

    Without knowing which Evangelicals or which Catholics or which Jews are supporting a candidate or political position, how useful is the information?

    [Jan 01, 2018] Donald Trump s National Security Strategy by Thierry Meyssan

    I strongly doubt that there is a break from the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower
    Notable quotes:
    "... During the mandates of George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, the documents defining their National Security Strategies were based on the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower. They could wage the " endless war " advocated by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, in other words they could systematically destroy any political organisation in the already unstable areas of the planet, beginning with the " Greater Middle East ". The Presidents indicated their projects for every region of the world. All that the unified fighting Commands had to do was apply these instructions. ..."
    "... He once again uses his slogan " America First! " and makes it his philosophical foundation. Historically, this formula is still associated with support for Nazism, but this is not its original meaning. It was initially a way of breaking with Roosevelt's Atlantist policy - the alliance with the British Empire in order to govern the world. ..."
    Jan 01, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

    During the mandates of George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, the documents defining their National Security Strategies were based on the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower. They could wage the " endless war " advocated by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, in other words they could systematically destroy any political organisation in the already unstable areas of the planet, beginning with the " Greater Middle East ". The Presidents indicated their projects for every region of the world. All that the unified fighting Commands had to do was apply these instructions.

    Donald Trump's National Security Strategy breaks almost entirely with this literature. It conserves certain of the mythological elements of these previous mandates, but attempts above all to reposition the United States as the Republic it was in 1791 (which is to say at the moment of compromise with the Bill of Rights ) and no longer as the Empire that it became on 11 September 2001.

    The role of the White House, its diplomacy and its armed forces is no longer to rule the world, but to protect " the interests of the people of the United States ".

    In his introduction, Donald Trump marks his difference with his predecessors by denouncing the policies of " régime change " and " world democratic revolution " adopted by Ronald Reagan and managed under successive administrations by Trotskyite senior civil servants. He reaffirms the classic realpolitik as declared by Henry Kissinger for example, founded on the idea of " sovereign nations ".

    The reader will however keep in mind that certain intergovernmental agencies of the " Five Eyes " group, (Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom), such as the National Endowment for Democracy, are still directed by Trotskyists.

    Donald Trump distinguishes three types of difficulty that his country is going to have to face -

    1. First of all, the rivalry with Russia and China;
    2. Next, the opposition of " rogue states " (North Korea and Iran) in their respective regions;
    3. Finally, the threat to international law embodied by the jihadist movements and transnational criminal organisations.

    Although he too considers the United States to be the incarnation of Good, he does not diabolise his rivals, adversaries and enemies, but attempts to understand them, unlike his predecessors.

    He once again uses his slogan " America First! " and makes it his philosophical foundation. Historically, this formula is still associated with support for Nazism, but this is not its original meaning. It was initially a way of breaking with Roosevelt's Atlantist policy - the alliance with the British Empire in order to govern the world.

    The reader will remember that the first cabinet of the Obama administration gave an excessive place to the members of the Pilgrim Society (no connection with the Mont-Pelerin Society), in other words a very private club presided by Queen Elizabeth II. This was the group which piloted the financial après-crise of 2008.

    In order to guide this policy of returning to the Republican principles of 1791 and independence from British financial interests, Donald Trump poses four pillars:

    - The protection of the people of the United States, its homeland and its way of life;
    - The prosperity of the United States;
    - The power of its armies;
    - The development of its influence.

    Thus, he does not imagine his strategy in opposition to his rivals, his adversaries and his enemies, but as a function of his Republican and independent ideal.

    In order to avoid misinterpretation, he specifies that while he may consider that the United States is an example for the world, it is neither possible nor desirable to impose its way of life on others - particularly since this way of life could not be considered as the " inevitable final outcome of progress ". He does not think of international relations as being the rule of the United States over the world, but as the search for " reciprocal relations " with his partners.

    The four pillars of the America First doctrine of National Security

    - The protection of the people of the United States implies, above all, the restoration of the frontiers (terrestrial, aerial, maritime, spatial and cyber-spatial) which have been progressively destroyed by the globalists.

    These frontiers are intended to neutralise the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist and criminal groups, and also to contain pandemics and prevent the entry of drugs or illegal immigrants. Concerning the cyber-spatial frontiers, Donald Trump notes the necessity of securing the Internet by giving priority, successively, to National Security, Energy, the Banks, Health, Communications and Transports. But all that remains rather theoretical.

    While, since the presidency of Richard Nixon, the war against drugs had been selective, aimed not at drying up the flood of illegal substances, but at directing it towards certain ethnic minorities, Donald Trump responds to a new need. Aware of the collapse of life expectancy exclusively affecting white males under Barack Obama, the despair that it caused and the opioïd epidemic that ensued, Trump considers that the fight against the cartels is a question of national survival.

    Speaking of the war against terrorism, it is not clear whether he is referring to the " lone wolves " who continue to fight even after the fall of the Caliphate, as was the case with certain groups of the Waffen SS after the fall of the Reich, or the maintenance of the British system of jihadism. If the second hypothesis is correct, it would be a clear retraction of his declarations of intention during his electoral campaign and the first months of his presidency. He would therefore be obliged to clarify the evolution of relations between Washington and London, as well the consequences of this change concerning the management of NATO.

    In any case, we note a strange passage from the text which states as follows - " The United States will work with their allies and partners to dissuade and destabilise other groups which threaten the homeland - including the groups sponsored by Iran, like the Lebanese Hezbollah ".

    For all anti-terrorist actions, Donald Trump considers limited alliances with other powers, including Russia and China.

    Finally, concerning the resilience of the United States, he validates the programme of " Continuity of Government ", although it was the direct beneficiary of the coup d'Etat of 9/11. However, he states that citizens who are engaged and informed are the basis of this system, which would seem to avert the danger of a replay of such an event.

    - Concerning the prosperity of the United States , a condition for the development of his Defense programme, Donald Trump is a champion of the " American dream ", the " minimal State ", and the theory of " trickle-down economics " (from top to bottom). He therefore conceives of an economy based on free exchange and not financialisation. Taking the opposite point of view from the commonly-believed idea that free exchange was an instrument of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, he affirms that it is only fair for the primary actors if the new actors accept the rules. He claims that several states -- including China -- are profiting from this system without ever having entertained the intention of adopting its values.

    He bases himself on this idea -- and not on the analysis of the appearance of a transnational class of the super-rich -- in order to denounce multilateral commercial agreements.

    He continues by announcing the deregulation of all sectors where State intervention is unnecessary. At the same time, he is planning the opposition to all interventions by foreign States and their nationalised businesses, which could distort fair exchanges with the United States.

    He intends to develop theoretical research and its technical applications, and to support invention and innovation. For that, he plans for special and advantageous conditions of immigration in order to generate a " brain drain " towards the United States. Considering the skills thus acquired, not as the means for establishing a toll-booth on the world economy via patents, but as the motor of the US economy, he intends to create a National Security file of these techniques and to protect them in order to maintain his advance.

    Finally, on the subject of the access to sources of energy, he observes that for the first time, the United States is self-sufficient. He warns against policies initiated in the name of global warming, which implies limiting the use of energy. Here, Donald Trump is not talking about the financialisation of ecology, but is clearly lobbing a stone into the garden of France, promoter of the " greening of finance ". Replacing this question in a more general context, he affirms that the United States will support any States which are victims of energy blackmail.

    - Affirming that while the United States is no longer the sole superpower, it is the dominant power, he states that his central security objective is the maintenance of this military preeminence , in accordance with the Roman adage Si vis pacem, para bellum [ 1 ].

    He first observes that " China is attempting to exclude the United States from the Indo-Pacific region, to extend the reach of its State-run economic model, and to reorganise the region to its own advantage ". According to Trump, Beijing is in the process of building the world's second military capability (under the authority of General Xi Jinping) leaning for support on the skills of the United States.

    As for Russia, " it is seeking to re-establish its status as a great power and create spheres of influence at its borders ". To that purpose, it is " attempting to weaken the influence of the United States in the world and separate the USA from its allies and partners. It perceives NATO and the European Union as threats ".

    This is the first analysis of the goals and means of the rivals of the United States. Contrary to the " Wolfowitz doctrine ", the White House no longer considers the European Union as a competitor, but as the civilian wing of NATO. Breaking with the strategy of economic sabotage of the European Union by George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump posits the possibility of cooperating with his rivals (which are now Russia and China), but only from a " position of strength ".

    The current period sees the return of military competition, with three players this time. Knowing the tendency of military men to prepare for the last war, rather than trying to imagine the next, it is a good idea to rethink the organisation and allocation of the armies while remembering that your rivals will position themselves in whatever sector they choose. We should note that it is not in this chapter that Donald Trump evokes the Pentagon's Achilles heel, but much earlier in the text. It is in his introduction, at a moment when the reader is absorbed in philosophical considerations, that he mentions the new breed of Russian weapons, and in particular their capacity to inhibit the commands and controls of NATO equipment.

    The Pentagon must renew its arsenal, both in quantity and in quality. It has to abandon the illusion that its technological superiority (in reality, now overtaken by Russia) can make up for its inferiority in numbers. There follows a long study of the domains of armament, including nuclear weapons, which have to be modernised.

    Donald Trump intends to inverse the current functioning of the Defense industry. The industry currently tries to sell its products to the Federal state -- Trump hopes that the Federal state will launch its own offers, and that the industrials will respond to these new needs. We know that today, the Defense industry no longer has the engineers it needs to realise new projects. The failure of the F-35 is the most striking example of this. The change for which the President is hoping therefore supposes the prior organisation of the " brain drain " towards the United States which he has already evoked.

    As far as Intelligence is concerned, he has adopted the theories of his ex-National Security advisor General Michael Flynn. He wants to reposition not only the Defense Intelligence Agency, but the entire " Intelligence community ". The objective is no longer being able to pinpoint, at any moment, one terrorist chief or another, but being able to anticipate the strategic evolutions of its rivals, adversaries and enemies. This means abandoning the obsession with GPS and high-tech gadgets in order to rehabilitate analysis.

    Finally, he considers the State Department to be a tool enabling the creation of a positive environment for his country, including with his rivals. It is no longer the means of extending the interests of multinational companies, which it was under George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, nor the organiser of the Empire which it became under Bush Jr. and Barack Obama. US diplomats therefore need to regain a little political dexterity.

    - The chapter dedicated to the influence of the United States clarifies the end of the " globalisation " of the " American way of life ". The United States will not seek to impose their values on others. They will treat all people equally, and will valorise those who respect the rule of law.

    In order to encourage those countries who might wish to become partners, but whose investments are governed by the State, he plans to offer them alternatives solutions which would facilitate the reform of their economy.

    Concerning intergovernmental organisations, he announces that he will refuse to hand over the slightest part of sovereignty if it must be shared with countries who question the constitutional principles of the USA - a direct allusion to the International Criminal Court, for example. On the other hand, he says nothing about the extra-territoriality of US Justice, which violates the constitutional principles of other countries.

    Finally, reviewing the long tradition which came from the compromise of 1791, he affirms that the United States will continue to support those who fight for human dignity or religious freedom (not to be confused with freedom of conscience).

    It is only after this long exposé that Donald Trump addresses the regional application of his doctrine. Nothing new is announced, apart from an alliance with Australia, India and Japan to contain China and combat North Korea.

    At best we learn about two new approaches to the Middle East. Experience with Daesh has shown that the main problem is not the Israëli question, but that of the jihadist ideology. And what Washington blames Iran for is the perpetuation of the cycle of violence by its refusal to negotiate.

    By default, the reader understands that the Pentagon has to abandon the project by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski that Donald Rumfeld imposed on 11 September. The " endless war " is over. The tension should not only stop spreading throughout the world, but lessen in the Greater Middle East.

    Donald Trump's National Security doctrine is very solidly constructed, on the historical level (we can see the influence of General Jim Mattis) and on the philosophical level (following ex-Special advisor Steve Bannon). It is based on a rigorous analysis of the challenges to US power (in conformity with the work of General H. R. McMaster). It validates the State Department's budget cuts (operated by Rex Tillerson). Contrary to the received wisdom of US journalists, the Trump administration has managed to develop a coherent synthesis which clearly distances itself from previous visions.

    However, the absence of an explicit regional strategy attests to the extent of the ongoing revolution. Nothing guarantees that the military leaders will apply this new philosophy in their respective domains - particularly since we were able to note, only a few days ago, the collusion between US Forces and the jihadists in Syria. Thierry Meyssan

    Translation
    Pete Kimberley

    [Jan 01, 2018] Nah, just random accidents of history. Oh hold on a minute, can I see a pattern here?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'll have a wild guess. Give me a U, give me an S, give me an A. USA. Nah, couldn't be. Washington had nothing to do with N Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Australia (really, 1975), Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria, the Ukraine and Yeltsin's Russia. No way, that's just scratching the surface of a myriad totally inexplicable events, such as 9/11, which US governments couldn't possibly have had anything to do with. Al Qaida and ISIS? Nah, just random accidents of history. Oh hold on a minute, can I see a pattern here? ..."
    "... You left out Iran, Operation Ajax. When CIA gifted 25 years of the Shah to the Iranian People. Because the Soviets would have enslaved and murdered the Iranian People. ..."
    Jan 01, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    Setarcos -> sushi Dec 31, 2017 2:46 PM

    I'll have a wild guess. Give me a U, give me an S, give me an A. USA. Nah, couldn't be. Washington had nothing to do with N Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Australia (really, 1975), Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria, the Ukraine and Yeltsin's Russia. No way, that's just scratching the surface of a myriad totally inexplicable events, such as 9/11, which US governments couldn't possibly have had anything to do with. Al Qaida and ISIS? Nah, just random accidents of history. Oh hold on a minute, can I see a pattern here?

    HOLY COW!! I'm shocked I tell ya. There was me, all these years, believing that, for example, Truman (sic), Nixon, Bush 1 & 2, Obomber and Killery were angels of light, truth and justice. I'm amazed that Julian Assange had to seek asylum and that Trump might never do anything about it. Oh well, Viva Vladimir Vladimirovich, at least so far he hasn't disillusioned me, nor growing millions around the World, including decent people in the USA.

    any_mouse -> Setarcos Dec 31, 2017 4:44 PM

    You left out Iran, Operation Ajax. When CIA gifted 25 years of the Shah to the Iranian People. Because the Soviets would have enslaved and murdered the Iranian People.

    FreedomWriter -> brewing_it Dec 31, 2017 11:36 AM

    More smoke and mirrors, nicely done though. If JA gets rolled up into the general Obama Admin "never saw a stitchup we didn't like" narrative, he may very well become eligible for a presidential pardon, or, at the very least, a dropping of federal charges. Of course, that assumes some high-ranking officials are eventually put on trial (still a supposition, at this point).

    But the stench of the swamp is getting ever stronger. Methinks it's almost time to strike a match and burn off some of that nasty stinky methane. Perhaps it could be used to power a new generation of eco-friendly, green mobile-guillotine vehicles.

    MAGA, bitchez! A Happy New Year to you Mr President and to all ZHers.

    Yes Tyler, I have been patient so far, but we do miss the edit button.

    [Jan 01, 2018] Do Rosenstein and Mueller Have Conflicts of Interest in the Trump Investigation? by Jonathan Turley

    Why Rosenstein does not investigate the DNC corruption instead or along with targeting Trump? "Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?" What was the crime committed by Trump that warrant opening the investigation ?
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mueller has a rather large conflict of interest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta ..."
    "... Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. ..."
    "... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
    "... There's much more about Mueller which makes it clear he's no friend of democracy. http://www.globalresearch.ca/special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-is-a-political-hack/5594943 ..."
    "... Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2] ..."
    "... Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional special counsel in search of a crime seriously. ..."
    "... Rosenstein and Goldilocks??? You know, like from Hamlet. . . ..."
    "... When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify ..."
    "... Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be accorded? ..."
    "... Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him. ..."
    "... as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried" to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. ..."
    "... From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. ..."
    "... Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning of Rosenstein's DOJ career. ..."
    "... "Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million." ..."
    "... Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop. ..."
    "... It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. ..."
    "... I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more weight. ..."
    "... "If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit minority of the public are campaign contributors ..."
    Jun 19, 2017 | jonathanturley.org

    Debbie Barnhart says: June 19, 2017 at 11:00 PM

    This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recluse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media? Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies."

    Putin is an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's sphere of influence. Can't say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the US is helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem.

    Trump's ham-fisted attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels, is much ado about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he didn't – he wouldn't be President now.

    Jill says: June 19, 2017 at 8:59 PM

    Mueller has a rather large conflict of interest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta

    billmcwilliams says: June 19, 2017 at 7:34 PM

    G.R. headline: "Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller Is a "Political Hack" -- note what JT said:

    snippett: Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil. Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commented at the time: "One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order."

    ***

    He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."

    Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. As we noted in 2013:
    FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out:

    Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

    There's much more about Mueller which makes it clear he's no friend of democracy.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-is-a-political-hack/5594943

    MLK's CoinTelPro says: June 19, 2017 at 4:03 PM
    All parties involved swore a supreme loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution, which includes fidelity to our Bill of Rights. All ignored the torture, illegal spying and abusing the Espionage Act but they did lock up those that had fidelity to their oath (i.e.: John Kiriakou).

    Why has the Press lost interest in that disloyalty by most, not all, DOJ employees – they swore to protect Americans' constitutional rights.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says: June 19, 2017 at 1:45 PM
    Here is a good blog article on Mueller: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/06/special-prosecutor-mueller-political-hack.html

    This goes into some of Mueller's past, and is very informative.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    billmcwilliams says: June 19, 2017 at 2:19 PM
    Thanks, Ms. Fromm.

    Whenever a member or supporter of the !% tells us that Mr. X is highly respected etc., you can be certain that Mr. X will not act contrary to the beliefs and aspirations of the established order.

    Mr. Mueller is Mr.X.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says: June 19, 2017 at 3:20 PM
    You are exactly right! Mueller is an Apparatchik. Which wiki says is:

    Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2]

    Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation.[3]

    Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age.[4]

    Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins English Dictionary the word can mean "an official or bureaucrat in any organization".[5]

    According to Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary, the term was also used in the meaning "Communist agent or spy", originating in the writings of Arthur Koestler, c. 1941.[6]

    In Australia, the term is often used to describe people who have made their career as factional operatives and leaders in political parties, and who are therefore perceived to have little 'real-world' experience outside politics.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM
    Every time I say the name Mueller, I can't help but think of Ferris Bueller. Mueller? Mueller? Anyone? Anyone find a crime yet?
    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 3:02 PM
    Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional special counsel in search of a crime seriously.
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says: June 19, 2017 at 3:24 PM
    Rosenstein and Goldilocks??? You know, like from Hamlet. . .

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    Gadfly M (@GadflyMorse) says: June 19, 2017 at 1:39 PM
    When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify regarding:
    1. Why did she advise Comey to call the investigation a "matter"? Why was she pressuring him to back-off and not indict Hillary? To what degree was POTUS Obama involved in Hillary's e-mail gate? What was in the 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted?
    2. What took place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the airplane during Tarmac-gate in AZ? They didn't talk about their "grandkids" alone, did they ergo, did Bill Clinton promise that if AG Lynch & Comey refused to recommend an indictment that Hillary would recommend her to be nominated for the US Supreme Court? What, if any other, quid-pro-quos were offered by Bill on behalf of Hillary in order to obstruct justice?
    3. Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be accorded? What was Obama-Lynch's role in aiding-and-abetting Hillary to avoid prosecution of crimes that other US citizens would endure for lesser crimes?

    Let's be honest please: It wasn't Trump or the Russians who obstructed justice -- attempted to rig our elections -- who perverted the course of justice: -- It was Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton, AG Loretta Lynch and Comey– all of whom thought that Hillary would be POTUS and were happy to help her out -- and whom were willing to turn a blind-eye -- to her crimes in order to enjoy the perks that she would provide in return for ignoring her blatant, willful & criminal activities.

    Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him.

    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 7:40 PM

    Yes! But, as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried" to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. The idiots on the left who continue to venerate her are true 'sycophants' -- emphasis on 'sick.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4619402/Bill-Hillary-Clinton-enjoy-date-night-Broadway-play.html

    Sandi Hemming says: June 19, 2017 at 7:56 PM
    From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. It's a sham that DOJ has let go. My main complaint is -- how much is this going to cost the taxpayer? It has no basis in fact from anyone, so why are we here? Well, because the Dems are afraid of Donald Trump! Sessions should tell his Deputy to end this by terminating the whole thing. Hopefully Dems will,pay for this in 2018. We will not let Americans forget!

    PeaceFrog says: June 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM

    FWIW,

    Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning of Rosenstein's DOJ career.

    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 8:17 AM

    The Dems won't rest until they get Trump's tax returns. Next we'll see "leaks" coming out of the IRS because Trump hasn't cleaned house over there yet.

    And, yes, if Trump is to reveal his tax returns, so should every member of Congress be under scrutiny and/or investigation. I'm sure we'd find some interesting information. Like this from Mark Warner's:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/report-anti-trump-senator-mark-warner-made-6-million-2012-russian-tech-business/

    -- -- -- -- -- -- --

    "Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million."

    -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

    "As far as we know, President Donald J. Trump has made 0% of his net worth from Russian companies. Maybe Warner should investigate his own ties to Russia.

    Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is blocking the White House from appointing a Treasury Department official to oversee financial crimes committed by terrorists. Warner, worth over $80 million, is one of the Senate's richest members."

    Allan says: June 19, 2017 at 9:02 AM
    Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop.

    The left is tribal and now even becoming openly violent.

    Hempmeister says: June 19, 2017 at 7:48 AM

    It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 7:15 AM
    What a mess. Mueller has to recuse himself on anything Comey related, right? So, if Mueller opens an investigation into obstruction, then both he and Rosenstein have to step aside. So Trump is correct when he says he is not under investigation. Hasn't Comey, (and Coats and Rogers) all testified under oath that there was no obstruction? Hasn't it been determined that there is no 'collusion' (whatever that means) between Trump and Russia? So what is the special counsel investigating?

    How about instead of obstruction, they take a look at sedition?

    Paul Schulte says: June 19, 2017 at 7:30 AM
    Tbob – is sedition still a crime?
    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 7:51 AM
    18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 8:04 AM
    What exactly is the Democrat "RESIST Movement" if not perilously close to seditious conspiracy? Or 'insurrection'?
    Paul Schulte says: June 19, 2017 at 8:18 AM
    Tbob – I thought we had gotten rid of it when they overturned the Alien and Sedition Laws.
    TBob says: June 19, 2017 at 8:50 AM
    The 'Blind Sheikh' was convicted of seditious conspiracy in 1995.
    Paul Schulte says: June 19, 2017 at 7:02 AM
    Michael Aarethun – he is not going to find Diogenese in Washington, DC. I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more weight.

    Don de Drain says: June 19, 2017 at 1:46 AM

    Rosenstein has a clear conflict of interest. Mueller probably doesn't have a conflict of interest, but if I were in his shoes, I would hire an attorney whose sole job is to deal with conflict of interest issues and other ethical issues that are certain to come up. I would also take steps to see that this "ethics counsel" can't be fired without approval by the (acting) Attorney General -- whoever is sitting in for Sessions.
    DesparatelySeekingSusan says: June 19, 2017 at 3:22 PM
    "If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit minority of the public are campaign contributors. Comment dit-on Establishment stitch-up ?

    [Jan 01, 2018] What Will US-Russia Relations Look Like in 2018 by Nikolas Gvosdev

    Looks like this guy is a globalist and neocon in his major views. A defender of the "unipolar moment"
    2018 might be a tough year for Putin as Trump administration is not only as aggressive as Obama administration was, but to certain extent is more reckless then Obama administration.
    Oil price rise might help a bit, so the attempt to push Russia into economic chaos via artificial lowering of oil prices (With Saudi support) did not work all too well , but the US became way too aggressive under Trump and that might provoke retaliation on the part of Russia. Which can unleash a spiral fo violence leading to a war.
    Notable quotes:
    "... lethal military aid to Ukraine, preside over a tightening of sanctions on the Kremlin, the buildup of U.S. and NATO forces in eastern Europe and designate Russia as a strategic rival of the United States, the foreign policy commentariat would have had a field day. After all, Donald Trump was the "Siberian candidate" who was going to preside over a twenty-first century version of Yalta with his good friend Vladimir Putin. These were the steps that a Hillary Clinton team was expected to make, not someone who had run on a platform of seeking better relations with Moscow. ..."
    "... When it comes to Ukraine, the logic appears to be that Russia has too much to lose to restart the conflict and that U.S. efforts to rebuild the Ukrainian security forces will not provoke Russian steps to ascend the ladder of escalation. Likewise, the administration sees no reason for the U.S. to abandon its operations in Syria and does not feel any need to step back from the reiteration of the Obama-era policy that Bashar al-Assad has no political future in Syria. ..."
    "... So the starting point for U.S.-Russia relations in 2018 is the Trump administration's insistence that improved U.S.-Russia ties, while desirable, are not essential -- and that the ball is in Moscow's court to make a series of up-front concessions and policy reversals. ..."
    "... This is based on the analysis that Russia will face continued economic problems, will not be able to sanctions-proof its economy and will find it increasingly difficult to sustain its current international position. In some ways, this is a variant of the strategy pursued by the Obama administration: to wait for the moment when Russia can, proverbially, no longer pay the bills. ..."
    "... Putin's starting point -- based on his experience in dealing with four previous U.S. presidents, and now having a better sense of how U.S. domestic politics works -- is not to offer any first moves given the lack of confidence he has that any gestures would be reciprocated. ..."
    "... Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the Captain Jerome E. Levy chair of economic geography and national security at the Naval War College. He is also a contributing editor to the National Interest. The views expressed here are his own. ..."
    Jan 01, 2018 | nationalinterest.org
    lethal military aid to Ukraine, preside over a tightening of sanctions on the Kremlin, the buildup of U.S. and NATO forces in eastern Europe and designate Russia as a strategic rival of the United States, the foreign policy commentariat would have had a field day. After all, Donald Trump was the "Siberian candidate" who was going to preside over a twenty-first century version of Yalta with his good friend Vladimir Putin. These were the steps that a Hillary Clinton team was expected to make, not someone who had run on a platform of seeking better relations with Moscow.

    Yet here we are. The situation has changed over the past year from what was expected of Trump (when champagne corks popped in the Duma after the results of the November 2016 election were broadcast) to reports that Russian officials quietly admit that they miss dealing with their Obama-era counterparts. So what does this portend for the future?

    The strategic ethos of the Trump administration appears to be settling in to a variant of the old "selective cooperation" approach, buttressed by Trump's own personal assessment that U.S. diplomats were too keen to offer concessions and inducements to other countries to get their support when that support would have materialized in the end. As I previously noted, the gamble that the Trump team is taking vis-a-vis North Korea is that Russia and China have too much at stake to permit an unraveling of the situation on the Korean peninsula, and therefore there is no need for Washington to offer compromises in other areas to get Beijing and Moscow on board for tough new measures directed against Kim Jong-un. When it comes to Ukraine, the logic appears to be that Russia has too much to lose to restart the conflict and that U.S. efforts to rebuild the Ukrainian security forces will not provoke Russian steps to ascend the ladder of escalation. Likewise, the administration sees no reason for the U.S. to abandon its operations in Syria and does not feel any need to step back from the reiteration of the Obama-era policy that Bashar al-Assad has no political future in Syria.

    So the starting point for U.S.-Russia relations in 2018 is the Trump administration's insistence that improved U.S.-Russia ties, while desirable, are not essential -- and that the ball is in Moscow's court to make a series of up-front concessions and policy reversals.

    This is based on the analysis that Russia will face continued economic problems, will not be able to sanctions-proof its economy and will find it increasingly difficult to sustain its current international position. In some ways, this is a variant of the strategy pursued by the Obama administration: to wait for the moment when Russia can, proverbially, no longer pay the bills.

    Putin's starting point -- based on his experience in dealing with four previous U.S. presidents, and now having a better sense of how U.S. domestic politics works -- is not to offer any first moves given the lack of confidence he has that any gestures would be reciprocated. There will always be some Russian transgression that Congress will use as the excuse for not authorizing sanctions relief. The Russians are also aware that the Trump administration has added additional stress to the fractures in the trans-Atlantic alliance, with the previously warm and strong relationship between President Obama and German chancellor Angela Merkel now replaced by a degree of disdain in both Berlin and Washington for the other country's leader. America's Asian allies are likewise concerned about the reliability and staying power of the United States. So Putin might feel it a better strategy to concentrate his efforts on de-linking key U.S. partners from Washington's preferred agenda, a strategy that has already produced some early returns in the strategic reorientation of Turkey towards a closer working relationship with Russia.

    ... ... ..

    Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the Captain Jerome E. Levy chair of economic geography and national security at the Naval War College. He is also a contributing editor to the National Interest. The views expressed here are his own.

    [Jan 01, 2018] Gregg Jarrett Did the FBI and the Justice Department, plot to clear Hillary Clinton, bring down Trump

    Dec 15, 2018 | www.foxnews.com

    There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

    And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.

    Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the "deep state," a popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.

    However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and dangerous.

    Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert electoral democracy itself in our country.

    As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.

    And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."

    Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy.

    The Plans

    The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.

    Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.

    "Part A" was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.

    Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.

    But "Part A" of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a "Part B" just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.

    And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia "collusion." It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.

    More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.

    No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office.

    But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.

    The Texts

    The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an "idiot" and "loathsome."

    At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her nomination and stating: "She just has to win now."

    One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial smoking gun.

    Page: "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).

    Strzok: "Thanks. And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels . "

    It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to "protect" the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.

    Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey's view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard.

    This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey's description of Clinton's handling of classified material, substituting "extremely careless" for "gross negligence."

    As I explained in an earlier column , this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.

    Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton's server supported the "inference" that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.

    This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey's otherwise incriminating findings.

    Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved? After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau's Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller's special counsel team.

    If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their "insurance policy" against the "risk" of a Trump presidency.

    Strzok: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office – that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. "

    The reference to "Andy" is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton's emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton.

    What was the "insurance policy" discussed in Andy's office? Was it the FBI's investigation of Trump and his associates? Or was it the anti-Trump "dossier" that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.

    The Dossier

    The "dossier" was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Comey called it "salacious and unverified."

    Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer, which sounds like an implicit "yes."

    Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.

    The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.

    Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr. Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation of Russia's role in the election, but he did not.

    Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton's campaign to spy on her opponent or his campaign.

    Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers, which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.

    This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.

    If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be prosecuted.

    The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has lost credibility and the public's trust.

    It is very much like a trout in the spoiled milk.

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    Highly recommended!
    Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
    The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
    The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite, especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
    "... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
    "... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
    "... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
    "... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
    "... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
    "... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
    "... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
    "... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
    "... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
    "... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
    "... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
    "... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
    "... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
    "... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
    "... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
    "... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
    "... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
    "... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
    "... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
    "... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
    "... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
    "... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
    Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.

    As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment that had already killed millions of people.

    As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented, the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as Pete Seeger satirized it , and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.

    Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive Diem regime and its successors ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them.

    The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."

    Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.

    Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

    Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.

    Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans. As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.

    The CIA's Pretexts for War

    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy.

    Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future, both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war.

    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.

    Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.

    Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.

    CIA in Syria and Africa

    But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi, the CIA and its allies began flying fighters and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.

    Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even more savage "Islamic State," triggered the heaviest and probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into the chaos of Syria's civil war.

    Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N. has published a report titled Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment , based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

    The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family, was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups, and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.

    The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study, The People's Perspectives : Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves or their families.

    The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective.

    "The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit of some national objective in the first place."

    The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to 53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first place.

    This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale.

    Taking on China

    What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."

    China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

    China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.

    Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty and displacement.

    As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others.

    But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.

    Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.

    The Three Scapegoats

    In Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments, whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure. But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official Elliott Abrams' failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.

    How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya, once ranked by the U.N. as the most developed country in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.

    In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

    In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the solid victory of Venezuela's ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.

    The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.

    Boxing In North Korea

    A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated its commitment to North Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.

    Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul, a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only 35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.

    U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats of war. Under the Agreed Framework signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for one nuclear bomb.

    The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.

    Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental reactor was shut down as a result of the "Six Party Talks" in 2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.

    But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

    North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range from 110 to 250 kilotons , comparable to a small hydrogen bomb.

    The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal of 4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.

    The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.

    China has proposed a reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.

    This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles."

    Demonizing Iran

    The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA, which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild goose chase in his 2011 memoir, Age of Deception : Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .

    When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."

    Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book, Manufactured Crisis : the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.

    But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.

    "When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized in a prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought Iran to the table."

    In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book, A Single Roll of the Dice : Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S. from coming to the table itself.

    As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer. Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's failures in the Middle East.

    The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and attacks by Israel.

    Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has run its course.

    What the Future Holds

    Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the heaviest U.S. aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.

    Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.

    But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.

    If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems, it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.

    But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.

    In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies. Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the world.

    Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by calling for a recommitment to the rule of international law , which prohibits the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea, Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.

    Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction.

    Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other than putty in the hands of the CIA

    Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    Highly recommended!
    Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like 1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from new challengers instead of British empire.
    Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from neoliberalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
    "... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
    "... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
    "... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
    "... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
    "... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
    "... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
    "... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
    "... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
    Oct 01, 2002 | www.unz.com

    Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.

    Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.

    But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting what America has on offer.

    In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.

    The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote, delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!

    Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.

    South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians are talking of separation.

    By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."

    Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.

    To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that in their own nations than did Jefferson in his

    ... ... ...

    European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right. For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds deeply nationalist views.

    European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem but an existential crisis.

    To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from overuse.

    And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in nations created for their own kind.

    Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.

    And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of 1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.

    Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.

    Jason Liu , October 20, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT
    Yes. Fuck yes.

    Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans, pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.

    Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide doesn't mean diversity is good.

    The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html

    Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political ideology.

    TG , October 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
    "Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.

    What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey."

    Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power.

    Paul's Ghost , October 20, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT
    Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.

    To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.

    Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.

    And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.

    Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original meanings to be completely worthless.

    The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential Pardon or any other government favor.

    Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money at the military machine and the problems it invents.

    So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.

    Miro23 , October 20, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

    Is Liberalism a Dying Faith?

    Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.

    I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the decline.

    It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.

    If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).

    And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade".

    In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.

    The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election.

    reiner Tor , October 20, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
    @Randal

    A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz, but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism kinda made more sense than liberalism.

    With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children

    Verymuchalive , October 20, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT
    @Paul's Ghost

    Liberalism ( large L) is indeed long dead.

    Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.

    Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies were a long-term failure.

    Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control, as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.

    KenH , October 21, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT
    Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.

    But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism.

    What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing, and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free marketplace of ideas they lose.

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    Highly recommended!
    What a pitiful pressitute this Like Harding is...
    The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
    Notable quotes:
    "... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
    "... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
    "... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
    Dec 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.

    Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, and has published in The Nation some of the clearest arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian where he has been writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of New York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.

    In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal".

    The term Gish gallop , named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Ikf1uZli4g

    In this part here , for example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's happening here:

    Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most recently when President Macron was elected ? -

    Maté: Well actually Luke that's not true. That's straight up not true. After that election the French cyber-intelligence agency came out and said it could have been virtually anybody.

    Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ? -

    Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed didn't happen?

    Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?

    Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just claimed actually is not true?

    Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive, but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.

    Maté: Where else?

    Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.

    Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no Russian hack in Germany.

    In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a completely false example .

    That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.

    The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim, Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding has.

    jeremy scahill 0
    @jeremyscahill
    This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' - YouTube
    11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
    Q 131 11597 C? 1,148

    The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive government it is, after which the following exchange took place:

    Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the topic of your book.
    Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.

    At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up the show and promote Harding's book on his own.

    You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.

    The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument.

    Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.

    * * *

    Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History 4 days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.

    He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies.

    That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.

    Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    Highly recommended!
    Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
    The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
    The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite, especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
    "... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
    "... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
    "... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
    "... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
    "... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
    "... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
    "... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
    "... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
    "... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
    "... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
    "... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
    "... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
    "... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
    "... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
    "... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
    "... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
    "... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
    "... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
    "... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
    "... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
    "... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
    "... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
    Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.

    As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment that had already killed millions of people.

    As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented, the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as Pete Seeger satirized it , and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.

    Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive Diem regime and its successors ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them.

    The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."

    Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.

    Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

    Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.

    Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans. As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.

    The CIA's Pretexts for War

    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy.

    Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future, both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war.

    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.

    Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.

    Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.

    CIA in Syria and Africa

    But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi, the CIA and its allies began flying fighters and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.

    Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even more savage "Islamic State," triggered the heaviest and probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into the chaos of Syria's civil war.

    Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N. has published a report titled Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment , based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

    The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family, was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups, and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.

    The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study, The People's Perspectives : Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves or their families.

    The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective.

    "The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit of some national objective in the first place."

    The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to 53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first place.

    This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale.

    Taking on China

    What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."

    China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

    China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.

    Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty and displacement.

    As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others.

    But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.

    Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.

    The Three Scapegoats

    In Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments, whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure. But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official Elliott Abrams' failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.

    How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya, once ranked by the U.N. as the most developed country in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.

    In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

    In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the solid victory of Venezuela's ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.

    The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.

    Boxing In North Korea

    A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated its commitment to North Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.

    Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul, a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only 35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.

    U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats of war. Under the Agreed Framework signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for one nuclear bomb.

    The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.

    Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental reactor was shut down as a result of the "Six Party Talks" in 2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.

    But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

    North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range from 110 to 250 kilotons , comparable to a small hydrogen bomb.

    The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal of 4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.

    The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.

    China has proposed a reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.

    This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles."

    Demonizing Iran

    The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA, which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild goose chase in his 2011 memoir, Age of Deception : Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .

    When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."

    Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book, Manufactured Crisis : the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.

    But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.

    "When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized in a prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought Iran to the table."

    In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book, A Single Roll of the Dice : Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S. from coming to the table itself.

    As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer. Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's failures in the Middle East.

    The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and attacks by Israel.

    Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has run its course.

    What the Future Holds

    Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the heaviest U.S. aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.

    Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.

    But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.

    If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems, it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.

    But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.

    In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies. Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the world.

    Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by calling for a recommitment to the rule of international law , which prohibits the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea, Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.

    Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction.

    Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other than putty in the hands of the CIA

    Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    Highly recommended!
    Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like 1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from new challengers instead of British empire.
    Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from neoliberalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
    "... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
    "... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
    "... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
    "... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
    "... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
    "... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
    "... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
    "... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
    Oct 01, 2002 | www.unz.com

    Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.

    Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.

    But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting what America has on offer.

    In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.

    The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote, delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!

    Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.

    South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians are talking of separation.

    By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."

    Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.

    To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that in their own nations than did Jefferson in his

    ... ... ...

    European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right. For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds deeply nationalist views.

    European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem but an existential crisis.

    To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from overuse.

    And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in nations created for their own kind.

    Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.

    And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of 1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.

    Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.

    Jason Liu , October 20, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT
    Yes. Fuck yes.

    Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans, pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.

    Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide doesn't mean diversity is good.

    The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html

    Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political ideology.

    TG , October 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
    "Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.

    What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey."

    Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power.

    Paul's Ghost , October 20, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT
    Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.

    To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.

    Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.

    And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.

    Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original meanings to be completely worthless.

    The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential Pardon or any other government favor.

    Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money at the military machine and the problems it invents.

    So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.

    Miro23 , October 20, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

    Is Liberalism a Dying Faith?

    Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.

    I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the decline.

    It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.

    If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).

    And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade".

    In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.

    The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election.

    reiner Tor , October 20, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
    @Randal

    A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz, but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism kinda made more sense than liberalism.

    With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children

    Verymuchalive , October 20, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT
    @Paul's Ghost

    Liberalism ( large L) is indeed long dead.

    Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.

    Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies were a long-term failure.

    Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control, as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.

    KenH , October 21, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT
    Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.

    But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism.

    What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing, and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free marketplace of ideas they lose.

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    Highly recommended!
    What a pitiful pressitute this Like Harding is...
    The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
    Notable quotes:
    "... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
    "... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
    "... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
    Dec 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.

    Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, and has published in The Nation some of the clearest arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian where he has been writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of New York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.

    In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal".

    The term Gish gallop , named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Ikf1uZli4g

    In this part here , for example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's happening here:

    Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most recently when President Macron was elected ? -

    Maté: Well actually Luke that's not true. That's straight up not true. After that election the French cyber-intelligence agency came out and said it could have been virtually anybody.

    Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ? -

    Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed didn't happen?

    Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?

    Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just claimed actually is not true?

    Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive, but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.

    Maté: Where else?

    Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.

    Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no Russian hack in Germany.

    In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a completely false example .

    That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.

    The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim, Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding has.

    jeremy scahill 0
    @jeremyscahill
    This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' - YouTube
    11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
    Q 131 11597 C? 1,148

    The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive government it is, after which the following exchange took place:

    Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the topic of your book.
    Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.

    At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up the show and promote Harding's book on his own.

    You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.

    The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument.

    Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.

    * * *

    Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History 4 days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.

    He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies.

    That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.

    Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.

    [Dec 31, 2017] Maybe Trump was the deep state candidate of choice? Maybe that s why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders? Maybe that s why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – to swing the election to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning? ..."
    "... Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control ..."
    "... "It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year." ..."
    "... "Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?" ..."
    "... A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton. ..."
    "... Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works. ..."
    "... I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption "Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." ..."
    Dec 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Harold Smith , December 29, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT

    "Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "

    Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?

    "Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which clearly show that the Empire is in 'full paranoid' mode."

    Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.

    "It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year."

    Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – so as to swing the election to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?

    Lana Kane , December 30, 2017 at 2:27 am GMT
    @Harold Smith

    "Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?"

    A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton.

    Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works.

    I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption "Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers."

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    Highly recommended!
    If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
    Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
    One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken. If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits. So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed get a new more sinister life.
    I suspected many of such firms (for example ISS which was bought by IBM in 2006) to be scams long ago.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
    "... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
    "... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
    "... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
    "... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
    "... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
    "... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
    "... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
    Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com

    Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's pathetic election defeat to Trump, and CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this entire DNC server hack an "insurance policy."

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    Highly recommended!
    If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
    Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
    One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken. If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits. So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed get a new more sinister life.
    I suspected many of such firms (for example ISS which was bought by IBM in 2006) to be scams long ago.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
    "... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
    "... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
    "... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
    "... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
    "... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
    "... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
    "... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
    Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com

    Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's pathetic election defeat to Trump, and CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this entire DNC server hack an "insurance policy."

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
    "... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
    "... Commander's intent: ..."
    "... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
    "... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
    "... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
    "... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
    "... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
    "... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
    "... there has to be ..."
    "... would undoubtedly ..."
    "... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
    "... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
    "... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
    "... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
    "... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
    "... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
    "... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
    "... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
    "... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
    "... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
    "... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
    "... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
    Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:

    Example 1:

    North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.

    We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.

    Example 2:

    Commander's intent:

    Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.

    Execution:

    Phase one:

    Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.

    Phase two:

    Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course).

    Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"

    Phase four: Regime change.

    There you go .

    Example 3:

    I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.

    These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics:

    First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence, when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain"). You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .

    Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority, the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case, that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological, hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example #2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.

    The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of " my country, right or wrong " but goes far beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility" to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".

    A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.

    A glorification of ignorance which is transformed into a sign of manliness and honesty. This is powerfully illustrated in the famous song " Where were you when the world stopped turning " whoso lyrics include the following words " I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God " (notice how the title of the song suggests that New York is the center of the world, when when get hit, the world stops turning; also, no connection is made between watching CNN and not being able to tell two completely different countries apart). If this were limited to singers, then it would not be a problem, but this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ".

    As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.

    A totally uncritical acceptance of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or the latest hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .

    The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive, they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.

    That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .

    Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans" (example #2 is a prefect example of this).

    There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:

    Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.

    As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans (political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:

    One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).

    Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.

    Consequences:

    There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion than on the actual ability to form one .

    By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types") because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.

    The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others. One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory and leave.

    Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars . And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!

    We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated (if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is not just a case of " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught me about it!).

    If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of their own.

    What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us

    I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.

    Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans, remember the previous war in Korea).

    But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem

    The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.

    This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.

    In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable scenario (see here if that topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly seeking solutions to our current predicament.

    -- -- -

    1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:

    Paul b , December 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

    If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
    Third world nationalist , December 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
    North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern degeneracy.
    Andrei Martyanov , Website December 22, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

    that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness

    A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the warfare.

    Sean , December 22, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
    It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech ( it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
    VICB3 , December 22, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

    Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.

    Don't think that would ever happen? Reference 'How Tyrannies Implode' by Richard Fernandez: https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/02/27/how-tyrannies-implode/?print=true&singlepage=true

    There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    *Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.

    His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.

    Wish I didn't think that, but I do.

    pyrrhus , December 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT
    Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years .In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have been set unrealistically far in the future ..
    In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
    anonymous , Disclaimer December 22, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
    The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice. It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre. Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes, look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
    Randal , December 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
    @VICB3

    but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own
    .
    There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV.

    All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.

    Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.

    I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies that came to a bad end.

    neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
    @pyrrhus

    so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world

    I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world.

    neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

    The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.

    Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.

    Dana Thompson , December 22, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
    A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless? Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
    What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake. But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
    peterAUS , December 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
    @Dana Thompson

    Agree.

    I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.

    VICB3 , December 23, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
    @Randal

    Just be patient.

    Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.

    Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.

    Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better. And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.

    At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."

    And then it's "Live on TV Time!"

    Hope this helps.

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    Santoculto , December 23, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
    Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first

    METWO#

    Erebus , December 23, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT
    @peterAUS

    Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.

    In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to you at some length elsewhere.

    In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.

    It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.

    You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with. Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.

    Simple, really.

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    Highly recommended!
    All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then detecting and analyzing them
    Notable quotes:
    "... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
    "... The Smoking Gun ..."
    "... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
    "... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
    "... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
    "... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
    "... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
    "... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
    "... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
    "... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
    "... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
    "... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
    "... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
    "... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
    "... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
    Sep 05, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply not plausible.

    Let me take you through the known facts:

    1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f). Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016 was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware. Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016? an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC server as proof of his claims.
    Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.

    With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine, The Smoking Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of emails, online posts and interviews , Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive 200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.

    Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking, releasing the very donor lists the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data" which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016. I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source.

    Fool , 05 September 2017 at 09:01 AM

    Where was it reported that Rich was a Sanders supporter?
    Publius Tacitus -> Fool... , 05 September 2017 at 09:15 AM
    This is one of the reports, http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/seth-rich-julian-assange-source-wikileaks-wiki-dnc-emails-death-murder-reward-video-interview-hillary-clinton-shawn-lucas/.
    Anna -> Publius Tacitus ... , 05 September 2017 at 10:56 AM
    Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
    Stephanie -> Publius Tacitus ... , 06 September 2017 at 12:12 PM
    Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.b20208de48d3

    "We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."

    http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-rich-family-response-lawsuit-rod-wheeler-2017-8

    "Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it in June."

    Richardstevenhack -> Stephanie... , 07 September 2017 at 07:43 PM
    I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.

    It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out.

    Anna , 05 September 2017 at 09:20 AM
    Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").

    Here is an article by Alperovitch: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-cyber-attacks-in-the-united-states-will-intensify

    Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.

    Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.

    The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.

    LeaNder , 05 September 2017 at 09:59 AM
    PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.

    And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought yesters.

    But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?

    One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?

    But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?

    LondonBob , 05 September 2017 at 03:27 PM
    The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.

    Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.

    Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away with it

    Richardstevenhack , 05 September 2017 at 06:23 PM
    Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:

    Dumbstruck: How CrowdStrike Conned America on the Hack of the DNC https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f

    The article by Jeffrey Carr on CrowdStrike referenced from back in 2012 is also worth reading: Where's the "Strike" in CrowdStrike? https://jeffreycarr.blogspot.com/2012/09/wheres-strike-in-crowdstrike.html

    Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations, computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."

    Malware Analysis: The Danger of Connecting the Dots: https://www.oodaloop.com/technology/2012/09/11/malware-analysis-the-danger-of-connecting-the-dots/

    His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.

    The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.

    None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.

    And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.

    The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering terrorism.

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    Highly recommended!
    max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly. The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with the past.
    Notable quotes:
    "... National Interest ..."
    "... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
    "... National Interest ..."
    "... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
    "... New York Observer ..."
    "... National Interest ..."
    "... Weekly Standard ..."
    "... Weekly Standard ..."
    "... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
    "... : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0. ..."
    Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the battle for the soul of the American Right.

    To be sure, Carlson rejects the term "neoconservatism," and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest Friday.

    "But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means. I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.

    But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions to curry favor with the White House, keep up his ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow, I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But is this assessment fair?

    Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies."

    Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do it."

    But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April 7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened. I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."

    But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.

    Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries. "You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person. Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country? It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast, sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.

    On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision. "You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.

    The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard , perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet. On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband, Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.

    "The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist stalwarts such as Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter than Pat Buchanan," he said last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.

    Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency. He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy establishment").

    Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government "may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued, "If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better."

    Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, "

    Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're talking about. None."

    Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills .

    Image : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0.

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
    "... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
    "... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
    "... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
    "... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
    Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
    Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.

    Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.

    Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.

    It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/5L2F4ocEIZw

    Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.

    Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:

    "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin.

    As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:

    "What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ... and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.

    The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done. I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."

    Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and down in emphatic agreement.

    Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.

    Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
    "... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
    "... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
    "... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
    "... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
    "... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
    "... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program , which should be read with the current book.)

    The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.

    Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.

    Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert constitutional order.

    As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."

    Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally." Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.

    Hating the US

    There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the US.

    Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.

    Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.

    Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters into the equation in determining foreign policy.

    In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American population.

    Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."

    Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.

    Nazi Influences

    Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.

    That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic, which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.

    This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam. Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency, simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.

    That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented. This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."

    'Anti-Partisan' Lessons

    It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps and forests of Russia.'"

    Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.

    Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same). 'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the Nazi period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear political will.'"

    This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo Military Commissions.

    Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine "existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure (VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure" meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.

    "The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing" enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."

    Lauding Petraeus

    Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as they preferred to call it.

    But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program."

    He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program, supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation would develop in practice."

    It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that expand the number of fighters.

    Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles.

    The Bloody Reality

    One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears" as proof of six people killed.

    The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.

    "How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."

    This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine writes.

    A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971, describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the South Vietnamese government.

    But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.

    Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels of CIA involvement.

    Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    CIA Crimes

    Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."

    "Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.

    Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.

    This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.

    Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely.

    Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at ConsortiumNews.com .

    Read more by Todd E. Pierce Inciting Wars the American Way – August 14th, 2016 Chicago Police Adopt Israeli Tactics – December 13th, 2015 US War Theories Target Dissenters – September 13th, 2015 Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War – September 1st, 2015 Has the US Constitution Been Lost to Military Rule?– January 4th, 2015

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black Published on Feb 15, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

    [Mar 12, 2018] Obama's has continued his neoliberal ways after leaving office. Obama was NOT forced into neoliberal positions by terrible Repugs like his Obamabot apologists claimed repeatedly Published on Mar 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Mar 12, 2018] Colonizing the Western Mind using think tanks Published on Mar 12, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent Published on Mar 12, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap Published on Dec 30, 2018 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham Published on Dec 27, 2018 | www.rt.com

    [Dec 29, 2018] NATO Partisans Started a New Cold War With Russia - Published on Dec 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon Published on May 06, 2014 | mondoweiss.net

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray Published on Dec 13, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts Published on www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter Published on Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did Published on Dec 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018 Published on Dec 09, 2018 | www.weltwoche.ch

    [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China Published on Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population Published on Dec 08, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games Published on Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne Published on Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot Published on Dec 11, 2015 | Peak Prosperity

    [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime Published on Dec 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison Published on Apr 30, 2005 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published Published on May-June 1 1999, | prospect.org

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders Published on Nov 19, 2018 | www.rt.com

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi Published on Nov 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we? Published on Nov 25, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda Published on Nov 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns Published on Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-) Published on Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also. Published on Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power Published on Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power Published on Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism Published on Nov 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Nov 13, 2018] The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's Published on Nov 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone Published on Nov 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers Published on Nov 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore Published on Feb 20, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering Published on Nov 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

    [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz Published on Nov 10, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn Published on Nov 08, 2018 | www.sott.net

    [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. Published on Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer Published on Nov 05, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

    [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria Published on Nov 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus Published on Oct 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives Published on Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain. Published on Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir Published on Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras Published on Oct 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies Published on Oct 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro Published on Oct 03, 2018 | www.chicagotribune.com

    [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh? Published on Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith Published on Jul 31, 2018 | russia-insider.com

    [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez Published on May 02, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us Published on Sep 27, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense. Published on Sep 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone Published on Sep 21, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets Published on Aug 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin Published on Aug 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal. Published on Sep 16, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

    [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence Published on Sep 15, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone Published on Sep 07, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon Published on May 06, 2014 | mondoweiss.net

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray Published on Dec 13, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts Published on www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter Published on Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 21, 2018] Trump End the Syria War Now by Eric Margolis Published on Jul 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did Published on Dec 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018 Published on Dec 09, 2018 | www.weltwoche.ch

    [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China Published on Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population Published on Dec 08, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games Published on Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne Published on Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot Published on Dec 11, 2015 | Peak Prosperity

    [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime Published on Dec 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison Published on Apr 30, 2005 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published Published on May-June 1 1999, | prospect.org

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders Published on Nov 19, 2018 | www.rt.com

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi Published on Nov 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat Published on Dec 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi Published on Dec 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we? Published on Nov 25, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda Published on Nov 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns Published on Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-) Published on Nov 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also. Published on Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power Published on Nov 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power Published on Nov 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism Published on Nov 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Nov 13, 2018] The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's Published on Nov 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone Published on Nov 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers Published on Nov 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore Published on Feb 20, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering Published on Nov 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

    [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz Published on Nov 10, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn Published on Nov 08, 2018 | www.sott.net

    [Nov 24, 2018] MI6 Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia Probe Published on Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Nov 10, 2018] The Reasons for Netanyahu's Panic by Alastair Crooke Published on www.defenddemocracy.press

    [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. Published on Nov 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer Published on Nov 05, 2018 | www.truthdig.com

    [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria Published on Nov 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus Published on Oct 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives Published on Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain. Published on Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir Published on Oct 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras Published on Oct 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies Published on Oct 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro Published on Oct 03, 2018 | www.chicagotribune.com

    [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh? Published on Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith Published on Jul 31, 2018 | russia-insider.com

    [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez Published on May 02, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us Published on Sep 27, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense. Published on Sep 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone Published on Sep 21, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets Published on Aug 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin Published on Aug 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal. Published on Sep 16, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

    [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence Published on Sep 15, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone Published on Sep 07, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Sep 03, 2018] www.informationclearinghouse.info/50168.htm In Memoriam by Paul Edwards Published on Sep 03, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan Published on Aug 30, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

    [Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes Published on Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM Published on Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Aug 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. Published on Aug 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street Published on Aug 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed Published on Aug 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov Published on Jul 28, 2018 | russia-insider.com

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou Published on Aug 13, 2018 | truthout.org

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography Published on Aug 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake. Published on Aug 05, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community? Published on Jul 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp Published on Jul 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski Published on Jul 23, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

    [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia Published on Jul 22, 2018 | www.youtube.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax Published on Jul 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer Published on Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland Published on Jul 12, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team Published on Jul 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions Published on Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare Published on May 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern Published on Jun 09, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone Published on May 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice Published on Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show Published on Apr 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria. Published on Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

    [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Apr 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin Published on Mar 27, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin Published on Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death. Published on Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this Published on Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus Published on Mar 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources Published on Feb 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election Published on Feb 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies Published on Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan Published on Oct 01, 2002 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater Published on Dec 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou Published on Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com

    [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker Published on Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus Published on Sep 05, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives Published on Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Oct 18, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon by Robert W. Merry Published on Oct 15, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Oct 16, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon Published on Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum Published on Oct 07, 2018 | freethoughtblogs.com

    [Sep 11, 2018] Is Donald Trump Going to Do the Syria Backflip by Publius Tacitus Published on Sep 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed Published on Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan Published on Aug 30, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

    [Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes Published on Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM Published on Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Aug 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. Published on Aug 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street Published on Aug 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed Published on Aug 10, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov Published on Jul 28, 2018 | russia-insider.com

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou Published on Aug 13, 2018 | truthout.org

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography Published on Aug 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake. Published on Aug 05, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs Published on Aug 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement Published on Aug 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus Published on Aug 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek Published on Aug 05, 2018 | www.rt.com

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community? Published on Jul 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp Published on Jul 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski Published on Jul 23, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

    [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia Published on Jul 22, 2018 | www.youtube.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent Published on Jul 20, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer Published on Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax Published on Jul 20, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer Published on Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland Published on Jul 12, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team Published on Jul 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions Published on Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare Published on May 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern Published on Jun 09, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone Published on May 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice Published on Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show Published on Apr 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria. Published on Apr 21, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

    [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Apr 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin Published on Mar 27, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Jul 20, 2018] Tucker Carlson The Cold War Is Over. The World Has Changed. Time To Rethink America's Alliances Published on Jul 20, 2018 | www.realclearpolitics.com

    [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. Published on Jul 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge Published on Jul 16, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable Published on Jul 15, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians? Published on Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide Published on Jul 15, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach Published on Mar 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus Published on Jul 15, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians? Published on Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it Published on Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jul 03, 2018] Corruption Allegations are one of the classic tools in the color revolution toolbox Published on Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions Published on Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jun 21, 2018] The neoliberal agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties: Published on Jun 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt Published on Jun 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone Published on Jun 17, 2018 | caitlinjohnstone.com

    [Jun 13, 2018] Sanction Trump not Bourbon Published on Jun 10, 2018 | angrybearblog.com

    [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI Published on Apr 26, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

    [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism by Sasha Breger Bush Published on Dec 24, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism, Revisited by Sasha Breger Bush Published on Jun 10, 2018 | www.dollarsandsense.org

    [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith Published on Jun 06, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts Published on May 25, 2018 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press Published on www.defenddemocracy.press

    [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy Published on May 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump Published on May 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense Published on May 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b Published on May 04, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris Published on May 03, 2018 | theduran.com

    [May 03, 2018] Skripal case British confirm they have no suspect; Yulia Skripal vanishes, no word of Sergey Skripal by Alexander Mercouris Published on May 02, 2018 | theduran.com

    [Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle Published on Apr 30, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

    [Apr 27, 2018] A Most Sordid Profession by Fred Reed Published on Apr 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier Published on Apr 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Apr 22, 2018] The Crisis Is Only In Its Beginning Stages by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Apr 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern Published on Apr 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight Published on Apr 20, 2018 | www.rt.com

    [Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex Published on Apr 17, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless. Published on Apr 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Apr 11, 2018] It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump tweets seriously Published on Apr 11, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Apr 10, 2018] The Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21, 2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad. Published on Apr 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein Published on Apr 09, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov Published on Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street Published on Mar 30, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Mar 29, 2018] Giving Up the Ghost of Objective Journalism by Telly Davidson Published on Mar 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks Published on Mar 28, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 27, 2018] Indian Punchline - Reflections on foreign affairs by M K Bhadrakumar Published on Mar 27, 2018 | blogs.rediff.com

    [Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker Published on Mar 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras Published on Mar 20, 2018 | unz.com

    [Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment. Published on Mar 21, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK Published on Mar 18, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

    [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern Published on Mar 19, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen Published on Mar 21, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair Published on Mar 20, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism Published on Jun 28, 2013 | www.theguardian.com

    [Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA Published on Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row Published on Mar 16, 2018 | therealnews.com

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ? Published on Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin Published on Mar 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

    [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death. Published on Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this Published on Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus Published on Mar 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources Published on Feb 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election Published on Feb 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies Published on Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan Published on Oct 01, 2002 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater Published on Dec 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou Published on Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship Published on Mar 14, 2018 | www.antiwar.com

    [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney Published on www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit Published on Mar 11, 2018 | off-guardian.org

    [Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian Published on Mar 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II Published on Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this Published on Mar 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 08, 2018] Cue bono question in Scripal case? Published on Mar 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports. Published on Mar 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. Published on Mar 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus Published on Mar 07, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon Published on Mar 03, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

    [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge Published on Mar 06, 2018 | fpif.org

    [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism. Published on Mar 06, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill Published on Mar 04, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train Published on Mar 02, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan Published on Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative Published on Mar 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state Published on Feb 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Feb 27, 2018] Alfred McCoy The Rise and Decline of US Global Power Published on Oct 31, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Feb 27, 2018] On Contact Decline of the American empire with Alfred McCoy Published on Nov 26, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis Published on Feb 24, 2018 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    [Feb 25, 2018] Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites. Published on Feb 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation Published on Feb 23, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

    [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All Published on Feb 23, 2018 | www.youtube.com

    [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt Published on Mar 4, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham Published on Feb 20, 2018 | www.rt.com

    [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know Published on Feb 19, 2018 | www.thenation.com

    [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER Published on Feb 18, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

    [Feb 18, 2018] Had Hillary Won What Now by Andrew Levine Published on Feb 18, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Feb 16, 2018] A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy Published on Feb 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves. Published on Feb 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

    [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff Published on Feb 21, 2017 | www.lewrockwell.com

    [Feb 14, 2018] The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation by James Petras Published on Feb 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine Published on Feb 11, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore Published on Feb 12, 2018 | www.antiwar.com

    [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war Published on Feb 06, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    [Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ... Published on Feb 10, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine Published on Feb 10, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Feb 09, 2018] Professor Stephen F. Cohen Rethinking Putin – A critical reading, by The Saker - The Unz Review Published on Feb 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Jan 30, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative Published on Jan 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Jan 29, 2018] It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn t work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead becomes hated and despised Published on Jan 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone Published on Jan 28, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir Published on Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 27, 2018] As of January 2018 Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner. Published on Jan 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 27, 2018] Mainstream Media and Imperial Power Published on Jan 27, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Jan 26, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0 Published on Jan 25, 2018 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 24, 2018] Whistleblower Confirms Secret Society Meetings Between FBI And DOJ To Undermine Trump Published on Jan 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken Published on Jan 22, 2018 | russia-insider.com

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch Published on Jan 22, 2018 | hotair.com

    [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether Published on Jan 15, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou Published on Jan 19, 2018 | theduran.com

    [Jan 19, 2018] No Foreign Bases Challenging the Footprint of US Empire by Kevin B. Zeese and Margaret Flowers Published on Jan 18, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

    [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos Published on Jan 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer Published on Apr 04, 2017 | russiaexplainer.com

    [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus Published on Jan 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear Published on Dec 29, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com

    [Jan 13, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern Published on Jan 11, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jan 12, 2018] The DOJ and FBI Worked With Fusion GPS on Operation Trump Published on Jan 12, 2018 | theconservativetreehouse.com

    [Jan 08, 2018] Someone Spoofed Michael Wolff s Book About Trump And It s Comedy Gold Published on Jan 08, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry Published on Oct 27, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Jan 06, 2018] Trump's triumph revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as usual the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington Published on Jan 06, 2018 | lrb.co.uk

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich Published on Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears Published on Jan 04, 2018 | lrb.co.uk

    [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney Published on Dec 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi Published on Jul 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 02, 2018] American exceptionalism extracts a price from common citizens Published on Jul 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Idolatry of the Donald Published on www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] Maybe Trump was the deep state candidate of choice? Maybe that s why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders? Maybe that s why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – to swing the election to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia? Published on Dec 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills Published on Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary Published on Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce Published on Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Oldies But Goodies

  • [Mar 24, 2019] One thing left out is the ability of readers to call BS on a story i.e. a robust comment section for debates.
  • [Mar 23, 2019] Brennan pipe dream obliterated. The color revolution against Trump failed
  • [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity
  • [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity
  • [Mar 24, 2019] One could wish that DOJ IG Horowitz could investigate and sanction British Intelligence for its use of official and non-official officials in starting this debacle.
  • [Mar 24, 2019] The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
  • [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou
  • [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker
  • [Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli
  • [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker
  • [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills
  • [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary
  • [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce
  • [May 23, 2017] CIA, the cornerstone of the deep state has agenda that is different from the US national interest and reflect agenda of the special interest groups such as Wall Street bankers and MIC
  • [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!
  • [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus
  • [Sep 19, 2017] The Glaring Omissions in Trumps U.N. Speech by Daniel Larison
  • [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century
  • [Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon
  • [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills
  • [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary
  • [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce
  • [May 23, 2017] CIA, the cornerstone of the deep state has agenda that is different from the US national interest and reflect agenda of the special interest groups such as Wall Street bankers and MIC
  • [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!
  • [Feb 29, 2020] A very interesting and though provoking presentation by Ambassador Chas Freeman "America in Distress: The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change"
  • [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black
  • [Mar 12, 2018] Obama's has continued his neoliberal ways after leaving office. Obama was NOT forced into neoliberal positions by terrible Repugs like his Obamabot apologists claimed repeatedly
  • [Mar 12, 2018] Colonizing the Western Mind using think tanks
  • [Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent
  • [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap
  • [Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham
  • [Dec 29, 2018] NATO Partisans Started a New Cold War With Russia -
  • [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon
  • [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray
  • [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter
  • [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did
  • [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games
  • [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne
  • [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot
  • [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime
  • [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison
  • [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published
  • [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders
  • [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi
  • [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda
  • [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)
  • [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.
  • [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
  • [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
  • [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism
  • [Nov 13, 2018] The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's
  • [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers
  • [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore
  • [Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering
  • [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz
  • [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn
  • [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.
  • [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer
  • [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria
  • [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus
  • [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives
  • [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.
  • [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir
  • [Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras
  • [Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies
  • [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro
  • [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?
  • [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith
  • [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez
  • [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
  • [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.
  • [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets
  • [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin
  • [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.
  • [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence
  • [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone
  • [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon
  • [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray
  • [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter
  • [Dec 21, 2018] Trump End the Syria War Now by Eric Margolis
  • [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did
  • [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games
  • [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne
  • [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot
  • [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime
  • [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison
  • [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published
  • [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders
  • [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi
  • [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat
  • [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi
  • [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda
  • [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)
  • [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.
  • [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
  • [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
  • [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism
  • [Nov 13, 2018] The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's
  • [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers
  • [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore
  • [Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering
  • [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz
  • [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn
  • [Nov 24, 2018] MI6 Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia Probe
  • [Nov 10, 2018] The Reasons for Netanyahu's Panic by Alastair Crooke
  • [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.
  • [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer
  • [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria
  • [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus
  • [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives
  • [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.
  • [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir
  • [Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras
  • [Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies
  • [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro
  • [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?
  • [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith
  • [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez
  • [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
  • [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.
  • [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets
  • [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin
  • [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.
  • [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence
  • [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone
  • [Sep 03, 2018] www.informationclearinghouse.info/50168.htm In Memoriam by Paul Edwards
  • [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan
  • [Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes
  • [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM
  • [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.
  • [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street
  • [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed
  • [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov
  • [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou
  • [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography
  • [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.
  • [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?
  • [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp
  • [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski
  • [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia
  • [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland
  • [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team
  • [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern
  • [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone
  • [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice
  • [Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show
  • [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
  • [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin
  • [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin
  • [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.
  • [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus
  • [Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources
  • [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election
  • [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies
  • [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan
  • [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater
  • [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou
  • [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker
  • [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus
  • [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives
  • [Oct 18, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon by Robert W. Merry
  • [Oct 16, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon
  • [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum
  • [Sep 11, 2018] Is Donald Trump Going to Do the Syria Backflip by Publius Tacitus
  • [Sep 11, 2018] If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed
  • [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan
  • [Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes
  • [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM
  • [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.
  • [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street
  • [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed
  • [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov
  • [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou
  • [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography
  • [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.
  • [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs
  • [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement
  • [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus
  • [Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek
  • [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?
  • [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp
  • [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski
  • [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia
  • [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer
  • [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland
  • [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team
  • [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern
  • [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone
  • [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice
  • [Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show
  • [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
  • [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Tucker Carlson The Cold War Is Over. The World Has Changed. Time To Rethink America's Alliances
  • [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.
  • [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge
  • [Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable
  • [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?
  • [Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide
  • [Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach
  • [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus
  • [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?
  • [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it
  • [Jul 03, 2018] Corruption Allegations are one of the classic tools in the color revolution toolbox
  • [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions
  • [Jun 21, 2018] The neoliberal agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:
  • [Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt
  • [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Jun 13, 2018] Sanction Trump not Bourbon
  • [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI
  • [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism by Sasha Breger Bush
  • [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism, Revisited by Sasha Breger Bush
  • [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith
  • [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press
  • [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy
  • [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump
  • [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense
  • [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b
  • [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris
  • [May 03, 2018] Skripal case British confirm they have no suspect; Yulia Skripal vanishes, no word of Sergey Skripal by Alexander Mercouris
  • [Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle
  • [Apr 27, 2018] A Most Sordid Profession by Fred Reed
  • [Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier
  • [Apr 22, 2018] The Crisis Is Only In Its Beginning Stages by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern
  • [Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight
  • [Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex
  • [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.
  • [Apr 11, 2018] It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump tweets seriously
  • [Apr 10, 2018] The Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21, 2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad.
  • [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein
  • [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov
  • [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street
  • [Mar 29, 2018] Giving Up the Ghost of Objective Journalism by Telly Davidson
  • [Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks
  • [Mar 27, 2018] Indian Punchline - Reflections on foreign affairs by M K Bhadrakumar
  • [Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker
  • [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras
  • [Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.
  • [Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK
  • [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern
  • [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen
  • [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair
  • [Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism
  • [Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA
  • [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row
  • [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?
  • [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin
  • [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.
  • [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus
  • [Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources
  • [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election
  • [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies
  • [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan
  • [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater
  • [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou
  • [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship
  • [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney
  • [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit
  • [Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian
  • [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II
  • [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Cue bono question in Scripal case?
  • [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.
  • [Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus
  • [Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon
  • [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge
  • [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.
  • [Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill
  • [Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train
  • [Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan
  • [Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative
  • [Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state
  • [Feb 27, 2018] Alfred McCoy The Rise and Decline of US Global Power
  • [Feb 27, 2018] On Contact Decline of the American empire with Alfred McCoy
  • [Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis
  • [Feb 25, 2018] Russia would not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.
  • [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation
  • [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All
  • [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt
  • [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham
  • [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know
  • [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER
  • [Feb 18, 2018] Had Hillary Won What Now by Andrew Levine
  • [Feb 16, 2018] A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy
  • [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.
  • [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff
  • [Feb 14, 2018] The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation by James Petras
  • [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine
  • [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore
  • [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war
  • [Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...
  • [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine
  • [Feb 09, 2018] Professor Stephen F. Cohen Rethinking Putin – A critical reading, by The Saker - The Unz Review
  • [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative
  • [Jan 29, 2018] It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn t work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead becomes hated and despised
  • [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone
  • [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir
  • [Jan 27, 2018] As of January 2018 Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.
  • [Jan 27, 2018] Mainstream Media and Imperial Power
  • [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0
  • [Jan 24, 2018] Whistleblower Confirms Secret Society Meetings Between FBI And DOJ To Undermine Trump
  • [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken
  • [Jan 22, 2018] The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch
  • [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether
  • [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou
  • [Jan 19, 2018] No Foreign Bases Challenging the Footprint of US Empire by Kevin B. Zeese and Margaret Flowers
  • [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
  • [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer
  • [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus
  • [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear
  • [Jan 13, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern
  • [Jan 12, 2018] The DOJ and FBI Worked With Fusion GPS on Operation Trump
  • [Jan 08, 2018] Someone Spoofed Michael Wolff s Book About Trump And It s Comedy Gold
  • [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry
  • [Jan 06, 2018] Trump's triumph revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as usual the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington
  • [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich
  • [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears
  • [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney
  • [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi
  • [Jan 02, 2018] American exceptionalism extracts a price from common citizens
  • [Jan 02, 2018] The Idolatry of the Donald
  • [Dec 31, 2017] Maybe Trump was the deep state candidate of choice? Maybe that s why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders? Maybe that s why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – to swing the election to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?
  • [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills
  • [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary
  • [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce
  • [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.
  • [Dec 21, 2019] If the plan was to sabotage Trump's second-term campaign, it seems to have backfired spectacularly
  • [Dec 21, 2019] Lessons of the past: all changed in 1999 with the war in Kosovo. For the first time I witnessed shocking images of civilian targets being bombed, TV stations, trains, bridges. The NATO spokesman boasted of hundreds of Serbian tanks being destroyed. There was something new and disturbing about his manner, language and tone, something I'd not encountered from coverage of previous conflicts. For the first time I found myself not believing one word of the narrative
  • [Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham
  • [Dec 21, 2019] Time to Terminate Washington's Defense Welfare
  • [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century
  • [Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon
  • [Dec 21, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century
  • [Dec 21, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives
  • [Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson
  • [Dec 20, 2019] Singer became notorious for what he did to Argentina after he bought their debt, and he is pretty upfront about not caring who objects by Andrew Joyce
  • [Dec 18, 2019] Rudy Giuliani Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted
  • [Dec 17, 2019] Neocons like car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking credibility because ther profession is to lie in order to sell weapons to the publin, much like used car saleme lie to sell cars
  • [Dec 19, 2019] MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last refuge of scoundrels
  • [Dec 19, 2019] A the core of color revolution against Trump is Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine
  • [Dec 19, 2019] Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials, often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and incipient tyranny.
  • [Dec 17, 2019] Judge Denies Flynn's Requests For Exculpatory Information, Case Dismissal by Peter Svab
  • [Dec 17, 2019] History Doesn t Repeat, But It Often Rhymes: Wilson in UK was subjected to the similar attack by rogue elements in MI5 as Trump in the USA
  • [Dec 15, 2019] The infinity war - The Washington Post by Samuel Moyn, Stephen Wertheim
  • [Dec 14, 2019] Full Interview: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation
  • [Dec 14, 2019] A Determined Effort to Undermine Russia
  • [Dec 12, 2019] Threat Inflation Poisons Our Foreign Policy by Daniel Larison
  • [Dec 10, 2019] The level of Neo-McCarthyism and the number of lunitics this NYT forums is just astonishing: When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
  • [Dec 07, 2019] Why the foreign policy establishment consensus is neocon by default.
  • [Dec 06, 2019] The USA is an occupied by neocon country
  • [Dec 07, 2019] Impeachment does not require a crime.
  • [Dec 06, 2019] Who Is Making US Foreign Policy by Stephen F. Cohen
  • [Dec 06, 2019] The USA is an occupied by neocon country
  • [Dec 04, 2019] The central question of Ukrainegate is whether CrowdStrike actions on DNC leak were a false flag operation designed to open Russiagate and what was the level of participation of Poroshenko government and Ukrainian Security services in this false flag operation by Factotum
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Responding to Lt. Col. Vindman about my Ukraine columns with the facts John Solomon Reports
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Ukrainegaters claim that Trump Reduced the USA empire 'Global Commitments' was fraudulent from the very beginning. Trump is yet another imperial president who favours the "Full spectrum Dominance; The problem is that the time when the USA can have it are in the past. Europe finally recovered from WWII losses and that alone dooms the idea
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Common Funding Themes Link 'Whistleblower' Complaint and CrowdStrike Firm Certifying DNC Russia 'Hack' by Aaron Klein
  • [Dec 04, 2019] DNC Russian Hackers Found! You Won't Believe Who They Really Work For by the Anonymous Patriots
  • [Dec 04, 2019] June 4th, 2017 Crowdstrike Was at the DNC Six Weeks by George Webb
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Cyberanalyst George Eliason Claims that the "Fancy Bear" Who Hacked the DNC Server is Ukrainian Intelligence – In League with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Fancy Bear - Conservapedia
  • [Dec 04, 2019] June 2nd, 2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams by George Webb
  • [Dec 04, 2019] America's War Exceptionalism Is Killing the Planet by William Astore
  • [Dec 02, 2019] The cost of militarism cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame
  • [Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism
  • [Oct 20, 2019] How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion
  • [Sep 10, 2019] Being called a narcissist by Jim Comey is akin to being accused of having sex with underage girls by the late Jeffrey Epstein by Larry C Johnsons
  • [Dec 02, 2019] A Think Tank Dedicated to Peace and Restraint
  • [Nov 30, 2019] CrowdStrike: a Conspiracy Wrapped in a Conspiracy Inside a Conspiracy by Oleg Atbashian
  • [Nov 29, 2019] Where s the Collusion
  • [Nov 28, 2019] WSJ story reopens the claim Comey had a report there was an email exchange between Loretta Lynch and Clinton claiming Lynch promised her the DOJ would go easy on Clinton.
  • [Nov 27, 2019] Obama Admits He Would Speak Up Only To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination
  • [Nov 27, 2019] Could your county use some extra money?
  • [Nov 26, 2019] John Solomon Everything Changes In The Ukraine Scandal If Trump Releases These Documents
  • [Nov 24, 2019] Mark Blyth - Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy
  • [Nov 24, 2019] Despair is a very powerful factor in the resurgence of far right forces. Far right populism probably will be the decisive factor in 2020 elections.
  • [Nov 23, 2019] Is Fiona Hill a Sleeper Agent
  • [Nov 21, 2019] The deep state is individuals INSIDE the government that do the bidding of the banksters, the military-industrial complex, the globalists and other nefarious interests
  • [Nov 15, 2019] Letter to Congressman Adam Schiff from Krishen Mehta - American Committee for East-West Accord
  • [Nov 13, 2019] Understanding What Sidney Powell is Doing to Kill the Case Against Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
  • [Nov 08, 2019] Charlie Kirk and Kochsucker Conservatism E. Michael Jones
  • [Nov 03, 2019] How Controlling Syria s Oil Serves Washington s Strategic Objectives by Nauman Sadiq
  • [Nov 01, 2019] Viable Opposition The Legal Connection Between Washington and Kiev
  • [Nov 01, 2019] Color revolution is a method of using a minority to render the country ungovernble, waving a simplistic banner against corruption and for (undefined) democracy, which leaves the masses unorganized and eschews even a platform, in favor of a secret coterie run by intelligence againces
  • [Oct 28, 2019] National Neolibralism destroyed the World Trade Organisation by John Quiggin
  • [Oct 25, 2019] Trump-Haters, Not Trump, Are The Ones Wrecking America s Institutions, WSJ s Strassel Says
  • [Oct 24, 2019] Empire Interventionism Versus Republic Noninterventionism by Jacob Hornberger
  • [Oct 24, 2019] Joltin' Jack Keane wants your kids to fight Russia and Syria over Syrian oil by Colonel Patrick Lang
  • [Oct 23, 2019] The treason of the intellectuals The Undoing of Thought by Roger Kimball
  • [Oct 23, 2019] Neoconservatism Is An Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism
  • [Oct 19, 2019] Kunstler One Big Reason Why America Is Driving Itself Bat$hit Crazy
  • [Oct 10, 2019] There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect: he is a war criminal, who escaped justice
  • [Oct 02, 2019] The Self-Set Impeachment Trap naked capitalism
  • [Sep 30, 2019] Stephen Miller calls whistleblower a 'partisan hit job' in fiery interview
  • [Sep 22, 2019] More Americans Questioning Official 9-11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative by Whitney Webb
  • [Sep 22, 2019] US reconnaissance plane operated drones that attacked Hmeymim
  • [Sep 22, 2019] Shoigu calls US belief in its superiority the major threat to Russia and other states
  • [Sep 22, 2019] It was neoliberalism that won the cold war
  • [Sep 19, 2019] The progressive movement, in its political manifestations, was essentially a revolt of the middle classes
  • [Sep 18, 2019] To End Endless Wars, We Must Give Up Hegemony by Daniel Larison
  • [Sep 17, 2019] The Devolution of US-Russia Relations by Tony Kevin
  • [Sep 15, 2019] How the UK Security Services neutralised the country s leading liberal newspaper by Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis
  • [Sep 15, 2019] Demythologizing the Roots of the New Cold War by Ted Snider
  • [Sep 12, 2019] The Brain-Dead Maximalism of [neocon] Hard-liners by Daniel Larison
  • [Sep 11, 2019] John Brennan's and Jim Clappers' Last Gasp by Larry C Johnson
  • [Sep 11, 2019] Video Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 The Bamboozle Has Captured Us
  • [Sep 10, 2019] Being called a narcissist by Jim Comey is akin to being accused of having sex with underage girls by the late Jeffrey Epstein by Larry C Johnsons
  • [Sep 10, 2019] The idea tha the USA won the Cold War is questionable
  • [Sep 10, 2019] How Deep Is the Rot in America s Institutions by Charles Hugh Smith
  • [Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage
  • [Sep 02, 2019] Questions Nobody Is Asking About Jeffrey Epstein by Eric Rasmusen
  • [Sep 02, 2019] Is it Cynical to Believe the System is Corrupt by Bill Black
  • [Aug 27, 2019] House Niggers Mutiny by Israel Shamir
  • [Aug 26, 2019] US Backs Xenophobia Mob Violence in Hong Kong
  • [Aug 25, 2019] What Is the US Role in the Hong Kong Protests> by Reese Erlich
  • [Aug 23, 2019] Spygate The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump by Jeff Carlson
  • [Aug 21, 2019] Solomon If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed
  • [Aug 20, 2019] Trump is about the agony. The agony of the US centered global neoliberal empire.
  • [Aug 17, 2019] The Unraveling of the Failed Trump Coup by Larry C Johnson
  • [Aug 17, 2019] Debunking the Putin Panic by Stephen F. Cohen
  • [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)
  • [Aug 13, 2019] "Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power."
  • [Aug 12, 2019] New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has called Epstein's death "way too convenient."
  • [Aug 12, 2019] Bruce Ohr 302s by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis
  • [Aug 12, 2019] Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized
  • [Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements
  • [Jul 29, 2019] Looks like Epstein turned informant for Mueller s FBI in 2008. Likely earlier
  • [Jul 29, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson
  • [Jul 29, 2019] American Ron Unz on Pizzagate
  • [Jul 29, 2019] The hidden control mechanism of what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".
  • [Jul 29, 2019] The Real Reason The Propagandists Have Been Promoting Russia Hysteria by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Jul 28, 2019] Antisemitism prejudices projection on Russians
  • [Jul 27, 2019] Understanding the Roots of the Obama Coup Against Trump by Larry C Johnson
  • [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker What should happen to those who lied about Russian collusion
  • [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America. But he is A daft old man blinking in the sunlight once the curtain has been opened
  • [Jul 23, 2019] John Helmer MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt To Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephon
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow
  • [Jul 23, 2019] Ukraine Election - Voters Defeat Second Color Revolution
  • [Jul 20, 2019] New US Pentagon Chief Vested Interest in War Conflict
  • [Jul 17, 2019] Oil Is Driving the Iran Crisis by Michael T. Klare
  • [Jul 13, 2019] Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by Larry C Johnson
  • [Jul 09, 2019] Epstein and the conversion of politicians into "corrupt and vulnerable" brand
  • [Jul 09, 2019] Spying for Israel is Consequence Free by Philip Giraldi
  • [Jul 09, 2019] Ex-FBI, CIA Officials Draw Withering Fire on Russiagate by Ray McGovern
  • [Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then
  • [Jul 06, 2019] In practice, the USSR behaved exactly like a brutal totalitarian theocracy
  • [Jul 05, 2019] Who Won the Debate? Tulsi Gabbard let the anti-war genie out of the bottle by Philip Giraldi
  • [Jul 05, 2019] Globalisation- the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world - World news by Nikil Saval
  • [Jul 05, 2019] The UK public finally realized that the Globalist/Open Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends
  • [Jul 05, 2019] The World Bank and IMF 2019 by Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner
  • [Aug 24, 2019] Peace plan for eastern Ukraine As divisive as the causes of the war by Fred Weir
  • [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)
  • [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America. But he is A daft old man blinking in the sunlight once the curtain has been opened
  • [Jun 30, 2019] USG's Bizarre Change of Position in the Roger Stone Case by Larry C Johnson
  • [Jun 29, 2019] Latest Weapon Of US Imperialism Liquified Natural Gas
  • [Jun 28, 2019] The Donald's Latest Iranian Caper Sh*t-Faced Stupidity by David Stockman
  • [Jun 27, 2019] 'The Ugly Americans' From Kermit Roosevelt to John Bolton Iran Al Jazeera
  • [Jun 27, 2019] The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East by C.J. Hopkins
  • [Jun 26, 2019] Pompeo is a MIC lobbyist, not a diplomat
  • [Jun 26, 2019] Opinion - NY Times admits it sends stories to US government for approval before publication
  • [Jun 25, 2019] Tucker US came within minutes of war with Iran
  • [Jun 23, 2019] The return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism
  • [May 02, 2019] Neoliberalism and the Globalization of War. America s Hegemonic Project by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
  • [Apr 15, 2019] War is the force that gives America its meaning.
  • [Apr 15, 2019] I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military
  • [Jun 28, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard vs Bolton
  • [Jun 27, 2019] 'The Ugly Americans' From Kermit Roosevelt to John Bolton Iran Al Jazeera
  • [Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression
  • [Jun 20, 2019] Chuck Schumer 'The American People Deserve A President Who Can More Credibly Justify War With Iran'
  • [May 12, 2019] Is rabid warmonger, neocon chickenhawk Bolton a swinger? That is a mental picture that s deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time
  • [May 07, 2019] Look! A whale!
  • [Jun 26, 2019] Pompeo is a MIC lobbyist, not a diplomat
  • [Jun 22, 2019] Why The Empire Is Failing The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine by Doug Bandow
  • [Jun 20, 2019] Chuck Schumer 'The American People Deserve A President Who Can More Credibly Justify War With Iran'
  • [Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression
  • [Jun 22, 2019] Why a U.S.-Iran War Could End Up Being a Historic Disaster by Doug Bandow
  • [Jun 22, 2019] Why The Empire Is Failing The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine by Doug Bandow
  • [Jun 21, 2019] America's Confrontation With Iran Goes Deeper Than Trump by Trita Parsi
  • [Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters
  • [Jun 20, 2019] The Trump-Bolton Duo Is Just Like the Bush-Cheney Duo Warmongers Using Lies to Start Illegal Wars by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay
  • [Jun 19, 2019] Investigation Nation Mueller, Russiagate, and Fake Politics by Jim Kavanagh
  • [Jun 19, 2019] Bias bias the inclination to accuse people of bias by James Thompson
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Rule of law in Murrika is kaput
  • [Jun 11, 2019] A Word From Joe the Angry Hawaiian
  • [Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf
  • [Jun 05, 2019] Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping its privileges then controllers.
  • [Jun 05, 2019] Do Spies Run the World by Israel Shamir
  • [Jun 02, 2019] Somer highlights of Snowden spreach at Dalhousie University
  • [May 30, 2019] Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the Earth
  • [May 28, 2019] Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word Jew for Russian and International Jewry for Russia and re-read.
  • [May 25, 2019] The Belligerence Of Empire by Kenn Orphan
  • [May 22, 2019] On War With Iran, It's Trump Versus the Founding Fathers
  • [May 22, 2019] NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries
  • [May 20, 2019] "Us" Versus "Them"
  • [May 19, 2019] How Russiagate replaced Analysis of the 2016 Election by Rick Sterling
  • [May 19, 2019] Intel agencies of the UK and US are guilty of fabricating evidence, breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing fake analysis and operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity
  • [May 16, 2019] The Disinformationists by C.J. Hopkins
  • [May 14, 2019] iJews and the Left-i by Philip Mendes A Review, by Brenton Sanderson - The Unz Review
  • [May 14, 2019] Despite a $ 22 Trillion National Debt, America Is on a Military Spending Spree. 800 Overseas US Military Bases by Masud Wadan
  • [May 13, 2019] Not Just Ukraine; Biden May Have A Serious China Problem As Schweizer Exposes Hunter s $1bn Deal
  • [May 13, 2019] Angry Bear Senate Democratic Jackasses and Elmer Fudd
  • [May 13, 2019] US Foreign Policy as Bellicose as Ever by Serge Halimi
  • [May 12, 2019] Is rabid warmonger, neocon chickenhawk Bolton a swinger? That is a mental picture that s deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time
  • [May 12, 2019] Charting a Progressive Foreign Policy for the Trump Era and Beyond
  • [May 11, 2019] Whitney Judgment Day Looms For John Brennan
  • [May 11, 2019] Crowdstrike planted the malware on DNC systems, which they discovered later discovered and attributed to Russians later
  • [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear
  • [May 11, 2019] Intel and Law Enforcement Tried to Entrap Trump by Larry C Johnson
  • [May 11, 2019] Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources in Russia
  • [May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]
  • [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus
  • [May 11, 2019] Nunes Memo Details Weaponization of FISA Court for Political Advantage by Elizabeth Lea Vos
  • [May 11, 2019] CIA Paid $100,000 To Shadowy Russian For Dirt on Trump, Including Sex Video by Chuck Ross
  • [May 10, 2019] Biden is up to neck in Spygate dirt by Jeff Carlson
  • [May 10, 2019] Mueller Report - Expensive Estimations And Elusive Evidence by Adam Carter
  • [May 10, 2019] Obama administration raced to obtain FICA warrant on Carter Page before Rogers investigation closes on them and that was definitely an obstruction of justice and interference with the ongoing investigation
  • [May 10, 2019] What was the meaning of the term "insurance policy" in Stzok messages to Lisa Page
  • [May 10, 2019] The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe
  • [May 08, 2019] Obama Spied on Other Republicans and Democrats As Well by Larry C Johnson
  • [May 07, 2019] Look! A whale!
  • [May 07, 2019] Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors
  • [May 05, 2019] The Left Needs to Stop Crushing on the Generals by Danny Sjursen
  • [May 03, 2019] Former high-ranking FBI officials on Andrew McCabe's alarming admissions
  • [May 03, 2019] Andrew McCabe played the key role in the appointment of the special prosecutor
  • [May 03, 2019] The Wheels Of Real Justice Are In Motion Now Kunstler Fears The Desperate Resistance Next Move...
  • [Apr 29, 2019] The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory by Aaron Maté
  • [Apr 28, 2019] The British Role in Russiagate Is About to Be Fully Exposed
  • [Apr 28, 2019] Breath of fresh air--real journalism again! Have so much respect for Chris Hedges and Aaron Mate, great work!
  • [Apr 28, 2019] On Contact Russiagate Mueller Report w- Aaron Mate
  • [Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi
  • [Apr 26, 2019] Intelligence agencies meddling in elections
  • [Apr 22, 2019] FBI top brass have been colluding with top brass of CIA and MI6 to pursue ambitious anti-Russian agenda
  • [Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany
  • [Apr 21, 2019] Makes me wonder if this started out as a standard operation by the FBI to gain leverage over a presidential contender
  • [Apr 21, 2019] Even if we got a candidate against the War Party the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump betayal his voters, surrounded himself with neocons, continues to do Bibi's bidding, and ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?
  • [Apr 21, 2019] Muller report implicates Obama administration in total and utter incompetence, if not pandering to the foreign intervention into the USA elections. The latter is called criminal negligence in legal speak.
  • [Apr 21, 2019] Psywar: Propaganda during Iraq war and beyond
  • [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA
  • [Apr 21, 2019] Deciphering Trumps Foreign Policy by Oscar Silva-Valladares
  • [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
  • [Apr 20, 2019] Trump has certainly made the world safer
  • [Apr 20, 2019] Sure, blame those guys over there for Hillary fiasco and hire Mueller to get the goods . That s the ultimate the dog ate my homework excuse.
  • [Apr 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard: People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble for saying this, but what does it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies, and waging more of these costly wars?
  • [Apr 17, 2019] Haspel is not the "underling". Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.
  • [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation
  • [Apr 17, 2019] Did CIA Director William Casey really say, We ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false
  • [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.
  • [Apr 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump
  • [Apr 15, 2019] Do you need to be stupid to support Trump in 2020, even if you voted for him as lesser evil in 2016
  • [Apr 13, 2019] America as a Myth of good life is a powerful tool of color revolutions
  • [Apr 12, 2019] Putin was KGB agent crowd forgets that Bush Sr was long time senior CIA operative and the director of CIA
  • [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times
  • [Apr 09, 2019] NYT: It Is, in Fact, All About the Benjamins by Philip Weiss
  • [Dec 21, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century
  • [Apr 08, 2019] Aaron Maté Was Also Right About Russiagate
  • [Apr 07, 2019] Nunes The Russian Collusion Hoax Meets An Unbelievbable End
  • [Apr 06, 2019] The Magnitsky Act-Behind the Scenes ASEEES
  • [Apr 06, 2019] Trump is for socialism but only when it comes to funding US military industry Tulsi Gabbard
  • [Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney
  • [Apr 04, 2019] Was John Brennan The Russia Lie Ringleader
  • [Apr 03, 2019] Jewish Power Rolls Over Washington by Philip Giraldi
  • [Apr 03, 2019] What We Can Learn From 1920s Germany by Brian E. Fogarty
  • [Apr 03, 2019] Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the US
  • [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry
  • [Apr 01, 2019] Amazon.com War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate (9781510745810) Stephen F. Cohen Books
  • [Mar 31, 2019] A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco by James W Carden
  • [Mar 31, 2019] Guaido Set To Enact Uprising Rooted In US Regime-Change Operations Manual
  • [Mar 31, 2019] What is the purpose of Russiagate hysteria?
  • [Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil
  • [Mar 30, 2019] The Real Costs of Russiagate
  • [Mar 30, 2019] You don't like Trump? Bolton? Clinton? All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population.
  • [Mar 30, 2019] My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the Yankee imperial machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the results. They are panicked!
  • [Mar 25, 2019] Russiagate was never about substance, it was about who gets to image-manage the decline of a turbo-charged, self-harming neoliberal capitalism by Jonathan Cook
  • [Mar 25, 2019] Meet The Kushners First Couple In-Waiting by Ilana Mercer
  • [Mar 25, 2019] Spygate The True Story of Collusion (plus Infographic) by Jeff Carlson
  • [Mar 25, 2019] Nuland role in Russiagate
  • [Mar 25, 2019] Another SIGINT compromise ...
  • [Mar 24, 2019] Top Democrat is right: there was a collition, but not with Russians, but Zionist billionaires and Isreal lobby
  • [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report
  • [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.
  • [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary
  • [Mar 24, 2019] One could wish that DOJ IG Horowitz could investigate and sanction British Intelligence for its use of official and non-official officials in starting this debacle.
  • [Mar 24, 2019] The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
  • [Mar 24, 2019] One thing left out is the ability of readers to call BS on a story i.e. a robust comment section for debates.
  • [Mar 23, 2019] Brennan pipe dream obliterated. The color revolution against Trump failed
  • [Mar 22, 2019] Glenn Greenwald on Twitter The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away
  • [Mar 20, 2019] In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts
  • [Mar 18, 2019] Journalists who are spies
  • [Mar 18, 2019] FULL CNN TOWN HALL WITH TULSI GABBARD 3-10-19
  • [Mar 18, 2019] The Why are the media playing lapdog and not watchdog – again – on war in Iraq?
  • [Mar 17, 2019] Mueller uses the same old false flag scams, just different packaging of his forensics-free findings
  • [Mar 17, 2019] VIPS- Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings
  • [Mar 11, 2019] Bruce Ohr, Liar or Moron by Larry C Johnson
  • [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy
  • [Feb 27, 2019] Their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy
  • [Feb 22, 2019] Neo-McCarthyism is used to defend the US imperial policies. Branding dissidents as Russian stooges is a loophole that allow to suppress dissident opinions
  • [Feb 21, 2019] The Empire Now or Never by Fred Reed
  • [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds
  • [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube
  • [Feb 18, 2019] Do You Believe in the Deep State Now by Robert W. Merry
  • [Feb 17, 2019] Was Trump was a deep state man from day one, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the rest?
  • [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill
  • [Feb 17, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives
  • [Feb 16, 2019] MSM Begs For Trust After Buzzfeed Debacle by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished
  • [Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins
  • [Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber
  • [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed
  • [Feb 10, 2019] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics NowThis - YouTube
  • [Feb 05, 2019] The neocon s strategy
  • [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back
  • [Feb 02, 2019] According to the recipes devised by Reagan: why the methods which successfully destroyed the USSR do not work with modern Russia? by Alexey Makurin
  • [Jan 30, 2019] The ruling class of the US imperium will simply not tolerate any government that opposes its financial and geopolitical dominance
  • [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became Deep State Guardian
  • [Jan 29, 2019] The Religious Fanaticism of Silicon Valley Elites by Paul Ingrassia
  • [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?
  • [Jan 24, 2019] No One Said Rich People Were Very Sharp Davos Tries to Combat Populism by Dean Baker
  • [Jan 22, 2019] War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate
  • [Jan 22, 2019] The French Anti-Neoliberal Revolution. On the conditions for its success by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos
  • [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald
  • [Jan 20, 2019] Doctor, nurse, Chief Nursing Officer of the Army, whatever.
  • [Jan 19, 2019] According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks
  • [Jan 14, 2019] Nanci Pelosi and company at the helm of the the ship the Imperial USA: Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail.
  • [Jan 13, 2019] As FBI Ramped Up Witch Hunt When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke
  • [Jan 13, 2019] Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism -- And Immigration by Washington Watcher
  • [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News
  • [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston
  • [Jan 11, 2019] How President Trump Normalized Neoconservatism by Ilana Mercer
  • [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything
  • [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo
  • [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.
  • [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap
  • [Dec 29, 2018] NATO Partisans Started a New Cold War With Russia -
  • [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon
  • [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray
  • [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter
  • [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did
  • [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Neocons Sabotage Trump s Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail China
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population
  • [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games
  • [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne
  • [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot
  • [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime
  • [Dec 01, 2018] Congress' Screwed-Up Foreign Policy Priorities by Daniel Larison
  • [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published
  • [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders
  • [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi
  • [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda
  • [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)
  • [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.
  • [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
  • [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
  • [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism
  • [Nov 13, 2018] The US's trajectory as it is, clearly parallel's the Soviet Union and Russia's situation during the mid-80's
  • [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers
  • [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore
  • [Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering
  • [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz
  • [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn
  • [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.
  • [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer
  • [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria
  • [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus
  • [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives
  • [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.
  • [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir
  • [Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras
  • [Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies
  • [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro
  • [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?
  • [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith
  • [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez
  • [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
  • [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.
  • [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets
  • [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin
  • [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.
  • [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence
  • [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone
  • [Sep 03, 2018] www.informationclearinghouse.info/50168.htm In Memoriam by Paul Edwards
  • [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan
  • [Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes
  • [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM
  • [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.
  • [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street
  • [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed
  • [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov
  • [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou
  • [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography
  • [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.
  • [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?
  • [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp
  • [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski
  • [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer
  • [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland
  • [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team
  • [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern
  • [May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone
  • [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice
  • [Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show
  • [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
  • [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin
  • [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin
  • [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.
  • [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus
  • [Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources
  • [Feb 04, 2018] DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT Security company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election
  • [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies
  • [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan
  • [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater
  • [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou
  • [Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker
  • [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills
  • [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary
  • [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce
  • [May 23, 2017] CIA, the cornerstone of the deep state has agenda that is different from the US national interest and reflect agenda of the special interest groups such as Wall Street bankers and MIC
  • [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!
  • [May 02, 2019] Neoliberalism and the Globalization of War. America s Hegemonic Project by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
  • [Jul 29, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson
  • [Jan 14, 2019] Nanci Pelosi and company at the helm of the the ship the Imperial USA: Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail.
  • [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism
  • [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives
  • [Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli
  • [Nov 12, 2020] Initiators or Russiagate panicking about the possibility of additional disclosure
  • [Nov 12, 2020] Caitlin Johnstone- Americans didn't vote against Trump, they voted against more media psychological abuse by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Nov 09, 2020] Biden victory in some ways looks like Catch 22 for neoliberal Dems
  • [Nov 09, 2020] Tucker: GOP Establishment Happy to Sell Out their Voters with Amnesty
  • [Nov 07, 2020] The result of this election can be summarized with one phase "Strange non-death of neoliberalism."
  • [Nov 07, 2020] Trump as fake populist
  • [Nov 06, 2020] Did the Iraq War Cause the Great Recession?'
  • [Nov 05, 2020] The Last White Man by Eric Striker
  • [Oct 28, 2020] Wall Street Banks, And Their Employees, Now Officially Lean Democrat
  • [Oct 26, 2020] Politicians books as a subtle form of corruption
  • [Oct 21, 2020] How Trump Got Played By The Military-Industrial Complex by Akbar Shahid Ahmed
  • [Oct 21, 2020] This Is Not A Russian Hoax 'Nonpublic Information' Debunks Letter From '50 Former Intel Officials'
  • [Oct 20, 2020] Tucker Carlson- The American Media Will Never Be The Same After Hunter Biden Story - Video - RealClearPolitics
  • [Oct 20, 2020] Glenn Greenwald- Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American People - Video - RealClearPolitics
  • [Oct 19, 2020] The Emails Are Russian- Will Be The Narrative, Regardless Of Facts Or Evidence by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Oct 19, 2020] The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism and anti-Russian hysteria has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people
  • [Oct 19, 2020] New report shows more than $1B from war industry and govt. going to top 50 think tanks
  • [Oct 11, 2020] Putin on the US Presidential race and the myth that Trump, one of the most hostile to Russia presidents in history, is somehow a "Putin puppet"
  • [Oct 01, 2020] 'Clueless' former FBI Director James Comey admits the agency's Trump-Russia probe was a ball of bungled confusion by David Haggith
  • [Sep 30, 2020] Opinion - I Ran the C.I.A. Now I m Endorsing Hillary Clinton by Michael J. Morell
  • [Sep 30, 2020] DNI Letter Supports Allegation That Hillary Clinton Created 'Russiagate' by b
  • [Sep 28, 2020] No wonder Pompey and his friend Jeffries won't give up on Syria! No wonder
  • [Sep 28, 2020] Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called the 'Fourth Estate'
  • [Sep 26, 2020] What is predatory capitalism
  • [Sep 25, 2020] US standard "negotiating" techniques
  • [Sep 23, 2020] How fake media actually works: reporter are given the narrative and they should rehash their stories to fit it
  • [Sep 23, 2020] Another sign of the crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite: FBI Agent Who Discovered Hillary's Emails On Weiner Laptop Claims He Was Told To Erase Computer
  • [Sep 21, 2020] How the west lost by Anatol Lieven
  • [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen- The Ukrainian Crisis - It s not All Putin s Fault
  • [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen Cohen at the AJC 2017 Forum, about Russia and Terrorism
  • [Sep 21, 2020] Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign
  • [Sep 20, 2020] CJ Hopkins Exposes The Final Act In 'The War On Populism'
  • [Sep 20, 2020] Darren Beattie Tucker Carlson Discuss Color Revolutions The Plot To Oust President Trump
  • [Sep 20, 2020] Norm Eisen And The Colour Revolution Playbook!
  • [Sep 20, 2020] THE TAKE-DOWN OF TRUMP ALA THE "COLOR REVOLUTION"- NORM EISEN'S REVOLUTIONARY PLAYBOOK A Deeply Embedded (Demster) Lawfare Operative; Regime Change Professionals More. What's Going On- Conservative Firing Line
  • [Sep 17, 2020] Why the Blob Needs an Enemy by ARTA MOEINI
  • [Sep 10, 2020] Is BLM the Mask behind which the Oligarchs Operate, by Mike Whitney
  • [Sep 09, 2020] Proof of collusion at last! - IRRUSSIANALITY
  • [Sep 02, 2020] 400,000+ Americans sick of political duopoly turn out for virtual 'People's Convention' vote to launch new anti-corporate party
  • [Sep 01, 2020] Are We Deliberately Trying to Provoke a Military Crisis With Russia by Ted Galen Carpenter
  • [Sep 01, 2020] How Democrats and Republicans made deals to pass Magnitsky Act by Lucy Komisar
  • [Aug 24, 2020] Is the goal to take Belarus and destabilize Russia (prepare the terrain) or was it to take both at the same time?
  • [Aug 23, 2020] Catapulting Russian-Meddling Propaganda by Ray McGovern
  • [Aug 22, 2020] Kamala is a MIC marionette
  • [Aug 21, 2020] What Belarus Stands to Lose by Vadim Nikitin
  • [Aug 19, 2020] Is Belarus a color revolution- The real problem is that ANY protest these days may be by Nebojsa Malic
  • [Aug 19, 2020] The Republican led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence repeats the lies about Guccifer 2.0
  • [Aug 19, 2020] American imperialism vs. EU imperialism: Pushed into the Ukrainian adventure by the US? Rubbish. The EU and its constituent members were attempting to play their own hand and were not merely following the US lead submissively.
  • [Aug 16, 2020] 'You're being used as cannon fodder'- Lukashenko urges people to STAY HOME, blames protests on foreign meddling
  • [Aug 16, 2020] CIA Behind Guccifer Russiagate A Plausible Scenario
  • [Aug 08, 2020] Russia Hoax- Are We All Being Played- Put Up Or Shut Up! - Zero Hedge
  • [Aug 03, 2020] Trump DID commit obstruction of justice... he refused to force HIS Dept of Justice to indict Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper
  • [Aug 01, 2020] Executed Turkish general exposed misuse of Qatari funds for Syria extremists- Report - Al Arabiya English
  • [Jul 31, 2020] Tucker Carlson calls Obama 'one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures' in US political history
  • [Jul 29, 2020] America's Own Color Revolution by F. William Engdahl
  • [Jul 23, 2020] Demorats defeat amedment ot cut Defence by 10%
  • [Jul 23, 2020] This is a biggie: Egypt's parliament approves troop deployment to Libya
  • [Jul 21, 2020] This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier.
  • [Jul 20, 2020] The Real 'Russian Playbook' Is Written in English -- Strategic Culture
  • [Jul 13, 2020] George Washington Tried To Warn Americans About Foreign Policy Today by Doug Bandow
  • [Jul 06, 2020] US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous - The Grayzone
  • [Jul 04, 2020] The Return of the Neoliberal Interventionists and their alliance with Bush republicans by James W. Carden
  • [Jul 03, 2020] I don't think we can assume that even now Trump actually has control of the FBI; it is still in hands of Obama faction
  • [Jul 03, 2020] The world s economy is in contraction. Although capital, what actual capital exists, will have to try and do something productive, it is confronted by this fact, that everything is facing contraction.
  • [Jul 01, 2020] Putin s economic and social policies have a neoliberal bent but Putin is far from a classic neoliberal
  • [Jul 01, 2020] Russiagate's Last Gasp by Ray McGovern
  • [Jul 01, 2020] Three Glaring Problems with the Russian Taliban Bounty Story by Barbara Boland
  • [Jul 01, 2020] Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!
  • [Jun 28, 2020] Russian position for Start talks: "We don't believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever".
  • [Jun 23, 2020] Surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real or not)
  • [Jun 23, 2020] It is shocking to see such a disgusting piece of human garbage like Joe Biden get so many working class voters to vote for him. Biden has never missed a chance to stab the working class in the back in service to his wealthy patrons.
  • [Jun 23, 2020] Putin Tries To Set Record Straight by
  • [Jun 21, 2020] Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace'.
  • [Jun 19, 2020] The Police Weren t Created to Protect and Serve. They Were Created to Maintain Order. A Brief Look at the History of Police
  • [Jun 19, 2020] The USG' s definition of Dictator
  • [Jun 18, 2020] Populism vs. inverted totalitarism and the illusion of choice in the US elections
  • [Jun 15, 2020] Do Deep State Elements Operate within the Protest Movement? by Mike Whitney
  • [Jun 15, 2020] Full Special Investigation - Donald Trump vs The Deep State
  • [Jun 14, 2020] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick 30 Years Unheeded
  • [Jun 14, 2020] Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative With Damning Facts And Logic
  • [Jun 13, 2020] How False Flag Operations are Carried Out Today by Philip M. Giraldi
  • [Jun 13, 2020] Korea is just another distraction: false conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year
  • [Jun 12, 2020] Flynn Case 85 Lies, Contradictions, Oddities, Unusual Occurrences by Petr Svab
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Mueller investigation was never about Trump colluding with Russia. It was always about Trump obstructing the investigation of the collusion with Russia that the investigation was not about
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Internet Users Who Call For Attacking Other Countries Will Now Be Enlisted In The Military Automatically
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Rule of law in Murrika is kaput
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Requiem to Russiagate: this was the largest and the most successful attempt to gaslight the whole US population ever attempted by CIA and Clinton wing of Dems by CJ Hopkins
  • [Jun 03, 2020] RussiaGate for neoliberal Dems and MSM honchos is the way to avoid the necessity to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump
  • [Jun 02, 2020] Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
  • [Jun 01, 2020] This is one war party -- war party, imperial party of militarism, conquest and killing of civilians
  • [May 31, 2020] We Are Combat Vets, and We Want America to Reboot Memorial Day by Matthew Hoh and Danny Sjursen
  • [May 30, 2020] More On "Obamagate!"
  • [May 29, 2020] You can;t have a Democracy at home and an empire aboard, the violence of empire will always turn against the very idea of democracy
  • [May 26, 2020] News Stories Avoid Naming Israel by Philip Giraldi
  • [May 24, 2020] FBI Document Reveals That Without Direct Israeli 'Intervention' Trump Would Have Lost 2016 Election
  • [May 24, 2020] Obamagate as the reaction of managerial class neoliberals on the crisis of neoliberalism
  • [May 24, 2020] Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training
  • [May 23, 2020] China is still in great danger. Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2 or 3
  • [May 22, 2020] No US president who can withdraw the USA from the Forever Wars
  • [May 22, 2020] Time to Break up the FBI by William S. Smith
  • [May 21, 2020] The 'Clean Break' Doctrine OffGuardian
  • [May 20, 2020] The American Mission and the Evil Empire The Crusade for a Free Russia Since 1881 by Foglesong
  • [May 20, 2020] Newly Revealed Texts Show Strzok, Page Altered Flynn Interview Notes
  • [May 20, 2020] McGovern Turn Out The Lights, Russiagate Is Over by Ray McGovern
  • [May 19, 2020] America: "We demand an coronavirus origin investigation, but the investigators must agree on the outcome that we specify before they begin investigating!"
  • [May 19, 2020] Russophobia in the Age of Donald Trump
  • [May 18, 2020] FBI under Comey as an uncontrolled political police operating without any oversight from Justice Department
  • [May 17, 2020] General Flynn investigation 'has tarnished Obama's legacy' - YouTube
  • [May 17, 2020] Apparently, the FBI, and not the CIA, are the real government.
  • [May 16, 2020] A model democrat
  • [May 16, 2020] Bought MSM experts typically are just MIC prostitutes: most are neocons and "Russiagaters"
  • [May 16, 2020] Putin's Call For A New System and the 1944 Battle Of Bretton Woods
  • [May 16, 2020] Tucker Adam Schiff should resign
  • [May 15, 2020] The Complete Collusion Against Trump Timeline
  • [May 13, 2020] Dramatic change of direction for Syrian envoy
  • [May 13, 2020] From RussiaGate To ObamaGate The End Of Boomerville by Tom Luongo
  • [May 11, 2020] Lee Zeldin Adam Schiff 'should resign today' for role in Russia investigation by Dominick Mastrangelo
  • [May 11, 2020] McCarthy: It would be 'profoundly crazy if Obama wasn't in on Flynn case'
  • [May 11, 2020] Twin Pillars of Russiagate Crumble by Ray McGovern
  • [May 10, 2020] Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security by Kevin R. Brock
  • [May 10, 2020] Does Obama now feels his potential liability for staging coup d' tat and gaslighting the whole nation?
  • [May 07, 2020] Media Malpractice Is Criminalizing Better Relations With Russia by Stephen F. Cohen
  • [May 07, 2020] There's No Question It's A Fraud Fmr Trump Attorney Says Mueller Badly Misled White House, Schiff Is Nancy's Liar Zero
  • [May 07, 2020] Angry Bear " "cannot remember a single International Crisis in which the United States had no global presence at all"
  • [May 05, 2020] Newly released FBI documents show Israel intervened in 2016 election to help Trump
  • [May 05, 2020] Is there a "6th column" trying to subvert Russia, by The Saker
  • [May 03, 2020] Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion
  • [Apr 29, 2020] Trump, despite pretty slick deception during his election campaign, is an typical imperialist and rabid militarist. His administration continuredand in some areas exceeded the hostility of Obama couse against Russia
  • [Apr 24, 2020] Please Tell the Establishment That U.S. Hegemony is Over by Daniel Larison
  • [Apr 17, 2020] The word socialism became just a neoliberal smear. We should talk about public sector vs private sector, not about socialism
  • [Apr 17, 2020] Declassified Horowitz Footnotes Show Obama Officials Knew Steele Dossier Was Russian Disinfo Designed To Target Trump Zero He
  • [Apr 17, 2020] Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to sabotage Trump.
  • [Apr 11, 2020] The country that glorifies profit at any cost and ruthless unethical competition will fare bad in case of any virus epidemic. That includes "Typhoid Mary" cases of selfish anti-social behaviour
  • [Apr 11, 2020] 'Never in my country': COVID-19 and American exceptionalism by Jeanne Morefield
  • [Apr 10, 2020] Tucker: In crisis, nothing is more important than staying connected to reality
  • [Apr 08, 2020] Feudal Japan Edo and the US Empire by Hiroyuki Hamada
  • [Apr 05, 2020] Esper tone deafness: a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities of military industrial complex
  • [Apr 02, 2020] Bloomberg spent north of $500 millions to become president with zero results, and you want me to believe that Russians spent 1% of that and got better results
  • [Mar 24, 2020] This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda
  • [Mar 22, 2020] Intelligence agencies and the virus
  • [Mar 21, 2020] Tulsi Gabbard says insider traders should be 'investigated prosecuted,' as Left and Right team up on profiteering senator
  • [Mar 21, 2020] When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply
  • [Mar 21, 2020] Tucker Senator Burr sold shares after virus briefing
  • [Mar 13, 2020] Daffy Duck. cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme parody of life. It dawned on me that this cartoon is an almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
  • [Mar 04, 2020] Russiagate should be viewed as classic, textbook case of gaslighting and projecting election interference
  • [Mar 04, 2020] Why Are We Being Charged? Surprise Bills From Coronavirus Testing Spark Calls for Government to Cover All Costs by Jake Johnson
  • [Mar 03, 2020] Let s Talk About Your Alleged #Resistance by Joe Giambrone
  • [Mar 03, 2020] "Predatory capitalism", which clearly describes what neoliberalism is.
  • [Mar 03, 2020] Whacking Rich is a reminder to Sanders what the party establishmen is capable of
  • [Mar 01, 2020] Countering Nationalist Oligarchy by Ganesh Sitaraman
  • [Feb 29, 2020] A very interesting and though provoking presentation by Ambassador Chas Freeman "America in Distress: The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change"
  • [Feb 29, 2020] Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who s Really In Charge Of The US Military by Cynthia Chung
  • [Feb 28, 2020] Chas Freeman America in Distress The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change
  • [Feb 27, 2020] An interesting view on Russian "intelligencia" by the scientist and writer Zinoviev expressed during "perestroika" in 1991
  • [Feb 26, 2020] A serious US politician has to demonstrate a large capacity for betrayal.
  • [Feb 26, 2020] Elections as a form of class war
  • [Feb 25, 2020] The Democrats' Quandary In a Struggle Between Oligarchy and Democracy, Something Must Give by Michael Hudson
  • [Feb 23, 2020] Previously oppressed group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant group. This is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism
  • [Feb 23, 2020] Welcome to the American Regime
  • [Feb 23, 2020] Where Have You Gone, Smedley Butler The Last General To Criticize US Imperialism by Danny Sjursen
  • [Feb 22, 2020] The Red Thread A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy by Diana West
  • [Feb 21, 2020] Why Both Republicans And Democrats Want Russia To Become The Enemy Of Choice by Philip Giraldi
  • [Feb 28, 2020] Chas Freeman America in Distress The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change
  • [Feb 28, 2020] Russia s Relationship With China Is Growing Despite Setbacks by Lyle J. Goldstein ,
  • [Feb 16, 2020] Understanding the Ukraine Story by Joe Lauria
  • [Feb 14, 2020] Is Apartheid the Inevitable Outcome of Zionism? by Henry Siegman
  • [Feb 09, 2020] Trump demand for 50% of Iraq oil revenue sound exactly like a criminal mob boss
  • [Feb 09, 2020] The Deeper Story Behind The Assassination Of Soleimani
  • [Feb 09, 2020] World Conquest The United States' Global Military Crusade (1945-2020) By Eric Waddell
  • [Feb 08, 2020] Is Iraq About To Switch From US to Russia
  • [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair
  • [Feb 07, 2020] Sanders Called JPMorgan's CEO America's 'Biggest Corporate Socialist' Here's Why He Has a Point
  • [Feb 04, 2020] The FBI is the secret police force of the authoritarian (aching to be totalitarian) govt hidden behind "Truth, Justice the American Way"
  • [Feb 03, 2020] White House Warriors: How the National Security Council Transformed the American Way of War
  • [Feb 02, 2020] The most interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story
  • [Jan 31, 2020] Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning
  • [Jan 31, 2020] What's going on right now with Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton is the beginning of sticking the knife back into Bernie's back by Bill Martin What follows originates in some notes I made in response to one such woman who supports Bernie. There are two main points.
  • [Jan 27, 2020] The end of Trump? Trump betrayed all major promises of his 2016 election campaign. Trump needs to go...
  • [Jan 25, 2020] Rabobank What If... The Protectionists Are Right And The Free Traders Are Wrong by Michael Every
  • [Jan 24, 2020] How Are Iran and the "Axis of the Resistance" Affected by the US Assassination of Soleimani by Elijah J. Magnier
  • [Jan 24, 2020] Lawrence Wilkerson Lambasts 'the Beast of the National Security State' by Adam Dick
  • [Jan 23, 2020] An incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
  • [Jan 20, 2020] Fake Investigations... Designed To Fool by Bryce Buchanan
  • [Jan 19, 2020] Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between Germany s behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and externally
  • [Jan 19, 2020] The frantic attempt to deflect attention from US foreign wars and mainly derisive media coverage of Tulsi Gabbard is a case in point. Is she the harbinger of a growing political movement aiming to dismantle the military empire project?
  • [Jan 18, 2020] The joke is on us: Without the USSR the USA oligarchy resorted to cannibalism and devour the American people
  • [Jan 18, 2020] Putin plants to prohibit dual citizens to serve in government
  • [Jan 18, 2020] Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire is available for free download
  • [Jan 17, 2020] Ukraine is a deeply sick patient. The destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic. Diaspora is greedy and want a piece of cake immediately
  • [Jan 14, 2020] Impeachment Of President Trump An Imperial War Game by By Barbara Boyd
  • [Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country
  • [Jan 12, 2020] US has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying.
  • [Jan 12, 2020] Luongo Fears "An Abyss Of Losses" As Iraq Becomes MidEast Battleground
  • [Jan 10, 2020] The Saker interviews Michael Hudson
  • [Jan 09, 2020] Come Home, America Stop Policing The Globe And Put An End To Wars-Without-End by John Whitehead
  • [Jan 09, 2020] Opposing War With Iran: Three Reasons by Anthony DiMaggio
  • [Jan 08, 2020] I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests.
  • [Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains
  • [Jan 08, 2020] Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge?
  • [Jan 08, 2020] If we assume that Pompeo persuaded Trump to order to kill a diplomatic envoy, Trump is now a dead man walking as after Iran responce Pelosi impeachment gambit now have legs
  • [Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low
  • [Jan 06, 2020] I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would have been worse. Trump needs to go.
  • [Jan 06, 2020] How To Avoid Swallowing War Propaganda by Nathan J. Robinson
  • [Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable
  • [Jan 06, 2020] The Soleimani Assassination by Philip Giraldi
  • [Jan 06, 2020] The threat of General Soleimani - TTG
  • [Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker
  • [Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko
  • [Jan 04, 2020] The role of Germany in the Ukrainian disaster
  • [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus
  • [Jan 04, 2020] Trump Is Doing the Bidding of Washington's Most Vile Cabal
  • [Jan 04, 2020] Will Trump welcome the ejection of the US from Iraq - He should by Colonel Lang
  • [Jan 04, 2020] Talking about revenge is stupid and juvenile: Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and for strong ties with other responsible players
  • [Dec 17, 2019] Neocons like car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking credibility because ther profession is to lie in order to sell weapons to the publin, much like used car saleme lie to sell cars
  • [Dec 12, 2019] Threat Inflation Poisons Our Foreign Policy by Daniel Larison
  • [Dec 07, 2019] Why the foreign policy establishment consensus is neocon by default.
  • [Dec 06, 2019] The USA is an occupied by neocon country

    • Sites

    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes :  Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce :  Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS :  Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development :  Scripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month :  How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    		 You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: January, 20, 2021